Indiana comment

Derek Willis

Informations

• Publié par: Phewyur
• Nombre de lectures: 13
• Langue: English

Extrait

•

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.