United States Office of Water (WH-556) March 1985
Environmental Protection Washington DC 20460
Agency
A Guide to
the Office of Water
Accountability System
and Mid-Year Evaluations
Fiscal Year 1986
-------
A
GUIDE TO THE
OFFICE OF WKFER
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
AND
KID-YEAR EVALUWIC3t}S
Fiscal Sear J.9I#
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM 2
A. Appendix A: The Measures 2
B. Appendix B: The Definitions 4
III. THE OFFICE OF WATER EVALUATION SYSTEM 5
A. Prenegotiated Cornnitments and Quarterly
Reporting 5
B. Mid-year Evaluations 6
1. Advance Preparation 6
2. On-site Evaluations 7
3. Evaluation Follow-up 9
C. Other Office of Water Information Collection
Activities 9
D. Timeline for Activities Related to the FY 1986
Agency Operating Guidance 11
APPENDIX A 12
APPENDIX B
76
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In FY 1986, the Office of Vtfater 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 1986. The guide should be used in conjunction with the Agency's
FY 1986 Operating Guidance, which sets forth the National objectives for
water programs.
Page 1
-------
II. THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
The Office of Water Accountability System consists of a set of qualita-
tive and quantitative measures that provide the basis for evaluating Regional
Office performance against National program objectives. The measures in
the system include all measures included in the Strategic Planning and
Management System as well as additional qualitative and quantative measures
which are needed to fully evaluate performance against the Office of Water's
FY 1986 national program objectives. In general, the measures from the
Strategic Planning and Management System relate to the Agency's Priority
List and should be considered the highest priority program activities.
The structure of the FY 1986 Office of Water Accountability System
remains essentially the same as the FY 1985 system. The following is a
brief description of the accountability system, which is presented fully
in Appendix A and B.
A. Appendix A: The Measures
Appendix A contains the Office
is structured as a series of charts
of information:
of Water Accountability System, which
that contain the following categories
National Program Objectives: These are the Office of Water's major policy
objectives for FY 1986. The objectives are action items that are organized
primarily by the Acts that authorize water programs: the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SOMA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). Additionally, there is a section
covering the objectives of the Ground Water Strategy.
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.
Bather, 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.
-------
Section II
Office of Water Accountability System
Office of water Evaluation Guide
Reporting Measures; Hie reporting measures are designed to generate the
key data and information that the Office of Water needs to evaluate Regional
progress towards achieving National program objectives. There are two
kinds of reporting measures:
0 Qualitative measures are the specific questions that Regions are
expected to address during the Office of Water mid-year evaluations.
The measures relate primarily to program accomplishments and effec-
tiveness, and generally do not involve prenegotiated commitments.
° Quantitative measures provide the kinds of information that the
Office of Water needs for program management and reporting purposes
and for responding to Congressional inquiries. These measures include
all measures included in the Strategic Planning and Management
System (SFMS), as well as some unique to the Office of Water system.
Many of these measures involve prenegotiated commitments with the
Regions (see Section below).
In SPMS/Conmitment: This column 1} designates those measures that appear in
the FY 1986 Strategic Planning and Management System and 2) identifies whether
or not the measure involves a prenegotiated commitment between the Office
of Water and the Regions. This column relates largely to quantitative
measures; the principal exception is the qualitative measures related to
developing Regional or State strategies by specific deadlines.
Reporting Frequency; This column conveys the planned reporting schedule
for specific prenegotiated carmitments.
Source of Data; This final column identifies the means by which the Office
of Water will secure the required information from the Regions. Where there
are existing data systems such as the Grants Information Control System
(GICS), the Permits Compliance System (PCS), and the Federal Reporting
Data System (FRDS), the information will usually be drawn from that source.
Page 3
-------
Section II Office of Water Accountability System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
The measures in the accountability system will provide the Office of
Water with much of the information necessary to monitor Regional performance
in water programs. The accountability system is not intended to provide
all the information that the Office of water needs during the year (see
Section III), nor to limit the kinds of information that Regions may need
for overview of State water programs. As part of its overview function,
the Region is expected to gather the basic information to prepare its
midyear self-evaluation and to participate effectively in the Office of
Water mid-year evaluations. Regions may, however, seek additional information
from States through program audits or other activities, and may choose to
evaluate State management of water program activities that are not covered
in the Office of Water guidance or accountability system.
B. Appendix B; The Definitions
Appendix B contains detailed, technical information that more clearly
defines some of the quantitative measures contained in Appendix A. These
definitions explain the precise manner in which the Region is expected to
report the required information to the Office of tJater. For seme measures,
it also establishes a specific level of performance that each Region is
expected to achieve during the quarter/fiscal year, and explains how the
Office of Water plans to evaluate performance in these areas.
Page 4
-------
III. THE OFFICE OF WATER EVALUATION SYSTEM
The Office of Water Accountability System contains both quantitative
and qualitative measures. While the Office of Water plans to use both types
of measures to monitor Regional performance during the year, Regions will be
asked to provide the information in two different ways: quarterly reports
to the Office of Water and SPMS (quantitative measures), and midyear reviews
(qualitative measures and whatever quantitative data are available at the
time of the review). The following is a brief description of the ways in
which the Office of Water plans to collect information and to evaluate Regional
performance.
A. Prenegotiated Commitments and Quarterly Reporting
Many quantitative measures in the accountability system require pre-
negotiated commitments. The commitment-setting process will be carried
out in conjunction with that of the Strategic Planning and Management
System and will follow the same schedule. In late July of 1985, the Office
of Water Program Offices start negotiations with the Regions to set specific
target levels of activity for the quantitative measures in the accountability
system. The Regions and the Office of Water use the following process to
reach agreement on all prenegotiated camiitments:
° Program Offices will negotiate targets based on the quantitative
measures in the FY 1986 accountability system; the Assistant Admin-
istrator trust personally approve any requests for prenegotiated
commitments beyond those included in the final FY 1986 system.
° Program Office Directors will initiate the original data requests,
which will be addressed to the Regional Water Management Division
Directors.
° Program Office data requests will identify significant program
assumptions, reporting frequency, and reporting mode; each data
request should cross-reference the pertinent measure in the FY 1986
Office of Water Accountability System.
-------
Section III The office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
0 Program Offices will negotiate commitments based on workload and
output projections. Negotiations will start from zero base, with
Regions developing the initial target; the Program Offices will
analyze the Region's output estimates to assure that they are
consistent with performance expectations, and will accept the
Region's estimates unless there is practical evidence or other
valid reason to suggest that an alternative output estimate is
more appropriate.
0 Once staff level negotiations are complete, the Assistant
Administrator will submit agreed upon ocmraitments for those measures
included in SPMS to the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation
(GMSEJ. Regional Administrators will also be asked to submit the SPMS
commitments to OMSE. Commitments Cor those measures included in
the Office of water Accountability System cmly will be combined
into a single memorandum and sent to the Regional Administrator
for review; the Regional Administrator should approve the final
conmitments.
To the extent possible, the Office of Water will attempt to reach final
agreement on all pcenegotiated corranitments by the beginning of FY 1986 so
that Regions may corrmence 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. Mile
CMSE will provide specific instructions at a later date, it is likely that
SPMS commitments will be due to that office in late August or early September.
B. Mid-year Evaluations
The Office of Water plans to conduct a formal, coordinated midyear
evaluation in the five even-numbered Regions in FY 1986. The evaluation will
be based on the quantitative and qualitative measures in the FY 1986
accountability system, and the discussions in each Region will focus on
its particular problems and issues. The Office of Water plans to use its
established evaluation process in FY 1986. Ihe following is a description
of that process.
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
1. Advance Preparation
Early in FY 1986, the Office of Water will begin to schedule the
formal evaluations, which will occur during the months of May, June,
and July.1 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.
At least four weeks prior to the scheduled formal evaluation, each
Region must provide a summary of Regional and State progress to date in
majot National program areas. Regions which are not scheduled for a formal
evaluation are also expected to submit full self-evaluations to the Office
of Water by May 15. These should be succinct self-evaluations in which
the Region identifies its key problems and issues, as well as its success(es)
to date in meeting National program objectives, based on the measures in
the 1986 Office of Water Accountability System. The Region is also encouraged
to look back at its FY 1985 end-of-year status, and to provide an analysis
of its progress since that time, identifying by program whether it has
been outstanding, fully successful, or unsatisfactory. While there is no
required format for the self-evaluations, same program offices may provide
suggested formats for use by the Regions. The Office of Water will use
these surrraries as discussion documents during the on-site visits. For
those Regions where there is no on-site evaluation, the self-evaluation
will be used to evaluate Regional progress and to determine whether issue-
specific program audits are necessary.
Each Region scheduled to receive an on-site evaluation should also
submit a proposed agenda for the Technical Review Session (see below).
This proposed agenda should be based upon the Region's review of its State
programs and its self-evaluation, and it should highlight areas of special
concern to the Region; areas of concern may include technical issues, as
well as interpretation of national policy directions. Proposed agendas
should include a block of time to discuss the issues that are ccranon across
water program areas, as well as unique projects that have involved significant
Regional effort during the year. Each Region will be provided with a
final agenda at least two weeks in advance of the on-site evaluation.
The Office of Water Program Offices will review each Region's evaluation
and its proposed agenda, and will identify any additional issues that may
be of concern. The Office of water will then work closely with each Region
to modify the agenda based on its review of the Region's self-evaluation,
as well as other data collected through routine activities, such as quarterly
reporting.
Page 7
-------
Section III
The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
2. On-site Evaluations
The formal on-site evaluations will consist of a Technical Review
Session followed by a Senior Management Session. The duration of the
Technical Review Session will be based on the nature and extent of the
problems that are identified, and will vary from two to three days in each
Region.
The Technical Review team will be led by a Division Director. Each of
the following program areas will be represented: regulations and standards,
permits and enforcement, construction grants, drinking water, ground water,
and marine and estuarine programs. The Office of Water will also encourage a
senior level manager from another Region to participate in a review of his
or her choosing.
The Technical Review Sessions will be conducted as separate breakout
sessions in specific program areas. Sane time will also be set aside for
full grcup discussion of issues that cross program areas; this discussion
should occur after the breakout sessions so that all participants are
informed of the issues. At the conclusion of the Technical Review Session,
the Office of Water review team will collaborate with the Region's staff
to identify the general issues and findings that both parties agree should
be discussed at the follow-up Senior Management Session. The Region will
have an opportunity to review this report and to provide further information
prior to the follow-up Senior Management Session.
The one-day Senior Management Session will occur approximately one
week after the initial Technical Review Session. The specific purpose of
this meeting is to reach a mutual understanding regarding how the Region
plans to deal with key findings and unresolved concerns that emerged during
the Technical Review Session.
The group will be led by the Assistant Administrator (AA) or Designee;
team members may include the Technical Review Team leader and selected Office
Directors. Regional participants should include the Regional Administrator
(RA) and/or the Deputy Regional Administrator (DRA), as well as the Water
Division Director (WDD), and, if appropriate, the Environmental Services
Division Director.
The evaluation report that was prepared at the conclusion of the
Technical Review Session will serve as the basis for the Senior Management
discussion. Prior to the session with the RA or DRA, the Senior Management
Team and the WDD will meet to discuss the key issues raised in the report,
and, if appropriate, will reach agreement on how the Region plans to deal
Page 8
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
with these issues. These agreements and any remaining, unresolved issues
will be discussed with the RA or DRA in an effort to arrive at decisions
regarding how they will be handled.
3. Evaluation Follow-up
Following the Senior Management Session, the Office of Water will
prepare a memo that summarizes the key issues that were discussed and
outlines any commitments that were made at the Senior Management Session.
These memos will not be comprehensive summaries of all the issues discussed,
but will focus on critical issues, the agreements that were reached, and
other actions (if any) that may be required to resolve any outstanding
issues. The Regions are encouraged to respond to these memos and to apprise
the Assistant Administrator of actions that resulted frcm the evaluation
findings.
For those Regions where there is no on-site evaluation, the Office of
Water will analyze the findings frcm the Regional self-evaluations. Where
significant concerns are identified, program audits may be generated. In
all cases, the Office of Water will prepare a memorandum to the Region
summarizing critical issues and/or identifying areas where performance is
satisfactory or outstanding.
C. Other 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 frcm the
Congress, the Administrator or the Assistant Administrator. Consequently,
there will be a need for Program Offices to collect data and information
from the Regions outside the formal accountability system. The Office of
Water remains committed to keeping these information requests to a minimum,
and to coordinating activities between the Program Offices to the extent
possible.
The following are the main, ongoing information collection activities
that the Office of Water anticipates during FY 1986:
0 Budget: The Office of Water will ask the Regions to provide the
information necessary to prepare the annual budget request.
Regions will also participate in the workload analysis that
serves as the basis for distributing resources among the
Page 9
-------
Section III The Office of Water Evaluation System
Office of Water Evaluation Guide
Regions. Regions may also periodically be asked to provide
incidental information related to the budget process.
° Quarterly Reporting: Regions will submit quarterly, semi-annual or
annual reports to the Office of Water to monitor prenegotiated ccmmit-
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.
° Data Retrieval: The Office of Water will retrieve quantitative
data frcm existing management information systems, such as the Permits
Compliance System (PCS), the Grants Information Control System (GICS),
and the Federal Reporting Data System (FRD6).
° 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 self-evaluations
that sumnarize 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
-------
TIMELINE FOR ACTIVITIES
RELATED TO THE FY 1986 OFFICE OF WATER
OPERATING GUIDANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
Regions Negotiate
State Workplans Based
on FY 1986 Guidance/
Accountability
f .
Regions Conduct
Reviews of
State Programs
r
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
1 1 'III! 1__J I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I L I I I I
FY 1985
I
Agency Publishes FY 1986
Qu idanc e/Accountab ility;
OW Publishes Account-
ability system and
Evaluation Guide
FY 1986
J I L
FY 1987
OW/Regions
Negotiate FY 1986
Commitments for
SPMS/CWAS
(Reports submitted
in * months)
OW Conducts
Mid-year Evaluations of
Regional Water Programs
OFFICE OF WATER ACTIVITIES
-------
APPENDIX. A
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE VftTER QUALITY (pg. 35)
ACTIVITIES
1. Manage
Priority
System
and Lists
r
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Can the Regions/States
demonstrate that grant dollars
are going to high priority
WQ/PH projects based cn an
accepted project priority list?
How do these projects correlate
with the priority waterbedies
as stated in 40 CFR 35.2005(B)
34 and identified in the Water
Quality Standards, Planning,
and Assessment Section of OWRS?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Ongoing
SOURCE
OF DATA
Needs
Survey
Inventory.
Region/
State
Monitor-
ing and
Tracking
Records.
Reports
& Hard-
Copy of
accepted
PPL
Shewing
Ranking.
GICS
Reports
& OWRS
Data on
Priority
Water-
bodies.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE FINANCIAL/TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 35)
ACTIVITIES
1. Stimulate
development or
improvement of
State sludge
mgnt. programs.
>
N>
2. Assure
canpliance with
Federal sludge
use & disposal
requirements
through
existing or new
State sludge
mgnt. programs.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What actions have the
Regions taken, car plan to
take, to assist the States
in developing, evaluating,
and improving their sludge
management programs?
(B) What actions have the
Regions taken, or plan to
take, to assist the State
in developing sludge mgnt.
programs or revising the
existing programs to con-
form with new Federal sludge
use and disposal requirements?
(C) What plans have the
Regions made for coordinating
overall Regional activities
related to sludge mgnt.
issues?
(A) What EPA manpower resources
would be required for the
Regions to directly impose
Sec. 405 requirements in
States without acceptable
sludge mgnt. programs in place?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE FINANCIAL/TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 35)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
3. Manage
the Program
to Ensure
Priority
Legislative
Requirements
are Effec-
tively Im-
plemented.
r
Co
(A) Is the Region/delegated
State management approach'
achieving maximum utiliza-
lation of the I/A set-aside?
What criteria does the Region
utilize to ensure consistent,
high quality designations of
I/A technology?
(B) Are the Regions/States
managing the VE program to
assure maxinam savings are
achieved?
(C) How are the Regions and
States implementing the ICR
recaonendaticns resulting fran
the FY 1985 program review?
(D) What is the Regional/State
strategy for managing the one-
year project performance certi-
fication process?
