You are here
State Comments on Frozen Data - 2015
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 Comparative Maps and State 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.
Data Metric 1b1 - Permit Limit Rates for Majors –This metric continues to inaccurately show 5 Major permits listed in the “Not Counted” column, bringing our percentages down to 86.1%, while they should be at 100%. After working with both R10 and EPA Headquarters, this seems to be a continuation from prior years that has yet to be fixed. After corresponding about this again this year with EPA, Office of Compliance, they communicated that it was not possible to develop, test and deploy more fixes to the metrics this year and our best option was to describe the issues again with the metrics in the data caveats below and why these permits should be removed from this metric.
AK0037303 - Trident Seafoods Akutan has both limits and parameters, as well as a history of DMR submittals which are identified in Metric 1c1, which we are currently as 100% for DMR entry rates. EPA’s response is that they do not count expired permits in metric 1b1 or 1c1, however they do count them within the metric of 1a1, which does not make sense to do it one metric, but not the other two for Major permit counts. They recognize that this is an obvious problem in the metric that needs fixing, but they want to see how this plays out in different states in order to come up with an amicable solution that will benefit all of the states affected. Until then, this permit will show up in this metric as not having parameters or limits.
AK0043206 - HECLA Greens Creek Mine permit has always been in either Administratively Extended or Effective status with limits, parameters and regular DMR submittals. EPA’s response is that this is an error in the metric logic and that it’s going to take some time to develop. The current programming logic is unable look at the previous permit version and consider its limits to be counted up to the effective date of the reissued permit. This logic makes absolutely no sense, since reissuances are routinely done with no break in DMR submittals, which obviously require parameters and limit coding.
AK0052388 - Peter Pan Seafoods Inc has no limits and parameters coded into ICIS, nor has it ever, as they are required by their permit to submit their data in annual report form only. We received this permit in this condition during Primacy and until we can reissue it, nothing will change regarding their reporting requirements, nor can they under 40 CFR and its Administratively Extended status-. EPA’s response is that there is no way for this metric to identify annual report-only permits from the narrative condition field. They intend to submit a change request form to ICIS which will add an annual-report only field and keep us informed of their progress and getting it implemented.
AK0052787 - Trident Seafoods Sandpoint is the exact same scenario as described above for AK0052388.
AKS052558 - City of Anchorage MS4 is a Major stormwater permit with over 700 outfalls that is shared by both the city of Anchorage and Alaska Department of Transportation. They are required under their stormwater permit to submit their data in annual report form only. They will never have limits or parameters coded in with DMR submittal requirements. In speaking with EPA about this last year as being incorrectly included in this metric, I was instructed to add the appropriate stormwater components in ICIS, which was supposed to fix this and have it removed from this metric. That did not work and for this FY15 data verification, EPA did further research and they have identified a known limitation in ICIS which prevents this metric logic from distinguishing a stormwater permit from a standard permit, therefore creating the possibility of having standard permits excluded by excluding stormwater permits. Until they can fix this, both types of permits will be included, even if it is incorrect.
|CAA||Metric 1d1 and 1d2 FRV metrics are 36 and 44 respectively. Adjustments to programming in ICIS-Air and EDT XML files need to be completed before data can be corrected and to prevent future FRV metrics miscount. Metric 1i1, 1i2, 1i6 stack test metrics are off due to restriction of special characters for electronic data transfer. Adjustments to programming of EDT XML files needs to be completed before data can be corrected.|
Incorrect/Deficiency - 1a3 Number of Active NPDES Non-Majors with Individual Permits: The correct number of Active NPDES Non-Majors with Individual Permits for Arkansas is 680. NPDES permit AR0051110 has a termination date of 10/01/2014. Therefore, it was not active during Federal Fiscal Year 2015.
Under Review - 1a4 Number of Active NPDES Non-Majors with General Permits: The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is in the process of entering all of the Active NPDES Non-Majors with General Permits into the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) database for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Until recently, ADEQ had not entered permitted facilities covered under the Construction Stormwater and Hydrostatic Testing General Permits unless an administrative order was issued. There are 3823 NPDES general covered facilities in ADEQ's Facility and Permit Summary database as of 02/12/2016.
