*>¦ v.
Permitting for Environmental Results (PER)
1321
%PR0^°
NPDES Profile: Ohio
PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITY
State of Ohio: NPDES authority for base program, pretreatment, general permitting, federal facilities,
biosolids (sewage sludge)
EPA Region 5: NPDES authority for biosolids (land application of septage and incineration of sewage
sludge)
Program Integrity Profile
This profile characterizes key components of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program, including program administration and implementation, environmental outcomes, enforcement, and
compliance. EPA considers profiles to be an initial screen of NPDES permitting, water quality, enforcement,
and compliance programs based on self-evaluations by the States and a review of national data. EPA will use
the profiles to identify program strengths and opportunities for enhancements. For more information please
contact Eric Nygaard, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, (614) 644-2024, or Peter Swenson, EPA
Region 5, (312) 886-0236.
Section I. Program Administration
1. Resources and Overall Program Management
The State of Ohio:
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) was granted authority to administer various parts
of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program on the following
dates:
Base NPDES permit program March 11, 1974
Authorization to regulate federal facilities January 28, 1983
Pretreatment program authorization July 27, 1983
General permits program authorization August 17, 1992
Sewage sludge program authorization March 16, 2005
Ohio's NPDES program is operated by OEPA's Division of Surface Water, one of eight programmatic
divisions. The NPDES program is budgeted into three main program areas: 1) the NPDES permit and
compliance program; 2) the stormwater program; and 3) the water quality program. The NPDES permit
and compliance program includes all permit and compliance activities (including modeling to support
permit development), data management, and legal support for the direct discharge, pretreatment, sewage
sludge, and agricultural programs. The stormwater program includes all stormwater activities related to
permits and compliance, data management, and legal support, etc. The water quality program
encompasses the water quality standards (WQS) program, including water quality assessment activities
done in support of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) program and water quality assessment
-1-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
activities required under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Such activities include modeling support for
TMDLs and stream assessment work done for biological and chemical attainment. While these activities
often support NPDES permits, they are budgeted separately as water quality activities.
The total budget for the three NPDES program areas (NPDES permit and compliance, stormwater, and
water quality) includes administrative costs, direct personnel, rent, equipment, etc.). The full time
equivalent (FTE) personnel totals for NPDES, stormwater, and water quality listed below include
administrative FTEs allocated to each program.
The State fiscal year (SFY) 2004 budget for administering the NPDES program consists of 83.5 FTEs
and approximately $8.6 million for NPDES; 18.9 FTEs and approximately $1.7 million for stormwater;
and 57.8 FTEs and approximately $6.8 million for Water Quality. A portion of the budget funds
activities of the OEPA laboratory.
OEPA's Division of Surface Water operates out of five district offices and a central office (CO). The
CO staff for the NPDES program is primarily focused on program administration, drafting major
NPDES permits, data management, modeling and related chemical sampling, WQS development/rules,
enforcement (including attorneys, administrative permit processing, and monthly operating report data
entry), and quality assurance/quality control for the State's Surface Water Information Management
System (SWIMS) and EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS). CO's Ecological Assessment Section
conducts a majority of the biological evaluations and coordinates most seasonal field work.
District Office staff primarily handle compliance inspections, complaints, enforcement case
development/support, minor NPDES permit drafting, water quality assessments, and chemical sampling
needed to support the field survey and TMDL programs. No major changes to the program have
occurred in the past year.
The following is a breakdown of OEPA's universe of permitted facilities:
The number of staff members employed since receiving NPDES program authorization generally kept
pace with the growth in the NPDES program responsibilities until the late 1990s. In the late 1990s,
however, OEPA experienced a shortfall in inspections and permits due to staffing levels. OEPA
estimates that at least 100 FTEs are needed to meet its base program needs in the NPDES area alone.
Since 2000, OEPA's FTE numbers have been on a steady decline while there have been significant
responsibilities added in the TMDL and stormwater programs. For example, the number of FTEs
allocated to the NPDES program was reduced from 90.3 in SFY 2001 to 83.5 FTEs in SFY 2005. At the
Major NPDES permits
Minor NPDES permits
Non-stormwater general permits
Non-stormwater permittees under general permits
Municipal stormwater individual permits
Stormwater construction general permits
Stormwater construction facilities
Stormwater industrial general permits
Stormwater industrial facilities
Municipal stormwater general permits
13,242
1
2,501
2
296
2,857
4
758
4
1
-2-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
same time, OEPA has been working to eliminate its permit backlog, while continuing to address needs
in the stormwater and TMDL programs. In the Water Quality program, which includes TMDL
development, resources decreased from 66.0 FTEs in SFY 2001 to 59 FTEs in SFY 2005. Budget
constraints have resulted in fewer staff and an inability to replace experienced staff when they leave.
The percentage of overall funding for the NPDES program which is supported by federal grants is lower
today than when the program was first authorized in the 1970s. Currently, approximately one third of
the program funding is from federal grants, one third from the general revenue fund, and one third from
fees. OEPA expects that in the next State biennium budget, significant reductions in the State general
revenue fund will occur due to continued shortfalls in tax receipts.
EPA Region 5:
Until OEPA was authorized to implement the sewage sludge (biosolids) programs within Ohio in March
2005, EPA Region 5 carried out direct implementation activities in the sewage sludge program.
The NPDES Programs Branch has approximately 0.25 FTEs committed to direct implementation of the
sewage sludge program in Ohio. This staffing is adequate for the current work being done (assistance,
regulation review, program approval review).
Ohio recently passed legislation that allows for the collection of fees to implement the federal program.
The Ohio Attorney General has submitted a statement that the State has adequate authority to implement
the federal sewage sludge program. On May 12, 2004, the Governor of Ohio submitted an application to
implement the federal sewage sludge program, except for incineration and land application of septage.
Region 5 determined that the application was complete and gave final program approval on March 16,
2005.
The Region has not seen any permit writer staff turnover in recent years. To ensure that quality permits
continue to be written, additional staff members are currently being trained by the senior staff.
2. State Program Assistance
Region 5 provided significant assistance in helping Ohio obtain sewage sludge (biosolids) program
approval. Region 5 provided contract assistance to review Ohio's existing program, which helped
identify areas of the program which needed to be updated. The Region worked with Ohio to update the
identified areas, including State rules, and helped OEPA in developing its sewage sludge program
application. Region 5 determined that the application was complete and gave final program approval on
March 16, 2005.
3. EPA Activities in Indian Country
Not applicable because there are currently no federally recognized Tribes in Ohio.
4. Legal Authorities
EPA is conducting a comprehensive review of the State's legal authorities. This review has not yet been
completed. As a result, EPA is reserving this section of the profile; when the legal reviews are complete, EPA
will update profiles to include the results of the reviews.
-3-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
There is one active withdrawal petition in Ohio. This petition deals with issues related to CAFO
permitting and enforcement and was filed in 2000 by Neighbors Against Pollution and Citizens for
Putnam County for Clean Air and Water.
5. Public Participation
An evaluation of the State's legal authorities regarding public participation will be included in the legal
authority review. As noted above, the legal authority review section of this profile is reserved pending
completion of the legal authority review.
The State of Ohio:
Ohio statutes mandate public participation, while regulations contained in the Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC) contain public participation requirements. The basic requirements for public participation are
contained in OAC Sections 3745-47. These procedural rules identify the requirements for permit fact
sheets, public notices, certified mailings, public hearings, and other such activities. Additional
regulations such as title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 124 and OAC 3745-1-05
antidegradation rules provide more project-specific requirements.
While there is no specific definition of what constitutes the "public" in OEPA statutes or regulations,
OAC 3745-47 defines "person" as: "(T)he State of Ohio or any agency thereof, the federal government
or any agency thereof, any other State or agency thereof, any interstate agency, any municipal
corporation, political subdivision, public or private corporation, individual, partnership, or other entity."
Depending on the complexity or controversy associated with a project, OEPA public notices up to five
times at different stages during the issuance of an NPDES permit. Most NPDES permit projects require
two to three public notices. The procedure includes public noticing of application, issuance of
draft/proposed permit action, public hearing application, public hearing of the draft permit, and final
permit action. All draft and final NPDES permit actions are public noticed, while other notices are done
on a case-by-case basis. All notices provide information related to the project, the status of the project in
the permitting process, where the public can obtain further information related to the project, where and
when comments should be submitted, or, if the action taken is a final issuance, appeal rights. Every
public notice generated by the agency is made available to the general public through a number of
media. All public notices are: (1) printed in the newspaper with the greatest circulation within the
county where the project is located, (2) printed in the Weekly Review, which is a circular developed by
OEPA to which individuals can subscribe, and (3) made available on OEPA's Web site,
http://www.epa.state.oh.us. OEPA is investigating the possibility of providing such public notices via
e-mail in the future.
OEPA also maintains a mailing list for certain projects and mails notices to interested parties, including
citizens, other government agencies, environmental groups, citizen groups, and anyone who requests
notice or information related to NPDES permits.
OEPA conducts public hearings when there is "significant public interest" related to an NPDES project.
No standard in regulation or statute states what constitutes "significant public interest." In general,
OEPA conducts public hearings on NPDES permit projects if there is any documented public interest. A
public hearing is mandatory for all permit actions based on new permit applications or increased activity
-4-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
in higher quality waters in Ohio such as Outstanding National Resource Waters, Outstanding State
Waters, or Superior High Quality Waters as categorized in the Antidegradation Rules.
OEPA receives a transcript of the comments and testimony during public hearing and provides written
responses to all issues raised before issuing a final permit. In addition, Ohio reviews and responds to all
public comments received during the written comment period and will not issue a final permit until all
comments are evaluated and a response is generated.
