### Review of RCRA Inspection Report Practices

Background

As part of an activity related to the Foundr ies Initiative, the Office of Compliance, Compliance Assistance & Sector Programs Division (CASPD) requested RCRA inspection reports from a number of Regions. Over 80 inspection re ports covering 69 facili ties were received from Regions 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10. These inspection reports covered inspec tions conducted by the Re gional staff, Regional and State staff together, and by st aff of authorized States. In addition, CASPD obtained another 45 inspection reports covering multi-media inspecti ons conducted by NEIC primarily at chemical production facilities.

The primary activity associated with these reports was an analysis to determine common areas of non-compliance. However, the review also provi ded an opportunity to see how inspections are

conducted and documented across the c ountry and also provided useful insight into the diversity of styles and information included in inspection reports. Additionall y, CASPD has had discussions with inspectors from Regions 6 and 10 and has review ed documents from those regions, (such as Region
10’s, “Report Contents: the 5W ’s ,” http://www.epa.gov/region10/o ffices/oea/ieu/manual/inspct06.htm ), along with other RCRA guidance documents, such as the Revised RCRA Inspection Manual (1998) (http ://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/rcra/rcrarevinspman-rpt.pdf ).

These discussions and document review s have provided the basis for some recommendations, summarized in this document, wh ich may be useful for RCRA core inspections and for “best practices” regarding RCRA inspection reports. Also included is a “mode l” inspection report outline

that lists all of the elem ents essential to a good inspection report. The information in this document is an augmented “distillation” from several existin g sources including: th e Revised RCRA Inspection Manual; RCRAInfo guidance concerning “evaluation”/in spection types; and ICIS requirements. The recommendations provided are to be used in ad dition to the memorandum from Michael Alushin, dated April 18, 2002, “Practices to Follow and A void When Conducting Compliance Inspections,” ( http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/ inspector/referenc/inspectpractice.pdf ).

Examples of Good Report Qual ities and “Best Practices ”

From analysis of the RCRA Foundries and NEIC inspections, many excellent examples of desirable inspection report qualitie s emerged, including some inspection report “best practices.” For example, an important inspection report quality contained in some of the reports (which should be included in all reports) was the purpose of the inspection. Was it part of a national priority initiative; follow-up to a previous inspection; or due to a tip or complaint? Additionally, there were some practices observed that indicate a need for a more common u nderstanding of terminology and areas where improvement could occur. Report quality va ried even within a Region or between Regions

and States.

Several reports also included excellent narrative descriptions. Positive attributes observed included: descriptions organized by facility/process/inspection area; detailed references to applicable regulatory areas (including specifi c regulatory language); thorough de scriptions of waste issues,including locations, processes, and/or facility co mponents, conditions present, container sizes and amounts; and excellent documentation such as photographs and photo logs which provided

observation dates and times.

Inspection reports should be written so th at a person unfamiliar with the facility can understand how the plant is organized; against what standa rds it was inspected; and what waste streams were identified, how they were determined, and how thos e streams are handled by th e facility. The type of inspection and the type of facility (i.e., a brass foundry) should be identified and SIC or NAICs codes and RCRA permit numbers should be provided. If possible, sizes or am ounts of pollutants that may be associated with potential noncompliance should be given. Providing this information makes it

easier to determine measurable outc omes from inspections. The following is an actual example from the foundry inspection reports’ analysis of a summary that demonstrates how information related to amounts of pollutants can be incl uded in the inspection report

.

“There were a number of containers of h azardous waste at the facility that were not properly labeled. The following was observed:

● In the paint booth bunker; one 55-gallon container of paint wa ste (D001). The container was approximately 1/3 full (see Photo 7 in Attachment 2).

● Ninety day storage area; one full 30 gallon container of waste mineral spirits (D001; see Attachment 6) with an illegible label.

● Outside the 90-day storage area there were tw o 50-gallon containers w ith “Hazardous Waste” on the label, but with no risk label and contents unknown. Facility was unsure of contents as the containers had been on site prior to facility owne rship transfer. One was rusted through and leaking and appeared to be half full. Material appear ed to be a mixture of paint waste and solvents.

