Click here for

DISCLAIMER

Document starts on next page
EPA 

United States Office of EPA 440 4 91 002 

Environmental Protection Water November 1991 

Agency (WH-553) 

De Minimis Discharges Study 

Report to Congress 
De Minimis Discharges Study 

REPORT TO CONGRESS 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

November 1991 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

EPA acknowledges personnel from the following offices who served on a work group 

and provided input in the preparation of this report: 

• EPA Region I 

• EPA Region IV 

• North Carolina’s Water Quality Planning Branch 

• Office of General Counsel 

• Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation 

• Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance 

• Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 

EPA especially appreciates the efforts of the ten EPA Regional Permitting Offices and 

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

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

information for this Report to Congress. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Legislative History ................................ 4 

Regional and State Permitting Authority Contributions .......... 8 

CHAPTER TWO: CLASSIFICATION OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES 10 

Method of Classification ............................ 

Sources of Data .................................. 

Classification Projections ............................ 

CHAPTER THREE: REGULATION OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES . 31 

Existing Regulations ............................... 31 

Potential Regulatory Options .......................... 40 

Evaluation of Potential Regulatory Options ................. 42 

CHAPTER FOUR: UNIT RESOURCE AND COST COMPARISONS 

FOR POTENTIAL REGULATORY OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Development of Permitting Resource Model ................ 

Sources of Data .................................. 

Unit Cost Comparisons ............................. 

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 60 

Identification of De Minimis Discharges ................... 60 

Regulatory Options ................................ 61 

Recommendations for Implementation .................... 65 

Page 

i 

10 

21 

23 

50 

50 

51 

58 
APPENDICES 

Appendix 

Appendix A: 

Appendix B: 

Appendix C: 

Appendix D: Survey Results - Potential Regulatory Options 

Appendix E: 

Appendix F: 

Appendix G: 

Appendix H: 

Appendix I: 

Appendix J: 

Appendix K: 

Appendix L: 

Appendix M: North Carolina Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-1 

Appendix N: EPA Permit Issuance Workload Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N-1 

Title Page 

Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 

Regional Contact Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 

Survey Results - Potential De Minimis Discharges 

EPA Regional Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 

State Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5 

EPA Regional Responses ......................... D-1 

State Responses ............................... D-3 

Toxicity Indices for Industrial Subcategories ............. E-1 

Classification of Major and Minor Permits ............. F-1 

Secondary Facilities . Toxic Discharge ................ G-1 

Secondary Facilities . Effluent Guidelines .............. H-1 

Secondary Facilities - Permit Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 

Secondary Facilities - Potential De Minimis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1 

State NPDES Program Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1 

General Permit Information 

State General Permit Program Status ................. L-1 

General Permit Discharge Categories .................. L-3 
LIST OF TABLES 

Number Title 

1 

2 

2-1 

2-2 

2-3 

3-1 

3-2 

4-1 

4-2 

4-3 

4-4 

4-5 

4-6 

4-7 

5-1 

Projection of Potential De Minimis Discharges ............. 

Summary of Regulatory Option Evaluations ............... 

States and U.S. Territories Addressed by the De Minimis 

Discharges Study ............................... 

Categories Used to Define Potential De Minimis Discharges .... 

Category 1: NPDES Primary Industrial Categories .......... 

Steps Involved in Potential De Minimis Regulatory Options ..... 

Evaluation of Potential De Minimis Regulatory Options ....... 

Development of Average Generic Costs Associated with Various 

Permitting Steps ............................... 

Effort and Cost of Standard/Model NPDES Permitting 

(Secondary Facilities) ............................ 

Effort and Cost of Issuing General Permit Coverage 

(Secondary Facilities) ............................ 

Effort and Cost of Ten-Year Permitting 

(Secondary Facilities) ............................ 

Effort and Cost of Over-the-Counter Permitting 

(Secondary Facilities) ............................ 

Effort and Cost of Exclusion by Waiver 

(Secondary Facilities) ............................ 

Unit Resource and Cost Comparison ................... 

Summary of Regulatory Option Evaluations ............... 

Page 

iv 

viii 

12 

13 

14 

32 

44 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

59 

63 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Number Title Page 

1-1 EPA Regional and State Contacts for the De Minimis 

Discharges study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

2-1 Nationwide Distribution of All Active NPDES Facilities . . . . . . . 15 

2-2 Schematic Diagram of Nationwide Classification of 

Potential De Minimis Discharges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

2-3 Classification of Potential De Minimis Discharges . . . . . . . . . . . 24 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The objective of this report is to determine whether there are point source discharges 

into navigable waters that, in terms of volume, concentration, and type of pollutant, are not 

significant, and to determine the most effective and appropriate methods of regulating any 

such discharges. This report is required by Section 516 of the Water Quality Act of 1987. 

This Report to Congress- the requirements of Section 516 by identifying 

potential de minimis discharges and recommending effective and appropriate methods of 

regulating those discharges. The Report includes five major elements: (1) legislative history 

and background, (2) classification of de minimis discharges, (3) regulatory options, (4) unit 

resource and cost savings of the regulatory options; and (5) recommendations. 

Legislative History and Background 

In 1972 under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (FWPCA), the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was established. The NPDES 

Program requires all point source discharges of pollutants to have a permit (except as 

provided in Section 404 of the Water Quality Act, which regulates dredge and fill activities). 

Considerable resources for both permitting agencies and permittees are involved in the 

NPDES permit process. Permits for major discharges average 30 pages, consume four 

months’ processing time, and cost thousands of dollars to issue. 

Since 1972, approximately 65,000 dischargers in the United States have been issued 

NPDES permits, which require renewal at a maximum of five-year intervals. EPA and State 

i 
Executive Summary 

permitting agencies are faced with an increasing backlog of permits that have expired and 

should be reissued. EPA has always been concerned about how to set priorities for permit 

writing. The Agency has grappled with this problem in a number of ways. One of the first 

steps EPA took in setting priorities was to classify all discharges as either major or minor. 

Confronted with the enormous task of reviewing permits for major point source discharges, 

EPA and State agencies have not been able to act on over 10,000 permit applications and 

numerous permit renewals, nearly all of which are minor point source discharges. 

In 1982, during public hearings before Congress, modifications to the NPDES permit 

regulations that address insignificant discharges were suggested as possible amendments to 

the FWPCA. During these hearings, the term de minimis was used to reflect insignificant 

discharges. The de minimis concept under the NPDES program was further discussed during 

public hearings before Congress in 1983 and 1985. In 1987, Congress passed the Water 

Quality Act, which mandated this study of de minimis discharges in lieu of amending NPDES 

permit requirements for such discharges. 

Classification of De Minimis Discharges 

Potential de minimis discharges are classified in this report through a two-part process 

using readily available data and supporting information from permitting authorities. The first 

part screens the potential number of de minimis discharges by evaluating the type of facility, 

type of effluent, current Federal effluent regulations, and permit limitations. This initial 

screening had to be conducted on a very limited data base since most permitting and 

compliance monitoring activities have concentrated on major discharges, which by definition 

are not de minimis. Because the data on most minor facilities are limited, entire groups of 

dischargers were screened out from the category of potential de minimis if there was reason 

to conclude that a group of permittees contained at least a reasonable number of dischargers 

that could not be considered de minimis. The Agency approached the de minimis 

ii 
Executive Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

projected nationwide. 

Screening and Evaluation of Diies 

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

into four categories: 

l Primary Industrial Facilities: Primary industries are considered to have a high 

potential for toxic pollutant discharges. All primary facilities are excluded from 

& minimis. 

l Sewage Treatment Facilities: Facilities classified as sewage treatment facilities 

have a high potential for toxic pollutant discharges, ammonia, and chlorine, as 

well as pathogens. Consequently, all sewage treatment facilities are excluded 

from & minimis. 

l Unknown Facilitks: All facilities with incomplete or insufficient data that could 

not be classified in any industrial category are considered to be potential 

dischargers of toxic pollutants for the purposes of this study and are excluded 

from dc minimis. 

l Secondary Facilitks: Secondary facilities were categorized into three groups: 

(1) facilities with significant potential for toxics in their discharge; (2) facilities 

with effluent guidelines; and (3) all others. Facilities classified as “all others” 

were further classified into facilities with permit limitations for any toxics, 

ammonia, or chlorine and facilities projected to be potential dc minimis. 

. . . 

ul 
Executive Summary 

Application dSi!dpedfk Criteria 

~afacilityiscategorizadaspotar~dcminimir,thesacondpartofthe 

classification procedure would apply site-specific criteria, used by the Agency’s Offke of 

Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) for major/minor de&nations, to confirm 

a facility as dc nkimi.s. This portion of the procedure would be pe&rmed by the permitting 

authorities. The criteria address six charxkristics of the discharge: 

l Toxic pollutant discharge; 

l Flow/stream flow volume; 

l conventional pollutants; 

l Public health impact; 

l watcrqualityktors;and 

l Pmcimitytonearal0stal-. 

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

as a group, to be potentially dc minim& applying the classification system previously 

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

confirmed as insignificant in terms of volume, cuncentration, and pollutant type. 

Table 1 

Projection of Potar&l DC A&MS Discharges 

PrimaryIlxlustrial 

Sewage TrU&KNVll 

Secondary Facilities 

TOTAL 

Percent 

17,463 23.4 0 -- 

21,073 28.3 0 -- .

4,03 1 5.4 A -.- 

42.9 1.2 

74,525 893 

iv 
Executive Summary 

ReguhtoKy options of DC Minim& DizxhrgDe minimis discharges may be suitable for alternative regulatory appro0ches. 

Existing regulatory options include the st&ard NPDES program (iluding model permits) 

and the general permit. Possible alternative regulatory options that would require statutory 

change include the ten-year permit, over-the-counter permits, exclusion by waiver from the 

NPDES program, and the national rule approach. These options are described below: 

l Model Phmit: Uses an “example9 standard permit to reduce burden. Requires 

complde application and proceakg. 

a General Permit: Extends broad coverage for a class of similar discharges. 

Contains many of the standard permit provisions at a considezable reduction in 

administrative burden. Requires review by EPA Region and/or Headquarters. 

l Ten-Year hxmit: Extends the lifetime of the permit from 5 to 10 years. 

Requires a statutory change. Difficulties perceived in rtspocrding to changes in 

effluent, regulations, etc. 

l Over-th&ounter permits: Abbreviates application and permit process. 

(Applicants receive sameday or 24-hour service.) May require statutory 

change. Difficulties perceived in maintaining public notice and establishing 

suitable Regional/State permitting procedures. 

a Exclusion by Waiver fawn the NPDES Program: Excludes aztain categories 

of discharges from NPDES Requires a statutory change and case-bydesignations. May eliminate some discharges from regulation; possible water 

quality impacts. 

V 
Executive Summary 

0 National Rule: Allows the instantaneous regulation of large groups of 

di minimis discharges by coverage under a general rule. The rule would state 

coverage of specified activities and corresponding national standards (similar to 

EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards) that would apply to the facility. 

Requires confirmation of & minimis status. A Notice of Intent may also be 

RCpti. 

Unit Resoume and Cost Savings of Regulatory Options 

Analyses were conducted to determine the potential unit savings in resources 

(person-hours) and costs attributable to the alternative regulatory options. These addressed 

only savings for permitting agencies (EPA and approved States); savings for industry and 

other permittees were not considered. Primary data were obtained from two sources: (1) the 

1986 North Carolina Effort and Cost of Permitting Study, which outlines the permit steps 

and effort involved in a standard/model permit program; and (2) the 1987 EPA Permit 

Issuance Workload Model, which predicts levels of effort involved in permitting various 

discharges. Supporting information was obtained from the EPA Regional permitting 

authorities and State permitting agencies. 

In comparing the projected resources (person-hours) and costs of the various 

alternative regulatory options, unit (per plant) governmental savings are as follows: 

1. Exclusion by Waiver 

2. GeneralPermit 

3. over-the-counter Permit 

4. Ten-Year Permit 

(96) (96) 

92 94 

20 23 

19 22 

16 17 

vi 
Executive Summary 

Savings are in relation to the Standard/Model (baseline) Permit requiring an estimated 147 

person-hours and $1,807 per facility over a 5 year term. 

The national rule approach was not evaluated since it requires that classes of 

discharges be confirmed as de minimis before any site-specific investigations are conducted. 

EPA’s limited data base on these potential & minimis discharges prevents this confirmation. 

Recommendations 

An estimated 893 facilities (1.2 percent of all active NPDES facilities) belong to 

industrial types that can readily be projected as potentially de minimis. In part, because it is 

the best regulatory option available under cutrent law, the general permit is recommended as 

the most effective and appropriate method of regulating these discharges (Table 2). Although 

a prudently managed system for exclusion by waiver or a national permit by rule approach 

for de minimis discharges may ultimately offer the greatest savings to government and the 

economy, quite possibly at little risk to the environment, those options are not available 

under current law. General permits can be issued with unit resource and cost savings of 20 

and 23 percent, respectively. No as general permit regulations 

were promulgated in 1979. General permits are currently used by a number of EPA Regions 

and approved States with noted success in reducing the burden for permitting agencies. A 

positive consensus was received from EPA Regional and State permitting authorities on the 

applicability of general permits. However, the general permit will be effective only if the 

number of potential de minimis discharges within a specified geographical or political 

boundary is adequate to make the permit administratively worthwhile. (General permits are 

rulemakings that require substantial data gathering on the part of permitting agencies.) In 

such cases where the general permit is not effective, individual 5 year permits would be 

appropriate based on standard “models” issued by EPA as guidance. Model permits can be 

vii 
Executive Summary 

Table 2 

Summary of Regulatory Option Evaluations 

UtilhtiOtl 

Positive 

unit sclv~ 

R- from Permitting 

(P-t) (P-t) Authorities 

Gamal Permit No 28 NPDES 

stata3 plus 

16 mNPDES 

StUCUOr 

TCllitOli~ 

20 23 YeS 

Tea-Ycu 

Pamit 

over* 

camtcr Permit 

YCS c&lifolG 

mmNPDES 

CXhMbdlife pamit& 

16 

Exclusioo by YCl? 

waiver 

califonli8 

fa had 

- 

(-- 

NPDES) 

92 

17 

22 

94 

YC4J 

No 

YeS 

. . . 

vul 
Ihcutive Summary 

helpful by giving generic permit requirements and guidelines for certain types of discharges. 

This template can then be tailored to a specific discharge with less burden than it takes to 

develop a permit from scratch. 

ix 
INTRODUCTION 

The objective of this study is to determine whether there are point source discharges 

into navigable waters that, in terms of volume, concentration, and type of pollutant, are not 

significant (i.e., de minimis). The Agency is required to submit a Report to Congress on the 

results of the study, along with recommendations concerning the most effective and 

appropriate methods of regulating such discharges. This study was required by Congress in 

lieu of revisions to this aspect of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES). 

As established by Section 402(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), all point source 

discharges of pollutants to navigable waters must have a NPDES permit (except as provided 

in Section 404 which regulates dredge and fill activities). The time and resources involved 

in the NPDES permit process are considerable for both the regulatory agency and industry. 

Permits for major discharges average 30 pages, consume 4 months’ processing time, and cost 

thousands of dollars to issue. 

Since 1972, approximately 65,000 NPDES permits have been issued, which require 

renewal at a maximum of five-year intervals. EPA and State permitting agencies are faced 

with an increasing backlog of permits that have expired and should be reissued. EPA has 

always been concerned about how to set priorities for permit writing. The Agency has 

grappled with this problem in a number of ways. One of the first steps EPA took in setting 

priorities was to classify all discharges as either major or minor. Confronted with the 

enormous task of reviewing permits for major point source discharges, the EPA and State 

1 
Introduction 

agencies have not acted on over 10,000 permit applications and numerous permit renewals, 

the majority of which are minor point source discharges. 

If discharges are de minimis, based on concentration, volume, and type of discharge, 

and do not significantly impact water quality, regulatory options may be recommended to 

reduce their regulatory/administrative burden on the regulatory agencies as well as industry. 

Resources could then be concentrated on permit compliance rather than permit 

administration. 

Chapter One of this report provides background information on the evolution of the 

De Minimis Discharge Study. The legislative history is presented, beginning with the 1982 

public record, which mentions excluding “insignificant discharges” from the requirements of 

NPDES permits. A description of the Regional/State survey conducted for this study is also 

included. 

Chapter Two presents the data and information pertinent to classifying a discharge as 

de minimis using criteria established by the Agency. The methodology and data sources used 

in the assessment are discussed. The assessment was severely hampered by the lack of data 

since most permitting and compliance monitoring activities have concentrated on major 

discharges, which, by definition, are not de minimis. The specific criteria used in the 

classifications, such as Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) axle and effluent 

characteristics, are defined. The chapter concludes with a classification of potential 

de minimis discharges. 

Chapter Three discusses existing regulatory options currently in use and other 

potential regulatory options compiled by the Agency. Regulatory options are described and 

evaluated. 

2 
Introduction 

ChapterFourasses~ the potential unit cost savings to permitting agencies in terms 

of resources and dollars that could be attributed to the alternative regulatory options used to 

permit & mikmi.r discharges. The development of a permitting resoura model is discussed, 

and unit savings to government are projected and evaluated for each regulatory option. This 

chapter concludes with a comparison of savings. 

Chapter Five presents the conclusions and recommendations of the Agency. It 

provides an overview on the Agency’s findings, as well as recommendations concerning the 

most effective and appropriate methods of regulating dc minimis discharges. 

Various appendices are attached to this report, providing more detail on the specific 

issues and options addressed in the main text. Appendix A presents, in chronological order, 

all information found in the public records concerning the legislative evolution of the study 

of dc minimk discharges. Appendix B provides the questionnaire used to survey permitting 

authorities on the types or categories of discharges that could be considered de minimis, as 

well as to recommend regulatory options. Appendices C and D summariz the results of the 

Study’s survey of Regional and State permitting authorities. Appendices E through J contain 

additional information on the classification of & minimi.r discharges. Appendix K provides a 

summary of the States approved to issue permits under the standard NPDES program. 

Appendix L provides general permit information, including current program status and a 

listing of categories currently covered by general permits. Appendix M includes the North 

Carolina Case Study on the Effort and Cost of Permitting. Appendix N presents the EPA 

workload model that estimates outputs, workloads, and resourm for various types of 

NPDES permits. 

3 
Chapter One 

BACKGROUND 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 

The evolution of the De Minimis Discharges Study was obtained from the 

Congressional Record, which was reviewed for all references to the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (FWPCA) or the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the years 1981-1987. The 

legislative record for previous years was examined with respect to amendments to the 

FWPCA. Appendix A presents, in chronological order, all information found in the public 

records concerning the legislative evolution of the study of de minimis discharges. All page 

references cited in this chapter are contained in Appendix A. 

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was established with 

the passage of Public Law 92-500, called the FWPCA Amendments of 1972 (also known as 

the Clean Water Act), by the second session of the 92nd Congress on October 12, 1972. 

The NPDES program requires all point source discharges of pollutants (other than dredged or 

fill material regulated under Section 404 of the CWA) to United States waters to have a 

permit, the term of which may not exceed 5 years. Subsequent amendments to the FWPCA 

were produced by Congress, but contained no references to insignificant (de minimis) 

discharges. 

Modifying regulations for insignificant discharges under the NPDES permit program 

were first proposed during public hearings held in 1982 on possible amendments to the 

FWPCA. Hearings were again held in 1983 and 1985. The bill passed by Congress in 

February 1987 became Public Law 100-4 (PL 100-4), amending the FWPCA. Section 516 

4 
Background 

of the Water Quality Act (WQA), a “Study of De Minimis Discharges,’ mandated the study 

of insignificant discharges of pollution, as well as recommendations for methods to best 

regulate them. The following paragraphs present the legislative evolution of the De Minimis 

Discharges Study. 

The 1982 hearings before the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the U.S. House 

of Representatives Committee on Public Works and Transportation produced the first 

mention in the public record of the exclusion of “insignificant discharges’ from the 

requirements of the NPDES permit program. The idea was first set out by J.C. Hildrew, 

speaking for the American Petroleum Institute on July 28, 1982. He quoted a 1979 report of 

the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) 

as source of the assertion that "about 51 percent of all permits issued . . . involved relatively 

insignificant facilities with respect to point source pollution concerns,” which places a heavy 

burden, in terms of both time and cost, on government and industry. He concluded that “the 

EPA Administrator should be given specific authority to exempt environmentally insignificant, 

discharges from the requirements of the NPDES permit program” (p. A-l). On July 29, 

R.F. Flacke, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, estimated the number of ‘dischargers of a minor nature’ to be ‘about eighty 

percent of the permittees.” He stated that these minor discharges do not require review 

every 5 years due to “the unchanging nature of the waste streams and/or the lack of 

additional treatment requirements’ (p. A-5). J.W. Haun, speaking for the National 

Environmental Development Association (NEDA) on July 29, introduced the term 

“de minimis” for those discharges that “. . . based on concentration, volume, and type of 

discharge . . . are insignificant to the protection of water quality . . . ” and advocated their 

exemption from NPDES requirements (p. A-6). Following these hearings, a bill (H.R. 3282) 

was introduced by Rep. Howard on June 13, 1983, and contained Section 35 entitled “Study 

of Regulation of De Minimis Discharges” (p. A-9). 

5 
Background 

The Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S House of Representatives, 

held hearings in the fall of 1983 on possible amendments to the FWPCA. On September 20, 

H.G. Williams, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation, reported that “in New York, ninety percent of the point source pollution 

comesfromtenpercentofthesources.” He recommended the extension of NPDES permits 

to a duration of 10 years to “. . . give regulating agencies the ability to concentrate their 

resources on permit compliance rather than permit administration” (p. A-11). 

O.G. Simpson, Atlantic Richfield Company, urged the exemption of “dc minimis classes of 

point source dischargers of conventional pollutants’ (p. A-12). K.E. Blower of the Standard 

Oil Company of Ohio, representing the American Petroleum Jnstitute Water Program 

Committee, on November 10 urged Congress ‘. . . (a) to exempt appropriate discharges 

from categories of point sources, and (b) to exempt specific point source discharges on a 

case-bycase basis” (p. A-13). J.W. Haun, appmring again for NEDA, recommended that 

“the ERA Administrator should be allowed to exempt dc minimis point source discharges and 

channeled stormwater runoff containing dc minimi.s quantities of pollutants from the NPDES 

permit procedure” (p. A-15). After this phase of hearings, the text of H.R. 3282, ordered to 

be printed by the Committee of the Whole House on June 6, 1984, retained its Section 35 @. 

A-16). 

On June 20, 1984, Rep. Gberstar and cosponsors introduced H.R. 5903; Section 35 

of that act required a study of regulation of dc minimis discharges, which was identical in 

wording to that of H.R. 3282 (p. A-18). A subsequent amendment (p. A-20) merged the two 

bills into H.R. 3282, which was passed by the House on June 26 @. A-22), sent to the 

Senate, and placed on the calendar on July 24. H.R. 3282 died for lack of action. 

When the 99th Congress convened in 1985, Rep. Howard on January 3 introduced 

H.R. 8, which was a virtual copy of his H.R. 3282 of 1983; Rep. Gberstar on March 7 

6 
Background 

introduced H.R. 1509, which was a virtual copy of his H.R. 5903 of the previous year. 

Both bills contained dc minim& discharges study sections identical in wording (pp. A-26 and 

A-28). J.L. Abetter, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources, State of Georgia, 

appeared at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the House Committee 

on Public Works and Transportation on April 30, 1985. Speaking for ASIWPCA, he 

estimated that “in most states, seventy-five percent of the permits are for relatively small 

dischargers with nontoxic wastewaters, and lo-year permits would enable the states to spend 

more time developing and reopening the permits for major sources” (p. A-29). 

Amendments were added to H.R. 8 in July; renumbering of the sections caused the study of 

de minimis discharges to become Section 43, but the wording was unchanged (p. A-30). 

On July 23, H.R. 8, as amended, was passed by the House. The House then agreed 

to consider Senate bill 1128. Rep. Howard amended it by substituting its contents with the 

text of H.R. 8 as passed. This brought about another renumbering of sections, and the 

de mhimis discharges study became Section 67 (p. A-36). The Senate disagreed with the 

House amendments and requested a conference. S. 1128 emerged from the conference on 

October 15, 1986, in drastically altered form, but the de minimis discharges study was 

retained and became Section 516 (p. A-38). S. 1128 was pocket vetoed by President 

Reagan. 

On January 6, 1987, S. 1 was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Byrd and numerous 

cosponsors, and H.R. 1 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Howard and 

a multitude of cosponsors. The bills were identical and contained the exact wording of 

S. 1128. In the House debate, Rep. Hammerschmidt expressed his belief that most 

stormwater discharges would not have significant environmental impacts and would not 

require permits (p. A-47). The House passed H.R. 1 on January 8, 1987 (p. A-49). As a 

part of the Senate consideration of H.R. 1, Sen. Dole proposed an amendment that would 

7 
Background 

reduce the funding. This amendment had two sections dealing with the de minimis 

discharges study, 511 and 526, which were identical in wording and unaltered from Section 

516 of S. 1 and H.R. 1. The Dole amendment was rejected by a vote on January 21, 1987, 

after which the Senate passed the original bill. President Reagan vetoed the bill on 

January 30. The House voted on February 3, 1987, to override the veto, and the Senate 

followed suit on February 4. The study of de minimis discharges was thus mandated. 

REGIONAL AND STATE P- G AUTHORITY CONTRIBUTIONS 

The NPDES permitting program is administered by Regional (EPA) and authorized 

State permitting agencies throughout the United States. EPA Regional permitting authorities 

were initially contacted to provide suggestions on the types or categories of discharges that 

could be considered de minimis, including data and supporting rationale. A detailed 

questionnaire was then developed on the basis of the responses (Appendix B). 

The ten EPA Regional permitting authorities and nine State permitting agencies 

(Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Texas, Missouri, California, and 

Washington) recommended by the Regional offices (Figure l-l) were surveyed to obtain 

information on the types or categories of discharges that could be considered de minimis, as 

well as to obtain recommendations for regulatory options and to identify associated 

procedural implications with respect to the classification of de minimis discharges. Results of 

the survey were assessed and compiled. Regional and State permitting agencies 

recommended several categories of de minimis discharges that national data bases have 

identified as having a potential discharge of toxics (Appendices C and D). As a result, these 

recommendations were not carried forward in this report. 

8 
Background 

. 

-- __ - --- 

__. _~. ____ -- _ - -. -- - ..-- _. .__ _-.. - 

F lgure 1- 1. EPA Reg i clnd I and State Contdcts for the De Minimis 

0 I schar-ges 5 t udy . 

9 
Chapter Two 

CLASSIFICATION OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES 

Over 74,000 facilities nationwide are currently discharging into navigable waters. 

From an environmental standpoint, any discharge may have a potential for water quality 

impacts. However, some types of discharges may not be significantly impacting water 

quality. This chapter classifies those discharges identified as potentially de minimis using 

readily available data, supporting information, and guidelines established by the Agency. 

The classification process was severely hampered by the lack of data since most permitting 

and compliance monitoring activities have concentrated on major discharges, which, by 

definition, are not de minimis The classification is a two-part process involving (1) 

screening and evaluation of discharges according to the type of facility, type of effluent, 

current Federal regulations, and permit limitations to quantify potential de minimis discharges 

and, subsequently, (2) application of site-specific criteria to confirm a discharge as 

de minimis. Based on the initial screening, which is the level of analysis conducted for this 

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

nationwide. The criteria to confirm a discharge as de minimis under the second part of the 

process are outlined, but none of the facilities classified as potentially de minimis have 

actually been confirmed from the initial screening as part of this report. 

METHOD OF CLASSIFICATION 

Data were retrieved from four EPA data bases (Permit Compliance System (PCS), 

Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) file, REACH, and GAGE), and subsequently compiled 

and analyzed using a computerized software system. Facilities identified in PCS as actively 

discharging into “waters of the United States’ were retrieved by State or Territory for the ten 

10 
Classification of De Minimis Discharges 

EPA Regional Divisions of the United States (Table 2-1) and classified into four categories 

based on the facilities’ 1972 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: (1) primary 

industrial, (2) sewage treatment, (3) unknown, and (4) secondary (Table 2-2). The four 

categories were defined in order to determine industries that discharge or have the potential 

to discharge pollutants (toxics, conventional pollutants, and nonconventional pollutants 

(ammonia and chlorine)) into receiving streams. The secondary facilities category contains 

the largest number of active facilities (Figure 2-1). The four categories were then screened 

and evaluated for potential de minimis status. 

Screening and Evaluation of Discharges 

The screening and evaluation of a facility’s discharge were based on four criteria: (1) 

category of industry; (2) effluent characteristics, such as the type of effluent and its potential 

for toxic pollutants; (3) promulgation of Federal effluent limitation guidelines and standards 

for toxics, conventional pollutants, and nonconventional pollutants; and (4) permit limitations 

for any toxics, ammonia, or chlorine. 

Several assumptions and limitations were made in applying these criteria. 

1. Differences may exist in the level and types of discharges of toxic substances 

between subcategories of the same SIC code. However, a nationwide data base 

of facilities by subcategory was unavailable to complete this study. Therefore, 

the number of facilities projected with toxic pollutant discharges may be 

overestimated since toxicity data were extrapolated to the entire industry (i.e., 

SIC code). 

11 
Classification of Lk Minimis Discharges 

Tsble 2-1 

Sbta and U.S. Tcrritoria Mdnscd by the 

Lk hlinimis Dkhuga Study 

NavYok 

New J-Y our) 

PWtORiCO(-PR) 

Vi+lI&hlld#(VQ 

DCJA- @El 

Wdingtm, D.C. (DC) 

Mww (MD) 

PcalMylvazlh (PA) 

Virginia (VA) 

watvirgiaia(wv) 

Abbmm w-) 

Phida (FL) 

G-lb WA) 

Keatucky (KY) 

Miasimippi (MS) 

North CuoIias (NC) 

!south CuoliM (SC) 

T-0 

ON VI 

Afkansu WV 

buisiana (LA) 

Oklsboms (OK) 

TCXM (TX) 

New Mexico (NM) 

c43lofado (CO) 

Montana (MT) 

North Ddota (ND) 

South D&oh (SD) 

uaUJ-0 

WY-a 0 

C&for& (CA) 

Nevada (NV) 

A.riznM WI 

Hawaii(HI) 

Anmicm Samoa (AS) 

G- (0 

12 
Classification of Lk Minimis Discharges 

T8bb 2-2 

c&qpriaudtoDcflnePotahtid 

DrMblidDirchrpsr 

-iPrY D&initial 

1 Primuy InduscdFdt Fd.itimiaclUdbduputof~inmqtry 

(17,463 Frilitia) C8bgObIiStCdinttlCN8tiOd Rararrosr Defame tzound 

mw- qrcmua~ (T&b 2-3). ‘Any permit issued 

&es June 30, 1981, to diuhqen in the following categories dull 

ifhdeemumllimi~mldrooalp~8cbed~etomaetthe 

=W-- of - 3WWXA). VXW,O. md 0 of 

CW&wbdwornot8ppliabbeffluntlimi~gui&linab8ve 

beatpmmlptai.’ (CFR.AppdixAofPut122,~iidmtifiai 

in PCS). The fn5litia be 8 high potaIm for toxic pollutant 

dirchuge. 

2 StwqeT- Fditk 

(21,073 Frilitia) 

-prinuilyUlg8g8dilltb6dOCliOtl 

mddi8pouIofwutacxlduca tiuough 8 awu systun, including 

dtrataml procarra u may be pmvkkd (SIC 4952). 

3 Unknown Frilitia: Fsilitia with m unhlown-- 

(4,031 Frilitia) clu8ifiatiul OT Ii&d u nalclu8ili8bIe. 

4 SecondaryFrilitia: AU fhlitia ategofiznd otbm tbm 

(31.958 Frilicia) primuyfuilitia,sew8ge trrrtayd f&l&a, 01 unknown frilitics. 

13 
Classifkation of De Minimis Discharges 

T&le 23 

-WV1 

NPDES Priowy I&u&rid Caegoria 

Ptlotom aquipmaht and rupplisr 

Phatiu prtasiq 

PhStiWldrpt!Kltk~~~ 

PoOXllhtlDUXhg 

Printing and publiahiag 

PUlpdprperldh 

Rubberprocauing 

sorp=J--uf-hl 

Steun de&c powr pkntr 

Textile mill8 

TilQbt?productrprocarrinO 

w: CFR,AppmdixAofPut122 

14 
Cladfication of Lk Minimis Discharges 

m PR!nCIRY FAClLITIES - CATEGORY 1 1 

m SEVCIGL FXILITIES - CRTECORY 2 

1 UNUNOW fLICILITIEf - CRTEGORY 3 

lm SECONOCIRY fFICILlTIES - CATEGORY 4 

21,073 

Z8.32 

Flgurc 2-1. Nationuldc Olstrlbutlon of R\L 

Rctive NPOES F~CIII~ICS. (74,SZSl 

15 
Classif’kation of DC Minimis Discharges 

2. Limitations existed in the identification of secondary facilities with potential for 

discharging toxics, ammonia, or chlorine. Because of the limited data, if one 

facility was identified as having a limit for one of these pollutants, the entire 

industry was projected within a SIC code to have a potential impact on water 

quality. Therefore, the number of facilities with projected impacts from these 

pollutants may be overestimated. 

3. Limitations existed in all of the national data bases. Since most data- gathering 

activities have concentrated on major discharges, data were incomplete, in 

particular, regarding the characterization of the type and amount of minor 

discharges and the identification of the receiving stream to which the facility 

discharges. Therefore, the number of facilities projected to be potential 

de minimis represents only a rough estimate of the total number. 

The application of criteria to the four major levels of categories to identify a facility 

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

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

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

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

come into direct contact with or result from the production or use of any raw materials or 

product) were excluded from & minimis. 

Primary facilities with only noncontact cooling discharges were also excluded from 

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

because of the potential for toxics due to the use of algicides, slimicides, and corrosion 

inhibitors in noncontact cooling waters. 

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

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

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

16 
I ttl%zl Classifkatioa of De Minimis Dkharges 

I 

ExcIudd From 

Exehldad U FfWl 

Do Minlmb 

l Ineludu Ammonb 

and/or Chkrina 

Figure 2-2. Schematic Diagram of Nationwide Classification of 

Potential De Mlnimia Discharges. 

17 
Clasdf’iition of Lk Minimis Discharges 

works. Facilities in this category have a high potential for toxic pollutant discharges, 

ammonia, and chlorine, as well as pathogens. Ammonia is frequently found in the effluent 

because of the nature of the waste, with chlorine being used as a disinfectant. Ammonia and 

chlorine are known to be toxic to fish; EPA has established national water quality criteria for 

the protection of aquatic life at 1.15 mg/L-N @H 7.75, temperature 20°C) for ammonia and 

0.11 mg/L for chlorine. Consequently, all sewage treatment facilities were excluded from 

de minimis, regardless of discharge flow, including both privately and publicly owned 

treatment works. 

Unknown Facilities (Category 3): All facilities that could not be classified in any 

industry had an unknown potential for toxic pollutant discharge. Unknown facilities were 

excluded from & minimis. 

Secondary Facilitk (Category 4): !kondary facilities were classified into one of 

three groups: facilities with a significant potential for toxics in their discharge, additional 

facilities with effluent guidelines, and facilities classified as “all others.” Facilities classified 

as “all others” were fiul.her classified into facilities with permit limitations for any toxics, 

ammonia, or chlorine, and facilities projected to be potential dc minimis. 

Facilities in industries with significant potential for toxics were identified through four 

evaluations: 

1. Industries defined by the National Enforcement Investigative Center (NEIC) with 

a probable discharge of toxic pollutants (Appendix E). 

2. Industries regulated by Federal effluent limitation guidelines or standards for 

toxic pollutants. 

18 
Classiikation of De Minimis Diiarges 

3. Industries identified in the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) as having a high 

potential for toxic discharge. The DSS evaluated the impacts of hazardous wastes 

discharged to local wastewater treatment plants. 

4. Industries currently being evaluated for possible effluent limitation guidelines 

development (by the Engineering and Analysis Division @AD)). 

All facilities in industries with a significant potential for toxics were excluded from 

de minimis, including facilities with only noncontact cooling water discharges. Noncontact 

cooling water discharges were eliminated because of the potential for being contaminated 

with algicides or slimicides. 

Facilities in industries regulated by Federal effluent limitation guidelines or standards 

for conventional or nonconventional pollutants were excluded from de minimis based on the 

potential for significant water quality impacts. All facilities were excluded, including 

facilities with only noncontact cooling water discharges. 

Facilities classified as “all others” with permit limits (PCS) for any toxics, including 

ammonia or chlorine (which are classified as nonconventional pollutants but are also known 

to be highly toxic) were also evaluated. Because of the limited available data and small 

sample size within an industrial category, a statistical analysis was not feasible. Therefore, if 

one facility was identified as having a limit for toxics, the entire industry (i.e., SIC code) 

was projected to have a potential impact on water quality. 

The remaining facilities were classified as potential de minimis. Based on available 

information, there is no evidence that any facility in the industries so classified would cause a 

significant water quality problem. 

19 
Classifkation of Zk iUinimis Discharges 

Confiition of classification 

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

applied to confirm a facility as dc minimis or non-& minimis. Such an effort is appropriate, 

but beyond the scope of this report. The following criteria are currently in use by the 

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

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

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

already have available adequate information from permit applications to determine final 

status. 

l Toxic Pollutant Discharge: 

Are toxics present in the discharge? 

l Flow/Stream Flow Volume: 

(1) Does the quantity and type of wastewater discharge alone indicate a 

potential significant impact? 

(2) Does the dilution capacity of’trhe receiving stream, in addition to the 

quantity and type of discharge, indicate a potential significant impact? 

l Conventional Pollutants : 

Do the loads (or concentration) of oxygen-demanding (BOD, COD, TOC etc), 

total suspended solids (TSS), and ammonia (NH,, TKN) pollutants indicate a 

potential significant impact? 

l Public Health Impact: 

Is a public drinking water supply located within 50 miles downstream of the 

effluent discharge? 

20 
ClPssirrcrrton of DC h&his Die5 

l Water Quality Factors: 

Is (or will) one or more of the effluent discharge limits based on water quality 

factors of the receiving stream or has a wasteload allocation been assigned to the 

discharge? Is the receiving water in compliance with the applicable water quality 

standards for pollutants that are water quality limited in the permit? Does the 

effluent discharged from this facility exhibit the reasonable potential to violate 

water quality standards due to whole effluent toxicity? 

l Proximity to Near Coastal Waters: 

Does the facility discharge to near coastal waters or the Great Lakes? Does the 

facility discharge to one of the estuaries enrolled in the National Estuary 

Protection Program or discharge any of the pollutants of concern into one of the 

Great Lakes areas of concern? 

SOURCES OF DATA 

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

sources: 

Permit Compliance System (PCS), December 1987: A computerized management 

information system for tracking permit, compliance, and enforcement status data for the 

NPDES under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The PCS data base is the national inventory for 

NPDES permit issuance and compliance/enforcement data. The Agency is required by law 

(PL 92-500) to maintain this inventory and to ensure its integrity. The data in the PCS data 

base were initially loaded by EPA several years ago. Currently, data may be entered or 

edited by the Regions and States. 

21 
CWication of DC hf.. Discharges 

Indu&ial Facilitks Dkbarge File (IFD), December 1987: A comprehensive data 

base of industrial and municipal point source dischargers. The data base includes general 

information about each facility, including discharge and location information, Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, and categorization of process and discharge type. PCS 

was used to identify NPDES permitted facilities to be included in the IFD file. NPDES 

permits were used to provide general information, and various State and local agencies 

provided additional and more recent information. The Needs Survey was used to add 

information on existing Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Updates are made by 

EPA Headquarters as needed. 

REACH F’k A digital data base of streams, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries divided 

into segments called “reaches.” Each of the 68,000 reaches included in the file is uniquely 

identified by an 1 l-digit reach number. The data base includes stream names, open-water 

names, stream and shoreline traces, and mileage information. EPA Headquarters is adding 

new reaches to increase the utility of the REACH File for data integration and water quality 

ilMQW!S. 

GAGE File: A data base containing information on approximately 36,000 stream 

gaging locations throughout the United States. Information includes the location of gaging 

stations, types of data collected, frequency of data collection, media in which data are stored, 

identification of the collecting agency, and mean and annual flow and 7410 low flow, where 

available. These stations are considered to have the longest period of record of natural flow. 

Updates are made by EPA Headquarters as needed. 

EPA Regional and State Pem&ting Offices: Supporting information was obtained 

from the ten EPA Regional Permitting Authorities and nine State permitting agencies (Maine, 

22 
Classification of De Minimis Diiarges 

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Texas, Missouri, California, and 

Washington) recommended by the EPA Regional Offices. 

Additional Sources: 

- 1972 Standard Industrial Classification Manual 

- Federal Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards 

- National Enforcement Investigative Center in Denver, Colorado 

- 1985 Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to 

Publically Owned Treatment Works (Domestic Sewage Study) 

- Engineering and Analysis Division 

CLASSlFlCATlON PROJECTIONS 

The following section summarizes the classification of potential de minimis 

discharges. Data are projected nationwide based on the four major categories: primary 

industrial, sewage treatment, unknown, and secondary. A total of 893 facilities were 

projected to be potentially de minimis (Figure 2-3). As mentioned previously, the data base 

supporting this analysis is extremely limited. Because the data on most minor facilities are 

limited, entire groups of dischargers were screened out from the category of potential & 

minimis if there was reason to conclude that a group of permittees contained at least a 

reasonable number of dischargers that could not be considered de minimis. The Agency 

approached the di minimis classification in this manner to avoid overestimating the number 

of de minimis discharges. As a result, the projected number of potential & minimis 

discharges may be underestimated; some facilities that were categorically excluded could be 

23 
Figure 2-3 

Classification of Potential De Minimis Discharges 

. escm 

74,525 Actlve Facilltles 

NPDES facilities currently discharging into navigable 

waters. Includes facilities with permit applications 

and expired permits. 

Rlmary Industrial Facllltles (Category 1) 

Industries in this category have been defined through 

research and evaluation by EPA as having a high 

potential for toxic pollutant discharge. 

