![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Clean Water Act Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR) - Explanation of Map Data Ranges |
|
The following Web page describes in detail how the Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR) chloropleth maps are shaded. Each section provides a repeat of the legend data as well as "Metadata" to explain the purpose of each of the maps. Due to the fact that the Web site presents summary information (when you hover over a state), and detailed facility information (when you click on a state), it is important to understand that these statistics will not always match. The summary data is provided by, and certified by the state. The "drill down" data is what is entered into the national databases -- because much of the summary data shown here is not required to be entered at the facility level, there is a wide range in data availability. Please read data availability caveats below for more information.
Major Maps
- Map 1 Number of Facilities Regulated
- Map 2 Percent Facilities with DMR Data
- Map 3 Percent of Facilities Inspected
- Map 4 Percent of Facilities with Noncompliance
- Map 5 Percent of Facilities with Serious Noncompliance
- Map 6 Percent of Facilities with Informal Enforcement Actions
- Map 7 Total Number of Facilities with Informal Enforcement Actions
- Map 8 Percent Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions
- Map 9 Ratio of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions to Serious Violators
- Map 10 Total Number of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions
- Map 11 Total Assessed Penalties
Non-Major Maps
- Map 1 Number of Facilities Regulated
- Map 2 Percent of Facilities Reviewed for Violations
- Map 3 Percent of Facilities Reviewed with Violations
- Map 4 Percent of Facilities Reviewed with Serious Violations
- Map 5 Ratio of Formal Enforcement Actions to Violating Facilities
- Map 6 Ratio of Formal Enforcement Actions to Serious Violators
- Map 7 Ratio of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions to Serious Violators
- Map 8 Percent Violating Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions
- Map 9 Dollars of Penalties Assessed Against Non-Majors
- Map 10 Total Number of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions
- Map 11 Total Number of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions or Fines
- Map 12 Total Number of Formal Enforcement Actions
Major Maps
Number of Facilities Regulated (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Number of Facilities Regulated | No Data | <50 | 51-100 | 101-200 | 201 or more |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 0 | 14 | 13 | 16 | 9 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 0 | 14 | 14 | 16 | 9 |
Note: The number of facilities is a descriptive statistic, not a performance metric.
Metric Explanation (Metadata): This metric counts facilities with an active major individual permit or active major general permit under the Clean Water Act NPDES program. It serves as a measure of the degree to which the Minimum Data Requirements are complete.
Percent Facilities with DMR Data (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Percent Facilities with DMR Data | No Data | <90% | 91%-95% | 96%-99% | 100% |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 0 | 17 | 11 | 13 | 12 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 0 | 15 | 6 | 17 | 15 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): This metric represents the ratio of facilities that submitted Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) during the Fiscal Year to the number of facilities that were expected to submit DMRs during that same time period. Only facilities with active major individual NPDES permits are included.
This metric ensures that key information is available so that effluent-based compliance determinations can be accurately made for CWA facilities. This metric looks at NPDES major facilities with individual permits for the percent that had DMRs present in the national database. This information is required to be reported.
Percent of Facilities Inspected (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Percent of Facilities Inspected | No Data | <50% | 51%-70% | 71%-90% | 91% or more |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 0 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 5 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 0 | 9 | 20 | 13 | 11 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): These metrics count facilities with active major individual or general permits that have been inspected during the Fiscal Year. The inspections which are included in this metric are high level inspections such as Compliance Evaluations Inspections (CEIs) or Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSIs). They serve as measures of the degree to which state completed the universe of planned inspections/compliance evaluations (addressing core requirements and federal, state and regional priorities).
The inspections which are included in this metric are high level inspections such as Compliance Evaluations Inspections (CEIs) or Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSIs). Reconnaissance inspections are also included, as long as the facility is not a primary industry (e.g., one subject to effluent guidelines), a municipal permittee with an approved pretreatment program, or a major permittee which has been in SNC during the year. Since this is a coverage measure, the number of facilities inspected, rather than the total number of inspections, are counted. When a facility has been inspected multiple times in one year, only the first inspection is counted. Limited to active NPDES majors.
Percent of Facilities with Noncompliance (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Percent of Facilities with Noncompliance | No Data | <25% | 26%-50% | 51%-75% | 76% or more |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 0 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 0 | 12 | 10 | 19 | 12 |
Note: that for this metric, those states with higher percentages of violators are given lighter colors, and vice versa.