(E) Have the grantees with
projects that were non-affirraa-
tively certified at the con-
clusion of the one year
period (based on actual N7 +
12 months) submitted acceptable
corrective action reports and
what are the States and Region
doing to ensure that progress is
being achieved in correcting the
problems?
(a) % of projects that
completed the one year opera-
tional period and were affirma-
tively certified.
Nc/No
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
GICS
Report
to be
deve-
loped
-------
OBJECTIVE:
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
ENSURE FINANCIAL/TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 35)
ACTIVITIES
4. Assure
that Pro-
jects are
within the
financial
and management
capability of
the camunity
and users, and
are technolog-
ically
appropriate
>
i
5. Conduct
and Evaluate
AT Reviews
6. Evalu-
ate Dele-
gated CSO
Projects
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Is the Region over-
seeing delegated States
to ensure ccmpliance with
40 CFR 35. 2104(b), 35.2140,
and to ensure that wastewater
treatment works are operating
on a self-sustaining basis?
(B) How does the Region/
State screen and resolve
potential problem projects
including inappropriate
technology?
(A) Does sufficient docu-
mentation exist, as a result
of Region/State reviews, to
demonstrate that each of the
proposed AT processes would
definitely result in signifi-
cant water quality and public
health improvements (i .e.,
number of projects where AT
processes are approved, and
number of AT projects deferred
due to insufficient justifi-
cation) ?
(A) Have the States
demonstrated that fishing
and swimming benefits would
result from each CSO project
funded under section 201(n)(l)?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND PREVENT BACKLOGS (pg. 37)
ACTIVITIES
1. Elimi-
nate Back-
logs and
Manage
Grants
Efficiently
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Do Reg ion/States
have an effective
strategy for managing
project schedules
efficiently (all steps)
from grant award to
closeout?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Total dollar value
(grant amounts) in pre-
construction lag status
expressed as a percent
of annual allotment.
(b) # of Step 3, Step 2+3
PL 84-660 physical comple-
tions arid terminations.
(c) # of projects
initiating operation.
(d) # of Step 3, Step 2+3 &
PL 84-660 administrative
completions.
(e) # of Step 3, Step 2+3 &
PL 84-660 closeouts.
(f) # of administrative
completion backlogs
eliminated.
(g) # of closeout backlogs
eliminated.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
No/OW
Yes/SPMS
No/OW
No/OW
Yes/SPMS
No/OW
SOURCE
OF DATA
CGP-008
CGP-0086
Quarterly CGP-2500
CGP-2700
Quarterly GICS
Report
to be
deve-
loped
Quarterly CGP-2330
CGP-2280
Quarterly CGP-2330
CGP-2310
Quarterly CGP-2340*
CGP-2280
Quarterly CGP-2550*
CGP-2210
* Frozen at the beginning of the fiscal year.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND PREVENT BACKLOGS (pg. 37)
ACTIVITIES
1. Eliminate
Backlogs and
Manage Grants
Efficiently
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(B) What tools do the
Regions/States use to
minimize unliquidated
balances in SMPs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(h) % reduction of un-
liquidated obligations
in a negotiated group of
"slow moving" projects
(SMPs).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/OW
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF DATA
Quarterly CGP-2565
>
i
ON
(C) Are CMEs and PMCs used
effectively with well trained
team members to help assess
the overall evaluation of
the grant program?
(D) Is a FMC conducted on
all Step 3 and Step 2+3
projects where grantees
are not sufficiently
experienced?
(E) Is there a project
specific strategy, with
time based goals, for
completing all Step 1 &
Step 2 projects?
(F) What actions have
the Region and States
taken to manage a claims
reduction program?
(i) # of CMEs.
No/OW
Quar ter ly Reg ional
Submis-
sion
(j) # of active Step l's and
Step 2's actninistratively
completed or terminated during
the year.
No/OW
Quarterly CGP-2500
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE EFFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND PREVENT BACKLOGS (pg. 37)
T
vj
ACTIVITIES
2. Manage
State/Reg ional
Grant Disputes
Resolution
Procedures
and Tracking
Systems to
Monitor
States
3. Oversee
the Corps
LAG to See
that Wbrk-
plan Com-
mitments are
Achieved
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are grant disputes
tracked, reported and
resolved on a timely
basis?
(B) Is the Region over-
seeing the Corps IAG to
ensure that negotiated
resource and output
commitments are met?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(a) % of Corps utili-
zation vs. target.
No/No
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Report-
ing Deve-
loped
by Corps
Divi-
sions
and
Region
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE STATE/REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 38)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
1. Complete
Delegation
of the
Construc-
tion Grants
Program to
(A) What is the Region
doing to overcome
obstacles in delegat-
ing all delegable
functions to the States?
Are the delegation agree-
(a) # of new activities
delegated to the States
No/No
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Delega-
tion
Matrix
Submitt-
ed by
Region
the States ments current?
(B) Demonstrate that a
plan for overview pursuant
to 40 CFR 35.3025 (a) has
been developed and that an
on-site evaluation has been
> performed.
i
00
(C) Is the Region managing
G1CS so that it is reliable
and accurate, supportive of
program priorities, serves
as an effective outreach
program to delegated States
and is readily available to
end-users?
(D) What is the Region's
strategy and implementation
plan for levels of Regional
construction grants program
human resources, skill mix
and staffing patterns to meet
delegated state oversight
and technical assistance
responsibilities, and direct
EPA construction grant and
OScM management responsibil-
ities?
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE STATE/REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pg. 38)
ACTIVITIES
2. Manage
Program to
Meet Out-
lay and
Obligation
Projections
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What measures are being
taken by Reg ion/States/COE
to keep on track?
(B) What are net obligations
on a state-by-state, source-
by-source, quarter-by-quarter
basis?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) % of cum. net
outlays to comnitment.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Monthly/
Quarterly
(b) % of cum. gross
obligations to ccnmitment.
No/OW
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Financial
Manage-
ment
Report
CGM-15
Financial
Manage-
ment
Report
EPA
92-500
>
i
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PERFORMANCE OF COMPLETED FACILITIES (pg. 37)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR IN SFMS/ REPORTING SOURCE
ACTIVITIES MID-YEAR REVIEWS QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY OF DATA
>
i
1. Improve (A) Are States effec-
Facilities tively inplenenting an
Performance onsite operator training
and technical assistance
program for bringing small
facilities into improved
compliance? How many minor
POIW's have the States com-
mitted to assist under
104(g) 1 grants and are
they on schedule? How many
POIW's have returned to
compliance following an OME?
(a) # of Operations
Management Evaluations
(OMEs) performed at
completed minor POTW's.
Yes/SFMS
Second/
Fourth
Quarter
GICS
Report
to be
deve-
loped
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR NPDES PERMITS CONSISTENT WITH
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE AMD ISSUE PERMITS AS THEY EXPIRE. ISSUE
MINOR NPDES PERMITS, ESPECIALLY PERMITS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT
MINORS AND UNPERMITTED DISCHARGERS (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial and
Municipal
Permits
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YKAK
(A) Bow were Regional/State
permit issuance strategies de-
veloped and how does the Region
track State permit Issuance
status (major and minorJ?
(B) Have the Region/States
developed priority lists
for issuing industrial/muni-
cipal permits? Did they
use national policy and
guidance to develop a
priority list for permit
issuance? Are resources
being directed to deal with
the most significant toxic
discharge or water quality
problem areas?
(C) Do any States have a
a continuing backlog of
expired major permits?
UaB the Region assessed
the reasons? What are the
Region's plans to address
the problem?
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/SPMS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track progress against
targets for the # of permits
reissued to major industrial
facilities during fiscal year
(NPDES States, non-NPDES States).
(b) Identify the # of major in- Yes/No
dustrial permits that have or
will expire by the end of FY 8b
(NPDES States, non-NPDES States).
(c) Track, progress against tar- Yes/SPMS
gets for the # of permits reissued
to major municipal facilities
during fiscal year (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
(d) Identify the # of major Yes/No
municipal permits that have
or will expire by the end
of FY 86 (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States).
(e) Region's lists of major No/OW
industrial and municipal
permits to be issued in non-
NPDES States in FY86.
(f) NPDES State's lists of major No/OW
industrial and municipal permits
to be issued in FY 36.
(g) Track # of major industrial No/No
permits modified (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
10/10/85
Quarterly
PCS
PCS
10/10/85
PCS
Provide Region
lists start
of FY
Provide States
lists to
Region start
of FY
Quarterly Region
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR NPDES PERMITS CONSISTENT WITH
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND ISSUE PERMITS AS THEY EXPIRE. ISSUE
MINOR NPDES PERMITS, ESPECIALLY PERMITS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT
MINORS AND UNPERMITTED DISCHARGERS (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
1. Issue/
Reissue
Industrial
and Muncipal
Permits
(cont.)
>
i
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(D) Are industrial/muni-
cipal major permit
issuance rates in the
Region/States expected
to be sufficient to
assure residual backlogs
do not exceed 10%?
Now? In the future?
(E) Are there delays or
roadblocks in the Region's/
States* industrial/muni-
cipal permitting processes?
What are they and what
practical steps are
needed to expedite
permitting?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(h) Track # of major
municipal permits modified
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
(i) Track progress against
targets for the # of permits
reissued to significant minor
industrial facilities during
fiscal year (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
(j) Track progress against
targets for the # of permits
reissued to significant
minor municipal facilities
during fiscal year (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
Yes/SPMS
Yes/SPMS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Second
and Fourth
Quarters
Second
and Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region
Region/
States
Region/
States
(F) Are permits that
were held by the Region/
States for reissuance
pending final effluent
guidelines being issued
by Region/States upon
promulgation?
(k) Prepare and submit a
State-by-State strategy for
the issuance of permits to
minor dischargers.
No/OV)
12/31/85
Region/
States
(G) How was the July 1984
deadline addressed by the
Region/States? Were short-
term permits issued? Will
many permits have reopener
clauses for incorporating
promulgated effluent guide-
lines or for addressing new
limits resulting from
toxicity testing?
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR NPDES PERMITS CONSISTENT WITH
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND ISSUE PERMITS AS THEY EXPIRE. ISSUE
MINOR NPDES PERMITS, ESPECIALLY PERMITS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT
MINORS AND UNPERMITTED DISCHARGERS (pg. 28)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR IN SFMS/ REPORTING SOURCE
ACTIVITIES MID-YEAR QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY OF DATA
1. Issue/Reissue
Industrial and
Municipal
Permits
(oont.)
J—¦
(H) What is the nature of the
modifications being made to
industrial/municipal major
permits? Discuss this workload
for the Region/States in re-
lation to permit issuance and
other permitting activities.
What are the resource implica-
tions? How does the Region
track permit modifications?
(I) Discuss in particular the
process and timing fear modifi-
cation of nunicipal permits to
incorporate approved pretreat-
rnent program requirements.
Have all approved local programs
been incorporated in permits? If
not, what are the impediments?
Vhen will it be done? Are subse-
quent local program changes being
incorporated? How frequently does
this happen? is there a backlog?
Hiat priority is given to assuring
municipal permits are modified to
reflect current local pretreatment
programs?
2. Issue New
Source/Major
New Discharger
Permits
(A) Is Region's/States'
approach to new permits
consistent with priority
to protect water quality?
Are there special prob-
lems in the new source
area? Is there adequate
coordination with other
(a) Identify # of complete
applications fear 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.
No/No
10/31/85
Region
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG OF EXPIRED MAJOR NPDES PERMITS CONSISTENT WITH
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND ISSUE PERMITS AS THEY EXPIRE. ISSUE
MINOR NPDES PERMITS, ESPECIALLY PERMITS FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT
MINORS AND UNPERMITTED DISCHARGERS (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
2. Issue New
Source/Major
New Discharger
Permits
(cont.)
>
i
3. Issue/Re issue
General Permits
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
media programs where more
than one EPA permit is re-
qu ired? Is construct ion
ban being enforced? Have
problems arisen in this
area? Are NEPA reviews
conducted smoothly and in
a timely manner where re-
quired?
(A) VJhat types of problems
have the Region/States en-
countered in issuing general
permits? What measures
have been taken or
are needed to resolve
them?
(B) Is Region actively
considering ways to use
general permits to reduce
the minor permit backlog?
What types of general permits
are being considered? Tb
what extent will they reduce
the minor permit backlog?
Hien are they likely to be
issued?
(C) Tb what extent can general
permits be used to regulate un-
permitted dischargers? Are any
such general permits being
prepared? When are they likely
to be issued? How many un-
permitted dischargers would
be regulated?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(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.
(a) Track progress against
targets for the # of general
permits issued/reissued
(non-NPDES States):
-OCS general
-# in new categories (not
covered by prior EPA
general permits); and
-# others (covered by
prior general permits).
(b) Track # of general
permits issued/reissued
(NPDES States):
-OCS general
-# in new categories (not
covered by prior EPA
general permits); and
-# others (covered by
prior general permits).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region
No/OW
Quarterly
Region
No/No
Second
and Fourth
Quarters
States
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDGS PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND RIOMONITORING (pq. 23)
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(A) Are States/Reqion
adherinq to established
processes fcr writinq
WO based permits? Dis-
cuss problems encountered
and how they were addressed.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(R) Discuss Region's/States'
implementation of the "Policy
for the Development of Water
Ouality-based Permit Limita-
tions fcr Toxic Pollutants."
^ Have EPA and the States been
i workinq toqether to implement
ui the policy? What steps have
been taken so far? Have
procedures been developed?
(C) Have the Req ion/States iden-
tified permittees with potential
water quality impacts that will
be required to do toxicity testing?
Do any permits now contain toxicity
testinq requirements? Are S308
letters (or similar State mechanians)
being used in lieu of permit condi-
tions? Have any tox icity-hased ef-
fluent limits been incorporated into
permits? Discuss Reqion's/States'
experiences, problems.
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND BIOMONITORING (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
(cont.)
T
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(D) Discuss any problems
encountered by Region/
States with respect to
permit monitoring require-
ments and general conditions.
(E) Are States/Region en-
countering any difficulties
in applying the guidelines?
If so, how are they being
resolved? Are the resolu-
tions satisfactory and
timely?
(F) To what extent are
States/Region developing
permit conditions using best
professional judgement?
Is the technical support
for these judgements
adequate? If not, what
additional support is
needed? Are the resolu-
tions satisfactory and
timely?
(G) Do many of the Region's/
States' industrial permits
contain BMP requirements? How
are these requirements written
into permits? Is the guidance
developed by Headquarters
adequate or are additional
infconation or workshops
needed on BMPs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL ANT) MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND BIOMONITORING (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(H) Are States/Reqion
identifying toxic dis-
charge problem areas
vihere post-BAT limita-
tions are needed? Discuss
how these areas are being
identified and how bio-
monitoring techniques are
beinq used to determine
appropriate limits.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
.REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(I) Are Reqion's/States'
municipal permit conditions
consistent with the new secon-
dary treatment definition? Are
there any difficulties in applying
the new definition? If so, how
are they beinq resolved? Are the
resolutions satisfactory and
timely? Discuss the nature and
extent of the use of "special
consideration" provisions
of the secondary treatment
definition.
{J) To what extent do Region's/
States' municipal permits contain
monitorinq and reporting
requirements for toxics
in their effluent and/or
sludge.
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND BIOMONITORING (pg. 28}
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
Appropriate
and Enforce-
able Permit
Conditions
(cont.}
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(K) Are there any remaining
problems developing permit
compliance schedules for
facilities eligible for
§301(i) extensions? If so
what is the nature of the
problems and how are the
Reg ion/States resolving
than?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(L) Discuss Region's/States'
progress in completing muni-
cipal permit modifications for
§301(h) and pretreatment, and
any problems associated with
permit monitoring requirements
and general conditions.
(M) Are requirements of RCRA
being translated by Region/States
into new conditions in reissued/
modified NPDES permits? What are
the requirements? Is their de-
velopment significantly changing
usual permit processing, timing or
resource needs? If so, how? Are
any difficulties in issuing NPDES
with these conditions arising in
the public sector or in the regu-
lated connunity? If so, what are
they and what is being done to
resolve them?
-------
PERMITS:
>
vo
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND BIOMONITORING (pg. 28)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ACTIVITIES MID-YEAR
2. Resolve (A) What are the Region's/
Evidentiary States'plans for elimina-
Hearings ting the present hearing
backlog? Discuss Water
Division/Regional Counsel
coordination on resolving
backlogged hearings and on
addressing new hearing re-
quests. Are any hearing
requests related to the
redefinition of secondary
treatment or 8301(h) per-
mits?
