United States Office ot Water IWH 5561 EPA440/2-85-801
Environmental Protection Washington DC 20460 September 1985
Agenc'' FINAL
A Guide to
the Office of Water
Accountability System
and Mid-Year Evaluations
Fiscal Year 1986
-------
A
GUIDE TO THE
OFFICE OF WATER
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
AND
MID-YEAR EVALUATIONS
Fiscal Year 1986
Office of water
U.S.- Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM 2
A. Appendix A: The Measures 2
B. Appendix B: The Definitions 4
III. THE OFFICE OF WATER EVALUATION SYSTEM 5
A. Prenegotiated Comiitments and Quarterly
Reporting • 5
B. Mid-year Evaluations 6
1. Advance Preparation 6
2. On-site Evaluations 7
3. Evaluation Follow-up 9
C. Other Office of Water Information Collection
Activities 9
D. Timeline for Activities Related to the FY 1986
Agency Operating Guidance 11
APPENDIX A — Measures
Municipal Pollution Control A-l - A-10
Water Quality Enforcement & Permitting A-ll - A-47
Marine and Estuarine Protection A-48 - A-55
Underground Injection Control Program A-56 - A-61
Public Water Systems Supervision A-62 - A-65
Groundwater Protection A-66 - A-68
Water Quality Standards, Planning and Assessments A-69 - A-78
APPENDIX B — Definitions
Municipal Pollution Control B-l - B-12
Water Quality Enforcement & Permitting B-13 - B-29
Underground Injection Control Program B-30 - B-32
Public Water Systems Supervision B-33 - B-34
Water Quality Standards, Planning and Assessments B-35 - B-36
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In FY 1986, the Office of Water will continue to conduct formal,
coordinated evaluations of Regional water programs. The purpose of these
reviews is to evaluate Regional performance in achieving National program
objectives for the year, and to help ensure National consistency in imple-
mentation of Federal laws and regulations.
[This guide contains the accountability measures that the Office of
Water will use to monitor Regional performance, and describes the process
that the Office of Water will use to evaluate Regional water programs in
FY 1986J The guide should be used in conjunction with the Ajency's
FY 1986 Operating Guidance, which sets forth the National objectives for
water programs.
_Page 1
-------
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
The Office of Water Accountability System consists of a set of qualita-
tive and quantitative measures that provide the basis for evaluating Regional
Office performance against National program objectives. The measures in
the system include all measures included in the Strategic Planning and
Management System as well as additional qualitative and quantative measures
which are needed to fully evaluate performance against the Office of Water's
FY 1986 national program objectives. In general, the measures from the
Strategic Planning and Management System relate to the Agency's Priority
List and should be considered the highest priority program activities.
The structure of the FY 1986 Office of Water Accountability System
remains essentially the same as the FY 1985 system. The following is a
brief description of the accountability system, which is presented fully
in Appendix A and B.
A. Appendix A; The Measures
Appendix A contains the Office of Water Accountability System, which
is structured as a series of charts that contain the following categories
of information:
National Program Objectives; These are the Office of Water's major policy
objectives for FY 1986.The objectives are action items as stated in the
Agency Operating Guidance for FY 1986-1987. The page number in parentheses
following each objective refers to the page in the Operating Guidance where
the action item is listed.
Activity Areas; These are the high priority activities that Regions and
States should undertake in order to carry out National program objectives.
The Office of Water does not expect the Regions to address every area.
Rather, each Region should identify its key program areas, and should
focus on those activities that are relevant to its particular circumstances.
At the time of the mid-year evaluations, however, the Region will be asked
to identify activity area(s) that are not considered to be priorities and
to explain how the Region arrived at its decision.
__Page 2
-------
Section II Office of Water Accountability System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
Reporting Measures; The reporting measures are designed to generate the
key data and information that the Office of Water needs to evaluate Regional
progress towards achieving National program objectives. There are two
kinds of reporting measures:
0 Qualitative measures are the specific questions that Regions are
expected to address during the Office of Water mid-year evaluations.
The measures relate primarily to program accomplishments and effec-
tiveness, and generally do not involve prenegotiated commitments.
0 Quantitative measures provide the kinds of information that the
Office of Water needs for program management and reporting purposes
and for responding to Congressional inquiries. These measures include
all measures included in the Strategic Planning and Management
System (SPMS), as well as some unique to the Office of Water system.
Many of these measures involve prenegotiated commitments with the
Regions (see Section below).
In SPMS/Commitment; This column 1) designates those measures that appear in
the FY 1986 Strategic Planning and Management System and 2) identifies whether
or not the measure involves a prenegotiated commitment between the Office
of Water and the Regions. This column relates largely to quantitative
measures; the principal exception is the qualitative measures related to
developing Regional or State strategies by specific deadlines.
Reporting Frequency; This column conveys the planned reporting schedule
for specific prenegotiated commitments.
Source of Data: This final column identifies the means by which the Office
of Water wilT secure the required information from the Regions. Where there
are existing data systems such as the Grants Information Control System
(GIGS), the Permits Compliance System (PCS), and the Federal Reporting
Data System (FRDS), the information will usually be drawn from that source.
Page 3
-------
Section II Office of Water Accountability System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
The measures in the accountability system will provide the Office of
Water with much of the information necessary to monitor Regional performance
in water programs. The accountability system is not intended to provide
all the information that the Office of Water needs during the year (see
Section III)r nor to limit the kinds of information that Regions may need
for overview of State water programs. As part of its overview function,
the Region is expected to gather the basic information to prepare its
midyear self-evaluation and to participate effectively in the Office of
Water mid-year evaluations. Regions may, however, seek additional information
from States through program audits or other activities, and may choose to
evaluate State management of water program activities that are not covered
in the Office of Vfater guidance or accountability system.
B. Appendix B; The Definitions
Appendix B contains detailed, technical information that more clearly
defines some of the quantitative measures contained in Appendix A. These
definitions explain the precise manner in which the Region is expected to
report the required information to the Office of Water. For seme measures,
it also establishes a specific level of performance that each Region is
expected to achieve during the quarter/fiscal year, and explains how the
Office of Water plans to evaluate performance in these areas.
Page 4
-------
III. THE OFFICE OF WATER EVALUATION SYSTEM
The Office of Water Accountability System contains both quantitative
and qualitative measures. While the Office of Water plans to use both types
of measures to monitor Regional performance during the year, Regions will be
asked to provide the information in two different ways: quarterly reports
to the Office of Water and SPMS (quantitative measures), and midyear reviews
(qualitative measures and whatever quantitative data are available at the
time of the review). The following is a brief description of the ways in
which the Office of Water plans to collect information and to evaluate Regional
performance.
A. Prenegotiated Comiitments and Quarterly Reporting
Many quantitative measures in the accountability system require pre-
negotiated commitments. The commitment-setting process will be carried
out in conjunction with that of the Strategic Planning and Management
System and will follow the same schedule. In July and August of 1985, the
Office of Water Program Offices negotiate with the Regions to set specific
target levels of activity for the quantitative measures in the accountability
system. The Regions and the Office of Water use the following process to
reach agreement on all prenegotiated commitments:
0 Program Offices will negotiate targets based on the quantitative
measures in the FY 1986 accountability system; the Assistant Admin-
istrator must personally approve any requests for prenegotiated
commitments beyond those included in the final FY 1986 system.
0 Program Office Directors will initiate the original data requests,
which will be addressed to the Regional Water Management Division
Directors.
0 Program Office data requests will identify significant program
assumptions, reporting frequency, and reporting mode; each data
request should cross-reference the pertinent measure in the FY 1986
Office of Water Accountability System.
Page 5
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
0 Program Offices will negotiate commitments based on workload and
output projections. Negotiations will start from zero base, with
Regions developing the initial target; the Program Offices will
analyze the Region's output estimates to assure that they are
consistent with performance expectations, and will accept the
Region's estimates unless there is practical evidence or other
valid reason to suggest that an alternative output estimate is
more appropriate.
0 Once staff level negotiations are complete, the Assistant Administrator
will submit agreed upon canmitments for those measures included in
SPMS to the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation (OMSE);
copies of enforcement performance commitments are also to be submitted
to the Office of Enforcement Compliance and Monitoring (OECM).
Regional Administrators will also be asked to submit the SPMS
canmitments to OMSE. Oonmitments for those measures included in
the Office of Water Accountability System only will be sent by the
Assistant Administrator to the Regional Administrator for review
and approval. The Regional Administrator should approve the final
commitments.
By August 30, 1985 Regional Administrators and the Office of Water are
required to submit SPMS coimitmeruts. Any disagreements between the Regions
and the Office of Water are to be mediated by OMSE and OECM or, if necessary,
ultimately resolved by the Deputy Administrator by mid-September. The SPMS
Commitments will be published by October 1, 1985. Additionally, an "open
season" will be held in October to allow adjustments to canmitments for
unanticipated end of fiscal year 1985 activity which significantly effects
the FY 1986 targets. These changes will be submitted to OMSE by Regional
Administrators and the Assistant Administrator by October 31, 1985.
B. Mid-year Evaluations
Mid-year evaluations will be based on the quantitative and qualitative
measures in the FY 1986 accountability system, and the discussions in each
Region will focus on its particular problems and issues. The Office of
Water plans to use its established evaluation process in FY 1986. The
following is a description of that process.
Page 6
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
1. Advance Preparation
Early in FY 1986, the Office of Water will begin to schedule the
formal evaluations/ which will occur during the months of May, June,
and July. Each Region is encouraged to adjust its raid-year evaluations of
State water programs so that these reviews are completed prior to the
Office of Water evaluation.
At least four weeks prior to the scheduled formal evaluation, each
Region must provide a summary of Regional and State progress to date in
major National program areas. Regions which are not scheduled for a formal
evaluation are also expected to submit full self-evaluations to the Office
of Water by May 15. These should be succinct self-evaluations in which
the Region identifies its key problems and issues, as well as its success(es)
to date in meeting National program objectives, based on the measures in
the 1986 Office of Water Accountability System. The Region is also encouraged
to look back at its FY 1985 end-of-year status, and to provide an analysis
of its progress since that time, identifying by program whether it has
been outstanding, fully successful, or unsatisfactory. While there is no
required format for the self-evaluations, some program offices may provide
suggested formats for use by the Regions. The Office of Water will use
these summaries as discussion documents during the on-site visits. For
those Regions where there is no on-site evaluation, the self-evaluation
will be used to evaluate Regional progress and to determine whether issue-
specific program audits are necessary.
Each Region scheduled to receive an on-site evaluation should also
submit a proposed agenda for the Technical Review Session (see below).
This proposed agenda should be based upon the Region's review of its state
programs and its self-evaluation, and it should highlight areas of special
concern to the Region; areas of concern may include technical issues, as
well as interpretation of national policy directions. Proposed agendas
should include a block of time to discuss the issues that are common across
water program areas, as well as unique projects that have involved significant
Regional effort during the year. Each Region will be provided with a
final agenda at least two weeks in advance of the on-site evaluation.
The Office of Water Program Offices will review each Region's evaluation
and its proposed agenda, and will identify any additional issues that may
be of concern. The Office of Water will then work closely with each Region
to modify the agenda based on its review of the Region's self-evaluation,
as well as other data collected through routine activities, such as quarterly
reporting.
Page 7
-------
Section III ihe Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
2. On-site Evaluations
The formal on-site evaluations will consist of a Technical Review
Session followed by a Senior Management Session. The duration of the
Technical Review Session will be based on the nature and extent of the
problems that are identified, and will vary from two to three days in each
Region.
The Technical Review team will be led by a Division Director. Each of
the following program areas will be represented: regulations and standards,
permits and enforcement, construction grants, drinking water, ground water,
and marine and estuarine programs. The Office of Water will also encourage a
senior level manager fron another Region to participate in a review of his
or her choosing.
The Technical Review Sessions will be conducted as separate breakout
sessions in specific program areas. Seme time will also be set aside for
full group discussion of issues that cross program areas; this discussion
should occur after the breakout sessions so that all participants are
informed of the issues. At the conclusion of the Technical Review Session,
the Office of Water review team will collaborate with the Region's staff
to identify the general issues and findings that both parties agree should
be discussed at the follow-up Senior Management Session. The Region will
have an opportunity to review this report and to provide further information
prior to the follow-up Senior Management Session.
The one-day Senior Management Session will occur approximately one
week after the initial Technical Review Session. The specific purpose of
this meeting is to reach a mutual understanding regarding how the Region
plans to deal with key findings and unresolved concerns that emerged during
the Technical Review'Session.
The group will be led by the Assistant Administrator (AA) or Designee;
team members may include the Technical Review Team leader and selected Office
Directors. Regional participants should include the Regional Administrator
(RA) and/or the Deputy Regional Administrator (DRA), as well as the Water
Division Director (WDD), and, if appropriate, the Environmental Services
Division Director.
The evaluation report that was prepared at the conclusion of the
Technical Review Session will serve as the basis for the Senior Management
discussion. Prior to the session with the RA or DRA, the Senior Management
Team and the WDD will meet to discuss the key issues raised in the report,
and, if appropriate, will reach agreement on how the Region plans to deal
Page 8
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
with these issues. These agreements and any remaining, unresolved issues
will be discussed with the RA or DRA in an effort to arrive at decisions
regarding how they will be handled.
3. Evaluation Follow-up
Following the Senior Management Session, the Office of Water will
prepare a memo that summarizes the key issues that were discussed and.
outlines any commitments that were made at the Senior Management Session.
These memos will not be comprehensive summaries of all the issues discussed,
but will focus on critical issues, the agreements that were reached, and
other actions (if any) that may be required to resolve any outstanding
issues. The Regions are encouraged to respond to these memos and to apprise
the Assistant Administrator of actions that resulted from the evaluation
findings.
For those Regions where there is no on-site evaluation, the Office of
Water will analyze the findings from the Regional self-evaluations. Where
significant concerns are identified, program audits may be generated. In
all cases, the Office of Water will prepare a memorandum to the Region
summarizing critical issues and/or identifying areas where performance is
satisfactory or outstanding.
C. Other Off ice of Water Informationi_ (Collection Activities
While the accountability system and the mid-year evaluations will
provide the Office of Water with much of the critical information necessary
to overview Regional water programs, these reviews are not intended to
provide all the data that Program Offices need to monitor ongoing activities
in the Regions and States and to respond to special requests from the
Congress, the Administrator or the Assistant Administrator. Consequently,
there will be a need for Program Offices to collect data and information
from the Regions outside the formal accountability system. The Office of
Water remains committed to keeping these information requests to a minimum,
and to coordinating activities between the Program Offices to the extent
possible.
The following are the main, ongoing information collection activities
that the Office of Water anticipates during FY 1986:
0 Budget; The Office of Water will ask the Regions to provide the
information necessary to prepare the annual budget request.
Regions will also participate in the workload analysis that
serves as the basis for distributing resources among the
___ Page 9
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
Regions. Regions may also periodically be asked to provide
incidental information related to the budget process.
Quarterly Reporting; Regions will submit quarterly, semi-annual or
annual reports to the Office of Water to monitor prenegotiated commit-
ments where such data cannot be tracked through national data retrieval
systems (see above). The Office of Water will supply the appropriate
intormation for the Strategic Planning and Management System to the
Office of Management Systems and Evaluation.
Data Retrieval; The Office of Water will retrieve quantitative
data from existing management information systems, such as the Permits
Compliance System (PCS), the Grants Information Control System (GICS),
and the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
Annual Work Programs/Strategies; The Office of Water will review
Regional documents that are submitted on a routine basis, such as
the section 106/205 (j) work programs, the State section 305 (b) reports,
and the annual plans and evaluation results from section 205 (g)
delegation agreements. Ihe Office of Water will also review the
Regional and State strategies called for in the FY 1985 accountability
system.
Audits; The Office of Water will continue to conduct selected
program audits and case studies on an as needed basis to track critical
activities. Examples include staff level audits of the construction
grants and permits and compliance programs, which typically will
occur prior to the Office of Water mid-year evaluations. The Program
Offices will plan and negotiate these essential activities with the
Regions, and will conduct these activities jointly to the extent
possible.
0 Self -evaluation Reports; Regions will submit mid-year self-evaluations
that summarize their progress-to-date as it relates to the Office of
Water's national program objectives (see preceding section for details).
The information produced by these activities will be used for ongoing
program management purposes, and will also be used to help identify issues
and concerns that need to be discussed during the mid-year evaluations.
Page 10
-------
TIMELINE FOR ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO THE FY 1986 OFFICE OP WATER
OPERATING GUIDANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
Regions Negotiate
State Workplans Based Regions Conduct
on FY 1986 Guidance/ Reviews of
Accountability State Programs
I
1 1
* *
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr t
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
FY 1985
1 1
FY 1986
J
* *
lay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
FY 1987
Agency Publishes FY 1986
Guidance/Accountability; OW/Regions OW Conducts
GW Publishes Account- Negotiate FY 1986 Mid-year Evaluations of
ability System and Caimitments for Regional Water Programs
Evaluation Guide SPMS/OWAS
(Reports submitted
in * months)
OFFICE OF WATER ACTIVITIES
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE VOTER QUALITY (pg. 35)
ACTIVITIES
1. Manage
Priority
System
and Lists
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Can the Regions/States
demonstrate that grant dollars
are going to high priority
HQ/PH projects based on an
accepted project priority list?
How do these projects correlate
with the priority waterbodies
as stated in 40 CFR 35.2005(B)
34 and identified in the Water
Quality Standards, Planning,
and Assessment Section of GNAS?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Ongoing
SOURCE
OF DATA
Needs
Survey
Inventory,
Region/
State
Monitor-
ing and
Tracking
Records.
Reports
& Hard-
Copy of
accepted
PPL
Showing
Ranking.
GICS
Reports
& OWRS
Data on
Priority
Water-
bodies.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL;
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE FINANCIAI/TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 35)
ACTIVITIES
1. Stimulate
development or
improvement of
State sludge
ragnt. programs.
ro
2. Assure
compliance with
Federal sludge
use & disposal
requirements
through
existing or new
State sludge
ngnt. programs.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What actions have the
Regions taken, or plan to
take, to assist the States
in developingr evaluating,
and improving their sludge
management programs?
(B) What actions have the
Regions taken, or plan to
take, to assist the State
in developing sludge ngnt.
programs or revising the
existing programs to con-
form with new Federal sludge
use and disposal requirements?
(C) What plans have the
Regions made for coordinating
overall Regional activities
related to sludge ragnt.
issues?
(A) What EPA manpower resources
would be required for the
Regions to directly impose
Sec. 405 requirements in
States without acceptable
sludge ragnt. programs in place?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF CATA
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL;
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE FINANCIAL/TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 35)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
3. Manage
the Program
to Ensure
Priority
Legislative
Requirements
are Effec-
tively Im-
plemented.
u>
(A) Is the Region/delegated
State management approach
achieving maximum utiliza-
lation of the I/A set-aside?
What criteria does the Region
utilize to ensure consistent,
high quality designations of
I/A technology?
(B) Are the Regions/States
managing the VE program to
assure maximum savings are
achieved?