Metric Explanation (Metadata): This metric is defined as the number of active NPDES major facilities that are in noncompliance at any time during the fiscal year. Facilities are in noncompliance, if they have had effluent violations, compliance schedule violations, permit schedule violations, single event violations (for example, violations found during inspections), or reporting violations (such as failure to report) during the fiscal year.
Percent of Facilities with Serious Noncompliance (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Percent of Facilities with Serious Noncompliance | No Data | <10% | 11%-25% | 26%-50% | 51% or more |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 0 | 8 | 24 | 14 | 6 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 0 | 14 | 21 | 14 | 4 |
Note: that for this metric, those states with higher percentages of violators are given lighter colors, and vice versa.
Metric Explanation (Metadata): This metric is calculated as the active NPDES major facilities with individual or general permits in SNC as a percent of the universe of active NPDES major facilities. This metric is a review indicator metric that allows EPA to measure the success of the NPDES program.
Percent of Facilities with Informal Enforcement Actions (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Percent of Facilities with Informal Enforcement Actions | No Data | <1% | 2%-10% | 11%-25% | 26% or more |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 0 | 19 | 13 | 10 | 11 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 0 | 19 | 10 | 10 | 14 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): This compares the total number of facilities to the number of informal enforcement actions that were taken. Note that EPA guidance does not require informal actions for all violations. If violations are relatively minor, or are quickly resolved through corrections by the permittee, action may be unnecessary. If violations persist or turn more serious, the state would be expected to escalate enforcement response. This may include using informal actions (e.g., notice of violation or warning letter). A higher percent indicates that state more frequently takes formal enforcement actions.
Additional Explanation of Calculations:Number of Major Facilities with Informal Actions is taken as the numerator and Major Facility Universe -Individual and General Permits is taken as the denomenator.
Total Number of Facilities with Informal Enforcement Actions
(2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Total Number of Facilities with Informal Enforcement Actions | No Data | 0 | 1-10 | 11-25 | 26 or more |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 0 | 18 | 15 | 9 | 11 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 0 | 16 | 16 | 7 | 14 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): The National Enforcement Management System (EMS) for the NPDES program identifies basic principles necessary to the operation of an effective compliance and enforcement program. The availability of a variety of enforcement options (such as informal actions) provides the opportunity to match violations with an appropriate enforcement response to ensure compliance and promote deterrence. An informal action may often be the first step in the enforcement process. If permittee is able to resolve the problem, formal action may not be necessary. Violations that persist and are serious generally require a formal action.
Percent Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Percent Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions | No Data | <1% | 2%-5% | 6%-10% | 11% or more |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 0 | 15 | 14 | 17 | 7 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 0 | 8 | 18 | 16 | 11 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): Formal actions (administrative orders or judicial actions) are necessary for more serious violations, such as significant effluent exceedances that are not quickly corrected by the permittee.
Additional Explanation of Calculations: Number of Major Facilities with Formal Actions (Total) is taken as the numerator and Major Facility Universe - Individual and General Permits is taken as the denomenator.Ratio of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions to Serious Violators
(2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Ratio of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions to Serious Violators | No Data | <5% | 6%-20% | 21%-50% | 51% or more |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 3 | 14 | 16 | 12 | 8 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 2 | 8 | 15 | 11 | 17 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): Formal actions (administrative orders or judicial actions) are necessary for more serious violations, such as significant effluent exceedances that are not quickly corrected by the permittee.This metric compares the number of facilities in SNC to the number that received formal enforcement actions.
Additional Explanation of Calculations: Number of Major Facilities with Formal Actions (Total) is taken as the numerator and Major Facilities in SNC is taken as the denomenator.Total Number of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions
(2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Total Number of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions | No Data | 0 | 1-5 | 6-10 | 11 or more |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 0 | 11 | 21 | 11 | 10 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 0 | 8 | 23 | 9 | 13 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): Formal actions (administrative orders or judicial actions) are necessary for more serious violations, such as significant effluent exceedances that are not quickly corrected by the permittee.This metric compares the number of facilities in SNC to the number that received formal enforcement actions.
Additional Explanation of Calculations: Number of Major Facilities with Formal Actions (Total) is taken as the numerator and Major Facilities in SNC is taken as the denomenator.Total Assessed Penalties (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Total Assessed Penalties | $0 / No Data | $1-$100,000 | $100,001-$500,000 | $500,001 or more |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 28 | 14 | 8 | 3 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 28 | 13 | 7 | 5 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): Formal enforcement actions often include a penalty, which serves as a deterrent to future violations. EPA requires entry of judicial penalty amounts by states, but not penalties associated with administrative actions. EPA encourages states to report penalties for administrative actions so the public is aware of the states activity. For EPA-led enforcement cases, both judicial and administrative penalties are required to be entered.