(B) What are the Region's/
States' major issues? Eas a
pattern developed that in-
dicates a need for program
changes, including procedures,
regulations, policy, guidance,
technical assistance, etc?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify # of
evidentiary hearing
requests pending at
beginning of FY 86
(NPDES States, non-
NPDES States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-municipal.
(b) Track against tar-
gets the # of evidentiary
hearing requests pending
at beginning of FY that
were resolved in FY 86
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-municipal.
(c) Identify # of evidentiary
hearings requested during FY
86 (NPDES States, non-NPDES
States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-municipal.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
10/31/85
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
States
Yes/SPMS
Quarterly
Region/
States
No/No
Quarterly
Region/
States
(d) Track # of evidentiary No/No Quarterly Region/
hearing requests received States
in FY 86 which are denied
or granted within yO days
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-municipal.
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATWENT AND BIOMONITQRING (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
3. Review and
Approve/Deny
Variance
Requests
>
i
fo
O
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
(A) How is the Region's/
States' variance process
working? What are the dif-
ficulties? What additional
support is needed, such as
procedural changes, guidance
or support from Headquarters?
Discuss problems and successes.
(B) Have any States requested
Alternative State Requirements
(ASRs) under the redefinition
of secondary treatment? Discuss
the review and approval process
and identify any problems or
support needs. In States
where EPA is the NPDES
authority, have any cities
asked for ASR limits (i.e.
higher effluent numbers
than 45 mg/1 BOD and sus-
pended solids)? Discuss
the Region's response to
the municipal inquiry. Was
the State informed of the
ASR inquiry?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify # of direct
discharger variance re-
quests pending at begin-
ning of FY 86 (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States):
- FDF
- 301(c)
- 301(g)
- 301(k)
- 316(a)
- 316(b)
(b) Track against targets
the # of direct discharger
variances denied or for-
warded to Headquarters
with a reccnmendation in
FY 86 (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States):
- FDF
- 301(c)
- 301(g)
- 301(k)
- 316(a)
- 316(b)
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/Ha
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
10/31/85
SOURCE
OF DATA
No/OW
Quarterly
-------
PERMITS:
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL NPDES PERMITS INCLUDE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING PRETREATMENT AND BIOMONITORING (pg. 28)
ACTIVITIES
3. Review and
Approve/Deny
Variance
Requests
(cont'd)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR
>
to
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) Identify # of direct
discharger variances re-
quested during FY 86
(NPDES States, non-NPDES
States):
- FDF
- 301(c)
- 301(g)
- 301(k)
- 316(a)
- 316(b)
(d) Track # of direct
discharger variances re-
quested during FY 86 which
are denied or forwarded to
Headquarters with a recom-
mendation in FY 86 (NPDES
States, non-NPDES States):
- FDF
- 301(c)
- 301(g)
- 301(k)
- 316(a)
- 316(b)
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
States
No/No
Quarterly
Region/
States
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
1. Identify
Compliance
Problems
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
NJ
KJ
(A) Do the Region's/
States' compliance rates
show improvement over
the same period in
FY 1985?
(B) What are the major
reasons for municipal/
nonmunicipal noncompliance
in the Region/States?
(C) How many/what type of
facilities are coning back
into compliance without
any formal enforcement
action? Informal action?
(D) What are the reasons
behind persistent non-
compliance, and what is
the Region's/States' strategy
for dealing with such
noncompliance?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) MOVING BASE UNIVERSE:
# of major permittees and
P.L. 92-500 minor permittees
that are:
- on final effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal,
P.L.92-500; NPDES States,
non-NPDES States); and
- not on final effluent
limits
(list separately: nunicipal,
non-nunicipal, federal;
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States) .
(See Appendix B)
(b) MOVING BASE SNC:
# and % of major permittees
and P.L. 92-500 minor permit-
tees in significant non-
compliance (SNC) with:
- final effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-nunicipal, federal,
P.L. 92-500; NPDES States,
non-NPDES States);
- construction schedules;
- interim effluent limits
(list separately: municipal,
non-municipal, federal;
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States). (See Appendix B)
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
Yes/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Majors:
Quarterly
Minor
P.L.92-500s:
Semi-
annually
(April 1,
1986 based
on Dec. 31,
1985 data.
Oct. 1, 1986
based on
June 30,
1986 data.)
Majors:
Quarterly
Miner
P.L. 92-500s:
Semi-
annually
(April 1,
1986 based
on Dec. 31,
1985 data.
Oct. 1, 1986
based on
June 30,
1986 data.)
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
Reg ion/
State
QNCR
Region/
State
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
2. Expand
Enforcement
Efforts
Under the
National
Municipal
Policy
>
i
OO
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are the State Municipal
Compliance Strategies being
effectively utilized by the
Regions and States? Are they
updated annually?
(B) Tb what extent are the
Region/States still establish-
ing permit/compliance schedules
for all remaining POrrws?
(C) To what extent are the
Region/States initiating
civil referrals for unfunded
PCfTWs that cannot meet the
1988 deadline? Are these
PCTWs required to take inter-
mediate steps in the mean-
time? How are reasonable
deadlines being determined?
(D) How are the Region/
States tracking compliance
with milestones in permits/
enforceable schedules?
What problems are being
encountered? Is there a
need to seek judicially-
imposed schedules in any
of these cases?
(E) How do the Region/States
coordinate permit issuance,
compliance, and construction
grant acitivities to improve
municipal ocmpliance?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) COMPOSITE CORRECTION PLANS
Of the FOTWs that need
no further construction:
- # of those for which
action to obtain compliance
has been required in a
schedule (CCP) incorporated
into 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
- # of those completing the
final step of their MCP
and returned to compliance
(list separately: major,
minor; funded, unfunded;
NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/SPMS-
composite
target with
MCPs
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region/
State
Nfc>/No
Quarterly
Region/
State
Yes/SPMS-
composite
target with
CCPs
No/No
Quarterly
Quarterly
Region/
State
Region/
State
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
Quality
and Timeliness
of Enforcement
Responses
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are the Region/States
warking in conjunction with
Federal facility coordinators
to improve enforcement
response times to instances
of noncompliance by
Federal facilities?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
T
to
¦e-
(B) Do the Region and
States ensure that the
use of ADs/NOVs is
consistent with EMS
principles and the
enforcement response
guide? How do the
Region and States
measure the effective-
ness of AOs and NCVs?
(C) How do Region/States
evaluate the quality of
AOs? What is the quality
of the AOs?
(a) AEMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (AOs) Yes/No
# of EPA AOs or State
equivalent actions issued:
- municipal permittees (major/
minor)
- non-municipal permittees
(major/minor)
- Federal permittees (major/
minor)
(list separately: EPA, NPDES
States).
Quarterly
GREAT,
PCS or
Region/
State
(D) to Region/States track
AO requirements closely?
Have all close-outs been
reported to Headquarters?
Are they reported
promptly upon close-out?
(E) Are AOs being issued
for roncampliance with
Spill Prevention Control
and Countermeasure (SPCC)
Plan requirements?
(b) CLOSE-OUT UNIVERSE Yes/No
# of EPA AOs and State
equivalent actions which
are to be closed-out
(the final step is
scheduled to be achieved)
during FY 1986.
(C) CLOSE-OUTS ACHIEVED Yes/SPMS
# and % of (b) which are
successfully closed-out
(the final step is achieved
or the action is rendered
ineffective by subsequent
action).
October 1,
1985
Region/
State
Quarterly
Region/
State
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
Quality
and Timeliness
of Enforcement
Responses
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(F) How do the Region
and States ensure that
violations of Court
Orders get prompt
enforcement action?
(G) What are the criteria
the Region/States use to
select referral cases?
What is the involvement
of ORC in this selection?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(d) REFERRALS
# of §309 referrals or
State equivalent actions
generated:
- civil referrals sent to
HQ/DCkJ/SAG;
- civil referrals filed; and
- criminal referrals filed
(list separately: EPA,
NPDES States).
IN SIMS/
COMMITMENT!
Yes/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF EftTA
DOCKET
System
and
Region/
State
(H) Vfriat is the level of
coordination between the
compliance section and ORC
in the Region and the
respective agencies in
the States? If less
than satisfactory, what
steps is Region taking
to improve coordination?
(I) Discuss the quality
of the referral packages.
Do all referral packages
contain appropriate civil
penalties that conform
with FY 1985 guidance?
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
3. Improve
Quality and
Timeliness of
Enforcement
Responses
(cont.)
T
ON
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(J) What is the quality
of active consent decrees?
How closely are they tracked
by the Region/States?
(K) What types of action
are being taken in response
to violations of consent
decrees? Are stipulated
penalties collected? Are
civil contempt proceedings
initiated? Are the decrees
modified? Are additional
ccrpliance monitearing
requirements imposed?
(L) What are the reasons
for the Region's/States'
failure to take remedial
action against permittees
that violate their consent
decrees?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(e) CONSENT DECREES
Identify by name and NPDES
number all permittees with
active consent decrees and
report their compliance
status as follows:
- in compliance with decree;
- in violation of decree, but
remedial action taken; and
- in violation of decree, no
remedial action taken
(list separately: major,
minor; municipal, non-
municipal, Federal).
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DftTA
Region/
State
(M) To what extent has the
quality of the Region's/
States' self-monitoring data
improved due to EMR/QA?
How is this verified?
(N) What problems still
need to be addressed by
the Region/States to
make the EMR/QA program
more effective?
(f) DMR/QA
# of follow-up actions
on DMR/QA performance
sample results:
- nonrespondents;
- permittees requiring
corrective action.
No/No
Semi-
annually;
April 1,
1986
Oct. 1,
1986
Region
(O) What is involved in
State/Region coopera-
tion and how has it
worked best? Are States
participating fully?
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEABLE SCHEDULES, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS OH MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
4. Non-NPDES
Enforcement
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Is there a trend of
increased numbers of
hazardous substances
spills being reported
and investigated?
(B) Is the average quantity
of spilled material
increasing, decreasing,
or staying the same?
(C) Are administrative
actions being issued
for noncompliance with
Spill Prevention Control
and Counter-measure
(SFCC) Plan requirements?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: PRCMOTE NATIONAL CONSISTENCY IN THE NPEES COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAM, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON IMPROVING DATA MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
1. Increase
Use of PCS
as the
Primary
Source of
NPEES
Program
Data
>
i
tvi
00
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What actions are Region/
States taking to improve
the quality of PCS data?
(B) What are the Region's/
States' procedures for
routinely entering and
verifying discharge
monitoring report data
for all major permittees,
in particular, completed
and operational P.L. 92-500
facilities? How current are
the date entered?
(C) Do the Region/States use
the preprinted DMR form to
minimize compliance tracking
problems and PCS entry work-
load? What is the Region
doing to encourage the States
to use preprinted OMRs?
(D) Does the Region use PCS as
the primary system for routine
program management? Have all
all redundant elements of
local systems been terminated?
(E) How is the Region
encouraging increased State
participation in PCS? Is
the Region giving priority in
assistance and program grant
funding to States that are
direct users of PCS? Is the
Region aware of any State(s)
planning to move off PCS? If so,
what steps is the Region taking?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(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 '$'
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
PCS
No/No
INDICATORS
Quarterly verify and
enter into PCS the
designator for all
major permittees on
final effluent limits
and the designator for
all major and minor
P.L. 92-500 POTWS.
Quarterly
PCS
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE NATIONAL CONSISTENCY IN THE NPDES COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAM, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON IMPROVING DATA MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
2. Improve
Effectiveness
of Inspection
Activities
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Do the Region/States
have annual compliance
inspection plans for each
State? What is the
quality of these plans?
Discuss how these plans
are used.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) INSPECTION PLANS
# of Regional and State
inspection plans.
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT
No/OW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Oct. 1,
1985
SOURCE
OP DATA
Region
>
i
K3
XI
(B) Do the Regiory'States
prepare quarterly lists of
facilities to be inspected?
What are the criteria used
to select facilities to be
inspected? Are the inspections
planned to match the specific
situation at each facility?
Are inspections conducted
consistent with the FY 1985
Compliance Inspection
Strategy?
{C) How do the Region and
States use DMR/C& perfor-
mance sample results for
targeting compliance
inspections?
(D) Miat mechanism is used
to assure that inspection
results are provided to the
Region/States in a timely
manner? Are the data entered
into PCS only after the
report has been ccnpletec
and signed by the reviewer or
supervisor?
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE NATIONAL CONSISTENCY IN THE NPDES COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAM, WITH SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON IMPROVING DATA MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
2. Improve
Effectiveness
of Inspection
Activities
(Cont'd)
>
i
OJ
o
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) How does the Region/State
follow-up when inspection
results are unsatisfactory?
When RI uncover problems, does
the Region/State follcvr-up with
a more intensive inspection?
(F) How do the Region's/States'
inspection policies focus on
the most significant violators?
(G) How does the Region provide
its States with advance notice of
inspections? Discuss how Region
and State efforts are coordinated.
Discuss use of independent and
joint inspections and State file
reviews to overview the State
inspection program.
(H) Are all major permittees
inspected by EPA or the States
each year? Have the Region/
States verified that Reconnais-
sance Inspections of major
permittees are only done on
those permittees meeting the
requirements specified in the
attached definition section?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(I) Is the Region/State con-
ducting inspections consistent
with the assumptions used for
the FY 1986 resource alloca-
tion? Is the Region setting
aside a portion of its
resources to do neutral inspec-
tions on minors? Discuss.
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: PRCMOTE SOUND NPDES ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS BASED ON UPDATED PROCEDURES AND IMPROVED
COMPLIANCE WITH MILESTONES FOR TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES. Cpg. 30)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
ACTIVITIES MID-YEAR REVIEWS
1. Update (A1 Do the Region/States have
and Use EMS revised Enforcement Management
Enforcement System (EMS) procedures? How is
Procedures the EMS used to identify,
monitor, and respond to non-
complying facilities? Are EMS
principles implemented strictly,
loosely, or not at all?
(B) How do Region/States select
the type of enforcement
response for specific viola-
tions?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(C) What kinds of formal
enforcement actions are the
Region/States using? What
is the quality of these
actions?
(D) What kinds of informal
actions (if any) are the
Region/States using in lieu
of formal enforcement
action? Are these actions
documented properly? Are
they effective? Do they
identify chronic low-level
violators? Are there provisions
for escalating these responses
in appropriate cases?
(E) How often is it necessary
for the Region to take a
direct enforcement action in
an NPDES State? Which States?
Are the actions taken consis-
tent with the criteria in the
State overview guidance,
including prior notification
and consultation?
-------
ENFORCEMENT:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE SOUND NPDES ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS BASED ON UPDATED PROCEDURES AND IMPROVED
COMPLIANCE WITH MILESTONES FOR TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES, (pg. 30)
ACTIVITIES
2. Use
Guidance
Criteria and
Milestones for
Response to
Noncompliance
>
i
LO
N>
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) How do the Region and
States use the exception
list to establish a
priority for committing
complianee/enforcement
resources?
(B) What problems have the
Reg iorVStates been facing
that would prevent them
from meeting the time-lines
prescribed? Which States
consistently miss ccnmitments?
(C) Does the Region use
the exception list as a way
of tracking State Programs?
Are they reviewed quarterly
along with the QNCR? Are
the lists an effective
management tool for the
States?
(D) Is there consistent
application of the criteria/
milestones from State-
to-State within the Region?
If not, what steps is
Region planning to take
to improve consistency?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) EXCEPTION LIST UNIVERSE
Identify by name and NPDES
number major permittees
appearing on two 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).
(b) EXCEPTION LIST TRACKING
Identify the names and total
number of major permittees
listed in the Exception List
Universe for the previous
quarter for which one of the
following has occurred:
- # returned to compliance;
- # not yet in compliance 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 from Excep-
tion List Universe)
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
Yes/SPMS-
composite
of the two
categor ies
only
REPORTING
SOURCE
FREQUENCY
OF DATA
Jan. 1,
QNCR
1986
and
April 1,
Region/
1986
State
July 1,
1986
Oct. 1,
1986
Jan 1,
1986
April 1,
1986
July 1,
1986
Oct.