57,062 w 

..,..................#............ p&-1 Sewage Treatment Facilities (Category 2) 

Facilities in this category have a high potential for 

the discharge of toxic pollutants (including ammonia 

and chlorine), as well as pathogens. 
Figure 2-3 

Classification of Potential De MInimis Discharges (cont.) 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.. 

,*. *. . . . ..py-1 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . I 4,155 b 

Unknown Facilities (Category 3) 

Facilities classified as unknown could not be classified 

in any industry, and, therefore, had an unknown 

potential for discharges containing toxic pollutants. 

Soconduy Feciiitks (Category 4) 

Faciiith with Significmt Potentiai for Toxica 

E~BuW-: 

Fac8lieshbubtfbs re@atedby Federal eflluerrl 

ImlWbn @Mnm or shndards lor Ioxk pohlanls. 

DSS: 

FadUtkts in lmbstries LdenMied in the Domeslic Sewa* 

Study as havh~ a hi@ poteMal lor loxk dischaqp. 

EAD: 

FacWes h inth~slries amently under evahalbn by EAD 

25 
Figure 2-3 

Classification of Potential De Minimls Discharges (cont.) 

Facliitie~ with Effiuent Guidelines for Conventionai 

or Nonconvontion8i Poilutants 

,..........,..............*....... 

Faciiitio8 with Effiuent Limitations (Permit) 

Toxka: 

Facililles In Ln&slries with loxk pobtanl Hmi~s. 

Ammonia and Chlorine: 

FaciWies in lnd~slries wilh ammonia an&or chbdne limits. 

26 
Figure 2-3 

Classification of Potential De Minimis Discharges (cont.) 

17,345 FacJl)lba with Effbuonl 

Lhnadlons (fbdl) 

Hdarchhdm 

4,lsa Fdrnba with Slgdtlcrnl 7 

Pomltfd for Toxlcs 

Note: Total does not equal 

100% duo to roundirlg to 

nearest whotm nutnber. 

17,463 Phrry hrdurtdol 

FmcfNtloa (Cabgory 1) 

(lndustrhs In this cabgory have 

been defined thm 

F 

mwafch 

and evahration by PA aa having 

a h@@ potknlial for loxic pollutant 

dlsdlafge.) Noa a mhb 

’ 2l,fmsowmgmfrm8tmult 

Focaahe (category 2) 

FacUltbshlhbcalegoryhavea 

high fmttibl lor disdmqp of toxk 

pollulants (lnduding ammonia and 

chlorine), as wdt as pathogens. 

HolIkmlfmb 

4,031 unknown FmcMtka (mogory 3) 

Facilities dassifii as unknown cwld not be da&ii 

h any indudry and, therefore. had an unknown 

potenlial lot discftarges conlaidng loxic poklanlr 

l’w~wD&nb 

fdal Actlve Focllltlm I 74,525 

27 
Classifiition of De Minimis Discharges 

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

basis. 

PFimary Industrial Facilities (Category 1) 

Out of a total of 74,525 active NPDES facilities, 23.4 percent or 17,463 facilities 

were classified as primary industrial. Approximately 16,222 of the facilities were identified 

as having process wastewater discharges or incomplete data and were excluded from 

de nthhis. The remainin g 1,241 facilities were identified as having only noncontact cooling 

discharges and were also excluded from de minimis because of the potential for 

contamination with algicides and slimicides. 

Sewage Treatment Facilities (Category 2) 

The 21,073 facilities classified as sewage treatment (SIC 4952) account for 

28.3 percent of aII active NPDES facilities. All sewage treatment facilities were excluded 

from de minimis. 

Unknown Facilitks (Category 3) 

Facilities classified as unknown (4,031) account for 5.4 percent of all active NPDES 

facilities. Such facilities could not be classified in any industry and, therefore, had an 

unknown potential for discharges containing toxic pollutants. All unknown facilities were 

excluded from & minimis. 

28 
Secondary Facilitks (Category 4) 

Secondary facilities represent the largest (43 percent) single category of all active 

NFDES facilities. The 31,958 facilities identified as secondary facilities were further 

classified into four groups: 

1. Facilities with a significant potential for toxics in their discharge - 4,155 

facilities (Appendix G). 

2. Additional facilities regulated by Federal effluent guidelines for conventional 

or nonconventional pollutants - 9,565 facilities (Appendix I-I). 

3. Facilities in industries classified as “all others’ with effluent limitations 

(permits) for any toxics, as well as ammonia or chlorine - 17,345 facilities 

(Appendix I). 

4. Facilities projected to be potential & mMmis - 893 facilities (Appendix J). 

In Groups 1 and 2, 13,720 facilities identified with process wastewater discharges or 

with only noncontact cooling water discharges were excluded from dc minimk. In Group 3, 

all facilities (17,345) were excluded. 

The remaining 893 facilities were classified as potential dc minimis. Based on 

available information, there is no evidence that such facilities would cause a significant water 

quality problem. 

An indeterminate number of minor discharges may be informally recognized by the 

permitting authority as & mkimis discharges, even though they belong to a category of 

facilities that was m out through the classification scheme used in this report. This 

subset of minor discharges bears little regulatory burden. Once the initial NPDES permit of 

29 
classificplt3on of DC Mintnis D&barges 

such discharges is issued, it may be administratively extended for a lengthy time before 

reissuance, while the permitting agency concentrates on major discharges. These minor 

discharges may also be covered by general permits. 

Summary of Potential DC Minbd Fdlities 

A total of 893 facilitks are projected nationwide to be potential dc minimi.s, 

accounting for 1.2 percent of all active NPDES facilities. Once identified, potential 

dc minimis facilities would be subject to site-specific criteria to confirm the facility as 

dc minimis. The level of regulation imposed on a facility confirmed as dc minimis may be a 

function of the permitting agency’s degree of concern. ‘The available regulatory options 

currently employed for the permitting of discharges, as well as other potential regulatory 

options that have been compiled by the Agency, are presented in the following chapter, 

Regulation of DC Minimis Discharges. 

30 
Chapter Three 

REGULATION OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES 

Discharges that have been determined to be de minimis based on a facility’s industrial 

and effluent characteristics are currently subject to the same regulatory burden as all 

discharges. However, alternative regulations that would reduce the regulatory and 

administrative burden to the regulatory agencies, as well as to industry, have been 

recommended to the Agency. This chapter provides a discussion of (1) regulatory options 

that are currently employed for the permitting of discharges, (2) other potential regulatory 

options that have been recommended, and (3) a technical evaluation of the various options. 

The standard permit program (including model permits) and the General Permit Program 

currently exist under Clean Water Act legislation and involve certain permitting steps ranging 

from application to compliance monitoring and inspection. Other potentially applicable 

regulatory options include ten-year permits, over-the-counter permits, exclusion by waiver, 

and the national rule approach. These options may involve reduced or modified permitting 

steps to lessen the permitting burden. Table 3-1 presents the steps involved in these 

permitting procedures, which are discussed in detail in the following sections. 

EXISTING REGULATIONS 

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) “requires permits for 

the discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the United States,’ except as 

provided in Section 404 of the CWA, which regulates dredge and fill activities. Currently, 

two regulatory approaches exist for NPDES permitting agencies (EPA Regions or States) to 

meet this requirement. These options are the Municipal and Industrial Permit Program 

(standard NPDES permit program including model permits) and the General Permit Program. 

31 
T8bl8 3-l. 

St- Irwolwd in Potmtirl 68 fUnIris Re9ulatot-y Optiona 

R8#ulstory 

stsps 

strrbrd NPDES Perri t 

uld w-Yr PW 

m PA En 

Owr-the-canter 

bv umiwr Yst iwl Rule 

Pn PA En m PA En 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

I. 

6. 

7. 

a. 

Pr8-gpl~catim P P P P 

dfKUSlOtl 

Porni t gpt lea- R a 

tim 

Application R R 

pra88ring 

Dmmlopnt of s R II 

dcdt imml t 

0) Lfflwnt Iim~ts 

b) Itonttorirp 

rrgrf rmts 

c) Studsrd codltiom 

d) tpcirl caditlom 

R P 

R P 

R 

R 

P 9 

ky hrw 

to km 

l ltwd to 

ttt Indlv. 

full. 

ststmt of Msis 

fat sh88t 

lkwrt8r Rwiw 

R-Wdsss s 

fut ahnt 

is rupfrod 

(EPA mlyj 

P-for rjor 

fw. only 

I-Unl8sr s 

fat ahwt 

is rm@rod 

(EPA cm1 y) 

P-For rjor 

fa. only 

Plm(C notic 

9. P&tic H*arinR 

10. PWai t l8aumxe 

I 

P 

I 

R 

P 

R 

P-by ruplr8 s 

NotIc of Intmt 

R R P P 

R I-Abr8virt.d P-M8y r-ire a P-My rmqJir* s 

procur Notico of Intent Rotice of Intent 

R R P P 

P-Could k 

MJ--d 

am pdt 

cowring s 

dniqut8d 

arag of 

dluhsrgerr 

R-ALSO 

RWiOll 

RAW 

for St8te 

prai ts 

R-ally for P- BypalS 

the drrft varld 

psrml t rupl r8 

(1 pblfc l rtrtutory 

notics) chuw) 

P 

R 

P 

I 

P 

P 

R-for rule 

P P 

32 
T&l* 3-l 

St+ lnvolvcd In Potential 0o I(inlmls Rqulrtory Optiom 

R~lrtory 

step 

Stm%rd WOES Pernit 

rd IO-'leRr Pernit 

fl PA Eli 

Generrl Pem(L 

m PA EH 

Owr-the-Cmtcr 

Pwmi t 

PI4 PA En 

mlwion by Ysivcr national Rule 

m PA EH Pn PA En 

11. 

12. 

AMnirtr8tlw 

RWOfd 

Dircharge 

ltmltorlng 

Rqxortr 

R-For EPAfrrwd 

peral 18 

R-For EPAIsswd 

pmi ts 

R-For EPAi8wed 

pmi ts 

P R-For ruic 

u R R 

13. Cogllmc~ P P P P P 

Honltorlnp & 

Impwion 

KEY: M - Pomittn 

PA - Pod ttln$ Amy 

Etl - EPA Mea4mrterr 

P - Potential step 

I - Ro@rodStap 

33 
Regulation of De Minimis Discharges 

As of September 1991, 39 States and Territories have been authorized to issue permits under 

the standard NPDES program. In addition, 28 of the 39 States and Territories have been 

approved to administer general NPDES permits (See Appendix K). A Federal Facilities 

Program and a Pretreatment Program are also a part of the NPDES program authority, but 

do not include additional means by which facilities can be permitted. 

Standard NPDES Permit 

The standard NPDES permit is the most commonly used permitting procedure and 

involves application filing, application processing, developing a draft permit, formulating a 

statement of basis (or fact sheet), participation of the public, and issuing a final permit. 

Slight modifications to this procedure are used for both municipal and industrial facilities. 

All standard permits must contain effluent limits, monitoring requirements, and standard 

conditions, as well as special permitting conditions. The duration of a standard permit is a 

maximum of 5 years. 

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

Application: Filing information is submitted by a permittee for issuance or renewal 

of a permit on prescribed EPA or State application forms. Information may vary according 

to the type of discharge, but generally contains facility location, operations, types of 

discharge, a listing of related permits, a topographic map, outfall location, a line drawing of 

water flow, design flow information, production capacity, and effluent characteristics 

(40 CFR 122.21). 

Application Processing: Processing a permit application involves the determination 

of whether the application is complete and accurate by the permitting agency. This process 

34 
Regulation of De Minimis Discharges 

may involve the review of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) and effluent limitation 

guidelines, and direct correspondence with the permittee. 

Development of a Draft Permit: A draft permit is the core of the permitting process 

and requires considerable time and effort to complete. It involves the following four steps: 

. . (1) determination of effluent based on EPA effluent limitation guidelines, water quality 

considerations, best professional judgment (BPI), or a combination of these methods; 

. . 

(2) l consisting of parameters to be monitored, 

. . monitoring points, frequency, and types of sampling; (3) ~&&II of standard 9 

which support the actual effluent limits by delineating legal, administrative, and procedural 

requirements of the permit, through the use of definitions pertaining to the permit, testing 

procedures as defined by EPA, requisites for mrds retention by the permittee, notification 

requirements for monitoring data and noncompliance, permittee responsibilities, and mopener 

clauses, as well as reference to applicable Federal and State laws; and (4) s 

conditions that apply to the specific dischargers and may include compliance schedules, 

biomonitoring requirements, best management practices (BMPs), and other site-specific 

items. 

Fact Sheet or Statement of Bask: A fact sheet is required for major dischargers 

(facilities designated as major by permitting authorities) and includes factual, legal, 

methodological, and policy data considered in the draft permit. A segment of these data is 

the statement of basis, which is required for EPA-issued permits that do not require fact 

sheets (permits for minor dischargers). The statement of basis is a brief summary of the 

basis for the draft permit conditions (40 CFR 124.8 and 124.56). 

Public Notice, Comment, and Hemings: Public notice is the vehicle for informing 

interested parties of the permitting of a new facility and gives an opportunity for comment on 

35 
Regulation of De Minimis Discharges 

the decisions made in the permit. Thirty days of public notice are required for draft NPDES 

permits. The notice must be submitted in at least two ways: (1) the publication of a notice 

in a daily or weekly newspaper within the area affected by the facility or activity (for major 

permits) and (2) the direct mailing of the notice to various designated parties, including the 

applicant; any other agency required to issue a Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) 

Underground Injection Control (UK) permit, a RCRA Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit, or a CWA Dredge or Fill Discharge (404) permit for the 

facility; all appropriate government agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 

neighboring States, etc.); and users identified in the permit application of a privately owned 

treatment works (40 CFR 124.10). Public notice must also be submitted in accordance with 

corresponding State regulations. Comments and requests for hearings may be elicited by 

public notice. Any interested party may request information, dispute the draft permit, or 

request a public hearing. The regulatory agency is obliged to respond to all significant 

comments. The response to a request for a public hearing is based on judgment, and a 

hearing should be granted by the permitting agency if there is a significant amount of interest 

expressed during the public comment period. 

Issuance of a FM Permit: A final permit may be issued after the close of the 

public participation period, which includes public notice, any public hearing, any extension 

or reopening of public comment, and permit certification. 

Administrative Record: For EPA-issued permits, the record must consist of the 

application and supporting information, the draft permit, the statement of basis or fact sheet 

(with cited items and calculations), and all other items in the supporting file. The record for 

the final permit consists of the record for the draft permit, all comments received on the 

draft permit and corresponding responses, the transcripts of any hearings, and any written 

36 
Regulation of Zk Minimis Discharges 

material received at a hearing. Approved States must provide access to all supporting 

information and must include the fact sheet (if applicable) within this information. 

Dkcbrge Monitom Reports (DMRs): DMRs arc required to be filed by the 

permittee on a regular basis (with a duration not to exceed 1 year), as stated in the permit. 

These reports include parameters specified under monitoring requirements. 

Compliance Monitoring and hspection: Compliance monitoring and inspection are 

additional means of evaluating the effectiveness of the permit and the compliance of the 

permittee. They include compliance evaluation inspections (CEIs), compliance sampling 

inspections (CSIs), compliance biomonitoring inspections (CBIs), and operation and 

maintenance (O&M) inspections. 

Model Permit 

The concept of the model permit is a streamkng of the standard permit. It uses an 

example permit for a related facility and modifies it to fit the facility in question. 

This permitting process is generally used for facilities with similar operations and 

effluents. Once an original permit is developed for a facility within a category, it can be 

tailored to fit each discharger within this group. Changes should be minor, encompassing 

facility name, location, receiving stream, date, effluent limit and monitoring requirements 

(optional), and qualitative guidelines (optional), including standard conditions and special 

conditions. 

37 
Regulation of DC Minimis Discharges 

The final permit is identical to a standard 5-year NPDES permit in that it covers one 

facility, requires complete application information, and is bound to all regulatory 

requirements set forth in the CWA. 

General Permit 

A general permit is one permit covering multiple dischargers that (1) involve the same 

or substantially similar types of operations, (2) discharge the same types of wastes, 

(3) require the same effluent limitation or operating conditions, (4) require the same or 

similar monitoring, and (5) are deemed to be more appropriately controlled under a general 

permit than under individual permits. These five criteria must be met prior to the 

development of a general permit for the class or category of dischargers in question. All 

facilities must also be within a designated geographical or political boundary. 

The General Permit Program is an optional program for States with NPDES authority 

and must be approved by EPA Headquarters. Permits under this program are still issued, 

modified, revoked, and reissued or terminated in accordance with the procedures followed 

for standard NPDES permits, but cover more than one discharger. General permits are ideal 

for, but not limited to, minor dischargers. Currently, 28 States have general permit authority 

(Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North 

Carolina, North Dakoka, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, 

Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming). Also, EPA Regional Offices can 

issue permits in 16 States or Territories that h m have NPDES authority (Alaska, 

American Samoa, Arizona, Florida, Guam, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington, 

DC). 

38 
Regulation of DC Mikmk Discharges 

To develop a general permit, a permitting agency would identify a category of 

discharges that appear to be applicable for coverage under a general permit. Available 

information on these types of discharges would be studied to make certain that the five 

aforementioned criteria are met for the category. If the criteria are met, development of a 

general permit can proceed with in-depth study of the category using any applicable effluent 

guidelines, industrial permit abstracts, treatability manuals, guidance documents, etc. These 

tools are used to develop a draft ptrmit that contains the same provisions as an individual 

NPDES permit (e.g., effluent limits, monitoring requirements, and standard conditions). 

Sometimes eKuent limits and monitoring requirements are tiered so as to pertain to specific 

subclasses within a general permit category. Once a draft general permit is completed, it 

must undergo required reviews and public notices. 

A draft general permit must be reviewed by the EPA Regional Office only if it is a 

State-issued permit. The EPA Headquarters OKce of Wastewater Enforcement and 

Compliance (OWEC) must review all draft and final offshore general permits, but may 

request at any time to review all other categories of general permits. Regionally issued 

general permits can be issued only within the 16 States or Territories that do not have 

NPDES permit authority. Public notice for EPA-issued permit0 need only be published in 

the Federal Register and where required by State statutes. Public notice for State-issued 

general permits must be published in a daily or weekly newspaper, distributed to interested 

parties, and provided as required by State statutes. 

A final general permit may be issued after the close of the review and public 

participation period, and permit certification. The final permit is subject to the same public 

notice requirements as the draft general permit. 

39 
Regulation of Lk Minimis D&charges 

Upon final issuance of a general permit, coverage of individual potential permittees 

can be issued to any discharger meeting the criteria for the given permit category without 

application (automatic coverage) or with an abbreviated application (Notice of Intent). 

Currently, EPA highly recommends the use of a Notice of Intent to confirm that a facility is 

applicable for coverage under the general permit (i.e., to overcome the presumption that an 

individual permit is required), and to allow for tracking and record keeping of facilities 

covered. A Notice of Intent (NOI) generally requires the name, address, and telephone 

number of the permit applicant; the location of the facility; the name of the responsible 

on-site official; and the name of the receiving water. Other information that may be required 

is qualitative process and effluent descriptions and a justification for coverage under the 

general permit. The Notice of Intent generally does not require the detailed process 

descriptions, effluent sampling and analysis, and other information encompassed by standard 

applications. However, facilities covered by general permits are bound to the same 

self-reporting requirements that apply to facilities issued standard NPDES permits. Facilities 

must submit discharge monitoring reports (as specified by the general permit) with a duration 

not to exceed 1 year. 

POTENTIAL REGULATORY OPTIONS 

In addition to the existing regulatory options, three other options (originating from 

Agency, Region, or State suggestions) are presented as potential means to regulate 

de minimis discharges. These options may require statutory changes. Closer legal and 

technical scrutiny would be required if further consideration of these options is deemed 

WUrilllted. 

40 
Regulation of DC Mnimis Discharges 

Ten-Year Permit 

The ten-year permit extends the term of a standard NPDES permit from 5 to 10 years 

(statutory change). This would delay the reissuance of permits for minor facilities so that the 

backlog of expired and unpermitted facilities could be reduced. 

Over-the-Counter Pemits 

Over-the-counter proceshg is currently used in New Jersey for minor stream 

encroachment, sewer extension, and rip&an permits (non-NPDES permits) that meet specific 

criteria. Applicants can receive same-day or 24-hour service. Permit applications are 

handled by appointment only, and requirements are essentially the same for aJl projects. A 

pre-application phone conversation is generally required. 

Application, review, and approval of minor permits occur on the same day at the 

same location. This process could be applied to & minimis discharges in one of two ways: 

(1) by developing a draft permit and still incorporating public notice or (2) by issuing a final 

permit and eliminating public notice (statutory change). 

Exclusion from the NPDES hmit Program 

Facilities excluded from the NPDES permit program would not be obligated to obtain 

or be regulated by a NPDES permit. Under an exclusion by waiver process, preapplication 

discussion and/or application (Notice of Intent) may be required to exclude discharges on a 

site-by-site basis. 

41 
Regulation of De Minimis Dischaqes 

National Rule 

The national rule approach is the concept of devising a law or rule covering a specific 

category of de mikmis discharges. The rule would present qualifying criteria for the types 

of facilities or activities that would be covered under the rule, as well as guidelines or 

national standards that must be met (similar to EPA National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards). No application or permitting, as such, would have be to completed; however, if 

a facility were found to be in violation of the rule, it would be required to be permitted 

under the standard NPDEZS permit program. EPA would follow standard administrative 

procedures for developing a rule, including proposal, public notice and comment, formal 

record, and promulgation. 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL REXXJLATORY OPI’IONS 

The evaluation of each potential de minimis regulatory option considered the technical 

effectiveness of the option; that is, whether or not the concept of the option is feasible to 

implement. Also, the question of whether an option is workable and advantageous to 

permitting agencies, permittees, and the Agency was addressed. Regulatory options that will 

involve statutory changes were noted; however, an analysis of legal issues is not within the 

scope of this study and is not discussed. 

The evaluation of technical effectiveness is discussed for all of the options, with the 

exception of the standard NPDES permit. The standard permit (in conjunction with model 

permitting) is the current method of permitting utilized by all Regional and State permitting 

agencies. This process (and its corresponding burden to regulatory agencies) is the 

underlying basis for the De Minimis Study and serves as a baseline of comparison for the 

42 
Rephtion of De Minimis Dkcharges 

other permitting options. An evaluation of potential de minimis regulatory options is 

presented in Table 3-2 and is discussed in detail below. 

Model Permit: The model permit is a concept that has been promoted 

by the Agency in various forms. One form is the “NPDES Model Permit Format,” which 

describes the standard form of a NPDES permit with standard and special conditions written 

in a prescribed format. Another form is “The NPDES Permit Abstracts,” which outlines 

examples of actual permits that can be used as models for various industries. Currently, 

permitting agencies are using these streamlining tools. Some agencies have entered 

boilerplate language and qualitative guidelines onto word processo rs and modify this format 

as appropriate. It is also common practice to tailor a new discharge permit using another 

similar permit on file. Because this concept is so widely used and is merely a streamlining 

of the standard process, Regional and State agencies feel that it is not an option that would 

significantly reduce the administrative burden associated with the regulation of de minimis 

discharges. 

General Pecmlt: As stated previously, the general permit is currently utilized by a 

number of Regions and approved States (Appendix K). The consensus on the applicability of 

this option to & minimis discharges is positive, and general permits have had noted success 

in reducing burden for permitting agencies. Use of the general permit by permitting 

authorities allows the coverage of moderate to large numbers of facilities with one permit 

action, rather than multiple actions, and allows for new industries entering the area and 

meeting general permit criteria to be covered without new permit action. Where large 

numbers of related facilities contribute to permit backlogs, general permits can reduce this 

backlog, with substantial reductions in resources and costs when compared to individual 

permitting. In addition, potential savings can be realized by having to process only Notices 

of Intent (as opposed to complete applications) and not having to issue individual public 

43 
LwLution of Potmtirl kc )rinimi* Regulatory Optlam 

1. k61 P8rrit * Doom not ruq~ir8 8 l tbtutory M. . RoqAr~ caplet* WI ication wrd 4p( Ication 

. Cnboudonuordpraroorr. pranrirrg. 

* frrro~ly lnvolm l imr prclit chal@oa. * la rr.Ly l ~if~c~tion of the rtnbrd 

19 __currmtly -_.. king ued; would not rtie the 

hxbn -.qmciated rith the prmittim of 

* l inimiR frilltin. 

* An ldividrl prdt ust be praosrod for nch 

prdt. 

2. Srrrol Permit 

3. Ton-Vwr Pmi t 

4. Over- tbCamt8r hrmi ta 

II. tacluion by Uinr fra 

tha WOES Pragrr 

Do00 mt re+ir* I statutory M. 

Cowm ultlplo diuhwgus u&r m permit. 

2,:’ raplro caplato lndtvldrl qp(lcatlm or pbllc 

. 

Covera the w oren a0 l l tuubrd pml t. 

lwllltlr w bo prrlttd tamfor the rt0mM-d MPMS pragrr 

If they we mt aotlng -ml pelt ngrlrmtr. 

Rap4lm I- tir rd mmy to praomo l fclllty. 

Rdacr permit I UUCTO bcklo@m. 

Cm cover diuharm pmvlarly vpmlttod &a to rnaurco 

cmtrdntr. 

by mutarticaLLy cover mm diuhargm. 

* MaAd &by the -Is- of permits for l lmr fwilitim 

mo tha bat{- of uplrad rd qmrmittod fcilitlu could 

b N&cd. 

* Iuyfmbpalr*rowurcn for CogllIltO, mltorirl, nd 

iluputlon. 

* by lmln dkevlatd qpllcatlom. 

* tould involve bev1at.d m@ic~tion rd prrit lmmnco. 

* tbould r&o the tir ngrird for permit praoori~. 

* Varld rtlLL yl.Ld mn irdivldrl pornit. 

* Itoy trnfw rogulrtlm for L typa of dluhargms to M. 

appccprtrto ogonclw. 

* My dlalnto loophota for mnfftumt-typa dlschargos. 

. Wr ti mhom to m&co romurcoa rmlrmd to c&t a7 

l ffectiwdischmw rogulmtoryprogrr (CA lnddischmgos). 

* CurrmntLy in uo by mly 17 Stmtn. 

* Raylrr Rmgiaml u&or EPA wrtors 

revlmk 

. My bo difficult to e&y to toters uith uldeLy 

different rotor grlity at&r&. 

. Ro@ros l statutory champ. 

. Too mny rmlatory chuff ry acur over the 

oat& term 

. Twu my be too Long for prams-ofientod 

discharRea. 

* Imprctim still my be rwirad. 

* Efflumt chuff could acur over thim prlod. 

. by r-ire l statutory chuqe. 

. Itay l Liainte plblic notice. 

* Itoy CMMO Rrgionml/Stmto proc&rml problem. 

. Ru@reo l rtrtutory chm. 

. ky l LiaiNte rll lcms of reRulrtim. 

. Add r-ire case-by-mar deslgrutfm. 

. Iby praotr the iwirment of receiving meters. 

44 
4. ktlmrl Rule . #uld lmtrrt unomly plwlb mgul~tlon for upmttted 

dl8dWgn. 

* Roqulra cmfinrtian as * rhlml~ beforo 

ml tr-8pw$f Ic invest IRat km8 are cofrhtad. 

- weld hvolrr I Notice of maw w no rpplfcrtion prwrr. - 

. Dlu9wga-m could b raaptur4 uhr tha l tardmd pmft 

Protably re@res statutory chm~e . 

* 

prqrr If mukl. 

ky rotplm hpatim md posrlbty tilts. 

* My rmplre mitering by fwilities. 

* zwc’,“, difficulty in crq\iruo rd 

. 

45 
Regulation of De Mnimis Discharges 

notices for each discharger. Although the general permit has noted advantages, some 

potential drawbacks do exist. The development of a general permit is a rulemaking that 

requires substantial data gathering on the part of the permitting agencies rather than the 

applicants. General permits may be difficult to issue in areas with varying State standards, 

and a significant number of similar discharges must exist within a category for a general 

permit to be administratively worthwhile. 

In addition, during the survey conducted for this study, both Regional Offices and 

State agencies expressed concern that, although the General Permit Program appears to be an 

appropriate regulatory option for minor facilities, streamlining State delegation and EPA 

review of draft permits is necessary to maximize its potential (Appendix D). 

Ten-Year Permit: The idea of a ten-year permit provoked mixed reactions from 

Regional and State agencies during the survey conducted for this study. The basis of the 

long-term permit is to extend the reissuance dates of many minor permits so that the backlog 

of these permits and unpermitted discharges could be reduced. Note that, pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 558 (c), an otherwise expired permit is 

automatically extended until the effective date of the new permit provided that a timely and 

sufficient permit application is filed. Statutory change increasing the maximum life of 

permits may not have a significant effect on the frequency at which permits for de minimis 

discharges are re-issued, but it could significantly reduce the opportunity to incorporate 

regulatory changes when necessary (e.g., effluent guidelines or State water quality standards) 

and would delay receipt of the detailed information required in permit applications. Because 

of the extended life of the permit, it would be essential that the discharge be of a truly 

de minimis nature, so that the potential for environmental impact would remain low over the 

term of the permit. 

46 
Regulation of De Minimis Discharges 

Some specific concerns expressed by various agencies included the following: (1) the 

lO-year term may be too long for process-oriented technologies, which change more 

frequently (Appendix D); (2) inspection of facilities or activities should still remain a part of 

the regulatory process; and (3) the ten-year permit may not easily be integrated into all 

permitting programs. 

Over-the-Counter Permits: Over-thecounter processing could reduce the expected 

burden of permitting dc minimis facilities in two ways. The application submittal and 

processing for dc minimis facilities could be abbreviated. Permittees could come to the 

permitting office following a pm-application phone conversation, and a draft permit could be 

developed at that time using a standardized permit format. If public notification could be 

bypassed for these facilities or activities, a final permit could be issued at the same time. 

Bypass of public notification would require a statutory change. Publication of a list of 

permittees covered by over-the-counter permits could be an alternative to public notice. 

In the survey conducted for this study, Regional and State permitting agencies felt that 

this option may be applicable for only a few types of de minimis discharges and may cause 

procedural problems (Appendix D). 

Exclusion from the NPDES Program: Industry representatives who originally 

proposed the concept of dc minimi.r to Congress believed that many types of discharges could 

be excluded from the NPDES system because they have effluents that contain nothing that 

could degrade the water quality of the receiving waters. As originally stated in this report, it 

is the belief of the Agency and permitting agencies alike that all discharges (particularly 

process-oriented discharges) to surface waters may have an environmental impact at one time 

or another because of constantly changing process, climatic, and ecological parameters. 

Still, some Regional and State permitting offices feel that there are certain instances or 

47 
Regulation of DC Minimis Diiarges 

certain groups of discharges that may be excluded from the NPDES program. Most 

permitting agencies mentioned that a case-bycase designation of discharges or activities that 

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

and that a means to recapture discharges under the NPDES program, should the situtation 

change, must be available (Appendix D). 

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

It allows site-specific or categorical exclusion of certain types of discharges, as well as a 

clause that makes the exclusion conditional. The program is described as follows: 

l JSxcIusion by Waiver. The permitting agency has a statutory obligation to 

prescribe discharge requirements (permits), except where a waiver is not 

against the public interest; and the agency stipulates that any waiver of 

application and permitting shall be conditional and may be terminated at any 

time by the permitting agency. A waiver may be used when it is not against 

public interest; it enables the agency resourm to be used more effectively; 

and discharges fall within one of the following categories: (1) the discharge is 

effectively regulated by other public agencies; (2) the discharge is effectively 

regulated by the facility pursuant to State regulations or guidelines; or (3) the 

discharge does not adversely affect the quality or the beneficial uses of the 

waters of the State. 

National Rule: A national rule approach would allow the instantaneous regulation of 

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

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

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

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

the rule, it would provide a means of regulation for many de minimis activities that currently 

cannot be permitted because of resource and financial restraints of the permitting agencies. 

48 
Regulation of Lk Minimis Dkharges 

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

presented as follows: 

l ‘Ilw Self-Flimlnntion l4oeess: After the Agency has published definitive 

guidance on the characteristics of a de minMs discharge, the facility would 

submit an NPDES application (or Notice of Intent), which includes sworn 

aflidavits affuming the hcility or activity as a confirmed ai minim& 

discharge. The Region/State would accept this evaluation and certify 

42 mimhis status. Facilities would not be required to report monitoring data, 

but would be subject to unannounced inspections. If inspection shows failure 

to hold to dc minimis standards, the owner or operator of the facility or 

activity would be liable for fines and/or jail sentences. Should the facility 

report itself in the event of an unforeseen accident, the regulator would have 

the option of either retuming it to dc mini&s status or requiring standard 

NPDES status. 

l The No Response procesS: After the EPA definitive guidance is published, 

the facility would identify itself as dc minimis. ‘Ihe choice of the “no 

response” mode may carry a specific schedule of monitoring on the part of the 

discharger, but the monitoring records would not be submitted to Regional or 

State offices unless they are requested. This request could be sudden, 

unannounced, and require immediate hand-over. All covered facilities or 

activities would be subject to unannounced inspections. ‘Ihe punishment for 

violations would be the same as described in the above option. 

49 
Chapter Four 

UNIT RESOURCE AND COST COMPARISONS FOR 

POTENTIAL REGULATORY OPTIONS 

In this chapter, the unit (per facility) resources and costs to the permitting agency of 

the potential regulatory options are assessed and compared to evaluate relative economic 

feasibility. The national rule approach will not be evaluated since it requires that classes of 

discharges be confirmed as de minimis before any site-specific investigations are conducted. 

EPA’s limited data base prevents this confirmation. 

The following topics are discussed: (1) development of a permitting resource model, 

(2) sources of data used in the analysis, and (3) a comparison of unit cost savings of 

alternative regulatory options when compared to the standard/model (baseline) permitting 

procedure. Administrative costs to industry were not evaluated. 

DEVELOPMENT OF PERMITTING RESOURCE MODEL 

Using a modification of a North Carolina case study (Appendix M) that includes only 

secondary discharges, a permitting resource model was developed as a baseline for 

comparison to other regulatory options. The resources required to perform various 

permitting steps (in terms of person-hours) represent empirical values relevant to a national 

analysis; however, generic costs associated with the various permitting steps had to be 

developed to estimate average national permitting costs and cost savings. 

Ten geographically distributed permitting agencies that were contact agencies or work 

group members were surveyed to determine the average skill levels and salary profiles of 

50 
Resource and Cost Comparisons 

personnel administering the various permitting steps (Table 4-1). Six permitting levels of 

personnel were identified, along with corresponding base salaries (excluding fringe and 

indirect costs), for each of the permitting steps. The hourly salary rates were then averaged 

to derive six national generic costs associated with the various permitting steps. These 

generic costs were incorporated into the permitting resource model to yield average costs of 

permitting steps and total costs of permits for secondary facilities using a “minimum 

reputable standard/model permitting procedure.” These data are summarized in Table 4-2 

and represent the resources and costs associated with baseline permitting of a secondary 

facility. 

Tables 4-3 through 4-6 are similar tables that incorporate the various steps involved in 

the four alternative regulatory options (General Permit, Ten-Year Permit, Over-the-Counter 

Permit, and Exclusion by Waiver), and represent the estimated resources and costs associated 

with typical scenarios of coverage under these options. 

SOURCES OF DATA 

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

North Carolina’s Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 

Effort and Cost of Permitting Study, April 1986: A detailed case study by the State of 

North Carolina Water Quality Section outlines permitting steps involved in a "minimum 

reputable standard/model permitting program.” Effort, in terms of person-hours, was 

estimated for each permitting step, and weighted average salaries based on North Carolina 

51 
Table 4-l 

Development of Average Generic Costs Associated witb Various Petittiog Steps 

e~encv - Hourly Rates 

Ga-mal TitWPemit Steps Region I NJ PA NC WI Region VI MO Region VIII CA WA 

$7.43 %.ZS $7.36 $5.20 $0.03 $1.21 $5.71 

Em. Technician Low $9.00 $11.85 $10.22 $8.25 $8.65 

(Pcfmi~ kslunce. Rauwalr) 

Env. Technician High or 

Env. Chemisl Low or 

Env. Biologist Low $13.33 $11.85 $11.08 $10.28 $12.50 

(Field lnspcctions, DRM 

Review, Lab Work) 

$1.21 $7.49 

$I I.01 $9.81 

Engineer I Low $14.03 $14.34 $11.08 $12.15 $11.60 

(Developmeol of Draft Permit) 

511.10 $11.55 

Engineer II Mid 

(Supervises 3-S people. 

Public Huriogs) 

$15.09 $15.16 $14.31 $14.32 $14.41 $16.34 $13.68 

Program Supervisor 

(Supervises S- I5 People) 

$18.99 $16.13 $16.33 SlS.13 $16.78 518.99 $14.26 

$1.21 $8. I I $8.08 

AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES: Sl.Ol= = - > $1.00 

$9.00 $12.98 $10.36 

AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES: $9.44 = = = > $9.50 

$15.91 $13.44 $I 1.94 

AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES: Sl2.12= = -> Sl2.00 

$16.33 $13.21 $12.85 

AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES: Sl2.88= = = > $13.00 

$18.99 $20.53 $14.91 

AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES: flS.lE- = = > $15.50 

$18.99 $22.50 $15.28 

AVERAGE GENERIC SALARIES: Sll.40= = = > $11.50 

NOTE: Data were gathered by writtea and phoae suurveyr and repreamt 1988 base salaries. 

52 
Resource and Cast Comparisons 

Table 4-2 

Effort and Cost of Standa&M odd NPDES Permitting 

(Scmdary Facilities) 

Gmeric 

Permitting stepa 

Pn+Appliutioa Diacuuioo $13.00 4.7 $61.10 

Applicatioa -g $7.00 2.4 $16.80 

Devdopmau of a Dti Permit: 

l )hlitidhgiDSRCViCW 

b)Stlffm 

c) Wutdoad Alhcuiar (Levd B)+ 

d)RwiewNoait.DuaBama 

4 Du E-Y 

f) Find Eagr. Rev./Draft Permit 

$13.00 

s13.00 

$13.00 

$12.00 

$7.00 

$13.00 

9.4 $122.20 

12.6 $163.80 

6.3 $81.90 

0.6 $7.20 

0.6 San 

3.6 $46.80 

Public Notice (Lbor) 

Public Notice (Fublicatiar) 

$7.00 s4.20 

sso.00 

0.6 

Public Hearing $15.50 54.4 $843.20 

Find Permit Iuuun $9.50 0.6 ss70 

$7.00 4.4 $30.80 

CompliurosMaliuxinguldInrpsdioa 

I) S-Year Gmlpoaib Inrpeftiolu” 

b) DMR Review 

$12.00 

$13.00 

99.9 $1,198.80 

0.6 $7.80 

Itaswd Notice $9.50 0.6 55.70 

supavirioat $17.50 

Total Effort and Cat: 146.9 S1,807.00 

If Hearing In Required: 201.3 $2.65020 

+Simpbdlocrtioowinpr~modd. 

-Doer not include c.k&A hboratofy cat& 

the to difliculty in atinmbg. omitted from aadyrir. 
Resource and Cost Comparisons 

Table 4-3 

Effort and Cost of Isming Geaerd Permit Covemge 

(Scamduy Facilities) 

Pcmhing stqm 

Gamic 

Peraoa-Hr 

Notica of htalt Prouahg $7.00 2.4 $16.80 

Data Entry $7.00 0.6 $4.20 

cutifiutioa of covaage $9.50 0.6 55.10 

(Irwofe) 

RACQ- MMAgemalt $7.00 4.4 $30.80 

Gxnplirncs Ma&t. and Impoctioa 

A) S-Year compoAite rIlqn!dorrr’ $12.00 99.9 $1.198.80 

b) DMR Review $13.00 0.6 $7.80 

GP Devdopmmtd CO&++ s14.25- 9.1 $129.68 

supervirioot $17.50 - 

Total Effort and Cost: $117.6 $1.393.78 

* DoaoOtiaclucbchemiul~~. 

- Avarg~ dmdoprwt cc&m pa fmcility - 6oohoumfortbc&vdopmeatofrIKm~ 

~permit(EPAwwklodmodd)/64frilitiapsrtaoaJpamit(hsedoanuvey 

duarver8ga-AppakL) - 9.lhoum. 

- AvcngeofthrJgauxiccatnfcxm~ImdmEIlpiaaerII. 

t Dwtodif?kIltyinA#timdg, omitbd from Mdyti. 

54 
Resource and Cast Comparisons 

Table c4 

Effort and Cut of Tar-Year Permitting 

(Scmmdq Fhlitics) 

Permitting step 

Garerif 

PcxmckHr cat 

Pm-A&i&amDirwdoa $13.00 4.7 861.10 

$7.00 2.4 $16.80 

DevdopmmtofrDr&Pemir: 

~)hitidEllgifWRWbW 

W -f’fRepolt 

c) Wmtdad Allocatiat (Iavd B)+ 

d)RmkwMoni~DataBmm 

4 - E-Y 

f) Find Engr. Rev./Draft Permit 

$13.00 

$13.00 

$13.00 

$12.00 

s7.00 

$13.00 

9.4 $122.20 

12.6 $163.80 

6.3 $81.90 

0.6 $7.20 

0.6 $4.20 

3.6 w6.00 

Public Notice (Lbor) 

Public Notice (l5t&Am) 

$7.00 0.6 $4.20 

s!w.al 

PubliDcHariq $15.50 54.4 $843.20 

Find Pamit Imuaam $9.50 0.6 $5.70 

-- S7.00 4.4 $30.80 

cumplblbmMtit&~ 

a) S-YOU comporite Ithqxau” 

b) DMR Rmhw 

$12.00 

$13.00 

199.8 $297.60 

0.6 $7.80 

&#KWdNotics s9.50 0.6 s.70 

$17.50 

Totd Effort and Cat: 246.8 s3.005.80 

If Hearing b Rapire& 301.2 s3,849.w 

+ Simpbdbatiausiagapnckagemnid. 