Incorrect/Deficiency - 1f1 Facilities with Formal Actions: The correct number of Facilities with Formal Actions for Arkansas is 48. The NPDES permit tracking numbers ARR001309 and ARU500015 are the same physical facility site. The Formal Action was issued to ARR001309, but the violations occurred before permit coverage was issued; therefore, the violations are linked to ARU500015 in the ICIS database. The same situation exists for the following pairs of permit tracking numbers (ARR001382 and ARU500016), (ARR154378 and ARU500014), and (ARR154379 and ARU500013). There are 4 duplicates.
Incorrect/Deficiency - 1g1 Number of Enforcement Actions with Penalties: The correct Number of Enforcement Actions with Penalties for Arkansas is 34. The NPDES permit tracking numbers ARR001309 and ARU500015 are the same physical facility site. The Formal Action with a penalty was issued to ARR001309, but the violations occurred before permit coverage was issued; therefore, the violations are linked to ARU500015 in the ICIS database. The same situation exists for Formal Actions with penalties for the following pairs of permit tracking numbers (ARR001382 and ARU500016), (ARR154378 and ARU500014), and (ARR154379 and ARU500013). There are 4 duplicates.
The following individual permits are state-issued and should not be included in EPA totals: COR050004, COR10A244, COR10A247, COR10A437, COR10A517, COR10A576, COR10A674, COR10A770, COR10A818, COR10BZ3F, COR10BZ7F, COR10C44F, COR10C49F, COR10C53F, COR10C59F, COR10CH5F, COR10D18F, COR10DT4F, COR10ED1F, and COR10EL4F. The administrative action 08-2015-0097 titled ASPEN VIEW HOMES LLC occurred during the fiscal year in review, and should be included in the 1f1 and 1f2 metrics; the action has been linked to unpermitted NPDES facility ID COU000399; it should now count as a NPDES action. The Fort Carson MS4 permit COR042001 had permit schedule violations linked to an old permit cycle that have been cleaned up and should no longer appear. The rest of the Colorado metrics have been verified.
Metrics 1a & 1a5: The term “active” should be interpreted as a facility that has not notified that they are no longer conducting regulated activity. Therefore Metric 1a2 is most likely not representative of the universe of operating generators. DEEP relies on Metric 1a5, the number of generators who have filed a biennial report (BR), as a more representative count of Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) actively operating in the state.
Metric 1b1: DEEP conducted 3 Non-financial Records Reviews (NRRs) in addition to the number of sites inspected reported. The additional 3 NRRs were performed for the following out-of-state handlers: Approved Storage & Waste Hauling (NYR000076513), Conkling Services & Construction Inc (NYD012928347) and Newtech Recycling (NJR000066506).
Metric 1b2: DEEP conducted 3 NRRs in addition to the number of inspection reported.
Metrics 5b & 5c: For FY2015 CT DEEP chose the LQG FLEX Alternative and deviated from the national inspection goal of inspecting 20% of the LQG universe by inspecting 10% of the traditional LQG universe and inspecting 5% of the Pharmaceutical LQG universe and redirect remaining resources to inspect manifest initiative sites and a mix of inspection types. CT inspected 5 LQGs that were not on the BRS. They are: NALAS Engineering (CTR000511279), Buckeye Terminals (CTD069263424), Gulf Oil Limited Partnership (CTD002901510), COSTCO Wholesale 324 (CTR000501908) and COSTCO Wholesale 780 (CTR000504274).
Metric 8b: Multi-agency inspection/enforcement coordination delayed response time.
