Click here for
      DISCLAIMER

Document starts on next page

-------
                 United States
                 Environmental Protection
                 Agency
              Office ot
              Water
              (WH-553)
EPA 440 4 91 002
November 199'
&EPA
De Minimis Discharges Study
                 Report to Congress

-------
De Minimis Discharges Study
    REPORT   TO  CONGRESS
              Prepared by:

     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             Office of Water
            401 M Street, S.W.
          Washington, DC 20460
             November 1991

-------
                            ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


      EPA acknowledges personnel from the following offices who served on a work group
and provided input in the preparation of this report:
          EPA Region I
          EPA Region IV
          North Carolina's Water Quality Planning Branch
          Office of General Counsel
          Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
          Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
          Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
       EPA especially appreciates the efforts of the ten EPA Regional Permitting Offices and

nine State permitting authorities (Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Wisconsin,

Texas, Missouri, California, and Washington) which provided comprehensive and useful

information for this Report to Congress.

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                               Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


INTRODUCTION	
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND
     Legislative History	        4
     Regional and State Permitting Authority Contributions	         8
CHAPTER TWO: CLASSIFICATION OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES        10

     Method of Classification  	       10
     Sources of Data	       21
     Classification Projections	       23
CHAPTER THREE: REGULATION OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES  .        31

     Existing Regulations	       31
     Potential Regulatory Options	       40
     Evaluation of Potential Regulatory Options	       42
CHAPTER FOUR: UNIT RESOURCE AND COST COMPARISONS
     FOR POTENTIAL REGULATORY OPTIONS	        50

     Development of Permitting Resource Model  	        50
     Sources of Data	        51
     Unit Cost Comparisons  	        58
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....        60

     Identification of De Minimis Discharges	        60
     Regulatory Options	        61
     Recommendations for Implementation 	        65

-------
                                APPENDICES

Appendix                      Title                                      Page

Appendix A:   Legislative History	A-l

Appendix B:   Regional Contact Questionnaire	B-l

Appendix C:   Survey Results • Potential Dt Minimis Discharges

              EPA Regional Responses	C-l
              State Responses	C-5

Appendix D:   Survey Results - Potential Regulatory Options

              EPA Regional Responses	D-l
              State Responses	D-3

Appendix E:   Toxicity Indices for Industrial Subcategories	E-l

Appendix F:   Classification of Major and Minor Permits	F-l

Appendix G:   Secondary Facilities - Toxic Discharge	G-l

Appendix H:   Secondary Facilities - Effluent Guidelines	H-l

Appendix I:   Secondary Facilities - Permit Limitations	1-1

Appendix J:   Secondary Facilities - Potential De Minimis	J-l

Appendix K:   State NPDES Program Status  	K-l

Appendix L:   General Permit Information

              State General Permit Program Status  	L-l
              General Permh Discharge Categories	L-3

Appendix M:  North Carolina Case Study	M-l

Appendix N:   EPA Permit Issuance Workload Model  	  N-l

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES


Number                              Title                                  Page

   1     Projection of Potential De Minimis Discharges	         iv

   2     Summary of Regulatory Option Evaluations	        viii

 2-1     States and U.S. Territories Addressed by the De Minimis
         Discharges Study	         12

 2-2     Categories Used to Define Potential De Minimis Discharges  ....         13

 2-3     Category 1: NPDES Primary Industrial Categories	         14

 3-1     Steps Involved in Potential De Minimis Regulatory Options	         32

 3-2     Evaluation of Potential De Minimis Regulatory Options  	         44

 4-1     Development of Average Generic Costs Associated with Various
         Permitting Steps  	         52

 4-2     Effort and Cost of Standard/Model NPDES Permitting
         (Secondary Facilities)	         53

 4-3     Effort and Cost of Issuing General Permit Coverage
         (Secondary Facilities)	         54

 4-4     Effort and Cost of Ten-Year Permitting
         (Secondary Facilities)	         55

 4-5     Effort and Cost of Over-the-Counter Permitting
         (Secondary Facilities)	         56

 4-6     Effort and Cost of Exclusion by Waiver
         (Secondary Facilities)	         57

 4-7     Unit Resource and Cost Comparison	         59

 5-1     Summary of Regulatory Option Evaluations	         63

-------
                             LIST OF FIGURES
Number                        Title                                       Page

   1-1    EPA Regional and State Contacts for the Dt Minimis
         Discharges Study	         9

   2-1    Nationwide Distribution of All Active NPDES Facilities	         15

   2-2    Schematic Diagram of Nationwide Classification of
         Potential DC Minimis Discharges  	         17

   2-3    Classification of Potential De Minimis Discharges	         24

-------
                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       The objective of this report is to determine whether there are point source discharges
into navigable waters that, in terms of volume, concentration, and type of pollutant, are not
significant, and to determine the most effective and appropriate methods of regulating any
such discharges. This report is required by Section 516 of the Water Quality Act of 1987.

       This Report to Congress addresses the requirements of Section 516 by identifying
potential dt minimis discharges and recommending  effective and  appropriate methods of
regulating those discharges. The Report includes five major elements:  (1) legislative history
and background, (2) classification of de minimis discharges, (3) regulatory options, (4) unit
resource and cost savings of the regulatory options; and (5) recommendations.

                          Legislative History and Background

       In  1972  under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (FWPCA), the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was established.  The NPDES
Program requires all point source discharges of pollutants to have a permit (except as
provided in Section 404 of the Water Quality Act, which regulates dredge and fill activities).
Considerable  resources for both permitting agencies and permittees are involved in the
NPDES permit  process.  Permits for major discharges average 30 pages, consume four
months' processing time, and cost thousands of dollars to issue.

       Since  1972, approximately 65,000 dischargers in the United States have been issued
NPDES permits, which require renewal at a maximum of five-year intervals.  EPA and State

-------
                                                                   Executive Summary

permitting agencies are faced with an increasing backlog of permits that have expired and
should be reissued. EPA has always been concerned about how to set priorities for permit
writing.  The Agency has grappled with this problem in a number of ways.  One of the first
steps EPA took in setting priorities was to classify all discharges as either major or minor.
Confronted with the enormous task of reviewing permits for major point source discharges,
EPA and State agencies have not been able to act on over 10,000 permit applications and
numerous permit renewals, nearly all of which are minor point source discharges.

       In 1982,  during public hearings before Congress, modifications to the NPDES permit
regulations that address insignificant discharges were suggested as possible amendments to
the FWPCA.  During these hearings, the term de minimis was used to reflect insignificant
discharges.  The de minimis concept under the NPDES program was further discussed during
public hearings before Congress in 1983 and 1985.  In 1987, Congress passed the Water
Quality Act, which mandated this study of de minimis discharges in lieu of amending NPDES
permit requirements for such discharges.

                        Classification of De Minimis Discharges

       Potential de minimis discharges are classified in this report through a two-part process
using readily available data and supporting information from permitting authorities.  The first
part screens the potential number of de minimis discharges by evaluating the type of facility,
type of effluent, current Federal effluent regulations, and permit limitations.  This initial
screening had to be conducted on a very limited data base  since most permitting and
compliance monitoring activities have concentrated on major discharges, which by definition
are not de minimis.  Because the data on most minor facilities are limited, entire groups of
dischargers were screened out from the category of  potential de minimis if there was reason
to conclude that a group of permittees contained at least a reasonable number of dischargers
that could not be considered de minimis.  The Agency approached the de minimis
                                           ii

-------
                                                                     Executive Summary


classification in this manner to avoid overestimating the number of de minimis discharges.

As a result, the projected number of potential de minimis discharges may be underestimated;

some facilities that were categorically excluded could be determined to qualify as de minimis

if it were possible to examine them on a case-by-case basis. The second part applies

site-specific criteria to confirm that the discharges are insignificant.  Based on the initial

screening, the number of facilities classified in this study as potentially de minimis is

projected nationwide,


Screening and Evaluation of Discharges


       The first part of the classification procedure evaluated and sorted NPDES facilities

into four categories:
           Primary Industrial Facilities: Primary industries are considered to have a high
           potential for toxic pollutant discharges.   All primary facilities are excluded from
           de minimis.

           Sewage Treatment Facilities:  Facilities classified as sewage treatment facilities
           have a high potential for toxic pollutant discharges, ammonia, and chlorine, as
           well as pathogens.  Consequently, all sewage treatment facilities are excluded
           from de minimis.

           Unknown Facilities:  AH facilities with  incomplete or insufficient data that could
           not be classified in  any industrial category are considered to be potential
           dischargers of toxic pollutants for the purposes of this study and are excluded
           from de minimis.

           Secondary Facilities:  Secondary facilities were categorized into three groups:
           (1) facilities with significant potential for toxics in their discharge; (2) facilities
           with effluent guidelines; and (3) all others.  Facilities classified as "all others"
           were further classified into facilities with permit limitations for any toxics,
           ammonia, or chlorine and facilities projected to be potential de minimis.
                                            111

-------
                                                                    Executive Summary


Application of Site-Specific Criteria


       Once a facility is categorized as potential de mtnimis, the second part of the

classification procedure would apply site-specific criteria, used by the Agency's Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEQ for major/minor designations, to confirm

a facility as de minimis.  This portion of the procedure would be performed by the permitting

authorities.  The criteria address six characteristics of the discharge:
           Toxic pollutant discharge;
           Flow/stream flow volume;
           Conventional pollutants;
           Public health impact;
           Water quality factors; and
           Proximity to near coastal waters.
Nationwide Projections


       An estimated 893 facilities (1.2 percent of all active NPDES facilities) are projected,

as a group, to be potentially de minimis, applying the classification system previously

discussed (See Table 1).  Each facility would require site-specific evaluation before being

confirmed as insignificant in terms of volume, concentration, and pollutant type.
                                         Table 1
                         Projection of Potential De Minimis Discharges

                            Active NPDES Facilities            Potential De Minimis

 Facility Type                Number         Percent         Number         Percent

 Primary Industrial            17,463              23.4             0
 Sewage Treatment            21,073              28.3             0
 Unknown                    4,031               S.4             0
 Secondary Facilities          31.958              42.9           S22            1.2

 TOTAL                    74,525                            893
                                            IV

-------
                                                                  Executive Summary

                     Regulatory Options of De Minimis Discharges

       DC minimis discharges may be suitable for alternative regulatory approaches.
Existing regulatory options include the standard NPDES program (including model permits)
and the general permit.  Possible alternative regulatory options that would require  statutory
change include the ten-year permit, over-the-counter permits, exclusion by waiver  from the
NPDES program, and the national rule approach. These options are described below:

       •   Model Permit:  Uses an "example" standard permit to reduce burden. Requires
           complete application and processing.

       •   General Permit: Extends broad coverage for a class of similar discharges.
           Contains many of the standard permit provisions at a considerable reduction in
           administrative burden.  Requires review by EPA Region and/or Headquarters.

       •   Ten-Year Permit:  Extends the lifetime of the permit from 5 to 10 years.
           Requires a statutory change.  Difficulties perceived in responding to changes in
           effluent, regulations, etc.

       •   Over-tbe-Counter Permits:  Abbreviates application and permit process.
           (Applicants receive same-day or 24-hour service.)  May require statutory
           change. Difficulties perceived in maintaining public notice and establishing
           suitable Regional/State permitting procedures.

       •   Exclusion by Waiver from the NPDES Program: Excludes certain  categories
           of discharges from NPDES.  Requires a statutory change and case-by-case
           designations. May eliminate some discharges from regulation; possible water
           quality impacts.

-------
                                                                  Executive Summary

           National Rule:  Allows the Instantaneous regulation of large groups of
           de minimis discharges by coverage under a general rule.  The rule would state
           coverage of specified activities and corresponding national standards (similar to
           EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards) that would apply to the facility.
           Requires confirmation of de minims status.  A Notice of Intent may also be
           required.
                 Unit Resource and Cost Savings of Regulatory Options

       Analyses were conducted to determine the potential unit savings in resources
(person-hours) and costs attributable to the alternative regulatory options.  These addressed
only savings for permitting agencies (EPA and approved States); savings for industry and
other permittees were not considered.  Primary data were obtained from two sources:  (1) the
1986 North Carolina Effort and Cost of Permitting Study, which outlines the permit steps
and effort involved in a standard/model permit program; and (2) the 1987 EPA Permit
Issuance Workload Model, which predicts levels of effort involved in permitting various
discharges.  Supporting information was obtained from the EPA Regional permitting
authorities and State permitting agencies.

       In comparing the projected resources (person-hours) and costs of the various
alternative regulatory options, unit (per plant) governmental savings are as follows:

                                        Resource (%)              Cost (%)
       1.   Exclusion by Waiver               92                    94
       2.   General Permit                     20                    23
       3.   Over-the-Counter Permit            19                    22
       4.   Ten-Year Permit                   16                     17
                                          vi

-------
                                                                  Executive Summary

Savings are in relation to the Standard/Model (baseline) Permit requiring an estimated 147
person-hours and $1,807 per facility over a 5 year term.

       The national rule approach was not evaluated since it requires that classes of
discharges be confirmed as de minimis before any site-specific investigations are conducted.
EPA's limited data base on these potential de minimis discharges prevents this confirmation.

                                  Recommendations

       An estimated 893  facilities (1.2 percent of all active NPDES facilities) belong to
industrial types that can readily be projected as potentially de minimis.  In part, because it is
the best regulatory option available under current law, the general permit is recommended as
the most effective and appropriate method of regulating these discharges (Table 2).  Although
a prudently managed system for exclusion by waiver or a national permit by rule approach
for de minimis discharges may ultimately offer the greatest savings to government and the
economy, quite possibly at little risk to the environment, those options are not available
under current law.  General permits can be issued with unit resource and cost savings of 20
and 23 percent, respectively.  No statutory change is required as general permit  regulations
were promulgated in 1979. General permits are currently used by a number of EPA Regions
and approved States with noted success in reducing the burden for permitting agencies.  A
positive consensus was received from EPA Regional and State permitting authorities on the
applicability of general permits.  However, the general permit will be effective only if the
number of potential de minimis discharges within a specified geographical or political
boundary is adequate to make the permit administratively worthwhile.  (General  permits are
rulemakings that require substantial data  gathering on the part of permitting agencies.)  In
such cases where the general permit is not effective, individual 5 year permits would be
appropriate based on standard "models" issued by EPA as guidance.  Model permits can be
                                          Vll

-------
                                           Executive Summary
              Table 2
Summary of Regulatory Option Evaluations
Permitting
Option
General Permit




Ten-Yew
Permit



Over-the-
Counter Permit


Exclusion by
Waiver

Statutory/ Unit Savings
Regulatory Resource Cost
Change Utilization (Percent) (Percent)
No 28 NPDES 20 23
States plus
16 noo-
NPDES
States or
Territories
Yes California 16 17
non-
NPDES
extended-
life permits
Maybe New Jeney 19 22
for non-
NPDES
permiU
Yes California 92 94
for land
discharges
(non-
NPDES)
Positive
Consensus
from Permitting
Authorities
Yes




Yes




No


Yes

                VU1

-------
                                                                    Executive Summary

helpful by giving generic permit requirements and guidelines for certain types of discharges.
This template can then be tailored to a specific discharge with less burden than it takes to
develop a permit from scratch.

-------
                                INTRODUCTION

       The objective of this study is to determine whether there are point source discharges
into navigable waters that, in terms of volume, concentration, and type of pollutant, are not
significant (i.e., de minimis).  The Agency is required to submit a Report to Congress on the
results of the study, along with recommendations concerning the most effective and
appropriate methods of regulating such discharges. This study was required by Congress in
lieu of revisions to this aspect of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).

       As established by  Section 402(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), all point source
discharges of pollutants to navigable waters must have a NPDES permit (except as provided
in Section 404 which regulates dredge and fill activities).  The time and resources involved
in the NPDES permit process are considerable for both the regulatory agency and industry.
Permits for major discharges average 30 pages, consume 4 months' processing time, and cost
thousands of dollars to issue.

       Since 1972, approximately 65,000 NPDES permits have been issued, which require
renewal at a maximum of five-year intervals. EPA and State permitting agencies are faced
with an increasing backlog of permits that have expired and should be reissued. EPA has
always been concerned about how to set priorities for permit writing.  The Agency has
grappled with this problem in a number of ways.  One of the first steps EPA took in setting
priorities was to classify all discharges as  either major or minor.  Confronted with the
enormous task of reviewing permits for major point source discharges, the EPA and State

-------
                                                                          Introduction
agencies have not acted on over 10,000 permit applications and numerous permit renewals,
the majority of which are minor point source discharges.

       If discharges are de minimis, based on concentration, volume, and type of discharge,
and do not significantly impact water quality,  regulatory options may be recommended to
reduce their regulatory/administrative burden on the regulatory agencies as well as industry.
Resources could then be concentrated on permit compliance rather than permit
administration.

       Chapter One of this report provides background information on the evolution of the
De Minimis Discharge Study. The legislative history is presented, beginning with the 1982
public record, which mentions excluding "insignificant discharges" from the requirements  of
NPDES permits.  A description of the Regional/State survey conducted for this study is also
included.

       Chapter Two presents the data and information pertinent to classifying a discharge  as
de minimis using criteria established by the Agency.  The methodology and data sources used
in the assessment are discussed.  The assessment was severely hampered by the lack of data
since most permitting and compliance monitoring activities have concentrated on major
discharges, which, by definition, are not de minimis.  The specific criteria used in the
classifications, such as Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code and effluent
characteristics, are defined.  The chapter concludes with a classification of potential
de minimis discharges.

       Chapter Three discusses existing regulatory options currently in use and other
potential regulatory options compiled by the Agency.  Regulatory options are described and
evaluated.

-------
                                                                          Introduction
       Chapter Four assesses the potential unit cost savings to permitting agencies in terms
of resources and dollars that could be attributed to the alternative regulatory options used to
permit de minimis discharges.  The development of a permitting resource model is discussed,
and unit savings to government are projected and evaluated for each regulatory option. This
chapter concludes with a comparison of savings.

       Chapter Five presents the conclusions and recommendations of the Agency.  It
provides  an overview on the Agency's findings, as well as recommendations concerning the
most effective and appropriate methods of regulating de minimis discharges.

       Various appendices are attached to this report, providing more detail on the specific
issues and options addressed in the main text. Appendix  A presents, in chronological order,
all information found in the public records concerning the legislative evolution of the study
of de minimis discharges.  Appendix B provides the questionnaire used to survey permitting
authorities on the types or categories of discharges that could be considered de minimis, as
well as to recommend regulatory options. Appendices C  and D summarize the results of the
Study's survey of Regional and State permitting authorities. Appendices E through J contain
additional information on the classification of de minimis  discharges.  Appendix K provides a
summary of the States approved to issue permits under the standard NPDES program.
Appendix L provides general permit information, including current program status and a
listing  of categories currently covered by general permits. Appendix M  includes the North
Carolina  Case Study on the Effort and Cost  of Permitting. Appendix N  presents the EPA
workload model that estimates outputs, workloads, and resources for various types of
NPDES permits.

-------
                                   Chapter One
                                BACKGROUND

                             LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

       The evolution of the De Minimis Discharges Study was obtained from the
Congressional Record, which was reviewed for all references to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA) or the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the years 1981-1987. The
legislative record for previous years was examined with respect to amendments to the
FWPCA.  Appendix A presents,  in chronological order, all information found in the public
records concerning the legislative evolution of the study of de minimis discharges.  All page
references cited in this chapter are contained in Appendix A.

       The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was established with
the passage of Public Law 92-500, called the  FWPCA Amendments of 1972 (also known as
the Clean Water Act), by the second session of the 92nd Congress on October 12,  1972.
The NPDES program requires all point source discharges of pollutants (other than dredged or
fill material regulated under Section 404 of the CWA) to United States waters to have a
permit, the term of which may not exceed 5 years.  Subsequent amendments  to the FWPCA
were produced by Congress, but  contained no references to insignificant (de minimis)
discharges.

       Modifying regulations for insignificant discharges under the NPDES permit program
were first proposed during public hearings held in 1982 on possible amendments to the
FWPCA.   Hearings were again  held in 1983  and 1985.  The bill passed by Congress in
February 1987 became Public Law 100-4 (PL 100-4), amending the FWPCA. Section 516

-------
                                                                         Background


of the Water Quality Act (WQA), a "Study of De Minimis Discharges," mandated the study
of insignificant discharges of pollution, as well as recommendations for methods to best
regulate them. The following paragraphs present the legislative evolution of the De Minimis
Discharges Study.

       The 1982 hearings before the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the U.S. House
of Representatives Committee on Public Works and Transportation produced the first
mention in the public record of the exclusion of "insignificant discharges" from the
requirements  of the NPDES permit program.  The idea was first set out by J.C. Hildrew,
speaking for the American Petroleum Institute on July 28, 1982. He quoted a 1979 report of
the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA)
as source of the assertion that "about 51 percent of all permits issued .  . . involved  relatively
insignificant facilities with respect to point source pollution concerns," which places a heavy
burden, in terms of both time and cost, on government and industry. He concluded that "the
EPA Administrator should be given specific authority to exempt environmentally insignificant
discharges from the requirements of the NPDES permit program" (p. A-l).  On July 29,
R.F. Flacke,  Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, estimated the number of "dischargers of a minor nature" to be "about eighty
percent of the permittees."  He stated that these minor discharges do not require review
every 5 years due to "the unchanging nature of the waste streams and/or the lack of
additional treatment requirements"  (p. A-S).  J.W. Haun, speaking for the National
Environmental Development Association (NEDA) on July 29, introduced  the term
"de minimis" for those discharges that  "... based on concentration, volume, and type of
discharge ... are  insignificant to the protection of water quality ..." and advocated their
exemption from NPDES requirements (p. A-6). Following these hearings, a bill (H.R. 3282)
was introduced by  Rep. Howard on June 13, 1983, and contained Section 35 entitled  "Study
of Regulation of De Minimis Discharges" (p. A-9).

-------
                                                                         Background


       The Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S House of Representatives,
held hearings in the fall of 1983 on possible amendments to the FWPCA.  On September 20,
H.G. Williams, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, reported that "in New York, ninety percent of the point source pollution
comes from ten percent of the sources." He recommended the extension of NPDES permits
to a duration of 10 years to "... give regulating agencies the ability to concentrate their
resources on permit compliance rather than permit administration" (p. A-ll).
O.G. Simpson, Atlantic Richfield Company,  urged the exemption of "de minimis classes of
point source dischargers of conventional pollutants" (p. A-12).  K.E. Blower of the Standard
Oil Company of Ohio, representing the American Petroleum Institute Water Program
Committee, on November 10 urged Congress "...  (a) to exempt appropriate discharges
from categories of point sources, and (b) to exempt specific point source discharges on a
case-by-case basis" (p. A-13). J.W. Haun, appearing again for NEDA, recommended that
"the EPA Administrator should be  allowed to exempt de minimis point source discharges and
channeled stormwater runoff containing de minimis quantities of pollutants from the NPDES
permit procedure" (p.  A-15).  After this phase of hearings, the text of H.R. 3282, ordered to
be printed by the Committee of the Whole House on June 6, 1984, retained its Section 35 (p.
A-16).

       On June 20, 1984, Rep. Oberstar and cosponsors introduced H.R. 5903; Section 35
of that act required a study of regulation of de minimis discharges, which was identical in
wording to that of H.R. 3282 (p. A-18).  A subsequent amendment (p. A-20) merged the two
bills into H.R. 3282, which was passed by the House on June 26 (p. A-22), sent to the
Senate, and placed on  the calendar  on  July 24.  H.R. 3282 died for lack of action.

      When the 99th  Congress convened in  1985, Rep. Howard on January 3 introduced
H.R. 8,  which was a virtual copy of his H.R. 3282  of 1983; Rep. Oberstar on March 7

-------
                                                                         Background


introduced H.R.  1509, which was a virtual copy of his H.R. 5903 of the previous year.
Both bills contained de minimis discharges study sections identical in wording (pp. A-26 and
A-28). J.L. Ledbetter,  Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources, State of Georgia,
appeared at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the House Committee
on Public Works and Transportation on April 30,  1985.  Speaking for ASIWPCA, he
estimated that "in most  states, seventy-five percent of the permits are for relatively small
dischargers with  nontoxic waste waters, and 10-year permits would enable the states to spend
more time developing and re-opening the permits for major sources" (p. A-29).
Amendments were added to H.R. 8 in July; renumbering of the sections caused the study of
de minimis discharges to become Section 43, but the wording was unchanged (p.  A-30).

       On July 23, H.R. 8, as amended, was passed by  the House. The House then agreed
to consider Senate bill 1128.  Rep. Howard amended it by substituting its contents with the
text of H.R. 8 as passed. This brought about another renumbering of sections, and the
de minimis discharges study became Section 67 (p. A-36).  The Senate disagreed with the
House amendments and requested a conference. S. 1128 emerged from the conference on
October  15,  1986, in drastically altered form, but  the de minimis discharges  study was
retained and became Section 516 (p. A-38).  S.  1128 was pocket vetoed by President
Reagan.

       On January 6, 1987, S. 1 was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Byrd and numerous
cosponsors,  and H.R. 1 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep.  Howard and
a multitude of cosponsors.   The bills were identical and contained the exact wording of
S. 1128.  In the House  debate, Rep. Hammerschmidt expressed his belief that most
stomnwater discharges would not have significant environmental  impacts and would not
require permits (p. A-47).  The House passed H.R. 1 on January 8, 1987 (p. A-49).  As a
part of the Senate consideration of H.R. 1, Sen. Dole proposed an amendment that would

-------
                                                                         Background


reduce the funding.  This amendment had two sections dealing with the de minimis
discharges study, 511 and 526, which were identical in wording and unaltered from Section
516 of S. 1 and H.R. 1.  The Dole amendment was rejected by a vote on January 21, 1987,
after which the Senate passed  the original bill.  President Reagan vetoed the bill on
January 30.  The House voted on February 3, 1987, to override the veto, and the Senate
followed suit on February 4.  The study of de minimis discharges was thus mandated.

      REGIONAL AND STATE PERMITTING AUTHORITY CONTRIBUTIONS

       The NPDES permitting program is administered by Regional (EPA) and authorized
State permitting agencies throughout  the United States.  EPA Regional permitting authorities
were initially contacted to provide suggestions on the types or categories of discharges that
could be considered de minimis, including data and supporting rationale.  A detailed
questionnaire was then developed on  the basis of the responses (Appendix B).

       The ten EPA Regional permitting authorities and nine State permitting agencies
(Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Texas, Missouri, California, and
Washington) recommended by the Regional offices (Figure 1-1) were surveyed to obtain
information on the types or categories of discharges that could be considered de minimis, as
well as to obtain recommendations for regulatory options and to identify associated
procedural implications with respect to the classification of de minimis discharges. Results of
the survey were assessed and compiled. Regional and State permitting agencies
recommended several categories of de minimis discharges that national data bases have
identified as having a potential discharge of toxics (Appendices C and D).  As a result, these
recommendations were  not carried forward in this report.

-------
                                                                   Background
              IX
F igure  1 - 1 .
FPfl Regional  amJ Stale
Oischaryes  Study.
Contacts  for  the De Minimis

-------
                                    Chapter Two

            CLASSIFICATION OF DE M1N1MIS DISCHARGES

       Over 74,000 facilities nationwide are currently discharging into navigable waters.
From an environmental standpoint, any discharge may have a potential for water quality
impacts. However, some types of discharges may not be significantly impacting water
quality. This chapter classifies those discharges identified as potentially de minimis using
readily available data, supporting information, and guidelines established by the Agency.
The classification process was severely hampered by the lack of data since most permitting
and compliance monitoring activities have concentrated on major discharges, which, by
definition, are not de minimis.  The classification is a two-part process involving (1)
screening and evaluation of discharges according to the type of facility, type of effluent,
current Federal regulations, and permit limitations to quantify potential de minimis discharges
and, subsequently, (2) application of site-specific criteria to confirm a discharge as
de minimis.  Based on the initial  screening, which is the level of analysis  conducted for this
report, the number of facilities classified in this study as potentially de minimis is projected
nationwide.  The criteria to confirm a discharge as de minimis  under the second part of the
process are outlined, but none of the facilities classified as potentially de minimis have
actually been confirmed from the initial screening as part of this  report.

                          METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION

       Data were retrieved from four EPA data bases (Permit Compliance System (PCS),
Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) file, REACH, and GAGE),  and subsequently compiled
and analyzed using a computerized software system.  Facilities identified in  PCS as actively
discharging into "waters of the United States" were retrieved by  State or Territory for the ten

                                          10

-------
                                                 Classification of De Minimis Discharges


EPA Regional Divisions of the United States (Table 2-1) and classified into four categories
based on the facilities' 1972 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: (1) primary
industrial, (2) sewage treatment, (3) unknown, and (4) secondary  (Table 2-2).  The four
categories were defined in order to determine industries that discharge or have the  potential
to discharge pollutants (toxics, conventional pollutants, and nonconventional pollutants
(ammonia and chlorine)) into receiving streams.  The secondary facilities category  contains
the largest number of active facilities  (Figure 2-1).  The four categories were then  screened
and evaluated for potential de minimis status.

Screening and Evaluation of Discharges

      The screening and evaluation of a facility's discharge were based on four criteria:  (1)
category of  industry; (2) effluent characteristics, such as the type  of effluent and its potential
for toxic pollutants; (3) promulgation  of Federal effluent limitation guidelines and standards
for toxics, conventional pollutants, and nonconventional pollutants; and (4) permit limitations
for any toxics, ammonia, or chlorine.

      Several assumptions and limitations were made in applying these criteria.

       1.  Differences may exist in the level and types of discharges of toxic substances
           between subcategories of the  same SIC code. However, a nationwide data base
           of facilities by subcategory was unavailable to complete this study.  Therefore,
           the number of facilities projected with toxic pollutant discharges may be
           overestimated since toxicity data were extrapolated to  the entire industry (i.e.,
           SIC code).
                                           11

-------
                                     Classification of De Minimis Discharges
                            Table 2-1

              States and U.S. Tern tone* Addressed by the
                    De Minimis Discharge* Study
REGION I
    Connecticut (CT)
    Maine (ME)
    Muinrhimrtti (MA)
    New Hampshire (NH)
    Rhode Island (RI)
    Vermont (VT)
REGION
    New York (NY)
    New Jersey (NJ)
    Puerto Rico (PR)
    Virgin Island* (VI)
REGION HI
    Delaware (DE)
    Washington, D.C. (DC)
    Maryland (MD)
    Pennsylvania (PA)
    Virginia (VA)
    We* Virginia (WV)
REGION IV
    Alabama (AL)
    Florida (FL)
    Georgia (GA)
    Kentucky (KY)
    Mississippi (MS)
    North Carolina (NQ
    South Carolina (SQ
    Tennessee (TN)
REGION V
    Illinois (IL)
    Indiana (IN)
    Michigan (MI)
    Minnesota (MN)
    Ohio (OH)
    Wisconsin (WI)
REGION VI

   Arkansas (AR)
   Louisiana (LA)
   Oklahoma (OK)
   Texas (TX)
   New Mexico (NM)
REGION VH

   Iowa(IA)
   Kansas (KS)
   Missouri (MO)
   Nebraska (NE)
REGION
   Colorado (CO)
   Montana (MT)
   North Dakota (ND)
   South Dakota (SD)
   Utah(UT)
   Wyoming (WY)

REGION IX

   California (CA)
   Nevada (NV)
   Arizona (AZ)
   Hawaii (HI)
   American Samoa (AS)
   Guam(GU)
REGION X

   Alaska (AK)
   Idaho (ID)
   Oregon (OR)
   Washington (WA)
                               12

-------
                                                              Classification of Dt Minimis Discharges
                                                    Table 2-2

                                       Categoric* Uatd to Define Potential
                                             DC Minima Discharges
 Category
               Definition
1    Primary Industrial Facilities
     (17,463 Facilitiea)
2    Sewage Treatment Facilities
     (21,073 FacilitiM)
     Unknown Facilitiea:
     (4,031 Facilitiea)

     Secondary Facilitiea:
     (31,958 Facilitiea)
Facilitiea included aa part of the induatry
categohea lifted in the National Reaourcea Defence Council
(NRDQ settlement agreement (Table 2-3).   'Any permit issued
after June 30, 1981, to diacbargen in the following categories shall
include effluent limitations and a compliance schedule to meet the
requirements of Section 301(bX2XA), (C),(D),(E), and (F) of
CWA, whether or not applicable effluent limitations guidelines have
been promulgated.' (CFR, Appendix A of Part 122, as identified
in PCS). These facilities have a high potential for toxic pollutant
discharge.

|?«t«Kii«K^iM»«t« primarily rr>t*p4 in 
-------
                                                 Classification of De Minimis Discharges
                                       Table 2-3

                                      Category 1
                          NPDES Primary Industrial Categories
        AdheaivM and aealaoU
        Aluminum forming
        Auto and other laundries
        Battery ma
        Coal mining
        Coil coating
        Copper forming
        Electrical and electronic compooento
        Electroplating
        Explosive* TT*ffp"fiy>v'n£
        Foundriea
        Oum and wood chemicals
        Inorganic <*hf"p'<*fllf in*n^ifiK*fllring
        Iron and ateel manufacturing
        T aatfrof tanning *nA finishing
        Mechanical products manufacturing
        Nonferrous metals manufacturing
        Ore mining
        Organic *'h*Tpi''*lf maou&cturi&g
        Paint an^ '"^ formulatioD
        Peaticidet
        Petroleum refining
       Photographk equipment and •upplie*
       PUatica proceanng
       Plastic "»H lynthetic ntj><>nf** manuAtcturing
       Porcelain enameling
       Printing and publishing
       Pulp and paper mills
       Rubber processing
            »nA  detergent  Tni
       Steam electric power plants
       Textile mill*
       Timber products protesting
Source:  CFR, Appendix A of Part 122
                                           14

-------
                             Classification of De Minimis Discharges
               SEWAGE FACILITIES  - CATEGORY 2
           II UNKNOWN FACILITIES  - CATEGORY  3
           (23 SECONDARY FACILITIES  - CATEGORY 4
F igure  2 -
Nat i onwide  Distribution  of  flI I
flctive  NPOES  Facilities.  (7-4,525)
                           15

-------
                                                 Classification of De Minimis Discharges
       2.  Limitations existed in the identification of secondary facilities with potential for
           discharging toxics, ammonia, or chlorine. Because of the limited data, if one
           facility was identified as having a limit for one of these pollutants, the entire
           industry was  projected within a SIC code to have a potential impact on water
           quality. Therefore, the number of facilities  with projected impacts from  these
           pollutants may be overestimated.

       3.  Limitations existed in all of the national data bases.  Since most data- gathering
           activities have concentrated on major discharges, data were incomplete, in
           particular, regarding the characterization of  the type and amount of minor
           discharges and the identification of the receiving stream to which  the facility
           discharges.  Therefore, the number of facilities projected to be  potential
           de minimis represents only a rough estimate of the total number.
       The application of criteria to the four major levels of categories to identify a facility

as potential de minimis was as follows (Figure 2-2):


       Primary Industrial Facilities (Category 1): Industries in this category have been

defined, through research and evaluation by the Agency, as having a high potential for toxic

pollutant discharge.  Therefore,  facilities with process wastewater discharges (which have

come into direct contact with or result from the production or use of any raw materials or
product) were excluded from de minimis.


       Primary facilities with only noncontact cooling discharges were also excluded from

potential de minimis.  These discharges would have potential for water quality impacts

because of the potential for toxics due to the use of algicides,  slimicides, and corrosion
inhibitors in noncontact cooling waters.


       Sewage Treatment Facilities (Category 2):  Facilities classified as sewage treatment

facilities are defined as facilities primarily engaged in the collection and disposal of wastes

conducted through a sewer system including both privately and publicly owned treatment


                                           16

-------
             AiNPDES
              FadBtlaa
                                                   Classification of Dt \finimis Discharges
                                     AIIActtve
                                     Facllltlea
  Category 1
  Category 2
            Catagory3
                       Category 4
   Primary
  Industrial
  Facllltlea
  Sawag*
  Traatmam
                                  Sacondary
                                   Facliniaa
Excluded From
  Da Mlnlmla
     Potantlal
     Priority
     Pollutant
    Discharge
ExcludadFrom
  DaMlnlmla
J
ExcludadFrom
  DaMlnlmla
                                                                i
                                     Additional
                                   FadlKlaa With
                                 Effluent Guldalmaa
    Excluded
      From
    Da Mlnlmla
                                             1
  Permit
Umttattona
for Toxlea*
     Potential
    Da
                         Excluded
                          From
                        DeMlnlmte
                From
             DeMlnimte
                                         SKe-8pecmc
                                        Crtterta Applied
Includaa Ammonia
and/or Chtortne
                                             1
                             J
                                    Non
                                 Da Mlnlmla
                           Confirmed
                           Da Mlnlmla
   Figure 2-2.  Schematic Diagram of Nationwide Classification of
                    Potential Oe Mlnimis Discharges.
                                         17

-------
                                                 Classification of De Minimis Discharges
works.  Facilities in this category have a high potential for toxic pollutant discharges,
ammonia, and chlorine, as well as pathogens.  Ammonia is frequently found in the effluent
because of the nature of the waste,  with chlorine being used as a disinfectant.  Ammonia and
chlorine are known to be toxic to fish; EPA has established national water quality criteria for
the protection of aquatic life at 1.15 mg/L-N (pH 7.75, temperature 20°C) for ammonia and
0.11 mg/L for chlorine.   Consequently,  all sewage treatment facilities were excluded from
de minimis, regardless of discharge flow, including both privately and publicly owned
treatment works.

       Unknown Facilities (Category 3): All facilities that could not be classified in any
industry had an  unknown potential for toxic pollutant discharge.  Unknown facilities were
excluded from de minimis.

       Secondary Facilities (Category 4):  Secondary facilities were classified into one of
three groups:  facilities with a significant potential for toxics in  their discharge, additional
facilities with effluent guidelines, and facilities classified as "all others."  Facilities classified
as "all others" were further classified into facilities with permit  limitations for any toxics,
ammonia, or chlorine, and facilities projected to be potential de minimis.

       Facilities in industries  with significant potential for toxics were identified through four
evaluations:
       1.   Industries defined by the National Enforcement Investigative Center (NEIC) with
           a probable discharge of toxic pollutants (Appendix E).
       2.   Industries regulated by Federal effluent limitation guidelines or standards for
           toxic pollutants.
                                           18

-------
                                                 Classification of De Minimis Discharges
       3.  Industries identified in the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) as having a high
           potential for toxic discharge. The DSS evaluated the impacts of hazardous wastes
           discharged to local wastewater treatment plants.
       4.  Industries currently being evaluated for possible effluent limitation guidelines
           development (by the Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD)).
All facilities in industries with a significant potential for toxics were excluded from
de minimis, including facilities with only noncontact cooling water discharges.  Noncontact
cooling water discharges were eliminated because of the potential  for being contaminated
with algicides or slimicides.

       Facilities in industries regulated by Federal effluent limitation guidelines or standards
for conventional or nonconventional pollutants were excluded  from de minimis based on the
potential for significant water quality  impacts.  All  facilities were  excluded, including
facilities with only noncontact cooling water discharges.

       Facilities classified as "all others" with permit limits (PCS) for any toxics, including
ammonia or chlorine (which are classified  as nonconventional pollutants but are also known
to be highly toxic) were also evaluated.  Because of the limited available data and small
sample size within an industrial category, a statistical analysis was not feasible. Therefore, if
one facility was identified as having a limit for toxics, the entire industry (i.e., SIC code)
was projected to have a potential impact on water quality.

       The remaining facilities were  classified as potential de minimis. Based on available
information, there is no evidence that any  facility in the industries so classified would cause a
significant water quality problem.
                                            19

-------
                                                Classification of De Minimis Discharges
Confirmation of Classification


       Once a facility is identified as potential de minimis, site-specific criteria should be

applied to confirm a facility as de minimis or non-de minimis.  Such an effort is appropriate,
but beyond the scope of this report.  The following criteria are currently in use by the

Agency's Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) to designate an

industrial discharge as major or minor.  The criteria are based on an assessment of six

characteristics of a facility's discharge (Appendix F).  Generally, permitting agencies should

already have available adequate information from permit applications to determine final

status.


       •   Toxk Pollutant Discharge:

           Are toxics present in the discharge?

       •   Flow/Stream Flow Volume:

           (1)   Does the quantity and type of wastewater discharge alone indicate a
                potential significant impact?
                                          or
           (2)   Does the dilution capacity  of the receiving stream, in addition to the
                quantity and type of discharge, indicate a potential significant impact?

       •   Conventional Pollutants :

           Do the loads (or concentration) of oxygen-demanding (BOD, COD, TOC etc),
           total  suspended solids (TSS), and ammonia (NH,,  TKN) pollutants indicate a
           potential significant impact?

       •   Public Health Impact:

           Is a public drinking water supply located within 50 miles downstream of the
           effluent discharge?
                                          20

-------
                                                Classification of De Minimis Discharges
       •   Water Quality Factors:
          Is (or will) one or more of the effluent discharge limits based on water quality
          factors of the receiving stream or has a wasteload allocation been assigned to the
          discharge? Is the receiving water in compliance with the applicable water quality
          standards for pollutants that are water quality limited in the permit?  Does the
          effluent discharged from this facility exhibit the reasonable potential to violate
          water quality standards due to whole effluent toxicity?
       •   Proximity to Near Coastal Waters:
           Does the facility discharge to near coastal waters or the Great Lakes?  Does the
           facility discharge to one of the estuaries enrolled in the National Estuary
           Protection Program or discharge any of the pollutants of concern into one of the
           Great Lakes areas of concern?
                                SOURCES OF DATA

       Data used in this assessment were compiled from various EPA data bases and
sources:

       Permit Compliance System (PCS), December 1987: A computerized management
information system for tracking permit, compliance, and enforcement status data for the
NPDES under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The PCS data base is the national inventory for
NPDES permit issuance and compliance/enforcement data.  The Agency is required by law
(PL 92-500) to maintain this inventory and to ensure its integrity. The data in the PCS data
base were initially loaded by EPA several years ago.  Currently, data may be entered or
edited by the Regions and States.

                                          21

-------
                                               Classification of De Minimis Discharges


       Industrial Facilities Discharge File (IFD), December 1987: A comprehensive data
base of industrial and municipal point source dischargers. The data base includes general
information about each facility, including discharge and location information, Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, and categorization of process and discharge type.  PCS
was used to identify NPDES permitted facilities to be included in the IFD file.  NPDES
permits were  used to provide general information, and various State and local agencies
provided additional and more recent information.  The Needs Survey was used to add
information on existing Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).  Updates are made by
EPA Headquarters as needed.

       REACH FUe:  A digital data base of streams, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries divided
into segments called "reaches."  Each of the 68,000 reaches included in the file is uniquely
identified by an 11-digit reach number.  The data base includes stream names, open-water
names, stream and shoreline traces, and mileage information.  EPA Headquarters is adding
new reaches to increase the utility of the REACH File for data integration and water quality
analyses.

       GAGE File: A data base containing information on approximately 36,000 stream
gaging locations throughout the United States.  Information includes the location of gaging
stations, types of data collected, frequency of data collection, media in which data are stored,
identification  of the collecting agency, and mean and annual flow and 7Q10 low flow, where
available.  These stations are considered to have the longest period of record of natural  flow.
Updates are made by EPA Headquarters as needed.

       EPA Regional and State Permitting Offices:  Supporting information was obtained
from the ten EPA Regional Permitting Authorities and nine State permitting agencies (Maine,
                                         22

-------
                                                Classification of De Minimis Discharges


New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Texas, Missouri, California, and
Washington) recommended by the EPA Regional Offices.

       Additional Sources:
              -  1972 Standard Industrial Classification Manual
              -  Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards
              -  National Enforcement Investigative Center in Denver, Colorado
              -  1985 Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to
                Publically Owned Treatment Works (Domestic Sewage Study)
              -  Engineering and Analysis Division
                          CLASSIFICATION PROJECTIONS

       The following section summarizes the classification of potential de minims
discharges.  Data are projected nationwide based on the four major categories: primary
industrial, sewage treatment, unknown, and secondary.  A total of 893 facilities were
projected to be potentially de minimis (Figure 2-3). As mentioned previously, the data base
supporting this analysis is extremely limited. Because the data on most minor facilities are
limited, entire groups of dischargers were screened out from the category of potential de
minimis if there was reason to conclude that a group of permittees contained at least a
reasonable number of dischargers that could not be considered de minimis.  The Agency
approached the de minimis classification in this manner to avoid overestimating the number
of de minimis discharges.  As a result, the projected number of potential de minimis
discharges may be underestimated; some facilities  that were  categorically excluded could be
                                          23

-------
                                         Figure 2-3
               Classification of Potential De Minimis Discharges
Number of Facilities
       Number of Facilities
             Excluded
              Description
74,525 Active Facilities
I
                                   17,463
       57,062

                                    21,073
NPDES facilities currently discharging into navigable
waters. Includes facilities with permit applications
and expired permits.
                                    Primary Industrial Facilities (Category 1)
                                    Industries in this category have been defined through
                                    research and evaluation by EPA as having a high
                                    potential for toxic pollutant discharge.
                                    Sewage Treatment Facilities (Category 2)
                                    Facilities in this category have a high potential for
                                    the discharge of toxic pollutants (including ammonia
                                    and chlorine), as well as pathogens.
        35,989

-------
                                               Figure 2-3
                Classification of Potential  De Minimis Discharges (cont.)
Number of Faciiities
            Number of Facilities
                  Excluded
Description
                                      4,031

        31,958
J
                                      4,155

                                           Unknown Facilities (Category 3)
                                           Facilities classified as unknown could not be classified
                                           in any industry, and, therefore, had an unknown
                                           potential for discharges containing toxic pollutants.
                                                             Secondary Facilities (Category 4)
                                                             Facilities with Significant Potential for Toxics
                                                             NEKFttMUM:
                                                             FadNUes (damned through industrial evaluations
                                                             completed by the National Enforcement Investigative
                                                             Carter that defined (he probable dtocharge of toxic
                                                             potutants from an Industry based on assignment of
                                                             toxfcfty Indtoes.
                                                             FadMes In Industries regulated by Federal effluent
                                                             bnRatlon guidelnes or standards lor toxic pollutants
                                                             OSS:
                                                             Faculties In Industries identified in the Domestic Sewage
                                                             Study as having a high potential lor toxic discharge
                                                              EAD:
                                                              Facilities in industries currently under evaluation by EAD
                                                      25

-------
                                         Figure 2-3

          Classification of Potential De Minimis Discharges (cont.)
Number of Facilities
Number of Facilities
     Excluded
Description
       27,803
       18,238
          ,
         893



                                  9,565
                                  17,345


                          Facilities with Effluent Guidelines for Conventional
                          or Nonconventlonal Pollutants
                                                      Facilities with Effluent Limitations (Permit)
                                                      Toxic*:
                                                      FaoKtes in industries with loxc pollutant limits.
                                                      Ammonia and Chlorine:
                                                      Facilities in Industries with ammonia and/or chlorine limits
                                                      Potential De Mlnlmla
                                               26

-------
                                                       2-3
                      Classification of Potential De Minimis Discharges (cont.)
                                           893 Potential D» MnJmfe
 17,343 FaclNttea whh Effluent
 Umttatlona (Permit)
 NotJ»*aV»*nre
9,565 Facilities with
Effluent OuhMlnM tor
Pollutant*.
Not

 4,155 FcdlHlM wtth Significant
 PotontMforToKlcs
                                            17,463 Primary Industrial
                                            FaclNtla«(Catagofy1)
                                            (Industries In this category have
                                            been defined through research
                                            and evaluation by EPA as having
                                            a high potienfia! for toxic pollutant
                                            discharge.) Not D» MhJmte
                                          21,073 Oeorege Treatment
                                          FecNMlM (Gregory 2)
                                          Fadtties in Int* category have a
                                          high potential lor discharge of toxic
                                          pollutants (Including ammonia and
                                          chlorine), as well as pathogens.
 Note: Total does not equal
 100% due to rounding to
 nearest whole number.
4.031 Unknown Facilities (Category 3)
Facilities classified as unknown could not be classified
in any industry and. therefore, had an unknown
potential tor discharges containing toxic pollutants.
NotOeMMnWa
                                             Total Active FacHKIee • 74,525
                                                          27

-------
                                                 Classification of De Minimis Discharges


determined to qualify as de minimis if it were possible to examine them on a case-by-case
basis.

