STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK
Alabama
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act & Resource Conservation &
Recovery Act Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2020
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Final Report
January 3, 2023
-------
I. Introduction
A. Overview of the State Review Framework
The State Review Framework (SRF) is a key mechanism for EPA oversight, providing a
nationally consistent process for reviewing the performance of state delegated compliance and
enforcement programs under three core federal statutes: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Through SRF, EPA periodically reviews such
programs using a standardized set of metrics to evaluate their performance against performance
standards laid out in federal statute, EPA regulations, policy, and guidance. When states do not
achieve standards, the EPA will work with them to improve performance.
Established in 2004, the review was developed jointly by EPA and Environmental Council of the
States (ECOS) in response to calls both inside and outside the agency for improved, more
consistent oversight of state delegated programs. The goals of the review that were agreed upon
at its formation remain relevant and unchanged today:
1. Ensure delegated and EPA-run programs meet federal policy and baseline performance
standards
2. Promote fair and consistent enforcement necessary to protect human health and the
environment
3. Promote equitable treatment and level interstate playing field for business
4. Provide transparency with publicly available data and reports
B. The Review Process
The review is conducted on a rolling five-year cycle such that all programs are reviewed
approximately once every five years. The EPA evaluates programs on a one-year period of
performance, typically the one-year prior to review, using a standard set of metrics to make
findings on performance in five areas (elements) around which the report is organized: data,
inspections, violations, enforcement, and penalties. Wherever program performance is found to
deviate significantly from federal policy or standards, the EPA will issue recommendations for
corrective action which are monitored by EPA until completed and program performance
improves.
The SRF is currently in its 4th Round (FY2018-2022) of reviews, preceded by Round 3
(FY2012-2017), Round 2 (2008-2011), and Round 1 (FY2004-2007). Additional information
and final reports can be found at the EPA website under State Review Framework.
II. Navigating the Report
The final report contains the results and relevant information from the review including EPA and
program contact information, metric values, performance findings and explanations, program
responses, and EPA recommendations for corrective action where any significant deficiencies in
performance were found.
2 I
-------
A. Metrics
There are two general types of metrics used to assess program performance. The first are data
metrics, which reflect verified inspection and enforcement data from the national data systems
of each media, or statute. The second, and generally more significant, are file metrics, which are
derived from the review of individual facility files to determine if the program is performing
their compliance and enforcement responsibilities adequately.
Other information considered by EPA to make performance findings in addition to the metrics
includes results from previous SRF reviews, data metrics from the years in-between reviews,
multi-year metric trends.
B. Performance Findings
The EPA makes findings on performance in five program areas:
• 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, accuracy of compliance determinations, and
determination of significant noncompliance (SNC) or high priority violators (HPV)
• Enforcement - timeliness and appropriateness of enforcement, returning facilities to
compliance
• Penalties - calculation including gravity and economic benefit components, assessment,
and collection
Though performance generally varies across a spectrum, for the purposes of conducting a
standardized review, SRF categorizes performance into three findings levels:
Meets or Exceeds: No issues are found. Base standards of performance are met or exceeded.
Area for Attention: Minor issues are found. One or more metrics indicates performance
issues related to quality, process, or policy. The implementing agency is considered able to
correct the issue without additional EPA oversight.
Area for Improvement: Significant issues are found. One or more metrics indicates routine
and/or widespread performance issues related to quality, process, or policy. A
recommendation for corrective action is issued which contains specific actions and schedule
for completion. The EPA monitors implementation until completion.
C. Recommendations for Corrective Action
Whenever the EPA makes a finding on performance of Area for Improvement, the EPA will
include a recommendation for corrective action, or recommendation, in the report. The purpose
of recommendations is to address significant performance issues and bring program performance
back in line with federal policy and standards. All recommendations should include specific
3
-------
actions and a schedule for completion, and their implementation is monitored by the EPA until
completion.
