United Stall's Olfioe of Writer (WH-556) M.-iich 1986
Environmental Protection Wnsliinyton DC 20460
s>EPA A Guide to
the Office of Water
Accountability System
Fiscal Year 1987
-------
A
GUIDE TO THE
OFFICE OF WATER
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
AND
MID-YEAR EVALUATIONS
Fiscal Year 1987
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM 2
A. Appendix A: The Measures 2
B. Appendix B: The Definitions 4
III. THE OFFICE OF WATER EVALUATION SYSTEM 5
A. Prenegotiated Commitments and Quarterly
Reporting 5
B. Mid-year Evaluations 6
1. Advance Preparation 7
2. On-site Evaluations 8
3. Evaluation Follow-up 9
C. Other Office of Water Information Collection
Activities 9
D. Timeline for Activities Related to the FY 1987 11
Agency Operating Guidance
APPENDIX A — Measures
Municipal Pollution Control A-l
Marine and Estuarine Protection A-ll
Ground-water Protection A-23
Water Quality Standards, Planning and Assessments A-26
Public Water System Supervision A-36
Underground Injection Control A-45
Water Quality Enforcement & Permitting A-51
APPENDIX B — Definitions
Municipal Pollution Control B-l
Marine and Estuarine Protection B-l4
Ground-water Protection B-l 5
Water Quality Standards, Planning and Assessment B-17
Public Water System Supervision B_24
Underground Injection Control B-33
Water Quality Enforcement & Permitting B_37
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In FY 1987, the Office of Water will continue to conduct formal,
coordinated evaluations of Regional water programs. The purpose of these
reviews is to evaluate Regional performance in achieving National program
objectives for the year, and to help ensure National consistency in imple-
mentation of Federal laws and regulations.
IJThis guide contains the accountability measures that the Office of
Water will use to monitor Regional performance, and describes the process
that the Office of Water will use to evaluate Regional water programs in
FY 1987. The guide should be used in conjunction with the Agency's
FY 1987 Operating Guidance, which sets forth the National objectives for
water programs.
Page 1
-------
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
The Office of Water Accountability System consists of a set of qualita-
tive 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 fully evaluate performance against the Office of Water's
FY 1987 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 1987 Office of Water Accountability System
remains essentially the same as the FY 1986 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 1987. 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 1987 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:
0 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 effec-
tiveness, and generally do not involve prenegotiated commitments.
0 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 (SPMS), 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 1) designates those measures that appear in
the FY 1987 Strategic Planning and Management System and 2) identifies whether
or not the measure involves a prenegotiated commitment between the Office
of Water and the Regions. 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 Systems (OW) only. This column
relates to quantitative measures.
Reporting Frequency: This column conveys the planned reporting schedule
for specific prenegotiated commitments and any data lags.
Source of Data: This final column identifies the means by which the Regions
provide information to the Office of Water. Where there are existing data
systems such as the Grants Information Control System (GIGS), the Permits
Compliance System (PCS), and the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS), the
information will usually be drawn from that source. In other instances,
information will be obtained from State or other reports such as grant
work programs, 305(b) reports, or monitoring and tracking records.
Page 3
-------
Section II Office of Water Accountability System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
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
Section III), 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 Office of Water guidance or accountability system.
B. Appendix B; The Definitions
Appendix B contains detailed, technical information that more clearly
defines sane 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 pre-
negotiated 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. In July and August of 1986, the
Office of Water program offices 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:
0 Program offices will negotiate targets based on the quantitative
measures in the FY 1987 accountability system; the Assistant Admin-
istrator must personally approve any requests for prenegotiated
commitments beyond those included in the final FY 1987 system.
0 Program Office Directors will initiate the original data requests
which will be addressed to the Regional Water Management Division
Directors.
0 Program office data requests will identify significant progran
assumptions, reporting frequency, and reporting mode;, each data
request should cross-reference the pertinent measure in the FY 1987
Office of Water Accountability System.
0 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
valid reason to suggest that an alternative output estimate is
more appropriate. Several measures include commitments from States.
In these instances, Regions will negotiate cotmitments with their
States to support national priorities and performance expectations
and submit State commitments to the program offices.
Page 5
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
0 Once staff level negotiations are complete, the Assistant Administrator
will submit agreed upon commitments for those measures included in
SPMS to the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation (OMSE);
copies of enforcement performance commitments are also to be submitted
to 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 Regional Administrator for review
and approval. The Regional Administrator should approve the final
commitments.
The Office of Management Systems and Evaluation will provide specific
instructions on the exact schedule to be followed in submitting SPMS commit-
ments. Based upon previous schedules, both Regional Administrators and
the Office of Water will be required to submit SPMS commitments in late
August or early September. Any disagreements between the Regions and the
Office of Water are to be discussed personally between the Assistant Admini-
strator and the Regional Administrator prior to this submission. Any
still unresolved differences are to be mediated by OMSE and OECM or, if
necessary, ultimately resolved by the Deputy Administrator by mid-September.
This is to allow for publishing the SPMS commitments by the beginning of
the fiscal year, October 1, 1986.
SPMS quarterly reports are submitted by the Office of Water to the Office
of Management Systems and Evaluation on the fifteenth day after a quarter's
end. Copies of these reports are sent by OMSE to the Regional Administrators
and by the Office of Water to the Water Management Division Directors. 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. When data are retrieved from an automated information system the
program office will establish a pull date which will form the basis of the
report.
B. Mid-year Evaluations
The Office of Water will conduct formal, coordinated mid-year evaluations
in each of the ten Regions. The evaluations will be based on the quantitative
and qualitative measures in the FY 1987 accountability system, and the
discussions in each Region will focus on its particular problems and issues.
The Office of Water plans to use the established evaluation process as in
FY 1986. The following is a description of that process.
Page 6
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
1. Advance Preparation
Early in FY 1987, the Office of Water will begin to schedule the
formal evaluations which will occur during the months of May and June.
Each Region is encouraged to adjust its mid-year evaluations of State
water programs so that these reviews are completed prior to the Office
of Water evaluation.
At least four weeks prior to the scheduled formal evaluation, each
Region must provide a summary of Regional and State progress to date in
major National program areas. These should be succinct self-evaluations
in which the Region identifies its key problems and issues, as well as
its success(es) to date in meeting National program objectives, based on
both the quantitative and qualitative measures in the 1987 Office of Water
Accountability System. The Region is also encouraged to look back at
its FY 1986 end-of-year status, and to provide an analysis of its progress
since that time, identifying by program whether it has been outstanding,
fully successful, or unsatisfactory. While there is no required format
for the self-evaluations, some program offices may provide suggested
formats for use by the Regions. The Office of Water will use these
summaries as discussion documents during the on-site visits.
Each Region should also submit a proposed agenda for the Technical
Review Session (see below). This proposed agenda should be based upon
the Region's review of its State programs and its self-evaluation, and
it should highlight areas of special concern to the Region; areas of
concern may include technical issues, as well as interpretation of national
policy directions. Proposed agendas should include a block of time to
discuss the issues that are common across water program areas, as well
as unique projects that have involved significant Regional effort during
the year. Each Region will be provided with a final agenda at least two
weeks in advance of the on-site evaluation.
The Office of Water program offices will review each Region's evaluation
and its proposed agenda, and will identify any additional issues that may
be of concern. The Office of Water will then work closely with each Region
to modify the agenda based on its review of the Region's self-evaluation,
as well as other data collected through routine activities, such as quarterly
reporting.
Page 7
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
2. Qn-site Evaluations
The formal on-site evaluations will consist of a Technical Review
Session followed by a Senior Management Session. The duration of the
Technical Review Session will be based on the nature and extent of the
problems that are identified, and will vary from two to three days in each
Region.
A Technical Review team will conduct the evaluation sessions. It
will be led by a Division Director and will have representatives from:
regulations and standards, permits and enforcement, construction grants,
drinking water, ground water, and marine and estuarine programs.
The Technical Review Sessions will be conducted as separate breakout
sessions in specific program areas. Some time will also be set aside for
full group discussion of issues that cross program areas; this discussion
should occur after the breakout sessions so that all participants are
informed of the issues. At the conclusion of the Technical Review Session,
the Office of Water review team will collaborate with the Region's staff
to identify the general issues and findings that both parties agree should
be discussed at the follow-up Senior Management Session. A preliminary
draft report will be prepared summarizing the Review Team's conclusions.
The Region will have an opportunity to review this report and to provide
further information prior to the follow-up Senior Management Session.
The one-day Senior Management Session will occur approximately one
week after the initial Technical Review Session. The specific purpose of
this meeting is to reach a mutual understanding regarding how the Region
plans to deal with key findings and unresolved concerns that emerged during
the Technical Review Session.
The group will be led by the Assistant Administrator (AA) or Designee;
team members may include the Technical Review Team leader and selected Office
Directors. Regional participants should include the Regional Administrator
(RA) and/or the Deputy Regional Administrator (DRA), as well as the Water
Division Director (WDD), and, if appropriate, the Environmental Services
Division Director.
The evaluation report that was prepared at the conclusion of the
Technical Review Session will serve as the basis for the Senior Management
discussion. Prior to the session with the RA or DRA, the Senior Management
Team and the WDD will meet to discuss the key issues raised in the report,
and, if appropriate, will reach agreement on how the Region plans to deal
Page 8
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
with these issues. These agreements and any remaining, unresolved issues
will be discussed with the RA or DRA in an effort to arrive at decisions
regarding how they will be handled.
3. Evaluation Follow-up
Following the Senior Management Session, the Office of Water will
prepare a memo that summarizes the key issues that were discussed and
outlines any commitments that were made at the Senior Management Session.
These memos will not be comprehensive summaries of all the issues discussed,
but will focus on critical issues, the agreements that were reached, and
other actions (if any) that may be required to resolve any outstanding
issues. The Regions are encouraged to respond to these memos and to apprise
the Assistant Administrator of actions that resulted from the evaluation
findings.
C. 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 Assistant 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 coordinating 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 1987:
0 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.
Page 9
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
0 Quarterly Reporting: Regions will submit quarterly, semi-annual or
annual reports to the Office of Water to monitor prenegotiated commit-
ments 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.
0 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 (GIGS),
and the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
0 Annual Work Programs/Strategies; The Office of Water will review
Regional documents that are submitted on a routine basis, such as
the section 106/205(j) work programs, the State section 305(b) reports,
and the annual plans and evaluation results from section 205(g)
delegation agreements. The Office of Water will also review the
Regional and State strategies called for in the FY 1987 accountability
system.
0 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, which typically will
occur prior to the Office of Water mid-year evaluations. The program
offices will plan and negotiate these essential activities with the
Regions, and will conduct these activities jointly to the extent
possible.
0 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).
0 State Mid-Year Evaluation Reports; Regions will submit a copy of the
mid-year evaluation report for each State. This report will include
findings, follow-up activities, and State conments on the report's
findings.
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 need to be discussed during the mid-year evaluations.
: Page 10
-------
TIMELINE FOR ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO THE FY 1987 OFFICE OF WATER
OPERATING GUIDANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
Regions Negotiate
State Work Programs Based
on FY 1987 Guidance/
Accountabi1i ty
Regions Conduct
Reviews of
State Programs
* * * *
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
FY 1986
FY 1987
Agency Publishes FY 1987
Gu idance/Accountabi1ity;
OW Publishes Account-
ability System and
Evaluation Guide
I
FY 1988
OW/Regions
Negotiate FY 1987
Commitments for
SPMS/OWAS
(Reports submitted
in * months)
OW Conducts
Mid-year Evaluations of
Regional Water Programs
OFFICE OF WATER ACTIVITIES
(U
03
(D
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Manage Transition To State/Local Self-sufficiency
ACTIVITIES
1. Assist
communities
in developing
municipal
compliance
plans (MCP's)
support ing
expedit ious
compliance
with National
Municipal
Policy.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has the Regional Office
analyzed all active grants
affected by National Munici-
pal Policy (NMP) and assured
that project schedules and
completion dates are both
realistic and consistent with
enforcement schedules.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of construction
grants NMP projects which
initiate operations during
FY 1987.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
WQ-21
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
GIGS
Report
(to be
devel-
oped)
2. Assure
that Projects
are within the
financial and
management
capability
of the commu-
nity and users,
and are techno-
logically
appropriate.
(A) Is the Region overseeing
delegated States to ensure
compliance with financial
capability/user charge
reguirements, and to assure
identification and resolu-
tion of potential problem
projects?
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Ensure Effective State/Regional Management
ACTIVITIES
1. Manage
State/Reg ional
Grant Disputes
Resolution
Procedures
and Tracking
Systems to
Monitor States.
2. Effectively
Manage Delega-
tion of the
Construction
Grants Program.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are the Regions meeting
the time-based goals
established during FY 1986?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) the number of assist-
ance disputes arising
under 40 CFR Part 30, Sub-
part L filed before FY37
for which decisions are
issued by the RA, or
which are settled or with-
drawn .
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
WQ-22
REPORPING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Quarterly Regional
Submis-
sion
(A) Describe how the Region has
implemented the performance-
based grants policy with each
State and, where necessary, what
improvement has occurred.
(B) What is the Region's strategy
and implementation plan for maintain-
ing technical competence and skill
mix, delegation and oversight,
technical assistance respon-
sibilities, and direct EPA
construction grant and O&M
management responsibilities?
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Ensure Effective Construction/Program Integrity
ACTIVITIES
1. Manage
Priority
Lists and
projects
schedules to
improve water
quality.
i
U)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What environmental re-
sults have been achieved and
are expected in the future
from Construction Grant
funding? How do the
Regions and States measure
these results?
(B) How is project priority
list management used in support
of National Municipal Policy
(NMP). Has the Region identified
and taken steps to ensure the
earliest feasible grant award for
all projects on the fundable and
planning portions of the State
Priority Lists requiring compli-
ance with the National Municipal
Policy (NMP)? Are proposed con-
struction and enforcement schedules
realistic and consistent?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
2. Conduct
CME's.
(A) Is the CME/PMC program
being used effectively? Does
the information derived from
this program provide useful
feedback for assessing the
grant program? Are PMC's
conducted on all Step 3 s,
Step 4 projects, unless past
experience has demonstrated
that a PMC is not needed?
(a) # of CMEs.
No/OW
Quarterly
Regional
Submis-
sion
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Ensure Effective Construction/Program Integrity (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
3. Stimulate
development
or improve-
ment of State
sludge mgmt.
programs.
4. Conduct
and Evalu-
ate AT
Reviews.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(A) Which States are preparing
and submitting program plans con-
sistent with final State program
Regulations (40 CFR 501)? Are the
States and Regions scheduling the
development, submission, review,
and approval of State sludge
management programs under 40 CFR
501? How do the States/Regions
ensure compliance with applicable
Federal sludge use and disposal
criteria?
(A) Is the Region ensuring that
each AT process approved for fund-
ing would definitely result in
significant water quality and
public health improvements, thereby
qualifying for assumption of AT
review responsibility for AT pro-
jects with incremental costs over
$3 million? If reviews of less
than $3 million are delegated to
the States, is the AT process
being conducted in accordance
with overall program objectives?
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Ensure Effective Construction/Program Integrity (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
5. Oversee
the Corps
IAG to see
that Work-
plan Commit-
ments are
Achieved.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Is the Region overseeing
the Corps IAG to ensure that
negotiated resource and out-
put commitments are met?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) % of Corps utiliza-
tion vs. target.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/lMo
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Reporting
Developed
by Corps
Divisions
and
Region.
(b) # of final construction
inspections conducted by
the COE.
No/OW
Quarterly
(c) # of Project Manage-
ment Conferences (PMC's)
conducted by the COE.
No/OW
Quarterly
Reporting
Developed
by Corps
Divisions
and
Region.
Reporting
Developed
by Corps
Divisions
and
Region.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Ensure Effective Construction/Program Integrity (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
6. Improve
technical
aspects of
program
management
to promote
best use of
available
funds.
7. Manage
Grants
Efficiently.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) How is the Region using
"feedback to design" infor-
mation, implementing 100%
M/R activities, and updating
the data base file system of
the I/A program?
(B) Are the Regions/States
managing the VE program to
assure maximum savings are
achieved?
(C) How are the Regions and
States implementing the ICR
recommendations resulting
from the FY 1986 ICR's?
(A) Does the Region have an
effective strategy for
managing project schedules
for all municipal treatment
works construction grant
projects?
(B) Does the Region/State
have an effective strategy
for minimizing unliguidated
balances?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(a) Total dollar value
(grant amounts) in pre-
construetion lag status
expressed as a percent
of annual allotment.
(b) # of delayed Step 2+3
projects moved to plan
and spec, approval.
No/Slo
Quarterly
CGP-0080
CGP-0086
No/OW
Quarterly
GICS
Report
To Be
Deve-
loped.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Expeditious!1/ Complete and Close-out Projects
ACTIVITIES
1. Eliminate
Backlogs and
Manage Grants
Efficiently.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are projects closed out
in a timely manner, generally
within six months of FDL/dis-
pute resolution?
(B) Is there a project-
specific strategy which in-
cludes an approved schedule,
for completing all remaining
Step 1 and Step 2 projects?
(C) What actions have the
Regions and States taken to
manage a claims reduction
program?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of Step 3, 2+3,
and PL 84-660 projects
initiating operation.
(b) # of Step 3, 2+3,
and PL 84-660 administra-
tive completions.
(c) # of Step 1 and
Step 2 and backlogged
Step 3, 2+3, and PL 84-
660 projects adminis-
tratively completed.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/OW
No/OW
Yes/SPMS
WO-23
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DOTA
CGP-2330
CGP-2270
CGP-2330
CGP-2280
CGP-2500
CGP-2510
CGP-2345
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Improve Program Management
i
00
ACTIVITIES
1. Manage
Program to
Meet Outlay
and Obliga-
tion Projec-
tions.
2. Effec-
tively Manage
GICS to Im-
prove Usage
for Program
Management.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What measures are being
taken by Region/States/COE
to manage grant outlays?
(B) What are net obligations
on a state-by-state, source-
by-source, quarter-by-quarter
basis?
(A) Is the Region managing
GICS so that it is reliable
and accurate, supportive of
program priorities, utilized
as an effective management
tool by delegated States,
and is readily available to
end-users?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) % of cum. net
outlays to commitment.
(b) % of cum. gross
quarterly obligations
to commitment.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
WO-24
REPORriNG
FREQUENCY
Monthly/
Quarterly
No/OW
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Financial
Manage-
ment
Report
CGM-15
Financial
Manage-
ment
Report
EPA 92-
500
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Improve Facility Performance
ACTIVITIES
1. Improve
Facility
Performance.
i
WD
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are States effectively
implementing an onsite
operator training and tech-
nical assistance program for
bringing small facilities
into compliance? Are POTW's,
which were returned to com-
pliance following an OME,
generally remaining in
compliance?
(B) Are Regions/States
effectively coordinating
operator training, O&M,
technical assistance,
Construction Grants, and
permit compliance programs
in support of NMP implemen-
tation?
(C) Are States establishing
and implementing more com-
pliance-oriented and self-
sustaining O&M/operator
training programs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of minor POTWs
returned to compliance
or meeting schedules for
corrective actions to
return to compliance
as a result of an
Operations Management
Evaluation (OME).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
KQ-25
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second/
Fourth
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
State
Qrtly
Grant
Reports
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
Improve Facility Performance (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
1. Inprove
Facilities
Performance
(cont.)
OUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(D) What steps are followed
by the Region/States to in-
sure that all grantees are
able to provide a valid
affirmative certification
upon the completion of the
one year performance period?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(b) % of projects which
completed the one year
operational period that
provide an affirmative
certification without
requiring corrective
actions.
(c) % of projects requir-
ing corrective action which
provide affirmative certi-
fication in accordance with
the schedule contained in
the Corrective Action
Report.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
No/No
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
GIGS
Report
To Be
Deve-
loped.
GIGS
Report
To Be
Deve-
loped.
(E) What steps are followed to
move non-affirmatively certified
projects into a corrective action
program? What actions are taken
with grantees who do not certify?
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
1. Prepare
Environ-
mental
Assessments
or Impact
Statements
and Rule
Making
Packages
for Ocean
Dumping
Site Desig-
nation
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Were all concerned
Federal and State agencies'
canments considered prior
to issuance of draft/final
assessments or EISs?
(B) Were all regulatory
criteria and factors
evaluated and applied
consistently among
Region's EISs?
(C) Were records of deci-
sions clearly and comp-
letely documented?
(D) Were all significant
issues satisfactorily
addressed in response
to comments?
Ocean Disposal Program
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # draft/final environ-
mental assessments or
impact statements.
(b) # ocean dumping
sites designated.
(c) # memoranda of
agreement with Corps
of Engineers in effect
on resources to designate
dredged material sites
vs. # completed.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
WQ-27
Yes/SPMS
WQ-27
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly Contact
Regions
Quarterly Contact
Regions
Mid-year Region's
Reviews* Records*
*Unless otherwise specified Reporting will be at the Region's Mid-year Review
and the Source of Uata will be the Region's Records.
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
2. Issue
Ocean Dis-
posal Per-
mits and
Conduct
Monitoring
Surveys for
Site Desig-
nation and
Management
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS _
(A) What procedures did
the Region follow in
permit issuance?
Ocean Disposal Program
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # and type of
ocean disposal permit
applications received.
(B) What parameters were
chosen to evaluate impacts
of ocean disposal activities
on the marine environment?
How and why were they chosen?
(C) How was monitoring survey
information managed for
evaluating the impacts of
ocean disposal activity?
(D) What procedures will be
followed to reevaluate monit-
oring program effectiveness?
(b) # and type of
ocean disposal permits
issued.
(c) # sites surveyed
and site survey reports
completed.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Mid-year
Review*
Region's
Records
3. Prepare
403(c) Ocean
Disposal
Criteria
Evaluations
(ODCEs)
for outer
Continental
Shelf oil
and Gas
Operations
(A) Were evaluations con-
ducted on the basis of
identified priorities?
(a) # ocean disposal
criteria evaluations
prepared.
No/No
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
i
i—*
U)
ACTIVITIES
1. Work
with States
to consider
Great Lakes
Areas of
Concern and
in Chesa-
peake Bay
Critical
Areas in
Developing
and Revising
Priority
Waterbody
Lists
2. Review
Revised
Water
Quality
Standards
(VvQS) to
Determine
Impact on
Great Lakes
and Chesa-
peake Bay
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent were
the Great Lakes Areas of
Concern and Chesapeake
Bay critical areas con-
sidered in the development
and revision of the States'
priority waterbody lists?
(B) What actions did the
Great Lakes National
Program Office, the Ches^-
peake Bay Liaison Office,
and the Regions take
to ensure that these
areas have priority
and that priority
activities to abate
problems are underway?
(A) At what stage and to
what extent were Great
Lakes and Chesapeake Bay
impacts considered in the
revision of WQS? Did the
Regions conduct an evalu-
ation of whether the modif-
ied use of criteria propo-
sed by States would hinder
meeting the objectives
of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement and the
Chesapeake Bay Restoration
and Protection Plan?
Estuaries and Great Lakes
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of Great Lakes
Areas of Concern
included as priority
waterbodies.
(b) # of Chesapeake
Bay critical areas
included as priority
waterbodies.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
M id-ye ar Reg i on's
Review* Records*
No/No
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
3. Assess
Municipal
Compliance
for Con-
sistency
with Objec-
tives of
Great Lakes
Water
Quality
Agreement
and to
Protect
the Criti-
cal Areas
in Chesa-
peake
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has compliance with
the phosphorus require-
ment improved over last
year? If not, what
efforts have GLNPO, the
Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office, and the Regions
made to increase compli-
ance? What is hindering
compliance?
