# A V
%Wl
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Cleaning Up Communities
Some Safeguards in Place
for Long-Term Care of
Disposed Hazardous Waste,
But Challenges Remain
Report No. 15-P-0169	June 17, 2015
Closed
Hazardous
Waste Disposal
Units
»•
Region 9
Region 10
Region 2
AK

-------
Report Contributors:
Anne Bavuso
Bram Hass
Kathryn Hess
Christina Lovingood
Abbreviations
ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Hazardous Waste Management Officials
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OECA	Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG	Office of Inspector General
OSWER	Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
RCRA	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRAInfo	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information database
UECA	Uniform Environmental Covenant Act
Cover map: Hazardous waste disposal units assigned an operating status code of
"closed with waste in place" in RCRAInfo as of October 9, 2014. Not all units
have entered permitted post-closure care. Numbers and color groups indicate
EPA regions. (Map graphic by the EPA OIG based on information in agency
databases, RCRAInfo and Facility Registry Service)
Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, DC 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
More information at www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.html.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oig
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions

-------
tftD STA?.
*	' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	15-P-0169
^	ro.	Hffiro nf Incnortnr Perioral	June 17, 2015
•	UiOi 11 I V 11 UI II I IC7I I Id I I I UICUII
	 \ Office of Inspector General
® I
At a Glance
no-^°
Why We Did This Review
We evaluated whether the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and authorized
states have safeguards to
control long-term risks of
hazardous waste disposal
beyond the 30-year post-
closure care period.
The EPA regulates hazardous
waste disposal under the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
Regulations require that
owners maintain and monitor
closed disposal units for a
period that lasts 30 years. This
is called the post-closure care
period. The EPA authorized
48 states to implement the
RCRA hazardous waste
program within their state.
Leaks from disposed waste
could contaminate ground
water, resulting in loss of water
supply, high cleanup costs and
potential health problems.
Over 1,500 units are closed
with waste in place across the
nation.
This report addresses the
following EPA goal or
cross-agency strategy:
• Cleaning up communities
and advancing sustainable
development.
Send all inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391
or visit www.epa.gov/oiq.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2015/
20150617-15-P-0169.pdf
Some Safeguards in Place for Long-Term Care of
Disposed Hazardous Waste, But Challenges Remain
Safe disposal of hazardous
waste requires commitment to
long-term care of closed
disposal units.
For more information on
hazardous waste disposal units
and cleanups near you, visit the
EPA's Cleanups in My
Community website at
http://www2.epa.gov/cleanups/
cleanups-mv-communitv.
What We Found
Long-term risks at closed RCRA hazardous
waste disposal units with waste left in place
are partly addressed by legal and
operational safeguards. For example, RCRA
regulations require that the implementing
authority—which in most cases is a state
environmental director—make a site-specific
determination on whether unacceptable
risks remain at the end of the planned
post-closure care period. In addition, RCRA
provides a safeguard through corrective
action and other enforcement authorities
that the EPA and authorized states can use
to address cleanup needs at facilities
undergoing post-closure care.
States have exercised their authority, extending post-closure care and associated
financial assurance when unacceptable risks remain. One state also ended post-
closure care and established other long-term care arrangements under an
environmental covenant. If long-term problems arise after post-closure care, the
implementing authority may be able to address these problems using its RCRA
enforcement authority.
The challenges to effective long-term care that remain include:
•	The EPA has not finalized its guidance on criteria for determining whether
human health and the environment will be protected if post-closure care
ends. The EPA missed its commitment to issue the guidance in 2013.
States have made decisions on adjusting the care period without benefit of
national guidance on criteria that should be considered.
•	Eighteen states do not have environmental covenant statutes that
strengthen controls for long-term protection of land use.
•	The EPA and state hazardous waste programs will have an increased
workload as more units reach the end of their expected 30-year
post-closure care periods.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the EPA finalize the guidance on adjusting the post-closure
care period, and provide information on the benefits of implementing controls
afforded through environmental covenant statutes. The EPA agreed with all
recommendations and provided acceptable corrective actions and completion
dates.

-------
^£DSX
£	x,	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I	1	WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
\,	c/
PRO**4,
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
June 17,2015
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Some Safeguards in Place for Long-Term Care of Disposed Hazardous Waste,
But Challenges Remain
Report No. 15-P-0169
Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO:
Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator
Region 3
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems
the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of
the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in
this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
The responsible offices include the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery within the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the Office of Civil Enforcement and the Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and the Land
and Chemicals Division within Region 3.
You are not required to provide a written response to this final report because you provided agreed-to
corrective actions and planned completion dates for the report recommendations. The OIG may make
periodic inquiries on your progress in implementing these corrective actions. Please update the EPA's
Management Audit Tracking System as you complete planned corrective actions. Should you choose to
provide a final response, we will post your response on the OIG's public website, along with our
memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file
that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public;
if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with
corresponding justification.
We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.

-------
Some Safeguards in Place for Long-Term Care of
Disposed Hazardous Waste, But Challenges Remain
15-P-0169
Table of C
Purpose	 1
Background	 1
Responsible Offices	 4
Scope and Methodology	 5
Some Safeguards in Place	 6
RCRA Provides Safeguards on the End of Post-Closure Care	 6
States Use Their Authority to Mitigate Risks	 8
EPA Takes Steps to Support State Decisions	 8
Challenges to Long-Term Care 	 9
RCRA Does Not Require Reviews After Post-Closure Care Ends 	 10
Guidance on Adjusting the Post-Closure Care Period Delayed	 10
Some States Lack Environmental Covenant Statutes	 11
Sufficient Staff Are Needed to Meet Future Workload	 11
Conclusions	 12
Recommendations 	 12
Summary of Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation	 13
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits	 14
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation	 15
B Distribution 	 24