Metric 10a: Assessment for potential litigation delayed time to resolution.
|CWA||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 an 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.
|Delaware||CWA||Data Metric 1a3: Town of Middletown MS4 (DE0021209) is missing. Data Metric 7a1: DE0000256 (Delaware City Refining Company) only has 1 SEV on record for FY2015 (not 2 as shown on this metric) Data Metric 7g1: 6 of 8 facilities listed in this metric only have SEVs for FY2015. These SEVs do not qualify as Category II Non-Compliance in 40 CFR Part 123.45 (DE0000523, DE0000655, DE0021539, DE0021555, DE0050547, DE0051063)|
|CAA||See Delaware CAA Data Verification comments (XLSX) (16 K)|
7a2 - 02/19/2016 - added an additional 111 facilities, total should be 116 after data refresh.
7f1 - Overrides requested for 3 facilities: FL0021521, FL0031895, FL0471275.
7g1 - Overrides requested for the following 20 facilities as they should be re-categorized to Category 1 Noncompliance: FL0020559, FL0021466, FL0021610, FL0036862, FL0037133, FL0040029, FL0042293, FL0042536, FL0042838, FL0043389, FL0043419, FL0112895, FL0116921, FL0140023, FL0166154, FL0384941, FLA139092, FLA275026, FLA285331, and FLA470031.
Overrides requested for the following 10 facilities as no violations were found for: FL0025593, FL0043923, FL0044237, FL0044245, FL0167720, FL0183750, FL0824569, FLA183075, FLA183326, and FLA405582.
|RCRA||Metric 5b Annual inspection coverage for LQGs:
|Georgia||CWA||Metric 7f1 - Non-major facilities in category 1 noncompliance is incorrect. Most facilities are incorrectly showing missing DMRs.|
|CAA||For Data Metric 1b4 - Number of Active Title V Facilities, 7 facilities were not included in the list that could not be corrected. Those facilities, with ID Number and comments are:
|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.|
|Idaho||CAA||ICIS-Air was shutdown 1 hour early and I was not able to make some data changes. These caveats will be listed in the ECHO Comments.|
|Indiana||CAA||The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) strives to ensure that CAA Compliance and Enforcement data that is posted to ECHO is timely and accurate, and IDEM is constantly working with the EPA to assure the accuracy of the information that makes its way to ECHO. However, based on our current business practices and the development and gathering of evidence, timely entry of all enforcement data into the ICIS database is not always possible.|
|RCRA||When generators submit electronic reports on the site ID form they put their current status rather than reporting year status. Query in ECHO counts all LQG records for BR cycle and not overall amount of all BR records. This causes discrepancy.|
|Kansas||CWA||Metric ID 1d1: Facilities with informal actions
Kentucky has discovered data problems that related to the data migration between the Federal databases ICIS-Air to ECHO. Kentucky has also discovered data problems related to the data migration from the Federal databases AFS to ICIS-Air. U.S. EPA has been notified of these problems.
Please contact Mark Cleland (502-564-2150) or B.J. Bland (502-564-3999) for more information.METRIC 1a1
|CWA||Metric 1a3 – The following GP was issued as an IP- change to ICIS has been requested through the help desk– not changed– help desk pending
The following permits were issued as IPs, please change the permit type to SIN - change to ICIS has been requested through the help desk – not changed – help desk pending
Metric 1b1 – KY0100153 shows as not counted- the previous permit had limits, but expired on 6/30/2007. The current permit became effective on 12/1/2015 and has limits. I realize this may remain as not counted for FY2015 because of the 12/1/15 effective date. – not changed, not expected to change
Metric 1c1 – the following permits show as not counted but have limits. Some became effective after 9/30/2015 so I realize they may remain as not counted. – all are not changed, all except KY0083739 are not expected to change – this permit has limits in ICIS and the permit was effective during FY2015, ECHO has DMR data available.
Metric 1a2: Louisiana did not use the 2013 Biennial Universe list currently attached in ECHO to select LQG facilities for inspection in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2015. The verified 2013 Biennial list was not available at the time of State Inspection Planning, which occurs in May. The LQG universe list was pulled directly from the RCRAInfo production database, which contains the most current generator status. The LQG universe for FFY 2015 at the time of inspection planning was 400 LQGs, and 80 LQGs were targeted for inspection. In the EPA FFY 2015 End of Year Report, the report notes that Louisiana inspected 92 LQGs, which exceeds the 20% PPG commitment.