Primary Industrial Facilities (Category 1)

       Out of a total of 74,525 active NPDES facilities, 23.4 percent or 17,463 facilities
were classified  as primary industrial.  Approximately 16,222 of the facilities were identified
as having process wastewater discharges or incomplete data and were excluded from
de minimis.   The remaining 1,241  facilities were identified as having only noncontact cooling
discharges and  were also excluded from de minimis because of the potential for
contamination with algicides and slimicides.

Sewage Treatment Facilities (Category 2)

       The 21,073 facilities classified as sewage treatment (SIC 4952) account for
28.3 percent  of all active NPDES facilities.  All sewage treatment facilities were excluded
from de minimis.

Unknown Facilities (Category 3)

       Facilities classified as unknown (4,031) account for 5.4 percent of all active NPDES
facilities.  Such facilities could not be classified in any industry and, therefore, had an
unknown potential for discharges containing toxic pollutants.  All unknown  facilities were
excluded from de minimis.
                                           28

-------
                                                 Classification of De Minimis Discharges


Secondary Facilities (Category 4)

       Secondary facilities represent the largest (43 percent) single category of all active
NPDES facilities. The 31,958 facilities identified as  secondary facilities were further
classified into four groups:
       1.     Facilities with a significant potential for toxics in their discharge - 4,155
              facilities (Appendix G).
       2.     Additional facilities regulated by Federal effluent guidelines for conventional
              or nonconventional pollutants - 9,565 facilities (Appendix H).
       3.     Facilities in industries classified as "all others" with effluent limitations
              (permits) for any toxics, as well as ammonia or chlorine - 17,345 facilities
              (Appendix I).
       4.     Facilities projected to be potential de minimis - 893  facilities (Appendix J).
       In Groups 1 and 2, 13,720 facilities identified with process wastewater discharges or
with only noncontact cooling water discharges were excluded from de minimis.  In Group 3,
all facilities (17,345) were excluded.

       The remaining 893 facilities  were classified as potential de minimis.  Based on
available information, there is no evidence that such  facilities would cause a significant water
quality problem.

       An indeterminate number of minor discharges may be informally recognized by the
permitting authority as de minimis discharges, even though they belong to a category of
facilities that was screened out through the classification scheme used in this report.  This
subset of minor discharges bears little regulatory burden.  Once the initial NPDES permit of
                                            29

-------
                                                 Classification of De Minimis Discharges


such discharges is issued, it may be administratively extended for a lengthy time before
reissuance, while the permitting agency concentrates on major discharges.  These minor
discharges may also be covered by general permits.

Summary of Potential De Minimis Facilities

       A total of 893 facilities are projected nationwide to be potential de minimis,
accounting for 1.2 percent of all active NPDES facilities.  Once identified, potential
de minimis facilities would be subject to site-specific criteria to confirm the facility as
de minimis.  The level of regulation imposed on a facility confirmed as de minimis may be a
function of the permitting agency's degree of concern.  The available regulatory options
currently employed for the permitting of discharges, as well  as other potential regulatory
options that have been compiled by the Agency, are presented in the following chapter,
Regulation of De Minimis Discharges.
                                           30

-------
                                   Chapter Three
              REGULATION OF DE M1N1M1S DISCHARGES

       Discharges that have been determined to be de minimis based on a facility's industrial
and effluent characteristics are currently subject to the same regulatory burden as all
discharges. However, alternative  regulations that would reduce the regulatory and
administrative burden to the regulatory agencies, as well as to industry, have been
recommended to the Agency.  This chapter provides a discussion of (1) regulatory options
that are currently employed for the permitting of discharges, (2) other potential regulatory
options that have been recommended, and (3) a technical evaluation of the various options.
The standard  permit program (including model permits) and the General Permit Program
currently exist under Clean Water Act legislation and involve certain permitting steps ranging
from application to compliance monitoring and inspection.  Other potentially applicable
regulatory options include ten-year permits, over-the-counter permits, exclusion by waiver,
and the national rule approach. These options may involve reduced or modified permitting
steps to lessen the permitting burden.  Table 3-1 presents the steps  involved in  these
permitting procedures, which are discussed in detail in the following sections.

                             EXISTING REGULATIONS

       The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) "requires permits for
the discharge  of pollutants from any point source into waters of the United States,"  except as
provided in Section 404 of the CWA, which regulates dredge and fill activities. Currently,
two regulatory approaches exist for NPDES permitting agencies (EPA Regions or States) to
meet this requirement.  These options are the Municipal and Industrial Permit Program
(standard NPDES permit program including model permits) and the General Permit Program.
                                         31

-------
                                                                                  Table  3-1.
                                                           Step* involved in Potential 0* Ninlaiis Regulatory Option*
Standard NPDES Permit Over- the-Counter
Regulatory and 10-Tr Ptrmit Model Permit General Permit Permit Exclusion bv Waiver National Rule-
Step* PM PA EH PM PA EM PM PA EM PM PA EH PM PA EH PM PA EH
1. Pre-appl (cation P P P P
discussion
2. Permit appllca- R R P-Mey re«
tion Notice
3. Application R R
processing
4. Development of a R R R
draft permit
a) Effluent limits R P Nay have R
to b*
b) Monitoring R P altered to R
requirement « R .fit Indlv.
fact I.
c) Standard condition* R R
d) Special condition* P pj p_
5. Statement of Basla R-Unless a R-Unless a
fact sheet fact sheet
is required is required
(EPA only) (EPA only)
6. Fact Sheet P-For major P-For major R
fac, only fac. only
R R P P
|ufre a R •- Abbreviated P-May require a P-May require a
of Intent process Notice of Intent Notice of Intent
R R P P
P- Could be
bypaaaad
One permit
covering a
•designated
group of
dischargers
 7.   Headquarter Review
 B.   Public Notice
 9.    Public Hearing

10.    Pem
-------
                       Table 3-1
Step* Involved In Potential 0* Ninlaris Regulatory Option*
Standard NPOES Permit Over-the-Counter
Regulatory and 10-Year Pemit Model Permit General Permit Permit Exclusion by Waiver National Rule

11.
12.
15.
Steps PM PA EH PM PA EH PM PA EH PM PA EH PM PA EH PM PA EH
Administrative R-For EPA- R-For EPA- R-For EPA- P R-For rulr
Record Issued issued issued
permits permits permits
Discharge R R R R P
Monitoring
Reports
Compliance P P P P P
Monitoring I
Inspection
KEY: PM - Permittee
PA - Permitting Agency
EH - EPA Headquarters
P - Potential Step
R - Required Step
                          33

-------
                                                  Regulation of De Minimis Discharges


As of September 1991, 39 States and Territories have been authorized to issue permits under
the standard NPDES program. In addition, 28 of the 39 States and Territories have been
approved to administer general NPDES permits (See Appendix K).  A Federal Facilities
Program and a Pretreatment Program are also a part of the NPDES program authority, but
do not include additional means by which facilities can be  permitted.

Standard NPDES Permit

       The standard NPDES permit  is  the most commonly used permitting procedure  and
involves application filing, application  processing, developing a draft permit, formulating a
statement of basis (or  fact sheet), participation of the public, and issuing a final permit.
Slight modifications to this procedure are used for both municipal and industrial facilities.
All standard permits must contain effluent limits, monitoring requirements, and standard
conditions, as well as  special  permitting conditions.  The duration of a standard permit is a
maximum of 5 years.

       The steps involved in the standard permit program  are described below:

       Application:  Filing information is  submitted by a  permittee for issuance or renewal
of a permit on prescribed EPA or State application forms.  Information may vary according
to the type of discharge, but generally  contains facility location, operations, types of
discharge, a listing of related permits,  a topographic map,  outfall location, a line drawing  of
water flow, design flow information, production capacity,  and effluent characteristics
(40CFR 122.21).

       Application Processing:  Processing a permit application involves the determination
of whether the application is complete  and  accurate by the permitting agency.  This process

                                          34

-------
                                                   Regulation of De Minimis Discharges


may involve the review of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and effluent limitation
guidelines, and direct correspondence with the permittee.

       Development of a Draft Permit:  A draft permit is the core of the permitting process
and requires considerable time and effort to complete.  It involves the following four steps:
(1) determination of effluent limits based on EPA effluent limitation guidelines, water quality
considerations, best professional judgment (BPJ), or a combination of these methods;
(2) development of monitoring requirements, consisting of parameters to be monitored,
monitoring points, frequency, and types of sampling; (3) inclusion of standard  conditions.
which support the actual  effluent limits by delineating legal, administrative, and procedural
requirements of the permit, through the use of definitions pertaining to the permit, testing
procedures as defined by EPA, requisites for records retention by the permittee, notification
requirements for monitoring data and noncompliance, permittee responsibilities, and reopener
clauses, as well as reference to applicable Federal and  State laws; and (4)  addition of special
conditions that apply to the specific dischargers and may include compliance schedules,
biomonitoring requirements, best management practices (BMPs), and other site-specific
items.

       Fact Sheet or Statement of Basis:  A fact sheet is required for major dischargers
(facilities designated as major by permitting authorities) and includes factual, legal,
methodological, and policy data considered in the draft permit. A segment of these data is
the statement of basis, which is required for EPA-issued permits that do not require fact
sheets (permits for minor dischargers).  The statement  of basis is a brief summary of the
basis for the draft permit conditions (40 CFR 124.8 and 124.56).

       Public Notice, Comment, and Hearings: Public notice is the vehicle for informing
interested parties of the permitting of a new facility and gives an opportunity for comment on

                                          35

-------
                                                   Regulation of De Minimis Discharges


the decisions made in the permit. Thirty days of public notice are required for draft NPDES
permits.  The notice must be submitted in at least two ways:  (1) the publication of a notice
in a daily or weekly newspaper within the area affected by the facility or activity (for major
permits)  and (2) the direct mailing of the notice to various designated parties, including the
applicant; any other agency required to issue a Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA)
Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit, a RCRA Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit, or a CWA Dredge or Fill Discharge (404) permit for the
facility; all appropriate government  agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services,
neighboring States,  etc.); and users  identified in the permit application of a privately owned
treatment works (40 CFR 124.10).  Public notice  must also be submitted in accordance with
corresponding State regulations.  Comments and requests for hearings may be elicited by
public notice. Any interested party may request information, dispute the draft permit, or
request a public hearing.  The regulatory agency is obliged to respond to all significant
comments.  The response to a request for a public hearing is based on judgment, and a
hearing should be granted by the permitting agency if there is a significant amount of interest
expressed during the public comment period.

       Issuance of a Final Permit: A  final permit may be issued after the close of the
public participation period, which includes public notice, any public hearing,  any extension
or reopening of public comment, and permit certification.

       Administrative Record:  For EPA-issued  permits, the record must consist of the
application and supporting information,  the draft permit, the statement of basis or fact sheet
(with cited items and calculations),  and  all other items in the supporting file.  The record for
the final permit consists of the record for the draft permit, all comments received  on the
draft permit and corresponding responses, the transcripts of any hearings, and any written
                                           36

-------
                                                   Regulation of De Minimis Discharges


material received at a hearing. Approved States must provide access to all supporting
information and  must include the fact sheet (if applicable) within this information.

       Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs): DMRs are required to be filed by the
permittee on a regular basis (with a duration  not to exceed 1 year), as stated in the permit.
These reports include parameters specified under monitoring requirements.

       Compliance Monitoring and Inspection: Compliance monitoring and inspection are
additional means of evaluating the effectiveness of the permit and the compliance of the
permittee.  They include compliance evaluation inspections (CEIs), compliance sampling
inspections (CSIs), compliance biomonitoring inspections (CBIs), and operation and
maintenance (O&M) inspections.

Model Permit

       The concept of the model permit is a  streamlining of the standard permit.  It uses an
example permit for a related facility and modifies it to fit the facility in question.

       This permitting process is generally used for facilities with  similar operations and
effluents.  Once an original permit is developed for a facility within a category, it can be
tailored to fit each discharger within this group. Changes should be  minor, encompassing
facility name, location, receiving stream, date, effluent limit and monitoring requirements
(optional), and qualitative guidelines (optional), including  standard conditions and  special
conditions.
                                          37

-------
                                                  Regulation of De Minimis Discharges


      The final permit is identical to a standard 5-year NPDES permit in that it covers one
facility,  requires complete application information, and is bound to all regulatory
requirements set forth in the CWA.

General Permit

      A general permit is one permit covering multiple dischargers that (1) involve the same
or substantially similar types of operations, (2) discharge the same types of wastes,
(3) require the same effluent limitation or operating conditions, (4) require the same or
similar monitoring, and (5)  are deemed to be more appropriately controlled under a general
permit than under individual permits. These five criteria must be  met prior to the
development of a general permit for the class or category of dischargers in question.  All
facilities must also be within a designated geographical or political boundary.

      The General Permit  Program is an optional program for States with NPDES authority
and must be approved by EPA Headquarters. Permits under this program are still issued,
modified,  revoked, and reissued or terminated in accordance with  the procedures followed
for standard NPDES  permits,  but cover more than one discharger.  General permits are ideal
for, but not limited to, minor  dischargers.  Currently, 28 States have general permit authority
(Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North
Carolina, North Dakoka, Oregon,  Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).   Also, EPA Regional Offices can
issue permits in 16 States or Territories that dfi not have NPDES authority (Alaska,
American  Samoa, Arizona,  Florida,  Guam, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Texas,  and Washington,
DC).
                                          38

-------
                                                   Regulation of De Minimis Discharges


       To develop a general permit, a permitting agency would identify a category of
discharges that appear to be applicable for coverage under a general permit.  Available
information on these types of discharges would be studied  to make certain that the five
aforementioned criteria are met for the category. If the criteria are met, development of a
general permit can proceed with in-depth study of the category using any applicable effluent
guidelines, industrial permit abstracts, treatability manuals, guidance documents, etc.   These
tools are used to develop a draft permit that contains the same provisions as an individual
NPDES permit (e.g., effluent limits, monitoring requirements, and standard conditions).
Sometimes effluent limits and monitoring requirements  are tiered so as to pertain to specific
subclasses within a general permit category. Once a draft general permit is completed, it
must undergo required reviews and public notices.

       A draft general permit must be reviewed by the EPA Regional Office only if it is a
State-issued permit.  The EPA Headquarters Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance (OWEC) must review all draft and final  offshore general permits, but may
request at any time to review all other categories of general permits.  Regionally issued
general permits can be issued only within the 16 States or  Territories that do not have
NPDES permit authority.  Public notice for EPA-issued permits need only be published in
the Federal Register and where required by State statutes.  Public notice for State-issued
general permits must be published in a daily or weekly newspaper, distributed to interested
parties, and provided as required by State statutes.

       A final general permit may be issued after the close of the review and public
participation period, and permit certification.  The final permit is subject to the same public
notice requirements as the draft general permit.
                                           39

-------
                                                   Regulation of De Minimis Discharges


       Upon final issuance of a general permit, coverage of individual potential permittees
can be issued to any discharger meeting the criteria for the given permit category without
application (automatic coverage) or with an abbreviated application (Notice of Intent).
Currently, EPA highly recommends the use of a Notice of Intent to confirm that a facility is
applicable for coverage under the general permit (i.e., to overcome the presumption that an
individual permit is required),  and to allow for tracking and record keeping of facilities
covered. A Notice of Intent (NOI) generally requires the name, address, and telephone
number of the permit  applicant; the location of the facility; the name of the responsible
on-site official; and the name of the receiving water.  Other information that may be required
is qualitative process and effluent descriptions and a justification for  coverage under the
general permit. The Notice of Intent generally does not require the detailed process
descriptions, effluent sampling and analysis, and other information encompassed  by standard
applications. However, facilities  covered by general permits are bound to the same
self-reporting requirements that apply to facilities issued standard NPDES permits. Facilities
must submit discharge monitoring reports (as specified by the general permit) with a duration
not to exceed 1 year.

                       POTENTIAL REGULATORY OPTIONS

       In addition to the existing  regulatory options, three other options (originating  from
Agency, Region, or State  suggestions) are presented as potential means to regulate
de minimis discharges. These options may require statutory changes.  Closer legal and
technical scrutiny would be required if further consideration of these options is deemed
warranted.
                                          40

-------
                                                  Regulation of De Minimis Discharges
Ten-Year Permit

       The ten-year permit extends the term of a standard NPDES permit from 5 to 10 years
(statutory change). This would delay the reissuance of permits for minor facilities so that the
backlog of expired and unpermitted facilities could be reduced.

Over-the-Counter Permits

       Over-the-counter processing is currently used in New Jersey for minor stream
encroachment, sewer extension, and riparian permits (non-NPDES permits) that meet specific
criteria. Applicants can receive same-day or 24-hour service.  Permit applications are
handled by appointment only, and requirements are essentially the same for all projects.  A
pre-application phone conversation is generally required.

       Application, review, and approval of minor permits occur on the same day at the
same location.  This  process could be applied  to dt minimis discharges in one of two ways:
(1) by  developing a draft permit and still incorporating public notice or (2) by issuing a final
permit and eliminating public notice (statutory change).

Exclusion from the NPDES Permit Program

       Facilities excluded from the NPDES permit program would not be obligated to obtain
or be regulated  by a NPDES permit.  Under an exclusion by waiver process, pre-application
discussion and/or application (Notice of Intent) may be required to exclude discharges on a
site-by-site basis.
                                          41

-------
                                                  Regulation of De Minimis Discharges
National Rule

      The national rule approach is the concept of devising a law or rule covering a specific
category of de minimis discharges.  The rule would present qualifying criteria for the types
of facilities or activities that would be covered under the rule, as well as guidelines or
national standards that must be met (similar to EPA National Ambient Air Quality
Standards).  No application or permitting, as such, would have be to completed;  however, if
a facility were found to be in violation of the rule, it would be required to be permitted
under the standard NPDES permit program.  EPA would follow standard administrative
procedures for developing a rule, including proposal, public notice and comment, formal
record,  and promulgation.

             EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL REGULATORY OPTIONS

      The evaluation of each potential de minimis regulatory option considered the technical
effectiveness of the option; that is, whether or not the concept of the option is feasible to
implement.  Also, the question of whether an option is workable and advantageous to
permitting agencies, permittees, and the Agency was addressed. Regulatory options that will
involve  statutory changes were noted; however, an analysis of legal issues is not within the
scope of this study and is not discussed.

      The evaluation of technical effectiveness is discussed for all of the options, with the
exception of the standard NPDES permit. The standard permit (in conjunction with model
permitting) is the current method of permitting utilized by all Regional and State permitting
agencies. This process (and its corresponding burden to regulatory agencies) is the
underlying basis for the De Minimis Study and serves as a baseline of comparison for the
                                          42

-------
                                                   Regulation of De Minimis Discharges


other permitting options. An evaluation of potential de minimis regulatory options is
presented in Table 3-2 and is discussed in detail below.

       Model Permit:  The model permit is a concept that has been promoted
by the Agency in various forms.  One form is the "NPDES Model Permit Format," which
describes the standard form of a NPDES permit with standard and special conditions written
in a prescribed format.  Another form is "The NPDES Permit Abstracts," which outlines
examples of actual permits that can be used as models for various industries.  Currently,
permitting agencies are  using these streamlining tools. Some agencies  have entered
boilerplate language and qualitative guidelines onto word processors and modify this format
as appropriate. It is also common practice to tailor a new discharge permit using another
similar permit on file.  Because this concept is so widely used and is merely a streamlining
of the standard process, Regional and State agencies feel that it is not an option that would
significantly reduce the  administrative burden associated with the regulation of de minimis
discharges.

       General Permit: As stated previously, the general permit is currently utilized by a
number of Regions  and  approved  States (Appendix K).  The consensus on the applicability of
this option to de minimis discharges is positive, and general permits have had noted success
in reducing burden  for permitting agencies.  Use of the general permit by permitting
authorities allows the coverage of moderate to large numbers of facilities with one permit
action, rather than multiple actions,  and allows for new industries entering the area and
meeting general permit criteria to be covered without new permit action. Where large
numbers of related facilities contribute to permit backlogs,  general permits can reduce this
backlog, with  substantial reductions  in resources and costs when compared to individual
permitting.  In addition, potential savings can be realized by having to  process only Notices
of Intent (as opposed to complete applications) and not having to issue  individual public

                                          43

-------
                                                                              Table 3-2
                                                         Evaluation of Potential Pe Ntnlml* Regulatory Options
    Option
                   Advantages
       Disadvantage*
1.  Nodel Permit
Doe* not require • atatutory change.
Can ba used on word proccseors.
Generally involve* minor permit changaa.
••quires complete  application and application
proceeding.
la  merely  a  modification  of  th«  atandard
permit.
It currant Iy being  u*ed;  would not raduca tha
burden  aaaoclatad   with   tha  permitting  of
da mlnlmit factlltie*.
An Individual  penalt mu*t  be procaaaad for each
discharger.
2.  6anerel Permit
DOM not require a atatutory change.
Cover* aviltlple dlachargar* under one permit.
Nay not require complete  Individual  application* or public
notice.
Cover* tha aaaw areaa a*  a atandard  penalt.
fac lilt fee >ay to panel ttad under tha atandard HPOCS prograaj
If they are not •eating general penalt requirement*.
lequlre* laa* tie* and ajoney to proceaa a facility.
Reduce* penalt laauanca backlog*.
Can cover dlacharga* pravloualy unpeniltted due to  raaource
conatralnt*.
May automatically cover new dlachargaa.
Currently in uae by only  17 State*.
(•quire*  Regional   and/or   EPA  Headquarter*
review.
Hay to difficult to apply to water* with widely
different water o>jellty atandarda.
J.   Tan-Tear  Permit
would delay the relaauance of permit*  for minor  feel 11 tie*
*o tha backlog of e«plr«d and unparmittad facllltle*  could
to  reduced.
Nay free up more raaourcaa for  compliance,  monitoring,  and
Inspection.
Nay involve abbreviated application*.
Require* a atatutory change.
Too many regulatory change* may occur over the
extended term.
Term  may  to  too  long  for  proce**-orlentad
discharge*.
Inspection *till may to required.
Effluent change could occur over thi* period.
^.  Ov»r-tha-Count*r  Permit*
Could Involve abbreviated application and permit iaauance.
Would raduca the time required for permit proceaalng.
Would atlll yield an Individual permit.
Nay require a statutory change.
Nay eliminate public notice.
Ney caua* Regional/State procedural problem*.
5.   Exclusion by Waiver from
     tha  MPOES Program
Nay transfer regulation for aome type* of discharges to more
appropriate agencies.
Nay eliminate loopholes  for noneffluent-type discharge*.
Ma* to an  ahown  to reduce resources required to conduct  an
effective diacharge regulatory program (CA land di(charge*).
Require* a atatutory change.
Nay eliminate all mean* of regulation.
Would require ca*e-by-ca*< de*fgnatfon.
Nay promote the impairment of  receiving water*.

-------
                                                                              Tabla 3-2
                                                  Evaluation of fottntltt  0« K(n(«l» Regulatory Option* (continue)
    Option
                          Advantage*
                          Disadvantage*
4.  national »ule
Would  liwtant«n«ou«ly  provide  rc^uUtlon for unpvni(tt«d
                                                      Would  Irrvolv* • Motlc* of Inttnt  or no «ppUc«tlon pr«CM*.
                                                      Ofscfwrgcrs  could b* r«captur*d  und*r  th« «t«nd»rd ptraft
                                                          r«i If
I«qu(r*«  confirmation *t  d«  •tn<«U  btfor*
•It*-«p*cf1tc inv»»tiB«tfon« «r* conducted.
Probably require* «t«tutory change .
Nay raquir* Incpcction* and po««fb(y  audit*.
Nay requfr* aonitoring by facUitia*.
Nay   cauM  difficulty   In  conpllenc*   and
anforcaaant.

-------
                                                   Regulation of De Minimis Discharges


notices for each discharger.  Although the general permit has noted advantages, some
potential drawbacks do exist.  The development of a general permit is a rulemaking that
requires substantial data gathering on the part of the permitting agencies rather than the
applicants.  General permits may be difficult to issue in areas with varying State standards,
and a significant number of similar discharges must exist within a category for a general
permit to be administratively worthwhile.

       In addition, during the survey conducted for this study, both Regional Offices and
State agencies expressed concern that, although the General Permit Program appears to be an
appropriate regulatory option for minor facilities, streamlining State delegation and EPA
review of draft permits is necessary to maximize  its potential (Appendix D).

       Ten-Year Permit:  The idea of a ten-year permit provoked mixed reactions from
Regional and State agencies during the survey conducted for this study. The basis of the
long-term permit is to extend the reissuance dates of many minor permits so that the backlog
of these permits and unpermitted discharges could be reduced.  Note that, pursuant to the
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 558 (c), an otherwise expired permit is
automatically extended until the effective date of  the new permit provided that a timely and
sufficient permit application is filed.  Statutory change increasing the maximum life of
permits may not have a significant effect on the frequency at which permits for de minimis
discharges are re-issued, but it could significantly reduce the opportunity to incorporate
regulatory changes when necessary (e.g., effluent guidelines or State water quality standards)
and would delay receipt of the detailed information required in permit applications.  Because
of the extended life of the permit, it would be essential that the discharge be of a truly
de minimis nature, so that the potential for environmental impact would remain low over the
term of the permit.
                                           46

-------
                                                   Regulation of De Minimis Discharges


       Some specific concerns expressed by various agencies included the following: (1) the
10-year term may be too long for process-oriented technologies, which change more
frequently (Appendix D); (2) inspection of facilities or activities should still remain a part of
the regulatory process; and (3) the ten-year permit may not easily be integrated into all
permitting programs.

       Over-the-counter Permits:  Over-the-counter processing could reduce the expected
burden of permitting de minims facilities in two ways.  The application submittal and
processing for de minimis facilities could be abbreviated.  Permittees could come to the
permitting office following a pre-application phone conversation, and a draft permit could be
developed at that time using a standardized permit format.  If public notification could be
bypassed for these facilities or activities, a final permit could be issued at the  same time.
Bypass of public notification would require a statutory change.  Publication of a list of
permittees covered by over-the-counter permits could be an alternative to public notice.

       In the survey conducted for this study, Regional and State permitting agencies felt that
this option may be applicable for only a few types of de minimis discharges and may cause
procedural problems (Appendix D).

       Exclusion from the NFDES Program:  Industry representatives who originally
proposed the concept of de minimis to Congress believed  that many types of discharges could
be excluded from the NPDES system because they have effluents that contain  nothing that
could degrade the water quality of the receiving waters.  As originally stated in this report, it
is the belief of the Agency and permitting agencies alike that all discharges (particularly
process-oriented discharges) to surface  waters may have an environmental impact at one time
or another because of constantly changing process, climatic, and ecological parameters.
Still, some Regional and State permitting offices feel  that there are certain instances or

                                           47

-------
                                                   Regulation of De Minimis Discharges



certain groups of discharges that may be excluded from the NPDES program.  Most
permitting agencies mentioned that a case-by-case designation of discharges or activities that

could be excluded from NPDES would be the only appropriate means of utilizing this option,

and that a means to recapture discharges under the NPDES program, should the situtation
change, must be available (Appendix D).


       The State of California uses a system of exclusion for non-NPDES land discharges.

It allows site-specific or categorical exclusion of certain types of discharges, as well as a
clause that makes the exclusion conditional.  The program is described as follows:
              Exclusion by Waiver: The permitting agency has a statutory obligation to
              prescribe discharge requirements (permits), except where a waiver is not
              against the public interest; and the agency stipulates that any waiver of
              application and permitting shall be conditional and may be terminated at any
              time by the permitting agency.  A waiver may be used when it is not against
              public interest; it enables the agency resources to be used more effectively;
              and discharges fall within one of the following categories:  (1) the discharge is
              effectively regulated by other public agencies; (2) the discharge is effectively
              regulated by the  facility pursuant to State regulations or guidelines; or (3) the
              discharge does not adversely affect the quality or the beneficial uses of the
              waters  of the State.
       National Rule:  A national rule approach would allow the instantaneous regulation of

large groups of de minimis discharges by coverage under a general rule.  The rule would

state the coverage of specified activities and corresponding national standards that would

apply to the facility.  A notice of intent may or may not be a part of the permit-by-rule

process. Although  this process would not yield an individual permit  for facilities covered by

the rule, it would provide a means of regulation for many de minimis activities that currently
cannot be permitted because of resource and financial restraints of the permitting agencies.
                                           48

-------
                                                   Regulation of De Minimis Discharges



Two variations on the concept of national rule have been developed by the Agency and are

presented as follows:
             The Self-Elimination Process:  After the Agency has published definitive
             guidance on the characteristics of aide minimis discharge, the facility would
             submit an NPDES application (or Notice of Intent), which includes sworn
             affidavits affirming the facility or activity as a confirmed df minimis
             discharge.  The Region/State would accept this evaluation and certify
             de minimis status. Facilities would not be required  to report monitoring data,
             but would be subject  to unannounced inspections. If inspection shows failure
             to hold to de minimis standards, the owner or operator of the facility or
             activity would be liable for fines and/or jail sentences.  Should the facility
             report itself in the event of an unforeseen accident,  the regulator would have
             the option of either returning it to de minimis status or requiring standard
             NPDES status.

             The No Response Process:  After the EPA definitive guidance is published,
             the facility would identify itself as de minimis.  The choice of the "no
             response" mode may  carry a specific schedule of monitoring on the part of the
             discharger, but the monitoring records would not be submitted to  Regional or
             State offices unless they are requested. This  request could  be sudden,
             unannounced, and require immediate hand-over.  All covered facilities or
             activities would be subject to unannounced inspections.  The punishment for
             violations would be the same as described in  the above option.
                                          49

-------
                                   Chapter Four
           UNIT RESOURCE AND COST COMPARISONS FOR
                  POTENTIAL REGULATORY OPTIONS
       In this chapter, the unit (per facility) resources and costs to the permitting agency of
the potential regulatory options are assessed and compared to evaluate relative economic
feasibility.  The national rule approach will not be evaluated since it requires that classes of
discharges be confirmed as de minimis before any site-specific investigations are conducted.
EPA's limited data base prevents this confirmation.

       The following topics are discussed:  (1) development of a permitting resource model,
(2) sources of data used in the analysis, and (3) a comparison of unit cost savings of
alternative regulatory options when compared to the standard/model (baseline) permitting
procedure.  Administrative costs to industry were not evaluated.

             DEVELOPMENT OF PERMITTING RESOURCE MODEL

       Using a modification  of a North Carolina case study (Appendix M) that includes only
secondary  discharges, a permitting resource model was developed as a baseline for
comparison to other  regulatory options. The resources required to perform various
permitting steps (in terms of person-hours) represent empirical values relevant to a national
analysis; however, generic costs associated with the various permitting steps had to be
developed  to estimate average national permitting costs and cost savings.

       Ten geographically distributed permitting agencies that were contact agencies or work
group members were surveyed  to determine the average skill levels and salary profiles of
                                        50

-------
                                                      Resource and Cost Comparisons


personnel administering the various permitting steps (Table 4-1).  Six permitting levels of
personnel were identified, along with corresponding base salaries (excluding fringe and
indirect costs), for each of the permitting steps.  The hourly salary rates were then averaged
to derive six national generic costs associated with the various permitting steps.  These
generic costs were incorporated into the permitting resource model to yield average costs of
permitting steps and total costs of permits for secondary facilities using a "minimum
reputable standard/model permitting procedure." These data are summarized in Table 4-2
and represent the resources and costs associated with baseline permitting of a secondary
facility.

       Tables  4-3 through 4-6 are similar tables that incorporate the various steps involved in
the four alternative regulatory options (General Permit, Ten-Year Permit, Over-the-Counter
Permit, and Exclusion by Waiver), and represent the estimated resources and costs associated
with typical scenarios of coverage under these options.

                                SOURCES OF DATA

       Data used  in this assessment were compiled from  the sources listed below:

       North Carolina's Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Effort and Cost of Permitting Study, April 1986:  A detailed case study by the State of
North Carolina Water Quality Section outlines permitting steps involved in a "minimum
reputable standard/model permitting program." Effort, in terms of person-hours, was
estimated for each permitting step, and weighted average salaries based on North Carolina
                                          51

-------
                                                                   Table 4-1

                                     Development of Average Generic Costs Associated with Various Permitting Steps
                                                      Permitting Agency - Hourly Riles
General Title/Permit Steps    Region I    NJ     PA     NC    WI   Region VI   MO   Region VIII   CA    WA
Cleft/Typist (DiU Entry)
 $7.43   $6.25   $7.36   $5.20   $8.03     $7.27    $5.77
Env. Technician Low          $9.00  $11.85  $10.22   $8.25  $8.65     $7.27     $7.49
(Permit Issuance, Renewals)

Env. Technician High or
Env. Chemist Low or
Env. Biologist Low          $13.33  $11.85  $11.08  $10.28  $12.50    $11.01     $9.81
(Field Inspections,  DRM
Review, Lab Work)

Engineer I Low              $14.03  $14.34  $11.08  $12.15  $11.60    $11.70    $11.55
(Development of Draft Permit)
Engineer II Mid
(Supervises 3-5 people.
 Public Hearings)
$15.09  $15.16  $14.31   $14.32  $14.47   $16.34   $13.68
 $7.27     $8.11  $8.08
   AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES:    $7.07 = - - >  $7.00

 $9.00    $12.98 $10.36
   AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES:    $9.44= « = >  $9.50
                                                         $15.97   $13.44 $11.94
                                                            AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES.   $12.12= = ->  $12.00
$16.33   $13.21 $12.85
   AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES:   $12.88=- = > $13.00

$18.99   $20.53 $14.91
   AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES:   $15.78- = - > $15.50
Program Supervisor           $18.99  $16.73  $16.33  $15.13  $16.78    $18.99   $14.26
(Supervises 5-15 People)
$18.99   $22.50 $15.28
   AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES:   $|7.40
                                                                                                           $17.50
NOTE:  Data were gathered by written and phone surveys and represent 1988 base salaries.
                                                                         52

-------
                                                                 Resource and Cost Comparisons
                                      Table 4-2

                   Effort and Cost of Standard/Model NPDES Permitting
                                 (Secondary  Facilities)
Ceoehc
Permitting Steps
Pre- Application Discussion
Application Processing
Development of a Draft Permit:
a) Initial Fnyn***- Review
b) Staff Report
c) Wasteload Allocation (Level B)*
d) Review Monit. Data Bases
e) Data Entry
f) Final Engr. Rev. /Draft Permit
Public Notice (Labor)
Public Notice (Publication)
Public Hearing
Final Permit litiiirvrr
Records/Data Management
Compliance Monitoring and Inspection
•) ^-Yfir O>mrM>titf> InnwtKmi**
b) DMR Review
Renewal Notice
Supervisjont
Total Effort and Cost:
If Hearing If Required:
Cost/Hr
$13.00
$7.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$12.00
$7.00
$13.00
$7.00
$15.50
$9.50
$7.00
$12.00
$13.00
$9.50
$17.50

Peraon-Hr
4.7
2.4
9.4
12.6
6.3
0.6
0.6
3.6
0.6
54.4
0.6
4.4
99.9
0.6
0.6
-
146.9
201.3
Cost
$61.10
$16.80
$122.20
$163.80
$81.90
$7.20
$4.20
$46.80
$4.20
$50.00
$843.20
$5.70
$30.80
$1,198.80
$7.80
$5.70
-
$1,807.00
$2.650.20
 •Simple allocation using a package model.
**Does not include chemical laboratory costs.
 tDue to difficulty in «•*noting  omitted from analysis.
                                          53

-------
                                                                    Resource and Cost Comparisons
                                       Table 4-3

                    Effort and Cost of Issuing General Permit Coverage
                                  (Secondary Facilities)
Permitting Step*
Notice of Intent Processing
Data Entry
Certification of Coverage
(Issuance)
Records/Data Management
Compliance Mooit. and Inspection
a) 5-Year Composite Inspections*
b) DMR Review
GP Developmental Costs**
Supervision t
Generic
Cost/Hr
$7.00
$7.00
$9.50
$7.00
$12.00
$13.00
$14.25***
$17.50
Penon-Hr
2.4
0.6
0.6
4.4
99.9
0.6
9.1
-
Cost
$16.80
$4.20
$5.70
$30.80
$1,198.80
$7.80
$129.68
-
Total Effort and Cost:                            $117.6      $1,393.78
  * Does not include "frff*"**' laboratory costs.
 ** Avenge development costs per facility - 600 hours for the development of • non-OCS
    general permit (EPA workload model)/66 facilities per general permit (based on survey
    data average - Appendix L) - 9.1 hours.
***  Average of the generic costs for an E»f m««r1 and an Engineer II.
  f Due to difficulty in estimating, omitted from analysis.

NOTE:   Public notice costs are •**"TV< to be negligible on a per facility basis.
                                       54

-------
                                                                  Resource and Cost Comparisons
                                      Table 4-4

                         Effort and Coat of Tea-Year Permitting
                                (Secondary Facilities)
Permitting Steps
Pre- Application Diacussion
Application Processing
Development of a Draft Permit:
•) Initial Engineer Review
b) Staff Report
c) Wasteload Allocation (Level B)*
d) Review MoniL Data Baaes
e) Data Entry
0 Final Engr. Rev. /Draft Permit
Pubbc Notice (Labor)
Pubbc Notice (Publication)
Pubbc Hearing
Final Permit Issuance
rv\fnn|iftiv« Mmif 4fr Iiuptrtirm
^ ^f ^ -.«*.• *..*
a) 5- Year Composite Inspections**
b) DMR Review
Renewal Notice
Supervisiont
Total Effort and Cost:
If Hearing Is Required:
Generic
Cost/Hr
$13.00
$7.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$12.00
$7.00
$13.00
$7.00
$15.50
$9.50
$7.00
$12.00
$13.00
$9.50
$17.50

Peraon-Hr
4.7
2.4
9.4
12.6
6.3
0.6
0.6
3.6
0.6
54.4
0.6
4.4
199.8
0.6
0.6
—
246.8
301.2
Cost
$61.10
$16.80
$122.20
$163.80
$81.90
$7.20
$4.20
$46.80
$4.20
$50.00
$843.20
$5.70
$30.80
$2,397.60
$7.80
$5.70
-
$3,005.80
$3,849.00
   Simple i
i using a package model.
** The raaourcea atsociitnd with monitoring and inspection are two times that of the atandard
   permit to achieve the aame annual level* of irfr^*K*i over the 10-year term.  Doe* not
   include chemical laboratory coat*.
 t Due to difficulty in Mtitmhiij. omitted from analysis.
                                       55

-------
                                                                   Resource and Cost Comparisons
                                       Table 4-5

                      Effort and Cort of Over-the-Counter Permitting
                                 (Secondary Facilities)
        Permitting Step*
Weighted
 Coat/Hr      Penon-Hr      Coat
Pre-Application Di

Application Processing*

Development of a Draft Permit:*
  a) Initial Engineer Review
  b) Review  Monit. Data Baaei
  c) Final Engr. Rev./Draft or
    Final Permit
$13.00
4.7
 $61.10
Total Effort and Coat:
If Public Notice la Required:
$13.00
8.0
$104.00
d) Data Entry
Public Notice (Labor) (Optional)
Public Node* (Publication) (Optional)
Records/Data Management
Compliance Monit. & Inspection
a) 5- Year Composite Inspection***
b) DMR Review
Renewal Notice
Supervision!
$7.00
$7.00
$7.00
$12.00
$13.00
$9.50
$17.50
0.6
0.6
4.4
99.9
0.6
0.6
-
$4.20
$4.20
$50.00
$30.80
$1,198.80
$7.80
$5.70
-
              118.8     $1.412.40
              119.4     $1,466.60
 * Assume* that the over-the-counter procea* of application proceeding and permit
   development can occur in one working day.
** Doe* not include chfanical laboratory coat*.
 t Due to difficulty in •^"^^"g. omitted from analyaia.
                                           56

-------
                                                                Resource and Cost Comparisons
                                    Table 4-6

                        Effort and Co* of Exclusion by Waiver
                                (Secondary Facilitiea)

Pie-Notice of Intent Diacuaaion
Notice of Intent Proceaaing
Certification of Waiver
Records/Data Management
Supervisiont
Generic
Coat/Hr
$13.00
$7.00
$9.50
$7.00
$17.50
Penon-Hr
4.7
2.4
0.6
4.4
-
Coat
$61.10
$16.80
$5.70
$30.80
-
Total Effort and Co*                                      12.1        $114.40


t Due to difficulty in •^•""•^"g. omitted from analyaia.
                                         57

-------
                                                       Resource and Cost Comparisons


data were also included.  This study and its corresponding methodology are included in
Appendix M.

       EPA Permit Issuance Workload Model, 1987: This EPA model predicts levels of
effort involved in the permitting of various types of discharges (e.g., minor municipal, minor
industrial, and general permits).  The model, including outputs, workloads,  and resources,  is
included in Appendix N.

       EPA Regional and State Permitting Agencies: Supporting information was obtained
from the EPA Regional permitting authorities and State permitting agencies  to assist in the
economic assessment of the various regulatory options.  Statistical information  on the
resources required for the development of options, permitting staff salary information,  the
average number of discharges covered under a general permit, and other pertinent data were
compiled and assessed.

                            UNIT COST COMPARISONS

       The projected resources, costs, and unit savings (in relation to the standard/model
baseline) are presented in Table 4-7.

       If unit savings are ranked in descending order, the following results  are obtained:
                                              Resource       Cost
                                               Savings      Savings
                                              (Percent)      (Percent)
       1.  Exclusion by Waiver:                   91.8         93.7
       2.  General Permit:                        19.9         22.9
       3.  Over-the-Counter Permits:              19.1         21.8
       4.  Ten-Year Permit:                       16.0         16.8
                                          58

-------
                                                                         Resource and Cost Comparisons
                                              Table 4-7

                                   Unit Resource tad Cost Comparison
Regulatory Options
Standard/Model Permit
(Baseline)
General Permit
Ten- Year Permit**
Over-the-Coimter Permit
Exclusion by Waiver
Unit Resource*
Perwo-Hour
146.9
117.6
123.4
118.8
12.1
Unit Costa
Dollars
$1,807.00
$1,393.78
$1,502.90
$1.41140
$114.40
Unit
Resources
0.0 (0%)
29.3(19.9%)
23.5 (16.0%)
28.1(19.1%)
134.8 (91.8%)
fUvingi*
Dollars
$0.00 (0%)
$413.22(22.9%)
$304.10(16.8%)
$394.60(21.8%)
$1,692.60(93.7%)
 •Savings are in relation to the Standard/Model Permit (Baseline).
**Costs are divided by 2 to nyiMua costs over a 5-year term.
                                                 59

-------
                                    Chapter Five
               CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

      The preceding chapters have summarized EPA's current information about the type of
discharges that may be classified as de minimis, evaluated the existing and alternative
methods of regulating such discharges, and assessed the potential unit cost savings to the
permitting agency in terms of resources and dollars that could be attributed to the alternative
regulatory options used to permit de minimis discharges.  This chapter provides conclusions
on the Agency's findings, as  well as recommendations concerning the most effective and
appropriate methods of regulating de minimis discharges.

                 IDENTIFICATION OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES

      Based solely on readily available data systems within the Agency, approximately
1.2 percent of discharges into navigable waters can be identified as potential de minimis
(e.g., not significant) discharges.  The data base used to make this determination was
extremely  limited since most  data gathering and permitting activities have concentrated on
major discharges.   Because the data on most minor facilities are limited, entire groups of
dischargers were screened out from the category of potential de minimis if there was reason
to conclude that a group  of permittees contained at least a reasonable number of dischargers
that could  not be considered de minimis.  The Agency approached the de minimis
classification in this manner to avoid overestimating the number of de minimis discharges.
As a result,  the projected number of potential de minimis discharges may be underestimated;
some facilities that were  categorically excluded could be determined to qualify as de minimis
if it were possible to examine them on a case-by-case basis.  All potential de minimis
facilities should be subject to site-specific criteria (e.g., toxic pollutant discharge,
                                         60

-------
                                                    Conclusions and Recommendations
flow/stream flow volume, water quality factors) to confirm the discharge as de minimis or
non-de minimis and to ensure that water quality is not significantly impacted.

       The best data systems available to the Agency for use in the classification of
de minimis discharges  are not up-to-date and are known to lack information on minor
discharges, which are  the only candidates for potential de minimis classification.  EPA is
currently updating its data systems. In addition, the designation of SIC codes has been
refined by the Agency's Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) for the
probable discharge of  toxic pollutants from an industry, based on assignment of toxicity
indices.  The criteria used by OWEC  to designate a discharge as major or minor have also
been revised and full implementation occurred on July 1,  1991.  The revised criteria will  be
applicable for use by permitting authorities to confirm a facility's discharge as de minimis or
non-de minimis.  This information updating may enable EPA to develop a more accurate and
complete profile of de minimis discharges in the future and to develop  regulatory and
management programs as needed.

                              REGULATORY OPTIONS

       Alternative types of regulations were considered for discharges  that are determined to
be de minimis, which  may reduce the regulatory/administrative burden  on the regulatory
agencies as well as on industry.  Potential regulatory options include general permits
(currently administered under existing regulations), the ten-year permit, over-the-counter
permitting, exclusion by waiver from  the NPDES program, and  a national rule approach.  As
previously mentioned, the national rule approach was not evaluated because of the limited
data base.  Options other than the general permit approach may require statutory changes.
As this report does not review these legal issues, closer legal and technical scrutiny would be
appropriate if further consideration of other options is deemed warranted.
                                         61

-------
                                                    Conclusions and Recommendations
General Permits


       The technical and economic evaluations performed in this study indicate that general
permits are the most effective and appropriate method, from the permitting agency's

perspective, of regulating dt mmimu-type discharges at this time, if a sufficient number of

potential de minimis discharges are confirmed within a specified geographical or political
boundary (Table 5-1).  This conclusion is based on the following information:
           Resource and Cost Savings:  Unit resource and cost savings attributed to the
           permitting of de minimis discharges using general permits, although approximate,
           are shown to be significant. Twenty and 23 percent  unit savings are projected for
           resources and costs, respectively.

           Regulatory Authority:  The regulatory authority for the General Permit Program
           is already in place.  EPA proposed general permit regulations in 1977; they were
           published as final in June 1979.

           Utilization:  The General Permit Program is currently utilized by a number of
           Regions and approved States with noted success in reducing the burden for
           permitting agencies.  The State of Wisconsin has an extensive and effective
           General Permit Program that covers one-half of the facilities or activities  within
           the State.  The majority of these discharges are minor discharges.

           Positive Consensus: A positive consensus was received from EPA Regional and
           State permitting authorities on the applicability of the general permit.
                                          62

-------
                                                                Conclusions and Recommendations
                                                Table 5-1

                                 Summary of Regulatory Option Evaluations
Statutory/
Permitting
Option
Regulatory
Change
                                       Estimated
                                      Unit Savings
    Utilization
Resource      Cost
(Percent)     (Percent)
                 Positive
                 Consensus
                 from
                 Permitting
                 Authorities
General
Permit
No
28NPDES
States plus
16 noo-NPDES
States or
Territories
    20
23
Yes
Ten-Year
Permit
Yes
California
non-NPDES
extended-
life permits
    16
17
Yes
Over-the-
Counter
Permit
Maybe
New Jersey
non-NPDES
permits
    19
22
 No
Exclusion
by Waiver
Yes
California
for land
discharges
(non-NPDES)
    92
94
Yes
                                                    63

-------
                                                    Conclusions and Recommendations


       Concern has been expressed by EPA and State authorities that although the general
permit appears to be an appropriate regulatory option for de minimis discharges,  the need
exists for better communication and coordination in the State approval and permit review
process to help streamline State authority and permit approval.  The Agency has  developed
guidance in the form of manuals, briefing papers, and other documents that describe the uses
and benefits of the General Permit Program; has assisted authorities in the development and
issuance of general permits; and has identified model general permits that have already been
developed.

Ten-Year Permits

       The ten-year permit concept shows estimated unit savings of 16 and 17 percent for
resources and costs, respectively, and a positive consensus among permitting authorities.
However, a statutory change would be required.

Over-the-Counter Permits

       Over-the-counter permits are estimated to have low applicability within the current
NPDES program and did not generally receive positive reactions from permitting authorities.
Unit resource and cost savings are estimated at 19 and 22 percent, respectively.  If this
process is to incorporate a bypass of public notice, a statutory change would be required.

