United States       Office of Water        June 1982
            Environmental Protection    Washington, DC 20460
            Agency
v>EPA      Office of Water Operating
            Guidance  and Accountability
            System
            Fiscal Year 1983

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                         Page


 I.  INTRODUCTION 	   1

     A.  Purpose 	   1
     B.  Summary	   1

II.  NATIONAL PROGRAM DIRECTIONS— IMPLEMENTATION 	   5

     A.  Clean Water Act 	   5

         1.  Overview 	   5
         2.  National Program Directions 	   8

             a.  Water Quality Management Planning ....   8
             b.  Monitoring 	   9
             c.  Water Quality Standards 	  11
             d.  Priority Waterbodies 	  12
             e.  Total Maximum Daily Loads/
                   Wasteload Allocations (303(d)) 	  13
             f.  Advanced Treatment Reviews 	  14
             g.  State Delegation  	  16
             h.  Construction Grants Management  	  17
             i.  Financial  Management Capability 	  19
             j.  Permitting 	  21
             k.  Compliance 	  24

     B.  Safe Drinking Water Act 	  26

         1.  Overview 	  26
         2.  National Program Directions 	  27

             a.  Public Water Systems Supervision
                   Program 	  27
             b.  Underground Injection Control
                   (UIC) Program 	  28

     C.  Ocean Dumping and Discharge Regulation  	  29

         1.  Overview 	  29
         2.  National Program Directions 	  30

             a.  Marine Protection Strategy 	  30
             b.  Section 301(h) Waivers 	  32

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

                                                         Page


     D.  Ground Water Protection Policy 	   33

         1.  Overview 	   33
         2.  National Program Direction 	   34

             a.  Ground Water Protection Policy and
                   Coordination 	   34

III. ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM	   37

     A.  Purpose 	   37
     B.  Relationship to Administrator's Management
           Accountability System 	   37
     C.  Structure 	   37
     D.  FY 1983 Implementation Process 	   38

 IV. OFFICE OF WATER FY 1983 FUNDING POLICY  	  41

     A.  Clean Water Act 	  41
     B.  Safe Drinking Water Act 	  42

APPENDIX A -- ACTIVITIES AND REPORTING MEASURES 	  A-l

APPENDIX B — DEFINITION OF TERMS  	  B-l

APPENDIX C -- LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 	  C-l

-------
I  INTRODUCTION
A.  Purpose

    The Office of Water Operating Guidance  and Accountability
System for FY 1983 serves the following  three major  functions:
(1) provides national program directions  for  implementation;  (2)
establishes a basis for the negotiation  of  grant  funds  between
Regions and States; and (3) outlines  the  measures that  will  be
used by Headquarters for accountability  purposes.

    This guidance does not cover all  activities necessary for pro-
gram implementation; it concentrates  only on  national priorities.
This guidance does cover a wide range  of  activities,  and  States
are not expected to address every national  priority.  Rather,
Regions and States should use this  guidance as they  negotiate FY
1983 work programs and should address  those priorities  applicable
to their own situation.

    EPA recognizes the ability of Regional  and State  program
managers to operate their continuing  base level water quality
programs, but expects that a portion  of  Federal grant funds  will
be directed toward the national program  directions covered  in
this guidance.  The national program  directions are  the only
activities Headquarters will track  for accountability purposes.
These national program directions are  also  the areas  the  Regions
and States may choose to address if they  are  preparing  FY 1983
State/EPA Agreements.
B.  Summary

    Clean Water Act

    In FY 1983, several major activities will  take  place  as  the
Office of Water, along with the Regions and States,  implements the
Clean Water Act.  There will be a continued emphasis  on State
assumption and maintenance of programs.  Greater  attention will  be
placed on adequate planning in advance of water quality decision-
making.  Since technology-based controls will  largely  be  estab-
lished, States are expected to examine their programs  for making
water quality based decisions through standards attainability
analyses, ranking priority waterbodies, and conducting total
maximum daily load calculations under section  303(d).  Implementing
the water monitoring strategy will help ensure the  effectiveness
of water quality standards and the water quality  based approach.
                                                              Page  1

-------
Section I                    Introduction                    Page  2

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
    In coordination with up-front planning, EPA  is stressing  the
importance of ensuring the financial capability  of grantees to
achieve implementation and to produce environmental  results.  The
construction grants program will stress improved management,
restoration of uses, and reorientation of the project  priority
list toward priority waterbodies.  The Agency will continue to
review advanced treatment projects to determine  whether  they  will
result in significant water quality improvements.

    With the issuance of effluent guidelines and the development
of water quality based information, there will be an emphasis on
reducing the number of expired  industrial permits.  The  overriding
principles for issuance of National Pollutant Discharge  Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) permits are that they be based on  good science,
they be of lasting value and not subject to frequent change,  and
that ample opportunity for input is provided.  These principles
are included in the second round permitting policy which further
clarifies how the principles apply to industrial dischargers  whose
permits are in need of renewal  or possible modification.  In  FY
1983, EPA will also seek to improve the compliance rate,
particularly for municipal dischargers.

    Safe Drinking Water Act

    The continuing priorities in FY 1983 under the Safe  Drinking
Water Act are the Public Water  Systems Supervision program and the
Underground Injection Control (DIG) program.

    In the Public Water Systems Supervision program, EPA has  three
major priorities for the Regions and States:  (1) to extend the
coverage of the trihalomethane  (THM) regulation  to systems serving
10,000 to 75,000 people and to  ensure that the microbiological
quality of the water is fully protected in the process;  (2) to
respond effectively to incidents of the detection of significant
ground water contamination with unregulated contaminants; and (3)
to continue to improve compliance by small systems with  the exist-
ing standards, giving highest priority to the most serious threats
to public health.

    In the Underground Injection Control program, the  major FY
1983 priorities are:  (1) to encourage additional States to assume
primacy (primary enforcement responsibility); (2) to begin direct
implementation by EPA in non-primacy States and  on Indian lands;
and (3) to provide oversight and assistance to primacy States as
needed.

-------
Section I                      Introduction                  Page  3

  Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability  System



    Ocean Dumping and Discharge Regulation

    In FY 1983, EPA Regions will assume the responsibility  of
reviewing applications for and issuing 301(h) waiver  permits.
This activity will be based on technical studies performed  at the
Headquarters level for the 70 communities which prepared  final
applications.  In addition, the 1981 amendments to the Clean Water
Act removed several prohibitions in EPA's 301(h) regulations and
reopened the application process to additional coastal communi-
ties.  This will greatly increase EPA's workload,  and will  require
a re-evaluation of Agency resources for this  activity.

    In FY 1983, under the Marine Protection Research  and  Sanctu-
aries Act (MPRSA) EPA Regions will  implement  revised  ocean  dumping
regulations.  The Agency can expect some increase  in  applications
for ocean dumping of materials which pass the scientific  criteria.
Also, as a result of the recent Sew lork City v. EPA  court  deci-
sion, the Agency will no longer automatically prohibit dumping  of
materials which fail the criteria but will need to consider the
environmental consequences and need for ocean disposal versus the
environmental consequences and costs of land-based disposal  alter-
natives.  This decision has added impetus to  the scientific review
of the current testing and monitoring procedures,  including a con-
sideration of modifications to the  regulation's bioassay  test
procedures.

    In FY 1983, EPA Regions will assume the responsibility  for
reviewing applications for and issuing 301(h) waiver  permits.

    Ground Water Protection Policy

    In FY 1983, EPA will implement  a new ground water protection
policy.  This policy will call for major efforts to enhance the
coordination of EPA and State activities to protect ground  water
quality through the implementation of the Clean Water Act,  Safe
Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,  the
Underground Injection Control program, Superfund,  and related
programs.

    Accountability

    The activities that will be tracked in the Office of  Water
Accountability System are based on  the national program  directions
highlighted above and covered in detail in Section II.   The Office

-------
 Section I                Introduction                       Page  4

  Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability  System
of Water will provide direct input to the Administrator's  Manage-
ment Accountability System.  All of the major water program  direc-
tions of the Administrator's System are reflected  in  the Office  of
Water System; for example, State delegation and management of  the
construction grants program.

    Funding

    Using the available funding sources, States and local  govern-
ments should develop and maintain a base level water  quality pro-
gram.  Each State should define its base program depending upon
its individual situation.  While EPA recognizes the need to  main-
tain a base level program, States should direct a  portion  of their
available resources toward priority waterbodies to undertake the
water quality planning activities necessary to make implementation
decisions.

-------
II  NATIONAL PROGRAM DIRECTIONS -  IMPLEMENTATION
    The following section discusses  national  program  directions
within the Office of Water.  This section  is  organized  by  statu-
tory act or major policy area.  Each  program  direction  includes
a brief background discussion  and then  lays out  FY  1983 Regional/
State activities and Headquarters activities.  Each Headquarters
activity is referenced to a specific  quarter  in  FY  1983 in  which
it will be complete or available.
A.  Clean Water Act


    1.  Overview

    The Clean Water Act recognizes  that  it  is  the  primary respon-
sibility of the States to prevent,  reduce,  and  eliminate  water
pollution.  The States determine  the  desired uses  for  their
waters; set standards; identify current  uses;  and,  where  uses
are being impaired or threatened, develop plans for the protection
or restoration of the designated  use.  States  implement the  plans
through control programs such  as  permitting, enforcement,  construc-
tion of municipal wastewater treatment works, -and  nonpoint source
control practices.  The Act also  calls for  the  reliance on tech-
nology-based effluent limitations for control  of industrial  and
municipal point sources of water  pollution.  If designated uses
will not be attained through the  technology  limits  established, the
States must either seek a greater level  of  control  or  re-examine
the attainability of designated uses.

    EPA is dedicated to and recognizes the  importance  of  complet-
ing guidelines for uniform technology-based  controls.  Under this
technology-based approach, the Agency establishes  standards  for
major  industries discharging directly into  navigable waters  or
indirectly into publicly-owned treatment works  (POTWs) by issuing
standards based on best practicable technology (BPT),  best avail-
able technology economically achievable  (BAT),  best conventional
technology (BCT), as well as new  source  performance standards
(NSPS), and pretreatment standards  for new  and  existing sources.
EPA has completed most of the  technical  and  economic studies which
provide the basis for these effluent  guidelines, and EPA  plans  to
promulgate guidelines for all  major industries  by  1984.

    Along with completion of its  effort  to  establish the  uniform
technology-based BAT guidelines,  EPA will emphasize the implemen-

	   Page  5

-------
Section II   National Program  Directions  -  Implementation  Page 6

 Office of Water Operating Guidance  and Accountability System
tation of a water quality  based  approach  to  pollution  control.   A
water quality based  approach will  allow States  to  focus  on  their
priority waterbodies  and to provide  adequate water quality  protec-
tion beyond what will be achieved  through  technology-based
controls.  Where designated uses  are  being attained,  EPA maintains
its anti-degradation  policy. .In  re-emphasizing  a  water  quality
based approach, certain basic  questions must be  considered:

        1.  What is the use to be  protected?

        2.  To what extent does pollution  contribute  to  the
            impairment of  the  use?

        3.  What is the level  of  point source pollution  con-
            trol necessary to  restore or  enhance the  use?

        4.  What is the level  of  nonpoint  source pollution
            control necessary  to  restore  or  enhance the  use?

    Answering these questions  is  critical  to defining  what  is
actually meant by the terms "use"  and "water quality  problem"  and
to developing plans to resolve problems.   States and  locals  should
understand and utilize the answers to these  questions  as they
undertake their water quality  based  approach.   In  undertaking  this
approach, States must first identify water quality limited  water-
bodies under section  303(d) and prioritize these waterbodies,
taking into account the severity  of pollution and  the  uses  of  the
water.  This priority ranking  provides a  framework within which
States can consider their most pressing water quality  needs  and
identify subsequent water  quality  management (WQM) activities
necessary to meet their water  quality goals.

