State Comments on Frozen Data - 2011

State comments on frozen data are available through the links below, organized by the submission year. Additional data quality information which is not specific to the frozen data is available through the known data problems and State Review Framework Recommendations Tracker.

2011 Comments on Frozen Data (Captured February 2012)
State	Media	Comments
Alabama	CAA	Metric 1A1 for the CAA data erroneously assumes that any source classified as a major source at the plant level should have a Title V air program code and should be identified as a major source subject to the CMS policy. However, due to the State of Alabama's continued regulation of total suspended particulates (TSP), the State has numerous sources that are major sources under the PSD air program due to their potential to emit TSP. In AFS, Alabama has correctly entered these sources without a Title V air program code and as not being subject to the CMS policy. Metric 1A2 for the CAA data erroneously assumes that any source classified as a synthetic minor source at the plant level should have a FESOP air program code and should be identified as a synthetic minor source subject to the CMS policy. However, due to the State of Alabama's continued regulation of total suspended particulates (TSP), the State has numerous sources that are synthetic minor sources under the PSD air program due to their potential to emit TSP. In AFS, Alabama has correctly entered these sources without a FESOP air program code and as not being subject to the CMS policy.
Alabama	CWA	The ICIS database should reflect 48 formal actions with penalties totaling $1,446,750. Alabama attempted to verify the draft SRF numbers; however, tracking mechanisms for each item may not be available.
Alaska	CAA	A problem with the translation of data between EPA and the State exists for facility classification data and the FCE data, so the Data Metrics do not reflect the State's activities or facility classification.
Colorado	CWA	1a1 - We have 120 major permits. Two are not shown as they are groundwater, non-NPDES permits. 1a4 - In addition, we have approximately 7,000 general permit certifications for stormwater that are not currently entered in the ICIS database. 1e1 and 1e2 - Colorado does not currently enter informal actions into the ICIS database. 1g2 - Total Penalties Assessed; the revised amount should be $1,143,891. COR106202 penalty was mistakenly entered on the compliance order on consent in addition to the penalty order. This means the total should be $75,000 less than shown. This item has been corrected and should reflect the correct penalty when the report is run again. COR03B767 didn't appear on the list even though it was issued on 9-29-11. This adds a penalty amount of $91,985 to the total. COU000335 and COU000336 are duplicate penalties for COU000334. An additional $16,000 should be deducted from the penalty total. Calculations for the total penalty amount: Total Penalties Assessed $1,316,368 Item 1 (75,000) Item 2 91,985 EPA Correcting Duplicates (189,462) ________________ Penalty amount: $1,143,891
Connecticut	CWA	Data for non-municipal permits was reviewed and CT DEP offers the following caveats: 1a4 - Number of Active Non-Majors with General Permits: 159 This number reflects a fraction of the facilities with NPDES general permits. These were entered into ICIS because CT DEEP has performed inspections of them. Most listed are stormwater GP registrants. The universe of stormwater registrations is over 1,500. 1e1 - Number of Facilities with Informal Actions: 0 CT does not enter informal actions (NOVs) into ICIS but will plan to do so in the future. 7b1 As of 2/16/12, several large active construction projects in Hartford underway as part of Long Term Control Plan. Construction set to begin Spring 2012 to expand Mattabasset WPCF, and abandon the Middletown WPCF. The Towns of Tolland and Thompson do not have NPDES WPCFs, but they have long-standing Consent Orders with no activity (since 1992 for Tolland, and 1970s for Thompson, respectively.) 7c1 - The 5 WPCFs shown should be removed. Stamford does not show a schedule violation on the QNCR. Groton and Naugatuck show one C40 violation for a Biosolids Report. Construction was completed in Shelton in 2006, and construction started in Manchester at the end of 2011. 7f1 The City of Stamford, Southbury Training School, Beacon Falls WPCF, East Haddam WPCF and the Town of Redding should be removed. Redding shown on QNCR as resolved. The City of Stamford, Southbury Training School, Beacon Falls WPCF and East Haddam WPCF have 0 - 2 permit exceedances - should be removed. 7g1 Number of Non-Major Facilities in Category II Noncompliance: 25 The correct number should be 24.... Thames Shipyard, New London, Permit No. CT0030333, submitted revised DMRs to correct their error of reporting flow in the wrong units (GPD instead of MGD), which made them appear in violation erroneously. The revised DMRs submitted after the NPDES-ICIS refresh date of Jan 20, 2012. After the Feb 2012 refresh, they should not appear on the noncompliance list. Data for municipal permits was reviewed by CT DEEP's WPLR/Municipal Section, who offered a separate spreadsheet with comments, but this was too lengthy to submit in this format. Contact them directly with questions at (860) 424-3020. The following do not show violations on the QNCR: - CANAAN FIRE DISTRICT - CANTON WPCF - CONVENT OF THE SACRED HEART SCHOOL GREENWICH, INC. - DEEP RIVER WPCF - HERITAGE VILLAGE COMPANY - LITCHFIELD WPCF - MYSTIC WPCF - NEW HARTFORD WPCF - PLAINFIELD VILLAGE STP - SALISBURY, TOWN OF - SCHOOL SISTERS OF NOTRE DAME - SHARON WPCF - SPRAGUE WWTP - STONINGTON BOROUGH WPCF 8a1 The following do not show violations on the QNCR: - KILLINGLY WPCF TOWN OF - NEW MILFORD WPCF, TOWN OF - SEYMOUR WPCF, TOWN OF - SOUTH WINDSOR WPCF - STAFFORD WPCF - STRATFORD WPCF - WINDHAM TOWN OF WPCF
