STA%
* £% \
i® i
V*1"/
PR0^
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Compliance Monitoring Strategy
for the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Subtitle C Core Program
Appendices
A. Acronyms and Generic Terms 3
B. References 5
C. Compliance Monitoring Tools and Activities 7
D. Types of RCRA Inspections 9
E. Oversight Inspections 13
F. Review of RCRA Inspection Report Practices 15
G. Calculating Hazardous Waste Outcomes 21
H. Guidance for State Alternative Plans (Flexibility Plans) 25
for RCRA LQG Compliance Monitoring
I. Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy 33
(This document is a separate pdf document. The Internet URL is provided.)
Appendix A and B were developed for this RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) to aid Readers.
Appendices C-H are verbatim copies of OECA documents originally produced for other purposes. This
information is provided solely for the Reader's convenience. Readers should refer to the original source
addresses (or hyperlinks) are provided. Certain documents, however, were developed for Agency personnel.
Appendices C-H are verbatim copies of OECA documents originally produced for other purposes. This
documents, cited in each Appendix, regarding substantive matters or for contact information.
Most of the documents cited in the CMS and these Appendices are available on the Internet; and Internet
addresses (or hyperlinks) are provided. Certain documents, however, were developed for Agency person
and are posted only on EPA's Intranet. Where possible. Intranet documents have been included in these
Appendices. Authorized states may consult their respective Regional RCRA contact persons regarding
information in Intranet documents that have not been appended to this CMS.
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
OiL- UKbUiD?
-2-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix A
Acronyms and Generic Terms
This RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy uses the following acronyms:
ACS
Annual Commitment System
BAS
Budget Automated System
BR
Biennial Reporting
CAC
Corrective Action Compliance Evaluation
CASPD
OECA, OC, Compliance Assistance and Sector Programs Division
CDI
Case Development Inspection
CEI
Compliance Environmental Inspection
CESQG
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
CSE
Compliance Schedule Evaluation
HPV
High Priority Violator
ICDS
Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information System
FCI
Focused Compliance Inspection
FFEO
OECA Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
FRR
Financial Record Review
FUI
Follow-up Inspection
GME
Groundwater Monitoring Evaluation
GPRA
Government Performance Results Act
LQG
Large Quantity Generator
NPMG
National Program Managers Guidance
OAM
Operation and Maintenance Inspection
OECA
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OC
OECA Office of Compliance
OTIS
Online Tracking Information System
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SQG
Small Quantity Generator
SNC
Significant Non-Compliance
SRF
State Review Framework
TSDF
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility
UST
Underground Storage Tank (RCRA Subtitle I)
For the reader's convenience, this CMS also uses certain generic terms. These terms are not legally
defined terms or official Agency nomenclature.
• "Coverage " means how frequently Regions, or states, inspect the regulated universe.
• "National areas offocus" or "national focus areas" mean OECA National Priorities and
Federal Facility Integrated Strategies (as distinguished from the ongoing RCRA Core
Program).
-3 -
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix A
• "Other RCRA Handlers" means Used Oil Facilities, Universal Waste Handlers, entities
involved in reclamation of Hazardous Secondary Materials, and any other type of facility,
operation, entity or handler subject to Subtitle C other than a Generator, Transporter, or
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facility (TSDF).
• "Universe " means the array of RCRA-regulated facilities, operations, and handlers subject to
inspection.
-4-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix B
References
Most of the resources listed below are available to Regions, states, and the public on the Internet. A few documents,
however, are available only to EPA personnel via the Agency's Intranet. See note on cover page.
General Information
Biennial Reports - http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/biennialreport/index.htm
Annual Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Plans - http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/etdd/reporting/index.html
National Priorities - http://epa.g0v/compliance/data/planning/priorities/index.html#priorities
RCRA Subtitle D - www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/index.htm
State Review Framework - www.epa-otis.gov/otis/stateframework.html
Watch List - www.epa-otis. gov/watchlist
Guidance / Memoranda
Guidance for RCRA Core LQG Pilot Projects (Alternative Plans / State Flexibility Plans)
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/rcra/IV08rcraguidancelagproiect.pdf
Guidance on the Use of Section 7003 of RCRA (Oct. 12, 1997)
http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/ore/rcra/ise/documents/tab5.pdf. or
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/rcra/97102Q.pdf.
Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy (Dec. 2003).
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/rcra/finalerpl203.pdf (or Appendix H to this CMS.)
National Program Managers Guidance (FY2010)
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm
Performance Based Strategies for OECA's National Priorities FY2008-2010
http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/npmas/priorities/index.html.
RCRA Inspection Manual (Revised, Nov. 1998)
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/rcra/rcrarevinspman-rpt.pdf.
RCRA State Oversight Inspection Guide (Dec. 1987)
http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/rcra/rcrastosinspgu-rpt.pdf
Review of RCRA Inspection Report Practices (2007)
http://intranet/epa.gov/compliance/oc/caspd (or Appendix F to this CMS.)
Role of the EPA Inspector in Providing Compliance Assistance During Inspections (June 25, 2003).
http://kodiak.r07.epa.gov/intranet/enviroprograms/role of inspector.pdf
- 5 -
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
ruiOfUvsnUiy Man?,
-6-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix C
Compliance Monitoring Tools and Activities1
All regional programs should conduct appropriate compliance monitoring activities, which include all
regulatory agency activities to determine whether an individual facility or a group of facilities (geographical, by
sector, or by corporate structure) are in compliance with environmental laws and regulations, as well as enforcement
orders and settlement agreements. EPA documents and files compliance determinations using various methods (e.g.,
databases, inspection reports, etc.). Compliance monitoring activities occur before and until the point when either
compliance is determined or an actual violation is identified. Review and oversight of authorized state, local and
Tribal compliance assurance and enforcement programs continues throughout the year. As in the past, the National
Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) will continue to support ongoing projects for commitments made in
previous years, including case preparation and enforcement support.
EPA strongly encourages efforts to provide field inspectors with technology that will improve their
capacity to collect, share, and report information. Regional managers and staff should utilize the Field Activity
Compliance Technology Strategy to guide their efforts to utilize hardware and software to collect compliance
monitoring data by automating specific workflow processes for the specific programs.
Examples of important compliance monitoring activities include:
Inspector support
• Training to fulfill the requirements of EPA Order 3500.1,2 and other applicable Orders (1440.1, 1440.2, etc.).
• Implementing the OC guidance, Final National Policy, Role of the Inspector in Providing Compliance
Assistance During Inspections, June 25, 2003.
• Issuing and tracking federal credentials to state and tribal compliance inspectors pursuant to the September 30,
2004 memorandum entitled Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of
State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA and the August 5, 2005 memorandum
Process for Requesting EPA Credentials for State/Tribal Inspectors Conducting Inspections on EPA's Behalf to
ensure inspectors are appropriately trained and credentialed.
Monitoring planning and execution
• Developing compliance monitoring plans in conjunction with OECA and states that include targeting and
information gathering techniques.
• Creating a viable field presence and deterrent by conducting compliance inspections, evaluations, surveillance,
and civil investigations (including sampling as necessary), in all the environmental media programs (authorized
and non-authorized).
• Responding to tips, complaints, and referrals from private citizens, other governmental entities, and non-
governmental organizations.
• Identifying potential environmental crimes through the civil compliance monitoring program, and referring to
Regional criminal investigation division (CID) area offices.
1 Source: This text is copied verbatim from the FY2010 National Program Managers Guidance, at 12-14.
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm
2 Editor's Note: This statement in the National Program Managers Guidance refers to Training and Development
for Compliance Inspectors/Field Investigators (June 29, 1988),
http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/training/350Q.html. In 2002, OECA updated the 1988 Order with
one entitled Training and Development for Individuals Who Lead Compliance Inspections/Field Investigations,
http://intranet.epa.gov/ohr/rmpolicv/ads/orders/3500 lAl.pdf. As of July 2009, OECA was developing an update
to the 2002 Order.
-7-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix C
Data collection, review, and reporting
• Performing compliance data collection, reporting, analysis, evaluation, and management.
• Reviewing and evaluating self-reported data and records, environmental permits, and other technical
information relating to compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
• Maintaining compliance files and managing compliance records.
• Preparing reports and entering compliance findings and inspection results into
• Reporting Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) outcomes of on-site inspections and evaluations
into ICIS for the Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS) and proposed Expedited Settlement Orders, and by
analyzing and evaluating the outcomes of compliance monitoring activities.
Pro gram coordination/review/oversight/support
• Ensuring that the implementation of state, local and Tribal programs are in accordance with statutory
requirements and EPA policy.
• Identifying, tracking, and coordinating with state, tribal, and local environmental agencies those violators that
are, or should be designated as, Significant Noncompliers, High Priority Violators, or Watch List facilities.
• Developing, negotiating, or overseeing state or tribal compliance and enforcement grants.
• Providing training, assistance, support, and oversight of state, local and tribal programs.
• Performing compliance screens for various headquarters and/or state/tribal programs such as Performance
Track.3
• Conducting reviews under the State Review Framework (SRF).
End
3 Editor's Note: The Performance Track program ended in Spring 2009.
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix D
Types of RCRA Inspections
Editor's Note: RCRAInfo, the database of record, recognizes the following types of RCRA inspections.4
CAC Corrective Action Compliance Evaluation
An evaluation of a site's compliance with the corrective action requirements of a permit or an
order. When a CAC is conducted as part of another inspection type (CEI, GME, etc.), a separate
entry for a CAC should be conducted for the CAC component.
CAV Compliance Assistance Visit
The compliance assistance activity that a Region or State conducts at a specific site to assist the
site in achieving compliance as outlined in the OECA Operating Principles (URL:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policieis/planning/state/oprin-integ-mem.pdf). A CAV
evaluation does not include evaluation events that would otherwise qualify as another type of
evaluation such as a CEI or OAM evaluation or conducted under the auspices of a confidentiality
agreement via a small business or local government assistance program (sometimes referred to
as an amnesty program). However, this CAV activity code would include technical site-specific
compliance assistance not considered "interpretive technical assistance." CAVs are conducted
without the threat of enforcement. Therefore, CAVs cannot be linked to violations or enforcement
actions.
CDI Case Development Inspection
A CDI is an on-site inspection conducted for the sole purpose of gathering additional information
that supports the evidence (i.e., samples, on-site record review, interview, etc.) for a potential or
pending enforcement case. A CDI is performed only after an initial evaluation has resulted in the
observation of potential violations.
