xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001709518
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 060515s2005 flu sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001377
Griffen, Lindsay M.
Reducing pollutants in industrial stormwater runoff
h [electronic resource] :
b improved water quality protection using prioritized facility regulation /
by Lindsay M. Griffen.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
Thesis (M.S.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 246 pages.
ABSTRACT: Stormwater pollutants originating from industrial facilities can lead to degraded water quality, even in residentially dominated regions of the country. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program regulates stormwater pollutants generated at industrial sites using Multi-Sector General Permits (Generic permits) for industrial facilities and a permit requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) operators. All industrial facilities within 11 broad categories of industry are responsible for self-identifying the need to comply with the Generic permit, and subsequently, implementing self-selected pollution prevention strategies. MS4 operators are required to identify and inspect high risk industrial and commercial facilities that may be contributing substantial pollutant loads to the MS4, in addition to other requirements. This is partially in recognition that compliance with the Generic permit has been poor.This dual level of regulations is designed to enhance water quality protection, however, the reliance on local inspectors to develop a definition of high risk has led to irregular implementation. This research developed a methodology to identify industrial facilities and then screen out facilities that may not require inspection by the MS4 operator. Phone questionnaires were administered to 250 industrial facilities. Results were validated using fenceline visits and on-site inspections with local inspectors. Overall compliance by participating facilities with the Generic permit was approximately 10%. Neither the Generic permit nor the MS4 permit has been effective because numerous facilities have gone unregulated. Currently, the Generic permit has attempted to regulate too many facilities, many of which may not be affecting water quality. MS4 high risk inspections have not improved compliance with Generic permit either because of the prioritization of facilities.The reliance on local interpretation, which requires MS4 operators to select a definition of high risk based on their desired level of water quality protection and available resources, can potentially exclude many facilities from inspection. Adopting a definition of intensity for regulating industry may both improve compliance with the General permit, ensure water quality protection, and improve resource usage.
Adviser: L. Donald Duke, Ph.D.
Municipal separate storm sewer system.
x Environmental Science and Policy
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Reducing Pollutants in Indus trial Stormwater Runoff: Improved Water Quality Protection Us ing Prioritized Facility Regulation by Lindsay M. Griffen A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Environmental Science and Policy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: L. Donald Duke, Ph.D. Robert Brinkmann, Ph.D. J. Edwin Benton, Ph.D. Date of Approval: October 31, 2005 Keywords: urban drainage, municipal se parate storm sewer system, Florida industry, environmental policy Copyright 2005, Lindsay M. Griffen
Acknowledgements This thesis is dedicated to my in credible family Â– Robert, Susan, and Adam Cross. Thank you for your unwavering support of and love for me. I appreciated your encouragement and motivation throughout this process, especially when you were tired of hearing about stormwater and phone questionnaires! You continue to inspir e me each day, helping me to fulfill my dreams with dedication and passion. I am so lucky to have you in my life!
Acknowledgements First, thank you to Dr. Don Duke for helpi ng to shape this research. His previous experience with industrial stormwater re gulations was immens ely valuable and I especially appreciated his suppor t during the last several months. Thanks also to Dr. Bob Brinkmann and Dr. Ed Benton for thei r assistance and encouragement. A big thank you to the Pinellas Count y Department of Environmental Management, especially Melanie Weed and Rosemary Herdman, for sharing data and allowing me to attend industrial inspections I appreciate their invaluable support. Industry information was provided by Mike Donahoo and Fred Welborn at the USEPA, along with staff from the FDEP, and the ci ties of Clearwater, Largo, and Oldsmar. Thanks also to Richard Wilson of Pine llas County Economic Development. Finally, thank you to other Florida MS4 permit holders Â– the cities of La rgo, St. Petersburg, Lakeland, Jacksonville, and Tallahassee, and the counties of Pinella s, Hillsborough, Polk, and Miami-Dade Â– for sharing th eir Â“high riskÂ” experiences. Thank you to students Jennifer Kabat, DÂ’Nara Manning, and Kelly Gleaton for their research assistance and Dave Miller, Li maris Soto, and Jason Polk for their review of the materials. Additional support was provi ded by the faculty and staff in the USF ESP Department, especially Karen Schrad er and Sclafani Louis-Jeune. I am incredibly grateful to the staff of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, especially Holly Greening and Dick Eckenrod, for its patience, encouragement, and friendship throughout this process. Finally, thanks to Kristin Thoms for her belief in me.
Note to Reader: The original of this document contains colo r that is necessary fo r understanding the data. The original dissertation is on file with the USF library in Tampa, Florida.
i Table of Contents List of Tables v List of Figures vii Abstract iv Chapter I Â– Introduction 1 A. Water Quality in the United States 2 B. Clean Water Act 6 C. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program 7 D. Evaluation 10 Chapter II Â– Research Objectives 12 Chapter III Â– Literature Review 15 A. Environmental Regulations 16 1. Early Environmental Regulations 16 2. The Clean Water Act 18 3. Non-Point Source Pollution 21 4. Establishment of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits Program 22 5. NPDES Stormwater Regulations 24 6. Multi-Sector Generic Permit (MSGP) for Industrial Activity 27 7. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits 29 8. Requirements of the Regulated Community 32 B. Policy Evaluation 33 1. Rationale for Policy Evaluation 34 2. Environmental Policy Evaluation 40 3. Evaluation of the Clean Water Act Regulatory Approach 46 C. Current Water Policy Research 52 1. Clean Water Act and NPDE S Industrial Stormwater Regulations 53 2. Discussion of Industrial Stormwater Regulations in Industrial Literature 56 D. Regulatory Setting 58 1. State Implementation of Federal Regulations 59 2. Interpretation of Â“High RiskÂ” by Florida MS4 Permit Holders 59
ii 3. Comparison of Pinellas C ounty to State and National Industry Averages 65 Chapter IV Â– Methodology 70 A. Developing the Industrial Facility List 71 B. Maintaining the Industr ial Facility Database 74 C. Selecting a Subset of Industry 75 1. Prioritization by Industrial Category 76 2. Prioritization by Geographic Location 77 3. Sampling Scheme 78 D. Confidentiality Protocol 79 E. Surveying Industries Â– Introductory Letter 80 F. Surveying Industries Â– Admini stering the Phone Questionnaires 81 1. Database Accuracy Questionnaire 82 2. Industrial Stormwater Regulations Questionnaire 83 3. Interpretation of Survey Results 85 G. Phone Research Protocol 87 1. Pre-Test Phase 88 2. Selecting the Call List 89 3. Research Phone Call Protocol 90 4. Discontinuation Protocol 92 H. Surveying Industries Â– Conducting Fenceline Visits 94 1. Database Management 98 I. Comparing Research Results with Pinellas County Efforts 99 Chapter V Â– Results 102 A. Compliance with the Mu lti-Sector Gene ric Permit 102 1. Awareness of the Generic Permit by Contacted Facilities 108 B. Effectiveness of the MS4 Permit in Improving Water Quality and Improving Compliance with the Generic Permit 110 1. Â“High RiskÂ” Definition 110 2. Effectiveness of the Methodology at Classifying Intensity of Indus trial Activities 114 3. MS4 Regulatory Support for Generic Permit 117 C. Characteristics of Pinella s County Industrial Facilities 122 1. Industrial Facility Phys ical Characteristics 123 2. Common Pollutant-Gener ating Activities 125 D. Common Pollutant Generating Activities Â– Comparison Between High and Medium Likelihood Facilities 127 E. Common Pollutant Generating Ac tivities by Industrial Category 130 1. Activities at Lumber and Wood Products (SIC 24) Facilities 130 2. Activities at Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete (SIC 32) Facilities 131 3. Activities at Fabricated Metal Products (SIC 34) Facilities 133
iii 4. Activities at Electronics and Electrical Equipment (SIC 36) Facilities 135 F. Completion Rates of Phone Questionnaires 136 1. Completion Rate for Lumber and Wood Products (SIC 24) Facilities 137 a. Familiarity with the Regulations 138 2. Completion Rate for Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete (SIC 32) Facilities 138 a. Familiarity with Regulations 139 3. Completion Rate for Fabricated Metal (SIC 34) Facilities 140 a. Familiarity with Regulations 141 4. Completion Rate for Electronics and other Electrical Equipment (SIC 36) Facilities 141 a. Familiarity with Regulations 142 G. Comparison of Phone Questi onnaires to Fenceline Visits 143 1. Possible Weakness in Fenceline Visits 146 H. Comparison of Phone Ques tionnaires with Pinellas County Inspections 146 1. Comparison of Research Methodology and Local Implementation of MS4 Permit Requirements 150 I. Completion Rate of Phone Questionnaires 152 1. Completion Rate by Industrial Category 155 J. Usefulness of Phone Su rveys as Initial Step 155 K. Accuracy of Database 156 Chapter IV Â– Discussion 161 A. Industry Awareness of Industr ial Stormwater Regulations 161 B. Industry Reaction to Research Participants 163 C. Truthfulness of Industr ial Questionnaire Responses 164 D. Limitations and Possible Modifi cations to Research Approach 165 1. Database Compilation 166 2. Phone Questionnaires 167 3. Fenceline Visits 168 4. Comparison to Pinellas County, Florida Approach 168 a. Recommendations for Improving Local Inspection 171 E. Recommendations for Future Research 174 Chapter VII Â– Conclusions 176 A. Effectiveness of Research Methodology 176 B. Development of a Practicable Definition of Â“High RiskÂ” 177 C. Recommendations for Improvements to the Current Regulatory Structure 178 1. Recommendations for Improvement of the Generic Permit 178 2. Recommendations for Improvement of the MS4 Permits 180 D. General Applicability of Research Results 182
iv List of References 184 Bibliography 194 Appendices 196 Appendix 1. List of Acronyms 197 Appendix 2. Institutional Review Board Research Approval Forms 199 Appendix 3. Introductory Letter to Pinellas County Industries 203 Appendix 4. Database Accuracy Phone Questionnaire 204 Appendix 5. Database Accuracy Database Entry Form 212 Appendix 6. Industrial Stormwater Regulations Phone Questionnaire 213 Appendix 7. Industrial Stormwater Regulations Database Entry Form 224 Appendix 8. Fenceline Visit Form 225 Appendix 9. Fenceline Visit Database Entry Form 229 Appendix 10.Intensity Coding Scheme 230
v List of Tables Table 1. Manufacturing Sta tistics for Pinellas Count y, State of Florida, and the U.S. From U.S. Census Data 67 Table 2. Manufacturing Sta tistics for Pinellas Count y, State of Florida, and the U.S. From U.S. Census Data by Percentage 69 Table 3. Sources of Industrial Facility Information 75 Table 4. Selecting the Call List 90 Table 5. Proportion of Facilities in Co mpliance with the Generic Permit 104 Table 6. Comparison of Compliance Rate s with FDEP NOI Filers Database 105 Table 7. Proportion of Facilities Aware of the Generic Permit 108 Table 8. Â“High RiskÂ” Definition as Intended and Conducted by Florida MS4 Permit Holders 119 Table 9. Facility Size by Intensity Classification 123 Table 10. Proportion of Facilities within Facility Size Ranges 124 Table 11. Facility Employment by Intensity Classification 124 Table 12. Proportion of Facilitie s within Employment Ranges 125 Table 13. Intensity Classi fication for Lumber Products (SIC 24) Facilities 137 Table 14. Intensity Classification fo r Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete (SIC 32) Facilities 139 Table 15. Intensity Classi fication for Fabricated Metal Products (SIC 34) Facilities 140
vi Table 16. Intensity Classi fication for Electronics and other Electronics Equipment (SIC 36) Facilities 142 Table 17. Fenceline Visits Completed vs. Database Listings 143 Table 18. Agreement between Phone Ques tionnaires and Fenceline Visits 145 Table 19. Fenceline Classifica tions by Industrial Category 146 Table 20. Reasons for Incomplete Surveys 153 Table 21. Database Errors by Type: Numb er of Facilities from Each Source with these Errors 157 Table 22. Strength of Various Data Sources: % of Facili ties from Each Source with these Errors 159
vii List of Figures Figure 1. Pinellas County, Florida 66 Figure 2. Diagram of Â“H igh RiskÂ” Facilities 111 Figure 3. Â“High RiskÂ” Defi nition Based on Intensity of Industrial Activities Exposed to Stormwater 115 Figure 4. Industrial Activities Reported by All Facilities 126 Figure 5. Industrial Activities Repo rted by Intensity Classification 126 Figure 6. Common Industrial Activities at all Facilities by Intensity Classification 127 Figure 7. Common Industrial Activities by Percentage at all Facilities by Intensity Classification 128 Figure 8. Common Industrial Activiti es at Lumber Facilities 131 Figure 9. Common Industrial Activ ities at Stone Facilities 133 Figure 10. Common Industrial Activ ities at Metal Facilities 134 Figure 11. Common Industrial Activiti es at Electronics Facilities 136
viii REDUCING POLLUTANTS IN INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER RUNOFF: IMPROVED WATER QUALITY PROTECTION USING PRIORITIZED FACILITY REGULATION Lindsay M. Griffen ABSTRACT Stormwater pollutants originating from i ndustrial facilities can lead to degraded water quality, even in residentially domina ted regions of the country. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System perm it program regulates stormwater pollutants generated at industrial sites using Multi-Sector General Pe rmits (Generic permits) for industrial facilities and a pe rmit requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) operators. All industrial facilities w ithin 11 broad categories of industry are responsible for self-identif ying the need to comply w ith the Generic permit, and subsequently, implementing self -selected pollution prevention strategies. MS4 operators are required to identify and in spect Â“high riskÂ” industrial and commercial facilities that may be contributing substantial pollutant loads to the MS4, in addition to other requirements. This is partially in recogniti on that compliance with the Generic permit has been poor. This dual level of regulations is designed to enhance water quality protection, however, the reliance on local inspectors to de velop a definition of Â“high riskÂ” has led to irregular implementation.
ix This research developed a methodology to identify industrial f acilities and then screen out facilities that may not requi re inspection by the MS4 operator. Phone questionnaires were administered to 250 industr ial facilities. Results were validated using fenceline visits and on-site inspections w ith local inspectors. Overall compliance by participating facilities with the Generic permit was approximately 10%. Neither the Generic permit nor the MS 4 permit has been effective because numerous facilities have gone unregulated. Currently, the Generic permit has attempted to regulate too many facilitie s, many of which may not be affecting water quality. MS4 Â“high riskÂ” inspections have not improved compliance with Generic permit either because of the prioritization of facilities. The reliance on local interpretation, which requires MS4 operators to select a definition of Â“high riskÂ” based on their desired level of water quality protection and av ailable resources, can potentia lly exclude many facilities from inspection. Adopting a definition of intensity for regulating industry may both improve compliance with the General perm it, ensure water quality protection, and improve resource usage.
1 CHAPTER I Â– INTRODUCTION This research was developed to addr ess the current regulatory control of pollutants originating in stormwater runoff associated with industrial activity. Water quality is a concern to citizens of the United States and regulations have been promulgated to improve the quality of the na tionÂ’s waterbodies. Indus trial facilities have the potential to contribute po llutants to stormwater, th ereby affecting receiving waterbodies, such as lakes and estuaries, in to which stormwater drains. Industry is present in some capacity in most urbanized regions of the country. Regulations designed to reduce pollutants from industry, however can be burdensome and costly. These regulations require both industrial facilitie s and local municipalities to be permitted. However, differences in federal and local permit language can lead to heterogeneous enforcement and regulation of industry, based on the interpretation of permit requirements by local agencies. This paper begins with a brief explana tion of water quality concerns and the current water quality regulations, especially those related to industrial stormwater runoff. This will highlight the need for more effec tive regulations. The paper then reviews the research objectives in Chapter Two. The liter ature review in Chapter Three explores environmental regulations, policy evaluati ons, current water policy research, and the research setting in greater detail. Chap ter Four explains the research methodology developed to assess the effec tiveness of the dual-level syst em of industrial stormwater
2 regulations, as implemented in a typical resi dential Florida county. Chapter Five presents the research results, followed by a discussion of additional relevant findings in Chapter Six. The paper ends with research conclusi ons in Chapter Seven and then applicable references and appendices. I. A. Water Quality in the United States Federal regulations designed to improve water quality in the United States have been in existence for 35 years, yet evidence of substandard water qu ality persists. Poor water quality can arise for a number of r easons, including such varied sources as residential and stormwater discharges, atmospheric deposition, and direct discharges of industrial wastes into re ceiving waterbodies. The U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyÂ’s National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report noted that 39% of assessed rivers, 45% of assessed lakes, and 51% of assessed estuaries were Â“polluted.Â” These figures were even poorer than the results fr om the 1998 report. Additionally, the majority of the nationÂ’s waterbodies Â– as much as 81% of our river miles Â– have not been studied yet (USEPA, 2000). Houck (2002) stated that of the 19% of the nationÂ’s river, lakes, and estuaries that have been assessed for pollu tion, Â“approximately one-third of AmericaÂ’s waters do not meet water quality standards.Â” In Florida there are more than 1.2 million acres and 16,000 miles of impaired waters in 2004 (WCEI, 2004). In the Tampa Bay region of Florida alone, nearly 150 waterbody segments were impaired for at least one pollutant in 2002 (FDEP, 2002). Typically, these waterbodies are polluted with sediments, pathogens, excess nutrients, oil, grease, heavy metals, and va rious other pollutants (Kubasek and Silverman, 2005; Horner et al. 1994).
3 Many federal and state laws have been en acted to combat some of these problems and to improve the quality of the nations Â’ waterbodies. However, while federal legislation, specifically the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, has improved water quality since the early 1970s (even with setbacks occurring in recent years), many waterbodies are still not clean enough to support activities su ch as swimming and fishing (Houck, 2002). Current water quality regulations include provisions to ad dress all potential sources of water pollution, how ever, industrial stormwater may be less effectively regulated. Although current stormwater regul ations are extensive and burdensome to industry, the shift from tradit ional Â“command-and-controlÂ” pr actices (those that rely on penalties, numeric limits, and often dictate pollution abatement technologies) to selfidentification and self-selected pollution pr evention strategies by industry may have caused poor compliance and insufficient manage ment of pollutant ge nerating activities. In order to effectively mana ge water quality, however, a ll potential pollutant sources should be identified, controlled, and regulated, as appropriate. Two permit programs currently address pollutants originating in industrial stormwater runoff. The National Pollutan t Discharge Elimination System requires industrial facilities to apply for a permit to discharge pollutants to stormwater and, subsequently, implement self-selected po llution prevention strategies. The federal regulations also mandate permits to local muni cipalities, such as c ounties and cities, to reduce pollutants in their muni cipal separate storm sewer systems. A component of the local permits involves the prioritization of industry for inspections. This research examined and assessed the effectiveness of th e dual-level system of federal and local
4 industrial stormwater regulations, as implemented in a typical residential county in Florida. Poor water quality can occur due to vari ous natural and anthr opogenic threats. Of the anthropogenic sources, th ey are generally categorized as either point or non-point sources. Point sources originate from a stati onary and identifiable source, such as a publicly operated treatment works (POTWs) or an industrial plant. Non-point sources include indirect discharges fr om a variety of sources, such as runoff from residential, industrial, and agricultural lands, and at mospheric deposition. Non-point sources are more difficult to control because of their diffu se nature. Subsequently, federal, state, and local enforcement of non-point sources has lagg ed. Partially due to extensive controls on point sources, it is widely believed that non-po int sources are the more significant threat to water quality today (Rosenbaum, 2002). Non-point source pollution is a threat to water quality acr oss the nation and Florida is no exception. Within the Tampa Bay region of Florida, non-point sources contributed 63% of the tota l nitrogen loading to Tamp a Bay between 199-2003 and are also contributors of phosphorous, total suspended solids, and biochemical oxygen demand (Poe et al. 2005). Urban runoff can also c ontain oxygen-demanding substances, metals, pathogens, petroleum hydrocarbons, and synthetic organics (Horner, 1992 in Horner et al ., 1994). Currently, industrial runoff is the number one contributor of zinc and copper loading, and, along with commercia l land, has the highest pollutant loading production of all the stormwater sources (Horner et al. 1994). Recent attempts to regulate non-point sources have been only marginally successful and, while non-point source pollution is now recogni zed as a threat to water
5 quality, the use of self-monitori ng approaches makes it difficul t to compare to traditional command-and-control regulations. Because the NPDES industrial stormwater regulations incorporate pollution prevention strategies and narrative reduction goals, it is more difficult to determine success than when using numerical water quality limits. This research focused on industrial runo ff, as it has previously received less scholarly attention. Industri al stormwater runoff deserv es regulatory and scholarly evaluation, however, as it is a source of heavy metals, chem icals, excess nutrients, and sediments Â– all of which can degrade the quality of receiving waterbodies (Duke and Bauersachs, 1998; Line et al ., 1996). The often-cited resu lts of the National Urban Runoff Program (Athayde et al ., 1983) acknowledged that the issue of industrial runoff deserved further investigation, as it was not sp ecifically included in that study. Since that report, numerous researchers including Duke and Pitt have investigated industrial stormwater, however, there has been little focus on the prioritization of industrial facilities, as directed in local permits. Industry is present in most urbanized ar eas of the country. While certain areas support a larger industrial ba se; Los Angeles, California or New York, New York for example; industrial activities and their pro cesses are a potential po llutant source in any region containing industry. This research focu sed on Pinellas County, Florida, located in west central Florida (Figure 1) Pinellas County is the stat eÂ’s second smallest county in area, but it is the most densely populated and houses more than 2,000 manufacturing and transportation facilities (see Tables 1 and 2 ). These industries range from small, oneperson operations to multi-national corporations As in other urbani zed areas, industry is a visible component of Pinellas County.
6 Industry may contribute pollutants to st ormwater and, therefore, necessitate regulation; however, it may be unnecessar ily burdened with regulations. The MultiSector General permit, which is issued to al l industrial facilities listed in the NPDES regulations, includes a permit application fee and subsequent pollution prevention strategies which can cost thousands of dolla rs, depending on the individual site. Even facilities that do not require a permit must pa y for a No Exposure Certification. There is little data compiled about whether these bur densome regulations are of value and how industries can be prioritized so that only t hose that are potentially contributing pollutants to stormwater are required to comply. This research has strived to make recommendations that improve water quality protection while, at the same, reducing the regulatory burden for many facilities. I. B. Clean Water Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), represents the first majo r federal regulation designed to improve the health of waterbodies in the United States. The earliest versions of the act focused on protecting water quality through the regulation of point sources. This was a natural first step as point sources are gene rally easier to identify and regulate. Despite billions of dollars in federal spending and participati on by government agencies, however, goals set by the policy have not been accomplished (WEF, 1997 and Adler, 1997). For example, the goal of improving water quality to the le vel necessary for safe swimming and fish consumption has not been met even after 30 years (USEPA, 1996). This is evident by the persistence of fish consump tion advisories listed by the EPA (2005). In Florida, for
7 example, 71 separate waterbodies had ac tive fish consumption advisories in 2005, sometimes for as many as eight nekton species (NLFA, 2005). I. C. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program Urban runoff, including industrial stormw ater, was first addressed in the 1987 CWA amendments, which included the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program (NPDES, 1995). Th e NPDES permit program requires point sources to be regulated through the use of a permitting system. While the permit program was originally enacted in 1972 for the contro l of wastewater, it was re-authorized to extend to other sources of water polluti on. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the EPA in 1972 to require typi cally labeled Â“non-point Â” sources, including storm sewers, to be regulated as point sources (NRDC, 1999). While the outfall of a stormwater system is now classified as a point source of pollution, for regulatory purposes, this research will continue to classify industrial stormwater runoff as a form of non-point pollution. The NPDES regulations have become more stringent and specific since their original enactment and now regulate operators of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), construction sites, and industrial a nd commercial sources, su ch as manufacturing plants or transportation facilities. The fede ral NPDES industrial stormwater regulations mandate compliance by all industrial facil ities listed under 11 categories, either by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) c ode or narrative desc ription (40 CFR 122.26 (b)(14)(i)-(xi)). Regu lated industries range from mini ng operations and auto salvage facilities to lumber yards and electronic s manufacturers. The available permits are discussed in further detail in the Literature Review, but require a facility to apply for a
8 Multi-Sector Generic Permit (Generic permit) and, subsequently, implement a variety of pollution prevention strategies to limit polluta nt exposure to stormwater. This form of regulation is a departure from the water qual ity end-of-pipe approach es used for direct pollutant discharges, such as POTWs and i ndustrial wastewater. While the regulations specify that industries must apply for a permit if they discha rge pollutants into stormwater, many industries are either unaware that this permitting system exists or have chosen not to comply (Duke and Shaver, 1999). The NPDES permit program also mandates permits for operators of municipals separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). An MS 4 is defined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as a, Â“publicly-own ed conveyance or system of conveyances (i.e., ditches, curbs, catch basins, underground pipes, etc. ) that is designed for the discharge of stormwater to surface waters of the StateÂ” (FDEP, 2005a). MS4s may be owned by municipalities, countie s, colleges, drainage distri cts, or other entities. The Pinellas County government holds a MS4 permit, along with 22 incorporated cities in the County. The NPDES program is now administered by the State of Florida. The local MS4 permit, issued by the Fl orida Department of Environmental Protection, requires municipalitie s to protect the wa ter quality of their MS4s and provides for this protection by mandating inspection of Â“high riskÂ” industries, among other responsibilities, such as elim inating illicit discharges or limiting runoff from residential areas. MS4 permit holders, such as Pinell as County, are required to implement a comprehensive stormwater management program to reduce contamina tion of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges to the MS 4s (FDEP, 2005a). One requirement is to identify priorities, inspect, and monitor for Â“h igh riskÂ” industries. Th ere is flexibility in
9 how industries are identified and inspected, a nd permit holders are encouraged to tailor the definition and approach to best serv e their location, indus trial community, and resources. This dual system of regulations includes some overlap, as facilities subject to the NPDES guidelines may also be inspected by lo cal regulators. Theref ore, an industrial facility located in an urbanized region s ubject to a MS4 permit ma y simultaneously be required to obtain an industrial stormwater Generic permit, under the federal or state NPDES program, and may also be regulated by the MS4 permit holder, such as Pinellas County. This dual system of regulations is de signed to add a layer of protection for the water quality in MS4s, as compliance by industr y with the Generic permit has been low. However, this overlapping system is confusing and may be over-reaching. The MS4 permit holders are expected to propose a defi nition of Â“high riskÂ” and appropriately identify and inspect industri al facilities. However, the undefined phrase Â“high riskÂ” may hinder MS4 permit holders in thei r ability to ascertain which facilities are more likely to contribute pollutants to stormwater. This research hypothesized that Pinellas County (County), along with other Florida MS4 permit holders, has not adequately defined the term Â“high riskÂ” in order to protect its MS 4 water quality, nor ha s it improved universal compliance with the Generic permit. The federal NPDES requirements cover faci lities within 11 broad categories of industry; however, more specificity in the state MS4 permit may label some industries, even those with a Generic permit, as not Â“hi gh riskÂ”. This research has suggested that some industries may be unnecessarily burdene d by the industrial stormwater regulations. Conversely, some industries may require comp liance but have not pr oactively identified
10 themselves and implemented pollution preventi on strategies. This research assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the federal and local (M S4) requirements and how coordination could be improved. I.D. Evaluation This evaluation focused on industrial st ormwater regulations implemented in Pinellas County, Florida as a means to a ssess whether the NPDES permit program for industrial stormwater is eff ective at protecting water quality in this same county. The CWA contains various subsecti ons that approach water qual ity protection from different perspectives. The NPDES industrial stormwater regulations rely on self-identification by industry, pollution prevention strategies, and narrative water quality descriptions. These regulations affect industry, gove rnment agencies, and the public. While the regulations are extensive and currently include provisions for both poi nt and non-point sources of pollution, it is still unclear how effective they are at protecting water quality and, specifically, whether pollutants originati ng in industrial r unoff should be more extensively regulated. The use of flexible approaches in the industrial stormwater regulations allows industry and governmental ag encies to tailor the regulations to their needs. However, it also complicates eval uation strategies. This ambiguity is most apparent in the local MS4 permit language. The purpose of this evaluation was to asse ss the effectiveness of the dual system of industrial stormwater in order to recommend more appropriate implementation measures. Public policies shoul d be periodically evaluated to determine if they are effective. Some recommendations for impr ovement may include: revising statutory language to aid in implementati on strategies, prioritizing affect ed parties or recipients of
11 services, devoting greater resources to im plementation, or discontinuing the policy if highly ineffective. This ev aluation focused on strategies to improve the agency interpretation of statutory language and to pr ioritize industrial facili ties subject to the dual level of industrial storwmater regulations.
12 CHAPTER II Â– RESEARCH OBJECTIVES This research was designed to identify limitations and potential improvements in the dual-level system of stormwater regulati ons for industry, both in the regulatory design and the implementation. The overall objective of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminatio n System (NPDES) industrial stormwater regulation Multi-Sect or Generic permit (Generic pe rmit) as implemented in a typical urban region subject to the municipal separate storm sewer system permit. This research examined the industrial stormwat er aspects of the Pinellas County, Florida Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (M S4) Permit and compliance by industries in the same jurisdiction with Florida statewid e regulations. Pinellas County, Florida is a densely developed urban region where commerci al and residential land uses predominate, but where numerous facilities are define d as Â“industrialÂ” by NPDES stormwater regulations. Issued under the NPDES Stormwater Program, the State of FloridaÂ’s MS4 permit system contains a clause designed to suppor t the Generic permit w ith a redundant effort by MS4 permit holders. In order to reduce c ontamination of stormwater runoff, MS4 permit holders are required to inspect all Â“high riskÂ” commercial and industrial discharges. This is a departure from the Generic permit requirements that mandate all industrial facilities w ithin the 11 industrial categories to self-identify, self-monitor, and design their own pollution prev ention plans. While inspections may be performed on
13 industrial facilities, in spections by the agency that issu es the Generic permit are not a necessary component. The requirement of MS 4 permit holders to inspect Â“high riskÂ” facilities is designed so that MS4 operators wi ll monitor those they judge to be important for protecting water quality, in order to add to the accountab ility for these facilities. Rather than subject all industrial facilities within 11 NPDES cate gories (that have not obtained a No Exposure Certification) to inspection, the MS4 permit adds this more rigorous enforcement approach to a limited nu mber of facilities. The designation of Â“high riskÂ” is intentionally vagu e. Implementation of this component, however, may be improved by recommending a strategy for prioritizing industr ial facilities. The research had three specific objectiv es. First, it assessed the potential usefulness of a proposed method to identify facil ities in Pinellas County subject to either or both sets of regulations for industry, and compared that method to alternative methods now being applied by the Pinellas County De partment of Environmental Management and other MS4 operators throughout Florida. S econd, it utilized firsthand evaluation of a subset of facilities to attemp t to develop a practicable defi nition of Â“high riskÂ” based on the intensity of industrial activ ities exposed to stormwater. The research then compared that definition to the definition of Â“includedÂ” facilities under Florida and U.S. regulations. Third, the research used these observations to make recommendations that could improve the ability to protect the quali ty of stormwater, through the re gulations for industry in the NPDES nationwide/statewide system, the Fl orida MS4 permit requirements, or both. Upon completion, the research also recomme nded useful steps in the implementation process, such as increasing e ducation and outreach to industry that may be efficient uses of MS4 operatorsÂ’ resources.
14 Finally, the research evaluated the appli cability of these results, including the benefits of environmental policy evaluation, th e degree to which these findings could be generalized and/or transferred to other ju risdictions, including the applicability of methods to select Â“high riskÂ” facilities in county or municipal permit holder boundaries. Recommended policy changes to the Gene ric permit and MS4 permit may benefit industry and implementing agencies both in Florida and the nation.
15 CHAPTER III Â– LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review explains current research and knowledge of environmental regulations and policy evaluations. The re view begins by explaining environmental regulations prior to the 1970s and the evolut ion of water quality statutes, including the current regulation of stormwater runoff associ ated with industrial activity. The necessary treatment of this pot entially polluting source is ad dressed throughout the review of environmental regulations. The literature review then discusses the importance of evaluating public policie s, such as environmental regula tions, by explaining the process of creating public policy, w hy they should be evaluated, and how environmental policy evaluation has evolved. This section also re views previous evaluations of the Clean Water Act regulations. The literat ure review then examines current policy research on the Clean Water Act and NPDES stormwater regul ation. Finally, the l iterature review explores the term Â“high riskÂ” and how the MS4 permit has been interpreted by various permit holders throughout the state. Finally, it establishes the regulatory setting of the research. It addresses the similarities a nd differences between the research location compared to the State of Florida and the na tion and the outlines the StateÂ’s authority to administer the federal industr ial stormwater regulations.
16 III. A. Environmental Regulations This section discusses the evolution of environmental regulations, starting with regulations from the 19th century and ending with the cu rrent system of regulations developed for controlling stormwater pollu tants originating at industrial sites. III. A.1. EARLY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS Many of the federal regulations that curre ntly protect our ai r and water quality were developed in the 1970s. Prior to this decade, federal regulati ons had already been enacted, however, the statutes passed in th e 1970s have established the framework for current environmental policies. Several drama tic incidents that occurred in the 1960s Â– the dumping of hazardous wastes in the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls, New York; a large oil spill off the coas t of Santa Barbara, California; and the Cuyahoga River that actually caught fire in Cleveland, Ohio (Kubasek and Silverman, 2005) Â–helped initiate the development of the current fede ral environmental polices. Public demand for better environmental quality following these visi ble events resulted in swift and stringent federal regulations. Federal regulations specific to water qua lity were in place prior to the 1970s, however, they targeted navigational hazards, ra ther than health issues. For example, the Refuse Act of 1899 Â“prohibited the dumping of solid wastes into commercial waterwaysÂ” for the purpose of improving navigational safety (Switzer, 2004). This act required discharges to receive a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for which 415 were issued between 1899 and 1972, coincidi ng with the passage of the CWA (Smith 2000). It was not until 1912, with the establishment of the U. S. Public Health Service,
17 that waterbodies were monitored for pollution levels that could nega tively affect humans, rather than for navigational safety alone (Switzer, 2004). The Water Pollution Control Act (PL 80-845), passed in 1948, was the first significant federal legislation to grant (limite d) authority to the federal government to regulate interstate wa ter pollution (Switzer, 2004; WEF, 1997) and provide funding for research and the construction of sewage treatment plants (Adler et al. 1993). This law directed the U.S. Surgeon General to devel op comprehensive plans to eliminate or reduce pollution of interstate waters (WEF, 1997). Substantial funding was allocated as five-year grants to local governments to aid in the c onstruction of municipal wastewater treatment plants. The total five-year budget was $112.5 million and included an additional $5 million study fund for the control of industrial pollution (WEF, 1997). This law was limited to pollution problems arising in interstate waters. State and local governments were ultimately responsible for the qualit y of their own waters (Smith, 2000), as the federal government was reluctant to limit th e stateÂ’s authority. Since water quality protection is not listed as a federal responsibility, the auth ority is delegated to the states through Amendment X of the Constitution. Fede ral involvement and enforcement was, therefore, limited. Federal involvement in water policy in creased during the 1950s and 1960s with the passage of four statutes. Point sources of pollution, specifically municipal wastewater, were addressed in these regul ations, while other pollution sources, such as industrial discharges and non-point sources were e ssentially ignored (WEF, 1997). The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 (PL 84-660) provided more substantial subsidies for the construction of sewage treatment plants (Adler et al ., 199), a large contributor to
18 degraded water quality at the time. Five year s later, amendments were added to the Act (PL 87-88). While federal assistance for trea tment plant constructi on increased, Congress still had only a limited role in contro lling water pollution (WEF, 1997). The 1965 Water Quality Act (PL 89-234) increased federal enfo rcement ability and also required states to establish water quality standa rds for interstate waters by 1967 (Switzer, 2004; USEPA, 1996). The newly created Federal Water Pollu tion Control Administration (FWPCA) was granted the authority to set standards if the st ates failed to do so within one year (WEF, 1997). The act addressed both surface wate rs and groundwater (Switzer, 2004). The setting of standards on a statewide basis was difficult and did not result in significant water quality improvements. Li ttle technological expertise had been developed for assessing water quality and st ate governments relied on dischargers to supply them with the data needed to de velop standards (WEF, 1997). Additionally, the regulators shouldered the burden of proof and were required to Â“demonstrate a direct link between a discharger and a water quality problemÂ” before enforcing the standards (USEPA, 1996). The ineffectiven ess of these standards highlighted the need for a more comprehensive and implementable policy. Fina lly, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 (PL 89-753) further increased federal spending on municipal treatment plants (WEF, 1997). The yearly funding authorizations rose to $1.25 billion in fiscal year 1971 (up from $50 million in fis cal year 1961) (WEF, 1997). III. A.2. THE CLEAN WATER ACT The genesis of the current water qualit y regulations was in the 1970s. In 1970, the Refuse Act Permit Program was added as an update to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (USEPA, 1996). This act required discharg ers to obtain a federal permit from the
19 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before discha rging into public waterways. This program was mandated through Presidential Order on December 23, 1970, but was later challenged in the lawsuit Kalur v. Resor which determined that issuing a permit to an individual facility might re quire the concurrent filing of an environmental impact statement, under the National Environmen tal Policy Act of 1969 (USEPA, 1996). The application of a permit program was incorporat ed into the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), which included the NPDES program. These amendments were important b ecause of the inclusi on of Â“end-of pipeÂ” controls, commonly referred to as Â“command and controlÂ” strategies, in addition to water quality standards (USEPA, 1996). Public concern for water and air quality was the impetus for the swift and unanimous passage of two federal regulations Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine led the effort to pass a more authoritative and eff ective water control act, likening the presence of water pollution to a Â“cancer which threatens our very existence and which will not respond to the kind of treatment that has been prescribed in the pastÂ” (Adler et al ., 1993). The FWPCA (P.L. 92-500; 33 U.S.C. 1251), al so called the Clean Water Act (CWA), was passed in 1972 over the veto of Presid ent Nixon (Kubasek and Silverman, 2005). The objective of the CWA was to Â“restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the NationÂ’s watersÂ” (WEF, 1997). The goals of the CWA included eliminating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985, prohibiting toxic discharges in toxic amounts, and making al l waterbodies Â“fishable and swimmableÂ” by 1983 (CWA Section 101(a); Adler et al ., 1993; Rosenbaum, 1995). Pollution would be
20 allowable, but only in amounts consistent w ith technological and ec onomic achievability. Senator Muskie declared this a Â“life or d eath proposition for the NationÂ” (CWA, 1993). These original and somewhat lofty goals of the CWA were not accomplished through the regulation of point sources, despite the billions of dollars spent to upgrade municipal wastewater treatment plants (Rosenbaum, 1995; Smith, 2000). By the 1980s, the EPA recognized that some waterbodies remained degr aded, and non-point sources were noticed as important. Although non-point sources of pollution were recognized as contributing to poor water quality throughout the nation, enforcement and resources continued to be directed to point sources. A 1972 Senate re port stated that the water quality of the nation would not be restored until the Â“ver y complex and difficult problem of non-point sources (are) addr essedÂ” (CWA, 1993). The repo rt also acknowledged that controlling non-point sources was beyond the t echnology of control of that time (CWA, 1993). The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a non-profit environmental agency that is involved in litigation, su ed the EPA in 1972 over the exclusion of stormwater as a point source of pollution in the NPDES permit program (NRDC, 2002). The Supreme Court ruled in fa vor of NRDC and required EPA to re-evaluate its NPDES program. In response to this, the EPA bega n performing research on urban runoff and later included stormwater runoff in the CWA 1987 Amendments. The attempted regulation of non-point sour ces required credible scientific proof before it was incorporated into federal re gulations. Following the 1972 amendments and the NRDC lawsuit, the National Urban R unoff Program, administered by the EPA developed information on urban runo ff between 1978 and 1983 in order to
21Â“Â…help provide local decision makers, States, EPA, and other interested parties with a rational basis for determining whether or not urban runoff is causing water quality problems and, in the event that it is, postulating realistic control options and developing water quality management plans, consistent with local needs, that would lead to implementation of least cost solutionsÂ” (Athayde et al ., 1983). The study concluded, through monitoring effort s, that residential, commercial and industrial lands are sources of pollu tants to receiving waters (Horner et al. 1994). This important source of water pollutant s would first be addressed in 1987. III.A.3. NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION Non-point pollution sources are currently regulated as point sources under the NPDES permit program, however, they are st ill classified as non-point by some researchers and scientists. This researc h, while not ignoring the current regulatory definition, has chosen to address this area as it was traditionally classified, due to its inherent differences from point sources, su ch as industrial wast ewater discharges. Non-point source pollution can take many fo rms, such as atmospheric deposition, agricultural runoff, residen tial runoff, and urban runoff. Urban runoff may include stormwater runoff from reside ntial streets and yards, runo ff from construction sites, runoff from parking lots and highways, a nd industrial stormwater runoff. The EPA includes storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage in its definition of Â“storm waterÂ” (40 CFR Â§ 122.26(b)(13)). While agricultural runoff is likely the mo st problematic non-point source, urban runoff may have the potential for greater water quality impacts due to the toxic substances that it contains (Smith, 2000) Industrial stormwater runoff is simply precipitation that comes into contact with indus trial processes, such as precipitation that
22 runs across businesses and commerc ial sites, before it is in corporated into other water sources, including storm sewers, drainage ditc hes, and receiving waterbodies. Horner et al. (1994) described urban runoff as Â“a by-product of the landÂ’s interaction with rainfall.Â” This interaction can affect the surface acr oss which the runoff flows and can Â“dislodge and transport surface particles,Â” carrying with it a variety of pollutants from diverse and diffuse sources (Horner et al. 1994). Non-point source pollution is more diffi cult to control and/or treat for many reasons. Because runoff is affected by rain fall, it is a sporadic and unpredictable occurrence, unlike many permitted point-source discharges. The discharges occur over a diffuse area and may interact with differing substrates and polluta nt sources throughout the watershed (Burton and Pitt, 2002). EPA has determined that Â“storm water runoff from major metropolitan areas is a significant source of pollutants discharged to waters of the United StatesÂ” (USEPA, 1996). Many states, alth ough instructed to address this source of pollution in 1985, still have not done so ad equately (Smith, 2000). Numerous other researchers have expressed the importan ce of increasing research and control mechanisms for non-point source pollution, in cluding urban stormwater (Desbordes and Hmain, 1990; Field and Pitt, 1990; Marselek 1990; and Smith, 2000) III.A.4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL POLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS PROGRAM The National Pollutant Discharge Elimina tion System (NPDES) was added as an amendment in 1972 to the CWA to Title IV (Permits and Licenses) in Section 402 to more effectively control point (discrete, st ationary) sources of pollution, such as power plants or POTWs (33 U.S.C. 1342). It focused on conventional, toxic, and non-
23 conventional pollutants and provided that Â“the di scharge of any pollutant to waters of the United States from any point source is unlawfu l, except if the discharge is in compliance with a NPDES permitÂ” (33 U.S.C. Secti on 1342 (a) (b) and 60 FR 189:50803). A permit is defined by the USEPA (1996) as a Â“license for a facility to discharge a specified amount of a pollutant into a receiving water under certain conditions.Â” The form of the permit can vary depending on the source of pollutants. Effluent limitations were established fo r the point sources based on industry activities, pollutant type, a nd waterbody characteristics. Kubasek and Silverman (2005) noted, as of 2005, over 40,000 sources were regu lated by these permits nationwide, while Smith (2000) suggested that more than 66,000 individual permits were issued by 2000. While this system of permits lessened poi nt source pollution by identifying, permitting, and monitoring discharges, the program omitted some sources necessary to protected water quality. The EPA exempted urban runoff from the first NPDES amendments if it was not contaminated by industrial or commercial pollu tants. Local agencies were instructed to manage stormwater discharges, instead, th rough non-point source pollution prevention controls. This strategy was employed in part to reduce the resource and administrative burden of permitting stormwater sources. Congress recognized that many states had failed to issue NPDES permits for point source discharges of stormwater followi ng the 1972 amendments (NPDES 1995). It was believed that more extensive legislation woul d be necessary to control both unregulated point sources and the growing influence of non-point sources. Due to the NRDC ruling, and supported by results of the NURP study, nonpoint sources would be regulated as
24 point sources under the amended NPDES permit program. The 1987 CWA Amendments established the framework for addressing stor mwater discharges (Section 402 (p)), and the requirement for EPA to issue NPDES permits for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity (Section 402 (p) (4 )). The amendments established a permit application procedure and also instructed th e EPA to develop a schedule for establishing regulations and issuing permits for stormw ater discharges (NPDES, 1995; ADEC, 2004). This was an important step as it establishe d stormwater discharges as a form of point source pollution (which could then be permitte d and controlled), rather than as a nonpoint source. III.A.5. NPDES STORMWATER REGULATIONS The final NPDES Stormwater Permit Pr ogram regulations were published on November 16, 1990 (55 FR 47990). Final rules were published both on April 1, 1992 (57 FR 11394) and December 18, 1992 (57 FR 60444). They included the first regulatory definition of Â“storm water discharge associated with industrial activityÂ” as Â“the discharge from any conveyance which is used for co llecting and conveying storm water and which is directly related to manu facturing, processing, or raw ma terials storage areas at an industrial plant. The term does not include discharges from faci lities or activities excluded from the NPDES programÂ” (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). Industria l activity is also defined in these regulations as: Â“Â…includes, but is not limited to, storm water discharges from industrial plant yards; immediate access roads and rail lines used or traveled by car riers of raw materials, manufactured products, waste material, or by-products used or created by the facility; material handling sites; refuse sites; sites used for the application or disposal of process waste waters; sites used for the storage and maintenance of material handling equipment; site s used for residual treatment, storage, or disposal; shipping and receiving areas; manufact uring buildings; storage areas (including tank farms) for raw materials, and intermediate and finished products; and areas where industrial activity has taken place in the past and signifi cant materials remain and are exposed to storm waterÂ” [40 CFR 122.26(b)(14]).
