HfcGlUN tfii IHC
098640
830B89100
K( -i 3;, Ml
-------
-------
A GUIDE TO THE
OFFICE OF WATER
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
AND
MID-YEAR EVALUATIONS
Fiscal Year 1990
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Property of ENSV Library
U.S. EPA Region VU
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I . INTRODUCTION 1
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY
A. Appendix A: The Measures 2
B. Appendix B: The Definitions 4
III. THE OFFICE OF WATER EVALUATION SYSTEM
A. Prenegotiated Commitments and Quarterly Reporting.... 5
B. Regional Initiatives 7
C. Mid-Year Evaluations 7
D. Other Office of Water Information Collection
Activities 8
IV. TIMELINE FOR EVALUATION ACTIVITIES 11
APPENDIX A — Measures
Public Water System Supervision A-l
Underground Injection Control A-7
Ground-Water Protection A-13
Marine and Estuarine Protection A-21
Wetlands Protection A-50
Water Quality Standards, Planning & Assessment A-56
Water Quality Enforcement & Permitting A-67
Municipal Pollution Control A-124
APPENDIX B — Definitions
Public Water System Supervision B-l
Underground Injection Control B-9
Ground-Water Protection B-17
Marine and Estuarine Protection B-22
Wetlands Protection B-25
Water Quality Standards, Planning & Assessment B-27
Water Quality Enforcement & Permitting B-37
Municipal Pollution Control B-52
-------
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In FY 1990 Office of Water will continue to conduct formal
evaluations of Regional water programs. The purpose of these
reviews is to assess Regional success at achieving National
program objectives for the year, and to help ensure National
consistency in implementation of Federal laws and regulations.
This guide contains the accountability measures that the
Office of Water will use to monitor Regional performance in FY
1990. The guide should be used in conjunction with the Agency's
FY 1990 Operating Guidance, which sets forth the National
objectives for water programs.
_Page
-------
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
The Office of Water Accountability System consists of a set of
qualitative and quantitative measures that provide the basis for
evaluating Regional Office performance against National program
objectives. The measures in the system include all measures
included in the Strategic Planning and Management System as well
as additional qualitative and quantitative measures which are
needed to evaluate fully performance against the Office of Water's
FY 1990 National program objectives. In general, the measures
from the Strategic Planning and Management System relate to
selected areas of the Agency's Priority List and are among the
highest priority program activities. They are not intended to
provide a comprehensive picture of every program area and are
supplemented by the additional measures contained in this guide.
The structure of the FY 1990 Office of Water Accountability
System remains essentially the same as the FY 1989 system. The
following is a brief description of the accountability system,
which is presented fully in Appendix A and B.
A. Appendix A; The Measures
Appendix A presents the measures which comprise the Office of
Water Accountability System. It is structured as a series of
charts by the program areas which appear in the Agency Operating
Guidance for FY 1990. The charts contain the following categories
of information:
Activity Areas; These are the high priority activities that are
included in the Agency Operating Guidance for FY 1990 and which
Regions and States should undertake in order to carry out National
program objectives. The Office of Water does not expect the
Regions to address every area. Rather, each Region should
identify its key program areas, and should focus on those
activities that are relevant to its particular circumstances. At
the time of the mid-year evaluations, however, the Region will be
asked to identify activity area(s) that are not considered to be
priorities and to explain how the Region arrived at its decision.
.Page 2
-------
Section II Office of water Accountability System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
Reporting Measures; The reporting measures are designed to
generate the key data and information that the Office of Water
needs to evaluate Regional progress towards achieving National
program objectives. There are two kinds of reporting measures:
o Qualitative measures are the specific questions that
Regions are expected to address during the Office of
Water mid-year evaluations. The measures relate
primarily to program accomplishments and effectiveness,
and generally do not involve prenegotiated commitments.
o Quantitative measures provide the kinds of information
that the Office of Water needs for program management and
reporting purposes and for responding to Congressional
inquiries. These measures include all measures included
in the Strategic Planning and Management System, as well
as some unique to the Office of Water system. Several of
these measures involve prenegotiated commitments with the
Regions (see Section below).
In SPMS/Commitment; This column refers to the quantitative
measures only. It designates (1) those measures that appear in the
FY 1990 Strategic Planning and Management System and (2) those
measures involving a.prenegotiated commitment between the Office
of Water and the Regions. "Yes" as the first entry in this column
indicates that the measure also appears in SPMS; if not, the word
"No" appears. A prenegotiated commitment may exist for measures
which appear either in the Agency's Strategic Planning and
Management System (SPMS) or in the Office of Water Accountability
System (OWAS) only. "SPMS" as the second entry in this column
indicates a prenegotiated commitment under SPMS, "OWAS" indicates
a prenegotiated commitment under OW's accountability system, "No"
indicate that no commitment is involved and the measure is solely
for reporting purposes.
.Page 3
-------
Section II Office of Water Accountability System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
Reporting Frequency: This column indicates the planned reporting
schedule for quantitative measures and any data lags.
The measures in the accountability system will provide the
Office of Water with much of the information necessary to monitor
Regional performance in water programs. The accountability system
is not intended to provide all the information that the Office of
Water needs during the year (see page 10), nor to limit the kinds
of information that Regions may need for overview of State water
programs. As part of its overview function, the Region is
expected to gather the basic information to prepare its mid-year
self-evaluation and to participate effectively in the Office of
Water mid-year evaluations. Regions may, however, seek additional
information from States through program audits or other
activities, and may choose to evaluate State management of water
program activities that are not covered in the Agency Operating
Guidance or Office of Water Accountability System.
B. Appendix B; The Definitions
Appendix B contains detailed, technical information that more
clearly defines some of the quantitative measures contained in
Appendix A. These definitions explain the manner in which the
Region is expected to report the required information to the
Office of Water. For some measures, it also establishes a
specific level of performance that each Region is expected to
achieve during the quarter/fiscal year, and explains how the
Office of Water plans to evaluate performance in these areas.
_Page 4
-------
III. THE OFFICE OF WATER EVALUATION SYSTEM
The following is a brief description of the ways in which the
Office of Water plans to collect information and to evaluate
Regional performance.
A. Prenegotiated Commitments and Quarterly Reporting
Many quantitative measures in the accountability system require
prenegotiated commitments. The commitment-setting process will be
carried out in conjunction with that of the Strategic Planning and
Management System and will follow the same schedule. The Office of
Water programs negotiate with the Regions to set specific target
levels of activity for the quantitative measures in the
accountability system. The Regions and the Office of Water use the
following process to reach agreement on all prenegotiated
commitments:
o Program offices will negotiate targets based on the
quantitative measures in the FY 1990 accountability
system; the Assistant Administrator must personally
approve any requests for prenegotiated commitments beyond
those included in the final FY 1990 system.
o Program Office Directors will initiate the original data
requests which will be addressed to the Regional Water
Management Division Directors.
o Program office data requests will identify significant
program assumptions, reporting frequency, and reporting
mode; each data request should cross-reference the
pertinent measure in the FY 1990 Office of Water
Accountability System.
o Program offices will negotiate commitments based on
workload and output projections. Negotiations will start
from zero base, with Regions developing the initial
target; the program offices will analyze the Region's
output estimates to assure that they are consistent with
performance expectations, and will accept the Region's
estimates unless there is practical evidence or other
Page 5
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
valid reason to suggest that an alternative output
estimate is more appropriate. Several measures include
commitments from States. In these instances, Regions will
negotiate commitments with their States to support
national priorities and performance expectations and
submit State commitments to the program offices.
o Once staff level negotiations are complete, the Assistant
Administrator will submit agreed upon commitments for
those measures included in the SPMS to the Office of
Management Systems and Evaluation (OMSE); copies of
enforcement performance commitments are also to be
submitted of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring (OECM). Regional Administrators will also be
asked to submit the SPMS commitments to OMSE. Commitments
for those measures included in the Office of Water
Accountability System only will be sent by the Assistant
Administrator to the Water Management Division Director
for verification and, after verification, to the Regional
Administrator.
OMSE will provide specific instructions on the schedule to be
followed in submitting SPMS commitments. Briefly, both Regional
Administrators and the Office of Water will be required to submit
SPMS commitments, and any disagreements between the Regions and
the Office of Water are to be discussed personally between the
Assistant Administrator and the Regional Administrator. Any still
unresolved differences are to be mediated by OMSE and OECM or, if
necessary, ultimately resolved by the Deputy Administrator.
SPMS quarterly reports are completed by the Office of Water on
the fifteenth day after a quarter's end. Copies of these reports
are available to the Regions through the computerized system
maintained by OMSE. To meet the reporting deadline, each program
office works with the Regions to obtain the requisite information,
generally within 10 days of the quarter's end. The program office
will establish a pull date for retrieved data which will form the
basis of the report. These pull dates are sent to the Water
Management Division Directors and 404 Coordinators (Regions 3, 6,
and 7) prior to the end of the quarter.
Page 6
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
B. Regional Initiatives
OMSE will also provide specific instructions on the schedule
for Regional initiatives. Each Region may propose to the Office
of Water for discussion two or three environmental initiatives
which the Region would like to carry out in FY 1990 within
existing resource levels. These initiatives should offer unique
solutions or approaches for dealing with environmental problems
and lend themselves to milestones for measuring progress in
meeting the initiatives' objectives.
For each initiative that involves a reduction in the
commitment for a SPMS measure, the Region should demonstrate that
it lacks the flexibility to pursue the initiative within their
operating plan resource levels, and that more environmental
protection or risk reduction should result from the initiative.
In addition, the Region should propose alternative commitments for
the initiative and identify the process by which the initiative
will be tracked. The Office of Water program offices will review
these proposals and discuss them with the Regions, particularly in
terms of trade-offs and potential impact on base program
activities.
These discussions will occur prior to and during the time
frame in which SPMS targets are negotiated. After these
discussions, each Region will select the initiatives to be
undertaken in FY 1990 and develop a work plan and milestones for
each initiative. These initiatives will be discussed during the
mid-year evaluations.
C. Mid-year Evaluations
The Office of Water will conduct formal evaluations of each of
the ten Regions which will be based on the quantitative and
qualitative measures in the FY 1990 accountability system.
Headquarters discussions with each Region will focus on its
particular problems and issues.
Page 7
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
The Office of Water is currently assessing the process to be
used for mid-year evaluations in FY 1989. The outcome of this
assessment will affect the process used for mid-year evaluations
in FY 1990. A document, outlining the procedures to be used for
the FY 1990 mid-year evaluations will be issued seperately.
D. Other Office of Water Information Collection Activities
While the accountability system and the mid-year evaluations
will provide the Office of Water with much of the critical
information necessary to overview Regional water programs, these
reviews are not intended to provide all the data that program
offices need to monitor ongoing activities in the Regions and
States and to respond to special requests from the Congress, the
Administrator or the Asssistant Administrator. Consequently,
there will be a need for program offices to collect data and
information from the Regions outside the formal accountability
system. The Office of Water remains committed to keeping these
information requests to a minimum, and to coordinate activities
between the program offices to the extent possible.
The following are the main, ongoing information collection
activities that the Office of Water anticipates during FY 1990:
o Budget; The Office of Water will ask the Regions to
provide the information necessary to prepare the annual
budget request. Regions will also participate in the
workload analysis that serves as the basis for
distributing resources among the Regions. Regions may
also periodically be asked to provide incidental
information related to the budget process.
o Data Retrieval; The Office of Water will retrieve
quantitative data from existing management information
systems, such as the Permits Compliance System (PCS), the
Grants Information Control System (GICS) , and the Federal
Reporting Data System (FRDS).
Page 8
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
o Quarterly Reporting; Regions will submit quarterly,
semiannually or annual reports to the Office of Water
program offices to monitor prenegotiated commitments and
measures without commitments where such data cannot be
tracked through National data retrieval systems (see
above). The Office of Water will supply the appropriate
information for the Strategic Planning and Management
System to the Office of Management Systems and
Evaluation.
o Annual Work Programs/Strategies; The Office of Water
will review Regional documents that are submitted on a
routine basis, such as the section I06/205(j) work
programs, the State section 302(b) reports, and the
annual plans and evaluation results from section 205(g)
delegation agreements. The Office of Water will also
review any Regional and State strategies called for in
the FY 1990 accountability system.
o Program Audits: The Office of Water will continue to
conduct selected program audits and case studies on an as
needed basis to track critical activities. Examples
include staff level audits of the construction grants and
permits and compliance programs. The program offices
will plan and negotiate these essential activities with
the Regions, and will conduct these activities jointly to
the extent possible.
o Self-Evaluation Reports: Regions will submit mid-year
self-evaluations that summarize their progress-to-date as
it relates to the Office of Water's National program
objectives (see preceding section for details).
o State Mid-Year Evaluation Reports: Upon request, Regions
will submit a copy of the mid-year evaluation report for
each State. This report will include findings, follow-up
activities, and State comments on the report's findings.
o Regional Initiatives; Regional progress on the
initiatives and constraints will be reviewed during each
Region's mid-year evaluation.
Page 9
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
The information produced by these activities will be used for
ongoing program management purposes, and will also be used to help
identify issues and concerns that will be discussed during the
mid-year evaluations.
Page 10
-------
TIMELIISE FGR?ciivrnEs
REIAEED ID THE FY 1990 CFFICE CF
CHiRKTING GUIIPNCE MB KEOUNIM3ILITY SYSHM
Regions Negotiate
State Work Programs Based
on FY 1990 Guidance/
Axountability System
Regions Conduct
Reviews of
State Programs
Get Nbv Dec Jan Feb Mar 2pr May Jun Jul ftug Sep Oct Nbv Dec Jan Feb Mar ?pr May Jun Jul ftug Sep Get
FY 1989 / / / / FY~1990/ / FY 1990
/
?gaxy Publishes FY 1990
Cperating Guidance;
CW Publishes ?ccount-
ability Systan and
EX^LLuation Guide
CW/Regions
Negotiate FY 1990
Gatitdtoients for
SEM3/OPS (Reports
sutmitted in * months)
CW Conducts
Mid-year Evaluations of
Regional Water Programs
CFFICE CF WOTER ?CITVmES
-------
-------
ACTIVITIES
1. Conduct
Regional Oversight
of State programs.
DRINKIMG WATER
Public Water System Supervision
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Briefly describe your
negotiation and oversight
methods and processes. How are
you involved in helping develop
State priorities?
(B) What were your major
findings in each State's
program evaluation this year?
What were your recom-
mendations? What follow-up do
you plan?
(c) Were your prior year
recommendations implemented?
(i) Have you conducted any
special State program reviews
for any reason? Describe.
(E) What is the status of any
special compliance initiatives
(e.g. the Oceanic Island, the
Caribbean, and Alaska
initiatives? Actions,
accomplishments, future plans?
Describe.
IN SIMS/
COMMITMENT?
FREQUENCY
A-l
-------
ACTIVITIES
2. Implement new
EPA regulations
resulting from the
SDWA amendments.
3. Target expanded
outreach,
training, and TA
to gain support
and assistance
from local and
State groups and
individuals most
influential in •
providing quality
drinking water
through
implementation of
the mobilization
plan.
DRTNKTTS1G MATER
Public Water System Supervision
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SFMS/ REPORT
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
(F) What is the status of the
States non-transient
non-community program? What
are the strategies,
accomplishments, and future
plans?
(A) What is the status of State
primacy for the new rules.
(B) How are States implementing
the new rules? What are
priorities, strategies?
Describe each State briefly.
(A) Briefly describe the
Regions and States activities
and accomplishments. What
progress have you/they made in
using the mobilization strategy
fostering compliance and
leveraging resources? Describe
current plans, progress to
date, and future plans.
(B) Specifically describe
Regional and State efforts in
the area of the small systems
mobilization initiative. What
are the short and long term
plans and strategies to address
small systems?
A-2
-------
DRINKING WATER
ACTIVITIES
4. Reduce
nonconpliance with
existing drinking
water standards.
Public Water System Supervision
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Are there any common
violation problems in States?
What are the trends?
(B) What are the biggest areas
of concern (priorities) for
States?
(c) What tools does the State
use to bring about compliance?
Any favorites? What are the
success stories?
(a) Report the number of SNCs
and priority violators
occurring, during the specified
time frames, for each of the
following groups. In addition,
for each of group (l) and (3)
[micro/turbidity/TIHM],
establish an annual target for
the number of violators and the
net percent change in the
number of violators occurring
from the fourth quarter of FY
1989 to the fourth quarter of
FY 1990.
1) micro/turb/TIHM CWS SNCs
2) chem/rad CWS SNCs
3) micro/turb/TIHM NTNCWS
priority violators
4) chem/rad NTOCWS priority
violators (Note: data are
lagged one quarter)
IN SPMS/
OlMITMENr? FREQUENCY
Yes/SEMS
DW/E-1
Quarterly
1st Quarter
Quarterly
1st Quarter
(b) For groups (2) and (4) in
measure 4(a), establish an
annual target for the number of
violators and the net percent
change in the number of
violators occurring from the
fourth quarter of FY 1989 to
the fourth quarter of FY 1990.
No/Yes
A-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
-------
-------
DRINKING WATER
Public Water System Supervision
IN SPMS/
ACTIVITIES QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
(c) Report against the "new Yes/No Quarterly
microbiological, turbidity, and DW/E-2
TTHM (monitoring) SNCs and
priority violators from 2
quarters ago, the number
which: returned to compliance;
had a formal enforcement action
taken against them; or became
exceptions this quarter.
Report separately for each of
the following two groups.
(Note: Data are lagged one
quarter.)
1) CWS SNC
2) NTNCWS priority violators.
(d) Report against the "new" Yes/No Quarterly
chemical and radiological SNCs DW/E-2
and priority violators
identified in the 2nd quarter
of FY '89, the number which:
returned to compliance; had a
formal enforcement action taken
against them; or became
exceptions this quarter.
Report separately for each of
the following two groups.
1) CWS SNCs
2) NTNCWS priority violators
A-4
-------
-------
DRINKING WATER
ACTIVITIES
Public Water System Supervision
OUALITATTVR MFA.qTTRF.q QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(e) Report the number and
percent of exceptions
identified through the prior
quarter which have since
returned to compliance, had a
formal enforcement action taken
against them, or remain
exceptions as of this quarter.
Report separately for each of
the following four groups:
1) micro/turbidity/TIHM CMS
2) micro/turbidity/TIHM NTNCWS
exceptions
3) chemical and radiological
CMS exceptions
4) chemical and radiological
NINCWS exceptions (Note: Data
are lagged one quarter)
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
Yes/No
DW/E-3
Quarterly
5. Demonstrate
accomplishments in
maintaining active
State/Federal
enforcement
programs,
including Federal
Facilities.
(A.) Have all States signed an
enforcement agreement for FY
90?
(B) Are States enforcing
against violators, particularly
SNCs?
(a) Report the total number of
EPA administrative orders, the
total number of State
Administrative Orders issued,
the total number of EPA §1431
emergency orders, and the total
numbers of EPA complaints with
penalties.
Yes/No
DW/E-4
Quarterly
A-5
-------
DRENKDXIG WATER
ACTIVITIES
6. Maintain an
active State data
management
program.
7. Implement the
lead ban
requirements
established by the
SDWA amendments.
Public Water System Supervision
QUALITATIVE MEASURES OUAOTITATTVE MEASURES
IN SIMS/ REPORT
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
(C) Do States have AC/CO
authority? Do they have
penalty authority? Do they use
these authorities?
(D) For cases referred to State
AG, are they filed
expeditiously? How do you and
States track this information.
(E) For systems that are on a
compliance schedule, how does
the State track and report
system progress — both
internally and to EPA.
(A) Has the Region undertaken
data verification activity for
each State? What have results
of completed studies shown
about data integrity? Have
deficiencies been corrected?
(A) List all States where 5%
PWSS Grants were withheld.
(B) Describe how States are
enforcing the lead ban.
of
(b) Report the number of civil
actions referred to State
Attorneys General, the number
of civil cases filed by the
Attorneys General, the number
of criminal charges filed by
the Attorneys General, the
number of civil cases concluded
by the Attorneys General, and
the number of criminal cases
concluded by the Attorney
General. (OECM will report the
same data for EPA
referrals.)(Note: Data are
lagged one quarter)
(a) Report on which States the
Region has initiated or
completed a data verification
during the last 12 months, and
provide summaries of findings,
recommendations and follow-up
actions.
Yes/No
DW/E-5
Quarterly
No/No
Second
Quarter
A-6
-------
niRTNIKTNn
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Underground Injection Control
OUANlTJJATTVE MFIASTTPES
IN SBMS/
FREQUENCY
l. Issue
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC) permits
expeditiously.
2. Determine
whether there is
the potential for
UIC operations to
contaminate USDWs
due to pathways in
the AQR.
3. Assure that
injection wells
are inspected and
maintain
mechanical
integrity
(A) What types of failures are
most frequent and in which
tests do these occur? This
includes the use of cementing
records.
(a) Track, by Region, progress Yes/SPMS Quarterly
against quarterly targets for DW-l
the number of UIC Class I, II,
III, and V well permit
determinations made by EPA and
the number made by State and
Indian Tribe primacy programs.
Provide the number of wells
affected by these
determinations.
(a) Track, by Region, for EPA, No/Wo Quarterly
States and Indian Tribes with
primacy, the number of wells
reviewed in the well area of
review, number of wells found
deficient in the well area of
review, and the number of wells
for which corrective action was
taken within the area of
review.
(a) Track, by Region, progress Yes/SPMS Quarterly
against quarterly targets for DW-2
the number of wells that have
mechanical integrity tests
performed by operators and
verified by the State and
Indian Tribe primacy programs.
A-7
-------
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
DRINKDX1G WATER
Underground Injection Control
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SFM5/ REPORT
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
(B) What types of MTTs generate
the most reliable results?
4. Protect health
and environment
from hazardous
waste injection
(A) How do the States and
Regions identify and implement
land ban requirements?
(b) Track, by Region, the No/No Quarterly
number of wells that failed
mechanical integrity tests as
reported in (a).
(c) Report, by Region, the No/No Quarterly
number of wells by Class for
which mechanical integrity
tests were field witnessed by
State and Indian Tribe primacy
programs.
(d) Track, by Region, progress Yes/SPMS Quarterly
against quarterly targets for DW/E-2
the number of wells inspected
by EPA and by State and Indian
Tribe primacy programs.
(e) Track, by Region, the No/No Quarterly
number of field inspections
conducted by State and Indian
Tribe primacy programs.
(a) Track, by Region, the No/No Quarterly
number of Class I hazardous
waste injection wells for which
land ban petitions have been
received and processed.
A-8
-------
ACTIVITIES
Underground Injection Control
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
IN SIMS/ REPORT
CQMMITMEDsfr? FREQUENCY
5. Implement
tracking of
significant
violations to
ensure early
action to correct
nonconpl iance
6. Determine what
portion of the
regulated universe
has been
specifically
reviewed in any
given year and
found to be in
compliance with
the regulations.
7. Achieve and
maintain a high
level of
compliance
(A) Do States have penalty
policy that is followed when
assessing penalties for UIC
violations?
(B) Are Regions routinely
meeting with States to plan
enforcement responses in States
with delegated programs?
(a) Track, by Region, for Yes/TXFo Quarterly
State and Indian Tribe primacy DW/E-6
programs and for EPA the number
of Class I, II, III, IV and V
wells found in SNC.
(a) Track, by Region, against Yes/SFMS Quarterly
quarterly targets for the DW/E-7
number of UIC Class I, II, III
and permitted Class V wells or
facilities checked for
compliance by EPA and by
primacy State and Indian Tribe
primacy programs. (Report by
well class.)
(a) Track, by Region, State and Yes/No Quarterly
Indian Tribe primacy programs DW/E-8
and for EPA, all wells that
appear on the Exceptions List
from the date the violation
becomes an exception through
the date of return to
compliance, noting the date the
formal enforcement action was
taken, if any.
A-9
-------
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
DEHNKTNG WATER
Underground Injection Control
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPM5/
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
8. Improve data
quality and
provide timely and
accurate
information
management.
(A) Do EPA, States and Indian
Tribe primacy programs maintain
updated well inventories?
(B) How well are the EPA, State
and Indian Tribe primacy
program data management systems
working and do they provide
necessary program information?
(b) Track, the total number of Yes/No Quarterly
EPA administrative orders, the DW/E-9
total number of State and
Indian Tribe primacy programs
equivalent actions issued and
the total number of §1431
emergency orders issued by well
class.
(c) Track the number of civil Yes/No Quarterly
actions referred to State DW/E-10
Attorneys General, the number
of civil cases filed by the
Attorneys General the number of
criminal charges filed by the
State Attorneys General, the
number of civil cases concluded
by the Attorneys General, and
the number of criminal cases
concluded by the Attorneys
General. (GECM will report the
same data for EPA referrals.)
(a) Report by well class and No/No Annually
operating status, the total
number of wells. Report
separately for EPA, State and
Indian Tribe primacy programs.
A-10
-------
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
DRDSIKTT\|G WATER
Underground Injection Control
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/ REPORT
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
9. Oversee States
and Indian Tribes
with primacy.
(A) Do EEA, the States and
Indian Tribes with primacy use
their grant funds effectively?
(B) Are States and Indian
Tribes with primacy carrying
out their programs as approved?
(C) Are there major unresolved
issues between the States and
Indian Tribes with primacy and
the Region?
(D) What kind of problems are
States and Indian Tribes with
primacy encountering and what
types of assistance do they
need?
(E) How does the Region review
and check the program output of
a State or Indian Tribe with
primacy for quality?
(F) Are States and Indian
Tribes with .primacy reviewing
and updating their QA programs
to cover all parameters as the
EPA guidance/regulatory
deadlines approach?
(a) Report separately for EPA,
States and Indian Tribes with
primacy on the use of grant
funds.
No/No
No/No
Annually
Annually
No/No
Annually
A-ll
-------
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
DRTNKTNG WATER
Underground Injection Control
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
10. Develop and
oversee Indian
Tribes programs
11. Implement
Class V Program.
(G) Do Regions routinely
provide training sessions for
staff of States and Indian
Tribes with primacy?
(A) What is the status of
primacy applications?
UIC grant funds?
(A) What kinds of permitting,
inspection and enforcement
activities are being conducted
for Class V wells?
(a) Report the number of Indian No/No
Tribe primacy applications
received.
(b) Report the number of No/No
injection wells regulated by
Indian Tribes with primacy.
(a) Report for States and No/No
Indian Tribes with primacy the
number submitting Class V
program activities in their UIC
Grant agreement.
Annually
Annually
Annually
A-12
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
1. Advise and
assist States
in their
groundwater
protection
strategy
activities.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Identify the status of
ground-water protection
strategies for all States
in the Region.
Ground-Water Protection Strategy
QUANTITATTW
(B) Identify
areas/programs within
State strategies needing
further development.
(a) Status of Strategies:
# under development
# developed
# developed and submitted to
Region
# adopted by the State
# implemented
# incorporated into State
statutes/regulations
(a) Identify states which
have a comprehensive GWPS
which meets OGWP guidance
objectives.
(b) Identify State GWPS
which address national
priority areas (e.g. , WHP,
AgChem)
(c) Identify states
currently revising strategy,
the expected revision date
and elements under revision.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMEISrT?
