Scan this mobile

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG.

s

Some Safeguards in Place 

for Long-Term Care of 

Disposed Hazardous Waste, 

But Challenges Remain

Report No. 15-P-0169 June 17, 2015

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Cleaning Up Communities

Closed 

Hazardous 

Waste Disposal 

Units
Report Contributors: Anne Bavuso 

Bram Hass

Kathryn Hess

Christina Lovingood 

Abbreviations

ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Hazardous Waste Management Officials

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OIG Office of Inspector General

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRAInfo Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information database

UECA Uniform Environmental Covenant Act

Cover map: Hazardous waste disposal units assigned an operating status code of 

“closed with waste in place” in RCRAInfo as of October 9, 2014. Not all units 

have entered permitted post-closure care. Numbers and color groups indicate 

EPA regions. (Map graphic by the EPA OIG based on information in agency 

databases, RCRAInfo and Facility Registry Service) 

Are you aware of fraud, waste or abuse in an

EPA program? 

EPA Inspector General Hotline 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2431T)

Washington, DC 20460

(888) 546-8740

(202) 566-2599 (fax)

OIG_Hotline@epa.gov

More information at www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.html.

EPA Office of Inspector General

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 566-2391

www.epa.gov/oig

Subscribe to our Email Updates

Follow us on Twitter @EPAoig

Send us your Project Suggestions
 

15-P-0169

June 17, 2015

Why We Did This Review

We evaluated whether the 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and authorized 

states have safeguards to 

control long-term risks of 

hazardous waste disposal

beyond the 30-year postclosure care period. 

The EPA regulates hazardous 

waste disposal under the 

Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA).

Regulations require that 

owners maintain and monitor 

closed disposal units for a 

period that lasts 30 years. This 

is called the post-closure care 

period. The EPA authorized 

48 states to implement the

RCRA hazardous waste 

program within their state. 

Leaks from disposed waste 

could contaminate ground 

water, resulting in loss of water 

supply, high cleanup costs and 

potential health problems.

Over 1,500 units are closed 

with waste in place across the 

nation.

This report addresses the 

following EPA goal or 

cross-agency strategy:

 Cleaning up communities 

and advancing sustainable 

development.

Send all inquiries to our public

affairs office at (202) 566-2391

or visit www.epa.gov/oig.

The full report is at:

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2015/ 

20150617-15-P-0169.pdf

Some Safeguards in Place for Long-Term Care of 

Disposed Hazardous Waste, But Challenges Remain

 What We Found

Long-term risks at closed RCRA hazardous 

waste disposal units with waste left in place 

are partly addressed by legal and 

operational safeguards. For example, RCRA 

regulations require that the implementing 

authority—which in most cases is a state

environmental director—make a site-specific 

determination on whether unacceptable 

risks remain at the end of the planned 

post-closure care period. In addition, RCRA 

provides a safeguard through corrective 

action and other enforcement authorities 

that the EPA and authorized states can use 

to address cleanup needs at facilities 

undergoing post-closure care.

States have exercised their authority, extending post-closure care and associated 

financial assurance when unacceptable risks remain. One state also ended postclosure care and established other long-term care arrangements under an 

environmental covenant. If long-term problems arise after post-closure care, the 

implementing authority may be able to address these problems using its RCRA 

enforcement authority. 

The challenges to effective long-term care that remain include:

 The EPA has not finalized its guidance on criteria for determining whether 

human health and the environment will be protected if post-closure care 

ends. The EPA missed its commitment to issue the guidance in 2013.

States have made decisions on adjusting the care period without benefit of 

national guidance on criteria that should be considered.

 Eighteen states do not have environmental covenant statutes that 

strengthen controls for long-term protection of land use.

 The EPA and state hazardous waste programs will have an increased 

workload as more units reach the end of their expected 30-year 

post-closure care periods.

 Recommendations and Planned Agency Corrective Actions

We recommend that the EPA finalize the guidance on adjusting the post-closure 

care period, and provide information on the benefits of implementing controls 

afforded through environmental covenant statutes. The EPA agreed with all 

recommendations and provided acceptable corrective actions and completion 

dates.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Inspector General

At a Glance

Safe disposal of hazardous 

waste requires commitment to 

long-term care of closed 

disposal units. 

For more information on 

hazardous waste disposal units 

and cleanups near you, visit the 

EPA’s Cleanups in My 

Community website at

http://www2.epa.gov/cleanups/

cleanups-my-community.
June 17, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Some Safeguards in Place for Long-Term Care of Disposed Hazardous Waste, 

But Challenges Remain

Report No. 15-P-0169

FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.

TO: Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator

Region 3

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the problems 

the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report represents the opinion of 

the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on matters in 

this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.

The responsible offices include the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery within the Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the Office of Civil Enforcement and the Office of Site 

Remediation Enforcement within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and the Land 

and Chemicals Division within Region 3.

You are not required to provide a written response to this final report because you provided agreed-to 

corrective actions and planned completion dates for the report recommendations. The OIG may make 

periodic inquiries on your progress in implementing these corrective actions. Please update the EPA’s 

Management Audit Tracking System as you complete planned corrective actions. Should you choose to 

provide a final response, we will post your response on the OIG’s public website, along with our 

memorandum commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file 

that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public; 

if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with 

corresponding justification. 

We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Some Safeguards in Place for Long-Term Care of 15-P-0169

Disposed Hazardous Waste, But Challenges Remain

Table of Contents

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

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

Responsible Offices.................................................................................................. 4

Scope and Methodology........................................................................................... 5

Some Safeguards in Place........................................................................................ 6

RCRA Provides Safeguards on the End of Post-Closure Care ........................... 6

States Use Their Authority to Mitigate Risks ....................................................... 8

EPA Takes Steps to Support State Decisions..................................................... 8

Challenges to Long-Term Care ............................................................................... 9

RCRA Does Not Require Reviews After Post-Closure Care Ends ..................... 10

Guidance on Adjusting the Post-Closure Care Period Delayed .......................... 10

Some States Lack Environmental Covenant Statutes ........................................ 11

Sufficient Staff Are Needed to Meet Future Workload ........................................ 11

Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 12

Recommendations ................................................................................................... 12

Summary of Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation .................... 13

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits ............................. 14

Appendices

A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation ................................. 15

B Distribution ...................................................................................................... 24
15-P-0169 1

Purpose

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) evaluated whether the EPA and authorized states have safeguards to 

control public health, environmental and fiscal risks at Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act1(RCRA) hazardous waste disposal units, closed with waste in 

place beyond the 30-year post-closure care period. For EPA headquarters, EPA 

Region 3 and states within Region 3, we addressed the following questions:

 Do public health, environmental and fiscal risks remain at the end of the 

post-closure care period at these disposal units?

