-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE STATE DECISION-MAKING FOR POLLUTION CONTROL ON PRIORITY WATERBODIES (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
3. Update WQM
Plans
4. Identify and
Prioritize
Water Quality/
Effluent Limited
Waterbodies
and Revise List
as Necessary
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of WQM plan elements
updated; list.
List types of
activities/percent
of 205(j) funds for
each activity.
Indicate which
activities will
be included in next
WQM plan update.
List priority waterbodies
by State.
// and designation of
priority waterbodies on
list for use maintenance
and reason for listing.
# and designation of
priority waterbodies
on list for use
restoration. Of these.
# limited by industrial,
municipal, and/or
nonpoint sources.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
What is the process and
schedule for reviewing
and updating WQM plans?
Describe now 205(j) funded
outputs are being used at
the State/Regional levels
to make decisions. Give
examples.
How are 205(j), 205(g)
and 106 work programs
integrated?
What is the process for
State and locals working
jointly to define use of
205(j) funds?
Has the Region's/States'
process for identifying
priority waterbodies
changed since FY83? How
is the list revised? Is
this reflected in the
CPPs?
What actions have been
taken to attain/maintain
uses in the priority
waterbodies listed in
FY83, i.e. use
attainability studies,
site specific criteria
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Mid-year
visit;
end-of-year
report
SOURCE OF
DATA
106, 205(j)
work programs
305(b) reports,
106, 205(j)
work programs
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING AMD ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE STATE DECISION-MAKING FOR POLLUTION CONTROL ON PRIORITY WATERBODIES (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
4. (cont.)
ro
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
// and designation of
additions/deletions to the
list in FY84 and reason.
A summary of the extent
to which waters support
their designated use(s)
using the indicator
developed through the
the STEP project.
A list of those segments
partially or not
supporting designated
uses, including informa-
tion on problem
parameters and sources
as well as State and
Regional actions
pla nned.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
development; TMDLs/WLAs;
intensive surveys;
biological assessments;
nonpoint source controls;
permit reissuance (more
stringent limitations);
AT plant (application,
const ruct ion); enforcement
action; other?
What are the impediments
(e.g. NPS, POTWs, indus-
trial discharges) to
achieving environmental
result s?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
Adminis-
trator's
Accounta-
bility
System
Adminis-
t rat or's
Accounta-
bility
System
How do the FY84 priority
waterbody lists differ from
the FY83 lists? What are the
reasons for the changes?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
Third
Quarter
Third
Quarter
5. Nonpoint
Source
Controls
Provide an inventory
and status of NPS
activities by State,
with special emphasis
on priority waterbodies.
Discuss NPS control
programs/approaches by
State, based on NPS
inventory.
Mid-year
visit; end-
of-yea r
report
106,
205(j)
work
programs
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE STATE DECISION-MAKING FOR POLLUTION CONTROL ON PRIORITY WATERBODIES (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
6. Conduct TMDLs/
WLAs
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of TMDLs/WLAs
conducted on priority
waterbodles in FY84 vs.
total number planned?
Of these, # with
pollutant specific
and # with bio-
monitoring derived
toxic limits?
00
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
To what extent are the
States conducting TMDLs/
WLAs? Are they conducted
solely in priority water-
bodies or also in other
areas? How are these funded?
What difficulties have been
encountered and how have the
Region/States resolved them?
What is the process for con-
ducting and approving TMDLs/
WLAs? How well is it working?
Is the public involved? Have
the States provided an imple-
mentation schedule?
Are TMDLs/WLAs for toxic pollu-
tants being developed? What is
the Region's policy for develop-
ment? How many are pollutant-
specific? How many are based on
bioassays? Biological surveys?
What issues have developed in the
TMDL/WLA process and how is the
Region resolving these?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
106, 205j
work programs
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT WATER QUALITY CONTROL DECISIONS
AND TO EVALUATE PROGRESS IN MEETING WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES (pg. 23)
ACTIVITIES
1. Implement EPA's
Monitoring
St rat egy
I
-O
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of intensive surveys
completed in priority
waterbodies vs // of
surveys completed
state wide.
# of fixed stations
monitored on a regular
basis in priority
waterbodies vs
# monitioned
statewide.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
To what extent is
there local/industrial
support for and
participation in data
collection efforts both
for identifying problem
areas and for monitoring to
determine whether uses
are being met? To what
extent have the States
made an effort to work
with industry to
improve monitoring
programs?
What are the States'
oversight roles in
locally collected data?
How have Region/States
coordinated monitoring
activities with other
State and Federal
agencies?
How is the monitoring
data used? Have States
included biomonitoring
activities in their
monitoring programs?
How do the States/Region
determine the need for
biological and toxic
monitoring? Are efforts
underway to improve
biological monitoring?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT;
OBJECTIVE:
IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT WATER QUALITY CONTROL DECISIONS
AND TO EVALUATE PROGRESS IN MEETING WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
1. Implement EPA's
Monitoring
St rat egy ( cont. )
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
I
en
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
What is the status of
quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) procedures
in each State? Are the
States implementing grant
requirements for QA plans?
How many workyears are
spent in fixed station
trend monitoring and
intensive surveys?
Have States adequately
discussed their monitoring
activities in their CPP?
If not, why?
What resource levels are
devoted to intensive
surveys for WQS, TMDLs/
WLAs, permit reissuance,
AT, etc.?
What problems are being
encountered in carrying
out monitoring activities?
What is the Region/State
approach for resolving them?
ADVANCED
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE:
IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT WATER QUALITY CONTROL DECISIONS
AND TO EVALUATE PROGRESS IN MEETING WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES (cent.)
ACTIVITIES
2. Improve State
Section 305(b)
Report
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of 305(b) Reports
cr>
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
Have the State section
305(b) Reports been
submitted?
What is the quality of
State section 305(b)
Reports? Do they
reflect EPA's 1984
guidance?
What is being done to
encourage effective
use as well as quality
of State section 305(b)
Report s?
What improvement in water
quality is noted in the
reports? Are trends mentioned
in the reports based on
biological data or
chemical data?
How is 305(b) used in State
processes? Will States
expand on this use?
ADVANCE
COMMITTMENT
REQUIRED?
Yes
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Report s
due April 1 ,
1984
SOURCE OF
DATA
305(b)
Reports
-------
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE NPDES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR PERMITS
AND ISSUE MAJOR NPDES NEW SOURCE AND NEW DISCHARGE PERMITS (pg. 25)
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial Permits
I
—I
«^1
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
// of permits issued to
major industrial facil-
ities during fiscal year
(NPDES States, non-
NPDES States).
By 10/30/83, project the
# of major industrial
permits that have or will
expire by the end of
FY 84 (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
Are States/Region
adhering to estab-
lished processes (GPP)
for writing WQ based
permits? Discuss
problems encountered
and how they were
addressed.
Are permits that were
held for reissuance
pending final effluent
guidelines being issued
upon promulgation? Are
there any difficulties
in applying the guide-
lines? If so, how are
they being resolved?
Are the resolutions
satisfactory and timely?