(B) Are certain permits
targeted for special
review due to Great
Lakes or Chesapeake
Bay concerns? On what
basis?
Estuaries and Great Lakes
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of Great Lakes
major POTWs in compliance
with 1 mg/L phosphorus
requirement vs. total
# of major POTWs.
(b) # of Chesapeake
Bay AWT POTWs funded
vs. # of AWT POTWs
determined to be needed.
(c) % of total flow from
major Great Lakes POTWs
meeting the 1 mg/L
phosphorus goal or % of
total flow from Upper
Chesapeake Bay POTWs
meeting 2 mg/L phosphorus
goal.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Mid-year Reg ion's
Review* Records,
PCS, and
QNCRs.*
No/No
No/No
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
Estuaries and Great Lakes
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATAj
4. Imple-
ment the
Great Lakes
and Chesa-
peake Bay
Monitoring
Programs
i
1—1
Ui
(A) What efforts are GLNPO
and the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office making to
ensure that the monitoring
programs are being imple-
mented and that resources
are being used to detect
emerging problems as well
as for trend monitoring
in priority areas?
(B) What are the results
of analyses of tributary
monitoring, atmospheric
deposition sampling, and
lake surveys conducted
in the Great Lakes Basin
fron previous years?
Are reductions in load-
ings and other improve-
ments visible?
(a) # of monitoring No/Mb
stations in operation
on Chesapeake Bay's
mainstem vs. # of
monitoring stations
planned.
(b) # of mainstem No/No
monitoring data sets
reviewed and entered
in the Chesapeake
Bay data base.
(c) # of fixed tribu- No/No
tary stations in opera-
tion in Great Lakes
basin vs. # necessary
as negotiated with States.
(d) # of air monitoring No/No
stations operated in
Great Lakes basin vs.
# necessary as negotiated
with States.
(e) # of fish collec- No/No
tions received by GLNPO
vs. # of, fish collec-
tions necessary as
negotiated with States.
Mid-year Reg ion's
Review* Records*
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries and Great Lakes
ACTIVITIES
5. Assist
States in
Implementing
NFS Controls
in Lake Erie,
Lake Ontario,
Saginaw Bay,
and Chesapeake
Bay Basins
H>
CTl
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What efforts are GLNPO,
Regions, the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office, and States
making to ensure NFS imple-
mentation of Agricultural
BMPs, including work with
other Federal agencies?
(B) What efforts are GLNPO,
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
the Regions, and the States
making to monitor implementa-
tion and its results in Water
Quality improvements?
(C) Have the Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay States modified
their WQM plans to reflect
institutional & other arrange-
ments for dealing with NPS
pollution? How?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of acres in the
Great Lakes Basin with
BMP's in place vs. # of
acres with BMP's in place
at the end of FY 1986.
(b) # of acres in the
Chesapeake Bay basin
with BMP's in place
vs. # of acres with
BMP's in place at the
end of FY 1986.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Mid-year
Review*
Region's
Records*
No/No
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
6. Prepare
Phosphorus
Load Reduc-
tion Plans
for Lake
Erie, Lake
Ontario,
Saginaw Bay,
and Chesa-
peake Bay
7. Imple-
ment Study
Results in
Accordance
with the
Objectives
of the Great
Lakes Water
Agreement and
the Chesapeake
Bay Executive
Council
Directives
8. Prepare
Remedial
Action Plans
for Great
Lakes Areas
of Concern
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What efforts are GLNPO,
the Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office, and the Regions/
States making to ensure
schedule of appropriate
activities, work plan
development and interim
outputs for the load
reduction plans are pro-
vided in a timely manner?
(A) What efforts have
GLNPO and the Chesapeake
Bay Liaison Office made
to ensure that pollution
control actions are focus-
ed on priority projects?
How are 106, 205(g) and
205(j) work plans focused
on Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay concerns?
(A) What efforts are the
GLNPO, Regions and States
making to ensure appropriate
schedules of activities and
development of Action Plans?
Estuaries and Great Lakes
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of U.S. Great
Lakes Phosphorus Re-
duction Plan elements
being implemented vs.
# planned to be
underway in FY 1987.
(a) # of elements of
Chesapeake Bay Rest-
oration and Protection
Plan being implemented
vs. # planned to be
underway in FY 1987.
(a) # of Draft or Final
Remedialr Action Plan
elements being imple-
mented vs. # scheduled
for implementation
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Fourth
Quarter
Contact
Regions
No/No
Fourth
Quarter
Contact
Regions
No/No
Fourth
Quarter
Contact
Regions
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries and Great Lakes
ACTIVITIES
9. Undertake
Toxicant Mass
Balance for
Green Bay
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Is work plan completed
and is field work under-
way?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of milestones
in approved work
program met vs. #
planned. _
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Mid-year
Review*
Region's
Records*
10. Reconsi-
deration of
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Agreement
(A) Has the response to
the Third Biennial Report
of the International Joint
Commission been prepared
and submitted through
appropriate channels?
GO
11. Chesapeake
Bay Program
Integration
(A) What efforts have been
undertaken by the Region
to ensure a coordinated
approach by all EPA and
other Federal programs to
meet the water quality
needs of Chesapeake Bay?
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
I
H*
vo
ACTIVITIES
12. Develop
and Implement
Marine and
Estuarine
Protection
Programs for
Puget Sound
Narragansett
Bay, Buzzards
Bay, and Long
Island Sound
and Other
Estuaries,
as Appropriate
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Have the work plans
been signed off by the
Implementation Committee
to assure that programs
are being developed, inclu-
ding problem identifica-
tion, pollutant load
quantification, and
assessment of system
impacts for each
of these major
estuarine areas?
(B) What efforts have
the States made to
implement technical
and generic guidance
in the implementation
of approved work plans
for estuary studies?
(C) Discuss approach
States/Regions use to
effectively manage
FY 1987 work plans?
Discuss how progress
toward solving envir-
onmental problems in
the individual estuary
programs is being
evaluated?
Estuaries and Great Lakes
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Appropriate manage-
ment structures in place,
operational, and working
effectively.
(b) Long-term work plan in
place for estuary study.
(c) # of initial problem
definition activities
for new estuaries.
Characterization
studies on schedule or
completed.
(e) Master environmental
plans on schedule.
(f) Appropriate public
participation programs
being implemented.
(q) # of projects underway.
(h) # of inter- and intra-
agency program integration
efforts irn-place in the
individual estuary offices
and Headquarters.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Mid-year
Review*
Region's
Records
No/No
No/No
No/No
No/No
No/No
No/No
No/No
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries and Great Lakes
ACTIVITIES
13. Implement
> Chesapeake Bay
^ Data Manage-
o ment
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(D) What are the scientific/
technical activities between
program participants, ORD,
other EPA programs, and the
contributions to national
technical document
development?
(A) What actions are Region/
States taking to improve
quality of data entered into
Bay data base?
(B) What actions are Region/
States taking to coordinate
data management activities
affecting Bay program?
(C) What are Region/State
procedures for acquiring,
entering, and verifying data
entered into Bay data base?
How current are data entered?
(D) What action is Region
taking to make Bay data base
available to eligible computer
center users?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(i) # of technical/
scientific workshops,
technical advisory
conmittee meetings and
peer review activities,
and other technical
resource involvement
for Regional and local
programs.
(j) Monitoring program
design and/or reassign-
ment on schedule.
(a) # and size of data
sets planned for entry
into Bay data base
vs. # and size of
data sets entered?
(b) # of activities
listed in 9/85 Bay plan
directly supported by
Bay data base?
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/NO
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Mid-year
Reviews*
Region's
Records*
NO/NO
NO/NO
NO/NO
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
Estuaries and Great Lakes
ACTIVITIES
14. Implement
Chesapeake
Bay modeling
program
15. Implement
Chesapeake Bay
Conmun ica t ions
Strategy
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) How does data coordinated
through Bay data management
system support Bay plan?
(A) Describe how modeling
activities underway support
Bay plan goals?
(B) How have Modeling Sub-
committee and/or modeling
experts been engaged in direct-
ing modeling activities?
(C) How effective have model-
ing activities been in identi-
fying the most important sources
and fate of nutrients in Bay?
(D) How have findings of
modeling activities to date
affected Bay program manag-
ment decisions?
(A) What major activities
supporting Bay Communications
Strategy have been implemented?
Are the Citizens Advisory
Committee and Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committees
participating fully in Bay
program?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Mid-year
Review*
Region's
Records*
(a) Provide summary of
results of modeling runs
to date.
No/No
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
1. Review
§301(h)
Applications
and Issue
Permits
NJ
.to
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Was all available
information considered in
evaluating applications?
(B) Were decisions clearly
and completely documented?
(C) Were all criteria evalua-
ted and applied consistently
among Region's applications?
(D) Were dischargers with
the greatest potential for
adverse impacts evaluated
on a priority basis?
(E) How quickly are final
decisions implemented through
permit revisions?
(F) Do permits consistently
assure that the monitoring
provisions of §301(h) decisions
are transformed into specific
enforceable requirements for
use in assessing ongoing
compliance with the §301(h)
criteria?
Marine Discharge Waivers
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # complete applica-
tions
(b) # intents to revise
(c) # withdrawals
(d) # initial decisions
(e) # final decisions
(f) # permits issued
reflecting decisions
(g) # approved/successful
monitoring programs in
operation.
(h) # monitoring ^rograms
with provision for QA-QC
planning.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
No/No
No/No
No/No
Yes/SPMS
WO-26
No/No
NO/NO
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Mid-year
Review*
Region's
Records*
Quarterly Contact
Regions
Mid-year
Review*
Region's
Records*
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
State Ground-Water Program Support
ACTIVITIES
1. Implement
Sec.106 Grant
program for
ground-water
in accordance
with guidelines
and FY 1987
budget alloca-
tions.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent are
National/Regional guide-
lines reflected in admin-
istration of the grant
program?
(B) Are the ground-water
grants coordinated effect-
ively with W.Q., UIC, Waste
Management, FIFRA and TSCA
grants and what is the
process?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a-1) Number of grants
awarded to States
and territories within
60 days after full
allocation is available.
(a-2) Number of State
mid-year reviews and
follow-up meetings, and
special workshops
conducted with States.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
No/No
Jan. 31,
May 30,*
Sept. 30
Jan. 31,
May 30,
Sept. 30
106 work
prog/Reg;
visits,
regional
records.
Regional
records.
2. Monitor
State programs,
conduct mid-
year reviews
and assist
States with
program
management
problems.
(A) What specific benefits
are attributed to EPA
funded State ground-water
programs?
(B) Do States have strategies
with appropriate elements
that have statewide inpact?
(a-1) Number of State
strategies completed?
(a-2) Number of State
strategies still
under development?
No/No
No/No
Jan. 31,
May 30,*
Sept. 30
Jan. 31,
May 30,*
Sept. 30
Regional
records.
Regional
records.
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
EPA Ground-Water Focus and Coordination
i
N>
ACTIVITIES
1. Provide
support and
assistance to
internal
coordinating
conmittees
to ensure a
rational and
consistent
approach to
Regional
ground-water
protect ion
efforts and
programs.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) How has the coordinating
committee and/or the
Regional Office of Ground-
Water been engaged in specific
substantive reviews of those
Regional programs impacting
ground-water.
(B) How has the coordinating
committee directed or
redirected resources or
affected policy to focus
attention on priority
ground water problems and
the Region's ground-water
program?
(C) How have other components
of the Regional Office
supported the Coordinating
Committee/Regional Ground-Water
effort?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a-1) What committees
and/or subcommittees
exist?
(a-2) The number of times
committee meets.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Jan. 31,
May 30,*
Sept. 30
No/No
Jan. 31,
May 30,*
Sept. 30
Regional
records.
Regional
records.
To coincide with mid-year reviews.
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
EPA Ground-Water Focus and Coordination
to
ACTIVITIES
2. Develop
regional
work plan or
comparable
management
mechanism.
3. Ensure
involvement of
other Federal
agencies.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what degree do the
plans of other programs
include actions affecting
ground water.
(B) How effective have the
Regional work plans been
in tracking progress toward
completing projected outputs
as related to ground water?
(C) To what degree is the
Regional Ground-Water Work
Plan used to integrate and
facilitate ground-water
related programs and efforts
throughout the Regions.
(A) To what degree is the
Region ground-water staff
working with other Federal
agencies?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) The number of programs
participating whose
plans reflect statement
in (A).
(b) The number of items in
the work plan which reflect
national priorities listed
in the Operating Guidance.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
(c) The number of items in No/No
the work plan which reflect
Regional priorities,
especially cross-media issues.
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Jan. 31+ Regional
May 30* records.
Jan. 31+ Regional
May 30* records.
Jan. 31+ Regional
May 30* records.
(a) Number and names of
other Federal agencies
with which ground water
staff is working.
No/No
Jan. 31+ Regional
May 30* records.
+Data for these quantitative measures must be reported only once—on
the date which follows most closely completion of the work plan.
*To coincide with mid-year review.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
to
ACTIVITIES
1. Work with
States to
identify pro-
blems and to
ensure ef-
fective
implementation
of the WQS
regulation.
2. Undertake
use attain-
ability
analysis and
inclusion of
toxic criteria
into standards.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Describe any signi-
ficant revisions, addi-
tions or modifications
to State WQS or imple-
mentation policies.
(B) Do the State's anti-
degradation policies com-
ply with 40 CFR 131.12?
Are the required imple-
mentation plans for anti-
degradation being sub-
mitted?
Water Quality Standards
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Provide a summary
listing revisions and
additions.
(b) Number of States with
antidegradation policies
in compliance with 40
CFR 131.12.
(c) Track, by Region,
against quarterly targets,
the number of States which
have been assessed by the
Regions as implementing
antidegradation methods
according to EPA policies.
(A) Are the States deve-
loping use attainability
assessments for segments
designated less than fish-
able/swimmable? Are nar-
rative or numerical criteria
being adopted for toxics of
concern? If numerical, are
the States using EPA or site-
specific criteria?
(a) Since previous re-
porting period:
- # of WQS reviewed.
- # of WQS approved/
disapproved.
(b) Provide the:
- # and type of criteria
additions: traditional
and toxic, since 86 mid-
year review.
- # of above based on site-
specific calculations.
- # of States applying
"free-frans" or other
narrative toxic criteria
in writing NPDES permit
limits.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/No
No/No
Yes/SPMS
WQ-28
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Mid-year 106/205(j)
review work pro-
grams
Mid-year
review
First/
Second/
Third
and
Fourth
Quarters
No/No
No/No
Mid-year
review
106/205(j)
work pro-
grams
106/205(j)
work pro-
grams
Mid-year 106/205(j)
review work pro-
grams
106/205(j)
work pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
Water Quality Standards
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) Track, by Region,
against quarterly targets,
the number of States which
incorporate new or revised
numerical or narrative
criteria for toxic pollu-
tants into State water
quality standards which
are approved by the Re-
gional Office.
(d) Provide the following
data based on mid-year '87
State reviews:
- estimated total number of
use attainability
analysis (UAA) by State
to be done.
- # of streams or stream
segments designated less
than "f ishable/swiiranable".
- # of UAA completed.
- # of UAA approved for
designations less than
"fishable/swimmable".
- # of UAA completed for
upgradings or for con-
firmation of the CWA
section 101 uses.
3. Undertake
special WQS
projects as
determined by
the Region.
(A) Describe the special pro-
ject(s), the results of activi-
ties conducted, and the relative
cost to undertake the project(s).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/SPMS
WQ-29
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Q 1 ,2,
3, 4
106/205(j)
work pro-
grams
NO/NO
Mid-year 106/205(j)
review work pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PIANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
ACTIVITIES
1. Conduct
water quality
assessments to
identify pro-
blems.
ro
oo
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Describe the Regions'
effort to work with the States
to improve consistency between
States for reporting waters
"partially supporting" or "not
supporting" designated uses to
establish a consistent baseline
for reporting.
(Bx Describe the States process
for reviewing unassessed waters
to determine if any of these
waters are not meeting desig-
nated uses and goals of the
Act.
(C) What monitoring and/or
screening programs did the
States undertake to identify
new or emerging problems?
Monitoring
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify the number
of stream miles, lake
acres, estuary square
miles, coastal miles, and
Great Lake shore miles in
each Region, the number
assessed, and the number
that are supporting/
partially supporting/not
supporting designated
uses as reported in the
FY86 305(b) Report and
205(j) updates. Identify,
by nonpoint source cate-
gory, the number of stream
miles, lake acres, estuary
square miles, coastal
miles and Great Lake shore
miles not fully supporting
designated uses due to non-
point source pollution.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
WQ-31
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Third
Quarter
305(b) re-
port and
any 205(j)
updates
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
ACTIVITIES
2. Identify
waters needing
water quality-
based con-
trols .
i
ro
3. Develop
needed water
quality based
controls.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent do the
States and the Region have a
basic capability to conduct
biononitoring including bio-
assays and field surveys?
Describe the States' and
Regions' uses of these
techniques.
(A) Describe the technical
procedures used by the States
in developing water quality-
based controls for toxics and
conventional pollutants. Do
these follow the EPA techni-
cal guidance? For which
States does the Region have
an agreement on technical
procedures for developing
water quality-based controls?
Monitoring
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify, the number
and list of waterbodies
that are water quality
limited for: (1) toxics
and nontoxics; (2) toxics
only; and (3) nontoxics
only, and the number and
list of these still need-
ing water quality based
controls; the number and
list of waterbodies where
available data show they
are not water quality
limited for toxics; and
the number and list of
waterbodies for which
available data or analyses
does not allow a decision.
(a) Track, by Region,
against quarterly targets,
the number and provide a
list of waterbodies for
which all known needed
water quality based con-
trols for toxics and non-
toxics have been approved.
by EPA. Expectation is
20% or more of waters
known to need controls as
of beginning of FY 87,
will be targeted for
completion.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
WQ-32
For SPMS
report
numbers only;
List will be
used for mid-
year review.
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Third
Quarter
305(b) re-
ports and
any 205(j)
updates
Yes/SPMS
WQ-33
For SPMS
report
number only;
List will
be used for
mid-year
review.
First/
Second/
Third/
and
Fourth
Quarters
106/205(j)
work pro-
grams,
and 305(b)
reports
-------
MATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
ACTIVITIES
4. Determine
effectiveness
of water
pollution con-
trol programs.
u>
o
5. Overview
of State
Monitoring
Programs.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent are States
developing enough data for the
1988 305<[b), report to:evaluate
changes or trends in ail of
the waters identified as
"partially supporting" or
"not supporting" designated
uses?
(B) Discuss the extent that
the States conduct "after"
monitoring studies to assess
effectiveness of pollution
controls and attainment of
designated uses? To what
extent do the Region's EMR
and the States 305(b) reports
describe accomplishments re-
sulting from control actions.
(A) Discuss the status of the
States' monitoring strategies
and any problems in implementing
specific elements of the gui-
dance. Describe the Region's
process for reviewing State
monitoring programs to ensure
that they are collecting adequate
data for making water quality-
based control decisions (in-
cluding audits or detailed
reviews).
(B) Discuss how the States are
implementing EPA guidance for
operating QA/QC programs.
Monitoring
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Number of States
that Jiave implemented
environmental indicators
and procedures (consistent
with national guidance) to
be used in measuring water
quality trends in specific
waters of concern.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/Mo
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Mid-year 106/205(j)
review work pro-
grams
(a) Number of State water
quality monitoring programs
evaluated and audit reports
prepared.
(b) Number of States com-
pleting and submitting
monitoring checklists
as committed to in annual
WQM work programs.
(c) Number of QA/QC work/
project plans completed
and the number of QA/QC
program plans evaluated
for currency?
No/No
No/No
No/No
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Regional
reviews of
State pro-
grams
Regional
reviews of
State pro-
grams
Regional
reviews of
State pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
ACTIVITIES
6. Collec-
tion, storage
and manage-
ment of data.
7. Provide
^ monitoring
i technical
^ assistance to
States where
needed.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Describe State procedures
for handling data (including
data entry into STORET, data
QA/QC, and data management pro-
cedures) in accordance with
EPA's Water Quality Monitoring
Policy.
(A) Discuss the extent to
which the Region provides
adequate WQ monitoring and
analysis assistance to the
States (including workshops
and other direct training).
Monitoring
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Number of States re-
porting data as required
by the Water Monitoring
Policy, i.e., all data
collected in conjunction
with developing water
quality based controls
and appropriate assess-
ment data to EPA in a
timely manner (i.e., 60
days after the States
have reviewed the data
and found it acceptable).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
reviews of
State pro-
grams
-------
u
NJ
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
and use
priority
waterbody
(PWB) lists
to identify
and abate each
State's most
critical
water quality
problems.
2. Review
and incorpo-
rate planning,
monitoring
and standards
products re-
sulting frcm
EPA grants
into WQM
plans.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
Water Quality Management (WQM) Planning
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Characterize, by State,
the PWB lists, i.e., what is
their approach in developing
the list; is there 1 unified
list or a series of lists; are
the lists programmatic or water
quality oriented; are the lists
ranked?
(B) Are there other priority
setting mechanisms? How can
these be coordinated?
(C) Do States/Regions know the
specific program actions needed
to resolve the identified PWB
problem? If not, do they have a
process to identify them?
(D) How has the priority water-
body concept affected work pro-
gram negotiation and allocation
of grant funds?
(A) Does the Region review the
quality and usefulness of speci-
fic planning, monitoring and
standards products (e.g., WLA's,
standards reviews, intensive
surveys, use attainability
analyses, etc.) produced as a
result of EPA grant funding?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Number of States with
a negotiated priority
waterbody list based on
water quality; number
of States which changed
their lists during FY86.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Mid-year
review
106/205(j)
work pro-
grams,
305(b) re-
ports
(a) Identify for each
State the type and num-
ber of major products
completed in FY 86. For
each type of major
product indicate the
number submitted to
the Region for review
and the number incor-
porated into WQM
plans.
No/No
Mid-year 106/205(j
review work pro-
gram
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
Water Quality Management (WQM) Planning
ACTIVITIES
OJ
UJ
3. Negotiate
and manage WQM
grants to as-
sure that work
produced is of
high priority,
is of accept-
able quality
and is com-
mensurate with
the funding
provided.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(B) Describe the Regional
process for approving W2M
updates? If a State pre-
pares no plan updates, what
action is the Regional Office
taking?
(A) What procedures are used to
negotiate, track and evaluate
work programs and State per-
formance? What steps is the
Region taking to assure that
States meet level of effort
requirements for 106 and
205(g)?
(B) Describe the actions
taken by the Region to cor-
rect deficiencies or to
reward superior performance.
(C) How does the negotiation
and management of work programs
differ frcm last year, due to
the performance based grant
policy?
(D) What use is the Region
making of WQMIS in managing the
WQM program? Do you have or
contemplate direct linkage with
State agencies?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(a) What major products
did not get conpleted (by
State)?
(b) Number of actions
taken by the Region to
correct deficiencies or
to reward superior per-
formance .
(c) List WQM applications
Region used beyond those
provided by customized
software of
No/No
No/No
Mid-year 106/205(j)
review work pro-
grams
Mid-year
review
No/No
Mid-year
review
106/205(j)
work pro-
grams
106/205(j)
work pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
Nonpoint Source Management
ACTIVITIES
1. Conduct
water quality
assessments
to identify
problems.
