April 2015 Final
State Review Framework
Georgia
Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2013
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, Atlanta
Final Report
April 16,2015
-------
April 2015 Final
Executive Summary
Introduction
EPA Region 4 enforcement staff conducted a State Review Framework (SRF) enforcement
program oversight review of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD).
EPA bases SRF findings on data and file review metrics, and conversations with program
management and staff. EPA will track recommended actions from the review in the SRF Tracker
and publish reports and recommendations on EPA's ECHO web site.
Areas of Strong Performance
CAA enforcement actions bring sources back into compliance, and HPVs are addressed
in a timely and appropriate manner.
CWA inspection reports were well written, complete and documented accurate
compliance determinations.
RCRA met the national goals for inspection coverage, and documented accurate
compliance determinations.
CWA, RCRA, and CAA maintained documentation of penalties collected.
Priority Issues to Address1
The following are the top-priority issues affecting the state program's performance:
EPD should implement procedures for penalty calculations to ensure appropriate
documentation and recovery of gravity and economic benefit and/or the rationale for
differences between initial and final penalties. This is a recurring issue from SRF Rounds 1
and 2. Following the SRF Round 3 File Review, Region 4 met with EPD's leadership to
discuss steps needed to move forward on these issues. Region 4 will continue to work with
EPD leadership to implement the penalty recommendations provided in this report.
1 EPA's "National Strategy for Improving Oversight of State Enforcement Performance" identifies the following as
significant recurrent issues: "Widespread and persistent data inaccuracy and incompleteness, which make it hard to
identify when serious problems exist or to track state actions; routine failure of states to identify and report
significant noncompliance; routine failure of states to take timely or appropriate enforcement actions to return
violating facilities to compliance, potentially allowing pollution to continue unabated; failure of states to take
appropriate penalty actions, which results in ineffective deterrence for noncompliance and an unlevel playing field
for companies that do comply; use of enforcement orders to circumvent standards or to extend permits without
appropriate notice and comment; and failure to inspect and enforce in some regulated sectors."
-------
April 2015 Final
Most Significant CWA-NPDES Program Issues
EPD needs to improve the accuracy of data reporting in ICIS. Discrepancies between
files and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) data were identified in 44%
of the files reviewed. To address this issue, EPD should identify the causes of inaccurate
ICIS reporting and implement procedures to address the issues. EPA will monitor EPD's
efforts through oversight calls and periodic data reviews.
EPD's enforcement responses are not timely and do not consistently indicate a return to
compliance. To address this issue, EPD should implement procedures that ensure timely
enforcement responses and ensure a return to compliance. EPA will monitor through
existing oversight calls and other periodic data reviews.
Most Significant CAA Stationary Source Program Issues
EPD's penalty calculations do not adequately document the consideration of economic
benefit. To address this issue, EPD should submit to EPA in writing a description of their
efforts to ensure appropriate documentation of the consideration of economic benefit in
penalty calculations. EPA will monitor improvements through review of final penalty
worksheets for federally reportable violations.
Most Significant RCRA Subtitle C Program Issues
EPD needs to improve the quality of their RCRA inspection reports by including a
description of each facility's hazardous management activities in the RCRA generator
inspection reports. EPA will evaluate progress towards this goal in the first quarter of
FY2016.
EPD needs to improve the identification of RCRA Significant Non-compliers (SNCs) by
designating SNC facilities in the national database, RCRAInfo. EPA will monitor the
timeliness of EPD enforcement via bimonthly conference calls and RCRAInfo data
analyses.
-------
April 2015 Final
Table of Contents
I. Background on the State Review Framework 1
II. SRF Review Process 2
III. SRF Findings 3
Clean Air Act Findings 4
Clean Water Act Findings 11
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Findings 24
-------
April 2015 Final
I. Background on the State Review Framework
The State Review Framework (SRF) is designed to ensure that EPA conducts nationally
consistent oversight. It reviews the following local, state, and EPA compliance and enforcement
programs:
Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Clean Air Act Stationary Sources (Title V)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C
Reviews cover:
Data completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of data entry into national data systems
Inspections meeting inspection and coverage commitments, inspection report quality,
and report timeliness
Violations identification of violations, determination of significant noncompliance
(SNC) for the CWA and RCRA programs and high priority violations (HPV) for the
C AA program, and accuracy of compliance determinations
Enforcement timeliness and appropriateness, returning facilities to compliance
Penalties calculation including gravity and economic benefit components, assessment,
and collection
EPA conducts SRF reviews in three phases:
Analyzing information from the national data systems in the form of data metrics
Reviewing facility files and compiling file metrics
Development of findings and recommendations
EPA builds consultation into the SRF to ensure that EPA and the state understand the causes of
issues and agree, to the degree possible, on actions needed to address them. SRF reports capture
the agreements developed during the review process in order to facilitate program improvements.
EPA also uses the information in the reports to develop a better understanding of enforcement
and compliance nationwide, and to identify issues that require a national response.
Reports provide factual information. They do not include determinations of overall program
adequacy, nor are they used to compare or rank state programs.
