^tosr%
2 A \
Office of Inspector General
%PR0^ Report of Audit
RCRA ENFORCEMENT
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Significant Non-Complier Enforcement
Report No. E1DSD8-05-0036-9100110
March 23,1999
-------
Inspector General Division
Conducting the Audit: Northern Audit Division
Chicago, Illinois
Region Covered: Region 5
Program Offices Involved:
Waste, Pesticides & Toxics Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
NORTHERN DIVISION
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590
March 23, 1999
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Audit Report No. E1DSD8-05-0036-9100110
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Programs
Significant Non-Complier Enforcement
FROM: Anthony C. Carrollo
Divisional Inspector General for Audits
Northern Division
TO: David A. Ullrich
Acting Regional Administrator
Region 5
Attached is the final report on Region 5's and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (IEPA)
identification and enforcement of significant non-compliers under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. We found that, overall, Region 5 and IEPA were appropriately identifying and taking
enforcement actions against significant non-compliers. We also found that Region 5 and IEPA need
to improve the accuracy of Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System data.
This audit report contains findings that describe problems the Office of Inspector General has
identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. As such, this audit report represents the
opinion of the OIG. Final determinations on matters in the report will be made by EPA managers in
accordance with established EPA audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the findings contained
in this audit report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position and are not binding upon EPA
in any enforcement proceedings brought by EPA or the Department of Justice.
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with EPA Order 2750 you as the action official are required to provide us with a
written response to the audit report, including finalized corrective actions and milestone dates, within
90 days of the final audit report date. In responding to the draft report, your office provided draft
corrective actions, with milestone dates, for the recommendation. Once finalized, the action plan with
comply with our recommendations.
\
% pro^
We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public.
-------
We appreciate the cooperation you, your staff, and the IEPA staff provided during this review.
Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact Kimberly O'Lone, Audit Manager, at
312-886-3186.
Attachment
2
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an audit of Region
5's and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (IEPA)
identification and enforcement of significant non-compliers under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We selected this
audit because similar OIG reviews indicated that enforcement of
RCRA regulations in other states may not always be consistent with,
or as stringent as, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
enforcement. Region 5's and IEPA's role is to ensure that facilities
are effectively managing hazardous waste. This management includes
reducing the toxicity and amount of hazardous waste generated to
minimize releases into the environment.
OBJECTIVES
The overall objective was to evaluate significant non-complier (SNC)
identification and enforcement at the state and regional level. The
specific objectives were:
1. Did the classification of the violator and the related
enforcement action comply with the enforcement policy in
effect at the time?
2. Was the classification correctly recorded in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS)?
3. Did EPA or the state ensure that the facility returned to
compliance, and was this adequately documented?
4. If the enforcement was performed under the 1996 enforcement
policy, was the action timely?
RESULTS IN BRIEF
Overall, Region 5 and IEPA were appropriately identifying and taking
enforcement actions against SNCs. Specifically, Region 5 and IEPA
ensured that the: (1) violator classification and related enforcement
actions complied with policy, (2) SNC classification was usually
correctly recorded in RCRIS, and (3) facilities returned to compliance
l
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
and that this was adequately documented. Enforcement actions were
not always timely, but in all but one case the delays were justifiable
under EPA's Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy.
Also, as part of its annual enforcement activities, IEPA has taken the
initiative to visit facilities that are not fully regulated under RCRA.
IEPA checks how these facilities are handling their hazardous waste
through a procedure IEPA calls a compliance assistance survey.
Region 5 and IEPA need to improve the accuracy of RCRIS data
entry. Forty-two percent of the Region 5 files and thirty-six percent
of the IEPA files had some information that did not agree with the
database. RCRIS inaccuracies were due to: (1) inspectors not
submitting documents for entry, (2) documents being filed prior to
entry, and (3) human error. As a result, EPA and IEPA do not have
complete data for determining facilities' compliance histories and each
agency's enforcement activities.
RCRIS also did not accurately reflect IEPA's compliance assistance
survey activities. RCRIS did not reflect: (1) letters to facilities stating
the deficiencies identified and (2) deficiencies corrected during the
surveys. Accurate information helps to show that IEPA is taking
additional measures to ensure that more facilities are taking the
appropriate steps to prevent hazardous waste releases. Also, to
measure the facilities' willingness to comply, IEPA may want to
consider adding a timeframe for return to compliance in its letters for
compliance assistance activities.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5,
establish specific procedures for data entry to ensure adequate
controls over Regional and state RCRIS input.
SUGGESTED
IMPROVEMENTS Although IEPA is not required to conduct compliance assistance
surveys, we suggest that the Director, IEPA, revise compliance
assistance survey procedures to assure that: (1) information is
accurately coded in RCRIS, (2) all deficiencies are entered, and (3)
letters to facilities include timeframes for corrective action.
11
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
AGENCY ACTIONS
In responding (Appendix 1) to our draft report, the Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 5, acknowledged that continuous improvement
is essential in carrying out established procedures for data entry to
ensure adequate controls over Regional and state RCRIS input. The
Acting Regional Administrator provided a draft fiscal year 1999
Action Plan which includes milestone dates for RCRIS activities.
STATE ACTIONS
In response (Appendix 2) to our suggested improvements, IEPA has
revised its compliance assistance survey procedures to ensure: (1)
activities are more accurately reflected in RCRIS, (2) all deficiencies
are entered in RCRIS, and (3) facilities are provided with a timeframe
for returning to compliance.
