# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR)

A S t a t e
- b y
- S t a t e Summary of Violations and Enforcement Response At Smaller Clean Water Act Dischargers under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program



# Calendar Year 2009 (March 2011)

An Interactive Version of this Report is available online at the following URL

h t t p : //ww w

. e p a
- e c h o

. g o v/ e c h o /a n c r/ u s /2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

i



### Contents
Introductory Message from Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles............................................... 1 At a Glance Summary of Annual Noncompliance Report............................................................... 2 What Is This Report About?............................................................................................................ 4 NPDES Program Background........................................................................................................... 4 Process for Generating the Calendar Year 2009 ANCR Report ...................................................... 5 How Does Enforcement Work? ...................................................................................................... 5 Changes in Reporting and Qualifications about the Data Reported .............................................. 6 What Data are Included? ................................................................................................................ 7 Key National Findings...................................................................................................................... 7 Detailed Results and Analyses ...................................................................................................... 10 1. Total Percentage of Facilities Reviewed ........................................................................... 10 2. Percentage of Reviewed Facilities with Violations ........................................................... 12 3. Percentage of Facilities Reviewed with Serious Violations (i.e., Category I).................... 12 4. Serious Noncompliance Rates for Non-major vs. Major Facilities ................................... 13 5. Percentage of Violating Facilities with Informal Enforcement......................................... 14 6. Percentage of Violating Facilities with Formal Enforcement ........................................... 14 7. Penalty Amounts Assessed Against Non-majors .............................................................. 16 8

. S c h e d u l e
- N o n c o m p l i a n t N o n
- m a j o r F a c i l i t i e s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 Regional Contribution................................................................................................................... 17



### Attachments
Attachment 1. Calendar Year 2009 ANCR Data for Each State, Grouped by Magnitude of Changes Made to the Data Compared to Data in NPDES National Data Systems Attachment 2. Description of Data Metrics Attachment 3. List of Facilities with Extended Compliance Schedules Attachment 4: Appendix 1. Possible Changes to 2010 Reporting2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

1



### Introductory Message from Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles
This report provides valuable information about the State of compliance in the subset of smaller permitted facilities that report self-monitoring data under the Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The information within this report shows that regulated facilities must do a better job complying with the effluent limits established by the States or EPA in their discharge permits. These limits are designed to preserve and protect our rivers, streams, and lakes—which support aquatic life, provide drinking water, and allow recreational uses such as fishing and swimming. Although one permittee with a violation may not result in serious water quality degradation, the combined effect of many facilities discharging above permitted limits could be substantial. The Clean Water Act Action Plan, which the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now implementing, is designed to improve transparency and public scrutiny of the information, and address water pollution problems through States and EPA collaboration. Shining a public light on violators and government response to violators provides an incentive for compliance and nationally-consistent program implementation by government agencies. I am pleased to report that EPA did see a decline in violations for facilities in States that are keeping a full inventory of data in EPA’s system. I am hopeful that EPA’s transparent portrayal of this information will continue to drive improvements that are noted in this report. For example, States that provide EPA with only summary information appear to have reported more accurate data in 2009. While this improvement is reflected in a higher reported rate of violations in those states, I believe the apparent increase is more likely the result of states providing the public more accurate information. In the future, EPA would like the public to have a full inventory of all violations in all states. To make this happen, EPA is developing a NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule for NPDES dischargers – which is proposed to provide complete, facility-level violation data across the country. EPA continues to work with States to address the central problem identified in this report – namely, that noncompliance rates are too high and enforcement is too infrequent in the CWA NPDES program. EPA is working to ensure that violations are dealt with in a consistent way across the States. Most States have been authorized to implement the Clean Water Act NPDES Program; they will be at the forefront of efforts to ensure compliance with the permits that they have issued. EPA will implement the program where States are not authorized and ensure that problems are dealt with evenly across States. As shown in the report below, there are many violations from smaller facilities that continue without enforcement. It is my goal to ensure that there is real enforcement presence across the States and throughout the NPDES program to deter violations from occurring and improve compliance with the law. With the release of this report, we are now offering more content and analytic capabilities in the popular Enforcement and Compliance History Online website (ECHO), i n c l u d i n g a n e w S t a t e D a s h b o a r d

. A l t h o u g h E P A d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a l l t h e fa c i l i ty
- l e v e l v i o l a t i o n data behind the State summaries, many States are providing this more detailed information. Users of the interactive site can dive into these details and see which facilities have violated effluent limits, and which have had enforcement actions taken against them. Using the ECHO (Enforcement and Compliance History Online) website, this interactive display will be a2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

2

prototype for future data releases covering other components of the CWA program, and other media, such as those covered by the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. As you read this report, it is important to note that the results are limited to smaller facilities with traditional effluent pipe controls and self-monitoring reports (representing about 39,000 of more than 500,000 regulated facilities). For example, this summary report does not include results from large facilities with traditional effluent controls or from more disperse sources that continue to be EPA national compliance and enforcement initiatives such as storm water discharges from construction sites or municipalities, sewer overflows, or discharges of animal wastes from livestock and poultry operations. Keeping in mind that this report is not a full inventory of all sources and enforcement activities, it does represent an important look into the state of compliance for the NPDES program. 

### At a Glance Summary of Annual Noncompliance Report
The overall number of permittees regulated under the Clean Water Act is more than 500,000. This report covers about 39,000 “individual non-major permits,” which are the subject of this report and referenced in the numbers below. Key Statistics

 States reviewed discharge data for 87% of permittees to determine whether violations occurred (an increase of 12% from last year).

 States that track and send detailed data to EPA regarding those violations had 63% of non-major facilities with violations and 46% with serious violations (determined by an “automatic” calculation performed by national system which compares permitted limit amount to measured effluent amount). This represents a 10% drop in violations and a 14% drop in serious violations from last year.

 States that provided summary violation statistics without sending EPA detailed facility information reported 36% with violations, and 25% with serious violations. While this is an increase for 2008, EPA believes the reason is that States have improved the accuracy of their reporting to EPA.

 On average, approximately 53% of facilities with violations received an informal enforcement, such as a warning letter.

 On average, 8% of facilities with violations received formal enforcement, while 13% facilities with serious violations received formal enforcement.

 1,156 facilities received formal enforcement by the authorized regulatory authority (typically the State). This is an increase of 142 actions from 2008. EPA took an additional 23 formal actions in States that are authorized to implement the CWA program.

 States assessed more than $23 million in penalties.

 There is a wide variability across States in how many penalties were assessed. For example, four States (WV, CA, TN, and NJ) account for more than half the penalties assessed, whereas 12 States reported assessing zero penalties.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

3  EPA assessed an additional $14,940 in penalties in States that are authorized to implement the CWA program in actions against non-major facilities. Trends identified in the 2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

 States reviewed 12% more facilities for violations in 2009 than in 2008.

 The total percentage of facilities with compliance status reviewed increased to 87% in 2009 from 75% in 2008.

 The number of States that reported reviewing less than 50% of their nonmajors dropped from 8 to 4.

 On average, approximately 45% of the non-major NPDES permittees were in violation, consistent with the violation rate in 2008.

 Serious violations (Category I) increased slightly overall. The trend shows a drop in States providing detailed information to EPA, and a rise for States that provide only summary information.
Table 1. Overall Violation and Serious Violation Rate Trends by Year Year 2008 2009 Violation Rate – Verified States 73% 63% Violation Rate

– Non

- Verified State s 39% 36% Violation Rate – Overall 45% 45% Category I (Serious) Violation Rate

– Verified 60% 46% Category I (Serious) Violation Rate

– Non

- Verified 18% 25% Category I (Serious) Violation Rate

- Overall 26% 28%

 Enforcement between 2008 and 2009 showed a small increase

 O f t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y
- p e r m i tt e d n o n
- m a j o r fa c i l i t i e s i n e i t h e r C a t e g o r y I o r Category II noncompliance, 7.7% received a formal enforcement action in 2009, increasing from 6.4% for 2007 and 7.6% for 2008.

 Because penalty information was not collected in 2008, trend information is not available.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

4



### What Is This Report About?
This Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR), as required by federal regulation (40 CFR 123.45(c)), consists of summary information that States are required to provide annually to EPA regarding the noncompliance status of non-major National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permittees (i.e., the smaller facilities and sites not considered to be major d i s c h a r g e r s o f w a s t e w a t e r o r s t o r m w a t e r )

. T h e s e A N C R d a t a a r e n o t f a c i l i t y
- s p e c i f i c b u t d o provide counts for each State of the number of non-major facilities that were reviewed, had violations, and were enforced against. EPA has recently released comparable information about major facilities on the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) website ( http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ ).
The ANCR information for calendar year 2009 was compiled by EPA from the NPDES information provided by the States. This report is accompanied by several tables of information (see Attachments 1–3). In addition, information related to this report is available through an interactive website (at h t t p : //w w w

. e p a
- e c h o

. g o v/ e c h o/ a n c r/ u s ) that allows the user to review the ANCR data provided by each State. 

### NPDES Program Background
EPA and the States regulate hundreds of thousands of facilities and wastewater d i s c h a r g e s u n d e r t h e N P D E S p r o g r a m a n d t h e C l e a n W a t e r A c t

. F o rty
- s i x S t a t e s a n d t h e V i r g i n Islands have received authorization to implement the NPDES program, although EPA maintains oversight of those States and retains the ability to enforce the NPDES program. EPA directly manages the NPDES permitting and enforcement program in the remaining four States (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Idaho), U.S. Territories, and on Tribal Lands. For purposes of this report, the term “State” refers to the authorized authority overseeing the NPDES permittees within a State, regardless whether EPA or the State is the authorized authority. As an improvement from earlier reports, this year EPA has included information about enforcement activities taken by EPA in States that are authorized to administer the NPDES program – providing a more complete picture.
Facilities with point source discharges to surface waters are required to apply for individual NPDES permits or a broader NPDES general permit covering multiple facilities. These include, for example, discharges of pollutants to receiving waters from specific outfalls or pipes from factories, mines, other industrial facilities, municipal wastewater treatment plants, from construction sites, sewer system overflow points, and concentrated animal feeding operations.

I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e N P D E S p e r m i t r e q u i r e m e n t s , e a c h p e r m i tt e e s e l f

- m o n i t o r s i t s pollutant discharges for a set of specified pollutant parameters at one or more specified locations and on a specified monitoring frequency. The permittees are then required to submit t h e s e c e r t i f i e d , s e l f

- m o n i t o r i n g d a t a t o t h e S t a t e o r E P A

. A l t h o u g h S t a t e s a r e n o t c u r r e n t l y
r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e E P A w i t h d a t a b a s e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t fa c i l i ty
- s p e c i f i c d i s c h a r g e s f r o m NPDES non-major permittees, many States enter or electronically send the information to EPA voluntarily. EPA’s national databases will then automatically calculate effluent violations of the2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

5

permit. States that do not provide this level of information to EPA for non-major facilities are required to have their own data tracking system and are required to provide EPA with a summary view of their NPDES program’s activities and results.
The Clean Water Act regulations require that States (or EPA when the State is not

a u t h o r i z e d ) r e v i e w t h i s s e l f

- m o n i t o r i n g d a t a fo r c o m p l i a n c e , c o n d u c t i n s p e c t i o n s o f t h e facilities, review required facility reports related to specific aspects of the NPDES program, identify instances of noncompliance and take the necessary enforcement actions. 