● In the galvanizing room; one 3x8x 5 foot tank about 2/3 full of zi nc ammonia chloride solution. No

labels were affixed. This waste is being evaporated before addition of clay-like material and is then shipped off as hazardous waste.”

This example could be further strengthened to develop an even more supportable enforcement case by adding additional information . For example:

● “Paint booth bunker 1A (Photo 1) contained three 55-gallon dr ums of paint waste (D001, F003; see Attachment 1 for the facility's hazardous wast e determination). One of the drums (Photos 2, 3 and 4) was not labeled with the words "hazardous waste", th e contents of the container or with the initial date of accumulation. The unlabeled drum was approximately 1/3 full.

● The ninety day storage area at the south end of Building F1 (S ee facility map Attachment 2) contained one full 30 gallon contai ner of waste mineral spirits (D 001; see Attachment 3 for the facility's hazardous waste determination). The container had an illegible label (Photo 9).

● Outside the ninety day storage area at the south end of Building F1 there were two 55-gallon containers labeled “Hazardous Waste” (Photo 12). According to Mr. Ted Smith, Environmental Manager, and Ms. Jane Rogers, F1 Operator, the exact contents of the drums were unknown. Mr. Smith stated that the drums were generated duri ng start up of the tar still unit several years ago (see Process Description Attachment 11) and the deci sion was made to dispose of them this week. The facility has collected samples of each of these drums and sent them off-site for testing. The work order and lab receipt are included as Attachment 7. The facility asked the lab to run only TCLP benzene on the waste, however, based upon the i nputs to the unit (Attachment 11); the compliance inspector believes the facility should run TCLP VOC's and TCLP RCRA 8 metals for a complete

2hazardous waste determination. The facility agreed to run these additional tests and will share the results with the region. The black drum seen in Photo 12 was rusted and a ppeared to be leaking (Photo 13). The stained area was on concrete and covered approximate ly 8 square feet (Photo 14). The facility overpacked the drum and used absorben t to remove the spilled material (Photo 15). The spent absorbent was placed into the overpacked drum and will be disposed following hazardous waste determination. The facility labeled the drums ‘Tar Still waste - pendi ng analysis’ with today's date during the inspection.”

In addition, inspection re ports should document that all require d procedures (such as presenting credentials) have been followed. All persons present during the inspection should be identified, to the extent possible. Most in spection reports did this. Using a cove r sheet containing this information is especially helpful. Reports should also contain refe rences to attachments used to substantiate the report’s findings (such as photos, mani fests, parts of hazardous waste determin ation/analysis.) In cluding a list of

these attachments in the report is also useful.

Guidance concerning requirements for inspection reports may be found in the Revised RCRA Inspection Manual ( http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/po licies/civil/rcra/rcrarevinspman-rpt.pdf ). Additional information may be found in Region 10’s Investigations & Engineer ing Unit’s “(Inspection) Report Contents: The 5W’s ” ( http://www.epa.gov/region10/o ffices/oea/ieu/manual/inspct06.htm ).

Areas Needing Improvement

The analysis also highlighted some areas where improvement could be attained. For example,

there is a need for consistent terminology regarding inspection (evaluation) types. Some reports used the wrong acronym to designate the inspection type, or identified the inspection as one type when it was really another. Terminology has recently been revised for input into RCRAInfo, so inspection reports should use the acronym for inspection (eva luation) type and its corresponding definition that

is consistent with the latest version of RCRAInfo. (See “Ins pection Evaluation Type” table.)

Additionally, not a ll inspection reports contained the esse ntial information needed to justify enforcement action/inaction. For example, some reports do not state the purpose of the inspection; such as it was conducted as part of a national priori ty focus, or was conducte d in response to a tip and complaint. Inspection reports shou ld contain at least the information required to be entered into RCRAInfo (and ICIS for Federal inspec tions). Also, inspection reports should include all the necessary information from which to determine whether a violation has been committed , but should not actually state that a violation has occurred . Simply stating the facts, such as “containers are not labeled,” or “a Contingency Plan is missing essentia l elements,” allows this determination to be

made. Stating the regulatory language or referenci ng the regulatory citati on of the requirements

should be done ; again, without drawing a conclusion . For example: “All containers of hazardous waste must be stored as requi red by 40 CFR 262.34(d)(2) [see 40 CF R 265.173(a)]. Five absorbent pads (12 by 12 inches, each) used as rags were found in a bucket with no lid in the quality control laboratory. These pads are shipped off as hazardous waste because they cannot be landfilled.”

