REPORT TO EPA MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM Prepared by the Management Advisory Group (MAG) to the EPA Construction Grants Program JUNE 1986 ------- TABLE OF o r is Pages FOREWJRD DcB TrIvE SU RY i MRC MENBERS v L ri ‘ ID MR. IAWR J. JENSEN, EPA ASSISTN T NISTR OR FOR WA ’ I , FRCL 1 MR. NE’rH MTTL R; GIAI 4AN OF G vii I. ir r oucri .i 1 II. OVERVIEW OF THE NP TI( AL P LLZJI A1’7r DISCHA EflINATI SYST 3 II]. MUNICIPAL LIANC 11 IV. EPA ASSISTAI E FOR Oi IPLL INCE 19 V. ST1 ITE PA1 rICIPATIa IN NPDES PI N4 23 VI. O SIDERATIONS FOR IMP1 JVED MUNICIPAL Ctt4PLIPINCE 29 VII. RE O 1 DATIa S 35 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 37 ------- FORE Managat nt Advisory Group to the Construction Grants Program (MPG ) The MarIag nent Advisory Group to the EPA Construction Grants Program (MPG) has been an official advisory ccmnittee to EPA arid the Office of Water since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. MPG is canposed of sixteen r nbers who serve for two year terms. The group has a diversity of professional and technical backgrounds which include wastewater trea ent engineering and manag nt experts, equipt nt manufacturers, financial specialists, State and local governmant officials, and environmantal and public representation. M bers of W G are appointed by the EPA Deputy Administrator, are drawn frc n different parts of the country, and serve without ccinpensation. The Office of Municipal Pollution Control has direct responsibility for the administration and substantive needs of MAG. MPG’s Report on Funding MPG’ s study of municipal cai liance began after the canpietion of its last major report: “Future Funding of Municipal Water Pollution Control eed” That report was distinguished by its exploration of alternative sources of funding for municipal wastewater treatxrent, especially the concept of State revolving loan programs. Developi nt of the Capliance Report This canpliance report was developed under the leadership of a MPG Task Force on Catipliance chaired by Mr. Kenneth Miller who is now Chairman of MPG. Special recognition is due Mr. Joseph Lagnese who is the principal author of the report and who devoted long hours, effort and creativity to the task. The views expressed in this report represent a consensus of MAC n nbers, and are attributable to thEn. The study leading to the report was greatly aided by the cooperation of the Office of Water EnforcErent and Permits, specifically by Ms. Betsy LaRoe who provided indispensable data, support and evaluations for MPG. Executive Stuirnary - MAC Findings and Recarnendations An executive sunmary which follows, lists the report’s findings and recaruendations for convenience in referring to the major results of the report. ------- EXECtJPIVE SU’ 4P .RY Background The MAG Report on Municipal Carpliance enccxripasses a number of subject sections which lead to a series of reccmrendations to be considered for irrproved ccznpliance. A major part of the report describes the present National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst n. The need for an ordered description of the syst in layman’s language was seen as a necessary basis for evaluating the current syst n and making recamendations for any changes and improvenents. Data is included in the report on the status of nuinicipal carpliance. Other sections of the report describe EPA and State roles and activities in bringing about caupliance. Organizational and procedural factors are listed for considering nnproved municipal ccitipliance and a final section consists of a number of recamendations to EPA for improving ccupliance. Sunnaries of M G findings and a list of the recanrendations follcM. Si .mmary of M C Findings 1. The National Municipal Policy (NMP), forimilated to bring municipalities into carpliance with the wastewater treatient requir rents of the Clean Water Act, sets out a viable policy and strategy for ensuring that municipalities care into caipliance with their discharge limitations. 2. A significant percentage of municipal wastewater treathent facilities are not yet in caripliance with their final effluent limits. 3. The current incauplete delegation of the NPDES program to all the States results in NPDES program authority being divided between EPA and the NPDES States, which is not the nost effective institutional arrang rent for EPA manag ient and oversight of the Federal program. 4. EPA relies heavily on Inanagenent strategies to achieve improved municipal carpliance, which places a large administrative burden on the Regions and States. This diverts resources that could be used nore effectively for carpliance and enforc rent activities. 5. Managenent of the NPDES ccxnpliance and enforc rent program could be greatly enhanced by the irore effective and ca iplete use of an autariated data systen (FCS). 6. EPA and the States tend to pay too little attention to the caripliance status of minor POIWs. This tends to undermine the integrity of the national NPDE program. 1 ------- 5. Minor ?YIS S Develop a n re attentive program to deal with non—carTpliance by Minor PCII’Ws, so as to assure that all PCIIWs and the piblic they serve, regardless of size, r nath mindful of the official interest and n nitoring of their ccxr pliance responsibilities. 6. u.nistrative Penalties Amsnd the CWA to allcM the use of athtirastrative penalties for NPD violations, with procedural safeguards as needed. 7. Up-front Civil Penalties Where non-canplying municipalities are acting in good faith and are cooperating with Regional/State NPDES enforc nt programs to correct the probl n, up-front civil penalties should not be imposed except possibly in an escr approach which u1d provide for return upon fu1filln nt of canpliance caTTnitrrents. 8. Training and Operation Assistance Increase efforts, including funding assistance, to encourage States to expand their training and operation assistance programs, both for the benefit of correcting existing noncar p1iance and for reducing the future occurrence of O&M related non-canpliance. 9. Future Federal Funding in P Scheduling Provide for priority grant status to be taken into account in Municipal Canpliance Plan ( P) ca’ipliance scheduling. 10. Incentives Place increased it asis on creating a large range of incentives for P01W cciripliance, including official acknowledg nts and neaningful recognition of both ex lary as well as sustained canpliance efforts by POIWs, especially minor PO’IWs. iii ------- G EPS WHO ORKED c THIS RE ORF Mr. Leon Asadoorian President-Treasurer Mathuen Construction Co. Mathuen, W *Mr Jazt s Borberg General Manager Hanpton Roads Sanitation District Virginia Beach, Birginia Mr. J. Edward Brc qn State Water Coordinator I ia Dept. of Water, Air, and Waste Managarent Des ‘kines, IA *Honor 1e Jan Datpsey Mayor of Auburn Auburn, IA *Mr Ronald P. Drainer Section Manager Grants àninistration Illinois EPA Springfield, IL *Mr Robert P. Elsperman President Tariton Corporation St. Louis, M D *Mr George Erganian M nber Board of Public Works City of Indianapolis Indianapolis, IN ***Mr Walter Garrison Vice President Janes M. t’bntgarery Consulting Engineers Pasadena, C *Honorable Marry Kinney Forner Mayor of A].k x uerque A1hxuerque, R4 * Current Mather ** Current Manber and Chairperson Forirer Chairperson *Mr Joseph Lagnese, Jr. Enviror rental Engineer Consultant Allison Park, PA *Mr J. Leonard Ledbetter Carrnissioner Georgia Departnent of Natural Resources Atlanta, G1 *Ma. Sue Lofgren Partner, The Fonurt Tenpe,AZ **Mr Kenneth Miller Vice President Division of Water gineering GI2M Hill Denver, CD *Mr Larry J. Silverman Executive Director Airerican Clean Water Assn. Washington, DC *Mr Edward 0. (Ned) Sullivan Vice President Bank of Boston Project Finance Unit, HO-31-3 Boston, ?