United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
October 1984
Water
A Guide to the	Final
Office of Water
Accountability System
and Mid-Year Evaluations
Fiscal Year 1985

-------
October 1984
A
GUIDE TO THE
OFFICE OF WATER
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
AND
MID-YEAR EVALUATIONS
Fiscal Year 1985
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION	1
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM	2
A.	Appendix A: The Measures	2
B.	Appendix B: The Definitions	4
III. TOE OFFICE OF WATER EVALUATION SYSTEM	5
A.	Prenegotiated Commitments and Quarterly
Reporting	5
B.	Mid-year Evaluations	6
1.	Advance Preparation	6
2.	On-site Evaluations	7
3.	Evaluation Follow-up	9
C.	Other Office of Water Information Collection
Activities	9
D.	Timeline for Activities Related to the FY 1985
Agency Operating Guidance	11
APPENDIX A	12
APPENDIX B
75

-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In FY 1985, the Office of Water will continue to conduct formal,
coordinated evaluations of Regional water programs. The purpose of these
reviews is to evaluate Regional performance in achieving National program
objectives for the year, and to help ensure National consistency in imple-
mentation of Federal laws and regulations.
This guide contains the accountability measures that the Office of
Water will use to monitor Regional performance, and describes the process
that the Office of Water will use to evaluate Regional water programs in
FY 1985. The guide should be used in conjunction with the Agency's
FY 1985 Operating Guidance, which sets forth the National objectives for
water programs.
This final version of the guide contains measures for the new Office
of Ground Water Protection established in the Spring of 1984. Also, all
measures related to the activities of the new Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection have been consolidated in one place in the guide. These include
measures on the 301(h) program, ocean dumping permit program, Great Lakes
and Chesapeake Bay programs. New measures have been added to reflect the
Agency's 1985 Appropriation Bill which gave the Office of Water added
responsibilities for estuarine protection.
Page 1

-------
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Hie Office of Water Accountability System consists of a set of qualita-
tive and quantitative measures that provide the basis for evaluating Regional
Office performance against National program objectives. The measures in
the system are linked to the Office of Water's FY 1985 national program
directions, which are contained in the Agency's Operating Guidance. Most
of the quantitative measures are the same measures that appear in the
Agency's Strategic Planning arid Management System (SPMS), and are reproduced
in this document to provide Headquarters and Regional program managers
with a complete guide to the Office of Water mid-year evaluations.
The structure of the FY 1985 Office of Water Accountability System
remains essentially the same as the FY 1984 system. The following is a
brief description of the accountability system, which is presented fully
in Appendix A and B.
A. Appendix A: The Measures
Appendix A contains the Office of Water Accountability System, which
is structured as a series of charts that contain the following categories
of information:
National Program Objectives; These are the Office of Water's major policy
objectives for FY 1985. The objectives are action items that are organized
primarily by the Acts that authorize water programs: the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SEWA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).
Activity Areas: These are the high priority activities that Regions and
States should undertake in order to carry out National program objectives.
The Office of Water does not expect the Regions to address every area.
Rather, each Region should identify its key program areas, and should
focus on those activities that are relevant to its particular circumstances.
At the time of the mid-year evaluations, however, the Region will be asked
to identify activity area(s) that are not considered to be priorities and
to explain how the Region arrived at its decision.
Page 2

-------
Section II	Office of Water Accountability System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
Reporting Measures; The reporting measures are designed to generate the
key data and information that the Office of Water needs to evaluate Regional
progress towards achieving National program objectives. There are two
kinds of reporting measures:
° Qualitative measures are the specific questions that Regions are
expected to address during the Office of Water mid-year evaluations.
The measures relate primarily to program accomplishments and effec-
tiveness, and generally do not involve prenegotiated commitments.
° Quantitative measures provide the kinds of information that the
Office of Water needs for program management and reporting purposes
and for responding to Congressional inquiries. These measures are
related primarily to permitting and compliance activities in the
NPDES, PWSS and UIC programs, and to the construction grants program;
many involve prenegotiated commitments with the Regions (see section
below). Most of the quantitative measures in Appendix A are the
same measures that appear in the Strategic Planning and Management
System (SPMS).
Advance SPMS/OW Commitments: This column identifies the specific measures
that involve prenegotiated commitments between the Office of Water and the
Regions, and designates those measures that also appear in the FY 1985
Strategic Planning and Management System. Most of the measures in this
column are quantitative in nature; the principal exception is the qualita-
tive measures related to developing Regional or State strategies by specific
deadlines.
Reporting Frequency; This column conveys the planned reporting schedule
for specific prenegotiated carmitments.
Source of Data: This final column explains hew the Region will provide
information to the Office of Water, including data management systems such
as the Grants Information Control System (GICS), the Permits Compliance
System (PCS), and the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
Page 3

-------
Section II	Office of Water Accountability System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
The measures in the accountability system will provide the Office of
Water with much of the information necessary to monitor Regional performance
in water programs. The accountability system is not intended to provide
all the information that the Office of Water needs during the year (see
Section III), nor to limit the kinds of information that Regions may need
for overview of State water programs. As part of its overview function,
the Region is expected to gather the basic information to prepare its
midyear self-evaiuation and to participate effectively in the Office of
Water mid-year evaluations. Regions may, hcwever, seek additional information
fran States through program audits or other activities, and may choose to
evaluate State management of water program activities that are not covered
in the Office of Water guidance or accountability system.
B. Appendix B: The Definitions
Appendix B contains detailed, technical information that more clearly
defines seme of the quantitative measures contained in Appendix A. These
definitions explain the precise manner in which the Region is expected to
report the required information to the Office of Water. For some measures,
it also establishes a specific level of performance that each Region is
expected to achieve during the quarter/fiscal year, and explains how the
Office of Water plans to evaluate performance in these areas.
Page 4

-------
III. THE OFFICE OF WATER EVALUATION SYSTEM
The Office of Water Accountability System contains both quantitative
and qualitative measures. While the Office of Water plans to use both types
of measures to monitor Regional performance during the year, Regions will be
asked to provide the information in two different ways: quarterly reports
to the Office of Water and SPMS (quantitative measures) and midyear reviews
(qualitative measures and whatever quantitative data are available at the
time of the review). The following is a brief description of the ways in
which the Office of Water plans to collect information and to evaluate Regional
performance.
A. Prenegotiated Ccnniitments and Quarterly Reporting
Many quantitative measures in the accountability system require pre-
negotiated canmitments. In late July of 1984, the Office of Water Program
Offices started negotiating with the Regions to set specific target levels
of activity for the quantitative measures in the accountability system,
which are consistent with FY 85 budget numbers and are related primarily
to the construction grants program and to permits and compliance activities
in the NPDES, PWSS, and UIC programs. The Regions and the Office of Water
used the following process to reach agreement on all prenegotiated ccnniitments:
° Program Offices will negotiate targets based on the quantitative
measures in the FY 1985 accountability system; the Assistant Admin-
istrator must personally approve any requests for prenegotiated
canmitments that deviate frcm the measures in the final FY 1985
system.
0 Program Office Directors will initiate the original data requests,
which will be addressed to the Regional Water Management Division
Directors.
0 Program Office data requests will identify significant program
assumptions, reporting frequency, and reporting mode; each data
request should cross-reference the pertinent measure in the FY 1985
Office of Water Accountability System.
Page 5

-------
Section III	The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
0 Program Offices will negotiate ccmmitments based on workload and
output projections. Negotiations will start from zero base, with
Regions developing the initial target; the Program Offices will
analyze the Region's output estimates to assure that they are
consistent with performance expectations, and will accept the
Region's estimates unless there is practical evidence or other
valid reasons to suggest that an alternative output estimate is
more appropriate.
0 Once staff level negotiations are complete, the Assistant
Administrator will combine all ccmmitments into a single memorandum
to the Regional Administrator; the Regional Administrator should
approve the final negotiated targets.
To the extent possible, the Office of Water will attempt to reach final
agreement on all prenegotiated ccmmitments by the beginning of FY 1985 so
that Regions may commence quarterly reporting in a timely fashion. As you
are probably aware, the targets for the Administrator's Strategic Planning
and Management System measures must be finalized before October 1. The
Program Offices will provide the Regions with schedules and formats for
reporting. Regions will report to the Program Offices in the Office of
Water, and the Office of Water will provide the necessary information for
SPMS to the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation.
B. Mid-year Evaluations
The Office of Water plans to conduct one formal, coordinated midyear
evaluation in each Region in FY 1985. The evaluation will be based on the
quantitative and qualitative measures in the FY 1985 accountability system,
and the discussions in each Region will focus on its particular problems
and issues. The Office of Water plans to use its established evaluation
process in FY 1985. The following is a description of that process.
1. Advance Preparation
Early in FY 1985, the Office of Water will begin to schedule the
onsite evaluations, which will occur during the months of May, June, and
July. Each Region is encouraged to adjust its mid-year evaluations of
State water programs so that these reviews are completed prior to the
Office of Water evaluation.
Page 6

-------
Section III	The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
About four weeks prior to the scheduled evaluation, each Region is
strongly encouraged to provide a summary of Regional and State progress to
date in major National program areas. These should be succinct selfevaluations
in which the Region identifies its key problems and issues, as well as its
success(es) to date in meeting National program objectives, based on the
measures in the 1985 Office of Water Accountability System. The Region is
also encouraged to look back at its FY 1984 end-of-year status, and to
provide an analysis of its progress since that time. The Office of Water
will use these surmiaries as discussion documents during the on-site visits.
Each Region should also submit a proposed agenda for the Technical
Review Session (see below). This proposed agenda should be based upon the
Region's review of its State programs and its self-evaluation, and it
should highlight areas of special concern to the Region; areas of concern
may include technical issues, as well as interpretation of national policy
directions. Proposed agendas should include a block of time to discuss
the issues that are ccmmon across water program areas, as well as unique
projects that have involved significant Regional effort during the year.
Each Region will be provided with a final agenda at least two weeks in
advance of the on-site evaluation.
The Office of Water Program Offices will review each Region's evaluation
and its proposed agenda, and will identify any additional issues that may
be of concern. The Office of Water will then work closely with each Region
to modify the agenda based on its review of the Region's self-evaluation,
as well as other data collected through routine activities, such as quarterly
reporting.
2. On-site Evaluations
The on-site evaluations will consist of a Technical Review Session
followed by a Senior Management Session. The duration of the Technical
Review Session will be based on the nature and extent of the problems that
are identified, and will vary from two to three days in each Region.
The Technical Review team will be led by a Division Director, and
will consist of approximately two persons representing each of the following
program areas: regulations and standards, permits and enforcement, construc-
tion grants, drinking water, ground water, and marine and estuarine programs.
The Office of Water will also encourage a senior level manager frcm another
Region to participate in a review of his or her choosing.
Page 7

-------
Section III	The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
The Technical Review Sessions will be conducted as separate breakout
sessions in specific program areas. Sane time will also be set aside for
full group discussion of issues that cross program areas; this discussion
should occur after the breakout sessions so that all participants are
informed of the issues. At the conclusion of the Technical Review Session,
the Office of Water review team will collaborate with the Region's staff
to identify the general issues and findings that both parties agree should
be discussed at the follcw-up Senior Management Session. The Region will
have an opportunity to review this report and to provide further information
prior to the follow-up Senior Management Session.
The one-day Senior Management Session will occur approximately one
week after the initial Technical Review Session. The specific purpose of
this meeting is to reach a mutual understanding regarding hew the Region
plans to deal with key findings and unresolved concerns that emerged during
the Technical Review Session.
The group will be led by the Assistant Administrator (AA) or Designee;
team members will include the Technical Review Team leader and Office
Directors. Regional participants should include the Regional Administrator
(RA) and/or the Deputy Regional Administrator (DRA), as well as the Water
Division Director (WDD), and, if appropriate, the Environmental Services
Division Director.
The evaluation report that was prepared at the conclusion of the
Technical Review Session will serve as the basis for the Senior Management
discussion. Prior to the session with the RA or DRA, the Senior Management
Team and the WDD will meet to discuss the key issues raised in the report,
and, if appropriate, will reach agreement on hew the Region plans to deal
with these issues. These agreements and any remaining, unresolved issues
will be discussed with the RA or DRA in an effort to arrive at decisions
regarding how they will be handled.
Page 8

-------
Section III
The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
3. Evaluation Follow-ufr
Following the Senior Management Session, the Office of Water will
prepare a memo that summarizes the key issues that were discussed and
outlines any commitments that were made at the Senior Management Session.
These memos will not be comprehensive summaries of all the issues discussed,
but will focus on critical issues, the agreements that were reached, and
other actions (if any) that may be required to resolve any outstanding
issues. The Regions are encouraged to respond to these memos and to apprise
the Assistant Administrator of actions that resulted fran the evaluation
findings.
The Office of Water will analyze the findings from the ten Regional
evaluations, and will identify trends or major areas of concern for water
programs. This overall assessment of water programs will be provided to
the Administrator and Deputy Administrator for their information and use.
C. Other Office of Water Information Collection Activities
While the accountability system and the mid-year evaluations will
provide the Office of Water with much of the critical information necessary
to overview Regional water programs, these reviews are not intended to
provide all the data that Program Offices need to monitor ongoing activities
in the Regions and States and to respond to special requests fran the
Congress, the Administrator or the Assistant Administrator. Consequently,
there will be a need for Program Offices to collect data and information
from the Regions outside the formal accountability systesm. The Office of
Water rmains committed to keeping these information requests to a minimum,
and to coordinating activities between the Program Offices to the extent
possible.
The following are the main, ongoing information collection activities
that the Office of Water anticipates during FY 1985:
° Budget; The Office of Water will ask the Regions to provide the
information necessary to prepare the annual budget request.
Regions will also participate in the workload analysis that
serves as the basis for distributing resources among the
Regions. Regions may also periodically be asked to provide
incident 1 information related to the budget process.
Page 9