III. Review Process Information
Key Dates:
• November 2, 202: kick off letter sent to State
• March 21, 2022: remote file review for CAA
• March 14, 2022: remote file review for CWA
• April 4, 2022: remote file review for RCRA
State and EPA key contacts for review:
Alabama Department of
Environment Management
(ADEM)
EPA Region 4
SRF
Contact
Marilyn G. Elliott, Deputy
Director
Reginald Barrino, SRF Coordinator
CAA
LisaB. Cole, Chief
Natural Resources Section
Chemical Branch
Denis Kler, Policy, Oversight & Liaison
Office
Stephen Rieck, Air Enforcement Branch
CWA
Christy Monk, Chief
Office of Water Services
Andrea Zimmer, Policy, Oversight &
Liaison Office
Laurie Jones, Water Enforcement Branch
RCRA
Lynn T. Roper, Chief
Office of Land Services
Reginald Barrino, Policy, Oversight &
Liaison Office
Brooke York, Chemical Safety & Land
Enforcement Branch
4
-------
Executive Summary
Areas of Strong Performance
The following are aspects of the program that, according to the review, are being implemented at
a high level:
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) met the negotiated frequency for
inspection of Title V sources and SM-80 sources, completed the review of the Title V Annual
Compliance Certifications, provided the necessary documentation for Full Compliance
Evaluations (FCEs), and provided the necessary documentation for the Compliance Monitoring
Reports (CMRs).
ADEM met the timely reporting of high priority violations (HPVs), the timely reporting of
compliance monitoring activity minimum data requirements (MDRs), the timely reporting of
stack tests and stack test results, and the timely reporting of enforcement MDRs into ICIS-Air.
ADEM made timely HPV identification, made accurate compliance determinations, and made
accurate HPV determination.
ADEM had formal enforcement actions that required corrective action that would return the
facility to compliance or compliance was achieved prior to the issuance of an order, addressed
HPVs in a timely manner, and took appropriate enforcement actions for HPVs.
ADEM provided penalty calculation worksheets that addressed both gravity and economic
benefit components, provided rationale for the difference between the initial penalty calculation
and the final penalty amount, and provided documentation that the penalties were collected.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
ADEM exceeded the National Goals for the entry of key data into the national database for
NPDES major and non-major facilities.
The accuracy of data between files reviewed and data reflected in the national data system meets
expectations.
ADEM met or exceeded its FY20 CMS Plan and CWA §106 Workplan commitments.
ADEM's NPDES inspection reports were complete, provided sufficient documentation to
determine compliance at the facility and were timely.
5 I
-------
ADEM consistently documented accurate compliance determinations.
ADEM takes Enforcement Responses (ERs) which promote a Return to Compliance (RTC).
ADEM consistently documents adequate rationale for the economic benefit component in
penalty calculations as well as documenting the rationale for difference between the initial and
final assessed penalty in NPDES penalty calculations. The State also includes documentation in
the files that all final assessed penalties were collected.
ADEM consistently documents adequate rationale for the economic benefit component in
penalty calculations as well as documenting the rationale for difference between the initial and
final assessed penalty in NPDES penalty calculations. The State also includes documentation in
the files that all final assessed penalties were collected.
ADEM exceeded the national goals for the entry of key data into the national database for
NPDES major and non-major facilities
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
ADEM's RCRA Minimum Data Requirements for compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities were complete in RCRA Info.
ADEM met national goals for both TSDF and LQG inspections.
ADEM's hazardous waste program inspection reports reviewed were complete, provided
appropriate documentation to determine compliance at the facility and the timeliness of
inspection report completion was well under the 150-day timeline outlined the Hazardous Waste
Civil Enforcement Response Policy (ERP).
ADEM made accurate hazardous waste compliance determinations. In addition, significant
noncompliance (SNC) determinations were timely and appropriate.
ADEM consistently issues enforcement responses that have returned or will return a facility in
significant noncompliance (SNC) or secondary violation (SV) to compliance.
