CUSTOMER SERVICE ~ INTEGRITY ~ ACCOUNTABILITY
Partnering with states and other stakeholders
Authorized State Hazardous
Waste Program Inspections
and Operations Were
Impacted During
Coronavirus Pandemic
December 1, 2021
Report No. 22-E-0009

-------
Report Contributors: Steve Hanna
Tina Lovingood
Renee McGhee-Lenart
Jonathan Morrand
Rodney Rice
Bruce Woods
Abbreviations:
CMS
EPA
FY
LQG
OECA
OfCM
OIG
RCRA
RCRAInfo
TSDF
U.S.C.
Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C
Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fiscal Year
Large Quantity Generator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Off-Site Compliance Monitoring Activity
Office of Inspector General
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
System
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
United States Code
Cover Image:
EPA facility inspection. (EPA 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

-------
Office of Inspector General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
At a Glance
22-E-0009
December 1, 2021
Why We Did This Evaluation
The Office of Inspector General
conducted this evaluation to
determine the ability of
authorized state Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
hazardous waste programs to
continue operations during the
coronavirus pandemic—that is,
the SARS-CoV-2 virus and
resultant COVID-19 disease.
Under the Act, states and
territories may be authorized to
implement the federal hazardous
waste program under
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency regional oversight. The
EPA has authorized 48 states
and two territories to implement
the program.
States received EPA guidance to
assist in maintaining adequate
regulatory oversight during the
pandemic. Issues addressed
included holding virtual public
meetings, adjusting state
inspection commitments, and
conducting off-site compliance
monitoring activities.
This evaluation supports an EPA
mission-related effort:
•	Partnering with states and other
stakeholders.
This evaluation addresses a top
EPA management challenge:
•	Maintaining operations during
pandemic responses.
Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov.
List of OIG reports.
Authorized State Hazardous Waste Program
Inspections and Operations Were Impacted During
Coronavirus Pandemic
The coronavirus
pandemic impacted
RCRA state program
operations and resulted
in fewer inspections.
What We Found
Authorized state Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act programs have continued
operations, such as inspections and public
meetings, during the pandemic. However, the
number of inspections from March 2020 through
February 2021 for RCRA treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities, known as TSDFs, decreased by 34 percent and for large
quantity generators, or LQGs, decreased by 47 percent when compared to the
prior year. The number of violations found per inspection also decreased. After
a sharp initial reduction in TSDF inspections in April 2020, states neared normal
inspection rates by July 2020, but the number of inspections decreased again in
October 2020 and remained below historical levels through February 2021.
LQG inspections followed a similar pattern except that the decrease in
inspections was more significant from October 2020 through February 2021.
Decreases in inspections during the pandemic may have been due to remote
work difficulties and travel restrictions. RCRA inspections by authorized state
programs provide a deterrent effect that protects human health and the
environment.
State RCRA programs experienced difficulties in March 2020. We surveyed
four regional directors concerning eight authorized states and found that all
eight states were initially not completely telework ready but were able to
overcome barriers so that all staff could work remotely. Two states initially had
difficulties in meeting their grant commitments, such as inspections. The EPA
worked with these states to renegotiate their commitments. Further, seven of
the eight states implemented changes, consistent with flexibilities in EPA
guidance, to hold virtual meetings with the regulated community and the public.
Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions
We made five recommendations based on issues identified in this report,
including that the Agency review data and develop plans to optimize the ability
of authorized state RCRA programs to respond to future pandemic events and
disasters. The Agency agreed with all five recommendations.
Recommendations 2, 3, and 4 are resolved with corrective actions pending.
The planned corrective actions for Recommendations 1 and 5 did not meet the
intent of our recommendations, which remain unresolved.
Noteworthy Achievement
The EPA issued multiple guidance documents during the pandemic providing
authorized state programs with flexibilities for enforcement and compliance
actions and using virtual alternatives to public meetings.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
December 1, 2021
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Authorized State Hazardous Waste Program Inspections and Operations Were Impacted
During Coronavirus Pandemic
Report No. 22-E-0009
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The project number for this evaluation was OE-FY21-Q124. 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 resolution procedures.
The Offices of Land and Emergency Management and Enforcement and Compliance Assurance are
responsible for the issues discussed in this report.
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, your offices provided acceptable planned corrective actions and
estimated milestone dates for Recommendations 2, 3, and 4. These recommendations are resolved with
corrective actions pending.
Action Required
Recommendations 1 and 5 are unresolved. The resolution process, as described in EPA's Audit
Management Procedures, begins immediately with the issuance of this report. Furthermore, we 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.
FROM: Sean W. O'Donnell
TO:
Barry Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Land and Emergency Management
Lawrence E. Starfield, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.

-------
Authorized State Hazardous Waste Program
Inspections and Operations Were Impacted
During Coronavirus Pandemic
22-E-0009
Table of C
Chapters
1	Introduction	1
Purpose	1
Background	1
Scope and Methodology	6
Noteworthy Achievement	7
Responsible Offices	7
Prior Reports	7
2	Authorized State RCRA Programs Remained Operational but Experienced Difficulties
During Pandemic	9
Number of RCRA Inspections and Number of Violations Per Inspection Decreased
During Pandemic	9
States Did Not Consistently Use Guidance Provided by EPA on OfCMs	13
Regional Directors Affirmed Authorized State RCRA Programs Experienced Difficulties
Early in Pandemic	14
Conclusions	15
Recommendations	16
Agency Response and OIG Assessment	16
Status of Recommendations	18
Appendixes
A Regional Interview Questions	19
B Agency Response to Draft Report	21
C Distribution	26

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General conducted this evaluation to
evaluate the ability of authorized state Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, hazardous
waste programs to continue operations during the coronavirus pandemic—that is, the SARS-CoV-2 virus
and resultant COVID-19 disease.
Top Management Challenge Addressed
This evaluation addresses the following top management challenge for the Agency, as identified in OIG
Report No. 20-N-0231. EPA's FYs 2020-2021 Top Management Challenges, issued July 21, 2020:
• Maintaining operations during pandemic responses.
Background
In response to the coronavirus pandemic, every level of government—federal, state, tribal, territorial,
and local—engaged in efforts to slow and stop the spread of the COVID-19 disease through a multitude
of initiatives. Some of these initiatives included stay-at-home orders, which restricted people from
leaving their homes except for essential tasks; travel restrictions to certain areas and mandatory
quarantining upon arrival and return; use of personal protective equipment; and adherence to
guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, the EPA's responsibilities
for implementing federal environmental laws, including RCRA,1 continued even though resources and
capabilities shifted to address the pandemic.
Hazardous waste is waste with properties that make it dangerous or capable of having a harmful effect
on human health or the environment. Hazardous waste is regulated under subtitle C of RCRA. Under
subtitle C, the EPA may authorize states to implement key provisions of hazardous waste requirements.
If an authorized state program does not exist, the EPA directly implements the hazardous waste
requirements in that state.
Under RCRA, the EPA has the authority to regulate hazardous waste from the moment it is generated to
its final disposal. Hazardous waste includes a broad range of components, including chemicals known to
be human carcinogens. The purpose of the EPA's hazardous waste program is to manage such waste
safely (Figure 1). For example, trichloroethylene is a chemical managed by RCRA treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities, known as TSDFs. Trichloroethylene is a widely used industrial chemical and a known
human carcinogen.
1 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.
22-E-0009
1