Each state's programs are reviewed once during each SRF cycle. The first round of SRF reviews
began in FY 2004, and the second round began in FY 2009. The third round of reviews began in
FY 2013 and will continue through 2017.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 1
-------
April 2015 Final
II. SRF Review Process
Review period: FY 2013
Key dates: April 23, 2014: letter sent to the State kicking off the Round 3 review
Week of June 9-13, 2014: on-site file reviews for CAA and RCRA
Week of June 16-20, 2014: on-site file review for CWA
State and EPA key contacts for review:
Georgia EPD
EPA Region 4
SRF Coordinator
Mary Walker
EPD Assistant Director
Kelly Sisario, OEA SRF Coordinator
CAA
Michael Odom, Air Toxics
Unit Manager, Stationary
Source Compliance
Program
Mark Fite, OEA Technical Authority
Kevin Taylor, Air and EPCRA Enforcement
Branch
CWA
Lewis Hays, Program
Manager, Watershed
Compliance Program
Watershed Protection
Branch
Ronald Mikulak, OEA Technical Authority
Ken Kwan, Clean Water Enforcement
Branch
RCRA
Amy Potter, Hazardous
Waste Program Manager
Shannon Maher, OEA Technical Authority
Hector Danois & Brooke York, RCRA and
OPA Enforcement and Compliance Branch
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 2
-------
April 2015 Final
III. SRF Findings
Findings represent EPA's conclusions regarding state performance and are based on observations
made during the data and/or file reviews and may also be informed by:
Annual data metric reviews conducted since the state's last SRF review
Follow-up conversations with state agency personnel
Review of previous SRF reports, Memoranda of Agreement, or other data sources
Additional information collected to determine an issue's severity and root causes
There are three categories of findings:
Meets or Exceeds Expectations: The SRF was established to define a base level or floor for
enforcement program performance. This rating describes a situation where the base level is met
and no performance deficiency is identified, or a state performs above national program
expectations.
Area for State Attention: An activity, process, or policy that one or more SRF metrics show as
a minor problem. Where appropriate, the state should correct the issue without additional EPA
oversight. EPA may make recommendations to improve performance, but it will not monitor
these recommendations for completion between SRF reviews. These areas are not highlighted as
significant in the executive summary.
Area for State Improvement: An activity, process, or policy that one or more SRF metrics
show as a significant problem that the agency is required to address. Recommendations should
address root causes. These recommendations must have well-defined timelines and milestones
for completion, and EPA will monitor them for completion between SRF reviews in the SRF
Tracker.
Whenever a metric indicates a major performance issue, EPA will write up a finding of Area for
State Improvement, regardless of other metric values pertaining to a particular element.
The relevant SRF metrics are listed within each finding. The following information is provided
for each metric:
Metric ID Number and Description: The metric's SRF identification number and a
description of what the metric measures.
Natl Goal: The national goal, if applicable, of the metric, or the CMS commitment that
the state has made.
Natl Avg: The national average across all states, territories, and the District of Columbia.
State N: For metrics expressed as percentages, the numerator.
State D: The denominator.
State % or #: The percentage, or if the metric is expressed as a whole number, the count.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 3
-------
April 2015 Final
Clean Air Act Findings
CAA Element 1 Data
Finding 1-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary Minimum Data Requirements (MDRs) are entered timely and accurately
into AFS, and violations are timely and accurately recorded in AFS.
Explanation Metric 2b indicated that 32 of the 35 files reviewed (91.4%) documented
all MDRs being reported accurately into AFS.
Metrics 3a2, 3bland 3b3 indicated that GEPD entered MDR data for
HPVs, compliance monitoring activities, and enforcement actions into
AFS within the specified timeframe. Metric 3b2 (74.6%) indicates that
the majority of stack tests are entered in AFS within 120 days. GEPD's
metric essentially equals the national average, and EPA noted that most
late entries were less than 30 days late.
Metrics 7b 1 and 7b3 indicated that GEPD reports violations associated
with notices of violation (NOVs) and HPVs accurately and timely into
AFS, significantly exceeding the national averages. Supplemental file
reviews confirmed that GEPD was accurately reporting violations in
AFS.
Relevant metrics . Natl Natl State State State
Metric ID Number and Description _ , . __ .
Goal Avg N D % or #
2b Accurate MDR data in AFS 100% 32 35 91.4%
3a2 Untimely entry of HPV determinations 0 1
3bl Timely reporting of compliance
monitoring MDRs
100%
80.9%
793
865
91.7%
3b2 Timely reporting of stack test dates and
results
100%
75.4%
746
1000
74.6%
3b3 Timely reporting of enforcement MDRs
100%
68.7%
86
94
91.5%
7b 1 Violations reported per informal actions
100%
59.5%
44
53
83.0%
7b3 Violations reported per HPV identified 100% 57.5% 8 9 88.9%
State response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 4
-------
April 2015 Final
CAA Element 2 Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
GEPD met the negotiated frequency for inspection of sources, reviewed
Title V Annual Compliance Certifications, and included all required
elements in their Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) and Compliance
Monitoring Reports (CMRs).
Explanation Metrics 5a and 5b indicated that GEPD provided adequate inspection
coverage for the major and SM-80 sources during FY13 by ensuring that
each major source was inspected at least every 2 years, and each SM-80
source was inspected at least every 5 years. In addition, Metric 5e
documented that GEPD reviewed Title V annual compliance
certifications submitted by major sources. Finally, Metrics 6a and 6b
confirmed that all elements of an FCE and CMR required by the Clean
Air Act Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS
Guidance) were addressed in all facility files reviewed.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
5a FCE coverage: majors and mega-sites
100%
88.5%
244
244
100%
5b FCE coverage: SM-80s
100%
93.3%
200
200
100%
5e Review of Title V annual compliance
certifications
100%
81.3%
371
385
96.4%
6a Documentation of FCE elements
100%
28
28
100%
6b Compliance monitoring reports reviewed
that provide sufficient documentation to
determine facility compliance
100%
28
28
100%
State response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 5
-------
April 2015 Final
CAA Element 3
Violations
Finding 3-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
GEPD made accurate compliance determinations for both HPV and non-
HPV violations.