‘ *Mr Gerald H. Teletzke Envirorurental Engineering Consultant Soottsdale, AZ ***Mr Thanas Westoott President Westcott Construction Ccziçany N. Attleboro, Mr. Janes A. Hanlon, !‘ G Executive Secretary Environirental Protection Agency 40]. M Street, SW Washington, DC V ------- June 4, 1986 Mr. Lawrence J. Jensen Assistant Administrator for Water Environmental Protection Agency 4th M Streets SW Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Mr. Jensen: It is with great pleasure that I, art behalf of the Manage- ment Advisory Group to the Construction Grants Program (MAG), forward to you our just-completed report entitled, Municipa]. Compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. MAG has worked diligently on this report for the last 18 months, after.having completed its earlier report, Future Funding of Municipal Water Pollution Control Needs, in May 1984. That report was distinguished by its exploration of alternative sources of funding municipal wastewater treat- ment, especially the concept of state revolving loan funds. The present report evolved around the need for ensuring that municipalities meet the wastewater discharge requirements of the Clean Water Act under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), so that the goal of clean water for the nation can be achieved. A great number of munic- ipalities do not now comply with their discharge permit requirements. NAG found that the National Municipal Policy, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed to bring municipalities into compliance with their wastewater dis- charge limitations, represents a viable policy and strategy. In a series of recommendations, NAG emphasizes that the National Municipal Policy needs to be strongly supported and vigorously carried out at federal, state, and local govern- ment levels. Technical. assistance, training seminars, conferences, and diagnostic evaluations are a few of the methods that will be of assistance. MAG also recommends that all of the remaining states that have not accepted authority to administer the NPDES system be encouraged to do so. Efforts should be made to reduce the administrative and reporting burden on the states and EPA regions. A truly national and simplified data base sys- tem would facilitate such reduction and would allow the shifting of more resources to operational efforts to improve compliance. v i i ------- i. Iri DDucrI 4 In 1983, the Manag nt Advisory Group (MAn) to the Federal Construction Grants Program initiated a special evaluation of the national municipal water pollution control program. This effort focused primarily on funding options for construction of wastewater treatn nt facilities to meet the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act (CW J, with special r hasis on the need to prai te municipal financial self—sufficiency to construct publicly c ned treath nt works (PCYIWs) and to maintain these facilities in ccit pliance with their permit requirements. This study was canpleted in May 1984, arid resulted in a report entitled “Future Funding of Municipal Water Pollution Control Needs.” Foll iing this study, MAG fonted another subcatirtittee to look at the relationship between the national grants program and the persistent problems associated with municipal caupliance and enforc nt efforts under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst (NPDES), especially noncanpliarice by PO’IWs that were planned, designed and constructed with Federal funds. MAG turned its attention to this subject because of its grc ing awareness that widespread noncanpliance by YIWs was a problem and was also a reflection on the Construction Grants program. This report delineates MPG’ s findings and makes recaTuendations for enhancing ccnpliance by municipalities. ------- 3 II. OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL LOLLUTANT DISQ!A1 E ELIMINATION SYSTE 4 A. General The Clean Water Act authorizes EPA and approved States to administer the NPD program, which is the basic regulatory approach for ensuring that wastewater discharges (nun.icipal and industrial) meet the r iir ients of the CWA. The three operational el rents of the NPDES program are: * Permits : The enforceable doci.ments that contain the effluent limitations, as ll as n nitoring and reporting requir nts to which dischargers must adhere. * Car liance Wnitoring : The activities associated with tracking facility caripliance with permit LLmits and requir8Tents, which include: Conducting inspections, reviewing required reports, canpiling statistical information, ensuring quality control, etc. * Enforc tent : The activities associated with evaluating noncaipliance, initiating and escalating enforce nt responses until the nonca liance is resolved. There are currently 37 approved State NPDES programs, 22 of which are also approved to administer the pretreatment program (see TABLE 1). EPA retains the lead responsibility in the balance of the States, but shares many of the in la Entation functions of the NPDFS program in a partnership arrang ient with State agencies. Even where States administer the NPDES program, EPA oversees State performance and retains the right to initiate an enforc rent action in a State. B. EPA Organizational Responsibilities The NPDES permit and cczr pliance nonitoring functions are managed by the EPA Office of Water Enforcetient and Permits (CMEP) under the Assistant Administrator for Water. Responsibility for NPDE enforcerent functions, h ver, falls into t separate offices of the Agency. The ( EP is responsible for non-judicial or “administrative” enforcatent responses, such as notices of violation (Nays) and administrative orders (ADs). Responsibility for judicial enforcetent actions is shared bet en C JEP and the Associate Enforcerent Counsel for Water Enforcerent under the Assistant A ninistrator for the Office of Enforcerent and Caupliance r cnitoring (03)1). C ’JEP carries out technical functions related to cases and OE) 4 carr es out the legal functions. ?breover, 03)1 shares its legal responsibilities with the Land and Natural Resources Division of the Depar rent of Justice (DOJ). The EPA Regions are organized in a similar manner, although the titles of the different offices and divisions are not exactly the sane. Figure 1 presents a diagram that shc s hc the EPA Regions and Headquarters are organized with respect to NPDES permits, caripliance nonitoring and enforcerent activities. Generally, enforcetent actions camence in the Regions, and, where judicial enforcetent actions are involved, are referred first to Headquarters (O N in conjunction with G EP) and then to the DQ3. ------- TABLE 1 ST T NPD S P9CC.P ST T’.S 10/4, 3 A orove State PDES perrn prog rarrt Ap rove t3 reculate Fe era1 facil i.t. es ? p’rove reere3te ;r ç ?1a ar’3 Cal fcrr. a • C 1ora Connect LCUt Delaware Ceorr t a Hawa • t 11 t no L S ar Iowa Kansas Kentuc’ y 1.1 r y I U sot a M 55 SS L O L ‘ : sour •Ucnt3fla .e!raSc3 ‘ce’.’ a a :ew Jersey \e ?:r ‘ rt CaroiLna \ort’ akota 1 . ‘Creçon Penn y1 ’:ania ‘Rhode Islard Sc th Caroitna Tenr’ess e V e TT on t Vtr;u Isla”cs Vtrq tnia Wash tngtofl West Virginia WtscnnS in Wyon ’ttng 10 ‘i9/ 9 05/14/73 03/ 27/ 5 09/26/73 04/01/74 06/28/74 11/28/74 I 0i23/ 7 “1 ‘Oil’S P 8/ 10 / 78 0 /30/83 09 / P5,’ 4 •i C) / / 73 C6/30 ‘ 4 r 5/OL/74 lO,’3C/4 06/ 1’ / 4 0 /l2’ C 9 / 19.’’ 5 C 4/ 13 ,‘ 9 2 10/29. - l” / 19/ ’S C6’13/ 5 0/ 11 /‘ 3 C) 9,’26 / 73 C6’30/78 09/17/84 ( ‘ 6/ 10/’ S 12 / 28/77 01/11/74 06/30/74 03/31/15 11/14/73 05/10/82 02/04/14 01/30/75 10/19 /79 05 / 0 5 / 7 3 1 2 / 09 , ’ 8 0 06/01/79 09/20/79 12/09/78 08/10/78 09/30/83 1 2/09/73 12/09/78 ) 1/28/83 0 /26/79 (‘6/2 3/8 1 11/02/79 08/31/78 C4/ 13/8 2 06, 13/80 09 ‘29/84 01/28/83 0 3 / 0 2/79 06/ 30/79 9/ 17 ,94 09/25 ,’80 02/09/82 05/10/92 11/26/79 05/18/8 1 10/19/79 06/03/81 03,12/81 08/ 12/8 3 06/03/81 09/30/83 09/30/85 06 / 01,/83 07/16/79 05/13/P 2 06/03/s 1 09/07/ 4 04/13/82 06/14/82 03/12/81 09/17/84 04/09/8 2 08/10/83 03/16/82 05/10/82 12/24/80 22 TOTALS 37 28 CC MPL TE State Prograrns (NPDES, Federal FacilitLes & Pretreatment 19 — ir d cateS State approved to issue General Permits ------- FIQJRE 1 O R OT OC pcrTvlrILS I fFI OF * TDU I ( ) KrEB F D4 r I I J Dp uc 1 ( P) ( . 41CIPAL p w.rri . ( 0 ( K) w r i L5rVITIC$ — ORCI NI ZATIONAL P P TIVE NPDES GDI A - JUSTICE -1 - I i- LN N -: I aD 3 OFT IC INA JpAL RES OTM IA tOi-SPCCIFIC OTh R I0IAL ?ICITJTTIES ------- - TABLE2 TABLE 2 ESTIMATE OF EPA RESOURCES COMMITTED TO COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT FY 1985 FY 1986 ( Operat3.ng Plan) ( Qperatxng P1ar i ” FTE $ FTE 5 (thousands) (t-tousa. i ) MUNICIPAL ONLY Mur1ct al.Ja5te Trestment Fac .lLty Cor t met ron : EPA 1ead1uar:ers (OMPC) 106.5 24,339.9 106.5 25.574. £P egLonS (WMD) 440.2 31,316.2 416.7 15,315.4 Muruci a1 Jaste Treatment 3&M: :? leadl’Jarter3 (OMPC) 4.5 214.8 4.5 230.7 EPA Reg .3 s ( MD) 30.5 1,35 .L 30.0 1,263.7 3perat r Tra .tung Graits 21G.O 250.) ( 104) (eriac e:, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL Water Quali_/ t for;et nt: EPA tIeal3.larer3 (3 EP) 30.9 7,250.2 31.7 4,023.5 E?A Regions ( J’4D) 351.1 12,723.5 360.6 13,143. ENFORCEMENT: ALL AGENCY PR0GP MS E 1f3rcement Poficy and 3 er tions: CPA Heairl .lartems (OECM) 121.3 7,323.9 95.3 EPA R gior s (ORC) 145.3 5,922.7 149.7 € ,0.,3.2 GRANT ASSISTANCE TO STATES Federal rartts 4ater Pollution Control. Programs tinder 1362 61,3’..3.4 64,9::.: (act tal) 1. (Definition of FTE) Full—time eluivalent (workyears) is the number of years t t a permanent full-time md/or oti er-thari- permanent full—time empldyees . or( at their basic rate of pay. 2. In addition to State Progra i Grants under 136 of the CWA, States that have fully funded the Lnanmgeiflent’ of t eir delegated construction grant prograns with fuuds avatlabe under 2O5(g) may use any remaining ç205(g) funds for corto1 i nce/enforcemen: activiti as. * Not actial unless specifically noted. PrLor to C .,ngressional addonS. ------- 5 E. Basic Tools for Identifying Noncanpliance and Determining the Appropriate Enforcetent Action The NPDES cai liance and enforc ent program is managed by the Regions and States based on a n .m ber of car lex regulations, policies, and guidance doc mants. The following is an abbreviated description of the key program docurrents, how they are used, and how they relate to one another. 1. Discharge nitoring Reports ( 4Rs): How EPA/States Receive Information Fratt Dischargers: The NPDES program functions primarily on the basis of voluntary carpliance and reporting by the discharger. Each perinittee is expected to canpiete a TTonthly DMR, which is the vehicle by which each discharger reports its performance based on the results of its self-rtonitoring. A permittee is required to suJ nit its DblRs on either a nonthly or quarterly basis, depending upon the specific reporting requir rents in its permit. Permittees are also required to report certain kinds of permit violations at the tine they occur, usually by phone. Consequently, EPA and the States rely largely on the honesty and integrity of dischargers to report their permit violations. Violations can also be detected by inspections, but inspections are used primarily to verify instances of reported noncarpliance and to support forir l enforcei nt actions. 2. Enforc rent Manag rent Systen (E7 1S): How EPA/States Review Permitee Canpliance Information: The NPD S regulations require approved States to have procedures for receiving, evaluating, and retaining all reports that permittees must sutinit. In 1977, EPA published its original Enforcetent Manag tent Systan (E 4S), which set forth a process for the EPA Regions to follow in collecting, evaluating and translating catipliance information into appropriate enforc nt responses. The States were encouraged to follow the Federal example, but were not required to do so. In terms of actual practice, it appears that the Regions never uniformly adopted the principles and procedures in the original E , and there was relatively little State follow through. reover, the process in the 1977 E 4S helped the Regions determine the “appropriate” enforc t nt response, but did not contain any guidance about the “tineliness” of these responses. The ‘4S guidance was recexttly revised and updated. It is now required for all administering agencies--EPA and States alike. It also now specifies tine frarres within which administering agencies are expected to initiate enforc rent response for instances of “significant noncarpliance” (to be discussed later). The purpose of the E 4S is to prarote nationwide consistency in how and when EPA and the States respond to different kinds of noncanpliance. The revised version sets forth requir rents and procedures for EPA and States which can be sunmnarized as follows: ------- vloI.AT1cN RFVIEi’J ACfRt4 cRITERLA TABLE 3 DischarO. MOnitOliflo •.ports (PnSSI Pratrs.tsenl PeiortI Co.illance Sch.dute U.oort Final PronraSS Psoort All Additional CanonS 10 dayS ouerdue Of lncn—nI.I. or not unlenstandaDla 10 days overdua or or not undaritaitd•bia 10 dayS Onar4i.a Or inconfliet . or not und.retandable 10 4ayS c •nd .e Or inro.Ctl .t. On not .ndanatafl4ahlS c. Cnforc.0nt Orders Any Other Paaulia.anta Cit.d in IIt• Enlotce.aitt Ord.r d. Oth.f Violation. lailur. to Iaoleant lasu. o.raila. anact erdIaanc.. laepact lus) local pratrsat.ent pro ra. r.jIrants. Failure 01 Ut• P01W to •iitoncs IU pratr.ato.nt ta ulraaitt. Violation of narrativ. rioulta- ..nts ((naccural• rac0rdk.e in . lnallaOu.la tr..ta.ftt olani op.ration md •sint.nanc.I railura (0 1oIlo P.St Na..aq.n.nt Practice. li.•.. reaulr..enit to d..lon SPCC olans •ni t Inla. .sit PMPI Lily violations durino ii . oua rear Violations lot wbick a forsal •nforc.onnt action I. rmc spid•d by Ii. t.lone iit I..p.a.. iwids. • U.ctud•e bact.fi olo,(cel counta a4 .I.cai coilfnn l. colon. and than t par. t.ra Ion iich crttarta an. dIac,.ttOnsry In Ut. •b.anca of intanl. •ffluant 11.11. in an •nlensa..nt ordan. p.i.it lisle. should ba tracked and •ralu.(ad bse.d on (ha crltarla ton polsie niotsilona vi ni a tout OF OTNF• VIOLATIONS OF IFFLUENT LIMITS a P.rsit Violation. Critarts 30 Day Ausraqe Violations • 3 viol. eionu in b ountha 7 Day Av.raqa violations Two vlolstto0a in a nth Daily sa.i .u.violatiOfla Four violation. in a nth • 4 0 or ‘11.0. or if conrlnuoo. nit0rlnq CIIISTIa are ..c ..ded • Itors water Four lions ha .tlactiv. iimi Any L..lt Causas or ha. potential to cause a watar quality or a health probila or the Violation is 01 concarn to the Director b. [ nforcaonflt Ordar Violations Any Ll.it Cited in the Any viola ton duriny thu quarter tnforce.eflt Ordaf” a Pratreata.rt Proor.a - I.ple*ent at ion -Enforcesant by POT b C.n .r.I P.r.jt Conditions -Record K.aflInQ. O CR -S lip VIOLA? OIlS OF COMPLIASC( Start CoriatrucitOil 40 days past aChadulad data InS Conatructioil Attain final Co Lisnca All Additional Mit.SlOnaa 40 days paat echaduled data VIOLATIONS OF UCPOPTING PFOSJIPCMTMTS IN OPOF as PIPRITS AND (NfOSCFPI ANNUAL P(VItw The lila of any .a or p.ralIIsa or .iner paraittea of concern • itould ba r.viau.d at last OflCS in a twalve .onhii porlod. raqardl..a of vhethan (ha above criteria kava baan aaea.dad ------- TAALI I 1’ . 