 Do authorities have controls in place to mitigate risks remaining at the end 

of the post-closure care period?

 Has the EPA taken steps needed to ensure that authorities address risks 

appropriately as disposal units approach the end of post-closure care?

Background

The EPA regulates management and disposal of 

hazardous waste2using authority granted by 

RCRA. The EPA defines hazardous waste as 

waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to 

human health or the environment. Discarded 

commercial products and by-products of 

manufacturing processes can be hazardous 

waste. Examples include pesticides, cleaning 

fluids, sludges from electroplating operations, and emission control dust from 

steel production. RCRA requires owners of hazardous waste disposal units to 

meet certain standards to prevent and detect releases to the environment. These 

units include hazardous waste landfills and surface impoundments. After a unit 

stops accepting waste, regulations require the owner to undertake closure 

operations that include covering the waste if it is to remain in place. Over 1,500 

units are “closed with waste in place” across the nation (see map on cover). 

RCRA regulations require that the owner maintain and monitor the disposal unit 

for a period that extends 30 years after closure operations have been completed 

and verified. This is called the post-closure care period. Owners must provide 

proof that they have sufficient funds to pay for this required care. This is called 

financial assurance. Insurance, letter of credit, trust fund, and surety bond are 

examples of financial assurance mechanisms. Regulations also require financial 

assurance for corrective action if problems with the disposal unit arise during 

post-closure care. Financial assurance mitigates financial risk posed by the waste 

in these disposal units during post-closure care.

 

1 42 U.S.C. 6901, et. seq.

2 40 C.F.R. Parts 264 and 265.

Cleaning Up Communities

The EPA works to protect human 

health and the environment from 

risks posed by hazardous waste 

disposal under its strategic goal 

Cleaning up communities and 

advancing sustainable 

development. 
15-P-0169 2

The EPA authorized 48 states to implement its RCRA 

hazardous waste program. The EPA retains oversight 

responsibility and enforcement authority for these stateimplemented programs. The EPA implements the 

program in Iowa and Alaska.

RCRA regulations provide for the implementing 

authority, which in most cases is a state environmental 

director, to extend the post-closure care period for 

disposal units closed with waste in place if “the 

extended period is necessary to protect human health 

and the environment.” These regulations also include 

provisions allowing the 30-year period to be shortened 

if a reduced period is sufficient to protect human health 

and the environment. 

The EPA and authorized states regulate post-closure 

care through RCRA permits and other types of 

enforceable documents. After completion of the 

established post-closure care period, the owner and a 

qualified professional engineer are required to certify to 

the implementing authority that post-closure care 

activities were performed in accordance with the 

approved postclosure plan. 

RCRA regulations 

also require the 

owner to provide data sufficient for the 

implementing authority to make an informed 

decision on whether the post-closure care 

period should be extended to protect human 

health and the environment.

RCRA regulations for post-closure care of 

hazardous waste disposal units were 

established 33 years ago. Thus, the first units

that entered post-closure care have reached or

are approaching the end of the 30-year postclosure care period (Figure 1). The 

implementing authority will need to make a

site-specific decision to extend post-closure 

care or allow RCRA post-closure care to end 

for each unit.

Health Risks From 

Hazardous Waste Disposal

Over 1,500 hazardous waste disposal 

units across the nation are closed with 

waste in place (see map on cover). 

Waste includes such substances as 

trichloroethylene, also known as TCE, 

a widely used industrial chemical and 

a known human carcinogen. Another 

example is lead. Exposure to lead is 

known to cause learning disabilities in 

children; nerve, kidney, and liver 

problems; and pregnancy risks. 

Concentrations in drinking water of 

these and other substances are 

regulated by federal and state laws. 

Preventing contaminants from 

reaching the ground water is the best 

way to reduce the health risks 

associated with poor drinking water 

quality. Once hazardous chemicals 

are placed in disposal units, they can 

leak into the ground water, if they are 

not sufficiently stabilized and if the 

covers and liners do not function as 

intended over the long term.
15-P-0169 3

RCRA regulations require that the disposal unit owner place a notation on the 

property deed that restricts future land use where wastes are left. This is an 

informational form of an institutional control. However, notices contained in 

deeds to be filed in the local land records by themselves generally are not 

designed to serve as enforceable restrictions on the future use of the property.

An environmental covenant provides a mechanism for a state to perpetually 

restrict future land use. An environmental covenant also can require an owner to 

continue monitoring, maintaining and reporting on a unit beyond the RCRA postclosure care period. In 2003, the Uniform Law Commission3

approved a Uniform 

Environmental Covenant Act (UECA). The UECA, if enacted by a state, protects 

valid environmental covenants from being inadvertently extinguished by 

application of various common law doctrines, foreclosures and zoning changes. 

It also ensures that institutional controls are maintained and enforced and helps 

fulfill the dual purposes of such restrictions—the protection of human health and 

the economically viable reuse of the property. Under UECA, as part of work 

performed to close a hazardous waste disposal unit, the state and owner can agree 

to a covenant that is recorded on the land records and is legally and practically 

enforceable. According to the commission, 25 states and territories had adopted 

UECA as of August 2014. Another 10 states have adopted laws similar to UECA. 

 

3 The Uniform Law Commission provides states with model acts in areas of the law where uniformity would add 

value to states. The commission is comprised of state commissioners and was established in 1892. For more 

information, see http://www.uniformlaws.org. 

Figure 1. Estimated number of units for which end of permitted post-closure care 

decisions will need to be made annually; 54 percent of these decisions would fall 

in the next 10 years.