### Process for Generating the Calendar Year 2009 ANCR Report
The process used to obtain and compile the NPDES information from the States for the ANCR report for calendar year 2009 was as follows:

 EPA Headquarters issued a “call memorandum” to the EPA Regions requesting their assistance in obtaining the ANCR data from the States on June 7, 2010.

 This memorandum established a July 16 th deadline by which the NPDES information should be obtained from the States.

 EPA included with that memorandum a table that summarized the relevant NPDES information currently available for each State according to EPA’s NPDES national data systems: the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information S y s t e m fo r t h e N a t i o n a l P o l l u t a n t D i s c h a r g e E l i m i n a t i o n S y s t e m ( I C I S

- N P D E S )

.
 On August 31, 2010, States were provided an opportunity for a final review of the data that they had provided, providing one more confirmation step.

 The deadline for final corrections was September 14, 2010 although EPA did allow corrections after that date to rectify errors that were found in several State submissions. 

### How Does Enforcement Work?
EPA and the States use a variety of enforcement techniques to compel compliance under the law. Within this regulated segment of the NPDES universe, typically the State will take the lead on all enforcement activities; however, EPA retains the right to also act, for example, if the State requests help, if a case has a national interest, or if EPA is not satisfied with the State response. The general enforcement process involves escalation from warnings to more formal enforcement dependent on the severity and duration of the violation. Often, small violations may be corrected by the facility without the need for formal enforcement actions. For example, the authorized authority (typically the State) may send a warning letter (or informal action) as a first step to returning a facility to compliance. In some situations, the State may issue a fine to deter future violations – these are referred to as Administrative Penalty Orders. Formal enforcement actions may also be necessary to return a facility to compliance. Formal enforcement actions include administrative compliance orders or State equivalent actions, and civil judicial referrals to the U.S. Department of Justice or to the State Attorney. They require corrective actions to achieve compliance, specify a timetable, contain consequences for noncompliance that are independently enforceable without having to prove the original violation, and subject the respondent to adverse legal consequences for noncompliance. Fines frequently accompany these actions.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

6

In a given year, there are normally more violations than there are State and EPA resources to carry out formal enforcement. The ANCR data represents one universe -- smaller direct discharge facilities. Enforcement at major facilities and other NPDES regulated point sources (e.g., illegal sewer overflows, discharges of manure from Concentrated Animal Feedlots (CAFOs), and storm water discharges, etc.) may take precedence because of water quality impacts. However, EPA expects States to have an enforcement presence in all aspects of the NPDES program to deter noncompliance. The information in this report allows users to evaluate how vigorous the enforcement program is in this one subset of the NPDES program. Additional information about other enforcement actions is available on the ECHO website, and at www.epa.gov/compliance. 

### Changes in Reporting and Qualifications about the Data Reported
It is important to note that the following limitations and attributes exist regarding the data reported:

 Under the ANCR regulations at 40 CFR 123.45(c), EPA collects only statistics on a State summary level, and does not require States to provide information regarding which specific permittees had noncompliance events or were subject to enforcement actions (this more detailed information is required for NPDES major permittees).

 T h e r e i s n o e x i s t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t fo r S t a t e s t o p r o v i d e E P A w i t h f a c i l i ty
- s p e c i f i c , s e l f

- m o n i t o r i n g, v i o l a t i o n , e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i o n , o r p e n a l ty d a t a fo r N P D E S n o n
- m a j o r facilities. Therefore, this information for NPDES non-major permittees is incomplete in EPA’s existing NPDES data systems for many States.

 However, 10-15 States have consistently provided EPA with much more detailed fa c i l i ty
- s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e n o n c o m p l i a n c e s t a t u s o f t h e s e fa c i l i t i e s f o r several years. Users of the interactive ANCR website will see information describing how complete each State’s violation and enforcement data are.

 Existing federal regulations (40 CFR 123.45(c)) specify that States provide EPA with a count of the number of enforcement actions taken by States to address noncompliance by these NPDES non-major permittees.

 For ANCR purposes, EPA requested that States provide a count of the number of formal enforcement actions taken by States (i.e., enforcement actions that require compliance and typically include a schedule that the facility needs to meet).

 Many States expressed concern that previous ANCR do not provide a full picture of all enforcement efforts conducted in this universe, so this year, the report was expanded to include new data fields.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

7

 In the 2009 ANCR, EPA includes informal enforcement actions along with administrative penalty orders (fines) as separate from formal enforcement actions. Additionally, EPA gathered data regarding penalty amounts against the non-major facilities for each State.

 Lastly, EPA has augmented the 2009 ANCR with information about Regional enforcement activities, so users can see the combined activities of the States and EPA.


### What Data are Included?
Under the ANCR reporting requirements and guidance, the NPDES program authority (EPA or the State) is required to provide the following basic information as counts, rather than

a s fa c i l i ty
- s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o s t a n d a r d , d i r e c t d i s c h a r g e n o n
- m a j o r p e r m i t s :

 Number of standard non-major NPDES permittees

 Number of standard non-major NPDES permittees reviewed by the State/Region

 Number of standard non-major NPDES permittees in Category I noncompliance (i.e., more serious violations)

 Number of standard non-major NPDES permittees in Category II noncompliance (excluding those in the previous category)

 Number of standard non-major NPDES permittees receiving informal enforcement actions (NEW for 2009)

 Number of standard non-major NPDES permittees receiving administrative penalty orders (fines) (NEW for 2009)

 Number of standard non-major NPDES permittees receiving a formal enforcement action

 Number of standard non-major NPDES permittees receiving either a formal enforcement action OR an administrative penalty order (NEW for 2009)

 Dollars of penalties assessed against standard non-major NPDES permittees (NEW for 2009)

 Number of permit modifications extending compliance deadlines granted to standard non-major permittees.

I n a d d i t i o n , t h e A N C R r e q u i r e s a fa c i l i ty
- s p e c i f i c a l p h a b e t i c l i s t ( a n d p e r m i t n u m b e r ) o f non-major NPDES permittees that are one or more years behind in construction phases of their compliance schedule. Please see Attachment 2 for a more detailed description of each of these data fields. 

### Key National Findings
State-by-State findings of the 2009 ANCR are presented in the State Storyboard for Clean Water Act Standard Non-Majors on the following page.State Region Facilities Facilities in Cat I Non-Compliance † Facilities in Cat I or II Non-Compliance † % Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) entered Facilities w/ Formal

Enforcement per 100 Facilities in Cat I or II Non-Compliance (State) Facilities w/ Formal

Enforcement per 100 Facilities in Cat I or II Non-Compliance (EPA) Facilities w/ Formal Enforcement per 100 Facilities in Cat I Non-Compliance (State) Facilities w/ Formal

Enforcement per 100 Facilities in Cat I Non-Compliance (EPA) Penalties

(State) Penalties

(EPA) Facilities w/ Informal Enforcement Actions
RI 01 65 20 26 82% 19.2 0.0 25.0 0.0 $23,000 $0 41 CT 01 77 6 10 92% 10.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 $40,000 $0 0 ME 01 289 108 165 66% 7.9 0.0 12.0 0.0 $39,100 $0 38 NH* 01 46 31 33 74% NA 6.1 NA 6.5 NA $0 1 VT 01 137 0 70 2% 1.4 0.0 - - $0 $0 NR MA* 01 149 94 107 83% NA 0.0 NA 0.0 NA $0 0 NJ 02 614 18 98 96% 68.4 0.0 372.2 0.0 $2,378,218 $0 224 NY 02 1,190 136 396 85% 6.3 0.0 18.4 0.0 $556,100 $0 353 PR* 02 176 101 170 99% NA 3.5 NA 5.9 NA $0 15 VI 02 66 38 40 61% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 25 DC* 03 7 3 3 100% NA 33.3 NA 33.3 NA $0 0 WV 03 809 157 216 29% 22.2 0.0 30.6 0.0 $5,536,189 $0 *** PA 03 3,955 NR 442 3% 10.6 0.0 NR NR $1,033,777 $0 170 MD 03 495 213 347 57% 8.6 0.0 14.1 0.0 $509,422 $0 0 VA 03 934 93 190 0% 4.7 0.0 9.7 0.0 $114,475 $0 387 DE 03 31 2 13 91% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 5 TN 04 1,248 321 427 33% 29.5 0.0 39.3 0.0 $3,168,294 $0 520 GA 04 491 31 111 53% 17.1 0.0 61.3 0.0 $215,543 $0 213 FL 04 238 77 155 97% 14.2 0.0 28.6 0.0 $249,436 $0 85 SC 04 311 NR 210 91% 10.5 1.0 NR NR $189,830 $0 103 MS 04 1,424 146 291 28% 7.2 0.0 14.4 0.0 $214,206 $0 418 AL 04 1,481 438 634 52% 2.5 0.0 3.7 0.0 $166,800 $0 149 NC 04 1,015 99 255 94% 2.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 $459,090 $0 448 KY 04 1,756 1,389 1,390 79% 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 $191,000 $0 203 MN 05 644 91 346 3% 6.1 0.0 23.1 0.0 $783,300 $0 46 WI 05 681 NR 323 1% 5.9 0.0 NR NR $51,195 $0 31 IN 05 1,438 266 340 97% 4.1 0.0 5.3 0.0 $0 $0 782 MI 05 448 8 206 82% 1.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 $34,500 $0 39 IL 05 1,469 439 641 85% 0.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 $447,780 $0 729 OH 05 3,023 669 1,748 98% 0.7 0.0 1.8 0.0 $69,432 $0 483 OK 06 358 204 240 98% 42.9 0.0 50.5 0.0 $60,250 $0 22 LA 06 1,280 NR 292 10% 25.7 0.3 NR NR $292,653 $0 107 TX 06 2,222 1,458 1,554 83% 10.7 0.0 11.4 0.0 $1,964,300 $0 46 AR 06 676 404 476 97% 1.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 $15,300 $0 298 NM* 06 89 53 53 91% NA 0.0 NA 0.0 NA $41,500 64 GM* 06 3 0 0 0% NA - NA - NA $0 0 MO 07 2,987 868 1,069 79% 5.2 0.5 6.5 0.6 $30,150 $0 1304 NE 07 609 447 464 82% 3.7 0.9 3.8 0.9 $0 $14,940 103 IA 07 1,325 322 615 78% 2.0 1.1 3.7 2.2 $42,500 $0 **** KS 07 1,047 19 179 2% 1.7 1.1 15.8 10.5 $45,108 $0 1 WY 08 1,454 44 44 1% 111.4 0.0 111.4 0.0 $247,550 $0 188 CO 08 219 169 176 40% 4.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 $99,505 $0 0 MT 08 134 76 104 94% 2.9 0.0 3.9 0.0 $6,600 $0 124 UT 08 94 27 35 66% 0.0 2.9 0.0 3.7 $35,927 $0 6 ND 08 97 25 31 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 43 SD 08 212 51 66 76% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 188 NV 09 73 1 4 0% 25.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 $0 $0 4 CA 09 350 NR 134 1% 21.6 0.0 NR NR $3,749,500 $0 34 NN* 09 25 1 1 84% NA 0.0 NA 0.0 NA $0 0 AS* 09 3 0 0 33% NA - NA - NA $0 0 GU* 09 13 0 0 15% NA - NA - NA $0 0 MP* 09 2 0 0 50% NA - NA - NA $0 0 HI 09 30 NR 13 15% 0.0 0.0 NR NR $0 $0 5 AZ 09 95 NR 53 12% 0.0 0.0 NR NR $0 $0 0 OR 10 283 NR 18 2% 100.0 0.0 NR NR $46,730 $0 44 AK 10 46 6 8 33% 12.5 0.0 16.7 0.0 $120,000 $0 5 WA 10 404 169 223 20% 8.5 0.4 11.2 0.6 $0 $0 19 ID* 10 130 61 75 89% NA 5.3 NA 6.6 NA $64,500 18

Notes: NR indicates the value was not reported. - indicates a denominator of 0.

