STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK
Georgia
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, &
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act
Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2017
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Final Report
September 26, 2019
-------
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 of reviews (FY2018-2022), 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.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 2
-------
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 in order to determine if the program is
performing their compliance and enforcement responsibilities adequately. In general, each metric
is the ratio of the numerator (N) divided by the denominator (D), shown as a percentage in the
"relevant metrics" tables below.
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
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 3
-------
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
actions and a schedule for completion, and their implementation is monitored by the EPA until
completion.
III. Review Process Information
Key Dates:
• June 13, 2018: kick off letter sent to state
• August 13-17, 2018, on-site file review for CAA & CWA
• August 20-22, 2018, on-site file review for RCRA
State and EPA key contacts for review:
Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (EPD)
EPA Region 4
SRF
Coordinator
Chuck Mueller, Director
Cross Media Programs
William Bush, OEC SRF Coordinator
CAA
Karen Hays, Chief
Air Protection Branch
Mark Fite, OEC Technical Authority
Kevin Taylor & Jacob Carpenter, Air
Enforcement & Toxics Branch
CWA
Lewis Hays, Program Manager,
Watershed Compliance Program
Watershed Protection Branch
Laurie Ireland, OEC Technical Authority
Humberto Guzman & Ahmad Dromgoole,
NPDES Permitting & Enforcement Branch
RCRA
Jane Hendricks, Program
Manager, Hazardous Waste
Management Program
Reggie Barrino, OEC Technical Authority
David Champagne, RCRA Hazardous
Waste Enforcement and Compliance Branch
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 4
-------
Executive Summary
Introduction
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)
EPD 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).
Enforcement actions bring sources back into compliance within a specified timeframe, and HPVs
are addressed in a timely and appropriate manner.
Appropriate documentation was evident to demonstrate the following: consideration of gravity
and economic benefit in initial penalty calculations; the rationale for differences between the
initial and final penalty; and the collection of penalties.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
EPD met most of its FY2017 CMS Plan and CWA §106 Workplan inspection commitments.
The state consistently documented the collection of penalties.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
EPD's RCRA 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). Building off progress from previous SRF reviews, EPA
observed significant improvements in the level of detail included in the inspection reports.
EPD made accurate RCRA compliance determinations. In addition, significant noncompliance
(SNC) determinations were timely and appropriate.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 5
-------
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)
None.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The accuracy of data between files reviewed and data reflected in the national data system needs
improvement.
EPD inspection reports were not consistently completed in a timely manner.
The CWA program does not maintain any penalty calculations, so the adequacy of gravity and
economic benefit calculations and penalty documentation could not be evaluated.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
The RCRA program does not maintain any penalty calculations, so the adequacy of gravity and
economic benefit calculations and penalty documentation could not be evaluated.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 6
-------
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 ICIS-Air.
Explanation:
File Review Metric 2b indicated that 88.6% (31 of 35) of the files reviewed reflected accurate
entry of all MDRs into ICIS-Air. Metrics 3a2, 3b 1, 3b2 and 3b3 indicated that EPD entered MDR
data into ICIS-Air within the specified timeframe.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
2b Files reviewed where data are accurately
reflected in the national data system [GOAL]
100%
-
31
35
88.57%
3a2 Timely reporting of HPV determinations
[GOAL]
100%
40.5%
12
12
100%
3b 1 Timely reporting of compliance
monitoring MDRs [GOAL]
100%
82.3%
795
815
97.55%
3b2 Timely reporting of stack test dates and
results [GOAL]
100%
67.1%
1159
1342
86.36%
3b3 Timely reporting of enforcement MDRs
[GOAL]
100%
77.6%
105
106
99.06%
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 7
-------
CAA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
EPD 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 EPD provided adequate inspection coverage for major and SM-
80 sources during FY2017 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 EPD 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 facility
files reviewed.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
5a FCE coverage: majors and mega-sites
[GOAL]
100%
88.7%
225
225
100%
5b FCE coverage: SM-80s [GOAL]
100%
93.7%
212
212
100%
5e Reviews of Title V annual compliance
certifications completed [GOAL]
100%
76.7%
328
331
99.09%
6a Documentation of FCE elements [GOAL]
100%
-
22
23
95.65%
6b Compliance monitoring reports (CMRs)
or facility files reviewed that provide
sufficient documentation to determine
compliance of the facility [GOAL]
100%
-
22
23
95.65%
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 8
-------
CAA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-1
Area for Attention
Summary:
EPD made accurate compliance determinations for both HPV and non-HPV violations. Although
a few HPVs determinations were not entered timely into ICIS-Air, these late entries were related
to inaccurate reporting of the discovery date, which EPD has self-corrected.
