OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

AUDIT REPORT

 

 

RCRA ENFORCEMENT

RCRA SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIER

IDENTIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT

BY THE RHODE ISLAND

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT

E1GSD8-01-0006-9100078

JANUARY 21, 1999
Inspector General Division Eastern Audit Division

Conducting the Audit: Boston, Massachusetts

Region Covered: Region 1

Program Offices Involved: Office of Environmental Stewardship & 

Office of Ecosystem Protection

(Photographs provided by RIDEM)
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Report of RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification and

Enforcement by the Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management (RIDEM)

Audit Report No. E1GSD8-01-0006-9100078

FROM: Paul D. McKechnie

Divisional Inspector General

Eastern Audit Division

TO: John DeVillars

Regional Administrator

Region 1

Attached is our audit report, RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification and

Enforcement by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Protection. This report contains

findings and recommendations that are important to both EPA and the Rhode Island Department

of Environmental Management.

This audit report contains findings that describe problems the Office of Inspector General

(OIG) has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This audit report represents the

opinion of the OIG and the findings contained in this audit report do not necessarily represent the

final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this audit report will be made by EPA

managers in accordance with established EPA audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the

findings described in this audit report are not binding upon EPA in any enforcement proceeding

brought by EPA or the Department of Justice.

ACTION REQUIRED

In accordance with EPA Order 2750, you as the action official are required to provide this

office a written response to the audit report within 90 days. Your response should address all

recommendations, and include milestone dates for corrective actions planned, but not completed.

We have no objection to the release of this report to the public.
Should you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me or Linda

Fuller, Team Leader at (617) 918-1470.

Attachment

cc: G. Mollineaux, Region 1 Audit Coordinator

I. Leighton, OES

R. Piligian, OES

B. Mendoza, OEP

RIDEM
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

i Report No. 9100078

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

required EPA to develop a framework of hazardous waste

regulations. Congress intended that States assume

responsibility for implementing RCRA regulations with

oversight from EPA. As a result, States are primarily

responsible for identifying RCRA Significant Non-Compliers

(SNCs) and taking formal enforcement actions against them. 

For the RCRA program to be effective in reducing risks to

human health and the environment, it is essential that

facilities out of compliance be identified and quickly returned

to compliance. Over the past year, Region 1 identified

weaknesses in the Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management’s (RIDEM’s) enforcement of

RCRA. These weaknesses were conveyed by the Regional

Administrator in writing, to the Governor and RIDEM’s

Director. The letters conveyed deep concern over a serious

shortfall in committing financial resources and personnel

which impeded RIDEM’s ability to effectively implement the

enforcement program. EPA grant funds were not fully spent

and vacancies were slow to be filled.

OBJECTIVES The overall objective of our audit was to determine if RIDEM

implemented its RCRA enforcement program in accordance

with EPA’s Enforcement Response Policy (ERP). 

Specifically, we determined whether RIDEM:

1. Issued appropriate and timely enforcement actions;

2. Ensured that violators complied with enforcement

compliance schedules; and

3. Identified SNCs.

RESULTS IN BRIEF RIDEM did not effectively enforce its RCRA program in

accordance with the EPA ERP. RIDEM did not: (1) issue
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

ii Report No. 9100078

appropriate and timely enforcement actions; (2) ensure that

violators complied with enforcement compliance schedules;

and (3) identify SNCs. Specifically, RIDEM’s failure to

dedicate available resources to RCRA indicated a lack of

management commitment to effective enforcement. To

compound the problem, RIDEM did not have a detailed

RCRA enforcement policy or an effective enforcement

tracking system. Additionally, RIDEM management did not

believe the identification of SNCs was a State responsibility. 

As a result, hazardous wastes were not managed in an

environmentally sound manner, thus risking the health and

protection of the State’s population and environment. Such

serious violations as leaking battery acid and drums of

hazardous waste did not receive formal enforcement. Also,

RIDEM’s over-reliance on informal enforcement actions

could provide non-complying facilities an economic

advantage over facilities complying with the RCRA law,

while allowing the violation to continue.

Inappropriate RIDEM did not take formal enforcement in 12 of the 20 case

Enforcement Actions files (60 percent) reviewed. In our opinion, RIDEM staff did

not correctly interpret the EPA ERP when determining the

appropriate level of enforcement to take. They issued

Letters of Deficiency (LODs), informal enforcement, when

violations were serious enough to merit formal enforcement.

Untimely Enforcement None of the four cases proposed for formal enforcement

were finalized within EPA ERP’s time frame of 180 days. 

Three cases were still not finalized after 206 to 376 days

had passed. One case was finalized after 461 days. 

Overall, RIDEM’s enforcement production and timeliness

have been deteriorating. The number of formal and informal

actions issued has dramatically decreased, while the

average time to take these actions has increased. Untimely

enforcement resulted from RIDEM’s reluctance to establish

time frames for taking actions. Also, RIDEM had not utilized

a tracking system to ensure program efficiency.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

iii Report No. 9100078

Inadequate Follow-up RIDEM did not conduct effective follow-up of cited violations

to Cited Violations to ensure that facilities returned to compliance. In 10 of the

20 files reviewed (50 percent), follow-up was non-existent or

inadequate. RIDEM management had not set an

appropriate emphasis to conduct follow-ups and had not

established an effective system to track compliance

schedules.

SNC Identification In the past, Region 1 did not hold RIDEM responsible for

identifying SNCs. The current grant now adds identification

of SNCs as a RIDEM responsibility. Corrective action has

been taken.

RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Regional Administrator instruct

regional staff to continue to work with RIDEM to improve its

management of the RCRA enforcement program. Specific

recommendations for achieving this can be found in the

Recommendations section at the end of Chapter 2. If

RIDEM’s performance does not improve within a determined

period of time, the region should begin the process of

withdrawal of the State’s delegated authority for RCRA

enforcement.

AGENCY COMMENTS The Regional Administrator responded to our draft report on 

& OIG EVALUATION December 15, 1998. The Regional Administrator stated that

the Region is in agreement with the findings, conclusions,

and recommendations contained in the draft report

regarding RIDEM’s administration of the RCRA program and

more specifically, RIDEM’s enforcement of its hazardous

waste regulations.

RIDEM responded to our draft report on December 4, 1998.