25 Additionally, the regula tions included descri ptions of affected industrial activities, either by narrative description or by a Standa rd Industrial Classifi cation (SIC) code. The SIC codes utilize a standard four-digit numer ic coding system by the PresidentÂ’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 1987) to de scribe industrial proc esses. SIC codes were also used by the U.S. Census Bureau to categorize establishments by their primary activity but have since been replaced by th e North American Indus trial Classification System (NAICS) codes (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). The Standard Industrial Cla ssification (SIC) Codes, wh ile widely used, are not ideal for environmental protection. Because an in dustrial facility is ab le to self-select its code, rather than being assigne d one by a U.S. agency of business, it has the ability to utilize different codes for different purpos es, such as revenue statistics, facility employment data, or wastewater discharge characteristics (Duke and Shaver, 1999). The four-digit SIC codes are also limited because they do not incorporat e the level of detail needed to differentiate between similar industrial activities. The North American Industrial Classification Scheme (NAICS), with its six-digit approach, encourages more specificity in activ ity identification. The federal and state regulations have continued using the SIC codes. The narrative descriptions included seven categories of i ndustrial activity, for example, landfills and hazardous waste treatment, storag e, and disposal facilities. The five categories of industrial activity by SIC code included both heavy manufacturing and light manufacturing. Interestingly, indus trial facilities were only subject to these regulations if their primary industrial process was included in the listed SIC codes. A uxiliary activities do not require permit co verage (Dodson, 1999).
26 The current guidelines specify 11 industria l categories that may be required to apply for an NPDES permit for stormwater discharge (40 CFR 122.26 (b)(14)(i)-(xi). Some industries, such as cement manufacturer s, are not eligible for exemption and are required to obtain a separate NPDES stor mwater discharge permit (40 CFR 411). While permits are issued separately for construction sites, they ar e listed a category (x) on the industrial list. At the time of initial rulemaking, certain Â“light industryÂ” (category xi) was exempt from compliance if it could demonstr ate no exposure to stormwater. Additionally, construction sites less than five acres we re exempt. This guideline was challenged, however, by the Natural Resource Defense Council in NRDC v. EPA on June 4, 1992 in the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals. As a resu lt, light industry is no longer conditionally exempt and now is required to a pply for a Â“No Exposure Ce rtificationÂ” if its processes do not contribute pollutants to stormwater (FDEP, 2001). These guidelines went into effect during Phase II of the NPDE S permit program and required facilities to the file a Â“No Exposure Certif icationÂ” by February 7, 2000 (64 FR 235). This revision potentially protects water quality if numer ous light industrial fac ilities are contributing pollutants to stormwater, yet it may also increase the regulato ry burden for lesser polluting facilities. Affected industries (those deemed to requi re a permit) were required to apply for an individual, group, or general permit. Indi vidual permits were designed for larger industrial sites and required the facility opera tors to include information related to the topography of the sites, an estimate of im pervious area, a desc ription of significant materials exposed to stormwater, a certific ation that outfalls ha ve been tested and
27 evaluated, previous on-site l eaks, and quantitative water qua lity data for a variety of pollutants (OOW, 1995). Many st ates declined to issue individual permits except in exceptional cases due to the increased burde n for both industry and the agencies. Group permits were issued for a finite period to industries performing similar processes. The application resulted in an i ndividual or general permit but utilized a group application. Group permits were received by September 30, 1991 for Part 1 and October 1, 1992 for Part 2. Group permit applications were not accepted after these dates and new facilities cannot be added to the list (Dodson, 1999). Th erefore, these perm its are no longer an option for stormwater facilities. General permits were developed and issued to cover multiple facilities within a specific category (USEPA, 1996). Rather than obtain an individual permit, a larger number of facilities can be covered under a single general permit. Facilities, however, must be located within a specific geographica l area, such as Pinellas County, and have common elements, such as stormwater point s ources or similar industrial operations (40 CFR Â§ 122.28; USEPA, 1996). The general pe rmit process is less rigorous for both industry and the permitting agency, making it the preferred version for smaller industries. III.A.6. MULTI-SECTOR GENERIC PERM IT (MSGP) FOR INDSUTRIAL ACTIVITY The general permit is curren tly issued by the FDEP as the State of Florida MultiSector Generic permit for Stormwater Discha rge Associated with Industrial Activity (Generic permit) (FDEP, 2004). While the FDEP has substituted the word Â“genericÂ” for Â“general,Â” the legal requirements of industria l facilities are the same when issued by the FDEP rather than the EPA. Facility operators must first file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to
28 acquire coverage under a Generic permit (F DEP, 2000c). This application does not require water quality data and is limited to general facility inform ation. Facilities are instructed to use up to four 4-digit SIC Codes that best represented the Â“principal products or activities provide d by the facilityÂ” (60 FR 189: 50811). Required information also includes facility name, address, a nd contact information; any NPDES permit numbers; name of receiving waterbody(s); indication whether quantitative water quality data has been conducted and, if so, the concen tration of pollutants in stormwater; and a certification of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (OOW, 1996). Industries that applied for and obtained a Generic permit were then instructed to develop site-specific Best Management Plans (BMPs) and Pollu tion Prevention (P2) strategies (NPDES, 2005). Numeric limits for water quality polluta nts were not developed. This strategy of BMPs and P2 strategies, therefore, provides fl exibility to industry and allows individual facility owners or operators to select site-specific plans. As discussed earlier, this approach may decrease the burden for i ndustry, but may compli cate evaluation, as universal standards are not applied for all i ndustrial facilities. A lthough facilities were instructed to take and analyze water quality samples during several rain events during the second and fourth year under the permit, r outine sampling is not required nor is the adherence to uniform water qua lity standards (60 FR 50807). This research has only addressed the firs t-stage of compliance with the Generic permit, which was defined as the filing of a NOI by Duke and Beswick (1997). Undertaking this step, however, does not en sure that stormwater quality will actually improve (Dodson, 1999). Improvement only occurs when thoughtful storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPP) are deve loped and implemented, thereby modifying
29 industrial sites or practices. In recognition of this, new industries are required to complete and implement a SWPPP prior to commencing industrial operations. III.A.7. MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) PERMITS In addition to permits held by individual industries, NPDES permits, in the form of MS4 permits, are issued to various count ies, municipalities, drainage districts, colleges, etc., that operate an MS4. Th ese permits were in itiated during the 1987 amendments. An MS4 is defined by the FDEP as a Â“publicly-owned conveyance or system of conveyances (i.e., ditches, curbs, catch basins, underground pi pes, etc.) that is designed for the discharge of stormwater to surface waters of the StateÂ” (FDEP, 2005a). Permit holders often operate under a joint permit among multip le local municipalities or county governments in a fashion similar to flood control districts. Permit holders are required to protect the water quality of the MS4s through a stormwater pollution prevention and management program (SWMPP) (FLS000005, 2004). This plan may utilize pollution preven tion measures, treatment or re moval techniques, stormwater monitoring, or other appropriate means to re duce contamination of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit disc harges (FLS000005, 2004). The NPDES MS4 permits began by targeting larger urbanized areas and were first issued to large MS4s (serving more than 250,000 persons) and medium MS4s (between 100,000 and 249,999 persons) following the November 16, 1990 regulations (55 FR 47989). Phase II of the Storm Water Regulations were promulgated in 1999 and included municipalities less than 100,000 pe rsons (60 FR 40230). These permits were issued on a jurisdiction-wide basis to the MS4 operator, rather than to an individual POTW (e.g., wastewater discharg es) (USEPA, 1996).
30 There is considerable flexibility in ho w MS4 water quality can be protected on a local level. The State of Florida MS4 permits include multiple SWMP requirements, such as maintaining and operating stormwater co llection systems; reducing pollutants from roadways; limiting the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbic ides; detecting and eliminating illicit discharges; reducing pollu tants from constructi on sites; and reducing pollutants from industrial activity (FLS00005, 2004) Part II, Section 8 of the Pinellas County Final MS4 Permit (FLS00005, 2004) specif ically addresses industries and the requirements of the MS4 operator: 8. Industrial and Â“high riskÂ” Runoff: The permit holders shall continue to implement a program to identify and control pollutants in stormwater discharges to the MS4 from any municipal landfill(s); hazardous waste treatment storage, disposal and recovery facilities; facilities that are subject to EPCRA Title III, Section 313; and any other industrial or commercial discharge that the permit holders determine is contributing a substantial pollutant loading to the MS4. To satisfy the two (2) requirements of this section, the permit holders shall: a. Identification of Priorities and Procedures for Inspections: In accordance with the schedule provided in Part III.A.8.a, the pe rmit holders shall continue to identify all targeted facilities and determine priority sites. Inspection procedures and schedules for the identified facilities shall be implemented. b. Monitoring for Â“high riskÂ” Industries: To satisfy the requirements of this section, the permit holders shall implement the SWMP elements identified in Part III.A.8.b of this permit. The term Â“high riskÂ” contained in th e MS4 permit, therefore, includes three specifically listed dischargers, plus a broad category to cover any other industrial or commercial discharge that may be affecting the MS4 water quality. The task of defining the Â“otherÂ” category, which will be referred to as Â“high riskÂ” throughout this research, is the responsibility of the local MS4 operato r, and can vary depending on local conditions and priorities.
31 The Pinellas County Department of E nvironmental Management (PCDEM) has addressed this requirement by inspecting i ndustrial facilities th at fall within the unincorporated Pinellas County boundaries (Weed, 2004). These inspections have included the three specifically listed categ ories of industry within the Â“high riskÂ” definition, including landfills; hazardous waste tr eatment, storage, disposal, and recovery (TSDF) facilities; and faciliti es subject to EPCRA Title III, Section 313. The County has also included other facilities that have been labeled as Â“high riskÂ” by the County. This possible inspection list has in cluded both industrial facilitie s subject to the Generic permit, but also industrial sites, such as au tomotive repair shops, th at are not regulated by the Generic permit, but that may contribute substantial pollutant loads to the MS4. The County has not inspected commercial sites, such as retail operations, at the time of this research. The County has focused on manufact uring, waste management facilities, and salvage yards (Weed, 2004). A full-time employee has been added to the department to inspect industrial facilities, however, the inspect or is also tasked with other duties, such as responding to citizen complaints (Weed, 2004). Even with a more limited scope, the County personnel may potentially need to inspec t hundreds or even thousands of industrial facilities. The approach suggested by this re search of prioritizing fac ilities based on phone outreach may improve the CountyÂ’s efficiency by first targeting those facilities with a greater intensity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater and that may be contributing pollutants to the MS4.
32 III. A. 8. REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATED COMMUNITY The NPDES program relies on dischargers to obtain a permit in order to legally discharge pollutants into the nationsÂ’ waters Essentially, it is illegal to discharge pollutants without a permit; however, permitted discharges have been allowed. The way in which the regulations have dealt with di fferent pollutant sources and medias varied. Wastewater treatment plants, for example, ma y have been required to sample effluent daily or hourly and then report the results to the permitting agency. Some of these facilities may have employed a full or part-t ime employee simply to take and analyze water samples and to prepare reports for the permitting agency. This represents a significant effort on the part of the regul ated community to comply with permit requirements. Other discharges have been deal t with more laxly. For example, discharges to stormwater that may be incorporated into other urban runoff or directly into receiving waterbodies, have been relatively unregulated. Industries that are subject to stormwat er regulations have very limited water quality sampling, once they have implemente d BMPs. The reporting form is simplified and could likely be completed by any empl oyee trained in basic sampling methods. Compliance with these regulations, in term s of numerical sampling data, does not constitute a large burden to these industries. The desire d method of pollution control relies on voluntary pollution prevention strategi es, specific to each individual facility. Even when water quality parameters are measured and analyzed, the secondary and future effects of pollutants cannot always be determined. If a goal of the CWA is for all waterbodies to meet their designated beneficial uses, more complete assessments of water quality are needed.
33 Failure of the CWA to improve the natio nÂ’s water quality may stem from its reliance on self-monitoring and its case-by-case application of regulations (Smith, 1995). While this flexibility may be appreciated by industries, it makes it difficult for compliance to be measured and enforced. The CWA, unlike the Clean Air Act (CAA), has failed to establish nationwide criteria fo r certain pollutants. While the CAA sets numeric limits for a suite of air pollutants and then allows states or localities to strengthen the requirements, the CWA relies on state and local agencies to establish criteria and implement regulations. Regulat ors and those in the regulated community have usually promoted local control of lo calized issues, such as those affecting waterbodies. According to Smith (1995), us ually Â“state governments do not object to administering new programs, provided that they are given the funds necessary for implementation with an appropriate amount of local discretion.Â” Wh ile local discretion may be necessary for local industry compliance, it allows regulators to write increasingly broad regulations and prohibits analysis across spatial scales. The way in which a program is implemented in one region of the country may be vastly different than how it is implemented in another region. III. B. Policy Evaluation The following section will explain the rationale for evaluating policies. The literature review has already established the wa ter quality regulations that are currently in effect and the general developm ent of the industrial stormwater regulations. As discussed previously, the use of self-identification, na rrative standards, and self-selected pollution prevention strategies in the Generic permit and the use of the term Â“high riskÂ” in the MS4 permit is a departure from the traditional command-and-control regulations utilizing
34 numeric water quality standards. For these reasons, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of the industrial stormwater regulationÂ’s approach at protecting water quality. Regardless of the policy, evaluation is a necessary step that can help ensure policy makers and citizens that resources are being used effectively or that can suggest applicable improvements to current policies. II.B.1. RATIONALE FOR POLICY EVALUATION There are thousands of polic ies that have been made throughout the course of American history. The number of bills that are introduced into the legislature each year signifies the considerable effort that is made to ameliorate recognized problems and needs. In 2001, for example, 6,089 measures we re introduced in Congress during the first session of the 107th Congress (US Courts, 2002). The num erous public polic ies, including environmental policies, are created because of a recognized societal need. The evolution from a recognized problem to an implemen ted public policy involves numerous players and steps. It is widely perceived by public policy scholars that the evolution of a policy typically follows a predictable path (Jone s, 1984; Gerston, 2002). The policy process begins when an event, either natural or ma n-made, has an impact on persons in society and is considered to be a problem. When this problem cannot be dealt with on an individual or personal level, affected publics may seek help from the government (Jones, 1984). Incidentally, the role of government has increased, due in part to the emergence of new complex issues, such as environmental re gulation that cannot be solved on a local or state level (Gerston, 2002).
35 In addition to recognizing that a problem exists, other factors are necessary in the development of public policies. Fiorino ( 1995) described the policy making process as involving a Â“window of opportunity Â” in which conditions or issues that are defined as problems; the political stream, involving inte rest groups, instituti ons, and others that bring issues to the attention of governmen t; and policy alternatives for responding to problems all come together. In a rational decision-making framewor k, policy makers, once apprised of a problem, will conduct research and develop pol icy proposals. Â“RationalityÂ” was defined by Fiorino (1995) as a Â“conscious decision to ma ke the most of the available resources to achieve whatever it is one sets out to accomp lish.Â” This, subsequently requires clear and agreed upon goals, clearly defined political opt ions, fully informed people, and adequate information regarding the possible conseque nces of various options (Fiorino, 1995). The proposals should contain goals-measurable outcomes through which success can be evaluated, and plans-specific means for achie ving the goals. The various policy proposals should be evaluated, with the most effective proposal being chosen. A completely rational framework is not re alistic, although it is a state for which to strive. Simon (1976) has used the terms Â“satif icingÂ” and Â“bounded rationalityÂ” to describe the actual decision-making pr ocess. Â“SatificingÂ” suggest s that policy makers choose acceptable policies when they become available, rather than waiting for the best policy to arise. Â“Bounded rationalityÂ” implies that de cision makers are Â“boundedÂ” by factors such as time, information, money, and their ow n understanding (Fiorino, 1995). Therefore, the most effective policy may not be chosen due to various influences, such as the need to develop a policy within a certain timefram e or within a restrictive budget. Decision
36 makers should be aware of the tenets of ra tional decision-making while, at the same time, understanding their own limitations. Legitimation, or majority-coalition building, is also a necessary step before a bill will be approved by the legislature. Even n ecessary and well-written policies can fail if they do not generate enough political support. The process of majo rity-coalition building includes much compromise and will usually cr eate a policy that is Â“broad and diffuseÂ” (Peters, 2004) in an effort to please many and build support. The policy-making system involves a series of compromises. Assuming that original and new supporters are still accepting of the final policy and that majo rity approval was generated, appropriation should occur effortlessly. This is the fi nal step of the policy process prior to implementation. While decision-making in a rational format will deliver a policy that should be implementable and successful, politics are at work throughout the entire policy-making process, especially the final steps. The final policy may be considerab ly different than the original framework, due to negotiation, co mpromise, and other political factors. Additionally, the implementation of a policy may be different than the intention of policy makers. Consequently, well-intentioned polic ies can break down at various stages throughout the process, leading to a policy that makes incremental steps at best. Regardless of the original intent of policy makers, policies tend to cause small, rather than large, changes. The term Â“inc rementalismÂ” describes the small steps that accompany policy formation and implementation. This form of policy making is gradual and relies on adjustments to already exis ting policies (Jones, 1984). There are both advantages and disadvantages to this sy stem. The public policy process has been
37 criticized for failing to deliver substantial im pact and enact desired changes, especially by those involved in the initial stages of policy formulation. Those interested in major changes such as reformists will likely have to wait until subsequent policies are developed and approved, as most policies only make small changes. Decisions often rely on past decisions (Fiorino, 1995), ensuring that policies build upon the small changes made in previous years rather than relying on dramatic changes. This process, termed Â“muddling throughÂ” by Lindbloom (1959), however, ensures that policy mistakes can be easily corrected. Additionally, there is greater stability in policies that are based upon past experiences and this gradual process al lows goals to emerge gradually (Lindbloom, 1959 in Fiorino, 1995). While subsequent amendmen ts to the CWA can be described as incremental, the original statute represented a drastic7 and ambitious effort that set the stage for later regulations (Fiorino, 1995). Policy implementation is what occurs Â“between the formal enactment of a program by a legislative bodyÂ… and its intende d and unintended resultsÂ” (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1981). It has also be en described as a Â“process of interaction between the setting of goals and the actions geared to achieving themÂ” (Jones, 1984). Although there is often a blurring of lines between the formulation/adoption of a policy and its implementation, Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) s uggested that the stages be considered separately. Policies can, howev er, be modified during the implementation process. Regardless of the original intent and subseque nt passage of a policy, failure to implement a program as instructed or not at all, can negate the original goals. There are additional challenges at this point.
38 Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) discuss seve ral crucial variable s that can affect policy implementation, including: tractability of the problem, diversity of the behavior being regulated (industrial activities, for ex ample), the extent of behavioral change required, the clarity and precision of legal ob jectives, initial allocation of financial resources, integration within and among implementing institutions (EPA, FDEP, and Pinellas County, for example), and public support. The authors then suggest six conditions that may lead to effective im plementation: clear an d consistent policy objectives; a sound theory incorporating princi pal factors and causal linkages, assignment of implementation duties to appropriate agen cies, leadership ability in implementing agencies, program support by constituency groups, and consistency of statutory objectives over time (Mazmanian and Sabatier, 1983). This research will describe in following sections why the industrial stormw ater regulations are less effective than originally intended, based on so me of these principles. Policy implementation may suffer if the goals and directions are not clearly defined. Statutory interpreta tion by bureaucrats may be necessary for complex policy issues, however, some policies lack the cl ear and instructive language necessary for successful implementation. The vague language used in the Florida MS4 permits to describe Â“high riskÂ” industrial facilities may simultaneously empowe r local officials to implement region-specific appropriate stra tegies, while increasing their burdens and responsibilities. Conversely, va gue language may lead to inco nsistent interpretations and, possibly, weaker implementation overall (Jone s, 1984). Additionally, programs that are not funded or not funded sufficiently can suffe r. This may be especially common when responsibilities for implementation are dele gated to lower levels of government, as
39 illustrated with the NPDES permit program. Determining how successfully programs are implemented leads to the final step of the policy process. Once a policy has been approved, appr opriated, and implemented, the policy process is not complete. Policy evaluation is a final and important step. Evaluation allows policy analysts to determine the impact of a policy on th e targeted group, while noting secondary effects of the policy as well. Unle ss this step is comple ted, it is difficult or impossible to ascertain whether a policy ha s accomplished its intended goals. Policy analysis occurs for scientific or theore tical reasonsto unde rstand the causes and consequences of policy decisions for the sa ke of increasing societal knowledge, or for professional or empirical reasonsin order to apply the social scie nce knowledge to the solution of practical problems (Benton, 2004). An important objective of any policy evaluation, however, is the evaluation of wh ether certain programs are worth continuing and, if not, how they can be appr opriately revised (Jones, 1984). The establishment of goals is a crucia l part of policy making and, while it does not always occur during formulation, it can benefit persons that implement the policy, evaluate the policy, or are affected by the pol icy. The policy process should begin with goal setting and prioritization because, unless goal s are specified, it is difficult to critique whether a policy has been effective. A lack of goals also increases the difficulty of implementing policies. Bureaucratic agen cies or other persons assigned with implementation should not have to guess as to the goals of the polic y. Doing so may alter the policy makersÂ’ original intent, while increasing the demands on implementing agencies. Additionally, unclear or broad goa ls may result in a policy that achieves unintended or undesired results.
40 This research has strived to evaluate the dual-level system of industrial stormwater regulations, based on the original and continuing goals of the CWA. These types of evaluations of environmental polic ies are important, yet they may occur too infrequently. II.B.2. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY EVALUATION Evaluation is a critical part of any policy process, regard less of the intended audience and goals. Environmental policies requi re evaluation because, as important and visible components of American society, they can achieve desi rable societal effects, but also require resource allocation. Resources th at are devoted to environmental protection, whether they are focused on reducing air emissi ons or controlling pollutants in industrial stormwater, cannot be used for other program s. Additionally, federal, state, and local agencies are often forced to prioritize program s in order to maximize available resources. Ideally, resources should be directed to problems that are the most deserving (Fiorino, 1995). Evaluation provides an opportunity to de termine the actual results of intended policies and whether limited resources ar e being used wisely (Fiorino, 1995). While policy and program evaluation is common for other public policy areas, such as education, social, or health programs, it is relatively rare in the environmental field (Knapp and Kim, 1998). Environmenta l problems are complicated to solve because they rely both upon rational decision-making pr ocesses, as well as other influences, such as cultural goals and personal desires, such as the desire for prot ected parks or freeflowing rivers. Fields such as environmental science are based upon the scientific method and ideally present unbiased, fact-based rese arch. This reliance on empirical information is evident in the myriad data and inform ation sources, ranging from water samples and
41 animal population studies to hydrological ma ps and computer modeling. Even so, a study by the General Accounting Office from 1995 sugge sted that Â“many of the data that EPA uses to characterize environmental quality are either incomplete, missing, or obsoleteproblems that encompass all media areasÂ” (Solomon, 1998). Non-scientific factors ar e also important to consider when making and implementing environmental policy. Regardle ss of the quantity and quality of data available, Â“making environmental policy is above all else about governmentÂ” (Fiorino, 1995). Therefore, it should be understood that other factors come into play when making policy. According to Birch (1998), environm ental policy Â“may be the area in which quasi-experimental designs and practical eval uation techniques can work together to produce sound policy interventions.Â” Notable influences on environmental pol icy making include visible environmental disasters, such as the spilli ng of oil from the Exxon Valdez; media attention, such as the widely-publicized 20th anniversary of Earth Da y; and citizen initiativ es, such as those in California which required companies using or producing toxic chemicals to report them to local citizens (Fiorino,1995; Oates, 1999). Local conditions can also shape policies and direct resources, depending on the nature and severity of local environmental problems. Air pollution, for example, is a more probl ematic in areas such as Los Angeles, California, that are typically in non-attainment zones (areas that do not meet the national air quality standards), whereas the contamination of estuar ies and open oceans is more problematic for coastal states. Subsequentl y, state and local orga nizations may allocate greater resources for locally important issues.
42 The administrative branch can certainly affect policy formation, passage, and implementation. The resistance of President Ni xon to pass the CWA c ould have led to a drastically different outcome had his veto not been overtur ned. As noted earlier, the Reagan administrationÂ’s focus on decreasing regulatory burde n for private industries led to the qualitative goals and strategies employed by the NPDES industrial stormwater regulations. The allocation of resources and the priority of envi ronmental protection by the administration can alter how polices ar e interpreted and implemented. Although the focus on environmental issues decreased dur ing ClintonÂ’s eight years in office, he attempted to enact numerous last-minute pol icies, including the consideration of developing the EPA into a Cabinet level posi tion (Switzer, 2004). Ma ny of those policies, such as designating new national monuments, ha ve since been overturned or rolled back as a result of President George W. BushÂ’s administrative policie s and his choice of political appointees to environmental positions (Switzer, 2004). The influential effect of the administration on environmental policy shou ld not be ignored. In addition to making or repealing policies, the cons cious desire to implement or not implement current policies can impact how problems are addressed. Failing to implement a policy is a form of action in and of itself (Benton, 2004). Environmental policy evaluation is also complicated by the fact that environmental problems may be inherently co mplex and may not fit ne atly into political boundaries or even environmental resource ar eas. Policies such as the CAA and the CWA compartmentalize broad issues into artificia lly small pieces (Fiorino, 1995), however, an environmental contaminant is not always restri cted to one media. Polluted air emissions, from factories or automobiles, for example, initiate as an air qua lity problem. When
43 pollutants and particulates fall back to the Ea rthÂ’s surface as wet or dry deposition, it may fall onto waterbodies, lead to water qualit y effects. Some toxic materials may be regulated by more than one regulation. E nvironmental issues may also extend beyond political boundaries. It is wi dely believed that, in orde r to improve water quality, management and abatement of pollution shoul d occur on a watershed level (Burton and Pitt, 2002; Horner et al. 1994). A watershed is geographic por tion of land that drains to a common waterbody, such as a lake or ocean. Pinellas County, Florida is not contained wholly within one watershed; while some por tions of the County drain to the Tampa Bay, other portions drain into the Gulf of Mexico (See Figure A-1). Therefore, numerous political entities need to cooperate to succe ssfully attack environmental problems. While this may seem insignificant, it illustrates the complexity that is inherent in many environmental issues. This complexity, unfortunately, often make s it more difficult to establish clear, causal linkages. Â“IndicatorsÂ” of policy success are desirabl e and can help determine whether policies have accomplished their goals. It may be difficult, however, to link these measures to actual environmenta l results (Fiorino, 1995). Horner et al. (1994) also noted the difficulty of understanding how aquatic or ganisms will be affected by urban runoff discharges, such as industrial stormwater. Be cause local variability is also important, deleterious effects may occu r in one region of the count ry but not in another. Successful evaluation is also hindered by the fragmentation of federal programs that are administered at state and loca l levels (Mangun, 1998). Once lower levels of government accept primacy for implementation, the role of EPA may shift from implementing policies to esta blishing national standards and conducting program reviews
44 (Mangun, 1998). While the EPA may collect data on how a program is being implemented, it is unlikely that program review will extend beyond Â“bean counting;Â” EPA may be more concerned with complian ce rates that actual improvements in water quality, for example (Mangun, 1998). Finally, as discussed in Section III.C.3, current environmental program and policy evaluations rely heavily on se lf-monitoring by industry, which is infrequently verified through monitoring by regulators (Solomon, 1998) Because pollutant-generating activity is often decentralized or diffuse, monito ring efforts are difficult if not performed proactively by regulated entities (Magat and Viscusi, 1990). Additiona lly, violations are generally treated leniently, as evident by the few examples of CWA penalties issued to facilities not in compliance (Solomon, 1988). Nevertheless, environmental policy ma kers should strive for policies that maximize social resources and that can be created, implemented, and evaluated in a rational process (Fiorino, 1995). This applied research is useful because it is a precursor to policy reformulation and more effective policy making. Applied rese arch can identify weaknesses in policies, regardless of their originati ons. In addition to political fa ctors involved during the policy process, other factors can weaken a polic y and hinder successful implementation. The CWA has been amended numerous times to accommodate increased knowledge, improved technology, citizen demands, or as a result of lawsuits. It could be argued however, that rather than con tinuing to amend the CWA, a new system for the regulation of stormwater may be preferable. The MS4 in spection requirement, in particular, appears to be the kind of policy adaptation, termed Â“satisficingÂ” suggested by Simon (1976). The
45 NPDES system was established to limit discha rges from point sources of pollution, such as wastewater, using numeric limits and comm and-and-control strategies. It was not until the NRDC lawsuit against EPA that stormwater runoff was included as a point source in the 1987 NPDES amendments. This may not be the most appropriate manner in which to regulate this source. In addition to the incongruence between poi nt sources and stormwater runoff, the industrial stormwater regulat ions were also promulgated during the 1980s when the Reagan administration had a mandate to reduce burden on industry and reduce governmental regulation (Rosenbaum, 2005; Switzer, 2004; Vig and Kraft, 2003). Therefore, the regulations take the form of pollution prevention, narrative water quality standards, and self-identificat ion by industry. This structure, however, is very different from the regulatory prescrip tion for wastewater and indus trial discharges that are potentially more burdensome due to their use of numeric limits. The self-implemented nature of the stormwater regulations generates low compliance with the Generic permit. This failure of the Generic permit system, in turn, led to the need for industry inspections by MS4 permit holders. The redundancy of regulating industrial facilities for pollutant discharges to stormwater may not be necessary if compliance on an industry-wide ba sis with the general permit were higher. Subsequent lawsuits by the NRDC have continued to alter the treatment of industry under the NPDES permit program. For example, conditionally exempt Â“lightÂ” industry and smaller construction sites (less th an five acres) are now required to follow the identical guidelines as Â“heavyÂ” manufact uring and larger construction sites (see NRDC v. Costle ). While the stricter guidelines that exist today may be beneficial for
46 water quality improvement, the amendment proc ess illustrates their imperfect nature. They demonstrate incremental steps whereby amendments were made unto existing regulations rather than proposing a new polic y that may have been more effective at addressing stormwater runoff. The purpose of this research evaluation has been to assess how the redundant permits work togeth er and how they could be improved. III.B.3. EVALUATION OF THE C LEAN WATER ACT REGULATORY APPROACH The broad goal of the CWA is to impr ove the nationÂ’s wate r quality through the reduction of pollution. The CWA uses a multi-pronged approach for reducing water pollution, thereby, improving aquatic, ecologi cal, and human health. This section will discuss the various regulatory strategies available for the protection of water quality, ranging from command-and-co ntrol numeric limits to purely voluntary pollution reduction programs. The industrial stormwater regulations are unique because, while they are not voluntary, they were es tablished based on the principl es of self-identification and self-selected BMP strategies. Within the environmental field, there are numerous methods in which environmental compliance and/or protection are achieved. The most prevalent form is Â“command-and-controlÂ” regulations, whereby standards are set within the law (Lyon and Maxwell, 2001). The CAA and the CWA both utilize forms of command-and-control. The NPDES wastewater regulations and the CAA permit program rely on end-of-the-pipe (or stack) solutions. The CWA incorporates numerical effluent limitations in its regulation of point source discharges, such as industrial wastewater or POTWs (CWA Section 301, Title III). The CAA sets ambi ent air quality standards and establishes
47 emission limits for a variety of pollutants (CAA Section 501). This means that waste products, whether released to the air, water, or land, are to be treated chemically, biologically, or physically prior to their re lease into the environment. These waste products are still produced, however, treatmen t efforts are required to reduce their toxicity, strength, or quantity to meet specific numeric limits at the point of discharge and in ambient conditions. Terms such as Â“Best Available TechnologyÂ” and Â“Best Available Control TechnologyÂ” have been used to descri be the standards that are applied, based on the treatment technology. In many cases, specif ic technologies have been prescribed in the regulations, such as the catalytic conve rter as a reducer of harmful automobile emissions. In other cases, facilities are given a permit for a specific load or concentration of pollutant and are responsible for resear ching and designing the most cost-effective strategies for their industry and needs. Thes e strategies, however, have been criticized by economists and industry as being inflexib le and expensive (Lyon and Maxwell, 2001). Essentially, each individual facility is trea ted equally, although the cost and effort to attain compliance may vary greatly betw een and among industries and individual facilities. While practical as a first step in an essentially new environmental arena, command-and-control is not the only option, nor is it always the be st option for industry, regulators, or the public. Other innovative solu tions exist that allow industry to be more involved and to choose options that are le ss burdensome. Economists and industry are generally supportive of self-monitoring and individualized management plans. Marketbased initiatives began in th e late 1980s (Lyon and Maxwell, 2001) as a response to the command-and-control rigidity. For example, an air emissions-trading program through
48 the CAA allows industry to trade emissions credits between other industries. An individual facility, therefor e, has the option of purchas ing and utilizing pollutionreduction technology, or purchasing available emi ssions credits. In theory, the total air emissions will remain unchanged and facilitie s will be allowed to choose their most appropriate management strategies. Another departure from command-and c ontrol approaches is to reduce or eliminate pollution sources during the producti on processes themselv es, rather treating waste products after they ar e generated. Pollution preventi on, or P2, has become a popular, but often voluntary, approach to reduc ing hazardous wastes. The concept of P2 was to reduce environmental maladies by not producing harmful substances that would be disposed of via the various environmental medias. This idea began to take hold in the 1990s when firms would voluntarily produce fewer waste products than the level required by the law (Lyon and Maxwell, 2001). Followi ng are several examples of voluntary, regulatory, or industry-led initiatives. Voluntary approaches and se lf-reporting by industry have primarily been applied to hazardous or toxic substances. The Â“33/50 ProgramÂ” was initiated following the EPAÂ’s increased focus on toxic substances. Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, comm only known as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), requi res that companies report releases of more than 400 different chemicals (Lyon and Maxwell, 2001). These amendments focused on larger quantity generators and the EPA required that the chemical release data was made available to the public as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). As a result of these new requirements, the EPA proposed a voluntary strategy in February 1991 (Lyon
49 and Maxwell, 2001; USEPA, 1999). The Â“33/ 50 ProgramÂ” encouraged firms to reduce their emissions of 17 toxic chemical s by 33% by 1992 and by 50% by 1995 (USEPA, 1999). Emissions for the selected chemical s decreased by 42% from 1991 to 1994; still, the program was criticized b ecause it lacked regulatory penalties and did not require firms to participate (Lyon and Maxwell, 2001 ). The Â“33/50 ProgramÂ” is an example of a purely voluntary program. The Â“Responsible CareÂ” Plan was an industr y-led initiative th at was started in 1985 by the Canadian Chemical Producers Asso ciation in response to the industrial accident in Bhopal, India that killed 2,500 people and injured 200,000 when methyl isocyanate gas leaked from a Union Carb ide storage tank (Lyon and Maxwell, 2001). The US and the British Chemical Industries Association (CIA) began programs in 1989 (Lyon and Maxwell, 2001). Over 200 companies have taken part in the program, which strives to improve environmental performance, sa fety measures, and public disclosure. Involvement in voluntary, self-regulati ng programs can be beneficial to the environment and to industry. Improving effi ciency of production, thereby limiting waste products, can save resources and increase a fi rmÂ’s bottom line. Utilizing fewer chemicals and/or applying best management strate gies can reduce occupational hazards and improve employee-working conditions. Designing and utilizing more e fficient or cleaner technologies may better prepare firms for fu ture regulations, especially if greater reductions are forthcoming. Advertising or publicizing concern for the environment can improve public image, especially following vi sible events, such as the Bhopal accident. Firms that voluntarily reduce emissions a nd dischargers may have a competitive advantage over larger polluters, although some researchers cha llenge the idea that
50 pollution prevention can raise Â“both corporat e profits and consumer well-beingÂ” (Lyon and Maxwell, 2001). Finally, demonstrating pr oven reduction strategies may stave off future regulatory monitoring, offering a sort of assurance that their firm will be treated more favorably or be subject to fewer insp ections than other firms (Lyon and Maxwell, 2001; Maxwell and Decker, 1998). On a local level, communities often employ various pollution prevention programs and encourage voluntary participati on from area businesses. In the Tampa Bay region, for example, nitrogen-discharging f acilities, such as power plants, phosphate industries, and agriculture have voluntarily agreed to redu ce nitrogen loads to the bay as part of a Â“Nitrogen Management StrategyÂ” (TBEP, 1998). This cooperative partnership of local governments and industry is essential for protecting the health of Tampa Bay, as well as providing Â“reasonable assuranceÂ” to the FDEP that wate r quality improvements are possible, in lieu of preparing a TMDL for the estuary. Other communities engage local businesses, such as auto repair shops or salvage yards, in pollution prevention training and best management practices. The NPDES industrial stormwater regulat ionsÂ’ General Permit is one component of the broad CWA. Although ta rgeted industries are requir ed to pay a permit fee and implement various pollution pr evention strategies, fines on industry are rarely assessed (Solomon, 1998). There have been various pe nalty structures built into the CWA to address negligent or intentional violations of certain sections or to permits (by a federal or state government). Negligent violators ma y be fined up to $25,000 a day or spend up to one year in jail while knowing violat ors could face $50,000 a day in fines and up to three years in jail; these fines and incarceration du ration can double for a second
51 conviction (CWA Section 309). Additionally, persons who falsify information, including material statements or applications, may be fined up to $10,000 a day and up to two years in jail (CWA Section 309). It has been uncommon, however, fo r fines to be assessed for failure to comply with industrial stormwater re gulations, especially if a facility has failed to file a NOI (Weed, 2004). In essence, th ere have been few real consequences for industries that do not comply. Additionally, the Generic permit program relie s on self-identification of facilities. An individual facility may elect to not comp ly, choosing to wait until they are forced to comply, rather than doing so proactively. Ther efore, a facility that Â“slips under the radarÂ” may go undetected for decades, potentially saving significant resources. The policy desires to engage the indust rial community in voluntary pollution prevention measures and best management practices. A substantial goal of the policy, cons equently, should be to educate industrial owners, operators, and staff about the impact that industrial facilities may have upon stormwater and, their regul atory requirements. A broader goal of community education regarding stormwat er pollution may also be important. The NPDES industrial stormwater regulat ions, as discussed, are not voluntary. Failure to apply for a permit and proceed with approved best management strategies and water quality sampling can result in fines of up to $25,000 a day and possible incarceration. However, as demonstrated in ot her regions of the country, compliance with these regulations is low (Duke and Shaver 1999; Duke ,2006). In Pinellas County, less than 100 facilities had an ac tive Generic permit as of Se ptember, 2005 (FDEP, 2005b). The list of Generic permits incl uded all industrial f acilities, not just the four industrial categories targeted by this research. The to tal number for those categories was less than
52 20 facilities. The current indus trial stormwater program relie s of self-identification by industry. While compliance is not voluntary, i ndustry has essentially been free to not comply until forced to do so. Freeman (2000) suggested that self-identification is an example of participation by the regulated community. Limited research on this subject has revealed that it may be grossly ineffective, with compliance hovering around 10% or less (Duke and Augustenborg, 2005). The poor compliance with the Generic perm it has, subsequently, led to the need for MS4 inspections of Â“high riskÂ” industrial f acilities. This has functioned as an ad hoc quasi-experimental addition to the regulations (Birch, 1998), w ith little evaluation of the effectiveness of the approach. Besides resear ch by Duke, few scholars or public agencies have addressed these regulations. The MS4 pe rmits have been designed so that the EPA or state-permitting agency can delegate the task of finding facilities that may be contributing pollutant loads to stormwater to the local agencies and MS4 permit holders. This is in recognition that the Generic perm it has failed to affect many facilities and serves as a practical response to a failed policy. Additional resear ch on this approach could improve understanding of weaknesse s and allow for improved policies. III.C. Current Water Policy Research The following section explores current re search on the CWA a nd its industrial stormwater regulations. It addresses the lack of research tailored speci fically to industrial stormwater regulations. A brief section describes the industria l literature written for the regulated community and the general sentim ent regarding the industrial stormwater regulations. The regulatory review then discusses research performed on other environmental regulations that inco rporate self-regul ation tactics.
