TD365
.M864
1980
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Water Program Operations
Washington DC 20460
Office of Water Enforcement
Water
Municipal
Management
System
OOOR80002
-------
MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
For Construction Grants, NPDES Permit, and
Enforcement Under the Clean Water Act
and the National Municipal Policy & Strategy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Enforcement
Office of Water Program Operations
March 1980
\J
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S Dearborn Street, Room 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDE
This guide will provide the basis for establishing a relatively
uniform method of managing grant schedules and municipal permits,
and initiating actions to achieve compliance with all enforceable
requirements of the Clean Water Act.
WHO SHOULD USE THIS GUIDE
This guide is intended for two groups of potential users:
0 The Regional/State managers and supervisors who must
organize, plan, and control the numerous research,
decision-making, and response functions that make up
the process of municipal management.
0 The clerical, technical, and legal personnel who engage
daily in municipal management operations to review per-
formance and make the decisions which ultimately establish
the integrity of the Agency's Municipal Management Program.
11
-------
- CONTENTS -
FOREWORD V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
I. Municipal Management System
A. Background 1
B. Principles of MMS 4
C. Implementation of MMS 5
D. Discussion of MMS Principles: 7
1. Integrated Data Base 7
2. Coordinated Information Flow 12
3. Consistent Permit & Grant Schedules 14
4. Consistent, Periodic, Compliance Evaluations 15
5. Coordinated Regulatory Responses 16
6. Coordinated Permit Extensions 18
7. Internal Management Controls 19
8. Public Reporting on Municipal Compliance 20
9. Coordinated State Project Priority Lists 21
10. Coordinated Use of Field Inspection Data 22
II. APPENDICES
A. MMS Development Schedule
B. Milestones for NPDES Permit Schedules
C. PCS/GICS Cross-Reference' Index
D. Permit Development Procedures
E. Noncompliance Response Guide
F. Guidance in Integrating COE & NPDES Inspections
111
-------
FOREWORD
This publication is a guide. Beyond the specific requirements
identified in the text, it is meant to be a standard with which
users may evaluate the effectiveness of their management systems.
The intent is to aid the Regional/State users in setting priori-
ties for managing grant schedules and municipal permits based on
limited resources and the need to provide a consistent level of
response to the regulated public. It is hoped that this GUIDE
will encourage program planners to reevaluate the effectiveness of
their management operations, develop an increased awareness of
review and decision functions, maintain surveillance of them, and
initiate and carry out appropriate actions under the National
Municipal Policy and Strategy (NMPS).
This publication is called a 'guide1 to indicate that the man-
ager has been given a logical procedure to follow in organizing
the sequence of compliance-review procedures into an efficient
information system. Beyond specific requirements, the manager is
given general instructions and therefore must use sound management
procedures to develop a usable program.
This guide may be updated to provide the latest thinking on
permit/grant priorities, enforcement strategies, and resource
allocations, and offer practical ideas for carrying out responsi-
bilities stemming from other National commitments.
Success depends in a large measure on maintaining a strong
sense of accountability, making maximum use of clerical and
technical positions, and performing self-assessment with renewed
determination. The improved quality of our operations rests upon
the Agency's awareness of its effectiveness in meeting the require-
ments of the NMPS under the Clean Water Act.
'<£k
•- / u*-
Deputy Assistant Admanistrator Acting Deputy Assistant
for Water Program^Operations Administrator for Water
/ Enforcement
v
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document has been prepared with painstaking effort by a
number of persons whose devotion to the National Municipal
Management Program is exemplary. Over a long period, they have
been relied upon to contribute not only their time but also the
unique perspective which they can bring to bear on the administra-
tion of a National program conducted at the local level. Through
their hard work and dedication, the Offices of Water Enforcement
(OWE) and Water Program Operations (OWPO) are closer to the goal
of increased efficiency and responsiveness in the management of
construction grants and municipal permits. The unified approach
developed by the following workgroups and documented in the MMS
Guide will become the foundation of EPA's National Municipal
Policy and Strategy. In addition, these offices are indebted to
their clerical staff, most notably Joyce Rivers, without whose
patience and tireless service this document would not have been
assembled.
MMS WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP
Work Group I: Compliance and Grants Information Systems
Chairs
Scott Berdine
Dave Lyons
Regional Representatives
Jim Sweeney - Region X
Stan Laskowski - Region III
Jack Sweeney - Region II
Richard McDermott - Region VI
Bob Lee - Region V
State Representatives
Larry Christensen - Minnesota
Jay Ringenberg - Nebraska
David Lewis - Mississippi
H.Q. Representatives
Morris Yaguda
Jim Chamblee
Jim Susha
Don Thie
Bill Milligan
David Guthrie
Chuck Evans
Vll
-------
MMS WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP (cont.)
Work Group II: Permits and Grants Interaction
Chairs
Frank Hall
Ron De Cesare
Regional Representatives
Dennis Guild - Region VI
Gil Wallace - Region IV
James Andrews - Region IV
David Luoma - Region II
State Representatives
Roger Kenerva - Illinois
Pete Tinsley - Maryland
Tim Morris - Texas
H.Q. Representatives
Jim Grafton
Shanna Halpern
Work Group III: Noncompliance Response Guidance
Chairs
Brian Molloy
Henry Longest
Regional Representatives
Paul Traina - Region IV
Joe Galda - Region III
State Representatives
Linda Bouchert - Wisconsin State General's Office
Mike Bellanca - Virginia
Howard Rhodes - Florida
Mark Coleman - Oklahoma
H.Q. Representatives
Stu Tuller
Chuck Evans
Others
Joann Cloonan - DOJ
Vlll
-------
MMS WORK GROUP MEMBERSHIP (cont
Work Group IV: EPA/State Implementation
Chairs
Dale Bryson - Region V
Bob Burd - Region X
Regional Representatives
Ed Conley - Region I
Kathy Hodgkiss - Region III
Asa Foster - Region IV
State Representatives
Gene Welch - Georgia
Roger Kenerva - Illinois
David Lewis - Mississippi
Stan Springer - Washington
H.Q. Representatives
Chuck Evans
IX
-------
MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Introduction and Background
An analysis of municipal compliance with the requirements
of the Clean Water Act has shown that approximately 60% of the
major sources did not meet the requirement for secondary treatment
by the statutory deadline of July 1, 1977. Through section 201 of
the Act, the Federal Government has made available nearly 31
billion dollars for the construction of adequate public treatment
facilities. A number of States also have construction grant pro-
grams. For various reasons, not all of the Federal and State
funds are being obligated at a satisfactory rate or being applied
to the highest priority needs. Faced with the two interrelated
problems of high municipal noncompliance and the need for accele-
rated construction of required treatment facilities, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the "Interim National
Municipal Policy and Strategy" (NMPS) in November 1978. The final
policy was issued in October 1979. This policy provides the
necessary background to this document. The purpose of the NMPS is
to integrate the permit, enforcement, and construction grant
activities so as to expedite municipal construction and increase
municipal compliance in order to improve the Nation's water quali-
ty.
An outgrowth of the NMPS was the creation of work groups to
develop a Municipal Management System (MMS). Three work groups
-------
2
developed key aspects of MMS and a fourth "overview" group devel-
oped the management guidance. The work draft group reports were
sent to Regional Administrators and State Program Directors on
June 4, 1979. They provide supplemental information on the prin-
ciples of MMS.
In 1977, EPA issued the Enforcement Management System (EMS)
Guide, which was developed by Federal and State workgroups. The
EMS principles were designed to organize each analytical function
within the compliance review and enforcement process in order to
evaluate information in an orderly, timely, and consistent fashion
and to initiate the appropriate enforcement actions in an effec-
tive, timely manner. MMS, from the enforcement perspective, is a
necessary extension of EMS. In essence, MMS is a more detailed
focus on the municipal enforcement requirements of EMS. The prin-
ciples of EMS remain unchanged and will continue to be followed.
From the construction grants perspective, MMS should be viewed as
a set of coordinating procedures. The EMS principles are not
being made an operational requirement of the construction grant
program.
MMS is a series of ten principles and their subparts. When
implemented by State and Federal construction grants, permits, and
enforcement programs, it should reduce paperwork and increase
communication and coordination between and within these programs.