ADEM's RCRA Minimum Data Requirements for compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities were complete in RCRA Info.
ADEM consistently considered gravity and economic benefit when calculating penalties and
included documentation in files documenting collection of final assessed penalties.
6
-------
Priority Issues to Address
The following are aspects of the program that, according to the review, are not meeting federal
standards and should be prioritized for management attention:
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Discrepancies were identified between the data in the facility files and the data that was entered
into ICIS-Air.
7
-------
Clean Air Act Findings
CAA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) met the timely reporting of high
priority violations (HPVs), the timely reporting of compliance monitoring activity minimum data
requirements (MDRs), the timely reporting of stack tests and stack test results, and the timely
reporting of enforcement MDRs into ICIS-Air.
Explanation:
Data metrics 3a2 (87.5%), 3b 1 (98.6%), 3b2 {91.0%) and 3b3 (100%) indicated that ADEM was
timely in reporting HPVs, timely in reporting the compliance monitoring MDRs, timely in
reporting the stack tests and stack test results, and timely in reporting the enforcement MDRs into
ICIS-Air.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
Total
3a2 Timely reporting of HPV determinations
[GOAL]
100%
40.6%
7
8
87.5%
3b 1 Timely reporting of compliance
monitoring MDRs [GOAL]
100%
74.3%
795
806
98.6%
3b2 Timely reporting of stack test dates and
results [GOAL]
100%
59.4%
559
576
97%
3b3 Timely reporting of enforcement MDRs
[GOAL]
100%
76.6%
42
42
100%
State Response:
8
-------
CAA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-2
Area for Improvement
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
Discrepancies were identified between the data in the facility files and the data that was entered
into ICIS-Air.
Explanation:
File review metric 2b indicated that only 68.8% of the files reviewed reflected accurate entry of
all MDRs into ICIS-Air. Ten files contained discrepancies between the information in the file and
the data that was entered into ICIS-Air. The discrepancies consisted of federal regulation subparts
not listed in ICIS, stack tests not listed in ICIS, and incorrect dates entered in ICIS for enforcement
activities and for federally reportable violations. Incorrect data has the potential to hinder the
EPA's oversight and targeting efforts and may result in inaccurate information being released to
the public.
Relevant metrics:
.. , . , , „ . Natl Natl State State State
Metric ID Number and Description „ , ... _ ,,, „ ,
1 Goal Avg N D Total
2b Files reviewed where data are accurately , „„n/ __ ™
n j • .1 1 j , r/-^r\». n 100% 22 32 68.8%
reflected in the national data system [GOAL]
State Response:
In reviewing Metric 2b, 33 facilities with multiple minimum data requirements (MDRs) were
examined. Only one incorrect MDR data point failed the entire facility. Using a percentage of
correct to incorrect MDRs as the metric instead of an all-or-nothing approach, the data accuracy
for the Air program would have been 97%. Additionally, most discrepancies between the
information in the document file and the data entered in ICIS-air were deviations of one day in the
received date of the required MDR.
-------
In the future, such inconsistencies should not recur. ADEM is in the process of implementing the
Alabama Environmental Permitting and Compliance System (AEPACS). Phase 3 of this
implementation, which will bring the Air Division into the system, has recently been initiated. This
system will allow electronic submittals of information from our regulated community and record
the transactional data that is considered an MDR. It will also electronically manage our compliance
and enforcement events, similarly, recording the required information. There will be very little
staff-entered information. This data will then be uploaded to ICIS in a timely manner. Until such
time as this system is fully implemented, staff have been retrained on the information they are
required to enter into our current data system. Based on these efforts and commitments, no further
action on this issue is necessary, including a February update from ADEM and further EPA follow-
ups.
Recommendation:
Uec
#
Due Dale
09/30/2023
Recommendation
File metric 2b: By February 1, 2023, ADEM will provide to the EPA a
written description of the root causes for the inaccurate data entry, and
a written description of what measures and/or procedures have been
implemented to ensure accurate entry of data into ICIS-Air. By
September 30, 2023, the EPA will review a random selection of facility
files and evaluate file metric 2b to ensure data entry has improved.
