United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Policy, Planning,
And Evaluation
(2134)
EPA 230-R-94-002
February 1994
vxEPA
State Management Of NPDES
Minor Dischargers:
Survey Results
EPA
230
R
94
002
c.2
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
POXY. PIANNMQ AND EVALUATION
MEMORANDUM
FEB 25 B9d
SUBJECT: Annotated Briefing Document for Survey Results on State
Management of NPDES Minor Dischargers
FROM: Pamela P. Stirling, Director
Program Evaluation Division
TO: Michael B. Cook, Director
Office of wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Last December PED briefed you on the results of a survey
conducted by the Program Evaluation Division (PED) and the NPDES
Minors Workgroup regarding state management of NPDES minor
dischargers. At that briefing, you asked that we prepare an
annotated briefing document containing greater detail on the
survey's findings. Attached is a copy of the annotated briefing
for your use.
The annotated briefing contains a more extensive discussion
of findings presented at the December briefing, plus additional
survey results that were not included due to time constraints.
The annotated briefing contains more detail on a number of areas,
such as: the survey approach and methodology used by the PED
project team and the Minors Workgroup; states' perception of the
risk posed by minors; state point source prioritization efforts
and program activity regarding minors; and the status of state
watershed permitting planning and implementation.
Attached to the annotated briefing are a number of
appendices which include: the survey questionnaire; tabulated
state responses for each survey question; complete narrative or
verbatim responses for selected questions; EPA Regional Office
responses; and additional tables/graphs not included in the
briefing.
Since most states indicated that they would be interested in
receiving a copy of the survey findings, we assume that the
annotated briefing will be distributed to all states
participating in the survey. If you would like us to assist in
this general distribution, please feel free to contact me or Len
Fleckenstein at 260-5333.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Finally, on behalf of the FED project team, I would like to
offer my appreciation to Carol Galloway, Karen Taimi, George
Gray, and Steve Rubin of OWEC for their patience, support, and
valuable assistance throughout this effort. It has been a
pleasure working with such a dedicated staff.
Attachments
cc: Carol Galloway, OWEC
Karen Taimi, OWEC
Michael Mason, OPPE/PED
-------
fclrt
STATE MANAGEMENT OF
NPDES MINOR DISCHARGERS: SURVEY RESULTS
for
Michael Cook, Director
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
'-Office of Water
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the
NPDES Minors Workgroup
February 1994
Prepared by
Program Evaluation Division
Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation
Office of Policy, Panning and Evaluation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hi-adqunr^cr;; Li bran
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
In response to a request from the Director of the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) in the EPA's Office of Water, the Program
Evaluation Division (PED) in the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation provided
analytical support to an agency-wide workgroup formed to assess the management
of NPDES minors. In addition to serving as members of the workgroup, PED
analysts provided assistance in developing study options; designing a survey
questionnaire to be sent to all EPA Regional Offices and State water programs; and
tabulating, analyzing and presenting the survey results.
This annotated briefing presents the results of a survey of all State and Territorial
point source water programs regarding the status of their management of NPDES
minor facilities. A copy of the survey questionnaire and tabulated data from EPA
Regional Offices and States are provided in the Appendices to this document.
The PED project team consisted of Gabriella Lombard!, Michael Mason, and Louis
Sweeny. Irv Auerbach, former Chief of the Program Integration Branch, Len
Fleckenstein, Chief of the Field Effectiveness Branch, and Pam Stirling, Director of
PED, provided guidance throughout the project. Elvira Dixon served as project
secretary.
-------
CONTENTS
I. -Background
II. Summary of Survey Findings
III. State Estimates of Water Quality Impact for Minor Dischargers
IV: State Point Source Program Prioritization
V. State Program Activity Directed to Minor Dischargers
A. Program Resources
B. Information Tracking
C. Compliance Monitoring
D. Compliance
E. Enforcement Activity
F. Use of Innovative Techniques
G. Unpermitted Facilities
VI. Status of State Watershed Approaches
VII. Appendices
A. Survey Questionnaire
B. Numeric/Coded Narrative Response Tables
C. Narrative Responses for Selected Survey Questions
D. Additional Graphs/Tables
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
BPJ Best Professional Judgement
CWA Clean Water Act
DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
NOV Motice of Violation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OPPE Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
OWEC Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
PED Program Evaluation Division
PCS Permit Compliance System
QNCR Quarterly Non-Compliance Report
SNC Significant Non-Compliance
-------
-------
BACKGROUND
A. The NPDES Minors Workgroup
Due to interest expressed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and Congressional staff working on reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, Mike
Cook, Director of EPA's Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
(OWEC), formed a workgroup in November 1992 to conduct a reevaluation of
current EPA Regional Office and State management of NPDES minor facilities.1
The workgroup consists of representatives from OWEC, the Program Evaluation
Division (PED) of EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, all ten EPA
Regions, and two states (Pennsylvania and North Carolina). The purpose of the
workgroup was to assess the following issues:
- the current status of State and EPA permit and enforcement activities with
regards to NPDES minors;
- the environmental risk posed by minors; and
- whether current EPA policies and management relating to minor facilities
are appropriate to their level of risk and to recommend changes where
necessary.
As a result of preliminary discussions by PED analysts with EPA Regional
offices and states in the summer of 1992, the workgroup learned that EPA's
Headquarters office had very tittle information on state and/or Regional
management of minor facilities. It learned, however, that many states were
undertaking significant activity on minors, especially compliance and enforcement
efforts, that was not being reflected in EPA Office of Water's Permit Compliance
System (PCS). The workgroup also found that states and EPA varied in the kind of
For purposes of prioritizing permit issuance and oversight, industrial and municipal point
sources are divided into "major" and "minor" sources. Major municipal facilities are those
which have a design or actual flow of one million gallons per day (MGD) or greater, a
service population of 10,000 or greater, or a significant impact on water quality. Municipal
facilities that do not meet the above criteria are categorized as minors. Industrial facilities
are classified as "majors" through a rating system which allocates points in various
categories, such as flow, pollutant loadings, potential public health impacts, and water
quality factors. There are approximately 7,200 major and 56,800 minor industrial and
municipal sources.
-------
management approaches they were using for minor facilities, and that many states
were interested in learning about management approaches in other states.2
B. Survey of State and EPA Regional Office Point Source Programs
1. Survey Objectives and Approach
One of the first recommendations of the workgroup was to conduct a survey
of states and EPA Regional Offices in order to obtain a "limited characterization" of
current management of the NPDES minors universe. Data collected in the survey
would be used for several purposes:
- to inform states on what management techniques and problems other
states are confronting regarding minors;
- to provide EPA with information on states' experiences and needs that
could assist the Office of Water's budgeting, planning, and statutory
reauthorization efforts; and,
- to provide a "baseline" of state program management data on minors
that OWEC or the workgroup could use for further in-depth study.
In March/April 1993, the NPDES workgroup, with PED support, developed a
survey questionnaire consisting of a variety of topics dealing with the management
of minors including water quality impact, state prioritization, program activity, and
watershed management. The survey questionnaire was pilot tested in three states.
In May, the Regional Office workgroup members distributed the survey to all
states and those Regional Offices, who retain NPDES authorization as well as to
those states without IMPDES authorization who have surface water permitting
programs. Survey questionnaires were collected in July and August by the EPA
Regional Office workgroup members and sent to PED for data entry, tabulation, and
analysis.
On December 8, 1993, PED presented the survey results in a briefing to the
Director of OWEC, Mike Cook, and his staff. The following document is an
annotated version of this briefing.
For a further discussion of these issues see, "PED Background Paper for NPDES Minors
Workgroup," Program Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.
-------
2. Survey Data Characteristics and Limitations
The survey results provide a "limited characterization" of state management of the
NPDES minors universe.
. As indicated above, one of the purposes of the survey was to obtain a
baseline of information on the management of minors to be used for further in-
depth study. During design of the survey questionnaire, the workgroup placed a
greater emphasis on covering a breadth of program areas and issues rather than
focusing in depth on any one topic. As a result, the survey results do not provide
a comprehensive nor definitive view of State and Regional Office management of
minors.
In order to obtain as much concreteness and comparability in the survey
results, most of the survey questions requested respondents to provide quantitative
responses. Respondents were asked to provide either actual numeric data (e.g.,
number of inspections) or to indicate a rating or ranking for a list of items. For
many of the questions which required a qualitative response, RED analysts grouped
them into categories, coded responses, and then tabulated percentages.
Aggregated state responses to each survey question are presented in numeric
tables in Appendix B. The tables in the Appendix B are generally in the same order
as the questions in the survey and the findings in the annotated briefing.
One section of the survey, however, provided respondents the opportunity
to submit qualitative responses to open-ended questions. Some of the responses
from this section - called "Customer Feedback" - are interspersed throughout the
annotated briefing in order to provide support to other findings. For a complete
summary of all of the responses to this section, see Q11.1-11.5 in Appendix C.
The survey results are for 46 states and 1 territory - 47 total.
A total of 46 states, 6 EPA Regional Offices, and 1 territory (Puerto Rico)
returned completed questionnaires. States not returning questionnaires were
Florida, Missouri, Nevada, and Arizona.
EPA Regional Office data on its management of NPDES minors in non-
delegated states proved to be too inconsistent and incomplete to be included in the
survey results. Although most Regional Offices submitted separate responses for
each non-delegated state in their Region, one Regional Office submitted a single
questionnaire with combined responses for all non-delegated states in its Region.
Some Regional Offices submitted responses for only part of a state program (e.g.,
municipal}. As a result of these inconsistencies, PED was unable to adequately
compare responses between delegated and non-delegated states, and the
information outlined in this report does not contain any Regional Office responses
-------
information outlined in this report does not contain any Regional Office responses
to the survey questionnaire.
The quality and sources of data used by states for their responses are unclear.
By definition, survey responses are based on self-reported data. Some
questions in this survey specifically requested a respondent to identify their
data sources. For most questions, however, it is not always clear what data
source was used for responses (e.g., best professional judgement, reported data).
As a result, data quality may be "soft" or inconsistent across individual responses
or respondents.
Although all respondents provided some personal information on the cover
sheet of the survey questionnaire (i.e., name, department/division, address), the
organizational location and program expertise of respondents is not always known.
For many survey responses, it is unclear if the respondent completing the
questionnaire was located in the permitting, enforcement, municipal, or non-
municipal parts of a state point source program.
When asked to give the end date of the last fiscal year for which aggregate
data was available, most state respondents indicated FY 1992. Some states,
however, reported that they were relying on data as recently as June 1993.
8
-------
II. SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS
While the survey data appear to support the view that minors do not cause
widespread, significant risk, many states identified specific instances where
minor dischargers pose a significant or moderate risk to waterbodies within
their states.
While states reported that the EPA major/minor classification system with its
emphasis on major facilities influences the prioritization of their point source
programs, a majority of states nonetheless use a variety of factors to
prioritize activities among minor facilities.
States' management of minors are characterized by considerable diversity,
with wide ranges in the level of program activity across states.
A majority of states are proceeding with watershed permitting approaches;
states are either at some level of watershed development or are actually
implementing watershed permitting in some/most areas.
-------
o
I
oc
0)
5*-
c u
ID CO
c a.
ZE
I
p
fl
o o>
Si
||
"c ^
II
c/l
Pollutant
Type/Source
a,
,j^»
^
•«•
*C
u.
Conventional
o
_c
i
§
0
c
a
Pollutants
.-
Toxic
Pollutants
Multiple
Facilities
Conventional
g
•c
|
^
r
3
Pollutants
Toxic
Pollutants
Multiple
Facilities
2f
1
«fl
Conventional
(C
:s
c
>
f
a
Pollutants
!
II
Multiple
Facilities
s
c
Zl
-------
111. STATE ESTIMATES OF WATER QUALITY IMPACT FROM MINORS
This section attempted to ascertain respondent perceptions regarding the
impact of minors dischargers on water quality as a measure of the environmental
risk posed by minor facilities.
Respondents were asked to estimate the overall impact on water quality
from three types or sources of pollutants (conventional pollutants, toxic pollutants,
and "multiple facilities"1) for each of three types of minor facilities (municipal,2
non-municipal sewage,3 and non-municipal non-sewage dischargers*).
Altogether, this presented the respondents with nine combinations of
pollutant and facility types for rating (see Table 1). Respondents were asked to
rate each of the combinations according to a rating system which assigned a "1"
for "significant impact," a "2" for "some impact," or a "3" for "limited impact"
from any given facility and pollutant type. Definitions for each of the rating options
were not specified in the survey.
FINDING: The distribution of impact ratings across the various combinations of
facility types and pollutants shows that the highest number of ratings
were cast for limited impact, a somewhat smaller number for some
impact, and a very small number for significant impact, (see graph 1)
As respondents were presented with nine combinations to rate and there
were 47 respondents, there was a maximum of 423 responses to this question (9
times 47). However, as only 43 states responded to this question, and not all of
them rated each of the combinations, there were actually 311 responses provided
to the question.
o 153 (49%) of the ratings cast by the states indicated limited impact.
o 134 (43%) of ratings cast indicated some impact.
' Clusters of minor facilities located on the same waterbody.
2 Publicly owned wastewater treatment facility (SIC 4952).
3 Privately (or Federally) owned facilities discharging sewage (i.e., trailer parks, schools, private
package plants).
4 All facilities not included in the previous two categories.
11
-------
B
a.
S
O
u
(A
O
re
1
>>
+*
*«3
§
IN
I
c/i
MH
O
c
I
•s
a
06
3
CM
(A
"5
-------
o 24 (8%) of ratings cast indicated significant impact.
"Best Professional Judgement" was the most common source for these
impact estimates (81%). Other suggested sources were 305(b) reports (15%),
estimated impact (11%), and sampling/survey/testing (9%).s
FINDING: The majority of states (30) provided a mix of impact ratings across the
various facility and pollutant types, (see graph 2)
The most common rating pattern was formed by the 20 states that indicated
some impact for certain facility/pollutant types and limited impact for others.
Seven (7) states gave a variety of ratings ranging from significant to limited across
facility type and pollutant. Three (3) states indicated significant and some impact
for all the combinations they rated.
Only 13 states gave the same impact estimate to each of the
facility/pollutant combinations they rated. Ten (10) states indicated no more than a
limited impact for all facility and pollutant types. Two (2) states estimated some
impact for all the combinations they rated. One state rated all nine combinations
as having significant impact.6
FINDING: Despite the variability in state impact estimates, a few patterns do
emerge among the facility/pollutant types, (see graph 3)
While all facility types and pollutants were rated as having significant impact
by at least one state, conventional pollutants and multiple (clusters) facilities from
ncm-mumcipal sewage dischargers were cited most frequently as the source of
significant impact (6 and 5 states, respectively).
There were three facility/pollutant combinations where the greatest number
of states indicated some impact:
- conventional pollutants from municipal minors (25 states); -
- conventional pollutants from non-municipal non-sewage minors (19
states);
5 Since.many states provided more than one source, there were multiple answers to this
question. Percentages were based on the total number of sources provided and not the
number of states responding.
6 For a distribution of the number of states estimating significant, some or limited impact for
at least one facility/pollutant combination, see Graph 01 in Appendix D.
13
-------
fi
*
«
c er
« «
(2 (2
•p v
s •§>
e .£
2 (A
H . [Q
2
O
3
S-S
fi-9
ID
C/l k;
.
rt "5
w «
• •M
S3 E
c o
a
w 2
l§
ffi Vl
4-> V
5/5
s
Z
rt
-s'
3 - os
!'!
3 i§
••g
«
t!
n
I1
I-
C u
O f> »* esi o
T-I i-( TN t-l rH
o oo so
-------
- toxic pollutants from non-municipal non-sewage minors (22 states).
Non-municipal sewage dischargers were cited most consistently as having
limited impact estimates across all pollutant types, despite the fact that this facility
type was also identified as a largest single source of significant impact.
The "multiple facilities" category was consistently rated as having only
limited impact. However, the survey question only asked about the impact from
clusters of dischargers of the same facility type.7
The number of states providing impact ratings varied somewhat by facility
and pollutant types. States were best able to provide impact estimates for
conventional pollutants (41 states), and least able for toxic pollutants (27 states).
A slightly smaller number of states (26 states) provided estimates for municipal
facilities when compared with the number of states responding for non-municipal
sewage and non-municipal non-sewage facilities (30 states, respectively).
FINDING: When asked about localized impact, a significant number of states
identified specific instances of impact from minor dischargers or
indicated that they are taking action to address impact.
Twenty (20) states reported conducting formal or informal assessments or
Waste Load Allocation studies which identified instances where minor facilities
have been significant contributors to water quality degradation. The most common
type of instance identified were situations where minor facilities discharged to
small streams or waterbodies (9). Some states reported toxic discharges from
minor industrials as a problem (3). .
Thirteen (13) states indicated that they believe certain categories of
unpermitted facilities are causing significant water quality impacts. While a variety
of facility categories and SIC codes were cited, illegal sanitary connections,
feedlots, and gravel pits were each mentioned by more than one state.8
Twenty-seven (27) states indicated that they are focusing on or plan to
focus on specific categories or types of minor dischargers due to water quality
impact. States offered a diverse list of minor dischargers they are focusing on with
DO single type receiving more than a few mentions. Six (6) states mentioned
pa'ckage plants as an area of concern. Other facility types mentioned were:
7 For an alternative look at state estimates of water quality impact according to facility types,
see graph D2 in Appendix D.
8 For a more complete list, see responses to survey question 4.2 in Appendix C.
15
-------
Graphs: STATE ESTIMATES OF WATER QUALITY IMPACT CAUSED BY MINOR
FACILITY AND POLLUTANT TYPES
-------
waste water treatment plants (5 states), industrial facilities (5 states), and non-
contact cooling water dischargers (3 states).9
Twelve (12):states indicated that they are focusing on specific waterbodies
due to the impact of minor facilities. Several states noted that their focus is on
waterbodies listed under sections 304(1) or 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Many
of these waterbodies include small flow receiving streams and shell fishing areas.
• for a complete list of responses, see 01.3 in Appendix C.
17
-------
IV. STATE POINT SOURCE PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION
The purpose of this section of the survey was to determine hpw states set
priorities for their point source programs and what factors most influenced their
prioritization efforts.
FINDING: State point source programs reported that prioritization and program
implementation are heavily influenced by the EPA Major/Minor
Classification System.
Almost two-thirds of all states reported that they do not use a formal
prioritization system (with explicitly defined criteria) for point sources (30 states).
Thirteen (13) states responded that they use a formal system.
The great majority of states (38) indicated that the EPA major/minor
distinction is important to setting their point source program priorities. This
importance is the result of EPA pressure on states through oversight, program
output commitments, 106 grants, and workplans. States indicated that major
facilities get priority for permit issuance, compliance monitoring (i.e., annual
inspections and extensive tracking), and enforcement.