To what extent are permit
conditions being developed
using best professional
judgment? Is the tech-
nical support for these
judgments adequate? If
not, what additional
support is needed?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
Yes—non-NPDES
States; also
Administrator's
Account abili ty
System
No; also
Administrator's
Accountability
System
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Quarterly
SOURCE OF
DATA
PCS
First
Quarter
PCS
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE NPDES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR PERMITS
AND ISSUE MAJOR NPDES NEW SOURCE AND NEW DISCHARGE PERMITS (pg. 25)
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial
Permits(cont.)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
oo
Region's priority list
of industrial permits
to be issued in non-
NPDES States in FY 84.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
Are there delays or
roadblocks in the in-
dustrial permitting
process? What are they
and what practical steps
are needed to expedite
permitting? Discuss any
problems associated with
permit compliance schedule
development, monitoring
requirements, and general
conditions.
Have the NPDES States
developed priority lists
for issuing industrial
permits?
Did States use national
policy and guidance to
develop a priority list for
permit issuance? If
not, what was the basis
for their permit issuance
priorities? Are resources
being directed to the
highest water quality
problems?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
Yes - Provide
List
Start of FY
Region
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE NPDES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR PERMITS
AND ISSUE MAJOR NPDES NEW SOURCE AND NEW DISCHARGE PERMITS (pg. 25)
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial Permits
(cont.)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
2. Issue/Reissue
Municipal Permits
# of permits issued to
major municipal facili-
ties during fiscal year
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
By 10/30/83, project
the # of major muni-
cipal permits that
have or will expire
by the end of FY 84
(NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
How are State strategies
developed and how does
Region track State permit
issuance status? Does
State strategy include
specific list of majors
permits (and minors) to
be issued during FY84?
Is State meeting targets?
Are the States/Region
adhering to established
processes (GPP) for
writing WQ based permits?
Discuss problems encoun-
tered and how they were
addressed.
To what extent are munici-
pal permit conditions
being affected by the new
secondary treatment def-
intion? Are there any
difficulties in applying
the new definition? If
so, how are they being
resolved? Are the resolu-
tions satisfactory and
timely? Discuss the nature
and extent of the use of
"special consideration"
provisions of the secondary
definition.
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
Yes-
non-NPDES
States;
also Admin-
istrator's
Accountability
System
No; also
Administra-
tor 's
Accounta-
bility
System
Quarterly
PCS
First
Quarter
PCS
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE NPDES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR PERMITS
AND ISSUE MAJOR NPDES NEW SOURCE AND NEW DISCHARGE PERMITS (pg. 25)
ACTIVITIES
2. Issue/Reissue
Municipal Permits
(cont.)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(S3
O
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
Are there problems developing
permit compliance schedules?
If so, what is the nature
of the problems and how are
they being resolved?
Are there other practical
measures that would better
support compliance schedule
development ?
Are there delays or road-
blocks in the municipal
permitting process? What
are they and what practical
steps are needed to expedite
permitting? Discuss municipal
permit modifications regarding
301(h) and pretreatment, and
any problems associated
with permit monitoring
requirements and general
conditions.
Have the NPDES States
developed priority
lists for issuing
municipal permits?
Did States use national
policy and guidance
to develop a priority
list for permit issuance?
If not, what was the
basis? Are resources
being directed to the
highest water quality
problems ?
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE NPDES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR PERMITS
AND ISSUE MAJOR NPDES NEW SOURCE AND NEW DISCHARGE PERMITS (pg. 25)
ACTIVITIES
3. Issue New Source/
Major New Dis-
charger Permits
ro
4. Issue/Reissue
General Permits
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
By 10/30/83, identify
# 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 FY84 and the # pending
for more than 12 months.
Track # of new source/major
new discharge permits
issued, the # of complete
applications on hand at the
end of the quarter, and the
# of completed applications
pending more than 12 months
at the end of the quarter.
# of general permits
issued/reissued (NPDES
States, non-NPDES
States):
- OCS general;
- # in new categories
(not covered by prior
EPA general permits);
- # others (covered by
prior general permits).
What types of problems
has Region encountered
in issuing general per-
mits? What measures
have been taken or
are needed to resolve
them?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
No; also
Administrator's
Accountability
System
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
Start of FY Region
No; also
Administrator"s
Accountability
System
Quarterly
Region
Yes; non-
NPDES States
Only
Quarterly
Region
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE NPDES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR PERMITS
AND ISSUE MAJOR NPDES NEW SOURCE AND NEW DISCHARGE PERMITS (pg. 25)
ACTIVITIES
5. Conduct
Evidentiary
Hearings
6. Review and
Approve/Deny
Variance Requests
ro
ro
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of evidentiary
hearing requests
pending at beginning
of FY and # requested,
held, settled, or
denied in FY 1984
(NPDES, non-NPDES):
- Municipal; and
- Non-municipal.
Track # of direct
discharge variance
requests at beginning
of FY and # requested,
# denied and # for-
warded to Headquarters
(NPDES, non-NPDES States)
- PDF
- 301(c)
- 301(g)
- 301(k)
- 3l6(a)(b)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
What are the major
issues? Has a pattern
developed that indicates
a need for program
changes, including
procedures, regulations,
policy, guidance,
technical assistance, etc?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
No
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Quarterly
SOURCE OF
DATA
Region
How is the variance process
working? What are diffi-
culities? Discuss problems
and successes.
No
Quarterly
Region
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: PROVIDE NATIONAL DIRECTION AND ASSISTANCE TO THE PRETREATMENT PROGRAM (pg. 27)
ACTIVITIES
1. Establish State
Pretreatment
Programs
2. Establish Local
Pretreatment
Programs
i
ro
GO
ADVANCE
QUALITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES FOR ANNUAL REVIEW REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
See "Approve NPDES
State Program Requests"
activity for State pre-
treatment approval
measures.
# of local pretreatment
programs submitted
(non-pretreatment
States, approved pre—
treatment States) for
review during FY 84:
- # approved; and
- # denied.
# of local pretreatment
programs needing
approval at beginning
of fiscal year.
# of local pretreatment
programs approved at
beginning of fiscal
year.
What are the impedi-
ments to State pre-
treatment program
approval?
What are the impedi-
ments to local pre-
treatment program
approval?
How well is contract
assistance (type and
level supporting
development and
review of local
program submissions.
What criteria are used
for review of local
pretreatment programs?
Are criteria consistent
from State to State?
Yes; also
Administrator's
Accountability
System
Quarterly
Region
What is being done by
Region/State after
approval of local
programs? If a local
program is denied, what
subsequent action does
the Region/State take?
If local program is
approved, what follow-up
action is taken with POTWs?
No; also
Administrator's
Accountability
System
No
First
Quarter
Region
First
Quarter
Region
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: PROVIDE NATIONAL DIRECTION AND ASSISTANCE TO THE PRETREATMENT PROGRAM (pg. 27)
ACTIVITIES
2. Establish
Local Pretreat-
ment Programs
(cont.)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of pretreatment PDF
variance requests made,
# approved, # denied,
# appeals of denials
(non-pretreatment
States, approved pre-
treatment States).
PO
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
How well are local
programs incorporating
categorical standards?
Are there problems
with evaluating baseline
monitoring reports and
compliance requirements ?
How consistent are local
pretreatment programs in
technical and administra-
tive requirements?
What types of guidance or
technical assistance are
needed?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
No
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Quarterly
SOURCE OF
DATA
Region
What problems are States
and Regions having with
categorical determinations,
FDF variances, and requests
for removal credits?
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: MANAGE DELEGATED 301(h) WAIVER PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL MARINE DISCHARGERS (pg. 27)
ACTIVITIES
1. Review 301(h)
Waiver
Requests and
Issue Permit s
i
ro
tn
QUANTITATIVE
MEASURES
# of initial
decisions.
# of permit s
issued.
