y§z)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Evaluation Report
Region 4 Should Strengthen
Oversight of Georgia's
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation Program
Report No. 11-P-0274
June 23, 2011
-------
Report Contributors: Dan Engelberg
Fred Light
Jayne Lilienfeld- Jones
Tim Roach
Abbreviations
CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CMS Compliance monitoring strategy
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GDA Georgia Department of Agriculture
GEPD Georgia Environmental Protection Division
OIG Office of Inspector General
MO A Memorandum of agreement
NMP Nutrient management plan
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Cover photo: From left: Hog confinement; a cattle feedlot. (EPA photos)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
e-mail: OIG Hotline@epa.gov write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone: 1-888-546-8740 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
fax: 703-347-8330 Mailcode 8431P (Room N-4330)
online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460
-------
,tfED STj,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
11-P-0274
June 23, 2011
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
The Office of Inspector General
received a Hotline complaint
claiming that U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 4 was not
adequately overseeing Georgia's
Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation (CAFO) program. In
response, we evaluated EPA's
management controls over
Georgia's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) CAFO program.
Background
The Clean Water Act (CWA)
prohibits the discharge of
pollutants from any point source
to navigable waters of the
United States unless authorized
under an NPDES permit issued
by EPA or an authorized state.
The CWA defines CAFOs as
point sources. A CAFO is a
facility where more than 1,000
animal units are confined and
fed for a total of 45 days or more
in any 12-month period.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional, Public Affairs and
Management at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.gov/oiq/reports/20117
20110623-11-P-0274.pdf
Region 4 Should Strengthen Oversight of
Georgia's Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation Program
What We Found
We found significant deficiencies in the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division's (GEPD's) management and Region 4's oversight of the CAFO
program. Region 4 gave Georgia's CAFO program a positive assessment
because GEPD reported that all 48 of the CAFOs with liquid manure waste
systems were inspected in 2010. However, our review identified a number of
deficiencies for 34 of the 48 CAFOs Georgia inspected. CAFOs were operating
without NPDES permits or Nutrient Management Plans, inspection reports were
missing required components, and the Georgia Department of Agriculture was
not assessing compliance with permit conditions. For its part, Region 4 did not
assure that these components of Georgia's CAFO program met the requirements
outlined in the 2007 memorandum of agreement between Region 4 and GEPD.
As a result, there is a significant risk that the Georgia's CAFO program is failing
to protect water quality. These facilities raise concerns about water quality
because the animals produce large quantities of waste—many times more waste
than humans annually. The discharge of waste into surface water is associated
with a range of human health and ecological impacts, and contributes to
degradation of the nation's surface waters.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4, implement
controls as stated in the 2007 memorandum of agreement between EPA
Region 4 and GEPD to require enforcement data tracking between GEPD and
Region 4, assure CAFO inspections are accurate and complete, and assure that
GEPD takes timely and appropriate enforcement actions.
The region agreed with our recommendation. We agree that its actions meet the
intent of the recommendation.
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
S WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
^t PRO^
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
June 23, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Region 4 Should Strengthen Oversight of Georgia's
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Program
Report No. ll-P-0274
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.
Inspector General
TO: Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming
Regional Administrator, Region 4
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 estimated direct labor and travel costs for this report are $266,614.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed-upon
actions, including milestone dates. Your response will be posted 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. We have no objections to the further release of this report to the
public. We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Wade Najjum at
(202) 566-0832 or naiiurn.wade@epa.gov. or Dan Engelberg at (202) 566-0830 or
engelberg.dan@epa.gov.