Twelve (12) states, however, reported that other factors such as watershed
implementation and water quality were more important to establishing priorities
than the major/minor distinction. For example, one state responded that the
major/minor distinction was not as important as the SIC code of the facility, the
"hydraulic mixing characteristics" of the receiving stream, its sensitivity, and
designated beneficial uses.1
Many states reported that they take a different implementation approach for
major facilities than for minor facilities. For example, 23 states reported that there
are significant differences in the types or overall approach of enforcement actions
against majors and minors. Some of these differences include: minors are handled
less formally (i.e., letters and consent agreements vs. compliance orders) (10
states); majors are treated more stringently due to Quarterly Non-Compliance
Report (QNCR) requirements and Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) criteria or
mi'nors are usually dealt with on a worst case basis (8 states). Sixteen (16) states
For more detail responses to the importance of the EPA major/minor distinction in setting
priorities, see 2.2 in Appendix C3
18
-------
indicated, however, that they did not think there were significant differences in the
way enforcement was done for majors and minors.2
Even in watershed planning and implementation, the EPA major/minor
distinction is having an impact in some states. Eleven (11) states reported that, at
least initially, they plan to emphasize major facilities over minor facilities in
implementing watershed permitting. For example, one state reported that majors
are still being given priority regardless of which basin they are located in.
Many states did not see the EPA major/minor distinction as having a positive
influence on the management of their programs. Eighteen (18) states thought that
they were required to place too much emphasis and time on major facilities. In the
"Customer Feedback Section" of the survey, a significant number of states (14)
indicated that EPA's emphasis on NPDES major facilities is an impediment to their
effective management of minor facilities.3 For example, one state responded that
some minor facilities, may have a larger impact on a receiving water than a major,
but due to EPA oversight, a lot of unnecessary time is spent on majors at the
expense of minors. When asked what EPA could do to help states improve their
management of minors, 7 states suggested EPA modify the major/minor
classification system to allow greater flexibility to deal with significant minor
facilities.
FINDING: A variety of factors and requirements other than the EPA major/minor
distinction play a role in prioritizing program activity among minor
facilities.
When respondents were asked to indicate which factors4 they use and their
See Q7.7 in Appendix C for more detailed responses.
3 The "Customer Feedback" section of the survey questionnaire received a response rate of
only 55% compared to an average response rate for the other survey sections at 85%.
4 The following definitions of prioritization factors were included in the survey questionnaire:
Receiving waterbody classification - based on designated use (i.e., recreation, industrial) .and
classification of the receiving stream or waterbody (i.e., drinkifig water, shellfish, near
coastal water/major estuary).
Water basin/shed permitting schedule - programmatic permitting deadlines based on rotating
water basin schedules and/or watershed management plans.
Actual or design flow - the total volume of process wastewater discharged to receiving
surface waterbody.
Actual or potential toxic pollutants - includes the actual standard or site-specific discharge
limits for toxic chemicals (e.g., priority pollutants) and/or potential toxicity of discharge
based on facilities' SIC codes.
Observed or measured impact on receiving water ("water quality impact") - use of either
observed or ambient water monitoring data to prioritize activity.
19
-------
CO
U
.
^^
|>
'^^
u
"
E
(0
W
o
£
0)
N
O
^3
C
03
CD
CD
CD
U.
0.
o
to
IS
Iff
M!
to
*
ENFORCEMEN
to
ft
jl
to
*t
\ INSPECTIONS
to
IS
s
to
| DMR REVIEW
to
IS
s
*
£
1 PERMI
^
CO
53
.£
Citizen Compla
o>
CM
V)
c
'ffl
Citizen Compi;
in
*~
0)
c
.2
"a
o
o
— o
8 "
£ if
00
*~
CO
*->
*5
"5.
o
O
c
0)
tN
'*3
O
CO
CM
.8
' C
.55
"5.
E
o
U
II
LL X
JS,
CM
0>
u
'C
.2
"5.
E
o
O
= O
1|
LL X
CM
*~
-------
importance (1 =high, 5 = low) in prioritizing activity among minor facilities, there
was a fairly consistent pattern of responses across all program areas (See Table 2).
Facility compliance history, citizen complaints/public interest, toxic pollutants, and
water quality impact were among the top three prioritization factors for permitting
activity, DMR review, inspection activity, and enforcement activity. Inspection and
enforcement programs showed the greatest concentration of responses among
their top three factors (69%). Permitting program responses were more evenly
spread out among the various factors - the top three factors account for 50% of all
responses.5
The two most common techniques used by states for assessing water
quality impact are sampling and monitoring (51%) and best professional judgement
40%). Other techniques used are visual/field observation (9%), paper/database
review (45), and citizen complaints (2%).6
A significant number of states (14) indicated that they have specific
legislative or regulatory requirements which have a particular impact on the
management of their minor facilities. For example, five (5) states have statutory
annual inspection requirements for minor facilities. Some states are required to
take permitting and/or enforcement action against particular facility types
regardless of its major/minor status. Other states are required to take enforcement
action and assess penalties against all violators.
Facility compliance history/record and citizen complaints/public interest were not defined in
the survey-
Rankings are based on the number of states giving a 1 or 2 to each factor.
Percentages are based on the total number of techniques and not the total number of states
responding.
21
-------
i
£
2
o 8 o
11 D •
Cb
2
O
e IH
c g
< .s
"* S
0 fi
G S
O en
•«-i ?;
^-» 2
to A
S $
IS
•< o
5^
P3
*j
CD
CM
-------
V. STATE PROGRAM ACTIVITY DIRECTED TO MINOR DISCHARGES
Six sections of the survey were devoted to specific program activities -
resources, information tracking/storage, compliance monitoring (DMR review,
inspections), compliance rates, enforcement, and the identification of unpermitted
minor facilities. The survey also asked respondents to what extent they used
innovative management techniques for permitting and enforcement against minor
facilities.
A. RESOURCES (WORKYEARS1
FINDING: The largest proportion of states reported that they direct a majority of
their resources (defined as workyears) to the management of minor
facilities, (see graph 4)
States were asked to estimate, for the past fiscal year, the percent split (e.g.
40/60 or 30/70) of workyears between the management of minors and majors for
specific program areas. For overall program resources, 20 states (43%) focused
the majority of their workyears on minors; 13 states (28%) directed the majority to
majors. The distribution of workyears for the management of minor facilities
followed the same general pattern for each program area.
Twenty-four (24) states indicated that their resource (workyear) allocation
for minors had changed over the past five years. Eleven (11) states indicated that
the number of workyears devoted to minors had increased,. 8 states reported a
decrease, and 5 states did not specify. Nineteen (19) states, however, responded
that the proportion of their workyears devoted to minors had remained fairly
constant over the past five years.
When asked what factors have caused the change in distribution of
workyears between majors and minors, there was a diversity of responses.1 For
those who reported an increase in workyears for minors, the following causes were
given: general staffing increases (4), higher compliance rates for majors (3), the
issuance of general permits for minors (2), and specific legislative mandates or
policies directed to minors (2). States reporting a decrease in workyears to minors
gave the following explanations: resources or priorities shifted to other program
For a complete list of responses, see 08,2 in Appendix C.
23
-------
>v
•c
I
I <5
i
D
&
3-
en
!
§? a -p
S « £
£ S "g g
5 § S I
£
fl
(A
03
60 -
o.
2
U
h O
.o c
c/i
s
CD
x:
£
a
g
X
^
c
«
I
o
CM
O ID O
-------
areas or initiatives (4), efforts to reduce majors backlog (4), and decreased funding
(3).2
B. INFORMATION TRACKING
FINDING: The great majority of states (44 states) reported using some automated
system -- either PCS, their own state automated database, or both -
to track and store information for various program areas, (see graph 5}
To determine how states track information on minors, the survey asked
respondents to choose, for each program area, what system they primarily use for
tracking and storing data on minors. Tracking systems respondents could choose
from were: PCS, state automated databases, hard copy files, and other.
Across all program areas, roughly 30% of states (13 to 15 states) track
information in PCS only; a slightly lower or equal number of states track the
information in a state data system; and a smaller group track information in both
systems. Compared to other program areas, permitting information is tracked in an
automated system by the largest number of states (39); inspection information is
teast tracked in an automated data system (31 states). A limited number of states
track information from any given program area in hard copy form only (ranging
from 3 states for permit information to 11 states for inspection information).3
Since the survey questionnaire did not ask respondents specific questions about
program information, the exact nature of the information and its uses are not
known.
FINDING: Many states store a number of data elements for minor facilities in a
database or tog. (See Table D1 in Appendix D)
The top five most common data elements on minors that states routinely
enter into a database or log are: owner's name (40 states), enforcement actions
38 states), inspections 37 states), discharge monitoring reports 36 states), and
effluent limits (35 states). The data elements were not defined in the survey
questionnaire. As a result, the exact nature of the information entered -as a
particular data element is not known.
2 Since some states may have provided more than one explanation, the number of responses
may be more than the total number of states responding.
3 See graph D3 in Appendix D for a display of tracking systems used for each program area.
25
-------
tf
s
Q
S
o.
S
u
o
CO
o
fM
in
in
-------
C. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
FINDING: Thirty-two (32) states indicated that they review Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRs) submitted by minor dischargers for possible violations
at least once per year. (See Graph 6)
Twenty-seven (27) states reported that they screen 100% of the DMRs
submitted by minor facilities for possible violations at least once per year. Three
(3) states indicated, however, that they reviewed none of their minor DMRs on a
yearly basis.
When asked how often minor DMRs are screened within a given year, 11
states reported that they reviewed minor DMRs monthly. Nine (9) states reported
quarterly screening. Seven (7) states indicated that the frequency of review varied
from monthly to semiannually. Seven (7) states reported that minor DMRs were
reviewed whenever they are "received" or "logged in" by the state program office.
FINDING: The majority of states (25 states, 53%) reported that they inspected
greater than 60% of their minor facilities in the past three years.
(See Graph 7)
Respondents were asked what percentage of minors have been inspected in
the past three years. Twenty-five percent (25%) of all states responding indicated
.that they inspected 100% of their minor facilities. Only 10 states (20%) indicated
that they inspected.40% or less; 7 states (15%) reported inspecting 20% or less.
Of the minors inspected in the past three years, non-sampling inspections4
(e.g., compliance evaluation/reconnaissance inspections) were used by the largest
number of states (40). Thirty (30) states indicated that non-sampling inspections
account for 75% or more of all inspections at minor facilities. While compliance
sampling inspections5 were used by 36 states, most (28) of these states indicated
A non-sampling inspection that utilizes the inspector's experience and judgement to quickly
summarize a permittee's compliance program. The inspection is based on facility record
reviews and visual observations and evaluations of treatment facilities, effluents, and
receiving waters. Reconnaissance or compliance inspection data can be used to verify a
permittee's self-monitoring requirements and compliance schedules, and/or identify
compliance problems and direct them to the permittee for correction.
An inspection that involves the collection of representative samples of the permittee's
influent or effluent (or both). The inspector performs chemical analysis (1) to verify the
accuracy of the permittee's self-monitoring program and reports, (2) to determine the quality
27
-------
Cu
2
u
« I
= s
.
1?
t s
O CU
S
t-l
-------
that this inspection type was used for less than 25% of the minor facilities
inspected. Compliance biomonitoring6 and toxic sampling inspections7 were
reported used for minors by 14 and 13 states, respectively. These last two types
of inspections account for roughly 1 % - 5% of all minors inspected in the last three
years.
FINDING: In the last fiscal year, 78% of the 29,280 inspections conducted at
minor facilities by state programs came from the 11 states (23%)
that conducted 1000 inspections or more. (See Graph D4 in
Appendix D)
The number of inspections taken by a state program ranged from 0
inspections in four states to 3900 inspections in one state. About 1/2 of all states
(53%) conducted 500 inspections or less in the past fiscal year. Twelve (12)
states reported conducting 100 or fewer inspections at minor facilities; nine (9)
states reported 50 or less inspections.
Five (5) states reported having specific legislation that requires minors
inspections. For example, one state is required to annually inspect all overboard
dischargers to state streams and coastal areas. Legislative requirements such as
this may account for the high number of inspection in some states.
D. COMPLIANCE
The purpose of this section in the survey was to collect information on the
approaches states use to calculate non-compliance rates for minors and to obtain
an estimate of the overall compliance status of minors. The response rates for
questions in this section were relatively low (average = 48%) or varied
considerably among questions (13% to 96%). As a result, survey data were too
inconclusive to provide a definitive estimate of minors' non-compliance.
and quantity of the effluents, and (3) when appropriate, to provide evidence in enforcement
proceedings. Inspection may include non-sampling tasks.
6 An inspection that evaluates the biological effect of the permittee's effluent on test
organisms using acute toxicity bioassay techniques and includes steps involved in
compliance evaluation/audit inspection,
7 A sampling inspection that focuses on priority pollutants other than heavy metats, phenols,
and cyanide, which are typically in a compliance sampling inspection.
29
-------
FINDING: The vast majority of states do not routinely calculate a non-
compliance rate for minor facilities.
Only 12 states indicated that they routinely calculate a non-compliance rate
for-minors. When asked how often this rate was calculated for minors, 6 states
reported monthly, 4 said quarterly, and 1 state reported annually.
States who routinely calculate a minors non-compliance rate were asked to
provide a rate based on either EPA's Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) definition or
the state's own definition of non-compliance. Nine (9) states provided an SNC rate
for minors and 7 .states provided a non-compliance rate based on their own
definition of compliance. For states providing their own definition of non-
compliance, definitions varied as to the percent exceedences, parameters, and time
frames specified.8 Some states indicated that they apply the SNC definition only
to some facilities or parameters.
State databases (6) and PCS (4) were the most common sources used by
states that routinely calculate SNC rates for minors (3 states used hard copy files).
For states calculating non-compliance rates based on their own definition, 3 states
relied on state databases and 1 reported hard copy files.
Since there was some ambiguity about the way in which states calculated
their non-comptiance rates and what they signify, PED decided not to present the
results in this portion of the annotated briefing. See Tables 6.2 and 6.3b in
Appendix B for a list of non-compliance rates.
FINDING: For those states that do not routinely calculate a minors non-
compliance rate, the great majority (25 out of 29 states who
responded) estimated that approximately 25% or less of their minor
facilities had "significant effluent violations" in the past year.
States who do not routinely calculate a minors non-compliance rate (29
states) were asked to provide an estimate of the percentage of municipal and non-
municipal minor facilities in their state that had "significant effluent violations" {an
un-defined term) in the past year. Estimates of "significant effluent violations"
were based primarily on "Best Professional Judgement" (20 states). Eleven (11)
states reported using state databases or PCS as the primary source for their
estimate.
8 For a list of the definitions, see responses to survey question 6.3 in Appendix C.
30
-------
The average significant effluent violation rate for municipal minors was 22%;
the rate for non-municipals was 13%. The significant effluent violation rate was
greater for minor municipals than for minor non-municipal facilities in all but six
states, with the difference in the two rates varying as much as 40% in some
states.
Of the 25 states that were able to compare their "significant effluent
violation rate" for majors and minors in their state, the majority (18 states)
indicated that the rate for minor dischargers is greater than that for major facilities.
Five (5) states reported the rates for minors and majors as being equal and 2
states indicated their minors rate was actually less than their majors rate.
States were also asked to indicate the most common types of violations at
minor facilities. Thirty-seven states (37) ranked sampling/monitoring/reporting
violations as the most frequent violations at minors. Permit/Interim effluent limit
violations were a close second, however, with 33 states ranking them as most
frequent. Violations pertaining to Permit/Administrative compliance schedules (10
states), spill/accident (9 states), and no permit/permit reapplication (4 states)
received considerably fewer rankings as most frequent.9
FINDING: Inadequate Operation and Maintenance was cited as the most frequent
cause of facility non-compliance for both municipal and non-municipal
dischargers. (Table 4)
State were asked to rate which factors were most or least common in
contributing to non-compliance at minor municipal and non-municipal facilities.10
For minor municipals, states ranked insufficient capital and inadequate technical
expertise as the second and third most common cause for facility non-compliance.
Inadequate technical expertise and inadequate treatment capacity were ranked
.behind operation and maintenance as key problems for non-municipal facilities.
9 Respondents were asked to rank violation types in order of frequency: 1 = most frequent;
5 = least frequent, Totals are based on the number of states giving each violation type a 1
or 2 ranking.
10 Ratings were based on a scale of 1 = most common; 5 = least common. Table 4 lists the
number of states reporting a rating of 1 or 2 for each factor. See Table 6.6 in Appendix B
for complete ratings.
31
-------
2
S, .S
a . *
o.Q §
c i- *-
=50 >.
« .t;
r, c «•>
S = w
i2 < ®
0) o
j; w £:
B
» .2
s '•§ .2.
IB
^5
W
Q.
X
UJ
equate Technical
T>
w and Infiltration
_o
]c
J_
*~
| Facilities Don't Care
(O
>
.^
u
o
a
CO
0
equate Treatmeni
TJ
CD
o>
Problems
Discharge Calculation
to
£
ID
0
f
8
£
5
"5
re
LL
in
1 Inflow and Infiltration
LT>
w
E
CD
£1
O
harge Calculation
u
v>
O
^
o3
O
CN
6
on
c
U)
a>
cc
to
0)
^
(D
05
-------
33
-------
Graph 8: Number and Cumulative Percent of Enforcement Actions Taken by States
Against Minor Dischargers in Last Fiscal Year
Formal (Civil) Enforcement Actions
N = 38 States
23 1676 Civil Actions Taken
1-50 51-100 101-150
Number of Enforcement Actions Taken
151-400
J Formal (Civil) Enforcement
Actions
Cumulative Percent
18
16
!"
en
17
Informal Enforcement Actions
N = 33 States
5836 Informal Actions Taken
1-50
51-
100
101-
150
151-
200
201-
250
251-
300
301-
900
901-
1700
Number of Enforcement Actions Taken
J Informal Enforcement Actions
Cumulative Percent
-------
FINDING:
E. ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
The majority of states reported taking 50 or fewer formal (civil) or
informal enforcement actions against minor dischargers in the last fiscal
year, (see Graph 8)
Thirty-eight (38} states reported taking a total of 1,676 formal (civil)11
actions against minor dischargers in the past fiscal year. States took 1057 and
619 formal civil action against non-municipal and municipal minors, respectively.
Thirty-three (33) states reported taking a total of 5836 informal12 actions
against minor dischargers in the past fiscal year. States took more informal actions
(2,594) against non-municipal minors than against municipal minors (2,342).
A small number of states that reported taking a high number of enforcement
actions account for the vast majority of the 7,527 total actions against minor
facilities for the past fiscal year. Eleven (11) states taking greater than 50 formal
actions accounted for 83% of all the formal (civil) actions taken. Six (6) states
taking greater than 250 informalactions accounted for 80% of all informal actions
taken. Very few criminal actions were taken by states against either municipal or
non-municipal facilities.13-
FINDING: The majority of states reported taking enforcement action against 50%
or less of minor facilities known to be out of compliance, (see graph 9)
Twenty-eight (28) states indicated that 50% or less of minor facilities known
to be out of compliance received formal enforcement actions. Five (5) states,
however, indicated they issued actions against 100% of non-complying facilities.
