Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-0399
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-12-24T05:00Z

Effluent
Guidelines
Ambient
Analysis
Proposed
Methodology
and
Results
for
Analysis
 
Final
Draft_____

Prepared
for:

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Water
Office
of
Wetlands,
Oceans,
and
Watersheds
And
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
Prepared
by:

INDUS
Corporation
1953
Gallows
Rd
Vienna,
VA
22182
Effluent
Guidelines
Ambient
Analysis
Contract
Number:
50CMAA900048
Task
Order:
56CMAA000006
Job
Assignment
Number:
027
July
30,
2003
Table
of
Contents
1.0
Introduction.............................................................................................................
1
1.1
Document
Description.........................................................................................
2
1.2
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan..........................................................................
2
2.0
Source
Data
Descriptions
........................................................................................
2
2.1
Phase
I
Source
Data.............................................................................................
2
2.1.1
PCS,
Parameter
Data.......................................................................................
2
2.1.2
PCS,
Industry
Typical
Pollutant
Concentration
Data
.......................................
3
2.1.3
PCS,
Reach
Index
Data...................................................................................
3
2.1.4
Impaired
Waters,
Impairment
Data
.................................................................
4
2.1.5
Impaired
Waters,
Reach
Index
Data................................................................
4
2.1.6
Fish
Consumption
Advisory
Data
...................................................................
4
2.1.7
Fish
Consumption
Advisory,
Reach
Index
Data
..............................................
4
2.1.8
NHD
Data.......................................................................................................
5
2.2
Phase
II
Source
Data
...........................................................................................
5
2.2.1
STORET.........................................................................................................
5
2.2.2
STORET,
Reach
Index
Data
...........................................................................
5
3.0
Process
Description
.................................................................................................
5
3.1
Phase
I..................................................................................................................
5
3.1.1
Constructing
Parameter
Mappings
..................................................................
6
3.1.2
Calculating
Water
Network
Interactions..........................................................
7
3.1.3
Reporting
Potential
Relationships
...................................................................
7
3.2
Phase
II
................................................................................................................
8
4.0
Results
Summary.....................................................................................................
8
4.1
Phase
I
Results
Summary....................................................................................
8
4.1.1
PCS
and
Impaired
Waters
Results
Summary...................................................
8
4.1.2
PCS
and
Fish
Consumption
Advisories
Results
Summary.............................
21
4.2
Phase
II
Results
Summary
................................................................................
21
List
of
Tables
Table
1.0:
PCS
Facility,
Discharge,
and
Limit
Counts
on
Impaired
Waters...................
10
Table
2.1a:
Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters,
Rank
by
Percent
of
Indexed........................
11
Table
2.1b:
Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters,
Rank
by
Percent
of
All
Facilities
................
12
Table
2.1c:
Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters,
Rank
by
Count............................................
12
Table
2.2a:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
Indexed
..............................................................................................................................
13
Table
2.2b:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
All
Facilities................................................................................................................
13
Table
2.2c:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Count
................
14
Table
2.3a:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
Indexed
.................................................................................................................
14
Table
2.3b:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
All
Facilities................................................................................................................
15
Table
2.3c:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Count...............
15
Table
2.4a:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
Indexed
.................................................................................................................
16
Table
2.4b:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
All
Facilities................................................................................................................
16
Table
2.4c:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Count
..............
17
Table
2.5a:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
Indexed
.................................................................................................................
17
Table
2.5b:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
All
Facilities................................................................................................................
18
Table
2.5c:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Count
.............
18
Table
2.6a:
Facility
TPC
or
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
or
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
Indexed.....................................................................................................
19
Table
2.6b:
Facility
TPC
or
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
or
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Count
....................................................................................................................
19
Table
3.0:
Datafile
Descriptions
...................................................................................
21
1.0
Introduction
The
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
has
a
legislative
requirement
from
Section
304(
m)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
to
analyze
the
effects
of
differing
industrial
sectors
on
water
quality.
Part
of
this
requirement
involves
evaluating
existing
effluent
guidelines
and
standards
(
ELGs)
and
evaluating
the
need
for
new
ELGs.
Utilizing
the
Watershed
Assessment,
Tracking,
and
Environmental
Results
(
WATERS)
system,
EPA
is
investigating
more
comprehensive
and
efficient
methods
of
evaluating
the
effectiveness
of
the
ELGs
and
identifying
areas
of
research
for
new
ELGs.

WATERS
is
an
integrated
information
system
for
the
nation's
surface
waters.
The
EPA
Office
of
Water
(
OW)
has
various
programs
that
store
data
in
associated
databases.
These
databases
are
separately
managed
with
little
coordination
among
them.
Under
WATERS,
the
program
databases
are
connected
to
a
larger
framework.
This
framework
is
a
digital
network
of
surface
water
features
known
as
the
National
Hydrography
Dataset
(
NHD).
By
linking
to
the
NHD,
one
program
database
can
reach
another,
and
information
can
be
shared
across
programs.
The
effluent
guidelines
ambient
analysis
will
utilize
several
components
of
WATERS
including:

The
total
maximum
daily
load
(
TMDL)
database
containing
CWA
section
303(
d)
listed
waters;

The
303(
d)
reach
index
event
tables;

The
permit
compliance
system
(
PCS)
reach
index
event
tables;

The
fish
consumption
advisory
reach
index
event
tables;

National
Hydrography
Data
(
NHD);
and

The
NHD
navigation
engine
In
addition
to
these
WATERS
components,
additional
components
for
the
analysis
will
include:

The
EnviroFacts
(
EF)
PCS
database;

The
typical
pollutant
concentration
(
TPC)
tables;
and

The
STOrage
and
RETrieval
System
for
National
Water
Data
(
STORET)
(
phase
II
of
the
analysis)

The
effluent
guidelines
ambient
analysis
is
a
two­
phase
analysis.
The
first
phase
explores
the
relationships
between
industry
point
source
discharges
to
water
and
both
impaired
waters
and
waters
with
fish
consumption
advisories
issued
for
them.
The
second
phase
will
explore
the
relationships
between
industry
point
source
discharges
and
ambient
water
quality
as
measured
by
the
various
water
quality
monitoring
stations
stored
in
the
STORET
database.

