.- 

# . 

# •

' 

### State/EPA Enforcement Agreement Hazardous Waste Program 

### August 14, 1990 The J)\.fPOSS c:Athisagreemert isto aidthe state federal govemmert in achieving and maintaining a highlevel c:A compliance withenvironmernal laws and regulations, As an authorized state, Washington hasprimaryresponsibility for compfJance and erlorcemert actionS to ensure comptarce with RCRA and the state hazardous wastelaw. EPA retains responsibinty to ensll'e fairand effective erlorcemert offederal requiremerts and a crediblenational deterrenceto 

### noncompflance, To haveaneffective state/federal partnershipto**accom~** thesegoals, agreement on thefollowing areas must be reached and implemerted. A. Oversigtt Performance Criteria 

### B. Oversigtt Protocol C. Crleria for DirectFederal Action D. Advance NotllC8tion andConsultation E. Tmely and Appropriate EnforcemertAction F. Inspection Procedlles G. State Reporting A. Oversigtt Criteria and Measures DerIDing Performance The following shaftbe used

### as theerlorcemert and compliance performance measures and the crleria by whichoversight shall be conducted by EPA. 

# • 1. Compliance/enforcemert performance will be measured by determining I the State EnforcemertPoficy and Guidefines areconsistertwith EPA EnforcemertResponse (December, 1987) and RCRA Civi Penalry PoflCY (May. 1984), and by determining I the state isfollowing and implemerting ks State Enforcemert porlCY and Guidefines (see attachmert 1) as resoorces aDow. 2. CompfJance/enforcemert performance wiD be measured by determining 

## rthe state is meeting the criteria descrD:>ed inthe annuaJ StatelEPAAgreemert(SEA), the National·Criteriafor aQuality HazardousWaste ManagemertProgram (June, 1986), the RCRNState Oversigtt InspectionGuide(December, 1989), the Federal Facifrties Compfiance Strategy (November, 1988) and the RCRA Program Evaluation Guide(Jilt, 1988). In using the performance measlXes inthese doclI'nents, responsiveness to aIYlUaI wOO< programcompr&ance and erlorcemert priorties wiD be me3SlWed. The U.S. EPAOperatingYearGuidance (OYG) estab6shes specifIC program priorties. The following crleria wi be usedto measlI'e performance by EPA intheirroleas oversigtt agency and erlSlri1gfairand effective erlorcemert and

### comprl3llC8. 1. Whenthe staterequests EPA enforcemert actionand EPA agrees to provide such aetior\ EPA responds withatimelyand appropriateaetior\ consjstertwiththe National RCRA Enforcemert ResponsePo&cv. 2. EPA adheres to theoversigtt procedll'es and protocoldescri>ed inthis documert inconduetilg theiroverslgtt responsiblities. 

# • 3. Whenthe staterequests technicalassistancefor erlorcemert, and EPAagrees to provide such assistance. EPAresponseIstrnely and effeetNe.

1

# · B. Oversigtt Procedures and Protocol 

# G

EPA and the state wi adhere to the folowing: 1. The purposes ofoversigtt nspedions are several; to assess the qualityand completenessofstate inspections, including both procedural and tectvlicaJ aspects; to determinefacUity compliancewith regulatoryand permit requirements; to exchange normation, thereby strengthening state/EPArelations, and to increasettie levelofprofICiency state and EPAinspectorsthrough constructive feedback. 2. Crleria that willbe used to selectfacilities for oversigtt inspections include: suspicion violations, urYesoNed violations, nature that.violations, statusand

. type facility,.status permit actions, status groundwaterrnonlorilg, status cIoslIe/post-doslxe, suspicion contiruingor prior releases, and state inspection, scheduUng. 3. EPAwill conduct oversigtt inspections on approximately ten percent the evaluation inspections scheduled through the amuaJ work program. l1lis percentage maybe changed as a resul ofstate/EPA strategicplanning exercises, or changes in the OYG. Federalilspection work will generaDy be completed in concert with.state persomel However,oversigtt work mayinclude independent field inspections atfacilitiesrecertty nspected by state personhel - (Note: State willbe notfl8d ildependent EPAnspections). 4. EPAwill scheduleoversigtt inspections, consistent with state inspectionschedules, 

# 0 according to procedlles outlined in the Memorandum Agreement. Oversigtt nspections, to the extentpossible, willbe everlt dispersedthroughoc.1 the year and ttvougholJ the state to en5lXea representativesampDng compliance/enforcementreview. 5. General

## maria for EPA'sevaluation ofcompliance nspection performanceinclude: the level regulatoryknowledge, abilityto obtain and evaluate normatlon. application appropriate regulatoryrequirements. appropriatedetermination faciity type, fielddoc\.mentatiOn practices. procedural aspects inspections, adequacy tectvlical reviews, post-hspection documertation practices (nspection fincfngs and report content). and elements fieldpresence (preparedness, effeeweness. etc.). 6. EPAwill ensile that oversigtt inspections are conducted by experienced