Nb/Nb
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
end of
2nd* and
4th qtrs
No/Mo
end of 2nd
and 4th
qtrs
* - To coincide with mid-year review
A-13
-------
GRCIUND-MATER JfTOTHJTlON
Ground-Water Protection Strategy
IN SEMS/ REPORTING
ACTIVITIES QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
1. Advise and (C) Describe States' use of
assist States 106 grants, including major
in their issues raised by States, if
ground-water any. If a grant is withheld
protection from a State, explain
strategy Regional/State issue.
activities.
(continued)
* - To coincide with mid-year review
A-14
-------
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
Ground-Water Protection Strategy
E MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
2. Provide
technical
assistance to
States
regarding state
ground-water
classifi-
cation matters.
3. Ensure the
integration of
Regional
ground-water
offices into
the Regional
decision-making
process on
issues with
ground-water
impacts.
(A) Describe major issues in
State classification. How
were they resolved? Which
issues remain for
resolution? '
(A) Describe the Regional
process for integrating and
coordinating ground-water
programs with other EPA
programs, including RCRA,
Superfund, UST, Pesticides,
and other water programs.
(B) What other reviews are
conducted by the Regional
ground-water offices on a
regular or ad-hoc basis?
(a) Number of States with
classification systems in
place. Is the system:
- under development?
- currently in place?
(a) Identify the number of
reviews conducted by
Regional ground-water
offices:
# of RQDs reviewed
#of ACL determinations
#of corrective action plans
#of RI/FS reviews
#of NFS Management Programs
# of Pesticide Management
Plans
# of (identify other
reviews)
No/No
end of
2nd 4th
qtr
No/No-
end of
2nd* and
4th gtrs
* - To coincide with mid-year review
A-15
-------
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
Ground-Water Protection Strategy
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
CCMygTMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
4.Institu-
tionalize
relation-
ships with
other Federal
agencies.
(A) What efforts has the
Region taken to develop
working relationships with
other Federal agencies?
What effect have these
relationships had on
ground-water protection
issues and activities?
(B) Describe the formal
agreements (e.g., training
sessions, detail assignees,
MOUs/IAGs) entered into,
the agencies involved, the
focus and acconplishments
of these agreements .
* - To coincide with mid-year review
A-16
-------
GROUND-MATER
Ground-Water Protection Strategy
IN SEWS/ REPORTING
ACTIVITIES QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASUPFTC COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
5. Provide (A) Describe major issues (a) Number of States and EPA No/No end of
technical in ground water data Programs 2nd and
assistance to management. How were they - Using EPA Minimum Set of 4th qtrs
EPA programs resolved? What issues Data Elements
and States remain? - Storing ground-water
regarding data in a computer
data (B) What activities are database (e.g. , STORED
management. being undertaken with - Developing a CIS for
States and EPA Programs to ground water
improve data management? decision-making
purposes
* - To coincide with mid-year review
A-17
-------
GROUND-WATER PRQllkLTlCN
1. Promote
and assist
States and
Indian Tribes
in developing
and
implementing
Wellhead
Protection
(WHP)
activities -.
(A) What is the status and
progress of developing WHP
programs by States?
Describe the technical
assistance given to states
and other governmental
entities to promote
implementation of WHP
Programs or activities.
(B) Describe the technical
expertise/support
activities carried out by
the Region to assist States
in their WHP efforts.
(C) Describe the outreach,
education, technical
assistance and other
related activities directed
specifically to Indian
tribes.
Wellhead Protection Program
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track, against targets
established by each Region,
the number of States which
have submitted a WHP program
to EPA For review and
determination if the program
meets the full or partial
requirements mandated by the
Statute, and subsequent
approval/disapproval.
IN SPMS/
Yes/SPMS
quarterly
* - To coincide with mid-year review
A-18
-------
GROUND-WftLL'KR
Wellhead Protection Program
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES CCMHTftFFftn1? FREOQbJNUf
2. Direct
process for (A) Descrite the approach
reviewing developed lay the Region for
States/ conducting a comprehensive
Indian tribes review of the States/Indian
VHP Programs. tribes' programs and
determining conformance
with statutory
requirements .
* - To coincide with mid-year review
A-19
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
ACTTVITIF.S
1. Designate
Sole Source
Aquifers
(SSAs) in
accordance
with guidance.
2. Manage the
SSA Post-
Designation
Program,
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Identify major ground
water protection issues
resulting from SSA
petition-designation
process. How were they
resolved? Which issues
remain for resolution?
(A) Identify major ground
water protection issues
resulting from SSA
post-designation review of
projects process. How were
they resolved? Which issues
remain for resolution?
Sole Source Aquifer Program
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) number of designation
petitions received,
approved, denied, determined
incomplete and returned to
applicant.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
FREQUENCY
end of
2nd* and
4th qtrs
(a) Number of MOUs in place,
in process, or revised with
lead Federal Agencies and/or
State Clearinghouse Agencies
(if applicable).
(b) Number of projects
reviewed in SSA areas
approved/disap-
proved/modified.
No/No
No/Kb
end of
2nd* and
4th qtrs
end of
2nd* and
4th qtrs
* - To coincide with mid-year review
A-20
-------
ACTIVIT:
1. Increase Role
in Preparation of
Envi ronmental
Iirpact Statements
(ECS) and Continue
Preparing Rule
Making Packages
for Ocean Dumping
Site Designation
MARTOE AND ESTUAKDSE PROTECTION
Ocean Disposal Permits Program
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A) How has the Region
increased its role in EES
development?
(B) How has the Region
designed EIS studies and used
early State, local, and public
involvement to focus attention
on the most significant
environmental and socio-
political issues? How does
the Region use problem
resolution procedures to
effectively resolve issues and
provide for:
- coordination with other
Federal, State, and local
agencies,
- consistent application of
regulatory factors,
- complete documentation of
Records of Decision, and
- response to public comment?
(C) Was there significant
continued controversy after
publication of the final EIS?
(a) Track against targets #
draft EISs.
(b) # final EISs.
(c) # ocean dumping sites
designated
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Nb/OW
Yes/SPMS
WQ-1
Yes/SPMS
WQ-1
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
* Unless otherwise specified, reporting will be at the Region's mid-year review.
A-21
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Ocean Disposal Permits Program
ACnVHTES
2. Issue Ocean
Disposal Permits
and Increase Role
in Conducting
Monitoring Surveys
for Site Designa-
tion and
Management
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) How has the Region
increased its role in
conducting site monitoring and
site management activities?
(B) What procedures does the
Region follow in permit
issuance or review? Are all
criteria evaluated and applied
consistently among the permit
applications?
(C) How is the Region using
Headquarters* specialized site
monitoring and management
services, including the use of
the OSV Anderson, where
possible?
(D) How is monitoring survey
information managed for
evaluating the impacts of
ocean disposal activity?
(E) What procedures are
being followed to re-evaluate
monitoring program
effectiveness?
(F) How is the Region
conducting compliance,
monitoring, and enforcement of
EPA permits?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES IN SPMS/
(a) # and type of ocean No/No
disposal permit applications
received and issued.
(b) # sites surveyed and site No/Tfo
survey reports completed.
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
(c) # of MPRSA and Ocean
Dumping Ban Act (QDBA)
enforcement actions.
(d) # and amount of penalties
assessed for MPRSA violations.
No/OW
No/Mo
4th
Quarter
A-22
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
3. Development of
the New York Bight
Restoration Plan
by Region II
Ocean Disposal Permits Program
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) What is the status of
Region II's work on this
study?
(B) How is Region II
coordinating the various New
York Bight related studies and
programs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
(a) % completion of schedule No/No
for pollution control
implementation.
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
(b) % couplet ion of
recommendations for funding
and interagency coordination.
No/No
4. Development of
the New York Mud
Dump Site
Alternative Study
by Region II
(A) What is the status of
Region II's work on this
study?
(B) How is Region II ensuring
that there is interagency
coordination in this effort?
(a) % completion of
preliminary and Draft EIS.
(b) % completion of Final
EIS.
(c) % completion of scheduled
public review activities.
No/No
No/No
No/No
A-23
-------
MARINE MID ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Ocean Disposal Permits Program
ACTIVITIES
5a. Under Ocean
Dumping Ban Act,
Implementation of
Alternatives to
Ocean Dumping;
Preparation of
Reports to
Congress; and
Expanded
Monitoring of
Ocean Dumping by
Region II
5b. Region II
Monitor Use of
Fees Paid to State
Trust Account and
to State Clean
Ocean Funds and
Title VI Revolving
Loan Funds;
Establish
Mechanism. for
Assessing
Penalties to
Dumpers Who Miss
1991 Date and What
these Funds Should
be Spent For.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Have Ocean Dumpers met
milestones in compliance/en-
forcement agreements?
(B) Has the annual Report to
Congress on progress toward
stopping ocean dumping been
prepared?
(A) Have New York and New
Jersey met the requirements in
MOU regarding the Clean Oceans
Fund?
(B) Has there been
confirmation of funds paid
into SRF by dumpers and
matching funds that are not
used to assist dumpers with
alternatives.
(C) What are the accounting
and reporting system for
assessing ocean dumping fees
and penalties and monitoring
use of funds in place? How
well are they working?
OUANnTATIVE MEASURES
(a) % completion of
milestones in
compliance/enforcement
agreements or amount of
authorized funds obligated for
accomplishing milestones
(a) Amount of funds collected
or disbursed for Clean Ocean
Fund
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
No/No
No/No
(b) Amount of funds collected No/No
by state in SRF
(c) # and amount of fees or
penalties assessed
(d) Amount of funds paid into
Trust Account and used by the
dumper.
No/No
A-24
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARENE PROT.hJLM.'10N
Marine Discharge Waivers and Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluations
ACTIVITIES
JTATIVE MEASURES
1. Review Section (A) Are the remaining
301(h) Applica-
tions, Issue
Permits, and/or
Reissue Permits
decisions clearly and
completely documented?
(B) Are all criteria
evaluated and applied
consistently among Region's
applications?
(C) Do permits consistently
assure that the monitoring
provisions of S301(h)
decisions are transformed into
specific enforceable
requirements for use in
assessing ongoing compliance
with the S301(h) criteria and
that monitoring data are used
for permit reissuance?
(D) How are determinations of
secondary equivalency being
carried out?
(E) How are monitoring data
evaluated?
(F) If monitoring data
indicates permit
noncompliance, what mitigating
measures are being taken by
the Regions?
(a) # final decisions.
(b) # secondary equivalency
determinations.
(c) Track against targets #
permits issued or reissued
reflecting decisions.
(d) # approved monitoring
programs in operation with
data evaluated by Region.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
NO/OW
NO/OW
Nb/Tfo
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
Quarterly
Quarterly
Mid-year
Review*
(e) # monitoring programs with No/No
provision for QA/CC planning.
(f) t permits appealed.
Nb/Nb
A-25
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROI'ECTION
Marine Discharge Waivers and Ocean discharge Criteria Evaluations
ACTTVIITF?
2. Implement
targeted strategy
for bringing NPDES
Permits into
compliance with
Section 403(c)
Ocean Discharge
Criteria Through
403(c) Assessments
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) How is region planning to
implement the targeted
strategy?
(B) Has the universe of NPDES
discharges to marine waters
and subject to Section 403(c)
been identified?
(C) What is status of NPDES
permits subject to Section
403(c)?
(D) Are the 403(c)
assessments adequately being
carried out to evaluate
impacts on marine environment?
(E) Are monitoring data
collected according to a
monitoring plan sufficient to
bridge the information gap so
that the 403(c) assessments
can be made?
(F) What are the funding
levels for the 403(c)
assessments and related
activities?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # marine dischargers in
Region subject to Section
403(c).
(b) Priority list for Section
403(c) evaluations of NPDES
permits developed.
(c) # off-shore oil and gas
operations evaluated.
(d) # other marine
dischargers evaluated.
(e) # draft 403(c)
assessments prepared for
notice of draft NPDES permits.
(f) t final 403(c)
assessments prepared for final
NPDES permit issuance and
permit record.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT!1?
NO/NO
No/No
NO/NO
Nb/Nb
Nb/OW
Nb/OW
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
(g) # 403(c) assessments
requiring 403(c) monitoring in Nb/OW
NPDES permits.
(h) # 403(c) monitoring plans
completed.
Quarterly
Quarterly
Mid-Year
Review*
Quarterly
A-26
-------
MARINE AND E
Pt&Jl'EL."I'lON
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
Aurix/ITIES
1. Work with the
States and Regions
to Implement WQA
Programs and the
1987 Water Quality
Agreements in the
Great Lakes (GL)
and Chesapeake Bay
(CB) Basins
MEASURES
(A) How do the Great Lakes
National Program Office
(GLNPO) , Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office, (CBLO) , and the
Regions ensure that States
implement activities to abate
identified problems?
(B) How are the GL Areas of
Concern and the CB critical
areas considered in the
development of State work
plans?
(C) How do GLNPO or CBLO
utilize contract resources to
augment the implementation of
priority activities in State
work plans?
(D) What is the status of the
preparation and implementation
of GL Remedial Action Plans
(RAPS)?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # Remedial Action Plans
(RAPs) submitted to GL Areas
of Concern.
(b) # RAPs approved for GL
Areas of concern.
(c) # RAPs being implemented
and identified in State Work
Plan.
(d) # CB critical areas
and/or priority water bodies
identified as needing BMP
installation, and # acres of
sub-basins.
(e) # acres in GL or the CB
basins with BMPs in-place, in
relation to acres in approved
plan.
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
NO/NO
NO/NO
NO/NO
Nb/TKb
NO/NO
Mid-year
Review*
A-27
-------
ACTIVITIES
MARINE AND ESTOARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SENS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
1. (cont.) Work
with the States
and Regions to
Implement WQA
Programs and the
1987 Water Quality
Agreement in the
Great Lakes (GL)
and Chesapeake Bay
(CB) Basins
(E) What progress has been
made in meeting the GL
phosphorus loading targets?
How successful are the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in
reducing phosphorus loads?
Which elements of the GL
Phosphorus Reduction Plan are
being implemented? Which are
not? Why?
(F) How are the Regions and
States identifying the "Point
Source Impact Zones" as
required under Annex 2 GLWQA?
(G) What is the status of the
preparation for and conduct of
the In-place Pollutant
Demonstration Project(s)?
(H) What is the status of the
strategy and work plan
development for the Lake
Management Plans?
(I) What is the status of the
joint research plan to be
developed by GLNPO and NCAA?
(f) # tons/pounds of
phosphorus estimated to be
prevented from GL or CB waters
by BMPs.
(g) Annual report to Congress
and biennial Annual Reports to
the IJC, as required under the
WQA and the GLWQA.
(h) # of "Point Source Impact
Zones" identified.
No/No
No/No
Mid-year
Review*
lYTrv /T\Tr>
A-28
-------
ACnVITIF.S
2. Review Water
Quality Standards
(WQS) to Determine
Impacts on GL and
CB
MARINE ADO ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
IN SPMS/
REPORTING
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
(A) How are the Regions
ensuring the States are
adequately addressing GL and
CB needs in revision of WQSs?
(B) How are the priority
pollutants and pollutants of
concern being addressed?
(C) How are GLNPO and the
Regions factoring the GLWQA.
objectives and the IJC lists
of substances required under
Annex 1 into the 304(1)
process?
(a) # WQS approved by Regions No/No
during FY 1989 which incor-
porated GLWQA criteria or
which incorporate objectives
of the CB Restoration and
Protection Plan and the 1987
Agreement.
Mid-year
Review*
A-29
-------
MARINE AND E5TUARINE PROI'EL'TIQN'
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
ACTIVITIES
3. Assess
Municipal
Compliance for
Consistency with
Objectives of
Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement
(GLWQA) and to
Protect the
Critical Areas in
CB
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Has compliance with the
phosphorus requirement
improved over last year? If
not, what efforts have GLNPO,
CELO, and the Regions made to
increase compliance? What is
hindering compliance?
(B) Are certain permits
targeted for special review
due to GL or CB concerns? On
what basis?
(C) How are the Regions
addressing and the States
imposing load limitations for
persistent toxic substances as
required under Annex 12 of the
GLWQA?
(D) How are the Regions and
States addressing load
reductions required under
Annex 12 of GLWQA, by
inplementing the storm water
regulations?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # GL major POTWs in
compliance with 1 mg/L
phosphorus requirement vs.
total # of major POIWs, or #
CB Advanced Waste Treatment
(AWT) POIWs funded vs. # of
AWT POTWs determined to be
needed.
(b) % total of flow from major
GL POIWs meeting the 1 mg/L
phosphorus goal or % total
flow from Upper CB POIWs
meeting 2 mg/L phosphorus goal
and other waste load
allocation limits
IN 5HXJS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/NO
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
No/No
A-30
-------
MARINE AMD ESTUAT-
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
ALT j. \7ITIES
4. Implement the
GL and CB
Monitoring
Programs, with
Special Emphasis
on Monitoring
Toxics
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Have the Regions and
States prepared pollutant
loading information reports
that provide trend information
for the GL and CB? Do reports
fully incorporate tributary
monitoring, atmospheric
deposition sampling, and open
water surveys?
(B) What is the status of the
GL Atmospheric Deposition
(GLAD) network? How is the
GLNPO using GLAD data to
determine sources of
pollutants?
(C) What are GLNPO, the
Regions and States doing to
expand nutrient and toxic
monitoring, including
monitoring of ambient levels
in the GL, to meet the
objectives of WQA and the 1987
GLWQA or Chesapeake Bay
Agreement?
(D) How are GLNPO, the
Regions, and the States
developing "Ecosystem Health
Indicators" as required under
Annex 11 of the GLWQA?
IN SPMS/
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of air and/or water
monitoring stations in the GL
and CB.
Nb/Nb
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
A-31
-------
ACTIVITIES
5. Integrate GL
or CB Related
Activities into
the Ongoing Water
Management
Programs in the
Region
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) What are the character
and level of interaction of
GLNPO or CBLO and their
Regions with the programs of
other Federal and State
agencies?
(B) What specific actions are
the Regions taking to
integrate the GLNPO or CBLO
activities into the Water
Programs, especially the NPDES
program? Are sources in the
GL or CB basins targeted for
special attention in terms of
permitting, compliance,
monitoring and enforcement?
Are storm water or CSO
discharges being targeted for
special attention? Are
reports developed on the
compliance status of sources
in the basin?
(C) What role has GLNPO or
CBLO played in the development
of the State Clean Water
Strategies (SCWS)?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
(a) Provide a summary of the No/Tfo
compliance status of sources
in the GL or CB basins.
Mid-year
Review*
(b) Provide copy(s) of any
MOUs/agreements between the
GLNPO or CBLO and other
Federal/State agencies.
No/TXTo
(c) # States participating in No/Wo
the SCWS that targeted on the
GL or CB basins.
A-32
-------
MARINE MO ESTUARINE PRQIECTICN
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
ACTIVITIES
6. Assist States
in Developing and
Implementing Non-
point Source
Control Programs
IN SEWS/
QUALITATIVE
(A) Do the State Assessment
and Management Reports contain
program elements for the GL
and CB? What work is needed
to complete the updates of the
Assessments?
(B) What is the status of
implementation of GL and CB
elements of approved Section
319 management plans? Are
BMPs now being constructed in
priority areas so that water
quality improvements are
maximized?
(C) What additional efforts
are needed to complete the GL
or CB NFS program elements?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # State assessments
updated to incorporate GL or
CB activities.
(b) # State management plans
with approved GL or CB
elements.
Nb/Nb
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
A-33
-------
ACTIVITIES
7. Develop and
Implement the GL
and CB Toxic
Control Reduction
Strategies
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
OUALITATTW
(A) How will the Green Bay
Mass Balance model be used to
control toxicants in Lake
Michigan?
(B) What efforts have the
Region, GLNPO, and the States
taken to ensure that Green Bay
Mass Balance Study produces
implementable results?
(C) How is the GLAD network
providing data to determine
atmospheric loading?
(D) What is the status of the
development and iltplementation
of the CB Toxic Control
Strategy?
(E) What is the status of the
development and implementation
of the Lake Ontario and the
Niagara River Comprehensive
Toxics Management Plans?
IN SPMS/
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Estimated total loading
of pollutants of concern to
Green Bay and to Lake
Michigan.
(b) Estimated total loading
of pollutants of concern to
Lake Ontario and the Niagara
River.
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
No/Tfo
A-34
-------
MAP ANT) TTTTAT3TN
-------
ACTTVITIF.S
9. Implement GL/CB
Data Management
UARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) What is the status of
implementation of the data
management system? What is
the role of the GL/CB States
in implementing the system?
(B) What are the Region's and
the Staters procedures for
acquiring, entering and
verifying data entered into
the GL/CB data base? How
current are data entered?
(C) What actions are the
Region taking to make the
GL/CB data bases available to
eligible computer center
users?
(D) How does data coordinated
through the GL/CB data
management system support Bay
plan or the GLWQA. and the WQA?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SEMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
A-36
-------
ACTIVITIES
10. Implement
GL/CB modeling
program
11. Implement CB
Communications
Strategy
MARINE AK[r> FJ^TUARINE PROllhlUTlOSf
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
QUALITATIVE
(A) How effective have the
modeling activities been in
identifying the most important
sources and fate of nutrients
in the GL/CB Bay?
(B) How have findings of the
modeling activities to date
affected the Bay program
management decisions?
(A) What communications
activities have been conducted
and how have they impacted the
recommendations of the CB
plan? Are the Citizens
Advisory Comnittee and the
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committees
participating fully in the CB
program?
QUANTITATIVE MEASTTRFS
(a) Provide a summary of the
results of the modeling runs
to date.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
A-37
-------
ACTIVITIES
12. Management
Conferences
Convened for Six
Estuaries in
Albemarle/Pamlico
Sounds, Buzzards
Bay, Long Island
Sound,
Narragansett Bay,
Puget Sound and
San Francisco Bay
are to Implement
the Provisions of
the EPA/State
Conference
Agreements by
Completing Major
Milestones to
Achieve the Seven
Stated Purposes of
the Conference as
Provided in the
Water Quality Act.
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTiiL'TlON
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) What is the status of
commitments under EPA/State
Conference Agreements?
(B) Are the non-Federal
matching funds being provided?
(C) Are the grants for the
projects being awarded and
progressing on schedule?
(D) Are the project and
financial files for the grants
being preserved to meet audit
requirements?
QUANTITATIVE
(a) Progress in Comprehensive
Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP) for each ongoing
estuary project as specified
by a EPA/State Conference, or
for a new estuary project as
specified by a five year
workplan.
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
NO/NO
Mid-year
Review;
Project
Annual
Report
A-38
-------
ACTIVITIES
12. Management
Conferences
Convened for Six
Estuaries
Irnplement
Provisions of
EPVState
Conference
Agreements (cont).
MARINE AMD ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
ATbemarle/Pamlico Sounds
o Combined draft and final
reports
1. Status and trends report
on environmental problems in
the Sounds.
2. Cause of environmental
problems completed.
3. Pollutant land and use
assessment.
o Cost estimates and
compliance schedules are
developed for corrective
action phase.
o Draft monitoring plan
completed.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
- Region concurs.
- Final report distributed to
State agency and the public.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/NO
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-Year
Review;
Project
Annual
Report
A-39
-------
ACTIVITIES
12. Management
Conferences
Convened for Six
Estuaries
Implement
Provisions of
EPA/State
Conference
Agreements (cont).
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Buzzards Bay
- CCMP completed
- completion of plans for
implementation of the CCMP.
- completion of a moni-
toring plan.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
- CCMP prepared and
distributed.
- Provide funding capabilities
and prospects.
- Secure institutional and
financial commitments for
priority actions.
- regulatory/legislative needs
identified.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Nb/Nb
REPORTUS1G
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review;
Project
Annual
Report
A-40
-------
ACTIVITIES
12. Management
Conferences
Convened for Six
Estuaries
Implement
Provisions of
EPA/State
Conference
Agreements (cont).
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTICN
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Loner Island Sound
- Final reports on status and
trends, probable causes of
environmental problems and
preferred uses.
- Draft CCMP completed.
- Monitoring plan completed.
- Implementation Report.
Narracransett Bav
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
- Preferred uses identified.
- Costs for corrective action
identified.
- Priority action plans
identified.
- Compliance schedules,
developed.
- Authority for action,
regulatory/legislative voids
identified.
- Institutional and financial
commitments identified.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review ;
Project
Annual
Report
- Draft CCMP completed
- technical feasibility
report.
- system configuration
approved.
- draft status of trends inc.
land use, point and non point
sources.
- probable cause list
reviewed.
A-41
-------
ACTIVITIES
12. Management
Conferences
Convened for Six
Estuaries
Implement
Provisions of
EPA/State
Conference
Agreements (cont).
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
AI bemarle/Pamlico Sounds
o Combined draft and final
reports
l. Status and trends report
on environmental problems in
the Sounds.
2. Cause of environmental
problems completed.
3. Pollutant land and use
assessment.
o Cost estimates and
compliance schedules are
developed for corrective
action phase.
o Draft monitoring plan
completed.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
- Region concurs.
- Final report distributed to
State agency and the public.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-Year
Review;
Project
Annual
Report
A-42
-------
AL.TI \7ITIES
12. Management
Conferences
Convened for Six
Estuaries
Implement
Provisions of
EPA/State
Conference
Agreements (cont.)
MARINA ^MP ESTUARIME PROTECTION
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
OUALI17MIVE
Puget Sound
- final CCMP completed.
- the development of
implementation plans the
monitoring, research and
public education areas in the
CCMP.
- completion of biennial
"state of the sound" Report on
monitoring results and the
effectiveness of management
actions taken.
MEASURES
-t of corrective action plans
for monitoring, research and
public education.
-costs and compliance
schedules for corrective
action plans.
-priority action plans for
preferred uses developed.
-compliance schedules for
priority action plans.
-regulatory/legislative needs
identified.
-institutional and financial
commitments obtained.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review;
Project
Annual
Report
-the review of federal
programs and projects in the
watershed for programs
consistency with program goals
and objectives? Have
inconsistencies been resolved?
-inventory of federal programs
updated.
-alternative remedies
identified.
-new contributors identified.
-interagency agreements
developed.
A-43
-------
ACTIVITIES
12. Management
Conferences
Convened for Six
Estuaries
Inplement
provisions of
EPA/State
Conference
Agreements (cont.)
MARINE AND 'F1STUARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
San Francisco Bav
- draft status and trends
report.
- draft causes of
environmental problems report.
- the completion of an
inventory of monitoring
programs in the bay.
- draft report linking
environmental problems to
pollutant loads.
QUANTITATIVE NFIASUPES
-uses options linked with
probable causes.
-tasks identified; schedules
set.
-alternative remedies
identified.
-new contributors identified.
-schedule/plan for analysis.
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
No/No
Mid-Year
Review;
Project
Annual
Reports
A-44
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROl'iiJLTlQN
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
ACTIVITIES
13. Convened
Conferences for
Delaware Bay,
Delaware Inland
Bays, New York/
New Jersey
Harbors, Sarasota
Bay, Galveston
Bay, Santa Monica
Bay; Second Year
Activities
14. Section 205(1)
provides funds for
the inplementation
of priority action
plans to abate and
control pollution
specific problem
areas prior to the
completion of CCMP
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
- Is the EPA/State Conference
Agreement in place?
- Annual work plan prepared
and approved?
- Have priority problems been
identified?
- List of probable causes
developed?
- Improved uses identified?
- Have allocated funds been
obligated?
What is the status of the
inplementation of Priority
Action Plans?
-What is the status of the
report evaluating the
effectiveness of the
corrective action taken?
What has been learned from the
Priority Action Plan
inplementation which will
assist in inplementation of
the CCMP? In terms of
institutional and financial
arrangements for plan
inplementation?