RIDEM stated that they were disappointed in the audit

process and claimed that its response to the OIG position

paper was not recognized. However, their response was
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

iv Report No. 9100078

considered when developing our audit report. RIDEM 

provided a listing of the actions they have already taken to

address the issues raised in the audit report.

We concur with the Region 1's proposed actions and

believe that RIDEM’s response shows they are taking

positive steps to improve their RCRA Enforcement Program.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

Report No. 9100078

Abbreviations

CA Consent Agreement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERP Enforcement Response Policy

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act

HW Hazardous Waste

LOD Letter of Deficiency

NOV Notice of Violation

OC&I Office of Compliance and Inspection

OIG Office of Inspector General

OWM Office of Waste Management

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System

RIDEM Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

SNC Significant Non-Complier

SV Secondary Violator

TSD Treatment/Storage/Disposal
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

Report No. 9100078

[This page intentionally left blank]
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

Report No. 9100078

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... i

ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................... v

CHAPTERS

CHAPTER 1 - Introduction

Purpose ............................................................. 1

Background .......................................................... 1

Scope and Methodology ................................................ 4

Prior Audit Coverage ................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2 - RIDEM Is Not Adequately Enforcing RCRA .......................... 9

Inappropriate Enforcement Actions ....................................... 10

Untimely Enforcement ................................................. 13

Inadequate Follow-up to Cited Violations .................................. 19

Significant Non-Complier Identification .................................... 23

Conclusion .......................................................... 25

Recommendations .................................................... 26

Regional Comments ................................................... 26

OIG Comments ...................................................... 27

RIDEM’s Comments .................................................. 27

OIG Comments ...................................................... 28

Appendix A: Inadequate Level of Enforcement .................................... 29

Appendix B: Inadequate Follow-up to Cited Violations .............................. 31

Appendix C: Regional Response ............................................... 33

Appendix D: RIDEM Response ................................................ 42

Appendix E: Distribution ..................................................... 46
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

Report No. 9100078

[This page intentionally left blank]
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

1 Report No. 9100078

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

PURPOSE EPA developed the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) regulations for the safe management of

hazardous waste. EPA also delegated authority to State

agencies, such as the Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management (RIDEM), the primary

responsibility for implementing RCRA to ensure that the

public health and environment are protected. Over the past

year, Region 1 identified serious weaknesses in RIDEM’s

enforcement of RCRA. Among the issues raised, the

Region cited RIDEM for not spending grant funds and not

filling staff vacancies. By not dedicating available

resources, Rhode Island management indicated that it

lacked commitment to carry out an effective RCRA

enforcement program. In view of the Region’s cited

weaknesses, the overall objectives of our audit were to

determine whether RIDEM:

1. Issued appropriate and timely enforcement

actions;

2. Ensured that violators complied with

enforcement compliance schedules; and

3. Identified SNCs.

BACKGROUND Serious environmental and health problems caused by

hazardous waste mismanagement resulted in legislation and

regulations to clean up waste released into the environment

and to prevent further releases. Congress enacted RCRA in

1976 which established, under Subtitle C, a framework for

managing hazardous waste from generation to final

disposal. Hazardous waste is solid waste which, because of

its quantity, concentration, physical, chemical, or infectious
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

2 Report No. 9100078

characteristics, may pose a hazard to human health or the

environment. RCRA mandated that EPA develop a

comprehensive set of hazardous waste regulations. As a

result, all solid waste generators must determine if their

waste is hazardous and thus subject to regulation under

Subtitle C. Hazardous waste generators, transporters,

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities must manage their

wastes in accordance with these regulations. In addition,

most treatment, storage, and disposal facilities must be

permitted.

Congress intended that States assume responsibility for

implementing RCRA hazardous waste regulations with

oversight from the Federal Government. In order to become

authorized to implement the Subtitle C program, a State

must develop a hazardous waste program which is

equivalent to and consistent with the Federal program and

have it approved by EPA. Although a State with an

authorized program has primary responsibility for

administering Subtitle C, EPA retains oversight

responsibility and parallel enforcement authority. 

In addition, EPA awards annual grants to States, under

RCRA Section 3011, for the development and

implementation of hazardous waste programs. States and

EPA regions negotiate the specific work that must be

accomplished with the grant funds. State authorization may

be withdrawn by EPA if the EPA Administrator determines

that the State program no longer complies with the

regulatory requirements, and the State fails to correct the

problem.

Since Rhode Island is a delegated State, RIDEM carries out

the primary responsibility of implementing and enforcing the

RCRA program. In recent years, the Rhode Island State

Legislature attacked RIDEM’s operations, claiming RIDEM

had misused its environmental regulatory powers. In

response, according to RIDEM’s Associate Director, RIDEM

was reorganized in September 1996, to bring consistency to

its enforcement program.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

3 Report No. 9100078

As a result of this reorganization, the Offices of Waste

Management (OWM) and Compliance and Inspection

(OC&I) were created. Hazardous waste, solid waste and

underground storage tank licensing, permitting and site

remediation functions were consolidated with the OWM. 

Compliance activities (e.g., inspections), including

emergency response and enforcement programs, were

consolidated into the OC&I. However, inspections and

informal enforcement actions for treatment, storage, and

disposal (TSDs) facilities were handled by the OWM.

When facilities are cited for violations during inspections,

RIDEM must take appropriate enforcement actions. 

Appropriate enforcement responses are discussed in EPA’s

hazardous waste enforcement response policy (ERP). An

enforcement response may be either a formal or informal

enforcement action.

Formal enforcement may take the form of an administrative

order, civil lawsuit, or criminal lawsuit. A monetary penalty

may be imposed as part of the enforcement action. A facility

classified as a significant non-complier (SNC) merits a

formal enforcement action. 

The 1996 EPA ERP defined a SNC:

The designation of Significant Non-Complier (SNC) is

intended to identify non-compliant facilities for which

formal enforcement is appropriate. Specifically,

SNCs are those facilities which have caused actual

exposure to hazardous waste or hazardous waste

constituents; are chronic or recalcitrant violators; or

deviate substantially from the terms of a permit,

order, agreement or from RCRA statutory or

regulatory requirements.

An informal enforcement response, consists of issuing a

Letter of Deficiency (LOD) which cites the violations and

provides a schedule for returning the facility to compliance. 

