#«'osx
j A *
1®
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Improving air quality
EPA Needs to Improve
Oversight of How States
Implement Air Emissions
Regulations for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills
Report No. 20-P-0236 July 30, 2020
-------
Report Contributors:
James Hatfield
Gabrielle Fekete
Connie Song
Wendy Wierzbicki
Abbreviations
C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations
EG Emission Guidelines
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fed. Reg. Federal Register
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NMOC Nonmethane Organic Compound
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
OIG Office of Inspector General
Cover Photo: McCommas Bluff Landfill in Dallas, Texas. (EPA OIG photo)
Are you aware of fraud, waste, or abuse in an
EPA program?
EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.
EPA Office of Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 566-2391
www.epa.gov/oiq
Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig
Send us your Project Suggestions
-------
o**eDsrx
• JL v
I®/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
20-P-0236
July 30, 2020
Why We Did This Project
We conducted this audit to
determine whether active
municipal solid waste landfills are
operating under the appropriate air
quality permit. As waste in an
MSW landfill decomposes, it emits
methane, carbon dioxide, and
nonmethane organic compounds
that can cause adverse health and
environmental effects. The Clean
Air Act and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency regulations
require:
• MSW landfills to report their
waste capacity to the
appropriate state agencies.
• Large MSW landfills to obtain
what are commonly called
"Title V permits" from their state
air permitting authorities.
• Large MSW landfills to calculate
whether their emissions will
exceed regulatory levels and, if
so, install emissions controls.
• States to submit plans to the
EPA requesting approval to
implement the EPA's MSW
landfill air emissions regulations
for existing MSW landfills, as
well as annual progress reports.
• The EPA to approve state plans
or implement a federal plan.
This report addresses the
following:
• Improving air quality.
This project addresses these top
EPA management challenges:
• Complying with internal control
(data quality).
• Overseeing states implementing
EPA programs.
Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov.
EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of How States
Implement Air Emissions Regulations for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills
What We Found
We identified 12 active MSW landfills in the two states
we audited, Georgia and Texas, that could be operating
without the required Title V permits. The Georgia and
Texas state agencies responsible for issuing Title V
permits to MSW landfills did not always obtain the data
needed to verify whether the landfills required a Title V
permit and whether landfill emissions exceeded
allowable levels. In four instances, the regulatory
requirements were misinterpreted.
The EPA did not identify deficiencies in how Georgia and Texas implemented Clean
Air Act regulations to control air emissions from MSW landfills. For example,
to oversee state implementation of the 1996 regulations to address emissions from
existing MSW landfills, EPA Regions 4 and 6 should have—but did not—verify
whether Georgia and Texas submitted (1) complete state plans requesting approval
to implement these regulations and (2) the required annual progress reports. EPA
review of these documents is necessary to provide assurance that states have an
adequate plan for and are effectively implementing and enforcing MSW landfill
emissions regulations in accordance with federal requirements.
Wthout effective state implementation and EPA oversight of Clean Air Act regulations
for MSW landfills, these landfills could operate for years without required emissions
controls. As a result, MSW landfills could emit more air pollutants than allowed under
a Title V permit, and state efforts to meet the EPA's air quality standards for ozone
and fine particulate matter could be hindered. The EPA revised its Clean Air Act
regulations for MSW landfills in 2016 and requested that states submit new plans for
existing MSW landfills. Implementation of the revised regulations provides the EPA
with an opportunity to verify that the new plans are complete, annual progress reports
are submitted, and proper oversight is conducted.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We recommend that the regional administrators for Regions 4 and 6 require that
Georgia and Texas determine whether the MSW landfills identified in this report need
to obtain Title V permits and install emissions controls. We also recommend that the
EPA develop guidance for Clean Air Act MSW-landfill requirements that addresses
the review and oversight of the Title V permitting process, the approval of state plans,
the review of annual progress reports, and the periodic review of implementation and
enforcement. We consider four of our seven recommendations resolved with
corrective actions pending. The remaining three are unresolved.
Effective EPA oversight
of state implementation
of landfill air emissions
requirements helps
achieve air quality,
public health, and
environmental goals set
by the Clean Air Act.
List of OIG reports.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
July 30, 2020
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of How States Implement Air Emissions Regulations
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Report No. 20-P-0236
This is our report on the subject audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The project number for this audit was OA&E-FY18-0273. This
report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG
recommends. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance
with established audit resolution procedures.
In response to OIG Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 7, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance and EPA
Regions 4 and 6 provided acceptable planned corrective actions and estimated milestone dates. In
accordance with EPA Manual 2750, these four recommendations are resolved, and no further response is
required. However, if you submit a response, it will be posted on the OIG's website, along with our
memorandum commenting on your response.
Action Required
The Office of Air and Radiation did not provide acceptable planned corrective actions and estimated
milestone dates for Recommendations 4, 5, and 6. This report, therefore, contains three unresolved
recommendations. In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, the resolution process begins immediately with
the issuance of this report. We are requesting a meeting within 30 days between the assistant administrator
for Air and Radiation and the OIG's assistant inspector general for Audit and Evaluation. We also request
a written response to the final report within 60 days of this memorandum.
Your response will be posted on the OIG's 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. If resolution is
still not reached, the Office of Air and Radiation is required to complete and submit a dispute resolution
request to the chief financial officer.
FROM
Sean W. O'Donnell
TO
See Below
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.
-------
Addressees
Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Anne Idsal, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
Mary S. Walker, Regional Administrator for Region 4
Ken McQueen, Regional Administrator for Region 6
-------
EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of How
States Implement Air Emissions Regulations
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
20-P-0236
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Responsible Offices 9
Scope and Methodology 9
2 EPA Needs Additional Oversight of Clean Air Act
MSW-Landfill Requirements 13
Georgia and Texas Did Not Collect All Data Needed to Determine
Whether Some Large MSW Landfills Required Title V Permits 13
Weaknesses in Program Implementation and Oversight Increase Risk
That Large MSW Landfills Operate Without Title V Permits 15
Conclusion 21
Recommendations 21
Agency Response and OIG Assessment 23
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 24
Appendices
A Detailed Scope and Methodology 25
B Agency Responses to Draft Report 30
C Distribution 45
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The Office of Inspector General for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
conducted this audit to determine whether
active landfills are operating under the
appropriate air quality permit.
Background
Top Management Challenges
This audit addresses the following top
management challenges for the
Agency, as identified in OIG Report
No. 20-N-0231. EPA's FYs 2020-2021
Top Management Challenges, issued
July 21, 2020:
• Complying with internal control
(data quality).
• Overseeing states implementing
EPA programs.
Municipal solid waste, or MSW, landfills
are discrete areas of land that receive
household waste and other types of nonhazardous waste. According to the EPA
Landfill Methane Outreach Program, at least 1,220 open—that is, active—MSW
landfills are operational and accepting MSW in the United States. In 2017, the
United States generated about 268 million tons of MSW, about 4.5 pounds per
person per day (Figure 1).
Figure 1: MSW generated in 2017 (267.8 million tons)
Other, 3.5%
Paper, 25.0%
Glass, 4.2%
Metals, 9.4%
Plastics, 13.2%
Rubber, Leather,
& Textiles, 9.7%
Wood, 6.7%
\_Food, 15.2%
Yard Trimmings,
13.1%
Source: EPA OIG. Derived from the EPA's "National Overview: Facts and Figures on Materials,
Wastes and Recycling" webpage.
Composition of an MSW Landfill
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations under 40 C.F.R.
Part 258 provide minimum criteria for all MSW landfills. For example, the MSW
landfill design begins with installing a plastic and clay liner to prevent waste from
20-P-0236
1
-------
contaminating outside soil and groundwater. The MSW landfill compacts the
daily waste into areas called "cells," EPA regulations require MSW landfills to
then cover this disposed solid waste with at least six inches of earthen material at
the end of each operating day or at more frequent intervals.1 When the capacity of
either a section of an MSW landfill or the entire MSW landfill is reached, the
waste is sealed into place by a "final cover," Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act regulations require that this final cover system include both a layer
of earthen materi al at least 18 inches thick and a top layer of earthen material at
least six inches thick that is capable of sustaining plant growth to prevent erosion
of the soil. The MSW landfill is then considered closed and no longer active.2
Figure 2 provides an overview of a closed MSW landfill that is no longer
accepting MSW.
Figure 2: Cross section of a properly closed MSW landfill
Wells and probes to detect
leachate or methane leaks
outside the landfill
When the landfill is full
layers of soil and clay
seal in the trash
Clay and plastic lining to
prevent leaks, pipes
leachate from the
bottom of the landfill
Cutaway view of a modern
landfill designed to prevent
the two main hazards of the
unit: explosions or fires
caused by methane gas, and
leakage of rainwater mixed
with dangerous chemicals
(leachate)
1DPK4I
sand
day
Pipes collect explosive
methane gas to use as a
fuel to generate electricity
Leachate pumped up
to storage tank for
safe disposal
Garbage
Sand
S ynthetic
Sand
Clay
Subsoil
Source: EPA, "Municipal Solid Waste Landfills" webpage.
A landfill gas collection and control system design can include vertical and
horizontal piping that is buried in various locations to collect gases emitted by the
decomposing waste, which are either vented, burned, or extracted for use as fuel.
Decomposing waste produces gases such as methane, carbon dioxide, and
nonmethane organic compounds, also referred to as NMOCs. Although emissions
of gases at an MSW landfill typically reach their peak five to seven years after the
waste is buried, the waste can continue to emit gases for more than 50 years. The
1 40 C.F.R. Part 258, Subpart C.
2 40 C.F.R. Part 258, Subpart F.
20-P-0236
2
-------
EPA's Greenhouse Gas inventory system indicates that there were over 89 million
metric tons of methane emissions from MSW landfills in 2018. Methane and
carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases, which trap heat in the atmosphere.
According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
methane, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases from human activities have
been "the most significant driver of observed climate change" since the mid-20th
century.3 Methane is also flammable, and high concentrations can result in
explosions. Per the EPA's 2017 data in its Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017, landfills in general were the third-largest source
of domestic human-related methane emissions in the United States, behind natural
gas and petroleum systems and livestock fanning. MSW landfills contributed
95 percent of the total U.S. landfill emissions during that period.
NMOCs include volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and
odorous compounds. As shown in Figure 3, volatile organic compounds from
sources such as MSW landfills react chemically in the presence of sunlight with
nitrogen oxides already present in the air to form harmful ground-level ozone.
Emissions of volatile organic compounds also lead to the formation of fine
particulate matter. In addition, MSW landfills can emit nearly 30 different
hazardous air pollutants, including vinyl chloride, ethyl benzene, toluene, and
benzene, which can cause adverse health effects depending on the level of
exposure. Studies conducted to evaluate the short-term health effects from
exposure to MSW landfill gases found that common complaints included eye,
throat, and lung irritations; nausea; headaches; and aggravati ons of asthma.
Figure 3: Formation of ground-level ozone
NOx + VOC + Heat & Sunlight = Ozone
Ground-level or "bad'ozone is not emitted directly
Into the air, but is created by chemical reactions
between NOx and VOCs In the presence
of heat & sunlight.
Source: EPA OIG, derived from the EPA's "Grourid-level Ozone Basics" webpage.
Note: NOx = nitrogen oxides; VOC = volatile organic compound.