Metric 7a indicated that GEPD made accurate compliance
determinations in 36 of 37 files reviewed (97.3%).
Explanation
Metric 8a indicated that the HPV discovery rate for majors (2.4%) was
below the national average of 4.0%. This is a "review indicator" metric,
and upon further evaluation of the 37 sources with violations, file
reviewers concluded that GEPD is accurately identifying HPVs.
Metric 8c confirmed that GEPD's HPV determinations were accurate in
all 21 files reviewed (100%).
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
7a Accuracy of compliance determinations
100%
36
37
97.3%
8a HPV discovery rate at majors
4.0%
9
382
2.4%
8c Accuracy of HPV determinations
100%
21
21
100%
State response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 6
-------
April 2015 Final
CAA Element 4
Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
Enforcement actions bring sources back into compliance within a
specified timeframe, and HPVs are addressed in a timely and appropriate
manner.
Explanation Metric 9a indicated that all formal enforcement actions reviewed brought
sources back into compliance through corrective actions in the order, or
compliance was achieved prior to issuance of the order.
Metric 10a indicated that all 14 HPVs (100%) addressed in FY13 were
addressed within 270 days, which exceeds the national average of
67.5%.
Metric 10b indicated that appropriate enforcement action was taken to
address all 10 HPVs (100%) evaluated during the file review.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
9a Formal enforcement responses that include
required corrective action that will return the
facility to compliance in a specified timeframe
100%
19
19
100%
10a Timely action taken to address HPVs
67.5%
14
14
100%
10b Appropriate enforcement responses for
HPVs
100%
10
10
100%
State response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 7
-------
April 2015 Final
CAA Element 5
Penalties
Finding 5-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
GEPD documented the collection of penalties and in most instances, any
differences between initial and final penalty assessments.
Explanation
Metric 12a indicated that 17 of 19 penalty calculations reviewed (89.5%)
documented differences between the initial and the final penalty
assessed. For two sources, a District office destroyed penalty
worksheets, so reviewers were unable to determine if adjustments were
made to the penalty. EPA recommends that GEPD advise their District
offices that this practice is inconsistent with national policy.
Metric 12b confirmed that documentation of all penalty payments made
by sources was included in the file.
Relevant metrics
. Irv.. . _ . . Natl Natl State State State
Metric ID Number and Description _ , . __ .
Goal Avg N D % or #
12a Documentation on difference between iAA0/ n in on so/
. , . ... i i, lUU/o 1/ 1" w.j/o
initial and final penalty
12b Penalties collected 100% 19 19 100%
State response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 8
-------
April 2015 Final
CAA Element 5
Penalties
Finding 5-2
Area for State Improvement
Summary
Initial penalty calculations do not adequately document the consideration
of economic benefit using the BEN model or other method to produce
results consistent with national policy and guidance.
Explanation Metric 11a indicates that only 2 out of 19 files (10.5%) provided
adequate documentation of the State's consideration of economic
benefit. Whereas GEPD's penalty calculation worksheets include a line
item for economic benefit, most worksheets (15 of 19) indicate that
economic benefit is NA, negligible, or insignificant, without providing
any further rationale. The state should provide an explanation as to why
economic benefit is not likely. For example, for a violation involving a
late permit application, the state might indicate that "no significant
economic benefit was gained, since the permit application was submitted
within 60 days."
Although economic benefit was not assessed in any of the penalties
reviewed, GEPD's Air Penalty Policy does contemplate the use of a
simplified formula ("rule of thumb" method) or EPA's BEN model to
calculate it.
EPA's expectation that state and local enforcement agencies document
the consideration and assessment of economic benefit is outlined in the
1993 Steve Herman memo entitled "Oversight of State and Local
Penalty Assessments: Revisions to the Policy Frame work from
State/EPA Enforcement Agreements."
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
1 la Penalty calculations include gravity and
economic benefit
100%
2
19
10.5%
State response Georgia follows written enforcement procedures that include a penalty
rationale that clearly considers gravity and economic benefit where it can
be easily determined. Our Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) with
Region IV indicates in Section VI(A)(8) that penalty calculations and/or
penalty rationale will be maintained, and, accordingly, Georgia
maintains a penalty rationale for all executed Orders. EPD acknowledges
that the documentation in the files may not completely reflect the
process followed. We believe the improvements proposed by EPD
following the Round 3 process are consistent with the requirement of the
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 9
-------
April 2015 Final
MOU, and will yield an agency-wide approach that clearly documents
the consistent application of our methods, and reasons for any
adjustment, as well as the final penalty.
Recommendation Within 3 months of issuance of the final SRF report, GEPD should
submit to EPA in writing a description of their efforts to ensure
appropriate documentation of the consideration of economic benefit in
penalty calculations. For verification purposes, EPA will review final
penalty worksheets for federally reportable violations following issuance
of the final SRF report. If within 12 months of issuance of the final SRF
report appropriate penalty documentation is being observed, this
recommendation will be considered completed.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 10
-------
April 2015 Final
Clean Water Act Findings
CWA Element 1
Data
Finding 1-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
The State exceeded National Goals for the entry of key data metrics for
major facilities.