Most of the records OEPA generates or receives are open to the public. The exceptions to the definition
of "public records" under Ohio law include documents relating to enforcement, attorney-client
communication, trial preparation, and law enforcement investigatory records. The exceptions to the
definition of "public records" are narrower than those under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
All "public records" are available for public review and most of these are available at OEPA's field
offices and CO. Individuals have full access to all documents related to a permitting activity and may
request documents on public hearing, notices, comments, etc. If a project is complex or controversial,
OEPA may also create a repository of information pertaining to that NPDES application within the
community where the project may be located. This is usually the case only when a public hearing is
being held on the project. A written summary of questions and OEPA responses (called the
responsiveness summary) is prepared for each hearing and mailed to all attendees of the hearing and to
the interested party mailing list. Copies are also available on request.
Ohio's antidegradation rules are contained within Ohio's WQS and play a role in the permitting process
whenever OEPA receives an application requesting an increase in or a new discharge of pollutants. For
such projects, the antidegradation rules provide for additional or more explicit public participation
activities than those specified above. The rules require public notice of the receipt of the application in a
local newspaper; development of an informational fact sheet informing the public of the proposed
activity and how they may become involved; first class mail delivery of all notices or fact sheets
pertaining to a given project to an extensive interested parties mailing list maintained by OEPA; public
hearings for any activities on "exceptional" quality waters; and additional intergovernmental
coordination activities. The rules specify these additional activities because the proposed project will be
a "new" discharge of pollutants, and OEPA feels that additional input from the general public is
warranted.
Of Ohio's permits, approximately 120 major NPDES permits and 9 minor permits are available on
EPA's Web site. Instructions for accessing these documents are available at
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/permitdocuments.
EPA Region 5:
The Region follows the public participation requirements found at 40 CFR sections 123.61-501.31. The
Region sends public notice to all persons on the mailing lists provided by the appropriate State agencies.
Copies of the public notice are posted on the Region's Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/npdestek/notices.htm.
-5-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
6. Permit Issuance Management Strategy
The State of Ohio:
OEPA successfully met the national goal to reduce the backlog of expired permits to 10% by July 2003.
Since that time, the numbers have fluctuated somewhat, but the backlog has consistently been about
10%. The State issues major and significant minor permits on a watershed basis and implemented
the following four major categories of process improvements to accomplish the national goal:
(1) integration of the TMDL and NPDES process; (2) increased use of general permits; (3) electronic
permit drafting and data management; and (4) streamlining the permit drafting process.
Major dischargers:
• No major dischargers have permits that have been expired for more than 10 years.
• In July 2003, Ohio accomplished the national goal of having 90% of its permits current (unexpired).
• As of January 7, 2005, 90% of major facilities were covered by current permits1
• Sixteen permits have been expired for over two years.
The State has implemented a five-year basin permitting strategy for major dischargers. Each of OEPA's
districts is divided into five areas, each with a roughly equal number of major permits and roughly equal
number of permits to be issued each year. By adopting a basin approach to permitting, OEPA is able to
conduct modeling and biological work once within a five-year cycle, thereby maximizing the agency's
modeling and biological resources.
Minor dischargers:
• Ninety-four percent of the minor facilities covered by individual permits have current permits.
• When facilities covered by general permits are included, 81.3% of minor facilities are covered by
current permits (one expired general permit covers 505 facilities)2
• Twenty-five minor permits have been expired for over 10 years, and 114 permits have been expired
for over two years.
In addition to the improvements already made, the State plans to adopt the following streamlining
initiatives in the next two years:
• Implement additional improvements to OEPA's electronic permit drafting system to further reduce
the level of effort to renew individual permits.
1 The National Data Sources column of the Management Report, measure 19, shows 86.1% of major facilities covered by
current permits, based on data as of June 30, 2004.
2 The National Data Sources column of the Management Report, measure 20, shows 80.9% of minor facilities covered by
current individual or general permits, based on data from PCS as of June 30, 2004 for individual permits and data from ePIFT
as of March 2004 for general permits. The 81.3%) mentioned above is based on data from PCS as of December 31,2004 and
data on general permits from Ohio's general permit tracking as of February 2005.
-6-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
Issue additional general permits.
Improve various State database systems to allow OEPA to reissue selected minor NPDES permits
with minimal effort while still complying with CWA requirements.
Table 1: Percentage of Facilities Covered by Current Permits in Ohio
2000
Nat'l
Avg.
2001
Nat'l
Avg.
2002
Nat'l
Avg.
2003
Nat'l
Avg.
Major Facilities
69%
74%
71%
76%
81%
83%
87%
84%
Minor Facilities
Covered by Individual
Permits
74%
69%
77%
73%
87%
79%
92%
81%
Minor Facilities
Covered by Individual
or Non-Stormwater
General Permits
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
80%
85%
80%
86%
Source: PCS, 12/31/00; 12/31/01; 12/31/02; 12/31/03 (Values in the National Data Sources column of the Management Report,
measures 19 and 20, are PCS data as of 6/30/04.)
7. Data Management
The State of Ohio:
Ohio utilizes a client-server based software application called State's Surface Water Information
Management System (SWIMS) to maintain information on all regulated NPDES sources. SWIMS
automates the development and issuance of NPDES permits and their compliance screening for all Ohio
NPDES permitted dischargers. The data generated from this software includes permit requirements,
application information, and monitoring data for both traditional major and traditional minor permittees.
SWIMS also allows electronic submission of individual permit discharge monitoring report (DMR)
data. Effluent monitoring required by general permittees is currently not tracked electronically.
Improvements to SWIMS are underway to allow OEPA to track all notices of intent (NOIs) and any
effluent monitoring data for non-stormwater general permits.
OEPA currently requires that sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) be reported as unauthorized discharges.
Many publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) report these to OEPA's spill database under this
paragraph of the permit. Not all POTWs realize, however, that this paragraph applies to SSOs. To
clarify this, as of July 1, 2004, OEPA began including specific SSO reporting and public notification
requirements in all reissued NPDES permits. Ohio is also actively working with an external advisory
group to address SSOs and satellite systems (those collection systems owned and operated by an entity
that does not own or operate a wastewater treatment plant, but which are tributary to a wastewater
treatment plant owned or operated by another entity). OEPA plans to issue a permit to cover satellite
systems in spring 2005. The data required by these permits will be entered into SWIMS. Ohio believes
that these activities will dramatically increase its ability to address SSO problems in the State.
-7-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
OEPA utilizes several smaller local databases to manage programs not yet covered by SWIMS. These
databases include general permits, pretreatment, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
biosolids, compliance inspections, enforcement actions, and combined sewer overflow (CSO) report
tracking. Ohio intends to incorporate these data into SWIMS in the future.
SWIMS has the capability to contain all data relating to general permits. Ohio has entered all non-
stormwater general permits into SWIMS. The following information can be tracked electronically for
the NOIs entered into SWIMS: permittee name, address, and contact; facility/site name, location and
contact; receiving waters of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4); general permit coverage
being sought; start/end dates of projects and acreage disturbed (for construction); square miles of
drainage area (for MS4s); and fee information. Ohio is very diligent in continually improving SWIMS.
SWIMS data are up-to-date and are readily available to OEPA staff. SWIMS data can be easily retrieved
and provided to interested parties. Ohio emphasizes the importance of the accuracy of the data entered
into SWIMS and submitted to PCS, and has a continuing quality improvement effort. Recent
improvements include interface changes between SWIMS and PCS, development of a new hard-copy
screening tool, and initiation of a self-monitoring quality assurance report. In addition, the State's
performance with respect to entering Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data into PCS
in a complete, timely manner has consistently been excellent. Several data elements, including
latitude/longitude data for facilities and pipes, however, are not consistently transmitted to PCS. Ohio
has submitted a grant proposal to EPA for assistance in improving the types of data and how the data is
transmitted to PCS. Ohio is optimistic that this grant proposal will be accepted and that these
improvements will be completed over the next several years.
Ohio collects latitude and longitude data at both the facility and pipe level, primarily through permit
application requirements. Ohio has initiated a project to have OEPA's staff collect latitude and longitude
data and associated metadata using global positioning system (GPS) units for outfall location, sampling
location, and facility location for all individual NPDES permitted facilities. All NPDES facilities are
expected to have accurate latitude and longitude data within two years.
OEPA plans to interface with Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES) in the future.
OEPA is placing chemistry data into EPA's Storage and Retrieval System (STORET). Currently, Ohio
is working to get all legacy data (pre-Oracle) into STORET v2.0. The State will be sending additional
updates once the legacy data is in and quality assured. As with many other States, biological data is still
not being uploaded to STORET.
EPA Region 5:
The Region uses PCS to track all biosolids data required in the annual report for Class 1 and major
facilities. The Region provides preprinted DMRs for these facilities. This helps to facilitate the data-
entry process. Not all facilities use the preprinted form or complete the form in its entirety, however,
slowing the data entry process and possibly creating erroneous reporting or numeric violations.
-8-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
Section II. Program Implementation
1. Permit Quality
The State of Ohio:
SWIMS has a number of tools that improve both quality and timeliness of NPDES permits. The permit
writers can choose a set of default parameters that are specific to the type of discharge or industrial
category, and can use the SWIMS application to add requirements such as compliance schedules and
toxicity testing requirements.
OEPA has developed the following two models to calculate wasteload allocations (WLAs) for
conservative pollutants.
• The Conservative Substance Wasteload Allocation (CONSWLA) model is used most often in
streams with multiple discharge points. The State has a spreadsheet model to allocate loads to
individual dischargers. This model contains tables of water quality criteria (WQC) and calculates
WLAs for all designated uses.
• The standard program calculates the projected effluent quality values and compares this to the WLA
to determine the pollutant discharge limits.