-------
Region 4 Should Strengthen Oversight of Georgia's 11 -P-0274
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Program
Table of Contents
Purpose 1
Background 1
NPDES CAFO Permits and Inspection Process 1
Georgia and EPA Region 4 Responsibilities for Implementing
NPDES CAFO Program 2
Scope and Methodology 3
Results of Review 3
CAFOs Operating Without Permits and Nutrient Management Plans 4
Inspection Reports Missing Required Components 5
GDA Not Assessing Compliance With Permit Conditions 6
Region 4 Unaware of Deficiencies in Georgia CAFO Program 7
Conclusion 7
Recommendation 8
Agency Response and OIG Comment 8
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 9
Appendices
A Agency Response 10
B Distribution 12
-------
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Inspector General
(OIG), received a Hotline complaint alleging that EPA Region 4 was not
adequately overseeing Georgia's Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
(CAFO) program. In response, the OIG evaluated EPA's management controls
over Georgia's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) CAFO
program.
Background
NPDES CAFO Permits and Inspection Process
The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of pollutants from any point
source to a water of the United States unless authorized under an NPDES permit
issued by EPA or an authorized state. The CWA defines a CAFO as a point
source. A CAFO is a facility where animals1 are confined and fed for a total of
45 days or more in any 12-month period. An NPDES permit controls water
pollution by establishing limits on the types and amounts of pollution that can be
discharged into waterways. Unlike industrial point source facilities that are
permitted to discharge some waste to surface waters, CAFOs must not discharge
waste to surface waters, except in extraordinary circumstances. If a CAFO
discharges and has no permit, it is violating the CWA. According to 40 CFR
§122.23, NPDES permits are valid for a period of 5 years. To renew an NPDES
permit, a permittee may submit a renewal application no later than 6 months prior
to the expiration of their current permit.
As well as requiring CAFOs with a potential to discharge to obtain NPDES
permits, federal regulations require that CAFOs manage nutrients through a
nutrient management plan (NMP). An NMP is intended to manage nutrients
generated by animal manure and associated wastes. The NMP identifies, among
other things, appropriate site-specific conservation practices to be implemented
including, (1) protocols for land-applying manure, litter, and process wastewater;
(2) protocols for testing manure, process wastewater, and soils; (3) procedures for
spreading manure on cropland at site-specific rates to assure agricultural
utilization of nutrients; and (4) records showing how the operator is implementing
the NMP.
CAFO operators may be asked to provide NMPs, which are reviewed by
inspectors to determine compliance with the NPDES permit. In addition, a CAFO
is obliged to file an annual report with the state director. This report must include
the amount of animal waste generated for the year, the number of acres covered
CAFOs are designated medium or large based on the type and threshold number of animals. For example, a large
CAFO could have at least 700 mature dairy cows or 2,500 swine (each over 55 pounds), while a medium CAFO
could have 200 to 699 mature dairy cows or 750 to 2,499 swine (each over 55 pounds).
11-P-0274
-------
by the NMP, where the manure was spread, and a summary of any discharges.
Improper handling or management of nutrients may result in a runoff, which
could pollute surface waters. In 2007, EPA issued a Clean Water Act National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Core
Program and Wet Weather Sources (CMS) recommending that states inspect
NPDES-permitted CAFOs at least once every 5 years to determine compliance
with permit requirements. According to this strategy, EPA's Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) will evaluate whether the CMS
is achieving the desired results.
Georgia and EPA Region 4 Responsibilities for Implementing
NPDES CAFO Program
The CWA allows EPA to authorize states to operate an NPDES program if the state
demonstrates the authority and capability to run the program, and if its
environmental enforcement authorities are at least as stringent as those set out in
federal law. 40 CFR 123.24 establishes the memorandum of agreement (MOA) as
an instrument for ensuring that EPA and states adhere to the CWA. In 2007,
Region 4 updated its MOA with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division (GEPD). The MOA establishes policies,
responsibilities, and procedures for EPA and GEPD with respect to program
management, permitting, monitoring, inspections, and enforcement. According to
the MOA, Region 4 will oversee GEPD's administration of the NPDES program
on a continuing basis for consistency with the CWA and applicable federal and
state laws and regulations. According to GEPD, Region 4 annually grants $4
million to GEPD to operate its NPDES program.