1986
1,
QNCR
and
Region/
State
-------
PRETREATMENT:
OBJECTIVE: COMPLETE APPROVAL OF ALL LOCAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THOSE PROGRAMS
ORIGINALLY REQUIRED AND THOSE NEWLY IDENTIFIED IN FY 1985 (pg. 32)
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
and Approve
Local Pre-
treatment
Programs
u>
w
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What are the impedi-
ments to Region's/States'
local treatment program
approval?
(B) How well is EPA con-
tract assistance (type
and level) supporting
development and review
of local program sub-
missions?
(C) What criteria do
Region/States use for
review of local pretreat-
ment programs? Are
criteria consistent in
technical and adminis-
trative requirements?
(D) Are local limit
requirements applied
uniformly in Rag ion/States?
(E) Are the Region's/States'
review criteria abnormally re-
strictive? (i.e., not based on
national policy, regs., etc.)
(F) If a local program is not
acceptable, how long do the
Reg ion/States allow for a resub-
mission? Are any programs being
approved subject to conditions?
(G) What rationale do Reg ion/States
use to add/delete nunicipalities from
the list of required local programs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify the local pre-
treatment programs requiring
approval but not yet approved
at the beginning of the fiscal
year and distinguish between
those newly identified in FY
85 and those previously re-
quired. (list separately:
non-pretreatment States,
approved pretreatment States).
(b) Track progress against
targets for the programs
approved during FY 1986
(list separately: non-
pretreatment States,
approved pretreatment
States).
(c) Identify the local pre-
treatment programs approved
before beginning of fiscal
year (list separately: non-
pretreatment States, approved
pretreatment States).
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
10/31/85
SOURCE
OF DATA
Reg ion/
States
No/OW
Quarterly
Region/
States
No/No
10/31/85
Reg ion/
States
-------
PRETREATMENT:
OBJECTIVE: CONCENTRATE BJPORQJOJT EFTORTS ON MAINTAINING STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEABLE
SCHEDULES, AND CM TAKING DIRECT ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST INDUSTRIAL USERS CONSISTENT
WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES, (pg. 32)
ACTIVITIES
1. Take
Actions as
Required
to Obtain
Compliance
with
tBEraEKD«rr
Requirements
>¦
i
u>
QUALITATIVE WBSURES POR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Mien a local program
submitted for approval is
not acceptable, what follow-
up action is taken by the
Region/State if the local
program is not resubmitted
in the tine prescribed by
the Approval Authority?
(B) What are the criteria
used by EPA/States to select
industrial users to be
inspected? ftiat do the
results of these inspections
indicate? What use is being
made of these results?
(C) Do the Reg ion/States
place a priority on inspecting
IUs that discharge to
unapproved POTWs and are
subject to federal categorical
standards? Are all inspections
of IUs that discharge to
approved POTIVte done as a result
of a FOTIW pre treatment inspection
which gave cause to doubt the
performance of the IU?
(D) How do the Rag ion/States
ensure that local pretreatraent
programs cure fully implementing
NPEES permit pretreatraent
requirements?
(E) How do the Region and
States identify and respond
bo industrial noncompliance
with categorical pretreatment
standard deadlines?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
(XWCtTMENT
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(a) PRETREATMENT INSPECTIONS
# of EPA and State pretreatment
inspections of:
- Pretreatment PCTCVis
- Industrial Users (IUs) that
discharge to unapproved POTWs
- IUs that discharge to approved
POIVfe
(list separately: POW, IU of an
unapproved FOIW, IU of an approved
POTW; EPA, States).
Yes(POrTWs and
IUs only)/SPMS
Quarterly
PCS
(b) PRETREATMENT AOs
# of EPA AOs and State
equivalent actions issued:
- for POW pretreatment
violations
- far industrial user
pretreatraent violations
(list separately: EPA, States).
Yes/No
Quarterly
PCS or
Region/
State
-------
PRETREATMENT:
OBJECTIVE: CONCENTRATE ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ON MAINTAINING STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ENFORCEABLE
SCHEDULES, AND ON TAKING DIRECT ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST INDUSTRIAL USERS CONSISTENT
WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES, (pg. 32)
ACTIVITIES
1. Take
Actions as
Required
to Obtain
Gciqpliance
with
PRETREATMENT
Requirements
(cont.)
>
i
u>
Ui
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(F) What is the quality of
pretreatment AOs? Referrals?
(G) What are the criteria
the Region/States use to
select pretreatment referral
cases? Vtiat is the involve-
ment of ORC in this selec-
tion?
(H) What is the level of
coordination for pretreat-
ment cases between the
compliance section and
ORC in the Region and
the respective agencies
in the States? If less
than satisfactory, what
steps is the Region
taking to improve
coordination?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) PRETREATMENT REFERRALS
# of pretreatment referrals
or State equivalent actions:
- civil referrals sent to
HQ/DOJ/SAG;
- civil referrals filed; and
- criminal referrals filed
in response to:
- POTW non—sutmi t tal of an
approvable pretreatment
program.
- other POTW pretreatment
violations
- industrial user pretreatment
violations
(list separately: EPA, States).
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT
Yes/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
DOCKET
System
and
Region/
State
-------
PRETREATMENT
ACTIVITIES
1. Oversee
Effectiveness
of Local Pre-
treatment
Program Im-
plementation
>
i
LO
Os
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT CONTROL AEJTHORITIES FULLY IMPLEMENT SOUND LOCAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS (pg. 32}
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(A) Have Region/States de-
veloped local program in-
ventories which enables the
idenfication of the priority
programs? .Are the priorities
set on the basis of the rela-
tive size of approved local
programs in terns of popu-
lation and number of signifi-
cant industrial users?
(B) How many audits do
Region/States plan to con-
duct? What are the findings
from these audits?
(C) Are annual report sub-
missions by POTWs reviewed
by the Region/State? What
criteria are used for these
reviews? Are approved pro-
gram reviews conducted by
the Region/State?
(D) Bow well are POTWs
implementing the program?
For example, are POTWs de-
veloping new local limits,
issuing permits to indus-
trial users, requesting
programs to improve their
effectiveness, etc.?
(a) Track # of POTW audits No/No
in non-pretreatment States.
(b) Track # of POTW audits No/No
in pretreatment States.
(c) Track # of pretreatment No/No
categorical determinations
made and # of removal credit
applications received
(non-pretreatment States,
pretreatment States).
Quarterly Region
Quarterly Region/
States
Quarterly Region/
States
-------
PRETREATMENT
ACTIVITIES
1. Oversee
Effectiveness
of Local Pre-
treatment
Program Im-
plementation
(con'd)
>
i
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT CONTROL AUTHORITIES FULLY IMPLEMENT SOUND LOCAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS (pg. 32)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(E) How well are local
programs incorporating
categorical standards?
Are Rag ion/States ex-
periencing problems with
evaluating baseline
monitoring reports and
compliance requirements?
(F) What problems is the
Region having with cate-
gorical determinations,
FDF variances, and requests
for removal credits?
(G) Is experience from program
audits used by the Region/State
to improve future local programs
or train FOTW staff?
(H) How well are Region/States
using contractor assistance
(type and level) supporting
implementation and helping to
resolve problems?
-------
STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL/REVIEW/OVERSIGHT
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT NPDES STATES ASSDME RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRETREATMENT/
FEDERAL FACILITY PROGRAMS, AND PROMOTE FULL NPDES PROGRAM APPROVAL (pg. 33)
ACTIVITIES
1. Approve
NPDES State
Program
Requests
>
i
(jJ
00
QUALITATIVE MFASORES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What progress is being
made (State-by-State) with
respect to NPDES States
assuning pretreatment
federal facilities programs?
no FY86 work plans grant
agreements have milestones
for completing approval?
What else is the Region
doing to encourage State
assumption? Is the Region
considering further action
in any of the States? Have
the States been informed of
the possibility of progran
withdrawal?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Achieve NPDES program
approvals and modifications
in accordance with established
schedules:
- Full NPDES programs;
- Pretreabnent progran
modifications;
- Federal facility
modifications.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/CW
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Provide
list start
of FY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Reg ions
(B) Vfriat is Region's
strategy for each State
to achieve full NPDES
proqram administration
and is the FYS4 strategy
being carried out?
-------
STATE PROGRAM APPRWAL/REVIEW/OVERSIGOT
OBJECTIVE: REVIEW NPDES STATE PROGRAMS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY AUTHORITY UNDER CURRENT STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS (pg. 33)
ACTIVITIES
I. Review
Approved
NPDES State
Statutory
and Regulatory
Authority.
T
w
VO
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has the Region had any
difficulties in obtaining
adequate documentation
from the States to conduct
these reviews? If so, what
documents are usually needed,
how are the difficulties
being resolved, and how long
are the delays?
(B) Does the Office of
Regional Counsel parti-
pate in the reviews? in
what way? Do they parti-
cipate in the process of
selecting States for
review and making camnit-
ments? Do they follow
through with their work?
In a timely manner? Are
priorities a problem? If
so, how are conflicts
resolved?
(C) Does the Region have
a routine mechanism for
learning of changes to
State laws and regulations?
If so, describe the process.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Update list of NPDES
States for which Region
will assess statutory and
regulatory authority in FY
86.
(b) Track progress against
targets for the number of
NPDES States for which
statutory and regulatory
authority is assessed in
FY 86.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/CW
Yes/SPMS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Provide
list start
of FY
Second
and Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region
Region
-------
STATE PROGRAM APPROVM/REVIEW/OVERSIGHT
ACTIVITIES
1. Execute
EPA/State
NPDES Agree-
ments
OBJECTIVE: EXECUTE FY 1986 EPA/STATE NPDES AGREEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL
POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND OVERVIEW STATE PERFORMANCE ACCORDINGLY (pg. 33}
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has the Region executed
NPDES agreements with all
approved NPDES States?
When are these agreements
signed? Who participates
in their development?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(B) What problems have arisen
in the development of EPA/
State NPDES agreements? How
are they resolved? Are there
any particular elements of
national policy and guidance
on State overview that have
been difficult to implement?
Are there any reccmrvendat ions
for changing national policy
or guidance?
2. Provide
Effective
Oversight of
Approved NPDES
State Programs
(A) To what extent has the
Region impelemented the
"Guidance for Oversight of
NPDES Programs"?
(B) Does the Region carry
out a program of regularly
scheduled assessments of
each approved NPDES State
to assure the adequacy of
funding and staffing and
to assure a demonstrated
ability to set program
SOURCE
OF EATA
-------
STATE PROGRAM APPRC^AI/REVIEW/OVERSIGHT
OBJECTIVE: EXECUTE FY 1986 EPA/STATE NPDES AGREEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL
POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND OVERVIEW STATE PERFORMANCE ACCORDINGLY (pg. 33)
ACTIVITIES
2. Provide
Effective
Oversight
of Approved
NPDES State
Programs
(cont.)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
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 identifi-
cation of State needs and
problems, evaluation of
performing and providing
of technical assistance?
(C) Does oversight of State
permitting include an audit
of permits to assess the
timely issuance of high-
quality permits? Hew is this
determined by the Region?
(D) Does oversight of State
compliance nonitorinq include
an assessment of the timeli-
ness/ completeness, and accur-
acy of self-monitoring reports?
How is this determined by the
Region? Does the Region assess
the States' reporting system
on compliance status and the
accuracy and accessibility
of the information? Does the
Region check the States compli-
ance inspection activity with
regard to its procedures and
effectiveness? Hew?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
STATE prqgram/apprcwal/revi ew/cversight
OBJECTIVE: EXECUTE FY 1986 EPA/STATE NPDES AGREEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL
POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND OVERVIEW STATE PERFORMANCE ACCORDINGLY (pg. 33)
ACTIVITIES
2. Provide
Effective
Oversight
of Approved
NPDES State
Programs
(cont.)
T
-p-
K>
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEVC
(E) Does oversight of State
enforcement include an assess-
ment of the timeliness of the
evaluation of violations and
the appropriateness of initial
responses, followup and escal-
ation until compliance is ob-
tained? Are NCMs, AOs, and
judicial actions assessed for
their 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?
(G) ttoat is the nature and
quality of typical comunica-
tions between NPDES States find
the Region? What steps are
taken to assure continuing
and effective State/EPA
connunications? ftiat is the
general condition of coopera-
tion between the Region and
each State? How are coopera-
tive arrangements established?
Hew is State/EPA cooperation
assessed and problems remedied?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
SFMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
-------
SIME PKX3WVAPPICVRL/REVIEW/JVERSIGHT
OBJBCTIVR: EXECUTE FY 1986 EPA/STATE NPDES AGREEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL
POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND OVERVIEW STATE PERPOWWNCE ACCORDINSLY (pg. 33)
ACTIVITIES
3. nse
Annual Grant
Negotiations
to Reinforce
Performance
~
i
Id
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) How are $106 grants and the
work plaiminq process used to
assure effective implementation
of NPDES State programs? Vtiat
voter proqraa areas are specific-
ally addressed? Are they con-
sistent with the Agency Operating
Guidance? Is the Region working
with the States to consolidate the
work programs for all activities
funded under SS106, 205(g), and
205(1)?
(B) Is the Region using the per-
formance-based grant approach?
Describe the performance-based
grant provisions employed by the
Region. Does the Region find
this aproach beneficial to
achieving program objectives?
What is working and what is not
working?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
SPWS/tJW
oowrnerr?
REPORTING
FRBQU0ICY
SOURCE
OF DATA
NOTE: Qualitative and guantitative measures of State per-
formance related to specific State activities (e.q.,
permitting and enforcement) may be found in other sections.
Those measures also contribute to providing effective NPnRS
State Program oversight.
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 26)
>
I
¦e-
¦>
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) bo
Determine
Impact on
Great Lakes
and Chesa-
peake Bay
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent were
the Great Lakes Areas of
Concern and Chesapeake
Bay Critical Areas con-
sidered in the development
and revision of the States'
priority waterbody lists?
(B) What actions did the
Great Lakes National Program
Office, the Chesapeake
Bay Liaison Office, and the
Regions take to ensure that
these areas have priority
and that priority activities
to abate problems are under-
way?
(A) At what stage and
to what extent were
Great Lakes and Chesapeake
Bay impacts considered
in the revision of WQS?
Did the Regions conduct
an evaluation of whether
the modified use or criteria
proposed by States would
hinder meeting the objectives
of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement or the Chesapeake
Bay "Framework for Action"
Plan?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of Great Lakes
Areas of Goncern
included as priority
waterbodies.
(b) # of Chesapeake
Bay Critical Areas
included as priority
waterbodies
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region'
Self-
Evalua-
tion*
*Unless otherwise specified Reporting will be at the Region's Mid-year Review
and the Source of Data will be the Region's Self-Evaluation.
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 26)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
IN SPMS/
REPORTING
SOURCE
ACTIVITIES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
COMMITMENT?
FREQUENCY
OF DATA
3. Assess
(A) Has compliance with
(a) # of Great Lakes
No/No
Mid-year
Region's
Municipal
the phosphorus require-
major POTWs in compliance
Review*
Self-
Compliance
ment improved over last
with 1 mg/L phosphorus
Evalua-
for Con-
year? If not, what efforts
requirement vs. total
tion*
sistency
have GLNPO, and the
# of major POTWS.
with Objec-
Chesapeake Bay Liaison
tives of
Office, and Regions made
(b) # of Chesapeake
No/No
Great Lakes
to increase compliance?
Bay AWT POTWs funded
Water
What is hindering
vs. # of AWT POTWs
Quality-
compliance?
determined to be needed.
Agreement
and to
(B) Are certain permits
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg- 26)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR IN SEWS/ REPORTING SOURCE
ACTIVITIES MID-YEAR REVIEWS QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY OF DATA
4*»
4. Imple- (A) What efforts are GUJPO
ment the and the Chesapeake Bay
Great Lakes Liaison Office making to
and Chesa- ensure that the monitoring
peake Bay programs are being iraple-
Monitoring mented and that resources
Programs are being used to detect
emerging problems as well
as for trend monitoring
in priority areas?
(B) What are the results
of analyses of tributary
monitoring, atmospheric
deposition sampling, and
lake surveys conducted in the
Great Lakes Basin from previous
years? Are reductions in
loadings and other improve-
ments visible?
(a) # of monitoring No/No
stations in operation
on Chesapeake Bay's
mainstem vs. # of
monitoring stations
planned.
(b) # of fixed tributary No/No
stations in operation in
Great Lakes basin vs. #
requested by GLNPO from
States.