3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013, Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Working
Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
20-P-0236
3
-------
Clean Air Act Provisions and EPA Regulations Related to
MSW Landfills
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the authority to regulate the emissions of
air pollutants from stationary sources of pollution, such as MSW landfills.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to publish regulations that
address emissions of pollutants from new or modified stationary sources of
pollution and issue separate regulations to address existing stationary sources of
pollution. The Clean Air Act also includes the following state-specific provisions
related to stationary sources of pollution:4
• Section 111(c) provides a process by which states may obtain the authority
from the EPA to implement and enforce standards of performance for new
stationary sources of pollution.
• Section 111(d) requires the EPA to establish a procedure under which
states are to submit state plans to implement and enforce standards of
performance for existing stationary sources of pollution in their state.
Expanding upon this provision, EPA regulations require that states submit
a letter of "negative declaration" instead of a 111(d) state plan if no
stationary source of pollution subject to the regulations exist within the
state's boundaries.5 Section 111(d) also authorizes the EPA to issue and
enforce a federal plan for those states that fail to submit a satisfactory
111(d) state plan within the regulatory timeframe or enforce an approved
111(d) state plan.6
Per Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA published two categories of
regulations to address nonhazardous MSW landfill air emissions.
1. New Source Performance Standards. The MSW-landfill NSPS applies
to newly constructed, modified, or reconstructed MSW landfills.7
2. Emission Guidelines. The MSW-landfill EG establishes requirements for
regulating landfill gas emissions from existing MSW landfills.8 These
requirements are then implemented through a state plan or federal plan.
4 For the purposes of this report, the term "state" also includes Indian Country communities and any large localities,
local agencies, and air districts that have been authorized to implement and enforce the EPA's Clean Air Act
requirements, including the MSW-landfill air emissions regulations promulgated under Section 111(d).
5 40 C.F.R. § 60.23a(b).
6 Any "state plan" or "federal plan" mentioned hereafter refers to these 111(d) state and federal plans.
7 "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources: Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills/' 61 Fed. Reg. 9905, (March 12, 1996) ("1996 MSW-Landfill NSPS" and "1996 MSW-
Landfill EG"); and "Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," 81 Fed. Reg. 59332
(August 29, 2016) ("2016 MSW-Landfill NSPS").
8 1996 MSW-Landfill EG; and "Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,"
81 Fed. Reg. 59276 (August 29, 2016) ("2016 MSW-Landfill EG").
20-P-0236
4
-------
EPA Air Regulations Require Large MSW Landfills to Obtain
Operating Permits
The MSW-landfill NSPS and the MSW-landfill EG, as implemented and enforced
through an EPA-approved state plan or federal plan, establish periodic reporting
and control requirements for MSW landfills depending on their size and
emissions. These regulations identify an MSW landfill as subject to additional
regulatory requirements if its capacity is greater than or equal to both a:
• Mass capacity threshold of 2.5 million megagrams.
• Volume capacity threshold of 2.5 million cubic meters.9
In this report, we refer to landfills of this size as "large." The Clean Air Act MSW-
landfill regulations require large MSW landfills to obtain a Clean Air Act operating
permit, which is known as a "Title V permit."10
According to the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online website,
the EPA classified 769 nonhazardous solid waste landfills in December 2019 as
"major emission" landfills with Title V permits. States and their air permitting
authorities, which typically are part of the state air agency, have primary
responsibility for Title V permitting programs, including reviewing permit
applications, issuing permits, and permit enforcement. Title V permits contain
monitoring, reporting, and record-keeping provisions so that affected
stakeholders, including federal and state regulators, industry, and the public, know
the air quality requirements that sources such as MSW landfills must meet to
comply with the Clean Air Act. EPA regional offices are responsible for verifying
that states properly implement the EPA-approved Title V permitting programs.
EPA Regulations Address NMOC Emissions, Design Capacity
The Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations also require large MSW landfills to
calculate their NMOC emissions and report the level of emissions to the
appropriate implementing agency, typically the state air permitting authority. If an
MSW landfill's calculated NMOC emissions exceed the EPA's regulatory
threshold, the MSW landfill is required to install emissions controls—specifically,
a gas-collection-and-control system—to reduce the NMOC emissions. Per the
regulations, if an MSW landfill's calculated NMOC emissions are under the
threshold, the MSW landfill does not have to install controls but must annually
report its NMOC emissions to the state air permitting authority.11 This annual
NMOC emissions report allows the state air permitting authority to monitor
whether emissions reach a level requiring the installation of gas-collection-and-
control system.
9 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts Cc, Cf, GGG, XXX, and WWW.
10 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.752(c), 60.762(b), 60.32c(c), 60.3 lf(c), and 62.14352(e).
11 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.752(b), 60.762(b), 60.33c(e), 60.33f(e), and 62.14353(b).
20-P-0236
5
-------
To determine whether an MSW landfill meets the mass and volume capacity
thresholds requiring a Title V permit, the Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations
require that MSW landfills, regardless of size, submit an initial design capacity
report to the state, typically to the state air office.12 Design capacity is the
maximum amount of solid waste an MSW landfill can accept, as indicated in the
landfill's most recent solid waste permit issued by the state solid waste office,
plus any in-place waste—that is, closed areas or "phases" of the landfill—not
accounted for in that most recent permit. In addition, states are responsible for
managing the design capacity reporting process, which includes collecting data on
capacities via design capacity report forms submitted by MSW landfills. States
assess and track these capacity levels, which they often record in a solid waste
spreadsheet or database. State or federal air permitting authorities use this design
capacity to determine whether:
1. A planned new, modified, or reconstructed MSW landfill requires a
Title V permit to comply with the MSW-landfill NSPS.13
2. An existing MSW landfill must obtain a Title V permit to comply with the
MSW-landfill EG.14
State Implementation of MSW-Landfill NSPS and EG
Per Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA can delegate states to implement
and enforce the Clean Air Act MSW-landfill requirements. A state may request
delegation from the EPA to implement and enforce the NSPS for new MSW
landfills subject to the regulation.15 Additionally, each state must request EPA
approval of its state plan to implement the EG for existing MSW landfills subject
to the regulation.16 Per 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart B, states submit their requests
to the appropriate EPA regional office. In addition, states must update their state
plans and submit them for EPA approval each time the MSW-landfill EG is
revised.17 Once the appropriate EPA regional office approves the state plan
implementing the MSW-landfill EG, the approved state plan is enforceable by the
state and the EPA.
Clean Air Act regulations also require that the EPA issue a federal plan to
implement the MSW-landfill EG in any state that does not submit a satisfactory
state plan or submit a state plan within the timeframe identified in the
regulation.18 This federal plan is issued by the EPA's Office of Air Quality
12 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.752(a), 60.762(a), 60.33c(d), 60.33f(d), and 62.14355.
13 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.752(b) and 60.762(b).
14 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.32c(c), 60.3lf(c), and 62.14352(e).
15 Clean Air Act § 111(c).
16 Clean Air Act § 111(d).
17 40 C.F.R. § 60.23(a).
18 Clean Air Act § 111(d); 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.27(c) and (d); "Federal Plan Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills That Commenced Construction Prior to May 30, 1991 and Have Not Been Modified or Reconstructed
Since May 30, 1991," 64 Fed. Reg. 60689 (November 8, 1999).
20-P-0236
6
-------
Planning and Standards and implemented by the EPA regional offices, as
necessary. Figure 4 depicts the state plan approval process.
Figure 4: State MSW-landfill EG plan approval process
The EPA disapproves
the state plan.
The EPA approves
the state plan.
The EPA issues
and implements a
federal plan.
The state
implements the
state plan.
No state plan is
submitted,
or a state plan is not
submitted timely.
State plan is
submitted.
Source: OIG review of 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart B.
EPA guidance describes a state's responsibilities for Clean Air Act MSW-landfill
regulation reporting.19 The guidance recommends that states:
• Develop standard report forms for MSW landfills—such as initial and
amended design capacity reports, as well as NMOC emissions reports—to
facilitate receipt of the required information in a consistent format.
• Track receipt of MSW-landfill reports to identify which reports are
received and expected in the future.
• Verify that each report includes the MSW-landfill NSPS and EG
requirements. If a report is not acceptable, the state needs to inform the
MSW landfill and arrange for resubmission.
In addition, states with approved state plans or delegated federal plans must
submit annual progress reports detailing the plan's implementation status to the
applicable EPA regional office.20 These progress reports must include, among
other information, any enforcement actions taken, an update of the inventory of
MSW landfills, and other program data.21
EPA Delayed Approving State Plans and Implementing
2016 MSW-Landfill EG
The EPA originally promulgated the Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations in
1996 and revised them in 2016. States were required to submit state plans for
implementing the 2016 MSW-landfill EG for existing landfills by May 30,
19 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 1: Summary of the Requirements for the New Source Performance
Standards and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (February 1999); Volume 2: Summary of
the Requirements for Section 111(d) State Plans for Implementing the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Emission
Guidelines (November 1998).
20 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.25(e) and (f).
21 40 C.F.R. § 60.25(f).
20-P-0236
7
-------
2017.22 However, after consulting the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, the Office of Air and Radiation sent an October 2017 email to the
EPA regions stating that the Agency was reconsidering several issues regarding
the regulation and therefore would not prioritize the review of state plans or issue
a federal plan. As a result, the federal plan implementing the 1996 regulations was
still effective. The email also said that "states that fail to submit state plans are not
subject to sanctions (e.g. loss of federal highway funds). Therefore, states should
not be concerned regarding any sanction."
Some states that had already submitted their 2016 MSW-landfill EG state plans
sued the EPA for failing to act on the submitted state plans. In a May 2019
decision, a U.S. district court ordered the EPA to review and either approve or
disapprove by September 6, 2019, the state plans that it had received to date.23
The EPA then amended its 2016 MSW-landfill EG to update the submittal
deadline for state plans from May 30, 2017, to August 29, 2019.24 In a separate
2019 regulatory action, the EPA also established that it would determine the
completeness of state plan submissions within 60 days.25 If the EPA does not
make a completeness determination within six months of a state's submission, the
state plan would automatically be deemed as complete. Further, the EPA would
either approve or disapprove any state plans within 12 months of the
completeness determination.
As of March 2020, the EPA had approved the 2016 MSW-landfill EG state plans
for Arizona, Delaware, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia, Albuquerque-
Bernalillo County in New Mexico, and Pinal County in Arizona. The Agency also
provided partial approval of California's state plan and is reviewing the state
plans for New York, Oregon, and South Dakota. Further, three locations
submitted negative declaration letters certifying that no existing MSW landfills
subject to the Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations applied to them: Vermont;
Washington, D.C.; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The EPA also issued a finding
on March 6, 2020, identifying 42 states and territories that failed to submit their
2016 MSW-landfill EG state plans.26
The May 2019 court decision also ordered the EPA to issue a federal plan
implementing the 2016 regulations by November 6, 2019. On August 22, 2019,
the EPA proposed, but did not issue, a federal plan. The EPA appealed the district
court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As of
22 "Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," 81 Fed. Reg. 59276, 59313
(August 29, 2016).
23 Order Granting in Part and Den. in Part Pis.' Mot. for Summ. J. and Den. Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J., California v.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 4:18CV03237 at *16 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2019).
24 "Adopting Requirements in Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," 84 Fed. Reg. 44547,
44555 (August 26, 2019); 40 C.F.R. § 60.30f(b).
25 "Repeal of the Clean Power Plan; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric
Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guidelines Implementing Regulations," 84 FR 32520, 32578
(July 8, 2019); 40 C.F.R. § 60.27a (b).