Delaware	CWA	Section 1e1 - Facilities with Informal Actions - the data metrics are showing "0". Delaware had 26 facilities with informal enforcement action taken during FY2011 that are posted on the PCS. Section 1e2 - Total Number of Informal Actions at CWA NPDES Facilities - the data metrics are showing "0". Delaware had a total of 32 Informal Enforcement actions during FY2011 that are posted on the PCS. Section 7f1 - Number of Non-Major Facilities in Category 1 Noncompliance - the data metrics are showing a total of "27" facilities in Category 1 noncompliance. Delaware has "0" non-majors in Cat 1 noncompliance. All 27 facilities shown in the data metrics are "Inactive" former NPDES Permit holders, some of which have not operated in many years. Delaware has only 30 non-major facilities - 27 in Cat 1 noncompliance are not probable. Section 7g1 - Number of Non-Major Facilities in Category 2 Noncompliance - the data metrics are showing a total of "32" facilities in Category 2 noncompliance. Delaware only has "30" non-majors - to get 32 in Cat 2 noncompliance would be impossible. Delaware should have only "19" in Cat 2 noncompliance - the remainder of the facilities listed in the data metrics are all "Inactive" facilities that have not been active for many years. Section 8a1 - Active Major Facilities in SNC during the Reporting Year - the data metrics are showing a total of "6" major facilities in SNC. Delaware has only "2" major facilities in SNC. One of the facilities listed on the data metrics "Draper Canning Co" has been out of business for many years, and their NPDES is "Inactive". Two facilities are showing non-receipt of DMR's and all DMR info is in PCS, and one facility that is listed (NRG) is not showing any significant noncompliance?
Florida	CWA	1a3 - AL0078689 & AL0079065 are not FL permitted facilities. FLS0000033 & FLS0000037 mislabeled as non-majors. FLY970099 & FLY980509 are historical facility IDs, terminated 01/19/12. 1a4 - Five permits are Alabama permits, not Florida & need to be removed. The bulk of the non-major GPs are NPDES stormwater (not DW/IW) and were not verified. Of the GPs listed, over 14,991 are expired permits. Florida does not require a NOT for a CGP. FLR04E093 & FLR04E098 will be terminated in ICIS. 1f2 - 40 formal EA's were executed for both NPDES majors and minors in FY2011. Not all actions are entered in ICIS such as temporary construction dewatering activity. Several CO amendments were migrated as EA's & need to be removed & reentered as Final Orders. 1g2 - Florida OGC records indicate $400,264.00 in penalties assessed. We are in the process of obtaining all documents and entering them into ICIS. 2a1 - One primary reason EAs are not linked to viols in ICIS is due to Florida's migration from PCS to ICIS, which removed the linkage from a large number of EAs. We are working to address this issue but ICIS is not always successful in relocating the viols to relink. Also, the EPA did not migrate all of Florida's EA's, in error. We are often unable to reestablish links and interim limits. Other reasons for unlinked EAs is how some were issued/written by the State. 7a1 - FL0043869 & FL0186813 have been removed from ICIS. 7a2 - FL0000591, FL0001643, FL0186066, FL0123366 have been removed from ICIS. 7b1 - Only FL0000817 remains w/ a CSCH viol. The violations listed for the other facilities have been updated and closed in ICIS as of 01/19/12.
Florida	RCRA	Metric 1b1 and 1b2 (facilities inspected and number of inspections): The inspection total numbers for 2011 include 2,256 "site visits" that were conducted for the sole purpose of determining whether businesses were still operating as previously notified, and not to determine compliance status. Inspection total numbers for the other years do not include "site visits" due to differences in data translation, so the inspection trend numbers should be viewed with this understanding.
Indiana	CAA	Regarding Metrics 1a3, 1a4, 1b1, 1b2, and 1b3, Indiana recognizes that these counts are not accurate and both Indiana and the EPA are working together to improve NSPS and NESHAP data in AFS. Regarding Metrics 1a5, 1a6, 1d1, and 1d2, based on historical database inaccuracies made by EPA and/or the state, the sources listed may not have had violations or compliance status issues within the federal Fiscal Year 2011 period in question. IDEM continues to work with EPA to improve current data quality and accuracy regarding compliance status on these facilities.