Exclusion by Waiver

       Exclusion by waiver would be a site-specific means of excluding discharges from the
NPDES program.  Permitting authorities felt that there may be  a need for site-specific
exclusion for special types of discharges because they are regulated by other agencies, they

                                         64

-------
                                                    Conclusions and Recommendations


are short-term and intermittent, or they have a unique noneffluent nature. Unit resource and
cost savings were estimated at 92 and 94 percent, respectively.  Exclusion by waiver would
require a statutory change.  Additional study would be needed to determine whether
exclusion by waiver, which would result in the greatest cost savings, could provide an
effective measure of dealing with de minimis discharges under the appropriate site-specific
circumstances, including ensuring insignificant risk to the environment.

National Rule

       A national rule approach would be a means of regulating classes of de minimis
discharges without having the administrative burden of processing permit applications or
issuing permits at the State  level.  The national rule approach may require a  statutory
change.
                  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

       EPA recognizes that there may be point source discharges into navigable waters that,
in terms of volume, concentration, and type of pollutant, are not significant (i.e.,
de minimis).  The general permit is recommended as the most effective and appropriate
method, at this time, of regulating such discharges to reduce the regulatory and
administrative burden on permitting agencies as well as industry.  However, the general
permit will be effective only if the number of potential de minimis discharges within a
specified geographical or political boundary is adequate to make the permit administratively
worthwhile.  Because of the low number of projected de minimis discharges  (893 facilities), a
general permit may not be effective in all cases.  Implementation of individual 5-year permits
based on standard "models" issued by EPA as guidance would be appropriate.

                                          65

-------
                                                     Conclusions and Recommendations



Implementation of other options may also not be cost-effective if there is a low number of

de minimis discharges.


       The following activities should be undertaken if further evaluation of a de minimis

regulatory program is deemed warranted:

       •   EPA should continue to strongly encourage States that currently do not have
           general permit authority to seek such authority.  (Eleven States were granted
           general permit authority between January 1, 1991, and September  30, 1991.
           Eleven States with NPDES authority still do not have general permit authority.)

       •   A strong technical assistance and information transfer effort should be established
           between the Agency and permitting authorities to ensure that a de minimis
           regulatory program would proceed smoothly and expeditiously.

       •   Data systems  and site-specific criteria should be updated and fully  developed to
           assist the permitting authorities in determining which discharges are truly
           de minimis.

       •   The general permit program  should be reviewed to determine whether it can be
           further simplified and streamlined, allowing for flexibility in implementation and
           processing.

       •   EPA should consider conducting further legal and technical evaluations of
           alternative regulatory options.

       •   EPA should consider assessing,  through on-site surveys in watersheds, whether
           de minimis discharges are found in groups  categorically excluded from
           de minimis through the methodology used in this  report.

       •   EPA should consider consulting with potentially affected industrial groups to
           determine the relative cost savings to de minimis  dischargers of the regulatory
           options identified.

       •   To the extent  that the Agency determines that an  option which requires statutory
           change is the  more appropriate approach, such change should be dealt with as
           part of the CWA reauthorization process.


                                           66

-------
                                APPENDICES








Appendix A: Legislative History




Appendix B: Regional Contact Questionnaire



Appendix C: Survey Results - Potential De Minimis Discharges




Appendix D: Survey Results - Potential Regulatory Options



Appendix E: Toxicity Indices for Industrial Subcategories



Appendix F: Classification of Major and Minor Permits



Appendix G: Secondary Facilities - Toxic Discharge




Appendix H: Secondary Facilities - Effluent Guidelines



Appendix I:  Secondary Facilities - Permit Limitations




Appendix J:  Secondary Facilities - Potential De Minimis




Appendix K: State NPDES Program Status



Appendix L: General Permit Information




Appendix M: North Carolina Case  Study



Appendix N: EPA Permit Issuance Workload Model
                                       67

-------
                                    APPENDIX A
                                  Legislative History

       This  appendix provides the legislative history of the De Minimis  Discharge Study
beginning with the first mention in the 1982 public record of the exclusion of "insignificant
discharges" from the requirements of the NPDES permits.

-------
Statement  of  James  C.  Hildrew,  Manager,  Environmental Affairs,
Mobil Oil  Corporation,  on  July  28,  1982,  on behalf  of  the
American  Petroleum  Institute  before  the  Subcommittee on Water
Resource* of  the Committee  on Public Works  and  Transportation,
U.S.  House of  Representatives  [As  printed  in  Committee Print  97-
73,  possible  Amendments  to  the Federal Water  Pollution  Control
Act,  pp.  1013  -  1016,  published  by  U.S. Government Printing
Office,  Washington,  1982].
           IX. >UH.«o«l fr»llat«nt Oi»«k«r«« Clt«l»4ti«« «y«t«« (OOtf)
              (••tl«» 402 of tk« Cl«t» ««««r k«t (CWK ••ttklllk** «k«

           If Off f«r»lt yrofrca.  Oa4«r tkl« pr*tr», «11 p*lit ••«*•••

                   •£ »«llnt4«tl t» ••Tiftkl* «*t«ri •••! *•»• •• WFOtl

                       tk*
                                               I*

           «lth tk«
                                                  411 •( tk«

                                                t» •••••4

           fi»« y««r«.  1b« yr«»«>«< r«»l«i»» t« •*•«!•» 40] «••!• ••«*a4

           tkl« y«rl*« mp

             Th«
                          • • f»«r f«r • flaal y*r«tt t» k«

                     •* *• tkr«« r««r* a«r k* r*««ir*4 t*
                                 A-l

-------
                     •••••••r? «•  •••ply  wltfc



              tkl< •••••rl*. tk« «••*•>, >«€ti*m



402(k)(l)(C) •( tk.* 4«t yr»*i4*« f*t tk*  t«rvl»*tl*B  *r ••41fl-



««tl«> •( •• «vt««t •>0fl yarvlt f«r «•«•••  Th«r«t«r«. I>» •••.



Kb* •*•*•• k«T« •«*«««t* flolkility x» !••*• (ix«4 lit* >«r-




• tt* •( !••• th*m t«» 7««r> 4«r*tl*» «»4  t» r««p*i. »  ftrmlt



• kick »•• t«t««4 (•> • f«ll t««-y««r t«r» if l«41-i.4u«l •••41*
                 tk« ^4&iBl«U»Ci»B'« •ft*rt« t» ;!••• tk«



Cl««m ••tvr tet •• parity wit* »tk«r •mTir*ma«««ftl  •«•!*«••



C*«ir««* k«* »•« »la««4 r«««xlrtl*m« •• tk« 4«r«tl*s  »f




t«r*« «a4«t *«k«( ••vlx»m»«*tal cictvt** »m«k •• tk«



                                         tk« Cl««*  llr M«.



                                            - Aa «44ttl«««l
               lM wttk •••«!•• 402 1» tfc«



             • t* t* ••*lr»



             Tk*m««*4« «f




• t*r« ««««r r«a*ff. k«»« llttl* •( m« •4v«r>« layxt  •• ««t«r
                            A-2

-------
o,»aHt7 7«t ara raf*lata4 aa4ar  tka IVOCS aar»it prafraa.  TDK




la  both tlBia caaiaalat  aa4 e»atl7 4*4 laipoaaa •• BBr«4»op4bl»




4«4 aaaaaaaaanr kartaa  •• both  (tat* aa4 l»A paralt laaaiaf




autkorltlaa ••« Ia«»atr7-   Faea4 »ltk th» ••ei-Beu* t«»k of




                                         4iich*rf««, it 1«




                                          vlll •• «•!• «• «et OB




                                          4*rlBf tk* B««t ••»-
     BurtBf  Ui*  tint  r*ma< »f WTOtn »«r»it I«««BBC«I «»*«r tm«




                ell«tl*B  C«BCr*l  let •( 1*72.  t»A «tt«B»t»4 t«




              «tor»  *«t«r  41«ck«rf«i




            ft ••il»t««t»  ti»* IFOII




•XClBllOB W4< Cb4ll«Bf«4  k7 tk*  *4tlOB4l




CauBCll  (•DOC)  "kl«k  «l4lB«4 that  t»A k*4 B* 4Btbortt7 BJl4«r




th«  act  t»  ••elualai  aB7 p*lat •••x«« 41a«harf*a
taata.-/  Ta«  «»«rt  afr»«4  vltk  BRBC  aa4 aa a ra» It •»* a*w




baliava*  tkat  it kaa littla «r ••  4U«er«tla>> la i t ap*llaatl»a



of th« a>«nlt  »rai»r«».




    •aa«4 •• • a»r»«fc •(  I* atataa. tka  Aaaoalatlaa ft ftata



aa4 iBtaratata *J*t«r WllBtla)* c*au*l  AAalBlatxatara la U»T



1»7» ra>«rx«4  tkat • tvtal  •( !.•!• «aj«r ••« 1C. 0*0 aiavr



•»OU 4ta«aar«a »«imlta ha« kw«a Iaaao4  t» k«tk Ia4«atrlal a*4




• malelyal «iaa-kar»are.—   Tk« ra>*rt  atato4t  *ak«Bt 11 »ar-



•••t »t all p«r«lta  Iaa«a4  ... iBT»l»«4  r«latt*«l7 laalfBlfl>



•••t faallltloa vltk r* a pact t* palat aaaxaa pallatlaa «aa-



••rma.*   IB aplta •( •»»'•  affarta. tkara ara (till tk*aaaB«a
                              A-3

-------
at ptrvlt «ppll c»tlo»«  (•••• •ukaltt«4 ••  lo»t >«o «•  l*7}> t»r

• ••11 •oaroa tb«t h«»« t«t y«t b««i aet*4  o»o« ••< 01 vblch

tb« p«rmlt lnuiif • •tb*riti«« ••*• little  t»t«r««t IB •etiif.

    Th« r*«aurc«i «f  f*««r»«*t *•< laduttry ikeuld •• 41r*et«4

tavard •llalsatlaf B*j«r ••«re«* •( r«llacla» t* th« m«tio«'»

•*t«r* *m4 iheuld lot h« cb*r««« ««d«t tb« «>0tl permit »ro-

«t*a.  By r«4»cl»« the OOU f«r«lt r«<«lr«««>t fro* •!•••*

          e*T«r*«« ta • *«r« r*«llitl< !•»•!, b*th ia4actry *>4

           vlll •
                 t»»t tb* Cl**> ••t«r JUt Bccdi furtbtr ••••4-
       Tb* I»» A4al>litT*t*r sbculd b* fir** ip.clfle
       • atbctltr t« •>••»* ••*lz«»a«»t*lly i»«i ,-nlfi««»t
                       tb« r«^mlr«B«*t* •< tb« MfOIS »«r-
                                           k« •affl«i«atly
                t« 4ll*« k««k
                  ««t •••!•«•• •• v«ll •• ••••-ky-
                                                *h»«14 k«
                              A-4

-------
Testimony  of   New   York  State  Commissioner   of  Environmental
Conservation,   Robert   F.  Flacke,  on  July  29,   1982,  before   the
Subcommittee  on  Water  Resources of  the  Committee  on  Public  Works
and  Transportation.  U.S.  House  of  Representatives  [As  printed  in.
Committee  Print  97  -  73,  Possible  Amendments  to  the Federal  Water
Pollution  Control  Act,   pp.   1506  -   1507,   published  by  u.s.
Government  Printing  Office,   Washington,  1982] .
                 This ••uliant provides for extension of
             years eo no Bare then tan years.

                 •Om paper, tiBe. «nd t eeum.es involved in issuing a WOES delegated
             pezaac an oaraiioereble, both on tha put of tha regulating agency and the
             •euro owner.  Femes fir mjor sources now average thirty pages, four
             Bonth* processing tm. and oast rionsuli of dollars to issue.  Since CtC
             MBS delegated IQOCS •utflorlty in OctaMr of 1975, over 7,000 4iBChar9w*
                    PBHUZB. U» £lnt Voup of pwmiu iaaiad In lata i»75 and
                   by D>A prior to 6Uao>uon bav» o^uxad and ar* now «±i>act to
                 •Q» ori0nal 1*9>I r»fili»«aiiUi for induatry and —•»««•» fxcB the
             anactaane data but tha 19U data MM not.  *• a tMult. flxvt ti*a p*mita
             Man iaauad by OM and/or BBC with Many a^nnng within • fav y«*n of tha
             naxt plataau. i.a. July 1, 19U. vith no l^gal z^oht to includa tha 1913
             raquuwnanu (baddM tte etoronDlopaal ^nx-v^.i^^  tha lade of proaulflatad
             aranrtarda waa panacuit and auds aora hiahly putaXidaad).
                   r M« are at a point where the ao-caj-lad aeccnd round --rafting at
                   BUSX be aocDBplijhBd quickly to provide the peaar^— sufficient
             to Beet the original 19U reovaraeents (now proposed for ax-. -Asian to 19M).
             If pezsucs are issued in a tinaly asiiiai during 1912, tha eviration would be
             in 1917 under tha piaaeni five  IS)-year duration listtt.  TJu., end data Bay or
             aay not ba adequate should another aeandBant allow a further extension. B»
             history of rtaartl Inei and aeandBanta ahowa the five (5)-year t-u» frees* to be
             awkward and inappropriate.

                 Additionally, dischargers of a aincr nature, which are about tO% of tha
             perBittaos, need not be reviewed every five years. "O» unchanging nature of
             tha waste stream and/or tha lack of additional treatment requirement* or
             need sake paosit ieia>al routine. The peout process would be enhanced
             substantially if permit duration were allowed beyond five (S) years.  As
             well, resources saved from peout adnmistration of sunor sources nmlrt be
             raallocatad to hugner priority umuiaa areas, such as inapsction and
             •onitonng of BBJOT faci \iriaa.

                 Lastly, tha low elwaa aa tha riant to sodiry a pamit at any tiee for
                   thereby perually negsrung the need to reisaue on a eore frequent
                                 that the eaxisui period for which
                             to tan y«an, while retaining tha nobt to review eny
                       frequently.
                                             A-5

-------
Statement  of  J.  William Haun,  Chairman  of  Clean  Water  Project,
National  Environmental  Development  Association,  on  July 29,   1982,
before  the  Subcommittee  on  Water  Resources,  Committee  on  Public
Works  and  Transportation,  U.S.  House  of  Representatives  [As
printed  in Committee Print 97  -  73,  Possible  Amendments to
the Federal Water  Pollution  Control  Act,  pp.  1829 -  1830,
published  by  U.S.  Government  Printing Office,  Washington,  1982).
            Ta« Act roquiraa that t NFCIS para.lt auat ba obtalaa* far • Point
            aoure* diacaarga «»«n it too diacbarfa ia a»all e( eoataloa aaly
            •laut* quantltiaa of baniffi pollutant!. IB •beet, avary ao«rca
            diacbarf ina, »atar rao;uiroi « porsit.  Tbi» l« itfcKlcutlr
            41tf«t«nt tb«a «ucb !••• •• tb« Cl««n Air Act volek t*f«l«t»t
            •*ure«« only aba** e«rt«in (11* Halt*.
            Tk«
            ••lir 0* la4B*cry tat
                    Tb« panic pcecaaa say taka MMitka, aa4 la aoax eaa«a,
            yaati.  IB MB? eaaaa tba oara aaaalfela ta tfliaet tao Claan «atar Act affarta of
            fovaraaioat ao4 In4oatry toward elaanlaf up alfaifieaat pollatloa of
            t*a aatlea'a oatart, •itaout uanocaaaary tla«/ avnoy, «ad attaatioa
            ataa* at pocmlta (or laaifaifieaat diacaataaa. KM la ao»ti>» IB
            tart 41ractlan ay aottlnt prioritiaa tor ronoval. kut act* eaa M
            dona to onelof taa
                                         A-6

-------
 If diacaaraaa are 4*. •lni«i». fraaod  on  concentration,  voluatt and
 typo of dlieoarae, and ara laalfnlf leant  to  too  protection of nater
 quality, SM ibould M elvoa tbe  fleilblllty to  •••apt eoorcee or
 catoforlei of eoureaa fraaj IPOU  paralt r«^ulr«»«Bta.

      »«fBtt Lift
On4«r tb« »c*Mnt lav. BMU panic* awat  b*  raa*v*4  «v«ry fl»«
yaar* «««n tkou*b It (c«^««Btlr «•*•• •»'• «*«»  »«« y««' '»' <•>•
final panic to •• laa»»< aatf «p t» tkr*«  r»ara  to iMtall troat»o«t
toehnolo^y.  » fl**-y*u pvrmit Ufa allo*a llttla tlM (or taw
poralt bolder to toat tka of foctlvonaaa  of tbo  traatawnt baforo t*»
pvnilt toMval application procvaa b*?in»  afala.  T: • o*«4 for
ranoval of ponlta ovary fl*« yaara, or  o*«n  aero  :r%a^i«ntly la many
laatancoa, aub}oeta SM and tb« ctata afaftelaa  to  >.sataatlal
•dainlatratlro burdoaa oap«clally vbon eoaaldorlnf -o« voluao of
p*ratta la t»a ayataa.
Tb»c« la a ir««l*t caaaaMna ttet tb« mtmlmim allovabla  Ufa of •
•rou panlt a>»«id •• axtaa4*d fro* flvv  to  taa  yaara.   A 1MO
•oaaa latoiaalttx a* O**ral«kt a«d tovla* (•pott tltla4
*IaVlo*aat«tl»a of tk* ^adataA Bator fvllatlaai Control *et* atataa
t»*t l*aa;t*a«la« tha p«rlo4 for *«lea a  paralt raavalaa valid vlll
•provlda tro«t«r at*»Ulcy a«4 ««r
                                 A-7

-------
H 5358                      CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE                 Junt 6, 1984
                                 REPORT  OP  COMMITTEES  ON
                                  PUBLIC  BILLS  AND  RESOLU-
                                  TIONS

                                  Under clauM 2 of rult frrt report!
                                 of eommltuw wtrt 4*Uvtr*d to UM
                                 Gterti for prtnUnc tad reference to UM
                                 proper r»l«nrtar. M follows:


                                  Mr.  BOWAJUfc CnMMHtu  oa  FubUc
                                 Warn Md TraiMportitinn HJL JM1 A Mil
                                 M M»«B< to* ftaitml W«ur PeUutloo Coo-
                                 V*l Act I* praMdt (or UM rawvml of U»
                                 •witty at UM NsUon't *»t«t». tod for otlMr
                                 pBT9Q"K ^^tA  AA AflMOflBCAt (HAOL NO-
                                 M-4TT). Rtfcrrvd to  UM Oxnmlttet of UM
                                 Wbote BOUM ee UM SUM of UM Cntoo.
                                                  A-8

-------
98TH CONGRESS
   2o SESSION
          Union Calendar  No. 480
H. R. 3282
                     [Report No. 98-827]
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for the renewal of
         the quality of the Nation'i waters, tad for other purposes.
        IN THE HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES

                         JUNB IS. 1983
 Mr. How AID introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
                 on Public Works and Transportation

                      SEPTEMBEB 14. 1983
Additional sponsors: Mr. UDALL. Mr.- OBEBSTAB. Mr. JFFTOBDS. Mrs.  SCHJTEI-
    DEB. Mr. TOWNS. Mr. LANTOS, Mr. BONIOB of Michigan, Mr. OUABIKI. Mr.
    OTTINOEB. Mr. RODINO,  Mr.  MABKXT, Mr. FAUNTBOT. Mr. TALLON. Mr.
    FBA.VK, Mr. SUNIA. Mr. MITCHELL, Ms.  MnnJLSia. Mr. SEIBEBLTNO. Mr.
    FLOBIO. Mr. EVANS of Dlinoii, Mr. D'AMOUBS, Mr. CBOCKZTT. Mr. CLAT,
    Mr. CONTEBS, Mr.  VENTO, Mr. RATCHTOBD, Mr. BAJNES. Mr. COCOKUN,
    Mr. STOKZB, Mr. DDCON, Ms. KATTUB, Mr. WEISS, Mr. JOKES of Oklaho-
    ma, Mr.  EotABT, Mr. OE Lcoo, Mr. LEHMAN of  Florida. Mr. SCBXUBB,
    Mr. MINISH, Mr. BEILBNSON, Mr.  MOBBIBON of Connecticut. Mr. OEJDBN-
    SON. Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. LONG of Maryland, Mr. FAZIO. Mr. FOBSTTHB.
    Mr. TOBBICELLI, Mr. CABPEB, and Mr. TATBS

                       FBBBUABT 2. 1984
Additional sponson: Mr. FISH. Mr. LOWBT of Washington. Mr.  HUOHBS, Mr.
    LcnxB of  California. Mrs. SCHBOEDBB,  Mr. DELLUMS, Mn. BOXEB, Mr.
    WEAVES, Mr.  Md>AOE, Mr. EDOAB, Mn.  BUTTON of  California, Mr.
    NBAL, Mr.  BATES, Mr. KOLTBB, Mr. MBAZBK, Mr. WHEAT, Mr. HOTBB,
    Mn. KENNELLT, Mr. Bosco, Mr. WEBEB, Mr. SHANNON,  Mr. CLABKZ,
    Mr.  KOBTMATEB.  Mr. MAVBOULBS, Mr. MOAXLET,  Mr. SMITH of  New
    Jener. Mr. BEBMAN. Mr. HABJON, Mr.  WIDEN. Mr. OWENS, Mr. SABO,
                           A-9

-------
                            70
 5    STUDY OF REGULATION OF DE MINIM1S DISCHARGES



 6       SEC. 35.  The Administrator of the Environmental Pro-



 1  tection Agency shall study the feasibility and desirability of



 8  eliminating the regulation of discharges of pollutants into the



 9  navigable waters in amounts which,  in terms of volume, con-



10  centration, and type of pollutant,  are not significant.  The Ad-



11  miniatratOT shall  submit a report of such st- dy along with



12  recommendations  to the Committee  on Pub'ic Works and



13  Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Com-



14  mittee on Environment and Public  Works of the Senate not



15  later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act.
              KM
                               A-10

-------
Testimony  of  New  York   State  Commissioner  of  Environmental
Conservation,  Henry G.  Williams,  on  September  20,   1983,   before
the  Committee  on  Public  Works  and  Transportation,  U.S.  House  of
Representatives  [As  printed  in  Committee Print  98  -  33,  Possible
Amendments  to  the  Federal Water  Pollution  Control  Act,   p.   369,
published  by U.S.  Government  Printing Office,  Washington,  1984).
                             «. tcrom raMTT DUBATION

            Ten-year pernuu would gm refulatiac afracie* the ability to concentrate their
           reenimei oo permit oaapliaaot rather than permit adminietraoon. Obvwu* advaa-
           tafe« to UM pcrmiOM art • rvductioe m paperwork aad • more cubic two* OB
           wbjcb to ouik* hininMi d«nnooi
            la New York, ninety percent of the point Murce pollution load cocnei fron MB
           percent of tix «oureea Ten-year permitt will allow ui to oooeentrate our reaoureai
           oe the more nfm/icaAt djaeharvw We «• aJwayi bad. and thould continue to h»v«,
           the authority to revue permit* pnor to their ezptratioo to update permit require*
           menu or ichedulai It ti reconunended that the duration of NPDES permiu be «•
           tended from ftvr to DO more than ten yean.
                                       A-ll

-------
Statement  of  0.  G.  Simpson,  Atlantic  Richfield  Company,  Dallas,
Texas,  on  October  24,  1983,  before  the Committee  on  Public Works
and Transportation,  U.S.  House  of  Representatives  (As  printed  in
Committee'print  98  - 33, Possible  Amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution  Control  Act,  p.   3604,  published  by  U.S.  Government
Printing Office,  Washington,  1984).
               7.  AutWUt M «tnt«U tiQ»»t10M,

                  Un Mk« tM Clo*n Mr Act «M olMf pollution control stttuUl.
                  tM C!«*i *«ttf Act MtM M *!lo«tnct In Us poratt rtQulroBontf
                  for w«ll point touret attcMr9*ri of con*tnt1an«l pollutants.
                  TMj l«ct of co««1o*rtt1oii t«pOMt ann«cttt*r]r control  r«qwlrt-
                  ••ntt on tn»tgn E»A to tst«6l<*n
                  at alnlalt cltts** of point sonrc* tltcnvgtrt of convention*)
                  •Ollut«itf. A tt «MI«H «1tcMrf(r «0«I<1 0* r»>i1ro«  to f 1 1« *
                  roqmtt for noxtlon 4oa «t*r«*r1«u OocuMntttlon r«Ut1«o to
                  UN proootM altourf* »1Ui EPA or tin U*t*. tt tM C4M ««r M;
                  1f tM p*m1tt1nt tutMr1t]r took no *Ct1on on tM roqiMst •«tAln
                  X «*r». tM •MBVtto* «o«l« M a*»r«««« *MtoMt1c*lly.
                                        A-12

-------
Statement  of  Kenneth  E.  Blower,  Manager  of  Environmental  Affairs,
The  Standard  Oil  Company  of  Ohio,   representing  The  American
Petroleum  Institute  as  Chairman,  API Water  Program Committee,  on
November  10,  1983,   before  the  Committee  on  Public  Works  and
Transportation,   U.S.   House  of  Representatives  [As  printed  in
Committee  Print  98 -  33,  Possible  Amendments to the Federal  Water
Pollution  Control  Act,  pp.   2491  -  2493,   published   by  U.S.
Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  1984].
               API recommends tf.at Section 402 ( S)(1><•> of the Clean Mater
            Act be amended to read •• follow* (changes art underscored)!

                    •(•) except  a* provided under paragraph (Cl  of thi*  *ub-
               •ection, are tor  fixed tent* not exceeding ten year*, unless
               a permit includes a waiver or modification of any otherwise
               applicable requirement pursuant to Sections 301 ; e I , (q ) ,  Ih)
               and I ml of this Act,  in which case such permit shall be for a
               fixed term not exceeding five years;*.

            Where a facility is granted an economic of  water quality based
            waiver under the act, the permit lifetime  would still be United
            to five year*.   However,  other minor modification* would not
            prevent a facility fro* obtaining a ten year permit.

               The amendment  recommended by API would  allow a 10-year permit
            ter* that correct* the proolens encountered with the  five-year
            tent.   The existing five-year •aii«u* lifeepan for NPDCS perniti
            hat i«po»ed unnececaary burdens and costs  on industry, EPA and
            the states alike.  It «ay take aa long as  a year for  i final
           •permit to be issued.  Up  to three years nay be required to
           Install treatment  technology n«e«ssary to conply «i-.- permit
           conditions.  This  scenario leave* little time to oe:..n data  on
           Affluents before the permit has to be renewed.

               It has been  estimated chat •Bout (5,000 permit* < *ve be«n
            issued since  lt?l.1  EPA  and the states are now fac; 13 an
           increasing backlog'of permits which have expired and  must be  re~
           dssued.  This problem could be alleviated  in the future by amend-
            ing the act to provide permit authorities  the flexibility to
            i**ue  permit* for  tens up to 10 years.

               Moreover, the  10-year lifetime -iould make the NP3£S permit
            program more  consistent with permit programs enforcing other
            environmental law*.  Congress has not placed restrictions on  the
           duration of permit terms  under the Resource Conservation and
            Recovery Act  and the Clean Air Act.

               1.   Excluding  Insignificant Discharge*

               S.  411's  Section 13 recognise* the need to exempt from the
            KP3CS  permit  program discharges that have lit:le or no adverse
            .-pact an warer  quality.   The provisian  exempts discharge* of
            j;Dn«w«t«r runoff  from nirung operations and oil  or g<*
           • >:;lora;:on,  praduction,  prscessinj,  or  treatment  opermons  t.lat
           •re not  contaminated with process  wastes, overbjrden, raw
               S»,.*:/ *e-u-. -«:r»: = r, Dr. John Heriandei, Jr.,  V. S.  Eiv;ran-
               i«rt«l Protectisr. Ager.cy, Te«tii»ony before trie  Suscow-.i t;ee
               on  Environmental Pollution,  Senate Committee on Cn -irsnment
               • -id Public  Warxs, February 5, 19S2.
                                          A-13

-------
  material*,  toxic  pollutant*,  hasardou* *u3«tance* In exce** of
  reportaole  quantities,  or oil  or  grease  (ran  the  Clean t«ater
  Act'*  requirement to obtain an MPDCS permit.

      However,  the  proposed language  (ail*  to explain what consti-
  tute*  'contaminated  By  oil or  grease.*  API recommend* tnat line
  I'  of  Section 11  ae  changed to read *or  oil or  great* In execs*
  of  reportaole quantities.*  TM*  1* the  phraaing  ueed to define
  'contamination by hasardou* substances."

      In addition to the  *pecific exemption  provided  By Section 13
  of  S.4J1. Congre** *nould consider  amending the act to provide
  autnonty for EPA to exempt other environmentally insignificant
  discharge*  from the  NPDCS permit  program.  That I*,  CPA mould Be
  allowed  '. »'  to exempt appropriate discharges  from categories of
  point  source* and (3) to  exempt specific point  source discharges
  on  a case*9y-case Basis.

      A  Clean  water Act amendment txcluding  insignificant
  discharges  from the  spots permit  program vill help  address  *
  proolem  tnat  CPA.  state agencies  and  industry have  all
  acknowledged.   Thousand*  of incignifleant  discharge*  are
  currently regulated  under the  NPOtS p«mt program.   raced  with
  the  enormous  tax of  renewing  permit*  for  major point source*.
  pertit  issuing  authorities probaaly will not  b« able  to  act on
  mo*t minor discharge  permit application* during the  next several
  years.

      During  the  first  round of  NPDCS per-*it Issuance*  under  the
  Federal  Water  Pollution Control Act of I***}.  CPA  attempted  to
  exclude  many  itormwater ducnarge*  containing Insignificant
  quantitie* of  pollutant*  fro*  NPDCS permit requirement*.  TM*
  exclusion was  cnallcnged  By the natural «e*ource* Dmfense Council
  INRDC) which  claimed  tnat CPA  had no authority  under  the  ect to
  exclude  any point  source  discharges of pollutant*.2   The  court
  agreed with MKDC.   and. a* a r**ult.  CPA now believe*  that It ha*
  little or no  discretion in its  application of the permit  program.
  tased  on a aurvey of  If ttate*, the  Aa*o
-------
Statement  of  J.   William  Haun,  Vice  President,  General  Mills
Corporation,   as  Chairman,  Clean  Water  Project,  National
Environmental  Development  Association,  on  November 10, 1983,
before  the  Committee  on  Public  Works  and  Transportation,   U.S.
House  of  Representatives   [As printed in  Committee  Print  98  - 33,
Possible  Amendments  to  the  Federal  Water   Pollution  Control  Act,
pp.  2546  -  2547,  published  by  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,
Washington, 1984] .
            D« ";-iimtt Emaptions
                Tr\« wa^ocity of titan Mattr Act ptreits «c« foe amor

            discf>ar9tt.  Literally thousand* of KV3CS  caall-toure* discharft

            ptrait applications, tout written as Ian;  190 at 1»72, art awaiting

            action.




                Xn illustration ot Ux proeltn n an  actual cast whtrt a

            company's drinking  fountain, Mcaust of its location, drains its

            overflow in'.o a water body. That drimvng fountain rtquirts an

            MFDCS permit, and uwrt is BO provision allowtn? it -.0 bt t«t«pttd.




                TD« OX Administrator abould M allowed to «xtr-rt d« •intai.s

            point sourct dischar9ts and cKaiinaltd storsntatar runoff containing

            dt "iniait quantlttts ot pollutants fro* tnt KTOTS p«rs>U

            proevdurt.  D»tarmin*tio*i of •lifibillty for axvaption should b«

            bastd on conctntratlon, voliaM and cypt of dlsehar9«.


                Tht Stnatt Coaaiitt««  has,  in part,  rtcofnittd  this pom: and

            nai included  in 1.431 ••••ptions for Chann«ltd storavattr runoff

            which contains no pollutants for oil, fas, and mining industrits.

            •owtvtr, v« s»t no rtason  to li»it this  ••••ytiofi to ctrtain

            industrits or typ«s  of discharge.  All discharots which contain

            llttlt or no pollutants should  bt tli«iblt for t»«sption.
                                    A-15

-------
                HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
         WATER QUALITY RENEWAL ACT OF 1984
    6. 1984 —CommifUri to th« ComouttM of th« Whoto HOUM on th« Suu of Uw
                  Uaioa tad ordarad to b« pnat«d
     Mr. HOWAJU), from the Committee on Public Works and
           Transportation, submitted the following


                       REPORT

                       together with

         ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

                    (To accompany H.R. 3282]

                          of th« Conirwionml Budf«t OiT\c»)
  The Committee on Public Works and Transportai.on, to whom
•as referred the bill (H.R. 3282) to amend the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act to provide for the renewal of the  mality of the
Nation's waters, and for other purposes, having considered the
*ame.  report favorably thereon  with  an amendment and recom-
mend that the bill as amended do pass.
  The amendment strikes out all after the enacting  clause of the
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the re-
ported bill.
                              45

                          SCCT1ON 35

  This section  directs the Administrator to  study  the  feasibility
 and desirability of eliminating the regulation of discharges of pol-
 lutants into the navigable waters in amounts which, in terms  of
 volume, concentration, and type of pollutant, are not significant. A
 report,  with  recommendations, is to  be submitted to the House
 Committee on  Public  Works and Transportation and the  Senate
 Committee on Environment and  Public Works within one year of
 the date of enactment of H.R. 3282.
                              A-16

-------
           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R
Jinn 13. 1984 — Referred to tb« HOUM r*l«rx
-------
98TH CONGRESS
   2o SESSION
H. R.  5903
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for the renewal of
         the quality of the Nation's waters, and for other purposes.
       Ds  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES
                            20. 19S4
Mr OBERSTAB (for himself.  Mr  MAVROVLES. Mr. WON PAT. Mr. LEVINT  of
    California. Mr STOKES.  Mr  MITCHELL. Mr.  SHANNON. Mr. JEFFOIDS. Mr
    SIXORSKI. Ms KAPTUI. Mr COUGHLIN, Mr FACNTBOY, Mr  ASPIN. Mr.
    BATES.  Mr  SPEATT.  Mr  CABPEB.  Mr.  LOWRY of  Washington. Mr
    KILDEE. Mr  GEEKN, Mr BARNES. Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. MOR-
    RISON of Connecticut. Mr. ACKEBMAN. Mr. FRANK. Mr. HAMILTON. Mr.
    MINETA. Mr. BONER of Tennessee. Mr WEAVER. Mr. DUBBIN, Mr.  FAS-
    CELL, Mr. DASCHLE, and  Mr.  BOEHLEBTI introduced the following bill:
    which wu referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation
                      A  BILL
To amend the Federal Water Pollution  Control Act  to provide
    for  the renewal of the quality of the  Nation's waters,  and
    for  other purposes.

  1       Be it enacted by the Senate and  House of Representa-

  2  lives of the United States of America in Congress  assembled,
  3                       SHORT TITLE

  4       SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Water Qual-

  5  itv  Renewal  Act of 1984".
                              A-18

-------
                           66
 3     STUDY OF REGULATION OF DE MINI-MIS DISCHARGES
 4      SEC. 35. The Administrator of the Environmental .Pro-
 5  tection Aeencv  shall studv the feasibility and desirabilitv of
             o   *           *             *               •
 6  eliminating the regulation of discharges of pollutants into the
 7  navigable waters in amounts which,  in terms of volume, con-
 8  centration, and type of pollutant, are not significant. The Ad-
 9  ministrator shall submit a  report  of such  study  along with
10  recommendations  to the  Committee on Public Works and
11  Transportation  of  the  House of Representatives and  the
12  Committee on Environment and Public Work; of the Senate
13  not later than  one year after the date of  enactment of this
14  Act.

    HR SM3 IH
                            A-19

-------
Junt 12, 1984                  CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE                        H 6351


                                              AMENDMENTS
                                      Under eUuae • or rule XXIII. pro-
                                    powd amendment! were submitted aj
                                                  H-R.JMJ
                                         By Mr HOC
                                      Amendment m UM nature of • fuhtutut*.
                                    — •otk* out til after the enacunc elauoe
                                    and mien m U«u thereof the (oUovutr
                                                 MOST TRU
                                      tenov 1. Thtt Act ••? b« dud M the
                                                        Act ol 1M4".
 H 6360                        CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE                 June 22,
                                       *TTT»T or ncuutnon or M
                                     SK. U. The Admttlitrmwr of the Xnvi-
                                    renaenui ProMedoc Afeacy *lt*ll ttudy
                                    the f«MJbUltT utd deatrtbUitr of «ii~i»««'-
                                    I&C the reruJMlon of dtoehartea of poUut-
                                    •au Into the oavtcmbie ••ten la tmouau
                                    vteieh. ta lerae  of volume. oaneeotimUoo,
                                    •ad tjrpe of poUuuat. »r« not exnifleeat.
                                    The *<1minMtr»or ihtll futa&u a repon of
                                    m*+t* tn>^y ftiooc wtife rn*%***Tn^fw<>t IOTU to
                                    the Committee oa Pablie Work* Mid TrtM-
                                    pon*Uoa of the  Bouee of RipmeauaToi
                                    and the rnonminee  OB Krrtroan«ni aod
                                    PubUe Work* of  UM leneM not later than
                                    oae year after the date of eaacnaent of Uue
                                    Act.
                                                   A-20

-------
                               CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
                                                            June ft, 1M4
                  Mr. ftOK (during the reading).  Mr.
                 Chairman. I Mk unanimous consent
                 that the amendment In th« nature  of a
                 substitute  be considered u  read  tad
                 printed In the Raroao.
                  The CHAIRMAN. It there objection
                 to the request of the gentleman from
                 New Jersey?
                  There was no objection.
                  (Mr. ROC asked and was flven  per-
                 mission to revise and  extend  his re-
                 marks.)
                  (By  unanimous  consent.  Mr.  Rot
                 was allowed to proceed for 5 additional
                 mum tea.)
                  Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman.  wul
                 the gentleman yield?
                  Mr. RPC. I yield to  the gentleman
                 from New Jersey.
                  Mr. HOWARD. I thank the  gentle-
                 man for yielding.
                  Mr. Chairman.  I  just wish to take
                 this time to congratulate the  gentle-
                 man in the well, the gentleman from
                 New Jersey (Mr. Rot), the gentleman
                 from Minnesota (Mr. STABcmuro). the
                 ranking minority member on the Sub-
                 committee on Water Resources, all the
                 members  of the Public Works  and
                 Transportation Committee, and to  a
                 very great degree the majority and mi-
                 nority  tualis  of  this  subcommittee.
                 which have  worked so  long and so
                 hard to present  ""• the finest clean
                 water bill ever presented to the Con-
                 gress.  I congratulate  them  on their
                 work and  effort, and  I ask for  the
                 overwhelming support   of  our   col-
                 leagues on this vital measure.
                  Mr. ROE.  Mr.  Chairman. I thank
                 the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
                 HowAftD) for bis comment*, and L  too.
                 want to extend my appreciation to
                 him and to the gentleman from Ken-
                 tucky  (Mr.  SMTDCX). the ranking  mi-
                 nority member of the committee,  and
                 the  gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
                 STAMCBJUTD].  the  ranking  minority
                 member of the subcommittee,  who Is
                 my counterpart on  the Subcommittee
                 on  Water  Resource*.  I also want to
                 particularly singJe out  the gentleman
                 from   Pennsylvania   (Mr.   EMASJ
                 amongst oar other Members who have
                      done such a apWortkl job on this legis-
                      lation, and aarucuauly  the staff  for
                      the outstanding job and the work that
                      they have conducted on this most Im-
                      portant Water Quality Renewal Act of
                      1M4.
                        Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an
                      amendment in the nature of a substi-
                      tute to the bill H-R.  32*2. the  Water
                      Quality Renewal Act  of 1M4.  which
                      was  reported by  our committee  on
                      June 6. 1994. This amendment Is de-
                      signed to address  a number of prob-
                      lems which arose after the bill was re-
                      ported. The amendment was published
                      In the CoMaussioMAL RSCOUD for June
                      U for the  information of the  Mem-
                      bers. A detailed analysis of the amend-
                      ment follows:
                            •• i IOH-TT
                                  ra IUTOM or Ai
                                        :os> ABALTSIS
                                       tbat uut act nay to
                                     Quality lUntval Act el
June ft, 1984
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
                                                                                                  H6885
                                     This eeeuoa directs UM AdnmMntor to
                                   study  tbe  feasibility  sod  msiraixiity  sf
                                   •luainallns Uw regulation of darhtrcw of
                                   paUuuau  Into  tbe  navigable watm  tn
                                   •BOUIMI which, to tsrsM of volume. eoBotn-
                                   cmioo. sad type of pollutant, art not ste-
                                   BUuaov A laporv with rwaomnttodatMna. to
                                   U> be submitted to tbt Mouse CommtttM «a
                                   Public Worts sad Traosooruuea sad tbe
                                   Seaate CoauUtue  ea tovirsomeat aad
                                   PttbUe Works wiuun oar year at Uw date of
                                           lrfH.II.m3.
                                                       A-21

-------
as. im
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
H7017
                                                                   The  question  was taken,  and the
                                                                 Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
                                                                 peared to have It.
                                                                   Mr. FRENZEL Mr Speaker. I object
                                                                 to  the  vote  on the  ground that  »
                                                                 quorum Is not present and make trie
                                                                 point of order that t quorum is not
                                                                 present
                                                                   The SPEAKER. Evidently t quorum
                                                                 U not present.
                                                                   The  Sergeant  *t Arms  will notify
                                                                 absent  Member*.
                                                                   The  vote was taken by  electronic
                                                                 device, and there were—yeis 405. nays
                                                                 11.  not voting 17. as foUoas
                                                                             [RoU No 1671
                                                                              TEAS—MS
                                                                            'D*ru        a*'.
                                                                            *»l»O»n»    Hr'ncr
                                                                            Dtllumi      UerVri
                                                                 Albwi*      D»mc«       Hrnri
                                                                 AMuMff    DrWm*      Hxniovrr
                                                                 AfMmefi     DtcitMoe     Bmr
                                                                 AMim'NC'  DKU        K:J
                                                                 AlKhTWl'TT  DnctU       Hoi:
                                                                 Ann unco     DorvntUj     Bociu-a
                                                                 Aathont      Dorcu
                                                                 APDM«*U
                                                                 Airr.fr
                                                                 AMI in
                                                                 attfttn
      The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The
     question Is on the amendment In the
     nature of a substitute offered by the
     gentleman  from  New  Jersey  (Mr
     Roil, as amended.
      The amendment tn the nature of  »
     substitute, as amended, was agreed to
      The  CHAIRMAN  pro   tempore
     Under the rule, the Commit** rises.

                  C 1715
      Accordingly, the Committee  rose.
     and the Speaker having resumed the
     chair. Mr. KA^BH.  Chairman pro tern-
     pare ot the Committee of the Whole
     House on the State of the  Union, re-
     ported  that  that  Committee, having
     had under consideration the bill 
-------
H 7018                       CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE                JUJM St,
             NATS- 1 1
••TUMI      Crmat. PfcflJ*
Ch«MT      Luncrre
Cnm DuM)
          HOT VOTIKO-17
AuCoM
DUoo
           Lt«M 
-------
2i.  19S4                CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —SENATE                       S 9077
                               MESSAGES PROM THX HOUSE
                               At 11; !• ajn.. a measat* from the
                             House of Representative*. delivered by
                             Mr. Berry, ont of Its mdtnc clerks.
                                  nced tnat the HOUM has
                             UM following bill*, to whlcb it rtqucsu
                             UM eoneurrtnet of Uw •*•"**•
                                   >MX Aa M* to immrl Urn Padml
                                  poUutioe Cootrol Act to prvnat for
                             UM rnwvml of UM quAUty of UM Ntuoa'i
                                  . and for other i
                                MEASURES PLACED ON THX
                                        CALENDAR

                               The followtac  bllli were  read  UM
                             flnt knd Mcond  um« by unanimous
                             oooMnt. and placed on the calendar.
                               •JL im. AB »et to UMDd UM P*d*r«l
                             Water RoUuOoo Control Act to prondt for
                             UM roarvml of UM «u»Uty of tbe Nation's
                             watcrv aad for other |
                                              A-24

-------
99TH CONGRESS
  IST SESSION
H.R.8
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for the renewal of
        the quality of the Nation's waters, and for other purposes.
       IN THE  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                      JA.VUARY 3. 1985
Mr. HOWARD (for himself, Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. ROE, Mr. SKTDEB,  and Mr.
   STANGELAND) introduced  the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
   mittee on Public Works and Transportation
                    A  BILL
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide
    for the renewal of the quality of the Nation's waters, and
    for other purposes.
 1      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
 2  fives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 3                      SHORT TITLE
 4      SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Water Qual-
 5  itv Renewal Act of 1985".
                           A-25

-------
19     STUDY OF REGULATION OF DE MIN1MIS DISCHARGES
20       SEC. 36.  The Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
21  tection Agency shall study the feasibility and desirability of
22  eliminating the regulation of discharges of pollutants into the
23  navigable waters in amounts which,  in terms of volume, con-
24  centration, and type of pollutant, are not significant. The Ad-
25  ministrator shall submit a report  of such  study  along with
26  recommendations  to the  Committee on Public Works and
 1  Transportation  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and the
 2  Committee on  Environment and Public Worxs of the Senate
 3  not later than  one year after the  date of enactment of this
 4  Act.
                           A-2b

-------
99TH CONGRESS
  IST SESSION
H.  R.  1509
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for the renewal of
        the quality of the Nation's waters, and for other purposes.
       IN THE  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                      MABCH 7, 1985
Mr. OBEESTAJ (for himself. Mr. EDO AS, Mr. MOODY, aod Mr. MDTCTA) intro-
   duced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on Public
   Works and Transportation
                    A  BILL
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide
    for the renewal of the quality of the Nation's  waters,  and
    for other purposes.