-------
Section ill	The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
0 Quarterly Reporting; Regions will submit quarterly, semi-annual or
annual reports to the Office of Water to monitor prenegotiated commit-
ments where such data cannot be tracked through national data retrieval
systems (see above). The Office of Water will supply the appropriate
information for the Strategic Planning and Management System to the
Office of Management Systems and Evaluation.
0 Data Retrieval; The Office of Water will retrieve quantitative
data from existing management information systems, such as the Permits
Compliance System (PCS), the Grants Information Control System (GICS),
and the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
° Annual Work Programs/Strategies: The Office of Water will review
Regional documents that are submitted on a routine basis, such as
the section 106/205(j) work programs, the State section 305(b) reports,
and the annual plans and evaluation results from section 205(g)
delegation agreements. The Office of Water will also review the
Regional and State strategies called for in the FY 1985 accountability
system.
® Program Audits: The Office of Water will continue to conduct selected
program audits and case studies on an as needed basis to track critical
activities. Examples include staff level audits of the construction
grants and permits and compliance programs, which typically will
occur prior to the Office of Water mid-year evaluations. The Program
Offices will plan and negotiate these essential activities with the
Regions, and will conduct these activities jointly to the extent
possible.
° Self-evaluation Reports; Regions will submit mid-year selfevaluations
that surmiarize their progress to-date as it relates to the Office of
Water's national program objectives (see preceding section for details).
The information produced by these activities will be used for ongoing
program management purposes, and will also be used to help identify issues
and concerns that need to be discussed during the mid-year evaluations.
Page 10

-------
TIMELINE FOR ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO THE FY 1985 OFFICE OF WATER
OPERATING GUIDANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
Regions Negotiate
State Workplans Based
on FY 1985 Guidance/
Accountability
Regions Conduct
Reviews of
State Programs
I"
"I
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
±_J	I
J	I
I
J	L
J	L
FY 1984
FY 1985
FY 1986
Agency Publishes FY 1985
Gu idance/Accountabi1ity;
CW Publishes Account-
ability System and
Evaluation Guide
	1	
CW/Regions
Negotiate FY 1985
Ccmtiitments for
SPMS/CWAS
(Reports submitted
in * months)
I
CW Conducts
Mid-year Evaluations of
Regional Water Programs
OFFICE OF WATER ACTIVITIES

-------
APPENDIX A

-------
GROUND-WATER". *«OTBCTION
OBJECTIVE: Implement the Ground-Water Protection Strategy (p.7)
ACTIVITIES
1. Implement
Sec.106 Grant
program for
ground-water
in accordance
with guidelines
and FY 1985
budget alloca-
tions and
monitor State
progress,
conduct mid-
'year reviews,
'assist States
with program
management
problems,
identify
innovative
and exemplary
State ground-
water programs
and projects
for distribu-
tion to other
States.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
a.	To what extent have
the guidelines been
reflected in adminis-
tration of the program?
b.	What is the Region's
process and schedule
for awarding grants
to the States?
c.	How are the ground-
water grants coordina-
ted with W.Q., UIC,
Waste Management, FIFRA
and TSCA grant process?
d.	To what extent have
the States developed
consolidated ground-
water program plans?
e.	How well does the
Region track grants
awarded to the States?
f.	Do the States have an
effective strategy for
managing awarded grants?
g.	Can specific benefits be
attributed to EPA funded
State programs?
h.	What problems have been
experienced by the States
in establishing ground-
water management programs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
a.	Have grants been
allocated to States
and territories by
January 31, 1985 except
for those where there
are State legislative
barriers. (Assumes funds
available by Nov. 1, 1984)
b.	Have consolidated work
plans been submitted by
each State?
c.	Number of State brief-
ings, workshops, mid-year
assessments, follow-up
mid-year review, meetings
conducted with States.
d.	Number of exemplary
programs identified.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
January 31,
June 30,*
September 30*
*Exclude grants
e.g., Quantita-
tive Measures,
a. and b.
reporting if all
States in Regions
have been awarded
grants.
SOURCE
OF DATA
Sec. 106
guidelines,
work program,
regional
visits,
regional
records.

-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: Implement the Ground-Water Protection Strategy (p.7)

QUALITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL SPMS/
REPORTING
SOURCE
ACTIVITIES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES OW COMMITMENT?
FREQUENCY
OF DATA
2. Implement the
a. Is the Region
a. Number of functions
January 31,
Proposed
organization
carrying out its
performed.
June 30,*
regional work
and staffing
programs pursuant to
b. Number of positions
September 30*
plan, approved
proposal by
the reorganization as
filled.

organization
Dec. 1 in
approved by Headquarters?
c. Is the canxiittee
*Exclude
plan, minutes
accordance with
b. Has the coordinating
established?
grants
of committee
approved plan,
ccrmittee anchor the
. Does it have a
reporting
meeting and
including
Regional office of Ground
written charter?
if all
documents
establish coordin-
Water been engaged in
. The number of times
States in
establishing
ating committee
specific substantive
it meets.
Regions
the comittee.
consisting of:
reviews of those Regional

have been

Division Director
programs impacting ground

awarded

level partici-
water?

grants.

pants who will
b. How has the coordinating



engage in specific
ccrrmittee directed or



substantive review
redirected resources to



affecting all
improve the Region's



regional programs
ground-water program?



impacting on




ground water.

-------
GROUND-WAxcR PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: Inplement the Ground-Water Protection Strategy (p.7)
ACTIVITIES
3. Develop
regional work plan
or comparable
management
mechanism.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEW	
a.	The degree to which
the plans reflect actions
affecting ground water.
b.	The degree to which the
plans provide a doable
managerial tool to
effectively track progress
and provide accountability
toward completing projected
outputs.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEW	
a.	The number of programs
participating.
b.	The number of items
reflected in the work plan.
ANNUAL SPMS/
OW COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
January 31
June 30,*
September 30*
*Exclude grants
reporting if
all States in
Regions have
been awarded
grants.
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
records.
I
CO

-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE FROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 11)
ACTIVITIES
1. Effec-
tively Manage
the IWSS
Program
f 2. Effec-
tively Man-
age the PWSS
Program in
Non-primacy
States and
on Indian
Lands
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	How well does Region
track grant usage by the
States?
(B)	Can Region document
actual State use of grant
funds?
(C)	Is the Region routinely
tracking the use of the
FY 85 Special Appropriation
for compliance and enforce-
ment?
(A)	Does Region use funds
as planned?
(B)	Can specific benefits
be attributed to fund
utilization?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SFMS/CW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(a) Hew much money has
been obligated?
(a) Hew much money has
been obligated?
Second
Quarter
Second
Quarter
SOURCE
OF EfiTA
Regional
Report
Regional
Report
3. Delegate
the PWSS
Program
(A) Has the Region
worked diligently
with States to move
then toward primacy?

-------
PUBLIC MATER SYSTEM .'ERVISION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NIPEWR (pg. 12)
ACTIVITIES
1. Improve
Carpi iance
with the
NIPEWR
>
<_n
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	Has each State devel-
oped a carpiiance strategy
for dealing with non-
ccnpl iant systems?
(B)	Has the Region provid-
ed guidance to States on
canpliance strategies
and setting targets for
measurable compliance
improvements?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report the # of
states with ccnpl i-
ance strategies.
(b) Report the # and %
of ccmmnity systems
with persistent and
intermittent viola-
tions of the microbio-
logical, turbidity
and trihalcmethane
requirements in FY 1984.
Report the population
served by the systems
having persistent
violations.
ANNUAL
SFMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
Negotiated
in grant
agreement
10/1/B4;
Negotiated
in grant
agreement
10/1/84;
SPMS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second
Quarter
Second
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
Reports
FRDS
(C) Have the States tried
to categorize non-ccnt-
munity systems into
priority groups to tar-
get use of their
resources.

-------
PUBLIC MATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NIPDWR (pg. 13)
ACTIVITIES
1. Improve
Carpi iance
with the
NIPDWR
(cont.)
I
cn
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(D)	Has the Region v*>rked
with the States to target
enforcement actions in
the most reasonable manner?
Has the Region provided
assistance to the States
in any formal actions?
(E)	Hew well did each
State's compliance rates
for FY 84 agree with the
targets contained in the
FY 84 grant agreements?
(F)	Has the Region
undertaken data veri-
fication activity
for each State? What
have results of com-
pleted studies shown
about report in-
tegrity?
(G)	Has the Region
worked with the States
to develop inspection
policies? What criteria
form the basis for the
policies?
(H)	Has the Region
worked with States to
refine the criteria for
evaluating whether the
State's follcw-up to
violations is timely
and appropriate?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) Report # of formal
and informal follow-
up actions taken
against persistent
violators by States
and Regions in FY 84.
ANNUAL
SFWS/CW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
FRDS
(d) Report the # of data
verifications completed
Second
Quarter
Regional
Report
(e) Report the # of
inspection policies
developed
Second
Quarter
Regional
Report

-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTlw CONTROL PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: PRCMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES (pg. 14)
ACTIVITIES
1. Delegate
UIC Program
to States
and Overview
State
Programs
I
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	What types of problems are
delegated States encountering?
(B)	What types of assistance
are States requesting?
(C) How does Region exercise
effective overview of
delegated programs?
(D) Are States carrying out
their programs as
approved?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	Provide, for infornation
only, the # of new State UIC
primacy programs approved.
(b)	Identify, by Region, the
# of UIC permit determinations
for existing facilities that
need to be made and the # of
permit files to be reviewed by
primacy States for the 5 yr.
period beginning with program
approval.
(c)	By 12/31/84, identify, by
State, the # of UIC permit
determinations for existing
facilities that will be made
and the # of permit files to
be reviewed by primacy States
during calendar year 1985.
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC EE LEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DE LEGATED STATES (pg. 14)
ACTIVITIES
1. Delegate
UIC Program
to States
and Overview
State
Programs
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEVB
CD
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(f)	Identify, by Region, the #
of existing Class II wells for
which mechanical integrity
tests need to be performed by
operators and verified by
primacy States for the 5 yr.
period beginning with program
approval.
(g)	By 12/31/84, identify, by
State, the # of existing Class
II wells for which mechanical
integrity tests will be per-
formed during calendar year
1985.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
SPMS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
First
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
OW
First
Quarter
(h)	Track, against targets, the SPMS
# of Class II wells for which
mechanical integrity tests were
performed by operators and
verified by primacy States in
calendar year 1984.
(i)	Track, by State, the # of OW
Class II wells for which
mechanical integrity tests were
witnessed by primacy States
during calendar year 1984.
(j) Report, by State, for	CW
calendar year 1984, the # of
violations, by major and minor
facilities, resolved or put on
carpiiance schedules and the #
of formal enforcement actions
taken.
Third
Quarter
Third
Quarter
Third
Quarter
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECl^ CONTROL PROGRAM;
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE FROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES (pg. 14)
ACTIVITIES
2. Implmerit UIC
Program in Non-
primacy States
and on Indian
Lands
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEVE	
(A)	Have UIC permits been
issued in a timely manner?
Is there a backlog? If so,
how does the Region plan to
eliminate the backlog?
(B)	Does the Region have the
appropriate skill mix for
direct implorientation?
3»
<~o
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	Develop a schedule for
implementing a UIC program for
any Indian land where a UIC
program does not exist on
9/30/84.
(b)	Identify, by Region, the
# of UIC permit determinations
for existing facilities that
need to be made and the # of
permit files to be reviewed
by EPA for the 5 year period
beginning with effective date
of the program.
(c)	By 10/1/84, identify by
State, the # of UIC permit
determinations for existing
facilities that will be made
and the # of permit files
reviewed during FY 1985.
(d)	Track progress against
targets, for UIC permit
determinations and permit
file reviews for existing
facilities by EPA during
FY 1985.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT!*?
CW
SIMS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
First
Quarter
First
Quarter
SOURCE
OF LATA
OW
First
Quarter
SIMS
Quarterly
(e) Track # of permit
determinations for new
facilities by EPA during
FY 1985.
SIMS	Quarterly
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
ACTIVITIES
2. Implement UIC
Program in Non-
Primacy States
and on Indian
Lands (cont.)
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC CELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES (pg. 14)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(C)	Is program (inventory,
reports, carpiiance) up
to date? If not, explain.
(D)	Is Region carrying out its
programs as submitted?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(f) Identify, by Region, the
# of existing Class II
wells for which mechanical
integrity tests need to be
performed by operators and
verified by EPA for the 5 yr.
period beginning with
effective date of program.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
SPMS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
First
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
(g) Identify, by State, the OW	First
# of existing Class II wells	Quarter
for which mechanical integrity
tests will be performed
during FY 1985.
(h)	Track against targets,
the # of Class II wells for
which mechanical integrity
tests will be performed by
operators and verified by
EPA during FY 1985.
(i)	Report, by State, the
# of mechanical integrity
tests witnessed by EPA.
(j) Report, by Region, the #
of field -'--^pections.
SFMS	Quarterly
CW	Quarterly
OW	Quarterly
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECT , CONTROL PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES (pg.14)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
2. Inplonent UIC (E) What is Region's approach
Program in Non- for use of formal and
Primacy States
and on Indian
Lands (cont.)
informal enforcement actions?
(F) Have there been any
enforcement problems? Hew
were they handled?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(k) Report # violations,
fcy major and minor
faciliites, resolved or
put on carpiiance schedules.
(1) Report # of formal
enforcement actions, i.e.,
referrals to DOJ.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
OW
ow
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
3. Protect
Aquifers that
are Sole or
Principal
Sources of
Drinking
Water
(A)	Assess the value of
project reviews.
(B)	To what extent are
significant problems
identified?
(C)	What kind of remedial
action has the Region
tried to obtain?
(D)	How successful was the
Region in getting remedial
action?
(a)	For sole source aquifer	OW
petitions, report the
# of:
° Petitions received;
° Reviews initiated;
° Reviews completed; and
° Aquifers designated.
(b)	Report the # of	CW
Federally assisted
activities (projects)
reviewed in designated
sole source aquifer areas.
Quarterly
Quarterly
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPLEMENT THE REVISED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (WQS) REGULATION (pg. 16)
ANNUAL

QUALITATIVE MEASURES TOR

SPMS/OW
REPORTING
SOURCE
ACTIVITIES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
COMMITMENT?
FREQUENCY
OF DATA
1. Undertake
(A) Are the States
(a) # of WQS reviewed.