~nbufcmunarPockbdwithlmnit4lringaldisrpsctioontwotimmthrtofthe~ 

pamitb~ethb~mn’ulbveLof~ovatbcl0-ysuterm. Doanot 

include chrnial hbomory ccl&B. 

t Ductodifficultyiaartimrtinp, oalit&d film Mdyti. 
Resource and Cost Comparisons 

Table 4-S 

Effort and Chat of OvcAmCatn tcr Pcamitting 

(secondrry Frilitiaa) 

Pc.rmitting stepa Penalar cat 

$13.00 8.0 $104.00 

$7.00 0.6 

s7.00 0.6 

PraAppliution Diacuuioa $13.00 4.7 

Applicaiw promahp 

Davdopanmt of a Draft Permit:+ 

a) hitid EngiMe!s Reviw 

b) Review Monk Data Bus 

c) Find Eagr. Rm.IDmfl or 

Find Permit 

d) Data Entry 

Public Notice (Idor) (Gptiood) 

Public Notice (Publiutioll) (Optiaul) 

IbcordsIDa& Managemeat 

Complbnca Mod. & lmptcth 

a) s-Yau cQmpodb lnspa%im*+ 

b) DMR Ravienv 

bWW-dNOtiC8 

supcrvbialt 

s7.00 4.4 

$12.00 99.9 

$13.00 0.6 

$9.50 0.6 

$17.50 - 

361.10 

s4.20 

s4.20 

s5o.w 

$30.80 

$1.198.80 

f7.80 

S5.70 

Totd Effort and Cat: 118.8 $1.412.40 

IfPublicNotioeLRequimd: 119.4 $1,466&l 

l Auumauutlfibovar~ pfoca8ofappliatioapocssrinO UuJpumit 

dovdopmmtanoccuriameworkiag&y. 

+*Dosrlb0tiIAKbChDhJkborrtorycortr. 

t DueIodifficultyilt~‘,omiaedfromuuly8b. 

56 
Resource and Cost Comparisons 

T&b44 

Effort and Cat of Exclusicm by W&a 

(secoahry Fditia) 

Pm-NoticeofIntauDkunkm $13.00 4.1 %l.lO 

NoticaofIntaxtPmcauiq s7.00 2.4 $16.60 

caftificrtioa of waives $9.50 0.6 $5.70 

Rl?wrddD8l8h4IDIpurYat s7.00 4.4 $30.80 

supaviriaat $17.50 

TorrlEffortdCd: 12.1 $114.40 

57 
Resource and Cost Comparisons 

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

Appendix M. 

EPA Permit ksuance Workload Model, 1987: This EPA model predicts levels of 

effort involved in the permitting of various types of discharges (e.g., minor municipal, minor 

industrial, and general permits). The model, including outputs, workloads, and resources, is 

included in Appendix N. 

EPA Regional and State hmitting Agencies: Supporting information was obtained 

from the EPA Regional permitting authorities and State permitting agencies to assist in the 

economic assessment of the various regulatory options. Statistical information on the 

resources required for the development of options, permitting staff salary information, the 

average number of discharges covered under a general permit, and other pertinent data were 

compiled and asses&. 

UNIT COST COMPARISONS 

m proj~ -, costs, and unit savings (in relation to the standard/model 

baseline) arc presented in Table 4-7. 

If unit savings are ranked in descending order, the following re-suhs are obtained: 

1. Exclusion by Waiver: 

2. General Permit: 

3. over-the-counter Permits: 

4. Ten-Year Permit: 

RC!SOUrCe cost 

savings Savings 

1Pcrcent) - 

91.8 93.7 

19.9 22.9 

19.1 21.8 

16.0 16.8 

58 
Resource and Cost Comparisons 

TabAm 4-7 

s-odd Pealnit 

-1 146.9 $1,807.00 0.0 (0%) $0.00 (0%) 

Gak?d Permit 117.6 $1.393.78 29.3 (19.9%) $413.22 (22.9%) 

Ten-Yar Permit- 123.4 Sl.50290 23.5 (16.0%) $304.10 (16.8%) 

ovue Pomit 118.8 $1.41240 28.1 (19.1%) $394.60 (21.8%) 

Exclusiat by Waiva 121 $114.40 134.8 (91.8%) $1,692.60 (93.7%) 

+saving8ucintelathbtbe stdudModdPamit(Badim). 

l Costsutdividedby2torcqmmt~ovarS-yarbrm. 

59 
Chapter Five 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The preceding chapters have summarized EPA’s current information about the type of 

discharges that may be classified as de minimis, evaluated the existing and alternative 

methods of regulating such discharges, and assessed the potential unit cost savings to the 

permitting agency in terms of resources and dollars that could be attributed to the alternative 

regulatory options used to permit de minimis discharges. This chapter provide-s conclusions 

on the Agency’s findings, as well as recommendations concerning the most effective and 

appropriate methods of regulating de minimis discharges. 

IDENTIFICATION OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES 

Based solely on readily available data systems within the Agency, approximately 

1.2 percent of discharges into navigable waters can be identified as potential de minimis 

(e.g., not significant) discharges. The data base used to make this determination was 

extremely limited since most data gathering and permitting activities have concentrated on 

major discharges. Because the data on most minor facilities are limited, entire groups of 

dischargers were screened out from the category of potential de minimis if then was reason 

to conclude that a group of permittees contained at least a reasonable number of dischargers 

that could not be considered de minimis. The Agency approached the de minimis 

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

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

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

if it were possible to examine them on a case-by-case basis. All potential de minimis 

facilities should be subject to site-specific criteria (e.g., toxic pollutant discharge, 

60 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

flow/stream flow volume, water quality factors) to confirm the discharge as de minimis or 

non-de minimis and to ensure that water quality is not significantly impacted. 

The best data systems available to the Agency for use in the classification of 

de minimis discharges are not up-to-date and are known to lack information on minor 

discharges, which are the only candidates for potential de minimis classification. EPA is 

currently updating its data systems. In addition, the designation of SIC codes has been 

refined by the Agency’s Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) for the 

probable discharge of toxic pollutants from an industry, based on assignment of toxicity 

indices. The criteria used by OWEC to designate a discharge as major or minor have also 

been revised and full implementation occurred on July 1, 1991. The revised criteria will be 

applicable for use by permitting authorities to confirm a facility’s discharge as de minimis or 

non-de minimis. This information updating may enable EPA to develop a more accurate and 

complete profile of de minimis discharges in the future and to develop regulatory and 

management programs as needed. 

REGULATORY OPTIONS 

Alternative types of regulations were considered for discharges that are determined to 

be de minimis, which may reduce the regulatory/administrative burden on the regulatory 

agencies as well as on industry. Potential regulatory options include general permits 

(currently administered under existing regulations), the ten-year permit, over-the-counter 

permitting, exclusion by waiver from the NPDES program, and a national rule approach. As 

previously mentioned, the national rule approach was not evaluated because of the limited 

data base. Options other than the general permit approach may require statutory changes. 

As this report does not review these legal issues, closer legal and technical scrutiny would be 

appropriate if further consideration of other options is deemed warranted, 

61 
Conchsions and Recommendations 

General PeHnits 

The technical and economic evaluations performed in this study indicate that general 

permits are the most effective and appropriate method, from the permitting agency’s 

perspective, of regulating & minim&Hype discharges at this time, if a sufficient number of 

potential de minimis discharges are confirmed within a specified geographical or political 

boundary (Table 5-l). This conclusion is based on the following information: 

l Resource and Cost Savings: Unit resource and cost savings attributed to the 

permitting of tie minimis discharges using general permits, although approximate, 

are shown to be significant. Twenty and 23 percent unit savings are projected for 

resources and costs, respectively. 

l Regulatory Authority: The regulatory authority for the General Permit Program 

is already in place. EPA proposed general permit regulations in 1977; they were 

published as final in June 1979. 

l Utilization: The General Permit Program is currently utilized by a number of 

Regions and approved States with noted success in reducing the burden for 

permitting agencies. The State of Wisconsin has an extensive and effective 

General Permit Program that covers one-half of the facilities or activities within 

the State. The majority of these discharges are minor discharges. 

l Positive Consensus: A positive consensus was received from EPA Regional and 

State permitting authorities on the applicability of the general permit. 

62 
Comhsions and Recommeabtiom 

T&b 5-l 

Swnmuy of Rcguhtory Optioa Evahutior~ 

Positive 

Stahltoryl 

Permitting 

Option 

GCDCf8l 

Petit 

No 28 NPDES 

st8ta plus 

16 MO-NPDES 

states or 

TtitoYkd 

20 23 YeS 

Ten-Y eu 

Permit 

YtS califolnia 

ItOtt-NPDES 

8xtmda.b 

life permit8 

16 17 YeS 

OVU-thC!- 

counter 

Petit 

MlYlX New Jersey 

non-NPDES 

pumits 

19 22 

Exclusion 

by Waiver 

YeS Cdifomia 92 94 

for hDd 

discbuga 

(DOD-NPDES) 

No 

YeS 

63 
Conchdons and Recommendations 

Concern has beerr expressed by EPA and State authorities that although the general 

permit appears to be an appropriate regulatory option for dc minimis discharges, the need 

exists for better communication and coordination in the State approval and permit review 

process to help streamhne State authority and permit approval. The Agency has developed 

guidance in the form of manuals, briefing papers, and other documents that describe the uses 

and benefits of the General Permit Program; has assisted authorities in the development and 

issuance of general permits; and has identified model general permits that have already been 

developed. 

Ten-Year permits 

The ten-year permit concept shows estimated unit savings of 16 and 17 percent for 

resources and costs, respectively, and a positive consensus among permitting authorities. 

However, a statutory change would be required. 

Over-the-Counter Pexmits 

Over-thecounter permits are estimated to have low applicability within the current 

NPDES program and did not generally rat&e positive reactions from permitting authorities. 

Unit resource and cost savings are estimated at 19 and 22 percent, reqectively. If this 

process is to incorporate a bypass of public notice, a statutory change would be required. 

Exclusion by Waiver 

Exclusion by waiver would be a site-specific means of excluding discharges from the 

NPDES program. Permitting authorities felt that there may be a need for site-specific 

exclusion for special types of discharges because they are regulated by other agencies, they 

64 
Conclusions and Remmmendations 

are short-term and intermittent, or they have a unique noneffluent nature. Unit resource and 

cost savings were estimated at 92 and 94 percent, respectively. Exclusion by waiver would 

require a statutory change. Additional study would be needed to determine whether 

exclusion by waiver, which would result in the greatest cost savings, could provide an 

effective measure of dealing with de minimis discharges under the appropriate site-specific 

circumstances, including ensuring insignificant risk to the environment. 

Natioual Rule 

A national rule approach would be a means of regulating classes of de mMmis 

discharges without having the administrative burden of processing permit applications or 

issuing permits at the State level. The national rule approach may require a statutory 

change. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR -ATION 

EPA recognizes that there may be point source discharges into navigable waters that, 

in terms of volume, concentration, and type of pollutant, are not significant (i.e., 

de minimis). The general permit is recommended as the most effective and appropriate 

method, at this time, of regulating such discharges to reduce the regulatory and 

administrative burden on permitting agencies as well as industry. However, the general 

permit will be effective only if the number of potential dc minimis discharges within a 

specified geographical or political boundary is adequate to make the permit administratively 

worthwhile. Because of the low number of projected de mirMi.s discharges (893 facilities), a 

general permit may not be effective in all cases. Implementation of individual S-year permits 

based on standard “models” issued by EPA as guidance would be appropriate. 

65 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

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

de minimis discharges. 

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

regulatory program is deemed warranted: 

l EPA should continue to strongly encourage States that currently do not have 

general permit authority to seek such authority. (Eleven States were granted 

general permit authority between January 1, 199 1, and September 30, 199 1. 

Eleven States with NPDES authority still do not have general permit authority.) 

l A strong technical assistance and information transfer effort should be established 

between the Agency and permitting authorities to ensure that a de minimis 

regulatory program would proceed smoothly and expeditiously. 

l Data systems and site-specific criteria should be updated and fully developed to 

assist the permitting authorities in determining which discharges are truly 

&? ?nini??lis. 

l The general permit program should be reviewed to determine whether it can be 

further simplified and streamlined, allowing for flexibility in implementation and 

processing. 

l EPA should consider conducting further legal and technical evaluations of 

alternative regulatory options. 

l EPA should consider assessing, through on-site surveys in watersheds, whether 

de minimis discharges are found in groups categorically excluded from 

de nthhis through the methodology used in this report. 

l EPA should consider consulting with potentially affected industrial groups to 

determine the relative cost savings to de minimis dischargers of the regulatory 

options identified, 

l To the extent that the Agency determines that an option which requires statutory 

change is the more appropriate approach, such change should be dealt with as 

part of the CWA reauthorization process. 

66 
APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Legislative History 

Appendix B: Regional Contact Questionnaire 

Appendix C: Survey Results - Potential De Minimis Discharges 

Appendix D: Survey Results - Potential Regulatory Options 

Appendix E: Toxicity Indices for Industrial Subcategories 

Appendix F: Classification of Major and Minor Permits 

Appendix G: Secondary Facilities - Toxic Discharge 

Appendix H: Secondary Facilities - Effluent Guidelines 

Appendix I: Secondary Facilities - Permit Limitations 

Appendix J: Secondary Facilities - Potential De Minimis 

Appendix K: State NPDES Program Status 

Appendix L: General Permit Information 

Appendix M: North Carolina Case Study 

Appendix N: EPA Permit Issuance Workload Model 

67 
APPENDIX A 

Legislative History 

This appendix provides the legislative history of the De Minimis Discharge Study 

beginning with the first mention in the 1982 public record of the exclusion of “insignificant 

discharges” from the requirements of the NPDES permits. 
Statement of James C. Hildrew, Manager, Environmental Affairs, 

Mobil Oil Corporation, on July 28, 1982, on behalf of the 

American Petroleum Institute before the Subcommittee on Water 

Resources of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, 

U.S. House of Representatives [As printed in Committee Print 97- 

73, Possible Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act, pp. 1013 - 1016, published by U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington, 1982]. 

H-l 
trmmtmmmt tmmbmolmqy mmmmmmmry tm l mmplr rltb p.rrlt . ..a&- 

t1.s.. 984mm thla l m~mmrlm, tha l ff~.tl~..*~. of 98lmtl*q **- 

alt .o.d1t1... .., tot b. . . ..rt.lrn.bl. by th* t1m. a. ,.rmit 

l pp11c.ti.. ..d 1rrm.m.. p.m... mm.. b. rm)*.t.4 .I... CL. 

p.rmltt.. mm, hmrm l mly l mm par l t l mtmml l mpmrlmmmm 1. U. 

l Il*mtlrmmmmm l t tbm ~mrtlmmlmr t*mhm~lo~y. 

ux l 8*p0,rra the ~8ia~~ti88*~ l rrerrr t8 pimoo th 

Uemm Wmtmr Amt l 8 pmrity rlth l mh.r l 8riroummtml l tmtmtmo* 

-8qrmmm bmm 8et *&mom4 r.8Wirrlo8. mm the duttloa l I pod8 

tor8m m81mt 08&a* l 8rirm~mtml l tmtmtmm 0mmL mm tbm hmomrmm 

Ce8oarratim8 a.4 Lmmrmq Act IYUI rn.4 the Cl... Ur kt. 

8. br.l.41.. t.l.mLfi...8 D1.mb~rr.t -- Is .44lti...l 

bu4...or. mob1.m ritb h.tl.8 401 1. tba .~~Ll..tl.m 01 pm?- 

rit reqmlrmrm8t8 te l mmlrmummtmll~ lm.l~&ll..mt pmimt l oumb 

41.8b.rv... n08n8u l e dirmhmrqmm. 18m18u8* mm., l mmrmmm l I 

l ten wmtmr rumoIl. berm llttlm l r mm l dvmroe 18pm.t mm water 

A-2 
A-3 
A-4 
Testimony of New York State Commissioner of Environmental 

Conservation, Robert F. Flacke, on July 29, 1982, before the 

Subcommittee on Water Resources of the Committee on Public Works 

and Transportation, U.S. Eouse of Representatives [As printed in 

Committee Print 97 - 73, Possible Amendments to the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, pp. 1506 - 1507, published by U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, 19821. 

A-5 
Statement of J. William Haun, Chairman of Clean Water Project, 

National Environmental Development Association, on July 29, 1982, 

before the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Committee on Public 

Works and Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives (As 

printed in Committee Print 97 - 73, Possible Amendments to 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, pp. 1829 - 1830, 

published by U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1982). 

U-6 
u-7 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE June 6. I984 

A-8 
Union Calendar No. 480 

98rx CONGRESS 

20 !hSSION H. R. 3282 

[Report No. B&-827] 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to proride for the renewal d 

the quality of the htion’a waters. and for other purposer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Jum 13. 1983 

Mr. HOW-D introduced tbc following bii; which MS refenvd to the Committee 

on Public Worh urd Tr~~pomtioo 

SuPTBmBr 14, 1985 

Additional Iponron: bfr. UDALL. htr.~thtB8T~B. &. JFFl'OBW, bh. SCENESDEB, &. Tome. k. kNTO& k. bNIOB of Ilichgur, btr. &JuxNI. &. 

OTITNOEB. Mr. R~DINO. hfr. MABKXT, Mr. Fru~rror. Mr. TALLON, Mr. 

FBA!!. Mr. SUNLL Mr. bhcHBLL, Ms. MxuLnn. Mr. SEIBBBLINO, Mr. 

bBI0. bir. EVANS of nlinoia, k. D’AMOUWL &. CBOCXJZIT. &. CLAY, 

~.CONnM,~.VBNTO,~.~TC~BD,~.BIUNII,~.COUOaLm, 

Mr. Sromtn, Mr. DIXON, Ma. hrru~, Mr. WBI~. Mr. JONEB of OkhhoM. &. ECKUT, yt. DB LuoO, k. LtgyAn of l%ri&. a. hIBUBB, 

Mr. MIM~E. Mr. BEILWVWN, Mr. YOBBIBON of Connecticut. Mr. OBJDBNEON. &. bmur. yt. bN0 of Y,had, yt. Fmo, k. FOMWEB, 

Mr. TOBBICZLU, Mr. CUPBB, aad Mr. YATM 

FBBBU~T 2, 1984 

Additiolul qmmo~~: Mr. FUJII. MY. LOWBY of Wubiagt~~. Mr. HUOEBB. Mr. 

Lsmr ofCaiiforni~,Mra.S~m~~~~~.Mr. DBLL~JWJ.~~.B~XEB.YI. 

WBAVBB, Mr. YCDADB, Mr. EDOAR, Mrs. BVETON d Cdfornk Mr. 

NBAL. Mr. B~nr, Mr. KOLTBB, Mr. Y~urr. Mr. WHBAT, Mr. HOTZB, 

Mrs. KBNNBLLT, Mr. BOBCO, Lt. WBBBB, Mr. SJUNNON, Mr. CLAMS, 

Mr. KOETMATEB, Mr. M~vromm, Mr. YOULET. Mr. Sxrrx of Na 

Jersey. Mr. BBBMAN, Mr. HABXIN, Mr. WTDBN, Mr. OWENIL Mr. Sue, 

A-9 
70 

3 

6 

i 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

SWDY OF REGULATION OF DE YINIYIS DISCHARGES 

SEC. 35. 7%e Admintitmtor of the Enuirvnmental Pmtcction Agency shall study the feaddity and dcsimbility of 

elimiMing the regulation of dijchalges of pollutants into the 

naoigablc waters in amounts which, in tenna of volume, concentmtion, and type of pollutant, arv not significant. 7%e Adminutnztor ahall submit a repr? of such st*:dy along with 

mcommendutim to the Committee on Pub.‘lc Worb and 

Tmnqn+ation of the Howe of Repmwntatiocs and the Committee on Enuimnment and Public Worka of the Senate not 

later than one year after the &zte of enactment of thW Act. 

A- 10 
Testimony of New York State Commissioner of Environmental 

Conservation, Henry G. Williams, on September 20, 1983, before 

the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of 

Representatives [As printed in Committee Print 98 - 33, Possible 

Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, p. 369, 

published by U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 19841. 

A-11 
Statement of 0. G. Simpson, Atlantic Richfield Company, Dallas, 

Texas, on October 24, 1983, before the Committee on Public Works 

and Transportation, U.S. Eouse of Representatives [As printed in 

Committee Print 98 - 33, Possible Amendments to the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, p. 3604, published by U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, 19841, 

A-12 
Statement of Kenneth E. Blower, Manager of Environmental Affairs, 

The Standard Oil Company of Ohio, representing The American 

Petroleum Institute as Chairman, API Water Program Committee, on 

November 10, 1983, before the Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives [As printed in 

Committee Print 98 - 33, Possible Amendments to the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, pp. 2491 - 2493, published by U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Washington, 19841. 

wwro l facllrty 10 grant.4 an l eonalc 0s ator gualicy barnod 

walvor unbar the act, the pemlt llt.tlm~ -0uld It111 # 1lrlt.d 

to frvo yaara. HOW*“Or, other minor mod~flcAtlonr would not 

prevent # !acLlrcy Ira obta,ning 4 ton yoer pmit. 

The uondaent recrodod by A?I would allow a IO-year pomlt 

term that cofroctm the proolrs l ncounterod with the flVO-year 

tom. The l xrrting tlvo-yrar vnlrlr lltwpn for NCDCS pomrts 

bar impoood unnocosmary burdonr and comta on inbumtr~. C?A and 

the StAtoa all&a. It uy tall0 a* long •~ a year for a final 

porn&c to ba rsmuod. Up to throw yoarr my lm r*qu:rd to 

Install troatm8nt technology nocusary to caply WI:- wmit 

condltton~. This rconario lowor llctl~ tire to 00: ..n data on 

ptfluontr boforo the porsic Ma co k ronouod. 

Xc has boon l stiutoo chat &out 65,000 prmltr awe bo8n 

irnruod r1nca 197L.l CIA end the l tatoo are now faciq an 

incroarbng backlog-o! pomitr which have l xprrod and numt k rc 

dWL8.d. Thea problem could bo l llovratod in the tuturr Oy l ~onding tno ACI to provlda pomlt l uthor;tlor the flmxrblllty to 

lomu* pomxtr ior coma up to 10 yurm. 

Noroover, the lo-year 11Cotlw ~01~14 make the NPXS pomlt 

program mro consiatont with pornit programs l nforclng other 

l nvlronmont~l law*. Congram ha8 not placed romtrictions on th0 

duratron of pem~t c*rnn under tha Romurco Conservation an6 

Rocovory Act And the Clean ALr Act. 

S. 431’s Socflon 13 rocognlror the no06 to l rompc frw the 

NPXS parnit program disch4rgor that have lbttlo or no l dvOr90 

;-;rct 3n water quality. fho provlsrm l **r;tr tlrchrrg*s of 

1:2mvhtor runoll troa nrnrng oprrt1ons rnb 011 or gas 

l x;lsrr::on. prs4uctron. gr3corarnJ. or craataont oporrrrons t?ilt 

are not cont#rinAtad ulth procorr ua#cos, owrb.ardon. rw 

u-13 
Nowvor, the proposed lrnguaqo falls to l aplain rhac conscicutms l conculnarod by 0~1 or grusa.’ API r*cmund* that line 

17 ot Soctlon 11 00 cnrnqod co road mot 011 or gruso In l xcoss 

of reporta qurntkt,as.’ Th&s 1s rho phrasing used to defbno 

.cont8mrnatron by haaardous substances.. 

:n waabe~on co the rpocrfic l xrprron provr404 by SoctLon 11 

of 9.411. :mqr9sr snould consldrr rending cho l ct to provide 

l ucnority for CPA ta l xwmgx atnor l nv~ronroncally rnsrgnrlicane 

dbrcl@rgos tram cha NPDCS prrlt program. That is, CPA snouid w 

l 11ow.o ‘a: ta 9xom~r l pgroprrare 4rscnargor from cacog3:~er of 

pobnt sour:ms and (3) ca l xm>t npocilbc gobnc sourea 4brc~rr~os 

on . cas~-~y-caro bSIS. 

A Clorn uat*r *ce l n*ndm*n: l xcludbng bnrignbfbcant 

4 ~scnAr;or ?ror tn0 vPXS ~*nir grogram WALL hip w3dresr h 

prooiom cr\at EPA. state l goncboa an4 inbustry nave all 

l ck~0r1dg.4. tkous~ndr of ~nsbqnllbcrnc brschargos are 

curroncly rogulrced under the NPDLS pemlt proqrar. r&cad ubcn 

the *normour caslr of ranmrbnq parrits for major golnt sources. 

gor-~c issuing l ucnorltLos proba2ly rtll not bo able co act on 

most minor bhsckar;lo pornbe 4p~l~c~t~0ns Qurlnq tn0 nose sovorrl 

yaarr. 

During CM first round of NPDLS pamit frsu~ncos under the 

tador Yator ?ollutron Control Act of 1911. CPA l ttrpted to 

01~1~4~ many stomuatmr drscnrrqos contalnhq ins~gniflcanc 

qumcbcAos of pollutantr fta WDLS porrrt requLrounts. ThlS 

l elurion vas cnallongod by cn0 Natural Neswrcos mfonu Council 

(NIDCI rnxn cla~mmd tnar CPA had no l uthorLty undor the @et to 

l IC:J~* any JoLnt sourea 8bscnarqos of pollutants.2 The court 

l Jroo4 rbcn NRDC. and. as l result. CPA nor bol~ovos chat Lc has 

lirtlo or no Orscracron u7 Lts l ppllcatron of the pornit prqru. 

Based on a l urvoy of 19 l catas, the Aasocirtlon of State and 

Intrrstato.Y~tor ?olAurton Control *b~aistr~torr in may 1979 

topored that a total of 5,108 -jot and 36,090 mL+ar NPDLS 

dbscnrrgo parmrcs had bon ASSU~ to both lndustrtaA an3 mm&clpal dbscnargors. The report statodr ‘kbout 31 p*::ont ol all 

Jarlzc :9ruoc2 . . . ~l\*olvoj r*lr:ivoly .l*s:qnLfica-: I~crl~c~or 

dbf? resgozt co ~017r sod::* Jollution concar7s.‘? II spite of 

:?&‘I l if2:rs. :?r)u*a-2s a! pr.ir qpllcatlons ‘s--. l ;:7:::04 

as 10-q ago as 19721 Car s-r:; sources mm still ;,.-.blng. 

a Y1X v. trlln. 396 r.s;pp 1191 l3.O.C. 19‘31. l ff.4. 

a65 *.2a ,369 $2.:. ;.s. ,Y:‘I. 

uvx v. 

.:i’..a. eBy l mcludrnC insignificant discharges tro NPDLS pormlt 

roqu irmonts, both andurtry and govornmont ~111 b ~110 co mttar 

focus on l limrnatlng major sources of pollution from the nation’r 

wears. 

A- 14 
Statement Of J. William Haun, Vice President, General Mills 

Corporation, as Chairman, Clean Water Project, National 

Environmental Development Association, on November 10, 1983, 

before the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. 

House of Representatives [As printed in Committee Print 98 - 33, 

Possible Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

PP. 2546 - 2547, published by U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, 19841. 

TM u]ociry of Chart Yacet Act percats l rm for minor 

dircnarp*s. L~rorally cho~~mds of Y)XS mall-sourer d~scn~rpe 

pmrmlt l ppl~crtrons. soem rrbttsn bs lan$ a90 as 1972, l re l wartln9 

bction. 

An L;iuscc~tlon of th pcohlom iI l n l ztual case rhmfe l 

copany’s drinalnp fguntarn, Bacausa Ci its location, drains Its 

owrflor into . wtor body. Ihat drinernp fountain roquaros an 

YIDU parmat. and thora is 00 provisrm allain it to be l rorptod. 

Tha OA AbrnisCrstor sbdd h l L1-d to maw;: da rrnlmis 

point sourem drwhargas and cbmnl~d atormwtac runoff contaming 

40 l :nmLs quantities of poUounts frm tno N?UZS mrmlt 

praodurm. Dot~trinstim of l liqrbillty for l xeqtion should bm 

based on eonemtr~tlon, r0lw and tm Of diutur9*. 

the Senate Caattoe has, in part, ruopnrrod UIP.~S pain: and 

has bncludod in 1.01 l aemptmns for cnmnelod scormwc*r runoff 

wnxh oonrarns no polluunts for oil, 9as. and rmlfq industrtas. 

nowvsr, m soa no roawn to 1imLt this uorptrom to cartarn 

industr 80s or types of drachar99. All dlahar9os rh&ck contain 

little or no pO~lu~nts SbOdd bs l ligibh for l rwtion. 

n-15 
WATER QUALITY RENEWAL ACT OF 1984 

Mr. How-. from the Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation. submitted the following 

REPORT 

hgether with 

ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS 

[To epoay H.R 328!2] 

IJadudiagwtaama~ofthoco~ Budsot wiaj 

The Commitur on Public Works and Transporta:.on. to whom 

wu referred the bill tH.R 3282) to amend the Federa, Water Pollution Control Act to 

Nation’s wsun, an x 

r&de for the renewal of the quality of the 

for tir purposes. having considered the 

same. mport fawly thermon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pur. 

The urwndment strike8 out all after the enacting &use of the 

bill and inaer9 a new text which rppean in iulic type in the r) 

ported bill. 

SECTION 35 

This section directs the Administrator to studv the feasibilitv 

and Milky of l iiminatinq the regulation of dkhargea of poilutaata into the navigable raters in amounts which, in terma of 

v&me. concentration. and m of pollutant. w not significant. A 

report. with recommendations. ia to be submitted to the How 

Gxnmjttae on Public Works and Tranr rtation and the Senate 

Cgn~~~~ on Environment and Public I7 arks within one year of 

enactment of H.R 3282. 

A-16 
PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3281 

A-17 
98TH COSGFtESS 

?D SESSIOh’ H. R. 5903 

To amend the Federal Kaer Pollution Control Act to provide for the rcncnrl of 

the quality of the Sation’s waters. and for other purposes. 

KY THE HOI.-SE OF REPRESESTATIVES 

JLNE 20. 1984 

Mr. OBE~STAB (for himself. & timOLZ!X. &. KOh' PAT. &. IJVfNE of 

Cdiformr. Mr STOKES. Mr M.ITCHELL.!&. SHANNON.U~.JEFFOPDS. Mr. 

Srxons~~. Ms. ~r-n. !dr. COUGHLIS. 3dr. FA~TYTBOY. bir. ASPIS. k. 

BATES. Mr SPRAT-T. Mr. CUtPEB. b. kM'BT of Kuhirgon. Mr. 

KILDEE. Mr. ~JEBBN. Mr. BAJLSES. Mr. EDWABDS of California. Mr. YoaR~SON of Connecticut. Mr. ACKEI~UAK. ti. FRAN-K. htr. HANILTOF;. Mr. 

MINETA. Mr. BONER of Tennessee. Mr. REAVBB, Mr. DUXBIK, Mr. FASCELL. Mr. DASCRLE, md MI. BOEHLEBTI introduced the follouing bill; 

which wu referred to the Cornzruttec on Public Korks nnd Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide 

for the renewal of the qualit? of the sation’s waters. and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Howe of Representa2 lives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SHORT TITLE 

4 SECTION 1. This Act maF be cited as the “n‘ater Qual3 ity Renewal Act of 1984”. 

A-18 
66 

3 

4 

3 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

STl.-DY OF BEGI..-LATIOS OF DE 3fISISIIS DISCHARGES 

SEC. 35. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agent? shall stud\- the feasibilit? and desirability of 

eliminating the regulation of discharges of pollutants into the 

navigable waters in amounts which, in terms of volume, concentration, and type of pollutant, are not significant. The Xdministrator shall submit a report of such study along with 

recommendations to the Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation of the House of Representhrives and the 

Committee on Environment and Public Kork: of the Senate 

not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

HR SSU IH 

A- 19 
Jwu 22, 1984 

Ii6360 

COKGRESSIOSAL RECORD - HOUSE 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 

H 6331 

A-20 
a4874 

June is, ml.4 

OONGRESSIONAL 

Mr. ROt cdurhg the rradlru). Mr. 

ctmmnaaIJ-ouseomnt 

thu the uwndment tn the nature of l 

rubtltuw k cofuldcrtd Y mad Md 

pmltel ln the mm. 

The cIuxRmw. Is there ObJwtJoa 

to the muat of the gaahnul from 

NW Jcnegt 

There wu Do ObJecuon 

(Mr. ROE asked and wu rhwn wrmissron to mrk and extend his rw+ 

lllUkS.1 

(By uammoua mnsent. Mr. Ror 

~8s tiowtd to prom?d for 5 additional 

ml”LIta.) 

Mr. EOWARD. Mr. Chaumm. rrll 

the ~tntlemaa yield? 

Mr. Rpd I yield to the ~cntlcmm 

from NW Jemey. 

Mr. HOWARD. I thank the gentle 

man for Ykldku. 

Mr.chAhMaIhlstdshtotAkc 

thla time to ooagmtulue the gentle 

man In the relL the lcatlcmrn from 

NW Jemey Mr. Rod. the #enrltmm 

frwn Mlnnaota [Mr. Bruo~l. the 

nnklm arlaortty member on the Subcommff~ 00 mhter Raom all the 

manben of the Public Wortr md 

-3DortatIon Conmtttee. and to a 

very great degree the nqlorlty and mlnorw r;rifr of thb 6ubcommttuc. 

vhtch have worked eo low utd I) 

bud (0 D-fit Lb& the fiWSt CkM 

UUer bill ever praenud to the Concrew I oongruulate them on their 

work and effort. aad I UL Zor the 

ormhelmlna Nppon Of our COI- 

‘c~Na~EhlsIi~c memure. 

-1LhrnLt 

the &ntleman f&a New Jene~ [Mr. 

Howuol ior his comment& and L too. 

vant to extend my apprccktion (0 

hm md to the nntlcm~ from Ken. 

tucky Ibar. SBYDcal. the rulnng mlnorky member of the Uttee. and 

th& #tntlettua lrom M!ammS~ Mr. 

SrhaG-I. the rulkhg minority 

member of the subwmmlt~. who LI 

my count8rDut 0 the Bumtws 

on Wuer Rmourca. I aim wmnt to 

CONGRESSIONAI. 

RECORD - HOUSE June ia, 1Jlar 

they have amducud on this most ltaDofunt water ouAl1ty Renewal Act of 

is04 

Mr. Chalmmu thI8 amendment L an 

unendment In the nature of a rubtftute fo the ball. ER 2212. the Wafer 

QLLaMr Reaew8l Act of 1984. rhkll 

WM reported by OUI committee on 

June 0. 1904. Thla amendment LI & 

Sl#TJed to d&U0 & nUmkr Of Dl’Ob 

lcmr ahlch MI aft8r the bill N rw 

portal. The unendment wu mablbhd 

ln the Cororrumau -lo for June 

22 for the lnformsuoo or ma YanberuAdet.aUedurrlrrltoftheuwndment follorr: 

RECORD - HOUSE H6885 

A-21 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE ?I7017 

The uuaUon vu La&en md the 

8peJer uumunted that the ayu l p 

peued la have It. 

Mr. FRENZEL Mr -cr. 1 object 

La the vou on Lh6 ground rhat 6 

won118 ia not present and rake the 

pomt of order that a quorum bs not 

Dresent. 

The SPEAKER. Lvldentlr a auomm 

la not present. 

The Se~eant at &ms ~111 notify 

ab8cnt Members. 

The vote uu Laken by l !ecttonx 

device. md there were-year 405. nays 

11. not votm# 17. u follous 

The CHMHMMf far0 tanfaxe. The 

westion IB on the amendment la the 

nature of l ~batltuu offered by the 

gcnUem&n from NW Jerrcy Chfr 

RotI. u amended. 

The unendment in the nature of l 

NbrLltUtc. u unended. wu a@wed to 

The CaAulbdAN 

Under the We. the Czcc 

tanpore 

Mea. 

0 1715 

Aasrdhgly. the Committee nne. 

bmd the Ner hhvin8 ruumed the 

clur. Mr. w. ChbhlMDproUmDm of the Commmee 02 the Whole 

&use on the Star, of the Ufuon mw8’t.A that that Commlttn. hav(ru 

had under consdcrrtton the bill tH.R. 

5282) to rmcad the Fwed Wuar palluUomCsatrolAatapruvi&Zorthe 

- of the qullty o! the Nulon’r 

wUaamdfaothapPOarDurnr- 

~toXorw~lutloo552.herw 

wewdthebfllh&totheXowrwith 

~M8UMDUX~bVtlWCoQIucteeofthewhoh 

me-ufartlmrulcthe 

-Quathobodemd. 

tbamJm&voto&mMdedonM~ 

rawrrlamtfot&DmDmdmMtlafbe 

Ntun of b rubatttuu adoWad by the 

Commlttoe of the Whole? U nob ‘cpe 

euuthabontheuwadment 

The Mlendment m D#reed to. 

Tb8-fbrQUUtblbOtl 

thealE-tbndthlrdrwbdhgof 

tbbu 

ThDbulm-tabeo~ 

bndrrdbthiTdamabadmrrd 

t&th&dw. 

TlU-ThDqrrtloclb~ 

the~dtbblll 

A-22 
CONGREWONAL RECORD - HOUSE 

Ootbebillwupvwd 

The rault of the vote wu aa00untxduBboQrrecordsd 

AmotlaQto-derwulBldoa 

the tablr 

A-23 
CONGRESSIOb-AL RECORD - SENATE S 9057 

A-24 
99TH CONGRESS 

1sr Srss1o?r H.R.8 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Xct to provide for the renewal of 

the quality of the Sation’s wrters. and for other purposes. 

Mr. 

II’7 THE HOCSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 1985 

HOWUD (for himself. Mr. ~VDEBSON, Mr. ROE, Mr. SNDEB, and Mr. 

STANCELAND) introduced the following bill; which was refeed to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the E’ederal Water Pollution Control Act to provide 

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

for other purposes. 

1 Be ir matted by the Senate and Howe of Representa2 tines of the Unired States of America in Congnss assembled, 

3 SHORT TITLE 

4 SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the “Water Qual5 it? Renewal Act of 1985”. 

A-25 
19 STUDY OF BEGCZATIOY OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES 

20 SEC. 36. The Administrator of the Environmental Pro21 tection ,\gencT shall study the feasibility and desirability of 

22 eliminating the regulation of discharges of pollutants into the 

23 navigable waters in amounts which, in terms of volume, con24 centration, and type of pollutant, are not significant. The Ad25 .ministrator shail submit a report of such study along with 

26 recommendations to the Committee on Public Works and 

1 Transporttition oi the House of Represer.:Jtives and the 

2 Committee on Environment and Public \YorKs of the Senate 

3 not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 

4 Act. 

A-26 
%TH CONGRESS 

167 SESSION H. R. 1509 

To amend the Federal Kater Pollution Control Act to protide for the renewal of 

the quality of the Sation’s waters. utd for other purpores. 

IN TBE HOUSE OF REPRESEXTATWES 

&BCH 7, 1985 

Mr. OBEBBTAE (for himself. Mr. EDGU, Mr. MOODY, and Kr. MIN!!TA~) introduced the following bill; which wu referred to the Committee on Public 

Works and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide 

for the renewal of the qualitp of the Xation’s waters, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it tnacted by the Senate and Howe of Repesenta2 tiws of the United StateJ of America in Conyress cusembled, 

3 SHOBT TITLE 

4 SECTION 1. This Act ma? be cited as the “Water Qual3 ity Renewal Act of 1985”. 

A-27 
68 

19 

20 

31 

0 r) -- 

.> -3 

34 

25 

i6 

STUDY OF BEGC.AT:ON OF DE 3fNIhE3 DISClUBOES 

SEC. 36. The Mmin.istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall study the feasibilit? and desirability of 

eliminating the regulation of discharges of pollutants into the 

na\-igable waters in amounts which. in terms of volume, concentration, and type of pollutant, are not significant. The Xdministrator shall submit a report of such study along with 

recommendations to th? Committee on Public Works and 

l m IY) l 

69 

1 Transportation of the House of Representatives and the 

2 Committee on Environment and Public Forks of the Senate 

3 not later than one pear after the date of enactment of this 

4 Act. 

A-2& 
Testimony by J. Leonard Ledbetter, Commissioner, Department of 

Natural Resources, State of Georgia, appearing in his capacity as 

Vice President, Association of State and Interstate Water 

Pollution Control Administrators, on April 30, 1985, before the 

subcommittee on Water Resources, Committee on Public Works and 

Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives [As printed in 

Committee Print 99 - 9, Possible Amendments to the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, p. 484, published by U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, 19851. 

IV. TIN IV 

soct100 402 - (NPDES Porut Program) 

this kctios l bould bo rerio*d to allow part161 umulptloa 

by Stat.8 of tbo NPDES prosru purwmt to folot IodoralIStato 

agr*motr IO addltlon. 1t 1r l o~ootlal that the Act k 

uonbed to provide for tb* 1msuanco of BPDM p-it8 UP tO 

te8 Tou8. provided floxlblllt~ la ulota~oad to ro-OPa permit for po4 cause. Tbo States l upporr ro-opoolog the 

p@rmlC~ to locludo praul#atod l i!luoot limitations or to 

darema ~iol~tioa of rater qualltt l taaearda. IO mat statom. 

l o~oot~-fivo porcoot.of the porutm uo for rohtl~~l~ mall 

dlscbugors rltb aoo-toxic matwatora an4 tea Lou porUt8 

rou1a l oabl. CD* st~tos to l pua are tta doraloplog ana 

ro-opeoiog the pormlt~ ror rJor l urcom. 

A-29 
H6042 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE July 23. 1985 

m0ddauhulfwthepwbue0f 4meamaauadtTthe+Qlllutenllt 

btucUoaamdtuhhshaUbt 

considereduh~beearrdIt 

sh4uslaohtlnordutocon4ldum 

untndmtnf Dtit*d In the colau8- 

North Cuolia hleh ahall bt conaidtrcduhwta#htenmd 

Tht Clcrt wfll daignatr uctlon 1. 