Nineteen (19) states indicated that 50% or less of minor facilities known to
be out of compliance received informal enforcement actions. Of the 11 states who
n Any EPA equivalent actions. Defined as: those that require actions to achieve compliance,
specify a timetable, and contain adverse legal consequences for non-compliance that are
independently enforceable without having to prove the original violation (e.g.. section 309
orders).
12 Any enforcement action other than format EPA equivalent actions (e.g., letters of violation
but not including phone calls).
13 For the number of formal (civil) and informal actions by facility type, see Graphs D5 and D6
in Appendix D.
35
-------
I "8
.2 «»
£
o
U
Os
ft.
II
o
c
•
fc g
Ol
•c
2
8
in
£ z
£
-------
took informal action against greater than 75% of non-complying minor facilities, 6
states took action 100%. For the 30 states which provided rates for both formal
and informal actions, the percentage of non-compliers receiving informal actions
was greater than those receiving formal actions, by varying amounts in all but four
states.
FINDING: "Letters of Violation," " Notices of Violation," and "Meeting/Site Visit"
were cited by states as the most frequent types of informal
enforcement action against minors.
The survey questionnaire asked respondents to list, in order, their top three
most frequent informal enforcement actions. Eighteen (18) states listed letters of
violation as their most frequent informal action, 13 states indicated notices of
violation, and one state said meetings/site visits. Table 5 below shows the number
of states listing a particular action type among their three most frequent actions.
{Since the action items used in the questionnaire were not defined, the distinctions
between informal letters and notices of violation is unclear.)
Table 5: Most Frequently Used Informal Enforcement Actions
TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT A C TION
Letter of Violation
Notice of Violation
Meeting/Site Visit
Penalty Assessment
Other
# STATES
27
20
15
9
15
Based on a list of enforcement responses to non-compliance (see Table 7.4a
in Appendix B), respondents were asked to indicate which responses, formal and
informal, they used "frequently", "sometimes", and "infrequently" against minor
municipal and non-municipal facilities. Letters of violation14 (29 states).and
phone calls (27 states) were cited as the type of enforcement response used most
frequently. Administrative compliance orders (21 states) and site visits (20 states)
14 A warning letter issued by either an NPDES state or US EPA to a permittee under the
NPDES program informing the permittee that it is in violation of the CWA, and which
indicates the possibility of escalated enforcement action if the violation is not corrected in a
timely manner.
37
-------
C w
Is
1 =
11
~ a,
-S .1
*^ ^M
-•e u
it
W yj .
£
en
>
6
0
CO
«5
u
u
10
_c
V)
0)
3
^y
^
JT
Sx
•«f
.<£.
° !S
» _
v> ta
lj EC
Q.
O
to
Uj
K.
5
10
"«/G// INTEREST"
CO
fc
5
s
1
1
ki
X
1
to
fc
Jt
k.
to
ki
i>
UESIN
I TECHNIQ
^
•
3 B
< Q
tj
^
|
£1
[Automate
Data Syst
00
M
1
UJ
^
*~
in
|
0)
P
n
o
u>
5
o
QJ
N
o
CM
u»
E"™
0-
p
re
o
(0
O
p
N
00
IA
IA
fl)
o
0
Expedited Permit Pr
00
IA
IA
fit
£
"S
^
o.
X
LU
CM
M
CO
0)
O
£
a.
•o
0)
i
Q.
X
UJ
0
«»•»
+3
1
i
o
(O
c
.g
4k^
a
X
UJ
v>
E
c
li-
en
I
|] Extended
o>
Model Permits
^
cr
o
1
en
cc
JD
I
£
«
Automated Permit
Data Systems
^
1
1
|
=>
u
X
UJ
CJJ
S
'^
i
UJ
CO
E
'E
i
0)
0
00
«2
"e
Zero Discharge Perr
CO
V)
4-J
1
to
Q.
*
T3
C
O)
><
UJ
in
§
'5
J3
1 Exclusion
CM
1
O
CM
O
CO
b.
£
6
a
CO
0)
CC
Ui
w
- .«-!
(0
oo
n
-------
were the top two responses cited as used sometimes. Judicial and criminal actions
were cited most often as used infrequently (33 states each). State responses were
similar for both municipal and non-municipal facilities.
When asked to rate the effectiveness of enforcement responses in returning
minors to compliance, letters of violation and administrative orders were rated as
the most effective enforcement responses (17 and 16 states, respectively). Seven
(7) states mentioned NOVs, 6 cited meetings/site visits, 5 said inspections and 4
reported phone calls as being particularly effective.
'. It is interesting to note that letters of violation were rated as the most
frequent type of response used by states and were most often mentioned as being
effective in returning minors to compliance. Although states indicated that informal
notices of violation and meetings/site visits were among their three most frequent
informal actions, these responses were listed by only a few states as being
effective. In addition, phone calls were listed as one of the most frequently used
responses, but they were mentioned by only a few states as being effective.
F. STATE USE OF INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
This section of the survey attempted to determine which innovative
permitting, enforcement, and compliance monitoring techniques are being used by
states in the management of minors. Respondents were asked to assess the
effectiveness of these techniques and to indicate their level of interest in
techniques not currently in use.
FINDING:
Alternative permitting techniques are commonly being used by the
states for the management of minor facilities, (see Table 6}
Forty-two (42) states reported the use of at least one alternative permitting
technique15 (see table 6 for the list of techniques). Model permits and general
The following definitions of alternative permitting techniques were included in the survey
questionnaire:
General permits - one permit covering multiple dischargers that 1) involve the same or
substantially simitar types of operations; 2) discharge the same types of waste; 3) require
the same effluent or operating conditions; 4) require the same or similar monitoring
requirements; 5} are deemed to be more appropriately controlled under a general permit than
an individual permit.
Model permitting - streamlining process developed for a category of facilities with similar
operations and effluents. An original example permit is developed based on one facility
within this category and then is tailored to fit each subsequent discharger.
39
-------
permits are the techniques being used by the largest numbers of states (used by 27
and 26 states, respectively) and were rated highest in terms of effectiveness (24
and 23 states, respectively). Automated permit data systems ranked third in terms
of use (24 states) and effectiveness (17 states). Although not included among this
list in the survey questionnaire, 39 states reported that they have legislative
authority to use permit fees.
States indicated that they apply alternative permitting techniques to a wide
range of minor facility types and situations. Some examples of general permits as
provided by the responding states are: non-contact cooling water, hydrostatic
pressure testing, sand and gravel washing, stormwater, and fish hatcheries.
Common facility types for model permitting are: car washes, groundwater
remediation wastewater, and small sewage plants.
Most states (29) indicated that they have not encountered any difficulties in
permitting, compliance monitoring or enforcement for those permits handled by any
of the alternative methods currently in use. For example, one state found general
permits to be effective for minor facilities that process non-contact cooling water
as long as a "wet test" requirement is included in the permit in order to identify
facilities with water quality concerns. Another state thought using extended
permits was a good idea because it allows for an easier transition to a watershed
approach to permitting.16
Some states (12) indicated, however, they have had difficulties in applying
various alternative permitting techniques. Some of these barriers included:
increased need for labor or data, tracking and updating issues, communication
problems with permittees, and enforcement and compliance monitoring constraints.
Automated permit data systems - any system you use to automate some part of the permit
issuance/reissuance process to make it faster and more efficient.
Expedited permit process - any process which seeks to reduce the time and resources
required to issue/reissue a permit by streamlining any of the steps required (application,
receipt and review, effluents limits determination, etc.)
Permit by rule - rule to cover a specific category of dischargers or activities, specifying
guidelines and standards, and eliminating the need for application or permitting unless a
violation of standards is detected.
Extended permits - includes "roll-over" permits, "administrative extensions," or "indefinite
permits."
Zero-discharge permits - permits prohibiting any discharge by the permitted facility.
De-minimis exemption - exclusion of a category of facilities based on common activity,
operation, or effluent discharge deemed to be of insignificant environmental consequence.
Exclusion by waiver - exclusion of facilities on a site-by-site basis from the obligation to
obtain or be regulated by an NPDES permit.
16 For a complete list and description of state uses of alternative permitting techniques, see
responses to survey question 3.2 in Appendix C.
40
-------
For example, one state expressed concern that enforcement against facilities with
zero-discharge permits is sometimes difficult due to the lack of information on the
existence of intermittent discharges. Other states indicated that tracking for
general permits or.getting EPA's approval for issuance have been a problem in the
past.
17
For alternative permitting techniques that are commonly not in current use,
states expressed the greatest interest in permit by rule (24 states) and de minimis
discharge exemption (23 states). Some of these options .have been considered
under various Clean Water Act Reauthorization efforts. The survey's "Customer
Feedback" section contained many comments urging EPA to encourage and
support greater use of alternative permitting techniques in general (11 states), and
of general permits in particular (9 states).
FINDING: States make limited use of innovative enforcement techniques.
Table 7 lists the innovative enforcement approaches18 included on the
survey questionnaire. Only one approach, innovative remedies in settlements, was
used by more than 40% of the respondents (22 states for municipals and 21 states
for non-municipals). Multi-media enforcement actions were the next most popular
approach.
17 See responses to survey question 3.3 in Appendix C for a complete list of reported state
difficulties with alternative permitting techniques. .
18 The following definitions of innovative enforcement approaches were included in the survey
questionnaire:
Innovative remedies in settlements - included the use of specific case conditions to leverage
a single enforcement action to influence greater compliance behavior, deterrence and/or
environmental result. Examples include pollution prevention plans, facility-wide auditing
plans, training provisions, etc.
Multi-media enforcement - includes planned multi-media inspections and/or consolidated
enforcement responses.
Alternative dispute resolution - includes arbitration, mediation, and other negotiation aids for
settlements.
Field citations - includes the use of in-field "traffic-type" tickets, in-field notices of violation
(as opposed to notices issued from the main office), and proposed settlements
accompanying notices of violation to speed resolution of cases.
Automated penalty orders/letters - includes an automated process that reviews DMRs and
issues orders/letters containing penalties directly to violating facilities.
Technical assistance - included oversight and voluntary training programs and/or assistance
recommended to regulated facilities to meet statutory compliance requirements.
41
-------
(A
00
0)
u
n>
o
^
Q.
a
c
o>
E
0)
u
o
UJ
I
*^
re
>
O
c
c
03
.en
CO
_Q3
£3
eo
•D
0
£>
_C
Q>
u.
TO
0)
Q.
>
>
+-•
'o
re
**-
^
u
ft*
TO
0)
O
*4—
(A
V.
O
(D
O
CL
n
re
O
>
<*^
O.
O
to
UJ
Sj
s
w»
*fc
FACILITIES
IICIPAL
z
D
I
Z
O
Z
(A
UJ
t-
co
. .*fc
(A
UJ
t
J-
o
u.
- J
_^
II MUNICIP/
^
CM
«A
**
0>
E
OJ
S
0)
CO
_c
tft
0>
^
0)
tV
QC
Innovative
CM
CM
to
^
_0>
^^f
•*-*
fl>
$
.c
CO
0>
^s
0)
c
0)
QC
Innovative
00
^
CO
cement Actio
0
«^
c
UJ
(0
T3
0)
E
i
"•P
3
s
CO
r"
CO
c
£
*4^
u
<
cement
£
c
UJ
CD
'•&
03
i
*«3
3
(O
[e Resolution
D
CL
CO
b
(U
Alternativi
r*-
g
-*2
"o
(A
V
QC
0)
^^
Q.
(/)
o
0)
Alternativ'
co
-
*-•
]o
S
D
CL
"re
u
0
in
(A
^
0>
^^
,*J
0
(A
QJ
"S
0
^w>
re
c
0)
a.
•o
Automate
^t
o>
u
c
Assista
Technical
in
*-
o
*-•
|5
B
3
CL
"re
o
o
CM
CO
g
^J
03
*^
b
TJ
0)
il
<*
CO
c
g
S
b
•D
0)
il
CM
CA
0>
ty Orders/Letl
re
c
0)
Q.
T3
Automate
T~-
"re
c
1
k»
U
CA
C
g
i j
(0
4-J
O
-D
0)
E
r_
"re
c
E
^.
o
co
C
,g
re
4-1
U
•D
0)
IE
OJ
£
CL
re
ii
O
03
0)
JA
05
U
C
re
+-<
CA
"co
CO
<
Technical
^_
(V
+->
O
r-
b_
09
£
4-1
O
O)
'•D
O
a
in
a>
(X
ro
*j
CO
r*
co
It
OJ
-------
Although innovative settlements and multi-media actions were rated highest
in terms of effectiveness, most thought these approaches were only somewhat
effective.19
Overall, states did not indicate a strong interest in any of the innovative
enforcement techniques listed above. Innovative remedies in settlements (15
states), automated penalty orders (15 states), and field citations (13 states) were
cited most frequently.
For a summary of responses on state experience in using various innovative
enforcement approaches, see responses to survey question 7.6 in Appendix B.
FINDING: The majority of states (38) said they provide technical assistance to
minor municipal dischargers in their state.
_•*
The largest block of these states (23) estimated that 25% or less of their
minor municipal facilities need technical assistance to maintain compliance (see
Graph 10). As defined in the survey, technical assistance does not include
construction grant resources. Only 6 states reported more than 50% of their minor
municipals need technical assistance.
When asked what factors determine which minor municipal facilities receive
assistance, 40% of the states (19) listed facility non-compliance or performance
problems as a factor. Other factors mentioned by states for determining who gets
technical assistance were: requests from facility managers/operators (14 states),
recommendations from state inspectors and/or field staff (6 states), and trainer
availability (4 states).20
The types of technical assistance that states provide to minor municipals
"were divided into two general categories:
- Onsite assistance to wastewater facilities (operators) by state
environmental training centers or state agency staff (provided by 32
states). This includes assistance funded under section 104(g) of the ;
Clean Water Act of 1987.
19 Respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of approaches on a scale of 1 = very
effective; 2 = somewhat effective; 3 = not effective. For survey results, see table 7.5 in
Appendix B.
K for more detail on these factors, see list of responses to survey question 7.8 in Appendix C
43
-------
60
6
tn e
* s
««rt O
"
c
0
s
-------
Dissemination of general information on types of assistance and training
programs {provided by 7 states).21
FINDING:
G. UNPERMITTED FACILITIES
Some state program activity is being directed towards unpermitted
facilities.
Forty-three (43) states (90% of respondents) have identified unpermitted
facilities over the last fiscal year. Although only 7 states indicated the use of an
on-going program to identify unpermitted dischargers, most states reported using a
variety of methods. Routine inspection (38 states) and citizen complaints (31
states) were the most frequently cited methods. Water quality monitoring was
noted by only 12 states. Other means of identifying unpermitted facilities included:
facility inquiries or self-reporting (6), referrals or notifications from other state
departments (3), emergency spill incidents (2), special "non-filer" programs, and
aerial surveillance. Most states reported using more than one method to identify.
unpermitted dischargers.
Thirty-four (34) states indicated that they also took action against some
number of these identified unpermitted facilities during the past fiscal year. (Due to
the inconsistency of the responses, the survey data was not able to reveal the
approximate number of unpermitted facilities states have taken action against.)
21 For a list of the types of technical assistance provided by states, see responses to survey
question 7.7 in Appendix C.
45
-------
^
II
2 <
-------
VI. STATUS OF STATE WATERSHED APPROACHES
FINDING: The vast majority of states (38) are proceeding with watershed
planning and permitting approaches, (see graph 11)
States were asked to describe the status of "basin" or "watershed"
approaches to permitting in their states. The largest proportion of states (21
states) reported their watershed planning and permitting activities are in some
stage of development. Of these, 11 states indicated that a watershed approach is
being considered. Ten (10) states indicated that they have delineated basins, but
have not yet issued permits on a watershed basis.
Seventeen (17) states reported that they are at some level of watershed
implementation. Of these, 12 states indicated that they are implementing
watershed permitting in selected areas. Five (5) indicated that they are
implementing watershed permitting in most/all areas.
Six states said that they are not and have no plans to implement watershed
permitting approaches.
FINDING: Roughly 40% of states (19 states) indicated concern about the impact
of watershed approaches on their permitting, compliance monitoring,
and enforcement programs.
The primary permitting concerns cited include: increase in workload (7
states}; increase in permit backlog/scheduling problems (5 states); and increased
data needs (4 states). Five (5) states reported that their watershed programs have
had no impact on their permit issuance/reissuance program.
The most frequently cited concern about the effect of a watershed approach
on enforcement was an expectation of increased compliance
monitoring/enforcement activity and resource needs (12 states). Other impacts
reported were an expectation of increased violations due to tighter limits, and an
increased awareness of state enforcement (field inspectors) on the part of minor
facilities:.
Seventeen (17) states specifically indicated that they have not or did not
expect their watershed approach to have an effect on compliance monitoring or
enforcement.22
22 For more detail on the barriers/constraints to watershed permitting, see responses to survey
questions 9.3 and 9.4 in Appendix C.
47
-------
-------
VII. APPENDICES
-------
-------
A. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
-------
This data collected under OMB Control Number 2010-0024
Expiration Date: 03/31/96
National Study of State and EPA Management of Minor Dischargers
to Surface Water
Respondent Information Box
Your Name:
Dept/Division:
Phone:
Fax:
Address:
Responses in this survey are for:
Municipal Facilities
Non-Municipal Facilities
Please give the end date of the last fiscal year for which aggregate data
is available
Regional Contact:.
Phone:
-------
-------
Page 2
Definition and Number of Minor Facilities
This survey focuses on minor facilities. The term is intended to cover those facilities discharging directly to
surface waters which would not be categorized as an NPDES Major by US EPA. It is not meant to include
storm water or Combined Sewer Overflow permits or facilities. For all the questions that follow, please
interpret the term "minors" as defined above by US EPA. Please provide the number of municpal and non-
municipal minor facilities in your state using this definition:
However, if your State uses a different definition or categorization for "minors" could you briefly describe it
and provide the number of municipal and non-municipal facilities under this definition:
1. Impact of Minor Facilities
Purpose: Gather state perspectives on the risks posed by minor facilities.
1.1. For the following categories of minors, please give your assessment of the overall impact on
water quality for the indicated types of minor facilities:
(1 - Significant impact, 2 - Some impact, 3 - Limited impact, ? - don't know)
Type of Facility
Municipal
Facilities 1
(Sewage)
Non-Municipal
Sewage 2
Non-Municipal3
Non-Sewage
EPA
Classification
Majors
minors
Majors
minors
Majors
minors
A. Impact due
to
Conventional
Pollutants
B. Impact
due to
Toxics
(give an
estimate of the
%of these
facilities: )
C. Impact due
to
Multiple minor
facilities
discharging to
one water-
body
D. If possible
please
estimate the
total number
of these
facilities in
your state.
.. .
1 municipal- publicly owned wastewater treatment facility (SIC 4952)
2 non-Municipal Sewage -Privately (or Federally) owned facilites discharging sewage. For example: trailer parks, schools, private package plants.