Kansas	CWA	Most of the data that involves enforcement and compliance schedules is incorrect because KDHE has its own database system to track these data. These data are not loaded to PCS unless EPA Region 7 chooses to load the data. The high number of facilities in SNC is the result of the failure of KDHE to load DMR data to PCS in a timely manner. The data were provided to KDHE in a timely manner from the permittees, are in the KDHE database system and have been reviewed.
Kentucky	CAA	In general, the frozen data in the EPA's FY 2011 report and the current data in the Kentucky Division for Air Quality's (DAQ) database are reasonably consistent with the following exceptions: FCEs at major and synthetic minor sources are underreported in AFS. ACCs for major and synthetic minor sources are underreported in AFS. Data for Tier II facilities are not routinely reported to AFS. Stack test report reviews are underreported in AFS. Because of these exceptions and other minor discrepancies, it is suggested that any questions, particularly those relating to the current compliance status of individual sources, be forwarded to the DAQ, (502) 564-3999, Extension 4453, or Jon.Trout@ky.gov.
Kentucky	CWA	The Kentucky Dept. for Environmental Protection has verified the FFY2011 data for the CWA. The following caveats apply: KyDEP migrated from PCS to ICIS in February 2011. There were 276 KPDES permits that did not migrate. KyDEP is currently working with U.S. EPA to correct this problem. None of the data for these 276 permits is available in ICIS, including permit limits, compliance monitoring data, informal enforcement actions, formal enforcement actions, civil penalties assessed, and compliance schedules. This data will not be available in the FFY2011 dataset. A significant portion of data related to KPDES permits for surface coal mining operations is not currently in ICIS. There are 99 Notices of Violation/Letters of Warning that did migrate into ICIS. KyDEP is working to correct this problem. This data will not appear in the FFY2011 frozen dataset. Please contact Mark Cleland at 502-564-2150 for information.
Louisiana	CWA	1a1, 1a2, 1a3, 1a4 - Number of permits does not include permits that were terminated during or following FY2011. 1f2 - Total number of formal actions issued does not include amended orders issued. 7f1 - Number of non-major facilities in Category 1 non-compliance is erroneously elevated due to the implementation of electronic discharge monitoring report system (NetDMR). Where limits are coded for untracked non-major facilities and NetDMR is not immediately used, non-receipt DMR violations are generated for DMRs that may have been received through standard paper submission and are not entered into ICIS.
Maine	CWA	The State of Maine DEP has reviewed the FY 2011 CWA Data and has added appropriate flags. The State of Maine DEP would like to have the following caveats posted on the EPA website; 1a1 - Maine DEP has reassigned the primacy for the one facility listed under EPA to the State. 1a4 - Primacy changed to EPA (E) by Maine DEP for nine (9) MER permits. EPA is Lead Agency for Compliance Monitoring. These are stormwater permits. 7c1 - Maine DEP believes it has resolved these permit schedule violations. There may be a flag or other indicator in PCS that has to be set to resolved or completed.
Michigan	CAA	The EPA Class of SM or synthetic minor is incorrect for many facilities. Most of the facilities are B or minor sources. About 700 facilities' EPA classes will be manually corrected by Michigan in AFS during calendar year 2012.
Michigan	CWA	Michigan continues to have data problems with getting some data into ICIS. We have reviewed the summary data available through the website, and noted problems with the number of non-major individual permits and general permits (the number of non-majors with individual permits should be 416, the number of non-majors with general permits (non-stormwater) is 844, 296 for MS4 general permits, and 2862 for industrial stormwater general permits), the lack of enforcement data, the lack of SEV, the number of facilities with permit schedule violations and compliance schedule violations, and the non-major facilities in Category 1 and 2 noncompliance (for CY2010 we reported 213 facilities in those categories combined). We are not able to correct the data at this time due to staff resource constraints. The problems in EPA's database (ICIS) revolve around moving data to ICIS, not in capturing data. We believe our database holds most, if not all, of the required data. A historical perspective might help others to understand some of our problems. A few years ago we were using PCS. At EPA's request we moved to ICIS in August 2010. When we did that, our electronic data transfer for DMR data failed. We've been working on resolving the problem since that time. A solution is close at hand. During that time period (since August 2010), we have been manually entering DMR data for majors in ICIS even though all the data comes to us electronically. We require all DMR data (for both majors and minors) to be submitted to us electronically. Manually entering this data uses staff time that can be better utilized elsewhere, but we understand the need for moving this data to ICIS. With the move to ICIS, we also lost our ability to batch load inspection data to EPA's database. PCS accepted batch load inspection data, but ICIS does not. Fortunately we have been getting assistance from EPA Region 5 staff in our effort to load inspection data. Several years ago we were in a position to move much of the required data elements to EPA's database through the data exchange, but the schemas were not finalized. The effort to finalize the schemas has been slow, but we understand that many of the schemas are now finalized (only the enforcement schemas remain to be done). We intend to make substantial progress this year in moving data from our database to ICIS. We have an EPA grant to aid us in the effort. We expect to have the DMR data flow working shortly. We expect to have facility and permit data flow working early this spring, with follow-up testing to be completed by mid-summer. Once these systems are in place and operational, we'll be able to devote staff resources to addressing other issues with our data. We continue to work with the EPA Region 5 staff to resolve ICIS data issues. We are currently in the process of developing a new database. The requirements for our new database will include full upload of data to ICIS. We also expect to be fully compliant with the soon to be proposed e-reporting rule.