26 85 Fed. Reg. 14474 (March 12, 2020).
20-P-0236
8
-------
June 2020, the case remained on appeal, with the district court's order stayed
pending the outcome of the appeal. As a result, it remains unclear when the EPA
will issue a federal plan.
Until the EPA issues a final federal plan for implementing the 2016 MSW-landfill
EG, the state plans and federal plan for implementing the 1996 MSW-landfill EG
are still in effect, unless the state has an EPA-approved plan under the
2016 MSW-landfill EG.
Responsible Offices
The EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, within the Office of Air
and Radiation, develops regulations to limit and reduce air pollution and assists
states and local agencies with monitoring and controlling air pollution.
The EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance works with the
EPA regional offices and state, local, and tribal agencies to address pollution
problems that impact communities through enforcement. The Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance also partners with EPA regional offices
to enforce environmental laws.
The EPA regional offices oversee and monitor states' implementation and
enforcement of the EPA's Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations. In addition,
the regional offices approve state plans implementing the MSW-landfill EG and
approve delegations of federal plans to the states.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit from September 2018 through March 2020
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objective. We
believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objective.
We sought to determine whether active MSW landfills are operating under the
appropriate air quality permit. To obtain an understanding of the air emissions
laws and regulations that impact MSW landfills, we reviewed Clean Air Act
provisions, including those regarding obtaining Title V permits, and EPA
regulations for controlling air emissions from stationary sources, such as MSW
landfills. We also reviewed the EPA's guidance documents for implementing the
Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations. To identify the intent behind the MSW
landfill air regulations and the oversight roles of EPA headquarters versus EPA
regional offices, we interviewed staff from the EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards and conducted a survey of all ten EPA regional offices.
We also interviewed staff from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
20-P-0236
9
-------
Assurance to obtain information regarding enforcement efforts related to MSW-
landfill air emissions.
To determine which states we would review, we used a purposeful nonprobability
sampling technique, using the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Emergency Management Agency's
National Fire Incident Reporting System
to compare the states with the largest
number of landfill fires for all types of
landfills against ozone nonattainment
areas under the EPA's National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.27 These two
criteria are significant because:
• Landfill fires can occur when
proper control of landfill gases is
absent. We hypothesized that
states with a large number of
landfill fires may have less
stringent oversight.
• The ozone nonattainment areas
relate to gases emitted by
landfills, specifically methane and
volatile organic compounds,
which are precursors to ground-
level ozone.
We identified Georgia, which is located in EPA Region 4, and Texas, which is
located in EPA Region 6, for further analysis. Although our audit sample
comprises just two states, Region 4 and 6 oversee a combined 13 states and
72 tribal nations, which account for almost 99.5 million people and represent over
30 percent of the U.S. population:
• Region 4 oversees eight states and six tribal nations. Based on
2010 census data, Region 4 comprises more than 61 million residents.
• Region 6 oversees five states and 66 tribal nations. Based on 2010 census
data, Region 6 comprises more than 38 million residents. Of note, Texas's
population of more than 25 million people makes it the second-most
populous state after California.
Sampling Methodology
Auditing often involves analyzing a limited
number (also known as a sample) of the
entire population of the subject being
audited. Nonprobability sampling does not
involve random selection of the sample,
while probability sampling does. With a
probability sample, the results of the
sample tested likely apply to the entire
population. Nonprobability samples may or
may not represent the entire population.
Purposeful sampling is a type of
nonprobability sampling in which auditors
use their professional judgment and
knowledge of the population to identify a
sampling strategy and criteria related to
the audit objective to choose the audit
samples.
Because we could not identify a complete
and accurate list of U.S. MSW landfills, we
were unable to develop a probability-
based sample of MSW landfills and states.
We therefore used a purposeful
nonprobability sampling technique to
determine our audit sample.
27 The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six common air pollutants.
If the air quality in a geographic area does not meet the national standard for any of these pollutants, those areas are
called "nonattainment areas."
20-P-0236
10
-------
Because Georgia and Texas did not submit state plans for implementing the
2016 MSW-landfill EG and the EPA did not issue a federal plan for the
2016 MSW-landfill EG during our audit fieldwork, we used the criteria in the
1996 MSW-landfill EG regulations to analyze the MSW landfills in our audit
scope. Since we selected a purposeful nonprobability sample of two states and
two associated EPA regional offices, our results cannot be projected to other
states that implement the Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations or to the EPA
regions that oversee those states. However, we determined that the selection of
these states was appropriate for our design and objective, would generate valid
and reliable evidence to support our work, and would provide useful insight into
the level of understanding and experiences of MSW landfills.
To obtain information on how Regions 4 and 6 oversee Clean Air Act MSW-
landfill regulations, we obtained state-related documents and interviewed air
permitting, air enforcement, and solid waste staff. To assess state implementation
of air emissions regulations for MSW landfills in Georgia and Texas, we
reviewed state regulations and MSW-landfill policies and procedures. We
interviewed staff from Georgia's Environmental Protection Division and the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. We also interviewed Georgia and
Texas state inspectors and EPA regional inspectors to understand the MSW-
landfill inspection process in Georgia and Texas.
To determine compliance with the Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations, we
took two samples: the first to test compliance with design capacity reporting
requirements and the second to test compliance with Title V permit requirements.
To test Georgia's and Texas's compliance with MSW landfill design capacity
reporting requirements, we reviewed a sample of 75 MSW landfills: 30 of 51
(59 percent) from Georgia and 45 of 143 (31 percent) from Texas. Because air
permitting authorities in Georgia and Texas did not maintain design capacity
information for MSW landfills, we obtained these data from each state's solid
waste office. State solid waste offices typically use the landfill design capacity
information to issue solid waste disposal permits under the Resource
Conversation and Recovery Act. Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations also
generally require that landfill owners and operators keep records, including design
capacity reports, on site for not less than five years.
To test compliance with Title V permit requirements, we reviewed the design
capacity information for the 30 Georgia MSW landfills identified in our sample
and all of the 143 MSW landfills in Texas to identify MSW landfills that had
capacities over or near either the mass or volume capacity threshold but did not
have Title V permits, according to EPA and state records. See Appendix A for
additional details regarding this sample.
From this effort, we identified 17 MSW landfills: five from Georgia and 12 from
Texas. Of these 17 MSW landfills, two had reported volume capacities just under
the 2.5 million cubic meters threshold. We then sought to determine whether these
20-P-0236
11
-------
17 MSW landfills had valid reasons for not obtaining a Title V permit. We visited
five of these 17 MSW landfills to confirm their operating status and reported
design capacity and to determine why they had not obtained a Title V permit. Of
the 17 MSW landfills, we determined that five did not require a Title V permit at
the time of our audit. Two of the MSW landfill's had design capacities that were
under the volume capacity threshold when adjusted to remove the volume of
material used as final cover from the design capacity calculation; two MSW
landfills had not yet begun construction on expansions that would increase their
volume capacity over the volume capacity threshold for obtaining a Title V
permit, and one MSW landfill's volume capacity was incorrectly entered into the
solid waste database.
See Appendix A for additional details regarding our scope and methodology.
20-P-0236
12
-------
Chapter 2
EPA Needs Additional Oversight of
Clean Air Act MSW-Landfill Requirements
The EPA did not verify that Georgia and Texas effectively implemented the
EPA's air emissions regulations for MSW landfills. For example, these states
were not collecting all the required data to determine whether large landfills
should obtain Title V operating permits. We identified ten MSW landfills where
the site exceeded either the mass or volume capacity thresholds for requiring a
Title V permit, but the states did not have data on the other capacity threshold to
determine whether permit requirements applied. In addition, MSW-landfill
operators and state air permitting authorities sometimes misinterpreted the EPA's
Title V permit requirements. We found two MSW landfills that should have
obtained a Title V permit, but the state or landfill personnel mistakenly concluded
that one was not needed. When large MSW landfills do not obtain Title V
permits, they do not have to provide the state or public with NMOC emissions
reports, which the air permitting authorities use to determine whether emissions
controls are needed. In addition, the public can use these NMOC reports as a
means of holding MSW landfills accountable for air quality requirements. Failure
to control NMOC emissions from large MSW landfills could impede a state's
efforts to reduce harmful ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter to safe
levels that meet national air quality standards.
Georgia and Texas Did Not Collect All Data Needed to Determine
Whether Some Large MSW Landfills Required Title V Permits
Based on our initial review of landfill capacity data maintained at state agencies
for our sample of 30 MSW landfills in Georgia and all 143 MSW landfills in
Texas, we identified 17 MSW landfills that exceeded or nearly exceeded the
volume capacity threshold of 2.5 million cubic meters but did not have Title V
permits. As discussed previously, the Clean Air Act MSW landfill regulations
require that MSW landfills with a design capacity greater than or equal to
2.5 million megagrams by mass and 2.5 million cubic meters by volume obtain a
Title V permit and report NMOC emissions. After conducting a more extensive
review of the available data, we determined that 12 of the 17 landfills exceeded
the volume threshold based on the landfill's design capacity report, information in
the state's solid waste permit records, or both. We therefore determined that five
of the 17 MSW landfills did not need a Title V permit at this time.
Georgia and Texas state agencies could only locate initial design capacity reports
for two of the 12 MSW landfills that exceeded the volume threshold. For one of
those two landfills, the design capacity report showed that the landfill also
exceeded the mass capacity threshold of 2.5 million megagrams. This landfill thus
should have obtained a Title V operating permit. The other landfill initially
20-P-0236
13
-------
reported a design capacity in 1998 that was just under the mass capacity
threshold. As required by Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations, this landfill
should have recalculated its mass capacity annually to continue to demonstrate
that it did not need to obtain a Title V permit.28 Although Clean Air Act MSW-
landfill regulations do not require that the recalculations be sent to the state
agency, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations require that
landfills notify the state when new documents are added to their operating
record.29 As the annual mass capacity calculations would have become part of the
MSW landfill's operating record, this information would have been available to
the state to monitor whether a Title V permit was necessary. However, there is no
record that the MSW landfill did these calculations as required.
Georgia and Texas were unable to provide us with the initial design capacity
report for the remaining ten landfills. Since the states' solid waste data did not
include landfill capacity by mass, we were unable to determine whether these ten
landfills met both the volume and mass capacity criteria for obtaining a Title V
permit. Table 1 provides the results of our analyses for the 12 MSW landfills that
exceeded the volume capacity threshold for obtaining a Title V permit.
As illustrated in Table 1, the available volume capacity data indicate that each of
these landfills could need a Title V operating permit and six of these MSW
landfills may have been operating for over 20 years without the required permit.
The appropriate state agencies in Georgia and Texas should obtain mass capacity
data for these landfills to determine whether they need to obtain a Title V permit.
If both mass and volume capacity thresholds are exceeded and a permit is
required, these MSW landfills would also be required to report their NMOC
emissions so that the state could determine whether a gas-collection-and-control
system must be installed.