Tht text of section I b u ?oUorx 

~LsmoaT~TAAuwdlAmxs 

A-30 
Excerpt from Eouse Report 99 - 189, page 49, on The Water Quality 

Act of 1985, concerning the study of regulation of de minimis 

discharges. 

SlCnON 43-mvn ‘1 W RR0VUTION OI Dt MINIMUS DISCHARGES 

This section dirc~ the Adminimtrator to study the feasibilit 

and desirability of elizainating the re@ation of diachargas of po r - 

lutants inu, the navigable water in amounta which, in term) of 

volume. concentratloa. and type of pollutant. are not significant. A 

report. wth recommendations, is to be submitted to the Houw 

Committee on Public Work and Trans nation and the Senate 

Committee on Envlronmcnt and Pubiic F orks within one year of 

the date of enactment of H.R. 8. 

A-31 
H 6102 CONGRE!SlONAl RECORD - HOUSE 

The CUDtMM4f4uh bay 

the Commlttm 

nalurm of a Dubeututa u aalcgflea 

The Commitw uaeadracnt Ln the 

nature of a rubutute. Y azaeDd& 

wua#rttdm 

Tho CHAIRMAN. Under the ale. 

the Committee rbm 

Aaeordlngly the ComaWee mu; 

and the Speaker h.a~aot$ th: 

chair. Mr. HmD$ 

Conunlttee of the Whole Eouw on thr 

stat4 of the OnlOP reported tlmt that 

Commltme. ha- had under eomldcmtlon the blll C&R. 0 to unend the 

kdcml Water Pollution Coatrol Act 

to provide for the renewal of the au& 

Ity of the Natlon’r ratem and for 

other Durporcr. DUrrurOt b 8OUU 

Reaolutlon 222 ho mwwted the blU 

back to the Hour with an amendment 

dODt&d by the COmmlttee of the 

Whole. 

The SP- Under the mlc the 

pnvlous questloo b ordered. 

Ia a UCp-tc vote durunded on my 

amendment to the Commlttm uaeadmcnt ln the nature of a eubetltuU 

Dd0DtD-d by the COm!nlttn Of the 

Whole? Lf no& the question L on the 

amendment. 

The amendment wu agreed to. 

The Sn The aueatloa I8 on 

ulkl~roualent and third readhu of 

The bffl N ordered to be enmwrl 

md read 8 chlrd time. urd m-u reti 

the third tlmt. 

umoll To LDDOYYR ovvnm DT n D-1 

Mr. D&AT. Mr. Speaker. I offer t 

motloa to recommit 

The SPWPEER Is the gentlemrn 

00porcd to the bill? 

Mt. DKLAY. I rm. Mr. Speaker. in Ifl 

praent form. 

The Sm The Clerk dll 

rwort the mtlon to reaxnmk 

The Clerk read Y follow 

YI.DTLbrmovata rmmmlttbebul 

ERa.touwcomatwoaOPublkwwka 

aadThe SPUXER Without objectloci, 

the ~revtous aumloa b ordered on 

the motloa b recemmlf 

There wan no obja%loa 

The SPEWER The auestlon b on 

the mot&m b raannmlt 

The motion to recommit wu rejected 

TheSPEAXEKTheauaUonboa 

them#meeofthebilL 

TIuaumtloawutrtexxmdttie 

S~rwum,upd that the l ~aa 4+ 

Mr. umLz?E speaker. I 

demmd l recorded vote. 

AlWCO~VOt4WUOfdUWd. 

The TO- wu hken W-e;h&c+fi 

dUW.Uldthm82 Dot +otlru 10. u follorr ’ 

moaNa2sel 

AMUD 

Ez Lm tTN1 

A-32 
July 24 1985 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 

WyIh wslr The SPFAUER. IJ there obJectIon 

Wolf to the request of the gentleman from 

WOIP New Jtnty? 

w-l WlWll There wu no objectlon. 

WIti The Clerk rerd the Seaate bill. u 

Tza 

followx 

6. lltl 

:z :EJ’ &umuLcd~Lhe&nauandWawd 

Youns CYOJ n4vumllofrDe8 a/ ul88 e& 

*mdca fI coltorrv 

ACt~Y’ClWdMUU”Cl080WDU?ACt 

Amendment8 of flu”. 

NOT V-O-10 

- (Ml1 B*fDor 

l rooQIbrb4 Bubbvd Eliot 

m-m.? 

OLKIW Ezcl 

0 1730 

Mr. HUNTER md Mr. ZSCEAD 

changed their votes from “aye” to 

“no.” 

Mr. LIVINOSK)N changed hlr vote 

from “no” to “aye.” 

230 the bill ~8s p-d. 

The rault of the vote wu mnounced u above recorded. 

A motion to reconslder wu lrld on 

the table. 

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker. I rrL 

unmlfaow consent that, ln the engrossment of the bill HR. 8 the Clerk 

be l uthorlud to correct eectlon numkn. croaa nferencm md the tile of 

coateat md auke 8uch other Wehalal and conformln# amendmenb u 

mwkneceuw bnflecttheutlam 

of the Howe ln unending the bill lLR 

8. 

ThesPmlcER.tthmobJecuon 

to the mquut of the gentleman from 

New Jenev? 

There wu no ObJectloD. 

xr. HOWARD. Mr. s@eaker. I uk 

uDanlmowconeenttOtakefromule 

Speaker’r &ble the .6amte bill (6. 

1128) to amend the Clan Water Act 

Uld fO? Otha Dm UrdukforIlr 

Lnuaedlate cmddemtlon ln the Rmmo. 

T’he Clerk ‘read the Utle of the 

Senate bill. 

H6103 

A-33 
II 6116 COSGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE 

ronoa aTnn 87 n mowhaD 

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. 6peaker. I offer 

a m0t10n. 

The Clerk read u follows 

Xr. Xowua movm to strlko out hll titer 

the envtina ekun of Ute Sermto WI. S. 

1128. md Lo Lnwn b IJm Ummof Lhr text 

of H.R. I. M pamed Y mlowr: 

July 23, 1935 

A-34 
July 23, 1985 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 

LlmUutien on diharue a/ low 

awage A New Ymk Cll~. 

Orrr Idand lmalmenl p&r& Yauaehwrtlr 

su 12 

Su 1). 

sec. 14. 

su IS. 

su 16. 

su 17. 

su 18. 

su IS. 

su 20. 

Stc 21. 

see 2L 

su 23. 

su 24. 

su 2s. 

su 24 

su 21. 

su 22 

su 2s. 

su 10. 

su 31. 

set 12 

su 31. 

su 14. 

su 1s. 

su 18. 

su 17 

src 18. 

su 1s. 

su 40 

su 41. 

su 42. 

sec. 41. 

su 44, 

su 4s. 

~~ngfuy*dr 

Yod*afwn /or nmconanlwnal 

vollu&n& 

DucAorpcr Illlo mar(na palm 

frlmo deadltru for twahnml 100rb 

mod~lUm 

Appkafwn for ocean ducharpe 

modlnBllonl 

In-trw f8chnofoqv compflancr 

&odl:naa for dswcl duchrpVarlomKu fnnn LA8 applicalwn o/ 

cf..wnlllmttallonr 

su IS. 

su Ia. 

set il. 

su IL 

su 1). 

su to. 

sac 81. 

su 82 

su ll. 

su 44. 

su 61. 

su 68. 

su #7. 

set 88. 

set 88. 

su 70. 

su 71. 

su 72. 

su 71. 

su 74. 

su 7s. 

su 74. 

su 77. 

su 71. 

sec. 7% 

su 10. 

Gnat Lalur Inl4mallonal COO&IMllll0 omce 

Oahoood Beuch and Red Hook 

prpmLI New York chlmrwa MiA Ptnwvluania Da4 Yomu xowe war&waler ndanmlwn dmwnt1mtwlL 

BOHOn Harbor and -1 

tna~~~ wo* in WuAr~lon 

St&& 

Immotmnml~ll. 

Study a! remlahon 4/ de minimu 

duchorou 

Sl dv a/ dfecftomu~ d tnnoval tw 

and dtmbafsw pmcamu and 

lecJtrWafm QYdttv tnprv~~~11 rtdv. 

studv d LulllO pmcedvru 

studv J pwrwaLmen1 d loac vol. 

LmlarLI. 

studtu OJ pg(cr#ollYhon pmbbmJ 

fn oqorlm 

Great Ldvr Corrrvmplrw w 

8LdV. 

sumdd co- rtdv. 

Wpmillrldv. 

stvdv of rorn/eu Indud isnflrolson 1rLa - ewm 

study of PH 60 dlJchargr, Jhm 

mmmo o#rolurm 

sluduw&uui&~ (I L&e W 

Lfmtfalum on pavmenk. 

RtgAf~ and 1ubWu~ rndcr olhtI eded rlotmlu. 

rut muxdwaL 

htlrratmml r&rdordr 

Ivu9alton and mfy. 

CnmtnaJ #rrdlur 

orrl pmlallur 

AdmtnWroltw pen&la 

&lot wmhp to olhrr lawr 

Yanru rontlafwn dmieu 

Clean la&a 

N?DSS pni& 

Adi& 

ComnwnweallA al Ihr NorUm 

Yarlara fdarlr 

Aodmdlumi rformwnlm diuhaqa~ 

cltrrrr, rrtLI 

iZi%bZiDulr11lon Q?pofnl mwu 

C%ua& ad Na~urU k#a 

New York and Wcl~ Jm A8rbor 

San :‘u(ro Bay 

Haintmanu d c#kr @muuv tn uH 6117 

A-35 
n 6138 

July I%‘, 1985 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 

COSGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 

Kr. SIMPSOK Mr. Resident. I uk 

the Chair to lay before the Senate a 

menage from the How of Represent 

atlves on S. 1128. 

The usment le~lslrtlve clerk Iald 

before the Senate the amendment of 

the House of Repruenutivu to th? 

S 10260 COKGRESSIONAL RECORD - SE:* ATE 

bill (S. 1128) to unena the Clear 

Water Act. and for other purposes. 

(The unendment of the House la 

pnnted in the R~RD of July 23. 1985. 

artnrunc at page Htl I’?. 

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President. I 

move that the Serute dlsgree to the 

How unendmenrr Md request a conference on the dbgreemg votes thereon urd the Chur Oe wthorued to wcant conferees on the part of the 

Senate. 

The motion WY agrwd to. and the 

Pn?sldrn# Offleer [Mr. H-1 8~ 

wmted Mr. amm0a.n. Mr. Owu. Mr. 

sxx?saM. Mr. Dvraraca. Mr Rmrtn. Mr. Mmaau and Mr. YorrrmAn 

conferees on the #rr of Sense. 

July 23, 1985 

s 10239 

July 29, 1985 

A- 36 
II7206 

H 1111s 

CONGRE.WOS.4L RECORD - HOUSE 

mI?nMmvT OP CONFEREES 

ON 9. 1126. CLEAN WAlzR ACT 

A!-IkflLNTS OF 1983 

Mr. EOWARD. Mr. Speaker. I ask 

UnA?..lEl01U COnsent to u&e from the 

Spcaker’r title the Senate bffl 6. 

112t) to amend the CuD Water Ar, 

uW for other ~urtoser lnsut on the 

Eotnc uncatEnentr and rm to the 

wdtrence reauated by the Same. 

TRe SPEAKER. Is there ObJeaon 

to the rccocn of the lcntlemrn from 

New Jenefl The Chw hean 3or.e. 

8nd l ppocnu the toUowutr conferes 

bl- Ror Jur3aroN. Mm& OBrxITU Enam. Touns. Sma a8csxrv~. Sr~~aux~. and Curcn; 

Azd addltlonal wnteries as IoLlouz: 

Mr. NOW&K. ao!cly far aecnoru SD 

aad 73 ot the HJW umadment md 

modKkUoru commrtted to confer- 

-sad 

Mr. Rarwro at otoTv& solely for 

aatmns 5; l&bXlXb~: 16(EX3Xa); 

24tcX’II: StbK3): aad 51(uo() ot flu 

Hcrrr+ unmdmegt aad mocX~ouons 

wmmittsd to wntemnce 

COh’GRESSIOSAL RECORD - HOUSE 

REPORTS OF COMMI-l7?ZES ON 

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUmor:s 

Under clause 2 of the rule XIII. reporu ot committees were dellrercd to 

Lhe Clerk for printmg and reference to 

the proper calendar, as follows: 

September 4. 1963 

Octo5er 1.5. 19.56 

Kr HOWARD: CommMee of Conicrrnce. 

Conftnntx rcwrt on 8. 11U tRcct. W1004 ). Ordrrrd to k prtntcd. 

A- 37 
U.S Hour. of Ropresentativas, Conference Report 99 - 1004, 

Amending thm Clean Water Act, ordered to be printed October 15, 

1986. 

rrnc* (page 172) 

No annprsblo pmviaioa. 

Home amendment 

Tbe amfersaa subetitute adopta the Houam unoadmmt with 

aiaMcatioMto~8etudyafdir)urrDfpdlu~t8todet8rmiaorh8th8roraotthamM~in-hrhicbia 

bnoa of rohao. omaatmti~ mad 

er 

of polluuat. 8m aa 8i@ 

nii’kmafurdtadetorminothomat mctivercldqqmprimmetb 

CXbOflWgUhthgNChdk~. 

al Worgins (pages 83 L 84) 

A-38 
0 4. CONGRE!%SIOZVAL RECORD d DAILY-- DIGES I- 

% 111, CksIl wutt ACT Amedmeno. Poctcr vcootd. 

Calendar No. 1 

IOO~CONGRESS 

18-f SE6610N Sl l 

To amend the Federal IV-r Pollution Control Act to provide for the renewal of 

the quality of the Nation’r waters. and for other purport. 

DC’ THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Jmur 6, 1987 

Mr. B-D (for Mr. BUSDICK) (for himrclf, Mr. C!xumz. LLt. M~ELL. Mr. 

STAITOBD, Mr. BTSD, Mr. L(OTNIEM, Mr. ILDAMI. Mr ABmTBowo. Mr. 

BAUCUI, Mr. Bm~emv, Mr. BIDLN, Mr. BIJW~. Mr. BOBEN, Mr. 

BWLZY, Mr. BVYPCIS, Mr. CHILZS, Mr. COEXN. ?lr. CONUD, MI. 

CBANITON, Mr. D’AYAm, Mr. DMIIWITH, Mr. DABC~ILZ, Mr. DaCow 

CWT. Mr. DIXON, Mr. DODD-, Mr. Doxmnx, Kr. DLIWWME~. Mr. 

EVANI, Mr. EXON, Mr. FOOD, Mr. FOWLEB, Jkb. Oum, Mr. Oat. Mr. 

G-. Mr. HUKXN, Air. HEINZ, Mr. HOLLIIW, Mr. HUMPEEET. Mr. 

bJotTX. hb. bJYl%N, b. b.BT, bb. &NNEDY, k. ~CTENBLBG. fi. 

h-v a. hvrW, Lit. LUOU, k. hfC%ONNELL, bir. &LCXEB, Idr. 

MtTZtNBrUM, k. bhUL!JX, a. Nm, Ik. PACKWOOD. htr. RLL. bfr. 

REI)LILEB, Mr. ROXMIBE, Mr. RTOB. Mr. REID, bir. RXJEOLE, Mr. 

BOCKEYBLLBB, MY. BOTH, Mr. BUD-, Mr. SANFOBD, Mr. SUBANB~, 

Mr. SAIHBB, Mr. SIMON, Mr. SPBCTBB, Mr. STMMI, Mr. TRVBMOND, Mr. 

hR&& &. WABNBB, k. WBICXBB, fi. WILMN. &. WIBTH, Md Ik. 

ZOBINBKY) introduced the follow& hill; which wm mad mice and ordered 

tokpkoedollthedendAr 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide 

for the renewal of the quality of the Nation’s waters, md 

for other purpoaer. 

u-39 
2 

1 Be it enacted by the Sena& and Rouse of Rqmmnfa2 tiocs of the United States of Am&m in Congrws ammbied, 

3 SECI'ION 1. SHORT TITLE TABLE OF CONTENTS: AMEND4 MENTS To FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CON5 TROL ACTi DEFINITION OF ADMINISTMTOR 

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

7 “Water Quality Act of 1987”. 

8 (~)TuLE OF CONTENTS.- 

Sec. 1. Short title; table d contenta; amcndmeou m Federal Water PoUutioo Coatrol Act: defmiuoa d Adminuuuor. 

Sec. 2. Limiution 00 pr.ymeau. 

TITLE I-AMlXDME.NTS TO TITLE I 

Sec. 101. Authoritioaa d rpproptitionr. 

sec. 102. SmAll flow CkJiaghoruc. 

Sec. 103. Chesapeake Bay. 

sec. 104. orat I&es. 

Sec. 105. Eeseuch on e&eta d pollutaau. 

TITLE II-CONSTBWTION GRANTS MFX’\LLENTS 

sec. 201. Tii limit 00 resohg tmtaio diqvuus. 

!3ec. 202. Fe&ml share. 

Sec. 203. @mtbeat on eiigihk cosu. 

sot. 204. Desi#o/huiId projocu. 

sec. 205. Orutt coaditiotts; wt cherps on lor.ioame mideotid wn. 

sa. 206. AlIotmeot fomuh. 

sec. 207. Bumlntuide. 

sec. 208. Iltmmhutdd~pojscu. 

sec. 309. Begiood or#me&afuoding. 

sec. 21o.:Muim Cso’s and ataaiea. 

sac. 211. Am for caamm&a gr8au. 

se. 212.swrrurpouutialooaudfwvolrin(fuada. 

sac. 212. Im F---PM== 

su. 214. chicyo taumd aad m.noir pm* 

sec. 215. Ad r&rem tu dvlLrrLn 

TITLB In-sTANDABD?3 AND BHPOBCEMENTS 

A-40 
3 

6u. 306. IBdbidud 00OUOl stmteges for toxic poh~uxs 

!k. SOB. Reueuloeot stAaduds. 

sec. 310. Imp&00 Md etltrp. 

see. 311. Make emitation devkes. 

Sec. 312. Cktitul pen&es. 

Sec. 313. Civil pen&es. 

Sec. 314. AWve perlties. 

See 313 Clean lakes 

Sec. 316. Mmegemeot of nonpoint eources d pollution. 

see. 317 NAtionAl estuuTtrogrAm. 

Sec. 316. UOc0Odi&ted qua&q quifer. 

TITLE IV-PERMITS AND LICENSES 

SM. 401 Stort~water nmoff from oil. gas. md miniry operations. 

Sec. 402. Additional pretrmttnent of conventional polluuots DOI required. 

Sec. 403. PW XPDES progtun. 

Sec. 404. Anti-backsliding. 

Sec. 405. Yuniciprl and industri~I stormwater diechuges 

sec. 406. SewAge sludge. 

Sec. 40;. Lay tmader facilities. 

TITLE V-xIscELuNEOCS PBOvISIONS 

Sec. 501. Audits. 

sac. 502. coauDlm we& d the Northern MAJ&U Iah& 

Sec. 503. Apicuhd sumwater diecbarges. 

Sec. 504. Protection d interests d Gaited Sues in citizen IL’S 

!hc. 505. Judicial review aad rwud of fees. 

sec. 506. IndiAa tibes. 

sec. 507. De6oition of point wwce. 

Sec. 506. Sped providotu rqudiq ceruio dumping sites. 

sec. 309. oceAodiAchugemeucJlproject. 

sec. 510. !h Diego. cdifomia. 

&c. 511. Iimiutioo w diecharge d mw eewyc by New York City. 

Sec. 512. OJwood Bach rod Bad Hook Projecu, New York. 

!sec. 513. Bomm Hubor Ad AdjAceat WAten. 

sec. 514. wAa8wu.r r8chuim d4Ntwutruioo. 

sec. 515. Da YoiDa, IOWA. 

Sac. 516. Study d de minimis diuhqts. 

Sec. 517. Study d dbctivums d itmomtive and ~Imuuivc proceues d techSec. 518. Study d-6 proohm. 

Sot. 519. Study d premwmea tdmicpohttmu. 

&c.520.8tudksdnuapdlutiooprob&uin~en. 

Sec. 521. orrt I&a anuutnpcin UAe andy. 

B.C. 522. !hl6de - etudy. 

k 52&8tudydmiddissduadht6luuioniatosewmr8yeums. 

6.~. 524. hm wuer qdty emdy. 

Su.S25.6&ydpilmia~ikluPIodOniPI.Ihbo. 

A-41 
203 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

i 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

SEC. 516. STLPY OF DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES. 

(a) STCDY.-The Administrator shall conduct a stud? of 

discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters and their 

regulation under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 

determine whether or not there are discharges of pollutants 

into such waters in amounts which, in terms of volume, con204 

centration, and t-ype of pollutant, are not si,ficant and to 

determine the most effective and appropriate methods of regulating any such discharges. 

01) REPOBT.-Not later than 1 year after the date of 

the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to 

the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report on the results 

of such study along with recommendations and findings concerning the most effective and appropriate methods of regulating any discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters 

in amounts which the Administrator determines under such 

study to be not significant. 

A-42 
ImTH COSGRESl 

f ST SEYSIOS H.R.l 

To amend the Federal ivrrcr Pollur~on Control .Jrr ro prollde for rhe rcncus; oi 

rhr quallr: of thr Satron’s u’aters. and for orher purpose’ 

IS THE HOI-SE OF REPRESEST.ATI\-ES 

.\lr H~U.AKT, (for htmccli. Nr ~-~AI!VERSCH~IIDT. .\lr ROE. 3lr YT.~XCEL.~KD. 

.\I: .\‘0\1~.4h: .\lr .\SDERSOS. .\lr. ASDRF.\VS. >Ir. .~PPLEGATE. .\fr 

.IRCHER. 1lr .ITKI\S. Sir BATEYAY. 31rc BE~TLEI. .\I: BEI.ILL. Mr 

HLILE~. .\lr BOEHLERT. .\lr BORIKI. Ilr Bosco. .\Irs BOXER. Jlr 

BRO\\.\ 01 Caliiornla. Nr. BI.STAVA.NTE. .\lr CALL.~H.~Y. Nr CARDI\: .\lr 

CARPER. Nr CHASDLER. Nr CHAPIIAS. !tfr. CLABI~. Nr. CLISGER. .\lr 

COLEZI.~\ of Tekac. .\lr.r COLLINS. Mr COI-RTER. .\Ir CROCKETT. .\I: 

r)~itDE.\. Nr. L)EF.~zIo. .\!r. DE Lvr,o. .\fr. fJ1c)i~. l\lr ~ISGELL. air DIoGI ARFI. Jlr DOHCA\ ol Surth DJLUI~ Mr. PU~.YEI of Srn York. .\lr 

DI IRIS. !kfr I)I\JFR of Se11 Jerce!. Ilr DI>:.. .\lr ECURT .\lr 

E\.Ass. Ilr FASCELL. .\lr FAZIO. !dr FEIGHAY. ‘.I- )‘ILLI~C ?Ir FISH 

.\lr FLORIO. .\fr FOGLIETTA. .\lr FORD o! 311~5 : ,n .\I: FR.4Yh. Jlr 

GALLO. .\fr. GEJDE\SO. Jfr SILX~.X, 31: Goi; ,:.Ez. .\lr GOODLIM. 

Mr. GYADISOS:. Mr. GRAYT~ Nr. GREES. Nr. Gc.Az:x:. 111 GL’SDER~OI. 

j!r H.~:.ILTos. Nr HAYE> of LCIII~~IRII~. 5fr HENH\. 11: HORTON. .\lr 

HOVER. Mr. HUGHES. .\frs. JOHSSOS of Connrcricut. .\fr JUSTZ. .\l: Ei.rsJORSKI. Nr. )~~STESMEIER. Nr KILDEE. 3fr KLECZKA. Nr LAFALCE. 

Nr. LASTOS. Nr. LEHMAS of Florida. Nr. LELAXD. ,\fr LEVIS of Nlchqan. 

NV LEWIS of Florida, Nr. LIGHWOOT. Mr. LIPI~SKI. Mr. LOU-ESY of Callfornir. Nr. THOMAS A. LICKEN’. N:. N~cliAy. Nr. .UASTOS. .\lrs. JfARTIs 

of Illinois. Nr. NATSLY. Mr. IUCCOLLLW, Nr. NCDADE. Nr MCGRATH. Nr 

NcHv<;H. Nr. MCKINNIX. Nr. MCUILLAK of ?;orth Carolina. Ifr. MILLER 

of California. Nr. YIMTA, Nr. UOLISARI. Mr. .MOODV. Nr. .\~RAZEK. Nr 

N~XPHS, Mr. KATCXES. Mr. NEAL. Mr. NELSON of Florida. Ns. OAKAR. 

Nr. OBEBSTAE, Nr. OLIN, Mr. OWENS of h’ew York. Nr. PACUBD. 1fr. 

PANEI?A, Mr. PERKINS, Mr. RAHALL. Mr. RICHARDSOS. Nr. RWALDO. 

Mr. RODINO, Mr. ROSE, Nr. ROSTE~KOWSKI. Mrs. ROVKEMA, Nr. RowLAND of Georgia. Mr. ROWLUD of Connecticut, Mr. Rveso. Nr. SAVAGE. 

Mr. Stiroh’, Mr. Scntms, Miss SCHNEIDER. Mr. SCHVETTE. Nr. SCHL-- 

MEB,MS. SLAUOHTER of Sew Y~~~,M~.SENSE~EESNER, Mr. SHAW. Nr. 

SHUBTER, Mr. SIKOMUU, Mr. SKAQQS, Mr. SMITH of Iowr. Nr. SMITH of 

Eicw Jerae~, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. ST OEBYAIN, Mr. STALLINQS. Mr. STRATTON. Mr. STUDDS. Mr. SUNDQUIIT, Mr. SUMA, Mr. SU’IR. Mr. THOXAS of 

A-43 
2 

To 

Georgia. Mr. Torrcs, Mr. TOIBICELLI. Mr. TOWNI. Ur. TLUICANT. Mr. 

VALESTINE, Mr. VESTO. Mr. vx8cLol?m, Mr. WrLLuJm. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WISE, Mr. KOLPL. Mr. Worr~tr. Mr. Wrocn.and Mr. YATES) introduced the following bill; which wu rcfemd jointly to the Committees on 

Public Works and Tmnrportrtion md Merchant Marine and Fisheries for 

consideration of such pro\i=irionr of the bill U 1111 within that committee’s jutirdiction pursuant to clause l(n). rule X 

A BILL 

amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide 

for the renewal of the qualit? of the Xation’s waters, and 

for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the rnited States of America in Congress a.wembled, 

SECTIOS 1. SHORT TITLE: TABLE OF COSTEIYTS: AMEYDMEN’S TO FEDERAL WATER POLLUTIOS COSTROL ACT; DEFISITION OF AD~II~ISTlUTOR. 

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

“Water Quality Act of 198’7”. 

6) TABLE OFCONTENTS.- 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contenta; amendments LO Fedeml Water Pollution Control Act; dtfihoo 04 hdmrrustntot. 

sec. 2. Lbnlutioaoap~mau. 

TITLE I-AxExDMExTSTOTITLE I 

sec. 101. AuchorizUioW of rppmpriadollI. 

sec. 102. slnd nowm c-. 

sec. 103. chempdc Iby. 

sec. 104. Gm8c L&88. 

!k. 105. Beuuch on effects of polluuou. 

TITLE II-CONSTRK’l7ON GRANTS UENDXEHTS 

sm. 201. Tii limit 00 relol*in( mrtb dirputer. 

see. 202. Fedml s&m 

sec. 203. A#Temeatooe~Mccosu. 

sec. 204. Duign/huibd projects. 
4 

sec. 512. OJwood Btrb md Red Hook Projmu. New York. 

Sec. 513. Bormo Hubor and djuwot wutn. 

Sec. 514. Wuuwaur mhnwon dcmoamuion. 

sec. 315. Da Moules. Iova. 

Sec. 516. Study of de minif& di#chugec. 

Stc. 517. Study of efftcwencu of mnovuivc and ~Itemacivc pmctrrer and techniques. 

Stc. 51@ Study of rcsun6 pmctduro. 

Sec. 519. Swdp of prtutamtnt of toxic pollumnu. 

Sec. 520. Studw of r’attr pollution problema u1 aquifers. 

Sec. 521. Great L&r conrumpuve uat study. 

Sec. 522. Sulfide cormston study. 

Sec. 523. Study of runf~l mduced infiltration inu, newer syttemr. 

Sec. 524. Dam water quality rtudy. 

Sec. 525. Study of pollu~ron m Lake Pend hillt, Idaho. 

203 

20 SEC 616. STUDYOFDE MINIMIS DISCHARLES. 

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

22 discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters and their 

23 regulation under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 

24 determine whether or not there are discharges of pollutants 

25 into such waters in amounts which, in terms of volume, conA- 45 
6 

8 

9 

IO 

11 

12 

13 

204 

centration. and ye of pollutant, are not significant and to 

determine the most effective and appropriate methods of regulating any such discharges. 

01) REPORT.- ?;ot later than 1 year after the date of 

the enactment of this Act. the Administrator shall submit to 

the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the 

House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a repot I on the results 

of such study along with recommendations a:li findings concerning the most effective and appropriate methods of regulating any discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters 

in amounts which the Administrator determines under such 

study to be not significant. 
CO.\‘CHESSlOSAL RECOHD - HOL’FE 

Mr. XAhIMERSCXMIDT 

w-47 
Jancurv 8, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 

Mr. 6rANouAND. Mr. bwaktr. I rim to dbr provbloN Lo H.R. 1. the Water Quality M of ren. Thb 

kablatlon b the rault of conhru~~ 

dkWSiON &I LtlC 88th cOfI#reS~ m* 

nirw over 8 months and sort by 

How and &MU commlttea apartnln8 over 4 yesa Week of hearings. 

thousands of w of tatlmony. and 

countha houn of uulysb, diacumion 

and debate led Lo development of thb 

vlully Important cnvironmenUl legislarron. 

X.R. I should look strklngly funlllu to etch of us. Thb IeclalaUon-Like 

lu countcrOvr 8. I-b vtrtrully ldenclal to the -nlennct nporr 0n a 

111. which paaed the How uid 

&nare unmlmourlt-by axnblned 

vocuofbo4too-la8thMsmootJu 

uo but w81 Wet wtad by the 

except for l few pumly cechnkd 

chuwea aueh u ~lacln@ 1uI with 

1887 ln the WC’S name (0 reflect the 

new yeu. 

I should aho polat out thst duplte 

IU lmmate toNidemcotn h the 

100th Cowrem lS.R 1 hu a complete 

Icclslaclve hktorl La the form of documenu lmm the 88th Con- To dekmlne conuudon8l Intent tn H.R. 1. 

one should flmt cOruult the conferl ncrmonona1mmdthVlmu 

necuiury. cornmktee reuoru and floor 

8~tementa for the 88th Congreu 

House- and #lena&-- bllla (8X.R 8 

and 8. 1128). Thus documenu. m 

wculul~ a 1128-r msnference repon 

pm?de a detallod kgl8Wve bkbry 

forIiJL1eventhou8htheaewleabH 175 

A-48 
li 216 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 

A-49 
s 802 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE Januv 14, 1987 

DOLE AKEND- NO. L 8.c 407. I&# mJw~-rrcllllJr 

- ___- v-YmcrLIANIous 

Mr. DOLE mmoud an uacndmcnt n- ROVISIONS ..____ - 

to the bill (H.R. 1) La uamd the Fed- w U)I. 

l r8l Wucr PolluUon Control Act to se sol 

AudlU 

CommonreUlh of the Northern 

YulM8 LIMQ. 

AgdculuAnl rtomw8lcr db protide for the nncrrl of the aualltl 

of Lhe NatIon’s waters, and for other 

DllroQKI: U fOllOr% 

ItrIke oul til rlwr Lhe etwxul4 clwae 

urd hen in Ileu thereof the lollowm~ 

TMLI OP c0NrzN-m 

(0) SllO8T fmr-This M m8y br Cllcd 

Y Lhe “W4wr QuaMy Act of 1441”. 

lb) Trus oe CorrPrrrSe. 1. Short Utlc; ublr 01 coclunu: unubdmenu to &denl W8ur PeUunnst -~b<L)crsfoTITLCI 

sec. 101. Aulhorbrlon of ~Pro0rhllOnr sec. s12. 

Su 102. ChBe B4y. see 514. 

se 103. orar Wr 

Se. 104. Ratuch on efku of ooUuL~t~ Sec. 91% 

nTLt II-CONSTRUCrlON 0RAN-m 

AMEND- see 518. 

Se. 201. Ul~b~IIues. CSOa Dtaputr Rart 

lurlon. Lmlulionr 

Sa. 202 Pedenlrhue. 

Se. 203. Agreemere on l ltglble meu. 

&C. tel. DUi#WbUild DfO/UU 

Sec. 205. Onnc amdrrlonc u8er chugm on 

Im4ncome fddenuu ulem 

sec. 206. Al10unerlt forrpulr 

SC. 20-l. Runl w( ulb. Innmruve Md uUm&UvIv~~JecU utd Nonsu. 208. monu Or48mLEdlng. 

Se. 205. AuthormUon for cDIuvucILQ(I 

Sec. 210.OnE~Suto for m&try M 

pollution cootrol louu. 

sec. 211. Ad vmlorwa IU bcdkUon 

Sec. 212. fmprovemen~ hoSM. 212. Chwuo T’unnd aad Raewoir 

-Qkcc. 

chulu 

Rotccrlon of tnurau of Unlled 

f:8tu in cklun suu 

Jual-:rl mlew md wud of fccL 

1ndlu-t tnbcr 

Dellmuon of DolnL source. 

Speciu provtsloru mudtn* cmULn dUlTlDifl# SiLa 

Oce8n dlachuse raearch DmHn 

Lmtmon on &h&me of rw 

me by NW York CRY. 

SLudy of dv nUnlrmr duchuta 

Shbdy of rffcrclvmrr of lnnovw 

Uve md <emwve vrocwa 

Md trchJtl4uu. 

SIudy of tutlxw DroccdUra 

Sb~,,3&ymtmen~ of U)rlc 

SUJdws of rater pollution DrO3 

study. 

sec. (I?. Sulfide co-on aludy. 

see. 518. Swdy of mlnfrll Induced lnflkrc 

uon inut 8ercr synenu. 

ga 51s. Dun rwer quaIll), study. 

sic 520. Study of polluuon In I&e Pend 

Omlllc. I&ho. 

See 521. San Mego. Cblfomlr 

8u 522.OUrood Bach wd Red Rook 

Projcc~. NW York. 

mUon 

&c 525. Da Moma. Ior% 

k 524. Study of De Mlrtlmlr DLrhusa 

8u 527. &mrdment to tho Water R+ 

aurea Development Acl. 

A-50 
9 822 

9824. 

COSGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 

au. III. mmt w DC m!!INU DIIOURGCI 

(8) uTvDr.--fhr AhUl&UW8hUJWtl~ 

duct l rtudy of ~ of muutra?J Into 

Lhom~bl~rUmmdthdrregubuon 

under the FWemJ War pOUut&m Conml 

MrodetmmberJtetherorowtJlero8r4 

dlrhutr of DO~JUIMIU Jnu, wch r8um Ja 

amour10 rhkh Ln hrtm of rolume. coo~lt 

tmtbon end tm of poJJutanL am not ryINfLrrnt uld to deuKolM the mwt l ffwuve 

8Dd 8DJWODd8t4 Wtbob Of w UlY 

--hvtr (b) mw.-Not later than 1 tur titer 

cln duo of me ~entdthLMUw 

Aamlnktmm ahaJ,J mbmJt m the Wctoe on hrbllc Works md VUOO of 

the Rouse of R~D-wJv= and the Coatmltcee on Envlmnment md Fublk Worth of 

tlte thue 8 re~cn on Llbe mulLI of such 

8tudy Jory Wth mtlofu Md 

fJndu8 wowmln8 the mad l ffoctJw mnd 

8DDroDrJuo mew of re@ukunc MY die 

chvrw of mllu~u Jnco the rmvl#abJr 

wren Lo u8ounu rhleh LJW Admhbtmtor 

deWmlnaundcrNehrtud~tabenocaJgnIfIanL 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 

Januay I/, 1987 

January f& 1987 

A-51 
Jan- 21, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 

WAlTR QUAlZY ACT O? 1987 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the prwJow order. the hour of 2 pm. 

hMn# urlved the Senate s-U1 now 

raumc corulderuJon of the unflnbhed buslneu. HR. 1. rhlch the clerk 

will now report. 

The usbt8nt lerl8lUlvr clerk read 

u foJlows 

A bUl CILR 1) to amend the FWemJ 

Water PoJJuUon Caawol Act tD pruvJde for 

the renewal of the QuUJty of the WeIon’ 

ratm Md for other purporrr 

The Senate resumed conslderrtlon 

of the bill. 

-ypR no. , 

The PRESIDING OFFICER The 

pcndln# qutstlon L on amendment No. 

1 on which then &hall be 2 hours of 

debate to be equal& dlrlded. controlled by the maJorJt~ and mlnorlty 

leaden or their daisma. 

s 1003 

A-52 
Januay II. 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 6 1033 

The PRESIDLNO OFFICER. Under 

the ~revlous order, the hour of 4 

o’clock having urived. the Senate Wl.l 

now vote on amendment No. 1. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The uslsurit le8klatlve clerk called 

the roll. 

Mr. SIMPSON. I announce th8t the 

Senator lrom MWurl (Mr. Borrol L 

absent due to illness. , 

The PRESLDLNO OFFICER LMr. 

Bnr~ox). Are then my other Senston In the Chamber who dm 

vote’ 

The result 8-u announced-yeu 

nays 82. u folloux 

mo11all vote No. 1 Leg.1 

to 

17, 

NOT VoI1NO-1 

n 

Mr. MITCHELL Yr. Pruldent. I 

move to reconsider the vote by Which 

the amendment yu reJected. 

hfr. BURDICK. Mr. Resldtnt. I 

move to LY that motion on the table. 

The motion to lw on the table wu 

weed to. 

The PFLESIDINO OFFICER The 

Quutlon t8 on the third reading of the 

blll. 

The bill wu ordered to l third reuilngmdru rtadthethlrdume. 

The PRESIDING OF’FICEFt. Under 

the or&out order. the Sen~t.e will 

now have a rolledI vote on adoption of 

H.R. 1. 

The bill havInE been read the third 

tune. the auertlon is. Shall the bill 

DUS’ 

The yeu and nays have been ordered. urd the clerk u-U call the roll 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

Mr. SIBDSON umounetd that the 

Senator from Mimourl [Mr. Born1 la 

akent due to Illness. 

I further announce that. U present 

md voting. the Senator from Ylwu.rl 

[Mr. Borrol would ote “ye&” 

The PRESLDIN E OFPICER. Are 

there any other Senators ln the Chamkr dulrlng to vote? 

The result VII uanounced-yeu 83. 

nays 6. u follous: 

(Rollull VoLr No 4 Leg.1 

oM:W 

HUkln 

So the bill (H.R. 1) N med. 

Mr. MITCHELL Yr. Pmldtnf I 

move lo reconsider the vote by sMch 

the bill PU owed. 

Mr. Bm.DxcK. I move a0 Iay that 

motion on ahe table. 

The moUon to lay on the table wu 

ameed to. 

A-53 
Fehmq 3, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 525 

0 1335 

Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. 

Speaker. I do not have MY further requesu Ior tune. but before I Yteld back 

the balmce of my Urnt. I yield myself 

such time u 1 may consume so that I 

may ny this 

I want to l xurur my appreciation 

for the le8dtnhiD given on Lhia legisIatlon for the put 6 ytvt md even 

before thaL by the charman of the 

rubcommittee. vk wttleman from 

New Jtncy. Mr. Boa ROL and hlr 

counterpm. the gentleman from HIDnesota, Mr. Aauu SruauMD. I 

rcrved at one rime with the gentlemAn 

from New Jersey M ranking member 

on the Water Ruourca SubcomuW 

tee. and I know the prodldour vow 

he did. 

I also wish to thank md consrxtu 

late the gentleman from New York 

[Mr. Novvur.1 who ullJ be ruumlnu 

thhous~b&llltltc u cm of the 

Also. Mr. s*klLer. CatrLnly 1 vwl 

to exureu my wpruiauon to the 

chalmut of the full crmmlttee. the 

gent1ema.n from New Jew. Mr. Jru 

HOWARD. for hla hdorahlp md hb 

coapcr8Uon. md I rto l xDnu my aP 

precirtlon to the VerY profasioti 

COmdtt~ rUffJ. Thetr help Md their 

tooperatIon have brought us to this 

point. 

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Spe8ker. before 

I Yteld back the brl~C8 Of my Ume. I 

Yield myself 8uch t&r u I AMY eonawne. 

Mr. S#rlter. I vlah to thank my colIeuueb all the memkn of the Comrnluee on Publk WarL and Truwartalon. Y well u our counterOIItr over 

In the other body. 

I apedally thank the aentlemm 

from New Jersey Mr. Roll aad our 

new a&commltLn chdmun of the 

subconrmlu~ on water Resoumaa 

the #mtlem~ from New York CXr. 

Norul. 1 l pe- the OffON Of 

our ranking mlnorky member. the 

nntleman from Ylnn~ Mr. 

8rANoauuol. Md I UlMk 31 the Ye 

hen for the work they have bane on 

this titrlly IawortuU Imu@. 

InJuu~mauerofveeLthlemam 

really our third Ume iround at thL 

vlbl leaialatlon. We vem &&r4ous h 

the Congraa the flnt two tlmu Usually If you win the third time. YOU @et 

to retlre the trophy. 

We UC not lookIng for MY trophies 

here, Mr. Sperker. What we ue look. 

Iry for ls l mandate by this COnCnSJ 

for clean water for our children and 

our grandchildren. We can do that by 

votmc ya on thlr vote to override Lhe 

Resident’s veto. 

Mr. Speaker. I yield back the brlu-ice of my time. Md I move the previous question. 

The previous puestlon vu ordered. 

The SPIKER pro ternpore (Mr. 