Mid-year
106,
Use Attain-
developing use attain-


Review
205(j)
ability
ability assessments for
(b) # of use attain-

Mid-year
Work
Analyses
reaches designated less
ability assessments.

Review
Pro-
and Inclus-
than fishable/swiiranable?



grams
ion of
Are the States identi-
(c) # and type of

Mid-year

Toxic
fying water bodies with
criteria additions.

Review

Criteria
toxics problems? Are




into
narrative or numeric
(d) # and % of stream

Mid-year

Standards
criteria being adopted
segments in Region

Review


for toxics of concern?
designated less than




If numeric, are the
fishable and swimr-




States using EPA or
mable.




EPA modified criteria?




2. Work
(A) Are the States




with
making any significant




States to
revisions, additions




Identify
or modifications




Problems
to State WQS or




and to
implementation policies?




Ensure
Are the States




Effective
encountering problems




Implement-
in defining areas




ation of
that may not attain




the WQS
uses upon implement-




Regulation
ation of technology





based permits?




-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, 1 WING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT WATER QUALITY CONTROL
DECISIONS AND TO EVALUATE PROGRESS IN MEETING WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES 
-------
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. 17)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
1. Implement
Ambient Water
Quality Moni-
toring Program
(cont.)
(D) Have States
adequately planned
their monitoring
activities, and were
305(b) Reports and
identified priority
waterbodies considered?
(E) What problems are
being encountered in
carrying out monitoring
activities? What is
the Region/States'
approach for resolving
them?
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, lriANNING, 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. 17)
ANNUAL

QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR

SPMS/OW
REPORTING
SOURCE
ACTIVITIES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
COMMITMENT?
FREQUENCY
OF DATA
2. Implement
(A) To what extent are
(a) # of TMDLs/WLAS

Second/
106,
Regulatory
the States develqping
conducted for conven-

Fourth
205(j)
Monitoring
WQ-based controls?
tional pollutants.

Quarters
Work
Programs
Are they conducting



Pro-
and Develop
TMDLs/WLAs solely in
(b) # Of TMDLs/WLAs

Second/
grams
TMDL/WLAS
priority waterbodies or
with pollutant specific

Fourth


also in other areas?
toxic limits, and

Quarters


Hew are these funded?
# with biomonitoring-




Are States following
derived toxic limits.



the EPA policy for
developing toxics
WLAs?
(B)	What is the
process for conducting
and approving TMDLs/
WIAs? How well is it
working? Is the public
involved? Have the
States provided an
implementation schedule?
(C)	What issues have
developed in the TMDL/
WLA process, and hew is
the Region resolving
these?
-------
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. 17)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
3. Improve
State 305(b)
Reports
(A) To what extent do the
305(b) reports include:
0 the water quality meas-
ures developed through
STEP?
° a list of segments not
fully supporting design-
ated uses and associated
information?
° Clean Lakes and ground
water information?
(B)	What additional infor-
mation (if any) did the
Region and States agree to
include in the reports?
(C)	Is the water quality
information in the re-
ports used to establish
priorities for other pro-
grams, such as monitoring,
permits, or construction
grants?
(D)	What is being done by
the Region in support of
the State report prepara-
tion?
(E) Are the reports in-
cluded specifically as a
commitment in the 106/205(j)
work programs?
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, t^NNING, 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. 17)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
4. Imple-
ment Bio-
monitoring
Program

5. Imple-
ment
National
Dioxin
Study
(A)	To what extent has
the Region established
a base capability to
conduct bicnonitoring,
including bioassays and
field surveys?
(B)	To what extent have
the States been able to
improve their bicnonitor-
ing capability? To what
extent have the States
begun to use their
biomonitoring capability?
To what extent have the
States begun to use bio-
monitoring as part of an
integrated approach for
controlling toxic
pollutants?
(A)	Has the Region
encountered any problems
in implementing the
National Dioxin Study?
(B)	Are the States
taking a structured,
comprehensive approach to
evaluating dioxin
contamination? Are the
States considering
different "tiers" of
sites for investigations?
(a)	# of flow-through
and static bioassays
for setting WQ-based
controls.
(b)	# of field surveys
for setting WQ-based
controls and for ambient
assessments.
(a)	# of sampling plans
prepared.
(b)	% of Dioxin study
sampling workplan
commitments met.
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Second/
Fqurth
Quarters
SPMS
Mid-year
Review
Quarterly
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS/ PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE STATE DECISION-MAKING EUR POLLUTION CONTROL ON PRIORITY WATERBODIES (pg. 19)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/CW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
1. Update
WQM Plans
3»
I
2. use WQM
Plans to
Ensure Con-
sistency
3. Grant
Management
(A) Have the Regions
approved WQM plan updates?
How effective is the process?
If a State prepares no plan
updates, what action is the
Region taking? How does the
Region assist States in de-
termining needed updates?
(A) How is the Region en-
suring that States use the
WQM plan to make consist-
ency determinations regarding
permits and construction
grants. Give examples.
(A)	How are the elements
of the 205(j) and 106
work programs coordinated?
(B)	How are 205(j) funded
outputs used at the State/
Regional levels to make WQM
decisions? Give examples.
(C)	What procedures are
used to negotiate, track
and evaluate work program
cannitments and State per-
formance? Any problems
encountered in applying
these procedures? What
sanctions or other efforts do
you use to correct deficiencies?
(a) # and list of WQM
plan elements updated.
Mid-year
Review
(a) # of consistency
reviews conducted by
Region for permits
and construction
grants.
(a)	List types of
activities/percent of
205(j) funds for each
activity. Indicate
which activities will
be included in next
WDM plan update.
(b)	To date, what
percent of 106 and
205(j) work program
ccrnnitments by program
element has each State
met?
Mid-year
Review
Mid-year
Review
Mid-year
Review
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j >
Work
Pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE STATE DECISION-MAKING FOR POLLUTION CONTROL ON PRIORITY WATERBODIES (pg. 19)
ACTIVITIES
3. Grant
Management
(cont.)
4. Develop
List of
Waterbodies
Impacted by
NPS and
Implement
NPS Control
Programs
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(D) What steps are being
taken to assure that States
meet 106 Level of Effort (LOE)
requirements, including me-
thods for assuring that State
accounting systems are ade-
quate and reported expendi-
tures accurate? Have 106 and
205(g) grant awards met LOE
requirements; if not is the
Region taking steps to rectify
the problem, i.e. recovering
grant funds?
(A)	Hew is this list
being used to direct
control decisions?
(B)	What is the status
of NPS programs, by State
broken down by NPS category,
indicating whether the
effort is program develop-
ment or implementation?
What is the Region doing
to further NPS program
development?
(C)	What is the schedule
for implementing NPS con-
trols, by State? What is
the source(s) of funds?
(D)	Discuss the Regional/
State approach to imple-
menting the Agency NPS
strategy.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(a) Identify the number
and percent of stream miles,
lake acres, estuary square
miles, coastal miles, and
Great Lake shore miles in
each Region, the number
assessed, and the number
which are not meeting
designated uses due to
NPS pollution.
SPMS
Third
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams;
305(b)
Report
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE STATE DECISION-MAKING FDR POLLUTION CONTROL ON PRIORITY WATERBODIES (pg. 19)
ACTIVITIES
5. Iden-
tify Priority
Waterbodies.
Reduce the
Percentage
of Stream
Miles, Lake
Acres, Estuary
Square Miles,
Coastal Miles
and Great
Lakes Shore
¦f* Miles not
oSupporting
Designated
Uses.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	Hew are control
priorities determined
by the States and is
water quality a driving
factor? Do they have
their problem areas well
identified, i.e. priority
waterbody lists? Does the
Region concur with the
State lists? Do they
know what needs to be done
to resolve problems faced
by each priority waterbody,
i.e. priority waterbody
strategies? How well are
they implementing the
needed actions identified
above? Are resources
targeted at priority water-
bodies?
(B)	What are the impediments
to achieving environmental
results?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) List priority
waterbodies by State.
(b)	List the number of
stream miles, lake acres,
estuary square miles,
coastal miles, and Great
Lakes shore miles in each
Region, the number assessed
and the number supporting/
partially supporting/ and
not supporting designated
uses.
(c)	Provide a list of
those stream segments
partially or not
supporting designated
uses. Indicate those
waters still requiring
TMDLs/WLAs. List problem
parameters and source,
such as municipal and
industrial point source
or type of NPS, for each
segment, and identify
those that are priority
waterbodies. Briefly
describe State and
Regional actions
planned for these
waters.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
SPMS
REPORTING
SOURCE
FREQUENCY
OF DATA
First/
305(b)
Third
Re-
Quarters
ports;
Third
305(b)
Quarter
Re-

ports;

106,

205(j)

Work

Pro-

grams;