Source: OIG analysis of data from the RCRA Information database (RCRAInfo).

Note: Information presented is limited to units for which closure verification and

post-closure care permit issuance were recorded in RCRAInfo.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Number of Units

Year
15-P-0169 4

In 2010, at the annual meeting of the Association of State and Territorial 

Hazardous Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), state waste managers 

expressed concerns regarding ending post-closure care. In 2012, ASTSWMO 

issued a position paper stating that many states were grappling with how to 

address units approaching the end of the initial 30-year post-closure care period.

Among other concerns, states had questions on what specific criteria should be 

used to make a determination that post-closure care should be extended or ended 

at the end of the initial 30-year period. ASTSWMO recommended that the EPA 

issue guidance on post-closure regulations and that this guidance address states’ 

concerns.

Responsible Offices

The EPA offices having primary responsibility for the hazardous waste program 

and enforcement within the program are the Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 

and the Office of Civil Enforcement and the Office of Site Remediation 

Enforcement within the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

(OECA). RCRA grants the EPA Regional Administrators authority to issue 

hazardous waste permits and delegate their authority to the states.

 EPA graphic of an engineered waste disposal unit.
15-P-0169 5

Scope and Methodology

We performed our work from April 2014 to March 2015. We conducted this 

performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit

objectives.

We interviewed personnel from the following offices and organizations on issues 

relevant to post-closure care:

 OSWER staff, including managers in the Office of Resource Conservation 

and Recovery.

 OECA staff, including managers in the Office of Civil Enforcement and

Office of Site Remediation Enforcement.

 Hazardous waste disposal permitting, corrective action and enforcement 

staff and managers in EPA Region 3.

 Permitting staff at the Maryland Department of the Environment.

 Hazardous waste managers from four states in attendance at the 2014 

Mid-Year Meeting of ASTSWMO, which focused on transitioning to 

long-term management. 

 Counsel to the RCRA Corrective Action Project, an industry group that 

advocates for cleanup standards and procedures that achieve 

environmental benefits in a risk-based and cost-effective manner.

 Managers and staff at Waste Management Inc., which owns hazardous 

waste units, including two we discussed in depth—a closed unit in 

Virginia and an operating facility with multiple units in New York.

We reviewed reports and other documents related to end of post-closure care for 

hazardous waste disposal units closed with waste in place. Documents included:

 Relevant sections of RCRA; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act; and related regulations.

 The EPA’s program and guidance documents, including documents on 

financial assurance and institutional controls; draft guidance on evaluating 

and adjusting the post-closure care period; and National Program Manager 

Guidance.

 The EPA’s hazardous waste and financial assurance websites.

 ASTSWMO’s 2012 position paper, Post-Closure Care: Beyond 30 Years 

at RCRA Subtitle C Facilities, and related presentations and reports.

 State policy and documents on ending post-closure care.

 Site-specific information on disposal units.
15-P-0169 6

We examined permitting, corrective action and financial assurance information 

taken from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information database 

(RCRAInfo) and provided by staff at EPA headquarters, EPA Region 3, and the 

Maryland Department of the Environment. Although we did not assess the overall 

reliability or validity of RCRAInfo data, we found some inconsistencies and 

incomplete data. Since April 2013, OSWER, regions and states addressed some, 

but not all, data quality problems in RCRAInfo. However, we believe that the 

available data are of sufficient quality to address our evaluation objectives.

The scope of our evaluation was limited to the EPA’s actions at headquarters and 

EPA Region 3. We selected EPA Region 3 because of its proximity to EPA OIG

evaluation staff, which minimized travel costs, and because the region had a 

moderate number of hazardous waste units compared to other regions. All states 

within EPA Region 3 are authorized to implement the RCRA hazardous waste 

program. The region provided us information on hazardous waste programs in all 

of its states.

We selected Maryland for further evaluation within EPA Region 3 because the 

state had a moderate number of units compared to the other states in the region

and because Maryland’s key hazardous waste manager provided input into 

drafting post-closure care guidance. This manager also served as the chairperson

of ASTSWMO’s Corrective Action and Permitting Task Force.

Some Safeguards in Place

Some legal and operational safeguards are in place for long-term care of closed 

RCRA hazardous waste disposal units with waste left in place, but challenges 

remain. Using authority granted by RCRA, states have extended post-closure care 

and associated financial assurance in cases where the states have identified that 

unacceptable risks continue. One state ended post-closure care at a site and 

established other long-term care arrangements under an environmental covenant, 

where unacceptable risks did not remain. RCRA provides an additional safeguard 

by making all units closed with waste in place subject to corrective action and 

other enforcement authorities while in post-closure care. The EPA and authorized 

states may be able to address long-term care problems, when they arise, under 

RCRA enforcement authority. 

RCRA Provides Safeguards on the End of Post-Closure Care 

RCRA requires the implementing authority, which is the state environmental 

director in all but two states, to make a site-specific determination on human 

“[P]rotective management under long-term stewardship is necessary to ensure that 

communities and the environment are not exposed to hazards through leaks or other 

releases from waste management units.”

EPA, 2014, RCRA’s Critical Mission & the Path Forward
15-P-0169 7

health and environmental risks from units in post-closure care. If unacceptable 

risks remain for a specific unit, post-closure care and its associated financial 

assurance are extended.

RCRA regulation grants the implementing authority—the delegated state or the 

EPA in the case of two states—permission to extend the post-closure care period.

An extension is granted if “the extended period is necessary to protect human 

health and the environment.” If the implementing authority determines that there 

is no unacceptable risk to human health and the environment, there is no need for 

additional post-closure care. States are using this authority granted by RCRA, as 

shown in the following site-specific determinations:

 In 2012, Maryland evaluated information on a 

disposal unit approaching the end of its 30-year postclosure care period. Maryland identified continuing 

risk and, using its authority under RCRA, required the 

owner to renew its post-closure care permit for 

another 10 years. Further, Maryland required the 

owner to maintain financial assurance to cover this 

extended care. The amount of financial assurance is to

remain great enough to cover 10 years of care 

throughout the extended permit period. 

