Indiana comment
2
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
2
pages
English
Documents
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
• Information provided in the EPA databases does not accurately reflect the work states have done regarding compliance and enforcement because the data is not accurate, the data do not reveal the full range of actions the agency takes to ensure facilities come into compliance, and EPA itself does not rely only on ECHO to evaluate states’ programs. Below are these points in more detail: • There are problems with the EPA data. o The numbers often exaggerate the number of NPDES facilities in noncompliance. A review by staff is required to determine if the automated identification of a potential violation is actually an NPDES noncompliance event. IDEM staff conducts a review of DMR reports, inspection reports, and other information to identify compliance issues. Generally, Indiana has approximately nine (9) to fifteen (15) major NPDES permit holders in noncompliance during a given quarter. o The number of facilities with Class I or Class II non-compliance is often not accurate for several reasons: Old Data. A facility may be listed in a particular QNCR or ANCR report for violations that occurred in other years. Violations resolved but not removed from databases. A facility may have recorded a violation in one year, received a violation letter, and resolved the problem, but may continue to be reported as non-compliant because a ‘formal’ enforcement action was not taken and so the facility appears to be in non-compliance. o The number of ...
Voir
•
Information provided in the EPA databases does not accurately reflect the work
states have done regarding compliance and enforcement because the data is not
accurate, the data do not reveal the full range of actions the agency takes to
ensure facilities come into compliance, and EPA itself does not rely only on
ECHO to evaluate states’ programs. Below are these points in more detail:
•
There are problems with the EPA data
.
o
The numbers often exaggerate the number of NPDES facilities in
noncompliance. A review by staff is required to determine if the
automated identification of a potential violation is actually an NPDES
noncompliance event. IDEM staff conducts a review of DMR reports,
inspection reports, and other information to identify compliance issues.
Generally, Indiana has approximately nine (9) to fifteen (15) major
NPDES permit holders in noncompliance during a given quarter.
o
The number of facilities with Class I or Class II non-compliance is often
not accurate for several reasons:
Old Data
. A facility may be listed in a particular QNCR or ANCR
report for violations that occurred in other years.
Violations resolved but not removed from databases
. A
facility may have recorded a violation in one year, received a
violation letter, and resolved the problem, but may continue to be
reported as non-compliant because a ‘formal’ enforcement action
was not taken and so the facility appears to be in non-compliance.
o
The number of ‘
formal’ enforcement actions is not accurate
for the
following reasons:
The number
does not include
:
•
Spill violation enforcement actions;
•
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)
enforcement actions;
•
Stormwater Construction and Industrial Stormwater
enforcement actions.
The number
only includes administrative orders that were
signed in the year mentioned
. That number likely includes
signed administrative orders for violations incurred for past years.
Additionally, the list does not include administrative orders initiated
during that year.
Facilities that have
signed enforcement actions from previous
years may continue to show noncompliance until all the steps
in the administrative order are completed
.
•
The numbers do not reflect the full range of actions Indiana takes to
enforce Clean Water Act violations.
o
The fact that someone violates an NPDES permit, is not, in itself, a cause
for alarm. Some margins of safety are built into the NPDES permit limits.
The questions are: “how frequent and severe are the violations?” and “is
there a national trend that EPA should respond to?” Although this data
does not provide detail, some violations are much more significant than
others. For less significant violations, facilities that correct the violation
immediately may actually continue to be listed on the Quarterly
Noncompliance Report (QNCR), although the violation has been resolved
or does not require formal enforcement action.
o
For other violations, IDEM employs a variety of informal enforcement
tools to ensure facilities return to Compliance, including:
Violation Letters
.
For many facilities where a violation is
discovered, a violation letter is sent to notify the facility about the
violation found and require the permit holder to take action to
resolve the violation or put in place a plan to resolve the violation.
The number of on-site violation letters and data review violation
letters for 2004 through 2008 is provided in the following table.
Date:
No. of Inspection
No. of Compliance
Total
FFY
Violation Letters:
Violation
Letters:
Actions:
2004
143
38
181
2005
242
126
368
2006
209
45
254
2007
269
47
316
2008
276
107
383
Sewer Bans. For communities where hydraulic loading is a
problem, IDEM can impose sewer connection bans that prevent
development to occur until problems are addressed.
Operator Assistance
.
IDEM sends staff to facilities to help
analyze problems and find ways to operate or repair a plant to
improve performance and return to compliance.
•
EPA does not rely solely on ECHO to evaluate compliance programs.
o
EPA regularly reviews IDEM compliance and enforcement as part of its
oversight function. While they look at some data, they also evaluate the
type and quality of the inspections we conduct, our data analysis, as well
as our enforcement activities.
o
We are not aware of any significant shortcoming identified by EPA during
its reviews of our compliance and enforcement programs.