QUANTITATIVE MEASUPF-S
- # of priority data sets
entered.
- trends analysis workplan
developed.
- preferred uses identified.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/TSJO
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-Year
Review;
Project
Annual
Reports
- # of remedial action plans
completed.
- # of corrective actions
taken?
No/No
A-45
-------
MARINE AND 'p
PROTECTION
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
ACTIVITIES
15. Assist in the
Development and
Review of
Nomination
Packages for new
Estuaries
including
Barataria Bay,
Boston Harbor/Mas-
sachusetts Bay,
Indian River and
Peconic Bay;
assist in
Convening
Management
Conferences for
selected Estuary
Projects.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) How has the Region
supported and participated in
the development and review of
nomination packages for
estuary projects? In each new
estuary project selected:
(B) Has a state project
office been established and is
it operational?
(C) Is a public participation
program under development?
(D) Does the five year
workplan address priority
pollution/management problems
and their causes that should
be addressed before completion
of the CCMP?
QUANTITATIVE MEASUPF-S
-cooperative agreement in-
place.
-office fully staffed.
-plans completed for: public
information, education, and
involvement in the decision
making process and action
plans.
-corrective actions address;
point and nonpoint sources,
land and water use, living
resources, in-place
pollutants, and existing
regulatory and permitting
programs.
IN SPMS/
COVIMITMEDin??
NO/NO
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-Year
Review*
A-46
-------
MAT7TNE AND
PRDT.fcXJl'lCN'
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
15. (cont.)
Establish
Organ! zat ional
Structure and
Planning Process
that will Provide
a Means to Achieve
the Seven Stated
Purposes
16a. Assess
Pollution in the
Near Coastal
Waters (NCW).
I6b. ..Develop
Regional
Strategies to Take
Action to Address
Pollution Problems
in Near Coastal
Waters
QUALITATIVE
Has a draft long-term workplan
been developed that addresses
purposes 5, 6 and 1 of the CWA
those beyond development of
the CCMP?
(A) Are plans to assess
envriroranental/pollution
problems in NCW's being
developed? How are NCW
assessments being reflected in
the existing 304(1), 305(b),
319 or State assessment
reports?
(A) Has the Region developed
a NCW strategy?
(B) What are the major goals
of the strategy?
(C) How are NCW assessments
and pilot project results
being integrated with the
national technology transfer
effort?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(a) # of actions/projects
initiated in NCWs based on NCW
strategy.
(b) Regional NCW technology
transfer strategy developed.
(c) Annual report prepared to
document NCW assessment
activities, pilot projects,
and coordination with other
Federal/State/local agencies.
No/No
Mid-year
Review*
A-47
-------
ACi'l
16c. Mainage Six
1988/1989 NCW
Projects to
Demonstrate
Innovative
Solutions to Major
NCW Problems
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PRO1MJT10N
Estuaries, Coastal, and Marine; and Great Lakes
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Are pilot projects being
completed according to
workplans and schedules?
(B) Have the quarterly pro-
gress reports been completed,
are criteria being met?
(C) How are pilot project
intermediate and final results
being integrated with the
tech-transfer effort?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
16d. Assess
Pollution in the
Near Coastal
Waters (NCWs) and
Demonstrate
Innovative
Pollution Control
Techniques
(E) How is the Region
supporting HQ in the
integration of NCW initiatives
into ongoing water programs
and in the recognition of NCW
priorities in targeting water
programs?
A-48
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARIME PRarECTTOST
Gulf Initiative
AC
16e. Establish
Infrastructure for
the Gulf of Mexico
Initiative and
Develop "Framework
for Action"
OUALI1MTVE MEASURES
(A) How has support for the
Initiative been developed?
(B) How has the program for
information transfer and
educational outreach been
developed and implemented?
IN SEMS/
QUANTITATIVE MEASUPK?
(a) % of completion on the
summary of past/current
research and monitoring
programs.
(b) % of completion on the
preparation of
characterization/assessment
reports.
(c) % of complete on the
development of the interactive
data management system.
NO/Tfo
Nb/Nb
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-Year
Review*
A-49
-------
tolETLANDS PROTECTION
IN SPMS/
ACTIVITIES
1. Manage an
aggressive program
for the review of
section 404
permits and
appropriate
follow-up action.
OUALITATTVE
(A) Describe the Region's
most significant activities
under section 404.
(B) Address effectiveness of
section 404 working
relationshops with each Corps
District, FWS, Region and
Field Office, and NMFS Region.
(C) Describe how the wetlands
staff works with the
Environmental Review Program
staff on EIS, EA, etc. ,
review. Identify any
significant problems.
(D) Describe how the Region
works with the Corps and other
agencies to make
jurisdictional determinations.
(E) Discuss the significance
in your Regions of solid waste
discharges including municipal
landfills. Describe
coordination among 402, 404,
and RCRA staff.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Number of section 404
permit application reviews
initiated this quarter.
(b) Number of section 404
reviews for this quarter which
raised significant issues.
(c) Number of section 404
resolutions during this
quarter.
Nb/Nb
No/No
No/No
(d) Number of resolutions due No/No
to Corps or applicant
acceptance of EPA comments,
leading to issuance.
(e) Number of resolutions due No/No
to Corps acceptance of EPA
comments resulting in permit
denial.
(f) Number of resolutions due No/No
to Corps issuing permit over
EPA recommendation for denial
or without inclusion of EPA
recommended permit
modification or conditions.
(g) Report number of EISs or No/No
similar documents reviewed
that involved significant
section 404/wetlands
protection issues.
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
A-50
-------
WEILMIDS PROTECITCN
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
FREQUENCY
1. Manage an
aggressive program
for the review of
section 404
permits and
appropriate
follow-up action.
(A) Describe the Region's
most significant activities
under section 404.
(B) Address effectiveness of
section 404 working
relationshops with each corps
District, FWS, Region and
Field Office, and NMFS Region.
(C) Describe how the wetlands
staff works with the
Environmental Review Program
staff on EXS, EA, etc.,
review. Identify any
significant problems.
(D) Describe how the Region
works with the Corps and other
agencies to make
jurisdictional detenninations.
(E) Discuss the significance
in your Regions of solid waste
discharges including municipal
landfills. Describe
coordination among 402, 404,
and RCRA staff.
(a) Number of section 404 No/No
permit application reviews
initiated this quarter.
(b) Number of section 404 No/No
reviews for this quarter which
raised significant issues.
(c) Number of section 404 No/No
resolutions during this
quarter.
(d) Number of resolutions due No/No
to Corps or applicant
acceptance of EPA comments,
leading to issuance.
(e) Number of resolutions due No/No
to Corps acceptance of EPA
comments resulting in permit
denial.
(f) Number of resolutions due No/No
to Corps issuing permit over
EPA recommendation for denial
or without inclusion of EPA
recommended permit
modification or conditions.
(g) Report number of EISs or No/No
similar documents reviewed
that involved significant
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
A-51
-------
WETLANDS PROTECTION
2. Conduct a
vigorous section
404 enforcement
and compliance
monitoring
program.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Describe the Region's
section 404 enforcement
program.
(B) Discuss implementation of
the Corps-EPA MOA on
enforcement.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Number of administrative
compliance orders issued
during the quarter.
(b) Number of administrative
complaints issued during the
quarter.
(c) Number of civil cases
referred to DOJ during the
quarter.
(d) Number of criminal cases
referred to DOJ during the
quarter.
(e) Total number of cases
resolved during the quarter
under the following
categories.
(e)(l) Number of compliance
orders where the violator has
complied with order.
(e)(2) Number of final
administrative penalty orders
(e)(3) Number of civil
judicial referrals resulting
in final court order.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
WQ/E-1
Yes/IMb
WQ/E-1
Yes/No
WQ/E-1
Yes/No
WQ/E-1
Yes/No
WQ/E-1
No/No
No/No
••No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
A-52
-------
WEHM3D3 PROTECTION
IN SPMS/
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
COANITTAITVE
3. Describe
State, Indian
Tribe, and local
wetlands
protection.
4. Enhance public
awareness of
wetlands values.
(A) Describe major activities
for promoting State, Indian
Tribe and local programs and
assisting in their
development. Identify major
constraints.
(B) For States that have
assumed the section 404
program, describe and evaluate
oversight actions in terms of
ensuring statutory/regulatory
compliance and progress toward
environmental goals.
(A) Describe significant
activities and
accomplishments.
(e)(4) Number of criminal
judicial referrals resulting
in final court order.
(e)(5) Number of cases
resolved through voluntary
compliance/informal processes.
(a) Report number of States
or Indian Tribes to whom EPA
is providing grant funding for
development of section
404/wetland protection
programs.
Nb/Nb
NO/NO
NO/NO
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Quarterly
2nd
Quarter
A-53
-------
WETLANDS PROTiULU'lONT
IN SIMS/ REPORTING
ACTIVITIES QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT FREQUENCY
t
5. Enhance (A) Describe the Region's (a) Track progress against Yes/SEMS Quarterly
wetlands strategic initiatives targets for the number of WQ-2
protection through undertaken or-planned to strategic initiatives started.
other action achieve this objective.
including Number of strategic
alternative/ (B) Discuss progress in initiatives completed.
anticipatory implementing your Region's
approaches and Bottomland Hardwoods
increasing Implementation plan. (Regions
coordination with/ 3,4,5,6,7)
consistency of
governmental
policies and
private sector.
A-54
-------
WETLANDS PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
6. Manage an
overall section
404/wetland
protection program
including
efficient use of
resources,
strategic
planning,
intraagency
coordination, etc.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Describe the Region's
overall plan for meeting
national program and regional
objectives.
(B) Discuss how your Region
allocates resources and
establishes'priorities across
geographic, political, or
other subdivisions of the
Region. Address the degree to
which all areas receive the
appropriate level of EPA
attention.
(C) Describe the amount and
types of significant
programmatic training staff
have had over the past year.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
FREQUENCY
A-55
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Water Quality Standards
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
ACTIVITIES QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT FREQUENCY
1. Effectively A) Describe in detail, by (a) Identify, against targets, Yes/ 2nd & 3rd
implement the WQS State and measure, actions the States that formally adopt SIMS Quarters
program through (including milestones) the (and obtain an EPA approval WQ-3
adoption of Region is planning to ensure action for) numeric criteria
numeric criteria that the State completes each of (both aquatic life and human
in State water the quantitative measures. health criteria) for 307(a)
quality standards. priority pollutants to protect
designated uses for all waters
that need such criteria.
Report, the cumulative number of
aquatic life criteria and human
health criteria adopted in a
water quality standard in each
State.
(b) Identify the States that No/No 4th Quarter
have adopted numeric procedures
to implement the narrative
toxic standards for whole
effluent toxicity.
(c) Identify the States with No/No
approved implementation methods 4th Quarter
for antidegradation.
(d) Identify the States that ' No/No
complete a triennial review 4th Quarter
within the three year period
required by 303(c) of the CWA.
A-56
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Water Quality Management
ACnVITTES
1. Ensure integra-
tion of CWA pro-
grams and target
available resources
on critical water
quality problems.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Describe how each State or
Indian Tribe treated as a State
determines water quality
priorities and targets
resources on critical water
quality problems.
(B) What mechanisms are States
and Indian Tribes treated as
States using to ensure
coordination and integration of
CWA programs?
IN SIMS/
QUANTITATIVE MSV5URES
(a) Report the number of States
for FY 89 and FY 90 that
submit Clean Water Strategies;
the number of States that
revise WQtf plans; and the
number of States that update
CFPs.
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
review
2. Negotiate and
manage State and
Indian Tribes
treated as States
W3Y! grants to
ensure outputs are
of high priority,
acceptable quality
and commensurate
with funding
provided.
(A) What procedures are used to
negotiate, track and evaluate
grantee work programs and
performance? Describe problems
encountered in applying these
procedures. What sanctions were
imposed for non-performance or
incentives given for superior
performance?
(a) Identify by State and
Indian Tribe treated as a State
the major products completed in
FY 89 and during FY 90 to date;
No/No
Mid-year
review
(b) List by State for FY 89 and No/No
FY 90 to date, the percentage
of 205(j)(2) awards passed-thru
to RPCPOs and IDs in accordance
with 205(j)(3).
Mid-year
review
A-57
-------
MATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Water Quality Management
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MF71ST1RF.S
(c) List by State and Indian
Tribe treated as a State the
number of grant actions
completed (e.g., Form 5700s) and
estimate the amount of resources
(i.e. FTEs) expended to process,
negotiate and manage these
grants.
IN SFMS/
COMMITJyEISfT
Nb/TKib
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
review
3. Assist Indian
Tribes treated as
States to obtain
program grants
under the CWA.
(a) Identify by Region and
State, the number of Indian
Tribes qualified to be treated
as States and the number that
submit grant applications.
List Tribes that receive grants
(by name) and for what purposes
(major activities and funding
sources).
Yes/
SEWS
WQ-7
4th Quarter
A-58
-------
MATER QUALITY STANEftRDS. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
1. Identify waters
evaluated to
determine if
numeric criteria
for 307(a)
priority
pollutants are
needed to protect
uses.
2. Identify waters
where water quality
is known or is
suspected of being
impaired due to
toxic
pollutants or
toxicity.
Monitoring
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify by State, against
targets, the number of waters
evaluated to determine if
numeric criteria for 307(a)
priority pollutants are needed
to protect designated uses.
(A) For each State within the
Region that has not completed
or is not expected to complete
its lists of waters and
sources/amounts of pollutants,
describe in detail what actions
(including milestones) the
Region is planning to ensure
that the State does complete its
lists. What deficiencies are
being found in State
submissions?
IN SHMS/
COMMITMENT
Nb/OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
(a) Identify by State, against Yes/
quarterly targets, the number SPMS
of Regional approvals/ WQ-4
disapprovals (following public
notice) of 304(l)/303(d) lists
and the number of Regional
final promulgations of
304(l)/303(d) lists
Quarterly
A-59
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
VITIES
Monitoring
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
3. Assess whether
States are making
progress toward
achieving the
requirements of
Sections 308(a) and
308(d) Of the 1987
WOA.
(A) Describe the specific
activities the States inplement
in FY 90 to carry out the Action
Plans originally negotiated in
FY 88 to strengthen State toxic
control programs and what steps
the Region takes to oversee
State programs.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
water quality
assessments to
identify problems
and determine
effectiveness of
water pollution
control programs.
,**i V^£> O4-^3•+-/*> -v
- J.J_fe kJl_CLL-C; £
achieving improvements in water
quality that can be attributed
to toxic controls and nonpoint
source controls and describe the
monitoring programs used to
assess needs for toxics control.
number of waterbodies and the
number of stream miles, lake
acres, estuary segments,
coastal miles and Great Lakes
shore miles that States assess
through (1) monitoring or (2)
evaluation, according to EPA
guidance for 305(b) reporting.
Identify the number that
support, partially support, or
do not support designated uses.
Identify the number of waters
that do not fully support
designated uses due to nonpoint
sources of pollution and the
numbers of those waters af-
fected by each category of non-
point source pollution.
Yes/
SPMS
WQ-5
A-60
-------
5. Develop
WEAs/EMDLs.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Monitoring
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A) To what extent have States
and the Region improved the
capability to identify waters
needing WLAs/TMDLs (including
biomonitoring)? Describe any
updates in technical procedures
used by the States in
developing WLAs/TMDLs.
(a) Identify, by Region,
against quarterly targets, (1)
the number of States with EPA
approved technical agreements
for conducting WLAs/TMDLs and
(2) the number of WLAs/TMDLs
for complex situations approved
by EPA.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
NO/CW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
6. Oversight of
State monitoring
programs and
technical
assistance to
States.
(A) Describe State and Regional
actions to implement the
recommendations of the Surface
Water Monitoring Study. This
includes actions taken to re-
evaluate and upgrade State
monitoring and assessment
capabilities and to improve the
access, use, sharing and
integration of data.
(B) Describe Regional efforts to
provide technical assistance to
State and Indian Tribes treated
as States monitoring programs
and to conduct Regional
assessment/ass i stance pro j ects.
A-61
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLAMNIMG AND ASSESSMENT
Monitoring
IN SIMS/ REPORITOG
ACTIVITIES QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT FREQUENCY
(C) Assess the status of State
inplementation of EPA guidance
for QA/QC programs and for data
entry into EPA data systems.
(D) Describe Regional efforts to
assist States with the
development and use of new
analytical methods.
(E) Describe performance of
Regional and State laboratories
in analyzing QA/QC performance
samples. What has been done to
correct deficiencies? What is
done to inform management of
data quality issues?
A-62
-------
ACTIVITIES
MATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Nonpoint Source Management
QUALITATIVE MEASURES OIWITITATTVE MEASURES
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
1. Ensure timely
implementation of
approved NFS
Management Program
elements.
(A) Describe, for each State,
the mix of watershed management
projects and Statewide cate-
gorical NPS projects included in
the State Management Program.
(B) Describe, by State, the
outreach efforts either by the
State or jointly by the Region
and State to obtain public
support for implementation of
the approved Management
Program.
(C) What actions has the Region
taken to obtain support of State
NPS Management Programs by
Federal agencies other than
EPA?
(D) What actions has the Region
taken to ensure that the
implementation of State NPS
Management Programs has been
integrated with the activities
of related EPA programs such as
estuaries, ground water and
wetlands protection?
(a) Identify by State, against Yes/
targets, the number of State- SPMS
wide programs and watershed WQ-6
programs and projects iden-
tified in approved NPS Manage-
ment Programs or portions of
those programs that (1) are
initiated and completed in FY 90
and (2) have been initiated but
will not be completed until FY
91 or later.
(b) Report the number of No/No
technology transfer workshops,
meetings, conferences and
consultations conducted by the
Region to support implementa-
tion of approved NPS Manage-
ment Programs.
(c) Report the funding sources No/TXTo
and amounts used by each State
to meet each milestone
identified in an approved NPS
Management Program.
2nd & 4th
Quarters
2nd & 4th
Quarters
3rd Quarter
A-63
-------
ACTIVITIES
MATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING AMD ASSESSMENT
Nonpoint Source Management
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(E) Describe actions States take
to link NFS Management Programs
and municipal stonnwater
management programs to address
urban runoff.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
2. Ensure that
States and Indian
Tribes treated as
States develop and
submit updated NFS
Assessments in
305(b).
(A) Describe the efforts made by (a) Report the number of States No/No
each State, Indian Tribe treated that update the NPS assessment
as a State and the Region to portion of their 1990 305(b)
enlarge the data base for the submissions in EPA's Waterbody
1990 305(b) NPS assessments by System format.
using data and information from
other Federal and State agencies
and private organizations.
Quarterly
3. Ensure that
States submit
remaining portions
of their NPS
Management
Programs to EPA
for approval.
(A) Present the reasons for (a) Identify the number of
unapproved portions of State NPS States that submit remaining
Management Programs and describe portions of NPS Management
actions the Region takes to Programs to EPA for approval.
ensure States complete those
unapproved portions.
No/No
Quarterly
A-64
-------
ACTIVITIES
4. Support State
use of the Federal
consistency
provision of 319
of the CWA.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Nbnpoint Source Management
OUALITATT\7F IMFaSTIRFS QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SIMS/
COMMITMENT
(A) Describe the Federal
projects and programs that
States believe to be
inconsistent with State NFS
management programs.
(B) Where States have reviewed
Federal projects/programs and
determined inconsistencies, what
actions have been taken by the
States, EPA and involved Federal
agencies to resolve those
inconsistencies?
(a) Report the number of States No/Wo
that identify Federal projects/
programs that are inconsistent
with State NFS Management
Programs.
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
A-65
-------
ACTIVITIES
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Lakes Management
QUALITATIVE MEASURES . QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
1. Site visits to
active Clean Lakes
projects.
(A) Describe for each project
completed work or actual work
underway and actions taken to
ensure expenditures are
consistent with EPA's Financial
Management System (FMS).
(a) Report the number of active No/No
Clean Lakes projects, the
number of site visits per
project, and the number of
projects with discrepancies
between expenses incurred and
expenses reported to FMS.
4th Quarter
2. Review of
unexpended
obligations for
all operative
Clean Lakes
projects.
(A) Describe actions the Regions
take to ensure funds are
expended in a timely manner.
(a) Report the number of pro-
jects with unexpended
obligations in excess of
$100,000 that are active for
more than three years.
No/No
Mid-year
review
3. Ensure
integration of
Clean Lakes
program with State
VCM programs and
provide the status
of lake water
quality assessment
studies.
(A) Describe how the Clean Lakes
program is integrated with
State WCM programs and the
status of lake water quality
assessments. Describe how the
States use results of the lake
water quality assessments to
improve the 1990 305(b) Report.
(a) Report the number of States No/No
that integrate Clean Lakes
programs with State fo£M
programs; the number of States
that conduct lake water quality
assessments; and the number of
lakes for which assessments were
conducted.
Mid-year
review
A-66
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
1. I ssue/Re i ssue
Industrial and
Municipal Permits
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A. Are Regions (in cooperation
with States) issuing permits to
dischargers'which the Regions
determined, either after review
and disapproval of State
sutmittals or after public
participation require
Individual Control Strategies
(ICSs) for 304(1) identified
point sources? Are these
permits being issued based on
the revisions to the NPDES
regulations as required by the
WQA of 1987? What problem is
the Region encountering? What
assistance does the Region
need to meet the statutory
deadline?
(B) What problems are the
Regions anticipating in EPA
workload due to State inaction
to implement 304(1)?
(C) Is there any evidence of a
new backlog of EPA/State
expired major permits? Has the
Region assessed the reasons?
What are the Regions' plans to
address the problems?
Permits
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track, against targets,
the number of permits reissued
to major facilities during FY
90 (Report NPDES States and
non-NPDES States separately).
(b) Identify the number of
final permits reissued and the
number modified during FY 90
that include water
quality based limits for
toxics. Of these, report the
number that are Individual
Control Strategies. (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States;
report majors and minors
separately.)'
(c) Identify the number of ICSs
developed in FY 90 by the
Region (in cooperation with the
State) after disapproval under
section 304(1). Of these,
identify the number of final
permits and the number of
draft permits with schedules
for issuance as final permits.
(Report only NPDES States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
WQ-11
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Yes/No
WQ-12
Quarterly
No/No
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
A-67
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
l. Issue/Reissue
Industrial and
Municipal Permits
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(D) Are short term permits
still being issued? Do many
permits have reopener clauses
for incorporating effluent
guidelines/new limits resulting
from toxicity testing/study
requirements where uncertain-
ties/unknowns remain?
(E) Have Regions/States
developed plans for issuing
storm water permits for
industrial discharges and
municipal separate storm sewers
serving populations over
100,000?
(F) Have Regions/States
developed plans for reevaluat-
ing the major/minor classifica-
tion of significant minor and
major permits consistent with
national guidance? What
percentage of reclassification
will be completed by the end of
FY 90? How many new major
permits have been identified?
Permits
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(d) List the permits
identified in (b) which
include water quality based
whole effluent toxicity
limits.
(e) Identify the number of
organic chemical permits
reopened and modified to
reflect the new guidelines and
separately identify the number
of 308 letters notifying
permittees of expected
compliance upon permit
reissuance. (NPDES States/non-
NPDES States; report permits
reopened and modified and 308
letters separately.)
(f) Track progress against
targets for the number of
municipal permit modifications
to incorporate the pretreatment
implementation requirement.
(NPDES States/Non-NPDES
States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
No/CW
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
(g) Identify the number of CSO No/No
permitting strategies
developed. (Report separately:
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
A-68
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
1. Issue/Reissue (G) Have Regions/States
Industrial and
Municipal Permits
(continued)
designated 402(d)(2)(E)
stormwater discharges requiring
applications for NPDES permits?
What is the process used to
identify such discharges?
(H) Have Regions/States
prepared permitting strategies
addressing all CSO discharges?
Are they approved? How many
CSO discharges have been
identified? How many are
permitted? Discuss the
workload?
(I) What is the nature of the
modifications being made to
industrial/municipal major
permits? Discuss this workload
of the Region/States in
relation to permit issuance and
other permitting activities.
What are the resource implica-
tions. How does the Region
track permit modifications?
Permits
QUANTITATIVE MEASURF5;
(h) Identify the number of
permits reissued in near
coastal waters (report
separately: NPDES States, non-
NPDES States.)
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
(TiyiMTrTWFNT? FREQUENCY
Yes/Nb
WQ-16
Quarterly
A-69
-------
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial and
Municipal Permits
(continued)
MATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
OUALITATTW MF&RT1RF..?
(J) Discuss process and timing
for modifying POIW permits to
incorporate enforceable
implementation requirements for
revised/newly approved
pretreatment programs and
related reporting requirements.
Are subsequent local program
changes incorporated in a
timely manner? Is there a
backlog? What priority is
given to assuring POIW permits
are modified to reflect current
local pretreatment programs?
(K) Are States issuing permits
to marine/estuarine dischargers
which follow the requirements
of EPA's near coastal waters
initiatives? What specific
procedures are used in these
permitting cases? What special
conditions, if any, are
included in marine/estuarine
discharge permits?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/ REPQRTBX1G
COMMITMENT? FREOLENCY
A-70
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
AlTlvii'JJiS
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial and
Municipal Permits
(continued)
2. Develop
Appropriate and
Enforceable Permit
Conditions
OTTAT.TTATTVR MEASURES
QUANnTATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(L) What actions have the
Regions/States taken to
identify major and water
quality minor discharges to
Indian lands and assure they
are permitted?
(A) Are Regions/'States
performing complex effluent
water quality/toxic assessments
for all major industrial and
municipal permits? Are permits
being written with limits which
control toxicity causing
bicacxximulation/human health
impacts?
(B) Are industrial or
municipal permittees encounter-
ing problems identifying
sources of toxic or toxicity
reduction control methods?
Discuss the Regions/States -
experiences, problems. Are 308
letters (or similar State
mechanisms) being used in lieu
of permit requirements to
identify permittees with
potential water quality
impacts?
A-71
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
2. Develop
Appropriate and
Enforceable Permit
Conditions
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(C) Discuss any problems
encountered by Region/States
with respect to permit
monitoring requirements and
general conditions, especially
in relation to toxic pol-
lutants .
(D) To what extent are
States/Regions developing
industrial permit conditions
using best professional
judgement? Is the technical
support for these judgements
adequate? Are rationales for
BPJ determinations documented
in the fact sheets or state-
ments of basis? If not, what
additional support is needed?
Are the resolutions satisfac-
tory and timely?
(E) To what extent do
Regions/States municipal or
industrial permits contain
monitoring and reporting
requirements for toxics in
their effluent and/or sludge?
Permits
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
A-72
-------
WAITER ENFORCEMENT AND FKKrtlTS
AOriv.lT.LES
3. Issue New
Source/Major New
Discharger Permits
4. Issue/Reissue
General Permits
QUAT.TTATIVE
(A) Is the Region's/State's
approach to new permits consis-
tent with priority to protect
water quality? Are there
special problems in the new
source area? Is there adequate
coordination with other media
programs where more than one
EPA permit is required? Are
all permit conditions being
enforced? Are NEPA reviews
conducted smoothly and in a
timely manner where required?
Are anti-degradation procedures
being followed?
(B) Are complex water
quality/toxic assessments
conducted before permit
issuance? Are monitoring and
reporting requirements imposed
to verify assessments after
permittee begins to discharge?