Explanation:
Metric 7a indicated that EPD made accurate compliance determinations in 36 of 37 files reviewed
(97.3%). Metric 8c confirmed that EPD's HPV determinations were accurate for all 22 files
reviewed (100%). Metric 13 indicated that 7 of 12 HPV determinations (58.3%) were timely (made
within 90 days of the discovery action). The 5 HPVs that were untimely were associated with a
single source with a day zero just two weeks beyond 90 days. The state advises that this was due
to the wrong discovery date being reported into ICIS-Air. EPD has modified its data entry SOP to
address this issue, so the problem has been self-corrected. Finally, EPA selected supplemental files
to further evaluate the state's FRV and HPV discovery rates (reflected in indicator metrics 7al and
8a). The file review confirmed that the state was making accurate violation determinations.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
13 Timeliness of HPV Identification [GOAL]
100%
87.7%
7
12
58.33%
7a Accurate compliance determinations
[GOAL]
100%
-
36
37
97.3%
7al FRV "discovery rate" based on
inspections at active CMS sources
-
6.2%
64
1081
5.92%
8a HPV discovery rate at majors
-
2.3%
6
374
1.6%
8c Accuracy of HPV determinations [GOAL]
100%
-
22
22
100%
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 9
-------
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 (100%) 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 100% of the HPVs were addressed within 180
days. Metric 14 indicated that since all HPVs were addressed within the 180-day target timeframe,
no case development and resolution timelines were developed or needed in FY2017. Metric 10b
indicated that appropriate enforcement action was taken to address all HPVs (100%) evaluated
during the file review.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
10a Timeliness of addressing HPVs or
alternatively having a case development and
resolution timeline in place [GOAL]
100%
-
10
10
100%
10b Percent of HPVs that have been have been
addressed or removed consistent with the HPV
Policy [GOAL]
100%
-
10
10
100%
14 HPV case development and resolution
timeline in place when required that contains
required policy elements [GOAL]
100%
-
0
0
-
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%
-
21
21
100%
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 10
-------
CAA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
Appropriate documentation was evident to demonstrate the following: consideration of gravity and
economic benefit in initial penalty calculations; the rationale for differences between the initial
and final penalty; and the collection of penalties.
Explanation:
Metric 11a indicates that 19 of the 20 penalty actions reviewed (95%) provided adequate
documentation of the state's consideration of gravity and economic benefit. Metric 12a indicated
that 19 of 20 penalty calculations reviewed (95%) documented the rationale for any difference
between the initial and final penalty. Finally, Metric 12b confirmed that documentation of all
penalty payments made by sources was included in the file (100%).
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
1 la Penalty calculations reviewed that document
gravity and economic benefit [GOAL]
100%
-
19
20
95%
12a Documentation of rationale for difference
between initial penalty calculation and final
penalty [GOAL]
100%
-
19
20
95%
12b Penalties collected [GOAL]
100%
-
20
20
100%
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 11
-------
Clean Water Act Findings
CWA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
EPD met or exceeded National Goals for the entry of key data metrics for major and non-major
facilities.
Explanation:
EPD met or exceeded National Goals for the entry of key Data Metrics (lb5 and lb6) for major
and non-major facilities. For the FY2017 period of review, EPD entered 100% of their permit
limits and 93.7% ofDMRs forNPDES major and non-major facilities. NPDES non-major facilities
includes both NPDES minor individual and general permittees.
FY2017 was the first year DMR data entry for non-major facilities was required by the NPDES
electronic reporting rule (NPDES e-Rule). EPD exceeded the national average of 90.6% for Metric
lb6 in FY2017 and exceeded the National Goal for Metric lb6 in FY18. Because of these factors,
the minor deviation observed for Metric lb6 in FY2017 is not significant.
EPA commends EPD on the increased data entry of Single Event Violation (SEV) entry rates since
SRF Round 3.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
lb5 Completeness of data entry on major and
non-major permit limits. [GOAL]
95%
88.1%
672
672
100%
lb6 Completeness of data entry on major and
non-major discharge monitoring reports.
