### OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GEN ERAL

Catalyst for Improving the Environmen t 

# Evaluation R e port



# Better Enforcement Oversight Needed for Major Facilities with Water Discharge Permits in Long-Term Significant Noncompliance

Report No. 2007-P-00023 May 14, 2007

### Report Contributors: George Golliday Renee McGhee-Lenart Laura Tam Andrew Creath Dan Engelberg

Abbreviatio n s DMR Discharge Monitoring Report ECHO Enforcem ent and Comp l i ance His t ory Online EMS Enforcem ent Managem e nt System EPA U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency NPDES National Po llutan t Disch arge Elimination Syste m OECA Office of Enforcem ent and Comp liance Assuran ce OIG Office of Inspector General OTIS Online Tracking Information System PCS Permit Complianc e System QNCR Quarterly Noncompliance Report SNC Significant Noncompliance

Cover Photo : Sloss Industries wastewater treatm ent facility. (Black W arrior RIVERKEEPER We bsite photo)

### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007-P-0 0 0 2 3 

### Office of Inspector General Ma y 1 4 , 200 7 

# At a Glance

Catalyst for Improving the Environmen t

Wh yWe Di d This Review
We undertoo k this review to asse ss oversi ght of m a jor facilities in long-term significant no ncompliance with water discharge permit requirem e nts. We sought t o determine if t h e U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA ) and States ar e taking tim ely and appropriate enforce m ent actions against facilities in long-term significant no ncompliance. Backgroun d
EPA has authorized 45 States to admi nister the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem program , including enforce m ent of discharge permits. EPA sti ll maintains responsibility for oversight andensuring that Clean Water Act regulations are enforced. According to EPA’s current guidance, several basi c oversight criteria define a “well-performing” co mp liance a nd enforceme n t program , including (1) tim ely and appropriate enforcement response, and (2) accurate recordkeeping and reporti ng.
For furthe r inf o rma tion, c onta c t our O ffic e of Congressional and P ublic L i aiso n at (202) 566- 23 91. To v i e w t h e fu ll re port, click on the f o llo w i ng li nk: www .e p a .g o v /o ig /rep o r ts/2007/ 200 70 514- 20 0 7 -P-00 023.p d f 

# Better Enforcement Oversigh t Needed for Major Facilities with Water Discharge Permits in Long-Term Significant Nonc ompliance
What We Found
EPA did not provide effective enforcemen t oversight of major facil ities with National Pollutant Discharge Eliminatio n S y stem permits in long-t e rm significant noncompliance. While flexibility is required in a nati onal program, EPA inconsistentl y applied gui d a nce defini ng timely form al actions. Also, EPA guidance did not pr ovide meaningful di rection on what constitutes “appropriate” actions. Mor e over, for 21 of 56 facilities reviewed, E P A and States did not take suitable formal enforce m e n t actions to a ddress all instances of significant noncompliance. At the remaining 35 fa cilities, none of the actions we could asse ss w e re ti mely based on criteria in EPA’ s Enforcement Manage ment Sy stem

. EPA and States also did not maintain comp l e te and ac curate record s of National Pollutant Discharge Eli mi n ation S y ste m co mp liance and enforcement activities. Many regi on and State files were inco mp lete, and dat ain EPA’ s information sy stems wer e incomp lete a nd inaccurate. Further, regions and States did not report inspection-related vi olations in E P A’ s Per mit Co mp liance Sy stem

. We also noted that ba cteria exc eed ances ar e not required to bereported as significant noncompliances.
Ti m e ly actions could help mini mi ze the millions of pounds of excess pollutants released by these facilities. We esti m ate that up to 51 million pounds of excess pollutant l o ads were disch arged from Jul y 2002 thr o ugh June 2005 by 44 facilities reviewed, rep r esenting loads that could be mi ni mized

.

What We Recommend
We reco mme nd that the Assistant Ad mi ni strator for the Office of Enforcem ent and Comp liance Assurance clarify and i mpl ement gui dance regarding facilities in significant noncomplianc e, imple m ent a quality assurance program , and establish controls allo wing EPA leadership to ide n tif y significant no ncompliance by bacteria-only violators. EP A disputed many of o u r fin d ings, b u t stated general concurrence with our reco mmendations and identifie d planned actions. However, the Office of Enforce m ent and Comp lia nce Assurance’s planned a c tions generally do not address the intent of our recomme ndations, and the issues are considered unresolved.UNITE D STATES ENVIRONMENTAL P R OTE C TION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFI CE OF INSPECTOR GEN E RAL 

### May 14, 2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Better Enforcem ent Oversight Need e df o r Major Facilities with Water Discharge Permits in Long-Term Significant Noncompliance Report No. 2007-P-00023

FROM: Wade T. Na jjum Assistan t In spector Gen e ral, Office of Program Evaluation
TO: Granta Y. Nakayam a Assistan t Admi nistrator, Office of Enforcem ent and Comp liance Assurance
This is our report on the subjec t review conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environm ental Protection A g ency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe the prob lems the OIG has identified and corr ective actions th e OIG reco mmends. According l y, the findings described in the report are not binding upon EPA in any enforcem ent proceeding brought by EPA or the Departm e nt of Justice. This report repres ents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final determinations on m a tters in this report will b e m a de by EPA m a nagers in acco rd ance with es tablish e d res o lution p r ocedures.
The estim ated cost of th is repo rt – c a lculat ed by multiply ing the pro j ect’s staf f days by the applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the tim e – is $932,305. Action Required
In acco rdan ce with EPA Manual 275 0, you are require d to provide a written response to this report within 90 calendar days. You should incl ude a corrective action plan for agreed upon actions, including milestone dates. We have no objecti ons to the further release of this report to the public. This report will be av ailable at http://www.epa.gov/oig. If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please cont act m e at (202) 566-0832 or najjum .wade@epa.gov ; or Dan Engelberg, Director for Program Evaluation, W a ter Issues, at (202) 566-0830 or engelberg.dan@epa.gov

.Better Enforcement Ov er sight Need ed for Major Facilities w i th Wa ter Dis c h a rge Permits in Long-Ter m Significant Non c ompliance 

# Table of Contents
Chapters

1 Introduction

........................................................................................................... 1 Purpose

.......................................................................................................... 1 Background

.................................................................................................... 1 Noteworthy Achievemen ts

.............................................................................. 5 Scope and Methodology

................................................................................. 5
2 Oversight L i mited at NPDES Majo r Facilities in Long-Term SNC

..................... 6 EPA Guidan ce Misinterpreted and Vague

...................................................... 6 Lack of Suit able Enforcement at 21 Facilit ies

................................................. 8 Untimely En forcement at 30 Facilit ies

............................................................ 8 Timely Enfo rcement Helps Minimize Excess Pollutant Discha r ges

................ 9 Conclusion

...................................................................................................... 9 Recommen dation

........................................................................................... 10 Agency Co mments and OIG Evalua tion

......................................................... 10 3 Incomplete and Inaccurate Record s and Reporting Inhibit EPA Ove r si ght of NPDES Major F acilities

.......................................................... 11 Compliance and Enforcement Files I n complete

............................................. 11 EPA’s Enforcement Data Systems I naccurate

............................................... 12 Many Violations Found During Insp ections Not Reported in PCS

................. 13 Bacteria Not Reported as SNC

...................................................................... 13 Conclusion

...................................................................................................... 14 Recommen dations

......................................................................................... 14 Agency Co mments and OIG Evalua tion

......................................................... 14 Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Be nefits

................................. 15 

# Appendices

A Details on Scope and Methodolo g y

..................................................................... 16
B Overall Age n c yComm ents

................................................................................... 20 C OIG Evalua tion of Overall Agenc yComments

................................................... 23
D Detailed Agenc yCom m ents and OIG Evalua tion

............................................... 25
E Distributio n

............................................................................................................ 43

# Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose
We initiatedthis review to asses s ov er sigh t of major faci lities in long-term signif i can t n oncompliance (SNC) with Nationa l Pollutan tDischarge E l imination System (NPDES) permits. The U.S. Envi ronm ental Protection Agency (EPA) has overall re sp onsibility f o r implem enti ng the NPDES program and ensuring adherence to Clean W a ter Act regulatory requirem e nts. W e sought to determine how well EPA is ensurin g that tim ely a nd appropriate enforcem ent actions are taken against NPDES faciliti es in long-term SNC. W e also sought to determine what excess pollutant lo ads could be mi ni mi zed if facilities inlong-term SNC for effluent violations achieved comp liance. 