(c) # of air monitoring No/No
stations operated in
Great Lakes basin vs.
# requested by GLNPO
from States.
(d) # of fish collections No/No
received by GLNPO vs. # of
fish collections requested
from States.
Mid-year
Review*
Region's
Self-
Evalua-
tion*
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 26)
ACTIVITIES
5. Assist
States in
Implementing
NPS Controls
in Lake Erie,
Lake Ontario,
Saginaw Bay,
and Chesapeake
Bay Basins
>
i
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What efforts are GLNPO,
Regions, the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office, and States
making to ensure NPS imple-
mentation of Agricultural
BMPs (include work with
other Federal agencies)?
(B) What efforts are GLNPO,
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
the Regions, and the States
making to monitor implementa-
tion and its results in Water
Quality improvements?
(C) Have the Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay States modified
their WQM plans to reflect
institutional & other arrange-
ments for dealing with NPS
pollution? How?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of acres in the
Great Lakes Basin with
BMP's in place vs. # of
acres with BMP's in place
at the end of FY 1985.
(b) # of acres in the
Chesapeake Bay basin
with BMP's in place
vs. # of acres with
BMP's in place at the
end of FY 1985.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region's
Self-
Evalua-
tion*
No/No
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 26)
T
•c-
00
ACTIVITIES
6. Prepare
Phosphorus
Load Reduc-
tion Plans
for Lake
Erie, Lake
Ontario,
Saginaw Bay,
and Chesa-
peake Bay
7. Imple-
ment Study
Results in
accordance
with the
Objectives
of the Great
Lakes Water
Agreement and
the Chesapeake
Bay Executive
Council
Directives
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What efforts are GLNPO,
the Chesapeake Bay Liaison
Offioe, and the Regions/
States making to ensure
schedule of appropriate
activities, work plan
development and interim
outputs for the load
reduction plans are pro-
vided in a timely manner?
(A) What efforts have
GLNPO and the Chesapeake Bay
Liaison Office made to
ensure that pollution
control actions are focused
on priority projects? Hew
are 106, 205(g) and 205{j)
work plans focused on Great
Lakes and Chesapeake Bay
concerns?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of U.S. Great Lakes
Phosphorus Reduction Plan
elements being implemented
vs. # planned to be
underway in FY 1986.
(a) # of elements of
Chesapeake Bay Restoration
and Protection Plan being
implemented vs. # planned
to be underway in FY 1986.
IN SFMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Fourth
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
Contact
Ragions
No/No
Fourth
Quarter
Contact
Region
8. Prepare
Remedial
Action Plans
for Great
Lakes Areas
of Concern
(A) What efforts are the
GLNPO, Regions and States
making to ensure appropriate
schedules of activities and
development of Action Plans?
{a) # of Remedial Action
Plans completed on sched-
ule vs. # needed.
No/No
Fourth
Quarter
Contact
Regions
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE THAT COMMITMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT AND TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PLAN ARE MET (pg. 26)
T
VO
ACTIVITIES
9. Implement
Connecting
Channel
Action Plan
10. Review
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Agreement
11.Chesapeake
Bay Program
Integration
QUALITATIVE MEASURES PC®
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Are overall planning,
field work, data analysis,
model refinement and use,
and specific yearly
activities defined and
completed?
(A) What efforts have been
undertaken by the Region
to ensure a coordinated
approach by all EPA and
other Federal programs to
meet the water quality
needs of Chesapeake Bay?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of milestones
in approved work
program met vs. #
planned.
(a) Review of
Agreement completed
by GLNPO/and draft
report/reccnroendations
developed.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Evaluation
No/No
First
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
Region'
Self-
Evalua-
tion
Contact
Region
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT PROGRAMS FOR PUGET SOUND, NARRAGANSETT BAY,
BUZZARDS BAY, AND LONG ISLAND SOUND (pg. 26)
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
Marine &
Estuarine
Protection
programs foe
Riget Sound,
Narragansett
Bay, Buzzards
Bay, and Long
Island Sound,
and other
estuaries as
appropriate
Ol
o
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What efforts have
the States/Regions made
to ensure that compre-
hensive programs are
being developed, inclu-
ding problem identifica-
tion, pollutant load
quantification, and
assessment of system
impacts, for each
of these major
estuarine areas?
(B) What efforts have
the States made to use
generic guidance in the
implementation of approved
work plans for estuarine
studies?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of management struc-
tures in place and operational
(b) # of citizens advisory
groups and technical advisory
groups operational
(c) # of data management
systems operational
(d) f of technical reports
completed
(e) # of draft management
recoranendat ions completed
for review
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
No/No
No/No
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review*
(C) What efforts have
States/Regions made to
implement the approved
FY 1985 work plans?
SOURCE
Of DATA
Region's
Self-
Evalua-
tion*
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: EXPEDITE S301(h) DECISIONS AND PERMIT ISSUANCE (pg. 27)
AcnvrriES
1. Review
§301(h)
Applications
and Issue
Permits
*
Ul
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
IN SPMS/
REPORTING
SOURCE
MID-YEAR REVIEW
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
COMMITMENT?
FREQUENCY
OF QftTA
(A) Mas all available
(a) t of complete applica-
Yes/No
Quarterly
Contact
information considered in
tions
Regions
evaluating applications?
(b) t of intents to revise
Yes/No
Quarterly
Contact
(B) Were decisions clearly
Regions
and completely documented?
(c) t of withdrawals
Yes/No
Quarterly
Contact
Regions
(C) Were all criteria evalua-
(d) t of initial decisions
Yes/SEMS
Quarterly
Contact
ted and applied consistently
Regions
among Region's applications?
(e) t of fined, decisions
No/No
Mid—year
Region's
Review
Self-
(D) Were dischargers with
Evalua-
the greatest potential for
tion
adverse impacts evaluated
(f) t of permits issued
Yes/SPMS
Quarterly
Contact
on a priority basis?
reflecting decisions
Regions
(E) How quickly are final
(g) # of approved/ successful
No/No
Mid-year
Region's
decisions implemented through
monitoring programs in opera-
Review
Self-
permit revisions?
tion
Evalua-
tion
(F) Do permits consistently
assure that the monitoring
previsions of S301(h) decisions
are transformed into specific
enforceable requirements for
use in assessing ongoing
ccnfjlianoe with the 8301(h)
criteria?
-------
MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: ENSURE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF MARINE ENVIRONMENT (pg. 20)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
IN SPMS/
REPORTING
SOURCE
ACTIVITIES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
COMMITMENT?
FREQUENCY
OF DATA
1. Review
(A) What procedures has
(a) # of permit appli-
No/No
Mid-year
Region's
and Issue
the Region adopted for
cations processed and
Review;
Self-
Ocean Dispo-
evaluating ocean disposal
permits issued:
Fourth
Evalua-
sal Permits
vs. land-based disposal
- Industrial permits;
Quarter*
tion;
options?
- Municipal permits.
MPRSA
Report
(B) What procedures and
(b) # COE permits
No/No
Submit-
criteria are used in
reviewed.
tal*
>
i
Ln
IS3
evaluating Corps of
Engineers (COE) permits?
(C) How have Regional
Office resources been
used in support of site
designations?
(D) Are monitoring
requirements an integral
part of site management
plans?
(c) # of surveys and
Environmental Impact
Statements completed.
(d) # of disposal site
designations made.
No/No
No/No
(e) # of disposal sites No/No
being managed and moni-
tored.
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES
ACTIVITIES
1. Oversee
Primacy
State
Programs
r
(_n
W
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) What types of problems are
delegated States encountering?
(B) What types of assistance
are States requesting?
(C) How does Region exercise
effective overview of
delegated programs?
(D) Are States carrying out
their programs as approved?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report, for information
only, the # of new State
UIC primacy programs
approved and the total #
of injection wells covered
under the approved programs.
(b) Track, by well class,
progress against targets
for UIC permit determina-
tions made by primacy
States for new and exist-
ing facilities for (1)
Class I wells, and (2)
Class II, III, and V wells
(if applicable) during
FY 1986.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
Yes/SPMS
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF EftTA
HQ FURS
Region/
State
Report
(c) Track, against targets, Yes/SPMS
the # of existing Class II
well record files reviewed
during FY 1986.
(d) Track, against targets, Yes/SPMS
the # of Class II wells for
which mechanical integrity
tests were performed by
primacy States in FY 1986.
(e) Report, by State, the % No/No
of Class II wells for which
mechanical integrity tests
were witnessed during FY 1986.
(f) Report, by State, for Yes/SPMS
FY 1986 the # of field
inspections conducted.
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Region/
State
Report
Region/
State
Report
Region/
State
Report
Region/
State
Report
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES
ACTIVITIES
1. Oversee
Primacy
State
Programs
(cont1)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) By State, what is the
status of the assessment
of Class V wells.
(F) Are States enforcing
significiant violations
effectively?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
(g) Track, by Region the
number of administrative
orders or equivalent action's
issued in primacy States.
Yes/No
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Noncom-
pliance
Report
>
i
Ln
(h) Track, by Region, the Yes/No
number of civil referrals
sent to State Attorneys
General and the number of
criminal actions filed in
State courts.
(i) Track, by Region, for Yes/No
primacy States the percent
of wells in violation of per-
mit or rule requirements.
(j) Track, by Reg ion, the Yes/No
number of wells with "signifi-
cant" permit or rule violations
as of June 30, 1985.
Quarterly
Quarterly
First Quarter
Noncom-
pliance
Report
Noncom-
pliance
Report
Annual
Report
(k) Track, by Region, the
number of wells in the above
universe of violation which
have came back into com-
pliance or have had formal
enforcement actions taken
against then.
Yes/No
Quarterly
Noncom-
pliance
Report
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES
ACTIVITIES
2. Imple-
ment UIC
in Non-
primacy
States
and on
Indian
Lands
T
in
l/i
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Does the Region have
the appropriate skill mix
for direct implementation?
(B) Is program (inventory,
reports, compliance) up
to date? If not, explain.
(C) Does the Region have a
plan to eliminate permit
backlogs (if any) or to
improve processing time (if
applicable) to prevent
delays?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Track, by Class, against
targets, the t of permit
determinations made to new
and existing facilities for
(1) Class I wells and (2)
Class II, III, and V wells
(if applicable) by EPA during
FY 1986.
(b) Track, by class, against
targets, the average elapsed
time (in days) for permit
determinations.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF E&TA
Yes/SPMS
Quarterly
Reg ional
Report
No/No
Quarterly
Regional
Report
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES
ACTIVITIES
2.
Imple-
ment UIC
in Non-
primacy
States
and on
Indian
Lands
(cont*)
>
i
tn
a\
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(D) Is Region carrying out
programs as submitted?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) Track, against targets,
the # of existing Class II
well records reviewed by EPA
in FY 1986.
(d) Track, against targets,
the # of Class II wells for
which mechanical integrity
tests were performed by
operators and verified by
EPA during FY 1986.
(e) Report, by State, the
# of mechanical integrity
tests witnessed by EPA in
FY 1986.
(f) Track, by Region, against
targets, the # of field in-
spections conducted in
FY 1986.
IN SPMS/ REPORTING SOURCE
COMMITMENT? FREQUENCY OF DATA
Yes/SPMS
Yes/SPMS
Quarterly Regional
Quarterly Reg ional
Report
No/No
Yes/SPMS
Quarterly Regional
Report
1st Quarter Regional
Report
(E) By State, what is the
status of the assessment
of Class V wells.
No/No
Quarterly Regional
Report
(F) What is Region's approach
for use of formal and in-
formal enforcement actions?
Yes/No
Quarterly Regional
Report
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: PROMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES
ACTIVITIES
2.
Imple-
ment UIC
in Non-
primacy
States
and on
Indian
Lands
(cont*)
>
t
Ul
-4
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FDR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(G) Have there been arty en-
forcement problems. How
were they handled?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(g) Track, by Region, the
number of administrative
orders issued by EPA in the
direct implementation States.
(h) Track, lay Region, in
direct implementation
States, the percent of wells
in violation of permit or rule
requirements.
(i) Identify, by Region, the
number of wells with "signifi-
ciant" permit or rule violations
as of June 30, 1985.
(j) Track, by Region, the
number of wells in the
above universe with "signifi-
cant" violations which have
come back into compliance or
have had formal enforcement
actions taken against than.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
Yes/No
Yes/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Quarterly
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
Report
Yes/No
Yes/No
Quarterly Regional
Report
1st Quarter Regional
Report
Quarterly
Regional
Report
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM:
OBJECTIVE: PRCMOTE UIC DELEGATION AND MANAGE PROGRAM IN NON-DELEGATED STATES
ACTIVITIES
3. Protect
Aquifers that
are Sole or
Principal
Sources of
Drinking
Water
>
i
Ul
00
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Assess the value of
project reviews.
(B) To what extent are
significant problems
identified?
(C) What kind of remedial
action has the Region
tried to obtain.
(D) How successful was the
Region in getting remedial
action?
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(a) For sole source aquifer
petitions, report the ~ of:
o Petitions received;
o Reviews initiated;
o Reviews completed; and
o Aquifers designated.
(b) Report the # of Federally
assisted activities (projects)
reviewed in designated sole
source aquifer areas.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Fourth
Quarter
No/No
Fourth
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
Report
Regional
Report
-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pgs 12-15)
ACTIVITIES
1. Effec-
tively Manage
the PWSS
Program
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?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF LATA
>
I
m
vo
2. Effec-
tively Man-
age the PHSS
Program in
Non-primacy
States and
on Indian
Lands
(A) Does Region use funds
as planned?
(B) Can specific benefits
be attributed to fund
utilization?
(a) How nuch money has
been obligated?
No/No
Second,
Fourth
Quarters
Regional
Report
3. Delegate
the PWSS
Program
4. Prepare for (A) Has the Region
Implementation worked with each
of the Revised State to develop
Drinking Water legal authorities
Regulations and analytic
capability to
begin regulating
volatile organic
chemicals?
(A) Has the Region
worked diligently
with States to move
them toward primacy?
-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pgs. 12-15)
ACTIVITIES
1. Improve
Compliance
with the
NIPDWR
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has each State reviewed
and/or revised its compliance
strategy for dealing with
non-ccnpliant systems?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Report the # of
states with ccmpliance
strategies.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
Regional
Reports
(B) Has the Region provid-
ed guidance to States on
carpiiance strategies
and setting targets for
measurable compliance
improvements?
(C) Hew did the States
> categorize non-camunity
on systems into priority
° groups to target use of
their resources. Have
the targetted resources
been used for the highest
priority groups?
(b) Report # of admin- Yes/No Q 1,2,3,4 FRDS
istrative, civil and
criminal actions
(including referrals)
taken against persist-
ent violators by States
and Regions.
(D) Has the Region worked
with the States to target
enforcement actions in
the most reasonable manner?
Has the Region provided
assistance to the States
in any formal actions?
-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pgs, 12-15)
ACTIVITIES
1. Improve
Compliance
with the
NIPDWR
(cont.)
>
i
o
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(E) Has the Region
reviewed State files
of non-compliant
systems to assure that
enforcement actions
have been timely and
appropriate? Has the
Region taken any federal
action because of a
State's failure to act?
(F) How well did each
State's compliance rates
for FY 85 agree with the
targets contained in the
FY 85 grant agreements?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(c) Report, for primacy
and non-primacy States,
the # and % of community
systems with intermittent
and persistent violations
of the microbiological,
turbidity and trihalo-
methane requirements.
(d) Report, against targets,
for primacy and non-primacy
States, the number of per-
sistent violators in the
period 4/84-3/85 that have
returned to compliance with
requirements or have had a
formal enforcement action
taken against than.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
Yes/No
Q 1,2,3,4 FRDS
Yes/SPMS
Q 1,2,3,4
FRDS
-------
PUBLIC V&.TER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (pgs.12-15)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING SOURCE
FREQUENCY OF EftTA
1. Improve
Compliance
with the
NIPDWR
(cont.)
(G) Identify population
affected by persistent
violations of drinking
water requirements.
(e) Report the popula-
tion served by caimunity
systems with persistent
violations of the micro-
biological, turbidity and
trihalcmethane require-
ments.
Yes/No
Q 1,2,3,4 FRDS
No/No Second Reg ional
Quarter Report
pleted studies shown about
report integrity? Have
the States made adjust-
ments to their data
management system to
address any problems
discovered during the
verification?
