\SE2y	WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
APR 14 1994
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) FY 1995
Operating Guidance and Enforcement Measures for Strategic Targeted
Activities for Results_Systeins (STARS)
Richard T. Kuhlman, Acfrng. ckrSttqr
Enforcement Division
TO:	Enforcement and Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions I - X
Attached is the Enforcement Division's FY 1995 NPDES Operating Guidance and
STARS measures. A draft of these materials was discussed at the March 31, 1994
Regional Conference Call, at which time general agreement was reached on their
Since there have been no subsequent requests for changes from the Regions, the
final FY 1995 Guidance and Measures are the same as their draft versions with one
exception. We have included feedlots among the enforcement priority considerations
highlighted for FY 1995.
, Also, as discussed in the conference call, we recognize for NPDES permit
violations in "special" waterbodies posted as unfit for swimming or fishing that the source
for the violations may be other than the typical municipal and industrial wastewater
discharges covered under NPDES. These violations may result from pesticide runoff or
air borne pollutants for which we do not have direct enforcement responsibility.
If there are any questions, please call me at (202) 260-8304 or Richard Lawrence,
on my staff, at (202) 260-9510.
cc: Fred Stiehl
Kathy Summerlee
John Lyon
Rick Duffy
Rich Kuhlman
Mark Charles
Dave Lyons
Elaine Stanley
Sally Seymour
Prvnid m tbcyt Paptr

FY 1995 NPDES Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Operating Guidance
and STARS Measures
The guidance for FY 1995 is very similar to that provided in FY 1994.
Accordingly, for FY 1995, we will use the priorities and procedures as contained in the
FY 1994 OW Operating Guidance for OWEC (attached) and the supplementary
requirements outlined in the "Regional Compliance Enforcement Strategies for FY 1994"
memorandum (attached) dated September 21, 1993. As you may recall, this
memorandum provided a framework for developing both Regional Enforcement
Strategies and Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System (STARS) commitments.
Operating Guidance
In addition to the core set of guidance described in the FY 1994 guidance
documents, there are additional NPDES enforcement considerations for FY 1995. Some
of these involve only additional details on the enforcement priorities in the FY 1994
Among these additional considerations for FY 1995 are three enforcement
priorities Steve Herman, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement, has
recently emphasized. They are: 1) the Combined Sewer Overflow Dry Weather Flows
Enforcement Initiative, 2) "special" waterbodies like stream segments posted as unfit for
fishing and swimming, and 3) facilities in reportable noncompliance for pretreatment
violations. In addition, consideration will need to be given to the requirements of the
NPDES Watershed Strategy. It has been finalized and was sent by Robert Perciasepe,
the Assistant Administrator for Water, to the Regions on March 21, 1994. Finally, two
other areas, whole effluent toxicity data quality as well as feedlots, will need increased
emphasis in FY 1995.
STAJRS Measures
The STARS measures for FY 1995 will be the same as for FY 1994 (see
attached) with two additional reporting requirements. These new requirements involve
watersheds and sectors. At the end of FY 1995, the Regions are requested to provide
the total number of enforcement actions and inspections for each of these two areas.
Definitions for watersheds and sectors are not currently available, so we will provide
guidance on this matter later m the year.
For FY 1994, we requested you develop Regional enforcement strategies (see
September 21, 1993 memorandum referred to above) and provided flexibility in
deployment of inspection resources allowing you to commit to less than the goal of 100%
coverage for inspections. In FY 1995, we will require enforcement strategies and will put
more emphasis on the need for each Region to provide a detailed explanation of use of
. inspection resources as part of a fully developed enforcement strategy. Without a
detailed explanation, we will require 100% inspection of majors.

