SPDES COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

SFY 2015/2016 Annual Report October 1, 2016

www.dec.ny.gov

Table of Contents Message from the Director….……………………………………………………………….3 Regulatory Authority….……………………………………………………………….……...5 Water Quality Management….……………………………………………………….……..6 SPDES Program Overview….……………………………………………………….……...8 SPDES Program Permits in Effect…..…………………………………………….………..9 SPDES Program Monitoring and Compliance.......…………………………….………..13 SPDES Program Enforcement………………………………………………….…………19 Shared Oversight of the SPDES Program ………..………………………….………….25 Appendix A - Definition of Terms………………………………………………………….29 Appendix B - Sewage Pollution Right to Know Summary Report ..……….…………..38 Appendix C - Program Oversight Data…..……………………………………………….50 Appendix D - Monitoring and Oversight Activities ..…………….……………………….55 Appendix E - Enforcement Action Summary……………………………………………..60 Appendix F - Enforcement Highlights……………………………………………………..67

• This report details activities and provides data for the period April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 (State Fiscal Year 2015/16).

• DEC welcomes your input regarding this report. Please provide comments, questions, or suggestions to dowinfo@dec.ny.gov

Cover photo: Shown is a rock trickling filter, a reliable form of treating wastewater to secondary SPDES permit limit levels. To assist in providing tertiary treatment, and removal of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, rock media is often replaced with manufactured media that significantly increases the surface area available for attached organisms to grow. It is these microscopic organisms that help to remove pollutants commonly present in domestic wastewater. (DEC photo)

2

Message from the Director The Division of Water (DOW) SPDES Compliance and Enforcement 2015/2016 Annual Report provides details on oversight activities that protect waters of New York State, primarily through the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program. This report focuses on statewide efforts to monitor discharges to water bodies through facility inspections, assessment of self-reported data and information, assessment of compliance with issued permits and Orders on Consent, and adherence to other applicable laws and requirements. DOW focused its efforts during State Fiscal Year 2015/16 on improving the efficiency and transparency of the SPDES compliance and enforcement program. Specifically, DOW is transitioning from paper-based transactions and permittee compliance submissions to the use of electronic reporting. The information and data in the reports are posted to the DEC website, and compliance information is sent to USEPA and made available to the public through the ECHO website. The DOW’s most significant accomplishment this past year was the implementation of requirements for the Sewage Pollution Right to Know Act. Because of this, the public is now receiving timely information on the release of partially-treated and untreated sewage to the waters of New York State. This annual report is produced by the DOW, but it represents the work of many participants working together – treatment facility operators, businesses, government entities, and citizens – to achieve environmental protection, safeguard human health, and facilitate commerce. Notable achievements and activities over the past year that are highlighted in this report include:

• An update on the continued implementation of the Sewage Pollution Right to Know (SPRTK) Act: Appendix B contains the NYSDEC annual reporting on SPRTK including number and location of reports and details on types of discharges. During 2015, NYSDEC announced for public comment proposed changes to 6 NYCRR Part 750 for notification of sewage discharges. After addressing the comments received, these regulations will become final in 2016.

• Transition to NetDMR Reporting: NYSDEC has continued to prepare for

USEPA’s required electronic reporting, and in December 2015, began receiving Discharge Monitoring Reports from permittees electronically through the USEPA NetDMR system. During 2016, NYSDEC will continue to promote a transition to electronic reporting.

• Efforts to reduce nutrient loading to Long Island Sound: In examining the results from some enforcement actions, this report highlights the efforts of New

3

York communities to reduce nutrient loading to Long Island Sound and improve water quality.

• Aging wastewater infrastructure conditions in New York: Through the SPRTK annual summary and discussion and data on municipal collection and treatment systems, this report highlights the regulatory perspective of the infrastructure challenges present in many communities across the State. The current USEPA Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS) report details that in New York State, over $31 billion of capital investment is necessary to meet the water quality goals of the Clean Water Act1.

Joseph DiMura, Director Division of Water, Bureau of Water Compliance To ask questions, share information, or learn more about this report and its contents, email dowinfo@dec.ny.gov or visit www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/290.html

1 The USEPA CWNS is conducted every four years and provides a comprehensive national assessment of capital costs necessary to meet water quality goals of the Clean Water Act and address water quality related public health concerns. For more information, including the full report, visit www.epa.gov/cwns

Above: Mixed liquor sample after settleometer test. Left undisturbed for 60 minutes, this test simulates conditions in a final settling tank. Clear liquids are discharged or processed further. Solids and beneficial bacteria are recycled or sent to the solids treatment unit. (DEC photo)

4

Regulatory Authority New York is rich in surface and groundwater resources. Article 17 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) entitled "Water Pollution Control" was enacted to protect and maintain these valuable resources. Article 17, Title 8, authorized creation of the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program to maintain New York's waters with reasonable standards of purity. Administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the SPDES program is designed to eliminate the pollution of New York’s waters and to maintain the highest quality of water possible, consistent with:

• Protection of public health

• Public enjoyment of the resource

• Protection and propagation of fish and wildlife

• Industrial development in the state

New York's SPDES program has been approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for the control of surface wastewater and stormwater discharges in accordance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). However, the SPDES program is broader in scope than that required by the CWA as it controls point source discharges to groundwater as well as to surface waters. Using current water quality standards, SPDES permits establish stringent performance standards, effluent limitations, and operating conditions designed to protect the state’s water resources. Regulations specific to the application for a SPDES permit, and proper operation of a SPDES-permitted facility, can be found in New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 750. The Part 750 regulations detail important requirements for the proper operation of a permitted facility, including timely and complete reporting of:

• Operational issues

• Effluent quality and adherence to permit limits

• Discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater

When conducting inspections at SPDES-permitted facilities, the Part 750 regulations help guide inspectors on which processes or aspect of operations to focus upon. When occurrences of non-compliance are identified, they are addressed through both informal and formal enforcement action. Refer to this report’s “SPDES Enforcement” section for details of enforcement actions. For more serious non-compliance issues, DEC’s Division of Water (DOW) staff may coordinate enforcement actions with or through the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and/or the Division of Law Enforcement (DLE).

5

Water Quality Management Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, states are required every two years to identify waters within their state where current pollution control technologies alone cannot meet the water quality standards set for that waterbody. States must submit a list of waters impaired by pollutants, plus any that may soon become impaired, to the USEPA for approval. For waters listed on the Section 303(d) list, the state must determine the pollutants that are impairing the waterbody and develop a pollutant reduction plan, or total maximum daily load (TMDL). An example of a TMDL is the one adopted for the Chesapeake Bay. A similar process was used to identify the Chesapeake Bay as impaired by nutrients and sediment, leading to the implementation of a TMDL2. Placing waterbodies on the 303(d) list enhances opportunities for funding, scientific research, remedial actions, and public and political attention. It also holds identified polluters to account with deadlines for cleanup and restoration and prompts enactment of new laws and regulations. Figure 1 illustrates the interaction of the components for a water management cycle. This cycle is the basis for DOW’s implementation of policies and prioritizing resources to protect the waters of the state. This cycle consists of five basic activities, each dependent upon one another: • Monitoring

DEC gathers information on the health of the state’s waters from various monitoring efforts to examine important characteristics such as pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and numerous chemical and biological components in key locations throughout the state. Additional data is acquired through aquatic organism sampling, since the type and concentration of these organisms assist in determining the health of a waterbody. DEC staff generally perform much of the sampling necessary to acquire these data, although citizens, having DEC training and approval, also collect samples and provide data3. Collectively, these monitoring data become part of DEC’s Waterbody Inventory.

• Assessment A key element of assessment includes assigning a “best use” for a waterbody, such as swimming, fishing, or source of drinking water. Water quality standards establish criteria for defining the maximum level of pollutants allowable for a waterbody to still meet its best-use designation. DEC maintains a Priority Waterbodies List (PWL) of

2 New York State is a party to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, developed with USEPA and other states within the Bay’s watershed. For details, go to: https://www.epa.gov/chesapeake-bay-tmdl 3 www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/81576.html and www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/92229.html

6

the waters that do not meet standards or are unable to support their designated best uses, and a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303d list of those non-supporting waters that require the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

DEC Water Management Cycle

Figure 1

• Planning and Management Waters listed on the PWL have problems that can be attributed to different sources of pollution, such as malfunctioning sewage treatment plants, street runoff during storm events, or contaminated runoff from industrial, farming, or construction activities. DEC uses the PWL to manage water resources and plan staff assignments by developing a water quality management plan. One example of such a plan applies to waters flowing into Onondaga Lake (Onondaga County). This plan, in part, seeks to limit the amount of phosphorus from entering Onondaga Lake. Excessive amounts of phosphorus encourages undesirable plant growth and reduces oxygen available to aquatic life4.

• Implementation and Permitting Monitoring, assessment, and management planning all contribute to implementation of the SPDES permit program. SPDES permits issued for discharges to waters of the state contain performance standards (i.e. numerical limits) that protect water quality. They also may include schedules of activities that require the permittee to

4 Additional information on TMDLs, including plans for specific waterbodies in New York State, can be found at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/23835.html

Assessment

Planning and Management

Implementation and

Permitting

Compliance andEnforcement

Monitoring

7

upgrade or install new treatment technology by a specific date to improve performance and achieve permit compliance. In addition, DEC works cooperatively with local governments and organizations to encourage control of non-point sources of pollution, such as polluted runoff from stormwater and agriculture operations.

• Compliance and Enforcement Compliance assurance and enforcement includes the evaluation of discharge monitoring reports that permittees submit as a condition of their SPDES permit. Facility inspections and other reports, such as monthly operating reports, are also used to determine compliance status. Upon identifying a minor violation of a SPDES permit, DEC may initiate an informal enforcement action by sending a warning letter or a Notice of Violation (NOV) to promote a return to compliance. When informal actions fail to achieve a return to compliance, or if conditions warrant, formal enforcement action is used. Formal enforcement actions typically include a monetary penalty and are a more compelling method to achieve compliance. Actions include Orders on Consent, Notices of Enforcement Hearing and Complaint, Cease and Desist Directives, Commissioner’s Orders, or tickets issued by an Environmental Conservation Officer (ECO).

SPDES Program Overview The federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA)5 authorized development of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate discharges to surface waters of the United States. The USEPA authorizes New York State’s SPDES Permit Program to regulate discharge activities covered by the federal program, with additional protection for groundwater resources through the SPDES program. Implementation of the SPDES program occurs through the issuance of wastewater discharge permits, which establish stringent standards and operating conditions designed to protect the state's waters. Currently there are two types of SPDES permits: individual and general.

• An individual SPDES permit applies to a single facility, in one location, possessing unique discharge characteristics and other factors.

• A general SPDES permit applies to a category of dischargers with similar operations or pollutants. A general permit requires that each permit issued contains similar effluent limits, operating conditions, and the same or similar monitoring. Facilities qualifying for a general SPDES permit are likely to have less significant impact on the environment when in compliance with permit provisions than a facility issued an individual SPDES permit.

5http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf

8

A SPDES permit requires the owner and operator to comply with specific conditions in the operation and reporting of facility performance. For larger, more complex facilities, these requirements typically include limits on physical, chemical and/or biological characteristics of the discharge. Facilities deemed ‘significant’ are required to submit discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) that are reviewed by DEC. The facility may also be required to submit various additional reports for DEC review and approval. For smaller facilities, including those discharging to groundwater, the permit may require that any data and information required by the SPDES permit to be kept at the facility site for review by DEC during an inspection. In addition to specific conditions found in the permit document itself, a SPDES permit also references “general conditions” required by 6 NYCRR Part 750-2. Part 750 details requirements that each SPDES permittee must comply with. Examples include: access by DEC staff, records retention, proper operation and maintenance of a treatment plant, and requirements to report treatment plant bypasses and non-compliance events to DEC. SPDES Program Permits in Effect The number of active SPDES permits in FY2015/16 as of April 1, 2016 was 20,504, a reduction of 114 from the previous year. Figure 2 details the recent history of the number of authorized SPDES permits that are defined in this section. Since SFY 1998/1999 the number of authorized SPDES permits in effect has increased from 11,210, for a net increase of 9,294 over the 18 year period. This increase is primarily due to the expansion of the general permit programs. Refer to Appendix C for additional detail of issued permits and DEC’s oversight activities.

Micrograph of a mixed liquor sample, showing a desirable organism called a ‘stalked ciliate’. These organisms consume organic matter and are a vital element in biological wastewater treatment. (DEC photo)

9

Number of authorized SPDES Permits, SFY2005/06 - SFY2015/16

Figure 2

SPDES Individual Permits DEC issues individual SPDES permits for three discharge categories:

• Municipal This category includes publicly owned sewage treatment works (POTW), as defined by Section 201 of the CWA. A POTW is classified as either major or minor, based on the facility’s design flow, population served, or potential for significant water quality impacts.

• In SFY 2015/16, there were 638 SPDES permitted POTWs

• Industrial Industrial discharges are those resulting from industrial, manufacturing, trade or business processes. Industrial treatment facilities are classified as major, minor, or non-significant, based on characteristics of the wastewater, complexity of treatment processes, and the facility’s design flow.

• In SFY 2015/16, there were 1,423 SPDES permitted industrial facilities

• Private, Commercial, or Institutional Private, commercial, or institutional (PCI) facilities discharge domestic sewage with no addition of an industrial waste flow. PCI discharges generally refer to wastewater generated by a single facility or building complex under single ownership and may or may not be under public ownership. Examples include restaurants, schools, apartment complexes, mobile home parks, and campgrounds. PCI facilities discharging less than 30,000 gallons per day of treated sanitary waste to groundwater may not require an individual SPDES

10

permit and instead may obtain coverage under the PCI general permit. PCI facilities requiring individual SPDES permits are classified as either significant minor or non-significant based on waste stream flow and characteristics.

• In SFY 2015/16, there were 5,008 SPDES permitted PCI facilities SPDES General Permits DEC also issues general permits covering the following categories of dischargers:

• Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities (SWC) The SWC general permit covers stormwater discharges resulting from construction activities involving soil disturbances of one or more acres. The owner or operator must obtain coverage under this general permit prior to beginning construction activity.

• In SFY 2015/16, there were 8,207 sites covered under a SWC general permit

• Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) The MSGP general permit covers stormwater discharges associated with 31 different categories of industrial activities. Examples of some activities designated under this permit include concrete manufacturing, vehicle dismantling, and scrap metal recycling.

• In SFY 2015/16, there were 1,690 sites covered under a MSGP general permit

• Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)

The MS4 general permit covers separate storm sewer systems that discharge to surface waters of the state and carry stormwater and runoff from a city, town, village, or other designated entity that are not part of a combined sewage system.

• In SFY 2015/16, there were 544 sites covered under a MS4 general permit

On this construction site, the mailbox was in place before the start of any activity, allowing for the correspondence of forms and documents with regulatory agencies. (DEC photo)

11

• Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)

The CAFO general permit covers discharges that originate from facilities where animals are raised and kept in confined situations and that meet threshold animal population criteria.

• In SFY 2015/16, there were 532 sites covered under a CAFO general permit

(Note: In New York State, CAFO facilities are regulated by either the CWA or the ECL. CWA permitted facilities are those that may discharge due to wet weather events greater than a 25-year/24-hour rated storm. ECL permitted facilities are not allowed to discharge process wastewater from production areas.)