OIG EVALUATION
Region 5's Action Plan, when finalized and implemented, will address
the recommendation in this report. IEPA's actions address the
suggested improvements in this report.
in
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
ABBREVIATIONS vi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology 2
2 SNCs PROPERLY IDENTIFIED AND ENFORCED AGAINST 3
Classification and Enforcement Complied with Policy 3
SNC Classification Correctly Recorded 4
Ensured and Documented Return to Compliance 5
Enforcement Action Not Always Timely 6
Conclusion 7
3 OTHER MATTERS: RCRIS DATA INACCURATE 8
RCRIS Data Inaccurate 8
Region 5 9
IEPA 10
Compliance Assistance Survey Data Not Accurate in RCRIS 11
Surveys Encourage Proper Waste Handling 11
RCRIS Code Needed For Survey Actions 12
Corrected Deficiencies Not Recorded 13
Letters Should Include Timeframe 13
Conclusion 13
Recommendation 14
Suggested Improvements 14
Agency Actions 14
State Actions 14
OIG Evaluation 15
EXHIBIT
Scope, Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage 16
iv
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
APPENDICES
1 Region 5 Response to Draft Report 19
2 IEP A Response to Draft Report 33
3 Distribution 34
v
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
ABBREVIATIONS
EPA
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
IEPA
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
OECA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG
Office of Inspector General
Policy
Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
SNC
Significant Non-Complier
vi
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
PURPOSE The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an audit of
significant non-complier (SNC) identification and enforcement under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We selected
this area for review because similar OIG reviews in Regions 1,3, and
10 indicated that state enforcement of RCRA regulations may not
always be consistent with, or as stringent as, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement. Our overall objective was to
evaluate SNC identification and enforcement at the state and regional
level. The specific objectives were to answer the questions:
1. Did the classification of the violator and the related
enforcement action comply with the enforcement policy in
effect at the time?
2. Was the classification correctly recorded in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS)?
3. Did EPA or the state ensure that the facility returned to
compliance, and was it adequately documented?
4. If the enforcement was performed under the 1996 enforcement
policy, was the action timely?
BACKGROUND
Congress enacted RCRA Subtitle C in 1976 to establish a framework
for managing hazardous waste; waste that is capable of harming
human health or the environment. RCRA mandated that EPA develop
a comprehensive set of regulations for hazardous waste generators,
transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
EPA's current Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy
(Policy), effective April 15, 1996, establishes two types of violators
under RCRA: SNCs and Secondary Violators. A facility that is found
to be in violation but does not meet the SNC definition is a Secondary
Violator. SNCs are:
1
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
those facilities which have caused actual
exposure or a substantial likelihood of
exposure to hazardous waste or hazardous
waste constituents; are chronic or recalcitrant
violators; or deviate substantially from the
terms of a permit, order, agreement or from
RCRA statutory or regulatory requirements.
States play a crucial role in implementing the hazardous waste
program. One aspect of implementation is monitoring facilities to
verify that they comply with regulatory requirements. The primary
method of monitoring is through an inspection. Inspections of
hazardous waste facilities may include formally visiting the handler,
reviewing records, taking samples, and observing operations.
States also have the authority to assist some facilities, such as small
businesses, in complying with regulations. Facilities that generate less
than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste and less than 1
kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste are conditionally
exempt from full regulation under Subtitle C. Small quantity
generators which generate between 100 and 1000 kilograms of
hazardous waste per month are also exempt from full regulation.
IEPA primarily uses compliance assistance to ensure these facilities
are operating in accordance with the regulations.
SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY We performed our audit in accordance with the U.S. General
Accounting Office's Government Auditing Standards, 1994 Revision,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and included
such tests as we saw necessary to complete the objectives.
For further details on the audit scope, methodology, and prior audit
coverage, see exhibit 1.
2
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
CLASSIFICATION AND
ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIED WITH
POLICY
(OBJECTIVE 1)
CHAPTER 2
SNCs Properly Identified
Region 5 and IEPA generally identified and took appropriate
enforcement actions against SNCs, for the cases we reviewed.
Overall, (1) violator classification and related enforcement actions
complied with the Policy, (2) classifications were correctly recorded
in RCRIS, and (3) return to compliance was ensured and adequately
documented. Also, the enforcement actions were not always timely,
but in all but one case the delays were justifiable under the Policy.
Region 5 and IEPA correctly classified violators and took
appropriate enforcement actions for most of the cases in our
sample. These actions ensured that facilities were complying with
RCRA requirements. For example, as a result of IEPA's enforcement
actions, unknown waste was tested to determine if it was hazardous.
The waste could then be properly handled to minimize releases into
the environment.
The 1987 and 1996 Policies explain the requirements for identifying
and providing appropriate enforcement of SNCs. Each Policy defines
classes of violators and prescribes the minimally acceptable
enforcement action. The 1996 Policy contains two classes of
violators: secondary violators and SNCs. The Policy calls for an
informal enforcement action, at a minimum, for a secondary violator.
An informal enforcement response recites the violations and includes
a schedule for returning the facility to full compliance. The Policy
calls for a formal enforcement response for an SNC. A formal
response mandates compliance and seeks injunctive relief to ensure
that the facility will promptly return to full compliance. Economic
sanctions, such as penalties, should be incorporated into the formal
enforcement response, as appropriate.
Region 5 and IEPA properly classified the violators and took
enforcement action in accordance with the Policy for all but one case.
See table 1.
3
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Table 1: Proper Classification
and Enforcement
Region 5
IEPA
Properly Classified
12
27
Proper Enforcement Action
12
26
For the 12 Region 5 cases reviewed, the Region properly classified
and took related enforcement actions that complied with the Policy in
effect at the time. For IEPA, 26 of the 27 cases complied with the
Policy in effect at the time. While the classification was correct, IEPA
did not take a formal enforcement action for the remaining case
because it involved a paperwork violation that did not threaten human
health or the environment, and the facility was closing.
SNC CLASSIFICATION
CORRECTLY
RECORDED
(OBJECTIVE 2)
Region 5 and IEPA usually recorded the proper classification in
RCRIS when the facility was an SNC. EPA requires SNCs to be
recorded in RCRIS. EPA uses RCRIS to:
obtain the data it needs to manage and track the RCRA
enforcement program, and
review and track the program's progress toward the
Government Performance and Results Act goals.