For dischargers within the Great Lakes basin, OEPA develops water quality-based effluent limits
(WQBELs) for toxic pollutants and for whole effluent toxicity (WET) consistent with the procedures in
the Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System" ("Great Lakes Guidance" 40 CFR Part
132). This includes procedures for determining when there is reasonable potential that pollutants in a
permittee's discharge are present at levels that will cause or contribute to a WQS violation (including
WET) and therefore require the development of a limit; procedures to account for background
concentrations of pollutants in the development of permit limits; and procedures to address situations in
which discharges are to impaired water bodies for which a TMDL has not yet been established. EPA
disapproved the State's proposed procedures relating to determining "reasonable potential" for WET
and subsequently over-promulgated procedures consistent with the Great Lakes Guidance. The State is
required to follow these procedures. OEPA issues permits with WET monitoring requirements and acute
and chronic WET limits using reasonable potential procedures in the Lake Erie basin in accordance with
federal guidance.
OAC Chapter 3745-2 includes detailed procedures that OEPA follows in implementing water quality
based requirements for chemical-specific pollutant parameters and WET in NPDES permits, including
the determination of reasonable potential, the development of WQBELs, and how in-stream
concentrations of pollutants are factored into the calculation of effluent limits.
According to State rules, OEPA's director may consider biological assessment data in addition to
chemical-specific or WET data when evaluating the reasonable potential for environmental impacts
from a permitted discharge. Based on bioassessment information, the director may choose to a) derive a
site-specific criterion; b) establish limits consistent with the attainment of the designated use; or c) not
apply a chemical specific or WET criterion in the form of an effluent limit in a permit if OEPA
-9-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
determines that the stream impairment is not due to a given pollutant. In cases b and c above, Ohio's
alternate reasonable potential procedure may result in decisions about inclusion of WQBELs that are
inconsistent with EPA's independent applicability policy.
Permit quality is checked at several levels. All draft permits, majors, and minors are reviewed by the
District Permit Supervisor. In addition, the CO permit processing supervisor randomly selects permits
for staff review. Finally, all permits are reviewed for administrative errors. The results of the quality
review are logged into SWIMS. A District/CO workgroup periodically reviews any errors listed in the
reviews to determine if systemic problems exist that need to be fixed. New permit writing staff are
trained by more experienced staff and attend EPA's permit writers' course. Individual staff have
personalized training plans to address job-specific needs.
Note: In developing the "permit quality" section of the program profile, State permits were not
independently evaluated or compared to a national "standard". Rather, the discussion is based primarily
on an assessment of the quality assurance/quality control procedures established by Ohio and routine
permit quality reviews performed by EPA Region 5.
EPA Region 5:
Region 5 works with the State on a continuing basis to assure that permits implement key program
elements, including proper controls on toxic pollutant parameters such as mercury and WET, CSOs,
CAFO manure and wastewater, and all necessary permit limits based on WLAs. Region 5 reviews a
sample of draft permits each year. In the past year Region 5 reviewed about eight major permits. The
State provides EPA with copies of the permit application, public notice, fact sheet, draft permit, and
supporting documents. Public notices, fact sheets, draft permits, and final issued permits are sent to EPA
for all major dischargers and certain other permits. Region 5 communicates any comments or concerns
to the permit writer on an informal basis. Most issues are addressed in this fashion. In cases where these
cannot be resolved, EPA has the option to formally comment on the permit or file an objection. During
the past year, Region 5 provided a number of recommendations related to CSO permit conditions in
Ohio NPDES permits. The Region has found the State's permit fact sheets to be clear and to contain
complete information, including the bases for limitations and requirements. The Region completes a
review checklist for every permit that is reviewed.
2. Pretreatment
The State of Ohio:
Ohio received authorization to administer the pretreatment program on July 27, 1983. Ohio has
approved 99 local pretreatment programs.3 Many of these programs, such as Cincinnati's Metropolitan
Sewer District and Cleveland's Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, are national leaders and are
regarded as very strong pretreatment programs.
A goal of OEPA's pretreatment program is to permit 100% of significant industrial users (SIUs) with
control mechanisms to implement applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. OEPA's permit
3 The National Data Sources column of the Management Report, measure 8, shows 98 pretreatment programs, based on data
from PCS. The count of 99 pretreatment programs is based on data from Ohio's pretreatment tracking database. Several
facilities in PCS have incorrect entries in the field indicating the status of the pretreatment program. Ohio and Region 7 are
working to reconcile these sources and correct the list in PCS.
-10-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
framework is designed to ensure that permits are issued to all SIUs within the State, regardless of the
POTW's pretreatment program approval status. SIUs discharging to POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs are identified by industrial user surveys. Nearly all of the State's 1,207 SIUs
discharging to POTWs with approved programs and all 174 (known) SIUs that discharge to POTWs
without approved pretreatment programs have control mechanisms, for a total of 1,381 known SIUs in
Ohio.
A highlight of Ohio's program is its strong indirect discharge permit (IDP) program. The Ohio IDP
program permits, monitors, inspects, and provides enforcement to the SIUs that discharge to POTWs
without approved pretreatment programs. OEPA's IDP program identifies new indirect dischargers
through its "permit-to-install" process (which implements an application and State-issued permit
process for industrial facilities to obtain approval to convey or generate wastewater), incidental field
observations, complaint investigations, local newspapers, and local sewer authority referrals. When
resources allow, OEPA intends to conduct a statewide industrial survey to identify new SIUs in non-
pretreatment cities that have not been permitted. With this program, OEPA prevents toxic discharges to
smaller POTWs and thereby reduces the potential of severe environmental harm from these facilities.
OEPA issues permits to new indirect dischargers within six months of application receipt and renewals
within six months of expiration date, maintaining a backlog of less than 10% at all times. CO drafts
IDPs for all districts except for OEPA's Northwest District Office (NWDO). The districts comment on
draft IDPs from CO within a month. CO reviews all IDPs renewed by NWDO.
OEPA follows a thorough inspection checklist and provides follow-up letters that list recommended and
required actions. Notices of violation (NOVs) are sent to any facility in significant non-compliance
(SNC). If repeated violations with environmental consequences occur, the case is referred for
enforcement.
OEPA maintains SWIMS to draft IDPs, store monitoring information, and screen for violations.
SWIMS can electronically accept IDP applications and monitoring data.
• During the five-year period between July 1, 1998, through December 31, 2003, OEPA conducted
permit compliance inspections (PCIs) and/or audits of 86 (87%) pretreatment programs.4 Some were
audited or inspected more than once during this period. Thirty-seven PCIs were conducted during
SFY 2003.
• For approved pretreatment programs with deficiencies, typically an inspection follow-up letter is
sent and the program is allowed 30 days to respond. Pretreatment programs are given from 30 days
to 12 months to correct deficiencies and return to compliance. If the program is still unresponsive,
OEPA pretreatment coordinators have the ability to place these programs on the quarterly non-
compliance report (QNCR) and refer programs for enforcement action. If repeated violations with
environmental consequences occur, the case is referred for Director's Findings and Orders.
4 The National Data Sources column of the Management Report, measure 23, shows 82.7%, or 81 of 98, pretreatment programs
inspected/audited during this time frame. The additional data reflects inspections/audits for two facilities that, for unknown
reasons, did not appear in Envirofacts though they are active in PCS; three inspections/audits that have not yet been entered
into PCS; and the changes in the pretreatment program universe in measure 9 (see above).
-11-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
• OEPA reviewed 100 pretreatment annual reports from the approved programs during SFY 2003. CO
forwards the annual reports to the district staff within a week of receipt. District staff reviews the
annual reports and addresses any deficiencies within 60 days of their receipt of the report and also
addresses them during audits, PCIs, and reconnaissance inspections. CO conducts all technical
reviews of local limit submissions and takes the lead in substantial modifications to sewer use
ordinances, enforcement response plans, local limits, control mechanisms, etc., with significant input
from District Office coordinators. Generally, CO approves new program submissions, with
significant district input, within a year of submission of the program application. CO completes
substantial modifications review within 90 days of receipt with significant input from the District
Office.
• CO forwards all non-substantial modifications to the district within a week of receipt. The district
reviews and sends out a determination letter to the entity within 45 days of the original receipt.
• Ohio inspects 60% of entities with effective State-issued IDPs each year. The district forwards
paperwork of inspections to CO within a month of conducting the inspection.
• All DMRs for indirect discharge permittees are screened for violations and SNC. NOVs are sent to
the entity within 30 days of the reporting deadline. The Districts send a violations/SNC report to CO
at the end of March and September of every year.
3. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
The State of Ohio:
In a 2000 petition, Neighbors Against Pollution and Citizens for Putnam County for Clean Air and
Water alleged OEPA was improperly administering CAFOs. Region 5 reviewed these allegations in the
course of responding to another petition concerning an array of federal environmental programs
administered by Ohio filed in 1997 by the Ohio chapter of the Sierra Club, Ohio Citizen Action, and the
Ohio Environmental Council. This petition was denied in 2003. The Region has been working closely
with the State as it acts to fulfill the commitments that formed the basis for denial of the 1997 petition.
To date, OEPA has inspected all large CAFOs, compelled more than 50 CAFO dischargers to apply for
permits, and has issued two individual and one general permit for CAFOs in January 2005.
The Ohio regulatory program for CAFOs presently is split between OEPA and the Ohio Department of
Agriculture (ODA). ODA issues State installation and operating permits and OEPA issues NPDES
permits. Inspections and enforcement are done by both agencies.
Two large CAFOs in Ohio possess NPDES permits. One of these permits was issued under the old
regulations. In June 2004, the State asked the public to comment on a draft general permit for CAFOs.
The comment period closed in July 2004. EPA worked with OEPA and finalized the general permit in
January 2005. The State permit includes effluent limitations based on EPA's current Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards. The permit also requires
implementation of the nine minimum control measures codified in 40 CFR section 122.42(e) and a
nutrient management plan based on the State's technical standards for nutrient management and the
conditions of the permit.
-12-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
In the State regulations scheduled for amendment in the future, EPA expects that OEPA will require
CAFOs to apply for permits (or seek a "no potential to discharge" determination) no later than the
applicable date in 40 CFR section 122.23(g).