• Private, Commercial, and Institutional (PCI-GP)

The PCI-GP general permit is issued for a discharge to groundwater of 1,000 to 30,000 gallons per day of treated sanitary waste from on-site treatment works serving a PCI facility.

• In SFY 2015/16, there were 1,934 sites covered under a PCI general permit

• Pesticide Applicator (PA)

The PA general permit is required for point source discharges resulting from any application of a pesticide labeled for aquatic use directly to, in, or over a surface water of New York.

• In SFY 2015/16, there were 528 applicators covered under a PA general permit.

Separately, USEPA issues the following general permits in New York State:

• Vessel –USEPA administers the vessel general permit, which regulates incidental discharges from the normal operation of commercial vessels consistent with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

• Small Vessel – USEPA administers the small vessel general permit; there is no DEC equivalent. This permit regulates incidental discharges from the normal operation of non-military and non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. This general permit is consistent with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

For more information regarding the SPDES permitting program, visit http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6054.html Figure 3 shows the distribution of permits in effect as of April 1, 2016.

12

Figure 3

SPDES Program Monitoring and Compliance DEC monitors SPDES-permitted facilities through various actions. These include: • Analyzing periodic discharge monitoring reports (DMR) from permitted facilities6 7 • Conducting periodic facility inspections • Responding to citizen complaints • Managing the wastewater treatment plant operator certification program • Analyzing facility specific reports (i.e. monthly operating data, and those required as

a condition of the SPDES permit or an Order on Consent) Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) The cornerstone of DEC’s oversight program involves receiving DMRs on a recurring basis. SPDES-permitted facilities designated as “significant” are required to periodically submit analytical data that are representative of the discharge from that facility. Each month DEC receives over 1,600 DMRs. Annually, self-reporting of these data results in

6 6 NYCRR Part 750 requires that samples collected at SPDES-permitted facilities and reported to DEC be analyzed at a state-approved laboratory. Visit www.wadsworth.org/labcert/elap/elap.html for details on this program. 7 Many, but not all, SPDES-permitted facilities are required to submit periodic effluent quality data reports. For example, monthly reporting is required of larger and more complex facilities. Smaller and less complex operations, such as MSGP sites, may simply require an annual report that summarizes activities and monitoring during the preceding year.

13

over 500,000 data points, which reflects, the effluent quality discharged through the SPDES program. DMR data was also required to be submitted annually for the 1,690 facilities covered under the MSGP program during SFY 2015/16.

Data provided on the DMRs enables DEC to determine the compliance status of a facility by comparing actual effluent sample results to SPDES permit limits. Data submitted on DMRs is entered into the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) that is owned and maintained by USEPA for national compliance data. DEC uses this data system to detect violations, identify trends, and support compliance and enforcement activities. During SFY 2015/16 over 97% of data reported to DEC was in compliance with their respective permit limit values. Specific data from DMR reporting for SPDES-permitted facilities are available to the public through USEPA’s ECHO website8. Figure 4 illustrates

the proportion of DMR-reported data that are violations in relation to the total submitted during SFY 2015/16. Among the violations reported are those for:

• Exceeding a permit effluent limit • Not meeting a compliance or permit schedule due date • Failure to submit a DMR, or submitting one that is either incomplete or late

Inspections DEC maintains a field presence through nine regional and five sub-regional offices, with additional support from staff at its Albany headquarters. Each year, DEC develops and implements a SPDES oversight and inspection work plan that reflects current priorities, anticipates availability of staff and other resources, and considers goals established with USEPA. With staffing and resource levels not keeping pace with the increase in SPDES permits in effect, it became necessary to develop efficient oversight strategies to meet the demands of these programs. In past years, DEC’s field presence was primarily determined by a neutral surveillance policy. Except for complaint response and critical situations, facility inspections occurred on a pre-determined basis, such as conducting an annual comprehensive inspection at each USEPA major-class SPDES permitted facility.

8 http://echo.epa.gov

Figure 4

14

In response to resource limitations, DEC adjusted to a risk-based strategy. This strategy targets unpermitted entities and those SPDES-permitted facilities deemed to pose a potential threat to the environment or public health. Determining factors include:

• Current or past waste treatment performance • Adherence to established deadlines and commitments • Compliance status with established effluent permit limits • Permitted discharges into sensitive waterbodies • Date of last inspection

Given the diversity of SPDES-permitted facilities, managers in regional offices can further refine oversight activities to reflect localized factors, such as ecologically sensitive waterbodies or a predominance of certain permitted activities, such as agricultural food production or chemical manufacturing. Overall, the number of inspections by DEC remains relatively consistent with recent years. However, partner agencies conduct fewer inspections than in the past, reflecting localized priorities. Given the quantity of active SPDES-permitted sites in relation to available resources and staff, DEC continues to explore alternative approaches to effectively plan, conduct, and document inspections at these facilities.

One approach is to concentrate DEC resources to address a specific issue or type of facility, such as the CAFO-focused inspections detailed below. By concentrating staff and resources, such opportunities allow for DEC to have experienced inspectors train

newer staff in actual field conditions. A focused approach such as this also enables DEC to gather staff from across the state and develop an inspection template. Reinforced by specific training events, DEC can then expect a consistent approach when performing future CAFO inspections. Figure 5 presents SPDES permit inspection activities by DEC and its partners since 20069. Refer to Appendices C and D for additional detail on inspection activities.

9 DEC partners include county departments of health, and soil and water conservation districts. Data for SFY 2012/2013 and earlier include inspections completed by the Interstate Environmental Commission.

Figure 5

15

Inspection Close-Up: CAFO Focused Inspections As part of routine planning for the inspection program, DEC determined in SFY 2015/16 that there were not enough staff in some areas of the State to inspect the desired number of CAFO facilities. In order to re-allocate resources and complete the desired frequency of CAFO inspections, DEC assembled a team of inspectors from across the State to complete an intensive site inspection project for CAFO facilities. The project was to conduct comprehensive inspections at targeted CAFOs over a five-day period during July 2015 in DEC Region 8. This focused effort enabled the DEC Bureau of Water Compliance to fulfill inspection commitments under Federal grants and work plans. The main goal of this initiative was to conduct inspections of previously uninspected medium-size CAFOs and provide inspector training by the experienced inspectors while gaining additional program consistency. There were 34 CAFO facilities identified through the screening of reporting, compliance and last inspection dates. DEC was able to increase its ability to meet inspection goals for medium facilities without impacting inspection needs for other facilities, and provide training at the same time. Due to the success of this inspection project, DEC will be looking at using this model in future years and apply it to other discharge classes. Inspection Close-Up: Construction Focused Inspections As discussed in the SPDES Permits section of this report, both construction activities and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) are subject to coverage under a SPDES general permit for stormwater discharges. These types of activities at permitted and unpermitted sites are included as a traditional part of the DEC inspection program. While DEC maintains some inspection capacity for construction activities requiring SPDES permit coverage and continues to conduct compliance and enforcement activities as indicated in Appendices C and D, the MS4 general permit contains provisions that each permitted MS4 entity must also implement a compliance and enforcement program for construction activities requiring permit coverage within their boundaries.

Beginning in 2008, entities covered by the MS4 general permit were required to include provisions in their stormwater management plan (SWMP) to address covered construction activities within their urbanized area. In May 2010, this requirement was extended to the entity’s boundaries. At present, the SWMP for each MS4 entity must include provisions that allow the permitted MS4 entity to inspect and enforce stormwater controls for covered construction activities within its boundaries. MS4 entities detail compliance and enforcement activities when submitting their annual report to DEC.

Review of these annual reports indicate that a significant portion of construction activity oversight is now conducted by MS4 entities. As of SFY2015/16, almost 50% of all new construction activity general permits were issued to sites within an MS4 permitted area. A three (3) year review of MS4 annual reports reveals that MS4 entities statewide averaged over 1,375 inspections of permitted construction sites each year. During this same period, the MS4 entities also conducted over 3,400 enforcement actions per year. The enforcement actions consist of both formal and informal methods and included

16

notice of violations (NOV), stop work orders, administrative fines or civil penalties, and other actions.

DEC continues to conduct compliance monitoring of construction activities, both inside and outside of MS4 entity jurisdictions, through a compliance monitoring program consisting of audits, inspections, and compliance reporting. Through renewal of these general permits and assessment of DEC compliance and enforcement programs, DEC will periodically re-evaluate effectiveness of the construction activity monitoring program.

Citizen Complaints Inquiries and complaints by citizens and observations of possible violations assist DEC's SPDES program compliance efforts. DEC investigates these complaints to determine any impact upon the environment or public health. If staff determine there is a violation, DEC seeks corrective action to minimize negative impacts and, if necessary, pursues enforcement through the Office of General Counsel or Division of Law Enforcement. Wastewater Operator Certification and Training10 Competent and credentialed operators serve as frontline defenders of public health in their own communities. Since 1937, New York State has required certification of municipal wastewater treatment plant operators. Part 650 of Title 6 of NYCRR details requirements of the wastewater operator certification program. Prior to receiving this certificate, an individual must complete DEC-approved training, possess hands‐on operational experience at a treatment facility, and pass a certification exam. Each operator certificate is valid for a five (5) year period, during which time the operator must complete DEC-approved training that is necessary to renew the certificate. Training events typically focus on safety, mechanical equipment, and optimizing the treatment process. Over 2,700 individuals currently possess DEC‐issued wastewater treatment operator certificates. Refer to Figure 6 for a summary of activity in the wastewater operator certification program during SFY 2015/16.

10 Beginning September 1, 2011, DEC transferred administration of operator certification and certificate renewal applications to the New York Water Environment Association (NYWEA). NYWEA now processes all applications while DEC approves qualifications. DEC continues to review all applications for those renewal training events that need approval to use in the operator certificate renewal program.

17

SFY 2015/16 Wastewater Operator Certification Program Summary Activity Number

Applications approved to take the operator certification exam 200 Operators passing the certification exam 188

Operators failing one or more certification exams 142 Certificates issued through reciprocity from out-of-state 0

Applications approved for renewal of an operator certificate 396 Operators not renewing their certificate 357

Certificates suspended or revoked 0 Figure 6 The SFY2015/16 data showed a 37.5% decline in the number of operators applying for certification. Despite the decline in the number of applicants, the number of operators achieving certification increased and the certification exam pass rate increased to 57%. However, operators continue to struggle with the higher certification grade exams with a Grade 3/3A pass rate of 44.8% and 22.2% for the Grade 4/4A (highest level) exams. The majority of the operators passing the exams are first time test takers with repeat test takers continuing to have lower pass rates.

Statistics from SFY2015/16 also show the effects of the aging of the wastewater treatment plant operator workforce when 357 operators elected not to renew their certificates. Continued aging of this workforce does raise a concern for having sufficient number of certified operators to fulfill plant oversight duties required by Part 650. DEC continues to work with the wastewater treatment plant operator governance council to evaluate options to increase awareness of this field and increase the number of certified operators to meet the growing future demand. For more information on the wastewater treatment operator certification program, visit: http://nywea.org/OpCert/

Shown is an activated sludge tank. This unit provides oxygen and a well mixed environment, allowing bacteria to feed upon organic pollutants commonly found in domestic wastewater. (DEC photo)

18

For more information on other wastewater treatment operator resources, visit: www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8464.html SPDES Program Enforcement Upon discovery of a SPDES or water quality violation, the primary goals of DEC are to end the violation, restore compliance, and achieve measures to prevent recurrence of conditions that led to the violation. While DEC can pursue criminal and/or civil action, depending upon the violation, most formal enforcement actions taken are civil, primarily through use of a negotiated Order on Consent. Using a graduated approach in most situations, DEC staff will first use informal strategies to restore compliance. These strategies include issuing a notice of violation (NOV), holding a compliance conference with permitted facility representatives, or requesting specific actions be taken to cease the non-compliance. Should informal actions by DEC prove unsuccessful, or if there is a public health threat or risk of environmental damage, formal enforcement is available to satisfactorily resolve the violation and restore compliance. DEC has various formal enforcement options it can use. The most commonly used are Orders on Consent and tickets issued by an environmental conservation officer (ECO). An Order on Consent is a legally binding document issued by DEC and agreed to by the SPDES permit holder, or responsible party if the discharge is unpermitted. DEC routinely uses Orders on Consent to restore compliance and enhance future compliance. An ECO-issued ticket for a discharge violation requires payment of a penalty by the legally responsible party and may require remedial action to fully satisfy. Common to an Order on Consent are some or all of the following:

• Payable penalty and suspended and/or stipulated penalties • Interim SPDES permit effluent limits • Compliance schedule for corrective action • Progress reporting and/or meetings • Environmental Benefit Project (EBP)11

11 An EBP is an action that a respondent agrees to undertake in partial settlement of a wider enforcement action. Generally, an EBP must improve, restore, protect, and/or reduce risks to public health and/or the environment.

19

Enforcement Actions SFY 2004/05 through SFY 2015/16

Figure 7

Figure 7 shows the annual number of DEC formal enforcement actions (ECO tickets and Orders on Consent) since SFY 2006/07, along with both assessed and collected penalty amounts.12 Corresponding data is found in Appendix C, and a full list of SPDES-related formal enforcement actions for SFY 2015/16 is found in Appendix E.

Post-Enforcement Water Quality Improvements Enforcement actions by DEC often are done to address facility-specific non-compliance issues. These actions may lead to significant water quality improvement in impaired waterbodies downstream from the point of discharge. Below is an example that details water quality improvements due to enforcement actions.

12 During SFY 2009/10, DEC assessed, and collected, a penalty of $28,991,686 from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection in settlement of a civil judicial action. Due to the magnitude of this action in relation to other formal enforcement actions, it has been removed from Figure 7 for illustration purposes.

20

Example 1 SPDES Permittees (Permit ID):

New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) WWTPs Bowery Bay WWTP (NY0026158)

Tallman Island WWTP (NY0026239)

Hunts Point WWTP (NY0026191)

Wards Island WWTP (NY0026131)

Westchester County WWTPs

Blind Brook WWTP (NY0026719)

Port Chester WWTP (NY0026786)

Mamaroneck WWTP (NY0026701)

New Rochelle WWTP (NY0026697)

Waterbody East River and Long Island Sound Use Impairments Public bathing, aquatic life, recreation Pollutants Nitrogen (ammonia) Details Hypoxia, or low dissolved oxygen, is a condition that has adversely impacted waters of the Long Island Sound estuary for many years. Dissolved oxygen levels that fall below an organism’s threshold can be fatal, for example by resulting in a fish kill. Non-fatal levels of dissolved oxygen, yet sufficiently low, can result in the displacement of an organism to a different location, make it more susceptible to predation or disease, or alter its migration or reproductive patterns. Refer to Figure 8 for the frequency of hypoxic conditions throughout Long Island Sound between 1994 and 2015.