Explanation The State exceeded National Goals for the entry of key Data Metrics (lbl
and lb2) for major facilities. Issues with Data Metrics 7al (related to
Single Event Violations), and lOal (related to timely actions as appropriate
at major facilities) are, however, discussed in Elements 3 and 4.
Relevant metrics
State Response
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
lbl Permit limit rate for major facilities
>95%
98.3%
189
189
100%
lb2 DMR entry rate for major facilities
>95%
97.9%
3545
3634
97.6%
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 11
-------
April 2015 Final
CWA Element 1 Data
Finding 1-2 Area for State Improvement
Summary The accuracy of data between files reviewed and data reflected in the
national data system needs improvement.
Explanation Of the files reviewed, discrepancies for major facilities that occurred
between the Detailed Facility Reports (DFRs) in EPA's Enforcement and
Compliance History Online (ECHO) and the State's files were related to:
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), penalties, enforcement actions,
facility addresses, and violations.
For Data Metrics lgl (Number of Enforcement Actions with Penalties) and
lg2 (Total Penalties Assessed), the State's verified frozen FY 13 data
shows 0 and $0, respectively. This is apparently a data issue where data
was entered incorrectly that also occurred in FYs 11 and 12.
Additionally, there are discrepancies between the FY 13 frozen data the
State verified as shown in the Data Metrics Analysis and the FY 13 106
Work Plan end-of year accomplishments as shown in Finding 2-1 of this
Report, particularly for Metrics 5al, 5bl, and 5b2.
Data accuracy was an Area for State Attention during Round 2. Steps
taken by the State in response to the Round 2 finding have not fully
addressed the issue, so data accuracy remains an issue and is now
identified as an Area for State Improvement.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
2b Files reviewed where data are accurately
reflected in the national data system
100%
18
32
56%
State Response EPD identified multiple technical and procedural issues that led to inaccurate
reporting of data to ICIS. Corrective actions and procedures are being
developed and implemented to improve EPD's data integrity going forward.
These measures range from proper identification and entry of required data to
resolving data communications issues between the State and ICIS. Actions
already in place allowed for correction of many errors similar to those cited in
the report during the FFY14 data verification process. More frequent
verification of ICIS/ECHO data as part of our revised Quality Management
Plan will ensure early identification and improved accuracy.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 12
-------
April 2015 Final
Recommendation EPD should take the appropriate steps to ensure that data and information
are reported accurately. Within 6 months of the effective date of this
Report, should implement procedures (including staffing and management
oversight) to ensure the accurate reporting of data into ICIS, to ensure the
timely participation in the annual data verification process, and to ensure
that data inaccuracies have been corrected. EPA will monitor this effort
through oversight calls and other periodic data reviews. If within one year
of the effective date of this Report these reviews indicate there is sufficient
improvement in data accuracy, this recommendation will be considered
complete.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 13
-------
April 2015 Final
CWA Element 2 Inspections
Finding 2-1 Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary The State met or exceeded all but one of their FY13 Compliance
Monitoring Strategy (CMS) Plan and CWA §106 Workplan inspection
commitments. The only exception was for Pretreatment compliance
inspections and audits in which the State missed their inspection
commitment by 1 (96%).
Explanation Element 2 includes metrics that measure planned inspections completed
(Metrics 4al - 4al0) and inspection coverages (Metrics 5al, 5b 1, and
5b2). The National Goal for this Element is for 100% of state specific
CMS Plan commitments to be met.
Under Metrics 4a and 5, the State met or exceeded the FY 13 inspection
commitments for all Metrics, except as noted below. The State did not
meet their FY 13 inspection commitment related to 4al (Pretreatment
compliance inspections and audits) by 1.
Relevant metrics Natl Goal NatlAvg State State State
Metric ID Number and Description
N D % or #
4al Pretreatment compliance inspections and 100% of CMS
audits
26 27 96%
4a2 SIU inspections for SIUs discharging to 100% of CMS
non-authorized POTWs
58 58 100%
4a4 Major CSO inspections
100% of CMS
3
2
150%
4a5 SSO inspections
100% of CMS
NA
NA
NA
4a7 Phase I & II MS4 audits or inspections
100% of CMS
15
15
100%
4a8 Industrial stormwater inspections
100% of CMS
50
50
100%
4a9 Phase I & II SW construction inspections 100% of CMS
1006
500
201%
4al0 Medium and large NPDES CAFO
inspections
100% of CMS
63
1042
630%
5al Inspection coverage ofNPDES majors
100% of CMS
129
99
130%
5bl Inspection coverage of NPDES non- 100% of CMS
majors with individual permits
5b2 Inspection coverage of NPDES non- 100% of CMS
majors with general permits
State Response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 14
-------
April 2015 Final
CWA Element 2
Inspections
Mild ill" 2-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
Most of the State's inspection reports were well written, complete and
provided sufficient documentation to determine compliance.
Explanation
Most of the State's inspection reports were well written; complete; and
included field observations, where appropriate (File Metric 6a).
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to
determine compliance at the facility
100%
20
23
87%
State Response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 15
-------
April 2015 Final
CWA Element 2 Inspections
Finding 2-3
Area for State Attention
Summary
Many of the State's inspection reports were not consistently completed in a
timely manner.
Explanation File Metric 6b addresses inspection reports completed within prescribed
timeframes. For this analysis, since the State's NPDES Enforcement
Management System (EMS) did not specify timeliness goals, EPA's EMS
was used as a guide for reviewing the State's timeliness for the completion
of non-sampling reports (within 30 days) and sampling reports (within 45
days). As noted below, 70% of the reports reviewed were completed in a
timely manner pursuant to EPA's EMS, while the National Goal is 100%.