K~ma). The question Lt. Will the 

House. on reconslderxtion. pur the 

bill. the obfectlons of the President to 

the contrxry notwithstmdlng? 

Under the Conrtltutlon. this rote 

must be determmed by the yers and 

nays. 

The vote wu taken by electronic 

device. Md there wtrt-yeu 401. na13 

20. not voting 0. u follows: 

IRoll No. 141 

ntlw 

Rahbrwdmr 

nollmw 

moklm 

Honon 

u-54 
0 1888 

Mr. LrPmSH Md Mr. Hm-Lmr chsn#ed thdr votu from “nw” to 

“lea” 

so. twoalrds hAYln# voted ln rwor thereof.thobtllmrmud.~ob~ Uons of Lho Raldtnt to the cmUu7 

nowMuMdh8. 

A-55 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 

The PRESIDTNO OFFICER. Under 

the previous order. the hour of 2 p.m. 

hrvmg armed. the Senate ~111 nor 

proceed to the conslderrt~on of the 

Presldent’r veto meuaae on H.R. 1. 

rhwh the clerk sill report. 

The bill clerk read u lollows: 

Veto mesaage on H.R. 1. an Act to unrnd 

Lhe Fvderrl Water Follut~on Control Act 

ana to pro\v.lr for rcnc8kl of the pualw of 

lhe NatIon a 8alcn. and for other gum. 

The message from the President is 

a.3 rollo8s: 

S 1691 

A-56 
CONGEES!SlONAL RECORD - SENATE 

AC2 of 1067.” Bi4ause bLl recuiuow. 

rmnla. cnfonrmcnl Md Dumlc bNAnce bcuvltla ue eonrinued uadcr 

pemancnt kr uxl cumnt wpr0pMLlonhlndudlng grMu to UaMce Lhe 

~cu00 of Jewage treument 

plant64 ernphultc Chat my vtta vi)l 

hbvc no lm~bct ahaUoever on the hmedAte ItALus of MY wuer 9udlcY 

P- 

?‘hC e)eUlUD Of Our %tlOn’S rivUr. 

lakes. and estuuks Ix. and hu been 

for the put 13 Yea l ~llonal prIorlty of the hlghert order. TU Admlnls~ 

wation remairs committed 14 the ob 

jectlva of the Clean WaCer Aft md to 

tontlnuln# the OuUUndhl# PrOm 

u-e Hart aaade In mduclnc or&r vollutlon but the issue tulnc me today 

dau not c!cmce~ the ensuring of clean 

water for future generatIonA The real 

Issue b the FeUeral deficit--md the 

pork-ml UXI spending boondoccla 

thu lncreue It. 

The Clean Water Act constructlon 

mt Pm. which this lt~latlon 

funda. b l elusk example of how rell. 

lntenc~oned. #hon.rcm prorrvrrr tub 

loon into open-ended, long-term cornmltmenU casting bIllIona of dollrn 

more thbn MtkiDa(cd or needed. 

SIna? 1672. the pedcirl gVVtrM¶tnt 

hu helped fund the constn~Uon of 

loal ww8ge tmtment fbeffltla This 

Ia a mstter that hlrtor!c8llu and ~rvP 

erly wan the responxlbilliY of State 

and local governmenU. The Ykderal 

govemmenib II& swndinr in Chb 

wea vu Intended to be b rhort-term 

effort to anbt Ln ftrmnctng the backlog of facilities needed at the tlmt to 

meet the orlgu~rl Clern Water Act reguIre!nenCa. When the prOg7Un rC.arCed. the cost of that commitment Co the 

Pedeml taxpayer U~J estInuted bt $16 

bllllon. Yet Lo date. $47 Mlllon ha8 

btcZl &pprOpr(ated. R.R. 1 pmpoler u, 

put rtlll mother SIC bllllon of Caxp8Y. 

en’ money ht.0 thla program. Deeptte 

AU thb money, only 67 percent of dl 

munkip~itks have acCuallY completed 

the a#rstntctlon needed to comply 

wlLh the Clean Water Act poklutlon 

limb. On the other hand. non-munidpal treatment rystems. which hare m 

aloed no Federul Iundlng. have ampleted 64 percent of the congtnsctlon 

needed for com~liancw 8lCh l%derJ 

pollution rtandards. I wnt a bill that 

spends only uhu ut need to mend 

and no more-not I blank check For 

these muons 1 must CuBApprDve RR. 

1. b bilk virtually Identical to S. 1126. 

Shich I dluDDrored last November. 

Money L not the only problem 8-M 

thb le6lslatlor~ Lo my November 6th 

memorandum of ~Dl-OVd. I Baud 

that S. 1126 wu UnaecepUble not only 

becbuse It Dmlded cxcesdve fundlru 

for the uwue tmcrnent grant pm- 

~~t~~soc$.l IL mened hxb 

enbad tn 1661. for 

l XMDk. t ncrruh# the Prdeml rhbre 

of Costa On come DrOjeCU thAt muaktpallUbe were colnc to build MYWY. 

Pbrthermore. both S. 1126 and thk 

bUlwouJda&rb b redeutlY 

oontfollod bnd dImted ummun to 

control wbu b cdl& 9onqoUt” 

SOUlWPdhJUOtLThk~D~ 

tJum&zm to becwne the UJtimUe whip 

hand for MenI rwuk~&n. FDr txUiDh. &J WI-6 fhk% if fUm* 

enn~enogvrua4f Zmn the!r land 

tlmamenw mualan 

A#ency Qcldea b *ht. thU Aceney 

will ba bhke b Lntmde lnta dcetrloar 

NC~ Y how md where the fumen 

rnusYt 01ow Udr fJel4 whU IeRllken 

they must use aad what Und of amr 

avpa they must plant To We aaother l xuople. the A8eacr wUk be bbke 

to become b mUor fom ln kod 

xontag daLloor that Wll detennlne 

whether funilla an do such buk 

things u build b new hDm& TYUt b 

too much power for awme Lo hue. 

lust of all the prdd C3ovemmmt 

k w of my FY 1066 Budget. I pro 

Dored IegisIu~on that would weld all 

thae prOblew&& while ConUnuInc our 

commitment to clean wbtcr. It would 

brovtde Cl2 blUIOD for the wwue 

-Lkment prognaa hdfwy betut& 

the 66 billion I hbd pro-d tn 1665 

bad the $18 blllion the Con- proDoIcL Senator Dou lntzoduad this 

&pod u b Nbrtlcute for RR 1. 

SpertlkallY. the Dole Nl%UtuC& Uut 

uu voted on by the &MU ry IdtnUcd to all Df’OdSiOM Of RR. 1 for Pm 

6r~~ other than wow truCment. 

with one irnpomat l xceDUon4U Pm 

m for non-point eour0c pOllUtl00 

uu not UI open end for Prdeti re6-w 

kuor* It kept FWeral tnvLronmtnW 

reruluon err of our lanns. off of our 

m6nklpbk mning boar& and out of 

the Ilra of ordlnvl clUu!n~ The Dole 

subututt would have Cloen SCa&s 

complete dbcretlon over putklpatlon 

ln the non-golfs awce DOIIUUO~ pro- 

= tf$ ~DIetr dlxretlon over 

Y 

eral funds in the 

progrbm Iart m repebt-controlllnc 

nonaolnt source tmlkulon hu the P 

uhither f-err. bucinaa paoDle. or 

bomeownrrr I do not belleve Sutc 

pra@runa8hOuldkNb~C0~ 

controL 

The 618 bIllloo r~~8~ted la the Dole 

~bsuluu uouId hbw flnuiod Che 

“pedeml ahue” of all d chc crebt 

ment D&W UlAt huw AlrudY been 

stutd. IL would alao have grotldcd 

the “lcrderrl shur” Of ftMnCb6 fOr 

all fullWee needed to meet the July 1. 

1666. comollrnce requmalenulntJu 

Oun Wbur Atf It wu u much 

=:;a8 needed ta cef the Pb 

The Dole NbstltuU offered the Cancrtnb6tnulnecomwromiw thu abet 

AU of the natIonal obkctivm and 

mak& Newrthekas. the Conewee 

chme to l#non thbt w. fOnOln( 

even the nonnbl hebrine DroOrrr. bnd 

Buf in DO doing they am wndliu I 

ne to the Amerkan ptoplt and 

the world that thue rho want to nlsc 

ma md lake the Ild off spending are 

back ubh. Thts Ia ptryous. 

A.R. 1 68~ the Caa6rcrr the ODDO~. 

tuntty to &monxC~lL whether or not 

tt b rcr)oua about getting Federa 

apendIng under control The Congress 

rhould fulf!ll I- regponslblllty & the 

Uwrkba people and wpport me on 

thw lmport.UIt flsal lasues. Tortchrr 

we M cut the deflclt and reduc+ 

#pendIn& But by pusln6 such meuurea u R.R. 1. the Cocurcs6 dlvldes 

our Interest4 md threakns our future 

Ror*rp RUGAX. 

TNI Wnm ROVSL Januay 30. I¶17 

The PRSSIDINO OFFICER cMr 

DABCXLC). Time for debate b Ilmlted Lo 

1 hour. to k cquallt dlvlded between 

the &nUor from North Dakou rad 

the &nUor from Vennant. The role 

thercvn will vaur U 2 pm. 

A-57 
s no0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 

me mummo omcm (Hr. 

-1. Au tInbe b yilrldd buL The 

6urtlon la ahall the bill pau the ot+ 

jocuonr of the P?uidtnt of the United 

(htu to the oonw nomthrtmdtrig? The ytu and nbya ue reuulred. 

fhe clerk wtll call the roll. 

The le&laUve clerk called the roll. 

The PstUIDmO omcm. Are 

there any other Senuon In the Chumkr dalrln6 to vou? 

The yms bnd MYD raulttd: Yeu 86. 

NY1 14. u foUows 

molkul vou Wa ID us.1 

The pRumnt0 omcm. On 

t.hb vou. the yeu am 66 and the nwa 

are 14. frwhlrda of the Senator8 

present and votlru hwln# rotad la the 

afflrrnatlve. the blU. on mcon6t&rl lOn, b puml. the obMfctlona of tha 

President of Uxe UnlUd Strtes to the 

contrw7 notrlthsUa&u. 
APPENDIX B 

Regional Contact Questionnaire 

This appendix provides the questionnaire used to survey EPA regional permitting 

authorities on the types or categories of discharges that could be considered de minimis as well 

as to recommend regulatory options and associated procedural implications, with respect to the 

classification of de minimis discharges. A similar questionnaire was developed for the State 

permitting agencies. 
DE MINIMIS REGIONAL CONTACT QUESTIONNAIRE #1 

REGION: 

CONTACT: 

AGENCY: 

ADDRESS: 

PHONE #: 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 

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

if applicable. 

a. Rationale for Each Category? 

b. What Type of Effluent? 

c. Any Other Suggestions for De Minimis? 

B-2 
B-3 
2. Discuss other potential candidates for De Minimis. 

a. Candidates from Other Regions. 

a-l. Fish Hatcheries - Trout Farms: 

B-4 
a-2. Oil Storage Facilities - Oil/Waste Separators: 

a-3. Seafood Packaging/Processing: 

B-5 
a-4. Water Filtration Plants: 

a-5. Mine Detiatering: 

B-6 
a-6. Pit Dewatering: 

a-7. Sand Dredging: 

B-7 
a-8. Quarries: 

a-9. Swimming Pool Filter Backwash: 

B-8 
a-10. Aquifer Restoration: 

a-11. Car Uashes (regulated): 

B-9 
a-12. Brine Discharges (stripper wells): 

a-13. Steam Condensate: 

B- 10 
a-14. Heat Pumps: 

a-15. Hydrostatic Testing: 

B-11 
a-16. Wholesale Trade, Retail Trade, Finance, and Real Estate: 

a-17. Services: 

B-12 
3. Discuss special cases of De Minimis and how classification can be achieved: 

POTWs S Other Sewaae Treatment Facilitiez (minor municipals) 

a. Pretreatment. 

b. Plant flow. 

c. Dilution Factors. 

d. Population Served. 

e. Seasonal. 

B-13 
3. Discuss special cases of De Hinimis and how classification can be achieved: 

Noncontact Coolina Water 

a. Plant Flow. 

b. Heat. 

c. Stream Flow or Dilution Factor. 

d. For Specific Operations or Industries (i.e., no toxics). 

B-14 
3. Discuss special cases of 

Individual Homes (def ine 

a. Type of Treatment. 

b. Septic Systems. 

De Minimis and how classification can be achieved: 

B-15 
4. Discuss regulatory options. 

a. Exclusion from NPDES Permit Requirements: 

B-16 
4. Discuss regulatory options. 

b. Model Permit (rubber stamp): 

B-17 
4. Discuss regulatory options. 

c. General Permit: 

B-18 
4. Discuss regulatory options. 

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

B- 19 
4. Discuss regulatory options. 

e. Over-the-Counter Processing: 

B-20 
5. Request any information helpful in evaluating cost savings attributed to 

regulatory options: 

B-21 
6. Miscellaneous: 

7. State Contacts: 

B-22 
APPENDIX C 

De Minimis Discharge Survey Results 

Potential De Minimis Discharges 

EPA Region Responses C1-C4 

EPA Responses C5-C8 

This appendix provides the results of the Study’s survey on the types or categories of 

discharges that could be considered de minimis. Results were compiled for the ten EPA regional 

permitting authorities and nine State permitting agencies recommended by the regional offices. 
EPA REGION RESPONSES TO POTENTIAL DE MINIMIS DISCHARGES 

Region VI Region II Region III Region IV Region v 

Aquifer 

Restoration 

No comment. No comment. NO - Can be dealing with 

highly toxic chemicals 

(Superfund). 

? - A NEIC report 

indicates some situations 

where impacts can be 

minimal.* 

No comment. 

(OK - Originally 

suggested from NC.* 

NO - A lot of problems, 

however, may fit under a 

general permit. 

NO - Should be kept under 

a regular permit dirt 

detergents, oil. 

OK - Originally 

suggested. * 

? - Depends on type of 

operation, fish, and size 

(*-NC trout farms only) 

? - Chemicals used to 

control fish disease 

However, are generally 

minor permits. 

OK - MN is working on a 

general permit for these*. 

No comment. 

Heat Pumps 

Homes 

No comment. 

? - Are county regulated. 

NO - You are pumping 

contamination, should not 

eliminate public notice. 

NO - Strong argument for 

zero discharge in Michigan. 

? - Preliminary results 

of a study indicate 

potential impacts in NY. 

Brine 

Discharger 

(Stripper 

Wells) 

Car Washes 

No comment. 

No comment. NO - Hesitant because of 

phosphorus, salt, and 

oil and grease. 

? - Can have severe 

nutrient problem. 

No comment. 

Fish Hatcheries OK - Originally 

suggested by region * 

No comment. OK - If heat is considered OK - VA may have permits 

in relation to flow 

? Septic systems 

should be a Department 

of Health concern 

OK - If strictly hydro 

testing. Beware of acid 

and chemicals being 

rinsed from new pipe. 

No comment. 

for these dischargers. 

OK A high number in 

PA (septic discharges). 

OK - mainly or coastal 

island discharges only 

2-300 GPD.* 

Hydrostatic No comment. 

Testing 

No comment. No comment. No comment. 

Mine Dewatering No comment. NO- Mines, especially 

coal mines, are a serious 

problem in Region III. 

NO - Location of 

discharges can move. 

OK - Logical choice; 

some situations where it 

could be covered. 

NO - Varies too much, coal 

is a problem (*-NC). 

OK Needs criteria based 

on fraction of flow or 

temperature rise.* 

Noncontact 

Cooling 

OK - Must have criteria 

based on heat.* 

? - Can't be too general, OK - WI has a general 

should not exempt power permit.* 

plants. Temperature 

should be a criteria 

(*-NC). 

C-1 
IPA RIGlOll RIMUS IO POllllllrl PI MI~IIUS OISCIUUS (cd lnrd) 

g& currtnt ly 

Ignored. WI 

,,‘a t0 I”dlVldud~ 

NO rmnt no , lsmnrlll 

I Idl YItchrln pr: for ,pCr I, 1 CdSCS 

trout and shrq frrlr 

PFL u 

i Public heailh 

‘oMCrnr 

mmcatwt 

COOllIBg 

a 
tPA REGIOT RESPORSLS 10 POlfRllM IK MRMIS OISCIUJMS 

Region I Reglm II Reglm Ill Reg~m IV- Reglm V 

Oil storage 

Cril\ties 

01 I-uartc 

Sepdrdtors 

No colnnent 

Pit Druttrinp g - Constructwn 

deuaterlng l 

brr ia No camlent 

w Df=hiw No colnnerlt 

Sufood No canncnt 

Pdaging I 

P-sing 

till w 

1reatmnt 

facilities 

& - Perhaps less than 

0 1 WI ’ 

stem 

Cbuhsate 

No cmmwt 

frwhg Pooh & 

7 - Perhaps. may frt 

under d general permit 

but would not exe lude 

frlnl MPDfS 

No comnent 

No comllent 

No connent 

MJ - Tuna packers IMVC NJ - Problems have 

been shown to be a real occurred wIthIn 

probla (BOO) Region III 

2 - hall facllltles tend 

to be poorly operated 

dnd ma lntd lned 

7 body be a minor 

category. however. spills 

are d sertous concern 

No c0mnent 

No camnent 

7 - Have not seen many 

problems wIthIn the 

reg Ion 

& VA and r(o dre 

work lng on genera 1 

permits for these types l 

g - If hedt IS No cannent 

coral&red In relat Ion to 

f low 

@ Generally. only d & - Hlnlmdl type 

few concerns (chlor Ine) problem 

No cmment 

fi - No long stsndlnq 

harm. are mob\ le 

operations (‘-NC] 

No carmen 

No cwnwnl 

a tspeclally for 

processing operdt Ions 

5r~ll pdcklnq or dock 

operdt ions mdy be OK 

(‘-NC pdchlnq) 

No cament 

7 - Health depdrtmenl 

could betler hdndle 

these dlschdr9er5. 5.0me 

dre current ly rw9lecIed 

No ~omnenf 

gC, Are current 1~ Iw1n9 & IAMJJ Ldwllddte. 

over looked. exempt ton generdlly m.~Il 

would be d 9OOd Opt 1011 

YItcr l&-’ @ But should not be gt For smdll iif “O.WV‘2r. SPCY Id 1 ’ ItWrt! dTt’ d 101 

F 1 ltrrt lm deregulated dischargers into large cases should be Idled Ihdl could fll ID Ihe 

Plant, streams. the converse of dt (1 ‘2 . dlU”llnW7! r rq lclfl, but rn:ur e 

th\s may be d probh sludqr. ‘>llr. Cl< I tky dlC ‘& kl\l”ll: 

c-3 
No L-n, 

No c-nt 

c-4 
SIAlt 01sPoNsf5 10 PoI~NIIAl ff 1(1111(15 0IsctwU5 

kllW btu Jersey k”tSy IVdtl Id 

Aqutfer ,kStOrdt (On & - Is I” need of sane 

kind of reguldt Ion. 

should mtel app\>cablc 

rdter Standards 

Brine Oiachaw 

(Stripper Yllr) 

No cannt 

Clr Umlm8 & - fOdpS d”d 

nutrients 

FM lbtchries & - Cdn bt d 

s~gntf icdnt nulrlcnt 

problcr. mdy f 1t d 

generrl PernIt rcha 

& - SignIf Icant 

contributor of BOO. 

bacteria. and sollds 

J& - Nay bt possrble to a - But there art not 

cxslpt thla category many ,n NJ 

3 - COdStd) peckege 

p1dt.d dlrchdrgts hdvt 

CdUStd Sht 1 If lsh harvest 

probltms due to bacteria 

0 See Sewage 

Treatment Plants 

tlydrcnttt ic test \ng E EXtq\lOrl. ovtr-thtcounter. or a rule may 

fit this category 

fttn Rmatorlng & Over-the-counter 

procosrng or gtntral 

ptrm1t 

lkmcmtdct Cooling & Covered undtr a 

general pcrmlt In 

Regron I. 51te SpecIflrs 

must bt addressed 

no Can bt a problem 

(well drIllIn 

chemlca Is) 

No ccmnent 

NJ - NJ has tried to 

convtrt most to lndlrecl 

or ttro dischargers 

no cmlntnt 

;- NJ does not have a 

coal problem. localized 

nu trances have 

occurred 

& Has Issued d 

general pcrm1t for 

smdl 1 dlsihdrger, 

g Conlamlndted rdter 

should not be conslt)rred 

clt mlnlmls 

0 A mg ,or problnn. PA 

has a stpdrale bureau to 

hdndle these dischargers 

x - PA tries to dlschdrge these subsurface 

I” non-sewered drea 

s - Art d Sl9”lf ICdnt 

problem on blgh-quality 

st redms 

& Not d Proble~T~ 

1 ~lgnIflcd”t frml a 

pub1 IC hedlth standpoInt 

(rdw sewage1 

MJ Can cause 

No c-nt 

fi All dre permIlted 

bn KY w!th a new 

chlor I& Stdnddrd 

4 Are steerrng tcmdrrl 

ZtfO dl’xhdrqe 

NJ Have dented 

permits 

(wr 

o* if less thd” 

2.500 ga I/d. d genera 1 

permit may f It 

substant lal envlronmenlal detected. current Iy 

prob hs Involved 111 1 It I961 10”~ 

g Acid mine drdlnage 

1s d ma,or problem rn : hY”d;,z~“d:sYd~;~ : 

PA are undtr d 9e”erdl 

permit 

@ No1 d problem 

fi Ind~>tr~al brine 

dlschdrqers dre 

permItled In VI 

3 Are rncouraged 

IO be IndIrect 

dlschdrgers 

Jg Amnonla Cd” be a 

problem 

i?h !we Noncontact 

coo I !“9 

No Lanrrtt 

c-5 
SIAlf fNsmItsts 10 P0ltrllM 01 nIlfInIS 0IwwtifS (corltmJed) 

Il?XdS nlssollr 1 CAltforntd Ydshmgton lotd Is 

hfulfer Restorlt hl NJ Are currently 

regulated 

i Dependent upon 

contaminant 

PF; - Generally no 

problems 

!!!2 

Bran Oisckrpn 

[Stripper Yallr) 

cat uadK?a 

fbfl I(rtcfmfms 

bet Pqm 

&hstatic lesting 

llnc Oautering 

NJ! - Reguldted by 

rat Iroad cwlssion 

7 ml returns brine to 

aquifer 

g - state does not 

lrsue permlts for 

these 

!tj - See Stedm 

Condensdte. 

3 - k!d)th concerns 

N SOI Ids dnd SOdpS 

jQ Uhen c lean Ing A 7 - Olschdrges to smdl I 

operations dre Included streams cdn cduse 

In discharge problems 

Or: - for households or 

& Not reguldted. 

therefore. dre 

potent ldlly de minmls 

(& - Currently regulated & 

by letters, working on 

d rule or generdl pemtt 

NJ Llgnlte mines & COdI dnd ledd 

are covered by stdte~ hdve been d 

wide rules problem 

hncontrt Cooling 2 Generally permitted & For small 

dlschdrgers 

MJ Large nuder of 

dbdte!TWnt Orders 

currently 

on No problems 

No camwnt 

@ SOdpS and 

detergent 5 

C-6 

No comwnt 

E 

a lhere have 

been prob lms 

in these dreds 

QL 

co Is of current 

publ Ic Interest, have 

seen some problems 

&i if not lerqe. 

contnercidl units 

co See >ewdye 

Treatment Idc 11 It 8es 

7 - If short term could 

be regulated by some 

other medns thdn kPOtS 

No cotnnent 

NO 

No coannenl 

NO 

No convent 

o(. 

NO 

Oh 

? 

NO 

Oh 

NO 

oh 

NO 

No cowtent 

or. 

NO 

No camnent 

oh 

NO 

No camwnt 

NO 
SIAIf RESPMISES 10 PorElllM M l4IltIWIS DIsctwtaS (CmtlnuNl) 

klne Neu Jersey Kenlucky Y I .scons I” 

011 Storm Crtlitio 

Oi I-Uastc hprrators 

Pit (bwtering 

Stem fhmhndte 

srlolng Pmls 

YIter f i Itrat 1-m P Iantr 

’ Seprrdtors dre s Are currently not 

currently under d peneral being dbequdtety 

pemlt. however. there 

IS concern lrhcther thls 

regulrt Ion Is ddequate 

PAM’s hvc been detected 

regulated 

E - Over-the-counter 

or gefurrl perrlt 

No comntnl 

PE, - Over-the-counter NJ Can be a 

or pmrrl permit prob la 

g - Over-the-counter 

or general pernIt 

No coment 

NJ - Receiving water 

spa lf 1c Hay f 11 Into 

a qeneral permit schcrp 

NJ - Even minor 

fecilltles cdn cduse 

major problems 

3 - see Has NJ NJ would not 

support de 11ntm1s 

C 1dSS If 1Cdt Ion Of 

these plant 5 

or 

g The use of d rule 

may fit thls cdlcgory 

0; lhls category needs 

to be dddressed sa~how. 

perhdps d generdl permit 

f& ff dlSchdrge 1s 

IS uncontdmrnsted 

’ Cdteqory where 

there 1s a potent I.31 

problem. but wou Id 

IIke to Ignore 

In hJ. wdler pldnti 

drdr ldrqe pcrcenldqe: 

I ran stredms and warll 

IO put bdLk Ihe SOlldS 

g Probdbty f 11s 

Into a de mlnlrnls 

category 

!!L! 

g Does not dppedr to 

be d SlQnlf lcdnt problem 

g Does not appear to 

be d srgn~f tcdnt problm 

1 - Not fdmllldr with 

these types of 

fdcilltles 

on Not d red1 problem 

No cant 

& Not 6 problem 

L!L Probdbly d de 

m~nlmls cdteyory 

on A general permit !& Covered under a 

may fit here qerwrn I permit 

No c-nt No ccmwnt 

*Ith pdch.39~ pldnts 

on 

ol 

c-7 
SlAlt RtSJWtYS 10 WllNltM ff NIlIllS OISCMMUS (cmt inwd) 

lcur Nlssour 1 California Uashlnqton Iota Is 

011 Store FwllltlM &2& for wall tank & Generdl iy Just .’ Ser ,es of cleanup _ I dL ! II t be\ dOWf1 

Otl-MeHe Squratorr farms or bulk stations stormeter bnd dbdterrent Act Ions to dnd ~nclud~nq 

on these types In CA bulk 5tdt IOn% 6n1J 

d!str Ibut !ou lermlnd Is 

may be s19r11f Icant 

NO 

oh 

7 

NO 

No romnent 

oh 

NO 

No c-nt 

NO 

No convent 

NO 

OL 

NO 

No r-nt 

fit Dutorlng fi - If they dlSchdrQe. u 

thsy are pamttted 

T No opera1 Ions In 

CA region 

OI If the “Olune IS rwl 

too hlqh Current Iy 

unrequldted. a qenerd I 

permit mdy fit here 

3 - Potentlrl for 

ripnif icrnt pal lut ion 

Pp L lmstone IS not 

a problem 

& Generally no 

problems 

L!5 See Pit 

Dewdter In9 

7 - Generally zero 

dlschdrpc. d Qenerrl 

pcrlntt mJy ftt 

7 - Bdsed on ndture 

of rater. HO dnd MS 

Rlrers dre Or 01de. 

prlsttne waters NO 

& General ly no 

prob lans 

7 Only smdll operat ions 

such ds oyster shuck “19 

are Inslqnlf Icdnt 

No camnt 7 Do not thlnk 

they are genera I ly 

a problem 

fwfd hckegtng 

b f-ring 

MJ - Are currently 

regulated 

hII semge 1mJtrnt NJ - Are currently 

Frtlltta regulated 

7 Possibly for swll 

dIScharperS. Ml 

1s trylnp to rrlte 

J general pemlt 

’ A few under 

enforcrrnt act Ions 

co benerdlly 

dlscouraqe smd I I 

sewage dlrcharqer 

stem rAcdsnut0 NJ - Regulated with 

other opera1 ions 

In a pen11 

Qs B for sn\all 

dlscharpers 

srbmlllg fwls fi - Not reguldfed In 

TX 

cx 

C-8 
APPENDIX D 

De Minimis Discharge Survey Results 

Potential Regulatory Options 

EPA Region Responses D1-D2 

State Responses D3-D4 

This appendix provides the results of the Study’s survey on the potential regulatory 

options. Results were compiled for the ten EPA regional permitting authorities and nine State 

permitting agencies recommended by the regional offices. 
EPA REGION RESPONSES TO POTENTIAL DE MINIMIS REGULATORY OPTIONS 

Region I Region II Region III Region IV Region V 

Model Permit NO - Still requires 

individual notification 

requirements. 

General Permit 

Ten-year Permit 

Over-the-Canter 

OK - Essentially a OK - Good idea, 

letter stating that a especially for stripper 

standard permit is wells and oil storage 

not needed. facilities. 

OK - As long as 

not if location of changes 

is still mandatory. 

OK - If mandatory 

monitoring and 

inspections are still 

required. 

? - No comment. 

Exclusion from NPDES ? - Perhaps facilities 

and POTWs with less 

then 1,000 GPD. 

OK - May fit certain 

situations such as 

construction runoff end 

other high burden 

temporary operations. 

OK - If it can actually 

streamline the process. 

NO - These operations 

can have effects on 

small, high quality 

streams. Also makes 

permittee aware of 

environmental concerns. 

? - Already being used 

to sane extent. 

NO - Is not any 

different from a 

standard permit put 

In d word processor. 

NO - States have used 

this and it is not a 

great advantage. 

OK - Good option, is 

being considered for 

oil & gas and small 

sanitary discharges. 

OK - May be a viable 

option in some cases. 

OK - Is used in KY for 

coal mines and private 

residences. 

NO - If it is not 

important it would be 

better to regulate under 

a general permit or to 

exempt from requirements 

OK - Except process to 

get state authority 

is too time consuming. 

OK - Good idea 

Should include short 

application format and 

simplified procedures. 

NO - Does not feel this 

type of process would 

be helpful. 

OK - May be a viable 

option for certain 

categories. 

NO - Would not have 

public participation. 

also similar to general 

permit In terms of 

regulations 

? - No comment. 

? - If unimportant, 

it may be an option 

See comments on the 

10-year permit. 

NO - Regulations say 

that all point sources 

must be permitted, 

would not change this. 

KEY OK - generally In agreement with the option 

NO - generally in opposition with the option 

? - maybe, undecided, or no comment. 

D-1 
EPA REGIOR RESPORSfS IO POI~RTIAI M WIN11115 Rf6lRAIORT OPllORS lcmtmued) 

Reglon VI Region VII Regm VIII Reqm IX Regmn X lob Is 

k61 Pernit 1 . Not fu~lrrr With 

process, but uy be 

dpproprlrte 

Qlrr41 hrmlt Q& - The region needs 

to utilize thrs llore. 

dnd interactton rtth 

EPA herdquarters needs 

to be strescllined 

Jen-Yur Pemlt I& Good l&d. perhdps 

even IS yedrs for 

reissued pernits 

her-tlm-Counter NJ - Ctrcunvent ing 

USEPA reguldtlwls dnd 

the C ledn Ydter Act, 

not uch better than 

not address inq 

dlschdrges. 

Cxclualm fraWlESPF; - l&d1 for sane 

cdteqor ies. manor 

sources which dre less 

slqnif lcdnt thdn 

runoff 

1 - No ccmtnent 

& - Stdtes dre using 

this. effective for 

De Hln,llls cdtegorles 

& Yould dcldy the 

re lssudnce of 

thousands Of minor 

fdCl)lt les 

L Sounds close to 

the concept of d 

generdl permit. mdy 

be epp I lcdb le 

t0 nOndclegdted 

st8tes 

1 - Perhaps. but 

sane mechdnrsm 

for reguldtion 1s 

st I 11 needed 

? - For gutddnce only. 

Ilust InodlfY permtts to 

suit specillic needs 

& - Mowever. dpprovdl 

dnd lnterdctlon with 

EPA he&quarters needs 

to be expedited 

7 Hired emotions. 

mdybe W if the optIon 

to reopen Is there 

g& - A MrJdlf tcet ton 

of the general pernIt. 

d good concept 

NJ - Perhaps. prefer 

to determine 

on d cdse-byCdSC bds1s 

NJ - Is tn use & - Could work for 

dnd does not certdcn cdteqorles 

tend to eliminate (pldcer mfnes dnd 

proceSs ing burden f ish hatcher ICS) 

j& But needs to be 

eds ter gctt Ing 

through EPA 

heddqudrter’s review 

(Ir; . 6ut issudnce 

through tPA 

heddqudrters needs to 

be stream1 ined 

Q& - t4dy be useful rn 

scmz instances 

A 7 - nay bf! d useful 

dlterndt Ive 

7 Perhaps. but some 

dlladnces must be 

set for permIttin 

duthorltleS to permit 

fdCl!ltleS On d 

Cd%-by-Cd%! bdsls 

& - Mdny fdcllllles 

where discharge WI I I 

not Chdnqe. end not lf I 

crtron IS required If 

chdnges do occur 

on Good Idea. 

espec td I ly for 

un tque, nonef f luent 

dlschdrqes dnd 

emergency permltt rng 

needs Opt Ion to 

reVOke lf d problem 

& - tSp’PCldlly for 

un Ique. nonef f luent 

lype dlschdrges 

2-m 

4-? 

)-NO 

10-M 

B~DK 

I-' 

1 -NO 

3-o*, 

4-T 

3-NO 

3-(x 

5. ’ 

Z-NO 

Kt 1 DK grnerdlly in dgre@YIIent *lth Ihe category 

NO generally In opposition to the rdtegory 

7 maybe. undecided. or no comment 

D-2 
SIAM RLSKUISES 10 POIERIIM Of 11llll1(lS RE6UAlORY OPllORS 

kin Reu Jersey Palnsylvmlr Kentucky Utsconsm 

burr1 Perrit 

lm-Ywr Permit 

Over-tk-Canter 

k&l Pemlt N - IS d nodIf 1CdtlOfl 

of the strnderd procedure 

being used currently 

pFL - Agency would 

probably not object 

@ - A lot of potential. 

would also support an 

effort to make the 

process mre f lexrble 

E - Can be effective 

to be lance resources 

and prtorltles. however. 

sathlnq IS lost wrth 

thts process. 

& - Part iculsr ly for 7 - NJ has previously i 

general permit been opposed to this 

categories concept 

g - ky k d good 

concept for part icu \dr 

categories 

7 - Probdbly would not i 

fit by itself. maybe 

canblned with the 

general permit 

Lxc\urlm fra RmCs g - In stme cdses 

Rulings for de mInImis 

CdtMJOr WS MY bc d 

related elternat Ive 

@ - Uould hdve lImIted 

dppficdt Ion withfn PA 

due to Intricate rater 

quality stdrxfdrds 

& - Wdy bc dppllcdbk 

& - Good shinistrdtive 

action for dealing wbth 

minors 

MJ - If the process is 

that simple. why bother 

with d perfelt? 

j& - Should be sane 

exe lus ions Perhaps, 

swim~ng pools and 

nohcontdct cool fnq 

9p Is currently 

used 

& - Hds been effect Ire 

in kV progrdm for coal 

mines dnd lndlvldudl 

hares 

7 - Only for general 

permit cdtegor les 

& for sane 

cdteqortes 

& - 6ood concept. 

one-half of UI 

fdc 1 I it jes dre covered 

under generdl permits. 

mostly de mrnlmls 

& In fdvor of this 

opt Ion for minor 

permits 

i!k I llmlndt Ion of 

pull 1 IL not ace wou Id 

he extremely helpful 

& In same cdses 

KtY OK generally in aqreefnent rlth the category 

NO - generally in opposlt ion to the cdteqory 

7 maybe. undec rdcd 

ho conmvent not discussed or no feelrnq toward ceteqory 

D-3 
srm afsmsfs ro PorfarrM of nialnis rtffiurom oprms (CUI~ IIWA) 

lb&l Pcrrit 7 Is currently used 

for dart~c permits 

jQ Stdnddrd procedure 

already in use 

&mere1 Pernit 

Ten-Year Permit 

& - Good tool for I& Good for sane 

large manor crtegor lef classes, worklng on d 

general permit for 

seusge dischargers 

NJ - For process-orlented 1 - l419ht be all right. 

discharges. the IO-year but would have to 

term IS too long clwnpe state law 

Over-tb-Canter NJ - State Id* requires !NJ Yould cause E - Alla use of own 

not if lcet eon. wou Id not a&ntncstrat Ive problcrs pub1 IC not If lcat ion 

change requirments 

Lxcluslal fra WOES L 7 - Zero drscharge 7 - A general permlt i 

permits are excluded with no monltorlng 

requirements would be 

better 

g 8y mCdflS Of d 

waiver with a set of 

condlt 10”s 

KEY OU generally I” agreewnt with the category 

NO - generally I” opposition to the category 

7 maybe. undec lded 

No coarnent not dIscussed or no feelIn toward category 

7 No: much different 

than what IS be1119 done 

& Good I&S. hare 

epplled for authority 

& Use a similar system 

for ldnd drscharges. 