FY 1994 OWEC Operating Guidance
Enforcement Strategies Memorandum of
September 21,1993

C*3 Tr;
S8> 2f !993
SUBJECT: Regional Compliance and Enforcement Strategies
Enforcement Division
Regional Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions I - X
This memorandum establishes a framework for Regional
Enforcement Strategies consistent with the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance 5-Year Strategy, and Mike Cook's
August 31, 1993 memorandum, "Negotiation of FY 94 OWEC STARS and
OWZC Accountability System Commitments*. The Regional strategic
plans will be incorporated into the commitment process as
appropriate and discussed, with the already established enforcement
measures, during quarterly conference calls.
The approach presented here is consistent with the discussion
at the February 1992 Branch Chiefs' Meeting on measures of program
effectiveness, and my subsequent memorandum dated May 10, 1993, "FY
1994 New Enforcement Program Effectiveness Measures". We request
that each Region submit a short Regional Enforcement Strategy that
presents specific goals for the program, with a short discussion of
the activities which will be undertaken to achieve the goals,
including measures for following program implementation and success
("customized Regional goals'*).
Pleas* submit your Regional Enforcement Strategy by
September 30, 1993, or as quickly thereafter as possible, and
submit all STARS data including inspection targets under the stx&s
schedule. If you have any questions, please contact me on 202/2 60-
8304, or Carol Galloway, on 202/260-8313.
cc: Mike Cook
Cynthia Dougherty
Mike Quigley
Anna Garcia
Anne Lassiter
Rich Kuhlman

Consistent with the Officja c; Vistewater Enforcement and
Compliance Strategic Plan, the Regions are encouraged to tailor
enforcement activities based on watershed planning and risk-based
priorities. The Regional Enforcement Strategies should describe
program goals for FY 1994 and provide a brief description of the
types of activities that will be undertaken to achieve those goals.
Since the strategies will provide a basis, along with the other
established enforcement measures, for assessing Regional
performance, the goals and activities should be as clear and
objective as possible.
Regional performance will be evaluated by review of the "core
enforcement measures'* (referrals, administrative actions,
inspections, compliance rates, and response to SMC). In addition,
we will use the "new" enforcement measures developed over zhe last
year (May 10, 1993 memorandum is attached). Reporting on and
discussing the Regional enforcement strategies will allow the
Region to put the more quantifiable enforcement measures into the
broader context of the Regions' priorities.
The Regional Enforcement Strategy should consider the
following topics which are discussed in detail below:
Regional priorities including watersheds, geographic and
other initiatives, etc.
"New" program areas including pre treatment, sludge, csos,
storm water, etc.
Regional customized goals
Tailored inspection strategy with commitments
We encourage tailoring enforcement resources to the most
critical Regional priorities and encourage using a mix of
enforcement tools. The Agency will continue to place high priority
on judicial referrals; however, we recognize the utility of
administrative actions and encourage the use of administrative
penalty-authorities consistent with Agency policy. In addition, ve
must continue to ensure timely and appropriate enforcement is taken
for all cases of Significant Noncompliance (SNC). In the future,
however, we may redefine SNC to more closely follow Regional and
State priorities, and will solicit your input in that process.
Likewise, it is imperative that we maintain the integrity of the
national enforcement 'database in the Permit Compliance s/stea
(PCS) . Therefore, we will continue to set our target for data
. entry into PCS at 95%.

Porrjnn*! priorities:
The Region should summarize the State and EPA enforcement
priorities to support priority watersheds, waterbodies, or other
geographic targets. In addition, other initiatives and priorities
should.be included such as: sanitary overflows; the data quality
initiative; dry weather CSO overflows, etc.
"New" Program Areas
The Region should describe what its approach will be in terms
of implementing the pretreatment program, sludge, CSOs and storm
water. The Region may choose this vehicle to present its plan for
storm water activities in FY 1994 in lieu of doing the separate
plan which is called for by the Stora Water Enforcement Strategy.
Regional Customized Goals:
The Region may define specific enforcement objectives and
identify milestones of progress toward the goals consistent with
Regional priorities. For each goal, the Region should explain the
environmental objective and any key milestones or events projected.
Progress toward the goals will be discussed during quarterly
conference calls between the Office Oirector and the Region. At
the end of the fiscal year, the Region- will submit a short
narrative on the status of the goals and the extent the goals vere
accomplished. This narrative will be submitted to the Office
Oirector for his review with the other quantitative end of /ear
measures of enforcement program effectiveness.
Regional Inspection Strategy;
Regions are asked to develop an inspection plan based on their
allocation of inspection resources in the workload model, vhich
reflects the priorities and needs of the Region. The Region should
work with its States to determine how best the Region as a whole
can address the universe of regulatory responsibilities including:
NFDES majors/ minors, approved pretreatment programs, industrial
users, stora water permittees, permittees with CSOs, Class I sludge
facilities, and facilities that are multi-media.
The plan should include information on the number of
inspections in each category (pretreatment, stora water, sludge,
NPDES, CSO, multi-Mnedia) that will be undertaken by the Region and
States. However, the Region will be asked to commit only to the
. total number of inspections to be conducted during the year. The
Regions should consider the following as guidance for determining
which facilities should be considered a priority for inspections.