## Background
The Clean Water Act authorizes th e NP DES pe rmit program. The program is designed to control water pollution by regulating pointsources that discharge pollutants in to surface w a ters of th e Unite d States. Point sou r ces are discrete conveyances, such as pipes from municipal and industrial facilities or m a n-m a de ditches. These facilities are generally classified as m a jor or mi nor, depending on size and nature of the discharges. F o r ex ample, a m a jor mu nicipa l treatment plan t typica lly d i s c harges on e million gallons or m o re per day of wastewater. Facilities th at in tend to discharg e po lluta nts into the Nation ’ s waters ar e r e quired to obtain an NPDES per mit. The permit sets limits on the amount of pollution a f

acility can discharg e in to waterbod ies, to protect hum an health and aquatic resourc e s. F e dera l regu lations requir e permitted f acilities to monitor dis c harged pollutants and periodically report those m onitoring result s to EPA or States using Discharge Monitoring Reports (D MRs).
Noncompliance with permit requirem e nts canpose risks to hum a n health and the environm ent. Violations of pollutant permit limits can expose aquatic life and hum a ns to excess levels of toxic or harmful pollutants. Simi larly, failure to submit DM Rs m eans risks to a quatic life and hum a ns are unknown. EPA Over sight of N PDES Co mpliance and Enforcement Programs
The EPA Office of Enfor cem ent and Comp liance Assurance (OECA) is responsible for ensuring that the regu lated community comp lies with Federal environm ental statutes, including the Cl ean W a ter Act. The Clean W a ter Act gives EPA authority to allow States to admi nister the NPDES program

.

1

### Currently, 45 States administer the program , including comp liance and enforcem ent. Wh ere the State is the admi nistering agency, E P A has continuing overall responsibility for imple m enting and overseeing the NPDES program

. In the rem a inin g States, EP A is still the admi nistering authority. For certain States, including Oklahom a and Texas, EPA has comp l i ance and en forcem ent authority f

o r som e f acilitie s while the Stat es have that authority over others. According to EPA’s current guidance, 1986 Revised Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements , several basic elem ents define a "quality" comp liance and enforcem ent program, including:

• Tim e ly and appropriate enforcem ent response
• Accurate recordkeeping and reporting
Comp liance with the nation' s environm ental laws is the go al o f enf o rcem ent. Deterrence of noncompliance is achieved through: (1) a credible lik elihood of detecting a violation, (2) the speed of the enforcem ent response, and (3) the likelihood and severity of the sanction. Enfo rcem ent is a vital part of encouraging regulated entities to m e e tenvironm e n ta l obligations. Additionally, enforcem ent levels the p l aying f i eld with environ m entally compliant comp anies and d e ters those who might otherwise prof it from violating the law. Types of Noncompliance Title 40, Co de of Federal Regulation s , Section 1 23.45(a)(2 ) requires EPAand States to rep o rt when NPDES m a jor disc harg ers are in non co mpliance with their permit conditions. Reportable noncomplian ce can include a viol ation of effluent limits in NPDES per mits, violations of enforce m ent orders or schedules f o r comp liance with permit conditions, failure to provide comp liance schedule reports, unauthorized bypasses or discharges, a nd failure to submit DMRs on time. SNC is a subset of reportable noncompliance. S N C involves priority violations of NPDES per mit conditio ns that EPA believ e s m e rit special attention, inclu d ing:

• Violations of m onthly and non-m ont hl y effluent limits for two or m o re months during two consecutive quarterly review periods, by (a) 20 percent for toxic pollutants, such as m e tals ; and (b) 40 percent for conventional pollutants, such as total suspended solids.

• Non-effluent violation s , such as bypasses or unpermitted discharges, which cause or have the potential to cause a water quality problem , such as beach clo s ings.

• Permit compliance schedule violations.

• Reporting violations, including failure to submit tim e ly DMRs (f iling a DMR m o re than 30 days late or not at all).

• Violations o f existing en forcem en t orders, including judicial or admi nistrative orders.

2

### There are approxim a tely 6,400 active NP DES ma jor facilities. About 4,800 facilities reported being in noncomplian ce for at least one quarter during our 12-quarter review period (July 2002 through June 2005). About 2,650 of those f

acilities we re repo rted to be in SNC f o r at least one quarter during the sam e ti m e
. Enforcement M a nag e ment System Criteria EPA’s national guidance for devel oping and improving NPDES comp liance tracking andenforcem ent system s is calle d the E n forcem ent Managem e nt System (EMS). Acc o rding to the EMS, there are three levels of response to all violations. For som e vi olations, a response m a y not be necessary. The second level response is an inform al response. An infor m a l enforcem ent response can be an inspection, phone call, or a vio l atio n letter. Inform al responses inform the permittee that the Agency is aware that a violation occurred. The third level of response is a for m al action. A form al enforcem ent action:

• Requires a f acility to tak e action to achieve comp liance.

• Specifies a tim e table.

• Contains consequences for noncompliance that are independently enforceable without hav i ng to pr ove the orig inal v i olations.

• Subjects the facility to adverse legal consequences for noncompliance. According to the EMS, facilities with SNC violations mu st receive a form al enforcem ent action, from the admi nist ering authority, that is tim ely and appropriate, or return to comp liance within th e q u arte r f o llo wing the SNC violation. If for m al action is not taken, the State or EPA is expected to produce a written reco rd clearly ju s tifying why an alternative action (other than a form al action) was more appropriate. If the St ate, as the NPDES program authority, does not take tim ely and appropriate formal enforcem ent action, E P A is expected to take a form al enforcem ent action.
EMS states a timely form al enforcem ent action must be taken by the end of the quarter following the SNC violation. For in stance, if a facility experiences an SNC violation in February of the first quarter, a f o rm al enforcem ent mu st be taken by the admi nistering agency by June 30 of the second quarter.
EMS states an appropriate response for SNC is a fo r m al action. The guidance states an app r opriate form al enforcem ent action is determined by its effectiven ess and whether the noncomplying facility re turns to comp liance as quickly as possible. A n appropriate action also estab lishe s a dete rren tto future violations and prom otes fairness of governm e nt treatm ent. Compliance and Enforcement Data Systems and Reports
EPA and States use the P e rmit Comp l i ance System (PCS) to m a nage and assess comp liance and enforcem ent program infor m ation. This includes such

3

### inf o rm ation as permit iss u ance, permit limits, f acility m onitoring data, and enforcem ent and inspection activ ity f o r faci lities regulated un der the Clean W a ter Act. EPA and States enter comp liance a nd enf o r cem ent inf o rm ation direc tly in to the PCS database. For example, States enter DMR data and infor m ation submitted by NPDES f a cilities in to PCS. A f e w States submit DMR inf o rm ation electronically. The Online Tracking Inform ation Syst em (OTIS) enables EP A staff, State/local/tribal govern m e nts, and Fede ral agencies to access enforcement and comp liance data from system s like PCS. The public can access the Enforcem ent and Comp liance Histo ry Online W e bsite (ECHO), 1 

### which provides similar data. Each quarter, the States and/or EPA produce a Quarterly Noncompliance R e port (QNCR) from PCS. The report flags NP DES major f acilities that were in reportable noncompliance with permit requi rem e nts during the previous 6 m onths. States and EPA regions use the QNCR to de termine what actions to tak e at th ese facilities. T h e QNCR e n comp asses a rolling 6-month period such that the QNCR for the second quarter (April through June) cap tures repo rtab le e ffluent violations from January through June. The W a tch Listis an EPA m a na gem e nt tool, not for public acces s, that tracks facilities withserious or chronic non comp liance that have not received form al enforcem ent action. PCS reports effluent viol ations on the QNCR by using a computer comp arison of permitted ef f l uent limits to a f acility ’ s actua l se lf -reported m o nitori ng data f

r om DMRs. If those effluent violations are severe eno ugh, the facilities should be f l agged as SNC f o r eff l uent vio l ation s
. The QNCR is submitted to EPA headquarters on the last working day of the second m onth following the QNCR period. Compliance Inspections Inspections are ano ther critical s ource of comp li ance and enf o rcem ent inform ation. During inspections, inform ation is gathered to determine comp liance. Inspections include d i re ct observ a tions of f

acility operations and/or conditions. Inspections a llow EPA and States to de termine reliability of a permittee’s self -repo rteddata. They also a llow EPA to evalu a te comp liance with permit conditions, applicable regulations, and other requirem ents. The Agency goal is to have EPA and/or States an nually inspect 100 percent of all NPDES m a jor f acilities or equ i va lent cov e rag e of a com b ination of m a jor and priority mi nor f acilities.

1 h ttp ://www.epa.go v /ech o /

.

4

## NoteworthyAchievements OECA piloted the State Review Fram e w ork in 2004 to foster dialogue on enforcem ent and comp liance perform a nce that should lead to improved program m a nage m e ntand environm ental results. This fram e w ork involves a process for conducting perform a nce reviews of enfor cem ent and comp liance activities in the States (as w e ll as for non-delegated program s implem ented by EPA regions). In January 2004, OECA initiated the “ W atchList,” which trac ks facilities with serious or chronic violations of environm en tal laws that have received no for m al enforcem ent response. T h e W a tch List for NPDES facilities u s es exis ting data reported by EPA regions and States to PCS. EPA, in cooperation with State governm e nts and the Environm ental Council of the States, developed E C HO, which provides integrated compliance and enforcem ent inform ation for approxim a tely 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. The site allows the public to find inspection, violation, enforcem ent action, inform al enforcem ent action, and pe nalty inform ation about facilities for the past 3 years. 