21

Estuaries are particularly susceptible to hypoxia for various chemical and physical factors, making it essential to reduce those pollutants that cause or exacerbate hypoxic conditions. Extensive research led to nitrogen being

identified as a leading cause of hypoxia in Long Island Sound, with particularly severe impacts in western areas near New York City. In 2011, the NYCDEP and the DEC entered into the First Amended Nitrogen Consent Judgement. This judgement, in part, requires the City to undertake efforts to meet discharge limits detailed in a USEPA-approved TMDL for nitrogen. The TMDL mandates a 58.5% reduction of nitrogen discharged into Long Island Sound from facilities that include NYCDEP’s water pollution control plants along the Upper East River or Lower East River. As shown in Figure 9, through June 2016, and after significant wastewater treatment infrastructure investments by NYCDEP, the discharge of nitrogen (measured in pounds per day) has fallen approximately 59% from the baseline value in effect prior to the first stepdown on December 1, 2009. The final stepdown limits required by the First Amended Nitrogen Consent Judgement and SPDES permit, will go into effect January 1, 2017. The final stepdown will result in a discharge of 44,325 pounds of nitrogen per day, a 59% reduction from the 2009 baseline quantity of 108,375 pounds per day. The final SPDES permit limit accounts for an offset of nitrogen loading attributable to CSO discharges. Upgrades to the Bowery Bay, Wards Island, Hunt’s Point, and Tallman Island WWTPs are on schedule to meet the SPDES permit final effluent limits.

Figure 8: (Source: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection)

22

Combined East River WWTP Effluent Total Nitrogen Loading

Figure 9 (Source: NYCDEP, Quarterly Nitrogen Report, July 29, 2016) Beyond NYCDEP efforts to reduce nitrogen loading, on October 22, 2008, Westchester County entered into an Order on Consent (CO3‐20080730‐65) with DEC to achieve nitrogen reduction goals for WWTPs that discharge into Long Island Sound. The Order on Consent requires Westchester County WWTPs that discharge into the Long Island Sound watershed to meet nitrogen loading limits by August 1, 2017. The County operates four WWTPs in this zone, each of which are currently in compliance with Order on Consent requirements. The County's major investment in the upgrade of two facilities, Mamaroneck and New Rochelle, uses state-of-the-art biological nitrogen reduction technologies and has been successful in helping the County to meet effluent limits. Westchester County has met its construction deadlines and is now achieving a combined discharge total of 1,418 pounds per day for both Mamaroneck and New Rochelle WWTPs, consistent with the Order on Consent requirements. Also contributing to reduction goals was a voluntary upgrade to Blind Brook WWTP, which was completed in 2010, and a pilot project at Port Chester. Additionally, a fifth WWTP in the county, North Castle WWTP, completed upgrades and has been meeting the Order on Consent required limits since October 2010. As of August 30, 2016, the overall discharge of nitrogen for the five WWTPs is 1,402 pounds per day, approximately 22 percent below the discharge limit of 1,781 pounds per day.

23

Separately, additional reductions in total nitrogen are being realized at WWTPs in both Nassau and Suffolk counties that discharge within the Long Island Sound watershed. For more information on activities within the Long Island Sound watershed, visit the Long Island Sound Study13 webpage. Example 2 CAFO Best Management Practice (BMP) Initiative The CAFO ECL and CWA general permits required each class of these medium-size operations to have fully implemented all BMPs contained in their respective Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) by June 30, 2014. Agricultural BMPs often include significant capital construction projects, such as manure storage, silage leachate management systems, barnyard improvements, and installation of vegetative treatment areas (VTAs). As of March 2015, approximately 80% of permitted CAFO operations (both large and medium) had achieved compliance by implementing their respective BMPs within the timeframe established when the first CAFO general permits were issued in 2001. However, many farms, particularly medium-size CAFO sites, had not completed all elements of their BMPs. Ultimately, DEC decided to not extend the June 30, 2014 deadline for implementation due to the crucial role of a BMP to protect water quality through the CAFO permitting program. Following this decision, DEC worked with its partners in the statewide CAFO Work Group to develop a compliance initiative for medium-size CAFO operations to accelerate implementation of any overdue BMP14. Under this initiative, DEC re-evaluated the status of BMP implementation at each CAFO operation using data available through the 2014 CAFO Annual Compliance Report (ACR) This report was due March 31, 2015 and was required from each CAFO operation. In March 2015, 130 CAFO operations reported in their 2014 ACR that they had not fully implemented BMPs by December 31, 2014, although 75 CAFO operations anticipated compliance by December 31, 2015. On June 9, 2015, DEC issued 123 notice of violation (NOV) letters to those CAFO operations failing to meet the June 30, 2014 deadline. Those who were issued NOV letters were requested to provide a certification of compliance upon meeting this requirement, or to provide a compliance schedule for completion that would be implemented under an Order on Consent. Seven CAFO operations working under an Order on Consent were evaluated separately. As of December 2015, 52 of the 123 farms certified as compliant and were acknowledged by DEC for completing BMP implementation. Eight farms terminated

13 http://longislandsoundstudy.net/ 14 The statewide CAFO Work Group includes DEC, the state Department of Agriculture & Markets, Cornell University, local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and environmental interest groups.

24

CAFO permit coverage, and 45 farms were contacted to enter into an Order on Consent, each to include a payable penalty that incorporated the farm’s pending BMP completion dates. Sixteen additional CAFO sites were identified as having remaining work, and were granted an extension to June 30, 2016 to complete work without formal enforcement. Under this initiative, over 90% of CAFO-permitted sites are now certified as compliant with their respective BMPs. The remaining 10% operate under an Order on Consent, each with a compliance schedule requiring completion no later than December 31, 2017. This approach allowed for more consistent statewide implementation of the CAFO program and water quality improvements. Shared Oversight of the SPDES Program DEC’s Relationship with USEPA In 1975 DEC was authorized by USEPA to manage water pollution control requirements of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) in New York State. A primary component of this authorization is the implementation of the SPDES program, New York’s equivalent to the federal NPDES program. While comparable, DEC regulations provide additional protection for groundwater resources. Today, USEPA and DEC continue their cooperative relationship by establishing priority watershed activities, implementing annually revised work plans, and seeking community-based solutions. An important part of this relationship is the 1987 USEPA/DEC Enforcement Agreement. This agreement outlines DEC’s responsibilities to maintain compliance of facilities permitted under the SPDES program. DEC’s responsibilities include:

• Monitoring permit compliance • Identifying facilities meeting significant non-compliance (SNC) criteria • Identifying facilities requiring enforcement action to restore compliance • Timely and appropriate enforcement in response to SNC and priority violations • Maintaining and sharing compliance data and information with USEPA

This agreement also establishes procedures for USEPA oversight and review of DEC’s SPDES program, notably through the state review framework process15 16. The SNC

15 Although New York has an authorized program, USEPA reserves certain privileges for oversight and enforcement actions under the CWA. Separately, USEPA has retained and not delegated both the pretreatment and biosolids programs. 16 The State Review Framework (SRF) assesses USEPA and state enforcement of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Designed by USEPA and the Environmental Council of the States, USEPA works in partnership with each state to create a final SRF report. These SRF reports allow USEPA to identify recommendations for improvement to ensure fair and consistent enforcement and compliance programs across the nation.

25

program, a key element of DEC’s oversight activities, requires quarterly meetings with USEPA where the causes of significant non-compliance at major-class SPDES permitted facilities are discussed and actions necessary to restore compliance are identified. Persistent violation of a SPDES permit requires an enforcement action that assesses a financial penalty and/or the installation of new or replacement equipment or treatment systems. Additionally, in 2015 USEPA published an assessment of New York State’s animal agriculture regulations and programs to determine consistency with the CWA. This report is available on USEPA’s website17. A primary feature of the enforcement agreement is for USEPA and DEC to collectively seek to restore compliance at major-class facilities. Those identified as minor-class facilities or operating under a general permit are overseen primarily by DEC, with USEPA available to initiate action on its own or through annual work plan agreements, each requiring consultation with DEC. With priority given to major-class dischargers, USEPA and DEC apply criteria to identify those facilities with significant non-compliance (SNC) violations. Examples of SNC violations include:

• Discharge monitoring values exceeding a USEPA-defined threshold • A facility’s failure to provide a specific document or report required as a condition

of a legally binding discharge permit, Order on Consent, or other enforcement action

• Completion of a major upgrade or meeting final effluent limits past an established deadline

• A discharge that threatens public health or the environment Facilities meeting these criteria become the focus of quarterly meetings where DEC provides details on the cause, frequency, and severity of violations. DEC is then responsible to seek a return to compliance or, if violations continue, to pursue informal or formal enforcement. Common enforcement actions include issuing a notice of violation, holding a compliance conference with the permittee, or entering into an Order on Consent with DEC. The rate of SNC represents those USEPA-designated major-class SPDES permitted facilities that met the SNC criteria at least once during a given period. For SFY 2015/16, the SNC rate for these 335 major-class facilities in New York State was 32% (see Figure 10). The facilities on this list change from quarter to quarter, as some return to compliance while others join the list.

17 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/new_york_animal_agriculture_program_assessment_final_2.pdf

26

Rate of Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) for major-class SPDES permittees

Figure 10

USEPA/DEC Work Sharing Agreement for Clean Water Act Inspections and Enforcement

To facilitate compliance monitoring across core programs of the Clean Water Act, USEPA and DEC annually develop an Inspection Work Plan to identify USEPA inspections in New York State that address program priorities and assumptions regarding available resources. The ultimate goal of this Inspection Work Plan is to maximize the environmental benefit of the USEPA inspection program at facilities identified by USEPA and DEC as high priority targets.

For this plan, DEC provides information to USEPA that is necessary to prioritize and select inspection targets. Depending on DEC requests and national priorities, USEPA will conduct inspections at facilities where they may or may not have program primacy. This plan also establishes protocol for the coordination of each inspection and any ensuing compliance and/or enforcement actions, and identifies which agency will assume a lead role should an enforcement action be necessary.

Under this work planning approach, DEC is able to provide input into inspections for programs that USEPA administers, such as pretreatment and biosolids, while sharing resources to enable USEPA to focus on areas that DEC may devote fewer inspection resources to. This teamwork approach allows for an exchange of experience and institutional knowledge, while ensuring a consistent approach to an inspection regardless of which agency is participating or providing a leadership role.

27

USEPA Previous Year Activities In addition to DEC’s oversight activities for the SPDES program, Figure 11 shows a summary of SFY 2015/16 USEPA activities in New York State: Program Area or Discharge Class/Category18

Inspections/Audits Enforcement Actions19

SPDES and Pretreatment Programs20 31 17 CAFO 7 3 Stormwater Construction 7 4 Stormwater Industrial (MSGP) 34 8 MS4 11 13

Total 90 45 Figure 11

18 Refer to Appendix A for a definition of terms in this column. 19 Includes both administrative Orders on Consent and administrative penalty Orders on Consent. 20 Includes facilities issued individual SPDES permits, sampling inspections, SSO events, satellite collection system oversight activities, and audits of industrial and commercial entities that discharge wastewater for treatment by a POTW.

28

Appendix A

Glossary of Terms

29

Appendix A: Definition of Terms

Agricultural Environment Management (AEM) certified planner – A professional who provides services to CAFO-regulated farms in New York State, including development of comprehensive nutrient management plans (CNMPs).

Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) – A lot or facility (other than an aquatic animal production facility) where the following conditions exist:

• Animals (other than aquatic animals) have been, are, or will be stabled orconfined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-monthperiod.

• Crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained inthe normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility.

AFOs are agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in a confined situation. In this space the animals may feed, generate manure and urine, and produce eggs, milk, or other desirable outputs. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures, fields, or on rangeland.

Annual Compliance Report – Applicable to CAFO permitted sites, this is a report that is due annually to DEC. The report is to detail facility information, type and number of confined animals, manure and wastewater production and transfer data, and other details relevant to the environmental management of the site. A copy of this form can be found at www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/gp01401acr.pdf

Best Management Practices (BMP) – BMP consist of various technical or managerial strategies that intend to address a specific problem or guide an activity while being efficient and cost effective.

CAFO Permit – A SPDES permit that covers all applicable CAFOs statewide with generic requirements for wastewater discharges, including surface water and groundwater. A CNMP, required for all CAFO permitted sites, details site-specific requirements for each CAFO and becomes an enforceable condition of this permit.

Clean Water Act (CWA) – The primary federal law governing water pollution control. Passed in 1972, this act relies upon the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 for much of its authority.

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) – A discharge of untreated wastewater from a combined sewer system at a point before the headworks of a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). CSOs generally occur during wet weather (rainfall or snowmelt) and combine a mixture of stormwater runoff and untreated sewage.

Compliance Schedule – A schedule of remedial measures included in a permit or legally enforceable action, with a sequence of interim requirements (e.g., actions, operations, or milestone events) leading to compliance with the CWA and regulations.

30

Appendix A: Definition of Terms

Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) – A conservation plan, unique to animal feeding operations, designed to evaluate all aspects of farm production and offer conservation practices that help achieve production and natural resource conservation goals. The New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee, with guidance from other partner agencies, established a comprehensive certification process to ensure certified planners from both the public and private sectors are available and qualified to meet the high standards for CNMP development and implementation.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) – An animal feeding operation (AFO) further defined as a large or medium CAFO meeting either one of the following conditions:

• Pollutants are discharged into waters of the United States through a human-made ditch, flushing system, or other similar human-made device.

• Pollutants originating outside of and passing over, across, or through the facility or that otherwise come into direct contact with the animals confined in the operation are discharged directly into waters of the United States.

Construction Stormwater Permit – Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity General Permit (GP-0-10-001), issued pursuant to Article 17, Title 7, 8 and Article 70 of the Environmental Conservation Law, authorizes stormwater discharges from eligible construction activities under the terms and conditions of the permit.

Demonstration Approach – One of two (2) permissible strategies for CSO communities to consider when evaluating CSO control options. Under this approach, the CSO community would develop and implement a long-term control plan that meets applicable water quality standards.

Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) – A self-monitoring report that permitted facilities submit to NYSDEC, typically on a monthly basis, which detail facility effluent data. Drainage Basin – The land area from which all precipitation runs off into streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. ECHO – Enforcement and Compliance History Online. ECHO is the USEPA-owned website that provides details of the compliance and enforcement history of facilities permitted under the Clean Water Act. ECL – Environmental Conservation Law. The body of law that established NYSDEC and authorizes its programs, often abbreviated as ECL. The full text of New York's ECL is found on the New York State Legislative Information System.

ECO – Environmental Conservation Officer. ECOs are members of the NYSDEC Division of Law Enforcement and enforce New York State’s Environmental Conservation Law.

31

Appendix A: Definition of Terms

Environmental Benefit Project (EBP) - A project that an administrative respondent or judicial defendant (“respondent”) agrees to undertake as part of the settlement of an enforcement matter. NYSDEC may suspend the obligation to pay a portion of a penalty where a respondent agrees to undertake an EBP. Generally, an EBP must improve, restore, protect, or reduce risks to public health or the environment beyond that achieved by a respondent's full compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Examples of EBPs include those that do the following:

• Conserve, improve, and/or protect the state's natural resources and environment• Prevent, control or reduce water, land and air pollution• Enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state• Enhance the overall economic and social well being of the people of the state• Achieve significantly early compliance with environmental laws and regulations or

go significantly beyond minimum compliance in performance commitments• Promote compliance with environmental requirements by providing practical and

effective education to the public, regulated persons, stakeholders, and others asto the improvement, restoration, protection, or reduction of risks to public health,the environment, or natural resources

Gray Infrastructure – Most commonly refers to conventional infrastructure: pipes, tanks, sewage collection systems, and drinking water systems. While not always grey in color, these infrastructure assets typically provide underlying support to a modern and economically developed society.

Green Infrastructure – Represents an approach to wet weather management that is cost effective, sustainable, and environmentally friendly. This approach commonly involves the use of permeable pavement, rain barrels, or “green” roofs. Often these devices intend to divert stormwater runoff from a sanitary sewer, where it can cause an overflow and result in a public health or environmental situation.