(C) How are the Regions and
States implementing the ICR
recommendations resulting from
the PY 1985 program review?
(D) What is the Regional/State
strategy for managing the one-
year project performance certi-
fication process?
(E) Have the grantees with
projects that were non-affirma-
tively certified at the con-
clusion of the one year
period (based on actual N7 +
12 months) submitted acceptable
corrective action reports and
what are the States and Region
doing to ensure that progress is
being achieved in correcting the
problems?
(a) % of projects that
completed the one year opera-
tional period and were affirma-
tively certified.
No/No
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
GICS
Report
to be
deve-
loped
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE FINANCIAI/TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 35)
T
ACTIVmES
4. Assure
that Pro-
jects are
within the
financial
and management
capability of
the community
and users, and
are technolog-
ically
appropriate
5. Conduct
and Evaluate
AT Reviews
6. Evalu-
ate Dele-
gated CSO
Projects
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Is the Region over-
seeing delegated states
to ensure compliance with
40 CFR 35. 2104(b), 35.2140,
and to ensure that wastewater
treatment works are operating
on a self-sustaining basis?
(B) How does the Region/
State screen and resolve
potential problem projects
including inappropriate
technology?
(A) Does sufficient docu-
mentation exist, as a result
of Region/State reviews, to
demonstrate that each of the
proposed AT processes would
definitely result in signifi-
cant water quality and public
health improvements (i.e.,
number of projects where AT
processes are approved, and
number of AT projects deferred
due to insufficient justifi-
cation)?
(A) Have the States
demonstrated that fishing
and swimming benefits would
result from each CSO project
funded under section 201(n)(l)?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL;
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND PREVENT BACKLOGS (pg. 37)
ACTIVITIES
1. Elimi-
nate Back-
logs and
Manage
Grants
Efficiently
gUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Does the Region have
an effective strategy for
managing project schedules
for all municipal treatment
works construction projects
(including projects that are
not grant funded) which is
consistent with the National
Municipal Policy?
QUANTITATrVE MEASURES
(a) Total dollar value
(grant amounts) in pre-
construction lag status
expressed as a percent
of annual allotment.
(b) # of projects
initiating operation.
(c) # of Step 3, Step 2+3 &
PL 84-660 administrative
completions.
(d) # of Step 3, Step 2+3 &
PL 84-660 closeouts.
(e) # of administrative
completion backlogs
eliminated.
(f) # of closeout backlogs
eliminated.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly
CGP-008
CGP-0086
Yes/SPMS
WQ-17
No/OW
No/OW
Yes/SPMS
WQ-16
No/OK
Quarterly CGP-2330
CGP-2270
Quarterly CGP-2330
CGP-2280
Quarterly CGP-2330
CGP-2310
Quarterly CGP-2345
Quarterly CGP-2558
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL;
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND PREVENT BACKLOGS (pg. 37)
ACTIVITIES
1. Eliminate
Backlogs and
Manage Grants
Efficiently
(cont.)
T
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(B) What tools do the
Regions/States use to
minimize unliquidated
balances in SMPs?
(C) Are CMEs and FMCs used
effectively with well trained
team members to help assess
the overall evaluation of
the grant program?
(D) Is a PMC conducted on
all Step 3 and Step 2+3
projects where grantees
are not sufficiently
experienced?
(E) Is there a project
specific strategy, with
time based goals, for
completing all Step 1 &
Step 2 projects?
(F) What actions have
the Region and States
taken to manage a claims
reduction program?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(g) % reduction of un-
liquidated obligations
in a negotiated group of
"slow moving" projects
(SMPs).
(h) f of CMEs.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/OW
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly CGP-2565
No/OW
Quarterly Regional
Submis-
sion
(i) f of active Step 1's and
Step 2's administratively
completed or terminated during
the year.
No/OW
Quarterly
CGP-2500
CGP-2510
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL;
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND PREVENT BACKLOGS (pg. 37)
ACTivrriES
2. Manage
State/Regional
Grant Disputes
Resolution
Procedures
and Tracking
Systems to
Monitor
States
3. Oversee
the Corps
IAG to See
that Work-
plan Com-
mitments are
Achieved
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What are the time-based
goals that have been incorpo-
rated into the steps of the
Regional disputes process
(i.e.r scheduling of informal
conference, completion of draft
decision, completion of final
decision) in order to resolve
disputes in a timely manner?
(B) Is the Region over-
seeing the Corps IAG to
ensure that negotiated
resource and output
cormitments are met?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(a) % of Corps utili-
zation vs. target.
No/No
Quarterly
(b) I of final construction
inspections conducted by the
COE.
(c) I of Project Management
Conferences (PMC's) conducted
by the COE.
Nc/OW
Quarterly
No/OW
Quarterly
Report-
ing Deve-
loped
by Corps
Divi-
sions
and
Region
Reporting
Developed
by Corps
Divisions
and
Region
Reporting
Developed
by Corps
Divisions
and
Region
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE STATE/REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 38)
ACTIVITIES
1. Complete
Delegation
of the
Construc-
tion Grants
Program to
the States
>
00
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What is the Region
doing to overcome
obstacles in delegat-
ing all delegable
functions to the States?
Are the delegation agree-
ments current?
(B) Demonstrate that a
plan for overview pursuant
to 40 CFR 35.3025 (a) has
been developed and that an
en-site evaluation has been
performed.
(C) Is the Region managing
GICS so that it is reliable
and accurate, supportive of
program priorities, serves
as an effective outreach
program to delegated States
and is readily available to
end-users?
(D) What is the Region's
strategy and implementation
plan for levels of Regional
construction grants program
human resources, skill mix
and staffing patterns to meet
delegated state oversight
and technical assistance
responsibilities, and direct
EPA construction grant and
O&M management responsibil-
ities?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of new activities
delegated to the States
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/NO
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
Delega-
tion
Matrix
Submitt-
ed by
Region
-------
>
vo
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE STATE/REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 38)
ACTIVITIES
2. Manage
Program to
Meet Out-
lay and
Obligation
Projections
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What measures are being
taken by Region/States/COE
to keep on track?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) % of cum. net
outlays to commitment.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
WQ-15
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Monthly/
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Financial
Manage-
ment
Report
CGM-15
(B) What are net obligations
on a state-by-sjbate, source-
by-source, quarter-by-quarter
basis?
(b) % of cum. gross
obligations to commitment.
No/OW
Quarterly
Financial
Manage-
ment
Report
EPA
92-500
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PERFORMANCE OF COMPLETED FACILITIES (pg. 37)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
1. Improve
Facilities
Performance
(A) Are States effec-
tively implementing an
onsite operator training
and technical assistance
program for bringing small
facilities into improved
compliance? How many minor
POTW's have the States com-
mitted to assist under
104(g) 1 grants and are
they on schedule? How many
POTW's have returned to
compliance following an OME?
(a) # of operations
Management Evaluations
(OMEs) performed at
completed minor POTW's.
Yes/SPMS
WQ-18
Second/
Fourth
Quarter
GICS
Report
to be
deve-
loped
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR NPDES PERMITS CONSISTENT WITH
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND ISSUE PERMITS AS THEY EXPIRE. ISSUE
MINOR NPDES PERMITS, ESPECIALLY PERMITS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT
MINORS AND UNPERMITTED DISCHARGERS (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial and
Municipal
Permits
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(A) How were Regional/State
permit issuance strategies de-
veloped and how does the Region
track State permit issuance
status (major and minor)?
(B) Have the Region/States
developed priority lists
for issuing industrial/muni-
cipal permits? Did they
use national policy and
guidance to develop a
priority list for permit
issuance? Are resources
being directed to deal with
the roost significant toxic
discharge or water quality
problem areas?
(C) Do any States have a
a continuing backlog of
expired major permits?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track progress against
targets for the # of permits
reissued to major industrial
facilities during fiscal year
(NPDES States, non-NPDES states).
(b) Identify the # of major in-
dustrial permits that have or
will expire by the end of FY 86
(NPDES States, non-NPDES States).
IN SIMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
WQ-2/WQ-4
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
Yes/No
WQ-l/WQ-3
(c) Track progress against tar- Yes/SPMS
gets for the # of permits reissued WQ-6/VJQ-8
to major municipal facilities
during fiscal year (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
(d) Identify the I of major Yes/No
municipal permits that have WQ-5/WQ-7
or will expire by the end
of FY 86 (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States).
(e) Region's lists of major No/OW
industrial and municipal
permits to be issued in non-
NPDES States in FY86.
(f) NPDES State's lists of major No/OW
industrial and municipal permits
to be issued in FY 86.
10/10/85
Quarterly
PCS
PCS
10/10/85
PCS
Provide Region
lists start
of FY
Provide
lists to
Region start
of FY
States
-------
trwirrs:
1. Issue/
Reissue
Industrial
and Municipal
Perndta
(oont.)
10
OBJBCTIVEi ELIMINATE TOE BACKLOG OP EXPIRED MAJOR NPDES PERMITS CONSISTEOT WITH
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND ISSUE PERMITS AS THEY EXPIRE. ISSUE
MINOR NPDES PERMITS, ESPECIALLY PERMITS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT
MINORS AND UNPERMHTED DISCHARGERS (pg. 28)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
Has the Region assessed
the reasons? What are the
Region's plans to address
the problem!?
(D) Are industrial/muni-
cipal major permit
issuance rates in the
Region/States expected
to be sufficient to
assure residual backlogs
do not exceed 10%?
Now? In the future?
(E) Are there delays or
roadblocks in the Region's/
States' industrial/muni-
cipal permitting processes?
What are they and vfoat
practical steps are
noodod to expedite
permitting?
(F) Are permits that
were held by the Region/
States for reissuanoe
pending final effluent
guidelines being issued
by Region/States upon
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
(g) Track I of major industrial No/No
permits modified (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
(h) Track I of major No/No
municipal permits modified
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
(i) Track progress against Yes/SPMS
targets for the t of permits WQ-9
reissued to significant minor
industrial facilities during
fiscal year (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
(j) Track progress against Yes/SPMS
targets for the t of permits WQ-9
reissued to significant
minor municipal facilities
during fiscal year (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(k) Prepare strategy for each No/OW
State for the issuance of permits
to minor dischargers.
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
of FY
Quarterly
Quarterly
Second
and Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region
Region
Region/
States
Second
and Fourth
Quarters
7/1/86
Region/
States
Region/
States
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR NPDES PERMITS CONSISTENT WITH
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND ISSUE PERMITS AS THEY EXPIRE. ISSUE
MINOR NPDES PERMITS, ESPECIALLY PERMITS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT
MINORS AND UNPERMITTED DISCHARGERS (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial and
Municipal
Permits
(cont.)
O)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(G) How was the July 1984
deadline addressed by the
Region/States? Were short-
term permits issued? Will
many permits have reopener
clauses for incorporating
promulgated effluent guide-
lines or for addressing new
limits resulting frcm
toxicity testing?
(H) What is the nature of the
modifications being made to
industrial/municipal major
permits? Discuss this workload
for the Region/States in re-
lation to permit issuance and
other permitting activities.
What are the resource implica-
tions? How does the Region
track permit modifications?
(I) Discuss in particular the
process and timing for modifi-
cation of municipal permits to
incorporate approved pretreat-
ment program requirements.
Have all approved local programs
been incorporated in permits? If
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SIMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG OP EXPIRED MAJOR NPDES PERMITS CONSISTENT WITH
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND ISSUE PERMITS AS THEY EXPIRE. ISSUE
MINOR NPDES PERMITS, ESPECIALLY PERMITS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT
MINORS AND UNPERMITTED DISCHARGERS (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial and
Municipal
Permits
(oont.)
2. Issue New
Source/Major
New Discharger
Permits
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
not, what are the impediments?
When will it be done? Are subse-
quent local program changes being
incorporated? How frequently does
this happen? Is there a backlog?
What priority is given to assuring
municipal permits are modified to
reflect current local pretreatment
programs?
(A) Is Region's/States'
approach to new permits
consistent with priority
to protect water quality?
Are there special prob-
lems in the new source
area? Is there adequate
coordination with other
media programs where more
than one EPA permit is re-
quired? Is construction
ban being enforced? Have
problems arisen in this
area? Are NEPA reviews
conducted smoothly and in
a timely manner where re-
quired?
(a) Identify f of complete
applications for new source/
major new dischargers in non-
NPDES States that are on hand
(i.e., complete applica-
tions) at the beginning
of FY85 and the f pending
for more than 12 months.
(b) Track # of new source/
major new discharge permits
issued, the f of complete
applications on hand at the
end of the quarter, and the
I of completed applications
pending more than 12 months
at the end of the quarter.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
No/No
10/31/85
Region
No/No
Quarterly Region
-------
PEROTS:
OBJECTIVE: ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR NPDES PERMITS CONSISTENT WITH
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND ISSUE PERMITS AS THEY EXPIRE. ISSUE
MINOR NPDES PERMITS, ESPECIALLY PERMITS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT
MINORS AND UNPERMITTED DISCHARGERS (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
3. Issue/Reissue
General Permits
in
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(A) What types of problems
have the Region/States en-
countered in issuing general
permits? What measures
have been taken or
are needed to resolve
them?
(B) Is Region actively
considering ways to use
general permits to reduce
municipal permits are modified
to reduce minor permit back-
log? What types of general
permits are being considered?
To what extent will they
reduce the minor permit
backlog? When are they likely
to be issued?
(C) To what extent can general
permits be used to regulate un-
permitted dischargers? Are any
such general permits being
prepared? When are they likely
to be issued? How many un-
permitted dischargers would
be regulated?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track progress against
targets for the # of general
permits issued/reissued
(non-NPDES States):
-OCS general
-f in new categories (not
covered by prior EPA
general permits); and
-# others (covered by
prior general permits).
(b) Track # of general
permits issued/reissued
(NPDES States):
-OCS general
-# in new categories (not
covered by prior EPA
general permits); and
-f others (covered by
prior general permits).
IN SPMS/
COMtTTMENT?
No/OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Quarterly Region
No/OW
Second
and Fourth
Quarters
States
-------
PERMITS t
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND BIOMONITORING (pg. 28)
1. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
T
H-"
o\
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(A) Are States/Region
adhering to established
processes for writing
WQ based permits? Dis-
cuss problems encountered
and how they were addressed.
(B) Discuss Region's/States'
implementation of the "Policy
for the Development of Water
Quality-based Permit Limita-
tions for Toxic Pollutants."
Have EPA and the States been
working together to implement
the policy? What steps have
been taken so far? Have
procedures been developed?
(C) Have the Region/States iden-
tified permittees with potential
water quality impacts that will
be required to do toxicity testing?
Do any permits now contain toxicity
testing requirements? Are §308
letters (or similar State mechanisms)
being used in lieu of permit condi-
tions? Have any toxicity-based ef-
fluent limits been incorporated into
permits? Discuss Region's/States'
experiences« problems.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
PERMITS;
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND BIOMONITORING (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(D) Discuss any problems
encountered by Region/
States with respect to
permit monitoring require-
ments and general conditions.
(E) Are States/Region en-
countering any difficulties
in applying the guidelines?
If so, how are they being
resolved? Are the resolu-
tions satisfactory and
timely?
(F) To what extent are States/
Region developing permit
conditions using best profes-
sional judgement? Is the
technical support for these
judgements adequate? If not,
what additional support is
needed? Are the resolutions
satisfactory and timely?
(G) Do many of the Region's/
States' industrial permits
contain BMP requirements? How
are these requirements written
into permits? Is the guidance
developed by Headquarters
adequate or are additional
information or workshops
needed on BMPs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND BIGMONITORING (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
(cent.)
00
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(H) Are States/Region
identifying toxic dis-
charge problem areas
where post-BAT limita-
tions are needed? Discuss
how these areas are being
identified and hew bio-
nDnitoring techniques are
being used to determine
appropriate limits.
(I) Are Region's/States'
municipal permit conditions
consistent with the new secon-
dary treatment definition? Are
there any difficulties in applying
the new definition? If so, how
are they being resolved? Are the
resolutions satisfactory and
timely? Discuss the nature and
extent of the use of "special
consideration" provisions
of the secondary treatment
definition.
(J) To what extent do Region's/
States' municipal permits contain
monitoring and reporting
requirements for toxics
in their effluent and/or
sludge.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
OOJMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
PERMITS t
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND BIOMONITORING (pg. 28)
ACi'lVlTltai
1. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
(cent.)
vo
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(K) Are there any remaining
problems developing permit
oonplianoe schedules for
facilities eligible for
§301(i) extensions? If so
What is the nature of the
problems and how are the
Region/States resolving
them?
(L) Discuss Region's/States'
progress in completing muni-
cipal permit modifications for
§301 (h) and pretreatment, and
any problems associated with
permit monitoring requirements
and general conditions.
(M) Are requirements of RCRA
being translated by Region/States
into new conditions in reissued/
modified NPDES permits? What are
the requirements? Is their de-
velopment significantly changing
usual permit processing, timing or
resource needs? If so, how? Are
any difficulties in issuing NPDES
with these conditions arising in
the public sector or in the regu-
lated connunity? If so, what are
they and what is being done to
resolve them?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
PERMITS:
ACTIVITIES
2. Resolve
Evidentiary
Hearings
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND BIQMQNITORING (pg. 28)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(A) What are the Region's/
States'plans for elimina-
ting the present hearing
backlog? Discuss Water
Division/Regional Counsel
coordination on resolving
backlogged hearings and on
addressing new hearing re-
quests. Are any hearing
requests related to the
redefinition of secondary
treatment or S301(h) per-
mits?
(B) What are the Region's/
States' major issues? Has a
pattern developed that in-
dicates a need for program
changes, including procedures,
regulations, policy, guidance,
technical assistance, etc?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify # of
evidentiary hearing
requests pending at
beginning of FY 86
(NPDES States, non-
NPDES States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-municipal.
(b) Track against targets
the f of evidentiary hearing
requests pending at beginning
of FY that were resolved in
FY 86 (NPDES States, non-NPDES
States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-Municiapl.
(c) Identify f of evidentiary
hearings requested during FY
86 (NPDES States, non-NPDES
States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-municipal.
(d) Track i of evidentiary
hearing requests received
in FY 86 which are denied
or granted within 90 days
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-municipal.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
WQ-10
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
10/15/85
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
States
Yes/SPMS
WQ-11
Quarterly
Region/
States
No/No
Quarterly
Region/
States
No/No
Quarterly
Region/
States
-------
PERMITS i
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPOES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND BIGMONITORING (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
3. Review and
Approve/Deny
Variance
Requests
N>
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR
(A) How is the Region's/
States' variance process
working? What are the dif-
ficulties? What additional
support is needed, such as
procedural changes, guidance
or support from Headquarters?
Discuss problems and successes.