Table 1: Twelve landfills that exceeded 2.5 million cubic meter volume capacity
thresholds for Title V permits
MSW landfill
Capacity based on the initial
design capacity report
Volume
capacity based
on solid waste
permit records
(cubic yards)
Volume capacity
converted to
cubic meters3
Volume
(cubic meters)a
Mass
(megagrams)
Texas
McCommas Bluffb
122,090,000
66,480,000
156,130,000
119,465,912
City of Dumas Landfill
5,382,935
c 2,441,658
8,281,438
6,336,704
City of Monahans b
not located
not located
5,759,600
4,407,070
Hardin County Landfill
not located
not located
5,740,000
4,392,073
Altair Disposal Services
LLC Landfill
not located
not located
5,156,816
3,945,838
City of Carrizo Springs
Landfill
not located
not located
4,246,134
3,249,012
Perryton Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill
not located
not located
4,228,000
3,235,137
28 40 C.F.R. § 60.758(f).
29 40 C.F.R. § 258.29(b).
20-P-0236
14
-------
Capacity based on the initial
design capacity report
Volume
capacity based
on solid waste
permit records
(cubic yards)
Volume capacity
converted to
cubic meters3
MSW landfill
Volume
(cubic meters)a
Mass
(megagrams)
City of Levelland
not located
not located
3,860,313
2,953,794
City of Crane Landfill
not located
not located
3,800,000
2,907,644
City of Alpine Landfill
not located
not located
3,749,000
2,868,620
Sierra Blanca Landfill
not located
not located
3,369,600
2,578,315
Georgia
Toombs County b
not located
not located
3,678,000
2,814,293
Source: OIG analysis of design capacity data received from Georgia and Texas solid waste staff
and documents.
a Solid waste volume capacity is typically reported in cubic yards, while the Clean Air Act
MSW-landfill capacity threshold for volume is expressed in cubic meters. To determine
whether landfill volumes exceeded the regulatory threshold for a Title V permit, we converted
the reported capacities in each state's solid waste records from cubic yards to cubic meters
using the EPA's conversion formula provided in the MSW-landfill NSPS and EG.
b MSW landfill visited by the OIG.
c The mass calculation was from a 1998 design capacity report. If a landfill uses a mass
calculation to conclude that a Title V permit is not required, the EPA requires that the landfill
update its calculation annually to demonstrate that it has not subsequently exceeded the
mass capacity threshold.
Weaknesses in Program Implementation and Oversight Increase Risk
That Large MSW Landfills Operate Without Title V Permits
We identified weaknesses in the state implementation of the Clean Air Act MSW-
landfill regulations in Regions 4 and 6, as well as weaknesses in the EPA
oversight of these state programs. These weaknesses could allow large MSW
landfills to operate without Title V permits and not report NMOC emissions to
their state air permitting authority. State implementation weaknesses included:
• EPA regulations were misinterpreted by state agencies or MSW landfill
operators.
• Georgia and Texas did not properly implement or manage the reporting
process for MSW-landfill initial design capacity reports.
• EPA did not meet its oversight responsibilities for state plans for MSW-
landfill EG implementation. Specifically, Regions 4 and 6 approved
incomplete state plans for Georgia and Texas and did not require states to
submit annual progress reports. Region 6 did not implement a federal plan
for one of its states that did not have an approved state plan.
These weaknesses increase the risk that large MSW landfills are operating or
could operate in the future without obtaining a Title V permit and installing
required emissions controls.
20-P-0236
15
-------
EPA Regulations Were Misinterpreted
We found four instances where Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations were
misinterpreted or not fully understood by the state permitting authority or the
MSW landfill operator:
• The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality sent a letter to one
MSW landfill stating that, unless the landfill decided to modify its
capacity, it did not require a Title V permit because it obtained its
operating permit in 1975, prior to the applicability of the MSW-landfill
NSPS. The letter did not address the applicability of the 1996 MSW-
landfill EG for existing MSW landfills, as implemented under Texas's
1999 EPA-approved state plan. Since the landfill's original design
capacity was over 47 times the volume capacity threshold and over
26 times the mass capacity
threshold, the landfill should have
obtained a Title V permit. We
confirmed, however, that the
landfill had installed a gas-
collection-and-control system,
even though it did not have a
Title V permit.
• Another MSW landfill sent a letter
to the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality saying that
it was "not subject to the EG rules"
based on total disposal capacity,
that the 1996 MSW-landfill NSPS
was not applicable because the
MSW landfill obtained its
operating permit in 1977, and that
no modifications had occurred
since 1991. However, the landfill
did not consider the EPA's
1996 MSW-landfill EG's requirements for existing MSW landfills, as
implemented under Texas's 1999 EPA-approved state plan. Because this
MSW landfill was an existing landfill, it was subject to Texas's state plan
implementing the 1996 MSW-landfill EG. Further, since the landfill's
capacity was approximately two times the volume capacity threshold, it
should have provided a calculation of capacity by mass to the state to
determine whether it should apply for a Title V permit.
• At a third site, MSW-landfill staff told us that they did not know that their
2018 request to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for an
expansion could trigger the requirement to apply for a Title V permit after
Top to bottom: Texas MSW-landfill site visit
with staff from the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality and city officials.
Active portion of an MSW landfill.
(OIG photos)
20-P-0236
16
-------
expansion construction started. Further, since the landfill's capacity was
approximately two times the volume capacity threshold, it should have
provided a calculation of capacity by mass to the state to determine
whether it should apply for a Title V permit. Landfill staff also did not
know that closed phases of the landfill should be included when
calculating the landfill's maximum capacity. As of July 2020, construction
had begun on the MSW-landfill expansion. As a result of our audit, the
landfill submitted the required Title V permit application to the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality in June 2020, along with its
application for a standard permit. When the Commission approved the
standard permit in July 2020, it did not provide a status regarding the
review or approval of the Title V permit application.
• Landfill staff at a fourth MSW landfill did not know that (1) they were
required to submit a design capacity report to the state and (2) closed
phases of the landfill should be included when calculating the landfill's
maximum capacity, as required by Clean Air Act MSW-landfill
regulations. MSW landfill staff could not provide us with capacity
information for the closed phases of the MSW landfill. To determine the
landfill's total capacity, we obtained design capacity information from all
solid waste permits issued for the MSW landfill, including portions now
closed. After including the capacity from the closed areas, we calculated
that the MSW landfill's total volume capacity was approximately
2.8 million cubic meters. Thus, the landfill should have calculated its
capacity for mass to determine whether it should apply for a Title V
permit.
The above examples indicate a lack of awareness of the EPA's Clean Air Act
requirements pertaining to existing MSW landfills, as well as requirements for
new MSW landfill construction and modifications. Our findings at these four
landfills and the results of our interviews with EPA regions, states, and landfill
staff provide insights that could be useful to state and federal air permitting
authorities and MSW landfills across the United States. Specifically, a lack of
awareness of Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations could result in large MSW
landfills operating without required Title V permits.
We also found two instances where MSW landfills did not calculate volume
capacity in accordance with state policy for treating landfill cover in design
capacity calculations. The EPA allows states to choose whether landfills need to
include the volume of the material used for daily and final landfill cover in the
design capacity calculation for the Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations.
Although unstated in formal policy documents or state regulations, Georgia's Air
Protection Branch staff told us that their policy is to exclude all cover in design
capacity calculations. Texas's Waste Permits Division staff said that their policy
is to include the volume of the material used as daily cover, but not the volume of
material used as final cover in the design capacity calculation. The reported
design capacities of two landfills in our sample were found to be under the
20-P-0236
17
-------
Final earth cover
Compact
solid waste
Original
ground
Figure 5: Operations of MSW landfills
using daily and final cover
Operating face
Daily earth cover
volume capacity threshold when adjusted to remove
the volume of material used as final cover from the
design capacity calculation. If the MSW landfills had
followed the state policy of excluding final cover in
their design capacity calculations, these landfills
would not have been identified in our review as
exceeding the volume threshold. Figure 5 illustrates
how daily and final cover is applied to an MSW
landfill.
State Implementation of MSW-Landfill
Design Capacity Reporting Process Needs
Improvement
Georgia and Texas air permitting authorities could
, ,, , , ,, improve the implementation and management of the
Source: OIG-created based upon content from r r o
the Encyclopedia Britannica. reporting process for obtaining MSW landfill
capacities. For example, initial design capacity reports
could not be located for over half of the 75 MSW landfills we sampled (Figure 6).
In addition, the states' agency-developed design capacity forms did not request all
regulatorily required information.
We requested copies of initial design capacity reports for 75 MSW landfills: 30 in
Georgia and 45 in Texas. As shown in Figure 6, the states were able to provide us
with 34 (45 percent) of the 75 initial design capacity
reports we requested, but they could not locate reports
for the remaining 41 (55 percent) landfills. Among
these 41 landfills were ten of the 12 landfills listed in
Table 1. As shown in Table 1, all ten of these MSW
landfills had volume capacities over the regulatory
threshold based on information in the states' solid
waste databases and permit files.
In addition to missing reports, we found that Georgia
and Texas used state design capacity forms that did
not specifically require MSW landfills to report
"waste in place" (that is, closed portions of the
landfill) in design capacity calculations. This is a specified requirement in the
EPA regulations and guidance.30 We also found that Georgia's and Texas's state
design capacity report forms did not collect information that, while not required,
would facilitate an effective reporting and Title V permitting process. For
example, neither state's design capacity report form provides information
regarding:
40 C.F.R. §§ 60.751, 60.761, and 62.14351. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Volume 1: Summary of
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for Solid Waste Landfills
(February 1999).
Figure 6: Ability to locate
initial design capacity
reports
Not
Located
Located
Source: OIG analysis.
20-P-0236
18
-------
• Whether MSW landfills should
include the volume of material
used in daily and final cover in
the design capacity calculation.
• What mass and volume
thresholds trigger an MSW
landfill's obligation to apply for
a Title V permit and calculate
NMOC emissions.
Although state design capacity report
forms are not specifically required to
provide information on cover material or
Title V requirements, this information
could reduce the risk that landfills
misinterpret the Clean Air Act MSW-
landfill regulations and fail to apply for
a Title V permit when their design
capacity exceeds the regulatory capacity
thresholds.
EPA Oversight of State Plans Was Inadequate
Regions 4 and 6 approved state plans for implementing the 1996 MSW-landfill
EG that were incomplete, did not compel states with approved plans to submit
annual progress reports, and did not implement a federal plan for states lacking an
approved plan. Specifically:
• Georgia and Texas state plans did not include certain required
information. State plans must include procedures that require existing
stationary sources, such as existing MSW landfills, to maintain records,
report emissions, and provide information to determine compliance with
the state plan.31 Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations also require that
procedures for periodic inspections of sources, as well as provisions to
make certain that MSW-landfill compliance information is made available
to the public, be "specifically identified" in state plans.32 However, we
found that neither Georgia nor Texas included all the necessary
information regarding these requirements in their state plans.
Georgia's state plan did not identify which office would conduct periodic
MSW landfill inspections after the program's first year of implementation
and did not identify how the state would select landfills for inspection.
Texas's state plan did not identify the office responsible for compliance
31 40 C.F.R. § 60.25(b)(1).
32 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.25(b)(2), (c), and (d).
Daily (top) and final (bottom) covers at
Georgia landfills, (OIG photos)
20-P-0236
19
-------
monitoring and MSW landfill inspections. Instead, Texas's plan said that
Texas would monitor MSW landfills using existing source surveillance
procedures, which "allows for the periodic inspection of all sources with
the potential for emitting in excess of 100 tons per year of any regulated
pollutant." Both states' air staff told us that they only inspect MSW
landfills with Title V permits. Thus, their Clean Air Act MSW-landfill
programs did not identify large MSW landfills that required a Title V
permit but did not have one.