* Enforcement in these states and territories is conducted by the EPA Region. "State" enforcement and penalties are not appicable (NA) to these states and territories. *** WV reported 1581 informal actions, but these are at all majors and non-major facilities. Because the numbers are reported differently than other states, they are excluded here. ****Iowa reported 329 informal actions, but did not separate the data into majors and minors, so the information is not included in the table above. 2009 Annual Noncompliance Report: State Storyboard for Clean Water Act Standard Non-Majors (2009)

% Facilities in Non-Compliance

( Cat I + Cat II ) † Facilities with Formal Enforcement per 100 Facilities in Cat I or II Non-Compliance ( State + EPA) Total Penalties ( State + EPA)

† The Clean Water Act regulations require states to categorize violations into Category I (serious violations), and Category II (other violations). Typically, a Cat 1 violation is one that is more than 40% over limit for a conventional pollutant discharge, or more than 20% over limit for a toxic discharge. States that cannot distinguish the severity of violations are shown with gray bars above.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

9

The key national findings of the 2009 Annual Noncompliance Report for NPDES Non-major Permittees include the following:

 U n i v e r s e : S t a t e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y r e g u l a t e 3 9 , 1 1 9 i n d i v i d u a l l y
- p e r m i t t e d N P D E S n o n
major facilities (for comparison, there are about 6,700 major facilities).

 Reviewed for Noncompliance: States indicated that they reviewed the noncompliance status for 87% of these individually-permitted NPDES non-major facilities (EPA considers a facility “reviewed” if the discharge amounts were compared to the limits to form a determination of compliance or violation, or if an inspection or other compliance determination effort occurred). This is an increase from 2008 in which only 75% of the facilities were reviewed.

 Noncompliance and Serious Noncompliance: This report provides noncompliance data split out based on how the State reported the data to EPA. Those States that are providing detailed facility information to the national system (referred to as “verified”) have their rates calculated by the permit limits being automatically compared to effluent measurement by EPA’s national system. States that provide summary information without facility violation details are categorized as “non-verified”. EPA also provides a measure of the severity of violations. Serious violations (referred to by the regulatory term “Category I,” normally involve repeat violations and those that are well above the permit limit. Category II violations would encompass any other violation of the permit limit (these categories are defined in more detail later in the report). Throughout the year, if a facility has both Category I and Category II violations, it will show up in both statistics below. The table below shows the results from the last two years. Table 1. Overall Violation and Serious Violation Rate Trends by Year Year 2008 2009 Violation Rate – Verified States 73% 63% Violation Rate

– Non

- Verified State s 39% 36% Violation Rate – Overall 45% 45% Category I (Serious) Violation Rate

– Verified 60% 46% Category I (Serious) Violation Rate

– Non

- Verified 18% 25% Category I (Serious) Violation Rate - Overall 26% 28%

 Analysis of Noncompliance and Serious Noncompliance: Since EPA began producing the ANCR Report, States with “verified” data have always had much higher rates of violation. EPA believes this is because of the automated nature of the comparison of all effluent measurement to all permit limits provides a complete picture of violations (in verified States). In some States that submit summary/non-verified data, manual review or spot checking of effluent reports that are submitted in hard copy may not be fully comprehensive – possibly explaining the differences in rates. However, comparing 2008 and 2009 data shows the trend for serious violations in non-verified States rising (from2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

10

18% to 25%). This increase may be attributed to increased review of data in these States. A key goal of making the data more transparent is to improve the accuracy of reporting – and EPA believes States are making strides this year. The table above also shows a drop in violations in “verified” States. While EPA does not have a definitive reason for this decline, it is a positive sign that could be attributed to: a) fewer violations in the regulated community, and/or b) improved attention to data quality.

 Enforcement:

 States indicated that 8,159 facilities received informal enforcement actions against noncompliant non-major permittees in calendar year 2009.

 States indicated that 1,179 facilities received formal enforcement actions against noncompliant non-major permittees in calendar year 2009. This is up from 2008, when 1,014 facilities received formal enforcement actions.

 The ratio of facilities with formal enforcement to those with violations was 7.7%.

 The ratio of facilities with formal enforcement to those with serious violations was 12.5%.

 Penalties: States indicated that the total amount of penalties assessed for 2009 is $23,347,700. Data regarding assessed penalties were not collected in 2008.

 Compliance Schedules: States indicated that, for calendar year 2009, 535 non-major permittees were one year or more late in meeting their construction schedule deadlines. This is up from 437 in 2008. These permittees are listed in Attachment 3.
For complete State statistics, see Attachment 1 or visit the interactive website: h t t p : //w w w

. e p a
- e c h o

. g o v/ e c h o/ a n c r/ u s/

. 

### Detailed Results and Analyses
1. Total Percentage of Facilities Reviewed Reviewing a permittee’s effluent reports and other permit conditions allows the State to monitor whether violations occurred, and then take appropriate action. For calendar year 2009, States indicated that they have reviewed the compliance status for 87% of non-major NPDES permittees covered in this report. This is an increase from the previous year, in which States indicated that they had reviewed the compliance status of approximately 75% of the non-major NPDES permittees.
“Reviewed” means that the States made a reasonable effort to evaluate the compliance status of those non-major facilities. Such review usually entails a comparison of existing effluent limits to the required self-reported monitoring data. For example, a review may have been performed by automatic compliance evaluations conducted within EPA’s or a State’s NPDES2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

11

data system, it may have included compliance reviews in conjunction with inspections or prior t o p e r m i t r e
- i s s u a n c e , o r t h e S t a t e s m a y h a v e u s e d o t h e r m a n u a l m e a n s t o c o n d u c t s u c h reviews.
For calendar year 2009, 19 States reported than they had reviewed the compliance

s t a t u s fo r 1 0 0 % o f t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l l y
- p e r m i t t e d n o n
- m a j o r N P D E S p e r m i tt e e s

. T h e s e S t a t e s w e r e Arizona, California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (Figure 1 indicates the number of States grouped by p e r c e n t a g e o f i n d i v i d u a l l y
- p e r m i t t e d n o n
- m aj o r p e r m i tt e e s r e v i e w e d fo r n o n c o m p l i a n c e )

. Four States reported that they reviewed the compliance status for fewer than 50% of their individually permitted non-major NPDES permittees (see Figure 2). This is an improvement from 2008, in which eight States reviewed the compliance status for fewer than 50% of their individually-permitted non-major NPDES permittees. This is significant because the State would not have a generated electronic list of permits that were violated. Without a review of the submitted discharge data or other compliance determinations, a hard copy review of paper reports may be needed to find which facilities were in violation.
Figure 1. Percent of Non-major Facilities Reported as Reviewed by States for Violations

4 13 14 19

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

0 - 49% 50 - 89% 90-99% 100%
Percent ReviewedNumberofStates2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

12 Figure 2. States That Reported Reviewing Less than 50% of Their Non-majors for Noncompliance

39% 38%

25% 24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

TENNESSEE LOUISIANA WEST VIRGINIA OREGON
State%Non-majorsReviewed

2. Percentage of Reviewed Facilities with ViolationsAs noted previously in Table 1, using data for all States, approximately 45% of the nonmajor NPDES permittees were in violation. This percentage is, on the surface, consistent with 2008, when 45% of the non-major NPDES permittees were determined to be in violation. States submitting verified data identifying violations and serious violations much more frequently then States that are reporting to EPA manually (non-verified). In 2009, the noncompliance rate in non-verified States is about 36% compared to 63% for the States with verified data. EPA tends to rely heavily upon the verified statistic because it includes a comprehensive look across all effluent reports that are submitted by permittees.
3. Percentage of Facilities Reviewed with Serious Violations (i.e., Category I) As noted in Table I, the percent of facilities with reviewed that had serious violations is 28%. The rate is higher in verified States (46%) in comparison to non-verified States (26%). Below is a more detailed explanation of what how violations are classified within this report.
When a facility is reviewed there are two classifications of violations discussed in this report. The classification of Serious (Category I) and Category II involve calculations about the type, duration, and magnitude of problems. “Category I” (Serious) violations are defined in the Clean Water Act regulations. For example, Category I violations are flagged when a “toxic” pollutant is measured to be more than 20% over the permitted limit, or if a “conventional” pollutant is more than 40% over limit. 1 Extended failure to meet compliance schedule

1 Conventional pollutants are pollutants typical of municipal sewage, and for which municipal secondary treatment plants are typically designed. 40 CFR 123.45 Appendix A includes a list of conventional pollutants and toxic pollutants and specifies that violations that are 40% over limit or greater are considered “Category I” violations if the violation occurs in at least two of six months.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

13

milestones, failure to meet enforcement order conditions, and failure to submit monitoring data or compliance reports are also included as serious violations. EPA’s national databases automatically calculate Category I violations related to permit limits. States are not required to enter or send these data to EPA’s database (for non-major permittees), although some States do so.
For States that do not enter or send these data for non-major permittees to EPA, the State database is required to allow calculation of “Category I” violations. However, for the 2009 ANCR, some States were not able to provide information distinguishing between Category I and Category II violations (so there are no data available through the ANCR regarding the number of permittees with serious violations in those States). This distinction is used by other States to help identify which facilities are most in need of formal enforcement response. The federal regulations requiring State submission of this information for the ANCR States that “the statistical information shall be organized to follow the types of noncompliance...” described as Category I noncompliance and Category II noncompliance. Eight States (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wisconsin) did not make that distinction when providing noncompliance information to EPA for purposes of this ANCR. This gap in reporting indicates that these States may not have an automated way to distinguish the more severe violations from other violations.
Excluding the eight States that did not report Category I noncompliance, 28% of nonmajor facilities were identified as being in Category I noncompliance (i.e., having serious violations). This is up slightly from 2008 in which 26% of the non-major facilities were identified as being in Category I noncompliance, excluding nine States that did not report Category I

n o n c o m p l i a n c e

. H o w e v e r, o f t h e S t a t e s w i t h “v e r i f i e d ” d a t a ( i

. e

. , S t a t e s w i t h f a c i l i ty
- s p e c i f i c violation information in EPA’s national databases), 46% of the non-major facilities had Category I violations; the projected national noncompliance rate for serious violations may be closer to this rate.
4. Serious Noncompliance Rates for Non-major vs. Major Facilities Although the ANCR provides information regarding non-major facilities, a comparison to the noncompliance rate for the major facilities is informative. For major permittees, the subset of the most serious violations is described as significant noncompliance (SNC). Category I