Non-Major Maps
Number of Facilities Regulated (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Number of Facilities Regulated | No Data | <100 | 101-249 | 250-1000 | 1001 or more |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 0 | 13 | 8 | 16 | 16 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 0 | 12 | 9 | 16 | 17 |
Note: The number of facilities is a descriptive statistic, not a performance metric.
Metric Explanation (Metadata): The facilities counted under this measure are smaller permittees that are allowed to release specific water effluents at levels specified in a permit. These facilities have individual permits, and normally submit discharge reports on a monthly basis to the state (or EPA). The universe does not count large major facilities, general permits, or wet weather permits.
Percent of Facilities Reviewed for Violations (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Percent of Facilities Reviewed for Violations | No Data | <50% | 50%-89% | 90%-99% | 100% |
| Number of States per Range (2008) | 0 | 8 | 11 | 12 | 22 |
| Number of States per Range (2009) | 0 | 4 | 13 | 17 | 20 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): Facilities generally submit monthly discharge data. If states enter the discharge measurement data into EPA's databases, violations are automatically calculated by the database (compare permitted limit to measurement). Some states do not submit this information to EPA, but have their own databases which calculate violations. This measure shows the percent of facilities that are routinely reviewed for violations (through these automated calculations). Facilities not reviewed for violations would typically submit paper discharge reports to the state (or EPA), but the state would file the report without reviewing it. States that have a low percentage may not have the resources sufficient to enter discharge data into a database, or review all submitted reports manually.
Additional Explanation of Calculations: Percent of non-major facilities with permitted limits and standard permits that have an automated calculation of compliance (DMRs compared to Limits by a database), or data reviewed as part of an inspection or manual file review. EPA's methodology will count a facility as reviewed if at least one of the twelve monthly DMRs is entered in the database.
Percent Facilities Reviewed with Violations (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Percent Facilities Reviewed with Violations | No Data | <20% | 21-40% | 41%-59% | 60% or more |
| Number of State per Range (2008) | 0 | 8 | 14 | 10 | 21 |
| Number of State per Range (2009) | 0 | 6 | 12 | 13 | 23 |
Note: For this metric, those states with higher percentages of violators are given lighter colors, and vice versa.
Metric Explanation (Metadata): Of those facilities reviewed for violations, what percent have had noncompliance (e.g., measurement is over the permitted limit). This is otherwise known as a "noncompliance rate." It excludes sources that are not reviewed since the compliance status for those facilities is unknown. This rate includes any violation of a permitted limit. The lower the percent, the fewer relative number of violations occurred.
Additional Explanation of Calculations: Number of Facilities with Violations is taken as the numerator, Number of Facilities Reviewed as the denominator
Percent of Facilities Reviewed with Serious Violations (2008 & 2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Percent of Facilities Reviewed with Serious Violations | No Data | <10% | 11%-25% | 26%-44% | 45% or more |
| Number of State per Range (2008) | 9 | 10 | 13 | 6 | 15 |
| Number of State per Range (2009) | 7 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 17 |
Note: that for this metric, those states with higher percentages of violators are given lighter colors, and vice versa.
Metric Explanation (Metadata): The Clean Water Act regulations define more serious violations as "Category I." Generally, these are flagged when a "toxic" pollutant is measured to be more than 20% over the permitted limit, or if a "conventional" pollutant is more than 40% over limit. Failure to submit monitoring data is also a serious violation. EPA's national databases automatically calculate Category I violations. States are not required to enter this data into EPA's database (for smaller facilities). For states that do not enter data to EPA, the state database should allow calculation of "Category I" violations. However, there are some states that are not able to provide this information (so there is no data available).
Additional Explanation of Calculations: Number of Facilities with Category I Violations is taken as the numerator, Number of Facilities Reviewed as the denominator
Ratio of Formal Enforcement Actions to Violating Facilities (2008 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Ratio of Formal Enforcement Actions to Violating Facilities | No Data | <1% | 2%-5% | 6%-10% | 10% or more |
| Number of State per Range (2008) | 1 | 15 | 13 | 6 | 18 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): This compares the number of facilities with any violations to the number of enforcement actions that were taken. Note that EPA guidance does not require formal actions for all violations. If violations are relatively minor, or are quickly resolved through corrections by the permittee, formal actions may be unnecessary. If violations persist or turn more serious, the state would be expected to escalate enforcement response, using either informal actions (e.g., notice of violation or warning letter), or a formal action (which is counted here). A higher percent indicates that state more frequently takes formal enforcement actions.