(A) What types of problems
have the Region/States
encountered in issuing general
permits? What measures have
been taken or are needed to
resolve them?
Permits
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track # of new source/major
new discharge permits issued.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
(a) Track progress against
targets for the # of CCS
general permits issued/reissued
(non-NPDES States).
No/OW
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
A-73
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
4. Issue/Reissue
General Permits
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
(B) Is the Region actively
.considering ways to use general
permits to reduce minor permit
backlog? What types of general
permits are being considered?
To what extent will they reduce
the minor permit backlog? When
are they likely to be issued?
(C) Is the Region actively
considering ways to use general
permits for storm water
discharges?
(D) To what extent can general
permits be used to regulate
unpermitted dischargers? Are
any such general permits being
prepared? How many unpermitted
dischargers would be regulated?
(b) Track # of general permits No/No
issued/reissued:
—#XS (NPDES States)
—#other than CCS (rion-NPDES
States)
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
A-74
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
5. Resolve
Evidentiary-
Hearings
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) What are the Regions/-
States plans for eliminating
the present permit appeals
backlog? Discuss Water
Division/Regional Counsel
coordination on resolving
backlogged hearings and on
addressing new hearing requests
related to the redefinition of
secondary treatment or 301 (h)
permits, or other variances
allowed by the CWA or Federal
regulations. Are any hearing
requests related to biomonitor-
ing or toxicity-based permit
conditions?
(B) What are the
Regions/States major issues?
Has a pattern developed that
indicates a need for program
changes, including procedures,
regulations, policy guidance,
technical assistance, etc.?
Permits
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) (1) Identify, by Region,
the number of pending
evidentiary hearing requests
and track, by Region, progress
against quarterly targets for
the evidentiary hearing
requests for major permits
pending at the beginning of FY
90 resolved by EPA and for the
number resolved by NPDES
States.
(a) (2) of those identified in
(a)(1), indicate which are
municipal and which are
industrial.
(b) Of all evidentiary hearing
requests resolved in FY 90,
identify number:
—denied
—settled without hearing
—decided after hearing
—withdrawn
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
WQ-13
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
No/No-
NO/INFO
10/15/89
Quarterly
A-75
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
6. Review and
Approve/Deny
Variance Requests
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) How is the Regions/States
variance process working? What
are the difficulties? What
additional support is needed,
such as procedural changes,
guidance or support from
Headquarters? Discuss problems
and successes. How are
Regions/States complying with
statutory deadlines for
variances?
Permits
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify separately the #
of direct and indirect
discharger variance requests
pending at beginning of FY 90
(NPDES States, non-NFDES
States):
—EOF
—301(c)
—301(g)
—301(k)
—307(6)
—316 (a)
—316(13)
(b) Track against separate
targets the # of direct and
indirect discharger variance
requests pending at the start
of FY 90 which are approved,
denied, or forwarded to
Headquarters with a
recommendation (as required) in
FY 90 (NPDES States and non-
MPDES States):
--FDF
—301(C)
—301(g)
—301(k)
—307(e)
—316 (a)
—316(b)
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
No/No
10/31/89
NO/CW
Quarterly
A-76
-------
MATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
6. Review and
Approve/Deny
Variance Requests
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Permits
QUANTITATIVE
(c) Identify separately the #
of direct and indirect
discharger variances requested
during FY 90 (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States):
—FDF
—301(C)
—301(g)
—301(k)
—307(e)
--316(a)
—316(b)
(d) Track the # of direct and
indirect discharger variances
requested during FY 90 which
are approved, denied or
forwarded to Headquarters with
a recommendation (as required)
in FY 90 (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States):
--FDF
—301(C)
—301(g)
—301(k)
—307(e)
—316 (a)
—316(b)
IN SPMS/
CCMflTMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
No/No
Quarterly
A-77
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTTVITT'Fys
7. Implement CWA
Amenc3ment Sludge
Requirements
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Identify permitting
efforts to implement the
sludge requirements of CWA Sec.
405(d)(4).
(B) Is the Region conducting a
determination of whether a
State permit is adequate to
protect public health and the
environment? What is the
Region finding? Where a Region
determines that the require-
ments are not adequate is the
Region issuing a Federal
permit?
(C) Are States incorporating
sludge conditions into POIW
permits?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track, against targets,
total number of permits issued
to priority sludge facilities
containing sludge conditions
necessary to meet the require-
ments of CWA section 405(d)
(4).
(b) Track total number of
NPDES and non-NPDES permits
(major and minor separately)
issued containing sludge
monitoring requirements.
IN SFMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
Yes/SPMS
WQ-15
Quarterly
No/Tfo
Quarterly
A-78
-------
WATER ENFORCEt^XfT AND PERMITS
Permits
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
ACTIVITIES QUALITATIVE MEASURES OLgJNlTTTATIVE MEASURES CQMMITMEI\|T? FREQUENCY
8. Promote the (A) Describe the progress of (a) List the States which have No/No 10/31/89
development of States in developing necessary completed their inventories of
State sludge elements of a State sludge sludge use and disposal
permitting permitting program. facilities. Indicate which of
programs these are current.
(B) Are the completed
inventories of sludge use and
disposal facilities
complete/accurate?
What problems are States
facing?
A-79
-------
ACTIVITIES
1. Approve NPDES
State Program
Requests
WATER ENFORCEMFIMT AND PERMITS
State Program Approval/Review/Oversight
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A) What is Region's strategy
for each State to achieve
full/partial NPDES program
administration? Indian tribes?
(B) What progress is being
made (State by State) with
respect to NPDES States
assuming general permits/pre-
treatment and federal facili-
ties programs?
(C) Has the Region conducted
an assessment of each State
without general permit
authority to determine
requirements that must be met
prior to State issuance of
storm water general permits?
Have the Region and State
agreed upon a plan for each
State to assume general permit
authority?
(a) Track, against targets,
the number of NPDES program
approvals and modifications in
accordance with established
schedules:
—full/partial NPDES programs;
—Pretreatment program
modifications;
—Federal facility modifica-
tions ;
—General permit authority
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/CW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Provide list
at start of
FY
A-80
-------
NT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
1. Approve NPDES
State Program
Requests
(continued)
2. Review
Approved NPDES
State Statutory
and Regulatory
Authority
State Program Approval/Review/Oversight
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(D) Has the Region conducted
an assessment of each NPDES
State without pretreatment
authority to determine what is
needed before State pretreat-
ment program approval can
occur? Have the Region and
State agreed upon a plan and
schedule for each State to
receive pretreatment program
approval?
(E) Do FY 90 work pro-
grams/grant agreements have
milestones for completing
approval? What else is the
Region doing to encourage State
assumption? Is the Region
considering further action in
any of the States? Have the
States been informed of the
possibility of program
withdrawal?
(A) Has the Region had any
difficulties in obtaining
adequate documentation from the
States to conduct these
reviews? If so, what documents
are usually needed, how are the
difficulties being resolved and
how long are the delays?
IN SPMS/
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
A-81
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
2. Review
Approved NPDES
State Statutory
and Regulatory
Authority
(continued)
3. Execute
EPA/State NPDES
Agreements
State Approval/Review/Oversight
QUALITATIVE MEASURES ' OUANTTTATIVE MEASURES
Office of Regional Counsel
participate in the reviews? In
what way? Do they participate
in the process of selecting
States for review and making
commitments? Do they follow
through with their work? In a
timely manner? Are priorities
a problem? If so, how are
conflicts resolved?
(C) Does the Region have a
routine mechanism for learning
of changes to State laws and
regulations? If so, describe
the process.
(A) What problems have arisen
in the development of EPA/State
NPDES agreements? How are they
resolved? Are there any
particular elements of national
policy and guidance on State
overview that have been
difficult to implement? Do all
the agreements include
provisions for EPA evaluation
of State penalty practices?
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
A-82
-------
ACTIVITIES
4. Provide
Effective
Oversight of
Approved NPDES
State Programs
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
State Program Approval/Review/Oversight
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A) To what extent has the
Region implemented the
"Guidance on Oversight of NPDES
Programs"?
(B) Does the Region carry out
a program of regularly
scheduled assessments of each
approved NPDES State to assure
the adequacy of authorities,
funding and staffing and to
assure a demonstrated ability
to set program priorities and
effectively implement the NPDES
program? What is the frequen-
cy; who is involved; and how is
it done for each delegated
State? What is the nature and
timing of follow-up? Does this
include identification of State
needs and problems, evaluation
of performance and providing of
technical assistance?
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
A-83
-------
ACTIVITIES
4. Provide
Effective
Oversight of
Approved NPDES
Programs
(continued)
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
State Program Approval/Review/Oversight
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(C) How frequently does the
Region conduct PQR, PTQR and
WQPQRs? How many permits/
programs are reviewed? How
many industrial permits and
what industrial categories?
How many municipal permits?
How are results provided to
States and describe how Region
verifies that the
problem/deficiency is
corrected.
(D) Does oversight of State
compliance monitoring include
an assessment of new
toxic/toxicity monitoring
requirements? Does the Region
check the States compliance
inspection activity with
particular emphasis on toxic
problems?
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
A-84
-------
ACTIVITIES
4. Provide
Effective
Oversight of
Approved NPDES
Programs
(continued)
MATER ENFORCEMENT!1 AND PERMITS
State Program Approval/Review/Over sight
QUALITATIVE MEASURES OTJANTITAITVE MEASURES
(E) Where the pretreatment
program is run by the State
(in whole or in part), how does
the Region overview the
performance of the State? Does
the Region's review include an
evaluation of legal authori-
ties, procedures, personnel and
funding? What corrective
actions are taken to correct
identified deficiencies?
(F) How are 106 grants and the
work program development
process used to assure
effective implementation of
NPDES State programs? What
enforcement and permitting
priority areas identified in
the FY 90 Operating Guidance
are specifically addressed?
Which ones are not and why?
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
A-85
-------
ACTIVITIES
WATER ENFORCCT4F1X1T AND PERMITS
RCRA Activities for NPDES Facilities
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
1. Implement
Corrective Action
Requirements
(A) Has the Region/State
updated their information on
POIWs who receive hazardous
wastes by dedicated pipe or
manifested hazardous waste
delivered by truck or rail?
(B) What is the status of RCRA
3007 information gathering
letters? Do any remain to be
issued by EPA/States to
municipalities?
(C) What is the status of POTW
notifications received and
reviews completed?
(D) Has the Region/State
established a RCRA permit by
rule for each subject POTW?
(E) How many POIWs stopped
receiving hazardous waste by
truck, rail or dedicated pipe
since the Regional/State
notification of RCRA?
(a) Identify number of POTWs No/No
for which a RCRA permit by rule
has been established.
(b) Of those POIWs which
receive hazardous wastes by
truck, rail or dedicated pipe,
report the total number of
determinations made. Report
determinations by: 1) number
of determinations made that
there is no need for corrective
actions; and 2) number of
determinations that there is a
need for corrective actions.
No/Tfo
Quarterly
Quarterly
A-86
-------
IAJA.TER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
1. Iirplement
Corrective Action
Requirements
(continued)
RCRA Activities for NPDES Facilities
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SUMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
(F) Has the Region/State begun
the corrective action process
for each POTW subject to the
RCRA permit by rule, and
established appropriate
corrective action
requirement37 How were
appropriate requirements
established (e.g. , RCRA RIDER
permits, amendments to NPDES
permits, other)? Is the first
stage of the corrective action
process, the RCRA Facility
Assessment, specifically
addressed?
(G) How are the
Regions/States/POTWs
coordinating with RCRA/CERCLA
staff in evaluating off-site
removal of RCRA/CERCLA wastes
into POIW collection systems?
No/No
(c) Identify number of POIWs
for which the corrective
action process has been
established to implement
3004(u) of RCRA. The
corrective action process
includes any or all of the
specific steps of a RCRA
facility assessment, remedial
investigations, and corrective
measures.
(d) List RCRA/CERCLA clean up No/No
projects in which a decision is
made to discharge to a POIW.
Specify control measure or
pretreatment requirements in
place.
Quarterly
Quarterly
A-87
-------
WATER ENFORCEMFTJT AND PERMITS
RCRA Activities for MPDES Facilities
ACTIVITIES
2. Implement
Regulatory/Pro-
grammatic Changes
Based on the
Domestic Sewage
Exemption Study
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Describe the Region's
strategy State by State for
implementing the regulatory
changes in the DSS rulemaking.
(B) Has the Region worked with
POIWs to implement regulatory/-
programmatic changes (e.g., new
local limits)?
(C) Has the Region worked with
NFDES States to initiate State
regulatory/programmatic
changes?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
A-88
-------
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop and
Approve/Modi fy
Local Pretreatment
Programs
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
(A) What rationale does the
Region/States use to add/delete
municipalities from the list of
required local programs?
(B) What are the Region/States
doing to encourage local
program modifications where
deficiencies are identified?
Is the Region/State relying
solely on the POIW to identify
deficiencies?
(C) How does the Region
identify needed POIW program
modifications, determine
whether they constitute a major
modification and review and
approve, disapprove major
modifications?
(D) When a local program
submitted for approval is not
acceptable, what follow-up
action is taken by the
Region/State if the local
program is not resubmitted in
the time prescribed by the
Approval Authority?
(a) Identify the local
pretreatment programs requiring
approval but not yet approved
at the beginning of the fiscal
year and distinguish between
those newly identified in FY 90
and those previously required.
(List separately: non-pre-
treatment States, approved
pretreatment States).
(b) Track progress against
targets for the programs
approved during FY 90 (list
separately: non-pretreatment
States, approved pretreatment
States).
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
10/31/89
No/OW
Quarterly
A-89
-------
ACTIVITIES
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREOUESICY
2. Take Actions
as Required to
Obtain Compliance
with Pretreatment
Requirements
(A) How do the Region/States
ensure that local pretreatment
programs are fully implementing
NPDES permit pretreatment
requirements? Other pretreat-
ment program requirements?
(B) What criteria do the
Region/States use to decide to
refer a POIW for failure to
implement as opposed to using
administrative enforcement
action?
(C) What is the level of
coordination for pretreatment
cases between the compliance
section and QRC in the Region
and the respective agencies in
the States? If less than
satisfactory, what steps is the
Region taking to improve
coordination?
(D) How do the Regions and
States identify and respond to
industrial noncompliance with
categorical pretreatment
standard deadlines in a
municipality where there is an
approved pretreatment program?
(a) Report, by Region, the No/No Quarterly
number of pretreatment
administrative compliance
orders issued by EPA to lUs and
the number of pretreatment
equivalent actions issued by
States to lUs.
-------
ACTIVITIES
2. Take Actions as
Required to Obtain
Compliance with
Pretreatment
Requirements
(continued)
WATER ENFORCEtyTCTNTT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
(E) Is the Region/State using
the Guidance on Reportable
Nonconpliance for Pretreatment
Implementation to identify
POIWs which should be listed on
the QNCR? 'is the Region/State
having any difficulty in
interpreting or using the
Guidance? If so, in what
areas? Have the Region/States
successfully inplemented the
new definition of significant
noncompliance for POTWs which
fail to implement their
programs? What problems are
the Region/States experiencing?
(F) Has the Region/State
provided training/assistance to
legal staff of the POIWs or
Pretreatment authorities? What
other steps have the
Region/States taken to improve
POIW enforcement of
pretreatment requirements?
(c) Identify, by State, the Yes/SPMS
number of POTWs that meet the WQ/E-10
criteria for reportable noncom-
pliance (RNC) and track by
State the number of POTWs in
that universe where action
taken either resolves or esta-
blishes an enforceable schedule
to resolve RNC . Report
separately, by State, for each
action taken: technical
assistance, permit/program
modification, or formal
enforcement. Report, by State,
the compliance status (RNC,
resolved pending, resolved) of
each POTW in the universe as of
the end of the year.
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
A-91
-------
ACTIVITIES
MATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUALITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
3. Oversee
Effectiveness of
Local Pretreatment
Program Implemen-
tation
(A) How do Regions/States
establish priorities for
pretreatment oversight of
POTWs?
(B) How do Regions
independently assess the
effectiveness of POTW program
implementation in pretreatment
States?
(C) Does the Region/State use
the Audit/PCI checklist in
conducting POIW pretreatment
reviews? If the checklist is
modified, describe the
modifications.
(a) Track, by Region, against Yes/SPMS Quarterly
quarterly targets, for approved WQ-14
local pretreatment programs, 1)
the number audited by EPA and
the number audited by approved
pretreatment States; and (2)
the number inspected by EPA and
the number inspected by
States.
(b) Report number of EPA and No/No Quarterly
State pretreatment inspections
of lUs where EPA or the State
is control authority. (list
separately: EPA/State)
(c) Identify number of POTWs No/No Quarterly
that need to conduct local
limits headworks loading
analysis (non pretreatment
States; approved pretreatment
States.)
(d) Track number of POTWs No/No Quarterly
requesting changes to local
limits (nonpretreatment States;
approved pretreatment States)
A-92
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
3. Oversee
Effectiveness of
Local Pretreatment
Program
Implementation
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(D) What are the criteria used
by EPA/States to select
industrial users to be
inspected? Do the Region/-
States place a priority on
inspecting lUs subject to
Federal categorical standards
which are located where there
is no local program? What do
the results of these
inspections indicate? What use
is being made of IU results?
Does the Region/State include
personnel from the approved
POIW in the IU inspection?
(E) How are audits used by
Regions/States to overview
implementation? What are the
findings from these audits?
What follow-up actions are
taken when problems are
identified? Do the Regions
review state audits and
reports? How often? Do Regions
keep copies of State audits,
reports and follow-up documents
on file?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(e) Identify, separately, the
number of pretreatment POIWs
which have adequate control
mechanisms and the number of
pretreatment POTWs on
enforceable schedules that do
not yet have adequate control
mechanisms in place (non-
pretreatment States,
pretreatment States).
(f) Track, by Region, against
quarterly targets, the number
of POIWs which comply during FY
90 with their enforcement
schedules to assure adequate
control mechanisms.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
10/31/89
NO/OW
Quarterly
A-93
-------
ACTIVITIES
3. Oversee
Effectiveness of
Local Pretreatment
Program
Implementation
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(F) How are inspections used
by Regions/States to overview
implementation? What are the
findings from these
inspections? What follow-up
actions are taken when problems
are identified?
(G) Are inspections used to
track follow-up actions
required by an earlier audit?
If not, how is audit follow-up
determined?
(H) Aside from audits and/or
inspections, what other
oversight mechanisms are the
Regions/States using to
evaluate POTW performance year
to year?
(I) Are annual report
submissions by POTWs reviewed
by the Region/State? What
criteria are used for these
reviews? Are all POTWs using
the definition of significant
noncompliance (PCME guidance,
July 1986) to evaluate and
report IU performance?
WATER ENFORCEMFTVT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
OUANTTTATTVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTTISIG
FREQUENCY
A-94
-------
MATER ENFORCEMTTXIT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
3. Oversee
Effectiveness of
Local
Pretreatment
Program
Inplementat ion
(continued)
Pretreatment
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(J) Are POIWs considering all
appropriate factors in
developing local limits,
including protection of water
quality (State numeric
standards and narrative "free
from" standards, Federal
criteria), sludge quality and
worker heath and safety?
Characterize the changes being
made to local limits. What is
the Region/State strategy for
assuring POIWs
develop/implement adequate
local limits? Do NPDES permits
include toxicity limits and
numeric limits for organic
chemicals that may be used to
establish local limits? Are
they being reflected in local
limits?
A-95
-------
ACTIVITIES
3. Oversee
Effectiveness of
Local Pretreatment
Program
Implementation
(continued)
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(K) Are control mechanisms
adequate? Are POTW enforcement
procedures adequate? How is
adequacy determined and what
follow-up is taken when
deficiencies are found? Are
control mechanisms updated
regularly to address new
pollutant levels? Do
mechanisms address organic
pollutants, hazardous con-
i^> U J_ L-Lid 1L.O WJ- i—0-A.J.v^. J- L-jf .
(L) What mechanisms are being
used by approval authorities to
determine if local programs are
properly applying categorical
standards to lUs? To what
extent are local programs
failing to properly apply
categorical standards? What
problems are being encountered?
(M) Are POIWs taking necessary
enforcement actions against
industrial users when they are
in noncompliance? Where POIWs
do not act expeditiously, what
actions are the Regions/States
taking?
OlJANriTATIVE MEASURES
IN SIMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
A-96
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
4. Enforce
Pretreatment as a
Control Authority
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Have Region/States
completed an inventory of
categorical industrial users in
cities without required
pretreatment programs? How
were the inventories
conducted? How will the
inventory be maintained?
(B) Does the Region/State take
appropriate enforcement action
to ensure that baseline
monitoring reports, compliance
reports, and periodic reports
on compliance are submitted by
lUs in non-pretreatment
cities? Does the Region/State
use the appropriate mechanism
to ensure that compliance
reports representative of the
actual discharge are submitted
by Ills in non-pretreatment
cities?
(C) Does the Region/State
receive and evaluate baseline
monitoring reports, compliance
reports, and periodic
monitoring reports from lUs in
non-pretreatment cities? How
does the Region establish
compliance schedules and
monitoring frequencies?
OUANTITATTVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
(a) Identify # of categorical No/No
lUs in nonpretreatment cities
(report non-pretreatment States
and pretreatment States
separately).
(b) Report the percent of
significant noncompliance by
categorical lUs in non-
pretreatment cities where EPA
is the Control Authority and
where the State is the Control
Authority.
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
A-97
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
5. Oversee
Effectiveness of
State-run programs
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Are State-run programs
putting data into existing
systems on the performance of
Ills and on local programs where
there are approved programs?
(B) What mechanisms does the
Region use to oversee the
effectiveness of State-run
programs?
(C) Are these States taking
necessary enforcement actions
to ensure that Ills are in
compliance with pretreatment
standards?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report by State for each
State run program the percent
of lUs in significant
noncompliance.
IN SPMS/
CCMMITME1N1T?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
A-98
-------
AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
1. Identify
Compliance
Problems
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Do the Regions'/States'
compliance rates show
improvement in FY 1990?
(B) Is the QNCR
regulation/guidance being
properly applied in the
Region/States? Is the Region
reviewing State QNCRs to ensure
proper reporting? If reviews
identify inadequate QNCRs what
action is the Region taking?
(C) Are there new reasons for
munic ipal/nonmunic ipal
noncompliance in the
Region/States? What is the
Regions/States strategy for
dealing with such
noncompliance?
Enforcement
QUANTITATIVE MEASIIRRS
(a) Track, by Region, the
number of major permittees that
are:
—on final effluent limits and
—not on final effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
industrial, Federal facilities;
NPDES States, non-NPDES States.
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
Yes/SFMS
WQ/E-4
(b) Track, by Region, the #
and % of major permittees in
significant noncompliance with:
—final effluent limits;
—construction schedules;
—interim effluent limits;
—reporting violations
—pretreatment implementation
requirements
(list separately: municipal,
industrial, Federal facilities,
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
Yes/SPMS
WQ/E-5
Majors:
Quarterly
(Data lagged
one
quarter)
Majors:
Quarterly
(Data lagged
one quarter)
A-99
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
2. Follow Through (A) Have the Region/States
on National completed filed enforcement
Municipal Policy cases against major POTWs? If
Implementation not, what is delaying action?
(B) To what extent are the
Region/States still
establishing permit/compliance
schedules for all remaining
POIWs?
(C) How are the Region/States
tracking and documenting
noncompliance with all interim
milestones (non-SNC) in
permits/enforceable schedules?
How are the Region/States
responding to noncompliance
with interim milestones in
permits/enforceable schedules?
How are schedules adjusted
following slippage? Where no
action is taken, what is the
rationale?
Enforcement
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify, by Region, the
number of major municipals on
MCPs and the # that are not in
compliance with their schedule
(report EPA/State separately).
(b) Report, by Region, the
number of major facilities
addressed by formal enforcement
actions against municipalities
that are not complying with
their schedules (report
EPA/State separately).
(c) Report, by State, the
percent reduction in major POTW
SIC with FEL.
(d) Report, by State, the
number of major POIWs required
to develop composite correction
plans.
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/TXFo
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
No/No
Quarterly
No/No
No/No
Quarterly
Quarterly
A-100
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
2. Follow Through
on National
Municipal Policy
Implementation
(continued)
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(D) If there is major slippage
in a construction schedule, is
the Region/State seeking
judicially imposed schedules?
If not, why not?
(E) Are the Region and the
States enforcing MCP schedules
for affected minors? When will
this be completed?
(F) What are the
Regions/States doing to
decrease the level of SNC with
FEL for major POTWs?
(G) Have Regions/States
developed a Municipal
Compliance Maintenance Strategy
and a system for identifying
when a POTW will reach design
capacity?
A-101
-------
ACTIVITIES
3. Ensure
Industrial
Compliance with
BAT and Water
Quality Based
Toxic Requirements
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) How do the Region and each
State direct compliance
monitoring efforts to enforce
BAT and water quality based
toxic requirements?
(B) Do the Region and each
State have sufficient
laboratory and biomonitoring
capability to conduct the
necessary analysis to support
toxic inspections?
(C) Are Regions/States
implementing the Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement
Strategy for Toxics Control?
(D) Do the Regions/States have
sufficient expertise to
evaluate TREs? If not, what
steps are being taken to assure
expertise?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
A-102
-------
WATER ENFORC'FMFKIT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Enforcement
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A) How has the mix of
enforcement actions for the
Region (AOs, penalty orders)
changed since gaining authority
to assess administrative
penalties? Has the.Region used
the administrative penalty
authority against the full
range of facilities in
noncompliance?
(a) ATMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
(1) Report, by Region, the
total number of (a) EPA
Administrative Compliance
Orders and total number of
State equivalent actions
issued; of these report the
number issued to POTWs for not
implementing pretreatment; (b)
Class I and Class II proposed
administrative penalty orders
issued by EPA for:
—NPDES violations;
—pretreatment violations; (c)
Administrative penalty orders
issued by States for NPDES
violations and pretreatment
violations.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/Tfo
WQ/E-8
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
A-103
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Enforcement
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(2) Of those reported in (1)
above, break out by the
following categories:
—municipal permittees
(major/minor)
—non-municipal permittees
(major/minor)
—Federal permittees
(major/minor)
—unpermitted facilities 402
—section 311 actions
—SPCC
(list separately: EPA, NPDES
States). Note: We recognize
that in some Regions these
responsibilities are split
between Divisions, in which
case each Division should
submit data for its appropriate
piece.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
A-104
-------
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(continued)
MATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
(B) Has the Region experienced
any problems in effectively
implementing administrative
penalty authority? If so, what
kind of problems?
(C) Is the Region conforming
to the Guidance on the use of
Penalty Orders, including the
addendum on the Penalty Policy?
(b) Track the total amount of
EPA administrative penalties
assessed and the amount of
State administrative penalties
assessed.
(C) CLOSE OUT UNIVERSE
# of EPA AOs with final
compliance dates between July J
1989 through June 30, 1990.
No/No
Quarterly
No/No
(d) Track, against targets,
(D) Has the Region experienced the # and % of EPA AOs in
any problems in carrying out effect June 30, 1989, with
the Class I or Class II hearing final compliance dates between
process? How frequently are July 1, 1989 and June 30, 1990
hearings requested in each which are successfully closed
class? out.
NO/OW
10/15/89
Quarterly
A-105
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
«•-~
4. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(E) How frequently are
comments from the public
received on penalty orders?