 In 2013, Virginia terminated post-closure care on a 

disposal unit prior to the end of the 30-year postclosure care period. Virginia determined that the unit 

was protective of human health and the environment 

and modified the permit to reduce the post-closure 

care period to time served. Using authority from its 

environmental covenants statute, Virginia required the 

owner to annually certify the completion of

monitoring, maintenance and security obligations. 

Virginia did not require the owner to maintain 

financial assurance to cover these obligations.

In both of these cases, we determined that the state used its authority, granted by 

RCRA, to obtain from the unit owner the information needed to make an 

informed decision to adjust the length of care based on whether unacceptable risks 

remained. The state then used tools available to provide safeguards for long-term 

care, in one case requiring continuation of permitted post-closure care, and in the 

other requiring an environmental covenant.

RCRA provides additional mechanisms for ensuring that units do not pose 

unacceptable risks. Corrective action is a statutory tool that expands the 

regulatory options available to the EPA and authorized states to address cleanup 

needs at facilities undergoing post-closure care. It ensures protection of human

Aerial view of a closed hazardous waste 

disposal unit in Bedford, Virginia. An 

environmental covenant specifies the longterm care requirements. (EPA graphic) 
15-P-0169 8

health and the environment by requiring owners to investigate and clean up 

hazardous releases to soil, ground water, surface water and air. After the 

implementing authority releases a unit owner from post-closure care obligations,

other RCRA enforcement authorities may be used to address long-term care 

problems when they arise. RCRA authorizes the EPA to order monitoring, testing, 

analysis and reporting of information for facilities that may present a substantial 

hazard to human health and the environment. RCRA also authorizes the EPA to 

order cleanup when conditions may present an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to human health and the environment.

States Use Their Authority to Mitigate Risks

Authorized states are using their authority to mitigate risks from units closed with 

waste in place by using RCRA permitting and other mechanisms to ensure that 

appropriate long-term care continues after the initial post-closure care period. Some 

states are providing a legal framework for these decisions by adopting an

environmental covenant statute that allows for perpetual restriction of future land use.

RCRA regulations require that the implementing authority make a site-specific 

determination as to whether unacceptable risks remain. State actions to date show 

that some units will require post-closure care longer than 30 years. Authorized 

states have adhered to the intent of RCRA by extending post-closure care if risks 

remain and establishing safeguards when RCRA post-closure care ends. We 

found that states used a variety of approaches. For example:

 The Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment issued a 

policy for ending post-closure care that includes a performance-based 

evaluation of relevant unit design and environmental factors. The 

evaluation is of each individual unit.

 The California Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the 

post-closure care period every 10 years at permit renewal and rolled over 

the financial assurance requirement for post-closure care to 30 years.

 The New York Department of Environmental Conservation required

perpetual care of hazardous waste disposal units not meeting current 

RCRA standards for waste stabilization and engineering controls.

 The Maryland Department of the Environment required a new permit for 

post-closure care that extended care beyond 30 years after determining 

unacceptable risks remained.

 The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality required continued 

maintenance and institutional controls under an environmental covenant

when determining a unit was stable enough to end post-closure care.

EPA Takes Steps to Support State Decisions 

The EPA is taking steps to support states as they make decisions on adjusting the 

post-closure care period. OSWER drafted guidance that includes criteria to use
15-P-0169 9

when making these decisions. We observed that EPA Region 3 provided 

additional safeguards during the post-closure care period through its joint 

implementation of the RCRA permitting and corrective action authorities.

Corrective action taken during the post-closure care period would seek to manage

risk to human health and the environment in the future.

The permitting branch of OSWER drafted guidance that sets forth a 

recommended process for preparing for and evaluating risks remaining at the end 

of the post-closure care period, and adjusting the period as needed. In 2010, state 

hazardous waste managers discussed their concerns regarding the risks of ending 

post-closure care at ASTSWMO’s annual meeting. ASTSWMO surveyed states in 

2011 on issues related to ending post-closure care and released a position paper in 

2012. ASTSWMO reported that many states were grappling with how to make the 

determination to adjust the post-closure care period and recommended that the 

EPA issue guidance. OSWER issued its draft guidance and initiated its plan for 

gathering comments from states and interested stakeholders on April 30, 2015. In 

its response to our draft report, OSWER committed to finalizing the guidance by 

the end of 2015.

EPA Region 3 coordinates its post-closure care and corrective action activities. 

This provides an additional safeguard during the post-closure care period. For 

example, the region conducted additional inspections of all units in post-closure 

care as part of its effort to inspect all facilities subject to corrective action to 

ensure protection of human health and the environment. The region also started a 

Long-Term Stewardship Pilot in 2013 with the goal of assessing the long-term 

effectiveness of completed corrective action remedies with engineering and 

institutional controls in place. In this pilot, the region is conducting field 

inspections and record reviews to ensure that controls are maintained and 

operated in the manner intended, and the local community remains aware of the 

remedy in place. The pilot includes disposal units closed with waste in place that 

were addressed under corrective action. Our review of documents and interviews 

with staff shows that the region works well with its state partners to implement 

and oversee these programs. The region and the states have review and 

coordination processes in place to help ensure regulators will be aware if 

problems arise where post-closure care ends. For example, the region continues 

oversight of the unit where Virginia, in 2013, terminated the post-closure care 

permit and replaced it with a long-term care environmental covenant that requires 

monitoring and reporting.

Challenges to Long-Term Care

Although some legal and operational safeguards are in place or under 

development, we identified remaining challenges to the protection of human 

health and the environment through appropriate long-term care of hazardous 

waste disposal units closed with waste in place. RCRA regulations do not require 

periodic reviews once post-closure care ends. The EPA has not completed 
15-P-0169 10

guidance on criteria to use when determining whether the post-closure care period 

should be adjusted. Not all states have passed environmental covenant statutes 

needed to provide strong controls on future land use. Further, the EPA and state 

hazardous waste programs face an increased workload as more units reach the end 

of their expected 30-year post-closure periods. The challenges create risks to 

long-term protection of human health and the environment from the hazardous 

waste left in these units.

RCRA Does Not Require Reviews After Post-Closure Care Ends

Once the implementing authority allows post-closure care to end, RCRA 

regulations do not require periodic reviews of the conditions at the disposal unit. 