Since states were still, as of March 2020, in the process of submitting their
state plans to implement the 2016 MSW-landfill EG, the EPA has an
opportunity to verify that any plans submitted contain all required
elements. This oversight should provide better assurance that states will
effectively implement the 2016 MSW-landfill EG.
• Regions 4 and 6 did not compel states to submit required progress
reports for most years of implementation. Neither EPA region had
collected progress reports from their states for most of the two decades
that the states were responsible for implementing the 1996 MSW-landfill
EG through their approved state plans. In addition to identifying the status
of the state plan's implementation, these progress reports should provide
an up-to-date inventory of MSW landfills within each state.33 A current
inventory of a state's MSW landfills provides necessary information to
EPA regions to perform effective Clean Air Act program oversight and to
the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to develop updates to the
Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations.
Although Georgia's state plan for implementing the 1996 MSW-landfill
EG was approved in calendar year 1999 and its first annual progress report
was due in calendar year 2000, Region 4 staff said that their states had not
submitted annual progress reports prior to 2017. Once Region 4 staff
realized that the states were not submitting these reports, they focused
their efforts to ensure compliance. When we reviewed Georgia's 2017 and
2018 annual progress reports, we found that the reports included a count
of enforcement actions against MSW landfills and identified the number
of new MSW landfills. The reports also provided background and details
regarding the actions taken against specific MSW landfills. However, the
reports did not identify closed MSW landfills, did not provide emissions
inventory data, and did not include data needed to update the original
inventory of MSW landfills, as required.34
Texas's state plan for implementing the 1996 MSW-landfill EG was also
approved in calendar year 1999, and Texas's first annual progress report
should have also been submitted in calendar year 2000. However, Region 6
33 40 C.F.R. § 60.25(e).
34 40 C.F.R. § 60.25(f).
20-P-0236
20
-------
staff were unable to provide copies of any annual progress reports for Texas.
Texas said that it does not submit these reports.
• Federal plan not implemented when state plan not approved.
According to Region 6, Arkansas was the only state in the region that
submitted a state plan for implementing the 1996 MSW-landfill EG on
December 1, 1999, but Region 6 never acted on the submittal "due to
perceived deficiencies." While the EPA did develop a federal plan for
implementing the 1996 MSW-landfill EG, Region 6 did not implement
this federal plan in Arkansas, even though the Clean Air Act and
implementing regulations require the EPA to implement and enforce the
federal plan for existing MSW landfills located in a state without an
approved state plan.35
Conclusion
The EPA can more thoroughly review state plans and related annual progress
reports to better assess whether states effectively implement Clean Air Act
regulations for existing MSW landfills. When state plans are not effectively
implemented, large MSW landfills that require but do not have Title V permits
can go undetected, and their NMOC emissions can go unreported. Without
obtaining a Title V permit and submitting NMOC emission reports, these landfills
could emit excess pollutants for years, including those that contribute to ground-
level ozone and fine particulate matter that are harmful to human health. A lack of
emissions controls is particularly important in areas where ozone levels exceed
the national air quality standards, since these controls could help bring those areas
into compliance.
As the EPA and the states implement the revised 2016 Clean Air Act MSW-
landfill regulations, the EPA has an opportunity to update guidance to clarify
regulatory requirements, verify that state plans are adequate, and increase state
compliance with the annual progress reporting requirement. These actions would
help achieve more effective state implementation of these regulations.
Recommendations
We recommend that the regional administrator for Region 4:
1. Require the Georgia Environmental Protection Division to determine
whether the municipal solid waste landfill identified by the OIG as having
a design capacity exceeding the Title V permit regulatory capacity
threshold should apply for a Title V permit and install emissions controls.
If a permit is required, verify with the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division whether the municipal solid waste landfill applied for a permit.
35 Clean Air Act § 111 and 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.27(c) and (d).
20-P-0236
21
-------
We recommend that the regional administrator for Region 6:
2. Require the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to determine
whether the 11 municipal solid waste landfills identified by the OIG as
having design capacities exceeding the Title V permit regulatory capacity
threshold should apply for a Title V permit and install emissions controls.
If permits are required, verify with the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality whether the municipal solid waste landfills applied
for a permit.
3. Assist the State of Arkansas in developing and submitting a state plan to
implement the 2016 municipal solid waste landfill Emission Guidelines. If
Arkansas does not submit a state plan, implement the federal plan for the
2016 municipal solid waste landfill Emission Guidelines once the federal
plan is effective.
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Air and Radiation:
4. Develop and implement a process for the periodic review of municipal
solid waste landfill design capacity information and Title V permit lists to
identify municipal solid waste landfills with design capacities over the
applicable threshold that have not applied for a Title V permit.
5. Update guidance to clarify the requirements for municipal solid waste
landfills to submit initial design capacity reports, including how to:
a. Address closed municipal solid waste landfill areas and the soil
used in municipal solid waste landfill daily and final covers when
calculating design capacity.
b. Determine whether a municipal solid waste landfill is subject to
Title V permit and nonmethane organic compound emissions
reporting requirements.
6. Develop and implement a process to confirm that state plans approved for
delegation of the 2016 municipal solid waste landfill Emission Guidelines
contain all required program elements and provisions for submitting
annual progress reports.
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance:
7. Develop and implement a process to review implementation of the
2016 municipal solid waste landfill Emission Guidelines and New Source
20-P-0236
22
-------
Performance Standards to provide assurance that states are effectively
implementing these regulations.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
The Agency concurred with Recommendations 1, 2, and 7 and provided acceptable
planned corrective actions and estimated completion dates. For
Recommendation 3, Region 6 provided an alternative recommendation. We agreed
with Region 6's proposed recommendation to assist the State of Arkansas, and we
updated Recommendation 3 accordingly. We consider Recommendations 1, 2, 3,
and 7 resolved with corrective actions pending.
Recommendations 4, 5, and 6 are unresolved:
• The Office of Air and Radiation disagreed with Recommendation 4. The
Agency proposed to address Recommendation 4 by including language in
the Clean Air Act MSW-landfill federal plan emphasizing "the importance
of landfill reporting obligations and their link to Title V permitting
obligations." However, this proposed alternative does not address the need
for state air permitting authorities to periodically conduct reviews of
existing solid waste data to determine whether there are MSW landfills
with volume and mass capacities that exceed the regulatory thresholds but
do not have a Title V permit.
• For Recommendation 5, the Office of Air and Radiation disagreed with
our recommendation and proposed addressing the recommendation
through existing guidance and the development of the Agency's web-
based "Regulation Navigation" tool. Our analysis of this tool, however,
found that it does not include information to address the types of
misinterpretations of the regulations identified in our audit.
• The Office of Air and Radiation agreed with Recommendation 6 and
provided a corrective action. However, we disagreed that the corrective
action completely addressed the recommendation.
The Agency's responses to our draft report and our additional assessments are in
Appendix B. The Agency also provided specific technical suggestions for our
consideration, and we revised the report as appropriate.
20-P-0236
23
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
Potential
Monetary
Benefits
(in $000s)
21 Require the Georgia Environmental Protection Division to
determine whether the municipal solid waste landfill identified
by the OIG as having a design capacity exceeding the Title V
permit regulatory capacity threshold should apply for a Title V
permit and install emissions controls. If a permit is required,
verify with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
whether the municipal solid waste landfill applied for a permit.
22 Require the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to
determine whether the 11 municipal solid waste landfills
identified by the OIG as having design capacities exceeding the
Title V permit regulatory capacity threshold should apply for a
Title V permit and install emissions controls. If permits are
required, verify with the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality whether the municipal solid waste landfills applied for a
permit.
22 Assist the State of Arkansas in developing and submitting a
state plan to implement the 2016 municipal solid waste landfill
Emission Guidelines. If Arkansas does not submit a state plan,
implement the federal plan for the 2016 municipal solid waste
landfill Emission Guidelines once the federal plan is effective.
22 Develop and implement a process for the periodic review of
municipal solid waste landfill design capacity information and
Title V permit lists to identify municipal solid waste landfills with
design capacities over the applicable threshold that have not
applied for a Title V permit.
22 Update guidance to clarify the requirements for municipal solid
waste landfills to submit initial design capacity reports, including
how to:
a. Address closed municipal solid waste landfill areas and the
soil used in municipal solid waste landfill daily and final covers
when calculating design capacity.
b. Determine whether a municipal solid waste landfill is subject
to Title V permit and nonmethane organic compound emissions
reporting requirements.
22 Develop and implement a process to confirm that state plans
approved for delegation of the 2016 municipal solid waste
landfill Emission Guidelines contain all required program
elements and provisions for submitting annual progress reports.
23 Develop and implement a process to review implementation of
the 2016 municipal solid waste landfill Emission Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards to provide assurance that
states are effectively implementing these regulations.
R Regional Administrator for
Region 4
9/30/20
Regional Administrator for
Region 6
12/31/20
R Regional Administrator,
Region 6
U Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation
U Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation
6/30/22
Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
1/30/21
1 C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
20-P-0236 24
-------
Appendix A
Detailed Scope and Methodology
We conducted our audit to determine whether active MSW landfills are operating under the
appropriate air quality permit. The EPA's 1996 MSW-landfill NSPS applies to new MSW
landfills that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification or began accepting waste
on or after May 30, 1991. The EPA's 1996 MSW-landfill EG applies to existing MSW landfills
that commenced construction before May 30, 1991. The MSW-landfill NSPS and EG do not
regulate other types of nonhazardous solid waste landfills, such as construction and demolition
landfills and industrial waste landfills.
To obtain an understanding of the air emissions laws and regulations that impact MSW landfills,
we reviewed Clean Air Act provisions that cover the control of pollutants from stationary
sources, such as MSW landfills. We reviewed regulations under 40 C.F.R. Part 60, including
40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart B, Adoption and Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities.
We also reviewed the Clean Air Act Title V provisions and regulations. We reviewed the
1996 and 1999 regulations specific to MSW-landfill air emissions; the 2003 National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills regulations under
40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart AAAA; and EPA guidance documents and resources that aid in
implementation of the federal MSW landfill air emissions regulations, including:
• 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart WWW, Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills.
• 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Cc, Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
• 40 C.F.R. Part 62, Subpart GGG, Federal Plan Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills That Commenced Construction Prior to May 30, 1991 and Have Not Been
Modified or Reconstructed Since May 30, 1991.
• EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,
Volume 1: Summary of the Requirements for the New Source Performance Standards and
Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, February 1999.
• EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,
Volume 2: Summary of Requirements for Section 111(d) State Plans for Implementing the
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Emission Guidelines, November 1998.
• EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Municipal Solid Waste Landfill New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) And Emission Guidelines (EG)—Questions and
Answers, Revised, November 1998.
• EPA, Applicability Determination Index webpage database.36
36 For national consistency in implementing the MSW-landfill EG, the MSW-landfill NSPS, and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants programs, the EPA maintains requests under 40 C.F.R. Parts 60
and 61, which allow a source owner or operator to request a determination from the EPA of whether a rule applies to
them. This is known as an "applicability determination." The EPA maintains these requests in a searchable
"Applicability Determination Index" database.
20-P-0236
25
-------
We reviewed the following regulations associated with the 2016 update to the Clean Air Act
MSW-landfill regulations, including:
• 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart XXX, Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills That Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification After July 17,
2014 (2016 New Source Performance Standards).
• 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Cf, Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills (2016 Emission Guidelines).