-------
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General
(OIG) evaluated whether the EPA and authorized states have safeguards to
control public health, environmental and fiscal risks at Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act1 (RCRA) hazardous waste disposal units, closed with waste in
place beyond the 30-year post-closure care period. For EPA headquarters, EPA
Region 3 and states within Region 3, we addressed the following questions:
•	Do public health, environmental and fiscal risks remain at the end of the
post-closure care period at these disposal units?
•	Do authorities have controls in place to mitigate risks remaining at the end
of the post-closure care period?
•	Has the EPA taken steps needed to ensure that authorities address risks
appropriately as disposal units approach the end of post-closure care?
Background
The EPA regulates management and disposal of
hazardous waste2 using authority granted by
RCRA. The EPA defines hazardous waste as
waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to
human health or the environment. Discarded
commercial products and by-products of
manufacturing processes can be hazardous
waste. Examples include pesticides, cleaning
fluids, sludges from electroplating operations, and emission control dust from
steel production. RCRA requires owners of hazardous waste disposal units to
meet certain standards to prevent and detect releases to the environment. These
units include hazardous waste landfills and surface impoundments. After a unit
stops accepting waste, regulations require the owner to undertake closure
operations that include covering the waste if it is to remain in place. Over 1,500
units are "closed with waste in place" across the nation (see map on cover).
RCRA regulations require that the owner maintain and monitor the disposal unit
for a period that extends 30 years after closure operations have been completed
and verified. This is called the post-closure care period. Owners must provide
proof that they have sufficient funds to pay for this required care. This is called
financial assurance. Insurance, letter of credit, trust fund, and surety bond are
examples of financial assurance mechanisms. Regulations also require financial
assurance for corrective action if problems with the disposal unit arise during
post-closure care. Financial assurance mitigates financial risk posed by the waste
in these disposal units during post-closure care.
1	42 U.S.C. 6901, et. seq.
2	40 C.F.R. Parts 264 and 265.
Cleaning Up Communities
The EPA works to protect human
health and the environment from
risks posed by hazardous waste
disposal under its strategic goal
Cleaning up communities and
advancing sustainable
development.
15-P-0169
1

-------
closure plan.
RCRA regulations
also require the
owner to provide data sufficient for the
implementing authority to make an informed
decision on whether the post-closure care
period should be extended to protect human
health and the environment.
RCRA regulations for post-closure care of
hazardous waste disposal units were
established 33 years ago. Thus, the first units
that entered post-closure care have reached or
are approaching the end of the 30-year post-
closure care period (Figure 1). The
implementing authority will need to make a
site-specific decision to extend post-closure
care or allow RCRA post-closure care to end
for each unit.
The EPA and authorized states regulate post-closure
care through RCRA permits and other types of
enforceable documents. After completion of the
established post-closure care period, the owner and a
qualified professional engineer are required to certify to
the implementing authority that post-closure care
activities were performed in accordance with the
approved post-
Health Risks From
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Over 1,500 hazardous waste disposal
units across the nation are closed with
waste in place (see map on cover).
Waste includes such substances as
trichloroethylene, also known as TCE,
a widely used industrial chemical and
a known human carcinogen. Another
example is lead.. Exposure to lead is
known to cause learning disabilities in
children; nerve, kidney, and liver
problems; and pregnancy risks.
Concentrations in drinking water of
these and other substances are
regulated by federal and state laws.
Preventing contaminants from
reaching the ground water is the best
way to reduce the health risks
associated with poor drinking water
quality. Once hazardous chemicals
are placed in disposal units, they can
leak into the ground water, if they are
not sufficiently stabilized and if the
covers and liners do not function as
intended over the long term.
The EPA authorized 48 states to implement its RCRA
hazardous waste program. The EPA retains oversight
responsibility and enforcement authority for these state-
implemented programs. The EPA implements the
program in Iowa and Alaska.
RCRA regulations provide for the implementing
authority, which in most cases is a state environmental
director, to extend the post-closure care period for
disposal units closed with waste in place if "the
extended period is necessary to protect human health
and the environment." These regulations also include
provisions allowing the 30-year period to be shortened
if a reduced period is sufficient to protect human health
and the environment.
15-P-0169
2

-------
Figure 1. Estimated number of units for which end of permitted post-closure care
decisions will need to be made annually; 54 percent of these decisions would fall
in the next 10 years.
2015	2020	2025	2030	2035	2040
Year
Source: OIG analysis of data from the RCRA Information database (RCRAInfo).
Note: Information presented is limited to units for which closure verification and
post-closure care permit issuance were recorded in RCRAInfo.
RCRA regulations require that the disposal unit owner place a notation on the
property deed that restricts future land use where wastes are left. This is an
informational form of an institutional control. However, notices contained in
deeds to be filed in the local land records by themselves generally are not
designed to serve as enforceable restrictions on the future use of the property.
An environmental covenant provides a mechanism for a state to perpetually
restrict future land use. An environmental covenant also can require an owner to
continue monitoring, maintaining and reporting on a unit beyond the RCRA post-
closure care period. In 2003, the Uniform Law Commission3 approved a Uniform
Environmental Covenant Act (UECA). The UECA, if enacted by a state, protects
valid environmental covenants from being inadvertently extinguished by
application of various common law doctrines, foreclosures and zoning changes.
It also ensures that institutional controls are maintained and enforced and helps
fulfill the dual purposes of such restrictions—the protection of human health and
the economically viable reuse of the property. Under UECA, as part of work
performed to close a hazardous waste disposal unit, the state and owner can agree
to a covenant that is recorded on the land records and is legally and practically
enforceable. According to the commission, 25 states and territories had adopted
UECA as of August 2014. Another 10 states have adopted laws similar to UECA.
3 The Uniform Law Commission provides states with model acts in areas of the law where uniformity would add
value to states. The commission is comprised of state commissioners and was established in 1892. For more
information, see http://www.uniformlaws.org.
15-P-0169
3