CEI Compliance Evaluation Inspection
A CEI evaluation is primarily an on-site evaluation of the compliance status of the site with regard
to all applicable RCRA Regulations and Permits (with the exception of groundwater monitoring
and financial assurance requirements). Although portions of a CEI evaluation may routinely be
conducted in an agency office setting, such "office" evaluations are considered an integral part of
a CEI in terms of completing an evaluation. The overall evaluation of a site's compliance status
may take place over multiple days necessitating multiple site visits and activities. The entire set of
activities and associated effort is considered a single CEI.
4 Source: These inspection descriptions were copied verbatim from RCRAInfo, Nationally Defined Values for
Evaluation Type, https://rcrainfo.epa.gov/.
-9-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix D
The major function of a CEI is an overall review of the site's performance. The inspection includes
an on-site examination of records and other documents maintained by the site and an evaluation
of the site's compliance with all applicable requirements and adequate sampling, when necessary.
Where appropriate, it includes groundwater monitoring assessment outlines or plans,
closure/post-closure plans, contingency plan reviews, waste analysis plan reviews, and
preparedness and prevention plan reviews. Specifically excluded from the CEI type of evaluation
are financial assurance requirements and inspections of groundwater monitoring systems. A
review of financial assurance requirements is most often conducted by "agency experts", and
appropriately coded as a Financial Record Review (FRR) evaluation. Inspections of groundwater
monitoring systems are coded as either a GME or OAM.
CSE Compliance Schedule Evaluation
An evaluation conducted to verify compliance with an enforceable compliance schedule
associated with a formal enforcement action. When a CSE is conducted as part of another
inspection type (CEI, GME, etc.), a separate CSE entry should be made in RCRAInfo for the CSE
component.
FCI Focused Compliance Inspection
An FCI is an on-site inspection that addresses only a specific portion or Subpart of the RCRA
regulations or authorized State regulations/programs. Some examples of an FCI are a Subpart
CC inspection, BIF inpsection, Universal Waste Rule inspection, closure verification inspection,
training inspections, etc.
Nationally defined Focus Areas must be used with this evaluation type to further define the
specific scope of the FCI.
FRR Financial Record Review
An extensive detailed review of a site's compliance with financial responsibility requirements.
Financial Record Reviews are conducted in the Agency office and not on-site.
FSD Facility Self Disclosure
Indication that a site has self-disclosed the existence of a violation and/or performed an audit and
has submitted the information as appropriate to the State or EPA.
FUI Follow-Up Inspection
A partial on-site inspection conducted to verify the status of violations cited during a previous
evaluation. An FUI code value should only be used if the effort involved, or the extent of areas
inspected, are insufficient to qualify as one of the more comprehensive evaluation types, includes
inspections following up to formal/informal actions where on enforceable compliance schedule
has been established. Does not include any inspections involving an enforceable compliance
schedule associated with a formal enforcement action. When an FUI inspection is conducted as
part of another inspection type (CEI, GME, etc.), a separate FUI entry should be made in
RCRAInfo for the FUI component. Please note that new violations may be cited as a result of an
FUI evaluation, and those new violations would be linked to the FUI.
- 10-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix D
GME Groundwater Monitoring Evaluation
A detailed evaluation of the adequacy of the design and operation of a site's groundwater
monitoring system as per EPA's Final RCRA Compliance Groundwater Monitoring Evaluation
Guidance Document. Evaluation of the groundwater monitoring system design should be
conducted by a hydrogeologist and includes the review of the owner/operator's characterization of
the hydrogeology beneath hazardous waste management units, monitoring well placement and
depth/spacing, and well design and construction. It is essential that the GME ensure that the
owner/operator has designed an adequate groundwater monitoring system. In addition, an
integral part of the GME is the review of the operation of the groundwater monitoring system
through an evaluation of the owner/operator's sampling and analysis plan and its implementation.
GMEs should be scheduled, to the maximum extent possible, to coincide with owner/operator
sampling events to permit the field evaluation of sampling techniques. Inspectors should collect
splits or conduct EPA/State sampling as a random check of groundwater quality data at any wells
that may have indicated releases to support enforcement of corrective action.
A comparison of EPA/State and owner/operator analytical results can be used to assess
laboratory accuracy and establish the reliability of owner/operator submitted data. A GME should
encompass everything covered in the CEI for groundwater monitoring facilities. In addition, GMEs
should include:
a. a detailed investigation of the engineering features and effectiveness of the groundwater
monitoring system;
b. a detailed review of the site's groundwater sampling and analysis plan;
c. re-calculation of statistics at detection monitoring facilities to ensure that the site should not be
in assessment;
d. detailed examination of the site's assessment monitoring plan and field implementation;
e. re-evaluation of groundwater flow direction; and
f. a substantial amount of sampling],
LBN Land Ban Restrictions Inspection
An inspection of land disposal restriction requirements. Where Land-Ban is inspected in
conjunction with another inspection type (CEI, CME, etc.), a separate Handler Evaluation form
should be submitted reporting the Land-Ban component.
Note: This code is not available for new data entry.
NR No 3007 Information Request Received
Agency conducted an in-agency office review and determined a failure to respond to a 3007
information request.
NRR Non-financial Record Review
An evaluation conducted in the Agency office involving a detailed review of non-financial records.
- 11 -
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix D
OAM Operation and Maintenance Inspection
The Operation and Maintenance Inspection is a periodic inspection of how well a groundwater
monitoring system continues to function once it is considered well designed. The inspection
focuses on the condition of wells and sampling devices. Evaluation of well recovery notes,
turbidity of water, total depth, depth to water, etc. should be made and compared to historic data.
Sampling devices should be tested and if necessary pulled and visually inspected. The findings of
an O&M inspection will indicate whether case development is warranted and/or will serve to focus
future GMEs. The inspector should be experienced in evaluation of groundwater monitoring
systems, e.g., hydrogeologist. This inspection can include sampling.
SNN No Longer a Significant Non-Complier (SNC)
A determination has been made to remove the SNC designation for a site.
Note: Entry of an SNN record is required to remove a site from being an SNC.
Business Rule: If an SNY and an SNN record are entered by the same agency on the same day,
the site will remain an SNC unless the SNY record has "Site should not be a SNC" as the first
words in the SNY record's NOTES field.
SNY A Significant Non-Complier (SNC)
A determination has been made to designate a site as an SNC using guidelines as set forth in the
current version of the Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy (ERP).
An SNC is a site that has caused actual exposure or a substantial likelihood of exposure to
hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents; is a chronic or recalcitrant violator; or deviates
substantially from the terms of a permit, order, agreement or from RCRA statutory or regulatory
requirements.
In evaluating whether there has been actual or likely exposure to hazardous waste or hazardous
waste constituents, implementers should consider both environmental and human health
concerns. However, environmental impact or a substantial likelihood of impact alone is sufficient
to cause a violator to be an SNC, particularly when the environmental media affected require
special protection (e.g., wetlands or sources of underground drinking water). Additionally, when
deciding whether a violator meets this criterion, implementers should consider the potential
exposure of workers to hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents.
Further, although consideration should be given to compliance status with other environmental
statutes and regulations, an SNC in RCRAInfo should be linked to all applicable violations that
contributed to the SNC designation, where appropriate. Although there are benefits to doing so,
linkage of SNY determination to specific RCRA violations that contributed to the SNC
determination is optional.
Note: It is important to enter the SNY designation promptly upon designation.
Business Rule: If an SNY and SNN record are entered by the same agency on the same day, the
site will remain an SNC unless the SNY record has "Site should not be a SNC" as the first words
in the SNY record's NOTES field.
*End of Report*
- 12-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix E
Oversight Inspections5
A federal oversight inspection evaluates the quality of the state inspection/evaluation program and the state
inspector training program by reviewing and evaluating the findings of state inspections and evaluations. Oversight
inspections identify strengths and weaknesses of state programs and develop mutually agreed upon commitments by
the states and EPA to correct problems. When regions conduct oversight inspections, they should follow these
guidelines:
• Only experienced EPA personnel should be used to conduct oversight inspections.
• The overall goal of oversight is to improve the state (and regional) compliance and enforcement program.
• Oversight should be tailored to fit state performance/capability, once it has been documented.
• EPA should observe procedures the state inspector follows or does not follow (e.g., credentials, purpose of
inspection, entry conference, interview, field observations, record reviews, CBI procedures, exit interview, etc.).
• The EPA inspector should determine whether the state inspector:
1. Follows state inspection and monitoring procedures
2. Detects potential violations, especially SNCs, and gathers evidence to support violations
3. Has adequate training and guidance
4. Has adequate safety equipment and field equipment
5. Has informed the facility of the subject regulations
• EPA should coach/inform the state inspector of potential concerns observed or discovered through questioning
the state inspector after the oversight inspection is completed, and report findings and observations to regional
managers by preparing a separate oversight inspection report for each oversight inspection so that any issues
observed can be addressed in discussions with state managers and/or during the SRF review process. Regions
can utilize the procedures described in more detail in the RCRA State Oversight Inspection Guide, dated
December, 1987 for conducting oversight inspections and for preparing inspection reports:
http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/civil/rcra/rcrastosinspgu-rpt.pdf.
• EPA oversight of state performance should be consistent with the following principles from the August 25,
1986, Barnes memo entitled, "Revised Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements."
a. Both positive and negative findings should be identified.
b. EPA should provide technical assistance and training when needed.
c. EPA action to correct problems should vary, depending on the nature and impact of the
problem and if it reflects a single or multiple incidents.
d. The States should be given an opportunity to formally comment on EPA's performance
relating to commitments made by EPA to the state, e.g., provide training, assist with
sampling, provide equipment, etc.
e. Regions should provide all information to the states that is available on their
performance.
f. The Region should report to the state on progress toward commitments made to that state.
g. EPA should give states sufficient opportunity to correct identified problems
5 Source: This text is copied verbatim from the FY2010 National Program Managers Guidance, at 14-16,
http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/index.htm.
- 13 -
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix E
h. EPA should use oversight inspections as a means of transferring successful regional and
state approaches from one state to another.
i. Where state performance fails to conduct quality inspections or evaluations, EPA may:
(a) suggest changes in state procedures; (b) suggest changes in the state use of resources or training of staff;
(c) provide technical assistance; and/or (d) increase the number of oversight inspections and/or require
submittal of information on remedial activities.
It is expected that the regions, for each program, will conduct a number of these activities in any fiscal
year. The specific combination of activities will depend upon the availability of intra- and extramural resources, and
working agreements made between state and tribal governments.
Compliance monitoring does NOT include: 1) preparation of Notice of Violations (NOVs), warning letters,
and administrative or judicial complaints, and 2) development of evidence and other information where a violation
has already been determined to have occurred. Instead, these activities fall under the civil and criminal enforcement
programs.