Once file metric 2b indicates a 71.0% or greater of data entry accuracy,
then this recommendation will be considered complete.
CAA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM met the negotiated frequency for inspection of Title V sources and SM-80 sources,
completed the reviews of the Title V Annual Compliance Certifications, provided the necessary
documentation for Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs), and provided the necessary
documentation for the Compliance Monitoring Reports (CMRs).
Explanation:
10 I
-------
Data metrics 5a (100%) and 5b (100%) indicated that ADEM provided adequate inspection
coverage for Title V sources and SM-80 sources during the FY 2020 review year by ensuring that
each Title V source was inspected at least once every 2 years, and each SM-80 source was
inspected at least once every 5 years. In addition, data metric 5e (98.3%) indicated that ADEM
completed the reviews of the Title V annual compliance certifications.
File review metrics 6a (100%) and 6b (100%) indicated that ADEM provided adequate
documentation of the FCE elements identified in the CAA Stationary Source Compliance
Monitoring Strategy (CMS Guidance) and provided adequate documentation in the CMRs to
determine the compliance of the facility.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl Natl State State State
Goal Avg N D Total
5a FCE coverage: majors and mega-sites
[GOAL]
100%
85.7%
272
272
100%
5b FCE coverage: SM-80s [GOAL]
100%
93.6%
207
207
100%
5e Reviews of Title V annual compliance
certifications completed [GOAL]
100%
82.8%
287
292
98.3%
6a Documentation of FCE elements [GOAL]
100%
31
31
100%
6b Compliance monitoring reports (CMRs) or
facility files reviewed that provide sufficient
documentation to determine compliance of the
facility [GOAL]
100%
31
31
100%
State Response:
CAA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
11 I
-------
No
Summary:
ADEM made timely HPV identification, accurate compliance determinations, and accurate HPV
determinations.
Explanation:
Data metric 13 (100%) indicated that ADEM was timely in identifying HPVs. File review metrics
7a (100%) and 8c (100%) indicated that based on the information contained in the files, ADEM
made accurate compliance determinations, and accurate HPV determinations.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
Total
7a Accurate compliance determinations
[GOAL]
100%
32
32
100% 1
8c Accuracy of HPV determinations [GOAL]
100%
23
23
100% I
13 Timeliness of HPV Identification [GOAL]
100%
83.8%
7
7
100% I
!
State Response:
CAA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM issued formal enforcement actions that returned facilities to compliance, addressed HPVs
in a timely manner, and appropriately addressed HPVs consistent with the HPV Policy.
Explanation:
12
-------
File review metrics 9a (100%), 10a (91.7%), and 10b (100%) indicated that ADEM returned
facilities to compliance, addressed HPVs in a timely manner, and appropriately addressed HPVs
consistent with the HPV policy.
File review metric 14 (0%) indicated that ADEM had one enforcement case that took more than
180-days to resolve, and the file did not contain a case development and resolution timeline
(CDRT).
For file review metrics 10a and 14, one enforcement case exceeded the 180-day timeframe to
address the HPV, and the file did not contain a case development and resolution timeline (CDRT).
An administrative order was executed on 1/8/2020, resulting in approximately 322 days to address
the HPV.
ADEM and EPA enforcement personnel indicated that the HPV was discussed during routine
enforcement conference calls and due to extenuating circumstances regarding planned
enforcement proceedings, a CDRT was not developed. As noted above, file review metric 10a
indicated that 91.7% of HPVs identified by ADEM were resolved within the 180-day time frame,
confirming that ADEM is identifying violations and returning facilities to compliance consistent
with the intent of the HPV policy. As a result, the EPA is recommending that metric 14 be
identified as Meets or Exceeds Expectations and not an Area for Improvement as indicated by the
metric value of 0%.