Additional Explanation of Calculations: Number of Enforcement Actions is taken as the numerator and Number of Facilities with Violations as the denominator.
Ratio of Formal Enforcement Actions to Serious Violators (2008 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Ratio of Formal Enforcement Actions to Serious Violators | No Data | 0% | 1%-10% | 11%-39% | 40% or more |
| Number of State per Range (2008) | 12 | 10 | 13 | 10 | 8 |
Note: ANCR 2008 data provides the total number of formal enforcement actions: this is not broken down between enforcement actions per violators and enforcement actions per serious violators.
Metric Explanation (Metadata): More serious violations (Category I), if not corrected by the facility quickly, may lead the state to pursue formal enforcement. This calculation compares the number of enforcement actions to the number of serious violations identified. Serious violations may include effluent violations, or failure to report discharge monitoring reports.
Ratio of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions to Serious Violators
(2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Ratio of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions to Serious Violators | No Data | <1% | 2%-10% | 11%-25% | 26% or more |
| Number of State per Range (2009) | 7 | 8 | 18 | 11 | 10 |
Note: ANCR 2009 data provides the total number of facilities with formal enforcement actions: this is not broken down between enforcement actions per violators and enforcement actions per serious violators.
Metric Explanation (Metadata): More serious violations (Category I), if not corrected by the facility quickly, may lead the state to pursue formal enforcement. This calculation compares the number of enforcement actions to the number of serious violations identified. Serious violations may include effluent violations, or failure to report discharge monitoring reports.
Percent Violating Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions (2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Percent Violating Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions | No Data | 0% | 1%-5% | 6%-19% | 20% or more |
| Number of State per Range (2009) | 0 | 8 | 18 | 17 | 11 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): This compares the number of facilities with any violations to the number of enforcement actions that were taken. Note that EPA guidance does not require formal actions for all violations. If violations are relatively minor, or are quickly resolved through corrections by the permittee, formal actions may be unnecessary. If violations persist or turn more serious, the state would be expected to escalate enforcement response, using either informal actions (e.g., notice of violation or warning letter), or a formal action (which is counted here). A higher percent indicates that state more frequently takes formal enforcement actions.
Additional Explanation of Calculations: Number of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions taken as the numerator and Number of Facilities with Violations as the denominator.
Dollars of Penalties Assessed Against Non-Majors (2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Dollars of Penalties Assessed Against Non-Majors | No Data | < $100,000 | 100,001-$500,000 | $500,001-$1,000,000 | $1,000,001 or more |
| Number of State per Range (2009) | 2 | 31 | 12 | 3 | 6 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): Formal enforcement actions often include a penalty, which serves as a deterrent to future violations. This metric shows the sum total of all penalities served to facilities within the state.
Total Number of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions (2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Total Number of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions | No Data | <1 | 2-5 | 6-20 | 21 or more |
| Number of State per Range (2009) | 0 | 14 | 8 | 14 | 18 |
Note: The number of facilities with enforcement actions is a descriptive statistic, not a performance metric. ANCR 2009 data provides the total number of facilities with formal enforcement actions: this is not broken down between enforcement actions per violators and enforcement actions per serious violators.
Metric Explanation (Metadata): This provides the total number of facilities within the state with formal actions taken by the authorized permitting authority. A formal action is a legal document compelling compliance with permit requirements on a specified schedule.
Total Number of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions or Fines
(2009 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Total Number of Facilities with Formal Enforcement Actions or Fines | No Data | <1 | 2-5 | 6-20 | 21 or more |
| Number of State per Range (2009) | 0 | 12 | 8 | 14 | 20 |
Metric Explanation (Metadata): This provides the total number of formal actions taken within the State by the authorized permitting authority. A formal action is a legal document compelling compliance with permit requirements on a specified schedule.
Total Number of Formal Enforcement Actions (2008 Data Available)
| Metric | No Data | Range1 | Range2 | Range3 | Range4 |
| Total Number of Formal Enforcement Actions | No Data | 0 | 1-10 | 11-39 | 40 or more |
| Number of State per Range | 0 | 12 | 19 | 16 | 6 |
Note: The number of enforcement actions is a descriptive statistic, not a performance metric. ANCR 2008 data provides the total number of formal enforcement actions: this is not broken down between enforcement actions per violators and enforcement actions per serious violators.
Metric Explanation (Metadata): This provides the total number of formal actions taken within the state by the authorized permitting authority. A formal action is a legal document compelling compliance with permit requirements on a specified schedule.