## Scope a nd Methodolog y
We conducted our rev i ew from January 2005 through December 2006 in accordan ce with Government Auditing Standards , issued by the Comp trolle r General of the United States. W e revi ewed EPA’s oversight of NPDES m a jor facilities in long-term SNC using the following quality elem ents in EPA’s 1986 Revised Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements : (1 ) tim ely and appropriate enforcem ent response, and (2) accurate recordkeeping and reporting. We interviewed staff in OECA and Office of Water’s Office of Wastewater Managem e nt. W e interviewed staff in selected E P A regions, as well as officials and staff i n sel e ct ed St at es. We selected 84 of the 132 facilities in long-term SNC, according to EPA data system s, in EPA Regions 4, 5, and 6 for our review. W e reviewed available comp liance and enforcem ent files to determine their accuracy and comp l e teness for the 84 NPDES facilities in long-term SNC. We utilized data from PCS and OTIS to determine the excess pollutant load s released from facilities in long-term SNC for effl uent violations. W e eval uated th e ef f

ectiv en ess of m a nage m e nt controls and considered findings in prio r EPA Office of Inspe c tor Gene ral (OIG) reports. Details on our scope and m e thodology are in Appendix A.

5

# Chapter 2 Oversight Limited at NPDES Major Facilities in Long-Term SNC

EPA did not provide effective enforcem ent oversight of m ajor facilities in longterm SNC with NPDES permits. EPA inconsiste ntly in terp re ted guidan c e defining tim ely form al actions. Also, EPA’s guidance does not provide a m eans for determining the appropriateness of actions. Problem s wi th EMS guidance prevented us from determining whether enforcem ent actions taken were appropriate. However, we found that fo r the 56 NPDES major facilities in longterm SNC reviewed: 2



### • At 21 facilities, EPA and States did no t take suitab le f o rm al enf o rcem ent actions to address SNC viola tions during our review period.

• At the rem a ining 35 facilities, none of the actions that we could assess were tim ely based on the criteria in E P A’s EMS.
Tim e ly and appropriate for m al enforcem ent actio ns are important to mi nimi ze additional pollutants from being dischargedin to the Nation’s waters to en sure protection of hum a n health and the e nvironm ent. W e estim ate that up to 51 million p ounds of excess pollu tan t load s were discharg ed du ring our review period by 44 facilities re viewed, and that represents load s that can be mi nimi zed. 

## EPA Guidance Misinterpreted and Vague EPA did not consistently interpret it s EMS guidance for tim ely actions, even though EMS guidance is clear with regard to tim eliness. Further, EMS guidance is unclear regarding appropriateness of enforce m ent actions and is thus subject to inte rpre tatio n. This am biguity p r eve n te d us from evaluating the appropriateness of the EPA and State form al enforcem ent actions taken. However, we concluded that EPA’s ambiguous guidance m a y result in inconsistency in interpretations between regions and States. Flexibility is n eededin any natio n al enforce m ent program
. Nonetheless, definition s for program fundam e ntals such as the tim eliness and appropriateness of action are n ecessary to establish mi nimum acceptable p e rform a nce and oversig ht.

2 Du e to sign ifi can t EPA d a ta syste m errors fo r 27 facilities in Alab am a, Mich ig an, an d Tex a s, as d i scu s sedi n Ch ap ter 3, we co u l d o n l y ev alu a te 57 o f th e 8 4 facilities se lectedfo r rev i ew for tim e l y form al en fo rcem en t action

. We also elimin atedon e add itio n a l facility in Tenn essee from o u rsam p le th at was sh own to b ea mi n o r facility b y OECA

.

6

### EPA Inconsistently Interprets Guidance for Time ly Actions During our review, we were given incons istent in terpr e tations of what EPA considers timely

. In a 1999 EMS mem o, OECA’s water enforcem ent division director wro t e that for a for m al enfor cem ent action to be considered tim e ly, it must be taken by the end of the quarter following the SNC violation. In other words, if a facility exp e riences an SNC vi olation in February of the first quarter, then a form al enforcem ent action mu st be taken b y the admi nistering agen cy by June 30 of the second quarter – the last day of the quarter – to be tim ely. Although we believe the policy in the EM S m e mo is clear on the definition of “tim ely,” and the m e m o has not been resc inded, EPA allows other interpretations. For example:

• In response to an earlier version of our report, E P A asserted that tim ely enforcem ent actions could be 60 days late r than th e tim ely def i nition above.

• In subsequent data submissions to the OIG, EPA noted that a tim ely response mu st occur within 6 m onths of the facility appearing and rem a ining on the QNCR. This implies EPA has up to a full year from the tim e of an SNC violation to provide a response.
EPA’s state dthat “no to n ly is th ere f l exib ility in the EMS lan guage itself regarding tim eliness, but the fact that the EMS is a guidance docum ent and not a regulation infers flexibility.” However, th atis in consistent w ith written g u idance in EMS, which provides a clear definition of tim e ly. EPA Guidance Does Not Address Approp riateness of Actions EMS guidance states that the appropriate response to an SNC violation is a for m al action that shou ld ensure th atthe f acility return s to co mpliance expeditiously, creates a deterrent effect, and is fair. However, the guidance does not state ho w expeditio usly facilities should co m e back into comp liance after an action is taken. In fact, EP A staff st ated th at “ap propriate” is defined flexibly and a for m al action can address the sam e violations for m a ny years. Since EPA has no clear criteria, we could not determin e if the form al action s taken wer e appropriate. We questioned whether the outcom e of som e for m al actions was appropriate. For example, EPA took a form al enforcem ent action in 1988 against the East Chicago Sewage Tre a tm ent Plant. 3 

### According to OECA, t h at action “renders all ef fluent exceedances (sic) reso lv ed pending s i nce th at time.” East Chicago has been in SNC for effl uent violations – including pollutants such as phosphorus, chlorides, and sulfates – in every quarter from 1996 to June 2005. During the 3 years of our

3 EPAi ssu edPr etreatm e nt Ad mi ni strati v e Or ders o n J a n u ary 25 , 19 9 3 , an d Se pt em ber 2 0 , 2 0 0 4

. T h e S e pt em ber 20 0 4 or der ad dr esse d pretreatm e nt i ssues fo un d d u ri ng anaudi t

.

7

### review period, East Chicago disc harged between 76,000 and 230,000 pounds of excess phosphorus and between 12,000,000 and 38,000,000 pounds of excess chlorides. We could not determine the excess loadings of sulfates. Seventeen years after form al action, as of June 2005, the facility still ha d excess discharges to waters thatwere cu rre ntly impaire d. 

## Lack of Suitable Enfo rcement at 21 Facilities
Of the 56 NPDES m a jorfacilities in long-te rm SNC that we were able to assess, EPA and States did not take suitable fo r m al enforcem ent actio ns to addres s all SNC violations against 21 of them du ring the 3-year pe riod July 2002 through June 2005. Som e facilities receiv e d inform al actions, such as letters of violation. According to the EMS, facilities with SNC violations mu st receive a form al enforcem ent action, from the admi nist ering authority, that is tim ely and appropriate, or return to comp liance within th e q u arte r f o llo wing the SNC violation. S p ecifically:

• Eight of the 21 facilities in SNC dur ing our review had not received a for m al actio n as of June 2005, according to OECA.

• The rem a ining 13 facilities were operating under enforcem ent orders issued prior to the tim e period, but these actions did not address all violations for which the 13 f acilities were in SNC.
For example, the Lafayette Sewage T r eatm e nt Plant in Tennes s ee receivedfor m al action regarding only tw o of three pollutant s for which it was in SNC. During our review period, this facility was in SNC fo r effluent violations for six quarters for ammonia-nitrogen, seven quarter s f o r

settleab le s o lids, and two quarters f o r total suspended solids. The T e nnessee Departm e nt of Environm ent and Conservation issued an A d mi nistrative Order in Ap ril 2002 to address ammonia-nitrogen and total suspended solids violations. Ho wever, the Order did not address the settleable solids violatio ns. This facility discharged between 15,000 and 182,000 pounds of excess settleable solids from July 2002 to June 20 05. The facility discharges to a stream that is impairedfor organic enrichm e nt and low dissolved oxygen, and Lafayette’s excess settleable solids discharges could be further worsening the existing water quality impair m e nts. 