. knowtedgeablenspectors and that nspectors have reviewed files, plans. and permits and adequatelyfamiliarized themsetveswith the facility/handler operations priorto conducting the oversigtt nspectlon. In sluations where EPAdesires,with state

### concurrence, to usejointInspections withthe state as a training mechanismfor EPA staff, these inspectlons·shaIbe so defined astraining nspections and wiD not be considered oversigtt inspections, 7. The EPAilspector's role in oyersigtt Inspectionsis to gail knowledge state Inspectionpractices, capabifity, and thOl"ougMess, as wei as to determile faeRy

# (~) compliance. Specfic arrangemerts betweenthe state and federalilspectors wi be agreed l4lOO priorto the ale ilspection. The state i'lspectorwi be the lead InspectordtRlg an oyersigtt inspectionwhere Inspectorsfrom both agencies are presert. The EPA InspectorwiI aetNeIy**~e** 

### crit as necessaJyto cIarIy
2

# • Issues, evaluate violative practices, docunert findings, and otherwise compiete the inspection. In coordinating oversigtt inspections, the state and EPA are expected to exercise

## common courtesy, tad and professional behavior. Suggestions for inspection inprovemert wiD not be provided untilafterthe inspection

### Iscompleted. 8.

9. • After an oversigtt inspection, the state inspectorwiD transmitto the EPAInspector a

### copyofthestate's inspection report no laterthan 30 Working daysfollowilg the inspection, unless adifferert timeframe is agreed upon by both parti9s. For inspections irwoMng laboratory reports, afollow-up report containingthe Iaboratoty resuls wDI be providedwhen the results are completed. No laterthan 20working days after EPAreceives the state inspector's report, EPA wiD prepareawrtten evaluation report stating itsfindings and Slbmlthis to the stateaJongwitha

### copyof EPA's inspection report. Exceptions to this timeframe 

### may occur

### r agreedupon by both EPAand the state. These" reports should be sart to Ecology's Hazardous Waste Program Manager. The evaluation reports wi be used to assess the quality of, and identifyand correct problemswlh, the compliance inspection program. 

# • 10. The stateand EPA

### may jointly issueadministrative orders, eitherconsertorders or . ordersthat may be appealed, when both the Stateand EPA agree thatthis wi be the mosteffective use ofagency resources or 8uthorlies. In such cases the state wiD usuaJIy issue afroJ applicable penalties. C. Criteriafor Direct Federal Action The following descri:>esthe situations underwhich direct federal action

### may OCCIX. 1. The lackoftimely and/or appropriate state enforcemert asdefll'led i"Ithe state EnforcemertResponse poncy. 2. A casewhere the statehas Issued adeflCiert penalty[Le., belowthe minimLmlevel providedinstateenforcemert guide6nes withoti acceptablejustl'1C8tionfor such a deviation). 3. A requestfrom the state for EPAertorcemert action. 4. Wherethere areviolations ofan EPAorder or consert decree. 5. In consuIlation with the state, wherethere areviolations ofnationalsignificance or whereiter-state issuesare inYaNed.


# • D. 6. VIOlations ofHazardousand So&d Waste Amendmerts of 1984**~A)** and federal rules promUgated pursuart to HSWA, for whichthe state isnotauhorized. AdvanceNotification'and Consultation A policyof'No Surprises' wi be applied to aI aspects ofthe compliance and enforcemert program covering inspections, enforcemert aetNlies, press releases and publicinformation. Toguarartee ample advancenotTlCationthe followi"lg wi be done:

31. AI coordination, notifICation and reporting requiremerts stated Inthe final 

# 0**~horization** MOAwil be followed by both the state and EPA. 2. The state and EPAshaI use quart9fti c:onaminated sle meetngsto wth each otherand verly compliance and erforcemert ci'cunstances priorto EPA Initiating at'rfoverfile enforcernert action This,should be done when a case is being consideredfor overfiJe and priorto at'rfformal action being drafted. These meetings'will have written'agendas(developed with inpll from boththe state and EPA) available to the state and EPA10working days In advanced the scheduled meeting.date. The rssuls d these meetings wiD be doclmerted In writing and available to the state and EPA20 wort<ing days foDowing the meeting. EPAand the statewiD alternatelytakethe lead In prepamg agendas and meeting documentation The meetings wi be held alternatelyat state and EPAofficeS. 3. EPAshaD notifythe state priorto taking action on a pending overfileaction. Except In cases of imminent or substantial endangermert to health aIY:JJorthe envirorvnert, such prior notice shaI 0CC\6 at least 15wort<ing days In advance. This notifICation wiD be provided to the state Solid and Hazardous WasteProgram Manager. EPAshould also provide normal notice to the involvedstatestaffas wel During the 15day period, EPAand the statewitconsul il good falh 