[GOAL]
95%
90.6%
14641
15630
93.7%
7j 1 Number of major and non-major facilities
with single-event violations reported in the
review year
-
-
204
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 12
-------
Finding 1-2
Area for Improvement
Summary:
The accuracy of data between files reviewed and data reflected in the national data system needs
improvement.
Explanation:
Metric 2b indicated that 40.5% (17/42) of the files reviewed reflected accurate data entry of
minimum data requirements (MDR) for NPDES facilities into the Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS). Discrepancies observed between ICIS and the State's files were related
to duplicate entries of inspections and enforcement actions; missing enforcement actions, penalty
amounts, or inspections; and inaccurate dates or penalty amounts. EPD promptly corrected these
discrepancies once brought to the state's attention.
Discrepancies were also observed between the permit universes and the number of inspections
entered into ICIS versus the permit universes and the number of Compliance Monitoring Strategy
(CMS) inspections conducted as reported via the CWA § 106 Grant Workplan. Accurate data entry
of permit universes and inspections into ICIS is required by the NPDES e-Rule and the NPDES
Enforcement Management System (EMS).
Data Accuracy was raised in Round 3 as an Area for State Improvement. While substantial work
has been done by GA to improve the state database for NPDES e-Rule implementation, additional
work to ensure data accuracy is needed to meet the SRF national goal. Therefore, this remains an
Area for State Improvement in SRF Round 4.
State Response:
GA EPD agrees with the recommendation to reassess practices and procedures to ensure accurate
and complete data entry into ICIS.
This SRF audit looked at data from 2017, the first full year of the Electronic Reporting Rule. As
noted in the Explanation above, during the audit, GA EPD identified issues with data flow
processes that were causing duplicate, inaccurate and/or missing entries of inspections,
enforcement actions, penalty amounts, and permitted facilities. A significant data cleanup was
initiated during 2017, addressing major/minor facility mismatches, permit terminations and flow
errors, and GA EPD continues to address flow and data issues as new permits, facilities,
inspections, and enforcement actions are added. For example, the expired Construction General
Permits for stormwater (CGP) are listed as "administratively continued" in ICIS, instead of
"expired," greatly overinflating the universe of construction stormwater permittees. GA EPD is
currently working to address this issue.
Starting in 2017, the GA EPD Watershed Data Management Unit manager leads an annual
internal data audit effort: the manager pulls permit universe, inspection, enforcement, violation,
and penalty data prior to each annual ICIS data freeze and shares the information with
appropriate Watershed Protection Branch and District Office staff for review. In FY20, GA EPD
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 13
-------
will conduct the ICIS data pull 30 days after the end of the Federal Fiscal Year to allow
additional time to address any discrepancies between the data available in ICIS and the data
available in the State database (GAPDES). In addition to verifying the data, GA EPD will
identify common issues, if any, and update relevant GAPDES data entry procedures to address
these common issues.
Additionally, GA EPD seeks to minimize inconsistencies between ICIS and the CMS. As GA
EPD implements online applications and NOIs, permit universe numbers will be more accurate,
particularly for large and dynamic universes such as construction and industrial stormwater
permittees. This means that the permittee universe at the time of the CMS commitment, which is
set at the beginning of the year, and the CMS end of year report, may differ. To ensure
consistency, GA EPD will utilize current quarterly SNC Enforcement meetings to communicate
regularly with USEPA enforcement staff about current permittee universe numbers to meet 106
workplan requirements.
Finally, the CMS universe categories do not exactly line up with the ICIS categories, so a direct
comparison of the two will necessarily produce a discrepancy. CMS numbers in the Workplan
are adjusted to eliminate duplication among categories to avoid miscommunication of
commitments.
Recommendation:
Rec
#
Due Date
Recommendation
1
03/31/2020
By December 31, 2019, EPD should reassess their practices and
procedures to ensure accurate and complete data entry into ICIS. These
practices should also include accurate entry of CMS inspections and
facility universes into ICIS. Any revised procedures should be
submitted to EPA for review. EPA will review these practices and
procedures and monitor the state's implementation efforts through
existing oversight calls and an analysis of the CWA §106 grant
workplan commitments. Following the FY19 data verification process,
EPA will conduct a data review. If by March 31, 2020, these reviews
indicate that the state is entering accurate and complete data into ICIS,
the recommendation will be considered completed.