• Proposed federal plan: 84 Fed. Reg. 43745, August 22, 2019.
To identify the intent behind the MSW-landfill air emissions regulations and the oversight roles
of EPA headquarters versus EPA regional offices, we interviewed staff from the EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards and conducted a survey of all ten EPA regional offices. We
also interviewed staff from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to obtain
information regarding MSW landfill air emissions enforcement efforts.
Universe of MSW Landfills in the United States and State Sample Selection
We first sought to determine a universe of MSW landfills in the United States. We requested
information from staff in the Office of Land and Emergency Management regarding any EPA-
maintained national list of MSW landfills. The Office of Land and Emergency Management did
not possess a list of MSW landfills and referred us to the Office of Air and Radiation's Landfill
Methane Outreach Program and greenhouse gas reporting program databases. We reviewed
information in these databases and in the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online
database. We also reviewed the data the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards used to
develop the 2016 MSW-landfill NSPS and EG. Because of the limitations of and the large
variation in the total number of MSW landfills listed in each of the EPA databases, the OIG
purchased the 2018 nationwide directory of all landfills from the Waste Business Journal3,1 The
Waste Business Journal list included more MSW landfills than the EPA's databases, but like the
EPA databases, it did not include data on each landfill's maximum volume and mass capacities,
which are the federal criteria used to determine whether a landfill should obtain a Title V
operating permit.
State Sample Selection
During our literature review, we found that the Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Emergency Management Agency's U.S. Fire Administration maintains a National Fires Incident
Reporting System that collects information on fires by state and local districts annually,
including fires at dumps and landfills. Landfill fires can occur when gases are not properly
controlled. We hypothesized that state oversight of MSW landfills could be less stringent in
areas with the largest number of landfill fires. To select the specific states for our audit, we used
reported data from the 2016 National Fires Incident Reporting System and identified the states
37 The Waste Business Journal is a research and consulting firm that provides business research and analysis for the
waste management industry. It has produced its directory for over 20 years. The journal's researchers contact a
variety of waste processing and disposal operations in the United States to gather data about waste facility
operations.
20-P-0236
26
-------
with the highest number of landfill fires per year (Table A-l). We used a nongeneralizable
sample to select our states for review using landfill fire data reported in 2016. Our findings
therefore cannot be used to make broad inferences about implementation of the MSW landfill air
regulations in other states. However, we determined that the selection of these states using the
purposeful nonprobability sample method was appropriate for our design and objective and that
the selections would generate valid and reliable evidence to support our work.
We then compared the states with the largest number of "dump/landfill" fires against ozone
nonattainment areas under the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards from the EPA's
August 3, 2018 area designations, because emissions of methane and volatile organic compounds
are precursors to ground-level ozone. Using these factors, we identified Georgia, which is in
Region 4, and Texas, which is in Region 6, for further review.
Table A-1: Top five states for landfill fires in 2016
Number of
Ozone
"dump/landfill"
nonattainment
State
fires
EPA region
areas?
North Dakota
185
8
No
Georgia
181
4
Yes
Texas
158
6
Yes
Florida
123
4
No
Louisiana
122
6
No
Source: OIG analysis of dump/sanitary landfill fire data reported to Department of Homeland
Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency's U.S. Fire Administration's 2016 National
Fires Incident Reporting System and the EPA's 2015 8-hour ozone attainment area data.
To obtain information on how the two regions oversee states and MSW landfills, we interviewed
air permitting, air enforcement, and solid waste staff in Regions 4 and 6. We requested and
received information from these regions regarding:
• Georgia's and Texas's approved state plans.
• Georgia's and Texas's approved compliance monitoring strategies.
• Georgia's and Texas's air planning agreements or grant commitment documents.
• Allocation of grant funds for each state within the region.
We requested lists of all MSW landfills in Georgia and Texas from Regions 4 and 6. Region 6
provided the OIG with a copy of Texas's listing that is made available on Texas's public
website, but Region 4 was unable to provide a list for Georgia and referred us to the state.
State Review Methodology
To assess state implementation of air emissions regulations for MSW landfills, we interviewed
staff from Georgia's Environmental Protection Division and the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality. We interviewed the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's and
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's air and solid waste permitting and enforcement
staff to obtain information about how air and solid waste staff coordinate to identify MSW
landfills in need of a Title V permit and enforce compliance with the Clean Air Act MSW-
landfill regulations. We also interviewed Georgia and Texas state inspectors and EPA regional
20-P-0236
27
-------
inspectors to understand the MSW-landfill inspection process in each state, including any steps
used to determine compliance with federal air regulations. We reviewed state regulations and
state MSW-landfill policies and procedures.
To determine the universe of MSW landfills in Georgia and Texas, we requested a list of MSW
landfills, including information regarding design capacity and Title V permit status. Each state
provided us with a list of MSW landfills with solid waste permits, which provided a permitted
design capacity value in cubic yards for each MSW landfill. However, the MSW-landfill NSPS
and EG use cubic meters and megagrams to determine the need for an MSW landfill to obtain a
Title V permit and calculate NMOC emissions. Using the cubic yard values, we used a
conversion formula provided by the EPA in the MSW-landfill NSPS and EG regulations to
convert cubic yard values to cubic meters. We could not calculate each MSW landfills' capacity
for mass to compare with the megagrams capacity threshold because the solid waste lists did not
provide data on the other factors needed to calculate MSW landfill mass, such as waste density
values and compaction practices. Each state also provided us a separate list of MSW landfills
with Title V permits.
Of the 51 MSW landfills with solid waste permits identified in Georgia, we selected a sample of
30 for further analysis. We selected our sample to obtain a variety of MSW-landfill types and
sizes, such as MSW landfills just under the regulatory volume capacity threshold, Title V-
permitted MSW landfills, and MSW landfills for which Georgia reported information that was
incomplete or inconsistent with data in the Waste Business Journal and the EPA's air databases.
We also requested initial design capacity reports for all 30 MSW landfills in our Georgia sample
to determine compliance with this regulatory requirement.
Based on knowledge gained during our work in Georgia, we adjusted our sampling technique for
Texas. We focused on MSW landfills (1) without Title V permits that were over the mass or
volume capacity threshold and (2) for which no design capacity information was available. We
also compared Texas's list of MSW landfills with solid waste permits against data in the Waste
Business Journal and the EPA's air databases to identify inconsistencies and additional
information regarding Texas's MSW landfills. Of the 143 MSW landfills identified in Texas, we
identified 24 landfills that met one of the two criteria, including 12 MSW landfills without
Title V permits with volume capacity over the regulatory capacity threshold and 12 MSW
landfills for which Texas had no design capacity value listed. We requested initial design
capacity reports from a total of 45 MSW landfills in Texas: the 12 MSW landfills that exceeded
the volume capacity threshold but had no Title V permit, as well as an additional 33 MSW
landfills with Title V permits.
From our Georgia and Texas samples, we selected two MSW landfills in Georgia and three
MSW landfills in Texas for site visits, in consideration of the following risk factors:
• Design capacity volume in cubic meters.
• Located in nonattainment area for ozone.
20-P-0236
28
-------
• Located in counties with reported open dump and landfill fires in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's 2016 National Fires Incident Reporting System.
• Located in areas that were geographically diverse.38
For the MSW landfills we selected for site visits, we requested copies of the original solid waste
permits, initial design capacity reports; three years of state inspections, from calendar years 2016
through 2018; and MSW landfill design information. We interviewed the MSW landfill owners
and operators, state air permitting staff, and state solid waste inspectors. During the site visits,
we observed conditions at each site and conducted a review of the solid waste inspections to
determine compliance with the solid waste requirements.
38 To select MSW landfills for site visits in Texas, we also considered whether the MSW landfill was located in a
region with multiple MSW landfills without design capacity values or with multiple MSW landfills over the
regulatory volume capacity threshold.
20-P-0236
29
-------
Appendix B
Agency Responses to Draft Report
We received separate responses from each entity to which we directed recommendations. Each
response is copied below in order of recommendation applicability.
Region 4 Response
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC TION AGENC \
REGION 4
ATLANTAFKDERA1 CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303-8960
MAY 1 2020
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Report: Environmental Protection Agency Needs to Improve Its Oversight of How
States Implement Air Emissions Regulations for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Project
No. OA&E-FY 18-0273
FROM: Mary Walker. Regional Administrator
EPA Region 4
TO:
James L. Hatfield, Director
Air Directorate. Office of Audit and Evaluation
EPA Office of the Inspector General
This memorandum is in response to your memo dated March 31, 2020, requesting a written
response to the findings and recommendations in the subject draft report within 30 days of the
date of the report (March 31, 2020). In your memo, you note that the response should:
1. Address the factual accuracy of the draft report and Indicate concurrence/nonconcurrence
with each finding and recommendation. (ACTION 1)
2. Indicate planned completion dates for all recommendations. (ACTION 2)
a. Provide any alternative actions to be considered for the final report, in the event of
nonconcurrence with a recommendation. (ACTION 2.a)
3. Identify any corrective actions already initiated or planned. (ACTION 3)
Each of these action items is addressed below. Supplementary information is provided in the
attachment. Please let me know if you need further information.
ACTION 1
The EPA Region 4 generally agrees with the factual accuracy of the draft report, concurs with
the findings in the report related to Region 4-related issues, and concurs with the Region 4-
related recommendation (Recommendation 1) with the following additions/caveats:
20-P-0236
30
-------
• The draft report acknowledges on Page 5 that the need for a title V permit is predicated
on two criteria (volumetric and mass thresholds), but then appears to go on to focus on
just the volumetric criterion.
• In working with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), as
recommended by the OIG (Recommendation 1), to determine whether the Toombs
County landfill needs a title V permit (or has applied for one), we will confirm that the
landfill meets both the volumetric and mass thresholds for holding a permit.
• The language of the draft report should be edited to clarify the difference between
requirements under RCRA versus the Clean Air Act (CAA). As written, the report is
ambiguous in multiple places as to which law is being discussed. The appendix to this
memo provides recommended edits to clarify this point.
• We have added some suggested edits to the section "Anatomy of an MSW Landfill."
ACTION 2
The EPA Region 4 intends to complete its work on Recommendation 1 within two months of the
finalization of this report.
OIG Response 1: Region 4 agreed with the recommendation and provided acceptable
planned corrective actions and estimated completion date. Recommendation 1 is resolved
with corrective actions pending.
ACTION 2.a
No alternate actions provided.
ACTION 3
Corrective actions already initiated or planned:
• Region 4 has reemphasized the requirement for its state and local air agencies to provide
a yearly report on their implementation and enforcement of the CAA MSW activities in
their jurisdiction. We are reviewing the reports and following up on any identified
deficiencies.
• Region 4 is working with the states to update their existing state plans pursuant to the
amended August 2016 emission guidelines and intends to use the opportunity to take a
broad look at the landfill program in each state to help ensure an up-to-date, functioning
program.