53 III.C.1. CLEAN WATER ACT AND NPDE S INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER REGULATIONS Numerous efforts have been made to assess the Clean Water Act as a whole, such as Â“The Clean Water Act 20 Years LaterÂ” by Adler et al. (1993) and Â“The Clean Water Act Updated for 1997Â” by Water Environment F oundation (1997), however there is little mention of the industrial stormwater regula tions in these texts. Research on the effectiveness of these regulations has been scarce and available research regarding industrial stormwater has typica lly been related to best mana gement practices, rather than the effectiveness of the regulations. Many of these articles have appeared in journals published by industry organizations, rather than in peer reviewed sc holarly journals, and have served as compliance guidance for th e regulated community. A search of policy journals revealed even fewer resources. The majority of the published research on industrial stormwater complia nce has focused on the economics of compliance. These studies assumed that compliance was occurri ng and were designed instead to determine the resources required by industry to comply with the NPDES stormwater regulations. While this information may be useful to gove rnment and industry, it has done little to identify the numerous facilities that have not complied with regulations. One of the few attempts to learn more a bout the industrial stormwater regulations was performed in the mid 1990s. The Water En vironment Federation surveyed industrial facilities to determine the cost of complia nce with stormwater regulations and the strategies perceived to be most effective by industry at reducing pollutants (WEF, 1996). WEF sent questionnaires to 7,500 industrial f acilities nation-wide and received input from 584 (a return rate of 8.2%). This study is problematic in that it relied on a self-
54 selected sample of industry that may not re flect the views of th e entire industrial population. Nevertheless, the results have been presented here as an example of research that has been performed, re gardless of its limitations. Industry reported that pollution preven tion plans, capital improvements and annual maintenance fees cost upwards of $30,000 (WEF, 1996). Less than one-third of the respondents felt that wate r quality improvements were worth the expenditures. Most reported that simple pollution preventi on; incorporating good housekeeping, spill prevention and response, preventative main tenance, visual inspection, and employee training; were the most effective strate gies (WEF, 1996). Of the available site modifications, ponds and containment struct ures, along with increased and improved storage, were rated highest (WEF, 1996). Industrial owners and operators reported th at compliance with regulations, in the form of pollution prevention plans and best management practices, was expensive to implement, with the average cost for pr eparation of a P2 plan at $7,500 (WEF, 1996). More importantly, the respondents noted th at the regulations were complex and burdensome and that there was little or no follow-through by the enforcing agencies. They also felt that other pollu tant sources or discharges ca used more pollution and that remote and small sites should not be contro lled, as compliance was a hassle for small businesses (WEF, 1996). Although 59.6% felt that water quality improve d as a result of water quality analyses, only 9.2% thought that there was a significant improvement and the majority responded that a disproportiona te amount of money was required for only minor improvements to water quality (WEF, 1996).
55 The WEF study illustrates the incompleteness of knowledge regarding compliance with industrial stormwater regula tions. While a concerted attempt was made to contact a representative sample of i ndustries throughout the c ountry, there was little information on the multitude of facilities that were technically required to comply but had not yet fulfilled that obligation. Research by Duke et al. (1999a) provided more complete knowledge on the poor compliance rates, but not about the impact of non-compliance on water quality. The WEF study, while limited, did address some of the reactions by the regulated community that may be reluctant to self-identify and implement potentially costly BMPs. The U.S. General Accounting Office examined urban runoff programs in a 2001 report to Congress (USGAO, 2001). The study examined local government actions and the measures needed to control stormwater runoff. However, the study did not address industrial facilities (USGAO, 2001). The report, entitled Â“Bette r Data and Evaluation of Urban Runoff Program Needed to Assess Effect ivenessÂ” fell short of its objective of making thoughtful recommendations by failing to include analysis of the industrial stormwater regulations. The conclusion, which was spelled out in the title, was that evaluation of various urban runoff programs is needed. This research has responded by addressing the potential impact of stormwater discharge origination from industrial facilities. Although more attention has been paid to point sources of pollution, even data supporting discharge reductions are inadequate. Each industria l facility that discharges pollutants from a point source is required to obtain an NPDES permit. EPA is then responsible for issuing effluent guidelines and collecting effluent data. A 2004 evaluation
56 report by the Office of Inspector General found th at the lack of systematically collected data for industrial point sources coul d not support statements made by the EPA suggesting pollutant reductions in the b illions of pounds (OIG, 2004). A response by the Office of Water highlighted the lack, and subsequent n ecessity, of actual pollutant discharge data (OIG, 2004). The importance of this report was the realization that even the point source industrial NPDES regulations, which have been more closely monitored than the stormwater regulations have been inadequate and ha ve lacked the necessary data to evaluate effectiveness. Some of the cited improvements to the point source NPDES regulations could also apply to the stormwater regulations. For example, the Office of Inspector General concluded that Â“issuing wate r discharge permits in a timely manner has been a challenge for EPAÂ” (OIG, 2004) and th at the program Â“suffers from a marked insufficiency of information to make ma nagerial decisions, because EPA has not developed a systematic way of collecting such informationÂ” (OIG, 2004). It is expected that the industrial stormwater regulations have suffered simi lar weaknesses due to unclear direction regarding implementation, especially in the MS4 permits. III.C.2. DISCUSSION OF INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER REGULATIONS IN INDUSTRIAL LITERATURE The industrial community has approached the stormwater regulations with mixed reactions. In general, larg er and more organized industries, such as chemical manufacturers, have taken proactive steps to deal with these a nd other environmental regulations. For example, the U.S. Chemical ManufacturerÂ’s Responsible Care Program has strived to Â“improve environmental, hea lth and safety performance in response to
57 public concernsÂ” (King and Lenox, 1993). This program represents self-regulation, designed to increase pro-ac tive pollution control. Coverage of industrial stormwater re gulations in industry newsletters or professional magazines has typically focuses on ways that businesses can comply with the regulations or addresses criticisms or concerns. For example, in an article in Pollution Engineering a discussion of Phase II NPDES stor mwater regulations reviewed the six minimum control measures and suggestions for BMPs (Barnard, 2002). A discussion in National Petroleum News stated, Â“nationwide permits are costly and can be timeconsuming to obtainÂ” (Barlas, 2000). The focus of the article was on the lack of regulations for convenience stores and gasoline stations, seen as positive for the industry. Industries that were included under the stormwat er regulations were thought to Â“have it toughÂ” (Barnard, 2000). The need for BMPs and P2 strategies has increased the focus on innovative and cost-effective techniques. I ndustrial literature serves the needs of the regulated community through discussions of manufactured BMPs for stormwat er, suggesting that maintenance will soon Â“become more routineÂ” as more NPDES regulations are approved (Singer Coxe, 2002). The need for quantitative evidence to show that BMPs function as promised is also explained, especially given the resources needed for some BMPs (Singer Coxe, 2002). Once a facility has filed a NOI, the selection of BMPs appropriate to the individual facility has been demonstrated to be costly and time-consuming. A benefit-cost analysis of several stormwat er quality management practices in Los Angeles, California suggested an eight-step method for c hoosing a management practice (Kalman et al .,
58 2000). While this model may have been more appropriate on a basinwide scale or by local stormwater agencies, the inclusi on of steps such as Â“establish pollution concentration thresholdsÂ” and Â“estimate economic values for unimpaired beneficial usesÂ” (Kalman et al ., 2000) illustrated the difficulty in se lecting BMPs that are not only costeffective but also environmentally desirable. It is important that industry recognize s its responsibility under the CWA and responds proactively to regulations (Horner et al. 1994). Industry and trade journals can serve as appropriate educational tools. Compliance rates may improve if, in addition to addressing the costs and BMP strategies, these articles explained the potential effects of industrial pollutants. This may serve as a useful information portal for agencies implementing the industrial st ormwater regulations. III.D. Regulatory Setting This section will explain the regulatory authority of the State of Florida to implement the NPDES regulations and then provide a discussion of the various approaches throughout the State to address the Â“high riskÂ” requirement of the MS4 permit. Various MS4 permit holders were cont acted regarding their interpretation of the phrase and their subsequent implementation st rategies. These demonstrate the variety of approaches used and compare them to the Pinellas County strategy. The section concludes with a brief description of the char acteristics of Pinellas County, Florida, the research study location. It will do this by co mparing the industrial makeup of the county with the State of Florida and th e United States figures. This serves to assess whether the study location is very similar or very different than the state and nation as a whole, which could influence the transferability of the research results.
59 III.D.1. STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS The State of Florida currently regulates and issues permits for stormwater discharges within the state. In October, 2000, the EPA grante d authority to the State of Florida to implement the NPDES stormwater regulations through Rule 62-621.300(5) (a), F.A.C. (FDEP, 2000b; FDEP, 2004). The state adopted the federal regulations and its subsequent revisions as the state regulations. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is, therefore, responsible for issuing individual, group, and general permits to industrial faciliti es; construction permits; and MS4 permits. Pinellas County was issued its MS4 permit on March 1, 2004. The permit holders include the unincorporated county, along with 22 municipalities (FLS000005, 2004). The Pinellas County government is responsible for implementation within the unincorporated Pinellas County, while the i ndividual municipalities are responsible for their own implementation. Indus trial inspections within th e unincorporated areas are performed by the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management (DEM). The City of St. Petersburg, also located in Pinellas C ounty, was issued its own MS4 permit and, therefore, was not in cluded in this research III.D.2 INTERPRETATION OF Â“HIGH RI SKÂ” BY FLORIDA MS4 PERMIT HOLDERS The nebulous phrase Â“high riskÂ” used in the MS4 permits is been significantly different from the clearly defined industr ial categories used in the Generic permit language. In order to more accurately a ddress the success of Pinellas CountyÂ’s interpretation and to demonstrate weaknesse s in the current regulatory language, several other Florida MS4 permit holders were contact ed regarding their Â“high riskÂ” industrial
60 identification and inspection approach. This pr esentation of local in terpretation has been included to demonstrate the inconsistencies between the federal definition of included facilities, based on the 11 categories of industry, and MS4 permit language, which has relied on local interpretation. Prior to contacting MS4 operators, it wa s already understood that Â“high riskÂ” is defined differently by MS4 permit holders. It is important to note, however, that none of the contacted MS4 operators have incorrec tly defined Â“high risk.Â” The individual implementation strategies chosen by MS4 opera tors may be shaped by many factors, such as how densely populated or industrialized a ju risdiction is or the resources available for implementation. Because Â“high riskÂ” classificat ion may be intimately linked to the local area, the operationalized definitions from ot her permit holders have been used only for generating ideas and making comparisons. Howeve r, they were also useful as a tool signifying the level of effort undertaken by each MS4 permit holder in identifying and inspecting Â“high riskÂ” facilities. It was originally hypothesi zed that Pinellas County was utilizing a more extensive and thorough, but also more res ource-intensive, appr oach than this research proposed. It was also suggested that attempting to define th e term Â“high riskÂ” may be a useful exercise for other municipalities and could help guide permit holder inspection priorities, especially those in the beginning stages of implementation. The undefined phrase Â“high ri skÂ” contained in the Pi nellas County permit is identical to that for other MS4 permit holders in Florida. Examples from the EPA website also suggested that this language has exte nded beyond Florida and may be used in the MS4 permits for numerous other states. Sample MS4 permits for Texas and Oklahoma,
61 for example, utilized the same language with regards to industrial facilities (CC, 2005; OC, 2005). Informal interviews were conducted w ith nine different MS4 permit holders throughout Florida to determine the manner in which industrial and Â“h igh riskÂ” runoff is addressed. The contacted MS4 permit holders rang ed from small, incorporated cities to larger county departments. Although there were some similarities, such as an emphasis on hazardous materials, the formal or inform al Â“high riskÂ” definitions varied widely. The Pinellas County MS4 permit is jointly held with 22 other municipalities. Among them, the City of Largo focuses on facil ities that are subject to the industrial pretreatment program with the rationale that if a f acility utilizes a substance that is hazardous enough to be a problem for wastewater, then it may be hazardous to stormwater also (Sepessey, 2005). While the Stormwater Prog ram Coordinator defined Â“high riskÂ” as Â“anything that would harm the environment or cause a problem for the stormwater or sanitary sewers,Â” he also noted that light manufacturing probably did not fit into the Â“high riskÂ” classification. The City of St. Petersburg, a separate permit holder within Pinellas County, focuses on fac ilities from the FDEPÂ’s list of EPCRA Title III, Section 313 facilities (listed expl icitly in the MS4 permit) (Adams, 2005). Inspected facilities that are fully enclosed and have no processes or equipment in contact with precipitation would still be Â“high riskÂ” if utilizing or pr oducing hazardous materials, but would not, in the cityÂ’s opinion, be required to apply for the Generic permit. If the city were to expand its current program, it would ut ilize the list of SIC codes, along with current business operating permits (Adams, 2005). The City of Tallahassee uses only the three categories listed in the MS4 permit to identify Â“high ri skÂ” facilities, i.e., landfills, TSDFs, and
62 EPCRA Title III Section 313 f acilities (Watkins, 2005). The use or production of hazardous materials is also important to this permit holder. In addition to seeking out facilities with hazardous materials, the city utilizes EPCRA thresholds for hazardous material when defining Â“high riskÂ” facilities. The term Â“h igh riskÂ” is only assigned to facilities with hazardous materials (Watkins, 2005). The use of the Small Quantity Genera tors (SQG) list was cited by both MiamiDade County and neighboring Hillsborough County. Within Miami-Dade, more than 8,000 industrial facilities used, produced, or disp osed of hazardous materials of wastes at the time of the interview (Abrahante, 2005). While there is no formal industrial stormwater inspection program, these facilitie s have all been inspected on a periodic basis by other county departments. This count y has chosen to implement separate permit requirements for SQGs that require an annual permit, ranging from $175 to over $7,000 (Abrahante, 2005). Facilities are prioritized based on the dispos al practices, ranging from no off-site disposal to direct discharge to a receiving waterbody. Along with the permit cost, the facilities are inspected and give n BMP and P2 suggestions. Although this approach has included a signifi cant quantity of facilities ut ilizing hazardous materials, there has been no emphasis on compliance with the Generic permit. Inspections include stormwater aspects, however, inspectors do not focus on increasing awareness or compliance with the Generic permit (Abrahante 2005). The programs that currently inspect SQGs were originally intended to protect MiamiDade CountyÂ’s groundwater, not MS4s or receiving waterbodies (Abrahante, 2005). Therefore, pollu tant discharges to MS4s are less important.
63 Hillsborough County also performs inspect ions at thousands of SQG facilities, plus it has supplemented its list with facili ties on the EPAÂ’s TRI list (Glicksberg, 2005). The SQG list includes both facilities that ma y contribute pollutant s to stormwater and those that likely will not, such as retail cellular stores locate d in shopping malls (Glicksberg, 2005). Regular SQG inspections ha ve been expanded to include stormwater violations, however, separate stormwater inspections to s upport the Generic permit have not been implemented. Hillsborough County offi cials have expressed interest in more accurately defining Â“high riskÂ” for their ju risdiction by both narrowing the SQG list and expanding the program beyond SQG facilities. In contrast to the above examples, bot h the City of Lakeland and Polk County have expanded, or are in th e process of expanding their i ndustrial lists beyond the three listed industry types or those using hazar dous materials by incorporating the NPDES industrial classifications by SIC code. Th e Polk County NPDES stormwater section compiled a list of approximately 365 facilitie s that is inspecte d every five years (Mikolon, 2005). More than 70 facilities have been inspected each year. Polk County began expanding beyond the three listed cate gories by utilizing vari ous industry lists, such as those from the county or the Ce ntral Florida Development Council (Mikolon, 2005). The county prioritizes facilities based on stormwat er controls, stormwater discharge points, erosion, routine maintenan ce of stormwater contro ls, facility products and services, waste disposal practices, and other aspects (Mikolon, 2005). On-site inspections, therefore, are an important component for prioritization. The City of Lakeland, an incorporated city within Polk County, is undergoing a similar process and is attempting to determine the most appropriate m eaning of the term Â“high risk,Â” a term that
64 is not currently used in the city (Larrow, 2005). It is likely that the City of Lakeland program will be similar to the program already established in Polk County. Finally, the City of Jacksonv ille defines Â“high riskÂ” as any facility listed in one of the 11 industrial categories defined by EPA. The city actively updates its industrial databases using lists from various agencies, su ch as the FDEP, Department of Health, and the St. Johns River Water Management District (Adeshile, 2005). The city does not target any specific industrial category or SIC code a nd inspects each facili ty between three and four times annually. Facilities that do not ha ve any exposure to stor mwater are retained on the cityÂ’s Â“high riskÂ” list (Adeshile, 2005). The City of JacksonvilleÂ’s definition and approach have best supported the Generi c permit by inspecting all facilities equally, however, it they may not have accomplished the go al of prioritization of facilities that was intended for MS4 permit holders. Pinellas County has incorporated seve ral components into its Â“high riskÂ” definition. In addition to the th ree listed industrial categories, the County first prioritizes facilities based on location. The County proac tively inspects facilities within impaired watersheds, giving priority to those with proximity to MS4s or waterbody, or those the potential to discharge into MS4s based on their elevation (Weed, 2005b). SIC codes are also used for identifying facilities, along w ith complaints received by the department. Additionally, the County inspects facilities not subj ect to the Generic permit, such as automotive repair shops (Weed, 2005b). Additional factors are importa nt during the on-site inspec tions. For example, there is considerable emphasis on good housekeeping practices, existing BMPs, and integrity of the structure (Weed, 2005b). The actual materi als being used, store d, or disposed of
65 outside, especially hazardous ma terials, are scrutinized and may determined a facilityÂ’s potential to contribute pollu tants to stormwater. A more thorough discussion of the CountyÂ’s inspection process will be pr esented in the Results chapter. While local control can lead to more direct and effective implementation, the lack of clear guidelines may lead some permit holde rs to under inspect faci lities, while others may devote too many resources to this program. This research has proposed a quantitative definition for high risk based on th e intensity of industria l activities exposed to stormwater as an alternative for priori tization and implementa tion of the MS4 permit requirements. III.D.3. COMPARISON OF PINELLAS CO UNTY TO STATE AND NATIONAL INDUSTRY AVERAGES This research conducted an assessment of the industrial stormwater NPDES regulations in Pinellas County, Florida. Pinellas County is th e second smallest county in the state of Florida; however, it is th e most densely populated (TBRPC, 2004). The following graphics depict the location of Pine llas County within the State of Florida and some of the zip codes within the County that were used for this research.
66 Figure 1. Pinellas County, Florida Residential areas dominate Pinellas C ounty and less than 10% of the County acreage is zoned for industry (TBRPC, 2004). However, industry is present and information from the EPA suggests that over 1,600 industrial and comm ercial facilities are utilizing toxic substan ces in the county (TRI, 2004). Based on U.S. Census data, nearly 1,400 industrial facilities are operating amongst an estimated 26,295 businesses in general (PCED, 2005) as shown in Table 1.
67 Table 1. Manufacturing Statistics for Pinell as County, State of Florida, and the U.S. From U.S. Census Data Type of facility by SIC Code United States Total # of Facilities1 Florida Total # of Facilities 2 Pinellas County (With St. Petersburg) Total # of Facilities 3 All Businesses 643,0633 38,8525 26,295 All Manufacturing 37,7776 1,6304 1,397 20 20,878 704 31 21 105 21 22 6,155 181 13 23 23,411 1,139 55 24 36,735 1,246 58 25 12,095 768 48 26 6,496 184 10 27 62,355 3,317 244 28 12,371 534 41 29 2,147 48 2 30 16,892 676 66 31 1,839 72 8 32 16,393 894 37 33 6,275 118 11 34 37,985 1,374 147 35 56,383 1,627 226 36 17,104 750 84 37 12,387 1,066 98 38 11,727 585 102 39 18,043 1,000 94 1 US Census (2003), 2 US Census (2002), 3 US Census (1997), Data was not found for this SIC code for Pinellas County from the US Census.
68 Pinellas County exhibited both similarities and differences to Florida and national manufacturing statistics (see Ta ble 2). Within the four target SIC codes, Pinellas County contained a smaller percentage of lumber and wood products facilities (4.15%) than both the United States average (7.64%) and the Fl orida average (9.72%). The percentage of stone, clay, glass, and concrete facilities wa s 2.65%, compared to the Florida average of 5.48% and the national average of 4.34%. Howeve r, the percentage of fabricated metal products facilities (10.52%) wa s higher than the nationa l average of 10.05% and the Florida average of 8.43%. Electr onic and other electric equipm ent facilities (6.01%) were also more abundant in Pinellas County than in Florida overall (4.60%) or the United States (4.53%). Due to the smaller size of the County and limited developable land, this county may be more conducive to smaller i ndustrial facilities, such as electronic manufacturers. A larger number of fabricated metal products and electronic components facilities were contacted during the research due to their la rger presence. The County and State averages used for this comparison, howev er, contain facilities lo cated outside of the study area in St. Petersburg. Therefore, the businesses operating only within the research area may differ slightly from the above figures. Although there are some differences between the research county and the state and national averages, the County is simila r enough that the research recommendations could be applied to ot her jurisdictions followi ng minor modifications.
69 Table 2. Manufacturing Statistics for Pine llas County, State of Florida, and the U.S. From U.S. Census Data by Percentage Type of Facility by SIC Code United States Total by % of all Manufacturing Florida Total by % of all Manufacturing Pinellas County (With St. Petersburg) by % of all Manufacturing All Manufacturing 5.87 4.20 5.31 20 5.53 4.32 2.22 21 0.03 0.13 22 1.63 1.11 0.93 23 6.20 6.99 3.94 24 9.72 7.64 4.15 25 3.20 4.71 3.44 26 1.72 1.13 0.72 27 16.51 20.34 17.47 28 3.27 3.28 2.93 29 0.57 0.29 0.14 30 4.47 4.15 4.72 31 0.49 0.44 0.57 32 4.34 5.48 2.65 33 1.66 0.72 0.79 34 10.05 8.43 10.52 35 14.92 9.98 16.18 36 4.53 4.60 6.01 37 3.28 6.54 7.02 38 3.10 3.59 7.30 39 4.78 6.13 6.73 Data was not found for this SIC code fo r Pinellas County from the US Census.
70 CHAPTER IV Â– METHODOLOGY This research has developed a process for identifying industrial facilities that are subject to the federal and/or local regulations, incl uding those that pose a Â“high riskÂ” for contributing pollutants to stormwater. A compre hensive list of all i ndustrial faci lities was developed using existing databases from a vari ety of sources. This broad list was then narrowed down to those facilitie s that are technically required to comply with the Generic permit based on their SIC codes and/or inclusion in one of the four categories of industry listed in the CountyÂ’s MS4 permit as requiri ng inspection. A subset of the facilities (based on their SIC codes and geographical location) was contacted by phone to determine the industrial pro cesses occurring on-site, whethe r they were required to comply, and the degree to which they may be performing pollutant-generating activities. To verify the phone questionnair e results, fence-line visits were performed on a subset (roughly 35%) of those facilities. The resear ch also accompanied County personnel on a small number of facility visi ts to observe the CountyÂ’s pr ocess for determining whether facilities are Â“high riskÂ” as a means to fu rther check the validity of phone contact and fenceline inspections. The proportion of facilities in compliance w ith the regulations was assessed using the phone results to determine which facilities were technically requi red to comply with the Generic permit. All facilities determined to be subject to the Generic permit were assessed as to the intensity of their polluta nt generating activities. That assessment used
71 information from the phone questionnaires rega rding the intensity of potentially polluting industrial operations exposed to stormwater at each facilit y. The results were tabulated using a quantitative scale and facilities were assigned Â“intensityÂ” scores. The operational definition of three Â“intensity Â” categories (high, medium, a nd low) was generated using the results from the phone questionnaires and fe nceline visits. This was then compared to the working definition of Â“high riskÂ” us ed by both Pinellas County and other MS4 operators in Florida tasked with inspecting Â“high riskÂ” facilities. Results from the list-and-survey and fence line visit approach were also compared to the results of a selected group of the CountyÂ’s on-site inspections to assess the usefulness of the phone survey. The Count y inspected approximately 40 facilities throughout the research period, a lthough not all were of the f our SICs targeted by this research. Some of those facilities identifyi ng with the other SIC codes were contacted, however, in order to strengt hen the comparison between the methods, but were not included in all of the anal yses. Agreement between phone questionnaire results and fenceline visits to the CountyÂ’s on-site resu lts further reinforced the usefulness of the method. IV. A. Developing the Industrial Facility List The first step to identifyi ng facilities regulated by the NPDES and MS4 industrial stormwater regulations was to compile a list of the universe of industries operating in Pinellas County, Florida. The need to develop lists in this way and the inadequacy of any singles type of existing list for the purpose of stormwater regulations for industry was discussed in Duke et al. (1999). Methods similar to that research were applied for Pinellas County. Because this was the first known attempt to generate a comprehensive
72 list of facilities for this purpose, it was not possible to compare the efforts or facility information to other lists. Numerous existing and publicly availabl e databases were used to develop a generalized facility list, including various federal, state and local government organizations; and a purchased database. Each of the solicited sources were created for purposes other than identifying facilities s ubject to the Generic permit, however, they each contributed to the complete list. For ex ample, the FDEP tracks industrial facilities that are already in possession of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to co mply with industrial stormwater regulations, along with facilities that have an NPDES permit for point source discharges. The EPA tracks faci lities that use hazardous ma terials, required under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. EP A also retains information for industries that were permitted prior to 2000 and receives current Generic permit information submitted by the FDEP. The Pinellas Count y Economic Development (PCED) recently purchased a database from In foUSA that includes industr y and commercial operations in the county. While the PCED was primarily concerned with the economic viability of the county (PCED, 2004), this list was usef ul to supplement the sources from public entities. In the end, this list accounted fo r the largest portion of facilities within the database. The original data sources and the final list of industrial facilities may still not have adequately represented all of the industry operating in Pinellas County. None of the original lists were generated with informati on specifying industrial activities of the type specified in the Generic permit, such as act ivities exposed to stormwater. Because the Generic permit relies on self-identification by its regulated community and compliance is
73 far from complete, the exact identity of that community is poorly understood (Duke, 1999). Some facilities were expected to pose a higher risk for contributing pollutants to stormwater because of their industrial proce sses. For example, facilities that operated completely indoors, such as photocopy centers are technically required to comply with federal regulations but may not be contributi ng pollutant loads to stormwater. An effort was made, also, to include a variety of indus trial classifications, however, some of these industrial categories were not targeted for phone outreach. The list-developing process of this type is required in any jurisdiction to identify facilities that may need to comply. Literature reviews were useful for determining the characteristics of typical industrial facilities. While an individual f acility may have been listed on an existing database because of toxic chemical use or rel ease, the mode of tran smission may not have been to stormwater. This research focuse d only on pollutants discharged in urban stormwater, recognizing that direct discharg es to surface or groundwater, along with air emissions, are also important contributors to degraded water quality. It should be noted that the Pinellas County MS4 permit direct s the permit holders to inspect not only industrial facilities, but commercial operations as well (FLS000005, 20004). While parking lots located at retail stores an d other commercial activities may contribute pollutants to stormwater, they were not included in this research for several reasons. First, these facilities are not subj ect to the federal Generic pe rmit regulations ; therefore, comparing the effectiveness of the two regul ations was not possible. Second, the County has chosen not to focus implementation effo rts on these sites (Wee d, 2005a). Lastly, in absence of an accepted definition of Â“high ris k,Â” water quality data from these sites, and
74 federal guidelines for commercial operations, making accurate assessments regarding the importance of these sources would be limited and speculative at best. The combined lists were scrutinized and facilities were extracted that fell into one of the four categories of re gulated facilities defined in the Pinellas County MS4 permit: landfills; hazardous waste treatme nt, storage and disposal faci lities; facilities subject to EPCRA SARA Title III Section 313; and any ot her facilities that may be contributing a substantial pollutant loading to the MS4. As the NPDES indus trial stormwater regulations address 11 categories of industry and conti nues to utilize of St andard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes, each of the appl icable codes were initially included. SIC codes were used to further classify industrial activity within the county. IV.B. Maintaining the Indus trial Facility Database: The initial facility list was created usi ng a Microsoft Access database program. Information input into the database incl uded, but was not limited to: facility name, contact information, contact person, SIC code(s), facility type or industrial description, current or expired Generic permits, and original list source. Some facilities were listed on multiple sources, such as a municipal POTW i ndustrial pre-treatment list, the TRI list, the InfoUSA list, and the FDEP list of NOI filers. It was vital to identify the original data source because some contact and other faci lity information differed by source. This allowed for updates to be made to the databa se, while maintaining the integrity of the original lists. The comprehensive facility li st retained identifying information, such as facility name and contact persons, as all data fields were obtained through publicly available sources. It was assumed that any inte rested citizen or rese archer could duplicate
75 this effort and compose an identical list of facilities. The following table represents the various sources used and the number of industrial facilities derived from each. Table 3. Sources of Industrial Facility Information Industrial List Sour ce # of Facilities EPA Past Generic Permits 85 EPA Current Generic Permits87 EPA TRIS 40 EPA TRI Explorer 48 FDEP 23 FDEP Industrial Wastewater 19 Pinellas County DEM 30 Pinellas County 313 List 7 Pinellas County HWTSDF 2 City of Clearwater POTW 16 City of Oldsmar POTW 4 City of Largo POTW 10 City of Largo IPP 11 InfoUSA 1802 IV.C. Selecting a Subset of Industry The broad list of all industri al facilities that might need to comply with the Generic permit within Pinellas County was approximately 2,000 facilities. A subset of these facilities was selected for telep hone outreach to make a better informed determination about the need to comply. A co mpletely randomized selection of facilities may have only reached a few industries in ea ch category, therefore, extrapolating that data to the entire county would have been unrea listic and statistically weak. Rather than learn a small bit of information on many facili ty types, the research outreach efforts targeted facilities within f our industrial categories only. Th e subset of facilities was selected as follows.
76 IV. C. 1. PRIORITIZATION BY INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY Four SIC Codes/industrial categories were selected for several reasons. Each industrial category exhib ited important characteristics. Firs t, there existe d a large enough subset of the facilities from each category ope rating in the County to support statistical analyses. Second, each industrial type liste d in the NPDES regulations produced a marketable product, rather than solely performing a service. This was important so that the same questionnaire could be administered to each facility with equal success. Third, the businesses were significantl y different in terms of raw materials, final products, and equipment usage to yield interesting conclu sions. Fourth, it was expected that the industries would occupy different physical f acility types, ranging from large, outdoor sites to smaller, completely enclosed site s. Finally, the four two-digits SIC codes included both Â“heavyÂ” and Â“lightÂ” categories of industry. While each were required to comply similarly with the NPDES regulations due to the NRDC lawsuit (NRDC, 2002) it was possible to determine whether differences exist between the categories that would contradict the NRDC findings. The four categories of industry included SIC Code 24: lumber and wood products (lumber); SIC 32: stone, clay, glass, and c oncrete (stone); SIC 34: fabricated metal products (metal); and SIC 36: electronics a nd other electrical equi pment (electronics). The Â“lightÂ” industry group included SIC 2434: wood kitchen cabinets; SIC 323: products of purchased glass; all SIC 34 codes except SIC Code 3441: fabricated structural metal; and all of the SIC 36 codes. Â“HeavyÂ” industr y included the remaining SIC codes with the applicable two-digit prefixes. Among the subs et of facilities, some may have been also categorized as TSDF or TRI f acilities. Because facilities were selected randomly or by
77 saturation, each individu al facility had an equal chance of being contacted regardless of inclusion on additional lists. The research did not conduct surveys on landfills, although they are listed as a priority for MS4 perm it holders, as the telephone questionnaire would have required significant modi fication and results could not be analyzed similarly. IV.C.2. PRIORITIZATION OF FACILITIES BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION After the subset of facility categorie s was selected, the sample was narrowed down further depending on geograp hical location. Several sec tions of the County were preferentially targeted to coincide with th e CountyÂ’s inspection methods. That was useful for this research because it allowed some of the contacted facilities to be visited by the researcher to help verify results. It did not bias results because there was no reason to believe facilities in those areas were different in their indus trial activity types, industrial activities, intensity, or requirement to comply with the Generic permit compared to the rest of the County. Pinellas County inspectors began in th e northeastern County because it exhibited a higher degree of industrialization (based on aerial photographs) than other areas. For the CountyÂ’s purposes, it was more practical economically and temporally, to target areas that contained a higher pr oportion of industrial facilities The County then shifted to watersheds of special concern Â– either t hose with documented water quality impacts or those with upcoming Total Maximum Daily Load deadlines (a program that requires an extensive pollutant assessment and reducti on strategy). It was believed by the County officials that facilities located in impair ed watersheds may have been partially contributing to poor water quality via stormwat er discharges associated with industrial activity.