Metric 1f1: LDEQ updated RCRAinfo to include the EPA/LDEQ joint consent decree with CCS Midstream (Civil Action No. 5:14-CV-02284) prior to the data freeze but was not reflected in OTIS-ECHO prior to data verification. This should be reflected in the final count of the number of site with formal enforcement actions metric.
Metric 1g: LDEQ updated RCRAinfo to include the EPA/LDEQ joint consent decree with CCS Midstream (Civil Action No. 5:14-CV-02284) prior to the data freeze but was not reflected in OTIS-ECHO prior to data verification. The penalty amount of $1,250,000 should be reflected in the total dollar amount of final penalties metric.
Metric 1f2: LDEQ updated RCRAinfo to include the EPA/LDEQ joint consent decree with CCS Midstream (Civil Action No. 5:14-CV-02284) prior to the data freeze but was not reflected in OTIS-ECHO prior to data verification. This should be reflected in the final count of the number of formal enforcement actions metric.
Metric 1f1: LDEQ updated RCRAinfo to include the EPA/LDEQ joint consent decree with CCS Midstream (Civil Action No. 5:14-CV-02284) prior to the data freeze but was not reflected in OTIS-ECHO prior to data verification. This should be reflected in the final count of the number of final formal actions with penalty in last 1 FY metric.
1f2- Total Number of Formal Actions at CWA NPDES Facilities does not include approximately 180 actions. EPA was contacted and they confirmed that their drilldown was missing actions. The data could not be updated before the data freeze date so accurate data verification could not be done on this metric.
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.
|Maine||CWA||Maine Department of Environmental Protection submits the following caveats for FY15: Element 1 - Data (State) Facilities with Informal Actions: 28 Total Number of Informal Actions at CWA NPDES Facilities: 14 Facilities with Formal Actions: 3 Total Number of Formal Actions at CWA NPDES Facilities: 3 Number of Enforcement Actions with Penalties: 2 Total Penalties Assessed: $36,351|
|Maryland||CAA||Data was corrected in ICIS-AIR as of 2/12/2016, but SFR still showing wrong data as of 2/18/2016.|
|Massachusetts||CAA||Metric 1.a.4. lists the FFY15 minor sources in the state ACMS as well as sources targeted in previous years. The result is a higher number than would be expected in any single federal fiscal year. MA targets 100 minor sources each year Metric 1.c.1 and 1.e.1 provide only a partial list of full compliance evaluations and informal enforcement actions performed by the state. Any difference between the count of major sources in metric 1.a.1 and Title V sources in metric 1.b.4. can be attributed to data migration error or reclassification to non-major during the fiscal year.|
|Michigan||CAA||In general, the data in the US EPA’s FY15 report is consistent with data in the Michigan Air Compliance and Enforcement System (MACES) database except for the following:
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Data Verification for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES): The MDEQ, Water Resources Division (WRD), has not been able to electronically transfer information regarding our permits, Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR), inspections and compliance, and enforcement activities to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) from our new information system called MiWaters. MiWaters came on line in August 2015. Unfortunately, MiWaters has not been able to flow data to ICIS and we do not have staff to manually enter all of this data (although some permit and DMR data has been manually entered). We anticipate that data flow to ICIS will begin in March 2016, although it may take a few months to upload all the required data. All data flows should be running in the next month or two. Our consultants are in the early stages of testing the data flows, focusing on facility, permit and DMR data first, and then moving on to the rest of the data flows. Data regarding inspection and compliance/enforcement activities has not been updated in ICIS for several years due to problem transferring data electronically from our previous database. Below is a summary of inspection data and informal/formal enforcement actions taken during the period of October 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015. This information is included in our Performance Partnership Grants report that will be submitted to the EPA. This data accurately reflects our efforts to take timely and appropriate action for noncompliance issues.Jon Russell, Chief
Field Operations Section – Lakes Erie and Huron
For NPDES majors, in FY 2015 we conducted 39 Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI), 31 Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI), and 11 Compliance Toxic Inspections (CXI) (for a total of 81 high-level inspections). We also conducted around 100 recon inspections. In FY15 we completed inspections as follows:
In FY2015, 27 Administrative Consent Orders (ACOs), Amended ACOs, and District Initiated Administrative Consent Orders (DACOs), and 5 judicial consent judgments were entered for abatement of water pollution and assessment of penalties. The WRD also resolved 10 additional unpermitted discharge cases involving mostly industrial stormwater discharges via the WRD’s General ACO and Certificate of Entries (COEs) for unpermitted dischargers. The assessment of civil penalties, agency costs, and natural resource damages amounted to $283,060 for the ACOs, Amended ACOs, DACOs Judicial Consent Judgments and COEs in FY 2015.
