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
------- |