78 The purpose of contacting the same facili ties as the County was to compare the results from the phone questionnaire and fen celine visits with those from the more thorough on-site inspections. Conclusions regard ing compliance rate and need to comply with the regulations within the targeted SIC codes were compared to on-site inspections of a small number of facilities in those same locations. Although this research was performed to assess the effectiv eness of the industrial stormw ater regulations, it was also expected that the research could be app lied and serve as a useful tool for local environmental agencies. The County requested that the research prioritize i ndustrial contact based on geographic location, similar to its own inspec tion locations. The County was interested in learning more about facilities in the imp aired Cross Bayou watershed, for example, because of documented poor water quality. For the purposes of this research, the County translated this into six Â“tar getÂ” zip codes within and around this watershed (see Figure A2). It was not the responsibility nor intention of this res earch to document water quality problems. Instead, the County zip codes were used to focus the research effort and generate useful conclusions for the County. An additional zip code in the northeastern County was added to the Â“targetÂ” list to encomp ass the facilities that were inspected prior to this research effort. Therefore, seven zi p codes were Â“targeted.Â” Calls to industrial facilities outside the seven zip codes were also necessary to increase the sample sizes and allow for statistical analyses. IV.C.3. SAMPLING SCHEME Industrial facilities were selected both within the se ven target zip codes and outside the target zip codes. Due to the re quest by Pinellas County that the Cross Bayou
79 watershed area be examined, each facility in the six Cross Bayou watershed zip codes plus the northeastern County zip code identify ing with one or more of the four two-digit SIC codes (24, 32, 34, and 36) was included. Each facility was handled equally within the target zip codes with a lette r sent and phone calls made to every facility. The samples were filled out by adding industr ial facilities outside the targ et zip codes but within the target SIC codes. In order to retain the equa lity of samples, the remaining facilities were chosen randomly. Facilities located in non-targ et zip codes were ente red into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Each facility was ra ndomly assigned a number between 1 and Â“xÂ” that was not based on location, name, or SIC code Facilities were then selected using the software programÂ’s random number generator until the desired number of facilities was selected. The required sample sizes for each SIC code was a minimum of 30 facilities. The call list was developed with more than 30 fac ilities in each category with the expectation that a 100% response rate was not possible. It was hypothesized that some facilities would no longer be in operation, would not be Â“industrial,Â” would identify with a different industrial classifica tion, would be unreachable, or w ould refuse to participate in the research. A breakdown of these responses is discussed in th e Results section. IV. D. Confidentiality Protocol This research was approved by the Univ ersity of South FloridaÂ’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) because it involved c ontact with human subjects. Information learned during the phone questionnaires could potentially cause an individual and/or facility to be found in violat ion of the CWA. As mentioned earlier, this could result in a
80 monetary penalty up to $25,000 and/or incarceration of up to two years. While the researchers were not qualified to make th ese legal decisions, if raw data including personal identifying information were shar ed with governmental agencies, this assessment could be made and facilities coul d be fined. The IRB approval protected the rights of research participan ts. Therefore, the research design and methods were structured to respect this confidentiality. An explanation of the confidentiality protocol has been noted in the appr opriate following steps. The research proposal and all survey in struments were reviewed and approved by the IRB. Additionally, all involved researchers completed a training course to verify that IRB protocol would be followed. Consequently, raw data is not available to any agency or individual. Aggregate results have been instead and provided sufficient information to make policy recommendations. The promise of confidentiality likely increased the response rate and willingness of industrial em ployees to participat e in the research. Copies of the IRB exemption certificates, including approval of survey instrument modifications have been included in Appendix 2. IV.E. Surveying Industries Â– Introductory Letter A one-page letter (see Appendi x 3) was sent to each se lected facility prior to phone contact. The letter was directed to the environmental compliance manager or whoever was responsible for environmental compliance and was familiar with the day-today operations at the f acility. In some cases, an appropria te contact was listed on a public source; this name and title was used when available. The purpose of the letter was to introduce the research and its obj ectives, and to verify the va lidity of the research team and its affiliation with the University of South Florida. The letter also explained the
81 confidentiality of the survey results to enc ourage honest and complete responses. Data, as mentioned in Section IV.D., has only been rel eased in aggregate form and the targeted list of facilities was destroyed following the survey process. A secondary objective of the letter was to increase the response rate to the phone questionnaire. By notifying fac ilities in advance of the questionnaire, the environmental compliance manager or other appropriate pers onnel were apprised of an upcoming phone call and may have been more inclined to pa rticipate. The letter in no way revealed how the industrial facility should respond to the individual que stions and should not have biased the results. The letter al so served as a record for the facility that they were contacted and participated in the academic survey. IV.F. Surveying Industries: Admini stering the Phone Questionnaire Phone questionnaires were used to verify the accuracy of data sources, to determine which facilities may need to comply with federal regulati ons, and the potential for a facility to contribute pollutants to stormwater. To preserve confidentiali ty, the questionnaire was di vided into two separate questionnaires that were admi nistered sequentially. Each facility was assigned an arbitrary code based on the res earcherÂ’s first name and the sequential order of calls. The coding scheme was developed to be entirely ar bitrary and to avoid a ny code choices that could identify the facility, such as abbrev iations of the industr ial facility name, environmental compliance officerÂ’s name, or fa cility address. This code was included on both parts of the questionnaire so that resu lts could be tabulated by the researchers. This coding was needed to link the survey results with the individual facilities for several reasons. First, it was n ecessary to correlate survey re sponses with or iginal data
82 sources to assess the validity of each source. The code was also used in conjunction with the fenceline visits (see Secti on IV.H.), in order to compare the information obtained over the phone versus that seen from public road ways. The completed surveys, however, were filed separately from the coding schemes. Separate databases were created, and identifying information was only included on the first part of the questionnaire. The coding key was destroyed after the fencel ine visits and comparison with County inspections were completed. Therefore, anyone who reviews the data in the future will not be able to link the survey results to the individual faci lities or their employees. IV.F.1. DATABASE ACCU RACY QUESTIONNATIRE Part I of the phone questionnaire was entitled Â“Database Accuracy,Â” (see Appendix 4) and was designed to test the accu racy and usefulness of the various primary data sources. Facility compliance personnel were be asked to verify the information in the research database, includi ng facility name, contact addr ess and/or physi cal facility address, contact person, primary business activ ity(s), and SIC code(s ). Consequently, an assessment was made regarding the accuracy of the public da ta sources. This indicated whether certain data sources were more reliable or up-to-date than others. This information was kept separate from the answer s to the process-relate d questions, in order to ensure confidentiality, and was only used to critique data sources and the current database. This accuracy assessment may be useful to other MS4 permit holders that desire a list of facilities in their area. The results of the Â“Database Accuracy Â” questionnaire were recorded in a Microsoft Access table (see Appendix 5). Th e relative fields included text boxes for the code, facility name, phone number, contac t name, address, and business activities.
83 The SIC codes(s) were entered into numerical boxes. Responses related to the accuracy of the contact information were coded as a Â“1Â” for Â“yes,Â” a Â“2Â” for Â“no,Â” and a Â“3Â” for Â“donÂ’t know.Â” A comments section was in cluded for any qualitative or supporting information. IV.F.2. INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER REGULATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE Part II of the phone questionnaire wa s entitled Â“Industrial Stormwater Regulations.Â” Questions were derived from the federal permit language that specifies industrial processes a nd activities that may require comp liance with the Generic permit. The first questions inquired about general awareness of the industrial stormwater regulations and whether the facility had been contacted by any federal, state, or local agencies specifically regarding industrial st ormwater runoff. This helped to gauge the existence and/or usefulness of education and outreach efforts made (or not made) regarding the federal regulati ons. It was hypothesized that aw areness of the regulations would be low. Additionally, faci lities that had already been contacted and/or inspected by PCDEM were expected to respond differently to the questions. If, however, facilities still exhibited a general misunderstanding or unawa reness of the permits, this was used to evaluate the success of educa tion efforts that occur during County on-site inspections, all of which were completed within a year of this research. Some general questions were also added regarding to the size of the facility (the facility itself plus surrounding area, a nd any green space or grassed areas) and the number of employees. This information was us ed to generalize the size and employment of facilities in the County and further understand the type of facilities operating within the four industrial classifications.
84 The majority of the questions addressed the industrial processes that occurred onsite and the intensity that pollutants that coul d be incorporated into stormwater. All of the primary questions could be answered usi ng Â“yes,Â” Â“no,Â” or Â“donÂ’t knowÂ” responses. Facility personnel were given the opportunity to request fu rther clarification (to an extent) and additional information was noted on the questionnaire form. Examples of questions included: Â“Does your facility blend, alte r, or modify materials, pr oducts, or chemicals at this facility?,Â” Â“Does your facility operate a shipping and receiving area where material or products are loaded or unloaded? If so, is this area uncovered or ever exposed to precipitation when it rains?,Â” Â“Does your facility store wa ste liquid material outdoors, for example, drums of spent lubricants, still bottoms, or paint? If so, is this area larger than four-to-five drums,?Â” and Â“Does your facility operate miscellaneous equipment outdoors, such as coolant tanks, air compressors, or generators? If so, is this equipment ever exposed to precipitation?Â” The complete questi onnaire is included as Appendix 6. In order to facilitate resp onses and to encourage participants to complete the questions, several of the questions requested th e participants to explain the intensity of activities, such as the number of off-site ve hicles used, the capacity of liquid tanks, the frequency of an activity, or whether or not the activity was conduc ted outside, allowing for possible contact with preci pitation or stormwater. For ma ny of the questions, a Â“yesÂ” response to an initial question led to additional questions designed to qualify the intensity
85 of the activities. Intensity ques tions were generally related to the quantity of materials or equipment used, the size in area of the f acility where they were conducted, or the frequency of occurrence of i ndustrial activities. Questions also addressed whether the activities, materials, or equipment included exposure to precipitati on or stormwater. The follow-up intensity-related quest ions were critical for devisi ng a scoring scheme for high, medium, or low intensity. They were designed to differentiate faci lities that perform activities frequently or on a larger scal e from those that perform activities only occasionally or on a smaller scale. IV.F.3. INTERPRETATION OF SURVEY RESULTS The questionnaire was designed using sp ecific information from the Generic permit such that a Â“yesÂ” response to any question regarding exposure of an activity, process, or equipment to precipitation signified that the facility may need to comply with federal regulations. Â“NoÂ” responses to all ques tions signified that th e facility need not comply with the Generic permit and may be e ligible for the No Exposure Certification. While the questionnaire results could not defi nitively determine need to comply, if the answers were accurate and truthful, they woul d cover nearly every condition in which a facility should comply. The surveys were c onsidered a reliable indicator of need to comply with the Generic permit. The survey results allowed the researchers to hypothesize whether a facility may need to co mply with federal regulations and/or may warrant inspection by the County. It was important to note, however, that the research team did not attempt to determine absolute need to comply Â– this determination should be left to trained government personnel. Along t hose lines, the research team did not share
86 opinions or recommendations w ith the industrial pa rticipants related to their need to comply, even if asked. The surveys had a second set of findings that were considered reliable and meaningful regarding the eff ectiveness of the regulations. The results of the questions were used to identify facilities that were technically required to comply but where few processes came into contact w ith stormwater and would cause a facility to be labeled as low intensity. That is, a candida te group of facilities that c ould be considered not Â“high riskÂ” and that displayed the rati onale for a prioritization step of the kind performed in this research. The final questions asked the participants if they knew whether their facility was subject to the Generic permit and, if so, whet her it had already fulfilled the first stage of compliance by filing the NOI. That information, along with the determination of need to comply, could be used to assess the pr oportion of compliance. This proportion of facilities in compliance could then be compar ed with other parts of the U.S. (Duke and Shaver 1999). All facilities were enco uraged to learn more about the federal and local regulations by visiting the FDEP via webs ite or contacting th e agency by phone. The research team recommended that each facility receive more information, regardless of its responses. The percentage of facilities re questing information signified the general interest in the program and/or research and also served an ed ucational purpose as a useful educational tool. Therefore, the survey process was believe d to be a potentially useful tool to increase compliance in Pinellas County, although no follow-up was envisioned to measure the effect of that recommendation.
87 A separate Microsoft Access database was maintained for the industrial stormwater regulations questionnaire (see Appe ndix 7). Relative fiel ds included the code number, SIC code(s) and quant itative responses to the que stions. A Â“yesÂ” response was coded as a Â“1,Â” a Â“noÂ” response as a Â“2,Â” and a Â“donÂ’t knowÂ” as a Â“3.Â” Some questions, such as those related to intensity, were coded with alpha characters rather than numerals. For example, if a facility employed between one and four employees, it was coded as an Â“AÂ” whereas five to 19 employees was code d as a Â“B.Â” Other questions required the participant to volunteer a specific number, such as the capacity of a storage tank or the dimensions of a plant yard. Those values we re entered exactly as recorded. Additional qualitative or supporting information was incl uded in a comments sec tion for clarification of answers. The database was designed to facilitate queries and analysis of the data. For example, a simple query could identify the number of facilities th at operated industrial equipment outdoors or the number that blended, altered, or modified materials, products, or chemicals outdoors. This information was useful in determining the most frequent activities that could contribute pollutants to stormwater overall and within each industrial category. For example, lumber companies may have been more likely to operate machinery outdoors but electronics producers ma y have been more likely to store drums of hazardous waste outdoors. These compar isons could highlight common pollutant generating activities for each industry types. IV. G. Phone Research Protocol Several components of the phone outreach we re developed to ensure that surveys were administered with the same success at th e beginning of the research as at the end.
88 Standard protocol was developed to improve the uniformity of delivery among researchers and the clarity for industry participants. IV.G.1. PRE-TEST PHASE The phone survey development included an in itial testing stage, which, incidentally, resulted in useable data. The questionnaire wa s administered to SIC code 34 industries in Â“non-targetÂ” zip codes prior to initiating contact with Â“targetÂ” zip code facilities. The purpose of this step was to test the su rvey instrument for clarity and ease of administration by the researchers. Minor adju stments were made that improved the style and flow of the phone conservations, but did not significantly alter the content of the questionnaire. For example, minor typographical errors and word changes were made and the delivery of the informed consent language was shortened in order to respect the time limitations of the participants. No questions were added or removed from the original questionnaire. Additionally, the order of questions remained the same and minor word modifications did not affect the participants Â’ understanding or responses to the questions. The purpose of the modifications was to enable the surveyors to more fluidly and consistently deliver the questions. The survey procedure during the pre-test stage was identical to the procedure following the pre-test. Letters were sent to each contacted fac ility and the same information was provided at the completion of the survey. Additionally, the same amount of effort was dedicated to contacting faciliti es during the pre-test stage. For example, callbacks were made with the same dedication a nd persistence as for industries within the
89 Â“targetÂ” zip codes. For these reasons, the resu lts of the pre-test were included in the results. IV.G. 2. SELECTING THE CALL LIST Phone calls were made to 250 facilities throughout Pinellas County. As discussed earlier, phone calls were first made to fabri cated metal products faci lities outside of the Â“targetÂ” zip codes during the pr e-test period and these calls were incorporated into the final results. Phone calls were then made to ev ery facility within the four target SIC codes and within the seven target zip codes. A random selection of facilitie s outside the target zip codes was then selected to complete the samples. The research strived for 30 or more calls to each industrial category. There were significantly more fabr icated metal products facilities within the County, therefore, a larger sample size was also contacted. The following table describes the number of facilities on the original database and how many were contacted. Please note that these figures represent the primary SIC codes generated from the original database. Because some f acilities identified with a different SIC code when performing the questionnaire, these numbe rs do not coincide w ith the final results by SIC codes. This table describes the orig inal sample size with the understanding that some industry would be classified incorrectl y. These number also do not include facilities outside of the four industrial categories th at were contacted be cause of their prior inspections by the County. The final comple tion rates and other results have been presented later.
90 Table 4. Selecting the Call List Industrial Category Database Total Contacted Total Target Zip Codes Target Zips Contacted Other Zip Codes Other Zips Contacted Lumber 35 35 18 18 17 17 Stone 46 40 15 15 31 25 Metal 156 116 79 79 77 37 Electronics 65 48 32 32 33 16 Total 302 239 144 144 158 95 IV.G.3. RESEARCH PHONE CALL PROTOCOL Phone calls were made by four differe nt researchers over a four-month period. Each researcher participated in a training pr ocedure that included feedback on the initial questionnaires, role-playing, and Institutional Review Board training. The confidentiality protocol elements and on-line training were especially important. Prior to beginning the survey collection efforts, researchers met to discuss potential modifications to the questionnaires, such as improving awkward or unclear language, and adding additional information to clarify questions for industria l facility personnel. Changes were made to the questionnaires based on the strategy sessions both prior to IRB approval and following the pre-test period. No substantive changes were made to the questionnaire forms and no changes of any kind were made during the data collection period. Facilities were contacted on various days each week, including calls made on all five working days. Researchers generally began making calls at 8:00 AM, suspending calls between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM, and th en contined until 5:00 PM. The working hours for individual researchers varied based on their other commitments. If facilities could not be reached on the first call, the researchers would eith er inquire as to a preferable day and time to call back or w ould purposively select a different time. For
91 example, if an individual could not be r eached before 9:00 AM, the researchers would call in the afternoon, experimenting with di fferent days and times until the individual could be reached. The success and ease of survey completi on varied widely among the contacted facilities. During the in itial phone call, each researcher asked to speak with the contact person (from the database) or the Â“environmental coordina tor.Â” If there was no such employee, the researcher briefly described th e research and asked to speak with whoever was familiar with the environmental activities and the day-to-day operations at the facility. If not directly connected, the name title, and extension were noted for follow-up calls. In many cases, the owner or presiden t of a company was the most appropriate contact point. In other cases, a manager was best qualified to complete the survey. Every effort was made to speak with someone at the local Pinellas Count y site. While larger companies with satellite offices may have an environmental coordina tor in a headquarters office, this research required contact with someone who was on-site and familiar with the local facility. While familiarity with environm ental regulations may have been lost, these local employees were likely to be more fa miliar with the facilitiesÂ’ operations, daily habits, and storage practices. A small number of surveys was completed on the first phone call. These instances occurred when an appropriate contact person could be identified, either beforehand from the various data sources, or through the facil ity personnel, and that person was available and willing to participate in the research immediately. In most cases, however, several attempts were needed to reach the correct person, select a convenient time to complete the survey, or receive a return ed phone call from the facil ity. Most facility calls were
92 answered by an employee, however, 10 facilitie s, or 4% of the total sample only had an answering machine. Regardless of contact with an individual or an answering machine, a message or voice mail was never left on the firs t attempt. The researchers were instructed to hang up if an answering machine was operate d on the first call. If a receptionist or other employee could not locate the appropriate contact person or if that individual was not available, the researchers inquired as to a more appropriate day and time to return the call. After the second call, a message or voice mail could be left, although, if a receptionist instructed the researcher to re try the call that same day or on the following day, no message was left. If the following atte mpt was not successful, a message was left. Researchers provided their name university affiliation, a brie f description of the survey, a reminder of the confidentia lity agreement, and the phone number for the research office. The policy research office voice mail in cluded a brief description of the study to increase the participantÂ’s certain ty of the research legitimacy. IV.G.4. DISCONTINUATION PROTOCOL A diligent attempt was made to complete the survey for each contacted facility and the follow-up efforts were the same for each facility. Since the targeted list was carefully selected, based on SIC codes a nd location, the importance of obtaining complete results for as many facilities as possible was stressed to the researchers. It was not always possible to complete questionnaires for each selected industrial facility, regardless of the diligent efforts of the researchers. Some questionnaires could not be completed for the following reasons: facility information was incorrect (e.g ., phone number incorrect or disconnected even after cross-checking with various on-line directories),
93 facility was no longer in operation, facility performed differen t industrial processes (not included within the four target industrial categories), facility was not industrial (i.e., no in dustrial processes occurred; may be retail/sales/warehouse), facility actively refu sed participation (personnel stated that they preferred not to participate), or facility passively refused participation (personnel did not respond to request for contact). Facilities where personne l could not be reached after numerous attempts were classified as Â“passive refusa ls.Â” Although a verbal refusal was not given, the failure of industry personnel to return phone calls or accep t calls from the rese archers, signified a desire to not participate in th e research. Phone calls were di scontinued earlier if no direct contact was made with an employee. Three messa ges were left at each facility if only an answering machines was available. Each messa ge included the name of the researcher, identification of University of South Florid a as the research institution, the purpose of call, the confidentiality protocol, and the res earch office phone number. Facilities were listed as Â“passive refusalÂ” two weeks following the third message. A greater number of attempts was made to facilities where personal contact had been made, usually with a receptionist. Resear chers left four messa ges with either a receptionist for a specific individual or on that individualÂ’s voice mail or answering machine. Researchers, however, were instruct ed to complete a minimum of six calls to facilities where an individual name was provided. If multiple calls were completed on the
94 same day, (e.g., the researcher was instructed to call back in a few hours), it was only counted as one call. While a passive refusal de signation could be assi gned after six calls, including four messages, researchers were al lowed to complete two additional calls if individuals appeared to be interested in the research but, for whatever reason, were unavailable during the call periods. IV. H. Surveying Industries Conducting Fenceline Visits Fenceline visits were performed at approximately 50 facilities throughout the County. Visits were performed in four County zip codes. The first zip code was located in the northeastern county, in order to overlap with completed County inspections. Two of the five Cross Bayou watershed zip code s were randomly selected, along with a randomly selected non-target zip code. The final non-target zip code was chosen to observe any possible differences between the target and non-target areas, although none were noted. A random sample of facilities wa s then selected from each of the four SIC codes. The final sample included facilities that were scored in each of the three intensity ranges. Additionally, several facilities were se lected that passively or actively refused to participate or could not be reached. The purpos e was to determine if those facilities did not participate because they were high intens ity or for other reasons. Fenceline results were not tabulated for this small subset. The fenceline visits incorporated some facilities that were already inspected by the County, so me that may have been inspected following this research effort, and additional facilities. Only a few facilities had been visited by the County inspector prior to this research. Answers given to the phone questionnai re by the industry participants were assumed to be true, however, the fenceline visits tested this hypothesis through ground-
95 truthing. The research team visited between 10-20 % of the facilities th at participated in the survey and that may need to comply with federal regulations or that may be eligible for No Exposure Certificati on. The fenceline visits were used to authen ticate the phone survey by identifying on-site processes and thei r potential for contac t with stormwater. The fenceline visits were designed to provide more accurate and detailed information about industrial processes that o ccurred at some Pinellas County industries and the potential for stormwater violations. Neve rtheless, they were not expected to be as extensive and accurate as the on-site inspecti ons performed by trained County personnel. The purpose, again, was not to make judgments about the need to comply but, rather, to observe any equipment or processes that ma y necessitate compliance. Essentially, the fenceline visits were intended to disprove or fail to disprove th e phone questionnaires and determine if the scoring method was effective. It was an attempt to verify information that was discussed over the phone. If the fencel ine visits did not disprove the results from the phone methods, then this would incr ease the validity of the phone survey. The fenceline visit form (see Appendix 8) included elements from the phone questionnaire plus additional questions related to on-site treatment of stormwater. The initial questions focused on general facility characteristics, such as whether the facility was found and if industrial activity was ev ident. Researchers then recorded the approximate size of the complete facility and any green space. The majority of the questions addressed the eviden ce of industrial activ ities, such as ma nufacturing, outdoor process equipment, shipping and receiving areas, storage of raw/intermediate/waste materials, and the existence of a plant yard/access roads/rail lines. For each, the researcher noted whether the activity occurre d, did not occur, or was uncertain (either
96 because it was not seen or there was no visi ble evidence). These final categories were utilized if portions of the facility were not visible to researchers from the public roadways. The industrial activity questions were designed to complement the phone questionnaire results. While the exact wordi ng and order of the que stions differed, it was possible to compare responses from the phone questionnaire with the fenceline visits. Finally, several questions addressed evidence of stormwater manage ment practices, such as detention or retention ponds berms or grassed swales, or other BMPs. These questions were not included in the phone questionnaire as they were more related to the second stage of compliance than the fi rst stage (filing of an NOI). Th ese aspects, however, would likely be noted during an on-site inspection. In addition to verifying the answers to the phone survey, the fenceline inspection form attempted to quantify occurrences and determine intensity by allowing researchers to include descriptions of observed activities. This was used in lieu of pre-set categories in order to increase flexibility and to more accurately re-create the CountyÂ’s inspection process. Due to the smaller number of fen celine visits, it was more manageable to compare results using descriptions ra ther than pre-set categories. All observations were made from public roadways with a team of no fewer than two individuals. No contact was made with f acility employees and, if asked questions or requested to leave, the visit was terminated early. The visits did not consist of inspecting the property itself, only the operations that were plainly visible from public areas. Although the phone questionnaire was able to determine only whether a facility may have been technically required to comp ly with federal regulations, the fenceline
97 visits were able to strengthen the high in tensity assessments. It should be noted, that classifying facilities based on fenceline visits entailed some value judgments by researchers in order to coincide with the Â“hi gh riskÂ” definition devel oped by this research. In the absence of a pre-determined and le gal definition of Â“high riskÂ”, MS4 permit holders would also have to use judgment when classifying faci lities as Â“high risk.Â” As noted earlier, important components of the fe nceline visits included quantifying the size of the plant yard or loading docks, noting the quantity of scrap material or waste products outside, recording the number of vehicles operating out side, and noting any other potentially high-risk behaviors. This exercise was designed to be similar to the on-site inspections performed by the County. The fenceline visits succeeded in two ways. First, they were able to assess whether the phone survey was su ccessful at identifying all ty pes of activities that would lead to a requirement to comply. Second, si milarity between phone survey data and fenceline visits was used to test the truthf ulness and accuracy of pa rticipant responses to the phone questionnaire. For example, if 80% of facilities that answer ed Â“yesÂ” to question Â“12Â” regarding storage of bulk dry materials were observed to have these characteristic during fenceline visits, the phone questionnaire was determined to be 80% successful for that particular question. Additi onally, researchers could intensity classifications generated from questionnaire results to the indust rial activities seen in the field. The fenceline visits allowed an intensity classification to be proven or disporven. Although a Â“high riskÂ” definition was developed in the field, based on fenceline visits, it was not a rigorous as the scoring scale used fo r phone responses. First, the intent of the fenceline data was not to determine absolute need to comply or Â“high riskÂ” behavior. The
98 primary objective of the visits was to test the accuracy of th e phone questionnaires. Although the fenceline visits were partially de signed to constitute a less time-consuming option than a full on-site insp ection, they were not designed to function independently. The inspection forms would be useful if C ounty inspectors were driving through an area and wanted to gather preliminary data on a facility. However, the fenceline process was not significantly different than the current C ounty practices, which included a brief visual inspection of facilities prior to an on-site inspection. Second, the status of res earchers was considerably different than for County officials. A government official with e nvironmental compliance authority could be expected to gain full access to any facility on demand. Researchers fo r this project had no such authority and would be permitted access only if a facility chose to allow this. As noted earlier, by limiting the visits to public roadways, it was not possible to view the entire facility site in some cases. An author ized inspector would likely have full access to the site, including the inside of facilities. Fu rther, some information could only be gained through personal contact with facility employees, such as the occurrence of vehicle maintenance or the number of employees. A full County on-site inspection could include each of the appropriate elements, but would al so require additional time and resources. Finally, while the fenceline visits were not in tended to classify a facility as a certain intensity, they were useful for testing the methodology and ma y still be an appropriate first step for County officials. IV. H. 1. DATABASE MANAGEMENT Fenceline data were entered into a separa te database containi ng fields pertaining to the size and quantity of facility areas, equi pment, storage areas, waste materials, etc.
99 and stormwater management practices (see A ppendix 9). Facility contact information was retained in the database because a ll information was obtained from publicly accessible areas and did not include contact w ith human subjects. In order to respect confidentiality, however, this thesis does not include individual facility information, for example, Â“ABC Components ha d seven vehicles maintained outdoors, four drums of spent lubricants, and a half-acre plant yard.Â” This information was less useful than ability of the fenceline visits to te st the accuracy of responses to phone questionnaires and to note the most frequent industrial activities among SIC codes and/or among all facilities. IV. I. Comparing Research Results with Pinellas County Efforts The research methods employed in this project were compared to the current Pinellas County inspection process. As the Pinellas County MS4 permit requires identification and inspection of all facilities contributing a Â“substantial pollutant loadÂ” to the MS4s, the County has chosen to inspect a ll identified Â“hig h riskÂ” industr ial facilities within unincorporated Pinellas County. Rather than developing a prioritized facility list first, the County industrial stormwater personn el have conducted i ndustrial inspections, as noted previously, on a geographical basis, ba sed on the intensity of industrial facilities or the watershed classification. The on-site inspection process has allowed the County to determine whether a facility is contributing pol lutants to stormwater by viewing the entire facility and its processes. These results are more detailed and accurate than is possible using a phone questionnaire or fenceline vi sit, although they are also more timeconsuming. County inspections were performed only for a small number of targeted facilities. Prior to this research, the County had already completed th e majority of its original
100 inspections (21) in th e northeast County. Five additiona l inspections were performed in other areas of the County. (Additional inspec tions were also completed throughout the research period). Nine of the original inspecte d facilities identified with one of the four target SIC codes, however, the remaining 16 did not. These facilities were contacted using the phone questionnaires to address any perceived differences between the two methods. Although the facilities did not always perform the ta rgeted processes, the phone questionnaire was still applicable to other industria l activities. The results of the County inspections were used to verify and compare the data from the phone surveys and fence-line visits. The on-site inspection should have allowed the County to establish Â“high riskÂ” or high in tensity status of targeted facilities and should have also identified if there were facilities that were not identified using the preexisting lists. The County, however, does not spec ifically label a faci lity as Â“high riskÂ” during the inspection period. Ther efore, this result was not obtained. It was believed, however, that the County could make this recommendation if the inspector judged it appropriate. The comparison between the re search results and those obtained by the County was used to highlight whether on-site inspections were a necessary first step in determining compliance or if SIC codes and pho ne surveys could effectively narrow a list to only those with a higher intensity of ac tivities that could contribute pollutants to stormwater. The presence at on-site inspecti ons was also used to assess differences between the way in which this research ha s defined Â“high riskÂ” and how a MS4 operator would define or apply the term. Following initiation of this research, the County performed an additional 20 inspections. In total, the Count y has inspected approximately 40 facilities per year (based
101 on its first year of inspections). While it may be useful to inspect a larger number of facilities, the County is task ed with other responsibilities related to its MS4 permit. Newer requirements, such as the TMDL pr ocess for impaired waterbodies (e.g., Cross Bayou), resulted in a temporary cessa tion of industrial inspections.
102 CHAPTER V Â– RESULTS The results section begins with a discu ssion of the effectiveness of the Generic permit as implemented in Pinellas Count y, Florida based on the phone questionnaire results. This is followed by a discussion of the MS4 permit, starting with an explanation of the "high risk" definition based on the in tensity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater. Next is an examination of the de sign of the permit and how that compared to its actual implementation in Florida, especi ally, Pinellas County. This is followed by a discussion of the characteristics of industria l facilities in Pinellas County, including the most common pollutant-generating activities for each industrial category. The usefulness of the methodology to classify the intensity of industrial activi ties is then assessed, followed by an evaluation of the overall e ffectiveness of the methodology. The chapter concludes with a review of the accuracy of the database and the survey methods employed. V. A. Compliance with the Multi-Sector Generic Permit Compliance with the Generic permit was determined by tabulating the proportion of contacted facilities that filed the Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the Generic permit (termed Â“proportion of facilities in complianceÂ”). The proportion of facilities in compliance with the first-stage requirement was tabulated for all facilities contacted during the phone questionnaire. Facilities that noted familiarity with the Generic permit were asked if they had filed the NOI. These re sults were also compared to a database of
103 NOI filers available on the FDEP website (F DEP, 2005b). Compliance, for the purpose of this research, was limited to the filing of an NOI. While the long-term goal of the NPDES industrial storwmater program is to improve water quality protecti on through the use of BMPs and P2 strategies, the assessment of secondary requ irements was beyond the scope of this research. First-stage compliance rates were analyzed overall and by industry type using SIC codes. Compliance with the federal regulations wa s used as a metric for assessing the effectiveness of the regulato ry language and structure. Because the NPDES industrial stormwater regulations have relied on se lf-reporting by industr y, the proportion of facilities in compliance may indicate the suc cess of this approach and whether industry has pro-actively educated itself regarding its regulatory requirements. This comparison also aided in the understanding of how regulat ions should be written and the degree of specificity required for compliance and successful implementation. Compliance with the Generic permit was very low for contacted facilities within Pinellas County. The following table shows the proportion of facilities in compliance based on several classifications. Faciliti es, based on their re sponses to the phone questionnaire, have been placed into three cat egories in order to compute the proportion of facilities in compliance with the NOI. The first category, Â“not industrialÂ” includes facilities that were retail st ores or warehouses and were not conducting any industrial or manufacturing processes. Th ese facilities would not re quire the Generic permit and, therefore, were not included in compliance calculations. Facilities that Â“probably need not fileÂ” had either zero expos ure or a low intensity of i ndustrial activities exposed to stormwater. These facilities may qualify for the No Exposure Certification. Facilities that
104 Â“probably must fileÂ” included both medium a nd high intensity sites that, based on their responses, were conducting activit ies that would technically require compliance with the Generic permit. These fields were then compar ed to the number of facilities that noted filing of the NOI. Table 5. Proportion of Facilities in Compliance with the Generic Permit Industrial Category Need not File (Not Industrial) Probably need not File (Zero or Low Intensity) Probably must File (Medium, High Intensity) Actually Filed NOI % Filed of Medium, High % Filed of Total Lumber 2 13 4 0 0% 0% Stone 6 12 9 6 66% 29% Metal 5 38 37 5 14% 7% Electronics 8 12 11 3 27% 13% Total 21 75 61 14 23% 10% The proportion of facilities in complian ce ranged from zero percent for lumber producers to 66% for stone producers when vi ewing only facilities that had either a medium or high intensity of industrial activit ies exposed to stormwater. However, if one compares compliance with all facilities that were industrial in na ture, the proportion of facilities in compliance is ev en poorer. Because the federal regulations require a facility either to file the NOI or qualify for the No Exposure Certification, e ach of the contacted facilities, based on their SIC codes, would t echnically require compliance on some level. Overall, the proportion of facilities in compliance was only ten percent. The results from this research genera lly supported information related to NOI filers available on the FDEP website (FDE P, 2005b). However, the actual compliance rates may have been slightly different than suggested by this research, with an increased proportion of lumber facilities in compliance, but with a lower propor tion of facilities in compliance for the other three industrial cat egories. The survey completion rate was
105 approximately 50% for each industrial categor y, with a slightly hi gher completion rate for fabricated metal products facilities. None of the indus try participants within the lumber products facilities noted that an NOI had been filed, ye t five have completed them throughout Pinellas County, according to the b. The proportion of lumber facilities in compliance could be as high as 14%. For the remaining facilities, it was possible that compliance was even poorer than demonstrated by this research. The FDEP has compiled records of the fac ilities that have filed the NOI and has posted these lists on its website. The version utilized for this research was updated in August, 2005 and was expected to be accurate. The following table provides results of the proportion of facilities that filed the NOI in the County. The research columns represent the total number of facilities that complete d the entire questionnaire, how many stated that they had filed the NOI, and the proportion of contacted facilities that had filed the NOI. The FDEP columns include the total num ber of facilities listed on the research database, the number of facilities that f iled an NOI according to the FDEP, and the proportion of total facilities in the County having filed the NOI based on the research database totals. Table 6. Comparison of Compliance Rates with FDEP NOI Filers Database Industrial Category Facility Surveys Completed NOI Filers (based on phone questionnaires) % NOI Filers (based on phone questionnaires) Facilities in County (from research database) NOI Filers (from FDEP website) % NOI Filers (from FDEP website) Lumber 17 0 0% 35 5 14% Stone 21 6 29% 46 11 24% Metal 75 5 7% 156 10 6% Electronics 23 3 13% 65 4 6% Total 136 14 10% 302 30 10%
106 Although the complete database generated fo r this research was also expected to be accurate, it was possible that not all industrial facilities were identified and included on the list. If a given percentage of the C ounty industrial population was not represented on the database, the proportion of facilitie s in compliance would be even poorer. The overall proportion of facili ties in compliance based on the completed surveys was approximately 10%. The proporti on was significantly higher fo r stone, clay, glass, and concrete products manufacturers, possibl y because cement manufacturers, which are within SIC code 32, have been required to apply for a specific permit and cannot receive exemption from the permit. Also, the facilities that reported filing an NOI were generally larger (in size and/or empl oyees) subsidiary companies ope rated by a parent corporation. Many of these employed a full-time environm ental compliance manager, which may have increased the facilitiesÂ’ r ecognition of the need-to-comply with the regulations. The Generic permit, therefore, has not been effective at regulating industrial facilities within Pinellas County, Florida. There was a low compliance rate with the Generic permit for each of the four industrial categories contacted during this research. The majority of facilities, especially smaller sites, had not filed the NOI to comply with the industrial stormwater regulations. These results have supported similar findings for other regions of the country. An extensive research effort from Los Angeles, CA concluded that only about 15% of manufacturing facilities that were re quired to obtain a Generic permit had filed an NOI (Swamikannu et al. 2001). Although the research incl uded additional facilities subject to the Generic permit that were not contacted during this research, the proportion of manufacturing facilities (whi ch included the four industrial categories targeted for this
107 research) was significantly lower than for other categories of industry. A comparison of NOI filers in selected metr opolitan regions (operating MS4 pe rmits) in Florida, Texas, California, and Arizona demonstrated even poorer compliance rates for two categories targeted in this research Â–st one, clay, glass, and concrete producers and fabricated metal producers (Duke and Augustenborg. 2006). Faci lities producing stone, clay, glass, and concrete products (SIC 32) had an NOI filing rate of nine percent in Florida, whereas metal fabricators (SIC 34) had a filing rate of only two percent (Duke and Augustenborg, 2006). The prevalence of low compliance by industr ial facilities with the Generic permit was also demonstrated in Pinellas County. However, the proportion of compliance for two industrial categories with the NOI was slig htly different than the results of several metropolitan areas of Florida. Duke and Augue stenborg (2006) concluded that only nine percent of stone, clay, glass, and concrete f acilities were in complia nce in other Florida MS4-permitted areas, whereas results from Pinellas County suggested that roughly onequarter of all the facilities were in compliance. Pinellas County was not included in the research by Duke and Augustenborg (2006). Fac ilities within SIC code 32 in Pinellas County may have been less similar to those ope rating in other regions of Florida. Results from fabricated metal products facilities were al so slightly higher at either six percent or seven percent, compared with two percent suggested by Duke and Augestenborg (2006). Again, facilities opera ting in Pinellas County may have been different, implementation may have been more effective, or the research may have omitted a larger number of facilities than originally expected. Regardless of the differences between research efforts,
108 none of the four industrial categories demons trated a high proportion of facilities in compliance. V.A.1. AWARENESS OF THE GENERIC PE RMIT BY CONTACTED FACILITIES Awareness of the Generic permit was addres sed by asking the part icipants if they were familiar with the permit. Each of the facilities contacted during the research was technically required to either file an NOI or obtain a No Exposure Certification, based on their SIC codes or industrial activities. Therefore, each of the facilities should have exhibited some awareness of the regulations, es pecially since the regulations have been in place for nearly 15 years. The low proportion of facilities that were aware of the permit, depicted in the following table, suggests that outreach to facilities may be inadequate or that industry has not taken th e necessary steps to meet its regulatory requirements. Table 7. Proportion of Facilities Aware of the Generic Permit Industrial Category Facility Surveys Completed Facilities Familiar with Generic permit % Familiar with Generic permit Facilities Reporting Filing of NOI % Filing of NOI Lumber 17 1 6% 0 0% Stone 21 8 38% 6 29% Metal 75 11 15% 5 7% Electronics 23 8 35% 3 13% Total 136 28 21% 14 10% The proportion of facilities exhibiting fam iliarity with the permit was higher than the proportion of facilities in compliance, although the average total for all of the facilities that completed the questionnaire wa s still less than 25%. According to the survey results, over half of the facilities that were aware of th e permit had not followed through with their regulatory requirements of filing an NOI.