Minnesota	CAA	The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has made all reasonable effort to verify and correct the data presented in the OTIS/ECHO State Review Framework (SRF) environment. This has been done by ensuring that the data contained in the respective EPA program systems, ICIS-NPDES, RCRAInfo and AFS are in agreement with the Delta data system maintained by the MPCA as implementer of these programs for the State of Minnesota. Where discrepancies still exist, they are often beyond the control of the MPCA because they are related to the procedures by which the EPA IDEA/OTIS/ECHO database aggregates and assesses the data stored in the stand-alone program systems. The MPCA is unable to correct or influence any errors that arise in this process, which is wholly within the control of the EPA. For complete and current information on regulated parties in Minnesota, the MPCA suggests that the data be accessed through our What's in my Neighborhood website. The SRF Metrics may not accurately reflect Minnesota's performance on enforcement due to a conflict between federal standards for data transparency and State of Minnesota data practices laws. Under Minnesota law, the outcome of a compliance evaluation or enforcement action is not public until it is final, nominally defined as the later of the final execution of a compliance or enforcement instrument or the exhaustion of all available appeals. As a result of Minnesota law and the mechanisms by which the federal program systems publish data to public systems, Minnesota cannot share information on certain in-process compliance evaluations and responses. Here is a caveat relating to the Title V Compliance Certification review result code of "MV". This code has been used by our state to signify that deviations were reported, however it does NOT imply that noncompliance was found. The RDE8 result code of "Y" also signifies that deviations were reported, so the "MV" result code is actually redundant in the way we have used it. One solution that I propose is to change the "MV" status codes to "MC" if no follow-up enforcement action was initiated (or the review was not part of a case pathway) That procedure should largely eliminate unnecessary calls from Regulated Parties concerned about the often false "Violations" triggered by these reviews (even if they do not change the facility compliance status)
	CWA	The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has made all reasonable effort to verify and correct the data presented in the OTIS/ECHO State Review Framework (SRF) environment. This has been done by ensuring that the data contained in the respective EPA program systems, ICIS-NPDES, RCRAInfo and AFS are in agreement with the Delta data system maintained by the MPCA as implementer of these programs for the State of Minnesota. Where discrepancies still exist, they are often beyond the control of the MPCA because they are related to the procedures by which the EPA IDEA/OTIS/ECHO database aggregates and assesses the data stored in the stand-alone program systems. The MPCA is unable to correct or influence any errors that arise in this process, which is wholly within the control of the EPA. For complete and current information on regulated parties in Minnesota, the MPCA suggests that the data be accessed through our What's in my Neighborhood website. The SRF Metrics may not accurately reflect Minnesota's performance on enforcement due to a conflict between federal standards for data transparency and State of Minnesota data practices laws. Under Minnesota law, the outcome of a compliance evaluation or enforcement action is not public until it is final, nominally defined as the later of the final execution of a compliance or enforcement instrument or the exhaustion of all available appeals. As a result of Minnesota law and the mechanisms by which the federal program systems publish data to public systems, Minnesota cannot share information on certain in-process compliance evaluations and responses. Minnesota data was migrated from the EPA's PCS data system to the new system, ICIS-NPDES, February-March 2011. Due to the magnitude of the changes in the data structure, a number of errors were generated in historic data. Minnesota is not required to supply detailed information on non-major facilities to ICIS-NPDES. For information on non-major facilities the MPCA suggests that the data be accessed through our What's in my Neighborhood website.
	RCRA	Most of Minnesota data are correct in the national program system RCRAInfo. But due to Minnesota's data privacy rules some data are not displayed in ECHO.
Mississippi	CWA	Metric 1f2: Logic used by EPA to retrieve data counted formal actions more than once. Only 38 formal actions at CWA NPDES facilities in FY11
Nebraska	RCRA	NDEQ records indicate that it appears there is a discrepancy in the total number of active LQGs, SQGs, and other active sites. Also, the number in data metric 1c2 is unverifiable based on the parameters. Metric 1e2 number of sites in SNC - ID number NED000610550 should not be listed as a current SNC. An SNN record dated 5-25-2007, Consent Order signed, should have removed this facility ID from being a SNC.
New York	CAA	NY DEC found many cases of old data (orphaned) that is not currently being uploaded from our database extract into EPA AFS. Most of the errors we found were in the 1a3 and 1b2 drill downs. However, we expect similar problems may exist with the 1b3 drill down but did not have the resources to investigate the hundreds of facilities at this time. In many of the bad data instances the facilities never held air pollution program permits and/or do not have any 40 CFR Part 61 NESHAP applicable requirements. We suspect many were erroneously given a NESHAP program and/or pollutant by someone other than NY staff. As noted we did not have time to verify every single piece of the thousands of pieces of data but we believe in most cases, other than those outlined above, that the data batch uploaded from the NY DEC system to EPA AFS is accurately portraying our universe of facilities, applicable programs and recorded violations. Not all inspections were entered in RCRAInfo before EPA's deadline of 2/22/2012.