3. 5. dnd lo-year permit 

bdsls bared on potent ial 

enr ironmrnta I inprct 

much May be used only 

as a temporary means to 

e i lmlnate bdCh log 

“extension provlslons ” 

4 oh 

3 ” 

1 NO 

E Should not ellm\ndte 

pub1 IC not II lcat ton 

3 oh 

1 

5 NO 

&- Mdyflt smle 

categories Short term 

discharges should be 

under some other 

regulatory mechanism. 

possibly a rule 

b On 

2 - 

I NO 

D-4 
APPENDIX E 

Toxicity Indices for Industrial Subcategories 

This appendix provides the industrial evaluations completed by EPA’s National 

Enforcement Investigative Center, which defined the probable discharge of toxic pollutants from 

an industry, based on an assignment of toxicity indices. Industry types and subcategories in 

Groups II through VI had a high probability of toxic pollutant discharge and were excluded from 

de minimis. 
TOXICITY INDEXES FOR INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIES 

Major Industry 

Adhesives & Sealants 

Aluminum Forming 

Aluminum Forming 

Aluminum Forming 

Aluminum Forming 

Aluminum Forming 

Aluminum Forming 

Aluminum Forming 

Aluminum Forming 

Aluminum Forming 

Aluminum Forming 

Auto & Other Laundries 

Auto & Other Laundries 

Auto & Other Laundries 

Auto & Other Laundries 

Auto & Other Laundries 

Auto & Other Laundries 

Auto & Other Laundries 

Auto & Other Laundries 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Battery Manufacturing 

Carbon Black 

Carbon Black 

Carbon Black 

Carbon Black 

Coal Mining 

Coal Mining 

Coal Mining 

Coal Mining 

Coal Mining 

Coil Coating 

Coil Coating 

Coil Coating 

Copper Forming 

Industry Subcategory SIC Code(s) 

TOXICITY 

Index - Group 

Adhesives & Sealants 

Can Making 

Casting 

Cleaning & Pickling 

Cold Rolling 

Drawing 

Extruding 

Foil Rolling 

Forging 

Heat Treating 

Hot Rolling 

Car Wash 

2891 

3411 

3353 3355 

3355 

3357 

3355 

Carpet & Upholstery Cleaning 

Coin-Operated Laundries 

Diaper Service 

Dry Cleaning Plants 

Industrial Laundry 

Linen Supply 

Power Laundries 

Alkaline manganese Batteries 

Carbon-Zinc Air Batteries 

Carbon-Zinc Paper Lined Batteries 

Carbon-Zinc, Paste Batteries 

Lead Acid Batteries 

Lead Acid Reserve Batteries 

Lithium Batteries 

Magnesium Reserve Batteries 

Magnesium-Carbon Batteries 

Mercury (Ruben) Batteries 

Mercury (Weston) Cells 

Miniature Alkaline Batteries 

Nickel Zinc Batteries 

NIckel-Cadmium, Dry Process Batteries 

Nickel-Cadmium, Wet Process Batteries 

Silver oxide-Zinc Batteries 

Channel Process 

Furnace Process 

lamp Process 

Thermal Process 

Acid or Ferruginous Mines 

Alkaline Mines 

Anthracite segment of acid mine subcategory 

Coal Preparation Plants 

Regrade/Revegetation 

Aluminum & Aluminized Steel 

Cold Rolled Steel 

Galvanized Steel 

Cold Rolling 

3692 

3692 

3692 

3692 

3692 

3471 

3353 

3354 

3354 

3358 

3463 

3898 

3353 

7542 

7217 

7215 

7214 

7216 

7218 

7213 

7211 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

3691 

2895 

2895 

2895 

2895 

1111 

1111 

1111 

1111 

1111 

1111 

3479 

3479 

3351 

206 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

65 

3692 

3692 

3692 

3692 

3692 

3692 

3692 

3692 

3692 

3692 

3692 

1211 

1211 

1211 

1211 

3497 

129 

129 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

150 

150 

15 

78 

19 

78 

78 

78 

8 

39 

39 

39 

78 

39 

39 

39 

78 

78 

78 

12 

12 

12 

12 

252 

252 

126 

252 

252 

31 

31 

31 

58 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

v 

III 

V 

V 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

V 

V 

II 

III 

III 

III 

III 

III 

II 

III 

III 

III 

III 

III 

Ill 

III 

III 

III 

III 

II 

II 

II 

II 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

III 

III 

III 

III 

E-l 
cqlllrr rolrinp 

cq~c~ r nlrbj 

Cqlpr Is,rlMq 

Co(9WI l"#.Ing 

Copprl lrtrilq 

f IrcIcltrl r*.ar1s 

fl*tIrlcal rro&cIs 

f Irclrltrl hohc1t 

orclrltrl c~e&u1s 

tlrtcrirrl Prducls 

flrclrir4l Prmhc1r 

flrcl~lcrl Prohc1s 

flrc1ric4l Prod&l, 

llrt1rlrrl rrw*r1s 

lI~cIrI<al rro&cIs 

lI*tlIlcal ProAa1s 

Il*cIrIcal rluIuclr 

flrtlrlrrl Plmhlc1, 

flrclrlr~l Prodwcts 

fhIritri haIs 

fkIrka~ buts 

llrclritrl hducls 

fktrbt4i rlOkts 

Il*cIro9.l.alhy 

flcclroplrlly 

f~,losl~~s (Corrrclrl Ircl) 

Implosiwcr (C-rclal INI) 

frpI.slr*s (Coamrclrl SW0 

fmpl*rl*rr (Cwwrclrl Srr1) 

f~pI*sbvw (C-rclrl SWI) 

faplosirrr (C-rclal hcl) 

~qll.siws (Comrrclal ICC0 

f~lorivrr fllilllary hcl) 

Illary IMI) 

lllrry SW t) 

IlIrry hc I) 

Illary SW I) 

Illary Se< t) 

cm*' roll 

OrwIng 

I mlrurlon 

rOrwir9 

lb1 1olllng 

C.spu llors 

C4rboa b gr++Wle prohcls 

Calha& ray I, IV plclurr Itis 

C1ysl8Js b Cryslrl p*ducIs 

Ilrctrlc b rlrclronlc cdqwurls 

flrclrlc )m* 

fI*clrm Irks 6 914s~ l uapsulaI*d ~vlcrr 

frrrllr rlrclrmfc parIs 

ruI cells 

r-l NJIS 

Insulald wlr8 & cable 

Insrlall~y &vlcrs 

R0lors. gaeralors & r;lrrnrlorr 

Irrlrtmac8 krlws 

Srrl-c.n&*Iors 

SwilcI*ar 

I~rasrorrrs. &y 

rrmsrorwrs. iI+dd tliid 

Job shops 

Procrstrr rllhln flcrlroplrllnq calegory 

f#ploslrrs 

(Bpl.rIv*s 

Irtll~lorr 

Irl1la10rs 

LA) b ory Ill0 

rr~ii4nts 

rr4p81 his 

Dcrllllarlrall.#l 

f~plo\lr*s 

InlllrIorr 

LAO 

Pr*ll4lllS 

ryrOtecklts 

Al4inu CasIiIq 

Cqwwr C8sllng 

Irm b Ilrrl 

IC.wJ CarlIN) 

IIaapwrlu CasIlng 

IIItLel castanq 

Iln CarlIn 

lllrnllr Cas11,,9 

I IIN cost Ilq 

o,rr b Chrrrorl I## I.,urll.r 

II51 

)I51 

1151 

1461 

1151 

If.29 WJS 

MI?4 

ILIZ 

II.19 

x99 lb91 lb19 

J&41 

JCII MI1 

JGIS 

Il.19 

JIB79 

1151 

lb44 

%?I 3694 

I642 

II.14 

JGII 

)I12 x11 

J&l2 W?2 

J4Jl JO9 

1411 

?WlZ 

NW 

2li92 

2892 

7892 

789Z 

In92 

7n9z 

2tnz 

7n9z 

2132 

7892 

7A92 

JIII 

Jllel 

JJZI JIZZ JJ24 II25 

II69 

1 I69 

J 169 

1169 

J Il.9 

114.9 

?I110 I 

:: 

58 

z9 

50 

:: 

ZOb 

:z 

201 

ZOb 

ZW 

?ob 

JOJ 

ZM 

:z 

206 

:z 

206 

2ob 

IJC 

IJb 

I4 

7 

I4 

I 

I 

I4 

7 

I 

7 

1 

7 

I 

I 

51 

51 

51 

51 

57 

79 

29 

29 

51 

9 

Ill 

III 

Ill 

Ill 

III 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

II 

Il 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

III 

Ill 

III 

Ill 

III 

III 

Ill 

III 

Ill 

II 

E-2 
101J11,I lta'l s Ina I1mu~llllAl SmcAllCDIIIS 

- -~-. -_~-- - -.-- --- -- 

SIC Codt(s) 

rn,!!+!%;S 

--.- 

Issrnllrl 011 

Cu rorln 

aDrIm bar*4 dtrI.rllw-r 

@orIn hrrtd dtrlvrllv-, In SIC Cqdt 

loslr dtrlrrtlrts 

Swlftlt 1urptnllw 

Irlfrlq lwpt*lIlw 

la11 OII 

la11 041 

Umod roslr 

hod roslr 

Alrrlu Chlorldt 

AlvluCapounds 

Alvlu flurldt 

Alulw Mydrotldt 

Alulnu Oaldt 

Alulnr Sutifttt 

AI-t 

krwlr Alu 

Ameaiu Chlorle 

h-olllu CNpouIbdr 

Amonlu MyO10mi& 

AmoIs"-(u IlDlybd~~t 

Ammu1lb9 Ptrchlor4i0 

Amomiu Ihlorull4lt 

lrrlu C4rkr4lc 

Barlu C~uadI 

a4riu mr4t4 

Irryllu OnI& 

8h~hiy r0dr 

@orb0 

Dorlc kl* 

8orwl coqloundr (no1 prod. e l irws) 

:~;~~lIlctlt 

Brrllw 

myryw rigwds 

C4lc ItC4lclu C4rblak 

C4lciu C4rbonrlr 

C4lclm ChJor,& 

Calclrr ~ywws~tr (inwrq) 

C4lclu IlyQuchlurtIe 

C4ltllr Ornl& 

Carbon Dlomldr 

Carbon Mon4taltlc 

rrrllm Srllr 

Cltlwrldr ?rocrcc 

2ebI 

2&I 

2lul 

2921 

ZMI 

ZWI 

2061 

ZUI 

?#I 

2861 

ZWI 

2019 

ZOIS 

2@I9 

ZOIS 

7019 

2819 

7019 

2019 

2019 

7819 

?@I9 

1819 

ZOIS 

2019 

7019 

ze\9 

2OIC 

7a19 

alI9 

2819 

2819 

2a19 

2019 

2019 

7119 

2016 

2II9 

7019 

2819 

21119 

71119 

7II9 

7819 

7aII 

lOI9 

7HlY 

III I#. 

9 

9 

92 

4b 

46 

9z 

4b 

92 

4b 

9z 

4b 

81 

01 

lb? 

AI 

01 

lb 

01 

01 

lb 

81 

lb 

81 

01 

81 

lb 

01 

81 

AI 

01 

lb 

AI 

Ii 

AI 

lb 

81 

lb 

lb 

lb 

81 

Ill 

III 

II 

IL 

IL 

01 

lb? 

II 

II 

IV 

Ill 

III 

III 

IV 

III 

1:: 

IV 

IV 

V 

IV 

IV 

II 

IV 

IV 

II 

IV 

II 

IV 

IV 

IV 

II 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

II 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

II 

i: 

II 

II 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

II 

II 

IV 

" 

E-3 
Chlrrlnt 

chlorotulrurlc kid 

clww Plqw**l, 

Chrrk Acll 

Chrrlu Om I& 

Chealu hir4b 

C&411 Chlorldt 

Cab411 lulf4t4 

cd411 u (~4d~owllr.) 

Copper Chlork 

Cqlpor IdId 

c-r SMl(4lt 

C*rotls BItIt 

rru*r+ ctll 

fwrlc ChlorlJI 

Iwrous Sul~rtt 

IJsslon1Clt kltrlrls Prodwiloa 

flurlr 

Crsrs. Im&slrl4l Coq. ll~lUSolld 

lbt4ry Y4Ltr 

JJ~drrltd Al-la4 Illlcr~t Mr. 

Uydruhlorlc ACM 

nydror lur Ic AC Id 

**w-J 

wJdr4#trcyMIdt 

llydro#er hroalOt 

JlyJr*r lulllti 

Ily~ro@orpAllts 

Idicr Ch)orl*r 

Iwrg4nlc kids (*a~ 4lOZ or WZro() 

Iw)ldtt 

IdIM 

Iron (ol*rs 

Iroe Otldt, mlur 

Iron otut. Jt4qntlJc 

IrOn 04ldt. Yrllr 

Iso14p4s a4dlo4cl~vt 

ltti Arr41a4lt 

Led Olotldt, arow (-2) 

1*4d MMotldt 

Irr*l OnI&. I*1 (nu;) 

Lrrl Illlcrlt 

LtiJhlu C4r(Hn4lt 

Lllhlu C~wml\ 

19rlnuS C-r (r4.8ltr) 

H4gwtsll0 cgrouds (I#loorq) 

)Irnptntrt Ol4mIJr (p4uolrr s~"ll~*l I<) 

HAlqa”tc* lullalt 

I812 

21119 

2llb 

a19 

?@I9 

?@I9 

2819 

2AIS 

NJ9 

a19 

2IJS 

2819 

2alS 

Z6lZ 

?.I9 

2#lS 

?@I9 

2819 

2@Il 

2#IS 

ZOIS 

ZOIS 

2819 

ml9 

2.19 

2#lS 

Z8I9 

HI9 

1019 

2019 

?#I9 

?@I9 

Hlb 

Zalb 

ZOIL 

2Olb 

2019 

1819 

2#Ib 

2819 

2Olb 

2819 

2#I9 

7AI9 

7819 

71119 

7l719 

ml9 

lb? 

.I 

IL? 

lb 

81 

OJ 

01 

:i 

81 

@I 

lb? 

I:: 

lb 

:: 

lb 

a1 

81 

@I 

lb 

lb2 

Iif 

:: 

1': 

aI 

81 

lb 

er 

81 

81 

81 

81 

01 

.I 

lb 

AI 

AI 

lb 

#I 

BI 

01 

#I 

lb 

E-4 
2812 I62 

2819 II 

7119 III 

2019 II 

2119 ill 

2019 81 

2819 Ill 

IllI9 01 

2619 lb2 

2019 lb 

2619 lb 

111) II 

2819 81 

2819 #I 

28lb 81 

2019 01 

NI9 81 

201) lb 

2819 01 

2019 81 

2819 bl 

2(II9 81 

2.19 81 

2619 aI 

2IIZ 01 

2019 .I 

2019 lb 

2619 01 

2019 01 

2019 lb 

2819 81 

2019 II 

2019 I6 

2619 01 

2019 lb 

2019 81 

2019 II 

2613 01 

2019 81 

2PI9 #I 

2019 01 

2OIb #I 

28lb 81 

2019 01 

7019 Ill 

Nl9 IfI 

2019 II 

2619 aI 

V 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

I: 

II 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

II 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

II 

IV 

IV 

II 

IV 

II 

II 

IV 

II 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 

IV 
e 

e 

1 
- - .- 

-. 

Irrhlrt Cnlr 

@Iart fwarrrt (f trromrngrlwst) 

alas1 f uruc* (Iron) 

~y-rroIlucl Cobt 

Ctllf B.lll1y 

CU~DIMLIM acid rkkiin9 (a,lch a CO~~~I~W~S) 

Ca0nllrtmur 4lbalaae Clrrnlnq 

Con~lnuws Cl,llrq A ?rrssurt Slall )(alcll4q 

tltclrlc Arc Iurwct (Yrl Air Pollu. Coulrol fk1lbo~ls) 

fltclrlc Arc Iwm~t; h-l-Ytt Air Polls Control Mt(hods 

Not coalluJc - C.rlrrl*lf IIq 

no1 Corllngs - Iwnr 

Ibl forrly - f l*I 

lb1 forrl#q - ?rlrrry 

lb1 forrlng - Srcllon 

Qur lltarlh furnat 

tlcLll(9 - llydwchlmrcc Acid - Brlch & C~llnuous 

PicLllng - Sullur~c Acid - Belch & Conllnwus 

tipt & Iubt 

Srrlt lruwrl (lloltne & Hydrldt) 

slrltrllq 

Vaccar otgrsr Ilq 

Ylrt Plckllng & Coalleg 

(Isot & Ihot Cd IIU~b & f lndlnqs 

loolwtrr, factpt I)rl&tr, MfC 

llrir pulp. cftramt taa, rt(av-utt flnlsh 

lI.,ir saw, c hrcur t *w . trtrn-wt l~lclrk 

uric- S&VI. nor-6l1roat Iw. I tlmb‘wl I Irish 

ltwst II Ipptc s 

Iralhtr Cl~rts 6 Mlltwr 

ltdhtr Goods. UC 

luqclrqr 

tin’s foolrrr. factr: Alhltllc 

)cu lltamhoust 

Prrmnal Irather Go03 tacrpt Yomtn’s llrrnlbrgs 

I)rlar8-wl flnlsh 

Ihtrr I lng 

Ihrough-llw-bbt 

Uamw’r f oolrtrr. f atrpl Alhltl Ic 

Yucn’s IIandbapr & hwrrs 

Ship aatiidin9 I Irpalrlty 

Alsmlnam 

Leon 

strr I 

5lrlp Ilttl 

Derro. 5olrcnl Prncrsc 

PIWI opraphic I ~poptvl & Sup11 I It% 

Ihtrrrl, solrrlll r,ucc,\ 

----__ ----- ~__ __ 

SIC Cock(s) 

-- 

1112 

Ill2 

1112 

Ill2 

Ill2 

Ill2 

1112 

))I2 

III2 

III2 

IJl2 

III2 

1112 

1112 

1112 

JJIZ 

)I12 

Ill2 

1JlZ 

1112 

1112 

1111 

II0 

3111 

Jill 

1111 

II42 

5151 

II99 

lib 

1141 

1111 

Ill2 

1111 

Jill 

llll 

II44 

5111 

IllI 

N)l 

1411 

lbll 

I6 11 

)RG I 

)I% I 

vlrt I 

1612 

16 12 

5 II 

45 Ill 

45 III 

45 Ill 

45 Ill 

45 Ill 

45 Ill 

43 Ill 

45 Ill 

5 II 

45 Ill 

45 III 

0 Ill 

45 Ill 

45 Ill 

45 III 

0 III 

0 Ill 

45 Ill 

45 Ill 

45 Ill 

45 Ill 

45 Ill 

20 II 

20 II 

I91 V 

I91 V 

I91 V 

20 II 

?O II 

?O II 

?a II 

?O II 

III V 

20 II 

IPI V 

191 V 

IYI V 

?O II 

20 II 

06 IV 

I? 111 

I? Ill 

1619 1611 I2 III 

36 I9 61 Ill 

I?4 V 

240 V 

124 V 

E-7 
IUJICIII lttttIlI~ ItJY IttWSIIIAl SIlfKAIIMt#lIS 

___ .-.- --. 

lL,I." lnluslty 

_. -- 

-- - 

Ittduslry Subcalqpry SIC Co&(s) 

-~ -- . . 

)(rch 4 ll.tch~~orcrlaln Enamel Coy(wr 1911 

l*w*lt~t,~uls K-lals #wnllr )I19 

lbmsJs~s,ssss1 n-l.tlS Ittell- JIM 

Ywlv0 I t.815 H*trls Primary Alulrwr 1114 

*Iwtlrt ,tws K*lals Crtury ktllrooy 1119 

)*Wl,.l ,tIus lk1rls Prlury Arsrrtc )I19 

lIIrtlr9tws Klals Frlury Owlu 1119 

Wlrtlv8 twts le1.rls Prlury ktyIllu 1119 

~9lrttws *IaIr Prlury BIsmtdh JJJ9 

Wmlrtt~s MP1rls Prlury krom 1119 

ns**lrttrrrts Wrlrls Prlury CrLlu JJJ9 

Wml*rtwtts W1rls PrlUty CaIclu 1119 

MOdrstWS fklJ#S Prlrury CesIu 11)) 

l@mlr*tobtr fk1rlr Prlury Cob&II NJ9 

Nmtlrrrwr fklals PrIury CoIuLIu 1139 

ftw~lr~rou~ *la18 Prlury Cwtr JJ)l 

bomlrcrotd &l&IS PrLury Calllu )I)9 

Bomlrrrws llolals Prhry CormanIta )I)9 

Mwltrtotls k1rlr rrhry Gold 1119 

flodrrrottr lklals trlury lldnlu 3119 

Hoatlc*row (cclrls rrlury lead JJJ2 

lhMtlrtrous *lrlb Prlury Olltlu JJ19 

Monlrtrour )(rlrls Pr lury llqnrs lu 1119 

Mtntlrttws fklrls rrlury fkrcury 1119 

lktlctrws )ClalS Prlury Holyb&tw 1119 

knfrtrws *lals Prlury IllcLeI 1119 

Bonlrrrous tilals Prlury Ilrllttw Cr -v 1119 

lhtsslr,Iwl fk1als Primary lrrr Irrlhs 1119 

l@twlrtroa*s *IaIr Pr lury Rhenlu 1119 

)(anlrn rws Wtrls Prlury D&MI- 1139 

(*ytlr~rous Mrlalr Primary Selrrlcr III9 

Mottlwroa ffrlrls Primary IIIrrr III9 

kwlf~ttW~ #+tJlS rrlury fattlrlu 1119 

mlmlrctnlts )(r14ls rrlury Iellulu III9 

Hmlrc~mts fIrlaIr Prlury 1 in 1139 

Modrrtous Hrtrls Primary Illmitr 1119 

shwlrc,us~s )(rt.als Prlrrry futqslrtt JJl9 

lbttltltour l4rlrls Primary llrutlu 1119 

llnssfrrlssssr *l.tIs Prluty 211~ IJIJ 

Ik*~lrO*Hts )(c1als rrlury Ilrcottlu 1119 

thuslrrtaus flelals Srcotulrry Alultur II41 

Kml.., SS~SSS llrt.tlr Icfnrulr,* #.M.lll 110 

Ikss8lrs s*sss\ Wl.llS Srrowl*ry Berylllur J)4I 

IkIOll,, ,ssss, Hrlals 5rc 0d.tf y aol o,, )J4I 

Wnsslrs,ssss~ Mr,rls Irccwlrry CnlIrlt 1141 

llussfrs SSSS‘S Hr,rls 5rcossslary Cnlssdlu 1141 

Mosslrrruuc Hrlalt 5rcondary Copper I)41 

II 

II9 

I?9 

150 

lb 

lb 

3b 

xa 

Jb 

119 

Psa 

lb 

I)9 

119 

I'M 

xsa 

I19 

I19 

II9 

II9 

Es8 

II9 

I?9 

119 

II9 

iI9 

I19 

If9 

I19 

119 

158 

39 

I'Jll 

350 

lb 

119 

Psll 

I)9 

330 

119 

15a 

)I. 

16 

I19 

II9 

II9 

Ii0 

E-8 
1141 

1141 

1141 

1141 

1141 

1141 

Ill9 

1141 

1141 

J141 

3141 

1141 

JJ4I 

1141 

1051 

1021 1011 

IO21 IOII 

lob1 

lo61 

1011 

1011 

1D92 

lOI9 

1094 

2865 

2e69 

2091 

2091 

2891 

nl5l 

2819 2869 

109 

1819 2069 

2019 7bL9 

2019 2869 

2019 tn69 

?@I9 znb9 

at9 ?8b9 

2911 

2811 

2a11 

IO)) 

7011 

20 I4 

2819 

2119 

al9 

2019 

1% 

129 

II') 

I19 

I?9 

II9 

119 

150 

I6 

II9 

I19 

119 

II9 

II9 

54 

1041 1044 54 

21 

s4 

:: 

22 

5 

5 

54 

202 

202 

229 

229 

21 

2) 

640 

120 

(40 

(40 

(40 

640 

(4 

00 

111 

)‘)I 

191 

)9I 

191 

191 

2b 

1) 

26 

II 

VI 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

V 

1:: 

V 

v 

V 

V 

V 

111 

Ill 

II 

III 

1:: 

II 

II 

II 

Ill 

V 

V 

V 

1: 

II 

VI 

VI 

VI 

VI 

VI 

VI 

III 

VI 

V 

VI 

VI 

VI 

VI 

VI 

II 

II 

II 

II 
5rl)um thorphalrr 

5uJltr Nurpk4’cr 

Cellulorlc kcc.MaaC t Ibers 

rhttk klrrlrlr. Jy.,~he1lc kslnr. Monrulcrnlrablr II,: 

5yrlholk OrwLc f Ibers, 1~ccpl Cellc~lorlc 

Mircellwmur Plrrllcr troduc18 

Pl~sllrr prw*ssly Ullhoul Conlul pmrss U&w 

5OlUl~M CISllnq 

Waler Ifurry Prrl0rml.q ?rocrsrrs 

rvrs8reom - Ualrr bared lcth 

rl 189lfq b ~J~ISI~I~~ 

Albrlln Marbe1 tulp 

glr.~hrd Ural1 - Ml Paprr 

DlcwheJ Ir4tt - l Irro~vl~q 

mltrchtd IraIl - Ilne Papers 

Ileached llrrll Mrrrfwlnl 

Cl9c~l-*cl*rnlcrl rulp-cw 

Or ioh tulp - f Ine Iltrcr 

Otlcth h#lp - atwr 

Ol\solr~lq 5ulfl(* 

Croub&ood- C)(r 

GrwmAmod-f lne 

2019 

2019 

m19 

2019 

2819 

2019 

2021 

282 I 

2024 

ID)9 

JoI9 

10)) 

ID19 

2too 

2100 

2bII 

2611 201 

2bll 

2bII 

2bII 

2bll 

2611 

2bll 

2bIl 

2bll ?OI 

2bII 

2Gll 

2b2I 

2c2 1 

2671 

?Cll 

2621 

2b2 I 

2611 

7bII ILlI 

?CII 

?bII 2611 

2611 2bbl 

2Lb I 

2611 

?bll 

WI ID41 xx9 3291 

1069 

WI1 1069 

2b 

I) 

2b 

:: 

II 

460 

466 

4b8 

III 

11 

51 

51 

5 

1 

bI 

bl 

0 

bl 

bI 

0 

bl 

bl 

0 

bI 

b) 

bI 

0 

bl 

bI 

bl 

bt 

bl 

bl 

0 

bl 

bI 

61 

61 

Ll 

0 

IO 

10 

10 

IO 

100 

IO 

IU 

IU 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

VI 

VI 

VI 

1: 

III 

Ill 

II 

,:: 

III 

Ill 

Ill 

III 

Ill 

III 

III 

Ill 

Ill 

111 

III 

III 

Ill 

III 

III 

II1 

Ill 

Ill 

III 

ill 

III 

Ill 

III 

Ill 

III 

II 

II 

II 

II 

V 

II 

II 

II 

E-10 
2822 

IDII 

MJI 

2ao 

7S4J 

2.4) 

2041 

200 

7.41 

a41 

184' 

?MI 

?.41 

lb41 

7.41 

?a41 

?Ml 

ZHI 7H7 7844 

?a41 nrr 

7141 

204) 

2@4I 

2.41 

7HI 

700 

2@4J 

2841 

7841 

2@4J 

280 

784) 

2041 

4911 49)) 

4911 49JI 

4911 011 

49II 4911 

4911 49JI 

49lI 49Jl 

4911 49JI 

ZJDU 

7Z)l 2212 2219 

2298 

2191 

22lI 

2711 7?2I 72lI 

725) 7111 :212 

7182 2MJ 

??5l 21%) 

10 

IO 

‘88 

b) 

bJ 

JZ 

0 

t: 

bJ 

32 

0 

12 

bJ 

32 

bJ 

32 

b) 

61 

)2 

32 

0 

12 

bJ 

0 

IJ 

0 

0 

0 

J2 

0 

12 

19 

)I 

4 

JI 

JI 

4 

1) 

1) 

IS2 

IS 

152 

I52 

?24l IS 

2281 IS 

I5 

I51 

:: 

II: 

111 

Ill 

Ill 

lo 

111 

111 

III 

111 

111 

ill 

II1 

Ill 

II1 

III 

III 

Ill 

111 

II1 

III 

111 

III 

111 

Ill 

I11 

III 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

II 

Ill 

II 

Ill 

Ill 

II 

Ill 

II 

I: 

V 

I: 

II 

II 

V 

E-11 
101'011 'MlMUl 101 IHIwI~'1'1' wwNltarll~ 

--- - _ - -..--- ____.- -- _ ..-. _. -~ - - --. _. _ 

- --- -- - -------.--------- -_-.._~ _ _ - _ _____ __ _ ~_ - _ 

IV~III~ MOIS 

IrmlIl* flllls 

IraIl'* Illlls 

Ir.llle IIIIIB 

I~~.lllc nllls 

Ir.lll* fIllI* 

lrallk Illlls 

IralIle IIOIS 

I9der Par*ulr Prucbsly 

lcdwr CtvGrls trursstry 

I td*c PrwCcts hwrsslaeq 

Ildwv C~c*rls PruerrIq 

Ilhrr rro&cls Prursslrg 

Iadrr Pru**lr IrursrIwq 

Itdeer CluGcl8 Prurssfdy 

Itdw Prddts hursrlrg 

Ildorr Proehdlr Prursriey 

ltrl*r Prmhuls Iruetrlmq 

lmI*a ?#oIhclr Prur,tIIq 

Iidur Prwbuls PrUrrsl*0 

Irdur hahuts Prurrsly 

lidur Predals Iru*sslag 

Iirl~m P~uGcls Prurcri* 

la&w Prm&cls Proar\rly 

ftdrr l rmhdls Prurs*ln# 

2CIl 1rw 1155 lab IS2 

Z?',I 729 22'~) IS2 

27')f I'*? 

2291 1% 

1211 22a2 21a1 1204 152 

zr*9 I\2 

22ll 2221 2241 22bl '51 

2%) 720 I52 

rbbl a 

2499 0 

2Ob a 

2bbl a2 

NII 0 

2or n 

205 24Y a 

2421 n 

14n a 

2415 24# 8 

2499 67 

I449 a 

204 8 

249' 82 

?(')I 62 

2491 0 

240 8 

iioy, 

-- __ 

V 

V 

r : 

V 

V 

V 

V 

If 

II 

II 

IV 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

IV 

II 

II 

IV 

IV 

II 

II 

E-12 
APPENDIX F 

Classification of Major and Minor NPDES Industrial Permits 

This appendix provides the classification of major and minor permits that is currently in 

use by the Agency’s Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC). The 

classification uses a rating system that is based on assessment of six characteristics of a facility’s 

discharge. 
Classification of Major and Minor 

NPDES Industrial Permits 

The Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance designates an industrial 

discharger a major NPDES permit by applying a numerical permit rating system to each 

industrial permit. This rating system assigns points to an individual permittee based on an 

assessment of six characteristics of the permittee’s discharge. The six characteristics or 

“rating criteria” are: 

1) Toxic Pollutant Potential 

2) Flow/Streamflow Volume 

3) Conventional Pollutants 

4) Public Health Impact 

5) Water Quality Factors 

6) Proximity to Near Coastal Waters 

To rate an industrial permit, an NPDES Industrial Permit Rating Worksheet must be 

filled out. Attached is an example of a worksheet which is filled out by evaluating the 

current permit application, the permit itself, and other monitoring forms kept in the 

individual permit file. The sum of these weighted point values is the permit’s ranking. The 

point totals range from zero to a maximum of 265. 

To generate the major industrial permit lists for each NPDES State and EPA Region, 

the data for each permittee is loaded into an OWEC computer system. The numbered boxes 

on the worksheet correlate to specific point values programmed into the computer. The 

computer adds the points for each criteria for each permit and arranges each permit by State 

in descending numerical order. 

Currently, a permit assigned a point total of 80 points or higher is designated a major 

permit. All permits below 80 points are designated minor permits. This is an artificial 

cutoff point but one which maintains the total number of majors at a level consistent with 

the total number of major permits originally designated major during the first round of perF-1 
mitting. It also includes most permits which the NPDES permitting authorities collectively 

believe should be considered major dischargers. 

In addition, each Region, in consultation with their NPDES States, is allowed to 

designate a certain number of their minor permits “discretionary” major permits. These are 

permits which the region or state believes should be accorded major status but for one reason 

or another did not achieve sufficient points to be rated a major permit. A “discretionary” is 

assigned an additional arbitrary 500 points to its raw score to give it major status and to flag 

it as a discretionary major permit. There are 576 discretionary majors at this time. 

Also, if the facility is a steam electric power plant (SIC =4911) with a power output 

of 500 MW or greater (not using a cooling pond/lake), or that is a nuclear power plant, or 

that has a cooling water discharge greater than 25 percent of the receiving stream’s 7Q10 

flow rate, the facility is given a score of 600 automatically. Likewise, an automatic score of 

700 is given to municipal separate storm sewers serving a population greater than 100,000. 

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

There are currently 3,803 major NPDES industrial permits. A Regional breakdown is 

as follows: 

Majors* 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

IX 

X 

TOTAL 

339 (9%) 

435 (11%) 

429 (11%) 

762 (20%) 

533 (14%) 

512 (14%) 

122 (3%) 

179 (5%) 

138 (4%) 

354 (9%) 

3,803 (100%) 

* “Majors” column shows permitees classified as majors. The revisions to the classification 

system took effect July 1991. 

F-2 
Of the 3,803 current major industrial permits, 2,73 1 are state-issued permits and 

1,072 are EPA-issued pennits. 

F-3 
IVPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet Q bgdr0-m 

0 scmm~butno 

NPDES No.: I _I_-----_I- I I I I I I I -d-W 

aDd8uon 

Fmlity Maw: 

I I -_1-I_(---- I I I I -__I----_I-__-___--_____1-_1_1_1_1 I I I I I I III I I I I I I I I I I I 

City: I _1_1_(_‘-____--I_-_(-_-_--_1_1-_(_I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

Rcmngw~(r:I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I ---A-------------------------- 

Reach Numbrr: I _)_I-_--_I-_-- I I I I I I I I 

I! thb fad/q a stsun datrfc power plant (SK=49 11) bth&pwmftkwamunklptdsqmrut8r(om,m*a 

bbfth on8 or mom of thr bbwhg chorocrulstia? nnhg a pogulatfon pmrtw than 100,OOOt 

l.Pomraucput~MWaQwllr(rot~qrcodingpad~) 

Z.Anuckupmupht OYES;rmi,7OO(stopbm) 

).Codinp~~di~grvtr~ZS~d~~~np~'~7QlO~nP 0 NO(-) 

0 YES; YOR is 600 (stop b) 0 NO (contlnud 

FACTOR 1: loxk pdlrdmt Pdonlbl 

PCSSKCdc I 1 1 I 1 Prlmuyscca6: I -l-l-L1 

OlhaSKCodrr:l 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I 

lndusvws~cgocyco6:I I I I (codeoootfnosdaapry) 

DarmfmthcToxkityptmUdkomAppendlxA. kwrtouwtkTDfMtukitypo&nUdarbnnondckkom) 

loxldty croup cd8 rohta Toxknycrwp bd8 mrlts lolJdtr*P co&M 

0 Nopmc8sa 0 3. 3 1s 0 7. 7 3s 

mat8 atn8ma 0 0 

0 1. 1 S 

0 4. 4 20 0 1. 0 40 

0 2. 2 10 

0 s. s 23 0 9. 9 4S 

0 6. 6 30 0 10. 10 SO 

kalon A -WUmata Fkw Only Combdamd sdalb--Watewmtm mdswullFbwcomided 

w8at8wat8r T)p8 WPolntl -fYP@ korrldbuumm cd8hca 

688 blauutionr) G-w -- 

Typ I: FIow<SMCD 

: 

11 

PO 

-ukaMng 

FbvSto10ucD 12 s@wn~Rowr 

Fbw.10mSo0 : 13 20 

FbV.SOMCD 14 30 TYPEVI: <lmb 0 41 0 

Typ8 II: Aare MC0 21 10 21mbmdo% a 42 10 

RavltoSMCD 

: 

22 20 

Fluw>sto1oMcD 23 30 aso% 0 43 ID 

Rovr.lOffiD 

: 

24 SO 

Tmt <lo11 0 Sl 0 

Typ8 III: Row <l MCD 31 

FbwltoSMCD : 32 PO 21mmcSos 0 s2 m 

%w>StolOh4CD 

fbw>lOffiD Ly)w cl 53 30 

F-4 
IVPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet 

FACTOR 3: Comfodlond Pdhdanb NPDES No.: I _I-LLLLLl_11 

(OdVWfMlmlkdbyff-~l)) 

Aon)pfllkmrdhgPouut8nt:(ch8ckom) OIOD OCDD ODthIc 

co& &Its 

PwmitUmitx(chakaW) 0 ~lOObS/dry 1 0 

00 .I 1ootoloooRJlmy 000 to 3ooo 

wd8y 

2 31s S 

0 .3000 wtby 4 20 

cdachdsd:I~ 

Peuakad:I I I 

0. T&l s&mpm&d sdbds cnn 

Pmtwu:(chakaw) 

66wus 

~looW&y 1 0 

1ooto1aoow&y 2 S 

.1oootosooowday 3 1s 

>sooowd8y 4 20 

C. Niw Pdbtmt (chock cm) 0 w oouls 

NWtquhdm( co&m 

Pamitlimitr:(chakaw) : <300 w&y 1 0 

2 3 

: 

30001ooowdDy 

.1oooto3oaowdBy 4 3 1s 

.3ooowd8y 20 

co6auckd: l-l 

mhtakand:I~_I 

TotdWntsFdor3:I~J 

F-5 
NPDES Pwmit RaUng Work Sheet 

FACTOR5:Wdrrbvrlhr~ NPOESNo.:I I I I I I I I I I -mm-m---- 

cod8 P&es 

0 Yr, 1 10 

ON0 2 0 

code-Qrdud: AIJ DIJ CIJ 

Mnbkcbr5: AI-II l 11-l + cu - I 1 IToTAl 

FACTOR 6: Proxh@y to Nom Codd W&m 

A &wscomhttrHowcod8hm(kofnFatw2)..): I I 

Check rppqxbte fad&y HPRJ Code (from PCS): 

Hal# colr HmlZcorr, 

0 1 1 20 

0 2 2 0 

0 3 3 30 

0 4 4 0 

0 S S 20 

blmlcdedlahd:l~l 

aowcod8 

11,3l,ar41 

12 32.~42 

13,33,a43 

14034 

21 a31 

22-W 

23arS3 

24 

YF- 0:os 

0.10 

0.13 

0.10 

0.30 

0.60 

1.00 
SCORE SUMMARY 

NPDES Pmmit Rat@ Work S/wet 

NPDESNo.:I I I I I I I I I ---v-m--- I 

NEW SCO& 

OLD scoak 

F-7 
APPENDIX G 

Secondary NPDES Facilities with Toxic Discharge 

This appendix provides a listing of NPDES facilities classified as secondary with a 

significant potential for toxics in their discharge. 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES WITH 

SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR TOXICS 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

0711 

0721 

0729 

1081 

1389 

1475 

2449 

2492 

2511 

2512 

2514 

2517 

2519 

2521 

2522 

2531 

2541 

2542 

2789 

2842 

2843 

2844 

2870 

2873 

2874 

2992 

2999 

3229 

3296 

3999 

4011 

4013 

4171 

4172 

Soil preparation services 

Crop planting and protection 

General crop services 

Metal mining services 

Oil and gas field services 

Phosphate rock 

Wood containers 

Particle board 

Wood household furniture, except uph. 

Wood household furniture, uph. 

Metal household furniture 

Wood, TV, radio, phonograph, and sewing machine 

cabinets 

Household furniture 

Wood office furniture 

Metal office furniture 

Public building and related furniture 

Wood partitions, shelving, and lockers 

Metal partitions, shelving, and lockers 

Book binding and related work 

Specialty cleaning, polishing, and sanitizing 

Surface active agents 

Perfumes, cosmetics, and other toiletry preparations 

Agricultural chemicals 

Nitrogenous fertilizers 

Phosphate fertilizers 

Lubricating oils and greases 

Products of petroleum - coal 

Pressed and blown glass, NEC 

Mineral wool 

Manufacturing industries, NEC 

Railroads and line-haul operations 

Railroads and switching terminal services 

Terminal and joint terminal maintenance facilities 

Bus service facilities 

4 

1 

1 

7 

136 

33 

4 

21 

40 

13 

8 

1 

2 

7 

15 

3 

5 

7 

31 

11 

28 

4 

56 

33 

49 

22 

65 

19 

79 

238 

83 

30 

81 

G-1 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES WITH 

SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOR TOXICS 

(continued) 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

4212 

4231 

4463 

4469 

4582 

4742 

4789 

4953 

5161 

5171 

5172 

5541 

7261 

7391 

7395 

7538 

7539 

7699 

7819 

9711 

Local trucking without storage 

Trucking terminal facilities 

Marine cargo handling 

Water transportation 

Airport and flying fields 

Rental of railroad cars, including car cleaning 

Services incidental to transportation, NEC 

Refuse systems 

Chemicals and allied products - wholesale 

Petroleum bulk stations 

Petroleum products 

Gasoline service stations 

Funeral service and crematoriums 

Research and development laboratories 

Photo-finishing laboratories 

General auto repair shop 

Automotive repair shops 

Repair shops 

Services allied to motion pictures 

National security 

29 

43 

82 

91 

68 

5 

15 

387 

55 

1,009 

110 

410 

3 

104 

22 

47 

10 

41 

2 

484 

TOTAL 4,155 

Source: Permit Compliance System, December 1987. 

G-2 
APPENDIX H 

Secondary NPDES Facilities With Effluent Guidelines 

This appendix provides a listing of NPDES facilities classified as secondary with effluent 

guidelines for conventional or nontoxic pollutants. 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES WITH 

EFFLUENT GUIDELINES 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

0211 

0213 

0214 

0219 

0241 

0251 

0252 

0253 

0259 

0272 

0291 

1311 

1381 

1382 

1411 

1422 

1423 

1429 

1442 

1446 

1452 

1453 

1454 

1455 

1459 

1472 

1473 

1474 

1476 

1477 

1479 

1492 

1496 

1499 

2011 

2013 

2016 

2017 

2021 

2022 

2023 

2024 

2026 

Beef cattle feedlots 

Hogs 

Sheep and goats 

General livestock 

Dairy farms 

Broiler, fryer, and roaster chickens 

Chicken eggs 

Turkey and turkey eggs 

Poultry and eggs 

Horses and other equines 

General farms 

Crude petroleum and natural gas 

Drilling oil and gas wells 

Oil and gas exploration services 

Dimension stone 

Crushed and broken limestone 

Crushed and broken granite 

Crushed and broken stone, NEC 

Construction sand and gravel 

Industrial sand 

Bentonite 

fire clay 

Fuller earth 

Kaolin and ball clay 

Clay and related minerals, NEC 

Barite 

Fluorspar 

Potash, soda, and borate minerals 

Rock salt 

Sulfur 

Chemical and fertilizer mining, NEC 

Gypsum 

Talc, soapstone, and pyrophyllite 

Nonmetallic minerals, NEC 

Heat packing plants 

Sausages and other prepared meats 

Poultry dressing plants 

Poultry and egg processing 

Creamery butter 

Cheese, natural and processed 

Condensed and evaporated milk 

Ice cream and frozen desserts 

Fluid milk 

713 

115 

12 

3 

88 

7 

27 

10 

30 

2 

4 

3,749 

102 

22 

61 

689 

64 

126 

499 

45 

5 

31 

7 

83 

24 

11 

9 

3 

5 

7 

3 

8 

10 

63 

245 

53 

79 

22 

35 

131 

49 

21 

118 

H-l 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES WITH 

EFFLUENT GUIDELINES 

(continued) 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

facilities 

2032 

2033 

2034 

2035 

2037 

2038 

2041 

2043 

2044 

2046 

2047 

2048 

2061 

2062 

2063 

2077 

2091 

2092 

2099 

2591 

2599 

2875 

3211 

3221 

3231 

3241 

3273 

3274 

3281 

3292 

3295 

5143 

5422 

5423 

7534 

8062 

8063 

8069 

8922 

Canned specialties 29 

Canned fruits and vegetables 245 

Dehydrated fruits, vegetables, soups 9 

Pickles, sauces, and salad dressing 31 

Frozen fruits and vegetables 62 

Frozen specialties 17 

Flour and other grain mill products 14 

Cereal breakfast foods 10 

Rice milling 3 

Wet corn milling 22 

Dog, cat, and other pet food 26 

Prepared feeds 47 

Raw cane sugar 35 

Cane sugar refining 17 

Beet sugar 28 

Animal and marine fats and oils 56 

Canned and cured seafood 123 

Fresh or frozen packaged fish 479 

Food preparations 55 

Drapery hardware and window blinds and shades 1 

Furniture and fixtures, NEC 3 

Fertilizers, mixing only 7 

Flat glass 24 

Glass containers 54 

Products of purchased glass 30 

Cement, hydraulic 121 

Ready-mix concrete 136 

Lime 39 

Cut stone and stone products 86 

Asbestos products 16 

Minerals, ground or treated 72 

Dairy products 12 

Freezer and locker meat provisioners 0 

Meat and fish (seafood) markets 14 

Tire retreading and repair shops 4 

General medical and surgical hospitals 149 

Psychiatric hospitals 56 

Specialty hospitals 10 

Noncommercial educational, scientific, and research 

organizations 33 

TOTAL 9,565 

Source: Permit Compliance System, December 1987. 