-------
garbage
lOKftlit pjnpK] up
to won*?® tar* lo»
kM ctepcaaf
kWs arc prcfces k> cetaci
le*chate or rretiane leaks
-J.-HCC l^CTll
Cvtawty view of a
modern landfill daaigned
to prevent the two main
Kaiarda of the dump
eiptefont ot fire*
cauted txy methane gat,
and leetage of rainwater
muted wrth dangerous
chemtcala (or teechetey
urd
tyrdMclnef
unrt
CUy
sufaeo4
Clay and pbtats; tang
to fen** kaks; pees
cofteet leacfuia tr&n
bottom of Undfa
.»«ul.
«f aol and awy
wlm «re*h
EPA graphic of an engineered waste disposal unit.
In 2010, at the annual meeting of the Association of State and Territorial
Hazardous Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), state waste managers
expressed concerns regarding ending post-closure care. In 2012, ASTSWMO
issued a position paper stating that many states were grappling with how to
address units approaching the end of the initial 30-year post-closure care period.
Among other concerns, states had questions on what specific criteria should be
used to make a determination that post-closure care should be extended or ended
at the end of the initial 30-year period. ASTSWMO recommended that the EPA
issue guidance on post-closure regulations and that this guidance address states'
concerns.
Responsible Offices
The EPA offices having primary responsibility for the hazardous waste program
and enforcement within the program are the Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
and the Office of Civil Enforcement and the Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA). RCRA grants the EPA Regional Administrators authority to issue
hazardous waste permits and delegate their authority to the states.
15-P-0169
4

-------
Scope and Methodology
We performed our work from April 2014 to March 2015. We conducted this
performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained
provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
We interviewed personnel from the following offices and organizations on issues
relevant to post-closure care:
•	OSWER staff, including managers in the Office of Resource Conservation
and Recovery.
•	OECA staff, including managers in the Office of Civil Enforcement and
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement.
•	Hazardous waste disposal permitting, corrective action and enforcement
staff and managers in EPA Region 3.
•	Permitting staff at the Maryland Department of the Environment.
•	Hazardous waste managers from four states in attendance at the 2014
Mid-Year Meeting of ASTSWMO, which focused on transitioning to
long-term management.
•	Counsel to the RCRA Corrective Action Project, an industry group that
advocates for cleanup standards and procedures that achieve
environmental benefits in a risk-based and cost-effective manner.
•	Managers and staff at Waste Management Inc., which owns hazardous
waste units, including two we discussed in depth—a closed unit in
Virginia and an operating facility with multiple units in New York.
We reviewed reports and other documents related to end of post-closure care for
hazardous waste disposal units closed with waste in place. Documents included:
•	Relevant sections of RCRA; the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act; and related regulations.
•	The EPA's program and guidance documents, including documents on
financial assurance and institutional controls; draft guidance on evaluating
and adjusting the post-closure care period; and National Program Manager
Guidance.
•	The EPA's hazardous waste and financial assurance websites.
•	ASTSWMO's 2012 position paper, Post-Closure Care: Beyond 30 Years
at RCRA Subtitle C Facilities, and related presentations and reports.
•	State policy and documents on ending post-closure care.
•	Site-specific information on disposal units.
15-P-0169
5

-------
We examined permitting, corrective action and financial assurance information
taken from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information database
(RCRAInfo) and provided by staff at EPA headquarters, EPA Region 3, and the
Maryland Department of the Environment. Although we did not assess the overall
reliability or validity of RCRAInfo data, we found some inconsistencies and
incomplete data. Since April 2013, OSWER, regions and states addressed some,
but not all, data quality problems in RCRAInfo. However, we believe that the
available data are of sufficient quality to address our evaluation objectives.
The scope of our evaluation was limited to the EPA's actions at headquarters and
EPA Region 3. We selected EPA Region 3 because of its proximity to EPA OIG
evaluation staff, which minimized travel costs, and because the region had a
moderate number of hazardous waste units compared to other regions. All states
within EPA Region 3 are authorized to implement the RCRA hazardous waste
program. The region provided us information on hazardous waste programs in all
of its states.
We selected Maryland for further evaluation within EPA Region 3 because the
state had a moderate number of units compared to the other states in the region
and because Maryland's key hazardous waste manager provided input into
drafting post-closure care guidance. This manager also served as the chairperson
of ASTSWMO's Corrective Action and Permitting Task Force.
Some Safeguards in Place
Some legal and operational safeguards are in place for long-term care of closed
RCRA hazardous waste disposal units with waste left in place, but challenges
remain. Using authority granted by RCRA, states have extended post-closure care
and associated financial assurance in cases where the states have identified that
unacceptable risks continue. One state ended post-closure care at a site and
established other long-term care arrangements under an environmental covenant,
where unacceptable risks did not remain. RCRA provides an additional safeguard
by making all units closed with waste in place subject to corrective action and
other enforcement authorities while in post-closure care. The EPA and authorized
states may be able to address long-term care problems, when they arise, under
RCRA enforcement authority.
"[Protective management under long-term stewardship is necessary to ensure that
communities and the environment are not exposed to hazards through leaks or other
releases from waste management units."
EPA, 2014, RCRA's Critical Mission &the Path Forward
RCRA Provides Safeguards on the End of Post-Closure Care
RCRA requires the implementing authority, which is the state environmental
director in all but two states, to make a site-specific determination on human
15-P-0169
6