State

STEP

Reports
Mid-year

Review

-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 20)
ACTIVITIES
1. Work
with States
to Consider
Great Lakes
Areas of
Concern and
in Chesa-
peake Bay
Critical
Areas in
Developing
and Revising
Priority
Waterbody
Lists
2. Review
Revised
Water
Quality
Standards
(WQS) to
Determine
Impact on
Great Lakes
and Chesa-
peake Bay
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEVE	
(A)	To what extent were
the Great Lakes Areas of
Concern and Chesapeake
Bay Critical Areas con-
sidered in the development
and revision of the States'
priority waterbody lists?
(B)	What actions did the
Great Lakes National Program
Office, the Chesapeake
Bay Liaison Office, and the
Regions take to ensure that
these areas have priority
and that priority activities
to abate problems are under-
way?
(A) At what stage and
to what extent were
Great Lakes and Chesapeake
Bay impacts considered
in the revision of WQS?
Did the Regions conduct
an evaluation of whether
the modified use or criteria
proposed by States would
hinder meeting the Inter-
national Joint Committee
(IJC) or the Chesapeake
Bay "Framework for Action"
Plan objectives?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	# of Great Lakes
Areas of Concern
included as priority
waterbodies.
(b)	# of Chesapeake
Bay Critical Areas
included as priority
waterbodies
ANNUAL
SPMS/CW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review
Mid-year
Review
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams;
Reports
to IJC;
GLNPO &
Chesa-
peake
Bay Work
Programs
106,
205( j)
Work
Pro-
grams;
Reports
to IJC;
GLNPO &
Chesa-
peake
Bay Work
Programs
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
3. Assess
Municipal
Compliance
for Con-
sistency
with Objec-
tives of
Great Lakes
Water
Quality
Agreement
and to
^ Protect
^ the Criti-
^ cal Areas
in Chesa-
peake
Bay
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 20)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	Has compliance with
the phosphorus require-
ment improved over last
year? If not, what efforts
have GLNPO, and the
Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Office, and Regions made
to increase compliance?
What is hindering
conpliance?
(B)	Are certain permits
targeted for special
review due to Great
Lakes or Chesapeake
Bay concerns? On what
basis?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	# of Great Lakes
POTWs in compliance
with 1 mg/L phosphorus
requirement vs. total
# of POTWs.
(b)	# of Chesapeake
Bay AWT POTWs funded
vs. # of AWT POTWs
determined to be needed.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
F*REQUENCY
Mid-year
Review
Mid-year
Review
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams;
Reports
to LJC;
GLNPO &
Chesa-
peake
Bay Work
Programs
(C)	What actions are the
States taking to reduce
NPS loading to the Great
Lakes and to Chesapeake
Bay?
(D)	Have the Great Lakes
and Chesapeake Bay States
modified their WQM plans
to reflect institutional
and other arrangements
for dealing with NPS?
Hew?
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARximE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 20)
ro
CO
QUALITATIVE MEASURES TOR
ACTIVITIES MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
4. Imple- (A) What efforts are GLNPO
ment the	and the Chesapeake Bay
Great Lakes Liaison Office making to
and Chesa- ensure that the monitoring
peake Bay programs are being imple-
Monitoring mented and that resources
Programs	are being used for trend
monitoring in priority
areas and to detect
emerging problems?
(B) What are the results
of tributary monitoring,
atmospheric deposition
sampling, and lake surveys
conducted in the Great
Lakes Basin over the last
year? Are reductions in
loadings and other improve-
ment visible?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of monitoring
stations in operation
on Chesapeake Bay's
mainsten vs. # of
monitoring stations
planned.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-Year
Review
SOURCE
OF DATA
Moni-
toring
Work
Plan;
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams;
Reports
to IJC;
GLNPO &
Chesa-
peake
Bay Work
Programs
5. Implement
NPS Controls
in Lake Erie,
Saginaw
River, and
Chesapeake
Bay Basins
(A) What efforts are GLNPO
and the Chesapeake Bay Lia-
son Office and States making
to ensure NPS implementation
and that resources are being
used to monitor implementa-
tion and its results in water
quality improvements?
(a)	# of acres in the
Great Lakes Basin with
BMP's in place vs. # of
acres with BMP's in place
in FY 1984.
(b)	# of acres in the
Chesapeake Bay basin
with BMP's in place
vs. # of acres with
BMP's in place in
FY 1984.
Mid-Year
Review
Mid-Year
Review
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO TOE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE METT (pg. 20)
3»
I
po
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ACTIVITIES	MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
6.	Prepare	(A) What efforts are GLNPO,
Phosphorus	the Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Load Reduc-	Office, and the Regions/
tion Plans	States making to ensure
for Lake	schedule of appropriate
Erie, Lake	activities, work plan
Ontario,	development and interim
and Chesa-	outputs are provided in a
peake Bay	timely fashion?
7.	Imple-	(A) What efforts has the
ment Study	Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Results in	Office made to ensure
Accordance	that control actions are
with the	focused on priority
Chesapeake	projects? Hew are 106,
Bay Manage-	205(g), and 205(j)
ment	work programs focused
Corranittee	on Bay concerns?
Directives
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	Complete Great Lakes
draft reduction plans by
November 30, 1984
(b)	Complete Chesapeake
Bay draft reduction
plans by September 30, 1985
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
First
Quarter
Fourth
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARIN^ PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF MARINE ENVIRONMENT (pg. 32)
3>
I
ro
in
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ACTIVITIES MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
1. Review (A) What procedures has
and Issue the Region adopted for
Ocean Dump- evaluating ocean dumping
ing Permits vs. land-based disposal
options?
(B)	What procedures and
criteria are used in
evaluating 00E permits?
(C)	How have Regional
Office resources been
used in support of site
designations?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	# of permit appli-
cations processed and
permits issued:
-	Industrial permits;
-	Municipal permits.
(b)	# ODE permits reviewed.
(c)	# of surveys and EISs
completed.
(d)	# of dumpsite desig-
nations made.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review
Mid-year
Review
Mid-year
Review
Mid-year
Review
SOURCE
OF DKTA
Region's
Submis-
sion
to MPRSA
Annual
Report
(D) Are monitoring	(e) # of disposal sites	Mid-year
requirements an integral	being managed and moni-	Review
part of site management	tored.
plans?
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS FOR PUGET SOUND, NARRAGANSETT BAY,
BUZZARDS BAY AND LONG ISLAND SOUND
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
Marine &
Estuarine
Protection
programs for
Puget Sound,
Narragansett
Bay, Buzzards
Bay and Long
Island Sound
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A) What efforts have
the States/Regions made
to ensure that compre-
hensive programs are
being developed inclu-
ding problem identifica-
tion, pollutant load
quantification, and
assessment o£ system
impacts, for each
of these major
estuarine areas
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Develop Action
Plans for two industrial/
urban embayments in
Puget Sound
{b) Develop draft work
programs for Buzzards
Bay, Long Island Sound
and Narragansett Bay by
January 1, 1985
ANNUAL
SPMS/CW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review
Mid-year
Review
SOURCE
OF DATA
r\)
o\
-------
MARINE AND ESTUAi , PPOTECTION
OBJECTIVE: EXPEDITE §301(h) DECISIONS AND PERMIT ISSUANCE (pg. 22)
ACTIVITIES
1. Review
§301(h)
Applications
and Issue
Permits
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	Was all available
information considered in
evaluating applications?
(B)	Were decisions clearly
and ccmpletely documented?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	# of initial decisions
(b)	# of permits issued
(c)	# of complete appli-
cations.
(C) Were all criteria evalua- (d) # of intents to revise,
ted and applied consistently
among Region's applications? (e) # of withdrawals
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
SPMS
SPMS
SPMS
SPMS
SPMS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
(D)	Were dischargers with
the greatest potential for
adverse inpacts evaluated
on a priority basis?
(E)	How quickly are final
decisions implemented through
permit revisions?
(F)	Do permits consistently
assure that the monitoring
provisions of §301(h) decisions
are transformed into specific
enforceable requirements for
use in assessing ongoing
compliance with the §301(h)
criteria?
-------
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. 22)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial and
Municipal
Permits
(A) How were permit
issuance strategies developed
and how does the Region track
State permit issuance status?
(B) Is the Region reviewing
all major permits prepared by
approved NPDES States? Vftiat
is the extent of that review?
(C) Have the NPDES States
developed priority lists
for issuing industrial and
municipal permits? Did States
use national policy and
i	guidance to develop a
oo	priority list for permit
issuance? If not, what was
the basis for their permit
issuance priorities? Are
resources being directed to
deal with the most signifi-
cant toxic discharge or water
quality problem areas? Are
States making adequate pro-
gress toward eliminating
the backlog of expired
majors by the end of FY85?
If not, why not? What
is the Region's strategy
to assure improvement?
-------
PE1 S:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE NPDES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR PERMITS
AND ISSUE MAJOR NPDES NEW SOURCE AND NEW DISCHARGE PERMITS (pg. 22)
ANNUAL
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR	SPMS/OW	REPORTING SOURCE
ACTIVITIES	MID-YEAR		QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY OF DATA
1. Issue/Reissue (D) Are States/Region
Industrial and adhering to estab-
Municipal	lished processes
Permits	for writing WQ based
(cont.)	permits? Discuss
problems encountered
and how they were
addressed.
(E) Discuss implementation of
the "Ft>licy for the Develop-
ment of Water Quality-Based
Permit Limitations for Toxic
Pollutants." Have EPA and the
States been working together
to implement the policy? What
steps have been taken so far?
Have procedures been developed?
Have permittees with potential
water quality impacts been
identified that will be required
to do toxicity testing? Do any
permits now contain toxicity
testing requirements? Are §308
letters (or similar State
mechanisms) being used in lieu
of permit conditions? Have any
toxicity-based effluent limits
been incorporated into permits?
Discuss your experiences, prob-
lems. Will many permits have
reopener clauses for incorporat-
ing promulgated effluent guide-
lines or for addressing new limits
resulting frcn toxicity testing.
-------
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. 22)
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Re i ssue
Industrial and
Municipal
Permits
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR	
(F) Are there delays or road-
blocks in the industrial or
municipal permitting processes?
What are they and what practical
steps are needed to expedite
permitting?
Discuss any problems associated
with permit monitoring require-
ments and general conditions.
Will all expired majors be re-
issued by the end of FY85?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
(a) # of permits issued/re-	CW/SPMS
issued to industrial facili-
ties during fiscal year
NPDES States, non-NPDES States).
(b) By 10/30/84, project the
# of major industrial	No
permits that have or will
expire by the end of
FY85 (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
First
Quarter
PCS
(a)
o
(G)	Are permits that vere
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?
(H)	How was the July 1984
deadline addressed? Were
short term permits issued?
(I)	lb what extent are permit
conditions being developed
using best professional
judgment? Is the technical
support for these judgments
adequate? If not, what addi-
tional support is needed.
-------
PERt-._^S:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE NPDES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR PERMITS
AND ISSUE MAJOR NPDES NEW SOURCE AND NEW DISCHARGE PERMITS (pg. 22)
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial arid
Municipal
Permits
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(J) Do many industrial
permits contain BMP re-
quirements? How are these
requirements written into
permits? Is the guidance
developed by Headquarters
adequate or do you need
additional information or
workshop on BMPs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/CW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
I
CO
(K) Are States/Region identify-
ing toxic discharge problem
areas where post-BAT limitations
are needed? Discuss how these
areas are being identified and
how biomonitoring techniques are
being used to determine appro-
priate limits.
(c) # of permits issued/re-
issued to major municipal
facilities during fiscal
year (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States).
OW/SPMS
Quarterly
PCS
(L) Are municipal permit
conditions consistent with
the new secondary treatment
definition? Are there any
difficulties in applying the
new definition? If so, how
are they being resolved? Are
the resolutions satisfactory
and timely? Discuss the nature
and extent of the use of
"special consideration" pro-
visions of the secondary
treatment definition.
(d)	By 10/30/84, project
the # of major muni-
cipal permits that
have or will expire
by the end of FY 85
(NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
(e)	Region's lists of
industrial and municipal
permits to be issued in
non-NPDES States in FY 85
No
First
Quarter
PCS
OW
Provide
lists start
of FY
(M) Tb what extent do
municipal permits contain
monitoring and reporting
requirements for toxics in
their effluent and/or sludge?
-------
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. 22)
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Re-
issue Industrial
•and Municipal
Permits (cont.)
i
co
2. Issue New
Source/Major
New Discharger
Permits
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(N) Are there problems developing
permit compliance schedules
for facilities eligible for
§301(i) extensions? If so
what is the nature of the
problems and how are they
being resolved?
(O) Discuss progress in com-
pleting municipal permit
modifications regarding 301(h)
and pretreatment, and any
problems associated with permit
monitoring requirements and
general conditions.
(A) Is Region's approach
to new permits con-
sistent with priority
to protect water
quality? Are there
special problems in
the new source area?
Is there adequate
coordination with other
media programs where
more than one EPA
permit is required?
Is a construction ban
being enforced?
Have problems
arisen in this area?
Are NEPA reviews
conducted smoothly
and in a timely manner
where required?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(a)	By 10/30/84, 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 FY85 and the # pending
for more than 12 months.
(b)	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.
No
Start of
FY
No
Quarterly
-------
PEK._-fS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE NPDES PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR PERMITS
AND ISSUE MAJOR NPDES NEW SOURCE AND NEW DISCHARGE PERMITS (pg. 22)
ACTIVITIES
3. issue/Reissue
General Permits
4. Conduct
Evidentiary
Hearings
>
¦
CO
to
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A) What types of problems
has Region encountered
in issuing general per-
mits? What measures
have been taken or
are needed to resolve
them? Is Region actively
considering ways to use
general permits to reduce
the minor permit backlog?
(A)	What are the plans for
eliminating the present
hearing backlog? Has
the Water Mgt. Division
coordinated with Regional
Counsel on resolving
backlogged hearings and
on addressing new hearing
requests in the upcoming
year? Are any hearing
requests related to the