The average number of days to complete an inspection report was 35 days.
Two inspection reports were outliers in terms of timeliness which
significantly affected the State's average.
The degree to which the State's inspection reports were timely was an
issue that was raised during Round 2 as an area needing State attention.
Steps taken by the State in response to Round 2 have not fully addressed
this issue, however, the majority of the State's inspection reports were
completed in a timely manner and it does not appear to be a systemic issue.
Since the State's level of performance has not changed significantly from
Round 2, this Element remains an Area for State Attention.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
6b Inspection reports completed within prescribed
timeframe
100%
16
23
70%
State Response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 16
-------
April 2015 Final
CWA Element 3 Violations
Finding 3-1
Area for State Attention
Summary
The State identifies and reports Single Event Violations (SEVs) at major
facilities in a timely manner as SNC or non-SNC; however, the State did
not consistently enter SEV codes into ICIS.
Explanation The file review supports the State's efforts in identifying (File Metric 8b 1)
and reporting (File Metric 8c) SEVs at major facilities. Additionally, it
was noted during the file review that the State identified 2 other SEVs for
non-major facilities. However, with regard to major facilities, the State is
not consistent in identifying and coding SEVs into ICIS when they are
related to SSOs. Per the SEV Entry Guide for ICIS (October 15, 2008),
unauthorized wastewater bypasses or discharges, by definition are SEVs.
These can be one-time events or long-term violations and are required to
be entered into ICIS. In previous years, the State had coded significantly
more major SEVs under Data Metric 7al than in FY 13 (i.e., FY 11 had 20
SEVs; FY 12 had 17 SEVs; and FY 13 had 2 SEVs). Therefore, this issue
is now identified as an Area for State Attention. The State should develop
criteria for more consistently identifying SSOs as SEVs and implement
processes to ensure this information is entered into ICIS.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
7al Number of major facilities with single event
violations
2
8b 1 Single-event violations accurately identified
as SNC or non-SNC
100%
1
1
100%
8c Percentage of SEVs identified as SNC
reported timely at major facilities
100%
0
0
100%
State Response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 17
-------
April 2015 Final
CWA Element 3 Violations
Finding 3-2 Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary The State's Inspection Reports documented accurate compliance
determinations.
Explanation
Most of the State's inspection reports were well written; complete;
included field observations, and compliance status that accurately
documented compliance determinations. The State has developed a
thorough and comprehensive inspection checklist that is used for
documenting inspection field observations and making compliance
determinations.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
7e Inspection reports reviewed that led to an
accurate compliance determination
100%
21
22
96%
State Response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 18
-------
April 2015 Final
CWA Element 4 Enforcement
Finding 4-1 Area for State Improvement
Summary Several of the State's Enforcement Responses (ERs) were not timely or
appropriate. Additionally, the State's ERs did not consistently achieve a
Return to Compliance (RTC).
Explanation ERs did not consistently reflect a RTC (File Metric 9a); 18 of 27 files
reviewed (67%) reflected ERs that returned or will return a facility to
compliance. Of the remaining 33% of the files reviewed, in 3 cases the
State had taken formal action by issuing an Expedited Enforcement
Compliance Order (EECO) for a penalty only without addressing the
violation in a more comprehensive manner, and noncompliance appears to
continue. In 6 other cases, the State issued numerous informal actions (i.e.,
Notices of Deficiency or Noncompliance Documentation Letters and/or
Notices of Violation) and noncompliance appears to continue.
Data Metric lOal documents that 2 of the State's 6 major facilities in SNC
had timely ERs.
Additionally, the State did not consistently address violations in an
appropriate manner (File Metric 10b). Twenty-one of the twenty-seven
files reviewed (78%) were found to include an ER that was appropriate. Of
the remaining 22% of the files reviewed, ERs were not appropriate because
numerous informal and/or formal enforcement actions were taken and
noncompliance appears to continue with no further escalation of an ER to
achieve compliance.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
9a Percentage of enforcement responses that
return or will return source in violation to
100%
18
27
67%
compliance
lOal Major facilities with timely action as
appropriate
3.6%
2
6
33.3%
10b Enforcement responses reviewed that
address violations in an appropriate manner
100%
21
27
78%
State Response Issuance of multiple EECOs to the same facility or multiple informal actions
to the same facility does not necessarily indicate a failure to return to
compliance. EECOs and informal actions are only issued by EPD when a
facility has already returned to compliance. The facilities to which
EPD issued informal actions did achieve a return to compliance for the
specific violations cited.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 19
-------
April 2015 Final
EPD addresses compliance by comprehensively evaluating a facility with
regard to its history, corrective actions in progress and its response to current
violations. For example, spills cited in EECOs had been corrected in a timely
manner, were generally not severe, and did not repeat at the same locations.
Most of the spills cited in the zero-tolerance area would not have warranted
formal action in other areas of the state. Georgia's performance measure of
33.3% for Metric lOal far exceeds the national average of 3.6%.
Recommendation Within 6 months of the effective date of this Report, EPD should
implement procedures to ensure that ERs are timely and appropriate and
will achieve a RTC. EPA will monitor the State's efforts through existing
oversight calls and other periodic data reviews. If within one year of the
effective date of this Report these reviews indicate that the State has
timely/appropriate enforcement responses that achieve a RTC; the
recommendation will be considered completed.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 20
-------
April 2015 Final
CWA Element 5
Penalties
Mild ill" 5-1
Area for State Improvement
Summary
The State does not maintain initial or final penalty calculations, so the
adequacy of economic benefit penalty calculations and penalty
documentation could not be evaluated.