-------
health and environmental risks from units in post-closure care. If unacceptable
risks remain for a specific unit, post-closure care and its associated financial
assurance are extended.
RCRA regulation grants the implementing authority—the delegated state or the
EPA in the case of two states—permission to extend the post-closure care period.
An extension is granted if "the extended period is necessary to protect human
health and the environment." If the implementing authority determines that there
is no unacceptable risk to human health and the environment, there is no need for
additional post-closure care. States are using this authority granted by RCRA, as
shown in the following site-specific determinations:
• In 2012, Maryland evaluated information on a
disposal unit approaching the end of its 30-year post-
closure care period. Maryland identified continuing
risk and, using its authority under RCRA, required the
owner to renew its post-closure care permit for
another 10 years. Further, Maryland required the
owner to maintain financial assurance to cover this
extended care. The amount of financial assurance is to
remain great enough to cover 10 years of care
throughout the extended permit period.
Aerial view of a closed hazardous waste
disposal unit in Bedford, Virginia. An
environmental covenant specifies the long-
term care requirements. (EPA graphic)
• In 2013, Virginia terminated post-closure care on a
disposal unit prior to the end of the 30-year post-
closure care period. Virginia determined that the unit
was protective of human health and the environment
and modified the permit to reduce the post-closure
care period to time served. Using authority from its
environmental covenants statute, Virginia required the
owner to annually certify the completion of
monitoring, maintenance and security obligations.
Virginia did not require the owner to maintain
financial assurance to cover these obligations.
In both of these cases, we determined that the state used its authority, granted by
RCRA, to obtain from the unit owner the information needed to make an
informed decision to adjust the length of care based on whether unacceptable risks
remained. The state then used tools available to provide safeguards for long-term
care, in one case requiring continuation of permitted post-closure care, and in the
other requiring an environmental covenant.
RCRA provides additional mechanisms for ensuring that units do not pose
unacceptable risks. Corrective action is a statutory tool that expands the
regulatory options available to the EPA and authorized states to address cleanup
needs at facilities undergoing post-closure care. It ensures protection of human
USA Watte of Viigmia Landfill
J Abrasive Avenue
Bedford. VA ?45?3
15-P-0169
7

-------
health and the environment by requiring owners to investigate and clean up
hazardous releases to soil, ground water, surface water and air. After the
implementing authority releases a unit owner from post-closure care obligations,
other RCRA enforcement authorities may be used to address long-term care
problems when they arise. RCRA authorizes the EPA to order monitoring, testing,
analysis and reporting of information for facilities that may present a substantial
hazard to human health and the environment. RCRA also authorizes the EPA to
order cleanup when conditions may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health and the environment.
States Use Their Authority to Mitigate Risks
Authorized states are using their authority to mitigate risks from units closed with
waste in place by using RCRA permitting and other mechanisms to ensure that
appropriate long-term care continues after the initial post-closure care period. Some
states are providing a legal framework for these decisions by adopting an
environmental covenant statute that allows for perpetual restriction of future land use.
RCRA regulations require that the implementing authority make a site-specific
determination as to whether unacceptable risks remain. State actions to date show
that some units will require post-closure care longer than 30 years. Authorized
states have adhered to the intent of RCRA by extending post-closure care if risks
remain and establishing safeguards when RCRA post-closure care ends. We
found that states used a variety of approaches. For example:
•	The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment issued a
policy for ending post-closure care that includes a performance-based
evaluation of relevant unit design and environmental factors. The
evaluation is of each individual unit.
•	The California Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the
post-closure care period every 10 years at permit renewal and rolled over
the financial assurance requirement for post-closure care to 30 years.
•	The New York Department of Environmental Conservation required
perpetual care of hazardous waste disposal units not meeting current
RCRA standards for waste stabilization and engineering controls.
•	The Maryland Department of the Environment required a new permit for
post-closure care that extended care beyond 30 years after determining
unacceptable risks remained.
•	The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality required continued
maintenance and institutional controls under an environmental covenant
when determining a unit was stable enough to end post-closure care.
EPA Takes Steps to Support State Decisions
The EPA is taking steps to support states as they make decisions on adjusting the
post-closure care period. OSWER drafted guidance that includes criteria to use
15-P-0169
8

-------
when making these decisions. We observed that EPA Region 3 provided
additional safeguards during the post-closure care period through its joint
implementation of the RCRA permitting and corrective action authorities.
Corrective action taken during the post-closure care period would seek to manage
risk to human health and the environment in the future.
The permitting branch of OSWER drafted guidance that sets forth a
recommended process for preparing for and evaluating risks remaining at the end
of the post-closure care period, and adjusting the period as needed. In 2010, state
hazardous waste managers discussed their concerns regarding the risks of ending
post-closure care at ASTSWMO's annual meeting. ASTSWMO surveyed states in
2011 on issues related to ending post-closure care and released a position paper in
2012. ASTSWMO reported that many states were grappling with how to make the
determination to adjust the post-closure care period and recommended that the
EPA issue guidance. OSWER issued its draft guidance and initiated its plan for
gathering comments from states and interested stakeholders on April 30, 2015. In
its response to our draft report, OSWER committed to finalizing the guidance by
the end of 2015.
EPA Region 3 coordinates its post-closure care and corrective action activities.
This provides an additional safeguard during the post-closure care period. For
example, the region conducted additional inspections of all units in post-closure
care as part of its effort to inspect all facilities subject to corrective action to
ensure protection of human health and the environment. The region also started a
Long-Term Stewardship Pilot in 2013 with the goal of assessing the long-term
effectiveness of completed corrective action remedies with engineering and
institutional controls in place. In this pilot, the region is conducting field
inspections and record reviews to ensure that controls are maintained and
operated in the manner intended, and the local community remains aware of the
remedy in place. The pilot includes disposal units closed with waste in place that
were addressed under corrective action. Our review of documents and interviews
with staff shows that the region works well with its state partners to implement
and oversee these programs. The region and the states have review and
coordination processes in place to help ensure regulators will be aware if
problems arise where post-closure care ends. For example, the region continues
oversight of the unit where Virginia, in 2013, terminated the post-closure care
permit and replaced it with a long-term care environmental covenant that requires
monitoring and reporting.
Challenges to Long-Term Care
Although some legal and operational safeguards are in place or under
development, we identified remaining challenges to the protection of human
health and the environment through appropriate long-term care of hazardous
waste disposal units closed with waste in place. RCRA regulations do not require
periodic reviews once post-closure care ends. The EPA has not completed
15-P-0169
9