(H) Has the Region under- (f) Report the # of data
taken data verification verifications completed,
activity for each State?
What have results of com-
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
ACTIVITIES
OBJECTIVE: State Ground-Water Program Support Relative to
the Ground-Water Protection Strategy (p.17)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
In SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
>
I
CT\
OJ
1. Implement
Sec.106 Grant
program for
yrcund-water
in accordance
with guidelines
and FY 1986
budget alloca-
tions, monitor
State programs,
conduct mid-
year reviews,
and assist
States with pro-
gram management
problems.
(A) To what extent have the
guidelines been reflected
in administration of the
program?
(B) How are the ground-water
grants coordinated with
W.Q., UIC, Waste Manage-
ment, FIFRA and TSCA
grant process?
(C) To what extent have
the States developed
consolidated ground-
water program plans?
(D) How well does the
Region track grants
awarded to the States?
(E) Do the States have an
effective strategy for
managing awarded grants
and what is it?
(a) Number of grants No/OW
awarded to States
and territories by
December 30.**
(b) Number of State No/No
briefings, workshops,
mid-year assessments,
(documented and
provided to appropriate
parties), follow-up
mid-year reviews, and
meetings conducted with
States.
(c) Number of States No/OW
submitting consolidated
plans.
January 31,
June 30,*
September 30*
January 31,
June 30,
September 30
January 31,
June 30,*
September 30*
106 work
prog/Reg.
visits,
reg ional
records.
Regional
records.
Regional
records.
(F) Can specific benefits
be attributed to EPA
funded State programs and
what are they?
*Reporting for these dates is not required if all grants are awarded by December 30.
**In establising Regional coranitments, the existence of State legislative barriers to
acceptance of grants will be taken into consideration.
-------
GRQUND-WkTER PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: Manage Internal Coordinating Caimittee
Relative to the Ground-Water Protection Strategy (p.19)
>
i
a\
ACTIVITIES
2. Provide support &
assistance to coord-
inating canmittees
which will engage
in specific substan-
tive review affect-
ing all Regional
programs impacting
ground water and
ensure a rational
and consistent
approach to
Regional ground-
water protection
efforts and
programs.
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Has the coordinating
committee and/car the
Regional Office of Ground-
Water been engaged in specific
substantive reviews of those
Regional programs impacting
ground-water.
(B) How has the coordinating
ccranittee directed or
redirected resources to
improve the Region's ground-
water program?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) The number of times
committee meets.
In SPMS/OW
COMMITMENT?
No/No
(b) The number of
topics impacting on
ground-water management
covered.
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
January 31,
June 30,
September 30
January 31,
June 30,
September 30
SOURCE
OF DATA
Reg ional
records.
Regional
records.
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
OBJECTIVE: Develop Coordinated Ground-Water Wbrk Plans to
Implement the Ground-Water Protection Strategy (p.18)
ACTIVITIES
3. Develop
regional work
plan or compar-
able management
mechanism.
>
i
Ln
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what degree do the
plans reflect actions
affecting ground water.
(B) The what degree do
the plans provide a doable
managerial tool to effectively
track progress and provide
accountability towards
completing projected outputs.
(C) To what degree is the
Regional Ground-Water Work
Plan used to integrate and
facilitate ground-water related
programs and efforts throughout
the Regions.
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) The number of programs
participating.
(b) The number of items in
the work plan which reflect
national priorities.
(c) The number of items in
the work plan which reflect
Regional priorities.
In SFMS/CW
COMMITMENT?
No/No
No/No
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
January 31+
June 30,
September 30
January 31+
June 30,
September 30
January 31+
June 30,
September 30
SOURCE
OF DATA
Reg ional
records.
Reg ional
records.
Reg ional
records.
-•Data for these quantitative measures must be reported only once—on
the date which follows most closely completion of the work plan.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: REDUCE THE PERCENT OF STREAM MII.ES, LAKE ACRES, ESTUARY SQUARE MILES, COASTAL MILES AND GREAT
LAKES SHORE MILES NOT SUPPORTING DESIGNATED USES (p. 25)
ACTIVITIES
1. Reduce
the Percentage
of Stream Miles,
Lake Acres,
Estuary Square
Miles, Coastal
Miles and
Great Lakes
Shore Miles
not Supporting
Designated Uses
>
i
o>
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) How are control
priorities determined
by the States and is
water quality a driving
factor? Do they have
their problem areas well
identified, i.e., priority
waterbody lists? Does the
Region concur with the
State lists? Do they
know what needs to be done
to resolve problems faced
by each priority waterbody
strategy? Hew well are
they implementing the
needed actions identified
above? Are resources
targeted at priority water-
bodies?
(B) What are the impediments
to achieving environmental
results?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) List priority
waterbodies by State.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
No/No
(b) Identify the number of
stream miles, lake acres,
estuary square miles,
coastal miles, and Great
Lakes shore miles in each
Region, the number assessed
and the numbers supporting/
partially supporting/ and
not supporting designated
uses as reported in the
FY 1986 305(b) report.
(c) Provide a list of
those stream segments
partially or not
supporting designated
uses, and threatened
waters. Indicate those
waters still requiring
TMDLs/WLAs. List problem
parameters and source,
such as municipal and
industrial point source
or type or NPS, for each
segment, and identify
those that are priority
waterbodies. Briefly
describe State and
Regional actions
planned for these
waters.
Yes/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
First/
Third
Quarters
Third
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
305(b)
Reports,
106,
205 (j)
Work
Programs
305(b)
Reports
No/No
Mid-year
Review
305(b)
Reports
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: INCORPORATE PROVISIONS OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGULATIONS (NOV.8, 1983) INTO STATE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS (p. 25)
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
IN SPMS/
REPORTING
SOURCE
ACTIVITIES
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
COMMITMENTS
FREQUENCY
OF DATA
1. Undertake
(A) Are the States
(a) # of WQS reviewed.
No/No
Mid-year
106,
Use Attain-
developing use attain-
Review
205(j)
ability
ability assessments far-
(b) # of use attain-
No/No
Mid-year
Work
Analyses and
reaches designated less
ability assessments.
Review
Pro-
Site Specific
than f ishable/swiitmable?
grams
Criteria
Are the States identi-
Actions and
fying water bodies with
(c) Track, by Region,
Yes/SPMS
Second/Fourth
State
Inclusion of
toxics problems? Are
against targets, the
Quarters
WQS
Toxic Criteria
narrative or numerical
number of states which
into Standards
criteria being adopted
for toxics of concern?
If numeric, are the
States using EPA or
EPA modified criteria?
incorporate new or revised
numeric or narrative
criteria for toxic
pollutants into State
W&ter Quality Standards
that are approved by the
2. Work
(A) Are the States
Regional office.
with
making any significant
States to
revisions, additions
(d) # and % of stream
No/No
Mid-year
106,
Identify
or modifications
segnents in Region
Review
205(j)
Problems
to State W3S or
designated less than
Work
and to
implementation policies?
fishable and swimmable.
Pro-
Ensure
Are the States
grams
Effective
encountering problems
Implement-
in defining areas
(e) # of promulgation
No/No
Mid-year
Stan-
ation of
that may not attain
actions, approvals, and
Review
dards
the WQ5
uses upon implement-
disapprovals.
Review
Regulation
ation of technology
based permits or in
applying existing
program guidance?
Process
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE USE OF MONITORING DATA IN MANAGING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS (p. 24)
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
gran^
monitoring activities
in their ambient
monitoring programs?
How do the States/
Region determine the
need for biological
and toxic ambient
monitoring?
(C) What is the status
of quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC)
procedures in each
State? Are the States
implementing grant
requirements for QA
plans? Are the States
developing data
quality objectives?
ACTIVITIES
1. Imple-
ment the
Guidance for
State Water
Monitoring
and Waste-
load Allo-
cation
Programs
a->
00
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) How well are the
States beginning to
implement the Water
Monitoring Guidance
(as revised in FY85)?
Did States provide
requested checklist
information? Have
the States developed
adequate monitoring
strateg ies? Are they
encountering any pro-
blems in implementing
specific elements of
the guidance?
(B) Have States included
biological and toxic
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of intensive
surveys completed,
and # of fixed stations
operated on a regular
basis, for water quality
assessments statewide.
(b) # of intensive sur-
veys conducted, including
biological field surveys,
for water quality based
controls.
(c) # of QA Program
Plans and # of Wbrk/QA
Project Plans completed.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
No/No
No/No
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
-------
V&TER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE THE USE OF MONITORING LATA IN MANAGING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS (p. 24)
ACTIVITIES
1. Imple-
ment the
Guidance for
State Water
Monitoring
and Waste-
load Allo-
cation
Programs
(cont.)
>
i
tr-
io
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(D) Are the States
applying an appropriate
balance of resources
between monitoring to
support assessments vs.
monitor ing to support
development ot WQ-based
controls? What are the
dollar and resource
figures?
(E) Have States
adequately planned
their monitor ing
activities, and were
305(b) Reports and
identified priority
waterbodies considered?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SIMS/
COMMITMENTS
REPORTINQ
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
(F) Are States providing
appropriate data to STORE!
on a timely basis, as dis-
cussed in the Guidance?
Are the States working to
improve data management?
(G) Did the State undertake
any monitoring and/or screen-
ing programs to identify new
or emerging problems?
(H) In the waters States
identified as "partially
supporting" or "not supporting
designated uses": did the State
conduct chemical and/car bio-
logical monitoring to confirm
and/or characterize pollution
problems?
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE USE OF MONITORING DATA IN MANAGING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS (p. 24)
ACTIVITIES
2. Improve
State 305(b)
Reports
>
i
o
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent do the
305(b) reports *include:
° the water quality meas-
ures developed through
STEP?
° a list of segments not
fully supporting design-
ated uses and associated
information?
° information on toxics?
° information on nonpoint
sources (including ASIWPCA
assessment)?
° Clean lakes and ground
water information?
° are fully responsive to
national guidance?
(B) Is the water quality
information in the reports
used to establish priorities
for other programs, such as
monitoring, permits, or con-
struction grants as called
for in Part 130 regulations?
(C) Are the reports in-
cluded specifically as a
commitment in the 106/205(j)
work programs and/or State/
EPA agreements?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) # of State 305(b)
reports which are timely
and fully responsive to
national guidance
(b) # of State 305(b)
reports used for making
program decisions by the
Region and State
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
No/No
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Third
Quarter
Third
Quarter
SOURCE
OF DATA
State
305(b)
Reports
State
305(b)
Reports
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES BY FOCUSING ON IMPORTANT WATER QUALITY
PROBLEMS (p. 24)
ACTIVITIES
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF DATA
1. Imple-
ment Bio-
monitor ing
Program
>
-vi
2. Imple-
ment
National
Studies
of Toxic
Pollutants
(A) To what extent has
the Region established
a base capability to
conduct bicraonitoring,
including bioassays and
field surveys? Is the
number of species cul-
tured and tested adequate?
(B) To what extent have
the States been able to
improve their bicmonitor-
ing capability? To what
extent have the States
begun to use their
bicroonitccing 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
bioaccunulative pollutant
study?
(a) # of flow-through
and static bioassays
for setting V\Q-based
controls.
(b) # of field surveys
for setting WQ-based
controls and for ambient
assessments.
No/No
No/No
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Second/
Rxirth
Quarters
(a) # of sampling plans
prepared.
No/No
(b) Track, by Region, the No/No
percentage of sampling
workplan commitments met
for bioaccumulative pol-
lutant studies.
Mid-year
Review
Fourth
Quarter
106,
205(j)
Wbrk
Programs
106,
205(j)
Wbrk
Programs
106,
205(j)
Wbrk
Programs
106,
205(j)
Wbrk
Programs
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES BY FOCUSING ON IMPORTANT WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS (p.24)
ACTIVITIES
3. Implement
Regulatory
Monitor ing
Programs
and Develop
TMDLs/WLAs
>
i
K5
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) To what extent are
the States developing
WQ-based controls? Is
the number of W^-based
controls being developed
increasing or decreasing
and why? Is the mix
between conventional and
toxics work appropriate?
Are they conducting TMDLs/
WLAs solely in priority
waterbodies or also in
other areas? How are these
funded? Are States
following the EPA policy
for developing toxics WLA?
(B) Is the process for
conducting and approving
TMDLs/WLAs working well?
Did the monitoring program
provide adequate support to
making important WQ-based
regulatory decisions? Did
the States use EPA recatmended
methodology for relating WQ
conditions to effluent
limitations? Is the tech-
nical defensibility of the
TMDLs/WLAs improving? Is
the public involved? Have
the States provided an
implementation schedule?
(C) What issues have
developed in the TMDL/
WLA process/and how is
the Region resolving
these?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
(a) Identify, by Region,
from the list of waters
not fully supporting
designated uses, number
of waterbodies needing
WQ-based controls and
the number of TMDLs
needed in these waters.
(b) # of TMDLs/WLAs
conducted for conven-
tional pollutants.
(c) # of TMDLs/WLAs
with pollutant specific
toxic limits, and #
with bicmonitoring-
derived toxic limits.
(d) Track, by Region,
the number of TMDLs
initiated in these
waters.
(e) Track, by Region,
against targets, the
number of TMDLs com-
pleted in waters not
fully supporting des-
ignated uses.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
Yes/No
No/No
No/No
No/No
Yes/SPMS
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
First
Quarter
Third/
Fourth
Quarters
Third/
Fourth
Quarters
Third/
Fourth
Quarters
Third/
Fourth
Quarters
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Wbrk
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Wbrk
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Wbrk
Pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
ACTIVITIES
1. Update
WQM Plans
>
i
vj
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE WATER QUALITY GRANTS MANAGEMENT (pp. 8-11, 25)
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
2. Use WQM
Plans to
Ensure Con-
sistency
3. Manage
State Grants
Effectively
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) Have the Regions
approved WQM plan updates?
How effective is the process?
If a State prepares no plan
updates, what action is the
Region taking? How does the
Region assist States in de-
termining needed updates?
(A) How is the Region en-
suring that States use the
WQM plan to make consist-
ency determinations regarding
permits and construction
grants? Give exaitples.
(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
ccnmitments and State per-
formance? Any problems
encountered in applying
these procedures? What
sanctions or other efforts do
you use to correct deficiencies?
Give exaitples of efforts to
correct deficiencies in
State performance.
(a) # and list of WQM
plan elements updated.
IN SPMS/
COMMITMENTS
No/No
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
Mid-year
Review
(a) # of consistency
reviews conducted by
Region for permits
and construction
grants.
(a) List major 205(j)
projects/activities
for each State and
indicate which of these
will be included in
future WQM plan updates.
(b) Tb date, what
percent of 106 and
205(j) work program
commitments by program
element has each State
met?
No/No
Mid-year
Review
No/No
Mid-year
Review
No/No
Mid-year
Review
SOURCE
OF DATA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT:
OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE WATER QUALITY GRANTS MANAGEMENT (pp. 8-11, 25)
ACTIVITIES
3. Manage
State Grants
Effectively
(cont.)
>
i
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 are accurate? Have 106
and 205(g) grant awards met LOE
requirements; if not is the
Region taking steps to rectify
the problem, i.e. recovering
grant funds?
(E) Are States using priority
waterbody lists to allocate
resources to address critical
water quality problem areas?
How is the Region using priority
waterbody lists to negotiate
States grants and provide
oversight of State programs?
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
In SPMS/
COMMITMENT?
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
SOURCE
OF EftTA
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
106,
205(j)
Work
Pro-
grams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT;
10
OBJECTIVE: IMPLEMENT NPS POLICY AND STRATEGY (p. 25-26)
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop
List of
Waterbodies
Impacted by
NPS and
Implement
NPS Control
Programs
>
i
Ul
QUALITATIVE MEASURES FOR
MID-YEAR REVIEWS
(A) How is this list
being used to direct
control decisions?
(B) What is the status
of NPS programs, by State
broken down by NPS category,
indicating whether the
effort is program develop-
ment or implementation?
What is the Region doing
to further NPS program
development?
(C) What is the schedule
for implementing NPS con-
trols, by State? What is
the source(s) of funds?
(D) Discuss the Regional/
State approach to imple-
menting the Agency NPS
strategy.
IN SPMS/
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES COMMITMENTS
(a) Identify, by Region, No/No
number and percent of
stream miles, lake acres,
estuary square miles,
coastal miles, and Great
Lake shore miles which
are not meeting designated
uses due to NPS pollution.