-------
3
The overall objective of MMS is to increase the rate of muni-
cipal compliance and the rate of municipal construction. MMS
principles will be made effective through the mutual development
of written procedures by the Federal and State construction grant,
permit, and enforcement programs. Procedures, by necessity,
should be flexible, yet stress accountability. These procedures
must stress, 1) the coordinated flow of pertinent compliance
information common to these programs, 2) the routine evaluation of
compliance data (including municipal inspection data) in decision
making, and 3) the use of compliance data as the basis for the
escalation of enforcement actions. These principles should be
administered so that they integrate the critical data-management
and decision-making activities of the permit, grant, and enforce-
ment programs. In this way, compliance is obtained through the
expeditious handling of grant funds and the timely response to
grant-related permit violations.
Procedures and activities associated with MMS should focus on
those projects within the top 106 SMSAs which have treatment needs
in excess of $50 million and which are on the fundable portion of
the State Project Priority Lists (PPLs). These criteria apply
regardless of when the permit was issued. In areas where these
criteria do not apply, emphasis should be placed on reissued major
permits. Where it is appropriate, written MMS procedures will be
incorporated into formal EPA/State agreements, 106 program grants,
-------
4
205(g) agreements, or any other working agreements. On an annual
basis, both agencies will update these procedures and any formal
changes will be incorporated into the appropriate documents.
The Principles of MMS
There are ten basic principles that are common to an effective
MMS. These are:
1. An integrated database (established through the PCS/GIGS
interface) of common grant and permit/compliance information.
(The data base is to be updated periodically, i.e. at least
quarterly)
2. Coordinated information flow.
3. Consistent permit and grant schedule requirements.
4. Consistent and periodic permit and grant compliance
evaluations.
5. Coordinated initiation of regulatory responses to permit/grant
violations.
6. Coordinated review and action on permit and grant extension
requests.
7. Internal management controls.
8. Public reporting on the status of municipal compliance.
9. Coordinated development and modification of State Project
Priority Lists (PPL).
10. Coordinated use of all field inspection data in compliance
evaluations.
-------
5
A discussion of these principles and their subparts begins on
page seven.
Implementation of MMS
Both EPA and the States have responsibilities in the permit,
grant, and enforcement programs. In the construction grant pro-
gram, a State can assume the primary role through section 205(g)
of the Act. In the municipal permit program, a State can also be
delegated primary authority for the administration of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), including permit
issuance and enforcement, through section 402(c) of the Act. The
authority for these two programs may be held in four ways:
1. U.S. EPA delegates 205(g) and NPDES to a State,
2. U.S. EPA delegates 205(g) and has not delegated NPDES,
3. U.S. EPA does not delegate 205(g) and has delegated
NPDES, and
4. U.S. EPA does not delegate 205(g) and has not
delegated NPDES.
Within each of these combinations, both EPA and the State have
major roles to play. The agency with primacy must coordinate its
activities, relative to a specific municipality, with its partner
in the program. This coordination must be achieved in order to
insure the effectiveness of the delegated program activity. By
-------
6
defining and writing the procedures that delineate who will do what
and when (in dealing with municipalities), opportunities for prob-
lems will be greatly reduced.
In developing an MMS, the agency with primacy will take the
lead in developing the procedures that describe the dual relation-
ship and the responsibilities for the joint administration of the
program. Once the procedures for the coordination of the permit,
grant, and enforcement programs are negotiated, both the Federal
and State agency shall cooperate to develop a final written
document that describes how these procedures will effect the prin-
ciples of MMS in both jurisdictions. Fulfillment of the principles
of MMS is a means of achieving greater National consistency in the
grants/enforcement programs.
It cannot be stressed strongly enough that, throughout the
process described by these coordinating procedures, a minimum
amount of inter-agency or intra-agency review and concurrence
should occur while still insuring that the proper parties agree to
actions at necessary steps in the process. The objective is to
keep paperwork to a minimum and enhance communication and coordina-
tion (reference section 101(f) of the Clean Water Act).
-------
7
Discussion of MMS Principles
Each MMS principle has certain subparts associated with it.
Fulfillment of the principle is not complete without implementation
of the required subpart. Moreover, each agency must develop
time-frame controls at appropriate levels in the decision-making
process. MMS does not stipulate what these time frames should be.
Each agency will establish appropriate time frames for the review
and handling of information to assure effective management control.
PRINCIPLE 1: An integrated database (established through the
PCS/GICS interface) of common grant and permit/compliance information
(The data base is to be updated periodically, i.e. at least
quarterly)
The permit, grants, and enforcement programs require that mu-
nicipal permittees submit similar information to each of them. A
common database composed of shared information among the program
areas is necessary for effective coordination of both compliance
and grant activities. The term database is defined as an informa-
tion pool used for various levels of management decision making.
The database will consist of information from the Grants Informa-
tion Control System (GICS) and the Permit Compliance System (PCS)
pulled together and displayed on reports which show the status of
grants and enforcement activities. Moreover, the system will
provide a basis for identifying those facilities in violation of
-------
8
their compliance and grant schedules. So that one program does not
unilaterally initiate a particular action based on data supplied
by the MMS system, it is important that each coordinates its
response with the other interdependent programs. In this manner,
it will be clear to the permittee/grantee and to the rest of the
regulated public that the Agency is acting with firmness and
consistency.
The relationship among the permit, grant, and enforcement
programs is based in part upon the common information that is
critical to each. As stated in the National Municipal Policy and
Strategy, the following priority list must be followed:
1. Active grants with pretreatment requirements: step 3, step 2,
step 1,
2. Grantees on the fundable portion (one year) of the project
priority list (grants not yet awarded): step 3, step 2, step 1,
3. Active major grantees (funded from previous project lists):
step 3, step 2, step 1,
4. Active minor grantees (funded from previous project lists):
step 3, step 2, step 1, and
5. Unfunded projects (if funding becomes available in FY 1980).
Within the context of these priorities, emphasis should be
placed on major permittees within the top 106 SMSAs as noted
before.
-------
9
In order to address the permit and grant problems in these
areas, an appropriate database must be established and must include
the following at a minimum:
1. The status of each grant. The following information, at a
minimum, is to be developed and maintained on the status of each
grant:
a. The specific grant project numbers tied to POTWs should be
identified. Because the focus of permit and enforcement
efforts is on the treatment facility, 'pipe1 projects
(interceptors and collector sewers) should not be listed
unless they are critical to providing proper treatment at the
treatment site. Treatment-related projects should be
displayed in sufficient detail so that specific treatment
processes are identified.
b. The exact status of the grant in the grant process. Tables
or charts should summarize where projects are in the grant
process and identify problems which either prevent or delay
the progress of the grant.
c. The next step which needs to be accomplished in the grant
process.
d. Other, mutually agreed upon information needs.
2. The status of each permit. The following data elements, at a
minimum, are to be maintained to relate a specific permit (and
its Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) with its associated
grant (identified in l.a. above).
-------
10
This information is to be developed by the State or Federal agency
that has been delegated the NPDES program.
a. The specific permit number.
b. The permit effluent limits.
c. The construction schedule in the permit, (i.e. events
and dates).
d. Any other schedules outlined in the permit.
3. Municipal NEEDS Survey Information
a. Nature and status of facility
b. Cost estimate by NEEDS category
c. Authority and facility identification
Following the establishment of the database, it must be kept
current. It is necessary to establish a process for updating and
exchanging information between the grants and enforcement programs.
In addition, written procedures are necessary for the transmission
of this information between interdependent programs so that their
separate activities can be coordinated. Data for major facilities
in both the grants and enforcement programs should be updated
quarterly. Data for minors should updated semi-annually.
EPA has a basic computer interface to link the data systems
in its compliance and construction grant programs. The technical
requirements for this link are discussed in Appendix C. This inter-
face is considered to be one of the key aspects of the consolidated
-------
11
approach to municipal enforcement. Given the volume and complexi-
ty of the municipal compliance and grant information that must be
processed between interdependent programs at both the Federal and
State levels, it is imperative that Regions and States seek to
achieve the first principle of MMS through the use of available
ADP systems and the Headquarters cross-reference index. The in-
terface will contain three major component systems:
1. GIGS,
2. NEEDS Survey Cross-Index, and
3. PCS
The HQ cross-reference index links the permit (PCS) file at
the facility level with the grant (GICS) file at the grant level.