## Untimely Enforcement at 30 Facilities
EPA and States took 57 f o rm al enforcem en t actions to address SNC violations between July 2002 and June 2005 at 35 facilities. 4 

### W e were able to assess 45 of

4 Som e facilitie s receive d m o re than one e n forcem ent ac tion. Thus, a facility m a y have ha d oneaction j u dge d u n tim el y an d an o t h e r in wh ich tim e lin ess cou l d no t b ed e termin ed

. Th is ex p l ains th e apparen t i n con s ist e n c y in t h e to tal n u m b e r of facilities associatedwith un ti m e l y actio n s an d actio ns whose ti m e lin ess co u l d n o t b e d e t e rmin ed

. A to tal o f 35 facilities were inclu d e din th e assessm en t.

8

### the 57 actions at 30 facilities for timelin ess and, based on EMS criteria, none of the 45 was tim ely.
For example, EPA issued an Admi nistrative Order against C onocoPhillips Comp any on August 14, 2003, to address e ffluent violations for selenium beginning July 2002. The action was untim ely because it was not tak e n b y Decem ber 2002 (the endof the next quarte r), as required by E M S. According to PCS, the facility continued to exceed selenium pe rmit limits through June 2005. Our calculations show that this facility discharged about 950 pounds of selenium above its allowable permit level between July 2002 and June 2005. Selenium is toxic to aqu a tic lif e and som e w ildlif e and harm ful to hum ans. We could not determine the tim eliness of the remaining 12 form al actions at 10 facilities because av ailable inform ation was flawed. Specifically, the enforcem ent actions did not explain what SNC violation was being addressed or when the SNC violations occurred. W ithout this inform ation, we would not determine whether the ac tion was timel y. For example, the Consent Decree issued agai n s t the City o f Colum b iana W a stewater Treatm ent Plant in Alabam a on Decem be r 10, 2003, simp ly accelerates an existing comp liance schedu le for a Consent Order issued on March 21, 2002. Th is action does not directly link to an SNC violation. Therefore, we c ould not address tim eliness. 

## TimelyEnforcement Helps Mini mize Excess Pollutant Discharges
Tim e ly actions are important becausethey can help deter or minimi ze environm ental impact. The sooner S N C is identified and form al enforcem ent actions taken, the sooner the excess pollution can be controlled. W e estim a te that up to 51 million pounds of excess pollutant lo ads were disch arged from July 2002 through June 2005 by 44 of the facilities we reviewed. 5 

### Seventeen of those f

acilities d i s c harged ex c e ss pollu tan t s into a l re ad y impaired waters. 

## Conclusion EPA has not provided its regions and States with clear and consistent guidance for taking tim ely and appropriate enforcem en t actions. Incomp lete and mi sleading guidance reduces the effectiv eness o f re gions’ and States’ ov ersight of NPDES f

acilities. A tthe Agency level, we co ncluded that EPA does not provide effective oversight over the regions and States. Noncompliance with permit requirem e nts can pose risks to hum an health and th e environm ent through exposure to excess levels of toxic or harm f u l pollu tants.

5 D u e t o a l ack of dat ai n EP A ’ s dat asy st em , we c o ul d on ly calcu late a rang e o f po llu tan t d i sch arg es for so m e facilities. See App e n d i x A for m o re d e tails.

9

## Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistan t Admi nistrator, Office of Enforcem ent and Comp liance Assurance:
2-1 Clarify and implem e nt the EMS guidance to ensure that tim e ly and appropriate f o rm al enf o rcem ent actio ns are taken agains t NPDES f acilities in SNC. 

## Agenc yComments and OIG Evaluation EPA agreed to clarify the EMS guidance by rescinding the 1999 OECA m e morandum in conflict with the E M S. EP A’s planned action is to eliminate the guidance that clarifies w h en tim ely enfo rcem ent action should be taken. While reducing the ability to m easure the ef fec tivenes s of enforcement actions increas es the f l exib ility to def i ne a ll ac tions as tim ely, it does not m eet the intent of the recomm endation. EPA’s detailed res ponse and OIG’s evaluation are in Appendices B, C, and D. The OIG has incorpo r at ed technical correction s and clarifications from EPA’ s response in to the final report as appropriate.

10

# Chapter 3 Incomplete and Inaccurate Records and Reporting Inhibit EPA Oversight of N P DES Major Facilities

Records of comp liance and enforcement ac tivities were of ten incomp lete and inaccu rate. Specifically:

• Many region and State f iles were incomp lete.

• Data in EPA’s inf o rm ation system s were incomp lete and ina ccurate.

• Regions and States did not report insp ection -re lated violation s in PCS, although EP A required such reporting. An accurate history of th e comp liance and enforcem ent activities at a facility is important for oversight and m aking futureenforcem ent decisions. The lack of accurate inf o rm ation inhibits EPA’s ability to p r ovide effective oversigh t to NPDES major facilities and thus protect hum an health and the environm ent from excess levels of toxic or harmful polluta nts. During our review, we also found that bacteria exceedances are not req u iredto be reported as SNC, but we think such reporting should be considered. 

## Compliance and Enforcem ent Files Incomplete Many EPA and State co mpliance an d enforcem ent files were incomp lete for NPDES major f acilities. W ereviewed EPA and State files to determine if they were comp lete by comp aring enforcem ent inform ation from EPA and State file reviews to f o rm al enf o rcem ent actio ns lis ted in PCS/OTIS. Som e of the inf o rm ation in the comp liance and en f o rcem ent f i les did no t m a tch the inf o rm ation record ed in EPA’s data sy stem s. Table 3-1 on the following page shows the re sults of comparing enf o r cem ent f iles with EPA’s data sys t em inform ation. Additionally, 12 for m al enfo rcem ent actions in the EPA and State files were not listed in EPA’ s data system s. W e a l so found one action listed in OTIS for which we could find no other ev iden ce in either PCS or EPA and State f iles. Incomp lete f i les an d data sys t em s prevent EPA from having the needed inform ation to provide effective oversight.

11T a b l e 3-1: Comp leten ess o f EP A an d State En fo rcemen t F iles

Re gion State A c tions re porte d by PCS/OTIS No. of thos e a c t ions foun d

in EPA files Percent co mp lete No. of thos e a c t ions foun d in State files Percent co mp lete Re gion 4 Alab ama T ennessee 8 7 5 4 63% 57% 8 4 100 % 57% To tal 15 9 60% 12 80% Re gion 5 India na 4 2 50% 1 25% Michig an 4 2 50% 1 25% To tal 8 4 50% 2 25% Re gion 6 Oklahom a 12 10 83% 5 (of 9)* 55% * T e xas 22 12 55% 5 (of 10)* 50% * To tal 34 22 65% 10 (o f 19)* 53% * *W hen ca lcul ating com p lete ne ss of State files, w e d i d not co nsid er actions t a ken a g a i nst facilities for w h ic h EPA retains primar y enforcem ent authorit y

. Source: EPA OIG review 

## EPA’s Enforcement Data Sy stems Inaccurate EPA’s data system s used to track NPDE S enfor cem ent program are inaccurate. EPA’s data system s do not accu rate ly reflec t the SNC status of facilities. Once a for m al enforcem ent action is issued for an SNC violation, a fa cility should be designated as “resolved pendi ng” for that violation, acco rding to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 123.45. Howeve r, OECA states that Regions 4, 5, and 6 (the three regions re viewed) do not designate facilities in “resolv e d pending.” T hus, facilities in these regions m a y appear to remain in SNC status in EPA’s data system s for a long tim e despite operating with an existing enforcem ent action. EPA’s data system incorrectly classif i ed Michigan f acilities in SNC f o r DMR violations due to data system errors in Michig an. These errors have exis ted since 2003. EPA’s PCS data system showed that 30 facilities from Michigan were in long-term SNC. However, OECA reviewedthe f acilities’ status and determined that 27 of th e f acilities were not actually in SNC. 6 

### OECA stated that M i chigan was having problem s entering DMR inform ation into PCS in a tim ely m a nner. Staff from Michigan Departm e nt of Envi ronm ental Quality also noted th at the i r data system was not capable of correctly communicating with PCS and that SNC data was not available through their syst em at the tim e we interviewed them. However, the data entry and transmis sion problem s continue, which seriously comp romi ses EPA’s oversight of Michigan’s NP DES f acilities.

6 W e ex clud ed 2 5 Mich ig an facilities with sign ifican t d ata errors fro m o u r an alysis. Two oth e r facilities, o n efro m Al abam a and o n e fr om Texas, we re al so excl ude d f o r si mi l ar rea s o n s. SeeA ppe n d i x A f o r

m o re det a i l s
.

12

### In a related m a tter, EPA staff stated that once a facility rece ives a violation for submitting DMRs late, that v i olatio n will con tin ually show a s a violationin EPA’s data system s until re gions or States m a nually correct the problem

. EPA needs to ens u re its data s y stem s are accurate so it can provide proper oversight to regions and States. 