### regarong an appropriate enforcemert action il leu ofthe potential EPAoverfie action Ifatthe end of 15wOl1dng days EPA is satisfiedwith steps taken by the statetoward 

# O· appropriate enforcement action, EPAwillnottake independert RCRA erforcemert action 4. When EPA orthe state has complianceilformation relevant to a

### pehcfng or issued enforcemert action on afacinty

### beng inspected or pennilted underthe State/EPA Agreemert Work Program (e.g., lab data, consUllart reports, complance foIow· ups, manifest discrepancy reports, etc.),they wiD sharethat ilformation as 

### necessary il atimelyand responsiblemamer. 5. Upon advance request state and federalcompnance files areopen for reviewat arrttime to appropriatecompflancepersomeI withconsideration forerforcemert and/or conf'ldentiaI business ilformation restrictions. 6. Prior to at'rfpress releases by eitherthe state or EPA relatedto joirt eriorcemert efforts or EPAoverfile actions, advanceconsultationwlh the other party shaI OCCll'. Each,partywiD be apprised d whatis pIamed to be saidInthe press releaseand given the opportll'lityto part;cipateil a combined pressrelease. Where possible, combined press releases are encouraged. Coordilation and prior notice on press releasesis the responsibility c:Athe agency public ilformation offJC9rs. AJ leastttvea days notice wi be given priorto a press release. E. TmeJv and Appropriate Enforcemert Action It is understood thatthe State wi address

### at violationsd the Dangenxs and

. Hazardous Waste Regulationswlhin the state's**~1Ction.** The State

## agrees to

take tlmett and appropriate erlorcemert action consistertwlh the crlaria 

# 0 establishedIn EPA'sEnforcemert Response Poicy andWashi'lgton'. §t!t! Erloreemert Poley and Guide6nes. AI tigh priortyviolators, asdefined Inthe

4

# •

F. State Enforcemert por!CV and Guideranes and EPA'sEnforcemert Response Policy, wi be issued formal enforcemert actions wlh penalties**~hin** 135days. Inspection Procedures Ecology wal follow InspectionProcedures asoutlined in Solidand Hazardous Waste Program Procedure, Procedure3-9 Hazardous Waste**Ins~ions.**



# • G. Reporting Thestate agrees to classify and reportviolators, inClucflllQ highpriorityviolators, in accordance**wit~** the StateEnforcement Pof!cy and Guidelines and EPA's Enforcement ReSponse POrlCy. AD stateinspection and erlorcemertaetivity is to be reportedby the stateinto the EPA HWDMS data base (or RCRIS as appropriate) using the CMELtorm (orRCRIS foonswhen developed). CMEL's are tobe submitted on the 20thofeverymorth and

## wm hclude aD inspectionand enforcement activitycompletedthe previoUs morth. Ecologyis responsiblefor the accuracy of the CMELdata EPAis responsible forthe accuracy ofdata ertty into HWOMS (or RCRIS). The state willnot receive 

### arr; crecflt for

### arr; compliance or ertorcement activitythatis not reportedaccuratettto the EPAdatasystem The state willtransmit to EPAwithin30 working daysofthe inspection, 

### Orwithinthe altematett agreed upontimeframe, copiesof inspection reportsand at'If accompanying infoonal.aetions for

### an land dIsposal facilities, federalfacilities and forfaculties receivingoff·site CERCLAwasteslistedin the SEAworkprogram Similarly, EPAwilltransmit to the state within30working daysofthe inspection, or within the alternatett agreed-upon timeframe, copiesof.inspection reports for federal, state and IocaJfaculties orfacilities receiving off·sle CERCLAwaste. In adOllion, 

### uponissuancethe statewm provideEPAwithcopies of 

### at stateissued administrative orders and penalties and EPAwill providethe state with copies of

## aa EPA issued administrative orders and penalties.



# • Approved**_~'--..:..-** _ Representative, Departmeft of Ecology

5

### Attachment 1 Revised Dangerous Waste Enforcement Response Guidelines August 8, 1989

\1--(,:::. 