     Following this priority ranking, States should define  their
water quality goals by setting attainable  standards for  their
waters under section  303(c).   In  FY 1983,  EPA is encouraging
States to select priority waterbodies or  segments  for  review,
rather than review all State water quality standards  every  three
years.  In FY 1983, the Agency also encourages development  of
site-specific criteria, by which  a State  may modify the  EPA
laboratory-derived section 304(a)(l) criteria to reflect local
environmental conditions.  States  may also conduct a  use attain-
ability analysis to fully consider the environmental  and economic
factors impacting the attainment  of their  water  quality  standards.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation  Page  7

 Office of Mater Operating Guidance and Accountability System
Once standards are set, States should prepare wasteload  alloca-
tions (WLAs) and total maximum daily loads  (TMDLs), emphasizing
priority segments first.

    Using the information generated in setting water  quality
standards, the States will certify or issue National  Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.  In developing  and
issuing permits, permit writers should use  the following  three
principles:  (1) permits are of lasting value; (2) permits  are
based on good science; and (3) ample opportunities for input  are
provided.  Permit limits are based on effluent guidelines.,  on
total maximum daily loads and wasteload allocations,  and  on best
professional judgment where national standards are not estab-
lished.  The two largest implementation problems for  the  NPDES
permit program are:  (1) the volume of permits that need  to be
reissued; and (2) the uncertainty involved  in developing  BAT
limits in the absence of promulgated guidelines.  EPA has devel-
oped a second round industrial permitting strategy to address
these implementation problems.  The second  round permitting
strategy focuses on issuing permits where BAT guidelines  have
been issued or will never be issued and in  areas with known or
suspected impairment of use attributable to water pollution.
Permits should also be issued where serious violations are
obviously occurring.

    Monitoring is the basis for the above mentioned activities.
EPA is developing a monitoring strategy which will place  greater
attention on:  (1) generating a data base adequate to support
critical decisions; (2) encouraging local government  and  industry
involvement in data gathering; (3) increasing EPA's involvement  in
technical guidance and support; (4) encouraging the use of  selec-
tive biological surveys as opposed to widespread chemical sampling;
and (5) measuring the results of clean-up programs.   The  principal
objective of the monitoring strategy is to  develop and use  data  to
set standards and treatment requirements where costs  bear a reason-
able relationship to benefits on a site-specific basis.   The
section 305(b) report will be the basic document identifying  each
State's water quality status and needs.  The 305(b) report will
also enable States and EPA to monitor progress toward achieving
water quality goals and environmental results.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation  Page 8

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System




    2.  National Program Directions


        a.  Water Quality Management Planning

    The revised Water Quality Management (WQM) regulations (Part
130) will  stress the continued importance of the planning process
in water quality decision-making.  The planning process outlined
in the Clean Water Act provides a framework for water quality
decison-making.

    Each State should develop its planning agenda based upon its
individual planning needs for its priority waterbodies.  States
should coordinate with designated areawide agencies while
designing their planning agenda.  The two major emphases for FY
1983 in planning are:  (1) the examination by States of their
continuing planning process (CPP) document; and (2) utilization of
WQM plans, through consistency reviews, to make proper
implementation decisions.

        Regional/State Activities

    In FY 1983, States and Regional Offices will ensure that the
planning process is properly described and operational.

    o  States should update their CPP as necessary,
       giving special attention to the following
       process descriptions:

       -- determining priority waterbodies
       -- identifying water quality limited segments
       -- conducting TMDLs and WLAs
       -- revising water quality standards
       -- conducting water quality monitoring activities
            and developing monitoring strategies
       -- developing the construction grants priority
            list
       — reviewing NPDES permits and construction grant
            awards for consistency with WQM plans
       -- completing the FY 1984 305(b) report.

    o  Regions and States should agree upon the process by
       which WQM plans will be used to review NPDES permit
       and construction grant decisions.  Areawide agencies with
       certified and approved plans must be afforded a consistency
       review as part of their planning commitment. If the

-------
Section II   National Program Directions -  Implementation   Page  9

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
       areawide plan is silent on this review,  the  State
       should carry-out the consistency review.

    •  Regions and States should continue  to develop  and
       implement nonpoint source controls  programs  in priority
       waterbodies.

       Headquarters Activities

    In FY 1983, Headquarters will:

    •  Provide guidance to assist States in updating  their
       CPPs.  (First Quarter)

    •  Coordinate WQM-related guidance to  assure consistency
       with the revised WQM regulations and this document and
       clarify interrelationships of such  guidance.   (First
       Quarter)
       b.  Monitoring

    EPA and the States must ensure that environmental  decisions
are based on sound scientific data and information.  EPA  believes
that the amount of good quality, local site-specific information
will be strongly influenced by the degree to which  local  partici-
pants, including areawide agencies, municipalities,  and the
regulated community, are involved in the design and  implementation
of monitoring programs.  Therefore, EPA Headquarters,  with  assis-
tance from Regional and State staff, is developing  a water
monitoring strategy which will greatly improve the  quality  of
information available for water quality decisions and  will make
more effective use of local. State, and Federal resources for
collecting, analyzing, and interpreting monitoring  data.  This
strategy will stress the following changes to existing State
monitoring programs:  (1) an emphasis on biosurveys  and bio-
assays to facilitate the analysis of impaired aquatic  life  uses;
(2) increased emphasis on local participation in the design and
implementation of monitoring programs; (3) increased use  of
intensive surveys to help analyze causes and effects of water
quality problems; and (4) decreased emphasis on routine ambient
chemical-by-chemical monitoring.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page  10

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System




       Regional/State Activities

    In FY 1983, the States, with assistance from EPA Regional
Offices, should:

    •  Develop and implement monitoring strategies to
       make the best use of limited monitoring resources
       and to collect the information needed for developing
       realistic site-specific controls.  The strategies
       should address:  (1) identifying priority waterbodies;
       (2) collecting data to make water quality standards
       and TMDLs/WLAs decisions; and (3) establishing coopera-
       tive sampling and analysis programs with local, State,
       and Federal participants.

    t  Participate with EPA Headquarters in revising the
       Basic Water Monitoring Program.

    •  Agree with the Regional Office on the format and
       content of the State section 305(b) reports due
       April 1, 1984.

    •  Implement quality assurance procedures.

       Headquarters Activities

    In FY 1983, EPA Headquarters will:

    •  Complete its revision of user-oriented guidance, the
       Basic Water Monitoring Program,  to assist States in
       managing their water monitoring  programs.  (Third
       Quarter)

    •  Provide technical guidance and assistance for local
       cooperative sampling programs.  (Third Quarter)

    •  Provide guidance on the use of the Aquatic Life Survey
       and other approaches to assist in preparing section 305(b)
       reports and other requirements.   (Second Quarter)

-------
Section II   National Program Directions -  Implementation  Page  11

 Office of Mater Operating Guidance and Accountability  System



       c.  Water Quality Standards

    The implementation of a revised water quality  standards
regulation will provide a general mechanism for  the  States to use
in integrating programs authorized by the Clean  Water Act.  The
"Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of
1981" link construction grant decisions to  water quality standards
by requiring that after December  1984, a State must  complete its
revision of the water quality standard for  any segment  affected by
a construction grant before the grant is awarded.  The  changes  in
the water quality standards program will provide a general  process
for determining the attainable uses of a waterbody,  will be
scientifically based, and will also give States  increased
flexibility to consider both economic and environmental factors
relating to the attainment of designated water uses.  Once a State
determines that a use is being attained, that use  cannot be
lowered.  The result of these efforts will  be to more effectively
direct public and private funds for environmental  clean up.

       Regional/State Activities

    In FY 1983, States and Regional Offices  will implement the
revised water quality standards regulations.

    •  Regions and States will analyze the  attainability of  uses
       based on environmental, technical, and economic  factors.

    •  Regions and States will review and possibly modify  the
       existing water quality standards for  priority waterbodies.

    •  States must develop and adopt a Statewide anti-degradation
       policy to maintain those water uses  which are currently
       being attained.

       Headquarters Activities

    In FY 1983, EPA Headquarters will continue to  implement  the
revised water quality standards regulation  by assisting the  States
and Regional Offices in determining attainable water quality
standards for specific sites through guidance documents and  water
quality standards reviews.  Headquarters will:

    •  Provide guidance and technical assistance for designating
       appropriate attainable uses (including environmental
       benefits assessments) and for developing criteria,  pro-

-------
Section II   National Program Directions  -  Implementation Page  12

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
       tective of these uses, which  reflect  local  environmental
       conditions.  (Second Quarter)

    •  Develop guidance for conducting waterbody  surveys  and
       assessments for analyzing the  attainability of  uses.
       (First Quarter)

    •  Issue sediment criteria  identifying harmful  levels  of
       pollutants in sediment which  would be  released  into the
       aquatic environment and  impair water  quality uses.
       (Fourth Quarter)
       d. Priority Waterbodies

    The States and EPA need to focus their  attention  and  resources
on those waterbodies which:  (1) have the greatest water  quality
problems in terms of impaired water uses; (2) have a  high existing
or potential economic or social value;  and  (3)  provide  the  greatest
margin of environmental protection for  the  resources  expended.
Priorities may include segments where advanced  treatment  and
combined sewer overflow funding decisions are pending,  permit
revisions are scheduled or toxics have  been  identified  or are
suspected of precluding a use and are posing  an  unreasonable  risk
to human health.  This prioritization will  enable the States  and
EPA to assure that water quality based  control  decisions  in these
areas, including standards setting, planning, and permitting,  are
made on the basis of sound scientific data.   States,  through  their
negotiations with EPA Regions concerning their  CPP and  their
sections 106 and 205(j) work programs,  should update  and  submit  a
list of priority waterbodies within the State which will  receive
attention for water quality based controls.   This list  will be
included in the States' CPP submissions and  section 305(b)  report.
The list will be used to set priorities for:  (1) collection  of
field data needed to make decisions; (2) revision of  water
quality standards; (3) establishment of TMDLs/WLAs; (4) issuance
of water quality based permits; and (5) construction  grants.

       Regional/State Activities

    In FY 1983, the States, with assistance  from EPA  Regional
Offices, will:

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation  Page  13

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
    •  Identify and prioritize waterbodies using the  305(b)
       report where possible.  These lists should be  submitted
       to EPA to aid in the prioritization of the FY  1984
       State and EPA activities.

       Headquarters Activities

    In FY 1983, EPA Headquarters will provide guidance  and
technical assistance to Regions and States, including:

    •  Completion of technical guidance on techniques which
       may be useful for screening and identifying water
       quality limited waterbodies.  (Third Quarter)

    •  Provide limited assistance in the use of the River Reach
       File and the Aquatic Life Survey to help organize
       information on waterbodies in a format useful  for screen-
       ing and priority ranking.  (On-going)

    t  Assist Regions and States in addressing significant water
       quality and public health concerns, particularly showing
       progress to date in priority waterbodies and measuring
       future improvements.  (On-going)


       e.  Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)/Wasteload
             Allocations (WLAs) (303(d))

    The development of TMDLs is a key step in the process of
planning for appropriate levels of controls to achieve  designated
uses.  EPA is reasserting this basic requirement of section 303(d)
because it strongly believes that the data collection and analysis
to produce TMDLs and WLAs provide the primary information needed
to answer three of the basic questions posed in the overview:  To
what extent does pollution contribute to the impairment  of the use?
To what extent will control of pollution from point sources restore
or enhance the use?  From nonpoint sources?  Section  303(d)
provides the overall planning context which enables the States to
develop reasonable permit limits derived from water quality
criteria necessary to meet designated uses.  Alternative forms of
setting limitations, such as the use of biological monitoring  as a
surrogate, can be developed.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page  14

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System




       Regional/State Activity

    In FY 1983, the States, with assistance from the Regions,
should undertake the following activities:

    •  Conduct TMDLs/WLAs  in priority waterbodies.