## ManyViolations Found During In spections Not Reported in PCS Despite EP A requirem e nts, m o st EPA regi ons and States do notente r in to PCS violations found during insp ections. OECA reported that no S t ates in EPA Regions 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10 reported thes e violations in Fiscal Year 2005. Inspections allow EPA and States to dete rmine th e reliability of the permittee ’ s self-reported data and evaluate comp lianc e with permit conditi ons and applicable regulations. Entering these violations in to PCS allows EPA and States to track these violations and report them

. EPA currently requires data entry of vi olations found during inspections (called single-event violations) for NPDES m a jor permittee s in PCS in the s i ngle event catego ry. However, m o st States are not performi ng this procedure. Staff from EPA Region 4 stated that EPA does not ensure that States enter single even t violation data from inspections. Sta ff from EPA Regions 5 and 6 acknowledged that entry of single event vi olations is required. Faili ng to enter inspection-related violations in PCS m a y pr even t these types of violations from being identif ied and acted upon. 

## Bacteria Not Reported as SNC
We noted num erous and significan t exceedances of bacteria p e rmit limits at 37 of 84 facilities we reviewed

. Al m o st 75 percen t of the exceedan ces would b e classified as SNC using the criteriafor conventional pollutants. The violations ranged up to 59,000 percent of the permit limit. None of these violations w a s reported as SNC in PCS or OTIS because bacteria are not a pollutant subject to SNC criteria. S i nce th ese violations are not classified as SNC, they would likely not be reported on th e QNCR that reg i ons an d State us e to address facilities with significant violations. Although SNC reporting is not required, ba cteria are a leading cause of water quality impairm e nts acro ss the nation

. Wh en present at levels exceeding w a ter quality standards, bacteria can m ake sw immers ill and contaminate shellf ish f o r hum a n consumption. Our review only di scovered the sign ificant bacteria violations b ecause those facilities h a d SNC violations for oth e r pollutan t s
. In the absence of other SNC violations, EPA and States m a y not address significant bacteria violations.
Because th is issue was o u tside the scope of our review of long-term SNC, we did not conduct a separate review focused on th e extent of bacteria-only violations

13

### and the adequacy of the response to them

. Howe ver, it is enough of a concern that it warrants further review by OECA. 

## Conclusion While EPA has overall responsibility for imple m enting and overseeing the NPDES program , EPA generally has to re ly on the States for inform ation. EPA cannot attest to the reliabili ty of records and data f o r those facilities in long-term SNC. Incomplete and inaccurate re cords and in for m ation represent a m a nage m e ntcontrol weakness. EPA cannot rely on NPDES e n forcem ent and comp liance data f r om its inte rnal sy stem s being comp lete or accurate. Also, enforcem ent and comp liance records m a intained by regions and States are incomp lete and inaccu rate. OECA needs to impl em ent a quality assu ranc e program that, at a mi nimum :

• Assesses accuracy of region and Stat e comp liance and enforcem ent files.

• Verifies status of facilities in SNC.

• Verifies that for m al actions taken ar e correctly entered in to EPA system s.
• Assures rep o rting issues (with Michiganand others) are resolved or reports annotated to disclose kn own inaccuracies.

• Verifies that all EPA regions and Stat es are entering violations found as a result of ins p ection s in PCS. 

## Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistan t Admi nistrator, Office of Enforcem ent and Comp liance Assurance:
3-1 Imple m ent a quality assurance program addressing the comp leteness of comp liance and enforcem ent files, accuracy of E P A data system s, and reporting in PCS the violati ons found during inspections.
3-2 Establish controls allowing EPA leadership to ide n tif y signif i cant noncompliance by bacteria-only violators for enf o rcem ent action. 

## Agenc yComments and OIG Evaluation EPA generally concurred with our r ecomm endations. However, OECA’s response that its existing actions and pr ocesses provide a reasonable am ount of quality assurance is not responsive to Recommendation 3-1. We consider the issue unreso l ved. For Recomm endat i on 3-2, we accept OECA’s response. OECA will need to prov ide us with an action p l an and milestone dates f o r when the proposed actions will occur. EP A’ s detailed response and OIG’s evaluation are in Appendices B, C, and D. The OI G has incorporated technical corrections and clarifications from EPA’s response in to the final report as appropriate.

14

# Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits

POTENTIAL MONETARY RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFI TS (i n $000s)

Rec. No. Page No. Subj ect Status 1 Acti on Offi ci al Pl anned Compl e t i on Date Claimed Amount Agr eed To Amount
2-1

3-1

3-2 10

14

14 Clarif y and impleme n t EMS guidance t o ensure t hat

timely and appropriat e f o rmal enf orce ment actions are taken against NP DES facilitie s in SNC.
I m

plement a qualit y a

ssuranc e progr am addressing t he complet eness of compliance and enf o r cement f iles, accur acy of EP A dat a syst ems, and r epor t i ng in PCS t he violations f ound during inspect i ons. Establish controls allowing EPA leadership to ident if y signif i cant noncomp liance by ba ct

eria-only violat ors f o r enf orcement act i on. U

U

O Assi st ant Admi ni st r a tor , Of

f i ce of Enf o rcement and Compliance Assuran c e Assi st ant Admi ni st r a tor , Of

f i ce of Enf o rcement and Compliance Assuran c e

Assi st ant Admi ni st r a tor , Of

f i ce of Enf o rcement and Compliance Assuran c e

O = recommendat ion is open wit h agree d-t

o correct ive act i on

s pending; C = recommendat ion is closed wit h al l agreed-t o act i ons complet ed; U = recommendat ion is undecided wit h re

solut i on ef f o rt s in pro gress

15 1

### Appendix A 

# Details on Scope and Methodology

We conducted our rev i ew from January 2005 through December 2006 in accordan ce with the Government Auditing Standards , issued by the C o mp troller General of the United States. We interviewed staff in OECA and t h e Office of W a ter’s Office of W a st ewater Managem e nt to determine applicab le co mpliance an d enforcem en t guidance and criteria for EPA regions and States. W e reviewed NPDES m a jor facilities in l ong-term SNC. W e classified facilities as being in long-term SNC if they had been in SNC for 8 of 12 quarters from the third quarter of 2002 to the second quarter of 2005 in PCS. However, due to continual updating of EPA dat asystem s, 7 of the facilities selected were class i fied in SNC for only 7 of 12 quarters by the end of our field work. We selected EPA Regions 4, 5, and 6 for review b ecause they have the h i g h est concentration of NPDES major permits with 3,506 fa cilities (55 percent of the universe). Fu rther, of E P A’s 10 regions, they are rank ed high in th e num be r of long-term SNC facilities (see Tab l e A-1).

Table A - 1: Number of SNC Facilities/Ranking ofRegio n s Re gions No. of Lo ng-T e rm SNC Facilities Ra nk ing Regi on 4 38 4 th Regi on 5 51 2 nd Regi on 6 43 3 rd Source: EPA OIG Review 

### Although EPA Region 2 had the highest num ber of long-term SNC facilities, m a ny were in th e territory of Puerto Rico, and we chose not to review that region due to travel and tim e constrai nts. W e intervie wed staf f in all three re gions selected for review

. W e also inte rviewed EPA Region 7 staff during the preliminar y research phase of our review

. We reviewed 84 of the 132 facili ties in long-term SNC in EPA Re gions 4, 5, and 6 according to PCS. These 84 facilities represent about 1.3 perc ent of the total num ber of active NPDES m a jor facilities from 2002 through 2005. We selected f acilities by choosing tw o States from each of the three EP A regions reviewed (see Table A-2). W e interviewed st aff in those States to gather inform ation about comp liance and enforcem ent program s.
Table A - 2: Facilities Re v i ew e d byState Regions States No. of Faciliti es Re v i e w ed Regi on 4 Alab ama 8 T ennessee 12 Regi on 5 India na 8 Michig an 30 Regi on 6 Oklahom a 4 T e xas 22 Source: EPA OIG Review