Ohio has a very complete and current inventory of large CAFOs. In September 2003, the State
completed its periodic (i.e., pro-active) inspections of all large CAFOs in the State.
4. Stormwater
The State of Ohio:
Overall, Ohio has four stormwater permits in place to cover stormwater discharges under the Phase II
regulations. All are current. Ohio also has four Phase I permits, three of which are current.5
Construction: The State issued a revised stormwater general permit for construction activities on April
21, 2003. Persons who disturb one or more acres of land must obtain permit coverage. The revised
general permit requires the development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan,
including practices to control erosion and sedimentation.
Industrial: The State renewed its general permit for industrial activities with an effective date of August
1, 2000, and an expiration date of July 31, 2005. Facilities covered under this general permit are
required to develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan and minimize sources of
stormwater contamination.
Municipal Systems: On December 27, 2002, the State issued two new general permits for municipal
systems subject to the Phase II regulations, one for municipal systems in rapidly urbanizing areas and
one for all remaining municipal systems. Both permits require the development and implementation of a
stormwater management plan that includes the six minimum measures EPA established in the Phase II
regulations. Nearly all of the 280 municipalities designated have applied for coverage. The State has
four municipal systems permitted under Phase I of the national stormwater program. The permits for
Columbus and Dayton expire in 2005. The permit for Toledo expires in 2009. Development of the draft
permit for Akron is underway.
OEPA currently has an electronic system in place to track all NOIs for coverage under the State's
general permits for discharges of stormwater from industrial activities, MS4s, and construction sites.
5. Combined Sewer Overflows/Sanitary Sewer Overflows
The State of Ohio:
Combined Sewer Overflows: OEPA's current inventory includes 87 cities with CSOs regulated by 88
permits (one city has two facilities with CSOs). All are regulated by NPDES permits, Orders, or
Consent Agreements that contain requirements consistent with the National CSO Control Policy,
5 The National Data Sources column of the Management Report, measure 28, shows 2 Phase I stormwater permits not current.
The Toledo permit was expired at the time the national data was gathered (as of July 1, 2004) and has since been reissued.
-13-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
including requirements to develop and implement long term control plans (LTCPs) and to implement
the Nine Minimum Controls (NMC).6
Currently, all seven large communities (over 75,000 population) and all smaller communities are under
schedules to develop or implement LTCPs. All Ohio CSO communities are subject to permit or
enforcement requirements to develop an LTCP, or have already submitted an LTCP. For many of the
small communities, permit requirements have already been negotiated to include a schedule for sewer
separation.
Ohio lists 102 communities that currently operate or previously operated combined sewers. LTCPs for
55 of these have been submitted to OEPA review. Fourteen communities have eliminated their CSOs by
separating their sewers, leaving 88 permitted facilities with CSOs. Twenty-eight communities are in the
process of implementing projects required by an approved LTCP. The majority of these are sewer
separation projects for smaller and mid-sized communities. OEPA generally provides for formal
approval of LTCP (under Section 6111 of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC), Plan Approval). Schedules for
completing approved LTCP projects are placed into the NPDES permit or Order.
All 88 CSO facilities have enforceable requirements to implement the NMC. Assessing compliance with
the requirement to implement the NMCs is a current CSO enforcement priority. To help accomplish
this, Ohio has had staff members participate in Region 5 CSO inspection training. Ohio is also working
with Region 5 to conduct joint CSO compliance inspections. To date, eight joint inspections have been
conducted.
OEPA permits require CSO communities to notify public and public health authorities of CSO events
(one of the NMC). OEPA is in the process of evaluating these procedures to assure they are sufficient.
Sanitary Sewer Overflows: Where SSOs are discovered, OEPA takes action to put the community on a
schedule to eliminate the SSOs. This schedule will either be included in Director's Final Findings and
Orders or a Consent Order.
In some cases POTWs provide treatment to wastewater from satellite communities, which do not own or
operate their own wastewater treatment facilities. In such cases, overflows may occur in the satellite
collection system of a community not regulated under an NPDES permit. Ohio EPA works with POTWs
covered by NPDES permits to encourage the use of contracts and agreements between the satellite
community and POTW to address inflow and infiltration issues and to eliminate SSOs. (All active CSOs
in satellite communities are covered under their own NPDES permit). In Ohio, CSOs in satellite
communities are typically owned by and are the responsibility of the NPDES permit holder. Examples
include the Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitary District and the Metropolitan Sanitary District in
Cincinnati.
Ohio is developing a general NPDES permit for satellite collection systems to strengthen the State's
ability to address SSOs from these systems. Once issued, satellite systems with active SSOs would be
required to obtain coverage under the permit. The permit would prohibit bypasses and overflows not in
6 The National Data Sources column of the Management Report, measure 25, shows 94.0% of CSO permittees required to
develop LTCPs. This is based on data as of June 2004. Requirements for the remaining permittees have been put in place since
that time.
-14-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
compliance with 40 CFR 122.41 and would require reporting of all overflows. The permit would require
communities to implement capacity, management, operation, and maintenance (CMOM) requirements
similar to those envisioned by EPA. The draft satellite general permit was issued for public comment in
May 2004. Final issuance is expected in 2005.
Ohio has recently drafted updated permit requirement to address SSO reporting requirements and in July
2004 began including specific SSO reporting requirements in the NPDES permits it issues to POTWs.
The requirements will include immediate notification of the appropriate city or county board of health of
any SSO that may "imminently and substantially endanger human health" (e.g., dry weather overflows,
major line breaks, overflow events that result in fish kills or other significant harm, and overflow events
that occur in sensitive waters and high exposure areas such as protection areas for public drinking water
intakes and waters where primary contact recreation occurs). In addition, permits will require
communities to report SSOs on a monthly basis. OEPA will enter this information into SWIMS. Finally,
permits will require an annual summary report of SSOs, including overflows that do not reach waters of
the State.
6. Biosolids
The State of Ohio:
OEPA was recently authorized to administer the sewage sludge (biosolids) program (CWA Part 503). In
March 2000, the Ohio General Assembly passed House Bill (HB) 197 to provide the statutory authority
for the OEPA Director to seek authorization of the program. HB 197 modified the ORC to provide the
OEPA Director the authority to adopt, enforce, modify, and rescind rules necessary to implement the
sewage sludge program. HB 197 also modified the ORC to include an annual sewage sludge fee in order
to fund the program. Each dry ton of sewage sludge treated or disposed in the State of Ohio is assessed a
fee of $3.50, with a cap of $600,000 per year on all monies collected.
Shortly after the passage of HB 197, OEPA began drafting rules that became effective in April 2002 as
Ohio's Sewage Sludge Rules, OAC Chapter 3745-40. The purpose of OAC Chapter 3745-40 is to
"establish standards applicable to the disposal, use, storage, or treatment of sewage sludge, which
standards are intended to reasonably protect public health and the environment, encourage the beneficial
reuse of sewage sludge, and minimize the creation of nuisance odors." The Ohio Attorney General
submitted a statement that the State has adequate authority to implement the federal sewage sludge
program. On May 12, 2004, the Governor of Ohio submitted an application to implement the federal
sewage sludge program. Region 5 determined that the application was complete and gave final program
approval on March 16, 2005.
OEPA is already implementing a CWA part 503-type sewage sludge management program based on
statute and rules. Funded by annual sewage sludge fees, OEPA hired two full-time staff members in
2003 to cover sewage sludge management duties in the field and office. These staff members perform
compliance evaluation inspections at POTWs that land-apply sewage sludge. They review monthly data
submitted by POTWs to ensure compliance with pollutant limits and monitoring and reporting
requirements. They also perform authorization inspections at proposed land application sites. Field
reconnaissance inspections are conducted at land application sites to verify compliance with site
restrictions and management practices. These staff members also review and recommend for approval
the management plans and NPDES permits that regulate sewage sludge generators.
-15-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
OEPA has also funded two college interns through the annual sewage sludge fees to track authorized
sewage sludge application sites. The interns are developing a geographic information system (GIS) to
add authorized sludge sites to a digital base map. Each authorized sludge site receives a unique
identification number through the Surface Water Information Management System. The GIS project will
be useful to manage the numerous land application sites and associated data such as cumulative
pollutant loadings or proximity to source water assessment and protection (SWAP) areas.
EPA Region 5:
Until Ohio received authorization, EPA Region 5 was responsible for the direct implementation of the
sewage sludge program in the State of Ohio. Activities included providing outreach to the regulated
community, assisting the State in seeking program approval, and providing technical and compliance
assistance. The Region sent out forms in December or January to all major POTWs and to others
required to submit annual reports by February 19. The annual report data were entered into the PCS but
were not reviewed. EPA Region 5 did not verify that all annual reports were submitted, and does not
proactively track compliance. Enforcement actions related to sewage sludge were typically initiated in
response to complaints, or were part of more comprehensive enforcement actions.
The level of effort has been reduced due to reduced funding for the program nationwide. In order to
increase Regional activities and provide for more proactive management of the sewage sludge program
in the future, both the permitting and enforcement programs within EPA Headquarters will need to
reinvest in the program or provide dedicated funds for program implementation to the Region.
-16-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
Section III. NPDES Compliance Monitoring
and Enforcement Response
In a separate initiative, EPA 's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), EPA Regions, and
the Environmental Council of the States have developed a tool for assessing State performance in enforcement
and compliance assurance to ensure that States meet agreed-upon minimum performance levels and provide a
consistent level of environmental and public health protection nationwide. OECA will use the State profiles to
focus these efforts and identify areas needing further discussion and evaluation.
1. Enforcement Program
The State of Ohio:
OEPA's Division of Surface Water developed a Civil Enforcement Training Manual (CETM) in 1997.
The manual is a comprehensive outline of the enforcement program and includes guidance on
appropriate enforcement response and escalation of enforcement response, and constitutes the OEPA
enforcement management system (EMS). As described in the EMS, the majority of enforcement actions
are referred by staff in the OEPA District Offices. The CO staff refers some enforcement actions. For
example, the OEPA CAFO program is based in the CO. CAFO cases thus are by default a CO referral.