Attachment
cc: OAR A A
OECA AA
EPA Region 6 RA
20-P-0236
31
-------
Region 6 Response
*««>UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*1 PRO^
REGION 6
1201 ELM STREET, SUITE 500
DALLAS. TEXAS 75270
Office ofthe Regional Administrator
April 30, 2020
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OA&E-FY 18-02 73
"EPA Needs to Improve Its Oversight of How States Implement Air Emissions
Regulations for Municipal Solid waste Landfills," dated March 31,2020
Ken McQueen
Regional Administrator, Region 6
TO:
James Hatfield, Director
Air Directorate, Office of Audit and Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject draft
audit report. A summary of the Region's overall position, along with its position on each of the
draft report recommendations related to EPA Region 6, is provided below. For those report
recommendations with which the Region agrees, we have provided proposed corrective actions
and estimated completion dates. For those draft report recommendations with which the Region
does not agree, we have explained our position and proposed alternatives to those
recommendations. For your consideration, we have included technical comments and edits as
attachments to our response.
OVERALL POSITION OF REGION 6
EPA Region 6 agrees that the draft report has identified Region 6's oversight role in certain state
implementation issues related to the standards of performance for municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfills, regulated under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Region 6 recognizes its overall role in
ensuring that applicable standards of performance have been met by the regulated MSW landfills.
Follow-up discussions with our Region 6 state partners will provide additional information to
facilitate implementation of the proposed corrective actions. Corrective measures and anticipated
timeframes for completion are provided below. In addition, technical comments on the draft report
are attached, and specific comments and suggested language changes to the draft report have been
transmitted to your project lead. Please note that the COV1D-19 pandemic may affect the
completion timeframes below if resources are impacted.
20-P-0236
32
-------
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended Corrective
Action(s)
Estimated Completion by
Quarter and FY
2
Require the Texas
Commission on
Environmental Quality to
determine whether the eleven
municipal solid waste
landfills identified by the
OIG as having design
capacities exceeding the Title
V permit regulatory capacity
threshold should apply for a
title V permit and install
emissions controls. If permits
are required, verify with the
Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
whether the municipal solid
waste landfills applied for a
permit.
1.1 TCEQ to determine if any of
the eleven municipal solid waste
landfills identified by OIG
require a title V permit.
4th Quarter FY 2020
1.2 TCEQ to develop a timeline
to permit the municipal solid
waste landfills that are
determined to need a title V
permit. TCEQ to document
basis in determining which
municipal solid waste landfills
do not need title V permits.
1st Quarter FY 2021
1.3 Submit annual progress
report
1st Quarter FY 2021, and
2022;
OIG Response 2: Region 6 concurred with the recommendation and provided acceptable
planned corrective actions and estimated completion dates. Recommendation 2 is resolved
with corrective actions pending.
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended Corrective
Action(s)
Estimated Completion by
Quarter and FY
3
Determine whether the state
of Arkansas plans to submit a
state plan and seek delegation
to implement the 2016
municipal solid waste landfill
Emission Guidelines. If not,
implement the federal
municipal solid waste landfill
Emission Guidelines plan in
Arkansas.
(Please see the table under
"Further Comments on
Recommendations " on
updating this
recommendation and
clarifying this language.)
1.1 Determine Arkansas course
of action. (DONE)
3rd Quarter FY 2020
1.2 Work with Arkansas to
develop their submittal.
3rd Quarter FY 2020
1.3 Review and take action on
Arkansas's submittal once
received.
3rd Quarter FY 2020 - 3rd
Quarter FY 2022
1.4 If no state plan or federal
plan delegation request is
submitted, or until EPA
approves Arkansas's submittal,
implement the federal plan for
the 2016 MSW landfills
3rd Quarter FY 2022
20-P-0236
33
-------
emission guidelines when it
becomes effective.
Further Comments on Recommendations
No.
Recommendation
Agency Explanation/Response
Proposed Alternative
3
Determine whether the state
of Arkansas plans to submit a
state plan and seek delegation
to implement the 2016
municipal solid waste landfill
Emission Guidelines. If not,
implement the federal
municipal solid waste landfill
Emission Guidelines plan in
Arkansas.
Region 6 has confirmed with
Arkansas that they intend to
submit a state plan for the 2016
MSW Landfills EG.
For clarity, we also suggest that
the language in this
recommendation be revised to
that in the Proposed Alternative.
Currently, Arkansas does not
have any designated facilities
covered by the 1996 MSW
landfills emission guidelines
found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Cc.
The deadline for EPA's
promulgation of the federal plan
for MSW landfills is March
2022, unless an earlier date is
established by the court as a
result of current litigation.
Currently, the only finalized
federal plan for existing MSW
landfills is the federal plan for
the 1996 MSW landfills emission
guidelines found at 40 CFR part
62, subpart GGG.
Work with Arkansas to
develop their submittal for
the 2016 municipal solid
waste landfills Emission
Guidelines. If Arkansas
does not submit a state
plan or until EPA
approves the State's
submittal, implement the
federal plan for the 2016
municipal solid waste
landfill Emission
Guidelines in Arkansas
once the federal plan is
effective.
20-P-0236
34
-------
OIG Response 3: Region 6 agreed with the recommendation and provided planned
corrective actions and estimated completion dates. Because the Agency completed our draft
report's original recommendation to determine whether the State of Arkansas planned to
submit a state plan to implement the 2016 MSW-landfill EG, Region 6 proposed a revision to
update Recommendation 3, which we adopted with minor edits for clarity. The
recommendation now reads:
Assist the State of Arkansas in developing and submitting a state plan to
implement the 2016 municipal solid waste landfills Emission Guidelines. If
Arkansas does not submit a state plan, implement the federal plan for the
2016 municipal solid waste landfill Emission Guidelines once the federal plan
is effective.
This recommendation is resolved with corrective actions pending.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Jeff Robinson, Chief of the Air
Permits, Monitoring & Grants Branch in the Air and Radiation Division at Region 6 at (214)
665-6435.
Attachment
cc: Gabrielle Fekete, Project Lead, OIG
20-P-0236
35
-------
Office of Air and Radiation Response
^£0Sr^
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
April 30. 2020
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Comments on Draft Report: "EPA Needs to Improve Its Oversight of How States
Implement Air Emissions Regulations for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills"
The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) welcomes the opportunity to review and comment
on the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) report titled EPA Needs to Improve Its Oversight
of How States Implement Air Emissions Regulations for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Draft
Report).
We appreciate the OIG audit team's investigation of smaller landfills in Georgia and Texas
to see if these landfills are operating under the correct permit and discern if a gas collection and
control system (GCCS) is needed. While we agree that effective state implementation of the
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (MSWL) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
Emission Guidelines (EG) regulations ("MSWL NSPS/EG") is vital, we feel that enhanced
implementation of current processes accomplishes the goals of OIG's recommendations. Of note,
the report's conclusions related to Title V permits rely on one of two metrics (volume of landfill
waste) for determining permit applicability and the need for emission controls. However, to require
a Title V permit, a landfill must meet or exceed both metrics (volume and weight thresholds). From
OIG's investigation, it seems that some landfills in Georgia and Texas are potentially not
submitting their initial design capacity reports. Such reports inform the states about whether a Title
V permit, and further non-methane organic compound (NMOC) testing would be required. Or, the
landfills' reports may have been submitted but the state is unable to locate their submittals from
years past.
We agree that design capacity is critical information, but it is also necessary to draw
conclusions on Title V permit applicability. The initial design capacity report required by the rule
tells the landfill to report if either the weight or the volume is below the threshold. If their volume
is over, the rule speaks on how to convert from volume to weight to compare to that threshold
20-P-0236 36
FROM:
Anne L. Idsal
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
TO:
Kathlene Butler
Acting Assistant Inspector General
Office of Audit and Evaluation
Office of the Inspector General
-------
utilizing site specific density. This report does show that there are potential implementation
missteps that need to be corrected regarding design capacity reports and information, which we
thank the OIG audit team for identifying.
Our responses to the OIG's specific recommendations for OAR are as follows:
Recommendation 4: Develop and implement a process to periodically review municipal solid
waste land- fill design capacity information and Title V permit lists to identify municipal solid
waste landfills with design capacities over the applicable threshold that have not applied for a Title
V permit.
Response 4: While OAR disagrees with the proposed recommendation as written, we are
addressing the intent as follows.
The MSWL NSPS/EG require all landfills that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987, to
submit an initial design capacity report and an amended capacity report, if initially below the
"exemption" thresh- old for other requirements. This design capacity reporting brings awareness
to the landfill and permitting authority of the need for a Title V permit application and to check
the NMOC emission rate. A landfill at the 2.5 million cubic meter (m3) and 2.5 million megagram
(Mg) thresholds on their initial design capacity report, or the amended design capacity report,
becomes subject to NMOC emission rate checks and Title V permitting. The rules lay out both the
design capacity report requirement and Title V requirements and the link between them. EPA
previously provided guidance for the 1996 MSWL NSPS/EG on Title V permitting and design
capacity calculations. A landfill becomes subject to the Title V program 90 days after modification
or promulgation of a NSPS or state/federal plan implementing an EG, and their Title V application
is due one year from that date. This guidance continues to apply because this portion of the rule is
unchanged in the new 2016 MSWL NSPS/EG. Additionally, OAR has a framework for the EPA
Regional Offices to use in their ongoing evaluation of state permitting programs to ensure that they
are being implemented and enforced in accordance with the requirements of Title V and Clean Air
Act Part 70 regulations for the programs.1 Oversight of the rules is a function of the states and
Regions while tracking implementation is a function of EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA). Thus, review of design capacity reports and Title V permits is
handled by the states, Regions and/or OECA.
As an alternative to the proposed recommendation, OAR proposes to emphasize the importance of
the landfill reporting obligations and their link to the NMOC emission rate checks and Title V
permitting obligations when we issue the final federal plan. The recently published notice issuing
EPA's finding of states that had failed to submit a state plan to satisfy the 2016 MSWL EG
establishes a two-yeardeadline for EPA to promulgate a federal plan for these states, which would
be March 2022. However, this date is subject to change pending ongoing litigation.
20-P-0236
37
-------
OIG Response 4: The Office of Air and Radiation disagreed with the recommendation as
written. The Office proposed addressing Recommendation 4 by including language "to
emphasize the importance of landfill reporting obligations and their link to Title V
permitting obligations" in its federal plan. This federal plan will be used to implement the
MSW-landfill EG in states without approved state plans.
However, this proposed corrective action does not address the need for state air permitting
authorities to conduct periodic reviews of existing solid waste data to determine whether
there are MSW landfills with capacities that exceed the Title V permit capacity thresholds
but without Title V permits. We recognize that the review of design capacity reports and
Title V permits is handled by the states, EPA regions, and the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance. Our intent was not to recommend that the Office of Air and
Radiation conduct these periodic reviews. Rather, we recommend that the Office work with
the EPA regions to develop a process whereby states and regions compare MSW-landfill
design capacity information and Title V permit lists to identify MSW landfills with design
capacities over the applicable capacity thresholds but without Title V permits. This
recommendation is unresolved.
Planned Completion Date: FY 2022, Quarter 2 (pending litigation).
Recommendation 5: Update guidance to clarify the requirements for submitting an initial design
capacity report to include how to:
a Address closed municipal solid waste landfill areas and the soil used in municipal solid
waste landfill daily and final covers when calculating design capacity,
b. Determine whether a municipal solid waste landfill is subject to Title V permit and
nonmethane organic compound requirements.
Response 5: While OAR disagrees with the proposed recommendation as written, we believe we
are addressing the intent as follows.