01 ________ A. Vto)att ol puit da q*i I • VinLat Iai 01 tIi* UMtau a. 10 — aa 26 C. fic b. 30 a.g 4# itM ld .r icI I IC C. Mr v1olatj wIth 10 I.aiLh — d. Ik w*I I b ”as wIth 10 or ai th I ta It 1*3 a. IAq rwIttad dtidi.r s with 10 or I th I ta lILA) I. Ik*a t ptIwci i with 10 or lth 1 ct. 111*4 •. Ut t ktbyl Nt1 t b. b ti t1 % c. Mtafm ?I i 3l.i II, 1. mi sIt _ , 4 _ • _ d L . t _ ’.ll.— ) a. 3. ta 1 W 30 days oc i a. lia S I 1& ICII rta ID ) b. staaa rta a. 01 p1 I 4. h., ta a. I, 2sta or ttci t ta 4. Othur p, t eusdi L.i a. VuIhu to %‘t a p,str.. nt or for $,dt,,ct l rw b. VIolatt ol , 1T.tIas rsa tr tu e. y Mr .Io1att 01 t tI Otr.c toi- TAAIZ (O ) S.ctt s 01 iI t I a. ltart wta tI b. d n tIo, Mt)t i, c. Attain fl, .1 II ior lIorl. II r ia oqr) 0. Mr d l. NLI.ator.. 3. ta IM. 30 y, or a. bI.ct, Itot1f rta ( 1 b. Pr.tru. It a iortl c. ost 01 FInal I I s 0. Wwr ** a. Zi Ima or I fIcI. t t Cat y • I a I “a I I I .I- sa UaCt C t ct l oF s iiatlcm C.t.cjoay 9C “a I “a II .. If . II )%S II . yvr. 01 VIol.tt S. Vlolat1o of b ...t dar lIrfItas I. VjoIatI of £fll ,t Lilt., a. ad 30 day ag as th b. tr .toL.tim, with 10 or Pw.lth 3. Vtolat1a 01 1L ed la uIIl.utors. b 10 day. or ei 11* 1 -“a A- . (If halt I. — •tcla ’t a. curr.Mt Is,rlcrl nat.ht. It La C a 1y I i t) f* ar. I or 4$ th .) (IA I .s 2. VIoI tI of h1 na 8dw jl. Ill .sI u by II day. or s tin I y.a It S 2 “a (IS 2 a II IC II m 113 it s Its H J— a 1 I II 11 “a “a “a * tic lID Ito I ID 11 10 lID 110 Ito ‘ (to tilt (‘“I is s, II no II 1112 II J”a (IA I “a 4. Mr audar rso$r’t.s a J-.fu4tcIaI dar. *- inI.tr .tIa dar . or tJ.1r stat. iuIvaI .ntS t lIr — ------- 7 The n z regulation also provides for a s i-annua1 Statistical Si.nwiary Report (SASSR), which is to report on the ntmter of major permittees with t or nore violations of the sama rronthly average permit limitations at the sane pipe in a six nonth period, including those otherwise reported in the QNCR. It is apparent that a primary purpose of the ( CR and SSR are to provide information to assist EPA in carrying out its oversight responsibilities, which includes assessing the effectiveness of State and Regional NPDES capliance activities. It should be noted that the CRJSSR requir nts do not establish criteria for selecting enforc rent action, nor codify enforceient policy which r nains under EPA discretion. The CR/SSR and E}IS are capl ntary in their intended application. The CR/SSR establish criteria for tracking major permit nonccnçliance, while the E74S is used to guide EPA Regions and States in responding to all instances of nonca liance. Hc iever, since the CR reports instances of major permittee noncanpliance that exceed certain thresholds of tine, magnitude or freguency, it is reasonable to expect that EPA and the States will place highest priority on resolution of these instances of nonccxripliance. Regardless of whether a violation is listed on the CR or SSR, any violation of an NPDES permit is a violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for which the permittee is liable. 4. Significant Non ipliance (SNC): H i EPA/States Manage Their Programs to Place Priority on the r’tst Serious Violations: In an effort to manage the NPDES program nest effectively with the limited resources available, EPA has developed criteria for tracking and acting upon priority violations as irected by the Strategic Planning and Manag nent Syst n (SPMS). These violations have been defined as a subset of those instances of nonca liance reported in the 4CR, and are called Significant Nonocmpliance (SNC). According to EPA the SNC designation is used for t purposes. First, it is used as a rnanag ient tool for canputing EPA’s national statistics on levels of noncaupliance for the Agency’ s Strategic Planning and Managarent Syst n (SPt’ ), and for tracking instances of noncaripliance until they are resolved (either returned to 2. SPMS is a syst n that is used to identify and manage EPA’ s priority program ccrrrnitrrents. The report provides a process for the Agency to identify neasures of success and track progress against them. Each quarter, the Office of Manag nt Systems and Evaluation publishes the report using information provided by Headquarters, Regional Offices and State agencies. The Office of Car liance Analysis and Program Operations (in OEU4) is responsible for the enforcement sections of this report. ------- TAET PCS USAGE BY STATES Supp1 es Enters Data Interfaces to Re’ ::- NPDES STATES Directly with PCS for PCS E-- I Connecticut X Rhode Island X X Vermont X II New Jersey X New York X Virgin Islands X III Deleware_ X X Maryland Pennsylvania x Virginia X West Virginia X IV Alabama X Georgia X Kentucky X Mississippi - X North Carolina x South Carolina X Tennessee X X V Illinois X X Indiana X Michigan X X Minnesota X Ohio X Wi sco nsln x VII Iowa Kar.sas X Missouri X ebraska X VIII Colorado X Monta’ a North Dakota WyOT1ifl I X Californ a Hawaii Nevada X Oreaor Washintiton —— — Subtotal: 15 7 r’Jon—NPDES STATES I Massachusetts ) Maine X New Hampshire IV Florida VI Arkansas X Louisiana X New Mexico Ok1aho ia x Texas VIII South Dakota \ Utah IX Arizona X X Alaska Idaho — Subtotal: 2 1 13 TOTAL 17 8 ------- TABLE 6 REOUIP D DATA TO BE E’:TERCD INTO PCS Information Type Malors Minor 92—SODs Ot ’er “ .‘ ers Permit Facility Data x x x Permit Event Data X X X Inspection Data x x x Parameter Lir’its and X Pipe Sched.ule Data Compliance Schedule X X Data D 1R tleasuretfleflt Data x SignifiCant , :oncornp.Lar Ce x Flag Enforcement cti n Data X (Enforcertent Action Data. Compliance Schedule Data, and Interim Limits Data from all active for al enforcement actions) Enforcement Action Data X (Type Action, ENAC; Issue Date, ENDT; and Date Compliance Required. ERDT; from all active formal enforcement actions) Pretr atment Approval X x x Nation al Municipal Policy X X X Data ------- 9 In addition, there are t basic subsets of formal enforc rent responses: A ninistrative and judicial: a. inistrative orders (AOs): Generally used as the first formal response because they are expedient and econai ical to issue; and b. Judicial referrals: Generally a lengthy and nore costly court process involving litigation, either by the State Attorney General if pursued by a NPDES State, or by EPA and txxr, if Federally pursued. Case referral is typically reserved for particularly serious violations or cases of recalcitrance. In FY 1984, for example, there were well under 100 judicial C U referrals in ccmparison to over 1600 ADs issued. The Clean Water Act does riot allow EPA to assess penalties for violations except through the judicial process. Because court. action is so slow and cuwbersar , penalties appear to have been of limited value to EPA thus far. Sczre States, however, have the legal authority to iir pose administrative penalties, which greatly enhances their administrative enforc t nt