    •  States, working with the Regional Offices, are encouraged
       to update their CPP to cover:

       —a description of the States' process for conducting
          TMDLs/WLAs, including public involvement
       — an agreement on  the Regional Office review role
       -- a schedule of implementation, based upon priority
          waterbody determination
       — integration of the State implementation of TMDLs/
          WLAs, where the  Region is the permitting authority
       -- a description of other accepted methods for setting
          discharge limits, including bio-monitoring.

    •  Identify the extent uses are being impaired by point
       and nonpoint sources.

       Headquarters Activities

    In FY 1983, EPA Headquarters will continue to:

    •  Issue detailed technical guidance on conducting TMDLs/WLAs,
       including guidance  for toxic pollutants.  (First Quarter)

    •  Issue guidance for  use of biological monitoring in setting
       permit conditions.  (Third Quarter)


       f.  Advanced Treatment Reviews

    In response to Congressional direction, the Agency conducts
reviews of Advanced Treatment (AT) projects to determine whether
proposed AT projects will  result in significant water quality
improvements.  During FY 1983, the Agency will conduct the AT
reviews in accordance with the revised AT Review Policy, which
reflects the Agency experience over the past three years in
conducting AT reviews.  Before grants are awarded for AT projects,
justification criteria contained in the new policy must be met,
including an assessment of the significance of the water quality
improvements that takes into account the designated use being

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page  15

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
impaired, the effect point source pollutants have on the  impair-
ment of the use, and the contributions toward restoration  of  the
use that the project will make.  AT reviews will ensure that
significant improved uses of receiving waters will result  from
funded AT projects, while avoiding unnecessary municipal  and
Federal expenditures when reasonable benefits cannot be
demonstrated.

       Regional/State Activities

    In FY 1983, the Regions and States will:

    t  Identify municipal dischargers that will require the
       construction of AT facilities, based on identified  water
       quality limited stream segments.

    •  Determine a need for revised WLAs and establish a
       priority ranking for those stream segments.  Notify
       potential grantees of pending WLA revisions and pro-
       vide an opportunity for the grantee to develop
       scientific site-specific data to support the proposed
       effluent limitations.

    •  Conduct AT project reviews for projects with incremental
       AT costs of less than $3 million in accordance with the
       revised AT Review Policy.

    •  Submit AT projects with incremental AT costs of greater
       than $3 million to Headquarters in a timely fashion.

    •  Conduct analyses of water quality improvements from AT
       facilities, under a program of "before and after"
       studies.

       Headquarters Activities

    In FY 1983, Headquarters will:

    t  Review all AT projects with incremental AT costs of
       greater than $3 million.  (On-going)

    •  Evaluate Regional and State AT project reviews under
       the revised AT Review Policy for consistency.  (Third
       Quarter)

-------
Section II   National Program Directions -  Implementation  Page  16

 Office of Water Operating Guidance  and Accountability  System
    •  Issue methodology for reviewing  and  revising  existing
       AT permits.  (First Quarter)

    •  Issue guidance and coordinate  analyses  of  water  quality
       improvement from AT facilities,  under a  program  of
       "before and after" studies.  (Second Quarter)

    •  Issue updated technical guidance for use by Regions
       and States in analyzing and justifying AT  projects.
       (Third Quarter)
       g.  State Delegation

    A central feature of EPA's management  approach  is  to  transfer
authority and program responsibilities to  the  States.   Encouraging
State implementation is a central element  in EPA's  philosophy of
dealing with water quality problems closer to  the level where they
exist, thereby enhancing not only the knowledge  of  the problem but
also the concern for improvements.  EPA  is revising  the NPDES
program approval regulations to simplify equivalency requirements
and to provide more flexibility.

        Regional/State Activities

    In FY 1983, Regions must continue to work  with  the States to
identify and remove remaining barriers to  State  assumption  and
maintenance of programs.

    •  Working with the States, the Regions should  develop  a
       strategy to assist States in assuming and maintaining
       program delegation for all programs by  expediting  pro-
       gram development, review, and approval  processes.
       This should include an analysis of  the  impacts  of  the
       new regulations.

    •  In the NPDES program, the Regions should  work to approve
       State program submissions requesting full NPDES program
       administration and work to approve  program modifica-
       tion requests for implementing the  pretreatment and
       Federal facilities programs.

    t  Regions are expected to complete  delegation  of  all
       construction grant activities which may be delegated

-------
Section II   National Program Directions  -  Implementation Page  17

 Office of Water Operating Guidance  and Accountability System
       to the States or  assign them  to  the  Corps  of  Engineers
       (COE)in 25 States.

       Headquarters Activities

    Headquarters will undertake  a  number  of activities  to  assist
Regions and States in the transfer of program  authority.   Head-
quarters will:

    •  Revise and implement the  permit  regulations to  provide
       more flexibility  for States to receive  program  authoriza-
       tion.  (Fourth Quarter)

    t  Implement a fast  track program approval  procedure for
       NPDES.  (Fourth Quarter)

    •  Develop, with Region and  State participation,  a  policy
       statement on roles and responsibilities  under  delega-
       tion, including Office of Water  oversight  guidelines.
       (Second Quarter)

    •  In coordination with this document and  the Accountability
       System, perform national  oversight of construction  grant
       State delegation  consistent with the revised 205(g)
       regulations.  (On-going)

    •  Provide guidance  to the Regions  on the  extent  and
       structure of State delegation and  oversight.   (Second
       Quarter)
       h.  Construction Grants Management

    During FY 1983, EPA will continue the FY  1982  environmental
and management emphasis for the construction  grants  program  to
implement the Clean Water Act amendments and  new Agency management
initiatives.  The regulations and guidance for  the 1981 amendments
will be completed in FY 1982, with full implementation  in  FY 1983.
Major emphasis will be placed on water quality/public health
improvements and restoration of uses in project priority and fund-
ing decisions.  There will be a shift of major  management  responsi-
bility to the States, as well as a reorientation of  Federal,  State,
and local management activities to reflect the  1981  amendments  and

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page  18

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
management initiatives, particularly  in the  areas of  the  elimina-
tion of Step 1 and 2 grants, fulfilling National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and meeting the 45-day EPA review of
grants.  The Agency will be emphasizing results-oriented  management
and efficient use of EPA, State, and  Corps of Engineers resources.

       Regional/State Activities

    In concert with the water quality standards, water quality
management, and permit programs, a coordinated program of improving
water quality/public health in critical waterbody areas involving
municipal wastewater treatment funding will  be implemented.
Specific priority activities are as follows:

    •  Develop Regional/State agreements to  identify  phased/
       segmented projects and State funding  strategies.

    •  Develop a method for implementing Regional and State
       programs to:

       -- utilize Corps of Engineers  resources fully  and
          effectively
       -- eliminate the backlog of projects  in need of
          completion and closeout
       — manage obligations and outlays
       -- address Federal grant award responsibilities,
          including NEPA, innovative/alternative technology
          program, and advanced treatment projects
       -- complete 45-day approval of grants
       -- bring all completed facilities into compliance
          with design/permit requirements within one  year
          of construction completion.

    §  Ensure selection of affordable and operable technologies
       for small communities taking into consideration the revised
       treatment definition for secondary.

    •  Implement procedures to maintain program integrity (i.e.,
       prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement in the program).

    •  Review and revise State construction  grant priority
       systems to ensure incorporation of State's priority
       waterbodies.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page  19

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
    t  Identify priority waterbodies where existing  impaired
       uses may be improved significantly by municipal
       construction.

       Headquarters Activities

    The Headquarters activities primarily involve national
management, oversight, and assistance to Regions and States.
Specific activities are as follows:

    •  Provide national management of obligations and
       outlays.  (Monthly)

    t  Provide national management of procedures to  eliminate
       backlog in the program (i.e., completions/closeouts,
       audits, change orders, claim resolution).  (Quarterly)

    t  Oversee programs to ensure technologically appropriate
       projects, including effective use of I/A and  small
       community setasides.  (On-going)

    0  Issue guidance for reviewing, revising,  and developing
       priority systems and lists.  (First Quarter)

    •  Provide oversight/assistance on phased/segmented
       projects and other Step 2+3/3 assistance to Regions/
       States.  (On-going)
       i.  Financial Management Capability

    The construction and operation of  a wastewater  treatment
facility to meet the enforceable requirements of  the Clean Water
Act is often the largest capital improvement  and  public  enterprise
undertaken by a community.  Financial  issues  related to  costs,
revenues, structure of the financing,  debt recovery, expansion,  and
impact on users are critical to the  successful operation  of  the
treatment works and the achievement  of intended environmental
results.

    The Clean Water Act requires applicants for construction  grant
awards to have the "... managerial and financial  capability  to
ensure adequate construction, operation,  and  maintenance  of  treat-

-------
Section II   National Program Directions -  Implementation  Page 20

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability  System
ment works throughout the applicant's jurisdiction,  as  determined
by the Administrator."  The requirement for  applicants  to  demon-
strate financial management capability  is  in  the  construction
grants regulations.  To implement this  requirement the  Agency  has
drafted a policy statement on financial management capability  that
affects proposed projects, projects under  construction,  and  opera-
tional facilities.  One major purpose of the  policy  is  to  ensure
that grantees are aware of a project's  costs  and  its  financial
impacts on the community and its residents before  applying for  a
grant for building municipal treatment  works.  Also,  if  an opera-
tional treatment plant is in significant non-compliance  with  its
NPDES permit, the State may review the  adequacy of the  operator's
revenue system.  Applicable laws and regulations  must  also be
followed when acquiring real property for  projects receiving
Federal funds.

       Regional/State Activities

    The States will have the primary responsibility  for  assuring
the demonstration of financial management  capability.   Draft work-
sheets and guidance have been prepared  concurrently  with the  policy
statement.

    •  States should modify the worksheets to more fully meet
       their needs to tailor national guidance in  accordance with
       States statutes.

    •  Regions and States should conduct reviews  of  all  Step 3
       grantees and make a determination that the  applicant  has
       demonstrated financial and management  capability  to
       construct, operate, and maintain the  proposed  facilities.

    •  Regions and States should screen all  PL 92-500  facilities
       under construction or operational and  all  projects  pro-
       posed for Step 3 funding, 1 MGD  and less to assess  appro-
       priateness of technology.

    •  Regions and States should notify all  grantees  of  the
       financial management capability  policy and  subsequent
       demonstration.

    •  Regions and States should screen and  review all  projects
       calling for land acquisition for adherence  to  Federal
       laws.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page  21

 Office of Hater Operating Guidance and Accountability System




       Headquarters Activities

    EPA Headquarters will focus on providing assistance to Regions
on financial management issues and evaluating Regional performance.
Headquarters will:

    •  Review Regional/State land acquisition activities.
       (Third Quarter)

    •  Prepare guidance further defining Regional roles/
       responsibilities, and conduct additional workshops/seminars
       on financial management capability, as resources permit.
       (Third Quarter)

    t  Assist with identifying and trouble-shooting high-cost
       projects.  (On-going)

    •  Disseminate information on appropriate technologies
       for small communities.  (On-going)


       j.  Permitting

    In FY 1983, EPA and the States will be faced with a number  of
competing needs, including:  (1) issuance of permits to protect  the
environment; (2) removing the legal vulnerability of dischargers
from expiring permits (especially where NPDES States do not  have
provisions to extend expired permits); (3) reducing uncertainties
of permit requirements and timing for permit issuance; and (4)
developing permits that reflect good science and limitations that
will not be subject to frequent change.  In addressing these needs,
the permit should represent the final step in a series of actions
and considerations including, for example, BAT guidelines promulga-
tion and a thorough analysis of waterbodies with suspected or
actual water use impairment.