16

### We reviewed comp liance and enforcem ent files fo r 84 NPDES facilities in long-term SNC. We reviewed files to confirm enforcement actions taken by EPA and States as reported in PCS and OTIS, determined whet her tim e ly form al enforcem ent actio ns were tak e n at facilities, and determined the comp leteness of the c o mp liance and enf o rcement f iles. To do this, we v e rif i ed the SNC status and for m al actions taken at each facility through O T IS. W e relied on the class i ficatio n system in PCS and OTIS to indicat e whether an action was f o rm al or inform al. During file reviews, we docum ented only those actions clas sified as formal – such as admi nistrative orders and consent orders – and comp ared them to information from PCS and OTIS to confirm that our data were comp lete. Finally, we compared the form al actions taken agains t eachfacility withthe f acility ’s SNC status in PCS and OTIS to determine if tim ely for m al enforcem ent actio ns were tak e n consis tent with crite ria f r om EPA’s EMS document. We could not asses s the appropriaten e ss of enfo rcem ent actio ns because the EMS does not state how expeditiously facilities shoul d com e back into comp liance af ter an action is taken. This am biguity prevented us from evaluating the appropriateness of the EPA and State form al enforcem ent action s taken.
Of the 84 initia l f acilities we evaluated, 25 of the 30 facilities inMich igan were exclud ed from our tim eline ss analys is du e to EPA data sys t em e rrors. Additionally, one facility each in Texas and Alabama were exc l u d ed for similar issu es. W e also ex clu d ed one facility b ecause it was a mi nor f acility even thou gh OECA’s data sys t em s showed it a s a m a jor f acility in SN C. W e analyzed the rem a ining 56 f acilities to determin e if tim ely form al enforcem ent actions were taken to addr ess SNC. Due to EPA data sys t em inaccu racies , 2 of the 56 facilities thatwere class i f i ed as m a jor f acilities in PCS were actu a lly mi nor f acilities f o r partof our 3-ye ar evaluation period. As such, we evaluated these fa cilities only for that period of tim e when the f

acilities we re consid ere dm a jor f acilities.
Because 21 facilities d i dnot have actions tak e n du ring our review period, we only identified and analyzed form al enforcem ent actions at the re m a ining 35 facilities. W e reviewed 69 actions from these 35 facilities. We excluded 12 of those 69 actions from our analysis for tim e liness (8 addressed sludge or sludge reporting violations that were not directly related to the SNC violations, 3 addressed citizen co mp laints at specific facilities , and 1 represented a parallel action that a llowedthe Stat e to assum e primary enf o rc em ent authority from EPA). Thus, we evaluated 57 for m al actions.
To evaluate tim eliness for the 57 form al ac tions, we reviewedeach ind i vidual action found during the file reviews and from OTIS to dete rmine the f o llo wing inf o rmation : (1) th e date the f

o rm al actio n was taken, (2) the spec if ic SNC vi olations the action addressed, and (3) the dates the vio l ation s occurred. We then determined the length of tim e between the dates the action s were taken and the dates the violations occurred. We comp ared the vio l a tions and form al actions to the 3

- year comp liance status h i story as shown in OTIS for each facility on a quarterly basis. We comp ared the length of tim e between viol atio n and actionwith EPA’s EMS criteria f o r tim eliness. If the leng thof tim e exceeded the tim e period allowed by the criteria, the action was found to be untim ely. Although we conducted an ex tensive file review on each facility, we did not have enough inform a tion on 12 form al actio ns to determine whether they were tim ely.

17

### W e analyze ddata f r om OTIS and PCS to determine the excess pollu tan t s rele ased f r o m f

acilities in long-term SNC for effluent violations. W e calculated the excess pollutant load by determining the pollutan t load each fa cility is permitted to dis c harge and s ubtrac ting th at load f r om the pollutan tload e ach f acility actua lly di sc harged whe n it vio l ated its pe rmit limits. W e determined the pollu tant load ac tually discharg edf r om f

acility DMR inf o rm ation by multiply ing the actual ef fluent flow tim es the actual effluent pollutant concentration tim e s a constant of 8.34. EPA uses this formula to determine m a ss-base d permit limitations and was reviewed by staff from EPA’s Office of Wastewater Managem e nt. We calculated the permi tted pollutant load for each facility using the s am e for mula and each in d i vidual facility’s pollutan tpermit limits. W e summed the daily ex cess pollutant lo ads for each f acility over the 3-year tim e period from the third quarter of 2002 through the second quarter of 2005. In certain cases, OTIS did not report actual effluent pollutant concentrations. However, the percen tage b y which the permit limit was exceeded was reported in OTIS. In this case, we backcalcu lated th e actua l ef f l uent pollutant concen tration using th e pollu tant p e rmit limit and the percen tage b y which the permit limit was exceededas reported by PCS. Since th e percentage exceedance is calculatedby PCS autom a tically u s i ng the d a ta as reported by each facility on its DMRs, this m e thod did not comp romi se the accuracy of the actual effluent pollutant concentration. Five of the 84 evaluated facilities were lis ted as SNC f o r effluent violations, but OTIS had no inform ation indicating which effluent limits were violated or by what percentage. For this reason, we did not include th ose five facilities in our analysis. Due to varying availability of information for each facility, we calcu lated both mi ni mum and m a xi mu m excess pollutant load s. If the requ iredinform ation for each facility – includ ing design and actual reported flows, permit effl uent limits, and actual effluent concentrations – was available in the detailed facili ty reports from PCS, then it was not necessary to determine mi ni mu ms and m a ximu m s
. However, if the on ly inform ation available was the design flow, permit limit, and the pe r centage by which the f a ci lity exc eed ed its p e rmit limit f r om the detailed f

acility repo rt, th en we c a lcul ated both mi ni mu m and m a xi mum excess pollutant loads. This is because the 3-year comp liance status by quarte r o n ly lis ts the highest m onthly percentage by which the f a cility vio l at e dits pe rmit limits in th at quarter. The m a gnitude of any violations in other m onths for that quarter was unknown. Bo th mi nimu m and m a xi mu m excess pollutant load were calculated to a ccou n t f o r this u n certainty. While interviewing EPA region and S t ate staff, we also sought to obtain infor m ation on what tools and best practices are av ailable to help address faci lities in long-term SNC. M

a nagement Controls We identified the following m a nagem e nt contro ls as applicab le to our objectives: Effectiveness of Progra m Operatio n s: W e evaluated th e effectiv eness o f the comp liance and enforcem ent program by determ ining if EPA and St ates were providing tim ely and appropriate e n f o rcem ent action s to f a cilities in lo ng-term SNC, and if EPA provided effective oversight to selected regions and States. D e tails on what we found are in Chapter 2

.

18

### Validity an d Reliability of Data: W e evaluate d the validity and reliability of PCS/OTIS data by comp aring it with the data found in EP A regions and State fi les. We comp ared the num ber and types of for m al enforcem ent actions in PCS/OTIS f o r the 84 f acilities we reviewed with the inform ation found in EPA and State files. Deta ils on what we found are in the C h apter 3. Compliance w i th Applicable Law s and Regulations: In our evaluation, we determined whether regions and States were following EM S guidance in addressi ng facilities in S N C with tim ely enforcem ent actions. We found problem s in the guidance provided. Details on what we found are in Chapter 2. Prior Coverage We reviewed the following prior EP A OIG audits as they pertained to our review:

• Water En forcement: S tate Enforcement of Clean Water Act Dischargers Can Be More Effective , 2001-P-00013, August 14, 2001.

• North Carolina NPDES Enforcement and EPA Region 4 Oversight, 2000-P-00025, Septem ber 28, 2000.

• Kansas National Pollutant Dischar ge Elimination System Program , E1HWF7-07

- 0022-8100089, March 31, 1998.

• Region 10's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program , E1HWF7-10-0012-8100076, March 13, 1998.

19

### Appendix B 

# Overall Agency Comments

March 30, 2007

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OECA Co mm ents on Dr aft Report, “Better Overs i ght Needed for Major Facilities with W a ter Discharge Pe rmits in Long

- T erm Significant Noncompliance”
FROM: Granta Y. Nakayam a Assistan t Admi nistrator
TO: Dan Engelberg Directo r , Water Issues, Office of Program Evaluation Office of Inspector General
The Office of Enforce m e n t and Compliance Assu rance (OECA) appreciat es the opportunity to review and comment on the February 28, 2007 Of fice of Inspector Genera l (OIG) draft report titled, “Better Oversight Needed for Major Facilities with W a ter Discharge Permits in LongTerm Significant Nonco mpliance.” This draft report was rev i sed afte r OIG received OECA’s extensive comments in October 200 6 on its initial August 2006 draft report. The revised draft is an improvem e nt over the initial draf t. Howe ver, despite exhaustive efforts by OECA and Regional staff to provide well-docum ented comp rehensive comments and to be available for follow-up consultation, significant f actual inaccuracies and mi sint erpretations rem a in. These undermine the credibility of OIG’ s analysis and dimi nish the va lue of its recomm endations. These inclu d e:

• Inaccu rate Interpretationof National EPA En forcem ent Guidance and Policy. Despite OECA’s attemp ts to clar if y the ope r a tion of its g u idance and policy, OIG f a ils to recognize the difference betweenregulatory requirem ents and EPA guidance and, as a result, applies EPA’s tim e ly and appropriate enforcem ent response guidelines as a rigid requir e m e nt. OIG’s draf t report f a ils to cons id er the deliber a te f l exibility provided to Regions andstates in EP A’s guidance resulti ng in inaccu rate OIG findings such as, “at 22 of the 57 facilities reviewed, EPA a nd the states did not take sufficient form al enforcem ent action,” and “at the rem a ining 35 fa cilities, none of the actions were tim ely.” In stark contrast, OECA’s assessm ent of the 57 f acilities ind i c a ted th at th e vast m a jority (approxim a tely 53 or 93%) of facilities include d in the OIG review received an adequate response to address the SNC violations.

