Data Availability Table (Review Period Ending: CY11)

States

Number of Active 'Major' 

Facilities 

(Column A)

Number of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with Limit Data 

(Column B)

Alabama 190 190

Alaska 44 40

Arizona 74 74

Arkansas 183 183

California 263 239

Colorado 123 118

Connecticut 97 97

Delaware 20 19

District of Columbia* 5 5

Florida 224 199

Georgia 188 188

Hawaii 20 18

Idaho* 37 36

Illinois 277 277

Indiana 196 196

Iowa 125 125

Kansas 55 55

Kentucky 132 130

Louisiana 326 326

Maine 78 77

Maryland 93 86

Massachusetts* 124 121

Michigan 176 175

Minnesota 99 97

Mississippi 96 96

Missouri 176 173

Montana 35 35

Nebraska 53 53

Nevada 14 11

New Hampshire* 49 49

New Jersey 146 146

New Mexico* 42 42

New York 338 338

Derived From: Manual pull by EPA/OECA/OC/ETDD (Jerry Lappan). For PCS states, the rates were calculated by

running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by

running a query against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. 
North Carolina 222 220

North Dakota 26 26

Ohio 298 298

Oklahoma 106 106

Oregon 68 68

Pennsylvania 409 409

Puerto Rico* 71 71

Rhode Island 25 25

South Carolina 162 162

South Dakota 29 29

Tennessee 156 155

Texas 649 636

Utah 37 37

Vermont 32 32

Virgin Islands 8 8

Virginia 152 135

Washington 46 20

West Virginia 101 100

Wisconsin 130 129

Wyoming 23 23

National Total 6658 6513

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

Notes:

Column Comment/Source of Data

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

(G)

(H)

(I)

(J)

(K)

(L)

Additional Caveats:

1

This value is calculated from the following formula [=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F)] 

The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inacti

The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period st

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effl

period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at 

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A]

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]

For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 1

 ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. 

This value is calculated from the following formula[=(Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F)]

The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inacti

The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period st

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effl

period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at 

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A]

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]
2

3

Neither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any giv

date on which the status changed. Therefore, the counts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 

In PCS, if a facility is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is not po

counted in the universe of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010.
Number of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with DMR Data 

(Column C)

Percentage of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with Limit Data 

[=Column B/Column A] 

(Column D)

Percentage of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with DMR Data 

[=Column C/Column A] 

(Column E)

190 100.0% 100.0%

36 90.9% 81.8%

73 100.0% 98.6%

180 100.0% 98.4%

238 90.9% 90.5%

118 95.9% 95.9%

97 100.0% 100.0%

19 95.0% 95.0%

5 100.0% 100.0%

198 88.8% 88.4%

185 100.0% 98.4%

18 90.0% 90.0%

36 97.3% 97.3%

275 100.0% 99.3%

195 100.0% 99.5%

124 100.0% 99.2%

55 100.0% 100.0%

130 98.5% 98.5%

321 100.0% 98.5%

77 98.7% 98.7%

79 92.5% 84.9%

121 97.6% 97.6%

174 99.4% 98.9%

97 98.0% 98.0%

95 100.0% 99.0%

170 98.3% 96.6%

35 100.0% 100.0%

51 100.0% 96.2%

11 78.6% 78.6%

49 100.0% 100.0%

145 100.0% 99.3%

36 100.0% 85.7%

334 100.0% 98.8%

S states, the rates were calculated by

PDES states, the rates were calculated by

urrent as of May 24, 2012. 
220 99.1% 99.1%

26 100.0% 100.0%

297 100.0% 99.7%

105 100.0% 99.1%

68 100.0% 100.0%

407 100.0% 99.5%

71 100.0% 100.0%

25 100.0% 100.0%

161 100.0% 99.4%

29 100.0% 100.0%

154 99.4% 98.7%

620 98.0% 95.5%

37 100.0% 100.0%

32 100.0% 100.0%

8 100.0% 100.0%

134 88.8% 88.2%

5 43.5% 10.9%

99 99.0% 98.0%

129 99.2% 99.2%

23 100.0% 100.0%

6427 97.8% 96.5%

ov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F)] 

n the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year

parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported withi

 which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY.

Column B / Column A]

Column C / Column A]

queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query against the

ent as of May 24, 2012. 

Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F)]

n the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year

parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported withi

 which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY.