-------
Figure 1: Management of hazardous waste from "cradle to grave"
Source: EPA. (EPA image)
Hazardous waste is generated from sources ranging from industrial manufacturing process wastes to
batteries. Under RCRA, hazardous waste generators must determine whether their waste is hazardous
and ensure that the produced hazardous waste is properly identified, managed, and treated prior to
recycling or disposal. After hazardous waste is produced, transporters may move the waste to a facility
that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste.
Every hazardous waste shipment must be accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest that includes
generator, transporter, and disposal facility information, as well as shipment and receipt dates and the
type and volume of hazardous waste. The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act
requires the EPA to establish a national system to track hazardous waste shipments. On June 30, 2018,
the EPA launched e-Manifest, a national system for tracking hazardous waste shipments electronically.
The e-Manifest system is designed to track off-site shipments of hazardous waste from a generator's site
to the site of receipt and disposition—or from "cradle to grave."
State Authorization of Hazardous Waste Programs
Under RCRA, states and territories may assume primary responsibility for implementing the hazardous
waste program in lieu of the EPA. For a state or territory to assume this responsibility, it must first
obtain authorization from the EPA. To receive authorization from the EPA, RCRA requires a state or
territory program to have requirements that are equal to or more stringent than the federal program. A
state or territory that has received authorization from the EPA for its hazardous waste program can then
implement and enforce hazardous waste rules under RCRA. The EPA has authorized hazardous waste
programs in the District of Columbia; Guam; and 48 states, not Alaska and Iowa. The EPA directly
implements the RCRA program in unauthorized states and territories and on tribal lands.
22-E-0009
2

-------
The EPA's oversight of state authorized compliance and enforcement programs for RCRA is conducted
through the State Review Framework. According to the EPA, State Review Framework reviews are
conducted on a five-year cycle and address the following goals:
•	Ensure delegated programs and programs implemented by the EPA directly meet minimum
performance standards outlined in federal policies and guidance.
•	Promote fair and consistent enforcement necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
•	Promote equitable treatment and level interstate playing field for businesses.
•	Provide transparency with publicly available data and reports.
RCRA Grants to Authorized States
EPA regions assist authorized states and territories through Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance
Grants, referred to as RCRA grants. Regions negotiate commitments with their authorized states for the
grants and monitor compliance. Activities funded by these grants include:
•	Issuing and renewing permits.
•	Processing permit modifications to keep pace with evolving business practices.
•	Performing inspections to ensure compliance and safety.
•	Overseeing cleanups, called corrective actions, at RCRATSDFs.
RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy and Inspection Requirements and Policies
The 2015 Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Subtitle C Program, or the CMS, provides guidance to authorized states "with respect to administering
and implementing an Agency program for RCRA compliance monitoring." The CMS describes the
inspection requirements for RCRA TSDFs and hazardous waste large quantity generators, known as LQGs.
The EPA oversees RCRA compliance monitoring activities to ensure TSDFs and LQGs are properly
inspected. RCRA defines the minimum frequency of TSDF inspections, while the policies for inspections
of nonoperating TSDFs and LQGs are described in the CMS (Table 1). Nonoperating TSDFs do not
accept or process waste but are regulated by the EPA as they undergo closure or post-closure
maintenance activities.
Table 1: RCRA inspection frequencies
Entity I
I Source I
I Minimum inspection frequency
Operating federal, state, or local facility TSDF
RCRA
Annual.
Operating nonfederal TSDF
RCRA
At least once every two years.
Nonoperating TSDF with other compliance
requirements
EPA policies
At least once every three years.
LQG EPA policies Every five years. Authorized states may
negotiate with EPA regions for changes to this
requirement.
Source: OIG analysis of 42 U.S.C. § 6927 and 2015 RCRA CMS policy. (EPA OIG table)
22-E-0009	3

-------
The CMS defines multiple types of inspections that may satisfy the inspection requirement or policy. The
inspection types used in reports from the RCRA information system, called RCRAInfo, are:
•	Compliance evaluation inspections.
•	Groundwater monitoring inspections.
•	Operation and maintenance inspections.
Inspections are used to measure TSDF and LQG compliance with statutory or EPA policy requirements.
Inspections Ensure Protection of Human Health and Environment
The importance of inspections was documented in OIG Report No. 16-P-0104. EPA Has Not Met Statutory
Requirements for Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility Inspections, but Inspection
Rates are High, issued March 11, 2016. The report contains examples of potential impacts if inspections
are not done, along with examples of potential benefits of conducting inspections. The examples in the
report, which were obtained via a survey given to all ten EPA regions, included the following:
•	Because TSDFs manage large quantities of hazardous waste or are the end-point destination of
the majority of hazardous waste generated in the United States, RCRA violations may pose
significant harm to human health and the environment. Inspections are needed to provide a
deterrent effect and to ensure compliance with RCRA and minimize such risk.
•	TSDFs are typically the largest handlers of hazardous waste, and many of these facilities are also
near water bodies and sometimes near residential areas. As a result, these facilities warrant in-
depth inspections to ensure the protection of human health and the environment now and in
the future.
•	Compliance is more likely maintained when an inspection is anticipated. In addition, RCRA
differs from other regulatory programs in that the rules require very little self-reporting or
record-keeping, making inspections one of the only means available for routine compliance
monitoring activities.
•	According to one EPA region, states have found that a frequent inspection presence at regulated
facilities improves compliance more than anything else. Because regions do not have the
resources to conduct routine compliance assistance, the TSDFs in the regions understand that if
the EPA conducts an inspection and finds violations, there will be an enforcement response in
line with EPA enforcement response policy. This encourages facilities to work with states to
maintain compliance.
LQG inspections are important because LQGs generate a majority of the nation's hazardous waste. A
generator is considered an LQG if it generates more than 1,000 kilograms—or approximately
2,200 pounds—of hazardous waste per calendar month or greater than one kilogram—or approximately
2.2 pounds—of "acute" hazardous waste per calendar month. Acute hazardous waste comprises a
specific list of discarded chemical products that the EPA has identified as "acutely toxic." These are
regulated at lower quantities than other hazardous waste. Inspections of LQGs include reviewing
record-keeping and hazardous waste determinations.
22-E-0009
4