This is the minimally appropriate enforcement action for a 
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

4 Report No. 9100078

Secondary Violator (SV). A facility which does not meet the

SNC definition is classified as a SV. An informal

enforcement action does not include economic sanctions. 

However, a facility which fails to return to compliance

following an informal enforcement response should be

reclassified as a SNC and receive a formal enforcement

response.

The ERP defines a chronic or recalcitrant facility as one

having repeated violations (even if minor in themselves) or

one that fails to quickly correct violations in the past. This

designation may classify the facility as a SNC. A facility

should be evaluated on a multi-media basis to determine

whether it is a chronic violator or recalcitrant. However, a

facility may also be found to be a chronic or recalcitrant

violator based solely on prior RCRA violations.

RIDEM was not identifying SNCs in the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS)

based on an agreement with EPA Region 1. However, in

RIDEM’s draft FFY 1998 Compliance Strategy, RIDEM will

identify significant non-compliers and continue to submit

data for national enforcement databases maintained by

EPA.

A core principle of EPA’s enforcement and compliance

assurance program is that violators should not gain an

economic advantage. EPA’s Enforcement Response Policy

states that an appropriate enforcement response “will

achieve a timely return to compliance and serve as a

deterrent to future noncompliance by eliminating any

economic advantage received by the violator.” An additional

reason for recovering economic benefit is to eliminate the

economic advantage violators gain over their competitors

who have invested time and money in achieving compliance.

SCOPE AND We performed this audit in accordance with Government

METHODOLOGY Auditing Standards (1994 Revision) issued by the

Comptroller General of the United States as they apply to

performance audits. Our review included tests of the
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

5 Report No. 9100078

 program records and other auditing procedures we

considered necessary.

RIDEM was selected for review because it had not identified

any SNCs in several years and the Region had documented

concerns regarding RIDEM’s RCRA Enforcement program.

We reviewed facility files containing inspection reports,

enforcement actions and related correspondence to

determine whether RIDEM took appropriate enforcement

actions against facilities with violations. We did not

evaluate the quality of inspections or penalties calculated for

formal enforcement actions. Twenty facility files were

reviewed in total. Seventeen files were selected on a

judgmental basis from a universe of 47 facilities from the

Federal fiscal years 1996 and 1997 RCRIS report of

inspections with violations. Three files were selected based

on discussions with RIDEM staff and review of RIDEM’s

inspection inventory. The 20 sampled cases included

permitted facilities, large quantity generators, small quantity

generators, and non-classified facilities.

In order to address our audit objectives we conducted the

following audit work:

T Interviewed EPA Region 1 and RIDEM staff.

T Reviewed the inspection reports and the level

of enforcement action taken by RIDEM in

response to the cited violations.

T Compared cited violations to the 1996 EPA

Enforcement Response Policy and to RIDEM’s

Enforcement Response Policy, in order to

evaluate whether RIDEM’s level of

enforcement taken complied with the above

policies.

T Obtained technical assistance in our case file

reviews from the Region 1 RCRA staff.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

6 Report No. 9100078

T Compared the information in the RIDEM facility

case files to the RCRIS database for accuracy

and completeness.

T Evaluated the timeliness and adequacy of

RIDEM’s follow-up response to cited violations

reported to facilities in LODs.

T Evaluated the amount of time it took RIDEM to

issue enforcement actions from the date of the

inspection and compared this amount of time

to the Enforcement Response Policy guidance.

We reviewed management controls and procedures

specifically related to our objectives. However, we did not

review the internal controls associated with the input and

processing of information into RCRIS or other automated

records system.

We reviewed Region 1's Fiscal Year 1997 Assurance Letter

prepared to comply with the Federal Managers’ Financial

Integrity Act (FMFIA). Based upon the Region’s oversight

efforts and the OIG’s September 29, 1997 report, Validation

of Air Enforcement Data Reported to EPA by

Massachusetts, Region 1 reported identification of facility

non-compliance by States as a weakness for all New

England States for the three major media enforcement

programs (NPDES, RCRA and Air). Our current review and

report provides detailed information and recommendations

related specifically to RIDEM and its administration of its

RCRA program which the 1997 Assurance Letter did not

address.

Our fieldwork was performed from March 3, 1998 to July 31,

1998. Field work was conducted at Region 1's Boston,

Massachusetts office and RIDEM’s Providence, Rhode

Island office. We discussed our preliminary conditions with

RIDEM’s OC&I and OWM managers and provided them a

position paper on June 24, 1998. They responded on July
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

7 Report No. 9100078

16, 1998 and their comments have been considered in the

preparation of this draft report. Another meeting was held

with RIDEM officials on September 16, 1998 to further

discuss RIDEM’s response. 

PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE No prior OIG audits have been conducted of RIDEM’s

RCRA program. OIG’s Headquarters Audit Division

(HAD) issued an audit report, Significant NonComplier Enforcement by EPA and Washington State

(Report No. E1GSF7-11-0019-8100093) issued

March 31, 1998. EAD’s assignment is considered a

follow-on audit to HAD’s work.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

8 Report No. 9100078

[This page intentionally left blank]
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

9 Report No. 9100078

CHAPTER 2

RIDEM Is Not Adequately Enforcing RCRA 

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental

Management (RIDEM) did not take enforcement actions in

accordance with the EPA Enforcement Response Policy

(ERP). RIDEM did not: (1) issue timely and appropriate

enforcement actions; (2) ensure that violators returned to

compliance timely; and (3) identify Significant NonCompliers (SNCs). Specifically, RIDEM’s failure to dedicate

available resources to RCRA indicated a lack of

management commitment to effective enforcement. To

compound the problem, RIDEM did not have a detailed

RCRA enforcement policy or an effective enforcement

tracking system. Additionally, RIDEM management did not

believe the identification of SNCs was a State responsibility. 

As a result, RIDEM did not ensure that wastes were

managed in an environmentally sound manner, thus risking

the protection of human health and the environment.

Region 1 had previously identified similar problems with

RIDEM’s RCRA enforcement program. Since early 1997,

Region 1 provided increased oversight and assistance to

RIDEM. In March 1998, the Regional Administrator wrote to

the Rhode Island Governor expressing EPA’s

dissatisfaction with RIDEM’s efforts to fill positions and the

downward trend in formal enforcement initiated by RIDEM. 