2. Develop
State NFS
programs.
U)
-P-
3. Develop
and use Re-
gional NFS
strategies to
effectively
manage the NFS
program.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Describe the adequacy and
extent of each State's efforts
to identify its waters not
fully supporting uses and
threatened due to NFS pollu-
tion.
(A) Describe and evaluate each
States' NFS management program.
(B) Describe Regional proce-
dures for reviewing and evalu-
ating State NFS programs.
(A) How do Regional NFS
strategies adequately coordi-
nate and integrate EPA and
State programs? Describe
procedures for coordination.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify by State the
actual waterbodies not
meeting designated uses
due to NFS.
(b) Identify, by State,
those groundwaters im-
pacted by NFS.
(a) Track, by Region,
against quarterly targets,
the number of adequate NFS
management programs con-
sistent with WQM Regulation
and EPA's Nonpoint Source
Strategy developed by
each State.
(b) Identify, by State,
the number of NFS projects
currently being implemented
whose implementation plans
have been approved by the
Region.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/No
No/No
Yes/SPMS
WQ-30
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
No/No
Mid-year
review
Mid-year
review
First/
Second/
Third
and
Fourth
Quarters
Mid-year
review
ASIWPCA
report/
305(b)
report
ASIWPCA
report/
305(b)
report
106/205(j)
work pro-
grams
106/205(j)
work pro-
grams
-------
U)
Ln
ACTIVITIES
4. Utilize
programs of
other Federal
agencies to
implement
NPS con-
trols.
5. Identify
the need for
technical sup-
port to assist
in implementa-
tion of NPS
programs.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
Nonpoint Source Management
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(B) Discuss how NPS activities
are focused on the high priority
non-attainment areas identified
previously.
(A) Describe how programs of
other Federal agencies are
utilized in each State to sup-
port implementation of NPS
controls.
(A) What technical support
needs have Regions identified?
What new tools, methodologies
or procedures are needed?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
(a) List, by State, NPS
demonstration projects
involving other Federal
agencies and States.
Give status of projects.
(b) Number of State water
quality agencies partici-
pating in annual review
of ACP priorities.
No/No
No/to
Mid-year 106/205(j)
review work pro-
grams
Mid-year 106/205(j)
review work pro-
grams
-------
DRINKING WATER
Public Water System Supervision Program
ACTIVITIES
1. Effec-
tively Man-
age the PWSS
Program in
Non-primacy
States and
on Indian
Lands.
2. Prepare for
Impleme ntat ion
of the Revised
Drinking Water
Regulations
3. Improve
compliance
with the
NIBDWR.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has the Region used
direct implementation funds
for the intended projects.
(B) What specific benefits
can be attributed to the
projects.
(C) What is the magnitude
of Indian land community
water systems (CWS) which
are significant noncompliers
(SNC)?
(D) Does the Region have a
plan for improving nonccnv-
pliance among the Indian land
CWSs in its jurisdiction?
(A) What has the Region done
to aid States in developing
legal authoritites and
analytical capabilities to
begin regulating VOCs?
(A) Does each State have a
current compliance strategy
for dealing with noncompliant
systems?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report, by a Regional
total, the number, and per-
cent, of Indian land CWSs
which are SNCs ofi (a) a
microbiological, turbidity,
or TTHM requirement, or (b)
an organic other than TTHM,
inorganic, or radiological
requirement. (Report as 1
number for each of the 2
groups.)
(a) Report which States
have written and imple-
mented a compliance
policy-
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
No/No
Second ,
Quarter
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
FRDS
No/No
Second
Quarter
Regional
Report
-------
DRINKING WATER
Public Water System Supervision Program
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
compliance
with the
NIPDWR.
(Cont'd)
i
u>
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(B) Has the Region provided
guidance to States on compli-
ance strategies and setting a
target for community water
systems (CWS) in significant
noncompliance (SNC) ?
(C) Has each State negotiated
a SNC target? Does the target
reflect at least a 10% improve-
ment over its previous year's
actual results?
(D) What is the magnitude of
CWSs which are SNCs?
(E) Did the number of SNCs
increase or decrease from the
previous quarter's results?
Does the State, or Region
in the case of a nonprimacy
State, appear able to meet
its end-of-year target?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
(b) Report, by State, the
number and percent of CWSs
which are SNCs of a micro-
biological, turbidity, or
TTHM requirement. (Report
as 1 number per state.)
(c) Report, by State, the
number and percent of CWSs
which are SNCs of an organ-
ic other than TTHM, inor-
ganic, or radiological
requirement. (Report as
1 number per state.)
(d) Report, by State, the
change in the number of
SNCs from the previous
quarter. (Applies to
microbiology, turbidity,
and TTHM SNCs. Report
as 1 number per State.)
Yes/Yes
DW/E-1
Yes/No
DW/E-2
No/No
10/15/86
and All
Quarters
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
Second
Quarter
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
All
Quarters
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
FRDS
FRDS
FRDS
-------
DRINKING WATER
Public Water System Supervision Program
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
compliance
with the
NIPDWR.
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(F) How many people are
affected by CWSs which are
SNCs?
<_0
00
(G) Are the CWSs which are
SNCs, returning to compliance,
or being adequately addressed
by the States?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(e) Report, by State, the
populations served by CWSs
which are SNCs of a micro-
biological, turbidity, TTHM,
organic chemical other than
TTHM, organic chemical, or
radiological requirement.
Report populations in two
groups: a) microbiological
turbidity, and TTHM SNCs,
and b) organics other than
TTHMs, inorganics, or
radiological SNCs.
(f) Report, by State, the
number of CWSs, which were
SNCs of a microbiological,
turbidity, or TTHM require-
ment in the previous quar-
ter, which have since re-
turned to compliance.
(g) Report, by State, the
number of CWSs, which were
SNCs of a microbiological,
turbidity, or TTHM require-
ment in the previous quar-
ter, against which the
State has taken a formal
enforcement action.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
DW-1
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Second
Quarter
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters
FRDS
Yes/No
DW/E-3
Yes/No
DW/E-3
All Regional
Quarters Report
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
All Regional
Quarters Report
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
-------
DRINKING WATER
Public Water System Supervision Program
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
compliance
with the
NIPDWR.
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(G) Are the CWSs, which are
SNCs, returning to compliance
or being adequately addressed
by the State? (Cont'd)
i
u>
VD
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(h) Report, by State, the
number of CWSs, which were
SNCs of a microbiological,
turbidity, or TTHM require-
ment in the previous quar-
ter, which are currently
operating under, and adher-
ing to a formal compliance
schedule.
(i) Exception Report;
Identify, by name and PWS
ID number, each CWS which
was an SNC of a microbio-
logical, turbidity, or
TTHM requirement in the
previous quarter, which
has not returned to com-
pliance, has not had a
formal enforcement action
taken against it, or is
not operating under and
adhering to a formal
compliance schedule.
(j) Report, by State, the
number of CWSs, which were
SNCs of an organic other
than TTHM, inorganic, or
radiological requirement as
of 9/30/86, which have since
returned to compliance.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
DW/E-3
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
All Regional
Quarters Report
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
Yes/No
DW/E-4
All Regional
Quarters Report
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
Yes/No
DW/E-5
Third/
Fourth
Quarters
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
Regional
Report
-------
DRINKING WATER
Public Water System Supervision Program
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
compliance
with the
NIPDWR.
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(G) Are the CWSs, which are
SNCs, returning to compliance
or being adequately addressed
by the State? (Cont'd)
hC*
o
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(k) Report, by State, the
number of CWSs, which were
SNCs of an organic other
than TTHM, inorganic, or
radiologcial requirement
as of 9/30/86, against
which the State has taken
a formal enforcement
action.
(1) Report, by State, the
number of CWSs, which were
SNCs of an organic other
than TTHM, inorganic, or
radiological requirement
as of 9/30/86, which are
currently operating under,
and adhering to a formal
compliance schedule.
(m) Exception Report;
Identify, by name and PWS
ID number, each CWS which
was an SNC of an organic
other that TTHM, inorganic,
radiological requirement as
of 9/30/86, which has not
returned to compliance, has
not had a formal enforce-
ment action taken against
it, or is not operating
under and adhering to a
formal compliance schedule.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
DW/E-5
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Yes/No
DW/E-5
Yes/No
DW/E-6
Third/
Fourth
Quarters
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
Third/
Fourth
Quarters
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
Third/
Fourth
Quarters
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
Regional
Report
Regional
Report
Regional
Report
-------
DRINKING WRIER
Public Water System Supervision Program
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
compliance
with the
NIPDWR.
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(H) Are the CWSs which have
been placed on a formal com-
pliance schedule adhering to
that schedule?
(I) Has the Region and the
States in its jurisdiction
entered into an enforcement
agreement for FY '87?
(J) What is the magnitude
of State litigation activity
occuring in primacy states?
(K) Has the Region reviewed
primacy State enforcement
actions and are they using
using Federal enforcement
tools to bring noncomplying
CWSs, in primacy States,
into compliance?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(n) Report, by State, the
number of CWSs which have
violated a requirement
prescribed by a formal
compliance schedule, dur-
ing the last 12 months.
(o) Report which States
have signed an enforcement
agreement for FY '87.
(p) Report which States
have documented their
approach to "timely and
appropriate" enforcement
action.
(q) Report, by State, the
numbers of civil cases re-
ferred to the State AGs
and criminal cases filed
in court against any CWS
in primacy States, during
the quarter.
(r) Report the number of
§1414 administrative pro-
cedures completed, the
number of §1431 AOs issued,
and the number of judicial
cases referred to EPA HQ
or DOJ against CWSs in
primacy States, during the
last 12 months. (Report the
3 categories separately.)
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Second Regional
Quarter Report
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
No/No
No/No
Second
Quarter
Second
Quarter
Regional
Report
Regional
Report
Yes/No
DW/E-7
No/No
All Regional
Quarters Report
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
Second Regional
Quarter Report
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
-------
DRINKING WATER
Public Water System Supervision Program
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
compliance
with the
NIPDWR.
(Cont'd)
vU
NO
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(L) Are the Regions which
operate direct implementation
programs using enforcement
tools to bring noncomplying
systems into compliance?
(M) Are the States, and
Regions, conducting surveys
of community water systems
to prevent noncompliance?
(N) Has the Region undertaken
data verification activity
for each State? What have
results of completed studies
shown about data integrity?
Have the States made adjust-
ments to their data systems
to address any problems dis-
covered during a current or
previous verification?
(0) Are the States currently
providing compliance data
on a quarterly basis? Is
the data, as received, of
high quality and is it
submitted with enough lead
time to allow the Region
to conduct a data review?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(s) Report the number of
§1431 AOs issued and the
number of judicial cases
referred to EPA HQ or DOJ
against CWSs in nonprimacy
States or on Indian lands
during the last 12 months.
(t) Report by State (and
by a Regional total for
Indian lands) the number
of CWSs which have
received a routine
sanitary survey.
(u) Report on which States
the Region has initiated
or completed a data veri-
fication during the last
12 months.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Yes/Yes
DW/E-8
Second Regional
Quarter Report
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
All Regional
Quarters Report
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
No/No
Second
Quarter
Regional
Report
-------
DRINKING WATER
Public Water System Supervision Program
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
compliance
with the
NIPDWRs.
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(P) Is the Region thoroughly
reviewing the States' quar-
terly data submissions and
correcting obvious anomalies
before the reports are due
at HQ?
(Q) Has the Region dis-
cussed with the States
EPAs desire to accelerate
the FRDS data submissions
beginning in FY '88?
(R) Have the States cate-
gorized their noncommunity
water systems (NCWS) into
priority groups to target
use of their resources?
(S) Do States have an active
NCWS program, including in-
ventory verification and
conpliance improvement?
(T) Have the Regions dis-
cussed with the States our
desire to be able to ident-
ify and track Federal
facilities, and are the
States coding these systems
correctly in the FRDS?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
(v) How quickly after the
end of a quarter can each
State provide quarterly
compliance data to EPA?
(w) Report which States
have applied some type of
categorization to their
noncommunity systems.
No/No
Second
Quarter
No/No
Second
Quarter
Regional
Report
Regional
Report
-------
DRINKING WATER
Public Water System Supervision Program
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
compliance
with the
NIPDWR.
(Cont'd)
i
-P-
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(U) What is the magnitude
of Federal facility CWSs
which are SNCs?
(V) Are all States currently
entering actual analytical
results of the required
chemical and radiological
monitoring into the FRDS?
(W) In brief, what steps have
been taken to coordinate the
efforts of the Drinking Water
Branch and the Superfund and
RCRA program offices.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(x) Report, by State, the
number and percent of Fed-
eral facility CWSs which
are SNCs of: (a) a micro-
biological, turbidity, or
TTHM requirement, or (b) an
organic other than TTHM,
inorganic, or radiological
requirement. (Report as
1 number for each of the
2 groups.)
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second
Quarter
(Data are
lagged 2
quarters)
SOURCE
OF DATA
FRDS
-------
DRINKING WATER
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
1. Oversee
Primacy
State
Programs
>£>
(Jl
(A) Are States carrying out
their programs as approved?
(B) What types of problems are
delegated States encountering?
(C) What types of assistance
are States requesting?
(D) How does Region exercise
effective overview of
delegated programs?
(E) Are States running MIT
and File review effectively?
(Evaluation by HQ/RG team)
(a) Report, by State, # of No/No
injection wells in each well
class, by operating status
to update the injection well
inventory record.
(b) Track, by well class, Yes/SPMS
progress against targets DW-2
for UIC permit determina- DW-3
tions made by primacy
States for new and exist-
ing (I) Class I wells,
and (2) Class II, III,
V wells (if applicable),
and the # of wells affected
by these determinations.
(c) Track, against targets, Yes/SPMS
the # of existing Class II DW-4
well record file reviews
completed and # of deficient
wells found with appropriate
follow-up initiated.
(d) Track, against targets, Yes/SPMS
the # of existing Class II DW-5
wells for which mechanical
integrity tests were per-
formed by operators and
verified by States and
# of wells which lack
mechanical integrity.
Annually Reqion/
State
Report
Quarterly Reqion/
(data State
laqqed Report
1 quarter)
Quarterly Reqion/
(data State
laqqed Report
1 quarter)
Quarterly Reqion/
(data State
laqqed Report
1 quarter)
-------
DRINKING WATER
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES
1. Oversee
Primacy
State
Programs
(conf)
ifc.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(F) By State, what is the
status of the assessment
of Class V wells.
(G) Are States enforcing
significiant violations
effectively?
(H) Are States following-
up on enforcement actions
to ensure compliance?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
(e) Report, by State, by No/No
well class the % of Class II
wells for which mechanical
integrity tests were
witnessed.
(f) Report, by State, for Yes/SPMS
FY 1987 the # of field DW/E-12
inspections conducted.
(g) Track, by State, by
well class for primacy Yes/No
States the number and DW/E-9
percent of major wells
and Class II, III, V wells
in significant non-
compliance (SNC) with
permit or rule requirements.
(h) Identify, by State, by No/No
well class the number of
wells (1) added to the
Quarterly Non-compliance
Report during the reporting
quarter, (2) the number of
wells that (a) were returned
to compliance, (b) had a
formal enforcement action
taken, or (c) were placed
on a compliance schedule
and (3) number reported in
significant non-compliance
for two or more reporting
quarters.
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly Region/
(data State
lagged Report
1 quarter)
Quarterly Region/
(data State
lagged Report
1 quarter)
Quarterly Qrtrly.
(data Noncom-
lagged piiance
1 quarter) Report
Quarterly Qrtrly.
Non-
Compliance'
Report
-------
DRINKING WATER
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES
1. Oversee
Primacy
State
Programs
(cont1)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
DW/E-10
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(i) Identify by State, by
name and UIC I.D. number,
major wells and Class II,
III and V wells reported
in significant non-com-
pliance and appearing on
two or more consecutive
Quarterly Non-compliance
Reports without being
returned to compliance
or addressed with a
formal enforcement
action.
(j) Identify, by State, Yes/No
by name and UIC ID number DW/E-11
by well class the total
number of major wells and
Class II, III, V wells
listed in the execeptions
list universe for the
previous quarter which have
(1) returned to compliance
or (2)have not yet returned
to compliance but have been
addressed with a formal
enforcement actions.
(k) Report, by State, the Yes/No
number of administrative DW/E-13
orders or equivalent
enforcement actions taken.
(1) Report, by State the Yes/No
# of referrals or equivalent DW/E-14
State actions generated.
- civil actions sent to SAG
- criminal action sent to SAG
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly Qrtrly.
(data Noncom-
lagged pliance
1 quarter) Report
Quarterly Qrtrly.
(data Noncom-
lagged piiance
1 quarter) Report
Quarterly Regional
Report
Quarterly Regional
Report
-------
DRINKING WATER
ACTIVITIES
2. Imple-
ment UIC in
Non-Primacy
States and
develop
programs on
Indian Lands
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A) Does the Region have
the appropriate skill mix
for direct implementation?
(B) Is program (inventory,
reports, compliance) up
to date? If not, explain.
(C) Does the Region have a
plan to eliminate permit
backlogs (if any) or to
improve processing time (if
applicable) to prevent
delays?
00
(D) Is Region carrying out
programs as submitted?
(a) Report the # of injection
wells for each well class by
operating status to update
the injection well inventory
record.
(b) Track, by Class, against
targets, the # of permit
determinations made to new
and existing (1) Class I
wells and (2) Class II, III
V wells (if applicable)
and the # of wells affected
by these determinations.
(c) Track, against targets,
the # of existing Class II
well record file reviews
completed and # of deficient
wells found with appropriate
follow-up initiated.
(d) Track, against targets,
the # existing Class II wells
for which mechanical integ-
rity tests were performed
by operators and verified
by EPA and # of wells found
to lack mechanical integrity.
(e) Report, by State, by
well class the # of
mechanical integrity tests
witnessed by EPA.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
No/No
Annually Regional
Report
Yes/SPMS
DW-2
DW-3
Quarterly Region
Report
Yes/SPMS
DW-4
Quarterly Regional
Report
Yes/SPMS
DW-5
Regional
Report
No/No
Quarterly Regional
Report
-------
ERINKING WATER
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES
2. Inple-
ment UIC in
Non-Primacy
States and on
Indian lands
(cont1)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) By State, what is the
status of the assessment
of Class V wells.
(F) What is Region's approach
for use of formal and in-
formal enforcement actions?
(G) Have there been any en-
forcement problems. How
were they handled?
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
DW/E-12
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(f) Track, by Region, against
targets, the # of field in-
spections conducted.
(g)Track, by Region, in Yes/No
direct implementation DW/E-9
States, the number and
percent of major wells and
Class II, III, & V wells in
significant noncompliance with
permit or rule requirements.
(h) Identify, by State, No/No
by well class the number
of wells (1) added to the
Quarterly Non-compliance
Report during the reporting
quarter, (2) the number of
wells that were (a) returned
to compliance, (b) had formal
enforcement action taken or (c)
were placed on a compliance
schedule and (3) number reported
in significant non-compliance for
two or more reporting quarters.
(i) Identify by State, by name Yes/No
and DIG ID f, major wells and DW/E-10
Class II, III and V wells
reported in significant non-
compliance and appearing on
two or more consecutive
Quarterly Non-compliance
Reports without being returned
to compliance or addressed with
a formal enforcement action.
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Quarterly
(data
lagged
1 quarter)
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
Report
Qrtrly.
Noncom-
pliance
Report
Quarterly Qrtrly.
(data Noncom-
laqged pliance
1 quarter) Report
Quarterly Qrtrly.
(data Noncom-
laqged pliance
1 quarter) Report
-------
DRINKING WATER
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES
2. Imple-
ment UIC in
Non-Primacy
States and on
Indian lands
(conf)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(I) Has the dynamic base of
significant noncompliance
effectively decreased?
i
Ul
o
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
DW/E-11
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(j) Identify, by State, by
name and UIC ID #, by well
class the # of major wells
and Class II, III and V wells
listed in the exceptions report
for the previous quarter which
(1) returned to compliance or
(2) have not yet returned to
compliance but have been
addressed with a formal
enforcement action.
(k) Report, by State, the # of Yes/No
administrative orders or equiva- DW/E-13
lent enforcement actions taken.
(1) Report by State, the # of Yes/No
- civil actions referred to DCJ DW/E-14
- criminal actions referred to
DOJ
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly Qrtrlv.
(data Noncom-
lagged pilane
1 quarter) Report
Quarterly Reqional
Report
Quarterly Regional
(OECM will Report
report)
-------
VCYTER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial and
Municipal
Permits
Ul
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR
(A) How were Regional/State
permit issuance strategies de-
veloped and how does the Region
track State permit issuance
status (major and minor)?
(B) Do any States have a
continuing backlog of
expired major permits? Has
the Region assessed the
reasons? What are the
Regions plans to address
the problems?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify the # of
major industrial permits
that have or will expire
by the end of FY 87 (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(b) Track progress against
targets for the # of permits
reissued to major industrial
facilities during fiscal
year (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States).
(c) Identify the # of major
municipal permits that have
or will expire by the end
of FY 87 (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States).
(d) Track progress against
targets for the # of permits
reissued to major municipal
facilities during fiscal
year (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
ftQ-l/WQ-3
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
10/15/86 PCS
Yes/SPMS
Quarterly PCS
Yes/No
WQ-5/WQ-7
Yes/SPMS
WQ-6/WQ-8
10/15/86 PCS
Quarterly PCS
-------
WKTER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/
Reissue
Industrial
and Municipal
Permits
(con't.)
m
to
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(C) Are industrial/muni-
cipal major permit
issuance rates in the
Region/States expected
to be sufficient to
assure permits are
reissued as they expire?
Now? In the future?
(D) Do the Region/States
review the industrial
discharger ratings that
determine major/minor
status? Is this done on
a routine basis? To what
extent have the original
ratings been reexamined?
How current are the ratings
now being used?
(E) Are there any new or
emerging delays or road-
blocks in the Region's/
States' industrial/muni-
cipal permitting processes?
What are they and what
practical steps are
needed to expedite
permitting?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(e) Identify, by Region the
number of planned revisions
of major industrial permits
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
(f) Track, by Region,
progress against targets
for the number of planned
revisions of major indus-
trial permits (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
(g) Track, by Region, the
number of other major in-
dustrial permits modified
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
(h) Identify, by Region the
number of planned revisions
of major municipal permits
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
(i) Track, by Region,
progress against tar-
gets for the number of
planned revisions of major
municipal permits (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
WQ-9
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
10/15/86 Region/
States
Yes/SPMS
WQ-10
Quarterly Region/
States
No/No
Quarterly Region/
States
Yes/too
WQ-11
10/15/86 Region/
States
Yes/SPMS
WQ-12
Quarterly Region/
States
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/
Reissue
Industrial
and
Municipal
Permits
(con't.)
U1
u>
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR
(F) Are short-term permits
still being issued? Do
many permits have reopener
clauses for incorporating
promulgated effluent guide-
lines or for addressing new
limits resulting from
toxicity testing?
(G) What is the nature of
the modifications being made
to industrial/municipal
major permits? Discuss this
workload or the Region/States
in relation to permit issu-
ance and other permitting
activities. What are the
resource implications? How
does the Region track permit
modif icat ions?
(H) Discuss in particular the
process and timing for modifi-
cation of municipal permits to
incorporate approved pretreat-
ment program requirements.