## cloLU-(\LQ...,,--,'t- 

# "'-0...os 

# bsL9..." &

## u....~.e.-~d.**\-\G..'2..Qrdou-~** uJa..<:>D1

## '\D~.\<-S

# ~J~ 0,... 

## iVro

# ",,(,<1~ 's

# ~",-&>(<:-e.~...t

# Su.:, d.-e1' I"U-

### "> (d<\.\ 

### 0.-\

### ne-cl- ',,, 

# ,p..\l

# ~"- <1 "- CD

## &- 

# --th>- 

# Pro)

# <'''-~**~~ ~p**  \;"'" 

# s-=-h:{\

# 006 '\n. \he. 

# '00\1 e. i'"Y'-

### bt,v

## S \

# ~q 5 

## A-V"-

# ~o-r \

# '"Z-O--~ e.--

- . I

# f'\f'~ \\

# co-r-0>" ' - 

# o

o



# o

# • lrosra, Specific Cuideline•• pans.tgu. 

# V,.t. 1. Purpose This enforcement guideline is to be used as a tool by dangerous waste staff and enforcement officials**(-enfor~ment** 

### personnel-) in their decision-making process. The guideline will help ensure that a logical. fair and effective state enforcement process occurs toward acts**of,~on.** 

### compliance with the state's dangerous waste laws and regulations

- Chapters 10.105 and 10.105A RCV and Chapter 113-303 YAC. Toward this goal, this guideline will delineate the state's enforcement authority and provide internal operating**guidanc~** 

### for determining categories of violation and the associated timely and appropriate enforcement response.



# •

• 2.

3. 

### Authority Under the provisions cf RC\.1 70.105.080, and .095, the Department has been given the authority to take enforcement action against any violator of the state's dangerous waste laws and regulations. This authority includes the ability to levy civil penalties up to a maximum of $10,000 per day of non-compliance per violation, require compliance with the regulations, and impose penalties for non-compliance with such orders

. In no case should other enforcement authority be substituted when the violation is clearly a dangerous waste Violation. Provision is also made for appeal of departmental actions to the Pollution Control Hearings Board by the directly affected party. RCV 10.105.090 makes certain violations a gross misdemeanor and provides for criminal sanctions. Additionally, Section 15 of rnitiative 91 amended Chapter 10.105 RCV to**p~ovide** 

### for strict liability for knowing endangerment of persons or property and such offenses constitute a felony. Under the authority of Chapter 10.l05A Rew, the Department may also assess civil penalties up to $500 per day for failure to pay dangerous waste management fees assessed by the department. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has authorized the Oepartment of Ecology primary responsibility for administering the RCRA program. Administration includes enforcement of the program. Inter- -agency agreements are developed regularly; these documents further outline respective roles Ind responsibilities. (See Supplemental Guidance) Operatlnl Cuidance This guidance specifies that enforcement personnel conduct a two-step thought process.' The first step in the process is to evaluate and classify the violation(s) irrespective of any other circumstance. which may exist. The second .tep require. enforcement personnel to analyze pertinent information in order to select an appropriate enforcement action. The latter analy.is further delineate. what appropriate level of enforcement should be taken. Civen this structure. enforcementpersonnel are able to**~quitably** enforce the**Dangero~s ~aste**  Regulations. Illustration A outlines the enforcement flow process.
a. Violation**Categori~s** Each instance of non-compliance will be categorized**~epending** upon**:h~** seriousness of the violation. Violations will be classified into tAo categories: Class I and Class 11. Class I violations are those**~hich** e·ither result. or could result in an imminent threa: 

### :0 human health and/or the environment. Class·I violations are instances of non. compliance which could result in a failure to: (1) ensure dangerous waste is destined for and delivered to an authorized :reatment.**Stor3£~** or disposal facility (TSDF); (2) prevent releases of hazardous**~~ste** or constituents both during the active and any post·closure periods of thr. entity's operation where appropriate; (3) ensure early detection of releases; or (4) perform emergency cleanup operation or other correc:i\'r. action for releases. 1 Class 11 violations encompass all violations which would not be considered Class 1. They are general Violations of an administrative nature or lesset environmental hazard. Appendix A provides examples of Class I and**Clas~** 11 violations. b. Discretion Factors Once the classification of the specific violation has been completed, other pertinent information must be evaluated.**Infor~ation** relative to Congressional or Legislative requirements, the risk posed by the**~aste,** severity of violation, the entity'S action including compliance history. available agency resources, and the impact that any action would have on**~he** regulated community. Essentially, enforcement personnel must evaluate the full range of factors which come into play. The followir.g are noteworthy discretionary factors which are to be considered in addition to those on Page Section III of this manual. Legislative Requirements . To evaluate Congressional or Legislative intent. enforcement personnel

must first examine whether the particular violation(s) is a specific**sta~utory** requirement. Further analysis should then be done to assure the requirement is a high enforcement priority. Please note: enforcement personnel should examine whether the infraction constitutes a statutory violation. (Discretion is only permissible in cases vhtch do not involve statutory requirements.) EnvironmentalfHealth Risk 

# o



# o

To evaluate the risk posed by the waste, enforcement personnel should address the following questions: lJhat is the quantity of waste? \-'hat 11 the toxicity persistence or carcinogenicity of the waste? How lI!uch

tror purposes of this guidance, all Class 1 violations are cons Ide red ·Significant-, and thus are subject to formal enforcement. 