Relevant metrics:
-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
Total
9a Formal enforcement responses that include
required corrective action that will return the
facility to compliance in a specified time frame,
or the facility fixed the problem without a
compliance schedule [GOAL]
100%
22
22
100%
10a Timeliness of addressing HPVs or
alternatively having a case development and
resolution timeline in place
100%
11
12
91.7%
10b Percent of HPVs that have been addressed
or removed consistent with the HPV Policy
[GOAL]
100%
12
12
100%
14 HPV case development and resolution
timeline in place when required that contains
required policy elements [GOAL]
100%
0
1
0%
State Response:
CAA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM provided penalty calculation worksheets that addressed both gravity and economic benefit
components, provided rationale for the difference between the initial penalty calculation and the
final penalty amount, and provided documentation that the penalties were collected.
Explanation:
File review metric 11a (100%) indicated that ADEM considered gravity and economic benefit
components in all penalty calculations. ADEM's penalty calculation methodology involves the use
of a six-factor assessment which includes gravity and economic benefit factors, to determine final
penalty amounts.
14 I
-------
File review metrics 12a (100%) and 12b (100%) provided rationale for differences between the
initial penalty calculated and the final assessed penalty and documented that the penalties were
collected.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
i Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
Total
1 la Penalty calculations reviewed that document
gravity and economic benefit [GOAL]
| 100%
| 15
15
100%
12a Documentation of rationale for difference
between initial penalty calculation and final
100%
15
15
100%
penalty [GOAL]
12b Penalties collected [GOAL]
loo0,,
15
15
100%
State Response:
15
-------
Clean Water Act Findings
CWA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM exceeded the national goals for the entry of key data into the national database for NPDES
major and non-major facilities
Explanation:
For the FY 2020 period of review, ADEM entered 99.9% of their permit limits and 99.7% of
DMRs for NPDES major and non-major facilities (Data Metrics lb5 and lb6).
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
lb5 Completeness of data entry on major and
non-major permit limits. [GOAL]
Natl
Goal
95%
Natl
Avg
95.2%
State
N
1242
State
D
1243
State
T otal
99.9% |
|
lb6 Completeness of data entry on major and
non-major discharge monitoring reports.
[GOAL]
95%
92.7%
43141
43290
99.7% |
State Response:
16
-------
CWA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
The accuracy of data between files reviewed and data reflected in the national data system meets
expectations.
Explanation:
Metric 2b indicated that 86.4% (38/44) of the files reviewed reflected accurate data entry of
minimum data requirements (MDR) for NPDES facilities into the Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS). Accuracy of data was an Area for Improvement in Round 3. ADEM
is commended for its substantial progress.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl Natl State State State
Goal ; Avg N D Total
2b Files reviewed where data are accurately
reflected in the national data system [GOAL]
100%
38
44 86.4%
State Response:
CWA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
17
-------
Summary:
ADEM met or exceeded its FY20 CMS Plan and CWA §106 Workplan commitments.
Explanation:
Element 2 includes metrics that measure planned inspections completed (Metrics 4al - 4al0) and
inspection coverages (Metrics 5al, 5b 1, and 5b2) forNPDES majors and non-majors. The National
Goal for these Metrics is for 100% of state specific CMS Plan commitments to be met. The FY20
inspection results listed in the table below are from the CWA §106 Workplan end of year report
(EOY). Based on review of the ADEM CWA §106 Workplan EOY, the State exceeded its CMS
commitments in FY20 for industrial stormwater inspections (Metric 4a8), construction stormwater
inspections (Metric 4a9), and CAFOs (Metric 4al0). The State met its CMS inspection
commitments in FY20 for all other inspection metrics. The State met its commitment for inspection
coverage and exceeded the national averages for major permitted facilities (Metric 5a), non-major
facilities with individual permits (Metric 5b 1), and non-major facilities with general permits
(Metric 5b2).