Infiltration – Refers to seepage of groundwater into a sewer system, including service connections. Seepage frequently occurs through defective or cracked pipes, pipe joints, or manhole walls.

Infiltration and Inflow (“I & I”) – this is the total quantity of water from both infiltration and inflow.

Inflow – This water enters a sewer system from roof leaders, foundation drains, storm sewers, leaky manhole covers, and numerous other sources.

Industrial Discharge Permit – This permit applies to facilities that conduct industrial activities but are not municipal or private, commercial, and institutional (PCI) class facilities.

32

Appendix A: Definition of Terms

Large CAFO – An AFO that stables or confines as many as or more than the numbers of animals specified in any of the following categories:

• 700 mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry• 1,000 veal calves• 1,000 cattle, other than mature dairy cows or veal calves. Cattle include, but are

not limited to, heifers, steers, bulls and cow/calf pairs• 2,500 swine, each weighing 55 pounds or more• 10,000 swine, each weighing less than 55 pounds• 500 horses• 10,000 sheep or lambs• 55,000 turkeys• 30,000 laying hens or broilers, if the AFO uses a liquid manure handling system• 125,000 chickens (other than laying hens), if the AFO uses other than a liquid

manure handling system• 82,000 laying hens, if the AFO uses other than a liquid manure handling system• 30,000 ducks, if the AFO uses other than a liquid manure handling system• 5,000 ducks, if the AFO uses a liquid manure handling system

Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) – A LTCP is a phased approach for control of combined sewer overflows that requires the permittee to develop and submit an approvable plan that will ultimately result in compliance with New York state water quality standards and Clean Water Act requirements.

Major Industrial Facility – An industrial facility with a discharge that is relatively large in volume, has “toxicity potential” as defined by the USEPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual and meets certain rating criteria developed by USEPA, in conjunction with NYSDEC.

Major Municipal Facility – A publicly owned treatment facility that treats wastewater flows of 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) or greater and has an USEPA or state-approved industrial pre-treatment program. This may also include publicly owned treatment facilities with a design flow of 0.5 to 1.0 million gallons per day that USEPA or NYSDEC designate as being a major-class facility.

Medium CAFO – An AFO that stables or confines animals falling within any of the following ranges:

• 200 to 699 mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry• 300 to 999 veal calves• 300 to 999 cattle, other than mature dairy cows or veal calves. Cattle include, but

are not limited to, heifers, steers, bulls and cow/calf pairs• 750 to 2,499 swine, each weighing 55 pounds or more• 3,000 to 9,999 swine, each weighing less than 55 pounds• 150 to 499 horses• 3,000 to 9,999 sheep or lambs• 16,500 to 54,999 turkeys

33

Appendix A: Definition of Terms

• 9,000 to 29,999 laying hens or broilers, if the AFO uses a liquid manure handlingsystem

• 37,500 to 124,999 chickens (other than laying hens), if the AFO uses other thana liquid manure handling system

• 25,000 to 81,999 laying hens, if the AFO uses other than a liquid manurehandling system

• 10,000 to 29,999 ducks, if the AFO uses other than a liquid manure handlingsystem

• 1,500 to 4,999 ducks, if the AFO uses a liquid manure handling system

Minor Industrial Facility – An industrial facility that is neither a major industrial facility nor a non-significant facility.

Minor Municipal Facility – A POTW that is neither a major municipal facility nor a non-significant facility.

MS4 Permit – This general permit, issued pursuant to Article 17, Title 7, 8 and Article 70 of the Environmental Conservation Law, authorizes operators of an MS4 in New York State to discharge to waters of the United States in accordance with the conditions and requirements set forth in the permit.

Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) – This permit covers facilities with stormwater discharges to waters of the state from a point source that conducts industrial activities within 40 CFR Part 122.26(b)(14)(I) through (ix) and (xi), as well as other miscellaneous industrial activities designated by NYSDEC on an individual basis.

Municipal Discharge Permit – This permit applies to publicly owned wastewater treatment plants discharging municipal sewage. Municipal sewage is wastewater composed of residential sewage, with or without the admixture of industrial wastewater.

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) – A conveyance, or system that is: • Owned or operated by a state, county, or other public body created by state law,

having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other wastes

• Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater• Not a combined sewer• Not part of a publicly owned treatment works

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – The federal Clean Water Act authorized development of NPDES to regulate all discharges to surface waters of the United States (NPDES does not cover discharges to ground water). Under New York State Environmental Conservation Law, NYSDEC administers the state’s program for meeting the requirements of NPDES (see “SPDES” below).

Non-Significant Facility – A facility that NYSDEC determines poses a minimal water quality risk and possesses a SPDES permit that does not contain limitations for the discharge of priority pollutants or other toxic constituents.

34

Appendix A: Definition of Terms

Notice of Violation (NOV) – A written notification of non-compliance from NYSDEC. This should be the minimum department response to all significant non compliance (SNC) and is often the last informal enforcement activity prior to commencement of formal enforcement.

Order on Consent – A legally binding agreement negotiated by NYSDEC and a SPDES permittee, which addresses specific violations and includes provisions for a payable penalty. An Order on Consent may also include suspended and/or stipulated penalties, interim effluent limitations, and a compliance schedule for corrective action.

Presumption Approach – One of two (2) permissible strategies for CSO communities to consider when evaluating CSO control options. Under this approach, certain performance criteria (i.e. 4-6 untreated overflow events or 85 percent by volume capture) would be presumed to provide an adequate level of control to attain water quality standards.

Priority Pollutants – Chemical pollutants that USEPA regulates and for which it has published analytical test methods.

Private, Commercial, and Institutional (PCI) Permit – This class of permit regulates the discharge of wastewater from a facility meeting the criteria of a PCI facility.

Publicly Owned Sewer System (POSS) – A municipal sewage collection system owned by one or more municipalities. Generally, this includes interceptors, force mains, and pump stations, while excluding lateral piping that serves to connect the wider system to an individual residence, or commercial or industrial properties.

Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) – A municipal wastewater treatment facility owned by a state or municipality.

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) – The occasional, unintentional discharge of raw sewage from municipal sanitary sewers. These discharges can occur at sewage pump stations or manholes, or in home basements.

Secondary Treatment – The technology-based requirement for direct discharging by a POTW. Secondary treatment consists of a combination of physical and biological processes typical for the treatment of pollutants in sewage.

Sewage Pollution Right to Know Act – This is a New York state law that that went into effect May 1, 2013. This law requires the reporting of untreated or partially treated sewage discharges, also known as bypasses, from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).The law imposes new reporting requirements for publicly owned sewer systems (POSSs) and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The first phase of the SPRTKA provides a system for collecting reports of these discharges. The second phase, currently under development, will provide regulations to require POTWs and POSSs to directly notify the public of discharges of untreated or partially treated sewage.

35

Appendix A: Definition of Terms

Short-form Order on Consent – This is a formal enforcement document that is similar to the longer version of an order on consent. A short-form order on consent is appropriate in cases of non-compliance when:

• Remedial action is not necessary or complete• Only minor compliance activity is required• It is approved by NYSDEC’s regional attorney and relevant program supervisors• The assessed penalty amount is $10,000 or less

Significant Non Compliance (SNC) – The compliance status of a significant-class facility that has at least one unresolved, significant, non-compliance occurrence during the report period. Examples of such an occurrence include submitting a permit or compliance schedule milestone after the deadline, failure to submit a discharge monitoring report, or effluent discharge violations that exceed the threshold outlined in the NYSDEC/USEPA enforcement agreement.

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) – The state program that administers the federally delegated program (see “NPDES” above) for the regulation of wastewater discharges to surface waters. In addition, state law regulates discharges to groundwater, which are not part of the federal delegation. The minimum threshold for a SPDES permit for groundwater discharges is 1,000 gallons per day for sanitary wastewater, while discharges including any industrial wastewater have no minimum threshold. The New York State Department of Health regulates discharges of less than 1,000 gallons per day, consisting of only sanitary wastewater.

Stormwater Construction (SWC) Permit – This permit covers all applicable stormwater discharges relating to eligible construction activities.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) – This document, based on sound engineering practices, details erosion and sediment controls during construction and post-construction stormwater control practices.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) – A calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant or multiple pollutants that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) – Listed as a conventional pollutant in the Clean Water Act of 1972, TSS is a measurement of solids that are visible and/or in suspension of a water sample. SPDES permits extensively require this analysis as an effective means to measure the quality of water discharged.

Uniform Ticket (UT-50) – A ticket issued by an ECO that initiates formal judicial proceedings of a civil, rather than criminal, nature. Conversely, ECO NOVs are administrative tickets issued and resolved by ECOs with assistance from DOW staff.

Unpermitted Discharge – A discharge not authorized by, or in violation of, a permit.

36

Appendix A: Definition of Terms

Vegetated Treatment Area (VTA) – A component of an agricultural waste management system consisting of a strip or area of herbaceous vegetation for the treatment of contaminated

Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL) – This value is determined by selecting the most stringent of the effluent limits calculated using all applicable water quality criteria (e.g. aquatic life, human health, and wildlife) for a specific point source to a specific receiving water for a given pollutant

Wet Weather Operating Plan – A document used by wastewater collection and/or treatment staff to provide guidance on operational changes to make during wet weather conditions. These changes allow for the highest degree of treatment when flows exceed design standards.

37

Sewage Pollution Right to Know SFY 2015/16 Annual Summary Bureau of Water Compliance

Appendix B

38

Appendix B: Sewage Pollution Right to Know Annual Summary

Introduction The Sewage Pollution Right to Know (SPRTK) Act, which requires the reporting of sewage releases from Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and Publicly Owned Sewer Systems (POSSs), became effective May 1, 2013. The SPRTK Act significantly changes the timeframe for reporting sewage discharges by municipalities. Immediately, but no later than two hours of discovery of a discharge, a POTW or POSS must notify both the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the state or local Department of Health (DOH) office with the following information:

• Volume of discharge • Discovery date and time of discharge • Expected duration of discharge • Location of discharge • Reason for the discharge • Actions taken to contain discharge

As soon as possible, but no later than four hours of discovery of a discharge, a POTW or POSS must also notify the state or local DOH, the chief elected official of the discharging municipality and any adjoining municipalities, and the general public about discharges that reach a surface water and may present a threat to public health. DEC, in consultation with the New York State DOH, has determined that discharges directly to surface waters or that may reach surface waters should be avoided by the public.

The SPRTK Act also requires DEC to publish an annual summary of the reports received by DEC and the local and state DOH offices. This report summarizes the information on all reports submitted to DEC from April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 (state fiscal year 2015/16, or SFY 2015/16).

Highlights of DEC progress to implement the SPRTK Act are outlined below, and will be discussed in greater detail in the summary:

• Regulations pursuant to the law were drafted and published for public comment • Public information sessions held across the state • More POTWs and POSSs registered to use NY-Alert

Because of this law and new reporting requirements, sewage discharges are receiving more public and media attention. One significant intent of this law is highlight the current condition of wastewater infrastructure in New York State. Most media outlets receive alerts from the NY-Alert system, and as a result, both the media and public are more aware of sewage releases. Public interest in identifying and solving critical wastewater infrastructure issues also appears to be increasing because of the SPRTK Act.

39

Appendix B: Sewage Pollution Right to Know Annual Summary

Progress Update - Regulations On June 17, 2015, DEC issued proposed regulations to implement the SPRTK Act. Major changes to existing SPDES regulations in 6NYCRR Part 750 include the following:

• Requiring 2 and 4 hour reports from all POTWs and POSSs for discharge events• Requiring POSSs to register with DEC• POSS Operation and Maintenance requirements• CSO notification requirements

These changes were necessary to accurately fulfill requirements of the SPRTK Act. Previously existing regulations only called for POTWs to report discharges that impacted bathing beaches, shellfishing areas, or public drinking water intakes within two hours. Requiring POSS owners to register with DEC allows for better oversight of existing systems. POSS operation and maintenance requirements were added to allow DEC to better improve the performance of “satellite” sewage collection systems. Additionally, the law specifically states that CSO discharges that are not directly from the POTW treatment plant must be reported. The SPRTK law limits DEC to requiring reporting of CSOs using systems and models that existed prior to May 1, 2013. To allow CSO permittees flexibility in reporting, discharges from combined systems may be done on a waterbody basis, instead of each individual outfall.

As required by the State Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA), DEC provided a public comment period of 45 days. During this time, DEC staff held five public information sessions across the state to inform the public about the law, proposed regulations and the NY-Alert reporting system. These meetings were paired with hands-on computer training courses to teach wastewater treatment plant operators and public officials on how to use NY-Alert to report sewage discharges and provide notification. Five (5) public information sessions were held, along with four computer training sessions. Approximately 80 authorized POTW and POSS notifiers across the state were trained on how to properly use NY-Alert.

While the public comment period closed on July 31, 2016, DEC is in the process of evaluating the comments to determine if changes to the proposed regulations are appropriate. Comments were received in a variety of formats, including mailed letters, form letter emails, and electronic letters. Nearly 700 form letters were received, along with many unique comments from various individuals and environmental groups. Comments were then broken down by topic, including:

1. CSO reporting2. Implementation of the SPRTK law3. Draft regulations and regulatory process4. Definitions used in draft regulations

DEC also received many comments related to use of the NY-Alert reporting system to disseminate this information to the public. DEC will continue to evaluate SPRTK implementation and may periodically make adjustments based on experience in receiving information, disseminating this information to the public, and advances in technology and/or reporting mechanisms.

40

Appendix B: Sewage Pollution Right to Know Annual Summary

NY-Alert Status Update At the end of SFY 2015/16, approximately 820 facilities have registered with DEC to use the NY-Alert system, including 620 POTWs and nearly 200 POSSs. These registered municipal entities represent 99% of all POTWs and 80% of all POSSs currently recognized by DEC for this purpose. DEC intends to register all POTWs and POSSs to use NY-Alert. To assist in reaching this goal, DEC is providing hands-on computer training sessions across the state and has held four training sessions in the computer lab at the DEC Central Office in Albany, NY. Approximately 80 authorized notifiers were trained to properly use NY-Alert. Future training sessions will be held as locations and staff are available.

Improvements to NY-Alert DEC continues to improve NY-Alert to assist POTWs and POSSs to both comply with the SPRTK law and provide the public with as much accurate information as possible. Below are several improvements made to NY-Alert within the past year:

1. At DEC’s request, NY-Alert implemented a “Smart Dial” function. This feature allowsnotifiers to send alerts to individuals first by email, and if an email cannot be sent, aphone message will be sent. This reduces confusion of those initiating notificationsbecause they no longer have to uncheck the “Mass Dialer” distribution method. DECnoticed many notifiers were accidentally using this method and responsible for hundredsof unnecessary phone messages.

2. NY-Alert’s “Step 2: Affected Jurisdiction” page was updated to provide notifiers with amore detailed and easier way to use the map to select Affected Jurisdictions. This pagedetermines which public users to notify based on location of the discharge.

3. NY-Alert’s “Step 3: Notification Specifics” page was updated with an “Append” buttonthat helps public users receive more detailed text messages. This feature inserts theweb link into text messages, allowing public users that receive text messages to view theNY-Alert message online.

Future Work DEC continues to work with Buffalo Computer Graphics, the contractor that developed NY-Alert, to maintain and improve its functionality. As updates and fixes are applied to NY-Alert, DEC will inform notifiers and the public about these changes and upgrades.