Have any consent decrees been
modified by the RA as a result
of public petition? Are there
any final penalty orders for
which the penalty is overdue
and uncollected for more than
60 days?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(6) REFERRALS
(1) Report, by Region, the
active State civil case docket,
the number of civil referrals
sent to the State Attorneys
General, the number of civil
cases filed, the number of
civil cases concluded, and the
number of criminal referrals
filed in State courts.
(2) # of 309 referrals
generated:
— civil referrals sent to
HQ/mj;
— civil referrals filed;
— criminal referrals filed
(3) Track the number of
referrals (EPA and State) with
penalties proposed.
(4) Track by permit name and
NPDES number State judicial
cases with penalties assessed
and amount collected.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
WQ/E-9
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
No/No
Quarterly
No/No
Nb/Tfo
Quarterly
Quarterly
A-106
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTTVITTES
4. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Enforcement
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(F) Does the Region routinely
use 309(a) administrative
orders in combination with
penalty orders when compliance
has not yet been achieved?
(G) Do the NPDES States have
administrative penalty
authority? If not, is such
authority under consideration
in any of the State
legislatures? Does the State
authority meet criteria for
pre-emption of Federal action?
(H) How frequently does the
Region have to institute
collection actions to collect
administrative penalties
assessed?
IN SIMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
(5) Report the name and amount
of time lapsed from the time of
initiation of the case to
filing and the amount of time
lapsed from filing to signing
of the consent decrees for each
case. Report by State
respectively.
(f) Identify by name and NPDES No/No
number all permittees with
active consent decrees and
report their compliance status
as follows:
—in compliance with decrees;
—in violation of decree, but
remedial action taken; and
—in violation of decree, no
remedial action taken (list
separately: major, minor,
municipal, non-municipal,
Federal).
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
Quarterly
(g) Track, by Region, the
total number of settlements of
Judicial/Consent Decrees filed
in Federal Courts.
No/No
Quarterly
A-107
-------
WAITER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTTVITTFS
4. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(I) Are the Regions/States
working effectively with
Federal facility coordinators
to improve enforcement response
times to instances of
noncompliance by Federal
facilities? If not, what is
the nature of the problem? Are
approved States using their
full range of enforcement
authority against Federal
facilities? If so, what are
the results? If not, why not?
(J) Do Region/States track AD
requirements closely? Have all
close-outs been reported to
Headquarters? Are they
reported promptly upon close-
out?
(K) How do the Region and
States ensure that violations
of Court Orders/AOs get prompt
enforcement action?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(h) # of follow-up actions on
EMR/QA performance sample
results:
—nonrespondents;
—permittees requiring
corrective action;
—major permittees with
incomplete reporting.
IN SHMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Semi-
annually:
April 1,
1990 and
October l,
1990
A-108
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(continued)
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
MEASTTPFS
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(L) What is the level of
coordination between the
compliance section and ORC in
the Region? Are there any
problems in implementing the
administrative penalty
authority? If less than
satisfactory, what steps is the
Region taking to improve
coordination?
(M) What is the level of
coordination between the NPDES
States enforcement program and
the state Attorney General's
Office? Are there established
procedures for coordination and
communication? If less than
satisfactory, what steps is the
State taking to improve
coordination? Are State AGs
generally filing cases within
the goal of 60-90 days?
A-109
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(N) Have the Region and
approved States negotiated a
basis for Regional evaluation
of the States' penalty program,
including identification of
sanctions which might be used
in lieu of penalties and the
documentation which must be
maintained by the State for
review? Are States complying
with the provisions of the
agreement on penalties? To
what extent are States
calculating economic benefit?
Are States seeking penalties in
the majority of cases? Are
States getting the penalty
amounts they are seeking?
(0) What problems is the
Region encountering in
assessing penalties using the
CWA Penalty Policy? Is the
Region experiencing
problems/delays with
Headquarters reviews? Explain.
Is the Region generally getting
the penalty amounts identified
in the referral? What
improvements could be made to
the review process to speed up
the referral process?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
A-110
-------
WATER ENFORCFMFft1
PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(continued)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Enforcement
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(P) Do Regions/States use PCS
to track compliance with
consent decree schedules? If
not, why not?
(Q) What types of action are
being taken irt response to
violations of consent decrees?
Are stipulated penalties
collected? Are civil contempt
proceedings initiated? Are the
decrees modified? Are
additional compliance
monitoring requirements
imposed?
(R) What are the reasons for
the Regions/States failure to
take remedial action against
permittees that violate their
consent decrees?
(S) What problems still need
to be addressed by the
Region/States to make the
EMR/Qk program more effective?
Should it cover pretreatment?
A-lll
-------
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(continued)
WATER ENFORCEMENT MED PERMITS
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(T) How do Regions/States
ensure the quality of data
collected by permittees and
subsequent data transfer, and
data storage in PCS?
(U) How do Regions/States
promote better quality of
future EMR data when drafting
new permits?
(V) What procedures does the
Region have in place to
identify criminal cases? What
role does the Office of
Regional Counsel play in
identification and case
development? Has the staff
provided technical support for
criminal investigations and
prosecutors? How has the
Region made use of the new CWA
criminal enforcement
authorities?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
A-112
-------
ACTIVITIES
5. Non-NPDES
Enforcement
6. Increase use
of PCS as the
Primary Source of
NPDES and
Pretreatment
Program Data
WATER ENFORCEMENT? AN[D PERMITS
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Have the Region/States
taken any enforcement actions
to protect water, including
wetlands, from unpermitted
discharges of solid waste?
(B) What criteria does the
Region use in determining where
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure Plan inspections
should be conducted? Does the
Region always require that the
plan be amended after a spill
of 1,000 gallons or more?
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
(A) Describe the use of PCS
by the States and the Region
and explain what steps are, or
need to be, taken to comply
with PCS Policy.
(B) Do the Region/States use
the preprinted DMR form to
minimize compliance tracking
problems and PCS entry
workload? What is the Region
doing to encourage the States
to use preprinted DMRs? If the
States are not using preprinted
DMRs, why?
(a) Track, by Region, against
targets, the percent of data
entry of WENDB elements for
pretreatment and NPDES.
No/OW
Quarterly
A-113
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
6. Increase the
use of PCS as the
Primary Source of
NPDES and
Pretreatment
Program Data
(continued)
7. Improve
Effectiveness of
Inspection
Activities
QUALITATIVE MEASURES'
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(C) What actions are
Region/States taking to improve
the quality of PCS data?
(D) How is the Region
encouraging direct State use of
PCS? Is the Region giving
priority in assistance and
program grant funding to States
that are direct users of PCS?
If States are not using PCS
consistent with the PCS Policy
Statement are grant conditions
being imposed to expedite
compliance?
(A) Do the Region/States have
annual compliance inspection
plans for each State? How does
the Region provide its States
with advance notice of
inspections? Discuss how
Regional and State efforts are
coordinated. Discuss use of
independent and joint
inspections and State file
reviews to overview the State
inspection program.
(a) Track, by Region, against
targets, the number of major
permittees inspected at least
once (combine EPA and State
inspections and report as one
number).
Yes/SPMS
WQ/E-12
Quarterly
A-114
-------
ACTIVITIES
7. Improve
Effectiveness of
Inspection
Activities
MATER EMFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(B) How do Regions/States
determine which facility and
what type of inspection to
conduct?
(C) Why are total number of
inspections large, yet all
majors are not inspected at
least once?
(D) How do Regions/States
determine the need for
toxic/toxic ity
inspections/TREs?
(E) Do the Regions/States
prepare quarterly lists of
facilities to be inspected? Is
the inspection mix consistent
with the "primary use" criteria
included in the NPDES
Inspection strategy?
(F) How do the Regions/States
use EMR/QA performance sample
results for targeting
compliance inspections?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(b) # of inspections:
—toxic inspections
—biomonitoring inspections
—permittee inspections
(list separately: Federal,
EPA, State; major, minor;
municipal, non-municipal)
(c) Identify the number of
Regional and State inspection
plans.
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
No/No
Quarterly
No/No
October 1989
A-115
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
7. Improve
Effectiveness of
Inspection
Activities
(continued)
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(G) What mechanism is used to
assure that inspection results
are provided to the
Regions/States in a timely
manner? Are the data entered
into PCS only after the report
has been completed and signed
by the reviewer or supervisor?
(H) How does the Region/State
follow-up when inspection
results are unsatisfactory?
When Region uncovers problems,
does the Region/State follow-up
with a more intensive
inspection?
(I) Have the Region/States
verified that Reconnaissance
Inspections of major permittees
counted for coverage purposes
were conducted at major
permittees meeting the
requirements specified in the
definition section?
A-116
-------
WATER FIXTRTRTTMTXTT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
8. Update and Use
EMS Enforcement
Procedures
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(A) Does each approved State
have written EMS procedures?
If not, what is being done to
get those procedures in place?
(B) Have the Region/States
implemented use of the
Violation Review Action
Criteria included in the FY
1986 EMS as the basis for
determining when violations
should receive professional
review? Do Regions/States
follow the Enforcement Response
Guide (ERG)? If not, when will
the Region/States begin to use
these criteria or equivalent
criteria and the ERG?
A-117
-------
ACTIVITIES
8. Update and Use
EMS Enforcement
Procedures
(continued)
WATER ENFORCEMENT AMD PERMITS
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(C) What kinds of formal
enforcement actions are the
Region/State using? Has the
Region reviewed each States
enforcement instruments to
ensure that they meet the
definition of formal action?
Have the States made any
necessary statutory or
regulatory changes to ensure
equivalency of State
administrative mechanism
equivalent to EPA section 309
AOs?
(D) What kinds of informal
actions (if any) are the
Region/States using in lieu of
formal enforcement action? Are
these actions documented
properly? Are they effective?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPQRTTJXIG
FREQUENCY
A-118
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
9. Use Guidance
Criteria and
Milestones for
Response to
Noncompliance
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
Enforcement
OUANTITATrVE MF7VSTTRF.S
(A) What is the screening
process used by the Region and
States for identifying
violations and applying SNC
criteria? How are short term
violations 'requiring
Regional/State judgement
handled? Does the Region use
the Exception List as a way of
tracking State programs?
(a) EXCEPTION LIST UNIVERSE
(1) Identify, by Region, the
number of major permittees in
significant noncompliance on
two or more consecutive QNCRs
without returning to compliance
or being addressed by a formal
enforcement action (persistent
violators). Of these numbers,
identify how many are in
significant noncompliance for
three quarters and how many for
four or more quarters. (List
separately: municipal,
industrial, Federal facilities.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/Wo
WQ/E-6
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
(Data lagged
one
quarter.)
A-119
-------
ACTIVITIES
9. Use Guidance
Criteria and
Milestones for
Response to
Nonconpliance
(continued)
MATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
(B) What management level
reviews the Exception List and
how is it used? How do the
Region and States use the
Exception List to establish a
priority for committing
compliance/enforcement
resources?
(C) What problems have the
Region/State been facing that
would prevent them from meeting
the timeliness presented?
Which States consistently miss
commitments?
(D) Is there consistent
application of the
criteria/milestones from State
to State within the Region? If
not, what steps is the Region
planning to take to improve
consistency?
(2) Identify by name and
NPDES number major permittees
appearing on two or more
consecutive QNCRs as being in
significant noncompliance with:
—final effluent limits (FEL)
—construction schedules (CS);
—interim effluent limits (IEL)
without being returned to
compliance or addressed with a
formal enforcement action.
(List separately: municipal,
industrial, Federal facilities;
NEDES States, non-NPDES
States).
No/No
Quarterly
(Data lagged
one
quarter.)
A-120
-------
ACTIVITIES
9. Use Guidance
Criteria and
Milestones for
Response to
Noncompliance
(continued)
OUALITA3
MEASURES
MATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
(XIANITTA.TIVE MEASURES
(b) ExcEpncasf LIST TRACKING
(1) Report, by Region, the
number of major permittees that
are on the previous exception
list which have returned to
compliance during the quarter,
the number not yet in
compliance but addressed by a
formal enforcement action by
the CjSlCR completion date, and
the number that were unresolved
(not returned to compliance
during the quarter or addressed
by a formal enforcement action
by the QNCR completion date).
(Report municipal, industrial,
Federal facilities separately.)
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
Yes/No
WQ/E-7
Quarterly
(Data lagged
one quarter)
A-121
-------
MATER ENFQRC'FIMFTJT' AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
9. Use Guidance
Criteria and
Milestones for
Response to
Nbnconpliance
(continued)
OUALITAITVE MEASURES
10. Take
Enforcement as
Required to Obtain
Conpliance with
POTW Sludge
Requirements
(A) What criteria are used by
Regions and States to select
POIWs for sludge compliance
inspections?
(B) What are the overall
findings of these inspections?
Enforcement
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(2) Identify by name and total
number of major permittees
listed in the Exception List
universe for the previous
quarter for which one of the
following has occurred:
— # returned to compliance;
— # not yet in compliance but
addressed with a formal
enforcement action;
— # that are unresolved as of
the end of the quarter;
and the number of consecutive
quarters each facility has
appeared on the QJNCR. (List
separately: municipal,
industrial, Federal
facilities; SNC with FEL, CS,
IEL; NPDES States, non-NPDES
States)
(a) Track the number of formal
enforcement actions taken by
EPA and States to address
violations of sludge require-
ments.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/NO
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
(Data
lagged one
quarter)
No/No
Second and
Fourth
Quarters
A-122
-------
MATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES QUALITATIVE MEASURES
10. Take (C) Are there any special
Enforcement as problems in taking enforcement
Rquired to Obtain action against POIWs for sludge
Compliance with operations?'
POTW Sludge
Requirements (D) When lUs are the source of
sludge violations, what actions
are being taken to stop IU
violations?
A-123
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
State Revolving Fund Management
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SIMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
1. Manage program
to meet outlays and
obligations.
2. State
Revolving Fund
implementation.
(A) Describe Region's progress
in establishing a comprehensive
SRF Annual Review Program?
(a) Track, by Region, progress Yes/SPMS
against quarterly targets for WQ-8
(1) net outlays for combined
construction grants and SRF, (2)
net outlays for construction
grants and (3) net outlays for
State Revolving Funds (SRF)
program.
(b) (1) % of cumulative gross No/OW
construction grant obligations
to commitment.
(b) (2) % of cumulative gross
SRF grant obligations to
commitment.
(a) Track, by Region, progress Yes/SPMS
against quarterly targets for WQ-9
the number of States, by name,
which have been awarded an SRF
capitalization grant
(cumulative by quarter).
(b) Number of SRF Annual No/No
Reports.
(c) Number of annual reviews No/OW
completed.
Monthly/
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
2nd and
4th
Quarter
2nd and
4th
Quarter
A-124
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUnC
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
State Revolving Fund Management
QUANTITATIVE MEA.STTRRS
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT!1
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
3. Encourage (A) What actions has the Region
States to consider undertaken to encourage States
funding of expanded to include consideration of
uses through SRFs expanded uses funding in SRF
and Governor's set- program design and
aside (Title II). implementation?
(B) What actions has the Region
undertaken to encourage States
to fund expanded uses through
grants under section
(a) Number of States which
have specific authorization
for funding expanded uses
through SRF program (i.e.,
legislation, executive orders,
Attorney General
certifications).
Cb) Number of States which
use section 201(g)(l)(B) grant
funds for expanded uses.
Nb/Nb
Q2, Q4
NO/NO
Q2, Q4
A-125
-------
MTMTrTPAT. PnTTTTTTrTJ CONTROL
Municipal Wastewater Technology Transfer
ACTIVITTES
1. Enable small
communities to
plan, design,
finance,
construct, operate
and maintain
affordable
envi ronmental
infrastructure
facilities
(wastewater, water
supply, and solid
waste) through
outreach programs,
technical
assistance
programs,
technology
transfer programs,
and other means
that may be
appropriate.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Describe any new or
improved outreach programs being
conducted by the Region, State,
or other agencies, including
brief case histories for any
project-specific efforts that
were particularly successful.
(B) Describe specific efforts
to provide technical assistance
and information on financial
manage-ment (including
implementation of adequate user
fee systems) for water supply,
wastewater and solid waste
facilities, including
descriptions of steps taken to
combine or coordinate the
activities.
(C) Describe the Region/State
technology transfer efforts to
promote low-cost and/or
recycling/reuse technologies to
provide designers with up-to-
date information on new
treatment technologies, and
corrective actions for problems
with existing technologies.
(D) Describe how outreach,
technical assistance, and Nb/TXIb
technology transfer efforts are
being coordinated between the
public water supply, wastewater
(construction grants) and solid
waste units.
A-126
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Number of States where
specific actions have been
taken to combine or coordinate
the outreach, technical
assistance, and technology
transfer efforts of water
supply, wastewater treatment
and solid waste programs.
(b) Number of forums held by
the Region with outreach
providers to discuss new -
approaches to outreach and share
efforts that have been
successful so others may try
them. No/No
IN SEMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT FREQUENCY
Q2, Q4
Q2, Q4
-------
ACTIVITIES
1. Ensure that
communities build
and maintain
treatment systems
that remain in
compliance
throughout each
system's useful
life.
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Municipal Wastewater Infrastructure Protection
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(A) What are the States doing
to implement more comprehensive
and effective operation and
maintenance (O&M) and operator
training programs? What is the
Regional Office doing to assist
and oversee State programs in
these areas? How are these
programs being used by States
and Regions to support post-
1988 municipal compliance
objectives?
(B) What is the status of the
Regions' compliance maintenance
for their States and what
further actions are planned?
3UAKTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
(a) Number of user charge No/OW
systems reviewed for adequacy.
(b) Number of small POIW's
returned to compliance or
meeting schedules for
corrective actions to return to
compliance as a result of an
Operations Management
Evaluation (OME).
No/OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
2nd/4th
Quarters
A-127
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Management of the On-going Construction Grants Program
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
ACTIVITIES QUALITATIVE MEASURES QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
(a) Number of construction No/OW Quarterly
1. Eliminate (A) Has the Region effectively grants projects which initiate
backlogs and negotiated annual workplans with operations.
manage grants each State which eliminate
efficiently. backlogs, highlight national (b) Track, by Region, progress Yes/SPMS Quarterly
priorities, maintain quality against quarterly targets for WQ-10
throughout the program. the number of Step 3, Step 2+3,
Step 7, Marine CSO and
EL 84-660 projects
administratively
completed.
A-128
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Management of the On-going Construction Grants Program
ACTIVITIES
2. Manage
State/Regional
grant disputes
resolution
procedures and
tracking systems
to monitor States.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Are the Regions managing a (a) Number of asistance
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
dispute decision process under
Subpart F that results in high
quality decisions and fewer
requests for reconsideration.
disputes arising under
40 CFR Part 31 Subpart F,
for which decisions are issued
by the RA, or are settled or
withdrawn.
3. Manage '
priority lists and
assess municipal
wastewater
treatment needs to
improve the
environment and to
implement the SRF
program.
(A) How are Regions supporting
the State efforts to update the
Needs Survey?
a) FY 1990 State priority
lists submitted by Aug. 31,
accepted September 30, and
entered in GICS no later
than October 31.
No/No
First
Quarter
A-129
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Management of the On-going Construction Grants Program
ACTIVITIES
4. Maintain a
program to ensure
quality
construction and
safety.
5. Maintain
oversight of
delegated State
activities and
oversee the Corps
IAG to see that
workplan
commitments are
achieved.
QUAT.TTATTVE MEASURES
(A) How are Regions and States
working to improve project
safety?
(A) Is the Region maintaining
an integrated and comprehensive
overview and follow-up program
which covers both the Corps and
States for like activities?
(B) How are the Regions and
States implementing the State
strategies for managing the
program to completion?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track, by Region, the
remaining number of project
inspectors in need of first
time training in monitoring
project safety who actually
receive training.
(a) % of Corps utilization vs.
workplans.
(b) Number of final
construction inspections
conducted by the COE.
IN SPMS/ REPORTING
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY
No/OW
Quarterly
No/No
Quarterly
No/OW
Quarterly
A-130
-------
MUNICIPAL POmJTIGN CONTROL
Management of the On-going Construction Grants Program
ACTTVITT'F.S
6. Improve
facility
performance.
7. Improve
technical aspects
of program
management to
promote best use
of available
funds.
8. Effectively
manage GIGS to
improve usage for
program
management.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
OUANTITATTVE MEASURES
(a) Number and percentage of
new law (Step 3,4,7) and Marine
CSO WWT projects awaiting
affirmative certification and
the percentage of projects
awaiting affirmative
certification that are behind
schedule.
(b) Number and percentage of
new law (step 3,4,7) and Marine
CSO WWT projects that have
affirmatively certified in the
last 12 months without
corrective action.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/Wo
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
No/Wo
Quarterly
(A) Is the Region effectively
managing technical program
activities including the VE
program; feedback to design and
information dissemination?
(A) Is the Region managing GICS
so that it is reliable and
accurate, supportive of
priorities utilized as an
effective management tool by
delegated States, and is readily
available to end-users?
A-131
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
DEFINITIONS AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
FOR
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
-------
-------
DRINKING WATER/PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SUPERVISION PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
IDENTIFYING SNCS &
EXCEPTIONS
4(a) Report the number of
SNCs and priority
violators occurring,
during the specified time
frames, for each of the
following groups. In
addition, for each of
group (1) and (3)
[irucro/turbidity/ITHM]
establish an annual
target for the number of
violators and the net
percent change in the
number of violators
occurring from the fourth
quarter of FY '89 to the
fourth quarter of FY '90.
1) micro/turb/TTHM CWS
SNCs
2) chem/rad CWS SNCs
3) micro/turb/TTHM
NTNCWS priority'
violators
4) micro/turb/TTHM
NTNCWS priority
violators
(DW/E-1)
DEFTNITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
This measure will report the number of CWSs which meet the definition of
SNC, and the number of NTNCWS which meet the definition of priority
violator for either a microbiological, a turbidity, an inorganic, an
organic, or a radiological requirement. Regions are to report four
numbers: 1) micro/turbidity/TTHM CWS SNCS, 2) chemical/radiological CWS
SNCS, 3) micro/turbidity/TTHM NTNCWS priority violators and 4)
chemical/radiological NTNCWS priority violators. The two groups of
micro/turbidity/TTHM violators will be compiled four times in support of
the FY '90 SPMS — on 1/1/90, 4/1/90, 7/1/90, and 10/1/90. The two groups
of chemical/radiological violators will be compiled once, in the first
quarter of FY'90 (on 1/1/90).
Each State shall set a target for the percent change in the number of
microbiological/turbidity/TTHM SNCs from the last SPMS report of FY '89
(10/1/89) to the last SPMS report of FY '90 (10/1/90). The national goal
is for a 10% reduction in the number of SNCs over the above 12 month
period. The performance expectations may vary from State to State based on
individual circumstances. Regions are to negotiate each State's SNC target
based upon that States current compliance statistics and capabilities for
violation reduction. While some States will negotiate a target which is
less than 10%, we also expect some States to be able to achieve more than a
10% reduction. The national goal should not be interpreted as being the
maximum reduction that a State should strive for if it is capable of
greater reduction.
Each State shall also set a target for the percent change in the number of
microbiological/turbidity/TTHM priority violators occurring from the last
SPMS report of FY '89 (10/1/89) to the last SPMS report of FY '90
(10/1/90). There currently is no national goal for these targets. Regions
should negotiate these targets on a case by case basis.
B-l
-------
DRINKING WATER/PUBLIC V\JA.TER SUPPLY SUEERVISIC
OUMTnTATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERTORMAIXICE EXPECTATION
SNC is a community water system which meets any of the following
criteria:
- violates the microbiological MCL for 4 or more months during any 12
consecutive month period, or
- violates the turbidity MCL for 4 or more months during any 12 consecutive
month period, or
- is a "major" violator of the microbiological monitoring or reporting
requirements for 12 consecutive months, or
- is a "major" violator of the TTHM monitoring or reporting requirements
for 12 consecutive months or
- violates the microbiological MCL or is a "major" violator of the
microbiological monitoring requirements for a combined total of 12
consecutive months, or
- violates the turbidity MCL or is a "major" violator of the
microbiological monitoring requirements for a combined total of 12
consecutive months, or
- exceeds the level for any regulated inorganic, organic (excluding TIHM),
or radiological contaminant, prescribed in guidance above which exemptions
may not be issued, or
- exceeds the level for TIHM, prescribed in guidance above which exemptions
may not be issued, for 2 or more annual averages during the year, or
- fails to monitor for, or report the results of, any one of the currently
regulated inorganic, organic (other than TIHM), or radiological
contaminants since the Federal requirements for that contaminant became
effective (June 24, 1977)
- violates a requirement of a written, and bilaterally negotiated
compliance schedule.
B-2
-------
DRINKING MATER/PUBLIC MATER SUPPLY SUPERVISION! PROGRAM
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
4(b) For groups (2) and
(4) in measure 4(a),
establish an annual
target for the number of
violators and the net
percent change in the
number of violators
occurring from the fourth
quarter of FY 1989 to the
fourth quarter of FY
1990.
A Priority Violator is a nontransient noncommunity water system (NTNCWS)
which meets any of the same eleven SNC criteria that apply to CWSs.
"Major Violator of a Monitoring or Reporting Requirement" — monitoring or
reporting violations where a system fails take any samples for a particular
contaminant, during a compliance period, or where the system has failed to
report the results of the analyses to the primacy agent for a compliance
period. (If the agent receives no monitoring report or receives a report
indicating that no monitoring was conducted, the M/R violation shall be
classified as "major".)
"Level Above Which Exemptions May Not Be Issued" — Analytical levels for
all of the currently regulated chemical and radiological contaminants
(except TTHM), above which exemptions may not be issued are contained in
WSG-61 published in 1979. These levels will be effective until the levels
are revised (revision is currently in process). Since no exemption level
currently exists for TTHM we will use the MCL until such a level is
developed for TTHM.
See measure 4(a). This CWAS measure requires targets for chemical and
radiological SNCs and priority violators — targets for chem/rad violators
are not required in SEME. The concept is the same, however. Each State
sets one target for the percent change in the number chem/rad SNCs and one
target for the number of chem/rad priority violators, form compliance
periods 10/1/89 to 10/1/90. For SNCs the national goal is for a 10%
reduction over the 12 month period. There is no national goal for priority
violators — Regions should negotiate this on a case by case basis.
B-3
-------
DRINKING WATER/PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SUPERVISION PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
4(c) Report against the
"new" micro/turb/TIHM
SNCs and priority
violators from 2 qtrs
ago, the number which:
returned to compliance;
had a formal enforcement
action taken against
them; or became
exceptions this quarter.
Report separately for
each of the following two
groups.
1) CWS SNCs
2) NINCWS priority vios
4(d) Report against the
"new"chem/rad SNCs and
priority violators
identified in the 2nd
quarter of FY '89 the
number which: returned to
compliance; had a formal
enforcement action taken
against them; or became
exceptions this quarter.
Report separately for
each of the following two
groups.
1) CWS SNCs
2) NINCWS priority vios
(DW/E-2)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
This measure will report the systems which met the definition of "new" SNC
or priority violator for microbiological, turbidity, and TTHM requirements
two quarters ago, which returned to compliance, had an appropriate
enforcement action taken against them, or became an exception for the first
time this quarter. For chemical and radiological SNCs or priority
violators the measure will report the number of "new" chem/rad SNCs or
priority violators identified in the 2nd quarter of FY '89, which returned
to compliance, had an appropriate enforcement action taken against them, or
became exceptions for the first time in the 1st quarter of FY '90. Regions
are to report four numbers, one for each of the following categories: 1)
CWS micro/turbidity/TTHM SNCs, 2) CWS chemical/radiological SNCs, 3) NINCWS
micro/turbidity/TIHM priority violators, and 4) NINCWS
chemical/radiological priority violators.