capability. EPA is currently seeking airendrrent of the G to give the Agency administrative penalty authority. ------- 11 III. MUNICIPAL (Xt1PLIANCE A. History and Current Status of Municipal Noncarpliance The 1972 Clean Water Act established a carcpliance deadline of July 1, 1977, for all permittees to rr et the requir rents of the Act. By 1977, only about 80 percent of major industrial dischargers had canpieted installing the necessary technology, and the Agency began to aggressively enforce against major industrial dischargers that failed to neet their catipliance schedules. As a result, today about 94 percent of the major industrials have ccxnpleted the construction needed to achieve the final effluent limits (FELs). As of March 31, 1985, C ICR reporting period, five percent of these major industrial perinittees that have canpleted their facilities and are being tracked against FELS, were in SNC. Despite the high level of cartpliance ng industrial dischargers, lack of ca ipliance with categorical pretreath nt standards r uiren nts by industrial dischargers may in part be contributing to municipal noncanpliance. On the municipal side, f r than 40 percent of major ITunicipal d.ischargers caripleted construction to n et the O secorx3ary treathent r uiraients by 1977, but the Agency did not adopt an aggressive enforcerent posture against municipal dischargers. reover, Congress extended the municipal caupliance deadline twice: first to 1983 an then to July 1, 1988, for municipalities that had applied for a §301(i) extension in 1977. Congress also reduced the anount of funding per fiscal year, but continued funding through 1985 and legislative proposals indicate that funding will be continued into the early 1990’s. The priority systan and grant procedures encouraged municipal dischargers to proceed in accordance with grant availability. Wiüle there is ccn 6 ensus that the grants program has provided an incentive and catalyst for construction of facilities throughout the country, the uncertainty regarding timing and levels of grant awards and other administrative prob1 ns has, in sate cases, caused certain municipalities to delay construction and caripliance. Today, only about 65 percent of the total major municipal dischargers have cci leted the construction necessary to ireet statutory trea rent requir 1ents. As of the Septanber 30, 1985 period, the noncaripliance figures were as fo1lc s: 3. Section 301 (i) of the CWA established conditions for EPA to grant PCIIWs extensions to the 1977 deadline of the 1972 C for final permit caripliance, if filed by June 26, 1978. ------- 13 B. Causes of Municipal Noncar lianCe There is very little information which accurately substantiates the underlying causes of nminicipal noncanpliance. The EPA Task Force Report on 4&M (August 9, 1984) suggested that approximately 72 percent of all canpliance problems at operational F(lNs are caused by design and influent related limitations, and the remaining 28 percent are due to O&M limitations. This fi.rth..ng is of limited value, hcMever, because it is not clear h this qualitative asses rent of noncaripliance relates to noncaipliance as it is determined and counted by regulatory agencies. It was apparent to MPJG in this evaluation that the lack of i re significant delineation and quantitative data on the causes for noncaipliance was and is a serious limitation to a successful cai p1iance achiev TEnt program for POIWs. The limited reference infonMtion on the causes of PCIIW nonca pliance causes, together with the experiences and observations of M G nEnbers, suggest that the major causes nest likely fall into the fo1lc ing categories: 1. Inadequate operation and maintenance (O&M) due to insufficient revenues, lack of skill and/or kn 1edge, or poor practices; 2. Inadequate industrial pretrea ient; 3. Excessive infiltration/inflc q (I/I) due to deficient s r system, inadequate rehabilitation, and inadequate contrail regulation of s er system use; 4. Lack of adequate facilities to treat discharges of sanitary wastes, ccinbined storm overflc s (CS)) and/or infiltration/infl i (I/I): 5. Inadequate facilities to maet secondary treathent or advanced treathent; and 6. Lack of appropriate institutional structures at local level, such as independent carinissions and authorities, with the pc rs necessary to finance capital and operating costs and to efficiently manage facilities and systems. Relating to the O&M problems caused by insufficient local annual revenues, it is of interest to note that a recent user charge survey of 80 Federally funded projects by the Office of Municipal Pollution Control (C*1 ), revealed that the user charge systems were not being properly maintained to assure adequate funds for satisfying increased costs of O&M and adequate allowances for depreciation/replacement. Evidently, the original cantatient by these grantees to maintain their user charge systems adequate to sustain carpliant performance is not being realized. As such, the Federal inves rent in these OIWs, as well as carpliant performance, is possibly being jeopardized. ------- 15 The general goal of the policy is to establish enforceable schedules for car 1iance with the 1988 deadline by the end of FY 1985. Where there are extraordinary circumstances that make it iir ossthle for an affected P01W to neet the July 1, 1988, deadline, the a nin.istering agency is expected to establish a fixed-date schedule to achieve catipliance in the shortest, reasonable period of tine thereafter. Agency guidance to support the policy specifies that any such extension beyond July 1, 1988, nn.ist be incorporated into a judicial order. The places priorities for EPA and State ccn pliance and enforc nt efforts on: 1. PCIIWs that previously received Federal funding assistance and are not currently in caripliance with their pezinit limits; 2. All other major POIWs; and 3. Minor POIS Js that are contributing significantly to water quality iinpairnent. In addition, the guidance sets forth a tiore detailed approach for handling the various categories of P01W noncaripliance problEns as follcMs: 1. Canpleted PCYIWs not neeting their Final Effluent Limits ( FElLs) : These are POIWs that could rreet their permit requir rents by using better O&M procedures and practices. The guidance reccmrends the use of in-depth, diagnostic evaluations to identify the causes of noncat!pliance and to prepare a CCP. Regions and States can use ACs or other appropriate enforc nt rrechani ns to require suthtittal of CCPs. Where P(YIWs have received grants after Dec ber 29, 1981, the guidance recamends use of the one—year 5 certification requiratents in lieu of the CCP process. 2. Municipalities in the Grants Process : These are P(YIWs that already have an approved grant and those that are on the fundable portion of the State project priority list. Where PCTIWs have an approved S201 facility plan, they do riot have to develop a separate MC?. Regions arid States can establish schedules and interim effluent limits by reissu.thg the permit and/or issuing an AC or §301(i) extension. (See footnote 3.) 3. Unfunded Municipa1iti s : These POIWs nuist develop MCPs, and the Regions and States can use information requests, ADs, judicial orders, or equivalent State actions to obtain suthiittal of MCPs and to establish schedules for capliance. 