# of completed
applications.
# of Intents
to revise.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
Was all available information
considered in evaluating
applications?
Were decisions clearly and
completely documented?
Were all criteria evalu-
ated and applied con-
sistently among Region's
applications?
Were dischargers with the
greatest potential for
adverse impacts evaluated
on a priority basis?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
Yes; also Quarterly
Admi ni st rat or' s
Accountability
Syst em
Yes; also
Administrator's Quarterly
Accountability
System
Administrator' s
Accountability
System (infor-
mation only)
Admi ni st rat o r's
Accountability
System (infor-
mation only)
Region
Region
Region
Region
-------
PERMITS
OBJECTIVE: INCREASE NUMBER OF APPROVED NPDES STATES (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
1. Approve NPDES
State Program
Requests
ro
01
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of approved State
programs:
- Full NPDES programs;
- Pretreatment program
modifications;
- Federal facility
modifications.
What is Region's
strategy for each State
to achieve full NPDES
program administration?
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
What are the obstacles
to State NPDES assump-
tion? pretreatment
program? Federal
facility program?
What is Region
doing to encourage
State assumption?
What is Region doing to
ensure States are upgrading
regulations consistent with
CWA and EPA regulations
revisions?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
Yes; also
Administrator's
Accountability
System
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE OF
DATA
Region
-------
ENFORCEMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE RATES FOR MUNICIPALS AND INDUSTRIALS (pg. 29)
ACTIVITIES
1. Identify Municipal
and Industrial
Compliance Problems
and Guide Corrective
Actions
>
ro
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of major permittees
(list municipal and
non-municipal separately)
that are on final effluent
limits or construction
schedules (with interim
limits) (list separately)
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States)(See Appendix B).
# and % of major munici-
pals and non-municipals
listed in significant
non-compliance (NPDES
States, non-NPDES
States) with:
-Final effluent limits:
0 As start of FY; and
0 As of (date).
-Construction schedule:
0 As start of FY; and
0 As of (date).
-Interim limits:
o As start of FY; and
o As of (date).
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
No; also
Administrator's
Accountability
System
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Quarterly
SOURCE OF
DATA
PCS
What progress is
being made by both
Region and States in
adhering to approved
agreements? Discuss
problems/successes.
How do you determine
when to take an action
and what action to take
against a permittee in
non-compliance?
Discuss reasons for
non-compliance.
How is Enforcement
Management System
(EMS) used to iden-
tify, monitor, and
expedite critical
projects toward
compliance?
What measures are being
applied to improve com-
pliance of major P.L.
92-500 facilities?
Yes—only
for FELS; also
Administrator's
Accountability
System
Quarterly
QNCR
-------
ENFORCEMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE RATES FOR MUNICIPALS AND INDUSTRIALS (pg. 29)
ACTIVITIES
1. Identify Municipal
and Industrial Com-
pliance Problems and
Guide Corrective
Actions (cont.)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
By Dec. 1, 1983, iden-
tify the number of
major municipal and
non-municipal facilities
(list separately) on
final effluent limits as
of the beginning of the
fiscal year (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States)
(See Appendix B).
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
What progress is being
made toward compliance
with advanced treatment
requirements ?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
No; also
Administrator's
Accountability
System
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Third
Quarter,
FY 83
data
SOURCE OF
DATA
PCS
ro
oo
By Dec. 1, 1983, identify
the names and total number
of municipal and non-muni-
cipal facilities (list sep-
arately) that are in sig-
nificant non-compliance
with final effluent limits
and needing construction
schedule/not needing con-
struction schedule (list
separately) as of the
beginning of the fiscal
year (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States).
No; also
Administrator's
Accountability
System
Third
Quarter,
FY 83
data
QNCR
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE RATES FOR MUNICIPALS AND INDUSTRIALS (pg. 29)
ACTIVITIES
1. Identify Municipal
and Industrial Com-
pliance Problem and
Guide Corrective
Actions (cont.)
r\>
10
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
The number of major
municipal and non-
municipal facilities
in significant non-
compliance (as of the
beginning of the fiscal
year) with final effluent
limits and needing con-
struction schedule/not need-
ing construction schedule
(list separately)(NPDES
States, non-NPDES States):
- // returned to compliance;
- # not yet in compliance
but addressed by
enforcement action.
By Dec. 1, 1983, identify
the number of major
municipal and non-municipal
facilities (list separately)
that are not on final effluent
limits but are on a construc-
tion schedule (with interim
limits) to achieve final
limits as of the beginning
of the fiscal year(NPDES Sates,
non-NPDES States (See
Appendix B).
By Dec. 1, 1983, identify
the names and total number
of major municipals and non-
municipals (list separately)
in significant non-compliance
with construction schedules/
interim limits (list separ-
ately; NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Yes—composite Quarterly
of the two cat- tracking of
egories only; each cate-
also Adminis- gory
trator's Account-
ability System
SOURCE OF
DATA
QNCR and
Region/
State
No; also
Administrator's
Accountability
System
Third
Quarter,
FY 83
data
PCS
No; also
Admi ni st rat o r's
Accountability
Syst em
Third
Quarter,
FY 83
data
QNCR and
Region/
State
-------
ENFORCEMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE RATES FOR MUNICIPALS AND INDUSTRIALS (pg. 29)
ACTIVITIES
Identify Municipal
and Industrial Com-
pliance Problems
and Guide Corrective
Actions (cont.)
CO
o
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
The number of major
municipal and non-muni-
cipal in significant
non-compliance (as of
the beginning of the
year) with construction
schedule/interim limits
(list separately)(NPDES
States, non-NPDES States):
- # returned to compliance;
- # not yet in compliance
but addressed by
enforcement action.
# and % of completed
P.L. 92-500 Federally
funded POTWs in signifi-
cant non-compliance with
final effluent limits
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States; majors, minors).
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
Yes—composit e
of the two cat-
egories only;
also Administra-
tor's Account-
ability System
How useful and effec-
tive are diagnostic
on-line POTW evalua-
tions for improving
compliance? Is POTW
size a significant
factor in the effective-
ness of diagnostics?
Explain.
How does the Region
verify the accuracy
of self-monitoring
data?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Quarterly
tracking of
each category
SOURCE OF
DATA
QNCR and
Region/
State
Yes; also
Administrator1 s
Accountability
System
Quarterly
majors;
semi-annually
minors
QNCR for
majors;
minors
reported
by States
and/or
Region
Have composite correction
plans proved to be useful
tools?
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE RATES FOR MUNICIPALS AND INDUSTRIALS (pg. 29)
ACTIVITIES
1. Identify Municipal
and Industrial Com-
pliance Problem
and Guide Corrective
Actions (cont .)
CO
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
By Dec. 1, 1983, identify
by name and total number,
major Federal facilities
in significant non-compli-
ance with final effluent
limits or with construction
schedules at the beginning of
the fiscal year (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
Negotiate with Headquarters
cumulative quarterly targets
for addressing significant
non-compliance (as of the
beginning of the fiscal year)
which may include the following
(NPDES States, non-NPDES States):
- Returned to compliance;
- Placed on an accept-
able construction
schedule or com-
pliance agreement;
- Dispute documented
and forwarded to
Headquarters for
resolution; or
— Granted Presidential
exemption.
Status report on State
strategies to implement
the Municipal Policy
and Strategy.
Were State-specific
strategies developed
on time? Discuss
quality and complete-
ness.