Therefore, if SNCs are not properly designated in RCRIS, it could
lead to erroneous conclusions of RCRA enforcement
accomplishments.
Seven of the twelve Region 5 cases reviewed were SNCs. Four of the
seven cases were correctly designated as SNCs in RCRIS. One case
was not entered into RCRIS as required. The other two cases were
recently classified as SNCs, so the RCRIS entries had not been made
prior to our review. Subsequent to our fieldwork, Region 5 entered
all three SNC designations into RCRIS.
4
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
For IEPA, 3 of the 27 inspection cases reviewed should have been
recorded as SNCs in RCRIS. While IEPA began to use the new
RCRIS code for SNCs as soon at it was available, RCRIS did not
reflect IEPA's SNC determination for one of the three cases. IEPA
officials corrected this during our review.
ENSURED AND
DOCUMENTED RETURN Region 5 and IEPA ensured and adequately documented return to
TO COMPLIANCE compliance for all except two of the facilities that are now
(OBJECTIVE 3) complying with regulations. See table 2. Bringing facilities back into
compliance is needed for the program to effectively reduce risks to
human health and the environment. The Policy provides guidelines
designed to promptly return facilities to compliance with all applicable
RCRA requirements. To document the return to compliance, both
Region 5 and IEPA issue letters to the facilities.
Table 2: Verified and Documented
Return to Compliance
Region 5
IEPA
Cases Returned to Compliance
4
22
Return to Compliance Verified
4
21
Return to Compliance Documented
4
20
For Region 5, 4 of the 12 cases reviewed had returned to compliance,
and Region 5 verified and documented the return to compliance with
a letter to the facility.
For IEPA, 22 of the 27 inspection cases reviewed indicated that the
facility had returned to compliance. IEPA verified return to
compliance for 21 cases. For the remaining case, there was no
evidence that the facility had returned to compliance. IEPA officials
were following up on this case by requiring the collection of soil
samples. IEPA adequately documented return to compliance by
issuing letters for 20 of the 21 cases. One return to compliance letter
had not been issued since a settlement was being negotiated with the
Attorney General's office.
5
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION NOT ALWAYS
TIMELY
(OBJECTIVE 4)
Region 5 and IEPA did not always take formal enforcement
actions within the established timeframes. When delays occurred,
however, all but one were justifiable under the Policy. The Policy
establishes a timeframe for taking formal enforcement action.
Untimely enforcement actions create the potential for the violations to
continue to pose a threat to human health and the environment and do
not deter future non-compliance.
The Policy: (1) states that regions and states should meet, to the
extent possible, the standard enforcement response times;
(2) provides for an annual 20 percent exceedence for cases that
involved unique factors; and (3) identifies circumstances that might
prevent an agency from meeting the response times, such as: potential
criminal conduct, cases involving two or more media, or additional
sampling or information requests.
Seven of the twelve Region 5 cases reviewed involved formal
enforcement actions. In one of those seven, Region 5 took a formal
enforcement action within the timeframe established in the Policy.
One case was 17 days late, which we did not consider to be
significant. For the five remaining cases, delays were justifiable under
the Policy.
Region 5 management decided to try a new approach, which
required revising the documents for two cases to make them
stronger. A novel defense is one factor that might result in
exceeding the response time established in the Policy.
Two other cases were multi-media, involving more than just
RCRA violations, and it took longer to get concurrence from
all EPA programs involved. The Policy states that cases
involving two or more media may exceed the standard
response times.
One case was delayed because it raised complex questions,
and Region 5 had to make additional information requests.
The Policy recognizes such requests may prevent the
implementing agency from meeting the response time.
6
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
For IEPA, formal enforcement action was taken for 3 of the 27
inspection cases. Two of these actions were taken within the
timeframe established in the Policy. The third case involved criminal
conduct, which is recognized in the Policy as requiring additional time
for an enforcement action.
CONCLUSION
Region 5 and IEPA generally identified and performed appropriate
enforcement against significant non-compliers, thereby effectively
reducing risks to human health and the environment. Region 5 and
IEPA need to continue to ensure that the: (1) violator classification
and related enforcement actions comply with policy, (2) SNC
classification is correctly recorded in RCRIS, (3) return to compliance
is achieved and adequately documented, and (4) enforcement action
is taken timely.
7
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
CHAPTER 3
Other Matters:
RCRIS Data Inaccurate
Although Region 5 and IEPA were generally meeting our audit
objectives, we found some other areas that could use improvement.
Region 5 and IEPA could improve the completeness and accuracy of
the hazardous waste database, RCRIS. Forty-two percent of the
Region 5 files and thirty-six percent of the IEPA files reviewed had
some information that did not agree with the database. RCRIS
inaccuracies were the result of: (1) documents not being submitted
for entry, (2) documents being filed prior to entry, and (3) human
error. Data problems result in Region 5, IEPA, and the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) having inaccurate
information on facilities' compliance histories and each agency's
enforcement activities. Data problems also result in the public having
access to inaccurate information.
Through compliance assistance surveys, IEPA is encouraging proper
waste handling and bringing more facilities into compliance than
RCRA requires. However, to provide an accurate picture of the
State's enforcement activities, IEPA needs to ensure that RCRIS
reflects: (1) actions taken because of the surveys and (2) corrected
deficiencies. IEPA should also consider adding a timeframe for action
to its letters to facilities.
RCRIS DATA
INACCURATE Region 5's and IEPA's RCRIS data were not always accurate. RCRIS
did not include some information on such things as: inspections,
violations, or facilities' corrections of violations. RCRIS needs to
accurately reflect all enforcement activities to ensure that EPA and the
states have the information they need to take appropriate future
enforcement actions. Accurate information is also essential for the
public to make informed environmental decisions and for businesses
to improve environmental management practices.