The Regional Administrator expressed further displeasure

with RIDEM’s poor performance in subsequent letters to the

RIDEM Director. Our review provided further confirmation of

the inadequacy of Rhode Island’s RCRA enforcement

program.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

10 Report No. 9100078

Our review disclosed breakdowns in the administration of

the RCRA program in the following areas:

1(a). Inappropriate Enforcement Actions

 (b). Untimely Enforcement

2. Inadequate Follow-up to Cited Violations

3. Failure to Identify SNCs.

Inappropriate RIDEM did not take formal enforcement in 12 of the 20 

Enforcement Actions cases (60 percent) reviewed. In each of the cases

reviewed, RIDEM staff issued Letters of Deficiency (LODs),

which are classified as informal enforcement actions. 

Contrary to the ERP, LODs were issued for such serious

violations as leaking drums and battery acid, missing

secondary containment, and to chronic violators or facilities

operating without a RCRA permit. RIDEM’s selection of

informal enforcement for these type of violations showed

that the State did not properly interpret the EPA ERP. In

most cases, formal enforcement includes a monetary

penalty. RIDEM’s over-reliance on informal enforcement

actions allows non-complying facilities an economic

advantage over facilities complying with RCRA. In our

opinion, RIDEM’s actions send a message to the regulated

industry that violations will not be penalized.

Region 1 conducted a 1997 mid-year review of RIDEM’s

RCRA compliance monitoring and enforcement. The

Region 1 RCRA technical staff person reviewed issued and

pending enforcement actions, and provided RIDEM a

summary of his review. For four proposed informal

enforcement actions reviewed, explanations were provided

detailing why RIDEM’s proposed actions were inappropriate. 

EPA recommended that RIDEM re-evaluate each case and 
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

11 Report No. 9100078

issue formal enforcement. This mid-year review was

provided to RIDEM as technical guidance to improve the

RCRA enforcement program. 

In order to evaluate whether the level of enforcement taken

was adequate, we compared the reported violations

contained in the LODs to the SNC definition. Based on the

information available on file, we concluded that 12 of the 20

facilities should have received formal enforcement (See

Appendix A for details). However, all 12 received informal

enforcement action.

The following cases are examples of inadequate

enforcement:

Case RI10 was a chronic violator and was responsible for

the release of hazardous waste. The company was under a

consent agreement, dated November 1994. A May 30,

1996, inspection reported the following violations: many

drums of waste oil and accumulated, leaking lead-acid

batteries stored throughout the site without any containment;

drums of regulated hazardous waste (waste oil, capacitors)

not labeled; no hazardous waste contingency plan; and

several discrepancies with manifest/shipping documents. 

Based on this inspection, RIDEM issued an informal

enforcement action. The number and seriousness of these

violations warranted formal enforcement action. 

Furthermore, the EPA ERP provides that a facility classified

as a secondary violator (informal enforcement) should not

have a history of non-compliant conduct. Facilities should

be evaluated on a multi-media basis to determine whether

they are a chronic violator or recalcitrant. The 1996

violations coupled with the facility’s history of violations,

should have warranted a formal enforcement action.

Case RI01 was another chronic violator which also was

responsible for releasing hazardous waste. RCRIS provided

a list of 7 informal enforcement actions assessed against

this facility between 1984 and 1995. 
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

12 Report No. 9100078

On September 15, 1995, a RIDEM inspection found:

T Condition of Containers - drums containing

hazardous waste were in poor condition with

detectable odors being emitted.

T Aisle Space - insufficient aisle space in the

hazardous waste storage area.

T Secondary Containment - inspectors observed

cracks on the surface of the secondary

containment areas.

T Storage Area - inadequate/incorrect signage

for the storage area.

Based on this inspection, RIDEM issued an LOD on

November 10, 1995. The facility responded in writing on

December 5, 1995 to the noted violations.

On September 29, 1997, a RIDEM inspection found:

T Condition of Containers - drums containing

hazardous waste were leaking.

T Aisle Space - insufficient aisle space in the

hazardous waste storage room.

T Containment Building - inspector observed

cracks in the surface of the treatment area.

T Storage Area - signage for storage areas in

building 4 was obstructed from view and

unclearly labeled.

RIDEM issued this facility an LOD on October 22, 1997. 

The facility responded to an October 1997 informal

enforcement action on November 12, 1997 providing

assurances that violations were addressed. However, both

the 1995 and 1997 informal enforcement actions were 
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

13 Report No. 9100078

 

inappropriate. The facility has a history of chronic violations

and recalcitrance.

RIDEM did not agree with our analysis of the cases. 

However, RIDEM did not provide any contrary evidence to

support their position that the 12 cases warranted informal

rather than formal enforcement. We provided RIDEM with a

“position paper” describing what we found during the file

review and our preliminary conclusions. After reviewing our

position paper, RIDEM responded by writing:

[T]he RCRA ERP allows the State flexibility in

determining whether or not a facility should be

designated an SNC or SV and considerable guidance

is provided. While the wording in the RCRA ERP

regarding Appropriate Enforcement Response

(Section IV. A.) is fairly clear regarding actual or

substantial likelihood of exposure to hazardous

wastes and chronic or recalcitrant violators, it is less

clear when it refers to substantial deviation from

RCRA statutory or regulatory requirements. This

section, RIDEM believes is subject to interpretation

based upon the facts of the case. While RIDEM did

not affirmatively declare in RICRIS [sic] that a violator

was an SNC or SV, it is our belief that, based upon

the circumstances of the case, the appropriate action

for the cases noted was informal enforcement.

In our opinion, the cited cases clearly showed a substantial

likelihood of exposure to hazardous wastes and/or chronic

violators. 

Untimely Enforcement RIDEM did not take formal enforcement within 180 days in

accordance with the EPA ERP. Of four proposed formal

actions, three remained outstanding from 206 to 376 days

and one formal action was issued after 461 days. In one

case, hundreds of containers of hazardous waste were

stored in rusted drums without secondary containment. This
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

14 Report No. 9100078

situation provided a potentially hazardous condition. In 

another case, chemical analysis indicated that a release of

hazardous waste had occurred. Overall, RIDEM’s

enforcement production and timeliness at both the formal

and informal levels have deteriorated. RIDEM management

needs to establish time frames for completing actions and to

utilize a system such as RCRIS to oversee production

progress. Untimely enforcement could result in harm to the

public and environment. Also, non-complying facilities may

have an economic advantage over their competitors as

compliance with RCRA regulations often adds to the cost of

doing business. 