Toxic pollutants are pollutants or combinations of pollutants, including disease-causing agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will, on the basis of information available to the Administrator of EPA, cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions, (including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their offspring. 40 CFR 123.45 Appendix A includes a list of toxic pollutants and specifies that violations that are 20% or more over limit are considered “Category I” violations if the violation occurs in at least two of six months. Chronic violations of any magnitude (for toxic or conventional pollutants) also trigger a Category I designation if the violation occur in four months of a six month period.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

14

noncompliance designation for non-majors is roughly comparable to SNC for majors because the same 20% and 40% over thresholds described earlier are used in the calculation. 2
For fiscal year 2009, 22% of the major NPDES permittees nationally were identified as being in SNC (i.e., having serious violations). Based on the ANCR verified rates, the i n d i v i d u a l l y
- p e r m i t t e d n o n
- m a j o r N P D E S p e r m i t t e e s a r e a b o u t t w i c e a s l i k e l y t o h a v e s e r i o u s violations than major NPDES permittees (i.e., 46% Category I noncompliance for non-majors versus the 22% SNC rate for majors). In comparison, the 2008 data showed a 60% serious violation rate for non-majors compared to a 21.5% rate for majors.
5. Percentage of Violating Facilities with Informal Enforcement A variety of enforcement options, including formal and informal enforcement actions, are available to States and EPA to match violations with an appropriate enforcement response that ensures a rapid return to compliance and promotes deterrence. An informal action may often be the first step in the enforcement process. If a permittee is able to resolve the problem, formal action may not be necessary. Violations that persist and are serious generally require a formal action. If States exclusively use informal enforcement and report high noncompliance rates, the absence of more severe enforcement may reduce the incentive for facilities to take corrective actions.
Several States requested that the number of facilities receiving informal enforcement actions be reported on the ANCR to provide a more comprehensive view of State responses to noncompliance at non-major facilities, even though existing federal regulations do not require them to report this information. Thus, for the first time States were asked to report the number of informal enforcement actions taken in 2009.

O f t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y
- p e r m i tt e d n o n
- m a j o r fa c i l i t i e s i n e i t h e r C a t e g o r y I o r C a t e g o ry I I noncompliance, over 50% received informal enforcement actions. Additionally, approximately 5.6% of the individually-permitted non-major facilities in either Category I or Category II received penalty orders. Comparisons with ANCRs from previous years cannot be made; informal action data are limited to 2009.
6. Percentage of Violating Facilities with Formal Enforcement Formal enforcement actions (administrative orders or judicial actions) are often necessary for more serious violations, such as significant effluent exceedances that are not quickly corrected by the permittee.

O f t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y
- p e r m i tt e d n o n
- m a j o r fa c i l i t i e s i n e i t h e r C a t e g o r y I o r C a t e g o ry I I noncompliance, 7.7% received a formal enforcement action (an increasing but small

2 A major facility is any NPDES facility or activity classified as such by the Regional Administrator, or in the case of approved State programs, the Regional Administrator in conjunction with the State Director. Major municipal dischargers include all facilities with design flows of greater than one million gallons per day and facilities with EPA/State approved industrial pretreatment programs. Major industrial facilities are determined based on specific ratings criteria developed by EPA/State.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

15

improvement from the 7.6% reported by States in the ANCR for calendar year 2008; the rate was 6.4% in 2007).
In calendar year 2009, nine States (Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wyoming) took 40 or more formal enforcement

a c t i o n s a g a i n s t i n d i v i d u a l l y
- p e r m i t t e d N P D E S n o n
- m aj o r fa c i l i t i e s

. T h i s i s a n i n c r e a s e f r o m 2008, in which six States reported 40 or more formal enforcement actions. States with large numbers of permittees would likely have a higher number of enforcement actions. Together, these nine States are responsible for 63% of the national total of formal enforcement actions taken against non-major permittees in calendar year 2009.

A s n o t e d i n t h e d e t a i l e d S t a t e
- b y
- S t a t e t a b l e s i n t h i s r e p o rt , m a n y S t a t e s h a v e fa c i l i t i e s with frequent violations, but rarely take formal enforcement action. This is a key issue that EPA is discussing with the States under the Clean Water Act Action Plan dialogue.

Figure 3. States with 40 or More Formal Enforcement Actions Against Non-majors in Calendar Year 2009

166

126

103

75 67 56 49 48 47

0 50 100 150 200

TEXAS TENNESSEE OKLAHOMA LOUISIANA NEWJERSEY MISSOURI WYOMING WESTVIRGINIA PENNSYLVANIA StateNonmajorswithFormalEnf.Actions2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

16

7. Penalty Amounts Assessed Against Non-majors States indicated that for calendar year 2009 a total of $23,347,700 in penalties were assessed against non-major facilities. Sixteen States reported penalties of over $200,000 (California , Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming). Moreover, six States reported penalties of a million dollars or more for the 2009 reporting year (California , New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia).

Figure 4. States with Penalties of Over $1,000,000 for 2009

$5,536,189

$3,749,500 $3,168,294 $2,378,218 $1,964,300 $1,033,777

$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000

WEST VIRGINIA CALIFORNIA TENNESSEE NEW JERSEY TEXAS PENNSYLVANIA
StatePenalties

8. Non-major Facilities in Noncompliance with Compliance Schedules If a facility is on a compliance schedule issued by the State or EPA in a permit or in an enforcement order, it may be the result of previous noncompliance issues. If that facility fails to meet its construction schedule milestones by a significant amount of time, the facility has not yet succeeded in achieving compliance. In such situations, closer examination of possible enforcement escalation may be warranted to better ensure timely and complete compliance.
States indicated that, for calendar year 2009, 535 non-major permittees were one year or more late in meeting construction deadlines within their compliance schedule. This number is up from 437 in 2008. As illustrated in Figure 5, five States indicated that they had 20 or more such permittees; together, these five States have 88% of the national total of such
s c h e d u l e
- n o n c o m p l i a n t n o n
- m a j o r p e r m i tt e e s

.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

17 Figure 5. States with Over 20 Non-majors that are One or More Years Behind Construction Schedule Deadlines
223

126

63
34 23

0 50 100 150 200 250

OHIO MISSOURI WEST VIRGINIA KENTUCKY OKLAHOMA
StateNonmajorsBehindSchedule

The federal regulation requiring State submission of this information to EPA for ANCR purposes States that “a separate list of non-major discharges which are one or more years behind in construction phases of the compliance schedule shall also be submitted in alphabetical order by name and permit number.” Attachment 3 provides the complete list of facilities that were submitted. EPA has not verified the quality of the information that has been provided. Although Ohio has many more facilities in this category than any other State, it is unclear whether this is truly the case, or whether they are doing a better job tracking this information than other States. For example, EPA did not receive information for Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands or Washington (so the numbers of schedule violations in these States are not available in the national report). 

### Regional Contribution
EPA and the States regulate hundreds of thousands of facilities and wastewater d i s c h a r g e s u n d e r t h e N P D E S p r o g r a m a n d t h e C l e a n W a t e r A c t

. F o rty
- s i x S t a t e s a n d t h e V i r g i n Islands have received authorization to implement the NPDES program, although EPA maintains oversight of those States and retains the ability to enforce the NPDES program. EPA also directly manages the NPDES permitting and enforcement program in four non-authorized States (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Idaho), U.S. Territories, and on Tribal Lands. This section highlights EPA Regions’ contribution to the 2009 Annual Noncompliance Report for NPDES Non-major Permittees. For complete statistics, see Attachment 1.
Regional Activities in Non-authorized States, in the U.S. Territories, and on Tribal Lands
The key national findings of the 2009 Annual Noncompliance Report for NPDES non-major permittees in States, territories, and Tribal Lands where EPA is the authorized regulatory authority include the following:2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

18

 Universe: Regions indicated that they administered the NPDES program for 684 i n d i v i d u a l l y
- p e r m i t t e d N P D E S n o n
- m a j o r fa c i l i t i e s i n S t a t e s , U

. S

. t e r r i t o r i e s a n d T r i b a l Lands where EPA was the authorized regulatory authority. This universe is about 2% of the size of the universe of 38,324 non-majors with States as the authorized regulatory authority.

 Reviewed for Noncompliance: Regions indicated that they reviewed the noncompliance

s t a t u s fo r 9 2 % o f i n d i v i d u a l l y
- p e r m i tt e d N P D E S n o n
- m a j o r fa c i l i t i e s w h e r e E P A a s t h e authorized regulatory authority. This is comparable to the rate of 87% reported by authorized States.

 Noncompliance Rates: Regions reported that 73% of the non-major permittees reviewed for noncompliance had some type of violation in calendar year 2009. This rate is considerably higher than the noncompliance rate of 44% reported by authorized States and is slightly higher than the noncompliance rate of 62% reported by authorized S t a t e s w i t h f a c i l i t y
- s p e c i f i c v i o l a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n i n E P A’ s n a t i o n a l d a t a b a s e s

.

 Serious Noncompliance Rates: Regions indicated that 56% of the non-major permittees reviewed for noncompliance exhibited Category I noncompliance (more serious violations) in calendar year 2009. This rate is considerably higher than the serious noncompliance rate of 27% reported by authorized States and is slightly higher than the

s e r i o u s n o n c o m p l i a n c e r a t e o f 4 5 % r e p o rt e d b y a u t h o r i z e d S t a t e s w i t h fa c i l i ty
- s p e c i f i c violation information in EPA’s national databases.

 Enforcement:

 Regions indicated that 101 noncompliant non-major permittees received informal enforcement actions from EPA in calendar year 2009.

 Regions indicated that 15 noncompliant non-major permittees received formal enforcement actions from EPA in calendar year 2009.

 Overall, States with NPDES program authorization took formal enforcement against a greater proportion of violators than EPA took direct implementation States, U.S. territories and Tribal Lands. The ratio of facilities with formal enforcement to facilities with violations was 3.3% in States and territories where EPA implements the NPDES program and 7.7% in authorized States.

 States with NPDES program authorization also took formal enforcement against a greater proportion of serious violators than EPA took in direct implementation States, U.S. territories and Tribal Lands. The ratio of facilities with formal enforcement to facilities with serious violations was 4.2% in States and territories where EPA implements the NPDES program and 12.6% in authorized States.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

19

 Penalties: Regions indicated that the total amount of penalties assessed for 2009 forstandard non-major permittees is $106,000. Penalties are less frequent in nonauthorized States and territories than in authorized States; penalties taken by EPA innon-authorized States and territories represent 0.5% of the penalties for standard nonmajor permittees in 2009, while 1.7% of NPDES non-major permittees are in nonauthorized States and territories.

 Compliance Schedules: Regions indicated that, for calendar year 2009, five non-major permittees were one or more years late in meeting construction schedule deadlines. These permittees are about 0.9% of the 528 non-major permittees that were one or more years late in meeting construction schedule deadlines in authorized States.
Regional Compliance and Enforcement Activities in Authorized States
EPA maintains oversight of NPDES program implementation in authorized States, retains the ability to issue permits and enforce the NPDES program in those States, and supplements the authorized State program’s activities. Because the EPA compliance and enforcement program is focused on other NPDES-regulated point sources (e.g., illegal sewer overflows, discharges of manure from CAFOs, and storm water discharges), there is not as much additional enforcement taken by EPA against violations at other nonmajors beyond the actions taken by the States. The key national findings of the 2009 ANCR for NPDES Regional activities in authorized States include the following:

 Universe: Regions provided additional regulatory support in the authorized States that collectively oversee 38,258 non-major permittees.

