STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK
Iowa
Clean Water Act
Implementation in Federal Fiscal Year 2018
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
Final Report
February 12, 2020
-------
I. Introduction
A. Overview of the State Review Framework
The State Review Framework (SRF) is a key mechanism for EPA oversight, providing a
nationally consistent process for reviewing the performance of state delegated compliance and
enforcement programs under three core federal statutes: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Through SRF, EPA periodically reviews such
programs using a standardized set of metrics to evaluate their performance against performance
standards laid out in federal statute, EPA regulations, policy, and guidance. When states do not
achieve standards, the EPA will work with them to improve performance.
Established in 2004, the review was developed jointly by EPA and Environmental Council of the
States (ECOS) in response to calls both inside and outside the agency for improved, more
consistent oversight of state delegated programs. The goals of the review that were agreed upon
at its formation remain relevant and unchanged today:
1. Ensure delegated and EPA-run programs meet federal policy and baseline performance
standards
2. Promote fair and consistent enforcement necessary to protect human health and the
environment
3. Promote equitable treatment and level interstate playing field for business
4. Provide transparency with publicly available data and reports
B. The Review Process
The review is conducted on a rolling five-year cycle such that all programs are reviewed
approximately once every five years. The EPA evaluates programs on a one-year period of
performance, typically the one-year prior to review, using a standard set of metrics to make
findings on performance in five areas (elements) around which the report is organized: data,
inspections, violations, enforcement, and penalties. Wherever program performance is found to
deviate significantly from federal policy or standards, the EPA will issue recommendations for
corrective action which are monitored by EPA until completed and program performance
improves.
The SRF is currently in its 4th Round (FY2018-2022) of reviews, preceded by Round 3
(FY2012-2017), Round 2 (2008-2011), and Round 1 (FY2004-2007). Additional information
and final reports can be found at the EPA website under State Review Framework.
II. Navigating the Report
The final report contains the results and relevant information from the review including EPA and
program contact information, metric values, performance findings and explanations, program
responses, and EPA recommendations for corrective action where any significant deficiencies in
performance were found.
Page 2 of 23
-------
A. Metrics
There are two general types of metrics used to assess program performance. The first are data
metrics, which reflect verified inspection and enforcement data from the national data systems
of each media, or statute. The second, and generally more significant, are file metrics, which are
derived from the review of individual facility files in order to determine if the program is
performing their compliance and enforcement responsibilities adequately.
Other information considered by EPA to make performance findings in addition to the metrics
includes results from previous SRF reviews, data metrics from the years in-between reviews,
multi-year metric trends.
B. Performance Findings
The EPA makes findings on performance in five program areas:
• Data - completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of data entry into national data systems
• Inspections - meeting inspection and coverage commitments, inspection report quality,
and report timeliness
• Violations - identification of violations, accuracy of compliance determinations, and
determination of significant noncompliance (SNC) or high priority violators (HPV)
• Enforcement - timeliness and appropriateness of enforcement, returning facilities to
compliance
• Penalties - calculation including gravity and economic benefit components, assessment,
and collection
Though performance generally varies across a spectrum, for the purposes of conducting a
standardized review, SRF categorizes performance into three findings levels:
Meets or Exceeds: No issues are found. Base standards of performance are met or exceeded.
Area for Attention: Minor issues are found. One or more metrics indicates performance
issues related to quality, process, or policy. The implementing agency is considered able to
correct the issue without additional EPA oversight.
Area for Improvement: Significant issues are found. One or more metrics indicates routine
and/or widespread performance issues related to quality, process, or policy. A
recommendation for corrective action is issued which contains specific actions and schedule
for completion. The EPA monitors implementation until completion.
C. Recommendations for Corrective Action
Whenever the EPA makes a finding on performance of Area for Improvement, the EPA will
include a recommendation for corrective action, or recommendation, in the report. The purpose
of recommendations are to address significant performance issues and bring program
performance back in line with federal policy and standards. All recommendations should include
Page 3 of 23
-------
specific actions and a schedule for completion, and their implementation is monitored by the
EPA until completion.