This linkage will provide the Regions with the capability to
display critical grant and permit schedules for a given authority
on a single printout. Data entry procedures are being developed
in conjunction with Regional guidance on the definitions of the
common data elements. A description of these common data elements
(which all system users must maintain) is attached as Appendix B.
Appendix C is a description of the cross-reference index.
Both GICS and PCS have established data requirements relating
to data quality, timeliness, and amount of information. These can
-------
12
be found in the GIGS Program Management guidance in the Grants
program and the Enforcement Management System guidance (EMS) with-
in the Enforcement program.
MMS will also require the use of the NEEDS cross-reference
index system, which is maintained under contract. This file con-
tains both grant and permit information that can be used to
identify related records in GIGS, NEEDS, and PCS. A basic link
has already been accomplished and a report has been generated
which shows an NPDES permit and all of its related grants. A
report can also be prepared showing a grant and all of its related
permits. The complete interface will link NPDES compliance
schedule events with their related grant events. In addition to
linking this information, MMS may also provide a consolidated
retrieval package to allow easy access by States and Regions to
»
computerized information contained in GIGS and PCS.
PRINCIPLE 2: Coordinated Information Flow.
Because the number of programs and agencies involved in the
implementation of MMS is large, the flow of information between
the parties will be critical. Unless information flows smoothly
and in a timely fashion, problems will develop. As an example, if
a grantee has a rachet schedule in the permit for Step 1, and is
awarded a Step 2 grant which fixes the next milestone date in the
-------
13
permit, this information must be sent to the permit program for en-
tering into the tracking system. Procedures must be developed to
facilitate information flow at all levels. They must include the
following:
1. The agencies must identify what types of information they must
exchange, exactly who is to receive this data, and when it
must be available. In so doing, it is better to encourage
more frequent contacts than to increase the amount of written
communications and the layers of bureaucratic review.
2. The rationale used in each step of the review process must be
written down and placed in the appropriate grant and
enforcement files at both the Federal and State levels.
Strict adherence to this doctrine, supplemented by procedures
that require this, will go a long way to provide needed
historical information for future use.
3. Special pieces of information that must be distributed to the
grants and enforcement programs must be delineated so that
these documents reach the appropriate parties and critical
information in them is used accordingly. For example, there
must be procedures for incorporating the results from compli-
ance sampling inspections, compliance evaluation inspections,
and Corps of Engineers inspection reports into the review
process. The procedures should also delineate ways by which
-------
14
the grants program can surface candidates for compliance evaluation
inspections and compliance sampling inspections.
PRINCIPLE 3: Consistent permit and grant schedule requirements.
The NMPS contains detailed instructions for processing sec-
tion 301(i)(l) extension requests under the Act and for developing
enforceable permit compliance schedules based on the availability
of grant funding. A summary of these procedures is attached as
Appendix D. These schedules require municipalities to complete
construction of Federally funded treatment projects. Using the
NMPS as a reference, the Regions and the States, in the
development of their written guidance, must develop procedures
that delineate:
1. The process for determining whether a permittee will be
eligible for a permit extension, will be issued an
administrative order, or will be subject to referral for
judicial action.
2. How construction grants and permits staff will coordinate the
issuance of permits containing fixed dates (based on grant
schedules) as compliance milestones.
3. How construction grants and enforcement staffs will coordinate
to produce administrative orders containing grant-based compli-
ance schedules.
-------
15
4. How construction grants and enforcement staffs will coordinate
activities when litigation is under development or underway.
PRINCIPLE 4: Consistent and periodic permit and grant compliance
evaluations.
In conjunction with the development of an integrated database,
a series of coordinated compliance review activities is one of the
most critical MMS requirements the Regions and the States must
address. Therefore, permit, grant, and enforcement programs should
review their independent and related compliance review functions
and develop written management procedures that incorporate the
following elements as a minimum:
1. The specific criteria for determining those grantees that are
not meeting grant conditions or objectives or that appear to
be moving in a direction that will result in not meeting that
grant condition. The key in these procedures is to insure
that these grantees are surfaced early for review and action.
2. The specific guidelines for making technical evaluations.
The priority for these reviews is the same as that established
in principle number one on page eight.
3. The persons responsible for completing each phase of these
evaluations and for making each decision as the case of
apparent noncompliance moves through the review process.
-------
16
4. The specific types of information and other materials
necessary to be used in the next evaluation step described
in principle number five on page sixteen.
5. The control procedures for the external and internal
transmittal of appropriate information.
6. The control procedures for the documentation of the rationale
when it is decided not to submit a grantee for formal review
and further action. This historical information, useful for
future reviews, must be maintained in the permanent file.
7. The time frames which control the flow of information and
assure timely responses during each of the preceding steps.
PRINCIPLE 5: Coordinated initiation of regulatory responses to
permit/grant violations.
In order to insure a coordinated regulatory response, the
grants and enforcement programs at the State and Federal levels
should include the following in their written management proce-
dures:
1. The National Noncompliance Response Guidance, which was devel-
oped by a Federal/State task force and issued in the June 4,
1979 draft task force report package. It is also included
with this guide as Appendix E. This guidance will be used to
determine the appropriate level or scope of action for specific
-------
17
types of violations. It is anticipated that circumstances in
the Regions and States may suggest using an approach different
from that in the response guide. However, in most instances,
it is expected that both the Regions and the States will take
actions in a manner consistent with the response guide. The
Federal or State agency with the primary NPDES authority should
take the lead in coordinating an enforcement response in accor-
dance with the response guide. The regulatory action must
reflect the concept that the burden of taking the necessary
corrective action to achieve compliance rests with the
permittee/grantee. The measure of effectiveness of the regula-
tory agency response is whether the permittee/grantee returns
to compliance or was placed on a schedule which results in
compliance by a certain date. If the regulatory action does
not achieve these ends, the level of action should be elevated.
2. The person or position(s) responsible for initiating and
completing each step in the enforcement response process
and/or making the action decisions as the regulatory action
moves through the appropriate channels for concurrence.
3. The time frames to control the flow of information so that the
regulatory action can be taken in time to make it effective.
4. The administrative tracking system to monitor the progress of
the Agency response (action) at any time during the enforcement
-------
18
process. Developed procedures must clearly identify who is
responsible for completing each phase of this process and who
must make each decision as the regulatory action moves through
the process. Standard procedures must be developed to channel
information to the necessary decision points in order to secure
concurrence or nonconcurrence (by grants and enforcement) with
the regulatory action before it is issued as a final action.
The procedures should limit the number of signature levels in
the process while still maintaining needed communications.
Additional procedures which need to be included in this system
are those for case follow-up and close-out, status update, and
the return of compliance information to the database.
PRINCIPLE 6: Coordinated review and action on permit and grant
extension requests.
In order to avoid conflicts in handling construction grant
extension requests and permit modification requests, written pro-
cedures must be developed and include the following as a minimum:
1. The specific criteria used to judge whether the permittee/
grantee is coming into compliance as expeditiously as possible
(a statutory requirement). The backdrop against which an
extension request is reviewed must be the requirements of the
statute and the regulations. The permittee/grantee must fully
-------
19
comply with the law and all applicable regulations. The
permittee/grantee must submit appropriate evidence (documen-
tation) that this burden of proof is met.
2. The specific criteria used to determine "routine" cases that do
not need a detailed or high level review for concurrence and
signature. "Nonroutine" cases, of course, must be fully
reviewed and then receive concurrence. The objective is to
reduce paperwork and levels of signature while still maintaining
accountability and communication.
3. The standard procedures for coordinating with other affected
programs and agencies.
4. The time-frame controls for making a final determination and
initiating the appropriate response. Points of responsibility/
accountability must be clearly evident in the procedures.
5. The procedures to control information flow to insure that appro-
priate information is sent to all agencies and entered into the
data base. This includes appropriate documentation of the
decisions in the files.
PRINCIPLE 7: Internal management controls.
There is a need for all management levels in the various or-
ganizations to be able to understand and assess the effectiveness
-------
20
of their program operations. In this way, top management can review
progress and problems. Therefore, procedures must be developed to
provide for feedback mechanisms which summarize actions so that
management can assess the progress and direction of the program.