-------
tidances and Policies for Inspection and Enforcement Activities During
Pandemic
On March 26, 2020, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, known as OECA, issued a
memorandum titled The COVID-19 Implications for EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Program. The memorandum stated that:
The consequences of the pandemic may constrain the ability of regulated entities to
perform routine compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory
analysis, training, and reporting or certification.
The memorandum further stated that regulated entities should make efforts to comply with their
environmental obligations but, if full compliance was not possible, the regulated entities should
document the specific nature of the noncompliance and how the coronavirus pandemic was the cause
of the noncompliance. This policy was applicable through August 31, 2020.
On July 22, 2020, the assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance sent letters to
states, tribes, territories, and local agencies, recognizing the challenges they may face in meeting
inspection commitments during the coronavirus pandemic and identifying flexibilities, such as the use of
off-site compliance monitoring activities, known as OfCMs, instead of on-site inspections. The letters
stated:
The purpose of this letter is to assure you that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) will work with
states, tribes, territories, and local agencies (hereafter referred to collectively as
"partner agencies") to adjust inspection commitments due to the COVID-19 public
health emergency. This information applies to inspection commitments under those
compliance monitoring programs that partner agencies are authorized to implement
and that OECA oversees, as well as inspection commitments made as part of State
and Tribal Assistance Grants under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The letters provided flexibilities through March 2021. Due to the continuing impacts of COVID-19 after
March 2021, OECA sent another letter on April 7, 2021, that extended the flexibilities through
September 2021. In September 2021, OECA provided an extension of the flexibilities until December 31,
2021. The letter provided additional clarification on the implementation of the flexibilities.
On November 20, 2020, OECA issued a memorandum to all regional Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance division directors and OECA office directors describing OfCMs and national reporting. The
guidance includes instructions on coding off-site inspections in RCRAInfo. The guidance was not sent
directly to authorized state programs. In contrast, other memorandums and letters, such as the July 22,
2020 OECA letter, were addressed to "Partner Agencies."
" 1 ovided Guidance f 1 » 1 " 1 < blic Meetings Duri> identic
On April 24, 2020, the EPA issued interim guidance for conducting outreach and public participation
work at RCRA facilities during the pandemic, in lieu of public meetings and hearings, door-to-door visits,
and other public interacions. The guidance was written to provide alternative approaches,
recommendations, and resources to help ensure public participation when in-person meetings were not
22-E-0009
5

-------
possible. Specifically, the guidance encouraged EPA regions to coordinate internally with other programs
and with state partners to ensure consistency in the use of virtual hearings and meetings.
Hazardous Waste Shipments Continued During Pandemic
As an indication of continued hazardous waste management activity during the pandemic, we analyzed
e-Manifest data from RCRAInfo. There was a 5- to 26-percent reduction in the number of shipments
from March 2020 through February 2021 compared to March 2019 through February 2020 (Figure 2).
These data do not include information on the volume or types of waste shipped. This measure is
intended only as a rough indicator of activity during the pandemic.
Figure 2: Number of hazardous waste shipments
200,000
180,000
w 160,000
t!
£ 140,000
ro 120,000
2
t 100,000
o
S3 80,000
_o
£ 60,000
z 40,000
20,000
0
Month
^—2019-2020 ^—2020-2021
Source: OIG analysis of RCRAInfo data. (EPA OIG image)
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our evaluation from March through September 2021 in accordance with the Quality
Standards for Inspection and Evaluation, published in January 2012 by the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency. Those standards require that we perform the evaluation to obtain
sufficient, competent, and relevant evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions,
and recommendations based on our objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
To address our objective, we reviewed information provided by EPA regional enforcement and RCRA
program staff in response to the regional interview questions listed in Appendix A. We reviewed data
from the EPA's RCRAInfo database. We also reviewed inspection and violation data that were
downloaded from the State Hazardous Waste Dashboard in the EPA's Environmental and Compliance
History Online website. Because the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus a pandemic in
March 2020, we parsed the inspection and violation data by month from the beginning of March 2015
through February 2021 to compare the impact of COVID-19 on inspections relative to prior years.
22-E-0009
6

-------
We met with OECA; the Office of Land and Emergency Management; and Regions 2, 4, 6, and 9.
Region 2 is the RCRA lead region for fiscal year 2021, Region 6 is the RCRA lead region for FY 2022, and
Regions 4 and 9 have states with a large number of TSDFs. According to the EPA, the purpose of the lead
region is "to ensure the quality of agency decisions by providing an organized, consistent and effective
regional role in all the major phases of Agency decision-making."
We obtained data from regional division directors in each of the four regions through standardized
questions we provided in advance, which are in Appendix A. Each selected region provided information
on two of their authorized state programs. Region 2 provided information on New Jersey and New York,
Region 4 provided information on Georgia and North Carolina, Region 6 provided information on
Louisiana and Texas, and Region 9 provided information on California and Hawaii.
We discussed the questions with the division directors and followed up with additional questions as
necessary. From the meetings and responses to questions, we obtained and reviewed data on how the
pandemic impacted the ability of authorized state programs to continue RCRA regulatory oversight,
including impacts on staffing levels. We also reviewed the RCRA statute, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., and
relevant EPA RCRA training documents.
The impact of the pandemic on Superfund site clean-up and state and local air compliance monitoring
activities will be addressed in other reports.
Noteworthy Achievement
The EPA issued multiple guidance documents during the pandemic providing authorized state programs
with flexibilities for enforcement and compliance actions, as well as for using virtual alternatives to
public meetings.
Responsible Offices
The Office of Land and Emergency Management provides policy, guidance, and direction for the
Agency's emergency response and waste programs. Within that office, the Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery implements RCRA. OECA is responsible for compliance and enforcement in
the RCRA programs.
Prior Reports
The following OIG reports relate to the objective and findings of this evaluation:
•	OIG Report No. 16-P-0104, EPA Has Not Met Statutory Requirements for Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility Inspections, but Inspection Rates Are High, issued
March 11, 2016. The report made one recommendation: that OECA implement management
controls to complete the required TSDFs' inspections. The EPA agreed with the recommendation
and provided agreed-to planned corrective actions. The OIG has not verified the implementation
of the corrective actions.
•	OIG Report No. 20-E-0332. EPA Has Sufficiently Managed Emergency Responses During the
Pandemic but Needs to Procure More Supplies and Clarify Guidance, issued September 28, 2020.
22-E-0009
7