The following table shows how long each case has

remained in the pipeline:

FACILITY INSPECTION

DATE

ELAPSED DAYS

AS OF 5-31-98

ERP TIME 

FRAMES

RI15 11-05-97 206 180

RI17 08-13-97 288 180

RI18 05-20-97 376 180

RI19 02-06-97 461 (issued 5-12-98) 180

The following two cases are examples of RIDEM’s untimely

formal enforcement:

Case RI18 - The original inspection was conducted

May 20, 1997. The inspectors reported observing

literally hundreds of containers of waste paints and

paint related wastes being stored without secondary

containment. Sizes of containers ranged from pints

to 55 gallon drums. Most containers were rusted

without labels. There was no enforcement action

issued based on this inspection. A reinspection of

the facility by RIDEM staff was conducted on

September 10, 1997. A draft formal enforcement
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

15 Report No. 9100078

action dated November 3, 1997 was in the file but

was never issued. A third inspection was conducted

by RIDEM’s

Emergency Response and RCRA staff on March 23,

1998. The RCRA inspector reported that with the

exception of rearranging individual containers and an

apparent turnover of waste for off-site disposal, little

had changed with respect to on-site management of

hazardous waste. A draft formal enforcement action

dated April 1998 was under OC&I management’s

revie w but

was not

issue d as of

May 31,

1998. The

EPA ERP

provi des

that formal

enfor cement

shoul d take

180 days,

RIDE M had

spent 376

days as of

May 31,

1998 with no

enfor cement

actio n

taken .
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

16 Report No. 9100078

 Waste Stored at RI18

Case RI15 - RIDEM OC&I Enforcement staff

conducted inspections on May 8, 1997 and June 5,

1997 and issued a LOD dated July 17, 1997 based 

on violations found during their inspection. The

violator did not respond to RIDEM’s LOD which

resulted in RIDEM issuing the facility a ten day

warning letter on October 1, 1997. A third inspection

of the facility was conducted on November 5, 1997. 

An NOV was under review by OC&I management but

was not issued as of May 31, 1998. RIDEM’s

untimely enforcement has allowed this facility to go

206 days since the November 1997 inspection.

RIDEM disagreed with the OIG conclusions of untimely

enforcement because of the small number of cases

reviewed and the specific issues surrounding these four

cases. RIDEM also stated that the ERP allows 20 percent

of formal enforcement actions to exceed the standard time

frames.

RIDEM’s total universe of proposed formal enforcement

cases was four. All four cases exceeded the ERP standard

time frame, two by more than 100 percent. RIDEM’s

statement that the ERP allows 20 percent of formal
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

17 Report No. 9100078

1995 1996 1997

Years 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

No. of LODs Issued

Avg/Days Issuance (LOD)

Comparison of LODs Issued to Average Number of Days to Issue 

enforcement cases to exceed the standard time frames is

not applicable to this situation. The ERP allows 20 percent

of formal enforcement to exceed standard time frames when

there are unique factors which necessitate a larger time

frame. Even when there are unique factors, 80 percent of

formal enforcement actions should be on time. We found

that all (100 percent) of RIDEM’s formal enforcement actions

in process since the reorganization, exceeded the ERP’s

standard time frame.

RI D

E M

m an

a ge

m en

t st

at ed

th at

th e

S ep

te m

b er

1 99

6 reorganization reduced resources which affected enforcement performance. From

September 1996 to March 1997, RCRA enforcement staff was reduced from two

inspectors to one. As of March 1997, RCRA enforcement staff was back to its

1995/1996 level. RIDEM does not have established time frames for issuing

enforcement actions nor a formal system for management to track enforcement case

status. 

The following graph shows two lines which represent the

reduced level of informal enforcement actions issued and

the increase in time to issue these actions. The left side of

the graph represents the number of days to issue, and the

number of informal actions issued over years. The period

covered by the graph is fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

18 Report No. 9100078

Currently, there are seven proposed informal enforcement

actions from 1997 and 1998 inspections which had an

average of 323 days elapsed as of May 31, 1998 with no

enforcement actions issued. The cases are as follows:

FACILITY INSPECTION

DATE

STATUS DAYS 

ELAPSED

RI20 3-2-97 Not Issued 454

RI21 3-28-97 Not Issued 428

RI14 4-16-97 Not Issued 410
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

19 Report No. 9100078

RI22 6-9-97 Not Issued 352

RI23 10-18-97 Not Issued 233

RI24 11-19-97 Not Issued 192

RI25 11-19-97 Not Issued 192

In responding to our position paper, RIDEM stated that in six

of the cases, management received either outdated

inspection reports or incomplete files. As a result,

management required the staff to reinspect the facilities, in

some of the cases, to determine the current status of the

violations. This explanation supports the need for RIDEM to

establish an effective administrative control system. RIDEM

management needs a system to track where enforcement

actions are at all times. Also, RIDEM management needs to

set time frames on when action should be completed and do

more oversight of RCRA case production to ensure timely

enforcement is taken. The EPA ERP provides that the

objectives of an informal enforcement response are to

compel the violator to cease its non-compliant activities and

ensure that full physical compliance is achieved in the

shortest possible time frame. Not only is RIDEM failing to

compel facilities to quickly return to compliance, but it is also

putting a strain on its own resources by requiring reinspections. Such re-inspections take time away from

inspecting other facilities.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

20 Report No. 9100078

Inadequate Follow-up RIDEM’s OC&I did not conduct effective follow-up of cited 

to Cited Violations violations to ensure that facilities returned to compliance. In

10 of the 20 files reviewed, OC&I’s follow-up was nonexistent or inadequate (See Appendix B). In addition, our

review of the 1996 and 1997 RCRIS data listings of

inspections, with violations, showed that 31 of 47 cases

exceeded the EPA ERP correction period deadline of 90

days by as many as 888 days as of March 31, 1998. The

average number of days the violations were opened without

an actual compliance date was 393. OC&I managers did

not have a system to assure that RIDEM staff conducted

adequate follow-up. As a result, hazardous conditions may

continue to exist longer than necessary.