    EPA recently completed a detailed policy for second round per-
mitting.  This policy requires the use of procedures reflecting  the
best science available.  Major emphasis is placed on development of
a priority listing of industrial facilities discharging to areas
where water impairment exists or is suspected.  Permits in areas
where water use impairment is known should be issued expeditiously.
Regions and States should also address areas where water use
impairment is suspected.  In these areas, additional chemical and

-------
Section II   National Program Directions -  Implementation  Page 22

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability  System
biological monitoring requirements may  be  required  in  permits,  and
a more thorough analysis of water use impairment must  be  made.
Once sufficient information exists, permit  limitations  should  be
developed and the permit modified accordingly.  As  BAT  guidelines
are promulgated in FY 1983, permits should  also be  issued to
reflect these requirements.   In addition to  this major  emphasis
placed on industrial permitting, it will also  be necessary to  focus
on modification, as appropriate, of municipal  permits  to  reflect
the amendment to section 301(i) of the  Clean Water  Act, to reflect
the new definition of secondary treatment,  and to  implement the
pretreatment program.  We are  also encouraging the  Regions and
States to use general or areawide permits,  where appropriate,  to
cover many facilities with similar operations  and  waste-stream
discharges.

    Permits are a management  tool to ensure  that municipalities  are
moving forward on a schedule  to meet the enforceable provisions  of
the Clean Water Act.  Special  attention will be given  to
coordinating municipal permit  compliance schedules  with grant
agreements and conditions and  in tracking  the  grantee's progress
according to these schedules.

      Regional/State Activities

    Industrial Permits

   t  Regions will work with  States to  develop and  update, as
      necessary, a strategy to reduce the  number of expired
      permits, which includes  priority  lists for industrial
      permit reissuance by NPOES States.

   •  Regions and States will  issue permits  in accordance with
      the priority lists and  promulgated effluent  guidelines.

   •  Regions will issue general permits,  as appropriate,  to
      facilities with similar  discharges and monitoring
      needs.

   •  States will develop and/or modify second round per-
      mitting strategies by the end of  FY  1983 to  address
      FY  1984 permit issuance.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions -  Implementation Page  23

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System



    Municipal Permits

    •  In early FY 1983, Regions will develop priority lists
       of those permits requiring modification or  issuance  by
       EPA.

    •  Regions will work with States to develop priority  lists
       of those permits requiring modification of  issuance  by
       NPDES States.

    •  To the extent possible, Regions will modify municipal
       permits to reflect 301(i), revised secondary treatment
       definition, and required pretreatment schedules.

    •  Regions should ensure that technically sound water quality
       based permits are issued for AT facilities.

    •  Regions and States will coordinate schedules for construc-
       tion with permit compliance schedules to ensure consistency
       and track implementation progress.

       Headquarters Activities

    Industrial

    •  Headquarters will expedite procedures for general  permit
       promulgation and will develop a national model for general
       permits for appropriate industrial categories.  (First
       Quarter)

    •  Headquarters will continue to develop and promulgate
       effluent guidelines for major industries in FY 1983.
       (On-going)

    •  Headquarters will provide technical  guidance and
       assistance to Regional and State permit writers in
       interpreting the guidelines.  (On-going)

    Municipal

    •  Headquarters will revise the definition of  secondary
       treatment to incorporate changes mandated by the 1981
       amendments.  (Second Quarter)

    •  Headquarters will provide guidance and assistance  to
       Regions and States concerning the  implementation of
       the general pretreatment program, especially in response

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation  Page  24

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
       to the Regulatory Impact Assessment  (RIA) recommendations,
       (Second Quarter)
       k.  Compliance

    A major emphasis is to improve the compliance rate  for  munici-
pal permittees.  This effort will focus on implementing the Munici-
pal Compliance Improvement Strategy (MCIS).  The major  emphasis  is
to assure that federally funded treatment facilities  are operated
and maintained properly and, in the case of non-compliance, that
muncipalities take adequate steps to correct design or  other  defi-
ciencies.  EPA has the responsibility to assure that  all municipal-
ities involved in the construction grants program are adequately
prepared to manage the operation and maintenance of their newly
constructed facilities in compliance with applicable  NPDES  permit
requirements throughout the useful life of the facility.  Where
significant non-compliance persists, administrative enforcement
and, if necessary, formal enforcement action should be  initiated.
                          I
    Also of importance will  be to maintain, or improve, the
relatively high compliance rate of industrial dischargers and  to
track compliance and take appropriate enforcement action to ensure
compliance with schedules in newly issued second round  industrial
permitting.

       Regional/State Activities

    a  Regions will work with States to develop State-by-State
       compliance strategies, including plans for inspections
       and follow-up instances of non-compliance.

    •  Regions will increase use of administrative enforcement
       tools to resolve instances of non-compliance where other
       assistance/administrative actions are unsuccessful.
       (In this regard, special attention will be given to  the
       Municipal Compliance Improvement Strategy.)

    •  Regions will develop referrals for court action  and
       provide technical support on enforcement litigation
       where negotiations and administrative enforcement do
       not result in compliance.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page  25

 Office of Hater Operating Guidance and Accountability System
    •  Regions will maintain and improve the quality of data
       in the Permit Compliance System (PCS) which will be used
       as the official source of information on the status of
       NPDES permits.

    •  Regions will provide guidance to States on the operations
       and maintenance (O&M) provisions of 1981 amendments
       (principally performance certification) and assist States
       to establish or improve O&M programs.

    •  Regions will selectively audit State Management Systems
       developed under the Enforcement Management System (EMS),
       the Municipal Management Strategy (MMS), and any other
       compliance-related activities.

    •  Regions will track performance of newly completed
       grant funded publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
       for the first year of operation.

       Headquarters Activities

    Headquarters is responsible for national management of
compliance-related activities providing guidance and oversight of
Regional and State programs.  Headquarters will:

    •  Provide guidance to assist the Regions in increasing the
       effectiveness of compliance inspections to improve the
       enforcement presence.  (Second Quarter)

    •  Provide guidance to Regional Offices and States regarding
       performance aspects of the construction grants program,
       including engineering performance certification issues to
       improve compliance.  (Third Quarter)

    •  Participate in the Office of Research and Development
       (ORD) program to provide feedback on POTW design problem
       information to Architectural/Engineering firms.  (On-
       going)

    •  Selectively audit Regional Enforcement Management System
       (EMS) and other NPDES compliance and administrative
       enforcement activities.  (On-going)

-------
Section II   National Program Directions -  Implementation  Page  26

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
    •  Provide guidance on how to deal with compliance  and
       enforcement of existing permits in light of a revised
       definition of secondary treatment.  (Dependent upon
       issuance of revised definition of secondary treatment)
   B.  Safe Drinking Water Act

       1.  Overview

    The Safe Drinking Water Act provides the framework  for  a
national program to assure the safety of drinking water  supplies.
The Act established programs to protect public health by ensuring
the quality of drinking water provided by the Nation's  public water
systems and to regulate injection wells to avoid contamination  of
ground water sources of drinking water.  The legislation provides
for delegation of implementation responsibilities for both  programs
to the States.

    In the Public Water Systems Supervision program, EPA has three
major FY 1983 priorities for the States and Regions:  (1) to extend
the coverage of trihalomethane (THM) regulation to  systems  serving
10,000 to 75,000 people and to ensure that the microbiological
quality of the water is fully protected in the process;  (2) to
effectively respond to incidents of the detection of significant
contamination of ground water sources with unregulated  contami-
nants; and (3) to continue to improve compliance by small systems
with the existing standards, giving highest priority to  the most
serious threats to public health.  The program has  been  underway
for a number of years and already includes a high level  of  State
delegation.

    The Act also sets up a program to protect underground sources
of drinking water from endangerment through well injection. This
program is in a much earlier stage of implementation.   Program
regulations were promulgated in 1980, a legal challenge  was
settled, and the regulations amended early in 1981.  The Under-
ground Injection Control (UIC) program establishes  an analogus
Federal-State relationship for implementation.  EPA expects addi-
tional States to assume primacy during FY 1982; however,  it is
likely that some States will still be working toward it  in  FY 1983.
Thus, the major FY 1983 priorities are:  (1) to continue to encour-
age additional States to assume primacy; (2) to begin direct imple-
mentation by EPA in non-primacy States and on Indian lands; and (3)
to provide oversight and assistance to primacy States as needed.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation  Page  27

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System




    2.  National Program Directions


        a.  Public Water Systems Supervision Program

    The Safe Drinking Water Act gives EPA the responsibility of
establishing standards for ensuring the safety of the drinking
water while encouraging the States to accept primary enforcement
responsibility (primacy) for implementing these programs.   If a
State does not elect to assume primacy, EPA must implement  a
program in the State.  In FY 1983, EPA will emphasize State primacy
of the drinking water program in the seven States which  do  not
already have the program.  EPA must also provide oversight  and
technical assistance to States with primacy.

        Regional/State Activities

    The Regions/States will:

    •  Foster the monitoring for THMs in systems serving
       between 10,000 and 75,000 people (required by
       existing regulation).  Provide technical assistance
       on monitoring for THMs and make sure that the effective-
       ness of disinfection is not endangered by attempts  to
       control THMs.

    •  Respond to the detection of instances of serious  ground
       water contamination impacting public water supplies.
       This will require the capacity to analyze and confirm
       samples, to assess the seriousness of the health  threat
       (using EPA's Health Advisories where appropriate),
       to investigate the possible sources of the contamina-
       tion, to evaluate alternatives for affected public  water
       systems, and to ensure that serious health risks  are dealt
       with effectively.

    •  Improve compliance with existing drinking water standards,
       particularly among small systems, using the approach
       outlined in EPA's Compliance Strategy.  The strategy will
       stress voluntary compliance and will emphasize prioriza-
       tion of follow-up based on the seriousness of the related
       public health risks.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page 28

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
    •  Implement a program in non-primacy States and on Indian
       lands.

    •  Encourage the remaining seven, non-primacy States to
       assume primacy.

    •  Investigate persistent violators and initiate legal
       action against recalcitrant violators of the Primary
       Drinking Water regulations in non-primacy areas, as
       appropriate.

    •  Initiate emergency enforcement actions where necessary.

       Headquarters Activities

    Headquarters will continue to:

    •  Support Regional ground water contamination activities
       by developing additional health advisories and treat-
       ment information on unregulated contaminants.  (On-
       going)

    •  Foster public debate in the control of Volatile Organic
       Chemicals (VOCs) which include the contaminants most
       frequently detected at high levels in ground water
       sources (follow-up on recent Advanced Notice of Pro-
       posed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on VOCs).  (On-going)

    •  Develop guidance on compliance data, verification,
       analysis, and use.  (First Quarter).


       b.  Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

    In FY 1983, EPA will actively work with the States in their
efforts to assume primacy by providing technical assistance and
review of program plans.  In those States which will not  assume
primacy and on Indian lands, the Regions are developing the
necessary framework for direct Federal implementation of  the UIC
program.  By FY 1983, forty States are expected to have primacy for
the UIC program.  It will be the first full year of Regional
implementation in non-primacy States and on Indian lands.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page 29

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System




       Regional/State Activities

    Activities in FY 1983 will focus on:

    •  Continuing to encourage additional States to  assume
       primacy.

    •  Directly implementing programs in non-primacy States
       and on Indian lands, including issuing permits for
       new and existing injection wells that are required to
       have permits under the DIG regulations and enforcing the
       regulations in non-primacy States.  These activities
       will occur in an environment of limited resources,
       making hard choices and clear priorities necessary.

    •  Developing a Regional strategy for oversight of primacy
       States and providing assistance where requested.

       Headquarters Activities

    FY 1983 will be the' first full year of implementation of the
UIC program.  While a number of guidance documents have been
developed to support Regional implementation activities, Head-
quarters will:

    •  Continue to expedite review of State primacy  applica-
       tions.  (On-going)

    •  Assist Regions in establishing direct implementation
       program and issuing permits in non-primacy States and
       on Indian lands.  (On-going)

    •  Review data collected by the States and Regions to
       determine whether regulatory changes are desirable or
       necessary.  (On-going)

    •  Develop guidance on implementation issues including
       data management, permit issuance, compliance tracking,
       inspections, and enforcement.  (On-going)
C.  Ocean Dumping and Discharge Regulation


    1.   Overview

    The Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act  (MPRSA)

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page  30

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
authorizes the Agency to issue ocean dumping permits to potential
users able to meet environmental criteria and other statutory
factors, including the need for the proposed dumping.  The Agency's
approach to implementing this statute is provided in the ocean
dumping regulations.  The regulations will undergo re-examination
in FY 1982 and FY 1983.  MPRSA reauthorization is expected in late
FY 1982 or FY 1983.  The Agency may seek authority to  recover the
Agency's program costs for ocean disposal.