Relevant metrics:
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 14
-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State [
% 1
2b Files reviewed where data are accurately
reflected in the national data system [GOAL]
| 100%
-
17
42
40.5%
CWA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
EPD met most of its FY2017 CMS Plan and CWA §106 Workplan inspection 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. TheFY2017
inspection commitments listed in the table below are from the CWA §106 Workplan end of year
(EOY) report.
Based on review of the EPD CWA §106 Workplan EOY report, the state met most of its CMS
inspection commitments in FY2017, except for its Pretreatment related commitments (Metrics 4al
and 4a2) and NPDES minors (Metric 5b).
For Metric 4al, the state met the Pretreatment audit commitments but missed the Pretreatment
compliances inspections by one. For Metric 4a2, the state missed the SIU inspection commitments
for non-sampling and sampling by two and five, respectively.
As highlighted under the Data Element, there are discrepancies between the CMS inspections and
permit universes and those reported in ICIS. The Region also combined the NPDES minor
individual and general permits inspections and universes into one commitment in FY2017.
Therefore, separate inspection coverages for Metrics 5b 1 and 5b2 could not be ascertained from
the FY2017 CWA §106 Workplan EOY report.
While EPD missed the FY2017 inspection coverage for Metric 5al by one, it is noted that they
met the overall multiyear frequency inspection coverages for NPDES majors (100% of the
universe every two years).
The state had an alternative CMS for inspections of MS4s (18% vs. 20%), industrial stormwater
facilities (3% vs. 10%), and construction stormwater facilities (8% vs. 10%). EPD met or exceeded
those alternative CMS commitments.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 15
-------
In the subsequent FY18 EOY report, the state met or exceeded its commitments for Metrics 4al,
4a2, and 5b. Because the state took steps to ensure inspection commitments were met in FY18, the
missed FY2017 commitments are not a systemic issue.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 16
-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
4al Number of pretreatment
compliance inspections and audits at
approved local pretreatment programs.
[GOAL]
100% of
commitments
-
35
36
97.2%
4a2 Number of inspections at EPA or
state Significant Industrial Users that
are discharging to non-authorized
POTWs. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments
-
127
134
94.8%
4a4 Number of CSO inspections.
[GOAL]
100% of
commitments
-
1
1
100%
4a5 Number of SSO inspections.
[GOAL]
100% of
commitments
-
33
8
412.5%
4a7 Number of Phase I and IIMS4
audits or inspections. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments
-
28
28
100%
4a8 Number of industrial stormwater
inspections. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments
-
80
75
106.7%
4a9 Number of Phase I and Phase II
construction stormwater inspections.
[GOAL]
100% of
commitments
-
811
800
101.4%
4al0 Number of comprehensive
inspections of large and medium
concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs) [GOAL]
100% of
commitments
-
12
4
300%
5al Inspection coverage of NPDES
majors. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments
-
89
91
97.8%
5b Inspections coverage of NPDES
non-majors (individual and general
permits) [GOAL]
100% of
commitments
-
138
139
99.3%
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 17
-------
Finding 2-2
Area for Attention
Summary:
Most of EPD's inspection reports were well written, complete and provided sufficient
documentation to determine compliance.
Explanation:
Metric 6a requires that inspection reports are complete and sufficient to determine compliance at
a facility. Approximately 77.4% (24/31) of GA EPD's inspection reports and the accompanying
cover letter were found to be well written, complete, and sufficient. Field observations noting
compliance issues were also included in inspection reports and/or cover letters, where
appropriate.
Of the seven files without complete and sufficient inspection reports:
• None contained documentation of a finalized inspection report.
o One file was for a follow-up inspection at a wastewater treatment plant. While
there was a brief letter to the facility in the file, there was no documentation of an
inspection report or trip report in the file,
o One file contained a very well written and detailed memo documenting an
industrial wastewater inspection. There was no documentation in the file that the
manager reviewed and signed off on the memo or that an inspection report was
finalized and sent to the facility,
o One file contained a well written draft MS4 inspection report and the state
indicated the inspector retired before the report was finalized,
o Four files contained only an industrial stormwater inspection checklist with
handwritten notes. No final inspection report was contained within the file.