Explanation None of the nine files (0%) reviewed documented the consideration of
gravity or EB, included penalty calculation worksheets, or initial/final
penalty calculations. While the State's May 2008 Enforcement
Management Strategy (EMS) does include a Penalty Assessment
Guidance document which outlines the criteria for determining civil
penalties for violations, this document does not address the consideration
of EB in penalty calculations. The State's files do not include
documentation to support the rationale for how penalty determinations,
including the consideration of gravity and EB, were reached by the State.
In support of considering EB in penalty calculations, EPA guidance
(Oversight of State and Local Penalty Assessments: Revisions to the
Policy Framework from State EPA Enforcement Agreements; 1993) notes
that to remove economic incentives for noncompliance and establish a
firm foundation for deterrence, EPA, the States, and local agencies shall
endeavor, through their civil penalty assessment practices, to recoup at
least the economic benefit the violator gained through noncompliance.
This guidance also notes that states should document any adjustments to
the initial penalty including a justification for any differences between the
initial and final assessed penalty.
Additionally, in underscoring the importance of complete penalty
calculation records, the NPDES Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between Georgia and EPA - Region 4 indicates that in accordance with 40
CFR §123.24(b)(3), EPD shall retain certain records related to numerous
enforcement procedures and that such records would include penalty
calculations and/or their rationale.
This is a continuing issue from Rounds 1 and 2 of the SRF. The State has
indicated its intention to develop consistent methods for penalty
calculations. While this is an effort in the direction to resolve the issue, it
does not fulfill requirements of national EPA policy. This element will
remain an Area for State Improvement in SRF Round 3 until the SRF
recommendation below is fully implemented.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 21
-------
April 2015 Final
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
11a Penalty calculations reviewed that consider
100%
0
Q
0%
and include gravity and economic benefit
12a Documentation of the difference between
100%
0
0%
initial and final penalty and rationale
State Response Georgia follows written enforcement procedures that include a penalty
rationale that clearly considers gravity and economic benefit where it can be
easily determined. Our Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) with Region IV
indicates in Section VI(A)(8) that penalty calculations and/or penalty
rationale will be maintained, and, accordingly, Georgia maintains a penalty
rationale for all executed Orders. EPD acknowledges that the documentation
in the files may not completely reflect the process followed. We believe the
improvements proposed by EPD following the Round 3 process are
consistent with the requirement of the MOU, and will yield an agency-wide
approach that clearly documents the consistent application of our methods,
and reasons for any adjustment, as well as the final penalty.
Recommendation Within six months of the final date of this report EPD should develop and
implement procedures to confirm the State's (1) appropriate
documentation of both gravity and economic benefit in penalty
calculations, and (2) appropriate documentation of the rationale for any
difference between the initial and final penalty. This documentation
should be made available for review by EPA.
For verification purposes, for one year following the implementation of
the procedures, EPA shall review all initial and final GEPD orders and
penalty calculations, including the calculations for the economic benefit
of noncompliance. If at the end of the time period the appropriate
improvement is observed, this recommendation will be considered
complete.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 22
-------
April 2015 Final
CWA Element 5
Penalties
Finding 5-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
The State documents the collection of penalties assessed.
Explanation
The State effectively documents the collection of penalties assessed (File
Metric 12b).
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
% or #
12b Penalties collected
100%
9
9
100%
State Response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 23
-------
April 2015 Final
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Findings
RCRA Element 1 Data
Finding 1-1 Area for State Attention
Summary The majority of Georgia's RCRA Minimum Data Requirements for
compliance monitoring and enforcement activities were complete in
RCRAInfo.
Explanation During the SRF file review, information in the facility files was checked
for accuracy with the information in the national database, RCRAInfo.
The data was found to be accurate in 22 of the 24 files (91.7%). There
were two files with missing inspection information in RCRAInfo.
In reviewing the SRF data metrics, the LQG five-year inspection
coverage indicted that the state had inspected 289 facilities during that
time period. Current RCRAInfo data shows that actually 310 LQGs were
inspected. The data discrepancy could be attributed to data entry after the
FY2013 data was frozen. During FY2013, GEPD experienced significant
staff turnover, as well as an office relocation, which produced a
disruption of data entry. Historical data does not indicate that there is an
issue with late data entry, so this is considered an Area for State
Attention where Georgia can address the concern without any further
oversight by EPA.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State State
N D % or #
2b Complete and accurate entry of mandatory
data
22 24 91.7%
5c Five-year inspection coverage for LQGs
100%
66.6%
289 336 86%
5c Five-year inspection coverage of LQGs
Corrected (from RCRAInfo)
100%
66.6%
310 336 92%
State Response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 24
-------
April 2015 Final
RCRA Element 2 -
Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
Georgia met national goals for TSD and LQG inspections.
Explanation
Element 2 measures three types of required inspection coverage that are
outlined in the EPA RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy: (1) 100%
coverage of operating Treatment Storage Disposal (TSD) facilities over
a two-year period, (2) 20% coverage of Large Quantity Generators
(LQGs) every year, and (3) 100% coverage of LQGs every five years.
The FY2013 data metrics indicate that both the two-year TSD
inspection coverage and the one-year LQG inspection coverage
requirements have been met. For the five-year LQG inspection
coverage, the data metric indicated that only 86% of the universe had
been inspected (289 of 336 LQGs) from FY2008-FY2013. A review of
the data in RCRAInfo indicates that actually 310 LQGs had been
inspected over that period, which equates to 92% inspection coverage.
