1. Clean Water Act Significant Noncompliance De-Mystified Presentation for Federal Facilities Managers by Michael Barrette Enforcement Targeting and Public Access Team Leader US EPA 3/16/06 (updated 3/30/06) Presentation for Federal Facilities Managers by Michael Barrette Enforcement Targeting and Public Access Team Leader US EPA 3/16/06 (updated 3/30/06)

2. Overview DMR Quarterly Cycle Process of moving from paper DMR to electronic data in PCS. –Quarterly Noncompliance Report –DMR non-receipt Public Access Possible changes to the process DMR Quarterly Cycle Process of moving from paper DMR to electronic data in PCS. –Quarterly Noncompliance Report –DMR non-receipt Public Access Possible changes to the process

3. DMR Quarterly Cycle Fiscal Year Quarter 1 covers Oct-Dec –PCS QNCR finished in early March –Results normally appear in ECHO in late April Fiscal Year Quarter 2 covers Jan-Mar –PCS completes in early June. ECHO posts in late July. Fiscal Year Quarter 3 covers Apr-June –PCS completes in early September. ECHO posts in late October. Fiscal Year Quarter 4 covers July-Sept –PCS completes in early December. ECHO posts in late January. This reporting cycle is discussed in 40CFR123.45. Fiscal Year Quarter 1 covers Oct-Dec –PCS QNCR finished in early March –Results normally appear in ECHO in late April Fiscal Year Quarter 2 covers Jan-Mar –PCS completes in early June. ECHO posts in late July. Fiscal Year Quarter 3 covers Apr-June –PCS completes in early September. ECHO posts in late October. Fiscal Year Quarter 4 covers July-Sept –PCS completes in early December. ECHO posts in late January. This reporting cycle is discussed in 40CFR123.45.

4. DMR Collection and Milestones Facilities normally report discharges on a monthly basis (PCS also handles less frequent reporting). –due date varies by state, but generally no later than 28 days after the conclusion of the month The permitting authority (normally the state) has one month to input the data. –At this time, only majors data are required to be entered. –Some states enter minors as well. –Some states directly enter data, others “batch” files. The Permit Compliance System (PCS) runs its quarterly software to produce a final QNCR approximately 7 weeks after the end of the actual quarter. –Example, Oct-Dec QNCR finalized in PCS on March 7 th. –ECHO will then show the data about 5-6 weeks later. Facilities normally report discharges on a monthly basis (PCS also handles less frequent reporting). –due date varies by state, but generally no later than 28 days after the conclusion of the month The permitting authority (normally the state) has one month to input the data. –At this time, only majors data are required to be entered. –Some states enter minors as well. –Some states directly enter data, others “batch” files. The Permit Compliance System (PCS) runs its quarterly software to produce a final QNCR approximately 7 weeks after the end of the actual quarter. –Example, Oct-Dec QNCR finalized in PCS on March 7 th. –ECHO will then show the data about 5-6 weeks later.

5. DMR Processing The permitting authority should have a set of permit limits for each discharge point and parameter entered into PCS. PCS runs a “RNC (Reportable Noncompliance) Processing” job that compares the DMR measurement data submitted by the permittee to the limits. Other information in PCS (e.g., compliance schedule information) is evaluated in addition to effluent measurement data. The permitting authority should have a set of permit limits for each discharge point and parameter entered into PCS. PCS runs a “RNC (Reportable Noncompliance) Processing” job that compares the DMR measurement data submitted by the permittee to the limits. Other information in PCS (e.g., compliance schedule information) is evaluated in addition to effluent measurement data.

6. Result of RNC Processing RNC processing will provide 1.A facility-level Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR) status, which could be: Significant noncompliance for several reasons Compliance schedule violations, Effluent violations, DMR Non- receipt, other violations (inspection based). Reportable noncompliance (lesser than SNC reporting violations) Pending or Resolved Pending (meaning that prior violations are being addressed through action) “Blank” – meaning none of the the above – facility is not listed on the “official” QNCR. –Blank does not mean that no violations occurred. 2.Parameter/pipe level violation determinations (e.g, percent over limit for each limit/measurement pair). Also Known as “Effluent Violations” or “E-90s” RNC processing will provide 1.A facility-level Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR) status, which could be: Significant noncompliance for several reasons Compliance schedule violations, Effluent violations, DMR Non- receipt, other violations (inspection based). Reportable noncompliance (lesser than SNC reporting violations) Pending or Resolved Pending (meaning that prior violations are being addressed through action) “Blank” – meaning none of the the above – facility is not listed on the “official” QNCR. –Blank does not mean that no violations occurred. 2.Parameter/pipe level violation determinations (e.g, percent over limit for each limit/measurement pair). Also Known as “Effluent Violations” or “E-90s”