(B) Have any States requested
Alternative State Requirements
(ASRs) under the redefinition
of secondary treatment? Discuss
the review and approval process
and identify any problems or
support needs. In States
where EPA is the NPDES
authority, have any cities
asked for ASR limits (i.e.
higher effluent nunbers
than 45 rag/1 BOD and sus-
pended solids)? Discuss
the Region's response to
the municipal inquiry. Was
the State informed of the
ASR inquiry?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify * of direct
discharger variance re-
quests pending at begin-
ning of FY 86 (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States):
- FDF
- 301(c)
- 301(g)
- 301(k)
- 316(a)
- 316(b)
(b) Track against targets
the # of direct discharger
variances denied-or for-
warded to Headquarters
with a recommendation in
FY 86 (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States):
- FDF
- 301(c)
- 301(g)
- 301 (k)
- 316(a)
- 316 (b)
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
10/31/85
SOURCE
OF DATA
No/OW
Quarterly
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMEOT AND BICM3NITORING (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
3. Review and
Approve/Deny
Variance
Requests
(oont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR
K>
10
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) Identify f of direct
discharger variances re-
quested during 5Y 86
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States):
- FDP
- 301(c)
- 301(g)
- 301 (k)
- 316(a)
- 316 (b)
(d) Track f of direct
discharger variances re-
quested during EY 86 which
are denied or forwarded to
Headquarters with a recom-
mendation in FY 86 (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States):
- FDF
- 301(c)
- 301(g)
- 301 (k)
- 316(a)
- 316(b)
IN SPMS/
OCMMITMEOT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
States
No/No
Quarterly
Region/
States
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT
EMPHASIS ON MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
ACTIVITIES
1. Identify
Compliance
Problems
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
*
ts»
U>
(A) Do the Region's/
States' compliance rates
show improvement over
the same period in
FY 1985?
(B) What are the major
reasons for municipal/
nonmunicipal noncompliance
in the Region/States?
(C) How many/what type of
facilities are coming back
into compliance without
any formal enforcement
action? Informal action?
(D) What are the reasons
behind persistent non-
compliance, and what is
the Region's/States' strategy
for dealing with such
noncompliance?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) MOVING BASE UNIVERSE;
f of major permittees and
P.L. 92-500 minor permittees
that are:
- on final effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal,
P.L.92-500; NPDES States,
non-NPDES States); and
- not on final effluent
limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal;
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
(See Appendix B)
(b) MOVING BASE SNC;
•# and % of major permittees
and P.L. 92-500 minor permit-
tees in significant non-
compliance (SNC) with:
- final effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal,
P.L. 92-500; NPDES States,
non-NPDES States);
- construction schedules;
- interim effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal;
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States). (See Appendix B)
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
WQ/E-1
through
WQ/E-8
Yes/No
WQ/E-1
through
WO/E-8
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Majors;
Quarterly
Minor
P.L.92-500s;
Semi-
annually
(April 1,
1986 based
on Dec. 31,
1985 data.
Oct. 1, 1986
based on
June 30,
1986 data.)
Majors;
Quarterly
Minor
P.L. 92-500S!
Semi-
annually
(April 1,
1986 based
on Dec. 31,
1985 data.
Oct. 1, 1986
based on
June 30,
1986 data.)
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
Data
lagged
one qtr
Region/
State
QNCR
Data
lagged
one qtr
Region/
State
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
2. Expand
Enforcement
Efforts
Under the
National
Municipal
Policy
!>
4S
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are the State Municipal
Compliance Strategies being
effectively utilized by the
Regions and States? Are they
updated annually?
(B) To what extent are the
Region/States still establish-
ing permit/compliance schedules
for all remaining POTWs?
(C) To what extent are the
Region/States initiating
civil referrals for unfunded
POTWs that cannot meet the
1988 deadline? Are these
POTWs required to take inter-
mediate steps in the mean-
time? How are reasonable
deadlines being determined?
(D) How axe the Region/
States tracking compliance
with milestones in permits/
enforceable schedules?
What problems are being
encountered? Is there a
need to seek judicially-
imposed schedules in any
of these cases?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) COMPOSITE CORRECTION PLANS
(1) identify the f of noncom- ~
plying POTWs that need
no further construction.
(2) Of the POTWs that need
no further construction:
- f of those for which
action to obtain compliance
has been required in a
schedule (CCP) incorporated
into an enforceable
document (tracked against
target); and
- f of those completing the
final step of their CCP
and returned to compliance
(list separately: major,
minor; NPDES State, non-NPDES
State).
(b) MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE PLANS
(1) Identify the I of nan
plying POTWs that require
construction
(2) Of the POTWs that currently
require further construction:
- f of those for which
compliance schedules (MCPs)
have been established
through an enforceable
document (tracked against
target); and
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
WQ-13
Yes/SPMS-
Major,
Minor
WQ-14
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
10/15/85
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
State
Region/
State
Quarterly Region/
State
Yes/No
WQ-13
Yes/SPMS-
Major,
Minor
WQ-14
10/15/85
Quarterly
Region/
State
Region/
State
-------
ENFORCEMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPOES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR IN SPMS/ REPORTING SOURCE
ACTIVITIES MID-YEAR REVIEWS QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT FREQUENCY OF DATA
2. Expand
Enforcement (E) How do the Region/States - t of those completing the No/No Quarterly Region/
Efforts coordinate permit issuance/ final step of their MCP State
Under the compliance, and construction and returned to compliance
National grant acitivities to improve (list separately: major,
Municipal municipal compliance? minor; funded, unfunded;
Policy NPDES States, non-NPDES
(Cont'd) States).
:>
in
-------
ENFORCEMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS OS MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
3* Improve
Quality
and Timeliness
of Enforcement
Responses
>
to
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are the Region/States
working in conjunction with
Federal facility coordinators
to improve enforcement
response times to instances
of nonconpliance by
Federal facilities?
(B) Do the Region and
States ensure that the
use of AOs/NOVs is
consistent with EMS
principles and the
enforcement response
guide? How do the
Region and States
measure the effective-
ness of AOs and NOVs?
(C) How do Region/States
evaluate the quality of
AOs? What is the quality
of the AOs?
(D) Do Region/States track
AO requirements closely?
Have all close-outs been
reported to Hpylfrrv*'rtgrs?
Are they reported
promptly upon close-out?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(a) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (AOs)
f of EPA AOs or State
equivalent actions issued:
- municipal permittees (major/
minor)
- non-municipal permittees
(major/minor)
- Federal permittees (major/
minor)
(list separately: EPA, NPDES
States).
Yes/No
WQ/E-15
Quarterly
GREAT,
PCS or
Region/
State
(b) CLOSE-OUT UNIVERSE
* of EPA AOs which are
to be closed-out between
October 1, 1985 through
September 30, 1986.
Yes/No
WQ/E-17
October 1,
1985
Region/
State
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
Quality
and Timeliness
of Enforcement
Responses
(Cont'd)
10
••J
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) Are AOs being issued
for noncompliance with
Spill Prevention Control
and Gountermeasure (SPCC)
Plan requirements?
(F) How do the Region and
States ensure that vio-
lations of Court Orders
get prompt enforcement
action?
(G) What are the criteria
the Region/States use to
select referral cases?
What is the involvement
of ORC in this selection?
(H) What is the level of
coordination between the
compliance section and ORC
in the Region and the res-
pective agencies in the
States? If less than satis-
factory, what steps is Region
taking to improve coordination?
(I) Discuss the quality of the
referral packages. Do all refer-
ral packages contain appropriate
civil penalties that conform
with FY 1985 guidance?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) CLOSE-OUTS ACHIEVED
# and % of (b) which are
successfully closed-out
(the final step is achieved
or action is referred to
Headquarters or DOJ.
(d) REFERRALS
# of §309 referrals or
State equivalent actions
generated:
- civil referrals sent to
HQ/DOJ/SAG;
- civil referrals filed; and
- criminal referrals filed
(list separately: EPA,
NPDES States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/SPMS
WQ/E-18
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
State
Yes/No
WQ/E-16
Quarterly
DOCKET
System
and
Region/
State
-------
ENFORCEMENT?
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
3* Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(cont.)
ro
oo
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(J) What is the quality
of active consent decrees?
How closely are they tracked
by the Region/States?
(K) What types of action
are being taken in response
to violations of consent
decrees? Are stipulated
penalties collected? Are
civil contempt proceedings
initiated? Are the decrees
modified? Are additional
compliance monitoring
requirements imposed?
(L) What are the reasons
for the Region's/States'
failure to take remedial
action against permittees
that violate their consent
decrees?
(M) To what extent has the
quality of the Region's/
States' self-monitoring data
improved due to DMR/QA?
How is this verified?
(N) What problems still
need to be addressed by
the Region/States to
make the DMR/QA program
more effective?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(e) CONSENT DECREES
Identify by name and NPDES
number all permittees with
active consent decrees and
report their compliance
status as follows:*
- in compliance with decree;
- in violation of decree, but
remedial action taken; and
- in violation of decree, no
remedial action taken
(list separately: major,
minor; municipal, non-
municipal, Federal).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
State
(f)
I of follow-up actions
on DMR/QA performance
sample results:
- nonrespondents;
- permittees requiring
corrective action.
No/No
Semi-
annually;
April 1,
1986
Oct. 1,
1986
Region
-------
ENFORCEMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(Cont'd)
4. Non-NPDES
Enforcement
\O
QUALITATrVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(0) What is involved in
State/Region coopera-
tion and how has it
worked best? Are States
participating fully?
(A) Is there a trend of
increased numbers of
hazardous substances
spills being reported
and investigated?
(B) Is the average quantity
of spilled material
increasing, decreasing,
or staying the same?
(C) Are administrative
actions being issued
for noncompliance with
Spill Prevention Control
and Countermeasure
(SPCC) Plan requirements?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
ENFORCEMENT;
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE NATIONAL CONSISTENCY IN THE NPDES COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAM, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON IMPROVING DATA MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
1. Increase
Use of PCS
as the
Primary
Source of
NPDES
Program
Data
T
U)
o
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What actions are Region/
States taking to improve
the quality of PCS data?
(B) Have the Regions entered
required data into PCS at
approximately 25% per quarter?
What are the Region's/ States'
procedures for routinely
entering and vertifying dis-
charge monitoring report data
for all major permittees, in
particular, completed and
operational P.L. 92-500
facilities? How current are
the date entered?
(C) Do the Region/States use
the preprinted DMR form to
minimize compliance tracking
problems and PCS entry work-
load? What is the Region
doing to encourage the States
to use preprinted DMRs?
(D) Does the Region use PCS as
the primary system for routine
program management? Have all
all redundant elements of
local systems been terminated?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) WENDB
Quarterly verify Water
Enforcement National Data
Base (WENDB) and DMR data
for completeness and
accuracy in both:
- NPDES States;
- non-NPDES States.
(b) PCS 'F1 and '$'
INDICATORS
Quarterly verify and
enter into PCS the
designator for all
major permittees on
final effluent limits
and the designator for
all major and minor
P.L. 92-500 POTWs.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
No/No
Quarterly
PCS
-------
ENFORCEMENT;
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE NATIONAL CONSISTENCY IN THE NPDES COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAM, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON IMPROVING DATA MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
1. Increase
Use of PCS
as the
Primary
Source of
NPDES
Program
Data
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) How is the Region
encouraging increased State
participation in PCS? Is
the Region giving priority in
assistance and program grant
funding to States that are
direct users of PCS? Is the
Region aware of any State(s)
planning to move off PCS? If so,
what steps is the Region taking?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
T
-------
ENFORCEMENT!
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE NATIONAL CONSISTENCY IN THE NPDES COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAM, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON IMPROVING DATA MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
2. Improve
Effectiveness
of Inspection
Activities
T
u>
10
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Do the Region/States
have annual compliance
inspection plans for each
State? What is the
quality of these plans?
Discuss how these plans
are used.
(B) Do the Region/States
prepare quarterly lists of
facilities to be inspected?
What are the criteria used
to select facilities to be
inspected? Are the inspections
planned to match the specific
situation at each facility?
How do the Region/States
determine the proper inspec-
tion mix? Is the mix con-
sistent with the "primary
use" criteria included in
the NPDES Inspection
Strategy?
(C) How do the Region and
States use DMR/QA perfor-
mance sample results for
targeting compliance
inspections?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) INSPECTION PLANS
# of Regional and State
inspection plans.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Oct. 1,
1985
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region
(b) MAJORS INSPECTED
# of major permittees
inspected at least once
by EPA/States
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal;
EPA, State).
(c) INSPECTIONS
# of inspect'ions (CEI or
better):
- major permittee inspections
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal;
EPA, State)
- minor P.L. 92-500 permittee
inspections (list separately:
EPA, State)
- significant minor permittee
inspections
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal;
EPA, State).
No/OW
Quarterly
PCS
No/No
Quarterly
PCS
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE NATIONAL CONSISTENCY IN THE NPDES COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAM, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON IMPROVING DATA MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
2. Improve
Effectiveness
of Inspection
Activities
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(D) What mechanism is used
to assure that inspection
results are provided to the
Region/States in a timely
manner? Are the data entered
into PCS only after the
report has been completed
and signed by the reviewer or
supervisor?
(E) How does the Region/state
follow-up when inspection
results are unsatisfactory?
When RI uncover problems, does
the Region/State follow-up with
a more intensive inspection?
(F) How do the Region's/States'
inspection policies focus on
the most significant violators?
(G) How does the Region provide
its States with advance notice of
inspections? Discuss how Region
and State efforts are coordinated.
Discuss use of independent and
joint inspections*and State file
reviews to overview the State
inspection program.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
ENFORCEMENT;
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE NATIONAL CONSISTENCY IN THE NPDES COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAM, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON IMPROVING DATA MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
2. Improve
Effectiveness
of Inspection
Activities
(Cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(H) Are all major permittees
inspected by EPA or the States
each year? Have the Region/
States verified that Reconnais-
sance Inspections of major
permittees are only done on
those permittees meeting the
requirements specified in the
attached definition section?
(I) Is the Region/State con-
ducting inspections consistent
with the assumptions used for
the FY 1986 resource alloca-
tion? Is the Region setting
aside a portion of its
resources to do neutral inspec-
tions on minors? Discuss.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE SOUND NPDES ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS BASED ON UPDATED PROCEDURES AND IMPROVED
COMPLIANCE WITH MILESTONES FOR TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
1. Update
and Use EMS
Enforcement
Procedures
T
u>
I/I
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Do the Region/States have
revised Enforcement Management
System (EMS) procedures? How is
the EMS used to identify, moni-
tor, and respond to noncomplying
facilities? Are EMS principles
implemented strictly, loosely,
or not at all?
(B) How do Region/States select
the type of enforcement response
for specific violations?
(C) What kinds of formal enforce-
ment actions are the Region/States
using? What is the quality of
these actions?
(D) What kinds of informal actions
(if any) are the Region/ States
using in lieu of formal enforce-
ment action? Are these actions
documented properly? Are they
effective? Do they identify
chronic low-level violators? Are
there provisions for escalating
these responses in appropriate
cases?
(E) How often is it necessary
for the Region to take a direct
enforcement action in an NPDES
State? Which States? Are the
actions taken consistent with
the criteria in the State over-
view guidance, including prior
notification and consultation?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE SOUND NPDES ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS BASED ON UPDATED PROCEDURES AND IMPROVED
COMPLIANCE WITH MILESTONES FOR TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES, (pg.
30)
ACTIVITIES
2. Use
Guidance
Criteria and
Milestones for
Response to
Nonocnpliance
T
w
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) How do the Region and
States use the exception
list to establish a
priority for committing
conpl iance/enf oroanen t
resources?
(B) What problems have the
Region/States been facing
that would prevent them
from meeting the time-lines
prescribed? Which States
consistently miss commitments?
Does the Region provide
adequate justification
for facilities being on the
exceptions list?
(C) Does the Region use
the exception list as a way
of tracking State Programs?
Are they reviewed quarterly
along with the QNCR? Are
the lists an effective
management tool for the
States?
(D) Is there consistent
application of the criteria/
milestones from State-to-
State within the Region? If
not, what steps is Region
planning to take to improve
consistency?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) EXCEPTION LIST UNIVERSE
Identify by name and NPDES~"
number major permittees
appearing on two or more con-
secutive QNCRs as being in
significant noncompliance
(SNC) with:
- final effluent limits (PEL);
- construction schedules (CS);
and
- interim effluent limits (IEL)
without being returned to
compliance or addressed with
a formal enforcement action
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal; NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(b) EXCEPTION LIST TRACKING
Identify the names and total
number of major permittees
listed in the Exception List
Universe for the previous
quarter for which one of the
following has occurred:
- I returned to compliance;
- I not yet in compliance but
addressed with a formal
enforcement action
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal; SNC
with PEL, CS, IEL; NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(list separately from Excep-
tion List Universe)
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
WQ/E-9
WQ/E-11
WQ/E-13
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
QNCR
and
Region/
State
Data
lagged
one qtr
Yes/SPMS-
ccmposite
of the two
categories
only
WQ/E-10
WQ/E-12
WQ/E-14
Quarterly
QNCR
and
Region/
State
Data
lagged
one qtr
-------
PRETREATMENT:
OBJECTIVE: COMPLETE APPROVAL OF ALL LOCAL PRETREATMEOT PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THOSE PROGRAMS
ORIGINALLY REQUIRED AND THOSE NEWLY IDENTIFIED IN FY 1985 (pg. 32)
1. Develop
and Approve
local Pre-
txeatntent
Programs
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What are the impedi-
ments to Region's/States'
local treatment program
approval?
(B) How well is EPA con-
tract assistance (type
and level) supporting
development and review
of local program sub-
missions?
(C) What criteria do
Region/States use for
review of local pretreat-
ment programs? Are
criteria consistent in
technical and adminis-
trative requirements?
(D) Are local limit
requirements applied
uniformly in Region/States?
(E) Are the Region's/States'
review criteria abnormally re-
strictive? (i.e., not-based on
national policy, regs., etc.)
(F) If a local program is not
acceptable, how long do the
Region/States allow for a resub-
mission? Are any programs being
approved subject to conditions?
(G) What rationale do Region/States
use to add/delete municipalities from
the list of required local programs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify the local pre-
treatment programs requiring
approval but not yet approved
at the beginning of the fiscal
year and distinguish between
those newly identified in FY
85 and those previously re-
quired, (list separately:
non-pretreatment States,
approved pretreatment States).
(b) Track progress against
targets for the programs
approved during FY 1986
(list separately: non-
pretreatment States,
approved pretreatment
States).
(c) Identify the local pre-
treatment programs approved
before beginning of fiscal
year (list separately: non-
pretreatment States, approved
pretreatment States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
10/31/85
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
States
Yes/SPMS
WQ-12 a
Quarterly
Region/
States
No/No
10/31/85
Region/
States
-------
PRETREATMENT:
OBJECTIVE: CONCENTRATE ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ON MAINTAINING STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEABLE
SCHEDULES, AND ON TAKING DIRECT ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST INDUSTRIAL USERS CONSISTENT
WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES, (pg. 32)
ACTIVITIES
1. Take
Actions as
Required
to Obtain
Compliance
with
PRETREATMENT
Requirements
T
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) When a local program
submitted for approval is
not acceptable, what follow-
up action is taken by the
Region/State if the local
program is not resutmitted
in the time prescribed by
the Approval Authority?