The RCRIS database includes information on hazardous waste
generators; transporters; and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
8
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. RCRIS is used interactively at the
state and regional level with monthly updates to the National
Oversight database. The national database contains those data
elements which states, EPA regions, and EPA headquarters have
determined to be necessary for RCRA oversight from a national
perspective.
Inaccurate RCRIS data were due to documents not being submitted
for entry, documents being filed prior to entry, and human error. For
example:
A follow-up compliance assistance survey performed in
September 1997 was not reflected in RCRIS. As a result of
our work, the State's regional inspector submitted the
document to the Springfield office for entry.
Documentation regarding an inspection and the related
violations was on file, but not in RCRIS.
A return to compliance date was incorrectly entered as the
date the violation was identified.
If data are missing or inaccurate, Region 5, IEPA, and OECA can not,
for example, properly determine a facility's compliance status or get
an accurate picture of a facility's violation history. Inaccurate RCRIS
information could impact future enforcement. If RCRIS does not
reflect that a violation is a repeat violation, IEPA may mistakenly take
an informal enforcement action when a formal action may have been
more appropriate.
Region 5 Some information in 42 percent (5 of 12) of the Region 5 files
reviewed did not agree with RCRIS. For example:
A document, dated February 19, 1998, indicated that no
RCRA violations were found during a multi-media inspection
at a facility. However, a September 1998 RCRIS printout
indicated that RCRA violations were still pending.
An enforcement action requesting information was not
entered.
9
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
A September 1998 RCRIS printout showed an incorrect date
for a final compliance order.
Region 5 started correcting the inaccuracies we identified while our
fieldwork was on-going. Region 5 subsequently corrected all five
discrepancies.
IEPA Some information in 36 percent (18 of 50) of the IEPA files reviewed
disagreed with RCRIS data. For example, IEPA did not enter:
return to compliance dates for eight facilities. Thus, although
these facilities were now complying with RCRA, the database
showed them as out of compliance.
follow-up inspections at two facilities, so the database did not
show that these facilities had corrected the problems.
an inspection and the related violations, thereby under-
representing the work IEPA did and making the data
incomplete.
IEPA started correcting the inaccuracies we identified while our
fieldwork was on-going. Of the 18 facilities where some RCRIS
information did not agree with the files, IEPA corrected 14 during our
fieldwork and one was pending. We noted discrepancies but did not
suggest corrections be made for the remaining three cases due to
specialized circumstances.1
RCRIS did not accurately reflect IEPA's compliance assistance
survey activities. IEPA uses compliance assistance surveys to
bring facilities that are not fully regulated under Subtitle C into
compliance. However, RCRIS did not reflect: (1) letters to facilities
COMPLIANCE
ASSISTANCE SURVEY
DATA NOT ACCURATE
IN RCRIS
1 One case was one of the first compliance assistance surveys IEPA entered into RCRIS and did not include the
deficiencies identified. Since performing and recording surveys was new, Region 5 and IEPA had not decided how to record
deficiencies. One case was entered as a compliance assistance survey follow-up when the return to compliance was actually
based on a record review. The last case showed a non-financial record review on the same date the significant non-complier
determination was made, but there was no supporting documentation for the review or the determination on file.
10
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
stating the deficiencies identified and (2) deficiencies corrected during
the surveys. As a result of our work, Region 5 and IEPA officials
established a new RCRIS code that will more accurately reflect
IEPA's actions for compliance assistance surveys.
Surveys Encourage IEPA is helping facilities that are not fully regulated effectively
Proper Waste Handling manage hazardous waste. This includes reducing the toxicity and
amount of hazardous waste generated to minimize releases into the
environment. IEPA focuses compliance assistance surveys on small
businesses, such as small or conditionally exempt generators, that have
not previously been inspected since they are not fully regulated under
RCRA. For example, IEPA performed compliance assistance surveys
at a dry cleaner, automotive repair shop, machine shop, and rock
quarry. The surveys focus primarily on waste handling procedures
with some emphasis on pollution prevention, recycling, and waste
minimization. IEPA's goal is to make more businesses aware of
hazardous waste regulations and help them achieve compliance
without the use of penalties or enforcement. Also, IEPA discontinues
a compliance assistance survey and formally inspects those facilities
where a substantial and imminent danger to public health or the
environment is identified.
For fiscal year 1997, IEPA performed compliance assistance surveys
at 1,868 facilities. Of the total, 1,696, or 91 percent, either: (1) were
in compliance before IEPA's visit, (2) returned to compliance during
the visit, or (3) returned to compliance after the visit. See chart 1.
IEPA plans to conduct follow-up surveys and additional compliance
assistance surveys at the remaining 172 sites that are still in non-
compliance.
11
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Chart 1:
Fiscal Year 1997
Illinois Compliance Assistance Surveys
I I In Compliance Before Visit
I I Returned to Compliance During Visit
| Returned to Compliance After Visit
l~l Still Not In Compliance
IEPA has procedures for recording any problems noted during
compliance assistance surveys and for issuing letters to the facilities.
IEPA has revised its procedures due to internal issues as well as issues
we identified.
RCRIS Code Needed
For Survey Actions
OIG, Region 5, and IEPA officials agreed that a RCRIS code
identifying an action that is less than informal enforcement would be
more reflective of IEPA's actual actions for compliance assistance
surveys. Because IEPA is monitoring facilities that are not fully
regulated, IEPA views the problems identified as deficiencies, not
violations. The state records the compliance assistance survey and
any deficiencies in RCRIS. It then issues letters to the facilities which
indicate any concerns noted and recommended corrective actions.
However, it did not record these letters in RCRIS. Since the goal of
compliance assistance is to achieve compliance without the threat of
enforcement, IEPA did not want RCRIS to reflect the letter as an
informal enforcement action. However, not recording the action in
RCRIS left the database incomplete. Based on our work, Region 5
and IEPA established a code, effective December 18, 1998, to reflect
actions taken for compliance assistance surveys.