This self-evaluation is to be based on time-frame controls and
assigned responsibilities for each of the program elements. These
management procedures must include the following:
1. A method of tracking information (using time controls) within
the system so that it can be located at any given time.
2. The ability to evaluate specific activities in terms of their
results and ultimately the ability to reconcile program
accomplishments with National objectives.
3. The ability to correlate permit compliance status and grant
status with the goals of the Act and the National Municipal
Policy and Strategy.
4. The escalation process for resolving program differences in
order to move forward in a timely manner. Where there are four
programs (grants at the Federal and State level and enforcement
at the Federal and State level) as heavily involved as in this
process, there will be disagreements. Time frames should be an
integral part of this escalation process.
PRINCIPLE 8: Public reporting on the status of municipal compliance
Within the enforcement program there exists a document for
-------
21
reporting on the status of each noncomplying source. That docu-
ment is the Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR). The QNCR will
continue to be the document which describes all instances of
noncompliance in the municipal sector.
Detailed Regional guidance on the preparation of the QNCR has
been made available to the Regions and NPDES States. Written MMS
guidance must identify how such permit/grant compliance information
will be coordinated between the appropriate offices at both the
Federal and State levels. Here again, it must be stressed that the
application of time-frame controls and designated points of respon-
sibility are required subparts of MMS.
PRINCIPLE 9: Coordinated development and modification of the State
Project Priority Lists (PPL).
All States have developed state Construction grant priority
systems. Current PPL ^ana^en-.fnt orocecures and lists need to be
reviewed to insure that:
1. Stability is provided by developing multi-year lists. Limit
opportunities for changing a specific project's position on the
list and insure continuity through Steps 1, 2, and 3,
2. Points are allocated to projects necessary to meet enforceable
requirements of the Act or otherwise comply with water quality
needs as stated in statutory and regulatory provisions.
-------
22
3. Wherever possible, any changes in the system or list are avoided
during the middle of the fiscal year.
4. Coordinating procedures are established so that the enforcement
staff has the opportunity to participate in the development and
review of PPLs.
PRINCIPLE 10: Coordinated use of all field inspection data in
compliance evaluations.
This is another area where the Regions and the States must
carefully integrate activities so that the compliance data resul-
ting from field inspections enters the Regional/State information
systems at the appropriate decision points. Written MMS guidance
on the subject should include as a minimum:
1. The inspection requirements each program must support.
2. The criteria used to identify inspection candidates.
3. Procedures for the joint conduct of field inspections.
4. Data entry and transmission procedures for key inspection
results.
5. The use of the National standard inspection forms (EPA 3560-3).
The Compliance and Grants Information Systems Work Group de-
termined that the current Corps of Engineers (COE) inspection
program for municipal construction could be readily integrated with
-------
23
the Agency's Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) program.
This effort follows naturally from the earlier effort to
integrate common data elements into one data-base. The Corps
provides on-site presence on large construction projects and
performs reviews of plans and specifications already approved by
EPA. The COE maintains much wider coverage of these projects
than EPA, and its data requirements far exceed those of the
Agency's NPDES inspection requirements. Through the use of the
guidance in Appendix F, the Regions and States can routinely
obtain a great deal of necessary information on the status of
uncompleted projects. This expanded compliance overview can be
of great value in making compliance evaluations. Procedures
need to be developed to integrate this COE service into Regional
and State inspection programs.
-------
APPENDICES
A. MMS Development Schedule
B. Milestones for NPDES Permit Schedules
C. PCS/GIGS Cross-Reference Index
D. Permit Development Procedures
301(i)(l) Extensions
0 Preapplication and Prepublic Notice Conference
0 Public Participation
0 Grant Amendments and Permit Modifications
0 State Priority Systems
E. Noncompliance Response Guide
0 Grants and Enforcement Interaction (chart)
0 Possible Responses to Municipal Noncompliance: Grant
Management Actions
0 Enforcement Actions, State Actions, and General Sanctions
0 Response Guide
F. Guidance on integrating COE inspections with NPDES inspections
-------
Appendix A
MMS DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Activity
Issuance of Final MMS Guidance
Complete PCS/GIGS Interface Capability
Hold Area-wide MMS Orientation Meetings
Develop MMS (by Regions and States)
Complete EPA/State Agreements
Begin Operation of MMS
Shakedown Period for MMS Operation
Milestone or Time Period
March 3, 1980
March - April 1980
April 1 - June 30, 1980
July 1 - September 30,
1980
October 1, 1980
October 1 - December 31,
1980
Begin HQs Evaluation of MMS Operation January 1981
-------
APPENDIX B
MILESTONES FOR NPDES PERMIT SCHEDULES
The Construction Grants Program will have primary reponsibili-
ty for the development of grant schedules for use in NPDES permits
and construction grants awards. Fixed-date schedules are to be
developed based on the availability of Federal funding and the
project's scope and complexity. These schedules must also provide a
reasonable time for Agency (State and Federal) review. A detailed
discussion of the coordination between Grants and Permits is con-
tained in the NMPS and in the draft HMPS Task Force Report package.
All data and schedule dates are tracked at the State level. For
delegated States this is no problem since the States are already
responsible for data entry into GIGS or PCS. When tracking a
project in a non-delegated State, the Region and State should design
their own system for tracking and entering data into these systems.
The Regions and States need to develop procedures to notify
the NPDES authority promptly when items required by the NPDES permit
schedule are received by the appropriate State or Regional Office of
Construction Grants. The permittee/grantee is not to be required to
report separately to the grants and permit compliance programs.
The following list of milestones, together with their
definitions, are to be used in NPDES schedule development.
Milestone Def inition
1. Submit Step 1 Application to State The date the complete ap-
plication for a grant
(and/or amendment to a
construction grant) is re-
ceived in the appropriate
State office.
2. Submit Completed Facilities Plan The date a facilities
plan, which meets all the
requirements for approval,
is received in the
appropriate State office.
-------
Q2
Milestone
Definition
Submit Step 3 Application(s
to State
The date the application(s) for a
grant (and/or amendment to a con-
struction grant) is received in
the appropriate State office.
Submit Complete Plans
and Specifications
The date plans and specifications,
which meet all the requirements
for approval, are received in the
appropriate State office.
Complete Construction
The date of project completion on
the grant agreement (end date of
"Project Period," item 8, EPA
form 5700-20A).
6. Achieve Final Effluent
Limits
Date on which the permittee is
required to be in compliance with
the final effluent limits speci-
fied in the permit.
7. Submit Construction Grant
Project Progress Report
The date a bar chart, payment re-
quest, or other indication of the
progress (% completion) of the
Construction Grant project is re-
ceived by the permitting authority,
-------
B3
Milestone
Definition
Submit Step 2/3 Application
to State
The date the application for a
grant (and/or amendment to a
construction grant) is received
in the appropriate State office
Pretreatment Program
1. Submit Results of Industrial
User Survey, Evaluation of
Legal Authority, and Deter-
mination of Technical
Information.
The date all three elements,
Industrial User Survey, Evalua-
tion of Legal Authority, and
Determination of Technical
Information, which meet all
requirements for approval, are
received in the appropriate
State office.
2. Submit Evaluation of
Financial Programs and
Revenue Sources, Design
of Monitoring Program,
List of Required Monitoring
Equipment and Housing Needs,
and Specific POTW Effluent
Limitations for Prohibited
Pollutants.
The date all four elements,
Evaluation of Financial Programs
and Revenue Sources, Design of
Monitoring Program, List of
Required Monitoring Equipment and
Housing Needs, and Specific POTW
Effluent Limitations for Prohi-
bited Pollutants, which meet all
requirements for approval, are
received in the appropriate State
office.
-------
B4
Pretreatment Programs (cont.) Definitions
3. Submit Request for Pre- Date of receipt by approval
treatment Program Approval. authority (permitting authority)
for pretreatment program approval
and removal of credit approval,
if desired.
-------
Appendix C
PCS/GIGS CROSS-REFERENCE INDEX
I. TITLE
Data Standards for Data Interchange of Related Construction
Grants and Permits Information.
II. PURPOSE;
To provide ADP data file standards for EPA organizational
elements utilizing, generating, or maintaining data element links
in municipal water related data.