109 These results suggest two occurrences. First, either educational outreach regarding industrial requirem ents has been poor, leading to low awareness of the regulations or industrial facili ties have been disinclined to proactively determine their regulatory requirements. It is likely a combination of both factors. Second, even when a facility has been made aware of their regul atory duties, less than half in the County fulfilled their requirement by filing for an NOI or a No Exposure Certification. This suggests that the penalties for non-complian ce are not sufficiently strict to warrant compliance by all facilities. A portion of the contacted facilities may not have been required to obtain a Generic permit, however, the majority likel y should have filed an NOI. Twenty-three facilities of the 136 facilities (17%) that completed the quest ionnaire did not perform any of the industrial activities incl uded on the questionnaire that may contribute pollutants to stormwater. Because the federal regulations mandate compliance regardless of intensity, the remaining 113 facilities likely should have applied for a Generic permit. Overall, it is unlikely that the Gene ric permit will have positive impacts on improving water quality in Pinellas County because compliance has been so low. Similarly, awareness of the Generic permit by industry was also poor, indicating that attempts to inform the regulated commun ity of its compliance duties have been inadequate. Alternatively, poor compliance and lack of awar eness of the Generic permit may indicate a weakness in regulations that rely on the regulated community to selfidentify its need to comply.
110 V. B. Effectiveness of the MS4 Permit in Improving Water Quality and Improving Compliance with the Generic Permit This section addresses the potential usef ulness of the Â“high riskÂ” inspection as a way to improve MS4 water quality and, possi bly, improve compliance with the Generic permit. Industrial inspections, as required under the MS4 permit, have not improved compliance with the Generic permit, but may have improved MS4 water quality. The effectiveness of the MS4 permit has been ev aluated primarily thr ough the interpretation of the phone questionnaire resu lts and by developing a Â“high ri skÂ” definition. This section will explore the broad concept of Â“high risk,Â” how it has been defined by this research, and how that compares to other MS4 operato r implementation strategies. Then it will review the classifications of industrial faci lities based on this definition. This will be instrumental for the following section, which presents results of th e phone questionnaires, related to common pollutant-gener ating activities at Pinellas County industrial facilities. V.B.1. Â“HIGH RISKÂ” DEFINITION This research addressed the effectiven ess of the MS4 permit requirements for protecting stormwater quality from pollutants originating at industrial sites by examining the term Â“high riskÂ” and proposed an operati onal definition of Â“high riskÂ” based on the intensity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater. This was pe rformed to evaluate the usefulness of adding local regulations (via MS4 permits) to the Â“globalÂ” requirements of the Generic permit. A more quantifiable intensity definition c ould aid the County and other MS4 permit holders in future impleme ntation efforts. This is followed by a presentation of facility classifications, base d on this researchÂ’s Â“high riskÂ” definition.
111 The MS4 requirements essentially address both industrial and ot her facilities that could contribute pollutant lo ads to stormwater. Although th e County has chosen not to inspect commercial facilities, su ch as large retail stores, ther e is the potential to include commercial sites in the inspection process. Represented graphically, the MS4 permit is structured to identify only the facilities c ontributing substantial pollutant loads to the MS4. If this approach were successful, it would improve water quality, but only burden the greatest potential poll uters, thereby saving resources. The following diagram is intended to illustrate the concept of Â“high risk ,Â” and those facilities subject to the Generic permit. It should not be assumed that the diag ram is to scale or represents the relative proportion of each business type within Pinell as County, or any other region subject to the Generic permit. Figure 2. Diagram of Â“ High RiskÂ” Facilities Facilities contri buting substantial pollutant loads to the MS4 Inspected Â“High RiskÂ” and Industrial Facilities Industrial Faciliti es Subject to the Generic permit
112 Ideally, the MS4 permit would allow the C ounty, for example, to target only Â“high riskÂ” facilities. This would likely be comprised of some industrial facilities (including those not subject to the Generic perm it), but also non-industr ial facilities, such as commercial sites. In practice, inspections to non-Â“high riskÂ” f acilities would probably also occur, especially if Â“high riskÂ” were not clearly defined. A properly defined Â“high riskÂ” term may allow for only Â“h igh riskÂ” industrial facilities (those shown in green) to be inspected. Currently, within the industrial ca tegory, it would be e xpected that not all facilities would be Â“high risk.Â” This diagram suggests that a fairly large portion of all industrial facilities w ould not be Â“high risk,Â” however, this could not be conclusively verified. Results from this research suggested that approximately 55% of the facilities that completed the questionnaire had a lo w intensity (possibly none) of pollutant generating activities. Therefore, inspections of those facilities may not constitute the best use of County resources. The definition of Â“high risk,Â” based on the intensity of i ndustrial activities exposed to stormwater, functioned as a quant itative survey score that was computed using questionnaire results following the surv ey completion, rather than a qualitative definition. It may be possible to construct a useful narrative definition, using the scoring protocol, in follow-up research. The Â“high riskÂ” definition was developed using the results of the phone questionnaires and was supported by the fencelin e visits. A detailed coding scheme (see Appendix 10) was devised, incorporating Â“yesÂ” or Â“noÂ” elements, plus those addressing the intensity of activities. A point valu e between zero and one was assigned for each activity addressed on the questionnaire. The detailed coding sche me was designed to
113 account for the intensity of activities at indi vidual facilities, incl uding the frequency of activities, the quantity of materials, or th e total area of storage or plant yards, for example. A facility that noted using five or more forklif ts outdoors every day and during precipitation events would receive a higher point value for that activity than a facility that only used one forklift on a monthly basis and never operated it while it was precipitating. The scoring was intended to be sensitive to differences between individual facility operations and practices, however, it was not in tended to classify certain activities as more likely to contribute pollu tants to stormwater than ot hers. A thorough evaluation of which activities generate the greatest polluta nt loads and, therefore, would warrant the highest point values, would require additional inspections and, possibly, water quality sampling. The intent of the intensity scori ng scale was to separate facilities that technically would require co mpliance with the Generic permit from those that may actually be impacting MS4 water quality and may require inspection. Therefore, it was less important to which activity a facility answer ed Â“yesÂ” than the fact that a facility did answer Â“yesÂ” to a few, several, or many activities. The total scores were tabul ated and facilities were gr ouped into three intensity categories: low, medium, and hi gh. Facilities with a low intens ity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater answered Â“yesÂ” to very few or no activities, whereas a high intensity facility would have answered Â“yes Â” to a large number of activities. Facilities within the medium intensity range could neithe r be categorized as likely not requiring an inspection but could not be defin itely classified as requiring an initial inspection either.
114 V. B.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE METHODOLOGY AT CLASSIFYING INTENSITY OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES The objective of the methodology, in addi tion to determining the proportion of compliance by industrial facilities, was to de velop a measure practicable definition of Â“high riskÂ” that may aid in the implementation of the MS4 permits. This was done by assessing the intensity of indus trial activities exposed to stor mwater. The true measure of industryÂ’s pollutant contributions would require water quality sampling, which was beyond the scope of this research. The phone questionnaire was designed to score industry activities by their potential to cont ribute pollutants to st ormwater. The scoring scale was a quantitative device for determin ing intensity of activities that could, consequently, contribute pollu tant loads to stormwater. Industrial facilities are va ried in nature Â– some sites may have or no impact on stormwater while others may contribute substantial pollutant loads to MS4s and stormwater. This research found that, while some facilities did not perform any outdoor activities (based on the phone que stionnaire), others identified with numerous activities. A useful outcome would be a survey inst rument sensitive and inquisitive enough to accurately separate those facili ties that 1) should apply for the Generic permit from those that could quality for no exposure and 2) select only Â“high riskÂ” fac ilities for inspection. If all industry were plotted on a scale from zero to high intensity, a useful conclusion would be the identification of the exact point along that scale when a facility became high intensity and, therefore, warranted inspection.
115 Figure 3. Â“High RiskÂ” Definiti on Based on Intensity of Activities Exposed to Stormwater AA Facilities within the zero intensity range (A) would neither require the Generic permit nor inspection by MS4 operators. Those within the minimal/low range (B) may technically require the Generic permit, but may not be contributing enough pollutants to devote resources to improving their compliance. Facilities within the moderate/medium range (C), however, may technically require the Generic permit and may be negatively affecting water quality, justifying inspection. On the far end, facilities within the high range (D), may both require the Generic perm it and inspection by local MS4 operators. The zero (A) and low (B) intensity ranges of facilities were fair ly well defined. If a facility answered Â“noÂ” to all questions or Â“yesÂ” to very few on the phone questionnaire (See Appendix 10), it was classified as low in tensity and may not be a priority for County inspections. The methodology has been useful in omitting a proportion of facilities that were low intensity. Utilizing the phone questi onnaire in this way could save the County resources because it would not have to inspect the low intensity facilities. Zero Minimal/Low Moderate/Medium High A: Does not require Generic permit nor Inspection B: Requires Generic permit but probably not Inspection (May not be worth expending resources to inspect) C: Requires Generic permit and likely requires Inspection (May be affecting water quality) D: Requires Generic permit and Inspection Intensit y of Industrial Activities Ex p osed to Stormwate r A B C D
116 A goal of this research was to assist in defining the point at which a facility exhibited a high intensity of industrial ac tivities exposed to stormwater and would, therefore, require inspection (D). An MS4 permit holder could place the intensity lines anywhere along the intensity continuum, depending on th e level of water quality protection desired and the available resources for implementation. For example, the City of Jacksonville may place the high intensit y line very near the zero or minimal/low ranges, whereas an MS4 operator only concer ned with hazardous ma terials, may place the line closer to the fa r right end of intensity. This research, using the phone questionnaires and a quantitative scoring scale, has suggested a high intensity range that c ould be determined following phone outreach. Fenceline visits generally supported the phone questionnaire results, making them an important but, not necessarily a required fi rst step for finding Â“high riskÂ” facilities. However, to truly test this definition, it ma y require water quality samples from industrial facilities within a broad range of intensity cl assifications. It may be possible, following water quality analyses, to identify specific ac tivities, types or quantities of materials, and/or frequency or intensity of activities that lead to poor stormwater quality. The scoring scale developed by this research could serve as a useful metric. This research was the most limited at defining facilities in the moderate/medium range (C). It may be necessary to perform additional site inspections to determine whether medium intensity facilities were, in fact, high or even low intensity instead. Making the distinction between medium and Â“high riskÂ” facilities may require an initial site visit. This could increase County insp ections, however, it may be the only manner in which high intensity facilities coul d be categorized effectively.
117 If the goal of the Â“high riskÂ” term is to improve the effectiveness of the regulations at reducing pollu tants in stormwater, while also reducing the resources needed for implementation by MS4 permit holders, an appropriate threshold for high intensity activities will be necessary. This research has developed a method that can eliminate low intensity activities and that wa s generally successful at identifying high intensity facilities. However, a universal defi nition that could be adopted and/or modified by all MS4 permit holders may require addi tional research, including water quality sampling. V.B.3. MS4 REGULATORY SUPP ORT FOR GENERIC PERMIT The "high risk" definition was designed to function for Pinellas County (except St. Petersburg), but could be applied to othe r jurisdictions with a ppropriate modifications. As evident by the numerous implementation strategies employed by other Florida MS4 permit holders, many interpretations of the phr ase Â“high riskÂ” have been developed and implemented. This is to be expected, as local conditions can also vary widely. MS4 operators have been given the responsibility of defining Â“hi gh riskÂ” for their jurisdiction, based on the level of water quality protecti on desired and the avai lable resources for permit implementation. While this task could be useful for local inspectors that are familiar with industrial facilities within th eir permit boundaries, it may lead to irregular implementation of the regulations. For exampl e, an industry that was labeled as Â“high riskÂ” in Pinellas County may not have been cl assified as such in an area with a more narrow definition of Â“high risk.Â” Conversely, a facility that was not determined to be high intensity by this research, due to an ab sence of industrial contact with stormwater, may have been classified as Â“high riskÂ” in an area such as Jacksonville, which has
118 adopted a more stringent approach. This defi nition may require adjustments when applied and tested in other counties or municipalities. The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) industrial requirements were not effective at improving compliance with the Generic permit, however, there existed the potential for water quality improvements. The MS4 requirements were added after the NPDES permit program for industrial faciliti es, suggesting that they were partially designed to address the low compliance rate by industry with the Generic permit. The goal of improving compliance with the Gene ric permit has not been achieved in the County through the Â“high riskÂ” inspections. In theory, the prioritization of facilities could improve resource allocation, while also protecting water quality of the MS4s. The CountyÂ’s decisi on to target facilities in known industrial areas or in impaired waters heds was a logical choice for meeting its regulatory requirements, such as prepar ing TMDLs. The industrial stormwater regulations can be burdensome to industry, es pecially those with little potential to contribute pollutants to stormw ater. Therefore, it could be useful to only inspect Â“high riskÂ” facilities. However, in practice, numerous facilities that pose a threat to water quality may have been overlooked. The follo wing table reviews th e interpretation of Â“high riskÂ” by several Florida MS4 permit hol ders. These approaches were previously presented in the Literature Review section. This table presents a summary of the Â“high riskÂ” definitions and the potential for impr ovements to both MS4 water quality (intended results) and support of the Ge neric permit (conducted results).
119 Table 8. Â“High RiskÂ” Definitions as In tended and Conducted by Florida MS4 Permit Holders MS4 Permit Holder Â“High RiskÂ” Definition Intended Results for Improvement of MS4 Water Quality Conducted Results for Support of Generic permit Pinellas County Location (e.g., impaired watershed) SIC Codes, Complaints On-site characteristics Hazardous Materials Good (Prioritization using Material Usage and Impaired Watersheds), On-site characteristics important Marginal (Less than 40 facilities visited in 1 year) City of Largo Industrial Pre-treatment list (Hazardous materials) Limited (Excludes light manufacturing) Poor (No current attempt to expand program) City of St. Petersburg EPCRA Title III, Section 313 Facilities (MS4 category #3) Limited (Addresses only one required facility type) Poor (No current attempt to expand program) Polk County NPDES SIC Codes, Site Characteristics Very Good (Addresses Facilities from all 11 industrial categories), On-site characteristics important Very Good (70 facilities inspected every year; inspected every 5 years) City of Lakeland NPDES SIC Codes, Site Characteristics Very Good (Addresses Facilities from all 11 industrial categories), On-site characteristics will also be important Potentially Very Good (In process of adopting same approach as Polk County) City of Jacksonville NPDES SIC Codes Excellent (Equal treatment of all facilities), Solicited numerous facility lists Potentially Over-reaching (Every facility with appropriate SIC code is Â“high riskÂ”) City of Tallahassee Small Quantity Generators (SQG) List, 3 listed facility types (MS4), Hazardous materials Marginal (Numerous facilities inspected through SQG program) Marginal (No intent to expand current program) Over 25,000 facilities in City but not considered Â“industrialÂ” by City Hillsborough County Small Quantity Generator List, Hazardous materials Marginal (Numerous facilities inspected through SQG program but not all affecting stormwater) Potentially Good (Intent to narrow SQG list for stormwater inspections and expand current program to facilities outside of SQG list ) Miami-Dade County Small Quantity Generators List, SQG Permit Program, Hazardous materials Good (SQG Facilities inspected at least every 3 years) Prioritization of SQG Marginal (No intent to expand current program to facilities without hazardous materials), Generic permit not mentioned during site visits
120 The County interpretation of the MS4 permit requirements has not improved compliance with the Generic permit as desi red. The County has not identified and inspected all of the facilities that may ha ve a high intensity of pollutant-generating activities. Based on the questionnaire respons es, 61 of the 136 (45%) of the participating facilities could not be ruled out as having either zero or low intensity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater. Because thos e facilities that could not be eliminated based on the phone questionnaires, they may re quire inspection in or der to adequately protect MS4 water quality and to improve compliance with the Generic permit. Following inspection, the total number of Â“high riskÂ” facilities could be re-calculated. The industrial inspectors from both Pinellas County and the City of Jacksonville referred to their function in relation to th e Generic permit as Â“edu catorsÂ” (Weed, 2005b; Adeshile, 2005). For many facilities, thei r first experience with the stormwater regulations may have occurred during cont act with the MS4 perm it holder. Whether a facility was being inspected or simply given information regarding an upcoming inspection, it often had little awareness of the Generic perm it requirements prior to that contact. The role of the MS4 permit holder has essentially been to provide education relevant to the Generic permit, note problem areas and suggest ways that the facility could improve its management practices. Results of the County inspections and conversations have been copied to the FDEP, however, it is not the responsibility of any MS4 permit holder to ensure compliance with the Generic permit. Therefore, once a local inspector has been assured that on-site ac tivities are not endangering the MS4s and has completed the necessary paperwork and proced ures, his/her role is complete. The local agency may choose to initiate follow-up insp ections, however, if local ordinances have
121 not been broken, there may be little th at a County inspector could do to improve compliance. It is the responsibility of the FDEP, as the permit issuer, to ensure that industrial facilities are filing for the NOI and, subseque ntly, implementing BMPs and P2 strategies. Previous research has suggested that th e actions by MS4 permit holders have not improved compliance with the Generic permit. Duke (2005) tabulated the proportion of facilities in compliance with the first-st ate requirements (filing of an NOI) among MS4permitted regions and other regions of Flor ida, California, Texas, and Oklahoma. Because NOI ratios in MS4-permitted areas corresponded well with statewide NOI ratios for most of the targeted indus try sectors, the findings sugge sted that Â“few or no programs specific to MS4 permit holders have had pow erful influences in promoting compliance among industrial facility ope rators.Â” Even the inspection program in Miami-Dade County, which has included over 8,000 individual facilities, has not encouraged facilities to comply with the Generic pe rmit (Gambino, 2005; Abrahante, 2005). The MS4 Â“high riskÂ” language has served as a regulatory adaptation, designed to compensate for poor compliance with the Ge neric permit by involving local officials in deciding which facilities are the most impor tant for stormwater protection. The Â“high riskÂ” phrase is fundamentally different than the regulati ons developed for industrial facilities because of its reliance on in terpretation prior to implementation. It is not surprising that the MS4 permit holders have chosen to implement the requirements differently than the EPA may have chosen for them. With the exception of the City of Jacksonville that considers every facility subj ect to the Generic permit as Â“high risk,Â” the other contacted MS4 permit hol ders have prioritized industry in some
122 way. The rigorousness of the prioritization certainly varied by ju risdiction. Some MS4 permit holders have inspected only a fraction of the industr y in their boundaries, while others have made a considerable effort to identify and inspect nu merous facilities. The important fact, however, is that none of the MS 4 permit holders that pa rticipated in this research have been incorrect in their de finitions and implementation strategies. The benefit of vague statutory language is th at local agencies ha ve the authority to choose what is best for their regulated co mmunity, citizens, and their own agencies. A large permitted region with a high population of industry could allocate significant resources to inspecting industr ial facilities if they were believed to be contributing substantial pollutants to the MS4s. Conversel y, a smaller incorporat ed city with few industrial facilities c ould re-direct resources to greater priorities, assuming it has taken the steps to verify that industry was not a si gnificant pollutant sour ce. If water quality is acceptable to citizens and local bureaucrats, very little oversight may be required for industry. Depending on, but also regardless of local conditions, the MS4 permit holder has had substantial flexibility in how it implem ents its requirement to identify and inspect Â“high riskÂ” industrial facilities. V. C. Characteristics of Pinell as County Industrial Facilities This section addresses th e overall characteristics of County industrial facilities that participated in this research. It be gins with a discussion of general facility characteristics, such as size and industrial processes, and then reviews the most common pollutant generating activiti es identified. It is followed by a comparison of common pollutant generating activities being performed at high and medium intensity facilities
123 and explores the differences in these categor ies. The section then discusses the common pollutant generating activities by industrial category. V.C.1. INDUSTRIAL FACILITY PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Industrial facilities that participated in this resear ched ranged from small oneperson operations to large f acilities employing 200 persons or more. Facilities were divided into three categories for both facility size and employment. Facilities smaller than one acre were considered Â“small,Â” those betw een one and three acres were considered Â“medium,Â” and facilities larger than three acres were considered Â“large.Â” Regarding facility employment, sites employing 19 persons or less were considered Â“small,Â” those employing between 20 and 49 were considered Â“medium,Â” and those employing 50 persons or more were considered Â“large.Â” The majority of facilities (66%) were smaller than one acre with medium and large facilities making up roughly half each of the remaining 34%. Approximately 55% of the participating facilities were low intensity, with 21% and 24%, respectively in medium and high intensity facilities. Table 9. Facility Size by Intensity Classification Facility Size Intensity Classification Small Medium Large Total Low 64 8 4 76 Medium 20 4 3 27 High 6 10 17 33 Total 90 22 24 136 Overall, smaller facilities were more lik ely to have a low intensity of pollutant generating activities, with 70% of the total being classified as low intensity. Of the medium-sized facilities, 36% were low intens ity and 45% were high intensity. More than
124 70% of the larger facilities were high intens ity. These results suggest that higher intensity facilities may be more likely to operate larger sites, whereas low intensity facilities may operate smaller sites. Table 10. Proportion of Facilities within Facility Size Ranges Facility Size Intensity Classification Small Medium Large Low 71% 36% 17% Medium 22% 18% 13% High 7% 45% 71% Similar trends were seen for employment size. Nearly 70% of the facilities that participated in the research employed 19 or less people and, among those, 66% were low intensity facilities. There were slightly mo re large employment facilities (19%) than medium employment facilities (13%), however six of the 14 larg e facilities employed more than 200 employees. Table 11. Facility Employment by Intensity Classification Employment Size Intensity Classification Small Medium Large Total Low 62 8 6 76 Medium 17 5 5 27 High 15 4 14 33 Total 94 17 25 136 Facilities with fewer employees were most likely to be low intensity (66%). More than half of the facilities employing a larger number of pers ons (56%) were classified as high intensity.
125 Table 12. Proportion of Faciliti es within Employment Ranges Employment Size Intensity Classification Small Medium Large Low 66% 47% 24% Medium 18% 29% 20% High 16% 24% 56% V.C.2. COMMON POLLUTANT-GENERATING ACTIVITIES Industrial facilities that participated in this re search commonly performed or associated with similar pollutant-gener ating activities. Overall, the most commonly reported activities were the storage of sm all amounts of bulk material (usually a dumpster) with 105 responses, the storage of other materials (usually wooden pallets) with 81 responses, the use of forklifts or forktrucks exposed to precipitation or stormwater runoff (48 responses), operati ng an uncovered shipping and receiving area (56 responses), and operating small process equipment (such as compressor, coolant tanks, or generators) that is exposed to precipitation (37 re sponses). The raw values are shown in the following tables. The fields in parentheses represent activities that may not contribute pollutant loads to stormwater, e .g., operating an air co mpressor outside, but which were needed for follow-up questions, e .g., whether the equipment was exposed to precipitation or storwmater runoff. The mo st commonly-occurring activities within the three intensity classificati ons are shown in Figure 6.
126 Figure 4. Industrial Activities Reported by All Facilities Figure 5. Industrial Activities Report ed by Intensity Classification 18 32 22 14 1010 105 81 54 15 28 26 7 18 99 48 92 56 78 12 666 21 20 22 66 37 18 12 0 20 40 60 80 100 120Bulk dry materials Products Bulk liquid Small liquids Waste liquid Large bulk waste Small bulk waste Any other Large storage total Small storage total Boneyard (Hazardous waste Hazardous waste Fixed outdoor (Forklifts, Forklifts in rain (Shipping/receiving Shipping area (Off-site vehicles) (Vehicle Maintenance (Vehicle refueling) Refueling outside (Vehicle washing) Washing outside Plant yard (Small process Small equipment (Outdoor activities) Activities exposedIndustrial Activity# of Facilities 3 12 0000 55 28 33 1 4 00 39 17 45 20 31 3 000 55 0 27 15 2 1 12 8 4444 23 27 19 10 7 4 1 2 28 11 23 17 21 33 00 44 5 15 9 6 5 3 12 18 10 66 27 26 32 2 20 18 6 16 32 20 24 19 26 6 3 66 12 11 17 24 13 10 60 10 20 30 40 50 60B ulk d r y ma te r i a l s Pr o ducts Bulk liq u i d Sm all li q uid s Waste liq u id L a rge bulk waste Small bulk waste An y o t her ma te r i als L a rg e s t or a ge to tal Sm al l sto ra g e t o ta l Bo neya r d (Ha z a r dous wast e storage ) Ha z ardous wa s te expose d F ix e d o u tdo o r eq uipm e nt ( Forkli f ts fo r k t ruc ks) F o r kl i fts in r ain (Shipp i ng / re c e iv ing are a) Sh i pp i ng a r ea u n c o v e r ed (O f f-site ve hi cles) ( Ve hi cl e m ain t e n ance ) Mainte n ance outside ( V eh i cle ref u eli n g) R ef u el ing out si de ( V eh i cl e w ashin g) Washing o utsi d e Plant yard (Small process equipment) Smal l e q uipm en t exp ose d (O u tdoor acti viti e s) Acti vi ties exposedIndustrial Activity# of Facilities Low Medium High
127 Figure 6. Common Industrial Activities at all Facilities by Intensity Classification V.D. Common Pollutant-Generating Activi ties Â– Comparison Between High and Medium Intensity Facilities The following section demonstrates that lo w intensity facilities do perform certain activities that may generate pollutants, such as storing materials outdoors. In total, 12 (of 76) facilities stored completed products a nd 28 stored miscellaneous materials outdoors, 17 operated forklifts during precipitation events, and 15 operated small process equipment that was exposed to precipitation and/or stormwater runoff. However, based on the intensity scoring scale, a facility coul d perform only a limited number of activities before it was classified as either medium or high intensity. The remaining discussion of common pollutant-generating activities focu ses on the high and medium intensity facilities, especially noting th eir similarities and differences Results for the high intensity facilities proceed those for medium intensity facilities. For exampl e (15%, 20%) signifies 15% of high intensity and 20% of medium intensity. The values are shown below. 020406080100120Small bulk waste Any other materials Large storage total (Forklifts, forktrucks) Forklifts in rain (Shipping/receiving area) Shipping area uncovered (Small process equipment) Small equipment exposed Low Medium High
128 Figure 7. Common Industrial Activities by Percentage at High and Medium Intensity Facilities There were noticeable similarities between high and medium intensity facilities when viewing aggregate results of common po llutant generating activities. For the most part, the activities that the contacted facilities engaged in were similar, however, the percentage of facilities answering Â“yesÂ” to activities was slightly higher for the high intensity facilities. In addition, the high intens ity facilities generate d a larger number of Â“yesÂ” responses, thus leading to a highe r overall score. The most common activities reported by both high and medium intensity facilities were the storage of materials, products, or waste materials outdoors; outdoor vehicle usage, such as forklifts and forktrucks; and the operation of uncovered or exposed shipping and receiving areas. Nearly all high and medium intensity f acilities reported some degree of outdoor storage. Ninety-one percent of high intens ity and 67% of medium intensity facilities 020406080100Activities Exposure Equipment Exposure Plant Yard Wash Outdoors Refuel Outdoors Maintenance Outdoors S/R Area Uncovered Vehicles in Rain Outdoor Vehicles Fixed Equipment Hazardous Materials Boneyard Larger Storage Smaller StoragePercentage of Yes Responses Medium High
129 noted storage areas larger than 100 square feet or five drum s of liquid. Of the remaining facilities, only one facility from each category did not store anything outdoors except for a single well kept dumpster. In total, 97% (33 of the 34 high intensity and 29 of the 30 medium intensity facilities) stored some industrial materials outdoors. Ninety-seven percent of high intensity and 90% of medium intensity faciliti es operated various vehicles outside. Of these, 59% of the high intensity and 33% of the medium intensity facilities continued using them during precipitation events. Uncovered shipping and receiving areas were noted by 56% of high intensity facilities and 60% of medium intensity facilities. The least commonly reported activities included having exposed hazardous waste areas (21% and three percent, respectively), maintaining off-site vehicles at the facility (nine percent and ten percent, respectively), refu eling off-site vehicles at the facility (18% and zero percent, respectively), and perf orming industrial activities outdoors with possible exposure to precipit ation or stormwater runoff ( 21% and 17%, respectively). The most notable differences between hi gh and medium intensity facilities were related to boneyards (56% and 23%, respec tively), hazardous waste materials exposure (21% and three percent, respectively), a nd fixed outdoor equipment (44% and seven percent, respectively). High intensity facilities also had a higher percentage of plant yards (47% and 30%, respectively), which may be due to the slightly larger facility sizes. Smaller storage areas were more frequent for medium intensity facilities, however, this is likely due to the lower overall percentage of facilities utilizing larger storage areas. High and medium intensity facilities, th erefore, may be more similar to one another than originally h ypothesized. Although high intensity facilities may associate
130 with a larger number of potentially pollutant generati ng activities, there were very few areas in which high intensity facilities dominated. Medium intensity facilities, while answering Â“yesÂ” to a smaller number of questions, may operate relatively similar facilities. These facilities, th erefore, should not be discounted as not having the potential to contribute pollutants to stormwater. V.E. Common Pollutant Generating Activities by Industrial Category Pollutant generating activities varied both between industr ial categories and, within their high and medium ranked facilities in each category. However, in general, the types of activities reported that may be c ontributing pollutants to stormwater were not highly correlated with the indivi dual industrial activi ties. Therefore, the SIC code may be less useful for categorizing fac ilities as technically required to comply with the Generic permit than activities that are perfor med to support overall operations. V.E.1. ACTIVITIES AT LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS (SIC 24) FACILITIES Lumber and wood products facilities were mo st likely to have larger storage areas (all participating faci lities), operate outdoor vehicles (all participating facilities), and utilize uncovered shipping and receiving area s (75% and 100%, respectively) (See Figure 19). However, only the four high intensity facilities reported ope rating the vehicles outdoors while it was precipitating. Ha lf of the contacted high intensity facilities reported having a boneyard, half noted exposure of out door process equipment to precipitation or stormwater runoff, and 75% had fixed outdoor equipment. Only one lumber facility was classified as medium intensity Â– this particip ants answered Â“noÂ” to each of the previous questions but noted that off-s ite vehicles were washed outsi de, to which no high intensity facilities reported affirmatively. It is diffi cult, however, to draw conclusion on this
131 category of industry, especially for the medium intensity group, due to the small sample size. Nevertheless, it appears th at the lumber industry partic ipated in similar potentially pollutant generating activities as other industrial categories surveyed. Lumber and wood products facilities may be likely to store materials outdoors, operate vehicles outdoors, possibly, in th e rain, and operate uncovered shipping and receiving areas. Fixed outdoor equipment and boneyards may also be present. Figure 8. Common Industrial Activi ties at Lumber Facilities V.E.2. ACTIVITIES AT STONE, CLAY, GLASS, AND CONCRETE PRODUCTS (SIC 32) FACILITIES Facilities producing stone, clay, glass, and concrete products exhibited slightly higher rates of certain polluta nt generating activities than the other three contacted facility types in se veral categories. Outdoor storage was prevalent at the nine high 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%S m alle r S torag e Larger Storage B o ne y ard Haz Wa s te Ex po s e d Fix ed Equip. Outdoor Vehic l es V e hic le s in R a in S/R Ar e a U ncover e d Ma inte n a n ce O u tdo ors R e fue l O u tdo ors Wash Outdoors Pla nt Y a r d Eq uipm e n t Ex posure A c tivities E x posureIndustrial ActivityPercentage of Yes Responses Lumber High Lumber Medium
132 intensity facilities (89%) as well as the thre e medium intensity facilities (67%). The remaining single facility in each category repor ted smaller quantities of storage. Outdoor vehicles were used at each facility, although two-thirds of the high intensity facilities operated them during precipitation events wh ereas only one-third of medium intensity facilities did. Plant yards were more co mmon at high intensity (78%) than medium intensity (33%) facilities. Two-thirds of medium intensity facilities operated uncovered shipping and receiving areas comp ared to only 22% of high intensity facilities. However, this may be due to facility size and makeup. The high intensity facilities were operated on greater acreage and were more likely to have a large plant yard. Due to the nature of concrete manufacturing in the County, build ings operating formal loading/unloading areas may be less common. These facilities, however, may load and unload products and materials within the yard itsel f. Maintenance of outdoor vehi cles was not reported at any facility, although two-th irds of the high intensity facili ties both washed and refueled vehicles outdoors at the facilit y. Exposure of hazardous waste did not occur at any of the facilities and only tw o facilities combined had a boneyard. Stone, clay, glass, and concrete facilities therefore, may be most likely to storage materials outdoors, operate out door vehicles and fixed outdo or equipment, and have a plant yard. Off-site vehicle upk eep may also occur at the faci lity. These facilities may be less likely to use hazardous materials, opera te formal loading areas, and store materials and equipment in a boneyard.
133 Figure 9. Common Industrial Activities at Stone Facilities V.E.3. ACTIVITIES AT FABRICATED META L PRODUCTS (SIC 34) FACILITIES Facilities that fabricated metal product s generally stored ma terials outside, with only one high and one medium intensity f acility reporting no outdoor storage besides a well-kept dumpster. Eighty-seven percent of th e 15 high intensity facilities utilized larger storage areas, whereas 68% of the 22 medium intensity facilities did (see Figure 21). Outdoor vehicle usage was also common ( 93% and 91%, respectively), however, only 27% of medium intensity fac ilities operated those in the rain, compared to over half (53%) of the high intensity facilities. Uncove red shipping and receiving areas were used at two-thirds of the high a nd half of the medium intensity facilities. While some maintenance of vehicles occurred duri ng precipitation even ts, the most common 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Sm a ller St o rage La rg e r Sto r a g e B on e yard H a z W a st e Exp o s e d Fi xe d Equ i p. O u tdoor Vehicle s Vehicles in Rain S/ R Ar e a U nc o ve r e d Ma i n t ena n c e Ou t do o rs Refuel Outdoors W a sh O u t d oo rs Plant Y ard E q u ipment Exposure A c tivities Expos u reIndustrial ActivityPercentage of Yes Responses Stone High Stone Medium
134 occurrence was washing, at 33% of the high intensity facilities. Exposure of miscellaneous process equipment was roughly 40% for both categories. The most striking difference between both the different intensity categories and the four different industrial categories was the presence of a boneyard, which was reported at 80% of the high intensity facilities. The metal fabrication facilities may be likely to store materials outdoors, operate vehicles outdoors, and utilize uncovered shippi ng and receiving area s. With the exception of boneyards at Â“high riskÂ” facilities, the occurrence of potentially pollu ting activities varied greatly among these facilities. Figure 9. Common Industrial Activities at Metal Facilities 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Smaller Storage Lar g er S t o r ag e B o neyard Ha z Waste Expo se d Fix e d Eq u ip Outdoor Vehicles V e hi c le s in R a i n S/R Area Uncovered M aintenance Outdoors R ef u el Ou td o o r s Wash Outdoors P l a nt Ya rd Equipme n t Ex p o su re Ac t ivities Exp o sureIndustrial ActivityPercentage of Yes Responses Metal High Metal Medium
135 V.E.4. ACTIVITIES AT ELECTRONICS AND OTHER EQUIPM ENT (SIC 36) FACILITIES Electronics producing facilities were likely to store mate rials outdoors with all six high intensity facilities using a larger storag e area. The four medium intensity facilities were split evenly between sm aller and larger storage area s. Outdoor vehicle usage was slightly higher at high intensity facilities (100% and 75%, respectiv ely), although each of the medium intensity facilities reported using vehicles such as forklifts during precipitation events, whereas only one-third of high intensity facilities did (see Figure 22). Uncovered shipping and receiving areas were also more common at medium intensity facilities (67% a nd 100%, respectively). High inte nsity facilities, however, reported greater exposure of outdoor process equipment (83% and 0%, respectively) and fixed outdoor equipment usage at 33%. Twice the percentage of high intensity facilities had boneyards onsite, yet at least one-quarter of each high and medium intensity reported some exposure of hazardous materials to pr ecipitation (33% and 25%, respectively). Electronics facilities may exhibit a similar likelihood of storing materials outdoors, utilizing vehicles outdoors, and operating uncovered shipping and receiving areas as the other three categories. However, facilities within this industrial category may be more likely to have exposed hazardous waste storage areas and outdoor process equipment than the other th ree industry types contacted.
136 Figure 10. Common Industrial Activities at Electronics Facilities V.F. Completion Rates of Phone Questionnaires The following section discusses the co mpletion rates for each of the four industrial categories, including each categoryÂ’s familiarity with the industrial stormwater regulations, especially the Generic permit requirements. The results have been shown according to the intensity classification, along with the mean scores. While it was useful to exam ine whether an industry category exhibited a greater percentage of low, medium, or high intensity faci lities, the raw questionnaire scores were also useful, as the intensity ranks were based on a scale and not absolute values. Therefore, a facility receiving a scor e of 3 would be labeled as Â“high intensityÂ” but may have been less likely to contribute pollu tants to stormwater than a facility with a total score of 6. In regards to the complete data set, the mean score was 1.72 with a standard deviation of 1.67. With the excepti on of stone, clay, glass, and concrete 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Sm a l le r S to r a g e La r g e r S t orage Boneyard Haz Wa s t e Expose d F i x ed Equ i p. Outd o or Vehicles V eh i cl es i n Ra i n S/R Area Uncovered M a intenanc e O u tdoo r s R ef u el O u t d o o rs W as h O u t d o o r s Plant Yard Equip men t Ex p o s u re Acti v ities Expos u reIndustrial ActivityPercentage of Yes Responses Electronics High Electronics Medium
137 facilities; each of the industrial categories had a mean score that w ould be at the low end of the Â“medium intensityÂ” range. V.F.1. COMPLETION RATE FOR LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS (SIC 24) FACILITIES Lumber and wood products facilities return ed the second lowest total number of Â“high intensityÂ” with only four facilities. However, this percentage (24%) is roughly equal to that of the metal industry at 20%. However, 76% of facilities listing SIC 24 as a primary or secondary industrial activity were classified as Â“low.Â” The mean score of the phone questionnaire was 1.6, meaning that althou gh the majority of facilities would be classified as Â“lowÂ” intensity, the behavior of some higher in tensity facilities increased the overall average. The standard deviation was 1.74. Table 13. Intensity Classifications for Lu mber Products (SIC 24) Facilities Completed Questionnaires Low Med High Total Total # Completed 13 0 4 17 % of Total Completed 76% 0% 24% 100% The results for wood kitchen cabinet ma nufacturers (SIC 2434 Â“light industryÂ”) were all Â“low intensityÂ” cl assifications. The average sc ore was 0.78 with a standard deviation of 0.58. These results, however, were only based on four facilities. For all but one of the low intensity facilities, the total facility size was one acre or less and only one facility noted that it empl oyed 20 or more employees. The facility size and employee number was slightly higher for hi gh intensity facilities. Each of the four high rated facilities was larger than one-half acre and had fi ve or more employees. It is difficult to make strong conclusions; however, it appears that larger facilities may have a
138 higher intensity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater, based on the research questionnaire. Of the 17 facilities, only one was familiar with the Generic permit and none had filed an NOI. Thirteen of the 17 f acilities requested additional information. V.F.1.a. Familiarity with Regulations Only one facility participant out of 17 reported some familiarity with the Generic permit. This was a low intensity millwork facility operating on less than one-half acre of land and with four or less employees. None of the high intensity facilities were familiar with the permit. Eight of the 12 low intensity facilities requested additional information, as did all three high intensity facilities. V.F.2. COMPLETION RATE FOR STONE, CLAY, GLASS, AND CONCRETE PRODUCTS (SIC 32) FACILITIES Stone, clay, glass, and concrete produc ts manufacturers exhibited the highest intensity of industrial activities exposed to storwmater. Thirty-eight percent of the facilities were classified as Â“high intensity,Â” which was the largest percentage of the four industrial types. Overal l, 57% of the facilities were Â“low intensity,Â” with the remaining five percent, or one facility, classified as Â“medium intensit y.Â” The mean score from the phone questionnaires was 2.5 with a standard deviation of 2.5. While these results are only based on 21 responses, the mean score wa s at least 0.7 points higher, or almost three-quarters of a point, than that of the other three industrial categories. Of the eight highly rated fac ilities, only one reported a f acility size of one acre or less. Four facilities were be tween one and three acres and tw o facilities were larger than 10 acres. The employee number for each was e ither between five and 19 or between 20 and 49. The medium intensity facility was between one and three acres, with an
139 employment number between five and 19. The low intensity faciliti es, on the other hand, were all one acre or less and employed no more than 19 employees. Table 14. Intensity Classifications for St one, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products (SIC 32) Facilities Completed Questionnaires Low Med High Total Total # Completed 12 1 8 21 % of Total Completed 57% 5% 38% 100% Each facility classified as producing Â“ready mix concreteÂ” was scored as high intensity, while each of the f acilities producing nonmetallic mineral products was scored as low intensity. The one facility identif ying with SIC Code 3231 (glass products of purchased glass) was also scored as low inte nsity. This code has been included in the Â“light industryÂ” category. V.F.2.a Familiarity with Regulations Familiarity with the Generic permit was reasonably high for the medium and high intensity facilities but poor for the low in tensity facilities. None of the low ranked facilities were familiar with the permit, however, the medium ranked facility, along with eight of the nine high intensity facilities were familiar with the Generic permit. Of those facilities reporting familiarity, only one high intensity facility had not applied for an NOI. FDEP listing verified each of the six NOI file rs (FDEP 2005b). Over half (six of 11) low intensity facilities d eclined additional information. Each of the eight facilities noting compliance with first stage requirements declin ed information, as they believed they were well informed already.