This drawback of RCRA is in contrast to the review process for certain Superfund 

sites that requires regions to evaluate every 5 years that the remedy remains 

protective of human health and the environment. 

Guidance on Adjusting the Post-Closure Care Period Delayed

The EPA has delayed issuing guidance on evaluating and adjusting the postclosure care period. In the absence of EPA guidance, states made decisions on 

adjusting post-closure care without the benefit of national guidance on the criteria 

they should consider in making these decisions. A 2011 survey of state hazardous 

waste managers showed many saw a need for such guidance. The EPA reported in 

its June 2013 OSWER National Program Managers Guidance that it would 

finalize its guidance on evaluating and adjusting the post-closure care period by 

the end of fiscal year 2013. Experienced personnel retired and the EPA did not 

meet this commitment. The EPA informed us in November 2014 that completion 

of the draft continued to be delayed partly due to competing priorities within the 

agency for some of the key reviewers. The EPA issued the draft guidance for 

comment on April 30, 2015, and committed to finalizing the guidance by the end 

of 2015. 

We reviewed April 2014 and December 2014 working drafts of the guidance. The 

latter draft included a clear statement on the regulatory requirement for financial 

assurance if the post-closure care period is extended. However, it provided little 

guidance on how states would implement this requirement. In response to a 2011 

ASTSWMO survey, states identified continuation of financial assurance as one of 

the benefits of extending post-closure care rather than relying on other long-term 

care mechanisms. That anticipated benefit can be realized only if the financial 

assurance requirement is effectively implemented. In 2012, ASTSWMO 

expressed concern regarding financial assurance for extended post-closure care. 

We also heard state concerns in our interviews. The EPA told us that it does not 

anticipate developing guidance on financial assurance for extended post-closure 

care and that it has sufficient tools to provide timely support to regions and states 

in addressing financial assurance issues that do arise. However, the EPA said it 

will continue to monitor the needs of the states and the EPA in this area.
15-P-0169 11

Some States Lack Environmental Covenant Statutes

According to the Uniform Law Commission, 18 states and territories have not 

adopted the UECA or a similar environmental covenant statute. Recorded notices in 

property records by themselves generally do not provide enforceable restrictions and 

can be overridden by common law doctrines or other real estate statutes. 

Environmental covenants can strengthen institutional controls, such as deed 

restrictions, by allowing perpetual controls. If institutional controls are not 

maintained in the long-term, the land potentially could be used in a manner that is 

not compatible with the hazardous waste left in place. Homes and schools could be 

built on or near the unit and unacceptable exposures to hazardous waste could occur.

Sufficient Staff Are Needed to Meet Future Workload

The EPA and states face an increased workload as more hazardous waste units 

reach the end of their expected 30-year post-closure care periods. We estimated 

that in the next 10 years, 54 percent of the units in permitted post-closure care will 

reach the end of the period (Figure 1). This situation will result in an increase in 

work for an authorized state as it decides if units are safe enough to move out 

from under the oversight and monitoring provided by RCRA post-closure care. In 

addition, the EPA will need to provide proper oversight of this large number of 

state decisions to end or adjust post-closure care.

The EPA Region 3 office that oversees state hazardous waste programs lost 

two-thirds of its staff in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 through retirement and 

reassignment. Since October 2014, the office hired staff to replace half of those 

losses and restructured the way it conducts its permit and state hazardous waste 

program reviews. The office chief told us in January 2015 that, while he has fewer

employees than 2 years ago, he believes he has sufficient staff to manage the 

permit workload. However, effective oversight and support are needed in areas 

outside permitting. For example, the region pointed out to us in December 2014 

the importance of the RCRA compliance and enforcement programs in informing 

the end of post-closure decisions. 

 

Regarding state staffing, some Region 3 states had staff shortages in their 

hazardous waste programs in fiscal year 2013. The region informed Delaware, 

Maryland and Pennsylvania that it was concerned that state annual grant 

commitments were not fulfilled timely or at all. The region’s review letters sent to 

the states cited unfilled vacancies in one state, reduced staff levels in another, and 

staff and management changes in the third. A state’s ability to provide sufficient 

qualified staff is a key element of the EPA authorizing it to implement a 

hazardous waste program.

“[I]t is critical that states and EPA maintain sufficient expertise and resources to 

process permits in a timely manner...”

EPA, 2014, RCRA’s Critical Mission & the Path Forward 
15-P-0169 12

Conclusions

The regulating authorities need timely guidance and mechanisms, such as 

environmental covenants, to support good decisions on long-term care of disposal 

units closed with hazardous waste left in place. Authorities also need sufficient 

staff to address the volume of projected future 

work regarding long-term care decisions, 

including the decision to end post-closure care. 

A potential consequence of poor decisionmaking is that taxpayers will have to pay for 

long-term care or cleanup of units under either 

state or federal authorities if the owner is not 

able to address problems as they arise. Further,

risks to human health and the environment could

increase if hazardous waste leaks from the 

disposal unit over the long term. For example, 

contamination of ground water from a unit could 

result in loss of water supply, high cleanup costs 

and health problems.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response:

1. Finalize and issue guidance on evaluating and adjusting the post-closure 

care period for RCRA hazardous waste disposal units closed with waste in 

place.

We also recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response and the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance:

2. Identify states and territories that lack the UECA or a similar 

environmental covenant statute, and conduct outreach to the 

environmental protection programs in these states and territories to 

provide information on environmental covenants, including the benefits of 

implementing the controls afforded through UECA and similar statutes.

We further recommend that the Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3:

3. Determine whether Region 3 states have sufficient workforces to manage 

projected increases in workload associated with decisions to adjust RCRA 

post-closure care and related activities and take appropriate action.

Risks from Hazardous Waste 

Disposal

The EPA and states need to make 

decisions about long-term care of 

these units ending post-closure 

care. Consequences of poor 

decisions to end post-closure care 

are that risks potentially increase if 

hazardous waste leaks from units 

over the long term. Human health 

and the environment could be 

threatened. Taxpayers could have 

to pay for long-term care or 

cleanup. 
15-P-0169 13

Summary of Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Evaluation

We received comments on the draft report on April 20, 2015. We met with 

OSWER and OECA to discuss their comments on May 4, 2015. On May 12, 

2015, we received additional information from the agency.