3 non-municipal non-sewage - all facilities not included in the previous two categories
-------
-------
Page 3
1.2. What was your source(s) for these impact estimates? (professional judgment, 305(b) etc.):
1.3. Are there specific categories or types of minors which, because of their impacts, you are now or plan
to be focusing on? (specific SIC codes, package plants etc.). If so please describe:
2. PRIORITIZATION
Purpose: Understanding the basis for state allocation of resources among facilities.
2.1. Does your program use a formal prioritization system (with explicitly defined criteria) for point sources?
(yes/no) If so, could you please send us a copy/brief description along with your completed
questionnaire.
2.2. How important is the EPA major/minor distinction to setting program priorities?
-------
Page 4
2.3. Please indicate which factors you use and their importance in (1-high, 5=lqw) prioritizing activity
among minor facilities within each program area. If your priontization does not differentiate among program
areas, please indicate answers in the "Overall" column. If activity in some program areas is not prioritized,
check the "Does Not Apply" in the first row:
Prioritization
Factors
Does Not Apply (check)
Receiving water body
classification 1
Water basin/shed
permitting schedule2
Actual or Design Flow3
Toxic Pollutants4
Facility Compliance
History/Record
Citizen Complaints/Public
Interest
Observed or measured
impact on receiving
water5
Other
PROGRAM AREAS
Overall
-
Permits
DMR
Review
*- . . .
Inspections
•S-i- afejft^tfj'f
Enforcement
afcSBBBRiiv--.
2.4. If your program uses "Impact on receiving water", what techniques are used to determined this impact:
(e.g. Professional judgment, in-stream chemical/biotic monitoring etc.)
1 Receiving waterbody classification - based on designated use (i.e.. recreation, industrial) and classification of the receiving stream or watertaody, (i.e., <
water, shellfish, near coastal water/major estuary).
2 Water basin/shed permitting schedule • programmatic permitting deadlines based on rotating water basin schedules and/or watershed management plans.
3 Actual or design flow - the total volume of process waste water discharged to receiving surface waterbody.
4 Actual or potential toxic pollutants - includes tie actual standard or site-specific discharge limits for toxic chemicals (e.g., priority polutants) and/or potential!
toxcity of discharge based on facilities' SIC codes. *
5 Use of either observed or ambient water monitoring data to prioritize activity.
-------
PageS
3. ALTERNATIVE PERMITTING TECHNIQUES
Ramose: To understand which permitting techniques are being used in the management of minors and
gauge interest in possible alternative techniques.
3.1. Please check which of the following alternative permitting techniques are presently in use [column A]
in your state, and rate them according to their effectiveness in the management of minors {1 = highly
effective; 5 = not effective) [column B]. If a technique(s) is not in use, please indicate your level of interest
in using it (1 = highly interested; 5 = not interested) [column C].
Alternative Technique
:- •• *•,.'£':'• „ _. ..* •". '. '• - -<.••
general permits 1
model permitting 2
automated permit data systems 3
expedited permit process 4
permit by rule 5
extended permits 6
zero- discharge permits 7
de-minimus dischargers exemption B
exclusion by waver 9
others
A. In Use
" ' • . • •", ' - v'r
B. Effectiveness
-&•%&$&:$&?;%*.
C. Interest
&&&?& '
3.2. For those techniques you rated "effective" in column B above, please describe briefly your
experience and any specific types of facilities to which these techniques are being applied:
1 genera! permits - one permit covering multiple dischargers that 1) involve the same or substantially similar types of operations; 2) discharge the same types c
waste; 3} require the same effluent or operating conditions; 4) require the same or similar monitoring requirements; 5) are deemed to be more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than an individual permit.
2 model permitting • streamlining process developed for a category of facilities with simDar operations and effluents. An original, example permit is developed
based on one facility within this category and then is tailored to fit each subsequent discharger.
3 automated permit data cyctemc - any system you use to automate some part of the permit issuance/reissuance process to make rt faster and more efficient
4 expedited permit proems - any process which seeks to reduce the time and resources required to issue/reissue a permit by streamlining any of toe steps
required (application, receipt and review, effluent limits determination, etc.)
5 permit by rule - rule to cover specific category of dischargers or activities, specifying guidelines and standards, and eliminating the need for application or
permitting unless a violation of standards is detected.
6 for example "roll-overV, "administrative extentions" or "indefinite permits".
7 zero-discharge permits - permits prohibiting any discharge by the permitted facility.
6 de-minimis exemption - exclusion of a category of facilities based on common activity, operation, or effluent discharge deemed to be of insignificant
environmental consequence.
9 exclusion by waiver - exclusion of facilities on a site-by-site basis from the obligation to obtain or be regulated by an NPDES permit.
-------
Page 6
3.3. Have you encountered any difficulties in permitting, compliance monitoring or enforcement activities for
those permits handled by any of the alternative methods currently in use? [same list as above] Rease
describe briefly.
4. Unpermitted Facilities
Purpose: To Understand state activities to identify unpermitted facilities.
4.1. Over the last fiscal year, have you identified any facilities which should have a discharge permit but
which have not filed for one? (yes/no) If yes, on approximately how many of these did you
take some kind of action? . How did these facilities come to your attention? (check all that apply)
routine inspection of other facilities
citizen complaints
_ water quality monitoring
ongoing program to identify unpermitted dischargers (please describe the nature of the program)
other (please describe)
4.2 Are there any particular categories of unpermitted dischargers which you believe may be causing
significant water quality impacts? (yes/no/don't know) if so, what are they?
-------
Page?
5. COMPLIANCE TRACKING/MONITORING SYSTEMS
Purpose: To determine how state programs are tracking information on minors and what implications this
has for program management
5.1. What system do you primarily use to track/store compliance/enforcement information on
minors? (check all that apply)
System
PCS
state automated database
hard copy files
other
PROGRAM AREAS
Permits
DMR
Review
Inspections
Enforcement
5.2. What data on minors do you routinely enter into a database or log (check all that apply):
effluent limits
_DMR
_ inspections
enforcement actions
owner name
location (long/lat)
basin indicator
_ 303(d) water1
compliance status
compliance schedules
other .
5.3. What % of minor DMRs are screened for possible violations at least once per year? How and
how often is-this screening done?
1 303(d): identifies waters for which effluent guideline limits are insufficient to implement applicable water quality standards.
-------
PageS
5.4. What % of minors have been inspected at least once in the past 3 years? Of those minors
inspected, what % have received the following types of inspections (if not using automated system, give
best estimate)?
compliance evaluation/audit or reconnaissance inspection (non-sampling)1
compliance sampling inspection2
compliance biomonitoring inspection3
toxics sampling inspection4
other, please describe: '
5.5. What is the total number of inspections conducted at minor facilities during the last fiscal year?
5.6. Is your program using any innovative data/computer system or compliance monitoring approaches
that might be of interest to other states (e.g., automated compliance monitoring)? If so, please describe:
6. COMPLIANCE
Purpose: To collect information on the approaches in use by states to calculate compliance and to estimate
a general picture of the overall compliance status of minor facilities.
6.1. Do you routinely calculate a non-compliance rate for minors?.
(check one)
monthly
once per quarter
annually
other, please specify
.(yes/no). If yes, how often?
If no, skip to question 6.4a.
1 compliance evaluation/audit or reconnaissance inspection • A non-sampling inspection that uSizes the inspector's experience and judgment
summarize a parimitefs compliance program. This inspection is based on facility record reviews and visual observations and evaluations of treatrr
tot
treatment!
effluents, and receiving waters. Reconnaissance or compliance inspection data can be used to verify a permittee's self-monitoring requirements and«
schedules, and/or identify compliance problems and direct them to vie permittee tor correction.
2 compliance campling inspection - An inspection that involves the collection of representative samples of (he permittee's influent or effluent for both).
inspector performs chemical analysis (1) to verify the accuracy of the permittee's sen-monitoring program and reports, (2) to determine the quality and qu
the effluents, and (3) when appropriate, to provide evidence in enforcement proceedings. Inspection may include non-sampling tasks.
3 compliance biomonitoring inspection - An inspection that evaluates the biological effect of the permittee's effluent on test organisms using acute tenacity I
bioassay techniques and includes steps involved in compliance evaluationfeudt inspection.
4 toxics sampling inspection - A sampling inspection that focuses on priority pollutants other than heavy metals, phenols, and cyanide, which are typicaty i
compliance sampling inspection.
-------
Page 9
6.2a. If you routinely calculate a non-compliance rate for minors, can you determine the rate using the
definition of Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) as it is applied to majors? ___(yes/no). If yes, P^<"
indicate the SNC rate for the following, the source you used to determine this rate (Question 6.2b), and
then proceed to question 6.5. If you cannot calculate SNC, skip to question 6.3a.
EPA
please
Facility
Type
J8SW*4Nf**«# :-j!SS( ••**.?.-
minor Municipals
minor Non-
Municipal
Reporting Viol.
,>,, .>£=;;;:**, -
Effluent Viol
interim/Final
• -. .'yvri.f't-r:'. '••'•
'
Schedule Viol.
-v>.^^fe>«®^steii
•
Total
^•^tMteu-^.-^.
6.2b. What source did you use to for this estimate?
PCS
. state database
. hard copy files
. other (please indicate)
6.3a. If you cannot determine the SNC rate for minors but do use another criteria for determining "non
compliance", please provide your definition of "non-compliance" below (indicate criteria used and reporting
period, if possible).
6.3b. Based on your own definition(s) of non-compliance, please indicate what percentage of minor
facilities in your state were out of compliance during the last fiscal .year for the following:
Facility -
Type
minor •
Municipals
minor
Non-Municipals
Please write in your categories of "non compliance" below
Example:
Significant
Non-
Compliance
12%
10%
1.
2.
3.
Total/
Overall
6.3c. What source did you use for this estimate? (check one)
PCS
state database
hard copy files
other (please indicate)
-------
Page 10
6.3d. Using the same non-compliance criteria for both major and minor permittees, was the noncompliance
rate higher (worse) or lower (better) for minors than for majors in your state during the last fiscal year?
(check one)
_ higher
about the same
lower
don't know
(skip to question 6.5]
6.4a. If you do not calculate a non-compliance rate for minors, please give your best estimate of the
percentage of minor facilities in your state that had significant effluent violations during the last fiscal yean
minor Municipals
minor Non-Municipals
6.4b What source did you use for this estimate?
6.4c. Using the same definition of 'significant effluent violations' as in 6.4a was noncompliance higher
(worse) or lower (better) for minors than for majors in your state during the last fiscal year? (check one)
higher
about the same
lower
._ don't know
6.5. What are the most common types of violations at minor facilities (rank in order of frequency: 1 - most
frequent, 5-least frequent)?
. sampling/monitpring/reporting
permit/interim effluent limits
permit/AO compliance schedules
spill/accident
no permit or no re-application for an expired permit
other (please indicate)
-------
Page 11
6.6. What are the most common factors which contribute to non-compliance at minor municipal and non-
municipal facilities (most common = 1; least common = 5}?
Factors
minor
Non-Municipals
minor Municipals
inadequate operation and maintenance
inadequate technical expertise
inflow/infiltration
inadequate treatment capacity
problems/miscalculation of discharge data
facilities dont care
insufficient capital
other (please indicate below)
other
7. EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT APPROACHES
Purpose: To determine what enforcement approaches in use now are most effective in returning minors to
compliance.
7.1. Are there significant differences in the types or overall approach of enforcement actions against minors
vs. majors? If so please describe:
7.2a Please indicate the total number of enforcement actions taken against minor municipal and non-
municipal facilities during your last fiscal year:
Municipal Facilities:
Formal actions* (civil).
Formal actions*(criminal).
Other Actions*
Non- Municipal Facilities: Formal actions* (civil).
Formal actions*(criminal)
Other Actions*
* Any EPA equivalent actions. Defined as: those that require actions to achieve compliance, specify a
timetable, and contain adverse legal consequences for non-compliance that are independently enforceable
without having to prove the original violation, (e.g. section 309 orders)
** any enforcement action other than formal EPA equivalent actions e.g. letter of violation but not including
phone calls
-------
Page 12
7.2b. For the "Other Actions" category above, please list the three most frequent actions in this category:
Most frequent "Other Action" -
Second most frequent "Other Action"
Third most frequent "Other Action"
If this information is easily available in a summary report showing the numbers and types of
actions taken, please include it along with the questionnaire.
7.3. Approximately what percentage of minors known to be out-of-compliance (using the definition you
applied in section 6) for at least 6 months in the past fiscal year have received:
Formal actions
Other Actions
7.4a For the following responses to non-compliance please indicate those you use relatively (1
frequently, 2 - sometimes, 3 - infrequently)
Enforcement Responses
Phone call
Letter of violation1
INFORMAL Notice of violation to facility
FORMAL Notice of violation to facility
Site visit (no sampling)
Inspection w/ sampling
Administrative compliance order
Administrative penalty order
Judicial action
Criminal actions
Other (please indicate below)
Minor Municipal
Facilities
Minor
Non-Municipal
Facilities
Other
1 letter of violation - A warning letter issued by either an NPOES state or USEPA to a permittee under the NPDES program informing the permittee that ft isl
violation of the CWA, and which indicates the possibility of escalated enforcement action if the violation is not corrected in a timely manner.
-------
Page 13
7.4b: Are there any specific responses or sequence of responses that you have found particularly
effective?. If so, please .describe:
7.5. For the following "innovative" enforcement approaches, check those with which you have had some
experience [column A]. In column B, please give your estimate of the effectiveness of this approach. (1-
very effective, 2-somewhat effective, 3-not effective) In Column C please check those approaches which
you are planning to or are interested in pursuing. (See bottom of page for definition of terms.)
.'
Innovative remedies in
settlements 1
Multi-media enforcement
actions 2
Alternative Dispute Resolution
3
Field citations (civil)4
Field citations (criminal)
Automated penalty
orders/letters^
Local publicity of repeated
/flagrant non-compliance
Technical Assistance 6
Other (please indicate below)
Minor Municipal
Facilities
A.
Use
see
questions
7.7 -7.9
B.
Eff'ct
see
questions
7.7 -7.9
C.
Interest
Minor Non-Municipal
Facilities
A.
Use
B.
Eff'ct
C.
Interest
Other please indicate.
1 innovative remedlee in «ettiements - includes the use of specific case conditions to leverage a single enforcement action to influence greater compianoa
behavior, deterrence and/or environmental result. Examples include pollution prevention plans, facility-wide auditing plans, training provisions, ate.
2 multi-media enforcement - includes planned multi-media inspections and/or consolidated enforcement responses.
3 alternative dispute resolution - includes arbitration, mediation, and other negotiation aids for settlements.
4 field citations - includes use of in-field 'traffic-type' tickets, in-field notices of violation (as opposed to notices issued from the main office), and proposed
settlements accompanying notices of violation to speed resolution of cases.
5 automated penalty orders/letters - includes an automated process that reviews DMRs and issues orders/letters containing penalties directly to violating
facilities.
6 technical assistance - includes oversight and voluntary training programs and/or assistance recommended to regulated facilities to meet statutory compiance
requirements.
-------
Page 14
7.6. For those approaches checked in column A (use), please describe your experience.
7.7. Does your State provide technical assistance to minor municipal facilities? (yes/no) . If yes,
please briefly describe the types of assistance you provide:
7.8. What factors determine which minor facilities receive assistance?:
7.9. Based on your best estimate, what percentage of minor municipal facilities in your state currently need
technical assistance (not including construction grant resources) to maintain compliance?
8. RESOURCES
Purpose: To determine the level of resources, defined as workyears, being directed towards the
management of minor facilities:
8.1. Please estimate for the past fiscal year the percent split (e.g. 40/60 or 30/70) of workyears between
the management of majors and minors.
Program Element
' a. Overall Program
b. Permit Issuance/Reissuance
c. Compliance Monitoring
d. Enforcement Activity
e .Other
Workyears
Majors Minors
8.2. Has the proportion of workyears devoted to minors remained fairly constant over the past 5 years
(Yes, No)? . If not, how has it changed (e.g., increased, decreased, other)? .
What factors have caused this change (i.e. new program requirements):
-------
Page 15
9. WATERSHED/BASIN PLANNING
Purpose: To determine the general status of watershed/basin permitting.
9.1. How would you describe the status of "basin" or "watershed" approaches to permitting in your state:
not being done now and no plans (skip to 9.6}
approach is being considered
plans under development
watersheds/basins delineated but permits have not been issued on that basis
permits being issued according to a watershed/basin approach in selected areas
permits being issued according to a watershed/basin approach in most/all areas
9.2. Is there any difference in this approach for Major vs. minor permits (yes/no)?
. If yes, please explain:
9.3. What has been the impact of this approach on your permit issuance/reissuance program (e.g.,
how/where are resources obtained, keeping major/minor permits current, what are some common barriers to
implementation)?
9.4. Has, or would you expect basin/watershed permitting to have an effect on compliance monitoring or
enforcement? (yes/no) Please explain:
9.5. Where minor facilities have been included in any formal/informal "assessment/Waste Load Allocation"
studies, have they ever turned out to be significant contributors to water quality degradation? (yes/no)
Please explain:
9.6a. Approximately what % of the permits for minor facilities should have water quality based permit
limits?
-------
Page 16
9.6b. Approximately what % of the permits for minor facilities have water quality based permit limits?
Piease indicate the three most frequent parameters or limits (eg: BOD, metals, toxitity, ammonia
or chlorine).
9.7. Are there specific water-bodies which you are focusing on due to the impact of minor facilities:?
(yes/no) Please explain:
10. STATE LEGISLATION/REGULATIONS
Purpose: To understand if and how programmatic activity, particularly with regard to minors, is
occurring as a result of specific state legislation or regulations.
10.1. Does your state have any specific legislation and/or regulations for the control of point source
pollution which have particular impact on the management of minors facilities (eg: annual inspections at all
permitted facilities)? (yes/no) If yes, please describe:
10.2. Do you have authority to:
collect permit fees how is this authorized (statute/regulation etc.).
assess penalties
civil administrative
civil judicial
criminal
how is this authorized (statute/regulation etc.).
11- CUSTOMER QUESTIONS
Purpose: To identify ways EPA as a supplier can better serve the states as customers to help them
manage the minor population more effectively.
11.1. What current EPA management/policy approaches do you find most helpful in managing minors?
-------
Page 17
11.2. Are there any aspects of EPA policies that impede your effective management of minors? If so,
please describe.
11.3. What could EPA do to help you improve your management of minors?
11.4. What issues or areas do you think EPA should consider for more in-depth study as a follow-up to this
survey ?
11.5. Please add any additional comments:
-------
Page 16
Would you like to receive a copy of the results of this study? Yes
(we expect a final report out in the Fall of 1993)
No
Thank you very much for your time.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 4 to 16 hours per
respondent, with an average of 8 hours per respondent including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including sugpestions for reducing this burden, to US
Environmental Protection Agency, Program Evaluation Division, Washington DC 20460, and to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC. 20503.