- 14-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix F
Review of RCRA Inspection Report Practices6
Background
As part of an activity related to the Foundries Initiative, the Office of Compliance, Compliance Assistance &
Sector Programs Division (CASPD) requested RCRA inspection reports from a number of Regions. Over 80
inspection reports covering 69 facilities were received from Regions 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10. These inspection reports
covered inspections conducted by the Regional staff, Regional and State staff together, and by staff of authorized
States. In addition, CASPD obtained another 45 inspection reports covering multi-media inspections conducted by
NEIC primarily at chemical production facilities.
The primary activity associated with these reports was an analysis to determine common areas of non-compliance.
However, the review also provided an opportunity to see how inspections are conducted and documented across the
country and also provided useful insight into the diversity of styles and information included in inspection reports.
Additionally, CASPD has had discussions with inspectors from Regions 6 and 10 and has reviewed documents from
those regions, (such as Region 10's, "Report Contents: the 5W 's."
http://www.epa.gov/regionl0/offices/oea/ieu/manual/inspct06.htm). along with other RCRA guidance documents,
such as the Revised RCRA Inspection Manual (T9981
(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/rcra/rcrarevinspman-rpt.pdf).
These discussions and document reviews have provided the basis for some recommendations,
summarized in this document, which may be useful for RCRA core inspections and for "best practices" regarding
RCRA inspection reports. Also included is a "model" inspection report outline that lists all of the elements
essential to a good inspection report. The information in this document is an augmented "distillation" from several
existing sources including: the Revised RCRA Inspection Manual; RCRAInfo guidance concerning
"evaluation'Vinspection types; and ICIS requirements. The recommendations provided are to be used in addition to
the memorandum from Michael Alushin, dated April 18, 2002, "Practices to Follow and Avoid When Conducting
Compliance Inspections," (http ://intranet. epa. gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/referenc/inspectpractice .pdf 1.
Examples of Good Report Qualities and "Best Practices"
From analysis of the RCRA Foundries and NEIC inspections, many excellent examples of desirable
inspection report qualities emerged, including some inspection report "best practices." For example, an important
inspection report quality contained in some of the reports (which should be included in all reports) was the purpose
of the inspection. Was it part of a national priority initiative; follow-up to a previous inspection; or due to a tip or
complaint? Additionally, there were some practices observed that indicate a need for a more common understanding
of terminology and areas where improvement could occur. Report quality varied even within a Region or between
Regions and States.
6 Source: http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/resources/caspd/RCRAinspmodeltoolfnl.pdf. or
http://intranet.epa. gov/oeca/oc/caspd/index html. This document is copied verbatim, except that it omits a chart
(included in the on-line version) which describes the various types of RCRA inspections. Appendix D provides the
current descriptions for RCRA inspections.
- 15 -
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix F
Several reports also included excellent narrative descriptions. Positive attributes observed included:
descriptions organized by facility /process/inspection area; detailed references to applicable regulatory areas
(including specific regulatory language); thorough descriptions of waste issues, including locations, processes,
and/or facility components, conditions present, container sizes and amounts; and excellent documentation such as
photographs and photo logs which provided observation dates and times.
Inspection reports should be written so that a person unfamiliar with the facility can understand how the
plant is organized; against what standards it was inspected; and what waste streams were identified, how they were
determined, and how those streams are handled by the facility. The type of inspection and the type of facility (i.e., a
brass foundry) should be identified and SIC or NAICs codes and RCRA permit numbers should be provided. If
possible, sizes or amounts of pollutants that may be associated with potential noncompliance should be given.
Providing this information makes it easier to determine measurable outcomes from inspections. The following is an
actual example from the foundry inspection reports' analysis of a summary that demonstrates how information
related to amounts of pollutants can be included in the inspection report.
"There were a number of containers of hazardous waste at the facility that were not properly labeled. The
following was observed:
• In the paint booth bunker; one 55-gallon container of paint waste (D001). The container was approximately 1/3
full (see Photo 7 in Attachment 2).
• Ninety day storage area; one full 30 gallon container of waste mineral spirits (D001; see Attachment 6) with an
illegible label.
• Outside the 90-day storage area there were two 50-gallon containers with "Hazardous Waste" on the label, but
with no risk label and contents unknown. Facility was unsure of contents as the containers had been on site prior to
facility ownership transfer. One was rusted through and leaking and appeared to be half full. Material appeared to
be a mixture of paint waste and solvents.
• In the galvanizing room; one 3x8x5 foot tank about 2/3 full of zinc ammonia chloride solution. No labels were
affixed. This waste is being evaporated before addition of clay-like material and is then shipped off as hazardous
waste."
This example could be further strengthened to develop an even more supportable enforcement case by
adding additional information. For example:
• "Paint booth bunker 1A (Photo 1) contained three 55-gallon drums of paint waste (D001, F003; see Attachment 1
for the facility's hazardous waste determination). One of the drums (Photos 2, 3 and 4) was not labeled with the
words "hazardous waste", the contents of the container or with the initial date of accumulation. The unlabeled drum
was approximately 1/3 full.
• The ninety day storage area at the south end of Building F1 (See facility map Attachment 2) contained one full 30
gallon container of waste mineral spirits (D001; see Attachment 3 for the facility's hazardous waste determination).
The container had an illegible label (Photo 9).
• Outside the ninety day storage area at the south end of Building F1 there were two 55-gallon containers labeled
"Hazardous Waste" (Photo 12). According to Mr. Ted Smith, Environmental Manager, and Ms. Jane Rogers, F1
Operator, the exact contents of the drums were unknown.
Mr. Smith stated that the drums were generated during start up of the tar still unit several years ago (see Process
Description Attachment 11) and the decision was made to dispose of them this week. The facility has collected
samples of each of these drums and sent them off-site for testing. The work order and lab receipt are included as
Attachment 7. The facility asked the lab to run only TCLP benzene on the waste, however, based upon the inputs to
the unit (Attachment 11); the compliance inspector believes the facility should run TCLP VOC's and TCLP RCRA 8
metals for a complete hazardous waste determination. The facility agreed to run these additional tests and will share
- 16-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix F
the results with the region. The black drum seen in Photo 12 was rusted and appeared to be leaking (Photo 13). The
stained area was on concrete and covered approximately 8 square feet (Photo 14). The facility overpacked the drum
and used absorbent to remove the spilled material (Photo 15). The spent absorbent was placed into the overpacked
drum and will be disposed following hazardous waste determination. The facility labeled the drums 'Tar Still waste
- pending analysis' with today's date during the inspection."
In addition, inspection reports should document that all required procedures (such as presenting credentials) have been
followed. All persons present during the inspection should be identified, to the extent possible. Most inspection reports
did this. Using a cover sheet containing this information is especially helpful. Reports should also contain references to
attachments used to substantiate the report's findings (such as photos, manifests, parts of hazardous waste
determination/analysis.) Including a list of these attachments in the report is also useful.
Guidance concerning requirements for inspection reports may be found in the Revised RCRA Inspection
Manual (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/rcra/rcrarevinspman-rpt.pdf). Additional information
may be found in Region 10's Investigations & Engineering Unit's "(Inspection) Report Contents: The 5W's"
(http://www.epa. gov/re gionl 0/offices/oea/ieu/manual/inspct06. htm).
Areas Needing Improvement
The analysis also highlighted some areas where improvement could be attained. For example, there is a need for
consistent terminology regarding inspection (evaluation) types. Some reports used the wrong acronym to designate
the inspection type, or identified the inspection as one type when it was really another. Terminology has recently
been revised for input into RCRAInfo, so inspection reports should use the acronym for inspection (evaluation) type
and its corresponding definition that is consistent with the latest version of RCRAInfo. (See "Inspection Evaluation
Type" table.)
Additionally, not all inspection reports contained the essential information needed to justify enforcement
action/inaction. For example, some reports do not state the purpose of the inspection; such as it was conducted as
part of a national priority focus, or was conducted in response to a tip and complaint. Inspection reports should
contain at least the information required to be entered into RCRAInfo (and ICIS for Federal inspections). Also,
inspection reports should include all the necessary information from which to determine whether a violation has
been committed, but should not actually state that a violation has occurred. Simply stating the facts, such as
"containers are not labeled," or "a Contingency Plan is missing essential elements," allows this determination to be
made. Stating the regulatory language or referencing the regulatory citation of the requirements should be done:
again, without drawing a conclusion. For example: "All containers of hazardous waste must be stored as required
by 40 CFR 262.34(d)(2) [see 40 CFR 265.173(a)]. Five absorbent pads (12 by 12 inches, each) used as rags were
found in a bucket with no lid in the quality control laboratory. These pads are shipped off as hazardous waste
because they cannot be landfilled."
Another area where improvement is desired is in providing information concerning the amounts and types of
pollutants addressed or discovered that may be associated with non-compliance. Increasingly, we must demonstrate
our successes in terms of things which can be measured. Identifying the amounts of wastes or pollutants that are
related to noncompliance, or identifying reductions that occur because of our activities is extremely important for
demonstrating how our actions benefit the public and protect the environment. Therefore, identification of wastes
and/or pollutants potentially reduced by our actions or involved in potential noncompliance is an essential
component of a thorough inspection report.
The pages following the Recommendations section contain information that may provide assistance in
determining what information should be contained in the inspection report in general and also for particular types of
- 17-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix F
RCRA facilities. Included are: a "Model" RCRA Inspection Report Outline; a list of "Recommended Areas of
Inspection Focus for Specific Types of RCRA Entities;" and a list of Inspection (Evaluation) Types to assist with
determining the inspection type that is consistent with RCRAInfo and ICIS terminology.
Recommendations
In addition to the requirements delineated in the Revised RCRA Inspection Manual and the April 2002
"Practices to Follow and Avoid When Conducting Compliance Inspections" memorandum, the following are
recommendations based on our analysis and review.
Regions should:
• Review their processes and those of states to ensure quality inspections and inspection reports. This addresses
one of the elements of the State Review Framework.
• Develop a template or use an existing one that meets all the essential elements of the "Model" Inspection Report
Outline, and any other needs of the program.
• Develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) or adjust the inspection SOP if necessary, to meet program
needs, including periodic review of inspection reports or approval of inspection reports by manager.
- 18 -
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix F
"MODEL" RCRA INSPECTION REPORT OUTLINE
Report Heading
Inspection of.... (Region X Inspection of Acme Bulletin Board Company, for example).
Date/Time(s) of
Inspection
Day, year and time for the inspection.
Type & Purpose of
Inspection
What type of inspection was it? (i.e. Case Development Inspection, Compliance Evaluation
Inspection, etc.)
What was the purpose of the inspection? (Why was inspection conducted?) For example,
"Inspection was part of x priority and was conducted to determine compliance with generator
standards;" or, "Inspection was the result of a 'tip and complaint.'"
