EPA captures (or "freezes") aggregated state data yearly. These frozen datasets are used in several places on EPA's website, including portions of the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) website. Frozen data are used in the EPA/State Comparative Maps and Dashboards.
Several states have indicated that at the time the data were frozen, that errors existed. States that identified problems with the data were asked to send either a data file with corrected information, or a link to a state website that explained data errors or corrections.
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.
There is a flaw in the metric because it includes sources that are PSD major or synthetic minor, but not Title V major or synthetic minor.
1a1 Data Caveat - All that have been marked flagged as incorrect should be removed from the universe as they are part of the above statement.
Sklar Exploration Company LLC - Castleberry Oil & Gas Field, Area No.1 (0103500021) should be included in the Active Major Facilities (Tier 1) as it was major for Title V during FY 2014.
1a2 Data Caveat - All that have been marked flagged as incorrect should be removed from the universe as they are part of the above statement.
Pilgrims Pride Corporation - Tuscumbia Feed Mill (0103300038) & Equity Group Eufaula Division - Hatchery (0100500027) should be included in the Active Synthetic Minors list as they were Synthetic Minors during FY2014.
1b1 Data Caveat - All that have been marked flagged as incorrect should be removed from the universe as they are part of the above statement.
1d1 - “Kitchen and Bath Center (0100300039) and International Paper Company (0104700003) were brought back into compliance in FY 2013.
1e1 and 1e2 - Phenix Lumber Company (011130S001) did not receive an informal enforcement action in FY14. M/J Feed Mill (0113300009) should not exist in the Tier 1 universe as it is a minor source under Title 5. Houston Wood Products (0113300011) did not have an informal enforcement action on 20140218. Rainsville Technology, Inc (0104900034) had an informal enforcement action on 6/18/2014.
1g1, 1g2, 1h1 and 1h2 - Phenix Lumber Company (011130S001) did not receive a formal enforcement action in FY14. Gulf South Pipeline Company LP (01-097-00096) and Exterran Energy Solutions (01-125-00086) each received a formal enforcement action in the form of a Consent Order in FY14 on 6/16/2014 with penalty of $10,000 and 4/21/2014 with penalty of $30,000, respectively
1j and 5e -
|CWA||Alabama provides 100% of the permit limits for Major facilities to ICIS as required by EPA. Although permit limits are not required to be entered into ICIS for Non-Major facilities, Alabama enters permit limits for ~54% of its Non-major facility universe. The logic for Metrics 1b1 and 1c1 considers “Expired” permits as active in the total universe count (denominator), but does not consider the permit limits entered for those same expired permits active for the metric count (numerator). As a result, both metrics reflect lower percentage rates for permit limits entered for Major (1b1) and Non-Major (1c1) facilities.|
|Alaska||CWA||Metric 1a4 - Number of Active Non-majors with General Permits-Current total 5867-Metric 1a4 continues to be show total counts that are not accurate. The high count is due to the AKG375000-Placer Small Suction Dredges General Permit Authorizations. They were entered by EPA and transferred to us at Primacy with our Mining universe. There were over 4000 authorizations issued under the AKG375000 and due to limited staff resources, they are currently not being tracked, nor do they have any annual reporting requirements that can be monitored. Most, if not all are in Expired status, but still show as being active. It’s important to note that this drastically affects Alaska’s CMS goals and percentages.
Metric 1b1 - Permit Limits Rate for Major Facilities-This metric inaccurately shows 4 Major permits listed in the “Not Counted” column, putting our percentage at 89.2%, when it should be at 100%. After several emails, phone calls and some partial fixes done by EPA/Office of Compliance, it was still determined by EPA that the final 4 listed would not be removed, regardless of the inaccuracies or coding logic that prevents completely transparent and accurate data reflections for SRF and the State Dashboards. AK0037303 Trident Seafood’s Akutan Plant-Due to the status of this permit, the active limits and parameters for 7 outfalls would not be counted based solely on the Expired status of this Major permit. The facility did not submit an application on time, but has remained fully operational and submits DMR’s each month to ADEC. EPA explained that the “Expired” status of a permit affects both Metric 1b1 and 1c1 for several states, but it was decided by EPA to leave them showing as inaccurate until they can find a solution that will work for all cases, regardless of my request to have it removed. This permit should be counted in this metric. AK0052388-Peter Pan Seafood’s & AK0052787-Trident Seafood’s Sand Point Plant- These are both administratively continued Major permits that were transferred to ADEC with Annual report-only requirements as specified in their APDES Permit language. After EPA/Office of Compliance reviewed them with Region 10(ADEC Oversight), they too agreed that the permittees only have Narrative Condition requirements due each year that includes all of their permit discharge results. Unfortunately, this still proved to not be enough for EPA to remove them from this count. EPA said there were no fields available in this data pull that could reliably tell them that no permit limits are expected to be coded into ICIS. At this present time, for these two permits in their current status of Administratively Continued, ADEC does not expect that either of these will have limits and parameters coded into ICIS and due in the form of a Discharge Monitoring Report, but kept on their annual report retention schedule, as per their permit language. For these reasons, these permits should not be included in this metric as having missing limits and parameters in the ICIS limits module. AKS052588-Anchorage, City of MS4- This permit is a Major stormwater permit with over 700 outfalls that is shared by both City of Anchorage and Alaska Department of Transportation. I have requested, multiple times from Region 10, that this permit be removed from this metric because it is an Annual-report only permit, as specified by their permit language. EPA will not exclude this permit because the EPA says they have no way of identifying it as a stormwater MS4 permit. The permit is identifiable as an MS4 because the name indicates it is an MS4, “AKS” has always been the starting permit number/naming convention for all of Alaska MS4’s, and these naming/number systems (developed by EPA, not ADEC) are unique for each type of permit. EPA also pointed out a missing stormwater component in ICIS, which was added during this DV process and exceeded RIDE, per the ICIS Guidance Documents. Unfortunately, that still did not work and it was determined by EPA, that because of ICIS limitations with “annual report only” permits, additional coding changes need to occur in ICIS. EPA/Office of Compliance has submitted a change request to ICIS, but the permit is still showing up incorrectly and should not be in this metric.