-------
B. NUMERIC/CODED NARRATIVE
RESPONSE TABLES
-------
-------
section 1
SECTION ONE: IMPACT OF MINOR FACILITIES
I
1.1 State assessment of the overall Impact on water quality for the following:
Muni Minors
Non-Muni
Sewage
Non-Muni Non-
Sewage
No. of minor
facilities
0
1-50
51-100
101-300
301-10,000
Missing or
invalid
Total
•
conventional
toxics
multiple
facilities
conventional
toxics
multiple
facilities
conventional
pollutants
toxics
multiple
facilities
col
tot/%
Significant
impact
3
1
3
Significant
impact
6
2
5
Significant
impact
1
1
2
24
5.7%
24
Municipal
Facilities
(Sewage)
0
10
5
8
13
1 1
47
Some impact
25
15
13
Some impact
13
10
5
Some impact
19
22
12
134
31.7%
134
Non-Municipal
Sewage
0
15
3
2
10
17
47
Limited
impact
14
16
19
Limited
impact
19
19
22
Limited
impact
18
8
18
153
36.2%
153
Non-Municipal
Non-Sewage
0
3
4
8
18
14
47
Missing
5
15
12
Missing
9
16
15
Missing
9
16
15
112
26.5%
311
-
.
Total
47
47
47
Total
47
47
47
Total
47
47
47
423
Page 1
-------
section 1
1.2 Sources of Impact Estimates
BPJ
Sampling/Surv
ey/Testing
305(b)
Estimated
Impact
Multiple
Techniques
Other
Blank
38
4
7
5
2
5
2
*
1.3 Specific categories ot types of minors focused on due to impae
yes
no
Blank
# Respondants
•
package
non-contact
miners
ww
industrial
Groundwater
watershed/ba
sand/gravel
other
Blank
27
19
1
47
Total
37
20
2
6
4
2
1
2
18
18
I
Page 2
-------
section 2
SECTION TWO: PRIORITIZATION
2.1 Does your program use a formal prioritization ayatem?
Yes
No .
Missing or invalid
Total
14
30
3
47
29.8%
63.8%
6.4%
100.0%
2.2 How important is the EPA major/minor distinction to setting rpogram priorities
very important
important
somewhat/minor
not important
Blank
# Respondents
EXPLANATIONS:
EPA
Majors priority
Minors = Majors
Majors and problem
Majors gel too much
majors cause
other
Blank
# Respondents
20
6
5
2
14
47
8
15
5
4
4
3
3
5
47
43%
13%
11%
4%
30%
17%
32%
11%
9%
9%
6%
6%
11%
2.3 What were the three most important factors
overall states use for prioritizing
Prioritization factors: Ranking Factors 1&2
Receiving water body
classification
Water basin/shed
permitting schedule
Actual or design 1low
Toxic pollutants
Facility Compliance
History/Record
Citizen
Complaints/Public
Observed or
measured impact on
Other 1
Other 2
Other 3
Overall
10
3
10
15
14
14
17
• 2
0
1
Permits
14
8
12
17
12
18
16
2
3
1
DMR
review
3
2
6
8
15
12
12
2
0
1
Inspectio
ns
5
6
7
14
27
29
21
2
1
0
Enforce
ment
9
1
6
16
31
23
21
2
0
0
"
!
Page 1
-------
section 2
Prioritization factors: Ranking Factor 3
Receiving water body
classification
Water basin/shed
permitting schedule
Actual or design flow
Toxic pollutants
Facility Compliance
History/Record
Citizen
Complaints/Public
Observed or
measured impact on
Other 1
Other 2
Other 3
Overall
5
7
6
4
5
4
2
0
0
0
Permits
9
4
5
6
9
10
5
1
0
0
DMR
review
5
6
4
5
6
9
6
0
0
0
Prioritization factors: Ranking Factors 4&5
Receiving water body
classification
Water basin/shed
permitting schedule
Actual or design flow
Toxic pollutants
Facility Compliance
History/Record
Citizen
Complaints/Public.
Observed or
measured impact on
Other 1
Other 2
Other 3
Overall
4
9
4
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
Permits
5
12
11
4
7
2
5
•1
0
0
DMR
review
13
10
10
7
2
1
• 3
1
0
0
Inspectio
ns
16
5
9
6
3
2
5
0
0
0
Inspectio
ns
7
13
13
8
2
1
2
0
0
0
Number of states that indicated "Does Not Apply'
for overall and each program area?
Factors
Does not apply
Missing or invalid (or
it may be applies)
Total
Overall
6^
41
47
Permits
6
41
47
DMR
Review
3
34
47
Inspectio
ns
3
44
47
Enforce
ment
10
6
8
5
0
5
4
0
0
0
Enforce
ment
7
13
12
5
0
2
2
0
0
0
Enforce
ments
4
43
47
Page 2
-------
section 2
2.4 Techniques used to determine impact
sampling/monitoring
BPJ
other
observation
multiple techniques
report/complaint
paper/dbase review
24
19
9
4
4
2
2
'
Page 3
-------
-------
section 3
SECTION THREE: ALTERNATIVE PERMITTING TECHNIQUES
3.1 Indication of Use, Effectiveness and Interest in various techni
Technique 'in use* (rank in order of most frequent to least frequent)
Alternative Technique
Model permitting
General permits
Automated permit data systems
Zero-discharge permits
Expedited permit process
Extended permits
Permit by rule
De-minimums dischargers
exemption
Exclusion by waver
Others
Effectiveness Ranking ol
Alternative Permitting Techniques
Model permitting
General permits
Automated permit data systems
Zero-discharge permits
Expedited permit process
De-minimums dischargers
Permit by rule
Exclusion by waver
Extended permits
Others
Yes
27
26
24
23
12
9
9
9
5
3
Highly
effective
1 & 2
24
23
17
14
8
6
4
4
3
2
Missing
20
21
23
24
35
38
38
38
42
44
Effective
3
2
1
6
7
3
1
3
2
3
1
Level of interest (High = 1 or 2; "Not interested" = 4 or 5)
Permit by rule
De-minimums dischargers
Exclusion by waver
Extended permits
Expedited permit process
General permits
Model permitting
Automated permit data systems
Zero-discharge permits
Others
High level
of interest
1 & 2
24
23
18
18
18
13
9
9
8
2
Interest
3
1
1
6
5
4
4
2
3
2
0
Total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
Not
effective
4& 5
0
3
0
2
0
3
1
0
3
0
Not
interested
4 & 5
9
6
9
9
3
2
7
4
1 1
0
Missing or
invalid
21
20
24
24
36
37
39
41
38
44
Missing or
invalid
13
17
14
-15
22
28
29
31
26
45
Total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
Total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
Page 1
-------
section 3
3.2 Effectiveness Experience:
See 'Write-in' Responses
3.3 have you encountered any difficulties
or enforcement for any of these
techniques?
Category
Yes
No
Missing
Total
No.
12
28
7
47
In permitting, compliance monito
%
25.5%
59.6%
14.9%
1
ing
Page 2
-------
section 4
SECTION FOUR: UNPERMITTED FACILITIES
1 1
4.1 Over the last fiscal year, have you Identified any facllttle
which should have a permit but have not filed for one?
How many responded
yes, no, left blank
Category
Yes
No
Invalid or missing
Total
Against how many
were actions taken'
No.
43
3
1
47
?????
%
91.5%
6.4%
2.1%
100.0%
Most common way in which facilities came to state attentio
Citizen complaints
Routine inspection of
other facilities
Other
Ongoing program to
identify unpermitted
discharges
Water quality
monitoring
# of methods used
0
1
2
3
4
Total
No.
36
31
23
13
12
# of states
8
4
18
14
3
47
%
17.0%
8.5%
38.3%
29.8%
6.4%
100.0%
4.2 Are there significant categories of unpermitted facilitie
which you believe are causing significant water quality imp!
Yes
No
Don't know
Missing
Total
No of states
13
20
7
7
47
%
27.7%
42.6%
14.9%
14.9%
100.0%
i
i
i
cts?
Page 1
-------
-------
section 5
SECTION FIVE: COMPLIANCE TRACKING/MONITORING SYSTEMS
I
5.1 What system do you primarily use for Information storage/tracking?
System
hard copy files
PCS
State automated
other
Total
Permits
35
27
25
2
47
74.5%
57.4%
53.2%
4.3%
DMR review
34
20
19
3
72.3%
42.6%
40.4%
6.4%
# States tracking multiple program areas per system
Category
0
1
2
3
4
Invalid or missing
Total
PCS
,14
' 3
4
4
14
8
47
State
DBase
16
5
4
4
10
8
47
Hard
Copy
6
0
2
7
24
8
47
Total
38
0
1
0
0
8
47
Inspection
35
21
18
2
74.5%
44.7%
38.3%
4.3%
5.2 What data on minors is routinely entered in database or log?
owner name
enforcement actions
inspections
DMR
effluent limits
location
compliance schedule
basin indicator
compliance status
other
303(d) water
40
38
37
36
35
31
30
27
25
5
3
47
85.1%
80.9%
78.7%
76.6%
74.5%
66.0%
63.8%
57.4%
53.2%
10.6%
6.4%
5.3 % DMRs screened for possible violations at least once/year
% of minor DMRs
0%
1 - 25%
26 - 50%
51 - 99%
100%
Missing
total
No.
3
3
0
2
27
12
47
%
6.4%
6.4%
0.0%
4.3%
57.4%
25.5%
100.0%
Enforcement
38
21
21
5
80.9%
44.7%
44.7%
10.6%
.
Page 1
-------
section 5
5.4 What % of minors have been inspected at least once In last 3 years?
% of minors Inspected
1-20%
21 - 40%
41 - 60%
61 -80%
81 -99%
100%
Missing
total
No.
7
3
7
7
6
12
5
47
%
14.9%
6.4%
14.9%
14.9%
12.8%
25.5%
10.6%
100.0%
% of Facilities receiving the following t
Range
0
1-25
26- 50
51- 75
76-100
Missing or invalid
Total
Complia
0
4
4
2
30
7
47
Complia
0
28
3
1
4
11
47
/pes of Inspections
Complia
9
14
1
1
0
22
47
Toxics
8
13
0
1
0
25
47
Q5.5: Total # inspections conducted at minor facilities
Ranges
0 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 500
501-1000
1001-4000
missing
total
Nos.
9
3
13
4
11
7
47
19.1%
6.4%
27.7%
8.5%
23.4%
14.9%
100.0%
19.1%
25.5%
53.2%
61 .7%
85.1%
100.0%
Q5.6a Use of innovative data/computer system
NORC #s
Category
Yes
No
Missing or invalid .
Total
No.
16
11
20
47
%
34.0%
23.4%
42.6%
100.0%
5.6b Description of Innovative System
Category
PCCS/State Automated
Automated CM with
Other
Missing
Total
No.
9
2
5
31
47
#
19.1%
4.3%
10.6%
66.0%
100.0%
Other
4
4
2
0
3
34
47
-
Page 2
-------
section 5
5.5 # Inspections
0
3
5
8
10
12
50
51
60
88
. 120
169
199
218
250
300
330
350
380
417
425
507
563
625
920
1016
1030
1150
1791
2000
2064
2220
2415
3204
3900
missing
total
Freq
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
8
47
%
1.5%
t.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
4.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
3.1%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
3.1%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
Cum
Total
Insp
0
3
8
16
26
38
188
239
299
387
507
676
875
1093
1343
1643
2303
2653
3033
3450
3875
4382
4945
5570
6490
7506
8536
9686
11477
15477
17541
19761
22176
25380
29280
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.3%
1.7%
2.3%
3.0%
3.7%
4.6%
5.6%
7.9%
9.1%
10.4%
11.8%
13.2%
15.0%
16.9%
19.0%
22.2%
25.6%
29.2%
33.1%
39.2%
52.9%
59.9%
67.5%
75.7%
86.7%
100.0%
Cum
Freq
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
47
Cum
Freq %
2.1%
4.3%
6.4%
8.5%
10.6%
12.8%
19.1%
21.3%
23.4%
25.5%
27.7%
29.8%
31 .9%
34.0%
36.2%
38.3%
42.6%
44.7%
46.8%
48.9%
51.1%
53.2%
55.3%
57.4%
59.6%
61.7%
63.8%
66.0%
68.1%
72.3%
74.5%
76.6%
78.7%
80.9%
83.0%
100.0%
-
'
<
PageS
-------
-------
section 6
SECTION & COMPLIANCE
1
6.1 Do you routine!)
Yes
No
Missing
Total
How often?
none
monthly
once per quarter
annually
other
Don't know
missing
total
calculate a non-compliance rite for mino
12
33
^
47
No.
1
6
4
1
2
1
33
47
26%
70%
4%
%
2.1%
12.8%
8. 5%
2,1%
4.3%
2.1%
70.2%
6.2a Can you calculate EPA'a SNC for mlnort
Can Calculate Rate
Yes
No
Missing
Total
7
A
36
47
Q6.2 : MINOR SNC RATES (%)
Statel
State2
States
State4
States
StateG
Slate?
States
State9
Source for estimate
state database
PCS
hard copy files
other
30
1
1
15
20
3
6
4
3
2
47
MUNICIPAL
25
10
6
6
5
ia
2
2
%
12.8%
8.5%
6.4%
4.3%
11
14
13
0
10
20
0
?
19
37
14
6
13
35
20
5
51
3
2
10
2
Q6.3b. NON_COMPLIANCE RATES BASED ON OWN DERNFTION
CASEID
CD
rS
MD
NJ
OK
VT
Wl
MUNICIPALS
Self -Described Categories
25
7
1
17
3
3
3
3
6
2
3
0
Total
10
7
5
3
•
NON-MUMCPAL
5
10
1
6
4
3
6
6
3
5
0
10
0
NON-MUNICIPALS
Self -Described Categories
5
6! 2
16
15
2
6
15
8
5
0
16
54
118
6
8
t_o.
10
Total
8
35
10
-
Pagel
-------
section 6
6.3c What source did you UM for this estimate?
Category
state database
hard copy files
other
res
don't know '
missing
total
No.
3
1
1
0
1
41
47
8.3d Noneompliance rat* higher or lower for minors than lor majors
Category
higher
about the same
lower
don't know -
missing
total
No.
4
3
1
3
36
47
6.4aib Estimate oT -Significant Effluent Violation* Ratea
..
Muni
1
5
5
S
S
S
S
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
20
20
25
25
30
30
30
35
50
50
55
75
75
NonMuni
0
0
2
2
2
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
8
10
10
10
10
to
10
11
• 15
18
20
20
20
20
25
25
30
35
40
50
6.4b Source for Sign. Effluent Rate Estimate
BPJ
PCS or Data base
Hard copy
Other
Missing
20
1 1
2
0
14
42.6%
23.4%
4.3%
0.0%
29.8%
t
1
2.1%
-
Page 2
-------
section 6
f Respondents
47
6.4c Is minors or majors 'Significant Effluent Vloaltlon rate' higher
Category
Higher
About the same
lower
Don't know
missing
Total
6.5
Type oi violation
sampling/monitoring/
permit/interim effluen
permit/AO compliance
spitl/accident
no permit or no re-ap
other
No.
18
5
2
11
11
47
ok
Most
frequent
1
19
18
3
3
0
1
2
18
15
7
6
4
0
6.6 Causes of Non-Compliance
Rank
inadequate operation
inadequate technical
inflow / infiltration
inadequate treatment
problems /
iacilities don't care
insufficient capital
other
Rank
inadequate operation
inadequate technical
inflow / infiltration
inadequate treatment
problems /
facilities don't care
insufficient capital
other
1
21
12
2
9
3
2
6
3
2
1 1
16
3
8
6
9
9
1
3
7
6
14
8
9
0
3
4
7
2
8
11
6
6
0
4. •
1
4
13
10
13
0
Least
frequent
5
1
3
7
17
20
0
Missing
1
1
3
3
1
43
Minor Non-municipals
4
2
2
5
6
6
8
12
0
S
0
2
16
5
3
7
3
1
Minor municipals
1
19
9
1 1
12
2
4
10
2
2
13
13
8
4
3
2
16
0
3
4
9
8
10
9
4
8
3
4
. 5
5
8
6
11
10
5
0
5
0
3
3
6
6
1 1
3
0
missing <
9
8
19
11
18
15
11
42
missing
6
8
9
9
17
16
5
42
47
47
47
47
47
47
total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
PageS
-------
-------
section 7
SECTION 7: EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT APPROACHES
7.1 Are there significant dlffrences In enforcement
approach for ma
Yes
No
Some Same, some
Missing
Total
ors and minors?
23
16
2
6
47
48.9%
34.0%
4.3%
12.8%
100.0%
7.1 B for those who responded to 7.1 A
more minors informal actions
mjrs >stringent; mnrs worst case
majors gel priority
EPA majors; state minors
Blank
Q7.2 a Total Number of Enforcement Actions taken •
Civil
0
1-50
51-100
101-150
151-400
#
4
23
5
4
2
38
Cum%
0%
17%
35%
67%
-*
Informal
0
1-50
51-100
101-150
151-200
201-250
251-300
301-900
901-1700
*
3
17
3
1
2
1
1
4
1
33
10
.8
4
2
23
47
gainst minors In last fiscal year
Cum%
0%
6%
9%
11%
17%
20%
25%
71%
7.2b Most frequent "other" (Informal) enforcement actions U
meeting/site visit
letter
NOV
penalty
assessment
other
Blank
# Responses
15
27
20
9
15
55
141
23%
42%
31%
14%
23%
85%
ken
7.3 Percent of Facilities known to be out of compliance for at least 6 mos receiving a
0%
1-1 0%
1 1 -20%
21-30%
31-40%
41-50%
51-99%
100%
(Civil)
Enforcem
ent
Actions
2
15
4
• 2
3
2
2
5
Informal
Enforcem
ent
Actions
2
4
2
2
3
6
8
6
-
21.3%
17.0%
8.5%
4.3%
48.9%
-
Page 1
-------
section 7
7.4a Use of Enforcement Responses
Enforcement
Phone call
Letter of violation
INFORMAL Notice
FORMAL Notice of
Site visit (no
Inspection w/
Administrative
Administrative
Judicial action
Criminal actions
Other
,
Minor Municipal Facilities
freq.
27
29
11
14
17
10
6
4
0
0
3
sometime
s
12
10
e
11
20
16
21
16
j4l
1
3
infreq.
2
2
7
12
S
15
12
17
33
33
2
missing
6
6
21
10
5
6
8
10
10
13
39
Q7_4B Particularly effective Sequence of Responses
Yes
No
Don't know
Missing
Total
No.
27
5
1
14
47
Effective Responses:
phone call
meeting/site visit
inspections
letter
NOV . . .
order/agreement
tech asst
other
Blank
# Respondents .
4
6
5
17
7
16
1
4
22
47
%
57.4%
10.6%
2.1%
29.8%
100.0%
9%
13%
11%
36%
15%
34%
2%
9%
47%
7.5 Innovative Enforcement Approaches
innovative
Multi-media
Alternative
Field citations
Field citations
Automated
penalty
Local publicity ol
Technical
Other
Minor Municipal Facilities
Use
22
13
7
4
1
5
5
na
1
missing
25
34
40
43
46
42
42
46
total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
na
47
total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
Non-Municipals
freq.
