03/00/89
FY 1990 Office of Water Operating Guidance>
Selected Portions ONLY>
CWA Compendium Document No. VII.16
EPA Agency
Operating Guidance
FY 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. ADMINISTRATOR'S OVERVIEW
II. PROGRAM OPERATING GUIDANCE
A. Office of Air and Radiation
B. Office of Water
C. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
D. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
E. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
F. Office of External Affairs
G. Office of Administration and Resources Management
III. APPENDIX: STRATEGIC PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
FY 1990 MEASURES AND DEFINITIONS
Office of Water
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S OVERVIEW ..................................1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS ...........................................12
1. Protecting Our Sources of Drinking Water ..................12
2. Protecting Critical Habitats ..............................13
3. Protecting Surface Water ..................................14
III.ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES ...........................................15
A. Protecting Our Sources of Drinking Water-Activities
1. Public Water System Supervision ...........................15
2. Ground-Water Protection ...................................21
3. Underground Injection Control .............................25
B. Protecting Critical Habitats-Activities
1. Ocean Disposal Site Permitting and Discharge ..............30
2. Near Coastal Waters / National Estuary Program.............33
3. Chesapeake Bay ............................................38
4. Great Lakes ...............................................39
5. Lake Management ...........................................42
6. Wetlands ..................................................43
C. Protecting Surface Waters-Activities
1. Water Quality Standards ...................................47
2. Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis .....................49
3. Water Quality Management ..................................53
4. Nonpoint Source ...........................................56
5. NPDES Permitting ..........................................58
6. NPDES Enforcement .........................................61
7. Pretreatment ..............................................64
8. NPDES and Pretreatment State Program Approval,
Review, and Oversight .....................................67
9. State Revolving Fund Management ...........................68
10. Management of the Ongoing
Construction Grants Program ..............................70
11. Municipal Waste Water Treatment Works
Compliance Maintenance and Infrastructure Protection .....72
12. Municipal Technology Transfer and Small
Community Outreach .......................................75
IV. REGIONAL INITIATIVES ...............................................79
V. SUPPLEMENT GUIDANCE ................................................81
SPMS MEASURES AND SPMS DEFINITIONS ...............................APPENDIX
FY 1990 WATER PROGRAMS AGENCY OPERATING GUIDANCE
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR'S OVERVIEW
The Water portion of the Agency's FY 1990 Operating Guidance provides
national direction to EPA, States, Indian Tribes, and the regulated
community in carrying out programs mandated under Federal water protection
statutes. 1/
1/ The term State does not include Indian Tribes. The terms Indian
Tribes, Indian Tribes treated as States, and Indian Tribes with
Primacy are inserted after the term State where it is appropriate
to do so.
These statutes include: the Safe Drinking Water Act ( SDWA ), as amended
by the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988; the Clean Water Act
( CWA ); and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
( MPRSA ), as amended by the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988. The Agency
and the States also implement programs to protect groundwater quality
through provisions under several different statutes.
The Office of Water ( OW ) uses a management accountability system to set
priorities, define performance expectations and track and assess EPA and
State performance. This system is vital to the effective functioning of
the Water programs because it links a number of organizations at the
Federal and State level ( and, in some programs, local governments as
well ) to a common set of objectives and expectations when they are
operating under these Federal statutes. The Office of Water
Accountability System ( OWAS ) includes the OW portion of the Guidance,
the accompanying SPMS measures, the OW program evaluation guide with
quantitative and qualitative measures, and the OW mid-year Regional
evaluations.
During the FY 1990 mid-year review process, the Regions provide the OW
Assistant Administrator with their projected operating strategy and plan
for FY 1991, including an overview of Regional and State priorities and
their relationship to national priorities. This is done before FY 1991
commitments are made to set the context for negotiation of State work
programs and those commitments. The mid-year evaluations also provide the
Regions the opportunity to present and discuss Region-specific
initiatives. These initiatives are directed at correcting Region-specific
problems that will result in significantly increased environmental
protection or substantially reduced health / environmental risks.
- 2 -
Activities with associated SPMS measures are denoted by ( SPMS ) appearing
at the end of the activities. Additionally, in line with the Agency
format, activities increased from the FY 1989 Operating Guidance are
indicated by a plus (+) in the left margin, new activities are indicated
by the letter (N), and decreased activities are indicated by a dash (-).
No notation indicates that the level of activity is the same as in FY
1989.
PROGRAM DIRECTIONS AND PRIORITIES
As a Nation, we have made impressive gains in the battle for Clean Water.
Many of America's rivers, streams and lakes have been restored through the
Federal, State, and local investment in science, regulatory actions,
wastewater treatment. Generally the Nation has drinking water that is
abundant and safe. The price for this level of quality is perpetual
vigilance to ensure that our protection systems are maintained.
Wastewater treatment systems must be constantly operated, maintained, and
upgraded. New industry and municipal discharges must be stringently
regulated. Drinking water sources must be protected, treated, and
monitored to deal with a growing list of contaminants.
Despite our progress, we have not eliminated the underlying causes of
contamination. In fact, they are growing with our population and economy.
Habitat loss, especially wetlands and coastal areas threatens the
ecological values we are struggling to protect. Nonpoint source pollution
remains a serious problem and is now attracting more Congressional and
public attention because our point sources are largely controlled. The
plight of our near coastal waters and beaches is under scrutiny by the
Congress, press, and public. Preventing the contamination of our
underground sources of drinking water is an increasing concern of Congress
and the public. Clearly, our job is not done.