1486m 

H-2 
APPENDIX I 

Secondary NPDES Facilities With 

permit Limitations for Toxics 

This appendix provides a listing of NPDES facilities classified as secondary with permit 

limitations for toxics including ammonia and chlorine. 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Agricultural Production - Crops 

0116 Soybeans 

0181 Ornamental floriculture and nursery products 

0189 Horticulture 

Agricultural Production 

specialties, NEC 

- Livestock 

0279 Animal specialties, NEC 54 

Agricultural Services 

0742 Veterinary services for animal specialties 8 

0752 Animal specialty services 3 

Forestry 

0821 Forest nurseries and tree seed gathering and extracting 3 

Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping 

0913 Shellfish 

0921 Fish hatcheries 

Oil and Gas Extraction 

and preserves 

1321 Natural gas liquids 429 

Building and Construction 

1521 

1522 

General contractors - single family houses 

General contractors - residential buildings, other than 

single family 

1531 Operative builders 

1541 General contractors - industrial buildings and warehouses 

1542 General contractors - nonresidential buildings 

Construction Other than Building Construction 

1611 

1622 

1623 

1629 

Highway and street construction 

Bridge, tunnel, and elevated highway construction 

Water, sewer, pipe line, and communication and power 

line construction 

Heavy construction, NEC 

3 

6 

1 

35 

502 

91 

20 

34 

21 

32 

16 

22 

38 

123 

I-1 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS 

(continued) 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Construction Special Trade Contractors 

1731 Electrical work 

1781 Water well drilling 

1799 Special trade contractors, NEC 

Food and Kindred Products 

2051 Bread and other bakery products 

2052 Cookies and crackers 

2065 Candy and other confectionary products 

2067 Chewing gum 

2075 Soybean oil mills 

2076 Vegetable oil mills, except corn, cottonseed, and soybean 

2079 Shortening, table oils, margarine, and other fats and 

oils, NEC 

2082 Malt beverages 

2083 Malt 

2084 Wines, brandy, and brandy spirits 

2085 Distilled, rectified, and blended liquors 

2086 Bottled and canned soft drinks and carbonated waters 

2087 Flavoring extracts and flavoring syrups, NEC 

2090 Miscellaneous food preparations 

2095 Roasted coffee 

2097 Manufactured ice 

Tobacco Manufacturers 

2100 Tobacco manufacturers 

2111 Cigarettes 

2121 Cigars 

2131 Tobacco and snuff 

Lumber and Wood Products, Except Furniture 

2451 Mobile homes 

Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products 

3251 Brick and structural clay tile 

3253 Ceramic wall and floor tile 

3255 Clay refractories 

3262 Vitreous china table and kitchen articles 

3264 Porcelain electrical supplies 

I-2 

4 

2 

49 

8 

1 

8 

2 

30 

8 

11 

34 

10 

18 

38 

52 

21 

7 

1 

26 

1 

8 

3 

3 

10 

21 

25 

39 

9 

11 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

WITH PERMIT LIHITATIONS FOR TOXICS 

(continued) 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

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

3269 Pottery products, NEC 

3271 Concrete block and brick 

3272 Concrete products, except block and brick 

3275 Gypsum products 

3291 Abrasive products 

3297 Nonclay refractories 

3299 Nonmetallic mineral products, NEC 

Railroad lransportation 

404 1 Railway express services 

Local and Suburban Transit and Passenger Transportation 

4111 Local and suburban transit 

4119 Local passenger transportation, NEC 

4131 Intercity and rural highway passenger transportation 

Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing 

4213 Trucking, except local 

4214 Local trucking with storage 

4221 Farm product warehousing and storage 

4222 Refrigerated goods warehousing and storage 

4225 General warehousing and storage 

4226 Special warehousing and storage, NEC 

U.S. Postal Service 

4311 U.S. postal service 6 

Water Transportat ion 

4411 Deep sea foreign transportation 

4431 Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Seaway transportation 

Transportat ion by Air 

4511 Air transportation, certificated carriers 11 

4521 Air transportation, noncertificated carriers 5 

4583 Airport terminal services 8 

11 

10 

56 

24 

;t 

8 

1 

10 

1 

2 

18 

11 

13 

40 

41 

109 

2 

2 

I-3 
SECONDARY NWES FACILITIES 

WITH PERHIT LIHITATIONS FOR TOXICS 

(continued) 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Pipe Lines, Except Natural Gas 

4612 Crude petroleum pipe lines 

4613 Refined petroleum pipe lines 

4619 Pipe lines, NEC 

Transportation Services 

4782 

4783 

4784 

Inspection and weighing services connected with 

transportation 

Packing and crating 

Fixed facilities for motor vehicle transportation, NEC 

Communication 

4811 Teleohone communication. wire or radio 

E lectric, Gas, and 

4899 Corm&i i cation services,'NEC 

Sanitary Services 

Natural gas transmission 

Natural gas transmission and distribut 

Gas production and/or distribution 

Combination utilities, NEC 

Water supply 

Sanitary services, NEC 

Steam supply 

ion 

4922 

4923 

4925 

4939 

4941 

4959 

4961 

Wholesale Trade - Durable Goods 

5014 Tires and tubes 

5051 Hetals service centers and offices 

5052 Coal and other minerals - wholesale 

5063 Electrical apparatus and equipment 

5065 Electronic parts and equipment 

5081 Commercial machines and equipment 

5082 Construction and mining machinery and equipment 

5084 Industrial machinery and equipment 

5092 Hiscellaneous durable goods 

5093 Scrap and waste materials - wholesale 

38 

64 

7 

3 

7 

86 

25 

6 

393 

11 

17 

36 

2,434 

69 

67 

1 

19 

18 

6 

4 

5 

17 

ii! 

35 

I-4 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

WITH PERMIT LIHITATIONS FOR TOXICS 

(continued) 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods 

5111 Printing and writing paper 1 

5113 Industrial and personal service paper 4 

5141 Groceries, general line 9 

5142 Frozen foods 8 

5146 fish and seafood 43 

5147 Meats and meat products 10 

5191 Farm supplies 10 

5199 Nondurable goods, NEC 15 

Building Materials, Hardware, Garden Supply, and Nobile Home Dealers 

5251 Hardware stores 

Genera 1 Nerchand i se St ores 

5311 Department stores 

5331 Variety stores 

5399 Hiscellaneous general merchandise stores 

Food Stores 

5411 Grocery stores 

5441 Candy, nut, and confectionary stores 

5462 Retail bakeries 

Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations 

5511 Hotor vehicle dealers (new and used) 

Apparel and Accessory Stores 

5611 Hen's and boys' clothing stores 

Furniture, Home Furnishings, and Equipment Stores 

5719 Miscellaneous home furnishings 

Eating and Drinking Places 

5812 Eating places 302 

5813 Drinking places 10 

3 

11 

7 

7 

52 

: 

33 

I-5 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

WITH PERHIT LIHIfAfIONS FOR TOXICS 

(continued) 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Miscellaneous Retail 

5921 liquor stores 

5941 Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops 

5946 Camera and photographic supply stores 

5947 Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops 

5999 Miscellaneous retail stores, NEC 

Banking 

6022 State banks, members of FRS 

6023 State banks, not members of FRS 

6025 National banks, members of FRS 

Credit Agencies Other than Banks 

6162 Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 

Insurance 

6311 Life insurance 

6324 Hospital and medical service plans 

6371 Pension, health, and welfare funds 

Insurance Agency, Brokers, and Service 

6411 Insurance agency, brokers, and service 

Real Estate 

6512 Operators of nonresidential buildings 

6513 Operators of apartment buildings 

6514 Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings 

6515 Operators of residential mobile home sites 

6517 Lessors of railroad property 

6519 Lessors of real property, NEC 

6531 Real estate agents and managers 

6552 Subdividers and developers, except cemeteries 

Holding and Other Investment Offices 

6732 Educational, religious, and charitable trusts 

I-6 

9 

1 

7 

1 

9 

: 

5 

466 

478 

690 

1,824 

i 

37 

390 

2 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

WITH PERHIT LIHITATIONS FOR TOXICS 

(continued) 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Lodging Places 

7011 Hotels, motels, and tourist courts 

7021 Rooming and boarding houses 

7030 Camps and trailering parks 

7032 Sporting and recreational camps 

7033 Trailering parks and camp sites for transients 

7041 Organization hotels and lodging houses 

Personal Services 

7212 Garment pressing and agents for laundries and dry cleaners 

7249 Barber shops 

7299 Miscellaneous personal services 

Business Services 

7374 Data processing services 

7392 Management, consulting, and public relations services 

7397 Commercial testing laboratories 

7399 Business services, NEC 

Automotive Repair, Services, and Garages 

7512 Passenger car rental and leasing 

7513 Truck rental and leasing 

7531 Top and body repair shops 

Miscellaneous Repair Services 

7629 Electrical and electronic repair shops, NEC 

not ion Pictures 

7833 Drive-in motion picture theaters 

Amusement and Recreational Services, Except notion Pictures 

7932 

7933 

7941 

7948 

Billiard and pool establishments 

Bowling alleys 

Professional sports clubs and promoters 

Racing, including track operations 

l-7 

658 

18 

35: 

398 

48 

3 

11; 

3 

9 

5 

3 

2 

11 

3 

16 
SECOWARY WOES FACILITIES 

WITH PERHIT LIHITATIOUS FOR TOXICS 

(continued) 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Amusement and Recreational Services, Except Uotion Pictures 

(continued) 

7992 

7996 

7997 

7999 

Public golf courses 

Amusement parks 

Membership sports and recreation clubs 

Amusement and recreation services, NEC 

(including s winning pools) 

Health Services 

8011 Offices of physicians 10 

8051 Skilled nursing care facilities 167 

8059 Nursing and personal care facilities, NEC 80 

8071 Medical laboratories 13 

8081 Outpatient care facilities 21 

Education Services 

8211 Elementary and secondary schools 

8221 Colleges, universities, and professional schools 

8222 Junior colleges and technical institutes 

8231 Libraries and information centers 

8241 Correspondence schools 

8244 Business and secretarial schools 

8249 Vocational schools, NEC 

8299 Schools and education services, NEC 

Social Services 

8321 Individual and family social services 23 

8331 Job training and vocational rehabilitation services 9 

8351 Child day-care services 28 

8361 Residential care 137 

8399 Social services, NEC 6 

Museums, Art Galleries, Botanical, and Zoological Gardens 

8411 Museum and art galleries 12 

842 1 Arboreta, botanical, and zoological gardens 12 

7 

17 

183 

554 

2,727 

136 

35 

5 

2 

3: 

27 

I-8 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

YITH PERMIT LIHITATIONS FOR TOXICS 

(continued) 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Hembership Organizations 

8641 Civic, social, and fraternal associations 33 

8661 Religious organizations 159 

8699 Membership organizations, NEC 5 

Private Households 

8811 Private households 

Wiscellaneous Services 

8911 Engineering, architectural, and surveying services 15 

8999 Services, NEC 18 

Executive, Legislative, and General Government, Except Finance 

9111 Executive services 13 

9121 Legislative bodies 3 

9199 General government, NEC 18 

Justice, Public Order, and Safety 

9221 Police protection 7 

9222 Legal counsel and prosecution 1 

9223 Correctional institutions 217 

9224 fire protection 17 

Administration of Human Resources Programs 

9451 Administration of veteran's affairs, except health and 

insurance 

Administration of Environmental Quality and Housing Programs 

9511 Air and water resource and solid waste management 

9512 Land, mineral, wildlife, and forest conservation 

9531 Administration of housing programs 

221 

1 

1:: 

29 

I-9 
SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES 

WITH PERMIT LIMITATIONS FOR TOXICS 

(continued) 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Administration of Economic Programs 

9611 Administration of general economic programs 4 

962 1 Regulation and administration of transportation programs 114 

964 I Regulation of agricultural marketing and commodities 2 

966 1 Space research and technology 4 

TOTAL 17,345 

Source: Permit Compliance System, December 1987. 

:66&-n 

I-10 
APPENDIX J 

Secondary NPDES Facilities 

Potential De Minimis 

This appendix provides a listing of NPDES facilities (secondary) classified as potential 

de minimis. 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

POTENTIAL DE MINIMIS 

No. of 

SIC Code Industrial Category Facilities 

Agricultural Production - Crops 

0112 Rice 1 

0115 Corn 1 

0119 Cash grains, NEC 3 

0131 Cotton 1 

0132 Tobacco 1 

0133 Sugar crops 2 

0134 Irish potatoes 1 

0161 Vegetables and melons 4 

0171 Berry crops 3 

0175 Deciduous tree fruits 1 

0179 Fruit and tree nuts, NEC 1 

0182 Food crops grown under cover 6 

0191 General farms, primarily crop 10 

Agricultural Production - Livestock 

0212 Beef cattle, except feedlots 37 

0254 Poultry hatcheries 21 

0271 Fur-bearing animals and rabbits 1 

Agricultural Services 

0723 Crop preparation services for market, except cotton ginning 135 

0751 Livestock services 9 

0762 Farm management services 3 

0781 Landscape counseling and planning 1 

Forestry 

0849 Gathering of forest products, NEC 2 

0851 Forestry services 5 

Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping 

0912 Finfish 9 

0919 Miscellaneous marine products 2 

0971 Hunting and trapping, and game propagation 3 

Mining of Nonmetallic Minerals 

1481 Nonmetallic minerals (except fuels) services 7 

J-1 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

POTENTIAL DE MINIMIS 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Construction Special Trade Contractors 

1711 Plumbing, heating (except electric), and air conditioning 

1721 Painting, paper hanging, and decorating 

1741 Masonry, stone setting, and other stonework 

1752 Floor laying and other floorwork, NEC 

1771 Concrete work 

1791 Structural steel erection 

1794 Excavating and foundation work 

1796 Installation or erection of building equipment, NEC 

Food and Kindred Products 

2045 Blended and prepared flour 

2066 Chocolate and cocoa products 

2069 Sugar and confectionary products 

2071 Fats and oils 

2074 Cottonseed oil mills 

2080 Beverage 

2098 Macaroni, spaghetti, vermicelli, and noodles 

Tobacco Manufacturers 

2141 Tobacco stemming and redrying 

Lumber and Wood Products, Except Furniture 

2448 Wood pallets and skids 

2452 Prefabricated wood buildings and components 

Furniture and Fixtures 

1 

1 

2515 Mattresses and bedsprings 

Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products 

3259 Structural clay products, NEC 

3261 Vitreous china plumbing fixtures 

3263 Fire earthenware table and kitchen articles 

4 

2 

1 

2 

3 

3 

5 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

15 

1 

2 

6 

3 

5 

5 

2 

J-2 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

POTENTIAL DE WZNIWIS 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Local and Suburban Transit and Passenger Transportation 

4142 Passenger transportation charter service, except local 1 

4151 School buses 4 

Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing 

4224 Household goods warehousing and storage 2 

Water Transportation 

4421 

4441 

4452 

4453 

4454 

4459 

4462 

4464 

Transportation to and between noncontiguous territories 

Transportation on rivers and canals 

Ferries 

Lighterage 

lowing and tugboat service 

Local water transportation, NEC 

Water transportation services 

Canal operation 

Transportation Services 

4712 Freight forwarding 

4722 Arrangement of passenger transportation 

4723 Arrangement of transportation of freight and cargo 

Communication 

4832 Radio broadcasting 

4833 Television broadcasting 

4841 Cable and other pay television services 

Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services 

4924 Natural gas distribution 

4932 Gas and other services combined 

4971 Irrigation systems 

1 

2 

2 

: 

1 

6 

5; 

J-3 
SECONDARY NPOES FACILITIES 

POTENTIAL DE WlNIllIS 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Wholesale Trade - Durable Goods 

5012 Automobiles and other motor vehicles 

5013 Automotive parts and supplies 

5023 Home furnishings 

5031 Lumber, plywood, and millwork 

5039 Construction materials, NEC 

5041 Sporting and recreational goods and supplies 

5074 Plumbing and heating equipment and supplies 

5078 Refrigeration equipment and supplies 

5083 Farm and garden machinery and equipment 

5085 Industrial supplies 

5086 Professional equipment and supplies 

5087 Service establishment equipment and supplies 

5088 Transportation equipment and supplies 

5099 Durable goods, NEC 

Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods 

5112 Stationery supplies 

5122 Drugs, drug proprietaries, and druggist sundries 

5134 Notions and other dry goods 

5144 Poultry and poultry products 

5148 Fresh fruits-and 

5149 Groceries and re 1 

5153 Grain 

5154 Livestock 

5159 Farm product raw 

5181 Beer and ale 

5182 

5198 

Wines and distilled alcoholic beverages 

Paints, varnishes, and supplies 

vegetables 

ated products, NEC 

materials, NEC 

Building Ilaterials, Ha&are, Garden Supply, and Nobile Home Dealers 

5211 Lumber and other building materials deal 

5231 Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores 

5261 Retail nurseries, lawn, and garden suppl 

5271 Mobile home dealers 

Food St ores 

5431 

5451 

5499 

Fruit stores and vegetable markets 

Dairy products stores 

Miscellaneous food stores 

J-4 

ers 

y stores 

4 

4 

1 

5: 

: 

3 

7 

7 

1 

4 

1 

4 

: 

1 

3 

10 

21 

13 

34 

3 

1 

2 

1 

29 

: 

13 

1 

3 

5 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

POTENTIAL DE CIININIS 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations 

5521 Motor vehicle dealers (used only) 

5531 Auto and home supply stores 

5551 Boat dealers 

5571 Motorcycle dealers 

Apparel and Accessory Stores 

5651 family clothing stores 

5661 Shoe stores 

Furniture, Home Furnishings, and Equipment Stores 

5712 Furniture stores 

Fliscellaneous Retail 

5912 Drug stores and proprietary stores 2 

5931 Used merchandise stores 6 

5944 Jewelry stores 1 

5961 Mail order houses 1 

5963 Direct selling establishments 2 

5982 Fuel and ice dealers 16 

5983 fuel oil dealers 20 

5984 Liquified petroleum gas dealers 2 

5992 Florists 1 

Bank ing 

6011 Federal reserve banks 

6026 National banks, not members of FRS 

6032 Mutual savings banks, members of FRS 

6044 State nondeposit trust companies 

6059 Related banking functions, NEC 

Credit Agencies Other than Banks 

6122 Federal savings and loan associations 

6123 State savings and loan associations 

6159 Miscellaneous business credit institutions 

2 

1 

4 

: 

4 

J-5 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

POTENTIAL DE UIUInZS 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Security and Commodity Brokers and Services 

6211 Security brokers, dealers, and flotation companies 6 

Insurance 

6321 Accident and health insurance 

6331 Fire, marine, and casualty insurance 

6361 Title insurance 

Real Estate 

6553 Cemetery subdividers and developers 

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

6611 Combinations of real estate, insurance, loans, and 

law offices 

Holding and Other Investment Offices 

6711 Holding offices 

Personal Services 

7231 Beauty shops 

Business Services 

7333 Commercial photography, art, and graphics 

7349 Cleaning and maintenance services, NEC 

7372 Computer programing and other software services 

7379 Computer-related services, NEC 

7394 Equipment rental and leasing services 

Automotive Repair, Services, and Garages 

7519 Utility trailer and recreational vehicle rental 

7523 Parking lots 

7525 Parking structures 

7549 Automotive services, except repair and car washes 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

t 

1 

14 

14 

2 

; 

J-6 
SECONDARY NPDES FACILITIES 

POTENTIAL DE NINICIIS 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Miscellaneous Repair Services 

7623 Refrigeration and air conditioning serv 

7692 Welding repair 

7694 Armature rewinding shops 

Motion Pictures 

ice and repa ir shops 

7814 Motion picture and tape production for television 

7832 Motion picture theaters, except drive-ins 

Amusement and Recreation Services, Except Motion Pictures 

7911 Dance halls, studios, and schools 

7922 Theatrical producers and miscellaneous services 

7929 Entertainers and entertainment groups 

Health Services 

802 1 Offices of dentists 

8049 Offices of health practitioners, NEC 

8091 Health and allied services, NEC 

Legal Services 

8111 Legal services 

Education Services 

8243 Data processing schools 

Membership Organizations 

8611 Business associations 

8621 Professional membership organizations 

Justice, Public Order, and Safety 

9211 Courts 

9229 Public order and safety, NEC 

1 

5 

2 

3 

1 

3 

1 

2 

2 

1 

8 

: 

6 

3 

J-7 
SECONDARY NODES FACILITIES 

POTENTIAL DE llfNlNIS 

SIC Code Industrial Category 

No. of 

Facilities 

Administration of Human Resources Programs 

9411 Administration of educational programs 1 

9431 Administration of public health programs 7 

9441 Administration of social, manpower, and income 

maintenance programs 2 

Administration of Environmental Quality and Housing Programs 

9532 Administration of urban planning and rural development 4 

Administration of Economic Programs 

9631 

9651 

Regulation and administration of utilities 4 

Regulation, licensing, and inspection of miscellaneous 

commercial sectors 

TOTAL & 

Source: Permit Compliance System, December 1987. 

J-8 
APPENDIX K 

state NPDES Program status 

This appendix provides a summary of the States approved to issue permits under the 

standard NPDES program. 
STATE NPDES PROGRAM STATUS 

9/30/91 

Approved State Approved to Approved State 

NPDES permit regulate Federal pretreatment 

program facilities program 

Approved 

general 

permits 

program 

Alabama 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Georgia 

Hawaii 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Maryland 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Jersey 

New York 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

Tennessee 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virgin Islands 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 

10/19/79 

11/01/86 

05/14/73 

03/27/75 

09/26/73 

04/01/74 

06/28/74 

11/28/74 

10/23/77 

01/01/75 

08/10/78 

06/28/74 

09/30/83 

09/05/4 

10/17/73 

06/30/74 

05/01/74 

10/30/74 

06/10/74 

06/12/74 

09/19/75 

04/13/82 

10/28/75 

10/19/75 

06/13/75 

03/11/74 

09/26/73 

06/30/78 

09/17/84 

06/10/75 

12/28/77 

07/07/87 

03/11/74 

06/30/76 

03/31/75 

11/14/73 

05/10/82 

02/04/74 

10/19/79 

11/01/86 

05/05/78 

01/09/89 

12/08/80 

06/01/79 

09/20/79 

12/09/78 

08/10/78 

08/28/85 

09/30/83 

11/10/87 

12/09/78 

12/0978 

01/28/83 

06/26/79 

06/23/81 

11/02/79 

08/31/78 

04/13/82 

06/13/80 

09/28/84 

01/22/90 

01/28/83 

03/02/79 

06/30/78 

09/17/84 

09/26/80 

09/30/86 

07/07/87 

02/09/82 

05/10/82 

11/26/79 

01/30/75 05/18/81 

TOTALS 39 34 

10/19/79 

11/01/86 

09/22/89 

06/03/81 

03/12/81 

08/12/83 

01/28/91 

09/30/91 

01/04/84 

04/02/91 

06/03/81 

09/30/83 

09/30/85 

06/07/83 

07/16/79 

05/13/82 

06/03/81 

09/30/83 

09/30/91 

09/07/84 

12/15/87 

09/27/91 

12/12/85 

04/29/83 

07/20/89 

04/13/82 04/13/82 

06/14/82 09/06/91 

01/22/90 

07/27/83 

03/12/81 

09/17/84 

04/09/82 

08/10/83 

07/07/87 

03/16/82 

02/23/82 

08/02/91 

09/17/84 

04/18/91 

07/07/87 

04/14/89 

09/30/86 

05/10/82 

12/24/80 

05/20/91 

09/26/89 

05/l0/82 

12/19/86 

09/24/91 

27 

06/26/91 

11/01/86 

09/22/89 

03/04/83 

28 

Number of Fully Authorized Programs (Federal Facilities, Pretreatment, General Permits) = 20 

K-l 
APPENDIX L 

General Permit Information 

State General Permit Program Status .............................. L-1 

Existing General Permit Classification Categories.. ...................... L-3 

This appendix provides a summary of State NPDES and general permit authority with 

the number of general permits and discharges under general permits, as well as a listing of 

categories currently covered by general permits. 
State General Permit Program Status 

NPDES APPROVED 

STATES 

*California 

*Colorado 

*Georgia 

*Hawaii 

*Illinois 

*Indiana 

*Kentucky 

*Maryland 

*Minnesota 

*Mississippi 

*Missouri 

*Montana 

*Nebraska 

*New Jersey 

*North Carolina 

*North Dakota 

*Oregon 

*Pennsylvania 

*Rhode Island 

*Tennessee 

*Utah 

*Virginia 

*Washington 

*West Virginia 

*Wisconsin 

*Wyoming 

SUBTOTAL 

3 

2 

4 

5 

12 

2 

8 

1,024 

18 

820 

5,355 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Michigan 

Nevada 

New York 

Ohio 

South Carolina 

Vermont 

Virgin Islands 

*States with General 

Permit Authority 

Discharges Covered 

Under 

General Permits 

236 

3,142 

(includes 3,100 coal mines) 

16 

99 

Unknown 

Number of 

general Permits 

EPA STATE 

2 36 

L-1 

09/30/91 
State General Permit status 

(continued) 

Discharges Covered Number of 

Under General Permits 

General Permits EPA STATE 

NON-NPDES STATES 227 1 

Alaska 

American Samoa 

Arizona 

Florida 

Guam 

Idaho 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Massachusetts 

New Hampshire 

New Mexico 

Oklahoma 

Puerto Rico 

South Dakota 

Texas 

Washington, D.C. 

1 

20 

3 

42 1 

<630** 2 

<80** 1 

<80** 1 

<80** 1 

<500** 1 

45 1 

3 2 

<500** 1 

**Given, on a combined regional basis. 

Average number of discharges covered under a general permit (excluding coal mines) = 3,302/50 = 66 

SOURCES: EPA Regional Survey, 1988; EPA Headquarters, 1991. 

L-2 09/30/91 
EXISTING GENERAL PERMIT CLASSIFICATION CATEGORIES 

Agricultural Production Livestock 

Aquifer Restoration 

Coal Mining 

Concrete Products 

Construction 

Deep Seabed Mining 

Fish Hatcheries and Preserves 

Hydrostatic Testing 

Laundry/Cleaning/Garment Services 

LOG Transfer 

Meat Products 

Mine Dewatering 

Noncontact Cooling Waters 

Offshore Oil & Gas 

Oil & Gas Extraction 

Petroleum Bulk Stations 

Placer Mining 

Private Households 

Processed Fruit & Vegetables 

Salt Extraction 

Sand & Gravel 

Seafood Processing 

Sewage Systems 

Stormwater Runoff 

Swimming Pool Filter Backwash 

Water Supply 

Sources: EPA Regional and State Permitting Authorities, 1988 

Permit Compliance System, December 1987 

L-3 
APPENDIX M 

North Carolina’s Department of Natural Resources 

and community Development 

Effort and Cost of Permitting Study, April 1986 

This appendix includes the North Carolina Case Study that outlines the effort and cost 

of permitting steps involved in a "minimum reputable standard/model permitting program," 

including a methodology of analysis. 
ACTIOI 

rrer ~llcmtlom comferomco 

2: mat loo l blrlot rat ion 41 onglneorlnq roviaw Bloc do r-low trot ~ootmomt prqrr mar 

E ! ,eve ‘T:’ 

.ev*l c - medolly 

z 

.oTol c - Ilold work 

awl C/M rowratloa IaA ,ovol C rraual rovlou Rovl m manltorlfq btnbann mta l nt ry tinr rgr rov/draIt pormlt 

rob1 ic notic 

Ronr LY 

RoclX~X / a.8 l ttalnablllty 71 15. 

Pormlt lssurco 0 11. 

Ircor&/&ta rnagamont 

z: 

i3 1:: 

69 13. 

Uf blaonltorly 70 14. 

061 69 13. 

S-yr aaqooltb Lnapoattoiw 4s 13. 

Annwl nondlact~ary lrrp(SJ 6s 13. 

IntonXlvo torlclty err1 67 12. 

8olf-moaltorlnp data row 72 15. 

Ronoua 1 not lco 45 11. 

Xuporrl~lon 74 15. 

Authorlrat lam to conrtruct 72 15. 

Tu cortlflc~tlon 71 15. 

71 15.15 

57 8.10 

74 17.34 

7J 15.w 

72 1S.W 

71 15.15 

71 15.15 

73 16.67 

67 12.70 

67 12.70 

73 16.67 

60 13.04 

57 a.29 

72 15.0. 

57 8.20 

75 1m.24 

:i 

t: 

:: 

t : 

65 

3: 

42 

12 

a. 

15 

mmL STtAtr TI)ll-BMIC 

LmItIOnAL Itlrlt TIMl-LXVXL c 

ADoltloaAL-sTut-tlnemARxm 

ADDItIONAL 8TAtt ?Ill-IBCLAWI?ICATIOI 

ADDITIOnAL RAW txn~-tnll?ncATRlR 

MXImm 9oTAL rrwr ?IlC 

4.7 

t :: 

11t:i 

31.4 

1.::: 

604.5 

302.3 

38.7 

0.6 

0.6 

is: 

,414 

105.5 

0.6 

1::: 

20.0 

3B.7 

15.3 

112.2 

0.0 

1.4 

Lf 

30.2 

31.5 

0.7 

2s1.9 

114X.6 

54*4 

105.5 

118.5 

1775.0 

2: 

2: 

114:s 

23.6 

4.7 

241.8 

404.5 

302.3 

3D.7 

0.6 

0.6 

4.8 

5::: 

105.5 

s-i 

14:s 

19.0 

34.7 

19.3 

111.2 

0.0 

1.4 

0.4 

0.4 

10.2 

31.6 

9.7 

20.0 

110.6 

54.4 

205 .s 

118.5 

1772.0 

::I 

X:: 

118.5 

23.6 

24::: 

604.5 

302.3 

38.7 

0.4 

0.4 

1.4 

5::: 

205.5 

0.4 

1::: 

10.0 

37.5 

16.5 

105.4 

0.0 

i:: 

0.4 

30.2 

31.9 

9.7 

235.X 

11O.b 

54:4 

205.5 

11X.5 

1764.8 

::I 

5.4 

0.0 

11B.S 

23.6 

24::: 

604 .s 

302.3 

3a.7 

i:f 

Xi 

54.4 

t-i 

25:1 

8.8 

25:r 

24::: 

604.5 

302.3 

38.7 

0.6 

0.6 

34 

5414 

205.5 205.5 

0.4 0.6 

1::: 1::: 

29.0 25.0 

37 .s 38.7 

16.5 15.3 

105.4 112.2 

0.0 0.0 

1.4 2.4 

0.4 0.4 

0.4 0.4 

30.2 30.2 

12.6 32.9 

9.1 0.0 

239.X 

11O.b 

54.4 

205.5 

114.5 

17b6.X 

lS4.4 212.4 

114X.4 1140.6 

544 54.4 

205.3 705.5 

1“::: Ai:: 

Motoc Cbmlul laboratory coots and offort are not lnclu&d ln thlm tablo. 

Xflort ~~1~0~ l djwtod for *typical’ l ppllcatlon pwllty l d luvo days. 

M-l 

::: 

0’:: 

1::s 

24::: 

604.5 

302.3 

3m.7 

::t 

2: 

5414 

105.5 

0.6 

1:*: 

2412 

36.9 

14.9 

60.9 

0.0 

2.4 

0.4 

0.6 

30.2 

31.9 

0.0 

4.7 

2.4 

:-x 

a:0 

11.6 

i:: 

o”*: 

0:o 

kf 

i-t 

5414 

205.5 

0.6 

xl 

0:o 

9-t 

3:3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.4 

0.b 

6.0 

0.0 

0.0 

14.1 

0.0 

54.4 

205.5 

0.0 

29b.l 

::I 

5.4 

i:8 

23.6 

::i 

t:: 

0.0 

i:t 

::I 

54.4 

205.5 

0.4 

1.5 

1::: 

0.0 

lb: 

0:o 

0.0 

t:: 

5:: 

0.0 

74.9 

5::: 

205.5 

0.0 

134.X 

::i 

::: 

0.0 

23.6 

24::: 

604.5 

0.0 

X:S 

0.4 

1.2 

0.4 

54.4 

205.5 

0.4 

4.4 

9.7 

15.3 

19.3 

b.0 

42.8 

0.0 

0.0 

0.4 

0.b 

6.0 

31.2 

0.0 

lS7.1 

X46.3 

-54.4 

205.5 

*I‘;:: 
DMt? (4/14/40 

wt 

CUDI 

ACTlOll 

?rooppllcatloa conferrco 

Appllcatlon l &lnlrtrAtlon 

Initial l nplnoorlng revlow 

Bloclk rwlov 

yrotraatmomt proprm 

8taCC romort 

ikA 1or.I 8 

aLA lwel C - modollnp 

(ru low1 C - tlold uork 

l%A low01 C/add roaoratlon 

rrU 1ovo1 C ronoual rowlou 

newlou monltorlnp &t&am00 

mta ontry 

tlwl nqr rov/droft pormlt 

hbllc notlco 

BoArlmq 

noclaom / UH Attalnablllty 

hfDlt loowaco 

nocor&/bto wnnqomont 

ax 

ax 

ax blaoaltorlnq 

06ll 

S-yr aagoolto lnrpoctlono 

&nwl nondloaherqo lnmp (5 I 

Intonllvo toalclty oral 

BolC-monltorln~ &to rev 

I*aowal not le. 

8UporTlmlo@l 

Authorlutlon to conmtruct 

ToI cortlflcotlon 

TOTAL am?--BASIC 

ADD8D(XICIPORLCVKLC 

ADDED CO8T IOI l8MIlc 

ADORD COST tOR RSUM8I?ICAl 

kDDeD-au?xk3m?uA?uR 

MXlmn TOTAL am? 

i: 

72 

72 

72 

71 

I’: 

67 

‘7 

I:: 

7): 

57 

75 

Ii 

:3 

f:: 

0 

0 

0 

67 

72 

65 

74 

72 

71 

‘1011 

15.15 

0.29 

15.81 

15.88 

15.88 

15.15 

15.15 

16.67 

12.70 

12.70 

16.67 

13.84 

8.29 

15.08 

8.29 

10.24 

15.15 

12.62 

8.29 

13.84 

13.84 

13.27 

13.84 

13.65 

13.65 

12.70 

15.88 

11.62 

19.12 

15.68 

15.15 

iWD86 

cm~f8mso tamrwrwa awn 

(Ml nnxt OI s-TMR mM?IOl) 

MAJOR lInoR RNOR a1mn 

RWlCI?AL RIlClML fllDW?RIAL I-RIAL 

>1ot IID <lot IID >lOI 110 <IO@ InD 

71.43 71.43 

19.54 19.54 

10.75 149.75 

0.00 0.00 

lD81.0 1681.4¶ 

476.23 357.17 

71.43 71.43 

4030.81 4030.81 

15527.15 15527.1¶ 

3838.58 3838.54 

644.93 ‘44.93 

8.37 8.37 

5.01 5.01 

76.80 74.aa 

39.01 39.01 

992.35 992.35 

3113.78 3113.71 

7.02 7.oa 

38.08 36.08 

200.79 200.7) 

749.58 70.51 

513.39 513.3) 

267.72 267.72 

1531.53 1531.53 

0.08 0.00 

30.71 30.71 

9.88 9.60 

7.02 7.02 

577.90 577.90 

522.21 522.21 

146.53 146.53 

3784.18 3647.13 

23394.53 23394.53 

002. JS 992.75 

1 881.4# ll3*78 l113.71 1881.49 

33170.34 33051.2~ 

71.43 71.43 

I 19.54 19.54 

1 10.75 10.75 

, 0.00 0.00 

1 1861.49 1881.49 

357.17 357.17 

1 71.43 71.43 

4030.81 4030.81 

1 15527.15 15527.15 

I 3838.56 3838.58 

I 644.93 444.93 

8.37 6.37 

5.01 5.01 

I 38.40 30.40 

39.01 39.01 

i 3113.78 692.35 3113.78 992.35 

, 7.02 7.02 

I 36.08 36.0) 

200.79 200.79 

1 749.58 749.58 

07.35 07.35 

234.26 234.26 

103.31 103.31 

, 0.00 0.00 

30.71 30.71 

/ 9.60 9.40 

7.02 7.02 

577.90 577.90 

522.21 522.11 

146.53 146.53 

3590.51 3590.51 

23394.S3 23lS4.Sl 

992.35 992.15 

311328 3l..l3,71 

1881.0 1881.0 

31974.64 32974.6‘ 

71.43 71.43 71.43 

19.54 19.54 19.54 

399.34 10.75 24.96 

0.08 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

380.98 190.0 190.49 

95.25 95.25 0.00 

4030.81 4030.61 0.00 

15527.15 15527.15 0.00 

3838.58 3638.58 0.00 

‘44.93 ‘44.93 0.00 

8.37 8.37 8.37 

5.01 5.01 5.01 

115.19 57.60 19.20 

39.01 39.01 0.00 

992.35 992.35 992.35 

3113.7) 3113.76 3113.7. 

7.02 7.02 7.02 

36.0. 34.06 12.03 

200.79 167.33 0.00 

70.58 482.65 0.00 

513.39 489.32 0.00 

2‘7.72 234.26 83.66 

1531 .,I 1363.44 45 .os 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

30.71 30.71 0.00 

9.60 9.40 9.40 

7.02 7.02 7.02 

s77.90 577.90 115.58 

522.21 522.21 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

304.28 

21394.53 

992.35 

3113.78 

0.00 

31351.84 

3190.44 

23396.51 

992.15 

3113.78 

0.00 

1801 .I9 

53s.30 

0.00 

992.35 

3111.76 

0.00 

4441.41 

8IM;LK Sl’O~ATCR COOLIlbC 

IARILT mTCR 

71.43 71.43 

19.54 19.54 

10.75 19.20 

0.00 10.75 

0.00 0.00 

357.17 357.17 

0.00 71.43 

0.00 4030.81 

0.00 15527.15 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

8.37 8.37 

5.01 5.01 

153.5~ 19.20 

39.01 39.01 

992.35 992.35 

3113.7. 3113.7. 

7.02 7.02 

12.03 36.08 

0.00 133.86 

08.59 615.72 

0.00 254 .o 

0.00 83.66 

191.10 857.22 

0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 

9.40 9.60 

7.02 7.02 

115.58 115.58 

0.00 527.9? 

0.00 0.00 

1144.23 2320.61 

0.00 19557.94 

992.35 992.15 

3113.78 3113.78 

0.00 0.00 

5252.36 25184.?0 

Totolm lncluk public notlco coots , ovorhomd (coqutod at $4000 per poreon-your), and laboratory contm 

ot (7650 per love1 C raateload l llocatloa and 048 par CII lnapoctlon. 

M-2 
ACIIOI 

~roappllcrtIon conlorwco 

ApplIutlom A~lnhtratlon 

InItIAI 8npIroorInp rovIw 

BIocI& rnim 

Protreotmwbt proqru 

Stntl r 

WLA 1.T. Trt B 

WA Iwo1 c - modoliy 

l&A low1 C - f1.16 work 

)(u 10~01 C/&d ro00r0tlom 

IM 10~01 C ronw01 rwI09 

R0vIw monItorin &t0b0000 

Dnta ntry 

IIn 0ngr rev/draft prmlt 

Pub1 lc not lc8 

Sear Ing 

R0cl0rr / UH l ttaIn0bIlIty 

krrlt 10rwrco 

Rocordr/&ta unn9wwt 

CR1 

csx 

CSI bl-LtorInp 

0111 

MT COST 8LuDGl! suMu#Ac SPRAT CQAstu 

CRAW IUR DI 6K)SU b L?? IRRIG ?KG PIAIR 

71 15.15 

57 0.10 

72 15.@@ 

72 15.w 

72 15.0. 

71 15.15 

71 15.15 

73 14.67 

47 12.7. 

:I 

ft 

iI’ 

75 

71 

0 

57 

0 

fi 

b9 

Gyr comporIt0 InopoctIon~ 0 

Annu41 nondlmchar90 inmpoc0) 65 

IntonaIro toalclty oral 67 

SoIf-m0nItorIng tit0 r0v 72 

R0n0w01 not lco b5 

Suporrlrlon 7b 

m7u SrAlr TIlw!-wIc 

ADDl?IOWU st*rr ?InC-?ncTntATnxwr 

11.70 

16.47 

13.04 

4.25 

15.4. 

m.25 

18.24 

15.15 

11.62 

0.20 

11.54 

13.84 

13.27 

12.54 

13.0 

13.55 

12.70 

IS.OD 

11.62 

15.12 

::: 

4.0 

::i 

72.0 

::"o 

::"o 

t:"o 

f:i 

0.0 

0.0 

i:: 

1.2 

0.0 

::t 

i-x 

to:0 

0.0 

20.0 

1.5 

15.0 

175.2 

0.0 

3.0 

1.5 

i:: 

0.0 

15.0 

0.0 

0”:: 

t-X 

0:o 

0.5 

2: 

0:o 

X:i 

1.2 

0.0 

ii:: 

0.0 

1::: 

1::: 

1.5 

5.0 

0.2 

0.0 

::f 

ii:“, 

90.0 

30.0 

0.0 

::o" 

::6" 

0.0 

0.5 

::I 

0.) 

::i 

1.2 

8:: 

1x 

CO.0 

40.0 

2::: 

1.5 

25.0 

153.2 

90.0 

3.0 

::i 

:*t 

15:o 

0.0 

0.0 

LX 

0.0 

0.0 

0.5 

i:: 

0.0 

i-:: 

1.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

00-x 

15:o 

1::: 

1.5 

5.0 

65.2 

0.0 

3.0 

1.5 

4.0 

0.0 

0.0 

4.0 

0.0 

::i 

:-: 

0:o 

(“*i 

0:o 

0.0 

0.0 

0.5 

t-x 

0:o 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

15.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.5 

5.0 

(1.2 

0.0 

3.0 0.0 

1.5 1.5 

;:: :*‘o 

0.0 0:o 

::: Ki 

0.0 0:o 

0.0 0.0 

::i 0.0 

t:: 

0”:: 

Xi 

i:: 

0.0 

0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 

0.5 0.2 

1.2 1.2 

0.0 0.0 

::o” 0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 t:: 

15.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 

15.0 0.0 

1.5 1.5 

5.0 5.0 

50.7 14.4 

0.0 0.0 

SEMLR DCLCCATCD II1(cU 

MT HDW SCWER ?AAIIILT 

0.0 

1.5 

1.0 

::i 

2: 

::: 

i:: 

0.0 

0.5 

:?4 

a:0 

0.0 

0.2 

kX 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.5 

5.0 

13.9 

0.0 

0.0 

1.5 

I:: 

i:: 

t:: 

t:: 

X:0” 

0.5 

X:t 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

I.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

28 

0.0 

it: 

1.5 

5.0 

12.b 

0.0 

3.0 

1.5 

0’:: 

2::: 

2: 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

t :i 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.5 

1.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

::“o 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

I.5 

5.0 

47.2 

0.0 

M-3 
ACTION 

?roo llcatlon conforonco 

rpol r cotlom l blnlrtratlon 

Imltlml l ylnoorln9 rovleu 

#loci& rwl8u 

?rotrootmomt rorlw 

Otsll re 

IRA low 9”:’ 

W 10~01 C - modeling 

U love1 C - field wrt 

U lovol C/add rowration 

l&A 10~01 C ronoud rwlw 

Rwlou ronltorln9 dmtsbowa 

at* oatry 

tlral l ngr rw/dratt pormlt 

Ml 1c not ice 

Dear la9 

Doalaas / uoo rttalnablllty 

krmlt lmrcwnco 

-r&/&W una9omont 

z: 

CII blaoaltorlng 

011 

S-yr cmmito lnrpoctlomr 

Amncul nondlacharqa lnap0) 

Intonalro to~lclty oval 

89li-monltorln9 bte row 

Lnwol notlco 

Supertlmlon 

lOTAL COST--8A8IC 

A#XDC0R?~RtR8?UA?li8~ 

Mxllam'IwAL<x#t 

err co@? CRAW /IL 

71 15.15 

:‘, 1::tt 

72 15.)) 