Due
to
current
limitations
in
the
NHD
navigation
engine,
the
upstream/
downstream
portions
of
the
analysis
have
been
deferred.
The
upstream/
downstream
portions
of
the
analysis
may
be
reported
in
a
future
version
of
this
document.
July
30,
2003
Section
1
INDUS
Corporation
2
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
1.1
Document
Description
This
document
is
divided
into
four
major
sections.
The
first
section
(
this
section)
provides
an
introduction
to
the
project.
The
second
section
describes
the
data
sources
including
discussions
of
data
completeness,
content
issues,
and
location
accuracy.
Issues
affecting
the
accuracy
of
the
study
results
will
be
discussed.
The
third
section
moves
step
by
step
through
the
analysis
process,
once
again
describing
any
issues
that
may
impact
the
study
results.
Finally,
the
fourth
section
provides
some
summary
information
regarding
the
study
results
as
well
as
a
description
of
the
data
products
created
as
part
of
the
study.
The
second
phase
of
the
analysis
utilizing
the
STORET
database
will
only
be
generally
discussed.
Details
regarding
the
analysis
process
and
results
will
be
included
in
a
future
version
of
this
document.

1.2
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
The
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
(
QAPP)
for
this
project
was
delivered
in
a
separate
document,
"
The
Effluent
Guidelines
Ambient
Analysis
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan".
This
document
along
with
the
"
The
Effluent
Guidelines
Ambient
Analysis
Work
Plan"
fully
describes
the
organizational
plans
and
processes
under
which
the
project
operates.

2.0
Source
Data
Descriptions
The
source
of
each
set
of
data
is
discussed
below.
This
discussion
is
not
intended
to
fully
describe
the
data
source,
rather
it
is
intended
to
document
the
source
and
raise
any
known
issues
related
to
this
analysis.
As
this
analysis
proceeds,
additional
information
may
be
added
to
these
descriptions
to
more
accurately
represent
the
risks
to
this
analysis,
and
identify
areas
where
improved
source
data
quality
are
likely
to
improve
the
quality
of
this
analysis.

2.1.
Phase
I
Source
Data
The
impairments
portion
of
the
analysis
was
conducted
utilizing
primarily
data
from
WATERS.
In
addition
to
the
data
from
WATERS,
the
EPA
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
(
OECA),
Office
of
Compliance
(
OC),
Enforcement
Planning,
Targeting,
and
Data
Division
(
EPTDD)
supplied
PCS
parameter
data
and
TPC
tables.

2.1.1.
PCS
Parameter
Data
The
EnviroFacts
(
EF)
database
was
utilized
to
extract
PCS
facility,
current
pipe
schedule,
and
current
effluent
parameter
(
limits)
data.
The
data
from
EF
were
extracted
on
February
23,
2003
from
the
National
PCS
ADABAS
system
and
contained
168,617
unique
facility
NPDES
(
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System)
IDs
representing
the
active
PCS
facilities.
Due
to
data
problems,
the
Envirofacts
system
could
not
load
1078
facility
records
it
had
extracted
from
the
PCS
ADABAS
system
into
the
PCS_
PERMIT_
FACILITY
table.
Of
those
1078
records,
657
had
been
reachindexed
We
were
able
to
extract
limited
facility
information
for
656
of
those
657
July
30,
2003
Section
2
INDUS
Corporation
3
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
facilities
from
the
Facility
Registry
System
(
FRS)
portion
of
the
EF
database.
This
limited
information
included
only
NPDES
ID,
Major
Discharge
Indicator,
Facility
Name,
State,
and
Permit
Type.
States
vary
in
the
types
of
PCS
permits
they
issue
and
not
all
of
these
permit
types
are
considered
nationally
significant.
As
a
result,
not
all
facilities
have
current
pipe
schedule
and
current
effluent
parameter
limit
information
stored
in
the
National
PCS
ADABAS
database.
Of
the
168,517
active
facilities,
63,878
had
at
least
one
current
pipe
schedule
and
61,276
had
at
least
one
current
effluent
parameter
limit.
Of
the
6,833
Major
facilities,
6,692
had
at
least
one
current
pipe
schedule
and
6,685
had
at
least
one
current
effluent
parameter
limit.

2.1.2.
PCS,
Industry
Typical
Pollutant
Concentration
Data
These
data
were
obtained
from
the
EPA
OECA/
OC/
EPTDD
in
the
form
of
an
excel
spreadsheet.
The
spreadsheet
contained
TPC
group
code,
SIC
code,
and
estimated
facility
concentrations
by
PCS
parameter.
The
spreadsheet
contains
650
records
representing
unique
occurrences
of
TPC
code,
SIC
code,
and
special
discharge
activity
code
(
SDAC).
It
also
contains
32
PCS
parameters
with
estimated
facility
concentrations
for
each
unique
record.

For
this
analysis,
only
cells
with
a
non­
null
and
non­
zero
estimated
facility
loading
value
were
used.
The
parameter
code
(
column)
and
SIC
code
(
row)
associated
with
each
of
these
cells
was
placed
into
the
SIC_
PARAM_
LUT
table
along
with
the
concentration
and
SDAC.
This
table
will
provide
assumed
discharges
for
PCS
facilities
based
on
the
primary
SIC
code
for
each
facility.

It
should
be
noted
that
there
are
over
45,000
PCS
facilities
that
have
no
SIC
code
assigned
(
it
is
null
in
the
database).
All
but
20
of
these
facilities
are
PCS
minor
facilities.
Since
the
TPC
parameters
are
assigned
based
on
the
SIC,
these
facilities
are
excluded
from
the
universe
of
facilities
for
all
TPC­
based
phases
of
this
analysis.
The
data
quality
for
these
facilities
is
somewhat
lower
than
for
the
rest
of
the
PCS
facilities.
Only
about
16%
of
these
facilities
are
indexed
as
compared
to
about
24%
overall.

REFERENCE:
Improving
Point
Source
Loadings
Data
for
Reporting
National
Water
Quality
Indicators
 
Tetra
Tech,
2003
2.1.3.
PCS,
Reach
Index
Data
The
PCS
pipe
outfall
locations
were
indexed
to
the
NHD
data
consistent
with
the
RAD
version
2.0
NHD
data
from
November
2002
through
February
2003.
Using
latitude
and
longitude
information
from
PCS,
indexes
of
each
pipe
outfall
location
were
created,
except
where
no
location
data
was
available
from
PCS.
In
some
cases,
facility
latitude
and
longitude
information
was
used
instead
of
pipe
outfall
specific
location
data.
Details
regarding
the
current
indexing
effort
will
be
released
under
a
different
task.
A
similar
process
was
applied
to
an
earlier
PCS
indexing
effort,
and
a
description
of
that
process
can
be
found
in
the
reference
listed
below.
July
30,
2003
Section
2
INDUS
Corporation
4
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
Reference:
Identifying
Source
of
Water
Quality
Impairments,
RTI,
July
2002.