140 V.F.3. COMPLETION RATE FOR FABRICATE D METAL PRODUCTS (SIC 34) FACILITIES Facilities performing some type of metal fabrication were the most widely surveyed facilities and, therefore, provided a larger data set with which to draw conclusions. Of the 75 facilities contacted, 51% were scored as low intensity, 29% as medium, and 20% as high intensity based on in dustrial activities e xposed to stormwater. The mean score was 1.83 with a standard devi ation of 1.82. This score, for an individual facility, would be a Â“medium intensityÂ” ra nking but would be on the lower end of the medium range. Of the low intensity faciliti es, only six facilities received a score of Â“zero,Â” meaning that no potential for stormw ater pollutants was noted using the phone questionnaire. This does not mean, however, th at stormwater pollutant s could not or were not being generated at those facilities. Table 15. Intensity Classifications for Fabricated Metal Products (SIC 34) Facilities Completed Questionnaires Low Med High Total Total # Completed 38 22 15 75 % of Total Completed 51% 29% 20% 100% Facilities that manufactur ed fabricated structural metal (SIC 3441) are listed separately in the Â“heavy industryÂ” category. Ten facilities identif ying with SIC 3441 were contacted in Pinellas County and demonstrated a higher intensity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater. The mean score wa s 3.06 with a standa rd deviation of 1.81. Although this is a small sample size, it may be possible that this category is performing heavier industrial activities that in turn may have a higher intensity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater.
141 At the low intensity facilities, only ei ght of the 38 contac ted facilities had a facility size larger than one acre and onl y six employed 20 or more employees. There were no obvious trends in facility size or employee number for the medium intensity facilities Â– they ranged from less than one-half ac re to larger than 10 acres, and from four or less employees to between 200 and 499 em ployees. Finally, while there was some variability in the high intensity facilities, 12 of the 15 facilities were larger than one acre and all but one facility employed five persons or more. V.F.3.a. Familiarity with Regulations Two small facilities had some familiarity with the Generic permit, however, the remaining 26 did not. Of the medium intensity facilities, only four were familiar with the Generic permit and two of those reported fi ling an NOI. Five of the 15 high intensity facilities were familiar with the Generic permit and three reported filing an NOI. However, only three of those reported filers could be verified by the FDEP on its August 2005 permit list (FDEP, 2005b). Nearly 70% of the medium (16 of 22) and low (25 of 38) facilities requested add itional information, although only half (7 of 15) of the high intensity facilities requested information about the industria l stormwater regulations. Two of the NOI filers identified with SIC Code 3441. One additional fabricated structural metal facility was familiar with the regulations. V.F.4. COMPLETION RATE FOR ELECTR ONIC AND OTHER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (SIC 36) FACILITIES Facilities producing electr onic and other electrical equipment were most likely to be scored as low intensity, as demonstrated at 11 of the 20 contact ed facilities. Fifteen percent (3 of 20) were classified as medium and 30% (6 of 20) facil ities were classified
142 as high intensity based on survey results. The mean score was 2.0 with a standard deviation of 1.75. This demonstrates that, while the average score is at the low end of the medium range, there is a good deal of variabi lity in the scores, as was evident with the results from other industrial categories as well. Table 16. Intensity Classifications for Elec tronics and Other Electric Equipment Facilities (SIC 36) Completed Questionnaires Low Med High Total Total # Completed 12 5 6 23 % of Total Completed 52% 22% 26% 100% There was a significant range in facil ity size and employee number for low intensity facilities with some being less than one-half acre and others operating on between three and ten acres. Th e employment totals varied fr om less than four employees to between 50 and 199. Each of the three me dium risk facilities was less than one acre and employed more than five persons. Fina lly, while one high intens ity facility was less than one acre, the remaining five were at least three acres. The minimum number of employees was 50, with three faciliti es employing at least 200 persons. V.F.4.a. Familiarity with Regulations Three of the low intensity facilities we re familiar with the Generic permit and, although only one reported filing an NOI, all three requested additional information. Of the remaining eight facilities unfamiliar w ith the Generic permit, four requested information. None of the medium intensity fa cilities were familiar with the permit and two of the three requested information. Fi nally, only one of the six high intensity facilities was familiar with the Generic permit. Three of the surveyed facilities reported
143 filing an NOI and all but one facility declined additional regulatory information. Two of the NOI filers were verified by FDEP sources (FDEP, 2005b). V.G. Comparison of Phone Questionnaires to Fenceline Visits Fenceline visits were performed at 51 facilities, primarily those in the target zip codes, throughout Pinellas County. The facilitie s were selected arbitrarily based on areas that were the most industrialized Â– simila r to the CountyÂ’s approach. The research targeted between 10-20% of the facilities listed on the master database but 15-20% of the facilities contacted. The earlies t visits were focused in the Cross Bayou watershed and the final visits were performed in the northeastern count y. Facilities were selected arbitrarily and there was no known or attempted bias for se lection. Each facility that was contacted over the phone had an equal chance of being visited via the fenceline. The following table does not include facilities iden tifying with other SIC codes. Table 17. Fenceline Visits Completed vs. Database Listings Industrial Category # Facilities Visited # Facilities Called # Facilities on Database % Visited Called % Visited Database Lumber 7 36 35 19% 20% Stone 8 42 42 17% 17% Metal 25 124 165 20% 15% Electronics 7 48 68 15% 10% Totals 48 250 310 20% 16% The fenceline form (see Appendix 8) was used to identify only practices and activities that were visible from the fencel ine and that may contribute pollutants to stormwater. A comparable scoring guide wa s used to determine a range of risk intensities. As discussed in the Methodology ch apter, the fenceline scoring scale was not
144 intended to stand on its own and, therefore, was not considered a major finding of this research. It was useful, however, for compar ing phone questionnaire and fenceline vistis. Although the fenceline form does no t read word-for-word like the phone questionnaire, the basic components regardi ng material and waste material storage, shipping/receiving, facility description, and equipment location were retained. The attempt was not to mirror the phone questionnaire, but to examine the type of activities and materials that may contribute pollutants to stormwater during a br ief visit. Activities such as vehicle usage and maintenance pr actices could not be examined from the fenceline unless multiple visits were ma de over a lengthy period. For this reason, facilities that were visited were given a secondary phone questionnaire score. This raw score did not include activities related to vehicle maintenan ce or outdoor vehicles so that the results from the phone quest ionnaire would not be artificially higher than those from the fenceline visit. Results from the phone questionnaire and fe nceline visit had the potential to vary depending on the day on which a facility was visited. It was possible that materials were stored outside for only a few days each year and, if visited on one of those days, may result in a different score, however, it was mo re likely that the facility aspects viewed from the fenceline on any given day would be similar to what would occur on a regular basis and which may, therefore, be reported by industry professionals. In addition to obtaining a num erical score and intensity rating, the fenceline forms were used in conjunction with the phone quest ionnaires to disprove or not disprove the answers given by the industrial participants. Fo r example, a facility may have mentioned a shipping/receiving area but answered that the area was not uncovered or exposed to
145 precipitation. If the researchers visited this f acility and identified an uncovered area, these comments were noted on the fenceline form. Overall, there was good agreement betw een the phone questionnaires and the fenceline visits. While 51 facilities were vi sited, only 43 were used for comparisons. Some fenceline results could not be used because the facility had refu sed to participate in the phone survey, the facility could not be found, or the facility identified with a different SIC code. Of the 43 facilities visited, 6 facilities were classified as medium, rather than low following the visit. Two were elev ated from low to high intensity. Table 18. Agreement between Phone Questionnaires and Fenceline Visits Fenceline Results Low Medium High Phone Low 16 8 2 Results Medium 0 8 0 High 0 0 9 The most common disagreements between the phone questionnaires and the fenceline visits were due to exposed outdoor process equipment, such as air conditioners; uncovered shipping areas; and small quantities of scrap or waste material material stored outside. At most facilities, a minor statem ent was found to be incorrect, such as a shipping area being uncovered when it wa s noted that it was covered, or a few miscellaneous items that were on the property. Major contradictions were noted at only two facilities, one identifying w ith SIC 24 and the other in SIC 34.
146 Table 19. Fenceline Classifications by Industrial Category Industrial Category Low Med High Retail Not FoundTotal Lumber 4 1 2 0 0 7 Stone 1 2 4 0 1 8 Metal 6 11 8 0 0 25 Electronics 4 3 0 0 1 8 Misc. SIC Codes 2 1 0 0 0 3 Total** 15 17 14 1 2 51 ** Includes facilities that refused to participate in phone questionnaire. V.G.1. POSSIBLE WEAKNESSES IN FENCELINE VISITS Many of the facilities were located in industrial park s that housed numerous and varied industries or other busin esses. It appeared that, in some cases, there were shared storage or waste areas that were utilized by the various tenants. Wh ile this could not be confirmed, it was suspected that materials and equipment unrelated to the visited facility, but located in a commons area, could be the property of neighboring businesses. It was often difficult to ascertain what materials or equipment were associated with each facility. Additionally, for safety and privacy r easons, portions of some facilities were not accessible. Because the researchers were not invited onto the facility property, observations were made only from public road ways. Therefore, inspection of the back and/or sides of the facility was not always possible. Consequently, some facilities may have been under-rated. V.H. Comparison of Phone Questionna ire with Pinellas County Inspections Results from the phone questionnaires we re compared to the CountyÂ’s on-site inspection results. The researcher accompanied the County inspector on ten inspections. It was not possible to attend each relevant in spection, however, in these cases, the County
147 graciously shared its detailed on-site insp ection database. The County selected the facilities for inspection, based on its Â“high ri skÂ” definition and location within impaired watersheds. Many of these same facilities were included in this research, because of the emphasis on contacting facilities within the CountyÂ’s Â“targetÂ” zi p codes. It was not coincidental, therefore, that the County inspections and research efforts were complimentary. Although attendance during County inspect ions was a useful step, direct comparisons could not be made between the phone questionnaires and on-site visits for several reasons. First, the form and content of questi ons differed slightly. While the County inspections covered areas such as e quipment exposure to stormwater, storage of materials and waste products, operation of shipping/receiving areas, and outdoor industrial activity exposure to stormwater; C ounty inspectors classified questions as Â“trueÂ” or Â“falseÂ” and used narrative descriptio ns, rather than quantitative values. It was difficult to determine the quantity of some items or materials completely enough to compare the database records to the phone questionnaire results Secondly, certain aspects related to pollution prevention and best management practices were addressed during County inspections that were not included in the phone questionnaire. For example, it was easier to view features, such as oil stains on the pa vement or the failure to label a drum of liquids, with full access to the prope rty. The County inspector had greater access to the facility and could view the entire property inside and out. Observations such as Â“oil sheen in stormwat erÂ” or Â“floor drain leads directly to MS4Â” were not addressed during the phone questionnaire, as they were not components of the Generic permit. While many observations could be made from the fenceline, this level of
148 detail was not possible for non-government al personnel. County inspections were necessarily more thorough, howev er, they may not be the most appropriate first step for an agency. In general, however, there was not a subs tantial number of activities that were visible during on-site visits, but that could not be viewed from the fenceline. For the purposes of confirming the phone questi onnaire responses and the intensity classifications, it appeared that fenceline visits were adequate, even if the entire property and details could not be examined. This research has focused on compliance with first-stage filing of an NOI. Factors such as outside storage of materials, c onducting industrial activities outdoors, and operating a shipping and receiving area w ith contact to precipitation may have disqualified a facility from the no exposure certification. It was a ssumed that facility features such as stormwater detention ponds or other stormwat er BMPs would be incorporated following permit application. The C ounty inspector was also able to identify various stormwater practices and determine direct connections with the MS4. Because this research focused solely on the filing of an NOI, some of these on-site factors, while useful to MS4 operators for protecting MS 4 water quality, were not addressed. These factors were related to sec ond-stage compliance and beyond the scope of this research. The research analyzed the phone and C ounty on-site inspections by comparing the responses from the phone questionnaire to th e County observations, using both first-hand experience and detailed observation forms. Wh en possible, the researcher completed the fenceline form while attending on-site inspec tions in order to replicate the previous efforts. This was then compared to the re searcherÂ’s actual fence line visit and the phone
149 questionnaire results. When it was not po ssible to attend an inspection, the CountyÂ’s inspection results were used instead. In each case, materials, equipment, and wa ste products that were listed on the County database were also revealed dur ing the phone questio nnaires. Although some fenceline visits viewed activities that were not mentioned during th e phone surveys, this was not noted for any of the County inspected facilities. Accompaniment during County inspections supported many of the research findings. First, it did not appear that facilities were untruth ful regarding their responses during the phone questionnaires Similar activities and mate rials were discovered during the on-site inspections as dur ing the phone calls. Therefore, phone calls may be a useful first step that could be followed by thor ough on-site inspections, when necessary. Second, the prioritization of facilities us ing an intensity scale may benefit the County throughout the implementation proce ss. The proposed scoring scheme was developed based on the responses of Pinellas County industrial faci lities. Therefore, it could be used to compare facilities that ha ve not yet been contact ed or inspected to determine the relative proportion of Â“high riskÂ” facilities wi thin the County. The current intensity scale could also be adapted for C ounty inspection purposes to both protect MS4 water quality and encourage compliance with th e Generic permit. For example, on-site stormwater treatment may be an importan t factor for protecting MS4 water quality, whereas the storage of miscellaneous sc rap materials on-site may not. Additional activities could be added to the questi onnaire and then scored appropriately. Third, attending on-site inspections with the County demonstrated that inspections may continue to be a useful component of implementation. A more thorough analysis of
150 industrial activities and their po tential to contribute pollutants to stormwater may occur during thoughtful on-site inspections than during the phone calls or fenceline visits. Although phone calls and fenceline visits were useful, additional inspections may be necessary, especially for facilities that may be contributing pollutant s to stormwater but may be obviously low or high intensity. Therefore, thorough inspections may be necessary for some facilities, especially those that cannot be easily classified from phone conversations or from the fenceline. Howe ver, since over half of the participating facilities were judged to be lo w intensity, the majority of in spections could be reserved for facilities with the highes t intensity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater, rather than treating all of the facilities equally. V.H.1. COMPARISON OF RESEAR CH METHODOLOGY AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MS4 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS A common theme that occurred during conversations with various MS4 permit holders was the need to personally inspect f acilities in order to de termine Â“high risk,Â” whether facilities were potentia lly contributing pollutants, an d whether facilities may be required to apply for a Generic permit. Nu merous inspectors, as discussed in the Literature Review section, noted that thei r departments had not formally adopted a definition of Â“high risk.Â” Some MS4 operators Â“got a feelÂ” fo r a facility when on-site and could gauge Â“high riskÂ” be havior by viewing the hous ekeeping practices, best management practices, or facility employee attitude. These factor s, along with detailed inspection notes such as oil sheen, could not be elucidated from phone conservations or fenceline visits. However, they may in fluence government personnel during their inspections.
151 While County personnel have entered fac ility information into a standardized database, on-site inspections have not followe d a standardized procedure. There are both benefits and negatives to this approach. The phone questionnaires and fenceline visits presented the same questions for each facilit y, regardless of extraneous factors. This method was designed to be repl icable and could likely be ap plied by other researchers or agencies with similar success. Conversely, local implementation practi ces may be less structured. This researchÂ’s approach to stormwater questions likely missed some factors that could be addressed during an on-site visit. For ex ample, an inspector, upon viewing certain materials or equipment, may learn about addi tional industrial proces ses by asking followup questions. While it was believed that resear ch participants were honest, it was unlikely that every possible activity with the potential to contribute pollutant s to stormwater was mentioned. Participants were allowed to elab orate on issues, however, some things were likely overlooked during this process. In a ddition, because facilities were voluntarily participating, it was not prudent to exte nsively lengthen the questionnaire. Some additional follow-up questions, however, may st rengthen the questionnaire during future research efforts. The on-site inspections, which were more fluid and holistic, may have been able to identify smaller potentia l violations that may be missed during the phone questionnaire. However, with the lack of a st ructured inspection form, it is possible that other areas were not covered that were addr essed over the phone. Trained local inspectors may have different Â“high riskÂ” priorities dur ing inspections than this research or the federal regulations. For example, the stor age of various materials outside, while
152 potentially requiring coverage under the Gene ric permit, may not have violated local ordinances or be important for the protection of MS4 water quality. An inspector does not have to ask about various activ ities, such as equipment usage or maintenance of vehicles if they are not priorities. Conversely, the presence of hazardous materials alone may elevate a facilityÂ’s risk status, dependi ng on local Â“high riskÂ” definitions. Although the storage of hazardous materials was addr essed during the phone questionnaire and fenceline visits, it was viewed in addition to many other potentially polluting activities. The MS4 operators have been encouraged to develop a Â“high riskÂ” identification and inspection protocol. Their priorities may have been significantly different than the activities listed in the fede ral regulations or included in the phone questionnaire. Therefore, they may have intentionally or unintentionally ignored ce rtain activities that would technically require a faci lity to comply with the Generic permit, if they were not deemed to be of great importance to protec ting MS4 water quality. Fo r these reasons, the implementation of the MS4 permit, using a local agency-determined Â“high riskÂ” inspection process, may not improve compliance with the Generic permit. V.I. Completion Rate of Phone Questionnaires A total of 250 calls were made to facilit ies throughout Pinellas County. Of those, 136 or roughly 54% resulted in completed survey s. A completed survey signified that the research participant answered every question applicable that facility on each of the questionnaires. The reasons for incomplete surveys included: faci lity not industrial (warehouse, retail store, or sales office only), wrong information (number disconnected, incorrect phone number, facility closed, or residence), passiv e refusal (failure to make contact with an individual based on the protocol explained in the Methodology section),
153 active refusal, wrong SIC code, or wrong zip code (outside of the permit boundar). A facility could be labeled as the wrong SIC code if the primary business activity was different than listed and did not fall into the four SIC codes targeted by this research or was listed as a non-target SIC code but was contacted because of prior County inspections. In all cases, the entire surveys we re completed for facilities that were willing to participate, regardless of SIC code or physical location, however, those results were not included in the final totals nor used for statistical purposes. Table 20. Reasons for Incomplete Surveys Industry Sector Not Industrial Wrong Information Passive Refusal Active Refusal Wrong SIC Code Wrong Zip Code Total Lumber 2 6 3 4 2 1 18 Stone 6 4 2 6 2 1 21 Metal 5 15 18 5 5 1 49 Electronics 8 6 0 5 3 3 25 Total 21 31 23 20 12 6 113 % of Incomplete Surveys 19% 27% 20% 18% 11% 5% 100% % of Total Attempted Calls 9% 13% 9% 8% 5% 2% 46% Overall, the highest percentage of incomplete surveys was due to wrong information, making up 28% of the total inco mplete surveys and 13% of the attempted calls. In these cases, no actual communicati on was made with the desired industrial facility, due to an incorrect phone number or a business havi ng closed. Less than 20% of the incomplete surveys were due either to passive or active re fusals, however, the combination of these resulted in a loss of 17% of the total attempted calls or 43 individual facilities. Nine percent of the total contacted facilities (18% of the incomplete) could verify that no industrial or manufacturing activitie s occurred at the facility and, instead, operated as a retail store, a warehouse, or a sales office. If it c ould not be initially
154 determined whether a facility could be classifi ed as Â“not industrial,Â” the entire survey was administered. A designation of Â“not industrialÂ” was assi gned only after researchers reviewed the completed surveys. Twelve su rveys, or 5% of th e total calls, were incomplete because the facility identified w ith an industrial classi fication outside of the research target codes. Finally, six facilities, or 2% of the total contacted facilities, were physically located outside of the research area, either in St. Petersburg or another county, and, therefore, were not in cluded in the final results. Although the research desire d a higher completion rate, these results were higher than similar studies performed in California. The use of phone questionnaires, rather than those administered through the mail, likely increased the success rate. The majority of the incomplete surveys (roughly 80%) were due to fa ctors outside of the re search control. As discussed earlier, numerous directory sources were used to identify a workable phone number for a facility. Facilities either operating as a retail store, not identifying with the target SIC codes, or located outside the ta rget study area could not be included. Active refusals were identified as beyond the resear cherÂ’s control because Each facility was reminded of the brevity of the questionnaire and the confidenti ality of results, offered an additional explanatory letter, and allowed to ask questions of the researcher. In some cases, the potential participant still refuse d. The only area in which completed surveys could have been obtained was for passive re fusals. However, throughout the four-month data collection period, multiple phone calls were made to facilities on various days and times, allowing for increased success rate. Passive refusals most often occurred for facilities only operating an answering machine service. It was unlikely that a facility would return a phone call if no personal cont act had been made. As discussed in the
155 Methodology section, a protocol was deve loped for discontinuing phone calls. The researchers were confident that sufficient effort was made to contact each facility. Overall, the total number of refusals, both passive and active, was considerably lower than originally expected, especially because there was no incentive for industry personnel to participate, except to gain knowledge about the regulations and aid in research efforts. V.I.1. COMPLETION RATES BY INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY The overall completion rates for th e individual SIC codes were roughly comparable to the aggregate results. The co mpletion rate was 47% for lumber facilities, 50% for stone facilities, 48% for electronics f acilities, and 60% for metal facilities. It was not known why the completion rate was slight ly higher for the metal manufacturers than the other three categorie s of industry. Active refusals were most common for stone, clay, glass, and concrete manufactur ers and electronics manufactur ers as a percentage of the total attempted calls. Passive refusals were most common for metal products manufacturers. V.J. Usefulness of Phone Surveys as Initial Step Conducting phone questionnaires for a subset of industrial facilities may be a useful initial step for MS4 permit holders in terested in protecting the water quality of their MS4s and more efficiently using res ources. Although fenceline visits ranked some facilities higher than the phone scores, the ma jority of the visits confirmed what was learned over the phone. Thorough on-site inspecti ons may yield more accurate intensity or risk classifications, howeve r, they are also more time-consuming. Due to the general agreement between phone questionnaire result s and both fenceline visits and County inspection forms, it is suggested that phone out reach be used as a preliminary step prior
156 to inspections. This method, however, should be tested in other jurisdictions, especially those that are more industrial, to determine if the validity of res ponses and the success rates are comparable. V.K. Accuracy of Database An intermediate objective of this research was to design a methodology to identify industrial facilities in a given area. This required soliciting various data sources Â– both publicly available and private sources. Th e facility lists were categorized as public sources, which included information from va rious government agencies, and a private list generated by a for-profit (private) compa ny. This was done to recommend which list sources may be the most accurate for compiling a list of industrial facilities in other MS4 operatorsÂ’ jurisdictions. Overall, the InfoUSA (private) databa se was more accurate than those from public sources, such as EPA or FDEP. Of the 250 phone calls made, only 55 or 22% of the facility names and contact information were received using non-InfoUSA sources. This included facilities that we re listed on a public sources, plus the InfoUSA list, or just on a public list. The ma jority of the facilities, 195 or 78%, were available only through the InfoUSA list. It s hould be noted that, these resu lts only reflected facilities identifying with one of the four target SIC codes. Facility information may have been more complete on various public sour ces for other industrial categories. The accuracy of the sources was determ ined by calculating the number of errors. A total of 172 errors were reported during the phone questionnaires. An error was noted each time a piece of information was correct ed by a research participant, however, numerous errors could occur for an individua l facility. Each error was recorded as an
157 individual event, rather than by the total number of facilities for which errors were noted. The errors and the original datasour ces have been listed as follows: Table 21. Database Errors by Type: Number of Facilities from Each Source with These Errors Error Type InfoUSA only Public Sources Total Wrong Information 24 8 32 Wrong Company Name 15 10 25 Wrong Address 23 11 34 Wrong Phone Number 20 16 36 Wrong Industrial Activity 36 10 46 Total 118 55 173 Wrong information referred to a facility th at could not be reached, was closed, or was a residence. Wrong company name signified that at least a portion of the name was incorrect. This may have been as simple as adding the word Â“IncorporatedÂ” to the name, or could have signified a complete name change. A wrong address would incorporate minor changes to the address, such as adding a directional suffix, or complete changes in location. In most cases, this designation was not applied to facilities that used a different mailing address than the physical address, unl ess the mailing address was no longer valid. The designation Â“wrong phone numberÂ” was given if a facility could not be reached using the phone number supplied from previous list s, but could be found using various on-line directory sources. This also included facilities for whic h no phone number was provided on the original database, but could be found using other sources. For each facility, a minimum of three on-line sources was used to verify or modify phone numbers. This designation, however, was different than the Â“wrong informationÂ” designation, for which a workable phone number could be found. Fina lly, wrong industrial activity referred to
158 facilities that did not agree w ith the database-listed industria l activity. In some cases, a facility performed a similar activity within the same twodigit SIC code, but used a different four-digit SIC code. In other cases, th e industrial activity noted by the research participant was classified using a different two-digit SIC code, possibly outside of the target SICs. Due to the general lack of familiarity with the industrial SIC code, this total was not calculated. The majority of contacted f acilities could not verify a SIC code or volunteer the appropriate code. This occurr ed for several reasons Many participants, especially smaller facilities, were unfamiliar with the SIC coding system, signifying that this piece of information, which has used exte nsively in the NPDES industrial stormwater regulations, may not be widely used by industr y. Second, some participants were able to confirm or deny an activity and were familiar with the term Â“SIC CodeÂ” but did not know their facilityÂ’s primary or s econdary codes. Finally, some facilities have begun using the North American Industrial Classification Sy stem (NAICS). This coding system has formally replaced the SIC coding system, howev er, many industrial facilities and current regulations have continued usi ng the outdated SIC system. Usi ng a six-digit, rather than four-digit code, the NAICS codes allow for mo re specificity for industry, especially those dealing with specialized or less common industrial practices. This research has used the SIC codes in order to remain consistent with the industrial stormwat er regulations and the information available from many public sour ces. If a participant supplied a NAICS code, it was converted to the appropriate SIC c ode using the U.S. Census Bureau NAICS website (NAICS 2005).
159 Of the 172 errors, 117 were from InfoUSA sources and 55 from public sources. While it was originally believed that the va rious public sources would be more accurate, these results have indicated that the InfoUSA list was, in fact, more accurate given the total number of entries from InfoUSA entr ies. While the indivi dual totals for each category were higher for InfoUSA facilitie s, this was corrected by examining the proportion of errors relative to the total facil ity entries. The largest number of errors were repor ted as Â“wrong industria l activity,Â” with 36 errors from InfoUSA and 10 from public sour ces. For both database categories, 18% of the facilities (36 of 195 and 10 of 55, respectively) disagreed with their primary industrial activity. This indicates that errors in facility classification may be apparent regardless of the list, especially if the f acility personnel was not familiar with the correct SIC code. Table 22. Strength of Various Data Sources : Percentage of Facilities from Each Source with These Errors Error Type InfoUSA only (of 199 entries) Public Sources (of 55 entries) Wrong Information 12% 15% Wrong Company Name 8% 18% Wrong Address 12% 20% Wrong Phone Number 10% 29% Wrong Industrial Activity 18% 18% The most common error was incorrect phone numbers listed on public sources. Overall, a larger percentage of errors were cited using public sources. This may have been due to more frequent updating of the pr ivate industry source. Several of the public sources, especially those supplied by the EPA, were based on NOI filers, including on the TSDF list, and other sources. These facilities may have been added to the list years
160 earlier, but may have been retained on the li st, even if operations or locations were modified. A company producing industry list s as a profit-making venture, however, may be more inclined to update f acility list information, in or der to provide a marketable product. Information from the InfoUSA da tabase suggested that companies were contacted at least once per year to verify contact information (InfoUSA 2005). Again, while originally hypothesized to be less usef ul or less accurate th an public sources, the InfoUSA database provided useful and more up-to-date information that benefited the research effort.
161 CHAPTER VI Â– DISCUSSION This section reviews additional informati on learned during the research process. Some of these pieces were generated from th e research results, while others relate to information gathered during the phone survey process and during on-site inspections. This section, while not quantitatively based, is useful for improving the overall understanding of industrial stor mwater regulations and how they are being implemented in Pinellas County, Florida. VI. A. Industry Awareness of Industrial Stormwater Regulations The most striking finding from this res earch was the general lack of awareness about industrial stormwater regulations. Alt hough these regulations have been in place for over a decade, it appeared that many facili ties, especially smalle r ones, have not been adequately informed about their regulatory re quirements or have not proactively educated themselves. Because the NPDES stormwater regu lations have relied on self-identification by industry, numerous facilities have been ab le to continue their day-to-day activities unhindered by regulatory burdens, simply by c hoosing not to comply. The obvious lack of penalties for non-compliance ha s done little to encourage voluntary action or expedite compliance. Education may be the most useful to ol that MS4 operators could employ to increase compliance with the Generic permit, improve industrial management practices, and, ultimately, decrease pollutant loads to stormwater. The majo rity of industrial
162 participants were interested in learning more about the regul ations, which may imply that non-compliance is due more to a lack of aw areness than a conscious resistance on the part of industry. Several partic ipants that had been inspecte d by County officials prior to being contacted over the phone not ed that they were engage d in the regulatory process and had begun actively making positive changes, such as identifying appropriate BMPs. To ensure that compliance is occurring, however, follow-up phone calls or inspections may be beneficial. The City of Jacksonville, for example, has encouraged its industry professionals to comply with the regulations by acting as a concer ned educator, rather than a strict enforcer (COJ, 2005). The City of Jacksonville stormwater department has focused on building relationships and finding ways to facilitate compliance before fines are issued by the FDEP or EPA. This role has served both to educate industry and encourage compliance, while also potentiall y improving the water qua lity of its MS4s. Pinellas County has produced informati onal flyers using information from FDEP outreach materials. These are provided to facilities during on-site inspections. These types of materials could also be disseminate d to local industrial facilities prior to inspections and/or phone calls. Depending on an MS4 operatorÂ’s anticipated inspection schedule, it may be useful to provide educati onal materials to facilities that will not be immediately inspected, in orde r to increase the li kelihood that industry will proactively comply with the Generic permit. While not a ll facilities will proactively comply with the regulations, it may be useful for MS4 operators to establish a more active presence and inform industry of the negative repercussion s associated with non-compliance. Each MS4 operator has the potential to de velop beneficial relationshi ps with the industry it regulates, however, this may require increased publicity and outreach in a positive
163 manner. Additionally, outreach materials to the general community may reach industry professionals or concerned citizens, increasing genera l awareness of industrial stormwater and its potential eff ects on receiving waterbodies. VI. B. Industry Reaction to Research Participation Throughout the data collection period, f acilities were given the opportunity to express their interest or comment on the re gulations and/or the research. While most facilities were interested only in completing the questionnaire and/or receiving additional information, some participants used the opportu nity to express their dissatisfaction or reluctance to participate. First-stage compliance has required a $500 permit fee, however, subsequent stages require facilities to develop a SWPP, modify practices, train employees, or take water quality samples. Several participants looked upon these aspects of the process less favorably. These participants noted that they were at a competitive disadvantage because, while they were spending resources to comp ly with the regulations, their neighbors may be contributing pollutants without a perm it. A common response was that everyone should be required to comply a nd incur the costs, not just th ose that proactively complied. Other facilities complained about the difficu lty in obtaining correct water quality samples (a component in subsequent stages of comp liance) especially if qualifying rain events occurred outside of business hours. Conversel y, some participants believed that pollution was the price one pays for business and that regulations such as these were burdensome to industry and, were generally, not necessar y. This negative response, however, was not common, and the majority of participants di d not comment negatively on the regulations.
164 VI.C. Truthfulness of Industr y Questionnaire Responses The comparisons of phone questionnaire res ponses to fenceline visits and County inspections generally illust rated good agreement. Although there were minor omissions noted after visiting some facilities (such as fa iling to mention an exposed air conditioning unit or having an uncovered shipping/receiving area), very few facilities exhibited major violations and inconsistencies. The researcher s also felt that industr y participants were truthful in their responses. Overwhelmingly, th e most difficult aspect of the phone survey was determining the correct contact person and finding a time in which he/she was available for participation. However, once an industry professional ag reed to participate in the research, the researchers felt that the questions were answered honestly and to the best of the participantÂ’s ability. Prompting by the researchers tended to in crease the participantÂ’s responses. For example, a participant may have answered that no outdoor process equipment was located outside but would answer Â“yesÂ” if a specific example, such as a compressor or coolant tank, were provided. Therefore, a failure to recognize certain materials or equipment as important for the research purpos es may have been the fault of the survey questionnaire, rather than a conscious effort on the part of participants to withhold information. For many participants, the phone que stionnaire may have been the first time in which similar questions were pose d and, lacking knowledge about industrial stormwater, may not have realized the importa nce of some facility activities, even if asked. In general, the researchers did not f eel that participants were intentionally withholding information or misleading researcher s. If participants were concerned about their responses, they may have been less likely to participate in the research, even with
165 the promise of confidentiality. Th e fact that some facilities were scored as high intensity illustrated that participants were honest and forthright, even if it did not improve their image. Similarly, it could not be assumed that facili ties that did not participate, either due to active or passive refusals, were necessarily higher intens ity. Several fenceline visits were conducted at facilities that refused to pa rticipate. While one f acility was labeled as high intensity by the research team following a fenceline visit, seve ral others were not. Therefore, while some facilities may have d eclined to participate because they were conscious of possible violations, time constr aints or general busine ss policies prohibiting participation in research studies ma y have been more influential. VI. D. Limitations and Possible Mo difications to Research Approach Each component of the research was time-consuming and, therefore, would require resources by MS4 permit holders. The effort to compile information, however, may be less for government officials that have access to more extensive data sources and information. Phone calls were the most time-consumi ng step of the research, however, the completion time varied greatly for each f acility. Although the enti re questionnaire was usually completed in less than ten minutes, it was often difficult to secure a convenient time to speak with the industr y participant. The phone prot ocol was developed to avoid making numerous calls to a facility with no response. As discussed, it was unfortunate that each facility could no t be successfully reached, how ever, it was not realistic to repeatedly contact a facility that was not w illing to participate. MS4 permit holders, on the other hand, may have grea ter success contacting industr y professionals. While the
166 promise of confidentiality likely increased the response rate, f acilities were not obligated to participate. Environmental professionals may be able to solicit a faster response if facilities feel they need to participate in order to avoid enforcement or fines. Numerous fenceline visits could genera lly be completed within a normal working day. A motivated inspector could visually inspec t 30 or more facilities from the fenceline, depending on their proximity to one another. However, preparatory re search and facility locations would also be necessary to ensure efficient and effective fenceline visits. VI.D.1. DATABASE COMPILATION Although the researchers attempted to so licit numerous data sources to compile the industrial facility master database, some data sour ces may have been overlooked or not available at the time. Governmental offi cials may have greater access to certain industrial lists, whether they originate at a tax collectors o ffice or in an environmental department. During this period, officials involved in NPDES regulations and/or stormwater were contacted and asked to shar e any useful facility lists. It was possible, however, that industry information changed throughout the study period or that some departments with usable industr y lists were not contacted. Th is limitation applied to the larger municipalities, as smaller incorpor ated areas were not contacted. Because a primary focus of this research was to ge nerate useful information for the County, facilities located in the incorporated areas w ould, therefore, be less of lesser importance. Many of these facilities in smaller inco rporated areas were likely included on the InfoUSA database, however, the final list mo st likely excluded some facilities that may be subject to the Generic permit and/or th at may require inspection by MS4 operators.
167 VI. D. 2. PHONE QUESTIONNAIRES Overall, the phone questionnaires were both informative and easy-to-use by researchers. Industry particip ants reacted favorably to the length and format of the questions and could generally answer questi ons without further explanation. However, some questions may be strengthened by incl uding additional examples. For example, the questions related to storage of materials could include ot her raw materials, such as plastics or fiberglass. The researchers were given flexibility to s uggest materials based on the participantsÂ’ past responses, however, it ma y be beneficial to in clude examples cited from this research in future versions of the questionnaire. Followup questions related to materials and processes may also be necessar y. The specific type of materials and their potential for water quality viola tions should be investigated. For example, if a facility notes that wooden pallets are stored outside, it would be us eful to know if the pallets were made from treated (which may contai n formaldehyde) or untreated wood. Drums of waste liquid materials can vary greatly, cont aining something innocuous like collected rainwater, or highly hazardous substances. Th e conditions of drums also could not be determined from the phone questionnaires, unless the participants were asked to describe the structure of the drums, any labeling pro cedures, and other relevant components. This may be beyond the capability of the phone questionnaire and may be more appropriate for fenceline or on-site visits. Some attempt could be made, however, to learn more about the specific materials used on-site either as process materials or waste products. The order of some questions could be mani pulated to provide a better flow for the questionnaire. For example, it may be more useful to ask a participant how many loading docks are on-site before aski ng if any or all are uncovere d or exposed to precipitation.