Corrected Deficiencies
Not Recorded
IEPA does not record deficiencies corrected during compliance
assistance surveys in RCRIS. This is because IEPA uses the date of
the return to compliance letter, rather than the actual return to
compliance date, to reflect a facility's actions. As a result, Region 5,
12
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
IEPA, and OECA can not get an accurate history of compliance for
a facility. If a facility is cited for additional problems in the future, the
history of violations is important for determining the appropriate
actions to take.
Letters Should For the 23 IEPA compliance assistance surveys reviewed, only
Include Timeframe 4 included a return to compliance timeframe in the letter sent to the
facility. Because these facilities are not fully regulated under Subtitle
C, timeframes are not required. However, IEPA may want to
consider including a timeframe as a way to measure facilities'
willingness to timely return to compliance.
IEPA ensured 15 of the 23 facilities corrected problems and sent them
return to compliance letters. One facility had not returned to
compliance and IEPA had not verified corrections at the other seven
facilities. IEPA committed to follow-up on the status for the
remaining 172 compliance assistance surveys conducted in fiscal year
1997. This follow-up will show facilities that IEPA is committed to
the compliance assistance approach and that facilities need to address
the problems identified.
CONCLUSION
Region 5 and IEPA need to improve the accuracy of RCRIS data
entry. Accurate data are essential for determining a facility's
compliance history and each agency's enforcement activities. This
helps to ensure that Region 5 and IEPA are taking appropriate and
timely actions to prevent the release of hazardous waste into the
environment. Entry of compliance assistance survey data also helps
to show that IEPA is taking additional measures to ensure that more
facilities are taking the appropriate steps to prevent hazardous waste
releases. Accurate data are also essential for the public's right-to-
know, so that citizens and communities can make informed
environmental decisions and businesses will have an incentive for
improving environmental management.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5,
establish specific procedures for data entry to ensure adequate
controls over Regional and state RCRIS input.
13
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
SUGGESTED
IMPROVEMENTS Because IEPA is not required to conduct compliance assistance
surveys, we are not making formal recommendations. However, we
suggest that the Director, IEPA, revise compliance assistance survey
procedures to ensure that: (1) information is accurately coded in
RCRIS, (2) all deficiencies are input, and (3) letters to facilities
include timeframes for corrective action.
AGENCY ACTIONS
In responding to our draft report, the Acting Regional Administrator,
Region 5, acknowledged that continuous improvement is essential in
carrying out established procedures for data entry to ensure adequate
controls over Regional and state RCRIS input. The Acting Regional
Administrator provided a draft fiscal year 1999 Action Plan which
includes milestone dates for RCRIS activities. For example, Region
5 is enhancing the accuracy of RCRIS data through a one-time review
of event records.
STATE ACTIONS
In response to our suggested improvements, IEPA has revised its
compliance assistance survey procedures to ensure: (1) activities are
more accurately reflected in RCRIS, (2) all deficiencies are entered in
RCRIS, and (3) facilities are provided with a timeframe for returning
to compliance.
OIG EVALUATION
Region 5's Action Plan, when finalized and implemented, will address
the recommendation in this report. IEPA's actions address the
suggested improvements in this report.
14
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Exhibit 1
Page 1 of 3
^^^^^^cojje^lethodolog^intnMoi^udi^o^rag^^^^^^
SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY Our audit focused on IEPA's and Region 5's RCRA programs. We
performed our fieldwork from July 9, 1998 to December 29, 1998.
We selected IEPA for review based on: (1) RCRIS and Biennial
Reporting System data, (2) Headquarters Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance information on SNCs identified in Region 5
from 1993 through 1998, (3) sample inspection reports, (4) Region 5
input, and (5) the centralization of IEPA files. RCRIS tracks Subtitle
C facility-specific data related to hazardous waste generators,
transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The
Biennial Reporting System tracks large quantity generators' and
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities' hazardous waste activity
reports. Although we used data from the RCRIS and Biennial
Reporting systems, we did not evaluate the adequacy of the controls
over the systems.
To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed applicable policies and
guidance and interviewed IEPA and Region 5 officials. We used the
following EPA guidance as criteria to evaluate enforcement activities:
• Enforcement Response Policy, December, 1987.
Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy, March
15, 1996.
To evaluate enforcement activities for IEPA and Region 5, we
randomly selected 10 percent, or 51 facilities, from a RCRIS list of
512 IEPA facilities where violations were identified during calendar
years 1995, 1996, or 1997. Because IEPA and Region 5 both
inspected some facilities, file reviews focused on the agency that
performed the most recent enforcement activity at a facility.
Exhibit 1
15
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Page 2 of 3
The sample consisted of 48 facilities IEPA monitored and three
facilities Region 5 monitored.
Our final sample of IEPA cases consisted of 50 (48+3-1) facilities. In
addition to the 48 facilities we selected randomly, we judgementally
selected three additional facilities from an SNC list generated from the
State's internal tracking system. We did this to ensure that we
reviewed some facilities that IEPA identified as SNCs. We deleted
one case from our sample because the facility, selected from IEPA's
list, violated only state regulations. Of our final sample of 50, IEPA
inspected 27 facilities and our conclusions are discussed in Chapter 2.
IEPA performed compliance assistance activities at the remaining 23
facilities and our findings are discussed in Chapter 3.
Our final sample of Region 5 cases consisted of 12 (3+12-3) facilities.
In addition to our original random sample of 3 facilities, we randomly
selected 12 facilities from 31 facilities listed in the RCRIS printout
where Region 5 performed the most recent enforcement activity. We
selected the additional facilities to ensure an adequate review of
Region 5 activities. However, we later deleted three cases because
they were not applicable to the objectives of our review.2
During the audit, IEPA and Region 5 corrected several RCRIS
inaccuracies that we identified. Chapter 3 contains information
regarding the types of problems identified and the corrective actions
taken.