72 lS.OR 

71 lS.15 

71 15.15 

73 14.47 

47 2J.70 

‘7 12.70 

73 14.47 

‘9 23.84 

;: 1t:ti 

;i 1::3: 

71 25.15 

65 11.42 

i3 1:::: 

0 13.84 

48 23.27 

0 13.04 

09 13.85 

‘9 13.45 

‘7 12.70 

72 15.8. 

65 11.62 

74 19.12 

WTlM?l!D t~mIw1)(0 corn 

(t8R PLll)ll? 01 S-TEAR DUMTIOn) 

8LlDCL #um#U#AC I?MT COASTU ATC nRCYCL1ffi. SRURR LX? 

DID45.45 45.45 45.45 

12.44 12.44 12.44 

43.52 ‘1.52 43.52 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 lSH.24 

lORR.80 242.40 454.50 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 8.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 8.00 8.00 

4.15 4.15 4.15 

05.2# 95.18 95.2@ 

0.00 0.00 8.08 

0.00 0.00 8.00 

0.00 0.80 0.00 

S.Dl 5.81 5.01 

9.95 9.95 9.05 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 8.80 

0.00 0.00 8.00 

0.00 0.00 164.08 

8.00 0.00 019.00 

546.00 204.75 546.00 

0.00 0.00 8.00 

317.60 238.20 317.40 

17.43 17.43 17.43 

478.80 95.60 47R.00 

45.45 45.45 45.45 

11.44 12.44 12.44 

43.52 b3.52 15.08 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

727.25 ‘8.60 ‘0.68 

0.00 0.80 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

8.00 0.00 0.08 

8.80 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 

4.15 .4.15 4.15 

111.1‘ 95.28 39.70 

0.00 0.80 0.00 

8.00 0.00 0.08 

0.0. 0.00 8.00 

,.a1 5.81 5.81 

9.95 0.95 9.95 

0.00 0.00 8.00 

a.00 0.00 8.00 

8.80 0.00 8.00 

0.00 0.00 8.80 

0.00 0.00 8.00 

204.75 204.75 204.75 

0.00 8.00 8.00 

238.20 0.00 238.20 

17.43 27.43 17.43 

95 .‘O 95.60 95.60 

0.00 0.00 0.00 45.45 

12.44 12.44 12.44 12.44 

23.82 15.80 7.94 ‘3.52 

0.00 0.08 0.00 8.00 

0.00 8.00 0.00 8.00 

7.58 7.58 0 .oo 3‘3.40 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 

0 .oo 0.00 8.00 0.00 

0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 

4.15 4.15 4.15 4.15 

47.64 39.78 31.74 95.28 

0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 

0 .oo 0.00 0.00 0.08 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

2.32 2.32 2.32 5.81 

9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 

0.00 0.00 0.08 8.08 

0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 

0.08 0.00 0 .eo 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 

0 .oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

0 .oo 0 .oo 0.00 0.00 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

17.63 17.43 17.43 17.43 

95.60 95.60 95.60 95.60 

3191.80 1234.54 4982.47 1235.31 734.70 aR4.20 243.90 245.13 217.35 80.37 

8.00 0.00 1554.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 8.00 8.00 8.00 

3191.80 1234.58 4538.91 1235.31 736.70 SW.20 2‘3.90 245.13 217.35 049.37 

6 Ltt IRRI~TIOIRC WAR cvAt,?bs /tuw #?A 

SRWRR DRLCClltCDSI*GLR 

Lx? @RJR #MI tAmlLY 

mtor Total coota lncluk ovorhoad computed at SbOOO/poraon and laboratory comtm. 

H-4 
IU)or l unIclpa~-protrwtBola 

Wmjor l uniclpal~o 

prmtroatwnt 

llror l miclpal-p~ottwtDent 

n1aor mnlclpbl~o 

pret rwtmont 

lbmyor ladwtrlml 

IUnor indwtrlal 

l 8chga plants ~mub4lvlo1a~, 

l cboo1m, inmtltatlona, Ill-1 

8lrglo fullr Itorrrbtor 

Cwllap ratodbollor blwhun 

Otbor (mlnem, W?Pa, l tu.) 

ULA - lor*l c 

hrmlt boaring 

Roclrodw~ l ttalwbillty 

8~~090 etbp0bbl 

8ubwrfbco bnd WI 

8prby lrrlg4thn 

8pray lrrl~tloa-protr*otmont 

Cwmtal pacltaQe plwt 

Aatborlutlon to conotruct 

Roc~clln9, wap. ppo a bul 

8wor rrtonolw rlth pug eta 

Iouor l rtonmlon 

Dolo*ted l unlclpallty 

wwr l mtonrlw 

8ln9h fully spray lrrlytlon 

Iorr)I8CMRC# ?OTU 

lwu ALL rt#lxT8 

371.4 

251.9 

MO.3 

239.0 

z-t 

239:o 

36.1 

lb.9 

151.3 

31.8 

1148.6 

54.4 

205.5 

375.1 

0.2 

153.2 

251.2 

0.2 

41.1 

50.7 

14.5 

13.5 

12.4 

(7.1 

Sl23.? 

1451.8 

s337.3 

5.97 .a 

119590.0 

5751.0 

r573x 

1.40:0 

174773.5 

,445.I) 

1088.0 

1017.5 

175DOl.O 

12264.0 

6229.0 

211SZ.O 

873.6 

1304.0 

10572.0 

2535.0 

5364.0 

7228.0 

506.0 

3416.0 

71972.6 

250773.9 154990.0 

loaeibcbbr90 pornit 00 not incl& rnowalo of 5-yr on0 I-yr durbtiom pormltm. 

ATO and l ewr l xtoom&omm bare lmkfhito dmratloao. 

Total pormon-bourr l allablo hrlvod from IIW program plan, page 19. 

M-5 
Draft d/19/1946 CStlRATtD IICTUU a)St VS. PILSC)rr PCmlT RCVCWCS 

TlPC 01 PtR)IITS wo/Tl WE mtu 

Major runlclpal-protrmtunt 

najor l unlclpal-no 

pf*ttWtWnt 

Hlnor l unlclpal-pretrootwnt 

Minor l unIclpala0 

pretroatunt 

Hojor lnduetrl~l 

Minor Inbu~trial 

Weba plantr (wbdirl~iomo, 

l choolm, ln~tltutiomo, NPo) 

8in9lo fully 

Itorwbter 

Coollnp rater/holler bladwn 

Other (mInea, n?m, etc.) 

lb 

10 

:: 

f : 

500 

lb0 

10: 

50 

TVYU IpD88 WRIT8 924 

ULA - lwrl c 

Permit heatIn 

R~clrr./w~ l tt~lnablllty 

2: 

5 

llPD88WTAL 954 

Ilubge ehpobbi 

8ubourfmc~ and WI 

8proy lrrlpatloa 

Ipray lrrtqation-protro&unt 

coawa1 p#ckago plant 

Autborlutlon to cowtrmct 

Rocycllnp, wap, pug b haul 

8-r l xtm~lon with pwp l t@ 

Imuar wtonmlom rn8i09me ~nkipdwy 

muor l rtonmlom 

8Inplr fully #pray lrrlwtlo 

Ii 

110 

3 

2:: 

3:: 

520 

440 

30 

1953 

1907 

4x00 

lees 

$1,410.00 

4100.00 $940.00 

$100.00 $1,430.00 

$100.00 $3,110.00 

::x 

$2.040.00 

0100:00 0:::::x::: 

‘tt-ti 

S4r800.00 

s75:oo 07,500.00 00.00 

$100.00 05,000.00 

074.120.00 

00.00 00.00 

$0.00 00.00 

$0.00 00.00 

0100.00 

075.00 

i75.00 

$75.00 

$75.00 

so .oo 

$75.00 

$50.00 

015.00 

010.00 

070,120.00 

07,000.00 

w,750.00 

08,250.OO 

0225.00 

$1.500.00 

$0.00 

$3,750.00 

$14,000.00 

013,000.80 

$4~400.00 

$25.00 0750.00 

00.425.00 

0141.745.00 

COST ?LI TOTAL COST PoTCIml AL 

PCllllT ZlKRCA8C 

$5,447.47 $91,04.?5 $90,194.25 

0.744.10 07,104.54 04.124.54 

65,472.OO s70,249.40 $74.419.40 

Slr590.51 $111,444.04 $104,554.44 

$3,04.20 080.204.94 074,128.94 

03,190.44 074,575.34 074,175.34 

s3,550.51 01,799,755.00 $1,749,755.00 

$535.34 085r444.00 $41,440.00 

01,144.23 00.00 00.00 

$2,320.b1 $232,0b2.00 6224.542.00 

$574.31 024,715.50 023.715.50 

$2,421,800.10 $2,543,440.10 

023,394.53 $70,109.59 $70.10.59 

$992.35 $19.447.00 $19,047.00 

$3,113.70 Ol5,540.90 $15.544.90 

S2,727,405.59 02r449r205.59 

$3,191.40 

.1,234.54 

$4,902.47 

;;A;;.;; 

i734:70 

S89b. 20 

0243.~0 

024S.13 

$217.35 

6449.37 

$223,42b.00 

0111,112.20 

040,093.70 

019,414.73 

$24,704.20 

$191.542.00 

044r810.00 

055,004.00 

$127,447.b0 

$55,434.00 

$25,441.10 

$214.424.00 

*104,342.20 

0539,043.70 

Sl9r39l.73 

$23,20b.20 

$191,542.00 

$41,040.00 

$77,004.00 

$114.447.40 

051.234.00 

*24,731.10 

Slr504.493.53 $1,443,244.53 

$4,134,399.12 $4.092.554.13 

All RPCM!S rwwuala are treat06 llbo now permIta mine* proc8moin9 and capliance 

*Ifort are the #me. mdincbo r 

rhould k. r 

ronowala ore not Lncludod in there tablar but 

~00~ bc* nor wt at 

pordta n*v*r l 1p1ro. 

25.00 for all rowwale but 799 of all nondlrchbrpo 

H-6 
EFFORT AND COST OF PEWITTIffi 

Purposes of St.& : 

(1) To detenine current actual costs of each step fn permitting and 

compl idnce on each type of WDES (Nat tonal Pol lut fon Dtscharge El iminatfon 

System) permit and state nondfscharge penft. 

(2) To detennfne the total costs to the Dfvfsfon of Environmental 

Management (DEM) for each type of permft over thefr full duratfon from 

preappl fcatfon conference to expfratfon (1 ffe cycle costs). 

(3) To devfse a revfsed water qualfty pennft fee schedule which would 

recoup a set proportfon of these costs. 

(4) To evaluate the adequacy of present fundlng to fulffll our current 

programmatfc ccmnftments. 

Structured one-on-one fntervfews wfth knowledgeable persons In DEM 

constftuted the prfmary method used In thfs study. For each topfc or process 

step, from three to twelve persons were IntervIewed. For each step or 

processI at least one person from each regional off Ice was fntervfewed. 

Inftfal lntervfews were used to deffne the steps In WOES and nondfscharge 

pennlttfng and complfance, and a draft sequence of steps was revfewed by each 

regfon and by numerous central offfce personnel. Sfmflarly, prel fmlnary 

categorfes of permft types were developed In fntervfews and then revfewed. 

Fran these lfsts two matrfces were developed wfth sequence of steps versus 

categorfes of permft types, one for WDES permfts and the other for 

nondfscharge pennfts. The cells of the matrfces were fllled durfng IntervIews 

wfth regfonal and central offfce personnel, generally with the persons 

dfrectly performing each step and their supervisor. Each fntervfewee was 

asked to estfmate the tfme spent on each step both as a range and as a 

“typlcal n value. In nearly every case at least three independent estlmates 

were gfven for each step, and the medfan value was used. The two resultfng 

draft matrfces were cfrculated to the regfonal supe~fsors, reglonal 

engfneers, and central offfce unft supervlsors for revfew, and thefr canments 

were used to make ffnal revlsfons. 

Laboratory costs wem taken df rectly from the laboratory’s cost charge 

sheet. Laboratory costs for level C studies were canplled by the Intensfve 

Survey Unit from their experfence over the past two years. Laboratory costs 

for compl lance samplfng lnspectlons (CSIs) were computed by gettfng the 

Complfance Unlt to fdentffy whfch analyses am taken In ~y~ry CSI and those 

whfch are sometfmes taken. The unft costs of all every-time Items and 25% of 

the unit costs of all sanetlmes ftems were added to estfmate the laboratory 

cost for on0 CSI lnspectlon. The actual median cost of hearfng pub1 tc notfces 

over the past year was used. 

An fmagfnary S-year canposlte fnspectfon was created for WDES complfance 

Inspections: Its tfme requirements are the wefghted averages of the four 

M-7 
inspection types wefghted by the number of edch tyoe of fnspection committed 

to in the FYl36 program plan. This artlflclal construct w&s necessary bec&use 

there Is no written gufdance concerning &ffch m of inspection any given 

f&cl1 ity should undergo and because none of the interviewees were willins to 

commit to estimate the actual relative frequencies of the four types of 

inspections. As u fair estfrate of effort, the 5-year composite inspection 

seems to work we1 1 and showed 1 ittle SenSitfvity to large changes in the 

effort estimates in any one type of fnSpectfOn or in the weighting 

coefficients. 

The overall estimates of effort, fn terms of person-hours, were then 

adjusted to account for leave taken by employees and for “real world” 

dppl icatfons. Throughout the Interviewing process, fntervfewees were asked to 

deal wfth “perfect” appl fcatfons which did not requfre addftfonal fnfonnatfon, 

phone cal Is, conferences, or mat 1 fngs. After the effort matrfces were 

compiled, those penlttfng steps up through ffnal engfneerfng revfew were 

multiplied by u factor of 1.3 to convert from perfect to real world 

appl fcatfon qua1 fty. Level C wasteload allocatfon steps were not adjusted In 

th Is manner. 

The effort matrfces were then multfpl ted throughout by a factor of 1.209 

to correct for leave taken by employees (vacatfon, sfck leave, mtlftary leave, 

but not compensatory tfme). The 1.209 factor was computed from the management 

fnformatfon system (MIS) ffgures for permfttlng actfvftfes for the year ending 

g/30/85. 

For each pennlttfng and compliance step, a wefghted average classfflcatfon 

of employee dofng that step w&s computed, based on fndlvldual classlffcatfons 

and relative fndfvfdual effort In that step. All employees were presumed to 

be at step 40 whfch Is accurate to.wfthfn 5% of the uctual steps when tested 

against at 10% sample of the full Water Qualfty Section. 

Cost matrlces were generated from the two effort matrfces usfng these 

weighted costs~ and costs for all steps for each permit type were summed to 

give the total pennit cost for that type permft. 

A ffnal round of fntervfews was used to estfmate the number of bermfts 

wh fch Is expected fn FY87 In each category. For munfctpal permfts, thfs 

estlmate Is very accurate because It 1s based on the list of expf rfng permfts. 

For industries and package plants, the estimates are bused on the h fgh levels 

of activftfes experienced since January 1986 durlng u period of very hfgh 

economic activity In most parts of the state. In any c&se the cost per perrrft 

data are Independent of the number of pennfts issued or active during any 

period of tftne. 

The results of this survey are gfven in the sfx attached spreadsheets. 
APPENDIX N 

EPA Permit Issuance Workload Model, 1987 

This appendix provides the EPA workload model that estimates outputs, workloads, and 

resources for various types of NPDES Permits. 
PERMIT ISSUANCE 

FY 1987 WORKLOAD MODEL 

I. General Description 

The FY 1987 Permit Issuance Model war developed based on a 

workgroup meeting between Regional and Headquarters representatives. As a result of the meeting, several new activities 

have been added to the model. These activities are: minor 

permitting, modifications/reopeners, general permits maintenance, 

state consistency reviews, local limits technical assistance, 

POTW audit activities and modifications to reflect national 

pretreatment program changes. The activities, pricing factors 

and assumptions regarding outputs in the FY87 mode1 are essentially 

the same as in the FY86 model. However, some changes have been 

made to existing activities regarding assumptions and pricing 

factors. These changes include: the percentage of water qualitybased permits has increased, the pricing factor for state program 

development and review has decreased, and the pricing factor for 

NPDES State assessment has increased. The workloads and associated 

resources are presented in three parts: Permitting: State Programs: 

and Pretreatment. Each part consists of: 1) a discussion of the 

approach taken: 2) a table showing the activities, descriptions, 

pricing factors, outputs, and comments explaining any important 

features or assumptions related to the outputs; 3) regional 

workloads: and 4) regional resources associated with the workloads. 

two assumptions underlie most of the output projections 

contained in this model. First, it is assumed that 20% of the 

total number of major permits (EPA and NPDES States) will be 

reissued in FY87. Second, to avoid a complex and prematurely 

speculative exchange of outputs between State program related 

activities and EPA permitting and pretreatment activities, the 

model assumes the current status of Stats program approvals. 

The last part of the FY87 model presents the Regional 

resource distribution derived from the activities and workloads 

included in the model, the actual FY86 resource distribution 

and an adjusted FY87 resource distribution. 

N-l 
II. Permitting 

Permitting activities include major and minor permit issuance 

to cities, industries and federal facilities as well as issuance 

of general permits and other activities associated with assuring 

complete and fully effective permits (responding to requests for 

hearings and variances). A computer printout of current PCS 

data on the status of permits was used to project the permit 

issuance workloads. Additional estimates wets made of the number 

of these permits which will be water quality-based and will have 

request for hearings and variances. Estimates were also made on 

the number Of significant minor permits, new sources and general 

permits which will be issued. 

Table 1 presents the permitting activities, pricing factors. 

outputs and comments, including assumptions. The Regional workloads 

for permitting and related activities are provided in Table 2. 

The resources (in FTE’s) needed to complete the workloads for 

the permitting activities are provided in Table 3. 

N-2 
TAM&l 

Rmllitting 

Pricing 

FaCtiYS 

(c) recufioatioru/ A t2haqga in tin pandt 20 cwm/ 

-* triggared by mpacific P= I-tit 

evaats (Lo., ~gstiarl 

of efflmt @.dmlinw, 

Fzp3, - inforab 

, . . 

(a) Watur C$Aslitr IsSW parnits with 60 *Yd 

OffllJmt lirrita beed P=penrit 

primuily al mm 

qlality wafdar&. 

lb) MT lSSUSpSdt3hitlChS- ~&Yd 

trial oatqoriem for tich per penait 

effluent gdolimn are 

praulgafd ad &fine MT. 

Issw permits In irlckle 25 ~4 

trial categories for tich per permit 

effluent gridelinee are 

pramlgatd a& define 

MT equal to 8&T. 

N-3 

146 

40 

80 

1% 

23 

15 

Asswes 209 of the to&h1 nunber 

of nb3jor lnmicipal permits. 

809 of the nunicipal pemits tie 

be iseusd are estimated to be 

w3t4u quality-based. 

Asecmec 101 of permits 18sued in 

m3, FY84, m35, and F-Y86 will be 

dfied or alopmed. 

&muma 209 of the tiotal nunbec 

of nmjor imhatrial permits. 

809 of the idustridl permits 

tobei*swdareestLrratedtobe 

#tar qua1 1 ty-bamd. 
TABLE1 

Psnaitting 

Activitia Dacriptiam 

Pricing 

Factarr 

(d) Paragraph 8 xaswpennitsinindre- 25 &~a/ 1 

t.riml oa,arrYies cmmred per pedt 

orqmcWltr,beoovefred 

er F-SQraph 8, 

(f) Federal 

Fadliths 

Issue ptumits to 25 w8h= 

major faiscal facilities. permit 

(h) &dificatiau/ A change in the pennit 20 says/F 

-* txiggsred by @peJcific pedt 

evalb (i.e., pmlulgatim 

of effluent c&&lima, 

bimmitoring, request frau 

th9 perrittee, etc.). 

110 

Qltput equals 29 of the total 

nu&er of major permits. 

As-s 109 of major permits 

issuml in FYB3, FY84, FYI35 and 

FY86 will be RodifieJ or reope4mL 

N-4 
TABLE1 

RimnittFnq 

ACtiVitiUB 

3. MirKx Manicipal 

(a) bhter Qmlity- 

(b) - 

4. Hinor IrrbtrFal 

(a) #h-r Qmlitylb) MT 

(cl M- 

(4 seandary 

(f) hderal 

Facility 

60 &ya/per 

perarit 

40 ~yfdpr 

mt 

25 days/per 

parnit 

25 daym/per 

P--t 

25 ~~Ys/Ppermit 

25 &ys/pem 

mt 

N-S 

!?!!!ss 

37 

10 

101 

7 

2 

1 

12 

3 

Assums that 103 of the 209 

of total UliJmr Immicipnl permits 

will km eignifhnt mirnrs. 

809 of the signficant minors are 

esbted to be UAter qua1ity-ba8ed. 

Aasuaea that 109 of the 209 of 

totalmimrinch3trialpemit23 

will be sicpificant mimre. 

(See minor nmicipal permit amnmts) . 
TABLE1 

Fwmitting 

5. GonralRimai~ 

(a) Ocs ~mmgmeralpenmib3 

anmring almr oartifhaaal mtmlfactiviticm. 

(b) - 

6. Wrianrr Act cn variawm re 

~--Y=)ar 

inbstriA1puritte69. 

(a) PIP' for 

Incureta 

7. ?b?usrw 

(a) l Hk.led 

Pricing 

Facbxm 

65 dwd~= 

variance 

65 &ydper 

varw 

23 

10 7th output inclcdes EPA 

draftirq of per&t8 and EPA 

aseisthg the NPEXS Statea in 

drafting permits. 

10 

63 lhie cnltput i8 estkaated 

asmudng 59 of the total nmber 

of majff inhetrial pennittees 

will request a variance. 

8 ‘Ihis outprt is esthteid 

aeeuaifq 101 of the organic 

*e&al planta will request 

an Alp variance. 

59 mill output is 438tiJIeted asf3uniry 

the4 folluAnq percenmgea of 

pennitteee will request evidentiary 

hear- tic% will be settled 

without formal adjcdicaticn: 

59 of Innicipal 

103 of MT 

609 of Wl=WT 

608 of ParagraCJl 8 

10% of secondary 

150 of titer Qmlity-rr;lstsl. 
TABLE1 

mnnitting 

lhisartpkioeatimteda88uning 

adjldicabryhearingewillbeheld 

m29oftheraajQKFnri\Ptrialani 

water qla1ityaaaed pennits. 

N-7 
TABLE 2 

Permitting Workload - EPA 

x 

32 6 

9 1 

18 2 

18 70 

5 L8 

12 36 

25 13 26 

4 3 5 

1 

1 

7 

14 

1 

2 

5 

14 

1 

10 

2 

4 

1 

8 

7 

VI m 

9 

3 

6 

76 

to 

2 

1 

2 

5 

18 

42 

26 4 

7 1 

57 

1 

1 

11 

2 

4 

1 

1 

1 1 1 

24 

3 

7 .X 

4 

1 

2 

5 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

Yotal 

7 146 

2 40 

4 80 

Major Municipal: 

Water Quality 

Routine 

Modifications/ 

Reopeners 

Major Industrial: 

Water Quality 

BAT 

BAT=BPT 

Paragraph 8 

Secondary 

Federal 

New. Sources 

Modifications/ 

Rooponors 

Minor Municipal: 

Water Quality 

Routine 

2 

1 

Minor Industrial: 

Water Quality 

BAT 

BAT=BPT 

Paragraph 8 

Secondary 

Federal 

11 

2 

1 

General Permits: 

ocs 

Non-OCS 

1 

1 

Variances: 

Direct 

Indirect-PDP'r 

0 

iHearings: 

Settled 8 

Conducted 1 

47 

12 

0 

30 

196 

23 

15 

1 

5 

7 

43 

110 

37 

10 

101 

7 

2 

1 

12 

3 

2 

6 

2 

1 

3 

1 

23 

10 

63 

8 

1 

4 

2 2 

3 59 

4 

N-8 
TABLE 3 

Permitting FTE - EPA 

1.6 

0.2 

ET- VI 7TTI 

4.9 19.1 2.5 

0.5 1.6 0.0 

1.1 3.3 0.5 

7.0 

0.9 

0.2 

0.9 

1.3 

20.7 

1.8 

0.2 

0.1 

0.2 

0.6 

3.3 

3.a 

1.1 

0.1 

0.4 

0.2 

0.3 7.1 

0.6 

2.7 

0.3 

15.5 

0.2 

0.1 

1.3 

0.2 

3.9 

3.3 

3.1 

7.1 

0.8 

5.0 

2.0 

95.9 

1.1 

-a 

1.1 

0.2 

L.9 2.4 

1.3 0.3 

3.1 0.1 

0.3 

0.1 

0.3 

0.1 

2.4 

0.6 

3.6 

1.6 

12.5 2.7 26.9 1.0 0.4 

0.5 

9.5 

X Total 

1.9 39.8 

3.2 3.9 

1.4 7.3 

12.8 53.3 

4.1 

1.4 1.7 

0.1 

0.5 

0.8 

1.5 8.0 

2.7 10.0 

I 

8.7 

0.8 

1.6 

Mayor Municipal: 

Water Quality 

Routine 

Modificationa/ 

Reopenerr 

Major Indurtrialr 

Water Quality 

BAT 

BAT-BPT 

Paragraph 8 

Secondary 

Fedora1 

New Sources 

Modificationa/ 

Reopeners 

Minor Municipal: 

Water Quality 

Routino 

Minor Industrial: 

Water Quality 

BAT 

BAT-BPT 

Paragraph 8 

Secondary 

Federal 

General Permits: 

ocs 

Non-OCS 

Goneral Permit 

Maintmmnco 

Variancorr 

Direct 

Indirect-PD?'r. 

Hearinga: 

Settled 

Conducted 

Total 

6.0 

0.7 

0.1 

0.1 

1.3 

1.3 

3.5 

0.5 

0.4 

0.5 

7 

0.5 

1.4 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.5 0.3 

0.6 

27.4 

1.2 

0.2 

0.1 

1.4 

C.3 

-- 

18.0 

3.0 

1.0 

. 

18.7 

2.3 

3.0 

0.3 

0.1 

s. 

0.5 0.5 3. f3 

0 . 2 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.9 

0.3 

0.1 

;:; 

0.1 

2.7 7.3 

0.3 0.3 

0.1 0.1 

2.4 1.2 

.- 0.6 

0.6 

0.3 

4.4 

1.8 0.7 0.2 

1.0 

31.8 8.3 42.0 

N-9 
III. State Programs 

State program activities include: the development and 

approval of new State NPDES programs and modification of approved 

NPDES State programs: the assessment of approved State programs; 

assistance to States in the preparation of major and minor permit 

term8 and conditions and resolution of challenges to major permits; 

and the review of major permits and State regulations to ensure 

consistency with the NPDES regulations and the Clean Water Act. 

Tables 4 and 7 lists these activities along with pricing factors, 

outputs, and the assumptions used in developing the outputs. 

Table 4 shows the basic State permit issuance data used to 

project EPA workloads for assisting States in major and minor 

permit issuance and in reviewing State permits. Table 4 also 

includes the estimated number of hearing8 or appeals of permit 

terms or conditions. Table 5 shows the resource8 (FTE’s) needed 

to complete the workloads. 

The Stat0 programs approval and assessment workload and the 

regional resource needs are presented in Tables 8 and 9. The 

outputs are based on the number of State8 not yet approved to 

administer the NPDES permit program and those States for which 

modifications to add pretreatment and federal facility pennit 

authority expected in FY87. 

N- 10 
‘MBLE4 

State Program 

kctivities 

NPDGS State - 

mnnit haietance 

lb&ni=1 ast3ietAnce 

~&tz~~f in 

mjcr pamit axxuticns 

hrthsvarioustypes 

ofpudtsarx3forthe 

rwolutiab of cha.llefyea 

to psrmtts. 

PriChJ 

Factors 

1. mjcx bbnkipal 

(a) YzY-- 

(1) 30 ~YdF= 

mt 

(b) RDutkw, (1) 10 ddper 

petit 

(c) CMif iaktians/ 

-8 (1) 10 wdp= 

paut 

2. mjar Indutrial (1) 

(a) bhter CUality- (1) 30 days/per 

penrit 

(d) Paragraph 8 

(4 seardary (1) 5 &YS/l= 

petit 

219 

9 

106 

203 

2 

(1) 

50% of state pennit uxkload. 

103 of State permit wxklud. 

(1) 

(1) 

509 of state permit uxkload. 

103 of State permit ~l~rkload. 

503 of State pexmit xxk.LosL 

500 of State permit horkluad. 

10% of State pemit bnrklcmd. 

(1) = See Table 1 Lbcripticms and Qnrrents 

N-11 
TABLE4 

State Program, 

ktivitia Dsscripti.ons 

mjor In&strFal 

(f) hderal Fhcilitiw (1) 

(4’ bkv &urcea 

(h) CMificatium/ 

-8 

3. Uimrhmkipel 

la) mEz-ity04 lbuthe 

(1) 

(1) 

(1’ 

(1) 

(1) 

4. btbmr Imkutdal (1) 

(a’ ms-lity 

(1) 

(b’ W (1’ 

(cl - (1) 

Pricing 

Factors 

20 dsye/P= petit 

15 aayelper 

10 days/per 

mt 

208 of State permit wx&losd. 

20 

Leo 

209 of State permit wxklosd. 

(1) 

75 

1 

2 109 of state permit wdd3ad 

16 508 of state pennit barkload 

(1) 

5OI of state pennit *orkload 

108 of stat33 permit wxklcd 

(1) 

500 of state permit hmkload 

(1) - !%e Tbble 1 Cbecriptluu and Chmwnts 

N- 12 
TABLE4 

State Program 

tivitia 

nLrxx In&stri.al 

(d) Paragraph 8 

0) 

(f) Pbderal (1) 

5. Permit mviw bviw puJait8 for 

axuismbcy wkh 

ra@athm arxi 

a-. 

(a) settled (1) 

7. vari- (1) 

micing 

F65 ~ya/per 128 

r=P-t 

onInents/ 

-iala 

509 of state permit wxkload 

109 of state permit IJDl-kload 

209 of state penuit wxk.loCm3 

Assunes that EPA will revieu 

all state msjm psmits and 

259of others. The rubber 

to be reviskmd is the total 

peudts issued leas the nunber for 

With EPA provided assistance. 

109 of State heari~y ~rtioad. 

(1) 

(1) See IZbble 1 IBecriptims and n-DIyI+ts 

N-13 
TABLE 5 

Permitting Workload - NPOES State Assistance 

Major Municipal: 

Water 3uality 

Routine 

Modifications/ 

Reopeners 

-+ 

10 

1 

3 

30 

12 

1 

9 

FI 

‘T5 

30 

1 

28 

Iv 

i-5 

46 

2 

35 

34 52 

2 3 

24 48 

69 iii 

27 44 

1 

VI VII VIII 

44 27 

18 10 

15 10 

Major Industrial: 

Water Quality 

BAT 

BAT-BPT 

Paragraph 0 

Secondary 

Federal 

New Sources 

Modifications/ 

Reopeners 

82 

32 

i-33 

55 

1 

3 

28 

5 

55 

Minor Municipal: 

Water Quality 

Routine 

3 5 

18 41 

2 8 24 64 

1 3 9 25 

1 

35 

14 

Minor Industrial: 

Water Quality 

BAT 

BAT-BPT 

Paragraph 8 

Secondary 

Federal 

198 

79 

2 

1 

4 

1 

Permit Review 

13 81 153 173 

5 32 61 69 

1 1 

1 6 4 

1 1 2 

3 2 4 

1 

IT7 

Hearinga: 

Settled 3 2 3 

Variances 7 17 20 20 

l NPDES Stat. Permitting Workloads for FY87. 

26 

10 

20 

8 

1 1 

a 6 

40 

16 

83 

33 

2 

1 

57 

1 

6 

11 

4 

35 

14 

1 

1 

34 

5 

[x -33 

13 

13 

23 

9 

1 

10 

2 

1 

10 

7 

1 

1 

75 

a 

E 

6 219 

9 

5 186 

15 515* 

6 203 

2 

20 

5 180 

6 192. 

2 75 

1 

21 775. 

-1 12 

41 128 

N- 14 
TABLE 6 

Permitting FTE - NPDES State Assistance 

VI VII 

4.6 

1.1 

ET4.1 

1.3 

4.4 

0.5 

1.3 

1.2 

0.3 

OT3 

1.7 

0.3 

5.9 

29.3 

Iv 

6.3 

1.6 

v rotaA L 

7.1 

0.1 

2.2 

2.5 1.8 

0.7 0.6 

30.0 

0.1 

8.6 

6.0 0.8 27.7 

0.9 

1.9 

1.4 

0.2 

0.4 

1.1 

0.2 

0.3 

1.2 

0.2 

0.5 0.2 

3.6 

8.3 

3.4 2.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 10.1 

4.5 1.9 1.0 1.1 42.1 

0.5 

2.3 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.3 10.4 

0.4 0.1 

0.3 1.8 

b2.2 14.6 

1.6 

37.9 

180.9 

Major Municipal: 

Water Quality 

Routine 

Hodificationsl 

Reopeners 

Major Industrial: 

1.6 

0.2 

0.4 

3.7 

D.5 

0.8 

7.5 

0.9 

2.5 

Water Quality 

BAT 

BAT-BPT 

Paragraph 8 

Secondary 

Federal 

New Sources 

Modifications/ 

Reoponerr 

Minor Municipal: 

Water Quality 

Routine 

0.1 3.4 1.9 

Minor Industrial: 

Water Quality 

BAT 

BAT-BPT 

Paragraph 8 

Secondary 

Federal 

4.4 10.8 

Permit Roviow 1.4 2.4 

Hoaringer 

Settled 

Variancm 

0.4 

10.3 

Total b4.6 

N-15 
TABLE7 

state Rogrism 

Acdvi tier 

App9val/A8meummt 

Ricing 

F- 

(a) Urge 

(b) b@dhm 

18 

15 

Eli11 Rograrre 

Retreatment Rograa 

htldi f icatiaru 

2 

4 

2 

1.3 Ilmcpar/ 11 

per MUS State 

with ,200 mjare 

0.8 --h-d 

per NPLXB State 

with 1~200 

mjclre 

LO 

m11 NPDES Program3 

Retreabtwmt Frogrzsm 

Fbderal Rograrre 

N-16 
(cl spa11 

4. axuiatency 

Fbviwm 

TABLE7 

state RogranrJ 

0.6 wxkyear/ 17 

per NPfl@S State 

with < 1OOmajcm~ 

4 

N-17 
TABLE 8 

State Program Approvalr/Aaserament Workload 

m 

2 

4 

18 

15 

IV’ v 

l2 

- - 

1 

- - 

3 3 

3 2 

11 

lProgram Development 

Assistance 

Full Program 

Pretreatment 

Modification8 

Program Application 

Review/Approval 

Full Program 

Protreatmont 

Fodoral Facility 

1 

1 

1 

NPDES Program 

Asserwent 

Large 

1 

3 

Medium 

Small 2 

1 

NPDES State 

Con8istency Ebviow 1 1 

N-18 
TABLE 9 

Stat. Program Approvals/A8s8ssmont FTE 

3.6 

2.0 

14.3 

8.0 

10.2 

Program Development 

Asairtance 

Full Program 

Pretreatment 

Modifications 

Program Application 

Rovieu/Approval 

Full Program 

Pretreatment 

Fedora1 Facility 

NPDES Program 

Asaersment 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

NPDES Stat. 

Conrirtency Review 

Total 

1.3 

1.6 

1.2 

3.9 

1.6 

0.6 

2.6 

3.6 

3.9 

2.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1.8 

0.5 0.5 

I.3 B.6 5.3 7.6 6.5 1.2 3.5 b.6 1.8 41.7 

N-19 
IV. Pretreatment 

The primary focur of pretreatment activities will shift 

from local program approval to implementation and program 

oversight where the State ir not approved to administer the 

pretreatment program. 

Table 10 present6 the pretreatment activitiee, pricing 

factorr , total output. and comments, including arrunptione. 

The Regional workloade for pretreatment activitiem are provided 

in Table 11 and the aeoociated reeourcee needed to complete 

the workloadr are provided in Table 12. 

N-20 
TAf&E 10 

Pretreatnrent 

Activitia 

Pricing 

FdCtiX8 

1. WIU Progran ibviw and apprwal of 15 wdper 20 

review/~ale/ finalEwluelbnis6ions wlw 

pennit aodificb ed hxxpxaticm of ruw 

tioru mquirmte into the 

wt. 

3. RBlla#-up to k?uxn or vittm antact 15 &ye/per 210 

kuwl mprt WithFtmdper~l~ report 

bViW reeolve problm. 

4. Audit Activitiee 

(a) pr-plannlq File revhd, caqdiance 4 ~yolper 

anelyeie ard Ipateriale adit 

preperatian. 

(b) on-site mdit Actual etaff vieit 3 wdper 

to EWIU eke. a&it 

(cl a&it report 

remneadatime 

Pro&ce form1 report 8 cwdper 

<XI adit 0aplet.e with =epon 

remdial acLime for 

KYIW. 

03mlmt8/ 

AeeulptioM 

Assunes 2 n&r prograrr, will 

be requhd per kqion. 

All of the 700 EM approved 

program will be required to 

edmit arumml reporta. 

Aeems 309 of the 700 anmhal 

repxta eddtted will require 

follcw-qx 

141 Of the 700 EPA apPmved prcyrarrs, 

209 will receive an mite adit. 

141 209 of 700 approved proyram will 

ma3ive an -it43 aldit. 

141 

N-21 
(d) follw-up an 

adit 

6. LDoalLhita lhvetlap iNuvi&al 

lklctmtoal loonl Lintto with 

AmiemmeJ RYCBh. 

TABLE 10 

Retreatment 

Ricing 

Pm 

5dap 69 

2Odaya/audit 99 

10 days 

143 

292 

AasuIme 509 of PUIWS auuteI.i will 

require mm follm4q. 

Am3unea 109 of State appr<rved 

pretreablmnt programs will be 

vieited by EPA/State evaluaticn 

temm~&rirqaldit8. 

Assume roqhly 109 of 1463 

recpimd EWIW prqarm will 

respire t.e&nical assi.stanc~ m 

looal li.mhB. 

Ameums 209 of the 1463 required 

pretreatJnent programr will be 

mrsfied. 

N-22 
Activitiw 

8. m4R mviwa 

9. Qtqpry 

lhtadnaticru 

10. -al Clodit 

(a) Application 

mfiwe 

(b) Ox-mi8tmt Evaluate the axdetent 

Rmwal rawal for exi8ting 

maluau crdt recipiabt= 

11. (3ntrol of IUm 

in mprtientnmntKYlWhher8 

Ef% ie amtml 

dhuthcity 

TAaL4E 10 

Retreatment 

Ricing 

Deecriptium Fbviw of baseline 2 dayls/IU 

mitorbq reporrt required 

Aeeum~ about 100 IUe required to 

euhuit Bnh are located bhere EPA 

I&ntifying ~tagoricel 

inbutria not aJvered 

bysppwedStammor 

Kmh ard amtrolling 

their dime. 

ie the mtrol aumity. 

12 daye/IU 34 bu#bly l/3 of the 100 indmtrial 

users in the organic Czk#nical 

category will request a catagory 

chtembltim. 

15 &ym 35 

43 

5 &ye 1015 

59 of the total 700 local 

FWIWI will request remval 

credita authority. 

ICE% will reviw cmhsiatent 

remmml for all recipients. 

N-23 
TAmE 11 

Ratrmmmt UxkLoad 

t11 Iv 

2 2 

116 20 

35 0 

23 6 

2 

57 123 52 

17 16 36 

69 

-Rtplarming for 

OMite auiit 

-Actual uuite auiit 

-AL&t mprt 

Iwammdau 

-mllw-up cn AMit 

14 11 

11 

11 

5 

25 

25 

25 

24 

24 

24 

14 

14 

23 6 

23 6 

12 3 

5 24 

8 

Aeei.mame 

i tiumtomflect 

&&ogrcmQlanga16 

BmmviammereEPA 5 

16 

19 

68 

ZT 

24 

25 

24 

10 

9 

s 

292 

is 

6 

3 

contmlofnhirr 

naHretra-OIllwl 10s 

whereEPAie~ 

autlrxity 

6 

m 175 35 210 10' 

N-24 
mmJ3 12 

RetraatzmntFTE 

I v 

T 0.1 0.1 

P- I 

NW Ragran Raviw 

-Approval 0.1 

Annual Report Ibviw!nreEPAisAppxal o-5 

Auttmrity 

FbllaMptoAM=l 1.3 

Wf?#ViW 

Aldit Activitieez 

-Pre-plamirq for 0.3 

onmite adit 

-Actual onrriu dt 0.2 

-Audit Report 0.5 

-ti- 

-m1la+upalAudit 0.9 

0.1 

0.2 3.8 

2.0 

1.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.2 5.4 

2.5 0.2 1.0 2.4 0.4 13.7 

0.5 - 0.2 0.4 0.1 2.6 

0.3 - 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.9 

0.8 - 0.3 0.8 0.2 4.6 

3.2 0.1 0.6 1.6 0.2 10.9 

9.0 

2.6 

0.2 

0.3 

0.6 1.3 0.6 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.3 

14.9 4.8 6.5 12.2 3.8 112.4 

0.5 

Pret.relmINnt stata aa 0.9 

Alxum 

LLxzalLilnitsTechnioa.l 2.1 

AmeMod.aficatiaI8toIwlact 

bhticnal Progran Qmzqem 0.6 

ammviweklhereEPA 10.1 

ieaxltmlauthority I 

N-25