5. Requires grantee to certify after one year’ s operation follc ing initiation of operation that the plant performs according to design intent and permit conditions, or otherwise catinit to an expedient prcgramn of necessary alterations. ------- 17 4. Both Regions and States have limited resou.rces to handle a project of such magnitude; 5. Tt re are continuing coordination problems bet en construction grant activities and the NPDES enforcai nt program; 6. It is difficult to assess progress in dealing with canpieted PCTIWs because these activities tend to occur through ongoing programs rather than under the aegis of the NI P; and 7. The large n miber of cai liance schedules n being established is creating a longer-term rk item to track ccit pliance with these schedules and take enforc Tent action where schedules are violated. The report’ s reca inendations dealt primarily with manag nt strategies, as was the intent of the Program Evaluation Office responsible for the report, and did not address the r dies for alleviating the underlying causes of P01W r n-canpliance. ------- 19 IV. EPA ASSISTT N FOR (XtIPLThNCE A. General EPA assistance to bring about caupliance under the National Municipal Policy has been noving forward on several fronts. These efforts include the foll ing: 1. Project certification; 2. Operator training assistance; and 3. Incentives. B. Project Certification Project certification is a requir nt for all grant funded projects awarded after Decanber 29, 1981. It requires that the grantee -certify that a project does or does not meet the design specifications, effluent limitations and all other project performance standards as determined during a one year performance period fo1lc ’iing initiation of operation. Construction grant regulations require that an engineer or engineering firm provide services during a one year performance period to: o Direct operations of the project; o Train or provide training for operating personnel; o Prepare curricula and training materials; o Revise O&M manuals to accarm date actual operating experience; and o advise whether the project is meeting performance standards. If at the end of the one year performance period the grantee cannot provide affirmative certification, a corrective action report and schedule must be developed. This report must include: o An analysis of the cause of the project’s failure to meet performance standards; o A schedule for undertaking corrective action; and o A new date for certifying to the reviewing agency that the project is meeting performance standards. As of October 11, 1985, 484 projects had initiated the one year project performance certification and 116 had cat leted it. There is no data available on h many of the non-caplying P IWs subject to the b 4P will be grant funded and subject to such useful certification. It is obvious, hc ver, that this post-1981 stipulation of the grant program will contribute significantly to reducing non-ca liance of facilities constructed with grant funds. ------- 21 D. Incentives EPA has recognized that the best type of caripliance program is one which is braced enthusiastically by all participants. If support can be built anong the general public and elected officials for excellence in waste water treat nt performance, many non-carpliance problai s uld be solved. To this end, EPA has been developing a National Operation and Maintenance cellence Awards Program that will “recognize )I’iJs ar local managa ent officials whose efforts are resulting in outstanding O&M performance and continuing high levels of effluent caripliance.” It is patterned, to a great degree, on an award program that Region V has had in place for a n .miber of years. There will be six awards based on plant design capacity: One each for 0-1, 1-10 and +10 million gallons per day, using secondary and advanced treatmant processes. The program was announced at the 1985 Water Pollution Control Federation (WE F) Conference, with the first national awards to be presented in October 1986. It is anticipated that this will provide the necessary tima for States and Regions to select naninees and allcM a caririittee to make the selections. The criteria for selection are still beir developed. The program is also expected to enhance any State and/or Regional awards already being given, and the new Regional awards programs u1d “mirror the national awards program categories to the maxinn.irn extent feasible.” It is expected that the awards cer nies will provide as nuch public exposure as possible with each Regional ±ninistrator presenting the State ncminees’ award certificates to the mayors/public rks directors and the P(YLW staffs in their cantrunities. A full madia involv nt should be undertaken. EPA will rk with the WPCF to give substantial exposure for the national awardees at the WPCF Conference as ll as in other organizational journals and publications. ------- 23 V. STATE PARTICIPATION IN NPDES PI )GRAM A. General The issuance and enforcerent of NPDE discharge permits is not an isolated activity. In order for it to be effective, it rraist be an integral part of a water pollution control program. The isportance of the NPDES permit program lies in the fact that permits are the major tool used to ensure that dischargers do not individually or collectively cause violations of water quality standards. In setting permit limits and the actual issuance of permits, there is a distinction between approved and unapproved States. t’breover, circimtstances regarding the degree of State delegation vary anong Regions, as is ex tplified by Region VI where no States have approved NPDES programs and Region VII where all States have approved programs. The degree of States’ involv rent in program operations where EPA retains priir ary responsibility is also highly variable. %‘thile the State NPDES program is subject to an all or nothing approval, many activities in an unapproved State are shared between EPA and the State by agre rerit. Because of the difficulty of characterizing these arrang rents, this discussion will deal only with States which have approved programs. B. Overall Program Managetent As with nost other specific programs, the EPA may approve a State to assi.me NPDES program responsibilities if the State’ s program neets the rninirrn.m1 requirerents in terms of statutory authority, rules and adeinistrative procedures. The acceptance of the State program is embodied in a formal agreerent between the State and EPA, characterized as a n rorandum of understanding. The agreenent sets out the general long term conditions of acceptance. an annual basis another process unfolds. The Administrator, in conjunction with the Assistant Administrators, develops an annual guidance docwnent that identifies long and short term environnental objectives and priorities. Based on the priorities articulated in the National guidance, the States prepare annual State programs and associated workplans which identify their water program plans for the caning year. The State and the Region then finalize negotiations on the State output carinititents for the caning year. These ccmnitnents are finalized using a variety of tools in the various Regions, State/EPA agreerents, enforcerent agreerents and program grant conditions. EPA recently issued a Policy on Performance-based Assistance, which gives direction to the Regions in their rrcnitoring and evaluation of State performance in carrying out the annual plan. This policy, along with other program specific guidance, form the basis for EPA’s rnanagerent and overview strategy to ensure Regional and State