|Arkansas||CAA||Caveats were entered on the ECHO website which was submitted as flags.|
|CWA||The caveat for item 1a4 states that the permit coverage was terminated effective 10/01/2013; therefore it should not be included in the Number of Active NPDES Non-Majors with General Permits. The information is correct in the ICIS-NPDES database. I do not know why ARG790105 was included in the report details.|
|California||CAA||1a2: Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District is evaluating the number of active synthetic minors.|
Please see flagged comments on 88 permits shown in non-compliance. These permits have been terminated for years. We have not been able to resolve the violations in ICIS, and many of the violations were for compliance schedules due after the termination date, so should not have been violations at all. We are continuing to work with EPA to resolve this issue.
See individual flags for permits.
Metric 1a1 - The number of Active NPDES Majors with individual Permits - This may be 93 instead of 94. Norfolk POTW, CT0101231, may be a Non-major. If so, CT will work with EPA to change the designation.
Metric 1a3 - The number of Active NPDES Non-Majors with Individual permits - This may be 75 instead of 74. See caveat for metric 1a1.
Metric 1a4 - The number of Active Non-Majors with General Permits is erroneous. This reflects a fraction of the facilities with NPDES GPs, as CT does not enter all GP registrants into ICIS. Those listed were entered into ICIS because CT DEEP inspected them at some point in the past.
Metric 1f1 - Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions CT issued the following additional formal actions to facilities under their Pretreatment Program: Stipulated Judgment No. HHD-CV-12-6033558S issued 11/1/2013 to Carisma Car Wash in Old Saybrook, CT, including a penalty of $100,000. Violations of the general permit for discharge of vehicle maintenance to the sanitary sewer, by discharging to the ground rather than hauling wastewater to a POTW as required by the permit. Stipulated Judgment No. HHD-CV-13-6040682S issued 5/2/2014 to Hydro Honing Laboratories, Inc. in East Hartford, CT, including at penalty of $75,000. Violations of the general permit for discharge of minor tumbling and cleaning wastewaters to sanitary sewer, by causing blockage in the sewer line, discharging unpermitted wastewaters to the sewer, overflow of untreated wastewater in an underground storage tank to the ground, discharge of process wastewater to a stormwater catch basin/dry well. Remedial investigation required and removal of UST. Installation of evaporator to eliminate discharge to the sanitary sewer is also being pursued under a schedule in the SJ.
Metric 7a1 and 7a2 - The number of Major and Non-Major facilities with Single Event Violations, respectively - CT enters SEVs into ICIS when identified during inspections of NPDES Major facilities and for those addressed by formal enforcement actions issued to NPDES Major facilities.
Metric 7f1 - Non-Major facilities in Category 1 Noncompliance - Codes triggering Category 1 Noncompliance for these facilities were verified to confirm they belong on this list. Not all lesser violations listed for these facilities were verified. CT0030295, Greenwich American, Inc., will remain on this list with X codes in FFY2014, Q1 and Q4. However, Q3 was incorrectly flagged with an X code. There were no violations of Max. Daily Limits during Q2 and Q3, and no violations at all during Q3. CT has requested EPA Region 1 to manually override the RNC code to show compliance in Q3.
Metric 7g1 - Non-Major Facilities in Category 2 Noncompliance - while it was verified that each facility listed had at least one violation coded during the year, the veracity of each violation was not verified. Metric 8a1 - Major Facilities in SNC - The number should be 13, not 14. CT0100501, Seymour POTW, was incorrectly flagged as SNC for non-report of a DMR with a D code in the FFY2014, Q4. There were no violations in Q4. CT has requested EPA Region 1 to manually override the RNC code to show compliance. CT0101320, UCONN, will remain on this list with a D code for FFY2014, Q2; however, CT has requested EPA Region 1 to manually override the X code to a V for FFY2014, Q4 and add a V code for Q3. While there were exceedances of the Maximum Daily limit for Total Residual Chlorine in May and September 2014, there were no exceedances of the average monthly limit. Therefore the Non-Monthly Caveat applies. CT0101010, Bridgeport East WPCF, has a code of X in FFY2014, Q4, which was verified.
The review revealed that ICIS needs to be updated with new limits for Total Residual Chlorine that took effect during the permit term. The following are listed as a precaution, since the ICIS edits were made in the last week prior to the deadline, and after the last ECHO refresh. Therefore we could not verify the ICIS edits transferred to ECHO:
Metric 1g1 - number of enforcement actions with penalties - should be 14. The $52,000 penalty in the Stipulated Judgment against Allnex (f.k.a. Cytec), CT0000086, was recently entered into ICIS.
Metric 1g2 - total penalties assessed - should be $310,100. And this does not include the $175,000 of penalties assessed by two Stipulated Judgments for violations of pretreatment general permits.
Metric 7f1 - the number of Non-Major facilities in Category 1 Noncompliance - should be 15. CT0030501, Derecktor Shipyard, will drop off the listing, because a non-report, D, violation was manually resolved for FFY2014, Q1. The discharged ceased, and the permit was terminated in August 2013, prior to the start of FFY2014.