Citizen complaints may result in an enforcement case although typically there would be a thorough
investigation by OEPA staff before a decision to take an enforcement action would occur. Cases
referred to the CO for enforcement are reviewed by the OEPA Legal Office for content. If the referral is
complete, the Division of Surface Water Enforcement Committee, along with the Legal Office and
typically the Attorney General's Office (AGO), decides whether the case should be an administrative
action or a referral to the AGO. Administrative cases involve the negotiation of Director's Final
Findings and Orders (DFF&O) between OEPA and the entity. A case may be referred to the AGO for
negotiation for a variety of reasons: 1) entities are in contempt of existing Orders; 2) the preliminary
penalty calculations are high; and, 3) the administrative negotiations have failed to reach an agreement.
The AGO attempts to negotiate a Consent Order with the entity. If negotiations fail, a court case may be
filed by the AGO.
In evaluating whether or not to pursue a formal enforcement action, OEPA considers the answers to
seven questions identified in the CETM. These questions are: 1) Is the facility making progress towards
compliance?; 2) How many violations are there and do they trigger SNC?; 3) What is the environmental
impact of the violations?; 4) How effective will formal enforcement be in achieving compliance?; 5) Is
the facility part of a special initiative or within a priority watershed?; 6) How long has non-compliance
been going on?; and, 7) Have there been previous enforcement actions against the facility? Answers to
any or all of these may be required before staff refer an entity for enforcement.
The State has an Enforcement Screening Worksheet to assist staff in evaluating enforcement response.
In addition, Table VI-A of the CETM provides recommended ranges of enforcement response for
common violations. Where formal enforcement action is found not to be appropriate, a variety of
informal actions may be used, including telephone call with follow-up letter, NOV, inspection/meeting,
or Director's Warning Letter.
-17-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
With respect to the pretreatment program, Ohio requires the submittal of self-monitoring data every six
months from regulated entities. OEPA screens the data for apparent violations and calculates SNC based
on SNC criteria in rule. An SIU in a municipality that does not operate its own pretreatment program
would be sent an NOV. If repeated violations with environmental consequences occur, the case is
referred for Director's Findings and Orders. For approved pretreatment programs with deficiencies,
typically an inspection follow-up letter is sent and the program is allowed 30 days to respond.
Pretreatment programs are given from 30 days to 12 months to correct deficiencies. If the program is
still unresponsive, OEPA pretreatment coordinators have the ability to place these facilities on the
QNCR and refer for enforcement action.
The CETM includes Ohio's penalty policy, which includes calculating economic benefit of non-
compliance, gravity and gravity adjustment calculations that include impact on humans and the
environment, and, if appropriate, an ability-to-pay determination. Ohio utilizes the EPA's BEN model
for calculating the economic benefit of noncompliance. The economic benefit is calculated in most, but
not all cases, (e.g., orders to install sewers to abate unsanitary conditions do not typically include a
penalty). Negotiations begin using the full economic benefit amount. Whether the full economic benefit
is recovered is a case-by-case situation, but the small number of penalty orders with large economic
benefit calculations do not recover the full economic benefit of non-compliance. Sometimes this is
based on an ability-to-pay study, and other times the dollar amount negotiated does not cover the entire
economic benefit of non-compliance. Ohio's policy is to recover economic benefit when possible,
though ability to pay and other factors sometimes prevent this.
Since January 28, 1987, of 567 settled administrative cases, 208 (36.7%) of the DFF&O included a
monetary penalty. A number of cases involved orders to install sewers in response to failing septic
systems. When proceeding under this authority, OEPA does not typically pursue a penalty. Since
December 14, 1984, 535 judicial cases were settled and 360 (67.3%) of the settlements had a monetary
penalty. In the past three SFYs, Ohio has collected approximately $4 million in penalties.
Ohio tracks permit requirements, DFF&O requirements, and Consent Order requirements in a number of
ways. Fixed date milestones are tracked by district office staff, in SWIMS, or by Revenues or Central
Accounting System software (for monetary penalties). Ohio has a goal of monitoring 100% of the
actions. The State believes this is generally met. SWIMS provides ticklers to remind staff of due or
overdue milestones. There is some question as to whether all orders are entered into SWIMS. OEPA has
been asked to confirm that this is happening.
Data from the past several years indicate that the State has had a relatively high SNC rate for majors.
This was due in part to the fact that effluent data below the practical quantification level (PQL) were
reported in PCS as violations although by definition it is not possible to prove that these were violations.
OEPA revised its PCS coding such that the information relating to these results is available for review in
conjunction with other available effluent data, in order that compliance may be better evaluated. In
addition, the reported SNC rates are inaccurate due to compliance schedule data not being entered
consistently into SWIMS (e.g., the entity complied with the terms of a compliance schedule but that fact
had not been entered into SWIMS). Ohio updated and corrected this data.
-18-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
As a result, the Region expects that the SNC rate in Ohio will improve. The Region has established a
goal for the SNC rate of 10% or less, as measured on a quarterly basis.7 Recently, the State has been
able to meet this goal. The Regional goal has been in place for many years, and has been incorporated in
Environmental Performance Partnership Agreements (EnPPA) or State work plan agreements.
Administrative actions concluded in 2002, 2003, and 2004 (through November), numbered 29, 32, and
53, respectively.8 Ohio settled 26 judicial actions in 2003 and 16 in 2004 (as of November 11, 2004).
(See OEPA's Web site for more details.) For the cases that were settled in 2002, OEPA collected $3
million. For those cases settled in 2003, OEPA collected $1.8 million. As of November 11, 2004, OEPA
had collected approximately $10 million for cases settled in 2004. In addition, several of OEPA's cases
(Columbus, Toledo, Youngstown, Hamilton County Municipal Sanitation District) will require nearly
$4 billion in new pollution controls to prevent sewer overflows.
EPA Region 5:
As a general note, the Region manages against two primary indicators of the health of the State's
NPDES enforcement program. As mentioned above, an SNC rate for majors of 10% or less as measured
on a quarterly basis is one of these goals. Data management issues have limited the Region's ability to
assess OEPA's attainment of these goals. The second goal is that the State maintain the active
exceptions list (AEL) at below 2%.
As long as a State is generally able to meet these indicators, the Region does not perform in-depth
reviews to determine if penalty sizes were appropriate, if the number of formal enforcement actions was
acceptable, and if enforcement actions were timely, believing that deficiencies in any of these areas
would ultimately be reflected in SNC and AEL rates. However, the Region will be performing NPDES
enforcement file reviews in all of its States over the next 2 V2 years, where these factors, among others,
will be evaluated.
The Region targets its efforts to ensure base program integrity, as well as maximize environmental
benefits of its actions. In terms of the base program, the Region monitors the QNCR and the AEL to
ensure that they remain below 10% and 2% respectively. These targets are routinely met. Generally,
since most NPDES program elements have been authorized, State enforcement action is the primary
mechanism for managing against these goals; EnPPA agreements and annual workplans contain
language that indicates that where these goals are not met, federal enforcement action will be a priority.
Currently, a high priority for the Region is enforcement relating to CSOs and SSOs. In particular, 42%
of the nation's CSO permittees are in the Region, and enforcement relating to this pollution source has
been a priority. The Region has had a CSO strategy since 1986, and it was most recently updated in
2003. The Region's focus is on those CSOs impacting high priority beaches, drinking water sources, or
7 The Management Report National Data Sources column, measure 34, reports an annual SNC rate which can be expected to be
larger than the rate measured on a quarterly basis, as it is quite likely that the total number of facilities in SNC at any time
during a year will be greater than the number in SNC in any individual quarter.
8 The National Data Sources column of the Management Report, measures 37 and 38, show a total of 21 formal enforcement
actions in FY 2003. However, data from State databases reveal that an additional 41 formal enforcement actions occurred in
2003. EPA believes that the discrepancy is a result of an effort EPA undertaken in 2002, to consolidate the number of codes
which were used for PCS data entry. Up until that time, Ohio had used code number 87 to report the vast majority of its FEAs.
This code was abolished in 2002. EPA believes the State may have continued to attempt to use the abolished code during
2003, leading to failed entry, and consequently the data discrepancies. EPA will continue to work with the State to ensure that
appropriate coding is now being used.
-19-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
other environmentally sensitive areas. Other wet weather sources of pollution are also being targeted. To
this end, the Region has also developed a CAFO permitting and enforcement strategy, and is updating
its stormwater strategy. It is in the early stages of developing a strategy to address failing on-site
systems.
When Region had direct implementation responsibilities for the biosolids program in Ohio, enforcement
actions relating to biosolids were generally complaint driven.
The NPDES program has had an EMS since the 1980s. This system is out of date, and development of
new operating procedures has been a priority for completion by the end of 2004.
The Division has a manual system maintained by the enforcement process manager for monitoring the
status of cases within the pipeline. A monthly meeting is held to update status of all proposed actions. In
addition, meetings are scheduled with the Office of Regional Counsel, approximately every six weeks to
go over the status of cases and potential bottlenecks. In 2002, the Division also consolidated a number
of databases that were used to track permittee progress in complying with enforcement actions and made
a concerted effort to review all open cases and close out those for which it was appropriate.
Approximately 40% of the open cases were closed out as a result of this effort.
2. Record Keeping and Reporting
The State of Ohio:
The State maintains accurate and up-to-date records. These records are maintained in SWIMS, the
District Offices, and the Division of Surface Water Enforcement Section. Further information may be
available from the OEPA Legal Office and the AGO, depending on the case.