Guidance provided on the 1996 MSWL NSPS/EG includes how to calculate design capacity based
on the definition included in the rules, including an example design capacity report form. Design
capacity is the maximum amount of solid waste a landfill can accept, as indicated in terms of
volume or mass in the most recent permit issued by the state, local, or tribal agency responsible for
regulating the landfill, plus any in- place waste not accounted for in the most recent permit. If the
owner or operator chooses to convert the design capacity from volume to mass or from mass to
volume to demonstrate its design capacity is less than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m , the
calculation must include a site-specific density and must be recalculated annually. Since design
capacity refers to solid waste, soil used for daily or final cover would not be included in the
calculation. Additionally, the definition notes in-place waste not accounted for in the most recent
permit, which would include closed areas, needs to be included. Furthermore, the guidance notes
that the rules apply to the entire landfill including active areas, closed areas and areas that could
accept refuse in the future. This guidance also provides information regarding Title V and its
applicability and relationship to the design capacity, as well as when NMOC testing is required.
This guidance continues to apply to the 2016 MSWL NSPS/EG since the definition of design
capacity and its relationship to Title V and NMOC testing and calculations has not changed. With
20-P-0236
38
-------
this guidance in place and the rules laying out the link between design capacity, Title V and NMOC
reporting, OAR believes these issues are fully addressed.
As an alternative to the proposed recommendation, OAR proposes to develop a tool that clarifies
MSWL NSPS/EG regulatory requirements for landfill owners and operators. OAR is currently
developing and updating a 'Regulation Navigation' tool that provides the user a series of questions
about their landfill and returns information confirming which rule applies to their landfill and what
their specific requirements are within that rule. This tool is currently active for the 1996 MSWL
NSPS/EG, as well as the 2016 MSWL NSPS/EG (prior to the revisions made to these rules in March
2020). The tool will be updated later this year to include MSWL NESHAP requirements and the
March 2020 revisions to the 2016 MSWL NSPS/EG.
Planned Completion Date: FY 2021, Quarter 2
OIG Response 5: The Office of Air and Radiation disagreed with the recommendation as
written and proposed an alternative corrective action to "develop a tool that clarifies MSWL
NSPS/EG regulatory requirements for landfill owners and operators." However, our analysis
of the EPA's web-based "Regulation Navigation" tool found that it does not provide users
with guidance on design capacity reports and the regulatory requirements for existing landfills
to comply with the 1996 and 2016 MSW-landfill EGs, as implemented and enforced through
an EPA-approved state or federal plan. Therefore, the tool does not include information to
address the types of misinterpretations of the regulations as identified in our audit.
Further, our intent was not to recommend that the EPA update all guidance related to the
Clean Air Act MSW-landfill regulations. Rather, our intent was to recommend that the EPA
update guidance specific to design capacity reports to alert MSW-landfill owners and
operators as to what information the MSW-landfill regulations require in design capacity
calculations and to the capacity thresholds that trigger Title V permit and NMOC testing
requirements. This recommendation is unresolved.
Recommendation 6: Develop and implement a process to confirm state plans approved for
delegation of the 2016 municipal solid waste landfill Emission Guidelines contain all required
program elements and provisions for submitting annual progress reports.
Response 6: OAR agrees with the intent of this recommendation and believes we have addressed
it as follows.
In August 2019, EPA adopted into the 2016 MSWL EG timing requirements and completeness
criteria from the new implementing regulations for emission guidelines promulgated in Subpart
Ba to Part 60 of the Clean Air Act (Subpart Ba). Subpart Ba was developed to align the state/federal
plan development process of section 111(d) regulations with the state/federal implementation plan
development process of 110 regulations to make it easier for states to understand what is required
of them and for Regions to better understand the review process due to the greater degree of
experience with plans under the section 110 program. State plans submitted after August 2019 to
implement the 2016 MSWL EG are currently being reviewed at the Regional level using the new
Subpart Ba criteria. So far, eight state plans have been approved, while three additional state plans
20-P-0236
39
-------
are currently under review. These state plans must first meet a completeness check based on
Subpart Ba requirements and are then reviewed for acceptability. We are also anticipating
submission of an additional seven state plans for review. We recently promulgated a 'Finding of
Failure to Submit' identifying 42 states and territories that failed to submit for review and approval
state plans to implement the 2016 MSWL EG. As noted above, a federal plan will be promulgated
two years after the 'Finding of Failure to Submit' for this group of 42 states and territories. OAR
believes the Subpart Ba process currently in place addresses the intent of this recommendation.
Planned Completion Date: None - Completed FY 2020, Quarter 2.
OIG Response 6: The Office of Air and Radiation agreed with Recommendation 6, specified
a planned corrective action, and identified the corrective action as completed. We recognize
that the Office's action enables the EPA to verify that state plans include some of the
administrative and technical criteria required under 40 C.F.R. Part 60. However, we disagree
that the action completely addresses the recommendation. Specifically, the action would not
address the state plans that omit the following requirements under 40 C.F.R. Part 60.25:
• Procedures for periodic inspections of MSW landfills.
• Provisions for making MSW-landfill compliance data available to the public.
Our analysis of three of the state plans approved by the EPA to implement the 2016 MSW-
landfill EG found that these plans also did not provide specific details about compliance
monitoring procedures including periodic inspections of landfills or provisions for making
landfill compliance data available to the public. This recommendation is unresolved.
[Joint OAR/OECA] Recommendation 7: Develop and implement a process to review
implementation of the 2016 municipal solid waste landfill Emission Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards to provide assurance that states are effectively implementing these
regulations.
Response 7: OAR supports the intent of this recommendation but believes the appropriate action
official is the OECA Assistant Administrator.
Developing and implementing a process to provide assurance that states are implementing the
regulations falls under OECA's purview. We will continue to partner with OECA on various sector
issues, and are happy to work with them to consider refining the current process to ensure states
are implementing and enforcing the 2016 MSWL NSPS/EG correctly, especially to make sure
landfill owners and operators are submitting the required design capacity information that would
inform Title V applicability.
Planned Completion Date: N/A - OECA's response to this recommendation and proposed
corrective action is provided in a separate response.
20-P-0236
40
-------
OIG Response 7: The Office of Air and Radiation agreed with the recommendation but
identified the assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance as the
appropriate action official. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance agreed to
implement the recommendation. See the Office's response letter and OIG Response 8 below.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Mike Jones,
OAQPS/OAR Audit Liaison, at (919) 541-0528.
cc: James Hatfield
Betsy Shaw
Peter Tsirigotis
Mike Koerber
Robin Dunkins
Andy Sheppard
Allison Costa
Marc Vincent
Mike Jones
Penny Lassiter
Juan Santiago
Cheryl Vetter
Grecia Castro
20-P-0236
41
-------
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Response
tfto ST>,V
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| k WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
v%
PRO^°
9
ASSISTANT ADMIN ISTRATOR
FOR ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report: EPA Needs to Improve Its
Oversight of How States Implement Air Emissions Regulations for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills; Project No. OA&E-FY 18-0273. March 31, 2020
FROM: Susan Parker Bodine SUSAN
SUSANBCOINE *
BODINE
TO: James Hatfield. Director
Air Directorate, Office of Audit and Evaluation
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) appreciates the opportunity to
respond to the draft findings and recommendations presented in the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) draft report, "EPA Needs to Improve Its Oversight of How States Implement Air
Emissions Regulations for Municipal Solid Waste LandfillsWe agree on the importance of
effective EPA oversight of state implementation of landfill air emissions requirements in
achieving air quality, public health, and environmental goals set by the Clean Air Act.
As acknowledged by the OIG, OECA works in partnership with our regional offices and state
local, and tribal agencies to address pollution problems impacting communities through
enforcement as well through compliance monitoring and assistance activities. OECA and EPA
regions have shared accountability in protecting human health and the environment and value
state, local and tribal agencies as important partners. As the principal compliance monitoring and
enforcement agencies, state local and tribal agencies have primary responsibility for
implementing their delegated programs. Consistent with cooperative federalism principles,
OECA is responsible for federal oversight to ensure adequate program implementation. Thus, we
appreciate the OIG's observations emphasizing the significance of effective state implementation
and EPA oversight of emissions controls for municipal solid waste landfills, and the importance
of helping states meet air quality standards for ozone and fine particulate matter.
We agree that implementation of OIG Recommendation #7 - directed to both the Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR) and OECA - would be beneficial, and we and OAR have coordinated our
responses. As OECA ensures compliance with the regulations through a variety of means,
including compliance monitoring, compliance assistance, and enforcement, we provide below
the correcti ve action to address the recommendation along with an estimated timeframe for
completion.
20-P-0236
42
-------
OTG Recommendation 7
Develop and implement a process to review implementation of the 2016 municipal solid waste
landfill Emission Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards to provide assurance that
states are effectively implementing these regulations.
EPA Resnonse to OTG Recommendation 7
OECA will develop and implement a process to review implementation of the 2016 municipal
solid waste landfill Emission Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards to provide
assurance that states are effectively implementing these regulations. In doing so, we will work
with the EPA regions to assess all existing tools currently available to implement the regulations.
In evaluating our current compliance monitoring and enforcement program regarding the
regulations that are the subject of the OIG draft report, we will review the various methods and
processes available to ensure effective rule implementation and oversight. Our appraisal will
include looking at our targeting, inspection, and oversight activities as well as our coordination
with our delegated state and local air agencies.
In addition, our effort to develop and implement a process for reviewing implementation of the
2016 municipal solid waste rules will be informed through discussion and feedback received
from various forums. Opportunities for receiving input include our regular meetings with the
regional Air Enforcement Managers, discussions with multi-jurisdictional organizations such as
the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the Mid-Atlantic
Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA), as well as the ongoing collaboration with
our partner state and local agencies. As we undertake this effort, we will also assess training
needs to determine if our regional offices and state/local agencies would benefit from additional
inspector courses and/or compliance assistance materials.
OECA commits to developing and finalizing a plan that establishes a process to review
implementation of the 2016 municipal solid waste landfill Emissions Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards by January 30, 2021. Once the plan is finalized, OECA will implement
the plan.
Recommendation
Corrective Action
Date
7. Develop and implement a
process to review implementation
of the 2016 municipal solid waste
landfill Emission Guidelines and
New Source Performance
Standards to provide assurance
that states are effectively
implementing these regulations.
OECA agrees to develop and
implement a plan that establishes a
process to review implementation
of the 2016 municipal solid waste
landfill Emission Guidelines and
New Source Performance
Standards to provide assurance
that states are effectively
implementing these regulations.
Finalize Plan and
begin
implementation
by 1/30/2021
20-P-0236
43
-------
OIG Response 8: The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance concurred with
the recommendation and provided acceptable planned corrective actions and an estimated
completion date. Recommendation 7 is resolved with corrective actions pending.
Contact Information
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA
Audit Liaison, at (202) 564-2439.
cc: Lawrence E. Starfield, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
John S. Irving, Deputy Assistant Administrator, OECA
Anne Idsal, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, OAR
Mary S. Walker, Regional Administrator, Region 4
Ken McQueen, Regional Administrator, Region 6
David Hindin, OC
John Dombrowski, OC
Jacqueline Werner, OC
Rochele Kadish, OC
Martha Segall, OC
Robert Scinta, OC
Maria Malave, OC
Gwendolyn Spriggs, OAP
20-P-0236
44
-------
Appendix C
Distribution
The Administrator
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Associate Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff
Deputy Chief of Staff/Operations
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Regional Administrator, Region 4
Regional Administrator, Region 6
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 for Air and Radiation
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrators for Air and Radiation
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Air and Radiation
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air
and Radiation
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 4
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 6
20-P-0236
45
------- |