 1      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
 2  tives of the United States of America in  Congress assembled,
 3                      SHORT TITLE
 4      SECTION 1. This Act may be cited  as the "Water Qual-
 5  ity Renewal Act of 1985".
                           A-27

-------
                            68
19     STUDY OF REGULATION OF DE MIXIMIS DISCHARGES
20      SEC. 36. The Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
21  tecrion Agency  shall  study  the feasibility and desirability of
22  eliminating the regulation of discharges of pollutants into  the
23  navigable waters in amounts which, in terms of volume, con-
24  centration, and type of pollutant, are not significant. The Ad-
25  ministrator shall submit a  report  of  such  study  along with
-6  recommendations  to  th?  Committee  on Public Works and
                            69
 1  Transportation  of  the  House  of Representatives and  the
 2  Committee on Environment and Public Works of the  Senate
 3  not later than  one year after the date of enactment  of  this
 4  Act.
                              A-28

-------
Testimony  by  J.  Leonard  Ledbetter,  Commissioner,  Department  of
Natural Resources, State of  Georgia, appearing in  his capacity  as
Vice  President,  Association  of  State  and  Interstate  Water
Pollution  Control Administrators,  on April 30, 1985, before the
Subcommittee  on  Water  Resources,  Committee  on  Public  Works and
Transportation,  U.S.  House   of Representatives  [As printed  in
Committee  Print  99  - 9,  Possible Amendments  to  the  Federal Water
Pollution  Control  Act, p.   484,  published  by  U.S. Government
Printing Office,  Washington,  1985J.
             IV. TITLJ IV

             Section 402 - (NPDIS Permit Program)

                This Section sbould be revised to allow partial assumption
             by State* of to* NPDCS program pursuant to joint Federal/State
             agreements.   In addition, it in  essential tbat  tbe let  be
             amended to  provide  for tbe  Issuance  of  IPDIS permits up  to
             tea years,   provided  flexibility Is Maintained  to  re-open
             a  persut for good cause.  Tbe States support re-opening tbe
             permits to  include promulgated  effluent limitations  or  to
             address violation of eater quality standard*.   In east States.
             seventy-five percent • of tbe  permits are  for  relatively  small
             discbarger*  witb  noa-toxlc  eastevater*  aad ten  year permits
             •ould  enable tbe States to  spend e»re  time developing and
             re-opening tbe  permits  tor major sovrces.
                                   A-29

-------
U6043
                     CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
    July U. 1385
      year tJiis House adopted
legislation.  H-R. J3M  by  a
mania. Unfortunately the other body
     tm^bl*  U act OB this ladalation
      to  adjournment  and Another
year  rntttil without Conereas  reau-
thorlzlac the Clean Water Act. H.R. ft
ta. I believe. an even better bin and de-
serves our strong support.  Aceordlruv
ly.  I net* my  colleagues to support
tliis measure Inclusive of *^** commit-
tee ^QKQdiDOOi&k SO  that We CSA COO*
UDIM our effort* to make our Nation'*
waters  "swimmable  and  flihiMff"
within the next 10 yean.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the ^m»nAmmt%iM offered by the ffm-
tleman   from   New   Jersey   tMr.
Hov&xaL
  The amendments mere acreetf to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the
rule, the subsUtute ««mmitA«+ smend-
meat recommended by the Committee
on  Public ^7orks and Transportation
now printed in the reported bill at
modified by the -m«n««m»ntj offered
by  the  f»«M»m«r»  tntn Hew Jersey
fMr. Ho«AJt»I shall be oonsidered at
                 for *^^  purpose of
                   fr^  5^&lnute rule
by sections, and each section shall be
considered  as  having  been read.  It
shall also be In order  to consider an
amendment printed In  the rn»e»g«.
SIOBAI. Rccou of July 16. L98S. by and
If offered by Repraentattre Joins of
North Carolina,  which shall be consid-
ered as hartnc been read.
  The Clerk wfll designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 it as follow*:
ucaafi L.
               no*
                    TAMLI or eomnm
                    n maui
     SMMTT Trrix—
                                         It. Gre*Xi 40 St*M for n
                                 irms ptrmU*.
                              IT. JvtftU.
H60S4
                                                                     u mor onuauno*
                                                                                                  ois-
                                                                    'eV *rv»r.— TTu -4dm»nut tutor lAall ifudy
                                                                  UM /tanbUUy wU 4c*tm*t/Uy a/ cttmtnat-
                                                                  (•« (to rtvMlAlton «/ dueAarpej  o/ poUul-
                                                                  •ma into (A« n«ct0«»t« loatrri in amovnu
                                                                        in temu  o/ ooliim«. concentration.
                                                                      (jrM «/ poUiUant. «r* iu)t nravncant.
                                                                      Kfrotrr.—Hat Uter Ulan on« year a/trr
                                                                         of CM «MC(m«nt o/ £Au 4ct (A« At-
                                                                  minittr+tor MaU n^mU c report on tfu r»-
                                                                       */ neft ttiUv ttont wUA ncommtnd*-
                                                                             ommUiM «ius«rt*(lo« Of tto WOUM o/ JUprtMnta-
                                                                   MM etUI  UU CoMmUtM  o* furtroniamt
                                                                            V»HU ft/ UU S€H*U.
                              U. Umitmtlou •« ?******.
                            M AJtfHoamft of r*f€»AL Weft*
                           •BO* Come* Acr.—ltant M otAtrmti «x-
     UM* e/ nnafMfi em«m4-  yrwdir s*oc«4*e\ va<«««cr 1» iki* ^c( a*
•en ti <• /idiial Sf«iar PoOu-  tmmimnU or usisJ U upnttil U tamu
(ion CteUral Act: 4tfl»lOo» o/  o/ •« e*M*4m«** to, or rvytal o/, e ttetion.
                           or oUnr yrortfion.  OM f^trvnct itafl to
                                    to to m«<« !• e wefto* or otfMr
          for

                                                        tit  Act
                                                  ;iu UU 44mt«-
                                        fmvUowiw«U4
      Co«t»o* e/ MOWSOMU 
           I to*
    1 LctofwttDratk
          tAew«elMn
            U«U «• rnoiMiaf
 5«c 1
 5«c It Afrvrmmi om ttiftott coitr rrvmtat
    Jl Orwal aoiUUioiur MMT
                            Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman. I ask
                           unanimous  eonaent  that  the remain-
                           der  of  the  committee amendment in
                           the  nature  of a substitute be printed
                           in the Rsooan aad open to amendment
                           at any point.
                            The CHAIRMAN.  la there objection
                           to the request of the tenUeman from
                           New Jersey?
                            There was no objeetloo.
                            The uxt of the remainder of  the
                           MIL bednnini with section 2. to as fol-
                           lows:
                                                        A-30

-------
Excerpt  from  House  Report  99  - 189,  page  49,  on  The  Water Quality
Act  of  1985,   concerning  the  study  of  regulation  of  de  minimis
discharges.
             SECTION 43—STUDY OT UGULAttOH Of DK MINIMUS DISCHARGES

            This  section direct*  the Administrator to study the feasibility
          and desirability of eliminating the regulation of discharges of pol-
          lutants into the  navigable waters in amounts which,  in terms of
          volume, concentration,  and type of pollutant, are not significant. A
          report,  with recommendations, is to be submitted to the House
          Committee on Public Works and Transportation  and  the  Senate
          Committee on  Environment and Public Works within  one year of
          the date of enactment of H.R. 8.
                                     A-31

-------
H6102
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
 The CHAIRMAN. The question to on
the Commltue amendment  In the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
 The Committee  amendment  In the
nature of  a substltuu. as amended.
was agreed to.
 The CHAIRMAN.  Under the rule.
the Commltue rises.
 Accordingly the Commltue rose;
and the Speaker having resumed the
chair. Mr.  ROB,  Chairman  of the
Commltue of the Whole House on the
SUU of the Union, reported that that
Commltue. having had under consid-
eration the bill (HJl. I) to amend the
Federal  WaUr Pollution  Control Act
to  provide for the renewal of the qual-
ity of  the  Nation's  waters, and for
other purposes, pursuant  to  House
Resolution 222. he reported the bill
back to the House with an amendment
adopted by  the Commltue  of the
Whole.     	
 The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question to ordered.
 Is a separau vou demanded on any
amendment to the Committee amend-
ment  In the  nature of a  substltuu
adopted by  the  Commltue  of the
Whole? If  not. the question to  on the
amendment.
 The amendment was agreed to.
 The SPEAKER.  The question to on
the engrossment and third reading of
thebilL
 The bill was ordered to be engrossr-i
and read a third time, and was re«J
the third time.
 MOTTO* TO UOOMXJT OfTBD »T ML MLiY
 Mr. DcLAT. Mr. Speaker. I  offer a
motion to recommit.
 The SPEAKER. Is  the gentleman
opposed to the bill?
 Mr. DtLAY. I am. Mr. Speaker. In IU
present form.
 The  SPEAKER} The  Clerk will
report the motion to recommit.
 The Clerk read as follows:
 Mr. DsL*v mow  to recommit UM bill.
HJl. t. to the CommKU* oo Public Work!
aad Transportation.
 The SPEAKER. Without objection.
the previous  question to ordered on
the motion to recommit.
 There was no objection.
 The SPEAKER. The question to on
the motion to recommit.
 The motion to recommit was reject-
ed.        	
 The SPEAKER. The question to on
the passage of the  bill
 The  question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that  the ayes ap-
peared to have It.

  Mr.  LUNOREN.  Mr.  Speaker.  I
demand a recorded vou.
  A recorded vou was ordered.
  The  vou  was taken by electronic
device, and there were—ayes 340. noes
•J, not voting 10. as follows:
                                                      July U, 1985
                                                                                 Uvte(MI)
                                                                                 U*tot(CA)
                                                                                 UwltiCAJ
                                                                                 u«ta(nj
                                                                                 UfllUMt
                                                                                             Movuad(CT)
                                                                                             Movtend 
-------
July 2J. 1985                   CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE                        H 6103
                                       The SPEAKER. Is there  objection
            v!££*t>    w.7f          to ">« request of the gentleman from
            w»»«T«n      woip*         New Jersey?
            wtujm      want*?         There was no objection.
TOT™,       wtu»u>      wr*M          The Cjerk read tne senate  bill, as
TomwIU     WM«OT       Wrott         follow
Toww       Wr»        Tu«          IOUOWS.
Tn/teani     Wttoti       Yttrae                        B. 112*
Ttm«ler       Whiuhum    Tounc       & u m*cud fry tfu fcnote in*
                                                    tt/ WU
                                      Act any be dud M UM ~Cle*n W*ur Act
                                      AflMndincDU of IMS".
              NOES-U
            Prvnitl        Mormon (WAI
 ATOM?       Ooodllnc      NMUon
 Banlftt      Orttl        OUn
 ••run       OrotMn      OxJcr
 B*r«uur      Kuwra        PuntU
 BJiruu      BCTUMU      Mltur
 BouJier      Imdoa        Kaa^u
 •rovn (CO)   Hmry        Ro*B*r
 •rerhlU      Hiicr         •eniwtu
 Bunon(IN)   Bopktn*       8*a«nbrtiuMr
 Crundicr     Huaur        lliuav*r
 Chtner      InUnd        SUMOdw
 CoftU        Kuicb        ••itA (NX)
 Coa*r       KU»*MO>      IMtn (KM)
 Cobi*        Kolbt        talta. Orany
 Coabnt      Knawr        CoklLh. Ko>«rt
 Cnlt        LMOcunino    StMihotm
 Gran*       Liu*         Smnt
 D«nnrfD«yub        La*(n*r        t*««>*7
 DtLaj       Lou          awtBdlll
 O*Win«      Luncno       Ttukt
 Doraan (CA)   M*ek         Wklktr
 Drtttr       MvtatMt      WtMr
 Eekm (KT>   MeMUUa
 Cm vrti (OK)  Mcrm        Wrbt
            Mirttcl
            MiUcr (WA)

           NOT VOTWO-IO
 BonlortMI)    •*fa*r
 •roeoi/WM     Bublwrt       BchatxMr
 DOVIWT       Luuo*
 OUctawn      Moaoon

               D 1730

  Mr.  HUNTER  and  Mr.  ZSCHAU
 changed  their  votes from  "aye" to
 "no."
  Mr. LIVINGSTON changed his vote
 from "no" to "aye."
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of  the  vote  was  an-
 nounced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on
 the table.
 AOTMOUUHC TVS CLBC TO MACS COUSCTIONS
  tX B>C*OMKBTT Of MJL «. W»TD •OALITT
  •mrwAi ACT or 1*11
  Mr.  HOWARD. Mr. Speaker. I ask
 unanimous  consent  that, in the en-
 grossment of the bill H.R. I  the Clerk
 be authorized to correct section num-
 bers. cross references, and the table of
 contents  and make such other techni-
 cal  and  conforming amendments as
 may be necessary to reflect the actions
 of the House In amending the bill Hit
 g.           _
  The SPEAKER. Is there  objection
 to the request of the gentleman from
 New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr.  HOWARD. Mr. Speaker. I ask
 unanimous  consent  to  take  from the
 Speaker's table the Senate bQl  (8.
 1128) to amend the Clean Water Act.
 and for other purposes, and ask for IU
 Immediate consideration In the House.
  The  Clerk 'read  the  title of  the
 Senate bUL
                                                          A-33

-------
II 6116                       CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE                 July S3,  1935
                                        •on on ofma rr m. HOW AM
                                     Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker. I offer
                                   a motion.
                                     The Clerk read M follows:
                                     Mr. HOWAU move* to (Ulki out all after
                                   iht enactin* CUUM ot  UM Senate bill. S.
                                   112*. and to (Men In Ueu thereof the text
                                   of H.R. I. as pejMd. M foUovt:
                                               A-34

-------
July tS,  1985
                                    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
                                                                         H6117
UCHOH i. wwrr  rm*  n*t* or rovrrvrx
          4MWM»f*n  TD  Mini  **TSM
                    corntoi. ACT.
  1 0.1 SHOUT Trrtc— Tnis 4ct may be cited aJ
(Ae "Water Quality JtenewaJ Actofltli".
  ibi TAML* or Centrum.—
Set 1. Short  title. table of etnUenU amend-
           ments lo federal Water Pollu-
           tion Control Act: definition a/
           Administrator
       Authoraations of appropriations.
Sec. 3. XutAorvratton*   for  construction
           grants.
Sec. 4. Compliance deadline*.
       Individual  control   ttratepie*  /or
            tone pollutants.
    1 Policy /or  control  o/  nonpoint
           Mrurccf o/ pollution.
       Control o/ nonpotnf  *o*rce» of pollu-
            tion.
       LaJu restoration fuidance manual
Sec. t. Snail  fUnos cteannpAoute.
Set. It. Iliffible cateponc* of project*
        Tun* limit on rtsolring certain du-
            put**.
        ftderul Mart
           cem«nt on «1
-------
   6138                       CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE                 July 23, 1983
                                    ice a. mvrof ueru no* or o* *t\mn DO.
                                            CHtOCU
                                     i*l SroDr.—TTtg Aiminittrator IMS
                                    O* AwiMHtf *ft4 4mtr*HHtj of
                                    <«« JV rmi*Ho* Of rfUcAcrw O/
                                    •*tf inia M* Mrirlow Mifrt  i»
                                    wftteft. <* Umu «
                                     .'6.' Si^xsr.— ,Vcf Jsifr ftst; eiw r^sr a/lrr
                                     « <«U «T (A« ciMcMwiit «T Ate 4eC tte 4tf-
                                    KflUf r«(or «A«A n6«i« • rvporf on (A« r*.
                                    No** Co (A* Oim»nriM •• f+blic Wortt **4
                                                9f OW Ho*t* of Reprttntt*.
                               CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE                     S 10259
                                    WATER QOAUTY RENEWAL ACT
                                                OP IMS
                                     Ur  SIMPSON. Mr.  President. I uk
                                   the Chiir to l»y before tbe Senate a
                                   meic&fe from the House of Represent-
                                   ative* onS. 1128.
                                     The insistent leciilttlve  clerk l&ld
                                   before the Senate the amendment of
                                   trie Rouse of Representatives to th>
S 10260                      CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE                 July 29, 1985

bill  (S.  1128)  to  amena  the Clean
Water Act. and for other purposes.
  (The amendment of the House Is
pnnted in the RECORD of July 23. 1983.
becuminf at pate H6117.
  Mr.  SIMPSON. Mr.  President. I
move  that the Senate disagree to the
House amendments and request a con-
ference on the disatreeinc votes there-
on and the Chair be authorized to ap-
point  conferees on the part of  the
Senate.
  The motion was agreed to.  and the
Presiding  Officer (Mr.  Hrrwr]  ap-
pointed Mr. STAJTOU. Mr. CKATH. Mr.
SIMPSON. Mr. Dromacn. Mr Rmrr-
stJt. Mr. Mrraau. and Mr. Mornnuji
conferees on the part of Senate.
                                                A-36

-------
I! 7206                       CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE            September I 19B'5
                                   APPOINTMENT  OP  CONFEREES
                                    ON S. 1128. CLEAN  WATER  ACT
                                    AMENDMENTS OF 1885
                                    Mr HOWAItD. Mr. Speaker. I ask
                                   unaruraoui consent to take  from the
                                   Speaker's table  the  Senate bUJ (S.
                                   112O to amend the Clean Water Act.
                                   acd for other purposes. Insist on the
                                   House amendments, and ifree to the
                                   coo/erencv requested by the Senate.
                                    The SPEAKER. Is there  objection
                                   to the request of the tentleman  from
                                   New  Jersey? The Chair hears none.
                                   and appoint* the following conferees.
                                   IJessrs. ROE. Airenuow. MINTTA. Om-
                                   •TA*. Cacui. Towns, STTDOL HAXMZX
                                   taotm. STAjfczuuo). and Cuitcn:
                                    Acd additional conferees as follows:
                                    Mr. NOWAX. solely for sections  59
                                   and 73 of the House  amendment and
                                   modifications  committed to  confer-
                                   ence: and
                                    Mr. Rowmn of Georca. solely for
                                   sections  5:   IKbXIXb):  16(bx3xm).
                                   2« of the
                                   House «rn»iiitin»nt «nrt Bodi'icauons
                                   committed u> conference.
 H 111 IS                      CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE              October 15.
                                    REPORTS OF  COMMITTEES  ON
                                     PUBLIC  BILLS  AND  RESOLU-
                                     TIONS
                                     Under clause 2 of trie rule XIII. re-
                                    ports of committees were delivered to
                                    the Clerk for printini and reference to
                                    the proper calendar, as follows:
                                      Mr HOWARD: Commute* of Conference.
                                    Conf*r*ne* report on 8.  Hit (Rcrt. H-
                                    1004). Ordtrrd to b* printed.
                                                  A-37

-------
U.S   House   of  Representatives,   Conference  Report   99   -   1004,
Amending the  Clean  Water  Act,  ordered  to  be printed October  15,
1986.



Action of the  Conference  (page  172)


                STUDY OF EBGULATION OF DC tOtHtOm DQKHABGBS

        Senate bill
          No comparable provision.

        House amendment
          The HOUM  amendment directs the Administrator to  study the
        feasibility  atiH desirability of «iiii>iii«tii»g tK* regulation of die-
        charges of pollutant* into tha naTigabia watan in amounts which,
        in terms of volume, concentration, and type of pollutant,  are not
        Conference substitute
          Tha conference  substitute adopts tha Houat  amandmant with
        modification* to direct a study of discharges of pollutants to deter-
        mine whether or not there are dischargee  in amounts which, in
        terms of volume, concentration, and tn» of pollutant, are not sig-
        nificant, and to determine the most effective and appropriate meth-
        ods of regulating such discharges.
Final wording  (pages 83 &  84)
        SMC 1/4 STUDY Of Dt MINIMUS DISCMAJtGtS.
          (aJ STUDY.—The Administrator tfiall conduct  a ttudy of di»-
        ehargm ofapllutantt into the navigable water* and tneir regulation
        undtr the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to determine wheth-
        er or  not then an  discharge*  of pollutant* into tueh waten in
        amountt which, in term* of volume, concentration, and type of pol-
        lutant, an not ngnt/lconl and to determine the most effective and
        appropriate method* of regulating any tuch discharge*.
           (V RMfOfT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
         of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on
         Public Works and Transportation of the Souse of Representative*
         and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate
         a report on the results of such study along  with rscommendationi
         and findings concerning the most effective and appropriate methods
         of regulating any discharges of pollutants into the navigable waten
         in amounts which the Administrator determines under such study
         to be not significant.
                                      A-38

-------
D 4.                 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— DAILY-DIGEST        January* 1$S7



                        S. 1128, Clean Water Act Amendments. Pocket Vetoed.
           100TH CONGRESS
             1ST SESSION
              Calendar No.  1
S.I
           To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for the renewal of
                    the quality of the Nation'i waters, and for other purpoMf.
                IN THE SENATE OF  THE  UNITED STATES

                                  JANXJABT 6. 1987
           Mr. BTBD (for Mr. BUBDICK) (for himself. Mr. CHATEE. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr
              STAJTOBD, Mr. BTBD, Mr. MOTNIHAN, Mr. ADAMS. Mr ABMSTBONO, Mr.
              BAUCUS, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BINOAMA*  Mr. BOBEN, Mr.
              BEAD LEY, Mr.  BUMTEBS, Mr. CHILES,  Mr. COHEN. Mr.  CONBAD, Mr.
              CBANSTON. Mr. D'AMATO, Mr. DANTOBTH,  Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. DsCoN-
              CINI, Mr. DLZON. Mr. DODIT, Mr.  DOMENICI. Mr. DI'BEKBEEOEE, Mr.
              EVANS. Mr. EXON, Mr. FOED. Mr. FOWLEB, Mr. GLENK, Mr. OOBE, Mr.
              GBAHAM, Mr. HABJON, Mr. HEINZ, Mr. HOLLINOB, Mr  HUMPHBET, Mr.
              INOUTE. Mr. KASTEN, Mr. KEBBT, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LACTENBEBC. Mr.
              LEAHT.  Mr.  LEVUJ, Mr. LUOAB, Mr. MC€ONNEU., Mr. MELCHEB, Mr.
              METZENBAUH. Mi. Mnon^Ki, Mr. NUNN, Mr. PACKWOOO,  Mr. PELL. Mr.
              PBESSLEB, Mr. PBODCBE,  Mr. PBTOB, Mr.  REID, Mr.  RIEOLE, Mr.
              RocxzrELLEB, Mr. ROTH, Mr. RCDMAN,  Mr. SANTOBD. Mr. SABBANES.
              Mr. SASSEB, Mr. SIMON, Mr.  SFECTEB, Mr. STMMB, Mr. THVBMOND, Mr.
              TBIBLE, Mr. WABNEB, Mr. WBICKBB, Mr. WILSON, Mr. WDTH,  aad Mr.
              ZoBlNBrr) introduced the following bill; which wai read twice aad ordered
              to be placed on the calendar
                                 A  BILL
           To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide
               for the renewal of the quality  of the Nation's waters, and
               for other purposes.

                                     A-39

-------
                                 2

1        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2  lives of the United States of  America  in  Congress assembled,

3  SECTION 1.  SHORT  TITLE;  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS;  AMEND.

4                 MENTS TO  FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CON-

5                 TROL ACT; DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATOR.

6        (a)  SHOBT  TITLE.—This Act  may be cited  as  the

7  "Water Quality Act  of 1987".

8        (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—

   S«c.  1. Short title: uble of contents; amendments to Federal  Water Pollution Con-
                 trol Act: definition of  Administrator.
   Sec.  2. Limitation on pavments.

                   TITLE  I-AMENDMEXTS TO TITLE I

   Sec.  101. Authorizations of appropriation*.
   Sec.  102. Small flowi clearinfhouM.
   Sec.  103. Chesapeake Baj
   Sec.  104. Great Lakes.
   Sec.  105. Research on effects of pollutants

            TITLE  0—CONSTRUCTION GRANTS AMENDMENTS

   Sec.  201. Time limit on resolvinf certain disputes.
   Sec.  202. Federal share.
   Sec.  203. Agreement on eligible costs.
   Sec.  204. Design/build  projects.
   Sec.  205. Grant conditions; user charges on low-income residential users.
   Sec.  206. Allotment formula.
   Sec.  207. Rural set and*.
   Sec.  208. Innovative and alternative projects.
   Sec.  209. Regional  organisation funding.
   Sec.  210-Manne CSO's and estuaries.
   Sec.  211. Autboriiatioei far construction grants.
   See.  212. State water pollution control revolving funds.
   ooc.  213. Improvement projoeta.
   Sec.  214. Chkago tunnel and reservoir project.
   Sec.  215. Ad valorem tax dedication.

              TITLE ID—STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENTS

   See.  301. Compliance dates.
   Sec.  309. Modification for noneonventional
   See.  308. Discharges into marine waters.
   See.  304. Fume deadline for treatment works
   See.  306. Innovative technology mmpKinre deadlines far direct dischargers.
   See.  306. Fundesnentaily djflaresu factors.
   Sec.  907. Ceal

      •lira

                                 A-40

-------
Sec. 306.  Individual control strategies for toxic pollutants.
Sec. 309.  Pretreatment standards.
Sec  310.  Inspection tad entry.
Sec. 311.  Marine sanitation devices.
Sec. 312  Criminal penalties.
Sec  313.  Civil penaJDei
Sec. 314.  Administrative penalties.
Sec  315  Clean  lakes
Sec. 316.  Management of noopoint M>urcei of pollution.
Sec. 317  Nation*! estuary program.
Sec. 318.  Unconsolidated quaternary aquifer.

                   TITLE IV—PERMITS AND LICENSES

Sec. 401   Storm water  runoff from  oil, gas, and mininf operations.
Sec. 402  Addition*] pretreatment  of conventional pollutants not required.
Sec. 403.  Partial NPDES program.
Sec. 404.  Anti-backsliding
Sec. 405.  Municipal and industrial  storm water discharges
Sec. 406.  Sewage sludge
Sec. 407.  Lof transfer facilities.

                TTTLE  V—M3SCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501.  Audiu.
Sec.  502.  CommonwealU) of the Northern Mariana Islands
Sec.  503.  Agricultural  stormwater discharges.
Sec.  504.  Protection of interests of United States in citizen su^s
Sec.  505. Judicial review and  award of fees.
Sec.  506.  Indian  tribes.
Sec.  507.  Definition of point source.
Sec.  506.  Special provisions refardinf certain dumping sites.
Sec.  509.  Ocean  difchar|e research project.
Sec.  510.  San Diego. California.
Sec.  511.  Limitation on discharge of raw sewage by New York City.
Sec  512.  Oakwood Beach and Red Hook Projects, New York
Sec. 513.  Borton Harbor and adjacent waters.
Sec.  514.  Waitewater  reclamation demonstration.
Sec. 515.  DM MOIDM, Iowa.
Sec. 516.  Study o/ de minimis discharges.
Sac. 517.  Study  at* eflecdTeness at innovative and alternative processes and  tech-
                 niques.
Sec. 518.  Study o/ tasting procedures.
Sec. 519.  Study of pretraatment el toxic  pollutants.
Sec. 590.  Studies of* water pollution problems in aquifers.
Sec. 521.  Orwt Lafcet ooasumptive UM study.
Sec. 522.  Sulfide oommo study.
Sac. 028.  Study of rainfall induced infiltration into sewer systems.
Sac. 524.  Dam water quality study.
Sac. 525.  Stsjdy af pollution in Lake Pand Oraffle. Idaho.
                                      A-41

-------
                           203
20  SEC. 516. STUDY OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES.
21      (a) STUDY.—The Administrator shall conduct a study of
22  discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters and  their
23  regulation under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
24  determine whether or not there are discharges of pollutants
25  into such waters in amounts which, in terms of volume, con-

      •i i re

                            204
 1  centration, and type  of pollutant, are  not significant and to
 2  determine the most effective and appropriate methods of reg-
 3  ulating any such discharges.
 4      (b) REPORT.—Not later than  1 year after the date of
 5  the  enactment of this Act, the  Administrator shall submit to
 6  the  Committee on Public Works  and  Transportation of the
 7  House  of Representatives and  the  Committee on  Environ-
 8  ment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results
 9  of such study along with  recommendations and findings con-
10  cerning the most effective and appropriate methods  of regu-
11  lating any discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters
12  in amounts which the Administrator determines  under  such
13  study to be not significant.
                             A-42

-------
100TH CONGRESS
   IST SESSION
H.R.1
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to pronde for ihe renew ai 01
         thf qualitv of the Nation's waters, and for oiher purpose*
        IN THE HOUSE  OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        JAM ARV 6. 19*7
Mr HOWAKD (for him«rlf. Mr HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr  ROE. Mr  ^TANGELAND.
    Mr  NO\VAK   Mr   ANDERSON   Mr  ANDREWS. Mr  APPLEGATE.  Mr
    ARCHER Mr  ATKINS.  Mr  BATE.MAV Mrs BENTLEY  Mr  BE\ILI_.  Mr
    HLILEY. Mr  BOEHLERT, Mr  BORSKI. Mr  Bosro.  Mrs  BOXER  Mr
    BROWN of California. Mr BTSTAMANTE. Mr  CALLAHAN. Mr CARDIN  Mr
    IARPEB Mr CHANDLER. Mr CHAPMAN. Mr  CLARKE. Mr  CLINGER  Mr
    COLE.MAN of Texas. Mrs  COLLINS  Mr COTRTER. Mr  CROCKETT  Mr
    DABDEN. Mr DET'AZIO. Mr DE  Lino. Mr. DICK;- Mr DINGELL.  Mr Dio-
    Gi ARPI. Mr DOKGAN of North  Dakota. Mr, DOWNED of New York  Mr
    Dt HBIV Mr  J^FR  of  New   Jer«e\. Mr  Dv>    Mr   ECKART  Mr
    EVANS. Mr FASCELL.  Mr FAZIO. Mr  FEIGHAN. M   FitLi'v Mr  FISH
    Mr FLORIO. Mr  FOGLIETTA.  Mr  FORD of Mich ;.n. Mr. FRANK  Mr
    GALI.O. Mr. GEjntNsoN.  Mr OILMAN. Mr GOS^LEZ. Mr  GOODLINC.
    Mr. GKADISON. Mr  GRANT.  Mr. GREEN. Mr. GIAR;M. Mr. GINDER>ON.
    Mr HA.MLTON, Mr RAVES  of  Louisiana. Mr HENKV Mr  HORTOV  Mr
    Ho^ER. Mr. Hi'GHES, Mrs JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr  JONTZ. Mr KAN-
    JORSKI. Mr. K-4STENMEIER,  Mr KlLDEE.  Mr  KLECZKA.  Mr LAFALCE.
    Mr LANTOS. Mr. LEHMAN of Florida, Mr LELAND. Mr  LEVIN of Michigan.
    Mr LEWIS  of Florida. Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr LIPINSKI. Mr LowERV of Cali-
    fornia. Mr. THOMAS A. LCKEN.  Mr. MACKAV. Mr. MANTON. Mrs. MARTIN
    of Illinois, Mr. MATSVI, Mr. McCoLLVM, Mr McDADE. Mr  McGRATH. Mr
    McHvuH. Mr. McKiNNEY. Mr. MCMILLAN of North Carolina. Mr  MILLER
    of California. Mr. MINETA. Mr. MOLINARI, Mr. MOODY. Mr  MRAZEK. Mr
    Mi'HPHY, Mr.  NATCHEI. Mr. NEAL. Mr. NELSON of Florida. Ms. OAKAR.
    Mr. OBERSTAB, Mr. OLIN. Mr.  OWENS of New  York. Mr  PACK.\BD. Mr.
    PANETTA, Mr.  PERKINS. Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RICHARDSON,  Mr. RINALDO.
    Mr. RODINO, Mr. ROSE, Mr.  ROSTENKOWSKI. Mrs. ROIKEMA. Mr. Row-
    LAND of Georgia, Mr. ROWLAND of Connecticut.  Mr. Russo, Mr.  SAVAGE,
    Mr. SAJCTON, Mr. SCHEUEK, Miss SCHNEIDER, Mr. SCHUETTE, Mr.  SCHV-
    MER. Ms. SLAUGHTER of New York, Mr. SENSENBKENNER,  Mr. SHAW, Mr.
    SHUSTEX. Mr. SIKOBSIO, Mr. SKAOOS, Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. SMITH of
    New Jeraey, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr.  ST GERMAIN, Mr. STALLINGS, Mr. STBAT-
    TON, Mr. STUDDS, Mr. SUNDQUIST, Mr. SUNIA. Mr. SWIFT. Mr. THOMAS of
                              A-43

-------
    Georgia, Mr. TOBIES, Mr. TOMICELLI, Mr. TOWNS. Mr. TEAJICANT. Mr
    VALENTWE. Mr. VENTO,  Mr. VISCLOSKT, Mr.  WILLIAMS. Mr.  WILSON,
    Mr. WISE. Mr. WOLPE. Mr. WOITLEY. Mr. WTDEN. and Mr. YATES) intro-
    duced the following bill; which was  referred jointly to the  Committees on
    Public Works and Transportation  and  Merchant Marine and  Fisheries  for
    consideration of such provisions of the bill as fall within that  committee's ju-
    risdiction pursuant to clause l(n), rule X
                        A  BILL

To amend the  Federal Water  Pollution  Control Act to provide

    for the renewal  of the  quality  of  the  Nation's  waters,  and

    for other purposes.


  1       Be it  enacted by the Senate and  House of Representa-

  2  lives of the United Stales of America in Congress assembled,

  3  SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS;  AMEND-

  4                MENTS TO FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CON-

  5                TROL ACT; DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATOR.

  6       (a) SHORT  TITLE.—This  Act  may  be  cited  as  the

  7  "Water Quality Act of 1987".

  8       Cb) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—

    S«c. 1.  Short title: table of contents; amendments to Federal Water Pollution Con-
                 trol Act; definition  of Administrator.
    Sec. 2.  Limitation on payments.

                   TITLE I—AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I

    Sec. 101.  Authorizationi of appropriations.
    See. 102.  Small Qowi clearinghouse.
    Sec. 103.  Chesapeake Bay.
    Sec. 104. Great Lakes.
    Sec. 105.  Research on effects of pollutants.

             TITLE O—CONSTRUCTION GRANTS AMENDMENTS

    Sec. 201.  Time limit on resolving certain disputes.
    Sec. 202.  Federal share.
    Sec. 203.  Agreement  on eligible costs.
    Sec. 204.  Design/build projects.
                                A-44

-------
    Sec  512.  Oik wood Beach and Red Hook Projects, New York.
    Sec. 513.  Boitoo Harbor tad adjacent waieri.
    Sec. 514  Wastewater reclamation demonstration.
    Sec  515  Dei Hornet. Iowa.
    Sec. 516.  Study of de muumij ditcher get.
    Sec. 517.  Study of effectiveness of innovative and alternative procesiei and tech-
                  niques.
    Sec  519  Study of tesunf procedure*.
    Sec. 519.  Study of pretreaunent of toxic pollutants.
    Sec  520.  Studies of m-ater pollution problems in aquifers.
    Sec. 521.  Great Lake* consumptive me study.
    Sec. 522.  Sulfid* corrosion study.
    Sec. 523.  Study of rainfall induced infiltration into  sewer systems.
    Sec. 524.  Dam water quality study.
    Sec. 525  Study of pollution in Lake Pend Oreille,  Idaho.
                                 203
20  SEC 516. STUDY OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES.

21        (a) STUDY.—The Administrator shaii conduct a study of

22  discharges of pollutants into the  navigable waters and their

23  regulation under  the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to

24  determine whether  or not there are  discharges  of pollutants

25  into such  waters  in  amounts which, in  terms of volume, con-
                                  A-45

-------
                            204
 1  centration.  and type of  pollutant, are not significant and to
 '2  determine the most  effective and appropriate methods of reg-
 3  ulating any such discharges.
 4       (b) REPORT.—Not later than  1 year  after the  date of
 5  the  enactment  of this Act, the Administrator shall  submit to
 6  the  Committee  on Public Works and Transportation of the
 7  House  of Representatives and  the  Committee  on  Environ-
 8  ment and Public Works  of the Senate a report on the results
 9  of such study along with recommendations  a. d  findings con-
10  cerning the most effective and appropriate  methods of regu-
11  lating any discharges of pollutants into the  navigable waters
12  in amounts  which the Administrator determines under such
13  study to be  not significant.
                             A-46

-------
H  iTii                          CONGKESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE               Januu^• f. ."••
                                       Mr.   HAMMER5CHMIDT
                                      Trie  r»»  ian«u»fe  wi!)  properly
                                     r*J;icc  ;ne  •_:..ver.-r  of  perr.vtj  re-
                                     Q,:.-rd  .'or j'orra aater from rr.nliorj
                                     10  tr.c.:j»r.rti  without reducmr  irte
                                     protection of t.ic environment. \Ve rs-
                                     tiblijf.cd a nirtrArjsm  that will  re-
                                     c-^-.r* r*rrr.::s 0:1)1  wh»r«  neceisisy—
                                     rf.i.tr tr.%- in every inmnce Wuho'it
                                     tf.«e rrjT.fc*. ioctl S:tte. and Feder-
                                     • i wcui] v.ouid i.-e inundated *.;n an
                                     er.crrrous  pfrmntinj  workload  e1.en
                                     tl-.oujM rrcst cf the discharfn  aould
                                     not r.r.1 e nini'irtni er.vironrr.ei.ul  l^.-
                                     pacts
                                                      A-47

-------
January 8, 1987               CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE                         H 175
                                     Mr. 8TANOCLAND. Mr. Speaker. I
                                    rtM to iililrawj  provisions in  HJl.  1.
                                    tht Water Quality Act of 1M7. This
                                    ItftsUUon Is tht result of conference
                                    discussions In the Mth Congress span-
                                    nine over <  monthf and  work,  by
                                    House  and Senate committees span-
                                    ning over  4 years. Weeks of hearings.
                                    thousands of  page* of testimony, and
                                    countless hours of analysts, discussion
                                    and debate ted to development of this
                                    vitally  important environmental legis-
                                    lation.
                                      H.R.  1 should look strikingly famil-
                                    iar to each of us. This legislation—like
                                    its counterpart S. I—Is virtually Identi-
                                    cal  to  the conference report  on 8.
                                    1128. which  passed  the Bouse  and
                                    Senate   unanimously—by  combined
                                    vous of 504 to 0—less than I Booths
                                    ago but  was pocket  vetoed by the
                                    President on November 4. As a matter
                                    of fact. HJl. 1 is the same as 8. 11M
                                    except  for a few  purely technical
                                    changes, such as replacing  10M with
                                    19t7 In the act's name to reflect the
                                    new year.
                                      I should also pout out that despite
                                    Its  immediate  conslderatotn  In  the
                                    100th Congress. HJl.  1 has a complete
                                    legislative history In the form of docu-
                                    ment! from the Mth  Congress.  To de-
                                    termine congressional Intent In HJl. 1.
                                    one should first consult the confer-
                                    ence report on 8. 11M and then. If
                                    necessary, committee reports and floor
                                    statements for  the  Nth  Congress'
                                    House-  and Senate-passed bills (HJl. •
                                    and 8.  112S). These  documents,  par-
                                    ticularly 8. lltt's conference report.
                                    provide a detailed legislative history
                                    for H.R. 1 even though the new legis-
                                    lation Introduced Just 3 days ago has
                                    no   committee  report,   conference
                                    report,  or  statement of managers from
                                    the 100th i
                                                    A-4b

-------
H 211                        CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE              January 8, 1987

                                    Th* SPEAKER pro temper*. Under "••
                                  tht rult. tht previous question to or- if*  |CA,
                                  -*	^ -*                             MV^^BTtr »»^"*
                                  •»•«•                             LOTIflWJJ
                                    Tht Question is on tht eacroamtnt
                                  and third readini of tht bQL
                                    The Mil WM ordered to bt enframed
                                  and read a third time, and was read
                                  tht third time
                                    Tht SPEAKER pro  tenpore. Th* Mlrt—
                                  question to on paseasj* of tht bUL      tunm urn
                                    Tht question WM taken,  and tht
                                  UM ayti appe»rtd to havt It.
                                    Mr. HOWARD, afr. Sptaktr. oa that
                                  I •*M~«~4 tht ytM and najrs.
                                    The yea* and n»yi were ordered.
                                    Tht vote WM taken  by electronic
                                  deilcc. and there »eje-yta» 4M. nayi
                                  0. not Tottng It. M followc
                                              uunNc.ii
                                                                                  Q 1440
                                                                      Mr.  BURTON of Indiana chanced
                                                                     his vote from "yea" to "nay."
                                                                      So the bill WM pMMd.
                                                                      Tht result  of  the vote WM  an-
                                                                     nounced M above recorded.
                                                                      A motion to reconsider WM laid on
                                                                     theuble.
                                                   A-49

-------
S802
    AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED
       WATER  QUALITY ACT
     DOLE> AMENDMENT NO.  1

  Mr. DOLE proposed an  amendment
 to the bill (H.R. 1) to amend the Fed-
 eral  Water Pollution Control Act U>
 provide for the renewal of the quality
 of the Nation's waters, and for  other
 purposes: as follows:
  Strike out all a/ter the enacting  clause
 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
         TABLE OF CONTENTS
  (a) SNORT TITUS.-This Act  may be cited
 as the "Water Quality Act of 1MT'.
  ib) TASLS or CoKTtxrs.—
 Sec. I. Short title: table of contents: amend-
            menu to Federal Water Pollu-
            tion Control Act: definition of
            Administrator.
 Sec 2. Limitation on payments.
  TITLE I-AMENDMZNT3 TO TITLE I
 See. 101. Authorizations of appropriations.
 Sec 102. Chesapeake Bay.
 Sec 101. Great Lakes.
 Sec. 104. Research on effects  of pollutant*.
  TITLE U-CONSTROCTION GRANTS
            AMENDMENTS
 Sec. 201. Eligibilities. CSOs,  Dispute Reso-
            lution. Limitation*.
 Sec  202. Federal share.
 Sec. 203. Agreement on eligible costs.
 Sec. 204. Design/build projects.
 Sec, 205. Grant  conditions: user charges on
            low-income residential users.
 See. 204. Allotment formula.
 Sec. 207. Rural set aside. Innovative and al-
            ternative projects,  and  Non-
            point source programs.
 Sec. 204, Regional organization funding.
 Sec. 20*. Authorization   for   construction
            granu.
 See. 210. Granu to Suits for making water
            pollution control loans..
 See. 211. Ad valorem tax dedication.
 Sec. 212. Improvement Projects.
 Sec. 211. Chicago Tunnel  and  Reservoir
            Project.
      TITLE IM-STANDARDS AND
            ENFORCEMENTS
 Sec 101. Compliance data*.
 Sec 102. Modification for nonconventional
            pollutants.
 Sec 101. Discharge* Into marine water*.
 Sec MM. Filing   deadline  for  treatment
            works modification.
 Sec. 105. Innovative technology compliance
            deadlines for direct discharg-
            ers.
 Sec. MM. Fundamentally different factors.
 Sec 107. Coal remitting, operations.
 Sec. MM, Individual  control  strategies for
            toxic pollutants.
 Sec MM. Pretreaunent standards.
 Sec 110. Inspection and entry.
 Sec 311. Marine sanitation devtces.
 Sec 112. Criminal penalties.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

      See. 1U. Civil penalties.
      Sac. 314. Administrative penalties.
      Sec IIS. Clean lakes.
      Sec 31*. Management of nonpolnt sources
                 of pollution.
      Sec 3 IT. National estuary program.
      Sec 311. Uneonsolldsted  quaternary aqui-
                 fer.
        TTTLC TV-PERMITS AND LICENSES
      Sec 401. Stormwaur runoff from OIL gas,
                 and mining operations.
      Sec 402. Additional pretreaunent of  con-
                 ventional   pollutanu  not  re-
                 quired.
      Sec 401. Partial NPDES program.
      Sec 404. Anil-backsliding.
      Sec 409. Municipal and  Industrial  storm-
                 water dischargee.
      Sec 4041. Sewagt sludge.
      Sec 407. Log  transfer faculties.
            TTTLX V-MISCELLANEOUS
                    PROVISIONS
      Sec Ml. Audits.
      Sec 502. Commonwealth  of the Northern
                 Mariana Islands.
      See. 501. Agricultural    stormi'ster   dis-
                 charges.
      Sec 504. Protection of tnteresu of  United
                 States in citizen suits.
      Sec 505. Jue>-:al review and award of fees.
      Sec 504. Indian tnbes.
      Sec 507. Definition of point source.
      Sec 50*. Special provisions regarding cer-
                 tain dumping sites.
      Sec. 50t. Ocean discharge research project.
      Sec 510. Limitation on discharge  of raw
                 sewage by New York City.
      Sec 511. Study of de minimi* discharges.
      Sec 512. Study of effectiveness of innova-
                 tive and  alternative processes
                 and techniques.
      Sec. 513. Study of testing procedures.
      Sec 514. Study  of pretreaunent  of toxic
                 pollutants.
      See. 515 Studies of water pollution prob-
                 lem* tn aquifers.
      Sec 51*. Great  Lakes   consumptive   ust
                 study.
      See. 517. Sulflde corrosion study.
      See. 511. Study of rainfall  Induced Infiltra-
                 tion Into sewer systems.
      Sec Sit. Dam water quality study.
      Sec 520. Study of pollution In Lake Pend
                 Oreille. Idaho.
      Sec 521. San Diego. California.
      Sec 522. Oakwood  Beach  and Red Book
                  Project*. New York.
      Sec 524. Boston   Harbor  and  Adjacent
                  Waters.
      Sec  524. Wasuwaier  Reclamation Demon-
                  stration.
      Sec 525. Des Motncs. Iowa.
      Sec 524. Study of  De Mlnlmts Discharges.
      Sec S27. Amendment  to   the  Water  Re-
                  sources Development Act.
January U. 1987
                                                              A-50

-------
9 822                            CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE               January U. 1987
                                       •1C HI. ITVDY or DC MIMHIf DOOUBCtX
                                         (») STVBY.—The Administrator shall con-
                                       duct a study of discharges of pollutants Into
                                       the navtcable waun and their rrculauon
                                       under tht Federal WaUr PeUuUon Control
                                       Act lo  determine whether or not Uier* are
                                       diachartes of polluunu Into such waters la
                                       amounts which. In tern* of volume, concen-
                                       tration, and type of pollutant, are not si«-
                                       al/taant and to deurmine the most effective
                                       and approprlau method* of refulatinc any
                                       such discharfea.
                                         (b) RsyoBT.—Not  kater than I rear after
                                       the date of the enactment of thii Act. the
                                       Administrator shall submit to the Oommjt-
                                       Ue on  Public Works and Transportation of
                                       the Rouse of Representatives and the Com-
                                       mittee on Environment and Public Works of
                                       the Senate a report on the results of such
                                       study  alonf  nth  recommendations and
                                       flndinct eonceminc the most  effective and
                                       approprlau methods of refulaUnc any dis-
                                       chartee of pollutanu Into the  navtfable
                                       water*  In amounts which the Administrator
                                       determines under such study to be not sic-
                                       nlfleant.
 S S14.                           CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE              January 14, 1987
                                             •a.  rraDT  or  »•  MOOMIS
                                          STBWT.—The Administrator shall eon
                                        d»et a study of dtaehams of poOutanU Into
                                        the  navlcabte waters and their refuiaUon
                                        under the rstferal PoUutlon Control Act to
                                        determine whether or  not  there  are dl»
                                        ckmnee of poDutanta Into raca waters  la
                                        aawonta wWch. to terms of votame. eonoea-
                                        imlon. and type of poUuunt.  an not stf-
                                        mttoaai aad to detnine the aooet effecUi*
                                        and approprlau methods ef retuUUnt any
                                                   .—Mot mUr tbaa 1 year aAar
                                        the dau ef tfee anstftmsnt of this Act. the
                                        Adatmeftrator shall avbmlt to the CommB>
                                        test e« rttbUe Work* aad Traaspoftatloei of
                                        mitue oa Environment and Public Work* ef
                                                 i a report oa the resuMs «f Midi
                                                                          and
                                                                  eCfecttre aad
                                                          i of makUfewaaTdk*


                                        deUrmines under such study to be not ate-
                                                         A-51

-------
January SI. 1987             CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE                       S1003
                                      WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1987
                                      The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
                                    the previous order, the hour of 2 pJn.
                                    having arrived,  the  Senate will now
                                    resume  consideration  of  the unfin-
                                    ished business. HJl. I. which the clerk
                                    will now report.
                                      The assistant  legislative  clerk  read
                                    as follows:
                                      A  bill (HJl.  1) to amend the Federal
                                    Water Pollution Control Act to provide for
                                    the renewal of the quality of Utc Nation's
                                    men and (or other purposei.
                                      The Senate resumed consideration
                                    of the bill.
                                              AJfOVKBTT HO. I
                                      The PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The
                                    pending question is on amendment No.
                                    1 on which there  shall  be 2 hours of
                                    debate to be  equally  divided,  con-
                                    trolled by the majority and minority
                                    leaden or their designer*.
                                                     A-52

-------
January tl, 1987
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
 the  previous order,  the  hour  of  4
 o clock having arrived, the Senate will
 now vote on amendment  No.  1. The
 clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative  clerk called
 the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the
 Senator  from Missouri [Mr. Bora)  U
 absent due to Illness.  .
  The PRESIDING  OFFICER  IMr.
 BRXAUX). Are there any  other Sena-
 ton In  the  Chamber who desire to
 vote'
  The result was announced—yeas 17.
 nays 82.  as follow
        CRollcmll You No. 3 Lee I
              YEAS-11
                    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

                           Mr.  MITCHELL.  Mr.  President. I
                         move to reconsider the vote by vhlch
                         the amendment wu rejected.
                           Mr.  BURDICK.  Mr.  President. I
                         move to lay that motion on the table.
                           The motion to lay on the table was
                         acreed to.
                           The PRESIDING  OFFICER. The
                         question U on the third readuif of the
                         bill.
                           The bill was ordered to  a third read-
                         ing and was read the third time.
                           The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
                         the  previous  order,  the  Senate  will
                         now have a rollcall vote on adoption of
                         H.R 1.
                           The bill havtnf been read the third
                         time, the question 1s.  Shall  the bill
                         pass1
                           The yeas and  nays  have been  or-
                         dered, and the clerk will  call  the roll.
                           The bill clerk called the roll.
                           Mr. SIMPSON announced that the
                         Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bom] Is
                         absent due to illness.
                           I further announce  that. If  present
                         and  voting, the Senator from Missouri
                         [Mr. BOKD) would vote "yea."
                           The PRESIDING  OFFICER  Are
                         there any other Senators In the Cham-
                         ber desiring to vote?
                           The result  was announced—yeas B3.
                         nays 6. as follows:
                                                                                           S1033
Amutroni
Cocnn/i
Dole
Ex on
Ovn
Gr»
Adam
BAUtUJ
B*ni»tn
Bidcn
Bmiaman
Borm
Boathviu
Bradltr
Brvaul
Bumpm
Burdlct
Brrd
Chalrt
H»Lch
Hcelu
HtfUn
Hclmi
            aimpaon
McClurt