Another area where improvement is desired is in providing information concerning the amounts and types of pollutants addresse d or discovered that may be a ssociated with non-compliance. Increasingly, we must demonstrate our successes in terms of things which can be measured. Identifying the amounts of wastes or pollutants that ar e related to noncompliance, or identifying

3reductions that occur because of our activities is extremely impor tant for demonstrating how our actions benefit the public and protec t the environment. Therefore, identification of wastes and/or pollutants potentially reduced by our actions or i nvolved in potential noncompliance is an essential component of a thorough inspection report.

The pages following the Recommendations section contain information that may provide assistance in determining what information should be contained in the inspect ion report in general and also for particular types of RCRA facilities. Included are: a “Model” RCRA Inspection Report Outline; a list of “Recommended Areas of Inspection Focus for Specific Types of RCRA Entities;” and a list of Inspection (Evaluation) Types to assi st with determining the inspection type that is consistent with RCRAInfo and ICIS terminology.

Recommendations

In addition to the requirements delinea ted in the Revised RCRA Insp ection Manual and the April

2002 “Practices to Follow and Avoid When Co nducting Compliance Insp ections” memorandum, the following are recommendations base d on our analysis and review.

Regions should :

• Review their processes and those of states to en sure quality inspections and inspection reports.

This addresses one of the elements of the State Review Framework.

• Develop a template or use an existing one that meets all the essential elements of the “Model” Inspection Report Outline, and any other needs of the program.

• Develop a Standard Operating Proc edure (SOP) or adjust the inspec tion SOP if necessary, to meet program needs, including periodic review of inspection reports or approval of inspection reports by manager.

4“MODEL” RCRA INSPECTION REPORT OUTLINE

Report Heading Inspection of .... (Region X Inspection of Acme Bulletin Board Company, for example).

Date/Time(s) of Inspection Day, year and time for the inspection.

Type & Purpose of Inspection What t ype of inspection was it? (i.e. Case Development Inspection, Compliance Evaluation Inspection, etc.) What was the purpose of the inspection? (Why was inspection conducted?) For example, "Inspection was part of x priority and was conducted to determine compliance with generator standards;" or, "Inspection was the result of a 'tip and complaint.'" Facility Information Region. Facility name, address, telephone number. Name of Facility Representative(s), including title (positi on) and telephone number. Type of facility (including SIC or NAICS code and RCRA Identification number ).

Inspection Participants Names and affiliations of all members of in spection team and facility participants. Opening Conference To whom were credentials shown; who was present (names, titles or positions), what was discussed; specific arrangements; entry granted or denied.

Facility Description What was the facility like, including processes, RCRA-re lated activities, wastes generated, treated, stored, etc. Site History Compliance history and history of facility site location to extent known or ascertainable.

Inspection Narrative Description of the field inspection events and observations. Where did you go? What did you see/do? What records were reviewed, copied, taken? Where were records kept and who was in charge of them? What sele ction method was used to select records reviewed? Which records were used? Were samples taken? Of what? Were there splits? Were photos taken to document the conditions observed? [If documentation is provided elsewhere (attachments, for example), it should be referenced here.] Compliance
Concerns/Deficiencies Regulatory citation; nature of problem; size and quantities of areas concerned (for example, "5 fifty gallon drums."). Do not use the word "violation ," or draw enforcement conclusions, but do state what problems were observed and how this relates to regulatory requirements . For example: "40 CFR 262.34(a)(3) requires that

containers of hazardous waste that are accumulated on-site be marked with the words
"hazardous waste. At the time of the inspection the hazardous waste storage area contained five "super sacks" (holding approximately 10 cubic yards each) of baghouse

dust from the electric arc furnace. The baghouse dust from the electric arc furnace has tested characteristically hazardous for cadmium and/or chromium. None of these sacks were labeled "hazardous waste," or marked with the accumulation start date."