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
No; also
Administrator1 s
Account abilit y
System
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Third
Quarter,
FY 83
data
SOURCE OF
DATA
QNCR and
Region/
States
Yes; also
Administrator' s
Accountability
System
Quarterly
tracking of
"returned to
compliance"
and a cumu-
lative total
of the four
categories
QNCR and
Region/
State
No
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Region
Are States continuing
to develop/update the
strategies?
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE RATES FOR MUNICIPALS AND INDUSTRIALS (pg. 29)
ACTIVITIES
Identify Municipal
and Industrial Com-
pliance Problems
and Guide Corrective
Actions (cont.)
CO
ro
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
What progress has been
made toward establishing
applicable effluent
limits and compliance
schedules for all non-
complying POTW's?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
Identify by 10/30/83,
# of major municipal and
non-municipal facilities
that—as of 6/30/83—re-
quired construction to meet
7/1/77 statutory require-
ments (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States).
Track the # of major
municipal and non—municipal
facilities that completed
construction to meet 7/1/77
statutory requirements (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
Level of compliance of
municipals and non-municipals
with schedules established
by Federal Court Order.
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
No; also
Admini st rat or' s
Accountability
System
No; also
Admini st rat or' s
Account abilit y
System
No
Third
quarter,
FY 83 data
PCS/Region
Semi-annual PCS/Region
Quarterly
Region
Total number of Regional
and State inspections
(major municipals and
non-municipals and minor
P.L. 92-500 muncipals).
Does the Region have
compliance inspection
plans for each State?
Yes; also
Admini st rat or's
Accountability
System
Quarterly
PCS
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE RATES FOR MUNICIPALS AND INDUSTRIALS (pg. 29)
ACTIVITIES
Take Actions as
Required to
Obtain Compliance
with NPDES Permits
CA>
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of administrative
enforcement actions
(AOs and NOVs) issued
(NPDES States, non-
NPDES States):
-Federal (major/minor);
-Municipal (major/minor);
-Non-municipal (major/
minor).
# administrative enforce-
ment actions (AOs/NOVs)
taken to require sub-
mittal of approvable
p r et r eat me nt programs,
as well as # of POTWs
in noncompliance where
enforcement actions
were not taken.
# of 309 referrals
or State equivalent
actions generated by
Region and States.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
What st rat egy/
procedures are used
by Region/States to
coordinate inter-
program activities
and to set priorities
for initiating
enforcement actions?
What action is being
taken against munici-
palities that did not
submit p ret r eat me nt
programs by the July 1,
1983 deadline?
To what extent are
enforcement actions
linked to data gene-
rated from the dis-
charge monitoring
report (DMR) and DMR
quality assurance
program?
What is the link be-
tween water quality
problem areas and
Region/State formal
enforcement actions?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
No
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Quarterly
SOURCE OF
DATA
PCS or
Region
Yes—only
for total
# actions;
also
Administ rator' s
Accountability
System
Fourth
Quarter
Region
No
Quarterly
Region
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE RATES FOR MUNICIPALS AND INDUSTRIALS (pg. 29)
ACTIVITIES
3. Initiate Adminis-
trative Enforcement
Actions as Required
to Obtain Compliance
with non-NPDES
Requirements of CWA
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of §3ll(b)(6)(A)
referrals sent to USCG
for civil penalty
assessment.
# of section 404
(dredge and fill)
Administrative
Orders issued.
»>
OJ
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
Is there a trend of
increased numbers of
hazardous substances
spills being reported
and investigated?
Is the average quan-
tity of spilled
material increasing,
decreasing, or staying
the same?
Are administrative
actions being issued
for noncompliance
with Spill Prevention
Control and Counter-
measure (SPCC) Plan
requirements ?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
No
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Quarterly
SOURCE OF
DATA
Region
No
Quarterly
Region
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE RATES FOR MUNICIPALS AND INDUSTRIALS (pg. 29)
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve Quality
of PCS Data
CO
en
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
Quarterly enter and
verify DMR data com-
pleteness and accuracy
for all major permittees
in both:
- NPDES States; and
- Non-NPDES States.
Quarterly verify Water
Enforcement National
Data Base (WENDB) for
accuracy:
- NPDES States; and
- Non-NPDES States.
Quarterly verify and
enter into PCS the
designator and date
for all completed and
operational major and
minor P.L. 92-500
facilities (POTWs).
Update the PCS majors
list semi-annually.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
What activities is
the Region undertaking
to improve the quality
of PCS?
Discuss procedures
the Region has estab-
lished for routinely
entering discharge
monitoring report
data for all major
permittees.
What procedures have
been established to
routinely enter into
PCS data on completed
and operational
P.L. 92-500 facilities
(POTWs)?
Discuss procedures for
making changes to the
major list.
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
No
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Quarterly
SOURCE OF
DATA
PCS
No
Quarterly
PCS
No
Quarterly
PCS
No
Quarterly
PCS
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE RATES FOR MUNICIPALS AND INDUSTRIALS (pg. 29)
ACTIVITIES
5. Improve Quality
of Monitoring
Data
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
Number of followup
actions of DMR/QA
performance sample
results.
3>
cr»
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
FOR ANNUAL REVIEW
To what extent has the
quality of data or
level of compliance
improved due to
DMR/QA?
What problems still
need to be addressed
to make the program
more effective?
Are resources adequate
and how have they been
used in the program?
What is involved in
State/Region cooperation
and how has it worked
best?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
No
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
Second/Fourth Region
Quarters
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 31)
ACTIVITIES
1. Manage
Program to
Meet Out lay
Projections
2. Manage
^* Program to
« Meet
Obligation
Projections
QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MEASURES ANNUAL REVIEW
% of cum. net If commitment not met , what
outlays to measures are being taken by
commitment .
% of cum. gross If commitment not met, what
obligations to measures are being taken by
commitment .
What are net obligations on
correct ive
Region/ Stat e/COE?
correct ive
Region/ Stat e/COE?
a State-by-state,
source-by-source, quarter-by-quarter basis?
Have the Region and States
managed the program
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT MONITORING
REQUIRED? SCHEDULE
Yes; also Monthly/
Adminis— Quarterly
trator's
Account-
ability
Syst em
Yes; also Quarterly
Admi ni s-
trator's
Account-
ability
Syst em
to minimize unnecessary unliquidated balances?
SOURCE OF
DATA
Plan:
Regional
commitment s
submitted
in early
August 1983
Act ua 1 :
Financial
Management
report
CGM-1 4
pulled
monthly.
Plan:
Regional
commitment s
Actual:
Financial
Management
Report
EPA 92-500
3. Manage
Priority
Syst em
a nd Li st s
Have projects involving significant water
quality/public health problems been identified?
Are priority schedules for these projects being
adhered to?
Are the lists being used as a management tool?
First
Qua rt e r
and
Mid-
Year
Review
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
4. Eliminate
Backlogs
and
Manage
Grant s
Efficiently
CO
CXI
QUANTITATIVE
MEASURES
% of projects
(by dollar) in
pre—const ruct ion
lag.
% of active
Step 1 's and
Step 2's
physically
completed or
terminated
during the
year.
# of full/
ext ended
CME's or
project
management
conferences
(PMC).
# of Step 3,
Step 2+3 &
PL 84-660
physical
complet ions
and
terminations.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Do the Region/States have an effective
strategy for managing projects (all steps)
from grant award to closeouts?
Do the Region/States have an effective time
based monitoring system?
Is there a strategy, with time based goals,
for completing Step 1 & Step 2 projects?