7. Becoming SNC The SNC calculation is very complex, but in regard to effluent violations, it looks for exceedances that are a certain percent over limit with some duration. –Example 1, >40% over for conventional pollutant in 2 of the last 6 months. –Example 2, >20% over toxics limit in 2 of last 6 months. If multiple SNC reasons are present, the RNC process uses a hierarchy. Not all parameters are considered in the SNC definition. –For example, fecal coliform and pH will not cause a facility to be in SNC for effluent violations (though they will show as exceedances). The SNC calculation is very complex, but in regard to effluent violations, it looks for exceedances that are a certain percent over limit with some duration. –Example 1, >40% over for conventional pollutant in 2 of the last 6 months. –Example 2, >20% over toxics limit in 2 of last 6 months. If multiple SNC reasons are present, the RNC process uses a hierarchy. Not all parameters are considered in the SNC definition. –For example, fecal coliform and pH will not cause a facility to be in SNC for effluent violations (though they will show as exceedances).

8. Getting the QNCR right To assist states in getting the data right, the QNCR normally has four “practice runs” that allow the Region and state to review the results prior to finalization. These practice runs and associated “reject reports” can be used by the Region or state to view whether any DMR non- receipts have occurred. This provides a final window for the Region or state to enter data to avoid “false” DMR non-receipts. –When PCS expects to get a DMR value and does not, it will generate a DMR-non-receipt violation –“False” DMR non-receipt is defined here as when facility submitted the report(s) on time, but the Region or state did not enter it into the system. It is possible to override the DMR non-receipt, though EPA prefers that the data be entered. States with incomplete DMR entry (generally below 95%) are Washington, Oregon, California, and Michigan. –In most cases (except Oregon), DMR non-receipt is overridden –Most other “false” DMR non-receipts are isolated. To assist states in getting the data right, the QNCR normally has four “practice runs” that allow the Region and state to review the results prior to finalization. These practice runs and associated “reject reports” can be used by the Region or state to view whether any DMR non- receipts have occurred. This provides a final window for the Region or state to enter data to avoid “false” DMR non-receipts. –When PCS expects to get a DMR value and does not, it will generate a DMR-non-receipt violation –“False” DMR non-receipt is defined here as when facility submitted the report(s) on time, but the Region or state did not enter it into the system. It is possible to override the DMR non-receipt, though EPA prefers that the data be entered. States with incomplete DMR entry (generally below 95%) are Washington, Oregon, California, and Michigan. –In most cases (except Oregon), DMR non-receipt is overridden –Most other “false” DMR non-receipts are isolated.

9. Nuances of PCS and SNC DMR Non-receipt is lagged 2 months. If a part of a DMR is missing or not entered properly, PCS will likely generate a DMR non-receipt QNCR designation. Prior to final QNCR calculation, the data steward should catch this, and either fix the underlying data, or can override the SNC. Missing values in the system will propagate into future quarters if not corrected. So, old data problems need to be fixed so they will not impact more recent quarters. Each state or Regional data steward should be familiar with the techniques for fixing current quarter and historical data problems so that they do not continue. If a data steward corrects a historical missing value at a particular parameter, the violation-level information will be corrected, but the facility-level QNCR calculation will not be fixed. In this situation, the data steward must “manually override” the prior QNCR value if appropriate. DMR Non-receipt is lagged 2 months. If a part of a DMR is missing or not entered properly, PCS will likely generate a DMR non-receipt QNCR designation. Prior to final QNCR calculation, the data steward should catch this, and either fix the underlying data, or can override the SNC. Missing values in the system will propagate into future quarters if not corrected. So, old data problems need to be fixed so they will not impact more recent quarters. Each state or Regional data steward should be familiar with the techniques for fixing current quarter and historical data problems so that they do not continue. If a data steward corrects a historical missing value at a particular parameter, the violation-level information will be corrected, but the facility-level QNCR calculation will not be fixed. In this situation, the data steward must “manually override” the prior QNCR value if appropriate.

10. Public Access to Data The Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) site is the primary window for the public to view NPDES violation data. –ECHO represents a copy of PCS that is stored in an integrated data warehouse called IDEA (Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis). –IDEA refreshes once per month. From the time the official QNCR is frozen in PCS, IDEA/ECHO normally takes about 40 days to post the information. At this time, ECHO does not show non-standard permits (though this will change in the future) ECHO provides a quarterly look at effluent violations with the “worst” month within a three-month window showing on the report. Single-event and compliance schedule violations show on ECHO as well. The Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) site is the primary window for the public to view NPDES violation data. –ECHO represents a copy of PCS that is stored in an integrated data warehouse called IDEA (Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis). –IDEA refreshes once per month. From the time the official QNCR is frozen in PCS, IDEA/ECHO normally takes about 40 days to post the information. At this time, ECHO does not show non-standard permits (though this will change in the future) ECHO provides a quarterly look at effluent violations with the “worst” month within a three-month window showing on the report. Single-event and compliance schedule violations show on ECHO as well.