In recognition of the severe resource constraints under which
Regions and Headquarters are operating and the substantial increase
in regulatory responsibilities which have accrued sine* the 1987
amendments to the Clean Water Act, the previous policy which
required th« inspection of all NPDES major facilities annually and
the inspection (or audit) of all approved pretreatment programs
annually is suspended for FY 1994. Regions now have the option of
developing an inspection plan for 1994, based on the allocation of
inspection resources in the workload model, which reflects the
priorities and needs of the Reg: on. This year will serve as a
transition year in which new approaches and ideas for the
inspection program can be developed.
In developing the plan, the Region should work with its states
to determine how best the Region as a whole can address the
universe of regulatory responsibilities. Specifically, the Region
should address how best to use its inspection resources considering
all of its responsibilities for NPDES majors and minors, approved
pretreatment programs, industrial users, Class I sludge facilities,
storm water permittees, POTWs subject to combined sewer overflow
requirements, facilities that are multi-media, and other special
initiatives such as feedlots. The plan should include information
on the number of inspections in each category that will be
undertaken by the Region and each State and should provide some
narrative description of the overall strategy being pursued by the
Region. Consistent with past policy, the plan should reflect soae
Regional oversight of state inspection programs. The plans will be
due at the time that inspection commitments are normally submitted
for the STARS system—the first of September.
During the remainder of FY 1993 and into FY 1994, working with
Regions and States, Headquarters will initiate a quality action
team (QAT) to look at needed changes to the inspection program.
Two issues which might be considered are whether a national
inspection scheme can and should be developed which would target
inspections on some basis—perhaps a statistically-based or a
risk-based approach and whether inspection protocols for various
programs can reasonably be integrated for resource efficiencies.
The products of this review would be available for planning in FY
1995. We are now seeking volunteers to participate in this QAT and
are interested in having representatives from the Environmental
Services, as well as Water Management Divisions.
In developing -nspection plans for 1994, the Regions should
consider the following as guidance for determining which facilities
should be considered a1 priority for inspection:
1. Any facility for which there is an active enforcement c«te
or a potential case where an inspection is needed to provide
evidentiary support or verify current compliance status.

2.	Any facility which is located in a priority watershed eni
is suspected of causing environmental harm or endangering
public health. This might include a minor NPDES permittee, an
industrial facility regulated under storm water requirements,
feedlots, industrial users, or any other regulated facility
3.	Any facility, not located in a priority watershed, but
suspected of causing environmental harm or endangerment to
public health.
4.	Any NPDES major which was in SNC during the previous 12
months (inspection year) or is currently in SNC, to the extent
inspection resources allow.
4.	Municipal permittees which have approved pretreataent
programs and are Class I sludge facilities. The inspection
might be either a NPDES, pretreatment, or sludge inspection or
might be a visit which screens for all three programs.
5.	Any facility which is suspected of having a compliance
problem. For example, sanitary sewers suspected of having
overflow problems might be included.
This approach should aiiaw Regions and States to make the most
effective possible use of limited inspection resources in 1994. we
can then build upon that experience and the planned 93-94 review to
formalize our national inspection strategy for 1995.
In the absence of a Region-specific Inspection Strategy, ve
will assume that all major NPDES facilities should be inspected
each year.