-------
The report found that on-scene coordinators may not be safe deploying during the coronavirus
pandemic without sufficient personal protective equipment and clear guidance. The report
made four recommendations—the corrective actions for three of them have been completed,
and the corrective actions for one recommendation are pending.
• OIG Report No. 21-P-0114, EPA Does Not Consistently Monitor Hazardous Waste Units Closed
with Waste in Place or Track and Report on Facilities That Fall Under the Two Responsible
Programs, dated March 29, 2021. The report found that the EPA did not inspect about half of
the nonoperating TSDFs with RCRA units closed with waste in place within the three-year time
frame established by OECA policy. The report made six recommendations—three were resolved
and three were unresolved at report issuance.
22-E-0009
8

-------
Chapter 2
Authorized State RCRA Programs
Remained Operational but Experienced
Difficulties During Pandemic
Authorized state RCRA programs have been able to continue operations, such as inspections and public
meetings, during the coronavirus pandemic. However, the number of inspections from March 2020
through February 2021 for TSDFs decreased by 34 percent when compared to the prior year; for LQGs,
the number of inspections decreased by 47 percent when compared to the prior year. We also found a
decrease in the number of violations found per inspection. OECA did not have an explanation for the
decrease in the number of violations per inspection. After a sharp initial reduction in TSDF inspections in
April 2020, inspections by states increased in subsequent months and neared normal rates by July 2020
but decreased again in October 2020 and remained below historical levels through February 2021. LQG
inspections followed a similar pattern except that the number of inspections decreased and were
further below normal rates from October 2020 through February 2021.
Decreases in the number of inspections during the pandemic may have been due to remote work
difficulties and travel restrictions. RCRA inspections by authorized state programs provide a deterrent
effect that protects human health and the environment. Further, the EPA has statutory requirements
and policy goals for various types of inspections each fiscal year. The EPA did not meet its FY 2020 RCRA
TSDF inspection requirements or its annual policy goal for LQG inspections.
State RCRA programs experienced difficulties early in the pandemic. According to the regional directors
we surveyed for information on eight authorized state programs, all eight states were initially not
completely telework ready but were able to overcome barriers so that all staff could work remotely.
Examples of state efforts included distribution of necessary equipment, upgrades of networks, and
implementation of software for virtual meetings. Two states initially had difficulties in meeting their
grant commitments, such as inspections, but they worked with EPA regional staff to renegotiate their
commitments. Further, seven of the eight states implemented changes, consistent with flexibilities listed
in EPA guidance, to hold virtual meetings with the regulated community and the public. To safely meet
their commitments, the states instituted some discretionary enforcement policies.
Number of RCRA Inspections and Number of Violations Per Inspection
Decreased During Pandemic
The number of inspections and violations decreased for both TSDFs and LQGs from March 2020 through
February 2021 compared to the prior year. Inspection rates gradually increased beginning in May 2020
until they were close to historical levels by August 2020; however, the number of LQG inspections
conducted by states after October 2020 was lower than historical levels. The number of violations found
per inspection also decreased. The statutory RCRA inspection requirements for operational TSDFs, the
statutory requirements for federal facility TSDFs, and the annual policy goal for LQG inspections were
not met.
22-E-0009
9

-------
Number of State RCRA Inspections Declined During Pandemic
To measure the impact of the pandemic on RCRA inspections by authorized state RCRA programs, we
analyzed the inspections performed by all authorized states from March 2020, the beginning of the
pandemic, through February 2021 and compared the data from the same time frame for the prior five
years. TSDF inspections and violations declined during the pandemic compared to prior years. As
Figure 3 illustrates, TSDF inspections fell from the 639 conducted from March 2019 through
February 2020 to the 423 conducted from March 2020 through February 2021—a 34-percent decrease.
The number of overall violations also decreased in the same period, from 210 to 90—a 57-percent
decrease.
Figure 3: TSDF inspections from March 2015 through February 2021
0.40
LllLU
2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021
Years - March through February
Inspections	Violations ^^"Violations Per Inspection
Source: OIG analysis of RCRAInfo data. (EPA OIG image)
LQG inspections and violations also decreased during the pandemic compared to prior years, as shown
in Figure 4. LQG inspections fell from the 3,291 conducted from March 2019 through February 2020 to
the 2,088 conducted from March 2020 through February 2021—a 47-percent decrease. The number of
overall violations also decreased in the same time period, from 1,764 to 701—a 60-percent decrease.
900
800
tn
.2 700
tj 600
£ 500
o 400
^ 300
£
= 200
100
22-E-0009
10

-------
Figure 4: LQG inspections from March 2015 through February 2021
llll
2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021
Years - March through February
I Inspections
I Violations
•Violations Per Inspection
Source: OIG analysis of RCRAInfo data. (EPA OIG image)
Number of Violations Per Inspection Decreased During Pandemic
In addition to the decrease in inspections and overall violations found, the number of violations found
per inspection decreased from March 2020 through February 2021. LQG violations per inspection
decreased from 0.45 to 0.34, a 24-percent decrease, while TSDF violations per inspection decreased
from 0.33 to 0.21, a 36-percent decrease (Table 2).
OECA staff had no explanation for why violations decreased more than inspections. Reasons could
include reduced operations at inspected facilities, limited time on-site for inspectors due to travel
restrictions, and limited access to the entire facility due to pandemic restrictions. While a decrease in
the number of violations is expected with a decrease in the number of inspections, the number of
violations per inspection should remain consistent.
Table 2: Number of violations per inspection by fiscal year
Inspection
type
Time frame
(fiscal year)
Number of
inspections
Number of
violations
Violations
per Inspection
LQG
2019-2020
3,921
1,764
0.45
LQG
2020-2021
2,088
701
0.34
TSDF
2019-2020
639
210
0.33
	TSDF	2020-2021	423	90	0.21
Source: OIG analysis of Environmental and Compliance History Online data. (EPA OIG table)
EPA Did Not Meet FY 2020 RCRA TSDF Inspection Requirements or
LQG Inspection Annual Policy Goal
As described in Chapter 1, the EPA has statutory requirements and policy goals for various types of
inspections each fiscal year. We examined the number of inspections by facility type to determine
whether the requirements and goals were met for operating federal facility TSDFs, nonfederal facility
operating TSDFs, and LQGs. Table 3 details the compliance with statutory and policy inspection
frequencies.
22-E-0009
11