3. Inspections
The State of Ohio:
Ohio has established minimum inspection frequency criteria based on facility type. In addition, monthly
operating reports (MORs) and compliance data are screened by district staff and inspections increased if
appropriate. Compliance reports generated by SWIMS allow inspectors to quickly identify compliance
problems at facilities they oversee, both majors and minors. A concern for EPA, however, is that the
State routinely falls short of meeting inspection commitments. For example, in the years 2000-2002
PCS data indicate that the State inspected between 52% and 58% of its majors, against a commitment of
at least 70%. Similarly, the data reveal that OEPA inspects relatively few its minors, although the
number has been showing an encouraging upward trend. The State and EPA also believe that there may
have been a problem historically in recording inspections in PCS. According to the State's in-house
records, approximately 840 inspections at minor facilities were performed in 2003. This is a significant
proportion (about 30%) of the total universe of minor facilities, and well above the Region's goal of
20% coverage. The Region will work with OEPA in the context of preparation for PCS modernization
to ensure that a mechanism is in place to record all inspections in PCS. Finally, Ohio also has a law that
allows local health districts to contract with OEPA to inspect smaller (under 25,000 gallons per day
[gpd]) sanitary dischargers. These inspections are in addition to any that OEPA conducts. Ohio is
attempting to expand this program.
-20-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
Both field inspections and file reviews are essential elements of Ohio's program. Ohio utilizes a variety
of field inspections in the NPDES program such as audits, compliance sampling inspections (CSIs),
compliance evaluation inspections (CEIs), and reconnaissance inspections (RIs). File reviews are a
component of many of these field inspections. Following are brief descriptions of the different types of
OEPA field inspections:
1) CEI is a non-sampling inspection designed to verify permittee compliance with applicable permit
self-monitoring requirements, effluent limits, and compliance schedules;
2) CSI involves the collection of representative samples required by the permittee's NPDES permit;
3) Performance audit inspection is used to evaluate the permittee's self-monitoring program;
4) RI is used to obtain a preliminary overview of a permittee's NPDES permit compliance status;
5) Pre-permit inspection is simply a CEI or CSI conducted prior to issuing an NPDES permit;
6) Operation and maintenance inspection is an inspection of the operation and maintenance of an
unpermitted wastewater treatment facility.
A highlight of Ohio's program is its formal process for establishing annual enforcement priorities. Each
year OEPA compliance staff members in each district meet with CO and develop enforcement and
compliance priorities. Generally, sectors or facilities with significant public health/environmental
impacts are targeted, as are sectors/facilities with high noncompliance rates. Also, TMDL
recommendations play a significant role.
Through EnPPA discussions, as well as more frequent topic-specific discussions, (e.g., CSOs) the State
and EPA work to establish respective roles in EPA priority sectors and initiatives. To document
procedures to be followed and to ensure full communication in certain of these work-sharing activities,
the State and Region 5 have recently entered into a memorandum of understanding to better define areas
of cooperation and work sharing regarding CSO enforcement actions.
EPA Region 5:
The Region has developed a CWA inspection strategy that describes the manner in which inspections
are prioritized and agreed to between the States and EPA. As described in this strategy, a variety of
factors influence selection of inspection targets, including national and Regional priorities, case close-
out needs, multi-media initiatives, complaints and coverage requirements. In the two States for which
EPA is the pretreatment authority, the Region targets its efforts through evaluation of environmental
indicators (e.g., whether the concentration of metals in biosolids is increasing) and coverage factors
(e.g., how long it has been since the State or EPA performed an audit at the municipality). The Region
requests that the States perform all other coverage inspections, though most States have had difficulty in
meeting these commitments in recent years. The Region is working with the States to increase the
number of inspections they perform, but does not have the resources to backstop any State shortfalls. In
addition, the Region is concerned that the current requirements for coverage inspections may impede the
States and EPA from focusing on those inspections that might result in greatest environmental benefit,
and believes that this is an issue that warrants policy discussion at the national level.
-21-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
4. Compliance Assistance
The State of Ohio:
For NPDES permitted dischargers, Ohio has a technical assistance group that is available to consult with
POTWs at no charge. The Ohio technical assistance group is recognized as one of the best in the
country. OEPA district office staff members are also in the field and are a ready source of technical
assistance. OEPA CO staff members are available for certain programs that are primarily run out of CO,
such as the pretreatment and biosolids management programs. Technical assistance and an ongoing field
inspection presence are viewed as key to averting non-compliance.
Ohio measures the outcome of compliance assistance through tracking of DMRs and periodic field
surveys of the stream segment. The results of enforcement actions generally are measured and
summarized in annual reports available on the following Web site:
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/index.html.
Data for the past two years are summarized below. In 2002, the following were addressed by DFF&Os
or Consent Orders:
• 1,229 lots with failing on-site systems
• 227 sewage overflows (CSO or SSO)
• 512 acres of development with inadequate stormwater controls
• 56.45 acres of landfill with leachate concerns
• 39.06 acres of illegally filled wetlands
• 1,618 feet of streams illegally impacted by dredge and fill operations
• 188,000 gallons per day of sewage discharge untreated to waters of the State
For pollutants that primarily affect aquatic life, the biocriteria are the most fundamental measure of
success (being the highest level indicator used for aquatic life) and the main indicator of aquatic life use
attainment. Results can also be tracked by comparing effluent chemical data before and after pollutant
reductions.
The calendar year 2003 data are as follows:
• 3,200 feet of stream mitigated under the 401 program
• 56,500 gpd of sewage removed from package treatment plants and tied into Regional wastewater
treatment plants
• 571 failed on-lot systems sewered (individuals or small unsewered municipalities)
• 19 CSOs addressed
-22-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
• 854 acres with stormwater concerns addressed
• 3,497,912 gpd of wastewater treatment plant flow upgraded to provide further treatment
Strengths of Ohio's program are the breadth of its compliance assistance and its efforts to measure the
outcome or effectiveness of that assistance.
EPA Region 5:
Within the first year after the new biosolids regulations were published, the Region hosted a satellite
broadcast to explain the regulation and its requirements. The Region reached nearly half of the regulated
community with this broadcast. The Region has also instituted a small community compliance
assistance program for biosolids modeled after the operation and maintenance evaluation (OME)
program.
-23-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
Section IV. Related Water Programs
and Environmental Outcomes
1. Monitoring
The State of Ohio:
OEPA has a strong program for monitoring and assessing the health of the State's rivers and streams.
OEPA is also developing a program for addressing water quality issues related to wetlands. Ohio has
developed Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs) for wetlands using plants, invertebrates, and amphibians.
The State has completed testing of IB Is in all ecoregions and calibrated its rapid assessment method
with the IBI data. That information now is used to guide wetland permitting decision making and
mitigation performance evaluation. Ohio is working with Kenyon College on wetland health assessment
across the Cuyahoga River basin using a probabilistic sampling design. This information will feed into
more detailed work in a few watersheds within the Cuyahoga basin. The data from the assessment work
are being designed for use by local communities for planning purposes, such as developing green
infrastructure/open space plans and identifying the locations of the highest quality wetlands.
In 1990, OEPA initiated a rotating basin cycle to better coordinate the collection of ambient monitoring
data so that information and reports would be available in time to support water quality management
activities such as the reissuance of NPDES permits and periodic revision of WQS. Ohio uses a
geometric design for monitoring water quality on a watershed basis. This design allows Ohio to
intensively monitor each watershed and provide data to support a variety of Clean Water Act programs.
Each year, Ohio monitors approximately 300-400 sites using the geometric design. Ohio assesses each
watershed as an assessment unit for purposes of integrated reporting (i.e., if one water body is
determined to be not meeting water quality standards, the entire watershed is listed in Category 5). Ohio
also provides estimates of the percentage of streams in each watershed that are in attainment. Like many
Region 5 States, Ohio's program focuses on aquatic life use and biological endpoints for much of its
determination of water quality status. Increased focus on other water body types (e.g., lakes) and human
health uses (e.g., swimming) could increase the number of waters identified as impaired. Increased
monitoring of fish tissue contaminants could also increase the number of waters with identified
impairments, particularly in lakes/reservoirs. Ohio currently is not assessing lakes and reservoirs, but
plans to assess lakes in reservoirs in the future, contingent upon resource availability.
Additionally, the State is participating in the national probabilistic stream survey as part of a five-state
consortium, and the wetlands pilot monitoring program is employing a probabilistic design. The State
currently does not have plans to integrate a probabilistic design into its rotating basin streams program.
Ohio EPA has developed a draft monitoring strategy document that is consistent with the EPA's
"Elements of a Water Monitoring and Assessment Program" document. A September 2004 draft was
submitted to Region 5 and comments were received in late November. The overall Region 5 assessment
of the Ohio strategy is that Ohio has developed a draft monitoring strategy that addresses each of the
elements identified in EPA's guidance. The strategy addresses CWA objectives and provides at least
some information on all waterbody types (streams/rivers at multiple scales, in-land lakes and reservoirs,
Lake Erie, wetlands, and groundwater). It is planned that the Ohio monitoring strategy will be revised
based on Region 5 comments and finalized by the end of June, 2005.
-24-
-------
Ohio Last Updated - 5/3/05
OEPA uses a variety of data to support the permit program. Biological and water quality studies are
periodically conducted on rivers and streams, primarily as input to the Integrated Report and to support
development of TMDLs. These studies include fish and macroinvertebrate sampling and water
chemistry data, and often include sediment chemistry data as well. Effluent toxicity testing is
coordinated with field sampling efforts. Other data, such as fish tissue monitoring and biomarker data,
are collected as needed for a given stream survey. Many NPDES dischargers are evaluated in this
process, although not all major dischargers can be evaluated every permit cycle. These studies are
typically done 12 to 24 months prior to permit issuance to provide chemical, biological, and toxicity
data for the permit review. Trend analysis from survey to survey is done in each study. Permits are
issued on a rotating five-year basis, using any monitoring done before that. Periodically, the Permits,
Modeling, and Ecological Assessment sections meet to update the five-year planning so that changes in
any area can be coordinated with related programs.