  NAYS-4J
Olrrvn
Oor»
GrarwiB
Graulrjr
Ktrkin
HaifMM
H«lm
HoUinf*
Humphnr
Uwuy*
            Thurmond
            Wallop
 CoiMn
 Conrad
 CrwiMMi
 D Amat«
 Dearer. A
 Daathl*
 DtCMWtal
 Dtun
 Dodd
 Donwnlct
 Durmkrrtvr
 Cvam
IUMM
KouMdjr
Ktrry
Lrrln
McCain
MeCoOMU
MclcMr
MikubhJ
Mitch*ll
Mcynllun
            Wirt*
             Nunn

           NOT VOTlNO-1
  So the amendment (No.
 Jcctcd.
              1) was re
                                 (Rollcill Vote No 4 Leg.]
                         Bkueu*
                         Bcnurn
                         Bid«n
                             flvtu
Bmui
Buoiptn
Burtijck
                         OwJr*
                         Cbllw
                         Cochnji
                         Cohen
                         CMind
                         Crux loo
                         O AB*10
                         Dkn/onh
  YTAS— 93
OtTB
Ol«no
Cort
GrtMia
Onn'.ty
Hvkw
H»Uh
lUUMId
Htchl
Htnin
Htlni
Hoiiino
                                                  MorrUhan
                                                 Nunn
                                                 Pictvood
                                                 Pryor
                                                 Qua;)*
                                                 IUM)
            Ineuy*
            Jotuwton
            trimtniim
            KMICO
            Meekef(U«r
            Roth
            KudBian
            Bantord
            K*TTT
                         DtCwwtnl
                         Duon
            Lrahr
            Lntn
            Luttr
               «r
            BTMlbf
            Su-noo
            Simpson
            •p*ct*r
                         Dumktrtrr
                                     McCain
                                     McClun
                                     McConiMO
                        Thurmcnd
                        TrlM*
                        Warn*r
                                     MttuHkl
                                     kUlctMU

                                        NAY8-*
                                                  winh
                                      MickJM       Wiflop

                                    NOTVOTWO-l
  So the bill (H.R. 1) wu passed.
  Mr.  MITCHELL.  Mr. President. I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the bill wu passed.
  Mr. BURDICK. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table wu
agreed to.
                                                        A-53

-------
Ftbruary 3. 1987
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
                              H525
  Mr  FLOAIQ  Mr  Soesker. I nse ft Support
 O< •Mots to Overrde the Presidential v«to Of
 MR. i. me Clean Water Act reamhornswn.
 MX) »nprove me water quakfy of our Na&on's
 nvers. streams,  and lakes  For the second
 ttme m a matter oi weeks. Congress again has
 me opportunity to rea«»m me message tnai
 was Mm to the President on two  occasions.
 Th« hesRh ol  our citizens and our natural re-
 source* and the future ol our Nation t devel-
 opment will b« severery threatened if  we do
 not tax* dtps to clesn up our Nation's water
 suppt««
  The lack at a clean water reauthoniation en-
 dangers not onty the economc health ol our
 Nation out also me  sanctify of our natural re-
 source*  H.R   t provides our munaoaMie*
 with an enwonmenwry responsive and fiscal-
 ly  responsible combination  & grants  and
 loans mat would allow  them to comply with
 me law and construct sewage treatment laofc-
 t>es  n provides our municipalities with me
 means to meet the  mandate and enaure that
 our communities can continue to develop.
  Wrmout mrs vital comtmation of S18 Wkon
 «n grants and  loan*, our communities win find
 the* economic grow*  stunted Without the
 mandated •nprovements n our  sewer sys-
 tems, economic development and  eipansion,
 with me creation  ol new  jobs,  would be
 hatted The S9Q mMon per year ft grants and
 loans mat is slated  tor my own Slate ol New
 Jersey through 1992 would guarantee that me
 sewage systems w* be able to sustain higher
 development without teopardomg me quafcty of
 our enwonment Wimout INs money, each of
 my consMuents coutd be biBed S1 lor every Si
 miMion lost m Federal  funds because these
 improvements need  to be made
   Mr  Speaker, when me President  vetoed
 this legnUMn last week, he accused me Ml
 of busting me budget I would ike to direct me
 •aentton of  my ceae agues to me fact mat
 H R. 1 take* into cortBdentton me fiscal con-
 strum we are facing and phase* out me grant
 program and replaces I wim s rsvoAAng loan
 fund. However, afl lf*a would be accompishod
 *> aucn a way as to not Mama*  m* necee-
 sary pwjgram.    _
   TniS IsVQksMsWikOn pvviOsM Out* NirtOft witn not
 only ma funds M improve our water guabty but
 also with ma gudance to decrease ponutien
 on our snores, m aw nvenj and streams and
 lakes. In New Jersey, where lounam • one of
 me hay Mualnas. mare have bean many oc-
 casiona  v^an  otf  baacnaa had to
 dunng me sumraar  bacauaa o> ma
 and often me poaubon waanjng up on ma
 shova. Thai laoialaaQn would aHavvia  ma poi*
 kjaon by prohtoeno, ocean dump^g 12 rr«aa
 off me New York-New Jersey coast
   In  addajari. H.f\ t not only fejathcts non*
             i but ateo eraaias a dean kjka*
                   i up such environmental
     hazards as AJcyon Lake, nert to Lpan landfill.
     the No 1  site on me Superfund naoonal pnon-
     ty kst n Pitman, NJ I know how strongly the
     residents  of Pitman tee! about beng aOe to
     once  agam  fish  and swim m  this lake and  I
     know mat tfus  * a leeung shared  by many
     communities across the Nation.
       In sum,  Mr   Speaker,  enactment ol the
     Oean Water Act reautnonzation « something
     we. as s  Conor***, owe not only to our con-
     stituents but siao to fulurs generations  We
     owe it to our children and our grandchildren to
     ensure thst  me legacy we leave them • one
     that wtf mciude our best efforts to preserve
     our natural resources and prevent future deg-
     radation of  our  enwonment  I urge my col-
     leagues to fom m mantammg our cjmmnmem
     to a clean and sale enwonment and enacttng
     M R 1

                     a 133}
       Mr.   HAMMERSCHMIDT.    Mr.
     Speaker. I do  not have any further re-
     quest* (or tune, but before I yield back
     the balance of my time. I yield myself
     such time aa 1 may consume so that I
     may say this:
       I  want  to  express  my  appreciation
     for the  leadership tfven  on  this legis-
     lation for the put 6 yean, and eveo
     before that,  by the chairman of  the
     subcommittee,  trie  tenUeman  from
     New Jersey.  Mr. Boa Rot and  bis
     counterpart, the gentleman from Min-
     nesota,  Mr.  Ax LA it  STAMCCJUTO.  I
     served at one  time with the gentleman
     from  New Jersey as  ranking member
     on  the  Water Resources Subcommit-
     tee, and I know the prodigious worn
     he did.
        I  also wish to thank and congratu
     late  the  gentleman  from  New Yor:<
      [Mr.  No WAX.) who will  be assuming
     the responsibilities aa chairman of the
     subcommittee.
        Also.  Mr. Speaker, certainly I  wish
     to  express  my  appreciation  to  the
     chairman of  the full committee, the
     gentleman from New  Jersey. Mr. JIM
      HowAiifl.  for his leadership and bis
     cooperation, and I also express my ap-
      preciation to the  very professional
      committee staffs. Their help and their
      cooperation  have brought  us to this
      point.
        Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker, before
      I yield back the balance  of my time.  I
      yield myseU such time as I may con-
      sume.
        Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank my col-
      leagues, all the members of the Com-
      mittee on Public Works and Transpor-
      tation, aa well as our counterparts over
      In the other body.
        I  especially  thank  the   gentleman
      from New Jersey (Mr. Ro*J  and our
      new  subcommittee chairman  of the
      Subcommittee  on Water  Rcsourcea,
      the gentleman from  New York (Mr.
      NOWASO.  I appreciate the  efforta of
      our  ranking minority  member, the
      gentleman    from  Minnesota   (Mr.
      STANOBUUIO). and I thank ail the Mem-
      ben for  the  work they  have dene on
      this vitally Important issue.
         In just  a matter of weeks thla marks
      really our third Urn* around on this
      vital legislation. We were victorious In
the Congress the first two times. Usu-
ally If you win the third time, you get
to retire the trophy.
  We are  not looking for any trophies
here. Mr. Speaker. What  we are look-
ing for Is a mandate by this Congress
for clean water for our children and
our grandchildren. We can do that by
voting yes on this vote to override the
President's veto.
  Mr.  Speaker. I  yield  back the bal-
ance of my time, and I move the previ-
ous question.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER  pro  tempore (Mr.
Kiuon).  The  question  Is. Will the
House, on reconsideration, pass the
bill, the objections of the President to
the contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, this vote
must be determined by the  yeas and
nays.
  The vote  was taken by electronic
device, and there were—yeas 401. nays
20. not voting 6. as follows:
             [Roll No. Ul
Ack*rman
Andrwt
An many
Appl*«at*
Ann*r
 TEAS-401
Conrm
Coootr
Ceucrtun
Cavrur
Com*
Cratf
Craatu
Aapin
Auunt
AuCMB
Burr
DauB

Dart* (Mil
Barnard
Bat*mi
Bat**
B«nn«ti
B«ntl*y
B*r*utar
             D*llumi
             O*Wtn*
             Dtcu
BrvtU
DteOuarei
Dtxen
DoruwUr
OenaaiNOi
Btlinlui
Blil«y
Bo»IM«ri
aecfi
Bo land
BOIMT (TH>
Bonior(kUi
Bonktr
Ornrr
Duncan
Durwn
Ormally
Dyien
Carir
Cckart
Cowmr*((CAi
Grant
Grmr iILi
Gray (TAI
Gr»»n
Or««t
Guarinl
Ound*neB
Hall iCUi
Hall (TZ>
Hamilion
Hanunmcaaudt
HanMn
Han*
Ha««n
Mauntr
Havtuu
Haywj'lLJ
Ham (LAI
H*n*y
H*(n«r
Henry
Htrul
Hiltr
HoenbnMCkair
Hollovay
Hootin*
Horum
                          He*ar4
                          Hoytr
                          HuMartf
                          Huckatty
                          Hu«ha«
                          Hunur
                          Hutu
                          Inland
                          J«r(erdi
                          Johnaon
-------
H 526                           CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE               February 3, 1987

                                 '       Th*  re*Ult °f  th-  V°U  *"**  *°~
             o«*M
L*»» 
UchUooi      fcul
UptMfcl       PWftrU        tprmu
Llvtn^tea     Plcu*         HO*riBAln
Uo»«
L0**TT(CA)
LwnriWA)    Pnei(NC)
LuMn         PurwU        Sure
Lukrtv TlMrnu QulUcn        Cunhelm
Mack         JUIull        Ctaka
H*cK*y       KaiMcl        Buvuaa
MADUm       IU*«n*i       Kuddi
Marker       Kay
MMUntlL)     lUfuU
MvttaiKT)    KbHa        *«nn
MMJUI        KMt*         >yn*r
Mcvrwitai     RlMM*       T»Jloo
McaoU       Miiur         Tmutt
             Kouru       Tkuun
             lUxnaoa      Tt>ler
McCoUum     IU«ina        ThomM'CA)
McCurdr      MM          ThonuxOA)
McCwvo       lUrawr       Tom*
MeOrMh      IU(tn        TemetUI
McHufb       MOM          Tenw
McKinnrj     MMUnkovikJ   Ttm/tcuit
McMUlwi(NC)  MeU\          Tfulrr
McMUttaiMO)  MoutMW      OteJJ
Mtrtra       M0vian« (CT)   Upton
MfUBM       Mo«l«n4   ViMnuno
MWB         RoyteJ        Vmto
MllJ«r     MIMO         VMCMttf
Moluiarl       S«*7*r        Waiktr
MoUoKtn      S«non        WtUlm
Moot«oatry    SchMfcr       WUB«O
Moodr        9eh*u*r       WrMf
MoorlMBd      •eluwidcr      WMM
Mortll*       «ehro»*»r      W»Moa
Momoan (CT)  OCIIUMU       W>MM
Morruon(WA>  Schuia*        Whliuktr
Mrurk        Sehuncr       WTiiutn
Murphr       SraMnbranttor  WIUIMM
Muruu       Slurp         WUOM
Mem         Sn»w         WIM
             Shuawmf      Wolf
             ShiMUr        Wolpt
Now          SUonkJ       WorUry
NtUoa        StaMM        Wr»«i
Nicboli        Skacn        WylM
Nl«lM«        Skwn         YU«
Ken*        Sttlion        Yuron
OkkAr         8l»ti«ry       Youni IAJC)
Oktnur       Sl»u«hl*r (KT)
O»r»         8Uu«l>ur
-------
Ftbntary-^1987             CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —SENATE                       S1691
                                    WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1987-
                                                 VFTO
                                     The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under
                                   the previous order, the hour of 1 p.m.
                                   having arrived,  the  Senate will now
                                   proceed to the  consideration of  the
                                   President's veto  message  on H.R.  1.
                                   which the clerk will report.
                                     The bill clerk read as follows:
                                     Veto menace on H R  1. an Act to amend
                                   ihc Federal  Water Pollution Control Act
                                   and 10 proud* (or renemal of the quality of
                                   the Nation I maters, and for other purpOM*.

                                     The message from the President  is
                                   as follows:
                                                 A-5b

-------
S1692
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
                 .February 4.
To tfif /foUM of Jbpr*aenta4i
  I am returning herewith without my
approval H_R. 1,  the  "Water Quality
Act of 1M7."  Because ail regulatory,
r MI arch, enforcement, and permit to-
•uaace activities are continued under
permanent law and current appropria-
tion*—Including grants to finance the
construction   of   sewage  treatment
plant*—I emphuize that my veto will
have no Impact whatsoever on the Im-
mediate (talus of any  water  quality
programs.
  The cleanup of our Nation'* rivers.
lakes, and  estuaries Is,  and has been
for the past 19 yean, a national priori-
ty of the highest  order.  This Adminis-
tration remains committed to  the ob-
jectives of the Clean Water Act and to
continuing the outstanding  progress
we nave made In reducing water pollu-
tion.  Bat the Issue facing me today
does not concern the ensuring of clean
water for future generations. The real
issue  Is the Federal deficit—and the
pork-barrel and spending boondoggles
that increase It.
  The Clean Water Act construction
grant program, which this legislation
funds, is a classic example of how well-
intentioned, short-term  programs bal-
loon Into open-ended, long-term com-
mitmenu costing billions  of  dollars
more   than  anticipated  or  needed.
Since  1072. the  Federal government
has helped  fund  the construction of
local aewage treatment  facilities. This
Is a matter that historically and prop-
erly  was the  responsibility of State
and  local governments.  The  Federal
government's  first spending  in  this
area was intended to  be a short-term
effort to assist In financing the back-
log of facilities needed at the time to
meet the original Clean Water Act re-
quirements. When the program start-
ed, the cost of that commitment to the
Federal taxpayer  was estimated at $18
billion.  Yet to date.  147 billion haa
been appropriated. H.R. l proposes to
put still another $18 billion of taxpay-
ers' money Into this program.  Despite
all this money, only 67  percent of all
municipalities have actually completed
the  construction  needed to  comply
with  the  Clean Water  Act pollution
limits. On the other hand, non-munici-
pal treatment systems, which have re-
ceived no Federal funding, have com-
pleted 94 percent of the construction
needed for compliance with  Federal
pollution standards. I want a bill that
spends only what we  need to spend
and no more—not a blank check. For
these reasons I must  disapprove  H.R.
1. a  bill virtually identical to & 112S.
which I disapproved last November.
  Money is not the only problem  with
this  legislation. In my  November 8th
memorandum of  disapproval.  I noted
that S. 1128 was unacceptable not only
because It provided excessive  funding
for the sewage treatment grant pro-
gram, but also because  It reversed 1m-
portaat reforms  enacted in 1M1. for
example, increasing the Federal share
of coats on some  projects that munici-
palities were  going to  build anyway.
Furthermore,  both 8.  1124 and this
     bill  would also estabtfch a federally
     controlled and  directed  program  to
     control  what  is  called  -non-point"
     souro*  pollution.  This new  program
     threatens to become the ultimate whip
     hand for Federal  regulators. For ex-
     ample, la participating Stales, if fann-
     ers have more run-off from their  land
     than the Environmental  Protection
     Agency decides  Is right, that Agency
     will be able to  intrude Into decisions
     such as how and  where  the farmers
     roust plow their fields, what fertilizers
     they must use, and what kind of cover
     crops they must  plant.  To take an-
     other example, the Agency will be able
     to  become a  major  force  In  local
     sonlng  decisions that  will determine
     whether  families  can  do such basic
     things as build  a  new home That is
     too  much pom-er for anyone to have.
     least of all the Federal  Government.
       As pan of my FY 1M8 Budget. I pro-
     posed legislation that would avoid all
     these problems, while  continuing our
     commitment  to  clean water.  It would
     provide  $12  billion for  the  sewage
     treatment program, halfway between
     the  $4  billion I had proposed in  1985
     and the $18 billion the Congress pro-
     poses. Senator  OOLC Introduced  this
     proposal as a substitute for H.R. 1.
       Specifically, the  Dole substitute that
     was voted on by the Senate was Identi-
     cal to all provisions of H.R.11 for pro-
     grams other than aewage treatment,
     with one important exception—4U pro-
     gram for  non-point source pollution
     was not an open end for Federal regu-
     lators. It kept  Federal environmental
     regulators off of our farms, off of our
     municipal toning  boards, and  out of
     the  lives of ordinary citizens. The  Dole
     substitute would  have  given  States
     complete discretion over participation
     in the non-point source pollution pro-
     gram  and complete discretion  over
     how they used Federal  funds  in the
     program. Let me repeat—controlling
     non-point source pollution has the po-
     tential  to touch, in the most intimate
     ways, practically all of us as citizens.
     whether farmers,  business people, or
     homeowners.  I  do not believe State
     programs should be subject to Federal
     control.
       The $11 billion requested in the Dole
     substitute would  have  financed the
     "Federal share" of all of the treat-
     ment  plants that  have  already  been
     started. It would also have provided
      the "Federal share" of  financing for
     all facilities needed to meet the July 1.
      1984. compliance  requirements to the
      Clean  Water  Act.  It  was as much
     money as we needed  to get  the )ob
      done—period.
       The Dole substitute offered the Con-
      gress a genuine compromise that met
      all  of  the  national  objectives  and
      goals.   Nevertheless,  the   Congress
      chose to Ignore  that proposal, forgoing
      even the normal bearing process, and
      repassed last  year's legislation  with
      virtually no changes. The House Rules
      Committee even  prevented  consider-
      ation of this compromise by the full
      House. They sought to challenge me.
But  In  so  doing they are sending •
message to the  American people and
the world that those who want to rail*
taxes and take the lid off spending are
back again. This Is perilous.
  R.R. 1 gate the Congress the oppor
turrtty  to demonstrate whether or not
It is  serious  about getting  Federal
spending under control. The Congress
should fulfill Its responsibility to the
American people and support me on
these Important fiscal Issues. Together
we  can  cut  the deficit and reduce
spending. But by passing such  meas-
ures as H.R. 1.  the Congress divides
our interests and threatens our future
                   RONALS REAGAN.
  THE Wttrrt House, January 30. lit?
  The  PRESIDING OFFICER  (Mr
DASCKUI. Time for debate is limited to
1 hour, to be equally  divided between
the Senator from North Dakota and
the Senator from Vermont. The vote
thereon will occur at 3 pjn.
                                                         A-57

-------
91708                       CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —SENATE              Ftbnutry 4, 1997
  The  PRESIDING OFFICER  (Mr.
A*AMJI. Ail Urn* U yielded back. The
question is. shall tht bill pass, the ob-
jections of the President of the United
States  to the contrary  notwithstand-
ing? The yeas and nays  are required.
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Tht  PRESIDING OFFICER-  Arc
there any other Senator* In the Cham-
ber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted: Yeas M.
nays 14. as  follows:
       (RoUcall You No. II Uf .1
              TXA5-M
                        fttt
            OrMMVT      ^ Mil IT
                        Praacur*
            H«ent
            H*nin
            NMm        M««cftll*f
                        Hout
C*fM«       K«B«»      StvMBT
D I
O»Af*nh     LcvM        Suffer*
OMCM*      McCiw       Sunnu
CMCcnciM     MlConn«U     SUrtfM
                        TriM*
            MMmiXun   Wtwktr
            MlkuteU      WiiHn
            MIUIMU      Wtnn
            M*rruti*n     ZanrakT
Cvaran      M«yM        SymiM
                        Thu/mon4
            McClur*
  The  PRESIDINO  OFFICER.  On
 this vote, the yeas are »6 and the nays
 are  14.  Two-thirds  of the  Senators
 present and votinc having voted In the
 affirmative, the  bill,  on  reconsider-
 ation. Is pstsert. the objections of  the
 President of the United States to  the
 contrary notwithstanding.
                                                 A-58

-------
                                     APPENDIX B
                            Regional Contact Questionnaire

       This appendix provides  the  questionnaire used to survey  EPA regional permitting
authorities on the types or categories of discharges that could be considered de minimis, as well
as to recommend regulatory options and associated procedural implications, with respect to the
classification of de minimis discharges.   A similar questionnaire was developed  for the State
permitting agencies.

-------
                  DE MINIMIS REGIONAL CONTACT QUESTIONNAIRE I)
REGION:



CONTACT:



AGENCY:



ADDRESS:
PHONE «:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
                                      B-l

-------
1.   Discuss the region's initial  responses regarding categories of De Minimis,
    if applicable.

    a. Rationale for Each Category?
    b. What Type of Effluent?
    c. Any Other Suggestions for De Minimis?
                                      B-2

-------
B-3

-------
2.   Discuss other potential candidates for De Minimis.
    a.  Candidates from Other Regions.
       a-1.  Fish Hatcheries - Trout Farms:  	
                                      B-4

-------
a-2.  Oil Storage Facilities - Oil/Waste Separators:
a-3.   Seafood Packaging/Processing:
                               B-5

-------
a-4.   Water Filtration Plants:
a-5.  Mine Dewatering:
                               B-b

-------
a-6.  Pit Dewatering:
a-7.   Sand Dredging:
                              B-7

-------
a-8.   Quarries:
a-9.  Swimming Pool Filter Backwash:
                               B-tt

-------
a-10.  Aquifer Restoration:
a-11.   Car Washes (regulated)
                              B-9

-------
a-12.   Brine Discharges (stripper wells)
a-13.   Steam Condensate:
                              B-10

-------
a-14.  Heat Pumps:
a-15.   Hydrostatic Testing:
                              B-ll

-------
a-16.   Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, Finance, and Real Estate:
a-17.  Services:
                              B-12

-------
3.   Discuss special cases of Oe Minimis and how classification can be achieved:

    POTWs & Other Sewage Treatment Facilities (minor municipals)

    a. Pretreatment.
    b. Plant Flow.
    c. Dilution Factors.
    d. Population Served.
    e. Seasonal.
                                     B-13

-------
3.  Discuss special cases of De Minimi's and how classification can be achieved:

    Noncontact Cooling Water

    a. Plant Flow.
    b. Heat.
    c. Stream Flow or Dilution Factor.
    d. For Specific Operations or Industries (i.e., no toxics).
                                     B-14

-------
3.   Discuss special cases of De Minimis and how classification can be achieved:

    Individual Homes (define)

    a. Type of Treatment.
    b. Septic Systems.
                                     B-15

-------
4.  Discuss regulatory options.



    a. Exclusion from NPDES Permit Requirements:
                                      B-16

-------
4.   Discuss regulatory options.



    b.  Model Permit (rubber stamp):
                                     B-17

-------
4.  Discuss regulatory options.



    c. General Permit:  	
                                      B-18

-------
4.   Discuss regulatory options.



    d. Ten-Year Permits (as opposed to five-year)
                                     B-19

-------
4.  Discuss regulatory options.



    e. Over-the-Counter Processing:
                                     B-20

-------
5.   Request any information helpful in evaluating cost savings attributed to
    regulatory options:  	
                                     B-21

-------
6.   Miscellaneous:
7.   State Contacts:
                                      B-22

-------
                                    APPENDIX C

                         Dt Minimis Discharge Survey Results


                            Potential DC Minimis Discharges

                          EPA Region Responses            C1-C4
                          EPA Responses                   C5-C8
       This appendix provides the results of the Study's survey on the types or categories of

discharges that could be considered de minimis.  Results were compiled for the ten EPA regional
permitting authorities and nine State permitting agencies recommended by the regional offices.

-------
(PA REGION RESPONSIS TO POUIUIAL Of NIN1N1S DISCHARGIS
Region 1
Aojutfer No comment
Restorat Ion
Br In* No comment .
Discharger
(Stripper
Me Us)
Car Wastes No comment .
fish Hatcheries OJC - Originally
suggested *
HMt Piana No comment
Homes OJC - Many coastal or
island discharges only
?-300 6PO '
Hydrostatic No comment
Testing
Mine OeMterlng No comment
Noncontact QK - Must have criteria
Cooling based on heat '
Region II
No comment
2_ - Preliminary results
of a study indicate
potential impacts in NY
JO. - Hesitant because of
phosphorus, salt, and
01 1 and grease
2_ - Can have severe
nutrient problems
OJC • If heat is considered
in relat ion to f low
2. - Sept ic systems
should be a Department
of Health concern
OJC - If strictly hydro
testing Beware of acid
and chemicals being
rinsed from new pipe
No comment
PJC - Needs criteria based
on f ract ion of f low or
Region III
NO - Can be dealing with
highly toxic chemicals
(Superfund)
2. - A NtlC report
indicates some situations
where impacts can be
minimal '
No comment
PJC - Original ly
Suggested by region *
PJC - VA may have permits
for these dischargers
OK - A high number m
PA (septic discharges)
No comment
NO. ' Nines, especially
coal mines, are a serious
problem in Region 111
OK logical choice.
some situations where it
Region IV
QK - Or ig ind 1 1 y
suggested f row N(
NO - A lot of problems.
however, may fit under a
general permit
NO - Should be kept under
a regular permit - dirt
detergents, oil
2. • Depends on type of
operation, fish, and sue
(*-NC trout farms only)
No comment
7 - Are county regulated
No comment
NO. - Varies too much, coal
is a problem ( " NC )
2 Can't he too general.
should not e»em(jt powe'
Region V
JJO You are pumping
contamination, should not
eliminate public notice
NO - Strong argument for
zero discharge in Michigan
No comment
2 Chemicals used to
control f ish disease
However, are generally
m inor per m 1 1 s
OK MN i s work ing on a
general permit for these"
No Lontnent
No comment
W 1 ocat ion of
discharges can move
0*_ Wl has a genera 1
pe'mu
                                                   plants
                                                   •->hou U!  (>t-  a  c f 11e
                                                   CNl)
                         C-l

-------
IPA RIGIM IISrOKfS 10 FOUIIIAl n  NIUNIS OISCHMC1S (continued)

MutUr
Intorat ion



•rin*
0i*clurm*r
(Stripper
Milt)
Car Ma«hn



1 iih Hatctorm



HMt PMBJM

tan



HytTMUt 1C
Inting




Nine Ommatenng


•one on tact
Cooling

M T Ok
Nil
legion VI legion VII legion VIII legion IX Region X lotali
' Variable depending NO It pumping No comment _ Haybe it tontamin Uk_ Not a No lOMfe-Ml
pumping tests
Jfc Current ly No comment _ 1 rom watei _ f'oss ill 1, to «wi nir No i unnrnl . (»
ignored, left softening cylirxie'S environments, but nol
up to individual could be a problem freshwater / NO
1 No lOMWnl
' - fair If 0£ Only a let* NO Can be a No lumnrnt Ik, iumwiii 1 O
insignificant, but directs •ithm problem, degreaser, 1
•cry questionable ' region hot »ater. i NO
elC ', No 1 OHMMit
Oil for special cases. _ Only a handful _ Si/r nust be a NO Can be guilt- Idiije Ok_ 1 of s«vi M lain 4 Ok
trout and shrimp farms .ithin the region, auy consideration and cause urodlras. porul types, not Uigr ',
ue a problem arr easy permits to or iacr»ay lai i 1 it ics 1 Nil
• r lie and kerp
J* Ok No comment Ok Uk_ /Ok
i No coMwni
0£ See small se»age 0£ Individual septic 2f_ Generally a low ^ Public health Ok See small t Ok
treatment facilities ' systems permit t ing pr ior it y. concerns treatment plants t
but may be high 1 No comment
strength e)f luenl
0* Constantly Ok_ One slate is Ok t*,,fia 1 \, minor . Ok. It additives are Ok i, i»
bombarded with issuing a general however, rale of not used 4 No i ujmnent
applications, hatd to permit foi these discharge, water source.
deal with Good (tischaron s. new V} and type of 1 ir*
candidate e< isl my pipe 1 ines show lo* be cons nJered
is a cons ider at ion
Ng Coal operations No comment No conwnt NO Wi 1 .." r i- it-a .• Ini^r i, NO
can be significarit dni«.jni •. ot (Hillutj'.ts u> 4 Ho loMtnent
|>i t ,1 pl.t- f.» ii tyfpnri.f %
Ok_ Ok fiiotHk- should br 0<_ Ot_ (or.snl. i l)»_ M.,", ,nuio, . (»
a cons Klei at ion N «oi nlf s . 1 !(>•» i 1 1 1 t u i 1 1 1 i»- . I
dud trmcit-' .«' ui i-

(Jf llf- J 1 1 » Hi llppo'. 1 1 Ull' 1 0 1 TH- ( rt (f 4111 T ' Nl I)' l.| II M , ,,, , lt ! , 1 1 , tl. ,. I |, I , . ,. ,
                             C-2

-------
                                                    EPA REGION RESPONSES TO POTENTIAL DC NINIMIS DISCHARGES
                         Region
       Region  II
      Region  III
                                   Region  IV
                                                                                            Region V
Oil Storage       No comment
  facilities
  Oil-Waste
  Separators

Pit DetMtertng    OK - Construction
                  dewatering *
_? - Perhaps, may f it
under a general permit
but would not exclude
from NPDES

Ho comment
_^   May be a minor          OK  -  Many  are  covered
category, however, spills   under  general  permit1,
are a serious concern       ('  NC)
                            No comment
                                                            •  For  certain
                                                         Of.    But  do have
                                                         potent la 1  (i.i  sp i I Is
                                                                                     Ho
Quarries          No comnent

Sand Dredging     No comnent
No comment

No cowment
No comment

_? ' Have not seen many
problems within the
region
                            No comment

                            OK  -  No  long  standing
                            harm,  are mobi le
                            operations  {" NC)
                                                                                     No  comment

                                                                                     No  comnent
Seafood           No comnent
  Packaging ft
  Processing
NQ - Tuna packers have
been shown to be a real
problem (BOD)
                            NJJ  - Problems  have
                            occurred within
                            Region  III
                             NO    Especially  lor
                             processing operations
                             Small  packing or dock
                             operat ions may be OK
                             ("-NC  packing)
                                                         No comnent
Sail I Se»age      OK - Perhaps  less than
  Treatment       01 MGO '
  Facilities
I - Small facilities tend
to be poorly operated
and Maintained
OK - VA and HO are
working on genera)
permits for these types
                            ]_ •  Health department
                            could  better  handle
                            these  dischargers, some
                            are  currently  neglected
                                                         No comnent
Steam             No comment
  Condensate
Stumming Pools
(K -  If heat  is
considered  in relation to
flow

2* -  Genera I ly. only a
few concerns  (chlorine)
No comnent
OK - Minimal  type
problem
                             OK    Are  current ly  being
                             overlooked, eiemption
                             would be  a good opt ion
                                                                                     0^   A lot  ot  this type
                                                                                     within region,  volume
                                                                                     i s srrki I I  '


                                                                                     Q.   Uood candidate.
                                                                                     genera I ly sitio I I
Water
  Filtration
  Plants
{* - But should not be
deregulated
OK   For smalI
dischargers  into  large
it reams, the converse of
this may be a problem
                            0».    However .  spei. id I
                            cases  should  tie  looked
                            at  ( i  e  .  A lumini*n
                            s ludqe .  '. '/e.  eti  )
                                                                                    _^   Ifiere are a lot
                                                                                     t hat  cou Id t it  in  the
                                                                                     region,  but  ensure
                                                                                     trvey  aie Oe  M'ninus
                                                                            C-3

-------
IPA RIUO* RtSPONUS 10 roillllM  U  MIHINIS UIMIMKU!) (LUCI( inunl)
Region VI Region VII
Oil Slgfsgg f» (J«_ Prubabl; IKS
facilities category of
Oii iiajsie cte Hiniejis
Separators
Pit OCMlenng No cmmwnt Nu comnenl
Quarries No coiwent 0£ Or ig ma 1 ly
suggested '
Send Dredging <£. 1 A <*« site
problem
Seafood Nj> In lone cases. No cement
P«c**ging t significant BOO
Processing problem
Settll Sewage J* General permit for NO. HI tales a lot
IrMlaenl several thousand of t i«e to deal
1 jellifies dischargers in IA nith these, located
Relative si/e of sire** on high-quality
should be considered suta 1 1 strewn
StMi St. *° conMent
CondenMle
SniMing Pools (* bowl iilea ' Of_
Utter (> bowl LdiKhcldle 0»_ beneially nu( a
1 l Ural ion p'Ob leM '
Pl»nts
1.1 1 U* ^flicljlly II. JUl f.11«r'.t »itll tlK- ^lfl|Uly
NO (jriifi a 1 1 1 M. opposition lu tlie tdU-uuir
•dyl'i . ui.iJfi Kk-il
Region VIII Region II Region t lui a Is
0> II riouse*eep ?n(i is si.oidye tjst'lit'fs '.* !t unly sunCiM != '.*
l^owl. rio nut se trwin unly «dslt sepaiators 1
pdikiliij lui S LdM iia«f tulles 1 No lUMtllelii
No comirnl Nn Nu i oim-nl .' (»
1 NO
No coillKent _ Ma?!sf HOISX?'.*! Nu i ussia-ri! 1 !>
Udi inu plls B NU
i
0 Nu tuMinenl
No conHient NO bone cause NO V lai ei •inir.q ,' (»
significant slre / NU
4 No iOMKcnl
No conaent NU Cdnnei les can _ Herlidps SIM 1 1 1
cause severe pdckauing fdci lilies 4 NO
prot.leas {'inse tuln onl,) ',. Nu icMtenl
No conMenl NO S«d 1 1 srsle»s ria.r t» Kan, suta 1 1 4 IK
•01 st operdtton and seasonal camps, etc . / •
Maintenance, potent 14 1 in tins region X >jste , NO
lor health m^wcts ol t l«* lo nonitoi ' ,' No comenl
No coment __ 0". ', (»
1
4 Nu ICMIK.-III
OV_ benerally not a Ot_ IXHM! cdiHluldle l»_ IU L»
prolile*
_ (.dn I* a prolilm Oi. l»_ !«»«! laiululJlt- o». I'.H 1 ul l..» k lu.(. n l»
smell sln-dMS cldriliei HI ,t.ii url lun /
UlluVl 1 U)M IS d 1 lOHflt M.njlll U .Illtdllll
t u t»r (I is* li.il util Oh
d 1 f iju Kll I'J', 1 S
1'. . / n.., 1 1, .... 1. .It-.l 1.. !'• 1 mi
' III Oi .) u ., II, n.|.|i .1 I il 1 , II .1 1 li 1 .u ., 1 n, .
                               C-4

-------
                                                      SIAIt «SPOHS£S 10 POUNIIM DC HININIS DISCHARGES
                                  Haine
                               Net> Jersey
                                                                                    Pennsylvania
                                                           Kentucky
                                                                                      Wisconsin
Aquifer Restoration
OK • Is in need of some    NO   Can be a problem
kind of regulation.        (well drilling
should meet applicable     chemicals)
water standards
                           NO - Contaminated water
                           should not be considered
                           de m in imi s
                                                                                                           No comment
                                                                                                            |(0    lo«ics
Brine Discharges
(Stripper Hells)
                          No comment
                                                     No comment
                                                      NO  - A ma lor problem.  PA    NO  -  All  are  permitted     NO -  Industrial brine
                                                      has a separate  bureau  to    in  ICY with  a  new            dischargers are
                                                      handle these discriargers    chloride  standard           permitted m Wl
Car Washes
                          Ng - Soaps and
                          nutrients
                           NO. • NJ has tried to
                           convert most to indirect
                           or fero dischargers
                           NO - PA tries to dis-      NO  - Are steering toward   NO    Are  encouraged
                           charge these subsurface    jero discharge             to  be indirect
                           in non-sewered area                                   dischargers
Fish Hatcheries
rkwt Pumps
NO. - Can be *
significant nutrient
problem, may fit a
genera) permit scheme
Np_ -  Significant
contributor of BOO.
bacteria, and solids
££. - May be possible to    OK - But there are not
exempt this category       many in NJ
                          Np_ - Coastal package
                          plant discharges have
                          caused shellfish harvest
                          problems due to bacteria
                           NO - See Sewage
                           Treatment Plants
N£ - Are a significant     N£ - Have denied
problem on high-quality    permits
streams
                           Of,   Not a problem
                           ]_ - Significant from a     OK_    If  less than
                           public health standpoint   ?.SOO gal/d. a general
                           (raw sewage)               permit may  fit
                                                                                                             NO    Ammonia  can be a
                                                                                                             problem
                                                                                                             OK    See  Noncontact
                                                                                                             Coo I my

                                                                                                             No Loninent
HydrtnlaUc
fjjk - l«ewpXiDT>. over-trie-  Ho comment
counter, or a rule may
fit this category
                           H£ - Can cause             NO   Some PIBs have been   (X    Are  considered
                           substantial environmental  detected, currently            Under  a  genera'
                                                      perfn 111 ed.  ne*»  lo
-------
S1AU  R(SPOMS(S  10 POUNIIAL M NININ1S DISCHARGE (continued)

Aquifer Restoration



Brine Discharges
(Stripper Wells)

Car Washes

fish Hatcheries


Heat Pia^ts

HOBKS



Hydrostatic Testing



Nine Dewatering



Moncontact Cooling


Texas
NO. - Are current ly
regulated


NO - Regulated by
railroad coamission

SSL

P£ - State does not
issue penults for
these
NO - See Steam
Condensate
NO. - Health concerns



PJC - Currently regulated
by letters, working on
a rule or genera) permit

NO - L ignite mines
are covered by state
•ide rules

]_ Generally permitted


Missouri
2, - Dependent upon
contaminant


2. - HO returns brine to
aquifer

NO. - Solids and soaps

NO. - When cleaning
operations are included
in discharge
OK - For households

OK - Not regulated.
therefore, are
potentially de Minims

OK



NO. Coal and lead
have been a
problem

OK for smal 1
dischargers

California
PJ^ - Genera 1 ly no
prob (ems


NO. - Large number of
abatement orders
current ly
OK No problems

]_ - Discharges to small
streams can cause
problems
OK

No comment



fiK



NO There have
been problems
in these areas

OK


Washington
NO



No comment


N£ Soaps and
detergents
NO Is of current
publ ic interest . have
seen some problems
OK - If not large.
coronerc 10 1 unit s
NO See be«aqe
Treatment Fac i 1 it les


7 • If short term could
be regulated by some
other means than NPO( S

No comment



OK It low t low and
t empe r a t u i c

totals
/ OK
1
S NO
1 No comment
1
', NO
.) Ho comment
1 OK
B NO
1 OK
1 ?
; NO
8 OK
1 NO
? OK
1
4 NO
1 No comment
', OK
1
'i NO
1 No comment
1 OK
1
b NO
I No comment
7 OK
I
1 NO
                         C-6

-------
                                                 SIAH  RfSPOHSfS TO POTENTIAL Ot NININIS DISCHAMfS  (continued)

Oil Storage facilities
Oil -Waste Separator!




Pit Oavatering

Quarries

Sand Dredging

Seafood Packaging
t Processing
Haine
2. - Separators are
currently under a general
permit, however, there
is concern whether this
regulation is adequate
PAH's have been detected
OK - Over-the-counter
or general permit
pji - Over-the-counter
or general permit
OK - Over-the-counter
or genera 1 permit
NQ - Receiving water
specif ic May f it into
Hen Jersey
NO Are currently not
being adequately
regulated



No comment

NO. Can be a
problem
No comment

jjj) - Even minor
facilit tes can cause
Pennsylvania Kentucky
Ojt - Probably fits OK A general permit
intoademinimis may fit he re
category



NO OK Gener d 1 permit

OK - Does not appear to OK General permit
be a significant problem
2* - Does not appear to OK General permit
be a significant problem
2. - Not familiar with No comment
these types of
Ui scons in
OK Coveted under a
genera 1 permit




OK (overed under a
gpner a 1 perm 1 1
OK - Covered under d
genera 1 permit
OK (oveted under a
genet a 1 per m 1 1
No comment

                          a general permit  scheme    major  problems
                                                       f ac ilit ies
SawII Savage Ireatawnt
 Facilities
                               See Homes
                           NQ - NJ would  not
                           support de mmimis
                           classification of
                           these plants
                                 Not  a  real problem    NO   M has had a
                                                       signif icant prob lem
                                                       • ith package p lants
                                                  Q^    Mdy be covered
                                                  u'uter a ijvi.eidl permit
Steam Condmsate
                           Pi    If discharge  is
                            is uncontammated
                                                                                 No ceminent
                                                                                                                                        U>-   See None on t act
                                                                                                                                        (ov> * inq
  MBing Pools
0* - 'he us* of a rule
may fit this category
2.   Category where
there  is a potentia I
problem, but would
like to  ignore
Not a problem
Mater filtration Plants   Ok    This category  needs   _   In  NJ.  water pldnl
                          to be addressed  soxeho«.   draw large  percentages
                          perhaps a general permit   from !>tream*> and want
                                                     to  put  Lack  the >.o I id'.
                                                       0^   Probably a rte
                                                       minimis Ldtegor y
                                                       NO   JuM  '••• upd .1  lul
                                                       uf pf r m i! •  1 (. vjct t heir
                                                       ,r, line
                                                  0»_    ( o.t-rrJ in.rler
                                                  ,1 gen*-. ,1 \  pei if1 11
                                                                            C-7

-------
S1AII  RtSPONSIS [0 POKNHM « HIMIHIS OlSOMftUS (continued)

Oil Storage Facilities
Oil-Waste Separators



Pit "watering



Quarries

Sand Dredging



Seafood Packaging
• Processing

SsMll Se»eg« Treatment
Facilities


Steae, Condensate


SoMBHng fools


Water Filtration Plants



leias
2£. - For sntal 1 tank
farms or bulk stations



£2 - " they discharge.
they are permitted


NO. - Potential for
significant pollution
2, - Generally lero
discharge, a general
permit may f it

>(2 - Are current ly
regulated

(J2 - Are current ly
regulated


N2 - Regulated with
other operat ions
in a permit
2* - Not regulated in
TX

^ Most decant
and recyc le. c lose to
jero discharge

Missouri California
2t Generally just 2. Series of cleanup
stormwater and abatement actions
on these types in CA


U2 I. No operations in
CA region


PJC Limestone is not OJk - Generally no
a problem problems
2, • Based on nature Ojl Generally no
of water. MO and MS problems
Rivers are OH 0/ark
pr ist me waters - NO
Mo comnent _? - Do not think
they are genera 1 ly
a problem
2_ Possibly for small 2. ' * 'e%< ""der
dischargers. MO enforcement actions
is trying to write
a general permit
0* - For small 0£
dischargers

OK ok


C* If discharging to 0»,
large receiving waters
In MO. on ly (he MO and
MS Rivers
Washington
facilities down
t o and me lud ing
bu Ik stat ions and
distribution terminals
may be s ign if icant
Ok_ If the volume is not
too high Current ly
unregulated, a general
permit may f it here
0* See Pi!
Dewater ing
Ok See P 1 1
Oewater ing


' - Only small operations
such as oyster shucking
are ms igmf icant
JtO (jenerally
discourage sma 1 1
sewage discharges

0*. 1 f sma 1 1 heat ing
steam condensate

0£ oenerally. d
few t ish k i 1 Is
have been noted
1 ont ' Live • •. i .1 1
!SSue. ,,r(.|.li-m-.
set t i'ig 1 .'nit •.

lota Is
' 0.
i
1 NO


4 O
1 '
3 NO
1 No comment
; on
2 - NO
t C»-
1
\ No comment

t,
3 N(J
3 No comment
1 Ok
3 •
•> NO

/ 0,
1 NO
1 No comment
8 Ok
\

• I).

1 HO

                         C-8

-------
                                   APPENDIX D
                        De Minimis Discharge Survey Results

                             Potential Regulatory Options
                          EPA Region Responses     D1-D2
                          State Responses           D3-D4
      This appendix provides the results of the  Study's survey on the potential regulatory
options.  Results were compiled for the ten EPA regional permitting authorities and nine State
permitting agencies recommended by the regional offices.

-------
                                               EPA RE6IM RESPONSES TO POTENTIAL OC  NININIS REGULATOR! OPTIONS
                               Region
                                Region II
                               Region III
                                Region IV
                                Region V
Nodil fw«it
HO. - Still requires
individual notification
requirements.
JK - May fit certain
situations such as
construeton runoff and
other high burden
temporary operations
2_ - Already being used
to some extent
MO -  Is not  any
different from a
standard permit put
in a  word processor
NO -  States have used
this and it is not a
great advantage
Gmneral Pcratt
pJC - Essentially •
Ittter stating that a
standard permit is
not needed.
0£ - Good idea.
especially for stripper
veils and oil storage
facilities.
OK - Good opt ion.  is
being considered for
011 & gas and smal 1
sanitary discharges
OK - Is used in KY for
coal mines and private
residences
OK - Except process to
get state authority
is too time consuming.
Ttn-TMr P«r»lt
OJC - As  long as
notification of changes
is st 111 mandatory
PJC - If mandatory
Monitoring and
inspect ions are st111
required
P£  - May be a viable
opt ion  in some cases
NO   If it is not
important, it would be
better to regulate under
a genera) permit or to
exempt from requirements
CK   Good  idea
Should include short
application format and
simplified procedures
Over-the-Counter
? - No c
                                      nt
£K  -  If  it can actually
streamline the process
Nfi   Does not  feel  this
type of process would
be helpful
NO   Would not have
pub) ic participation.
also similar to general
permit in terms of
regulations
                                                                                                                No comment
Exclusion f rt» NPKS ?, - Perhaps facilities
and POTWs with less
than 1.000 GPD
NO. - These operat ions
can have effects on
smal 1, high qua) ity
streams Also makes
permittee aware of
environmental concerns
OK - May be a viable
opt ion for certain
categories
? - If unimportant.
it may be an opt ion
See comments on the
10 year permit
NO Regu lat ions say
that all point sources
must be permitted.
would not change this
KEY   OK - generally in agreement with the option
      NO - generally in opposition with the option
       ? - maybe, undecided, or no conwent
                                                                           D-l

-------
                                         [PA REGION RESPONSES 10 POUHTIM  OE  NJM1NIS RE6UIATORT OPTIONS (continued)
Region VI
Nodal Permit ?. • Not familiar with
process, but «*y be
appropriate

General Permit jj( - The region needs
to ut i li/e this mart.
and interaction with
EPA headquarters needs
to be streamlined
Ten-Tear Per* It £K - Good idea, perhaps
even IS years for
reissued permits


Over- trie-Counter NO - Circumventing
USEPA regulations and
the Clean Water Act.
not much better than
not addressing
discharges.