Have all approved local pro-
grams been incorporated in
permits, including local
limits?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(j) Track, by Region,
the number of other
major municipal permits
modified (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
(k) Track progress
against targets for
the # of permits reissued
to significant minor
industrial facilities
during fiscal year (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(1) Track progress
against targets for the
# of permits reissued to
significant minor municipal
facilities during fiscal
year (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States).
(m) Update if necessary,
the strategy for each State
for the issuance of permits
to minor dischargers (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(n) Prepare a list of all
approved POTW pretreatment
programs for which the per-
mit has not been modified
to require implementation
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly Region/
States
Yes/SPMS
WQ-13
Quarterly Region/
States
Yes/SPMS
WQ-13
Quarterly Region/
States
No/OW
7/1/87
Region/
States
No/No
Provide
list
start of
FY
Region/
States
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/
Reissue
Industrial
and
Municipal
Permits
(cont'd)
2. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR
If not, what are the impediments?
When will it be done? Are sub
sequent local program changes
being incorporated? How frequent-
ly does this happen? Is there a
backlog? What priority is given
to assuring municipal permits
are modified to reflect cur-
rent local pretreatment
programs?
(A) Discuss Region's/States'
implementation of the "Policy
for the Development of Water
Quality-based Permit Limita-
tions for Toxic Pollutants."
Have EPA and the States been
working together to implement
the policy? What are the
principal impediments to
implementation of the policy
(training, expertise resources,
etc.)? What steps have been
taken so far? Have procedures
been developed?
(B) What are the Region/States
doing to identify permittees with
potential water quality impacts
that require toxicity testing or
limits? (See Water Quality Stan-
dards measures on wasteload
allocations.)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(o) Track progress against
targets for the number of
municipal permit modifica-
tions to incorporate the
pretreatment implementa-
tion requirement (NPDES,
non-NPDES States).
(a) Identify municipal
and industrial permits
reissued or modified that
include water quality-
based toxics limits or
whole effluent toxicity
testing (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Second/ Region/
Fourth States
Quarters
No/No
Second/ Region/
Fourth States
Quarters
-------
Permits
ACTIVITIES
2. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
(cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(C) Are permittees encountering
problems identifying sources of
toxicity or toxicity reduction
control methods? How are permits
incorporating testing require-
ments/limits using whole ef-
fluent toxicity and/or pol-
lutant-specific approaches?
Discuss Region's/States'
experiences, problems. Are
§308 letters (or similar
State mechanisms) being
used in lieu of permit
condit ions?
(D) Discuss any problems
encountered by Region/
States with respect to
permit monitoring reguire-
ments and general conditions,
especially in relation to
toxic pollutants.
(E) Are States/Region en-
countering any difficulties
in applying the guidelines?
If so, how are they being
resolved? Are the resolu-
tions satisfactory and
timely?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
2. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(F) To what extent are States/
Region developing permit
conditions using best profes-
sional judgement? Is the
technical support for these
judgements adequate? Are
rationales for BPJ deter-
minations documented in the
Fact Sheets or Statements
of Basis? If not, what addi-
tional support is needed?
Are the resolutions satis-
factory and timely?
(G) Do many of the Region's/
States' industrial permits
contain BMP requirements? How
are these requirements written
into permits? Are site-specific
BMPs as well as BMP plans being
used? Is the guidance developed
by Headquarters adequate or are
additional information or work-
shops needed on BMPs?
(H) Are Region's/States'
municipal permit conditions
consistent with the new secon-
dary treatment definition? Are
there any difficulties in applying
the new definition? If so, how
are they being resolved? Are the
resolutions satisfactory and
timely? Discuss the nature and
extent of the use of "special
consideration" provisions
of the secondary treatment
definition.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
-------
V\&TER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
2. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
(cont.)
en
-J
(I) To what extent do Region's/
States' municipal permits contain
monitoring and reporting
requirements for toxics
in their effluent and/or
sludge.
(J) Discuss Region's/States'
progress in completing muni-
cipal permit modifications for
§301(h) and pretreatment, and
any problems associated with
permit monitoring requirements
and general conditions.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
3. Issue New
Source/Major
New Discharger
Permits
en
oo
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR
(A) Is Region's/States'
approach to new permits
consistent with priority
to protect water quality?
Are there special prob-
lems in the new source
area? Is there adequate
coordination with other
media programs where more
than one EPA permit is re-
quired? Is construction
ban being enforced? Have
problems arisen in this
area? Are NEPA reviews
conducted smoothly and in
a timely manner where re-
quired? What is the cur-
rent backlog of new source
and major new discharge
permit applications? How
many have been pending for
more than 12 months?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track # of new source/
major new discharge permits
issued.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly
Region
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
4. Issue/Reissue
General Permits
en
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR
(A) What types of problems
have the Region/States en-
countered in issuing general
permits? What measures
have been taken or
are needed to resolve them?
(B) Is 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) To what extent can general
permits be used to regulate un-
permitted dischargers? Are any
such general permits being
prepared? When are they likely
to be issued? How many un-
permitted dischargers would
be regulated?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
(a) Track progress against No/OW
targets for the # of general
permits issued/reissued
(non-NPDES States):
-#OCS
-# other than OCS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region
(b) Track # of general
permits issued/reissued
(NPDES States):
-#OCS
-# other than OCS
No/No
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
States
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
5. Resolve
Evidentiary
Hearings
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
5. Resolve
Evidentiary
Hearings
(cont'd).
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(d) Track # of evidentiary
hearing requests received in
FY 87 which are denied or
granted within 90 days (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-Municipal.
(e) Of all evidentiary hear-
ing requests resolved in FY
87, identify #:
- denied
- settled without hearing
- decided after hearing
- withdrawn
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly PCS
No/No
Quarterly PCS
-------
VCVTER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pennits
ACTIVITIES
6. Review and
Approve/Deny
Variance
Requests
CTi
N)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(A) Hew is the Region's/
States' variance process
working? What are the dif-
ficulties? What additional
support is needed, such as
procedural changes, guidance
or support from Headquarters?
Discuss problems and successes.
(B) Have any States requested
Alternative State Requirements
(ASRs) under the redefinition
of secondary treatment? Discuss
the review and approval process
and identify any problems or
support needs. In States
where EPA is the NPDES
authority, have any cities
asked for ASR limits (i.e.
higher effluent numbers
than 45 mg/1 BOD and sus-
pended solids)? Discuss
the Region's response to
the municipal inquiry. Was
the State informed of the
ASR inquiry?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify # of direct
discharger variance re-
quests pending at begin-
ning of BY 87 (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States):
- FDF
- 301(c)
- 301(g)
- 301(k)
- 316(a)
- 316 (b)
(b) Track against targets
the # of direct discharger
variance requests pending
start FY 87 which are denied
and forwarded to Headquarters
with a recommendation in FY 87
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States):
- FDF
- 301(c)
- 301(g)
- 301 (k)
- 316(a)
- 316(b)
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/NO
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
10/31/86
Region/
States
Nd/OW
Quarterly Region/
States
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Permits
ACTIVITIES
6. Review and
Approve/Deny
Variance
Requests
(cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR
CTi
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) Identify # of direct
discharger variances re-
quested durinq FY 87
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States):
- FDF
- 301(c)
- 301(q)
- 301(k)
- 316(a)
- 316(b)
(d) Track # of direct
discharqer variances re-
quested durinq FY 87 which
are denied and forwarded to
Headquarters with a recom-
mendation in FY 87 (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States):
- FDF
- 301(c)
- 301(q)
- 301(k)
- 316(a)
- 316(b)
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/fao
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly Reqion/
States
NO/NO
Quarterly Reqion/
States
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
1. Identify
Compliance
Problems
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Do the Region's/
States' compliance rates
show improvement in
FY 1987? *
(B) Is the QNCR regulation/
guidance being properly
applied in the Region/States?
Is the Region reviewing State
QNCR's to insure proper
reporting? If reviews
identify inadaquate QNCRs
what action is the Region
taking?
(C) Are there new reasons
for municipal/nonmunicipal
nonccmpliance in the Region/
States? What is the
Region's/States' strategy
for dealing with such
noncotipl i ance.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) MOVING BASE UNIVERSE:
# of major permittees and
P.L. 92-500 minor permittees
that are:
- on final effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal,
P.L.92-500; NPDES States,
non-NPDES States); and
- not on final effluent
limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal;
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
(See Appendix B)
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/lsio
WQ/E-1
through
WQ/E-6
(b) MOVING BASE SMC; Yes/No
# and % of major permittees WQ/E-1
and P.L. 92-500 minor permit- through
tees in significant non- WQ/E-6
compliance (SNC) with:
- final effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal,
P.L. 92-500; NPDES States,
non-NPDES States);
- construction schedules;
- interim effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal;
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States). (See Appendix B)
This measure must take into consideration the impact of the 8-26-85 QNCR regulation.
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Majors;
Quarterly
Minor
P.L.92-500s;
Semi-
annual ly
(April 1,
1987 based
on Dec. 31,
1986 data.
Oct. 1, 1987
based on
June 30,
1987 data.)
Majors;
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
(Data
lagged
one gtr)
Region/
States
Minor
P.L. 92-500S!
Semi-
annual ly
(April 1,
1987 based
on Dec. 31,
1986 data.
Oct. 1, 1987
based on
June 30,
1987 data.)
QNCR
(Data
lagged
one qtr:"
Region
States;
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
2. Expand
Enforcement
Efforts
Under the
National
Municipal
Policy
CTi
Ln
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Have the Region/State
completed filed enforcement
cases against major POTWs?
If not, What is delaying
action?
(B) To what extent are the
Region/States still estab-
lishing permit/compliance
schedules for all remaining
POTWs?
(C) To what extent are the
Region/States initiating
civil referrals for unfunded
POTWs that cannot meet the
1988 deadline? Are these
POTWs required to take inter-
mediate steps in the meantime?
How are reasonable deadlines
being determined?
(D) How are the Region/States
tracking and documenting non-
compliance 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?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE PLANS
(1) Identify the # of
noncomplying POTWs that require
construction
(2) Of the POTWs that currently
require further construction:
- # of those for which com-
pliance schedules (MCPs)
have been established through
an enforceable document (tracked
against target); and
-# of these completing the
final step of their MCP
and returned to compliance
(list separately: major,
minor; NPDES States, non-
NPDES States).
(b) VIOLATIONS OF MCP's
(1) Identify by Region
the number of POTW's on MCP's
that are in noncompliance
with their schedule (list
separately major, minor)
(2) Track, by Region, the
number of formal enforcement
actions taken in response to
MCP schedule violations
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
WO-17
Yes/SPMS
Major,
Minor
WQ-18
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
No/No
10/15/86
Quarterly
PCS/
Region/
States
PCS/
Region/
States
Quarterly PCS/
Region/
States
Yes/No
WQ-19
For SPMS
identify
majors only
Yes/No
WQ-20
Quarterly PCS
Quarterly
PCS/
GREAT/
DOCKET
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
2. Expand
Enforcement
Efforts
Under the
National
Municipal
Policy
(E) If there is major slippage
beyond 7/1/88 in an AO con-
struction schedule is the Region/
State seeking judicially-imposed
schedules? If not, why not?
(F) Where NMP POTWs are
receiving Federal grants, do the
Region/ States ensure that
construction and coitpliance
schedules are reasonable,
expeditious and consistent? Do
they monitor schedules jointly
and report major slippage
to the enforcement program?
(G) Are Region/State stra-
tegies updated to reflect
current Agency enforcement
policies and priorities for
assuring compliance with
schedules?
(H) Does the Region and each
State maintain a fixed-base
list of are affected NMP
minors that must be addressed
by 1988?
(I) Are the Region and the
States establishing MCP
schedules for affected minors?
When will this be completed?
-------
V&TER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
3. Ensure
Industrial
Compliance with
BAT and Water
Quality based
Toxic Require-
ments.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(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 labor-
atory capability to conduct
the necessary analysis to
support toxic inspections?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve
Quality
and Timeliness
of Enforcement
Responses
o\
oo
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are the Region/States
working effectively with
Federal facility coordinators
to improve enforcement
response times to instances
of nonccmpliance by
Federal facilities? If not
what is the nature of the
problem? Are approved States
using their full range of
enforcement authority against
Federal facilaties? If so,
what are the results? If
not, why not?
(B) How do the Region and
States measure the effective-
ness and quality of AOs and
NOVs?
(C) Do Region/States track
AO requirements closely?
Have all close-outs been
reported to Headquarters?
Are they reported promptly
upon close-out?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(a) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (AOs) Yes/No
# of EPA AOs or State WQ/E-13
equivalent actions issued:
- municipal permittees (major/
minor)
- non-municipal permittees
(major/minor)
- Federal permittees (major/
minor)
- Unpermitted facilities
(list separately: EPA, NPDES
States).
Quarterly PCS
(b) CLOSE-OUT UNIVERSE
# of EPA AOs with final
compliance dates between
July 1, 1986 through
June 30, 1987
No/No
10/15/86
Region/
States
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve
Quality
and Timeliness
of Enforcement
Responses
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(D) How do the Region and
States ensure that violations
of Court Orders/AO's get
prompt enforcement action?
(E) How are the Region/
States using National
criteria to select referral
cases? What is the involve-
ment of ORC in this selection?
(F) What is the level of
coordination between the
compliance section and ORC
in the Region? If less than
satisfactory, what steps is
the Region taking to improve
coordinat ion?
(G) 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 &
communication? If less than satis-
factory, what steps is State
taking to improve coordination?
(H) Discuss the quality of
the referral packages.
Do all referral packages
contain appropriate civil
penalties that conform
with FY 1986 Penalty Policy?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) CLOSE-OUTS ACHIEVED
# and % of (b) which are
successfully closed-out
(the final step is achieved
or action is referred to
Headquarters or DCJ).
(d) REFERRALS
# of §309 referrals or
State equivalent actions
generated:
- civil referrals sent to
HQ/DOJ/SAG;
- civil referrals filed; and
- criminal referrals filed
(list separately: EPA,
NPDES States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
State
Yes/No
WQ/E-14
Quarterly
DOCKET
System
and
Region/
States
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve
Quality
and Timeliness
of Enforcement
Responses
(Cont'd)
-j
o
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(I) What problems are the
Region encountering in
assessing penalties using
the CWA Penalty Policy?
Is Region generally getting
the penalty amounts
identified in the referral
packages?
(J) Have the Region and
approved States negotiated a
basis for Regional evaluation
of the State's 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? Are States getting the
penalty amounts they are seeking?
(K) Identify any States which have
adopted the EPA approach of attempting
to recover economic benefit plus a
gravity component.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(L) What is the quality
of active consent decrees?
Do Regions/States use PCS
to track compliance with
consent decree schedules,
If not, why not?
(M) What types of action
are being taken in 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?
(N) What are the reasons
for the Region's/States'
failure to take remedial
action against permittees
that violate their consent
decrees?
(O) What problems still
need to be addressed by the
Region/States to make the
DMR/QA program more effective?
Should it cover pretreatment?
(P) 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?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(e) CONSENT DECREES
Identify by name and NPDES
number all permittees with
active consent decrees and
report their compliance
status as follows:
- in compliance with decree;
- 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).
(f) Consent Decrees
Track, by Region, the total
number of settlements of
Judicial/Consent Decrees
filed in Federal Courts
(g) DMR/QA
# of follow-up actions
on DMR/QA performance
sample results:
- nonrespondents;
- permittees requiring
corrective action.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/too
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Quarterly OECM/
Region/
States
No/No
Quarterly OECM
No/No
Semi-
annually;
April 1,
1987
Oct. 1,
1987
Region
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
4. Improve
Quality and
Time liness of
Enforcement
Responses
(Cont'd)
(Q) What is involved in
State/Region coopera-
tion and how has it
worked best? Are States
participating fully?
(R) What is the trend in
the number of EPA formal
enforcement actions relative
to State activity since the
implementation of the timely
and appropriate criteria in
FY 1985?
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
5. Non-NPDES
Enforcement
i
-j
to
(A) Have the Region/States
taken any enforcement actions
to protect water, including
wetlands, from unpermitted
discharges of solid waste?
(B) What role does the Water
Management Division have in
determining the appropriate
enforcement response to oil
or hazardous substance spills?
(C) What criteria do the Region
use in determining where Spill
Prevention Control and Control
measure Plan inspections should
be conducted? Does the Region
always require that the plan
be amanded after a spill of
1,000 gallons or more?
(D) What measures does the
Regions allocate to non-NPDES
enfor cerent?
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
6. Increase
Use of PCS
as the
Primary
Source of
NPDES
Program
Data
-j
-p*
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What actions are Region/
States taking to improve
the quality of PCS data?
(B) Are the Regions entering
required data into PCS in a
timely fashion? What are
the Region's/States
procedures for routinely
entering and verifying dis-
charge monitoring report
data for all major
permittees, in particular,
completed and operational
P.L. 92-500 facilities?
(C) Do the Region/States use
the preprinted DMR form to
minimize compliance tracking
problems and PCS entry work-
load? What is the Region
doing to encourage the States
to use preprinted DMRs? If the
States are not using preprinted
DMRs, why?
(D) What steps are the Region/
States taking to ensure a greater
than 95% accuracy rate in
maintaining PCS.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) WENDB
Quarterly verify Water
Enforcement National Data
Base (WENDB) and DMR data
for completeness and
accuracy in both:
- NPDES States;
- non-NPDES States.
(b) Track, by Region,
the percent of required
compliance information
entered into PCS as
stated in the Policy
Statement.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly PCS
No/OW
Quarterly PCS
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
6. Increase
Use of PCS
as the
Primary
Source of
NPDES
Program
Data
(Cont'd)
i
-j
Ul
7. Improve
Effectiveness
of Inspection
Activities
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) 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, are
grant conditions being imposed
to expedite compliance? Is the
Region aware of any State(s)
planning to move off PCS? If so,
what steps is the Region taking?
(F) Are States seeking NPDES
authority being required to became
direct users of PCS?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
(A) Do the Region/States
have annual compliance
inspection plans for each
State? What is the
quality of these plans?
Discuss how these plans
are used.
(B) Do the Region/States
prepare quarterly lists of
facilities to be inspected?
What are the criteria used
to select facilities to be
inspected? Are the inspections
planned to match the specific
situation at each facility?
(a) INSPECTION PLANS
# of Regional and State
inspection plans.
(b) MAJORS INSPECTED
Track, by Region, the
progress against annual
targets for the number
of major permittees
inspected at least once
by EPA/States (list
separately: municipal,
non-munic ipal, federal;
EPA, State).
No/OW
Oct. 1, Region
1986
Yes/SPMS
WQ/E-18
Quarterly PCS
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
7. Improve
Effectiveness
of Inspection
Activities
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
How do the Region/States
determine the appropriate
tion mix? Is the mix con-
sistent with the "primary
use" criteria included in
the NPDES Inspection
Strategy?
(C) How do the Region and
States use DMR/QA perfor-
mance sample results for
targeting compliance
inspections?
(D) What mechanism is used
to assure that inspection
results are provided to the
Region/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?
,--.
(E) How does the Region/State
follow-up when inspection
results are unsatisfactory?
When RI uncover problems, does
the Region/State follow-up with
a more intensive inspection?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(c) INSPECTIONS No/OW
# of inspections (CEI or
better):
- major permittee inspections
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal;
EPA, State)
- minor P.L. 92-500 permittee
inspections (list separately:
EPA, State)
- significant minor permittee
inspect ions
(list separately: municipal,
non-mun ic ipal, federal;
EPA, State).
Quarterly PCS
-------
VvKTER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
7. Improve
Effectiveness
of Inspection
Activities
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(F) How do the Region's/States'
inspection policies focus on
the most significant violators?
(G) 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.
(H) Have the Region/States
verified that Reconnaissance
Inspections of major permittees
are only done on those permittees
meeting the requirements specified
in the attached definition
sect ion?
(I) Is the Region/State con-
ducting inspections consistent
with the assumptions used for
the FY 1987 resource alloca-
tion? Is the Region setting
aside a portion of its
resources to do inspections
on minors? Discuss.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
ACTIVITIES
8. Update
and Use EMS
Enforcement
Procedures
-j
do
QUALITATIVE MEASURES K)R
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Do the Region/States have
written EMS procedures Which
have been updated to reflect
the approved FY 1986 EMS. If
not, when will the Region/States
have written procedures? Please
submit a copy of an EMS from one
State in the Region?
(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? If not, when will the
Region/States begin to use these
criteria?
(C) If the State has developed its
own criteria are they, at least, as
stringent as the Federal Criteria?
(D) Do Region/States follow their
own enforcement response guide in
selecting the appropriate response?
(E) What kinds of formal enforce-
ment actions are the Region/States
using? What is the quality of
these actions?
Enforcement
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
8. Update
and Use EMS
Enforcement
Procedures
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(F) What kinds of informal actions
(if any) are the Region/ States
using in lieu of formal enforce-
ment action? Are these actions
documented properly? Are they
effective? Do they identify
chronic low-level violators? Are
there provisions for escalating
these responses in appropriate
cases?
(G) How often is it necessary for
the Region to take a direct enforce-
ment action in an NPDES State?
Which States? Is EPA direct enforce-
ment activity increasing/decreasing?
Are the actions taken consistent
with the criteria in the State
overview guidance, including
prior notification and consul-
tation?
(H) Do the Regional/State EMSs
cover pretreatment violations?
(I) Do the Regional/States apply the
EMS guide to pretreatment violations?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
9. Use
Guidance
Criteria and
Milestones for
Response to
Nonconpliance
i
00
o
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What is the screening
process used by the Region
& States for identifying
violations and applying
SNC criteria? How are
short term violations
requiring Regional/State
judgment handled?
(B) How do the Region and
States use the exception
list to establish a
priority for committing
ccmpli ance/enforcement
resources?
(C) What problems have the
Region/States been facing
that would prevent them
from meeting the time-lines
prescribed? Which States
consistently miss commit-
ments? Does the Region
provide adequate justifi-
cation for facilities being
on the exception list?
(D) Does the Region use the
exception list as a way of
tracking state programs? Are
they reviewed quarterly along
with the QNCR? Are the lists
are effective management tool
for the States?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
(a) EXCEPTION LIST UNIVERSE Yes/Mo
Identify by name and NPDES WQ/E-7
number major permittees WQ/E-9
appearing on two or more con- WQ/E-11
secutive QNCRs as being in
significant nonconpliance
(SNC) with:
- final effluent limits (PEL);
- construction schedules (CS);
and
- interim effluent limits (IEL)
without being returned to
compliance or addressed with
a formal enforcement action
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal; NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(b) EXCEPTION LIST TRACKING Yes/SPMS-
Identify the names and total composite
number of major permittees of the two
listed in the Exception List categories
Universe for the previous only
quarter for which one of the
following has occurred: WQ/E-8
- # returned to compliance; WQ/E-IO
- # not yet in compliance but WQ/E-12
addressed with a formal
enforcement action
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal; SNC
with PEL, CS, IEL; NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(list separately from Excep-
tion List Universe)
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
QNCR
and
Region/
States
(Data
lagged
one qtr)
Quarterly
QNCR
and
Region/
State
(Data
lagged
one qtr)
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
9. Use
Guidance
Criteria
and
Milestones
for
Response to
Noncompliance
(con't)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) Is there consistent appli-
cation of the criteria/milestones
from Stat-to-State within the
Region? If not, what steps is
Region planning to take to
improve consistency?
(F) Has the use of the
Exceptions List had any
negative effects on your
response to othe instances
of non compliance? If so,
discuss.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
I
00
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop and
Approve/Modi fy
Local Pre-
treatment
Programs
i
oo
Ni
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What, rationale does the
Region/States use to add/
delete municipalities from
the list of required local
programs?