24
27
8
15
18
14
8
6
0
1
2
Effectiveness
very
8
3
4
2
0
2
3
na
2
some
13
10
4
2
1
1
S
na
0
not
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
na
0
someti
mes
15
9
8
8
18
9
16
15
3
1
4
missing
26
33
39
43
46
43
39
45
infreq.
3
6
8
12
6
16
13
16
33
32
2
total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
missing
5
5
23
12
5
8
10
10
10
13
39
total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
Interest
15
11
9
13
5
15
13
7
0
missing
32
36
36
34
42
32
34
40
47
total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
Page 2
-------
section 7
7.5 Innovative Enforcement Approaches continued
Innovative
Mutti-media
Alternative
Field citations
Field citations
Automated
Local publicity of
Technical
Other
Minor Non-Municipal Facilities
Use
very
21
18
6
2
1
2
6
4
1
missing
26
29
41
45
46
45
41
43
46
total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
Effect
very
9
6
4
1
0
1
3
2
1
7.6 Experience with above approaches • see narrative
some
11
11
2
2
1
1
4
2
0
7.7 Does state provide technical assistance to municipal minor
state provide ta to
Category
Yes
No
Missing
total
ok
No.
38
5
4
47
%
80.9%
10.6%
8.5%
100.0%
7.8 Factors which determine who gets technical assistance
Facility Non-compli
Facility Requests
State Reccomenda
Trainer Availability
Misc'i
Missing
# Respondents
19
14
6
4
8
6
40%
30%
13%
9%
17%
13%
not
1
2
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
B?
missing
26
28
41
44
46
45
40
43
46
7.9: Percent of .muni minors needing technical assistance to maintain compiler
Range
0-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-1 00%
Missing
Total
#
23
12
2
3
7
47
%
48.9%
25.5%
4.3%
6.4%
14.9%
100.0%
total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
ice
Interest
17
14
9
17
5
18
13
6
1
missing
30
33
38
30
42
29
34
41
46
total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
PageS
-------
-------
section 8
SECTIONS: RESOURCES
1
8.1 A OVERALL PROGRAM
Major/Minor
15/85
16/84
20/80
2S/75
27/73
30/70
32/68
35/65
40/60
50/50
55/45
60/40
65/35
70/30
80/20
85/15
90/10
don't know
missing
total
8.1 B
Major/Minor
5/95
7/93
10/90
18/82
20/80
25/75
27/73
30/70
35/65
37/63
40/60
50/50
55/45
60/40
69/31
70/30
75/25
80/20
90/10
95/5
don't know
missing
total
NO.
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
8
4
1
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
9
47
%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
8.5%
2.1%
4.3%
17.0%
8.5%
2.1%
2.1%
6.4%
2.1%
4.3%
4.3%
6.4%
2.1%
19.1%
100.0%
Permit Issuance/Relssuanc
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
5
2
2
7
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
5
47
%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
14.9%
2.1%
2.1%
1 0.6%
4.3%
4.3%
14.9%
2.1%
6.4%
2.1%
4.3%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
10.6%
100.0%
% to Minors
0%
10-19%
20-29%
30-39%
40-49%
50%
51-59%
60-69%
70-79%
80-89%
90-99%
minors
majors
0
5
2
4
2
4
0
11
6
3
0
20
13
Pagel
-------
section 8
8.1 C
Major/Minor
3/97
41/86
18/82
20/80
25/75
30/70
31/69
35/65
39/61
40/60
50/50
53/47
55/45
60/40
62/38 '
70/30
80/20
90/10
95/5
99/1
don't know
missing
total
Compliance monitoring
No.
1
'1
1
1
1
5
1
2
1
6
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
5
1
1
1
7
47
8.1 D Enforcement Activity
Major/Minor
5/95
6/94
10/90
18/82
25/75
30/70
31/69
32/68 '
35/65
36/64
40/60
45/55
50/50
57/43
60/40
70/30
80/20
90/10
95/5
100/0
don't know
missing
total
#
1
1
2
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
7
1
4
1
2
3
1
1
1
7
%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
10.6%
2.1%
4.3%
2.1%
12.8%
6.4%
2.1%
2.1%
4.3%
2.1%
6.4%
2.1%
10.6%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
14.9%
100.0%
0.0%
%
2.1%
2.1%
4.3%
2.1%
4.3%
8.5%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
6.4%
2.1%
14.9%
2.1%
8.5%
2.1%
4.3%
6.4%
2.1%
2.1%
2.1%
14.9%
-
Page 2
-------
section 8
8.1 E Other
40/60
50/50
95/5
missing
total
No.
2
1
1
43
47
%
4.3%
2.1%
2.1%
91.5%
100.0%
8.2 Have workyears devoted to minor* stayed constant over past 5 years
Category
Yes
No
Dont know
Missing
8.2b
Category
Increased
Decreased
Missing
total .
Explanations:
No.
24
19
1
3
47
No.
11
8
28
47
high majors rate
-------
-------
section 9
SECTION 9: WATERSHED PERMITTING APPROACHES
9.1 Describe the status of watershed permitting In your *i
General status
Not being done/no plans .
Approach is being considered
Plans under development
Basins delineated; permits unissued
Permits issued in selected areas
Permits issued in most/all areas
Missing
Total
No of states
6
10
1
10
12
5
3
47
Missing
41
37
46
37
35
42
4
ate.
Total
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
9.2 Is there * difference In approach between major and minor permits?
Yes
No
Missing
Total
Explanations of impact:
majors priority
some/significant minors
majors + some minors
majors first; eventually all
Blank
# Respondents
No.
6
25
16
47
3
1
3
1
39
47
9.3 Impact of watershed on permitting progr
schedule/backlog
increased workload/resource
increased data
increased permit litigation
permitting/enforcement conflicts
none
other
Total
8
1 1
5
0
1
5
3
33
%
12.8%
53.2%
34.0%
100.0%
im
17.0%
23.4%
10.6%
0.0%
2.1%
10.6%
6.4%
9.4 Has watershed permitting had an effect on compliance monitoring/enforcement programs?
Yes
No
Missing
Total
Explanations of Impact
increased resource/workload
increased cm/enf activity
track in PCS
tighter limits, increased violations
other
Blank
# Respondants
19
17
11
47
2
10
0
1
4
30
47
40.4%
36.2%
23.4%
100.0%
•
-
Page 1
-------
section 9
9.5 Minor facilities identified as significant contributors throug WLA
Yes
No
Don't know
Missing
Total
20
14
1
12
47
42.6%
29.8%
2.1%
25.5%
100.0%
Explanations
Small Water-bodies
Industrials/Toxics
WLA done for Minors
Other
No
Missing
•
9.6a What % of permits in your state should have water quality based 1
Range
0-25%
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
76 - 100%
Missing
Total
#.
10
5
7
i_ 14
11
47
21.3%
10.6%
14.9%
29.8%
23.4%
100.0%
9.6b What % of permit in your state do have water
quality based permits
0 - 25%
26 - 50%
51 - 75%
76 - 100%
Missing
Total
Most Frequent Parameters
BOD
Ammonia
Chlorine
Metals
Toxics
TSS
PH
DO
temperature
choliform
other
Dont Know
Blank
# Responses
#
15
5
6
11
10
47
29
20
20
14
8
10
6
6
2
8
3
5
131
31.9%
10.6%
12.8%
23.4%
. 21.3%
100.0%
22%
15%
15%
11%
6%
8%
5%
5%
2%
6%
2%
4%
100%
mits
•Do Have')
1
10
15
15
20
20
20
25
25
25
30
35
43
50
50
55
70
70
75
75
75
75
76
80
80
85
85
90
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
9
4
2
8
14
13
47
Have*}
0
2
5
5
10
10
13
15
15
15
18
20
20
20
25
30
43
50
50
50
55
66
70
70
75
75
80
80
80
85
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
Page 2
-------
section 9
9.7 Ar* you focusing on any specific wstsrbodies due to minors impact?
Yes
No
don't know
missing
total - .
Explanations:
low flow
protected use
Specific basin mentioned
No hew dischargers
Other
Total
27
1
7
47
2
5
5
4
3
19
57.4%
2.1%
14.9%
100.0%
11%
26%
26%
21%
16%
<
Page3
-------
-------
section 10
SECTION 10: STATE LEGISLATION/REGULATIONS
1
10.1 Any state legislation i/or regulations with particular Impact on mir
Yes
No
don't know
missing
total
Statute or Reg:
Statute
Regulation
Statute & Reg
Blank
# Respondents
15
29
1
2
47
3
2
2
40
47
31.9%
61.7%
2.1%
4.3%
100.0%
5%
3%
3%
62%
72%
Impact on/Significance for Minors3:10 PM
treat all facilities the
same
specific mandates for
minors
Blank
# Respondents
2
12
33
47
10.2 Do you have authority to:
Collect permit fees
Authority:
Statute
Regulation
Statute & Reg
Blank '
# Respondents
Authority:
Assess penalties
Civil administration
Civil judicial
Criminal
Authority:
Statute
Regulation
Statute & Reg
Blank
# Respondents
Yes
39
16
8
16
7
47
Yes
43
32
32
33
27
5
13
2
47
3%
18%
51%
72%
No
6
34%
17%
34%
15%
1 00%
No
1
1
0
0
57%
11%
28%
4%
Missing
2
Missing
3
14
15
14
Total
47
Total
47
47
47
47
-
ors?
'•
Page 1
-------
-------
NARRATIVE RESPONSES
FOR SELECTED SURVEY QUESTIONS
-------
-------
Narrative Responses for Selected Survey Questions
Numbers in the left hand margin are the returned survey
questionnaire form identification numbers. For a list of
respondents and their corresponding identification number, contact
the Offoce of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, Office of
Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1.3: Are there specific categories or types of Minors which,
because of their impacts, you are now or plan to be focusing
on? (specific SIC codes, package plants, etc.) If so, please
describe.
01 Coal mines - permits are being looked at by an in-house
working group to evaluate water quality impacts
03 Miners in small streams. Toxicity requirements will drive
them to seek alternative discharge locations.
04 No
05 We have been focusing on package (STP) plants for several
years and pushing regionalization. A number of streams in KY
do not meet, designated YSES because of poor operation of
these facilities by the operators.
06 No
08 Privately owned, treatment plants.
09 No
10 No
11 None-contract cooling water direct discharges to surface water
of boiler blowdown, discharges from portable water treatment
facilities.
12 Industrial minors have always been more suspect. Remediation
of groundwater or landfill problems may lead to a surface water
discharge and these may be of some concern.
13 Pretreatment canning companies feedlots (see reference on
page 6) . .
14 Efforts are directed to the most significant violations and
group of permit holders in non-compliance; municipal minors,
semi-public, state and complaints and field staff referrals.
15 Small package plants and trickling filters
16 See Attachment A
-------
17 Preserving facilities groundwater remation from UST process
package plants.
No minors w/toxic effluent will be scheduled for re issuance as
they are identified also any minors in priority watersheds or
initiatives.
19 No
20 We focus on minors most likely to approach or exceed our water
quality standards. No specific SIC code is emphasized.
21 No
22 Seafood processing facilities (SIC 2092) minor municipals with
significant industrial users and/or pretreatment program oil
and gas operations in the coastal area.
24 Non-contact cooling water (general permit being issued by
USEPA Region l) waste site clean-up discharges
26 Small residentials & commercial discharges (overboard
discharges OBD's are reguired by state law to be inspected
annually 2nd eliminated as state funding become available.
Recently completed an initiative in permitting and enforcement
of bulk fuel storage facilities in casco by nothing new
planned.
28 1. General permit to be issued for once through non-contact
cooling waters discharges w/temperatures <85F (warm water) <68
(cold water fishery) that will require wet test. 2. 104(B)
(3) project will allow issuance of new permits to 20 to 30
.minors over 2 years.
General permits for non contact cooling and stormwater.
30.
31
No
Facilities that are upstream of drinking water supplies. Also,
facilities from which we have received repeated complaints.
No - although we have a large % of water treatment plants
which take up permitting an enforcement resources.
No
34 No
35 Continuous discharge facilities which route their effluent to
lower flow streams
36
No
-------
37
38
39
40
NO
No
No
No
41' No
42 We are continuing to look at the toxicity and radium 226
content of produces water discharges associates with oil/gas
production.
43 Focus is shifting to watersheds tributary to listed
waterbodies rather than specific categories of discharges.
44 All facilities will be evaluated on their compliance with
specific numeric water quality standards.
45
No
46 General permits will be developed for swimming pool
discharges, cooling waters will biocides, vehicle wastewater.
47 Yes work on impactred segments watershed basin priority
48 Are focusing on: bulk petroleum/chemical storage facilities
groundwater remediation projects-new discharges plan to focus
on package plants.
49 Yes-with the advert of egual permits totally insignificant
minors will be covered with G.P.'s. We will concentrate on
- the. rest primarily process wastewater discharges.
50 Package plants
51
No
No . .
We have been issued 23 administrative orders - 2 notices of
violation - 3 penalty orders (including 2 on-going orders)
since June 1992 resulting from their violations/permit
requirements.
We have been issuing 23 AOS-2 Nov> - 3 APD's (Inc. 2 on-
goings) . Since 6/92 resulting from violations with permit
requirements.
55 More attention has always been focused on minors with package
plants by increasing inspection frequency and enforcement
activities.
-------
No
57
Toxicity evaluations are now being required for NPDES permit
reissuance for municipalities with industrial discharges that
have categorical parameters.
58 Yes those receiving flow from industrial and commercial
installations.
59 Sand and grave 1-dairies-fruit packers-rvegetable/bulb washers.
i'
60 We focus on minor industrials who discharge toxics- then minor
municipals- then other industrials with little or no effort
focused on non-municipal sewage (NYS calls them PCX's)
61 All minor facilities in general-handled by municipal
permitting program through EPD enforcement management strategy
(EMS) includes minor facilities as priority facilities for
enforcements).
62 All minor facilities inspected by the industrial wastewater
program are handled through EPD's enforcement management
strategy (EMS). No specific categories are prioritized.
63 Commercial/industrial minors with toxic limits in permits and
high ranking municipal minors using the municipal compliance
(MCM) ranking system.
-------
Q2.2: How important is the EPA major/minor distinction to
setting program priorities?
oi Our prioritization system is based on the complexity of the
permit. One of the factors used in calculating complexity is
the EPA major minor designation. Thus, it is very important
in setting priorities.
02 It is important, especially on enforcement priorities.
03 Important, because EPA asks us to commit to issuing a specific
# of major NPDES permits.
04 Not very
05 Important/majors get too much time.
06 It is absolutely useless. Within the state, we focus our
resources on plants with problems. It makes no difference to E
what the flow is.
07 One of the program's goals is to minimize impact on receiving
stream major/minor distinction helps us achieve this by
prioritizing resources effectively. Major with larger impact c
streams get the first priority for compliance monitoring.
08 Very; permitting and inspection effort is focused on major
facilities.
09 It is important because our current interpretation is that
minor facilities are just as important as major facilities.
10 It is important due to the emphasis placed on majors and grant
commitments.
11 . Very important, we do not inspect minors. We do not review
DMR's of minors.
12 The targeted watershed approach focuses primarily on the
aquatic resource and the impacts or potential impacts of both
majors and minors.
13 Very important. however, we feel some minor facilities may
have a larger impact on the receiving waters than some major
facilities. With EPA's oversight of the program, a lot of
unnecessary time is taken up on majors when more quality time
could be spent on follow-up of minor facilities.
14 Majors are priority. A task force focuses on minor municipal
non-compliance and uses evaluation criteria to rank priority
order for action on the most significant violations.
-------
15 Minor importance - effect in primarily in increased number of
inspections per life of the permit.
16 See Attachment A
17 Since EPA focus only on majors for 106 grant funds, we are
compiled to make majors our highest priority.
19
20
21
22
We follow the procedures set out for major permits; issuance,
compliance inspection and review, and enforcement.
Very important. Majors and problem minor permits are given
priority. .
Very important.
Very important. Since major facilities are those having the
greatest potential of impacting the receiving waterbody, EPA's
distinction of major/minor has a significant impact upon
setting priorities. The major/minor designation is also
important in determining permit fees, an important source of F
24 Major focus is on major municipal and industrial WWTP's;
Impact upon water quality is main priority determinant.
Very important. Most activity on majors.
26 Critical for establishing priorities for workplans for federal
grants.
28 Very important as NH is a non-delegated state.
Very important most activity on majors.
30 Very important for permit issuance - majors have historically
taken priority. ,
31 N/A. Both major and minor facilities are equally important
due to multiple use designations of the same segment. In case
of surface streams, many of which have very low flows, even
small minor flows from strong effluents can have a very
significant impact on the water quality for long segment of
34 It is important in the sense that we are required to inspect
majors once a year. We have made flexibility in scheduling
inspections for minors.
35 The EPA major/minor distinction which is not as important as
the sice and hydraulic mixing characteristics of the receiving
stream and its designated beneficial uses.
36 Important only to keep EPA satisfied
-------
37 More recently we have placed EPA majors as a top priority for
permit drafting.
38 Very important - minors do not get full program treatment
w/inspections, etc.
39; Minor importance
40 Majors are a higher priority in most cases
41 Very important in respect to available resources
42 Very important - required to compliance monitor majors
annually
43 It is important in setting program priorities for activities
such as compliance inspections and issuance of new permits to
existing facilities. Current compliance status or history of
compliance/non-compliance is also considered. Beyond the
initial priority setting major/minor status is only one.
44 EPA has expressed concerns on timely issuance of permit to
major facilities.
45 If no NPDES permit, then the state will issue a permit to the
minor.
46 Major facilities receive higher priority status than minor
facilities; however a prioritization system has been
implemented for all permittees, based on such factors as:
history of violations; nature/
severity of violation; receiving water use; public interest,
etc.
47 We heavily emphasize majors.
48 Very important
49 Since all minors must be inspected- they get highest priority
often-we would not inspect a major with a good compliance
record if that decision were the states to make. . ., •
50 All facilities regulated by the municipal branch are scheduled
for annual inspection. Minor facilities do not receive a
comprehensive inspection unless they have a long history of
non-compliance. Enforcement activities are more frequent, for
majors.
51 Due to State/EPA agreements (annual) all major" sources are
inspected at least once a year. However, this should not be
the main reason for a yearly inspection sensitivity of the
receiving stream in terms of beneficial use should be a
factor.
-------
52
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Of some importance-we would probably not inspect some majors
as often (because they have good compliance/operations history
and discharges to less sensitive streams).
permitting
/enforceme
n t
activities
It has no.bearing since we have no majors
He emphasize major facilities in regards to all
Some what
It is not a major factor
Will be less important as watershed based permitting is
increased
While NYS recognizes the importance of minors (significant
class primarily). Generally we give the highest priority to
EPA majors and state significant facilities. For permitting
activities+ we have developed the environmental benefit permit
strategy (EBPS)
Minors are handled as part of EMS
Minor facilities are handled as part of the EMS. However,
major facilities do receive priority as result of quarterly
non-compliance report (QNCR) commitments.
Past priorities driven extensively by EPA "major" designation.
Future-place greater reliance on MCM and district judgment of
environmental impact in priority setting.