New York	RCRA	NY does not use the federal generator status field in RCRAInfo to track a site's RCRA hazardous waste generation status (i.e. LQG, SQG) and this field is inaccurate for NY sites. We use an internal database of manifest and Hazardous Waste Report data of shipments and generation instead. NY also does not use the active site field in RCRAInfo. This results in the calculation of certain RCRA State Review Framework Metrics being inaccurate, especially # 5 b, c, and d, about inspection coverage, and any other calculations using these numbers would also be inaccurate. The percent of NY LQGs and SQGs inspected, or inspection coverage, is greater than calculated. These numbers are based on current universe counts for LQGs and SQGs, but since these universes change on a daily basis, some of the LQG/SQG inspections conducted are not credited in EPA's SRF reports because the site moved out of the universe. EPA R2 and NY have agreed to target inspections at long-term LQGs, since a very large percent of our LQGs are an LQG for a year or less. Inspecting sites that do not generate hazardous waste on an ongoing basis is difficult. 5-10 inspections (violations, and enforcements) have not been entered because no RCRA EPA ID # has been issued to the site by EPA R2. NY conducts inspections at facilities that do not have EPA ID#s and are not required to notify EPA or NY of their hazardous waste activities (i.e. federal CESQGs, and non-regulated facilities) and get an EPA ID#. The inspection activities, enforcement actions, and resulting monetary penalties assessed or collected as a result of such enforcement activities by NY are not captured or reflected in the EPA metrics. As a result, EPA's metrics understate NY's full range of hazardous waste compliance, inspection, and enforcement efforts. Not all inspections were entered in RCRAInfo before EPA's deadline of 2/22/2012.
North Carolina	CAA	OTIS Data Verification Caveats for FY2011 Metrics: 1a3 - Number of Active NESHAP Part 61 Minors -4 NC Facilities are not subject to NESHAP Part 61. The Air Program NESHAP Part 61 was still listed as operating in AFS for these facilities. Total for this Metric is 6. 1a4 - Number of Active CMS Minors, Tier I (Not counted in metric 1a3) -5 NC Facilities changed CMS class during the year. Their CMS class for each was updated in AFS to Minor after FY2011. Total for this Metric is 6. 1b2 - Number of Active Federally-Reportable NESHAP Part 61 Facilities -5 NC Facilities are not subject to NESHAP Part 61. The Air Program NESHAP Part 61 was still listed as operating in AFS for these facilities. Total for this Metric is 20. 1b3 - Number of Active Federally-Reportable MACT Part 63 Facilities -3 NC Facilities are not subject to MACT Part 63. The Air Program MACT Part 63 was still listed as operating in AFS for these facilities. Total for this Metric is 519. 1b4 - Number of Active Federally-Reportable Title V Facilities -2 NC Facilities were issued TV permits in FY2011. TV Air Program from permit issued was not keyed in NC's database until now. The TV Air Programs for these facilities have been now added in AFS. Total for this Metric is 312. 1c1 - Number of Tier I Facilities with FCE -2 EPA unaccounted NC FCEs. Action type and number for each facility existed in AFS -1 NC FCE that was rejected because EPA entered and action type X1 that was out of sequence with in NC's action number for this facility. Total for this Metric is 1074. 1c2 - Number of FCEs at Tier I Facilities -2 EPA unaccounted NC FCEs. Action type and number for each facility existed in AFS -1 NC FCE that was rejected because EPA entered and action type X1 that was out of sequence with in NC's action number for this facility. Total for this Metric is 1077. 1g2 - Number of Tier I Facilities Subject to a Formal Action -Source: United States Gypsum Company, AFS #: 37-121-00016 - On 10/7/2011, NC DAQ decided not to assess a penalty based on the highly variable emissions from the facility, the current production levels, and the facility's decision to once again obtain a Title V permit. Case closed. Total for this Metric is 13. 1i1 - Number of Stack Test with Passing Results -(99/FF/PP) action types will export NC's database to AFS per the FY2009 SRF next year. 1i2- Number of Stack Test with Failing Results -(99/FF/PP) action types will export NC's database to AFS per the FY2009 SRF next year. 1j - Number of Title V Annual Compliance Certifications Reviewed -9 Facilities had duplicate TV ACC Reviews in FY2011. Total for this Metric is 315.
	CWA	Problems with the translation and timing of the data between EPA and the State exist for the number of active major permits and non-major general permits, informal and formal actions, total penalties assessed, unresolved compliance schedule violations, and non-majors facilities with Single-Event Violations reported, so the data metrics do not reflect the complete number of activities the State performed.