2
One case was a review of documentation and subsequent referral for Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act violations. The second case showed a pending violation for a multi-media inspection, but no
RCRA violations were identified. The third case was a joint inspection where Region 5 officials accompanied IEPA on an
inspection.
16
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Exhibit 1
Page 3 of 3
PRIOR AUDIT
COVERAGE In March 1998, the OIG issued a report regarding EPA Region 10 and
the Washington Department of Ecology's SNC Enforcement (Report
No. 8100093). The audit found that Region 10 needed to: (1) ensure
that the State's enforcement program is consistent with EPA policy
and (2) include deadlines in informal enforcement actions. The audit
also found that the State did not always: (1) document return to
compliance or (2) perform follow-up inspections, where appropriate.
The OIG is currently performing similar work in Regions 1 and 3
which also identified problems with SNC enforcement.
17
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
MAR 0 3 1999
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Draft Report for the Audit of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Programs
FROM:
David A. Ullrich
Acting Regional Administrator
TO:
Anthony C. Carrollo
Divisional Inspector General for Audits
Northern Division
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the draft
report, attached to your January 28, 1999 memorandum on the same
subject.
The Waste Pesticides and Toxics Division (WPTD) reviewed the
report and acknowledges the conclusion on page 7 that Region 5
"generally identified and performed appropriate enforcement of
significant non-compliers, thereby effectively reducing risks to
human health and the environment." WPTD also acknowledges that
continuous improvement is essential in carrying out established
procedures for data entry to ensure adeguate controls over
Regional and State RCRIS input. To that end, I have attached a
copy of our draft RCRIS Action Plan for FY99.
If you wish to discuss these comments or any other aspect of our
review of the draft report, please contact me at your earliest
convenience.
David A. Ullrich
Attachment
Note: The original response was signed by David A. Ullrich.
18
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 2 of 14
U.S. EPA REGION 5
RCRIS ACTION PLAN FOR FY99
Category 1: One-time basic RCRIS maintenance actions.
Desired Results: These activities will enhance the accuracy and completeness of
our RCRIS records for tracking programmatic activities and for
Internet presentation of data records to the regulated community
and the public.
Category 2: Ongoing basic RCRIS review and maintenance actions.
Desired Results: These activities will ensure that RCRA program offices and
States are reviewing and updating specific RCRIS records on a
periodic basis throughout the year.
Category 3: Transitional activities for moving RCRIS to the new web based RCRA
INFO platform and development of our revised data management
tracking and reports menu system.
Desired Results: Provide streamlined data entry and retrievals of detailed
programmatic activities for both federal and State RCRA
programs. Easy access and sharing of data are keys to
maintaining a strong working relationship with our State
partners.
1
19
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 3 of 14
TI.S. EPA REGTON 5
RCRTS ACTTON PLAN FOR FY99
Category 1: One-time basic RCRIS maintenance actions.
Desired Results: These activities will enhance the accuracy and completeness of our RCRIS
records for tracking programmatic activities and for Internet
presentation of data records to the regulated community and the public.
Key Activity
Responsible
Individual(s)
Due
Date
Status
A. Review and assess the accuracy of
all CA210 event records (referred to a
non-RCRA authority, 96 total for
Region 5) and all permit module
process file "SF" operating status
codes (referred to CERCLA or other
authority, 32 total for Region 5).
Necessary data changes will be
forwarded to the appropriate RCRIS
Module Specialist for follow-up data
entry.
CA Program
Staff and
RCRIS Module
Specialist
This will be a
coordinated effort
between IMS and our
CA program sections.
RCRIS reports pulled
by IMS staff will be
reviewed by CA
program staff. Section
chiefs are scheduled to
meet 12.11.98 to
finalize actions.
B. Review and assess the accuracy of
all CA999 event records (CA process
terminated, 122 total for Region 5).
Necessary data changes will be
forwarded to the RCRIS CA Module
Specialist for follow-up data entry.
CA Program
Staff and
RCRIS Module
Specialist
This will be a
coordinated effort
between IMS and our
CA program sections.
RCRIS reports pulled
by IMS staff will be
reviewed by CA
program staff. Section
chiefs are scheduled to
meet 12.11.98 to
finalize actions.
2
20
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 4 of 14
Key Activity
Responsible
Individual(s)
Due
Date
Status
C. Prepare and send letters to Illinois
and Wisconsin regarding current
RCRIS IOR table settings for
corrective action, procedures used for
CA data entry, and ongoing universe
maintenance in RCRIS. Also, conduct
follow-up discussions with all States
to remind them of the availability of
RCRIS fields to record voluntary State
CA activities and provided additional
CA data entry training for State
offices as needed.
RCRIS IMS
State
Coordinators
01.31.99
Illinois and Wisconsin
may be ready to take or
CA data management
activities later this
year. The individual
State Coordinators will
prepare and send letters
to these two States.
State Coordinators will
also work with CA
program staff to
coordinate and plan
any additional training
need by our States.
D. Review and update RCRIS SNC
indicators for EPA lead evaluations
and enforcement actions. Coordinate
review and updates for State lead
evaluations and enforcement actions
with individual State offices.
RCRIS Module
Specialist and
Enforcement
Program
RCRIS
Specialist
1.31.99
This project was
discussed with all
States at the November
RCRIS/BRS
conference in Chicago.
Follow-up coordination
will be performed until
this project is
completed.
21
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 5 of 14
Key Activity
Responsible
Individual(s)
Due
Date
Status
E. Review all final closure records in
RCRIS to ensure that all closed
process units have up-to-date process
status codes and complete closure
event records. Document any needed
adjustments in process status codes or
event records, as agreed on with State
offices, for data entry into RCRIS.
IMS State
Coordinators
3.15.99
IMS State Coordinators
will review
comprehensive permit
module reports to
identify questionable
records. Necessary
updates will be made
after discussions with
State offices. Accurate
closure records will
ensure that RCRIS
TSD universes for
permitting,
enforcement and CA
are correct.