redefinition of secondary
treatment or section 301(h)
permits?
(B)	What are the major issues?
Has a pattern developed that
indicates a need for program
changes, including procedures
regulations, policy, guidance,
technical assistance, etc?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of general permits
i ssued/re i ssued (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States)
-OCS general
-# in new categories (not
covered by prior EPA
general permits); and
-# others (covered by
prior general permits).
(a) # of evidentiary
hearing requests
pending at beginning
of FY and # requested,
held, settled, or
denied in FY 1985
(NPDES, non-NPDES States):
-	Municipal; and
-	Non-municipal.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
OW non-
NPDES States
only
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
No
Quarterly
-------
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. 22)
ACTIVITIES
5. Review and
Approve/Deny
\fariance
Requests
>
i
CO
-£»
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A) How is the variance process
vrorking? What are the diffi-
culties? What additional
support is needed, such as
procedural changes, guidance,
or support from Headquarters?
Discuss problems and successes.
(B) Have any States requested
Alternative State Requirements
(ASRs) under the redefinition
of secondary treatment? Discuss
the review and approval process
and identify any problems or
support needs. In States where
EPA is the NPDES authority, have
any cities asked for ASR limits?
(i.e. higher effluent numbers than
45 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids.)
Discuss the Region's response to the
municipal inquiry. W&s the State
informed of the ASR inquiry?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track # of direct
discharge variance re-
quests at beginning of FY
and # requested, # denied
and #forwarded to Headquarters
(NPDES, non-NPDES States):
-FDF
-301(c)
-301(g)
-301(k)
-316(a)(b)
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
ENPORCt'-.efJT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE OF MUNICIPALS, INDUSTRIALS AND FEDERAL FACILITIES (pg. 24)
ACTIVITIES
1. Identify
compliance
problems
through the
MOVING BASE*
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
I
CO
en
(A)	What are the major
reasons for non-compliance?
(B)	Does the Region have
revised Enforcement
Management System (EMS)
procedures? How is the
EMS used to identify,
monitor, and respond to
non-complying facilities?
Are EMS principles
implemented...strictly,
loosely, or not at all?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) MOVING BASE UNIVERSE;
# of major and P.L. 92-500
minor permittees that are:
-	on final effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal,
P.L.92-500; NPDES States,
non-NPDES States); and
-	not on final effluent
limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal;
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
(See Appendix B)
(b) MOVING BASE SNC:
# and % of major and P.L.
92-500 minor permittees listed
in significant noncompliance
(SNC) with:
-	final effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal,
P.L. 92-500; NPDES States,
non-NPDES States);
-	construction schedules;
-	interim effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal; NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(See Appendix B)
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
No
No
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
Region/
State
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Majors:
Quarterly
Minor
P.L.92-500s:
Semi-
annually
(April 1,
1985 based
on Dec. 31,
1984	data.
Oct.•1, 1985
based on
June 30,
1985	data.)
Majors:	QNCR
Quarterly
Minor
P.L. 92-500s:
Semi-
annually
(April 1,
1985 based
on Dec. 31,
1984	data.
Oct. 1, 1985
based on
June 30,
1985	data.)
Region/
State
* Tracking against the MOVING BASE involves measuring the levels of significant noncompliance for all major and
P.L. 92-500/permittees each quarter. It is to be contrasted with tracking against the FIXED BASE which involves
only those permittees in significant noncompliance as of June 30, 1984.
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE OF MUNICIPALS, INDUSTRIALS AND FEDERAL FACILITIES (pg. 24)
ACTIVITIES
2. Identify
Compliance
Problems
and Guide
Corrective
Actions
through the
FIXED BASE*
I
(jO
Ol
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	How do the Region and
States use the fixed base
and exception lists to
establish a priority for
committing compliance/
enforcement resources?
(B)	How many/what type of
facilities are caning back
into compliance without
any formal enforcement
action? informal action?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	FIXED BASE UNIVERSE
Identify the names and
total number of major
permittees in significant
noncompliance with:
-	final effluent limits (FEL);
-	construction schedules (CS);
and
-	interim effluent limits (IEL)
against which no formal
enforcement action had been
initiated as of June 30, 1984
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal; NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(b)	FIXED BASE TRACKING
Identify the number ofmajor
permittees listed in the
Fixed Base Universe for which
one of the following has
occurred:
-	# returned to compliance;
-	# not yet in canpliance but
addressed with a formal
enforcement action
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal; SNC
with FEL, CS, IEL; NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
No
OW/SPMS
composite
of the two
categories
only
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Oct. 1,
1984
Quarterly
tracking
of each
category
SOURCE
OF DATA
ONCR
QNCR
and
Region/
State
* Tracking against the FIXED BASE involves tracking the return to compliance or enforcement actions taken against those
permittees in significant noncompliance as of June 30, 1984.
-------
EUFORCEMENi.
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE OF MUNICIPALS, INDUSTRIALS AND FEDERAL FACILITIES (pg. 24)
ACTIVITIES
3. Identify
Continuing
Ccmpllance
Problems
and Guide
Corrective
Actions
through the
EXCEPTION LIST*
CJ
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	What are the reasons
behind persistent non-
compliance and what is
the strategy for dealing
with such noncompliance?
(B)	How is the type of
enforcement response
selected for specific
violations?
(C)	What kinds of formal
enforcement actions are
the Region/States using?
Wiat is the quality of
these actions?
(D)	What kinds of informal
actions (if any) are the
Region/States using in
lieu of formal enforcement
action?
(E)	How often is it necessary
for EPA to take a direct
enforcement action in an
NPDES State? Which States?
Are the actions taken con-
sistent with the criteria
in the State overview
guidance?
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
April 1,
1985
July 1,
1985
Oct. 1,
1985
SOURCE
OF DATA
QNCR
and
Region/
State
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	EXCEPTION LIST UNIVERSE
Identify by name and NPDES
number major permittees
appearing on tvo consecutive
QNCRs (the current and the
previous QNCRs) as being in
significant noncompliance
(SNC) with:
-	final effluent limits (FEL);
-	construction schedules (CS);
and
-	interim effluent limits (IEL)
without being returned to
compliance or addressed with
a formal enforcement action
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal; NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(Exclude Fixed Base violations-
See Appendix B)
(b)	EXCEPTION LIST TRACKING	OW/SPMS	July 1,	QNCR
Identify the names and total composite 1985 and
number of major permittees of the two Oct. 1, Region/
listed in the Exception List categories 1985 State
Universe for the previous only
quarter for which one of the
following has occurred:
-	# returned to compliance;
-	# not yet in ccmpliance but
addressed with a formal
enforcement action
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal; SNC
with FEL, CS, IEL; NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
(list separately frcm Excep-
tion List Universe)
* Tracking against the EXCEPTION LIST involves tracking the return to compliance or enforcement action taken against
those permittees in significant noncompliance for two or more consecutive quarters as of December 31, 1984;
March 31, 1985; and June 30, 1985. (Excluding those violations being tracked on the FIXED BASE list).
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE OF MUNICIPALS, INDUSTRIALS AND FEDERAL FACILITIES (pg. 24)
ACTIVITIES
4. Guide
Corrective
Actions
against
noncomplying
municipals
through the
NATIONAL
MUNICIPAL
POLICY
OJ
CD
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	Are the State Municipal
Compliance Stategies being
effectively utilized by the
Regions and States?
(B)	Tb what extent are
the Region and States ensuring
that compliance schedules are
established, by 9/30/85, for
all POTWs that need
construction to conply with
permit requirements? lb what
extent are unfunded POTWs
being placed on compliance
schedules?
(C)	How do the Region and
States coordinate permit
issuance, compliance, and
construction grant
activities to improve
municipal compliance?
(D)	What effect has the
issuance of MCPs and CCPs
had on municipal compliance?
(E)	What problems has the
Region encountered in
establishing MCPs and CCPs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a)	COMPOSITE CORRECTION PLANS
Of the PCOVis that need
no further construction:
-	# of those for which
action to obtain compliance
(CCP) has been required
through an enforceable
document (tracked against
target); and
-	# of those completing the
final step of their CCP
and returned to compliance
(list separately: major,
minor; NPDES State, non-NPDES
State).
(b)	MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE PLANS
Of the POTWs that currently
require further construction:
-	# of those for which
compliance schedules (MCPs)
have been established
through an enforceable
document (tracked against
target); and
-	i of those completing the
final step of their MCP
and returned to compliance
(list separately: major,
minor; funded, unfunded;
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
CW/SPMS
composite
target with
MCPs
No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
CXiarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
State
Region/
State
OW/SPMS
composite
target with
CCPS
NO
Quarterly
Quarterly
Region/
State
Region/
State
-------
ENFORCE. —
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE OF MUNICIPALS, INDUSTRIALS AND FEDERAL FACILITIES (pg. 24)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW ®
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
5. Identify
Carpi iance
Problems
and Guide
Corrective
Action
through
INSPECTIONS
(cont.)
(F)	How does the Region provide
its States with advance
notice of inspections?
(G)	Discuss how Region and
State efforts are coordinated.
(H)	Are all major permittees
inspected by EPA or the
States each year?
(I)	Is the Region conducting
inspections consistent with
the assumptions used for
the FY 1985 resource
allocation? Discuss.
6. Take
ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTIONS as
Required
to Obtain
Ccmpliance
with NPDES
Permits
(A) Do the Region and
States ensure that the
use of AOs/NOVs is
consistent with EMS
principles and the
enforcement response
guide? How do the
Region and States
measure the effective-
ness of AOs arid NOVs?
(a) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (AOs)
# of EPA AOs or State
equivalent aetions issued:
-municipal (major/minor);
-	non-municipal (major/minor);
and
-	federal (major/minor)
(list separately: EPA, NPDES
States).
No
Quarterly
GREAT,
PCS or
Region/
State
(B) How do Region/States
evaluate the quality of
AOs? What is the quality
of the AOs?
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE OF MUNICIPALS, INDUSTRIALS AND FEDERAL FACILITIES (pg. 24)
ACTIVITIES
7. Coordinate
with the Office
of Regional
Counsel (ORC)
to Prepare
REFERRALS as
requiredto
Obtain
Compliance
with NPDES
Permits
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	How do the Region
and States ensure that
violations of Court
Orders get prompt
enforcement action?
(B)	What are the criteria
used to select referral
cases? What is the involve-
ment of ORC in this
selection?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) REFERRALS
# of §309 referrals or
State equivalent actions
generated:
-	civil referrals sent to
HQ/SAG;
-	civil referrals filed; and
-	criminal referrals filed
(list separately: EPA,
NPDES States).
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
DOCKET
System
and
Region/
State
8. Identify
Compliance
Problems with
CONSENT DECREES
(C)	What is the level of
coordination between the
compliance section and ORC?
(D)	Discuss the quality
of the referral packages.
(A)	What is the quality
of active consent decrees?
(B)	What types of action
are being taken against
permittees that violate
their consent decrees?
(C)	What are the reasons
for failure to take
remedial action against
permittees that violate
their consent decrees?
(a) CONSENT DECREES
Identify by name and NPDES
number all permittees with
active consent decrees and
report their compliance
status as follows:
-	in compliance with decree;
-	in violation of decree, but
remedial action taken; and
-	in violation of decree, no
remedial action taken
(list separately: major,
minor; municipal, non-
municipal , Federal).
No
Quarterly
Region/
State
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE OF MUNICIPALS, INDUSTRIALS AND FEDERAL FACILITIES (pg. 24)
ACTIVITIES
9. Improve
Quality of
PCS Data
I
-P»
ro
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	What actions are
being taken to improve
the quality of PCS data?
(B)	What are the Regional
procedures for routinely
entering and verifying
discharge monitoring
report data for all
major permittees, in
particular, completed
and operational
P.L. 92-500 facilities?
(C)	Is the PCS majors
list updated semi-
annually?
(D)	Does the Region use
PCS as the primary
system? Have all
redundant elements
of local systems been
terminated?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) WENDB
Quarterly verify Water
Enforcement National Data
Base (WENDB) and DMR data
for completeness and
accuracy in both:
-	NPDES States;
-	non-NPDES States.
(b) PCS 'F' and
INDICATORS
Quarterly verify and
enter into PCS the
designator for all
major permittees on
final effluent limits
and the designator for
all major and minor
P.L. 92-500 PCfTWs.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
NO
Quarterly
PCS
(E) How is the Region
encouraging increased
State participation
in PCS?
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE OF MUNICIPALS, INDUSTRIALS AND FEDERAL FACILITIES (pg. 24)
ACTIVITIES
10. Improve
Quality of
Monitoring
Data through
the DMR/QA
Program
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	lb what extent has the
quality of self-monitoring
data improved due to DMR/QA?
How is this verified?
(B)	What problems still
need to be addressed
to make the EMF/QA
program more effective?
(C)	What is involved in
State/Region coopera-
tion and how has it
worked best?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) DMR/QA
# of follow-up actions
on CMR/OA performance
sample results:
-	nonrespondents;
-	permittees requiring
corrective action.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Semi-
annually;
April 1,
1985
Oct. 1,
1985
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region
i
11. Initiate
Enforcement
Actions as
Required
to Obtain
Compliance
with
NON-NPDES
Requirements
of CWA
(D) How do the Region and
States use CMR/QA
performance sample
results for targeting
compliance inspections?
(A) Are administrative
orders being issued
for noncompliance
with Spill Prevention
Control and Counter-
measure (SPCC) Plan
requirements?
-------
PRETREATMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE BY ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS (pg. 26)
ACTIVITIES
1. Establish
State Pretreat-
ment Programs
2. Establish
Local Pretreat-
ment Programs
y
I
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A) See "Approve NPDES
State Program Requests"
activity for State pre-
treatment approval
measures.
(A)	How well are local
programs incorporating
categorical standards?
Are there problems
with evaluating baseline
monitoring reports and
compliance requirements?
(B)	What is being done by
Region/State after approval
of local programs? Discuss
the process and timing for
modification of permits to
incorporate approved program
requirements. If a local
program is not acceptable,
how long does the Region/