Column B / Column A]

Column C / Column A]
termining whether a facility was active on any given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last 

nts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010 are approximate.

d its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are 

years 2009 and 2010.
Number of Active 'Non-Major' 

Facilities 

(Column F)

Number of Active "NonMajor" Facilities with Limit 

Data 

(Column G)

Number of Active 'Non-Major' 

Facilities with DMR Data 

(Column H)

1496 1283 717

52 26 22

110 13 10

713 713 686

329 243 8

524 255 245

79 79 76

32 29 26

7 7 7

313 302 296

790 593 460

116 33 25

141 125 121

1419 1404 1222

1466 1452 1430

1542 1295 1270

1188 55 46

1564 1386 1294

1264 256 173

288 210 200

842 518 415

131 120 117

1566 833 73

658 29 21

1412 1301 1174

3016 2759 2330

163 161 157

681 620 578

111 0 0

38 36 36

3418 709 648

94 90 87

1211 1083 1032
1052 992 568

104 3 2

3098 3089 2952

381 379 372

324 6 5

4062 130 115

179 179 171

66 63 59

326 320 316

265 255 218

1247 791 490

2287 2170 1936

131 94 86

153 3 3

63 63 51

915 4 2

246 75 20

855 366 325

925 19 13

1418 27 12

43375 25763 22001

ne limit was in effect within the CY.

o DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring 

e calculated by running a query against the

ne limit was in effect within the CY.

o DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring 
s to determine the status based on the last 

the year of interest. Such new facilities are 
Percentage of Active 'NonMajor' Facilities with Limit 

Data [=Column G/Column F] 

(Column I)

Percentage of Active 'NonMajor' Facilities with DMR 

Data [=Column I/Column F] 

(Column J)

Percentage of Active 

Facilities with Limit Data 

[=(Column B+Column 

G)/(Column A + Column F)] 

(Column K)

85.8% 47.9% 87.4%

50.0% 42.3% 68.8%

11.8% 9.1% 47.3%

100.0% 96.2% 100.0%

73.9% 2.4% 81.4%

48.7% 46.8% 57.7%

100.0% 96.2% 100.0%

90.6% 81.3% 92.3%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

96.5% 94.6% 93.3%

75.1% 58.2% 79.9%

28.4% 21.6% 37.5%

88.7% 85.8% 90.4%

98.9% 86.1% 99.1%

99.0% 97.5% 99.2%

84.0% 82.4% 85.2%

4.6% 3.9% 8.8%

88.6% 82.7% 89.4%

20.3% 13.7% 36.6%

72.9% 69.4% 78.4%

61.5% 49.3% 64.6%

91.6% 89.3% 94.5%

53.2% 4.7% 57.9%

4.4% 3.2% 16.6%

92.1% 83.1% 92.6%

91.5% 77.3% 91.9%

98.8% 96.3% 99.0%

91.0% 84.9% 91.7%

- - 8.8%

94.7% 94.7% 97.7%

20.7% 19.0% 24.0%

95.7% 92.6% 97.1%

89.4% 85.2% 91.7%
94.3% 54.0% 95.1%

2.9% 1.9% 22.3%

99.7% 95.3% 99.7%

99.5% 97.6% 99.6%

1.9% 1.5% 18.9%

3.2% 2.8% 12.1%

100.0% 95.5% 100.0%

95.5% 89.4% 96.7%

98.2% 96.9% 98.8%

96.2% 82.3% 96.6%

63.4% 39.3% 67.4%

94.9% 84.7% 95.6%

71.8% 65.6% 78.0%

2.0% 2.0% 18.9%

100.0% 81.0% 100.0%

0.4% 0.2% 13.0%

30.5% 8.1% 32.5%

42.8% 38.0% 48.7%

2.1% 1.4% 14.0%

1.9% 0.8% 3.5%

59.4% 50.7% 64.5%

Percentage of Active 

Facilities with DMR Data 

[=(Column C+Column 

H)/(Column A + Column F)] 

(Column L)

53.8%

60.4%

45.1%

96.7%

41.6%

56.1%

98.3%

86.5%

100.0%

92.0%

66.0%

31.6%

88.2%

88.3%

97.8%

83.6%

8.1%

84.0%

31.1%

75.7%

52.8%

93.3%

14.2%

15.6%

84.2%

78.3%

97.0%

85.7%

8.8%

97.7%

22.3%

90.4%

88.2%
61.9%

21.5%

95.7%

97.9%

18.6%

11.7%

96.8%

92.3%

97.7%

84.0%

45.9%

87.1%

73.2%

18.9%

83.1%

12.7%

8.6%

44.4%

13.5%

2.4%

56.8%
Data Availability Table (Review Period Ending: CY10)

States

Number of Active 'Major' 

Facilities 

(Column A)

Number of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with Limit Data 

(Column B)

Alabama 191 191

Alaska 44 40

Arizona 75 73

Arkansas 183 183

California 265 239

Colorado 114 114

Connecticut 97 97

Delaware 20 19

District of Columbia* 5 5

Florida 225 200

Georgia 193 193

Hawaii 20 18

Idaho* 37 36

Illinois 275 275

Indiana 195 195

Iowa 125 125

Kansas 55 55

Kentucky 132 130

Louisiana 329 329

Maine 80 79

Maryland 93 86

Massachusetts* 124 121

Michigan 176 174

Minnesota 98 96

Mississippi 97 97

Missouri 176 175

Montana 36 36

Nebraska 53 53

Nevada 14 11

New Hampshire* 51 51

New Jersey 147 147

New Mexico* 35 35

New York 340 340

North Carolina 222 220

North Dakota 26 26

Ohio 298 298

Oklahoma 106 106

Oregon 68 68

Pennsylvania 404 404

Puerto Rico* 72 72

Rhode Island 25 25

South Carolina 162 162

South Dakota 29 29

Tennessee 158 157

Derived From: Manual pull by EPA/OECA/OC/ETDD (Jerry Lappan). For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running 

queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a 

query against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. 
Texas 642 632