DEC has also begun to work with the NYS Office of Information and Technology Services (OITS) to create tables and store reports received from NY-Alert automatically. These reports will then be made accessible to the public.

DEC must respond to all comments received during the public comment period. A response to all comments is being drafted and will be made available to the public when final regulations are published.

41

Appendix B: Sewage Pollution Right to Know Annual Summary

Summary of NY-Alert Reports This summary report is based on all reports received; not just those that reached a surface waterbody. Additionally, data provided in these reports are the best estimates at the time the notifiers created the alerts. DEC requires daily updates to alerts and, because of this, multiple records were created for discharges at individual locations. DEC has yet to implement a system to automatically sort, transfer and store discharge information. Due to these information management limitations, there may be slight discrepancies in transferring information from the actual NY-Alert reports into the charts and figures below. While the number of reports is accurate, these technological limitations may result in data for some reports to be missing. The primary cause of untreated sewage discharges across the state is rain, and rain related snow melt during winter months. Rainfall and any ensuing runoff often results in infiltration and inflow (I&I) to reach sanitary sewer lines (see Figure 5 in this appendix). High levels of I&I increases flow to treatment plants through collection systems, causing manhole surcharges and treatment plant bypasses. These types of overflow events are preventable and correctable by separating combined sewers, sealing defective manholes, and replacing or rehabilitating broken sewer lines. During the SFY 2015/16 reporting period, a total of 2,711 NY-Alert reports were received by DEC. This reflects both initial reports for each sewage discharge and updates to these initial events. A closer review of these reports reveal that there were 1,506 unique overflow events, originating from 159 different treatment facilities or collection systems. There are many more POTWs reporting sewage discharges than POSSs. This is because POTWs own and operate more infrastructure than POSSs and because about 20% of the POSSs have yet to register with DEC. Notable as shown in Figure 3, during September 2015 there were 68 overflow events reported. However, none of these reported a discharge volume. A review of the data indicates this anomaly was due to under reporting by municipal officials and errors within the computer systems used to process NY-Alert data transmissions to DEC. Improvements to these data systems are underway, including development of an automated data storage system. DEC expects that data errors such as this will be minimized once this system is implemented. Across the state, there were 132 unique waterbodies affected by these events. For example, Scajaquada Creek (Erie County) received the highest volume of overflows, estimated at over 380 million gallons in SFY 2015/16. DEC is addressing many of these situations with a common enforcement action, the Order on Consent. In response to sewage overflows, an Order on Consent often compels a municipality to identify overflow discharge locations and make effective collection system improvements to eliminate future SSO events. Statewide, Erie County (not included in Figure 7) had the most reported events, with a total of 791 individual events. Of the 62 counties in New York State, 47 had facilities that reported at least one partial or untreated sewage discharge event during SFY 2015/16.

42

Appendix B: Sewage Pollution Right to Know Annual Summary

Unique Facilities 134 25

Figure 1. POTWs versus POSS facilities

Figure 2. Number of events by month

1064

411

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

POTW Events POSS Events

Num

ber o

f Rep

orts

Number of Events

84 83

224

131

62 68

12690

133

86

248

135

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Num

ber o

f Rep

orts

Number of Events by Month

43

Appendix B: Sewage Pollution Right to Know Annual Summary

Figure 3. Reported volume by month

Figure 4. Total volume discharged by treated state

94.39

45.88

206.08

67.4642.03

0.0031.52

0.99

37.90 27.48

105.85

65.58

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

Repo

rted

Vlu

me

(MG)

Reported Volume by Month

703.52

11.62 15.27

Reported Volume Discharged by Treated State (MG)

Untreated

Partially Treated with Disinfection

Partially Treated without Disinfection

44

Appendix B: Sewage Pollution Right to Know Annual Summary

Figure 5. Reason for discharge

Figure 6. Top 10 waterbodies affected, with reported volume

15693 40 49

864

11 360

100200300400500600700800900

1000

Blockage InsufficientSystem

Capacity

Other Pipe Break WeatherConditions

RootIntrusion

Unknown

Num

ber o

f Rep

orts

Reason For Discharge

382.19

39.09 24.43 15.99 23.202.01 3.54 3.22 17.64 14.55

155140

117

74 69

46 42 37 29 29

020406080100120140160180

050

100150200250300350400450

Num

ber of Reports

Volu

me

Disc

harg

ed (M

G)

Top 10 Waterbodies Affected, with Reported Volume Discharged

Volume(MG)

Number of Events

45

Appendix B: Sewage Pollution Right to Know Annual Summary

Figure 7. Top 10 reporting counties

NY-Alert Mapping NY-Alert has a feature for notifiers to use called “Map It”. This feature allows a notifier to identify the location of a discharge event, enabling a viewer to readily find the location on a map. Figure 8 was created using location information available from NY-Alert reports. A few clarifying points on Figure 8:

• New York City did not start using NY-Alert to report CSO discharges until midwaythrough SFY 2015/16. To address public concerns, New York City (NYC) has a real-timewaterbody advisory web page, and DEC is working with the NYC Department ofEnvironmental Protection to link to this advisory webpage and report CSO eventsthrough NY-Alert.

• Although provided to DEC, some locations did not “pinpoint” on the map. This is due tothe mapping software that is used to locate each address.

• The map displays locations of discharge events using a size and color scheme.Locations that experience more discharges appear as larger red dots, whilelocations that have fewer discharges are smaller and green. NY-Alert reports forNYC CSOs appear green because discharge volumes have not been reported.

Overall, location data improved significantly since the transition to the NY-Alert system. With more training and outreach to notifiers, and their experience in reporting, the expectation is that location data will continue to improve.

65

5141 38 36 35 31 30 26 24

010203040506070

Num

ber o

f Rep

orts

Top 10 Reporting Counties

46

Appendix B: Sewage Pollution Right to Know Annual Summary

Figure 8: Map of SPRTK reported events April 1, 2015 – March 31, 2016

Figure 9. Number of reported events, by year

050

100150200250300350

Number of Reported Events

201320142015

47

Appendix B: Sewage Pollution Right to Know Annual Summary

Figure 10. Historical review of reported events

Historical trends Figures 10 through 12 present reported data since the effective date of the SPRTK Act (May 1, 2013). Although the number of reported discharge events has varied over the last three years, the quality of these reports have improved due to better reporting methods, and additional training and outreach to POTWs, POSSs, and other registered notifiers.

Figure 11. Reported volume discharged, by year

DEC is working with municipalities to report CSO discharges, and is aware that discharge volumes will increase as those communities improve detection, monitoring, and data capture for

1577

1506

1470

14001420144014601480150015201540156015801600

2013 2014 2015

Number of Reported Events

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

Repo

rted

Vol

ume

(MG)

Reported Volume Discharged(MG)

2013

2014

2015

48

Appendix B: Sewage Pollution Right to Know Annual Summary

each event. Currently, the majority of volume reported through NY-Alert is due to sanitary sewer overflow events.

Figure 12. Historical view of reported volume discharged

Although there were fewer reported events during SFY 2015/16, the total reported volume discharged was more than the previous two years combined. This increase is attributable to greater numbers of POTWs and POSSs registered to use NY-Alert, the ability for NY-Alert to accept either a total volume or flow rate, and training and outreach to potential and registered notifiers.

263.71178.20

725.18

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

2013 2014 2015

Repo

rted

Vol

ume

(MG)

Reported Volume Discharged(MG)

49

Appendix C

SPDES Program Oversight Data

50

Appendix C: SPDES Program Oversight Data

01 Individual: Industrial Significant Minor 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. of Facilities 606 615 628 606 597 594 586 580 573 571No. Inspected 293 282 293 333 287 252 232 248 264 227Unsatisfactory 12 11 31 18 17 9 17 5 12 9

Marginal 39 36 50 48 51 32 52 29 29 21Satisfactory 251 231 262 293 236 218 323 238 259 238Not Rated 51 49 21 41 45 36 24 10 9 5

Total Inspections 353 327 364 400 349 295 416 282 309 273No. in SNC for Year 151 165 150 128 120 132 105 120 127 157

DEC Enforcement Actions 6 3 15 12 27 15 11 13 8 20Enf. Penalties - Assessed $37,000 $44,290 $170,600 $438,875 $3,163,000 $683,500 $127,750 $124,350 $104,250 $405,603Enf. Penalties - Collected $15,000 $20,000 $119,300 $163,375 $2,599,834 $197,500 $72,750 $69,625 $28,250 $306,569

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $3,015,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

02 Individual: PCI Non-Significant Minor 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. of Facilities 5763 5892 5973 6074 6057 5463 5105 5008 4846 4708No. Inspected 118 202 122 114 126 128 109 154 67 81Unsatisfactory 14 23 32 37 26 52 43 36 12 11

Marginal 25 33 31 26 46 31 29 38 18 29Satisfactory 136 161 94 76 84 84 74 93 48 49Not Rated 9 14 10 3 11 7 5 3 2 5

Total Inspections 184 231 167 142 167 174 151 170 80 94DEC Enforcement Actions 16 26 18 12 14 6 7 7 3 9Enf. Penalties - Assessed $83,500 $349,625 $384,575 $596,500 $148,750 $174,575 $76,875 $54,113 $96,000 $72,550Enf. Penalties - Collected $29,250 $163,475 $190,000 $292,000 $43,400 $42,250 $15,575 $13,863 $22,000 $22,050

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

03 Individual: Industrial USEPA Major 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. Facilities 118 118 117 116 113 112 110 109 107 106No. Inspected 84 81 75 78 70 69 69 76 85 68Unsatisfactory 1 7 3 5 4 3 1 4 5 1

Marginal 5 4 6 11 5 11 13 6 6 2Satisfactory 81 82 96 90 81 77 163 88 97 88Not Rated 6 14 6 9 7 5 9 3 3 1

Total Inspections 93 107 111 115 97 96 186 101 111 92No. in SNC for Year 17 11 12 12 17 11 14 20 14 22

DEC Enforcement Actions 5 7 7 3 8 7 5 2 4 4Enf. Penalties - Assessed $807,000 $111,250 $223,120 $3,625 $1,083,000 $103,750 $35,625 $76,000 $121,000 $186,321Enf. Penalties - Collected $365,000 $104,250 $177,500 $3,625 $1,083,000 $103,750 $31,125 $66,000 $106,000 $107,237

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $60,000

04 Individual: Industrial Non-Significant Minor 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. of Facilities 838 847 854 857 846 810 800 782 771 746No. Inspected 71 65 72 85 130 76 80 150 70 60Unsatisfactory 15 3 11 15 23 13 12 19 11 24

Marginal 6 4 12 18 24 17 13 28 11 8Satisfactory 58 41 66 62 58 39 59 49 37 28Not Rated 30 29 13 25 43 14 38 66 19 4

Total Inspections 109 77 102 120 148 83 122 162 78 64DEC Enforcement Actions 5 6 3 0 3 4 0 1 3 7Enf. Penalties - Assessed $88,500 $86,000 $104,000 $0 $11,000 $16,500 $0 $4,000 $12,250 $38,700Enf. Penalties - Collected $35,500 $33,000 $104,000 $0 $4,000 $4,000 $0 $2,000 $12,250 $22,450

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0

51

Appendix C: SPDES Program Oversight Data

05 Individual: Municipal USEPA Major 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. Facilities 224 228 229 230 232 233 230 232 229 229No. Inspected 205 201 211 193 198 201 190 205 198 205Unsatisfactory 2 10 24 18 22 16 15 18 27 24

Marginal 28 48 50 48 61 57 51 50 50 57Satisfactory 561 424 447 497 362 321 313 279 268 255Not Rated 32 34 22 75 73 89 110 68 39 48

Total Inspections 623 516 543 638 518 483 489 415 384 384No. in SNC for Year 58 72 67 55 56 81 78 56 68 84

DEC Enforcement Actions 18 13 19 29 29 26 21 11 19 24Enf. Penalties - Assessed $371,900 $267,500 $1,371,000 $475,250 $1,130,890 $1,984,500 $846,350 $290,900 $1,796,420 $478,469Enf. Penalties - Collected $76,650 $185,500 $1,268,000 $204,000 $513,178 $704,800 $235,600 $183,800 $643,600 $383,395

SEP/EBP Amount $145,000 $30,000 $4,780,000 $10,015,000 $305,000 $702,500 $304,000 $41,000 $72,500 $459,000

07 Individual: Municipal Significant Minor 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. Facilities 400 402 404 405 401 411 408 406 407 409No. Inspected 304 296 324 279 266 289 259 331 299 302Unsatisfactory 20 18 61 28 37 64 26 23 28 34

Marginal 56 71 135 117 132 93 98 95 109 79Satisfactory 446 363 412 321 263 258 253 299 268 271Not Rated 87 116 11 5 4 14 12 16 3 5

Total Inspections 609 568 619 471 436 429 389 433 408 389No. in SNC for Year 97 117 100 88 95 90 86 96 93 126

DEC Enforcement Actions 15 17 13 17 14 10 23 14 12 12Enf. Penalties - Assessed $160,200 $597,650 $297,800 $39,550 $176,000 $33,400 $268,800 $156,750 $42,950 $100,650Enf. Penalties - Collected $18,500 $398,000 $122,600 $15,250 $53,200 $10,750 $84,115 $41,150 $11,750 $31,000

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $28,000 $0 $0 $0

09 Individual: PCI Significant Minor 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. of Facilities 259 262 266 264 264 277 282 286 288 300No. Inspected 181 194 193 195 195 197 209 217 213 161Unsatisfactory 5 5 100 69 83 91 83 7 12 88

Marginal 5 15 255 280 325 212 157 248 218 217Satisfactory 51 41 274 283 229 195 233 186 195 270Not Rated 395 540 2 4 0 1 9 6 4 0

Total Inspections 456 601 631 636 637 499 482 447 429 575No. in SNC for Year 135 139 134 116 115 119 92 97 97 123

DEC Enforcement Actions 1 4 14 5 2 9 4 4 7 17Partner Enforcement Actions 1 39 26 23 1 0 6 17 12

Enforcement Actions 1 5 53 31 25 10 4 10 24 29Enf. Penalties - Assessed $0 $79,250 $180,000 $68,750 $37,750 $131,000 $11,800 $277,750 $19,000 $108,750Enf. Penalties - Collected $0 $31,500 $56,000 $55,000 $24,750 $14,500 $11,800 $71,750 $18,000 $70,750

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 General: Construction Stormwater 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. of Permits Issued 4589 5340 6315 6709 7763 7763 7911 8007 8393 8207No. Inspected 265 363 333 280 192 230 248 219 167 141Unsatisfactory 87 153 117 104 63 53 54 40 55 42

Marginal 139 242 159 159 98 144 180 133 69 61Satisfactory 128 136 189 210 145 107 135 172 105 107Not Rated 31 59 62 34 26 17 13 23 13 11

Total Inspections 385 590 527 507 332 321 382 368 242 221DEC Enforcement Actions 51 51 43 24 28 18 16 15 9 7Enf. Penalties - Assessed $426,750 $465,750 $495,400 $538,250 $473,425 $332,500 $191,700 $199,000 $148,000 $106,200Enf. Penalties - Collected $200,250 $327,750 $378,400 $347,000 $226,050 $192,250 $105,400 $140,000 $89,000 $80,000

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $35,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0

52

Appendix C: SPDES Program Oversight Data

12 General: Industrial Stormwater 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. of Permits Issued 1398 1110 1356 1448 1518 1580 1647 1613 1657 1690No. Inspected 12 41 28 68 40 36 67 33 50 43Unsatisfactory 3 13 11 39 10 7 30 10 9 13