|Minnesota||CAA||For the TVACC data, the Received dates were for the most part entered as 12/31/2014 instead of the actual received date. The Review dates were all entered accurately with their actual dates. Also there were 40 facilities for which duplicate TVACC records were entered. They are as follows:
|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 and TEMPO 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.|
There were significant errors between what was in the ECHO database and what is in our Missouri Clean Water Information System (MoCWIS) Department staff have done their best to provide accurate information but a significant amount of work is still to be accomplished.I am verifying the data in the Element 1 Data section only. There are comments and notes regarding permits which appear in ICIS but which have been terminated in MoCWIS. There is a data batching problem which MO has been working with the EPA to resolve, where these terminations are not reaching the ICIS system. Here are the sections and number of terminations:
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.
The following permit numbers were terminated on 12/31/2012 (and are reflected as such in ICIS) and should not be included in the total for MT general permits: MTR10AN7I, MTR10AQ4I, MTR10AQ5I, MTR10AV3I, MTR10AV4I, and MTR10AV5I. The permit schedule violations for MT0021890, MT0022551, and MT0030554 were linked to old permit cycles; they have been cleaned up in ICIS, and should no longer be flagged as violations. All other Montana metrics were verified.
Metric 7A2 State - Number of Non-Major Facilities with Single Event Violations. ALL FACILITIES LISTED BELOW DO NOT SHOW SEVS IN THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR OR AN UNRESOLVED SEV.
|RCRA||State database has 156 active LQGs as of 2/17/16. State database has 172 active SQGs as of 2/17/16. State database has 2042 other active sites comprised of 1902 CESQGs and 140 New Hampshire registered hazardous waste transporters as of 2/17/16.|
NYSDEC does not use the federal generator status field in RCRAInfo to track the RCRA hazardous waste generation status of a site (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 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. This also results in the EPA ECHO site search, Dashboard, Comparative Map, and Envirofacts public webpages not displaying the generator status of NY sites correctly.
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 EPA's 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.
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 IDs 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 EPA's metrics. EPA's metrics understate NY's full range of hazardous waste compliance, inspection, and enforcement efforts.
Almost all data was entered in RCRAInfo before EPA's deadline. Data is accurate as much as possible.