-------
guidance on criteria to use when determining whether the post-closure care period
should be adjusted. Not all states have passed environmental covenant statutes
needed to provide strong controls on future land use. Further, the EPA and state
hazardous waste programs face an increased workload as more units reach the end
of their expected 30-year post-closure periods. The challenges create risks to
long-term protection of human health and the environment from the hazardous
waste left in these units.
RCRA Does Not Require Reviews After Post-Closure Care Ends
Once the implementing authority allows post-closure care to end, RCRA
regulations do not require periodic reviews of the conditions at the disposal unit.
This drawback of RCRA is in contrast to the review process for certain Superfund
sites that requires regions to evaluate every 5 years that the remedy remains
protective of human health and the environment.
Guidance on Adjusting the Post-Closure Care Period Delayed
The EPA has delayed issuing guidance on evaluating and adjusting the post-
closure care period. In the absence of EPA guidance, states made decisions on
adjusting post-closure care without the benefit of national guidance on the criteria
they should consider in making these decisions. A 2011 survey of state hazardous
waste managers showed many saw a need for such guidance. The EPA reported in
its June 2013 OSWER National Program Managers Guidance that it would
finalize its guidance on evaluating and adjusting the post-closure care period by
the end of fiscal year 2013. Experienced personnel retired and the EPA did not
meet this commitment. The EPA informed us in November 2014 that completion
of the draft continued to be delayed partly due to competing priorities within the
agency for some of the key reviewers. The EPA issued the draft guidance for
comment on April 30, 2015, and committed to finalizing the guidance by the end
of2015.
We reviewed April 2014 and December 2014 working drafts of the guidance. The
latter draft included a clear statement on the regulatory requirement for financial
assurance if the post-closure care period is extended. However, it provided little
guidance on how states would implement this requirement. In response to a 2011
ASTSWMO survey, states identified continuation of financial assurance as one of
the benefits of extending post-closure care rather than relying on other long-term
care mechanisms. That anticipated benefit can be realized only if the financial
assurance requirement is effectively implemented. In 2012, ASTSWMO
expressed concern regarding financial assurance for extended post-closure care.
We also heard state concerns in our interviews. The EPA told us that it does not
anticipate developing guidance on financial assurance for extended post-closure
care and that it has sufficient tools to provide timely support to regions and states
in addressing financial assurance issues that do arise. However, the EPA said it
will continue to monitor the needs of the states and the EPA in this area.
15-P-0169
10

-------
Some States Lack Environmental Covenant Statutes
According to the Uniform Law Commission, 18 states and territories have not
adopted the UECA or a similar environmental covenant statute. Recorded notices in
property records by themselves generally do not provide enforceable restrictions and
can be overridden by common law doctrines or other real estate statutes.
Environmental covenants can strengthen institutional controls, such as deed
restrictions, by allowing perpetual controls. If institutional controls are not
maintained in the long-term, the land potentially could be used in a manner that is
not compatible with the hazardous waste left in place. Homes and schools could be
built on or near the unit and unacceptable exposures to hazardous waste could occur.
Sufficient Staff Are Needed to Meet Future Workload
The EPA and states face an increased workload as more hazardous waste units
reach the end of their expected 30-year post-closure care periods. We estimated
that in the next 10 years, 54 percent of the units in permitted post-closure care will
reach the end of the period (Figure 1). This situation will result in an increase in
work for an authorized state as it decides if units are safe enough to move out
from under the oversight and monitoring provided by RCRA post-closure care. In
addition, the EPA will need to provide proper oversight of this large number of
state decisions to end or adjust post-closure care.
The EPA Region 3 office that oversees state hazardous waste programs lost
two-thirds of its staff in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 through retirement and
reassignment. Since October 2014, the office hired staff to replace half of those
losses and restructured the way it conducts its permit and state hazardous waste
program reviews. The office chief told us in January 2015 that, while he has fewer
employees than 2 years ago, he believes he has sufficient staff to manage the
permit workload. However, effective oversight and support are needed in areas
outside permitting. For example, the region pointed out to us in December 2014
the importance of the RCRA compliance and enforcement programs in informing
the end of post-closure decisions.
Regarding state staffing, some Region 3 states had staff shortages in their
hazardous waste programs in fiscal year 2013. The region informed Delaware,
Maryland and Pennsylvania that it was concerned that state annual grant
commitments were not fulfilled timely or at all. The region's review letters sent to
the states cited unfilled vacancies in one state, reduced staff levels in another, and
staff and management changes in the third. A state's ability to provide sufficient
qualified staff is a key element of the EPA authorizing it to implement a
hazardous waste program.
"[I]tis critical that states and EPA maintain sufficient expertise and resources to
process permits in a timely manner..."
EPA, 2014, RCRA's Critical Mission & the Path Forward
15-P-0169
11

-------
Conclusions
The regulating authorities need timely guidance and mechanisms, such as
environmental covenants, to support good decisions on long-term care of disposal
units closed with hazardous waste left in place. Authorities also need sufficient
staff to address the volume of projected future
work regarding long-term care decisions,
including the decision to end post-closure care.
A potential consequence of poor decision-
making is that taxpayers will have to pay for
long-term care or cleanup of units under either
state or federal authorities if the owner is not
able to address problems as they arise. Further,
risks to human health and the environment could
increase if hazardous waste leaks from the
disposal unit over the long term. For example,
contamination of ground water from a unit could
result in loss of water supply, high cleanup costs
and health problems.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
1.	Finalize and issue guidance on evaluating and adjusting the post-closure
care period for RCRA hazardous waste disposal units closed with waste in
place.
We also recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance:
2.	Identify states and territories that lack the UECA or a similar
environmental covenant statute, and conduct outreach to the
environmental protection programs in these states and territories to
provide information on environmental covenants, including the benefits of
implementing the controls afforded through UECA and similar statutes.
We further recommend that the Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3:
3.	Determine whether Region 3 states have sufficient workforces to manage
projected increases in workload associated with decisions to adjust RCRA
post-closure care and related activities and take appropriate action.
Risks from Hazardous Waste
Disposal
The EPA and states need to make
decisions about long-term care of
these units ending post-closure
care. Consequences of poor
decisions to end post-closure care
are that risks potentially increase if
hazardous waste leaks from units
over the long term. Human health
and the environment could be
threatened. Taxpayers could have
to pay for long-term care or
cleanup.
15-P-0169
12