OWEC Section
OW Operating Guidance
For FY 1994

In the past twenty yean, since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, EPA has seen progress in the
improvement of the quality of theNation's water, due in large pan to success in the control of point source
discharges. Through the 1987 Amendments to the Act, our responsibilities continue to grow. The
amended Act ratified existing programs, such as technology-based and water-quality based effluent
limits for point source dischargers and provided new program areas of responsibility, such as permitting
to control sewage sludge contamination, setting up and implementing the State Revolving Fund, and the
Mexican Border Initiatives.
OWEC is responsible for directing the NPDES point source and preoeasnent programs, sewage sludge
management program and the enforcement and compliance program. OWEC manages the Construction
Grants program for building and maintaining pollution control infrastructure and the State Revolving
Fund program, assisting States to develop long-term, self-sustaining programs. OWEC develops
regulations and guidelines for municipal water pollution control, and manages the Sections J04(b)(3)
and 106 grant programs. FY 1994 guidance for the 106 program was issued March 3,1993.

SBF At gn gyio»iWV nrerrrrnM
Watmhad Appraacho/Geofraphk Tarfttinf
• IucfratioB ofWatented Focus
OWEC activities of interest to Regions for FY 1994 include: (1) support for new and ongoing NPDES.
prentatment, *&d sludge programs by providing guidance, technical assistance, training, workshops,
seminars, public information programs and national meetings which communicate the goals and
methods of achieving effective control of environmental pollution of the Nation's waters; (2) improve-
ment of the evidentiary hearing process on NPDES permits to achieve more timely decisions and more
rapid resolution of permit appeals and implemen-
tation of controls; (3) support for NPDES, pretreat-
ment, sludge, storm water, and CSO programs by
providing data management oversight and policy,
developing guidance, and providing technical as-
sistance and training to promote the effective imple-
mentation of the Gean Water Act; (4) support for
national SCORE activities through the small flow*	-Sum'
clearinghouse national training center, OAM onsite	-ComMaed Sewer Overflows
technical assistance program and selected demon-
stration projects.	Bofldfaf State ud Load Parftwa
• NPDES and Sub Slodce PtennU Praams
Activities for FY 1994 include:	. n^omI toxic Rule	'
Permit Issuance
Incorporate toxic limits when issuing/reissuing major and minor NPDES permits and
when implementing/updating pre treatment programs to meet water quality standards. En-
courage use of the watershed protection approach for incorporating water quality based
limits for toxics into expired and never issued NPDES permits to reduce the backlog.
Integrate pollution prevention practices into NPDES, pretreatment, and sludge programs
through outreach and training of POTWs and industrial dischargers and development of
model pollution prevention language for permits.
Headquarters will work with Regions to establish a permit fee system.
Begin permit issuance for sludge use facilities which need site-specific limits.
^ Enforcement and Compliance
Headquarters, with Regions and States, will complete development of a strategy for
NPDES authorities to secure compliance with requirements regulating feedlot discharges.
Regions and~Statea should continue to ensure that all SNC violations of NPDES permits
are responded to on a timely and appropriate basis and uphold the standard that at least
95 % of required data is entered into PCS.
Regions and States should utilize enforcement, as appropriate, to address violations by
major and minor NPDES permittees and industrial users to support Regional waxenhed
Regions and States may choose to address control of storm water discharges and the CSO
dryweather enforcement initiative by tax son specific watersheds.
rv t oad noeot-rnj/-. ^mrwv/r