Facility Information
Region. Facility name, address, telephone number. Name of Facility Representative(s),
includina title (position) and telephone number. Tvoe of facility (includina SIC or NAICS code
and RCRA Identification number).
Inspection
Participants
Names and affiliations of all members of inspection team and facility participants.
Opening Conference
To whom were credentials shown; who was present (names, titles or positions), what was
discussed; specific arrangements; entry granted or denied.
Facility Description
What was the facility like, including processes, RCRA-related activities, wastes generated,
treated, stored, etc.
Site History
Compliance history and history of facility site location to extent known or ascertainable.
Inspection Narrative
Description of the field inspection events and observations. Where did you go? What did you
see/do? What records were reviewed, copied, taken? Where were records kept and who was
in charge of them? What selection method was used to select records reviewed? Which
records were used? Were samples taken? Of what? Were there splits? Were photos taken to
document the conditions observed? [If documentation is provided elsewhere (attachments, for
example), it should be referenced here.]
Compliance
Concerns/Deficiencies
Regulatory citation; nature of problem; size and quantities of areas concerned (for example, "5
fifty gallon drums."). Do not use the word "violation," or draw enforcement conclusions, but
do state what problems were observed and how this relates to reaulatorv requirements. For
example: "40 CFR 262.34(a)(3) requires that containers of hazardous waste that are
accumulated on-site be marked with the words "hazardous waste. At the time of the inspection
the hazardous waste storage area contained five "super sacks" (holding approximately 10
cubic yards each) of baghouse dust from the electric arc furnace. The baghouse dust from
the electric arc furnace has tested characteristically hazardous for cadmium and/or chromium.
None of these sacks were labeled "hazardous waste," or marked with the accumulation start
date."
Actions Taken By
Facility Related to
Deficiencies
For example: verified compliance with previously issued enforcement action; corrected
recordkeeping deficiencies; completed a notification or report; corrected monitoring
deficiencies; requested a permit application; implemented new or improved management
practices or procedures; improved pollutant identification (e.g. labeling, manifesting, storage,
etc); reduced pollution (e.g. use reduction, industrial process change, emissions or discharge
change, etc.) (Specify the pollutant(s) and amounts reduced)
Compliance
Assistance
Although not required, if assistance materials are provided, state what was provided and
whether it was general or site-specific.
Attachments
List and describe all documentation including photographs, drawings, receipts, notices, etc.
Date and Signature
Make sure the report is signed and dated.
- 19-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix F
RECOMMENDED AREAS OF INSPECTION FOCUS FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF RCRA ENTITIES
FOR GENERATORS
General Standards For Generators
Parts 262.10-262.12.
Describe compliance with these standards.
The Manifest
Parts 262.20 - 262.23. Establish existence of manifest records; assess adequacy with
respect to regulatory requirements.
Pre-Transport Requirements
Parts 262.30 - 262.34 . Review packaging, labeling, marking and placarding
procedures for compliance with the regulations; establish compliance with
accumulation time restrictions.
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Parts 262.40 - 262.43. Establish existence of annual reports and additional reports.
Special Conditions
Parts 262.50 - 262.51. Inspect for reports of international shipments of waste, and
proper notification of the Administrator.
Standards for Universal Waste
Management
Part 273. Inspect for proper management of universal waste including: batteries, not
covered elsewhere; recalled pesticides; mercury-containing equipment; and hazardous
waste lamps.
Standard for the Management of
Used Oil
Part 279. Inspect for compliance with used oil standards including: standards for used
oil generators; standards for used oil collection centers and aggregation points;
standards for used oil transporter and transfer facilities; standards for used oil
processors and re-refiners; restrictions on burning for energy recovery; used oil fuel
marketing; and use as a dust suppressant.
FOR TRANSPORTERS
General
Parts 263.10 - 263.12. Ensure that the transporter has obtained an EPA ID number
and only stores waste at transfer facilities fewer than 10 days
Manifest System and Recordkeeping
Parts 263.20 - 263.22. Establish existence of manifest records and compliance with
manifest procedures.
Hazardous Waste Discharges
Parts 263.30 - 263.31. Ensure that transporter is aware of responsibilities under these
sections. Check to see if any discharge reports have been made to the Department of
Transportation as required by these regulations.
FOR TSDFs
General Facility Standards
Parts 264/5.10 - 264/5.18. Describe compliance with standards.
Preparedness & Prevention
Parts 264/5.30 - 264/5.37. Check for required equipment and arrangements with local
authorities.
Contingency Plan & Emergency
Procedures
Parts 264/5.50 - 264/5. 56. Check records and procedures for conformance with
requirements of this section.
Manifest System, Recordkeeping, &
Reporting
Parts 264/5.70 - 264/5.77. Establish existence of manifest records, operating record,
annual report, and unmanifested waste report. Assess conformance with regulatory
requirements..
Groundwater Monitoring
Parts 264/5.90 - 264.99 or 265.94. Examine ground-water
monitoring plan and review results of sampling analysis
Corrective Action Program
Parts 264.100 - 101. Review status of corrective action program)
Closure and Post Closure
Parts 264/5.110 - 264/5.120 (Review closure and post-closure
plans for adequacy with respect to regulatory requirements
Facility Specific Standards
Parts 264/5.170 - 264.603 or 265.445 and Parts 264/5.1100 -
1102. Depending upon the type of facility being inspected,
establish compliance with the appropriate regulatory standard.
Permit Conditions
For permitted facilities, review violations of specific permit
conditions or schedules of compliance.
-20-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix G
Calculating Hazardous Waste Outcomes
Editor's Note
There are two alternative ways to calculate hazardous waste outcomes from compliance monitoring activities: (1)
the "hazardous constituent density" approach; or (2) the simplified "mass hazardous waste" approach. Although
these methodologies were developed for measuring enforcement outcomes, they also can be used to calculate
compliance monitoring outcomes.
• Hazardous Constituent Density Approach
This methodology requires one to calculate the density of hazardous constituents within the hazardous waste
affected by the Region's (or state's) intervention. This methodology is used in the Case Conclusion Data Sheet
Training Booklet (2004), available at www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/data/tools/ccds.pdf.
• Mass Hazardous Waste Approach
This methodology counts the entire mass of hazardous waste addressed by the Region's (or state's)
intervention, instead of requiring calculation of the density of hazardous constituents within the waste. This
methodology was established by OECA's Revised Instructions for Reporting RCRA Cases for FY08 End-of-
Year Reporting (EOY), issued October 8, 2008, which is copied in full below.
Examples of Outcome Measures and Reports
InsDection: The Resion (or State) inspected the ABC Chemical Co. The Reeion/State found that:
• The company had not properly handled ten 55-gallon drums of FOO1 solvent waste, containing methylene
chloride; and
• Three hazardous waste streams, which together generated an estimated 50 tons of hazardous waste, were not
properly identified or handled.
"Hazardous Constituent Density" Approach1'
"Mass Hazardous Waste" Approach
Calculation:
The Region/State used the density of methlyene
chloride to estimate the amount of material in pounds
that had not been properly handled.
Outcome Measure:
10 drums F001 x 55 gal/drum x 11.149 lbs./gal =
6,132 lbs. ofFOOl
Calculation:
The Region/State used the total weight of the
hazardous waste (using the approximate weight of
water) to estimate the amount of material in pounds that
had not been properly handled.
Outcome Measure:
10 drums x 55 gal/drum x ~8 lbs./gal =
-4,400 lbs. of hazardous waste (or 2.2 tons)
Outcome ReDort:
As a result of the Region's/State's inspection, 6,132
pounds ofFOOl waste that were not being handled
properly at the time of inspection and, therefore, were
at-risk of improper treatment will now be handled
properly.
3 waste streams generating 50 tons of hazardous waste
Outcome ReDort:
As a result of the Region's/State's inspection:
• Approx. 2.2 tons of hazardous waste that were not
being handled properly at the time of inspection
and, therefore, were at-risk of improper treatment or
disposal will now be handled properly.
• Waste streams accounting for an estimated 50 tons
of waste not previously identified are now identified
and will be handled properly.
- Adapted from Example 1. Hazardous Waste Treatment (Direct), Chapter 7, Case Conclusion Data Sheet Training Booklet.
End of Editor's Note
-21 -
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix G
Revised Instructions for Reporting RCRA Cases for FY08 End-of-Year Reporting (EOY)7
These are new guidelines for reporting RCRA environmental benefits when injunctive relief will result in
direct pollutant reductions. The OECA Environmental Outcome Reporting Management Committee
(EORMC) has proposed a new methodology for calculating direct benefits for RCRA cases, by creating a
new pilot reporting category that will be used instead of "pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or
eliminated." The new pilot reporting category, "Estimated pounds of hazardous waste treated,
minimized or properly disposed of' and guidance on the new approach are described below. The new
methodology will count the entire mass of the hazardous waste addressed by the enforcement action, but
still allows for the reporting of specific hazardous constituents in the RCRA waste (although thru a
manual process). Identifying specific pollutant constituents allows OECA to better characterize pollutant
reduction risks in its efforts to enhance environmental outcome reporting.
This new pilot category will only include RCRA cases in FY08, but the Management Committee will
consider how cases under other statutes, particularly CERCLA, with similar remedies should also be
included through the revised guidance for FY09. The new approach is not an opportunity to reassess
existing RCRA cases with preventative benefits for the purpose of getting credit instead for direct
benefits. In addition, volume of contaminated media (VCMA) reported amounts for RCRA will continue
to be counted as cubic yards of contaminated soil or aquifer cleaned.
HQ has generated a list of the FY08 RCRA cases with direct benefits currently in ICIS and is providing
next steps for the regions to complete in modifying their ICIS data. The ICIS data entry deadline is
October 10. 2008. Information on the EOY reporting schedule is available at:
http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/etdd/reporting/fV2008/index.html.
If you have specific questions or concerns on calculating environmental benefits, please contact Donna
Inman, at 202-564-2511, inman,donna@epa.gov. For ICIS data entry questions, please contact, David
Sprague, at 202-564-4103; sprague.david@epa. gov. For RCRA specific questions, call Ann Stephanos,
at 202-564- 4006; Stephanos,ann@,epa.gov.
New Direct Benefits Reporting Category for RCRA
Title
Estimated pounds of hazardous waste treated, minimized or properly disposed of
Complying actions
Direct
Waste Treatment
Waste Minimization
Annual
first full year of implementing the complying action(s) for ongoing
operations
total amount of waste to be addressed divided by number of years to complete
closure action
Pollutant Name
Hazardous waste
Units
Pounds
7 This text is copied verbatim.
-22-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix G
All RCRA cases addressing hazardous waste that would have previously been reported as "pounds of
pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated" will now be reported under the new pilot category. To
implement this change, the Regions should select "Hazardous waste" as the "pollutant" from the ICIS
drop down menu. The Regions will also report hazardous constituent information manually, as described
below.