A new SNC is a CWS which has been identified for the first time as an SNC.
A new priority violator is a system which has been identified for the first
time as a priority violator.
Returned to compliance for SNCs or priority violators of a microbiological
MCL and/or M/R requirement, a turbidity MCL and/or M/R requirement, or a
TTHM M/R requirement, is having no months of violation (either MCL or M/R),
of the same contaminant which caused the system to become a SNC or priority
violator, during the six months period after the system was identified as a
SNC or priority violator.
Returned to compliance for SNCs or priority violators of a chemical or
radiological analytical level is conducting analyses that demonstrates that
the system no longer exceeds the level prescribed in guidance above which
exemptions may not be issued.
Returned to compliance for SNCs or priority violators a chemical (other
than TTHM) or radiological monitoring requirement is conducting the
required monitoring and determining that the system does not exceed the
level prescribed in guidance above which exemptions may not be issued.
B-4
-------
L/PUBLIC MATER SUPPLY SUPERVISION PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEOMTICtM?ERFCiRt4AlOL EXPECTATION
An appropriate enforcement action for SNCs is any of the following:
(a) the issuance of a bilateral, written compliance agreement signed by
both parties, which includes a compliance schedule, (only appropriate for
States)
(b) the issuance of a State or final Federal Administrative Order or
Compliance Order.
(c) the referral of a civil judicial case to the State Attorney General,
or DOT.
(d) the filing of a criminal case in an appropriate State or U.S. District,
court.
A first time exception is a new SNC which was not addressed timely and/or
appropriately.
Timeliness for SNCs and priority violators of microbiological MCL and or
M/R, turbidity MCL and/or M/R, or TTHM M/R requirements is eight months
after the system became an SNC or priority violator. (Two months for the
State to determine, and became aware of, the system's SNC or priority
violator status and six months in which to complete the
follow-up/enforcement action)
Timeliness for SNCs and priority violators of chemical (other than TTHM
monitoring) or radiological requirements is fourteen months after the CWS
became an SNC or priority violator. (Two months for the State to
determine, and become aware of, the system's SNC or priority violator
status and twelve months in which to complete the follow-up/enforcement
action)
An Administrative Order is an order issued by a nonjudicial body requiring
the supplier to take certain actions within specified time periods and may
specify the penalties which result from failure to perform the actions on
the schedule.
B-5
-------
DRINKING WATER/PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SUPERVISION PROGRAM
OOANITTAnVE MEASURE
4(e) Report the number
and percent of exceptions
identified through the
prior quarter -which have
since returned to
compliance, had a formal
enforcement action taken
against them, or remain
exceptions as of this
quarter. (Report
separately for each of
the following 4 groups):
1) micro/turb/TTHM CWS
exceptions
2) micro/turb/nHM
MOCWS exceptions
3) chem/rad CWS
exceptions
4) chem/rad NINCWS
exceptions
(EW/E-3)
5(a) Report the total
number of EPA.
administrative orders,
the total number of State
Administrative Orders
issued, EPA §1431
emergency orders and the
total number of EPA
complaints with
penalties.
(SPMS DW/E-4)
DEFIMITION/PERFQRMA1X1CE EXPECTATION
This measure will track State and Regional follow-up actions on
exceptions. We will tally the number of exceptions remaining at the close
of the previous quarterly report and measure follow-up activity which
occurred during the current quarterly report.
An exception is a system which was an SNC or priority violator and was not
addressed timely and/or appropriately.
This measure is intended to identify the level of effort of administrative
enforcement activity occurring at the State and Federal levels. The
measure is to include actions taken against any system (regardless of
whether it is classified as an SNC, priority violator, non-SNC, or
non-priority violator. Only those State actions that are against violators
of "SDWA requirements" should be counted. Actions against violators of
non-SDWA requirements (e.g., violations of State operator certification
requirements) should not be counted.
B-6
-------
DRIMKIM; MATER/PUBLIC MATER SUPPLY SUPERVISION. PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EKPECTATION
5(t>) Report the number of
civil actions referred to
State Attorneys General,
the number of criminal
charges filed by the AGs,
the number of civil cases
concluded by the AGs and
the number of criminal
cases concluded by the
AGs.
(See SEMS DW/E-5)
The information should include all the actions occurring during the quarter
— it is not cumulative. This measure will be compiled all four quarters
FY 90. AD actions "in the works" should not be counted. These will likely
be completed in the subsequent three months and States and Regions will get
"credit" for them in the following reporting period.
The performance expectations for individual Regions for the number of
proposed and final ADs should be roughly equivalent to the actions
predicted as being achievable in the FY 90 Enforcement Resources Model.
This measure is intended to identify the level of effort of-judicial
enforcement activity occurring in the State. (Federal judicial activity
will be reported separately by the OECM.) The measure is to include
actions taken against any system regardless of whether it is classified as
an SMC, priority violator, non-SNC, or non-priority violator. Only those
State actions that are against violators of "SDWA requirements" should be
counted. Actions against violators of non-SDWA requirements (e.g.,
violations of State operator certification requirements) should not be
counted.
The information should include all the actions occurring during the quarter
— it is not cumulative. This measure will be compiled all four quarters
during FY 90. Cases or charges "in the works" should not be counted.
These will likely be completed in the subsequent three months and States
and Regions will get "credit" for them in the following reporting period.
Criminal charges filed by the AGs include criminal indictments and criminal
informations. Civil cases are concluded when a signed consent decree is
filed with the State Court; a judge issues a decision; a case is dismissed
by the State Court; a case is withdrawn by the State Attorney General after
it is filed in a State Court; or the State Attorney General declines to
file the case.
3-7
-------
DRINKPJG WATER/PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SUPERVISION PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
6(a) Report on which This measure will report the number, and names, of States on which the
States the Region has Region initiated a new, or completed a previously initiated, data
initiated or completed a verification effort during the period 4/1/89 through 3/31/90. This
data verification during information will be collected only once during the year, and will be
the last 12 months, and submitted by the Region with their self evaluation.
provide summaries of
finding, recommendations
and follow-up actions.
B-8
-------
COANTITATIVF
DELINKING WATERyOflDERGRCOSlD INJECTION CdSITRQL PROGRAM
Diiyj^TICN/PERFQRMANCE EXPECTATION
PERMIT DETERMINATIONS
1 Track, by Region,
progress against
quarterly targets for the
number of UIC Class I,
II, III and V well permit
determinations made by
EPA and the number made
by State and Indian
Tribe primacy programs.
Provide the number of
wells affected by these
determinations. (See
DW-1)
This measure provides an indication of how well Regions, States and Indian
Tribes with primacy are addressing permit requests so that all operations
will meet the minimum technical and regulatory standards and USDWs will be
protected from contamination. Identify, for each Region, State and Indian
Tribe with primacy, the total number of permit determinations which include
the approval or denial of UIC permit requests/actions such as: applications
for permits, major modifications to issued permits, revocations and
reissuance of permits, or termination of permits for cause. A complete
permit determination includes a thorough technical evaluation of the
request, public notification or review before issuance, and a final
decision document signed by the regulatory authority, states and Regions
are to place special emphasis on permitting Class V wells that pose a high
contamination risk to USDWs or where environmental controls would be
beneficial. Based on the FY 1990 budget proposal and prior performance by
Regions and States, it is expected that Regions, States and Indian Tribes
with primacy will make 6,900 permit determinations in FY 1990.
USDWs
2 Track, by Region, for
EPA, States and Indian
Tribes with primacy the
number of wells reviewed
in the well "Area of
Review", the number of
wells found deficient in
the well "Area of Review"
and the number of wells
for which corrective
action was taken within
the well "Area of
Review".
This measure provides an indication of how well Regions, States and Indian
Tribes with primacy are ensuring that injection operations do not
contaminate USDWs through pathways that penetrate the injection zone. The
UIC regulations require the permitting authority to review all wells that
penetrate the injection zone in the AOR of an injection well/field during
permit determination or during any AOR analysis of a rule authorized well
file. The AOR is defined as the area surrounding an injection well or
injection well pattern in which the pressure change in the injection zone,
resulting from high pressure injection, is great enough to make possible
the migration of fluids out of the injection zone and into a USDW.
B-9
-------
OUAMl'l'llAITVE MEASURE
DRINKING MAIER/UNDERGROUND INJHjnQXf CONTROL PROGRAM
DEFINITIQXf/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
INSPECTiaSiS AND
MECHANICAL INTEGRITY
3 (a) Track, by Region,
progress against
quarterly targets for the
number of wells that
have mechanical
integrity tests performed
by operators and verified
by the EPA, State and
Indian Tribe primacy
program Directors. (See
DW-2)
3 (b) Trade, by Region,
the number of wells that
failed mechanical
integrity tests as
reported in (a).
Specify whether the reviewed wells are Abandoned or Other. "Abandoned"
includes any well penetrating the injection zone in the AOR that has been
properly or improperly plugged and/or abandoned. "Other" includes any
producing well, operable injection well, dry hole, exploratory well, etc.,
that penetrates the injection zone in the AOR. Corrective action is
required for those wells that penetrate the injection zone in the AOR that
are improperly sealed, completed, or abandoned.
Track the number of wells penetrating the injection zone within the AOR for
which corrective action is required. Specify the types of wells which
require corrective action(s).
Definition of Mechanical Integrity Test - A complete MIT is composed of a
test for significant leaks in the casing, tubing or packer and a test for
significant fluid migration into a USDW through vertical channels adjacent
to the well bore. An MIT consists of a field test on a well or an
evaluation of a well's monitoring records (i.e., annulus pressure, etc. or
cement records. At a niinimum, the mechanical integrity of a Class I, II,
or III (solution mining of salt) well should be demonstrated at least once
every five years during the life of the well. Based on the FY 1990 budget
proposal and prior performance by Regions and States, it is expected that
EPA, States and Indian Tribes will verify that 21,900 wells have been
tested for mechanical integrity.
B-10
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DRPJKIM; WaTER/uTKDERGROUJSlD HHBCTIOJ CONTROL PROGRAM
DhyjJCTTICN/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
3 (c) Report, by Region,
the number of by Class
for which mechanical
integrity tests were
field witnessed by EPA,
States and Indian Tribes
with primacy.
3 (d) Track, by Region,
progress against
quarterly targets for the
number of wells inspected
by EPA and by State and
Indian Tribe primacy
programs. (See SPMS DW-2)
3 (e) Track, by Region,
the number of field
inspections conducted by
EPA, States and Indian
Tribes with primacy.
CLASS
WELLS
I HAZARDOUS WASTE
4 Track, by Region, the
number of Class I
hazardous waste injection
wells for which land ban
petitions have been
received and processed.
Identify, by State, the total number of wells that have had mechanical
integrity tests performed by the operators and witnessed by the State field
inspectors. A minimum of 25% of MITs should be witnessed.
Definition of Inspection - A complete inspection should include an
assessment of: the well head, pressure and flow meters, pipeline
connections, and any other equipment associated with the injection system;
an inspection is complete only when a report has been filed with the
regulatory authority. Based on the FY 1990 budget proposal and prior
performance by Regions and States, it is expected that EPA, State and
Indian Tribes with primacy will inspect 61,600 wells.
This measure provides indication of how well EPA, States and Indian Tribes
with primacy are identifying operators of hazardous waste wells and
ensuring that there is a minimal impact on USDWs from the operation of
these wells. To carry out the land ban petition process Headquarters will
supply the latest information to the Regions, and they in turn will use
this to work one-on-one with the operators of hazardous waste injection
wells. The objectives are to have the operators ready to sutmit their
petitions at the earliest possible time, and the Regions ready to act on
those petitions immediately. Our expectations are that the Regions will
carry this out so that petition decisions can be made before the ban takes
effect.
B-ll
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEHMKIMj VJAIER/uTXIDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
EXPECTATION
COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES
5 Track, by Region, for
State and Indian Tribe
primacy programs and for
ERA, number of Class I,
II, III, IV and V wells
found in SMC. (See SPMS
DW/E-6)
Definition of SNC; The term "significant noncompliance" means: (a) any
violation by the owner/operator of a Class I or a Class IV well, (b) the
following violations by the owner/operator of a Class II, III or V well:
(1) any unauthorized emplacement of fluids (where formal authorization is
required); (2) well operation without mechanical integrity which causes the
movement of fluid outside the authorized zone of injection if such movement
may have the potential for endangering a USDW; (3) well operation at an
injection pressure that exceeds the permitted or authorized injection
pressure and causes the movement of fluid outside for endangering an USEW;
(4) the plugging and abandonment of an injection well in an unauthorized
manner (5) any violation of a formal enforcement action, including an
administrative or judicial order, consent agreement, judgement or
equivalent action by a State or Indian Tribe with primacy; (6) the knowing
submission or use of any false information in a permit application,
periodic report or special request for information about a well. NOTE: In
the absence of information to the contrary MIT failures and pressure
exceedence are presumed to be SNCs.
Definition of a MIT failures and pressures limitation exceedences other than
SNCs: It is presumed that any MIT failures or pressure limit exceedence
violation is an SNC unless the application of the appropriate flow chart
contained in UIC program guidance #58 (September 9, 1987) supported by data,
shows that the violation need not be classified as a SNC.
Definition of timely and appropriate action: The State or Region should take
one of the following action within 90 days after the SNC is identified: (l)
verify that the owner/operator has returned to compliance; (2) place the
owner/operator on an enforceable compliance schedule'and track to ensure
future compliance; or (3) Initiate a formal enforcement action against the
owner/operator.
B-12
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DRIMCDSIG MAIER/O^ERGRCOSID INJECTICEJ CCRfTROL PROGRAM
D^UJCTION/FERFQRMANCE EXPECTATION
COMPLIANCE REVIEW
6 Track, by Region,
against quarterly targets
for the number of UIC
Class I, II and III and
permitted Class V wells
or facilities checked for
compliance by EPA and by
primacy States and Indian
Tribe primacy programs.
(Report by well class.
See SPMS DW/E-7)
This measure provides an indication of how many Class I, II and III wells
and permitted Class V wells each Region, States and Indian Tribe with
primacy specifically reviews (including an inspection) in any given year for
compliance with UIC regulations. A compliance review strategy may differ
from Class to Class but should include the examination of: monitoring
reports, completion reports of well workovers, mechanical integrity test
reports, a well's ownership and financial responsibility demonstration and
all temporally abandoned wells. The compliance review will replace the file
review reporting element for FY 1990. Note: the Indian Tribes with primacy
programs will still conduct an initial file review to assure that all
existing Class II injection wells are sited, designed, constructed and
operated in a way that will assure prevention of endangerment to USDWs.
7 (a) Track, by Region,
State and Indian Tribe
primacy programs and for
EPA, all wells that
appear on the Exceptions
List from the date the
violation becomes an
exception through the
date of return to
compliance, noting the
date the formal
enforcement action was
taken, if any. (List
separately by well
class.) (See SPMS DW/E-8)
This measure provides an indication of how well States are resolving
incidents of significant noncompliance. This is the name specific exceptions
list report which identifies those well owners and/or operators reported in
significant noncompliance (SNC) on EPA form 7520-2B for two or more
consecutive reporting quarters without being addressed with a formal
enforcement action or returned to compliance. Any SNC reported on 7520-4
shall be reported until the SNC is resolved. Once a SNC is reported as
resolved, it need not appear in subsequent reports.
B-13
-------
OUTANTITATrVE MEASURE
DRINKING WATER/UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
7 (b) Track the total
number of EPA
administrative orders,
the total number of State
and Indian Tribe primacy
programs equivalent
actions issued and the
total number of Sect.
1431 emergency orders
issued by well class.
(See SPMS DW/E-9)
7 (c) Track the number of
civil actions referred to
State Attorneys General,
the number of civil cases
filed by the Attorneys
General, the number of
criminal charges filed by
the Attorneys General,
the number of civil cases
Definition of a formal enforcement action: is any action which (i) requires
some action to achieve compliance; (ii) specifies a time by which action is
to be taken; (iii) contains consequences for noncompliance that are
independently enforceable without having to prove the underlying violation,
and (iv) subjects the person to adverse legal consequences for noncompliance
until correction is taken or a well properly plugged. (Note: pipeline
severance meets this definition but a notice of violation that does not
include all of the four elements does not. A State ordered shut-in is a
formal enforcement action. A shut-in well however, cannot be construed as in
compliance until it is corrected or properly abandoned.)
This measure provides an indication of how many and what types of enforcement
actions a Region or a State is taking when violations are discovered.
Report, the number of proposed EPA AOs, equivalent State and Indian Tribes
with primacy actions, and the total number of Sect. 1431 emergency orders
issued by well class (list EPA separately from State and Indian Tribe primacy
programs). Since many Class V wells present high contamination risks to
USDWs, all primacy agencies should place an increased emphasis on issuing AOs
for this Class. When counting proposed AOs, only those proposed orders that
have been signed and sent to operators should be included. Draft information
type orders are not included in this measure. Individual Regional
performance for the number of AOs is expected to be roughly equivalent to the
benchmark targets derived in the FY 1990 Enforcement Workload Model.
B-14
-------
OUADJUTAnVE MEASURE
DRIMCT3S1G WATER/UNDERGROUND INJECTION CC8MTROL PROGRAM
DEFTOITICN/PERFORMAISICE EXPECTATION
concluded by the
Attorneys General, and
the number of criminal
cases concluded by the
Attorneys General. (OECM
will report the same data
for EPA referrals). (See
SPMS DW/E-10)
DATA MANAGEMENT
8 Report by well class
and operating status, the
total number of wells.
Report separately for
EPA, States and Indian
Tribes with primacy.
OVERSIGHT
9 Report by State on the
use of grant funds.
Federal referrals will be reported by the Office of Enforcement Compliance
Monitoring; State UIC referrals will be reported by the Regions.
Definitions of Case Conclusions; a case is concluded when a signed consent
decree is filed with the State court, the case is dismissed by the State
court; the case is withdrawn by the State Attorneys General after it is filed
in a State court; or the State Attorney General declines to file the case.
EPA, States and Indian Tribes with primacy should identify the total number
of injection wells which exist at the time their UIC program becomes
effective and maintain the inventory in an automated data system.
Headquarters will allocate Regional/State resources based on these inventory
data as of November 30 of each year (fourth quarter report).
EPA, States and Indian Tribes with primacy are expected to report the use of
UIC grants by program activity and object class in accordance with UIC
program guidance.
At a minimum, Regions should perform one real time program review of the
States and Indian Tribes with primacy each year in accordance with
oversight. This should normally be done at mid-year. EPA Regions are also
encouraged to perform end of the year program reviews.
B-15
-------
OUANITTAnVE MEASURE
DRINKING WATER/UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
INDIAN TRIBES WITH
PRIMACY
10 (a) Report the number
of Indian Tribe primacy
applications received.
10 (b) Report the number
of injection wells
regulated by Indian
Tribes with primacy.
CLASS V PROGRAMS
11 Report the number of
States and Indian Tribes
with primacy submitting
Class V program
activities in their UIC
grant agreement.
The new Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986 allows Indian Tribes to apply for
primacy. Regions should report the number of primacy applications received,
reviewed, and approved. Regions are required to maintain and report an
updated inventory of injection wells for Indian Tribes without primacy each
year together with the fourth quarter report.
EPA Regions, States and Indian Tribes with primacy are each expected to
develop and implement a plan to identify and address Class V wells that pose
environmental problems. This is not a formal program submission under Sect.
1422.
B-16
-------
GROUND-WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
£J irCTTICN/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
GROTTO-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY
l(A)(a) The status of State Strategies
under development, developed, submitted
to the Region, adopted by the State,
inplemented and incorporatea, into State
statute.
KB) (a) Identify states which have a
comprehensive GWPS which meets OGWP
guidance objectives, (b)Identify State
GWPS which address national priority
areas (e.g., WHP, AgChem). (c)Identify
states currently revising strategy, the
expected revision date and elements
under revision.
This measure identifies the number of State ground-water
protection strategies in the various stages of development and
implementation.
The guidance indicates that all States are expected to have
developed strategies by the end of FY 1988. The term "adopted by
the State" indicates that the strategy has been approved and
signed by the appropriate State officials. "Implemented"
indicates that efforts to carry out the strategy are underway
within the State. The number of State strategies "incorporated
into State statutes" is included for information purposes only.
This measure is included as States should have a completed GWPS
in FY 90. A "comprehensive GWPS" is one which meets objectives
outlined in OGWP's FY90 106 Grant Guidance. "National priority
areas" are also indicated in OGWP guidances. The "elements under
revision" are those areas of State concern (e.g., pesticides,
nonpoint source) which the State is adding or updating within
their strategy.
B-17
-------
GROUND-WATER PRCM'iiJLM.'lCTJ
OUftNTITRTIVE MEASURE
SOUND-WATER HROTECTTON STRATEGY
(continued)
2(a) Number of States with
classification systems in place.
Is the system: Under development?
Currently in place?
EXPECTPflTCEJ
This measure will identify the number of States using a
classification system to differentiate ground-water according to
its use, value, and vulnerability . "Under development" refers
to those States in the process of developing a classification
system. "Currently in process" indicates those States which have
completed and adopted a classification system by statute or other
official act.
B-18
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
MEASURE
GROUNDWAIER PROTECTION STRATEGY
(continued)
3 (a) Identify the number of reviews
conducted by the Regional ground-water
offices:
#of RODs reviewed
#of ACL determinations
#of corrective action plans
#of RI/FS reviews
#of NFS Management Programs
#of Pesticide Management Plans
#of (identify other reviews)
DEFimTICKr/PERFORMAMCE EXPECTATION
This measure focuses on the extent to which the Regions' Offices
of Ground Water participate in the decision making processes of
other programs concerned with ground water issues. The number of
reviews of each type of document (cumulative for the fiscal year)
should be reported. The Region should also include any other
appropriate review conducted regularly but not indicated in this
list.
It is understood that not all Regional Offices of Ground Water
are involved in these cross program/media decisions.
5 (a) Number of States and EPA programs
using Minimum Data Set of Elements and
storing groundwater data in a computer
This measure focuses on the need for consistency in ground-water
data collection so that data can be shared among users and
identifies the use of groundwater data in the decision process to
achieve environmental results.
B-19
-------
GROUND-WATER PROL'iiLTlCRr
OUftNirTftTTVE MEASURE
DEFIMITICN/PERFClRMAtJCE EXPBCTATICN
WELLHEAD PROTECTIONF PROGRAM
1(A) Track, against targets
established for each Region, the number
of States which have submitted a WHP
program to EPA for review and
determination if the program meets the
full or partial requirements mandated
by the Statute, and subsequent
approval/disapproval action.
This measure is designed to build on the initiatives undertaken
by the Region in 1988 and 1989 with interested States to promote
States' development of either a WHP program or WHP activities
which are significant components of a WHP program. [Initiatives
were activities resulting in movement toward development of a
State or sub-State WHP program or WHP activities.]
A "Wellhead Protection (WHP) program" is a State/Indian Tribe
program addressing all required elements (e.g. delineation of
wellhead protection areas (WHPAs), inventorying sources of
contamination, etc.) set forth in Section 1428 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1986. On the other hand,
"significant components" are some, but not all, of the WHP
program elements. If a State chooses to submit a program, EPA
must approve or disapprove the program within nine months of
submission. Approval is based on the consistency of the State's
program with the required elements indicated in Section 1428 of
the SDWA Amendments of 1986.
Performance Expectations;
It is expected that each Region will increase the number of
States with approved Wellhead Protection programs in 1990.
B-20
-------
GROUND-WATER PRUl'.hL'TlON
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER PROGRAM
1 (a) Number of designation petitions
received, approved, denied, determined
incomplete and returned to applicant.
In order for EPA to make an SSA designation, a completed petition
must be submitted as defined in the SSA Petition Review Guidance.
2(a) Number of MDUs in place, in
process or revised with lead Federal
agencies and/or State Clearinghouse
Agencies.
2(b) Number of projects reviewed in SSA
areas: approval, disapproved, modified.
The Agency is responsible for reviewing Federal
financially-assisted projects planned for an SSA designated area
where it is determined that there may be a potential for
contaminating the SSA. Thus, it is the Regions' responsibility
to establish arrangements with other agencies. These measures
serve as an index not only on the number of projects reviewed but
also on the awareness by other Federal agencies of the
requirement.
B-21
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
OCEAN DISPOSAL PERMITS:
l(a) and (b) # of draft
and final environmental
impact statements
(EISs).
l(c) # of ocean disposal
sites designated.
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
DEFIMTION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
It is expected that the Regions will prepare EISs for dredged material
disposal sites based on the priorities set forth in the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Region and the Corps of Engineers District
Office, and will prepare EISs for municipal and industrial disposal sites
based on national priorities. The preparation of draft EISs includes review
of available information, conduct of field surveys and data collection,
analysis of field data and report preparation, preparation of supporting
document, public notices, and response to public comments. These activities
may be undertaken in-house or, for dredged material disposal sites, in
cooperation with the Corps of Engineers. The preparation of final EISs
includes changes to finalize the EISs, which may include updating any of the
surveys or special interagency activities, such as endangered species
considerations.
It is expected that the Regions will designate dredged material disposal sites
as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding (MDU) between the Region and
the Corps of Engineers District Office, and designate municipal and industrial
sites based on national priorities. In the preparation of a site designation
document, if the EES Record of Decision selects ocean dumping as prepared
alternative, the site designation activity includes promulgation of proposed
rules and final rules. Also, it includes consultation with other Federal and
State agencies, preparation of Federal Register notices, hearings, and
response to public comments.
B-22
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ESTUARY PROJECTS:
12(a) Progress in
Comprehensive
Conservation Management
Plan (CCMP) development
for each estuary
project.
MARINE DISCHARGE WAIVERS
AND OCEAN DISCHARGE
CRITERIA EVALUATIONS
l(d) # of 301(h) final
decisions.
l(f) # of 301(h) permits
issued or reissued
reflecting final
decisions.
Kg) # of approved
monitoring programs in
operation with data
evaluated by Region.
2(e) and (f) # and type
of 403(c) ocean
discharges assessments
prepared.
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
It is expected that the Regions with estuary projects in progress will ensure
that each of the projects has a Management Conference as specified in the WQA
of 1987, which is to manage the conduct of the scientific and technical work
necessary to the development of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan for the named estuary project in a timely and effective manner. Progress
is to be reported by the Office of Water to the Deputy Administrator on a
quarterly basis as an adjunct to the SPMS reporting.
It is expected that the Regions will complete during FY 1990 to the extent
feasible all the final decision-making processes for the initial and revised
applications submitted under the provisions of section 301(h).
It is expected that the Regions will complete during FY 1990, the issuance of
all remaining permits reflecting final decisions.
A Monitoring program to be effective specifies data quality objectives, is
operated under appropriate QA/QC procedures to ensure the validity of data as
a basis for accurate estimation of the environmental impacts of the permitted
discharge, and provides for automated data analysis and for the reassessment
of permit conditions to ensure maintenance of compliance with disposal
criteria.
It is expected that the Regions will give priority to implementation of the
403(c) strategy to be presented in the 1989 Report to Congress.