III. Review Process Information
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Key dates:
• SRF Kickoff letter mailed to IDNR: April 5, 2019
• File selection list sent to IDNR: April 5, 2019
• Data Metric Analysis sent to IDNR: June 3, 2019
• Entrance interview conducted: June 4, 2019
• File review conducted: June 4-6, 2019
• Exit interview conducted: June 6, 2019
• Draft report sent to IDNR: November 20, 2019
• Final report issued: February 12, 2020
State and EPA key contacts for review:
• Kayla Lyon, IDNR, Director
• Ted Peterson, IDNR, Environmental Program Supervisor
• Seth Draper, EPA Region 7 Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Division (ECAD)
• Cynthia Sans, EPA Region 7 Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Division (ECAD)
• Stephen Pollard, EPA Region 7 Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Division (ECAD)
• Paul Marshall, EPA Region 7 Enforcement & Compliance Assurance Division (ECAD)
• Kevin Barthol, EPA Region 7 SRF Coordinator
Page 4 of 23
-------
Executive Summary
Areas of Strong Performance
The following are aspects of the program that, according to the review, are being implemented at
a high level:
Clean Water Act (CWA)
• IDNR completeness of data entry of major and non-major discharge monitoring reports is
above the national average and is meeting the national goal.
• Enforcement actions reviewed would return facility back into compliance.
• IDNR tracks and maintains nearly complete records of penalty actions.
Priority Issues to Address
The following are aspects of the program that, according to the review, are not meeting federal
standards and should be prioritized for management attention:
Clean Water Act (CWA)
• IDNR did not enter any FY18 inspections into ICIS. IDNR's formal and informal
enforcement actions are not accurate in the national database.
• IDNR did not enter any FY 18 Single Event Violations (SEVs) into ICIS.
• IDNR did not meet its inspection goals for select CMS universes.
• Inspection reports did not contain comprehensive information to thoroughly document
and determine compliance (Finding 2-3 and 3-1).
• Inspection reports do not consistently meet the 45-day deadline.
Page 5 of 23
-------
Clean Water Act Findings
CWA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-1
Area for Attention
Summary:
IDNR completeness of data entry of major and non-major permit limits is below the national
average and is not meeting the national goal.
Explanation:
EPA Enforcement Compliance History Online (ECHO) pulls data from EPA Integrated
Compliance Information System (ICIS). Out of 1017 facilities that should have permit limit data
entered, 155 facilities were missing permit limit data. EPA suggests that IDNR review the data
and correct all missing data, such as, permit limits or any other missing Minimum Data
Requirements (MDRs). IDNR should develop a methodology to ensure MDRs are entered into
ICIS in the future and that the missing data in ICIS corrected.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl i Natl i State < State State
Goal Avg N D %
lb5 Completeness of data entry on major and
non-major permit limits. [GOAL]
95%
90.6% 862
1017 84.8%
State Response:
Collaboration with EPA and Windsor Solutions is underway to correct the data transfer issues
and ensure that all permit limits are represented correctly in ICIS. The ECHO eRule Readiness
dashboard shows 210 facilities that do not have limits in ICIS and the 2019 SRF data metrics
show 203 facilities that do not have limits in ICIS. These identified facilities are CAFO, MS4,
and other permits that do not have effluent limitations. Efforts are being made to correctly
transfer the permit data so ICIS is not expecting limits for these facilities.
State Action: Efforts are being made to correct the data transfer issues. The IDNR concurs with
the recommendation that the IDNR can correct the issue without additional EPA oversight.
CWA Element 1 - Data
Page 6 of 23
-------
Finding 1-2
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
IDNR completeness of data entry of major and non-major discharge monitoring reports is above
the national average and is meeting the national goal.
Explanation:
IDNR data entry of discharge monitoring reports is above the national average and is meeting the
national goal.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
lb6 Completeness of data entry on major and
non-major discharge monitoring reports.
[GOAL]
95%
93.3%
11468
12012
95.5%
State Response: None
CWA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-3
Area for Improvement
Summary:
IDNR did not enter any FY18 inspections into ICIS. IDNR's formal and informal enforcement
actions are not accurate in the national database.
Explanation:
EPA Enforcement Compliance History Online (ECHO) data pulls showed no inspections or SEVs
were entered into ICIS in FY18. The IDNR directly reported enforcement actions to EPA for file
selection. EPA compared the list submitted to the numbers reported in ECHO. ECHO data does
not reflect the formal and informal actions taken by IDNR in FY18.
EPA Response to State comments: Due to timeframes and ongoing quarterly reporting, EPA
amended the due date from June 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020 for this finding.