Under the MOA, GEPD is responsible for issuing NPDES permits and conducting
enforcement actions for CAFOs. It issues general permits to non-swine CAFOs
(dairy and poultry) and individual permits to swine CAFOs. A general permit has
one set of requirements for a group of facilities, while an individual permit has
specific requirements for an individual facility. GEPD reported that as of June
2010, it issued 152 NPDES CAFO permits with another 658 NPDES CAFO
permit applications still pending. Forty-eight of these permitted CAFOs have
liquid manure systems (manure stored in lagoons or tanks in a liquid slurry state),
which have a potential to discharge into surface waters. These 48 CAFOs are
inspected annually. The MOA requires GEPD to "comprehensively assess
compliance with permit conditions," and to take "timely and appropriate
enforcement actions." GEPD told us that they use about $270,000 of the $4
million annual grant from EPA to operate their CAFO permit and enforcement
program.
GEPD contracts with the Georgia Department of Agriculture (GDA) to carry out
most of its NPDES CAFO oversight responsibilities. GDA reviews permit
applications, approves NMPs, and conducts CAFO inspections. However, GDA
has no enforcement authority; this authority remains with GEPD.
11-P-0274
-------
Scope and Methodology
The OIG evaluated EPA's management controls over Georgia's NPDES CAFO
program in response to a Hotline complaint in the form of an anonymous letter on
October 1, 2010, which claimed that EPA Region 4 was not adequately
overseeing Georgia's CAFO program.
To determine whether EPA provides adequate oversight of the NPDES CAFO
program in Georgia, we conducted interviews with staff and managers from EPA
Region 4's Water Protection Division, GEPD, and GDA. We also reviewed the
2010 NPDES inspection reports for all 48 CAFOs with liquid waste systems in
Georgia. We sought to determine whether inspectors gathered and reviewed
inspection components necessary to determine if CAFOs were overapplying
manure. These components include records of land application rates and evidence
to verify that inspectors compared land application rates with the CAFO's NMP.
When records were available, we compared land application rates with the NMP
to determine whether CAFOs may have overapplied manure.
We conducted our review from November 2010 to April 2011 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that
we plan and perform our review to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
Results of Review
We found significant deficiencies in GEPD's management and Region 4's
oversight of the CAFO program. Region 4 gave Georgia's CAFO program a
positive assessment because GEPD reported that all 48 of the CAFOs with liquid
manure waste systems were inspected in 2010. However, our review identified a
number of deficiencies for 34 of the 48 CAFOs Georgia inspected. CAFOs were
operating without NPDES permits or NMPs, inspection reports were missing
required components, and GDA was not assessing compliance with permit
conditions. For its part, Region 4 did not assure that these components of
Georgia's CAFO program met the requirements outlined in the 2007 MOA
between Region 4 and GEPD. As a result, there is a significant risk that Georgia's
CAFO program is failing to protect water quality. These facilities raise concerns
about water quality because animals produce large quantities of waste—many
times more waste than humans annually. The discharge of waste into surface
water is associated with a range of human health and ecological impacts, and
contributes to degradation of the nation's surface waters.
11-P-0274
-------
CAFOs Operating Without Permits and Nutrient Management Plans
Our review of GDA's CAFO files found nine CAFOs operating in violation of the
CWA. Of these nine CAFOs, six were operating without an NPDES permit, and
five did not have approved NMPs. Two CAFOs had neither a permit nor an NMP.
Federal regulations require a CAFO that discharges or proposes to discharge to
obtain an NPDES permit and to manage its animal waste through an approved
NMP. GEPD's Industrial Compliance Unit Manager said he was unaware of these
deficiencies.
We identified six CAFOs operating without an NPDES permit. The MOA
requires GEPD to process in a timely manner and propose to issue, reissue,
modify, terminate, or deny NPDES permits. While GEPD contracts with GDA to
review NPDES permit applications and NMPs, it did not manage the contract to
verify that CAFOs had the proper permits. Four of these six CAFOs were
operating with general permits that expired in 2007. These four should have
applied for a permit extension but the GDA supervisor stated that these CAFOs
have not applied for an extension. GEPD's Industrial Compliance Unit Manager
told us that he was unaware that CAFOs had not applied for permit extensions.