(b) Identify, by Region, Yes/No
by non-point source category,
the number and percent of
stream miles, coastal miles,
lake acres, estuary square
miles, and Great Lakes shore
miles not fully supporting
designated uses.
REPORTING
FREQUENCY
First
Quarter
First
Quarter
(c) Track, by Region, Yes/SEMS
against targets the number
of States that develop an
adequate NPS management program
consistent with WQM Regulations
and EPA's Non-point Source Strategy.
(d) Identify, by State, the No/No
number of these areas needing
increased assistance frcm
other Federal agencies to
support project implementation.
Second/
Fourth
Quarters
Fourth
Quarter
SOURCE
OF EftTA
106,
205{j)
Vtork
Programs;
305(b)
Reports
ASIWPCA
Assessments
106,
205(j)
Work
Programs;
305(b).
106,
205(j)
Work
Programs,
305(b).
106,
205(j)
Wbrk
Programs,
305(b).
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
ATTACHMENT
MUNICIPAL POLLUHOfJ OXJTtfOL
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Performance Expectation:
1(b) # of Step 3, Step 2+3 and 1(b) A project is considered physically complete when an official inspection
PL 84-660 physical conpletions (EPA/State/Corps) determines that:
and terminations.
° All but minor components of the project have been completed (e.g., if
all but landscaping was done, the project may be labeled as physically
complete) in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and
change orders;
° 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 'F#' or 'B. GICS Select logic for termination is:
N5 = 'Al'.
Performance Expectations:
As a mininum target, the estimated number of projects more than 90% complete
at the beginning of the fiscal year should be planned for physical
completion by the end of the fiscal year.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(c) # of projects initiating 1(c) The measure is those projects (Step 3, Step 2+3 and PL 84-660) that actually
operation. initiated operation (actual N7 "Initiation of Operation" date for projects
funded after 12/29/81 or actual N5 "Project Completion" for projects
funded prior to 12/29/81) during the period of time being rated compared to
those targeted to initiate operations during the same rating period.
Performance Expectation:
The goal is that 100% of all those projects that are targeted to initiate
operation during the rating period actually initiate operations. An
acceptable performance is that at least 95% of the targeted projects
actually initiate operations.
w
i
LO
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(d) # of Step 3, Step 2+3 and 1(d) An administrative completion is any one of the following:
PL 84-660 administrative
completions. ° A final audit request: N8 = 'A0' or 'F$' or 'B0' or;
° A project that is administratively complete but not sent to OIG because
of related segments or 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 Com-
pletion Code & Date;
° All pre-final audit administrative requirements have been satisfied;
° Final inspection has been performed;
0 The plan of operation has been implemented, or for projects awarded
after December 29, 1981, project performance certification has been
received;
° 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 18 months of initiation of operations.
As a minimum target, the estimated number of projects awaiting
administrative completion at the beginning of the fiscal year should be
planned for administrative completion by the end of the fiscal year.
Projects awarded after December 29, 1981, will not be considered as awaiting
administrative completion until the 12 month project performance period
has expired.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(e) # of Step 3, Step 2+3 and 1(e) Closeout occurs after:
P.L. 84-660 closeouts.
0 Audit has been resolved or a determination has been trade 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
° 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:
° The grantee appeals a final decision 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 cut' by OIG during the fiscal year should be planned
for closeout by the end of the fiscal year. GICS select logic for closeouts
is: P0 = 'A0' or 'AC'.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION GOtJTROL
gUAifriTMTVE MEAbUKE DEFIUITIOtj/PCRFORMAtJCE EXPECTATION
1(f) # of administrative corcpletion 1(f) An administrative completion backlog is any project that has been awaiting
backlogs eliminated. administrative completion for more than 12 months at the beginning of the
fiscal year, if it was awarded before December 29, 1981; or awaiting
administrative completion for more than 18 months at the beginning of the
fiscal year, if it was awarded after Decenijer 29, 1981.
The status, or reason for delay, of every administrative completion backlog
project should be reported to Headquarters on a quarterly basis via GIGS.
Performance Expectation
The goal is to complete all backlog projects except those projects that are
delayed beyond the Region's or State's ability to control, i.e., 100%
achievable administrative completion 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 completing the projects and the estimated
administrative completion date.
The following are examples of some of the delays that are beyond the
control of the Kegion or State:
- Litigation;
- Arbitration;
- Investigations by State or Federal agencies;
- Iton-corpliance with civil rights or Federal
labor requirements; and
- Lton-coripliance with project performance requirements.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(g) # of closeout backlogs 1(g) A closeout backlog is arty project that has been awaiting closecut for more
eliminated. than 6 months at the beginning of the fiscal year.
The status, or reason for delay, of every closeout backlog project, should
be reported to Headquarters on a quarterly basis via GICS.
Performance Expectation;
The goal is to complete all backlog projects except those projects delayed
beyond the Region's or State's ability to control, i.e., 100% achievable
closeout backlogs eliminated.
An in-depth review/analysis of each backlog project 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 closing out the project, and the estimated closeout date.
The following are exanples of sate 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.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
DEFINITION/PERFOMANCE EXPECTATION
1(h) % reduction of unliquidated
obligations in a negotiated
group of "slow moving"
projects (SMPs).
1(h) A "slow moving" project (SMP) is defined as a Step 3, Step 2+3 or PL 84-660
project under construction that has paid-out less than 90% of funds awarded
and either: 1) has not had a grant payment in over 6 months; or 2) has an
outlay history that varies significantly from the 6/75 obligation payout
curve. Projects under construction are those for which construction has
been initiated as defined in 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 conmitment
and the cumulative year-end commitment will be determined for each Region
based upon data analysis and negotiations.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(i) # of CMEs. 1(i) The objective of CMEs and PMCs is outlined in the Construction Management
Evaluation and Project Management Conference Manual.
Performance Expectation;
The national target for CMEs during FY 1986 is 165, with the objective of
two to five per State as shown in the following table based on the
state-size established in the construction grants resource model:
State Size No. of CME's
Small 2
Medium 3
Large 4
Super 5
Regions will lead or co-lead a significant number of CMEs. A Regional
report will be submitted to Headquarters on each CME.
Since a PMC is needed on virtually all new construction projects, the target
is the number of construction starts expected during FY 1986.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
^ANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFIIttTiayPEKFOlWfljCL EXPLCTATIOU
1(3) # ot active Step l's arid
Step 2's administratively
cxjR|jleted or terminated
during the year.
l(j) A Step 1 or Step 2 project is considered administratively complete when a
final audit is requested, or for projects that cannot be sent to OIG because
of ongoing Step 2, Step 2+3, or Step 3 projects, when all of the admini-
strative completion requirements have been satisfied.
A Step 1 or Step 2 project is administratively coiiplete when the following
conditions have been satisfied:
° Ihe scope of work is complete as defined in data element N5, Project
Cornpletion Code and Date.
° All pre-final audit administrative requirements have been satisfied.
° The "cut-off" letter has been sent to the grantee.
° 'ihe final payment request has been processed.
° A grant amendment reflecting the final payment request has been
issued, if one is needed.
GICS select logic for Step 1 and Step 2 administrative completion is one of
the following:
° A final audit request: N8 = or 'F^' or 'Hjjf'
° A project for which all of the administrative conpletion requirements
have been satisfied but has not been sent to OIG because of related
Step 2, Step 2+3, or Step 3 project: H8 = 'AP'
° A project with claimed cost less than $250,000 which do not require a
final audit: U8 = 'US'
Performance Expectation;
The goal of the construction grants program is to administratively complete
all Step 1 and Step 2 projects, except large, complicated or involved
projects, by the end of FY 1986.
The Kegion 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 physical conpletion after FY 1985 or administrative
conpletion after FY 1986.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
3(a) % of Corps utilization vs.
target
1(a) # of new activities
delegated to the States.
2(a) % of cum. net monthly
outlays (plan vs. actual),
3(a) Although measure appears as a quantitative indicator, Headquarters does not
regard it as a Regional commitment. The commitment is between Corps
Divisions and EPA Regions. However, Headquarters does intend to track
performance against plan in evaluating how effectively the Region is
overseeing the Corps performance in the Region.
1(a) This measure is based on the number of new activities delegated to the State
during the fiscal year. Source is the delegation matrix generated from the
resource model available to the Region on request. The Region is expected
to adhere to its approved delegation plan. If slippage in delegation
occurs, it should be anticipated and accomodated in Region's resource
usage.
2(a) The net sum of payments made and payments recovered from PL 84-660 projects,
PL 92-500 section 206(a) reimbursable projects, PL 92-500 contract authority
projects, as well as projects funded with Talmadge/Nunn, FY 1977 supple-
mental, FY 1978 through FY 1986 budget authority, section 205(j) funds, and
section 205(g) delegation funds. Region is expected to achieve a
performance within +5% of its conmitment on a monthly basis.
2(b) % of cum. gross
quarterly obligations
(plan vs. actual).
2(b) Dollar amount of new awards and increases from projects funded with
PL 92-500 contract authority, 1977 supplemental, FY 1978 through 1986
budget authority, section 205(j) funds and section 205(g) delegation
funds. The amount does not include PL 84-660 and PL 92-500 section 206(a)
reimbursable funds. Region is expected to achieve a performance within
+15% of its conmitment on a quarterly basis. Note: In accordance with
Agency accounting practices, decreases of funds awarded in FY 1986 during
FY 1986 will be subtracted from the gross total.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(a) # of Operations Management
Evaluations (OMEs) performed
at completed minor POTW's.
1(a) An Operations Management Evaluation (OME) is a problem diagnostic and
onsite assistance program focused on small (generally under lmgd) POIVJs.
Candidate projects are identified through DMR or onsite reviews as having
performance problems that are affecting or are likely to affect permit
compliance by that plant. An OME includes a diagnostic evaluation to
identify O&M management and facility performance problems, appropriate
onsite assistance to help resolve identified O&M problems, and a report
identifying compliance results and appropriate followup actions by EPA
State, and/or the community needed to assure that the grantee/corcrrunity
meets continuing O&M management and permit compliance responsibilities.
An OME is equivalent to work being performed currently by States under
Section 104(g)(1) grants.
w
NJ
Performance Expectation
States and Regions are expected to commit jointly to assist not less than
10 percent of the minor mechanical POTWs in each State, but not to exceed
15 plants in any State. State commitments are expected to be based
primarily on and contingent upon their Section 104(g)(1) grant commitments.
Regional Offices are expected to commit to a negotiated level of OME
activity in each State consistent with the FY 1986 resource allocation.
If, as a result of Regional and State 104(g)(1) grantee efforts, minor
facility performance and carpiiance are at such a high level that OME
commitments cannot be achieved, Regions should provide an explanation at
the end of the year.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
1(a) # of permits reissued to major
industrial facilities during fis-
cal year (NPDES States, non-NPDES
States).
1(c) # of permits reissued to major
nunicipal facilities during fiscal
year (NPDES States, non-NPDES
1(e) Region's lists of major industrial
and municipal permits to be issued
in non-NPDES States in FY 86.
1(f) NPDES State's list of major industrial
and nunicipal permits to be issued in
FY 86.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(a) Total number of major (using MRAT system) industrial
permits with issuance dates (i.e., date signed by permit
authority) during FY 86. Status as of the close of the
quarter will be taken from PCS on the 10th of the month
following the end of a quarter. Of the major permits issued,
the number that are priority permits will be determined fran
the priority permits list developed by the Regions. This will
be compared to the total number of major (using MRAT system)
industry permits with expiration dates before October 1, 1986
according to PCS data on October 10, 1985 (i.e., the number of
major industrial permits that have or will expire by the end of
FY 86).
1(c) lt>tal number of major nunicipal permits with issuance
dates (i.e., date signed by permit authority) during FY 86.
Status as of the close of the quarter will be taken from PCS on
the 10th of the raonth following the end of a quarter. This
will be compared to the total number of major nunicipal permits
with expiration dates before October 1, 1986, according to PCS
data on October 10, 1985 (i.e., the number of major nunicipal
permits that have or will expire by the end of FY 86).
1(e) The lists of major industrial and nunicipal permits to be
issued in non-NPDES States in FY 1986 is to be developed
under provisions of the "Policy for the Second Round Issu-
ance of NPDES Permits for Industrial Sources" and the
"National Municipal Policy," respectively. Permits on
these lists are known as priority permits. If there are
no priority permits in a State, this should be noted.
1(f) The lists of major industrial and nunicipal permits to be
issued in NPDES States in FY 1986 which are developed by each
NPDES State in the same way as EPA's major permit issuance
lists (see item 1(e) above). These lists are to be provided to
the respective EPA Regional Office at the beginning of FY 1986.
-------
PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
l(g)/(h) # of major industrial/manicipal I(g)/(h)
permits modified (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States).
l(i)/(j) # of permits reissued to signifi- 1(i)/(j)
cant minor industrial/nunicipal
facilities during fiscal year
(NPDES States, non-NPDES States).
For purposes of tracking modification of major permits,
only permits modified under provisions of the NPDES
Regulations Where public notice is required (40 CFR 122.62),
are to be counted as modified. Minor modifications (40 CFR
122.63), where public notice is not required, are not being
tracked by this measure.
Total number of significant minor industrial/nunicipal permits
with issuance dates (i.e., date signed by permit authority)
during FY 86. The Region is to report separately for POTWs
and industry (industrial number may include other non-municipal
dischargers) in each NPDES State and non-NPDES State. Because
this is the first year the issuance of "significant minors" will
be tracked, their definition is in the form of guidance on the
characteristics of a significant minor. The planned development
of a national strategy for the issuance of minor permits is
expected to lead to a more refined definition.
Significant minor dischargers should be distinguished by their
clearly definable environmental impact when compared to other
minor dischargers. Minor dischargers may be more important
(significant) because they impact a priority waterbody or have
a high potential for degrading water quality during periods of
high production or low flew. On the other hand, minor dis-
chargers may be considered not "significant" when controls
external to the NPDES program mitigate the wastewater dis-
chargers or their impact on receiving waters. The nexus be-
tween point and non-point source controls should also be
considered when determining the significance of a minor dis-
charger. The basic test is: which minor dischargers, if
issued current permits, would produce the greatest environmen-
tal benefit. Iheir number would be limited by reason and
resources.
It is expected that commitments will be developed based on a
definitive State-by-State list of significant minor dischargers
prepared and maintained by the Region or NPDES State.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
2(a)/(b) # of evidentiary hearing requests
pending at beginning of FY; and
the number of those resolved in FY
1986 (NPDES States, non-NPDES States)
-Municipal; and
-Non-municipal.
2(c)/(d) # of evidentiary hearings requested
during FY 86 and the # of those FY 86
requests which are denied or granted
within 90 days (NPDES States, non-
NPDES States):
- Municipal; and
- Non-municipal.
3(a)/(b) # of direct discharger
variance requests pending at
beginning of FY 86; # denied
and # forwarded to Headquarters
with a recommendation in FY 86
(NPDES States, non-NPDES States):
-FDF
-301(c)
-301(g)
-301(k)
-316(a)
-316(b)
PERMITS
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2(a)/(b) The Region is to identify by 10/31/85 the number of eviden-
tiary hearing requests that are pending at the beginning
of FY 86. Commitments are to be made to eliminate that
carryover by resolving all those pending requests during
FY 86. Resolution consists of either denial, settlement,
or formal hearing initiated. The Region is to report
quarterly the cumulative number of each of the following
occurring in FY 86: (1) denials; (2) settlements; and
(3)formal hearings initiated. Municipal and non-municipal
are reported separately for each NPDES State and non-NPDES
State.
2(c)/(d) The Region is to report each quarter, State-by-State, the
cumulative number of new evidentiary hearing requests
received in FY 86 and, of those, the cumulative number
which are denied or granted within 90 days. This measures
initial action to mitigate future carryover. Except for
those denied, it does not measure resolution of eviden-
tiary hearing requests.
3(a)/(b) The Region is to identify by 10/31/85 the number of vari-
iance (and deadline extension) requests from direct
dischargers by type (FDF, 301(c), etc.) that are pending
at the beginning of FY 86. Cormiitments are to be made to
eliminate that carryover by acting on all those pending
requests during FY 86. Such action consists of either
denial or referral to Headquarters with a Regional recom-
mendation. Hie Region is to report quarterly the cumulative
number of denials during FY 86 and the cumulative number of
recommendations forwarded to Headquarters during FY 86, by
type of variance in each NPDES State and non-NPDES State.