65 As they relate to funding and EPA priorities.
-------
Q3.2: For those technoques you rated "effective" in column B
above, please describe briefly your experience and any
specific types of facilities to which these techniques
are being applied:
01 General permits - USTS, PSTs, Hydrostatic test, aquaculture.
Model permits - car washes, concrete batch plants, coal mines.
03 This is effective (model permitting) but not efficient.
Looking for a less "resource-intensive" method.
.04 Draft rules for sand and gravel, cattle trailer washing,
recycling, bulk petroleum storage tanks, water treatment
plants (filter backwash)
06 individual permits are issued for all discharges
08 We've developed a spreadsheet for reviewing the application,
triggers need for and developing effluent limit; the hangup is
data entry and converting, DMR data from PCS into the
spreadsheet.
09 General permit coverage avoids public notice process -
efficient.
10 #6 used for many minor permit due to workload.
11 Cooling water, hydrostatic pressure testing-general permit
groundwater remediation wastewaters car wash-model permits-
allow sewer discharge only, thereby regulating surface water
discharge.
12 •" Process has worked smoothly.
13 General permits are issued to cooling water, water treatment
plants and chlorinated cooling water, very effective.
14 Modelling (washboard allocation) is done for sewage plants
(correctional ammonia) and toxic pollutants. All permits
excebpt coal mines are tracked by PCS.
15 Model permitting significant reduces time to issue new
permits/automated permit data systems is somewhat affective-
effectiveness will increase significantly as more of the
system is automated/zero. Discharge permits are used
extensively.
16 See Attachment A
Applied to all minors that reapply w/in 180D of permit EXP.
20 We have issued more than 800 general permits to date for
-------
operations such as gravel wash operations, etc. We use word
processing merges for permit conditions, which greatly
automates and facilitates the writing of permits.
22 1) minor sewage; car wash; groundwater remediation;
hydrostatic test water 2) truck wash and ready mix concrete.
Overall, general permits are very effective for a wide variety
of similar facilities.
24 N/A
General permits are used for stormwater and non contact
cooling
26 Model permits are developed for all types of facilities,
automated permit writer used for OBD's (residential and
commercial)
We use general permits for stormwater and non contact cooling
28 General permit for once through non-contact cooling water
(once issued w/wet test requirement should be very effective
to identify facilities w/water quality concerns.) Temp state
permit for GW remediation discharges after EPA waiver issued.
30 General permits when available allow applicants to know code
requirements in advance. Issuance is expedited
Most of the facilities with zero discharge permits comply with
well with the permit conditions. Facilities that use this
types of permits include industries of various different
SIC's.
Extension of permits saves resources, allows transition to
watershed approach to permitting. General permits for
hunshoaf sewage disclose in one PR geographic area.
37 General permits - sand & gravel, construction decorating, coal
mining runoff only, water treatment plants oil & gas cleanups,
stormwater.
38 General permits have saved us w/a short-handed staff-facility
lagoons, suction, dredges, const, dewatering pump tests,
feedlots, fish farms, gravel pits, petroleum clean ups, oil
produced water, model permits-used whereever we have similar
facilities and ROGP.
39 "Shorty" permit for minor municipalities
40 We are using a model permit for disharges from UST clean-ups.
We are considering maximizing our resources by issuing a
general no discharge permit instead of the individual permits
we have.
-------
41 General permitting for coal mines, fish hatcheries, drinking
water treatment plants, constuction hydrostate testing,
concentrated anemia feeding activitis. All are effective and
efficient.
43 General permits in use for discharges from ground water
cleanup from leaking underground storage tanks, 2nd
stormwater.
45 Fish hatcheries, trench dewatering, hydrostatic testing,
contaminated groundwater
46 Stormwater
48 PCS system is very helpful for obtaining PAT DMR data we use
this for all permits. We have model permits for groundwater
remediation projects. They are very helpful.
EPA Region 9 standard federal NPDES permit conditions has been
applied.
EPA 9 standard federal NPDES permit conditions has been
applied
55 Model permitting is used for carwashers & laundromats. Zero
discharge permits are required for certain water body
clarifications.
56 Utilize needed permit petroleum UST remediation projects
.57 Our three zero discharge facilities.are land.spray irrigation
59 The major limitation in regulating minors is resources.
General permits are fairly effective in getting facilities
. under permit, compliance follow-up remains severely
constrained by resources.
60 Permits by rule-might be useful for eliminating some general
permits extended permits - prefer indefinite expirating date
(i.e.; no expiration)
61 All -minors.
62 Non-contact cooling water - rock quarry pit pump-out-land
/application (spray irrigation systems). •
-------
-------
Q3.3: Have you encountered any difficulties in permitting,
compliance monitoring or enforcement activities for those
permits handled by any of the alternative methods
currently in use? Please describe briefly.
01 coal nine permits continue to be a water quality concern -
compliance monitoring for these facilities is a problem
because of the amount of data and the number of permit
modifications.
03 Problem - we tried to use a general permit that had the
specific efficient limits contained in a certificate of
coverage, but Region IV rejected the idea.
04 NO
05 No, we use PCS and enter all DMR's into PCS.
06 We don't use alternative methods.
07 No
08 Download PCS data into spreadsheet to evaluate data run
statistical, package to determine mean 95 & 99% values.
09 N/A
11 Keeping track of statistics of permits-owners of site
12 No significant difficulties.
13 Sometimes getting a general permit through EPA has been very
difficult. I.E. lengthy review and approval process.
14 No • - .
15 No - otherwise we wouldn't use them
16 See Attachment A
17 NO
18 Problems tracking general permits, permittees covered in PCS
19 Generally OK
20 No
21 No -
22 Temporary permits are very labor intensive. These situations
may be better handled through general permit rule, de minimus
discharge, etc.
-------
24 N/A (note general permit for NCCW scheduled for issuance
July 1, 1993)
25 No
26' NO problems other than update models or computer programs
27 No
28 Current general permit for once through now-contact cooling
water allowed toxic dischargers, new version will not.
29 No
30 Applicants like quick processing of general permits but still
like to lobby for less stringent individual limits.
31 Yes, enforcement against these facilities is sometimes very
difficult for lack of information on existence of intermittent
discharges
33 Lack of data or their inaccuracy
35 No .
38 No we do very little compliance monitoring of minors, however
39 No
40 It takes more work to keep the lines of communication open
with zero discharge and general permittees.
41- Not really
42 No "
43 No
44 N/A ....
45 No
46 No problems have yet been encountered related to enforcement
of general permits. .
48 NO
51 Compliance monitoring for general permits are low priority-
most of these are the ones that due comply with DMR
submission. However the agency response is increasing.
52 Using model permits is difficult for us - we incorporate many
state requirements in the permits and each permit tends to be
-------
customized to the source. Monitoring requirements for
example-vary widely depending on source type/size.
53 Yes I have encountered difficulties in enforcement activities
for Federal permittees which show less cooperation than
others.
54 Yes I have encountered difficulties in enforcement activities
for federal permittees which show less cooperation than
others.
57 NA
58 This is an EPA program in Idaho. They have no resources for
evaluating minors although we feel monitoring is needed.
59 See 3.2
60 Minor difficulties related to regulation triactivity permit
renewals as if they are new permits- and minor compliance
enforcement activities when a permittee undergoing legal
action is given an automatic extension.
61 None
62 None
63 No experience
65 No
-------
-------
Q4.2:
05
06"
08
09
11
13
14
17
20
23
24
Are there any particular categories of unpermitted
dischargers which you believe nay be causing significant
water quality impacts? (yes/no/don't know) if so, what
are they?
N/A
Untreated sewage from individual homes in isolated locations.
Impacts are more public health converns rather than problems
related to toxics or do.
Nonpoint sources, storm run-off
Don't know.
Use of Algaecides (e.g. cusex) for control of algae blooms in
class AA drinking water reservoirs. Mobile exterior building
cleaning and paint stripping companies.
Feedlots
Agriculture related - Hog waste
Wood preserving facilities, gas compression stations
Storm water discharges. We are in the process of developing a
State Administrative Code to specifically regulate storm water
discharges, Once the code is promulgated we will issue storm
water premits to better address stormwater.
Seafood processors, sand & gravel extraction, various
agriculture operations for example.
Illegal cross connections (sanitary sewage tied illegally into
storm drains) cause significant water quality problems (such
would not obtain a permit but would be tied into sanitary sewer
line) other unpermitted discharges do not
25 Possibly illegal sanitary convictions to separate storm sewers
26 U/C Class V wells from floor drains may have localized adverse
effect on ground water. .
27. Possible illegal sanitary connections to separate storm sewers.
28 Don't know.
29 Possibly illegal sanitary connections to separate storm sewers.
35 Livestock truck washes and other washing facilities (especially
portable ones)
38 Possibly a few feedlots,
-------
40 Only ones that NPDES cannot Permit-AG discharges
41 Those small industrial business activities located within ( a
part of) multiple use Industrial Parks.
46 Animal feed lots vehicle Washington; cooling tower blow down,
swimming pools; brick cleaning operations.
52 Have problems w/NPS-AQ Forestry-No ccategories for unpennitted
point sources.
55 Malfunctioning septic tank absorbtion fill systems
56 Municipal water treatment plants
58 Gravel pits - Feedlots - placed mining - concrete batching
plants. Some fish hatcheggs and minor municipals just are
on high quality streams
59 Cumulative impacts of categories of unpermitted discharges
could be significant. On an individual basis significant
impacts are unlikely.
60 Most unpermitted discharges (which may number several
thousand) are firm small sanitary discharges to surface
or groundwater (less than 1000 GPD)
63 Small municipal - small decentralized commercial/industrial.
Uncontrolled contamination sites.
-------
Q6.3a: If you cannot determine the 8NC rate for minors but do
use another criteria for determining "non-compliance",
please provide your definition of "non-compliance" below
(indicate criteria used and reporting period, if
possible).
01 See Enclosed strategy
07 For quantifiable parameters such as BOD/TSS and Fecal Coliform,
SNC Cariteria used for mmajors are also applied to Minors. For
PH chlorine and dissolved oxygen parameters SNC occurs when 10%
of samples exceed Permit limits in 2 months out of 6 months.
09 See 6.2A
15 Absolute compliance - all parameter received/all parameters
within limits.
20 Wisconsin administrative code NR 110.05 (3) (c) (2) non-
compliance for municipalities is more than a total of 3 months
of violations of the monthly average limitations for BOD or
suspended solids or both in the previous 12 months.
21 N/A
30 State SNC Definition based on single violations exceeding
permit limit 20% hazardous & 40% non-hazardous.
37 Historically have used SNC but recently for majors have
expanded on time to look at recurring efflue NT violations for
random parameters (every 6 months. Not expanded to minors).
-------
-------
Q7.1: Are there significant differences in the types or overall
approach of enforcement actions against minors vs.
majors? If so, please describe:
01 Yes - We have let EPA take the lead on enforcement
matters for the majors, but we initiate enforcement
. on the minors.
03 No - Majors are given priority.
04 Majors get priority as they can do most damage in
specific areas.
05 Major enf: is much more stringent due to QNCR require-
ments minors are approached on a worse case scenario.
06 The difference is that EPA forces the priority to
"Major" facilities go under 106 agreements more efforts
focused there.
07 No
08 Effort is directed toward majors but action taken
against minors w/significant history of non-compliance.
09 No
10 Minors are handled less formally (i.e. letters & consent
assments. are preferred over more formal orders or CO &
AC) .
11 Due to staff constraints, the only enforcement actions
we take at this time are notices of violations.
13 No
14
All the minors in violation do not receive immediate
formal enforcement action.
15 No
16 See attachment A
17 Effective enforcement requires an incentive monetary
penalties provide that. Minors have less resources
making enrollment success more difficult. This
must be factuted into enforcement action.
21 SNC definition not applied to minors.
22 No
24 Most of enforcement activity is focused towards majors;
-------
minors only rarely get enforcement activites.
28 No
30 No .
31' NO
34 Yes, Majors are more likely to be subject to enforcement
because of QNCR guidelines
35 For majors we use criterial where as with minors we
determine enforcement action on a case basis. We will
be using SNC criteria for minors in the near future.
36 No
37 For minor municipal our policy is to attempt to identify
problem then'field inspection when SNC occurs. If D &
M try short period of informal effort to bring about
compliance now is not resolved.
38 Minors not on QNRC. Minors much lower priority than
majors.
40 Majors are given significant priority over minors when
evaluating for potential enforcement "hammer" isn't as
big, heavy for minors.
41 No
42 Yes, majors are judges by the strict criteria within PCS
minors are judged in a case by case basis.
43 No
-------
Q7.6: For those [innovative enforcement approaches listed in
Table 7], please describe your experience.
The following is a summary of state responses, and not the
actual responses,
Innovative Remedies in Settlements
o States were generally positive about their experience in
using innovative remedies in settlements.
o The most common innovative approach appears to be to include
pollution prevention plans as part of an enforcement action
(e.g., consent decree) that either offsets or provides
credits against civil penalties for permit violations.
o States indicated that pollution prevention or waste
reduction plans have been useful in educating facilities on
how to avoid future violations. It also is effective in
directing penalty dollars toward environmental gain.
o States tend to use pollution prevention requirements and
other innovative remedies (e.g., facility improvement plans)
on a limited case-specific basis where it appears to be
appropriate.
- one state indicated only permittees showing genuine
interest in resolving the problem beyond minimum
requirements are offered this approach
Multi-media Enforcement Actions
o States were somewhat mixed in their attitudes toward the
usefulness of their experience in using multi media
enforcement approaches.
- Some states found it time consuming and effective in only
. . limited situations (e.g., large facilities, industrial
facilities).
- One state argued that because of the various statutory
requirements and difference in enforcement time frames,
coordinating timing of actions can be difficult.
o States using multi-media enforcement indicated that their
experience so far has been limited and did not feel it was
appropriate in many situations.
- Several states indicated, however, that when air emissions
or hazardous waste violations exist at a facility with water
violations, the state will work to combine the violations in
a single action.
o Some states indicated that it was becoming common practice
for programs to share enforcement information and look for
-------
other environmental violations during inspections.
- One state indicated that when facilities are inspected by
their water program, other programs are informed of the
results. Facilities are advised of requirements of other
programs (e.g. an UST inspection resulted in advising a
facility regarding UIC and NPDES requirements).
Field Citations
o States experience on field citations have been mixed.
- One state thought that field citations for violations that
can be quickly remedied were very effective. Another state
found that citations got the facilities attention and they
have achieved compliance 55% of the time.
- One state, however, did not think that "field NOVs"
resulted in much of a response from permitted facilities.
Another state indicated it used citations in the past but
not now because there was some concern about the lack of
supervisory review as to whether a violation occurred.
Local Publicity of repeated/flagrant non-compliance
o States using local publicity against facilities with a
record of repeated/flagrant non-compliance found it to be a
useful tool and to have a positive deterrent effect.
- One state indicated that the permittees appear to be
bothered by the press release accompanying their orders more
than by the actual fine.
-------
Q7.7:
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
.12
13
14
15
Does your state provide teqbnical assistance to minor
municipal facilities? if yes, please briefly describe
the types of assistance you provide:
Phone calls or site visits to offer them instructions for
improvement treatment efficiencies, trouble shooting and
locating funding sources for plant improvements.
T.A. only provided during inspections - no structured
technical assistance currently provided.
Site visits, samplingt recommended corrective action &
better process control.
Comptrain assistance, general TA for field inspection.
Treatment process evaluations, training, financial
management training, special study projects.
Process control, plant evaluations, laboratory
techniques, DMR preparation and reporting, pollution
prevention.
Diagnostic, trouble-shooting and operational assistance.
Wastewater treatment plant consultants provide technical
assistance.
PA participates in the Operator Outreach Program. PA
used part-time instructors who are POTW certified
operators. This has been an effective program.
The statewide technical assistance section provides
assistance, as needed.
104 (G) specific on site assistance, user charge review,
process control assistance, technical support of
collection system review for infiltration/inflow.
We have the outreach Operator Assistance Program in our
St. Paul office and the Community Assistance Program
(CAP) in our regional offices. The Outreach program
concentrates its efforts in the areas of facility
operation, maintenance and management. The CAP program
is broader in scope in that it
Operator assistance training (104G program) including
laboratory analysis and operation and maintenance and
trouble shooting.
Training classes conducted by KDHE employees and contract
employees. Kansas environmental training system which
provides on-sits system evaluation and training.
-------
16
17
18
19
20
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
34
35
37
38
See attachment A.
To municipal facilities but not minor private sewage
facilities. A circuit rider concept is underway to
assist by another state agency with our initial
assistance.
More from enforcement. It may jepordize the case.
Simple on-site review and suggestion. We also operate a
training program Murfreesboro for operators. We do
limited extensive tech asst. thru our grant.
Wastewater staff provide some instruction on operation &
maintenance for municipal treatment plants. Wisconsin
also administers an operator certification program &
requires that municipal treatment plant operators pass
examinations and become certified.
1) State revolving loan fund 2) community development
block grants 3) audits are performed under the municipal
wastewater pollution prevention program. Audit reports
make recommendations for improvements needed in
operation/maintenance/facility upgrade.
MADEP — Office of Technical Assistance & Training works
with WWTP operators to remedy treatment problems.
Municipal OSM inspections, lab Q/A.
Operations,
prevention.
financial and management pollution
Municipal O & M inspections, lab Q/A, O & M Q/A.
Troubleshooting, training (operations section).
Municipal O/M inspections.
Inspections with recommendations to improve performance.
Assistance in plant operations, and utility management.
Advice over the phone, operator training and
presentations.
In previous years technical assistance was provided but
in more recent times we are focusing on a regulatory
role. Tecchnical expertise is maintained so we are able
to if planned corrective action is appropriate.
CPE's O & M inspections, user charge reviews, onsite
training, phone advice & information. Construction plan
reviews are required.
-------
48
50
40 Diagnostic evaluation, hands on training, workshops,
educational materials.
41 All kinds of training, out real activities routinely.
43 State law prohibits providing technical assistance.
44. state does evaluate and help resolve technical problems.
45 By response to questions/problems regional district staff
facilities construction operation staff.
46 N/A.
47 Actual ori-site assistance which consists of 3 to 4 fine
day evacuating the plans and the performance limiting
factors. Follow up constant and visits are performed for
about 1 to 1 1/2 years after initial evaluation or until
comparison is
Sampling - reporting - violation troubleshooting.
Participate in EPA's small community outreach and
education program & also provide technical ass't when
appropriate and necessary. Also participate in EPA's 104
(G) operator assistance program.
52 Wish they had more resources for this — it's an
important activity for minors. Plant upgrade (to build
or expand) provide extensive help in planning — SRF
Grant — detailed review of engineering plans. So me
operate training lab staff goes out to work with
operators — lab audits for problems. 305 (G) — int
55 Operator trainee will visit facilities to offer help and
assistance to the. operator.
57 Three operator trainees and one MWPP coordinator.
58 Through outreach program 104 (G) 1; through state
operator training program — rural water association
outreach; state plan and spec review.