Regions and States should continue to identify noncompliance among pretreamient
POTWs and industrial users contributing toxic pollutants into public sewers and
respond to this noncompliance in a manner which: 1) returns the facility in question to
compliance, and, 2) deters other similar violators firom future noncompliance.
Regions should begin implementation of the Compliance Monitoring and Enforce-
ment Strategy for Sludge, focusing particularly on establishing inventory data for
Class I facilities based on reporting by the regulated facilities.
As a part of the Agencywide data quality enforcement initiative. Regions and States
should target inspections, focus inspections on accuracy of reporting and take en-
forcement actions against nonreporters and facilities reporting fraudulent or incorrect
data. Regions and States may prioritize certain geographic areas or watersheds for
this enforcement activity'.
Municipal and State Support
Encounge States to assure that project* funded through the SRF program reflect
priority water problems, including, where appropriate, combined sewer overflows,
storm water, nonpoint source, ground water and wetlands issues, and reflect consider-
ation for watershed management and pollution prevention. Utilize more comprehen-
sive water-quality methods to identify projects for funding.
Headquarters and Regions will continue to accelerate the phaseoat of the construction
grants program, including full implementation of the Complettan/Qoseout Strategy
initiated in 1991.
Address fiscal constraints that may limit the ability of the States to implement por-
tions of their wastewater programs. Assist the States in evaluating financing options
without advocating the use of a specific type. Each State, based on its funding struc-
ture, will be deciding upon a number of alternative financing mechanisms to resolve
funding shonfall*.
Headquarters and Regions will provide technical guidance and assistance to Suies
and municipalities on land application, disposal and incineration of domestic sewage
sludge (biosolids).
Regions, States and municipalities will work to identify base level loading and water •
body measuring, protocols and procedures that will allow for an adequate means to
improve program effectiveness of the wet weather programs.
Accelerate implementation of Municipal Water Pollution Prevention (MWPP1) pro-
grams and encourage source reduction at POTWs. Promote and foster efficient use
of water and water conservation activities. Provide national leadership to Wafer Itoe
Efficiency Clearinghouse and the WAVE program.
Support Youth and the Environment programs that assist disadvantaged youth m
learning and woritin in the environmental field.

FY 1994 OWEC STARS Measures
Enforcement Division

-ft; a h/f£f£ S SfAH.l
At (!i\
FV 1994
program Area: Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
GOAL; Reduce and eliminate pollution to the Nation's waters from point sources through aggressive
implementation and enforcement of Federal and State standards under the Clean Water Act.
OBJECTIVE: Assess toxicity control needs and reissue major
permits in a timely manner.
MEASURE:	Track, against targets, the number of permits
reissued to major facilities during FY94 which have
had water quality based toxic limits included or
found to not need toxic limits through a water
quality based evaluation for toxics.
OBJECTIVE: Effectively implement approved local pretreatment
MEASURE:	Track, by Region, against annual targets, for
approved local pretreatment programs: l) the number
audited by EPA and the number audited by approved
pretreatment States; and 2) the number inspected by
EPA and the number inspected by approved
pretreatment States.

FY 1994
Program Area:	f Enforcement	Coppjlancg
GOAL: Reduce and eliminate pollution to the Nation's waters from point sources through aggressive
implementation and enforcement of Federal and State standards under the Clean Water Act.
Achieve.and maintain high levels of compliance with
the NPDES program.
Report, by Region and State, he number of major
NPDES facilities, as well as «.he number of POTWs
with approved pretreatment programs. Of these,
track by Region and State the number and percent in
significant noncompliance for each universe.
Report, by Region and State, the number of major
NPOES facilities, as well as the number of POTWs
with approved pretreatment programs in significant
noncompliance on two or more consecutive quarters
without returning to compliance (Active Exceptions
List) — list both new facilities (those in SNC for
two or more quarters) and unresolved facilities
(those facilities which are in SNC for three or more
Report, by Region and State, the number of major
NPDES facilities, as well as the number of POTWs
with approved pretreatment programs that are on the
previous exceptions list which have returned to
compliance, the number addressed by a formal
enforcement action (Resolved Exceptions List).
Identify reported Exceptions List facilities by name
and'NPOES number and number of quarters in
significant noncompliance.

FY 1994
Program Area: Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
GOAL: .Reduce and eliminate pollution to the Nation's waters from point sources through aggressive
implementation and cnforrpannt of Federal and State standards under the Clean Water Act.
Achieve and maintain high levels of compliance in
the NPOES program. (continued)
For NPDES, Sludge and Pretreatment violators,
report, by Region, the total number of (a) EPA
Administrative Compliance Orders and the total
number of State equivalent actions issued; of these,
report the number issued to POTWs for not
implementing pretreatment; (b) Class I and Class II
proposed and final administrative penalty orders
issued by EPA; and (c) Administrative penalties
imposed by States.
Report, by State, the active civil and criminal case
docket, the number of civil and criminal referrals
sent to the State Attorneys General, the number of
civil and criainal cases filed, the number of civil
and criminal cases concluded (identify the penalty
amount obtained by the State in the cases
Identify compliance problems and guide corrective
action through inspections.
Track, by Region and State, against semi-annual
targets, the number of major facilities with NPDES
inspections; the number of Class I facilities
receiving 6ludge management inspections; and the
number of pretreatment POTWs receiving pretreatment
compliance inspections, (combine EPA and State
inspections and report each of the above three
categories separately).