11. Other Data Access Points Other possible public routes to the data are via FOIA, from the EPA public docket, or through EnviroFacts. –Regions use the PCS QNCR to submit an “official regulatory QNCR” to the EPA docket. This often has annotated notes. OTIS is the government access companion site to ECHO. –OTIS provides more search options & features than ECHO. For example, OTIS has a monthly effluent report. OTIS also provides non-standard permit data (stormwater, CAFOs, etc.). OTIS provides Toxic Release Inventory data. Other possible public routes to the data are via FOIA, from the EPA public docket, or through EnviroFacts. –Regions use the PCS QNCR to submit an “official regulatory QNCR” to the EPA docket. This often has annotated notes. OTIS is the government access companion site to ECHO. –OTIS provides more search options & features than ECHO. For example, OTIS has a monthly effluent report. OTIS also provides non-standard permit data (stormwater, CAFOs, etc.). OTIS provides Toxic Release Inventory data.

12. Example of ECHO Report Bolded red effluent violations depict SNC-level exeedances. Shaded boxes indicate violations are “unaddressed” or past the expected milestone for timely enforcement.

13. OTIS provides addtn’l reports This OTIS Effluent Report is linked from the OTIS Detailed Facility Report and will provide monthly measurements (mouse-over to see value), and indicates permit limit changes (see break in blue line below for tightened limit). Filled triangles are over limit.

14. Fixing Data Errors EPA and the States have a network of data stewards responsible for reviewing potential errors that are reported. –OTIS users can get a list of data stewards from the left side bar. If data errors to make it past PCS edit checks, there are several remedies that can be used to correct the data. –Users can report an error online (from OTIS or ECHO) This will be routed by EPA’s Integrated Error Correction Process to the appropriate data steward. The data steward will make a ruling on the error report and take appropriate steps to fix the data if it proves to be wrong. If there is some a problem fixing the error, a “Data Quality Flag” can be raised that attaches to the ECHO/OTIS report. –ECHO also maintains a “Known Data Problems” link. EPA and the States have a network of data stewards responsible for reviewing potential errors that are reported. –OTIS users can get a list of data stewards from the left side bar. If data errors to make it past PCS edit checks, there are several remedies that can be used to correct the data. –Users can report an error online (from OTIS or ECHO) This will be routed by EPA’s Integrated Error Correction Process to the appropriate data steward. The data steward will make a ruling on the error report and take appropriate steps to fix the data if it proves to be wrong. If there is some a problem fixing the error, a “Data Quality Flag” can be raised that attaches to the ECHO/OTIS report. –ECHO also maintains a “Known Data Problems” link.

15. Possible Improvements and Upcoming Changes to SNC Process PCS will be replaced by a new data system (ICIS-NPDES) that will be much more user friendly, and will make it easier for data stewards to input the data. –ICIS-NPDES will remove the 2 month lag in DMR non-receipt processes (which will sync DMR non-receipt with effluent violation QNCR calculations). –ICIS-NPDES may decrease time necessary for QNCR calculation and ECHO posting. –An ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement is being developed that will change some facets of the required list of reportable data. EPA is working with a coalition of states to develop electronic reporting for DMRs. The vision of this project is to eventually do away with gov’t key punching of DMRs. –Electronic reporting will significantly reduce errors. There has been some discussion of allowing users to see the results of the “practice runs” to help with QA/QC, however, at this point, there are no decisions on this. PCS will be replaced by a new data system (ICIS-NPDES) that will be much more user friendly, and will make it easier for data stewards to input the data. –ICIS-NPDES will remove the 2 month lag in DMR non-receipt processes (which will sync DMR non-receipt with effluent violation QNCR calculations). –ICIS-NPDES may decrease time necessary for QNCR calculation and ECHO posting. –An ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement is being developed that will change some facets of the required list of reportable data. EPA is working with a coalition of states to develop electronic reporting for DMRs. The vision of this project is to eventually do away with gov’t key punching of DMRs. –Electronic reporting will significantly reduce errors. There has been some discussion of allowing users to see the results of the “practice runs” to help with QA/QC, however, at this point, there are no decisions on this.

16. Resources ECHO – www.epa.gov/echowww.epa.gov/echo –See extensive documentation on the site about known data problems, data definitions, refresh dates, etc. –Sign up for ECHO email alerts send when each monthly refresh is completed. OTIS – www.epa.gov/idea/otiswww.epa.gov/idea/otis –Available to gov’t users only Electronic Reporting Pilot (Texas) –http://www.exchangenetwork.net/exchanges/water/ne tdmr.htm ECHO – www.epa.gov/echowww.epa.gov/echo –See extensive documentation on the site about known data problems, data definitions, refresh dates, etc. –Sign up for ECHO email alerts send when each monthly refresh is completed. OTIS – www.epa.gov/idea/otiswww.epa.gov/idea/otis –Available to gov’t users only Electronic Reporting Pilot (Texas) –http://www.exchangenetwork.net/exchanges/water/ne tdmr.htm