III. SCOPE;
These standards apply to all ADP systems which link elements
of existing Permits (PCS), Grants (GIGS), NEEDS, and other related
files.
IV. TYPE OF LINKAGE;
Each data file which provides linkages to municipal water
related files will provide a separate ADP file for the purpose.
This file will be compatible with the text editing system in use on
the EPA computer (currently WYLBUR). Each entry in the data file
will contain a logical record. Each logical record will contain
space for one or more of the identifiers of the ADP files to be
referenced.
As a minimum, each linking file will link identifiers from the
NEEDS, GICS, and PCS files.
V. LEVEL OF LINKAGE (See Figure 1);
As a minimum to satisfy national data reporting requirements,
each linking file will provide a linkage level as defined below:
For Permits - linkage to be at the permit number level.
For Grants - linkage to be at the sequence number level.
For NEEDS - linkage to be at the Facility number level.
Linkages may be provided at levels more detailed than speci-
fied above at the discretion of file developers (see figure 1).
The current national cross-reference index file (XREF) pro-
vides the national minimum linkage level, minus the extension of
the linkage on the grants side beyond the basic grant number.
Sequence numbers (projects) are not yet included.
In addition, complex grant/needs/permits situations in large
or multiple authorities may not be complete or accurate in the XREF,
Regional personnel are to use the XREF as a starting point, since
much work has already been done. The XREF is to be corrected and
enhanced by regional staff as necessary to be completely accurate.
-------
C2
VI. DEFINITION OF NATIONAL MINIMUM DATA ELEMENTS:
1. Grant Number
in linking files will
two (2) sections.
- The grant
be eight (8)
identification number
digits in length and
to be used
composed of
(a) Serial Number - Six (6) digits in length assigned to
identify each preapplication, prospective project, unsolicited
contract proposal, application, and awarded grants. This serial
number is composed of two (2) sections:
(1) a two
immediately followed by:
(2) digit FIPS-5 numeric State code,
(2
a four (4) digit numeric grant serial number.
(b)
Sequence Number - Two (2) numeric digits in length
which identifies sequentially the specific project(s) - the original
(new) and subsequent continuations - within a particular grant.
2. Permit Number - NPDES number assigned by the permitting
authority. It uniquely identifies a permittee. The number is nine
(9) digits long and is composed of two sections. The first section
is two (2) digits in length and represents the FIPS-5 alphabetic
State code designation, i.e. Georgia = GA, North Carolina = NC, etc.
The second section is seven (7) digits in length and represents a
numeric computerized permit number within a State.
3. Needs Number - State/authority/facility number as defined
in the Needs Survey. It uniquely defines a municipal wastewater
facility. The number is nine (9) digits in length, defined as
follows:
positions 1-2 -
positions 3-6 -
FIPS-5 State numeric code.
Municipal authority identifier.
This four digit code uniquely
identifies a municipal authority
within the State.
positions 7-9 -
Facility identifier - This three
digit numeric code uniquely identifies
each facility under the control of
an authority.
By convention, facility number "001" also identifies the
administrative headquarters of the municipal authority.
-------
C3
VII. OTHER DATA ELEMENTS;
There have been other data elements defined by the GIGS/PCS
Interface Task Force. These elements are not required for linking
the ADP files at the national minimum level, and are therefore not
required as a national minimum. However, some of these are required
for linkages beyond the national minimum level.
When linkages beyond the national minimum are implemented, the
following definitions shall be required.
1. Grants
(a) Step - Step represents the specific type of project
undertaken as part of a wastewater treatment construction grant.
The field is one (1) numeric digit in length and coded in the
following manner:
0 - Construction Management Assistance Grant
1 - Project for Facilities Plans and Studies
2 - Project for Preparing of Construction Drawings
and Specifications
3 - Project for Building and Erection of a Treatment
Works
4 - Project for Design and Construction (step 2) and
Construction (step 3) of a Treatment Works
(b) Amendment Designator - One (1) numeric digit in
length which identifies each augmentation, revision, increase,
decrease, or other significant proposed revision to a funded
project.
2. Permits
a. Pipe Number (Schedule) - A two (2) numeric digit iden-
tifier which designates a discharge compliance schedule as found in
PCS.
VIII. Access to the National XREF
Regional staff can gain access to the national XREF through
Regional WYLBUR files on COMNET. All these files are located on
pace NEED78.
-------
C4
The file names are:
$CN.EPAHAH.NEED.REGIX
$CN.EPAHAH.NEED.REG2X
$CN.EPAHAH.NEED.REG3X
$CN.EPAHAH.NEED.REG4X
$CN.EPAHAH.NEED.REG5X
$CN.EPAHAH.NEED.REG6X
$CN.EPAHAH.NEED.REG7X
$CN.EPAHAH.NEED.REGSX
$CN.EPAHAH.NEED.REG9X
$CN.EPAHAH.NEED.REG10X
The format for each of these data sets can be found in WYLBUR
data set.
$CH.EPAHAH.NEED.NEW.XREF.RECORD
-------
FIGURE 1
LEVELS OF LINKAGES FOR ADP FILES
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DATA
MUNICIPAL
AUTHORITIES
NATIONAL
MINIMUM
LINKAGE
LEVEL
CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS
LOCAL OPTIONAL
LINKAGE LEVEL
-------
Appendix D
PERMIT DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES
The general approach to permit issuance for approved 301(i)(l)
extensions is described in the NMPS. A more complete discussion of
what a permit writer should do is provided below.
1. Review Application for a 301(i)(l) Extension
(a) Check the permit for completeness of
information e.g., grant status, pre-
treatment, effluent limitations, etc.
(b) Assemble information or initiate an
information exchange between the
different program offices. This puts
everyone on notice that a permit is
ready to be processed and that the
necessary information from other offices
should be forwarded.
2. Develop Terms and Conditions to be Specified in the Permit
(a) Effluent limitations are provided from
the appropriate office in charge of their
development. This predevelopment process
may vary within Regions and States due
to relationships between program offices.
The limitations should already have
been subject to prior review and accep-
tance. The source and nature of the
data relied upon in developing the
limitations (e.g. approved WLA, 303(e)
basin plans, approved 208 plans, etc.)
should be available to the permit writer
to include in the "fact sheet" or State-
ment of Basis.
(b) Monitoring Requirements.
(c) Schedules of Compliance will tentatively
be the dates specified or estimated from
the grants process.
(d) Reporting Requirements.
(e) Pretreatment Requirements.
(f) Special Conditions.
PREAPPLICATION AND PREPUBLIC NOTICE CONFERENCE
The construction grant regulations require, where appropriate,
a conference to be held with the grant applicant before application
-------
D2
for the grant is made (40 CFR 35.902.2). The NPDES permit regula-
tions do not require a similar meeting with the permittee before
the draft permit is put on public notice, but many Regions and
States hold some type of meeting. Since the grantee and the
permittee are usually the same entity, grant-related questions
could come up in the preapplication conference. Even if such
questions do not come up, the grantee (and grants staff) should be
aware of the grantee's status as a permittee and vice versa.
Therefore, grants staff should be generally familiar with the
permit requirements, compliance status, pretreatment requirements,
and evidentiary hearing status, etc. and should inform the grantee
of the relationship between the present grant application and the
existing (or expired) permit. The converse should be true in any
prepublic notice conference held with the permittees. Whenever
conferences are being held, each program should notify the other
program, as well as the grantee or permittee when they are not the
same entity, so that they can choose to attend or not. The Regions
and States should develop a list of named facilities, types of
issues, or other considerations and circumstances, (e.g. requests
for permit modification, locally sensitive grant awards, etc.),
where joint meetings with the permittee/grantee should be required.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Under the new NPDES regulations, a public notice is issued
regarding both the proposed issuance, modification, or denial of
a permit and the proposed permit conditions (40 CFR 124.41). All
public notices contain a "fact sheet" or "statement of basis" which
explains in detail how and why the permitting authority arrived at
specific permit conditions (40 CFR 124.33 and 124.34). The public
has 30 days to comment in writing and to request a public hearing
on the draft permit (40 CFR 124.42). Finally, interested parties
can request an administrative hearing on the Regional Administra-
tor's decision to issue a permit (40 CFR 35.915 (a)) and before
submission of its annual Project Priority List (or revisions
published June 7, 1979 thereto)(40 CFR 35.915(d) and (f)). The
Regional Administrator must establish a procedure for providing
public notice and hearings on any proposed removal by EPA of a
specific project on a State Project Priority List (40 CFR
35.915(g)). Finally, a public hearing must be held before the
adoption of a facility plan (40 CFR 917-5(b)).