Utah 36 36

Vermont 32 32

Virgin Islands 8 8

Virginia 154 120

Washington 39 19

West Virginia 101 100

Wisconsin 129 129

Wyoming 23 23

National Total 6643 6493

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

Notes:

Column Comment/Source of Data

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

(G)

(H)

(I)

(J)

(K)

(L)

Additional Caveats:

1

2

3

The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) in

The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification perio

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an 

period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A]

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]

This value is calculated from the following formula [=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F

For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on A

 ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. 

Neither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any 

date on which the status changed. Therefore, the counts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 

In PCS, if a facility is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is no

counted in the universe of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010.

This value is calculated from the following formula[=(Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F

The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) in

The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification perio

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an 

period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A]

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]
Number of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with DMR Data 

(Column C)

Percentage of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with Limit Data 

[=Column B/Column A] 

(Column D)

Percentage of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with DMR Data 

[=Column C/Column A] 

(Column E)

191 100.0% 100.0%

34 90.9% 77.3%

73 97.3% 97.3%

178 100.0% 97.3%

235 90.2% 88.7%

114 100.0% 100.0%

97 100.0% 100.0%

19 95.0% 95.0%

5 100.0% 100.0%

199 88.9% 88.4%

189 100.0% 97.9%

18 90.0% 90.0%

36 97.3% 97.3%

273 100.0% 99.3%

195 100.0% 100.0%

124 100.0% 99.2%

55 100.0% 100.0%

130 98.5% 98.5%

327 100.0% 99.4%

79 98.8% 98.8%

80 92.5% 86.0%

121 97.6% 97.6%

174 98.9% 98.9%

96 98.0% 98.0%

97 100.0% 100.0%

164 99.4% 93.2%

36 100.0% 100.0%

52 100.0% 98.1%

11 78.6% 78.6%

51 100.0% 100.0%

146 100.0% 99.3%

35 100.0% 100.0%

336 100.0% 98.8%

219 99.1% 98.6%

26 100.0% 100.0%

298 100.0% 100.0%

105 100.0% 99.1%

68 100.0% 100.0%

402 100.0% 99.5%

72 100.0% 100.0%

25 100.0% 100.0%

162 100.0% 100.0%

29 100.0% 100.0%

157 99.4% 99.4%

tes, the rates were calculated by running 

, the rates were calculated by running a 

ay 24, 2012. 
612 98.4% 95.3%

36 100.0% 100.0%

32 100.0% 100.0%

8 100.0% 100.0%

113 77.9% 73.4%

11 48.7% 28.2%

100 99.0% 99.0%

129 100.0% 100.0%

23 100.0% 100.0%

6406 97.7% 96.4%

pdes/statestats.cfm).

n the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year

parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported withi

 which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY.

Column B / Column A]

Column C / Column A]

Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F)] 

queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query against the

ent as of May 24, 2012. 

termining whether a facility was active on any given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last 

nts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010 are approximate.

d its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are 

years 2009 and 2010.

Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F)]

n the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year

parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported withi

 which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY.

Column B / Column A]

Column C / Column A]
Number of Active 'Non-Major' 

Facilities 

(Column F)

Number of Active "NonMajor" Facilities with Limit 

Data 

(Column G)

Number of Active 'Non-Major' 

Facilities with DMR Data 

(Column H)

1486 1299 720

53 26 20

113 13 13

704 704 675

362 225 5

446 244 231

80 78 77

32 29 28

7 7 7

302 290 278

810 612 475

128 29 22

145 125 120

1435 1411 1257

1471 1461 1438

1542 1280 1255

1211 52 37

1539 1355 1268

1322 262 170

292 211 203

828 506 416

152 134 129

1570 841 636

683 65 16

1480 1357 1310

3008 2719 1945

164 162 155

686 627 583

95

46 34 34

3492 721 673

95 91 84

1222 1084 1022

1084 1010 938

107 3 2

3050 3042 2992

375 373 366

324 6 5

4112 140 117

180 180 173

65 62 61

341 328 327

290 262 217

1259 806 485
2300 2222 1938

127 92 84

154 3 3

67 67 47

953 4 3

212 82 63

864 369 330

909 17 14

1483 28 16

43771 25851 22763

e limit was in effect within the CY.

 DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring 

calculated by running a query against the

to determine the status based on the last 

e year of interest. Such new facilities are 

e limit was in effect within the CY.

 DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring 
Percentage of Active 'NonMajor' Facilities with Limit 

Data [=Column G/Column F] 

(Column I)

Percentage of Active 'NonMajor' Facilities with DMR 

Data [=Column I/Column F] 

(Column J)

Percentage of Active 

Facilities with Limit Data 

[=(Column B+Column 

G)/(Column A + Column F)]

(Column K)

87.4% 48.5% 88.8%

49.1% 37.7% 68.0%

11.5% 11.5% 45.7%

100.0% 95.9% 100.0%

62.2% 1.4% 74.0%

54.7% 51.8% 63.9%

97.5% 96.3% 98.9%

90.6% 87.5% 92.3%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

96.0% 92.1% 93.0%

75.6% 58.6% 80.3%

22.7% 17.2% 31.8%

86.2% 82.8% 88.5%

98.3% 87.6% 98.6%

99.3% 97.8% 99.4%

83.0% 81.4% 84.3%

4.3% 3.1% 8.5%

88.0% 82.4% 88.9%

19.8% 12.9% 35.8%

72.3% 69.5% 78.0%

61.1% 50.2% 64.3%

88.2% 84.9% 92.4%

53.6% 40.5% 58.1%

9.5% 2.3% 20.6%

91.7% 88.5% 92.2%

90.4% 64.7% 90.9%

98.8% 94.5% 99.0%

91.4% 85.0% 92.0%

0.0% 0.0% 10.1%

73.9% 73.9% 87.6%

20.6% 19.3% 23.9%

95.8% 88.4% 96.9%

88.7% 83.6% 91.2%

93.2% 86.5% 94.2%

2.8% 1.9% 21.8%

99.7% 98.1% 99.8%

99.5% 97.6% 99.6%

1.9% 1.5% 18.9%

3.4% 2.8% 12.0%

100.0% 96.1% 100.0%

95.4% 93.8% 96.7%

96.2% 95.9% 97.4%

90.3% 74.8% 91.2%

64.0% 38.5% 68.0%
96.6% 84.3% 97.0%

72.4% 66.1% 78.5%

1.9% 1.9% 18.8%

100.0% 70.1% 100.0%

0.4% 0.3% 11.2%

38.7% 29.7% 40.2%

42.7% 38.2% 48.6%

1.9% 1.5% 14.1%

1.9% 1.1% 3.4%

59.1% 52.0% 64.2%
Percentage of Active 

Facilities with DMR Data

[=(Column C+Column 

H)/(Column A + Column F)]

(Column L)

54.3%

55.7%

45.7%

96.2%

38.3%

61.6%

98.3%

90.4%

100.0%

90.5%

66.2%

27.0%

85.7%

89.5%

98.0%

82.7%

7.3%

83.7%

30.1%

75.8%

53.9%

90.6%

46.4%

14.3%

89.2%

66.2%

95.5%

85.9%

10.1%

87.6%

22.5%

91.5%

86.9%

88.6%

21.1%

98.3%

97.9%

18.6%

11.5%

97.2%

95.6%

97.2%

77.1%

45.3%
86.7%

73.6%

18.8%

73.3%

10.5%

29.5%

44.6%

13.8%

2.6%

57.9%
Data Availability Table (Review Period Ending: CY09)

States

Number of Active 'Major' 

Facilities 

(Column A)

Number of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with Limit Data 

(Column B)

Alabama 191 191

Alaska* 44 40

Arizona 77 72

Arkansas 182 182

California 274 241

Colorado 114 114

Connecticut 100 100

Delaware 20 19

District of Columbia* 5 5

Florida 225 199

Georgia 189 189

Hawaii 20 18

Idaho* 37 36

Illinois 275 275

Indiana 195 195

Iowa 125 125

Kansas 55 55

Kentucky 132 130

Louisiana 328 328

Maine 82 81

Maryland 93 86

Massachusetts* 125 122

Michigan 179 174

Minnesota 97 88

Mississippi 98 97

Missouri 174 171

Montana 40 40

Nebraska 51 51

Nevada 13 10

New Hampshire* 51 51

New Jersey 148 148

New Mexico* 35 35

New York 344 344

North Carolina 221 218

Derived From: Manual pull by EPA/OECA/OC/ETDD (Jerry Lappan). For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running 

queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a 

query against the ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. 
North Dakota 26 26

Ohio 298 298

Oklahoma 103 103

Oregon 68 68

Pennsylvania 390 390

Puerto Rico* 75 75

Rhode Island 25 25

South Carolina 164 164

South Dakota 29 29

Tennessee 157 156

Texas 639 631

Utah 36 36

Vermont 33 33

Virgin Islands 6 6

Virginia 154 101

Washington 31 19

West Virginia 101 100

Wisconsin 129 129

Wyoming 23 23

National Total 6635 6451

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

Notes:

Column Comment/Source of Data

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

(G)

(H)

(I)

(J)

(K)

(L)

Additional Caveats:

The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inact

The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period s

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an eff

period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at 

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A]

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]

This value is calculated from the following formula [=(Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F)] 

This value is calculated from the following formula[=(Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F)]

The universe of standard permits that were (1) active in the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inact

The subset of the universe that reported at least one parameter code with a limit modification period s

The subset of the universe that reported at least one DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an eff

period end date as a surrogate for the DMR due date, which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at 

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A]

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column C / Column A]
1

2

3

For PCS states, the rates were calculated by running queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 

 ICIS Interim Reporting Solution (IIRS) database, current as of May 24, 2012. 