2. Environmental Outcomes
The State of Ohio:
The number of river and stream miles assessed in Ohio rose significantly between 2000 and 2002. In
2000, Ohio assessed 8,232 miles of streams for aquatic life use. In 2002, the State assessed 40,178
miles. This increase is primarily due to a change in the way Ohio reports its data. Within a watershed,
Ohio is now using its data to estimate the percent of streams meeting/not meeting uses. In 2000, the
State reported that 54.6% of assessed miles supported aquatic life use. With the new watershed approach
undertaken in 2002, a new system for tracking trends needs to be established.
In 2002, 70% of the river and stream miles (including large rivers) in the State were assessed for aquatic
life and 42% for recreation. Of the river and stream miles assessed, (including large rivers), 48% fully
support the aquatic life use. Ohio did not assess lakes in its 2002 Integrated Report, (see page 8 of
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/tmdl/2002IntReport/Ohio2002IntegratedReport_100102.pdf) Region 5
is working with Ohio to include a plan for assessing lakes and reservoirs in Ohio's monitoring strategy.
3. Water Quality Standards
The State of Ohio:
Ohio's WQS are found at OAC 3745-1. Ohio's classes of designated uses are found at OAC 3745-1-7,
and the use designations assigned to specific water bodies are found in OAC 3745-1-8 through OAC
3745-1-34. Ohio assigns each water body in Ohio a use in each of the following classes: aquatic life,
water supply (including public, agricultural, and industrial), and recreation. The aquatic life uses are
tiered based on the biological expectations for the water body consistent with OEPA's system of
numeric biological criteria, resulting in seven subclasses of aquatic life uses. Assignment to a subclass is
based on available biological and habitat data collected by OEPA. Recreational uses are also tiered,
resulting in three subclasses: bathing waters, primary contact, and secondary contact.
Ohio's water quality criteria meet the requirements of CWA 303(c)(2)(b) and include both numeric
criteria and narrative criteria with a mechanism for deriving numeric expressions of the narrative for use
in NPDES permits. Ohio's WQS are established and enforced to protect designated uses. This is done
through NPDES permits and, where appropriate, through TMDLs to address point and nonpoint source
discharges. Ohio's last revisions to its WQS were completed and approved by EPA in 2003.
-25-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
Ohio is one of the first States in the nation to establish biological criteria to protect its waters. To assure
designated uses are met, Ohio has established biological criteria for fish and macroinvertebrates in OAC
Rule 3745-1-07. These criteria apply to streams designated Warmwater Habitat, Exceptional
Warmwater Habitat, and Modified Warmwater Habitat. The biological criteria are the main source of
data for determining aquatic life attainment status for the water quality inventory prepared under CWA
section 305(b) and listing of impaired water bodies on the section 303(d) list. Ohio's biocriteria for fish
and macroinvertebrate communities are established using data from least-impacted sites (reference sites)
for headwater, wading, and boatable streams in each of five ecoregions. Ohio is also developing
biocriteria for wetlands that will complement the rapid assessment methodology currently used by
OEPA.
Use attainability analyses and changes to designated uses are regular and frequent in Ohio, owing to the
wealth of biological and habitat assessment data generated by OEPA. Ohio submits updates to rules
listing the uses of specific water bodies on an annual or biennial basis as part of its regular rotating basin
schedule for monitoring and assessment. These data are also available to assist OEPA permit writers in
developing NPDES permits. Ohio's WQS contain provisions that describe the applicability of the uses
and water quality criteria and implementation procedures for Ohio's antidegradation policy.
Ohio protects against aquatic toxicity by utilizing narrative WQS for toxicity, listed in OAC Rule 3745-
1-04(D): "To every extent practical and possible as determined by the director, these waters shall be ...
free from substances entering the waters as a result of human activity in concentrations that are toxic or
harmful to human, animal or aquatic life and/or are rapidly lethal in the mixing zone." These water
quality standards are implemented as toxic units (TUs) (0.3 TUa and 1.0 TUc for ambient waters) as
specified in OAC Rule 3745-2-09. As TUs, toxicity is allocated using the same WLA procedures used
for chemical standards to protect aquatic life.
Ohio's WQS for chemical parameters are based on EPA criteria development recommendations. Where
data are available on a sufficient number of species, there are different criteria for different aquatic life
uses (for ammonia-nitrogen and dissolved oxygen, primarily). The WQS list criteria for metal, inorganic
pollutants, and organic pollutants for water bodies designated for aquatic life uses, human health uses,
appropriate water supply and recreation uses, and wildlife protection in the Lake Erie Basin. Ohio's
WQS also contain rules allowing OEPA to develop new human health and aquatic life criteria as
needed. These criteria are published on OEPA's Web site.
Many WQS for metals are established for both total-recoverable and dissolved forms. The total
recoverable criteria apply to streams unless a site-specific dissolved metals translator (DMT) has been
established. Where DMTs exist, they have been "truth-tested" against levels of metals known to impair
streams, as measured by the biocriteria. Biocriteria-based values have been used to modify DMT values
if the DMTs appear not to be protective of the designated use.
OEPA has a robust anti degradation rule (OAC Rule 3745-1-05). The rule contains public notice and
participation procedures for new sources and permittees that apply to increase pollutant discharge levels
over levels allowed by their current permit. The rule specifies use of best available demonstrated control
technology, development of an alternatives analysis on the need to discharge, and the conditions under
which a detailed social and economic justification is required for the increase. The rule also identifies
higher-quality waters that have assimilative capacity set-asides and more rigorous public notice and
-26-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
hearing requirements. This rule was revised in October 1996 and July 2003 to incorporate the rulings of
Ohio's courts and to add clarification to the requirements.
Ohio's narrative criteria address: 1) suspended solids and sludge; 2) oil, scum, and other floating
materials; 3) nuisance colors and odors; 4) toxicity; and 5) nutrients resulting in nuisance growths.
Sludges, oils and scum, and color and odor are gross level indicators that are usually controlled by
treatment technology-based conditions in permits. Prior to permit renewal, OEPA field staff inspects
outfalls and discharges to determine if narrative conditions or specific limits are needed in reissued
permits. Also, third-party reports and complaints are reviewed to determine if permit restrictions are
necessary.
When conditions that might indicate a violation of narrative criteria are identified, necessary limitations,
monitoring, and compliance schedules are established in the permit to correct the problem. Common
examples include limits to control oil and grease discharges and daily monitoring requirements for
color, odor, and turbidity for small sewage treatment plants.
An important tool available to OEPA for assessing the need for nutrient controls is the State's
biocriteria. The biocriteria are used to develop nutrient "targets" for streams to be used in TMDLs.
These targets are designed to maintain biocriteria, and therefore also protect against the nuisance
conditions prohibited in the narrative WQS. Targets are developed by comparing biological index
measurements of nutrient impaired waters against the same measurements on unimpaired streams. A
regression of biological index measurements against nutrient concentrations allows nutrient targets to be
established for streams.
Ohio has developed a nutrient criteria development plan that has been reviewed and accepted by EPA.
Ohio is currently collecting field data to support adoption of nutrient criteria by 2007. Until 2007, the
need for nutrient limits in a permit is based on an evaluation of the biocriteria downstream of the
discharger. If chemical sampling and the biocriteria support the need for limits, the State either
1) develops and implements these limits through a TMDL (e.g., Upper Little Miami River TMDL) or
2) pending development of the TMDL, issues permits with a technology based limit (e.g., 1 mg/L
phosphorus).
Ohio's WQS at OAC 3745-1 do not address compliance schedules. Ohio Compliance Schedule Rules
are at OAC 3745-33-05. Ohio has criteria for E. coli to protect recreational uses.
4. Total Maximum Daily Loads
The State of Ohio:
OEPA includes representatives from the permitting program on the TMDL development teams.
Integration of the permitting process is explicitly discussed in the OEPA TMDL process document.
Permitting decisions are made during the TMDL development process, allowing concurrent
development of TMDLs and permit limits needed to meet the TMDL. TMDLs in Ohio are developed on
a watershed basis, allowing the impacts of all dischargers to be assessed during TMDL development,
and allowing permits to be developed on a watershed/basin approach. To date, TMDLs developed by
OEPA have included WLAs as appropriate and have included WLAs for sources regulated by general
permits.
-27-
-------
Ohio
Last Updated - 5/3/05
In establishing WQBELs for discharges to impaired waters where a TMDL has not been established,
OEPA reviews the discharge and the impairment according to an informal decision tree:
• If the pollutant in question is not a cause of the impairment, the standard WLA and reasonable
potential procedures will assure attainment of the water quality criteria.
• If the pollutant is a cause of the impairment, and point sources are the only source of the pollutant, the
standard WLA and reasonable potential procedures will be equivalent to a TMDL for that pollutant.
• If there are other sources of a pollutant, or other impairments that increase the effect of a pollutant
(e.g., habitat impairment), OEPA will make some judgments about the relative contribution of the
point source to the impairment. In these situations, OEPA will require best available technology-
equivalent treatment for a pollutant (if it does not already exist) to address the point source
contribution of a pollutant. If the point source is a more significant contributor of the pollutant,
OEPA would require reductions to meet a WQBEL, which may include final limits based on
different treatment, source reduction/trading, remediation, or habitat improvement alternatives.
Under no conditions would additional load be granted to a discharger unless other source reductions
in the water body segment were documented.
OEPA has developed the largest number of TMDLs of the six Region 5 States. Through fiscal year
2003, OEPA had developed TMDLs for 274 water body-pollutant combinations, addressing 312
impairments.9 In FY 2004, OEPA developed TMDLs for an additional 136 water body-pollutant
combinations, addressing 163 impairments. OEPA uses watersheds to list waters, which complicates
determining the percentage of TMDLs completed. The State, however, appears on pace to develop
TMDLs in a timely fashion. Delays are generally related to resource issues for the TMDL program, but
the process has been improved due to OEPA developing TMDLs on a watershed basis. Point sources
may be a significant source of impairment in selected TMDLs, but OEPA has indicated that permits will
be issued if TMDLs are significantly delayed.