State allow for a resubmission?
Are any programs being approved
subject to conditions?
(C)	What problems are Regions
and States having with
categorical determinations,
FDF variances, and requests
for removal credits? Does the
Region/State use HQ/oontractor
assistance to resolve problems?
What assistance is needed?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) See "Approve NPDES
State Program Requests"
activity for State pre-
treatment approval
measures.
(a) # of pretreatment
categorical determinations
made and the # of removal
credit applications
received (list separately:
non-pretreatment States,
pretreatment States).
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
No
Quarterly
Region/
States
-------
PRETREATMtiMT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE BY ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS (pg. 26)
ACTIVITIES
2. Establish
Local Pretreat-
ment Programs
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(D) Are annual report submissions
by POIWs reviewed by the Region/
State? Are approved program
reviews conducted by the Region/
State? Is the data from program
reviews utilized by the Region/
State to improve future programs
or train staff?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
3>
I
-C*
-------
PRETREATMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE BY ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS (pg. 26)
ACTIVITIES
2. Establish
Local Pretreat-
ment Programs
(cont.)
3. Take
Actions as
Required
to Obtain
-^Compliance
iwith
^PRETREATMENT
Requirements
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(J) Has EPA/State developed
a local program inventory
which enables the identifica-
tion of the priority
programs? Are the priorities
set on the basis of the
relative size of approved
local programs in terms of
population and number of
significant industrial users?
(A)	When a local program
submitted for approval is
not acceptable, what action
is taken if the local program
is not resubmitted in the
time prescribed by the
Approval Authority?
(B)	What are the criteria
used by EPA/States to select
industrial users to be
inspected? What do the
results of these inspections
indicate? What use is being
made of these results?
(C)	How do the Region and
State ensure that approved
POTW pretreatment programs
are effectively implemented?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(a) PRETREATMENT INSPECTIONS
# of EPA and State inspections
of industrial users to check
compliance with categorical
pretreatment standards
(list separately: EPA, States).
(b) PRETREATMENT AOs
# of EPA AOs and State
equivalent actions issued:
-	for industrial user
pretreatment violations;
-	for POTW pretreatment
violations; and
-	establishing a schedule
for POTW submittal of
an approvable program
(list separately: EPA,
States).
No
Quarterly
PCS
No
Quarterly
PCS or
Region/
State
-------
PRETREATi. ±:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE BY ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING PRETREATMEDT PROGRAMS (pg. 26)
ACTIVITIES
3. Take
Actions as
Required
to Obtain
Compliance
with
PRETREATMENT
Requirements
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(D) How do the Region and
States identify and respond
to industrial noncompliance
with categorical pretreat-
raent standard deadlines?
-¦J
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(C) PRETREATMENT REFERRALS
# of §309 referrals or
State equivalent actions:
-	civil referrals sent to
HQ/DOJ;
-	civil referrals filed; and
-	criminal referrals filed
in response to:
-	industrial user pretreatment
violations;
-	POTW pretreatment violations;
-	POTW non-submittal of an
approvable pretreatment
program.
(list separately: EPA,
States)
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
NO
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
DOCKET
System
and
Region/
State
-------
STATE PROGRAM OVERVIEW:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE APPROVED NPDES STATES MAINTAIN ADEQUATE STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMQ3T NPDES PROGRAM
(pg. 27)
ANNUAL
ACTIVITIES
1. Provide
effective
oversight of
approved NPDES
State Programs
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A) To what extent has the
Region implemented the
"Guidance for Oversight of
NPDES Programs"?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) States for which Region
will assess statutory and
regulatory authority in FY
'85 and »86.
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Provide list
December 31,
1984
SOURCE
OF DATA
cx>
(B) Does the Region carry
out a program of regularly
scheduled assessments of
each approved NPDES State
to assure the adequacy of
funding and staffing and to
assure a demonstrated ability
to set program priorities and
effectively implement the
NPDES program? What is the
frequency; who is involved; and
where is it done? What is the
nature and timing of followup?
Does this include identification
of State needs and problems,
evaluation of performing and
providing of technical
assistance?
(C) Does oversight of State
permitting include an assess-
ment of the timely issuance of
high-quality permits? How is
this determined by the Region?
-------
STATE PROGRAt* 2RVIEW:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE APPROVED NPDES STATES MAINTAIN ADEQUATE STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT NPDES PROGRAM
(pg. 27)
ANNUAL
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
1. Provide
effective
oversight of
approved NPDES
State Programs
(cont'd)
>
I
V0
(D)	Does oversight of State
compliance monitoring include
an assessment of the timeliness,
completeness and accuracy of
self-monitoring reports? How
is this determined by the
Region? Does the Region assess
the State's reporting system on
compliance status and the ac-
curacy and accessibility of the
information? Does the Region
check the States compliance
inspection activity with regard
to its procedures and effective-
ness? How?
(E)	Does oversight of State
enforcement include an assessment
of the timeliness of the evalua-
tion of violations and the appro-
priateness of initial responses,
followup and escalation until
compliance is obtained? Are
NOVs, AOs, and judicial actions
assessed for thier timeliness,
clarity and enforceability?
(F)	What progress is being made
by the Region and States in
developing and adhering to EPA/
State enforcement agreements for
improving compliance rates?
-------
STATE PROGRAM OVERVIEW:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE APPROVED NPDES STATES MAINTAIN ADEQUATE STATUTORY AND
REGULATOR* AUTHORITY AND EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT NPDES PROGRAM
(pg. 27)
ANNUAL
ACTIVITIES
1. Provide
effective
oversight of
approved NPDES
State Programs
(cont'd)
I
in
O
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(G)	What is the nature and
quality of typical communica-
tions between NPDES States and
the Region? Vfrat steps are
taken to assure continuing
and effective State/EPA
communications? What is the
general condition of coopera-
tion between the Region and
each State? How are coopera-
tive arrangements established?
How is State/EPA cooperation
assessed and problems remedied?
(H)	How are §106 grants and the
work planning process used to
assure effective implementation
of NPDES State programs? What
water program areas are specific-
ally addressed? Are they con-
sistent with the Agency Operating
Guidance? is the Region working
with the States to integrate the
work programs for all activities
funded under §§106, 205(g), and
205(j)?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
NOTE: Qualitative and quantitative measures of State per-
formance related to specific State activities (e.g.,
permitting and enforcement) may be found in other sections.
Those measures also contribute to providing effective NPDES
State Program oversight.
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL:
OBJECTIVE: INCREASE NUMBER OF APPROVED NPDES STATES (pg. 27)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ACTIVITIES	MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
1. Approve	(A) What are the obstacles
NPDES State	to State NPDES assump-
Program	tion? Pretreatment
Requests	program? Federal
facility program?
(B)	What is Region
doing to encourage
State assumption?
(C)	What is Region's
strategy for each State
to achieve full NPDES
program administration
and is the FY84 strategy
^	being carried out?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Achieve NPDES program
approvals and modifications
in accordance with established
schedules:
-	Full NPDES programs;
-	Pretreatment program
modifications;
-	Federal facility
modifications.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE WATER QUALITY (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
1. Manage
Priority
System
and Lists
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A) Have Regions/States
demonstrated that priority
lists are being used as
management tools?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Ongoing
(B)	Have Regions/States	Ongoing
demonstrated that grant
dollars are going to
priority projects with
high WQ/PH ranking
established at the
start of the fiscal
year?
(C)	Do priority projects	Ongoing
funded in (B) above corre-
late with priority water-
bcdies identified in the
Water Quality Standards,
Planning, and Assessment
section of OV&S?
SOURCE
OF DATA
Needs
Survey
Inventor
Region/
State
Monitor-
ing and
Tracking
Records.
GICS
Reports
& Hard-
Copy PPL
Showing
Rankings
GICS
Reports
& OWRS
Data on
Priority
Water-
bodies.
-------
CONSTRUCT! iRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE FINANCIAI/TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 28)
ACriVITIES
1. Trans-
late Nation-
al Guidance
into Mech-
anisms for
Oversight
QUALITATIVE MEA9JRES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A) Are sludge management
projects being implement-
ed in a manner consistent
with existing Agency
guidance (e.g. MCD 61 and
MCD 72), policy, arid
regulations?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
2. Adept
Programs
to Meet
Require-
ments of
„ the Reg-
ulatiens
(A) Are States developing
sludge management programs
which embody and enforce
EPA regulations and
guidance?
3. Manage
the Program
to Ensure
Priority
Legislative
Requirements
are Effec-
tively Im-
plemented
(A) Is the Regicn/dele-
gated State management
approach achieving maxi-
mum utilization of the I/A
set-aside? What criteria
does the Region utilize to
ensure consistent, high
quality designations of
I/A technology?
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE FINANCIAL/TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 28)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ACTIVITIES	MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
3. Manage	(B) In the Value Erigi-
the Program	neering (VE) program,
to Ensure	what percentages of
Priority	capital and O&M savings
Legislative	have been achieved? Are
Require-	the Regions/States manag-
ments are	ing the VE program to
Effectively	assure maximum savings
Implemented	are achieved?
(cent.)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FRBQUE3JCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(C) Have the Region and
States taken steps to
ensure that grantees
have established pro-
grams to perform the one-
year cert i f i cat i on on
projects funded after
December 29, 1981?
What strategies or
programs have been
developed by the Region
and States to address
ncr>-aff lrmative
cert i f i cat i ons?
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
ACTIVITIES
4. Assure
that Pro-
jects are
Within the
Financial
and Manager-
ial Capability
of the Commu-
nity and Users,
and are
Technolog-
ically
Appropri-
ate
I
01
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
(A) How is the Region
overseeing delegated
States to ensure com-
pliance with 40 CFR 35.
2104(lb)? Have those
communities in receipt
of grants complied?
What corrective measures
are being taken when
problems arise?
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE FINANCIAL/TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 28)
ANNUAL
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR	SPMS/OW
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	COMMITMENT?
(B) How does the Region/
State screen projects
for potential problems,
including inappropri-
ate technology? What
follow-up is provided
cn problem projects so
identified? What types
of problems appear to be
recurring in terms of
financial capability
and appropriate
technology and what
measures are being
applied to other
projects to avoid
similiar situations
in the future?
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE FINANCIAL/TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
5. Conduct
and Evaluate
AT Reviews
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	Is the State/Regicn
screening process
adequate?
(B)	What is the quality
of documentation for AT
and in what areas are
justifications insuffi-
cient?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
*(C) What are the results
of the reviews conducted
by the Regicn and States
(i.e., number of projects
where AT processes are
approved, and number of
AT projects deferred due
to insufficient justi-
fication)?
(D) Has the Region devel-
oped and carried out an
oversight program for
delegated AT reviews?
What are the results of
this assessment?
Summary
Documen-
tation
Projects	States demonstrated that
fishing arid swimming
benefits would result
fran each CSO project
funded under section
201(n)(l)?
6. Evalu-
ate Dele-
gated CSO
(A) Is the Region follow-
ing procedures of Marine
CSO guidance? Have the
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
-r Congressional Request, Headquarters visits to Ret s/States expected 12/84 - 1/85.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND PREVENT BACKLOGS (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
1. Elimin-
ate Back-
logs and
Manage
Grants
Efficiently
i
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A)	Do Region/States
have an effective
strategy for managing
projects (all steps)
frcm grant award to
closeout?
(B)	Have the Regicri/
States developed pro-
files of the slow moving/
fast mazing projects?
(C)	Have the Region and
States managed the
program to reduce the
total of unnecessary
unliquidated balances
in SMPs?
(D)	Are construction
schedules in the grant
agreement being achieved?
(E)	Do Region/State CME
and PMC team members have
necessary training and
expertise?
(F)	Are CME and PMC
reports used as a
feedback mechanism to
the grantees?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) % of projects (by
dollar) in precon-
structicn lag.
(b) % reduction of un-
liquidated obligations
in a negotiated group of
"slow moving" projects
(SMPs).
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
CGP-0080
CGP-0077
SPMS/OW
Quarterly
Report
to be
Develop-
ed
(c) # of full/extended
CMEs.
0W
Quarterly
Regional
Submis-
sion
(G) Is a project manage-
ment conference conducted
on all Step 3 and Step
2+3 projects where it
is needed?
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND PREVENT BACKLOGS (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
1. Elimin-
ate Back-
logs and
Manage
Grants
Efficiently
(cont.)
i
in
CD
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(H)	Are CMEs being used
to help assess the over-
all effectiveness of the
grant program?
(I)	Is there a strategy,
with time based goals,
for completing Step 1 &
Step 2 projects?
(J) Do the Region/States
take aggressive acticn
in identifying and re-
solving problems en
delayed projects (all
steps)?
(K) What actions are the
Region taking to ensure
that projects are com-
pleted in a timely manner?
(L) What actions have
the Region and States
taken to manage a claims
reduction program?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(d) # of active
Step l's arid Step 2's
physically completed
or terminated during
the year.
OW
Quarterly CGP-2500
(e)	# of Step 3,
Step 2+3 & PL 84-660
physical completions
and terminations.
(f)	# of Step 3,
Step 2+3 & PL 84-660
administrative
ccmpletions.
OW
OW
Quarterly
Quarterly
GGP-2330
CGP-2270
CGP-2330
CGP-2280
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
ACTIVITIES
1. Elimin-
ate Back-
logs and
Manage
Grants
Efficiently
(cant.)
2.	Estab-
lish State/
Regional
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE STATE/REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 31)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
1. Complete	(A) What is the Regicn
Delegation	doing to overcame
of the	obstacles in delegat-
Construc-	ing all delegable
tion Grants	functions to the States?