-------
Summary of Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation
We received comments on the draft report on April 20, 2015. We met with
OSWER and OECA to discuss their comments on May 4, 2015. On May 12,
2015, we received additional information from the agency.
The agency agreed with Recommendation 1 and took steps to resolve delays. The
agency agreed to finalize the guidance by the end of 2015. Recommendation 1 is
resolved and open with agreed-to actions pending.
The agency agreed with Recommendation 2, as modified based on the May 4,
2015, meeting. By the end of 2015, the agency agreed to (a) identify states and
territories that lack the UECA or a similar environmental covenant statute, and
(b) conduct outreach to states and territories. Recommendation 2 is resolved and
open with agreed-to actions pending.
The agency agreed with Recommendation 3. The agency demonstrated that
Region 3 determined that its states currently are staffed at appropriate levels to
manage post-closure care determinations. The region stated it will "continue to
place an emphasis on assessing state capacity necessary to implement effective
[RCRA] programs." The region credited this emphasis for successfully "bringing
about needed staffing investments in areas identified as weaknesses in state
programs." The agency included the region's analysis in its response to the draft
report. Recommendation 3 is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.
Appendix A contains the agency's response and our comments. The agency also
provided technical comments (attachment 2 of the agency's response). We reviewed
those comments and made revisions to the report where appropriate.
15-P-0169
13

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
12 Finalize and issue guidance on evaluating and
adjusting the post-closure care period for RCRA
hazardous waste disposal units closed with waste
in place.
12 Identify states and territories that lack the UECA or
a similar environmental covenant statute, and
conduct outreach to the environmental protection
programs in these states and territories to provide
information on environmental covenants, including
the benefits of implementing the controls afforded
through UECA and similar statutes.
12 Determine whether Region 3 states have sufficient
workforces to manage projected increases in
workload associated with decisions to adjust RCRA
post-closure care and related activities and take
appropriate action.
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
Assistant Administrator for 12/31/15
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Assistant Administrator for 12/31/15
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response and
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Regional Administrator, 4/20/15
EPA Region 3
1 0 = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.
C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.
U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
15-P-0169
14

-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
and OIG Evaluation
April 20, 2015
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OPE-FY14-0034
"Some Safeguards in Place for Long-Term Care of Disposed Hazardous Waste,
But Challenges Remain," dated March 20, 2015
FROM: Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant Administrator
TO:	Carolyn Copper, Assistant Inspector General
Office of Program Evaluation
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject audit
draft report. Following is a summary of the Agency's overall position, along with its position on
each of the draft report recommendations. EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) and Region 3 have contributed to and concurred with this response. For those
report recommendations with which the Agency agrees, we have provided high-level intended
corrective actions and estimated completion dates to the extent we can. For those report
recommendations that we do not think are appropriate or supported, we have explained our
position, and proposed alternatives to your recommendations. For your consideration, we have
included a Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this response.
AGENCY'S OVERALL POSITION
EPA agrees that it is important to safeguard the long-term protectiveness of human health and
the environment from any remaining risks posed by land disposal units after they have closed.
According to the RCRA regulations (40 CFR §§ 264.117 and 265.117), the post-closure care
period is identified as being 30 years and begins after completion of closure of the hazardous
waste management unit. The regulations' identification of a 30-year post-closure care period
does not reflect a determination by EPA that 30 years of post-closure care will necessarily be
sufficient to eliminate potential threats to human health and the environment in every instance.
The ultimate decision about the appropriate length of the post-closure care period to ensure long-
term protectiveness needs to be made on a unit-specific basis, which is why the regulations also
provide authority for a case-by-case review of the post-closure care period and establish
arrangements to adjust its length.
15-P-0169
15

-------
The EPA is currently developing guidance that will outline criteria to assist states and EPA in
determining whether to extend post-closure care based on the most currently available unit-
specific information. The guidance will lend greater transparency and efficiency to the decision-
making process. Although we have encountered delays in the development of the guidance, we
have taken steps to resolve those delays and now have a path forward to issue draft guidance for
public review and comment by mid-2015. We expect to finalize the guidance by the end of 2015.
Additionally, we recognize that financial assurance is a challenging area with respect to post-
closure care, particularly in regards to costing out post-closure activities when the care period
extends beyond 30 years. The regulations at 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 subpart H require owners
and operators to maintain financial assurance during the post-closure care period. If the regulator
decides to extend the post-closure care period, the owner or operator must amend the post-
closure plan and the related cost estimates for the work entailed by the plan, and continue to
demonstrate the necessary financial assurance.
EPA currently provides Regions and states support on financial assurance issues through several
avenues. EPA hosts a monthly financial assurance conference call with Regions and states that
provides a forum for regulators to discuss issues, including exploring financial assurance during
post-closure care. In addition to the monthly conference call, the Agency provides access to
contractor resources to assist in reviewing financial assurance documentation. The Agency also
provides tools for cost estimation and an online resource called the Financial Responsibility
Enforcement Tool (FRET) that provides a one-stop shop for state and EPA regulators to access
financial assurance resources. Given these currently available tools, EPA believes that we are
providing sufficient guidance for financial assurance related to post-closure; however, we will
continue to monitor the needs of the states and EPA in this area.
To address some of the challenges of assuring the long-term protectiveness of institutional
controls, the EPA supported the development of the Uniform Environmental Covenant Act
(UECA) by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL).
NCCUSL developed UECA with the involvement of the key stakeholders (e.g., real estate,
construction, natural gas, environmental groups). As a result, the model law balanced key
interests. In addition, NCCUSL worked with state legislatures to adopt this act. By adopting this
model law, states are adopting legislation that is widely supported by a variety of groups. EPA
has done significant outreach to encourage state legislatures to adopt UECA and to educate
regulators on the benefits of implementing the controls afforded through the law. These efforts
more than likely contributed to the 35 states adopting UECA or similar statutes. However, EPA's
primary concern with the draft report is language recommending that the Agency offer incentives
to state legislatures to adopt the UECA. We are not able to offer incentives to state legislatures to
adopt UECA or similar statutes and so request deleting this language from the recommendation
(as reflected in Attachment 1). EPA has provided initial guidance on the implementation of
institutional controls and UECA as part of RCRA corrective action and post-closure decisions in
the 2007 memorandum "Ensuring Effective and Reliable Institutional Controls at RCRA
Facilities."
15-P-0169
16