Our arsenal of water program tools and responsibilities is abundant and
public support for our programs is strong. New programs like Wellhead
Protection, Nonpoint Source and the National Coastal and Marine Policy
give us even greater opportunities to be effective through stimulating use
of environmentally sound land management practices that augment and
reinforce traditional pollution control approaches.
In FY 1990 we face the major challenge of maintaining the integrity of our
base programs and taking advantage of our new opportunities, while facing
substantial shortages in funding.
The programs we put forward in this Guidance are ambitious. Our operating
policy is to demand as much Federal and State performance as the system
can generate, to stimulate increasing cost-effectiveness in carrying out
many of our repetitive tasks,
- 3 -
to advocate creative work-sharing arrangements among Federal, State, local
and private programs, and to evaluate tradeoffs within a context of broad,
basin-wide or State-wide strategies to address areas of greatest risk and
benefit.
Both the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act programs are
largely delegated to the States; thus effective State as well as EPA
performance is critical to achieve success under these laws. In addition,
EPA and States are increasingly dependent on local governments in newer
geographic-based water programs such as Class V Underground Injection
Control, Nonpoint Source, Wellhead Protection, and National Estuary
Programs through consensus-building. This leads to some competition
between Federal and State priorities, as well as tension between the
decentralized structure and the need for national consistency, which must
be managed within a climate of work-sharing and mutual respect.
A sound Federal / State partnership is essential to implement national
programs in a comprehensive, coordinated fashion. In 1990, as a result of
new and continuing demands from Federal Water statutes, EPA and States
must take a leadership role in building public awareness and support to
address Federal, State, and local funding needs in order to continue to:
* Reduce human health risks posed by drinking water and
protect ground-water resources that serve as drinking
water supplies;
* Protect and maintain critical aquatic habitats, including
wetlands, from point and nonpoint sources of pollution;
and
* Protect and maintain the Nation's surface waters from point
source discharges, especially hazardous and toxic pollutants.
In addition, Water programs will participate in EPA's strategic effort to
bring about a long-term shift towards pollution prevention through source
reduction and environmentally sound recycling. EPA will develop its
Pollution Prevention Strategy in 1989, with each program, including Water,
formulating its own plan in conjunction with the States and Regions. In
1990 EPA headquarters, Regions, and States will begin implementing a Water
Programs' Pollution Prevention Plan.
EPA's Water programs will work with Indian Tribes on a government-to-
government basis to take all appropriate actions, consistent with
available resources, and to assist Indian Tribes in improving and
maintaining the quality of their water resources. In 1990, as EPA
completes pertinent enabling guidance and regulations, EPA will place
emphasis on awarding grants to
- 4 -
Indian Tribes. In this regard, EPA will be reviewing and approving Indian
Tribe applications for treatment as States as required by statute. In
addition, emphasis will be placed on improving communications with Indian
Tribes and States to encourage cooperative working arrangements.
A. Protecting Drinking Water Sources
EPA and State Drinking Water programs face many new challenges in 1990
in protecting drinking water at the tap and preventing contamination of
ground waters and surface waters that serve as drinking water supplies.
In 1990, EPA places high priority on States accepting primacy for the new
EPA regulations, implementing the new program requirements, and enforcing
against violators of existing standards. In accordance with this
priority:
* EPA and EPA Regions will continue to develop safe drinking
water standards in accordance with the requirements of the
1986 SDWA Amendments.
* States will need to increase enforcement substantially,
master new program capabilities, and adopt new regulations
to implement many new provisions of the 1986 Safe Drinking
Water Act. Specifically, States will be expected to:
- Enforce the first new Maximum Contaminant Levels
( MCLs );
- Expand monitoring requirements for volatile organic
compounds;
- Assume primacy for the new requirements in the surface
water treatment, coliform, and lead / corrosion rules;
- Initiate assessments of more than 9,000 surface water
systems pursuant to the new treatment rule with emphasis
on approximately 4,000 unfiltered systems;
- Enforce the ban on plumbing materials containing lead
and lead public notification regulations; and
- Implement the provisions of the Lead Contamination
Control Act.
- 61 -
+ * Regions / States will reopen permits for organic chemical
plants, bleached kraft pulp mills, and others to incorporate
technology-based and water quality-based limits based on
studies required at the time of permit issuance, and will
modify other major permits as needed to impose necessary and
appropriate toxic controls. There will be more focus on
developing limits to protect human health. ( Ongoing )
+ * Regions / States will follow the interim sludge permitting
strategy by including sludge monitoring and existing national
sludge regulatory requirements in NPDES and State sludge
permits. ( Ongoing ) ( SPMS )
* Regions / States will implement the RCRA permit-by-rule
requirement and establish corrective action requirements
where necessary for POTWs that are receiving hazardous
wastes not mixed with domestic sewage. ( Ongoing )
N * Regions / States will prepare permit strategies addressing
all CSO discharges by January 15, 1990. ( Second Quarter )
N * Regions / States will focus increased attention on permit
issuance to NPDES permittees discharging to marine / estuarine
waters, especially to control the discharge of bioaccumulative
and persistent toxicants. ( Ongoing ) ( SPMS )
6. NPDES Enforcement
The goals for the NPDES enforcement program in FY 90 are to expand upon
the success of the National Municipal Policy by ensuring continued
municipal compliance and to increase our enforcement presence in emerging
program areas such as toxic controls and sludge. Specifically, in the
municipal area emphasis will shift from construction of facilities to
improving compliance of constructed facilities with final effluent limits.