Program to	Are the delegation agree-
the States	ments current?
(a) Percent of program
workload delegated to
States and assigned
to Corps.
OW
(B) Is the Region manag-
ing delegation of the
Grants Information and
Control Systems (GICS)
to the States in order
to ensure accurate and
timely flow of informa-
tion to Agency management
and the public? Is data
quality being maintained
for all required data
elements, including TN
32?
2. Imple-
ment the
Agency
Policy on
Delegation
and Over-
sight fear
Construc-
tion Grants
Program
(A) Has Region's over-
sight policy and strategy
been effectively imple-
mented? Does it explicitly
cover State, Corps, and
Regional performance?
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Second/	Dele
Fourth	tion
Quarters Matrix
Submitt-
ed by
Region
CGP-0060
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPRCWE STATE/REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 31)
ACTIVITIES
2. Manage
Program to
Meet Out-
lay Pro-
jections
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
(A) If cannitment is not
met, what corrective
measures are being taken
by Region/States/GOE?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) % of cum. net
outlays to carmitment.
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
SPMS/OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Monthly/
Quarterly
3. Manage	(A) If commitment is not
Program to	met, what corrective
Meet	measures are being
Obliga-	taken by Region/states/
tion Pro-	COE? What are net
jecticns	obligations on a
State-by-State, source-
by-source, quarter-by-
quarter basis?
(a) % of cum. gross
obligations to
commitment.
SPMS/OW
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF EATA
Plan
Regional
Camiit-
ments
Sub-
mitted
in Early
Aug. 84
Actual:
Finan-
cial
Manage-
ment
Report
CGM-15
Pulled
Monthly
Plan:
Regional
Comnit-
ments
Actual:
Finan-
cial
Report
EPA
92-500
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PERFORMANCE OF COMPLETED FACILITIES (pg. 31)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ACTIVITIES	MID-YEAR REVIEWS	
1. Improve	(A) Are states effec-
Facilities	tively implementing on-
Performance	site operator training
and technical assistance
program for bringing small
facilities into improved
compliance? Are States
conducting annual on-site
O&M reviews? Are the
Regions and States
coordinating the operator
training, technical
assistance, construction
grants, permits and
enforcement programs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ANNUAL
SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
End-of-Year
Report
SOURCE
OF DATA
INJ
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(a) How much money has been
obligated?
2(a) How much money has been
obligated?
1(a) Report the # of States with
compliance strategies.
1(b) Report the # and % of canmunity
systems with persistent and
intermittent violations of the
microbiological, turbidity and
tnhalanethanes requirements in
FY 1984. Report on the population
served by the systems having per-
sistent violations.
1(c) Report the # of formal and
informal tollov^up actions taken
against persistent violators by
States and Regions in FY 84.
1(d) Report the # of data verifica-
tions completed.
1(e) Report the # of inspections
policies developed.
1(a) This measure will report the amount of money fran the FY 85
Special Appropriation tor Compliance and Enforcement which
has been obligated.
2(a) This measure will report the amount of money from the PWSS
Grant Direct Implementation funds which has been obligated.
1(a) This measure will report the number of States which have
developed compliance policies for dealing with systems
which have violations of the NIPDWR. The National Compliance
Policy was distributed January 18, 1984.
1(b) This information is compiled by the Region frcm State submissions.
The Region is expected to review the data in detail and determine
the number of systems that violated the microbiological, turbidity
and trihalomethane requirements, and divide them into persistent
(4 months or 2 quarters) and intermittent categories.
1(d) Definitions tor these terms were provided previously. The Region
should review the data on persistent violators (see 1(b), above)
and determine the numbers of follcw-up actions taken in response
to the violations.
1(d) This measure will report the number of States in which data
verification were conducted in FY 84.
1(e) This measure will report the status of States in developing
policies governing the inspection of public water systems.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(b) The number o£ UIC permit deter-
minations for existing facilities
that need to be made and number
permit files that need to
be reviewed by primacy States.
1(b) For OW purposes, identify by State. 0W will aggregate by Region for SPMS
reporting. The universe of these permits will include all Class I
hazardous waste wells and other Class I and Class III existing
active (AC) and temporarily abandoned (TA* facilities.
1(g) The number of existing Class II
wells for which mechanical
integrity tests will be
performed by primacy States.
1(3) The number of violations, by
major and minor facilities,
resolved or put on compliance
schedules in calendar 1984.
2{b) The number of UIC permit deter-
minations for existing facilities
that need to be made and the
number of permit files to be
reviewed by EPA.
2(f) The number of existing Class II
wells for which mechanical
integrity tests need to be
performed by EPA.
1(g) For OW purposes, identify by State. CW will aggregate by Region for
SFMS reporting. These include all Class II wells (2A, 2D, 2R, 2H and
2X) with active (AC) and temporarily abandoned (TA) status.
l(j) For purposes of the UIC program,
Class I and Class IV wells.
"major" violations are those involving
2(b) For OW purposes, identify by State. OW will aggregate by Region for
SIMS reporting. Hie universe of these permits will include all
Class I hazardous waste wells and all other Class I, Class III and
Class IIA, Class IID facilities.
2(f) For OW purposes, identify by State. CW will aggregate by Region for
SFMS reporting. The universe of these wells includes all wells
classified as 2R, 2H and 2X with active (AC) and temporarily
abandoned (TA) status.
-------
PERMITS: 301(h)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE	
1(a)	# of initial decisions.
1(b)	# of permits issued.
1(c)	# of completed applications.
1(d)	# of intents to revise.
CO
I
CO
1(e)	# of withdrawls.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(a) A decisicn that included a tentative decision and has been signed by
the Regional Administrator.
1(b) A final permit (or the equivalent denial) that has been signed by the
Regional Administrator.
1(c) Application that contains all necessary information needed to make an
initial decision. Information request has been answered satisfactorily.
Plan of study, if necessary, has been defined, and completely
implemented and information needed to make an initial decision has
been submitted.
1(d) 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.
1(e) Applications that have been formally withdrawn by letter and
acknowledgement of withdrawl has been sent to applicant by the Region.
-------
PERMITS:
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(a) # of permits issued to major
industrial facilities during
fiscal year {NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
1(c) # of permits issued to major
municipal facilities during
fiscal year (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States) .
1(e) Region's lists of
industrial/municipal permits to
be issued in non-NPDES States
in FY85.
1(a) Ttotal number of major (using MRAT system) industrial permits
with issuance dates (i.e., date of signature of Director of
permit authority) during FY 85. 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, 1985, according to PCS
data on Oct. 15, 1984 (i.e., the number of major industrial
permits that have or will expire by the end of FY 85.)
1(c) Total number of major municipal permits with issuance dates
(i.e., date of signature of Director of permit authority)
during FY 85. This will be taken frcm 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, 1985, according to PCS data
on Oct. 15, 1984 (i.e., the number of major municipal permits
that have or wilj. expire by the end of FY 85.)
1(e) The lists of major industrial and municipal permits to be
issued in non-NPDES States in FY 1985 is to be developed under
provisions of the "National Municipal Policy" and the "Policy
for the Second Round Issuance of NPDES Permits for Industrial
Sources," respectively. Permits on these lists are known as
priority permits. If there are no priority permits in a State,
this should be noted.
-------
PRETREATMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
2(b) Local pretreatment program
approval
3(a)-(c) PRETREATMENT Enforcement
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION	
2.	A local pretreatment program is considered approved when, after
appropriate public notice and cement, the Approval Authority
(Regional Administrator or the State Director) approves the
local program. Coramtments for non-pretreatment States and
for approved pretreatment States are to reflect all programs
that are required but are not approved as of September 30, 1984.
Ttiese remaining unapproved pretreatment programs must be approved
by the end of the 2nd quarter of FY 1985 (i.e. March 31, 1985).
Referral actions will be considered when assessing progress
toward achieving cxxnmitnients. Referrals that, in tact, have
been turned over to the Justice Department will count as the
equivalent of an approved program.
3.	Pretreatment Inspections of industrial users will
be tracked separately frcm other inspections with
no commitment. This requires Regions to enter
pretreatment inspections of industrial users into
PCS with a code "P" under the NPDES number of the
respective municipality.
Pretreatment enforcement actions (AOs and referrals)
will be counted with the total actions as well as being
counted separately. An enforcement action for multiple
violations must be counted only once; therefore,
Headquarters will assume that the total actions minus
pretreatment actions will equal non-pretreatment NPDES
actions.
"State" enforcement actions (AOs and referrals) include
actions by States with approved pretreatment authority
and actions by NPDES States for violation of a
pretreatment requirement of an NPDES permit.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
1(a)-(d) MOVING BASE
00
1
CD
ENFORCEMENT
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1. The MOVING BASE measures compliance levels of all major
permittees each quarter, and of minor P.L.92-500 permittees
semi-annually.
A facility is considered to be on final effluent
limits when the permittee has completed any necessary
construction to achieve the ultimate effluent limitation
in the permit reflecting secondary treatment, BPT, BAT,
or more stringent limitations, such as State required
limitations or water quality based limitations, or less
stringent limitations established by a variance or a
waiver. A facility is considered to tie in significant
non-compliance with final effluent limits when it has
exceeded the draft criteria for significant non-ccmpliance
and has not corrected the problem by the end of the
reporting period.
A facility is considered to be "not on final effluent
limits" if they do not meet the definition of a "facility
on final effluent limits" or when a permit, court order/
consent order or an Administrative Order require construc-
tion such as for a new plant, an addition to an existing
plant or a tie-in to another facility. A facility is
considered to be in significant nonccmpliance with
its construction schedule when it has exceeded the
draft criteria for significant non-ccmpliance and has
not corrected the problem by the end of the reporting
period. A facility on a "short-term" schedule (one
year or less) for corrections such as composite correc-
tion plans, where compliance can be achieved through
improved operation and maintenance (rather than construction),
is considered to be "not on final effluent limits."
A facility which is in significant noncompliance with both
its construction schedule and interim effluent limits should
be considered as in significant nonccmpliance with its
construction schedule only.
Major P.L.92-500 permittees are tracked as part of the
major municipals as well as being tracked separately.
-------
ENFORCEMENT v„ont.)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2&3 In regard to all major permittees listed in significant
noncompliance on the Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR)
for any quarter, Regions/NPDES States are expected to
ensure that 100% of these facilities have returned to
compliance or have been addressed with a formal enforce-
ment action by the permit authority within the following
quarter. In the event of NPDES States failure to meet
this requirement, Regions are expected to ensure that 100%
of these facilities have returned to compliance or have
been addressed with a formal enforcement action by the
State or by the Region as overview authority within the
subsequent quarter. This translates for fixed base and
exception list reporting as follows:
2.	FIXED BASE reporting involves tracking the compliance
status of major permittees listed in significant non-
compliance on June 30, 1984.
Based on the guidance, Fixed Base facilities in non-NPDES
States must be returned to compliance or addressed with
a formal enforcement action by EPA within one quarter of
their appearance on the fixed base list (i.e., by
September 30, 1984)
Fixed base facilities in NPDES States must be returned
to compliance or addressed with a formal enforcement
action by the State within one quarter of their appearance
on the fixed base list {i.e., by September 30, 1984) or
the Region will return than to compliance or have them
addressed with a formal enforcement action within the
subsequent quarter (i.e., by December 31, 1984).
3.	EXCEPTION LIST reporting involves tracking the compliance
status of major permittees listed in significant noncompliance
on two or more consecutive QNCRs. Reporting begins on
April 1, 1985 based on permittees in SNC for the quarters
ending September 30 and December 31, 1984.
Based on the guidance, Exception Lists should not exist.
When they do exist, Regions are expected to ensure that
the facilities listed are returned to compliance or
addressed with a formal enforcement action before appearing
on the subsequent Exception List report.
-------
ENFORCEMENT (cont.)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES		DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2{a)-(b) FIXED BASE	2&3 Reporting is to be based on the quarter reported in the QNCR
3(a)-(b) EXCEPTION LIST	{one quarter lag).
(cont.)
Fixed Base permittees should not be Exception List reported
for their originally reported Fixed Base violations. Tttey
must be reported on the Exception List, however, for other
violations which appear on two or more consecutive QNCRs.
Returned to compliance Eor Fixed Base and Exception List
facilities refers to compliance with the permit, order, or
decree requirement for which the permittee was placed on
the Fixed Base or Exception List (i.e. same outfall, same
parameter). Compliance with the conditions of a formal
enforcement action taken in response to a Fixed Base or
Exception List violation counts as an enforcement action
(rather than return to compliance) until final effluent
limits are achieved.
Formal enforcement actions against non-federal permittees
include any statutory remedy such as Federal Administrative
Order or State equivalent action, a judicial referral
(sent to HQ/SAG), or a court approved consent decree.
Formal enforcement actions against federal permittees
include placing them on an acceptable construction schedule
or compliance agreement, documenting the dispute arid
forwarding it to Headquarters for resolution, or granting
them Presidential exemption.
-------
ENFORCEMENT (cont.)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES	
4(a)-(b) NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
4. Compliance schedules are expected to be established on the
priority basis established in the National Municipal Policy.
The goal is to establish enforceable schedules for all
affected municipalities by the end of FY 1985. Actual
commitments are to be negotiated with Headquarters.
5(a)-(b) INSPECTIONS
5. Regional and State inspection plans should be established