The other two CAFOs without permits were swine operations that wanted to
expand to more than 2,500 swine. NPDES regulations require CAFOs with more
than 2,500 swine each weighing 55 pounds or more to obtain an individual
NPDES permit. According to the GDA supervisor, the CAFOs applied for
NPDES permits in 2004 and 2007, but GEPD did not issue the permits. GEPD's
Industrial Compliance Unit Manager informed us that at the time, permit
applications for new or expanding swine operations were tabled until final rules
were adopted. He told the two CAFO operators to remain under 2,500 swine but
issued no formal notices to do so. However, our review of GDA's inspection
reports found evidence these CAFOs have more than 2,500 swine. GEPD's
Industrial Compliance Unit Manager told us he was unaware of this.
We also identified that five of the nine CAFOs were operating without an
approved NMP. Georgia's NPDES permits for CAFOs require an approved NMP.
While GEPD contracts with GDA to review and approve NMPs, it did not
manage the contract to verify that all CAFOs have NMPs. Four of these five
CAFOs submitted NMPs to GDA for approval, but GDA rejected them because
they did not satisfy the NMP guidelines, according to the GDA supervisor. The
remaining CAFO never submitted an NMP to GDA, according to the GDA
supervisor. GEPD's Industrial Compliance Unit Manager told us that he was not
aware that these CAFOs were operating without approved NMPs. Based on our
review, GEPD and GDA began modifying a number of procedures and are
evaluating why CAFOs are operating without approved NMPs.
11-P-0274
-------
Inspection Reports Missing Required Components
Our analysis of the CAFO inspection reports prepared by GDA found that some
components required for the inspection were missing. The NPDES permit
requires that items such as land application data, soil samples, and wastewater
analysis be completed and made available during an inspection. While GDA
conducts the inspections for GEPD, it has no enforcement authority to compel
CAFOs to submit required components for those inspections. According to the
GDA supervisor, GDA inspectors can only request that CAFO operators send the
missing records or documents to GDA or GEPD. We found no documentation in
the inspection reports to demonstrate that GEPD took any actions to collect this
information. Of the 48 inspections we reviewed, 23 were missing at least one
required component, including 12 CAFOs missing at least one of the 8 key
components we deemed necessary for determining compliance with the NPDES
permit (table 1). The remaining 25 inspection reports contained necessary
components to determine if CAFOs were overapplying manure.
Table 1: CAFO inspections missing required components
Components required by permit or NMP
Land application records
Wastewater analysis to determine nutrient levels
Soil analysis to determine ambient nutrient levels
Calibration tests for application equipment
Monitoring well tests to ensure that storage lagoons are not impaired
Monitoring wells locations on NMP
Operator certification
Annual report on facility operations
Number of inspections
missing required
components
7
6
1
8
2
8
3
1
Source: OIG analysis of GDA inspection reports.
We identified 23 inspection reports that were missing components required for a
complete NPDES permit inspection. For example, seven of the inspection reports
did not contain land application documentation. This documentation includes the
rate of land application, crops, location, and methods used for the application. In
addition, six inspection reports did not have a wastewater analysis and one
inspection report did not have a soil analysis. In our opinion, the land application
records, wastewater analysis, and soil analysis are critical to assessing compliance
with the NPDES permit. At least one of these components was missing in 12 of
the inspection reports we reviewed.
GEPD contracts with GDA to conduct these inspections and obtain the
components required for a complete NPDES inspection and compliance analysis.
In our opinion, these state agencies must communicate to ensure that Georgia
CAFOs meet NPDES permit requirements. Based on our review, GEPD and GDA
11-P-0274
-------
have begun modifying a number of procedures. For example, according to the
GEPD unit manager, GDA is developing a new method of transmitting and
communicating inspection reports to GEPD district offices. This new method
includes a transmittal form that highlights the significant issues documented
during the inspection and whether GEPD followup is recommended.