Region 1 previously noted RIDEM’s lack of follow-up. As

part of its oversight activities, in February 1997, Region 1

identified an increasing number of facilities (210 facilities

State-wide) with violations which had not returned to

compliance. In response to Region 1's questioning of these

open cases, RIDEM included a specific initiative in its 1997

Waste Compliance Strategy to address these 210 facilities

having incomplete RCRIS reporting. At the time of our

audit, lack of follow-up continued to be a problem.

The EPA ERP provided the following informal enforcement

response time guidance:

The objectives of an informal enforcement response

are to compel the violator to cease its non-compliant

activities and ensure that full physical compliance is

achieved in the shortest possible time frame.

At the time a violator is formally notified of the

violation determination it is given a compliance date

which establishes a deadline for the violator to

correct all known violations. A correction period

during which a violator should correct all known
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

21 Report No. 9100078

violations should not exceed 90 days.

Failure to achieve full compliance by the compliance

date or a failure to notify the implementing agency of

the inability to correct violations should result in an

escalation to formal enforcement.

The following two case files are examples of inadequate

follow-up to cited violations:

Case RI13 - While RIDEM correctly took formal enforcement

action and issued Notices of Violation (NOVs) on February

14, 1995 and April 9, 1996, RIDEM did not assure that the

violations were corrected. These NOVs reported a total of

eight violations severe enough to warrant formal

enforcement. RIDEM and the facility negotiated a Consent

Agreement (CA). The CA dated January 20, 1998

addressed the penalties associated with the NOVs but not

the cited violations. The inspector advised that no follow-up

to the cited violations was conducted. RCRIS showed the

1995 inspection violations remained open. This facility’s

history of chronic violations with RIDEM required timely and

effective follow-up which RIDEM did not provide.

RIDEM stated that enforcement actions against this facility

took place well before OC&I came into existence. 

Additionally, the enforcement actions were appealed to the

adjudicatory division, outside the control of the regulatory

program.

While the NOVs were issued before OC&I was created,

since November 1996, OC&I was involved in ongoing

negotiations for the consent agreement which did not

address the previously cited violations. Currently, OC&I is

responsible for assuring that RCRA violators return to

compliance. RCRIS showed that violations going back to

1995 remained opened. However, the RCRA enforcement

program was delegated to the State, and it is the State’s
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

22 Report No. 9100078

responsibility to assure that this facility returns to

compliance.

Case RI04 - This facility was issued an informal

enforcement action on November 20, 1995. The LOD

contained three violations based on an inspection

conducted on October 25, 1995. The LOD called for

compliance to be completed within 30 days. RIDEM’s LODs

contained the following:

Please be advised that failure to comply with any of

the above-cited requirements within the specified

compliance schedule will result in the issuance of a

Notice of Violation and Order and Penalty. 

Enforcement actions resulting from continued noncompliance may result in a maximum fine of $10,000

per day and/or five (5) years imprisonment.

 

The facility did not respond. RIDEM’s follow-up to ensure

compliance was excessively late. More than two years later,

RIDEM issued a ten day warning letter on March 9, 1998. In

this letter, RIDEM advised the facility that failure to comply

with requirements within ten days may result in a Notice of

Violation and Order and Penalty. Well beyond ten days

later, on May 22, 1998, RIDEM sent the facility another letter

advising that two of the three violations were still

outstanding and that continued non-compliance may include

the assessment of an administrative penalty. This case

further illustrates the ineffectiveness of RIDEM’s follow-up

system. Sending a ten day warning letter two and a half

years after the violations were discovered conveys the

wrong message to the regulated industry. The EPA ERP

says failure to return to compliance within 90 days should

result in raising the enforcement response to the formal

enforcement level.

Case RI16 was another facility included in our sample. 

RIDEM issued an informal enforcement action but there was

no evidence in the file to show the facility’s return to
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

23 Report No. 9100078

compliance. Based on questions raised by the auditor,

RIDEM inspectors reinspected the facility and found at least

one of the previously cited violations still outstanding. 

RIDEM planned to issue an enforcement action based on

the reinspection results.

Cases RI04 and RI16 were two facilities with open

violations. When RIDEM followed-up on these facilities, it

found that previously cited violations were still open. These

two examples demonstrate the importance for timely followup in order to determine the status of open violations. This

follow-up is especially important for RIDEM because of the

large number of open violations recorded in RCRIS.

RIDEM responded that enforcement actions took place well

before the creation of OC&I for the cases of RI04, RI05,

RI16, RI12,and RI08. The response continued, “According

to the time frames provided in the EPAIG’s report, those

enforcement actions should have been resolved well before

OC&I came into existence. Therefore, it is inappropriate to

cite the OC&I for the above noted cases in the EPAIG’s

findings.”

We concur with OC&I’s statement that enforcement actions

should have been resolved well before OC&I came into

existence. However, they were not, and it is now OC&I’s

responsibility. RIDEM is responsible for RCRA enforcement

and OC&I is that office within RIDEM that has responsibility

for enforcement against all non-permitted facilities. RIDEM

included a provision in the 1997 Waste Compliance

Strategy to dedicate staff to close over 200 open violations

in RCRIS. In our opinion, this provision showed that

RIDEM’s OC&I accepted responsibility for unresolved

violations. Additionally, with regards to RI04 and RI05,

OC&I eventually was involved with these cases. OC&I
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

24 Report No. 9100078

issued a ten day warning letter on March 9, 1998 to RI04

and reinspected RI05 on December 20, 1996.

Timely and effective follow-up could also have prevented

the unproductive use of staff used to perform second and

sometimes third reinspections. RIDEM stated it is not their 

normal practice to perform second and third inspections. 

However, we found reinspections were conducted at RI18,

RI15, RI14, RI26, RI21, RI22, RI23, and RI20. 

Reinspections were used primarily in current cases. 

Management did not effectively utilize RCRIS as a tracking

system or provide effective oversight to ensure that

inspectors were conducting timely and appropriate follow-up

to cited violations. Management relied upon individual

inspectors to track facility compliance. Inspectors informed

us that conducting inspections was a priority, not follow-up. 