Marginal 5 15 8 18 10 18 28 10 9 10Satisfactory 5 8 12 18 21 12 35 10 29 20Not Rated 1 6 0 6 4 2 4 3 4 0

Total Inspections 14 42 31 81 45 39 97 33 51 43DEC Enforcement Actions 6 4 4 43 46 85 38 43 39 26Enf. Penalties - Assessed $100,000 $29,000 $410,500 $78,250 $617,750 $214,650 $118,250 $200,750 $70,575 $92,250Enf. Penalties - Collected $29,500 $19,000 $90,500 $74,750 $231,775 $114,650 $66,750 $117,750 $65,575 $86,250

SEP/EBP Amount $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 General: CWA CAFO Large 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. of Permits Issued 134 138 145 149 143 147 151 161 170 179No. Inspected 31 64 88 64 30 26 46 42 46 43Unsatisfactory 8 13 10 8 5 4 6 2 2 3

Marginal 5 17 22 18 6 6 14 8 11 16Satisfactory 20 37 54 36 18 15 27 32 30 24Not Rated 3 4 3 9 4 3 8 4 9 4

Total Inspections 36 71 89 71 33 28 55 46 52 47DEC Enforcement Actions 8 8 5 3 2 5 2 3 3 4Enf. Penalties - Assessed $446,537 $192,000 $50,000 $21,000 $10,500 $25,500 $25,250 $6,000 $64,000 $20,000Enf. Penalties - Collected $16,600 $82,500 $22,000 $21,000 $10,500 $11,000 $17,000 $1,750 $44,000 $9,000

SEP/EBP Amount $1,536,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 General: CWA CAFO Medium 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. of Permits Issued 454 452 441 420 131 109 109 81 74 72No. Inspected 32 115 86 81 34 32 43 22 23 29Unsatisfactory 5 13 5 6 6 4 3 2 5 2

Marginal 1 19 16 13 9 12 13 6 3 14Satisfactory 9 34 28 17 22 19 30 14 11 15Not Rated 4 6 6 7 3 3 2 2 6 1

Total Inspections 19 72 55 43 40 38 48 24 25 32DEC Enforcement Actions 7 12 8 10 5 5 1 8 2 12Enf. Penalties - Assessed $7,250 $107,000 $67,500 $61,000 $27,000 $17,500 $3,000 $106,200 $23,625 $72,750Enf. Penalties - Collected $5,250 $15,000 $44,500 $33,500 $15,000 $16,500 $3,000 $20,950 $12,000 $31,450

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 General: MS4 Stormwater 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015No. of Permits Issued 494 495 501 522 514 513 524 559 560 544

No. Inspected 14 11 37 42 36 46 70 48 36 20Unsatisfactory 0 0 5 6 4 7 5 6 8 4

Marginal 0 0 8 15 7 11 30 28 8 6Satisfactory 0 0 24 22 25 24 38 14 14 10Not Rated 14 13 1 1 0 5 3 2 9 0

Total Inspections 14 13 38 44 36 47 76 50 39 20DEC Enforcement Actions 12 6 3 9 8 5 2 0 1 5Enf. Penalties - Assessed $51,329 $47,500 $11,500 $108,000 $124,000 $50,500 $53,900 $0 $10,000 $18,500Enf. Penalties - Collected $41,829 $32,500 $11,500 $58,000 $57,000 $32,500 $22,000 $0 $2,000 $14,500

SEP/EBP Amount $209,223 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

53

Appendix C: SPDES Program Oversight Data

17 General: PCI Discharge to Groundwater 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. of Permits Issued 1574 1654 1707 1907 2016 2092 1787 1934No. Inspected 1 2 44 0 1Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 0 2

Marginal 0 0 10 0 0Satisfactory 1 2 33 0 1Not Rated 0 0 0 0 1

Total Inspections 1 2 43 0 4DEC Enforcement Actions 0 0 0 1 0Enf. Penalties - Assessed $0 $0 $0 $3,500 $0Enf. Penalties - Collected $0 $0 $0 $500 $0

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 General: ECL CAFO Large 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015No. of Permits Issued 10 11 18 21 23 24

No. Inspected 4 2 3 1 2 2Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 0 0 0

Marginal 0 0 0 0 0 1Satisfactory 3 2 3 2 2 1Not Rated 1 0 0 0 0 0

Total Inspections 4 2 3 2 2 2DEC Enforcement Actions 2 1 1 0 0 1Enf. Penalties - Assessed $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000Enf. Penalties - Collected $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $2,500

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 General: ECL CAFO Medium 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015No. of Permits Issued 285 297 284 271 258 257

No. Inspected 19 39 60 58 53 85Unsatisfactory 2 7 1 5 2 16

Marginal 8 21 14 13 12 24Satisfactory 8 14 44 43 36 48Not Rated 0 3 6 3 4 1

Total Inspections 18 45 65 64 54 89DEC Enforcement Actions 1 4 3 7 1 30Enf. Penalties - Assessed $0 $42,150 $7,000 $114,500 $16,000 $191,250Enf. Penalties - Collected $0 $16,250 $4,000 $43,000 $6,000 $65,250

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 General: Pesticide Applicator 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

No. of Permits Issued 410 484 475 528No. Inspected 0 0 0 0Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 0

Marginal 0 0 0 0Satisfactory 0 0 0 0Not Rated 0 0 0 0

Total Inspections 0 0 0 0DEC Enforcement Actions 0 0 0 0Enf. Penalties - Assessed $0 $0 $0 $0Enf. Penalties - Collected $0 $0 $0 $0

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $0 $0 $0

Unpermitted 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Enforcement Actions 64 71 24 33 32 39 35 17 16 30

Enf. Penalties - Assessed $359,500 $451,025 $529,000 $417,250 $287,475 $294,575 $329,050 $145,040 $124,100 $180,187Enf. Penalties - Collected $147,350 $197,725 $240,000 $263,250 $172,975 $147,275 $115,050 $85,040 $71,350 $125,187

SEP/EBP Amount $0 $0 $150,000 $100,000 $10,000 $102,500 $0 $250,000 $55,000 $22,000

54

Appendix D

Monitoring and Oversight Activities

55

Appendix D: SPDES Program Oversight Charts

25% 30% 26% 23% 24% 27% 26% 24% 25%33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

% of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities in SNC

% SNC

12321084 1162 1109

954 912 878 848 792 773

0

500

1000

1500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility Inspections

Inspections

33 30 3246 43

3644

2531 36

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility Enforcement Actions

Enforcement Actions

624 630 633 635 633 644 638 638 636 638

0

500

1000

1500

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities

No. of Facilities

446 434 475 515446 391

602

383 420 365

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Significant IndustrialFacility Inspections

Inspections

23% 24% 22% 19% 19% 20% 17% 20% 21%26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

% of Significant IndustrialFacilities in SNC

% SNC

11 1022

15

3522

16 15 1224

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Significant IndustrialFacility Enforcement Actions

Enforcement Actions

724 733 745 722 710 706 696 689 680 677

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Significant Industrial Facilities

No. of Facilities

56

Appendix D: SPDES Program Oversight Charts

52% 53% 50% 44% 44% 43%33% 34% 34%

41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

% of Significant PCIFacilities in SNC

% SNC

456601 631 636 637

499 482 447 429575

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Significant PCIFacility Inspections

Inspections

1 414

5 29 4 10

24 29

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Significant PCI Facility Enforcement Actions

Enf Actions

259 262 266 264 264 277 282 286 288 300

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of SignificantPCI Facilities

No. of Facilities

45895340

6315 6709

7763 7763 7911 8007 8393 8207

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of SW-Construction Permits

No. of Permitted Sites

51 5143

24 2818 16 15 9 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

SW-Construction Enforcement Actions

Enforcement Actions

385

590527 507

332 321382 368

242 221

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

SW-Construction Inspections

Inspections

57

Appendix D: SPDES Program Oversight Charts

14

4231

81

45 39

97

3350 43

020406080

100120140160180200

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

MSGP Inspections

Inspections

1398

1110

13561448 1518 1580 1647 1613 1657 1690

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of MSGP Permits

No. of Permitted Sites

6 4 4

43 46

85

38 43 3926

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

MSGP Enforcement Actions

Enforcement Actions

55

143 144114

95113

171136 133

170

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

CAFO Inspections

Inspections

1520

13 13 1015

718

6

47

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

CAFO Enforcement Actions

Enforcement Actions

588 590 586 569 569 564 562 534 525 532

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of CAFO Permitted Sites

No. of Permitted Sites

58

Appendix D: SPDES Program Oversight Charts

14 13

38 44 3647

76

5036

20

0

50

100

150

200

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

MS4 Inspections

Inspections

126 3

9 8 5 2 0 1 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

MS4 Enforcement Actions

Enforcement Actions

494 495 501 522 514 513 524 559 560 544

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of MS4 Permitted Communities

No. of Facilities

59

Appendix E

Enforcement Action Summary

60

Appendix E: SPDES Program Enforcement Action Summary

Respondent DEC Region Discharge Class SPDES ID Penalty Collected

Penalty Assessed Enforcement Identifier Date

NEWSDAY, LLC 01 01 NY0136751 $1,000 $1,000 NY-ETP1502 5/15/2015BOHEMIA AUTO WASH 01 01 NY0237817 $2,000 $10,000 NY-R12015070676 7/7/2015CANDLEWOOD LAUNDROMAT INC 01 01 NY0267325 $5,000 $10,000 NY-R12015031232 8/13/2015LIRR - SPEONK DIESEL YARD 01 01 NY0226955 $157,809 $157,809 NY-R12014060361 9/3/2015SUNY LAUNDRY INC 01 01 NYU279889 $1,000 $1,000 NY-R120151124157 12/14/2015RASON ASPHALT 01 01 NY0267236 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO12015110407 12/30/2015JCI JONES CHEMICALS, INC 03 01 NY0005266 $750 $750 NY-CO32015031201 4/10/2015PANCO EQUIPMENT CORP 03 01 NY0271357 $500 $500 NY-CO32015031205 4/14/2015PANCO PETROLEUM COMPANY 03 01 NY0235067 $500 $500 NY-CO32015031204 4/23/2015BROOKLYN BOTTLING OF MILTON WWTP 03 01 NY0008613 $25,000 $88,000 NY-R320141003143 6/19/2015HAVERSTRAW QUARRY 03 01 NY0005231 $100,000 $100,000 NY-R32015102898 2/19/2016PORT ALBANY VENTURES 04 01 NY0260738 $1,000 $1,000 NY-R420150720-89 7/20/2015ATHENS (V) WFP 04 01 NY0102041 $760 $3,794 NY-R42015062474 8/12/2015COUNTRYSIDE MART MOBIL GAS CONVENIENCE 04 01 NY0268275 $250 $250 NY-CO42015110404 12/22/2015INTERNATIONAL WIRE GROUP 06 01 NY0001490 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO62015031201 4/14/2015MACKENZIE - CHILDS AURORA LLC 07 01 NY0244236 $250 $250 NY-CO72016022301 3/29/2016VICTOR INSULATORS INC 08 01 NY0000744 $750 $750 NY-CO82015031201 4/23/2015LOCKWOOD ASH DISPOSAL SITE 08 01 NY0107069 NY-R82014071047 2/24/2016RHI MONOFRAX, LLC 09 01 NY0078506 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO92015031201 4/20/2015HUNTER (T) LANDFILL LEACHATE 4W 01 NY0103187 $7,000 $27,000 NY-R4201601209 2/18/2016

$306,569 $405,603

DRAGON LAUNDROMAT 01 02 NYU100100 $1,000 $1,000 NY-R120151117155 11/23/2015LUCKY 7 LAUNDROMAT WEST 01 02 NYU279846 $500 $500 NY-R1201601147 1/25/2016WHITE HOUSE ESTATES 03 02 NY0148270 $10,000 $20,000 NY-R32015070265 7/16/2015BELLS POND MOBILE HOME PARK 04 02 NY0222674 $500 $500 NY-CO42015031201 4/10/2015WARRENSBURG LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING INC 05 02 NYU500302 $1,000 $5,000 NY-LER514020529 4/8/2015DEERFIELD MOBILE HOME PARK 05 02 NY0130630 $2,000 $30,000 NY-R5201503042154 11/2/2015SPAULDING LAKE WWTF 09 02 NY0170887 $1,800 $5,300 NY-R92014092370 4/20/20153 OLMSTEAD APARTMENTS 09 02 NY0275506 $5,000 $10,000 NY-R920141211103 10/8/2015CAMP L'MAN ACHAI 4W 02 NY0104957 $250 $250 NY-CO42015031203 4/23/2015

$22,050 $72,550

LAFARGE RAVENA PLANT 04 03 NY0005037 $59,000 $118,000 NY-R420140916150 10/9/2015FINCH PAPER, LLC 05 03 NY0005525 $1,687 $21,771 NY-R5201407082127 11/16/2015DUNN PAPER - NATURAL DAM MILL 06 03 NY0000191 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO62016022301 3/29/2016TONAWANDA COKE CORP 09 03 NY0002399 $45,550 $45,550 NY-R92014120396 6/12/2015

$107,237 $186,321

CENTRAL ISLIP SUPER LAUNDROMAT 01 04 NY0211591 $20,000 $20,000 NY-R12014030333 5/20/2015LAUNDRY CENTER LI 01 04 NY0266744 $1,000 $5,000 NY-R12015073091 8/13/2015ROUTE 112 LAUNDRY 01 04 NY0210871 $500 $5,000 NY-R120150818110 9/9/2015

Discharge Class 01: Industrial Significant Minor

Discharge Class 02: PCI Non-Significant Minor

Discharge Class 03: Industrial USEPA Major

61

Appendix E: SPDES Program Enforcement Action Summary

Respondent DEC Region Discharge Class SPDES ID Penalty Collected

Penalty Assessed Enforcement Identifier Date

WHISTLE CLEAN OF SOUTHAMPTON LAUNDROMAT 01 04 NY0267295 $500 $5,000 NY-R120150824114 9/9/2015GRAFTON QUARRY 04 04 NY0261025 NY-R42014012411 4/1/2015LONG LAKE WATER FILTRATION PLANT 05 04 NY0217671 $250 $3,500 NY-R5201205101097 7/10/2015WELCH FOODS INC 09 04 NY0099627 $200 $200 NY-14019133 4/28/2015