168 For the CountyÂ’s purposes (or other MS4 permit holders), questions re lated to stormwater management and BMPs could also be adde d. Another useful component may be the proximity to local waterbodies or the elevation, which could be especially relevant during extreme weather events. While the phone questionnaire has been useful for this research, additional questions or modifica tions to the questions may increase the utility for agency personnel. VI. D.3. FENCELINE VISITS The fenceline visit forms could be st rengthened by more closely mirroring the phone questionnaires. Although it has been noted that the fenceline visits identified visible materials and practices, comparisons between the two methods may be simplified by adjusting the individual questions, wordings, and placement. The fenceline form did not specifically address hazardous waste and its possible exposure to stormwater. This was not included because it may be difficult or impossible for researchers to distinguish hazardous materials from non-hazardous, especial ly if drums are unlabeled, for example. In some cases, however, facilities may have clearly labeled materials. This could be addressed in a specific question on the fen celine form. Inspectors may also find other areas in which the fenceline form could be expanded or strengthened, depending on their inspection format and information needs. Items related to drainage of sites into MS4s or other site-related que stions could also be benefi cial to local inspectors. VI. D. 4. COMPARISON TO PINELLA S COUNTY, FLOR IDA APPROACH This research could have been strengt hened, overall, by incr eased presence at industrial inspections. The opportunity to accompany the County inspector on several days of inspections was immensely valuable however, it lacked the thoroughness needed
169 to make stronger and more conclusive results. This was neither the fault of the researcher nor the County. However, in the absence of a larger sample size, it was not possible, to make recommendations for the four indi vidual industrial categories individually. The County approach was noticeably diffe rent than the research methodology in many ways, even though the on-site inspecti ons were useful for validating the phone questionnaire and fenceline visits. First, th is research has proposed a systematic and replicable process for identifying facilities, gathering information, scoring pollutant generating potential, and ground-truthing the results. The questions used in the phone questionnaire were developed from langua ge in the federal NPDES regulations. Therefore, need to comply was dominated by association with activities and processes listed in the federal regulations. Naturall y, however, some activities may have the potential to generate a greater load and/or severity of pollutants than others. For example, the storage of some raw materials, such as untreated lumber, may not be as important as the storage of waste liquid materials. These subtleties are not addr essed in the federal regulations as industrial facili ties are expected to proactivel y identify whether or not they require the permit based on their industrial activities exposed to stormwater. Facilities technically required to comply but with a lo w intensity of activities may require less extensive or less expensive BMPs, for example. Conversely, the County inspections have been individually tailored to each facility visited. It may be obvious to the inspect or that certain questions do not need to be addressed, however, this level of knowle dge was not possible using a phone outreach strategy. For example, a small facility that shows no signs of vehicle maintenance activities and describes using outside shi pping companies may not be asked questions
170 related to off-site vehicle usage and mainte nance activities. On the other hand, viewing the industrial activities as th ey have occurred may have generated additional questions related to process equipment or materials. As indicated on the County inspection forms, there has been flexibility in how they have been completed. Rather than requiring an answer for each question, that can then be scored, the inspect or actively looks for violations of the local stormwater ordi nances, which may include oil on the ground, uncovered drums, particulates in the stormwat er flow, or direct drainage to the MS4. While all of these activities are important to r ecord and evaluate, it may not be possible to objectively compare them to one another. Second, the County is limited by its lo cal enforcement authorities and the language of its MS4 permit. The objective of the County (as well as other MS4 permit holders) is to protect the wa ter quality of its MS4, not to require compliance with the Generic permit by each facility technically required to comply. The County has been given the authority to enforce its local Pi nellas County stormwater ordinance by noting any possible violations (Chapter 58 Article VI). However, even if violations (e.g., leaking drums) are viewed, unless the inspector can prov e that the material is being incorporated into the MS4s in some way, his/her only r ecourse may be to recommend that another department or the State inspect the property. Therefore, the objectives and final results from the CountyÂ’s industrial inspection program may differ from inspections by the State or EPA that may specifically address comp liance with the Generic permit by using the federal language to determine need to co mply. The MS4 permit language, while intended to improve compliance with the Generic pe rmit, has suffered because it has delegated MS4 operators to inspect facil ities. As demonstrated, the Â“h igh riskÂ” definition can differ
171 significantly from the federal la nguage. It is necessary to und erstand the possible conflict of interest between the Generic and MS4 permits. The County, just as other contacted MS4 permit holders, has classified Â“high riskÂ” differently than this research. As noted by several municipalities, house keeping and management practices are particularly im portant. The appropriate management of materials is not addressed in the NPDES regul ations until a SWPP is being generated and implemented, although poor management pract ices may certainly affect pollutant generating potential. The handling of h azardous materials and documented compliance with other regulations may al so be important to MS4 opera tors. Other factors such as existing BMPs, elevation, physical building structure, and location were listed as important factors to the County, but do not appear in federal guidelines. Finally, the County has been empowered to inspect facilities not subject to the Generic permit. Because the MS4 permit specifi es that inspections can be performed at any Â“industrial or commercial discharger that the permit holders dete rmine is contributing a substantial pollutant load ing to the MS4,Â” (FLS00005, 2004), this could extend to other industrial-type faciliti es, such as automotive repair s hops or commercial sites. During 2004, roughly one-third of the Count yÂ’s inspections were for f acilities not listed in the Generic permit requirements. This may indicat e that the current federal permit structure has excluded some industrial and commercial sites that may be affecting water quality. VI. D. 4. a. Recommendations fo r Improving Local Inspections The following recommendations are app licable to various MS4 operators throughout the State of Florida. Because this research was conducted in Pinellas County, the recommendations have been tailored to th e research study area. The inclusion of the
172 County, however, does not indicate a weakness in its implementation, but rather, an attempt to apply the research findings. Overall, the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management has been proactively inspecting industria l facilities within its bounda ries and has increased the awareness of the applicable federal regulations at contacted faciliti es. By assisting with compliance, the County has been able to suggest site and process improvements to facilities, which may benefit the water quality of the MS4s and help the facilities to comply. Nevertheless, the CountyÂ’s inspec tion process could be strengthened. The following recommendations may benefit both Pinellas County and other Florida MS4 operators. First, increased outreach to industrial facilities may lead to some improvements of industrial site and process management. Wh ile inspections have previously been unannounced, in order to view normal day-to-d ay operations, it may be beneficial to increase educational efforts, even if possibl e violations are amended before inspection. Currently, facilities receive a dditional information only after they have been inspected. While it is unrealistic to suggest that out reach alone could improve compliance and/or water quality, it may increase familiarity with the regulations. There was not a dramatic change in operations for f acilities that were contacted over the phone and then visited during fenceline or on-site inspections. A dditionally, only a few of the previously inspected facilities noted that they were actively investigati ng their regulatory requirements at the time of the phone outreac h. However, the threat of an inspection and/or fines by the MS4 operator and/or FDEP may influence a small number of facilities. Additionally, wate r quality improvements through the use of BMPs and P2
173 strategies may be more beneficial if they are developed and imple mented sooner rather than later. Second, phone questionnaires could be used to initially screen and prioritize industrial facilities. This may improve the use of MS4 operator resources by simultaneously ruling out faciliti es that are not likely to co ntribute pollutants to the MS4s and increasing awareness of the regulations. This could be done by targ eting all facilities within a certain watershed basin, zip code, indus trial classification, facility size, or other factors. The State, however, should be require d to increase the funding for this program in order to cover the cost s of outreach materials and phone calls. Local outreach and contact with industrial facilities could greatly benefit the State. Therefore, financial assistance may be appropriate. Otherwise, MS4 permit holders should encourage the State to more effectively implement the regulations. Third, the final determination regarding wh ether a facility is required to comply has been assigned to the FDEP. Although th e MS4 operators may not judge certain activities as Â“high risk,Â” the State (and EPA where states do not have primacy) alone have been granted the authority and, therefore, th e responsibility, of im plementing the federal regulations as written. This n ecessarily implies that even minor violations or exposure to stormwater should require a Generic permit, ev en if a local stormwater ordinances have not been violated. Although the MS4 operato rs may communicate with FDEP officials by passing along copies of inspection forms, th e County inspections may be more effective at increasing compliance by viewing industrial sites both as a local inspector, and as a State or EPA inspector would. This may requi re additional time inspecting each facility,
174 however, an increased focus on activities that may require compliance with the Generic permit may ultimately improve compliance. Fourth, the MS4 operator inspections may be improved by addressing additional and more standardized questions. While this applied research coul d not learn everything about each contacted facility, every attempt was made to generate sufficient information in order to make comparisons between i ndustries by using a st andardized methodology. Alternatively, inspections by MS4 operators may rely on the opinion of trained inspectors, rather than pre-determined ques tions. Regardless of an inspectorÂ’s training, the determination of Â“high riskÂ” behavior may be improved by developing a more formal inspection guideline and protocol. Finally, the MS4 operators should attempt to define Â“high riskÂ” as it applies to their jurisdictions, based on the level of wate r quality protection desired and the available resources. A documented and agreed upon defi nition may facilitate site inspections and allow for an easier transition to new employ ees. While current insp ection processes (for various MS4 operators) may not require significant modifica tions, documenting observations that would lead an inspector to classify a facility as Â“high riskÂ” may allow greater uniformity in implementation. Without a working definition of Â“high risk,Â” it may be difficult to assess an MS4 permit holderÂ’ s effectiveness in meeting its MS4 permit requirements. VI. E. Recommendations for Future Research This research has suggested a method for identifying and classify ing facilities that may have a higher intensity of industrial ac tivities exposed to stormwater. This method has been effectively applied in a residen tially dominated Florid a county, however, it
175 would benefit by application in additional study areas, esp ecially those with more industrialized regions. The scoring scheme was developed to identify facilities with a higher intensity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater. Individual permit area or industry characteristics, however, may necessita te modifications to the current version. Trained industrial inspectors may have valuab le insight that could strengthen the scoring criteria. Additionally, this method and scoring criteria have only been applied to four industrial categories. Future re search should incorporate addi tional SIC codes and test the usefulness of this method for all industrial types listed in the NPDES regulations. If the intensity approach is to be successful, it may require additional facility inspections and water quality sampling to more conclusively determine the activities with the greatest potential to cont ribute pollutants to stormwater. Additionally, the examina tion of additional levels of compliance may benefit future research related to the ability of thes e regulations to control stormwater pollutants originating at industrial facili ties. Stormwater management and BMPs were not addressed in this research, however, follow-up research could evaluate the effectiveness of these techniques, possibly recomme nding the most appropriate techniques based on industry type, location, or facility desc ription. Finally, water quality samples should be taken and analyzed at various industrial facilities to test if high inte nsity facilities, as identified using these research methods, are in fact cont ributing more pollutants to stormwater than lower intensity facilities.
176 CHAPTER VII Â– CONCLUSIONS This section reviews the conclusions de rived from the research and how they support the research objectives. The results sec tion is ordered simila rly to the objectives. VII.A. Effectiveness of Research Methodology The research methodology exhibited bot h strengths and limitations, but was reasonably effective at screening industrial f acilities that may not require coverage under the Generic permit and/or local inspection fo r the protection of MS4 water quality. This methodology could be applied and/or modified by either MS4 permit holders or NPDES permitting agencies to more effectively iden tify industrial facilities that may contribute pollutants to MS4s or other st ormwater conveyance systems. The methodology succeeded in identifying both facilities that were technically required to comply with the Generic permit a nd those that likely did not require coverage. By doing so, it supported research from Californi a that identified th at a large portion of facilities should be of low pr iority and should not be includ ed in the federal regulations. The phone questionnaires were based on language in the NPDES regulations, therefore, they successfully identified f acilities that were performing ac tivities in those activities. More importantly, the methodology identified numerous facilities that likely do not require a Generic permit. The process of surveying industry using phone questionnaires and then classifying facilities based on the intensity of industrial activities exposed to st ormwater eliminated
177 over half of the participating facilities that were classified as low intensity and possibly would not require inspection by the local MS4 operator. Results from the phone questionnaires suggest that at least half of the four categor ies of industrial facilities operating in the County may not be require d to apply for a Generic permit. The subsequent fenceline visits and limited on-site inspections verified that the majority of the industry participants reported activities tr uthfully. The methodology, however, could not conclusively determine high intensity without an initial fenceline or on-site visit. Therefore, visual inspection of facilities may be a useful and required step, especially during the early stages of permit implementation. The phone questionnaire could be used e ither by MS4 permit holders or federal and state agencies to eliminate industrial f acilities that may not require the Generic permit and/or inspection. This may lead to a more effective use of available resources if implementing efforts are directed to the fac ilities most likely to cause water quality problems. VII.B. Development of a Practica ble Definition of Â“High RiskÂ” The methodology developed a definition of Â“high riskÂ” based on the intensity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater. The definition and three Â“intensityÂ” classifications were developed using the re sults of the phone ques tionnaires by assigning points values assigned to each activity with the potential to contribute pollutants to stormwater. This method may be more useful for controlling pollutants in stormwater than current regulatory definitions or t hose being implemented by MS4 operators. While the SIC code system may be us eful for other industrial regulations, especially those regulating dire ct industrial discharges of process water into receiving
178 waterbodies, it may not be the most effective way to prioritize facilities for stormwater protection. There were many similarities be tween activities perf ormed at contacted industrial sites, regardless of the industrial category and/or actual manufacturing processes employed. The final product being manufactured and the intermediate steps may be less important than activities used to support facilities that are more universal in nature. For example, the most commonly reporte d activities by participating facilities in Pinellas County included: the storage of materials outdoors, the operation of forklifts/forktrucks outdoors, the use of an uncovered ship ping/receiving area, and the operation of outdoor process equipment outside With the exception of specific materials stored outside, the activities listed above were less related to a specific industrial category or SIC code. Therefore, the SI C distinction may be less usef ul for stormwater protection. A consideration of the intensity of ac tivities may more accu rately reflect the source of pollutants at industrial sites and ai d in identifying industria l facilities with the greatest potential to contribute pollutants to stormwater. By incor porating a Â“high riskÂ” definition based on intensity and prioritizati on, fewer total facilitie s may be regulated under both the Generic permit and MS4 inspect ions. However, this may subsequently allow resources to be targeted at sites w ith the greatest impacts on stormwater quality. VII. C. Recommendations for Improvement s to the Current Regulatory Structure The following recommendations are suggest ed for both the federal Generic permit and the local MS4 permits. VII.C.1. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPR OVEMENT OF THE GENERIC PERMIT The Generic permit has been ineffective at reducing stormwater pollutants originating at industrial f acilities because many industrial facilities have gone
179 unregulated. The use of the 11 broad categ ories of industry does not account for individual differences at industr ial sites. Overall, there is a wide range in the intensity of industrial activities expo sed to stormwater at facilities within the regulated community. The Generic permit, however, does not encourage effective resource utilization because it addresses all industrial sites e qually. Not all regulat ed facilities demons trate the equal or important effects on the quality of receivi ng waterbodies. Because the Generic permit, which attempts to regulate all listed industrial sites, has be en so under enforced, it has had little ameliorative effect s on water quality protection. If the goal of improved water quality pr otection is to be achieved with limited resources, the regulations may require a prio ritization of industrial facilities within the regulated community. The Generic permit may be nefit by utilizing an intensity scale or definition for facilities potent ially subject to the permit. It may be more prudent and effective to regulate only those facilities with the gr eatest intensity of industrial activities exposed to stormwater, rather than attempt to regulate all faci lities, regardless of individual on-site behavior. By addressing the regulated community on some scale of intensity, fewer facilities may be required to comply with the Generic permit. A prioritization of the currently regulated community may lead to improved resource allocation and more targeted and effective implementation. The prioritization approach attempted in the MS4 permits may be appropriate for the federal Generic permits. However, rather than relying on interpretation by the regulated community, the Generic permit may be nefit from a more defined term based on intensity of industrial activities exposed to st ormwater. This may shift the focus to actual pollutant sources rather than solely on indus trial processes. If in creased compliance with
180 the Generic permit is desired, this same definition of intensity should also be incorporated into the MS4 permits. While the goal of each permit program is to improve water quality, the use of dissimilar permit language has hamp ered its effectiveness. A more universal definition for federal, state, and local permits, may allow MS4 operators to improve compliance with the Generic permit while, simultaneously, improving the water quality of their MS4s. This may increase reinforcemen t between the dual levels of regulation. VII.C.2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IM PROVEMENT OF THE MS4 PERMITS The use of the term Â“high riskÂ” within the MS4 permits is more progressive than the blanket coverage of industrial facili ties under the federal regulations, however, because it relies on loca l interpretation, it has allowed for irregular implementation. The use of prioritized facility identification and inspection, wh ich is required in the MS4 permits, is advantageous because it deviate fr om the use of the arbitrary SIC codes to focus on activities that may impact MS4 wate r quality. However, while this approach may potentially improve water quality of MS4s in addition to saving resources, it has been applied differently throughout the St ate of Florida, l eading to potential inconsistencies in water qua lity protection. The flexibility in the MS4 permits may benefit local agencies, however, it has al lowed local MS4 operators to exclude many facilities from inspection, based on the res ources allocated for im plementation and the self-selected definition of Â“high risk.Â” A standardized definition of Â“high risk Â” for the entire state may promote more uniform implementation of the MS4 permits, so that the level of water quality protection in one region might comparable to other re gions. Some degree of lo cal interpretation may be desirable, however, minimum guidelines base d on the intensity of industrial activities
181 exposed to stormwater may provide clearer objectives and lead to more effective implementation by MS4 operators. If the State of Florida is concerned about improving th e water quality of MS4s (from pollutants originating at industrial sites), the State and local MS4 operators will need to devote sufficient resources to bringi ng facilities into compliance with the Generic permit. This may be accomplished by increasi ng locally based inspec tions, so long as the broader goals of the Generic permit and local priorities are addre ssed. This however, may require state funding for improved implementati on at the local level, especially for MS4 operators with limited budgets for industrial inspections. A more active educational outreach program, by State, local agencies, or both may reach industrial facilities that have the potential to contribu te pollutants to stormwater, but that cannot be immediately inspected. In the meantime, MS4 operators may improve implementation of the MS4 permits by first adopting a definition of Â“high ris k.Â” While many MS4 ope rators that were contacted for the research have addressed the term in some way, a dedicated approach to prioritizing facilities within their jurisd iction may improve resource usage and water quality by targeting only thos e facilities with the greatest potential for contributing pollutants to stormwater. The definition s hould be replicable to ensure uniformity amongst local employees and at inspections. Finally, educational outreach efforts made during contact with the industrial community may improve compliance with the Generic permit and lead to a more informed industrial community.
182 VII.D. General Applicability of Research Results The evaluation of environmental polic ies, such as indus trial stormwater regulations, is important and can contri bute to necessary policy revisions. Policy improvement cannot occur without evaluation, therefore, research such as this can lead to policies that more effectively achieve their desired results, while utilizing societal resources wisely. Regulations, such as the Gene ric permit, that rely on self-identification and self-selected implementation by the regulated community may be met with questionable or poor success. The Generic pe rmit, which relies on self-identification by regulated industries, has demonstrated lo w compliance. The use of self-selected implementation strategies, illustrated by the Â“high riskÂ” term in the MS4 permits, can lead to irregular implementation when local permit holders decide th eir level of resource allocation and natural resource protection. Addi tional investigation of regulations that empower the regulated community, rather than the implementing agencies, may lead to more effective current and future regulations. The methodology developed for this rese arch could be applied in other MS4 permit jurisdictions. Prioritizing industrial faci lities using a phone que stionnaire to screen out facilities that may not require compliance with the Generic permit and/or local inspection may reduce the workload of local inspectors and lead to more targeted and useful on-site inspections. MS4 operators may be able to broaden their list of industries potentially requiring inspection by utilizing a dditional lists of indus try, such as those obtained by other governmental agencies and/ or for-profit compan ies. Phone outreach can then identify potentially Â“high riskÂ” facilities. Finally, all MS4 operators should be encourag ed to proactively define Â“high risk.Â”
183 In the absence of a state-adopted defin ition, the local approach should strive for prioritization of industry base d on their potential to contribute pollutants to stormwater, rather than on other characteristics, such as SIC codes, that may be less useful for stormwater protection. Identification and inspec tion of facilities may be more effective by utilizing a scale of intensity that is sensitive to both water quality protection and resources for implementation.
184 List of References 33 U.S.C 1251 et seq., 2002. Federal Water Pollution Control Act. As Amended through P.L. 107-303, November 27, 2002. 42 U.S.C. s/s 7401 et seq., 1970. Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 7661, 2003. Title 42 Â– The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 85Air Pollution Prevention and Control, Subchapter VPermits, Section 7660. 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq., 1986. Emergency Planning & Commun ity Right to Know Act. Adams, J., 2005. Personal Communication wi th Jack Adams, NPDES Coordinator, Engineering, Stormwater and Traffic Operations Department, City of St. Petersburg, Florida on August 31, 2005. Abrahante, R., 2005. Personal Communication with Roberto Abrahante, Manager, Industrial Facilities S ection, Department of Environmental Resources Management, Miami-Dade County, Florida on October 11, 2005. Adeshile, K., 2005. Personal Communication with Kehinde Adeshile, Associate Engineer, Public Works Engineering, City of Jacksonville, Florida on September 2, 2005. Adler, R.W., J.C.Landman, and D.M.Cameron, 1993. The Clean Water Act: 20 Years Later Island Press: Washington, D.C. ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation), 2004. Storm Water: Brief Federal Legislative History. Available at: http://www.state.ak.us/dec/water/wn pspc/stormwater/fedleghistory.htm Accessed in November, 2004. Athayde, D.N., P.E. Shelley, E.D. Dr iscoll, D. Gaboury, and G. Boyd, 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Executive Summary. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Pr ogram Operations, Water Planning Division, Washington, D.C., 30 pp. Augustenborg, C.A., 2001. Effectiveness Assessment of NPDES Regulations for Storm Water Discharges. MasterÂ’s Degree Report, UCLA: Los Angeles, CA.
184 Bailey, B., 1993. Surviving the Stormwater Permit Process. Water, Environment & Technology, 5:7, 70-73. Barnard, T., 2002. Compliance with Ph ase II Stormwater Regulations. Pollution Engineering, 34:5 20-23. Barlas, S., 2000. EPA stormwater rule flows well for industry. National Petroleum News, 92:1 14. Benton, J.E.,2004. Public Policy and Program Evaluation course notes. Recorded in October, 2004. Birch, R.E., 1998. Program Evaluation and Environmental Policy: The State of the Art In: Knapp, G.J. and T.J. Kim (Eds). Environmental Program Evaluation: A Primer. University of Illinois: Chicago, IL. Burton, G.A. and R.E. Pitt, 2002. Stormwater Effects Handbook: a Toolbox for Watershed Managers, Scient ists, and Engineers. CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL. CS (City of Sacramento), 2003. Stormwater Quality Impr ovement Plan: Program Overview and History. Available at: http://www.sacstormwater.org/const/manuals/pdf/05_Ch02.pdf Accessed in February, 2004. Desbordes, M. and J.C. Hmain, 1990. Further Research Needs for Impact Estimates of Urban Storm Water Pollution. Water Science and Technology, 22:10-11, 9-14. Dodson, R.D., 1999. Storm Water Pollution Control: Industry and Construction NPDES Compliance. McGraw Hill, Inc: New York, NY. Duke, L.D., 2005. Effluent Limitations and the NPDES Permit, In: Water Encyclopedia: Domestic, Municipal, and Industria l Water Supply and Waste Disposal, J. Lehr, J, Keeley, J. Lehr, and T. B. Kingery III (Editors). Duke, L.D. and C.A. Augustenborg, 2006. Effec tiveness of Self-Regulated and SelfReported Environmental Regulations fo r Industry: The Case of Stormwater Runoff in the U.S. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management: In Press. Duke, L.D. and P.G. Beswick, 1997. Industry Compliance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Regulations: The Case of Tr ansportation Industry Facilities in California and the Los Angeles Region. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 33:4, 825-838.
185 Duke, L.D. and K.A. Shaver, 1999. Widespread Failure to Comply with U.S. Stormwater Regulations for Industry: Pa rt II: Facility-Level Evaluations to Estimate Number of Regulated Facilities. Environmental Engineering Science, 16:4, 249-263. Duke, L.D., K.P. Coleman, and B. Masek, B. 1999a. Widespread Failure to Comply with U.S. Stormwater Regulations for Industry: Part I: Publicly-Available Data to Estimate Number of Potentially Regulated Facilities. Environmental Engineering Science, 16:4 229-247. Duke, L.D., K.A. Shaver, Y.J. Chung, J. Burnam, M.A. Yeager, K.P. Coleman, B. Masek, L. Ganse, N. Meck, and C.R. Jones, 1999b. Storm Water General Industrial Permit Non-file r Identification and Comm unication Project. Draft Final Report to California State Water Resources Control Board, contract no. 5-096-250-0, May 1999. Duke, L.D., K.A. Shaver, J.L. Burnam T.P. Todd, and C.A. Augustenborg, 2001. Industrial Storm Water Discharge Id entification and Compliance Evaluation in the City of Los Angeles. Final Report to California Regional Water Quality Control Board, July 2001. 120 pp. Field, R. and R.E. Pitt, 1990. Urban Stor m-induced Discharge Impacts: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Program Review. Water Science and Technology, 22:10-11, 1-7. FDEP (Florida Department of Environmen tal Protection), 2000a. Authorization of State of Florida to Implement NP DES Program. Section 403.0885 Florida Statutes, October 2000. FDEP (Florida Department of Environmen tal Protection), 2000b. Florida Adoption of Federal Stormwater Multi-Sector Genera l Permit for Industrial Activities. Rule 62-621.300(5)(a), F.A.C. FDEP (Florida Department of Environmen tal Protection), 2000c Notice of Intent To Use Multi-Sector Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity. DEP Form 62-621.300(5 )(b, F.A.C. Effective October 22, 2000. FDEP (Florida Department of Environm ental Protection), 2001. No Exposure Certification for Exclusion from NPDES Stormwater Permitting. DEP Form 62-620.910(17), F.A.C. Effective June 1, 2001. FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection), 2002. FloridaÂ’s 303(d) List. Available at : http://www.dep.state.fl.us /water/tmdl/docs/303(d)-2.pdf Accessed in November, 2004.
186 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection), 2004. FloridaÂ’s NPDES Stormwater Program. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/wat er/stormwater/ npdes/index.htm Accessed in September, 2004. FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection), 2005a. Program for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4). Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/wat er/stormwater/ npdes/MS4_1.htm Accessed in September, 2005. FDEP (Florida Department of Environmen tal Protection), 2005b. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Report: NPDES Stormwater Facilities. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/wat er/wastewater/download.htm Accessed in September, 2005. Fiorino, 1995. Making Environmental Policy University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. FLS000005, 2004. State of Florida Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit No. FLS000005. Issued March 1, 2004. Freeman, J., 1997. Collaborative Governance. UCLA Law Review 45,1: 1-87. FS (Florida Statutes), 2000a. 403.0885, Establishment of Federa lly Approved State National Pollutant Discharge Elim ination System (NPDES) Program. State of Florida Title XXIX, Chapter 403, Public Health, Environmental Control. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/wat er/stormwater/ npdes/docs/403_0885.pdf Accessed in September, 2005. FS (Florida Statutes), 2000b. Generic Permits. Rule 62-621 Florida Administrative Codes. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/l egal/rules/shared/62-621.pdf Accessed in October, 2004. FS (Florida Statutes), 2000c. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. Rule 62-624 Florida Administrative Codes. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us /legal/rules/shared/62-624.pdf Accessed in October, 2004. FS (Florida Statutes), 2000d. Permits. Rule 62-4 Florida Administrative Codes. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us /legal/rules/shared/62-4.pdf Accessed in October, 2004.
187 FS (Florida Statutes), 2000e. Regulations of Stormwater Discharge. Rule 62-25 Florida Administrative Codes. Accessed at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/le gal/rules/surfacewater/62-25.pdf Accessed in October, 2004. Gambino, M., 2005. Personal Communication with Mike Gambino, Section Supervisor, Stormwater and Flood Plain Management Program, Department of Environmental Resources Management, Miami-Dade County, Florida on October 11, 2005. Gerston, L.N., 2002. Public Policymaking in a Democratic Society: A Guide to Civic Engagement. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, NY. Glicksberg, D., 2005. Personal Communication with David Glicksberg, Environmental Manager, Stormwater Management, Public Works Department, Hillsborough County, Florida on November 2, 2005. Goldberg, R., 1993. EPA Expands Stormwater Control Permitting. Water, Environment & Technology, 5:7, 27-28. Horner, R.R., J.J. Skupien, E.H. Livingston, and H.E. Shaver, 1994. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Techni cal and Institutional Issues. Terrene Institute: Washington, D.C. Houck, O.A., 2002. The Clean Water Act TMDL Program: Law, Policy, and Implementation (2nd Edition). Environmental Law Institute: Washington, D.C. InfoUSA, 2005. InfoUSA Sales Solutions. Available at: http://www.infousa.com/ Accessed in March, 2005. Jones, C.O.,1984. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy (3rd Edition). Harcourt Brace & Company: Fort Worth, TX. Kalman, O., J.R. Lund, D.K. Lew, and D. M. Larson, 2000. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Stormwater Quality Improvements. Environmental Management 26:6 615-628. King, A.A. and M.J. Lenox, 2000. Industry Se lf-regulation without Sanctions: the Chemical IndustryÂ’s Responsible Care Program. Academy of Management Journal, 43:4, 698-716. Knapp, G.J. and T.J Kim, (Eds.), 1998. Environmental Program Evaluation: a Primer. University of Illinois Press: Chicago, IL.
188 Kraft, M.E. and N.J. Vig, 2003. Environmental Policy from the 1970s to the Twenty-First Century. In Editors N. J. Vig & M.E. Kraft (Ed.), Environmental Policy: New Directions in the Twenty-First Century (5th Edition), Congressional Quarterly, Inc.: Washington, D.C. Krehbiel, T.C. and O.H. Erekson, 2001. Charact eristics of Self-regul ating Environmental Management Systmes: A Survey of Academic Experts. International Journal of Technology and Management, 1:2, 104-126. Kubasek, N.K. and G.S. Silverman, 2005. Environmental Law (5th Edition). Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, N.J. Larrough, K., 2005. Personal Communication with Kelly Larrough, Environmental Specialisty, City of Lakeland, Florida on September 2, 2005. Line, D.E., J.A. Arnold, G.D. Jennings, and J. Wu, 1996. Water Quality of Stormwater Runoff From Ten Industrial Sites. Water Resources Bulletin 32:4, 807-816. Livernois, J. and C.J. McKenna, 1999. Trut h or consequences, Enforcing Pollution Standards with Self-Reporting. Journal of Public Economics, 71, 415-440. Lyon, T.P. and J.W. Maxwell, 2001. Â“VoluntaryÂ” Approaches to Environmental Regulation: A Survey. In: M. Franzini and A. Nicita (Eds). Economic Institution and Environmental Policy. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.: Aldershot, Hampshire. MacDonald, L.J. and S.F. Bates, (Eds.), 1993. Natural Resources Policy and Law: Trends and Directions. Island Press: Washington, D.C. Magat, W. and K. Viscusi, 1990. Effectiven ess of the EPAÂ’s Regulatory Enforcement: The Case of Industrial Effluent Standards. Journal of Law and Economics, 33, 331-360. Marsalek, J., 1990. Evaluation of Pollutan t Loads from Urban Nonpoint Sources. Water Science Technology, 22:10-11, 23-30. Maxwell, J.W. and C. Decker, 1998. Voluntary Environmen tal Investment and Regulatory Flexibility. Working paper, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, Kelley School of Busine ss, Indiana University: Bloomington, IN. Mazmanian, D.A. and P.A. Sabatier, 1981. Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington Books: Washington, D.C. Mazmanian, D.A. and P.A. Sabatier, 1983. Implementation and Public Policy. Scott, Foresman and Company: Glenview, IL.
189 Mikolon, M, 2005. Personal Communication wi th Mark Mikolon, Environmental Specialist III, Water Resources NPDES Stormwater Section, Natural Resources Division, Polk County, Florida on September 7, 2005. MSSSSP (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit), 2004. State of Florida Municipal Separate Storm Se wer System Permit No. FLS00005. Issued March 1, 2004. NLFA (US Environmental Protection Agency National Listing of Fish Advisories), 2005. Advisory Report Output for Florida. at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/nlfwa/nlfwa.advrpt Accessed in April, 2005. Nichols, A.B., 1991. General Industr ial Stormwater Permit Proposed. Water, Environment & Technology, 3:10, 20. NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), 1999. Stormwater Strategies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollution Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/water/ pollution/storm/stoinx.asp Accessed in September, 2005. Oates, W.E. (Ed.), 1999. The RFF Reader in Environmental and Resource Management. Resources for the Future: Washington, D.C. OIG (U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, Office of Inspector General), 2004. Effectiveness of Effluent Guidelin es Program for Reducing Pollutant Discharges Uncertain. Report No. 2004-P-00025. USEP A, OIG: Washington, D.C. OMB (Office of Management and Budget), 1987. Standard Industrial Classification Manual Executive Office of the President: Washington, D.C. OOW (U.S. Environmental Protectio n Agency Office of Water), 1999. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices. EPA-821-R 99-012. Office of Water: Washington, D.C. Peters, G.B., 2004. American Public Policy: Promise and Performance (6th Edition). Congressional Quarterly, Inc.: Washington, D.C. Pinellas County, 2005a. Pinellas County Article II: Environmental Enforcement. Pinellas County Chapter 58, Article II, Section 58-26 thru 58-55. Pinellas County, 2005b. Pinellas County Article VI: Stormwater Pollution. Pinellas County Chapter 58, Article VI, Section 58-236 thru 58-265.
190 Pinellas County, 2004. Pinellas County GIS. Available at: http://pubgis.co.pinellas.fl.us/public_gis/ Accessed in November, 2004. Pinellas County ED (Pinellas County Economic Development), 2004. Pinellas County Economic Development. Available at: http://www.siliconbay.org Accessed in January, 2005. Pfaff, A.S. and C.W. Sanchirico, 2000. Envi ronmental Self-Auditing: Setting the Proper Incentives for Discovery and Correction of Environmental Harm. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 16:1, 189-208. Poe, A. K. Hackett, S. Janicki, R. Pribble, and A. Janicki, 2005. Estimates of Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Tota l Suspended Solids, and Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loading to Tampa Bay, Florida: 1999-2003. Report to the Tampa Bay Estuary Program: St. Petersburg, FL. Potoski, M. and A. Prakash, A., 2002. Protecting the Environment: Voluntary Regulations in Environmental Governance. Policy Currents 11:4 9-14. Rosenbaum, W.A., 1995. Environmental Politics and Policy (3rd Edition). CQ Press: Washington, D.C. Rosenbaum, W.A., 2005. Environmental Politics and Policy (6th Edition). CQ Press: Washington, D.C. Sabatier, P.A. and D.A. Mazmanian, 1981. Th e Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework for Analysis. In D.A. Mazmanian and P.A. Sabatier (Eds.), Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington Books: Lexington, MA. Sepessey, M., 2005. Personal Communication with Mike Sepessey, Stormwater Program Coordinator, City of Largo on August 31, 2005. Shaver, K., 2003. Assessment of First-Stage Compliance with CaliforniaÂ’s Industrial Storm Water Discharge Re gulations: The Role of Se lf-Identification and the Pollution Prevention Approach in Industrial Permitting. Draft Dissertation, UCLA: Los Angeles, CA. Singer Coxe, C., 2002. Creative Stormwater Treatment. Pollution Engineering, 34:2 23-25. Smith, Z.A., 2000. The Environmental Policy Paradox (3rd Edition). Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
191 Solomon, L.S., 1998. Evaluation of Environmental Programs: Limitations and Innovation In: G.J. Knapp, and T.J. Kim (Eds.), Environmental Program Evaluation: a Primer. University of Illinoi s Press: Chicago, IL. Switzer, J.V., 2004. Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions (4th Edition). Thomas Wadsworth: Belmont, CA. SQMC (Stormwater Quality Management Committee), 2004. Stormwater Quality Management Committee: Federal and State Permits. Available at: http://www.lvstormwater.com/regs.html Accessed in November, 2004. Switzer, J.V.,2004. Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions (4th Edition). Thomas Wadsworth: Toronto, Canada. TBEP (Tampa Bay Estuary Program), 1998. The Tampa Bay Estuary Program Comprehensive and Conservation Management Plan and Partnership for Progress the Nitrogen Manageme nt Consortium Action Plans. Technical Report of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program: St. Petersburg, FL. TBRPC (Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council), 2004. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Available at: http://www.tbrpc.org Accessed in October, 2004. TRI (U.S. EPA TRI Explorer), 2004. TRI Explorer: Releases: Fa cility Report. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/ Accessed in September, 2004. US Census Bureau, 1997. County Business Patterns for Pinellas, Florida. at: http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/map/97data/12/103.txt Accessed in August, 2005. US Census Bureau, 2002. 2002 Economic Census Geographic Area Series: Florida. Available at : http://www.census.gov/econ/ census02/guide/02EC_FL.HTM Accessed in March, 2005. US Census Bureau, 2004. 1997 Economic Census: Comparative Statistics for United States. 1987 SIC Basis: Manufacturing. Available at: http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97sic/E97SUSD.HTM Accessed in August, 2005. US Census Bureau, 2005. Standard Industrial Classificatio n (SIC) System. Available from the U.S. Census Bureau website at: http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/sic.html Accessed in April, 2005 US Courts. (2002). The Third Branch: Congress Begins Second Session Available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/feb02ttb/congress.html Accessed in November, 2004.
192 USGAO (U.S. General A ccounting Office), 1995. Environmental Protection: EPAÂ’s Problem with Collection and Management of Scientific Data and Its Effort to Address Them. GAO/TRCED-95-174: Washington, D.C. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1992. Final NPDES General Permit For Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity. Federal Register 58(222):61333-61342. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1995. Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Wa ter Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities; Notice. Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 189, Friday, September 29, 1995. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1996. NPDES Permit WritersÂ’ Manual EPA-833-B-96-003. USEPA, Office of Water: Washington, D.C. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998a. Final Modification of the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminati on System (NPDES) Storm Water MultiSector General Permit for Industrial Ac tivities; Termination of the EPA NPDES Storm Water Baseline Industrial General Permit; Notice. Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 189, Wednesday, September 30, 1998. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1998b. Storm Water Discharges Associated with I ndustrial Activity. 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) (i)-(xi). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/region02/water/wpb/indsw.htm Accessed in November, 2004. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999a. 33/50 Program: The Final Record. EPA-745-R-99-004, USEPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics: Washington, D.C. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1999b. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges; Final Rule. Report to Congress on The Phase II Storm Water Regulations; Notice. Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 235, Wednesday, December 8, 1999. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2000a. Final Reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities; Notice. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 210, Monday, October 30, 2000. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2000b. Storm Water Phase II Compliance Assistance Guide. EPA 833-R-00-002, USEPA, Office of Water: Washington, D.C.
193 Vig, N.J. and M.E. Kraft (Eds.), 2003. Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-first Century. CQ Press: Washington, D.C. Watkins, C., 2005. Personal Communication with Curtis Watkins, Senior Coordinator, NPDES Program, City of Tallahassee on August 31, 2005. WC (World Climate), 2004. Climate Data for 27N 82W. Available at: http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/grid.pl?gr=N27W082 Accessed in February, 2005 WCEI (Western Center for Environmental Education), 2000. AmericaÂ’s Threatened Streams and Restoration Strategies : Threatened Streams: Florida Available at: http://www.wcei.org/florida/index.html Accessed in October, 2004. Weed, M., 2004. Personal Communication with Melanie Weed, NPDES Coordinator, Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management on July 8, 2004. Weed, M., 2005a. Personal Co mmunication with Melanie W eed, NPDES Coordinator, Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management on February 17, 2005. Weed, M., 2005b. Personal Communication with Melanie Weed, NPDES Coordinator, Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management on September 17, 2005. WEF (Water Environment Federation), 1997. The Clean Water Act: Updated for 1997. Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, VA. WEF (Water Environment Federation), 1996. Effectiveness of Industrial Storm Water General Permitting Program. EPA Cooperative Agr eement No. CX 823667-01. Wholey, J.S., H.P. Hatry, and K.E. Newcomer. (Eds.) (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. Jossey-Bass, Inc.: San Francisco, CA.
194 Bibliography Aggarwal, Y.P., 1988. Better Sampling: Concepts, Techniques and Evaluation Sterling Publishers Private Limited: New Delhi, India: Bannerman, R.T., D.W. Owens R.B. Dodds, and N.J. Hornewer, 1993. Sources of Pollutants in Wisconsin Stormwater. Water Science & Technology, 28:3-5, 241259. Barnett, V., 2002. Sample Survey Principles & Methods (3rd Edition) Oxford University Press, Inc.: New York, NY. Borque, L.B. and E.P. Fielder, 2003. How to Conduct Telephone Surveys (2nd Edition). Sage Publications, Inc.:Thousand Oaks, CA. Czaja, R. and J. Blair, 2005. Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and Procedures (2nd Edition). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Davies, J.C. and J. Mazurek, 1998. Pollution Control in the Un ited States: Evaluating the System. Resources for the Future: Washington, D.C. Dilman, D.A., 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Duke, L.D. and L.A. Bauersachs, 1998. Compliance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Regulations by Metal Plating Industries. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 34: 1-12. Duke, L.D., M. Buffleben, and L.A. Bauers achs, 1998. Pollutants in Storm Water Runoff From Metal Planting Facilities, Los Angeles, California. Waste Management, 18: 25-38. Fink, A., 2003a. How to Sample in Surveys (2nd Edition). Sage Publishers, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA. Fink, A., 2003b. How to Report on Surveys (2nd Edition). Sage Publishers, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA. Fowler, Jr., F.J. 1993. Survey Research Methods (2nd Edition). Sage Publications, Inc.: Newbury Park, CA.