Note: No workaround changes are required for RCRA Subtitle C cases where storage and disposal
complying action types for preventative benefits have previously been reported. ICIS entries for these
actions should remain as currently exist.
Complying Actions
In some instances, what are typically considered storage or disposal preventative complying actions
actually result in stopping "an ongoing release of hazardous waste or preventing an otherwise inevitable
release. In these instances only, OECA believes the complying action results in a direct environmental
benefit. However, "storage change" and "disposal change" complying action types are allowed for
preventative benefits only. As a result, the complying action types which must be entered in ICIS for the
new pilot reporting category are "waste treatment" and "waste minimization." These complying actions
are currently available for cases under RCRA §§ 3002, 3003, & 3004 and are explained in the current
CCDS guidance. Similar types of waste treatment and waste minimization complying actions may also
be required in a RCRA § 7003 case; however, they are not currently available in ICIS for § 7003 cases.
As explained below, OECA has developed a workaround for reporting waste treatment and waste
minimization complying actions for § 7003 cases
Workaround for entering RCRA §7003 direct benefits in ICIS:
Currently, ICIS only allows in-situ and ex-situ treatment, removal of contaminated medium and
containment complying actions for RCRA § 7003 cases. However, many § 7003 cases achieve the same
direct environmental benefits by requiring the same types of complying actions as cases under RCRA §§
3002, 3003, & 3004 - waste treatment and waste minimization. In order to report direct benefits for
RCRA Subtitle C actions occurring under RCRA §7003 authority, the regions must include §3002, §3003
or §3004 as the secondary law in its ICIS entry and enter "waste treatment" or "waste minimization" as
the complying action type.
Revising existing RCRA §3002. §3003 or §3004 entries
You will not need to change the complying action types in ICIS if you have entered waste treatment or
waste minimization for cases with a primary or secondary law/section of RCRA §3002, §3003 or §3004.
However, you must determine whether constituent pollutant names and amounts have been entered. If
you previously entered "Hazardous waste" as the pollutant name and the total waste amount in pounds, no
further changes are necessary. Otherwise, you must follow the ICIS data entry and manual reporting steps
below.
-23 -
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix G
Reporting Guidelines
ICIS Data Entry.
1- enter complying action type: Waste Treatment or Waste Minimization (and estimated cost of
complying action)
2- enter estimated total pounds of RCRA regulated waste as follows:
a. Pollutant Name = Hazardous waste
If specific pollutant names are currently entered in ICIS, you must:
i. delete the individual constituent names and amounts
ii. enter "Hazardous waste" as the pollutant name and estimated total amount.
NOTE: Any RCRA amounts which are not listed as "Hazardous waste" will not
be counted in the appropriate "Pounds of hazardous waste treated, minimized or
properly disposed of' category. Specific constituent amount(s) will be collected
manually (see manual reporting below).
b. Unit of Measure = Pounds
(NOTE: must convert/report total estimated hazardous waste amount in pounds)
c. Destination Media = land, soil or water (ground).
Manual Reporting
Enter in the appropriate worksheet of the EOY reporting workbook the estimated pounds of toxic
constituents, if known. The toxic constituent amounts are the pounds of specific pollutants in the
hazardous waste that have been calculated In your EOY certification, please identify those RCRA cases
where an authority is used in ICIS that was not cited in the enforcement action so that we can note this
issue on the ECHO website as a known data quality issue.
-24-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix H
Guidance for State Alternative Plans (Flexibility Plans)
For RCRA LQG Compliance Monitoring8
In the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program requirements section
of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA's) FY08 National Program
Managers' (NPM) Guidance, there is a requirement that each state inspect at least 20% of its
large quantity generator (LQG) universe. The NPM guidance stated that the 2005 National
Biennial Reporting System (BRS) universe should be used to calculate the 20% number for
inspections.9 The Regions (after consultation with headquarters) have allowed the states to use a
universe other than the 2005 BRS universe if they believe the alternative data more accurately
portrays the LQG universe of the state10. The NPM guidance also provides for pilot projects
where states may seek approval for flexibility from the requirement in RCRA02.S to inspect at
least 20% of the LQGs in order to improve the outcomes11 of their compliance assurance
activities. This guidance provides the details for submitting pilot project plans to EPA for
approval.
Procedures for Alternative Approaches
For states that choose an alternative approach to the standard requirement to inspect at
least 20% of their LQG universe, a brief written plan must be developed and submitted to the
Region. If a state chooses one of the pre-approved alternatives (described below) and follows
the requirements for developing the written plan, the plan should be approved by the Region
without much, if any, need for negotiation (there may be special circumstances or conditions
8 Editor's Note: This policy, entitled Guidance for FY08 RCRA Core LQG Pilot Projects, was posted on-line in
2007, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/rcra/fv08rcraguidancelqgproiect.pdf. In 2007,
EPA used the National Biennial Reporting System (BRS) for determining a state's LQG universe. EPA now uses
the Biennial Report (BR) for this purpose.
9 This guidance deals only with LQGs and not treatment storage and/or disposal facilities (TSDFs). While some
LQGs may also be TSDFs the coverage commitments are separate. An inspection at a facility that is a TSDF and
LQG counts as only one inspection for the total RCRA inspection count but when discussing the coverage of the
TSDF universe or LQG universe, a facility that falls in both universes is counted in both universes for coverage
purposes. Outcomes of the inspections should be attributed to the appropriate portion of the facility (TSDF or
LQG). Since the requirements for each universe are reviewed separately this is not double counting the number of
inspections nor is it double counting any of the outcomes.
10 An example of an approved alternative for the universe is to use facilities that appear in two or three of the last
three BRS cycle. The idea of this approach is to focus the 20% coverage on the "stable" BRS universe of LQGs and
use the remainder of inspection resources to inspect other handler types. Using Alabama as an example, there were
234 LQGs in the 2005 BRS (20% of 234 or 47 facilities). There were only 172 facilities that were in each of the last
three BRS cycles. Twenty percent of 172 is 35, so Alabama could direct up to the resources that would have gone to
12 more LQGs to inspect facilities other than LQGs.
11 EPA is trying to move from using only output based measures to output and outcome based measures for its
programs. For OECA this means trying to move from output based measures (i.e., numbers of inspections) to
outcome based measures (i.e., increased understanding, changes in environmental management practices, pollution
eliminated, reduced or treated) to better describe the benefits of its compliance and enforcement programs.
-25 -
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix H
where additional information is needed for the Region to approve a state submittal). If a state
chooses an alternative that is not one of the pre-approved alternatives contained in this guidance,
the proposal should be submitted to the Region under the proposal process for Element 13 of the
State Review Framework (SRF). The Region will consult with headquarters before granting
approval to the state for its alternative plan submitted under Element 13 of the SRF. If the
alternative plan is one of the pre-approved alternatives, consultation with headquarters is not
required but a copy of the plan should still be sent to headquarters. This will help in preparing a
national report at the end of the year. In all cases, the actual commitments for inspections
conducted in lieu of the LQG inspections should be captured in the notes field of EPA's Budget
Automation System12 (LQG inspection commitments are captured as normal in the system).
NOTE: For any proposed alternative, it is fully expected that the level of inspection
resources will remain the same. Inspection resources should not decrease although they
may be directed to different targets and may be coordinated more closely with other
resources such as compliance assistance or compliance incentive resources.
The written plan should include:
1) a general description of the state's universe of regulated generators,
2) the number of Comprehensive Evaluation Inspections (CEIs) at LQGs that would have
been required under the standard approach,
3) the issue(s)/problem(s) as the state sees it with continuing the standard approach, and/or
opportunities available under the alternative approach,
4) the planned mix of inspections under the alternative approach (what types and how many
of each type of facilities will be inspected and how many of each inspection types will be
conducted),
5) if applicable, a description of how inspections will be used in combination with other
tools (compliance assistance, pollution prevention, compliance incentives, etc),
6) the expected improved benefits or outcomes the state expects to realize from
implementing the alternative approach including a projection of the expected outcomes,
and
7) a measurement plan that details what benefits/outcomes the state plans to measure13 and
how it will collect and report the information to EPA,
12 EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) uses B AS to house resource ($/FTE) and performance
(Annual Performance Goals and Performance Measures) information within the Agency-wide strategic planning
framework (Goals, Objectives, Sub-objectives and Strategic Targets). In other words, it houses the commitments for
the Annual Commitment System (ACS). Each Region has a contact for data entry into BAS.
13 Outcomes should be collected for the LQGs in addition to the alternative inspections.
-26-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix H
Plan Submittal
For plans that follow one of the pre-approved alternatives, the plan should be submitted
to the Region for review to ensure that all of the elements are appropriately captured in the
plan.14 The Region will forward copies of the plan to OECA.15
If a state wishes to pursue an alternative that is not one of the pre-approved alternatives,
the state submittal should be sent to the Region as formal request under Element 13 of the SRF.
All of the elements of the plan should still be included in the state's submittal and the Region
after consultation with OECA, will approve the plan or negotiate an alternative plan with the
state. If an alternative plan can not be agreed upon by mid-September then it is expected that the
state will follow the standard approach (inspect 20% of the LQG universe) for the Federal fiscal
year.
Written Plan Details
1) Description of the state's known universe - This description should include the known
number of each type of generator (provide the source(s) of the information). The
universe information should also provide to the extent possible, information on quantities
of waste generated in the state. At the very least, the most recent BRS data can be used,
but if the state collects this information through other means, that data may be used as
well or in place of the BRS data. This information will help in describing the size and
benefits/outcomes of the program.
2) Baseline - Using BRS16 or another agreed upon database (one that accurately identifies
the current number of generators) identify the number of inspections (CEIs) that the state
would have had to conduct to meet the standard approach of inspecting 20% of the LQG
universe each year. If a data source other than BRS is used, the Region and state should
consider how to handle one time LQGs (e.g., waste generated as the result of the clean up
of contaminated sites) and periodic LQGs (e.g., sources that under normal operations do
not generate enough waste to be an LQG but periodically have turn arounds where the
facility or portions of the facility are shut down for maintenance and/or repair and
14 Submittal should be electronic or electronic and hardcopy.
15 Copies of the state's alternative plan should be sent electronically from the Region to ripp.tom@epa.gov in the
Office of Compliance (OC).