# ()

# •

•

• 3 of a threat or potenti.l thre.t to human health or the environment would be posed by this waste (and the violation)? Does the waste pose a short term (i.e., explosion) or long term (i.e., carcinogenic) risk? Compliance History/Degree of Cooperation Enforcement personnel should evaluate the entity's compliance history, i.e., has the entity had a record of non-compliance which could be characterized as chronic or recalcitrant? In addition, enforcement personnel should examine the action(s) the entity has taken to either correct or aggravate the situation. Questions to consider are: Has**th~** 

### entity been informed about the regulatory requirement? (Note: information may have been presented in an educational format, assistance from Ecology, or in the form of past enforcement action.) Has the entity complied with prior enforcement actions? How quickly did the entity respond to correcting violations noted (either during or prior :0 

### the inspection)? and what financial incentives exist (or existed) to continue to violate? Resources Evaluation of available department resources must be done ·in consultation with management. Any recommendation to limit an enforcement response should be done with supervisory consultation (Section Supervisor). Supervisors are responsible for apprising the Program Manager if resource constraints are significantly impacting their ability to implement this guidance. Impact on the Regulated Community Enforcement personnel must evaluate the impact a particular action would have on both the entity and the regulated community. Personnel must question whether an enforcement action would bring about a behavioral change (toward complying with environmental laws) on both the entity and the regulated community. Personnel should question whether a particular enforcement action would act as a deterrent against improper action by the regulated community. (Note: this evaluation need not be done in every action, but should be raised occasionally for discussion with management.) )

c. Enforcement Options Enforcement personnel shall consider the full range of enforcement options available and choose the type(s) of action which will achieve, in a fair manner, full compliance with the dangerous waste laws and regul.tions. The**r~nge** 

### of actions will span from informalenlorcement to pursuit of criminal sanctions. The goal of the chosen action should be to achieve compliance and deny any economic benefit realized by the entity. Informal Action.

- Informal action can take the for. of , verbal**~arning** 

### or noting of the violation during the inspection, or • Varnlnl or

# o Compliance Letter. When Yarning or COllpliance Letters are 

### utilized, written confirmation by the entity that compliance has been achieved is required. Administrative Actions

- Administrative actions include: (unilateral) Orders which require compliance with laws or regulations. payment of penalty or both. Consent Agreements. Permit Revocation or Permit Denial, Termination of Interim Status, or Permit-by-Rule. (Note: Notice of Penalty should be a separate document.) Consent Agreements include: Consent Orders, Memorandum of Understanding or Intei-Agency Agreements (Public agencies).

. These latter two actions should be drafted to state they are formal actions. Using a Consent Agreement is totally within the discretion of Ecology management and generally will be used only with public entities. Consent Agreements should be done when compliance will be expedited. Judicial Actions

- Ecology may request the Office of the Attorney Ceneral to file a Judicial action in Superior Court. Criminal Action

- \lben Willful, knowing or grossly negligent violations occur, Criminal Sanctions shall be considered. The Enforcement Section, Central Programs should be consulted for further guidance when 

# 0 considering criminal action. (See Supplemental Cuidance • '**Cri~inal** 

### Investigation Referrals and Procedures) d. Option Selection Once the violation(s) has been classified and the possible responses identified, a Recommendation for Enforcement2 

### should be developed.**~ost** 

### Recommendations should suggest a comprehensive action. The Recommendation should identify the logic used in recommending a particular response. It should clearly identify why the chosen action is appropriate. In addition, the Recommendation should include the compliance timeframe the action will establish. In general, issuing formal action is appropriate for Class I violations. However, discretion factors must be considered. Informal actions should never be issued when there is 

### an actual or imminent threat to hUJJJan. health or the environment. In certain instances, formal actions with penalties must be issued. Full implementation of this guidance may be limited by resource availabilit,. CircUJJJstances warranting formal

2See Section -' 

### Enforcement Supplemental Guidance on Preparation of Recommendation for

# ••



# •

• 5 action occur when the entity': o Has caused actual exposure or a substanti.l likelihood of**rele~s~** 

### of dangerous waste or dangerous waste constituents; or
o Is a chronic or recalcitrant violator (Entities who have been found to have numerous Class 1 or Class 11 violations on moa t

### h

..:". three separate occasions should be considered chronic. This can include instances where either Ecology should have been apprised of a particular situation or cross program violations exist. This does not precIude identifying an entity as chronic or r ec al e Ltrant on the second occasion); or
o Substantially deviates from the terms of a permit or order by no: meeting the requirements in a timely manner and/or by failing to perform work as required by terms of permits, Notice of

. Deficiency, or Order. (The impact from this deviation would result in significant ·slippage· in a schedule or a likelihood for potential for harm.); or
o Substantially deviates from RCRA and 70.105**RC~** 

### statutory requirements

. Issuance of a formal action to an entity who satisfies the above requirements achieves several goals. These goals are: (1) 