The agency agreed with Recommendation 1 and took steps to resolve delays. The 

agency agreed to finalize the guidance by the end of 2015. Recommendation 1 is 

resolved and open with agreed-to actions pending. 

The agency agreed with Recommendation 2, as modified based on the May 4, 

2015, meeting. By the end of 2015, the agency agreed to (a) identify states and 

territories that lack the UECA or a similar environmental covenant statute, and 

(b) conduct outreach to states and territories. Recommendation 2 is resolved and 

open with agreed-to actions pending.

The agency agreed with Recommendation 3. The agency demonstrated that 

Region 3 determined that its states currently are staffed at appropriate levels to 

manage post-closure care determinations. The region stated it will “continue to 

place an emphasis on assessing state capacity necessary to implement effective 

[RCRA] programs.” The region credited this emphasis for successfully “bringing 

about needed staffing investments in areas identified as weaknesses in state 

programs.” The agency included the region’s analysis in its response to the draft 

report. Recommendation 3 is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.

Appendix A contains the agency’s response and our comments. The agency also 

provided technical comments (attachment 2 of the agency's response). We reviewed 

those comments and made revisions to the report where appropriate. 
15-P-0169 14

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits

RECOMMENDATIONS

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

BENEFITS (in $000s)

Rec. 

No.

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official

Planned 

Completion 

Date

Claimed 

Amount

Agreed-To 

Amount

1 12 Finalize and issue guidance on evaluating and 

adjusting the post-closure care period for RCRA 

hazardous waste disposal units closed with waste 

in place. 

O Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response

12/31/15

2 12 Identify states and territories that lack the UECA or 

a similar environmental covenant statute, and 

conduct outreach to the environmental protection 

programs in these states and territories to provide 

information on environmental covenants, including 

the benefits of implementing the controls afforded 

through UECA and similar statutes.

O Assistant Administrator for 

Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response and 

Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

12/31/15

3 12 Determine whether Region 3 states have sufficient 

workforces to manage projected increases in 

workload associated with decisions to adjust RCRA

post-closure care and related activities and take 

appropriate action.

C Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 3

4/20/15

1 O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.

C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed. 

U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
15-P-0169 15

Appendix A

Agency Response to Draft Report 

and OIG Evaluation

April 20, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OPE-FY14-0034 

“Some Safeguards in Place for Long-Term Care of Disposed Hazardous Waste, 

But Challenges Remain,” dated March 20, 2015

FROM: Mathy Stanislaus

Assistant Administrator

TO: Carolyn Copper, Assistant Inspector General

Office of Program Evaluation

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject audit 

draft report. Following is a summary of the Agency’s overall position, along with its position on 

each of the draft report recommendations. EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance (OECA) and Region 3 have contributed to and concurred with this response. For those 

report recommendations with which the Agency agrees, we have provided high-level intended 

corrective actions and estimated completion dates to the extent we can. For those report 

recommendations that we do not think are appropriate or supported, we have explained our 

position, and proposed alternatives to your recommendations. For your consideration, we have 

included a Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this response.

AGENCY’S OVERALL POSITION

EPA agrees that it is important to safeguard the long-term protectiveness of human health and 

the environment from any remaining risks posed by land disposal units after they have closed. 

According to the RCRA regulations (40 CFR §§ 264.117 and 265.117), the post-closure care 

period is identified as being 30 years and begins after completion of closure of the hazardous 

waste management unit. The regulations’ identification of a 30-year post-closure care period 

does not reflect a determination by EPA that 30 years of post-closure care will necessarily be 

sufficient to eliminate potential threats to human health and the environment in every instance. 

The ultimate decision about the appropriate length of the post-closure care period to ensure longterm protectiveness needs to be made on a unit-specific basis, which is why the regulations also 

provide authority for a case-by-case review of the post-closure care period and establish 

arrangements to adjust its length.
15-P-0169 16

The EPA is currently developing guidance that will outline criteria to assist states and EPA in 

determining whether to extend post-closure care based on the most currently available unitspecific information. The guidance will lend greater transparency and efficiency to the decisionmaking process. Although we have encountered delays in the development of the guidance, we 

have taken steps to resolve those delays and now have a path forward to issue draft guidance for 

public review and comment by mid-2015. We expect to finalize the guidance by the end of 2015.

Additionally, we recognize that financial assurance is a challenging area with respect to postclosure care, particularly in regards to costing out post-closure activities when the care period 

extends beyond 30 years. The regulations at 40 CFR parts 264 and 265 subpart H require owners 

and operators to maintain financial assurance during the post-closure care period. If the regulator 

decides to extend the post-closure care period, the owner or operator must amend the postclosure plan and the related cost estimates for the work entailed by the plan, and continue to 

demonstrate the necessary financial assurance. 

EPA currently provides Regions and states support on financial assurance issues through several 

avenues. EPA hosts a monthly financial assurance conference call with Regions and states that 

provides a forum for regulators to discuss issues, including exploring financial assurance during 

post-closure care. In addition to the monthly conference call, the Agency provides access to 

contractor resources to assist in reviewing financial assurance documentation. The Agency also 

provides tools for cost estimation and an online resource called the Financial Responsibility 

Enforcement Tool (FRET) that provides a one-stop shop for state and EPA regulators to access

financial assurance resources. Given these currently available tools, EPA believes that we are 

providing sufficient guidance for financial assurance related to post-closure; however, we will 

continue to monitor the needs of the states and EPA in this area.

To address some of the challenges of assuring the long-term protectiveness of institutional 

controls, the EPA supported the development of the Uniform Environmental Covenant Act

(UECA) by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). 