When the draft permit is put on public notice, there should be
a statement indicating that the permit terms and conditions were
developed in conjunction with the construction grant process. The
statement can be very general, as in the preceeding sentence, or it
can be very specific, citing the construction grant number, etc.
The fact sheet (or statement of basis) which explains the basis of
the permit, should go into greater detail as to the underlying con-
struction grant process and should reference the appropriate grant
numbers and any joint meeting held with the grantee/permittee.
Both programs should consider using a joint mailing list so
that all interested parties will receive complete information on a
facility, i.e., permit and grant information.
-------
D3
The Regions and States should develop procedures for holding
joint public meetings and hearings, including the identification of
those situations where joint public meetings and hearings are re-
quired and how a record of joint public comments will be maintained,
When an evidentiary hearing is approved on grant-related
issues (e.g. schedules, effluent limitations, and pretreatment),
the Regions (and States if similar administrative procedures are
in effect) should develop a system to determine which grant awards
should be deferred until the related permit conditions at issue are
resolved. Procedures should also be developed which describe how
any existing grants will be amended to incorporate necessary
changes reflecting the resolution or settlement of the evidentiary
hearing request. These procedures should also cover the reverse
situation where a grant which relates to an issued or pending
permit is appealed under 40 CFR 30.1100 et seq.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GRANT AMENDMENTS AND PERMIT MODIFICATIONS
Under the new NPDES regulations, permittees can request a
modification of the terms and conditions of their permit (40 CFR
124.31). The HPDES regulations do not require the Grants Office
to be notified of the modification request or the nature of the
subsequently modified permit terms or conditions. The procedure
for permit modification is the same as the procedure for permit
issuance with the exception that a modification request to change
an interim compliance date 120 days or less is not subject to
public notice or an opportunity for a hearing.
Under the construction grant regulations, grantees must notify
their Project Officer of any events which may require a grant
amendment, including circumstances which result in an acceleration
or deceleration in the time for performance of the project (40 CFR
30.900(b)(4)). The regulations do not require the Permits Office
to be notified of such amendment requests. Grantees must also
agree to initiate and complete each project Step, including the
initiation of all significant elements of Step 3, within 12 months
of the grant award, otherwise the grant may be annulled or termi-
nated (40 CFR 35.935-(a) and (c)). The grantee can request an
extension of the time for initiation of Step 3, if, among other
things, the grantee notifies the NPDES permit authority of the re-
quest (40 CFR 35.935-9(c)(2)). The regulations further state that
any extension or modification of a date in a construction grant
does not modify a compliance date in an NPDES permit and that the
grantee must request a permit modification (40 CFR 935-9(b)).
Whenever one office receives a request for an amendment or
modification which relates to the terms and conditions of either
the permit or grant, a system must be developed to assure that
permit and grant modifications are coordinated, otherwise the
facility could end up having two inconsistent documents from two
offices.
-------
D4
STATE PRIORITY SYSTEMS
Although the Water Programs Office plays a significant role
in the development of State Priority Systems and Lists, Enforce-
ment, Permits and Grants programs must coordinate their efforts
in reviewing State priority systems and project priority lists.
New Section 216 gives the States the sole authority to determine
priority among categories of projects. However, projects that the
Regional Administrator determines do not meet the enforceable
requirements of the Act (except as provided by 40 CFR §35 .915(g) (2)
may be removed from the project priority list, after a public
hearing, and replaced with projects which meet the enforceable
requirements.
Enforcement should determine: 1) which POTWs are unfunded
301(i)(l) applicants and are also under existing or pending
enforcement actions for significant water quality violations or
violations which cause significant public health problems and 2)
which POTWs are funded but cannot complete construction by 1983
and are also under enforcement actions. To aid in this determina-
tion, staff should refer to the discussion of categories of POTW
compliance in the NMPS. If it is determined that the PPL contains
projects that 1) do not meet the enforceable requirements of the
Act and 2) are ranked higher than the two types of projects
described above, a detailed review of the State priority system
should be made to identify 1) the factors in that system which
resulted in these projects appearing on the list and 2) what
changes might be made to the system to elevate significant pollu-
ters identified through compliance reviews. This information
should then be transmitted to the State with the request that they
modify their priority system. The State response to that request
could serve as the basis for approval (or disapproval) of the State
priority system and any pending 301(i)(l) extension requests. All
communications with the States on priority systems must be through
a single Regional program office given the lead responsibility for
reviewing State priority systems.
The Agency may request a State to reevaluate a POTW's priority
ranking at any time during the year. Information from the NEEDS
Survey, approved facilities plans, etc., could serve as the basis
upon which project needs are identified. Projects that will meet
permit requirements (enforceable requirements) must be given pre-
ference over the construction of the other projects. Projects that
generally would not be considered necessary to meet the enforceable
requirements of the Act are those which provide solely for growth
or excessive reserve capacity. An unfunded, significant NPDES
permit violator (as determined in the previous section) could be
referred to the State for reevaluation of priority ranking or for
possible funding from the Step 1 and Step 2 reserve. Any request
for reevaluation must be coordinated among the Enforcement,
Permits, and Construction Grants programs. It is expected that
priority reevaluation requests will be the exception rather than
the rule. If the State increases the priority rating or agrees to
-------
D5
fund from the reserve, the NPDES authority would issue a letter
informing the POTVJ of its eligibility for a construction grant and
soliciting a grant application by a specified date. Failure to
comply with such an action could be grounds for further enforcement
action.
Regulations governing the State priority system and project
priority list were promulgated at 40 CFR 35.915. Additional
guidance is contained in Program Requirements Memorandum #78-13
issued June 29, 1978.
-------
Appendix E
NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSE GUIDE
This is a guide for Construction Grant and Enforcement offi-
cials in the exercise of their enforcement discretion. It serves
three main purposes. First, it establishes enforcement responses
that are appropriate, both in terms of their severity and the
availability of Agency resources for different types of permit or
grant violations. Secondly, given the resource constraints in the
various Grants and Enforcement units, it assures a relatively
uniform application of enforcement responses to comparable levels
and types of violations around the country. Finally, it acts as a
standard against which any MMS program can be evaluated.
It should be emphasized that this guide is to be used when
considering the most appropriate response to a permit or grant
violation. Thus, the suggested responses or alternatives may not
be the only ones appropriate in achieving compliance. The guide
should not be woodenly applied in any particular case. Each
violation of an NPDES permit or grant schedule is a violation of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for which the full array
of enforcement responses provided in the Act is available.
Determining the most appropriate response (or set of responses)
requires consideration of 1) the severity of violation in terms of
the degree of variance from the permit/grant condition, 2) the
impact on the environment and the integrity of the NPDES program,
3) the enforcement history of the permittee in terms of past
violations and good faith, 4) the impact on other dischargers, 5)
the availability of enforcement resources within the enforcement
unit, the prosecutorial branch of government, and the judiciary,
6) the importance of the violation in comparison with other
violations that must be dealt with by limited resources, and 7)
considerations of fairness and equity.
In any particular case these factors may lead to an enforcement
response different from that suggested in the guide. In most cases,
it is anticipated that responses to violations will be made within
the framework of responses outlined in the guide.
The following table displays most of the standard responses
which may be made to noncompliance with construction grant and/or
NPDES permit requirements. Some of the responses have very broad
applications. The table gives users an idea of the scope or range
of options which may be considered when responding to permit or
grant violations. Since there is to be no unilateral response (on
the part of only one program) to a grant-related permit violation,
the following examples serve to indicate the flexibility that may
-------
E2
be desirable in bringing a permittee back into compliance. Any
sequence of grant responses or enforcement actions should not de-
viate from the levels outlined in Table 2 such that the response
is not appropriate to the severity of the violation. For example,
"documented phone calls" or "letters" (Bl, 2) may be used to
gather information or to alert a permittee in the early stages of
almost any type of violation or apparent violation. Other
responses have a much more limited application. For example, to
"withhold up to 10% of grant payment" (A4} would be effective only
near the completion of a grant project in Step 1, 2, or 3, and
would be most effective at the tine of close-out of a Step 3
grant. Similarly, "sewer bans/restrictions" (B5(b), CIO) would be
most effective where a community is undergoing significant growth
and where the violation is so clear and serious as to offset the
political outcry certain to be triggered by imposition of a ban or
restriction.