Exclusion from NPOES J)K - Ideal for some
categories, minor
sources which are less
significant than
runoff

Region VII
]_ - No comment



£jC - States are using
this, effect we for
De Minims categories


OK - Would delay the
re issuance of
thousands of minor
fact ) it les

2 - Sounds c lose to
the concept of a
general permit, may
be applicable
to nonde legated
states

]_ - Perhaps, but
some mechanism
for regu lat ion is
still needed


Region VIII
2 - for guidance only.
must modify permits to
suit specific needs

£K - However, approval
and interact ion with
EPA headquarters needs
to be expedited

1. - Mixed emot ions.
maybe OK if the option
to reopen is there


OK - A mod if icat ion
of the general permit.
a good concept




Nfl - Perhaps, prefer
to determine
on a case-by-
case basis


Region IX
NCJ - Is in use
and does not
tend to el iminate
processing burden
OK But needs to be
eas ler gett ing
through EPA
headquarter 's review

OK - May be useful in
some instances



_? - May be a useful
alternat ive





2, Perhaps, but some
a 1 lowances must be
set for permitt ing
author it les to permit
f ac ilit les on a
case-by-case basii
Region X
(£ • Could work for
certain categories
(placer mines and
f ish hatcher IBS)
OK But issuance
through EPA
headquarters needs to
be stream! ined

OJ( - Many fac ) 1 it les
where discharge will
not change, and not if i-
cat ion is required if
changes do occur
OK Good idea.
espec la 1 )y for
unique, nonef f luent
discharges and
emergency permitting
needs Opt ion to
revoke if a problem
CJK • [spec lally for
unique, nonef fluent
type discharges



Tot* Is
2-CK
4-?
4-NO

10-OK




8 OK
1-'
I-NO


3-OK
4-7
3-NO




3-OK
S-'
2-NO



KEY
              OK   generally  in  agreement with the category
              NO -  generally  in  opposition to the category
               7 -  maybe,  undecided, or no comment
                                                                               D-2

-------
                                                  STATE RC$PONS(S  TO POTENTIAL DC NIHINIS REGULATORY OPTIONS
                                  lUine
                               Nw Jersey
                               Pennsylvania
                                                                                                               Kentucky
                                                                                                                                          Wisconsin
Mode) Permit
General Per*It
Ten-Year PernIt
NO - Is a modification     QL -  Agency would
of the standard procedure  probably not object
being used currently
£K - A  lot of potential.
•ould also support an
effort to nake the
process more flexible
P£ - Particularly for
general permit
categories
0£ - Can be effective
to balance resources
and priorities, however.
something is lost with
this process

_? - NJ has previously
been opposed to this
concept
H0_ - Would have limited
application within PA
due to  intricate water
quality standards

j* - May be applicable
                                                      QK -
                                                      used
                                                                                                                  current \y
OK - Has been effeet ive
in IkT program (or coal
mines and individual
homes
OK - Good administrative   ]_ - Only tor general
action for dealing with    permit categories
minors
K£Y           OK -  generally in agreement with the category
              NO -  generally in opposition to the category
               7   maybe, undecided
      No comment -  not discussed or no feeling toward category
                           NO   Mready in use.
                           not  much benef it
OK -  Good concept.
one hall  of  WI
facilities are covered
under general permits.
most ly de mi mm is

0^   In favor of  this
opt ion for minor
permits
Over- 1 he-Counter



Exclusion from NPttS



OK - May be a good
concept for particular
categories

OK - In some cases
Rulings for de minimis
categories may be a
related alternative
£ - Probably would not
f it by itself . maybe
combined with the
general permit
S3.



N£ - If the process is NO
that simple, why bother
with a permit?

0£ - Should be some OK - For some
exclusions Perhaps. categories
swimming pools and
noncontact cooling
0^ f 1 iminat
pul) lie not ice
be extremely

OK In some



ion of
HOU Id
helpful

cases



                                                                                   D-3

-------
SiAit SiSPOSStS iO POiiiiiiAi  Of  NiNiriiS 6i6UAiG8i  OP I i OSS (continued;

Node) Permit


Genera) Permit



Ten-Tear Permit





Over the Counter


Texas
1_ - Is current ly used
for domestic permits

QK - Good tool for
large minor categories


Missouri
NO - Standard procedure
already in use

PJi - Good for some
classes, working on a
genera 1 permit for
sewage dischargers
N0_ - For process-oriented 7_ - Might be all right.
discharges, the 10-year
term is too long



NO - State law requires
notification, would not
change
Exclusion from HPOCS _? - Zero discharge





KEY OK
NO
7 .
No comment
permits are excluded




generally in agreement with the
• generally in opposition to the
maybe, undecided
but would have to
change state law



NO - Would cause
administrative problems

_?. • A general permit
with no monitoring
requirements would be
better


category
category

California
2. Not much different
than what is being done

9_K - Good idea, have
applied for authority


OK - Use a similar system
for land discharges.
3. S. and 10-year permit
basis based on potential
environmental impact

OK - Al low use of own
pub) ic not if icat ion
requirements
OK - By means of a
waiver with a set of
condit ions






Washington
NO Does nol help get
around regulatory and
administrative problems
SL



NO Permits and
regulations change too
much May be used only
as a temporary means to
e 1 iminate back log
"extension provisions "
NO Should not eliminate
public notification

OK May f it some
categories Short term
discharges should be
under some other
regulatory mechanism.
possibly a r u le



lotals
t OK
'i
'j NO
9 - OK



4 OK
3
? NO



3 OK
1
S NO
6 OK
?
1 NO






not discusser! or no feeling toward category
                                 0-4

-------
                                    APPENDIX E
                      Toxkity Indices for Industrial Subcategories

       This  appendix  provides  the  industrial  evaluations  completed  by EPA's  National
Enforcement Investigative Center, which defined the probable discharge of toxic pollutants from
an industry,  based on an assignment of toxicity  indices.  Industry types and subcategories in
Groups n through VI had a high probability of toxic pollutant discharge and were excluded from
de minimis.

-------
IOXICIIV
                IOH
                              SIMCAIfGOftlf S
rttfui Imkitlry
AiMtrtivi-v ft Sealanlt
Alunlitti* l«raiiu)
A 1 Mil MM (•(•llM)
A|IIM|IM«B foiling
AluMlmiB luialiH)
A|MB|IM«I l*rnliu)
Aim (MM lorn log
AlualiHM laialng
Alualnnn fainlng
AlualniM l*ralng
Mu»lnu* f*ralng
Aul* I Other laundries
Aul* I Oiher laundries
Aut* i Other laundries
Aul* t Other laundries
Aul* 4 Olhcr Inundrles
Aul* I Other laundries
Aul* i Other laundries
Aul* i Other laundries
• atlery tlanufac luring
Balleiy M-imifac luring
•allriy lUnufac luring
•alleiy Manufacturing
• ttlety M^Mttf M t ur I nq
•allery Manufacturing
••tlleiy Manufacturing
• •tilery Manufacturing
•Mleiy M.MNif aclur Ing
B-tlleiy Htnuf aclur litg
Dillriy rltnutaclur |IM|
•atleiy Manufacturing
•allery Manufacturing
At liny MtiMifaclur |IM|
• allery llim.laclur Inq
•atleiy Maituf aclur Ing
Ca'linn HI .irk
Cailiou BUtk
Carlion Black
Carti*n lljck
Coal Mliilitg
Co.tl Mining
Co«l Minimi
Cn*l Hli.l»g
Cu*l Minim)
Coll Cu.it Inq
Cnl 1 CM il Iny
Col 1 Cult inq
Copper forcing
Imki^lry SubcalrQory
Ailheslvet t Sealants
CMI Making
Casting
Cleaning i tickling
C*ld •ailing
Drawing
f ilrudlng
fell nailing
f*rglng
Meat treating
H*l Ml ling
Car Wask
Carpet 4 Uptwlslery Cleaning
C«ln-0p*rated laundries
Diaper Service
Ory Cleaning Planls
Industrial laundry
tlnen Supply
Power laundilts
Alkaline Manganese BaUerles
Carbon- line Air (alter let
Carbon-line Paper lined Ballerles
Carbon-line. Paste latteries
1 »»4 Ac|« •alt»rlet
lead Acid Reserve (atlerles
UlhluB (atleries
Mjijoetln* •eterve •.ttlerl't
Magneslua-Carban •allerlet
Mercury (Ruben) Balleries
Mercury (Wetlon) Cellt
Miniature Alkaline Balierles
Nickel line lallerles
NIckel-CailnliM. fli y Pr^ceit lallerlet
Nlckel-Caitalun. Wei I'toceii Batteries
Sliver •ilde-llnc BalUrlet
Clt->nnel Procett
furnace Proctts
la*p Process
Ilierval Proeeti
Aeld er ferruginous Minei
Alkaline Mlnet
Anlhrailte teqoenl of ael
J4/9
JlSI
SIC Code(s)


JJSS

D'jS
))S7




JWS








3692
1692
1692
J692
)692
JC92
1692
)C92
Jf.92
JC9?
)C92
)092
U92
jr.')?
J692
J692




1211
1211

1211
1211
J«9/



ri"^
706
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
CS
129
129
IS
IS
IS
IS
IS
ISO
ISO
IS
70
19
78
7f
;•
•
)9
J9
19
78
)9
)9
19
70
78
78
12
12
12
12
2S2
2S2
126
2V
2S2
II
II
Jl
sa
_llv 	
drnnp
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
III
V
V
II
II
II
II
II
V
V
II
III
III
III
III
III
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
II
II
II
II
V
V
V
V
V
III
III
III
III
                      E-l

-------
lOllCIIV  IHOUCS 101 IMOUSIIIAI SU81AI (COIIIS
Majur Indiitlry
Co|»|irr fo Ojlng
Cofifirr In aiM)
Co|>i>rr 1 o aliMi
Coffin 1 w airtg
Co«i|w*i 1 b oii>g
( lrclnc.it Produclt
( lectriral ProiluCK
Ilectrlcal Pioducl*
1 Irclrlcal Product*
ilrctriral Product*
Ileclrical Product*
Ilecti leal Product*
Iltclrical Product*
lleclrlral Product*
Ileclrical Product*
Ilectrlcal Product*
1 lectrlcal PiodMCt*
lleclrlral Product*
ileclrical Product*
(lntrlc.il Product*
Ileclrical Product*
Ileclrical Product*
lectrltal Pioduclt
Iecln>|il4tin«
leclropl aling
•plotlvet (Coaoerctal Seel)
•plotivrt (CovMrclal Sect)
pplotl«et (CooMrclal Sect)
iplotl>et (Coawerclal Sect)
•pl*tior>onen,lt
(leclrlc laopi
Ilectroo, luket 4 glatt «ncaptulaled o»»tctt
ferrlU electronic par it
fuel cell*
fuel cell*
Initialed wire o cable
IntMlatliuj device*
Motor*, geixratart 1 alternator*
Irtltlanee nealert
Srol- conductor*
Sxitdigear
li a*tioro»r*. dry
Irantforoert. llo>ild filled
Job Snopt
Procettet xllkln I leciroplatlng category
i«pl»tl«tt
(>plotl*e*
loltlatort
Inlllalor*
lAf 4 Dry MU
Propellanlt
Propel lanlt
Dealt Marl i*l Ion
(•plotlve*
Inlllalort
1*0
Propellanlt
PyroleclMlct
AluMlnua Catl ing
Copper Catling
Iron 4 Steel
Ir.id Catting
Haf|»etlu» Catling
Nlciel Catting
lln Catting
lll«nli» C*tt Ing
/ inc Catl Ing
(fur 4 Cltjrco*) trliinellrt
SIC Coded)
mi
mi
mi
)i*>)
JIM
)''7f Vft'j
)C74
)'>/7
)b/l
M-11 Mt) J4/»
Ki4|
)(.M MM
)b/)
K'M
M»'9
J)SI
11.44
M.7I MM
M.47
X./4
Mil)
M.I7 M;r
W.I? )4//
JIM )4>9
)4/l
7H97
7H47
7U17
7817
7M17
70)7
7197
Itttt
70*) 7
7H17
7H17
7B07
7H^7
)lbl
J I til
))7I 1)77 ))74 Hi
)lbV
) lip*
) 169
1 Id
) K.t
1 Hit
7111. 1
lo« Icily
Tndei £rou
„
se
48
79
40
700
704
704
704
706
704
704
704
704
10)
704
704
704
704
704
704
704
704
1)4
1)6
14
1
14
;
1
14
/
t
I
1
1
1
1
4;
SJ
4 Sf
47
4/
})
71
79
4;
9
III
III
III
III
III



















V
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
II
                        E-2

-------
                                                  IMIIMS in*  IINHJSIIIAI  SMCAUGMIIS
    Rijor (iHlutlry
                                                Imhtttry Siit>c«trgory
                                                                                                     SIC C.« 1  WM.il
C.i« i  W.M.,1
£,<• 1  Wlt
            ClM-*lc«lt
 Inoryjiitc
 ln*MM«lc
 liM»reri|iiilc  Clt*r i|
I no i if
I nor i)
I ..... -I
        c (liralc 4 11 HAIHJ
        r. Chr«lc A 11 Ha'iu
        I Clir.l. t\\ HIM,,
                                ltt«nll«l Oil
                                lotU
                                loiU
                                                         In SIC Cortt
                                                                                               78? I
                                S«ll«tc
                                Ull  *M
                                Ull  •!!
                                                                                              ?Btl
                                AlUB
                                A I M
                                         CkUrlO*
                                       • ritwrltlt
                                       • NyMlt ( i»orQ)
                               C«ltlua HypuiMorllr
                               C«l(l.« O.lil*
                               Carbon Oloiljt
                               Ctrkon Hono«lrt«
                               Crr lu
                                                                                              781*
                                                                                              781)
                                                                                              7811
                                                                                              7HI1
  loiUlty
Tniir*   Croup
1
1
17
4i
4t
12
4(
17
4t
17
4t
ai
81
It7
81
ai
If
81
ai
it
at
it
ai
ai
at
it
81
ai
ai
ai
it
81
ai
81
81
it
81
it
it
it
81
ni
81
81
10
If,
81
it,;
II
II
IV
III
III
IV
III
IV
III
IV
III
IV
IV
V
IV
IV
II
IV
IV
II
IV
II
IV
IV
IV
II
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
IV
II
II
II
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
II
IV
V
                                                                    E-3

-------
                                         IOJICIIT  INUIXIV IM IMMlUIAl SUtCAIICOHII V
                                                lnMiri|.iMlc
                     IU«uf.
iMry.utic (h»«lt«ll
          Clir«lc*l«
|imi4|%Ml( Chrvicalt H*>IIU
Imn i|.uiir lltrmlatt HJIHI
liwiq^uic Clirvictlt
          Ittrmlttlt
                                CNUrlM*
                                CkUrctulUrlc A«r  ChUfltf*
                                       SMllAtf
                               Cw|>r««i •!«!*
                               HufttrtVP ctll
                               »»rrlt  CkUrldt
                               I lucrltvt
                                            HjUrl«l«
                               (l**vy Wjlcr
                               Hyrtr*!**! Alxaliu  Slllcatt fxdr.
                               Nydi-Mklcric Acid
                               Hydr«ll«*rlc
                               Myilrvf**
                                   u* CkUrlit*
                               lr*« 0«ld*. N«<|nr4MU(t
                               lllKlua Cua|>»«iHlt
                                                   ('"or9)
                              tUng*n*t» OI*»iilV (po»I9
?fl!9
/flll
?BI*
iMlfM
147
61
IC.7
14
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
147
14
147
14
14
61
14
61
61
61
14
147
14
147
14
61
61
11
61
61
14
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
14
• 1
81
1C
• 1
81
et
81
16
Croup
V
IV
V
II
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
II
V
II
II
IV
II
IV
IV
IV
II
V
II
V
II
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
IV
IV
II
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
                                                                  E-4

-------
                                       luiicm  i MM MS  ro«  INUUSUIAI SIWCAIIMMMIS
         !:«!;:•, try
                    rUnul
                    H*»M|.
ilM»fl|IIIK flw«(call NaMMl.
lt«H|.»iic
                    IUmi(.
          Clx-«ic«l» H*nu(.
litoigmlt
Inocii inic
liwri
|iM(ri|inlc
Inoiii-uiic

I nor i|4n ic
I nor ij.ii* ic
          Cli«>Mlc«U rUnuf
                    Htnul
                    HllMlf
          Cliralc Cltlnrlrte
                               PolftiluM Cyan lite
                                                    Inorg (erne UN K7C01)
                               Pol»tsluB Iodide
                               Pnt«\tlua Metal
                                   ui Chlorite
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7811
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7«I9
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7817
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7819
                                                              7*19
                                                              7819
• •ire f«r|h rtrl.il  Salts
•rtgeni Cr*4e  Clw« 
-------
                                         lOlll IIV IMMJflS IIM  ININISIIIAI  SU8CAIIMMIt S
    rUJoi liujutlry
           C»vr»i{*l»
llH
IlKI
     >| Illlf
                     Hjumt .
                     HMMif.
                     liMMif.
 |n«ri|4»ic Clw«ic«lt
           £>•»••<• I »
           Ck*«U«U lUiMil.
           Ckr«lc«l»
                     H«Mif.
           Checicalt

 l«n»|.t»lc  Chevlcalt

           Chraicalt Mamtf.
    iiMiiic  Chr*lc«l*
    nHiilc  Ch*alc«l» lUmtf.
                     N4«Mll.
                     K*«*ul .
                     N*«wf.
InoriJiiic Chraicalt  Mamif.
Irw>ru4iilc Cfcealcali
          Chrclcalt
          Chraicalt  Htnuf.
>iorii4»ic
nuii|4iiic
 inn A Mrrl
Iron I
                    H«iiuf
Silver
Silver Mllr4lt
Silver Oiltlr
     Alu.
                                  IM* llcailtotial*
                               Sodlua
                                    «• Chlorate
                                   u» Cyanide
                                             «i*
                                    am HydroiulfId*
                                    •» Heial
                                  iuo> SllicoMuorlde
                               Sodiua Sullite
                                  I MB Ikiotulfale
                                       & Siannout
                                       Oilde
                                      u* Carbonaii
                                         Nrlrate
                               Sulfldet  t
                               Sulfur
                               Sulfur Oleild*
                               Sulfur H»«afluorlde
                               Sulfurlc
                               Iklocyan
                               tin Coopmiodt. Inorganic
                               lll*ntui>  6ioilile
                              Ulirasarine PluMnl
                              Mtlte  lead
                               /lite CMorid*
                               /Irx SulMdr
lo«lclly_
j»try Subcalegory SIC Code(t) Tmk. Croup
7819
7819
7819
7819
7819
7819
7817
7819
7817
7819
7819
Inorganic 7819
7819
7819
7819
7819
7819
7819
7819
de 7819
7819
7819
Chloride 7819
7819
(precipitated & oilde) 7819
7819
78 1C
7819
7619
l.xl *our n.Jl •*>) 7ai9
7819
7819
7819
7819
anic 7819
B*«lc 7819
7/llt
78 It
78 It
active 7HI9
(•b(MI)7CO)) 7816
78 It
7819
7819
7819
7BH
i (U,| Air toll,, (oi.liol helh«.l») 1117
>; Sr»i W>l Air folln Contial Met>*><1t 1)17
81
81
81
81
81
81
It
It7
81
81
81
81
81
It?
It
It7
It
It
It
61
61
It
61
It
81
61
1*7
81
61
61
61
It
81
It
81
81
l(>7
81
81
81
81
81
81
It
It
• 1
4S
i
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
V
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
II
V
II
II
II
IV
IV
II
IV
II
IV
IV
V
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
IV
II
IV
IV
V
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
II
II
IV
III
II
                                                                  E-6

-------
lomm mums IOR IUOUSINIAI
Ml |in Imlutli
IIUM 4 M.-rl
1 1 on
1 1 mi
1 ion
Iron
1 rim
1 1 cii
Iron
(run
Iron
Iriwi
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
Iron
IriNi
Iron
Slrrl
Mrrl
Sift I
Mrrl
Slrrl
Mrrl
Mrrl
Slrrl
Slrrl
Slrrl
Slr.l
Sire I
Slrtl
Slrrl
Slrrl
Strrl
Strrl
St««l
Strrl
Slrrl
Slrrl
Slrrl
|ralh*r lji.nl iu)
Ir4thrr Itnntnq
tratKrr lannfiu)
Irillu-i l4nMim|
Irilliri )4MiliM|
1 r 4 1 »• r 1 ann 1 m|
lr-tUr lannii»g
Ir4lhrr 1 inning
Ir^Hiri tanning
Ir4ll.ri UimiiM)
|r*lltri laiMtllt?
y























( lnl$l>tn<)
f Intthlnt)
1 Inlthlng
1 lnlUilitq
f Inlthlng
ClnUhlnf
f Inlthlnf
f Iniihing
llnlthinq
1 InlsliliM)
f tnUKInq
f inlthtruj
f Inlthino,
f (nltliirxj
I UlthliMi
1 InltMmi
1 Inlvhln*)
M» 1. i IW>fh - SMpbultJlno,
fit li 4 ffc-f h For if
l«ln ln*»rl
Hi h A ilr-rh-rnrcrlain fit.wkrl
H-> li 4 Ih-ch torcrlaln ("•»•« 1
H* h 4 llvcli foctrlaln InMkrl
»U 1. i li'th Flint o Si«|'pl
M» li 4 Ik-id -Hliolo Siij.pl
M.ti h 4 rl»ch Pl.oto Sucpl
liMlC4lrgory
•rrhivr Cnlr
• Utl fui»4(r (M)t - r<4l«4nl( rr, N(C
Hair pulp, cliroar Ian. rrtan-w«l finish
ll-iir tavr, cl>rn*e t*i«. trlAn-wrt llultli
Mali sa¥t. non (Itroor tan. irlan-wrl llnish
llnuvr Sllpprii
Ir4tlirr Clovrs 4 Nlttrnt
Iralhrr Coodi. MC
lu«/)*0*
Mrn'i |oot»«4r. licrf'. Alhlrtlc
Nv l>ra«rl & Su|i|il|rv
Iliriaal. Solvrut Tiuirvv
SIC Co
HI?
111?
))l?
HI? ))U
)ll?
1)1?
))l? 13U
3)12 3)1)
)ll? 3)1)
HI? )4/9
))l?
HI?
3)12
3312 ))IS
))l?


3312 ))U
3)12
Jil?
))I2 3)1?
3)12
)l)l
3141
)lll
Jill
Illl
3142
mi
)I11
)U
)I4)
Illl
)l/2
)lll
Jill
)l 1 1
)I44
MM
)/)>
J6JI
)4 ||
Ib)) )6)? 1619 )b
16 1) U 1? )*. IS
1HOI
IMfcl
mi. i
lo. Icily
Imlr* tiroiip
S
4S
4S
4'j
4S
4S
4S
4S
4i
S
4^
4S
4S
45
4S
44
4S
4S
4S
4i
4S
4S
4S
70
70
li;
117
11?
70
70
70
70
70
11)
70
11;
11;
llr
70
70
86
Ij
n
\\ n
t;
174
718
1 74
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
II
II
V
V
V
II
II
II
II
II
V
II
V
V
V
II
II
IV
III
III
III
III
V
V
V
                      E-7

-------
                                         IOJUCIII  IIHUIIS HIM IMMttlMIAI  SIMC A11 MM 11 S
    Hi p.i  Imkitlry
      I Uich roicrlftt* t
Ibmli i imit K-l4lt
M<»il.-i unit IV I .lit
N»»ili-ii«ii'. Ifc-t.ilt
Moiilri .out IV I .lit
Ntmlniuut ttrl4lt
H.MI! ...... ut Mr! tit
No«lfi itHit HrlJlt
            Mrttlt
       I4ry tUflnetlu
                                Trlmtry Ntrcwry
                                trltury M»lytHl*i»
                                rriaary Nickel
                                frl«*ry fltllmM
                                Frla«ry t*r« Itrllit
                                                               1)19
                                                               1)19
                                                               11)9
                                                               11)9
                                                                                              11)9
frliury

frl»»ry  Silver
                                                                                              1119
                               fi-|*«ry lellyrlu*
                               frla«ry I in
                               trlmtff
                               Prla«ry
                                                               )))9
                                                               1119
                                                               11)9
                               frt»»ry /Irconiu*
                                                              1)1)
                                                              )U9
                                                              1)41
                                                              1141
SrcoiHl.uy loion
                               SrcoiwUry C
                               Secondary Copper
                                                              )MI

                                                              1141
  lo.lclly
	a*	
        Cre«ip
                                                                                        1)9
                                                                                        1/9
  M
 1)9
 1)9
 1)9
 )'>•
 IS*
 1)9
 1)9
 1/9
 1)9
 IS*
 1)9
 1)9
 1)9
 1)9
 1)9
 1)9
 1)9
 1)9
 1)9
 )SS
 isa

 )S8

 1)9
 isa
 1)9
 V..8
 1)9
 isa

 )b
1)9
1)1
I/I
 III
   V
   V
  VI
 III
 III
 III
  VI
 III
   V
  VI
 III
                                                                                                                                V
                                                                                                                                V
                                                                                                                                V
 VI
 VI
 VI
 VI
III
  V
 VI
  V
 VI
  V
 VI
III
III
  V
  V
  V
 VI
                                                                     E-8

-------
                                         lUlltllt  IfKII «l S MM  IMMIblttlAI  UMCAIK.UIIII 4
IhHili-i unit
Htttilri i nut
fellllri I IMIt
lluiilci i out
ll<»ilri imit
Ifcxtlri imit
            Mrl.ilt
            M**l.ili
            ftfl.llt
            Mrlalt
       i IHII
IkMilnimii
MAM If i iftut
Nn*lrtr»ut
MMtl*n*«t
M.wtli'1 ttmt
Nnnli-riout
Oi« Mining
U>r Mixing
Or* Mining
Orf Mining
Uit Mining
Or* Mining
Oi» Mining
Oi* Hiiilng
Ore Niitlny
Oi« NUinfl
            Mr-lall
            Mclalt
            Helalt
            Mrlalt
            Metal*
            Mr I all
            Hrlalt
            A Urettlng
            A inciting
            A Bret ting
            A Bret ting
            A Diet ting
            A Orettlng
            A Drettlng
            A Orcitlnf
            A Orcttlng
            A Ortttlng
Organic
>«!•!  1  Ink
r*lHt  fc  Ink
r«lnl  i  Ink
fnlir i
       i«l*i
fr\l ir nkt
Trtl it iib-t
                                                                                                     SIC
        <>M| leal M.i«4if»cturliif
        »ullc*l Htm<(*< luring
                tiinuftc luring
                N.«nul*«tlt (Mrrtlc l.i« 1 1 i •olatiicaU)
                               fitracllon  (aiologlcal frodiKH)
                               lilractlon  (Hedlclnalt A lolanlcaU)
                               leiaenlatlon (Mrrtlclnali A ftolanlcalt)
                               Nitlng  A  I erMil^il Ion (fh*r«a(»ul ital  f reparal loin)
                               Delluorlnaltd Ac Id
                               DrM»ar|nalr
-------
                                         IUIKII1 INOMIS IUN
                                                                          SIWCAIIUMIIS
    M.IJ.II liMlutliy
 Fhotpli.ite tUmifMlurlnq
Pl>.i<.|ili ilr  KinulAC luring
l'lMit|>li.ile  KjfM.Mc luring
Plio\|>li.ilr  HjHHiItt luring
Pnu\|ih.ile  HjutulM luring
PUtliit i Synthetic*
riJtl.it ft Synthetic*
Plattlc* A Synthetic*
Flattie* Presetting
PUtlict Pr*crt*liM|
PUtlict Presetting
PUttlrt Presetting
Pi inliiHi ft Pi4>l!thlt>g
Print i.«| ft Publlining
Pulp. P After
       P.^wr
       tM)»*r
       P After
       fjtt»rr
       Paper
       l*.H>rr
Pulp.
Pulp,
Pulp.
Pulp.
Pulp.
Pulp.
Fulp.
Pulp.
fulp.
Pulp.
Pulp. P-»prr
Pulp. P-tper

Pulp. P.»|«»r
      P-H>rr
      P4|wr
Pulp.
Pulp. P.tper
Pulp. r.»|i*r
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp. PA«er
Pulp. p.»|w>r
• nl.l.rr
•utihrr
               P*rb««rd
                                                lixliittry
                                                                                                    SIC  Cod«(t)
                                I lr*rnl«l Pliotplioriit
                                1 Irvrnlal PltotplMii ill
                                flwipttcrul Ofrlvrrt Cl
                                                                                               7BI9
                                Swlliia Pho»plt«tri
                                                                                               ?B 14
                                CclluUtlc »Un feMto 1 lb»r»
                                PUtllc rUltrUlt.  Sy..th«tlc Ifilni.  Nonvul(«nli«ble IU:
                                Synlktllc Or«««lc flb«r». licvpt  CclluUilc
                                Httccl !•«••««  Pl«tlltt PrethKtt
                                PUtllci
                                                                                              7824
                                                                                              10)9
                                                                                              M/9
                                                                                              101)
                                Wal»i Slurry  Pr«»or«l..g Proc*lt«i
Pi Inllng ft Pukllthi.ig
Alk«llne rUrkel Pulp
8lr.Ml>rd KrAll -  Ml P»per

• le«clN>4 trill -  I In* P*pert
• l»A«.hrd Rrtfl Nextprlnt
Cliral-rtecl.4nU.il  Pulp-CHP
Drink Pulp -  fine llttti*
Drink Pulp -  Newt
OlttoWIng Sull lie
CrouiidwooJ CHN
CroutxJMod-f Ine
HltcelUneout Non-Wood Pulp
Nnn  Inte^rtted •  I Ine
Hon-Integrated -  (liter ft Non-Woven  Paper
                  I luti.welnl.l ft  lhl>
                                                                                              7100
                                                                                              7611
                                                                                              7611

                                                                                              2611
                                                                                                     ?tJI
                                                                                              Jtll
                                                                                              1I.7I
                                NoM-|*lei|re.led -  littue
                                      Cr««le Sulllte
                                                                                                    ?t)i
                                llwrao Nrch*nlc*l Pulp
                               W.utr
                               W4tte P*per  -  Conttructlon
                               Watte Paper  -  Ho I Jed
                               W4tte Paper  -  littue
                               larqe- tiled  Ceiu^ral  Molded.
                                                              7611
                                                              7661
                                                              7611
                                                                      i f*lir  Riib«rr Pl Dipped.  I ile« I ilrmlril ft lain  Holiled Goodt
                               HrdiuM-tlied Cenri«l rntlilril. lilrmlnl i I *br  R.Mter PUi.tt
                               PAH, Ory  Digestion, ft Mr i lun l< * I Kri l.tim
                               S<*4ll il/ed  Crner4l Nulilnl. lulimlril  ft 14>>r  Rui>t>rr ri4nlt
                               Syntl.rtlc Crudi  R.rf>lirr Piod  • loultion Pulyaerlul Ion
                               Synthetic Crw4>  R.rfrfjer Prod  • Solution PuliMer l|«l Ion
                                                                                              io;i
                                                                                                    7641
                                                                     MMI

                                                                     1069
                                                                     1041
                                                                                                          1069
                                                                                              7877
                                                                                         loiUJty	
                                                                                       TnTleM   Croup
76
11
76
76
76
11
468
468
468
111
II
S7
s;
4
1
47
67
67
67
67
67
6;
67
61
67
67
11
61
67
17
67
6/
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
10
10
10
10
100
10
IU
IU
II
II
II
II
II
II
VI
VI
VI
V
II
III
III
II
II
Ml
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
II
II
II
II
V
II
II
II
                                                                 E-10

-------
                                        lOflCllr IMIiKS lot  IMINISIIIAt  StMCAK COCKS
   II »)«»•
        t 1 y
SnAfit
So Apt
S«4|lt
SUM I
SUM t
SUM I
SUM I
SUM I
SUM I
l««lil»
!*•(i If
lr«li
In
U.
tfm
Ir.
In
    1 I
        DeUrqrnlt
        Drlrrqrnlt

             'ttO>ltl ft
Inlrn
Ircliif
Irclrlc
Irclric
'rclrlc
IrltlK
Irclrlc
 Mlllt
 til lit
 Ilillt
 HI I It
 Ilillt
 Ilillt
 Mill!
 Hillt
 Hlllt
                                Synthetic  I
                                Mrr  ft |m*
                                Wrl OIi«twllo«lc  Ac la
                                I Jlly Act
                                Qlytri lor
                                Clycerln*  tut 111*1 tun
                                              • I
                                              •I
                                              •I
    ulMlwInq •!
    it
    I
    4
 So*

 SO)  Solvent  ft
 SO)  Solvent  ft
 SullMlc  Acid Sutftlio*
 SylfMic  Acid Sulljllon
 AtH  rile  IwioK
 Ath  IrtAtftort W«ler
 Cojil  rile
tow Vnluo
Nrl«l Cle«ni>M|
(•trffi I InltMno,
CofilAi|e  ft  twine
fell
CrriiK Mlllt
Crrlqe Hlllt
C.ffiqe Mtllt
lk>\lcry
ihitiry SutKiUqory
utttifr ProifcKllon
rioducllft*
1 ji -
ft Sutfonallon.
Id Nul f4l (•<•
Id jullallo*
Llyrlnq by 1*1 SplltUnf
r*llo«
»tiu*
J*r Soapt
l.ir So4|it
)e Urgent 8«rt i Cokei
1*1 rgrnt 8«rt i Cjket
lit* Or ltd Oetetfrntt
»rt* 0rl«>il Orlerfmlt
Iry Blem|»d Detergent!
Iry 8lemlrd •ctertcntt
Liquid S*MI
Liquid Oflerurntl
t lo,,.ld So*|t»
: (quid Ortrryeitti
ko«p title* t fvMitort
>««t» 1 !«»«« ft Powdcrt
lpr«y Or ltd Oettrfrntt
Sullwric Acid ftttrt i Sniffle Acldi
ft Svlf4li*n
I by 8«lcb KrltU
| by filly Acid N«utr«lll»ll«n
MB Sull«n«ll»n
MI* Sull»n*tl»A
«llo«
«llen

>T

•do- n

Ut
nq W*Ur



I





SIC C*d*(«)
787?
Mil
Mil
784)
7841
784)
7841
7841
7841
7841
7841
7841
7841
7841
2841
7841
7841
2841 7842 2844
2841 2842
2841
7841
7841
7841
7841
704)
784)
7841
7841
7841
7841
7841
784)
4911 49)1
4911 49)1
4911 49)1
4911 49)1
4911 49)1
4911 49)1
4911 49)1
7MW
77fl 77f7 77f9
7798
7791
77)1
7711 7771 77)1 7741
77S) 77fl T7/7 7781
7787 778)
77SI 7/S?
(••Icily
nst;~fif^
10
18
100
ft)
0
17
t)
ft)
ft)
t)
)7
ft)
17
ft)
12
ft)
)7
ft)
ft)
17
12
ft)
12
t)
ft)
ft!
ft)
ft)
ft)
)2
ft)
)7
19
)/
4
If
If
4
If
IS
IS7
IS
IS7
IS7
IS
IS
IS
IS7
II
II
V
III
Ml
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
Ml
III
III
III
III
Ml
III
II
III
II
III
III
II
III
II
V
II
V
V
II
II
II
V
                                                                E-ll

-------
                                       IOIIUIV 'MMMS IM IMNJSIIUI U4UAIII.MIIS
                                                                                                 SIC
    Ill* Hlllt
    III* Mlllt
    III* Hlllt
    III* Mllll

    III* Mlllt
    III* Hlllt
    I II* Mlllt
    III* Mlllt
                               tit It  IM.rU  I
                               lull  I«biIc  I
                                                                                                 77SC
                                                                                                                   IS7
                                                                                                                   r.7
                                     fMtrlc
                              *•••• f*Hc
I t*t,ff
                 frMrttlftf    IUriNM«


                               Nllltwrk
try Pi*c*tt
       I
                                                             Hlllt
    n PriMluflt  Pr*crttliN|

       fr«fluct»

       Pri^uclt
                                                                                                 77I7  7?H  7784  IS?
                                                7711   7771  7741  77*1   IW
                                                77*7   774»               |S7
                                                7*41                      •
                                                                         •7



                                                                          •
                                                                                           74H
                                                                                           7fckl
                                                                                           ?<*/
                                                  Mlllt

                                                 •Mlllt.  MTC
                fr*«rttlii4
                              Vr»crr
                              Wr| Prxrtt
                                                                                                 74M
                                                                                                 74)4
                                              . MC
                                                                                           7< H
\\utttt PrMkitlt Pr«M*tti-MI|C
                                                                                           7499
                                                                                                                     •
                                                                                                                    •7
                                                                                                                    87
                                                                                                                    • 7
                                                                                                                          lly
 V
 V
 V
II
 V
 V
 V
 V
II
II
II
IV
II
II
II
II
II
II
IV
II
II
IV
IV
II
II
All •Ifcrr IfMtxtlry  ly|««t  **d
                                            not
                                                       «r*  «ttl«iw4 Cr*«|i I
                                                             E-12

-------
                                   APPENDIX F
             Classification of Major and Minor NPDES Industrial Permits

      This appendix provides the classification of major and minor permits that is currently in
use by the Agency's Office of Wastewater  Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC).   The
classification uses a rating system that is based on assessment of six characteristics of a facility's
discharge.

-------

                              NPDES Industrial Permits

       The Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance designates an industrial
discharger a major NPDES permit by applying a numerical permit rating system to each
industrial permit.  This rating system assigns points to an individual permittee based on an
assessment of six characteristics of the permittee's discharge.  The six characteristics or
"rating criteria" are:
                    1)    Toxic Pollutant Potential
                    2)    Flow/Streamflow Volume
                    3)    Conventional Pollutants
                    4)    Public Health Impact
                    5)    Water Quality Factors
                    6)    Proximity to Near Coastal Waters

       To rate an industrial permit, an NPDES Industrial Permit Rating Worksheet must be
filled out.  Attached is an example of a worksheet which is filled out by evaluating the
current permit application, the permit itself, and other monitoring forms kept in the
individual permit file. The sum of these weighted point values is the permit's ranking. The
point totals range from  zero to a maximum of 265.

       To generate the  major industrial permit lists for each NPDES State and EPA Region,
the data for each permittee is loaded into an OWEC computer system.  The numbered boxes
on the  worksheet correlate to specific point values programmed into the computer.  The
computer adds the points for each criteria for each permit and arranges each permit by State
in descending numerical order.

       Currently, a permit assigned a point total of 80 points or higher is designated a major
permit.  All permits below 80 points are designated minor permits. This is an artificial
cutoff point but one which maintains the total number of majors at a level consistent with
the total number of major permits originally designated major during the first round of per-
                                         F-l

-------
mitting.  It also includes most permits which the NPDES permitting authorities collectively
believe should be considered major dischargers.

       In addition, each Region, in consultation with their NPDES States, is allowed to
designate a certain number of their minor permits "discretionary" major permits.  These are
permits which the region or state believes should be accorded major status but for one reason
or another did not achieve sufficient points to be rated a major permit.  A "discretionary" is
assigned  an additional arbitrary 500 points to its raw score to give it major status and to flag
it as a discretionary major permit.  There are 576 discretionary majors at this time.

       Also,  if the facility is  a steam electric power plant (SIC =4911) with a power output
of 500 MW or greater (not using a cooling pond/lake), or that is a nuclear power plant, or
that has a cooling water discharge greater than 25 percent of the receiving  stream's 7Q10
flow rate, the facility is given a score of 600 automatically.  Likewise, an automatic score of
700 is given to municipal separate storm sewers serving a population greater than 100,000.

       Approximately 49,000 industrial permits have been rated.  No secondary minor per-
mits were rated because they would fail to qualify as major permits almost 100% of the time.

       There are currently 3,803 major NPDES industrial  permits.  A Regional breakdown is
as follows:
                                                               Majors*
                    I
                    II
                    m
                    IV
                    V
                    VI
                    vn
                    vra
                    DC
                    X
                    TOTAL

* "Majors" column shows permitees classified as majors.  The revisions to the classification
system took effect July 1991.
                                          F-2
339
435
429
762
533
512
122
179
138
254
3,803
(9%)
(11%)
(11%)
(20%)
(14%)
(14%)
(3%)
(5%)
(4%)
(9%)
(100%)

-------
       Of the 3,803 current major industrial permits, 2,731 are state-issued permits and
1,072 are EPA-issued permits.
                                     F-3

-------
                                 NPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet
                                                                                          Q  tegular Addition
                                                                                          Q  OUcretionary Addttan
                                                                                          Q  Soar* change, but no
                                                                                             status change
                                                                                          Q  (Motion
NPDES No.: I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I

Facility Name

i	i	i	i	i	I	I	I	I	I	i	i	I	I	I	i	i	i	i	I	I	i	i	I	I	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i	i

City:  I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I

Receiving Watar: I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I

Reach Number I  I	i	I	I	I	I   I	I   I	I   I
                                                                    b (Ms ptrmK for a municipal ttparatt storm
                                                                    Mrvtng a population gnattr than 100,000?
It thli facility a tttam ctectrfc power plant (SIC~4911)
with on* or mort of the following cnamcttrtttiat
1. Power output 500 MW or greater (not using a cooling pond/lake)
2. A nudear power plant                                                 Q YIS; icort it 700 (stop here)
} Cooling water discharge greater than 25% of the receiving stream's 7Q10 flow rate  Q ^ (contjnut)

Q YES; score is 600 (stop hare)  Q  NO (continue)
FACTOR 1: Toxic PoNutont Potential

PCS SIC Code:   I	I	I	I	I         Primary SIC Code: I	I	I	I	I

Other SIC Codes: I	I	I	I	I       I	I	I	I	I     I	I	I	I	I

Industrial Subcttegory Code: I	I	I	I (Code OOP If no mbcatagory)

Dtttrmint tht Tcudc/ty potmtfof from Appendix A. if tun toutftht TOTAL toxldty potential column and chtdi ont)
Tonkfty Croup

Q No process
   watte streams
Q  i.
Q  2.
                  Code  Points
                         0
                         5
                         10
FACTOR 2: rlow/Str«am Ftow Voiunw

Section A —Wastewattr Flow Only Comld«r»d

Wastewater Type
(See Instructions)
Type I:   How < S MCO              O
        Row 5 to 10 MOD           Q
        How >10 to 50 MCO         Q
        How > 50 MCO             Q

Type II:  Flow <1  MCO              Q
        How 1 to 5 MCO            Q
        How >5 to 10 MCO          Q
        How>10MCO             Q

Type III:  How <1  MCO              Q
        How 1 to 5 MCO            Q
        How >5 to 10 MCO          Q
        Flow >10 MOD             Q
Tcwkfty Group Cot
Q i.
Q 4.
Q 5.
Q 6.
•d
lode
11
12
1)
14
21
22
21
24
31
12
33
34




•fe»4flaa>«
nuno
0
10
20
30
10
20
30
50
0
10
20
30
3
4
5
6
&
W
(S

•p,



Ti
';



15
20
25
30
Toolctty Croup
a  ;.
Q  i.
Q  9.
a 10.
Code  Potnto

  7      35
  I      40
  9      45
 10     50
                                                                                     Code Number Checked: I	I	I
                                                                                      Total Point* Factor 1: I   II
                                                             A or Socfefl * cftM* on* on*)

                                                            Section B —Wvtmwtar and Stream Flow Comidcrcd

                                                            Wiai  eiarType  Percent of irttream         Coda
                                                            (See Iratrurtont)  Whitewater Concarv
                                                                           Ueifcjn at RacaMng
                                                                           SUeaniuJwFtow

                                                            TYPll/M:
                                                            Typ*fc
<10H
2lO*to<50%
250%
<10%
2lO%to<50%
250%
^- -* — *^ ' --* k»
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
41
42
43
51
52
53
, A *». •. 1
0
10
20
0
20
30
1
                                                     F-4
                                                                                     Total Points Factor* 1	)	)

-------
                                NPDES Ptrmtt Rating  Work Shoot
                                                               NPOES No.: I    I
FACTOR 3: Conventional Pollutants
(only wh0n imUtdby the pwm/0

A. O*yg«n Demanding PaKuunt: (check on.)  G BOO    Q COO   G Ottwr
                                                        I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I
   Permit Limits: (check one)
                O
                Q
                Q
                Q
 . Toul Siapend*d Solids (T5$)

   Permit Limits: (check one)
                                  a
                                  Q
                                  a
                                  a
  Pcmtit Limits: (chock an*)
                                  a
                                  a
                                  a
                                           <100lb»/d»y
                                           100 to 1000 tot/day
                                           >1 000 loJOOO tot/day
                                           > MOO tot/day
                        <100lbi/d*y
                        100 to 1000ft»/d»y
                        >1000to5000lb(/d*y
C. Nitrogen Pollutant: (check on*)  G Ammonia   G Other.
                                           d*
 1
 2
fotna
  0
  s
 15
 20
                                               1       0
                                               2       S
                                               J       IS
                                               4       20
                                                                                            Cod* Checked: I	I

                                                                                         Points Scored: I	I	I
                                                                                            CadcOwdMd: I	I
                                                                                          Paints Scared: I   I	I
                                                                                            Cod* Checked: I	I
                                                                                          Points Scored: I	I	I

                                                                                    Total Points Factor I: I	I	I
FACTOR 4: Public Hooflh Inpoet
It thin a pubic drlnUng wattr tuppfy h
                                        tWn SO
wattr to whkh ft* nctMng wattr It a tributary)? A pubMc drtnUag \
mttttodt o/comvyovK* that ultimately gtt wattr from tht ooowr nttn
G YES (K yn, ctw* tcuddty potontW numl
G NO (If no. go to Factor S)
                                            i of tt* dfutnt dhdtarg* (thk Indudet any body of
                                            rtupafyHtay Indudt Mtttratfon gaitrlet, or othtr
OvtannlrM th* ht
tun to usa th* ht«"«" bMtttl to*k*ty group column — chvck on*
To^dtyCroup     Cod*  Points            Toddty Croup
G Noprocou                            Q  ).
   wuu ftTMmt    00              Q  4
                         °              a  $:
                         °              a«,
                                  W from Appondb A. Us« the tarmSK cod* and subcatooory r«faronc* at In Factor 1. (••
Q  i.
G  2.
0
1
2
 0
 0
 s
 10
          Q  7.
          Q  •.
          G  9.
          a 10.
Cod*  Points

  7     IS
  •     20
  9     2S
 10     V)
                                                                                  CodcNumborChadHd: I	I	I
                                                                                    Totri Points Factor 4: III
                                                    F-5

-------
                              NPDES Permit Hating Work Sheet

FACTOR S: WottW QucMy Facton                             NPOES No.: I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I

A.   tt (or wm) onf or man or tfw tniiMnf dutnorgs ttiMts QOMV art wattr quality NHI^WI or aw wtMng ttnom (rathtr than
    ttdtnology-battd faoWo* eminent guUtUrm, or ttdtnology-boMd rtotr cMbmf guUfSrm), or hat a wosttlood allocation
    bttn aalgnad to tht dltchargt?
        a Y*.
        a  NO
                      Cod*
                        1
                                10

                                 0
t.   It tht netMng water In comptanct with applkobl*
    thtptrmltf
                                                              at hr poiutonts that on wattr quality limited In
        Q   Y*t

        G   No
                      Cod*
                        1
C.   Don tfw ffHuertt dltthargod from tMi fodMy arMb/f Mr i
    effluent tojddtff
                                                             lOol tovfofatt
                                                                                 tftx f tonrfonis rfu* to wtofe
        Q Y«

        Q  No
                      Cod*
                        1
                                10

                                 0
         Codt Numbv ChKted:   Al	I        II	I     Cl	I

               Points Factor S:   Al_l_l  *  II	I  *  Cl	|
                                                             l_J_ITOTAi
FACTOR o: Proximity to Noor CoortcM Wolws

A.   laMJcorcfntrrCowcoo^nOTvffromrvctor^l	I	I

    Check appropriate facility HPftl Code (from PCS):
               NPW '   Cotft  Hrmi SCOT
       a        i       i      20
       a        220
       a        i      i      w
       a        440
       Q        5      S      20
   HPtl cod* ch*ch*d: I	I
                                                     £rt«r the nwf^plcattofi factor tttat comtpondt
                                                     to tte Mew code  I	I	I
                                                          How Cod*
                                                          11, J1, or 41
                                                          12. U. or 42
                                                          11. «, or 4J
                                                           14 or 14
                                                           21 or 51
                                                           22 or 52
                                                           23 or 53
                                                             24
                                                                      MuMpMution Factor
                                                                            0.00
                                                                            0.05
                                                                            0.10
                                                                            0.15
                                                                            0.10
                                                                            O.M
                                                                            0.60
                                                                            1.00
   hxScar*-. (HMUScan).
                                                                  . (TOTAL POMTS)
I.  Additional Points—N£P Program
    for a taeUtf that not an HftU code at 3, docs tht tatty
    dbcnarpr to omr at ttm cstuarto tnrotod In Om National
    Ettuory Protection (N£P) program (tet Inttntcttom) or
        Q  Y«

        Q  No
                      Cod*
                        1
                                10

                                 0
                                                         Additional Potato—Croatia** Ana of Concm
                                                         faralaomftltathaianHPIUeodiofS.daatiitfotaitf
                                                         dtuttoryt any of ttm poffwtonts of tonarm Into one of ttm
                                                         Gnat Lama" JI arm of concern (M> Imtntctiom)
                                                              Q   Y.

