Status of Nutrient Requirements for NPDES-Permitted Facilities--Non-Majors with Limits
Table 2. Number and Percent of Non-major Municipal Sewage Treatment Facilities with Numeric Effluent Limits for Nitrogen (N) and/or Phosphorus (P)
Note that at the time of this data collection from ICIS-NPDES, data for non-major facilities were not required to be entered into the system. Therefore, the data below represent what was in the system at the time of the collection, and may not reflect the entire universe of facilities as well as limit and monitoring requirements.
| EPA Region | State | Universe of Non-majors | Nitrogen Only (Number) |
Nitrogen Only (Percent) |
Phosphorus Only (Number) |
Phosphorus Only (Percent) |
Both N and P (Number) |
Both N and P (Percent) |
Any (N or P or Both) (Number) |
Any (N or P or Both) (Percent) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | AK | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | AL | 259 | 26 | 10 | 11 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 45 | 17 |
| 6 | AR | 311 | 4 | 1 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 20 | 6 |
| 9 | AS(4) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | AZ | 57 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 14 |
| 9 | CA | 85 | 14 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 18 |
| 8 | CO | 156 | 9 | 6 | 11 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 22 | 14 |
| 1 | CT(2) | 23 | 4 | 17 | 10 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 61 |
| 3 | DC | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | DE | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 3 | 43 | 4 | 57 |
| 4 | FL(5) | 80 | 12 | 15 | 2 | 3 | 33 | 41 | 47 | 59 |
| 4 | GA | 192 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 32 | 17 |
| 6 | GM(4) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | GU(4) | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 67 | 2 | 67 |
| 9 | HI | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | IA(3),(6) | 703 | 114 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 115 | 16 |
| 10 | ID | 90 | 2 | 2 | 20 | 22 | 2 | 2 | 24 | 27 |
| 5 | IL | 398 | 1 | 0 | 25 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 27 | 7 |
| 5 | IN | 369 | 0 | 0 | 65 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 65 | 18 |
| 7 | KS | 418 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 4 | KY | 182 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 14 |
| 6 | LA | 364 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| 1 | MA | 29 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 45 |
| 3 | MD | 127 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 37 | 29 | 50 | 39 |
| 1 | ME | 71 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 5 | MI | 162 | 0 | 0 | 130 | 80 | 0 | 0 | 130 | 80 |
| 5 | MN | 287 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 |
| 7 | MO | 1,316 | 2 | 0 | 52 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 55 | 4 |
| 9 | MP(4) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | MS | 292 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 16 | 5 | 17 | 6 |
| 8 | MT | 86 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 21 | 25 | 29 |
| 4 | NC(2) | 264 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 22 | 8 |
| 8 | ND(3) | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | NE | 266 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 3 |
| 1 | NH | 13 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 62 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 62 |
| 2 | NJ(3),(7) | 141 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 23 | 5 | 4 | 38 | 27 |
| 6 | NM | 37 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 11 | 6 | 16 |
| 9 | NV | 7 | 2 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 43 | 5 | 71 |
| 2 | NY | 388 | 16 | 4 | 73 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 90 | 23 |
| 5 | OH | 1,083 | 2 | 0 | 113 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 120 | 11 |
| 6 | OK | 201 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 3 |
| 10 | OR | 132 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | PA | 672 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 75 | 11 | 77 | 11 |
| 2 | PR(4) | 17 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 12 | 14 | 82 | 17 | 100 |
| 1 | RI | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | SC | 66 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 8 | SD | 171 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 4 | TN | 299 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 16 | 5 | 22 | 7 |
| 6 | TX(8) | 1,323 | 2 | 0 | 32 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 37 | 3 |
| 8 | UT | 32 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 |
| 3 | VA(2) | 255 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | VI(4) | 12 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 42 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 42 |
| 1 | VT(3) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | WA(3) | 193 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 5 | WI | 467 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2 |
| 3 | WV | 239 | 38 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 16 | 7 | 55 | 23 |
| 8 | WY(3) | 57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 12,440 | 283 | 2 | 734 | 6 | 281 | 2 | 1,298 | 10 |
Notes:
(1) Note that all permits with limits should also have corresponding monitoring requirements for each parameter that is limited to track compliance.
(2) These states have watershed-based permitting for multiple dischargers for nutrients. These permits/facilities may not be reflected in this table. (VA - approximately 112 WWTFs covered for N & P; NC - approximately 54 WWTF covered for N; and CT - approximately 79 facilities covered for N)
(3) IA, ND, VT, WA, and WY did not have primary SIC codes entered into the Permit Basic Info section of ICIS for most or all of their facilities. NJ has only entered SIC codes for 46 percent of its individual permittees in ICIS.
(4) The following territories and regions are included in these tables: American Samoa (AS), Gulf of Mexico (GM), Guam (GU), Northern Mariana Islands (MP), Puerto Rico (PR), and U.S. Virgin Islands (VI).
(5) Upon review, this state indicated that it uses other monitoring location codes in addition to the ones used for this analysis. [FL]
(6) Iowa is in the process of transitioning to a new NPDES database and is working to ensuring accurate transfer and migration of required data into the EPA ICIS-NPDES data system. This process is expected to be complete by summer 2017.
(7) This state noted that its data are batch-loaded into ICIS, and therefore there are some errors based on the state's records. [NJ]
(8) This state indicated that the data managed to capture 12 permits that are either for stormwater (MS4) or industrial facilities. [TX]