¦ While one of these files contained a letter to the facility with the
inspection findings, it conflicted with the checklist (see Finding 3-1).
As noted in the EMS, Chapter 5, Section A, findings from inspections should be finalized,
reviewed by the manager, and provided to the facility.
Additionally, while the inspection reports and cover letters were well-written and included the
inspection checklist, many of the reports did not have a place for signatures from the inspector
and manager as required by the EMS. It is suggested that GA EPD update their inspection report
templates to include the inspector and manager signatures.
Because lack of documentation of a final report does not appear to be a systemic issue and most
reviewed inspection reports contained sufficient documentation, this is an Area for State
Attention for SRF Round 4.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 18
-------
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Natl
Metric ID Number and Description Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to ioo0/
determine compliance at the facility. [GOAL] 0
-
24
31
77.4%
Finding 2-3
Area for Improvement
Summary:
EPD inspection reports were not consistently completed in a timely manner.
Explanation:
File Metric 6b indicated that 64.5% (20/31) of EPD's inspection reports were completed in a timely
manner. Because the state's Enforcement Manual does not prescribe timeframes for inspection
report completion, EPA relied on its EMS which allows for 30 days and 45 days to complete non-
sampling and sampling inspection reports, respectively.
Of the 31 files where an inspection was conducted, seven files did not contain any documentation
of a final inspection report (see Finding 2-2). Because these seven files were not finalized, the
average number and range of days needed to complete a report could not be appropriately
determined.
Timeliness of inspection reports was an Area for State Attention in Rounds 2 and 3. This is an
Area for State Improvement in Round 4.
State Response:
The timeframes provided in the Enforcement Management System (EMS) are reasonable targets.
Currently, inspection report timeframes and management review expectations are set in several
internal documents, including performance management plans. By December 1, 2019, GA EPD
will review and revise inspection procedures in all CWA program areas and the District offices
to ensure that EMS timeframes and management review requirements for completing reports are
properly and consistently defined and documented for the respective program areas. To meet this
goal, GA EPD will hold internal meetings to review and revise inspection procedures. The
meetings will allow the CWA program area and District Office staff to share their processes,
identify what works, and update relevant procedures with timeframe and management review
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 19
-------
expectations explicitly stated. GA EPD will provide the procedures that result from this process
to EPA for review.
GA EPD will initiate quarterly internal reviews to track inspection report progress. Areas with
deficiencies in timeliness will receive additional attention to identify and remove barriers to
timely inspection report completion.
Recommendation:
Rec
#
Due Date
Recommendation
1
03/31/2020
By December 31, 2019, EPD should reassess their practices and
procedures to ensure the timely completion of inspection reports. EPD
also has the ability to establish their own timeframes for inspection
report completion. Any revised procedures should be submitted to EPA
for review. EPA will review these practices and procedures and
monitor the state's implementation efforts through existing oversight
calls and other periodic data reviews. EPA will also review a random
sample of inspection reports for timeliness. If by March 31, 2020, these
reviews indicate that the state is timely in completing inspection
reports; the recommendation will be considered completed.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
1 Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
6b Timeliness of inspection report completion
[GOAL]
| 100%
-
20
31
64.5%
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 20
-------
CWA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-1
Area for Attention
Summary:
The state's inspection reports generally documented accurate compliance determinations.
Explanation:
Metric 7e indicated that 80.8% (21/26) of the inspection reports reviewed generally documented
an accurate compliance determination for each facility. The five files without a final inspection
report or letter to the facility regarding the inspection are excluded from this finding (see Findings
2-2 and 2-3).
Most of the state's inspection reports and accompanying cover letter were well written, complete,
and included field observations and a compliance status that accurately documented compliance
determinations. The state has developed an inspection report format that is used effectively for
documenting inspection field observations and making compliance determinations. However, in
the five files without an accurate compliance determination, deficiencies and/or violations were
noted in the inspection report or checklist but were not conveyed as a deficiency and/or violation
in the accompanying cover letter. To ensure that the facility understands the inspection results, it
is suggested that the state clearly articulate the compliance determination along with any observed
deficiencies and/or recommendations.