	RCRA	North Carolina added two RCRA Enforcement Action codes to its state's program, codes 214 and 215. Code 214 is utilized for a legislative change that allows for the assessment of the reasonable costs of any investigation, inspection, or monitoring associated with the assessment of a civil penalty against any person who is assessed a civil penalty. Code 215 is utilized for a facility that fails to pay NC hazardous waste fees when due.
North Dakota	CWA	North Dakota has determined that all facilities listed in Category 1 noncompliance have terminated permits and are not under an administrative extension. Any compliance related issues with these facilities under a terminated permit are in error. North Dakota has determined that the facilities listed in Category 2 noncompliance are either under a terminated permit that is not under an administrative extension and in error, or facilities that were entered into PCS by EPA Region 8 for inspections in which EPA was the lead.
Oklahoma	RCRA	SRF report shows no penalties collected during Fed FY11. Below is a summary of actual penalties collected between 10/1/10 & 9/30/11. Univar-$17,336.69 Capital Aviation-$27,869.38 These 3 facilities are in RCRAInfo as CEIs however they do not show up in the SRF report. Lexus of Tulsa OKR000026500 Tulsa, OK 06/21/2011 Southwest Industrial Services OKR000008292 Oklahoma City 3/24/2011 Allied Materials OKD007192719 Stroud 10/19/2010
Pennsylvania	CWA	Metric 1b3, Manual override to compliant - PA DEP is conducting an ongoing effort to identify facilities where RNC non-compliance was assessed due to late or incomplete data entry rather than actually non-submission. Where that situation was identified, PA DEP corrected the record by manually overriding compliant facilities. Metric 1e1, Facilities with informal actions - PA informal actions are not currently coded in ICIS. According to PA DEP's eFACTS data system, DEP took informal actions at 544 facilities in FFY2011. Implementation of batch uploading of this information from eFACTS to ICIS is in the development stage. Metric 1e2, total numbers of informal actions - PA informal actions are not currently coded in ICIS. According to PA DEP's eFACTS data system, DEP took 660 informal enforcement actions in FFY2011. Implementation of batch uploading of this information from eFACTS to ICIS is in the development stage. Metric 1f2, Total number of Formal actions - The metric result reflects information for PA Major facilities only. Formal actions for PA's minor facilities are not currently coded in ICIS. According to PA DEP's eFACTS data system, DEP took formal enforcement actions at 108 minor facilities in FFY2011. Implementation of batch uploading of this information from eFACTS to ICIS is in the development stage. Metric 1g1, Number of enforcement actions with penalties - The metric result reflects information for PA Major Facilities only. No enforcement actions for PA's minor facilities are currently coded in ICIS. According to PA DEP's eFACTS data system, DEP took 95 enforcement actions with penalties at minor facilities in FFY2011. Implementation of batch uploading of this information from eFACTS to ICIS is in the development stage. Metric 1g2, Total penalties - The metric result reflects information for PA Major Facilities only. No enforcement actions for PA's minor facilities are currently coded in ICIS. According to PA DEP's eFACTS data system, penalties at minor facilities were $1,203,757 in FFY2011. Implementation of batch uploading of this information from eFACTS to ICIS is in the development stage.
Pennsylvania	RCRA	Any potential and/or actual data discrepancies that might exist will be investigated and resolved in accordance with the PADEP QA/QC Data Management Plan.
Puerto Rico	CAA	Some data still under review or is not shown. We are reviewing AFS to determine the problems.
Rhode Island	RCRA	RIDEM was not able to verify State Review Framework data metrics 1a2, 1a3, 1a4 and 1c1 due to the fact that the State's database does not collect this information.
South Dakota	CWA	1a1 - SD has 29 major permits, but only 27 of which get expected DMRs entered. The other 2 permits have unscheduled limit sets or inactive limit sets only and do not typically have DMRs entered. 1a3 - SD00TEST1 is a widget/test permit that is used to copy and paste limit sets from one permit to another as a time saver and therefore should not be counted. SD0020486 was an individual permit that was switched to coverage under a master general permit. They are now in the process of switching back to an individual permit. The previous permit was un-terminated so it could be reissued with the same permit number. Thus it is being counted under the general permit numbers and should not be counted in this metric. 1e1 - This metric does not account for informal enforcement actions there were sent to a facility earlier in the fiscal year and then later in the fiscal year the facilities permit was terminated. 1e2 - This metric does not account for informal enforcement actions there were sent to a facility earlier in the fiscal year and then later in the fiscal year the facilities permit was terminated. 7c1 - SD0022667 is the only permit that should be listed for this metric.