|CWA||Problems with the translation and timing of the data between EPA and the state exist for the count of facilities in Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) and Category 1 or 2 Non-Compliance. Data flow from the state’s data system to ICIS-NPDES was disrupted in late 2014 after EPA made updates to its database system that required the state to install the latest version of the ICIS-NPDES JAVA plug-in. While the state was awaiting the required plug-in from EPA’s contractor and until it was installed and tested, the state was unable to batch upload its NPDES data. The state resumed NPDES data flow to EPA mid-2015. The lack of DMR data flow to EPA resulted in invalid DMR non-receipt violations for North Carolina NPDES facilities. Because the state does not categorize violations as SNC or Category 1 or 2 Non-compliance, the state does not have an accurate way to compare its data with EPA's results for Metrics 7f1, 7g1 or 8a1.|
|RCRA||North Carolina has verified its data. It should be noted that NC uses two additional Enforcement Codes: 214 for NC legislative Inspection and Investigative costs and 219 for a state agency and facility joint informal meeting.|
|North Dakota||RCRA||Metric 1b1 and 1b2 (facilities inspected and number of inspections): The inspection total numbers for FY2015 include 30 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.|
|CWA||The following general permit covered facilities are state-issued and should not be included in EPA totals: NDR106577, NDR107113, NDR107355, NDR107497, NDR107607, NDR107721, NDR107798, and NDR107800. Individual permit NDR10A00I was terminated on 06/30/2003 (and is reflected as such in ICIS) and should no longer be counted towards ND totals. All other North Dakota metrics were verified.|
|Ohio||CAA||Due to continuing problems with the transfer of data to ICIS Air from Ohio EPA's STARS2 database, at this time not all compliance and enforcement data is being correctly reported to ECHO. Specifically, data regarding the number of Federally Reportable Violations, resolution of enforcement actions, lead changes to USEPA, and withdrawal of enforcement actions after it is determined that no violation has actually occurred are not being reported accurately.|
Ohio EPA’s hazardous waste program exceeded the large quantity generator (LQG) inspection baseline goal of 20%. In agreement with U.S. EPA’s Region 5, Ohio EPA’s hazardous waste program used the 2011 BR LQG baseline for FFY15 inspection planning, instead of the 2013 BR LQG baseline. In FFY 2015, Ohio EPA inspected 154 LQG’s – Ohio EPA’s commitment (20% of the LQG universe) was 145. Because of the difference in the BR LQG baselines, U.S. EPA’s data makes it appear Ohio did not reach its goal, but in actuality Ohio exceeded their commitment to U.S. EPA.
Also, Ohio EPA has pointed out two concerns regarding ECHO data metrics calculations to U.S.EPA regarding for determining LQG coverage in the future. The first concern is due to the significant number of pharmacies that filed a 2013 Biennial Report (BR) and stated they would continue to be a LQG, Ohio’s LQG baseline jumped by approximately 201 LQGs. This is a national problem that will continue unless the proposed changes in the Pharmaceutical rule are adopted. In the latest agreement with U.S. EPA, Ohio EPA negotiated an alternate Compliance Monitoring Strategy with Region 5 for FFY16 in regard to the inspection of pharmacy LQGs but OECA’s data metrics will not take that into account.
The second concern is with the number of active LQGs. Currently, the number of active LQGs is approximately twice the number of BR LQGs. State and federal regulations do not require that a facility re-notify to update Ohio EPA of their current regulated activities. Facilities may go out of business or change their waste generation rate and neglect to inform the state of these changes. Therefore the term “active LQGs” refers to facilities that have not notified Ohio EPA that they are no longer regulated. Based on experience and data mining results, Ohio EPA believes the count of BR filers is much closer to the true number of active LQGs.
|Oklahoma||CWA||See Oklahoma CWA Data Verification comments (XLSX) (21 K)|
Oregon DEQ's records verified all data with two exceptions. As reported in the past, there are major MS4s identified as nonmajor MS4s. Also, DEQ only verified 13 of the 14 SEV records. DEQ neither performed an inspection nor transferred SEVs for Wilsonville STP (DEQ Permit Number 101888, NPDES Number OR0022764) to ICIS for federal fiscal year 2015 (Oct14-Sep15). If you drill down in data, EPA's ECHO also shows no SEVs for this source during FFY2015. DEQ submitted an ECHO Error Report accordingly for these findings in addition to this flagging this SRF data verification report, Jim Billings WQ Compliance Specialist and Oregon's NPDES Data Steward for ICIS/ECHO.