-------
OIG Response 1: The agency misinterpreted our draft recommendation to offer incentives to
state environmental agencies around the issue of environmental covenants. We understand that
the agency cannot offer incentives to state legislatures. We accepted the change in the
recommendation offered by the agency.
On May 4, 2015, we discussed with OSWER and OECA officials and staff further changes to
Recommendation 2. On May 12, 2015, OSWER and OECA officials confirmed that the
agency agreed to Recommendation 2 as proposed in the May 4, 2015, meeting. By the end of
2015, the agency agreed to:
a)	Identify states and territories that lack the UECA or a similar environmental
covenant statute.
b)	Conduct outreach to states and territories by:
i.	Providing the list to ASTSWMO and engaging ASTSWMO on issues
around adoption and use of UECA and similar environmental covenant
statutes.
ii.	Developing environmental covenant success stories.
iii.	Presenting the success stories and benefits implementing the controls
afforded through UECA and similar statutes at ASTSWMO's annual
meeting and appropriate subcommittee meetings and through ongoing
monthly conference calls conducted by OSWER's Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery with state environmental protection programs.
Recommendation 2 is resolved and open with agreed-to actions pending.
The Agency also would like to clarify that UECA is not the only mechanism to provide long-
term controls beyond those provided by the RCRA post-closure regulations. States who have not
adopted UECA might have equivalent state environmental covenant laws or other real property
laws on easements and covenants that might provide protection. Given the existence of these
mechanisms, the OIG's estimate may not accurately represent the number of states or territories
that have UECA, UECA-equivalent laws, or protective real property laws. In 2012, OSWER also
issued guidance entitled "Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing,
Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites" to provide managers of
contaminated sites, site attorneys, and other interested parties with information and
recommendations for planning, implementing, maintaining, and enforcing institutional controls.
It highlights some of the common issues that may be encountered and provides an overview of
EPA's policy regarding the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the various life-
cycle stages.
OIG Response 2: We agree that an environmental covenant is not the only mechanism to
provide long-term controls beyond those provided by RCRA post-closure care regulations. We
revised the report where appropriate.
15-P-0169
17

-------
Regarding the issue of authority to address problems that may arise once the post-closure period
is terminated, the Agency would like to point out that a number of statements in the report seem
to overstate the available RCRA authorities. We have provided technical comments to help
clarify the more limited nature of authorities, in particular once the facility permit is terminated.
For this reason, it is important that a decision to terminate a permit be well-considered.
OIG Response 3: We considered all technical comments the agency provided and made
revisions as appropriate.
EPA agrees that with many units in post-closure care approaching the end of the initial 30-year
post-closure care period there is potential for an increased workload on state and EPA regulators.
The Agency believes that the post-closure guidance, mentioned above, will help reduce this
workload by creating efficiencies in making unit-specific determinations regarding the length of
the post-closure care period. Although more determinations may be needed, the guidance will
enable the determinations to be made more easily, which will help counterbalance the increased
workload.
OIG Response 4: We acknowledge the agency's position that the guidance will help reduce
the workload associated with deciding to shorten, extend or end post-closure care. However,
we believe that the accuracy of the agency's position is yet to be determined.
The draft report recommends EPA Region III determine that the states have sufficient resources
to manage the projected workload associated with RCRA facilities whose 30-year post closure
care periods are expiring in the coming ten or more years, and that the Region take appropriate
action if it is determined that the resources are not sufficient. Region III has already conducted
reviews of state capacity in this area and has taken action. This action has resulted in states
investing more resources in the RCRA permitting program, putting them in position to address
not only the post-closure care workload, but also other RCRA permitting responsibilities.
Detailed information about EPA Region Ill's review is presented in Attachment 3.
EPA Region III believes that its states, and the Region, are currently staffed to appropriate levels
to manage post-closure care determination workloads for the foreseeable future. The Region will
continue to place an emphasis on assessing state capacity necessary to implement effective
RCRA programs and has been successful in bringing about needed staffing investments in areas
identified as weaknesses in state programs. EPA Region III and the Mid-Atlantic states have
forged strong partnerships in the RCRA programs and will use the excellent working
relationships to continue to plan for and jointly address program implementation challenges.
15-P-0169
18

-------
OIG Response 5: We acknowledge that Region 3 completed corrective action that meets the
intent of Recommendation 3. The status of this recommendation is closed with all agreed-to
action completed.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Kecia Thornton, OSWER point
of contact on (202) 566-1913, or Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA point of contact on (202) 564-
2439.
Attachments:
1.	Chart of Agency's Response to Report Recommendations
2.	Technical Comments
3.	Region III Supplemental Information Regarding Reviews of State Capacity to
Address Post-Closure Care Determinations
Cc: Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator
Region 3
Barnes Johnson, Director
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
15-P-0169
19