(B) What are the criteria
used by EPA/States to select
industrial users to be
inspected? What do the
results of these inspections
indicate? What use is being
made of these results?
(C) Do the Region/States
place a priority on inspecting
lUs that discharge to
unapproved POTWs and are
subject to Federal categorical
standards? Are all inspections
of lUs that discharge to
approvedsPOTWs done as a result
of a POTW pretreatment inspection
which gave cause to doubt the
performance of the IU?
(D) How do the Region/States
ensure that local pretreatment
programs are fully implementing
NPDES permit pretreatment
requirement?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(a) PRETREATMENT INSPECTIONS
(see also POTW pretreatment
audits)
# of EPA and State pretreatment WQ/E-19
inspections of:
- Pretreatment POTWs
- Industrial Users (IUs) that
discharge to unapproved POTWs
- IUs that discharge to approved
POTWs
(list separately: POTW, IU of an
unapproved POTW, IU of an approved
POTW; EPA, States).
Yes(POTWs and
IUs only)/SPMS
Quarterly
PCS
(b) PRETREATMENT AOs Yes/No
I of EPA ACS and State
equivalent actions issued: WQ/E-20
- for POTW pretreatment
violations
Quarterly
PCS or
Region/
State
-------
PRETREATMENT:
OBJECTIVE: CONCENTRATE ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ON MAINTAINING STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEABLE
SCHEDULES, AND ON TAKING DIRECT' ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST INDUSTRIAL USERS CONSISTENT
WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES, (pg. 32)
ACTIVITIES
1. Take
Actions as
Required
to Obtain
Compliance
with
PRETREATMENT
Requirements
(Cont'd)
T
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) How do the Region and
Stated identify and respond
to industrial noncompliance
with categorical pretreatment
standard deadlines?
(F) What is the quality of
pretreatment AOs? Referrals?
(G) What are the criteria
the Region/States use to
select pretreatment referral
cases? What is the involve-
ment of ORC in this selec-
tion?
(H) What is the level of
coordination for pretreat-
ment cases between the
compliance section and
ORC in the Region and
the respective agencies
in the States? If less
than satisfactory, what
steps is the Region
taking to improve
coordination?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
- for industrial user
pretreatment violations
(list separately: EPA, States).
(c) PRETREATMENT REFERRALS
f of pretreatment referrals
or State equivalent actions:
- civil referrals sent to
HQ/DOJ/SAG;
- civil referrals filed; and
- criminal referrals filed
in response to:
- POTW non-submittal of an
approvable pretreatment
program.
- other POTW pretreatment
violations
- industrial user pretreatment
violations
(list separately: EPA, States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Yes/No
WQ/E-21
Quarterly
DOCKET
System
and
Region/
State
-------
PRETREATMENT
ACTIVITIES
1. Oversee
Effectivenee
of Local Pre-
treatment
Program Im-
plementation
s
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT CONTROL AUTHORITIES FULLY IMPLEMENT SOUND LOCAL
PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS (pg. 32)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Have Region/States de-
veloped local program in-
ventories which enables the
identification of the priority
programs? Are the priorities
set on the basis of the rela-
tive size of approved local
programs in terms of popu-
lation and number of signifi-
cant industrial users?
(B) How many audits do
Region/States plan to con-
duct? What are the findings
fron these audits?
(C) Are annual report sub-
missions by POTWs reviewed
by the Region/State? What
criteria are used for these
reviews? Are approved pro-
gram reviews conducted by
the Region/State?
(D) How well are POTWs
implementing the program?
For example, are POTWs de-
veloping new local limits,
issuing permits to indus-
trial users, requesting
programs to improve their
effectiveness, etc.?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track # of POTW audits
in non-pretreatment States.
in pretreatment States.
(b) Track # of pretreatment
categorical determinations
made and # of removal credit
applications received
(non-pretreatment States,
pretreatment States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Yes/Yes Quarterly Region
(Combined total of pretreatment and
non-pretreatment States)
WQ-12b
No/No
Quarterly
Region/
States
-------
PRETREATMENT
ACTIVITIES
1. Oversee
Effectiveness
of Local Pre-
treatment
Program Im-
plementation
(Cont'd)
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT CONTROL AUTHORITIES FULLY IMPLEMENT SOUND LOCAL
PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS (pg. 32)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) How well are local
programs incorporating
categorical standards?
Are Region/States ex-
periencing problems with
evaluating baseline
monitoring reports and
compliance requirements?
(F) What problems is the
Region having with cate-
gorical determinations,
FDF variances, and requests
for removal credits?
(G) Is experience from program
audits used by the Region/State
to improve future local programs
or train POTW staff?
(H) How well are Region/States
using contractor assistance
(type and level) supporting
implementation and helping to
resolve problems?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL/REVIEW/OVERSIGHT
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT NPDES STATES ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRETREATMENT/
FEDERAL FACILITY PROGRAMS, AND PROMOTE FULLL NPDES PROGRAM APPROVAL (pg. 33)
ACTIVITIES
1. Approve
NPUES State
Progran
Requests
*•
10
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What progress is being
made (State-by-State) with
respect to NPDES States
assuming pretreatment/
federal facilities programs?
Do FY86 work plans/grant
agreements have milestones
for completing approval?
What else is the Region
doing to encourage State
assumption? Is the Region
considering further action
in any of the States? Have
the States been informed of
the possibility of program
withdrawal?
(B) What is Region*s
strategy for each State
to achieve full NPDES
program administration
and is the FY84 strategy
being carried out?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Achieve NPDES program
approvals and modifications
in accordance with established
schedules:
- Full NPDES programs;
- Pretreatment program
modifications;
- Federal facility
modifications.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
No/OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Provide
list start
of FY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regions
-------
STATE PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: REVIEW NPDES STATE PROGRAMS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY AUTHORITY UNDER CURRENT STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS (pg. 33)
ACTIVITIES
1. Review
Approved
NPDES State
Statutory
and Regulatory
Authority.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has the Region had any
difficulties in obtaining
adequate documentation
from the States to conduct
these reviews? If so, what
documents are usually needed,
how are the difficulties
being resolved, and how long
are the delays?
(B) Does the Office of
Regional Counsel parti-
pate in the reviews? In
what way? Do they parti-
cipate in the process of
selecting States for
review and making commit-
ments? Do they follow
through with their work?
In a timely manner? Are
priorities a problem?
It so, how are conflicts
resolved?
(C) Does the Region have
a routine mechanism for
learning of changes to
State laws and regulations?
It so, describe the process.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Update list of NPDES
Staes for which Region
will assess statutory and
regulatory authority in FY
86.
(b) Track progress against
targets for the number of
NPDES States for which
statutory and regulatory
authority is assessed in
FY 86.
IN SEMS/
COMMITMENT
Np/GW
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Provide
list start
of FY
Second
and Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region
Region
-------
STATE PROGRAM APPROVRL/REVIEW/OVERSICHr
ACTIVITIES
1. Execute
EPA/State
NPDES Agree-
ments
*•
2. Provide
Effective
Oversight of
Approved NPDES
State Programs
OBJECTIVE: EXECUTE FY 1986 EPA/STATE NPDES AGREEMENTS (CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL
POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND OVERVIEW STATE PERFORMANCE ACCORDINGLY (pg. 33)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has the Region executed
NPDES agreements with all
approved NPDES States?
When are these agreements
signed? Who participates
in their development?
(B) Vhat problems have arisen
in the development of EPA/
State NPDES agreements? How
are they resolved? Are there
any particular elements of
national policy and guidance
on State overview that have
been difficult to implement?
Are there any recommendations
for changing national policy
or guidance?
(A) To what extent has the
Region impelemented the
"Guidance for Oversight of
NPDES Programs"?
(B) Does the Region carry
out a program of regularly
scheduled assessments of
each approved NPDES State
to assure the adequacy of
funding and staffing and
to assure a demonstrated
ability to set program
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL/REyiEW/OVERSIGHr
ACTIVITIES
2. Provide
Effective
Oversight
of Approved
NPDES State
Programs
(oont.)
9>
in
OBJECTIVE: EXECUTE FY 1986 EPA/STATE NPDES AGREEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL
POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND OVERVIEW STATE PERFORMANCE ACCORDINGLY (pg. 33)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
priorities and effectively
implement the NPDES program?
What is the frequency; who
is involved; and where La
it done? What is the nature
and timing of followup?
Does this include identifi-
cation of State needs and
problems, evaluation of
performing and providing
of technical assistance?
(C) Does oversight of State
permitting include an audit
of permits to assess the
timely issuance of high-
quality permits? How is this
determined by the Region?
(D) Does oversight of State
compliance monitoring include
an assessment of the timeli-
ness, completeness, and accur-
acy of self-monitoring reports?
How is this determined by the
Region? Does the Region assess
the States' reporting system
on compliance status and the
accuracy and accessibility
of the information? Does the
Region check the States compli-
ance inspection activity with
regard to its procedures and
effectiveness? How?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
STATE PROGRAM/APPROVAL/REVIEW/OVERSIGOT
OBJECTIVE: EXECUTE FY 1986 EPA/STATE NPDES AGREEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL
POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND OVERVIEW STATE PERFORMANCE ACCORDINGLY (pg. 33)
ACTIVITIES
2. Provide
Effective
Oversight
of Approved
NPDES State
Programs
(cent.)
T
*»
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) Does oversight of State
enforcement include an assess-
ment of the timeliness of the
evaluation of violations and
the appropriateness of initial
responses* followup and escal-
ation until compliance is ob-
tained? Are NOVs, AOs, and
judicial actions assessed for
their timeliness, clarity, and
enforoeability?
(F) What progress is being
made by the Region and States
in developing and adhering
to EPA/State enforcement
agreements for improving
compliance rates?
(G) What is the nature and
quality of typical oonnunica-
tions between NPDES States and
the Region? What steps are
taken to assure continuing
and effective State/EPA
connunications? What is the
general condition of coopera-
tion between the Region and
each State? How are coopera-
tive arrangements established?
How is State/EPA cooperation
assessed and problems remedied?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
SEME PROGRA^APPRJVAL/REVIEW/OVERSIGHT
OBJECTIVE: EXECUTE FY 1986 EPA/STATE NPDES AGREEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL
POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND OVERVIEW STATE PERFORMANCE ACCORDINGLY (pg. 33)
ACTIVITIES
3. Use
Annual Grant
Negotiations
to Reinforce
Performance
9>
*•
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(A) How are §106 grants and the
work planning process used to
assure effective implementation
of NPDES State programs? What
water program areas are specific-
ally addressed? Are they con-
sistent with the Agency Operating
Guidance? Is the Region working
with the States to consolidate the
work programs for all activities
funded under §§106, 205(g), and
205(j)?
(B) Is the Region using the per-
formance-based grant approach?
Describe the performance-based
grant provisions employed by the
Region. Does the Region find
this aproach beneficial to
achieving program objectives?
What is working and what is not
working?
NOTE: Qualitative and quantitative measures of State per-
formance related to specific State activities (e.g.,
permitting and enforcement) may be found in other sections.
Those measures also contribute to providing effective NPDES
State Program oversight.
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 26)
T
*»
00
ACTIVITIES
1. Work
with States
to consider
Great Lakes
Areas of
Concern and
in Chesa-
peake Bay
Critical
Areas in
Developing
and Revising
Priority
Waterbody
Lists
2. Review
Revised
Water
Quality
Standards
(WUS) to
Determine
Impact on
Great Lakes
and Chesa-
peake Bay
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) I of Great Lakes
Areas of Concern
included as priority
waterbodies.
(b) # of Chesapeake
Bay critical areas
included as priority
waterbodies.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/NO
No/No
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent were
the Great Lakes Areas of
Concern and Chesapeake
Bay critical areas con-
sidered in the development
and revision of the States'
priority waterbody lists?
(B) What actions did the
Great Lakes National Program
Office, the Chesapeake
Bay liaison Office, and the
Regions take to ensure that
these areas have priority
and that priority activities
to abate problems are under-
way?
(A) At what stage and
to what extent were
Great Lakes and Chesapeake
Bay impacts considered
in the revision of WQS?
Did the Regions conduct
an evaluation of whether
the modified use or criteria
proposed by States would
hinder meeting the objectives
of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement or the Chesapeake
Bay "Framework for Action"
Plan?
"Unless otherwise specified Reporting will be at the Region's Mid-year Review
and the Source of Data will be the Region's Self-Evaluation.
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region's
Self-
Evalua-
tion
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 26)
ACTIVITIES
3. Assess
Municipal
Compliance
for Con-
sistency
with Objec-
tives of
Great Lakes
Water
Quality
Agreement
and to
Protect
the Criti-
cal Areas
in Chesa-
peake
Bay
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS ^
(A) Has oorrpliance with
the phosphorus require-
ment improved over last
year? If not, what efforts
have GLNPO, and the
Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office, and Regions made
to increase compliance?
What is hindering
compliance?
(B) Are certain permits
targeted for special
review due to Great
Lakes or Chesapeake
Bay concerns? On what
basis?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) I of Great Lakes
major POTWs in compliance
with 1 mg/L phosphorus
requirement vs. total
# of major POTWs.
(b) # of Chesapeake
Bay AWT POTWs funded
vs. * of AWT POTWs
determined to be needed.
(c) % of total flow from
major Great Lakes POTWs
meeting the Img/L
phosphorus goal or % of
total flow from upper
Chesapeake Bay POTWs
meeting 2mg/L phosphorus
goal.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region's
Self-
Evalua-
tion*
No/No
No/No
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 26)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SENS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
4. Imple-
ment the
Great Lakes
and Chesa-
peake Bay
Monitoring
Programs
T
(A) What efforts are GLNPO
and the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office making to
ensure that the monitoring
programs are being imple-
mented and that resources
are being used to detect
emerging problems as well
as for trend monitoring
in priority areas?
(B) What are the results
of analyses of tributary
monitoring, atmospheric
deposition sampling, and
lake surveys conducted in the
Great Lakes Basin from previous
years? Are reductions in
loadings and other improve-
ments visible?
(a) # of monitoring No/No
stations in operation
on Chesapeake Bay's
mainstem vs. I of
monitoring stations
planned.
(b) f of fixed tributary No/No
stations in operation in
Great Lakes basin vs. f
requested by GLNPO from
States.
(c) # of air monitoring No/No
stations operated in
Great Lakes basin vs.
# requested by GLNPO
from States.
(d) f of fish collections No/No
received by GLNPO vs. # of
fish collections requested
from States.
Mid-year
Review*
Region's
Self-
Evalua-
tion*
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 26)
r
Ul
ACTIVITIES
5. Assist
States in
Implementing
NFS Controls
in Lake Erie,
Lake Ontario,
Saginaw Bay,
and Chesapeake
Bay Basins
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What efforts are GLNPO,
Regions, the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office, and States
making to ensure NPS imple-
mentation of Agricultural
BMPs (include work with
other Federal agencies)?
(B) What efforts are GLNPO,
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
the Regions, and the States
making to monitor implementa-
tion and its results in Water
Quality improvements?
(C) Have the Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay States modified
their WQM plans to reflect
institutional & other arrange-
ments for dealing with NPS
pollution? How?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of acres in the
Great Lakes Basin with
BMP's in place vs. # of
acres with BMP's in place
at the end of FY 1985.
(b) # of acres in the
Chesapeake Bay basin
with BMP's in place
vs. # of acres with
BMP's in place at the
end of FY 1985.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
NO/NO
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region's
Self-
Evalua-
tion*
No/No
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES MATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 26)
ACTIVITIES
6. Prepare
Phosphorus
Load Reduc-
tion Plans
for Lake
Erie, Lake
Ontario,
Saginaw Bay,
and Chesa-
peake Bay
> 7. Lnple-
o, roent Study
10 Results in
accordance
with the
Objectives
of the Great
Lakes Water
Agreement and
the Chesapeake
Bay Executive
Council
Directives
8. Prepare
Remedial
Action Plans
for Great
Lakes Areas
of Concern
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What efforts are GLNPO,
the Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office, and the Regions/
States making to ensure
schedule of appropriate
activities, work plan
development and interim
outputs for the load
reduction plans are pro-
vided in a timely manner?
(A) What efforts have
GLNPO and the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office made to
ensure that pollution
control actions are focused
on priority projects? How
are 106, 205(g) and 205(j)
work plans focused on Great
Lakes and Chesapeake Bay
concerns?
(A) What efforts are the
GLNPO, Regions and States
making to ensure appropriate
schedules of activities and
development of Action Plans?
QUANTITATIVE, MEASURES
(a) # of U.S. Great Lakes
Phosphorus Reduction Plan
elements being implemented
vs. # planned to be
underway in FY 1986.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Fourth
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
Contact
Regions
(a) # of elements of
Chesapeake Bay Restoration
and Protection Plan being
implemented vs. # planned
to be underway in FY 1986.
No/No
Fourth
Quarter
Contact
Region
(a) # of Remedial Action
Plans completed on sched-
ule vs. # needed.
No/Ho
Fourth
Quarter
Contact
Regions
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 26)
T
in
u>
ACTIVITIES
9. Implement
Connecting
Channel
Action Plan
10. Review
Great Lakes
Water guality
Agreement
11. Chesapeake
Bay Program
Integration
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are overall planning,
field work, data analysis,
model refinement and use,
and specific yearly
activities defined and
completed?
(A) What efforts have been
undertaken by the Region
to ensure a coordinated
approach by all EPA and
other Federal programs to
meet the water quality
needs of Chesapeake Bay?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) f of milestones
in approved work
program met vs. #
planned.
(a) Review of
Agreement completed
by GLNPO/and draft
report/reconroendations
developed.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Evaluation
No/No
First
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region*
Self-
Evalua-
tion
Contact
Region
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS FOR PUGET SOUND, NARRAGANSETT BAY,
BUZZARDS BAY, AND LONG ISLAND SOUND (pg. 26)
T
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
Marine &
Estuarine
Protection
programs for
Puget Sound,
Narragansett
Bay, Buzzards
Bay, and Long
Island Sound,
and other
estuaries as
appropriate
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What efforts have
the States/Regions made
to ensure that compre-
hensive programs are
being developed, inclu-
ding problem identifica-
tion, pollutant load
quantification, and
assessment of system
impacts, for each
of these major
estuarine areas?
(B) What efforts have
the States made to use
generic guidance in the
implementation of approved
work plans for estuarine
studies?
(C) What efforts have
States/Regions made to
implement the approved
FY 1985 work plans?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of management struc-
tures in place and operational
(b) # of citizens advisory
groups and technical advisory
groups operational
(c) # of data management
systems operational
(d) # of technical reports
completed
(e) # of draft management
recommendations completed
for review
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
NO/NO
No/No
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region's
Self-
Evalua-
tion*
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: EXPEDITE S301(h) DECISIONS AND PERMIT ISSUANCE (pg. 27)
ACTIVITIES
1. Review
S301(h)
Applications
and Issue
Permits
T
Ul
in
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Was all available
information considered in
evaluating applications?