The data discrepancy could be attributed to data entry after the FY2013
data was frozen. The 92% LQG inspection coverage is near enough to
the national goal of 100% coverage to allow for fluctuation of LQG
status over the five-year period.
Relevant metrics
. Irv.. . _ . . Natl Natl State State State
Metric ID Number and Description (ia| Ayg N
5;, Two-year inspection coverage of operating 20 20
TSDFs
5b Annual inspection coverage of LQGs 20% 21% 83 336 24.7%
5c Five-year inspection coverage of LQGs 100% 66.6% 289 336 86%
5c Five-year inspection coverage of LQGs lQQ% 66/>% 3|() 336 92%
Corrected
State Response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report Georgia Page 25
-------
April 2015 Final
RCRA Element 2 Inspections
Finding 2-2 Area for State Improvement
Summary Several RCRA inspection reports were missing basic information
regarding facility hazardous waste management activities.
Explanation During the SRF file review, 23 inspection reports were evaluated for
completeness and sufficiency to determine compliance with the RCRA
requirements. It was found that 47.8% (11 of 23) of the inspection
reports met this standard. There were 12 RCRA generator inspection
reports that were missing basic information describing the management
of hazardous waste at the facility. The Georgia RCRA generator
inspection reports are typically checklists that do not provide
observations and conditions at the time of the inspection.
Georgia does not have a formal inspection report completion timeline
established in any standard operating procedures or policy. A goal of 30
days is the target timeline for report completion. Twenty of the 23
inspection reports were reviewed. There were three inspections that were
not included in this total because the reports were not dated. It was found
that ten inspection reports met the 30-day timeline (50%, or 10 of 20),
with the average time for report completion at 38 days.
The completeness, sufficiency, and timeliness of the RCRA inspection
reports is considered an Area for State Improvement.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to
determine compliance
100%
11 23
47.8%
6b Timeliness of inspection report completion
100%
10 20
50%
State Response GEPD is reviewing/revising standard operating procedures (SOPs)
to expand the RCRA Generator report to include mandatory sections
that discuss the hazardous management activities and findings at
inspected facilities. The procedures will include a goal for
completion of the inspection reports within 30 days. EPD is already
implementing these changes.
Recommendation It is recommended that GEPD implement procedures to address the
identified RCRA inspection report issues within six months of the date
of the final SRF report. EPA is available to assist in the development of
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 26
-------
April 2015 Final
these procedures. One year after the final report, EPA will review a
sample of inspection reports to assess the completeness, sufficiency, and
timeliness of the reports. If by June 30, 2016, appropriate improvement
is observed, this recommendation will be considered complete.
RCRA Element 3 -
Violations
Finding 3-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary
Georgia makes accurate and timely compliance determinations.
Explanation
File Review Metric 7a assesses whether accurate compliance
determinations were made based on a file review of inspection reports
and other compliance monitoring activity (i.e., record reviews). The file
review indicated that 95.8% of the facilities (23 of 24) had accurate
compliance determinations.
Data Metric 8b evaluates the timeliness of SNC determinations. In
FY2013, GEPD did timely entry of 85.7% of the SNC facilities (6 of 7).
One SNC determination was delayed to a prolonged multi-facility
investigation. Overall, GEPD demonstrates a sound practice of timely
SNC entry into RCRAInfo.
Relevant metrics
. Irv.. . _ . . Natl Natl State State State
Metric ID Number and Description _ , . __
Goal Avg N D % or #
7a Accurate compliance determinations 100% 23 24 95.8%
8b Timeliness of SNC determinations 100% 77.8% 6 7 85.7%
State Response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 27
-------
April 2015 Final
RCRA Element 3 Violations
Finding 3-2
Area for State Improvement
Summary
The state did not designate several SNCs in the national database
according to the RCRA ERP.
Explanation In the file review there were 5 of 14 facilities (35.7% of the files) where
SNC violations existed but the facility had not been designated as a SNC
in RCRAInfo as required by the RCRA ERP.
The EPA Hazardous Waste ERP standard is that facilities that are
Secondary Violators (non-SNCs) should be addressed in 240 days or
elevated to SNC status. Data metric 2a listed ten facilities as long-
standing RCRA secondary violators. Upon review, the following factors
were identified:
Five facilities were addressed by informal enforcement, but the
violations had not been closed out in RCRAInfo so the violations
appeared as longstanding;
Two facilities are EPA-lead enforcement;
One facility had returned to compliance after the data was frozen;
Two secondary violators should have been elevated to SNC
status (these are included in the five facilities identified in
paragraph one of this finding).
Timely and accurate SNC identification is essential so that significant
compliance problems are addressed in a prompt manner, and that correct
data is available to the public concerning problem facilities in their
community.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
8c Appropriate SNC determinations
100%
9 14
64.3%
2a Long-standing secondary violators
10
10
State Response
Recommendation It is recommended that GEPD correct any data errors and develop a
mechanism to ensure appropriate violation determinations are reflected
in RCRAInfo. EPA will monitor progress via bimonthly conference calls
and RCRAInfo data analyses. EPA will close this recommendation after
observing four consecutive quarters of performance that meets national
goals.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 28
-------
April 2015 Final
RCRA Element 4
Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Area for State Attention
Summary In the majority of the cases reviewed, the state had taken appropriate
enforcement to address violations and return the facility to compliance.