In general, the responses escalate in impact as one moves
down the list within each category, i.e. A7 ("stop payment") is
much more serious a grant management action than A2 ("impose
grant conditions"). Likewise, B4 ("Show Cause hearing") is much
more serious an enforcement action than Bl ("documented phone
call").
However, responses ranked close to one another within a given
category may in some cases differ more with respect to the circum-
stances in which they are usable than with respect to the overall
impact. For example, A3 ("withdraw authorization to advertise for
bids" ) would be effective where a grantee was delaying initiation
of facility construction to press ahead with sewer construction to
accommodate new development, while A4 ("withhold up to 10%) would
be most effective near closeout of a Step 3 grant. Neither is
more serious than the other in terms of impact.
-------
E3
SAMPLE RESPONSES TO MUNICIPAL NONCOMPLIANCE
A. Grant Management Actions (EPA/State)
1. Deny/defer award
2. Improve grant conditions (to assure "catch-up")
3. Withdraw authority to advertise for bids
4. Withhold up to 10% of grant payment
5. Disallow costs related to noncompliance
6. Suspend work (conditional, unconditional)
7. Stop payment
8. Terminate grant
9. Recover funds
10. Annul grant (partial, total)
11. Suspend grant eligibility
B. Enforcement Actions (EPA/State)
1. Make documented phone call
2. Send letter:
a. informal inquiry
b. instructional
c. Section 308
d. warning, "no action"
e. warning, time-controlled
f. "Show Cause"
3. Issue NOV to State or 309 Administrative Order
4. Hold "Show Cause" hearing
5. Refer to Justice, possibly request:
a. court-appointed master
b. 402(h) connection ban/restriction
c. adjustment of grantee on project priority list
C . State Actions
1. Decertify plant operator (temporarily/permanently)
2. File a complaint vs. engineer's license
3. Establish prequalification procedures for consulting
engineers
4. Publish list of "eligible" consulting engineers,
contractors
5. Publish list of plants with design problems and the
responsible consulting engineers
6. Withhold approval of trust report required for funding of
local share
7. Hold "Show Cause" hearings
8. Impose administrative fines
9. Take over operation of plant and bill the community
10. Sewer bans/restrictions
11. Issue State order
12. Refer to State Attorney General
D. General Sanctions (EPA)
1. Withhold approval of Corps of Engineers Section 404
(dredging) permits
2. Deny certificate of adequacy for actions by other Federal
agencies
-------
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE - ALL MAJOR PERMITTEES
TYPE VIOLATION
1. Failure to report.
2. Failure to report.
3. Failure to report.
4. Failure to report.
5. Failure to report.
6. Failure to report.
7. Failure to report.
8. Reporting False
information.
9. Reporting false
information.
REPORTING VIOLATIONS
CIRCUMSTANCES
Routine permit requirement.
Isolated instance. Also, any
special, one-time report.
Failure to respond to initial
call by submitting report or
refusing to acknowledge re-
quirement.
Failure to respond to NNC or
repeated attempts to contact
by phone. Documented lack of
cooperation.
Long-term disregard of re-
quirements, violation of AO,
documented lack of cooperation,
and coincident effluent or
schedule violations.
Failed to report effluent
violation (s) within 5 days
of occurence. Not fully
aware of problems.
Knowingly failed to submit
report within 5 days of
effluent vio]ation (s).
Failure to report effluent
violation(s) within 5 days
of occurence and serious
environmental damage takes
place or public health
endangered.
Permittee satisfactorily
explains how error made.
Permittee's culpability
unmistakable. 'Intent1
can be established.
BASIC APPROACH
Industrial: Phone call follow-
up. Request immediate sub-
mittal by specified date.
Municipal: Contact Grants.
Initiate phone follow-up.
Industrial: Issue notice
(letter) of noncompliance
(NNC)-1
Municipal: Contact Grants.
If no legitimate delays,
issue NNC. Otherwise, set
new deadline.
Industrial: Proceed with AO.2
Continue to document case.
Municipal: Contact Grants.
Take Grant Management actions
as appropriate. Document case.
Industrial: Proceed with re-
ferral. Continue to contact
and document case.
Municipal: Coordinate with
Grants. Take Grant Management
actions. If ineffective,
escalate and/or initiate
referral.
Industrial: Phone follow-up
to request immediate sub-
mi ttal . Issue NNC.
Municipal: Contact Grants.
Initiate phone follow-up.
Issue NNC.
Industrial: Issue NNC. Cite
legal liability for con-
tinued reporting violations.
If violation continues, pro-
ceed as in 3 above.
Municipal: Contact Grants.
Same as industrial.
Industrial: Proceed with AO
or referral depending on
impact of violation and
'intent' to avoid responsi-
bility.
Municipal: Contact Grants.
Take Grant Management actions.
If ineffective, escalate as
in industrial.
Industrial: Issue NNC. Cite
severe legal liability for
false reporting.
Municipal: Contact Grants.
Issue NNC citing severity
of violation.
Industrial: Proceed with
criminal referral.
Municipal: Proceed with
criminal referral.
1 A NNC should cite the facts about the violation (including dates), identify the permit
requirement(s) violated, refer to the legal liability which may be incurred, and require
an explanation (by date certain), not only of the incident, but also of the steps taken
to return to compliance.
2 This guidance does not attempt to draw the line between 'minor' or 'insignificant'
unreported data and that information which is critical in making a compliance determination
or enforcement decision. All responses should encourage a change in reporting behavior.
-------
VIOLATION
1. Failure to meet interim
requirement.
2. Failure to meet interim
requirement.
3. Failure to meet interim
requirement.
4. Failure to meet final
requirement.
5. Failure to meet final
requirement.
6. Failure to meet final
requirement.
7. Failure to meet final
requirement.
8. Failure to install
monitoring equipment.
GRANT/COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE EVENTS
CIRCUMSTANCES
Will not result in violation
of final requirement or other
interim dates.
Will result in violation of
other interim or final dates.
Legitimate delays. Acting in
good faith.
Will result in violation of
other interim or final dates.
No legitimate delays. Not
acknowledging permit respon-
sibilities.
Compliance likely within 90
days. Demonstrated commit-
ment to permit responsibili-
ties.
Delay for legitimate reason;
strike, act of God, economy.
90 days or more overdue. No
legitimate delays. Not ac-
knowledging permit re^sponsi-
bilities. Failure to respond
to Agency communications.
Same as above and failure to
respond to NNC or violation
of AO. Requirement is a
major step, resulting in a
serious environmental or
public health situation.
No legitimate delays.
BASIC APPROACH
Industrial: Phone follow-up.
Secure date by which event
should occur. If appropriate,
issue NNC.
Municipal: Same as above.
Identify Grant management
actions which may be taken.
Industrial: Issue NNC. Follow-
up to secure commitment to
compliance. Set new dead-
lines. Track closely.
Municipal: Same as industrial;
identify Grant management
actions which may be taken.
Industrial: Proceed with AO.
Issue NNC. Document case.
Municipal: Issue NNC. Dis-
allow costs associated
with noncompliance.
Industrial: Issue NNC.
Monitor closely to verify
status.
Municipal: Same as industrial.
Industrial: Issue NNC. Secure
commitment to complete
requirement.
Municipal: Same as industrial.
Industrial: Issue NNC. Proceed
with AO. Document case.
Municipal: Issue NNC. Withhold
up to 10% of grant; recover
funds; suspend eligibility
for other projects; terminate
or annul grant.
Industrial: Proceed with
referral. Document case.
Municipal: Proceed with AO
or take Grants Management
actions as in 6 above. If
actions ineffective,
proceed with referral.
Industrial: If NNC ineffective,
proceed with AO to begin
monitoring (with contractor
support if necessary)
immediately. Set new dead-
line.