(B) Were decisions clearly
and completely documented?
(C) Were all criteria evalua-
ted and applied consistently
among Region's applications?
(D) Were dischargers with
the greatest potential for
adverse impacts evaluated
on a priority basis?
(E) How quickly are final
decisions implemented through
permit revisions?
(F) Do permits consistently
assure that the monitoring
provisions of $301(h) decisions
are transformed into specific
enforceable requirements for
use in assessing ongoing
compliance with the §301(h)
criteria?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) t of complete applica-
tions
(b) # of intents to revise
(c) # of withdrawals
(d) # of initial decisions
(e) f of final decisions
(f) # of permits issued
reflecting decisions
(g) # of approved/successful
monitoring programs in opera-
tion
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
WQ-20
Yes/No
WQ-20
Yes/No
WQ-20
Yes/SBIS
WQ-19
No/No
Yes/SEMS
WQ-19
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Mid-year
Review
SOURCE
OF DATA
Contact
Regions
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Mid-year
Review
Quarterly
Contact
Regions
Contact
Regions
Contact
Regions
Region's
Self-
Evalua-
tion
Contact
Regions
Region's
Self-
Evalua-
tion
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES (pg. 16-17)
ACTIVyriES
1. Oversee
Primacy
State
Programs
T
in
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS •
(A) What types of problems are
delegated States encountering?
(B) What types of assistance
are States requesting?
(C) How does Region exercise
effective overview of
delegated programs?
(D) Are States carrying out
their programs as approved?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report, for information
only/ the # of new State
UIC primacy programs
approved and the total t
of injection wells covered
under the approved programs.
(b) Track, by well class,
progress against targets
for UIC permit determina-
tions made by primacy
States for new and exist-
ing facilities for (1)
Class I wells, and (2)
Class II, III, and V wells
(if applicable) during
FY 1986.
(c) Track, against targets,
the # of existing Class II
well record files reviewed
during FY 1986.
(d) Track, against targets,
the # of Class II wells for
which mechanical integrity
tests were performed by
primacy States in FY 1986.
(e) Report, by State, the %
of Class II wells for which
mechanical integrity tests
were witnessed during FY 1986.
IN SEMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Yes/SPMS
DW-2
DW-3
Yes/SPMS
DW-4
Yes/SPMS
DW-5
No/No
Quarterly HQ FURS
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
Region/
State
Report
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
Region/
State
Report
Region/
State
Report
Region/
State
Report
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM;
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES (pgs. 16-17)
ACTIVITIES
1. Oversee
Primacy
State
Progr*
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(conf)
(E) By State, what is the
status of the assessment
of Class V wells.
(F) Are States enforcing
signif iciant violations
effectively?
in
VJ
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(f) Report, by State, for
FY 1986 the f of field
inspections conducted.
(g) Report, by State, for
FY 1986 the I of Class V
wells assessed.
(h) Track, by Region, for
primacy States the number and
percent of major wells with
permit or rule requirements.
(i) Identify, by Region, the
number of major wells with
permit or rule violations
as of June 30, 1985.
(j) Trackr by Region, against
targets, the number of major
wells in the above universe
of violation which have cone
back into compliance or have
had formal enforcement actions
taken against them.
(k) Identify, by Region, the
number of major wells reporting
new violations.
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
DW/E-8
No/No
Yes/No
DW/E-3
Yes/No
DW/E-4
Yes/SEMS
DW/E-5
Yes/No
DW/E-6
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
Annual
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
State
Report
Annual
Report
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
August 30,
1985
Qrtrly.
Nonccm-
pliance
Report
State
Report
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
Qrtrly.
Noncom-
pliance
Report
Qrtrly.
Noncom-
pliance
Report
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM;
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES (pgs. 16-17)
T
in
00
ACTIVITIES
1. Oversee
Primacy
State
Programs
(cent1)
2. Imple-
ment UIC in
Non-Primacy
States and
on Indian
Lands
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Does the Region have
the appropriate skill mix
for direct implementation?
(B) Is program (inventory,
reports, compliance) up
to date? If not, explain.
(C) Does the Region have a
plan to eliminate permit
backlogs (if any) or to
improve processing time (if
applicable) to prevent
delays?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(1) Track, by Region, the
number of major wells
identified above that have
returned to compliance or
have had formal enforcement
actions taken against them.
(a) Track, by Class, against
targets, the # of permit
determinations made to new
and existing facilities for
(1) Class I wells and (2)
Class II, III, and V wells
(if applicable) by EPA during
FY 1986.
(b) Track, by class, against
targets, the average elapsed
time (in days) for permit
determinations.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
DW/E-7
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
SOURCE
OF DATA
Qrtrly.
Noncom-
pliance
Report
Yes/SPMS
Dtf-2
DW-3
Qrtrly.
Regional
Report
No/No
Qrtrly.
Regional
Report
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM;
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES (pgs. 16-17)
ACTIVITIES
2. imple-
ment UIC in
Non-Primacy
States and
on Indian
Lands
(cont1)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
T
(D) Is Region carrying out
programs as submitted?
(E) By State, what is the
status of the assessment
of Class V wells.
(F) What is Region's approach
for use of formal and in-
formal enforcement actions?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) Track, against targets,
the # of existing Class II
well records reviewed by EPA
in FY 1986.
(d) Track, against targets,
the # of Class II wells for
which mechanical integrity
tests were performed by
operators and verified by
EPA during FY 1986.
(e) Report, by State, the
# of mechanical integrity
tests witnessed by EPA in
FY 1986.
(f) Track, by Region, against
targets, the # of field in-
spections conducted in
FY 1986.
(g) Report, by State, the
# of Class V wells assessed
by EPA in FY 1986.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
DW-4
Yes/SPMS
DW-5
No/No
Yes/SPMS
DW/E-8
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Qrtrly.
Qrtrly.
Qrtrly.
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
Report
Regional
Report
Regional
Report
Qrtrly., Regional
data lag Report
of 1 quarter
4th qrtr. Regional
Report
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM;
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES (pgs. 16-17)
ACTIVITIES
2. Imple-
ment UIC in
Non-Primacy
States and
on Indian
Lands
(cont1)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(G) Have there been any en-
forcement problems. How
were they handled?
ON
o
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(h)Track, by Region, in
direct implementation
States, the nunber and
percent of major wells in
violation of permit or rule.
(i) Identify, by Region, the
number of major wells with
permit or rule violations
as of June 30, 1985.
(j) Track, by Region, against
targets, the number of major
wells in the above, universe
with violations which have
cone back into compliance or
have had formal enforcement
actions taken against them.
(k) Identify, by Region,
the number of major wells
reporting new violations.
(1) Track, by Region, the
number of major wells
identified above that have
returned to compliance or
have had formal enforcement
actions against them.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
DW/E-3
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Qrtrly. ,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
SOURCE
OF DATA
Qrtrly.
Non-com-
pliance
Report
Yes/No
DW/E-4
Yes/No
DW/E-5
Yes/No
DW/E-6
Yes/No
CW/E-7
August 30,
1985
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
Qrtrly.,
data lag
of 1 qrtr.
Regional
Report
Qrtrly.
Non-com-
pliance
Report
Qrtrly.
Non-com-
pliance
Report
Qrtrly.
Non-ccm-
pliance
Report
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES (pgs. 16-17)
ACTIVITIES
3* Protect
Aquifers that
are Sole or
Principal
Sources of
Drinking
Water
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Assess the value of
project reviews.
(B) To what extent are
significant problems
identified?
(C) What kind of remedial
action has the Region
tried to obtain.
(D) How successful was the
Region in getting remedial
action?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) For sole source aquifer
petitions, report the # of:
o Petitions received;
o Reviews initiated;
o Reviews completed; and
o Aquifers designated.
(b) Report the # of Federally
assisted activities (projects)
reviewed in designated sole
source aquifer areas.
IN SEMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Fourth
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
Report
No/No
Fourth
Quarter
Regional
Report
-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pgs 12-15)
to
ACTIVITIES
1. Effec-
tively Manage
the FUSS
Program
2. Effec-
tively Man-
age the PtfSS
Program in
Non-primacy
States and
on Indian
Lands
3. Delegate
the PWSS
Program
4. Prepare for
Implementation
of the Revised
Drinking Water
Regulations
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) How well does Region
track grant usage by the
States?
(B) Can Region document
actual State use of grant
funds?
(A) Does Region use funds
as planned?
(B) Can specific benefits
be attributed to fund
utilization?
(A) Has the Region
worked diligently
with States to move
them toward primacy?
(A) Has the Region
worked with each
State to develop
legal authorities
and analytic
capability to
begin regulating
volatile organic'
chemicals?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
.COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(a) How much money has
been obligated?
No/No
Q 2 & 4
Regional
Report
-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pgs 12-15)
ACTIVITIES
5. Improve
Conpliance
with the
NIPDWR
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has each State reviewed
sand/or revised its compliance
strategy for dealing with
non-compliant systems?
(B) Has the Region provid-
ed guidance to States on
compliance strategies
and setting targets for
measurable compliance
improvements?
(C) How did the States
categorize non-community
systems into priority
groups to target use of
their resources. Have
the targetted resources
been used for the highest
priority groups?
(D) Has the Region worked
with the States to target
litigation actions in
the most reasonable manner?
Has the Region provided
assistance to the States
in any such actions.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report the number of
states with compliance
strategies.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Q 2
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
Reports
(b) Report the numbers of
civil cases referred, civil
cases filed, and criminal
cases filed against community
water systems systems which
violated a microbiological,
turbidity or trihalcmethane,
MCL or monitoring/reporting
(M/R) requirement. (Report
the three categories
separately by state.)
No/No
Q 1,2,3,4
(Data is
lagged 2
quarters)
FRDS
and
Regional
Reports
-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pgs 12-15)
ACTIVITIES
5. Improve
Compliance
with the
NIPDWR
(cont.)
T
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) Has the Region
reviewed State files
of non-compliant
systems to assure that
enforcement actions
have been timely and
appropriate? Has the
Region taken any federal
action because of a
State's failure to act?
(F) How well did each
State's compliance rates
for FY 85 agree with the
targets contained in the
FY 85 grant agreements?
QUANTITATIVE.MEASURES
(c) Report the number of
States which have documented
their approach to, or concept
of, timely and appropriate
enforcement.
IN SIMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Q 2
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
Report
(d) Report, against targets, Yes/Yes
for primacy and non-primacy DW/E-1
states, the # and % of com-
munity water systems with
persistent MCL and M/R vio-
lations of the microbiological
turbidity, and trihalomethane
requirements. (Report separ-
ately for MCL & M/R and for
each contaminant.)
(e) Report, against targets, No/No
for primacy and non-primacy
states the # and % of community
water systems in full compliance
(i.e., with no MCL and M/R vio-
lations of the microbiological,
turbidity, and trihalcmethane
requirements during the 12 mos
of the reporting period).
(Report separately for MCL &
M/R and for each contaminant.)
Q 1,2,3,4
(Data is
lagged 2
quarters)
Q 1,2,3,4
(Data is
lagged 2
quarters)
FRDS
FRD3
-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pgs 12-15)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
5. Improve
Compliance
with the
NIPDWR
(cont.)
T
o*
V/l
(G) Identify population
affected by persistent
violations of drinking
water requirements.
(H) Have the States con-
ducted surveys of ccrarunity
water systems to either
prevent, or correct, non-
compliance•
(I) Has the Region under-
taken data verification
activity for each State?
What have results of com-
pleted studies shown about
report integrity? Have
the States made adjust-
ments to their data
management system to
address any problems
discovered during the
verification?
(f) Report the popula- Yes/No
tion served by community DW-1
systems with persistent
MCL and M/R violations of
the microbiological, tur-
bidity, and trihalcmethane
requirements. (Report
separately for MCL & M/R
and for each contaminant.)
(g) Report the number of No/No
states which have developed
state inspection/sanitary
survey policies.
(h) Report separately, against Yes/Yes
targets, the numbers of com- DW/E-2
munity water systems which
have received a routine,
prescheduled sanitary survey.
(i) Report the number of data No/No
verifications completed.
Q 2
(Data is
lagged 2
quarters)
FRDS
Q 2
Q 1,2,3,4
(Data is
lagged 2
quarters)
Q 2
Regional
Report
Regional
Reports
Regional
Report
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: State Ground-Water Program Support Relative to
the Ground-Water Protection Strategy (p.17)
T
ACTIVITIES
1. Implement
Sec.106 Grant
program for
ground-water
in accordance
with guidelines
and FY 1986
budget alloca-
tions, monitor
State programs,
conduct mid-
year reviews,
and assist
States with pro-
gram management
problems.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent have the
guidelines been reflected
in administration of the
program?
(B) How are the ground-water
grants coordinated with
W.Q., UIC, Waste Manage-
ment, FIFRA and TSCA
grant process?
(C) To what extent have
the States developed
consolidated ground-
water program plans?
(D) How well does the
Region track grants
awarded to the States?
(E) Do the States have an
effective strategy for
managing awarded grants
and what is it?
(F) Can specific benefits
be attributed to EPA
funded State programs and
what are they?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Number of grants
awarded to States
and territories by
December 30.**
In SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
No/OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
January 31,
June 30,*
September 30*
(b) Number of State
briefings, workshops,
mid-year assessments,
(documented and
provided to appropriate
parties), follow-up
mid-year reviews, and
meetings conducted with
States.
(c) Number of States
submitting consolidated
plans.
No/No
January 31,
June 30,
September 30
SOURCE
OF DATA
106 work
prog/Reg.
visits,
regional
records.
Regional
records.
No/OW
January 31,
June 30,*
September 30*
Regional
records.
*Reporting for these dates is not required if all grants are awarded by December 30.
**In establising Regional commitments, the existence of State legislative barriers to
acceptance of grants will be taken into consideration.
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: Manage Internal Coordinating Committee
Relative to the Ground-Water Protection Strategy (p.19)
ACTIVITIES
2. Provide support &
assistance to coord-
inating committees
which will engage
in specific substan-
tive review affect-
ing all Regional
programs impacting
ground water and
ensure a rational
and consistent
approach to
Regional ground-
water protection
efforts and
programs.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has the coordinating
committee and/or the
Regional Office of Ground-
Water been engaged in specific
substantive reviews of those
Regional programs impacting
ground-water.
(B) How has the coordinating
committee directed or
redirected resources to
improve the Region's ground-
water program?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) The number of times
committee meets.
In SEMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
No/No
(b) The number of
topics impacting on
ground-water management
covered.
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
January 31,
June 30,
September 30
January 31,
June 30,
September 30
SOURCE
OF DATA
Reg ional
records.
Regional
records.
-------
GROUND-WRTER PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: Develop Coordinated Ground-Water Work Plans to
Implement the Ground-Water Protection Strategy (p.18)
ACTIVITIES
3. Develop
regional work
plan or compar-
able management
mechanism.
T
8
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what degree do the
plans reflect actions
affecting ground water.
(B) The what degree do
the plans provide a doable
managerial tool to effectively
track progress and provide
accountability towards
completing projected outputs.
(C) To what degree is the
Regional Ground-Water Work
Plan used to integrate and
facilitate ground-water related
programs and efforts throughout
the Regions.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) The number of programs
participating.
(b) The number of items in
the work plan which reflect
national priorities.
(c) The number of items in
the work plan which reflect
Regional priorities.
In SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
No/Ho
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
January 31+
June 30,
September 30
January 31+
June 30,
September 30
January 31+
June 30,
September 30
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
records.
Regional
records.
Regional
records.
+Data for these quantitative measures must be reported only once—on
the date which follows most closely completion of the work plan.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
OBJECTIVE: REDUCE THE PERCENT OF STREAM MILES, LAKE ACRES, ESTUARY SQUARE MILES, COASTAL MILES AND GREAT
LAKES SHORE MILES NOT SUPPORTING DESIGNATED USES (p. 25)
ACTIVITIES
1. Reduce
the Percentage
of Stream Miles,
Lake Acres,
Estuary Square
Miles, Coastal
Miles and
Great Lakes
Shore Miles
not Supporting
Designated uses
o*
\o
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) How are control
priorities determined
by the States and is
water quality a driving
factor? Do they have
their problem areas well
identified, i.e., priority
waterbody lists? Does the
Region concur with the
State lists? Do they
know what needs to be done
to resolve problems faced
by each priority waterbody
strategy? How well are
they implementing the
needed actions identified
above? Are resources
targeted at priority water-
bodies?
(B) What are the impediments
to achieving environmental
results?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) List priority
waterbodies by State.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
NO/NO
(b) Identify the number of
stream miles, lake acres,
estuary square miles,
coastal miles, and Great
Lakes shore miles in each
Region, the number assessed
and the numbers supporting/
partially supporting/ and
not supporting designated
uses as reported in the
FY 1986 305(b) report.
(c) Provide a list of
those stream segments
partially or not
supporting designated
uses, and threatened
waters. Indicate those
waters still requiring
TMDLs/WLAs. List problem
parameters and source,
such as municipal and
industrial point source
or type or NPS, for each
segment, and identify
those that are priority
waterbodies. Briefly
describe state and
Regional actions
planned for these
waters.
Yes/No
WQ-21
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
First/
Third
Quarters
Third
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
305 (b)
Reports,
106,
205(j)
Work
Programs
305 (b)
Reports
No/No
Mid-year
Review
305(b)
Reports
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
OBJECTIVE: INCORPORATE PROVISIONS OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGULATIONS (NOV.8, 1983) INTO STATE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FDR TOXIC POLLUTANTS (p. 25)
ACTIVITIES
1. Undertake
Use Attain-
ability
Analyses and
Site Specific
Criteria
Actions and
Inclusion of
Toxic Criteria
into standards
2. Work
with
States to
Identify
Problems
and to
Ensure
Effective
Implement—
ation of
the WQS
Regulation
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are the States
developing use attain-
ability assessments for
reaches designated less
than fishable/swimmable?
Are the States identi-
fying water bodies with
toxics problems? Are
narrative or numerical
criteria being adopted
for toxics of concern?
If numeric, are the
States using EPA or
EPA modified criteria?
(A) Are the States
making any significant
revisions, additions
or modifications
to State WQS or
implementation policies?
Are the States
encountering problems
in defining areas
that may not attain
uses upon implement-
ation of technology
based permits or in
applying existing
program guidance?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of WQS reviewed.
(b) # of use attain-
ability assessments.
(c) Track, by Region,
against semiannual tar-
gets, the number of States
which incorporate new or
revised numeric and/or
narrative criteria for
toxic pollutants into state
Water Quality Standards and
which are approved by the
Regional Office.
(d) f and % of stream
segments in Region
designated less than
fishable and swimnable.