Metric 7g1 - Non-Major Facilities in Category 2, Noncompliance - The following data was/is being corrected in ICIS: CT0100269, Jewett City WPCF, a typographical error shows March 2014 Max Daily concentration for TSS as 64.0 instead of 6.4 mg/l. CT0101605, Somersville WPCF, a typographical error shows no data. The minimum % removal for TSS was 94.4%. CT0100978, Sprague WWTP, a typographical error shows June 2014 minimum % removal for TSS as 84.0% instead of 86.0%, which is within the limit.
While the following metrics are not part of the Data Verification Tab in ECHO, CT offers the following feedback:
Metric 1b1 - Permit Limits Rate for Major NPDES facilities 5 permits are listed as not having permit limits. All have limits. CT0003093 (NRG Norwalk Harbor) and CT0026298 (Interstate Construction Services) both were terminated during the FFY2014, and have a Permit Status of TRM. Prior to termination, their Permit Status was Administratively Continued in Effect, or “EFF.” The other three permits listed CT0100145, CT0100412 and CT0100480 (Danbury, Norwich and Rocky Hill WPCFs) all have a Permit Status of “EFF.” EPA recently updated the ECHO programming of this metric to count those permits that had a Permit Status of “EFF,” acknowledging that permits that were continued in effect also had limits that continued in effect. Perhaps this programming change did not account for those permits that are terminated during the year, which previously had a status of “EFF.” I cannot speculate as to why the three WPCFs were not counted.Metric 1b2 - DMR entry rate for Major Facilities. The main data sheet for this metric notes 98.5% entered, and notes a count of 43 permits not entered. The drill down shows these 43 DMRs were expected from 5 permits. This data was not verified.
|RCRA||Metric 1b1: DEEP conducted 4 NRRs in addition to the number of sites inspected reported here.
Metric 1b2: DEEP conducted 4 FRRs and 4 NRRs in addition to the number of inspections reported.
Metrics 1d1 and 1d2: Data does not include 1 informal action issued to an out-of-state entity.
Metrics 5b and 5c: CT DEEP deviates from the national inspection goal of inspecting 20% of the LQG universe by inspecting 10% of the traditional LQG universe and redirects remaining resources to inspect manifest initiative sites and a mix of inspection types in place of the additional 10%.
|Delaware||CWA||Data Metric 7g1 Non-Major Facilities in Category 2 Noncompliance should show only six (6) facilities. Chemtrade (DE0000655) is allowed up to 60 minutes per single pH event, and up to 446 minutes per month, before considered to be in violation of a permit limit, and should be dropped from this list.|
|Florida||CWA||7g1 - Overrides were requested/granted for the following 14 facilities: FL0020915, FL0028380, FL0032492, FL0034622, FL0036862, FL0042536, FL0043354, FL0043419, FL0044377, FL0175412, FL0278076, FL0772135, FLA182648, and FLA190560. Total number of Non-Major Facilities in Cat 2 Noncompliance should be 101, after the data refresh on 01/30/15.|
|Iowa||CWA||Iowa currently has a significant number of CWA related ICIS violations. However, the majority of these are not actual violations, but are the result of challenges with synchronization of data between Iowa’s new NPDS permitting system and NPDES-ICIS. Our experience has shown that many of the ICIS CWA violations are not true violations. Iowa has and will continue to make significant progress in eliminating the causes of the false violations.|
1d1 - Number of Tier I Facilities with Noncompliance.
1d2 - Number of Tier II Facilities with Noncompliance. All known current and past compliance status errors discovered by Illinois EPA during data verification of metrics 1d1 and 1d2 were corrected in USEPAs AFS system. Illinois EPA was unable to verify the corrections in AFS effectively changed the data in the data verification tables and the Illinois Dashboard information, because a refresh of the data was not available. Further compliance status errors could exist.
1i1 - Number of Stack Tests with Passing Results. Illinois EPA data indicated that in addition to the 107 passed stack tests counted in FFY2014 metrics 1i1, there were 49 passed stack tests not credited in the drilldown. In accordance with meeting minimum data requirements (MDRs) per the Clean Air Act, Illinois EPA reported to AFS a total of 156 passed stack tests.
1i5 - Number of Stack Tests Observed & Reviewed. Illinois EPA data indicated that in addition to the 6 stack tests counted as observed and reviewed in FFY2014 metrics 1i5, there were 5 observed and reviewed stack tests not credited in the drilldown. In accordance with meeting minimum data requirements (MDRs) per the Clean Air Act, Illinois EPA reported to AFS a total of 11 observed & reviewed stack tests.
1i6 - Number of Stack Tests Reviewed Only. Illinois EPA data indicated that in addition to the 107 reviewed stack tests counted in FFY2014 metrics 1i6, there were 49 reviewed stack tests not credited in the drilldown. In accordance with meeting minimum data requirements (MDRs) per the Clean Air Act, Illinois EPA reported to AFS a total of 156 reviewed only stack tests.
1j - Number of Title V Annual Compliance Certifications Reviewed. Illinois EPA data indicated that in addition to the 475 reviewed Annual Compliance Certifications reviewed in FFY2014 metrics 1j, there were 51 reviews not credited due to how the data for the metrics was generated. In accordance with meeting minimum data requirements (MDRs) per the Clean Air Act, Illinois EPA reported to AFS a total of 526 reviewed Annual Compliance Certifications.