EPA will develop a Municipal Compliance Maintenance Strategy which will
provide guidance for identifying the causes(s) of POTW noncompliance
through diagnostic inspections and establishing compliance correction
plans utilizing section 308 letters, administrative orders, or where
necessary judicial actions.
In support of this municipal compliance emphasis, EPA will increase
attention to the enforcement of pretreatment implementation requirements
for POTWs, improve monitoring / inspections to evaluate compliance with
toxic requirements in NPDES permits, and increase the use of diagnostic
inspections and tracking to identify and correct chronic noncompliance.
Administering agencies will coordinate
- 62 -
pretreatment and municipal enforcement action so that, when an action is
taken in response to noncompliance in one program, consideration is given
to the other.
In FY 90, the enforcement program will become more involved in emerging
program areas. EPA will place a high priority on identifying and
enforcing toxic permit requirements. EPA, in cooperation with the States,
will implement the Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Strategy for
Toxics Control. The strategy focuses on inspections to monitor acute and
chronic toxicity; criteria targeting enforcement responses to violations
that pose the greatest potential risk to aquatic life and human health;
lab performance evaluation criteria for toxicity analysis; and an updated
DMR / QA program to meet new and expanded needs for toxicity controls.
EPA will also initiate enforcement of permits for combined sewer overflows
and enforcement of sludge requirements in permits.
Headquarters
* Headquarters will evaluate the use of available enforcement
mechanisms to ensure the optimum use of enforcement
authorities. Headquarters / Regions will assess State penalty
practices. ( Fourth Quarter )
N * Headquarters will provide guidance to set priorities for
monitoring and enforcement of sludge requirements.
( First Quarter )
N * Headquarter / Regions will revise NPDES Oversight Guidance to
establish criteria for more effective oversight of approved
States. ( Second Quarter )
N * Headquarters will provide a full range of assistance to State
and Regions to assure that PCS is being utilized effectively
and efficiently. ( Ongoing )
N * Headquarters will take the necessary steps to assure that
PCS has the elements to allow for effective linking to other
information systems. This requires entry of latitude
/ longitude data in PCS; identifying other environmental
information system with relevant information; and designing,
distributing and using specially designed programs to
facilitate system linkages, data download and uploads and
data analyses.
N * Headquarters ( OWEP / ORD ) will expand the DMR QA program to
include a reference toxicant to test permittees' ability to
conduct whole effluent toxicity tests. ( Second Quarter )
- 63 -
N * OWEP will coordinate with the Office of Municipal Pollution
Control in the development and implementation of the Municipal
Compliance Maintenance Program. ( Ongoing )
N * Headquarters will continue to encourage Regions to deliver
inspector training and ensure that both new and experienced
inspectors receive program-specific training. ( Ongoing )
+ * Headquarters will work to implement the new EPA Federal
Facility Compliance Strategy, signed by the Administrator on
November 8, 1988. ( Ongoing )
Regions / States / Indian Tribes
* Regions and States, using the entire spectrum of enforcement
mechanisms, will ensure compliance with all formal enforcement
actions ( AOs, civil and criminal ) by tracking cases from
initiation of referrals to entry of consent decrees or court
orders, and by prompt follow up action when deadlines are
missed. ( Ongoing )
* Regions will provide technical support for criminal
investigations and prosecutions in program priority areas.
Regions shall refer to the Office of Criminal Investigation
matters involving suspected criminal violations, including
significant unpermitted discharge and false reporting, or
other fraud to the Agency. ( Ongoing )
* Regions will ensure that EPA judicial referrals / consent
decrees and final administrative penalty orders contain
appropriate civil penalties consistent with the CWA Penalty
Policy; NPDES States will comply with penalty provisions in
the National Guidance for Oversight of NPDES Programs.
( Ongoing )
* Regions / States will take timely and appropriate enforcement
against SNC violations, including those involving toxic
pollutants. ( Ongoing ) ( SPMS )
* Regions / States will increase the use of inspections to
assess permittee biomonitoring capabilities and evaluate
permittee procedures / techniques for toxicity reduction
evaluations. ( Ongoing ) ( SMPS )
* Regions / States will continue to ensure timely and accurate
data entry of WENDB data elements for pretreatment and for
administrative penalty orders. ( Ongoing )
- 64 -
N * Regional enforcement staff will coordinate with Near Coastal
program staff to determine whether enforcement action is
required for less than significant noncompliance.
( Ongoing )
N * Regions / States will monitor compliance with sludge
requirements in NPDES permits. ( Ongoing )
N * Regions / States will develop and implement Municipal
Compliance Maintenance programs for anticipating when a POTW
will reach design capacity. ( 1st Quarter )
7. Pretreatment
The goal is to assure that POTWs 1/ fully implement and enforce
pretreatment controls for conventional, nonconventional and toxic
pollutants and hazardous waste that are necessary to protect human health,
the environment, and the treatment works.
1/ Throughout this section, wherever POTWs are cited, the same
requirements apply to States or EPA acting as Control Authority in
lieu of local program.
Administering Agencies should give priority to: 1) modifying the
requirements of the approved program and NPDES permit to incorporate new
requirements resulting from new or revised regulations and to correct
inadequacies identified in the operations of the POTW pretreatment
program, and 2) identifying those POTWs that meet the criteria for
reportable noncompliance and report them on the Quarterly Noncompliance
Report. Where the POTW also meets the new definition of significant
noncompliance, formal enforcement action should be initiated when the POTW
does not return to compliance within a timeframe consistent with the
definition.