$22,450 $38,700

BAY PARK STP 01 05 NY0026450 $40,000 $40,000 NY-CO1201408271 9/8/2015OYSTER BAY WPCP 01 05 NY0021822 $5,000 $16,574 NY-R12015021163 12/14/2015NYCDEP - OWLS HEAD WPCP 02 05 NY0026166 $40,000 $40,000 NY-R220140523268 8/6/2015NYCDEP - 26TH WARD WPCP 02 05 NY0026212 $200,000 $100,000 NY-R220120604312 10/8/2015MAMARONECK (V) SANITARY SD 03 05 NY0026701 NY-R320140711102 4/8/2015KIAMESHA LAKE SD STP 03 05 NY0030724 $25,000 $75,000 NY-R32014040755 5/1/2015YONKERS JOINT WWTP 03 05 NY0026689 $10,000 $20,000 NY-R320140603101 5/8/2015YONKERS JOINT WWTP 03 05 NY0026689 $10,000 $25,000 NY-R32014032643 7/1/2015NEW ROCHELLE STP 03 05 NY0026697 $10,000 $10,000 NY-R320140918139 8/21/2015TRI-MUNICIPAL WWTP 03 05 NY0149209 $1,000 $1,000 NY-R32015060157 12/16/2015ARLINGTON WWTP 03 05 NY0026271 $7,000 $30,000 NY-R320141002142 12/24/2015TRI-MUNICIPAL WWTP 03 05 NY0149209 $250 $250 NY-CO32015110403 12/29/2015NEWBURGH (C) WWTP 03 05 NY0026310 NY-R32011010717 1/5/2016AMSTERDAM (C) WWTP 04 05 NY0020290 $13,750 $68,750 NY-R42014032087 4/27/2015EAST GREENBUSH (T) WWTP 04 05 NY0026034 $5,595 $15,595 NY-R42015081899 9/24/2015HUDSON (C) STP 04 05 NY0022039 $500 $500 NY-CO42015110401 12/24/2015FONDA-FULTONVILLE WWTP 04 05 NY0032433 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO420151009128 1/13/2016ONEONTA (C) WWTP 04 05 NY0031151 $3,500 $10,000 NY-R420151125135 2/16/2016GREENPORT (T) SD 1 STP 04 05 NY0030988 $7,300 $9,300 NY-R420151204136 3/10/2016WHITEHALL (V) WWTP 05 05 NY0024929 $0 $4,500 NY-R520060314576-1 4/14/2015GOUVERNEUR (V) WWTF 06 05 NY0020117 NY-R62007071034 1/12/2016NIAGARA FALLS (C) WWTP 09 05 NY0026336 $2,500 $10,000 NY-R92014102880 4/20/2015JAMESTOWN WWTP 09 05 NY0027570 NY-R92005101346 4/28/2015FRANKLINVILLE (V) WWTF 09 05 NY0028991 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO920151016119 2/12/2016

$383,395 $478,469

MAYBROOK (V) STP 03 07 NY0023272 $13,000 $50,000 NY-R32014043072 6/30/2015COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES SD 03 07 NY0034606 $1,750 $3,500 NY-R32011072180 1/25/2016SHARON SPRINGS (V) STP 04 07 NY0033588 $4,000 $20,000 NY-R42015071386 11/2/2015MIDDLEBURGH (V) WWTP 04 07 NY0192309 $250 $250 NY-CO42015110402 12/30/2015COLUMBIA CO COM CTR W & SD 04 07 NY0240401 $5,000 $8,000 NY-R42016010805 3/8/2016WILLSBORO SD#1 WWTF 05 07 NY0239682 $1,000 $6,400 NY-R5201309132086 7/23/2015PORT HENRY & MORIAH JOINT WWTF 05 07 NY0022969 NY-N00003140 8/12/2015AUSABLE (T) WWTP 05 07 NY0025097 NY-R5201105311045M1 10/5/2015ST REGIS FALLS WWTP 05 07 NY0255858 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO52015110403 3/15/2016ORLEANS LAFARGEVILLE (V) STP 06 07 NY0121070 NY-R62012022709 7/20/2015

Discharge Class 04: Industrial Non-Significant Minor

Discharge Class 05: Municipal USEPA Major

62

Appendix E: SPDES Program Enforcement Action Summary

Respondent DEC Region Discharge Class SPDES ID Penalty Collected

Penalty Assessed Enforcement Identifier Date

SPRINGWATER (T) WWTF 08 07 NY0246450 NY-R82015012045 5/22/2015DEPEW (V) SANITARY OVERFLOWS 09 07 NY0203980 $5,000 $11,500 NY-R9201401281 9/29/2015

$31,000 $100,650

NESCONSET CTR FOR NURSING & REHAB 01 09 NY0193470 $4,000 $4,000 NY-UPG2015001 4/6/2015WOODHAVEN MANOR NURSING HOME 01 09 NY0068144 NY-UPG2012010 4/27/2015LA FITNESS 01 09 NY0285552 $1,000 $1,000 NY-UPG2015002 5/19/2015CALVERTON HILLS HOA 01 09 NY0080616 $2,000 $2,000 NY-ETP1504 5/26/2015EASTPORT MEADOWS 01 09 NY0278289 $1,000 $1,000 NY-ETP1503 6/2/2015MEDFORD MULTICARE CENTER 01 09 NY0253383 $2,000 $2,000 NY-ETP1506 6/4/2015CEDAR LODGE NURSING HOME 01 09 NY0080586 NY-UPG2014006 6/8/2015GURWIN JEWISH ASSISTED LIVING 01 09 NY0253111 $2,000 $2,000 NY-ETP1505 6/12/2015MELVILLE MALL STP 01 09 NY0068080 NY-UPG2015003 6/26/2015OAK RIDGE HOLLOW 01 09 NY0273465 $2,000 $2,000 NY-ETP1507 7/29/2015TIMBER RIDGE @ WESTHAMPTON BEACH 01 09 NY0277487 $2,000 $2,000 NY-ETP1508 7/31/2015MEDICAL OFFICES @ MEDFORD 01 09 NY0266418 $2,000 $2,000 NY-ETP1510 8/24/2015EASTPORT MEADOWS 01 09 NY0278289 $1,500 $1,500 NY-ETP1509 9/18/2015SUFFOLK CTR FOR REHAB & NURSING 01 09 NY0080454 NY-UPG2007006 9/29/2015HEATHERWOOD HOUSE @ LAKELAND 01 09 NY0077321 $2,000 $2,000 NY-ETP1512 10/22/2015ISLAND VIEW APARTMENTS 01 09 NY0252981 $2,000 $2,000 NY-ETP1511 10/22/2015THE PONDS AT SOUTHAMPTON VILLAGE 01 09 NY0285820 $2,000 $2,000 NY-ETP1513 11/16/2015WOODBRIDGE @ HAMPTON BAYS 01 09 NY0226777 NY-UPG2015007 11/19/2015BIRCHWOOD GLEN COOP APTS 01 09 NY0065463 NY-UPG2015005 12/8/2015HILTON GARDEN INN & OFF BLDG 01 09 NY0253219 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO12015110406 12/17/2015HEATHERWOOD HOUSE @ RONKONKOMA 01 09 NY0079375 $2,000 $2,000 NY-ETP1514 12/29/2015VILLAGE IN THE WOODS 01 09 NY0078123 $2,000 $2,000 NY-CO12015110402 1/5/2016ROSEMOND ESTATES 03 09 NY0101052 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO32015031203 4/13/2015CAMP FRENCH WOODS 04 09 NY0100480 $36,000 $46,000 NY-R420131105133 2/18/2016SCHOHARIE BUSINESS PARK 04 09 NY0249572 $250 $250 NY-CO42015110403 3/9/2016VALLEY ESTATES MOBILE HOME PARK 05 09 NYU500312 $2,000 $30,000 NY-R5201503042153 11/2/2015WHITNEY POINT REST AREA 07 09 NY0085308 NY-R72010092383 6/1/2015INTERSTATE 81 INFORMATION CTR 07 09 NY0244554 NY-R72010092384 6/1/2015BEACONVIEW VILLAGE 07 09 NY0155730 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO72015110401 12/17/2015

$70,750 $108,750

SHOREHAVEN PHASE VIII 02 11 NYR10W150 $6,000 $6,000 NY-R220150320185 4/27/2015PUGSLEY CREEK PARK 02 11 NYU200717 $2,500 $2,500 NY-R220150320186 5/4/2015ON THE SOUND 02 11 NYR10Y395 $40,000 $53,200 NY-R220140821450 5/20/2015SHOPRITE SITE REDEVELOPMENT 02 11 NYR10X582 $7,500 $7,500 NY-R220150709410 8/10/2015GOSHEN MEADOWS 03 11 NYR10U941 $12,500 $17,500 NY-R32014050774 6/17/2015MAHAMUDRA BUDDHIST HERMITAGE 03 11 NYR10W708 $8,000 $16,000 NY-R32015052857 9/28/2015DRAPER MID SCH/MOHONASEN SR HIGH SCH 04 11 NYR10Y983 $3,500 $3,500 NY-R42015081294 9/18/2015

Discharge Class 07: Municipal Significant Minor

Discharge Class 09: PCI Significant Minor

63

Appendix E: SPDES Program Enforcement Action Summary

Respondent DEC Region Discharge Class SPDES ID Penalty Collected

Penalty Assessed Enforcement Identifier Date

$80,000 $106,200

MAGELLAN AEROSPACE BOHEMIA 01 12 NYR00F019 $3,500 $3,500 NY-CO1201411034 4/23/2015EAST HAMPTON POINT MARINA 01 12 NYR00F024 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO12015102102 3/29/2016MAGELLAN AEROSPACE CORONA 02 12 NYR00F018 $3,500 $3,500 NY-CO2201411034 4/23/2015WILLETS POINT ASPHALT CORP 02 12 NYR00F167 $9,000 $9,000 NY-R220140826453 6/15/2015EMPIRE MERCHANTS LLC 02 12 NYR00F771 $5,000 $5,000 NY-R220150424263 6/15/2015ATLAS TRANSIT MIX CORP 02 12 NYR00D685 $2,500 $7,500 NY-R220141201552 8/12/2015GREEN ASPHALT CO LLC 02 12 NYR00E966 $10,000 $10,000 NY-R220150710421 10/5/2015MARBLE LITE CORP 02 12 NYU200322 $5,000 $5,000 NY-R220090810502 10/16/2015GREENPOINT SCRAP METAL INC 02 12 NYR00F718 $7,000 $7,000 NY-R220150918507 2/19/2016BROOKLYN READY MIX 02 12 NYU200212 $9,000 $9,000 NY-R220150928511 3/1/2016NORTH JERSEY TRAILER & TRUCK SERVICE INC 03 12 NYR00E256 $2,500 $2,500 NY-CO3201411032 5/4/2015A&T AUTO PARTS 03 12 NYR00B244 $2,500 $2,500 NY-CO3201411031 5/6/2015TRAVIS 04 12 NYR00F128 $500 $500 NY-CO4201411031 4/13/2015F H STICKLES & SON INC LIVINGSTON MINE 04 12 NYR00D036 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO42015031202 4/23/2015ROUTE 7 USED AUTO PARTS 04 12 NYR00B154 $500 $500 NY-CO4201411035 5/12/2015ADIRONDACK TRANSIT LINES 04 12 NYR00F688 $3,750 $3,750 NY-R42015071587 7/20/2015CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER 4030 04 12 NYR00F720 $2,750 $3,750 NY-R420150918111 10/21/2015WM BIERS INC 04 12 NYR00F744 $3,750 $3,750 NY-R420150918109 10/22/2015ALBANY PORT RAILROAD YARD 04 12 NYR00F750 NY-R420150918110 11/19/2015HALFMOON BANK 05 12 NYR00E210 $3,500 $3,500 NY-CO5201411037 5/12/2015SEAVEY ROAD QUARRY 06 12 NYR00B614 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO62015102101 3/16/2016CITY OF ONEIDA 07 12 NYR00D518 $3,500 $3,500 NY-CO7201411037 4/13/2015INTERSTATE USED & NEW AUTO PARTS 07 12 NYR00D239 $3,500 $3,500 NY-CO720141103-4 5/4/2015NEW PENN MOTOR EXPRESS INC 08 12 NYR00C535 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO8201411032 4/15/2015HILLCREST INDUSTRIES INC 09 12 NYR00F369 NY-R92012080698 7/27/2015SOUTH BUFFALO RAILWAY COMPANY 09 12 NYR00B274 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO92015102105 3/14/2016

$86,250 $92,250

D. MICHAEL HOURIGAN 07 14 NYA000290 $3,500 $9,000 NY-R72015111697 12/15/2015VANSRIDGE FARM 07 14 NYA001513 $3,500 $9,000 NY-R72016030921 3/30/2016MULLIGAN FARMS, INC 08 14 NYA000039 $2,000 $2,000 NY-R82015020934 4/20/2015WILLOW BEND FARMS 08 14 NYA000245 NY-R82015061283 7/7/2015

$9,000 $20,000

LEDUC'S GREEN ACRES 05 15 NYA000086 $4,000 $12,000 NY-CO52016021001 3/8/2016METCALF FARMS 05 15 NYA001317 NY-CO52016021002 3/17/2016HERITAGE HILL FARM 05 15 NYA000626 $4,500 $14,000 NY-CO52016021009 3/22/2016CLEAR ECHO FARM, LLC 05 15 NYA001286 NY-CO52016021005 3/22/2016SHIPMAN FARM 05 15 NYA001452 $3,000 $9,000 NY-CO52016021003 3/22/2016DOUBLE E DAIRY 06 15 NYA000158 $1,250 $3,750 NY-CO620160210-01 3/14/2016

Discharge Class 11: Construction Stormwater

Discharge Class 12: Industrial Stormwater

Discharge Class 14: CWA CAFO Large

64

Appendix E: SPDES Program Enforcement Action Summary

Respondent DEC Region Discharge Class SPDES ID Penalty Collected

Penalty Assessed Enforcement Identifier Date

HANNO FARMS 06 15 NYA001506 $1,500 $4,000 NY-CO62016021002 3/15/2016FESKO FARMS, INC. 07 15 NYA000536 $200 $1,000 NY-R72015061572 7/7/2015BLUME AGAIN DAIRY LLC 07 15 NYA001510 $2,500 $7,500 NY-CO72016021003 3/16/2016BERGEN FARMS 08 15 NYA000279 $12,000 $14,000 NY-R82015061584 7/7/2015PHALEN FARMS 08 15 NYA000184 $1,250 $3,750 NY-CO82016021008 2/29/2016GEORGE FARMS 08 15 NYA001552 $1,250 $3,750 NY-CO82016021010 3/9/2016

$31,450 $72,750

CHESTER MS4 STORM SEWERS 03 16 NYR20A126 $1,000 $1,000 NY-CO3201503301 4/23/2015ROCKLAND COUNTY MS4 STORM SEWERS 03 16 NYR20A192 $3,000 $3,000 NY-CO3201503302 5/4/2015MOUNT HOPE MS4 STORM SEWERS 03 16 NYR20A245 $3,500 $3,500 NY-CO3201503303 5/4/2015CORNWALL-ON-HUDSON MS4 STORM SEWERS 03 16 NYR20A355 $4,000 $8,000 NY-R32015052152 11/20/2015SULLIVAN MS4 STORM SEWERS 07 16 NYR20A221 $3,000 $3,000 NY-CO7201503301 3/24/2016