(B) Have Region/States de-
veloped priority lists of
municipalities requiring
pretreatment program modi-
fication? Are all modifi-
cations approved/denied
within 90 days or are
priorities required? How
are priorities established
for acting on program modi-
fications? What is the
Region/States doing to en-
courage local program
modifications where defi-
ciencies are identified? Is
the Region/States relying
solely on the POTW to identify
deficiencies?
(C) How well is EPA con-
tract assistance (type
and level) supporting
development and review
of local program sub-
missions for new or
modified programs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify the local pre-
treatment programs requiring
approval but not yet approved
at the beginning of the fiscal
year and distinguish between
those newly identified in FY
86 and those previously re-
quired, (list separately:
non-pretreatment States,
approved pretreatment States).
(b) Track progress against
targets for the programs
approved during EY 1987
(list separately: non-
pretreatment States,
approved pretreatment
States).
(c) Identify the local pre-
treatment programs approved
before beginning of fiscal
year (list separately: non-
pretreatment States, approved
pretreatment States).
(d) Identify the # of program
modifications acted on/pending
during FY 87 (list separately:
approved, denied, pending more
than 90 days; non-pretreatment
States, approved pretreatment
States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
10/31/86
Region/
States
No/OW
Quarterly PCS/
Region/
States
NO/NO
10/31/86 Region/
States
No/No
Quarterly Region/
States
-------
WATER ENPORCEME2SIT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop and
Approve/Modi fy
Local Pre-
treatment
Programs
(cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(D) If a local program is
not. acceptable, how long
does the Region/States allow
for a resubmission? Are
any programs being approved
subject to conditions? Are
schedules tracked in PCS?
(E) Are cities implementing
changes to approved programs
before the Region/States acts
on the modification request?
If so, has this caused any
problems in cases where
modification is denied?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
00
OJ
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
2. Take
Actions as
Required
to Obtain
Compliance
with
Pretreatment
Requirements
00
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) 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?
(B) 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 POTW in the IU
inspection?
(C) Does the Region/State
use the PCI checklist in
conducting POTW pretreatment
inspections? If the checklist
is modified, describe the
modif icat ions.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(a) PRETREATMENT INSPECTIONS
(see also POTW pretreatment
audits)
# of EPA and State pretreat-
ment inspections of:
- Pretreatment POTWs
- Industrial Users (lUs) that
discharge to unapproved POTWs
- lUs that discharge to
approved POTWs
(list separately: POTW, IU of
an unapproved POTW, IU of an
approved POTW; EPA, States).
Yes/SPMS
WQ/E-15
Quarterly PCS
-------
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
2. Take
Actions as
Required
to obtain
Compliance
with
Pretreatment
Requirements
(Cont'd)
i
CO
Ln
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(D) How do the Region/States
ensure that local pretreatment
programs are fully implementing
NPDES permit pretreatment
requirements?
(E) How do the Region and
States identify and respond
to industrial nonconpliance
with categorical pretreatment
standard deadlines in a
municipality where there is an
approved pretreatment program?
Where there is not an approved
pretreatment program?
(F) What is the quality of
pretreatment AOs? Referrals?
(G) What are the criteria
the Region/States use to
select pretreatment referral
cases? What is the involve-
ment of ORC in this selec-
tion?
(H) What is the level of
coordination for pretreat-
ment cases between the
compliance section and
ORC in the Region and
the respective agencies
in the States? If less
than satisfactory, what
steps is the Region
taking to improve
coordinat ion?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(b) PRETREATMENT AOs
# of EPA AOs and State
equivalent actions issued:
- for POTW pretreatment
violations
- for industrial user
pretreatment violations
(list separately: EPA,
States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
WQ-E-16
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
Region/
States
(c) PRETREATMENT REFERRALS
# of pretreatment referrals
or State equivalent actions:
- civil referrals sent to
HQ/DOJ/SAG;
- civil referrals filed; and
- criminal referrals filed
in response to:
- POTW non-submittal of an
approvable pretreatment
program.
- other POTW pretreatment
violations
- industrial user pretreatment
violations
(list separately: EPA, States).
Yes/Tsio
WQ/E-17
Quarterly
DOCKET
System
and
Region/
States*
* State pretreatment referral numbers are reported to OWEP.
-------
CO
en
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
2. Take
Actions as
Required
to Obtain
Compliance
with
Pretreatment
Requirements
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(I) To the extent resources
allow, are sludge disposal
inspections conducted at PCTWs
required to have pretreatment
programs? Where else are they
conducted? What activities are
included in sludge inspections?
What follow-up occurs where
problems are encountered? What
is resources impact of sludge
disposal inspections?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
State pretreatment referral numbers are reported to OWEP.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
3. Oversee
Effect ivenes s
of Local Pre-
treatment
Program Im-
plementation
i
CD
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Have Region/States de-
veloped local program in-
ventories which enables the
identification of the priority
programs? Are the priorities
set on the basis of the rela-
tive size of approved local
programs in terms of popu-
lation and number of signifi-
cant industrial users?
(B) How are audits used by
Region/States to overview
implementation? What are
the findings from these
audits?
(C) Are annual report sub-
missions by POTWs reviewed
by the Region/State? What
criteria are used foe these
reviews? Are approved pro-
gram reviews conducted by
the Region/State?
(D) How well are POTWs imple-
menting the program? For
example, are POTWs conducting
the required local limits head-
works analysis, developing new
local limits, issuing permits
to industrial users, request-
ing programs to improve their
e ffectiveness, etc.? Charac-
terize the changes being made
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track progress
against targets for
the number of audits of
approved local pretreat-
ment programs (non-pre-
treatment States, approved
pretreatment States).
(b) Track # of pretreat-
ment categorical
determinations made and
# of removal credit
applications received (non-
pretreatment States, ap-
proved pretreatment States).
(c) Track # of POTW
annual reports required/
received/reviewed (non-
pretreatment States,
pretredtment States).
(d) Identify # of POTWs
that need to conduct local
limits headworks loading
analysis (non-pretreatment
States, approved pretreat-
ment States).
(e) Track # of POTWs re-
questing changes to local
limits (non-pretreatment
States, approved pretreat-
ment States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/SPMS
WQ-16
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly Region
No/No
Quarterly Region/
States
No/No
Quarterly Region/
States
No/No
Quarterly Region/
States
Nb/Nd
Quarterly Region/
States
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
3. Oversee
Effectiveness
of Local Pre-
treatment
Program Im-
plementation
(cont'd)
oo
CO
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
to local limits. Are they new
limits, deletions, more or
less stringent? What is the
Region/State strategy for
assuring POTWs develop/imple-
ment adequate local limits?
Do NPDES permits include
toxicity limits that may be
used to establish local limits?
Are they being reflected in
local limits?
(E) Are POTWs developing
water quality-based local
limits or requiring life to
conduct toxicity testing?
To what extent are POTWs
issuing individual permits
or equivalent control mech-
anisms to lUs?
(F) What mechanisms are
being used by local pro-
grams to apply categorical
standards to lUs? To what
extent are local programs
failing to apply categori-
cal standards? What prob-
lems are being encountered?
How well are local programs
enforcing categorical stan-
dards? Are Region/States ex-
periencing problems with
POTWs not correctly using
the combined wastestream
formula?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
3. Oversee
Ef fectivenes s
of Local Pre-
treatment
Program Im-
plementation
(cont'd)
i
oo
QUALITATIVE MEASURES TOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(G) What problems is the
Region having with cate-
gorical determinations,
PDF variances, and requests
for removal credits?
(H) Is experience from program
audits used by the Region/State
to improve future local programs
or train POTW staff?
(I) Do POTWs have adequate data
management systems to track IU
compliance? What kinds of prob-
lems are being encountered? What
solutions are being proposed?
(J) HDW well are Region/States
using contractor assistance
(type and level) supporting
iinplementation and helping to
resolve problems?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
Pretreatment
ACTIVITIES
4. Enforce
Pretreatment
Standards as
a Control
Authority
vD
O
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(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 notify categorical
industrial users of
their pretreatment and
RCRA responsibilities?
(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?
(D) How long does it
take the lUs to install
appropriate treatment
after notification?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify # of CIUs
in non-pretreatment
cities (report non-
pretreatment States
and pretreatment
States separately).
(b) Track levels
(percent) of
significant non-
compliance by CIUs
in non-pretreatment
cities. (Report
separately for
non-pretreatment
States and
pretreatment States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Initial
and
final
totals
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
States
No/No
Quarterly Region/
States
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
State Program Approval/Review/Oversight
ACTIVITIES
1. Approve
NPDES State
Program
Requests
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What is Region's
strategy for each
State to achieve full
NPDES program
administration.
(B) What progress is
being made (State-by -
State) with respect to
NPDES States assuming
pretreatment/federal
facilities programs?
(C) Do FY 87 work plans/
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?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Achieve NPDES program
approvals and modifications
in accordance with
established schedules:
- Full NPDES programs;
- Pretreatment program
modifications;
- Federal facility
mod if icat ions.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/OW
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Provide
list
start
of FY
Regions
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
State Program Approval/Review/Oversight
ACTIVITIES
2. Review
Approved
NPDES State
Statutory
and Regulatory
Authority.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(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?
(B) Does the Office of
Regional Counsel parti-
pate in the reviews? In
what way? Do they parti-
cipate in the process of
selecting States for
review and making .commit-
ments? 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.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Update list of NPDES
Staes for which Region
will assess statutory and
regulatory authority in
FY 87.
(b) Track progress against
targets (if target - them
a commitment) for the
number of NPDES States for
which statutory and regulatory
authority is assessed in
FY 87.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Nb/OW
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Yes/OW
Provide
list start
of FY
Second
and
Fourth
Quarters
Region
Region
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
State Program Approval/Review/Oversight
ACTIVITIES
3. Execute
EPA/State
NPDES Agree-
ments
i
^D
LO
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has the Region executed
NPDES agreements with all
approved NPDES States?
When are these agreements
signed? Who participates
in their development?
Please provide an example
of one of your FY 1987
State enforcement agreements.
(B) 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?
Are there any recommendations
for changing national policy
or guidance?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
State Program Approval/Review/Oversight
ACTIVITIES
4. Provide
Effective
Oversight of
Approved NPDES
State Programs
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent has the
Region implemented the
"Guidance for 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
funding and staffing and
to assure a demonstrated
ability to set program
priorities and effectively
implement the NPDES program?
What is the frequency; who
is involved; and where is
it done? What is the nature
and timing of followup?
Does this include identifi-
cation of State needs and
problems, evaluation of
performing and providing
of technical assistance?
(C) Does oversight of State
permitting include an audit
of permits to assess the
timely issuance of high-
quality permits? How is this
determined by the Region?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
State Program Approval/Review/Oversight
ACTIVITIES
4. Provide
Effective
Oversight
of Approved
NPDES State
Programs
(Cont.d)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(D) Does oversight of State
compliance monitoring include
an assessment of the timeli-
ness, completeness, and accur-
acy of self-monitoring reports?
How is this determined by the
Region? Does the Region assess
the States' reporting system
on compliance status and the
accuracy and accessibility
of the information? Does the
Region check the States compli-
ance inspection activity with
regard to its procedures and
effectiveness? How?
(E) Does oversight of State
enforcement include an assess-
ment of the timeliness of the
evaluation of violations and
the appropriateness of initial
responses, followup and escal-
ation until compliance is ob-
tained? Are NOVs, AOs, and
judicial actions assessed for
their timeliness, clarity, and
enforceability?
(F) What progress is being
made by the Region and States
in developing and adhering
to EPA/State enforcement
agreements for improving
compliance rates?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
State Program Approval/Review/Oversight
ACTIVITIES
4. Provide
Effective
Oversight
of Approved
NPDES State
Programs
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(G) What is the nature and
quality of typical communica-
tions between NPDES States and
the Region? What steps are
taken to assure continuing
and effective State/EPA
communications? What is the
general condition of coopera-
tion between the Region and
each State? How are coopera-
tive arrangements established?
How is State/EPA cooperation
assessed and problems remedied?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
State Program Approval/Rev lew/Oversight
ACTIVITIES
5. Use
Annual
Grant
Negotiations
to rein-
force
performance
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(A) How are §106, §104 (b)
(3) grants and the work
planning process used to
assure effective implement-
ation of NPDES State programs?
What water program areas are
specifically addressed? Are
they consistent with the
Agency Operating Guidance? Is
the Region working with the
States to consolidate the work
programs for all activities
funded under §§106, 205(g),
and 205(j)? Are 104 (b)(3)
grants achieving enforcement
improvements beyond that
expected with § 106 work
programs.
(B) Is the Region using the
performance-based grant approach?
Describe the performance-based
grant provisions employed by the
Region. Does the Region find
this approach beneficial to
achieving program objectives?
What is working and what is not
working?
NOTE: Qualitative and quantitative measures of State per-
formance related to specific State activities (e.g.,
permitting and enforcement) may be found in other sections.
Those measures also contribute to providing effective NPDES
State Program oversight.
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
RCRA Activities for NPDES Facilities
ACTIVITIES
1. Implement
Corrective
Action
Requirements
*£>
00
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(A) Has the Region
identified POTWs who handle
hazardous wastes?
(B) How many POTWs
stopped handling hazardous
waste since the Regional/
State notification of
RCRA?
(C) Has the Region Modified
Permits to include
corrective action require-
ments for all POTWs
subject to corrective
action?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track, by Region,
against targets the
number of RCRA 3007
information gathering
letters issued by EPA
to municipalities
(b) Identify number
of POTW notifications
received and the numbers
reviewed.
(c) Identify number of
POTW's subject to RCRA
corrective action
(d) Identify number of
POTW's for which remedial
investigation conditions
have been established to
implement RCRA 3004(u).
(e) Identify number of
POTW's for which corrective
measures have been
established to implement
RCRA 3004 (u).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/OW
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly Region
No/No
No/No
No/No
Quarterly Region
Quarterly Region
Quarterly Region
No/No
Quarterly Region
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
RCRA Activities for NPDES Facilities
ACTIVITIES
2. Review
Double
Liner
Exemption
Application
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(A) How long, on the
average, does the Region
take to conplete the
NPDES review?
(B) Does the Region use
special guidance where
BAT requirements are not
in place?
(C) Does the Region/State
track installation of the
linerswhere the exemption's
not granted or not requested?
How does installation of
the liner affect NPDES permit
compliance?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track, by Region,
against targets the
number of double liner
exemption requests
evaluated by EPA to
make NPDES-related
findings as required
by RCRA 3005(j)(3).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/OW
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly Region
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
MANAGE TRANSITION TO STATE/LOCAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY:
l(a) Number of NMP projects
which initiate operations
during FY 1987.
This measure relates to those communities which have an active construction
grant (Step 3 or 2+3). The commitment will be the number of compliance-
related projects at NMP facilities which the Region estimates will initiate
operation in FY 1987.
A "compliance-related project at an NMP facility" is a construction grant
project at a non-complying facility that requires construction to achieve
compliance, where completion of the grant project is necessary to eliminate
a condition of non-compliance.
Performance Expectation
During FY 1986, the Regions will identify, thru GIGS, the universe of compli-
ance-related projects at NMP facilities (both majors and minors). For each
project, the Region will identify those which will initiate operation in FY'87
and for information purposes, those which will initiate operation in FY'88
(through the 3rd quarter), and those which will initiate operation after July
1, 1988. An acceptable commitment for FY87 is that at least 95% of the con-
struction grant-funded Step 3 and 2+3 projects targeted will initiate opera-
tions.
ENSURE EFFECTIVE STATE/REGIONAL MANAGEMENT:
l(a) Number of assistance disputes
arising under 40 CFR Part 30,
Sub-part L, filed before FY87,
for which decisions are issued
by the RA, or which are settled
or withdrawn.
For the final RA disputes pending at the beginning of the Fiscal Year,
Regions will provide cumulative quarterly commitments for resolution. The
performance expectation is that all assistance disputes arising under 40 CFR
part 30, Sub-part L, and pending at the beginning of FY87, will be resolved
(decided, settled, or withdrawn) by the end of the fiscal year.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANACE EXPECTATION
ENSURE EFFECTIVE STATE/REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: (cont.)
l(a) (continued) Performance Expectation
During FY 1986, the Office of Water Accountability System required the Regions
to incorporate the time-based goals into the steps of the Regional disputes
process. This required that interim and final milestone dates be established
(e.g., date of informal conference, dates when program/legal review were com-
pleted, date RA decision was issued) for resolving a dispute when the dispute
was filed. During FY'87, the Region will be measured against meeting those
goals. Regions are advised that different sets of goals can be established
depending upon the complexity of a particular dispute (e.g., simple, moderate,
or difficult). A complex dispute involves a significant amount of technical
and/or legal analysis in order to issue a reasonable decision or achieve a
settlement. The target performance expectation is that all disputes will be
resolved no later than 6 months after the dispute is filed. During FY'87,
the performance expectation is that no more than 10% of the disputes will
w exceed their assigned time-based goal for resolution.
i
10 ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION/PROGRAM INTEGRITY:
2(a) # of CMEs. The objective of CMEs and PMCs is outlined in the Construction Management
Evaluation and Project Management Conference Manual.
Performance Expectation;
The national target for CME's during FY 1987 is 165, with the objective of two
to five per State, as shown in the following table established in the construc-
tion grants resource model:
State Size No. of CME's
Small 2
Medium 3
Large 4
Super 5
Regions will lead or co-lead a significant number of CMEs. A Regional report
will be submitted to Headquarters on each CME. PMC's are required on all new
construction projects where both grantees and the project will benefit from
training on grant requirements, recordkeeping requirements, project management,
and schedule management techniques.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINmON/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION/PROGRAM INTEGRITY (cont.):
2(a) (continued)
NOTE; During FY 1986, revised CME and PMC manuals and project management review
procedures will be developed. Training will be provided during the 2nd and
3rd Quarters of FY 1986.
5(a) % of Corps utilization vs.
target.
5(b) # of final construction
inspections conducted by
the COE.
w
i
Although this measure appears as a quantitative indicator, Headguarters
does not regard it as a Regional commitment. The commitment is between
Corps Divisions and EPA Regions. However, Headquarters does intend
to track performance against plan in evaluating how effectively the
Region is utilizing the Corps in the Region.
This is the inspection to determine that construction of a project is
complete and it is determined that:
0 All construction associated with the last contract under that grant
is complete in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and
change orders; except for minor components (e.g., if all but land-
scaping is done).
0 All equipment is operational.
0 Laboratory facilities, if part of approved plans and specifications,
are available to conduct tests as required.
0 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 grants projects
approximately at the time of initiation of operation or physical comple-
tion. Accordingly, the commitment will be reviewed against the related
commitment.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION/PROGRAM INTEGRITY (cont.):
5(c) # of Project Management
Conferences (PMC's) conducted
by the COE.
w
i
7(a) Total dollar value (grant
amounts) in preconstruction
lag status expressed as a
percent of annual allotment.
The objective of a PMC is outlined in the Construction Management
Evaluation and Project Management Conference manual. PMC's provide
detailed requirements of construction grant project management,
guidance to grantees on recordkeeping requirements, construction
management techniques, and overall grant project management procedures.
Performance Expectation
A PMC should be conducted with virtually all new Step 3 and Step 2+3
grantees before the start of construction. Construction start is expected
to take place within nine (9) months of Step 3 grant award or approval of
the design portion of a Step 2+3 project.
Preconstruction lag is defined as the delay of Step 3 projects
that have not initiated building within 9 months of grant award plus the
delay of Step 2+3 projects that have not initiated building within 9
months of approval of plans and specifications. The initiation of
building is defined as the date of issuance of a notice to proceed for
all significant elements of the project, or, if a notice to proceed is
not required, the date of execution of all significant contracts on the
project.
GIGS select logic for start of last significant elements is: KC= -"A ",
»p H^ ng i^ Dollar amount of lag in KG can be reduced by use of data
elements V7 and V8.
Performance Expectation;
The objective of this indicator is to minimize and reduce the dollar value
of projects in preconstruction lag status, expressed as a percentage of the
annual allotment. For FY 1987, this goal is 10%. This measure will be used
as an indicator of effective schedule management. Headquarters will period-
ically review performance and analyze the Regional actions taken to minimize
and reduce lags.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
ffiFINTTION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION/PROGRAM INTEGRITY (cont.):
7(b) # of delayed Step 2+3 projects
moved to plans and specifica-
tion approval stage.
w
i
A delayed Step 2+3 project is defined as any Step 2+3 project where the
plans and specification have not been completed, reviewed and judged
approvable by the reviewing office within 2 years of grant award.
GICS select logic for plans and specification reviewed and judged approvable
is WO= 'Ab1, 'Bb' or 'Fb'.
Performance Expectation;
The goal is to move all delayed Step 2+3 projects to plans and specification
approval stage by the end of FY 1987.
An acceptable preliminary commitment would be one which equals the "estimated"
number of delayed Step 2+3 projects available for movement to the plans and
specifications approval stage during FY87 minus that subset of projects which
have been jointly identified by Headquarters and the Region as unachievable
in FY87. A final commitment will be determined on October 13, 1986, (the
third update) by subtracting the number of identified unachievable projects
frcm the "actual" number of delayed Step 2+3 projects available for movement
during FY87.
The actual number of projects available for movement during FY87 will be ob-
tained from a GICS report (to be developed).
Projects identified as "unachievable in FY87" must be documented by the
Region by means of a short narrative submitted with the data request response.
The narrative statements submitted by the Region must be project-specific
and describe:
- current problem(s)/status;
- actions planned for FY 1987; and
- the estijnated approval date for the plans and specifications.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION/PROGRAM INTEGRITY (cont.):
7(b) (continued) The final determination on achievability will be made as a result of discuss-
ions between Headquarters and the Region. The final determinations will be
made prior to October 1, 1986.
In addition to submitting the requested narrative, the Region should make sure
that GIGS is revised to reflect the current target date and status code.
EXPEDrriOUSLY COMPLETE AND CLOSEOUT PROJECTS:
l(a) # of Step 3, Step 2+3, and A Step 3, Step 2+3, or PL 84-660 project is considered to have initiated
PL 84-660 projects initiating operations when one of the following occurs:
operations.
° For projects awarded after 12/29/81, the date of "Initiation of
Operation": N7 = 'Ab1 or 'Bb1 or 'Fb1.
0 For projects awarded before 12/29/81, the date of "Physical Completion":
N5 = 'Ab1 or 'Bb' or 'Fb'.
Performance Expectation
The number of targeted projects available for initiations during FY87 will be
obtained from a GICS report. An acceptable commitment for FY87 would be at
least 95% of the Step 3 and 2+3 projects available for initiation of opera-
tions.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
EXPED1TIOUSLY COMPLETE AND CLOSEOUT PROJECTS (cont.):
l(a) (continued) The nethod that will be used by the GIGS report to determine the actual number
of "projects available for initiation of operations" in FY87 is given below:
1. Step 3, 2+3 projects with an actual award date less than December 29, 1981,
will be considered to be available for initiation of operation in FY87 if:
0 GICS element N5 has a target date less than or equal to 9/30/87; or
0 the GICS element N5 is blank.