Administering Agencies, as they oversee local program implementation,
should continue to give emphasis to the following three key areas to
ensure effective implementation:
* Program Modification: Regions and States will formally modify
approved pretreatment programs to incorporate new requirements or
correct inadequacies. Modification and approval will follow the
October 17, 1988, amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations,
and focus on the following four areas:
a. Local Limits - In accordance with the 1985 policy memorandum and
the FY 88 Local Limits Guidance Manual, site specific
technically-based local limits must be developed for each
approved program and periodically re-evaluated.
- 65 -
b. Legal Authority - Consistent with section 403.8 of the
Pretreatment Regulations, particularly as revised by the PIRT
rule, POTWs, and in some cases States, will need to modify their
legal authorities.
c. Control Mechanisms - Based on the FY 89 IU Permitting Guidance
Manual, and the PIRT amendments POTWs may need to develop and
issue stronger IU control mechanisms for significant industrial
users ( SIUs ).
d. Enforcement Procedures - POTWs are responsible for ensuring the
compliance of industrial users with pretreatment standards,
including taking effective enforcement actions within reasonable
time frames. Where approved programs do not specify detailed
enforcement response procedures, they should be modified to
include them consistent with the 1986 Pretreatment Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance ( PCME ).
* Enforcement: Regions and States will assure that POTWs operate their
approved programs and comply with reporting requirements. Where POTWs
fail to successfully implement their program as measured by the
guidance on significant noncompliance, Administering Agencies should
take timely enforcement action to address the problem. Where the POTW
does not act promptly to correct the situation, formal enforcement
action should be initiated against the POTW to address the
noncompliance.
Where there is an approved program, and the POTW has not taken all
actions available under its authority, to secure the compliance of the
IU, action against both the POTW and the IU will usually be
appropriate. Where EPA or the State is the Control Authority,
enforcement action should be taken against those IUs which have not
complied with categorical standards, giving priority to IUs where the
POTW has been identified as having interference or pass-through
problems.
* Data Management: Regions and States will assure that POTWs have in
place and employ appropriate mechanisms to track and determine
compliance rates for SIU's, using the definition of significant
noncompliance when it is promulgated, and that POTWs report such data
at least annually. States and Regions will employ PCS to track
pretreatment information and assist in identifying POTWs which meet
the criteria for reportable non-compliance and significant
noncompliance. Regions and States should also use PCS to identify the
compliance of IUs where EPA or the State is the Control Authority.
For State-run pretreatment programs, special attention will be given to
monitoring and evaluating performance. Regions should ensure that States
are inputting data into existing tracking
- 66 -
systems as appropriate and should monitor the overall performance of the
program to ensure that industrial users are in compliance.
Where there is no approved local program Regions / States should evaluate
the need to develop local programs consistent with section 403.8.
Headquarters
* Headquarters ( OWEP ) will promulgate changes to the NPDES
and General Pretreatment regulations based on the
recommendations of DSS. ( Second Quarter )
N * Headquarter will propose changes to the NPDES regulations
on the Quarterly Noncompliance Report to incorporate
reporting requirements for pretreatment implementation.
( Fourth Quarter )
N * Headquarters will provide guidance defining the definition
of significant noncompliance for POTWs which fail to
implement their approved programs. ( First Quarter )
Regions / States / Indian Tribes
+ * Regions / States will assess and provide technical assistance
to POTWs as they implement / enforce their programs and adopt
new regulations resulting from the findings of the DSS.
( Ongoing )
+ * Regions / States will continue to place highest priority on
enforcement against POTWs consistent with the guidance to be
issued on significant noncompliance. Regions should
continue to report all POTWs on the QNCR which meet the
criteria for reportable noncompliance. ( Ongoing )
* Regions will use criminal enforcement authorities against
appropriate industrial users with special attention on
knowing / negligent introduction into a POTW of toxic
pollutants / hazardous wastes ( as defined by CWA sections
311(b)(2)(A) and 307(a); CERCLA section 102; RCRA section
3001; TSCA section 7 ) in excess of legal limits. Regions
will provide technical support for criminal investigations
and prosecutions in pretreatment cases. ( Ongoing )
+ * Regions / States that act as control authorities will
implement / enforce the pretreatment program consistent with
national guidance, and will be held to the same standards of
implementation as local authorities. ( Ongoing )
- 67 -
* Regions / States will ensure that all approved pretreatment
program are inspected or audited annually. ( Ongoing )
( SPMS )
+ * Regions / States will assure that all POTWs with approved
programs for more than two years have in place and are
implementing adequate and enforceable control mechanisms for
at least 95% of SIUs. ( Fourth Quarter ).
N * Regions / States will ensure that approved POTWs implement the
definitions for significant noncompliance and significant
industrial users as soon as they are promulgated. ( Ongoing )
8. NPDES and Pretreatment State Program Approval, Review, and Oversight
In FY 90, the goal is to further strengthen the Federal / State
partnership by conducting effective oversight to ensure sound, consistent
implementation of State programs, improving the legal and regulatory basis
of current State programs, and approving new State NPDES, pretreatment and
sludge programs. As State NPDES and pretreatment programs mature and as
more States assume these responsibilities, these activities continue to
grow in importance. In addition, EPA will work with any Indian tribes
seeking to administer the NPDES program as authorized by the WQA. Regions
will continue to negotiate agreements with their States on managing and
overseeing NPDES / pretreatment regulations. By 1990, many of the
initiatives begun in earlier years will be institutionalized into other
documents and agreements, and more emphasis will be placed on follow up by
Headquarters and by Regions to ensure the sound, consistent application of
these principles and practices.