Relevant metrics:
Page 7 of 23
-------
2b Files reviewed where data are accurately
reflected in the national data system [GOAL]
100%
43
0%
State Response:
The error in the data transfer that prevented inspection data from being entered into ICIS has
been corrected. Although the 2018 data is not displayed in the data metrics in ECHO, the 2019
data indicates that 63 major and 307 non-major facilities with individual permits were inspected.
Single Event Violations (SEV) discovered during the inspection are documented by the field
office inspectors as part of their inspection report. These are minor violations that are expected to
be tracked by the regional office and final reports are completed, typically by a letter to the
permittee. IDNR does track these minor violations in the agency Field Office Compliance
Database. If the permittee fails to correct the minor violations in a timely manner, the regional
field office will follow-up with the permittee and additional action, including formal
enforcement action, will be considered.
Both the EPA and IDNR have had ongoing technical issues that contributed to the unsuccessful
transfer of data, including informal and formal actions. IDNR is willing to continue the
partnership with EPA (and Windsor Solutions) to find solutions to these data transfer issues.
State Action: IDNR will continue to meet regularly with EPA and Windsor Solutions to identify
and remedy the breakdown in the federal/state data transfer pathway so that the minimum data
requirements are met. IDNR concurs with the recommendation that the IDNR will report
progress quarterly.
Recommendation:
Page 8 of 23
-------
Roc
„ Due Dale Recommendation
#
09/30/2020
IDNR should ensure that their compliance inspections, violations
found (SEVs), and enforcement actions are accurately and timely
entered into and reflected in the national database. Please respond to
EPA with the following:
1. Provide a written explanation for why the minimum data
requirements are not being reported and an action plan to
improve data quality
2. Report to EPA quarterly on the actions taken to address this
finding; and,
3. If by September 30, 2020 EPA reviews IDNR data and finds
that data entry is complete and accurate, this recommendation
will be closed.
CWA Element 1 - Data
Finding 1-4
Area for Improvement
Summary:
IDNR did not enter any FY18 Single Event Violations (SEVs) into ICIS.
Explanation:
EPA Enforcement Compliance History Online (ECHO) data pulls showed no inspections or SEVs
were entered into ICIS in FY18. The IDNR directly reported enforcement actions to EPA for file
selection. EPA compared the list submitted to the numbers reported in ECHO. ECHO data does
not reflect the formal and informal actions taken by IDNR in FY18.
EPA Response to State comments: Due to timeframes and ongoing quarterly reporting, EPA
amended the due from June 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020 for this finding.
Relevant metrics:
Page 9 of 23
-------
7j 1 Number of major and non-major facilities
| 1
with single-event violations reported in the review
0
1 0
year
f
1
State Response:
Due to data transfer errors in the past IDNR Leadership made the decision to discontinue
entering SEVs to ICIS. Recently, significant progress has been made with successfully
transferring state data to ICIS, and the IDNR Data Team will reevaluate the process of entering
SEVs and determine if this action can now be completed without generating significant errors.
State Action: The IDNR Data Team will reevaluate the process of entering SEVs and determine
if this action can now be completed without generating significant errors. IDNR will continue to
meet regularly with EPA and Windsor Solutions to identify and remedy the breakdown in the
federal/state data transfer pathway so that the minimum data requirements are met. IDNR
concurs with the recommendation that the IDNR will report progress quarterly.
State Action: The IDNR Data Team will reevaluate the process of entering SEVs and determine
if this action can now be completed without generating significant errors. IDNR will continue to
meet regularly with EPA and Windsor Solutions to identify and remedy the breakdown in the
federal/state data transfer pathway so that the minimum data requirements are met. IDNR
concurs with the recommendation that the IDNR will report progress quarterly.