Do the Region/States take aggressive action in
identifying and resolving problems on delayed
projects (all steps)?
Do Regional CME and PMC team members have
necessary expertise?
Have State team members been trained?
Are CME and PMC reports complete?
Is COE level of participation adequate?
Is a project management conference conducted
on all Step 3 and Step 2+3 where it is needed?
Are projects administratively complete in a
timely manner (generally 12 months after
physical completion)?
Are projects closed out in a timely manner
(generally 6 months after audit exceptions
are resolved)?
SOURCE OF
DATA
CGP-0080
Yes
Quarterly
Yes
Quarterly
CGP-2500
GICS
Report s
Regional
Submission
Yes
Quarterly
CGP-2330
CGP-2270
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
4. cont 'd
CO
QUANTITATIVE
MEASURES
# of Step 3,
Step 2+3 &
PL 84-660
administ rative
completions.
# of final
audit s
requested
(all steps).
# of Step 3,
Step 2+3 &
PL 84-660
closeout s.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL REVIEW
FOR
What is the proportion (percentage) of
backlog projects remaining to be completed?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT MONITORING
REQUIRED? SCHEDULE
Yes; also Quarterly
Adminis-
t rat or' s
Account —
ability
Syst em
SOURCE OF
DATA
CGP-2330
CGP-2280
Yes
Quarterly
Yes; also
Adminis-
trator's
Account-
ability
System
Quarterly
GIGS
Report s
CGP-2330
CGP-2310
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
QUANTITATIVE
MEASURES
5.
Manage the
Program to
Ensure
Priority
Legislative
Requirement s
are Effec-
tively
Implemented
•r*
o
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
Is the Region assuring that newly
phased/segmented projects are being
reviewed and approved in accordance
with regulatory requirements?
If I/A and Rural grants funds are not being
utilized, what corrective measures are being
taken by Region/States? Is there use of
Regional/State Ad hoc committee to assure
appropriate and consistent innovative
decisions? What is the status of any pending
or expected 100% modification/replacement
grants? Is information being provided on
field testing and 100% modification grants?
In the Value Engineering (VE) program, can
Region demonstrate that a reasonable portion
of capital & O&M savings are being achieved?
Have the Region and States taken steps to
ensure that grantees have established programs
to perform the one-year certification and to
followup activities on projects funded after
May 12, 1982?
Regarding the land acquisition requirements,
how are the delegated States ensuring compliance
with applicable laws and regulations?
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: COMPLETE DELEGATION TO THE STATES (pg. 33)
ACTIVITIES
1. Complete
Delegation
of the
Construction
Grants
Program to
the States
2. Implement
the Agency
Policy on
Delegation
and Overview
for
Const ruction
Grants
Program
QUANTITATIVE
MEASURES
Percent of
program
workload
delegated to
States and
assigned to
Corps.
Date Region's
overview
policy
implemented.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
Yes; also
Adminis-
t rator's
Account-
ability
Syst em
What are the obstacles to complete State
delegation of the construction grants
program? What is Region's strategy to
overcome obstacles?
Are delegated States effectively monitoring
construction progress on selected projects
through the mechanism of combined Region/State
construction management evaluations (CMEs)?
Is the Region managing delegation of the
Grants Information and Control Systems (GIGS)
to the States in order to ensure accurate and
timely flow of information to Agency management
and the public? Is data quality being maintained?
Have the existing functional agreements been
revised to reflect the new law and regulations?
Has Region's overview policy and strategy Yes
been implemented? Does it explicitly cover
State, Corps, and Region's performance?
Is the policy reflected in the delegation
agreements for all States?
Is the Region overseeing the Corps IAG to
ensure that negotiated resource and output
commitments are met?
Is the Region's policy consistent with the
construction grants delegation and overview
guidance and the regulations?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
Second/
Fourth
Quarter
SOURCE OF
DATA
Delegation
mat rix
submitted
by Region
CGP-0060
Regional
Submission
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: ASSURE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY (pg. 33)
ACTIVITIES
1. Assure that
Projects are
within the
Financial
Capability
of the
Communit y
and Users
and are
Technologi-
cally Appro-
priate
•f
-P>
ro
QUANTITATIVE
MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
How is the Region ensuring compliance
with the financial and management capability
policy and that projects will be operated on
a self-sustaining basis?
How is the Region overviewing delegated States'
financial capability certifications? What
corrective measures are being taken when
problems arise?
How are the delegated States ensuring the
selection of appropriate and cost-effective
technologies in small communities?
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE AT PROJECTS WILL RESULT IN IMPROVED USES (pg. 34)
ACTIVITIES
1. Conduct and
Evaluate AT
Reviews
QUANTITATIVE
MEASURES
# of AT projects
evaluated under
final AT policy
in FY 1984
planned vs actual,
t of
completed AT
reviews on
PWBs in FY84.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
Projection
Only
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
Is State/Region screening process
adequate?
What is the quality of documentation for AT?
In what areas are justifications
insufficient ?
Projection
Only
# of AT projects
where funds were
deferred due to
insufficient
just ificat ion
in FY 1984.
Describe unjustified treatment level as well
as Region's screening process and any actions
taken with regard to insufficiencies.
Has the Region assessed State procedures and
resources to carry out all AT reviews as a
delegated activity? What are the results
of this assessment?
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (pg. 36)
ADVANCE
QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR COMMITMENT MONITORING SOURCE OF
ACTIVITIES MEASURES ANNUAL REVIEW REQUIRED? SCHEDULE DATA
1. Translate Are sludge management projects being
National implemented in a manner consistent with the
Guidance 405 guidance?
into
Mechanisms
for
Oversight
of Grantee
2. Adopt Are States developing programs adopting the
Programs requirements of modified sludge management
to Meet guidelines?*
Requirements
?" of the
!^ Regulations
* After EPA guidance on sludge management is issued.
-------
GREAT LAKES PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT ARE MET. (pg. 37)
ACTIVITIES
1. Work with States
to Consider Great
Lakes Areas of
Concern in
Developing and
Revising Priority
Waterbody Lists
a>
i
*»
in
2. Review Revised
Water Quality
Standards to
Determine
Impact on
Great Lakes
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of Great Lakes
areas of concern
included as priority
water bodies.
// of areas of concern
where uses are
not being met vs.
# where uses were not
met last year.
# of WQS reviews for
reaches within the
Great Lakes Basin
and in the Great
Lakes estuarine
waters.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
To what extent were
areas of concern
considered in the
development and
revision of State
priority waterbody
lists?
What actions did GLNP
and the Region take to
ensure that these areas
were considered and that
priority activities
to abate problems
are underway?
At what stage and to what
extent were Great Lakes
impacts considered in the
revision of WQS? Did the
Region conduct an evalu-
ation of whether the
modified use or criteria
proposed by States would
hinder meeting the IJC
objectives?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
106, 205(j)
work program
report s to
IJC; GLNP
work program
106, 205CJ)
work plan;
reports to
IJC; GLNP
work program
-------
GREAT LAKES PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT ARE MET. (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
3. Assess Municipal/
Industrial Com-
pliance with
Objectives of the
Agreement
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of POTWs in compliance
with 1 mg/1 phosphorus
requirement vs. total
number.
Tons loading from U.S.
POTWs vs. tons loading
from present flows
if @ 1 mg/1.
4. Assist States
in Implementing
Nonpoint Source
Controls
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
Has compliance with the
phosphorus requirement
improved over last
year? If not, what
efforts have the GLNP
and Region made to
increase compliance?