The Regions, with Headquarters assistance, will continue to review State
programs to ensure that current State laws and regulations provide
adequate authority to administer and enforce the national NPDES
/ pretreatment program requirements under the CWA, as amended. Continued
emphasis will be given to following up on Action Plans established by
States and Regions in FY 1988/89 to strengthen water quality based
permitting for toxic pollutants and toxicity.
The Regions will continue to encourage NPDES States to assume authority
for the pretreatment program, and will continue to condition section 106
grants accordingly. Regions should accelerate efforts to encourage State
program modifications for general permitting authority, since this will be
a key to successful implementation of stormwater program activities for
all NPDES States. In addition, the CWA amendments are expected to produce
increased activity with respect to State program
- 68 -
assumptions, including development of approvable State NPDES or other
federally authorized programs to include sludge requirements, and
treatment of Indians as States.
Headquarters
* Headquarters will provide guidance / assistance to all Regions
in conducting legal reviews, correcting program deficiencies,
and responding to litigation / administrative petitions from
third parties seeking withdrawal of State programs.
( Ongoing )
N * Headquarters will promulgate changes to NPDES Regulations
to incorporate requirements of the Water Quality Act of 1987,
including the treatment of Indian tribes as States, and to
clarify existing regulatory provisions. ( Fourth Quarter )
N * Headquarters will work with the Regions to assist Indian
tribes seeking to administer the NPDES program. ( Ongoing )
Regions / States / Indian Tribes
* Regions will increase their oversight of State-run
pretreatment programs, and will take appropriate steps to
correct problems where States are not adequately
implementing / enforcing program requirements. ( Ongoing )
* Regions will continue to review / approve programs / program
modification requests for NPDES ( including pretreatment,
general permits and sludge ) and review and approve partial
NPDES programs. ( Ongoing )
+ * Regions will work with States to implement their toxic control
action plans. ( Ongoing )
9. State Revolving Fund Management
In the implementation of the State Revolving Fund program authorized under
Title VI of the Clean Water Act, FY 1990 will be the key to the future of
the program. Almost 40 States are projected to receive their initial
capitalization grants by the end of FY 1989 and the remainder during FY
1990. Most States will therefore be completing their first SRF annual
cycle by the end of FY 1990. It is crucial to the success of the SRF
program that EPA and the States provide the necessary technical and
financial resources. This is vital to ensure that each State's program is
developed to effectively deal with municipal wastewater financing needs of
both large and small communities.
U.S.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water
FY 1990 SPMS Measures and Definitions
OFFICE OF WATER
FY 1990
Water Regulations and Standards Definitions
WQ-6 Nonpoint Sources ( cont. )
This measure begins the process of shifting the nonpoint source management
and control program from the development stage in FY 1989 to
implementation.
Because the long-term focus of the nonpoint source program is on watershed
and site-specific clean-up projects, this measure will be modified in FY
1991 to place highest priority on identifying and tracking major watershed
and site-specific nonpoint source pollution control programs and projects.
WQ-7 Indian Tribe Program Grants
This measure assesses Agency progress in awarding CWA program grants to
qualified Indian Tribes as required by the WQA of 1987. Specifically, it
tracks ( by Region ) the number of Indian Tribes qualified to be treated
as a State, the number of Tribes that submit grant applications, and the
list of Tribes that receive CWA program grants ( include major activities
and funding sources ). Describe Regional procedures for reviewing and
ranking Indian Tribe grant proposals and for evaluating performance.
OW-29
3/89
OFFICE OF WATER
FY 1990
Water Enforcement and Permits
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 FY 90 ( report NPDES States and non-NPDES States
separately ).
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ-11 Q 1,2,3,4
***
MEASURE
Identify the number of final permits reissued and the number modified
during FY 90 that include water quality based limits for toxics. Of
these, report number that are Individual Control Strategies ( NPDES
States, non-NPDES States; report major and minors separately ).
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ-12 Q 1,2,3,4
***
OBJECTIVE
Assure NPDES permits are fully in effect and enforceable.
MEASURE
Identify, by Region, the number of pending evidentiary hearing
requests and track, by Region, progress against quarterly targets for
the evidentiary hearing requests for major permits pending at the
beginning of FY 90 resolved by EPA and for the number resolved by
NPDES States.
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ-13 Q 1,2,3,4
***
OBJECTIVE
Effectively implement approved local pretreatment programs.
MEASURE
Track, by Region, against quarterly targets, for approved local
pretreatment programs: 1) 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 States.
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ-14 Q 1,2,3,4
***
OBJECTIVE
Reissuance of priority municipal permits which contain interim sludge
conditions.
MEASURE
Track, against targets, total number of permits issued to priority
sludge facilities containing sludge conditions necessary to meet the
requirements of CWA section 405(d)(4).
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ-15 Q 1,2,3,4
***
OBJECTIVE
Encourage permitting efforts in near coastal waters.
MEASURE
Identify the number of permits reissued in near coastal waters
( report separately: NPDES States and non-NPDES States ).
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ-16 Q 1,2,3,4
***
OW-30
3/89
OBJECTIVE
Achieve and maintain high levels of compliance in the NPDES program.
MEASURE
Track, by Region, the number of major permittees that area: on final
effluent limits and not on final effluent limits ( list separately:
municipal, industrial, Federal facilities; NPDES States, non-NPDES
States ).
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ / E-4 Q 1,2,3,4
***
MEASURE
Track, by Region, the number and percentage of major permittees in
significant noncompliance with: final effluent limits; construction
schedules; interim effluent limits; reporting violations; pretreatment
implementation requirements ( list separately; municipal, industrial,
Federal facilities; NPDES States, non-NPDES State ).