Neither PCS nor ICIS-NPDES completely supports determining whether a facility was active on any giv

date on which the status changed. Therefore, the counts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 

In PCS, if a facility is new since the year of interest and its active status has never changed, it is not po

counted in the universe of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010.
Number of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with DMR Data 

(Column C)

Percentage of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with Limit Data 

[=Column B/Column A] 

(Column D)

Percentage of Active 'Major' 

Facilities with DMR Data 

[=Column C/Column A] 

(Column E)

191 100.0% 100.0%

33 90.9% 75.0%

72 93.5% 93.5%

175 100.0% 96.2%

239 88.0% 87.2%

114 100.0% 100.0%

100 100.0% 100.0%

19 95.0% 95.0%

5 100.0% 100.0%

197 88.4% 87.6%

183 100.0% 96.8%

18 90.0% 90.0%

36 97.3% 97.3%

273 100.0% 99.3%

195 100.0% 100.0%

123 100.0% 98.4%

55 100.0% 100.0%

130 98.5% 98.5%

313 100.0% 95.4%

81 98.8% 98.8%

80 92.5% 86.0%

122 97.6% 97.6%

174 97.2% 97.2%

88 90.7% 90.7%

97 99.0% 99.0%

160 98.3% 92.0%

40 100.0% 100.0%

51 100.0% 100.0%

10 76.9% 76.9%

51 100.0% 100.0%

148 100.0% 100.0%

35 100.0% 100.0%

341 100.0% 99.1%

217 98.6% 98.2%

 states, the rates were calculated by running 

ates, the rates were calculated by running a 

f May 24, 2012. 
26 100.0% 100.0%

293 100.0% 98.3%

102 100.0% 99.0%

68 100.0% 100.0%

388 100.0% 99.5%

75 100.0% 100.0%

25 100.0% 100.0%

164 100.0% 100.0%

29 100.0% 100.0%

155 99.4% 98.7%

612 98.7% 95.8%

36 100.0% 100.0%

32 100.0% 97.0%

6 100.0% 100.0%

93 65.6% 60.4%

18 61.3% 58.1%

100 99.0% 99.0%

129 100.0% 100.0%

23 100.0% 100.0%

6349 97.2% 95.7%

v/npdes/statestats.cfm).

n the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year

parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported withi

 which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY.

Column B / Column A]

Column C / Column A]

Column B+Column G)/(Column A + Column F)] 

Column C+Column H)/(Column A + Column F)]

n the calendar year (CY), or (2) (PCS only) inactive in the CY but reported DMR data in that year

parameter code with a limit modification period start date prior to the end of the CY, i.e., at least one limit was in effect within the CY.

DMR during the CY. For PCS, this means an effluent type measurement ("E" series, as opposed to DMR nonreceipt) must be reported withi

 which PCS does not store. For ICIS-NPDES, at least one DMR received date must fall within the CY.

Column B / Column A]

Column C / Column A]
queries against PCS in IDEA, refreshed on April 13, 2012. For ICIS-NPDES states, the rates were calculated by running a query against the

ent as of May 24, 2012. 

termining whether a facility was active on any given date in the past. The best available method is to determine the status based on the last 

nts of active facilities in calendar years 2009 and 2010 are approximate.

d its active status has never changed, it is not possible to determine that the facility is newer than the year of interest. Such new facilities are 

years 2009 and 2010.
Number of Active 'Non-Major' 

Facilities 

(Column F)

Number of Active "NonMajor" Facilities with Limit 

Data 

(Column G)

Number of Active 'Non-Major' 

Facilities with DMR Data 

(Column H)

1499 1301 764

51 24 17

120 13 13

692 692 670

388 200 6

426 237 226

80 78 74

33 30 29

10 10 10

292 279 269

855 618 428

120 27 19

147 127 121

1423 1399 1239

1491 1480 1448

1551 1266 1186

1241 50 30

1464 1324 1244

1297 239 164

304 213 209

816 518 412

154 135 129

1504 830 682

643 103 16

1538 1377 1354

2976 2723 2237

162 160 153

676 625 559

82 0 0

47 35 35

3594 699 651

104 99 92

1223 1083 1025

1119 1012 970
110 3 2

2964 2955 2905

370 369 364

324 6 5

4306 149 128

180 180 178

77 70 69

354 338 334

308 260 219

1271 823 494

2303 2248 1917

125 91 84

155 3 3

66 66 40

984 4 1

212 94 83

875 364 339

887 17 13

1568 28 19

44062 25773 22914

e limit was in effect within the CY.

 DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring 

e limit was in effect within the CY.

 DMR nonreceipt) must be reported within the CY, using the monitoring 
calculated by running a query against the

to determine the status based on the last 

e year of interest. Such new facilities are 
Percentage of Active 'NonMajor' Facilities with Limit 

Data [=Column G/Column F] 

(Column I)

Percentage of Active 'NonMajor' Facilities with DMR 

Data [=Column I/Column F] 

(Column J)

Percentage of Active 

Facilities with Limit Data 

[=(Column B+Column 

G)/(Column A + Column F)]

(Column K)

86.8% 51.0% 88.3%

47.1% 33.3% 67.4%

10.8% 10.8% 43.1%

100.0% 96.8% 100.0%

51.5% 1.5% 66.6%

55.6% 53.1% 65.0%

97.5% 92.5% 98.9%

90.9% 87.9% 92.5%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

95.5% 92.1% 92.5%

72.3% 50.1% 77.3%

22.5% 15.8% 32.1%

86.4% 82.3% 88.6%

98.3% 87.1% 98.6%

99.3% 97.1% 99.3%

81.6% 76.5% 83.0%

4.0% 2.4% 8.1%

90.4% 85.0% 91.1%

18.4% 12.6% 34.9%

70.1% 68.8% 76.2%

63.5% 50.5% 66.4%

87.7% 83.8% 92.1%

55.2% 45.3% 59.7%

16.0% 2.5% 25.8%

89.5% 88.0% 90.1%

91.5% 75.2% 91.9%

98.8% 94.4% 99.0%

92.5% 82.7% 93.0%

- - 10.5%

74.5% 74.5% 87.8%

19.4% 18.1% 22.6%

95.2% 88.5% 96.4%

88.6% 83.8% 91.1%

90.4% 86.7% 91.8%
2.7% 1.8% 21.3%

99.7% 98.0% 99.7%

99.7% 98.4% 99.8%

1.9% 1.5% 18.9%

3.5% 3.0% 11.5%

100.0% 98.9% 100.0%

90.9% 89.6% 93.1%

95.5% 94.4% 96.9%

84.4% 71.1% 85.8%

64.8% 38.9% 68.6%

97.6% 83.2% 97.9%

72.8% 67.2% 78.9%

1.9% 1.9% 19.1%

100.0% 60.6% 100.0%

0.4% 0.1% 9.2%

44.3% 39.2% 46.5%

41.6% 38.7% 47.5%

1.9% 1.5% 14.4%

1.8% 1.2% 3.2%

58.5% 52.0% 63.6%

Percentage of Active 

Facilities with DMR Data

[=(Column C+Column 

H)/(Column A + Column F)]

(Column L)

56.5%

52.6%

43.1%

96.7%

37.0%

63.0%

96.7%

90.6%

100.0%

90.1%

58.5%

26.4%

85.3%

89.0%

97.4%

78.1%

6.6%

86.1%

29.4%

75.1%

54.1%

90.0%

50.9%

14.1%

88.7%

76.1%

95.5%

83.9%

10.5%

87.8%

21.4%

91.4%

87.2%

88.6%
20.6%

98.0%

98.5%

18.6%

11.0%

99.2%

92.2%

96.1%

73.6%

45.4%

86.0%

74.5%

18.6%

63.9%

8.3%

41.6%

45.0%

14.0%

2.6%

57.7%
Data Availability Table (Review Period Ending: FY08)

Derived From: State Review Framework - Multi-State Report (http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/trends/srf_multistate_report.html)

States

Number of 

Active 'Major' 

Facilities 

(Column A)

Number of Active 

'Major' Facilities with 

DMR Data 

[=Round(Column A x 

Column C)]

(Column B)

Percentage of 

Active 'Major' 

Facilities with 

DMR Data 

(Column C)

Number of Active 

'Non-Major' 

Facilities 

(Column D)