    Under section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act, EPA is autho-
rized to grant waivers from secondary treatment requirements to
municipalities which can demonstrate that their discharges will  not
harm aquatic life or jeopardize other beneficial water uses.  Under
the 1977 amendments, EPA has been evaluating 30 major  301(h) waiver
applications.  Congress recently amended the law to remove some  of
the prohibitions in EPA's 301(h) regulations, to prohibit discharge
of sludge, and to reopen the application period for a  year.
    2.  National Program Directions
        a.  Marine Protection Strategy

    In FY 1983, the Office of Water will develop  a marine  strategy
which will identify the relationships between the Office of Water's
marine programs — including ocean dumping, 403(c), incineration-
at-sea, and 301(h).  This will include criteria,  standards, and
monitoring activities for estuarine waters.  The  objective of  this
effort is to provide for a well-coordinated, integrated marine pro-
gram.  In addition, the Agency is re-examining the ocean dumping
regulation.  Environmental and economic tradeoffs will be  con-
sidered on a case-by-case basis  in assessing the  need for  and
acceptability of waste for ocean disposal and in  determining unrea-
sonable degradation to marine waters.  Emphasis will be placed on:
(1) improving the Agency's scientific capability  to predict the
effects of ocean dumping of materials; (2) completing the  environ-
mental impact statements for dredged material sites and improving
guidance for characterizing appropriate types of  dredged materials
for appropriate sites and methods; and (3) improving the Regions
capability to conduct reviews.  EPA will initiate development  of an
integrated sludge strategy which will provide, among other things,
a better basis for evaluating sludge disposal options — including
ocean dumping.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page 31

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System




       Regional/State Activities

    The Regional Offices and States will implement the marine
protection strategy by:

    •  Reviewing applications to COE for ocean dumping of dredged
       materials for compliance with ocean dumping criteria.

    •  Managing ocean dump sites assigned to the Region in
       accordance with 40 CFR 228.

    •  Processing applications and issuing permits for ocean
       dumping of non-dredged material.

    •  Issuing general/individual NPDES permits for offshore
       discharges.

    •  Determining unreasonable degradation and irreparable
       harm of the marine waters using 403(c) criteria for
       the issuance of NPDES permits to ocean waters.

       Headquarters Activities

    In FY 1983, EPA Headquarters will:

    •  Complete revisions to the ocean dumping regulation and
       provide technical assistance to interpret the revised
       403(c) guidance.  (Second Quarter)

    •  Implement the strategy which will provide for a
       coordinated marine program.  (First Quarter)

    •  Provide guidance and technical analysis to the States
       in determining the impacts of dischargers on marine
       waters in support of ocean discharge NPDES activities,
       301(h) waivers, and the water quality criteria program.
       (First Quarter)

    t  Review quantitative criteria and modify as necessary
       for the selection of ocean disposal sites for dumping
       dredged material and initiate development of criteria
       for other types of waste material which pass the
       environmental criteria (e.g., sewage sludge, industrial
       wastes).  (Second Quarter)

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation  Page  32

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
    t  Develop and implement a monitoring program for  ocean
       dumping related activities.  (First Quarter)

    t  Develop guidance and assistance to the Regions  in  the
       determination of unreasonable degradation and irreparable
       harm of the marine waters for the  issuance of NPDES
       permits.  (Third Quarter)

    •  Determine environmental indices for assessing impacts  of
       dumping particular wastes.  (Third Quarter)

    •  Review and make determinations for research  and emergency
       permit applications for ocean dumping.   (On-going)

    •  Complete site designation process  for historic  ocean
       dump sites.  (On-going)

    •  Develop vessel certification and incineration-at-sea
       protocol.  (First Quarter)

    t  Develop permits for incineration-at-sea.  (On-going)

    •  Develop a system for classifying and evaluating marine
       "areas of biological concern."  (Second  Quarter)

    •  Develop section 403(c) permit conditions, for deep  sea-
       bed mining.  (First Quarter)

    •  Develop 403(c) permit conditions for Ocean Thermal Energy
       Conversion (OTEC) activities.  (Third Quarter)
       b.  301(h) Waivers

    Legislative changes and proposed regulatory revisions will  now
allow between 500 and 1,000 new and revised applications for  301(h)
waivers to be submitted.  In FY 1983, we expect to process 30 major
applications (over 50,000 population or 5 MGD) and 200 minor
applications nationwide.  The expressed policy in the proposed
regulations for the 301(h) program will delegate application
decision responsibility to EPA Regional Offices.  Monitoring  will
be implemented to ensure that permit conditions are  adhered to  and
that environmental changes will be detected promptly.  Toxic

-------
Section II   National Program Directions - Implementation Page 33

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
control programs will also be implemented, where necessary, to
prevent degradation from such discharges.

       Regional/State Activities

    •  States will review waiver application to ensure con-
       formance to State water quality standards or other
       regulations and work with applicants to resolve areas
       of disagreement.

    t  States will issue a statement of  support/non-support
       for waivers.

    •  Regions, where appropriate, are responsible for waiver
       processing, decision making, and  permit issuance  includ-
       ing accepting and processing applications,  issuing draft
       permits, conducting adjudiciary hearings, revising the
       decision document, and issuing final permits.

       Headquarters Activities

    Headquarters will be responsible for developing and
coordinating an effective and consistent waiver process  among its
Regional Offices.  Our proposed approach will be to:

    •  Provide nationally coordinated contractual  assistance
       for waiver  application evaluation.  (On-going)

    •  Provide national data storage and evaluation services.
       (On-going)

    •  Coordinate  task force reviews of  major/controversial
       applications with assistance from the EPA ORO. (On-going)

    •  Train Regional Staff for delegated  responsibilities
       and demonstrate alternative treatment technology  to
       applicants.  (First Quarter)
D.  Ground Water Protection Policy


    1.  Overview

    EPA now has several statutory programs directed at control
of ground water contamination:  Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking

-------
Section II   National Program Directions -  Implementation  Page  34

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA),  Superfund,
and UIC.  In addition, many States have programs and  authorities
directed at other sources of contamination.  In  an effort  to  coordi-
nate these many efforts, EPA is working to develop a  new ground
water protection policy which is expected to be  approved by the
Administrator shortly.  EPA will begin its implementation  in  FY
1983.  Based on this policy, the Regions will work toward  coordina-
tion of their activities related to ground water quality protection
and the States will be encouraged to do so as well, on  a voluntary
basis.
    2.  National Program Direction
        a.  Ground Water Protection Policy  and Coordination

    In FY 1983, EPA will begin implementing the Agency ground water
protection policy.  The Agency is focusing  on establishing  a
framework to obtain maximum health and environmental benefits and  to
eliminate organizational fragmentation and  possible duplication  of
efforts.

       Regional/State Activities

    The States will have the major role in  the implementation of
the ground water protection policy.  The Regions will:

    •  Work to ensure consistency and coordination of
       activities related to ground water,  including Hazardous
       Waste, Superfund, and UIC programs.

    •  Encourage States, on a voluntary basis, to develop
       strategies to coordinate their activities in this
       area.

    •  Participate in formulating specific Agency approaches
       to enhance protection of ground water quality using
       the full array of tools available under existing
       legislation.  Regions will be included in the
       development of technical approaches.

-------
Section II   National Program Directions -  Implementation  Page  35

 Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System



       Headquarters Activities

    The Office of Water expects to play a key role  in this
Agency-wide effort.  Activities are likely  to include:

    •  Developing approaches for attaining  the  anticipated  goal
       of ground water protection based on  protection of present
       and future uses.  This will include  a public dialogue
       on ways this goal could be implemented in EPA programs
       and on a State or local level  (e.g., exemption of
       aquifers, ground water classification, etc.).  (On-
       going)

    •  Identifying and solving inconsistencies  in various  regula-
       tory activities relative to this goal in the Hazardous
       Waste, Superfund, DIG, and other Agency  programs..
       (Fourth Quarter)

    •  Further work with ORD to develop the Agency's research
       strategy related to ground water protection  and to  pro-
       vide better scientific and technical information for
       dealing with these problems in the future.   (On-going)

    •  Working with other Federal agencies  such as  the United
       States Geological Service (USGS) and the Bureau of
       Indian Affairs (BIA) to coordinate approaches.
       (On-going)

-------
Ill  ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
A.  Purpose

    The purpose of the Office of Water Accountability  System  is  to:
(1) evaluate Regional Office performance;  and  (2) provide  Head-
quarters managers with programmatic  information necessary  to  make
future policy decisions.  The System will  track the  national  pro-
gram directions highlighted in detail  in Section II.
B.  Relationship to Administrator's Management Accountability
    System

    The Office of Water Accountability  System ties  in with  the
overall Administrator's Management Accountability System.   It
focuses on program performance  and environmental results.   The
information necessary to satisfy the Administrator's Management
Accountability System will be a subset  of  the quantitative  measures
contained in  this System and will be collected quarterly and pro-
vided to the Office for Policy  and Resource Management.  The Office
of Water is in the process of negotiating  goals, objectives, and
measures that will be tracked in the Administrator's System for FY
1983.  Examples of the types of items that will be  provided by the
Office of Water Accountability  System for  the Administrator's Sys-
tem for FY 1983 include status  of State delegation  and POTW and
industrial compliance.
C.  Structure

    The Office of Water Accountability System  consists  of  several
related components, including:

    National program directions  are major  areas  of  policy  emphasis
for implementation in FY  1983.   These national program  directions
are organized by the Clean Water Act, the  Safe Drinking Water  Act,
the Ocean Dumping and Discharge  Regulation,  and  the Ground Water
Protection Policy.

    Activity areas are State  and Regional  Office  initiatives  to
implement the national program directions.   The  Regions will  not be
expected to address every area (i.e., ocean  dumping)  during  the
Program Review.  Rather they  should use  these  areas as  a guide to
address program activities applicable to their own  situation.
Regions will be asked during  the Program Review  to  indicate  which
activity area(s) are not  relevant.

	  Page 37

-------
Section III              Accountability System          Page  38

   Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
    Reporting requirements provide the key data  and  information
base for evaluating performance.  There are two  types of reporting
requirements:  quantitative and qualitative measures.   (See
Appendix A.)

    t  Quantitative measures focus on information needed for
       program management and do not include workload/budget
       related information.  The budget and workload model
       information will be collected separately  through the
       budget process.  Most of the  information  needed  to  satisfy
       these measures will be obtained through existing manage-
       ment information systems and  documents.

    t  Qualitative measures are those questions  which will be
       asked during the Program Review.  The measures are
       management related.  For example, Regional Office over-
       sight of delegated programs or linkages of water quality
       standards efforts to permits, permits to  construction
       grants.  Reporting on every qualitative measure  is  not
       mandatory.

    It is understood that the Regions must prioritize activities
and tailor programs to meet their water quality  needs.  The  lack of
Regional activity in certain national program directions may be
explained as sound management.  However, Regions will be expected
to discuss their decision-making process during  the  Regional Office
visit.

    The Office of Water has attempted to integrate environmental
progress reporting requirements into the System; for example,
number of water quality limited segments and percent meeting
designated uses.  However, the majority of the measures are  program
management oriented.  State section  305(b) reports will serve  as
the primary document to track water  quality results.
D.  FY 1983 Implementation Process

    The following briefly describes the proposed methods  for
implementing the Office of Water Accountability System:

-------
Section III              Accountability System          Page 39

   Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
    •  Prior to each fiscal year, a limited number of construc-
       tion grants or other program outputs, such as permits, will
       be negotiated between Headquarters and the Regions.  For
       any outputs negotiated by Headquarters in advance, Head-
       quarters will provide suitable justification.