Relevant metrics:
18
-------
Metric ID Number and
Description
Natl Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
Total
4a2 Number of inspections at EPA
or state Significant Industrial Users
that are discharging to non-
authorized POTWs. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments'^
301
301
100%
4a5 Number of SSO inspections.
[GOAL]
100% of
commitments%
24
24
100%
4a7 Number of Phase I and IIMS4
audits or inspections. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments%
16
16
100%
4a8 Number of industrial
stormwater inspections. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments%
389
277
mm™™™™™™
140.4%
4a9 Number of Phase I and Phase
II construction stormwater
inspections. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments%
1404
398
352.8%
4al0 Number of comprehensive
inspections of large and medium
concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs) [GOAL]
100% of
commitments%
40
30
133.3%
5al Inspection coverage of NPDES
majors. [GOAL]
100%
45.4%
177
177
100%
5b 1 Inspection coverage of NPDES
non-majors with individual permits
[GOAL]
100%
23.6%
569
1457
39.1%
5b2 Inspection coverage of NPDES
non-majors with general permits
[GOAL]
100%
5.6%
1850
9893
18.7%
State Response:
19
-------
CWA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM's NPDES inspection reports were complete, provided sufficient documentation to
determine compliance at the facility and were timely.
Explanation:
Metric 6a measures the percentage of on-site inspection reports reviewed that are complete and
provide sufficient documentation to determine compliance. All forty-seven (47) onsite inspection
reports reviewed were complete and provided sufficient documentation to determine compliance.
Metric 6b measures the percentage of inspection reports reviewed that are completed in a timely
manner. ADEM's inspection timeframes are established by the Department's Quality Information
Reporting Document: "Inspection reports are generally finalized within two weeks of the
inspection, if no sampling analyses are required, or within 45 days of obtaining sampling analyses,
but in no case more than 90 days after the inspection date." Metric 6b indicated 95.7% (45 of 47)
of ADEM's inspection reports reviewed were completed in a timely manner. The average number
of days to complete inspection reports was 32 days. Inspection report completion and adequate
documentation of compliance were Areas for Improvement in Round 3. ADEM is commended for
its substantial progress for these metrics.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
Total
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to
determine compliance at the facility. [GOAL]
100%
47
47
100%
6b Timeliness of inspection report completion
[GOAL]
100%
45
47
95.7%
State Response:
20
-------
CWA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM consistently documented accurate compliance determinations.
Explanation:
Metric 7e measures whether accurate compliance determinations were made based on a file review
of inspections reports and other compliance monitoring activity. The file review indicated that
100% (47 of 47) of the files reviewed consistently documented an accurate compliance
determination. Each of the files reviewed had accurate and complete descriptions of the violations
observed and adequate documentation to support ADEM's compliance determinations.
Review indicator Metric 7j 1 measures the number of major and non-major facilities with single-
event violations (SEVs) reported in the review year. Review indicator Metrics 7kl and 8a3
measure facilities in noncompliance.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
Total
7e Accuracy of compliance determinations
[GOAL]
100%
47
47
100%
7j 1 Number of major and non-major facilities
with single-event violations reported in the
review year.
48
48
7kl Major and non-major facilities in
noncompliance.
17.9%
1434
11238
12.8%
8a3 Percentage of major facilities in SNC and
non-major facilities Category I
noncompliance during the reporting year.
7.4%
866
11237
7.7%
21
-------
State Response:
CWA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM takes Enforcement Responses (ERs) which promote a Return to Compliance (RTC).
Explanation:
Metric 9a indicated that 91.7 % (33 of 36) ERs reviewed returned or were expected to return a
facility to compliance. Review Metric lOal indicated that 0% (0 of 4) major facilities in SNC
during FY20 received a timely formal ER. EPA's review of the four facilities indicated that one
of the facilities is under a Settlement Agreement; two of the facilities were issued informal ERs in
FY20 and the state provided compliance assistance at the fourth facility, all resulting in a return to
compliance.
Metric 10b indicated that 100% (36 of 36) of the ERs reviewed addressed violations in an
appropriate manner.