Recommendation:
Due Dale Recommendation
IDNR should ensure that the violations found (SEVs) are accurately [
and timely entered into and reflected in the national database. Please 1
respond to EPA with the following: [
1. Provide a written explanation for why the minimum data [
requirements (MDRs) are not being reported and an action plan 1
1
09/30/2020
to improve data quality [
2. Report to EPA quarterly on the actions taken to address this 1
finding; and, 1
3. If by September 30, 2020 EPA reviews IDNR data and finds [
that data entry is complete and accurate for SEVs, this 1
recommendation will be closed. [
Page 10 of 23
-------
CWA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
IDNR met a majority of its CMS goals
Explanation:
The EPA compared the reported CMS end-of-year numbers from IDNR to annual commitments
made at the beginning of the year in its CMS alternative plan. Based on the review, it was
determined that the state met a majority of its inspection commitments, including inspections of
major facilities, minor facilities with individual permits, and minor facilities with general permits.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and
Description
Natl Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
4a 1 Number of pretreatment
compliance inspections and audits at
approved local pretreatment
programs. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments'^
8
9
88.9%
4a7 Number of Phase I and IIMS4
audits or inspections. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments%
8
9
88.9%
4a9 Number of Phase I and Phase II
construction stormwater inspections.
[GOAL]
100% of
commitments%
\
!
100
95%
5al Inspection coverage of NPDES
majors. [GOAL]
100%
52.8%
59
63
93.7%
5b 1 Inspections coverage of NPDES
non-majors with individual permits
[GOAL]
100%
22.6%
269
295
91.2%
5b2 Inspections coverage of NPDES
non-majors with general permits
[GOAL]
100%
5.6%
150
175
85.7%
State Response: None
Page 11 of 23
-------
CWA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-2
Area for Improvement
Summary:
IDNR did not meet its inspection goals for select CMS universes.
Explanation:
The EPA compared the reported CMS end-of-year numbers from IDNR to annual commitments
made at the beginning of the year in its CMS alternative plan. Based on the review, the state was
found to have fallen short of meeting its commitments in four inspection categories.
The state's negotiated alternative plan goals fell short as shown below.
• I.e.3 Onsite SIUInspections
o 2018 Goal = 50% of the universe
o 2018 Results = 34% of the universe
• 2.C.1 MS4 Inspections
o 2018 Goal = 20% of the universe
o 2018 Results = 17% of the universe
• 2.C.2 Industrial Stormwater Sites*
o 2018 Goal = 5% of the universe
o 2018 Results = 4% of the universe
• 2.C.3 Construction Stormwater Sites*
o 2018 Goal = 5% of the universe
o 2018 Results = 3% of the universe
• The denominator in the relevant metrics section below represents a subset of the total universe.
EPA Response to State comments: EPA amended the recommendation language to remove the
modification of the CMS goals, added state quarterly coordination with their field offices for
progress updates, and amended the due date from June 1, 2020 to November 15, 2020 for this
finding.
Relevant metrics:
Page 12 of 23
-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
4a 10 Number of comprehensive
inspections of large and medium
concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs) [GOAL]
100% of
commitments'^
20
34
58.8%
4a2 Number of inspections at EPA or
state Significant Industrial Users that
are discharging to non-authorized
POTWs. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments%
52
84
61.9%
4a4 Number of CSO inspections.
[GOAL]
100% of
commitments%
0
2
0%
4a8 Number of industrial stormwater
inspections. [GOAL]
100% of
commitments%
55
75
73.3%
State Response:
The AFO Work Plan contributed to limited staffing resources in other program areas. Since
completion of the AFO Work Plan in 2018 there is evidence of improvement. For example, in
FFY19 all CMS inspection goals were met in this category, with the exception of SIUs and
CAFOs. More emphasis will be placed on inspection coordination and more frequent updates on
statewide inspection totals will be provided so that staff are aware of the progress. IDNR
believes that the goals in the CMS are achievable without modifications.
State Action: Beginning January 2020, CMS Inspection Goal Progress will be a topic of
discussion at least quarterly at relevant program (AFO, STW, WW) senior staff meetings and at
field office supervisor's meeting.
Recommendation:
Page 13 of 23
-------
Ucc
#
Due Dale
Recommendation
EPA recommends IDNR
1.
IDNR will coordinate quarterly with their field offices for
progress updates.
2.
Provide the annual FY21 CMS plan by June 1, 2020.
1
1 1/15/2020 3.
Provide EPA with the end-of-year CMS plan inspection
numbers in accordance with the PPG deadlines.
4.
If/when CMS plan inspection commitments are not met,
provide a detailed explanation on why the CMS goal was
missed.
CWA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-3
Area for Improvement
Summary:
Inspection reports did not contain comprehensive information to thoroughly document and
determine compliance.