59 Two full time staff provide operator assistance to small
to medium municipalities.
60 Operator training — trouble shooting operations —
operations & maintenance. Preventive maintenance —
certification — education.
61 Laboratory & on-the-job training.
63 Known primarily on municipal — selover to describe.
-------
64 Region directs muni discharges to the same resources as
the state — RWA. Outreach TWOQ (1040); state operator
program.
-------
Q7.8:
02
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
22
; What factors determine which minor facilities receive
assistance?
Chronic violation, lack of technical expertise and/or
funding. ...
Severity of problem and environmental impact.
Brand new plants (2-3 years old) , plants that are too
relative compliance. Request by facility for help.
Noncompliance, permit commitment to implement technical
assistance recommendations, operator turnover.
Willingness of owners to support program and operational
staff, ongoing upgrade of facility.
Compliance status and whether or not it involves a
treatment facility.
Need & availability of consultants.
Compliance status, operational status, and interest by
the facility in the program.
Compliance need is associated with operation, assistance
requested by operator and/or municipality and assessment
of compliance benefit from assistance.
1. Compliance status. 2. Ability for training and
assistance to achieve improvements. 3. Willingness of
operators and decision-makers to participate. 4.
Enforcement activity. 5. Construction status.
History of noncompliance, recommendation by inspections
& enforcement.
Current record, previous record, liklihood of success,
precious training conducted, willingness to accept and
act on help provided.
See Attachment A.
Their request and realization of a genuine need.
Their requests, our opinion of whether assistance will
make a difference.
Need of municipality environmental significance and
availability of trained wastewater staff to provide
instruction.
1) Ability to repay loan.
meet permit limits.
2) Need to upgrade plant to
-------
24 Request submitted to TAT supervisor who prioritizes
generally, all requests addressed (municipal facilities
only).
25 Requests from discharges or referrals by state field
staff.
26- License willingness, water basin.
27 Those that need it, violations, and requests.
28 As requested by permittee and try to visit all POTWs at
least once per year.
29 Request from discharger or problem discovered by state
through inspection, DMR review or complaint.
30 Interest, degree of noncorapliance, state resources.
31 N/A.
34- Operating problems, change in process.
35 Noncompliance and/or request by the facility.
37 SNC is the primary eviction that would dictate a routine
site inspection.
38 Noncompliance, regular schedules, operator requests.
39 Noncompliance, improper O & M, new operator.
40 Noncompliance or operational problems that could result
in noncompliance. Facilities with new operators, small
mechanical plants with sludge handling. . .
41 Any minor that indicates and/or we determine may need it.
42 N/A.
44 Requests by municipality.
45 Case by case basis.
46' N/A.
47 District recommendations, plant effluent violations, type
of facility, and unities willing to participate in
assistance.
48 Based on facility's request or its routine submittal of
interior documentation.
50 Whether they request it; their MWPP rating and NPDES
-------
52
55
57
59
60
compliance history.
Time and level of all field person (state inspector).
If there is a history of problems or if a routine
inspection indicates lack of knowledge by the operator.
Requests or MWPP audit report.
DMR results. Noncompliance. Municipal request.
Facility request; regional enforcement/request; t
problem; compliance states; consultant involvementj
issue; etc.
61 Must be less than 5.0 MGD and have general population of
less than 10(000.
62 The magnitude and frequency of the violations.
63 Selection by P&SP assistance after nomination by districts or
special.
64 Loss of operator is biggest factor contributing to poor
operation.
-------
-------
Q8.2: Has the proportion of workyears devoted to minors
remained fairly constant over tbe past 5 years? If not,
bow lias it changed (e.g., increased, decreased, other)?
What factors have caused this change (i.e., new program,
requirements)?
05 Gains made with more general permits but less in field
due to drinking H20 demand.
07 Higher compliance rate for majors has allowed a larger
percentage of enforcement resources on minors.
10 Better compliance by majors has resulted in more time to
spend on minors.
11 issuance of general permits for same categories, e.g.,
cooling water, hydrostratic testing.
13 Majors take less time; they are in compliance more.
17 Added new staff and initiate them on minors plus many
minors have problems needed addressed more so than
majors.
18 Emphasis of course has shifted from trying many
individual permits no other requirements have been arisen
especially all the. What resources previously spent in
issuing min now due to new program requirements being
utilized to meet new concerns.
20 We have increased work effort to reissue major permits
and have discussed work effort on the reissuance of minor
permits to meet EPA's requirement that major permits be
emphasized and reissued on schedule.
21 Staffing increase.
22 Increased staffing and agency development.
24 MADEP will begin devoting more time on minor permits as
a watershed permit program is established; also, time is
devoted to general permit development which will address
a large percentage of minors.
26 Due to legislative mandate to focus on OBD.
27 Some increase on overboard discharges (OBDs) which are
small privately owned sanitary discharge systems in
unsewered coastal areas.
35 Backlog of major permits to be issued and staff turnover
has caused a decrease.
37 In recent times EPA has expressed concerns with our
-------
permit backlog of majors (20%) and the division is trying
to focus more resources on this item.
40 Greater amount of time required to write major permits.
44 Decreased due to demands from new programs.
45 More general permits data put onto permits database.
46 Reduction in staff due to budget cuts, increased program
activities.
48 Decreased funding. Development of water quality based
permit limits for major " facilities. Development of
toxicity limits. Need to develop compliance schedules
for attainment of WQB limits. Development of storm water
program.
50 More professional staff; changes in program priorities;
budgetary changes.
52 Amount of time spent on major permits has dramatically
increased, resulting in less time for minors; SEA
agreements requiring elimination of major permit backlog.
53 Several A2 minors are good/straightforward targets for AD
and/or APO.
54 Several AZ minors are good targets for ADS and/or APOS.
57 The national municipal policy/charged bacteria
requirements/municipal toxicity strategy/public
awareness. •
58 Change of emphasis away from monitoring POTWs. State
monies from EPA and other sources go for other
priorities.
60 Budgetary changes; changes in program priorities; new
state/federal program requirements; introduction of more
effluent management technique/tools.
63 Plan to shift to minors in coming years.
-------
Q9.3: What has been the impact of this approach on your permit
issuance/reissuance program (e.g., how/where are
resources obtained, keeping major/minor permits current,
what are some common barriers to implementation)?
03' Caused us to let minor permits remain expired - waiting for
their year to come up (for the 1st round). Currently, we are
in Basin l of 5, during the 1st go around.
04
05
07
08
09
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
Entities such as large cities would have to complete numeric
applications within the same relatively short time period.
Total basin permit issuance at the same time requires too much
in streams/fieId data to implement at same time and requires
too much time. Creates backlog of unissued permits. Our
major backlog is zero and the minors is very low.
N/A
Approach has added to workload. Permit expiration dates have
been timed in accordance with the completion of basin plans.
When basin plans fall behind schedule, permits need to be
extended/reissued.
Basin wide permitting is being done at a rate of 1—2 basins
per year.
Appeals and admendments due to changes in Mode 1 and input
data resource intensive. Enforcement and permitting priorities
not always compatabile.
The targeted watershed approach in Illinois is not a system
where all resources are directed to a given watershed in a
particular year. Watersheds can be targeted for specific
actions which may include permit review, nonpoint source
control, intensified or specialized mentoring, etc.
N/A
Permit manpower increase permits outside of target basin need
corrections/updating barrier is the volume of minors
(Indiana's first basin has 90% minor permits)
None yet not implemented • •
N/A ; "
N/A -
None
The permitting process has become much more complex time
consuming and contentions with the emphasis on toxics bio-
-------
21
22
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
35
37
38
39
40
monitoring antidegradation anti backsliding sludge
requirements, etc. We have had to put much more time into our
major permit re issuance process and have had many of our major
permit adjudicated. . .
Some extra resources are required.
Using this approach leads to more consistency of permits
within selected areas. A barrier to the use of this approach
is the commitment of resources to develop it.
Madep feels that this approach will facilitate the issuance
(mostly re-issuance) of minor. Permit; new office has been
formed (Office of Watershed Management) to address water
quality issues (including permits) on a watershed basis.
N/A too soon to tell
Reorienting priorities, one barrier would be reviewing
licenses which have not yet expired, if licensee chooses to
not reapply.
N/A
N/A too soon to tell -
Have delayed permit reissuance in areas based on anticipation
of watershed appro in near future. Staff resources must be
reallocated from permit issuance for programs rule development
Needs of pore resources
We are working with th PR environmental quality board, in
early implementation a base implants-some permits are extended
for a-few years.
Since we. are just-implementing/developing a watershed approach
there hasn't been much of an impact. Major impact so far has
been coordinating the permit expiration dates within the basin
combinations while trying to implement water quality based
permitting.
No shift has been done for permitting to this point. The
major focus beginning in 1992 was an intensive monitoring one,
data gathering for 1 basin. Resources are limited and the
remaining basins can likely not be properly accommodated.
Common bariers-process of issuance gets slowed way down on
srmits-gets them off schedule.
(~ommon oairxexs—pirovess 01 ±&»ua.nvtn <
some permits-gets them off schedule.
None
None yet
-------
41 No significant impact. Permits have to be issued and/or
renewed every five (5) years anyway. Not a particular problem
yet.
43 Because we are only now beginning a few pilot studies to
explore watershed approach.
47' Basin plan initially increased resources because more permits
issued in a shorter time to get on the basin cycle conducting
field studies and doing wasteloads easy with basin cycle
because synercism of resources.
48 Keeping minor permits current has been difficult due to the
large number of permits and the enormous amount of time
involved in the development of water quality based limits for
majors. Recent surge in issuance of permits to groundwater
remediation projects.
55 No impact at this time
59 We reallocated resources from existing programmatic approach
as follows: 70% watershed approach; 30%-new facility & high
priority outliners. Not all permits (especially minors) will
be kept current especially during transition phase (next 5
years). Barriers include lack of resources and information.
60 All permits-majors and minors- receive the same treatment
(i.e. reviewed against the same criteria). NYS committed to
watershed approach 10 years ago. We made a committment to
provide resources biggest barrier to "accurate" implimination
is a good lack of good source (load) and ambient data for
61 Being considered.
62 Being considered.
64 Region looks at 2-3 muni permits that would not have otherwise
received attention.
65 No impact at this time; however, future may adversely impact
due to time constraints and resource limitations. . ..".
-------
-------
SECTION lit CUSTOMER QUESTIONS
l. What current EPA management /policy approaches do you find
most helpful in managing minors?
Response rate: 50% (28/56 state questionnaires)
o " States listed the following EPA management/policy approaches
as the most helpful in managing minors:
greater flexibility, more responsibility and limited
oversight on the part of EPA Regional Office for minors
(9 states)
- financial support and technical assistance for
pollution prevention programs, technical transfer
workshops, and Operator Technical Assistance grants (6
• states)
the use of general permits for minors (3 states)
increased funding and resources for states to use for
managing minors (2 states)
o A few (4) states responded that they were unaware of any
specific EPA policies regarding minors.
Qll.2 Are there any aspects of EPA policies that impede your
effective management of minors?
Response rate: 64% (36/56 states questionnaires)
States listed the following EPA policies that impeded their
effective management of minors:
.o EPA puts too much emphasis on NPDES majors at the expense of
minors. (14 states)
- EPA requirements for annual inspections, issuance of
permits (reducing majors backlog), and rigid oversight
for all majors makes it difficult for states to focus
resources on minors.
EPA generally does not re-issue permits to non-
municipal minors (non-delegated states).
o EPA policies are too stringent for minors. (5 states)
refusal to allow for 10% rule for TMDL"development,
resistance to lower DO standards for small streams,
use of design capacity rather than actual or
anticipated flow),
- EPA civil penalty policy tends to produce unreasonably
high penalty figures for some minors,
limitations established for minors with low flows into
intermittent streams are often so stringent that
-------
municipality can not afford the necessary treatment
that would guaranttee consistent compliance, .
5 year permit requirements, suggest lifetime permits
EPA policy does not allow descretion to waive permit
for minors that are unlikely to have water quality
impact
o EPA needs to provide states with some flexibility/less
oversight in addressing major/minor dischargers (2 states).
through the states' implementation of a watershed-based
approach,
less attention to details, focus more on big picture
There were a number, of other responses that did not fall
into one of the above categories (8 states):
(i.e., EPA policy of requiring states to adopt new
types of criteria & policies without providing
technical guidance or funding necessary to effectively
implement them (e.g., water quality based limits for
metals)
list of others are included in appendix
o Seven states (7) indicated that their were no aspects of EPA
policies that impeded their management of minors.
Qll.3. What could EPA do to help you improve your management of
minors?
States offered the following suggestions on what EPA could
do to improve states' management of minors:
o Provide more funding to states to hire sufficient staff to
handle workload for regulating both minors and majors (e.g.,
to perform PCIs for minors every year, contractor assistance
to draft permits) (12 states).
o Provide more funding and effort to improve PCS as.a
'management tool and make it more user-friendly (7 states).
enhance its capability to conduct automated compliance
"determinations for minors.
provide more resources for obtaining optical scanners
for all DMR submittals and inspections.
o Encourage states to use general permits for-minors by
providing more funding and guidance (6 states).
o Encourage the use of other permitting approaches for minors,
(i.e., 10 year or extended permits, model permitting,.joint
EPA/state permits) (5 states).
o Assign priorities or allow states the flexibility to set
-------
priorities for majors/minors based on the assimilative
capabilities of water bodies and the strength of effluent,
effluent type, pollutant load, presence of toxics.. In
addition, reassess reporting frequencies and focus DMR
review and data entry into PCS on critical permits and
parameters (4 states).
"Avoid 'finger pointing' tracking of actions
(exceptions lists) so that appropriate actions which
don't waste time can be taken which will free up time
for minors."
less overview on majors would free up more staff time
for review of minors (reduce number of majors by
redef ing who is a maj'or) ;
o Continue to provide support for Operators Assistance
Training program and technical assistance on pollution
prevention and innovative technologies (4 states).
provide financial assistance to poor communities for
facility improvement
provide guidance outlining best management practices
for general categories of minors;
o Other responses included (2 states):
study the causes, cures and cost benefits of
infiltration/inflow problems and solutions;
distribute any ideas for streamlining minors management
that EPA is aware of that have worked out in other
states.
Qll.4 What issues or areas do you think EPA should consider for
more in-depth study as a follow-up to this survey?
Only 23 .out of 56 states responded to this question. There
were a variety of responses to this question, but the four most
frequent were:
o Consider modifying the EPA Major/Minor Classification system
to allow states the flexibility to deal with significant
minors .(1 states)
"modify EPA's historical emphasis on majors and explore
the possibility that minors may have more impact than
majors"
"approaches for evaluating and categorizing minors
using simple approaches to make a decision whether or
not water quality limits need to be considered"
"...each state should be allowed to select 5% of its
permit population as majors and get away from some of
the artificial criteria currently used to select
minors"
"feasibility of allowing states more flexibility in the
-------
issuance of discharge permits which are more
representative of the actual receiving waterbody
protection"
"EPA should consider developing alternative SKC
criteria for minors, especially for industrial
permittees, where permit parameters, effluent limits
and monitoring frequencies are so varied, the use of
current SNC criteria to determine compliance rates are
not appropriate and are certainly not being
consistently applied throughout the regions."
EPA should explore and/or encourage alternative permitting
strategies and compliance.monitoring techniques (i.e.,
general permits, de-minimus dischargers exemption, exclusion
by wavier, automated DMR data submittal) (6 states).
• "stop just fooling around with the issue"
Evaluate/Recognize state funding needs to manage NPDES
minors (6 states)
"provide additional resources, ear-marked specifically
for minor permits management (e.g., 106 grants)"
Other responses included:
"encourage technology transfer between [sic] states"
"provide state personnel and minor facilities with
training on lab procedures, record-keeping, and
reporting"
"collection of representative data from a sample of
minor facilities to validate responses to this survey
which is based primarily on judgement and perception of
problems." .
"focus on databases"
"consider funding a status survey of all minors"
"the impact of subsurface systems with dischargers"
Qll.5 Please add any additional
Only 7 responses out of 56 forms received.
Comments included:
Minors should receive more attention because: they may have
greater aggregate impact than majors, minor compliance rates
are lower tha majors, majors have benefitted from regulatory
attention, most dischargers are to large bodies of water
and, therefore, have less effect on them than any minor
-------
If EPA would allow states more flexibility to regulate minor
facilities, states could spend more time on minor
permitting, inspections, technical assistance, out-reach and
enforcement such .that compliance rates for minor facilities
would increase
We do not need more draft interim final guidance documents
on how to handle minors. The states know how as EPA hardly
recognizes their existence, they are in no position to
provide guidance. Recognition of water pollution problems
by minors and a goal to do something about it needs to be
emphasized.
Permit fees and additional resources are need before [state]
can better address minors.
We are trying to bolster staff resources to do a little
better job on the whole program, particularly the minors
which are neglected now.
EPA should assess environmental impacts from categories of
minor facilities in order to enhance the tributary strategy
approach to improving water quality.
-------
-------
D. ADDITIONAL GRAPHS/TABLES
-------
-------
w CJ
•sf&ft
•*• _•
tS 5
-J S
_i ™ ^5.
§ *^
- »«4 (M "^
' rf-t- *«. ^-
a^?
8 e*
*• « S
5.a g
««s:a
v
•*J*
bp-
8* 8 |
I 111
w>
W3
£
ill
I|^I
I
'£
2
£
fill |
Hjll
-------
Graph D2
25
20 j
i
55 10
* 5
25
20
I15
« 10
* 5
0
Estimated Impact on Water Quality by Pollutant Type:
Municipal Minon
25
19
13
Conventional
Toxics
Pollutant Type
Multiple facilities
I Limited impact B Some impact D Significant impact
Estimated Impact on Water Quality by Pollutant Type:
Non-Municipal Sewage Minors
Conventional
Toxics
Pollutant Type
Multiple facilities
Limited Impact • Some Impact D Significant Impact
Estimates of Impact on Water Quality by Pollutant:
Non-Municipal Non-Sewage Minors
18
Conventional
Toxics
Pollutant Type
I Limited Impact • Some Impact
Multiple facilities
D Significant Impact
-------
2
bo
I
en
CA
V
*J
CR
60
5
••8
1
*
&
l»
I
E
A
I
D
JB
-------
-------
CO
Ul
V)
n
£i
S
CO
UJ
UJ
0)
R>
UJ
UJ
_l
UJ
a>
00
CO
UJ
fl)
D.
CO
CD
(*)
(A
0)
O)
in
to
0>
UJ
CD
CM
in
CM
in
coj
«
o
O
(6
03
CO
0)
CO
O
0)
+•'
-------
-------
5 «
s
.2 -a
«
§ £
t—t
_L **«
0 °
s I
-------
-------
en
E
O
u
M-l
o
s
Z
I
a>
I
u
'E
3 .
i
n
~* O)
'? ~
0
«3
fr.
O
i
-------
C4
•o
1
&.
IS
*• *^4
fia
^ s
5 -a
.
i
I
S
c §
e 1
01 S
§ i
IO
S g
-------
-------
------- |