 Reviewed for Noncompliance: Regions indicated that they reviewed the noncompliance

s t a t u s fo r 6 8 ( < 1 % ) o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l l y
- p e r m i t t e d N P D E S n o n
- m a j o r f a c i l i t i e s i n authorized States.

 Noncompliance Rates: Regions reported that 56% of the non-major permittees reviewed for noncompliance had some type of violation in calendar year 2009.

 Serious Noncompliance Rates: Regions indicated that 52% of the non-major permittees reviewed for noncompliance exhibited Category I noncompliance (more serious violations) in calendar year 2009.

 Enforcement:

 Regions indicated that 25 noncompliant non-major permittees in authorized States received informal enforcement actions from EPA in calendar year 2009.

 Regions indicated that 23 noncompliant non-major permittees in authorized States received formal enforcement actions from EPA in calendar year 2009.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

20

 Penalties: Regions indicated that the total amount of penalties assessed by EPA at nonmajor individual permittees for 2009 is $14,940.

 Compliance Schedules: Regions identified, for calendar year 2009, two non-major permittees that were one or more years late in meeting construction schedule deadlines.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 1 - 1



### Attachment 1. Calendar Year 2009 ANCR Data for Each State, Grouped by Magnitude of Changes Made to the Data Compared to Data in NPDES National Data Systems

State % Nonmajor s with Limits and DMRs 1 inPCS or ICISNPDES (not required) Nonmajors Facility Universe Nonmajors with Limits and Current DMRs, or Otherwise Reviewed % Nonmajors Reviewed Noncomplying Non-majors In Category I Additional

Noncomplying Non-major s in Category II only Total Non

majors in Category I
or Category II, of those with Limits and Current DMRs Category I

Noncompliance Rate for Non-major s with Limits and Current DMRs Total Noncompliance Rate for Non-majors with Limits and Current DMRs Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Informal Enforcement Actions Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Penalty Orders Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Formal Enf. Actions for RNC 2 Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Formal Enf. Actions or APO 3 for RNC Dollars of

Penalties AssessedAgainst Nonmajors Permit

Mods. Extending Compliance Deadlinefor Nonmajors Non-majors that are One or More Years Behind Construction Schedule Deadlines

Data Source: Automated (National Database with No Changes by State/Region)
MA* 83% 149 124 83% 94 13 107 76% 86% 0 0 0 0 $0 1 1
NH* 74% 46 34 74% 31 2 33 91% 97% 1 0 2 2 $0 0 0

ME 66% 289 192 66% 108 57 165 56% 86% 38 0 13 13 $39,10 0 0 0
PR* 99% 176 174 99% 101 69 170 58% 98% 15 6 6 6 $0 0 NR
SR* 100% 2 2 100% 2 0 2 100% 100% 0 0 0 0 $0 0 NR
VI 61% 66 40 61% 38 2 40 95% 100% 25 0 0 0 $0 0 NR
DC* 100% 7 7 100% 3 0 3 43% 43% 0 0 1 1 $0 0 0
IL 85% 1469 1247 85% 439 202 641 35% 51% 729 0 5 5 $447,780 0 1
IN 97% 1438 1402 97% 266 74 340 19% 24% 782 14 14 14 $0 0 0
GM* 0% 3 0 0% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0
NN* 84% 25 21 84% 1 0 1 5% 5% 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0
Total 3,670 3,243 88% 1,083 419 1,502 33% 46% 1,590 20 41 41 $486,880 1 2

Data Source: Automated with Adjustments (National System Data with Minor Adjustments [to noncompliance rate or universe] by State/Region)

RI 82% 65 60 92% 20 6 26 33% 43% 41 3 5 5 $23,000 0 0
CT 92% 77 72 94% 6 4 10 8% 14% 0 1 1 1 $40,000 0 0

NY 85% 1190 10 10 85% 136 260 396 13% 39% 353 25 25 25 $556,100 0 NR
DE 91% 31 31 100% 2 11 13 6% 42% 5 0 0 0 $0 0 0
KY 79% 1756 1392 79% 1389 1 1390 100% 100% 203 0 26 26 $191,000 0 34
OH 98% 3023 2961 98% 669 1079 1748 23% 59% 483 9 12 12 $69,432 0 223

AR 97% 676 6 57 97% 404 72 476 61% 72% 298 0 6 6 $15,300 0 5
OK 98% 358 356 99% 204 36 240 57% 67% 22 5 103 105 $60,250 0 23
TX 83% 2222 1973 89% 1458 96 1554 74% 79% 46 166 166 166 $1,964,300 0 02009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 1 - 2 State % Nonmajor s with Limits and DMRs 1 inPCS or ICISNPDES (not required) Nonmajors Facility Universe Nonmajors with Limits and Current DMRs, or Otherwise Reviewed % Nonmajors Reviewed Noncomplying Non-majors In Category I Additional

Noncomplying Non-major s in Category II only Total Non

majors in Category I
or Category II, of those with Limits and Current DMRs Category I

Noncompliance Rate for Non-major s with Limits and Current DMRs Total Noncompliance Rate for Non-majors with Limits and Current DMRs Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Informal Enforcement Actions Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Penalty Orders Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Formal Enf. Actions for RNC 2 Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Formal Enf. Actions or APO 3 for RNC Dollars of

Penalties AssessedAgainst Nonmajors Permit

Mods. Extending Compliance Deadlinefor Nonmajors Non-majors that are One or More Years Behind Construction Schedule Deadlines
MP* 50% 2 2 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0
Total: 9,400 8,514 91% 4,288 1,565 5,853 50% 69% 1,451 209 344 346 $2,919,382 0 285 Automated Total 13,070 11,757 90% 5,371 1,984 7,355 46% 63% 3,041 229 385 387 $3,406,262 1 287

Data Source: Full Manual Reporting - State Chose to Report Manually or National System Data Was Adjusted Significantly by State/Region

VT 2% 137 137 100% 0 70 70 0% 51% NR NR 1 1 NR 1 0
NJ 96% 614 614 100% 18 80 98 3% 16% 224 31 67 98 $2,378,218 0 0

MD 57% 495 495 100% 213 134 347 43% 70% 0 28 30 30 $509,422 0 NR
VA 0% 934 934 100% 93 97 190 10% 20% 387 7 9 9 $114,475 1 0

WV 29% 809 206 25% 157 59 216 76% 100% *** 0 48** 48 $5,536,189 0 63
AL 52% 1481 774 52% 438 196 634 57% 82% 149 16 16 16 $166,800 0 8

FL 97% 238 230 97% 77 78 155 33% 67% 85 14 22 22 $249,436 0 0
GA 53% 491 464 95% 31 80 111 7% 24% 213 34 19 53 $215,543 0 2
MS 28% 1424 1237 87% 146 145 291 12% 24% 418 7 21 21 $214,206 0 10
NC 94% 1015 956 94% 99 156 255 10% 27% 448 215 5 219 $459,090 0 1

TN 33% 1248 486 39% 321 106 427 66% 88% 520 126 126 126 $3,168,294 0 0
MI 82% 448 448 100% 8 198 206 2% 46% 39 0 2 2 $34,500 0 2

MN 3% 644 644 100% 91 255 346 14% 54% 46 4 21 25 $783,300 0 3
NM* 91% 89 89 100% 53 0 53 60% 60% 64 5 0 5 $41,500 0 1
IA 78% 1325 1325 100% 322 293 615 24% 46% **** 10 12 12 $42,500 6 8
KS 2% 1047 931 89% 19 160 179 2% 19% 1 7 3 10 $45,108 4 4
MO 79% 2987 2987 100% 868 201 1069 29% 36% 1,304 0 56 56 $30,150 0 126
NE 82% 609 560 92% 447 17 464 80% 83% 103 0 17 17 $0 0 1
CO 40% 219 208 95% 169 7 176 81% 85% NR 2 7 7 $99,505 0 1
MT 94% 134 129 96% 76 28 10 4 59% 81% 124 1 3 3 $6,600 0 0
ND 2% 97 97 100% 25 6 31 26% 32% 43 0 0 0 $0 0 0
SD 76% 212 212 100% 51 15 66 24% 31% 188 0 0 0 $0 2 2
UT 66% 94 84 89% 27 8 35 32% 42% 6 3 0 3 $35,927 0 02009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 1 - 3 State % Nonmajor s with Limits and DMRs 1 inPCS or ICISNPDES (not required) Nonmajors Facility Universe Nonmajors with Limits and Current DMRs, or Otherwise Reviewed % Nonmajors Reviewed Noncomplying Non-majors In Category I Additional

Noncomplying Non-major s in Category II only Total Non

majors in Category I
or Category II, of those with Limits and Current DMRs Category I

Noncompliance Rate for Non-major s with Limits and Current DMRs Total Noncompliance Rate for Non-majors with Limits and Current DMRs Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Informal Enforcement Actions Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Penalty Orders Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Formal Enf. Actions for RNC 2 Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Formal Enf. Actions or APO 3 for RNC Dollars of

Penalties AssessedAgainst Nonmajors Permit

Mods. Extending Compliance Deadlinefor Nonmajors Non-majors that are One or More Years Behind Construction Schedule Deadlines

WY 1% 1454 1454 100% 44 0 44 3% 3% 188 0 49 49 $247,550 0 0
AS* 33% 3 3 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 1 1 $0 0 0
GU* 15% 13 13 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0
NV 0% 73 73 100% 1 3 4 1% 5% 4 0 1 1 $0 0 0
AK 33% 46 30 65% 6 2 8 20% 27% 5 1 1 1 $120,000 0 0
ID* 89% 130 124 95% 61 14 75 49% 60% 18 3 4 4 $64,500 0 0

WA 20% 404 404 100% 169 54 223 42% 55% 19 0 19 19 NA 0 NR
Total 18,914 16,348 86% 4,030 2,462 6,492 25% 40% 4,596 514 560 858 $14,562,813 14 232

Data Source: Partial Manual Reporting - State Chose to Report Manually and Was Unable to Distinguish Category I and Category II violations for This Report

OR 2% 283 68 24% 18 0% 26% 44 16 18 18 $46,730 0 0
PA 3% 3955 3955 100% NR NR 442 NR 11% 170 41 47 47 $1,033,777 NR NR
SC 91% 311 309 99% NR NR 210 NR 68% 103 0 22 22 $189,830 24 8
WI 1% 681 681 100% NR NR 323 NR 47% 31 0 19 19 $51,195 0 1
LA 10% 1280 484 38% NR NR 292 NR 60% 107 13 75 75 $292,653 0 1
AZ 12% 95 95 100% NR NR 53 NR 56% 0 0 0 0 $0 0 1
CA 1% 350 350 100% NR NR 134 NR 38% 34 48 29 71 $3,749,500 14 0
HI 15% 30 26 87% NR NR 13 NR 50% 5 0 0 0 $0 0 0
Total 6985 5968 85% 1485 0% 25% 494 118 210 252 $ 5 , 363 , 685 38 11 Manual Total 25,899 22,316 86% 4,030 2,462 7,977 18% 36% 5,090 632 770 1110 $19,926,498 52 243