(e) f of promulgation
actions, approvals, and
disapprovals.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
NO/NO
NO/NO
Y6S/SPMS
WQ-26
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review
Mid-year
Review
Second/Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
State
WQS
No/No
Mid-year
Review
No/Ho
Mid-year
Review
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
Stan-
dards
Review
Process
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
ACTIVITIES
1. Imple-
ment the
Guidance for
State Water
Monitoring
and Waste-
load Allo-
cation
Programs
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE USE OF MONITORING DATA IN MANAGING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS (p. 24)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(A) How well are the
States beginning to
implement the Water
Monitoring Guidance
(as revised in FY85)?
Did States provide
requested checklist
information? Have
the States developed
adequate monitoring
strategies? Are they
encountering any pro-
blems in implementing
specific elements of
the guidance?
(B) Have States included
biological and toxic
monitoring activities
in their ambient
monitoring programs?
How do the States/
Region determine the
need for biological
and toxic ambient
monitoring?
(C) What is the status
of quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC)
procedures in each
State? Are the States
implementing grant
requirements for OA
plans? Are the States
developing data
quality objectives?
(a) f of intensive No/No
surveys completed,
and # of fixed stations
operated on a regular
basis, for water quality
assessments statewide.
(b) f of intensive sur- No/No
veys conducted, including
biological field surveys,
for water quality based
controls.
(c) # of QA Program No/No
Plans and # of Work/QA
Project Plans completed.
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE THE USE OF MONITORING DATA IN MANAGING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS (p. 24)
ACTIVITIES
1. Imple-
ment the
Guidance for
State Water
Monitoring
and Waste-
load Allo-
cation
Programs
(cont.)
:>
ro
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(D) Are the states
applying an appropriate
balance of resources
between monitoring to
support assessments vs.
monitoring to support
development of WQ-based
controls? What are the
dollar and resource
figures?
(E) Have States
adequately planned
their monitoring
activities, and were
305(b) Reports and
identified priority
waterbodies considered?
(F) Are States providing
appropriate data to STORET
on a timely basis, as dis-
cussed in the Guidance?
Are the states working to
improve data management?
(G) Did the State undertake
any monitoring and/or screen-
ing programs to identify new
or emerging problems?
(H) In the waters states
identified as "partially
supporting" or "not supporting
designated uses": did the state
conduct chemical and/or bio-
logical monitoring to confirm
and/or characterize pollution
problems?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WftlER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
ACTIVITIES
2. Improve
State 305(b)
Reports
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE USE OF MONITORING DATA IN MANAGING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS (p. 24)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
T
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(A) To what extent do the
305(b) reports include:
0 the water quality meas-
ures developed through
STEP?
0 a list of segments not
fully supporting design-
ated uses and associated
information?
0 information on toxics?
0 information on nonpoint
sources (including ASIWPCA
assessment)?
0 Clean lakes and ground
water information?
0 are fully responsive to
national guidance?
(B) Is the water quality
information in the reports
used to establish priorities
for other programs, such as
monitoring, permits, or con-
struction grants as called
for in Part 130 regulations?
(C) Are the reports in-
cluded specifically as a
commitment in the 106/205(j)
work programs and/or State/
EPA agreements?
(a) f of State 305(b) No/No
reports which are timely
and fully responsive to
national guidance
(b) * of State 305(b) No/No
reports used for making
program decisions by the
Region and State
Third
Quarter
Third
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DMA
State
305(b)
Reports
State
305(b)
Reports
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES BY FOCUSING ON IMPORTANT WATER QUALITY
PROBLEMS (p. 24)
ACTIVITIES
1. Bnple-
roent Bio-
monitoring
Program
T
2. Bnple-
ment
National
Studies
of Toxic
Pollutants
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent has
the Region established
a base capability to
conduct biononitoring,
including bioassays and
field surveys? Is the
number of species cul-
tured and tested adequate?
(B) To what extent have
the States been able to
improve their bicmonitor-
ing capability? To what
extent have the States
begun to use their
bicmonitoring capability?
To what extent have the
States begun to use bio-
monitoring as part of an
integrated approach for
controlling toxic
pollutants?
(A) Has the Region
encountered any problems
in implementing the
bioaccumulative pollutant
study?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of flow-through
and static bioassays
for setting WQ-based
controls.
(b) # of.field surveys
for setting WQ-based
controls and for ambient
assessments.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
NO/NO
NO/NO
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
(a) ft of sampling plans No/No
prepared.
(b) Track, by Region, the No/No
percentage of sampling
workplan ccmmitments met
for bioaccumulative pol-
lutant studies.
Mid-year
Review
Fourth
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Programs
106,
205(j)
Work
Programs
106,
205(j)
Work
Programs
106,
205(j)
Work
Programs
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, FLAWING, AND ASSESSMENT;
OBJEiCTIVE: IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OP MONITORING ACTIVITIES BY FOCUSING ON IMPORTANT WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS (p.24)
ACTIVITIES
3 • Implement
Regulatory
Monitoring
Programs
and Develop
TMDLS/WLAS
•r
-*J
Ul
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent are
the States developing
WQ-based controls? is
the number of WQ-based
controls being developed
increasing or decreasing
and why? Is the mix
between conventional and
toxics work appropriate?
Are they conducting TMDLs/
WLAs solely in priority
waterbodies or also in
other areas? How are these
funded? Are States
following the EPA policy
for developing toxics WLA?
(B) Is the process for
conducting and approving
TMDLs/WLAs working well?
Did the monitoring program
provide adequate support to
making important WQ-based
regulatory decisions? Did
the States use EPA recommended
methodology for relating WQ
conditions to effluent
limitations? Is the tech-
nical defensibiiity of the
TMDLs/WLAs improving? Is
the public involved? Have
the States provided an
implementation schedule?
(C) What issues have
developed in the TMDL/
WLA process/and how is
the Region resolving these?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify, by Region,
fran the list of waters
not fully supporting
designated uses, the number
of waterbodies needing
WQ-based controls and
the number of TMDLs
needed in these waters.
(b) * Of TMDLS/WLAS
conducted for conven-
tional pollutants.
(c) t Of TMDLS/WLAS
with pollutant specific
toxic limits, and #
with biomonitoring-
derived toxic limits.
(d) Track, by Region,
the number of TMDLs
initiated in these
waters.
(e) Track, by Region,
against quarterly tar-
gets, the number of
TMDLs for toxics and
number of TMDLS for
conventionals completed
in waters not tully
supporting designated
uses.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
Yes/No
WQ-24
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
10/15/85
NO/NO
NO/NO
NO/NO
Yes/SPMS
WQ-25
Third/
Fourth
Quarters
Third/
Fourth
Quarters
Third/
Fourth
Quarters
Each
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE WATER QUALITY GRANTS MANAGEMENT (pp. 8-11, 25)
ACTIVITIES
1. Update
WQM Plans
2. Use WQM
Plans to
Ensure Con-
sistency
3. Manage
State Grants
Effectively
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Have the Regions
approved WQM plan updates?
How effective is the process?
If a State prepares no plan
updates, what action is the
Region taking? How does the
Region assist States in de-
termining needed updates?
(A) How is the Region en-
suring that States use the
WQM plan to make consist-
ency determinations regarding
permits and construction
grants? Give examples.
(A) How are the elements
of the 205(j) and 106
work programs coordinated?
(B) How are 205(j) funded
outputs used at the State/
Regional levels to make WQM
decisions? Give examples.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) t and list of WQM
plan elements updated.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
NO/NO
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review
(C) What procedures are
used to negotiate, track
and evaluate work program
commitments and State per-
formance? Any problems
encountered in applying
these procedures? What
sanctions or other efforts do
you use to correct deficiencies?
Give examples of efforts to
correct deficiencies in
State performance.
(a) I of consistency
reviews conducted by
Region for permits
and construction
grants.
(a) List major 205(j)
projects/activities
for each state and
indicate which of these
will be included in ,
future WQM plan updates.
(b) To date, what
percent of 106 and
205(j) work program
ociuuitments by program
element has each State
met?
No/fco
Mid-year
Review
No/No
Mid-year
Review
No/No
Mid-year
Review
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE WATER QUALITY GRANTS MANAGEMENT (pp. 8-11, 25)
ACTIVITIES
3. Manage
State Grants
Effectively
(cont.)
T
QUALITATrVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(D) What steps are being
taken to assure that States
meet 106 Level of Effort (DOE)
requirements, including me-
thods for assuring that State
accounting systems are ade-
quate and reported expendi-
tures are accurate? Have 106
and 205(g) grant awards met LOE
requirements; if not is the
Region taking steps to rectify
the problem, i.e. recovering
grant funds?
(E) Are States using priority
waterbody lists to allocate
resources to address critical
water quality problem areas?
How is the Region using priority
waterbody lists to negotiate
States grants and provide
oversight of State programs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
In SFMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DMA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPLEMENT NPS POLICY AND STRATEGY (p. 25-26)
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
List of
Waterbodies
impacted by
NPS and
implement
NPS Control
Programs
T
•>!
00
QUALITATIVE MEASURES TOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) How is this list
being used to direct
control decisions?
(B) What is the status
of NPS programs, by State
broken down by NPS category,
indicating whether the
effort is program develop-
ment or implementation?
What is the Region doing
to further NPS program
development?
(C) What is the schedule
for implementing NPS con-
trols, by State? What is
the source(s) of funds?
(D) Discuss the Regional/
State approach to imple-
menting the Agency NPS
strategy.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
NO/NO
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify, by Region,
number and percent of
stream miles, lake acres,
estuary square miles,
coastal miles, and Great
Lake shore miles which
are not meeting designated
uses due .to NPS pollution.
(b) Identify, by Region, Yes/No
by non-point source category, WQ-22
the number and percent of
stream miles, coastal miles,
lake acres, estuary square
miles, and Great Lakes shore
miles not fully supporting
designated uses due to NPS.
(c) Track, by Region, Yes/SPMS
against targets the number WQ-23
of adequate State NPS manage-
ment programs developed or up-
dated consistent with WQM
Regulations and EPA's Non-
point Source Strategy.
(d) Identify, by State, the No/No
number of these areas needing
increased assistance from
other Federal agencies to
support project implementation.
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
First
Quarter
Third
Quarter
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Fourth
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Programs;
305(b)
Reports
ASIWPCA
Assessments
106,
205(j)
Work
Programs;
305(b).
305(b).
106,
205(j)
Work
Programs,
106,
205(j)
Work
Programs,
305(b).
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINmON/PERFORMftNCE EXPECTATION
3(a) % of projects that completed 3(a) Percent equals the number of projects that have an actual Affirmative
the one year operational Project Performance Certification (actual KA date without corrective
period and were affirmatively action) occurring during the period of time being rated divided by the
certified. number of projects that completed the one year operational period (actual
N7 date + 12 months) during the same rating period of time x 100.
Performance Expectations:
The target performance is that 100 percent of the projects will be
affirmatively certified without corrective action, however, an accept-
able performance could be 95 percent with the 5 percent non-affirma-
tively certified projects having justifiable reasons. Justifiable
reasons could include: what progress the Region and States have made
towards ensuring that the project can be affirmatively certified, that
the project is awaiting completion of corrective action as described in
an acceptable Correction Action Report (CAR) or that implementation of
the CAR* is pending review by enforcement and/or grants offices. The
grantees submission of an acceptable CAR is expected 60 days after the end
of the one year project performance period.
Ha) Total dollar value (grant amounts) l(a) Preconstruction lag is defined as the grant amounts of all Step 3 projects
in preconstruction lag status that have not initiated building within 9 months of grant award plus the
expressed as a percent of annual grant amount of all Step 2+3 projects that have not initiated building
allotment. within 9 months of approval of plans and specifications. The initiation of
building is defined as the date of issuance of a notice to proceed for all
significant elements of the project, or, if a notice to proceed is not
required, the date of execution of all significant contracts on the
project.
GICS select logic for start of last significant elements is: KO "A ",
"F ", "B ". Dollar amount of lag in KC can be reduced by use of data
elements V7 and V8.
Performance Expectation;
Regions are expected to establish and submit to Headquarters a level
(percentage) of preconstruction lags based on individual FY 1986 (actual)
State allotments within the Region. Headquarters will review the proposed
performance and analyze quarterly the Regional actions taken to achieve
the expected level of performance.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(b) I of projects initiating
operation.
l(c) The measure is those projects (Step 3, Step 2+3 and PL 84-660) that actually
initiated operation (actual N7 "Initiation of Operation" date for projects
funded after 12/29/81 or actual N5 "Project Completion" for projects
funded prior to 12/29/81) during the period of time being rated, compared to
those targeted to initiate operations during the same rating period.
Performance Expectation;
The goal is that 100% of all those projects that are targeted in GICS to
initiate operation during the rating period actually initiate operations.
An acceptable performance is that at least 95% of the targeted projects
actually initiate operations.
r
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(c) f of Step 3, Step 2+3 and
PL 84-660 administrative
completions.
l(d) An administrative completion is any one of the following:
0 A final audit request: N8 = 'Ajrf1 or 'F#' or 'B#' or;
0 A project that is administratively complete but not sent to OIG because
of related segments or phases: N8 = 'AP1, or;
0 A project not requiring a final audit: N8 = 'NS1.
Final audit is requested when the following conditions have been satisfied:
0 Construction is complete as defined in data element N5, Project Com-
pletion Code & Date;
0 All pre-final audit administrative requirements have been satisfied;
0 Final inspection has been performed;
0 The plan of operation has been implemented, or for projects awarded
after December 29, 1981, an affirmative project performance certifi-
cation has been received; or an acceptable corrective action report
has been submitted.
0 The "cut-off" letter has been issued to the grantee; and
0 The final payment has been requested.
Performance Expectations;
All projects for which grants were awarded before December 29, 1981, are
expected to be administratively completed within 12 months of physical
completion. All projects awarded after December 29, 1981, are expected to
be administratively completed within 18 months of initiation of operations.
As a minimum target, the estimated number of projects awaiting
administrative completion at the beginning of the fiscal year should be
planned for administrative completion by the end of the fiscal year.
Projects awarded after December 29, 1981, will not be considered as awaiting
administrative completion until the 12 month project performance period
has expired.
Note; The two October 15, 1984 memos fron Jack Ravan and John Martin
describe procedures for projects to be forwarded for final audit
(administratively completed) when grantees haven't submitted final
payments or where there are unresolved claims.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(d) * of Step 3, Step 2+3 and
P.L. 84-660 closeouts.
T
l(e) Closeout occurs after:
0 Audit has been resolved or a determination has been made by OIG
that an audit will not be performed
0 Funds owed the Government by the grantee (or vice versa) have been
recovered (or paid); and
0 A closeout letter has been issued to the grantee; or
0 Any disputes filed under 40 CFR Part 30 have been resolved.
Performance Expectations;
Project closeout is expected to occur within 6 months after final audit
resolution.
However, the time-based measure will not apply if:
0 The grantee appeals a final decision in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 30; or
0 The action official has referred the project to the servicing finance
office to establish an accounts receivable based on the audit findings.
0 The grantee has failed to implement any grant condition or the project
cannot be affirmatively certified because the required corrective
actions have not been done.
0 Final audit has not been completed pending resolution of unresovled
claims.
As a minimum target, the estimated number of projects awaiting closeout or
awaiting audit resolution at the beginning of the fiscal year or any project
planned for 'screen out1 by OIG during the fiscal year should be planned
for closeout by the end of the fiscal year. GICS select logic for closeouts
is: P0 = 'Atf1 or 'AC1.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINmON/PERFORMftNCE EXPECTATION
l(e) f of administrative completion l(e) An administrative completion backlog is any project that has been awaiting
backlogs eliminated. administrative conpletion for more than 12 months at the beginning of the
fiscal year, if it was awarded before December 29, 1981; or awaiting
administrative completion for more than 18 months at the beginning of the
fiscal year, if it was awarded after December 29, 1981.
The status, or reason for delay, of every administrative completion backlog
project should be reported to Headquarters on a quarterly basis via GIGS.
Performance Expectation
The goal is to complete all backlog projects during FY86.
An in-depth review/analysis of each backlog project not scheduled for
completion during FY 86 will be performed prior to the beginning of the
fiscal year. If the Region/State believes that a particular backlogged
project.cannot be administratively completed during FY 86, a short narrative
(not GICS codes) should be submitted with the data request describing:
^ - past problems
- current status
- prognosis for administrative completion
- the estimated administrative completion date
Since the emphasis should be on completing older backlogged projects, only
extraordinary reasons will be accepted for not administratively completing
projects during FY 86 that are older than 36 months at the beginning of
FY 86.
An indepth review/analysis of projects not administratively completed by the
end of the 2nd quarter FY 1986 and not expected to be administratively com-
pleted during FY 1986 will also be performed during the mid-year evaluation.
The October 15, 1984 OW/IG policy memos eliminated most reasons for delays.
However, when supported by the project specific justification referenced
above, a limited number of backlogged administrative conpletion actions may
not be within the control of the State/Region. These could involve project-
wide claims/litigation, ongoing Federal/State investigations or other
activities which preclude the determination of administrative completion and
the initiation of a final audit.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(f) t of closeout backlogs
eliminated.
T
l(f) A closeout backlog is any project that has been awaiting closeout for more
thah 6 months at the beginning of the fiscal year.
The status, or reason for delay, of every closeout backlog project, should
be reported to Headquarters on a quarterly basis via GICS.
Performance Expectation;
The goal is to complete all backlog projects except those projects delayed
beyond the Region's or State's ability to control, i.e., 100% achievable
closeout backlogs eliminated.
An in-depth review/analysis of each backlog project not scheduled for
closeout during FY 86 will be performed prior to the beginning of the
fiscal year. The following are examples of sane of the delays that may
occur during the closeout phase that are beyond the control of the Region
or State:
- Action awaiting debt collection by Financial Management;
- Dispute pending under 40 CFR Part 30;
- Corrective action (necessary for affirmative certification) not
complete; and
- Litigation
If the Region/State believes that a particular backlogged project cannot be
closed out during FY 1986, a short narrative (not GICS codes) should be
submitted describing:
- past problems
- current status
- prognosis for closeout
- the estimated closeout date.
An indepth review/analysis of projects not closed out by the end of the 2nd
quarter FY 1986 and not expected to be closed out during FY 1986 will also
be performed during the mid-year evaluation.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
Kg) % reduction of unliquidated
obligations in a negotiated
group of "slow moving"
projects (SMPs).
DEFINITION/PERFOMANCE EXPECTATION
w
Kg) A "slow moving" project (SMP) is defined as a Step 3, Step 2+3 or PL 84-660
project under construction that has paid-out less than 90% of funds awarded
and either: 1) has not had a grant payment in over 6 months; or 2) has an
outlay history that varies significantly from the 6/75 obligation payout
curve. Projects under construction are those for which construction has
been initiated as defined in l(a) above. Percentage of funds paid-out is
defined as GICS data elements (63/19)X(100%). Grant increases during
FY 1986 will not be added to the baseline against which performance is
measured. Deobligations, however, will be included as reductions in
unliquidated obligations since deobligating unnecessary grant funds is one
strategy for reducing balances.
The negotiated group of SMPs will include up to 20 projects and to the
extent possible, will include the SMPs with the largest unliquidated
obligations. The list should not include projects with impossible-to-
resolve delays.