2.1.4.
Impaired
Waters,
Impairment
Data
The
TMDL
database
in
WATERS
contains
the
state
identified
and
EPA
approved
lists
of
impaired
waters
as
identified
under
section
303(
d)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
their
water
impairments
and
the
approved
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
documents
to
describe
the
plan
to
address
the
impaired
waters.
Currently,
data
from
three
review
cycles;
1996,
1998,
and
2000
are
contained
within
the
database.
Data
for
2002
is
currently
under
review
by
EPA
but
has
not
been
released
by
EPA
for
inclusion
within
the
database.
For
this
analysis,
only
the
current
set
of
impaired
listed
waters
and
their
impairments
were
used.
Depending
on
the
state,
this
data
is
from
either
a
1998
submitted
list
or
a
2000
submitted
list.
When
the
state
submits
the
list
of
impaired
waters
for
EPA
review
and
approval,
it
also
identifies
a
list
of
biological
and
chemical
impairments
for
each
impaired
water.

2.1.5.
Impaired
Waters,
Reach
Index
Data
Of
the
22,041
current
impaired
waters
in
the
WATERS
database,
19,674
have
been
reached
indexed.
The
reach­
indexing
of
these
impaired
waters
was
performed
either
directly
by
the
states
using
a
reach­
indexing
tool
provided
by
EPA
or
they
were
performed
by
an
EPA
contractor
through
a
map
interpolation
of
the
impaired
water
from
a
marked
map
provided
by
the
state.
Only
impaired
waters
that
have
been
reach­
indexed
were
used
for
this
analysis.

2.1.6.
Fish
Consumption
Advisory
Data
The
National
Listing
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
Advisories
(
NLFWA)
database
includes
all
available
information
describing
state­,
tribal­,
and
federally­
issued
fish
consumption
advisories
in
the
United
States
for
the
50
States,
the
District
of
Columbia,
and
four
U.
S.
Territories,
and
in
Canada
for
the
12
provinces
and
territories.
The
database
contains
information
provided
to
EPA
by
the
states,
tribes,
territories
and
Canada.

Further
information
regarding
this
data
source
will
be
gathered
when
the
PCS
and
fish
consumption
part
of
the
analysis
is
performed.

Reference:
National
Listing
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
Consumption
Advisories
Web
Page
from
the
EPA/
OW
website
(
http://
map1.
epa.
gov/)

2.1.7.
Fish
Consumption
Advisory,
Reach
Index
Data
The
fish
consumption
advisory
data
has
been
reach
indexed
to
the
RAD
V
2.0
NHD
data.
There
are
two
distinct
types
of
advisories
that
have
been
indexed:
state
wide
advisories
and
individual
waterbody
advisories.
For
the
purposes
of
this
analysis,
only
the
individual
waterbody
advisories
will
be
considered.
Further
information
regarding
this
July
30,
2003
Section
2
INDUS
Corporation
5
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
data
source
will
be
gathered
when
the
PCS
and
fish
consumption
part
of
the
analysis
is
performed.

2.1.8.
NHD
Data
The
NHD
database
in
WATERS
called
the
RAD
(
reach
address
database)
contains
a
national
seamless
NHD
feature
database.
In
addition
to
feature
classifications,
names,
and
cartographic
information,
the
RAD
contains
a
nationally
consistent
flow
network
consisting
of
reaches,
measures,
and
flow
relationships.
Using
this
feature
of
the
NHD,
water
related
data
can
be
indexed
to
the
NHD,
and
flow
of
water
can
be
modelled,
allowing
relationships
between
any
data
indexed
to
the
NHD
to
be
evaluated.

2.2.
Phase
II
Source
Data
2.2.1.
STORET
The
STORET
warehouse
or
modernized
STORET
will
be
used
as
the
source
for
parameter
data
associated
with
monitoring
stations.
Further
requirements
will
need
to
be
collected
to
determine
the
desired
time
frames
for
sample
collection
to
be
used
in
the
analysis.
In
addition,
time­
series
analysis
could
be
performed
such
as
utilizing
permit
initiation
dates
to
investigate
changes
in
ambient
water
concentrations
for
permitted
parameters,
or
to
examine
trends
in
water
quality.
These
data
will
be
documented
completely
when
the
requirements
for
this
phase
of
the
analysis
are
fully
defined.

2.2.2.
STORET,
Reach
Index
Data
The
STORET
database
does
not
currently
contain
sampling
station
reach
indexes,
so
a
source
of
reach
indexes
for
the
sampling
stations
selected
for
this
analysis
will
have
to
be
identified.
It
is
also
possible
that
the
necessary
indexing
work
could
be
performed
as
part
of
this
project,
depending
on
resources,
timing,
and
other
work
in
progress
for
the
STORET
data.

3.0
Process
Description
The
process
steps
executed
for
the
analysis
are
described
below.
For
each
phase,
an
overview
of
the
process
is
followed
by
a
step­
by­
step
discussion
of
the
process.
Throughout
the
step­
by­
step
discussion,
issues
potentially
impacting
the
quality
of
the
analysis
are
raised.

3.1.
Phase
I
This
portion
of
the
analysis
focuses
on
building
relationships
between
parameters
discharged
and
the
environmental
impacts
as
measured
by
impaired
waters
and
fish
consumption
advisories.
There
are
two
main
components
involved.
First
associations
between
the
disparate
categories
of
parameters
from
the
three
systems
must
be
constructed.
Second,
the
interactions
between
the
discharge
points
and
the
impaired
July
30,
2003
Section
3
INDUS
Corporation
6
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
waterbodies
in
the
water
network
must
be
calculated.
The
results
of
this
phase
of
the
analysis
are
reported
as
various
potential
relationships
between
the
facilities
and
impairments.

3.1.1.
Constructing
Parameter
Mappings
PCS
Parameters
to
Impaired
Waters
Impairments
The
following
steps
outline
the
process
of
generating
a
crosswalk
from
the
PCS
parameters
to
the
impaired
waters
impairments.
The
final
product
from
this
project
step
will
be
a
table
showing
all
reasonable
relationships
between
each
PCS
parameter
and
each
impairment.
This
table
will
contain
the
PCS
parameter
code
and
the
impaired
waters
impairment
code.

The
lists
of
parameters
and
impairments
within
the
program
databases
have
been
developed
independent
of
each
other,
and
therefore
a
simple
one­
to­
one
relationship
cannot
be
constructed
for
many
parameters
and
impairments.
In
addition,
within
each
database,
there
are
some
inconsistencies,
such
as
impairments
for
"
nutrients"
as
well
as
impairments
for
particular
nutrients,
such
as
"
nitrate."
As
a
result
of
these
inconsistencies,
the
mappings
created
often
map
a
single
parameter
to
multiple
impairments,
and
a
single
impairment
to
multiple
parameters.
In
general,
very
similar
parameters
and
impairments
were
mapped
assuming
that
spurious
relationships
will
be
removed
during
the
review
of
these
processes.