Data Source: Reported by Region
SC-R 1 0 2 2 $0

AR

- R 4 2 50% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0
LA-R 12 11 92% 4 0 4 36% 36% 4 0 1 1 $0 0 0
OK-R 5 2 40% 1 1 2 50% 100% 2 0 0 0 $0 0 0
TX-R 30 7 23% 5 0 5 71% 71% 2 0 0 0 $0 0 0

IA

- R 0 0 7 7 $02009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 1 - 4 State % Nonmajor s with Limits and DMRs 1 inPCS or ICISNPDES (not required) Nonmajors Facility Universe Nonmajors with Limits and Current DMRs, or Otherwise Reviewed % Nonmajors Reviewed Noncomplying Non-majors In Category I Additional

Noncomplying Non-major s in Category II only Total Non

majors in Category I
or Category II, of those with Limits and Current DMRs Category I

Noncompliance Rate for Non-major s with Limits and Current DMRs Total Noncompliance Rate for Non-majors with Limits and Current DMRs Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Informal Enforcement Actions Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Penalty Orders Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Formal Enf. Actions for RNC 2 Number of

Reviewed Non-major Facilities that Received Formal Enf. Actions or APO 3 for RNC Dollars of

Penalties AssessedAgainst Nonmajors Permit

Mods. Extending Compliance Deadlinefor Nonmajors Non-majors that are One or More Years Behind Construction Schedule Deadlines
KS-R 0 0 2 2 $0

MO-F 2 0 5 5 $0

NE

- R 0 1 4 5 $14,940

07-T 16 16 100% 8 8 16 50% 100% 3 0 1 1 $0 0 3
MT-R 28 23 82% 21 2 23 91% 100% 6 0 0 0 $0 0 0
UT-R 0 0 1 1 $0

AZ

-T 13 12 92% NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0
CA-T 6 6 100% 1 0 1 17% 17% 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0
OR-T 4 4 100% 0 0 0 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0
WA-F 32 23 72% 4 0 4 17% 17% 8 0 1 1 $0 0 2
Total 150 106 71% 44 11 55 42% 52% 28 1 24 25 $14,940 0 5

National Total 39,119 34,179 87% 9,445 4,457 15,387 28% 45% 8,159 862 1,179 1,522 $23,347,700 53 535 Notes: 1 DMR – Discharge Monitoring Report 2 RNC – Reportable Noncompliance 3 APO - Administrative Penalty Orders T indicates enforcement conducted by the Region on Tribal Lands. R indicates enforcement conducted by the Region in the State. F indicates enforcement conducted by the Region at Federal Facilities. * Enforcement in these States and territories is conducted by the EPA Region. ** WV reported 108 reviewed non-major facilities that received formal enforcement actions for RNC. This count includes both individual and general permits. This number was revised to 48 to exclude actions at the general permit facilities that are not counted in this report. *** WV reported 1581 informal actions, but these are at all majors and non-major facilities. Because the numbers are reported differently than other States, they are excluded here. ****Iowa reported 329 informal actions, but did not separate the data into majors and minors, so the information is not included in the table above.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 2 - 1



### Attachment 2. Description of Data Metrics
Metadata for individual metrics Metric Explanation Explanation of Calculations Number of Facilities Regulated The facilities counted under this measure are smaller permittees that are allowed to release specific water effluents at levels specified in a permit. These facilities have individual permits, and normally submit discharge reports on a monthly basis to the State (or EPA). The universe does not count large major facilities, general permits, or wet weather permits. Percent of Facilities Reviewed for Violations Facilities generally submit monthly discharge data. If State s enter the discharge measurement data into EPA's databases, violations are automatically calculated by the database (compare permitted limit to measurement). Some States do not submit this information to EPA, but have their own databases which calculate violations. This measure shows the percent of facilities that are routinely reviewed for violations (through these automated calculations). Facilities not reviewed for violations would typically submit paper discharge reports to the State (or EPA), but the State would file the report without reviewing it. States that have a low percentage may not have the resources sufficient to enter discharge data into a database, or review all submitted reports manually. Percent of non

- major facilities with permitted limits and standard permits that have an automated calculation of compliance (DMRs compared to Limits by a database), or data reviewed as part of an inspection or manual file review. EPA's methodology will count a facility as reviewed if at least one of the twelve monthly DMRs is entered in the database.

Percent of Reviewed with Violations Of those facilitie s reviewed for violations, what percent have had n oncomp li ance (e.g., measurement is over the permitted limit). This is otherwise known as a "noncompliance rate." It excludes sources that are not reviewed since the compliance status for those facilities is unknown. This rate includes any violation of a permitted limit. The lower the percent, the fewer relative number of violations occurred. Number of "reviewed" in denominator, number of those with violations in numerator.

Percent of Reviewed with Serious V iolations The Clean Water Act regulations define more serious violations as "Category I." Generally, these are flagged when a "toxic" pollutant is measured to be more than 20% over the permitted limit, or if a "conventional" pollutant is more than 40% over limit. Failure to submit monitoring data is also a serious violation. EPA's national databases automatically Number of those "reviewed" in denominator, number of those with Category I violations in numerator.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 2 - 2

calculate Category I violations. State s are not required to enter this data into EPA's database (for smaller facilities). For States that do not enter data to EPA, the State database should allow calculation of "Category I" violations. However, there are some States that are not able to provide this information (so there is no data available). Percent Violating Facilities with Formal Enforcement This compares the number of facilities with any violations to the number of enforcement actions that were taken. Note that EPA guidance does not require formal actions for all violations. If violations are relatively minor, or are quickly resolved through corrections by the permittee, formal actions may be unnecessary. If violations persist or turn more serious, the State would be expected to escalate enforcement response, using either informal actions (e.g., notice of violation or warning letter), or a formal action (which is counted here). A higher percent indicates that the State more frequently takes formal enforcement actions. Number enforcement actions t aken as the numerator and the number of facilities with violations as the denominator.

Percent Serious Violators with Formal Enforcement More serious violations (Category I), if not corrected by the facility quickly, may lead the State to pursue formal enforcement. This calculation compares the number of enforcement actions to the number of serious violations identified. Serious violations may include effluent violations, or failure to report discharge monitoring reports. Total Number of Formal Enforcem ent Actions This provides the total number of formal actions taken within the State by the authorized permitting authority. A formal action is a legal document compelling compliance with permit requirements on a specified schedule. Total number of Formal Actions taken.2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 1



### Attachment 3. List of Facilities with Extended Compliance Schedules
Note – To get online ECHO reports for any of the facilities below, use the following URL, and add the ID number for the facility after the “=” sign.

h t t p : //w w w

. e p a
- e c h o

. g o v/ c g i

- b i n /g e t 1 c R e p o rt

. c g i ? t o o l = e c h o& I D N u m b e r =

List of Facilities > 1 yr. behind Compliance Schedule Deadlines (n=535) Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State

Arab Sew er Bd. Riley Maze WWTP AL0020303 AL Ardmore Town of Ardmore WWTP AL0023329 AL Burwell Rd. WWTP Harvest Monro AL0070947 AL Cagles Inc. AL0002241 AL Georgiana City of WWSB WWTP AL0043532 AL Jemison Town of WWTP AL0059331 AL Millry Town of Lagoon AL0051 144 AL Mosses Water and Sewer Lagoon AL0055883 AL
Edmondson, City of AR0044661 AR Mountain View, City of AR0020117 AR Pleasant Oaks POA AR0041424 AR Pulaski County SID AR0046060 AR Wabbaseka, City of AR0039896 AR

ASARCO, Inc January Adit AZ00250 54 AZ

not identified CO

City of Alamo GA0037753 GA City of Glenwood GA0021377 GA

Bedford IA0026018 IA Blakesburg IA0028215 IA Carson IA0042901 IA Exide Technologies IA0063533 IA Hancock IA0023485 IA Macedonia IA0042919 IA Manning IA0023337 IA Minburn IA0023418 IA
Carroll Heights Ho. Assn STP IL0047261 IL2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 2 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State Ellsworth, City of KS0085693 KS Viola, City of KS0027880 KS Nickerson, City of KS0031097 KS Shawnee County Mobile Home Park KS0119903 KS

Jim Beam Brands Co. Clermont KY0001660 KY Lagrange STP KY0020001 KY Tompkinsville STP KY0020702 KY Elkhorn City STP KY0020958 KY Trenton STP KY0020982 KY Flemingsburg STP KY0021229 KY Cumberland STP KY0021571 KY Quality Sunoco KY0022144 KY Dawson Springs STP KY0023868 KY Lewisburg STP KY0024881 KY Wingo STP KY0025852 KY Olive Hill STP KY0025925 KY South Shore STP KY0026131 KY Liberty STP KY0026352 KY Fulton STP KY0026913 KY Warsaw STP KY0028118 KY Williamsburg STP KY0028347 KY Perryville STP KY0028355 KY Green Acres MHP KY0033 413 KY McKee STP KY0034444 KY Exit 62 Truck Plaza KY0035378 KY Catlettsburg STP KY0035467 KY Walton STP KY0039756 KY Frenchburg STP KY0040584 KY Executive Park Subd. NMCSD KY0056561 KY Hidden Valley MHP KY0073679 KY Edgewood Subd. KY0074977 KY Alvaton Elem. School KY0082970 KY Hiseville Elem. School KY0083275 KY Legrande Elem. School KY0086916 KY Hart Memorial Elem. School KY0086932 KY Bradfordsville STP KY0090719 KY Richardsville Elem. School KY0092801 KY Blue Grass Airport KY0101851 KY
Village of Pine Prairie LA0079057 LA2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 3 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State

not identified MA

Dearborn CSO MI0025542 MI Pinconning Twp DDA WWSL MI0058313 MI

Eitzen MN0023965 MN Fairmont Foods of Minnesota MN0001996 MN Madison Lake MN0040789 MN

Austin Trails WWTF MO0103551 MO Ba rnett Manor MO0097144 MO BCSD, Springpark Subdivision MO0100463 MO BCSD/Wagon Trail Hts. WWTF MO0094293 MO Bel Air E state s MHP Subdivision MO0086576 MO Belleview Valley Nursing MO0094242 MO Big Bear Resort Condos MO0117901 MO Blue Fountain Banquet Center MO0091871 MO Boley Mobile Estates MO0112801 MO Briarwood E state s Lots 5 & 6 MO0127094 MO Bronc Busters WWTF MO0125857 MO Camp Bagnel WWTF MO0124753 MO Cedar Creek Conference Ce. MO0130231 MO Cedar Springs MHP WWTF MO0116602 MO Chaffee Waste Sta b. Lagoon MO0025305 MO Change Academy MO0133744 MO Chelsea Rose Subdivision MO0111104 MO City of Foristell Lagoon MO0080888 MO Coachlight Village MHP MO0044270 MO Country Estates MHP MO0131504 MO County Downs WWTF MO0096938 MO Dave's MHP MO0112232 M O David Ward WWTF MO0132691 MO Dogwood Animal Shelter WWTF MO0130524 MO Dogwood Estates Subd. MO0131997 MO Driftwood MHP WWTF MO0127817 MO Dzatko Paul (Apartments) MO0118559 MO Eagles Landing WWTF MO0133698 MO Elderly Housing Partnership MO0099091 M O Eric Taylor 7