16 BRS includes a count of "LQGs" and "non-LQGs." An "LQG" facility is a facility that met the requirements for
large quantity generator status during the time period the report covers and at the time the facility submitted the
report. A "non-LQG" facility is one which met the requirement for large quantity generator status during the time
period the report covers but no longer met those requirements at the time the facility submitted the report. For
calculating the 20% requirement, only the LQGs are used but in counting the total waste generated, both the LQG
and non-LQG amounts of waste are used.
-27-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix H
generate large amounts of waste as a result of that activity) that should be identified in
BRS but may not be identified in other data sources.
3) Problem statement - The state should develop a problem statement that describes the
problems being missed by the standard approach.
Example problem statement: The state is confident that most/all of the waste streams
have been properly identified at all of its largest LQGs and while there may be violations
at some of these LQGs they are generally minor, involve a small percentage of the waste
at the facility and likely would not have led to waste being shipped offsite to a non-TSD
facility. Therefore, while continually inspecting these LQGs confirms that most/all of
their generated wastes are being handled properly, there are small quantity generators
(SQGs) that are generating more wastes than some of the LQGs but they are inspected
less frequently (some are not inspected not at all). The state has anecdotal evidence that
certain SQGs do not properly identify all of their waste resulting in hazardous waste
being shipped to sites not permitted to treat or dispose of the hazardous waste causing
contamination that will need to be cleaned up. The state expects this quantity to be larger
and pose a greater risk to human health and the environment than the types of violations
and quantities of improperly handled wastes found at the LQGs in the state.
4) Planned mix of inspections - This is essentially the replacement for the commitment to
inspect 20% of the LQG universe and while this is a projection, the information reviewed
in this element will help show that the state's overall level of effort for inspections does
not decrease and the information will be captured in EPA's BAS as part of the
commitments and will be used in developing a national report and in Element 1 of the
State Review Framework (SRF) reviews that describe the universe of inspections
pi anned/conducted.
5) Mix of tools - If applicable, describe how the alternative approach for inspections will be
used in conjunction with assistance or incentive approaches to try to maximize outcomes.
For example, compliance assistance visits for an industry sector followed by targeted
inspections or promotion of self audit or small business policies followed by inspections.
This section should also describe the types of inspections the state plans on conducting if
they are going to be something other than CEIs.
6) Expected outcomes - A qualitative description of the outcomes the state expects to
achieve by adopting this alternative approach compared to what the state would expect by
following the standard approach.
Example: Under the standard approach, it is the state's experience that since the LQGs
are inspected frequently, they have only minor violations that are easily corrected and
involve only small quantities of waste. Out of the 874,749 tons of waste reported in
-28 -
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix H
BRS, the state estimates that only a few tons will be handled improperly and that any
drums with missing labels will be correctly identified before being shipped off site.
Under the alternative approach the state expects to identify a number of generators that
did not report themselves as LQGs but are in fact LQGs and that the waste generated by
these facilities have not been handled properly and the state expects the quantity
identified as being handled improperly to far exceed the amount of waste improperly
handled by any LQGs identified with violations. The state will also end up with a more
complete LQG universe.
7) Measurement plan - A description of the quantitative measures the state will collect and
report and how it intends to collect/document the outcomes. For example, the state will
document the amount of waste a facility generates, the amount of waste identified as not
being handled properly at the time of an inspection but corrected at the time of
inspection, the amount corrected as a result of follow up enforcement actions, the amount
that will now be managed properly because of the implementation of environmental
management practices that ensure compliance, the amount not properly identified as
hazardous waste that will now be handled properly, etc. The plan should also include a
description of any other ways the state may follow up to collect outcome measures along
with where it will keep the data (state database, RCRAInfo, etc) and how it plans to
report the outcomes to the Region (e.g., brief quarterly reports to be discussed during the
normal quarterly calls the state holds with the Region and a complete written end of year
report submitted to the Region).
Year-end Reporting
At the end of the year, an analysis of the alternative approach (did it meet expectations, if
outcomes haven't been realized yet, a projection of the outcomes, recommendations that the
alternative approach be continued, altered or discontinued, etc) should be conducted and the
results reported to the Region. The report should cover the elements submitted in the written
plan. The Region will forward all reports to OECA so that a national report on the outcomes of
the core program can be generated. The end of year report should be submitted to the Region by
the end of October and the Region should forward copies of the report to OECA as soon as they
receive it so that a national report for RCRA can be developed by the end of December.
Pre-Approved alternatives
Any state which chooses to follow one of the following alternatives will have their pilot
approved without the need for detailed negotiations (states are allowed to add additional
information to these pre-approved alternatives but may not delete any provisions contain in these
alternatives without going through the approval process previously described).
For those states that choose one of the following plans, during the negotiation for the
annual commitments between the EPA Regions and Headquarters, they only need to identify
-29-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix H
what option they are selecting, the numbers of LQG inspections and alternative inspections
(identified by each type of facility to be inspected, SQG, CESQG etc. as applies) and agree to
collect the identified outcomes and perform a year end analysis of the benefits/outcomes from
implementing the alternative approach. To assist in the end of year analysis and reporting, the
state should then follow up with a written plan containing the information requested above.
Alternative 1 - The 80% Approach
States would use the latest National BRS report (or other agreed upon alternative) to
identify the number of LQGs and the amount of waste generated by the LQGs and "non-LQGs."
Instead of inspecting at least 20% of the LQG universe, a state choosing this option would
inspect LQGs that account for at least 80% of the waste generate by the LQGs and "non-LQGs"
listed in Exhibit 1.1 of the National Analysis which can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/national05.pdf and then with the remaining
resources that would have gone to inspecting other LQGs, the state may target inspections to try
to maximize outcomes described in its plan. There would be at least two outcomes for LQGs
from this alternative. One would be reported as amount of waste generated by the facilities
where no violations were found and were therefore being handled properly at the time of
inspection (use BRS numbers to generate this). The second outcome would be amount of waste
that was not being handled properly by facilities at the time of inspection that will now be
handled properly when the facility returns to compliance. This same outcome information could
also be collected and reported for the other entities inspected in lieu of the LQGs under this
alternative.
For example, according to the 2005 BRS, Alabama had 234 LQGs meaning that they
would have to inspect 47 LQGs to meet the current requirement. According to Exhibit 1.1 in the
2005 BRS national report, the total waste generated by the 235 LQGs and Non-LQGs17 was
874,749 tons. Eighty percent of that is 699,799 tons. The top four facilities in Alabama
accounted for 707,692 tons. This means that Alabama could direct up to 43 of its 47 inspections
to facilities other than LQGs.
Outcome measures for Alternative 1
The LQGs inspected should be put into perspective of the state's overall universe.
Additionally, the outcomes should relate to the amount of waste being handled properly. For
example, for Alabama,18 the state inspected four LQGs accounting for 81% of the waste generate
by LQGs in the state. At three facilities that according to the 2005 BRS, generated a total of
17 According to the 2005 BRS national report, Alabama had 234 LQGs and 1 non-LQG for a total of 235 generators.
The 234 number is used for the current LQG universe but the total number is used for the amount of waste
generated.
18 The noncompliance data for Alabama is made up for illustrative purposes.
-30-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix H
673,518 tons of hazardous waste (77% of the BRS waste) no significant violations were
identified at the time of the inspection) and at one facility that according to the 2005 BRS,
generated a total of 34,174 tons of hazardous waste (4% of the BRS waste) the state found that 3
streams of waste were not identified and those streams generate an estimated 50 additional tons
of waste which were not properly handled. Additionally, the state identified 8 drums
(approximately 1.75 tons) of hazardous waste which were not properly marked and at risk for
not being handled properly. No violations were identified at the remainder of the facility, so
there is no evidence that the rest of the 34,174 tons of waste were handled improperly. This
could be summed up as: Out of the four facilities accounting for 707,692 tons (81%) of the waste
generated by LQGs in Alabama in the 2005 BRS, no violations were identified for facility
operations that account for approximately 707,690 tons, 1.75 tons were not being handled
properly at the time of inspection and therefore at risk of improper treatment or disposal but will
now be handled properly, and waste streams accounting for an estimated 50 tons of waste not
previously identified are now identified and will be handled properly as a result of the State's
actions.
The other generators/handlers inspected in lieu of the LQGs (plus any other inspections
the State may want to count) additional outcome measures should be collected and be put into
perspective regarding the portion of the universe and amount of waste that they accounted for (to
the extent that information is easily available) but in any event, the direct outcomes of how much
waste was being handled properly and how much waste was not should be collected in a similar
manner to the LQGs.
Continuing the above example for Alabama, for the 43 inspections, 20 SQGs, 10
CESQGs, 8 transporters and 5 potential non-notifiers were inspected. Then go on to describe for
example, the amounts of wastes generated/handled by each category, what was confirmed to be
handled properly, what was not being handled properly, whether or not the generators were
identified correctly (e.g., 16 of the SQGs were confirmed to be SQGs with no significant
violations and together they generated 34 tons of hazardous waste in the last year, four of the
inspected SGQs were determined to be LQGs generating 300 tons of waste which was not being
sent to a permitted TSD facility but they only reported and properly handled 15 tons of waste,
and 3 of the potential non-notifiers were identified to be SQGs generating 8 tons of waste which
was not being sent to a permitted TSD), etc.
Outcome examples used in Alternative 1 should be used in the remaining alternatives unless the
state identifies additional outcome measures to use.
Alternative 2 - The Greater Than 5 Ton BRS Approach
The largest possible small quantity generator (SQG) can generate 12 metric tons (long
tons) or 13.2 english (short tons). This means that some LQGs can actually generate less waste
-31 -
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix H
than some SGQs since a facility can be an LQG because it had one month where it generated
over one metric ton of waste. The idea under this option is to allow for flexibility in the middle
of the range of where a facility could be and SQG or an LQG. For Alabama, the 2005 BRS "List
of Reported RCRA Sites" file (located at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br05/index.htm) shows that of the 234 LQG
facilities, 206 of them generated greater than 5 tons of waste. That means 42 (20% of 206 = 42)
would need to be inspected to meet the target of inspecting at least 20% of the LQG universe,
leaving flexibility inspections at other handler types equivalent to the resources that would have
gone to inspecting five LQGs. This approach can be applied to the full 2005 BRS universe or
the "stable" BRS universe.
Alternative 3 - The Straight Trade-off Approach
The straight trade off approach (This replaces the 2:1 requirement that existed in the FY
2007 NPM guidance) - This is a straight cut of up to 50% from the requirement to inspect at
least 20% of the LQG universe. In other words, inspect at least 10% of the BRS LQG universe.