5e - Review of Title V Annual Compliance Certifications Completed. The 5e metrics conveyed the universe as 570, which included 436 counted and 134 not counted. The 134 uncounted sources included 121 sources that were entered into EPA’s national database system as Title V major sources; however, due to the backlog of Illinois’ permit applications, the Title V permit has either not yet issued to the source or the source applied for a FESOP prior to the expiration of its Title V permit, so the source did not submit an Annual Compliance Certification - 76 sources were awaiting issuance of a CAAPP permit and 45 sources were awaiting issuance of a FESOP. Additionally, 4 sources were reported erroneously due to data errors, 6 sources withdrew their Title V permit, 2 sources untimely submitted the Annual Compliance Certification, which resulted in Illinois EPA untimely reporting receipt of the Annual Compliance Certification, and 1 source failed to submit the Annual Compliance Certification, Illinois EPA.
|Indiana||CAA||Any data inconsistencies are mainly the result of the Legacy AFS database having been frozen on October 16, 2014, and as a result the IDEM staff were not completely able to accurately verify and/or make any needed corrections on a timely basis. IDEM continues to work to assure the accuracy of the information provided into EPAs new database of record (ICIS-Air).|
Metric ID 1e1: Facilities with informal actions. KDHE does not track informal actions in a centrally located searchable format and therefore, does not load the data to ICIS-NPDES.
Metric ID 1e2: Total number of informal actions at CWA NPDES facilities. KDHE does not track informal actions in a centrally located searchable format and therefore, does not load the data to ICIS-NPDES.
Metric 2a1: Number of formal enforcement actions, taken against major facilities, with enforcement violation type codes entered. KDHE does not tie enforcement violation type codes to the formal enforcement actions. All previous violations which still exist or may recur at the time the order is written are covered under the order.
Metric 7a1: Number of Major facilities with single event violations. KDHE does not track single event violations in a centrally located searchable format and therefore, does not load the data to ICIS-NPDES.
Metric 7a2: Number of non-major facilities with single event violations. KDHE does not track single event violations in a centrally located searchable format and therefore, does not load the data to ICIS-NPDES.
Metric 7b1: Compliance schedule violations. KDHE does not track compliance schedule violations in a searchable format and therefore, does not load the data to ICIS-NPDES. The O’Brien Ready Mix order is a KDHE-issued order which has now been terminated.
Metric 7c1: Permit schedule violations. KDHE does not track permit schedule violations in a searchable format and therefore, does not load the data to ICIS-NPDES.
Metric 7f1: Non-major facilities in Category 1 non-compliance. KDHE loads non-major basic data including limit sets to ICIS-NPDES. However, states are not required to load non-major DMR data. KDHE has begun to load some, but not all, discharge monitoring report (DMR) data during this time period to support the limit set requirements. Therefore, the vast majority of the Category 1 non-compliance is because of KDHE not loading all the non-major DMR data to ICIS-NPDES.
Metric 7g1: Non-major facilities in Category 2 non-compliance. KDHE loads non-major basic data including limit sets to ICIS-NPDES. However, states are not required to load non-major DMR data. KDHE has begun to load some, but not all, discharge monitoring report (DMR) data during this time period to support the limit set requirements. Therefore, the vast majority of the Category 2 non-compliance is because of KDHE not loading all the non-major DMR data to ICIS-NPDES.Metric 8a1: Major facilities in SNC. Of the five facilities shown, two are shown as having schedule violations of EPA issued orders. It is unknown whether they are in violation of the EPA issued orders or EPA has not updated ICIS-NPDES. The Wichita facility does not have violations according to the KDHE records. The violations shown for the two remaining facilities are legitimate and both facilities have come back into compliance with no enforcement action required.
|Kentucky||CAA||A significant portion of the Louisville Metro APCDs permitted facilities have been going through the renewal process and are becoming subject to limits below the 80% of Major threshold. This has caused a considerable amount of data quality issues that were compounded by the AFS to ICIS transition. The data quality is steadily improving and will continue to improve as the EPA and their contractor eliminate bugs and establish the correct permissions in the new system. The District is committed to meeting or exceeding the EPA requirements for compliance evaluation and determination and providing accurate information available to the public. Please contact the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District with questions.|
|RCRA||There are some discrepancies between the document issuance dates and the dates in RCRAInfo for the informal enforcement actions.|
|Louisiana||CAA||Data in ICIS-Air has been randomly checked against Louisiana’s TEMPO database for the period 10/01/2013 - 09/30/2014. We are ready for the ICIS-Air data to be posted verbatim on the ECHO site.|
2a1 - Number of formal enforcement actions taken against major facilities, with enforcement violation type codes entered does not include 5 amended enforcement actions that LDEQ issued during FY2014. It appears that EPA is counting amended orders as duplicates and not including them in the number on the metric chart.
7a2 - Number of non-major facilities with single event violations includes LAG540152 and LAG560206 because ECHO lists a single event violation for each facility. These violations were erroneously entered into ICIS and have been removed but ECHO has not been updated to reflect their removal.
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.7g1- Number of non-major facilities in Category 2 non-compliance includes LAR10E876 which was terminated as of 04/23/2009 and the associated order was closed 06/29/2009 so this permit should not be included.
Element 1 - Data Facilities with informal actions? (database has 1 listed) 17 Total Number of Informal Actions at CWA NPDES facilities? (database has 1 listed) 10 Facilities with formal actions? (database has 1 listed) 4 Total number of formal actions at CWA NPDES facilities? (database has 1 listed) 4 Number of Enforcement actions with penalties? 3 Total penalties assessed? $223,761 Number of formal enforcement actions taken against major facilities with enforcement violation type codes entered? 0Element 3 - Violations Compliance Schedule Violations - The record indicates there is one Compliance schedule violation, however when you go deeper into this data verification results, there is no facility listed. This permit was terminated on 03/30/2006. The overdue compliance schedule item was from 2006 after the termination date. MEDEP staff deleted this item from ICIS-NPDES. Permit Schedule Violations - G M Allen & Son INC - This permit schedule item was completed on October 21, 2014. The due date was December 1, 2014. This item has been logged out in the State database and in ICIS-NPDES. This item was not late.