-------
Table 3: Compliance with inspection requirements and goals during FY 2020
Entity
Source
Minimum
inspection frequency
FY 2020 status
Inspection requirement or
goal met
Federal facility
operating TSDF
RCRA
Annual.
71% (84 of 119)
operating federal
facility TSDFs were
inspected.
Statutory requirement not met.
Nonfederal RCRA At least once every two
facility operating	years.
TSDF
59% (327 of 551) Statutory requirement not met for
operating nonfederal FYs 2019-2020.
TSDFs were
inspected.	While more than 50% were
inspected in FY 2020, 11% (61
of 551) were not inspected in
either 2019 or 2020.
LQG
EPA CMS
policy
Every five years.
Annual policy goal is to
inspect 20% every year
unless the EPA approves a
change under an
alternative plan.
6% (2,624 of 42,622
LQGs as of May
2021) LQGs were
inspected. The goal
of measuring 20%
per year was not
met.
Annual policy goal not met.
Source: OIG analysis of Environmental and Compliance History Online data and inspection frequency requirements
from Table 1. (EPA OIG table)
The EPA might meet the statutory requirement of inspecting nonfederal facility operating TSDFs every
two years for FYs 2020-2021, as more than 50 percent were inspected in 2020. However, the EPA did
not meet this requirement for FYs 2019-2020, as 61 TSDFs, or 11 percent, were not inspected in either
FYs 2019 or 2020. Further, the EPA did not comply with its statutory inspection requirements for federal
facility TSDFs. As described in our Fiscal Year 2021 Oversight Plan, we plan to evaluate the EPA's ability
to inspect operating TSDFs, as required by law, in a separate evaluation.
The EPA also did not meet its policy goal of inspecting 20 percent of LQGs, so that all LQGs are inspected
once every five years. This goal could be met by increasing inspections through FY 2024. Also, the EPA
allows states to negotiate the LQG inspection commitment in their annual RCRA grants, which may
include substituting small quantity generator and very small quantity generator inspections for LQG
inspections.
Number of State RCRA Inspections Rebounded After Initial Decrease but
Remained Lower than Historical Levels
Despite an initial reduction in TSDF inspections, which were at their lowest level in April 2020, the
number of TSDF inspections neared historical rates by July 2020. Inspections for both TSDFs and LQGs
decreased compared to prior years after October 2020, but LQG inspections dropped further below
historical levels (Figures 5 and 6). The spikes in March, June, and September of 2020 may be because
these months mark the end of federal fiscal year quarters, which are used to benchmark program
accomplishments.
22-E-0009
12

-------
Figure 5: TSDF inspections by month from March 2015 through February 2021
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Mar Apr May Jun
^—2015-2016
^—>2018-2019
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
—	2016-2017 =2017-2018
—	2019-2020 ^—2020-2021
Source: OIG analysis of RCRAInfo data. (EPA OIG Image)
Figure 6: LQG inspections by month from March 2015 through February 2021
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
•^—2015-2016 —2016-2017 ^—2017-2018
•2018-2019 ^—2019-2020 ^—2020-2021
Source: OIG analysis of RCRAInfo data. (EPA OIG image)
States Did Not Consistently Use Guidance Provided by EPA on OfCMs
The EPA provided detailed guidance on documenting OfCMs during the pandemic in OECA
memorandums distributed in April and November 2020. However, the memorandums were distributed
directly to OECA and regional enforcement directors and were not distributed directly to the authorized
state RCRA programs. Only 27 states entered OfCM data in RCRAInfo, and only eight of those states
entered more than ten OfCMs into the system.
22-E-0009
13

-------
We identified 200 compliance evaluation inspections performed from March 2020 through
February 2021 that were counted as inspections but contained comments in RCRAInfo indicating that
they were "desk audits" or "virtual" inspections. Both memorandums explicitly stated that OfCMs
should not be counted as inspections because inspections require the on-site presence of an
EPA-credentialed inspector. States did not follow this practice. The Agency needs to evaluate these
inspections to determine whether they should be counted as inspections. The November 2020
memorandum stated that OECA's Office of Compliance is designing a survey to assess the effectiveness
of OfCMs, which may address some of the issues with virtual inspections.
Regional Directors Affirmed Authorized State RCRA Programs
Experienced Difficulties Early in Pandemic
The regional directors we surveyed observed that states initially had difficulties working in a virtual
environment but gradually overcame the difficulties and were able to complete tasks with a
combination of remote and on-site activities. We received responses to the questions listed in
Appendix A from regional division directors in four EPA regions, who provided us with information on
eight states.
StaU	ork Readiness
States were in different stages of telework readiness at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020.
For instance, the eight states for which we received information lacked adequate equipment, internet
connectivity, or software for virtual meetings. One state also experienced technological difficulties using
electronic signatures on documents. These difficulties were ultimately addressed.
As of March 2021, the state programs are telework ready and are continuing full-time telework to some
degree. For example, four states are on maximum telework except for essential staff or episodic
manager visits, and one state has 30 percent of staff on full-time telework. Almost all issues initially
encountered have been addressed, but one state program continues to encounter difficulties with
telework, such as problems with network access, staff having to use personal equipment, and staff with
inadequate WiFi capability. Regional directors are uncertain whether six states have incorporated
pandemic activities, such as telework, into their processes in case of future similar events, such as
another pandemic or disaster.
States and EPA Renegotiated Some Grant Commitments
According to EPA regional directors, two states initially encountered difficulties in meeting their grant
commitments, and they resolved these difficulties by renegotiating RCRA grant commitments in state
work plans. Renegotiation of grant commitments is consistent with OECA guidance.
According to one regional director, one state encountered delays in issuing RCRA permits. Another
region reported that one state adjusted the schedule to adopt to new RCRA authorization rules when
the state's legislative approval process was delayed.
Pandemic Impacts on State Workforce Were Minimal
Information from seven states indicated that there was little or no impact on the program workforce,
except for delays in filling job vacancies. One state implemented a one-month furlough.
22-E-0009
14