Texas	CAA	1A2 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1A2 is accurate. Texas does not maintain a universe of synthetic minors, Texas does not report on Synthetic Minors. 1A3 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1A3 is inaccurate. Texas does not report investigations by subprograms. By State standards, FCEs performed at Title V facilities are understood to include an FCE for each subprogram associated to the facility. 1A4 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1A4 is inaccurate. Texas does not maintain a universe of synthetic minors, Texas does not report on Synthetic Minors. 1A4 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1A4 is inaccurate. Texas does not maintain a universe of synthetic minors, Texas does not report on Synthetic Minors. 1A5 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1A5 is inaccurate. Texas does not maintain a universe of synthetic minors, Texas does not report on Synthetic Minors. 1A6 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1A6 is inaccurate. Texas does not maintain a universe of synthetic minors, Texas does not report on Synthetic Minors. 1B1 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1B1 is inaccurate. Texas does not report investigations by subprograms. By State standards, FCEs performed at Title V facilities are understood to include an FCE for each subprogram associated to the facility. 1B2 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1B2 is inaccurate. Texas does not report investigations by subprograms. By State standards, FCEs performed at Title V facilities are understood to include an FCE for each subprogram associated to the facility. 1B3 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1B3 is inaccurate. Texas does not report investigations by subprograms. By State standards, FCEs performed at Title V facilities are understood to include an FCE for each subprogram associated to the facility. 1C3 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1C3 is accurate. Texas does not maintain a universe of synthetic minors, Texas does not report on Synthetic Minors. 1C4 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1C4 is accurate. Texas does not maintain a universe of synthetic minors, Texas does not report on Synthetic Minors. 1D2 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1D2 is inaccurate. Texas does not maintain a universe of synthetic minors, Texas does not report on Synthetic Minors. 1G3 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1G3 is accurate. Texas does not maintain a universe of synthetic minors, Texas does not report on Synthetic Minors. 1G4 FY2011 Frozen Data for the metric 1G4 is accurate. Texas does not maintain a universe of synthetic minors, Texas does not report on Synthetic Minors. Metric 1f1 - Number of HPVs Identified (per OTIS State Review Framework Results) CCEDS: 148 AFS: 127 Metric 1f2 - Number of Facilities with an HPV Identified (per OTIS State Review Framework Results) CCEDS: 88 AFS: 90 Metric 1h1 - Total Amount of Final Penalties: $4,149,216 (per OTIS State Review Framework Results) CCEDS: $3,448,105 Noted differences in the data systems: The State of Texas has completed its review of the FY11 SRF CAA enforcement data. The AFS extract program pulls inspection, violation and enforcement data from CCEDS and is uploaded to AFS. The data displayed in AFS is as reliable as the extract program used to pull data from CCEDS. The number of Administrative Orders would be different between the data systems. The AFS extract program was built to report enforcement information by facility. This means that a multi-facility order in CCEDS would upload multiple times depending on the number of facilities named in the order. This would also apply to other multi-facility enforcement actions such as referrals.
Texas	RCRA	The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Field Operations Support Division (FOSD) has completed the data verification process for the FY2011 RCRA Data Metrics. Based on the review, the TCEQ reports the following data caveats: 1a1 (Number of operating TSDFs) TCEQ has updated unit status data in RCRAInfo for Phibro-Tech (TXD047823265) to remove the facility from this list. This facility is no longer listed as an operating TSDF in RCRAInfo, but remains on the list in ECHO. The TCEQ will monitor ECHO to ensure that this facility is no longer listed after the next data refresh occurs. The status of hazardous waste management units at 7 TSDFs that are listed are under review by the TCEQ Waste Permits Division. An update to unit status data in RCRAInfo that would remove these 7 TSDFs from this list is pending, and is contingent upon the results of the review. The status of hazardous waste management units at 2 TSDFs that are not listed are under review by the TCEQ Waste Permits Division. An update to unit status data in RCRAInfo that would add these 2 TSDFs to this list is pending, and is contingent upon the results of the review. 1b1 (Number of sites inspected) ECHO does not reflect Record Reviews; therefore, sites that were inspected via only a Record Review are not listed in ECHO. RCRAInfo reflects 3 inspections conducted at TXD 981053770, TXR000080304, and TXR000080330 that are not reflected in ECHO. 1b2 (Number of inspections) RCRAInfo reflects 219 Record Reviews that are not reflected in ECHO. RCRAInfo reflects 3 inspections conducted at TXD 981053770, TXR000080304, and TXR000080330 that are not reflected in ECHO. Certain types of focused inspections conducted by the TCEQ are translating into RCRAInfo and ECHO as compliance evaluation inspections (CEIs) rather than focused compliance inspections (FCIs). The TCEQ has been actively working to make the necessary changes to correct this data translation issue. The RCRA Subtitle C program encompasses compliance monitoring for conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs). CESQGs are not required to have an EPA Identification Number (EPA ID No.); however, an EPA ID No. is required for an investigation to be reflected in RCRAInfo. TCEQ conducted approximately 35 inspections at CESQGs that are not reflected in RCRAInfo or ECHO because they do not have, and are not required to have, an EPA ID No. The number of multi-facility orders varies between the state database and RCRAInfo. The state database counts multi-facility orders as a single order. This would also apply to other multi-facility enforcement actions such as referrals.