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ / E-5 Q 1,2,3,4
***
MEASURE
Identify, by Region, the number of major permittees in significant
noncompliance on two or more consecutive QNCRs without returning to
compliance or being addressed by a formal enforcement action
( persistent violators ). Of these numbers, identify how many are in
significant noncompliance for three quarters and how many for four or
more quarters. ( Report separately: municipal, industrial,
Federal ).
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ / E-6 Q 1,2,3,4
***
MEASURE
Report, by Region, the number of major permittees that are on the
previous exception list which have returned to compliance during the
quarter, the number not yet in compliance but addressed by a formal
enforcement action by the QNCR completion date, and the number that
were unresolved ( not returned to compliance during the quarter or
addressed by a formal enforcement action by the QNCR completion
date ). ( Report separately: municipal, industrial, Federal
facilities ).
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ / E-7 Q 1,2,3,4
***
OW-31
3/89
OBJECTIVE
Achieve and maintain high levels of compliance in the NPDES program.
( continued )
MEASURE
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
administrative penalty orders issued by EPA for NPDES violations and
pretreatment violations; and (c) Administrative penalty orders issued
by States for NPDES violations and pretreatment violations.
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ / E-8 Q 1,2,3,4
***
MEASURE
Report, by Region, the active State civil case docket, the number of
civil referrals sent to the State Attorneys General, the number of
civil
cases filed, the number of civil cases concluded, and the number of
criminal referrals filed in State courts
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ / E-9 Q 1,2,3,4
***
OBJECTIVE
Effectively enforce the pretreatment program.
MEASURE
Identify, by State, the number of POTWs that meet the criteria for
reportable noncompliance ( RNC ) and tract by State the number of
POTWs in that universe where action taken either resolved or
established an enforceable schedule to resolve RNC. Report separately
by State for each action taken: technical assistance, permit
/ program modification, or formal enforcement. Report, by State, the
compliance status ( RNC, resolved pending, resolved ) of each POTW in
the universe as of the end of the year.
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ / E-10 Q 1,2,3,4
***
OW-32
3/89
OBJECTIVE
Identify compliance problems and guide corrective action through
inspections.
MEASURE
Track, by Region, against targets, the number of major permittees
inspected and least once ( combine EPA and State inspections and
report as one number ).
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ / E-12 Q 1,2,3,4
***
OW-33
3/89
Water Enforcement and Permits Definitions
WQ 11/12 Permit Reissuance; Toxic Permits
The universe for measure WQ-11 is the total number of major permits with
expiration dates before October 1, 1990, according to PCS data on October
10, 1989 ( i.e., the number of major permits that have or will expire by
the end of FY 90 ). Measure WQ-11 is the total number of major permits
issued with issuance dates ( i.e., date signed by permit authority )
during FY 90. Status as of the close of each quarter will be taken from
PCS on the 10th of the month following the end of the quarter.
Measure WQ-12 is all permits ( major and minor ) that include water
quality based limits on specific chemicals or whole effluent toxicity and
with issuance ( modification ) dates ( i.e., date signed by EPA or State
permit authority ) during FY 90. Of those permits, the number that are
ICSs is to be identified. This measure deals only with final permits;
however, because ICSs may also be draft permits with a schedule for final
issuance, this number of ICSs will not include all ICSs. WQ-12 is
specifically designed to count water quality-based permits issued in FY
1990. ICSs are a subset of this universe. Since "limit" is specifically
designed to exclude permits which only include monitoring requirements,
such permits would not be counted as ICSs.
A water quality-based permit limit is a limit that has been developed to
ensure a discharge does not violate State water quality standards. Such
limits are expressed as maximum daily and average monthly values in Part I
of the NPDES permit. They can be expressed as concentration values for
individual chemicals and/or pollutant parameters such as effluent
toxicity. Effluent toxicity can also be expressed in toxic limits.
Limits should be reflective of data available through water quality-based
assessments and should protect against impacts to aquatic life and human
health.
As a matter of policy, EPA regards the new statutory requirements to
control point sources as a component of the ongoing national program for
toxics control. In the national toxics control program, all known
problems due to any pollutant are to be controlled ( using both new and
existing statutory authorities ) as soon as possible, giving the same
priority to these controls as for controls where only 307(a) pollutants
are involved. Known toxicity problems include violations of any
applicable State numeric criteria or violations of any applicable State
narrative water quality standard due to any pollutant ( including
chlorine, ammonia, and whole effluent toxicity ), based upon ambient or
effluent analysis. States and Regions will continue to issue all
remaining permits, including those requiring the collection of new water
quality data where existing data are inadequate to assess WQ conditions.
OW-34
3/89
Performance Expectation: The goal of the State and EPA NPDES program is
to have reissued major and minor permits in effect on the date the prior
permit expires. Permit applications are due and should be acted upon
during the last six months of a permit's term. Most States and Regions,
should be able to reissue 100% of their expiring major permits except
where unusual, complex and difficult issues prevent timely permit
reissuance.
Regional quarterly reports for these measures will be reported to the
Director of the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits.
WQ 13 Evidentiary Hearings
The term "evidentiary hearing" is meant to encompass not only EPA issued
permit appeals pursuant to 40CFR 124 but also any NPDES State issued
permit appeals ( whether adjudicatory or non-adjudicatory in nature ).
The meaning includes any and all administrative appeals to permit
conditions for major facilities, whether the appeals stay or do not stay
permit conditions. Evidentiary hearings for EPA issued permits are not
considered to be pending if they are on appeal to the Administrator as of
the beginning of FY 1990.