performance. ------- 25 The review can also include a nere detailed evaluation of permit issuance, inspection and caripliance activities, as well as a review of files to determine whether actions were taken in a timaly manner arid properly doct nted. D. Data Manag Tent Information about dischargers and their performance is generally maintained in the Permit Catpliance Syst6n by EPA. As had been noted previously, nest States do not now use PCS in their manage nt of the DS capliance/enforc nt programs. The reasons for non-participation vary. Sate States had an existing but incanpatible State syst n prior to the availability of PCS. In other cases, States have determined that PCS will not satisfy State needs for a data manag ent systan. While States may not utilize S, they still tran nit the information to EPA for entry. Since the information maintained on S is all EPA-reguired, it is available to EPA, but often only if EPA maintains it. Other Federal data syst ns maintain information critical to managing arid auditing a water program. The construction grants program data base, the Grants Information and Control Systan (GICS) arid the water quality data base (STOREr) both contain suppl ntal information. These systens are also nore ccimenly maintained by States, although neither is universally utilized. On the issue of the collection and analysis of scientific information, EPA has provided rtore guidance in the form of a nonitoring strategy, analytical procedures and other relevant guidance. In the case of analytical and scientific data, a number of sources including dischargers, universities, and other State arid Federal agencies gather data. Performance review functions also have been established in the analytical area. EPA annually reviews the States’ data gathering and quality assurance activities. In addition, there is an ongoing effort to rteasure and improve the quality of data received by dischargers th nselves. Sançles are developed by EPA and sent to pexmittees as “unknown” for analyses and a quality check on local procedures. States also utilize operator certification, laboratory certification arid inspections as additional neans to improve and maintain data quality. E. Canpliance l ’knitoring and Achiev nt Once the permit is issued, the focus is on ccznpliance arid enforc tent. Several key activities are available to States to determine facility canpliarice. States receive and review information as it is suthiitted each rronth or each quarter. Deviations fran permit reguirai nts are dealt with in accordance with regulations, guidance and agreer nts. If a facility has a schedule of canpliance, progress imist also be rroratored either through notation on the rronthly report or by noting the caiçletion of milestones such as suthtission of plans for improver nts. ------- 27 In sar States, the option of administrative penalties exists. This action can be particularly effective where the cost of carpliance does not greatly overshad the penalty which can be uiçosed. final action that the State can take is to refer cases to the State’ s attorney general to all for resolution by the courts. Since approved State programs are required to have substantially equivalent penalties, the major distinction is that the cases are tried in State courts. In dealing with noncatipliance, States can utilize sanctions other than penalties to solve or encourage resolution of problems. One example is sewer extension limitations or bans on hook-ups, which have proved to be a very effective means to sti ilate r nicipa1ities to make iniprov nts to inadequate systems because their i osition places limitations on growth. The certification of operators is one caiuon State practice which is designed to ensure that operators are qualified to operate their plants. These programs can be sh n to provide a substantial improv rent in expertise if they are aggressively administered. In particular, a willingness to suspend or revoke certificates for inadequate performance rks well and lends credibility to the certification process. It is important to note that the preceeding discussion of the States’ role and responsibilities in the NPDES program focuses on National guidance. Hcx iever, I’W did not have the opportunity to evaluate either the effectiveness of the national guidance, or the extent to which individual States augment it. Fran our individual experiences and. ir uiries, h ver, we are inclined to believe the States, within their budgetary constraints, are striving to utilize and productively augmant EPA guidance to achieve improved caupliance. We also believe there is recognition in the States and Regions that there is a limit to the an unt of guidance and reporting which can be imposed on the States. ------- 30 As much as there r nains concern for the adequacy of construction grant funding, we have difficulty understanding the disparity between the funding effort directed at capital investh nt in contrast to that available to adequately support ca liance ntnitcring. Specifically, failure to suppletent the Federal dollars expended for construction of PC/IWs with funding for ongoing ccznpliance of catipleted facilities will frustrate the intent of the law and the purpose of the construction. As d nanding as this task of ccv liance nonitoring might be, its full and car lete accaTplishnent appears to be achievable given the relatively ll universe involved, the capabilities of today’ s autateted data syst ns, and the potential of the United States Government. We stress this concern for catipliance rroru.toring because of the essential nature and dependency which it holds to enforc nent and ultimate caipliance achiev ent. We recograze the need for setting priorities in the cmpliance nonitoring and enforc ent programs for PCIIWs. In fact, we agree that priority should be in order of majors, PL 92-500 minors, and other minors, as EPA policy is based. Hc ver, there is a concern within MAG that, as a result of limited resources, minor PO’IWs approach a zero priority status, with very little attention being given to these naller P(YIWs. Without attention, particularly of Ct’s reported violations, the minor YIWs can becare suspect and in fact indifferent to the NPDES program, which has the potential to undermine the public’s perception of the national effort. The retedy need not be in altering the existing manag ent strategies to include minors, bit rather might be in the use of separate, less intensive resource strategies. These might include requiretents for self-enforc rent responses to IY”IR violations, such as local public notice of violations. Another possibility would be the use of a different mailing address and review attention for EliRs reporting violations, as opposed to those not reporting violations. C. Penalties A primary need in the legislative area, nost apparent to MAG, is in the area of administrative penalties. Under current law, EPA is required to pursue court action to seek penalties for NPD violations. This is tine consuMing, costly and generally ineffective. It is recognized that penalties can be an effective deterrent to permit violation, if the penalty policy is unccxnplicated, can be expediently administered, and is uniformly and fairly applied. ------- 31 In our judg nt, it is now tine to give EPA qualified authority to utilize administrative penalties for violation of permits. thile court actions can be an effective punitive rreasure, the ability to seek administrative