Actions Taken By Facility Related to

Deficiencies For example: verified compliance with prev iously issued enforcement action; corrected recordkeeping deficiencies; completed a not ification or report; corrected monitoring deficiencies; requested a permit application; implemented new or improved management practices or procedures; improv ed pollutant identification (e.g. labeling, manifesting, storage, etc); reduced polluti on (e.g. use reduction, industrial process change, emissions or discharge change, et c.) (Specify the pollutant(s) and amounts reduced) Compliance Assistance Although not required, if assistance materi als are provided, stat e what was provided and whether it was general or site-specific.

Attachments List and describe all documentation including photographs, drawings, receipts, notices,

etc. Date and Signature Make sure the report is signed and dated.

5RECOMMENDED AREAS OF INSPECTION FOCUS FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF RCRA ENTITIES

FOR GENERATORS

General Standards For

Generators Parts 262.10 – 262.12. Describe compliance with these standards.

The Manifest Parts 262.20 – 262.23. Establish exis tence of manifest records; assess adequacy with respect to regulatory requirements. Pre-Transport Requirements Parts 262.30 – 262.34 . Review packaging, labeling, marking and placarding procedures for complian ce with the regulations; establish compliance with accumulation time restrictions. Recordkeeping and Reporting Parts 262.40 – 262.43. Establish exis tence of annual reports and additional reports. Special Conditions Parts 262.50 – 262.51. Inspect for repor ts of international shipments of waste, and proper notificat ion of the Administrator.

Standards for Universal Waste Management Part 273. Inspect for proper management of universal waste including: batteries, not covered elsewhere; recalled pesticides; mercury-containing equipment; and hazardous waste lamps.

Standard for the Management of Used Oil Part 279. Inspect for compliance wi th used oil standards including: standards for used oil generators; standards for used oil collection centers and aggregation points; stan dards for used oil transporter and transfer facilities; standards for us ed oil processors and re-refiners; restrictions on burning for energy rec overy; used oil fuel marketing; and use as a dust suppressant.

FOR TRANSPORTERS

General Parts 263.10 – 263.12. Ensure that the transporter has obtained an EPA ID number and only stores wast e at transfer facilities fewer than 10 days Manifest System and Recordkeeping Parts 263.20 – 263.22. Establish existence of manifest records and compliance with manifest procedures.

Hazardous Waste Discharges Parts 263.30 – 263.31. Ensure that transporter is aware of responsibilities under these sections. Check to see if any discharge reports have been made to the Department of Transportation as required by these regulations.

FOR TSDFs General Facility Standards Parts 264/5.10 – 264/5.18. Describe compliance with standards. Preparedness & Prevention Parts 264/5.30 – 264/5.37. Check for required equipment and arrangements with local authorities. Contingency Plan & Emergency Procedures Parts 264/5.50 – 264/5. 56. Check records and procedures for conformance with requirem ents of this section. Manifest System, Recordkeeping, & Reporting Parts 264/5.70 – 264/5.77. Establish ex istence of manifest records, operating record, annual report, a nd unmanifested waste report. Assess conformance with regulatory requirements.. Groundwater Monitoring Parts 264/5.90 - 264.99 or 265.94. Examine ground-water monitoring plan and review results of sampling analysis

6Corrective Action Program Parts 264.100 – 101. Review status of corrective action program)

Closure and Post Closure Parts 264/5.110 - 264/5.120 (Revie w closure and post-closure plans for adequacy with respec t to regulatory requirements Facility Specific Standards Parts 264/5.170 - 264.603 or 265.445 and Parts 264/5.1100 - 1102. Depending upon the type of facility being inspected, establish compliance with the appropriate regulatory standard.

Permit Conditions For permitted facilities, review violations of specific permit conditions or schedules of compliance.

7

### Inspection (Evaluation) Type*

Acronym Description Definition

CAC Corrective

Action Compliance

Evaluation An evaluation of a site’s comp liance with the corrective action requirements of a permit or an order. When a CAC is conducted as part of another inspection type (CEI, GME, etc.) a separate entry for a CAC should be made for the CAC component.