### Compliance will be achieved as quickly as possible; (2) An economic disincentive (i.e., penalty) will be imposed in as short a timeframe as possible; and (3) A message of the importance of complying with environmental law will be communicated to the regulated community. Appendix B provides examples of recommended enforcement responses. Note: One goal of developing a Recommendation for Enforcement is 

### :0 develop a priority system for enforcement of various entities. The system ensures the most significant violations and entity evaluations will probably satisfy the criteria of requiring formal enforcement. Based on historical national statistics, 

### 10·20' of entity evaluations have required formal enforcement. Enforcement personnel should compare the information from various evaluations to determine which violators pose the greatest risk to the environment. (The expected percentaae does not reflect either a Quota or limit for formal enforcement,)
e. Penalty Uhen a violation leads to the assessment of a penalty, the follOWing guidelines apply

.

'These circWlsunces satisfy the federd definition of a -High Priorit)· Violator-6 1. Ceneral Rules: A penalty can be assessed per violation or for groups of violations. This means that there can be multiple penalties issued against an**enti~v** in anyone civil action. In addition, a single action on the part of

. the entity may result in several violations. Penalties for these violations may be separated or combined. A penalty can be assessed per day. However, this option will not**al~ov$** be applied. Per day assessment of penalty should occur only when it**i~** possible to specifically document the period of noncompliance. Staff should also consider whether there exists a major potential for harm. or whether a violator has been clearly recalcitrant in complying with other enforcement actions, in deciding whether to assess on a per do: basis. The Notice of Penalty**n~eds** to clearly identify the conouct which**caus~d** the violation, the regulatory requirement(s) violated, and the final penalty amount. Reference to a chosen amount for each violation must only be in internal documents (i.e., Recommendation for Enforcement). 

### 2. Determination of Penalty Amount: 

### A penalty vill be assessed using the ranges identified belov for each category of Violation. Enforcement personnel should first examine whether the factors presented in the Section 3.b. (Discretion Factors) of this manual vould classify the entity as a High, Medium or tov enforcement priority. For each violation, personnel should then choose within the range. Finally, personnel should evaluate both the violation-by-violation assessment and the total penalty in light of the situation to assure a fair and equitable process. . 

# c

o

[actors High Medium Class 

### I $6,000 • 10,000 $3,000

. 6,000 $1,000 • 3,000 Class II $3,000 • 6,000 $1,000

- 3,000 $0 . 1,000 Note: Penalty assessment to the statutory maximum may be appropriate for any violation in certain circumstances. Note: Penalties for failure to pay assessed hazardous waste management fee is a maximum of $500 per day and a minimum of $100 per day. For additional guidance: Supplemental Enforcement Cuidelines for Civil Penalties, T8D) 

# o

# • 7 

### F. Timeframes The timeframe for the response depends upon the type of action to be issued. In most instances. the timeframe discussed below**sho~ld** 

### be followed. (Approximately 

### 10' of the enforcement cases will warrant exceeding the suggested timeframe. Situations**include~** 

### resource**l~mitations.** 

### coordination with other**media/agenci~s** 

### is necessary.**~tc.)** 

### Violation discovery date is the date the enforcement personnel determir.e that a violation exists and finalized documentation (usable in court) is available or the first day after the evaluation which shows that a compliance date established in a prior action has not been met. Vherever practical. 

## !ll actions issued should require compliance**bYr~he** 

### entity within 90 days of the action. Deviations from this schedule may be necessary when substantial physical construction is needed.

Administrative Actions Yarning Letter 30 - 90 

# • Action Type Time to Issuance (calendar days) Compliance Required (calendar davs} 

## o - 90
Penalty only O-lOK 30 90**~lOK** 60 90 

### Order and penalty' O-lOK 45 • 90**~lOK** 60 . 90 

### NA NA


## o - 90 

## o - 90



# • Judicial referrals should be conducted in as expeditious a timeframe as possible. Enforcement personnel must immediately contact the Attorney Ceneral's Office when considering referring an action. the referral package should be developed as quickly as possible. generally in less than 90 days.
4. Supplemental Cuidance

a. Memorandum of Agreement, Department of Ecology and United States Environmental Protection Agency (Date) b. Criminal Investigations • Referrals and Procedures (Date)
c. Enforcement Cuidelines for Civil Penalties (Date) d. Preparation of Recommendation for Enforcement (Date) 'Timeframe for issuance of zero penalty (Order only) 11 

### identicalAppendix A Violation Classification !xa=ples The follo""ing Appendix is a list of violations and their recommended response. The list is provided to serve as exa=ples of violations. It is not comprehensive, nor vill all circumstances of these violations warrant the recommended classification. Professional judgement must be used. (Interim**sta~us** standards 173-303-400 may also be applicable.) Class I Spills or discharges ,to the environment or public health incident (173-303- 145) Significant and immediate loss of environmental resources (RCY 70.10S)**Opera~ion** of a land disposal facility after Nov. 8, 1988, without adequate financial assurance and certification was not submitted (Statutory requirement). Actual or imminent discharge of hazardous substances or dangerous or extremely hazardous waste to the environment (173-303-145). 