Explanation:
The EPA reviewed 53 inspection reports. 26 inspection reports were missing photos and/or site
diagrams. This information would have provided clarity to the narrative of the inspection. This is
particularly true considering construction stormwater compliance depends on the operation and
maintenance of stormwater BMPs installed. IDNR stated that the full file would likely have the
photos taken during the inspection, however, inspection reports should stand on their own and
either refer to supplemental information, like attachments, or be complete records.
EPA Response to State comments: EPA amended the recommendation language and removed the
submitting of an inspection plan and quarterly progress discussions with EPA. The staff training
referenced in the state comment was added.
Relevant metrics:
m x • in ivt i. . rv -x- s Natl ? Natl ; State s State z State
Metric ID Number and Description s _ , > . i ^ ,w
1 Goa Avg N D %
6a Inspection reports complete and sufficient to
determine compliance at the facility. [GOAL]
100% I i 34
53 64.2%
Page 14 of 23
-------
State Response:
After further review, IDNR believes that for a portion of the inspection reports, the supporting
information mentioned as missing was likely inadvertently not provided to EPA. These supporting
documents were found with the reports in IDNR's record file, but not the electronic file provided
to EPA for the purpose of the SRF. IDNR concurs that all inspection reports must be complete and
should be reviewed as a standalone document for compliance determinations. If photos are taken
during the inspection, it should be noted in the inspection report that photos are available and
included in the report attachment(s).
State Action: Additional staff training will be provided at the 2020 Stormwater Program Meeting
regarding photos, diagrams, attachments. In addition, there will be emphasis during peer review
that the report must be reviewed as a standalone document for compliance determinations.
Recommendation:
Ucc
#
Due Dale
09/30/2020
Recommendation
IDNR should ensure inspection reports are complete and can be
reviewed as a standalone document for compliance determinations. If
photos are taken during the inspection, it should be noted in the
inspection report that photos are available and included in the report
attachment(s).
1.
2.
IDNR will perform staff training at the 2020 Stormwater
Program Meeting to emphasize inspection report completeness
and compliance determinations.
By the end of FY2020, EPA will review a selection of
inspection reports to determine if they are complete with all
necessary information. If it is found that the reports are
complete, this recommendation will be closed.
CWA Element 2 - Inspections
Finding 2-4
Area for Improvement
Summary:
Inspection reports do not consistently meet the 45-day deadline.
Explanation:
Page 15 of 23
-------
EPA reviewed 53 inspection reports. The IDNR averaged 30 days for all 53, however, the
percentage of inspection reports issued within in 45 days was only 66.7%.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl Natl i State s State ? State
Goal Avg N D %
6b Timeliness of inspection report completion
[GOAL]
100%
42
53
79.2%
State Response:
Efforts will be made to meet the 45-day timeline.
State Action: Make staff and supervisors aware of the expected timeframe. IDNR concurs with
the recommendation that the IDNR will report progress quarterly.
Recommendation:
Due Dale Recommendation
IDNR should ensure inspection reports are issued within 45 days.
1.
Submit a plan to EPA to address this finding by June 1, 2020.
2.
Discuss quarterly with EPA on progress in implementing the
1 09/30/2020
plan.
3.
By the end of FY2020, EPA will review a selection of
inspection reports to determine if the 45-day timeline is being
met. If it is found that the reports are being issued within that
timeframe, this recommendation will be closed.
CWA Element 3 - Violations
Finding 3-1
Area for Improvement
Summary:
Missing data, as identified in finding 2-3, of evaluations of compliance unable to be replicated.
Page 16 of 23
-------
Explanation:
The EPA reviewed 53 inspection reports. However, 10 inspection reports were missing critical
information that would help define the compliance status of the facility. These were inspections
where photos would convey the status or condition of onsite BMPs, like construction stormwater,
or when the narrative identifies operation and maintenance issues that would be better defined with
photos. IDNR stated that the full file would likely have the photos taken during the inspection,
however, inspection reports should stand on their own and either refer to supplemental
information, like attachments, or be complete records.
Relevant metrics:
Natl ! Natl State State State
Goal Avg N D %
100%
43
53
81.1%
Metric ID Number and Description
7e Accuracy of compliance determinations
[GOAL]
State Response:
See finding 2-3/Inspections
State Action: See finding 2-3/Inspection
Recommendation:
Ucc
#
Due Dale Recommendation
IDNR should ensure inspection reports are complete and can be
reviewed as a standalone document for compliance determinations. If
photos are taken in the inspection, it should be noted in the inspection
report that photos are available and included in the report
attachment(s).