    •  Quarterly information from the Office of Water Account-
       ability System will be submitted to the Office of
       Policy and Resource Management for inclusion in the
       Administrator's Management Accountability System.

    •  During the first and second quarters of the fiscal year,
       Headquarter's staff will:  (1) extract quantitative data
       from management information systems (e.g., Permits
       Compliance System  (PCS), Grants Information Control
       System (GICS), and Federal Reporting Data System  (FRDS))
       operated by the Offices of Water Program Operations, Water
       Regulations and Standards, Water Enforcement and  Permits,
       and Drinking Water; (2) review documents such as  106/
       205(j) work programs and State sections 305(b) reports;
       (3) review annual  plans and evaluation results from
       delegation agreements under 205(g); (4) review other data
       provided by Regional Offices as necessary; and (5) prepare
       materials summarizing Headquarters understanding  of Regional
       Office progress to be used as a basis for conducting the
       Regional Office visits.

    t  There will be one  visit per year in each Region,  cover-
       ing all Office of Water programs.  These Regional Office
       visits will be in  the third quarter of the fiscal year
       (April to June).   The Assistant Administrator and manage-
       ment from each program area will participate in these
       visits.  Headquarters will schedule each visit over a
       three-day period to provide for thorough discussions of all
       program and related issues.

    t  The first two days of discussion will focus on national
       program directions/activity areas.  Headquarters  Divi-
       sion level managers and Regional Office staff will meet
       to discuss:  (1) Regional Office management; (2)  problems
       and successes in implementing programs, particularly
       regarding results; and (3) how program efforts are

-------
Section III              Accountability System          Page  40

   Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
       integrated to accomplish the evaluation objectives.
       It is likely that the review will include both joint
       sessions on cross-cutting issues and separate program
       meetings.

    •  As part of the Regional Program Reviews, a  "Case  Study"
       session will be held to focus on integrated program
       management approaches undertaken by the Region to  solve
       problems in high priority waterbodies.

    •  The Assistant Administrator and the Office  Directors
       will meet with the Regional Administrator and Regional
       management on the third and final day of the visit to
       discuss preliminary evaluation results and  methods to
       resolve issues.  A portion of the day will  also be set
       aside to obtain perceptions on Headquarters performance
       and future program directions and policy, including
       a discussion of the FY 1984 Office of Water Operating
       Guidance and Accountability System.  State  participation,
       while voluntary, is strongly encouraged for this  session.

    •  Headquarters will prepare a report following each  visit.
       These reports will be used by Headquarters  as a basis
       to refocus management priorities and resources for
       the balance of the year as necessary and by Regions
       to strengthen Regional management of the program.  They
       will also be used as input into future program planning
       and policy decisions.  An annual report will be prepared
       summarizing the findings of the Regional evaluations.

    •  A list of commitments agreed upon by Headquarters  during
       the Regional visit will also be included in the trip
       report.  Headquarters will report quarterly on the
       status of those commitments to the Regions.

    •  Throughout the year as the Regional Offices conduct
       overviews of their State water programs, they should
       provide a copy of the report summarizing the discussions
       to the Assistant Administrator for Water.

-------
IV   OFFICE OF WATER FY 1983 FUNDING POLICY
 A.  Clean Hater Act

    The Clean Water Act lays out a water quality management  program
for States and local governments to use in  addressing water  pollu-
tion control activities.  The Clean Water Act  includes  a  number  of
funding sources which should be effectively utilized and  coordinated
to avoid duplication.  Using these funding  sources, States  and  locals
should develop and maintain a base level water quality  program which
covers the entire range of eligible activities --  i.e., standards
development, permitting, compliance, general administration,  etc.
Within this base program, EPA FY 1983 funding  policy stresses flexi-
bility and funding priority to water quality activities on  priority
waterbodies.  Each State should define  its  base program depending
upon its own situation.

    While EPA recognizes the need to maintain  a base level  program,
States should direct a portion of their available  resources  toward
priority waterbodies to undertake the necessary water quality plan-
ning activities to make implementation  decisions.  EPA  recognizes
that each State will have different priorities and needs  for  WQM
funds and will select its priority activities  accordingly.  States  and
Regions should use these national program directions as a guide  as
they negotiate work programs and allocate funds.   The Accountability
System will track how the States spend  their funds, particularly in
terms of the increment devoted to national  program directions.

    In FY 1983, States and local governments should consider  the
following funding priorities:

    t  Using sections 106, 205(j), and  non-construction grants
       management 205(g) funds, States  must operate a base  level
       water quality program, covering  the  entire  program from
       problem identification to implementation and evaluation.

    •  Section 205(j) funds should not  be considered a  replace-
       ment for section 106 funds.  States  in  consultation  with
       areawides should carefully plan  for  and coordinate the use
       of section 205(j) funds, especially  in  support of  a  water
       quality based approach which demands water  quality planning,
       standards, and monitoring.
                                                            Page  41

-------
Section IV   Office of Water Operating Guidance Policy      Page  42

   Office of Water Operating Guidance and Accountability System
    t  Regions should negotiate with the States the  increment
       above the base level which will be directed toward
       national program directions, outlined  in Section II
       of this document.  The national program directions
       include prioritizing waterbodies, permitting,  and
       financial capability.

    •  Highest priority for the use of 205(g) funds  is construc-
       tion grants management.

    •  Section 201 funds are implementation-oriented  and support
       the planning, design, and construction of municipal treat-
       ment plants.
B.  Safe Drinking Water Act

    Public water systems grants are used by primacy States
to support a wide range of activities to assure the provision of
safe drinking water.  States should use these grants to:  (1) take
appropriate actions in cases where water supplies, especially from
ground water, are found to be contaminated with unregulated  contam-
inants such as the volatile organics; (2) improve the level  of
compliance with existing standards, especially by small systems with
persistent violations having major public health significance;  and  (3)
extend the THM monitoring to systems serving 10,000 to 75,000 people
and assist systems exceeding the maximum contaminant level (MCL) to
comply.

    Underground water source protection grants support the entire
range of State implementation activities under the UIC program.  In
particular, States should use UIC grants to:  (1) review  and permit
new Class I, II, and III wells and existing Class I and III  wells;
(2) close shallow hazardous waste disposal wells; (3) conduct review
and mechanical integrity testing of existing Class II wells  and
surveillance and inspection of permitted and closed wells; and  (4)
assess the impact of Class V wells on ground water quality.  Section
1425 States do not have to repermit existing Class II wells  but must
review and ensure that mechanical integrity tests are conducted.

-------
                            APPENDIX A



                 ACTIVITIES AND REPORTING MEASURES







     The following includes quantitative and qualitative



evaluation measures.  These measures will be used during the



Office of Water Accountability System Program Reviews.  See



Section III for a detailed description on how the System works,
                                A-l

-------
A-2

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
    ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2a.  WATER
      QUALITY
      MANAGEMENT
Update and Improve State
Continuing Planning
Process (CPP)
                             •  How is the CPP used  in the overall
                                management process?
                      Water Quality Management
                      Plans Used for Consistency
  I
  OJ
                                                               •  Are permits  and construction
                                                                  grants decisions made  in  context
                                                                  of the WQM Plan?

                                                               •  What  is process for State/Areawides
                                                                  consistency review?  Are  205(j) and
                                                                  106 work programs  coordinated?

                                                               •  What  is the process for State  and
                                                                  locals working jointly to define
                                                                  use of 205(j) funds?

                                                               t  Discuss nonpoint source (NPS)
                                                                  control program approaches  by
                                                                  State.

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
    ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2b.  MONITORING
Implement the Monitoring
Strategy
3=-
I
                             t  To what  extent  is  there  local/
                                industrial  support  for  and  parti-
                                cipation  in  data  collection efforts
                                both for  identifying  problem areas
                                and monitoring  to  determine whether
                                uses are  being  met?   To  what extent
                                have the  States made  an  effort  to
                                work with  industry  to improve mon-
                                itoring  programs?

                             •  What is  the  State's oversight role
                                in locally collected  data?

                             §  How have  Region/States  coordinated
                                monitoring activities with  other
                                State and  Federal  agencies?

                             •  How is the monitoring data  used?
                                Are biological  surveys  conducted?
                                For what  purpose?   How do the
                                States/Region determine  the need
                                for biological  and  toxic monitor-
                                ing?

                             •  What quality assurance/quality
                                control  (QA/QC) procedures  are  in
                                effect to  support  such  data
                                collection activities?

                             •  What is  the  mix between  fixed
                                station  trend monitoring and in-
                                tensive  surveys?  What  efforts  are
                                being made to eliminate  unneeded
                                fixed stations?

                             •  Have States  incorporated their
                                monitoring strategy in  their CPP?
                                If not,  why?

                             •  How do intensive  surveys which  have
                                been conducted  relate to priorities
                                (WQS, TMDLs,  etc.)?

-------
 NATIONAL
 DIRECTIONS
ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
 A2b.  MONITORING
       (Continued)
                       Improve State Section
                       305(b) Report
                                                            •  What  problems  are  being encountered
                                                              in  implementing  the  new strategy?
                                                              What  is  the  Region/State approach
                                                              to  solve  them?

                                                            •  To  what  extent  do  Region/States
                                                              monitor  to determine whether uses
                                                              are being met?

                                                            •  What  is  the  quality  of  State
                                                              Section  305(b)  Reports?

                                                            •  What  is  being done to encourage
                                                              effective use  as well as quality of
                                                              State Section 305(b) Reports?
I
tn

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
    ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2c.  WATER
      QUALITY
      STANDARDS
Implement the Revised Water
Quality Standards
Regulation
CTi
                             •  To what  extent  are  revisions  to
                                standards based on  criteria modifi-
                                cation and  use  attainability
                                studies?  Are water  quality
                                standards revisions  targeted  to
                                priority waterbodies?  What
                                difficulties have the  Region/States
                                encountered  in  conducting  these
                                studies  and  how have they  dealt
                                with them?   What have  been the
                                results  of  these studies
                                (redesignated uses,  more stringent
                                limitations, etc.)?

                             •  What steps  has  the  Region  taken  to
                                work with States to  implement these
                                new approaches?

                             •  Discuss  State anti-degradation
                                policy.

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS	ACTIVITIES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	QUALITATIVE MEASURES	



A2d.  PRIORITY        Identify and Prioritize       # of water quality limited       •  What is the Region/State  process
      WATERBODIES     Water Quality Limited         segments and % Meeting              for determining water quality
                      Waterbodies                   designated uses (by State)  '        limited segments  and setting pri-
                                                                                        orities for control?  Is  it driven
                                                    # of water quality effluent         by AWT decisions, permit  reis-
                                                    limited segments and %              suance, etc., determinations?
                                                    meeting designated uses (by
                                                    State)

                                                                                     •  Do State Section  305(b) Reports
                                                                                        identify and prioritize
                                                                                        waterbodies?

                                                                                     •  To what extent are  intensive sur-
 ^                                                                                     veys employed in  these determina-
 ^                                                                                     tions?  Are biological assessments
                                                                                        included?
************************************
*QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
                                   .*
* State 305(b) Reports             *
*                                  *
*                                  *
************************************

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
                    ACTIVITIES
                                  QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
   QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2e.
TOTAL
MAXIMUM
DAILY LOADS/
WASTELOAD
ALLOCATIONS
(303(d))
Conduct TMDLs/WLAs
   I
  oo
•  To what extent are the States  con-
   ducting TMDLs/WLAs?  Are they
   conducted in priority waterbodies?
   How are these funded?  What
   difficulties have been encountered
   and how have the Region/States
   solved them?

•  What is the process for approving
   TMDLs/WLAs?  How well is it work-
   ing?

•  Are TMDLs/WLAs for toxic pollutants
   being developed?  If so, how many
   are pollutant-specific?  How many
   are based on bioassays?  Biological
   surveys?