NCCUSL developed UECA with the involvement of the key stakeholders (e.g., real estate, 

construction, natural gas, environmental groups). As a result, the model law balanced key 

interests. In addition, NCCUSL worked with state legislatures to adopt this act. By adopting this 

model law, states are adopting legislation that is widely supported by a variety of groups. EPA 

has done significant outreach to encourage state legislatures to adopt UECA and to educate 

regulators on the benefits of implementing the controls afforded through the law. These efforts 

more than likely contributed to the 35 states adopting UECA or similar statutes. However, EPA’s

primary concern with the draft report is language recommending that the Agency offer incentives 

to state legislatures to adopt the UECA. We are not able to offer incentives to state legislatures to 

adopt UECA or similar statutes and so request deleting this language from the recommendation 

(as reflected in Attachment 1). EPA has provided initial guidance on the implementation of 

institutional controls and UECA as part of RCRA corrective action and post-closure decisions in 

the 2007 memorandum “Ensuring Effective and Reliable Institutional Controls at RCRA 

Facilities.”
15-P-0169 17

OIG Response 1: The agency misinterpreted our draft recommendation to offer incentives to 

state environmental agencies around the issue of environmental covenants. We understand that 

the agency cannot offer incentives to state legislatures. We accepted the change in the 

recommendation offered by the agency. 

On May 4, 2015, we discussed with OSWER and OECA officials and staff further changes to 

Recommendation 2. On May 12, 2015, OSWER and OECA officials confirmed that the 

agency agreed to Recommendation 2 as proposed in the May 4, 2015, meeting. By the end of 

2015, the agency agreed to:

a) Identify states and territories that lack the UECA or a similar environmental 

covenant statute.

b) Conduct outreach to states and territories by:

i. Providing the list to ASTSWMO and engaging ASTSWMO on issues 

around adoption and use of UECA and similar environmental covenant 

statutes.

ii. Developing environmental covenant success stories.

iii. Presenting the success stories and benefits implementing the controls 

afforded through UECA and similar statutes at ASTSWMO’s annual 

meeting and appropriate subcommittee meetings and through ongoing 

monthly conference calls conducted by OSWER’s Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery with state environmental protection programs.

Recommendation 2 is resolved and open with agreed-to actions pending.

The Agency also would like to clarify that UECA is not the only mechanism to provide longterm controls beyond those provided by the RCRA post-closure regulations. States who have not 

adopted UECA might have equivalent state environmental covenant laws or other real property 

laws on easements and covenants that might provide protection. Given the existence of these 

mechanisms, the OIG’s estimate may not accurately represent the number of states or territories 

that have UECA, UECA-equivalent laws, or protective real property laws. In 2012, OSWER also 

issued guidance entitled “Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, 

Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites” to provide managers of 

contaminated sites, site attorneys, and other interested parties with information and 

recommendations for planning, implementing, maintaining, and enforcing institutional controls.

It highlights some of the common issues that may be encountered and provides an overview of 

EPA’s policy regarding the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the various lifecycle stages.

OIG Response 2: We agree that an environmental covenant is not the only mechanism to 

provide long-term controls beyond those provided by RCRA post-closure care regulations. We 

revised the report where appropriate. 
15-P-0169 18

Regarding the issue of authority to address problems that may arise once the post-closure period 

is terminated, the Agency would like to point out that a number of statements in the report seem 

to overstate the available RCRA authorities. We have provided technical comments to help 

clarify the more limited nature of authorities, in particular once the facility permit is terminated. 

For this reason, it is important that a decision to terminate a permit be well-considered.

OIG Response 3: We considered all technical comments the agency provided and made

revisions as appropriate.

EPA agrees that with many units in post-closure care approaching the end of the initial 30-year 

post-closure care period there is potential for an increased workload on state and EPA regulators. 

The Agency believes that the post-closure guidance, mentioned above, will help reduce this 

workload by creating efficiencies in making unit-specific determinations regarding the length of 

the post-closure care period. Although more determinations may be needed, the guidance will 

enable the determinations to be made more easily, which will help counterbalance the increased 

workload.

OIG Response 4: We acknowledge the agency’s position that the guidance will help reduce 

the workload associated with deciding to shorten, extend or end post-closure care. However, 

we believe that the accuracy of the agency’s position is yet to be determined. 

The draft report recommends EPA Region III determine that the states have sufficient resources 

to manage the projected workload associated with RCRA facilities whose 30-year post closure 

care periods are expiring in the coming ten or more years, and that the Region take appropriate 

action if it is determined that the resources are not sufficient. Region III has already conducted 

reviews of state capacity in this area and has taken action. This action has resulted in states 

investing more resources in the RCRA permitting program, putting them in position to address 

not only the post-closure care workload, but also other RCRA permitting responsibilities. 

Detailed information about EPA Region III’s review is presented in Attachment 3.

EPA Region III believes that its states, and the Region, are currently staffed to appropriate levels 

to manage post-closure care determination workloads for the foreseeable future. The Region will

continue to place an emphasis on assessing state capacity necessary to implement effective 

RCRA programs and has been successful in bringing about needed staffing investments in areas 

identified as weaknesses in state programs. EPA Region III and the Mid-Atlantic states have 

forged strong partnerships in the RCRA programs and will use the excellent working 

relationships to continue to plan for and jointly address program implementation challenges.
15-P-0169 19

OIG Response 5: We acknowledge that Region 3 completed corrective action that meets the 

intent of Recommendation 3. The status of this recommendation is closed with all agreed–to 

action completed. 

CONTACT INFORMATION

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Kecia Thornton, OSWER point 

of contact on (202) 566-1913, or Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA point of contact on (202) 564-

2439. 

Attachments:

1. Chart of Agency’s Response to Report Recommendations

2. Technical Comments 

3. Region III Supplemental Information Regarding Reviews of State Capacity to 

Address Post-Closure Care Determinations

Cc: Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Shawn Garvin, Regional Administrator

Region 3

Barnes Johnson, Director

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
15-P-0169 20

ATTACHMENT 1: AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Agreements

No. Recommendation Action Official High-Level Intended 

Corrective Action(s)

Estimated 

Completion 

by Quarter 

and FY

1 Finalize and issue guidance 

on evaluating and adjusting 

post-closure care period for 

RCRA hazardous waste 

disposal units closed with 

waste in place.

Assistant 

Administrator

for Solid Waste 

and Emergency

Response

Issue Draft guidance for 

review and comment.

Issue Final Guidance.