|Pennsylvania||CWA||Regarding Metric 1b1 - Permit Limits Rate for Major Facilities: This metric does not include limits coding for permits that have a status of Expired. The three PA permits listed as not counted in the metric, PA0026387- St Marys Mun. Sew., PA0043257- New Freedom Boro Auth WWTP, and PA0083593-Silver Spring Twp. STP, were erroneously listed in ICIS as Expired rather than Administratively Continued. All 3 had limits coded in ICIS for FFY 2015. PA has 100% of its majors permits limits coded in ICIS.|
|CAA||The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was able to successfully upload compliance data to ICIS-AIR on February 17, 2016 at 8 PM. Deadline for data verification is February 19, 2016. Data submitted to ICIS-AIR should match data contained within DEP’s eFACTS/ AIMS compliance database. DEP is not yet able to upload data into the Case File folder. Therefore, High Priority Violations (HPVs) and Federally Reportable Violations (FRV) are missing in the ICIS-AIR Case File, causing data verification software to miss those parameters. However, violations were submitted to ICIS-AIR and all should be considered FRVs. HPVs were also submitted and are contained within the enforcement module of ICIS-AIR. We anticipate uploading case files before September 30, 2016.|
The following permits have single event violations that have been entered into ICIS, but are not reflected in the frozen data totals: SDG589602, SDG589615, SDG589603, SDG589605, SDG589606, SDG589607, SDG589619, SDG589610, SDG589609, SDG589614, SDG589613, SDG589612, and SDG589611. All other South Dakota metrics were verified.
Metric 1a1, 1a3 - SD0028611 is in the process of being classified as a Major. It is currently classified in ICIS as a Minor.
Metric 1a3 - SD00TEST1 is used as a template permit in ICIS as a time saver.
Metric 1a4 - There are 17 (SDPG#####) Pretreatment Industrial User permits that are now covered under a Pretreatment Metal Finisher general permit. There is no other option to code these under a Master General Permit as a Pretreatment Industrial User in ICIS at this time.
Metric 1e1, 1e2 - There are 5 (SDPG#####) Pretreatment Industrial User permits that are now covered under a Pretreatment Metal Finisher general permit. There is no other option to code these under a Master General Permit as a Pretreatment Industrial User in ICIS at this time.
|RCRA||Data notes are included in the submission, specifically regarding the number of SQG and other regulated entities in the state, as well as the number of inspections conducted by state personnel. The state notes that the actual number of SQG and CESQGs could not be verified because of fluctuating generation rates (episodic) and that generators are not required to update generation statuses. The number of inspections reflected in ECHO is not correct; however, the correct number is reflected in RCRAInfo. The ECHO data do not reflect inspections conducted at CESQG/non-notifier operations. These sites are not required to submit notification forms; however, after inspecting a non-notifier and/or CESQG, the state submits an Implementer record in RCRAInfo specifying the data not be released to the public. ECHO does not reflect non-releasable data, therefore the ECHO HW inspection information is not an accurate reflection of the state's inspection accomplishment.|
|Tennessee||CAA||All data has been corrected in ICIS-Air. Incorrectly categorized sources or sources that appear to have been entered by another agency are flagged as such.|
|CWA||The information shown in the ECHO system should be correct for the facilities currently in the system, but does not include the entire universe of facilities such as stormwater and many of those with general permits.|
Based on a query of our database as of 1/11/2016, TCEQ counts 1365 active LQGs. The difference between TCEQ’s amounts and EPA’s amounts are due to continuing data clean ups, status differences (active or inactive), size differences, and changes to the site notifications. 157 sites that are incorrect were noted in 2013’s verification. We continue to work with Region 6 to clean up the data as we are able. Based on a query of our database as of 1/11/2016, TCEQ counts 1931 active SQGs. The difference may be due to continuing data clean ups, status differences (active or inactive), size differences, and changes to the site notifications. We continue to work with Region 6 to clean up the data as we are able. TCEQ does not track all CESQGs, and therefore cannot verify the amount of all other active sites. Based on 2013 Biennial Reporting, TCEQ shows that there were 1495 BR LQGs.
Program Specialists completed the data verification in Region 6 / EPA.
|Washington||RCRA||A $72,000 penalty was issued to Stericycle Morton, WAH000036544, on 5/28/2015. The penalty is under appeal. Until the appeal process is complete, we cannot enter a Final Monetary Penalty (FMP), and so it is not included in metrics 1F2, 1G, and 1H.|