                                                              Q   No
10

 0
         Cod* Nwnbor ChKlHd:
                                                     CI_J
                                      *  II_>_J  *

                                                  F-6
                                                                              JTOT*L

-------
                                NPDES Ptrmtt Rating Work Shtet
SCORE SUMMARY                                             NPDES No.: I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I	I
            Factor      Dato-totton                     Total feints
              1        ToaJc PoHutant Potential            	
              2        How/Straamflow Velum*           	
              1        Conventional Potfuunts            	
              4        Public Hearth Impacts              	
              5        Water Quality factors              	
              <        Pradmfty to NMT COMO! W*t«n      	

                       TOT/M. (Facton 1 through <)         	
SI. It the total Kort aqual to or grMttr than W?    Q Vat (Facttty is a major)     Q No

S2. If th« answer to th» above quntion it no, ««ould you Kka tNt fadRy to ba dbcrattonary ma^or?
     Q  NO
     Q  Y«s (Md 500 points to the above icon and provide rcaion below:
         >aa«m:	
         NEWSCOte.
         OLD SCOWL .
                                                             * Hevlewert Name
                                                          (	)
                                                          Date
                                                    F-7

-------
                                    APPENDIX G
                   Secondary NPDES Facilities with Toxic Discharge

       This appendix provides a listing  of NPDES facilities classified as secondary with a
significant potential for toxics in their discharge.

-------
SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES WITH
SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR TOXICS
SIC Code
0711
0721
0729
1081
1389
1475
2449
2492
2511
2512
2514
2517

2519
2521
2522
2531
2541
2542
2789
2842
2843
2844
2870
2873
2874
2992
2999
3229
3296
3999
4011
4013
4171
4172
Industrial Category
Soil preparation services
Crop planting and protection
General crop services
Metal mining services
Oil and gas field services
Phosphate rock
Wood containers
Particle board
Wood household furniture, except uph.
Wood household furniture, uph.
Metal household furniture
Wood, TV, radio, phonograph, and sewing machine
cabinets
Household furniture
Wood office furniture
Metal office furniture
Public building and related furniture
Wood partitions, shelving, and lockers
Metal partitions, shelving, and lockers
Book binding and related work
Specialty cleaning, polishing, and sanitizing
Surface active agents
Perfumes, cosmetics, and other toiletry preparations
Agricultural chemicals
Nitrogenous fertilizers
Phosphate fertilizers
Lubricating oils and greases
Products of petroleum - coal
Pressed and blown glass, NEC
Mineral wool
Manufacturing industries, NEC
Railroads and line-haul operations
Railroads and switching terminal services
Terminal and joint terminal maintenance facilities
Bus service facilities
No. of
Fac 1 1 1 1 tes
4
1
1
7
136
33
4
21
40
13
8

1
2
7
15
3
5
7
1
31
11
28
4
56
33
49
22
65
19
79
238
83
30
81
              G-l

-------
                         SECONDARY NPDES  FACILITIES WITH
                        SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR TOXICS
                                   (continued)
SIC Code
Industrial  Category
  No.  Of
Facil Hies
  4212      Local trucking without storage
  4231      Trucking terminal facilities
  4463      Marine cargo handling
  4469      Water transportation
  4582      Airport and flying fields
  4742      Rental of railroad cars,  including car cleaning
  4789      Services incidental to transportation, NEC
  4953      Refuse systems
  5161      Chemicals and allied products - wholesale
  5171      Petroleum bulk stations
  5172      Petroleum products
  5541      Gasoline service stations
  7261      Funeral service and crematoriums
  7391      Research and development laboratories
  7395      Photo-finishing laboratories
  7538      General auto repair shop
  7539      Automotive repair shops
  7699      Repair shops
  7819      Services allied to motion pictures
  9711      National security
                                              29
                                              43
                                              82
                                              91
                                              68
                                               5
                                              15
                                             387
                                              55
                                            ,009
                                             110
                                             410
                                               3
                                             104
                                              22
                                              47
                                              10
                                              41
                                               2
                                             484
                                                                TOTAL  4,155
Source:  Permit Compliance System, December 1987.
148 7m
                                       G-2

-------
                                   APPENDIX H
                 Secondary NPDES Facilities With Effluent Guidelines

      This appendix provides a listing of NPDES facilities classified as secondary with effluent
guidelines for conventional or nontoxic pollutants.

-------
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES WITH
      EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
SIC Code
0211
0213
0214
0219
0241
0251
0252
0253
0259
0272
0291
1311
1381
1382
1411
1422
1423
1429
1442
1446
1452
1453
1454
1455
1459
1472
1473
1474
1476
1477
1479
1492
1496
1499
2011
2013
2016
2017
2021
2022
2023
2024
2026
Industrial Category
Beef cattle feedlots
Hogs
Sheep and goats
General livestock
Dairy farms
Broiler, fryer, and roaster chickens
Chicken eggs
Turkey and turkey eggs
Poultry and eggs
Horses and other equines
General farms
Crude petroleum and natural gas
Drilling oil and gas wells
Oil and gas exploration services
Dimension stone
Crushed and broken limestone
Crushed and broken granite
Crushed and broken stone, NEC
Construction sand and gravel
Industrial sand
Bentonite
Fire clay
Fuller earth
Kaolin and ball clay
Clay and related minerals, NEC
Barite
Fluorspar
Potash, soda, and borate minerals
Rock salt
Sulfur
Chemical and fertilizer mining, NEC
Gypsum
Talc, soapstone, and pyrophyllite
Nonmetallic minerals, NEC
Meat packing plants
Sausages and other prepared meats
Poultry dressing plants
Poultry and egg processing
Creamery butter
Cheese, natural and processed
Condensed and evaporated milk
Ice cream and frozen desserts
Fluid milk
No. of
Facil ities
713
115
12
3
88
7
27
10
30
2
4
3,749
102
22
61
689
64
126
499
45
5
31
7
83
24
11
9
3
5
7
3
8
10
63
245
53
79
22
35
131
49
21
118
              H-l

-------
                         SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES WITH
                               EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
                                   (continued)
SIC Code
2032
2033
2034
2035
2037
2038
2041
2043
2044
2046
2047
2048
2061
2062
2063
2077
2091
2092
2099
2591
2599
2875
3211
3221
3231
3241
3273
3274
3281
3292
3295
5143
5422
5423
7534
8062
8063
8069
8922


Industrial Category
Canned specialties
Canned fruits and vegetables
Dehydrated fruits, vegetables, soups
Pickles, sauces, and salad dressing
Frozen fruits and vegetables
Frozen specialties
Flour and other grain mill products
Cereal breakfast foods
Rice mi 1 1 ing
Wet corn mill ing
Dog, cat, and other pet food
Prepared feeds
Raw cane sugar
Cane sugar refining
Beet sugar
Animal and marine fats and oils
Canned and cured seafood
Fresh or frozen packaged fish
Food preparations
Drapery hardware and window blinds and
Furniture and fixtures, NEC
Fertilizers, mixing only
Flat glass
Glass containers
Products of purchased glass
Cement, hydraulic
Ready-mix concrete
Lime
Cut stone and stone products
Asbestos products
Minerals, ground or treated
Dairy products
Freezer and locker meat provisioners
Meat and fish (seafood) markets
Tire retreading and repair shops
General medical and surgical hospitals
Psychiatric hospitals
Specialty hospitals
Noncommercial educational, scientific,
organizations

No. of
Faci 1 ities
29
245
9
31
62
17
14
10
3
22
26
47
35
17
28
56
123
479
55
shades 1
3
7
24
54
30
121
136
39
86
16
72
12
0
14
4
149
56
10
and research
_n
TOTAL 9,565
Source:  Permit Compliance System, December  1987.

1436m
                                       H-2

-------
                                   APPENDIX I

                          Secondary NPDES Faculties With
                            Permit Limitations for Toxics
      This appendix provides a listing of NPDES facilities classified as secondary with permit

limitations for toxics including ammonia and chlorine.

-------
                           SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES
                       WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS
                                                                       No. of
SIC Code                    Industrial Category                      Facilities


Agricultural Production - Crops

  0116      Soybeans                                                       3
  0181      Ornamental floriculture and nursery products                   6
  0189      Horticulture specialties, NEC                                  1

Agricultural Production - Livestock

  0279      Animal specialties, NEC                                       54

Agricultural Services

  0742      Veterinary services for animal specialties                     8
  0752      Animal specialty services                                      3

Forestry

  0821      Forest nurseries and tree seed gathering and extracting        3

Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping

  0913      Shellfish                                                     35
  0921      Fish hatcheries and preserves                                502

Oil and Gas Extraction

  1321      Natural gas liquids                                          429

Building and Construction

  1521      General contractors - single family houses                    91
  1522      General contractors - residential buildings, other than
              single family                                               20
  1531      Operative builders                                            34
  1541      General contractors - industrial  buildings and warehouses     21
  1542      General contractors - nonresidential buildings                32

Construction Other than Building Construction

  1611      Highway and street construction                               16
  1622      Bridge, tunnel, and elevated highway construction             22
  1623      Water, sewer, pipe line, and communication and power
              1ine construction                                           38
  1629      Heavy construction, NEC                                      123

                                       1-1

-------
                           SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES
                       WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS
                                   (continued)
SIC Code
Construct
1731
1781
1799
Food and
2051
2052
2065
2067
2075
2076
2079

2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2090
2095
2097
No.
Industrial Category Facil
ion Special Trade Contractors
Electrical work
Water wel 1 dril 1 ing
Special trade contractors, NEC
Kindred Products
Bread and other bakery products
Cookies and crackers
Candy and other confectionary products
Chewing gum
Soybean oil mills
Vegetable oil mills, except corn, cottonseed, and soybean
Shortening, table oils, margarine, and other fats an
-------
                           SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES
                       WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS
                                   (continued)
                                                                       No. of
SIC Code                    Industrial Category                      Facilities


Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products (continued)

  3269      Pottery products,  NEC                                         11
  3271      Concrete block and brick                                      10
  3272      Concrete products, except block and brick                     56
  3275      Gypsum products                                               24
  3291      Abrasive products                                             16
  3297      Nonclay refractories                                          21
  3299      Nonmetallic mineral products, NEC                              8

Railroad Transportation

  4041      Railway express services                                       1

Local and Suburban Transit and Passenger Transportation

  4111      Local and suburban transit                                    10
  4119      Local passenger transportation,  NEC                            1
  4131      Intercity and rural highway passenger transportation           2

Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing

  4213      Trucking, except local                                        18
  4214      Local trucking with storage                                   11
  4221      Farm product warehousing and storage                          13
  4222      Refrigerated goods warehousing and storage                    40
  4225      General warehousing and storage                               41
  4226      Special warehousing and storage, NEC                         109

U.S. Postal Service

  4311      U.S. postal service                                            6

Hater Transportation

  4411      Deep sea foreign transportation                                2
  4431      Great Lakes - St.  Lawrence Seaway transportation               2

Transportation by Air

  4511      Air transportation, certificated carriers                     11
  4521      Air transportation, noncertificated carriers                   5
  4583      Airport terminal services                                      8

                                       1-3

-------
                           SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES
                       WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS
                                   (continued)
SIC Code
                            Industrial Category
  No.  of
Facilities
                                                                          38
                                                                          64
                                                                           7
Pipe Lines, Except Natural Gas

  4612      Crude petroleum pipe lines
  4613      Refined petroleum pipe lines
  4619      Pipe lines, NEC

Transportation Services

  4782      Inspection and weighing services connected with
              transportation
  4783      Packing and crating
  4784      Fixed facilities for motor vehicle transportation, NEC

Communication

  4811      Telephone communication, wire or radio
  4899      Communication services, NEC

Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services

  4922      Natural gas transmission
  4923      Natural gas transmission and distribution
  4925      Gas production and/or distribution
  4939      Combination utilities, NEC
  4941      Water supply
  4959      Sanitary services, NEC
  4961      Steam supply

Wholesale Trade • Durable Goods

  5014      Tires and tubes
  5051      Metals service centers and offices
  5052      Coal and other minerals - wholesale
  5063      Electrical apparatus and equipment
  5065      Electronic parts and equipment
  5081      Commercial machines and equipment
  5082      Construction and mining machinery and equipment
  5084      Industrial machinery and equipment
  5092      Miscellaneous durable goods
  5093      Scrap and waste materials - wholesale
                                                                           3
                                                                           7
                                                                          86
                                                                          25
                                                                           6
                                                                         393
                                                                          11
                                                                          17
                                                                          36
                                                                        ,434
                                                                          69
                                                                          67
                                                                           1
                                                                          19
                                                                          18
                                                                           6
                                                                           4
                                                                           5
                                                                          17
                                                                          18
                                                                          26
                                                                          35
                                       1-4

-------
                           SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES
                       WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS
                                   (continued)
SIC Code
Wholesale
5111
5113
5141
5142
5146
5147
5191
5199
Industrial Category
Trade - Nondurable Goods
Printing and writing paper
Industrial and personal service paper
Groceries, general line
Frozen foods
Fish and seafood
Meats and meat products
Farm suppl ies
Nondurable goods, NEC
No. of
Facilities
1
4
9
8
43
10
10
15
Building Materials, Hardware, Garden Supply, and Mobile Hone Dealers

  5251      Hardware stores                                                3

General Merchandise Stores

  5311      Department stores                                             11
  5331      Variety stores                                                 7
  5399      Miscellaneous general merchandise stores                       7

Food Stores

  5411      Grocery stores                                                52
  5441      Candy, nut, and confectionary stores                           3
  5462      Retail bakeries                                                3

Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations

  5511      Motor vehicle dealers (new and used)                          33

Apparel and Accessory Stores

  5611      Men's and boys' clothing stores                                3

Furniture, Home Furnishings, and Equipment Stores

  5719      Miscellaneous home furnishings                                 3

Eating and Drinking Places

  5812      Eating places                                                302
  5813      Drinking places                                               10

                                       1-5

-------
                           SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES
                       WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS
                                   (continued)
                                                                       No. of
SIC Code                    Industrial Category                      Facilities


Miscellaneous Retail
  5921      Liquor stores
  5941      Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops
  5946      Camera and photographic supply stores
                                                                         6
                                                                         3

5947      Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops                              2
5999      Miscellaneous retail stores, NEC                               7
Banking
Sporting goods stores and bicycle shoj
Camera and photographic supply stores
Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops
Miscellaneous retail stores, NEC
  6022      State banks, members of FRS                                    9
  6023      State banks, not members of FRS                                1
  6025      National banks, members of FRS                                 7

Credit Agencies Other than Banks

  6162      Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents                       1

Insurance

  6311      Life insurance                                                 9
  6324      Hospital and medical service plans                             1
  6371      Pension, health, and welfare funds                             3

Insurance Agency, Brokers, and Service

  6411      Insurance agency, brokers, and service                         5

Real Estate

  6512      Operators of nonresidential buildings                        466
  6513      Operators of apartment buildings                             478
  6514      Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings        690
  6515      Operators of residential mobile home sites                  1,824
  6517      Lessors of  railroad property                                   2
  6519      Lessors of  real property, NEC                                  6
  6531      Real estate agents and managers                               37
  6552      Subdividers and developers, except cemeteries                390

Holding and Other Investment Offices

  6732      Educational, religious, and charitable  trusts                  2

                                       1-6

-------
                           SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES
                       WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS
                                   (continued)
SIC Code
Lodging
7011
7021
7030
7032
7033
7041
Personal
7212
7249
7299
Business
7374
7392
7397
7399
No
Industrial Category Faci
Places
Hotels, motels, and tourist courts
Rooming and boarding houses
Camps and trailering parks
Sporting and recreational camps
Trailering parks and camp sites for transients
Organization hotels and lodging houses
Services
Garment pressing and agents for laundries and dry cleaners
Barber shops
Miscellaneous personal services
Services
Data processing services
Management, consulting, and public relations services
Commercial testing laboratories
Business services, NEC
. of
lities

658
18
2
351
398
48

3
1
110

3
9
10
91
Automotive Repair, Services, and Garages
7512
7513
7531
Passenger car rental and leasing
Truck rental and leasing
Top and body repair shops
3
8
2
Miscellaneous Repair Services

  7629      Electrical and electronic repair shops, NEC                    5

Motion Pictures

  7833      Drive-in motion picture theaters                               3

Amusement and Recreational Services, Except Motion Pictures

  7932      Billiard and pool establishments                               2
  7933      Bowling alleys                                                11
  7941      Professional sports clubs and promoters                        3
  7948      Racing, including track operations                            16

                                       1-7

-------
    SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES
WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS
            (continued)
SIC Code Industrial Category
Amusement and Recreational Services, Except Notion Pictures
(continued)
7992 Public golf courses
7996 Amusement parks
7997 Membership sports and recreation clubs
7999 Amusement and recreation services, NEC
(including swimming pools)
Health Services
8011 Offices of physicians
8051 Skilled nursing care facilities
8059 Nursing and personal care facilities, NEC
8071 Medical laboratories
8081 Outpatient care facilities
Education Services
8211 Elementary and secondary schools
8221 Colleges, universities, and professional schools
8222 Junior colleges and technical institutes
8231 Libraries and information centers
8241 Correspondence schools
8244 Business and secretarial schools
8249 Vocational schools, NEC
8299 Schools and education services, NEC
Social Services
8321 Individual and family social services
8331 Job training and vocational rehabilitation services
8351 Child day-care services
8361 Residential care
8399 Social services, NEC
Museums, Art Galleries, Botanical, and Zoological Gardens
8411 Museum and art galleries
8421 Arboreta, botanical, and zoological gardens
No. of
Facilities


7
17
183

554

10
167
80
13
21

2,727
136
35
5
2
1
32
27

23
9
28
137
6

12
12
                1-8

-------
                           SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES
                       WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS
                                   (continued)
                                                                       No. of
SIC Code                    Industrial Category                      Facilities


Membership Organizations

  8641      Civic, social, and fraternal associations                     33
  8661      Religious organizations                                      159
  8699      Membership organizations, NEC                                  5

Private Households

  8811      Private households                                           221

Miscellaneous Services

  8911      Engineering, architectural, and surveying services            15
  8999      Services, NEC                                                 18

Executive, Legislative, and General Government, Except Finance

  9111      Executive services                                            13
  9121      Legislative bodies                                             3
  9199      General government, NEC                                       18

Justice, Public Order, and Safety

  9221      Pol ice protection                                              7
  9222      Legal counsel and prosecution                                  1
  9223      Correctional institutions                                    217
  9224      Fire protection                                               17

Administration of Human Resources Programs

  9451      Administration of veteran's affairs, except health and
              insurance                                                    1

Administration of Environmental Quality and Housing Programs

  9511      Air and water resource and solid waste management             58
  9512      Land, mineral, wildlife, and forest conservation             181
  9531      Administration of housing programs                            29
                                       1-9

-------
                           SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES
                       WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS
                                   (continued)
SIC Code
Industrial  Category
  No. of
Facilities
Administration of Economic Programs

  9611      Administration of general economic programs                    4
  9621      Regulation and administration of transportation programs     114
  9641      Regulation of agricultural marketing and commodities           2
  9661      Space research and technology                                	4
                                                               TOTAL  17,345
Source:  Permit Compliance System, December 1987.
'. 664m
                                      1-10

-------
                                   APPENDIX!

                            Secondary NFDES Facilities
                               Potential De Minimis
      This appendix provides a listing of NPDES facilities (secondary) classified as potential

de minimis.

-------
                           SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES
                              POTENTIAL DE HIM MIS
                                                                       No. of
SIC Code                    Industrial Category                      Facilities


Agricultural Production - Crops

  0112      Rice                                                           1
  0115      Corn                                                           1
  0119      Cash grains, NEC                                               3
  0131      Cotton                                                         1
  0132      Tobacco                                                        1
  0133      Sugar crops                                                    2
  0134      Irish potatoes                                                 1
  0161      Vegetables and melons                                          4
  0171      Berry crops                                                    3
  0175      Deciduous tree fruits                                          1
  0179      Fruit and tree nuts, NEC                                       1
  0182      Food crops grown under cover                                   £
  0191      General farms, primarily crop                                 10

Agricultural Production - Livestock

  0212      Beef cattle, except feedlots                                  37
  0254      Poultry hatcheries                                            21
  0271      Fur-bearing animals and rabbits                                1

Agricultural Services

  0723      Crop preparation services for market, except cotton ginning  135
  0751      Livestock services                                             9
  0762      Farm management services                                       3
  0781      Landscape counseling and planning                              1

forestry

  0849      Gathering of forest products, NEC                              2
  0851      Forestry services                                              5

Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping

  0912      Finfish                                                        9
  0919      Miscellaneous marine products                                  2
  0971      Hunting and trapping, and game propagation                     3

Mining of Nonnetallic Minerals

  1481      Nonmetallic minerals (except fuels) services                   7

                                      J-l

-------
                           SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES
                              POTENTIAL DE HHHHIS
                                                                       No. of
SIC Code                    Industrial Category                      Facilities


Construct ion Special Trade Contractors

  1711      Plumbing, heating (except electric), and air conditioning      4
  1721      Painting, paper hanging, and decorating                        2
  1741      Masonry, stone setting, and other stonework                    1
  1752      Floor laying and other floorwork, NEC                          2
  1771      Concrete work                                                  3
  1791      Structural steel erection                                      3
  1794      Excavating and foundation work                                 5
  1796      Installation or erection of building equipment, NEC            2

Food and Kindred Products

  2045      Blended and prepared flour                                     1
  2066      Chocolate and cocoa products                                   2
  2069      Sugar and confectionary products                               1
  2071      Fats and oils                                                  1
  2074      Cottonseed oil mills                                          15
  2080      Beverage                                                       1
  2098      Macaroni, spaghetti, vermicelli, and noodles                   2

Tobacco Manufacturers

  2141      Tobacco stemming and redrying                                  6

Lumber and Hood Products, Except Furniture

  2448      Wood pallets and skids                                         1
  2452      Prefabricated wood buildings and components                    1

Furniture and Fixtures

  2515      Mattresses and bedsprings                                      3

Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products

  3259      Structural clay products, NEC                                  5
  3261      Vitreous china plumbing fixtures                               5
  3263      Fire earthenware table and kitchen articles                    2
                                       J-2

-------
                           SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES
                              POTENTIAL DE HIHIHIS
                                                                       No. of
SIC Code                    Industrial Category                      Facilities


Local and Suburban Transit and Passenger Transportation

  4142      Passenger transportation charter service, except local          1
  4151      School buses                                                   4

Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing

  4224      Household goods warehousing and storage                        2

Water Transportation

  4421      Transportation to and between noncontiguous territories        1
  4441      Transportation on rivers and canals                            4
  4452      Ferries                                                        3
  4453      Lighterage                                                     2
  4454      Towing and tugboat service                                     2
  4459      Local water transportation, NEC                                1
  4462      Water transportation services                                  1
  4464      Canal operation                                                5

Transportation Services

  4712      Freight forwarding                                             1
  4722      Arrangement of passenger transportation                        2
  4723      Arrangement of transportation of freight and cargo             2

Communication

  4832      Radio broadcasting                                             1
  4833      Television broadcasting                                        2
  4841      Cable and other pay television services                        1

Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services

  4924      Natural gas distribution                                       6
  4932      Gas and other services combined                                8
  4971      Irrigation systems                                            51
                                       J-3

-------
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES
   POTENTIAL Of HIHIHIS
SIC Code
Wholesale
5012
5013
5023
5031
5039
5041
5074
5078
5083
5085
5086
5087
5088
5099
Wholesale
5112
5122
5134
5144
5148
5149
5153
5154
5159
5181
5182
5198
Building
5211
5231
5261
5271
Industrial Category
Trade - Durable Goods
Automobiles and other motor vehicles
Automotive parts and supplies
Home furnishings
Lumber, plywood, and mi 11 work
Construction materials, NEC
Sporting and recreational goods and supplies
Plumbing and heating equipment and supplies
Refrigeration equipment and supplies
Farm and garden machinery and equipment
Industrial suppl ies
Professional equipment and supplies
Service establishment equipment and supplies
Transportation equipment and supplies
Durable goods, NEC
Trade - Nondurable Goods
Stationery supplies
Drugs, drug proprietaries, and druggist sundries
Notions and other dry goods
Poultry and poultry products
Fresh fruits and vegetables
Groceries and related products, NEC
Grain
Livestock
Farm product raw materials, NEC
Beer and ale
Wines and distilled alcoholic beverages
Paints, varnishes, and supplies
Materials, Hardware, Garden Supply, and Mobile Hone
Lumber and other building materials dealers
Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores
Retail nurseries, lawn, and garden supply stores
Mobile home dealers
No. of
Facilities

4
4
1
1
59
1
3
3
7
7
1
4
1
4

3
2
1
3
10
21
13
34
3
1
2
1
Dealers
29
1
2
13
Food Stores
5431
5451
5499

Fruit stores and vegetable markets
Dairy products stores
Miscellaneous food stores
J-4
1
3
5


-------
                           SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES
                              POTENTIAL DE HINIHIS
                                                                       No. of
SIC Code                    Industrial Category                      Facilities


Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations

  5521      Motor vehicle dealers (used only)                              1
  5531      Auto and home supply stores                                    2
  5551      Boat dealers                                                   2
  5571      Motorcycle dealers                                             1

Apparel and Accessory Stores

  5651      Family clothing stores                                         2
  5661      Shoe stores                                                    1

Furniture, Home Furnishings, and Equipment Stores

  5712      Furniture stores                                               4

Miscellaneous Retail

  5912      Drug stores and proprietary stores                             2
  5931      Used merchandise stores                                        6
  5944      Jewelry stores                                                 1
  5961      Mail order houses                                              1
  5963      Direct selling establishments                                  2
  5982      Fuel and ice dealers                                          16
  5983      Fuel oil dealers                                              20
  5984      Liquified petroleum gas dealers                                2
  5992      Florists                                                       1

Banking

  6011      Federal reserve banks
  6026      National banks, not members of FRS
  6032      Mutual savings banks, members of FRS
  6044      State nondeposit trust companies
  6059      Related banking functions, NEC

Credit Agencies Other than Banks

  6122      Federal savings and loan associations                          3
  6123      State savings and loan associations                            3
  6159      Miscellaneous business credit institutions                     4
                                       J-5

-------
                           SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES
                              POTENTIAL DE HIMIHIS
                                                                       No. of
SIC Code                    Industrial Category                      Facilities


Security and Commodity Brokers and Services

  6211      Security brokers,  dealers, and flotation companies             6

Insurance

  6321      Accident and health insurance                                  2
  6331      Fire, marine, and casualty insurance                           3
  6361      Title insurance                                                1

Real [state

  6553      Cemetery subdividers and developers                            1

Combinations of Real Estate, Insurance, Loans, and Law Offices

  6611      Combinations of real estate,  insurance, loans, and
              law offices                                                  1

Holding and Other Investment Offices

  6711      Holding offices                                                2

Personal Services

  7231      Beauty shops                                                   1

Business Services

  7333      Commercial photography, art,  and graphics                      1
  7349      Cleaning and maintenance services, NEC                         1
  7372      Computer programming and other software services               1
  7379      Computer-related services, NEC                                 1
  7394      Equipment rental and leasing services                         14

Automotive Repair, Services, and Garages

  7519      Utility trailer and recreational vehicle rental               14
  7523      Parking lots                                                   2
  7525      Parking structures                                             4
  7549      Automotive services, except repair and car washes              9
                                       0-6

-------
                           SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES
                              POTENTIAL DE HINIHIS
                                                                       No. of
SIC Code                     Industrial Category                      Facilities


Miscellaneous Repair Services

   7623      Refrigeration and air conditioning service and repair shops    1
   7692      Welding repair                                                 5
   7694      Armature rewinding shops                                       2

Motion Pictures

   7814      Motion picture and tape production for television              3
   7832      Motion picture theaters, except drive-ins                      1

Amusement and Recreation Services, Except Motion Pictures

   7911      Dance halls, studios, and schools                              3
   7922      Theatrical producers and miscellaneous services                1
   7929      Entertainers and entertainment groups                          2

Health Services

   8021      Offices of dentists                                            2
   8049      Offices of health practitioners, NEC                           1
   8091      Health and allied services, NEC                                8

Legal Services

   8111      Legal services                                                 1

Education Services

   8243      Data processing  schools                                        1

Membership Organizations

   8611      Business associations                                          2
   8621      Professional membership organizations                          2

Justice, Public Order, and Safety

   9211      Courts                                                         6
   9229      Public order and safety, NEC                                   3
                                       J-7

-------
                           SECONDARY MPOES FACILITIES
                              POTENTIAL Of HIHIHIS
                                                                       No. of
SIC Code                    Industrial Category                      Facilities


Administration of Human Resources Programs

  9411      Administration of educational programs                         1
  9431      Administration of public health programs                       7
  9441      Administration of social, manpower, and income
              maintenance programs                                         2

Administration of Environmental Quality and Housing Programs

  9532      Administration of urban planning and rural development         4

Administration of Economic Programs

  9631      Regulation and administration of utilities                     4
  9651      Regulation, licensing, and inspection of miscellaneous
              commercial sectors                                         	2.
                                                               TOTAL     893


Source:  Permit Compliance System, December 1987.
                                       J-8

-------
                                APPENDIX K
                         State NPDES Program Status

      This appendix provides a summary of the States approved to issue permits under the
standard NPDES program.

-------
                             STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS
                                                                                    9/30/91

Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Approved State
NPDES permit
program
10/19/79
11/01/86
05/14/73
03/27/75
09/26/73
04/01/74
06/28/74
11/28/74
10/23/77
01/01/75
08/10/78
06/28/74
09/30/83
09/05/74
10/17/73
06/30/74
05/01/74
10/30/74
06/10/74
06/12/74
09/19/75
04/13/82
10/28/75
10/19/75
06/13/75
03/11/74
09/26/73
06/30/78
09/17/84
06/10/75
12/28/77
07/07/87
03/11/74
06/30/76
03/31/75
11/14/73
05/10/82
02/04/74
01/30/75
Approved to
regulate Federal
facilities
10/19/79
11/01/86
05/05/78
—
01/09/89
—
12/08/80
06/01/79
09/20/79
12/09/78
08/10/78
08/28/85
09/30/83
11/10/87
12/09/78
12/09/78
01/28/83
06/26/79
06/23/81
11/02/79
08/31/78
04/13/82
06/13/80
09/28/84
01/22/90
01/28/83
03/02/79
06/30/78
09/17/84
09/26/80
09/30/86
07/07/87
—
—
02/09/82
—
05/10/82
11/26/79
05/18/81
Approved State
pretreatment
program
10/19/79
11/01/86
09/22/89
—
06/03/81
—
03/12/81
08/12/83
—
—
06/03/81
—
09/30/83
09/30/85
06/07/83
07/16/79
05/13/82
06/03/81
—
09/07/84
—
04/13/82
—
06/14/82
—
07/27/83
03/12/81
—
09/17/84
04/09/82
08/10/83
07/07/87
03/16/82
—
04/14/89
09/30/86
05/10/82
12/24/80
—
Approved
general
permits
program
06/26/91
11/01/86
09/22/89
03/04/83
—
—
01/28/91
09/30/91
01/04/84
04/02/91
—
—
09/30/83
09/30/91
—
12/15/87
09/27/91
12/12/85
04/29/83
07/20/89
—
04/13/82
—
09/06/91
01/22/90
—
02/23/82
08/02/91
09/17/84
—
04/18/91
07/07/87
—
—
05/20/91
09/26/89
05/10/82
12/19/86
09/24/91
 TOTALS
39
34
27
28
Number of Fully Authorized Programs (Federal Facilities, Pretreatment, General Permits) = 20
                                        K-l

-------
                                    APPENDIX L
                             General Permit Information

State General Permit Program Status  	L-l
Existing General Permit Classification Categories	L-3

       This appendix provides a summary of State NPDES and general permit authority with
the number of general  permits and discharges under general permits,  as well as a listing of
categories currently covered by general permits.

-------
                               State General Permit Program Status
                                      Discharges Covered
                                            Under
                                       Geoenl Permits
                                      Number of
                                    Genera} Permit;
                                 EPA           STATE
tyPDES APPROVED
      STATES

•Alabama
* Arkansas
"California
•Colorado
•Georgia
*Hawaii
•Illinois
* Indiana
•Kentucky

•Maryland
•Minnesota
•Mississippi
•Missouri
•Montana
•Nebraska
•New Jersey
•North Carolina
•North Dakota
•Oregon
•Pennsylvania
•Rhode Island
•Tennessee
•Utah
•Virginia
•Washington
•West Virginia
•Wisconsin
•Wyoming
SUBTOTAL

Connecticut
Delaware
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Nevada
New York
Ohio
South Carolina
Vermont
Virgin Islands

•States with General
Permit Authority
        236
       3,142
(includes 3,100 coal mines)
          16
          99

       Unknown


       1,024



          18



        820

       5,355
 4
 5
12
 8

36
                                            L-l
                                                   09/30/91

-------
State General Permit Status
(continued)

NON-NPDES STATES
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Florida
Guam
Idaho
Louisiana
Maine
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Puerto Rico
South Dakota
Texas
Washington, D.C.
Discharges Covered
Under
General Permits
227

20
3

42
<630**
<80**
<80**
<80**
<500**
45
3
<500**

Number of
General *Y| Utt^ff
EPA STATE
1
1



1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1

•"Given on a combined regional basis.




Average number of discharges covered under a general permit (excluding coal minea) = 3,302/50 - 66




SOURCES:  EPA Regional Survey, 1988; EPA Headquarters, 1991.
                                                L-2
09/30/91

-------
           EXISTING GENERAL PERMIT CLASSIFICATION CATEGORIES
                   Agricultural Production Livestock
                   Aquifer Restoration
                   Coal Mining
                   Concrete Products
                   Construction
                   Deep Seabed Mining
                   Fish Hatcheries and Preserves
                   Hydrostatic Testing
                   Laundry/Cleaning/Garment Services
                   LOG Transfer
                   Meat Products
                   Mine Debatering
                   Noncontact Cooling Waters
                   Offshore Oil & Gas
                   Oil & Gas Extraction
                   Petroleum Bulk Stations
                   Placer Mining
                   Private Households
                   Processed Fruit & Vegetables
                   Salt Extraction
                   Sand & Gravel
                   Seafood Processing
                   Sewage Systems
                   Stormwater Runoff
                   Swimming Pool Filter Backwash
                   Water Supply
Sources:  EPA Regional and State Permitting Authorities, 1988
          Permit Compliance System, December 1987
                                  L-3

-------
                                  APPENDIX M

                 North Carolina's Department of Natural Resources
                           and Community Development
                   Effort and Cost of Permitting Study, April 1986
      This appendix includes the North Carolina Case Study that outlines the effort and cost

of permitting steps  involved in a "minimum reputable standard/model permitting program,"

including a methodology of analysis.

-------
MATT (4/14/M)
                                                                          NT 1*8
                                                                BSTINATBD  riMiiTTiNG  BPPORT
                                                                        PtM  MRMIT or  S-TBAR  DOMTIOH)
          ACTION
Preeppllcatloa conference
Application adalnlatratlon
Initial engineering re»tew
Bioclde review
Pretreeta*nt pi091MI
Staff report
NLA level •
NLA level C - ajo4elln«
NLA level C - (told work
NLA level C/edd reeeratlon
NLA level C renewal re* lev
Re*lev •onitorln* databanea
Dot* entry
Pinal Mo,r rev/draft pernlt
Public notice
IPP COtl MAJOR MINOR MAJOR MINOR SINOLB STORNNATER COOLING
GRAM /MR NDNTCirAL NOHCirAL INDOSTRIAL INDDSTRIAL FAMILY MATER
>10% IND <10I ivn >10» INK <10t IND
71 IS. IS 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.
57 1.2* 2.
74 17.14 t.
72 IS. II 0.
72 IS. 01 111.
71 IS. IS 11.
71 IS. IS 4.
71 K.I7 241.
(7 12.70 104.
17 12.70 102.
71 1(.(7 10.
1 (t 11.04 0.
57 0.2* 0.
. 72 IS. 01 4.
57 l.2» 0.
75 10.24 54.
r 71 IS. IS 205.
(S 11.12 0.
57 1.21 4.
1* 13.04 14.
(• 13.14 2».
70 14. SO 10.
«» 11.14 1».
(f 11. (S 112.
It 13. (5 0.
(7 12.70 2.
72 15.01 0.
IS 11. (2 0.
74 1».12 10.
72 15.11 12.
71 15.15 1.
252.
, C 1141.
INO 54.
kSSIPICATION JOS.
j ,
t.
0.
111.
21.
4 •
241.
104.
102.
10.
0.
0.
4.
0.
54.
20S.
0.
4 .
14.
2t.
11.
It.
112.
0.
2 ,
0.
0.
2.
t.
0.
111.
21.
4.
241.
(04.
102.
11.
0.
0.
2.
0.
54.
205.
0.
4.
14.
2t.
17.
11.
lot.
0.
2.
0.
0.
30.2 30.
3J.» 12.
».7 ».
245.0 23*.
1141.4 1141.
54.4 54.
205.5 205.
•EATNBNT 111.5 111.5 111.
177t.l 1772.0 1744.
2.
t.
0.
111.
21.
4.
241.
(04.
102.
10.
0.
0.
2.
0.
54.
205.
0.
4.
14.
2t.
17.
14.
lot.
0.
2.
0.
0.
30.
32.
»•
23*.
1141.
54.
205.
111.
1744.
2.4 2.
25.1 t.
0.
0.
25.
1.
241.
(04.
102.
11.
0.
0.
1 •
0.
54.
205.
0.
4.
14.
2t.
11.
It.
112.
0.
J.
0.
0.
0.
0.
12.
(.
241.
(04.
102.
11.
0.
0.
1.
0.
54.
20S.
0.
4.
12.
24.
34.
14.

o!
2.
0.
0.
10.2 30.
32. t 32.
0.0 0.
251. ( 212.
1141.1 1141.
S4r4 54.
205.5 705.
0.0 0.
14(5.1 1(20.
4.7
2.
1.
0.
0.
12.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1 .
0.
54.
20S.
0.
1 e
0.
0.
0.
( f
3 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
0.
0.
34.
0.
54.
205.
0.
2*( .




2









5
20



.7 4.7
f
.
m
%
.
.
m
.
t
f
,
f
^
^
„
^
f
f
f
10.

o.
14.
o.
o.
o.
o.
2.4
1.2
t . 4
o!o
21.1
4.7
241.1
(04.5
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.(
I'.l
0.4
54.4
205.5
0.4
4.4

It .1
lt.1
(.0
(2.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
(.0 (.0
0.0 33.2
0.0 0.0
74. » 157.3
0.0 144.3
54.4 -44,4
205.5 705.5
0.0 0.0
334.1 1243.5
Reclaae / MO attainability
remit laaonnca
Recorda/data
CEI
CSI
CSI bloaonitorine;
0»M
S-yr compoalte laapectione
Annual nondlacharee inap(S)
Intenalve toilclty eval
8elf-«onltorlno. data re*
Renewal notice
Supervision
AuthorItatIon to construct
Ta« certification

TOTAL STAPP TIME-BASIC
ADDITIONAL STAPP TIMB-LEVEL C
ADDITIONAL-BTAPP-TIMBHIBARINO
ADDITIONAL STAPP TINE-RBCLASS:
ADDITIONAL STAPP TIMB-PRBTREATNBMT
MAXIMUM TOTAL STAPP TIME
Motei  Chemical laboratory coat* and effort are not  Included in thl* table.
       Effort value* adjusted for 'typical* application  quality and leave  daya.
                                                                      M-l

-------
MATT (4/U/K)
                                                                          NPDIS
                                                                  eSTINATSO PIRMITTINO COSTS
                                                               (PSR PfRHIT OP S-TBAR DURATION)
          ACTION
Praappllcatlo* confarasica
Application (telii lit rat ion
Initial ana;lnaarln«, rariav
•ioclda ratrla*
Pratraatawnt pcograa
Staff report
•LA 1«»«1 •
NLA lr»«l C - aod«Urtf
NLA laval C - fiald vork
NLA !•»•! C/add raaaratlon
NLA !*»•! C ranaval rarlav
Rjsjvlav Bonltorino, databaaas
Data antry
Final a*9r rav/draft pamlt
Pvbllc not lea
•aarlft?
Raclaaa / uaa attainability
Pa rait isauanca
Racorda/data aana^aaant
dl
Cil
CSX bloBonltorln?
Mrt
5-yr eoapoaita Inapactlona
Annual nondiachar9« lnap(S)
Intanal*a toiielty aval
•alf-attfiltorinf data tr»
•••aval not lea
Supanrlalon
Authorisation to construct
Tai certification

TOTAL COST--BASIC
ADOtO COST PO* LEVKL C
AOOSD COST PO* HEARING
ADMO COST rOR_RB.12
15.00
IS. IS






MAJ(
annci
>10« IM>
71.41
1«.54
140.75
0.00
1001.4*
47*. 21
71.41
4010.01
15527.15
1010.50
444. tl
0.17
5.01
74.00
}>.01
•02.15
1111.70
7.02
14.00
200.70
740.50
511.10
247.72
1511.51
0.00
10.71
o.co
7.02
577.00
522.21
144.51
1704.10
211*4.51
**2.1S
1UU70
1001. «0
11170.14
>*
PAL
10* IHD
71.4)
1».S4
14*. 75
0.00
1001.4*
157.17
71.41
4010.01
15527.15
1010.50
444. »1
0.17
5.01
10.40
1*.01
»*2.15
3111.7*
7.02
14.00
200.7*
74*. 5*
4*7.15
214.24
14*1.11
0.00
10.71
).40
7.02
577. *0
522.21
144.53
35*0. SI
231*4.5)
9*2.35
1111.10
1001.4*
32*74.44
)«
PAL
<10» IHD
71.43
19.54
149.75
0.00
1001.4*
157.17
71.41
4010.01
15527.15
1010.5*
444.*!
0.17
5.01
10.40
19.01
M2.15
1111.70
7.02
)4.0I
200.7)
74*. 5*
4*7.15
214.24
14*1.11
0.00
10.71
9.40
7.02
577. »0
522.21
144.5)
)5*O.S1
2)))4.S)
))2.)5
1113.74
1*01.4*
32*74.44
MAJOR
INDUSTRIAL

71.4)
19.54
3<*.]4
0.00
0.00
)00.*0
)5.25
40)0.01
15527.15
10)0.50
444.))
0.17
5.01
115.1)
D.01
9*2.35
1111.70
7.02
34.00
200.7)
74). SO
51).))
247.72
15)1.5)
0.00
30.71
).40
7.02
577. )0
522.21
0.00
3)54.20
21)94.5)
992. )5
J 11 3. 74
0.00
)1)50.04
HIM
IHOOBTR

71
19
149
0
0
190
95
40)0
15527
34)4
444
0
5
57
19
9*2
1111
7
14
147
402
40*
214
1141
0
10
*
7
577
522
0
31*0
133*4
**2
3113
0
3*4*3
R
IAL

.41
.54
.75
.00
.00
.4*
.25
.01
.15
.50
.93
.37
.01
.40
.01
.35
.70
.02
.00
.11
.45
.12
.24
.44
.00
.71
.40
.02
.to
.21
.00
.44
.5)
.35
.70
.00
.29
SINGLE
PAHILT

71.4)
19.54
24.94
0.00
0.00
190.49
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.17
.01
19.20
0.00
992.15
1111.70
T.tt
12.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
41.44
45.05
0.00
0.00
9.40
7.02
115.50
0.00
0.00
535.30
0.00
992.35
3113.70
0.00
4441.4)
STOHNHATC


71.4)
1*.S4
14*. 75
0.00
0.00
157.17
0.00
0.00
.00
.00
.00
.17
.01
151.5*
39.01
992.15
1111.70
7.02
12.01
0.00
490.59
0.00
0.00
191.10
0.00
0.00
9.40
7.02
115.50
0.00
0.00
1144.71
0.00
992.35
3111.70
0.00
4257.14
R COOLING
MATBR

71.41
19.54
19.20
149.75
0.00
157.17
71.43
4010.01
15527.15
0.00
0.00
0.17
5.01
19.20
19.01
992.15
3113.70
7.01
34.00
1)1.04
415.72
254.49
01.44
057.22
0.00
0.00
9.40
7.02
115.50
527.97
0.00
2320.42
19457.94
992.35
1111.70
0.00
25904.70
HA XI MOM TOTAL COST

Totala Includa public notlca  coats,  ovarhaad (coaputad at MOOO par pa r aon -y aa r ) , and laboratory coats
of 17110 par !•»•! C vaataload  allocation and 1140 par C9I inapactlon.
                                                                       M-2

-------
DRAFT (4/l»/l»)
                                                                        NONDISCIIARGE
           ACTION
                                                                 ESTIMATED PERMITTING EFFORT
                                                             (PBR80N-MOR8 FEU PERMIT OP S-TEAR DURATION)
 8LUDCB  SUBBURPAC
DISPOSAL   * LPP
                 SPRAT
                 IRRIG
                                                                      COASTAL
                                                                     PKG PLANT
                                                                                ATC
                       RECYCLING, SEWER EXT
                        EVAP.PtH  /POMP STA
                                   SEMER
                                    EXT
                                  DELEGATED SINGLE
                                  MOM SEWER FAMILY
Praappllcatlon confareac*
Application adBlnlatratlon
Initial •nginaotin9 rorlow
Biocldo (avion
P(ot(aata*nt program
Staff (•pott
NLA lavol »
NLA lorol C - BOdOlino
Ml* lo*ol C - flold vork
MLA lovol C/add (oaoratlon
NLA lovol C (onoval rovlov
Rovlov aonitoriM databaeoa
Dot* entry
Final «ngr rov/draft potBlt
Public notico
Bearing

Roclaaa / uao attainability
Porait iaauanco
Rocorda/data •anagment
CBI
CSI
CSI bloBonltorlno,
OtM
S-yr coopoalto inapactiona
Annual nondlacharg* inopoc(S)
Intanalvo toilclty aval
8»lf-nonltorlng data rev
R*na«al notlc*
Supatvlaion
71 IS. IS 3.
57 1.2* 1.
72 15. II 4.
72 15.l« 0.
72 IS. II 0.
71 IS. IS 72.
71 IS. IS 1.
79 1«.*7 0.
«7 12.71 0.
*7 12.71 0.
71 1C. (7 0.
(* 11.14 0.
57 1.21 0.
72 IS. II f.
57 l.2» 0.
75 11.24 0.
71 15.15 0.
<5 11. i2 0.
57 l.2> 1.
<* 11.14 0.
«» 11.14 0.
«l 13.27 0.
«» 11.14 0.
(> 13. «S 0.
t* 13. (5 40.
(7 12.70 0.
72 15.11 20.
(5 11. (2 1.
7« 1).12 25.
3.
| ^
4!
0.
0.
1«.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
I.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
IS.
0.
15.
1.
5.
}.
1.
4.
0.
M.
30.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0B
(!
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
12.
«0.
40.
0.
20.
1.
25.
3.
1.
4.
0.
0.
IS.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7.
0.
0.
0.(
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
15.
0.
15.
1.
5.















1
)
5

(
(
(
1
(
) 1
) I
9
i
1
.(
f
.
.
.
,
,
*
.









i!
i.
>.
>.
>.
>.
s.
).
).
1.
l.(
) 2
]
]
I




















1
<
1
i
) •
.
.
L.
>.

.
,
.
.
.
f
.
.
.
.
•

B
.
.
.
,
.
,
>.
1.0
i.O
1.5
1.0
o.t
1.!
1.!
.(
.C
1 1
!<
.
.
.
.
.
.
*
.
•
.
.
»
,
.<
.1
.<
.<
.1
o.<
O.I
).
5.1
(
I
i
) I
>
(
>













1
>
)
)
>
>
>
I
)
I.
.
I.
).
.

