United States
               Environmental Protection
              Office of
              Water Program Operations
              Washington DC 20460
                                           Office of Water Enforcement


 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
                         U S  Environmental Protection Agency
                         Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
                         230 S Dearborn Street, Room 1670
                         Chicago, IL  60604


    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.


    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.

                           - 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


    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

    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.
                                               •-   / u*-
Deputy Assistant Admanistrator    Acting Deputy Assistant
 for Water Program^Operations     Administrator for Water
       /                                Enforcement

    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

                     MMS WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP

Work Group I:   Compliance and Grants Information Systems

     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

                 MMS WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP (cont.)

Work Group II:  Permits and Grants Interaction

     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

     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
     Joann Cloonan - DOJ

                MMS WORK GROUP MEMBERSHIP (cont

Work Group IV:  EPA/State Implementation

     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


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-


     An outgrowth of the NMPS was the creation of work groups to

develop a Municipal Management System (MMS).  Three work groups


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


     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.


     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,


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


2.  Coordinated information flow.

3.  Consistent permit and grant schedule requirements.

4.  Consistent and periodic permit and grant compliance


5.  Coordinated initiation of regulatory responses to permit/grant


6.  Coordinated review and action on permit and grant extension


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



     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


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).


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


     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


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


     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



     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


    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


    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).


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


     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.


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-


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


    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


    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


    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


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


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.


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


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


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.


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

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,

October 1,  1980

October 1 - December 31,
Begin HQs Evaluation of MMS Operation     January  1981

                             APPENDIX B

      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.

    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
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,

    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
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
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

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

     Data Standards for Data Interchange of Related Construction
Grants and Permits Information.


     To provide ADP data file standards for EPA organizational
elements utilizing, generating, or maintaining data element  links
in municipal water related data.


     These standards apply to all ADP systems which link  elements
of existing Permits (PCS), Grants (GIGS), NEEDS, and other related


     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

     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.

     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,
                    a four (4) digit numeric grant serial number.
               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
          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.



     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

               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

     2.  Permits

          a.  Pipe Number (Schedule) - A two (2) numeric digit  iden-
tifier which designates a discharge compliance schedule as  found in

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.


     The  file  names are:


     The  format  for each of these  data  sets can be found  in  WYLBUR
data set.


                FIGURE 1

                                         LOCAL OPTIONAL
                                         LINKAGE LEVEL

                            Appendix D


     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.


     The construction grant regulations require, where appropriate,
a conference to be held with the grant applicant before application


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.


     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.


     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.


     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



     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

     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


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

     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

     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


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

     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

     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.



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
    4.  Publish list of "eligible" consulting engineers,
    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

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
9.  Reporting false


 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-
 Failure to respond to NNC or
 repeated attempts to  contact
 by phone.  Documented  lack of
 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
Permittee satisfactorily
  explains how error made.
Permittee's culpability
unmistakable. 'Intent1
can be established.

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
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

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-
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.


1.  Failure to meet interim
2.  Failure to meet interim
3.  Failure to meet interim
4.  Failure to meet final
5.  Failure to meet final
6.  Failure to meet final
7.  Failure to meet final
8.  Failure to install
      monitoring equipment.


    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-

    Compliance likely within 90
    days. Demonstrated commit-
    ment to permit responsibili-

    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.

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
Municipal: Same as industrial.

Industrial: Issue NNC. Secure
  commitment to complete
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-
Municipal: Issue NNC. Take
  grant Management actions.
  If ineffective,  proceed
  with AO.

 1.  Exceeding interim limits
 2.  Exceeding interim limits
 3.  Exceeding interim limits
 4.  Exceeding interim limits
 5.  Exceeding interim limits


 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.

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: 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
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
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
Municipal: Contact Grants. Con-
  sider Grant Management actions
  and proceed with AO or

                         Appendix F

                       WASHINGTON. D.C 20460
                            tC 3
                                                 OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT

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

•Harold Cahill

     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.


     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.



     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
                                                 GPO :  1980 0 - 317-635

United States
Environmental Protection
Washington DC 20460        E n - 3 3 8
Official Business
•Penalty for Private Use $300