# o

Failure to determine if a vaste generated is hazardous under either the 

# 0 \, Federal or state lists/characteristics or state mixtures. For state-only waste, prior testing of the ...,aste ...,as not required (173-303-070). Failure to utilize the manifest system for transportation (173-303-l80). Failure of • generator to send vaste to a properly permitted treatment/storage or disposal facility (TSDF) (173-303-200). Gross failure of a generator to comply vith the 90 (or 180) day storage requirements (173·303-200 or 173-303-201). Operating vithout a permit or interim status (173-303-280,-800,-805, and 806). Failure to prevent the unknown entry or prevent pOSSibility of unauthorized entry of persons, wildlife, or livestock into the waste management area of a facility**(173-30)~)10).** Failure to develop a vritten inspection plan (173-303-320). Failure to conduct training; lack of proper waste management practices is evident (173-303-330). Failure to develop a contingency plan (173-303-350). Failure to have the emergency equipment designated in the contingency plan either**on~sit.** or in proper vorking order and no comparable substitute 

# 0 equipment exists (173-303-360). ' Failure to maintain/or substantial deviation froD an adequate (approved) closure plan (173-303·610).

# •

•

• Appendix A; Pg. 2 Faiture to establish or maintain financial assurance for closure and/or post. closure care (173·303·620). Failure to install or maintain adequate groundwater monitoring**(173.303.6~~).** 

### Failure to obtain and analyze samples from all wells comprising the requir.d monitoring system as required by/via regulation, correspondtnce and/or**p~:~i~** 

### (173·303·645). Failure to develop and maintain at the facility a groundwater sampling and analysis plan (173·303·645). Inadequate freeboard to prevent overtopping (surface impoundment or tank)(li3. 303-640 or -650). Class II Failure of a facility to provide notice of transfer of ownership; financial requirements are satisfied (173·303·060). Incorrectly classifying a listed waste as a characteristic waste when recycling exclusions, land ban requirements, etc. do not apply and waste handling techniques, including compatibility do not change when the waste is properly classified (173·303·070). Failure to accurately complete any portions of the manifest which are not related to waste description or designation (173·303-180). Not specifically stating the words -Hazardous Yaste- on the container, but other markings indicate the material is a dangerous waste and the date of accumulation is clearly stated (173·303·190). Failure to submit the annual report on time (173·303·220). Failure to provide notice on international shipments(173-303·230). Inadequate documentation of training; verification that training has occurred is possible (173·303·330). Failure to provide a description of the arrangements with local authorities (173-303-350). Omissions in the operating record; omissions would not impair the facility's ability to properly handle waste or respond to emergencies (173-303-380). Failure to include the expected year of closure when using the financial test (173-303-620)

. Failure to analyze for all of the parameters as required, except when implementing a detection system and at least four (4) quarters of data have been collected as required, and the parameter(s) omitted are not indicator parameters (173-303-64S).Appendix • Example Situations EX.A,,"1PLE 1 Inspector Clouseau conducted an inspection of Uasteland Inc. Uasteland operates a storage facility ina rural area of Podunk , UA. Prior to conducting the inspection, Inspector Clouseau examined the facility files. Prior inspection reports noted manifest violations, failure to meet genera:**inspe~tion** requirements, failure to designate an emergency coordinator, and several unlabeled drums. A Compliance Letter had been issued to the facil::v· the facility had certified that all violations noted had been corrected.

. . During the inspection the following violations were noted: ten of the**t~e:~e** drums in the dangerous waste storage area were not labeled, one drum in storage was leaking, one drum was corroded, the contingency plan could not be found and qocumentation that training had occurred was not available. Inspector Clouseau was informed that**th~** contingency plan may be with the newly appointed emergency coordinator (Rperson who took Fred's job"). Unfortunately, the environmental manager could not recall the individuals**!~ll** name. Yasteland's environmental manager stated that training had occurred and" located a brochure announcing the training session. 

# o

Violation Classification: 

# 0 Unlabeled Containers 

### 173·303·200 Class I Improper Containers 

### 173·303·630 Class 1 Contingency Plan 

### 173·303·350 Class I Training 

### 173·303·330 Class II Discussion: the unlabeled and improper containers may cause a likelihood of exposure to dangerous waste. 