-------
PERMITS
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
3(c)/(d) # of direct discharger
variances requested during
FY 86 and the # of those
acted upon (NPDES States,
non-NPDES States):
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
3(c)/(d) The Region is to report each quarter, State-by-State, the
number of each type of new variance request received fran
direct dischargers in FY 86 and, of those, the number acted
upon. The quarterly report of those new variance requests
acted upon is to provide the cumulative number of denials
and the cumulative number of reconmendations forwarded to
Headquarters during FY 86 by type of variance in each NPDES
State and non-NPDES State.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
l(a)-(b) MOVING BASE
ENFORCEMENT
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1. 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 all necessary construction {including
all start-up or shakedown period specified in the permit or
enforcement action) to achieve the ultimate effluent limitation
in the permit reflecting secondary treatment, BPT, EAT, or more
stringent limitations, such as State required limitations or
water quality based limitations, or limitations established by
a variance or a waiver. A facility on a "short-term" schedule
(one year or less) for corrections such as composite correction
plans, where compliance can be achieved through improved
operation and maintenance (rather than construction) is
considered to be on final effluent limits. A facility is
considered to be in significant noncompliance with final
effluent limits when it has exceeded the draft criteria for
significant noncompliance with its final effluent limits,
compliance schedule or reporting requirements 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 the permittee does not meet the definition of a "facility on
final effluent limits" or when a permit, court order/consent
order or an Administrative Order require construction such as
for a new plant, an addition to an existing plant or a tie-in to
another facility. A facility is considered to be in significant
noncompliance with its construction schedule when it has exceeded
the draft criteria for significant noncompliance with its
construction schedule or schedule reporting requirements and has
not corrected the problem by the end of the reporting period.
A facility is considered to be in significant noncompliance with
its interim effluent limits when it has exceeded the draft
criteria for significant noncompliance with its interim effluent
limits or measurement reporting requirements and has not
corrected the problem by the end of the reporting period.
A facility which is in significant noncompliance with both its
construction schedule and interim limits should be considered
as in significant noncompliance with its schedule only.
Major p.l.92-500 permittees are tracked as part of the
major municipals as well as being tracked separately.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
2(a)-(b) NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY
3(a) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
3(b) CLOSE-OUTS
3(C) REFERRALS
3(d) CONSENT DECREES
3(e) DMR/QA
ENFORCEMENT
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2. Compliance schedules are expected to be established on the
priority basis established in the National Municipal Policy.
The goal was to establish enforceable schedules for all
affected municipalities (municipalities which require capital
improvements in order to meet the statutory requirements)
by the end of FY 1985. Actual conmitments are to be negotiated
with Headquarters.
3. Headquarters will report EPA Administrative Orders (AOs);
Regions will report State equivalent actions. EPA AOs
must arrive at Headquarters by the fourth working day of
the new quarter in order to be counted in the report.
(Includes pretreatment AOs)
3. An AO or State equivalent will be considered closed-out when
the requirements of the order have been completed in full.
3. Federal referrals will be reported by the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM); State
referrals will be reported by the Regions.
(Includes pretreatment referrals)
3. Remedial actions include decree modifications, contempt
actions, collection of stipulated penalties, and other
activities as defined in the OECM guidance.
3. DMR/QA followup includes the following:
Nonresporxlents - 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.
-------
ENFORCEMENT (cont.)
QUAMTIT/VriVL MLASUKLS
2(a)-(b) EXCEPTION LIST
vo
DEFIHITIQt J/PEKFORMAI jCE EXPECTATION
2 In regard to all major permittees listed in significant
noncompliance on the Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QtJCR)
tor any quarter, Reg ions/1 JPDES 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 cornpliance 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 exception list
reporting as follows:
EXCEPTION LIST reporting involves tracking the compliance
status of major permittees listed in significant noncompliance
c»n two or more consecutive QNCKs. Reporting begins on
January 1, 1986 based on permittees in SNC for the quarters
ending June 30 and September 30, not addressed by December 1,
1985. Regions are expected to ensure that the facilities listed
on an exceptions report are returned to compliance or addressed
with a formal enforcement action before appearing on the
subsequent Exception List report.
Reporting is to be based on the quarter reported in the QtJCR
(one quarter lag).
Returned to compliance for Exception List facilities
refers to cornpl iance with the permit, order, or decree
requirement for which the permittee was placed on the
Exception List (i.e. same outfall, same parameter).
CoujIiance with the conditions of a formal enforcement
action taken in response to an Exception List violation
counts as an enforcement action (rather than return to
compliance) unless final effluent limits are achieved.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
ENFORCEMENT (cont.)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE expectation
2(a)-(b) EXCEPTION LIST
(cont.)
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/DOJ/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 and
forwarding it to Headquarters for resolution, or granting
them Presidential exemption.
-------
ENFORCEMENT (cont.)
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1. WENDB elements are defined in the Enforcement Management
System (EMS) Guide. A3ded to WENDB elements are the
following: 1) permit issuance tracking data (those four
elements required Nationally); 2) inspection data (majors
and minors, Federal and State inspections); 3) permit
effluent limits; and (4) evidentiary hearing data.
Regions are expected to attain 100% data entry of VJENDB
elements for all permittees and 100% DMR data for all
major permittees.
The § indicator for P.L. 92-500 permittees is to be
entered as soon as a permittee who constructed using
P.L. 92-500 funding is corrpleted and operational, and the
final inspection is completed. Hie F indicator for permittees
on final effluent limits is to be entered as soon as the
permittee fulfills the definition of a permittee on final
effluent limits.
2. Kegional and State inspection plans should be established
by FY 1986 in accordance with guidance on inspection plans.
As the inspection strategy states, all major facilities
should receive the appropriate type inspection each year
by either EPA or the State. EPA and States collectively
comait to the number of major permittees inspected each
year with a Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI),
Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI), Toxics Inspection
(TOX), Biomonitoring Inspection (BIO), Performance Audit
Inspection (PAI), Diagnostic Inspection (DIA.G), or
Reconnaissance Inspection (kl). Reconnaissance Inspec-
tions will only count toward the commitment when they
are done on facilities that meet the following criteria:
(1) The facility has not been in SNC for any of the
four quarters prior to the inspection.
(2) The facility is not a primary industry as defined
by 40 CFR, Part 122, Appendix A.
(3) The facility is not a municipal facility with a
pretreatwent program.
-------
ENFORCEMENT (cont.)
DEFINITIQN/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2. Commitments for major permittee inspections should be
quarterly targets and are to reflect the number of major
permittees inspected at least once. Multiple inspections
of one major permittee will count as only one major permittee
inspected (however, all multiple inspections will be included
in the count for the measure that tracks the total number of
all inspections - see next paragraph. VJhen conducting inspec-
tions of POTWs with approved pretreatroent programs, the eirphasis
should be on the pretreatment aspect of the inspection. Such
inspections will be counted toward the commitments for majors, as
well as toward the commitment for pretreatment inspections. (This
will be automatically calculated by POd. ) Regions are encourage
to continue CSI inspections of PCfI\Js where appropriate.
'Ihe measure for tracking inspection activity will not
have a commitment. CEI, CSI, TOX, BIO, PAI, and DIAG of
major permittees, minor P.L. 92-500 permittees, and significant
minor permittees will be counted. Multiple inspections
of one permittee will be counted as separate inspections;
Reconnaissance Inspections will not be counted. It is
expected that up to 10% of EPA resources will be set
aside for neutral inspections of minor facilities.
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, 1985 through Sep. 30, 1985 Jan. 4, 1986
July 1, 1985 through Dec. 31, 1985 April 2, 1986
July 1, 1985 through March 31, 1986 July 2, 1986
July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986 Oct. 1, 1986
Inspections may not be entered into PCS until the inspection
report with all necessary lab results has been completed and
the inspector's reviewer or supervisor has signed the completed
3560-3 form.
-------
tfjAL/rrm'iVE measures
1(b) # of local pre treatment programs
approved during FY 1986 (list
separately: non-pretreatraent
states, approved pretreatraent
States).
1(a)/(b) # of local pretreatraent programs
audited during FY 1986 (list
separately: non-pretreatraent
States, approved pretreatment
States).
PKLTKEA3MEOT
DE^IUITiayPfcKFOmAtCE EXPECTATION
1(b) A local pretreatraent program is considered approved when,
after appropriate public notice and comment, the Approval
Authority (Regional Administrator or the State Director)
approves the local program. Gommitinents for non-pretreat-
ment States and for approved pretreatment States are to
reflect all programs that are required but are not
approved as of Septenber 30, 1985. Referral actions will
be considered when assessing progress toward achieving corarai
ments. Referrals that, in fact, have been turned over to th
Justice Department will count as the equivalent of an
approved program.
l(a)/(b) A local pretreatraent audit is a detailed cm-site review of
an approved local program to assure that the program is
effectively implemented. The audit examines the adequacy of
the POIV legal authority, local limits and program implemen-
tation procedures and policies, recordkeeping and enforce-
ment activities, program resources, and other key elements
of the local program. Hie outcome of the audit is a written
report to the POTO that recommends improvements in the
implementation of the program.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEAbUtcLb
l(a)-(c) PRETREA3MEMT Enforcement
PRETKEATMEtJT
DCF IN IT ION/ PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1. Pretreatment Inspections will be tracked on three levels:
Pretreatment Inspections of approved PCHVfe (see defintion of
NPDES inspections), Pretreatment Inspections of Industrial
Users (IUs) of unapproved POIWs, and Pretreatraent Inspections
of IUs of approved POIWs.
Priority for IU Pretreatment Inspections is to be given
to IUs of unapproved POIWs that are subject to Federal
categorical standards.
It is assumed that all Pretreatment Inspections of IUs
of approved POTWs are done subsequent to an inspection
of the PCflM, and that the POTW's records provide sufficient
cause to question their regulation of the IU or the IU's
performance, or that there is other cause to question
the IU's performance (i.e., complaints, inquiries).
Pretreatment enforcement actions (AOs and referrals)
will be incorporated into the total actions as well as being
counted separately. An enforcement action for multiple
violations must be counted only once; therefore,
Headquarters will assume that the total actions minus
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 IJPDES permit.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1 (b) Permit determinations made
I (c) Class II well record files
reviewed
1 (d) Mechanical Integrity Tests
(MIT) performed
1 (e) MIT Witnessed
1 (f) Field Inspections conducted
Identify, by State, the total number of new and existing permit determinations
(issued or denied) for (1) Class I wells and (2) Classes III, II and V (if apli-
cable in FY 1986. Count permit determinations made only for those applications
with the final document signed by the State Director in that reporting
period. Count each area permit as one permit.
Identify, by State, the # of Class II wells that the State has reviewed in ac-
cordance with the 1425 program guidance. For nultiple wells in a single field
under an area permit or project, report the total # of wells that are covered
in the same well record file.
Identify, by State, the total # of wells with Mechanical Integrity Ttests per-
formed by the operators and verified by the State director.
Identify, by State, the total # of wells with mechanical integrity tests per-
formed by the operators and witnessed by the State field inspectors.
Identify, by State, the # of injection wells inspected, including all routine,
periodic, or follow-up inspections performed to determine compliance with per-
mit requirements or other program related activities.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2 (a) Permit determinations made
2 (b) Permit elapsed time
Same as 1 (b). In making FY 1987 ccrrmitment, Regions should report the total
estimated number of permits to be determined in FY 1987. This includes both
existing and new permits and these numbers will be used as the base for
FY 87 resource allocations in the C220 and C306 Workload Model. When re-
viewing permit applications, the priority is established as follows:
1. new Class II wells
2. existing Class I wells
3. existing Class III wells
4. new Class I and III wells
5. existing Class II SWD wells.
The permit elapsed time is the total # of calendar days from the date a
complete permit application is received and accepted by the Region to the date
the final permit is signed by the program director (either permit issuance or
permit denial). The average permit elapsed time is based on the average # of
calendar days for all permit determinations made in a Region in a reporting
quarter.
-------
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
2 (c) Class II well record files
reviewed
2 (d) Mechanical Integrity Test
performed
2 (e) MIT Witnessed
2 (f) Field Inspection conducted
w
i
ho
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
Same as 1 (c).
Same as 1 (d).
Same as 1 (e).
Sane as 1 (f).
-------
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
2(a) How much money has been
obiigated?
1(a) Report the # of States with
compliance strategies.
1(b) Report the # of administrative,
civil and criminal actions taken
against persistent violators by
States and Regions in FY 85.
1(c) Report, for primacy and non-primacy
States, the # and % of community
systems with intermittent and
persistent violations of the
microbiological, turbidity and
trihalcmethane requirements.
1(d) Report, for primacy and non-primacy
States, the number of persistent
violators as of the end of FY 1985
that have returned to compliance
or have had a formal enforcement
action taken against them.
1(e) Report the population served by the
persistent violators of the micro-
biological, turbidity and trihalo-
methane requirements.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
2(a) This measure will report the amount of money from the TOSS
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. Hie National Compliance
Policy was distributed January 18, 1984.
1(b) Definitions for these terms were provided previously. The Region
should review the data on persistent violators (see 1(b), above)
and determine the numbers of follow-up actions taken in response
to the violations.
1(c) This information is compiled by the Region from State submissions.
The Region is expected to review the data in detail and determine
the number of systems that violated the microbiological, turbidity
and trihalcmethane requirements, and divide them into persistent
(4 months or 2 quarters) and intermittent categories.
1(d) This measure indicates progress in improving compliance of those
systems that are persistent violators as of the end of FY 1985.
1(e) This measure indicates total population served by systems that
persistently violate the microbiological, turbidity and
trihalcmethane requirements.
1(f) Report the # of data verifica-
tions completed.
1(f) This measure will report the number of States in which data
verification were conducted in FY 85.
-------
yUAl/TITATIVL MEASURE
VJATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
DEFINITIQN/ PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
1(b) Identify the number of stream
railes, lake acres, estuary
square miles, coastal miles and
Great Lakes shore miles in each
Kegion, the number assessed,
and numbers supporting/partially
supporting/not supporting
designated uses as reported in
the FY 1986 305(b) report.
1(c) Track, by Region, against
targets, the number of States
which incorporate new or revised
numeric car narrative criteria
for toxic pollutants into State
Water yuality standards that
are approved by the Regional
office.
2(a) Identify, by Region, from the
list of waters not fully
supporting designated uses, the
number of waterbodies needing
water quality based controls
and the number of TMDLs needed
in these waters.
This measure was developed as part of the STEP process. These data will be
available from the State water quality assessment reports, which are to be
submitted to EPA under CWA 9305(b) by April 1, 1986. EPA guidance fear pre-
paring 305(b) reports describes how assessments are to be done. The Office
of Water will compile the data frcin State submissions or Regional EMRs.
Although this aggregated measure asks only for "stream miles," it will be
in^ortant in other measures to report the specific waterbodies, or nuirbers
of waterbodies, such as waters needing TMDLs or waters not fully supporting
uses. This information can form the basis for development of a priority
waterbodies list, a tool to help States allocate resources to their most
critical water quality problems, where abatement and control decisions are
most needed to prevent or reverse impairment of a designated use.
Targets will be negotiated with the Regions based on the number of States
expected to complete WQS review and submit revisions for approval in
FY 86. Standards reviews will determine on a case-by-case basis which toxic
pollutants and hew many will be sufficient in each State. Reviews and
approvals will be done in accordance with the Water Quality Standards
Regulation, November 8, 1983.
This item translates the "stream miles" reported above into a measure of
"number of waterbodies," or areas where water quality based controls and
IMDLs/VJLAs are needed.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, PLANNING, AND ASSESSMENT
QUANTITATIVE MEASURE
3(e) Track, by Region, against
targets, the number of TMDLs
completed in these waters.
1(c) Track, by Region, against targets
the number of States which develop
an adequate NPS management program
consistent with WQM Regulations and
EPA's Non-point Source Strategy.
DEFINITION/PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION
This measure tracks progress against the targets for TMDLs/WLAs to be
conducted during FY 86, established in negotiations. Reporting
occurs in the last two quarters because most TMDLs are completed
during the sunnier field season.
This measure is designed to track the progress of States in developing
and/or updating W3M plans to include fully adequate non-point source
strategies. In evaluating the adequacy of these strategies, the Regions
should use the model plan included in the Non-point Source Strategy,
as well as the Water Quality Management Regulations.
------- |