-------
Most Interactions with Public and Regulated Community ", • • rtual Duri
Pandemic
States changed how their staff interacted with the public and the regulated community. In-person
meetings became virtual meetings, including public hearings in one state on the adoption of two EPA
rules. The use of virtual meetings is consistent with EPA guidance issued on April 24, 2020. Not all
meetings were virtual, as one state has a requirement for in-person meetings. Staff in that state had to
find either outdoor or large indoor venues that allowed adequate spacing.
States Institu me Discretionary Enforcement Policies During Pandemic
Four states used OECA guidance documents to modify their enforcement policies, while other states
issued discretionary policies or executive orders in addition to OECA guidance. Five states used OfCMs
instead of on-site inspections, which is consistent with OECA guidance. Regional enforcement directors
were not aware of any significant impacts to the public due to reduced field activities.
Other Observations from Regional Managers or States
States continued to update RCRAInfo as usual. Staff from the EPA Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery indicated that they have not heard of any states having difficulty updating RCRAInfo.
One state adjusted the FY 2020 State Review Framework commitments in accordance with EPA
guidance. Regions reported no other State Review Framework impacts.
One state indicated that the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule, which provides the legal framework
for electronic reporting under the EPA's regulatory programs, impacted its ability to move the
permitting program to a fully virtual program. The state indicated that this was due to a lack of available
information technology resources to allow its approved program to fully incorporate virtual permitting.
The region indicated that it is working with the state and will work with EPA headquarters to help
address the issues.
Conclusions
RCRA regulatory activities in authorized state programs are essential to ensuring adequate control of
hazardous waste. Central components of regulatory oversight are inspections, which determine whether
a regulated entity is complying with RCRA statutes and regulations. While many of the states we
reviewed experienced difficulties early in the pandemic, they were generally able to adjust to working in
primarily remote environments. States were generally able to continue their regulatory oversight in part
due to the flexibilities provided by multiple EPA guidance documents. While states conducted fewer
inspections of both TSDFs and LQGs during the pandemic, the number of inspections returned close to
normal in late FY 2020. This, however, was followed by a decrease to lower-than-normal LQG
inspections. The EPA needs to determine why those inspections remained below historical levels from
October 2020 to February 2021.
While operations continued after initial difficulties, it is unclear whether states have implemented
adequate plans to ensure minimal disruption of regulatory activities if another pandemic occurs.
Further, potential limitations of one state's virtual operations due to confusion about virtual permitting
related to the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule should be addressed.
22-E-0009
15

-------
The ability to effectively continue hazardous waste regulatory oversight in any future large-scale events,
such as pandemics, is dependent upon authorized state programs having up-to-date plans for continued
operations. Further, EPA guidance documents for state program activities need to be updated in case
similar events occur in the future. Finally, the Agency needs to develop policies that allow authorized
state programs to maintain an adequate inspection presence to the extent feasible.
Recommendations
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Land and Emergency Management:
1.	Assist authorized states in developing and implementing plans that ensure that states are able
to maintain operations in the event of a pandemic or other disaster.
2.	Work with EPA regions to identify limitations, such as issues with the Cross-Media Electronic
Reporting Rule, on virtual work by authorized state programs and address the issues through
modification of EPA processes, information systems, or updated guidance.
We recommend that the assistant administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:
3.	Review Resource Conservation and Recovery Act information system inspection data entered
during the coronavirus pandemic to determine the extent off-site compliance-monitoring
activities were incorrectly counted as inspections and correct the inspection data in the system
as needed.
4.	Work with all EPA regions to determine why the rate of violations per inspection was reduced
during the coronavirus pandemic and the inspection rate for large quantity generators was
below historical levels from October 2020 through February 2021.
5.	Develop policies that define inspection requirements and flexibilities to optimize the capabilities
of authorized state programs in future large-scale pandemic or disaster events. These should
include mechanisms, consistent with EPA guidance documents, that allow maintenance of
normal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act inspection rates while ensuring the safety of
enforcement staff.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
The acting assistant administrators for Land and Emergency Management and Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance jointly responded to our draft report (Appendix B). The Agency proposed planned
corrective actions and estimated completion dates for all recommendations. The corrective actions for
Recommendations 1 and 5, however, did not meet the intent of the recommendations. EPA staff
informed us that the action official for Recommendation 5 in the draft report should not include OECA
and should only be the Office of Land and Emergency Management. As a result, we reorganized the
recommendations and grouped them under the appropriate action official. Recommendation 5 in the
draft report is now Recommendation 2, and Recommendations 2-4 in the draft report are now
Recommendations 3-5.
In response to Recommendation 1, the Office of Land and Emergency Management committed to
raising the issue—during national meetings and in calls with states—of whether states will be able to
22-E-0009
16

-------
maintain operations during future large-scale pandemic or disaster events and to ensuring regions
address this issue during state grant work plan meetings. However, the office did not commit to working
with states to develop and implement plans. Therefore, this recommendation is unresolved.
In response to Recommendation 2, the Office of Land and Emergency Management committed to using
national meetings and calls with states and regions to identify and resolve issues that authorized state
programs encounter as part of virtual work. Recommendation 2 is resolved with corrective actions
pending.
In response to Recommendation 3, OECA committed to reviewing the inspection data to determine
whether OfCMs were incorrectly counted as inspections and to correcting the inspection data in the
system, if needed. Recommendation 3 is resolved with corrective actions pending.
In response to Recommendation 4, OECA committed to working with the regions to determine whether
the reasons for the decrease in the rate of violations per inspection extend beyond those limitations
inspectors encountered when conducting inspections during the pandemic. Simultaneously, OECA
committed to continuing to monitor the number of violations observed per inspection to evaluate
whether this decrease will persist. OECA also committed to working with regions to determine why the
inspection rate for LQGs was below historical levels from October 2020 through February 2021.
Recommendation 4 is resolved with corrective actions pending.
In response to Recommendation 5, OECA committed to working with regions to define inspection
requirements and flexibilities to optimize the capabilities of authorized state programs in future disaster
events. However, OECA did not commit to developing policies that define inspection requirements and
flexibilities to optimize the capabilities of authorized state programs in future large-scale pandemic or
disaster events. Therefore, this recommendation is unresolved.
22-E-0009
17