As a result, RIDEM allowed facilities with cited violations to

continue to operate without ensuring that the facility

returned to compliance. In instances when facilities did not

return to compliance within stated time-frames, RIDEM did

not escalate enforcement actions. By allowing this to occur,

the State residents’ health and safety may not be protected;

non-complying facilities may be provided an economic

advantage because of their non-compliance; and the RCRA

Enforcement Program was not administered in compliance

with EPA and RIDEM’s policies and guidance.

SNCs Identification The RIDEM RCRA Supervisor stated that RIDEM historically

did not identify SNCs in RCRIS because this was an EPA

“bean count” and RIDEM did not want to be locked into the

time frame constraints dictated by the SNC designation. 

The RIDEM RCRA Supervisor said that there was an

agreement between EPA and Region 1 whereby EPA

designated a facility as a SNC if appropriate. The prior

Region 1 RCRA Enforcement Coordinator confirmed the
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

25 Report No. 9100078

RIDEM Supervisor’s statements.

The RIDEM Fiscal Year 1996 RCRA Grant application

contained the following statement:

In response to the issue of designation of significant

non-compliers, ...once an Order is issued, it begins to

get caught up in the legal system, and often times

due to scheduling conflicts, unavailability of lawyers,

continuance, etc...., we are unable to proceed with a

closure of the action as planned. It is due to these

delays, which are beyond our control, that the state is

hesitant to “designate” this status, and then be

“locked-in” to strict deadlines. The state can easily

identify these types of violations, and does proceed

with the enforcement in accordance with the

enforcement policy, and the potential for a missed

deadline to be viewed as a “missed commitment” for

the state, makes this issue one that this state wishes

to avoid. EPA has previously agreed to identify these

violators at the regional level, based on our monthly

reports to the regional office, in order to meet their

regional commitment. The state is satisfied with this

level of interaction and will continue to deal with this

issue in this manner.

RIDEM’s OC&I Director stated that RIDEM will be

responsible for identifying SNCs in RCRIS as part of the

Fiscal Year 1998 Enforcement and Compliance Plan. This

plan provided:

According to national enforcement policy,

implementers of programs to enforce the Clean Air

Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water

Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act are required to identify and address significant

noncompliers (also called significant violators) to

minimize or eliminate risk to human health and the
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

26 Report No. 9100078

environment. To this end, to the extent that

resources and laws allow, the state commits to (1)

undertake targeting strategies and inspection

protocols designed to identify significant

noncompliance, (2) identify detected significant

noncompliers and continue to submit data for the

national enforcement database maintained by EPA,

(3) communicate and coordinate with EPA on the

enforcement actions undertaken in response to the

significant noncompliance on a monthly or quarterly

basis depending on the program needs, and (4)

address these identified facilities with enforcement

responses sufficient to ensure compliance and

recovery of penalties.

RIDEM has agreed to now identify SNCs. No further action

on SNC identification is necessary at this time. However,

RIDEM still needs to proceed with appropriate and timely

enforcement actions on those SNCs.

CONCLUSION RCRA enforcement was not a State priority. RIDEM’s

enforcement performance has been declining over the past

three years. RIDEM’s enforcement program has not

provided the level of assurance that (1) violators received

the appropriate level of enforcement within recommended

time frames and that (2) violators returned to compliance on

a timely basis.

This decline is a direct consequence of the insufficient

management priority given to the program. Grant funds

were not fully spent and vacancies were not timely filled. In

addition, RIDEM needed to provide more management

oversight by establishing stronger administrative controls

over its RCRA enforcement program.

The Regional Administrator and his staff have been actively

working at all levels of State government attempting to
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

27 Report No. 9100078

improve RIDEM’s RCRA program. We support the Region’s

efforts to work cooperatively with the State. A strong

enforcement program is essential to effective environmental

protection. 
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

28 Report No. 9100078

RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Regional Administrator:

2-1. Continue to monitor RIDEM’s RCRA enforcement

program to ensure that:

enforcement actions are issued within EPA

ERP standard time frames;

significant non-compliers are identified and

receive a formal enforcement response;

RCRIS is updated and utilized as a tracking

system for all evaluations and all enforcement

action types;

timely follow-up inspections are performed to

assure that non-complying facilities return to

compliance; and

facilities which do not come into compliance

within the established time frames have their

enforcement action elevated to formal

enforcement status and aggressively tracked

until compliance is achieved.

We are aware the Regional Administrator has established

goals and milestones on which to evaluate RIDEM’s

progress in improving its RCRA enforcement program. If

RIDEM does not satisfactorily meet these milestones, we

recommend that the Regional Administrator:

2-2. Begin the process of withdrawal of the State’s

delegated authority for RCRA enforcement.

REGIONAL Region 1 agreed with our findings, conclusions and 

COMMENTS recommendations. The Regional Administrator issued a

letter on September 29, 1998, outlining specific milestones
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

29 Report No. 9100078

that RIDEM must meet in order to demonstrate its

commitment to environmental protection and the RCRA

enforcement program. The Regional Administrator stated

that EPA is prepared to proceed with formal RCRA

authorization withdrawal proceedings if necessary. 

The Region’s response noted one minor point that should be

clarified in the report. Some of the cases reviewed involved

inappropriate or untimely enforcement of non-Federally

regulated wastes.

OIG COMMENTS We concur with the Regional response and its planned

actions. Two non-Federally regulated cases were included

in our review in order to evaluate RIDEM’s total program. 

We found that RIDEM did not adequately address either

State or Federal violations of their RCRA program. 

Additionally, these cases were tracked in RCRIS and are

regulated under State law as hazardous waste. We

recognize that EPA would not have authority to enforce

these cases.

RIDEM’s COMMENTS RIDEM stated that it was disappointed in the audit process

and claimed that its response to the OIG position paper was

not recognized. However, the response went on to focus on

the following positive steps RIDEM is taking:

! Staffing - The State created three new

positions in the RCRA enforcement program.

! Enforcement Response Policy - RIDEM has

developed a new enforcement policy that is as

stringent as EPA’s ERP.

! Issuance of Formal Enforcement Actions -

Weekly meetings have been initiated to ensure

formal enforcement actions are issued on a

timely basis.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

30 Report No. 9100078

! Penalty Calculations - RIDEM has taken steps

to ensure that the RCRA enforcement program

will perform, and document a calculation of an

appropriate penalty that includes economic

benefit of the alleged violation.

! Enforcement Strategy Documentation - Files

will be documented to justify any future

decisions with respect to non-penalty actions

or no action after discovery of RCRA violations

at a facility.