FY 1994
Program Area: Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
negotiated on a State-by-State basis	and Bust include Headquarters in the
approval process.
Regional quarterly reports for these measures will be reported to the
Director of the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
WQ-14	A local pretreatment program audit is a detailed on-site review of an
approved program to determine its adequacy. The audit report identifies
needed modifications to the approved local program and/or the POTW's NPDES
permit to address any problems. The audit includes a review of the
substantive requirements of the program, including local limits, to ensure
protection against pass through and interference with treatment works and
the methods of sludge disposal. The auditor reviews the procedures used by
the POTW to ensure effective implementation and reviews the quality of
local permits and determinations (such as implementation of the combined
wastestream formula). In addition, the audit includes, as one component,
all the elements' of a pretreatment compliance inspection (PCI).
In certain cases, non-pretreatment States will be allowed to conduct audits
for EPA. If a non-pretreatment State has the experience, training,
resources and capabilities to effectively conduct audits, these audits
could be counted. A determination of whether a non-pretreatment State
could conduct the audit for EPA will be worked out between EPA HQ and the
Region during the commitment negotiation process on a case-by-case basis.
The pretreatment compliance inspection (PCI) assesses POTW compliance with
its approved pretreatment program and its NPDES permit requirements for
implementation of that program. The checklist to be used in conducting a
PCI assesses the POTW's compliance monitoring and enforcement program, as

FY 1994
Program Area: Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
meaning includes any and all administrative appeals to permit conditions
for major facilities, whether the appeals stay or do not stay perait
conditions. Evidentiary hearings for EPA issued permits are not considered
to be pending if they are on appeal to the Administrator.
An evidentiary hearing should be regarded as resolved once an ALJ decision
lias been issued, a negotiated settlement has been reached, or the
evidentiary hearing request has been denied or withdrawn.
u. wq E-5	A facility is reported to be in signif icant noncompliance for failure to
comply with NPOES permit requirements if it meet the criteria in the QNCR
Guidance Manual, 1985. An approved pretreatment program should be
identified as in significant noncompliance when it meets the criteria for
SNC identified in the FY 1990 Reporting an Evaluating POTW Noncompliance
with Pretreatment Requirements, issued September 27, 1989.
WQ E-6/7	NOTE: For STARS report the number only. As part of OWECAS, report both
'	the number and the name and the number of quarters the facility has been in
Also, the name list must be submitted with the numbers; only the fact
sheet, with justification, will be reported by the 15th day of the
beginning of the next quarter. In regard to all major permittees listed in
significant noncompliance on the Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR) for
any quarter, Regions/NPDES States are expected to ensure that these
facilities have returned to compliance or.have been addressed with a formal
enforcement action by the permit authority within the following quarter
(generally within 60 days of the end of that quarter). In the rare

FY 1994
Program Area: Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
circumstances where formal enforcement action is not taken, the
administering Agency is expected to have a written record that clearly
justifies why the alternative action (e.g.,enforcement action, permit
modification in process, etc.) was more appropriate. Where it is apparent
that the State will not take appropriate formal enforcement action before
the end of the following quarter, the States should expect the Regions to
do so. This translates for Exceptions List reporting as follows:
Exceptions Lists reporting involves tracking the compliance status of major
permittees listed in significant noncompliance on two or more consecutive
QNCRs without being addressed with a formal enforcement action. Reporting
begins on January 1, 1993 based on permittees in SNC for the quarters
ending June 30, and September 30, that have not been addressed with a
formal enforcement action by November 30. Regions are also expected to
complete and submit with their Exceptions List a fact sheet which provides
adequate justification for a facility on the Exceptions List. The fact
sheet should be submitted by the 15th day of the beginning of the next
quarter. After a permittee has been reported as returned to compliance or
addressed by a formal enforcement action, it should be dropped from
subsequent lists.
Reporting is to be based on the quarter reported in the QNCR (one quarter
Returned to compliance (refer to the QNCR Guidance for a more detailed
discussion of SNC and SNC resolution) for Exceptions List facilities refers
to compliance with the permit, order, or decree requirement for which the
permittee was placed on the Exceptions List (e.g., same outfall, same
parameter). Compliance with the conditions of a formal enforcement action
taken in response to an Exception List violation counts as an enforcement
action (rather than return to compliance) unless the requirements of the