An evidentiary hearing should be regarded as resolved once a final
decision has been issued, a negotiated settlement has been reached, or the
appeal of an initial decision has been denied.
Performance Expectation: Evidentiary hearings should be resolved as
expeditiously as possible. The target should reflect resolution of all
pending hearings. Although the measure is intended to reduce the backlog
of pending hearings, consideration should be given to new hearings
requests made during FY90 that have priority over pending requests. Such
requests may be counted against commitments where they are priority cases
( based on Regional / State evaluation ).
WQ 14 Pretreatment Audits and Inspections
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
OW-35
3/89
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 well as the status of issuance of control mechanisms and
program modifications. A PCI must include a file review of a sample of
industrial user files. Note that this measures tracks "coverage" of
approved pretreatment programs, not the number of audits or inspections
conducted, which may be greater than the number of programs since some
programs may be inspected / audited more than once a year.
Performance Expectation: At a minimum, audits should be performed at
least once during the term of the POTW's permit. Although an audit
includes all the elements of a PCI, as one component, the activity should
not be counted as both an audit and a PCI; it should be counted as an
audit. In any given year, all POTWs that are not audited should have a
PCI as part of the routine NPDES inspection at that facility, i.e. audits
plus inspections should equal 100 percent of approved POTWs, except where
mitigating circumstances prevent this ( mitigating circumstances will be
approved during negotiation process ). For purposes of reporting, both
audits and pretreatment compliance inspections should be lagged by one
quarter, i.e. same as NPDES inspections. Also, where both an audit and an
inspection are conducted for a POTW, for purpose of coverage, only that
audit will be counted.
WQ-15: Sludge Permitting
Priority sludge facilities are: 1) pretreatment POTWs; 2) POTWs that
incinerate their sludge; and 3) any other POTWs with known or suspected
problems with their sludge quality or disposal practices. Pretreatment
POTWs and POTWs that incinerate sludge may be considered to be non
-priority if such decision is supported by information showing no cause
for concern. The sludge conditions are to be included in permits as the
NPDES permit expires and is reissued. The sludge
OW-36
3/89
conditions may be incorporated in another permit ( such as a permit issued
under the Clean Air Act, or a State permit pursuant to an agreement
between EPA and the State ) and referenced to the NPDES permit.
WQ-16: Near Coastal Waters Permitting
In accordance with EPA's near coastal waters initiative and the Marine
Policy, Regions with coastal dischargers will accelerate actions for
reissuing permits to these facilities. A near coastal water is one with
measurable salinity and tidal influences. Permits should contain water
quality based limits based on available wasteload allocations and should
be analyzed for persistent, bioconcentratable toxicants. EPA's Permit
Writers Guide for Marine and Estuarine Waters should be followed. This
measure includes all expired or expiring permits ( major and minors )
reissued in FY 90 ( not modifications ).
WQ E-4/5 NPDES Compliance
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, BAT, 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 reported to be
in significant noncompliance with its final effluent limits when it
exceeds the criteria for unresolved significant noncompliance found in the
combinations of violations:
-- final effluent limit
-- compliance schedule ( short term / non-construction )
-- final effluent limit and compliance schedule
-- final effluent limit and reporting requirements
-- final effluent limit, compliance schedule and reporting requirements
-- compliance schedule and reporting requirements
A facility is reported to be in significant noncompliance with its
reporting requirements when it exceeds the criteria for unresolved
significant noncompliance for reporting violations only.
OW-37
3/89
A facility is reported to be in significant noncompliance for failure to
comply with pretreatment implementation requirements when it meets the
criteria identified in the guidance defining significant noncompliance for
pretreatment implementation.
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 reported to
be in significant noncompliance with its construction schedule when it
exceeds the criteria for unresolved significant noncompliance violations
of:
-- construction schedule
-- construction schedule and interim effluent limits
-- construction schedule and reporting requirements
-- construction schedule, interim effluent limits and reporting
requirements.
A facility is reported to be in SNC with its interim effluent limits when
it exceeds the criteria for unresolved SNC violations of:
-- interim effluent limits
-- interim effluent limits and reporting requirements
A facility is reported to be in SNC with its reporting requirements when
it exceeds the criteria for unresolved SNC violations of reporting
requirements only.
Major P.L.92-500 permittees are tracked as part of the major municipals.
OW-38
3/89
WQ E-6/7 Exceptions List
NOTE: For SPMS report the number only. As part of OWAS, report both the
number and the name and the number of quarters the facility has been in
SNC.
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 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:
Exception 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, 1990 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 Exception List a fact sheet which provides
adequate justification for a facility on the Exception 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
lag ).
Returned to compliance ( refer to the QNCR Guidance for a more detailed
discussion of SNC resolution ) for Exception List facilities refers to
compliance with the permit, order, or decree requirement for which the
permittee was placed on the Exception 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 action are completely fulfilled and the permittee
achieves absolute compliance with permit limitations.
OW-39
3/89
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. A section 309(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 Administrative Orders
Headquarters will report EPA Administrative Compliance Orders ( AOs ) 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. ( Include:
POTW implementation type pretreatment AOs; IU AOs under pretreatment
section 2(a) ). The number of proposed EPA administrative penalty orders
should be tracked by Class I and Class II. For State-issued orders,
proposed or initial orders should be counted where there is a two step
process ( i.e., proposed and final ).
WQ E-9 Referrals
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
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. OECM will report the same
data for Federal referrals; State referrals will be reported to the
Regions.