The
following
steps
were
followed
to
create
the
crosswalk
table:

1.
An
Oracle
Intermedia
Index
(
full
text)
was
created
for
the
PCS
Parameter
Code
Description
and
the
303(
d)
Impairment
Description.
2.
Lookup's
were
performed
using
the
indexes
between
the
two
tables
to
create
the
initial
crosswalk
table.
1736
crosswalk
relationships
were
initially
created.
3.
Using
the
list
of
parameters
in
the
Typical
Pollutant
Concentration
tables
by
SIC
provided
by
Steve
Rubin,
we
manually
matched
this
list
of
PCS
parameters
to
303(
d)
impairments.
24
additional
crosswalk
relationships
were
manually
identified.
4.
Next
we
created
a
list
of
all
remaining
impairments
for
which
there
were
no
matching
PCS
parameters.
This
list
was
reviewed
and
where
possible,
we
identified
alternate
search
terms
to
use
for
matching
with
the
PCS
parameter
descriptions.
114
additional
crosswalk
relationships
where
identified
from
the
alternate
search
terms.
5.
The
alternate
search
terms
were
matched
against
the
PCS
parameter
description
index
to
identify
additional
matches.
1,369
additional
crosswalk
relationships
were
identified.
6.
One
of
the
303(
d)
impairments
is
the
general
category
of
"
NUTRIENTS".
To
match
against
this
impairment,
we
used
the
list
of
nutrients
in
OST's
Nutrient
database
matching
the
nutrient
STORET
code
against
the
PCS
parameter
code.
51
additional
crosswalk
relationships
were
identified.
July
30,
2003
Section
3
INDUS
Corporation
7
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
7.
The
complete
list
of
matches
was
manually
reviewed
and
mis­
matches
were
manually
deleted.
32
crosswalks
were
deleted.
8.
In
addition
to
the
detailed
303(
d)
impairment
to
PCS
Parameter
Code
crosswalk
table,
we
also
created
a
"
rolled"
up
version
from
this
table
using
a
"
Parent
Master
Impairment"
identified
in
the
303(
d)
system.
These
parent
master
impairments
represent
general
impairment
categories
that
EPA
uses
for
national
reporting
purposes.

Since
this
crosswalk
is
to
be
used
as
a
screening
tool,
we
did
not
exclude
matches
that
we're
not
exact
in
creating
our
matches
between
the
two
systems.
In
particular,
we
did
not
delete
matches
between
different
isomers
of
a
compound.
There
were
other
difficulties
in
matching
some
of
the
more
general
303(
d)
impairment
categories
against
specific
PCS
parameters.
Other
areas
that
will
need
to
be
reviewed
concern
the
various
impairments/
parameters
of
Nitrogen,
Ammonia,
Organic
Pollutants
(
Priority
vs
Non­
Priority)
and
Oxygen
Demand.

PCS
Parameters
to
Fish
Consumption
Pollutants
When
the
fish
consumption
data
is
made
available
for
this
analysis,
a
specific
process
will
be
developed.
The
process
is
likely
to
be
modelled
from
the
PCS
parameters
to
impaired
waters
impairments
process
discussed
above.

3.1.2.
Calculating
Water
Network
Interactions
One
of
the
motivations
for
reach
indexing
water
program
information
to
NHD
reaches
is
the
ability
to
use
these
indexed
data
to
quickly
evaluate
relationships
between
them.
The
process
of
determining
the
relationship
between
two
reach­
indexed
entities
for
this
analysis
will
be
a
two­
part
process.
The
tools
necessary
to
navigate
upstream
and
downstream
in
the
WATERS
NHD
database
have
not
been
installed,
so
only
PCS
pipe
locations
falling
directly
onto
impaired
water
segments
will
be
evaluated
for
the
first
part
of
this
analysis.
As
the
tools
become
available
in
WATERS,
an
evaluation
of
PCS
pipe
locations
upstream
of
303(
d)
listed
waters
could
be
conducted
and
added
to
the
initial
results.

The
measure
and
reach
code
for
each
PCS
pipe
index
is
matched
against
all
from/
to
measures
and
reach
codes
for
303(
d)
listed
waters
where
the
following
are
true,
the
PCS
pipe
location
falls
on
an
impaired
water.
1)
the
PCS
reach
code
=
303(
d)
reach
code
and
2)
the
PCS
measure
>=
303(
d)
from
measure
and
3)
the
PCS
measure
=<
303(
d)
to
measure
These
selections
were
done
using
SQL
in
the
RAD
Oracle
database.

3.1.3.
Reporting
Potential
Relationships
The
creation
of
parameter/
impairment
mappings
and
water
network
interactions
facilitates
the
analysis
of
relationships
between
PCS
information
and
water
quality
issues.
Of
particular
interest
for
this
analysis
is
the
frequency
of
particular
groups
of
PCS
July
30,
2003
Section
3
INDUS
Corporation
8
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
facilities
or
industry
categories
to
particular
water
quality
issues.
Summaries
of
some
of
the
types
of
relationships
are
presented
in
section
4,
and
the
individual
relationships
determined
during
this
analysis
are
provided
in
the
related
data
files.
Clearly,
not
all
relationships
of
interest
have
been
explored
in
this
document,
and
further
examination
of
the
data
may
be
conducted.

3.2.
Phase
II
When
phase
II
work
begins,
further
research
into
analysis
methods
will
be
performed,
and
a
detailed
analysis
approach
will
be
developed
at
that
time.

4.0
Results
Summary
The
information
presented
here
will
provide
an
overview
of
the
data.
There
are
several
types
of
summaries
for
each
results
section,
and
they
are
intended
to
illustrate
the
effectiveness
of
the
analysis.
Each
portion
of
the
analysis
is
separated
into
its
own
section.

As
additional
portions
of
the
analysis
are
completed,
the
results
sections
will
be
updated
with
the
appropriate
information.

4.1.
Phase
I
Results
Summary
The
phase
I
analysis
will
not
be
completed
until
the
navigation
tools
are
available
in
the
RAD,
so
the
information
here
represents
only
the
preliminary
results.
It
is
possible
that
significant
amounts
of
information
will
be
added
when
PCS
pipe
outfall
locations
upstream
of
impaired
waters
or
fish
consumption
advisories
are
included.
The
pipe
outfalls
currently
in
the
analysis
results
are
likely
to
represent
a
majority
of
the
most
important
facilities
for
these
waters,
however,
care
should
be
taken
in
extrapolating
these
results
beyond
their
use
as
a
targeting
tool.
No
attempt
to
incorporate
emission
quantity,
or
evaluate
cumulative
effects
on
impaired
segments
has
been
included
in
this
analysis.
In
addition,
toxicity,
human
health
risks,
or
other
environmental
impacts
associated
with
these
parameters
and
impairments
have
not
been
evaluated
as
part
of
this
analysis.

