U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Annual Noncompliance Report (ANCR)

A State-by-State

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

http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/
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. Schedule-Noncompliant Non-major Facilities.................................................................. 16

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 Reporting
2009 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),

including a new State Dashboard. Although EPA does not require all the facility-level violation

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 a
2009 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 States 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

 Of the individually-permitted non-major facilities in either Category I or

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

dischargers of wastewater or stormwater). These ANCR data are not facility-specific but do

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 http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us) 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

discharges under the NPDES program and the Clean Water Act. Forty-six States and the Virgin

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.

In accordance with the NPDES permit requirements, each permittee self-monitors its

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

these certified, self-monitoring data to the State or EPA. Although States are not currently

required to provide EPA with database information about facility-specific discharges from

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 the
2009 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

authorized) review this self-monitoring data for compliance, conduct inspections of the

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 16th 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

System for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES).

 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).

 There is no existing requirement for States to provide EPA with facility-specific,

self-monitoring, violation, enforcement action, or penalty data for NPDES non-major

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

facility-specific information regarding the noncompliance status of these facilities for

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

as facility-specific information relating to standard, direct discharge non-major permits:

 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.

In addition, the ANCR requires a facility-specific alphabetic list (and permit number) of

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:

 Universe: States indicated that they regulate 39,119 individually-permitted NPDES nonmajor 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 States 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 (from
2009 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:

http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/.

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 NPDES
2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

11

data system, it may have included compliance reviews in conjunction with inspections or prior

to permit re-issuance, or the States may have used other manual means to conduct such

reviews.

For calendar year 2009, 19 States reported than they had reviewed the compliance

status for 100% of their individually-permitted non-major NPDES permittees. These States were

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

percentage of individually-permitted non-major permittees reviewed for noncompliance).

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 Reviewed

Num

b

er of States
2009 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

%

N

on-majors R

e

vie

w

e

d

2. Percentage of Reviewed Facilities with Violations

As 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.1Extended 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

noncompliance. However, of the States with “verified” data (i.e., States with facility-specific

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

individually-permitted non-major NPDES permittees are about twice as likely to have serious

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.

Of the individually-permitted non-major facilities in either Category I or Category II

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.

Of the individually-permitted non-major facilities in either Category I or Category II

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

actions against individually-permitted NPDES non-major facilities. This is an increase from

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.

As noted in the detailed State-by-State tables in this report, many States have facilities

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

State

N

onmajors with Formal Enf. Actions
2009 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

State

Penalties

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

schedule-noncompliant non-major permittees.
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

State

N

onmajors Behind Schedule

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

discharges under the NPDES program and the Clean Water Act. Forty-six States and the Virgin

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

individually-permitted NPDES non-major facilities in States, U.S. territories and Tribal

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

status for 92% of individually-permitted NPDES non-major facilities where EPA as the

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

States with facility-specific violation information in EPA’s national databases.

 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

serious noncompliance rate of 45% reported by authorized States with facility-specific

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 for

standard non-major permittees is $106,000. Penalties are less frequent in nonauthorized States and territories than in authorized States; penalties taken by EPA in

non-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

status for 68 (<1%) of the individually-permitted NPDES non-major facilities in

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

% Nonmajors with

Limits and

DMRs1in

PCS 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-majors

in

Category II

only

Total Nonmajors in

Category I

or

Category II,

of those

with Limits

and Current

DMRs

Category I

Noncompliance

Rate for

Non-majors

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

RNC2

Number of

Reviewed

Non-major

Facilities that

Received

Formal Enf.

Actions or

APO3for RNC

Dollars of

Penalties

Assessed

Against Nonmajors

Permit

Mods.

Extending

Compliance

Deadline

for 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 $39,100 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 1010 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% 676 657 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 0
2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 1 - 2

State

% Nonmajors with

Limits and

DMRs1in

PCS 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-majors

in

Category II

only

Total Nonmajors in

Category I

or

Category II,

of those

with Limits

and Current

DMRs

Category I

Noncompliance

Rate for

Non-majors

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

RNC2

Number of

Reviewed

Non-major

Facilities that

Received

Formal Enf.

Actions or

APO3for RNC

Dollars of

Penalties

Assessed

Against Nonmajors

Permit

Mods.

Extending

Compliance

Deadline

for 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 28 104 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 0
2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 1 - 3

State

% Nonmajors with

Limits and

DMRs1in

PCS 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-majors

in

Category II

only

Total Nonmajors in

Category I

or

Category II,

of those

with Limits

and Current

DMRs

Category I

Noncompliance

Rate for

Non-majors

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

RNC2

Number of

Reviewed

Non-major

Facilities that

Received

Formal Enf.

Actions or

APO3for RNC

Dollars of

Penalties

Assessed

Against Nonmajors

Permit

Mods.

Extending

Compliance

Deadline

for 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 $0
2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 1 - 4

State

% Nonmajors with

Limits and

DMRs1in

PCS 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-majors

in

Category II

only

Total Nonmajors in

Category I

or

Category II,

of those

with Limits

and Current

DMRs

Category I

Noncompliance

Rate for

Non-majors

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

RNC2

Number of

Reviewed

Non-major

Facilities that

Received

Formal Enf.

Actions or

APO3for RNC

Dollars of

Penalties

Assessed

Against Nonmajors

Permit

Mods.

Extending

Compliance

Deadline

for 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 States 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 facilities reviewed for violations, what percent have had noncompliance (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 Violations

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. States 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 taken 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 Enforcement 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.

http://www.epa-echo.gov/cgi-bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=

List of Facilities > 1 yr. behind Compliance Schedule Deadlines (n=535)

Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State

Arab Sewer 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 AL0051144 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 AZ0025054 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 IL
2009 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 KY0033413 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 LA
2009 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

Barnett Manor MO0097144 MO

BCSD, Springpark Subdivision MO0100463 MO

BCSD/Wagon Trail Hts. WWTF MO0094293 MO

Bel Air Estates 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 Estates 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 Stab. 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 MO

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 MO

Eric Taylor 7-9 WWTF MO0132292 MO

Essex WWTF MO0089273 MO
2009 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 Village 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 Subdivision 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 MO0048640 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-III 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 Estates MO0124745 MO

Oak Grove Trailer Park MO0096857 MO

Oak Hills Campground MO0115754 MO
2009 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 Estates MHP WWTF MO0090051 MO

Pine Valley Resort WWTF MO0112895 MO

Point Charles Estates 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 Estates MO0127981 MO

Sebelius Lagoon 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 MO0089097 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 MO
2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 6

Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State

Twin Oaks Estates 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 LLC 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 OH
2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 7

Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State

BOES MEAT PROCESSING PLANT OH0032701 OH

BOWERSTON POINTE HEALTH AND OH0140562 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

CERTIFIED 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 OH0140473 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 OH
2009 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 ESTATES 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 ESTATES 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 ESTATES 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 OH0078450 OH

MCEQUITIES LLC OH0122149 OH

MCEQUITIES LLC OH0138401 OH
2009 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 ESTATES 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 OH0103217 OH

SOUTHERN OHIO COMMUNITY OH0137502 OH

SOUTHVIEW ESTATES 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 OH
2009 Annual Noncompliance Report

Att 3 - 10

Facility Name NPDES Permit Number State

STATELINE 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

VILLAGE 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 OH0029122 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 OH
2009 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 OH0020729 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 OH0125776 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 OK
2009 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. SC0026763 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 WV
2009 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

Montgomery 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 WV
2009 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 Forest 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-Tribal
2009 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.