- 9 WWTF MO0132292 MO Essex WWTF MO0089273 MO2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 4 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State Exeter WWTF MO0086291 MO Feed My People MO0111457 MO Fenton United Methodist Church MO0098850 MO Forest Land Subdivision WWTF MO0119466 MO Frisbie Land Development MO0125008 MO Glendale Vi llage MHP MO0057380 MO Grandview Plaza MHP MO0084395 MO Gregory Mondry MO0132632 MO Happy Hollow MHP MO0106771 MO Hawthorne Trace WWTF MO0130303 MO Hidden Oaks Estates WWTF MO0125067 MO Hidden Treasurers Subd. WWTF MO0121029 MO Horizon West Subdivis ion MO0124648 MO Hornersville Municipal La. MO0055123 MO Horseshoe Bend #58 A and B MO0120120 MO Hurley WWTF MO0125601 MO John Sim LLC WWTF MO0110299 MO John's Auto Body MO0088901 MO Kari's Cupboard and Camp WWTF MO0133833 MO Ketesville WWTF MO0048 640 MO KV Homeowners Assoc. WWTF MO0126063 MO Labadie Creek Treatment Facility MO0114910 MO Lake Road Village Park MO0045501 MO Lakes of Deerwood Subd. MO0045446 MO Lakeview Home Care Facility MO0127477 MO Lakewood Terrace Subd. WWTF MO0122491 MO Lakewood Trails WWTF MO0111431 MO Leonard Mobile Home Park MO0092541 MO M.C.L. MHP MO0056448 MO Mapa Acres MHP MO0056448 MO Melody Lake Ranch Assoc. MO0091073 MO Midway Auto/Truck Plaza MO0100862 MO Midway Bar and Grill MO0083976 MO Miller County R

- II I Tuscumbia MO0083879 MO Millstone Townhouses WWTF MO0104523 MO Murphy Ann Apartments MO0090956 MO Myetta Woods Subd. WWTF MO0131865 MO Northampton Bay Condo WWTF MO0107409 MO Oak Grove E state s MO0124745 MO Oak Grove Trailer Park MO0096857 MO Oak Hills Campground MO0115754 MO2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 5 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State Oak Ridge Trailer Court MO0035149 MO Oakledge Subdivision WWTF MO0125768 MO Our Lady Queen of Peace MO0053163 MO Overlook Subdivision WWTF MO0116211 MO Paradise E state s MHP WWTF MO0090051 MO Pine Valley Resort WWTF MO01128 95 MO Point Charles E state s MO0124524 MO Potosi Elks Lodge #2218 MO0087025 MO Power Model Supply Co. MO0104604 MO R and E Sanitary Landfill MO0121231 MO Rapid Roberts #122 MO0085821 MO Raspberry Hill WWTP MO0116386 MO Raymondville WWTP MO0119954 MO Red Oak Resort LLC WWTF MO0103128 MO Robinson Trio MO0125113 MO Rocky Top MHP WWTF MO0108383 MO Russell Mobile Home Court MO0115908 MO Ryan's Lake Subdivision MO0121096 MO Scott City WWTF MO0103594 MO Scout Ridge E state s MO0127981 MO Sebelius Lagoo n MO0127965 MO Serenity MHP MO0089745 MO Shalom Mountain WWTF MO0130311 MO Sharky's Timeout Sports MO0125245 MO Sir Thomas Manor Apts. MO0088897 MO Sleepy Hollow MHP MO0090506 MO Southwood Estates MHP MO0113484 MO Spring Meadows Mobile Home Park MO0 089097 MO St. Joseph's Hill Infirmary MO0081426 MO St. Martin's United Church MO0120600 MO Starlight Apts. MO0049441 MO Stillwaters Resort MO0094986 MO Stone Ridge Estates WWTF MO0119091 MO Sunny Acres II LLC MO0044881 MO Sunrise Acres Subdivision MO0113191 MO Sunrise Terrace MHP WWTF MO0123374 MO Sunset Hills Trailer Park MO0121533 MO Table Rock Healthcare Ctr. MO0100161 MO Terre Du Lac North MO0035700 MO Terre Du Lac Oxidation Ditch MO0095311 MO Terre Du Lac South MO0057312 MO2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 6 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State Twin Oaks E sta te s RSF MO0132021 MO Tyson Foods Inc./Noeal WWTF MO0002500 MO USA, S. Rec. Area Lake Ozark MO0029777 MO USCOE Nemo Park MO0130044 MO Van Buren WWTF MO0099490 MO Victory Christian Fellows MO0104558 MO Village at Indian Point MO0115665 MO Wedgewood Village Plat 2 MO0105970 MO Westbridge Place Subd. MO0100277 MO Westgate MHP MO0045519 MO Willow Bend MHP MO0104566 MO Willows on the Lake Condo MO0101630 MO Woodland Hills #2 Subd. MO0127078 MO

Alligator POTW MS0042196 MS Artesia POTW MS0020770 MS Bell Utilities of MS LLC MS0022837 MS Brooksville POTW MS0033596 MS Calhoun County Jail MS0047813 MS Drew POTW MS0026417 MS Glen Allan Utility District MS0047601 MS Liberty Road Trailer Park MS0041912 MS Sunflower POTW MS0024384 MS Union of America Hebrew Congr. MS0031178 MS

Hookerton WWTP NC0025712 NC

Madrid WWTF NE0040037 NE

Southwestern Pub NM0029131 NM

ADVANCED MACHINING INC OH0136484 OH AIR BP OH0000736 OH ALPINE ALPA RESTURANT OH0126144 OH APOLLO MHP OH0135721 OH ASSEN DAIRY LL C OH0136166 OH ASTABULA COUNTY JVS OH0044920 OH AUSTIN RESPIRATORY & OH0139327 OH BEDFORD TRAILS GOLF COURSE OH0128813 OH BELDICK MOTEL OH0140686 OH BLUE HAVEN MHP OH0136476 OH2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 7 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State BOES MEAT PROCESSING PLANT OH0032701 OH BOWERSTON POINTE HEALTH AND OH01 40562 OH BROOKPARK ESTATES MOBILE OH0126527 OH BUCKEYE DELI OH0139432 OH BUCKEYE TRANSFER, INC OH0011452 OH CAMP GLEN OH0137871 OH CARRIAGE HOUSE NIGHT CLUB OH0140589 OH CARTER'S MOBILE HOME PARK OH0121258 OH CEDAR CREEK COURT MHP OH0138509 OH CERT IFIED OIL STATION 458 OH0136981 OH CHARLES BALL-REGINA METZGER OH0131725 OH CHARLES MILL SITES LAKE OH0137880 OH CHARM COUNTRYVIEW INN INC OH0136832 OH CHER-STAR LLC OH0131474 OH CHIPPEWA GOLF COURSE OH0136867 OH CHOICE PROPERTIES OH0102687 OH CITY OF BURTON OH0021580 OH CITY OF NELSONVILLE OH0020541 OH CITY OF STRONGSVILLE OH0033707 OH CLARKS DINING ROOM OH0136450 OH CLVKI DBA KELLY'S ISLAND HO OH0119300 OH CONSUMERS OHIO WATER CO. OH0045446 OH COOK CREEK GOLF COURSE OH0114103 OH COPLEY TOWNE CENTRE OH0134724 OH CORDELL REGIONAL UTL., INC. OH0036030 OH COUNTRY CLUB HILLS OH0125423 OH COWANS MARKET DBA ANDIS OH0139271 OH CP CHEMICALS LLC OH0051390 OH DEFIANCE COUNTY COMMISSNRS OH0053481 OH EC BABBERT INC OH0136531 OH EL RANCHO GRANDE OH0 140473 OH EXCEL ACADEMY OH0136409 OH FAIRFIELD CO COMMISSIONERS OH0054852 OH FIREHOUSE GRILLE & PUB OH0139319 OH FRANKLIN MONROE LOCAL SCHOOL OH0133949 OH FRARY'S RESTAURANT OH0136841 OH FREMONT BAPTIST TEMPLE & OH0135828 OH GARDEN RIDGE NURSERY OH0132853 OH GARDENBROOK PARTY CENTER OH0128732 OH GARY FINGER, OWNER OH0119369 OH GENEVA TRAILER PARK OH0134317 OH2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 8 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State GERBER'S POULTRY INC. OH0052132 OH GIONINO'S PIZZA OH0136697 OH GM DEFIANCE NPA SYSTEM OH0132527 OH GRENNAN'S MOBILE HOME PARK OH0117129 OH HANS ROTHENBUHLER & SON INC OH0051276 OH HAPPY VALLEY E STATE S MOBILE OH0127973 OH HARASSMENT'S BAR OH0139301 OH HELENA MIGRANT HEAD START OH0126969 OH HIGHGROVE GOLF COURSE OH0140651 OH HILLTOP GROUP HOME INC OH0139441 OH HILLTOP MEATS OH0134112 OH HOLMES CHEESE CO OH0075922 OH HOLMES COUNTY LANDFILL OH0122114 OH HOPEDALE MINING LLC OH0011835 OH HOPEWELL E STATE S LLC OH0079278 OH HORN LAND COMPANY OH0101265 OH HORSE & HARNESS PUB OH0139360 OH HYLEN SOUDERS ELEM SCH OH0136255 OH IRBW PROPERTIES, LTD OH0130486 OH JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSION OH0076350 OH JOEZ LOUNGE OH0138614 OH KARMAN RUBBER CO OH0133191 OH KINSMAN WWTP OH0140350 OH KNOLLWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK OH0050334 OH KSA CROSS

- TIE PLANT OH0104248 OH LAKESIDE E STATE S MHP OH0133591 OH LEADING CREEK CONSRVY DIST OH0099279 OH LEAFY OAKS CAMPGROUND, INC OH0126837 OH LE

- O

- NA FALLS MOBILE HOME PARK OH0133698 OH LINCOLN TERRACE ESTATES MHP OH0044831 OH LOCUST RIDGE NURSING HOME INC OH0137537 OH MACK IND OF PENNSYLVANIA INC OH0134554 OH MANCHESTER ADMIN BUILDING OH0139572 OH MANCHESTER MIDDLE SCHOOL OH0139581 OH MARAGOS TRAILER PARK OH0125113 OH MARION CTY COMM./COURTHOUSE OH0036765 OH MARNE MANOR LLC OH0136123 OH MATHEWS HIGH SCHOOL OH0129089 OH MAURER MOBILE HOME COURT OH00784 50 OH MCEQUITIES LLC OH0122149 OH MCEQUITIES LLC OH0138401 OH2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 9 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State MIDWEST POULTRY SERV SUNNY OH0133744 OH MILLBORNE MANOR WHP OH0129836 OH MODERN MHP OH0130699 OH MORRIS BEAN COMPANY OH0040576 OH NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OH0117340 OH NEAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OH0129097 OH NEW DOVER E STATE S MHP OH0102130 OH NEW RIEGEL SCHOOL OH0130389 OH NITRAM,INC. OH0045179 OH NORTH EAST OHIO CHURCH OF GOD OH0139297 OH NORTHBRROK MOBILE HOME PK LLC OH0131971 OH NORTHWEST SHORES INVESTORS OH0138126 OH OAKWOOD MIDDLE SCH WWTP OH0139688 OH OC PROPERTIES MHP MANAGEMENT OH0123188 OH OLD TOWN TAVERN OH0136506 OH OLE MILL CRAFT BUILD OH0137090 OH OTTAWA CO COMMISSIONERS OH0095435 OH OTTAWA CO REGIONAL WTP OH0122157 OH PENTAIR WATER TREATMENT OH0051551 OH PENTECOSTAL HOLINESS OH0137383 OH PILOT TRAVEL CENTER LLC OH0121002 OH PINE LAKES ESTATE NO 1 OH0136387 OH PLEASANT ACRES MHP OH0120910 OH PLEASANT ACRES MHP OH0137596 OH POPLAR LLC OH0126497 OH PRAIRIE HOUSE APARTMENTS OH0136972 OH PRAXAIR INC. OH0101117 OH REDLAND OHIO, INC. OH0002500 OH RESTOVER MHP OH0136301 OH RICELAND MOBILE VILLAGE OH0121606 OH ROCK OF GRACE CHURCH OH0140309 OH RURAL OPPORTUNITIES OH0139009 OH RUSTIC RIDGE MOBILE HOME PK OH0106046 OH SOUTHEAST LOCAL SCH DIST OH01 03217 OH SOUTHERN OHIO COMMUNITY OH0137502 OH SOUTHVIEW E STATE S MHP OH0095419 OH SPARKLE MARKET