Fish
consumption
results
summary
information
will
be
added
when
access
to
the
fish
consumption
data
allows
the
necessary
analysis
to
be
performed.

4.1.1.
PCS
and
Impaired
Waters
Results
Summary
The
detailed
data
files
containing
specific
facility,
discharge,
and
parameter
values
for
each
case
are
not
included
in
this
document,
although
a
description
of
the
data
files
is
included
here.
The
summary
tables
that
do
appear
in
this
section
provide
some
information
about
the
scope
of
co­
location
of
PCS
discharges
on
impaired
waters
as
well
as
some
indication
of
the
industry
sectors
that
are
most
likely
to
be
co­
located.
As
indicated
in
the
data
source
and
process
method
discussions
above,
the
quality,
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
9
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
completeness,
and
accuracy
of
the
source
program
location
data,
the
reach
indexing
data
(
largely
based
on
the
location
data),
the
parameter/
impairment
crosswalk,
and,
for
future
analysis,
the
NHD
network
flow
relationships
have
significant
potential
impact
on
the
outcome
of
this
analysis.

Section
1
 
Summary
Results
Table
1
provides
an
overview
of
the
analysis
results
at
a
national
level.
Totals
for
facilities,
outfalls,
and
parameter
limits
(
referred
to
generically
as
"
objects"
for
the
remainder
of
this
discussion)
are
provided,
as
all
three
of
these
PCS
levels
are
important
to
this
analysis.
For
each
level,
the
following
summary
totals
are
provided:
total
objects,
total
indexed
objects,
and
total
objects
by
3
match
types:
on
impaired
segment,
matched
to
detail
impairment,
and
matched
to
master
impairment.
Totals
are
further
categorized
by
objects
associated
with
major
facilities
and
objects
related
to
minor
facilities
(
i.
e.,
a
parameter
limit
for
a
pipe
schedule
for
a
major
facility
would
be
counted
in
the
PCS
major
category).
Detailed
descriptions
for
each
row
in
table
1
are
below.

Total
All
facilities,
pipe
schedules,
and
limits
from
the
EnviroFacts
extract
(
Section
2.1.1)
are
tabulated
by
facility
major/
minor
code.

Total
Indexed
All
indexed
pipe
schedules
(
or
their
facility
location
surrogate)
and
their
related
facilities
and
limits
are
tabulated
by
EnviroFacts
facility
major/
minor
code.
Percentage
of
indexed
over
total.

On
Impaired
Segment
All
indexed
pipe
schedules
(
or
their
facility
location
surrogate)
and
their
related
facilities
and
limits
where
the
pipe
schedule
index
point
falls
on
an
impaired
water
segment
index.
Percentage
of
co­
located
over
total
indexed
Matched
to
Detail
Impairment
For
facilities,
all
TPC
parameters
for
facilities
where
at
least
one
discharge
point
was
colocated
with
an
impaired
water
were
matched
to
the
detailed
impairments
of
that
impaired
water.
Where
both
co­
location
and
parameter
to
impairment
matching
occurred
at
least
once,
that
facility
was
counted.
For
discharge
points
and
limits,
a
similar
process
was
used,
except
that
PCS
limits
for
the
facility
(
all
parameters
at
any
discharge
point
were
used
to
match
to
detail
impairments
at
all
discharge
points)
were
matched
against
detailed
impairments
at
co­
locations.
Percentage
of
matched
to
detail
impairment
over
co­
located.

Matched
to
Master
Impairment
For
facilities,
all
TPC
parameters
for
facilities
where
at
least
one
discharge
point
was
colocated
with
an
impaired
water
were
matched
to
the
master
impairments
of
that
impaired
water.
Where
both
co­
location
and
parameter
to
impairment
matching
occurred
at
least
once,
that
facility
was
counted.
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
10
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
For
discharge
points
and
limits,
a
similar
process
was
used,
except
that
PCS
limits
for
the
facility
(
all
parameters
at
any
discharge
point
were
used
to
match
to
master
impairments
at
all
discharge
points)
were
matched
against
detailed
impairments
at
co­
locations.
Percentage
of
matched
to
detail
impairment
over
co­
located.

PCS
Facilities
PCS
Discharge
Points
PCS
Limits
Total
Total
168,517
Major
6,833
Minor
161,684
Total
131,515
Major
24,045
Minor
107,470
Total
1,411,285
Major
267,798
Minor
1,143,487
Total
Indexed
(%
of
Total)
Total
74,480
(
44%)
Major
6,355
(
93%)
Minor
68,125
(
42%)
Total
81,901
(
62%)
Major
22,909
(
95%)
Minor
58,992
(
55%)
Total
680,959
(
48%)
Major
252,231
(
94%)
Minor
428,728
(
38%)
On
Impaired
Segment
(%
of
Total
Indexed)
Total
17,511
(
24%)
Major
3,147
(
50%)
Minor
14,364
(
21%)
Total
31,338
(
38%)
Major
13,723
(
60%)
Minor
17,615
(
30%)
Total
251,162
(
37%)
Major
143,330
(
57%)
Minor
107,832
(
25%)
Matched
to
Detail
Impairment
(%
of
on
Impaired)
Total
4,904
(
28%)
Major
2,059
(
65%)
Minor
2,845
(
20%)
Total
7,765
(
25%)
Major
3,588
(
26%)
Minor
4,177
(
24%)
Total
14,308
(
6%)
Major
6,824
(
5%)
Minor
7,484
(
7%)
Matched
to
Master
Impairment
(%
of
on
Impaired)
Total
4,687
(
27%)
Major
1,664
(
53%)
Minor
3,023
(
21%)
Total
7,848
(
25%)
Major
3,436
(
25%)
Minor
4,412
(
25%)
Total
23,172
(
9%)
Major
11,815
(
8%)
Minor
11,357
(
11%)

Table
1.0:
PCS
Facility,
Discharge,
and
Limit
Counts
on
Impaired
Waters
Section
2
 
Industry
Classification
Summaries
The
tables
in
this
section
are
summarized
by
industry
categories,
and
in
each
case
show
the
industry
categories
most
commonly
co­
located
with
impaired
water
segments
for
each
analysis.
Only
the
top
10
or
11
industry
classifications
(
by
4
digit
SIC)
are
shown
in
each
table,
and
only
industry
classifications
with
at
least
10
PCS
facilities
are
considered.
Below
the
tables,
the
total
number
of
industries
that
were
excluded
due
to
small
numbers
of
facilities
in
the
PCS
database
associated
with
them
is
listed.