1. Report to EPA quarterly on the actions taken to address this
finding.
2. Submit a plan to EPA to address this finding by June 1, 2020.
09/30/2020
CWA Element 4 - Enforcement
Finding 4-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Page 17 of 23
-------
Summary:
Enforcement actions reviewed would return facility back into compliance.
Explanation:
The EPA reviewed 18 enforcement actions. 17 of the 18 enforcement actions would return a
facility into compliance.
Relevant metrics:
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
10b Enforcement responses reviewed that
address violations in an appropriate manner
[GOAL]
100%
17
94.1% !
9a Percentage of enforcement responses that
returned, or will return, a source in violation to
compliance [GOAL]
100%
17
18
94.4%
State Response: None
CWA Element 5 - Penalties
Finding 5-1
Meets or Exceeds Expectations
Summary:
IDNR tracks and maintains nearly complete records of penalty actions.
Explanation:
EPA reviewed seven penalty actions. Nearly all of the records that must be maintained are kept by
IDNR. The files contained a complete penalty calculation worksheet where gravity, economic
benefit, initial and final penalty is documented.
Relevant metrics:
Page 18 of 23
-------
Metric ID Number and Description
Natl
Goal
Natl
Avg
State
N
State
D
State
%
1 la Penalty calculations reviewed that document
and include gravity and economic benefit
[GOAL]
100%
7
7
100%
12a Documentation of rationale for difference
between initial penalty calculation and final
penalty [GOAL]
100%
5
6
83.3%
12b Penalties collected [GOAL]
100%
7
"
100%
State Response: None
Page 19 of 23
-------
Appendix
iOWA Dlf MTHIMT Of NATURAL RESOURCES
Gowpno* Urn iirnious
IT.
DMECn»KMlALT(M
January 7, 2020
David Cozad, Director
Enforcement and Compliance Division
U.S. Environmental Protection ftgeriey Region 7
11201 Remer Boulevard
leneia, Xansa 6621S
Subject NPOES State Rev.ew f -amework FFYJL018
Response to Finite js
rei is.
<^V~
tment of Natyral Resources
Enclosures
72S-0268
Page 20 of 23
-------
iftN# Response
State Sewiew Ft;
Page 2 of *
January 7, 2020
lOifff'i Response to SRF findings
CWA Element I - D*t» f Finding 1-1
Summary; IDNR completeness of data entry of major and rion-major permit limits is below the mtJonai average
and is not mestfag the national ical.
State fepoftset Collaboration with EPA #art Windsor Solutions is Mdemof to correct the data transfer issues
vnd fnsum thct all perrru limits ere rep resented correctiy in iOS, The CCHO eftufe Readiness da Aboard shows
210 facilities the: do not time limits in CO end the 2019 Sftf data metrics show 203facilities that do not hove
i'mlts in iClS. These Identified facilities ore am, MM, end o Iter permits that do not hove effluent limitations.
efforts ore being matte to correctly transfer the permit data SO 10$ is not expecting limits for these facilities.
State Action: efforts ore be.ng made to correct the date transfer issues. The iONM concurs with the
recamrendction thtrt the tDMB cm correct the issue without addttfamii £M oversight.
CWA Element 1- Data / Finding 13
Summwy: IDNR did rot enter any Wli Inspections Into (CIS. OMR's formal and informal enforcement actions
are not accurate in the national database.
State Response: The error in the data transfer that presented inspector, dom from being entered into /CIS has
been corrected. Although the 2018 data is not d'sphyed fn the dots metrics in ECHO, the 2019 dam Indicates that
65 major and 307 nan-T a, a- fa clivers with indivUual permits we inspected.
Single Event Violations (SEW} discovered during the inspection ore documented by the f.eid office: inspectors cs
part oj their inspection report. These are minor wtoJrfwns thot am expected to he- tracked by the regional office
and final reports are completed, typicsify bf a tetter to the permittee. IDNK does track these minor violations m
the agency field Office Compliance Ootobose. if the permittee fails to cermet the minor violations in a hmeif
nwrwwr, the regional field office will felisw-up with the permittee or,a additional action, including format
enforcement ortfon, w'U be considered.