• Inaccu rate Data Analys is. At least seven faci lities (three in Regi on 4 an d four in Region 6) should no t have been included in OIG’s anal y s is becau se they were no t classified as

20

### m a jor f acilities during all or partof the evaluatio n period and , theref ore, would not have been screened for SNC violations by EPA. A r e quest for change in a f acility’s status is submitted inwriting f r o ma Region to OECA’s Off i ce of Compliance. S t atus change dates ar e not archiv ed in EPA’s Permit Comp liance System (PCS) or Facility Registry System ; they are docum ented in m a nual f iles m a intained in the Regiona l of f i ces. OECA provided inform ation on this issue in its Octo ber 2006 response to OI G’s original report, yet OIG did not rem ove these facilities from its February 2007 draft report. OIG continued to mi sinterpret data in its anal ysis and inaccurately concluded that these f

acilities we re m a jors. I n other instan ces , OIG failed to acknowledge that m a ny SNC violations reviewed were already addressed under existing enforcem ent orders and comp liance schedules (i. e ., the facility was in “resolve pending” status in PCS), and thus did not require any additional enforcem ent. Lastly, f acilities were inc l ud ed in the analysis even though a known state-wide data system problem resulted in incorrect S N C determinations.

• No Acknowledgem e nt of Ongoing Efforts to Improve Records and Reporting. OIG’s draft report fails to consid er OECA’s ongoing efforts to work with Regions and states, through the State Review Fra m ework (SRF), the W a tch List, and ECHO processes, to improve record keeping and reporting asso ciated with comp liance m onitoring and enf o rcem ent activ ities. OECA believes that its existing efforts are responsive to OIG recomm endation 3-1 to imple m ent a quali ty assurance program addressing the comp leteness of comp liance and enforcem ent files and recomm e ndation 3-2 to address significant bacteria violations. By not recognizing th ese recent efforts to estab lish better m a nage m e ntcontro ls an d accountab ility, the draft report leav es the impression that OECA is not actively ad dressing iss u es su ch as tim e ly enforcem ent and accurate recordk eeping of enforcem ent files. Despite num erous concerns with the underlying an alysis in this draft report, OECA largely accepts OIG’s three reco mmendations and, as noted inthe bu llet abov e, is already implem enting two out of the three recomm endations. Of th e rem a ining recommendation, 2-1, to clarify and enf o rce EM S guidance, OECA is prepared to impl em ent the part of the r ecomm endation thatwill clarify the guidance. In response, O E CA co mmi t s to rescind the 1999 OECA m e morandum that conf licts with the NPDES Enf o rcement Manag e m e nt System (EMS). This will b e d i scussed with the Reg i onal NPDES Enf o rcement Branch Chie f s at the nationa l NPDES m eeting in April, 2007. OECA does not, however, conc ur with the balance of reco mm endation 2-1, to enforce the EMS, as the EMS does not impose a set of enforceable standards. This draft report reflects continuing problem s with the overall OIG evaluation process, including: poor communication during the analysis leading to the use of incomp lete and/or inaccu rate infor m ation, broad findin g s that ar e n o t supportedby the data used, lack of acknowledgm e nt of ongoing effort s by OECA, Regions, and states to address the problem being evaluated, exclusion of relevant inform ati on which would directly impact findings and recomm endations, and failure to weigh the bene f its of OIG’s recomm endations again s t the resource burdens and procedural barriers they will entail and the comp eting needs and dem a nds they will displace. A sp ecific example of poor communication during th is ev aluationis the fact that ev en after receiv i ng detailed written comm ents from OECA and having face-to-face

21

### m eetings to discuss those comm ents, OIG staff never contacted EPA staff with any follow-up questions o rclarif ication s in th e course of re-writing the draft re port. OE CA would like to work with the OI G to improve communicati on and the overall evaluation process.
Attached are OECA’s detailed comments on th e analysis, findings, a nd recomm endations in the February 28, 2007 draft report. If you have any questions, please cal l Mark Pollins at 202-564-4001.
Attachm e nts

cc: Walker Smith, OCE Randy Hill, OCE Mark Pollin s, OCE Michael Stahl, OC Lisa Lund, OC David Hindin, OC Doug Mundrick, Region 4 Cheryl Newton, Region 5 Mike Michaud, Region 6

22

### Appendix C 

# OIG Evaluation of Overall Agency Comments

OECA took issue with the overa ll OIG evaluation process, e xpressing concerns about the conclusions reached in analysis, poo r communica tions during the evaluation, and the belief that data co llec t e dwas incomplete o rina c c urate. OE CA also disagreed with the OIG assessm ent that its oversight needed improvem e nt. Specifically OECA stated that:

• OIG inaccurately interpreted National EPA Enfor cem ent Guidance and P o licy.

• OIG included facilities that were no t class i fied as m a jor facilities du ri ng all or part of the evaluation period.

• OIG did not acknowledge OECA’s ongoing effo rts to improve its records and reporting. Despite OECA’s num e rous concerns with the underlying analysis, OECAstated it g e nera lly accepted OIG’s recommendation s an d was in the process of implem e nting them

. OECA’s detailed responses, along with the OIG’s ev aluation, are provided in Appendix D. The detailed OECA response focuses on denying exis tence of oversight issues, while agreeing to imple m ent most of the recomm ende d actions. OECA’s criticism of the evaluation for poor communication and faulty analysis is rooted in OECA’s ratio nale th at written po lic ies can be ignored or interpreted to allow OECA “flexibility” to claim tim ely and appropriate perform a nce under alm o st all circum s t ances. OIGunderstand s OECA’s rationale; we simply do not accept that it is valid. OIG’s conclu sion that OECA has not acted in a tim ely m a nner is based on written policy and criteria that OECA prefers to ignore. In f act, one of OECA’s corrective action s will be to res c indthe pol icy m e morandum clarifying the sta ndardfor tim ely enforcem ent. The OECA r e sponse is illustrative of the c ontrol environm ent that allowed the conditions addressed in the report to exist. Managem e nt is responsible for communicating the objectives of inte rnal con trol and ensu ring th e organization is c o mmitted to sustain i ng an ef f

e ctive interna l control environm ent. Managem e nt’s philosophy and operational style set the tone within the organization culture. Culture is defined by m a na gem e nt’s leadership in setting values of integrity and ethical behavior butis also affected by the relati onship between the organization and central oversigh tag encies. M a n a gem e nt’s commit m e nt to establishing and m a intaining effective internal control should cascade down and perm eate an organization’s control environm ent, which aids in the su cces sful implem entation of internal control system s. In our opinion, the OECA response is a reflection of weakness in th e overall m a nagem e nt control environm ent of the organization. Inaccurate Interpreta t ion of Natio n al EPA Enforce ment Guidance a nd Policy This is a disagreem ent over how to m easure EP A’s effectiv eness ensu ring the comp liance with the Clean Water Act and how accountable for achi eving results it is. EPA’s desire for total f l exibility u ndermines the use of internal contro ls to ensure tim ely and appropriate enforcem ent response. O E CA interprets the national enforcem ent guidance and policy, EMS, as granting it

23

### tota l f l exibility abou t when and how to enf o r ce against signif i cant noncompliance. Using this interpretation, OECA concluded that its response was “adequate” 93 percent of the tim e. We carefully applied O E CA’s own guidance se t out in th e EMS to dete rmine how well EPA regions and States are fulfilling their enforcem ent responsibilities. The E M S represents OECA’s own enforcem ent principles for EPA regions and States. The EMS provide s clear and consistent guidance on what constitutes a tim ely enforcem ent response. In brief, the EMS states that a for m al enforcem ent response mu st be taken before the end of the quarter following the quarter in which EPA and/or States designate a facility in S N C. The mem o randum OECA wants to rescind clarif ies th is point. Inaccurate Data Analysis OECA’s response actu a lly addresses the inaccurate data in th eir sy stem s, rather than inaccurate data analysis on the part of OIG. OECA objectedto the records of some of the facilities we included in our samp le taken fromtheir data system , PCS. We agree with OECA that the i r system s contain inaccu rate data and recomm ended that they develop a qu ality assu ran ce program
. OECA requested that s e ven facilities in our re view should be rem oved. We will remove one of the seven. Decherd WW T P in Tennessee was not design ated a m a jor discharg er un til af ter our study period. W e have rem oved Decherd from our findings. We had included this facility in our study becau se EPA listed this mi nor facility as being in SNC during our study period in the PCS databas e
. Also, W i nderm ere and Munford Lagoon were not m a jor facilities during all of our review period although P C S showed them in si gnificant noncompliance during that time. Both facilities were in significant noncompliance for at least three quarters after they becam e majors. Since the f a cilities did n o t rec e ive tim e ly action while they were m a jor facilities, we will keep them in our analys is. We disagree w ith EPA about the o ther four facilities. OECA stated that we failed to acknowledge m a ny SNC violations review ed that were already addressed under existing enforcem e n t orders an d comp liance schedules. On the contrary, we considered whether a facility was in“resolv e d pending” as indicated by EPA data system s and data submitted to us by OECA.
OECA also stated that we retained several facili ties in our review in sp ite of a known state-wide data sys t em problem that resulted in incorrect SNC determinations. Again, we disagree. W e did not evalu a te the tim e liness of enforcem ent actions at 25 of the 30 Michiganf acilities du e to the state-wide data problem

. According to Region 5 staff, Michigan’s data system problem s related only to discharge m onitoring reporting and compliance schedule reporting. For that reason, we only included f a c ilitie s in our analys is th at had other types of violations. The five Mich iganfacilities we analyzed had effluent violations for at least two consecutive quarters. Even though we did not evaluate the tim eliness of enforce m ent actions at the 25 facilities, we did report on the obvious oversight problem s that exist from a State having system with unreliable data for several years. No Acknowledgement of Ongoing Effort s to Improve Records and Reporting We included the efforts OECA mentioned in its response in the Noteworthy Achievem ents section of the report.