F. FII handler information reviews
and data updates.
G. Establish an updated record of
locational reference tables used in our
R5 EJ GIS mapping system. Identify
any current locations data gaps in
these tables and update as needed.
Facilities which are currently not
included, but having recent
enforcement/CA/BRS activities will
be added.
RCRIS Team
4.1.99
Updates will ensure
that all significant
facilities are presented
in EJ GIS mapping
products.
H. Other special maintenance projects
as they are brought to the attention of
the RCRIS team. A good example of
this was the recent Sector Facility
Indexing Project launched by the
OECA office in headquarters.
RCRIS Team
Ongoing
4
22
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 6 of 14
TI.S. EPA REGTON 5
RCRTS ACTTON PLAN FOR FY99
Category 2: Ongoing basic RCRIS review and maintenance actions.
Desired Results: These activities will ensure that RCRA program offices and States are
involved in reviewing and updating specific RCRIS records on a periodic
basis throughout the year.
Key Activity
Responsible
Individual(s)
Due
Date
Status
A. Run selected RCRIS reports
showing recent programmatic
activities and data assessment
reports for distribute to program
office contacts for review and
feedback.
RCRIS Module
Specialists
As
shown on
the
attached
reports
schedule.
Permitting and CA
program PAR reports,
RECAP enforcement
activity reports, other
specific programmatic
activities tracking
reports, and data
assessment reports will
be distributed.
B. Perform monthly RCRIS
databases merges and
programmatic universe calculations
to maintain current RCRIS records
in the Merge and National
Oversight RCRIS databases.
RCRIS DBA
Monthly
as shown
in the
attached
merge
cycle
calendar
Ongoing
C. Coordinate data entry into
appropriate RCRIS databases as
updates are received from program
offices and the regulated
community.
RCRIS Module
Specialists
Ongoing
Ongoing
5
23
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 7 of 14
Key Activity
Responsible
Individual(s)
Due
Date
Status
D. Run new RCRIS data
assessment reports as they are
developed and become available to
review CM&E, permitting and CA
data records.
RCRIS Team
Ongoing
As new reports become
available additional data
assessments will be
performed.
E. Hold conference calls with State
contacts twice a month to review
current HW data management
issues. Plan visits to State offices
and necessary training.
IMS State
Coordinators
Ongoing
Visits to State offices
and necessary training
will vary from State to
State.
F. Enter CA725 and CA750
environmental indicator event
records and status codes as they are
received from program staff.
RCRIS CA
Module
Specialist
Ongoing
Ongoing.
24
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 8 of 14
TI.S. EPA REGTON 5
RCRTS ACTTON PLAN FOR FY99
Category 3: Transitional activities for moving RCRIS to the new web based RCRA INFO
platform and development of our revised data management tracking and reports
menu system.
Desired Results: Provide streamlined data entry and retrievals of detailed programmatic
activities for both federal and State RCRA programs. Easy access and
sharing of data are keys to maintaining a strong working relationship with
our State partners.
Key Activity
Responsible
Individual(s)
Due
Date
Status
A. Host a meeting with Region
5 States to review and discuss
the WIN business systems
design team high level design
proposal for an alternative
platform for RCRIS and to plan
our regional transition
activities.
RCRIS Team
Completed on November 16
& 17, 1998.
B. Integrate the new GPRA
baseline universes for CA,
permitting and post-closure into
the Region 5 RCRIS reports
and menu system to facilitate
report retrievals for these new
universes.
RCRIS Team
Completed November 16,
1998.
25
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 9 of 14
Key Activity
Responsible
Individual(s)
Due
Date
Status
C. Facilitate the development
of RCRA INFO management
tracking reports and revisions to
existing RCRIS reports for R5
and State RCRA program
offices.
RCRIS Team
Ongoing
Coordination with permitting,
enforcement, and CA
program managers is
ongoing.
D. Plan and prepare follow-up
actions for ensuring that all
RCRA INFO CA events are
linked to correct areas and
authorities before conversion.
RCRIS Team
We are working closely with
the business systems design
team on this issue.
E. Revise R5 RCRIS reports
and menu system as necessary
when national changes/updates
are completed.
RCRIS Module
Specialists/
RCRIS Team
Ongoing
Ongoing.
F. Address training needs of R5
and State personnel on Oracle
and other software to be used in
support of RCRA INFO.
RCRIS Team
Ongoing
Ongoing
26
Report No. 9100110
-------
RCRIS Report Retrieval Schedule - FY 99
Page 1
Handler
Report Name and Specifications
Customer Name
Delivery Date
IMS Person Responsible
Comments
State One Liner:
1) Alpha Sort
2) Numeric Sort
3) City Sort
IMS Staff (FOIAs)
Bi-Monthly
15th of the month
(February, April, June,
August, October,
December)
Chris Klemme
One-liner (internal) Report -
-3 sets of all 6 states -
1) Alpha Sort
2) Numeric Sort
3) City Sort
Records Center
Quarterly
15th of the month
(January, April, August,
October)
Sharon Kiddon
Corrective Action
Report Name and Specifications
Customer Name
Delivery Date
IMS Person Responsible
Comments
Corrective Action Status Report
ECAB and Section Chiefs
WMD and Section Chiefs
By the 15th of each month
Rachel L. Griffin
Corrective Action Detailed Verification
Report
IMS Files
Quarterly
15th of the month
(March, July, September,
December)
Rachel L. Griffin
FYI File Copy
Corrective Action Program
Accomplishments Report and Data
Assessmet Report
Gerry Phillips
Joe Boyle
Karl Bremer
As needed
Rachel L. Griffin
Use of this report anticipated to
increase in FY99
-------
N>
00
£
"3
O
a
z
o
o
o
Page .2
RCRIS Report Retrieval Schedule - FY 99
Compliance Monitoring & Enforcement
Report Name and Specifications
Customer Name
Delivery Date
IMS Person Responsible
Comments
Comprehensive CAFO Report
1.) Upcoming Scheduled Dates
2.) Overdue CAFOs
Cora I. Helm
andfor
Joe Boyle
By the 15th of each Month
Rachel L. Griffin
RCRA Evaluation Accomplishments
ECAB State Coordinators
By the 15th of each Month
Cora I. Helm
Beginning of Fiscal Year to
Present
SPAS State Coordinators
By the 15th of each Month
Rachel L. Griffin
IMS Files
By the 15th of each Month
Rachel L. Griffin
Comprehensive Enforcement Report
with Summary Charts
ECAB State Coordinators
By the 15th of each Month
Cora I. Helm
Beginning of Fiscal Year to
Present
SPAS State Coordinators
By the 15th of each Month
Rachel L. Griffin
CME RECAP Report
ECAB
As needed basis
Rachel L. Griffin
Use of this report anticipated to
increase in FY '99
CME Verification Report
IMS File Copy
Quarterly
15th of the month
(March, July, September,
December)
Rachel L. Griffin
ECAB File Copy
By the 15th of each month
Cora I. Helm
hd
as
ft ^3
h* *5
^ s
O Q.
