1 / 9

STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK ROUND 3

Mark Fite Office of Environmental Accountability EPA Region 4 November 15, 2012. STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK ROUND 3. Key Aspects of Round 3. Annual data verification performed by states & locals Annual data review by EPA, with formal SRF review every 4 years

liang
Download Presentation

STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK ROUND 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mark Fite Office of Environmental Accountability EPA Region 4 November 15, 2012 STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK ROUND 3

  2. Key Aspects of Round 3 • Annual data verification performed by states & locals • Annual data review by EPA, with formal SRF review every 4 years • Preliminary Data Analysis (PDA) replaced by Data Metric Analysis (DMA) • No State/Local feedback at this stage, since data has already been verified • Permit quality review (PQR) integrated into CWA portion of process (may follow later for CAA & RCRA programs) • Increased oversight of process by OECA • Greater transparency and public dissemination of data • State performance “Dashboards” now available in ECHO for Water, under development for CAA and RCRA

  3. Annual Data Verification

  4. Round 3 Schedule • FY13 Round 3 reviews planned: • Fall – North Carolina (FY11 data) • Winter – Nashville Local (FY11 data) • Spring – Alabama (FY12 data) • FY14 – FY16 • Schedule TBA for remaining three years of cycle • Likely to include 2 States & 1 Local program each year

  5. Previous Reviews in Region 4 • Round 1: • Region 4 evaluated the following programs: • all 8 states • Jefferson County, AL; Forsyth County, NC; Louisville; & Memphis • Round 2 • Reviews completed for the following programs: • SC, AL, NC, GA, KY, MS, TN • Huntsville, Louisville, & Knoxville • FL review in progress using Round 3 metrics & FY 11 data

  6. Round 2 Findings • The most prevalent concerns identified during the 11 Round 2 SRF reviews in Region 4: • Element 2 – data accuracy (7 programs) • Element 3 – timeliness of data entry (7 programs) • Element 10 – timely & appropriate action (5 programs) • Element 11 – penalty calculations (5 programs) • Element 1 – data completeness (3 programs) • Element 6 – quality of inspection reports (2 programs) • Element 12 – penalty assessment/collection (2 programs)

  7. Improvements resulting from SRF • Enhanced penalty documentation • More consistent consideration of economic benefit • Better documentation of FCE components • Enhanced understanding of HPV policy and Federally Reportable Violations guidance • Correction of process issues that cause delays in data entry • Data system improvements

  8. Questions? • My contact information: Mark Fite 404.562.9740 fite.mark@epa.gov

More Related