by FY 1985. A canmitment of having established all
plans by September 30, 1984 is anticipated. EPA and States
commit (separately) to the number of permittees to be inspected
quarterly. This canmitment includes Compliance Evaluation
Inspections (CEI), Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI), Toxics
Inspections (TQX), Bicroonitoring Inspections (BIO), Performance
Audit Inspections (PAI), and Diagnostic Inspections (DIAG) of
major municipal, major nonmunicipal, major federal, and
minor P.L. 92-500 permittees (a composite commitment for all
six inspection types and all four facility types).
10
Tracking of inspections will be done at Headquarters
based on retrievals from the Permit Compliance System
(PCS) according to the following schedule:
INSPECTIONS
RETRIEVAL DATE
July 1, 1984 through Sep. 30, 1984
July 1, 1984 through Dec. 31, 1984
July 1, 1984 through March 31, 1985
July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985
Jan. 7, 1985
April 1, 1985
July 1, 1985
Oct. 1, 1985
Inspections may not be entered into PCS until the inspection
report has been completed and is available upon request by HQ.
Inspections will be tracked by facility type and by inspection
type (CEI, CSI, TQX, BIO, PAI, and DIAG as one number, tracked
against cantiitments; Reconnaissance Inspections (RI) as a
separate number with no commitment.)
As a general rule, all majors should be inspected annually,
and EPA should inspect each major once every five years.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ENFORCEMENT (cont.)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
6(a) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS	6. Headquarters will report EPA Administrative Orders (AOs);
Regions will report State equivalent actions. EPA AOs
must arrive at Headquarters by the fourth working day of
the new quarter in order to be counted in the report.
(Includes pretreatment AOs)
7(a) REFERRALS	7.
Federal referrals will be reported by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM); State
referrals will be reported by the Regions.
(Includes pretreatment referrals)
8(a) CONSENT DECREES	8.
L.	9(a)—(b) PCS	9.
o
Remedial actions include decree modifications, contempt
actions*, collection of stipulated penalties, and other
activities as defined in the OECM guidance to be issued
by October 1, 1984.
WENDB elements are defined in the Enforcement Management
System (EMS) Guide. Added to WEWDB elements are the
following: 1) permit issuance tracking data (those four
elements required Nationally); 2) inspection data (majors
and minors. Federal and State inspections); 3) permit
effluent limits; and (4) evidentiary hearing data.
Regions are expected to attain 100% data entry of WENDB
elements and DMR data for all major permittees.
The S indicator for P.L. 92-500 permittees is to be
entered as soon as the permittee is granted P.L. 92-500
funding, not when such a permittee is completed and
operational. The F indicator for permittees on final
effluent limits is to be entered as soon as the permittee
fulfills the definition of a permittee on final effluent
limits.
-------
ENFORCEMENT wont.)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
10. DMIVQA followup includes the following:
Nonrespondents - nonrespondent notices; when necessary,
additional phone calls and letters;
Permittees requiring corrective action - ascertain from
permittee sources of errors and corrective
actions to be taken;
Both - use for planning compliance inspections.
-------
ATTACHMENT
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(a) % of projects (by dollar)
in preconstruction lag.
CO
I
ro
1(b) % reduction of unliquidated
obligations in a negotiated
group of "slow mewing"
projects (SMPs).
1(a) Preconstruction lag is defined as the grant amounts of all Step 3 projects
that have not initiated building within 9 months of grant award plus the
grant amount of all Step 2+3 projects that have not initiated building
within 9 months of approval of plans and specifications. The initiation of
building is defined as the date of issuance of a notice to proceed for all
significant elements of the project, or, if a notice to proceed is not
required, the date of execution of all significant contracts on the
project.
Method of monitoring (whether using current GICS select logic, new GICS
elements, or new system outside of GICS) to be determined in early FY 1985.
Monitoring will involve the date all significant elements of the project
go under construction.
Performance Expectation:
A negotiated percentage of Step 3 and Step 2+3 projects (by dollar) in
preconstruction lag not to exceed 10% of the FY 1985 allotment. However,
HQs will accept a negotiated percentage higher than 10% in exceptional
cases where it can be shown that 10% or less is impossible to achieve.
1(b) A slow mewing project (SMP) is defined as a Step 3, Step 2+3 or PL 84-660
project under construction that has paid-out less than 90% of funds awarded
and either: 1) has not had a grant payment in ewer 6 months; or 2) has an
outlay history that varies significantly fran the 6/75 obligation payout
curve. Projects under construction are those for which construction has
been initiated as defined in 1(a) above. Percentage of funds paid-out is
defined as GICS data elements (63/19) (100%).
The negotiated group of SMPs will include, to the fullest extent possible,
the SMPs with the largest unliquidated obligations, but will not include
projects for which it is impossible to resolve delays.
Performance Expectation:
Unliquidated obligations in the negotiated subset of projects will be
reduced quarterly by a negotiated percentage. Specific quarterly commitment
and the cumulative year-end commitment will be determined for each Region
based upon data ^alysis and negotiations.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
1(c) # of full, extended CMEs.
1(d) # of active Step l's and
Step 2's physically completed
or terminated during the year.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(c) The objective of CMEs and PMCs is outlined in the Construction Management
Evaluation and Project Management Conference Manual.
Performance Expectation:
For the full/extended CMEs, the national target for FY 1985 is 150, with the
objective of two to four per State. Regions will take the lead in the
actual conduct of full/extended CMEs and submit a report on each CME to
Headquarters.
Since a PMC is needed on virtually all new constructicn projects, the target
is the number of construction starts expected during FY 1985.
1(d) A Step 1 project is considered physically complete when the reviewing
official determines that the scope of work contained in the grant agreement
is appro/able, or, for projects not going on to Step 2, Step 3 or Step 2+3,
when it has met the minimum requirements contained in OWPO '84-22 dated
December 31, 1983. GICS select logic fear Step 1 completion is: N5 = 'AJ41
or ' FJ4' or 'Bor 'AF' .
A Step 2 project is considered physically complete when the plans and
specifications are either approved or judged apprcvable by the appropriate
office: or for projects not going on to construction, a step 2 project is
considered physically complete when it has met the minimum requirements
contained in OWPO #84-22 dated December 21, 1983. GICS select logic for
Step 2 completion is: N5 = 'A#' oar 'F)6' ac 'B0'.
An active Step 1 car Step 2 is any project awarded but not physically
completed. GICS select logic is: N5 ^ 'A#' or ' F#' or ' BJ£'
(or 'AF' Step 1 only).
A project is considered terminated when letter of intent to terminate is
sent frcm the appropriate Regional office to the grantee. GICS select
logic for termination is: N5 = 'Al'.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRAISTTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
1(d) (cont.)
1(e) # of Step 3, Step 2+3 and
PL 84-660 physical completions
and terminatlens.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Performance Expectation:
The goal of the construction grants program is to complete all Step 1 and
Step 2 projects, except large, complicated or involved projects, by the end
of FY 1985.
The Region will be expected to establish target dates and to report the
status, or reason for delay, via GICS, for any Step 1 or Step 2 project
scheduled for ccmpleticn after FY 1985.
1(e) A project is considered physically complete when an official inspection
(EPA/State/Corps) determines that:
° 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;
° The facility is capable of functioning as designed;
° All equipment is operational and performing satisfactorily (does not
apply to interceptors/collection systems); and
° 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. GICS select logic for physical completion is:
N5 = 'A#' or 'Ftf' or 'B0'. GICS Select logic for termination is:
N5 = 'Al' .
Performance Expectations:
As a minimum target, the estimated number of projects more than 90% complete
at the beginning of the fiscal year should be planned for physical
ccmpleticn by the end of the fiscal year.
-------
CONSTRDCTIL GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
1(f) # of Step 3, Step 2+3 and
PL 84-660 administrative
completions.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(f) An administrative completion is any one of the following:
° A final audit request: N8 = 'AJ25' or 'F#' or 'Bfe5' or;
° A project that is administratively complete but not sent to OIG because
of related segments car phases: N8 = 'AP' , or;
° A project not requiring a final audit: N8 = 'NS'.
Final audit is requested when the following conditions have been satisfied:
° Construction is complete as defined in data element N5, Project Ccnv-
pleticn Code & Date:
° All pre-final audit administrative requirements have been satisfied;
° Final inspection has been performed;
° The plan of operation has been implemented, or for projects awarded
after December 29, 1981, project performance certification has been
received;
° The "cut-off" letter has been issued to the grantee; and
° The final payment has been requested.
Performance Expectations:
All projects for which grants were awarded before December 29, 1981, are
expected to be administratively completed within 12 months of physical
completion. All projects awarded after December 29, 1981, are expected to
be administratively completed within 24 mcnths of physical completion.
As a minimum target, the estimated number of projects awaiting
administrative completion at the beginning of the fiscal year should be
planned for administrative completion by the end of the fiscal year.
Projects awarded after December 29, 1981, will not be considered as awaiting
administrative completion until the 12 month project performance period
has expired.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE		DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(g) # of Step 3, Step 2+3 and	1(g) Closeout occurs after:
P.L. 84-660 clo6eouts.
° Audit has been resolved or a determination has been made by OIG
that an audit will not be performed
° Funds owed the Government by the grantee (or vice versa) have been
recovered (or paid); and
° A closeout letter has been issued to the grantee; or
0 Any disputes filed under 40 CFR Part 30 have been resolved.
Performance Expectations;
Project closeout is^expected to occur within 6 months after final audit
resolution.
However, the time-based measure will not apply if:
0 The grantee appeals a final decisicn in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 30; or
° The action official	has referred the project to the servicing finance
office to establish an accounts receivable based on the audit findings.
As a minimum target, the estimated number of projects awaiting closeout or
awaiting audit resolution at the beginning of the fiscal year or any project
planned for 'screen out' by OIG during the fiscal year should be planned
for closeout by the end of the fiscal year. GICS select logic fcr closeouts
is: P0 = *AJzJ" or 'AC' .
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE		DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(h) # of administrative canpletion	1(h) An administrative completion backlog is any project that has been awaiting
backlogs eliminated.	administrative canpletion for more than 12 months at the beginning of the
fiscal year, if it was awarded before December 29, 1981; or awaiting
administrative canpletion for more than 24 months at the beginning of the
fiscal year, if it was awarded after December 29, 1981.
The status, or reason for delay, of every administrative canpletion backlog
project should be reported to Headquarters on a quarterly b&sis via GICS.
Performance Expectation
The goal is to complete all backlog projects except those projects that are
delayed beyond the Region's or State's ability to control, i.e., 100%
achievable administrative canpletion backlogs eliminated.
An in-depth review/analysis of each backlog project will be performed
prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and during the mid-year
evaluation. Accordingly, the Region should be prepared to describe the
past problems and current status of each backlog project, including the
prognosis for administratively canpleting the projects and the estimated
administrative canpletion date.
The following are examples of sane of the delays that are beyond the
control of the Region or State:
-	Litigation;
-	Arbitration;
-	Investigations by State or Federal agencies;
-	Non-canpliance with civil rights or Federal
labor requirements; and
-	Non-canpliance with project performance requirements.
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE		DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(i) f of closeout backlogs	1(i) A closeout backlog is any project that has been awaiting closeout for mere
eliminated.	than 6 months at the beginning of the fiscal year.
The status, car reason for delay, of every closeout backlog project, should
be reported to Headquarters cn a quarterly basis via GICS.
Performance Expectation:
The goal is to canplete all backlog projects except those projects delayed
beyend the Region's or State's ability to control, i.e., 100% achievable
closeout backlogs eliminated.
An in-depth review/analysis of each backlog project will be performed
prior to the beg inning of the fiscal year and during the mid-year
evaluation. Accordingly, the Region should be prepared to describe the past
problems and current status of each backlog project including the prognosis
for closing out the project, and the estimated closeout date.
The following are examples of sane of the delays that may occur during the
closeout phase that are beyond the control of the Region or State:
-	Action pending before the Board of Assistance Appeals;
-	Action awaiting debt collection by Financial Management; and
-	Dispute pending under 40 CFR Part 30.
3(a) % of Corps utilization vs.	3(a) Although measure appears as a quantitative indicator, Headquarters does
target.	not regard it as a Regional cormiitment. The commitment is between
Corps Divisions and EPA Regions. However, Headquarters does intend to
track performance against plan in evaluating how effectively the
Region is overseeing the Corps performance in the Region.
-------
CONSTRUCT, GRANTS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
3(a) (cont.)
1(a) Percent of program
workload delegated.
2(a) % of cum. net monthly
outlays (plan vs.
actual).
3(a) % of cum. gross
quarterly obligations
(plan vs. actual).
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
This measure is based on the actual number of Corps outputs and resource
utilization against the quarterly targets listed in the annual Corps work-
plan. Source is the monthly list of outputs sent by Corps Districts to
the Regicn and the Corps monitoring report. Region is expected to monitor
Corps outputs and to take corrective action if slippage occurs.
1(a) 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 confutation 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
accanmodated in Region's resource usage.
2(a) The net sum of payments made and payments recovered frcm 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 1985 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.
3(a) Dollar amount of new awards and increases frcm projects funded with
PL 92-500 contract authority, 1977 supplemental, FY 1978 through 1985
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. Regicn is expected to achieve a performance within
+15% of its cdtmitments on a quarterly basis. Note: in accordance with
Agency accounting practices, decreases of funds awarded in FY 1985 during
FY 1985 will be subtracted frcm the gross total.
-------