What is hindering
compliance?
Are certain permits targeted
for special review due to
Great Lakes concerns? On
what basis?
What actions are the
States taking to
reduce NPS loading to
the lakes?
What types of assistance have
the GLNP and Region provided?
(include work with other
Federal Agencies)?
Have the States modified their
WOM plans to reflect institutional
and other arrangements for
dealing with nonpoint sources?
How?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
106, 205(j)
work plan;
IJC reports;
GLNP work
program
106,205(j)
work plans;
reports to
IJC; GLNP
work program
-------
GREAT LAKES PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT ARE MET. (cont.)
ACTIVITIES
5. Implement the
Great Lakes
Monitoring
St rat egy
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
What efforts has GLNP
taken to ensure that
the monitoring strategy
is implemented and that
resources address both
trend monitoring to
detect emerging problems
and priority areas?
What are the results of
tributary monitoring,
atmospheric deposition
sampling, and lake surveys
conducted over the last year?
Are reductions in loadings
and other improvements visible?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
Monit oring
work plan;
106/205(j)
work plans;
IJC reports;
GLNP work
program
-------
ACTIVITIES
1. Ocean Dumping
Permitting
-e>
co
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT IS ADEQUATELY
PROTECTED FROM OCEAN DUMPING (pg. 39)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
# of permit applications
processed and permits
issued:
- Industrial permits;
- Municipal permits.
# COE permits reviewed.
# wet tons of municipal
sludge disposed of by
permittee.
# wet tons of industrial
sludge disposed of by
permittee.
# cubic yards of dredge
spoil disposed of
by permittee.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ANNUAL REVIEW
Has there been an
increase in permit
applications?
ADVANCE
COMMITMENT
REQUIRED?
MONITORING
SCHEDULE
SOURCE OF
DATA
Region's
submission to
MPRSA Annual
Report
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
This Appendix contains information that more clearly defines
some of the quantitative measures in Appendix A, and explains how
the Office of Water plans to evaluate Regional performance in these
key areas.
-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
CO
i
1. # and % of systems with persistent violations
of the microbiological and turbidity require-
ments in FY 83 that are now in compliance or
have enforceable compliance schedules.
2. # and % reduction in persistent microbiological
and turbidity community system violators over
FY 83.
3. # of Administrative Orders issued (by State).
1. This information will be compiled nationally by
the Office of Water from the FRDS. The Region is
expected to negotiate compliance targets with
States as outlined on page 12 of this guidance.
State and Regional reporting responsibilities
are defined in WSG #75.
2. This information will be compiled nationally by
the Office of Water from FRDS. State and Regional
reporting responsibilities are defined in WSG #75.
3. The term "administrative order" is now defined for
reporting purposes in FRDS. A revised definition
will be developed in FY 1983.
4. # of other enforcement actions taken (by
State).
4. "Other enforcement actions" exclude Administrative
Orders (see above) and include all other kinds of
enforcement actions such as compliance agreements,
formal litigation, fines, etc.
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1. # of State program approvals*
1. Commitments for FY 84 will be made In the Admin-
istrator's Accountability System.
co
2. # and % of permits issued within allowed time.
3. # and % of major or minor violations resolved or
on compliance schedules.
2. These commitments will be made in the context of the
Administrator's Accountability System. In-
structions for that system define the mechanisms
for selecting appropriate permit issuance times.
3. For purposes of the UIC program, "major" violations
are those involving Class I and Class IV wells.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
CO
i
OJ
1. List priority waterbodies by State.
# of water quality limited segments and %
meeting designated uses (by State).
# of effluent limited segments and % meeting
designated uses (by State).
3. # of water quality limited stream miles and %
meeting designated uses (by State) of effluent
limited stream miles and % meeting designated
uses (by State).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1. Priority waterbodies are defined on page 20 of the
FY 1984 OW Operating Guidance. The Region should
measure progress/change against the list submitted.
2. In providing this information, the definition of
"meeting designated uses" should be that used by
State where explicit. If not explicit, use the
State's water quality criteria including narrative
criteria where necessary. The Office of Water recog-
nizes that many responses to this indicator will be
based on chemical data due to the unavailability or
paucity of biological data. However, conclusions
reached from chemical data should be reviewed by the
Region and the States and should be overridden if
biological data or professional judgement would so
dictate.
3. Stream mile information is preferable to segment
information because stream segment length is not
uniform, and, in some cases, only a certain
portion of a segment may meet the designated use
and not the entire segment.
-------
PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1. # of permits issued to major industrial
facilities during fiscal year (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
2. Region's priority list of industrial
permits to be Issued in non-NPDES
States in FY 84.
.3.
# of permits issued to major municipal
facilities during fiscal year (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
4.
Region's strategy for each State to achieve
full NPDES program administration.
1. Total number of major (using MRAT system) industrial permits
with issuance dates during FY 84. This 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) industrial permits
with expiration dates before Oct. 1, 1984, according to PCS
data on Oct. 15, 1983 (i.e., the number of major industrial
permits that have or will expire by the end of FY84.)
2. The priority list of major industrial permits to be issued in
non-NPDES States in FY 1984 is to be developed under provisions
of the "Policy for the Second Round Issuance of NPDES Permits
for Industrial Sources." Permits on this list are known as
priority permits. If there are no priority permits in a
State, this should be noted.
3. Total number of major municipal permits with issuance dates
during FY 84. This 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 municipal permits with
expiration dates before Oct. 1, 1984, according to PCS data
on Oct. 15, 1983 (i.e., the number of major municipal permits
that have or will expire by the end of FY84.)
4. This measure applies to any State that does not have full
approval to administer the NPDES program. It applies to
approved NPDES States that lack either pretreatment or
Federal facility authority, or both. A strategy to achieve
full NPDES program administration is a document prepared by
the Region in consultation with the State, which 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.
-------
PERMITS: (301(h))
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
1. # of initial
decisions.
2. # of permits
issued.
3. # of completed
applications.
4. # of intents to
revise.
CD
en
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1. A decision that includes a tentative decision and has been signed by the
Regional Administrator.
2. A final permit that has been signed by the Regional Administrator.
3. Application that contains all the necessary information to substantiate an initial decision.
Information requests have been answered satisfactorily. Plans of study, if necessary, have
been defined, accepted and completely implemented and information has been submitted that
will substantiate an initial decision.
4. Notice by the applicant after the issuance of the initial decision that the applicant intends
to revise the original application (which may involve submission of additional information
and/or change in physical parameters) within the required time limit. The final decision
will not be issued until receipt and review of the revised application.
Performance Expectations:
For all the above, Regional performance is expected to be within 15% of commitment
(or a negotiated percentage, if appropriate).
-------
ENFORCEMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
1. Significant non-compliance (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States) with final
effluent limits or construction
schedules
CO
i
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1. In regard to all major facilities in significant
non-compliance at the beginning of the fiscal year
(third quarter, FY83 data), Region/NPDES States are
expected to ensure that 100% of these facilities
have returned to compliance or have been addressed
by an enforcement action during the fiscal year.
A facility is considered to be on final effluent
limits when permit limitations do not include a
construction schedule to achieve secondary
treatment, BPT, BAT, or more stringent limitations.
A facility is considered to be in significant
non-compliance with final effluent limits
when it has exceeded the draft criteria for
significant non-compliance and has not corrected
the problem by the end of the reporting period.