GDA Not Assessing Compliance With Permit Conditions
A critical aspect of CAFO inspections is comparing actual against allowable
manure application rates. Overapplying manure can lead to excess manure runoff
in neighboring streams. However, according to the GDA supervisor, GDA did not
determine compliance with permit conditions by comparing manure application
rates to the NMPs. Of the 48 inspection reports we reviewed, 22 contained both
land application records and current NMPs. We analyzed the records for these 22
CAFOs and identified six that may have overapplied nutrients (table 2). The
contract between GEPD and GDA states that GDA will assure compliance with
applicable water quality rules, regulations, and permits, but GEPD's Industrial
Compliance Unit Manager told us he did not know that GDA was not making this
comparison.
Table 2: Comparison of land application rates to NMPs
CAFO
1
2
3
4
5
6
Type
Poultry
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Acres
6.6
17.4
9.7
13.1
85
34
9.3
130
32
Actual land
application rate
for 2010 Ibs/acre
567
536
614
772
714
556
457
15,326
836
NMP
allowance
Ibs/acre
415
415
415
415
470
100
393
200
303
Overage
Ibs/acre
152
121
199
357
244
456
64
15,126
533
Source: OIG analysis of GDA inspection reports.
Based on our analysis of the inspection reports with an NMP and land application
records, 16 CAFOs appear to be complying with manure application rates in their
NMPs. The remaining six CAFOs reported applying manure in excess of the
recommended amounts in their NMPs. The reported overapplication ranged from
64 pounds per acre to what appears to be an error with 15,126 pounds per acre.
Region 4's MOA requires GEPD to "comprehensively assess compliance with
permit conditions." GEPD contracts this function to GDA. The contract specifies
that GDA will conduct inspections of swine and non-swine feeding operations
11-P-0274
-------
with NPDES permits to assure compliance with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (Clean Water Act) and the Georgia Rules and Regulations for Water
Quality Control. The current GDA inspection supervisor told us that the previous
GDA supervisor had never required inspectors to conduct this comparison. The
contract with GDA also states that GEPD will review and evaluate GDA's
program at least every 12 months to ensure the program is satisfying relevant state
and federal water quality requirements. In our opinion, GEPD was not adequately
overseeing the GDA's CAFO inspection program because this deficiency should
have been identified and corrected.
Region 4 Unaware of Deficiencies in Georgia CAFO Program
While Region 4 accepted and reported to EPA headquarters that GEPD had
exceeded its CMS goal of inspecting CAFOs at least once every 5 years, the
Region 4 Acting Water Protection Division Director and his staff told us that they
were unaware of the critical deficiencies we identified. Under the MO A, Region 4
is responsible for verifying that GEPD administers the NPDES program for
consistency with the CWA. Our review found deficiencies in 34 of the 48 CAFO
inspection reports completed in 2010. We discussed these problems with Region
4's Acting Water Protection Division Director and his staff. They were unaware
of any of the problems we found in our review.
In addition, the MOA requires GEPD to take timely and appropriate enforcement
actions for violations. While GEPD reported taking some action for the CAFOs in
2010, it did not report the results to Region 4. Since the region has not obtained
enforcement data from GEPD, it cannot determine whether GEPD takes timely and
appropriate enforcement actions.
Finally, in 2006 and 2007, Region 4 conducted CAFO inspections in Georgia and
found two CAFOs with deficiencies similar to those we identified. However, the
region apparently did not use the information from its experience to change its
oversight activities to gain assurance that the CAFO program was functioning as
intended.
Conclusion
Significant weaknesses in the management of Georgia's CAFO program threaten
water quality protections in that state. GEPD was not managing its contract with
GDA and, as a result, CAFO inspections were not complete. Region 4 had not
implemented management controls to assure GEPD's permit inspection and
enforcement programs addressed compliance problems with Georgia's CAFOs.
Based upon our analysis of Georgia's inspection records, OECA's 2007 CMS
inspection goals present a misleading picture of the status of the state's program.