! Backlog of Unresolved Cases - RIDEM has

developed a plan to address the backlog.

! Inspections - RIDEM has committed to

complete an established number of

inspections.

! Maintenance of the RCRIS Data Base - RIDEM

has completed submitting all outstanding

compliance data and has dedicated a staff

assistant to maintain the RCRIS database.

! Identification of Significant Non-Compliers -

RIDEM will identify SNCs in the RCRIS.

! Follow-up on enforcement action and tracking -

RIDEM is creating a data management system

to insure that enforcement actions are taken

within appropriate time frames and required

time frames to return to compliance are met.

OIG COMMENTS We considered and evaluated RIDEM’s response to the

position paper in developing the draft report. We concur

with the actions being taken by RIDEM to improve its RCRA

enforcement program. We believe RIDEM should continue
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

31 Report No. 9100078

to work closely with Regional staff to assure that their steps

are successful at improving RIDEM’s RCRA program.

Appendix A

INADEQUATE LEVEL OF ENFORCEMENT

FACILITY INSPECTION RESULTS

RI01 Chronic violator, leaking hazardous

waste (HW) and inadequate inspections.

RI02 Improper waste stream identification and

management, inadequate labeling and

secondary containment, HW stored in

excess of 90 days, operating HW storage

facility without a RCRA permit, staff not

aware of contingency plan and no

training.

RI03 Chronic violator, open enforcement order

not fully complied with, improper waste

storage, significant floor cracks in

containment area and inadequate

secondary containment.

RI04 No contingency plan, no training of staff

and manifest deficiencies.

RI05 No contingency plan, no training, HW

stored in excess of 90 days and

inadequate secondary containment.

RI06 Inadequate secondary containment, no

HW contingency plan, HW stored in

excess of 90 days.

RI07 No contingency plan, no training of staff,

HW determinations not made, unlabeled

drums and manifest deficiencies.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

32 Report No. 9100078

RI08 No contingency plan, no secondary

containment, waste allowed to migrate

out of container into ground.

RI09 Public health issue, chronic violator, no

secondary containment.

RI10 Chronic violator, leaking lead-acid

batteries with no containment, no

contingency plan or training of staff.

RI11 No secondary containment, no

contingency plan, no training, potential

HW material spilled on ground.

RI12 Inadequate secondary containment, no

HW contingency plan, no training,

evidence of contaminated soil and no

spill control materials.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

33 Report No. 9100078

Appendix B

INADEQUATE FOLLOW-UP TO CITED VIOLATIONS

FACILITY COMMENTS

RI13 Facility was issued 2 NOVs dated 2-95

and 4-96. The consent agreement dated

1-98 dealt with penalties only. There was

no follow-up to the cited violations. Days

elapsed from last NOV to consent

agreement was 646.

RI14 Facility inspected on 4-16-97. LOD dated 

 12-2-97 was in file but never issued. 

Facility was re-inspected 1-29-98 and

inspection noted material previously cited

as waste was now gone, used as product. 

Days elapsed from inspection to

compliance reinspection 283.

RI04 LOD issued 11-20-95, 10 day warning

notice issued 3-9-98 as follow-up to LOD. 

As of 5-22-98 facility has not complied

with LOD. This case should have been

raised to formal enforcement level. Days

elapsed from inspection to 5-22-98 was

936.

RI05 LOD issued on 5-22-96 calling for

compliance in 30 days. Follow-up was

conducted on 12-20-96. Inspector

found that waste was gone, however, file

does not indicate where waste had gone. 

Days elapsed from inspection to

compliance date 249.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

34 Report No. 9100078

RI15 LOD dated 7-17-97, 10 day warning

notice issued 10-1-97, two reinspections

conducted. Violator failure to come into

compliance should have resulted in

elevating the enforcement to formal

enforcement. Days elapsed from LOD

Issuance to 5-31-98 was 314.

RI06 LOD issued on 10-28-96. The facility did

not provide evidence of compliance and

RIDEM did not re-inspect to determine

compliance. This case may need to be

elevated to formal enforcement. Days

elapsed as of 5-31-98 was 579.

RI16 Letter of violation issued 11-28-95,

inspector called facility on 2-28-96. 

Facility responded on 2 of 3 violations. In

May 1998, a reinspection was conducted

and the same violation (Labeling) was

found. This represents an instance where

formal enforcement is required even

though it is very late. Days elapsed as of

5-31-98 was 913.

RI12 No evidence of compliance to RIDEM’s 

5-8-96 LOD containing 10 violations. 

Days elapsed as of 5-31-98 was 753.

RI09 No evidence of compliance to 9-13-96

LOD containing 3 violations. Days

elapsed as of 5-31-98 was 623.

RI08 No evidence of return to compliance to

RIDEM’s 6-26-96 LOD containing 8

violations. Days elapsed as of 5-31-98

was 700.
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

35 Report No. 9100078

Appendix C
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

36 Report No. 9100078
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

37 Report No. 9100078
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

38 Report No. 9100078
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

39 Report No. 9100078
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

40 Report No. 9100078
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

41 Report No. 9100078
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

42 Report No. 9100078
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

43 Report No. 9100078
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

44 Report No. 9100078

Appendix D
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

45 Report No. 9100078
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

46 Report No. 9100078
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

47 Report No. 9100078
RCRA Significant Non-Complier Identification

and Enforcement by the Rhode Island

 Department of Environmental Management

48 Report No. 9100078

Appendix E

DISTRIBUTION

Office of Inspector General

Office of Inspector General - Headquarters (2421)

Executive Assistant to Inspector General (2410)

Assistant Inspector General for Audit (2421)

Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Internal Audits (2421)

Divisional Inspector Generals

EPA Region 1

Regional Administrator

Director, Office of Environmental Stewardship

Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection

Enforcement Managers (OES)

Chief, RCRA Technical

Audit Coordinator

Headquarters

Agency Audit Follow-up Coordinator (2724)

Agency Audit Follow-up Official (2710)

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201A)

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5101)

Associate Administrator for Congressional & Legislative Affairs (1301)

Associate Administrator for Communications, Education & Public Affairs (1701)

Associate Administrator for Regional Operations & State/Local Relations (1501)

EPA Library (3404)

Other

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

General Accounting Office