This is considered an Area for State Attention because inaccurate compliance determinations did
not appear to be a widespread problem, and the state can self-correct the issue.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
1 Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
7e Accuracy of compliance determinations
[GOAL]
| 100%
-
21
26
80.8%
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 21
-------
CWA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Area for Attention
Summary:
The state generally takes timely and appropriate Enforcement Responses (ERs) which promote a
Return to Compliance (RTC).
Explanation:
Metric 9a indicated that 41 of the 53 ERs reviewed (77.4%) did return or were expected to return
a facility to compliance. Of the 12 ERs which did not promote a RTC:
• There were seven instances where a facility was under a previous formal action or was
issued one during FY2017, but noncompliance continued.
• Five files where numerous informal actions were issued, but RTC was not apparent during
the file review.
Metric 10b indicated that 73.6% (39/53) of the ERs reviewed were appropriate to the violations.
Of the 14 ERs which were not appropriate:
• Two files did not provide written justification for why a formal action was not taken for
facilities in SNC.
• Three files did not follow the GA EMS or provide a written justification for why it was not
followed.
• Nine files did not escalate the ER when violations persisted.
After the file review, the state provided additional documentation to show that several facilities
later received an ER which returned or should return the facility to compliance. This
documentation was not present in the files at the time of the on-site review.
In addition to a review of ERs, Data Metric lOal showed that five of eight {66.1%) major facilities
in SNC during FY2017 received timely and formal ERs. This exceeds the FY2017 national average
of 15.6%.
Timely and appropriate enforcement actions which promote a RTC was an Area for State
Improvement in Round 3. While EPD has taken steps to address the previous finding, it is
suggested that the state continue to refine its procedures to ensure adequate documentation of the
chosen ER in the file. The state should also escalate the ER when warranted per the EMS.
Therefore, this is an Area for State Attention in Round 4.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 22
-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
lOal Percentage of major NPDES facilities
with formal enforcement action taken in a
timely manner in response to SNC violations
98%
15.6%
5
8
62.5%
10b Enforcement responses reviewed that
address violations in an appropriate manner
[GOAL]
100%
-
39
53
73.6%
9a Percentage of enforcement responses that
returned, or will return, a source in violation to
compliance [GOAL]
100%
-
41
53
77.4%
CWA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-1
Area for Improvement
Summary:
The CWA program does not maintain any penalty calculations, so the adequacy of gravity and
economic benefit calculations and penalty documentation could not be evaluated.
Explanation:
Metric 11a indicated that none of the 22 files (0%) reviewed contained documentation of penalty
calculations or gravity and economic benefit rationale. While the state's EMS does outline criteria
to determine civil penalties, it does not address the consideration of EB in penalty calculations.
Because penalty calculations are not maintained in the file, Metric 12a could not be evaluated.
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.
The NPDES Memorandum of Agreement between EPD and EPA also states that EPD shall retain
penalty calculations and/or penalty rationale in accordance with 40 C.F.R. §123.24(b)(3).
This is a continuing issue from Rounds 1, 2 and 3 of the SRF. This element will remain an Area
for State Improvement in SRF Round 4 until the SRF recommendation below is fully implemented.
State Response:
By September 30, 2019, GA EPD will ensure that records of assessment of civil penalties will be
maintained with executed orders as required in Section VI(A)(8) of the State's Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with EPA Region 4 (October 24, 2007). These records will include penalty
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 23
-------
calculations and/or penalty rationale demonstrating consideration of factors set forth in the
State's penalty policy, Section 309(g) of the Clean Water Act, and the MO A.
By December 31, 2019, GA EPD will review the penalty policy related to CWA enforcement for
adequacy.
Recommendation:
Rec
#
Due Date
Recommendation
1
12/31/2020
By December 31, 2019, 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
any initial and the final penalty. For verification purposes, one year
following the implementation of the procedures, EPA will review EPD
orders and penalty calculations, including the calculations for the
economic benefit of noncompliance. If appropriate improvement is
observed upon completion of EPA's review, this recommendation will
be considered complete.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
1 la Penalty calculations reviewed that document
and include gravity and economic benefit
[GOAL]
100%
-
0
22
0%
12a Documentation of rationale for difference
between initial penalty calculation and final
penalty [GOAL]
100% | -
0
22
0%
Finding 5-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
The state consistently documented the collection of penalties.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 24
-------
Explanation:
Metric 12b indicated that all 22 files (100%) reviewed included adequate documentation of penalty
payment collection by EPD.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl Natl State
Goal Avg N
State
D
State
%
12b Penalties collected [GOAL]
100% ' - ' 22
22
100%
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 25
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Findings
RCRA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
EPD's RCRA Minimum Data Requirements for compliance monitoring and enforcement activities
were complete in RCRAInfo and ECHO.