penalties will provide EPA with an effective way to deter non-capliance. Proper restrictions on this pcF.s’er canbined with fair appeal processes will enhance EPA’ s enforcEtent capabilities without violating the due process rights of dischargers. In another penalty area, NAG questions the effectiveness of up-front civil penalties in judicial enforcemant actions against municipalities. tnile we understand the need to provide exfflnples of the consequences and repercussion of non-caupliance, we r nain concerned that in general, penalties are not conducive to cooperative catipliance, which in the end usually best serves the goal of achieving canpliance. Further, penalties do not appear to act as an effective deterrent to others because each offender usually perceives its situation as unique. Finally, the reason for non-caupliance, particularly in municipal cases, is often related to the carinunity’s financial capability, and using econanic sanctions appears to be counter-productive in these situations. The use of penalties becates n re difficult when uniformity requires that the anxunt of the penalty be determined on the basis of savings accruing fran the non-canpliance, as is custar ry for industrial enforceient actions. Using this approach, the penalties for municipalities can becate so large that they caiprise a significant portion of the required capital costs for abat rent. The attetipted canprcxnise on this procedure only tends to contribute to the sense of inequity which pervades such proceedings. Finally, the fact that many past settl Tents have not contained civil penalties further contributes to the controversy which surrounds this approach. It uld appear that a far nore productive approach s! uld be the use of significant stipulated penalties to assure catpliance, with fair consideration for unavoidable delays. As a caupranise, consideration might be given to an approach which s uld Iold up-front penalties in escrow, with opportunity for the violating municipality to have these penalty funds returned upon successFul caripletion of the mandated schedule. D. Funding for Catpliance/Enforceient As previously discussed, it is difficultto iiiprehend the logic of providing over $40 billion in Federal funding for municipal water pollution control facilities over the past 13 years, and not to adequately fund the incr ental additional cost for proper cLlu liance nonitoring of the performance of these sane facilities following constniction. This questioned logic is based on reasonable confidence by NAG that caupliance rrcnitoring is achievable with but ntdest resources. ------- 33 F. Incentives Incentives are considered a helpful and under-used tool for improved cattpliance. EPA ’s ITost recently announced program of awards is a we1cai d addition to the rather rreager program of awards which recognize excellence in P01W performance. The potential for additional recognition options as an incentive for canpliance r nains great. In particular, there is a great potential for ilt?roved canpliance in a program which recognizes sustained caipliance, rather than only ex riplary performance. Similar recognition should also be given for industrial pretrea nt efforts. The potential uld probably be enhanced if instituted by EPA. A periodic listing of P(YIWs performance, circulated in each State, u1d be another rrethod. It can be added that all such incentive or recognition programs should particularly impact the- minor POIWs, which are ackncMledged by EPA to receive l r priority attention. ------- 35 VII RECOMMENDATIONS 1. National Municipal Policy The National Municipal Policy for bringing rrninicipalities into ccznpliance with the Clean Water Act (G A) needs to be strongly supported and vigorously carried out at Federal, State and local governirent levels. Technical assistance, training s ninars, conferences, and diagnostic evaluations are sare of the methods that can be utilized to encourage and assist canpliance with the CWA. 2. NPDES Authority &icourage the r naining unapproved States to request authority to administer the NPDES program, which uld enable EPA to focus its managEx nt and oversight of the national program in a ri re uniform manner. 3. NPDES Data Base Improve the NPD data base by providing increased funding for the Permit Ca pliance Syst n (PCS) and by encouraging States to becar direct users of the national data syst n (PCS). 4. Administrative Burden on Regions/States Undertake a canprehensive review of existing NPDES program manag rent strategies to determine if there are ways to reduce the administrative and reporting burden on the States and Regions, which might all ’i then to shift nore resources to the operational efforts of the NPDES program to mtprove canpliance. 5. Minor PC1IWS Develop a nore attentive program to deal with ron-caiipliance by Minor PO1 7s, so as to assure that all P(YIWs and the public they serve, regardless of size, ra ain mindful of the official interest and nonitoring of their ccnipliance responsibilities. 6. Administrative Penalties Amend the C to allc the use of administrative penalties for NPD violations, with procedural safeguards as needed. 7. Up-front Civil Penalties Wnere rion-cariplying rnuracipalities are acting in good faith and are cooperating with Regional/State NPDES enforc nt programs to correct the prob1 n, up-front civil penalties should not be imposed except possibly in an escr approach which s ild provide for return upon fulfillment of canpliance ccmnitrrents. 8. Training and Operation Assistance Increase efforts, including funding assistance, to encourage States to expand their training and operation assistance programs, both for the benefit of correcting existing noncarpliance and for reducing the future occurrence of O&M related non-catcpliance. 9. Future Federal Funding in Scheduling Provide for priority grant status to be taken into account in Municipal Carpliance Plan ( 42P) cczrpliance scheduling. 10. Incentives Place increased rpiasis on creating a large range of incentives for P01W carpliance, including official acknowledgen nts and meaningful recognition of both ex rplary as well as sustained carpliance efforts by P 0 1Ws, especially minor P(Y 1 Ws. ------- LIST OP ABBREVIATIONS AA Assistant Administrator AD Admini$tlat lYe Order BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand GCP Composite Corrections Plan Chemical Oxygen Demand cso Combined Sewer Overflows CWA Clean Water Act Discharge Monitoring Reports DOJ Department of Justice Enforcement Management Systems EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEL Final Effluent Limits oics Grants Information and Control System ui Infiltration/Inflow MAG Management Advisory Group to the EPA Construction Grant. Program Municipal Compliance Plan National Municipal Policy NOV Notice of Violations NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OEO ( Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Operation & Maintenance G E Operation’ Management Evaluation Office of Water Office of Water Accountability System Office of Water Enforcement and Permits cs Permit Compliance System P01W Publicly Owned Treatment Works QNCR Quarterly Non-ComP1iIn 1 Reports ss Suspended Solids SASSR Semi-Annual Statistical Su ary Report SNC Significant Non-Compliance SPMS Strategic Planning and Management System SSR Statistical Sunittiry Report STORET Storage and Retrieval TRC Technical Review Criteria WPCF Water Pollution Control Federation ------- |