FY 1994
Program Area: Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
action are completely fulfilled and the permittee achieves absolute
compliance with permit limitations. The Exceptions List includes
pretreatment SNC.
Formal enforcement actions against non-federal permittees include any
statutory remedy sucK as Federal Administrative Order or State equivalent
action, a judicial referral {sent to HQ/DOJ/SAG), or a court approved
consent decree. A section 109(g) penalty administrative Order (AO) will
not, by itself, count as a formal enforcement action since it only assesses
penalties for past violations and does not establish remedies for
continuing noncompliance. Unless the facility has returned to compliance,
a 309(a) compliance order should accompany the 309(g) penalty order.
Formal enforcement actions against federal permittees include Federal
Facility Compliance Agreements, documenting the dispute and forwarding it
to Headquarters for resolution, or granting them Presidential exemption.
WQ E-8	Headquarters will report EPA Administrative Compliance Orders (AObj and
State equivalent actions from PCS. All AOs must be entered into PCS by the
2nd update of the new quarter to be counted in the report. For
pretreatment, only AOs issued to POTWs should be counted here. Where an AO
or APO includes both pretreatment and NPOES violations, the AO/APO should
be counted once and considered a pretreatment AO/APO. For purposes of
counting State penalty orders, any order which proposes the assessment of a
cash penalty against a violator may be counted. Where the State has a two
step process (similar to EPA's process) the proposed order should be
WQ E-9
The active case docket consists of all referrals currently at the State
Attorney General and the number of referrals filed in State Court. A case

FY 1994
Program Area: Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
is concluded when a signed consent decree is filed with the State Court;
the case is dismissed by the State Court; the case is withdrawn by the
State Attorney General after it is filed in a state Court; or the State
'Attorney General declines to file the case. OE will report the. same data
for Federal referrals; State referrals will be reported to the Regions.
WQ E-10	As the inspections strategy states, all major facilities should receive the
appropriate type of inspection each year by either EPA or the State. As
part of the NPDES inspection for at least Class I facilities, verification
of sludge management practices should be conducted as appropriate. EPA and
States collectively commit to the number of major permittees inspected each
year with a Compliance Evaluation Inspection 
FY 19**
Program Area: Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
as majors in PCS. Multiple inspections of one major permittee will count
as only one major permittee inspected.
tihew conducting inspections of POTWs with approved pretreatment-programs, a
pretreatment inspection component (PCI) should be added, using the
established PCI checklist. An NPDES inspection with a pretreatment
component will be counted toward the commitments for majors, and the PCI
will count toward the commitment for POTW pretreatment inspections. (This
will be automatically calculated by PCS.) Regions are encouraged to
continue CSI inspections of POTWs where appropriate. Industrial user
inspections done in conjunction with audits or PCIs or those done
independent of POTW inspections will be counted as III inspections.
Tracking of inspections will be done at Headquarters based on retrievals
from the Permit Compliance System (PCS) according to the following
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.
The First working day
after the second update in:
July 1,	1993 through Sep. 30, 1993
July 1,	1993 through Dec. 31, 1993
July 1, 1993 through March 31, 1994
July l,	1993 through June 30, 1994
Jan. 1994
April 1994
July 1994
Oct. 1994

FY 1994
Program Area: Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Note: STARS only tracks the nunber of najor permittees inspected. Regional
and State inspection plans should be established by FY 1993 in accordance
with guidance on inspection plans.