A facility is considered to be on a construction
schedule 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. As defined
in the draft criteria for significant non-compliance,
a facility is considered to be in compliance
with its construction schedule so long as
satisfactory progress toward final compliance
is being made, in that the permittee has not
significantly contributed to the delay and
any delay is caused by circumstances totally
outside the control of the permittee (such as
that caused by AT review or an environmental
impact statement). A facility on a "short-term"
schedule for corrections such as composite correc-
tion plans, where compliance can be achieved
through improved operation and maintenance
(rather than construction), is not considered to
be in the "construction schedule" universe.
Enforcement actions include any statutory
remedy such as a Federal Administrative
Order or State equivalent action, a Notice
of Violation, a judicial referral, or a
approved consent decree.
-------
ENFORCEMENT (cont.)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
2. # and % completed major/minor
P.L. 92-500 Federally funded
POTWs in significant non-compliance
(NPDES States, non-NPDES States).
3. Level of compliance with schedules
established by Federal Court Order.
4. Status report on State-by-State
strategies for municipal compliance
under the National Municipal Policy.
DO
I
Quarterly verify Water Enforcement
National Data Base (WENDB) for
accuracy:
- NPDES States; and
- Non-NPDES States.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2. Region's commitments apply to completed
and operational P.L. 92-500 POTWs.
3. Region commits to a goal of 100% compliance.
4. As required under the National Municipal
Policy, States will develop, with Region's
cooperation, strategies that:
0 Identify and categorize POTWs in non-
compliance in conformance with national
priorities; and
0 Describe States' and Region's actions
to meet the statutory deadline.
The Region's status report should cover:
0 A summary of major issues;
0 A status of State strategies;
0 A summary of actions taken to require
completion/submittal/implementation
of strategies; and
0 Integration of State strategies with
§106 work programs.
5. WENDB elements are defined in the Enforcement
Management System (EMS) Guide. Added to
WENDB elements are the following: 1) permit
issuance tracking data (those four elements
required Nationally); 2) inspection data
(majors and minors, Federal and State inspec-
tions); and 3) permit effluent limits and
discharge data for all major permittees.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
1. % of cum. net monthly
outlays (plan vs.
actual).
2. % of cum. gross
quarterly obligations
(plan vs. actual).
3. % of Step 3 & Step 2&3
projects (by dollar)
in preconstruction lag.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
CO
i
CO
1. The net sum of payments made and payments recovered from PL 84-660 projects, PL 92-500
section 206(a) reimbursable projects, PL 92-500 contract authority projects, as well as
projects funded with Talmadge/Nunn, FY 1977 supplemental, FY 1978 through FY 1984 budget
authority, section 205(j) funds, and section 205(g) delegation funds. Region is expected
to achieve performance within +5% of its commitments on a monthly basis.
2. Dollar amount of new awards and increases from projects funded with PL 92—500
contract authority, 1977 supplemental, FY 1978 through 1984 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 4^15% of its commitments on a quarterly basis.
3. Preconst ruction lag is defined as the grant amounts of all Step 3 projects that have
not initiated construction within 6 months of grant award plus the grant amounts of all
Step 2+3 projects that have not initiated construction within 6 months of approval of plans
and specifications. The initiation of construction is defined as the date of issuance to
the initial contractor of a notice to proceed under a contract or, if a notice to proceed is
not required, the date of execution of the initial construction contract.
GICS select logic for construction start is: M0 = 'Atf1 or 'Ftf' or 'Btf'.
Pe r f ormanee Exp e ct at i o n;
The percentage of Step 3 and Step 2+3 projects (by dollar) in preconst ruction lag not to
exceed 10% of the FY 1984 allotment.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
4. % of active Step 1's
and Step 2's physically
completed or terminated
during the year.
CP
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
4. A Step 1 project is considered physically complete when judged to be physically complete
by the appropriate reviewing office. GIGS select logic for Step 1 completion is:
N5 =
NOTE:
or
or
or 'AF'
A comprehensive definition for Step 1 physical completion will be included
in the FY 1984 revisions to GIGS, which are expected to be issued during FY 1984.
A Step 2 project is considered physically complete when the plans and specifications
are either approved or judged approvable by the appropriate office. GIGS select logic
for Step 2 completion is: N5 = 'Atf ' or 'Ftf1 or 'Stf'.
An active Step 1 or Step 2 is any project not completed, i.e., GIGS select logic:
N5
or 'Ft!' or
(or 'AF1 Step 1 only).
A project is considered terminated when the grantee signs the termination
agreement, or if EPA unilaterally terminates a grant, when the time period
for appealing the termination expires, or if the grantee appeals the
termination, when the appeal is resolved.
Performance Expectation:
The goal of the construction grants program is to complete all Step 1 and Step 2
projects by the end of FY 1985.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
5. # of full, extended
CMEs or Project
Management
Conferences (PMC).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
CD
o
The objective of CMEs and PMCs is to improve local construction grant management and
reduce waste, fraud and mismanagement of Federal funds. The Regions and States were
instructed in the conduct of conventional CMEs during a series of training seminars held
early in FY 1983; these seminars were supplemented by on-site guidance provided by HQs
during CMEs conducted in FY 1983.
A full or extended CME is an on-site evaluation of project management conducted by a
team. Standard team membership is: EPA(RO), State, and COE. A conventional or full
CME is expected to be of four or five days duration; an extended CME is reserved for
larger, more complex projects requiring a five to ten day review period.
Regional Offices will take the lead in the actual conduct of full/extended CMEs and
submit a report on each CME to HQs.
A project management conference (two to three days duration) should be conducted before
the start of construction on virtually all Step 3 and Step 2+3 projects. This type
of conference is to provide guidance to grantees on record-keeping requirements,
construction management techniques and overall grant project management procedures.
The conduct of PMCs is an appropriate function for the COE. The
PMC should be held immediately after the preconstruction conference and
concentrate on the detailed requirements of construction grant project management.
Performance Expectation:
For the full/extended CMEs, the national target for FY 1984 is 100, with the
objective of one to three per State.
Since a PMC is needed on virtually all new construction projects,
the target is the number of construction starts expected during FY 1984.
the COE has been phased out of a State, the State should perform PMCs.
Otherwise, the Regions should perform or commission to the COE.
Where
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
6. # of Step 3, 6. A project is considered physically complete when an official inspection (EPA/State/Corps)
Step 2+3 & PL 84-660 determines that:
physical completions
& terminations. ° All but minor components of the project have been completed (e.g., if all but
landscaping was done the project may be labeled as physically complete) in
accordance with the approved plans, specifications and change orders;
0 The facility is capable of functioning as designed;
0 All equipment is operational and performing satisfactorily (does not apply to
interceptors/collection systems); and
0 Laboratory facilities are complete and available to conduct appropriate tests (does not
apply to interceptors/collection systems and pumping stations).
All administrative requirements need not be satisfied for a project to be physically
complete. GIGS select logic for physical completion is: N5 = ?A#' or 'Ftf or 'Btf'.
pg A backlog project is defined as any Step 3, Step 2+3, or PL 84-660 project awaiting
j_, physical completion (greater than or equal to 90% complete) or awaiting administrative
completion at the beginning of the previous fiscal year. Accordingly, for FY 1984,
a backlog project is any Step 3, Step 2+3, or PL 84-660 project near completion,
or awaiting administrative completion, as of October 1, 1982.