2. Step 3, 2+3 projects with an actual award date greater than or equal to
December 29, 1981, will be considered to be available for initiation of
operations in FY87 if:
° GICS element N7 has a target date less than or equal to 9/30/87; or
° GICS element N7 is blank.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
EXPEDITIOUSLY COMPLETE AND CLOSEOUT PROJECTS (cont.):
l(b) # of Step 3, 2+3 and PL 84-660 An administrative completion is any one of the following:
administrative completions. ° A final audit request: N8 = 'Ab1 or 'Fb1 or 'Bb1 or;
0 A project for which all of the administrative requirements have been
satisfied but has not been sent to OIG because of related segments or
phases: N8 = 'AP1, or;
0 A project with claimed costs less than $250,000 which does not require a
final audit: N8 = 'NS1.
Final audit is requested when all of the following conditions have been
satisified:
0 Construction is complete as defined in data element N5, Physical Com-
pletion Code & Elate;
0 All pre-final audit administrative requirements have been satisfied;
0 Final inspection has been performed;
0 The plan of operation has been implemented, or for projects awarded
after December 29, 1981, an affirmative project performance certifica-
te) tion has been received; or an acceptable corrective action report has
ro been submitted.
0 The "cut-off" letter has been issued to the grantee; and
0 The final payment has been requested.
Performance Expectation:
All projects for which grants were awarded before December 29, 1981, are ex-
pected to be administratively completed within 12 months of physical comple-
tion. All projects awarded after December 29, 1981, are expected to be admin-
istratively completed within 18 months of initiation of operations. An
acceptable canmitment would be one which equals the estimated number of
projects awaiting administrative completion at the beginning of FY 1987.
For projects awarded before 12/29/81, all projects which have been physically
completed but not administratively completed, are considered as "awaiting
administrative completion". For projects awarded after 12/29/81, the awaiting
administrative completion status period starts when the project performance
period ends (i.e., 12 months after initiation of operations).
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
EXPEDITIOUSLY COMPLETE AND CLOSEOUT PROJECTS (cont.):
l(c) # of Step 1's and Step 2's
and Step 2, 2+3, backlogged
Step 3, 2+3, and PL 84-660
projects administratively
completed.
td
i
VD
A Step 1 or Step 2 project is considered administratively complete when a
final audit is requested, or for projects that cannot be sent to OIG be-
cause of ongoing Step 2, Step 2+3, or Step 3 projects, when all of the
administrative completion requirements have been satisfied.
A Step 3, 2+3, or PL 84-660 administrative completion backlog is any one of the
following:
0 For projects awarded before 12/29/81, a project which has been physi-
cally complete for more than 12 months but has not yet been administra-
tively completed.
0 For projects awarded after 12/29/81, a project which has initiated
operations for more than 18 months, but has not yet been
administratively completed.
Performance Expectation:
The goal is to administratively complete all Step 1 and Step 2 projects and
eliminate all Step 3, 2+3, and PL 84-660 administrative completion backlog
projects by the end of FY 1987. A separate commitment component prepared using
the method described below, must be submitted for Step 1 administrative com-
pletions, Step 2 administrative completions, and administrative conpetion
backlogs.
An acceptable preliminary commitment would be one which equals the "estimated"
number of Step 1 and 2 projects available for administrative completion plus
the number of administrative completion backlog projects minus that subset of
projects which have been jointly identified by Headquarters and the Regions as
unachievable in FY87. A final commitment will be determined on October 13, 198
(the third update) by subtracting the number of identified unachievable pro-
jects from the "actual" number of Step 1 and Step 2 projects available for
administrative completion and the "actual" number of administrative completion
backlog projects as of October 13, 1986.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE EE FIN IT ION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
EXPEDTTIOUSLY COMPLETE AND CLOSEOUT PROJECTS (cont.)r
l(c) continued Projects identified as unachievable in FY87 must be documented by Regions by
means of a short narrative submitted with the data request. The narrative
statements submitted by the Region must be project-specific and must describe:
- current problem(s)/status;
- actions planned for FY87; and
- the estimated administrative completion date.
The final determination on achievability will be made as a result of discuss-
ions between Headquarters and the Region. The final determinations will be
made prior to October 1, 1986.
In addition to submitting the requested narrative, the Region should make
sure that GIGS is revised to reflect the current target date and status code.
ta
i Recently issued Agency policy memos provided tools to the Regions to help them
o deal with the principle reasons/causes of delays. However, a limited number
of Step 3, 2+3, and PL 84-660 backlogged administrative completion actions may
not be within the control of the State/Region. These could involve project-
wide claims/litigation, ongoing Federal/State investigations or other activi-
ties which preclude the determination of administrative completion and the
initiation of a final audit.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINiriON/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT:
l(a) % of cum. net monthly
outlays to commitment.
The net sum of payments made and payments recovered from PL 84-660 projects,
PL 92-500 section 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 1987 budget authority, section 205(j) funds, and section
205(g) delegation funds. Region is expected to achieve a performance within
+_5% of its commitment on a monthly basis.
l(b) % of cum. gross quarterly
obligations to commitment.
td
I
Dollar amount of new awards and increases from projects funded with
PL 92-500 contract authority, 1977 supplemental, FY 1978 through 1987
budget authority, section 205(j) funds and section 205(g) delegation
funds. The amount does not include PL 84-660 and PL 92-500 section 206(a)
reimbursable funds. Region is expected to achieve a performance within _+
15% of its commitment on a quarterly basis. Note: In accordance with
Agency accounting practices, decreases of funds awarded in FY 1987 during
FY 1987 will be subtracted from the gross total.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
IMPROVE FACILITY PERFORMANCE-
l(a) # of minor POTW's returned
to compliance or meeting
schedules for corrective
actions to return to com-
pliance as a result of an
Operations Manangement
Evaluation (OME).
w
i
i->
to
An Operations Management Evaluation (OME) is a problem diagnostic and onsite
assistance program focused on small (generally under 1 mgd) POTWs. Candidate
projects are identified through DMR or onsite reviews as having performance
problems which are affecting plant compliance. An OME includes a diagnostic
evaluation to identify O&M management and facility performance problems and
appropriate on-site assistance to help resolve identified O&M problems. A
report should be prepared at OME completion identifying compliance results
and appropriate follow-up actions by EPA, State, and/or the community. Essen-
tially, all State OME's are being conducted under Section 104(g)(l) grants.
Performance Expectation:
States and Regions are expected to commit jointly to conducting OME's in each
State which result in return to compliance, or to ongoing local implementation
of a program of needed compliance actions. The ccrnmitment is expectec. co be
to a mid- and end-of-year total of the number of minor POTW's which are
returned to compilance for at least three consecutive months during the fiscaj.
year, and minor POTW's which are not yet in compliance but are taking longer
term actions identified during an OME as needed for compliance achievement.
Semi-annual reports against the total commitment will be required for POTW's
returned to compliance and those on a schedule. A POTW returned to compliance
more than once in a fiscal year may only be counted one time. The local
corrective actions underway will generally include: resolution of significant
design, construction, equipment, or budget problems identified through the
diagnosic evaluation or on-site assistance which are preventing compliance
by the POTW, and that are reflected in a formal or informal compliance agree-
ment and schedule. Given the limited State and EPA resources available,
Regional and State OME efforts generally should be focused on POTW's which are
out of compliance rather than preventative OMEs.
State commitments are expected to be based primarily on, and are contingent
upon, Section 104(g)(l) grants. Regional offices are expected to commit to
a negotiated level of OME activity in each State consistent with the FY 1987
resource allocation.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
IMPROVE FACILITY PERFORMANCE (cont.):
l(b) % of projects that completed
the one year operational
period that provide an
affirmative certification
without requiring corrective
actions.
i
(->
U)
l(c) % of projects requiring
corrective actions that provide
affirmative certification
in accordance with'the
schedule contained in the
Corrective Action Report.
Percent equals the number of projects that have an actual affirmative
project performance certification (actual KA date without corrective
action) occuring during the period of time being rated divided by the
number of projects that completed the one year operational period
(actual N7 date + 14 months) during the rating period of time X100.
Performance Expectation;
The target performance is that 100 percent of the projects will be
affirmatively certified without corrective action. A level less than 100%
would be acceptable if there are projects which are non-affirmatively certified
and have submitted an acceptable corrective action report (CAR). The grantees
submission of a CAR is expected within 30 days of the completion of the one
year period, and must be accepted or rejected within 60 days of the end of the
performance period. Regions should report to HQ any non-affirmatively certi-
fied projects without an acceptable CAR within 60 days of the end of the per-
formance certification period. No project can complete the one year perform-
ance period without providing a certification; either affirmative or non-
affirmative with an acceptable CAR.
Percent equals the number of projects that have an affirmative certifica-
tion after ranedial action occuring during the period of time being rated
divided by the number of projects requiring corrective action and targeted
to be certified (KA target date and code Tl or T2) during the rating
period X100.
Performance Expectation:
The target performance is that 100% of the projects undergoing remedial actions
will provide an affirmative certification in accordance with the schedule
contained in the corrective action report and coded in GIGS element KA.
-------
MARINE DISCHARGE WAIVERS
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(e) # of final decisions.
It is expected that the Regions will have completed during FY 1987 the final
decision-making process for all but five (5) of the initial and revised
applications submitted under the provisions of §301(h).
l(f) # of permits issued
reflecting final decisions.
It is expected that the Regions will complete the issuance of permits
reflecting final decisions in an expeditious manner during FY 1988. Final
permits include final approvals which have 301(h) permits, and final denials
and withdrawals which have valid NPDES permits
Kg) # of approved/successful
A successful monitoring program is one which specifies effective data quality
objectives, is operated under appropriate QA/QC procedures to ensure the
validity of data as a bases 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.
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
tfl
I
t->
Cn
STATE GROUND-WATER PROGRAM SUPPORT:
l(a-l) Number of grants awarded
to States and Territories
within 60 days after full
allocation is available.
l(a-2) Number of State raid-year
reviews and follow-up
meetings and special
workshops conducted with
States.
2(a-l) How many strategies
completed?
2(a-2) How many strategies are
still under development?
This measure identifies timely progress in the award of
State ground-water grants. It is expected that the
great majority of grants for FY 1987 will be awarded
by the May 30 reporting date.
This measure is designed to identify the progress of the
Regions in providing program and technical support to
the States in the area of ground-water protection. It
is expected that all States will have had mid-year
reviews before June 30.
This measure identifies the number of States which have
completed statewide ground-water protection
strategies.
This measure is designed to identify the progress of
States in developing ground-water protection strategies.
By the end of FY 1987 it is expected that all States
will either have developed a strategy or have the
process well underway. If not developed, the reasons
for the delay should be identified and suggestions for
resolving them presented.
EPA GROUND-WATER FOCUS AND COORDINATION:
l(a-l) What committees and/or sub-
committees exist?
This measure is designed to track the number and type
of committees or subcommittees devoted to ground-water
issues. This should reflect standing and short-term
committees or other ground-water work groups.
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(a-2) The number of times the This measure identifies the frequency of (sub)committee
committee(s) meets. meetings that have occurred during the reporting period.
2(a-l) The number of programs This measure is designed to identify the number of programs
participating whose plans which have incorporated ground-water protection activities
include actions affecting in their work plans. Reporting in the first quarter is
ground water. is intended to correspond to annual revisions of work-
plans.
w
i
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS:
l(c) Track, by Region, against quar-
terly targets, the number of
States which have been assessed
by the Regions as implementing
antidegradation according to
EPA policies.
da
i
2(c) Track, by Region, against quar-
terly targets, the number of
States which incorporate new or
revised numerical or narrative
criteria for toxic pollutants
into State water quality stan-
dards which are approved by the
Regional Office.
Antidegradation implementation is evidence of specific State actions with re-
spect to accepting or prohibiting changes in water quality standards or water
quality through application of the mandatory procedures involving economics,
public and intergovernmental review.
Evidence of implementing antidegradation can be based upon the State applying
the policy in renewing, reissuing, or modifying wasteload allocations, §404
or NPDES permits. Evidence of implementing the antidegradation policy is also
a function of a State issuing a section 401 certification that reflects the
policy correctly. Requires Regional audit of a sample from each State's NPDES,
§404 and 303(d) WIA programs to verify compliance with antidegradation require-
ments. Expectation is one audit per State.
The number measured is States, not the number of pollutants; therefore, the
total in any one fiscal year cannot exceed 57. Expectation is that in FY 87
20 States will have approved toxic criteria. Note: 2(b) covers actual num-
bers of toxic criteria adopted.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
MONITORING:
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
w
I
M
oo
l(a) Identify the number of stream
miles, lake acres, estuary
square miles/ coastal miles/ and
Great Lake shore miles in each
Region/ the number assessed/
and the number that are sup-
porting/partially supporting/
not supporting designated uses
as reported in the FY86 305(b)
Report and 205(j) updates.
Identify/ by nonpoirit source
category, the number of stream
miles/ lake acres, estuary
square miles/ coastal miles and
Great Lake shore miles not fully
supporting designated uses due
to nonpoint source pollution.
This measure was developed as part of the STEP process. EPA's 305(b) report
guidance describes how the assessments are to be done. The Office of Water
will compile the data from State 305(b) reports and any 205(j) assessment
updates.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
MONITORING (Continued)
td
I
2(a) Identify the number and list of
water-bodies that are water qua-
lity limited for: (1) toxics
and nontoxics; (2)toxics only;
and (3) nontoxics only, and
the number and list of these
waterbodies still needing
water quality based controls;
the number and list of water-
bodies where available data
show they are not water qua-
lity limited for toxics; and
the number and list of water-
bodies for which available
data or analyses does not
allow a decision.
3(a) Track, by Region, against quar-
terly targets, the number and
provide a list of waterbodies
for which all known needed water
quality based controls for toxics
and nontoxics have been approved
by EPA. Expectation is 20% or
more of waters known to need
controls as of beginning of FY87
will be targeted for completion.
This measure translates "stream miles" reported above into "numbers of waters"
or areas and list of those waters that are water quality limited, and the num-
ber and list that still need water quality based controls. Waters are defined
as either a free flowing stream reach as 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. For developing the list of waters, where a River Reach
number is not available, each water should be identified by name and latitude/
longitude from 7 1/2 minute USGS topo maps. Geographically separated areas on
large open waters (e.g., two different cities on Chesapeake Bay) should be
counted as separate waters. "Water quality based controls" are the wasteload
allocation for point sources and the load allocations for nonpoint sources
needed to meet water quality standards. Water quality based controls are con-
sidered approved by EPA when they are reviewed and found acceptable to EPA
under the Water Quality Management Regulation and section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act. "Toxic pollutants" are defined in section 502(13) of the Clean
Water Act. As used here, toxics exclude biological oxygen demand, total sus-
pended solids, fecal coliform, pH, or the effects of nutrients as they relate
to euthrophication. The Office of Water will compile the list of waters from
305(b) reports, 106/205(j) work programs or 205(j) updates as part of the
national water quality assessment report to Congress.
This measures tracks progress in developing needed water quality-based con-
trols to meet water quality standards in those waters with the greatest
environmental significance. The number of waters needing water quality
based controls will be updated annually to establish a total universe
of which 20% or more will be targeted for completion during FY 87.
See the definition of water quality based controls and toxic pollutants
under measure 2(a). The Office of Water will compile the list of waters from
305(b) reports, 106/205(j) work programs (monitoring checklists) or 205(j)
updates as part of the national water quality assessment report to Congress.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
MONITORING (Continued)
tfl
i
4(a) Number of States that have imple-
mented environmental indicators
and procedures (consistent with
national guidance) to be used in
measuring water quality trends
in specific waters of concern.
5(a) Number of State water quality
monitoring programs evaluated
and audit reports prepared.
5(b) Number of States completing
and submitting monitoring
checklists as part of the
annual WQM work programs.
This measure tracks Regional progress in implementing environmental indicators
consistent with national guidance for States in each EPA Region. The intent is
to show demonstrable changes in water quality in those waters where designated
uses are not being met or where designated uses are threatened if water quality
based controls are not put in place. In establishing indicators, Regions and
States should agree upon field monitoring and statistical analyses which will
be used to measure trends in the specific pollutants and/or biological condi-
tions which best characterize the water quality problems in those specific
waters.
This measure provides an indication of how many State monitoring programs are
being reviewed in-depth by the Regional Offices with follow-up written reports
prepared. Audit reports should be prepared by the Regional Office to evaluate
the effectiveness of State water quality monitoring to deliver information EPA
and State Administrators need to manage for environmental results. Regional
responsibilities include the need to oversee State monitoring programs to en-
sure that the required data is collected and reported. The audit report for a
State should be an assessment of all aspects of the State's water quality moni-
toring and wasteload allocation programs, and should include answers to the
questions listed on page iv of EPA's October 1985 Guidance for State Water
Monitoring and Wasteload Allocation Programs.
Monitoring checklists provide a convenient tool for the States to describe
planned monitoring and wasteload allocation activities in the budget year.
These checklists are not intended to be detailed study plans; their purpose is
to provide a simplified format for the State to outline the work planned for
the year and are to be included as part of the State's annual 106/205(j) work
programs. Monitoring checklists are discussed in the Guidance for State Water
Monitoring and Wasteload Allocation Programs.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
MONITORING (Continued):
ro
NJ
5(c) Number of QA/QC work/project
plans completed and the
number of QA/QC program plans
evaluated for currency.
6(a) Number of States reporting
data as required by the Water
Monitoring Policy, i.e., all
data collected in conjunction
with developing water quality
based controls and appropriate
assessment data to EPA in a
timely manner (i.e., 60 days
after the States have reviewed
the data and found it acceptable)
This measure provides an indication of how well the States are implementing EPA
guidance on developing QA/QC work/project plans as well as an indication of how
closely the Regional Office reviews the plans. All EPA projects supported
through grants, contracts, or other formalized agreements are required to have
a QA/QC project plan.
This measure provides an indication of how many States are actually reporting
water quality data to EPA as specified in EPA's Water Quality Monitoring
Policy. It will also give an indication of how the Regional Offices are
working with the States to ensure that the requested data is report to EPA.
Expectation is that every State should be reporting this data. All data
developed for water quality based controls must be entered into STORET.
PLANNING:
2 (a) Identify for each State the type
and number of major products
completed in FY 86. For each
type of major product indicate
the number submitted to the
Region for review and the num-
ber incorporated into WQM plans.
This measure provides an indication of how well States are completing tasks
funded under EPA grant funds. Examples of major products include: WLA/TMDL,
intensive survey, V£)S revision, NFS program, toxic control strategy, priority
waterbody list, monitoring strategy, permit, etc. We would like this informa-
tion provided in a table with major products listed down the left and across
the top 3 columns: # products completed; # products submitted to Region for
review and # incorporated into the State WQM plan. We recognize that not all
major products are incorporated into State WQM plans, but are interested in
those activities which are incorporated into the plans.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT
l(a) Identify, by State, the actual
water-bodies not meeting designated
uses due to NFS.
l(b) Identify, by State, those ground-
waters impacted by NFS.
M
i
NJ
to
2(a) Track, by Region, against quar-
terly targets, the number of
adequate NFS management pro-
grams consistent with WQM
Regulation and EPA's Nonpoint
Source Strategy developed by
each State.
This measure is designed to track the progress of States in identifying clearly
and specifically, by name or reach number, their waterbodies not meeting desig-
nated uses because of NFS contributions alone or in combination with point
source discharges. This is an essential first step for States in targeting
their priority waters and is information currently required for 305(b) reports.
This is designed to track the progress of States in identifying specific
ground-waters impacted by NFS and to increase the emphasis given by States and
Regions to NFS problems affecting ground-water. It is not expected that all
States will have detailed data but rather that this measure will encourage
States and Regions to take the next steps toward improving their data bases.
Ground-water maps included in the ASIWPCA NFS Report should serve as general
first steps.
This measure is designed to track the progress of States in developing and/or
updating their NFS programs to make them consistent with WQM Regulations and
EPA's Nonpoint Source Strategy. In keeping with ViQM Regulations, each State
should have a Statewide program for each NPS category (agriculture, urban,
etc.) in which the State has identified significant water quality problems.
A program is counted as "adequate" when it has: a) identified waters requiring
nonpoint source controls; b) designated categories of nonpoint sources that
contribute significant pollutant loadings to the water identified in (a); c)
identified the best management practices which will be used to reduce pollu-
tant loadings from each category of nonpoint sources identified in (b) and
identified the probable impact of each such practice on groundwater; d) iden-
tified specific NPS programs to achieve implementation of the identified
practices with appropriate schedules containing annual milestones; e) evaluated
the adequacy of the State's NPS laws; and f) evaluated Federal NPS programs/
projects for compliance with State NPS requirements and identified any incon-
sistencies. Furthermore, each NPS program should address the State's iden-
tified critical areas and provide a means for addressing both surface and
ground-water impacts of identified NPS water quality problems.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIOSIS
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT (Continued):
to
U)
2(b) Identify, by State the number of
NFS projects currently being
implemented whose implementation
plans have been approved by the
Region.
4(a) List by State NFS demonstration
projects involving other Federal
agencies and States. Give status
of projects.
4(b) Number of State water quality
agencies participating in annual
review of ACP priorities.
This measure is designed to track the progress of Regions in ensuring that
States implement during FY 1987 at least 25 new watershed-level NFS control
projects whose implementation plans have been approved by the Region and
whose progress to date is acceptable to the Region. Acceptable progress means
that interim deadline/milestones established in the implementation plan for
the project have been met or delays are judged legitimate by the Region and
the States is taking concrete action(s) to resolve the problems involved and
get back on schedule.
This measure is designed to track the progress of States and Regions in
utilizing the programs, technical assistance and delivery systems of other
Federal agencies such as the Soil Conservation Service, Extension Service or
Forest Service to support State efforts to implement NFS control.
This measure is designed to track one indicator of the degree to which States
are availing themselves of existing opportunities to encourage increased sup-
port for NFS water quality objectives by other Federal agencies. Participation
in annual reviews would consist of active review and comment upon ACP priori-
ties designed to increase the priority of water quality objectives and re-
lated projects in ACP's annual workplan.
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
td
I
K)
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION:
l(a) Report, by a Regional total,
the number, and percent, of
Indian land CWSs which are SNCs
of: (a) a microbiological, tur-
bidity, or TTHM requirement, or
(b) an organic other than TTHM,
inorganic, or radiological re-
quirement. (Report as 1 number
for each of the 2 groups).
3(a) Report which States have
written and implemented
a compliance policy.
3(C) Has each State negotiated a
SNC target? Does the target
reflect at least a 10% im-
provement over the previous
year's actual results?
3(b) Report, by State, the number
and percent of CWSs which are
SNCs of a microbiological,
turbidity, or TTHM require-
ment. (Report as 1 number
per State.)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
This measure will report the number and percent of Indian land community water
systems (CWS), within each Region's jurisdiction, which meet the definition
of a significant noncomplier (SNC). The measure will be reported only once
during the fiscal year, for the second quarter report (4/1/87), and will
reflect violations which occurred between 10/1/85 through 9/30/86. HQ will
compile this information via the FRDS.
This measure will report the number of States which have developed compliance
policies for dealing with systems which have violations of the NIPDWR. The
information will be submitted by the Regions with their self evaluations.
As States and Regions will negotiate FY '87 targets sometime during the Spring
or Summer of 1986, the "previous year's actual results" could be taken from
either of the following periods — 4/1/85 through 3/31/86 or 7/1/85 through
6/30/86. Regions and States should use the most current of these periods when
negotiating the targets.