Georgia and Region 4 reported a 100 percent inspection rate for CAFOs with
liquid waste management systems, but almost half of these inspection reports
were missing information. As a result of inadequate oversight and reporting,
11-P-0274
-------
Georgia's waters are vulnerable to discharges of animal waste from CAFOs,
which are associated with a range of human health and ecological impacts, and
contribute to degradation of the nation's surface waters.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4:
1. Implement controls between EPA Region 4 and GEPD to:
a. Require enforcement data tracking between GEPD and Region 4.
b. Assure CAFO inspections are accurate and complete.
c. Assure that GEPD takes timely and appropriate enforcement
actions.
Agency Response and OIG Comment
The region agreed with our recommendation. We agree that the region's actions
meet the intent of the recommendation. We provided Region 4 information
regarding the CAFO cases we reviewed. The Agency's full response is in
Appendix A.
11-P-0274
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
POTENTIAL MONETARY
RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in SOOOs)
Planned
Rec. Page Completion Claimed Agreed-To
No. No. Subject Status1 Action Official Date Amount Amount
Implement controls between EPA Region 4 0 Regional Administrator,
and GEPD to: Region 4
a. Require enforcement data tracking
between GEPD and Region 4.
b. Assure CAFO inspections are accurate
and complete.
c. Assure that GEPD takes timely and
appropriate enforcement actions.
0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
11-P-0274
-------
Appendix A
Agency Response
May 27, 2011
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Report: Region 4 Should Strengthen Oversight of Georgia's Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operation Program; Office of Inspector General Project No.
OPE-FY11-0004
FROM: Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming
Regional Administrator
TO: Dan Engelberg
Director of Program Evaluation
Water and Enforcement Issues
Office of Inspector General
This is in response to your memorandum to me dated May 6, 2011, regarding an Office of
Inspector General draft report containing the results of your review of Region 4's oversight of
Georgia's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operation (CAFO) program. The ever-evolving CAFO-related case law significantly
impacts the permitting requirements governing CAFOs and smaller animal feeding operations
(AFOs). If available, Region 4 would like any specifics collected on the 48 CAFO inspections.
Nevertheless, the Region generally concurs with the recommendations made in your report.
Below are the recommendations from the draft report with our responses:
1. OIG Recommendation: Require enforcement data tracking between Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) and Region 4.
EPA Response: We concur. When reporting for the 106 Workplan before FY 2011, Georgia
has sent summary statistics to the EPA regarding the number of inspections they conducted
each fiscal year. For the FY 2011 106 Workplan, we have required GAEPD to "submit hard
or electronic copies of all CAFO/AFO formal actions." For NPDES-permitted CAFOs, the
EPA requires GAEPD to enter facility information, inspections, and enforcement actions
related to the facility into the EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). Most
CAFOs, however, are not NPDES permitted and not tracked in ICIS because the 2008 Rule
does not require CAFOs to obtain permits if they claim no discharge.
11-P-0274 10
-------
2. OIG Recommendation: Assure CAFO inspections are accurate and complete.
EPA Response: We concur. During the remainder of FY2011, the EPA Region 4 will
conduct two or three joint CAFO inspections with the Georgia Department of Agriculture
and GAEPD to share information and to verify that their inspections are accurate and
complete. We will also conduct routine reviews of CAFO inspection reports and files as part
of our normal oversight of the state.
3. OIG recommendation: Assure that GAEPD takes timely and appropriate enforcement
actions.
EPA Response: We concur. In our routine annual oversight of Georgia's CAFO enforcement
program, we have not found evidence of a significant concern related to timely and
appropriate enforcement actions. Region 4 will review GAEPD's formal CAFO/AFO
enforcement actions, which they are required to submit according to the FY 2011 106
Workplan, to ensure that the inspections are accurate and complete, and that the actions are
timely and appropriate.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft report. Please contact Mr. Jim Giattina,
Director of the Water Protection Division, at Giattina.Jim@epa.gov or at (404) 562-9345, if you
have any questions about our response.
11-P-0274 11
-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Regional Administrator, Region 4
Assistant Administrator for Water
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 4
Director, Water Protection Division, Region 4
11-P-0274 12
------- |