195 Harris, R.E., P. Johnsey, B. Larsen, a nd M. Berrell, 1993. Promoting Stormwater Education. Water, Environment & Technology, 5:7, 64-68. Kalton, G., 1983. Introduction to Survey Sampling Sage Publishers, Inc.: Newbury Park, CA. Landwehr, J.M., J. Swift, and A.E. Watkins, 1987. Exploring Surveys and Information from Samples. Dale Seymour Publications: Palo Alto, CA. Lee, J.H. and K.W. Bang, 2000. Char acteristics of Urban Runoff. Water Research, 34:6, 1773-1780. Maxwell, J.W. and C. Decker, 1998. Voluntary Environmen tal Investment and Regulatory Flexibility. Working Paper, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University: Bloomington, IN. OIG (U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy Office of Inspector General), 2004. Effectiveness of Effluent Guidelines Program for Reducing Pollutant Discharges Uncertain Report No. 2004-P-00025. OI G: Washington, D.C. Rea, L.M. and R.A. Parker, 1997. Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A Comprehensive Guide (2nd Edition). Jossey-Bass Pub lishers: San Francisco, CA. Reinelt, L., 1990. Nonpoint Source Water Polluti on Management: Monitoring, Assessment, and Wetland Treatment. Water and Environment Studies, Linkping University: Linkping, Sweden. Sheydayi, A., D. Laurilla, and J. Aldric h, 1996. 12 Groups Organize, Will Administer NPDES Stormwater Runoff Program. Water, Environment & Technology, 8:9, 29-30. Sapsford, R., 1999. Survey Research. Sage Publications, Inc.: London, U.K. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USEAP), 2000. Storm Water Phase II Compliance Assistance Guide. EPA 833-R-00-002. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., March, 2000. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2002. The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and Factors to Consider When Using TRI Data. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/tri/2002_tri_brochure.pdf Accessed in October, 2004.
197 Appendix 1: List of Acronyms BMPs: Best Management Practices CAA: Clean Air Act County: Pinellas County, Florida (not including the City of St. Petersburg) CWA: Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) EPCRA: Emergency Planning & Community Right to Know Act EPCRA Title III Established the T oxics Release Inventory program Section 313: FDEP: Florida Department of Environmental Protection FWPCA: Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Generic permit: Storm Water Multi-Sector (General) Generic Permit for Industrial Activities High Risk: Undefined term used in MS4 permit for the identification and inspection of industrial facilities Intensity: Intensity of industrial activi ties with the potential to discharge pollutants to stormwater MS4: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NAICS Code: North American Indus trial Classification System Code NOI: Notice of Intent for Industrial Activity NOT: Notice of Termination for Industrial Activity NPDES: National Pollutant Discharg e Elimination System permit program NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council
198 Appendix 1 (Continued) NURP: National Urban Runoff Program P2: Pollution Prevention strategy or plan PCDEM: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management POTW: Publicly Owned Treatment Works Proportion in Proportion of total facilities in research database that have filed an Compliance: NOI Stormwater Pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial Discharge: activities SIC Code: Standard Indus trial Classification Code SIC 24: Lumber and Wood Pr oducts, Except Furniture SIC 32: Stone, Clay, Gla ss, and Concrete Products SIC 34: Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation SIC 36: Electronic and Other Electr ical Equipment and Components, Except Computer Equipment SQG: Hazardous waste Small Quantity Generator SWPPP: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load program TRI: Toxics Release Inventory TSDF: Hazardous waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and recovery Facility US EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
199 Appendix 2. Institutional Review Board Research Approval Forms
200 Appendix 2 (Continued)
201 Appendix 2 (Continued)
202 Appendix 2 (Continued)
203 Appendix 3. Introductory Letter to Pinellas County Industries
204 Appendix 4. Database Accuracy Phone Questionnaire USF Industrial Stormwater Questionnare:2005 Code: INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES STORMWATER RESEARCH: DATABASE ACCURACY FORM !! IMPORTANT: THESE SIX PAGES WILL BE KEPT SEPARATE FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS. REMEMBER TO FILE THESE PAGES IN THE DATABASE ACCURACY FOLDER, AND DO NOT ATTACH OR FILE NEXT TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THIS FACILITY!! PRIOR TO COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE: FILL IN ALL POSSIBLE BLANKS WITH INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLICLY-AVAILABLE DATA IN OUR DATABASE. Pinellas County Inspected Facility? _____Yes _____ No ___________ Date USF Fenceline visit completed? _____ Yes _____ No ___________ Date Information Source: Only InfoUSA? ______ Yes _____ No Survey not Completed: Reason? _____ Wrong Info ______ No Answer ______ Refusal (Moved, Disconn) (Correct #) ____Passive__ Active ____ Retail (Not Industrial) FACILITY NAME: _________________________________________________________________________ PHONE NUMBER: _________________________________________________________________________ Calling History Call# Date: Time: Phone#: Contact Person or Notes: Caller's Initials: #1 ____ _____ ____________ ______________________________ ___________ #2 ____ _____ ____________ ______________________________ ___________ #3 ____ _____ ____________ ______________________________ ___________ #4 ____ _____ ____________ ______________________________ ___________ #5 ____ _____ ____________ ______________________________ ___________ #6 ____ _____ ____________ ______________________________ ___________ Greeting: Â“Hello, may I pl ease speak with ______________________________________ (CONTACT NAME, IF AVAILABLE) OR the environmental coordinator at this facility?
205 Appendix 4 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Questionnare:2005 Code: (IF ASKED) Â“The person responsible for environm ental compliance at this facility?Â” CONTACTÂ’S NAME: _____________________________________________ CONTACTÂ’S TITLE: __________________________________ EXTENSION : _________________ 1 WAS INFORMATION CORRECT? (CIRCLE ONE) Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know3 (IF NO CONTACT NAME, WRONG NAME, OR PERSON NO LONG WORKS FACILITY) Â“Would you mind telling me who is res ponsible for environmental compliance? 2. CONTACTÂ’S NAME: _____________________________________________ Â“Do you know the correct title and exte nsion for __________________________________?Â” 3. CONTACTÂ’S TITLE: __________________________________ 4. EXTENSION: _________________ Â“Thank you. Could you please connect me to________________________________________? IF CONTACT PERSON IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME: 5. Â“What is the best day and time to reach (name ) ____________ ________________________? Day Time _______________________ (IF ASKED WHY INFORMATION IS NEEDED) Â“I am working with a study from the University of South Florida addressing industri al facilities throughout Pinellas County. To complete this study, we need to speak with the person responsible for environmental compliance, and who is familiar with the day-today activities at this particular facility. We have received information on this facility from pu blic information and would like to speak with the environmental compliance person for a few minutes. This information will not be forwarded to any agency or shared with anyo ne except the USF researchers making this phone call Â– we only want it so we know who is the right person to speak with.Â” AFTER WE HAVE REACHED THE PERSON IDENTIFIED ABOVE AS THE CORRECT CONTACT PERSON:
206 Appendix 4 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Questionnare:2005 Code: Â“Hi! My name is I am a graduate student at the University of South Florida. WeÂ’re doing a study on industrial facilities and stormwater runoff in Pinellas County. Would you mind giving me a few minutes of your time? (IF NO) Â“ Is there a better time that I could call back? ENTER DAY: ________________________________ TIME:_______________________ Â“Thanks. I look forward to speaking with you then.Â” (IF REFUSAL) Â“Ok, thank you for your time.Â” (IF QUESTIONS) I am part of an independent, unpaid research group generatin information on industries in Pinellas Count y. We are conducting a 6-month study on industrial stormwater regulations and how they affect Pinellas County industrial facilities and would like to ask you a few questions about processes that occur at your facility. We are phoning people from about 200 facilities that were listed on publicly-available lists of Pinellas County industries. Those are the same sources that the County will be using to conduct its own inspection programs, so your par ticipating here Â– or not Â– will have no effect on whether the County eventually contacts you for that program. As a result of your participation, however, we may be able to make recommendations to the State and the County about the current regulations, and ways they could be less burdensome to business. At the end of our conversation today, I will also tell you how you can receive more information about these regulations. This may help you be better informed. (IF YES TO PARTICIPATION) Â“Great. Before we get started IÂ’d like to let you know that everything you tell me will be kept confiden tial. Would you like to hear more about our confidentiality protocol? Did you receive the letter we sent you? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE.) (IF Â“NOÂ”) Would you like to receive another copy? I could FAX or mail you another copy for you to keep in your records. Â” WOULD PARTICPANT LIKE ANOTHER COPY OF LETTER? Yes 1 No 2 ( THIS BECOMES OPTIONAL, IF PARTICIPANT IS INTERESTED IN MORE INFORMATION) Â“Participation in this study is optional and you may withdraw at any time. There is no foreseeable risk to you or your com pany if you participate, but we would greatly appreciate your time. All information that you prov ide will be kept strictly confidential and data will be released only in aggregate form as par t of regular research publications. That means that your responses cannot be linked to your bu siness. The questions we have included only relate to your businesses facility, not to any personal opinions or information.
207 Appendix 4 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Questionnare:2005 Code: (IN MOST CASES, OMIT THE FOLLOWING. IF QUESTIONS, ESPECIALLY REGARDING LEGITIMACY, SOME USEFUL LANGUAGE INCLUDES) This research is conducted by the Department of Environmen tal Science and Policy at USF, supervised by Prof. Don Duke. I can give you contact inform ation if you would like to verify that. To safeguard confidentiality, this research has been approved by the USF Institutional Review Board. It is an independent body that verifies our procedures to assure confidentiality of data and protection for research participants. Â“Would you agree to participate in this 10mi nute questionnaire? Do you have any questions before we get started?Â” PARTICIPANT HAS GIVEN CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN QUESTIONNAIRE? YES1 NO2 IF CONSENT GIVEN, CONTINUE WITH 2-PART QUESTIONNAIRE. IF NOT, PLEASE FILE THIS FIRST PAGE IN THE Â“NON-PARTICIPANTSÂ” FOLDER. Â“First, could you please confirm the information we have for this facility? 6. Â“Is the correct name of the company that operates this facility: ______________________________________________________? 6. Yes 1 No 2 IF NO: ENTER CORRECTION: (THIS IS THE COMPANY THAT OPERATES, NOT THE PARENT COMPANY, ETC.) 7. Â“ Is the correct facility address: ? 7. Yes 1 No 2 CITY: _____________________________ ZIP: ______________________ IF NO: ENTER CORRECTION: ___________________________________________________ _ 8. Â“Is this where the facility is actually located?Â” 8. Yes 1 No 2 (NOT SIMPLY THE MAILING ADDRESS) 9. (IF NO) Â“Do you know what the physical, street address is? _ ?
208 Appendix 4 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Questionnare:2005 Code: CITY: _____________________________ ZIP: ______________________ 10. Â“Our information shows the fac ilityÂ’s primary business activity is: Industrial Ac tivity: ____________________________________________________________ Â“Is that correct? 10. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 (IF NO, PROCEED TO QUESTION #16 **). IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION, IF ANY: BY Â“PRIIMARYÂ” WE MEAN THE ACTIVITY THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE SINGLE GREATEST PART OF THE FINANCIAL PROCEEDS AT THIS SPECIFIC FACILITY 11. (IF YES TO #10 ), Â“ We show the SIC associated with this activity to be SIC / / / (11) 12. Â“Do you know whether that is correct? 12. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know3 13. (IF NO TO #12), Â“ Do you know the SIC for that activity? SIC / / / (13) 14. AFTER COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE: USE REFERENCES AT USF TO VERIFY THAT SIC IS CREDIBLE FOR THE ACTIVITY. 14. Yes 1 No 2 15. IF NO, RESEARCHERÂ’S BEST ESTIMATE OF SIC FOR THAT ACTIVITY: SIC / / / (15) **16. (IF NO TO #10: ), Â“ What is the primary industrial or commercial activity conducted at this facility? Industrial Activity : ________________________________________________________ (16) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION, IF ANY: BY Â“PRIMARYÂ” WE MEAN THE ACTIVITY THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE SINGLE GREATEST PART OF THE FINANCIAL PROCEEDS AT THIS SPECIFIC FACILITY 17. Â“Do you know the SIC for that activity? SIC / / / (17)
209 Appendix 4 (Continued) 18. AFTER COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE: USE REFERENCES AT USF TO VERIFY THAT SIC IS CREDIBLE FOR THE ACTIVITY. 18. Yes 1 No 2 19 (IF NO), RESEARCHERÂ’S BEST ESTIMATE OF SIC FOR THAT ACTIVITY: SIC / / / (19) OMIT THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IF THERE IS NO SUCH INFORMATION IN OUR FILES AND SKIP TO QUESTION $$: Â“Do you also do the following activities? (IF QUESTIONS) According to information you have given to regulatory agencies, and that we have obtained from publicly available sources, that this facility also conducts the following activities that are relevant for regulatory pur poses. Can you tell me whether these are correct, and if you know the SICs associated with them? 20. Industrial Activity: _______________ 21. SIC / / / (21) 22. Industrial Activity: _______________ 23. SIC / / / (23) 24. Industrial Activity: _______________ 25. SIC / / / (25) 26. Industrial Activity: _______________ 27. SIC / / / (27) AFTER COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE: USE REFERENCES AT USF TO VERIFY THOSE SICS ARE CREDIBLE FOR THESE ACTIVITIES. $$ Â“Are there any other major activities conducted at your site that might be relevant for purposes of environmental compliance? (IF ASKED) That is, do you conduct other activities on-site that would be typical of industrial facilities, such as subsidiary product manufacturing painting, coating, or altering; or blending or manipulation of raw materials? Can you tell me what those are, and if you know the SICs associated with them? 28. Industrial Activity: _______________ 29. SIC / / / (29) 30. Industrial Activity: _______________ 31. SIC / / / (31) 32. Industrial Activity: _______________ 33. SIC / / / (33) 34. Industrial Activity: _______________ 35. SIC / / / (35)
210 Appendix 4 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Questionnare:2005 Code: AFTER COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE: USE REFERENCES AT USF TO VERIFY THOSE SICS ARE CREDIBLE FOR THESE ACTIVITIES. VERIFICATION OF ACTIVITES AND SIC CODES: 36. IF NO, RESEARCHERÂ’S BEST ESTIMATE OF SIC FOR THAT ACTIVITY #21: / / / (36) 37. IF NO, RESEARCHERÂ’S BEST ESTIMATE OF SIC FOR THAT ACTIVITY #23: / / / (37) 38. IF NO, RESEARCHERÂ’S BEST ESTIMATE OF SIC FOR THAT ACTIVITY #25: / / / (38) 39. IF NO, RESEARCHERÂ’S BEST ESTIMATE OF SIC FOR THAT ACTIVITY #27: / / / (39) ______________________________________________________________________________ 40. IF NO, RESEARCHERÂ’S BEST ESTIMATE OF SIC FOR THAT ACTIVITY #29: / / / (40) 41. IF NO, RESEARCHERÂ’S BEST ESTIMATE OF SIC FOR THAT ACTIVITY #31: / / / (41) 42. IF NO, RESEARCHERÂ’S BEST ESTIMATE OF SIC FOR THAT ACTIVITY #33: / / / (43) 43. IF NO, RESEARCHERÂ’S BEST ESTIMATE OF SIC FOR THAT ACTIVITY #35: / / / (45)
211 Appendix 4 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Questionnare:2005 Code: PLEASE TRANSFER INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AND SIC(S) TO PAGE 1 OF Â“INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES QUESTIONNAIRE: INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER REGULATIONSÂ” FORM AND CONTINUE WITH THE SURVEY. THESE PAGES WILL BE FILED SEPARATELY IN THE Â“DATABASE ACCURACY FOLDER.Â”
212 Appendix 5. Database Accuracy Database Entry Form
213 Appendix 6: Industrial Stormwater Regulations Phone Questionnaire USF Industrial Stormwater Ques tionnaire: 2005 Code: INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES QUESTIONNAIRE: INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER REGULATIONS INTERVIEWER: ENTER INFORMATION ABOUT BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND SIC FROM THE Â“DATABASE ACCURACYÂ” PORTION OF THE QUESTIIONNAIRE Primary Business Activity: _________ __________________ _______________ ____________ SIC / / / Additional Business Activity: ______ __________________ _______________ ______________ SIC / / /____ Additional Business Activity: ______ __________________ _______________ _____________ SIC / / /___ Additional Business Activity: ______ __________________ _______________ ____________ SIC / / /___ Additional Business Activity: ______ __________________ _______________ _____________ SIC / / /___ 1. Â“Now, very briefly, could you tell me, are yo u familiar with the Florida statewide Generic Permit for industrial stormwater? 1. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ___________________________________________________________________ (IF QUESTIONS: Â“HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OFÂ…Â” 2. Â“Have you heard about any publicity or outreach from Pinellas County addressing industrial stormwater runoff? 2. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ___________________________________________________________________
214 Appendix 6 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Ques tionnaire: 2005 Code: 3. Â“Has anyone at your facility been contacted by anyone, from federal, state, or local agencies, regarding industrial stormwater runoff? 3. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 4. (IF YES) Â“ What agency or agencies have contacted you? 4. __________________________________________ 5. ___________________________________________ 6. ___________________________________________ Â“The rest of my questions are simply about the ki nds of day to day activities you conduct at this facility, and the kinds of materials and equipmen t you use. Some of the phrasing may sound a little odd, but that is because sometimes we are t rying to use the same language that Florida uses in its regulatory definitions. (IF ANY HESITANCY, OR NEED FOR FURTHER REASSURANCE, TRY THE FOLLOWING): Â“These questions are not asking for any details of operations, and certainly we donÂ’t want any kind of proprietary information about your pr ocesses or products. We are trying just to understand the ways that facilities in your busin ess are exposed to rainfall and runoff in their everyday activities.Â” REMEMBER THAT THE RESPONDENT IS FREE TO DISCONTINUE AT ANY TIME, AND WE ARE NOT TO PRESSURE THE RESPONDENT IN ANY WAY! BUT YOU MAY FEEL FREE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF THE KIND ABOVE. 7 Â“ Do you manufacture a product at this facility? 7. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ IF QUESTIONS: Â“FOR EXAMPLE, AS OPPOSED TO CONDUCTING A SERVICEÂ…Â” 8 (IF YES) Â“What products do you manufacture? Â… Comments:__________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________
215 Appendix 6 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Ques tionnaire: 2005 Code: 9 Â“Do you store, process, or handle raw materials at this facility? 9. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments:___________________________________________________________________ 10. (IF YES) VERY BROADLY Â– Â“ What kind(s) of materials? Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ DonÂ’t Know 3 IF QUESTIONS: Â“FOR EXAMPLE, WOOD OR METAL USED FOR MANUFACTURING; LIQUID OR DRY BULK MATERIAL; PAINTS, CHEMICALS, OR OTHER SUBSTANCES USED IN MANUFACTURING; OR ANYTHING ELSE?Â” 11 Â“ Do you blend, alter or modify materials, products, or chemicals at this facility? 11. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments:____________________________________________________________________ Â“For the following questions I have a list of possible materials or products. Please tell me if any of these are stored outdoors at your facility. 12. _____ Bulk dry materials Â– such as sand, concrete, wood or metal? 13. _____ Products Â– such as completed pipes, stone or concrete products? 14. _____ Bulk liquid in tanks, whether pro cess chemicals, products, or anything else? (IF YES: Approximately how many tanks are located on siteÂ– one or two, small or large, or how many?) 15. ___________________________________________________________________________ 16. ______ Liquid in smaller containers, such as drums or cans of paints, lubricants, or chemicals in small quantities? (IF YES: Approximately how many: one or two, five or more?) 17. __________________________________________________________________________ 18. _____ Waste liquid materials, for example, drums of spent lubricants, still bottoms, or paint?
216 Appendix 6 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Ques tionnaire: 2005 Code: (IF YES: How many drums, approximately, within 5 Â– 10 drums, at any one time?) 19. __________________________________________________________________________ 20. ______ Large quantities of dry bulk waste Â– more than fits in a couple of Dumpsters at one time 21. ______ Small quantities of Dry bulk waste Â– fo r example, one or two Dumpsters routinely kept outdoors 22. ______Anything else: _________________________________________________________ (e.g., wooden pallets) 23. _____ DonÂ’t Know 24. (IF NOT OBVIOUS FROM ABOVE) Â“Would the total of these products and materials be more than 4 or 5 drums or a 10 X 10 area? 24. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 (The alternative: More than 4 or 5 drums at an y one time, more than a 100 square foot PILE of dry material, or comparable amount) Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 25. Â“Does your facility keep a Â“boneyardÂ” of scrap metal, disused equipment, and similar materials outdoors? 25. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 26. Â“Does your facility have a storage area for hazardous wastes, either outdoors in a fenced area or in a temporary metal shed, or similar storage area? 26. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 27 ( IF YES) Â“ Is this storage area ever exposed to precipitation when it rains? (i.e., the storage drums or tanks are enclosed fr om the rainwater, but the containers themselves are contacted by rainwater) 27. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________
217 Appendix 6 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Ques tionnaire: 2005 Code: 28. Â“Does your facility have fixed outdoor equipment used for material handling? 28. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ IF QUESTIONS: Â“FOR EXAMPLE, CONVEYORS, MIXERS,Â…Â” 29. (IF YES) VERY BROADLY! Â– Â“What kind(s) of equipment and how many of each type? (Is it just one or two small items, or a major item, or many smaller ones? ) ___________________________________________________________________DonÂ’t Know 3 30. Â“Does your facility use vehicles (i.e. forklif ts, forktrucks ) outdoors for material handling? 30. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 31. (IF YES) Â“ Approximately how many vehicles do you have at this facility? (ALLOW RESPONDENT TO VOLUNTEER AN ANSWER Â– FIT TO FOLLOWING CATEGORIES Â– PROMPT WITH THE CATEGORIES IF NEEDED) 1 or 2 ______ (A) 3 or 4 ______ (B) More than 5 _______ (C) Heavy Equipment _____(D) DonÂ’t Know ________ (E) Comments:___________________________________________________________________ 32. (IF YES) Â“ Where are they regularly kept? (ALLOW RESPONDENT TO VOLUNTEER AN ANSWER Â– FIT TO FOLLOWING CATEGORIES Â– PROMPT WITH THE CATEGORIES IF NEEDED) Outdoors occasionally, not every day _________(A) Outdoors some part of the day, every day _______ (B) Outdoors most or all of the day, every day ________ (C) DonÂ’t Know ________ (D) Inside ______ (E) Comments:____________________________________________________________________
218 Appendix 6 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Ques tionnaire: 2005 Code: 33 (IF YES) Â“ Do you continue to use these vehicles when it rains, so that they are typically exposed to precipitation if it rains during the work day? 33. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 34. Â“Does your facility operate a shi pping and receiving area where materials or products are loaded or unloaded? 34. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 35. (IF YES) Â“Are any portions of the loading or shipping area uncovered or exposed to precipitation when it rains? 35. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 36. Â“Approximately how many loading area s does this facility have in operation? (Roughly how many trucks could be unloaded at one time?) _____ trucks Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 37. Â“Do you own or operate vehicles fo r off-site use (i.e., delivery trucks)? 37. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ (IF NO SKIP TO QUESTION # 50 @@) (IF YES) Â“ For the next questions, I have a list of possible vehicle maintenance and other activities. Please tell me if you routinely perf orm any of these operations on your vehicles. 38 Â“Do you routinely perform any vehicle maintenance at this facility? 38. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________
219 Appendix 6 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Ques tionnaire: 2005 Code: 39. (IF YES) Â“On approximately how many vehicles? Number: ______________________________________________________________________ 40. Â“How often would you say this occurs?Â” (PROVIDE LIST IF NECESSARY) Very rarely/only when needed ______ (A) Occasionally ______ (B) Regular Occurrence ______ (C) DonÂ’t Know ______ (D) 41. (IF YES) Â“ Is vehicle maintenance ever conducted outside? 41. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 42 Â“Do you re-fuel vehicles at this facility? 42. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ___________________________________________________________________ 43. (IF YES) Â“On approximately how many vehicles? Number: _____________________________________________________________________ 44. Â“How often would you say this occurs?Â” (PROVIDE LIST IF NECESSARY) Very rarely/only when needed ______ (A) Occasionally ______(B) Regular Occurrence ______ (C) DonÂ’t Know ______ (D) 45. (IF YES) Â“ Is vehicle re-fueling ever conducted outside? 45. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 46.Â“Do you wash any of the vehicles at this facility? 46. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________
220 Appendix 6 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Ques tionnaire: 2005 Code: 47. (IF YES) Â“Approximately how many vehicles? Number: ______________________________________________________________________ 48. Â“How often would you say this occurs?Â” (PROVIDE LIST IF NECESSARY) Very rarely/only when needed ______ (A) Occasionally ______ (B) Regular Occurrence ______ (C) DonÂ’t Know ______ (D) 49. (IF YES) Â“ Is vehicle washing ever conducted outside? 49. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ @ @ 50. Does your facility have und erground storage tanks on-site? 50. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 51. (IF YES) Â“Do you know the total capacity in gallons? Number Gallons: ________________________________________________________________ 52 Does your facility possess a plant yard (eith er paved or unpaved), access roads, or rail lines traversed by carriers of raw materials, products, waste materials, or by-products created, used, or handled by this facility? 52. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 53. (IF YES) Â“Approximately how large is that area, given in the Â“xÂ” # of feet by Â“yÂ” # of feet?Â” Comments:_____________________________________________________________________ 54. Â“Does your facility operate miscel laneous small process equipment outside? (For example, coolant tanks, air compressors, generators, or the like?) 54. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________
221 Appendix 6 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Ques tionnaire: 2005 Code: 55 (IF YES) Â“Are these items ever exposed to precipitation when it rains? 55. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ___________________________________________________________________ 56 Â“Does your facility perform any other activ ities outdoors that may expose materials or equipment to precipitation or stormwater r unoff? (Examples include cutting or shaping products or materials, painting or coating materials, or anything similar?) 56. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 57 (IF YES) Â“ Are any of these activities ever exposed to precipitation when it rains? 57. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ Â“Now, if you donÂ’t mind, IÂ’d like to get just a rough idea about your facility size.Â” 58. Â“Could you tell me the approximate size of the facility within the following ranges? Is the facilityÂ… Less than acre _____ (A) Between and 1 acre _____ (B) Between 1 and 3 acres _____ (C) Betw een 3 and 10 acres ____ (D) Larger than 10 acres _____ (E) Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 59. Â“Is there any substantial portion of that acre age that is lawn or open green space? 59.Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________
222 Appendix 6 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Ques tionnaire: 2005 Code: 60. (IF YES) Â“Can you tell me the approximate size of the lawn or green space, using the following ranges? Is itÂ… Less than acre ____ (A) Between and acre _____ (B) Between and 1 acre ______ (C) Between 1 and 3 acres _____ (D) Between 3 and 5 acres ______ (E) Larger than 5 acres ______ (F) Comments:_____________________________________________________________________ 61. Â“Could you also tell me approximately how many employees are at this location, if I give you some ranges? Is it..., 1-4 (A) 5-19 (B) 20-49 (C) 50-199 (D) 200-499 (E) 500-999 (F) 1000 or more (G) Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ (IF QUESTIONS) Â“ We just wanted to know how to cate gorize your facilitywhether it is large or small. This is important because some sma ller companies may be burdened with the same regulations as the larger ones.Â” Â“Finally, I asked you earlier if you had ever heard of the Statewide Generic Permit for stormwater 62. Â“Do you know whether the facility at this location is subject to that permit? 62. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ 63. (IF YES) Â“Do you know whether your facility ha s submitted the document known as the Â“Notice of IntentÂ” to comply with the regulations? 63. Yes 1 No 2 DonÂ’t Know 3 Comments: ____________________________________________________________________ Conclusion: Â“That concludes our questionnaire. We are recommending that all facilities that have participated in this research learn more about th e federal and local regulations regarding industrial stormwater. If you would like information about the regulations, I can give you a
223 Appendix 6 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Ques tionnaire: 2005 Code: web address or the phone number for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Would you like either of these? (IF YES) http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/npdes/index.htm or (850) 245-8335. DID PARTICIPANT REQUEST WEBSITE OR PHONE NUMBER? Yes1 No2 ALLOW TIME FOR PARTICIPANT TO WRITE DOWN THE CONTACT INFORMATION IF DESIRED. REPEAT AS OFTEN AS DESIRED. (IF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THEY NEED TO CALL, ETC) Â“We are not suggesting that youÂ’re doing anything wrong or that you n eed to comply with these regulations. We donÂ’t have the training or the authority to make those recommendations. WeÂ’re just trying to generate information about facilities in the co unty. However, itÂ’s always important to be knowledgeable about different regulations your fa cility may have to comply with and you may find some useful information. ThatÂ’s why we Â’re recommending that everyone contact either the state or the county to get more information.Â” Would you like to receive another copy of th e initial contact letter we sent you a few weeks ago? (IF YES) Â“ Should I mail it to the address you confirmed earlier? Otherwise, I will write down your name and address or your FAX number on a separate paper, so that your name and your companyÂ’s name is not associated with the answ ers youÂ’ve just given me. I will send the letter and then destroy the paper. TAKE THE INFORMATION IF REQUESTED. AFTER SENDING A COPY OF THE LETTER, DESTROY THE INFORMATION IN THE SHREDDER IN NES 301 MAILROOM. Do you have any questions about this research e ffort? If so, I can give you a name and number of the research director at the University of South Florida PROVIDE NAME AND NUMBER IF REQUESTED. Professor Don Duke, (813) 974-8087, or by e-mail at email@example.com. ALLOW TIME FOR PARTICIPANT TO WRITE DOWN THE CONTACT THE INFORMATION IF DESIRED. REPEAT AS OFTEN AS DESIRED. Closing: Â“Thank you very much for your partic ipation in this study and have a great day!Â”
224 Appendix 7. Industrial Stormwater Re gulations Database Entry Form
225 Appendix 8. Fenceline Visit Form USF Industrial Stormwater Fenceline Visit: 2005 Code # ______ USF Industrial Stormwater Facility Fenceline Visit Form Site Visit Date: ________ Researcher Initials: ________ Current Permits: ________ _________ ________ ________ __________ A. Information to be completed prior to field visit. 1. Facility Name: ________________________________________________________________________ SIC Code(s): Description: 2. ____________ ______________________________ _______________________ 3. ____________ ______________________________________________________ 4. ____________ ______________________________________________________ 5. ____________ ______________________________________________________ 6. Address:_____________ __________________ _______________ ________________ 7. City: ________________________________________________ 8. Zip: ___________ B. Facility characteristics observable during fenceline visit 9. Agreement with database. Please circle one of the following: A. Facility found Â– company name and lo cation correct from original database B. Facility found Â– name correct, location different C. Facility found Â– location correct, name different D. Facility indeterminable Â– location found, no sign (name) to indicate company name E. Facility closed F. No facility at location 10. Facility Type. Please circle one of the following Â– the nearest approximation from visible evidence (i.e., while staying on public right ways). A. Industrial, with evidence of activ ities: plant yard, equipment, etc. B. Auto salvage yard Â– significant outdoo r scrap, salvage vehicles, parts, etc. C. Transportation facility Â– dominated by maintenance, parking, or storage for vehicles D. Residence with possible evidence of busi ness or industrial activity (describe below) E. Facility of undetermined type Â– unclear whether industrial (describe below) F. Not industrial Â– office, storage, or other non-industrial activity (describe below) G. Not industrial Â– residence with no evidence of business activity H. Retail Â– facility is storefront, clearly used primarily for retail sales I. Other (describe below) Comments:______________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
226 Appendix 8 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Fenceline Visit: 2005 Code # ______ 11. Facility Size: Approximate area within fenceline. (One acre is approximately the size of football field). A. < acre B. to 1 acre C. 1 to 3 acres D. 3 to 5 acres E. 5 to 10 acres F. > 10 acres 12. Greenspace/lawn size Approximate size of area not dominated by plant yard, industrial facility, equipment storage, etc. A. < acre B. to acre C. to 1 acres D. 1 to 3 acres E. 3 to 5 acres F. > 5 acres 13. Other Comments about facility size and location (e.g., large loading area, nearly everything contained indoors) C. Evidence of industrial activities Please circle the best description of the follo wing activities and their likelihood of exposure to stormwater (to the extent possible during fenceline observation). Uncertain Unsure No Visible Yes (A) No (B) Not seen (C) Evidence (D) 14. Manufacturing activities outdoors XX XX XX XX 15. Exposed to stormwater XX XX XX XX 16. Describe: _________ ________________________ _______________ __________ ______________________________________________________________________ 17. Outdoor process equipment: XX XX XX XX compressors, rooftop equip., etc. in use 18. Exposed to stormwater XX XX XX XX 19. Type of equipment, quantity: ____________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________
227 Appendix 8 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Fenceline Visit: 2005 Code # ______ D. Evidence of industrial activities, continued. Uncertain Unsure From Yes (A) No (B) Not seen (C) Evidence (D) 21. Shipping and receiving areas XX XX XX XX 22. Exposed to stormwater XX XX XX XX 23. How many vehicles, size of area, etc: ______________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 24. Storage of scrap, disused equip. XX XX XX XX waste bins, etc. (other than single, well kept dumpster) 25. Exposed to stormwater XX XX XX XX 26. Type of materials, quantity: ______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 27. Storage of raw materials: bulk matls, XX XX XX XX liquid drums/tanks, etc. Notes: __________________________________________________________________ 28. Exposed to stormwater XX XX XX XX 29. Type of materials, quantity: ______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 30. Plant yard: access roads, rail lines XX XX XX XX on site 31. Size of plant yard, type: _________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ (C) Uncertain / Not Seen: Parts of the facility not visible from outside fenceline; the activity/object may be present there. (D) Uncertain / Unsure of What is Seen: Objects of activities visible during field verification may or may not fit the category.
228 Appendix 8 (Continued) USF Industrial Stormwater Fenceline Visit: 2005 Code # ______ 32. Sites or equip. for trtmt/disposal of XX XX XX XX wastes or residues, applÂ’n of process water 33. Exposed to stormwater XX XX XX XX 34. Describe: ______________________ ____________________ __________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 35. Areas of past industrial activity, sig. XX XX XX XX matls. remaining exposed to stormwater 36. Other evidence of stormwater pollutant sources; other comments E. Evidence of Stormwater Management Practices: ( Evidence of structural features designed to contain and/or treat stormwater.) Uncertain Unsure No Yes (A) No (B) Not seen (C) Visible Evidence (D) 37. Detention or retention ponds XX XX XX XX 38. Berms or grassed swales XX XX XX XX 39. Other BMPs XX XX XX XX 40. Describe: ______________________ ____________________ __________________ _______________________________________________________________________ (C) Uncertain / Not Seen: Parts of the facility not visible from outside fenceline; the activity/object may be present there. (D) Uncertain / Unsure of What is Seen: Objects of activities visible during field verification may or may not fit the category.
229 Appendix 9. Fenceline Visit Database Entry Form
230 Appendix 10. Pollutant Generati ng Intensity Coding Scheme Industrial facilities we re classified as either zero/l ow intensity, medium intensity, or high intensity of contribu ting pollutants to stormwater. The results of the Â“Industrial Stormwater RegulationsÂ” questionnaire were tabulated based on a point scale. Each question, or series of questi ons, was assigned a possible poin t value, between zero and one. If a facility answered Â“noÂ” to a questi on, a value of Â“zeroÂ” was assigned. For some questions, a Â“yesÂ” response automatically gene rated a specific point value, whereas for other questions, the quantity of items or frequency of activity determined the final point value. For example, a facility received a hi gher point value related to outdoor vehicle use if it used a greater number of vehicles outside or stored them outsi de more frequently. Below are the survey questions and their respec tive point values. If not specifically listed, a Â“noÂ” response receives zero points. Materials 1. #12-20, 22, 23 1 Yes + # 24 No = point. Materials 2. #12-20, 22, 23 1 Yes + # 24 Yes = 1 point. Materials 3. # 21 Yes + #12-20, 22, 23 1 Yes (see Materials 1 or 2) Materials 4: # 21 Yes + #12-20, 22, 23 No = 0 points. Materials 5. (#24. If quantity given wit hout prompting by facility and total of products is more than 1055 gallon drums and/or 500 feet2 of material) = 1 points. Boneyard. # 25 Yes = 1 point. Hazardous Waste. # 26 Yes + # 27 No = 0 points. # 26 Yes + # 27 Yes = 1 point.
231 Appendix 10 (Continued) Outdoor Equipment. # 28 Yes + # 29. 1-2 small items or 1 large item = point. # 28 Yes + # 29 3 small items or 2 large items = 1 point. Outdoor Vehicles. # 30 Yes + # 31 A + # 32 A or E + # 33 No = 1/8 point. # 30 Yes + # 31 A + # 32 A or E + # 33 Yes = point. # 30 Yes + # 31 A + # 32 B or C + # 33 No = point. # 30 Yes + # 31 A + # 32 B or C + # 33 Yes = point. # 30 Yes + # 31 B + # 32 A or E + # 33 No = point. # 30 Yes + # 31 B + # 32 A or E + # 33 Yes = point. # 30 Yes + # 31 B + # 32 B or C + # 33 No = point. # 30 Yes + # 31 B + # 32 B or C + # 33 Yes = point. # 30 Yes + # 31 C or D + # 32 A or E + # 33 No = point. # 30 Yes + # 31 C or D + # 32 A or E + # 33 Yes = point. # 30 Yes + # 31 C or D+ # 32 B or C + # 33 No = point. # 30 Yes + # 31 C or D + # 32 B or C + # 33 Yes = 1 point. Shipping/receiving. # 34 Yes + # 35 Yes + #36 1-2 docks = point. # 34 Yes + # 35 Yes + #36 3 docks = 1 point. Off-site vehicles. Vehicle Main tenance: # 37 Yes + # 38 Yes + # 39 1-2 + # 40 A or B + # 41 Yes = point. # 37 Yes + # 38 Yes + # 39 1-2 + # 40 C + # 41 Yes = point. # 37 Yes + # 38 Yes + # 39 3 + # 40 A or B + # 41 Yes = point. # 37 Yes + # 38 Yes + # 39 3 + # 40 C + # 41 Yes = point.
232 Appendix 10 (Continued) Refueling: # 37 Yes + # 42 Yes + # 43 1-2 + # 44 A or B + # 45 Yes = point. # 37 Yes + # 42 Yes + # 43 1-2 + # 44 C + # 45 Yes = point. # 37 Yes + # 42 Yes + # 43 3 + # 44 A or B + # 45 Yes = point. # 37 Yes + # 42 Yes + # 43 3 + # 44 C + # 45 Yes = point. Washing: # 37 Yes + # 46 Yes + # 47 1-2 + # 48 A or B + # 49 Yes = 1/8 point. # 37 Yes + # 46 Yes + # 47 1-2 + # 48 C + # 49 Yes = point. # 37 Yes + # 46 Yes + # 47 3 + # 48 A or B + # 49 Yes = point. # 37 Yes + # 46 Yes + # 47 3 + # 48 C + # 49 Yes = point. Underground tanks. # 50 = Not Applicable, for County information only. Plant yard, etc. # 52 Yes + 1,000 ft2 = point. # 52 Yes + 1,000 ft2 = point. # 52 Yes + 5,000 ft2 = 1 point. Small equipment. # 54 Yes + # 55 Yes = point Outdoor activities. # 56 Yes + # 57 Yes = 1 point. Low Intensity = 0 Â– 1 points Medium Intensity = 1 5/8 3 points. High Intensity = 3 1/8 points.