This measure, which will be tracked against a negotiated end-of-year target,
will report the number and percent of CWSs which meet the definition of SNC
for either a microbiological, turbidity, or TTHM requirement. Rather than
reporting the numbers of systems separately for each of the three contaminant
groups, Regions are to report the aggregate number of systems. In doing so,
we will eliminate the double counting of systems which may be SNCs of more
than 1 contaminant. The number of SNCs will be compiled five times during
FY '87. In addition to the four standard quarterly reports, we will generate
a list of SNCs on approximately 10/15/86 which will cover violations occuring
during the period 4/1/85 through 3/31/86. These five reports will create a
rolling, or dynamic base, of SNCs upon which we will track subsequent return
to compliance and State enforcement activity.
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
3(c) Report, by State, the number
and percent of CWSs which are
SNCs of an organic other than
TTHM, an inorganic, or a rad-
ioligical requirement. (Report
as 1 number per State.)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
I
K>
t_n
3(d) Report, by State, the change
in the number of SNCs from the
previous quarter. (Applies
to microbiology, turbidity,
and TTHM SNCs. Report as 1
number per State.)
3(e) Report, by State, the popu-
lations served by CWSs which
are SNCs of a microbiological,
tirbidity, TTHM, organic other
than TTHM, inorganic, or radi-
ological requirement. Report
populations in two groups: a)
microbiology, turbidity, and
TTHM SNCs, and b) organics
other than TTHM, inorganics,
and radiological SNCs.
This measure will report the number and percent of CWSs which are SNCs of
either an organic other than TTHM, an inorganic, or radiological requirement.
Rather than reporting the numbers of systems separately for each of the 3
contaminant groups, Regions are to report the aggregate number of systems.
In doing so, we will eliminate the double counting of systems which may be SNCs
of more than 1 contaminant group. The number of "chem/rad" SNCs will be con-
piled only once during FY '87 — for the second quarter report (4/1/87). This
will reflect surface water system violations during the period 10/1/85 through
9/30/86 and ground water system violations during the period 10/1/83 through
9/30/86. This compilation of chem/rad SNCs will create a "fixed base" upon
which we will track (for the third and forth quarter reports), subsequent
return to compliance and State enforcement activity. As this is the first year
we are defining chem/rad violators (other than TTHMs) as SNCs, we anticipate
encountering some definitional and data management obstacles. We request
Regional assistance in resolving these problems.
This measure will compare the number of CWSs which are SNCs because of a micro-
biological, turbidity, or TTHM violation in the current quarterly report to the
number in the previous quarterly report. The first quarter report (4/1/87)
will be compared to the number of SNCs generated on 10/15/86. The intent is
to indicate whether there is a general trend toward improvement or degredation.
The comparison will be conducted for each of the 4 quarterly reports.
This measure will provide the aggregate populations served by CWSs which were
SNCs as a result of violations occuring during the period 10/1/85 through
9/30/86. It will identify populations in two groups — those served by a
system which was an SNC because of microbiological, turbidity, or TTHM vio-
lations, and those served by a system which was an SNC because of an organic
other than TTHM, inorganic, or radiological violation. The populations will
be reported only once — for the second quarter report.
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
3(f)
W
I
N)
O
3(g)
Report, by State, the number
of CWSs which were SNCs of
a microbiological, turbidity,
or TTHM requirement in the
previous quarter, which have
since returned to compliance.
Report, by State, the number
of CWSs which were SNCs of
a microbiological, turbidity,
or TTHM requirement in the
previous quarter, against
which the State has taken a
formal enforcement action.
This measure will report the number of CWSs, which were SNCs in the previous
quarterly report because of microbiological, turbidity, or TTHM violations,
which have since "returned to compliance". For the purposes of this measure
"returned to compliance" is defined as having no additional violation (either
MCL or monitoring), of the same contaminant which caused the system to become
an SNC, during the subsequent six months. As an example, the first quarter
report (1/1/87) will provide the number of SNCs, which were contained in the
10/15/86 report (compliance period 4/1/85 through 3/31/86) which had no MCL
or monitoring violation of the contaminant which caused it to be an SNC during
the subsequent six months (4/1/86 through 9/30/86). Regions should compile
the data required for each quarterly report several weeks in advance so that
it will be received by ODW on the following schedule: first quarter report -
12/15/86, second quarter report - 3/15/87, third quarter report - 6/15/87,
and fourth quarter report - 9/15/87.
This measure will report the number of CWSs, which were SNCs in the previous
quarterly report because of microbiological, turbidity, or TTHM violations,
against which the State took a formal enforcement action. This measure will
attempt to measure the timeliness and appropriateness of State actions against
the systems classed as SNCs. To address timeliness, we will include actions
which occured within six months following the time that the systems became a
SNC. As an example, the first quarter report (1/1/87) will provide the number
of SNCs, which were contained in the 10/15/86 report (compliance period 4/1/85
through 3/31/86) against which the State took a formal enforcement action
during the subsequent six months (4/1/86 through 9/30/86). To address appro-
priateness, we will define a formal enforcement action as an action which
fits the definition of any of the following FRDS legal status codes: G, H, J,
K, L, N, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, 3, 4, or 5. Regions should compile the data
required for each quarterly report several weeks in advance so that it will be
received by ODW on the following schedule: first quarter report - 12/15/86,
second quarter report - 3/15/87, third quarter report - 6/15/87, and fourth
quarter report - 9/15/87.
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
3(h) Report, by State, the number
of CWSs which were SNCs of a
microbiological, turbidity,
or TTHM requirement in the
previous quarter, which are
currently operating under,
and adhering to a formal
compliance schedule.
3(i) Exception Report;
Identify, by name and PWS
ID number, each CWS which
was an SNC of a microbio-
logical, turbidity, or
TTHM requirement in the
previous quarter, which
has not returned to con-
pliance, has not had a
formal enforcement action
taken against it, or is
not operating under and
adhering to a formal
compliance schedule.
This measure will report the number of CWSs, which were SNCs in the previous
quarterly report because of microbiological, turbidity, or TTHM violations,
which are currently operating under and adhering to a formal compliance sched-
ule. For the purposes of this measure, a formal compliance schedule is defined
as one which prescribes a path toward eventual compliance and is legally
enforceable. As an example, the first quarter report (1/1/87) will provide the
number of SNCs, which were contained in the 10/15/86 report (compliance period
4/1/85 through 3/31/86) which were operating under, and were adhering to a
formal compliance schedule during the 4/1/85 - 3/31/86 compliance period or
have been placed on such a schedule during the six months following that period
(4/1/86 through 9/30/86). Regions should compile the data required for each
quarterly report several weeks in advance so that it will be received by ODW
on the following schedule: first quarter report - 12/15/86, second quarter
report - 3/15/87, third quarter report - 6/15/87, and fourth quarter report -
9/15/87.
This measure will report names and PWS ID numbers of those systems which are
not included in the numbers comprising the previous 3 measures [4(f), 4(g), and
4(h)]. It is intended to identify those SNCs which continue to have violations
in the subsequent quarter, and which are neither on a schedule outlining how
how they will regain compliance nor have had any formal enforcement action by
the State to stimulate return to compliance. As an example, the first
quarter report (1/1/87) will provide the names and IDs of CWSs which were
contained in the 10/15/86 report (compliance period 4/1/85 through 3/31/86),
which had neither returned to compliance, had a formal enforcement action
taken against them by the State, nor were operating under and adhering to a
formal enforcement schedule during the subsequent six months (4/1/86 through
9/30/86). Regions should compile the lists of CWSs for each quarterly ex-
ception report several weeks in advance so it will be received by ODW on the
following schedule: first quarter report - 12/15/86, second quarter report -
3/15/87, third quarter report - 6/15/87, and fourth quarter report - 9/15/87.
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
3(j) Report, by State, the number
of CWSs which were SNCs of
an organic other than TTHM,
inorganic, or radiological
requirement as of 9/30/86,
which have since returned
to compliance.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
W
I
M
00
3(k) Report, by State, the number
of CWSs which were SNCs of
an organic other than TTHM,
inorganic, or radiological
requirement as of 9/30/86,
against which the State has
taken a formal enforcement
action.
This measure will report the number of CWSs, which were SNCs in the second
quarter report because of an organic other than TTHM, inorganic, or radiolog-
ical violation, which have since "returned to compliance". For the purposes
of this measure "returned to compliance" is defined as follows: a) organic or
inorganic - whenever the MCL is not exceeded in either of two consecutive
samples, b) gross alpha, radium 226 and 228 - whenever the annual average
concentration no longer longer exceeds the MCL, and c) man-made radioactivity -
whenever a monthly sample no longer exceeds the MCL. The third quarter report
will include the systems in the second quarter base which had returned to com-
pliance by 3/31/87. The fourth quarter report will include the systems in the
same base which had returned to compliance by 6/30/87. Regions should compile
the number of systems for each quarterly report several weeks in advance so it
will be received by ODW on the following schedule: third quarter report -
6/15/87, and fourth quarter report - 9/15/87.
This measure will report the number of CWSs, which were SNCs in the second
quarter report because of an organic other than TTHM, inorganic, or radio-
logical violation, against which the State has taken a formal enforcement
action. This report is intended to measure the level of State enforcement
activity against chem/rad MCL violations. While it should provide some
indication of the appropriateness of State follow-up, it will not provide any
indication of the timeliness of state action. A formal enforcement action
is defined as one which fits the definition of any of the following FRDS
legal status codes: G, H, J, K, L, N, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, 3, 4, or 5.
The third quarter report will include the systems in the second quarter base
against which the State had taken a formal enforcement action between the
time the system became a SNC and 3/31/87. The fourth quarter report will
include the systems the same base against which the State had taken a formal
enforcement action between the time the system became a SNC and 6/30/87.
Regions should compile the number of systems for each quarterly report several
weeks in advance so it will be received by ODW on the following schedule:
third quarter report - 6/15/87, and fourth quarter report - 9/15/87.
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
3(1) Report, by State, the number
of CWSs which were SNCs of
an organic other than TTHM,
inorganic, or radiological
requirement as of 9/30/86,
which are currently operating
under, and adhering to a
formal compliance schedule.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
W
I
3(m) Exception Report;
Identify, by name and PWS ID
number, each CWS which was a
SNCs of an organic other than
TTHM, inorganic, or radiolog-
ical requirement as of 9/30/86,
which has not returned to com-
pliance, has not had a formal
enforcement action taken
against it, or is not operat-
ing under and adhering to a
formal compliance schedule.
3(n) Report the number of CWSs
which have violated a re-
quirement prescribed in a
formal compliance schedule,
during the last 12 months.
This measure will report the number of CWSs, which were SNCs in the second
quarter report because of an organic other than TTHM, inorganic, or radio-
logical violation, which are currently operating under and adhering to a formal
compliance schedule. For the purposes of this measure, a formal compliance
schedule is defined as one which prescribes a path toward eventual compliance
and is legally enforceable. The third quarter report will include the CWSs in
the second quarter base which were on, and were adhering to a formal schedule
as of 3/31/87. The fourth quarter report will include the systems in the same
base which were on, and were adhering to a formal schedule as of 6/30/87.
Regions should compile the number of systems for each quarterly report several
weeks in advance so it will be received by ODW on the following schedule:
third quarter report - 6/15/87, and fourth quarter report - 9/15/87.
This measure will report the names and PWS ID numbers of those CWSs in the
second quarter SNC base which are not included in the number comprising the
previous 3 measures [4(j), 4(k), and 4(1)]. It is intended to identify which
systems are SNCs and have neither corrected the violation, are on a schedule
which will result in correction of the violation, nor have been the recipient
of a formal enforcement action by the State to stimulate compliance. The third
quarter report will include those systems which were in the second quarter base
which had not been adequately addressed as of 3/31/87. The fourth quarter
report will include those systems which were in the second quarter base which
had not been adequately addressed by 6/30/87. Regions should compile the lists
of CWSs for the two quarterly reports several weeks in advance so it will be
received by ODW on the following schedule: third quarter report - 6/15/87,
and fourth quarter report - 9/15/87.
r
This measure will report the number of all CWSs (not just SNCs), which were
operating under a formal compliance schedule during FY '85 (10/1/85 through
9/30/86) and had violated a requirement of that schedule during the same
period. The measure is intended to show roughly how many systems do not
adhere to a formal compliance schedule. This information will be collected
only once during the year, for the second quarter report. Regions should
submit the information with their self evaluations.
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
W
I
oo
o
3(o) Report which States have
signed an enforcement
agreement for FY '87.
3(p) Report which States have
documented their approach to
"timely and appropriate"
enforcement action.
3(q) Report, by State, the number
of civil cases referred to
the State AGs, and criminal
cases filed in court, against
any CWS in primacy States,
during the quarter.
3(r) Report the numbers of §1414
administrative procedures
completed, the number of
§1431 AOs issued, and the
number of judicial cases
referred to EPA HQ or DOJ
against CWSs in primacy
States, during the last
12 months. (Report the 3
categories separately.)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
This measure will identify which States have negotiated, and agreed to,
an enforcement agreement for FY "87. This information will be submitted
by the Regions with their self evaluations.
This measure will report the number of States which have a written description
of what constitutes "timely and appropriate" enforcement action for their State
drinking water program. This information will be submitted by the Regions with
their self evaluations.
This measure will identify the level of effort on litigations being undertaken
by the State Drinking Water Agencies. The measure is intended to include cases
against any system (regardless of whether EPA classifies it as a SNC or whether
it was taken to correct a violation of a Federal requirement). The information
is to be reported by the Regions for each of the four quarterly reports. (Note
that the data will be lagged two quarters: e.g. the first quarter report
1/1/87 will include the litigation activity occuring during the period 4/1/86
through 6/30/86, the second quarter report (4/1/87) will include the activity
occuring during the period 7/1/86 through 9/30/86, etc.
This measure will identify the level of Federal enforcement activity that was
undertaken by the Regions, against primacy States, during the period 10/1/85
through 9/30/86. The information will be collected only once during the year,
for the second quarter report (4/1/87). The information will be submitted by
the Regions with their self evaluations.
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
3(s) Report the number of §1431 AOs
issued and the number of ju-
dicial cases referred to EPA
HQ or DOJ against CWSs in non-
primacy States or on Indian
lands, during the last 12
months. (Report AOs and
judicial cases separately.)
3(t) Report by State (and by a
Regional total for Indian
lands) the number of CWSs
which have received a rou-
tine sanitary survey.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
W
I
UJ
3(u) Report on which States the
Region has initiated or
completed a data verifi-
cation during the last
12 months.
3(v) How quickly after the end
of each quarter does each
State believe it can pro-
vide accurate compliance
data to EPA?
This measure will identify the level of Federal enforcement activity that was
undertaken by the Regions, against nonprimacy States and Indian lands, during
the period 10/1/85 through 9/30/86. The information will be collected only
once during the year, for the second quarter report (4/1/87). The information
will be submitted by the Regions with their self evaluations.
This measure, which will be tracked against negotiated targets, will indicate
how many CWSs are being routinely surveyed (by the States which have primacy,
and by the Region for nonprimacy States and on Indian lands) as a preventative
tool to protect public health. A sanitary survey is defined in both 40 CFR 141
and 40 CFR 142. The numbers of surveys will be collected for each of the 4
quarterly reports. Each will be lagged two quarters, e.g. the first quarter
report (1/1/87) will include those CWSs receiving a survey during the period
4/1/86 through 6/30/86, the second quarter report (4/1/87) will include those
systems receiving a survey during the period 7/1/86 through 9/30/86, etc. We
will use the targets negotiated during FY "86 for the first and second quarter
FY '87 reports. Regions should compile the data several weeks in advance so
it will be received by OCW on the following schedule: first quarter - 12/15/86,
second quarter report - 3/15/87, third quarter report - 6/15/87, and fourth
quarter report - 9/15/87.
This measure will report the number of States on which the Regions initiated a
new, or completed a previously initiated, data verification effort during the
the period 1/1/86 through the date, that the Region completes its self evalua-
tion. This information will be collected only once during the year, for the
second quarter report (4/1/87). It will be submitted by the Regions with their
self evaluation.
This measure is intended to identify how long each State needs to compile and
submit accurate compliance data for input into FRDS, and will give ODW a feel
for the feasibility of moving toward a one quarter data lag. The information
will be collected only once during the year, for the second quarter report
(4/1/87). It will be submitted by the Regions with their self evaluation.
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
3(w) Report which States have
applied seme type of cate-
gorization to their non-
community systems.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
w
I
w
N)
This measure is intended to identify which States make some distinction between
the various types of systems included in the NCWS classification. A brief
explanation of the type of categorization should be provided for those States
which are identified as making some distinction among NCWSs. This information
will be collected only once during the year, for the second quarter report.
Regions should submit the information with their self evaluations.
This measure will report the number and percent of Federal facility CWSs,
within each State, which meet the definition of a SNC. The measure will be
reported only once during the year, for the second quarter report (4/1/87),
and will reflect violations which occured between 10/1/85 through 9/30/86.
ODW will compile this information via the FRDS.
3(x) Report, by State, the number
and percent of Federal facil-
ity CWSs which are SNCs of:
(a) a microbiological, tur-
bidity, or TTHM requirement,
or (b) an organic other than
TTHM, inorganic or radiolog-
ical requirement. (Report as
1 number for each of the 2
groups.)
PROPOSED* DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIER (SNC) FOR THE PWSS PROGRAM
A significant noncomplier is a community water system which meets any of the following conditions:
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
violates the TTHM MCL for 2 or more compliance periods during any 12 consecutive month period, or
violates any combination of a microbiological MCL or monitoring requirement which totals 12 months
of violation during any consecutive 12 month period, or
violates any combination of a turbidity MCL or monitoring requirement which totals 12 months of
violation during any consecutive 12 month period, or
violates any combination of a TTHM MCL or monitoring requirement for a total of 2 or more compliance
periods during any consecutive 12 month period.
violates any organic chemical (other than TTHM) MCL requirement, or
violates any inorganic chemical MCL requirement, or
violates any radiological MCL requirement.
* This definition may change pending outcome of 3 State/EPA seminars to be held during April 1986.
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
1 (b) Track, by well class,
progress against targets for UIC
permit determinations made by
primacy States for new and
existing facilities for (1)
Class I wells, and (2) Class II,
III, and V wells (if applicable).
i
OJ
UJ
Identify, by State, the total number of new and existing permit determination
(issued, denied or applications withdrawn after technical evaluation) for
(1) Class I wells and (2) Classes II, III, and V (if applicable) in FY 1987.
Count permit determinations made only for those applications with the final
document signed by the State Director in that reporting period. Count each area
permit as one permit, and also report the total number of wells that the area
permits covered for credit. When reviewing permit applications, the priority
established as follows:
1. new Class II wells
2. existing Class I wells
3. existing Class III wells
4. new Class I and III wells
5. existing Class II SWD wells
1 (c) Track, against targets,
the # of existing Class II well
record file reviews completed and
# of deficient wells found.
1 (d) Track, against targets,
the # of Class II wells for which
mechanical integrity tests were
performed (in primacy States)
and # of wells which lack
mechanical integrity.
Identify, by State, the # of Class II well file reviews that the State has completed
in accordance with the 1425 program guidance. For multiple wells in a sinqle field
under an area permit or project, report the total t of wells that are covered
in the same well record file. Also report the # of wells that were found
deficient as the result of the file reviews and have had appropriate follow-^up
action initiated. A file review may only be counted as complete if (a) the file
is found to meet regulatory requirements or (b) it is found deficient and
appropriate follow-up action has been initiated. Appropriate follow-up may include
a request for more information, schedule a MIT or call in for a permit.
Identify, by State, the total # of wells with Mechanical Integrity Tests (MIT)
performed by the operators and verified by the State director. Also report
the f of wells that were found to lack MIT.
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
W
I
U)
1 (e) Report the % of Class II
wells for which mechanical
integrity tests were witnessed.
1 (f) Report the f.of field
inspections conducted.
1 (h) Identify by State, by
well class the number of wells
(1) added to the QNCR during the
reporting quarter, (2) the number
of wells that (a) were returned
to compliance, (b) had formal
enforcement action taken, or
(c) were placed on a compliance
schedule and (3) number reported
in SNC for two or more reporting
quarters.
1 (i) Identify by State, by name
and UIC ID number, major wells and
Class II, III and V wells reported
in SNC and appearing on two or
more consecutive QNCRs without
being returned to compliance or
addressed with a formal enforce-
ment action.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Identify, by State, the total # of wells with mechanical integrity tests per-
formed by the operators and witnessed by the State field inspectors. A minimum of
25% of the MITs should be witnessed.
Identify, by State, the ft of injection wells inspected, including all routine,
periodic, complaint investigation or follow-up inspections performed to determine
compliance with permit or rule requirements or other program related activities.
This is a numeric report which summarizes the total number of wells reported in
significant non-compliance during the reporting period broken down into those
newly identified violators and those that have had actions taken to return them to
compliance.
A formal enforcement action is defined as 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 non-compliance that are independently enforceable
without having to prove the underlying violation, and (iv) subjects the person to
adverse legal consequences for non-compliance. (Note: pipeline severance meets
this definition but a notice of violation does not.)
This is the name specific exceptions list report which identifies those well owners
and/or operators that have remained in significant non-compliance for two or more
consecutive reporting quarters and have not been returned to compliance or have had
a formal enforcement action taken against them. Major wells are defined as:
A Class I or Class IV well.
Definition of SNC - The term "significant non-compliance" means: (a) violations as
described in Section 144.8(a) and on EPA Form 7520-4 (6-83) by the owner/operator o^
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 an USDW judged according to the
following criteria: (a) the characteristics of the fluid released; (b) the quantity
of fluid released; and the relationship of the point of release to any USDW.
Potential endangerment exists in cases where: (i) the release occurs above or Into
an USCW, and (ii) the release occurs below an USDW but the hydroqeology is such
that fluids may be forced upward into the USDW. (3) well operation at an injection
pressure that exceeds the permitted or authorized injection pressure and causes the
-------
DRINKING WATER
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINmCM/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1 (j) Identify by State, by name
and UIC ID number the total number
of major wells and Class II, III
and IV wells listed in the
exceptions list universe for the
previous quarter which (1) have
returned to compliance or (2)
have not yet returned to compliance
but have been addressed with a
formal enforcement action.
2 (b) Track, by Class, against
targets, the t of permit determi-
nations made to the new and existing
facilities for (1) Class I wells
and (2) Class II, III, and V wells
(if applicable by EPA during FY 1987)
movement of fluid outside the authorized zone of injection if such movement may
have the potential for endangering an USEW. Potential endangerment exists: (a)
if the pressure in a tubingless well exceeds the MIT test pressure of the casing:
(b) if the pressure exceeds the fracture pressure of the confining zone and
the zone immediately above the confining zone is an USDW; (4) failure to properly
plug and abandon an injection well in any manner other than authorized; (5) any
violation of a formal enforcement action, including an administrative or judicial
order, consent agreement or judgement or equivalent State action; (6) the knowing
submission or use of any false information in a permit application, periodic
report or special request for information about a well; and (7) any other
violation which the Director considers to be significant.
This is the name specific list that identifies those in significant noncompliance
on the exceptions list that have returned to compliance or that have been
addressed with a formal enforcement action.
Same as l(b). In addition, when making FY 1987 commitments, Regions should
report the total estimated number of permits to be determined in FY 1987
including new and existing permits. These numbers will be used as the base
for resource allocations in the C220 and C306 Workload Model.
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2 (c) Class II well record files Same as 1 (c).
reviewed
2 (d) Mechanical Integrity Test Same as 1 (d).
performed
2 (e) MIT witnessed Same as 1 (e).
2 (f) Field Inspection conducted Same as 1 (f).