Ohio is to be commended for the State's significant pace of TMDL development, which in some years
has exceeded the State's goals. The State is on track to meet its long-term program targets. Of the
TMDLs established through FY 2003 in Ohio, nearly all include NPDES point sources.
5. Safe Drinking Water Act
The State of Ohio:
OEPA is completing its Source Water Assessment program as required by the 1996 reauthorization of
the Safe Drinking Water Act. OEPA's assessments for public water systems that use surface water
include information from the NPDES program such as ambient water quality data to characterize the
general condition of the surface water, NPDES permits, and regulated livestock operations. OEPA has
identified that source water protection will be integrated with the CWA programs to protect Ohio's
water resources by incorporating source water protection initiatives into the State's ongoing Watershed
Strategy and assessing surface water designated uses.
9 The National Data Sources column of the Management Report, measure 54, shows 302 TMDLs completed through FY 2003.
Region 5 recently compiled information on Ohio's TMDLs and the official record shows TMDLs for 274 water body-pollutant
combinations completed through FY 2003. Data in NTTS will be corrected to correspond with these official records.
-28-
-------
tiv I
DIVISION OF SURFACE WATER
PPE APRIL 3, 2004
Env, Program Adm.
Lisa Morris
30000.0
Assistant Chief
George Elmaraghy
30010.0
V.
401 Water Quality Cert. Section
Randy Bournique
30070.0
Modeling & Assessment
Section - Maan Osman
33000.0
Standards & Tech. Support
Section - Dan Dudley
34004.0
Nonpoint Source Section
John Kessier
35002.0
A
Permits & Compliance
Section - Paul Novak
36000.0
Info. Resources Mgmt.
Section - Brian Hall
38000.0
V
Program Mgmt & Source \
Water Assessment Program
Gail Hesse
30020.0
f
Wetlands Ecology Section
- Ric Queen
30030.0
Fiscal Operations Unit
Jennifer Martin
30080.0
Ecological Assessment Section
Jeff DeShon
32001.0
Storm Water & Enforcement Section
Mark Mann
37000.0
113 DO's
107 CO
220 positions
4 vacants
216 filled
-------
Division of Surface Water
Central District Office
)
-------
I
Env, Specialist 3
Bryan Schmucker
32195.0
Water Quality Eng. 2
Dennis Lee
32110.0
Env. Specialist 2
William Zawiski
32111.0
Env. Specialist 2
Philip Rhodes
32112,0
Env. Specialist 2
Michael Stevens
32113.0 •
Env. Specialist 2
Donald Kwolek
32116.0
Env. Specialist 2
Donna Kniss
32117.0
Water Quality Eng. 2
Ron Bell
32120.0
Env. Specialist 2
Marie Underwood
32121.0
Env. Specialist 2
Peter Killmer
32122.0
Env. Specialist 2
Charles Allen
32123.0
Env. Specialist 2
Dean Stoll
32124.0
Env. Specialist 2
Jennifer Bennage
32125.0
Env. Specialist 2
— Douglas Hlestand
32127.0
Division of Surface Water
Northeast District Office
i .
Adm. Assistant 1
Tonya Gaines
32191.0
-------
Division of Surface Water 1
Northwest District Office 1
-------
Division of Surface Water
Southeast District Office
District SW Manager
Dave Schuetz
32390.0
Office Assistant 3
Daphne Hall
19308-0
Water Quality Eng. 2
Bruce Goff
32310.0
Env. Specialist 2
Randy Spencer
32312.0
Env, Specialist 2
Sean Tolentino
32317.0
Env. Specialist 2
Daniel Messerley
32314.0
Env. Specialist 2
Tom Davis
32315.0
Env. Specialist 2
Bob Little
32316.0
Admin. Assistant 1
Jeanne Chapman
323S1.0
Env. Supervisor
Ryszard Lecznar
32320,0
Env. Specialist 2
Jennifer Witte
32321.0
Env. Specialist 2
Frederick Snell
32322.0
Env. Specialist 2
Abbot Stevenson
32323.0 .
Env. Specialist 2
Timothy Campbell
32325.0
Env. Specialist 2
Steve Wells
32326.0
Env. Specialist 2
Joann Montgomery
32301.0
r
Env. Specialist 3
new
32302.0
Env. Specialist 2
Kelly Capuzzi
32303.0
Env. Specialist 2
Dan tmhoff
32304.0
Env. Specialist 2
WotfejpbshBfG) :J
32327 0 ""
Env, Specialist 2
Scott Schermerhorn
32305.0
-------
Division of Surface Water I
• Southwest District Office I
-------
NPDES Management Report, Winter 2005
Ohio
National Data Sources
Profile
Section
GPRA
Goal
Nat. Avg.
State
Activities
EPA
Activities
NPDES Progress
1
# major facilities (6,690 total)
1.1
n/a
296
0
2
# minor facilities covered by individual
permits (42,057 total)
1.1
n/a
2,857
0
3
# minor facilities covered by non-storm
water qeneral permits (39,183 total)
1.1
n/a
758
0
4
# priority permits
(TBD)
1.6
-
-
5
# pipes at facilities covered by individual
permits (142,761 total)
1.7
n/a
17,564
-
10
yrs. (56 total)
1.6
n/a
0
0
c
o
22
% priority permits issued as scheduled
(TBD '05)
1.6
95%
2005
-
-
"E
a)
E
a)
23
% pretreatment programs
inspected/audited during 5 yr. inspection
period
II. 2
85.3%
82.7%
-
E
24
% SI Us w/control mechanisms
II. 2
99.2%
99.3%
-
E
O)
25
% of CSO permittees with long-term
control plans developed or required
II. 5
75%
2008
82.2%
94.0%
-
CL
26
% CAFOs covered by NPDES permits
II. 3
35%
1%
-
CO
LD
O
CL
Z
27
% biosolids facilities that have satisfied
part 503 requirements (TBD '05)
II. 6
"
-
28
# Phase 1 storm water permits issued but
not current (76 total)
II. 4
n/a
2
n/a
29
# Phase 1 storm water permits not yet
issued (5 total)
II. 4
n/a
0
n/a
30
Phase II storm water small MS4 permits
current (Y/N/D (draft))
(35 States)
II. 4
100%
states
2008
n/a
Y
n/a
31
Phase II storm water construction permit
current (Y/N/D (draft)) (49 States)
II. 4
100%
states
2008
n/a
Y
n/a
"O
c
32
% major facilities inspected
III. 3
71%
49%
0%
O)
a)
33
(inspections at minors) / (total inspections
at majors and minors)
III. 3
76%
67%
50%
11
34
% major facilities in significant non-
compliance (SNC)
III.l
20%
20%
-
0>
= 1
35
% SNCs addressed by formal
enforcement action (FEA)
III.l
14%
4%
-
i |
36
% SNCs returned to compliance w/o FEA
III.l
70%
88%
-
° c
CO HI
ID
37
# FEAs at major facilities
(666 total)
III.l
n/a
5
3
CL
38
# FEAs at minor facilities
(1.660 total)
III.l
n/a
16
4
Additional Data
State
Activities
EPA
Activities
Explanation of Column Headers:
Profile Section: For each measure, this
column lists the section of the profile where
the program area (including any additional
data for the measure) is discussed.
National Data Sources: The information in
these two columns is drawn from two types of
sources:
(1) EPA-managed databases of record for the
national water program, such as PCS, the
National Assessment Database, and the
National TMDL Tracking System. NPDES
authorities are responsible for populating PCS
with required data elements and for assuring
the quality of the data. EPA is working to
phase in full use of NAD and NTTS as
national databases.
(2) Other tracking information maintained by
EPA Headquarters for program areas such as
CAFOs, CSOs, and storm water.
The definitions document accompanying this
Management Report provides a detailed
definition of each data element in the National
Data Sources columns.
Additional Data: These columns provide
additional data in cases where information
from other data sources differs from
information in the National Data Sources
column for reasons such as different timing of
the data "snapshot." Additional data should
generally adhere to the same narrative
definitions as data in the National Data
Sources, and should be derived using similar
processes and criteria. Our goal is to work
with the States on these discrepancies to
ensure consistent and accurate reporting. A
State contact is available who can respond to
queries. The profiles discuss each additional
data element.
State Activities: Information in these columns
reflects activities conducted by the State
program. (Shaded cells in these columns
indicate that the work may not be entirely the
State's responsibility, but a breakdown of the
data into EPA and State responsibilities is
unavailable.)
EPA Activities: Information in these columns
reflects activities conducted by the EPA
Region within the State.
-------
NPDES Management Report, Winter 2005
Ohio
National Data Sources
Profile
Section
GPRA
Goal
Nat. Avg.
State
Activities
EPA
Activities
Water Quality Progress
39
River/stream miles
(3,419,857 total)
IV. 2
n/a
57,936
n/a
< c
•= .2
=5 2
44
On-time Water Quality Standards (WQS)
triennial review completed (42 States)
IV. 3
n/a
Y
n/a
11
•> "O
> <
45
# WQS submissions that have not been
fully acted on after 90 days (32 total)
IV. 3
<25%
submis-
sions
n/a
n/a
0
46
State is implementing a comprehensive
monitoring strategy (Y/N) (TBD)
IV. 1
all
states
2005
-
-
-
47
% river/stream miles assessed for
recreation
IV. 2
13.8%
41.8%
n/a
48
% river/stream miles assessed for aquatic
life
IV. 2
22.0%
70.4%
n/a
c
o
49
% lake acres assessed for recreation
IV. 2
49.4%
0.0%
n/a
c
50
% lake acres assessed for aquatic life
IV. 2
48.5%
0.0%
n/a
0)
Q_
£
51
# outstanding WQS disapprovals
(23 total)
IV. 3
n/a
1
n/a
§
a
------- |