# In addition, the lack of being able to find the contingency plan, which is designed to be used in an emergency, could result in exposure. Clearly, the "environmental manager should know who to contact 1n an emergency. Inspector Clouseau concluded that the training violation was Class 11; this was based upon the fact that prior inspection reports had**sho~~** training had occurred within the last 

### 1 1/2 years. Clouselu concluded thlt the lack of formalized training had not significantly impacted his hazardous waste manager practices since the majority of regulatory requirements were followed. Recommended Enforcement Response: Inspector Clouseau recommended that Vasteland be issued an administrative order with penaltieS. His Recommendation requested the action be given a -High- enforcement priority. Several factors led him to this conclusion: enforcement history, container mismanagement, and lack of a contingency plan.**(~** .... Clouseau

### reco~ended a 

### $26,500 penalty be Issessed. He calculated his penal tv)
•• follows: Unlabeled containers· 

### $10,000; Improper containers· $8,000;

. Contingency 'lan • $8,000; Training· $SOO. He chose the upper end of the

# •

• Appendix B; Pg. 2 matrix for the**cont~iner** 

### labeling violation because of the historical violation and the percentage of unlabeled drums. For all other violations. Clouseau recommended the mid-point. Uhen discus sing his recommendation witil his supervisor, the question of combining the container violation was raised. ,Clouseau stated that he believed the violations were distinct and separate in this instance for several reasons. The regulations outline container condition and labeling separately, the labeling**violati~n** 

### had been noted previously, most of the drums were not labeled, and leaking/corroded

. containers were among those not labeled. In addition, he believed the overall penalty assessment was equitable in comparison to similar situations. His recommendation vas subsequently issued to the facility. EXAMPLE 2 

### Inspector Christie conducted an inspection at Speedy Dry Cleaners. An examination of facility files showed that Speedy had notified in August of 

### 1980 as a generator and no previous inspections had been conducted. During the**inspec~ion,** 

### Christie noted the following violations: one container was not properly labeled (out of six in the dangerous**~aste** 

### storage area); personnel training had not been conducted

. Violation Classification; Container labeling Training 

### 173- 303· 200 173-303·330 Class 1 Class 11



# • Discussion: Inspector Christie concluded that the lack of a label on the container could result in shipment to an unauthorized facility and classified the violation as Class 1. Since the owner/operator of the facility was clearly knowledgeable of the regulatory requirements, Christie concluded that the lack of formalized training vas a Class 11 violation. Recommended Enforcement Response: Christie recommended that Speedy be issued an informal action. Although a formal action could be justified, Christie believed an informal action was appropriate. This vas the first inspection that was conducted and most of the regulatory requirements were followed. A Compliance Letter was subsequently issued. EXAKP·L£ 

### 3 Inspector Fletch conducted an inspection at Environmental Cleanup, a company that accepts waste froll local industry. The facility operates a recycling process for activated charcoal used in air and water systelli. The facility operates a drUID Itorage area for incoming vaste and a separate storage area for waste generated. Inspector Fletch examined the facility filel prior to conducting the inspection. Inspections had been conducted approximately twice a year sinceAppendix B; Pg. ) 

### 1980. Early inspection reports noted numerous violations inclUding several areas of spillage. Initially, the facility did**n~t** have any fire protection equipment. Ecology issued a Letter of Compliance followed by an Administrative Order to Environmental Cleanup. The Order resulted in a change in ownership of the facility. Operations were changed to comply with State Law and a ·state of the art- sprinkler system was installed. The system was directly connected to the fire department. 

# o

Inspector Fletch found the management plans at the facility kept in an organized fashion. The facility operator closely tracked what was received. processed. and generated at the facility. The physical inspection noted inadequate aisle space in several of the drum storage areas. The facility owner/operator stated that current operations were at maximum capacity because of a recent cleanup project. Although close examination of the storage area was not possible, due to the lack of aisle space, some spillage was eviden:. In addition, Fletch was unable to determine whether incompatible Waste had peen separated. Additional aisle space would be available when the cleanup was completed.

. Violation**Classification~** Aisle Space 

### 173·303·340 Class 1 

# o

Discussion: The lack of adequate aisle space most likely resulted from the recent cleanup operations. Fletch noted on his inspection report to inform Ecology's permit writer of the constraints in the facility's design. Fletch concluded that the violation should be classified as Class 

### 1. Recommended Enforcement**Response~** Fletch recommended that Environmental Cleanup be issued an informal action. He recommended that a Compliance 1.etter be issued with short compliance timeframes. A follow-up inspection was planned shortly after the facility compliance was required. A Compliance Letter was subsequently issued.

.

CG:cs ERP.An 

# o. 

### , 

# •

DANGEROUS YASTE CUIDANCE: INTERIM APPROVAL
Approved for consistency with Enforcement Policy and Enforcement Manual. 

# xbkL· Greg Sorlie, Manager Central Programs 

# • Approved for consistency with program objectives.

Date Thomas Eaton, Manager Solid and Hazardous Yaste Program



# •