Alabama 190 186 97.9% 1,385

Alaska* 41 32 78.0% 38

Arizona 71 68 95.8% 104

Arkansas 113 111 98.2% 668

California 213 173 81.2% 320

Colorado 96 96 100.0% 538

Connecticut 102 102 100.0% 64

Delaware 21 19 90.5% 35

District Of Columbia* 5 4 80.0% 12

Florida 201 190 94.5% 243

Georgia 189 128 67.7% 725

Hawaii 19 17 89.5% 113

Idaho* 35 33 94.3% 120

Illinois 248 221 89.1% 1,248

Indiana 195 194 99.5% 1,423

Iowa 125 90 72.0% 1,536

Kansas 51 11 21.6% 1,162

Kentucky 133 125 94.0% 1,700

Louisiana 235 211 89.8% 1,298

Maine 86 80 93.0% 277

Maryland 90 78 86.7% 1,337

Massachusetts* 109 104 95.4% 141

Michigan 183 158 86.3% 457

Minnesota 93 86 92.5% 678

Mississippi 87 83 95.4% 1,491

Missouri 174 161 92.5% 2,889

Montana 24 24 100.0% 134

Nebraska 50 46 92.0% 633

Nevada 12 10 83.3% 69

New Hampshire* 45 45 100.0% 42

New Jersey 150 149 99.3% 3,609

New Mexico* 34 33 97.1% 94

New York 323 318 98.5% 1,150

North Carolina 214 212 99.1% 1,086

North Dakota 26 23 88.5% 98

Ohio 287 277 96.5% 3,015

Oklahoma 103 101 98.1% 361

Oregon 68 68 100.0% 318

Pennsylvania 379 375 98.9% 6,729

Puerto Rico* 73 72 98.6% 162

Rhode Island 22 22 100.0% 69

South Carolina 166 156 94.0% 370
South Dakota 29 27 93.1% 301

Tennessee 147 140 95.2% 1,123

Texas 610 540 88.5% 2,319

Utah 35 35 100.0% 122

Vermont 33 30 90.9% 147

Virgin Islands 4 4 100.0% 56

Virginia 154 128 83.1% 954

Washington 77 6 7.8% 436

West Virginia 100 96 96.0% 814

Wisconsin 122 122 100.0% 642

Wyoming 23 19 82.6% 1,247

National Total: 6,415 5,839 91.0% 46,102

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

Notes:

Column

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

(G)

Comment/Source of Data

State Review Framework Metric W01A3C - Active facility universe: NPDES non-major individual perm

This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round(Column D x Column F)]

State Review Framework Metric W01C3C - Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on D

This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round((Column B + Column E)/(Column A + Co

State Review Framework Metric W01A1C - Active facility universe: NPDES major individual permits (C

This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round(Column A x Column C)]

State Review Framework Metric W01B3C - Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs 
rends/srf_multistate_report.html)

Number of Active 'NonMajor' Facilities with 

DMR Data 

[=Round(Column D x 

Column F)]

(Column E)

Percentage of 

Active 'Non-Major' 

Facilities with DMR 

Data

(Column F)

Percentage of 

Active Facilities 

with DMR Data 

[=Round((B + E) / 

(A + D))]

(Column G)

615 44.4% 50.9%

13 34.2% 57.0%

5 4.8% 41.7%

626 93.7% 94.4%

0 0.0% 32.5%

228 42.4% 51.1%

59 92.2% 97.0%

26 74.3% 80.4%

9 75.0% 76.5%

203 83.5% 88.5%

135 18.6% 28.8%

9 8.0% 19.7%

97 80.8% 83.9%

1,006 80.6% 82.0%

1,296 91.1% 92.1%

571 37.2% 39.8%

17 1.5% 2.3%

349 20.5% 25.9%

148 11.4% 23.4%

151 54.5% 63.6%

465 34.8% 38.1%

82 58.2% 74.4%

278 60.8% 68.1%

19 2.8% 13.6%

341 22.9% 26.9%

1,771 61.3% 63.1%

107 79.9% 82.9%

295 46.6% 49.9%

0 0.0% 12.3%

2 4.8% 54.0%

577 16.0% 19.3%

52 55.3% 66.4%

976 84.9% 87.8%

918 84.5% 86.9%

0 0.0% 18.5%

2,783 92.3% 92.7%

347 96.1% 96.6%

4 1.3% 18.7%

54 0.8% 6.0%

150 92.6% 94.5%

46 66.7% 74.7%

309 83.5% 86.8%
191 63.5% 66.1%

263 23.4% 31.7%

1,667 71.9% 75.3%

77 63.1% 71.3%

1 0.7% 17.2%

28 50.0% 53.3%

0 0.0% 11.6%

18 4.1% 4.7%

186 22.9% 30.9%

9 1.4% 17.1%

2 0.2% 1.7%

17,581 38.1% 44.6%

PDES non-major individual permits (Current)

 D x Column F)]

mits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr) 

n B + Column E)/(Column A + Column D))]

PDES major individual permits (Current)

 A x Column C)]

DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)
Data Availability Table (Review Period Ending: FY07)

Derived From: August 2008 IDEA data. Manual file pulled by EPA/OECA/OC/ETDD (Jerry Lappan).