•  What steps is the Region taking  to
   reach agreement with the States  on
   TMDL/WLA procedures?
                      Identify Uses Being
                      Impaired by Point Source/
                      Nonpoint Source (PS/NPS)
                      Pollution
                                                                               •  How critical  are  the  NPS  problems
                                                                                  identified?

                                                                               •  How are they  being  addressed?

                                                                               •  To what extent  are  uses  being
                                                                                  impaired  by PS/NPS  pollution?

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
    ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2f.  ADVANCED
      TREATMENT
      REVIEWS
Conduct AT Reviews
                             •  Is the Region following procedures,
                                including technical criteria of AT
                                policy?

                             •  Is the Region/State conducting
                                analyses of water quality  improve-
                                ments from AT facilities under  a
                                program of before and after
                                studies?

                             •  Has the Region identified  all pro-
                                posed AT facilities and coordinated
                                necessary actions (monitoring WQS
                                reviews, WLAs, facilities  planning)
                                to ensure timely reviews?
   UD

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
    ACTIVITIES
    QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2g.  STATE
      DELEGATION
NPDES State Program
Approval
# of Approved State Programs
  --Full NPDES Program
  --Pretreatment Program
      Modifications
  --Federal Facilities
      Modifications
What are the obstacles to State
NPDES Assumption; pretreatment
program; Federal Facility Program?

What is Region doing to encourage
State assumption?
                      Complete Delegation of the
                      Construction Grants Program
                              # of States with Delegation
                              Agreements
                                                    % of program workload dele-
                                                    gated to schedule submitted
                                                    at beginning of the year
                                    What are the obstacles to total
                                    State delegation of the Construc-
                                    tion Grants Program?

                                    What is Regional Strategy to over-
                                    come obstacles?

                                    Have the existing functional
                                    agreements been revised to reflect
                                    the new law and regulations?
************************************
*QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
*	*
* Supplied by Region               *
*                                  *
*                                  *
*                                  *
*                                  *
************************************

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
' ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
                                                                                         QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2h.  CONSTRUCTION
      GRANTS
      MANAGEMENT
                      Implement  a Regional Manage-
                      ment and Oversight
                      System
                      Manage Program to Meet
                      Outlay and Obligation
                      Projections
                             Plan  vs.  actual  workyears
                             and expenditures from Corps
                             during  the  year  [31
                                                     %  of  records  with  errors  in
                                                     edit  sections of  CGMS  audit
                                                     system  to  total records  in
                                                     data  base  (1)
                             %  of  cumulative  net  monthly
                             outlays  to  cumulative net
                             commitment  (2)

                             %  of  cumulative  net  quarterly
                             obligations  to cumulative  net
                             obligation  commitment (2)
                             •   Is the COE  adequately  carrying  out
                                 its  assigned  responsibilities?
                                 Are  commitments  on  national
                                 priorities  included  in State/Corps
                                 oversight systems?

                             •   What  are State/Corps oversight  pro-
                                 cedures to  guard  against  waste,
                                 fraud, and  mismanagement?

                             •   What  is the strategy for  having
                                 Step  3 grant  aplications  from
                                 delegated States  approved within
                                 45 days?
                      Complete and Closeout
                      Projects
************************************
*QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
*(1) Grants Information Control    *
*      System                      *
*(2) Financial Management System   *
*(3) Supplied by Region            *
*                                  *
************************************
                             #  of  physical  completions  (plan
                             vs.  actual)  during  FY  1983 (1)

                             #  of  administrative completions
                             (plan  vs.  actual)  during
                             FY  1983  (1)

                             #  of  audits  resolved (plan vs.
                             actual)  during FY  1983 (1)
                             I  of  closeout  (plan
                             during  FY  1983  (1)
                                                                         vs.  actual)
                                What was the  proportion  of  backlog
                                projects completed  during FY  1983?

                                Were projects  administratively  com-
                                pleted  in  a timely  manner (gen-
                                erally  6 months  after  physical
                                completion)?

                                Are audits being  resolved within
                                120 days of audit completion  per
                                EPA Order  2750.2A?

                                Were projects  closed out  in  a
                                timely  manner  (generally 3 months
                                after audit exceptions  are
                                resolved)?

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
                    ACTIVITIES
                                  QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
   QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2h.
CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS
MANAGEMENT
(Continued)
 ro
Assist States in Revising
Priority Systems and
Municipal Management System (MMS),
Where Necessary, and in
Addressing Significant Water
Quality/Public Health (WQ/PH)
Problems
                      Show Progress in Each State
                      Since 1972 in Selected
                      Priority WQ/PH Areas and
                      Identify Remaining Priority
                      Areas
•  Have State priority systems been
   reviewed to determine the extent to
   which WQ/PH concerns were
   incorporated?

•  Have projects involving significant
   WQ/PH problems been identified?

•  Have significant projects been
   tracked and expedited through MMS?

•  Are the PL 92-500 supported
   construction in selected priority
   areas?

•  Have WQ/PH improvements in selected
   priority areas been assessed and
   documented?

a  Have the water quality areas been
   identified where existing impaired
   uses can be significantly improved
   by municipal construction?

•  Have systems been developed for
   reporting the results of municipal
   construction?

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
    ACTIVITIES
    QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
   QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2i.  FINANCIAL
      MANAGEMENT
      CAPABILITY
Ensure that Projects are
Technologically Appropriate
and Within the Financial
Capability of the Community
and Users
# and % of small community
projects prior to Step 3
grant award screened for
technical appropriateness

# and % of small community
projects under construc-
tion or operation screened
for technical appropriate-
ness

# and % of projects with
financial capabilities
demonstrated
•  What are the alternatives selected?
   Are they technologically appro-
   priate?

•  Do applicants have sufficient
   financial management capabilities?

•  What actions are taken when a
   potential problem project is iden-
   tified?

•  How is the Federal interest
   adequately protected for all real
   property acquired with Federal
   funds?
00
************************************

*QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
* Supplied by Region
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
************************************

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS	ACTIVITIES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	QUALITATIVE MEASURES	



A2j.  PERMITTING      Issue/Reissue Industrial      # of major industrial faci-      •  What  priority  procedures  does  the
                      Permits                       lities for which the permit         Region/State use  in establishing
                                                    is expired or will expire           industrial  permit  issuance
                                                    this fiscal year                    schedules?   (i.e.,  are Regions fol-
                                                                                        lowing  second  round permit policy?)
                                                    # of permits issued to major        How do  the  priority procedures
                                                    industrial facilities during        result  in direction of resources to
                                                    fiscal year                         highest  water  quality  problems?
                                                                                           --in  approved NPDES  States
                                                                                           --in  non-approved States

                                                                                     •  What  is  States  strategy for permit
                                                                                        issuance?

                                                                                     •  Do the  Regions/States  identify
                                                                                        major  industrial  permits  which
  •                                                                                      will  expire  each  year?
  -p=.
                                                                                     •  How are  water  quality  related  per-
                                                                                        mit limitations developed?
                                                                                           --in  approved NPDES  States
                                                                                           --in  non-approved States
************************************
^QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
*	*
* Permits Compliance System        *
*                                  *
*                                  *
*                                  *
*                                  *
************************************

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
                    ACTIVITIES
                                  QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
                                    QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2j.
PERMITTING
(Continued)
Issue/Reissue Municipal
Permits
# of major municipal facili-
ties for which the permit is
expired or will expire this
fiscal year (1)

# of major permits issued to
major municipal facilities
during fiscal year (1)

# of local pretreatment pro-
grams submitted for review (2)
  --# approved
  --# denied

# of States with strategy for
permit issuance
•  What progress is being made by both
   Region and State adhering to
   approved agreements?  Discuss
   problems/successes.

•  What priority procedures does the
   Region/State use in establishing
   municipal permit issuance
   schedules?  How do the priority
   procedures and modifications result
   in direction of resources to high-
   est water quality problems?
     — in approved NPDES States
     --in non-approved States
                      Issue/Reissue General
                      Permits
                                              # of general permits issued/
                                              reissued** (2)
                                                               •  What types of problems have Regions
                                                                  encountered in issuing general
                                                                  permits?  Explain.
                      Adjudicatory Hearings
                                              # of adjudicatory hearings
                                              requested; held; denied
                                                --municipal
                                                --non-municipal (3)
                                                               •  What were major issues?
************************************
^QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
*	*
*(1) PCS                           *
*(2) Region Supplied -**PCS to be  *
*      modified to incorporate     *
*(3) Monthly/Quarterly Status of   *
*      Hearings                    *
************************************

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
    ACTIVITIES
    QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
   QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2k.  COMPLIANCE
Identify Municipal and
Industrial Compliance
Problems and Guide
Corrective Actions
  CTl
# and % of major POTWs not in
compliance with
  --construction schedules
    • at start of FY
    • as of (date)
  --final effluent limits
    • at start of FY
    • as of (date)

# and % major non-municipals
not in compliance with
  --construction schedules
    • at start of FY
    • as of (date)
  --final effluent limits
    • at start of FY
    • as of (date)
                      Provide Guidance and
                      Assist States to Establish
                      O&M Programs
************************************
*QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
*	*
* Quarterly Non-Compliance Report  *
*                                  *
*
*
*
             *
             *
             *
•  What progress is being made  by  both
   Region and State adhering to
   approved agreements?  Discuss
   problems/successes.

•  How do you determine when to take
   an action and what action to take
   against a permittee in non-
   compliance?

•  Discuss reasons for non-
   compliance.

•  How is Enforcement Management
   System (EMS) used  to identify,
   monitor, and expedite critical
   projects toward compliance?

•  How useful and effective are
   diagnostic on-line POTW evaluations
   for improving compliance?  Is POTW
   size a significant factor in the
   effectiveness of diagnostics?
   Explain.

t  What type of inspection activities
   are Regions conducting (CEIs, CSIs,
   PAIs) of major municipal and non-
   municipal facilities?

•  Have the Region or States estab-
   lished a separate  identifiable  O&M
   program, adequately staffed  and
   funded?

•  What is done to assure that
   grantees are fully prepared  to
   assume responsibility of operating
   and maintaining their POTWs?

•  Are performance certification
   requirements being implemented  in
   all States?  What  are the results
   to date?

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2k.  COMPLIANCE
      (Continued)
                      Improve Quality
                      of Data
                                                           •  Is every  proposed  project  reviewed
                                                              to assure  that  the  user  charge
                                                              system will  adequately provide  for
                                                              the required operation,  mainte-
                                                              nance, and  replacement costs  of  the
                                                              POTW?

                                                           •  Has the Region  made progress  in
                                                              delegating  the  O&M  program to the
                                                              States?   How are the State O&M  pro-
                                                              grams evaluated?

                                                           •  Discuss any problems with  O&M dele-
                                                              gation to  the State.

                                                           •  Are compliance  inspections of
                                                              grant-funded POTWs  followed up  with
                                                              appropriate action?

                                                           •  Are Regional information systems
                                                              linked to  national  systems?

                                                           •  Are State  information systems
                                                              linked to  national  systems?

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
                          ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
A2k.  COMPLIANCE      Initiate Enforcement Actions
      (Continued)     as Required to Obtain
                      Compliance with NPDES
                      Permits
                                                    # of administrative enforce-
                                                    ment actions (AOs and NOVs)
                                                    issued by Region  (1)
                                                      --municipal (major/minor)
                                                      --non-municipal (major/minor)

                                                    # of referrals generated
                                                    by Region (1)

                                                    # of administrative enforce-
                                                    ment actions resolved (by
                                                    Region) (1)
                             •  What procedures  are  used  by
                                Regions/States to coordinate  inter-
                                program  activities  and  to set
                                priorities for initiating enforce-
                                ment actions?

                             •  Is there a link  between water
                                quality  problem  areas and Region/
                                State formal enforcement  actions?

                             •  To what  extent are enforcement
                                actions  linked to data  generated
                                from the discharge monitoring
                                report (DMR) and DMR quality  assur-
                                ance program?