Explanation:
Metric 2b assesses the data accuracy and completeness in RCRAInfo with information in the
facility files. 28 files were selected and reviewed to determine completeness of the minimum data
requirements. 89.3% of the selected files were accurately represented in the national RCRA Info
and ECHO databases.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl Natl
Goal Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
2b Accurate entry of mandatory data [GOAL]
100% J -
25
28
89.3%
RCRA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
EPD met national goals for both TSD and LQG inspections.
Explanation:
Metric 5a and 5b 1 assess the percentage of the treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF)
and the percentage of RCRAInfo active large quantity generator (LQG) universes that had a
compliance evaluation inspection (CEI) during the two-year and one-year periods of review,
respectively. EPD met the national goal and exceeded the national average for two-year inspection
coverage of TSDFs and exceeded the national goal and national average for annual LQG
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 26
-------
inspections in accordance with the FY2017 Grant Work Plan. EPD was scheduled to inspect 20%
of the traditional LQG universe (368 facilities) and 2% of the non-traditional LQG universe (353
facilities). The target number of inspections was 74 traditional LQG inspections and 8 non-
traditional LQG inspections. Per the Summary FY2017 Hazardous Waste Performance Measures
document submitted to EPA on December 19, 2017, 85 traditional LQG and 9 non-traditional LQG
inspections were conducted in FY2017. The FY2017 data metrics for LQG inspection coverage
indicated that only 11.20% of the universe had been inspected (74 of 658 LQGs). The data
discrepancy appears to be attributed to the FY2017 data metrics not excluding big box/
pharmaceutical facilities (such as CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, etc.) from the LQG universe. As a
result, the values on the FY2017 data metric includes a significantly larger universe, since they do
not separate big box/pharmaceutical facilities. The corrected metric values are reflected below.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
5a Two-year inspection coverage of operating
TSDFs [GOAL]
100%
88.1%
18
18
100%
5b 1 Annual inspection coverage of LQGs
using RCRAinfo universe [GOAL] -
Corrected per 2017 Grant Workplatt EOY
Summary Report
20%
10.7%
85
368
23.1%
Finding 2-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
EPD's RCRA 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). Building off progress from previous SRF reviews, EPA observed
significant improvements in the level of detail included in the inspection reports.
Explanation:
Twenty-eight (28) inspection reports were evaluated for completeness and sufficiency to determine
compliance with RCRA requirements. All inspection reports contained the appropriate description
of regulated activity, facility description, observations and potential violations. Positive attributes
observed included: descriptions organized by facility/process inspection area; references to
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 27
-------
applicable regulatory areas; descriptions of waste issues; and excellent documentation such as
photographs, which provided observation dates and times.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to
determine compliance [GOAL]
100%
-
28
28
100%
6b Timeliness of inspection report completion
[GOAL]
100%
-
26
28
92.9%
RCRA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
EPD made accurate RCRA compliance determinations. In addition, significant noncompliance
(SNC) determinations were timely and appropriate.
Explanation:
Metric 2a assesses the longstanding RCRA secondary violators with violations open for more than
240 days that have not returned to compliance or have not been designated as being a significant
noncomplier (SNC). According to the RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (ERP), all secondary
violators should be returned to compliance within 240 days or elevated to SNC status and
addressed through formal enforcement. For Metric 2a, EPD had fourteen (14) facilities in SV
greater than 240 days during FY2017. A review of RCRA Info revealed that twelve (12) of the
fourteen (14) facilities have been elevated to SNC status, where appropriate, and addressed through
informal or formal enforcement actions. The remaining two (2) facilities have been elevated to
SNC status and have been issued a proposed consent order. As such, long standing violators is not
a concern.
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 100% of the files reviewed had accurate compliance determinations (28 of
28 files). Each of the 28 files reviewed had accurate and complete descriptions of the violations
observed during the inspection and had adequate documentation to support EPD compliance
determinations.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 28
-------
Metric 8b assesses the percentage of SNC determinations made within 150 days of the first day of
inspection (Day Zero). EPD met the national goal of 100% and exceeded the national average of
84.9%.