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARIME PROTECTION
OUANTITATrVE MEASURES DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXCEPTION
2(h) # of 403(c) A Monitoring program to be effective specifies data quality objectives, is
monitoring plans operated under appropriate QA/QC procedures to ensure the validity of data as
completed. a basis for accurate estimation of the environmental impacts of the permitted
discharge, and provides for automated data analysis and for the reassessment
of permit conditions to ensure maintenance of compliance with disposal
criteria.
B-24
-------
WQ-2
Track progress against targets for
the number of strategic initiatives
started. Report by number.
NUmber of strategic initiatives
completed.
WETLMiDS FROl'.hL'TlCN
DEFWCTICWPEBFQRMMJCE EXPBCTATiaSf
The "Strategic Initiative" (SI) encoirpasses a fairly wide range of
strategic activities undertaken by a Region to improve protection
of wetlands and/or other critical aquatic habitats on a broad
(temporal/spatial) scale, An SI may be extensive involving
increased EPA. action on a broad geographic scale in a major
program activity area (e.g. increasing public outreach throughout
a State). Alternatively, it may be intensive in being targeted to
a more limited geographical area (e.g. enforcement in that area).
At a minimum, an SI must include problem analysis, identification
of goals for the target wetlands, evaluation of options to achieve
the goals, an action plan, implementation, and evaluation of
results. As a guide, an SI should constitute a program component
that represents one-tenth or more of the Region's wetlands program
(using qualitative or quantitative indicators such as
environmental results, funding and staff allocation, management
attention). To "initiate" a strategic initiative, the Regional
Division Director should approve the action; "complete" an
initiative means to have implemented all components of the action
plan, with only the evaluation of results remaining to be done.
Examples of strategic initiatives include; advance
identification, special area management planning, other
comprehensive or multi-objective planning, enforcement activity,
jurisdiction delineation, public outreach, significant active
participation in a resource planning activity of another agency,
joint activity with State, Tribal or local government, and wetland
restoration and/or enhancement.
The performance expectation is that each Region will track
existing strategic initiatives and will initiate one new
initiative during FY 1990. A more detailed four-page guideline on
wetland "strategic initiatives" is available from the Office of
Wetlands Protection.
B-25
-------
MEASURES
WQ/E-1
Manage an effective section 404
conpliance/enforcement program
number of administrative compliance
orders issued during the quarter
number of administrative penalty
complaints issued during the quarter
number of civil cases referred to
DOJ during the quarter
number of criminal cases referred
to DOJ during the quarter
WETLANDS PROTECTION
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
number of cases resolved during
quarter under each of the
following categories:
the
Section 309(a) adminiatrative compliance orders issued by EPA. As
a general rule, such orders should require the violator not only
to stop the illegal discharge, but also where feasible to take
affirmative action to remove the fill/or restore the site.
Section 309(g) administrative penalty complaints issued by EPA
Civil section 404 cases that a Region refers, either independently
or jointly with the Corps, to DOJ for judicial action.
Criminal section 404 cases that a Region refers to DOJ for
prosecution.
Number of cases resolved through voluntary compliance, which
occurs where the Region has not initiated any formal enforcement
action against an illegal discharger, but instead achieves
compliance through informal processes.
Number of section 309(a) compliance orders where the violator has
complied with the terms of the order.
Number of section 309(g) administrative penalty actions in which
the respondent has paid the penalty to the Region or, in those
situations where payment is due and not forthcoming, where a
federal district court has issued a final order requiring payment
of the assessed penalty.
Number of civil judicial referrals which have resulted in a
federal district court entering a final order in the case.
Number of criminal judicial referrals which have resulted in a
federal district court entering a final order the case.
B-26
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS:
l(a) Identify, against
targets, the States that
formally adopt (and
obtain an EPA approval
action for) numeric
criteria (both aquatic
life and human health
criteria) for 307(a)
priority pollutants to
protect designated uses
for all waters that need
such criteria. Report the
cumulative number of
aquatic life criteria and
human health criteria
adopted in a water
quality standard in each
State.
MATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING. AMD ASSESSMEEJT
•
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
This measure implements EPA's "Guidance for State Implementation of Water
Quality Standards for CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)" issued December 12, 1988.
It tracks the number of States that adopt numeric criteria for 307(a)
priority pollutants in a water quality standard.
By February 4, 1990, all States are expected to meet the requirement to
adopt numeric criteria in a water quality standard for section 307(a)
priority pollutants for which EPA has developed section 304(a) criteria, as
necessary to protect designated uses. Water quality standards should be
adopted for all such pollutants by stream segment based on information from
candidate, preliminary, and final 304(1) lists; State Toxics Program
Reviews; and other sources available at the time of the triennial review.
This requirement is met for a specific pollutant if a State documents that
adoption of a criterion for that pollutant is not necessary because the
pollutant is not reasonably expected to interfere with designated uses.
An exception to the requirement to adopt numeric criteria by February 4,
1990, is for those few States who were so close to completing a triennial
review at the time the Water Quality Act of 1987 was passed that it was
unreasonable to expect the State to meet the requirement during that review.
In that case, the State has until the end of FY 1990 to meet the
requirement. As indicated in the guidance on implementing section 303(c)
(2)(B), EPA will not accept a delay to the next triennial review to comply
with this requirement.
As data become available from updated 304 (1) lists, water quality
assessments, and other sources, States are expected to revise State water
quality standards accordingly. If a State fails to complete a water quality
standards review during the scheduled triennial review cycle, the universe
of waters and 307(a) priority pollutants for which numeric criteria should
be adopted should be reflected in the following year's SPMS commitment.
B-27
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING. AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
(continued):
This should occur only if the Region determines that the State is at a point
in the water quality standards review process where adoption of numeric
criteria for 307(a) priority pollutants will delay the current review
process.
The adoption of either numeric criteria for 307(a) priority pollutants
(Statewide or site-specific) or a narrative criterion with an approved
procedure to translate the narrative into derived numeric criteria in a
water quality standard will meet this measure. The EPA approval action for
the adopted water quality standard (resulting in approval, partial approval,
or disapproval) must also be completed for this measure to be
satisfied. Targets for the number of States that meet this measure must be
developed for the second and fourth quarters of FY 1990 and performance data
for this measure must be submitted for those quarters.
Numeric criteria must be adopted for the 307(a) priority pollutants needed
to protect designated uses for all waterbodies identified in Monitoring OWAS
measure (l)(a). If a State adopts all section 304(a) criteria for the
307(a) priority pollutants for all waters, this measure is satisfied.
The 307(a) priority pollutants for which numeric criteria are needed are
identified from information used to develop section 304(1) lists, including
monitoring data, permit applications, 305(b) reports, and data in the 16
categories of data that had to be reviewed when developing 304(1) lists.
The number of 307(a) priority pollutants for which EPA has developed section
304(a) criteria is increasing each year, but now stands at 23 for aquatic
life protection and 109 for protection of human health.
The measure also requires that States report the cumulative number of
aquatic life criteria and human health criteria adopted for 307(a) priority
pollutants in a water quality standard.
B-28
-------
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
M3MITCRIN3:
l(a) Identify by State,
against targets, the
number of waters
evaluated to determine if
numeric criteria for
307(a) priority
pollutants are needed to
protect designated uses.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
DEFIOTTIOXr/PERFQRMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
The universe of waters that a State should evaluate to determine if numeric
criteria for 307(a) priority pollutants are needed includes all waters on
the State's 304(1) long list or identified in a State 305(b) report as
impaired or threatened by 307(a) priority pollutants from either point or
nonpoint sources. Threatened waters for a State include waters in areas
where significant growth (including new discharges from primary industries)
is anticipated and any other waters for which 307(a) priority pollutant data
are readily available, including waters on which industrial processes that
either manufacture or use 307(a) priority pollutants are located and have
the potential to discharge 307(a) priority pollutants to a water in amounts
that result in use impairment. Sources of pollutant data and other
information include 305(b) reports, 304(1) lists (including related
contractor reports and dilution calculations), results of field surveys, and
data submitted by dischargers under the toxic release inventory required by
CERCLA.
The evaluation required by this measure consists of a review of all readily
available information and data to determine whether the presence of a 307(a)
priority pollutant in a water interferes with or can reasonably be expected
to interfere with the designated uses of any stream segment. For this
evaluation, "interferes with" includes any situation where the designated
use is not fully supported or is threatened*. To perform this evaluation,
procedures should be used that account for existing controls on point and
For additional guidance on determining if uses are fully supported based on assessments using evaluated or
monitored (chemical or biological) data, see Appendix B of "Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990 State
Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report)", February 1989. Also, designated uses may be threatened by growth or
by the potential of discharges to exceed published EPA water quality criteria for the designated use. In some
cases, the presence of 307(a) priority pollutants in a water may be adequate to make this determination.
B-29
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
M3NITORIM3 (continued):
2(a) Identify by State,
against quarterly targets,
the number of Regional
approvals/di sapprovals
(following public notice)
of 304(l)/303(d) lists and
the number of Regional
final promulgations of
304(l)/303(d) lists.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
PETITION/PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
nonpoint sources of pollution entering the water, the variability of the
307(a) priority pollutants in the pollution sources, the sensitivity of
aquatic species for the designated use to the 307(a) priority pollutants,
and, where appropriate, the dilution of the pollution sources in the
receiving waters.
Waters in a State will be considered evaluated when the Region forwards to
Headquarters the number of waters evaluated and a summary of the evaluation,
including the lists of waters evaluated and the list of 307(a) priority
pollutants for which numeric criteria are needed. If a State adopts or has
proposed to adopt all EPA criteria for 307(a) priority pollutants in
statewide WQS (regardless of whether the pollutants are known to be present
in State waters), the State has conducted the evaluation required by this
measure.
In FY 1989, this measure tracked the progress of States in preparing and
submitting 304(1) lists and Regional approvals/disapprovals of those lists.
Statutory deadlines required that final 304(1) lists be submitted in FY
1989. However, because of public participation requirements for
disapprovals and for approvals where States public participation is
inadequate, some Regional approvals/disapprovals may not be completed in FY
1989. This measures tracks the number of Regional approvals/disapprovals
and promulgations of 304(1) lists and sources/amounts of pollutants that
occur in FY 1990.
Quarterly targets should be established for both approvals/disapprovals and
for final promulgations of 304(1) lists and sources/amount of pollutants.
Performance data for this measure must be submitted quarterly. In cases
where a Region disapproves a 304(1) list; begins the promulgation process;
and the State then revises/updates the 304(1) so that it can be approved by
EPA, that 304(1) list is counted in the target for the Regional
promulgations.
B-30
-------
QUANTITATIVE
(continued) :
4 (a) Identify, by Region,
the number of waterbodies
and the number of stream
miles, lake acres, estuary
segments, coastal miles,
and Great Lakes shore
miles that States assess
through either (l)
monitoring or (2)
evaluation according to
EPA guidance for section
305 (b) reporting.
Identify the number that
support, partially support
or do not support
designated uses. Identify
the number of waters that
do not fully support
designated uses due to
nonpoint sources of
pollution and the number
of waters affected by each
category of nonpoint
source pollution.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
DEFDCTTICaxr/PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
This measure tracks the number of waterbodies and the number of stream
miles, lake acres, estuary/segments, coastal miles and Great Lakes shore
miles assessed by each State or Indian Tribe treated as a State; the water
quality status of those waters; and the impact of each category of nonpoint
sources of pollution on the waters. Water quality assessments are discussed
in EPA's "Guidance for the Preparation of the 1990 State Water quality
Assessment —305(b) Reports."
The assessment guidance established two categories of assessed waters (1)
monitored - waters for which current site-specific monitoring data exist and
(2) evaluated - waters for which other types of data, such as land use
information from predictive models and ambient data older than five years,
exist. Use of these two categories establishes a level of confidence for
water quality data.
A waterbody is defined as either a free flowing stream reach identified in
EPA's River Reach file or an entire or identifiable portion of an open water
such as a large lake, estuary, or embayment. When a River Reach number is
not available, a water should be identified by name and latitude/longitude
from 7 1/2 minutes USGS topo maps. Geographically separated areas on large
open water (e.g., two different cities on the Chesapeake Bay) should be
counted as separate waters.
B-31
-------
OUACTITATIVE MEASURES
MONITORING (continued):
5(a) Identify by Region,
against quarterly targets,
(1) the number of States
with ERA approved
technical agreements for
conducting WLAs/TMDLs and
(2) the number of
WLAs/TMDLs for complex
situations approved by
EPA.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PILANNTNG AND ASSESSMENT
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
The number of waters assessed, the water quality status of those waters, and
the impact of the different categories of nonpoint pollution on those waters
should be reported by Region in the fourth quarter. The Office of Water
compiles data from the Waterbody System, State 305(b) reports, and
205(j)(2)(c) updates in the fourth quarter.
This measure tracks the number of EPA approved total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) and wasteload allocations (WLAs) for toxic and nontoxic pollutants
developed for complex situations (i.e., multiple dischargers; use of
sophisticated WQ models; situations requiring specific Regional
consideration; and situations where nonpoint source loads are critical
factors in developing the WIA). For tracking purposes the following
definitions apply: A WLA is the allowable load allocated to one discharger
(even if limits include more than one parameter). A TMDL is the allowable
cumulative load to a waterbody. A waterbody is the State's defined WQ
standard segment or the State's defined planning segment.
In addition, this measure tracks the number of States that have EPA approved
written agreements on procedures for developing wasteload allocations/total
maximum daily loads. Where these procedures are in place, EPA may conduct
an in-depth review of a sample of each State's WLAs/TMDLs as needed for
approval/disapprovals rather than conduct in-depth review of all WLAs/TMDLs.
B-32
-------
MEASURES
NCKPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT:
l(a) Identify by State,
against targets, the
number of Statewide
programs and watershed
programs and projects
identified in approved NFS
Management Programs or
portions of those programs
that (1) are initiated and
completed in FY 90 and (2)
have been initiated but
will not be completed
until FY 91 or later.
Kb) Identify the number
of technology transfer
workshops, meetings,
conferences, and
consultations conducted by
the Region to support
implementation of
approved NFS management
programs.
He) Report funding
sources and amounts used
by each State in meeting
each milestone identified
in its approved NFS
Management Program.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
This measure tracks, by State, the number of statewide programs and
watershed programs and projects in approved NPS Management Programs or
portions of those programs that: (1) are initiated and,completed in FY 1990
and (2) have been initiated but will not be completed until FY 1991 or
later. For the purpose of this measure, statewide programs include
educational programs, sediment and erosion control programs, and forest
protection and preservation programs. Statewide programs also include the
enactment or adoption of legislation or regulations as well as the
achievement of full funding and staffing levels necessary for carrying out
key nonpoint source control activities.
This measure begins the process of shifting the nonpoint source management
and control program from the development stage in FY 1989 to implementation.
Because the long-term focus of the nonpoint source program is on watershed
and site-specific projects, this measure will be modified in FY 1991 to
place highest priority on identifying and tracking major watershed and
site-specific nonpoint source pollution control programs and projects.
This measure tracks the amount of technical assistance and support provided
by the Region to assist States in implementing NPS Management Programs.
Workshops, meetings and conferences are self-explanatory. Consultations are
technical exchanges between State or project staff and EPA Regional/EPA
contractor or other Federal/State agency experts to resolve a specific issue
or problem.
Measure tracks progress of each State in funding and achieving the
milestones in its NPS Management Program. Funding sources are 205(j)(5),
319(h), 201(g)(l)(B), 603(c)(2) and State funds (i.e., all funding sources
except cost-sharing).
B-33
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DEFIMITIQN/PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT
(continued):
2(a) Report the number of This measure tracks the progress made by States in updating initial NFS
States that update the NFS Assessment Reports submitted in 1988. At that time, many States identified
assessment portion of gaps in MPS Assessments or lacked data to support initial judgments about
their 1990 305(b) some waters. This measure assesses the extent to which States fill the gaps
submissions in EPA's and provide additional data for the 1990 305(b) submissions.
Waterbody System format.
B-34
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
2(b) List by State for FY
89 and FY 90 to date, the
percentage of 205(j)(2)
awards passed-thru to
RPCPOs and IDs in
accordance with
205(j)(3).
2(c) List by State and
Indian Tribe treated as a
State the number of grant
actions completed (e.g.,
Form 5700s) and estimate
the amount of resources
(i.e., FTEs) expended to
process, negotiate and
manage these grants.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING AMD ASSESSMENT
DEFJNUTICN/PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS
Section 205 (j) (3) requires that each year a State pass-thru a minimum of 40
percent of funds awarded under 205(j)(2) from sections 205(j)(l) and 604(b)
reserves to Regional Public Comprehensive Planning Organizations (RPCPOs)
and Interstate Organizations (IDs). This requirement can be waived only if
a Governor determines, after consultation with RPCPOs and IDs, that these
funds will not contribute significantly to the development or
implementation of the State's WOM plan and the Regional Administrator
approves these findings. A Governor's determination and EPA approval are
limited to funds awarded in a single fiscal year. Regions must ensure that
the proper funding amounts are passed-thru from each year's reserve of
planning funds.
For each State, list the pass-thru percentage from:
- FY 1988 205(j)(l) funds awarded in FY 1989.
- FY 1989 205(j)(l) and 604(b) funds awarded in FY 1989.
- FY 1989 205(j)(l) and 604(b) funds awarded in FY 1990.
- FY 1990 205(j)(l) and 604(b) funds awarded in FY 1990.
The purpose of this measure is to quantify the grants management workload of
the Regions. List the number of formal grant actions for each State's WOM
grants (i.e., sections 106, non-CMAG 205(g), 205(j)(2) planning, 205(j)(5)
NFS program development, 205(j)(5), and 201(g)(l)(B) NPS program
implementation) during FY 1989. Count only grant actions for which Forms
5700-20 were prepared and signed, including initial awards,
increases/decreases to initial awards, separate carry-over actions, and
no-cost amendments. Identify the number of no-cost amendments included in
these grant actions.
B-35
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. PLANNTM5 AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DEFIMITIQN/PERFQ^IANCE HIGHLIGHTS
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
(continued):
3(a) Assist Indian, Tribes This measure assesses Agency progress in awarding CWA program grants to
treated as States to qualified Indian Tribes as required by the WQA of 1987. Specifically, it
obtain program grants tracks (by Region) the number of Indian Tribes qualified to be treated as
under the CWA. States, the number of Tribes that submit grant applications, and the list of
Tribes that receive CWA program grants (include major activities and funding
sources). Describe Regional procedures for reviewing and ranking Indian
Tribe grant proposals and for evaluating performance.
B-36
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS:
l(a) Track, against
targets, the number of
permits reissued to major
facilities during FY90
(NPDES States and non-
NPDES States).
l(b) Identify the number
of final permits reissued
and the number modified
during FY90 that include
water quality-based
limits for toxics. Of
these, report the number
that are Individual
Control Strategies.
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States; report majors and
minors separately).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(a)(b) Permit Reissuance; Toxic Permits
The universe for measure l(a) is the total number of major permits with
expiration dates before October 1, 1990, according to PCS data on October
10, 1989 (i.e., the number of major permits that have or will expire by the
end of FY 90). Measure l(a) is the total number of major permits issued
with issuance dates (i.e., date signed by permit authority) during FY 90.
Status as of the close of each quarter will be taken from PCS on the 10th of
the month following the end of the quarter.
Measure l(b) is all permits (major and minor) that include water quality
based limits on specific chemicals or whole effluent toxicity and with
issuance (modification) dates (i.e. date signed by the permit authority)
during FY90. Of those permits, the number that are 304(1) ICSs is to be
identified. This measure deals only with final permits; however, because
ICSs may also be draft permits with a schedule for final issuance, this
number of ICSs will not include all ICSs.1
A water quality based permit limit is a limit that has been developed to
ensure a discharge does not violate State water quality standards. Such
limits are expressed as maximum daily and average monthly values in Part I
of the NPDES permit. They can be expressed as concentration values for
individual chemicals and/or pollutant parameters, such as effluent toxicity.
Effluent toxicity can also be expressed in toxic units. Limits should be
reflective of data available through water quality based assessments and
should protect against impacts to aquatic life and human health.
1 Measure l(b) is specifically designed to count water quality-based
permits issued and modified in FY 90. ICSs are a subset of this universe.
Since "limit" is specifically designed to exclude permits which only include
monitoring requirements, such permits would not be counted as ICSs.
B-37
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
OI3ANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS (COnt.)
l(a)/(b) continued
DEFIMTICN/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
As a matter of policy, EPA regards the new statutory requirements to control
point sources as a component of the ongoing national program for toxics
control. In the national toxics control program, all known problems due to
any pollutant are to be controlled (using both new and existing statutory
authorities) as soon as possible, giving the same priority to these controls
as for controls where only 307(a) pollutants are involved. Known toxicity
problems include violations of any applicable State numeric criteria or
violations of any applicable State narrative water quality standard due to
any pollutant (including chlorine, ammonia, and whole effluent toxicity),
based upon ambient or effluent analysis. States and Regions will continue
to issue all remaining permits, including those requiring the collection of
new water quality data where existing data are inadequate to assess water
quality conditions.
Performance Expectation; The goal of the State and EPA NPDES program is to
have reissued major and minor permits in effect on the date the prior
permits expires. Permit applications are due and should be acted upon
during the last six months of a permit's term. Most States and Regions
should be able to reissue 100% of their expiring major permits except where
unusual, complex and difficult issues prevent timely permit reissuance.
B-38
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS (continued)
l(c) Identify the number
of ICSs developed in FY 90
by the Region (in
cooperation with the
State) after disapproval
under section 304(1). Of
these, identify the number
of final permits and the
number of draft permits
with schedules for
issuance as final permits.
(Report only NPDES States)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
An ICS is a draft or final permit for each point source discharger which is
"entirely or substantially" impairing the attainment of State water quality
standards of waters on the approved "B" list of 304(1) waters. The draft or
final permit must include permit limitations which control the sources and
-amounts of 307 (a) toxic pollutants. The limitations must be achieved by the
statutory deadlines: June 4, 1992 for approved ICSs and June 4, 1993 for
disapproved ICSs issued by EPA (in cooperation with States). The ICSs must
include documentation that such permits have been adequately developed with
consideration of the effects of other discharges. However, where EPA
disapproved an ICS on June 4, 1989, or where a public petition to develop an
ICS is accepted, EPA will develop, in cooperation with the State, a draft or
final permit as an ICS by June 4, 1990. In cases of draft permits, the
permit would need to include a schedule for issuance as a final permit by
February 4, 1991.
Performance Expectation: Regions are to issue by June 4, 1990, either as
final permits or draft permits with a schedule for issuance as a final
permit by February 4, 1991, 100% of ICSs (in cooperation with States), where
Regions disapproved of ICSs on June 4, 1989 or where a public petition to
develop an ICS is accepted.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS (continued):
DEFIMTION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(f) Track progress
against targets for the
number of municipal permit
modifications to
incorporate the
pretreatment
implementation
requi rements. (NPDES,
non-NPDES States)
Kg) Identify the number
of CSO permitting
strategies developed.
(NPDES States; non-NPDES
States)
As Regions/IXiPDES States reissue/modify permits to POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs, they will incorporate appropriate requirements
addressing implementation of approved/revised pretreatment programs.
Specific attention should be given to the adequacy of POTW control
mechanisms (including enforceable local limits), compliance tracking
(including POTW reporting requirements) and enforcement.
Performance Expectation: Permits for all of the approved POIW pretreatment
programs that have not established adequate and enforceable control
mechanisms for at least 95% of their SIUs must be modified to required
establishment of the mechanisms. Permits must also be modified whenever
necessary to respond to the requirements of the DSS regulation, the sludge
regulations and the requirements of section 304(1).
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are discharges from sewers that convey
combined sanitary sewage and stormwater during and immediately after
precipitation events. A CSO permitting strategy is a State-wide summary of
the status of permit actions for CSOs. The CSO permitting strategy must
identify the communities with combined sewer systems and each particular CSO
discharge point within these communities. The strategy must place each CSO
discharge into one of three categories: (1) not permitted; (2) permitted
in conjunction with POTW; (3) permitted separately from POTW. The strategy
must also provide the statios of compliance of each discharge point with
B-40
-------
WRIER ENFORGEMFftTT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS (continued):
l(g) continued
EXPECTATION
technology-based and water quality-based permit requirements. Finally, the
strategy must describe the completed and planned actions and timing to bring
unpermitted or insufficiently permitted discharges into compliance. The
NPDES State-^wide permitting strategies must be developed and submitted to
EPA Regions by January 15, 1990. Regions are expected to develop strategies
for non-NPDES States by January 15, 1990 and to approve all strategies by
March 31, 1990. (See National Combined Sewer Overflow Strategy for more
information).
l(h) Identify the number
of permits reissued in
near coastal waters.
(Report separately: NPDES
States/non-NPDES States)
4 (a) Track progress
against targets for the
number of OCS general
permits issued/reissued
(non-NPDES States).
In accordance with EPA's near coastal waters initiative and the Marine
Policy, Regions with coastal dischargers will accelerate actions for
reissuing permits to these facilities. A near coastal water is one with
measurable salinity and tidal influences. Permits should contain water
quality based limits based on available wasteload allocations and should be
analyzed for persistent, bio-cxjncentratable toxicants. EPA's Permit
Writers Guide for Marine and Estuarine Waters should be followed. This
measure includes all expired or expiring permits (major and minor) reissued
in FY 90 (not modifications).
Final OCS oil and gas NPDES general permits issued consistent with the
EPA/MMS (Minerals Management Service) MOU and implementing guidelines.
B-41
-------
WATER ENTOKCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS (continued):
5(a) Identify, by Region,
the number of pending
evidentiary hearing
requests and track, by
Region, progress against
quarterly targets for the
evidentiary hearing
requests for major permits
pending at the beginning
of IY 90 resolved by EPA
and for the number
resolved by NPDES States.
D1&1N1T10N/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
The term "evidentiary hearing" is meant to encompass not only EPA issued
permit appeals pursuant to 40CFR 124 but also any NPDES State issued permit
appeals (whether adjudicatory or non-adjudicatory in nature). The meaning
includes any and all administrative appeals to permit conditions for major
facilities, whether the appeals stay or do not stay permit conditions.
Evidentiary hearings for EPA issued permits are not considered to be pending
if they are on appeal to the Administrator as of the beginning of FY 1990.
An evidentiary hearing should be regarded as resolved once a final decision
has been issued, a negotiated settlement has been reached, or the appeal of
an initial decision has been denied.
Performance Expectation: Evidentiary hearings should be resolved as
expeditiously as possible. The target should reflect resolution of all
pending hearings. Although the measure is intended to reduce the backlog of
pending hearings, consideration should be given to new hearings requests
made during FY90 that have priority over pending requests. Such requests
may be counted against commitments where they are priority cases (based on
Regional/State evaluation).
B-42
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PfeMHTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURER
(continued):
DEFDIITION/PERroRMANCE EXPECTATION
6(b) Track, against
separate targets, the
number of direct and
indirect discharger
variance requests pending
at the start of FY 90
which are denied/approved
or forwarded to
Headquarters with a
recornmendation (NPDES
States/non-NPDES States):
-FDF
-301(c)
-301(g)
-301(k)
-307(e)
-316 (a)
-316(b)
The Region is to identify by 10/31/89 the number of variance (and deadline
extension) requests from direct and indirect dischargers by type (FDF,
301(c), etc.) that are pending at the beginning of FY 90. Commitments are
to be made to eliminate that carryover by acting on all those pending
requests during FY 90. Such action consists of either approved, denied or
forwarded to Headquarters with a Regional recommendation as provided in
procedural regulations contained in 40 CFR section 124.62, the delegations
manual and implementing guidance. (Note: Procedures and authorities vary
for each variance. The Region will also be expected to act on all FDFs
submitted in FY 90 consistent with the statutory deadline.) The Region is
to report quarterly the cumulative number of final resolutions during FY
90, by type of variance in each NPDES State and non-NPDES State.