|Maryland||CAA||1d2 - Number of Tier II facilities with non-compliance shows one facility listed by EPA for non-compliance for CFC violations. EPA needs to verify.|
|Massachusetts||CAA||Compliance status information is updated regularly but a time lag in these updates means that this data may not be correct on any given date. Please contact the state should you have any questions about compliance status or enforcement information.|
|Michigan||CAA||In general, the data in the US EPA's FY2014 report is consistent with data in the Michigan Air Compliance and Enforcement System (MACES) database. However, data on the number of Title V Annual Compliance Certifications reviewed is underreported in the national database. This is a known issue that Michigan is working to resolve as part of the new electronic data flow to the Integrated Compliance Information System for Air (ICIS-Air) in FY2015.|
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Data Verification for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program: The MDEQ, Water Resources Division, has not been able to transfer information regarding our compliance and enforcement activities to the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). We believed corrections were in place to rectify this situation; unfortunately, that is not the case. We do not have staff to manually enter this data. We are currently working on a new information system (MiWaters database) that is expected to be implemented in June 2015. When that happens, all of the required data will flow from our system to ICIS. Below is a summary of informal and formal enforcement actions taken during the period of October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2014. This information is included in our Performance Partnership Grants report that will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This data accurately reflects our efforts to take timely and appropriate action for noncompliance issues. Issue compliance communications (CC), violation notices (VN), and/or second violation notices (SVN), where appropriate, to facilities found to be in noncompliance with permit requirements, state laws, or administrative rules:
Issue Director’s Final Orders (DFO) for the abatement of water pollution, where necessary: No DFOs were issued during fiscal year 2014. However, 38 Administrative Consent Orders, Amended Administrative Consent Orders, and District-Initiated Administrative Consent Orders; and 3 Judicial Consent Judgments were entered for abatement of water pollution and assessment of penalties. One Order of Determination was entered. The Water Resources Division also resolved eight additional unpermitted discharge cases involving mostly industrial stormwater discharges via the WRD’s General Administrative Consent Order and Certificate of Entries for unpermitted dischargers. Assure that the assessment of civil penalties, payment for natural resource damages, and the payment of agency costs are efficient to assure an effective deterrent to continuing pollution and consistent with current civil penalty policies: The assessment of civil penalties, agency costs, and natural resource damages amounted to $294,037.04 in fiscal year 2014.
|Minnesota||CAA||Metric 3b2 (Performance Tests) - The ECHO count is correct but test dates are recorded instead of test review dates. The test dates are not recorded until the tests are reviewed. The test review dates are stored in our local state database and could be exchanged in ICIS-Air for the test dates and the test dates could be kept in a comment field so as not to be lost. Therefore the timeliness metric, currently 41.5% in ECHO, is actually 75% when using 60 days after test review as the timeliness cutoff date.|
|CWA||The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has made all reasonable effort to verify and correct the data presented in the ECHO State Review Framework 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 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 data be accessed through our “What’s in my Neighborhood” website.|
In order to comply with the terms of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, data involving pending enforcement actions are not extracted from RCRAInfo to ECHO.
There are quite a few incorrect data in the national program database. This is due to Minnesota’s privacy rules. Minnesota rules doesn’t allow facilities that have violations to be public. Because of this some of the data that are associated with violations may not show up in the national database. However, these same data can be found in Minnesota’s database and also in RCRAInfo.This is the final Minnesota data with corrections.
1.a.3 the universe of non-major GPs include several permits that were terminated during the fiscal year and are no longer active.7.a.2 Three of the single event violations have been resolved, only one remains outstanding.
All data has been verified.See individual flags for permits.
|RCRA||Counts were not extracted from the national program database accurately for Active LQGS, Active SQGs, and Other Active. Counts extracted showed 68, 75, 1300 respectively, however the correct counts are 70, 74, 1299 respectively.|
1b1: MS4 permits require controls to reduce discharge of pollutants, no numeric limits.
1b2: Database errors: MS4 permit (NV0021911) does not have a DMR entry. Permit NV0020061 a script error caused reading annual DMR parameter as monthly in ICIS. Issue was resolved.
1c1: Not counted permits covers single event discharge, no limit rate entered in ICIS.
1c2: Historically, Nevada is not aware that DMRs for non-major NPDES permits are required to be reported in ICIS. The 68 DMR entries reflect our recent effort to implement voluntary NetDMR reporting for non-majors.
5a1: CMS plan targets inspection/audit once every 5 years for MS4 permits.
5b1: CMS plan & MOU target 20% inspection for non-major NPDES facilities.
7d1: non-compliances have been resolved in ICIS.8a2: Permits NV0020168, NV0020923, & NV0000078 were cancelled in years past.
|New Jersey||CAA||New Jersey’s verification efforts have shown that the manually entered data from New Jersey's NJEMS system to EPA AFS is accurately portraying our universe of facilities and enforcement work conducted. The NJDEP is dedicated to making environmental information readily available to our constituents while maintaining user confidence in the data. The information provided within NJDEP Data Miner reflects NJDEPs FFY2014 CAA data and is available at: https://www.state.nj.us/opra/|
|CWA||ICIS-NPDES includes historical data for the state of New Jersey; however, the state no longer enters data into this system. Therefore, the CWA data in ECHO for FFY2014 does not accurately reflect New Jersey's universe of facilities and enforcement work conducted. The NJDEP is dedicated to making environmental information readily available to our constituents while maintaining user confidence in the data. The information provided within NJDEP Data Miner reflects NJDEPs FFY2014 CWA data and is available at: https://www.state.nj.us/opra/|
|RCRA||New Jersey’s verification efforts have shown that the batch data uploaded from New Jersey's NJEMS system to RCRAinfo is accurately portraying our facilities and enforcement work conducted. The NJDEP is dedicated to making environmental information readily available to our constituents while maintaining user confidence in the data. The information provided within NJDEP Data Miner reflects NJDEPs FFY2014 RCRA data and is available at: https://www.state.nj.us/opra/|
Count: Thirteen facilities with Title V permits had their ACCs reviewed, but these reviews were not entered in AFS before the 10/16/14 deadline for data entry. The remaining eighteen facilities did not have ACCs reviewed during FY14.