Relevant metrics:
22
-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
Total
9a Percentage of enforcement responses that
returned, or will return, a source in violation to
compliance [GOAL]
100%
33
36
91.7%
lOal Percentage of major NPDES facilities
with formal enforcement action taken in a
timely manner in response to SNC violations
17.2%
0
4
0%
10b Enforcement responses reviewed that
address violations in an appropriate manner
[GOAL]
100%
36
36
100%
State Response:
CWA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM consistently documents adequate rationale for the economic benefit component in
penalty calculations as well as documenting the rationale for difference between the initial and
final assessed penalty in NPDES penalty calculations. The State also includes documentation in
the files that all final assessed penalties were collected.
Explanation:
Metric 11a measures the percentage of penalty calculations reviewed that document, where
appropriate, gravity and economic benefit. Metric 11a indicated that 100% (12 of 12) of the files
reviewed contained either economic benefit (EB) calculations or documentation that it was
considered, with an adequate rationale for not including EB.
Metric 12a measures the percentage of penalties reviewed that document the rationale for the
final penalty assessed when it is lower than the initial calculated value. Metric 12a indicated that
nine of nine (100%) files reviewed included adequate documentation of differences between the
initial penalty calculation and the final assessed penalty.
23
-------
Metric 12b measures the percentage of enforcement files reviewed that document the collection
of the assessed penalty. Metric 12b indicated that nine of nine (100%) files reviewed included
adequate documentation of penalty payment collection by ADEM.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
Total
1 la Penalty calculations reviewed that document
and include gravity and economic benefit
[GOAL]
100%
12
12
100%
12a Documentation of rationale for difference
between initial penalty calculation and final
penalty [GOAL]
100%
9
9
100%
12b Penalties collected [GOAL]
100%
9
9
100%
State Response:
24
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Findings
RCRA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM's RCRA Minimum Data Requirements for compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities were complete in RCRA Info.
Explanation:
Metric 2b measures the data accuracy and completeness in RCRA Info with information in the
facility files. Thirty files were selected and reviewed to determine completeness of the minimum
data requirements. The data was found to be accurate in 27 of the 30 files (90%).
Relevant metrics:
... , . Ir. u j rv -x- Natl Natl State State State
Metric II) Number and Description , .. _ ... , ,
1 Goal Avg N I) Total
: 2b Accurate entry of mandatory data [GOAL] 100% 27 30 90%
State Response:
ADEM concurs with EPA's findings. Program staff will continue to focus on the importance of
complete and accurate mandatory data.
RCRA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
25 I I
-------
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM met national goals for both TSDF and LQG inspections.
Explanation:
Metric 5a and 5b 1 measure the percentage of the treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF)
and the percentage of large quantity generator (LQG) universes that had a Compliance Evaluation
Inspection (CEI) during the two-year and one-year periods of review, respectively. ADEM met the
national goal for two-year inspection coverage of TSDFs and the national goal for annual
inspection coverage of LQGs.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl Natl State State State
Goal Avg N D Total
5a Two-year inspection coverage of operating
TSDFs [GOAL]
100%
84%
10
10 100%
5b 1 Annual inspection coverage of LQGs using
RCRAInfo universe [GOAL]
20%
6.8%
71
248 28.6%
State Response:
RCRA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
26 |
-------
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM's hazardous waste program inspection reports reviewed were complete, provided
appropriate documentation to determine compliance at the facility and the timeliness of inspection
report completion was well under the 150-day timeline outlined the Hazardous Waste Civil
Enforcement Response Policy (ERP).