B-43
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS (continued):
7(a) Track, against
target, the total number
of permits issued to
priority sludge facilities
containing sludge
conditions necessary to
meet requirements section
CWA 405(d)(4).
DEFJ^TION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Priority sludge facilities are: 1) pretreatment FOTWs; 2) POTWs that
incinerate their sludge; and 3) any other FOTWs with known or suspected
problems with their sludge quality or disposal practices. Pretreatment
FOTWs and FOTWs that incinerate sludge may be considered to be non-priority
if such decision is supported by information showing no cause for concern.
The sludge conditions are to be included in permits as the NPDES permit
expires and is reissued. The sludge conditions may be incorporated in
another permit (such as a permit issued under the Clean Air Act, or a State
permit pursuant to an agreement between EPA and the State) and referenced to
the NPDES permit.
8(a) List the States
which have completed
their inventories of
sludge use and disposal
facilities. Indicate
which of these are
current.
Each State should have an up-to-date inventory. An inventory should at a
minimum provide a list of all FOTWs and other treatment works treating
domestic sewage (as these facilities require sludge permits under the CWA),
an estimate of the quantity of sludge generated by each such facility, an
identification of each facility's use/disposal practice(s), information on
sludge quality, and a summary of the quantity of sludge being handled by
each of the major use/disposal practices.
In FY90, the States should continue to update their inventories to include
other users/disposers of sewage sludge (other than FOTWs and other treatment
works treating domestic sewage) to whom the sludge technical standards apply
and to refine their information on the treatment works' sludge quality.
B-44
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
OIANITTATIVE MEASURES
STATE PROGRAMS:
l(a) Track, against
targets, the number of
NPDES program approvals
and modifications in
accordance with
established schedules:
-Full/Partial NPDES
program
-Pretreatment program
modifications
-Federal facility
modifications
-General permit
authority
DEFINmON/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Acceptable Regional performance is having and effectively pursuing a
current written strategy for each State to achieve full NPDES program
administration. In some cases, under provisions of the 87 WQA, when full
program approval is not achievable, partial program approval may be a
desirable alternative and should be included in the strategy. The strategy
was to have been prepared by the Region in consultation with the State,
identifying the obstacles to full program approval and setting forth work
plans for c^ercoming obstacles. The work plan should describe what needs to
be done, make recommendations on how it can be accomplished and provide
needed and reasonable estimates of time required. Regions will approve
remaining State pretreatment/Federal facility programs and will condition FY
90 grants as necessary, and may begin program withdrawal if States fail to
seek full program authority.
B-45
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
Di^lNlTlON/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
RCRA ACTIVITIES FOR NPDES FACILITIES:
l(b) Of those POIWs which
receive hazardous wastes
by truck, rail or
dedicated pipe, report the
total number of
determinations made.
Report determinations by:
1) Number of
determinations made that
there is no need for
corrective actions; and 2)
Number of determinations
made that there is a need
for corrective actions.
The number of POTWs which receive hazardous waste by truck, rail or
dedicated pipe will have been identified by FY 87. After identification is
made, a determination will have to be made as to the need for corrective
actions by a PO1W. For purposes of reporting, this measure will divide
determinations made into those where POTWs do not need corrective action and
those where corrective actions are needed. A determination that corrective
actions are needed includes issuance of the RCRA permit incorporating
appropriate requirements.
B-46
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PRETREATMENT:
l(b) Track progress
against targets for the
pretreatment programs
approved during FY 90
(list pretreatment
States/non-pretreatment
States).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
A local pretreatment program is considered approved when, after appropriate
public notice and comment, the Approval Authority (Regional Administrator or
State Director) approves the local program. Commitments for non-
pretreatment States and for approved pretreatment States are to reflect all
programs that are required but are not approved as of September 30, 1989.
In general, POTW programs should be approved within one year of notification
to POTW of the need for the program. New Programs may be needed to address
implications from the Domestic Sewage Study and the 304(1) amendments to
the Clean Water Act. Referral actions will be considered when assessing
progress toward achieving commitments. Referrals that, in fact, have been
turned over to the Justice Department will count as the equivalent of an
approved program. Performance expectation is that 100% of the programs
pending at the beginning of the year should be approved by close of the
year.
B-47
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PRBTREATMENT (cont.):
l(c) Report, by State, the
number of substantive
local pretreattnent program
modifications requested,
the nature of the
modification and the
approval/disapproval
decision.
Dh^'lNlTlON/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
The purpose of this measure is to assess the extent to which local PO1W
pretreattnent programs are being substantially modified to reflect
significant changes that are brought about by changes in local
circumstances and State and national requirements. In accordance with 40
CFR 403.18, such modifications must be approved in advance by the Approval
Authority.
There are nine substantial modifications listed in S403.18, including
changes to legal authorities, certain changes to local limits, and changes
in the POTW's sludge disposal and management practices. In addition, this
regulation provides that Approval Authorities must designate as substantial
modifications any modification that would result in an increase in pollutant
loadings at the POTW, or that would result in less stringent requirements
being imposed on Industrial Users.
Performance Expectation: Responses should indicate, by State, the number of
substantial program modifications requested, a breakdown of the types of
substantial modifications requested (and the number of each type), the
status of each request (i.e., pending, approved or denied), and whether the
approved modifications have been incorporated into the POTW's NPDES permit.
B-48
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMUTES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PRETREATMENT (continued):
2 (a) Report, by Region,
the number of pretreatment
administrative compliance
orders issued by EPA and
number of pretreatment
equivalent actions issued
by States for lUs.
DJaiNmON/PERPORMANCE EXPECTATION
This measure addresses only Section 309 (a) orders and should not include
309(g) penalty orders. They will be counted separately. All pretreatment
enforcement actions (compliance orders, penalty orders and referrals) will
be incorporated into the total actions as well as being counted separately.
An enforcement action for multiple violations must be counted only once;
therefore, Headquarters will assume that the total actions minus
pretreatment actions will equal non-pretreatment NPDES actions. Where an
enforcement action includes pretreatment as well as other violations, the
action should be identified as a "pretreatment" action.
"State" enforcement actions (ADs and referrals) include actions by States
with approved pretreatment authority and actions by NPDES States for
violation of a pretreatment requirement of an NPDES permit.
2(b) Report, by Region,
the number of State
pretreatment civil and
criminal referrals sent to
State Attorneys .General
and the number of State
civil and criminal cases
filed.
The active case docket consists of all referrals currently with the State
Attorney General and the number of referrals filed in State Courts. QECM
will report the same data for Federal referrals; State referrals will be
reported to the Regions.
B-49
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PRETREATMENT (continued):
DEFlNllTON/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2(c) Identify, by State,
the number of FOIWs that
meet the criteria for
reportable noncompliance
(RNC) and track by State
the number of POTWs in
that universe where
actions taken either
resolves or establishes an
enforceable schedule to
resolve PNC. Report by
State separately for each
action taken: technical
assistance,
permit/program
modification, or formal
enforcement. Report, by
State, the compliance
status (RNC, resolved
pending, resolved) of each
POTW in that universe by
end of year.
Regions and/or States should apply reportable noncompliance (RNC) criteria
to all approved POTW pretreatment programs at least twice between July 1989
and June 1990. All reporting should be a summary of information that is
listed and updated on the QNCR on a quarterly basis.
Report POTWs in RNC by EPA State (non-pretreatment State) or pretreatment
State. Refer to the Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW
Noncompliance with Pretreatment Requirements (Reportable Noncompliance
Guidance) for a definition of reportable noncompliance by pretreatment
POTWs. The second quarter report should include the number of POTWs that
meet RNC between July and December 1989. If a POTW was identified as RNC
before July, 1989, and still meets the criteria, it should be counted on the
second quarter report. For the fourth quarter report, include POTWs in RNC
between January and June 1990, and POTWs reported for the second quarter
that were not resolved or resolved pending. Credit is given for any of the
three actions listed in the measure that resolves RNC (i.e., results in
resolved pending or resolved status). However, if technical assistance is
the chosen approach, a schedule for compliance should be established. If
the schedule is 90 days or longer, it should be incorporated into an
enforceable document.
End of year compliance status should be reported for all POTWs that were
identified as RNC between July 1989 and June 1990. Report the total number
of POTWs that are considered reportable noncompliance (RNC), resolved
pending (RP), or resolved (RE) as of the final report. POTWs that are in
compliance with enforceable administrative or judicial schedules to resolve
RNC as of the final report date should be counted as RP.
B-50
-------
WATER ENK3RCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PRETREATMENT (continued):
3 (a) Track, by Region,
against quarterly targets,
for approved local
pretreatment programs 1)
the number audited by EPA
and the number audited by
approved pretreatment
States, and 2) the number
inspected by EPA and the
number inspected by
States.
Dl&'JUrriON/PERPDEMANCE EXPECTATION
A local pretreatment program audit is a detailed on-site review of an
approved program to determine its adequacy. The audit report identifies
needed modifications to the approved local program and/or the POTW's NPDES
permit to address any problems. The audit includes a review of the
substantive requirements of the program, including local limits, to ensure
protection against pass through and interference with treatment works and
the methods of sludge disposal. The auditor reviews the procedures used by
the POIW to ensure effective implementation and reviews the quality of local
permits and determinations (such as implementation of the combined
wastestream formula). In addition, the audit includes, as one component,
all the elements of a pretreatment compliance inspection (PCI).
In certain cases, non-pretreatment States will be allowed to conduct audits
for EPA. If a non-pretreatment State has the experience, training,
resources and capabilities to effectively conduct audits, these audits could
be counted. A determination of whether a non-pretreatment State could
conduct the audit for EPA will be worked out between EPA HQ and the Region
during the commitment negotiation process on a case-by-case basis.
The pretreatment compliance inspection (PCI) assesses POIW compliance with
its approved pretreatment program and its NPDES permit requirements for
implementation of that program. The checklist to be used in conducting a
PCI assesses the POIW's compliance monitoring and enforcement program, as
well as the status of issuance of control mechanisms and program
modifications. A PCI must include a file review of a sample of industrial
user files. Note that this measures tracks "coverage" of approved
pretreatment programs, not the number of audits or inspections conducted,
which may be greater than the number of programs since some programs may be
inspected/audited more than once a year.
B-51
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
Dt^'-LNlTlON/PERPORMANCE EXPECTATION
STATE REVOLVING FUND MANAGEMENT
l(a) Track, by Region,
progress against quarterly
targets for (1) net
outlays for combined
construction grants and
SRF, (2) net outlays for
construction grants, and
(3) net outlays for State
Revolving Fund (SRF)
program.
l(b)(1) % of cumulative
gross construction grant
obligations to commitment.
Percents of cumulative net outlays for construction grants and State
Revolving Fund (SRF to program commitment - The net sum of payments
made and recovered from PL 84-660 projects PL 92-500 206(a)
reimbursable projects, PL 92-500 contract authority projects, as well
as projects funded with Talmadge/Nunn, FY 1977 supplemental, FY 1978
through FY 1990 budget authority, Section 205(g) funds, Section 205(j)
funds, Section 205(m) funds and all Title VI funds appropriated
expressly for SRF.
Performance Expectation - The cumulative Regional commitment will
consist of a construction grants, a SRF, and an overall component. The
performance expectation for the overall cumulative commitment will be +
5%; however, this performance expectation range can be widened as long
as construction grants outlays remain within + 5% of commitment and SRF
outlays are within a + 10% range.
Dollar amount of new awards and increases from projects funded with PL
92-500 contract authority, 1977 supplemental, FY 1978 through 1989
budget authority, Section 205(g) funds and Section 205(j) funds. The
amount does not include PL 84-660 and PL 92-500 Section 206(a)
reimbursable funds. Region is expected to achieve performance within +
15% of its commitment on a quarterly basis.
Note: In accordance with Agency accounting practices, all funds
decreased in FY 1990 that were awarded in FY 1990 will be
subtracted from the gross total.
B-52
-------
MUNICIPAL POIIUTTON CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DK^'INITION/FERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
STATE REVOLVING FUND MANAGEMENT
l(b) (2) % of cumulative
gross SRF grant
obligations to
corarnLtroent.
Dollar amount of construction grant awards and increases funded with
funds from Section 205(M) and 607(1) of CWA. Region is expected to
achieve a performance within + 15% of its comrtiitinerit on a quarterly
basis.
Note: In accordance with Agency accounting practices, all
funds decreased in FY 1990 that were awarded in FY 1990
will be subtracted from the gross total.
The Office of Water (OW) recognizes that for the next few years
through the year 1990 obligations can be transferred between grants
and SRF. OW will be flexible in evaluating Regional performance in
cases where funds are transferred.
B-53
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
STATE REVOLVING FUND MANAGEMENT
2 (a) Track, by Region,
progress against quarterly
Regional-Headquarters
targets for the number of
States, by name, which
have been awarded an SRF
capitalization grant
(cumulative by quarter).
2(b) Number of annual
reports on SRF.
2(c) Number of annual
reviews completed.
DE^'INITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Number of SRF Capitalization Grants Awarded (cumulative by quarter) -
This is a joint commitment by the Regional and Headquarters. All the
States are expected to be awarded an SRF capitalization grant by the
end of FY 1990. Regions are expected to base the proposed (xmniitment
on discussions with the States relative to the anticipated complexity
of the State's program and the need for review by Headquarters.
Headquarters will review and concur in the awards involving aggressive
leveraging or use of the fund to derive the State match. Where
Headquarters review is needed, Headquarters will negotiate final
commitments jointly with the Regions. Headquarters will commit to a
forty-five day review of an application submitted by the Region.
Each State which has received an SRF Capitalization Grant is required
to submit an annual report on activities under SRF. The Report must be
submitted to the Region within 90 days from the end of the year.*
Regions are to commit to the number of reports due by mid-year and the
end of the year.
* The year referred to here is the State or Federal fiscal year as
agreed to by the State and Regional office.
Performance Expectation:
Regions are expected to receive annual reports from SRF States within
the 90-day time frame.
An annual review should generally be conducted within 60 days of
receipt of the Annual Report. Regions are to commit to the number of
reviews conducted by mid-year and end-of-year.
B-54
-------
MUNICIPAL POIUJTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
STATE REVOLVING FUND MANAGEMENT
3 (a) Number of States
which have specific
authorization for funding
expanded uses through SRF
program (i.e.,
legislation, executive
orders, Attorney General
certifications).
Funding of nonpoint source, ground water, and estuary management
activities (i.e., expanded uses) is expressly eligible under SRFs.
Decisions regarding types of activities to be supported by the SRF and
included in Intended Use Plans, however, is at the option of the
States. Nevertheless, to facilitate State flexibility over time,
Regions should encourage SRFs to obtain authorization to provide
assistance for all eligible types of projects and activities
authorized by Title VI of the Clean Water Act regardless of short term
program objectives.
During review of capitalization grant applications, Regions should
review State enabling legislation, regulations, executive orders,
Attorney Certifications, and similar documents to determine whether
the State has authorization to fund expanded uses. The Region should
also review regulations, procedures, program policies, and Operating
Agreements to determine the nature and extent of coordination between
the SRF and various State agencies involved in expanded uses in SRF
program development (e.g., development and review of PPL, IUP).
Performance Expectation
Regions should encourage all SRFs to obtain express authorization to
fund expanded uses. Regions are expected to report the authorization
status of all States in the second and fourth quarters.
B-55
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
STATE REVOLVING FUND MANAGEMENT
3(b) Number of States
which use section
201(g)(l)(B) grant funds
for expanded uses.
The 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act included a broadening of
the Governor's discretionary set-aside to include the optional funding
of activities authorized by section 319 (i.e. , nonpoint source and
ground water management). To be eligible for funding, activities must
be identified in the State Nonpoint Source (NFS) Management Program or
consistent with the State Ground Water Strategy. State NPS Management
Programs are to include "funding elements" which describe proposed
financing of the recommended activities. As appropriate, State
programs should identify activities to be funded through section 319
grants made under section 201(g)(1) (B).
In most cases, different offices are involved with construction
grants, NPS, and ground water management at both the State and EPA
Regional Office level. Special effort, therefore, may be required
within States and Regional Offices to coordinate the preparation of
applications for grant assistance consistent with the provisions of
section 319 and to determine the status of proposed activities
relative to EPA approved NPS Management Programs or Ground Water
Strategies. Under section 201(g), funding is limited to 20 percent of
the State's Title II allotment for otherwise ineligible section 212
projects [subsection 201(g)(l)(B)].
Performance Expectation
Regions are expected to encourage all States to develop NPS Management
Programs and Ground Water Strategies that consider use of funds made
available under section 201(g). Regions shall report planned State
grant funding actions as reflected in approved NPS Management Programs
and Ground Water Strategies. Information on actual grant awards for
expanded uses purposes will be reported in GICS on an ongoing basis.
B-56
-------
MUNICIPAL POTTITTION
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
D1&1N1T1ON/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TECHNOIOGY TRANSFER
l(a) Number of States
where specific actions
have been taken to combine
or coordinate the
outreach, technical
assistance, and technology
transfer efforts of water
supply, wastewater
treatment and solid waste
programs.
l(b) Number of forums held
with outreach providers to
discuss new approaches to
outreach and share efforts
that have been successful
so others may try them.
OUTREACH: A program to provide written information (generally in non-
technical terms) and assistance to municipal officials on the
technology and financing, financial management options available for
solving their water supply, wastewater (and solid waste) problems.
Outreach includes technical assistance which is "hands on" assistance
provided to municipal officials including water/wastewater treatment
plant operators. This "assistance" can be provided by Regional, State
or other agencies.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: Detailed technical information that aids in
designing and/or evaluating water/wastewater/solid waste technologies.
Performance Expectations
(a) Regions are expected to have an active Outreach Coordinator who
will encourage States to develop and implement programs to
provide municipal officials with the information and technical
assistance they need to make intelligent choices among the
treatment technologies and financing methods available.
(b) Regions are encouraged to hold annual forums with the providers
of outreach services in the States. The purpose of these
forums is to discuss new approaches to outreach and share
efforts that have been successful so that others may try them.
B-57
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
Di^'lNlTlON/PERPDRMANCE EXPECTATION
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTION
l(a) Number of user charge
systems reviewed for
adequacy.
As contained in this guidance, much of EPA's efforts will be directed
towards municipal wastewater treatment works compliance and
infrastructure protection. An important part of this effort includes
the need to continue to review user charge systems to determine
compliance with regulations. To this end, Regions and States are to
expand their FY 1990 user charge review efforts to a minimum of 5
reviews per State. In order to assist in this effort, a manual on how
to evaluate user charge systems will be available for use in early FY
1990.
B-58
-------
MUNICIPAL POnUTTON CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
l(b) Number of minor
POTW's returned to
compliance or taking
needed corrective actions
to return to compliance
as a result of an
Operations Management
Evaluation (OME).
An Operation Management Evaluation (OME) is a problem diagnostic and
on-site assistance program to assist small (up to 5mgd) POTWs that
received Federal funds improve performance, attain and/or maintain
compliance, States and Regions should emphasize facilities in non-
compliance with NPDES effluent requirements, although either newly
constructed or non-discharging facilities with O&M compliance problems
also be addressed. Candidate POTWs are identified through CMR, on-
site, or Quality Assurance/Quality Control sample reviews.
Performance Expectation
States and Regions are expected to commit to a total of: 1) the
number of minor POTWs that have attained and/or maintained for at
least three consecutive months during the fiscal year, and 2) the
number that are not yet in compliance, but are on schedule with an
action plan and timetable for resolving significant design,
construction, equipment, or other problems, possibly extending into
the next fiscal year. POTWs returned to compliance and those on
schedule with their action plan should be reported separately at the
mid- and end-of-year; reports should also distinguish Regional and
State OME accomplishments.
State activity is expected to be based primarily on EPA grants
although State-funded on-site assistance meeting the above definition
may also be counted. Regional OMEs should be negotiated with each
State, and reflect a number consistent with the FY 1990 resource
allocation.
B-59
-------
MUNICIPAL POTIUnON CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DE^'INITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
MANAGEMENT OF THE ON-GOING CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
l(a) Number of Step 3,
Step 2+3, Step 7, Marine
CSO and PL 84-660 projects
initiating operations.
A Step 3, Step 2+3, Step 7, Marine CSO, or PL 84-660 project is
considered to have initiated operations when one of the following
occurs:
o For projects awarded after 12/29/81, the date of "Initiation of
Operation": N7 = 'Ab1 or 'Bb' or 'Fb1.
o For projects awarded before 12/29/81, the date of "Physical
Completion": N5 = 'Ab1 or 'Bb1 or 'Fb1.
Performance Expectation
An acceptable coraniitinent would be 85% or greater of the number of
projects targeted for initiating operations during FY 1990.
B-60
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
CMANI'ITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
MANAGEMENT OF THE ON-GOING CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
l(b) Track, by Region,
progress against quarterly
targets for the number of
Step 3, Step 2+3, Step 7,
Marine CSO and PL 87-660
projects administratively
completed.
Number of Step 3. Step 2+3. Step 7. Marine CSO. and PL 84-660 projects
administratively completed - A project is considered administratively
complete when a final audit is requested, or for projects that cannot
be sent to OIG because of related on-going projects, when all of the
adminstrative completion requirements have been satisfied.
Performance Expectation:
The goal will be to begin F£ 1991 with no backlogged projects.
An acceptable commitment would be the number of projects that roust be
completed in FY 1990 in order to enter FY 1991 with no backlogged
projects minus those projects that the Region and Headquarters
mutually agree are not able to be completed during FY 1990.
A "backlogged project" is defined as:
o A Step 3, Step 2+3, or PL 84-660 project awarded before
12/29/81 which has been physically complete for more than 12
months, but has not yet been administratively completed.
o A Step 3 or Step 2+3, Step 7, Marine CSO project awarded
after 12/29/81 which has initiated operations for more than
18 months, but has not yet been administratively completed.
B-61
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
MANAGEMENT OF THE ON-GOING CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
2(a) Number of assistance
disputes arising under 40
CFR Part 31, Sub-part F,
for which decisions are
issued by the RA, or which
are settled or withdrawn.
The commitment for this measure is comprised of two parts:
(a) a commitment for the first two quarters, based on disputes "in-
house" as of 9/30/89; and
(b) a second commitment at mid-year for disputes received during the
first half of FY 1990.
Note: Commitment includes only construction grants/CMAG assistance
disputes arising under Subpart F.
Performance Expectation
Since FY 1986, the Regions have been required to incorporate time-
based goals into the steps (i.e., date of formal conference, dates
when program/legal conference, dates when program/legal reviews were
completed, date RA decision was issued) of the Regional disputes
process. Accordingly, these goals may vary according to the level
difficulty (simple, moderate or difficult). The target performance
expectation is that all disputes are filed. Based on the Region's FY
1989 year-end commitinents, Headquarters1 goal is to substantially
reduce the number of pending RA decisions. The ROs are strongly
encouraged to resolve or otherwise conclude by years end 90% of the
disputes that were in-house at midyear. This requires that each
Regions year-end commitment be calculated/adjusted to reduce the
overall backlog.
B-62
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QQT^NTTTATIVE MEASURE
DJ^INITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
MANAGEMENT OF THE ON-GOING CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
3(a) FY 1990 State
Priority Lists submitted
by August 31, accepted by
September 30, and entered
in GIGS no later than
October 31.
Definition/Performance Expectation. Performance expectation is for
States and Regions to comply with 40 CRF 35.2015(e) regulations and
the PPL guidance. For monitoring the PPL under the SRF program, the
goal is for the Regions to receive State PPLs with SRF capitalization
grant applications as support for the Intended Use Plan. Performance
expectation is for States to comply with the PPL guidance by submitting
the PPL and entering it into GIGS.
4 (a) Track, by Region, the
remaining number of
project inspectors in need
of first-time training
that get trained in
monitoring project safety.
5(a) % of Corps
utilizations vs.
Workplans.
Performance expectation is to get all remaining inspectors in need of
first-time training trained in monitoring project safety. The
commitment is a combination of EPA, State and Corps inspectors which
are projected for training during the FY.
Although this is not regarded as a Regional commitment, Headquarters
does intend to track and evaluate how well the Region integrates Corps
work planning and State planning and management. Both State and Corps
performance should be evaluated on the same standard. Where outputs
require input/output from both, evaluation must consider joint planning
and execution.
Need to define "utilization" and to explain how the % is calculated.
B-63
-------
MUNICIPAL PQT.TI1TION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DiaiNri'ioN/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
!
MANAGEMENT OF THE ON-GOING CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
5(b) Number of final Final construction inspections determine whether construction of a
construction inspections project has been completed. A determination is made that:
conducted by the OOE.
o All construction associated with the last contract under that
grant is completed in accordance with the approved plans,
specifications, and change orders (except for minor components
such as landscaping);
o All equipment is operational;
o Laboratory facilities, if part of the approved plans and
specifications, are available to conduct tests in certain States;
o The facilities are operating as designed (note that the Corps may
not be responsible for this in certain States).
Performance Expectation
A final construction inspection will be conducted on all grant
projects approximately at the time of initiation of operations or
physical completion. Accordingly, the cxjmmitment will be reviewed
against the related OWAS commitment for those States where OOE final
construction inspection is performed.
B-64
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
Di^lNlTlCW/PERFDRMANCE EXPECTATION
MANAGEMENT OF THE ON-GOING CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
6 (a) Number of projects
awaiting affirmative
certifications and the
percentage that are behind
schedule.
Projects with grants awarded after Decmeber 29, 1981, (new law) that
are awaiting affirmative certification. The expected certification
dates are actual initiation of operations date (N7) plus 12 months. A
two month allowance date (for submittal, review and data entry) beyond
the expected certification date has been built into the monitoring
system. Projects that have not provided an affirmative certification
within 14 months (12 months plus 2 months) of initiation of operations
(including projects with CAR's) will be considered behind schedule.
The percentage of projects awaiting affirmative certification that are
behind schedule, divided by the total number of projects awaiting
affirmative certification. The percentage is an indicator only.
Performance Expectation
All projects under corrective action provide an affirmative
certification in accordance with the scheduled (T3) date in the CAR.
All other projects awaiting certification provide an affirmative
certification or an approved CAR schedule. No project can complete
the one-year performance certification period without providing a
certification or an acceptable CAR. Projects that are behind schedule
should be pushed toward affirmative certification.
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1989/617-003/04851
B-65
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
KXPRCTATTQM
MANAGEMENT OF THE ON-GOING CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
6(b) Number of projects
that provide affirmative
certification within the
last 12 months and the
percentage that provide
affirmative certification
without corrective action.
Projects with grants awarded after December 29, 1981, (new law), and
those which provided an actual affirmative certification in the past
12 month period from the run date, including projects certifying after
corrective action. The number of months between initiation of
operation and affirmative certification (KA-N7) will be monitored.
The percentage of projects providing affirmative certification without
corrective action is the total number of projects providing an actual
affirmative certification within the past 12 months minus the number of
projects providing an actual affirmative certification after corrective
action within the same period, divided by the total number of projects
providing affirmative certification within the past 12 month period.
The percentage is an indicator only.
Performance Expectation
All projects provide affirmative certification at the end of the one-
year performance period without corrective action.
B-66
-------
-------
------- |