-------
Status of Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
16 Assist authorized states in developing and implementing plans that ensure that
states are able to maintain operations in the event of a pandemic or other
disaster.
16 Work with EPA regions to identify limitations, such as issues with the Cross-
Media Electronic Reporting Rule, on virtual work by authorized state programs
and address the issues through modification of EPA processes, information
systems, or updated guidance.
Assistant Administrator for
Land and Emergency
Management
Assistant Administrator for
Land and Emergency
Management
3/31/22
16 Review Resource Conservation and Recovery Act information system
inspection data entered during the coronavirus pandemic to determine the
extent off-site compliance-monitoring activities were incorrectly counted as
inspections and correct the inspection data in the system as needed.
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
9/30/22
16 Work with all EPA regions to determine why the rate of violations per
inspection was reduced during the coronavirus pandemic and the inspection
rate for large quantity generators was below historical levels from October
2020 through February 2021.
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
12/31/22
16 Develop policies that define inspection requirements and flexibilities to
optimize the capabilities of authorized state programs in future large-scale
pandemic or disaster events. These should include mechanisms, consistent
with EPA guidance documents, that allow maintenance of normal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act inspection rates while ensuring the safety of
enforcement staff.
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
1 C = Corrective action completed.
R = Recommendation resolved with corrective action pending.
U = Recommendation unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
22-E-0009

-------
Appendix A
Regional Interview Questions
The following questions regarding the coronavirus pandemic's impact on authorized state RCRA
programs were given to select EPA regional Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment division directors.
OIG Interview Questions - Pandemic Impact on Authorized State RCRA Programs
Questions for selected EPA regional Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment Division Directors.
1.	Please provide details on the state's RCRA program.
a.	Annual RCRA grants	2020 $	
2021 $	
b.	Does the RCRA grant fund all EPA inspections every year for federal facilities, every two years for
operating TSDFs, every three years for non-operating TSDFs, and every five years (20
percent/year) for LQGs?
c.	Other relevant details
2.	How did the pandemic impact the ability of the state staff to continue working?
a.	Approximate percent of staff teleworking:
i.	Prior to the pandemic.
ii.	At the beginning of the pandemic.
iii.	Currently (March 2021).
b.	Challenges to teleworking by staff - technology, equipment, etc.
i. How have these challenges been addressed?
c.	How have changes addressed in 2a and 2b been incorporated into ongoing state activities to
address future events?
d.	Communications with the regulated community - unchanged or virtual?
e.	Communication with the public - unchanged or virtual? How were public meetings held?
f.	Other relevant information.
22-E-0009
19

-------
3.	How did the pandemic impact state program staffing levels?
a. Anticipated actions to be taken - hiring limitations, furloughs, layoffs, other relevant
information.
4.	How did the pandemic impact RCRA program activities, including any adverse effects on human
health or the environment (at particular sites or generally) attributable to curtailed state activities
during the pandemic?
a.	Impact on RCRA permit activities. Status of backlog?
b.	Impact on generator inspections - OECA goal is LQGs inspected every five years, or 20 percent
per year.
c.	Impact on federal facility TSDF inspections required once per year.
d.	Impact on operating TSDF inspections required every two years.
e.	Reasons for any inspection decreases, such as strict limits on travel, facility denial of access,
local government restrictions, etc.
f.	Impact on state updates to RCRAInfo.
g.	Other relevant or site-specific information.
5.	Please describe any modifications to state RCRA grants to address a change in regulatory oversight
activities, such as inspections and permitting.
6.	How did EPA's temporary enforcement policy or other directives or guidance during the pandemic
affect implementation of the RCRA program?
7.	What discretionary regulatory policies did the state implement to ease the burden on the
regulated community at any time during the pandemic?
8.	What innovative or alternative inspection—such as remote inspections—or permitting processes
did the state use that helped it accomplish RCRA goals through the pandemic?
9.	If the state was impacted as indicated in any of the previous questions, what impact did any
state's inability to perform its functions have on EPA or the public?
10.	What elements of the State Review Framework or other commitments to EPA was the region not
able to fulfill due to the pandemic? Did EPA waive, or re-negotiate, any such state commitments
during the pandemic?
11.	What guidance or assistance did EPA provide to enable the state to meet its program obligations
during the pandemic?
12.	Please provide any additional information you feel is relevant.
22-E-0009
20

-------
Appendix B
Agency Response to Draft Report
^ST*%
I o \
w
^ PRO^
October 14, 2021
MEMORANDUM
SUB JE CT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OE-FY21-0124
"Authorized State Hazardous Waste Program Inspections and Operations Were Impacted
During Coronavinis Pandemic" dated September 14, 2021
FROM: Barry N. Breen
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Land and Emergency Management
Lawrence E. Starfield
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
TO:	Sean O'Donnell, Inspector General
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject audit
report. We also appreciate the prior engagement we have had with your staff, including the
recent discussion on September 29, 2021. Following is a summary of the agency's overall
position, along with its position on each of the report recommendations. The agency agrees with
all the recommendations, and thus for each recommendation we have provided high-level
intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates. For your consideration, we have
included a Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this response.
AGENCY" S OVERALL POSITION
The Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) and the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) appreciate the Office of Inspector General's (OIG's) attention to
the ability of authorized state hazardous waste management programs under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to implement this program during the COVID-19
pandemic. We are encouraged by your finding that state programs have been able to transition
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
BARRY
BREEN
Digitally signed by
BARRY BREEN
Date: 2021.10.15
16:31:29 -04W
I AWRPMPF Digitally signed by
Lnvvr^LiM^t: lawrencestarfield
STARFIELD ?5a™0M14
22-E-0009
21