Performance Expectations:
As a minimum target, all projects more than 90% complete at the beginning of the
fiscal year should be planned for physical completion by the end of the fiscal year.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
7. # of Step 3, Step 2+3
and PL 84-660
administ ratlve
completions.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
CD
I
7. An administrative completion is any one of the following:
A final audit request: N8 =
or 'Ftff or
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 = 'NS'.
Final audit is requested when the following conditions have been satisfied:
0 Construction is complete as defined in data element N5, Project Completion
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, project performance certification has been received;
0 The "cut-off" letter has been issued to the grantee; and
0 The final payment has been requested.
A backlog project is defined as any Step 3, Step 2+3, or PL 84-660 project
awaiting physical completion (greater than or equal to 90% complete) or awaiting
administrative completion at the beginning of the previous fiscal year.
Accordingly, for FY 1984, a backlog project is any Step 3, Step 2+3, or PL 84-660
project near completion or awaiting physical completion, as of October 1, 1982.
Performance Expectations:
All projects are expected to be administratively completed within 6-12 months of
physical completion.
The status (start-up services being performed, pretreatment program underway, final
payment request being reviewed, etc.) or reason for delay (litigation, arbitration,
non-compliance with NPDES requirements, construction not complete, problems with
civil rights or Federal labor requirements, etc.) of each project not administratively
completed within 12 months of physical completion must be reported to Headquarters
twice a year (prior to the mid-year review and at the end of the fiscal year).
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
7. cont .
8. # of final audits
requested.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
oo
to
As a minimum target, all projects awaiting administrative completion at the beginning
of the fiscal year should be planned for administrative completion by the end of the
fiscal year.
8. Final audit requests are included under Step 3 & Step 2+3 administrative completions.
There are two conditions that cause the numbers of Step 2 and Step 2+3 administrative
completions to differ from the number of audits requested: projects with less than
in claimed cost that are not subject to audt ; and phased or segmented projects
250,000 that are not referred to audit until the last phase or segment is completed.
In addition, the number of Step I and Step 2 audit requests must be added to the number
of Step 3, Step 2+3 and PL 84-660 audit requests to determine the total number of
final audit requests.
Normally a single audit request following the completion of a Step 3 grant includes one
Step 1, Step 2, and a Step 3 grant; however, there are a number of situations where an
audit request may only include one or two grants, e.g., a PL 84-660 grant or where a
Step 1 or Step 2 grant is to be the last awarded for a facility.
At this point in time, it is not known whether DIG will restrict its review of Step 1
and Step 2 grants to only those grants with more than $250,000 in claimed cost.
Accordingly, for the purpose of submitting commitments on the number of final audit
requests, it should be assumed that all Step 1 and Step 2 grants, where no Step 3
grant is anticipated, will require a final audit. However, OIG has requested that it
be provided with an estimate of the number of Step 1 and 2 final audit requests separate
as to those with more than $250,000 in claimed cost and those with less than $250,000
in claimed cost. Accordingly, the Regional Office will be requested to submit these
estimates along with its commitments.
Each Step 3, and Step 2+3 and PL 84-660 project (along with the accompanying Step 1
and/or Step 2 project) should be packaged and forwarded to OIG as a separate audit
request, i.e., a segmented project which involves five separate Step 3 grants should
consist of five separate audit requests. Depending on the agreement between the
Regional Offices and their servicing Divisional OIG Offices, the requests should
be forwarded seaprately, or forwarded as a package after the completion of the
last Step 3 grant.
The number of (Step 3, Step 2+3, and PL 84-660 audit requests) is determined by
subtracting the number of projects (not sent to OIG) plus the number of projects
(awaiting completion of another segment or phase) from the number of Administrative
Completions.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
8. cont.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
9. # of Step 3, Step 2+3
ro and PL 84-660
J_, closeouts.
The total number of audit requests is the number of Step 3, Step 2+3, and PL 84-660
audit requests plus the number of Step 1 and/or Step 2 audit requests.
Note: There should be one audit request for each Step 3, or Step 2+3 grant where the
claimed cost exceeds $250,000. All Step 1 or Step 2 grants should be included with a
Step 3 or Step 2+3 audit request with the following two exceptions:
- A Step 2 grant is the last grant awarded, in which case one final audit is
requested, regardless of the claimed cost, for the Step 2 grant and accompanying
Step 1, if applicable.
- A Step 1 grant is the last awarded, in which case one final audit is requested
regardless of the claimed cost.
The quarterly cumulative numbers for total audit requests represent Regional
commitments. Furthermore, these commitments will be forwarded to the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) for its use.
9. Closeout occurs after:
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 The grant has been withdrawn, terminated or annulled.
Performance Expectations:
Project closeout is expected to occur within 3-6 months after final audit resolution.
However, the time-based measure will not apply if:
0 An action is pending before the Audit Resolution Board;
0 The grantee appeals a final decision to the Administrator in accordance with
40 CFR 30.1100; or
0 The action official has referred the project to the servicing finance office to
establish an accounts receivable based on the audit findings.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
9. cent.
10. Percent of program
workload delegated.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
11. Date Region's
overview policy
Implemented.
CO
i
12. # of AT projects
evaluated under final
AT policy in FY 1984,
planned vs. actual.
13. # of completed AT
reviews on PWBs
in FY 1984.
As a minimum target, all projects awaiting closeout or awaiting audit resolution at the
beginning of the fiscal year or any project planned for 'screen out' by OIG during the
fiscal year should be planned for closeout by the end of the fiscal year.
10. This measure is based on the number of activities delegated to the State
and Corps against the potential delegation under a fully delegated
situation, weighted by how long it takes to do each activity (i.e., the price
factor). Source is the delegation matrix and the computation is contained
in a report 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 total delegation or a shift between the Corps and State's
share occurs, it should be anticipated in advance and accommodated in Region's
resource usage.
11. This date will signify when the Region has a written policy in place for
overview of the const rut ion grants program. The policy is in place when
all delegated States have taken steps to amend their delegation agreement
(as necessary) and program planning is developed under the principles and
procedures as set forth in the policy. Regions are expected to have the
overview policy reflected in each State's delegation agreement for FY 1984.
12. Region and delegated States are expected to develop and use a screening process to
review AT projects, as provided in the final AT Policy. At the mid-year review, the
Region should present the number of projects reviewed and an analysis of the
effectiveness of the screening process used.
13. Region and delegated States are expected to focus AT reviews on PWBs where needed. An
AT review is considered complete when the summary documentation called for in the final
AT Policy is submitted to Headquarters. Progress against projections will be monitored
at the time of Office of Water mid-year evaluation visits and at the end of the fiscal
year. The summary documentation will indicate the AT projects on PWBs identified by
the State.
14. # of AT projects
where funds were
deferred due to
insufficient
justification
in FY 1984.
14. Region and delegated States are expected to identify AT projects with insufficient
justification and determine what if any changes in Region's or States' programs are
needed to improve the justification at future submissions. At the mid-year review,
the Region should present the number of projects with insufficient justification, by
type of insufficiencies, and describe any actions the Region has taken.
-------
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT
CO
I
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
1. # industrial permit applications
processed and issued.
2. # municipal permit applications
processed and issued.
3. // COE permits reviewed.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1. This information will be used to determine the
impact of the revised ocean dumping regulations.
2. As above.
3. This information will provide the Office of Water with
with an improved idea of Regional workloads.
-------
United States Postage and Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency
Agency FPA-335
Washington DC 20460
Official Business Special
Penalty for Private Use $300 Fourth-Class
Rate
Book
-------