States

Number of 

Active 'Major' 

Facilities 

(Column A)

Number of Active 

'Major' Facilities with 

DMR Data 

(Column B)

Percentage of 

Active 'Major' 

Facilities with 

DMR Data 

[=Column B / 

Column A]

(Column C)

Number of Active 

'Non-Major' 

Facilities 

(Column D)

Number of Active 'NonMajor' Facilities with 

DMR Data 

(Column E)

Alabama 190 172 90.5% 1,409 583

Alaska* 33 25 75.8% 75 12

Arizona 71 57 80.3% 119 0

Arkansas 111 86 77.5% 692 547

California 245 185 75.5% 395 0

Colorado 111 96 86.5% 247 190

Connecticut 103 103 100.0% 69 61

Delaware 21 20 95.2% 35 28

District Of Columbia* 1 1 100.0% 10 7

Florida 207 183 88.4% 242 173

Georgia 176 117 66.5% 733 3

Hawaii 20 17 85.0% 112 5

Idaho* 36 35 97.2% 150 98

Illinois 246 212 86.2% 1,269 1,004

Indiana 195 195 100.0% 1,406 1,278

Iowa 125 91 72.8% 1,532 596

Kansas 53 13 24.5% 1,169 20

Kentucky 134 127 94.8% 1,723 1,025

Louisiana 239 211 88.3% 1,265 142

Maine 86 67 77.9% 270 169

Maryland 80 68 85.0% 1,210 519

Massachusetts* 112 108 96.4% 146 107

Michigan 184 135 73.4% 470 247

Minnesota 93 69 74.2% 693 14

Mississippi 87 69 79.3% 1,509 302

Missouri 175 154 88.0% 2,879 1,364

Montana 23 23 100.0% 124 100
Nebraska 54 51 94.4% 610 387

Nevada 13 10 76.9% 71 0

New Hampshire* 42 42 100.0% 44 29

New Jersey 150 135 90.0% 3,647 573

New Mexico* 34 32 94.1% 110 59

New York 325 320 98.5% 1,160 984

North Carolina 214 184 86.0% 1,099 713

North Dakota 26 19 73.1% 100 1

Ohio 287 244 85.0% 3,000 2,483

Oklahoma 96 77 80.2% 378 283

Oregon 69 65 94.2% 323 4

Pennsylvania 376 369 98.1% 6,632 54

Puerto Rico* 72 71 98.6% 160 142

Rhode Island 22 22 100.0% 67 40

South Carolina 166 138 83.1% 372 306

South Dakota 29 27 93.1% 315 165

Tennessee 155 125 80.6% 1,244 215

Texas 599 503 84.0% 2,319 1,469

Utah 35 35 100.0% 122 79

Vermont 33 31 93.9% 146 1

Virgin Islands 4 4 100.0% 51 25

Virginia 151 109 72.2% 971 2

Washington 77 56 72.7% 438 108

West Virginia 99 81 81.8% 819 164

Wisconsin 129 124 96.1% 707 13

Wyoming 23 20 87.0% 1,345 3

National Total: 6,437 5,533 86.0% 46,203 16,896

* Denotes EPA managed state environmental program (see http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm).

Notes:

Column

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

Comment/Source of Data

State Review Framework Metric W01B3C Denominator - Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) 

State Review Framework Metric W01B3C Numerator - Major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column B / Column A]

State Review Framework Metric W01C3C Denominator - Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Per
(E)

(F)

(G)

This value is calculated from the following formula [=Column E / Column D]

This value is calculated from the following formula [= Round((Column B + Column E)/(Column A + Column D))]

State Review Framework Metric W01C3C Numerator - Non-major individual permits: DMR entry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Perm
Percentage of 

Active 'Non-Major' 

Facilities with DMR 

Data

[=Column E / 

Column D]

(Column F)

Percentage of 

Active Facilities 

with DMR Data 

[=Round((B + E) / 

(A + D))]

(Column G)

41.4% 47.2%

16.0% 34.3%

0.0% 30.0%

79.0% 78.8%

0.0% 28.9%

76.9% 79.9%

88.4% 95.3%

80.0% 85.7%

70.0% 72.7%

71.5% 79.3%

0.4% 13.2%

4.5% 16.7%

65.3% 71.5%

79.1% 80.3%

90.9% 92.0%

38.9% 41.5%

1.7% 2.7%

59.5% 62.0%

11.2% 23.5%

62.6% 66.3%

42.9% 45.5%

73.3% 83.3%

52.6% 58.4%

2.0% 10.6%

20.0% 23.2%

47.4% 49.7%

80.6% 83.7%
63.4% 66.0%

0.0% 11.9%

65.9% 82.6%

15.7% 18.6%

53.6% 63.2%

84.8% 87.8%

64.9% 68.3%

1.0% 15.9%

82.8% 83.0%

74.9% 75.9%

1.2% 17.6%

0.8% 6.0%

88.8% 91.8%

59.7% 69.7%

82.3% 82.5%

52.4% 55.8%

17.3% 24.3%

63.3% 67.6%

64.8% 72.6%

0.7% 17.9%

49.0% 52.7%

0.2% 9.9%

24.7% 31.8%

20.0% 26.7%

1.8% 16.4%

0.2% 1.7%

36.6% 42.6%

ate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)

e based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)

ntry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)
A + Column D))]

ry rate based on DMRs expected (Permits/Permits) (1 Qtr)