There
are
6
sets
of
tables
with
facility
counts
summarized
by
industry
classification
(
four
digit
SIC
code),
with
the
themes
representing:
1.
Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters;
2.
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments;
3.
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments;
4.
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments;
5.
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments;
and
6.
Facility
TPC
or
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
or
Detail
Impairments.

For
the
first
five
sets
of
tables,
there
are
3
tables
in
each
set:
a.
Rank
by
Percent
Indexed
b.
Rank
by
Percent
of
All
Facilities
c.
Rank
by
Count
For
the
last
set
of
tables,
there
are
only
two
tables
with:
a.
Rank
by
Percent
Indexed;
and
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
11
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
b.
Rank
by
Count.

Note
that
for
all
industry
classification
summaries
and
especially
any
TPC­
based
analysis,
more
than
45,000
facilities
with
no
reported
facility
SIC
code
are
excluded
from
the
analysis
(
see
Section
2.1.2).

Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters
by
Total
Indexed
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters
(
4)
Total
Indexed
Facilities
Total
Facilities
(
6)
SIC
Rank
(%)
in
All
Facilities
(
5)

67%
8
12
18
4449
3
(
44%)
65
11
17
31
4492
11
(
35)
58
19
33
38
3316
2
(
50)
56
15
27
34
2812
3
(
44)
54
7
13
16
2295
3
(
44)
52
12
23
39
4499
14
(
31)
50
5
10
39
3822
32
(
13)
50
78
157
188
3312
5
(
41)
50
9
18
22
3297
5
(
41)
50
6
12
20
3366
15
(
30)
50
27
54
69
2865
7
(
39)
50
78
156
204
3731
8
(
38)
50
7
14
19
2032
9
(
37)

Table
2.1a:
Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters,
Rank
by
Percent
of
Indexed
*
Industry
classes
with
fewer
than
10
indexed
PCS
facilities
were
not
included
in
this
table.
192
industry
classes
were
excluded
including
308
total
facilities.
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
12
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters
by
Total
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters
(
4)
Total
Facilities
SIC
Rank
(%)
in
All
Indexed
Facilities
(
1),
(
5)

60
6
10
2062
XX
50
19
38
3316
3
(
58)
50
5
10
5085
XX
44
15
34
2812
4
(
56)
44
8
18
4449
1
(
67)
44
7
16
2295
5
(
54)
42
22
53
4961
8
(
49)
41
9
22
3297
7
(
50)
41
13
32
2046
9
(
48)
41
78
188
3312
7
(
50)

Table
2.1b:
Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters,
Rank
by
Percent
of
All
Facilities
*
Industry
classes
with
fewer
than
10
PCS
facilities
were
not
included
in
this
table.
133
industry
classes
were
excluded
including
187
total
facilities.

Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters
SIC
4263
4952
433
4911
411
4941
329
5171
313
5541
256
3273
254
1221
177
1422
166
1611
126
6514
126
4953
Table
2.1c:
Facilities
on
Impaired
Waters,
Rank
by
Count
*
Excludes
1184
facilities
with
no
SIC
recorded
and
133
that
were
classified
as
Nonclassifiable
Establishments.
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
13
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
Facilities
Matched
by
TPC
to
Detailed
Impairment
by
Indexed
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
Matched
by
TPC
to
Detailed
Impairment
(
4)
Total
Indexed
Facilities
Total
Facilities
(
6)
SIC
Rank
(%)
in
All
Facilities
(
5)

43
10
23
39
4499
3
(
26)
34
53
156
204
3731
3
(
26)
33
10
30
31
2874
1
(
32)
33
11
33
38
3316
2
(
29)
31
4
13
20
7353
8
(
20)
31
4
13
53
1021
20
(
8)
29
35
120
173
4491
8
(
20)
29
5
17
23
3356
6
(
22)
29
45
157
188
3312
4
(
24)
29
7
24
30
1475
5
(
23)

Table
2.2a:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
Indexed
*
Industry
classes
with
fewer
than
10
indexed
PCS
facilities
were
not
included
in
this
table.
66
industry
classes
were
excluded
including
81
total
facilities.

Facilities
Matched
by
TPC
to
Detailed
Impairment
by
Total
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
Matched
by
TPC
to
Detailed
Impairment
(
4)
Total
Facilities
SIC
Rank
(%)
in
All
Indexed
Facilities
(
1),
(
5)

32
10
31
2874
3
(
33)
29
11
38
3316
3
(
33)
26
53
204
3731
2
(
34)
26
10
39
4499
1
(
43)
24
45
188
3312
5
(
29)
23
7
30
1475
5
(
29)
23
9
39
2816
6
(
25)
22
5
23
3356
5
(
29)
21
4
19
3111
7
(
24)
21
3
14
2241
XX
21
3
14
3313
6
(
25)
21
6
29
3339
7(
24)

Table
2.2b:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
All
Facilities
*
Industry
classes
with
fewer
than
10
PCS
facilities
were
not
included
in
this
table.
39
industry
classes
were
excluded
including
44
total
facilities.
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
14
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
Facilities
Matched
by
TPC
to
Detailed
Impairment
SIC
1905
4952
154
5541
147
4911
135
5171
105
4941
85
1221
76
3273
65
1611
53
3731
50
4953
50
1422
Table
2.2c:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Count
*
Excluded
57
facilities
classified
as
Nonclassifiable
Establishments.
All
facilities
had
a
recorded
SIC.

Facilities
Matched
by
TPC
to
Master
Impairment
by
Indexed
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
Matched
by
TPC
to
Master
Impairment
(
4)
Total
Indexed
Facilities
Total
Facilities
(
6)
SIC
Rank
(%)
in
All
Facilities
(
5)

41
7
17
23
3356
2
(
30)
36
12
33
38
3316
1
(
32)
32
51
157
188
3312
3
(
27)
29
15
51
63
3399
5
(
24)
28
15
54
69
2865
6
(
22)
27
3
11
28
1622
16
(
11)
27
8
30
31
2874
4
(
26)
25
6
24
30
1475
8
(
20)
25
3
12
14
3313
7
(
21)
25
5
20
24
3211
7
(
21)
25
3
12
20
3366
12
(
15)
25
3
12
18
4449
11
(
17)
25
39
156
204
3731
9
(
19)

Table
2.3a:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
Indexed
*
Industry
classes
with
fewer
than
10
indexed
PCS
facilities
were
not
included
in
this
table.
68
industry
classes
were
excluded
including
80
total
facilities.
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
15
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
Facilities
Matched
by
TPC
to
Master
Impairment
by
Total
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
Matched
by
TPC
to
Master
Impairment
(
4)
Total
Facilities
SIC
Rank
(%)
in
All
Indexed
Facilities
(
1),

(
5)

32
12
38
3316
2
(
36)
30
7
23
3356
1
(
41)
27
51
188
3312
3
(
32)
26
8
31
2874
6
(
27)
24
15
63
3399
4
(
29)
22
15
69
2865
5
(
28)
21
3
14
3313
7
(
25)
21
5
24
3211
7
(
25)
20
2
10
3629
XX
20
6
30
1475
7
(
25)
20
2
10
3483
XX
Table
2.3b:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
All
Facilities
*
Industry
classes
with
fewer
than
10
PCS
facilities
were
not
included
in
this
table.
55
industry
classes
were
excluded
including
75
total
facilities.