For Alabama this means inspecting 24 LQGs (at least 10% of the 234 universe), and then
Alabama could direct the freed up resources (23 inspections if we assume that each substitute
inspection takes as much resources as an LQG inspection) to facilities other than LQGs. Again
the idea is that the level of effort for inspections (personnel and/or $) should remain the same.
So if the each of the alternative facilities inspected only took half the time it takes to inspect the
average LQG then Alabama would inspect 46 other facilities (2:1 trade-off).
-32-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Appendices
Appendix I
Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy (Dec. 2003)
See separate pdf document - or
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/rcra/finalerpl203.pdf
-33 -
-------
% P8Qt^
uw • k> -• t f- >r^ ^'mmmmmjm protection agency
OCT 1 7 2012
MEMORANDUM comply
SUBJECT: Flex i hi lily Implementation Guidance for the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Compliance Monitoring Strategy
sfj / /
FROM: Edward J. Messina, Director f / -- fj; ', */' ¦ >
Monitoring, Assistance, and Media'Programs Division
Office of Compliance
TO: Regional RCRA Enforcement Directors
I tun pleased to announce the availability of the Flexibility implementation guidance as
Appendix J to the Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCR/i) Subtitle C Program (RCRsI CMS). Appendix J provides implementation
guidance to the states and l;PA regions for flexibilities identified in the RCRA CMS. This
guidance will help ensure even applicability of the requirements across the states and EPA
regions. I he guidance provides:
• Directions for alternative inspections at post closure treatment storage and disposal
facilities (TSDFs);
• Basic region/state program criteria for using the large quantity generator (LQG) and
operating TSDF flexibilities:
• Reference to the F£j(i flexibility (Appendix H to the RCRA CMS):
• Directions and additional criteria for substituting focused compliance inspections (FC'Is)
in lieu of compliance evaluation inspections (CHls) at operating TSDFs; and
• Directions for tracking any chosen flexibility in: 1) the annual commitment system's
database, the budget automated system (BAS): and 2) RCRA Info.
If you have any questions regarding the RCRA ('MS or this Appendix to the RCRA CMS, please
contact I'oni Ripp of m\ stuff at (202) 564-7M with v*&m» on Bm*$ inks on too* Pemamswnar. Process WXmm Ftm Recycted Paper
-------
Appendix J
Flexibility Implementation
Background
The EPA Compliance Monitoring Strategy lor the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
{RCRA) Subtitle C Program (CMS) offers specific flexibilities for conducting RCRA core
program inspections to:
• Improve compliance assurance outcomes;
• Help identify non-notifiers/non-reporters and develop a more complete and better defined
RCRA universe;
0 Locate and address currently unknown sources of potential environmental risks; and
e Potentially reduce the cost per inspection.
The areas of flexibility allowed by the CMS include:
• Substituting groundwater monitoring evaluation (GMH) and/or operations and
maintenance (OAM) inspections for compliance evaluation inspections (CEIs) at post-
closure treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) (GMK/OAM flexibility for
post-closure TSDFs);
• Substituting CEIs at large quantity generators (I.QG) with inspections at other types of
RCRA regulated facilities (LQG flexibility); this flexibility is covered in more detail in
Appendix 11 of the CMS; and
• Substituting focused compliance inspections (FCls) for C! .Is at operating TSDFs1 that
have good track records of compliance (FCI/CEI flexibility at operating TSDFs).
In general, the CMS flexibilities ailow states to redirect some compliance monitoring resources
from traditional CEI activities at routinely inspected facilities to inspections that may address
more pressing needs or areas of interest. Recognizing that this diversion of resources may pose
some risk of not finding some potential violations, or not finding potential violations as quickly
at LQGs and TSDFs, the EPA regions, in reviewing state program requests for flexibility, should
consider all of the criteria described in this appendix in order to evaluate a state's ability to
effectively utilize any of the flexibilities.
By evaluating the adequacy of state programs according to these criteria, the EPA regions can
minimize the risk of state programs missing potentially significant violations should the regions
approve use of flexibility. In turn, the use of flexibility will allow state programs to focus on
areas of compliance that may not have been a core program priority, but, nevertheless, may pose
potentially significant threats to human health and the environment.
1 J hc CMS contemplated allowing FCIs in lieu of CEIs at LQGs but that was rejected do to the infrequent
inspections at LQGs.
1
-------
For example, verification that previous state program reviews have determined that the state
program routinely conducts thorough inspections should minimize risk of the state missing
significant violations at I.QGs and TSDFs when utilizing CMS flexibility.
I his appendix provides C.MS flexibilities review and implementation guidance to the regions and
states to help ensure consistency across the regions.
In particular, this appendix:
• Discusses implementation of the GME/OAM flexibility for post-closure TSDFs;
• Discusses criteria for evaluating state RCRA programs to determine if those programs
can effectively use the LQG flexibility and FC1/CE3 flexibility at operating TSDFs;
• Provides implementation guidance/criteria for LQG and TSDF flexibility;
• Provides guidance for tracking which stales are using alternative LQG universe and/or
the FC1/CE1 flexibility for operating TSDFs;
• Provides guidance for those states using the FCl/CKl flexibility at operating TSDFs to
track at which TSDFs the authorized state program has determined an FCf is an
appropriate alternative inspection; and
• Discusses flexibility tracking.
GME/OAM Flexibility for Post Closure TSPFs
States/regions are allowed to implement an alternate inspection plan that varies in type of
inspection and frequency of inspection from the normal CL1 inspection frequency as detailed
below when the TSDF meets the requirements listed below. Because this flexibility provides a
common-sense approach to conducting inspections with limited resources, EPA c.oes not
consider this a flexibility that needs prior approval from the region. Specifically, states may
implement this flexibility without prior notification to, or approval by, their EPA region.
The CMS notes that the federal RCRA statute mandates "thorough" inspections of TSDFs."
Furthermore, the CMS identifies the minimum inspection elements for TSDFs, some of which
include various recordkeeping requirements, site security, and financial responsibility."5
Generally, a "thorough" inspection is performed via a CE1 which is an evaluation of all aspects
of a facility's compliance with applicable regulations and, in the case of TSDFs, the permit.
At TSDFs that are no longer receiving waste but have land-based units that preclude clean
closure of the site, many of the normal CE1 inspection items for TSDFs are not applicable (e.g.,
manifests, contingency plans, personnel training, find waste storage requirements). I Iowcver,
there are still significant regulatory requirements that must be met. The purpose of this guidance
is to identify an approved alternative inspection methodology for TSDFs that arc no longer
receiving waste to assure the RCRA, statutory requirement for a ''thorough'" inspection is met and
2 CMS Section It 1.13.3.
' CMS Section tIt.B.4
2
-------
to comply with the CMS guidance that TSDFs no longer in the operating universe have their
compliance requirements evaluated at least every three years.4
This alternative applies only to "post-closure TSDFs'" which, for the purposes of ihis document
only, means a TSDF that meets all of the following:
1") Has no units receiving waste;
2) f las met all closure requirements of 40 CFR Part 264/265 and the permit;
3) Mas received closure certification from the appropriate regulatory agency (the state
agency in authorized states or the FPA in unauthorized states);
4) 1 las begun the post-closure monitoring period; and
5) Is in substantial compliance with all post-closure monitoring and permit requirements
(i.e., is not SNC).
In general, on-site GMF/OAM evaluations at post-closure TSDFs are performed approximately
every three years. To establish a CHI baseline, during years one through three of the post-closure
monitoring period, the regulatory agency shall perform on-site CEIs each year at post-closure
TSDFs. The CEIs will, in all cases, evaluate compliance with:
• The site security requirements of 264/265.117;
• The financial assurance requirements of 264/265.145; and
• The permit.
In addition, and as applicable to the site, the CHis will evaluate compliance with the
requirements of:
• 40 CFR 264/265.228 for surface impoundments;
• 264/265.258 for waste piles;
• 264/265.280 for land treatment;
• 264/265.310 for landfills:
• 264.603 for miscellaneous units;
• 264/265.1102 for containment buildings; and
• 264/265.1202 for hazardous waste munitions and explosives storage units.
These CEIs will be separate evaluations from any GMH/'OAM evaluations that may
be performed.
At facilities that are in substantial compliance with their post-closure maintenance and
monitoring requirements, it seems most cost-effective in both personnel time and costs that the
physical areas of compliance be evaluated at the same time regulatory agency personnel are on
site for the GMH/OAM evaluation, rather than having two site visits—one for the CE1 every
three years and another for the GME/OAM evaluation. Therefore, during years 4 through 30 of
the post-closure monitoring period, the regulatory agency may incorporate the requirements
4 CMS Section llt.R.3.
3
-------
identified above into GME/OAM evaluations, provided those elements are thoroughly evaluated
and included within the written GME/OAM report.
If the regulatory agency elects to not incorporate the CHI elements into the GME/OAM
evaluation during years 4 through 30, then in accordance with CMS Section 11I.B.3., an on-site
CKi to evaluate those elements must be performed by the regulatory agency a minimum of every
three years.
The regulatory agency shall revert to separate CKI evaluations in accordance with CMS Section
III.B.3. if the facility is determined to be a significant noncomplier (SNC). After the regulatory
agency has changed the RCRAInfo status to indicate that the facility is no longer SNC (the code
for that in RCRAInfo is SNN), the combined inspections may resume.
Basic Region/State Program Criteria for Using the LOG and f Cl/CEI
at Operating TSDF Flexibilities
The CMS notes that the federal RCRA statute mandates "thorough" inspections cf TSDFs.3
Furthermore, the CMS identifies the minimum inspection elements for TSDFs, some of which
include various recordkeeping requirements, site security, and financial responsibility,6
Generally, a "thorough'" inspection is performed via a CEI which is an evaluation of al! aspects
of a facility's compliance with applicable regulations and, in the case of TSDFs, the permit. The
CMS also specifies inspection frequency and minimum inspection elements for TQGs, and notes
that OECA's National Program Managers Guidance (NPMG) specifies that inspections of LQGs
"generally should be CEIs,"7
As mentioned in the CMS, the Off.ce of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance fOECAj wants
to promote national consistency in program implementation while allowing sufficient flexibility
to improve protection of human health and the environment. To this end. OHCA has developed
the following criteria lor the EPA regions to consider when evaluating a state program request to
use CMS flexibilities. While the evaluation of a state's request for flexibility may rely on
information from previous routine state program reviews, the flexibility evaluation is
independent of those reviews since additional factors must be considered that may not have been
covered in the routine reviews. Tc reduce administrative burden, a state should time its request
for flexibility to coincide with annual routine planning discussions.