                             •  To what  extent are Regions using
                                Enforcement Management  System
                                (EMS)?
    CD
                      Initiate Administrative
                      Enforcement Actions as
                      Required to Obtain Compl-
                      ance with non-NPDES
                      Requirements of CWA
                                                    # of §311(6)(A) oil and
                                                    hazardous substances spills
                                                    referred to USCG (2)
                                                    # of AOs  issued  for unautho-
                                                    rized discharge  of dredge
                                                    and or fill material  (2)
                             •  Is there a trend of  increased  num-
                                bers of hazardous  substances spills
                                being reported and investigated?
                                                                                     •   Is  the  average  quantity of spilled
                                                                                         material  increasing,  decreasing,  or
                                                                                         staying  the  same?
************************************
^QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
                                 	*
                                   *
                                   *
                                   *
                                   *
*                                  *
************************************
*(1) Water Enforcement Action
*      Report
*(2) Status Update Report
*

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
    ACTIVITIES
    QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
 '  QUALITATIVE MEASURES
B2a.  PUBLIC
      WATER
      SUPPLY
Program Management
# of States which have
assumed primacy
•  What plans have been developed for
   additional States assuming
   primacy?

•  Are there any States that intend to
   withdraw from primacy?

•  What plans have been developed, if
   any, for direct implementation of
   PWS programs withdrawn from primacy
   States?

•  What State requests for assistance
   are not accomplished due to
   resource cuts?  How are these
   decisions made?

•  What activities are not getting
   done due to grant reductions?

•  What are State perceptions of the
   Regional program?

•  What management systems are used to
   track State grant expenditures?
   What do Regions do with informa-
   tion?
                      Implementation of
                      Trihalomethanes (THM)
                      Regulations

************************************
*QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
*	*
*(1) FRDS                          *
* Supplied by Region               *
* **System being modified to       *
*   incorporate                    *
*                                  *
************************************
                              % of States with approved
                              program amendments

                              # of States with certified
                              laboratories for THM

                              # and % of systems subject
                              to regulation (1) **

                              # and % of systems in vio-
                              lation of MCL

                              f of systems with variances
                              or exemptions
                                 •  What problems have States encoun-
                                    tered in implementing THM Regula-
                                    tions?  How has Region responded to
                                    problems? Solutions?

                                 •  What forms of assistance has  the
                                    Region provided to States analysis,
                                    lab capability, and techniques?  Is
                                    it effective?

                                 t  If a variance or exemption was
                                    issued by a primacy agency, was
                                    it coordinated with the Region?
                                    What was the Region's role?

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
    ACTIVITIES
    QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
   QUALITATIVE MEASURES
B2a.  PUBLIC
      WATER
      SUPPLY
      (Continued)
Compliance with NIPDW
Regulations
Trends in compliance (1979-
1982) for the Region and
State
•  What provisions have States (State
   by State) included in work plans to
   reduce persistent maximum contain-
   ment level (MCL) and monitoring
   violations?
                                                    # and % of persistent
                                                    violations by community
                                                    systems (1) **
  I
  ro
  o
                                                    # and % of systems with
                                                    serious or persistent
                                                    violations that have
                                                    enforceable compliance
                                                    schedules

                                                    # of variances and exemptions
                                                    (V/E) issued and/or reviewed
                                                               •  Do the reports submitted to EPA
                                                                  accurately reflect the drinking
                                                                  water quality?  What  action has EPA
                                                                  taken to verify the accuracy of the
                                                                  data?  (by State)

                                                               •  How do States determine priorities
                                                                  for follow-up?

                                                               •  Has the Region identified  special
                                                                  compliance problem areas?  What
                                                                  steps were taken to remedy problems
                                                                  in primacy and non-primacy States?

                                                               •  What feedback has the Region given
                                                                  to State regarding compliance?

                                                               •  Has a V/E review been conducted?
                                                                  What are its findings?
************************************
*QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
*	*
*(1) FRDS                          *
* Supplied by Region               *
* **System being modified to       *
*   incorporate                    *
*                                  *
************************************

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
                    ACTIVITIES
                                  QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
                                    QUALITATIVE MEASURES
B2b.
UNDERGROUND
INJECTION
CONTROL
UIC Delegation
f of State Program Approvals

% of compliance with
schedules

# and % of permits issued
by delegated States by
class of well for exist-
ing wells

# and % of existing Class
II wells for which mechani-
cal integrity tests that
have been performed
•  Are Regional Office's State by
   State delegation strategies being
   implemented?

•  If slippage is encountered, why?

•  What can be done to expand delega-
   tion?

•  What types of problems are
   delegated States encountering?

•  What types of assistance are being
   requested?

•  What problems are there in grant
   awards and oversight?
                      Direct Implementation
                                              # and % of programs
                                              promulgated
                                                               •  How is the Region progressing
                                                                  against its  implementation plan  for
                                                                  non-primacy  State and  Indian lands?
                                                                  What types of problems  are being
                                                                  encountered?  What  are  the plans to
                                                                  address these problems?

                                                               •  How are resources used  to meet
                                                                  priority objectives?
************************************
*QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
* 	
* Supplied by Region
*
*
*
*
DATA SOURCES*
	 *
*
*
*
*
*
************************************

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
                          ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
B2b.
     UNDERGROUND
     INJECTION
     CONTROL
     (Continued)
                             •  To what extent is UIC integrated
                                into Regional management systems?

                             •  Is there a balanced UIC program  in
                                place?  What are the major priority
                                areas/activities within the State
                                programs?  Why?

                             •  To what extent is there coordina-
                                tion with other RO Divisions?

                             •  Are States or EPA conducting mid-
                                course evaluations?  What problems
                                have they encountered?
 ro
 no
                       Issue Permits/Assure
                       Compliance
                                                    # and % of permits issued
                                                    within allowed time (2)

                                                    # and % of major viola-
                                                    tions resolved or on
                                                    compliance schedules (2)

                                                    # and % of major UIC
                                                    permit violations (2)

                                                    # of inspections

                                                    # of formal enforcement
                                                    actions (1)
                             •  Have UIC permits been  issued  in  a
                                timely manner?  Is  there  a  backlog?
                                If so, how does the Region  plan  to
                                eliminate the backlog?

                             •  Have there been any enforcement
                                problems?  How were they  handled?


                             •  Is program (inventory,  reports,
                                compliance)  up to  date?  Explain.
                                                                                      •  What is Regional strategy for use
                                                                                         of formal  and informal enforcement
                                                                                         actions?
 ************************************
 *QUANTITATIVE  MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
                                   .*
                                    *
                                    *
                                    *
*(1) FURS
*(2) Supplied by Region
*
 ******
       ******************************

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS	ACTIVITIES	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	QUALITATIVE  MEASURES	



C2a.  MARINE          Implement Ocean Dumping/      # of permit  applications          •   What  problems  has  the Region
      PROTECTION      Ocean Discharge Program       processed  and  permits                encountered  in  reviewing applica-
      STRATEGY                                      issued                               tions  and  issuing  permits?  How has
                                                      --ocean  dumping                    the Region  attempted to resolve
                                                      --ocean  discharge  (# of            them?
                                                        general  permits)
                                                                                      •   Has there  been  a significant
                                                                                         increase  in  permit applications for
                                                                                         ocean  dumping?

                                                                                      •   What  efforts are undertaken by the
                                                                                         Region  to  determine  whether ocean
                                                                                         discharge  permit conditions are
                                                                                         being  met?
 IX)
 CO
************************************
*QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
* 	 *
* Permits Compliance System
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
************************************

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
                          ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
C2b.  SECTION 301(h)  301(h) Marine Waivers
      WAIVERS
                                                    # of tentative decisions and
                                                    draft permits issued

                                                    # of 301(h) final permits
                                                    issued
                                What progress  is being made  by
                                both Region  and State adhering  to
                                approved agreements?  Discuss
                                problems/successes.

                                What priority  procedures  does the
                                Region/State use in establishing
                                301(h) review  schedules?  How do
                                the priority procedures result  in
                                direction of resources to highest
                                water quality  problems?
************************************

^QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
*	*
                                   *
                                   *
* Supplied by Region
*
*
*
*
                                   *
                                   *
                                   *
************************************

-------
NATIONAL
DIRECTIONS
ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
                                                                                        QUALITATIVE MEASURES
D2a.  GROUND WATER
      PROTECTION
      POLICY AND
      COORDINATION
                      Response to Ground Water
                          # of ground water
                          contamination incidents
                          tracked by Regions during
                          FY 1983
                             •  What procedures has the Region
                                established to coordinate ground
                                water protection programs?

                             t  Is there effective Region/State
                                coordination with regard to ground
                                water related issues impacting
                                drinking water supplies?

                             •  Is there adequate Region/State sup-
                                port to respond to ground water
                                problems?  Explain procedures,
                                technical expertise, and timeliness
                                of response.

                             •  What procedures have Regions/States
                                developed to deal witji on-going
                                ground water contamination problems
                                impacting drinking water sources
                                once they have been identified?
************************************
*QUANTITATIVE MEASURES DATA SOURCES*
*	*
* Supplied by Region               *
*                                  *
*                                  *
************************************

-------
                            APPENDIX B

                        DEFINITION OF TERMS
Administrator's Management Accountability System focuses  on
corrective actions, tracks progress against goals,  identifies
problems/successes, spotlights key programs for selected
performance in depth, (i.e., delegation of construction grants
program), improves program performance, and stresses  results not
process.

Administrator's Policy Guidance for FY 1983 sets forth  the
Agency's policy directions.  It is intended to provide  the
directions, themes, and approaches for EPA staff to use to  conduct
the Agency's activities.

Office of Water Operating Year Guidance and Accountability  System
for FY 1983 supplements the Administrator's Policy  Guidance  in
setting forth key Office of Water activities  in FY  1983 and  ties
in with the overall Administrator's Management Accountability
System which focuses on key items and environmental outcomes.   The
Guidance provides directions and themes for conducting  and
managing programs under the Clean Water Act,  the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and the Ocean Dumping and Discharge Regulation and
Ground Water Protection Policy.  The Accountability System  will
assist EPA managers in evaluating the impact  of national  program
policy directions on State water programs and will  demonstrate
environmental results.

National program directions are the major areas of  policy emphasis
for implementation in FY 1983.

Activity areas are Regional and State initiatives to  implement  the
national program directions.

Reporting requirements provide the key data and information  base
for evaluating performance.  There are two types of reporting
requirements:  quantitative and qualitative measures.

    •  Quantitative measures focus on information needed  for
       program management and do not include  workload/budget
       related information.  The budget and workload  model  infor-
       mation will be collected separately through  the  budget
       process.

    •  Qualitative measures are limited to those questions  which
       can realistically be asked during the  Program  Review.
       The measures are management related.
                               B-l

-------
                            APPENDIX C

                      LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ANPRM     Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AT        Advanced Treatment
BAT       Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
BCT       Best Conventional Technology
BIA       Bureau of Indian Affairs
BPT       Best Practicable Technology
COE       Corps of Engineers
CPP       Continuing Planning Process
EMS       Enforcement Management System
EPA       Environmental Protection Agency
FRDS      Federal Reporting Data System
GICS      Grants Information Control System
MCIS      Municipal Compliance Improvement Strategy
MCL       Maximum Contaminant Level
MMS       Municipal Management Strategy
NEPA      National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES     National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NSPS      New Source Performance Standards
O&M       Operations and Maintenance
ORD       Office of Research and Development
OTEC      Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
PCS       Permits Compliance System
POTWs     Publicly Owned Treatment Works
RIA       Regulatory Impact Analysis
THM       Trihalomethanes
TMDLs     Total Maximum Daily Loads
UIC       Underground Injection Control
USGS      United States Geological Survey
VOCs      Volatile Organic Chemicals
WLAs      Wasteload Allocations
WQM       Water Quality Management
                               C-l

-------