-------
effectively to a virtual work environment. Although all of the report's recommendations were
directed toward OLEM, we believe that OECA is the responsible office for Recommendations 2,
3, and 4 (involving inspections), and thus OECA has made commitments in response to those
recommendations.
OLEM and OECA suggest that the OIG consider recommending an EPA-wide approach to
working with states regarding plans to ensure states are able to maintain operations in the event
of a pandemic or other disaster. We understand that, like EPA, most state hazardous waste
programs transitioned to telework in March 2020. As the draft report notes, almost all telework
issues that states initially encountered at the beginning of the pandemic have been addressed and
all eight reviewed state programs are tele work-ready and continuing full-time telework to
varying degrees. We expect that many states will continue to use virtual tools and telework
policies after the pandemic ends, lessening the impact of any future transitions. In advance of
any EPA-wide efforts, OLEM and OECA will continue to interact with states regarding
readiness to respond to a disaster through our recurring national calls and meetings, particularly
through the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO). States have valuable experience that should be shared and used to inform the
response to future pandemics or other disasters, and these forums will enable this knowledge
transfer. Further, the Regions will use the annual state grant workplan negotiation process to
discuss with states the development and implementation of plans that ensure they are able to
maintain operations in the event of a pandemic or other disaster.
Additionally, OLEM, OECA, and our Regional counterparts have regularly scheduled, topic-
specific meetings with RCRA state staffs. For example, the RCRAInfo team holds monthly
conference calls with the state and Regional information system user community to provide
software development updates and to discuss any issues or challenges the user community is
facing. In addition, the RCRAInfo team hosts a National Users Conference every other year to
discuss RCRAInfo system and programmatic issues with the user community and to provide an
opportunity for the user community to raise issues and discuss challenges. The most recent users
conference was held in July 2021. Thus far, states have raised few issues with the transition to
telework during these calls. However, we will continue to use those opportunities to discuss
lessons learned from the COVID-19 public health emergency, plan for potential future disasters,
and identify and resolve any limitations on virtual work by authorized state programs. OLEM
and OECA will forward any issues related to the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule
(CROMERR) to the Office of Mission Support, which manages the CROMERR program.
The OIG recommendations 2 and 3 address concerns related to inspection outcomes:
respectively, offsite compliance monitoring activities may have been misreported as inspections
in RCRAInfo, the rate of violations per inspection was down from 0.42 to 0.35 for large quantity
generators (LQGs) and 0.33 to 0.21 for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs), and
inspections at LQGs were lower between October 2020 and February 2021 than in the previous
year. OECA appreciates the OIG research into inspection outcomes and agrees to review each
issue to inform disaster planning and ensure we maintain the integrity of the RCRA inspection
and enforcement program going forward.
22-E-0009
22

-------
Regarding concerns that offsite compliance monitoring activities were inadvertently entered as
inspections, OECA will review the OIG inspection data to determine the extent of misreporting
of off-site compliance monitoring and correct the inspection data in the system as needed. OECA
will reaffirm with the states that offsite compliance monitoring activities are being reported
separately from on-site inspections.
Regarding the decrease in violations observed per inspection, OECA notes a decrease from 0.42
to 0.35 or 0.33 to 0.21 is approximately one fewer violation observed for every ten inspections
conducted. OECA will work with the Regions to determine if the reasons for the decrease
extended beyond limitations inspectors encountered when conducting inspections during the
pandemic. Simultaneously, we will continue to monitor the number of violations observed per
inspection to evaluate if this decrease is a trend that persists and if so, if the decrease has a
meaningful impact to the program overall.
Finally, with respect to the decrease in inspection rates for LQGs between October 2020 and
February 2021, OECA notes that OIG observed a similar, though less pronounced, decline in the
TSDF inspection numbers. We recognize these decreases were both likely tied to the sharp rise
in COVID-19 case numbers nationally from October 2020 to February 2021. As the commitment
to inspect these facilities is measured annually, states may have delayed conducting these
inspections to a later time in their fiscal years, which typically end June 30.2 Data from the
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Hazardous Waste dashboard indicates the
percent of LQG facilities with compliance evaluations for fiscal year 2021 in its entirety is not
significantly different than 2020.3 OECA will continue to monitor LQG inspection trends
throughout fiscal year 2022 in coordination with Regions and state agencies to confirm, or
further investigate if needed, the reason for the inspection rate decrease.
With these considerations in mind, OLEM and OECA accept the OIG's recommendations in the
draft report as described below and agree that actions undertaken in response to these
recommendations will support our ongoing efforts.
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Agreements	
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated Completion
by Quarter and FY
1.
Assist authorized states in
developing and implementing
plans that ensure that states
are able to maintain
operations in the event of a
pandemic or other disaster.
OLEM will raise the issue of
whether states will be able to
maintain operations during
national meetings and calls
with states and Regions and
ensure Regions address this
issue during state grant
workplan meetings.
4th Quarter FY 2022
2National Conference of State Legislatures. 2020. Accessed October 6, 2021: https://www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-
policv/fv-2021-state-budget-status.aspx.
3 Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). 2021. Accessed October 6, 2021:
https://echo.epa.gov/trends/comparative-maps-dashboards/state-hazardous-waste-dashboard.
22-E-0009
23

-------
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated Completion
by Quarter and FY
2.
Review Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act information system
inspection data entered during
the coronavirus pandemic to
determine the extent off-site
compliance monitoring
activities were incorrectly
counted as inspections and
correct the inspection data in
the system as needed.
OECA will review the
inspection data to determine if
off-site compliance
monitoring activities were
incorrectly counted as
inspections and correct the
inspection data in the system
if needed.
4th Quarter FY 2022
3.
Work with all EPA regions to
determine why the rate of
violations per inspection was
reduced during the
coronavirus pandemic and the
inspection rate for large
quantity generators was below
historical levels from October
2020 through February 2021.
OECA will work with the
Regions to determine if the
reasons for the decrease
extended beyond limitations
inspectors encountered when
conducting inspections during
the pandemic.
Simultaneously, OECA will
continue to monitor the
number of violations observed
per inspection to evaluate if
this decrease is a trend that
persists.
OECA will work with
Regions to determine why the
inspection rate for large
quantity generators was below
historical levels from October
2020 through February 2021.
1 st Quarter FY 2023
4.
Develop policies that define
inspection requirements and
flexibilities to optimize the
capabilities of authorized state
programs in future large-scale
pandemic or disaster events.
These should include
mechanisms, consistent with
EPA guidance documents,
that allow maintenance of
normal Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act inspection rates while
OECA will work with
Regions to define inspection
requirements and flexibilities
to optimize the capabilities of
authorized state programs in
future disaster events, per the
OIG recommendation.
2nd Quarter FY 2023
22-E-0009
24

-------
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated Completion
by Quarter and FY

ensuring the safety of
enforcement staff.


5.
Work with EPA regions to
identify limitations, such as
issues with the Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule, on
virtual work by authorized
state programs and address
the issues through
modification of EPA
processes, information
systems, or updated guidance.
OLEM will use national
meetings and calls with states
and Regions to identify and
resolve authorized state
program issues with virtual
work.
2nd Quarter FY 2022
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding this response, please have your staff contact Kecia Thornton
(OLEM) at thomton.kecia@epa.eov or 202-566-1913 or Gwendolyn Spriggs (OECA) at
spriegs.ewendolvn@epa.gov or 202-564-2439.
Attachment
22-E-0009
25

-------
Distribution
The Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Administrator
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Regional Administrator for Region 2
Regional Administrator for Region 4
Regional Administrator for Region 6
Regional Administrator for Region 9
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Land and Emergency Management
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 2
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 4
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 6
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 9
22-E-0009

-------