Performance Expectation;
Unliquidated obligations in the negotiated subset of projects will be
reduced quarterly by a negotiated percentage. Specific quarterly
commitment and the cumulative year-end commitment will be determined for
each Region based upon data analysis and negotiations.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(h) t Of CMES.
l(h) The objective of CMEs and FMCs is outlined in the Construction Management
Evaluation and Project Management Conference Manual.
Performance Expectation;
The national target for CMEs during FY 1986 is 165, with the objective of
two to five per State as shown in the following table based on the
state-size established in the construction grants resource model:
T
00
State Size
Small
Medium
Large
Super
No. of CME's
2
3
4
5
Regions will lead or co-lead a significant number of CMEs.
report will be submitted to Headquarters on each CME.
A Regional
Since a PMC is needed on virtually all new construction projects, the target
is the number of construction starts expected during FY 1986.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
l(i) t of active Step 1's and
Step 2's administratively
completed or terminated
during the year.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(i) A Step 1 or Step 2 project is considered administratively complete when a
final audit is requested, or for projects that cannot be sent to OIG because
of ongoing Step 2, Step 2+3, or Step 3 projects, when all of the admini-
strative completion requirements have been satisfied.
A Step 1 or Step 2 project is administratively complete when the following
conditions have been satisfied:
0 The scope of work is complete as defined in data element N5, Project
Completion Code and Date.
0 All pre-final audit administrative requirements have been satisfied.
0 The "cut-off" letter has been sent to the grantee.
0 The final payment request has been processed*
0 A grant amendment reflecting the final payment request has been
issued, if one is needed.
GIGS select logic for Step 1 and Step 2 administrative completion is one of
the following:
w
vo
A final audit request: N8 =
or
or 'B0'
0 A project for which all of the administrative completion requirements
have been satisfied but has not been sent to OIG because of related
Step 2, Step 2+3, or Step 3 project: N8 = 'AP1
0 A project with claimed cost less than $250,000 which does not require
a final audit: N8 = 'NS1
Performance Expectation:
The goal of the construction grants program is to administratively complete
all Step 1 and Step 2 projects by the end of FY 1986 except large, compli-
cated or involved projects.
The Region will be expected to establish target dates and to report the
status, or reason for delay, either manually or via GICS, for any Step 1
or Step 2 project scheduled for physical completion after FY 1985 or admini-
strative completion after FY 1986. This information should be complete and
maintained as of December 1, 1985.
Note; The two October 15, 1984 memos from Jack Ravan and John Martin
describe procedures for projects to be forwarded for final audit
(administratively completed) when grantees haven't submitted final
payments or where there are unresolved claims.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
3(a) % of Corps utilization vs.
target
3(b) * of final construction
inspections conducted by
the COE.
3(a) Although measure appears as a quantitative indicator, Headquarters does not
regard it as a Regional commitment. The commitment is between Corps
Divisions and EPA Regions. However, Headquarters does intend to track
performance against plan in evaluating how effectively the Region is
overseeing the Corps performance in the Region.
3(b) This is the inspection to determine that construction of a project is
complete and it is determined that:
0 All construction associated with the last contract under that grant is
complete in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and change
orders; except for minor components (e.g., if all but landscaping is
done).
0 All equipment is operational.
0 Laboratory facilities, if part of approved plans and specifications, are
available to conduct tests as required.
This is not the grant final inspection because the grantee will still be
entitled to additional costs during the one year certification period. The
Corps inspector may not be responsible for judging the potential efficiency
or effectiveness of the wastewater treatment processes.
Performance Expectation;
A final construction inspection will be conducted on all grant projects
approximately at the time of initiation of operation or physical completion.
Accordingly, the commitment will be reviewed against the related SFMS
commitment.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
3(c) f of Project Management
Conferences (PMC's) conducted
by the COE.
l(a) f of new activities
delegated to the States.
2(a) % of cum. net monthly
outlays (plan vs. actual)
2(b) % of cum. gross
quarterly obligations
(plan vs. actual).
3(c) The objective of a Project Management Conference (PMC) is outlined in the
Construction Management Evaluation and Project Management Conference manual.
PMC's provide detailed requirements of construction grant project manage-
ment, guidance to grantees on record-keeping requirements, construction
management techniques and overall grant project management procedures.
Performance Expectation;
A EMC should be conducted with virtually all new Step 3 and Step 2+3
grantees before the start of construction. Construction start is expected
to take place within 9 months of Step 3 grant award or approval of the Step
2 portion of a Step 2+3.
l(a) This measure is based on the number of new activities delegated to the State
during the fiscal year. Source is the delegation matrix generated from the
resource model available to the Region on request. The Region is expected
to adhere to its approved delegation plan. If slippage in delegation
occurs, it should be anticipated and accommodated in Region's resource
usage.
2(a) The net sum of payments made and payments recovered from PL 84-660 projects,
PL 92-500 section 206(a) reimbursable projects, PL 92-500 contract authority
projects, as well as projects funded with Talmadge/Nunn, FY 1977 supple-
mental, FY 1978 through FY 1986 budget authority, section 205(j) funds, and
section 205(g) delegation funds. Region is expected to achieve a
performance within +5% of its ocmmitment on a monthly basis.
2(b) Dollar amount of new awards and increases from projects funded with
PL 92-500 contract authority, 1977 supplemental, FY 1978 through 1986
budget authority, section 205(j) funds and section 205(g) delegation
funds. The amount does not include PL 84-660 and PL 92-500 section 206(a)
reimbursable funds. Region is expected to achieve a performance within
+15% of its commitment on a quarterly basis. Note: In accordance with
Agency accounting practices, decreases of funds awarded in FY 1986 during
FY 1986 will be subtracted frcm the gross total.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
l(a) I of Operations Management
Evaluations (OMEs) performed
at completed minor POTW's.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
ro
l(a) An Operations Management Evaluation (ONE) is a problem diagnostic and
onsite assistance program focused on small (generally under 1 mgd) POIWs.
Candidate projects are identified through EMR or onsite reviews as having
performance problems that are affecting or are likely to affect permit
compliance by that plant. An OME includes a diagnostic evaluation to
identify O&M management and facility performance problems, appropriate
onsite assistance to help resolve identified O&M problems, and a report
identifying compliance results and appropriate followup actions by EPA,
State, and/or the community, needed to assure that the grantee/cotmunity
meets continuing O&M management and permit compliance responsibilities.
An OME is equivalent to work being performed currently by State
Section 104(g)(l) grantees and will generally be performed by these
grantees.
Performance ExjpjBctation
States and Regions are expected to commit jointly to assist not less than
10 percent of the minor mechanical POTWs in each State, but not to exceed
15 plants in any State. State commitments are expected to be based
primarily on and contingent upon their Section 104(g)(l) grant cotmitments.
Regional Offices are expected to commit to a negotiated level of OME
activity in each State consistent with the FY 1986 resource allocation.
If, as a result of Regional and State 104(g)(l) grantee efforts, minor
facility performance and compliance are at such a high level that OME
commitments cannot be achieved, Regions should provide an explanation at
the end of the year.
-------
PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
LmrjjTITION/PERPOBMANCE EXPECTATION
Ka)
I of permits reissued to major
industrial facilities during fis-
cal year (NPDGS States, non-NPDES
States).
to
Kc)
# of permits reissued to major
municipal facilities during fiscal
year (NPDES States, non-NPDES
l(a) Total number of major (using MRAT system) industrial permits with
issuance dates (i.e., date signed by permit authority) during
BY 86. Status as of the close of the quarter will be taken from
PCS on the 10th of the month following the end of a quarter. Of
the major permits issued, the number that are priority permits
will be determined from the priority permits list developed by
the Regions. This will be compared to the total number of major
(using MRAT system) industry permits with expiration dates before
October 1, 1986 according to PCS data on October 10, 1985 (i.e.,
the number of major industrial permits that have or will expire
by the end of FY 86).
Performance Expection; The goal of the State and EPA NPDES
Permits Programs is to eliminate the backlog of expired permits
for major facilities and have reissued major permits in effect
on the date the prior permit expires. Permit applications are
due and should be acted upon during the last six months of a
permit's term. Most States and Regions, once they have eliminate
the backlogs that have accumulated over the past few years,
should be able to reissue 100% of their expiring major permits
except where unusual, complex and difficult issues prevent timely
permit reissuance. Backlogs consistently over ten percent of
all permits (major and minor) are unacceptable.
l(c) Total number of major municipal permits with issuance dates
(i.e.,date signed by permit authority) during FY 86. Status as
of the close of the quarter will be taken from PCS on the 10th
of the month following the end of a quarter. This will be
compared to the total number of major municipal permits with
expiration dates before October 1, 1986, according to PCS data
on October 10, 1985 (i.e., the number of major municipal permits
that have or will expire by the end of FY 86).
Performance Expectation; The goal of the State and EPA NPDES
Permits Programs is to eliminate the backlog of expired permits
for major facilities and have reissued major permits in effect
on the date the prior permit expires. Permit applications are
due and should be acted upon during the last six months of a
permit's term. Most States and Regions, once they have eliminate
the backlogs that have accumulated over the past few years,
should be able to reissue 100% of their expiring major permits
except where unusual, complex and difficult issues prevent
timely permit reissuance. Backlogs consistently over ten percent
of all permits (major and minor) are unacceptable.
-------
PEWtLTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFIMTION/PERFORMftNCE EXPECTATION
Ke)
Kf)
Region's lists of major industrial
and municipal permits to be issued
in non-NPDES States in FY 86.
NPDES State's list of major industrial
and municipal permits to be issued in
FY 86.
l(e) The lists of major industrial and municipal permits to be
issued in non-NPDES States in FY 1986 is to be developed
under provisions of the "Policy for the Second Round Issu-
ance of NPDES Permits for Industrial Sources'1 and the
"National Municipal Policy," respectively. Permits on
these lists are known as priority permits. If there are
no priority permits in a State, this should be noted.
l(f) The lists of major industrial and municipal permits to be
issued in NPDES States in FY 1986 which are developed by each
NPDES State in the same way as EPA's major permit issuance
lists (see item l(e) above). These lists are to be provided to
the respective EPA Regional Office at the beginning of FY 1986.
-------
PERMITS
QLlftNTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINmON/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Kg)/(h)
"f of major industrial/municipal
permits modified/reopened (NPDES
States; non-NPDES States)"
t-t
en
f of permits reissued to signifi-
cant minor industrial/municipal
facilities during fiscal year
(NPDES States, non-NPDES States).
l(g)/(h) Permit Reopener; A predictable change to a permit which result
from a specific reopener clause in the permit, triggered by
specific events such as the promulgation of an effluent guide-
line, the promulgation of a section 307(a) toxic effluent
standard or prohibition, results of a biomonitoring program,
necessary modifications to local pretreatment programs, or
a variance.
Permit Modifications; A less predictable change to a permit
which does not result from a specific reopener clause in the
permit. Examples include changes resulting from a request from
the permittee, new information, negotiated settlements, judicial
decisions, or other events listed in 40 CFR 122.62(a) which
are not "reopeners" as defined above.
l(i)/(j) Total number of significant minor industrial/municipal permits
with issuance dates (i.e., date signed by permit authority)
during FY 86. The Region is to report separately for POIWs
and industry (industrial number may include other non-municipal
dischargers) in each NPDES State and non-NPDES State. Because
this is the first year the issuance of "significant minors" will
be tracked, their definition is in the form of guidance on the
characteristics of a significant minor. The planned development
of a national strategy for the issuance of minor permits is
expected to lead to a more refined definition.
Significant minor dischargers should be distinguished by their
clearly definable environmental impact when compared to other
minor dischargers. Minor dischargers may be more important
(significant) because they impact a priority waterbody or have
a high potential for degrading water quality during periods of
high production or low flow. On the other hand, minor dis-
chargers may be considered not "significant" when controls
external to the NPDES program mitigate the wastewater dis-
chargers or their impact on receiving waters. The nexus be-
-------
PERMITS
QUMTTITATIVE MEASURES
DEKLNITION/PERFORMMKE EXPECTATION
l(k) Prepare strategy for each State for
the issuance of permits
to minor dischargers.
tvieen point and non-point source controls should also be
considered when determining the significance of a minor dis-
charger. The basic test is: which minor dischargers, if
issued current permits* would produce the greatest environmen
tal benefit. Their number would be limited by reason and
resources.
A strategy for minor permit issuance is to be prepared
for each State by the permitting authority based on the
national minor permit issuance strategy currently scheduled
for release on October 31, 1985. The strategy should
consist of two specific elements. First, it should list
individual priority ranking factors (such as the presence
of toxics, water quality considerations and geographical
distributions) Which will be used to divide each State's
universe of minor permits into priority groups. The
strategies should distinguish industrial and municipal
permits since there may be some differences in priority
associated with these dischargers. Second, the strategy
should contain details of implementation including methods
used for issuance such as general permits, model permits,
etc., and the resources assigned to this activity. These
strategies are to be used in preparing list of significant
minor permits which will be required as a part of the FY 87
commitment process.
-------
PERMITS
QQWrrrflTIVE MEASURES
2(a)/(b) # of evidentiary hearing requests
pending at beginning of FY; and
the number of those resolved in EY
1986 (NPDES States, ncn-NPDES States):
-Municipal; and
-Non-nunicipal.
2(c)/(d) f of evidentiary hearings requested
during FY 86 and the f of those FY 86
requests' which are denied or granted
within 90 days (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-nunicdpal.
3(a)/(b) f of direct discharger
variance requests pending at
beginning of EY 86; f denied
and # forwarded to Headquarters
with a recommendation in FY 86
(NPDES States, ncn-NPDES States):
-FDF
-301 (c)
-301(g)
-301 (k)
-316(a)
-316(b)
2(a)/(b) The Region is to identify by 10/31/85 the nunber of eviden-
tiary hearing requests that are pending at the beginning
of FY 86. Oonmitraents are to be made to eliminate that
carryover by resolving all those pending requests during
FY 86. Resolution consists of either denial, settlement,
or formal hearing initiated. The Region is to report
quarterly the cumulative number of each of the following
occurring in FY 86: (1) denials; (2) settlements; and
(3)fomal hearings initiated. Municipal and non-municipal
are reported separately for each NPDES State and ncn-NPDES
State.
2(c)/(d) The Region is to report each quarter, State-by-State, the
cumulative number of new evidentiary hearing requests
received in FY 86 and, of those, the cumulative nunber
which are denied cur granted within 90 days. This measures
initial action to mitigate future carryover. Except for
those denied, it does not measure resolution of eviden-
tiary hearing requests.
3(a)/(b) The Region is to identify by 10/31/85 the number of vari-
iance (and deadline extension) requests from direct
dischargers by type (PDF, 301(c), etc.) that are pending
at the beginning of FY 86. Commitments are to be made to
eliminate that carryover by acting on all those pending
requests during FY 86. Such action consists of either
denial or referral to Headquarters with a Regional recom-
mendation. The Region is to report quarterly the emulative
nunber of denials during FY 86 and the cumulative nunber of
recommendations forwarded to Headquarters during FY 86, by
type of variance in each NPDES State and ncn-NPDES State.
-------
PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
3(c)/(d) * of direct discharger
variances requested during
BY 86 and the # of those
acted upon (NPDES States,
non-NPEES States):
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
3(c)/(d) The Region is to report each quarter, State-by-State, the
nurttoer of each type of new variance request received from
direct dischargers in FY 86 and, of those, the nunber acted
upon. The quarterly report of those new variance requests
acted upon is to provide the cunulative nunber of denials
and the cunulative nunber of reccmnendations forwarded to
Headquarters during FY 86 by type of variance in each NPCES
State and non-NPDES State.
w
H*
00
-------
ENFORCEMENT
QUANlTliftTIVE MEASURE
ua?'lMn-ICN/PERPDBMRNCE EXPECTATION
l(a)-(b) MOVING BASE
(-•
so
1. M3VING BASE measures compliance levels of all major permittees
each quarter, and of minor P.L.92-500 permittees send-annually.
A facility is considered to be on final effluent limits When
the permittee has completed all necessary construction (including
all start-up or shakedown period specified in the permit or
enforcement action) to achieve the ultimate effluent limitation
in the permit reflecting secondary treatment, BPT, BAT, or more
stringent limitations, such as State required limitations or
water quality based limitations, or limitations established by
a variance or a waiver. A facility on a "short-term" schedule
(one year or less) for corrections such as composite correction
plans, where compliance can be achieved through improved
operation and maintenance (rather than construction) is
considered to be on final effluent limits. A facility is
considered to be in significant nonconpliance with final
effluent limits when it has exceeded the criteria for
significant nonconpliance with its final effluent limits,
compliance schedule or reporting requirements and has
not been resolved by the end of the reporting period. Further
discussion of significant nonconpliance and its resolution can
be found in the Gudiance for Preparation of Quarterly and Sena-
Annual Nonconpliance Reports (per section 123.45, code of
Federal Regulations, Title 40).
A facility is considered to be "not on final effluent limits"
if the permittee does not meet the definition of a "facility on
final effluent limits" or when a permit, court order/consent
order or an Administrative Order require construction such as
for a new plant, an addition to an existing plant or a tie-in to
another facility. A facility is considered to be in significant
nonconpliance with its construction schedule when it has exceeded
the criteria for significant nonconpliance with its construction
schedule or schedule reporting requirements and has not been
resolved by the end of the reporting period. A facility is
considered to be in significant nonconpliance with its interim
effluent limits when it has exceeded the criteria for
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
l(a)-(b) MOVING BASE (Cont'd)
ENFORCEMENT
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
significant nonconpliance with its interim effluent limits or
measurement reporting requirements and has not been resolved
by the end of the reporting period. A facility which is in
significant nonconpliance with both its construction schedule
and interim limits should be considered as in significant
nonconpliance with its schedule only.
Major P.L.92-500 permittees are tracked as part of the
major municipals as well as being tracked separately.
w
ro
o
-------
ENFORCEMENT
QUAOTITftTIVE MEASURE
EXPECTATION
2(a)-(b) NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY
3(a) ACKENISTRATIVE ACTIONS
3(b) CLOSE-OUTS
2. Compliance schedules are expected to be established on the
priority basis established in the National Municipal Policy.
The goal was to establish enforceable schedules for all
affected municipalities (municipalities which require capital
improvements in order to meet the statutory requirements)
by the end of FY 1985.
3. Headquarters will report EPA Administrative Orders (AOs);
Regions will report State equivalent actions. EPA AOs
must arrive at Headquarters by the fourth working day of
the new quarter in order to be counted in the report.
(Includes pretreatment AOs)
3. An AO will be considered closed-out when the requirements
of the order have been completed in full or a judicial action
has been referred to HQ or DOJ.
T
to
3(c)
3. Federal referrals will be reported by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM); State
referrals will be reported by the Regions.
(Includes pretreatment referrals)
3(d) CONSENT DECREES
3(e) EMR/Cft
3. Remedial actions include decree modifications, contempt
actions, collection of stipulated penalties, and other
activities as defined in the OECM guidance.