Explanation:
Metric 6a measures the percentage of on-site inspection reports reviewed that are complete and
provide sufficient documentation to determine compliance. All thirty (30) onsite inspection reports
reviewed were complete and provided sufficient documentation to determine compliance. Metric
6b measures the percentage of inspection reports reviewed that are completed in a timely manner
per the national standard. Metric 6b indicated 100% of ADEM's onsite inspection reports reviewed
were completed in a timely manner per the national standard.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl Natl State State State
Goal Avg N D < Total
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to
determine compliance [GOAL]
State Response:
RCRA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-1
27 I
-------
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM made accurate hazardous waste compliance determinations. In addition, significant
noncompliance (SNC) determinations were timely and appropriate.
Explanation:
Metric 7a measures 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 100% of the files reviewed had accurate compliance determinations. Each of
the files reviewed had accurate and complete descriptions of the violations observed during the
inspection and had adequate documentation to support ADEM's compliance determinations.
Metric 8b measures the percentage of SNC determinations made within 150 days of the first day
of inspection (Day Zero). The data metric analysis (DMA) indicated that 100% of SNC
determinations were made with within 150 days.
Metric 8c measures the percentage of files reviewed in which significant noncompliance (SNC)
status was appropriately determined during the review period. The file review indicated that 100%
of the files reviewed had appropriate SNC determinations.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
Total
7a Accurate compliance determinations
[GOAL]
100%
30
30
100%
8b Timeliness of SNC determinations [GOAL]
100%
82.7%
14
14
100%
8c Appropriate SNC determinations [GOAL]
100%
27
27
100%
State Response:
RCRA Element 4 - Enforcement
28
-------
Finding 4-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM consistently issues enforcement responses that have returned or will return a facility in
significant noncompliance (SNC) or secondary violation (SV) to compliance.
Explanation:
Metric 9a measures the percentage of enforcement responses that have returned or will return sites
in SNC or SV to compliance. A total of twenty-seven (27) files were reviewed that included
informal or formal enforcement actions. 96.3% of the enforcement responses returned the facilities
to compliance with the hazardous waste requirements.
Metric 10a measures the percentage of SNC violations addressed with a formal action or referral
during the year reviewed and within 360 days of Day Zero. The data metric analysis (DMA)
indicated that 100% of the FY 2020 enforcement actions met the Hazardous Waste Enforcement
Response Policy (ERP) timeline of 360 days.
Metric 10b measures the percentage of files with enforcement responses that are appropriate to the
violations. A total of twenty-seven (27) files were reviewed with concluded enforcement
responses. 100% of the files reviewed contained enforcement responses that were appropriate to
the violations.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
Total
9a Enforcement that returns sites to
100%
26
27
96.3%
compliance [GOAL]
10a Timely enforcement taken to address SNC
[GOAL]
80%
80.9%
16
16
100%
10b Appropriate enforcement taken to address
violations [GOAL]
100%
27
27
100%
State Response:
29
-------
RCRA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Recurring Issue:
No
Summary:
ADEM consistently considered gravity and economic benefit when calculating penalties and
included documentation in files documenting collection of final assessed penalties.
Explanation:
Metric 11a measures the percentage of penalty calculations reviewed that document, where
appropriate, gravity and economic benefit. Metric 11a indicated that ADEM considered gravity
and economic benefit in 100% of the penalty calculations reviewed. ADEM's penalty calculation
methodology involves the use of a six-factor assessment which includes gravity and economic
benefit factors to determine final penalty amounts.
Metric 12a measures the percentage of penalties reviewed that document the rationale for the final
value assessed when it is lower than the initial calculated value. For all of ADEM's penalties, the
final assessed value was equal to the initial value calculated and therefore, Metric 12a does not
apply and could not be evaluated.
Metric 12b measures the percentage of enforcement files reviewed that document the collection of
a penalty. There was documentation verifying that TDEC had collected penalties assessed in
90.5% of the final enforcement actions reviewed.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
T otal
1 la Gravity and economic benefit [GOAL]
100%
21
21
100% j
i
12a Documentation of rationale for difference
between initial penalty calculation and final
penalty [GOAL]
100%
0
0
r ]
0
12b Penalty collection [GOAL]
100%
19
21
90.5%
30
-------
State Response:
31
------- |