Facilities
Matched
by
TPC
to
Master
Impairment
SIC
1729
4952
150
4941
143
5541
142
1221
136
4911
111
5171
76
3273
64
1611
61
4953
55
5093
Table
2.3c:
Facility
TPC
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Count
*
All
facilities
had
a
recorded
SIC
and
there
were
no
facilities
classified
as
Nonclassifiable
Establishments
in
the
top
10.
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
16
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
to
Detail
Impairment
by
Indexed
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
to
Detail
Impairment
(
4)
Total
Indexed
Facilities
Total
Facilities
with
at
Least
One
Limit
(
6)
Total
Facilities
(
6)
SIC
Rank
(%)
in
All
Facilities
with
a
Limit
(
5)

45
5
11
12
23
3356
1
(
42)
33
8
24
25
31
2874
2
(
32)
31
38
123
130
188
3312
4
(
29)
30
26
86
117
377
2092
9
(
22)
29
6
21
22
30
1475
5
(
27)
28
5
18
23
34
3274
9
(
22)
28
7
25
26
30
3334
5
(
27)
28
7
25
36
82
2077
12
(
19)
27
4
15
16
26
1479
6
(
25)
27
3
11
13
34
3448
8
(
23)

Table
2.4a:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
Indexed
*
Industry
classes
with
fewer
than
10
indexed
PCS
facilities
that
had
at
least
one
limit
were
not
included
in
this
table.
100
industry
classes
were
excluded
including
118
total
facilities.

Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
to
Detail
Impairment
by
Total
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
to
Detail
Impairment
(
4)
Total
Facilities
with
at
Least
One
Limit
Total
Facilities
(
6)
SIC
Rank
(%)
in
All
Indexed
Facilities
with
a
Limit
(
2),
(
5)

42
5
12
23
3356
1
(
45)
32
8
25
31
2874
2
(
33)
30
3
10
16
2295
XX
29
38
130
188
3312
3
(
31)
27
7
26
30
3334
6
(
28)
27
6
22
30
1475
5
(
29)
25
4
16
26
1479
7
(
27)
24
4
17
23
2861
9
(
25)
23
5
22
38
3316
8
(
26)
23
3
13
34
3448
7
(
27)

Table
2.4b:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
All
Facilities
*
Industry
classes
with
fewer
than
10
PCS
facilities
that
had
at
least
one
limit
were
not
included
in
this
table.
80
industry
classes
were
excluded
including
92
total
facilities.
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
17
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
to
Detail
Impairment
SIC
1467
4952
109
4911
72
4941
56
5171
51
3273
47
1422
40
5541
38
3312
38
1221
35
4953
Table
2.4c:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Count
*
Excludes
47
facilities
with
no
SIC
recorded
and
25
facilities
classified
as
Nonclassifiable
Establishments.

Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
to
Master
Impairment
by
Indexed
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
to
Master
Impairment
(
4)
Total
Indexed
Facilities
with
at
Least
One
Limit
Total
Facilities
with
at
Least
One
Limit
(
6)
Total
Facilities
(
6)
SIC
Rank
(%)
in
All
Facilities
with
at
least
one
Limit
(
5)

55
6
11
12
23
3356
2
(
50)
46
6
13
15
24
3211
4
(
40)
45
5
11
11
23
2273
3
(
45)
42
8
19
22
38
3316
7
(
36)
41
51
123
130
188
3312
5
(
39)
40
10
25
36
82
2077
12
(
28)
39
14
36
38
69
2865
6
(
37)
38
5
13
14
29
3353
7
(
36)
35
9
26
28
34
2812
8
(
32)
33
8
24
25
31
2874
8
(
32)
33
6
18
23
34
3274
14
(
26)
33
5
15
16
26
1479
9
(
31)
33
4
12
16
236
3732
15
(
25)

Table
2.5a:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
Indexed
*
Industry
classes
with
fewer
than
10
indexed
PCS
facilities
that
had
at
least
one
limit
were
not
included
in
this
table.
139
industry
classes
were
excluded
including
189
total
facilities.
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
18
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
to
Master
Impairment
by
Total
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
to
Master
Impairment
(
4)
Total
Facilities
with
at
Least
One
Limit
Total
Facilities
(
6)
SIC
Rank
(%)
in
Total
Indexed
Facilities
with
at
Least
One
Limit
(
2),
(
5)

60
6
10
16
2295
XX
50
6
12
23
3356
1
(
55)
45
5
11
23
2273
3
(
45)
40
6
15
24
3211
2
(
46)
40
4
10
14
3313
XX
39
51
130
188
3312
5
(
41)
37
14
38
69
2865
7
(
39)
36
8
22
38
3316
4
(
42)
36
5
14
29
3353
8
(
38)
32
9
28
34
2812
9
(
35)
32
8
25
31
2874
10
(
33)

Table
2.5b:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
of
All
Facilities
*
Industry
classes
with
fewer
than
10
PCS
facilities
that
had
at
least
one
limit
were
not
included
in
this
table.
109
industry
classes
were
excluded
including
143
total
facilities.

Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
to
Master
Impairment
SIC
2595
4952
172
4911
129
4941
114
6514
109
3273
97
5171
80
1422
70
5541
66
1221
59
6552
Table
2.5c:
Facility
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
Impairments,
Rank
by
Count
*
Excludes
91
facilities
with
no
SIC
recorded.
There
were
no
facilities
classified
as
Nonclassifiable
Establishments
in
the
top
10.
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
19
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
or
TPC
to
Detail
or
Master
Impairment
by
Indexed
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
or
TPC
to
Detail
or
Master
Impairment
(
4)
Major
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
or
TPC
to
Detail
or
Master
Impairment
(
6)
Facilities
Indexed
Total
Major
Facilities
Indexed
(
6)
Total
Facilities
(
6)
Total
Major
Facilities
(
6)
SIC
48
26
11
54
23
69
23
2865
48
13
7
27
16
34
16
2812
41
65
43
157
73
188
73
3312
39
13
7
33
11
38
11
3316
35
69
39
195
108
252
115
2911
33
10
5
30
14
31
14
2874
32
8
3
25
13
29
13
3339
32
23
12
72
44
84
44
2631
31
11
4
36
15
39
15
2816
31
4
3
13
10
53
12
1021
Table
2.6a:
Facility
TPC
or
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
or
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Percent
Indexed
*
Percent_
rnd
in
this
table
is
the
result
of
Matched/
Indexed.
No
exclusions
were
made
in
this
table
based
on
the
number
of
facilities.

Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
or
TPC
to
Detail
or
Master
Impairment
by
Indexed
Facilities
(%)
(
3)
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
or
TPC
to
Detail
or
Master
Impairment
(
4)
Major
Facilities
Matched
by
Limits
or
TPC
to
Detail
or
Master
Impairment
(
6)
Facilities
Indexed
Total
Major
Facilities
Indexed
(
6)
Total
Facilities
(
6)
Total
Major
Facilities
(
6)
SIC
18
3555
1259
19458
4098
30176
4338
4952
20
253
152
1249
551
1537
572
4911
12
243
2
2029
9
2845
15
4941
16
239
1488
2205
5541
19
221
4
1147
5
1840
7
5171
12
201
3
1608
14
4550
16
1221
13
159
1243
2283
2
3273
8
130
1646
2453
1611
10
126
1254
1371
6514
7
102
1551
6
1880
6
1422
Table
2.6b:
Facility
TPC
or
Limit
Parameters
on
Master
or
Detail
Impairments,
Rank
by
Count
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
20
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
Notes:
(
1)
SIC
Codes
marked
with
XX
for
the
rank/
percent
column
had
less
than
ten
facilities
indexed
and
were
therefore
excluded
from
the
indexed
table.
(
2)
SIC
Codes
marked
with
XX
for
the
rank/
percent
column
had
less
than
ten
facilities
that
were
indexed
with
at
least
one
limit
and
were
therefore
excluded
from
the
Indexed
table.
(
3)
Percentages
are
calculated
using
the
second
and
third
columns
in
the
table
([
second/
third]*
100).
All
percentages
have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
integer.
(
4)
Counts
are
by
facility,
with
any
facility
only
counted
once
even
if
the
facility
meets
the
criteria
more
than
once.
(
5)
Shows
rank
(
percent)
for
that
SIC
code
from
the
companion
percent
table.
(
6)
Were
not
used
for
percentage
calculations
for
these
tables.
Provided
as
an
additional
reference
only.

Section
3
­
Datafile
Descriptions
The
excel
workbook
PCS_
303D_
Overlap.
xls
contains
five
spreadsheets.
Each
worksheet
has
selected
columns
from
the
PCS
and
303(
d)
databases,
and
one
row
for
each
unique
overlap
combination.
Note
that
all
overlaps
with
impairments
may
contain
multiple
records
for
each
303(
d)
list
ID
(
impaired
segment)
as
each
segment
can
have
multiple
impairments.
The
five
sheets
are
described
below
in
Table
3.0.

Worksheet
Description
Pcs_
303d_
overlap
Any
PCS
facility
with
one
or
more
pipe
outfall
location
overlapping
a
303(
d)
listed
water
event
is
listed
here.
No
PCS
parameter
or
TPC
information
and
no
303(
d)
impairment
information
was
considered
for
this
table.
Selected
PCS
facility
and
303(
d)
listed
water
data
elements
are
represented.
Pcs_
303d_
overlap_
tpc2DetImp
Using
the
detailed
303(
d)
impairment
and
the
TPC
parameters
for
PCS
facilities,
all
pipe
outfall
and
303(
d)
listed
water
overlaps
were
examined.
Where
a
detailed
impairment
was
matched
to
a
TPC
parameter
for
the
parent
facility
SIC
code,
that
information
was
listed
here.
NOTES:

For
each
listed
water,
there
may
be
multiple
impairments

For
each
facility
there
may
be
multiple
TPC
parameters

Each
parameter
(
or
impairment)
may
be
mapped
to
more
than
one
impairment
(
or
parameter)
This
may
result
in
multiple
records
for
both
PCS
facilities
and
303(
d)
listed
waters.
Pcs_
303d_
overlap_
tpc2MasImp
Using
the
master
303(
d)
impairment
and
the
TPC
parameters
for
PCS
facilities,
all
pipe
outfall
and
303(
d)
listed
water
overlaps
were
examined.
Where
a
detailed
impairment
was
matched
to
a
TPC
parameter
for
the
parent
facility
SIC
code,
that
information
was
listed
here.
NOTES:

For
each
listed
water,
there
may
be
multiple
master
impairments

For
each
facility
there
may
be
multiple
TPC
parameters

Each
parameter
(
or
master
impairment)
may
be
mapped
to
more
than
one
master
impairment
(
or
parameter)
This
may
result
in
multiple
records
for
both
PCS
facilities
and
303(
d)
listed
waters.
July
30,
2003
Section
4
INDUS
Corporation
21
Document
#:
1C129.0027­
SA­
001­
V1.4
Worksheet
Description
Pcs_
303d_
overlap_
PipeDetImp
Using
the
detailed
303(
d)
impairment
and
the
PCS
pipe
limits,
all
pipe
outfall
and
303(
d)
listed
water
overlaps
were
examined.
Where
a
detailed
impairment
was
matched
to
a
pipe
limit
parameter
for
the
pipe
outfall,
that
information
was
listed
here.
NOTES:

For
each
listed
water,
there
may
be
multiple
impairments

For
each
pipe
outfall
there
may
be
multiple
limit
parameters

Each
parameter
(
or
impairment)
may
be
mapped
to
more
than
one
impairment
(
or
parameter)
This
may
result
in
multiple
records
for
both
PCS
pipe
outfalls
and
303(
d)
listed
waters.
Pcs_
303d_
overlap_
PipeMasImp
Using
the
master
303(
d)
impairment
and
the
PCS
pipe
limits,
all
pipe
outfall
and
303(
d)
listed
water
overlaps
were
examined.
Where
a
master
impairment
was
matched
to
a
pipe
limit
parameter
for
the
pipe
outfall,
that
information
was
listed
here.
NOTES:

For
each
listed
water,
there
may
be
multiple
master
impairments

For
each
pipe
outfall
there
may
be
multiple
limit
parameters

Each
parameter
(
or
master
impairment)
may
be
mapped
to
more
than
one
master
impairment
(
or
parameter)
This
may
result
in
multiple
records
for
both
PCS
pipe
outfalls
and
303(
d)
listed
waters.

Table
3.0:
Datafile
Descriptions
4.1.2.
PCS
and
Fish
Consumption
Advisories
Results
Summary
This
portion
of
the
analysis
has
not
yet
begun.

4.2.
Phase
II
Results
Summary
This
portion
of
the
analysis
has
not
yet
begun.