Metric 8c assesses the percentage of files reviewed in which significant noncompliance (SNC)
status was appropriately determined during the review period. The file review indicated that 81.3%
of the files reviewed had appropriate SNC determinations (13 of 16). EPA observed significant
improvements in the appropriateness of SNC determinations compared to the SRF Round 3
Findings.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
2a Long-standing secondary violators
%
%
14
14
7a Accurate compliance determinations
[GOAL]
100%
-
28
28
100%
7b Violations found during CEI and FCI
inspections
-
34.9%
45.4%
8a SNC identification rate at sites with CEI
and FCI
-
1.1%
_———m
1.6%
8b Timeliness of SNC determinations [GOAL]
100%
84.9%
6
6
100%
8c Appropriate SNC determinations [GOAL]
100%
-
13
16
81.3%
RCRA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
EPD consistently issues enforcement responses that have returned or will return a facility in
significant noncompliance (SNC) or secondary violation (SV) to compliance.
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 29
-------
Explanation:
Metric 9a assesses the percentage of enforcement responses that have returned or will return sites
in SNC or SV to compliance. A total of 25 files were reviewed that included informal or formal
enforcement actions. Twenty-one (21) of twenty-five (25) or 84% of the enforcement responses
returned the facilities to compliance or were on a compliance schedule to return the facilities back
into compliance with the RCRA requirements.
Metric 10a assesses the percentage of year reviewed and previous-year reviewed SNC violations
addressed with a formal action or referral during the year reviewed and within 360 days of Day
Zero. The data metric indicated that 72.73% of the FY2017 cases (8 of 11) met the ERP timeline
of 360 days. The national goal is 80%. While the enforcement actions did contain compliance
schedules, the facilities had not been designated as returned to compliance prior to the FY2017
data freeze.
Metric 10b assesses the percentage of files with enforcement responses that are appropriate to the
violations. A total of 25 files were reviewed that included concluded enforcement responses.
Twenty-three (23) of twenty-five (25) or 92% of the files reviewed contained enforcement
responses that were appropriate to the violations.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
9a Enforcement that returns sites to
compliance [GOAL]
100%
-
21
25
84%
10a Timely enforcement taken to address
SNC [GOAL]
80%
81.1%
8
11
72.73%
10b Appropriate enforcement taken to
address violations [GOAL]
100%
-
23
25
92%
RCRA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-1
Area for Improvement
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 30
-------
Summary:
The RCRA program does not maintain any penalty calculations, 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 EPD does not retain penalty calculations from RCRA enforcement actions, EPA was
unable to make these determinations in any of the sixteen (16) enforcement cases. This is a
continuing issue from Rounds 1, 2 and 3 of the SRF. EPD 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 4 until the SRF recommendation below is fully implemented.
State Response:
By September 30, 2019, GA EPD will ensure that records of assessment of civil penalties will be
maintained with executed orders in accordance with the RCRA Civil Penalty Policy, June 2003.
These records will include penalty calculations and/or penalty rationale demonstrating
consideration of factors set forth in the policy.
Recommendation:
Rec
#
Due Date
Recommendation
1
12/31/2020
By December 31, 2019, 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
any initial and the final penalty. For verification purposes, one year
following the implementation of the procedures, EPA will review EPD
orders and penalty calculations, including the calculations for the
economic benefit of noncompliance. If appropriate improvement is
observed upon completion of EPA's review, this recommendation will
be considered complete.
Relevant metrics:
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 31
-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
11a Gravity and economic benefit [GOAL]
100%
-
0
16
0%
12a Documentation of rationale for difference
between initial penalty calculation and final
penalty [GOAL]
100%
-
0
16
0%
Finding 5-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
EPD included documentation in the files that all final assessed penalties were collected.
Explanation:
Metric 12b assesses the percentage of enforcement files reviewed that document the collection of
a penalty. EPD documented the collection of penalties in 13 of 14 (92.9%) final enforcement
actions. The one final enforcement action that excluded documentation of the collection of a
penalty involved a motion for contempt brought by the Georgia Attorney General' s Office ordering
the facility to close and surrender the waste permit.
State Response:
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
12b Penalty collection [GOAL]
100%
13
14
92.9%
State Review Framework Report | Georgia | Page 32
------- |