2 (h) SNC Summary Report Same as 1 (h).
2 (i) Exceptions List Report Same as 1 (i).
2 (j) Exceptions List Follow-up Same as 1 (j).
w
i
U)
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS:
l(a)/(b) # of permits reissued to
major industrial facilities
during fiscal year (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
td
I
u>
l(c)/(d) # of permits reissued to
major municipal facilities
during fiscal year (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
l(a)/(b) Total number of major (using MRAT system) industrial
permits with issuance dates (i.e., date signed by permit
authority) during FY 87. Status as of the close of the
quarter will be taken from PCS on the 10th of the month
following the end of a quarter. This will be compared to
the total number of major (using MRAT system) industry
permits with expiration dates before October 1, 1987
according to PCS data on October 10, 1986 (i.e.,
the number of major industrial permits that have
or will expire by the end of FY 87).
Performance Expection; The goal of the State and EPA
NPDES Permit Programs is to have reissued major permits
in effect on the date the prior permit expires. Permit
applications are due and should be acted upon during the
last six months of a permit's term. Most States and Re-
gions, should be able to reissue 100% of their expiring
major permits except where unusual, complex and diffi-
cult issues prevent timely permit reissuance.
l(c)/(d) Total number of major municipal permits with issuance
dates (i.e.,date signed by permit authority) during
FY 87. Status as of the close of the quarter will be
taken from PCS on the 10th of the month following the
end of a quarter. This will be compared to the total
number of major municipal permits with expiration dates
before October 1, 1987, according to PCS data on
October 10, 1986 (i.e., the number of major municipal
permits that have or will expire by the end of FY 87).
Performance Expectation; The goal of the State and EPA NPDES
Permits Programs is to have reissued major permits in effect on
the date the prior permit expires. Permit applications are
due and should be acted upon during the last six months of a
permit's term. Msst States and Regions, once they have eliminate
the backlogs that have accumulated over the past few years,
should be able to reissue 100% of their expiring major permits
except where unusual, complex and difficult issues prevent
timely permit reissuance.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS:
l(e)/(f) nuriber of planned revisions
(h)/(i) of major industrial/municipal
permits (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
W
i
U)
00
l(g)/( j) nuriber of other major indus-
trial/nunicipal permits modi-
fied (NPDES States, non-NPDES
States)
l(e)/(f) Planned Revisions to Permits; For purposes of identifying
(h)/(i) and tracking revisions to major permits, only major industrial
and municipal permits modified under provisions of the NPDES
Regulations where public notice is required (40 CFR 122.62) are
to be considered. Minor modifications (40 CFR 122.63), Where
public notice is not required, are not being measured. The number
of revisions identified for FY '87 (targets) and those tracked
are those the Region/State can predict will occur during the
fiscal year. They include pending requests for modification
and any other modifications the Region/State plans to do, such as
permits with reopener clauses that specifically open the permit for
modification or are triggered by other planned events during the
fiscal year (e.g., promulgation of 307(a) standard, a variance
decision, biomonitoring results, etc.).
Performance Expectation; Planned revisions to major permits are
expected to be, in most cases, modifications which will achieve
or lead directly to increased environmental protection. The
environmental benefits from this activity rank with the reissuance
of major permits which incorporate new mandated controls. Ac-
cordingly, all planned revisions identified for FY 87 are expected
to be completed during FY 87.
l(g)/(h) Other Permit Modifications; For purposes of tracking all modifica-
tions to major industrial and municipal permits, these measures
will track all modifications to major industrial and municipal
permits other than those included in measures l(e), (f), (h),
and (i) above. Only major permits modified under provisions
of the NPDES Regulations where public notice is required
(40 CFR 122.62) are to be considered. Minor modifications
(40 CFR 122.63) where public notice is not required, are not
being measured.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS:
l(k)/(l) # of permits reissued to
significant minor industrial/
municipal facilities during
fiscal year (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
W
I
l(k)/(l) Total number of significant minor industrial/municipal permits
with issuance dates (i.e., date signed by permit authority)
during FY 87. The Region is to report separately for POTWs
and industry (industrial number may include other non-municipal
dischargers) in each NPDES State and non-NPDES State.
Significant minor dischargers are generally distinguished by
their environmental impact when compared to other minor dis-
chargers. Minor dischargers may be more important (significant)
because they (1) have a high potential for degrading water qual-
ity, (2) impact a high priority waterbody, (3) are in a category
of dischargers identified as discharging significant toxics to
surface waters (e.g., BAT guidelines industries), (4) are POTWs
funded under PL 92-500 and/or required to develop pretreatment
programs, or (5) are POTWs needing permit decisions under the
National Municipal Policy or to resolve delays in grant funding
decisions. The "National NPDES Minor Permit Issuance Strategy,"
January 1986, provides guidance on identifying significant min-
ors and establishing priorities for minor permit issuance.
Performance Expectation; All minor permits will be issued or
reissued in the next five years with priority given generally
to issuance of minor permits for controlling toxic discharges
and/or impacts on water quality. It is presumed that permits to
all BAT guideline industries will be issued/reissued during the
first two years; i.e., by no later than September 30, 1988.
Only issued permits designated as "significant minors" will be
credited against this commitment.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS:
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Km)
Update, if necessary,
strategy for each State
for the issuance of permits
to minor dischargers (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States)
i
>£»
O
2(a)
Identify permits reissued
or modified in FY 87 that
include water quality-based
toxic limits or whole effluent
toxicity testing (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States)
l(m) The strategy for minor permit issuance is to be updated, if
necessary, for each State by the permitting authority based on
the National Minor Permit Issuance Strategy (January 1986). The
strategy should consist of two specific elements. It should
describe individual priority ranking factors used to divide each
State's universe of minor permits into priority groups. The
strategies should distinguish industrial and municipal permits
since there may be some differences in priority associated with
these dischargers. Also, the strategy should describe implemen-
tation plans including methods used for issuance such as general
permits, model permits, etc., and the resources assigned to this
activity. These strategies are to be used in identifying the
minor permits considered to be "significant". If a Region or State
cannot issue all BAT guidance permits by the end of FY 1988 because
of an unusually large workload of these minor dischargers, the
strategy must explain why not (e.g., need to reduce majors backlog,
higher water quality priority minors, large numbers of BAT
industries such as coal mines, etc.) and provide the earliest
feasible date when these permits will be issued. By the beginning
of FY 87, significant minors must be designated in PCS in
accordance with instructions to be provided by OWEP in Spring
1986. The Region is to make these PCS entries for NPDES States
not using PCS. The significant minor designations may be modi-
fied from time to time by the permitting authority as appropriate.
2(a) A list, by name with the Permit Number, is to be prepared
and submitted to Headquarters which includes permits reissued
or modified that contain water quality-based toxics limits
or whole effluent toxicity testing. The list should include,
separately, municipal and industrial permits. A list is to be
prepared covering the first two quarters of FY 87 and submitted
at the end of the second quarter, and a list covering the last
two quarters of FY 87 is to be submitted at the end of the
fourth quarter.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
td
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS:
5(a)-(e) t of evidentiary
hearings pending/
resolved that were
pending before, or
requested during,
FY '87 (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-Municipal.
Of all evidentiary
hearings resolved
identify #:
- denied
- settled without hearing
- decided after hearing
- withdrawn
6(a)/(b) # of direct discharger
variance requests pending
at beginning of FY 87; #
denied and # forwarded to
Headquarters with a reoamien-
dation in FY 87 (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States):
-FDF
-301(c)
-301(g)
-30100
-316(a)
-316(b)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
5(a)-(e)
6(a)/(b)
Evidentiary Hearing; The term "evidentiary hearing is meant to
encompass not only EPA issued permit appeals pursuant to 40 CFR
124 but also any NPDES State issued permit appeals (whether ad-
judicatory or non-adjudicatory in nature) that result in stays
of contested permit conditions.
The Region is to identify by 10/31/86 the number of vari-
ance (and deadline extension) requests from direct
dischargers by type (FDF, 301(c), etc.) that are pending
at the beginning of FY 87. Ocnndtments are to be made to
eliminate that carryover by acting on all those pending
requests during FY 87. Such action consists of either
denial or referral to Headquarters with a Regional recom-
mendation. The Region is to report quarterly the cumulative
number of denials during FY 87 and the cunulative number of
recommendations forwarded to Headquarters during FY 87, by
type of variance in each NPDES State and norHNPDES State.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PERMITS:
6(c)/(d) # of direct discharger
variances requested during
FY 87; # denied and #
forwarded to Headquarters
with a recommendation in
FY 87
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
6(c)/(d) The Region is to report each quarter, State-by-State, the
number of each type of new variance requests received from
direct dischargers in FY 87 and, of those, the number acted
upon. The quarterly report of those new variance requests
acted upon is to provide the cumulative number of denials
and the cumulative nurfoer of recommendations forwarded to
Headquarters during FY 87 by type of variance in each NPDES
and non-NPDES State.
w
i
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
ENFORCEMENT:
l(a)-(b) MOVING BASE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(a)-(b) MOVING BASE measures compliance levels of all major permittees
each quarter, and of minor P.L.92-500 permittees semi-annually.
A facility is considered to be on final effluent limits when
the permittee has completed all necessary construction (including
all start-up or shakedown period specified in the permit or
enforcement action) to achieve the ultimate effluent limitation
in the permit reflecting secondary treatment, BPT, BAT, or more
stringent limitations, such as State required limitations or
water quality based limitations, or limitations established by
a variance or a waiver. A facility on a "short-term" schedule
(one year or less) for corrections such as composite correction
plans, where compliance can be achieved through improved operation
and maintenance (rather than construction) is considered to be on
final effluent limits. A facility is considered to be in
significant noncompliance with final effluent limits when it has
exceeded the criteria for significant noncompliance with its final
effluent limits, compliance schedule or reporting requirements and
has not been resolved. (Refer to the QNCR Guidance for a more
detailed discussion of SNC and SNC resolution). Further discussion
of significant noncompliance and its resolution can be found in the
Guidance for Preparation of Quarterly and Semi-Annual Noncompliance
Reports(per section 123.45, code of Federal Regulations,
Title 40).
A facility is considered to be "not on final effluent limits" if
the permittee does not meet the definition of a "facility on final
effluent limits" or when a permit, court order/consent order or an
Administrative Order require construction such as for a new plant,
an addition to an existing plant or a tie-in to another facility. A
facility is considered to be in significant noncompliance with its
construction schedule when it has exceeded the criteria for significant
noncompliance with its construction schedule or schedule
reporting requirements and has not been resolved. A facility is
considered to be in significant noncompliance with its interim
effluent limits when it has exceeded the criteria for significant
noncompliance with its interim effluent limits or measurement
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
ENFORCEMENT:
l(a)-(b) MOVING BASE
(con't)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(a)-(t>) reporting requirements and has not been resolved. A facility
which is in significant noncompliance with both its construction
schedule and interim limits should be considered as in significant
noncompliance with its schedule only.
Major P.L.92-500 permittees are tracked as part of the major munici-
pals as well as being tracked separately.
w
i
-------
ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
ENFORCEMENT:
2(a)-(b) NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
td
i
3(a) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
3(b) CLOSE-OUTS
2(a)-(b) Ccmpliance schedules are expected to be established on the
priority basis established in the National Municipal Policy and
Guidance. The goal for FY 1987 is to establish enforceable
schedules for all remaining municipalities covered by the Policy.
Referrals will count toward the commitment; however, two num-
bers will be reported: actual permittees on placed enforceable
schedules and referrals not yet concluded (reported as a
parenthical). These numbers should be mutually exclusive.
Noncompliance with schedules is 90 days past the schedule due
date. This is consistent with the definition of schedule non-
compliance [of schedule noncompliance] for Quarterly Noncompliance
Report (QNCR) preparation and for defining significant noncompliance
(SNC).
Violation of any MCP schedule milestone is still an enforceable
action even though only three milestones are considered SNC (start
construction, complete construction, and achieve operational level).
Action should be taken to enforce against or adjust interim mile-
stones. This is particularly true where the violation of an interim
milestones impacts one of the three schedule milestones included in
SNC definition.
3(a) Headquarters will report EPA Administrative Orders (AOs);
Regions will report State equivalent actions, EPA AOs
must arrive at Headquarters by the fourth working day of
the new quarter in order to be counted in the report.
(Includes pretreatment AOs)
3(b) An AO will be considered closed-out when the requirements
of the order have been completed in full or a judicial action
has been referred to HQ or DOJ.
A subsequent AO may constitute a close out if the second AO
satisfies the intent of the original AO. An example of this
is where an AO requesting a proposed schedule is not complied
with, but a second order prescribing a schedule is issued.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
ENFORCEMENT:
3(d) REFERRALS
3(e) CONSENT DECREES
3(d) Federal referrals will be reported by the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring (OECM); State referrals will be reported
by the Regions. (Includes pretreatment referrals)
3(e) Remedial actions include decree modifications, contempt actions,
collection of stipulated penalties, and other activities as
defined in the OECM guidance.
3(g) DMR/QA
3(g) DMR/QA followup includes the following:
Nonrespondents - nonrespondent notices; when necessary,
additional phone calls and letters;
Permittees requiring corrective action - ascertain from
permittee sources of errors and corrective
actions to be taken;
Both - use for scheduling Performance Audit Inspections (PAI's)
w
i
CTi
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
ENFORCEMENT:
5(a)-(b) PCS
w
I
6(a)-(c) INSPECTIONS
5(a)-(b) WENEB elements are the core of information necessary so that
PCS can function as a useful operational and management
tool and can be used to conduct oversight of the effectiveness,
or overall health of the NPDES Program. The list of WENDB
elements can be found in the PCS Policy Statement. It
includes permit facility, permit event, parameter limits,
pipe schedule, inspection, evidentiary hearing, compliance
schedule, measurement, and enforcement action data.
Regions are expected to maintain 100% data entry of WENDB
elements for majors, minor 92-500s, and other minors as
required by the PCS Policy Statement.
The $ indicator for P.L. 92-500 permittees is to be entered
as soon as a permittee who constructed using P.L. 92-500
funding is completed and operational, and the final inspection
is approved. The F indicator for permittees on final effluent
limits is to be entered as soon as the permittee fulfills
the definition of a permittee on final effluent limits.
6(a)-(c) Regional and State inspection plans should be established by
FY 1987 in accordance with guidance on inspection plans.
As the inspection strategy states, all major facilities
should receive the appropriate type inspection each year by
either EPA or the State. EPA and States collectively commit
to the number of major permittees inspected each year with a
Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI), Compliance Sampling
Inspection (CSI), Toxics Inspection (TOX), Biomonitoring
Inspection (BIO), Performance Audit Inspection (PAI),
Diagnostic Inspection (DIAG), or Reconnaissance Inspection
(RI). Reconnaissance Inspections will only count toward the
commitment when they are done on facilities that meet the
following criteria:
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ENFORCEMENT:
6(a)-(c) INSPECTIONS
(con't)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
.>
c»
(1) The facility has not been in SNC for any of the
four quarters prior to the inspection.
(2) The facility is not a primary industry as defined
by 40 CFR, Part 122, Appendix A.
(3) The facility is not a municipal facility with a
pretreatment program.
Commitments for major permittee inspections should be quarterly
targets and are to reflect the number of major permittees
inspected at least once. The universe of major permittees to be
inspected is defined as those listed as majors in PCS as of
July 1, 1986. Multiple inspections of one major permittee will
count as only one major permittee inspected (however, all multiple
NPDES inspections will be included in the count for the measure that
tracks the total number of all inspections - see next paragraph).
In the event EPA and the State both inspect a permittee (in separate
inspections) EPA will be credited for coverage of majors. This is
only true in the measure calling for all major permittees to be
inspected.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ENFORCEMENT:
6(a)-(c) INSPECTIONS (Cont'd)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
to
i
When conducting inspections of POTWs with approved pretreatment
programs, a pretreatment inspection component (PCI) should be added,
using the established PCI checklist. An NPDES inspection with a
pretreatment component will be counted toward the commitments for
majors, and the PCI will count toward the commitment for POTW
pretreatment inspections. (This will be automatically calculated
by PCS.) Regions are encouraged to continue CSI inspections of
POTWs where appropriate.
The measure for tracking total inspection activity will not have a
commitment. CEI, CSI, TOX, BIO, PAI, and DIAG of major permittees,
minor P.L. 92-500 and significant minor permittees will be counted.
Pretreatment inspections for IDs and POTWs will be counted only
toward pretreatment inspection commitments, in the total. Multiple
inspections of one permittee will be counted as separate inspections;
Reconnaissance Inspections will be counted. It is expected that up
to 10% of EPA resources will be set aside for neutral inspections or
minor facilities.
Tracking of inspections will be done at Headquarters based
on retrievals from the Permit Compliance System (PCS)
according to the following schedule:
INSPECTIONS
July 1, 1986 through Sep. 30, 1986
July 1, 1986 through Dec. 31, 1986
July 1, 1986 through March 31, 1987
July 1, 1986 through June 30, 1987
RETRIEVAL DATE
The First working day
after the second update
in:
Jan. 1987
April 1987
July 1987
Oct. 1987
Inspections may not be entered into PCS until the inspection
report with all necessary lab results has been completed and
the inspector's reviewer or supervisor has signed the
completed 3560-3 form.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
ENFORCEMENT:
8(a)-(b) EXCEPTION LIST
W
I
8(a)-(b) In regard to all major permittees listed in significant non-
compliance on the Quarterly Noncompliance report (QNCR) for any
quarter, Regions/NPDES States are expected to ensure that these
facilities have returned to compliance or have been addressed with
a formal enforcement action by the permit authority within the
following quarter (generally within 60 days of the end of that
quarter). In the rare circumstances where formal enforcement
action is not taken, the administering Agency is expected to have a
written record that clearly justifies why the alternative action
(i.e., informal enforcement action or permit modification in
process) was more appropriate. Where it is apparent that the State
will not take appropriate formal enforcement action before the end
of the following quarter, the States should expect the Regions to
do so. This translates for exception list reporting as follows:
EXCEPTION LIST reporting involves tracking the compliance
status of major permittees listed in significant noncompliance
on two or more consecutive QNCRs without being addressed with a
formal enforcement action. Reporting begins on January 1, 1987
based on permittees in SNC for the quarters ending June 30,
and September 30, that have not been addressed with a formal
enforcement action by December 1. Regions are also expected
to complete and submit with their exception list a fact
sheet which provides adequate justification for a facility
on the exception list. The fact sheet should be submitted
by the 15th day of the beginning of the next quarter.
1st qtr.
2nd qtr.
3rd qtr.
4th qtr.
January 15
April 15
July 15
October 15
Reporting is to be based on the quarter reported in the QNCR
(one quarter lag).
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
ENFORCEMENT?
8{a)-(b) EXCEPTION LIST
(Cont'd)
w
I
Returned to compliance (Refer to the QNCR Guidance for a more detailed
discussion of SNC and SNC resolution.) for Exception List facilities
refers to compliance with the permit, order, or decree requirement
for which the permittee was placed on the Exception List (i.e. same
outfall, same parameter). Compliance with the conditions of a formal
enforcement action taken in response to an Exception List violation
counts as an enforcement action (rather than return to compliance)
unless the requirements of the action are completely fulfilled and the
permittee achieves absolute compliance with permit limitations.
Formal enforcement actions against non-federal permittees include any
statutory remedy such as Federal Administrative Order or State equivalent
action, a judicial referral (sent to HQ/DOJ/SAG), or a court approved
consent decree.
Formal enforcement actions against federal permittees include Federal
Facility Compliance Agreement, documenting the dispute and forwarding
it to Headquarters for resolution, or granting them Presidential
exemption.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PRETREATMENT:
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Kb)
3(a)
ca
i
Ul
# of local pretreahment
programs approved during
FY 87 (list separately:
non-pretreatment States,
approved pretreatment
States).
# of audits of local
pretreatment programs
during FY 1987 (list
separately: non-
pretreatment States,
approved pretreatment
States).
l(b) A local pretreatment program is considered approved when,
after appropriate public notice and conment, the Approval
Authority (Regional Administrator or the State Director)
approves the local program. Commitments for non-pretreat-
ment States and for approved pretreatment States are to
reflect all programs that are required but are not approved
as of September 30, 1986. Referral actions will be con-
sidered when assessing progress toward achieving commit-
ments. Referrals that, in fact, have been turned over to
the Justice Department will count as the equivalent of an
approved program.
3(a) 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 POTW1s 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 the treatment works and the methods of
sludge disposal. The auditor reviews the procedures used
by the POTW 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 ele-
ments of a pretreatment compliance inspection (PCI).
Performance Expectation;
At a minimum, audits should be performed at least once during
the term of the POTW's permit. Although an audit includes all
the elements of a PCI, as one component, the activity should not
be counted as both an audit and a PCI; it should be counted as
an audit. In any given year, all POTWs that are not audited
should have a PCI as part of the routine NPDES inspection at
that facility.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PRETREATMENT:
4(b) Significant Noncompliance
for Industrial Users
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2(a) # of local pretreatment
programs inspected during
FY 1987 (list separately:
non-pretreatment States,
approved pretreatment
States).
(Cont'd)
w
i
01
to
Significant noncompliance for categorical industrial users
is defined in the March 1986 Pretreatment Control Authority
Guidance. It is based on a pattern of effluent limit
Violations, failure to comply in a timely fashion with
compliance schedules milestones, or reporting requirements.
2 (a) The pretreatment compliance inspection (PCI) assesses POTW
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 POTW'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. (The PCI module is currently in draft. It may be
necessary to revise this definition when the module is complete)
For purposes of reporting, both audits and pretreatment
compliance inspections should be lagged by one quarter
(i.e., same as NPDES inspections).
Pretreatment Inspections will be tracked on three levels:
Pretreatment Inspections of approved POlWs (see definition of
NPDES inspections), Pretreatment Inspections of Industrial Users
(lUs) in unapproved PQIWs, and Pretreatment Inspections of
lUs in approved POTWs.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
PRETREATMENT:
2(b)(c) Pretreatment Enforcement
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Pretreatment enforcement actions (AOs 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.
2(b)(c) Pretreatment Enforcement
"State" enforcement actions (AOs 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.
-------
WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
W
I
ui
Ul
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
STATE PROGRAMS:
l(a) Achieve NPDES program
approvals and nodifications
in accordance with
established schedules:
- Rill NPDES program;
- Pretreatment Program
modifications;
- Federal facility
modi fications
2(a) Update list of NPDES States
for which Region will assess
statuory and regulatory
authority in FY 87.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(a) Performance Expectation;
Acceptable Regional performance is having and effectively pursuing
a current written strategy for each State to achieve full NPDES
program administration. The strategy was to have been prepared by the
Region in consultation with the State, identify the obstacles to full
program approval and set forth a work plan for overcoming the
obstacles. The work plan should describe what needs to be done,
make recommendations on how it can be accomplished, and provide
needed and reasonble estimates of time required. Regions will approve
remaining State pretreatment/Federal facility programs, will condition
FY 87 grants as necessary, and may begin program withdrawal if States
fail to seek full program authority.
2(a) Performance Expectation;
The Region's goal should be to conduct a complete review of the
statutory and regulatory authority for all NPDES State programs
by the end of FY 1987. An acceptable performance will be the
completion of these reviews for all States approved before 1980
and completion of a self-evaluation by all States approved since 1980.
Where several NPDES State programs remain to be reviewed in FY 87,
a minimum level of acceptable performance is to initiate three
State reviews.
•frU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1 9 8 6'
.620-782-40749
------- |