- DOLLAR OH0136964 OH SPREAD EAGLE TAVERN INC OH0140422 OH SPRUCE TREE VILLAGE MHP OH0134503 OH ST JOHN THE BAPTIST CHURCH OH0046973 OH STATE RD. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPME OH0002313 OH2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 10 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State STATE LINE PROPERTIES LLC OH0133884 OH SUBURBAN MHP, LICKING COUNTY OH0130737 OH SUGAR GROVE BIBLE CHURCH * OH0137391 OH SUN OIL CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA OH0007641 OH SUNDIAL MHP STU 1 OH0136671 OH SUNSET TRAILER PARK OH0131202 OH TALL OAKS FAMILY CENTER OH0125679 OH TECUMSEH VILLAGE MHP OH0044962 OH TEE PEE CAMPGROUND OH0138746 OH THE BEAZER GROUP OH0003514 OH THE CADDYSHACK OH0119334 OH THE SKYWAY OH0138053 OH TIM ARBRUSTER DBA CHAPPARAL CA OH0133388 OH TIMBER LANES OH0132039 OH TIMES SQUARE RESTAURANT OH0129950 OH TOWN & COUNTRY PARK ESTATES OH0137014 OH TRI COUNTY CONCRETE CO INC OH0129194 OH TRUCK WORLD INC OH0084000 OH TRUMBULL COUNTY COMMISSIONE OH0092550 OH TUBETECH INCORPORATED OH0101206 OH TUPPERS PLAINS OH0030643 OH UNION CO. COMMISSIONERS OH0039144 OH UNIQUE VENTURES GROUP LLC OH0138037 OH VALLEY VIEW MHP OH0133787 OH VE BEARD OIL CO INC OH0133990 OH VFW POST 7576 OH0126942 OH VILLAGE OF ADENA OH0021661 OH VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON OH0030007 OH VILLAG E OF ATTICA OH0023957 OH VILLAGE OF BLOOMINGBURG OH0054364 OH VILLAGE OF CADIZ OH0024295 OH VILLAGE OF CECIL OH0029238 OH VILLAGE OF CRIDERSVILLE OH0020222 OH VILLAGE OF DELTA OH0020974 OH VILLAGE OF DESHLER OH0022471 OH VILLAGE OF GIBSONBURG OH0029 122 OH VILLAGE OF GLENDALE OH0020141 OH VILLAGE OF LATTY OH0058246 OH VILLAGE OF LEESBURG OH0050881 OH VILLAGE OF LINDSEY OH0022489 OH VILLAGE OF LODI OH0020991 OH2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 11 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State VILLAGE OF MCCOMB OH0026263 OH VILLAGE OF MCCOMB OH0042081 OH VILLAGE OF MINERVA OH0021849 OH VILLAGE OF MONTPELIER OH0021831 OH VILLAGE OF MT. ORAB OH0026646 OH VILLAGE OF NEW BOSTON OH0020613 OH VILLAGE OF NORTH BALTIMORE OH0041637 OH VILLAGE OF NORTH LEWISBURG OH0023582 OH VILLAGE OF PAYNE OH0021326 OH VILLAGE OF SARDINIA OH0020 729 OH VILLAGE OF SHERWOOD OH0020281 OH VILLAGE OF SHREVE OH0045373 OH VILLAGE OF SOMERSET OH0023566 OH VILLAGE OF WASHINGTONVILLE OH0028011 OH VILLAGE OF WAYNESFIELD OH0028029 OH VILLAGE OF YELLOW SPRINGS OH0028215 OH VINOY SOOD OH0134775 OH WAGON WHEEL CAMPGROUND OH0132551 OH WAGON WHEEL INN INC OH0087904 OH WALKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OH0133205 OH WALNUT CREEK MENNOITE CHURCH OH0139084 OH WATSONS TOWING INC OH0139157 OH WAYNE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OH0083933 OH WESTERN RESERVE LOCAL SCHOOLS OH01 25776 OH WILDCAT WOODS CAMPGROUND OH0137529 OH WILDFLOWER PLACE OH0126578 OH WILLIAMS CO COMMISSIONERS OH0079081 OH WOOSTER ROLLING WHEELS OH0129763 OH YOGI'S MHP OH0136328 OH

Ardmore Airpark OK0030422 OK Atoka OK0028576 OK Barnsdall OK0027308 OK Beggs OK0028177 OK Drumright OK0022501 OK Glencoe OK0028517 OK Green Country Sewer OK0034754 OK Harrah OK0038482 OK Hydro OK0028185 OK Lake Valley MHP OK0037702 OK Lone Grove OK0034266 OK2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 12 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State Ochelata OK0034517 OK Oilton OK0035599 OK Okemah OK0020737 OK Pensecola OK0040410 OK Picher OK0032263 OK Quapaw OK0028258 OK Seminole #3 OK0026972 OK Shidler OK0022993 OK Sperry OK0033464 OK Tondawa OK0021903 OK Wetumka North OK0032425 OK Wetumka South OK0032417 OK

Ballard, Paulette K. SC0032417 SC Chesterfield, Town of, Water Plant SC0025232 SC Commander Nursing Home SC0034703 SC GTX Properties LLC SC0032638 SC Links Water Treatment LLC SC0042684 SC Sharma Petroleum SC0042196 SC South of the Border SC0031801 SC Tega Cay Water Service Inc. SC0 026763 SC
City of Canova SD0021521 SD Town of Leola SD0022667 SD
Toppenish, City of WA0026123 WA

- Fed Wapato, City of WA0050229 WA-Fed

Oconto Falls WWTF WI0022870 WI

Alpine Lake Public Utilities WV0086665 WV AutomaticRecycling WV0116033 WV Baker Oil Tool, Inc. WV0070190 WV Berkeley County PSSD WV0105791 WV Bethany Town of WV0022080 WV Boone

- Raleigh PSD WV0086525 WV Buffalo Town of WV0024694 WV Burnsville Public Utilities WV0024945 WV Cabot Corp. WV0001210 WV Canyon PSD WV0032158 WV Chapmanville Town of WV0024678 WV2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 13 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State City of Belmont WV0024490 WV Claywood Park PSD WV0043991 WV Colfax PSD WV0032131 WV Cowen PSD WV0037397 WV Davis Town of WV0024848 WV Enlarged Hepzibah PSD WV0081001 WV Flatwoods

- Canoe Run PSD WV0084042 WV Friendly PSD WV0048861 WV Greater Harrison Cnty. PSD WV0084301 WV Hinton Sanitary Bd. WV0024732 WV Iaeger Town of WV0024511 WV Intercontinental Export Import WV0003204 WV Junior Town of WV0040843 WV Kingwood, City of WV0021881 WV Knouse Foods Cooperative Inc. WV0077500 WV Linde LLC WV0001775 WV Linde LLC WV0049361 WV Mannington City of WV0024953 WV Marlinton City of WV0024473 WV Mason Cnty. PSD WV0086886 WV Mason Cnty. PSD WV0105619 WV Matewan Town of WV0024783 WV Mineral Wells PSD WV0081141 WV Montgo mery City of WV0020621 WV Moorefield City of WV0020150 WV Mullens City of WV0020681 WV New Cumberland City of WV0025119 WV New Haven Town of WV0032531 WV New Vrindaban Community WV0102253 WV North Putnam PSD WV0028045 WV Parsons City of WV0022063 WV Philippi, City of WV0021857 WV Pleasant View PSD WV0027642 WV PNGI Charles Town Gaming LLC WV0105856 WV Poca Sanitary Bd. Town of WV0027154 WV Prichard Public Service Distri. WV0105732 WV Richwood City of WV0022004 WV Rowlesburg Town of WV0027481 WV Shepherdstown Corp. of WV0024775 WV Smithers City of WV0021741 WV St Mary's City of WV0020168 WV2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 14 Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State Stanaford Acres Sewerage System WV0084824 WV Thomas, City of WV0024856 WV Town of Elizabeth WV0041505 WV Tunnelton Town of WV0105651 WV Universal Fo rest Products East WV0076724 WV Webster Springs PSD WV0049875 WV West Hamlin Town of WV0020176 WV Williamsburg Sewer System WV0082091 WV Williamstown, City of WV0022071 WV Wood Cnty. Parks and Rec. WV0045616 WV WV Division of Natural Resources WV0082210 WV

Village of Emerson NE0041351 07

- Tribal Village of Rosalie NE0046302 07-Tribal Village of Thurston NE0031739 07

- Tribal2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 4 - 1



### Attachment 4: Appendix 1. Possible Changes to 2010 Reporting
EPA has limited ANCR reporting to individually-permitted standard non-majors as these are typically the permittees that submit monthly discharge reports. The regulations allow reporting for all non-majors (such as general permittees), but EPA has historically limited data collection to individual standard permits so data can be compared to Clean Water Act majors. This approach allows for an apples-to-apples comparison of violation rates that are based on discharge monitoring reports submitted.
EPA has received a request from West Virginia to change its ANCR reporting guidance to collect data for all non-major facilities, rather than the 39,000 universe of individuallypermitted non-majors. West Virginia notes that this will allow States to provide information about all program activities that are done in the full universe of NPDES non-majors. EPA is requesting comments on this proposed change. While this change would provide a greater breadth of information, it will make violation rates difficult to compare between majors and minors. This is because many of the non-majors that are excluded from the ANCR now do not regularly submit discharge monitoring reports. This means that in a given year, the State may have very little information about whether violations have happened (unless they happened to perform an inspection). The impact of adding all non-majors to the ANCR report would be a significant drop in violation rates – primarily because violation data are not readily available for a great percentage of facilities that would be added to the Annual Noncompliance Report.
Public or government commenters may provide input on whether EPA should continue the ANCR report for the existing universe (individually-permitted non-majors), or expand the report to include all non-major permittees, regardless of whether the facilities report DMRs. Comments must be provided within 30 days of the date of this report, and can be sent by email to echo@epa.gov . Commenters should clearly specify in the subject and/or body of the email that the comments relate to the “ANCR.” If EPA modifies the ANCR, then the earliest the changes would be implemented is calendar year 2011.