The following areas must be considered by the EPA regions before allowing a state to utilize
CMS flexibility:
5 CMS Section 1II.B.3.
6 CMS Section HI.B.4
7 CMS' Suction 111 .C. 1 .b.
4
-------
• The state must maintain its authorized RCRA program.
o The region must be kept apprised of significant changes made to the state
program (e.g., staffing, resource levels), as last authorized, and the region
and slate must agree that these changes do not adversely impact the
effective operation of the program.
® The state must maintain a quality RCRA compliance monitoring program
that routinely :
o Fulfills statutory, regulatory, and program grant obligations; and
o Prepares timely inspection reports that include all applicable elements
identified in the RCRA inspector's manual (e.g.. narrative information,
checklists, and documentary support).
• The state program must have achieved satisfactory results from EPA and must not
have been apprised of any performance issues during any formal and informal
oversight activities including:
o SRF review:
o Annual reviews, if applicable;
o Oversight inspections, if applicable:
o Other state program monitoring activities such as regularly scheduled
conference calls or meetings (e.g., these routine calls have not
identified any issues in the state's program or that any issues are being
satisfactorily addressed).
The EPA regions and states should have routine discussions about state program performance.
Whenever a region identifies performance concerns, the region should work closely with that
state to promptly resolve those concerns. State program performance deficiencies should not be
first identified when a state requests flexibility, and performance concerns should not be raised
exclusively during formal reviews such as the SRF, because these formal reviews are infrequent
and limited in scope (e.g., the SRF does not directly address inspection quality). The occurrence
of routine informal discussions between regions and states can be an important factor in
evaluating a state's request to use CMS flexibility.
In addition to meeting the above criteria, a state program that is requesting use of a CMS
flexibility must submit a brief written request (plan) to the EPA region (preferably, in advance of
annual region/state planning discussions) that includes a brief summary of the rationale for
utilizing the flexibility and a description of how the flexibility will be implemented during the
year. At the end of the year, the state program must also submit a brief year-end :*eport that
summarizes outcomes and lessons learned from using the flexibility (more details are provided in
Appendix 11 to the CMS).
It should be noted that flexibility is not renewed automatically every year. For example, if a
state program meets the criteria foi approval by an EPA region, but the state has not submitted
5
-------
the required plan for the upcoming year, or report for any previous year and prov ides no
explanation, then it is expected that the region will revoke the state's use of flexibility until the
deficiencies are corrected and the region is assured that the state will meet the requirements for
submitting a plan and a year-end report. Because the year-end report should identify benefits
achieved by use of a flexibility, as well as any lessons learned, the region should request
additional information if there are questions about whether or not the flexibility is achie\ing the
desired results or, after notilieation to the state, revoke its authority for use of flexibility.
LOG Flexibility
This flexibility (described in detai in Appendix II to the CMS) allows state programs to reduce
the minimum number of annual CZls concluded at LQGs. and to use uneonsumed compliance
monitoring resources to conduct inspections at other facilities (e.g., SQGs. CKSQGs, etc.). This
flexibility includes three (3) pre-approved approaches and the option for a state to propose an
alternative approach that must be approved by KPA prior to implementation, litis flexibility
applies only to a state's obligation for LQG compliance monitoring and not to TSDFs; it also
does not generally apply to other compliance assurance activities (e.g., enforcement, compliance
assistance, or incentives). If a state requests utilization of a pre-approved approach, the region
may approve the slate's request and corresponding required plan without consulting OECA. if a
state requests utilization of an alternative approach, the region must consult with OECA before
approving the stale request and plan.
The three [ire-approved alternative approaches are:
• The 80% Approach;
• The Greater Than 5 Tons BRS Approach; and
• The Straight Trade-Off Approach8.
If a state uses this flexibility (either pre-approved approach or an alternative approach), the state
must document the outcomes of using that approach and review and report the results to the
regions who will then forward copies to OECA. It is expected that if use of this flexibility does
not achieve desired outcomes, the state will reassess its approach and either return to the standard
20 percent LQG inspection requirement or, in consultation with the region, select another
approach.
This flexibility allows FC Is to be conducted in lieu of CEIs at operating 1 SDFs with "good track
records of compliance." Since the RCRA statute requires that "thorough inspections" be
completed with a minimum frequency at 1 SDFs, this guidance establishes criteria to ensure that
KCJs conducted in lieu of (T'.ls at TSDFs are "thorough"" but does not change the frequency at
which inspections must be conducted.
* Refer to Appendix H, Guidance for State Alternative Plata (Flexibility Plans) for RCRA L(Jl! Compliance
Monitoring, where these alternatives are discussed in detail.
6
-------
A CHI is typically an on-site evaluation of the compliance status of a taeiiii> with regard to all
applicable RCRA regulations and permit requirements, The major objective of a CHI is to gain
an overall assessment of facility compliance (sec the description on pages 27 - 28 of the CMS).
Although portions of a CHI may be conducted off-site in an office-based sell nig (e.g., financial
records review), such "office" evaluations can be an integral part of a CEI. As a rale, however,
CEIs arc very time consuming and require a significant allocation of compliance monitoring
resources,
An FCI is an on-site inspection that evaluates some (but not all) specific RCRA and/or
authorized state regulations (e.g.. Subpart C'C of 40 OR Part 264. BIF, or \ umersai Wastet ami
permit conditions. For the purposes of this flexibility, an FCI must focus on any significant
changes implemented at a TSDF since the previous inspection. Inspectors must also evaluate ail
hazardous waste determinations made by the facility, waste profiles pnn ided io the facility by
generators, and be satisfied that the inspection is sufficiently thorough. If the inspector is not
convinced that a FCI will be sufficient to meet the thorough inspection requirement, the
inspector must then proceed with a CEI inspection. It is important to note that an FCI may not
be sufficient, and a CEI may be required, when a facility makes significant plant-wide changes in
multiple processes, operating procedures, wastes produced, etc.
For the purposes of this flexibility, an FCI. when considered with previous CHI inspections at the
facility, is considered a thorough inspection if the following criteria are met:
State Program Criteria,
Refer to the Basic Stale Program Criteria far Utilization of the LOG and! FCI'CEI TSDF
Flexibilities in this appendix.
TSDF Criteria.
As stated in the CMS, once a regicn/state has become adequately familiar with a E'SDF. and has
established that the Caciiilv has a good track record of compliance, an 1 CI may be substituted for
a CHI by the region/state provided the following criteria are met:
• At least two CEIs (meeting the description on pages 27 - 28 of the CMS) must
have already been conducted at a facility before an FCI can be substituted for
a CEI.
• The facility must not have received a formal enforcement action as a result of the
most recent CEI.
• The facility must not be identified as a current significant non-complier (SNC).
An F( 1 may be allowed at a facility where there is injunctive relief, such as a
Consent Order or another formal mechanism, in place to address prior violations.
FCI Criteria - Frequency.
When used in conjunction with CEIs, FCls can be an important component of an efficient and
effective compliance monitoring program, It is important that a region/state maintain adequate
7
-------
familiarity with a TSDF through the measured use of FCIs. As such, an FCI may only be
substituted for a CEI when the following criteria arc met:
• FCIs may only be substituted for CFIs twice cons ecu Lively.
• A CEI must be conducted following renewal of a facility permit.
• A CEI must be conducted following the change of a facility owner or operator.
• A CHI must be conducted following a significant change in process, operating
procedure, production, or the wastes generated or managed at a facility, etc.
FCI Criteria - Minimum Inspection Elements.
When an FCI is conducted at a TSDF in lieu of a CEI. the FCI shall, at a minimum:
® Determine if financial assurance requirements are met;
© Determine if all wraste streams have been identified and properly characterized.
and all hazardous waste streams are being handled properly;
o Evaluate facility operations to determine if any process changes have occurred at
the facility since the last inspection that would affect hazardous waste
management practices;
• Spot check facility compliance with the regulations and permit requirements for
those areas that have not changed.
Flexibility Tracking
Alternate Universe for LQGs.
Because the generator universe can change on a monthly basis, and because there are no
requirements for generators to notify EPA of changes in their status to EPA, OECA recognizes
that the universe data for generators contained in RCRAinfo may not be up-to-date or accurate.
Therefore, as a default, the most recent Biennial Report is used to determine the I .QCt universe
for the Annual Commitment System (ACS) and State Review Framework (SRF) coverage
purposes. If the state wishes to use what it believes is a more accurate universe, and the region
agrees, the region must report this to OECA by using the comment field in the Budget
Automation System (BAS) when entering ACS bids for the next fiscal year. The region should
identify the state that is using the alternate universe number and identify what the alternate
number is.
Post-Closure TSDFs.
Currently, there are no special tracking requirements for post-closure TSDFs. RCRAinfo
already has the capability of identifying which TSDFs are post-closure.
LQG Flexibility.
ACS Tracking:
If a region allows a state to use this flexibility, the region must enter the following into the
comment field in BAS when the region enters its bid for the RCRA02.S measure:
8
-------
• The slate that will be using flexibility;
• The option that the state chose (one of the prcapproved or a state developed
alternative); and
• The projection of LQG and other facility inspections (numbers and types of
facilities) that the state will conduct in lieu of the standard 20 percent of the
LQG universe.
Additionally, the region must forward a copy of the state's plan to the chief of the Pesticides.
Wastes and Toxics Branch (PWTB) in the Monitoring. Assistance, and Media Programs Division
(MAMPD) in the Office of Comp iancc. At the end of the year, the region must forward a copy
of the state's end of year report to PWTB.
RCRAlnfo Tracking,
The region/state using this flexibility shall use the commitment utility link in RCRAlnfo. The
commitment should be identified as "LQG flexibility facility."' Then, any facility identified in
the LQG flexibility plan as being inspected in lieu of an LQG for the LQG ACS commitment
should be linked to this commitment when the inspection is entered into RCRAlnfo. For more
information on adding and linking commitments, please see the RCRAlnfo help menu (found at
the top right hand corner of the main menu).
FCI/CEI at Operating TSBF Flexibility
ACS Tracking:
If a region or authorized state is allowed to use this flexibility, the region must identify the state
in the comment field of BAS when it enters the bid for the RCRAOl.s measure. Additionally,
the state must identify all the TSDFs that meet the requirements for allowing an TCI in place of a
CEI which the state intends to inspect. The state will manually report these facilities to the
region and the region will forward the list to PWTB.
RCRAlnfo Tracking:
The region/state using this flexibility shall use the commitment utility link in RCRAlnfo. The
commitment should be identified as "TSDF flexibility facility." Then any facility identified in
the TSDF flexibility plan as being inspected with an FCI in lieu of a CEI for the TSDF ACS
commitment should be linked to this commitment when the inspection is entered into RCRAlnfo.
For more information on adding and linking commitments, please sec the RCRAlnfo help menu
(found at the top right hand comer of the main menu).
9
------- |