Any trend in untimely enforcement appears to be related to GEPD's
reorganization in FY2013.
Explanation In the SRF review, 22 files were reviewed to determine if the state had
taken the appropriate enforcement response at violating facilities, and if
enforcement had returned the facilities to compliance.
In evaluating the enforcement responses taken, 81.8% (18 of 22) cases
were addressed with the appropriate enforcement response. Of the
remaining four cases, there were three facilities that are RCRA post-
closure/corrective action facilities that are not currently operating TSDs.
There were permit violations at these facilities associated with the clean-
up activities from historical contamination. There are extenuating
circumstances at these facilities including bankruptcy, foreign owners, or
limited financial solvency. The fourth facility was a SNC-caliber facility
where the state addressed the violations through an informal action
rather than an appropriate formal enforcement action.
Of the 22 cases evaluated, 19 of the facilities (86.4%) returned to
compliance as a result of enforcement. The three cases where
compliance has not been reached are the three RCRA post-
closure/corrective action facilities mentioned above. The proper
enforcement response and return to compliance was achieved at the
majority of the other facilities reviewed, which is considered a good
representation of the program.
The enforcement of the RCRA post closure/corrective action permits is
considered an Area for State Attention, and GEPD is encouraged to
utilize enforcement tools, where appropriate, to compel clean-up of
RCRA facilities.
The data metric that measures the timeliness of formal enforcement
showed that one of two enforcement actions (50%) met the ERP in
FY2013. The national goal is 80%. In discussions with GEPD, the state
explained that there was both a major reorganization and a Department
relocation in that fiscal year. This was reason for the slow enforcement
response as well as the low number of enforcement actions that fiscal
year (a drop from 15 enforcement actions in FY2012, where 100% were
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 29
-------
April 2015 Final
timely). By midyear FY2014, GEPD had already issued 12 enforcement
actions with 91.7% (11 of 12) meeting the ERP goal for timeliness. The
untimely enforcement in FY2013 seems to be an intermittent issue
related to events during that period, and is not an ongoing issue of
concern.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
9a Enforcement that returns violators to
100%
19
22
86.4%
compliance
10a Timely enforcement taken to address SNC
80%
77.3%
1
2
50%
10b Appropriate enforcement taken to address
violations
100%
18
22
81.8%
State Response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 30
-------
April 2015 Final
RCRA Element 5 Penalties
Finding 5-1 Area for State Improvement
Summary The GEPD RCRA program does not maintain any initial or final
penalty calculation, so the adequacy of economic benefit calculations
and penalty documentation could not be evaluated.
Explanation One of the objectives of the SRF is to ensure equitable treatment of
violators through national policy and guidance, including systematic
methods of penalty calculations. Without the availability of state
penalty calculations, EPA is unable to assess the quality of the state's
overall enforcement program. As provided in the 1993 EPA "Oversight
of State and Local Penalty Assessments: Revisions to the Policy
Framework for State EPA Enforcement Agreements" it is EPA policy
not to settle for less than the amount of the economic benefit of
noncompliance and a gravity portion of the penalty. Because GEPD
does not retain any penalty calculations from RCRA enforcement
actions, EPA was unable to make these determinations in any of the ten
enforcement cases.
This is a continuing issue from Rounds 1 and 2 of the SRF. GEPD has
indicated its intention to develop consistent methods for penalty
calculations. While this is an effort in the direction to resolve the issue,
it does not fulfill requirements of national EPA policy. This element
will remain an Area for State Improvement in SRF Round 3 until the
SRF recommendation below is fully implemented.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State State
N D % or #
11a Penalty calculations include gravity and
economic benefit
100%
0
10 0%
12a Documentation on difference between
initial and final penalty
100%
0
10 0%
State Response Georgia follows written enforcement procedures that include a
penalty rationale that clearly considers gravity and economic
benefit where it can be easily determined. Our Memorandum of
Agreement (MOU) with Region IV indicates in Section VI(A)(8)
that penalty calculations and/or penalty rationale will be
maintained, and, accordingly, Georgia maintains a penalty
rationale for all executed Orders. EPD acknowledges that the
documentation in the files may not completely reflect the process
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 31
-------
April 2015 Final
followed. We believe the improvements proposed by EPD
following the Round 3 process are consistent with the requirement
of the MOU, and will yield an agency-wide approach that clearly
documents the consistent application of our methods, and reasons
for any adjustment, as well as the final penalty.
Recommendation Within six months of the final date of this report GEPD should develop
and implement procedures to confirm the state's (1) appropriate
documentation of both gravity and economic benefit in penalty
calculations, and (2) appropriate documentation of the rationale for any
difference between the initial and final penalty. This documentation
should be made available for review by EPA.
For verification purposes, for one year following the implementation of
the procedures, EPA shall review all initial and final GEPD orders and
penalty calculations, including the calculations for the economic benefit
of noncompliance. If at the end of the time period the appropriate
improvement is observed, this recommendation will be considered
complete.
RCRA Element 5 Penalties
Finding 5-2 Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary There was documentation in the files that all final assessed penalties
were collected.
Explanation Metric 12b provides the percentage of enforcement files reviewed that
document the collection of a penalty. In 100% of the files reviewed,
there was memorandum verifying that GEPD had collected penalties
assessed in the ten final enforcement actions reviewed.
Relevant metrics
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State State
N D
State
% or #
12b Penalties collected
100%
10 10
100%
State Response
Recommendation
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 32
------- |