Universe: Eighteen of the facilities did not have Title V permits during FY14. Three facilities had Title V permits during FY14, but did not have ACCs due during FY14. One facility did not submit an ACC during FY14.
NYSDEC does not use the federal generator status field in RCRAInfo to track the RCRA hazardous waste generation status of a site (ie LQG, SQG) and this field is inaccurate for NY sites. We use an internal database of manifest and Hazardous Waste Report data of HW 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 Metric #s being inaccurate:
1.a.2., 3., and 4., about # of sites in each generator category; and 5.b., c., and d., about inspection coverage.
Any other calculations using these numbers are also inaccurate. The percent of NY LQGs and SQGs inspected, or inspection coverage, is greater than calculated in the metrics. The metric numbers are based on current universe counts for LQGs and SQGs, but since these universes change on a daily basis, some of the LQG and SQG inspections conducted are not credited in EPAs SRF reports because the site moved out of the universe, and their generator status field in RCRAInfo was not revised. EPA R2 and NYSDEC have agreed that DEC will target inspections at long-term LQGs, since a very large percentage 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.This also results in the EPA ECHO site search, Dashboard, Comparative Map, and Envirofacts public web pages not displaying the generator status of NY sites correctly. For metric 5a, Two-year inspection coverage for operating TSDFs, the Combined or All metric results should be used, because EPA R2 has requested that they inspect federal owned NY TSDFs. For metric 8a, SNC ID rate, EPA OECA changed its calculation, did not email states about it, and did not follow the Enforcement Response Policy in their new calculation of it. (There are other inspections besides CEI and FCI that produce SNC violators that are not counted. There is also a timing issue for sites that have inspections and SNC determinations in different fiscal years.) EPA HQ has acknowledged this and de-emphasized the use of this metric. NY conducts inspections at facilities that do not have EPA ID#s and are not required to notify EPA nor NYSDEC of their hazardous waste activities (i.e. federal CESQGs, and non-regulated facilities) nor get an EPA ID #. As a result, not all inspection and enforcement activities are captured in the database, nor reflected in EPAs metrics. EPAs metrics understate NYs full range of hazardous waste compliance, inspection, and enforcement efforts. Almost all data was entered in RCRAInfo before EPAs deadline. Data is accurate as much as possible.
|North Carolina||CAA||LCON 11:
|CWA||Problems with the translation and timing of the data between EPA and the state exist for the count of Compliance Schedule Violations and facilities in Significant Non-compliance (SNC) and Category 1 or 2 Non-compliance. During FY13, EPA required the state to migrate its data from PCS to ICIS-NPDES. After the migration, the state was not able to upload its DMR data to ICIS, as the state was still working on the interface between the two systems. The state resumed DMR upload to EPA late 2013. The lack of DMR flow to EPA resulted in invalid DMR non-receipt violations for North Carolina NPDES facilities. Because the DMR data was uploaded to ICIS after the quarter that the invalid violations occurred, the state cannot manually correct the violations.|
|North Dakota||RCRA||Metric 1b1 and 1b2 (facilities inspected and number of inspections): The inspection total numbers for FY2014 include 58 US EPA Region VIII site visits to oil production lease sites which generate solid waste (subject to RCRA 7003 and USFWs MBTA). The inspection trend numbers should be viewed with this understanding.|
1c1: 503 FCEs were completed
1c2: 503 FCEs were completed
1i2: 42 stack tests with failing results
5a: 305 major facility FCEs conducted
5b: 198 SMTV FCEs conducted5e: 544 TV annual certifications reviewed
|RCRA||Ohio EPA uses the federal RCRAInfo database to track regulated facilities and our compliance monitoring activities. The inspection and enforcement information displayed in ECHO should accurately reflect our accomplishments in this area of the RCRA Subtitle C program. The count of active sites is derived from the most recently received facility identification record. Facilities do not routinely update their regulated activity information or request deactivation of their EPA ID number when they cease activity. The term “active site” should be interpreted as a facility that has not notified Ohio EPA that they are no longer conducting regulated activity. For example, the number of active Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) is more than twice the number of LQGs that file Biennial Reports. Ohio EPA believes that the count of LQG Biennial Report filers is more representative of the true number of LQGs in Ohio. US EPA recognizes this and uses the Biennial Report LQG count to track Ohio EPA’s LQG inspection commitment accomplishments.|
|Oregon||CWA||Oregon provided comments and clarifications with each SRF data verification metric as needed for FFY2014 data. During FFY2014, Oregon only submitted complete compliance and enforcement data to ICIS for traditional majors NPDES individual permits (excluding MS4s) and only basic WENDB data (facility and four inspection data) for traditional nonmajor NPDES individual permits (no MS4s). If any questions, please contact Oregon DEQs Clean Water Act Data Steward, James Billings 503-229-5073 or Billings.Jim@DEQ.state.or.us|
Metric 1b2: UNITED REFINING CO/WARREN PLT and CHESTER CNTY SOLID W/LANCHESTER LANDFILL subject to MACT, not non-MACT NESHAP. Codes changed in AIMS and in ICIS-AIR.