OW-40
3/89
WQ E-10 Reportable Noncompliance
Reports and/or States should apply reportable noncompliance ( RNC )
criteria to all approved POTW pretreatment programs at least twice between
July 1989 and June 1990. All reporting should be a summary of information
that is listed and updated on the QNCR on a quarterly basis.
Report POTWs in RNC by EPA State ( non-pretreatment State ) or
pretreatment State. Refer to the Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating
POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment Requirements ( Reportable
Noncompliance Guidance ) for a definition of reportable noncompliance by
pretreatment POTWs. The second quarter report should include the number
of POTWs that met RNC between July and December 1989. If a POTW was
identified as RNC before July, 1989 and still meets the criteria, it
should be counted on the second quarter report. For the fourth quarter
report include POTWs in RNC between January and June 1990 and POTWs
reported for the second quarter that were not resolved or resolved
pending. Credit is given for any of the three actions, listed in the
measure, that resolves RNC ( i.e., results in resolved pending or resolved
status ). However, if technical assistance is the chosen approach, a
schedule for compliance should be established. If the schedule is 90 days
or longer, it should be incorporated into an enforceable document. End of
year compliance status should be reported for all POTWs that were
identified as RNC between July 1989 and June 1990. Report the total
number of POTWs that are considered reportable noncompliance ( RNC ),
resolved pending ( RP ), or resolved ( RE ) as of the final report. POTWs
that are in compliance with enforceable administrative or judicial
schedules to resolve RNC as of the final report date should be counted as
RP.
WQ E-11 Pretreatment Referrals
The active case docket consists of all referrals currently with the State
Attorney General and the number of referrals filed in State Courts. OECM
will report the same data for Federal referrals; State referrals will be
reported to the Regions.
WQ E-12 Inspections
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, 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
OW-41
3/89
Compliance Evaluation Inspection ( CEI ), Compliance Sampling Inspection
( CSI ), Toxic Inspection ( TOX ), Biomonitoring inspection ( BIO ),
Performance Audit Inspection ( PAI ), Diagnostic Inspection ( DIAG ), or
Reconnaissance Inspection ( RI ). Reconnaissance Inspections 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 pretreatment program.
Commitments for major permittee inspections should be quarterly targets
and are to reflect the number of major permittees inspected at least once.
The universe of major permittees to be inspected is defined as those
listed as majors in PCS. Multiple inspections of one major permittee will
count as only one major permittee inspected ( however, multiple NPDES
inspections will be included in the count for the measure that tracks the
total number of all inspections, see next paragraph ).
The measure for tracking total inspection activity will not have a
commitment. CEI, CSI, TOX, BIO, PAI, RI, and DIAG of major and minor
permittees will be counted. Pretreatment inspections for IUs and POTWs
will be counted only toward pretreatment inspection commitments. Multiple
inspections of one permittee will be counted as separate inspections;
Reconnaissance Inspections will be counted. It is expected that up to 10%
of EPA resources will be set aside for neutral inspections of minor
facilities.
When 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 IU inspections.
Tracking of inspections will be done at Headquarters based on Retrievals
from the Permit Compliance System ( PCS ) according to the following
schedule:
OW-42
3/89
INSPECTIONS RETRIEVAL DATE
The First working day after
the second update in:
July 1, 1989 through Sep. 30, 1989 Jan. 1990
July 1, 1989 through Dec. 31, 1989 April 1990
July 1, 1989 through March 31, 1990 July 1990
July 1, 1989 through June 30, 1990 Oct. 1990
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.
Note: SPMS only tracks the number of major permittees inspected. OWAS
tracks the number of inspections.
OW-43
3/89
Municipal Pollution Control
OBJECTIVE
State Revolving Fund Management
MEASURE
Track, by Region, progress against quarterly targets for (1) net
outlays for combined construction grants and SRF, (2) net outlays for
construction grants, and (3) net outlays for State Revolving Fund
( SRF ) program.
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ-8 Q 1,2,3,4
***
MEASURE
Track, by Region, progress against quarterly Regional Headquarters
targets for the number of States, by name, which have been awarded an
SRF capitalization grants ( cumulative by quarter ).
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ-9 Q 1,2,3,4
***
OBJECTIVE
Management of On-going Construction Grants Program
MEASURE
Track, by Region, progress against quarterly targets for the number of
Step 3, Step 2+3, Step 7, Marine CSO and PL 87-660 projects
administratively completed.
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
WQ-10 Q 1,2,3,4
***
OW-44
3/89
Enforcement
ACTIVITIES
4. Improve Quality and Timeliness of Enforcement Responses
( continued )
QUALITATIVE MEASURES
(M) What is the level of coordination between the NPDES States
enforcement program and the state Attorney General's Office? Are
there established procedures for coordination and communication? If
less than satisfactory, what steps is the State taking to improve
coordination? Are State AGs generally filing cases within the goal of
60-90 days?
(N) Have the Region and approved States negotiated a basis for
Regional evaluation of the States' penalty program, including
identification of sanctions which might be used in lieu of penalties
and the documentation which must be maintained by the State for
review? Are States complying with the provisions of the agreement on
penalties? To what extent are States calculating economic benefit?
Are States seeking penalties in the majority of cases? Are States
getting the penalty amounts they are seeking?
(O) What problems is the Region encountering in assessing penalties
using the CWA Penalty Policy? Is the Region experiencing problems
/ delays with Headquarters reviews? Explain. Is the Region generally
getting the penalty amounts identified in the referral? What
improvements could be made to the review process to speed up the
referral process?
A-88
Return to Enforcement Policies