—^ —•
H- *
4^ h-
o §¦
C/5 5
Ire' S.
5. o
St s
E 5
Z M
o s
O
o
3
-------
to
VO
£
¦s
O
a
z
o
o
o
Page 3
RCRIS Report Retrieval Schedule - FY 99
Permitting
Report Name and Specifications
Customer Name
Delivery Date
IMS Person Responsible
Comments
Comprehensive
Permitting/Closure/Post Closure Report
with all Unit Group Information
Hak Cho, IL/IN/MI
Harriet Croke, MN/OH/WI
IMS File
Quarterly
15th of the month
(March, July, September,
December)
La Nita Y. Marrable
Permitting/Closure/Post Closure
Program Accomplishment Report
Karl Bremer
Hak Cho
Harriet Croke
As needed basis
La Nita V. Marrable
Use of this report anticipated to
increase in FY99
hd
as
re T3
K»
re
© Q.
i-tj
H- *
4^ h-
o §¦
C/5 5
Ire' S.
5. o
St s
S- a
Z W
o s
? ^
O 2
O CD
3 3
tE §
S" ^
-------
RCRIS Report Retrieval Schedule - FY 99
Maintenance
Report Name and Specifications
Customer Name
Delivery Date
IMS Person Responsible
Comments
Merge reporting cycle including the
extracts, updates, refreshes, rebuilds
and universe calculations for RCRIS.
Electronic submission to the customer
as an extract. 72 reports compressed.
Headquarters National
Oversight Database
(NODB)
1st Tuesday and
1st Wednesday of the
month
Anthony Ward
Merge edit detail (edit error) report.
Electronic submission and hard copy
of reports to the States and Region.
12 reports submitted & distributed.
Region 5 State DBAs
and Regional Handler
module specialist
and /or contractor.
2nd Tuesday of the month
Anthony Ward
RACF Security reports are run to
Keep track of users and the accounts
they are working under. Divisional
cost reports for tracking expenditures.
12 hard copy reports are ran.
Resource Mgmt. Staff
on the 9th floor and my
own use (Tony Ward)
for tracking all users in
the States and Region.
Quarterly
4th Thursday of the month
(January, April, August,
October)
Anthony Ward
-------
RCRIS Report Retrieval Schedule - FY 99
Electronic System/Re
ports (Electronic Reports)
System/Reports
IMS Responsible
Person
Comments
RCRIS INFO
R5RCRA LAN
By the 15th of each month
Anthony Ward
Region 5 {Mapping Data Assessment
Program with EJ Capabilities}
Internet/Intranet
By the 15th of each month
Kim Belveal
Electronic Version of RCRIS
Comprehensive Reports for (CME, CA,
Permitting and Notification (one-line)
Internet/Intranet
Quarterly
(By the 15th of each month)
January, April, August, October
Marie Oliver
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 2
Page 1 of 1
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 -MapalattrivNMMBr
217/782-3397 RECEIVED
MAR 1 5 1999
March 10, 1999
U.S. EPA REGION 5
OFFICE OF REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. David Ullrich, Acting Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590
Dear Mr. Ullrich:
With this letter, the Illinois EPA is transmitting comments in response to the Draft Report for the
Audit of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Programs. The report, dated January 28,
1999, is based on an August 1998 audit of Region 5's and Illinois EPA's RCRA compliance
programs. The audit was conducted by Region 5's Office of Inspector General (OIG).
I have been informed by Illinois EPA personnel directly involved in the audit process that OIG
personnel that conducted the audit should be commended for the thorough and professional manner
in which the audit was performed. Several valuable recommendations have been identified in the
draft report and, as you will see in our comments, the Illinois EPA has acted on all the
recommendations identified through the revision of our Compliance Assistance Survey (CAS)
procedures (see second enclosure).
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns relating to the
enclosed comments.
Sincerely,
Thomas V. Skinner
Director
ENCLOSURES
cc: Howard Levin, Audit Liaison (Region 5)
Printed on Recycled Paper
Mote: lhe original response was signed by l homas V. Skinner and enclosures are not included.
32
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 3
Page 1 of 1
DISTRIBUTION
Region 5
Regional Administrator (R-19J)
Audit Followup Coordinator (MFA-10J)
Library (PL-12J)
Headquarters
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201)
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations (1501)
Agency Followup Official (3101)
Attn: Assistant Administrator, OARM
Agency Followup Coordinator (3304)
Attn: Director, RMD
Headquarters Library (3404)
Office of Inspector General
Inspector General (2410)
GAO - Issue Area Planner
33
Report No. 9100110
------- |