Metric 3a2: ARCELORMITTAL MONESSEN LLC/MONESSEN COKE, Action 707: This HPV does not meet the criteria in the new HPV Policy (effective 10/1/2014). As per a 9/25/14 emails from Terry Dykes (OECA) to HPV Policy Workgroup members, this HPV is returned to state, as of 10/1/14.Metric 5a: ALLEGHENY ENERGY SUPPLY CO/ARMSTRONG POWER STA, ID 4200500023, ceased operations, end of 2013.
2/2/15 Final frozen data in Metric 1b1 is incorrect as Expired permits where limits continued automatically in ICIS were not taken into account. Six of the eight permits fall into this category:
PA0025968 ALIQUIPPA STP
PA0026255 ALLEGHENY VLY JT SEW AUTH STP
PA0026671 PHILA WATER DEPT - SOUTHWEST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
PA0026841 OAKMONT BORO - WWTP
PA0027219 UNIONTOWN STP
PA0027456 GREATER GREENSBURG STPThe two remaining permits of the eight had no limits in ICIS because they were terminated in FFY 2014.
|South Dakota||CWA||1a3 - NPDES Non-major individual permit number SD00TEST1 is a template permit that is used to copy data and limit sets to other permits as a time saver.|
|RCRA||Regarding 1a5: The number of BR LQGs on this list are based on the 2011 BR, rather than the 2013 BR. The 2013 BR list (40 operations) differs somewhat from the 2011 list. Regarding 1b1: The Number of Sites Inspected list shown here only reflects inspections conducted at sites that have submitted HW notification forms. The state actually inspected a total of 75 sites; the 30 sites that are not reflected in ECHO are non-notifiers (CESQGs and non-generators). Non-notifier operations are not required to submit HW notification forms. Although the state assigns ID numbers to non-notifiers, because a signed notification form was not submitted by the company we specify the implementer information not be extracted to the public; therefore, the data are not available in ECHO. Regarding 1b2: See comments under 1b1, above. The state conducted a total of 75 site inspections in FY2014.|
The State of Texas has completed its review of the FY2014 SRF CAA enforcement data. The AFS Extract program pulls inspection, violation, and enforcement data from the Consolidated Compliance and Enforcement Data System (CCEDS), and uploads to AFS in batch form. Based on this review, the TCEQ submits the following data caveats: For metrics 1a2, 1a3, 1a4, 1a5, 1a6, 1c3, 1c4, 1d2, 1g3, 1g4, 1i3, and 1i4, TCEQ does not capture or maintain this information.
1c1: The AFS Extract shows that 716 of the Tier 1 facilities received one or more FCEs that were reported to AFS. Quality assurance efforts were interrupted in October 2014 by the freezing of AFS data due to its coming replacement by ICIS-Air.
1c2: TCEQ Records indicate 742 FCEs were uploaded to AFS. Quality assurance efforts were interrupted in October 2014 by the freezing of AFS data due to its coming replacement by ICIS-Air.
1h1: TCEQ records indicate the total amount for Administrative Orders was $3,170,239. Duplicate data was uploaded for FY14. Quality assurance efforts were interrupted in October 2014 by the freezing of AFS data due to its coming replacement by ICIS-Air.
1h2: TCEQ records indicate 112 distinct cases. Duplicate data was uploaded for FY14. Quality assurance efforts were interrupted in October 2014 by the freezing of AFS data due to its coming replacement by ICIS-Air.
1i5: TCEQ records indicate that 44 stack tests were observed and reviewed, and were uploaded to AFS. Quality assurance efforts were interrupted in October 2014 by the freezing of AFS data due to its coming replacement by ICIS-Air.
1i6: TCEQ records indicate that 406 stack tests (reviewed only) were uploaded to AFS. Quality assurance efforts were interrupted in October 2014 by the freezing of AFS data due to its coming replacement by ICIS-Air.
1j: TCEQ records indicate 1,396 Title V ACCs were reviewed during FY14. Quality assurance efforts were interrupted in October 2014 by the freezing of AFS data due to its coming replacement by ICIS-Air.
3a2: Due to issues with the TCEQ AFS Extract, data uploaded earlier in FY14 had to be reloaded in October 2014. This action caused the data to appear to have been untimely. Quality assurance efforts were interrupted in October 2014 by the freezing of AFS data due to its coming replacement by ICIS-Air.
5a: TCEQ records indicate a total of 762 FCEs conducted in FY14. 608 of these are included in the metric universe; the additional sites are part of the Title V universe but were not identified in the 5a metric. Quality assurance efforts were interrupted in October 2014 by the freezing of AFS data due to its coming replacement by ICIS-Air.
5e: TCEQ records indicate an additional 491 ACCs were completed in FY14, for a total of 1,177 ACCs for the facilities identified in this metric. Quality assurance efforts were interrupted in October 2014 by the freezing of AFS data due to its coming replacement by ICIS-Air.
7b1: TCEQ does not report all violations, rather a single HPV is reported for each related investigation regardless of the number of actual HPV violations discovered during the investigation.
7b3: TCEQ does not report all violations, rather a single HPV is reported for each related investigation regardless of the number of actual HPV violations discovered during the investigation.10a: Due to issues with the TCEQ AFS Extract, data uploaded earlier in FY14 had to be reloaded in October 2014. This action caused the data to appear to have been untimely. Quality assurance efforts were interrupted in October 2014 by the freezing of AFS data due to its coming replacement by ICIS-Air. Noted differences in the data systems: 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.
Metric 1a2: As 09/29/2014 freeze date, there were approximately 1102 LQGs. The difference between TCEQs amounts and EPAs amounts are due to continuing data clean ups. 157 sites that are incorrect were noted in last year’s verification. We continue to work with Region 6 to clean up the data as were able.
Metric 1a3: With the freeze date of 9/29/2014, it is very hard and time consuming to try to verify these numbers. We did a query of the active SQGs (metric 1a3) in PARIS and came up with 1966, 979 less than in RCRAInfo. This may be due to status differences (active or inactive) and size differences. Metric 1a4: TCEQ does not track all CESQGs, and therefore cannot verify the amount of all other active sites.