Virginia	CWA	1a4 - Virginia general permit information is not uploaded to or stored in PCS. Permits listed were only for the facilities that had federal inspections done in the past. 1f1 - There was a total of 29 facilities with formal actions. 1f2 - For the individual permits, the total number of Formal Actions should be 29. The count posted here is the total count of enforcement action key violation types, not the count of Formal Actions. One Formal Action may have multiple violation types. VA has contacted EPA OTIS for metric query verification/correction. 1g1 - Twenty-five enforcement actions had penalties. Correction should be posted after the next data refresh. 1g2 - Total penalty amount was $640,506. The correct amount should be posted after the next data refresh. 2a1 - Fourteen formal enforcement actions were taken against major facilities. Thirteen of the 14 enforcement actions have violation types entered in PCS. The effluent violation types addressed for the enforcement action of Permit VA0004049 could not be entered into PCS since permit pipes and their related DMRs have been ghosted due to permit re issuance. The count of 58 of this metric does not reflect the number of enforcement actions taken against major facilities. VA has contacted EPA OTIS for metric query verification/correction. 7a2 - Sixty non-major facilities had one or more single event violations during FY11; the count of 100 is not accurate. 7f1 - The Annual Non-Compliance Report (ANCR) submitted to EPA for CY2010 had 118 counts of Category I Non-Compliance. Non-major DMR data are not uploaded or stored in PCS; the count of Category 1 Non-compliance posted here does not include any effluent violation according to the SNC criteria, therefore, is not accurate. Permits flagged here are not valid permits in FY11. 7g1 - The Annual Non-Compliance Report (ANCR) submitted to EPA for CY2010 showed there were 220 counts of non-major permittees in Category II Non-Compliance. Non-major DMR data are not uploaded or stored in PCS; the count of Category 2 Non-compliance posted here does not include any effluent violation, therefore, is not accurate. Permits flagged here were not in noncompliance status as indicated. Permits VA0023353 and VA0050822 are inactive in FY11; should not be listed as non-compliant. 8a1 - Permits VA0005410 and VA0021075 have been inactive since 09/26/85 and 08/15/91, respectively. The compliance schedule completion dates have recently been entered into PCS. The SNC records of VA0005410 and VA0021075 should be removed from the FY11 list.
Virginia	RCRA	Two invalid ID's were identified in metrics 1a2 (count should be 259; there were two invalid ID's: VAR000513538, VAD018753881) and 1a5 (count should be 232; there were two invalid ID's: VAR000513538, VAD018753881).
Washington	CAA	Washington Southwest Clean Air Agency - SWCAA will work with the EPA Data Steward regarding the metrics under review and to correct any remaining deficiencies.
Washington	RCRA	The handler translation problem between RCRAInfo and the state system noted in previous years has been resolved. RCRAInfo now reflects the correct number of active sites in Washington. Burlington Environmental Kent, LLC, WAD991281767, continues to show as a state unaddressed SNC. This is likely due to multiple inspections resulting in formal and informal actions linked to violations. The site has received multiple penalties from Ecology since entering SNC status and is definitely not unaddressed. Ecology's regional offices have reviewed the inspection data captured in metrics 1B1 and 1B2 and made any corrections found. However, resource limits prevent individual verification of each datum in metrics 1B1, 1B2, 1C1, 1C2 and 1D1. We are confident that the nearly 1,900 entries are very close to correct.
West Virginia	CWA	The State of West Virginia has completed its review of CWA data. One data issue is that it appears outfall and effluent data appears missing when the fact is that these are collection systems and outfall and effluent data doesn't apply. These are designated in the rdf10 field as 4952C facilities (collection systems).
Wisconsin	CAA	We have updated/corrected the AFS data on the basis of the data that we have in our state system (WARP, Wisconsin Air Resources Program). We are unable to verify or challenge some of the metrics because we have just begun to track those data (Air Program subparts in particular) and our data are incomplete. We maintain very little data in AFS for Tier II facilities and the metrics for those data are of limited value.
Wyoming	CAA	This data reflects all available information entered into AFS by the State of Wyoming at this time. The number of NOVs does NOT include any Asbestos NOV or 4 additional NOVs that were issued to facilities that do not exist within our database or AFS. the Penalties collected does not reflect that amount collect for Asbestos NOVs.
	CWA	8a1: Active Major Facilities in SNC during the Reporting Year (10/1/10-9/30/11) During the year EPA reported of 5 Major Facilities that were in SNC as a result of various QNCR runs. Apparently there are multiple parameter codes in PCS for various parameters. Of the five listed Major Facilities 4 of them are the results of PCS set up with the wrong codes. Once these codes were corrected in the PCS set up these facilities were reported as back in compliance. Only one Major Facility (City of Casper) had a true effluent exceedance resulting in SNC. Therefore, Wyoming only had one Major Facility in "true" SNC.
	RCRA	On the State Comparative Maps and Dashboards, the Final Formal Enforcement Actions with Penalties view and chart incorrectly show zero for fiscal year 2011. Wyoming had one final formal enforcement action with penalty in fiscal year 2011.