3. EMR/OA. followup includes the following:
Nonrespondents - nonrespondent notices; when necessary,
afljI'MrifvO phone calls and letters;
Permittees requiring corrective action - ascertain from
permittee sources of errors and corrective
actions to be taken;
Both - use for planning compliance inspections.
-------
ENFORCEMENT (oont.)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINrnON/PERFDRMANCE EXPECTATION
2(a)-(b) EXCEPTION LIST
w
ro
In regard to all major permittees listed in significant non-
compliance on the Quarterly Nonoompliance Report (QNCR) for
any quarter, Reglons/NPDES States are expected to ensure that
these facilities have returned to compliance or have been
addressed with a formal enforcement action by the permit
authority within the following quarter (generally within 60 days
of the end of that quarter). In Hie rare circumstances where
formal enforcement action is not taken, the administering Agency
is expected to have a written record that clearly justifies why
the alternative action (i.e., informal enforcement action or
permit modification) was more appropriate. Where it is apparent
that the State will not take appropriate formal enforcement
action before the end of the following quarter, the States should
expect the Regions to do so. This translates for exception list
reporting as follows:
EXCEPTION LIST reporting involves tracking the compliance
status of major permittees listed in significant noncompliance
on two or more consecutive QNCRs without being addressed with a
formal enforcement action. Reporting begins on January 1, 1986
based on permittees in SNC for the quarters ending June 30,
and September 30, that have not been addressed with a formal
enforcement action by December 1. Regions are also expected
to complete and submit with their exception list a fact
sheet which provides adequate justification for a facility
on the exception list.
Reporting is to be based on the quarter reported in the QNCR
(one quarter lag).
Returned to compliance for Exception List facilities refers
to compliance with the permit, order, or decree requirement
for which the permittee was placed on the Exception List
(i.e. same outfall, same parameter). Compliance with the
conditions of a formal enforcement action taken in response
to an Exception List violation counts as an enforcement
action (rather than return to compliance) unless the require-
ments of the action are completely fulfilled and the permittee
achieves absolute compliance with permit limitations.
-------
ENFORCBIEdT (cent.)
QUWJLMTAT1VE MEASURES
2(a)-(b) EXCEPTION LIST
foont'd)
Formal €n£c
tt actions against non-federal permittees
include any statutory remedy such as Federal Administrative
Order or State equivalent action, a judicial referreal (sent
to HQ/DOJ/SAG), or a court approved consent decree.
Formal enforcement actions against federal permittees include
placing them on an acceptable construction shedule or
compliance agreement, documenting the dispute and forwarding
it to Headquarters for resolution, or granting them Presidential
exemption.
T
10
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ENFORCEMENT (oont.)
EEFINITION/PERFOBMMICE EXPECTATION
l(a)-(b) PCS
T
to
*-
2(a)-(c) INSPECTIONS
1. WENT® elements are the core of information necessary so that
PCS can function as a useful operational and management
tool and can be used to conduct oversight of the effectiveness,
or overall health of the NPDES Program. The list of WENDB
elements can be found in the PCS Policy Statement. It
includes permit facility, permit event, parameter limits,
pipe schedule, inspection, evidentiary hearing, compliance
schedule, measurement, and enforcement action data.
Regions are expected to attain 100% data entry of WENDB
elements for majors, minor 92-SOOs, and other minors as
required by the PCS Policy Statement.
The $ indicator for P.L. 92-500 permittees is to be entered
as soon as a permittee who constructed using P.L. 92-500
funding is completed and operational, and the final inspection
is approved. The F indicator for permittees on final effluent
limits is to be entered as soon as the permittee fulfills
the definition of a permittee on final effluent limits.
2. Regional and State inspection plans should be established by
BY 1986 in accordance with guidance on inspection plans.
As the inspection strategy states, all major facilities
should receive the appropriate type inspection each year by
either EPA or the State. EPA and States collectively cotmit
to the number of major permittees inspected each year with a
Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI), Compliance Sampling
Inspection (CSI), Toxics Inspection (TOX), Biomonitoring
Inspection (BIO), Performance Audit Inspection (PAI),
Diagnostic Inspection (DIAG), or Reconnaissance Inspection
(RI). Reconnaissance Inspections will only count toward the
-------
QUAOTITM'IVE MEASURES
2(a)-(c) INSPECTIONS (Gont'd)
ENFORCEMENT (Oont'd)
DEFIM1T10N/PERPOPMRNCE EXFBL.'iATICN
oGnmitnent when they are done on facilities that meet the
following criteria t
(1) Hie facility has not been in SMC for any of the
four quarters prior to the Inspection.
(2) The facility is not a primary industry as defined
by 40 CFR, Part 122, Appendix A.
(3) The facility is not a municipal facility with a
pretreatment program.
10
in
Commitments for major permittee inspections should be
quarterly targets and are to reflect the number of major
permittees inspected at least once. The universe of major
permittees to be inspected is defined as those listed as
majors in PCS as of July 31, 1985. Multiple inspections of
one major permittee will count as only one major permittee
inspected (however, all multiple inspections will be included
in the count for the measure that tracks the total number
of all inspections - see next paragraph). When conducting
inspections of POTWs with approved pretreatment programs,
a pretreatment inspection component should be added. An
NPDES inspection with a pretreatment component will be
counted toward the commitments for majors, as well as toward
the commitment for pretreatment inspections. (This will be
automatically calculated by PCS.) Regions are encouraged to
continue CSI inspections of POTWs where appropriate.
The measure for tracking total inspection activity will not
have a commitment. CEI, CSI, TOX, BIO, PAI, and DIAG of
major permittees, minor P.L. 92-500 and significant minor
permittees will be counted. Pretreatment inspections will
not be counted in the total. Multiple inspections of one
permittee will be counted as separate inspections; Reconnais-
sance Inspections will be counted. It is expected that
up to 10% of EPA resources will be set aside for neutral
inspections or minor facilities.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ENFORCEMENT (oont)
CEFTNITION/PERFORMRNCE EXPECTATION
2(a)-(d) INSPECTIONS (oont'd)
Tracking of Inspections will be dene at Headquarters based
on retrievals from the Permit Compliance System (PCS)
according to the following schedule:
INSPECTIONS
July 1, 1985 through Sep. 30, 1985
July 1, 1985 through Dec. 31, 1985
July 1, 1985 through March 31, 1986
July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986
RETRIEVAL DftTE
Jan. 8, 1986
April 4, 1986
July 9, 1986
Oct. 8, 1986
w
to
Inspections may not be entered into PCS until the inspection
report with all necessary lab results has been completed and
the inspector's reviewer or supervisor has signed the
completed 3560-3 form.
-------
PRETREA3MENT
QUMflTJLftTIVE MEASURES
l(b) t of local pretreatroent programs
approved during EY 1986 (list
separately: ncn-pretreatroent
States, approved pretreatment
States).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
to
l(a)/(b) f of local pretreatnent programs
audited/inspected during FY 1986
(for audits I list separately; non-
pretreatment States, approved
pretreatment States; for inspections
list separately; States, EPA).
l(b) A local pretreatment program is considered approved When,
after appropriate public notice and comment, the Approval
Authority (Regional Administrator or the State Director)
approves the local program. Commitments for non-pretreat-
ment States and for approved pretreatment States are to
reflect all programs that are required but are not approved
as of September 30, 1985. Referral actions will be con-
sidered when assessing progress toward achieving commit-
ments. Referrals that, in fact, have been turned over to
the Justice Department will count as the equivalent of an
approved program.
l(a)/(b) A local pretreatment program audit is a detailed on-site
review of an approved program to determine its adequacy.
The audit report identifies needed modifications to the
approved local program and/or the POflW's NPDES permit to
address any problems. The audit includes a review of the
substantive requirements of the program, including local
limits, to ensure protection against pass through and
interference with the treatment works and the methods of
sludge disposal. The auditor reviews the procedures used
by the POTW to ensure effective implementation and reviews
the quality of local permits and determinations (such as
implementation of the combined wastestream formula. In
addition, the audit includes all the elements of a pretreat-
ment compliance inspection(PCI).
At a minimum, audits should be performed at all POTWs which
have been approved for a year or longer and have not pre-
viously been audited. Although an audit includes all the
elements of a PCI, the activity should not be counted as
both an audit and a PCI; it should be counted as an audit.
In any given year, all POTWs that are not audited should
have a PCI as part of the routine NPDES inspection at that
facility.
-------
PRETREATMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEftSURES
l(a)/(b) t of local pretreatment programs
audited/inspected during EY 1986
(list separately: non-pretreatment
States, approved pretreatinent
States). (Gont'd)
Ufclb'INITION/PERPQPMftNCE EXPECTATION
l(a)-(c) PRETREATMENT Enfc
nt
ro
oo
The pretreatinent compliance inspection (PCI) assesses POTW
ccnplianoe with its NPDES permit requirements for implementation
of its approved pretreatinent program. A routine PCI should
ensure that IU permits (or analogous documents where applicable)
are actually issued. The PCI should review industrial user
compliance rates (with both categorical standards and local
limits) and POTW enforcement activities including its review
of IU self-monitoring reports. (The PCI module is currently in
draft. It may be necessary to revise this definition when the
module is complete)
Par purposes of reporting, both audits and pretreatinent
compliance inspections should be lagged by one quarter
(i.e., same as NPDES inspections).
Pretreatinent Inspections will be tracked on three levels:
Pretreatinent Inspections of approved POTWs (see definition of
NPDES inspections), Pretreatinent Inspections of Industrial Users
(IUs) in unapproved POTWs, and Pretreatment Inspections of
IUs in approved POTWs.
Priority for IU Pretreatinent Inspections is to be given to
IUs in unapproved POTWs that are subject to Federal categorical
standards.
It is assumed that all Pretreatinent Inspections of IUs in
approved POTWs are done subsequent to an inspection of the
POTW, and that the POTW's records provide sufficient cause
to question their regulation of the IU or the IU's performance,
or that there is other cause to question the IU's performance
(i.e., complaints, inquiries).
Pretreatinent enforcement actions (AOs and referrals) will be
incorporated into the total actions as well as being counted
separately. An enforcement action for multiple violations
must be counted only once; therefore, Headquarters will
assume that the total actions minus pretreatinent actions
will equal non-pretreatment NPDES actions.
"State" enforcement actions (AOs and referrals) include
actions by States with approved pretreatinent authority and
actions by NPDES States for violation of a pretreatinent
requirement of an NPDES permit.
-------
STATE PROGRAMS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
l(a) Achieve NPDES program approvals
and modifications in accordance with
established schedules:
- Full NPDES programs;
- Pretreatment Program modifications;
- Federal facility modifications
u
N5
VO
l(a) Update list of NPDES States for
which Region will assess statutory and
regulatory authority in FY 86.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Performance Expectation;
Acceptable Regional performance is having and
actively pursuing a current written strategy for
each State to achieve full NPDES program adminis-
tration which was prepared by the Region in
consultation with the State/ identifies the
obstacles to full program approval and sets forth
a work plan for overcoming the obstacles. The
work plan should describe what needs to be done,
make recommendations on how it can be accomplished,
and provide needed and reasonable estimates of
time required.
Performance Expectation
The Region's goal should be to conduct a complete
review of the statutory and regulatory authority for
all NPDES State programs by the end of FY 1986. An
acceptable performance will be the completion of
these reviews for all States approved before 1980
and ccnpletion of a self-evaluation by all States
approved since 1980. Where several NPDES State
programs remain to be reviewed in FY 86, a minimum
level of acceptable performance is to initiate three
State reviews.
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
u>
o
1 (b) Permit determinations made
DEFINmON/PERPORMANCE EXPECTATION
1 (c) Class II well record files
reviewed
1 (d) Mechanical Integrity Tests
(MIT) performed
„ 1 (e) MIT Witnessed
1 (f) Field Inspections conducted
1 (h) Major wells
1 (j) Formal enforcement action
2 (a) Permit determinations made
Identify, by State, the total nunber of new and existing permit determinations
(issued or denied) for (1) Class I wells and (2) Classes III, II and V (if apli-
cable in FY 1986. Count permit determinations made only for those applications
with the final document signed by the State Director in that reporting
period. Count each area permit as one permit, and note the total number of wells
that the area permits covered.
Identify, by State, the I of Class II wells that the State has reviewed in ac-
cordance with the 1425 program guidance. For multiple wells in a single field
under an area permit or project, report the total I of wells that are covered
in the same well record file.
Identify, by State, the total I of wells with Mechanical Integrity Tests per-
formed by the operators and verified by the State director.
Identify, by State, the total I of wells with mechanical integrity tests per-
formed by the operators and witnessed by the State field inspectors.
Identify, by State, the I of injection wells inspected, including all routine,
periodic, complaint investigation or follow-up inspections performed to determine
compliance with permit or rule requirements or other program related activities.
A Class I or Class IV wall
An administrative order (AOs) or State equivalent or civil/criminal referral.
Same as 1 (b). In making FY 1986 commitment. Regions should report the total
estimated number of permits to be determined in FY 1986. This includes both
existing and new permits and these numbers will be used as the base for FY 86
resource allocations in the C220 and C306 Workload Model. When reviewing permit
applications, the priority is established as follows:
1. new Class II wells
2. existing Class I walls
3. existing Class III wells
4. new Class I and III wells
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
2 (b) Permit elapsed time
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
5. existing Class II SWD wells.
The permit elapsed time is the total f of calendar days fron the date a
complete permit application is received and accepted by the Region to the date
the final permit is signed by the program director (either permit issuance or
permit denial). The average permit elapsed time is based on the average I of
calendar days for all permit determinations made in a Region in a reporting
quarter.
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2 (c) Class II well record files Same as 1 (c).
reviewed
2 (d) Mechanical Integrity Test Same as 1 (d).
performed
2 (e) MIT Witnessed Same as 1 (e).
2 (f) Field Inspection conducted Sane as 1 (f).
2 (g) Major well Same as 1 (g).
2 (i) Formal enforcement action Sane as 1 (i).
-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
7
to
2(a) How much money has been
obligated?
5(a) Report the number of states
with compliance strategies.
5(b) Report the numbers of civil cases
referred, civil cases filed, and
criminal cases filed against com-
munity water systems which violated
a microbiological, turbidity, or
trihalomethane, MCL or monitoring/
reporting (M/R) requirement.
5(c) Report the number of states which
have documented their approach to,
or concept of, timely and appropri-
ate enforcement.
5(d) Report, against targets, for primacy
and non-primacy states, the I and %
of community water systems with per-
sistent MCL and M/R violations of
the microbiological, turbidity and
trihalomethane requirements.
5(e) Report, against targets, for primacy
and non-primacy state, the # and %
of community water systems in full
compliance (i.e., with no MCL & M/R
violations of the microbiological,
turbidity and trihalomethane re-
quirements during the 12 months of
the reporting period).
2(a) This measure will report the amount of money from the PWSS
Grant Direct Implementation funds'which has been obligated.
5(a) This measure will report the number of States which have
developed compliance policies for dealing with systems
which have violations of the NIPDWR. The National Compliance
Policy was distributed January 18, 1984.
5(b) Definitions for these terms were provided previously. Regions
should verify with the states that the data entered in the PROS
enforcement file for these measures is accurate.
5(c) This measure will report the number of States which have documented
their concept, or goal, of what constitutes timely and appropriate
enforcement action.
5(d) This information is compiled by the Region from quarterly state
compliance reports, which the Region then enters into the FRDS.
ODW will extract the compliance information from the PROS.
5(e) This information is compiled by the Region from quarterly state
compliance reports, which the Region then enters into the FRDS.
ODW will extract the compliance information from the FRDS.
-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINmON/PERFDRMANCE EXPECTATION
5(£) Report the population served by
community systems with persistent
MCL and M/R violations of the
microbiological, turbidity, and
trihalonethane requirements.
5(g) Report the number of states which
have developed state inspection/
sanitary survey policies.
5(h) Report, separately, against targets,
the numbers of CWBs which received;
a) a routine prescheduled sanitary
survey, or b) an inspection initiated
because of a violation. (Report
separately for each category) .
5(f) This measure will indicate the total population served by
community water systems that persistently violate the micro-
biological, turbidity, and trihalcmethane requirements.
5(g) This measure will indicate the number of states which have
documented their policy on how they use inspections and
sanitary surveys both as a preventative measure to protect
public health and as an enforcement tool.
5(h) This measure will indicate how many ccnnunity water systems
are routinely surveyed as a preventative tool and how many
are inspected as a result of the system violating one of
the states drinking water requirements.
5(i) Report the number of data verifi-
cations completed.
S(i) This measure will report the number of States in which data
verification were conducted in FY 85.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLACING, AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
Kb) Identify the nunber of stream
miles/ lake acres, estuary
square miles, coastal miles and
Great Lakes shore miles in each
Region, the number assessed,
and numbers supporting/partially
supporting/not supporting
designated uses as reported in
the FY 1986 305(b) report.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(c) Track, by Region, against
targets, the number of States
which incorporate new or revised
numeric or narrative criteria
for toxic pollutants into State
Water Quality Standards that
are approved by the Regional
Office.
2(a) Identify, by Region, from the
list of waters not fully
supporting designated uses, the
number of waterbodies needing
water quality based controls
and the number of TMDLs needed
in these waters.
This measure was developed as part of the STEP process. These data will be
available from the State water quality assessment reports, which are to be
submitted to EPA under CWA §305(b) by April 1, 1986. EPA guidance for pre-
paring 305(b) reports describes how assessments are to be done. The Office
of Water will carpile the data from State submissions or Regional EMRs.
Although this aggregated measure asks only for "stream miles," it will be
inportant in other measures to report the specific waterbodies, or numbers
of waterbodies, such as waters needing TMDLs or waters not fully supporting
uses. This information can form the basis for development of a priority
waterbodies list, a tool to help States allocate resources to their most
critical water quality problems, where abatement and control decisions are
most needed to prevent or reverse impairment of a designated use.
Targets will be negotiated with the Regions based on the number of States
expected to ccnplete WQS review and submit revisions for approval in
FY 86. Standards reviews will determine on a case-by-case basis which toxic
pollutants and how many will be sufficient in each State. Reviews and
approvals will be done in accordance with the Water Quality Standards
Regulation, November 8, 1983.
This item translates the "stream miles" reported above into a measure of
"number of waterbodies," or areas where water quality based controls and
TMDLs/WLAs are needed.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
3(e) Track, by Region, against
targets, the number of TMDLs
completed in these waters.
l(c) Track, by Region, against targets
the number of States which develop
an adequate NFS management program
consistent with WUM Regulations and
EPA's Non-point Source Strategy.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
This measure tracks progress against the targets for TMDLs/WLAs to be
conducted during FY 86, established in negotiations. Reporting
occurs in the last two quarters because most TMDLs are completed
during the summer field season.
This measure is designed to track the progress of States in developing
and/or updating WQM plans to include fully adequate non-point source
strategies. In evaluating the adequacy of these strategies, the Regions
should use the model plan included in the Non-point Source Strategy,
as well as the Water Quality Management Regulations.
T
------- |