CDI Case Development Inspection A CDI is an on-site inspection conducted for the sole purpose of gathering additional information that supports the evidence (i.e. samples, on-site records review, interview, etc.) for a potential or pending enforcement case. A CDI is performed only after an initial

evaluation has resulted in observa tion of potential violations.

CEI Compliance

Evaluation Inspection A CEI evaluation is primarily an on- site evaluation of the compliance status of the site with regard to all applicable RCRA Regulations and Permits (with the exception of gr oundwater monitoring and financial assurance requirements.) Although portions of a CEI evaluation may routinely be conducted in an office setting, such “office” evaluations are considered an integral part of a CEI in terms of completing an

evaluation. The overall evaluation of a site’s compliance status may take place over multiple days necessitating multiple site visits and

activities. The entire set of activ ities associated with the effort are considered a single CEI.

The major function of a CEI is an overall review if the site’s performance. The inspection includes an on-site examination of records and other documents maintained by the site an evaluation of the site’s compliance with all applicable re quirements and adequate sampling, where necessary. Where appropriate, it includes groundwater monitoring assessment outlines or plans, closure/post-closure plans, contingency plan reviews, wast e analysis plan reviews, and preparedness and prevention plan reviews. Specifically excluded from the CEI type of evaluation are fi nancial assurance requirements and inspections of groundwater monitoring systems. A review of financial assurance requirements is most often conducted by “agency experts,” and appropriately recorded as a Financial Record Review (FRR) evaluation. Inspections of groundwater monitoring system are recorded

as either GME or OAM.

CSE Compliance

Schedule

Evaluation An evaluation conducted to verify compliance with an enforceable compliance schedule associated with a formal enforcement action. When a CSE is conducted as part of another inspection type (CEI, GME, etc.), a notation should be made.

FCI Focused Compliance An FCI is an on-site inspection that addresses only a sp ecific portion or subpart of the RCRA or authorized State regulations/programs. For

8example, a Subpart CC, BIF, or Universal Waste Rule inspection. Nationally defined Focus Areas are us ed with this evaluation type.

FRR Financial

Record

Review An extensive and detailed review of a site’s compliance with Financial Responsibility requirements. These are conducted in the Agency office,

and not on-site.

FUI Follow-up Inspection A partial on-site inspecti on conducted to verify the status of violations cited during a previous evaluation. Th is type of inspection is only used if a more extensive inspection is not conducted – for example, inspections following up to formal/informal actions where no enforceable compliance schedule has been established.

GME Groundwater Monitoring

Evaluation A detailed evaluation of the ad equacy of a site’s groundwater monitoring system as per EPA’s final RCRA Compliance Groundwater Monitoring Evaluation Guidance Document. An evaluation of the groundwater system design should be conducted by a hydro-geologist

and include a review of the owner/operator’s characterization of the hydro-geology beneath hazardous waste management units, monitoring well placement and depth/ spacing, and well design and construction. An integral part of the GME is the review of the operation of the groundwater monitoring system through evaluation of the owner/operator’s sampling and anal ysis plan and implementation. Splits and/or sampling should be con ducted as a check of groundwater quality at any wells that may have indicated releases to support

enforcement or corrective action. GME’s should include: a detailed investigation of the engineering fe atures and effectiveness of the groundwater monitoring system; a de tailed review of the site’s groundwater sampling and analysis plan; recalculation of statistics at detection monitoring facilities to ensu re that the site should not be in assessment; detailed examination of the site’s assessment monitoring plan & field implementation; re-e valuation of groundwater flow direction; and a substantial amount of sampling.

OAM Operation &

Maintenance Inspection A periodic inspection of how well a groundwater monitoring system

continues to function once it is considered well designed. The inspection focuses on the condition of well and sampling devices. Evaluation of well recovery notes, turb idity of water, total depth, depth to water, etc. should be made and co mpared to historic data. Sampling devices should be tested and, if nece ssary, pulled and visually inspected. The findings of an O&M inspection will indicate whether case development is warranted and/or will serve to focus future GME’s.

* In accordance with RCRAInfo Guidance.

9