Municipal: Issue NNC. Take
grant Management actions.
If ineffective, proceed
with AO.
-------
VIOLATION
1. Exceeding interim limits
2. Exceeding interim limits
3. Exceeding interim limits
4. Exceeding interim limits
5. Exceeding interim limits
EFFLUENT VIOLATIONS
CIRCUMSTANCES
Isolated discharge under
permittee's control. No
harmful effects.
Isolated discharge under
permittee's control.
Jeopardizes water quality.
Isolated discharge under
permittee's control.
Results in serious environ-
mental damage or public
health concerns.
Isolated discharge under
permittee's control.
Relatively minor infraction
occurring routinely (more
than once in four quarters).
Isolated discharge not
under permittee control.
No harmful effects.
BASIC APPROACH
Industrial: Telephone follow-
up. If response unsatis-
factory, issue NNC.
Municipal: Same as Industrial.
Industrial: Issue NNC. If
response inadequate, proceed
with AO.
Municipal: Contact Grants,
Proceed as with Industrial.
Industrial: Issue NNC. If
immediate steps not taken,
proceed with AO or referral.
Municipal: Contact Grants.
Consider Grant Management
actions and proceed as with
industrial.
Industrial: If second NNC in-
effective, proceed with AO.
Municipal: Contact Grants.
Proceed as with Industrial.
Industrial: Issue NNC.
Municipal: Same as Industrial.
6. Exceeding interim limits
Isolated discharge not
under permittee control.
Serious environmental
damage or public health
concerns.
Industrial: Same as 3 above.
Municipal: Same as Industrial.
7. Exceeding final limits
8. Exceeding interim or
final limits.
9. Exceeding interim or
final limits
10. Exceeding final limits
Isolated instance. Com-
pliance record generally
good. No harmful effects.
Notification to Agency not
made within five days as
required by permit.
Excursion within Technical
Review Criteria but consti-
tutes routine violation.
Violation continues after
issuance of NNC. Demonstra-
ted lack of commitment to
permit responsibilities.
Industrial: Telephone follow-
up. If corrective steps
taken, monitor closely. If
not, issue NNC. Document
instance.
Municipal: Same as Industrial.
Industrial: Issue NNC. If re-
peated proceed with AO.
Municipal: Contact Grants. Pro-
ceed as with Industrial.
Industrial: Telephone follow-up.
If response unsatisfactory,
issue NNC.
Municipal: Same as industrial.
Industrial: Proceed with AO.
If AO violated, initiate
referral,
Municipal: Contact Grants. Con-
sider Grant Management actions
and proceed with AO or
referral.
-------
Appendix F
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C 20460
tC 3
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Coordinating Corps of Engineer Construction Inspections
with NPDES Compliance Inspections
FROM: Director, Enforcement Division (EN-338)
Director, Municipal Construction Division (WH-547)
TO: Regional Water Division Directors
Regional Enforcement Division Directors
Through a combined effort by the Office of Water Program
Operations and the Office of Water Enforcement the National
Municipal Policy and Strategy has been developed. The Compliance
and Grants Information Systems Work Group, created in conjunction
with this Policy and Strategy, has examined the possibility of
coordinating NPDES Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs) with
municipal construction inspections performed by the Corps of
Engineers (COE) under contract with the EPA Regional Water
Divisions. Use of data currently being generated by the COE could
be of great value to the NPDES compliance inspection program.
Based on discussions between our respective staffs, we have
concluded that the current COE inspection program for municipal
construction can readily be coordinated with the NPDES compliance
inspection effort. Since one of the principal functions of a CEI
is to verify new POTW construction progress, it appears that the
COE inspections already satisfy many of the basic requirements of
CEIs .
Because of the concern about resource limitations in the COE
inspection program, the COE will not be performing any additional
inspection activities at NPDES facilities. The COE is already
generating the type, quantity and quality of data which will be
necessary to satisfy the needs of the NPDES Compliance Program.
-------
Please find attached an implementation plan which is to be
used as guidance in developing Regional programs for integrating
CEIs with COE Construction Inspections. This plan will become
final three weeks after the date of this memorandum. Any com-
ments received before that time will be considered. Comments
may be directed to Gary Polvi, Compliance Branch (755-0994), or
Albert Pelmoter, Program Policy Branch (426-8945).
vl. c^t*
J. Brian Molloy "7
Attachments
•Harold Cahill
-------
F3
INTEGRATION OF COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTIONS WITH THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS
The Corps of Engineers (COE) is currently performing
construction engineering inspections for EPA Regional Water
Divisions on active Step 3 publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
construction projects. Inspections are performed in accordance
with the individual Interagency Agreements between each EPA Region
and an individual COE District Division. Each Interagency
Agreement specifies a different inspection form to be used by COE
inspectors. The construction progress data already being gener-
ated by the COE for inclusion in these construction inspection
report forms used on site is much greater than would normally be
needed for a CEI. The EPA Region VI-COE form CG-10, for example,
is sixteen pages and includes hundreds of questions on general
facility information, grant administration, construction
management-contract administration, quality control/ assurance,
and facility completion information. All Regional COE inspection
forms have been surveyed and found to contain sufficient data to
address the NPDES compliance needs.
Having COE inspections augment NPDES municipal compliance
monitoring efforts not only appears to be feasible but it also
will prove to be more cost-effective for the Agency.
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CEI PROCEDURE
Current administrative procedures for selecting CEI targets
and entering CEI data into the Permit Compliance System (PCS) vary
from Region to Region, but the general procedure is as follows.
First, the EPA Regional Enforcement Division compiles a semiannual
or yearly list of CEI candidates. This list usually is updated
quarterly with concurrence of each EPA Surveillance and Analysis
(S&A) Division.
Either the EPA Regional or Field Office S&A group conducts
the CEIs and completes the CEI form. Sometimes the forms undergo
a quality control step in the EPA S&A Division before they are
sent to the EPA Enforcement Division.
In the EPA Enforcement Division, if no violations are noted
by the control person, the forms are given to the Regional PCS
coordinator, who enters the data into PCS. If there are
violations, the CEI results are subject to professional review,
and enforcement options are exercised in accordance with normal
EMS procedures.
-------
F4
COE-EPA OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
To tightly coordinate CEls with current COE construction
inspection activities, traditional EPA internal procedures must be
modified slightly. No modifications will be required in the EPA
Regional Water Divisions. In the modified CEI/COE Inspection
coordination procedure, the EPA Regional Enforcement Divisions
first will coordinate as always with S&A to formulate CEI targets.
Then Enforcement will supply the Water Division COE contact with a
list of facilities for which inspection data is required. These
target lists will include only those facilities which: (1) are
currently being inspected by the COE for the Municipal Construction
Program, and (2) are major dischargers with construction schedules
in their NPDES permit.
* —
After the COE completes their inspection report form and
transmits the data to the EPA Regional Water Division contact, the
contact, in turn, should provide to the Regional Enforcement
Division the report forms from the facilities on the target list.
The Enforcement Division will then assess the data and take
appropriate follow-up action.
Each Regional Enforcement Division should first obtain a
copy of the inspection form currently being used by the COE in
their Region. After reviewing the inspection form, all questions
relating to data which will be of use to Enforcement should be
highlighted. For example, questions relating to construction
progress, bypassing, lab evaluation, and operation and maintence
would be important in verifying compliance with Compliance
Schedules and other pertinent sections of the NPDES permit.
Because each Regional COE inspection program uses a different
inspection form, details on exactly what information is relevant
would best be determined by the individual Regional Enforcement
Divisions. Once the relevant information from COE inspection
reports has been formalized into standard format by each Regional
Enforcement Division, the format should serve as the means for
recording the data into NPDES files and PCS. The symbol "E_" should
be used to log compliance related COE inspections into PCS.
Because all EPA-COE Regional Interagency Agreements specify
that the COE cooperates directly and works under contract for the
EPA Regional Water Divisions, that channel of communication shall
be maintained without interruption or interference. There shall
be no contact between the EPA Regional Enforcement Divisions and
the COE without the knowledge of the EPA Regional Water-COE
coordinator.
GPO : 1980 0 - 317-635
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460 E n - 3 3 8
Official Business
•Penalty for Private Use $300
Fourth-Class
Rate
Book
------- |