3

rd Quarter 

FY 2015

1

st Quarter 

FY 2016

2 Identify and offer 

information on 

environmental covenants 

and incentives for adoption

to environmental protection

programs in states and

territories that lack 

environmental covenant

statutes.

Assistant 

Administrator 

for Solid Waste 

and Emergency

Response and

Assistant 

Administrator

for Enforcement 

and Compliance 

Assurance

Continue to engage in 

outreach to (1) encourage 

state legislatures to adopt 

UECA, and (2) educate 

regulators on the benefits 

of implementing the 

controls afforded through 

UECA.

Please note that EPA is not 

able to offer incentives to 

state legislatures to adopt 

UECA or similar statutes,

and so requests deleting 

this language from the 

recommendation.

Ongoing

3 Determine whether Region 

3 states have sufficient

workforces to manage 

projected increases in

workload associated

with decisions to adjust 

RCRA post-closure care 

and related activities, and 

take appropriate action.

Regional

Administrator,

EPA Region 3

Region III has already 

conducted reviews of state 

capacity in this area and 

has taken action, which has 

resulted in states investing 

more resources in the 

RCRA permitting program 

putting them in position to 

address the post-closure 

care workload. (See 

Attachment 3.)

Complete

Disagreements

None.
15-P-0169 21

ATTACHMENT 3: 

REGION III SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING REVIEWS OF STATE 

CAPACITY TO ADDRESS POST-CLOSURE CARE DETERMINATIONS

This response addresses the third recommendation of the above referenced Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) draft report:

“We further recommend that the Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3:

3. Determine whether Region 3 states have sufficient workforces to manage projected 

increases in workload associated with decisions to adjust RCRA post-closure care and 

related activities and take appropriate action.”

Region III believes that our states, and the Region, are currently staffed to appropriate levels to 

manage post-closure care determination workloads for the foreseeable future. The Region will 

continue to place an emphasis on assessing state capacity necessary to implement effective 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs and has been successful in bringing 

about needed staffing investments in areas identified as weaknesses in state programs. EPA 

Region III and the Mid-Atlantic states have forged strong partnerships in the RCRA programs 

and will use the excellent working relationships to continue to plan for and jointly address 

program implementation challenges.

EPA Region III conducts oversight of state implementation of the RCRA requirements on an ongoing basis. The results of this oversight are documented at the middle and the end of the fiscal 

year after conducting detailed reviews of the state’s bi-annual grant progress reports and holding 

face-to-face meetings or conference calls with state managers and staff to discuss 

accomplishments, challenges and resource needs. State capacity to implement the program is an 

important part of these reviews.

The OIG third recommendation also suggests that EPA Region III determine that the states have 

sufficient resources to manage the projected workload associated with RCRA sites whose 30-

year post-closure care periods are expiring in the coming ten or more years and that the Region 

take appropriate action if it is determined that the resources are not sufficient. The following 

information is presented to show that Region III has already conducted reviews of state capacity 

in this area and has taken action. This action has resulted in states investing more resources in the 

RCRA permitting program putting them in position to address not only the post-closure care 

workload, but also other RCRA permitting responsibilities.

 EPA Region III has a total of 21 facilities operating under post-closure care permits that 

will reach the 30 year milestone by 2025 (see Figure 1, below). The largest workload will 

be in 2024 with a total of seven facilities hitting the 30 year mark with five located in 

Virginia. Region III will work closely with Virginia for several years leading up to 2024 

to ensure this workload will be managed. Between 2015 and 2025, five of the eleven 
15-P-0169 22

years have only one facility in the Region reaching the 30-year milestone, and in two of 

the years, no facilities will reach the 30-year milestone.

Post-closure care permits are not the only mechanism used in Region III to manage postclosure care requirements. In Figure 2 below, fourteen other facilities are conducting 

post-closure care under other mechanisms, the majority of which are through RCRA 

Corrective Action permits. This workload is typically managed by different parts of the 

state organizations, thus spreading out the post-closure care oversight to even more staff 

than just RCRA permit writers and EPA state program managers.

 The OIG report identified concerns about three states meeting their annual grant 

commitments citing staff resources as potential reasons for falling short of these 

commitments. Region III began citing state staff investment in the area of RCRA 

permitting prior to fiscal year 2013.

o The Region held meetings with state senior level managers in Maryland to 

highlight these concerns because the RCRA permit renewal workload was going 

to increase in fiscal years 2015-2018. Maryland transferred a staff member from 

one program into the RCRA permitting section in the spring of 2014. They also 

hired a new employee into the RCRA permitting section during the winter of 

2015 bringing the total to three permit writers. Maryland has three facilities in 

post-closure care whose 30 year period ends in the 10 year period from 2015 and 

2025. 

o Delaware hired a new employee for RCRA corrective action and RCRA 

compliance/enforcement areas during fall of 2014. This alleviates the need for 

RCRA permit writing staff to help out in these other two areas.

o PADEP presented their plans for catching up on the RCRA permit workload. As 

of mid-year 2015, PADEP has made significant progress in eliminating their 

backlog of permit renewals. It is worth noting that RCRA permits, if not renewed, 

are extended administratively and are still in full force and effect until renewed, 

so no facilities in PA or elsewhere in Region III were operating without an 

enforceable permit in place. Since the number of PADEP’s post-closure permits 

reaching the 30-year milestone is very small, and the fact that many facilities’ 

post-closure care requirements are documented in RCRA corrective action 

permits managed by EPA Region III, Region III does not anticipate that PA or 

EPA Region III will have any resource issues addressing post-closure care 

decision-making.
15-P-0169 23

Figure 1. Region III facilities under post closure care permits that reach 30 year period by 2025.

Figure 2. Region III facilities reaching the 30 year period under post-closure care permits or 

other mechanisms such as RCRA Corrective Action permits.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Region III PC Permits reaching 30 year period

DE MD PA VA WV

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

DE MD PA VA WV Total

Region III PC by State reaching 30 year period 

through 2025

Permits Other mechanism
15-P-0169 24

Appendix B

Distribution

Office of the Administrator

Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Regional Administrator, Region 3

Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)

Agency Follow-Up Coordinator

General Counsel 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 3

Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response

Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance

Director, Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Director, Land and Chemicals Division, Region 3

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 3