Metric 1a5: The amount of BR LQGs have been verified and are correct.
Metric 1b1 (Number of sites inspected): Sites that were inspected via a record review type inspection only are not reflected in ECHO because ECHO does not reflect record review inspections. Sites without EPA IDs that were inspected are not reflected in ECHO or RCRAInfo because ECHO and RCRAInfo do not reflect inspections that are conducted at sites that do not have EPA IDs. An EPA ID is required for an inspection to upload from TCEQs data system to RCRAInfo; however, conditionally exempt small quantity generators are not required to obtain EPA IDs. Also, some industrial and hazardous waste complaints are conducted at non-RCRA sites that do not have EPA IDs. During federal fiscal year FY14, TCEQ conducted RCRA inspections at 788 sites.
Metric 1b2 (Number of inspections): ECHO does not reflect record review inspections. Sites without EPA IDs that were inspected are not reflected in ECHO or RCRAInfo because ECHO and RCRAInfo do not reflect inspections that are conducted at sites that do not have EPA IDs. An EPA ID is required for an inspection to upload from TCEQs data system to RCRAInfo; however, conditionally exempt small quantity generators are not required to obtain EPA IDs. Also, some industrial and hazardous waste complaints are conducted at non-RCRA sites that do not have EPA IDs. During federal fiscal year FY14, TCEQ conducted 956 RCRA inspections.
Metric 1c2 (Number of sites in violation at any time during the review year regardless of determination date): TCEQs data system reports 272 notices of violation in federal fiscal year FY14. Discrepancies between what ECHO and TCEQs data system report may be due to differences in the types of informal enforcement actions reported for this metric.
Metric 1f1 - Number of sites with formal enforcement actions: RCRAInfo 13 CCEDS 53 Includes facilities not required to obtain EPA IDs and are not uploaded to RCRAInfo. Also includes final actions loaded under EPA code 124 State Level Administrative Order, which does not seem to be counted in EPA’s reports.
Metric 1f2 - Number of formal enforcement actions RCRAInfo 15 CCEDS 48 Includes facilities not required to obtain EPA IDs and are not uploaded to RCRAInfo and for the final actions loaded under EPA code 124 State Level Administrative Order.
Metric 1g - Total dollar amount of final penalties RCRAInfo $3,315,756 CCEDS $4,045,138.50 The difference in the penalty amounts are for facilities that are not required to obtain EPA IDs and are not uploaded to RCRAInfo, and also for the final actions loaded under EPA code 124 State Level Administrative Order.Metric 1h - Number of final formal actions with penalty in last 1 FY RCRAInfo 7 CCEDS 27 Includes 12 final formal actions for facilities not required to obtain EPA IDs and an additional 7 final formal actions exist in RCRAInfo under the code 124 State Level Administrative Order
|Vermont||CAA||Any corrections to operating status & classification will be made in ICIS.|
1a4 - Number of Active NPDES Non-Majors with General Permits. Virginia currently does not upload General Permit info into ICIS. The count shown in this metric is only limited to facilities that had federal inspection done in the past and a fraction of the VPDES general permit universe.
7b1 - Compliance Schedule Violations The Count is not accurate - Violations of VA0020362, VA0025151, VA0027642, VA0060569, and VA0064394 are not listed as reported in ICIS.
7c1 - Permit Schedule Violations The Count is not accurate - One permit schedule violation (VA0067881) is not listed as reported in ICIS.
7f1 - Non-Major Facilities in Category 1 Noncompliance The count posted is not accurate - It does not include any facilities with effluent violations since Virginia does not upload any Non-Major permit Discharge Monitoring Report or effluent violation data into ICIS. The accurate count for the Category 1 Noncompliance is provided in the Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR), which is submitted to EPA every calendar year.7g1 - Non-Major Facilities in Category 2 Noncompliance The count posted is not accurate - It does not include any facilities with effluent violations since Virginia does not upload any Non-Major permit Discharge Monitoring Report or effluent violation data into ICIS. The accurate count for the Category 2 Noncompliance is provided in the Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR), which is submitted to EPA every calendar year.
|RCRA||Item 1a2: Two facilities on list did not become LQG until after FY2014: VAR000004200, CVS OF DC AND VA, INC. (Receive-Date 12/1/2014); and VAR000519025, PITTSYLVANIA POWER STATION (Receive-Date 12/29/2014). So it appears that the count for Number of Active LQGs is 422.|
|Washington||RCRA||One penalty action is under appeal and is not final. Seattle Barrel, WAD027470111 was issued an $80,000 penalty on 7/28/2014, which was appealed on 8/27/2014. As this action began during federal fiscal year 2014 but will not be final before the data verification is closed, it will not show in the frozen data for either 2014 or 2015. A similar circumstance occurred during the 2013 data verification. A penalty at Burlington Environmental LLC Kent, WAD991281767, was under appeal at the time the 2013 data verification ended. The action was resolved on 2/20/2014 and a $45,000 penalty was paid on 3/12/2014. This action will not show in the frozen data for either 2013 or 2014.|
1a3 - Number of Active Part 61 NESHAP minors: The number indicated is 8 but two of the facilities indicated have been determined not to be subject. The correct number is 6.
1d1 - Number of Tier 1 Facilities with Noncompliance Identified (Facility Count): The number indicated is 144. Ninety of the facilities listed have been confirmed as in violation. Fifty-four of the facilities listed are either in compliance or need further review.
1h1 - Total Amount of Assessed Penalties: The amount indicated is $442,500. An $80,000 settlement has been included twice. The actual amount is $362,500.