Both the £M and !DM: hove had ongoing technlmi issues that contributed to the unsuccessful transfer of data,
including informal and formsI actions, iCA'K is willing to continue the partnership with EPA (and Windsor
Souvons! to find solutions to these data transfer issues.
Statu Action r IBMIf wilt continue to meet regularly with EM and Windsor Solutions to Identify and remedy the
breakdown in the federal/state data transfer pothmaf so that the minimum data regulrements are met. IONS
concurs wth the recommendation that the IDNR will report progress fvarterty.
Page 21 of 23
-------
iONR Response
ttfttm Kmimm/ tr»crue*nrk
Pag * 3 of 4
January ?. 2020
CWA Element 1 - Dat» / Finding 1-4
Summirf: DNi did not enter any fflfi Sing!# Event Vtolattons fSEWs) into CIS.
State Response: Due to date transfer errors in the past IDMK Leadership matte the decision to discontinue
entering $£'¥$ ro IOS. Recently, significant progress has been moat with successfully transferring state data to
ICIS., end the iOMM Data Team mid reevaluate the proms of entering SEVs and determine f this action eon now
W completed without generating significant errors.
Sut• Action: The IBM Oats Team will neemfmie the process of entering 5£H ar.d determine If rtt is action cm
now be complete* without generating significant errors. JOWi will continue to meet rtgubrfy with EPA and
Windsor Solution* m identify and retried/ the breakdown in the Jedeml/state data transfer pcthwny m that the
minimum data requirements are met, lOfWf concurs with the recommendation that the 10MR will report progress
ttuenerty,
CWA £km*nt I - Inspections / Finding 2-2
Summary: 1DNR cid not meet its inspection goals for seiect CMS universes.
Hate Response: The AfO Work Mm contributed to iimited staffing resources in other program areas. Since
completion of tiw AFO Work Plan in 201S there is evidence of improvement. For emmpie, in WTO ail CMS
inspection floats were met in this category u/tft the exception of SiUs and CAfOs. More emphasis wiil be placed
on inspection coordination and more frequent updates m state vile inspection totals mii be provided so that
staff ere amom of the progress, IDNl1 beiitves ttwt the goofs in the CMS are achievable without modifleemm,
State Action: Beginning January 2020, CMS inspectk) ft Gcoi Progrea wilt be a topic of discussion at least
quarterly of relevant prog rain (AfO, 51V, WW) senior staff meetings and ot field office supervisor's meetly
Page 22 of 23
-------
IfiNft Response
Sim Riwiew
Page 4 of 4
Jaiiuo-Y 7„ 2020
CWA Element 2 - Inspections / findings 2-3
Summary: inspection reports did not contain comprehensive information tci thoroughly tfocument and
tleierffliine cotp la--ce
Stat* Response: After further review, iOMH believes that for a portion of the fiijjwetfort reports, the supporting
information mentioned as missing was .'ike.'y ioodvertentty not provided to £PA. These supporting documents
mm fauna with the mparts in IDMM'S record fite. but not the electronicpie jwovMeti to EPA for the purpose of the
Jlf F mm concurs I hot ai inspection reports mutt He comptete unci should be reviewed as a stmMlene
document for compliance o# terminations if phe(of are taken during the inspection, it should he wed In the
Inspection report that photos are mafia Me and irciueed in the report Bttaehmentfs},
State Action: Additional staff training mii be prowledof the 2020Stormwater Program Meeting regenttng
photos, diagrams, attachments in oMitim, then witt be emphasis airing peer review that the report must be
reviewed as a standalone document for compliance determination*.
OVA Element 2 - Inspections { Findings 1-4
Sumrnarf; inspection reports do not consistently meet the 45-day deadline,
IMa Response: Efforts mitt be made to meet the 4S-ck>/timeline,
State Actions Make staff and supervisors aware of the expected timeiine, 1DNR cor cur $ with the mmmmmdotim
that the (DAW wiii report progress quarterly.
ONk Element i «Violation* | Finding i-1
Sunrairf; Missing data, as Idenrfied in finding 2-3, of evaluations of compliince unable to be replicated,
State Response: See finding i-3/lmpectrdnS
State Action: See finding 2-3/lnspccnon
Page 23 of 23
------- |