$14,500 $18,500

ADON FARMS 06 18 NYAE00092 $2,500 $5,000 NY-R62015021815 5/5/2015$2,500 $5,000

EVERGREEN FARM 04 19 NYAE00233 $2,000 $6,000 NY-CO42016021004 3/8/2016WORCESTER FARM 04 19 NYAE01441 $2,500 $7,500 NY-CO42016021003 3/8/2016EUREKA FARM INC 04 19 NYAE00288 $1,250 $3,750 NY-CO42016021005 3/16/2016CREEK ACRES FARM 04 19 NYAE00295 $1,000 $3,750 NY-CO42016021002 3/22/2016KENYON HILL FARM 05 19 NYAE01304 $2,000 $6,000 NY-CO52016021011 3/16/2016FULLERTON FARMS 05 19 NYAE01570 $2,500 $7,000 NY-CO52016021007 3/16/2016TURNING POINT DAIRY, LLC 05 19 NYAE01322 $2,500 $7,500 NY-CO52016021006 3/18/2016MMT CATTLE INC 05 19 NYAE01549 $1,250 $3,750 NY-CO42016021001 3/18/2016HORTON FARM 05 19 NYAE01295 $1,000 $4,000 NY-CO52016021008 3/25/2016SKELLKILL FARMS 05 19 NYAE01305 $1,250 $3,750 NY-CO52016021010 3/29/2016BRUCE EDWARDS DIARY 06 19 NYAE01564 $1,250 $3,750 NY-CO62016021005 3/15/2016SMITHLING FARM 06 19 NYAE01563 $1,250 $3,750 NY-CO62016021003 3/16/2016SHADY BROOK FARM 06 19 NYAE01578 $2,500 $7,500 NY-CO62016021008 3/17/2016FLACK FARMS 06 19 NYAE00628 $1,750 $10,000 NY-CO62016021007 3/22/2016HATFIELD FARMS, LLC 07 19 NYAE01565 $2,000 $6,000 NY-CO72016021001 3/15/2016PAUL STEIN & SONS, LLC 08 19 NYAE00578 $7,000 $12,000 NY-R820150827112 9/14/2015VINCE DEBOOVER FARM 08 19 NYAE00549 $5,500 $9,000 NY-R820150915116 1/11/2016MERRIMAC FARMS INC 08 19 NYAE01507 $3,500 $10,000 NY-CO82016021003 2/29/2016LEFEBER FARMS, INC. 08 19 NYAE01353 NY-C082016021002 3/4/2016MARSHALL FARMS GROUP LTD. 08 19 NYAE00519 $4,750 $9,500 NY-CO82016021013 3/8/2016BURNS FAMILY FARM LLC 08 19 NYAE00619 $3,000 $9,000 NY-CO82016021011 3/8/2016GILSON FARMS 08 19 NYAE01567 $3,000 $9,000 NY-CO82016021012 3/15/2016SCHOE ACRES 08 19 NYAE00212 $2,500 $6,000 NY-CO82016021009 3/22/2016PARK VIEW FARM 08 19 NYAE00243 $1,000 $3,750 NY-CO82016021005 3/22/2016

Discharge Class 18: ECL CAFO Large

Discharge Class 15: CWA CAFO Medium

Discharge Class 16: MS4 Stormwater

65

Appendix E: SPDES Program Enforcement Action Summary

Respondent DEC Region Discharge Class SPDES ID Penalty Collected

Penalty Assessed Enforcement Identifier Date

PURDY FAMILY FARM 08 19 NYAE01572 $2,000 $12,000 NY-CO82016021007 3/23/2016PAUL STEIN & SONS, LLC 08 19 NYAE00578 $1,250 $3,750 NY-CO82016021006 3/29/2016G.C. ACRES 09 19 NYAE00627 $1,250 $3,750 NY-CO92016021003 3/8/2016EDEN VALLEY ORGANICS, LLC 09 19 NYAE01410 NY-CO92016021001 3/16/2016JJ FARMS 09 19 NYAE01427 $2,000 $12,000 NY-CO92016021004 3/16/2016COUNTRY AYRE FARMS LLC 09 19 NYAE00465 $2,500 $7,500 NY-CO92016021002 3/18/2016

$65,250 $191,250

FIVE BROTHERS PIZZA 02 UNP NYU200716 $5,000 $5,000 NY-R220140714376 4/23/2015AVIATOR SPORTS & RECREATION LLC - SKATING RINKS 02 UNP NYU200718 $2,500 $2,500 NY-R220150703399 8/20/2015TOTTENVILLE SQUARE MALL 02 UNP NYU200719 $12,500 $12,500 NY-R220060731319 9/25/2015RIVERBAY CORP-CO-OP CITY BLVD 02 UNP NYU200321 $10,000 $10,000 NY-R22009010911 10/16/2015WOODROW SHOPPING CENTER 02 UNP NYU200323 $14,000 $14,000 NY-R220150702393 11/6/2015ELITE SPECIALTY COATINGS 02 UNP NYU200211 $500 $2,500 NY-R22016011113 1/11/2016ASTORIA HOUSES BLDG 20 02 UNP NYU200213 $12,500 $12,500 NY-R220080429229 3/1/2016DARBE MEHR ZOROASTRIAN TEMPLE 03 UNP NYU300372 $5,000 $5,000 NY-R32015020514 5/13/2015HEARTHSTONE VILLAGE 03 UNP NYU300371 $5,000 $5,000 NY-R32015021015 6/26/2015MCVAC ENVIRONMENTAL, INC UNPERMITTED 03 UNP NYU300373 $5,000 $9,000 NY-R32015041743 7/7/2015CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC 03 UNP NYU300375 $3,000 $3,000 NY-R320151030101 11/2/2015ADIRONDACK TRANSIT LINES 04 UNP NYU400148 $3,750 $3,750 NY-2015071587 7/20/2015LEONARD TALLO PROPERTY 04 UNP NYU400149 $8,437 $8,437 NY-R42015052160 7/23/2015DIANE RICH PROPERTY 04 UNP NYU400151 $750 $750 NY-R420150825103 8/25/2015VADNEY SITE DEVELOPMENT 04 UNP NYU300374 $2,000 $20,000 NY-R42009060394 9/2/2015SHINHOPPLE QUARRY 04 UNP NYU400150 NY-R42015070179 9/16/2015SAGAMORE RESORT 05 UNP NYU500304 $12,000 $27,000 NY-R5201410012137 4/30/2015DAVID DARLING, SR DBA DAVID DARLING LOGGING 05 UNP NYU500311 $2,000 $2,000 NY-LER514005864 5/6/2015MICHAEL J. SMITH 05 UNP NYU500310 $1,000 $1,000 NY-LER514003083 6/11/2015RT 9N CULVERT LINING 05 UNP NYU500313 $2,500 $7,500 NY-R5201406192124 9/11/2015CHAD W. PIERSON 05 UNP NYU500309 $500 $500 NY-LER515017567 11/23/2015DERRIGO'S SERVICE CENTER, INC. PROPERTY 06 UNP NYU600185 $1,500 $1,500 NY-R62015010703 5/5/2015NYSDOT 06 UNP NYU600183 $0 $10,000 NY-R62013091635 8/17/2015VALLEY BORROW PIT 07 UNP NYU710682 NY-R72015062473 10/2/2015LLOYD A HUNT 08 UNP NYU900307 $250 $250 NY-R9LE15008845B 6/24/2015LPCIMINELLI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 09 UNP NYU900306 $6,500 $6,500 NY-LER91401575 4/20/2015CELLINO PROPERTY 09 UNP NYU900308 $6,000 $6,000 NY-R92014112892 7/13/2015KLC - CHARLES KILIBARDA 09 UNP NYU900464 $1,000 $1,000 NY-LER915021630 12/9/2015JR & SONS LUMBER LLC 09 UNP NYU900465 $1,000 $2,000 NY-LER915022372 12/9/2015RAM FOREST PRODUCTS 09 UNP NYU900466 $1,000 $1,000 NY-R9LE15022385 12/29/2015

$125,187 $180,187

$1,357,588 $2,077,180

Discharge Class 19: ECL CAFO Medium

Unpermitted

Statewide Total - All Discharge Classes

66

Appendix F

Enforcement Highlights

67

Appendix F: SPDES Program Enforcement Highlights

Respondent Location (county) SPDES Permit Number Enforcement Case Number

City of Newburgh Orange County (DEC Region 3) NY0026310 – (Municipal Wastewater) NY-R3-20110107-17

Enforcement Action Date January 5, 2016

Reason(s) for Enforcement This enforcement action addresses DEC approval and the city’s implementation of its long-term control plan (LTCP). The ultimate goal of the LTCP is to abate combined sewer overflows.

Penalty • No Payable civil penalty assessed• Stipulated penalties: If facility fails to be in timely compliance with

provisions of this order modification, the following will apply:First violation: $500 per infractionSecond violation: $1000 per infractionThird violation and beyond: $1500 per infraction

Required Action(s) • Complete on-site construction work by March 2019• Complete sewer separation and screenings unit upgrade by

December 2024• Complete North Interceptor improvements by April 2024• Complete disinfection unit upgrade by January 2025• Complete South Interceptor improvements by December 2030

Respondent Location (county) SPDES Permit Number Enforcement Case Number

New Rochelle WWTP Westchester County (DEC Region 3) NY0026697 – (Municipal Wastewater) NY-R3-20140918-139

Enforcement Action Date August 21, 2015 Reason(s) for Enforcement • Failure to eliminate untreated discharges (sanitary sewage combined

with stormwater) from the SSO control facilities and overflow retentionfacilities (ORF);

• Failure to comply with SPDES permit effluent limitations specified in40CFR Part 133.

• Failure to submit a Flow Monitoring Program ReportPenalty Total assessed civil penalty of $10,000

• Payable amount of $10,000

Required Action(s) • Submit Sewer System Evaluation Study (SSES) and CapacityManagement Operation and Maintenance (CMOM) reports

• Commence with the CMOM program, upon DEC approval• Complete SSES, submit study results, and submit a remediation plan• Submit a construction schedule based SSES findings• Eliminate discharge from ORF and comply with SPDES permit limits

68

Appendix F: SPDES Program Enforcement Highlights

Respondent Location (county) SPDES Permit Number Enforcement Case Number

City of Amsterdam City of Amsterdam, Montgomery County (NYSDEC Region 4) NY0020290 - Discharge Class 05 (Municipal Wastewater) R4-2014-0320-87

Enforcement Action Date April 27, 2015 Reason(s) for Enforcement • Unpermitted dry weather discharge of approximately 24,000,000 gallons of

untreated sanitary sewage from a CSO (Outfall 004, West Side Pump Station) into the Mohawk River, a class C waterbody. The SPDES Permit authorizes Outfall 004 to discharge during wet weather conditions. On December 12, 2013, two pumps at the West Side Pump Station failed causing a discharge of untreated sanitary sewage into the Mohawk River for eight consecutive days. This dry weather discharge is prohibited by the Clean Water Act and is required to be reported by the New York State Sewage Pollution Right to Know Law.

• Sixty (60) SPDES permit effluent violations reported on the monthlyDischarge Monitoring Report (DMR) forms from May 2011 through January2015 for the following parameters:o Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)o Flowo Settleable Solids and Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Penalty Total assessed civil penalty of $68,750 • Payable amount of $13,750• Suspended amount of $55,000, upon meeting all order conditions

Required Action(s) • Complete all work necessary to meet the CSO presumptive approach,including:

o System Monitoringo Manhole Inventoryo Internal Sewer Inspectiono Construct Sewer Separationso Inflow/Infiltration elimination projectso Submit Semi-Annual Progress Reportso Submit Final Report

• Track the percent capture of total volume of flow during precipitationevents

• Submit annual progress reports• Submit a post construction monitoring plan under the LTCP• Submit an Asset Management Plan (AMP) for the wastewater

collection system• Submit Wet Weather Operations Plan updates

69

Appendix F: SPDES Program Enforcement Highlights

Respondent Location (county) SPDES Permit Number Enforcement Case Number

Town of Greenport Columbia County (DEC Region 4) NY0030988 - Discharge Class 05 (Municipal Wastewater) R4-2015-1204-136

Enforcement Action Date March 10, 2016 Reason(s) for Enforcement • Between June 2014 and September 2015, sewer backups occurred in

33 homes, including sewer blockages and manhole discharges• Failure to prepare and submit a formal plan and abatement schedule

to DEC in response to the initial SSO in June 2014• Failure to provide formal recommendations for investigation of the

sanitary and storm water collection systems• Failure to take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any

discharge in violation of their SPDES permit, which has a reasonablelikelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment

Penalty Total assessed civil penalty of $9,300 • Payable amount of $2,000• Suspended amount of $7,300, if all conditions of the Order are

met

Required Action(s) • Submit a report estimating removal of infiltration & inflow (I&I) in thesanitary sewer collection system at locations upstream or downstreamof the connection for “The Falls” project (116 apartment units). Thereport is to document:

o Hydraulic capacity downstream of the proposed connectiono Methods to achieve a 4:1 offset (the ratio of I&I removed to new

flow into the collection system) before the connection is placedinto service

o That any future proposed connections (i.e. Greenport Gardens)require approval to ensure sufficient hydraulic and organiccapacity exists in the collection system and at the wastewatertreatment plant

o Investigation and identification of potential sources of I/I fromthe sanitary sewer collection system. This investigation is tofocus on: Illegal residential connections (i.e. basement sump

pumps, foundation drains, roof leaders, etc.) and thestatus of the residential inspection program

Storm water generated on the Colarusso Mine andCedar Park Cemetery properties on Newman Road

Storm water impacts to the sanitary sewer collectionsystem on Milo Street

Use of backflow preventers to reduce basementbackups

• Submit a report to identify short term strategies to eliminate SSOs• Submit a report on findings and actions taken due to the investigation• Submit an approvable long term SSO Mitigation Plan

70

Appendix F: SPDES Program Enforcement Highlights

Respondent Location (county) SPDES Permit Numbers Enforcement Case ID

Vince DeBoover Farm Geneva (Ontario County) NYAE00549 - Discharge Class 19 (CAFO) R8-20150915-116

Enforcement Action Date 01/16/2016 Reason(s) for Enforcement • Discharge of milk house waste, manure, and concentrated flows into

an unnamed tributary of Benton Run Creek• Failure to follow the CNMP through improper application of manure• Applying manure on emergency fields and fields with a high P index• Failure to maintain required BMP for the following:

o Milk house waste tank is pumped intermittently, leading to adischarge

o A sump pump discharging manure and storm water directly tovegetated treatment area (VTA) and an unnamed tributary

o Runoff including high flow/low flow leachate flows; directly toVTA and discharges into a ditch and stream

o A VTA contains a large pool of manure, milk house; wasteand stagnant water with evidence of kill zones

o Contaminated storm water overflows out of both the beef andheifer barnyards

• Failure to maintain the VTA in accordance to CNMP and currentNRCS standard

Penalty Total assessed civil penalty of $9,000 • Payable amount of $5,500• Suspended amount $3,500, contingent on meeting all order

requirements

Required Action(s) • Submit to the Department a design for proposed high/low leachatecollection system which complies with the current NRCS standard

• Submit to the Department documentation that the leachate collectionand treatment system described above has been constructed inaccordance with the submitted design and is functional

71

Appendix F: SPDES Program Enforcement Highlights

Respondents Location (county) SPDES Permit Number Enforcement Case ID

Town of Moriah (Sewer system) The Town of Moriah Port Henry (Essex County) NY0022969 – Discharge Class 07 (Municipal Wastewater) NY-R520150721-2173 Enforcement Action Date 08/14/2015

Reason(s) for Enforcement • Multiple SSO events between April 2001 and April 2015• Deterioration and loss of functionality of equipment at the Mill

Brook Pump StationPenalty Total assessed civil penalty of $5,000

• Payable amount of $1,000• Suspended amount $4,000, upon meeting all order conditions

The suspended penalty is conditional on the Village of Lake George WWTP meeting all requirements of the order on consent.

Required Action(s) • Obtain the services of a licensed electrician to inspect all pump stationsthat deliver flow to the town wastewater treatment plant

• Submit for approval a written inspection and maintenance program forthe town sewage treatment works and sewer collection system

• Submit an annual report summarizing inspection and maintenancetasks completed

• Submit a written Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE)engineering report, including an implementation schedule, and includeprovisions for as-built diagrams of the Town’s sewer system

72