.






.


.
.
.

.






1.
S.(
0.0
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0 2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2 1
1.2
0.0 (
0.0
0.0 <
0.0 I
0.0 1
0.0 <
0.0 I
0.0 (
1 .5
) 5.0 •
1.0
1.
.
.

.
9
.
9
.
f
.
,
t
f

}.
).
1.
).
>.
).
).
).
).
).
).
.5
i.O
TOTAL STAfF TIME-BASIC
ADDITIONAL STAFF TIHE-PRETREATHENT
175.1
  0.0
             (*.2
              0.0
1)1.2
 M.O
«*.2
 0.0
42.2
 0.0
50.7
 0.0
14.»
 0.0
11.9
 0.0
12.4
 0.0
47.2
 0.0
                                                                        M-3

-------
•RAPT  (4/i«/o»)
                                                                        NDNDI SOURCE
                                                                  ESTIMATED PERMITTING COST*
                                                                (PER PC WIT or S-TEAH OUMTIOMI
           ACTION
Preappllcatlon conference
Application adalniatratlon
Initial engineering review
•leclde review
Pretreatawnt review
Staff report
•VA level •
•LA level C - BOdeling
•LA level C - field vork
•A level C/add [•••ration
•LA level C renewal review
Review Monitoring databaeee
Rate entry
Final engr rev/draft permit
Public not lc«
Reolaee / »•• atta inability
Peralt iaauance
Re«orde/deta •anae.eaient
OX
CSI
CSI bloaoaitorlnf
O*N
S-yt coapoaite inapectlona
MniMl nondlechar«e lnep(S)
Intenalve toiicity eval
Self -Monitor ing 4*t» r«»
M*n««*l notice
•upctvitlon
BPP CO«T fLUDCC lUVfURPAC iPKAI COMTAL ATC RECTCLIMG, IEMBR EXT SEME* DELEGATED SINGLE
GMADt /•* DlSfOCAt » LPP IKRIGATIOPRG PLANT KV»P,MM /PUMP ITA EXT NUN 5CWER PANILY
71 15. IS 4S.4S 45.45 45.45 45.45 45.45 45.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.45
57 1.2* 11.44 12.44 12.44 12.44 12.44 12.44 12.44 12.44 12.44 12.44
72 15. •• «1.S2 (J.52 43.52 «1.S2 O.52 15. •• 23.12 15.11 7.*4 (3.52
72 15.il
72 15.11
71 IS. IS 10W
71 15.15
73 1«.*7
•7 11.70
•7 12.70
73 U.«7
4» 13.04
57 l.2f
72 15.00 >
57 0.2f
75 10.24
71 IS. 15
•5 11.02
57 0.2*
«» 11.04
(f 11.04
00 11.27
«* 11.04
«* 11.05
.00
.00
.00 24
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.20 »
.00
.00
.00
.01
.»5
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00 0.00
.00 1554.24
.40 454. SO 22
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.20 *
.00
.00
.00
.01
.15
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.20 11
.00
.00
.00
.01
.*5
.00
.00
.00
.00 1«(.00
.00 01*. 00
.00
.00
.25 0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.10 »
.00
.00
.00
.01
.*s
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
«• 11.05 540.00 204.75 540.00 204.75 20
<7 12.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
72 15.00 117.00 230.20 317.00 230.20
.00
.00
.00 0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.20 1
.00
.00
.00
.01
.*5
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.70 4
.00
.00
.00
.01
.95
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.75 204.75
.00 0.00
.00 210.20
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.04 1
.00
.00
.00
.12
.95
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.50
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.70 1
.00
.00
.00
.12
.95
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00 1*
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.7* 9
.00
.00
.00
.12
.95
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.20
.00
.00
.00
.01
.95
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
05 11.02 17.41 17.43 17.43 17.43 17.41 17.41 17.41 17.41 17.41 17.43
70 1».12 470.00 15.00 470.00 fS.OO »S.«0 »S.OO *5.00 »S.OO »5.CO 95.00
TOTAL COST—BACIC
ADDED COST POR PMTWATNENT
HAXINOM TOTAL COST
1191.00
   0.00
1191.00
1214.50
   0.00
1214.50
4902.07
1550.24
0510.91
1215.11  710.70
   0.00    0.00
1215.11  710.70
Notci  Total coat* Include overhead computed at fOOOO/peraon and laboratory coata.
094.20     201.90  245.11   217.15   049.17
  0.00       0.00    0.00     0.00     0.00
094.20     2<1.90  245.11   217.15   049.37
                                                                         H-4

-------
DHAfT 4/14/K                             ANALYSIS Of DATA

                     UTINATCD crrorr vs. AVAILABLE
                              MUNMK/tlAR   P-M  ESTIMATED   PERSON-MUM
                              IM CATEGORY /rtlMIT TOTAL         AVAILABLE

Major •unlcipal-pratraata*nt           1*   171.4     *01«.7
Major •uniclpal-no                     10   252.*     24Tt.4
  pratraatawnt
Nlftor •vniclpal-pxatra«tB*nt           14   ISO. 3     S121.7
Minor MMiiclp«l-no                     Jl   tlt.l     7417. «
  pr«t r«ata«tit
M}of ln««»tiUl                       21   2S4.4     SJJ7.3
Minor induct rial                       24   212.4     SM7.(
r«ck«o« plant* (•nb41vl«io«»,         500   23*. •   11»»00.0
  •enoolt, Inctltvtlo**, MM)
flnql* ttmllj                         KO    J4.J     57*2.0
•tonv«t*r                              0    74. 9        0.0
Cooling v«t«r/boil«r blevdovn         100   1S7.I    1S710.0
Otb«r (mint*. VTP«, «tc.)              50    3<.0     1040.0

     TOTAL MPOM PtMUTS              *2«    -      17477 J. S

MIA - lt»«l C                           3  1141. •     3445.0
rvrait n««tin9                         20    54.4     1000.0
*«cl««*/u*« •tt«lMbility               5   205.5     1027.5

         MTDH TOTAL                  *54    -      175001.0

lladq* dUpoMl                        70   175.     122(4.0
•ub*urf*c« and IFF                     to    «».      (220.0
•pray irrigation                      110   1>3.     21252.0
•pcay Irri9atlon-pr«tr«at»«nt           3   2*1.       17 3. (
Coaatal packao* plaat                  20    (».      1304.0
Aatborliatlon to conatruct            2(0    42.     10*71.0
••cycling. «»«p. ptBfi ( haul           50    50.      2535.0
••vor aittnaion vita piap ata         3(0    14.      53(4.0
(«v«r aitcnaion                       520    13.      7220.0
Dtlogatad •uniclpality                440    12.      5454.0
   acwtr titanaion
•ingl* faaily apray irrigation         30    47.2     1414.0

      MONDIOCBAMU TOTAL             1*53    -       74*72. (

TOTAL ALL PEWIITB                    2*07           250773.*       154MO.O

Nwidiacbaiga paraita do not  inclaato ra»*vala of 5-yr and 2-yr duration paniti
ATCa and ••w«r aitana^ona hava  i>4a(iaita ducttlona.
Total paiaon-houra avallabl* dorlvad I torn PTM prograai plan, paga 1*.

                                 M-5

-------
Di.ft 4/lt/l*0«
                             ESTIMATED ACTUAL COST VS. PRESENT PEMIIT REVENUES
0/IR
1*
10
14
11
21
24
500
1*0
50
»2t
1
20
5
*54
TO
*0
110
1
20
2*0
SO
1(0
520
440
10
1*51
2*07
PEE
RON
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
1100.00
1100.00
11*0.00
1100.00
125.00
10.00
175.00
1100.00
-
10.00
10.00
10.00
-
1100.00
175.00
ITS. oo
ITS. 00
ITS. 00
10.00
ITS. 00
ISO. 00
125.00
110.00
125.00
-
-
TOTAL
PEES
$1,(20.00
$MO.OO
$1.410.00
$1,110.00
$2.000.00
12,400.00
150,000.00
14,000.00
10.00
17,500.00
15.000.00
$70,120.00
$0.00
10.00
10.00
170.120.00
17.100.00
I*. 750. 00
11.250.00
1225.00
11,500.00
10.00
11.750.00
111.000.00
111.000.00
14.400.00
1750.00
1*1, (25. 00
1141.745.00
COST PER
PEMIIT
$5,«7.«7
11. 70*. 10
15,472.00
11,5*0.51
11. 15*. 20
ll,l*0.«4
13.5*0.51
IS3S.3*
11, 14*. 21
$2, 120. (2
1574.11
-
$21, 1*1.51
l»»2.15
$}, 111.71
-
11.1*1.00
11.211.51
I4,*I2.I7
$(,511.91
$1,215.11
171*. 70
ll*«.20
12(1. *0
1245.11
1217.15
114*. 17

-
TOTAL COST
1*1, 11*. 25
117, 104. 5(
170, 24*. (0
llll,i(4.l(
100. 200. *(
IT*, 575. 11
I1,T»*,T5S.OO
IIS, (41. 00
10.00
1212,012.00
I2I.71S.50
12,121,000.10
170, 11*. 5*
11*. 147. 00
I1S,S«I.*0
12,727,405.5*
$221,421.00
1111,112.20
1541,0*1.70
11*. (K.71
$24, TO*. 20
1191.542.00
144,110.00
1*5,004.00
$127,4*7.40
$»5,«14.00
$25,4*1.10
$1,50*, **]. 51
$4, 214, 2»». 12
POTENTIAL
INCREASE
$*0,1*(.2S
$14,124.54
$7(.(1«.(0
$100, 554. l(
$7I,12I.>I
174,175.11
$1,74*, 755. 00
111,141.00
10.00
$224.5(2.00
$21.715.50
$2,541,100.10
170. 10*. 5*
119.147.00
115, 5(1. *0
12, (4), 715.5*
I21(,42(.00
$104,1(2.20
$51*, 041. 70
$1*. 1*1. 71
$21.201.20
11*1,542.00
141,010.00
ITT, 004. 00
$114, 4(7. (0
$*1.214.00
124.731.10
$1,441,2(0.51
$4,0*2,554.12
       TfPE OP PERMITS        I

Major •unlclpel-pretreataent
Major •unlclp«l-no
  prttleatMent
Minor •unlclpal-pretreatawnt
Ninoi Bunlcipal-no
  pretreatswnt
Major Industrie!
Minor Industrial
Package plant* (subdivisions,
  schools, institution*. Mi Pi)
Single fully
BtOrnVSter
Cooling water/boiler blovdevn
Other (nines, MTra, etc.)

     TOTAL NPDCI PIMITt

MLA - level C
Pernit hearing
Reclass/use ettslnability

         HPMf TOTAL

Sludge disposal
Subsurface snd LPP
Sprsy irrigation
Spray irrigation-pratreataient
Coastal package plant
Authorisation to construct
Recycling, evsp, puny t haul
6«w«r aitenalon with po«*> sta
Sever extension
Delegated •uniclpallty
   sever estenslon
Single faally spray irrlgatio

     MOMDI SCBAJtCI TOTAL

TOTAL ALL PERMIT*

All UPOCS renevala are treated  like nev pervita alnce procesalng and compliance
effort are the save,  •ondiscbaree renevala are not Included in these tablea but
should be.  Pees are now set at $25.00 for all renevala but 7*% of all nondiacharqe
perslte never eiplre.
                                                    M-6

-------
                        EFFORT AND COST OF PERMITTING
 Pur-roses  of  Study;

     (1)   To  determine current actual costs of each step 1n permitting and
 compliance on each type of NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination
 System) permit and state nondlscharge permit.

     (2)   To  determine the total  costs to the Division of Environmental
 Management (DEM) for each type of permit over their full duration from
 preappl1cat1on conference to expiration (life cycle costs).

     (3)   To  devise a revised water quality permit fee schedule which would
 recoup  a  set proportion of these costs.

     (4)   To evaluate the adequacy of present funding to fulfill  our current
 programmatic commitments.

 Methods;

     Structured one-on-one Interviews with  knowledgeable persons  1n  DEM
 constituted the primary method used 1n this study.  For each topic  or process
 step, from three to twelve persons were Interviewed.   For each step  or
 process, at least one person from each regional  office was Interviewed.
 Initial Interviews were used to  define the steps 1n hPDES and nondlscharge
 permitting and compliance, and a draft sequence  of steps was reviewed by  each
 region and by numerous central office personnel.  Similarly, preliminary
 categories of permit types were  developed  1n Interviews and then reviewed.

    From these lists two matrices were developed with  sequence of steps versus
categories of permit types,  one  for hPDES  permits and  the other  for
 nondlscharge permits.   The cells of the matrices were  filled during  Interviews
with regional and central  office personnel, generally  with the persons
directly performing each step and their supervisor.   Each Interviewee was
 asked to estimate the time spent on each step both as  a range and as a
 "typical" value.   In nearly  every case at  least  three  Independent estimates
were given for each step,  and the median value was used.  The two resulting
draft matrices were circulated to the regional supervisors, regional
engineers, and central  office unit supervisors for review, and their comments
were used to make final  revisions.

    Laboratory costs were taken  directly from the laboratory's cost  charge
sheet.   Laboratory  costs for level  C studies were compiled by the Intensive
Survey Unit from  their experience over the past  two years.  Laboratory costs
for compliance sampling Inspections (CSIs) were  computed by getting  the
Compliance Unit  to  Identify  which analyses are taken  in every CSI and those
which are sometimes taken.  The  unit costs of all every-tlme Items  and 25* of
the unit costs of all  sometimes  Items were added to estimate the laboratory
cost for one  CSI  Inspection.   The actual median  cost  of hearing  public notices
over the past year was used.

    An Imaginary  5-year composite Inspection was created for M'DES  compliance
 Inspections:   Its time requirements are the weighted  averages of the four
                                    M-7

-------
 Inspection types weighted by the number of each type of inspection committed
to in the FY86 program plan.  This artificial construct was necessary because
there 1s no written guidance concerning which tvoe of inspection any given
facility should undergo and because none of the Interviewees were willing to
commit to estimate the actual  relative frequencies of the four types of
Inspections.  As a fair estimate of effort, the 5-year composite inspection
seems to work well and showed  little sensitivity to large changes In the
effort estimates 1n any one type of Inspection or 1n the weighting
coeff1C1ents.

    The overall estimates of effort, 1n terms of person-hours, were then
adjusted to account for leave  taken by employees and for "real world"
applications.  Throughout the  Interviewing process.  Interviewees were asked to
deal  with "perfect" applications which did not require additional  Information,
phone calls, conferences, or mailings.  After the effort matrices were
compiled, those permitting steps up through final  engineering review were
multiplied by a factor of 1.3  to convert from perfect to real  world
application quality.   Level C  wasteload allocation steps were not adjusted  1n
this  manner.

    The effort matrices were then multiplied throughout by a factor of 1.209
to correct for leave taken by  employees (vacation, sick leave, military  leave,
but not compensatory time). The 1.209 factor was computed from the management
Information system (MIS) figures for permitting activities for the year  ending
9/30/85.

    For each permitting and compliance step, a weighted average classification
of employee doing that step was computed,  based on Individual  classifications
and relative Individual effort 1n that step.  All  employees were presumed to
be at step 4B which Is accurate to within  5* of the  actual steps when tested
against at 10* sample of the full Water Quality Section.

    Cost matrices were generated from the  two effort matrices using these
weighted costs, and costs for  all steps for each permit type were summed to
give the total permit cost for that type permit.

    A final round of Interviews was used to estimate the number of permits
which 1s expected In FY87 In each category.  For municipal permits, this
estimate Is very accurate because It 1s based on the 11st of expiring permits.
For Industries and package plants, the estimates are based on the high levels
of activities experienced since January 1986 during  a period of very high
economic activity 1n most parts of the state.  In any case the cost per  penrit
data are Independent of the number of permits Issued or active during any
period of time.

Results

    The results of this survey are given 1n the six  attached spreadsheets.
                                     M-8

-------
                                 APPENDIX N
                    EPA Permit Issuance Workload Model, 1987

      This appendix provides the EPA workload model that estimates outputs, workloads, and
resources for various types of NPDES Permits.

-------
                          PERMIT  ISSUANCE
                       FY  1987 WORKLOAD MODEL


 I.   General  Description

      The  FY  1987  Permit Issuance  Model was developed based on a
 workgroup meeting between Regional and Headquarters represen-
 tatives.  As  a  result  of  the meeting, several new activities
 have  been added to  the model.  These activities are:  minor
 permitting, modifications/reopeners, general permits maintenance,
 state consistency reviews, local  limits technical assistance,
 POTW audit activities  and modifications to reflect national
 pretreatment  program changes.  The activities, pricing factors
 and  assumptions regarding outputs in the FY87 model are essentially
 the  same  as in the  FY86 model.  However, some changes have been
 made to existing  activities regarding assumptions and pricing
 factors.  These changes include:  the percentage of water quality-
 based permits has increased, the  pricing factor for state program
 development and review has decreased, and the pricing factor for
 NPDES State assessment has increased.  The workloads and associated
 resources are presented in three  parts:  Permitting; State Programs;
 and  Pretreatment.   Each part consists of: 1) a discussion of the
 approach  taken; 2)  a table showing the activities, descriptions,
 pricing factors, outputs,  and comments explaining any important
 features  or assumptions related to the outputs; 3) regional
 workloads; and 4) regional resources associated with the workloads.

      Two  assumptions underlie most of the output projections
 contained in  this model.   First,  it is assumed that 20% of the
 total  number  of major permits (EPA and NPDES States) will be
 reissued  in FY87.   Second, to avoid a complex and prematurely
 speculative exchange of outputs between State program related
 activities and EPA  permitting and pretreatment activities, the
model  assumes the current status  of State program approvals.

      The  last part  of  the FY87 model presents the Regional
resource distribution derived from the activities and workloads
included  in the model, the actual FY86 resource distribution
and an adjusted FY87 resource distribution.
                               N-l

-------
 II.   permitting

      Permitting activities include major and minor permit issuance
 to cities, industries and federal facilities as well as issuance
 of general permits and other activities associated with assuring
 complete and fully effective permits (responding to requests for
 hearings and variances).  A computer printout of current PCS
 data  on the status of permits was used to project the permit
 issuance workloads.  Additior.al estimates were made of the number
 of these permits which will be water quality-based and will have
 request for hearings and variances.   Estimates were also made on
 the number of significant minor permits,  new source and general
permits which will be issued.

     Table 1 presents the permitting activities, pricing factors.
outputs and comments, including assumptions.  The Regional workloads
 for permitting and related activites are provided in Table 2.
The resources (in FTE's) needed to complete the workloads for
the permitting activities are provided in Table 3.
                              N-2

-------
Activities
1.
          Municipal
                         Descriptions
                       TABLE 1
                      Permitting

                           Pricing
                           Factors
Issue m
permit*
ijor municipal
              Garments/
Output       Assumptions

           Assumes 20% of the total number
           of major municipal permits.
    (a)  MB tar Quality-
    (b)  Routine
    (c) Modifications/
(2)  Major Industrial
                         Issue permits with          60 days/        146
                         •fflusnt limits baaed       per permit
                         prismrily on water
                         quality standards.

                         Issue Major municipal       20 days/         40
                         permits (technology-        per permit
                         base).

                         A, change in the permit      20 days/         80
                         triggered by specific       per permit
                         events (i.e., promulgation
                         of effluent guidelines,
                         bicmonitoring, new informa-
                         tion, etc.).

                         Issue major industrial
                         permits (technology-base).
                                                       80% of the nunicipal permits to
                                                       be issued are estimated to be
                                                       water quality-based.
                                                       Assumes 10% of permits issued in
                                                       FY83,  FY84,  PY85,  and FY86 will  be
                                                       modified or reopened.
                                                       Aasunes 20% of the total nunber
                                                       of major industrial permits.
    (a)  Water Quality-
    (b)  BAT
    (c) BAT-6PT
                         Issue permits with
                         effluent limits based
                         primarily on water
                         quality standards.
                            60 days/
                            per permit
                                    196
           80% of the industrial permits
           to be issued are estimated to be
           water quality-based.
                         Issue permits in indue-     40 days/
                         trial categories for which  per permit
                         effluent guidelines are
                         promulgated and define BAT.
                                             23
                         Issue permits in indus-
                         trial categories for which
                         effluent guidelines are
                         prcnulgated and define
                         BAT equal to BPT.
                            25 days/
                            per permit
                                                      N-3
                                     15

-------
Activities
    (d) Paragraph 8
    (e) Secondary
                                                TABL£ 1
                                                Permitting
 Descriptions
 Issue perroita  in  indus-
 trial categories  covered
 or expected  to be covered
 by paragraph 8.

 Issue permits  to  majors
 in categories other than
 primary industry  cate-
 gories.
Pricing
Factors

 25 days/
 per permit
 25 days/
 per permit
                                                                     Output
 Qoraments/
Assumptions
    (f) Federal           Issue permits to
         Facilities      Major federal facilities.
                            25 days/per
                            permit
    (g) New Source      Issue permits to major     40 days/per
         Permits        new sources.               permit
                                              43
                             Output equals 2% of the total
                             ninber of major permits.
    (h) Edifications/
         Reopaners
A change in the permit     20 days/per
triggered by specific      permit
events (i.e., prcnulgation
of effluent guidelines,
bicnonitoring, request from
the permittee, etc.).
                 110
Assumes 10% of major permits
issued in FY83, FYB4,  FYB5 and
FY86 will be modified or reopened.
                                                        N-4

-------
Activities

3.  Minor Municipal
    (a) Water Oiality-
         Based
    (b)  Routine
4.  Minor Industrial
 Descriptions

Issue significant minor
       *1 permits.
Issue permits with
effluent limits based
primarily on water
quality standards.

Issue permits to minor
permits (technology-base).

Issue significant minor
industrial permits.
 TABLE 1
Permitting

     Pricing
     Factors
Output
    60 days/per
    permit
     20 days/per
     permit
 37
10
 Oonmenta/
AsauBgtiona

Assumes that 10% of the 20%
of total minor nunicipal permits
will be significant minors.

80% of the aigrvf leant minors are
estimated to be water quality-based.
    (a)  Mater Oiality- Issue permits with
          Based         effluent limits based
                        primarily on water
                        quality standards.
    (b)  BAT


    (c) BAT"*PT


    (d) Paragraph


    (e) Secondary
    (f) Federal
         Facility
(See major industrial
 permit description).

(See major industrial
 description).

(See major industrial
 description).

(See major industrial
 description).

(See major industrial
 description).
                           60 days/per
                           permit
    40 days/per
    permit

    25 days/per
    permit

    25 days/per
    permit

    25 days/per
    permit

    25 days/per
    permit
                      101
             Assures that 10% of the 20% of
             total minor industrial permits
             will be significant minors.

             (See minor nunicipal permit oomnents)
 12
                                                         N-5

-------
Activities

5.  General Permits

    (a) OCS



    (b) Non-OCS
    (c) Maintenance
        of general
        permits
Deecriptione
 TABLE 1
Remitting

     Pricing
     Factor*
      general permits
     ring outer conti-
nental ehelf activities.

Issue general permita
covering a category of
discharges within a geo-
graphic area.

Ongoing reporting,
monitoring and tracking
of general pendts.
    200 days/per
    permit
    75 days/per
    permit
    0.1 vorkyear/
    per Region
Output
  23
  10
  10
  Conroents/
 Assumptions
This output includes EPA
drafting of permits and EPA
assisting the NPDGS States in
drafting permits.
6.  Variances
    (a) FTF' for
        Indirects
7.  Hearings

    (a) settled
Act on variances re-
quested by major
industrial permittees.
Settle requests for
evidentiary hearings
through negotiation.
    65 days/per
    variance
                          65 days/per
                          variance
    50 days/per
    request
  63
                        8
 59
This output is estimated
assuming 5% of the total nuntoer
of major industrial permittees
will request a variance.

This output is estimated
assuming 10% of the organic
chemical plants will request
an PDF variance.
This output is estimated assuming
the following percentages of
permittees will request evidentiary
hearings which will be settled
without formal adjudication:

  5% of municipal
 10% of BAT
 60% of BAT=BPT
 60% of Paragraph 8
 10% of Secondary
 15% of Mater Quality-baaed
                                                        H-6

-------
JSctivitic
                     Descriptions
               TABL£ 1
              Permitting

                   Pricing
                   Factors
                                Garments/
                  Output       Assumptions
    tear ings
(b)
           ducd
                         •dj

    in fomal
tory hearings.
220 days/per
hearing
This output is estimated assuming
adjudicator/ hearings will be held
on 2% of the major industrial and
water quality-based permits.
                                                      N-7

-------
          TABLE 2
Permitting Workload - EPA

Major Municipal:
Water Quality
Routine
Modifications/
Reopeners
Major Industrial:
Water Quality
BAT
BAT-BPT
Paragraph 8
Secondary
Federal
Mew .Sources
Modifications/
Reopeners
Minor Municipal:
Water Quality
Routine
Minor Industrial:
Water Quality
BAT
BAT-BPT
Paragraph 8
Secondary
Federal
General Permits t
OCS
Mx^rv ~f\f*C
Non~ocs
Variances:
Direct
Indirect-FDP's
Hearings:
Settled
Conducted
I

32
9
18


25
4
-
-
1
1
7
14


2
1

11
2
1
-
-

1


8
~* ~

a
i
ii

6
1
2


13
3
-
-
-
-
2
6


2
—

2
-
-
-
-

3


4
2

3
-
Ill

-
1
-


_
-
-
-
-
1
-
-


-
^

1
-
-
-
-

3


-
•

_
-
IV

18
5
12


26
5
-
-
2
-
5
14


1
^

10
2
-
-
-

4


8
~

7
-
V

-
-
-


—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


-
^

-
-
-
-
-

-


-
2

_
-
VI

70
18
36


76
10
2
1
2
5
18
42


26
7

57
1
-
1
11
2
1


24
3

22
2
VII

-
-
-


-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


-
—

-
-
-
-
-

-


—
~

_
-
VIII

9
3
6


4
-
1
-
-
-
2
2


4
1

4
1
-
-
-




2
~

2
-
IX

4
1
2


5
1
-
-
-
-
1
2


1
^

2
-
-
-
-

3


2
1

2
-
X

7
2
4


47
-
12
-
-
-
a
30


i
i

14
1
1
-
1
1
8
i
L

15
•"

15
1
Total

146
40
80


196
23
15
1
5
7
43
110


37
10

101
7
2
1
12
3
23
i r\
L U

63
8

59
4
          N-d

-------
      TABLE 3
Permitting FTE - EPA

Major Municipal:
Water Quality
Routine
Modification*/
Reopeners
Major Industrial:
Water Quality
BAT
BAT-BPT
Paragraph 8
Secondary
Federal
New Sources
Modifications/
Reopeners
Minor Municipal!
Water Quality
Routine
Minor Industrial:
Water Quality
BAT
BAT-BPT
Paragraph 8
Secondary
Federal
General Permits:
OCS
Non-OCS
General Permit
Maintenance
Variances:
Direct
Indirect-PDF1 s—
Hearings:
Settled
Conducted
Total
I

8.7
0.8
1.6


6.8
0.7
-
-
0.1
0.1
1.3
1.3


0.5
^

3.0
0.3
0.1
-
-
*•
0.9
0.3
0.1


2.4
^ —

1.8
1.0
31.8
II

1.6
-
0.2


3.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
0.4
0.5


0.5
^

0.5
-
-
-
-
—
1.9
0.3
0.1


1.2
0.6

0.7
-
12.5
III

_
-
-


_
—
-
-
-
0.1
-
-


-
^

0.3
-
-
-
-
—
1.9
0.3
0.1


-
—

-
-
2.7
IV

4.9
0.5
1.1


7.0
0.9
-
-
0.2
-
0.9
1.3


0.3
^

2.7
0.3
-
-
-
™
2.4
0.3
0.1


2.4
—

1.6
-
26.9
V

_
-
-


_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


-
^

-
-
-
-
-
™
_
0.3
0.1


—
0.6

—
-
1.0
VI

19. 1
1.6
3.3


20.7
1.8
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
3.3
3.8


7.1
0.6

15.5
0.2
-
0.1
1.3
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.1


7.1
0.8

5.0
2.0
95.9
VII

_
-
-


.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


-
^

-
-
-
-
-
*
—
0.3
0.1


-
—

-
-
0.4
VIII

2.5
0.8
0.5


1.1
-
0.1
-
-
-
0.4
0.2


1.1
^

1.1
0.2
-
-
-
*
—
0.3
0.1


0.6
*

0.5
-
9.5
IX

1.1
-
0.2


1.4
0.2
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.2


0.3
^

0.5
-
-
-
-
—
2.7
0.3
0. 1


0.6
0.3

0.2
-
8.3
X

1.9
0.2
0.4


12.8
-
1.4
-
-
-
1.5
2.7


Total

39.8
3.9
7.3


53. 3
4. 1
1.7
0.1
0.5
0.8
8.0
10.0


0.3j 10.1
0.6

3.H
0.:2
0. 1
-
0.1
0.1
7.3
0.3
0.1


4.4
*

3.4
1.0
42.0

27. <<
1.2
0. 2
0.1
1.4
0. 3
18.0
3.0
1.0


18.7
2.3

13.2
4.0
231.0
      N-9

-------
 III.  State Programs

     State program activities  include:  the development and
 approval of new State NPDES programs and modification of approved
 NPDCS State programs; the assessment of approved State programs;
 assistance to States in the preparation of major and minor permit
 terms and conditions and resolution of challenges to major permits;
 and the review of major permits and State regulations to unsure
 consistency with the NPDES regulations and the Clean Water Act.
 Tables 4 and 7 lists these activities along with pricing factors,
 outputs, and the assumptions used in developing the outputs.

     Table 4 shows the basic State permit issuance data used to
 project EPA workloads for assisting States in major and minor
 permit issuance and in reviewing State permits.  Table 4 also
 includes the estimated number of hearings or appeals of permit
 terms or conditions.  Table 5 shows the resources (PTE's) needed
 to complete the workloads.

     The State programs approval and assessment workload and the
 regional resource needs are presented in Tables 8 and 9.  The
outputs are based on the number of States not yet approved to
administer the NPDES permit program and those States for which
modifications to add pretreatment and federal facility permit
authority expected in PY87.
                               N-10

-------
Activities

NPttS State -
Hermit Assistance
Doocriptions

•technical asaistance
provided to States in
the preparation of
•ajar psmit conditions
for the various types
of pendts and for the
resolution of challenges
to pendts.
   TABL£ 4
State Progr

Pricing
Factors
Output
 Oonments/
Assumptions
1.  Major Municipal

    (a) Mater Oiality-
         Based

    (b) Routine

    (c) Modifications/
        Aeopanera

2.  Major Industrial

    (a) Water Oiality-
                                                           (1)
    (b) BAT
    (c) BAT-BPT
    (d) Paragraph 8
    («) Secondary
    (1) = See lable 1 Descriptions aivd Oonroents
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
30 days/per 219
permit
10 days/per 9
permit
10 days/per 186
permit
30 days/per 203
permit
20 days/per
permit
10 days/per 2
permit
10 days/per
permit
5 days/per
permit
50% of
10% of
(i)
(1)
50% of
10% of
50% of
50% of
10% of
State permit workload.
State permit workload.

State permit workload.
State permit workload.
State permit workload.
State permit workload.
State permit workload.
                                                    N-ll

-------
                                                  TABLE 4
Activities
Major Industrial
(£) federal Facilitl<
(9) New Sources
(h) Modifications/
Reopaners
3. Minor Municipal
(a) Wbter Quality-
Based
(b) itoutlne
4. Minor Intact-rial
(a) Water Quality
Baaed
(b) BAT
(c) BKMPT
Description*
M (1)
U)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
state rrograra
Pricing
Factors

20 days/per
permit
15 days/per
10 days/per
permit

30 days/per
permit
10 days/per
permit

30 days/per
permit
20 days/per
permit
10 days/per
permit
i
Oomnents/
Output Assumptions

201 of State
20 20% of State
180 (1)
(1)
75 501 of state
1 10% of state
(1)
308 50% of state
2 10% of state
16 50% of state

permit workload.
permit workload,


permit workload
permit workload

permit workload
permit workload
permit workload
(1)  - See Tfeble 1 Descriptions and Oonroenta
                                                  N-L2

-------
                                                       TABLE 4
                                                    State Progr<
Activities

    Minor Industrial

    (d) Paragraph 8


    (0) Secondary


    (f) Federal


5.  Permit Review
Descriptions
   U)
   (1)
   (1)
Review permits for
consistency with
regulation* and
standard*.
 Pricing
 Factors
 10 days/per
 permit

 5 days/per
 permit

 20 days/per
 permit

 3 days/per
 permit
Output
  17
 760
 Gbnments/
Assumptions
             50% of state permit workload
10% of state permit workload
             20% of state permit workload
Assumes that EPA will review
all state major permits and
25% of others.  The nunber
to be reviewed is the total
permits issued less the nunber for
which EPA provided assistance.
6.  Hearings

    (a) settled


7.  Variances
  (1)


  (1)
 (1) See Table 1 Descriptions and amenta
50 days/per
request

65 days/per
request
   12


  128
 10% of State hearing workload.
       (D
                                                      N-13

-------
                                  TABLE 5
                 Permitting Workload - SPDES State Assistance

Major Municipal:
Water Quality
Routine
Modifications/
Reopeners
Major Industrial:
Water Quality
BAT
BAT-BPT
Paragraph 8
Secondary
Federal
New Sources
Modifications/
Reopeners
Minor Municipal:
Water Quality
Routine
Minor Industrial:
Water Quality
BAT
BAT-BPT
Paragraph 8
Secondary
Federal
Permit Review
Hearings:
Settled
Variances
I
25
10
1
3

30
12
-
-
-
-
-
1
9

2
1
™*
13
5
-
1
1
-
*"
33

—
7
II
85
34
2
24

69
27
-
1
-
-
-
3
18

8
3
^
81
32
-
-
-
3
^
101

3
17
III
75
30
1
28

82
32
-
-
-
-
-
3
28

24
9
^
153
61
1
6
1
2
*
Ii7

2
20
IV
115
46
2
35

139
55
-
1
-
-
-
5
55

35
14
^
198
79
-
2
1
4
1
179

3
35
V
130
52
3
48

111
44
-
-
-
-
-
5
41

64
25
1
173
69
1
4
2
4
1
173

3
28
VI
—
—
—
-

—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


-
—
^
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
—

-
_
VII
44
18
—
15

26
10
-
-
-
-
-
1
a

40
16
^
83
33
-
2
-
1
^
57

l
6
VIII
27
10
-
10

20
8
-
-
-
-
-
1
6

11
4
^
35
14
-
1
-
1
—
34

-
5
IX
33
13
—
13

23
9
-
-
-
-
-
1
10

2
1
^
18
7
-
-
1
1
^
35

-
6
X
16
6
—
5

15
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
5

6
2
^
21
8
-
-
1
1
^
21

-
4
Total
550*
219
9
186

515*
203
-
2
-
-
-
20
130

192*
75
1
775*
308
2
16
7
17
2
760

12
128
*NPDES State Permitting Workloads for FY87.
                                   N-14

-------
              TABLE 6
Permitting FTE - NPDES State Assistance

Major Municipal:
Water Quality
Routine
Modification*/
Reopeners
Major Industrial:
Water Quality
BAT
BAT-BPT
Paragraph 8
Secondary
Federal
New Sources
Modifications/
Reopeners
Minor Municipal:
Water Quality
Routine
Minor Industrial:
Water Quality
BAT
BAT-BPT
Paragraph 8
Secondary
Federal
Permit Review
Hearings:
Settled
Variances
Total
I

1.4
-
0.4


1.6
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.4


0.1
—

0.7
-
-
-
-
™
0.5

-
2.1
7.4
II

4.6
-
1.1


3.7
-
-
-
-
—
0.5
0.8


0.4
*

4.4
—
—
-
-
™
1.4

0.4
5.0
22.3
III

4.1
-
1.3


4.4
-
—
-
-
—
0.5
1.3


1.2
—

8.3
—
0.3
-
-
—
1.7

0.3
5.9
29.3
IV

6.3
-
1.6


7.5
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
2.5


1.9
—

10.8
-
—
-
-
—
2.4

0.4
10.3
44.6
V

7.1
0.1
2.2


6.0
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
1.9


3.4
^

9.4
—
0.2
-
-
—
2.3

0.4
8.3
42.2
VI

-
-
-


—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


-
^

-
—
-
-
-
^
-

-
„
_
VII

2.5
-
0.7


1.4
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.4


2.2
—

4.5
—
—
-
-
^
0.8

0.1
1.8
14.6
VIII

1.4
-
0.5


1. 1
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.3


0.5
*

1.9
-
—
-
-
^
0.5

-
1.5
7.9
IX

1.8
-
0.6


1.2
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.5


0.1
*

1.0
—
—
-
-
^
0.5

-
1.8
7.7
X

0.8
-
0.2


0.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2


0.3
—

1.1
—
-
-
-
"*
0.3

-
1.2
4.9
Total

30.0
0. 1
8.6


27.7
-
-
-
-
-
3.6
8.3


10.1
—

42.1
-
0.5
-
-
—
10.4

1.6
37.9
180.9
           N-15

-------
Activiti«
Approval/As
Descriptions
                                                       TAflL£ 7
                                                    State Progr
Pricing
Factors
Output
 Oomnenta/
Assumptions
1.  Program Develop-
     ment Assistance
Assistance in the          45 days
development of NFDGS
program submissions        20 days
and program Modifications
                   18

                   15
                         and program i
                         submissions.
             Full Progrdfoa

             Pretreatment Program
              Modifications
2.  Program Application
     Review
Review of NPDES state
program submissions and
NPDES State program
•edification sutnissions.
40 days
   2
   4
   2
Full NPDtS Prograne
Pretreatment Programs
Federal Programs
3.  NPDES Progra
     Aaaeaaasnt
EPA aoseagnent of
approved NPOES State
programs.  Includes
permitting and pre-
treatJMnt.
    (a) Large
    (b)
                          1.3 workyear/       11
                          per NPDES State
                          with >200 majors

                          0.8 workyear/       10
                          per NPDES State
                          with 100-2OO
                          majors
                                                      N-16

-------
                                                       TABLE 7
                                                    State Programs
Activities
Deeeriptions
Pricing
Factors
Output
 Garments/
Assunptiona
    (c) Small
                          0.6 workyear/
                          per NPDES State
                          with < 100 najors
                   17
4.  Consistency
     Ravi*
Raview of State
regudations to ensure
consistency with NPDES
regulations and the CWA.
                                                         N-17

-------
                  TABLE 8
State Program Approvals/Aasessment Workload

Program Development
Assistance
Full Program
Pretreatment
Modifications
Program Application
Re view/ Approval
Full Program
Pretreatment
Federal Facility
NPDES Program
Assessment
Large
Medium
Small
NPDES State
Consistency Review
I


3
-



-
—
1


1
-
2
-
II


1
2



-
—
-


2
-
1
-
Ill


_
3



—
1
1


1
2
2
1
IV


1
-



-
—
-


3
3
1
1
V


_
2



—
1
-


3
2
1
-
vt


5
-



1
—
-


-
-
-
-
VII


_
1



-
1
-


-
1
3
1
VIII


2
4



1
1
1 -


-
1
3
1
IX


4
2



—
—
-


1
1
2
-
X


2
1



_
-
i -


-
-
2
-
Total


18
15



2
4
2


11
10
17
4
                     N-18

-------
                TABLE 9
State Program Approvals/Assessment FTE

Program Development
Assistance
Full Program
Pretreatment
Modifications
Program Application
Re view/ Approval
Full Program
Pretreatment
Federal Facility
NPDES Program
Assessment
Large
Medium
Small
NPDES State
Consistency Review
Total
I


0.6
-


-
-
0.2


1.3
-
1.2
-

II


0.2
0.2


-
-
-


2.6
-
0.6
-

Ill


_
0.3


-
0.2
0.2


1.3
1.6
1.2
0.5

IV


0.2
-


.
-
-


3.9
2.4
0.6
0.5

V


.
0.2


-
0.2
-


3.9
1.6
0.6
-

VI


1.0
-


0.2
-
-


-
-
-
-

VII


_
0.2


—
0.2
-


-
0.8
1.8
0.5

VIII


0.4
0.7


0.2
0.2
-


-
0.8
1.8
0.5

IX


0.8
0.2


-
-
-


1.3
0.8
1.2
-

X


0.4
0.2


•
-
-


-
-
1.2
-

Total


3.6
2.0


0.4
0.8
0.4


14.3
8.0
10.2
2.0
41.7
               N-19

-------
IV.  Pretreatment

     The primary focus of pretreatment activities will shift
from local program approval to implementation and program
oversight where the State is not approved to administer the
pretreatment program.

     Table 10 presents the pretreatment activities,  pricing
factors, total outputs and comments, including assumptions.
The Regional workloads for pretreatment activities are provided
in Table 11 and the associated resources needed to complete
the workloads are provided in Table 12.
                               N-20

-------
Activities

1.  POW Program
    review/approva 1 •/
    perndt modifica-
    tions
2.  Annual Report
    Revic
3.  Fbllow-up to
    Annual Report
    Review
Deecriptione

Review and approval of
final POW submissions
and inoorporation of new
rerpilreaents into the
pemit.

Review of annual reports
required to be submitted
by Pan*.

(toone or written contact
with POM personnel to
reeolve problems.
   TABLE 10
 Pretreatment

Pricing
Factors

15 days/per
HOW
2 days/per
report


15 days/per
report
Output

  20
 700
 210
 Ooranents/
Aaaunptions

Assunes 2 new programs will
be required per Region.
All of the 700 EPA approved
programs will be required to
submit annual reports.

Assures 30% of the 700 annual
reports submitted will require
follow-up.
4.  Audit Activities

    (a) pre-planning



    (b) on-site audit


    (c) audit report
        reocBU
        tione
Pile review, compliance    4 days/per
analysis and materials     audit
preparation.

Actual staff visit         3 days/per
to POTW site.              audit

Produce formal report      8 days/per
on audit complete with     report
remedial actions for
POIW.
                  141
                  141
                  141
             Of the 700 EPA approved programs,
             20% will receive an on-site audit.
             2O% of 700 approved programs will
             receive an on-site audit.
                                                       N-21

-------
Activities
Descriptions
    TABLE 10
  Pretreatment

 Pricing
 Factors
              ODnments/
Output       Assumptions
    (d) follow-up on
        audit
Written and onsite
activities to Insure
corrections by POM.
 5 days
  69         Assunes 5O% of POTVte audited will
             require seme follow-up.
5.  EPA Assistance to
     Approved Pretreat-
     nant States on
     Audits
EPA assistant to States
 on audits.
 20 days/audit
  99
Assumes 10% of State approved
pretreatment prograns will be
visited by EPA/State evaluation
teans during audits.
6.  local Limits
     Technical
     Assistance
Develop individual
local limit* with
POMs.
60 days
 143
Assumes roughly 10% of 1463
required PO1W programs will
require technical assistance on
local limits.
7.  Modifications to
     Reflect National
     Program Changes
 A change in the
 program triggered
 by specific events
 (e.g., revised
 regulations, local
 limits policy and
 toxicity limits).
10 days
 292
Assunes 20% of the 1463 required
 pretreatment programs will be
 modified.
                                                     N-22

-------
                                                        TABLE 10
                                                      Pretreatraent
 Activiti«
 8.  BMR Reviews
 9.  Category
     Determinations
Descriptions
 Pricing
 Factors
Rsviaw of baseline        2 days/lU
Monitoring report required
by
Determining what cate-
gorical pretreatntsnt
standard applies to a
•pacific industry.
12 days/IU
               Conraents/
 Output       Assumptions

  100         Aasunes about 100 ILte required to
              submit BMHB are  located where EPA
              is the control authority.

  34          Roughly 1/3 of the 100 industrial
              users in the  organic chemical
              category will request a category
              determination.
10.  Removal Credits

     (a) Application
          Ravi*
     (b) Consistent
         Ramoval
         Evaluations
Evaluating individual
POTW submissions
strating pollutant
Evaluate the consistent
removal for existing
credit recipients.
 15 days
  5 days
  35
  43
5% of the total 700 local
POIVta will request renoval
credits authority.
EPA will review consistent
removal for all recipients.
11.  Control of lUs
     in non-pretreat-
     ment POTVs) where
     EPA is control
     authority
Identifying categorical
industries not covered
by approved States or
POMs and controlling
their discharges.
  5 days
1015
                                                        N-23

-------
       TABLE 11
Pretreatinent WbrKload
PMnTOAlMEOT
New Program Review
and Approval
Annual Report Review
where EPA is Approval
Authority
Follow-up to Annual
Report Review
Audit Activities
-Pre-planning for
oneite audit
-Actual onsite audit
-Audit Report

Rec.ijmiei n.vi txons
-Follow-up on Audit
with POTW
EPA. Assistance to Approvec
Pretreatnent States on
Audits
Local Limits Technical
Assistance
Modifications to Reflect
National Program Change*
am Reviews where EPA
is control authority
Category Determinations
Removal Credits
-Application review*
-Consistent removal
evaluations
Control of IUB in
non-Pretreatnent POMs
where EPA is control
authority
I

2

68


20
14

14
14

7


11

8


16
5

2

3
4


105


II

2

57


17
11

11
11

5


5

8


16
15

5

3
5


70


III

2

116


35
23

23
23

12


3

14


28
$

2

6
6


140


IV

2

28


8
6

6
6

3


43

40


81
5

2

1
2


35


H7

2

99


30
20

20
20

10


24

33


68
20

6

5
19


70


VI~

2

123


37
25

25
25

12


0

12


24
24

8

6
3


175


'vTT~

2

13


4
3

3
3

1


11

7


16
5

2

1
-


35


VIII

2

52


16
10

10
10

5


0

5


10
5

2

3
1


210


DC

2

120


36
24

24
24

12


0

12


24
10

3

6
3


105


X

2

24


7
5

5
5

2


2

4


9
5

2

1
-


70


Total

20

700


210
141

141
141

69


99

143


292
100

34

35
43


1015


          N-24

-------
     TABLE 12
Pretreatment FTE
PRETREAlMBfT
New Program Review
and Approval
Annual Report Review
where EPA. is Approval
Authority
Pol low-up to Annual
Report Review
Audit Activities:
-Pre-planning for
oneite audit
-Actual oneite audit
-Audit Report
Heccnuet Kia txone
-Follow-up on Audit
with POTW
EPA Assistance to Approvec
Pretreattnent State* on
Audit*
Local Limits Technical
Assistance
Modifications to Reflect
National Program Changes
BMR Reviews where EPA
is control authority
Category Determinations
Removal Credits
-Application reviews
-Consistent reaovml
evaluations
Control of 11* in
non-PretreaOnspt POTtsj
where EPA is control^
authority
TOTAL
I
0.1
0.5
1.3

0.3
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.9

2.1

0.6
0.1

0.1

0.2
0.1


0.8


8.7
II
0.1
0.4
1.1

0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.4

2.1

0.6
0.2

0.3

0.2
0.1


0.6


7.5
III
0.1
0.9
2.3

0.4
0.3
0.7
1.6
0.2

3.8

1.1
0.1

0.1

0.4
0.2


1.1


13.3
TvH
0.1
0.2
0.5

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.8
3.3

10.9

3.1
0.1

0.1

0.1
0.1


0.3


20.0
V^
0.1
0.8
2.0

0.4
0.3
0.7
1.3
1.9

9.0

2.6
0.2

0.3

0.3
0.4


0.6


20.9
VI
0.1
1.0
2.5

0.5
0.3
0.8
3.2
—

3.2

0.9
0.2

0.4

0.4
0.1


1.3


14.9
VII
0.1
0.1
0.2

-
-
0.1
0.9

1.9

0.6
0.1

0.1

0.1


0.6


4.8
VIII
0.1
0.4
1.0

0.2
0.1
0.3
0.6
^

1.3

0.4
0.1

0.1

0.2
0.1


1.6


6.5
DC
0.1
0.9
2.4

0.4
0.3
0.8
1.6
^

3.2

0.9
0.1

0.2

0.4
0.1


0.8


12.2
X
0.1
0.2
0.4

0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2

1.0

0.4
0.1

0.1

0.1


0.6


3.8
Total
1.0
5.4
13.7

2.6
1.9
4.6
10.9
7.8

38.5

11.2
1.3

1.8

2.4
1.2


8.3


112.6
       N-25

-------