-------
ATTACHMENT 1: AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Agreements
No.
Recommendation
Action Official
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated
Completion
by Quarter
and FY
1
Finalize and issue guidance
on evaluating and adjusting
post-closure care period for
RCRA hazardous waste
disposal units closed with
waste in place.
Assistant
Administrator
for Solid Waste
and Emergency
Response
Issue Draft guidance for
review and comment.
Issue Final Guidance.
3 rd Quarter
FY 2015
1st Quarter
FY 2016
2
Identify and offer
information on
environmental covenants
and incentives for adoption
to environmental protection
programs in states and
territories that lack
environmental covenant
statutes.
Assistant
Administrator
for Solid Waste
and Emergency
Response and
Assistant
Administrator
for Enforcement
and Compliance
Assurance
Continue to engage in
outreach to (1) encourage
state legislatures to adopt
UECA, and (2) educate
regulators on the benefits
of implementing the
controls afforded through
UECA.
Please note that EPA is not
able to offer incentives to
state legislatures to adopt
UECA or similar statutes,
and so requests deleting
this language from the
recommendation.
Ongoing
3
Determine whether Region
3 states have sufficient
workforces to manage
projected increases in
workload associated
with decisions to adjust
RCRA post-closure care
and related activities, and
take appropriate action.
Regional
Administrator,
EPA Region 3
Region III has already
conducted reviews of state
capacity in this area and
has taken action, which has
resulted in states investing
more resources in the
RCRA permitting program
putting them in position to
address the post-closure
care workload. (See
Attachment 3.)
Complete
Disagreements
None.
15-P-0169
20

-------
ATTACHMENTS:
REGION III SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING REVIEWS OF STATE
CAPACITY TO ADDRESS POST-CLOSURE CARE DETERMINATIONS
This response addresses the third recommendation of the above referenced Office of Inspector
General (OIG) draft report:
"We further recommend that the Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3:
3. Determine whether Region 3 states have sufficient workforces to manage projected
increases in workload associated with decisions to adjust RCRA post-closure care and
related activities and take appropriate action."
Region III believes that our states, and the Region, are currently staffed to appropriate levels to
manage post-closure care determination workloads for the foreseeable future. The Region will
continue to place an emphasis on assessing state capacity necessary to implement effective
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs and has been successful in bringing
about needed staffing investments in areas identified as weaknesses in state programs. EPA
Region III and the Mid-Atlantic states have forged strong partnerships in the RCRA programs
and will use the excellent working relationships to continue to plan for and jointly address
program implementation challenges.
EPA Region III conducts oversight of state implementation of the RCRA requirements on an on-
going basis. The results of this oversight are documented at the middle and the end of the fiscal
year after conducting detailed reviews of the state's bi-annual grant progress reports and holding
face-to-face meetings or conference calls with state managers and staff to discuss
accomplishments, challenges and resource needs. State capacity to implement the program is an
important part of these reviews.
The OIG third recommendation also suggests that EPA Region III determine that the states have
sufficient resources to manage the projected workload associated with RCRA sites whose 30-
year post-closure care periods are expiring in the coming ten or more years and that the Region
take appropriate action if it is determined that the resources are not sufficient. The following
information is presented to show that Region III has already conducted reviews of state capacity
in this area and has taken action. This action has resulted in states investing more resources in the
RCRA permitting program putting them in position to address not only the post-closure care
workload, but also other RCRA permitting responsibilities.
• EPA Region III has a total of 21 facilities operating under post-closure care permits that
will reach the 30 year milestone by 2025 (see Figure 1, below). The largest workload will
be in 2024 with a total of seven facilities hitting the 30 year mark with five located in
Virginia. Region III will work closely with Virginia for several years leading up to 2024
to ensure this workload will be managed. Between 2015 and 2025, five of the eleven
15-P-0169
21

-------
years have only one facility in the Region reaching the 30-year milestone, and in two of
the years, no facilities will reach the 30-year milestone.
Post-closure care permits are not the only mechanism used in Region III to manage post-
closure care requirements. In Figure 2 below, fourteen other facilities are conducting
post-closure care under other mechanisms, the majority of which are through RCRA
Corrective Action permits. This workload is typically managed by different parts of the
state organizations, thus spreading out the post-closure care oversight to even more staff
than just RCRA permit writers and EPA state program managers.
• The OIG report identified concerns about three states meeting their annual grant
commitments citing staff resources as potential reasons for falling short of these
commitments. Region III began citing state staff investment in the area of RCRA
permitting prior to fiscal year 2013.
o The Region held meetings with state senior level managers in Maryland to
highlight these concerns because the RCRA permit renewal workload was going
to increase in fiscal years 2015-2018. Maryland transferred a staff member from
one program into the RCRA permitting section in the spring of 2014. They also
hired a new employee into the RCRA permitting section during the winter of
2015 bringing the total to three permit writers. Maryland has three facilities in
post-closure care whose 30 year period ends in the 10 year period from 2015 and
2025.
o Delaware hired a new employee for RCRA corrective action and RCRA
compliance/enforcement areas during fall of 2014. This alleviates the need for
RCRA permit writing staff to help out in these other two areas.
o PADEP presented their plans for catching up on the RCRA permit workload. As
of mid-year 2015, PADEP has made significant progress in eliminating their
backlog of permit renewals. It is worth noting that RCRA permits, if not renewed,
are extended administratively and are still in full force and effect until renewed,
so no facilities in PA or elsewhere in Region III were operating without an
enforceable permit in place. Since the number of PADEP's post-closure permits
reaching the 30-year milestone is very small, and the fact that many facilities'
post-closure care requirements are documented in RCRA corrective action
permits managed by EPA Region III, Region III does not anticipate that PA or
EPA Region III will have any resource issues addressing post-closure care
decision-making.
15-P-0169
22

-------
Q

Region III PC Permits reaching 30 year period



o
7








/
a




¦

D
C






D
A






H
o








o
9


¦



¦

z
1



¦




J.
0
¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
I

I



2015
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025


¦ DE ¦ MD ¦ PA ¦ VA BWV





Figure 1. Region III facilities under post closure care permits that reach 30 year period by 2025.
Region III PC by State reaching 30 year period
through 2025
40
35
30
25
20
_ _ I 1
DE	MD	PA	VA
¦ Permits ¦ Other mechanism
Figure 2. Region III facilities reaching the 30 year period under post-closure care permits or
other mechanisms such as RCRA Corrective Action permits.
.1
WV	Total
15-P-0169
23

-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Regional Administrator, Region 3
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 3
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Director, Land and Chemicals Division, Region 3
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 3
15-P-0169
24

-------