24

### Appendix D 

# Detailed Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation

# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e 1 At a Glance, page1 OECA’s s p ecific responses t o each of the find ing s an d reco mmen d ations are d e tailed bel o w. T h e de scri pti o n of th e recomm endati ons s h o u l dbe m odi fi ed accordingly. See res p onses below.

2 At a Glance, page1 OECA questions t h e acc urac y of OIG' s esti m a te o f th e p oun d s of ex cess po llu tan t rel eased. A s di scusse d bel o w, th erei s su fficien t reason to b e lieve th at th e OIG's selectio n o f facilit ies u s ed to calcu l ate a h ypo th etical esti m a te o f po llutan t s d i sch arg ed is flawe d dueto OIG' s inaccurate in terpretatio n s o f EPA's n ation a l enfo rcem en t gui dance

. Fu rther , th eO I Ger ro ne ousl y assum e s that when an enforce m ent action is concl ude d, com p liance is immediate.

• To illu strate, the OIG presen ts an esti m ate o f th e rang e o f po llu t a n t s in ex cess of p e rmit li mits releasedb y u s i n g d a ta calcu lated fo r 45 facilitie s th at th e O I G f oun d to be in SN C f o rt h e 3- year p e r i o dfr o m July 2 0 0 2 thr ough Ju ne 2 005

. Howev e r, m a n y o f th ese facilities were ope rati n g un de r c onse n t or der s th at p r ov id eda sched u l e fo r return to co m p lian ce. As v i o l atin g faci lities com p lete the necessary plant upgrades allo wing them to m eet th e o r i g in al p e rmit li mits, p o llu tant redu ction s are ach ieved. Because of the infra struct urec h anges that are often ne ede dto correct com p liance problem s , the OIG cannot e x pect that p o llu tan t redu ctio n s will b e i mmed i atel y g a in ed u pon com p le tio n of an enforcem ent ac tion. Our selection of facilities u s ed to calcu late th e estim a t e o f p o llu tan t s d i sch arg edwas not flawe d

. Our estim a tes of excess p o llu tan t s released represen t actu al effl u e n t pol l u t ant c once n tr ati o ns as re p o rt e d by NPDES faciliti es and record edin EPA’s database , OTI S

. We an alyzed data from OTIS and PCS to determine the excess pollutants released fro m facilit ies in lon g -term SNC fo r efflu e nt violations. W e calculated t h e excess p o llu tan t lo ad b y d e termin in g th e p o llu tan t lo adeach facility is p e rmittedto d i sch arg e an d su b tracti n g th at lo ad fro m th e p o llu tan t lo adeach facility actu a lly d i sch arg ed wh en it v i o l atedits permi t li mits. We d e termin ed th e po llu tan t loadactu a lly d i sch arg edfro m facility DMR in fo rm atio n b y mu l tip lyin g the actual e ffl uent fl ow tim e s the actual effl ue nt pol l u t a nt co nce n tr ati o n ti m es a con s t a nt of 8. 3 4

. EP A uses t h i s fo rmul a t o d e termin e m a ss-b a sed p e rmi t li mitatio n s an d w a s r e v i ew ed b y staf f fro m EPA ’ s Office of Wast ewater Manage ment. W e calcu latedth e p e rmittedp o llutan t lo ad fo r each facility using t h e sam e formula and each indivi dual facility’s pollutant pe rmi t li mits. W e summedth e d a il y ex cess p o llu tan t lo ad s fo r each facility o v e r t h e 3-y ear ti m e peri od fr om th e th i r d q u art e r o f 2 002 thro ugh t h e secon dqu arterof 2 005

. As su ch , ou r esti m a tes wou l d i m p licit ly consider any re ductions bei n g achieve d as a resul t of co nse n t o r ders o r pl ant u p g ra des.
O u ran alysis do es no t expect that pollutant reductions ar e the immediate result of enforcem ent ac tions. We did t h e an alysis to d e termin e th e im p act o n th e en v i ron m en t wh en a facility is no t in co m p lian ce with its NP DES pe rmit. It m a y take years fo r a facility to co me b a ck in t o com p l i an ce und er

25# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e a conse n t dec r ee. During t h at tim e , a facility with efflu e n t v i o l atio ns is still d i sch arg i n g pollu tan t s in to the water abov e its p e rmittedli mits. 3 At a Glance, page1 Th er e is an erro r in t h e sh ad ed b ackgr oun d summ ary - EPA "authorizes" (not " d elegate s ") states to admi nister the NPDE S program

. The final rep o rt was revise d t o reflect this co mmen t

. 4 C h apt e r 1 , pag e 1 EPA O v er si ght of NPDES C o m p liance and Enforcem ent Program , p. 2: T h e placem ent of the statem ent, "EPA is ex pect ed to take form al enforcem ent ac tion whe n states fail to take ti m e ly an dapprop riate action" in th e first para grap h of th i s secti on, w h i c h di scus ses Clean W a te r Act (C WA) aut h ority and t h e NPDES prog ram , i m p lies th at th e C W A man d a tes wh en EPA sh all tak e en fo rcem ent actio n
. Th e C W A do es no t ad dress t h is issue. The statem ent itself is an acc urate represen tatio n o f in form at io n p r esen ted in the EMS. T h e state m ent was m oved to t h e secti on di scu s s i ng t h e EM S cri t e ri a on page3

.

5 C h apt e r 1 , page s 1- 2 Furt herm ore; t h e statem ent inaccurately represen ts EPA g u i d a n c e on th is issu e (see th e A ugu st 25, 1 986 Jam e s Bar n es Mem o r a n dum to th e Reg i on s, "Rev ised Policy Fram ework for State/EPA Enforcem ent Agreem ents (Barnes Mem o )). T h e Barnes Me m o recomm ends c ons ultation wit h a state to det e rmi n e whe ther t h e st at e i s m ovi ng ex p e d itio usly to reso l v e th e v i o l atio n -- it does not c o ntem plate autom atic formal Federal action onc e a recommende d deadline for stat e action has pass ed. The Mem o specifies t h at ti m e fra m e s are no t in tend edt o b e rig i d deadl i n e s f o r a c ti on. It e xpl ai ns t h at because au tho r izedstat es h a v e p r im ary respon sib ility and EPA clearl y doe s not ha ve the resources to tak e actio n on o r rev i ew i n d e tail an y an d all v i o l atio n s , EPA will circum scrib e its actio n s t o certain cases andareas and will tak e acti on base d o n s p eci fi c l i s t e d fact or s i nth e M e m o . Fu rthe r , the Barne s M e m o acknowledg es th at b ecau s e EPA will no t, in m o st cases, rec e ive real tim e data, Re gions ar e not e x pect edt o be a b l e t o t akedi rect enforcem ent ac tion follo wing the exact sam e ti m e fra m e s as th o s e th at app l y to th e admi nistering agency. Fin a ll y, th e Barn es Me m o do es n o t r e qu ir e form al enforcem ent action in e v ery instance . T h e Me m o estab lish e s t h at an app r op riate resp on se is to be determined by the a d mi nistering age n cy base d up o n a c onsi d erati o n o f w h at i s neede d , and that the form of th e e n forc e m ent respons e mu st achieve c o m p liance. The re dra f t su gg ested b e low is an accu r at e in terp retation of

EP A gui dan ce an d doe s no t im pl y , as d o e s OI G' s dra f t l a n gua ge, th at i mm e di at e fede ral The EM S was finalized i n 1989, at least 2 years after the Revised Policy Fram ework for State/EPA Enforcem ent Agreem ents (Barn e s Mem o ). Th e EMS con s titu tes a syste m for t r anslating c o m p lia nce in fo rm atio n in t o tim e l y an dap pro p riate enforcem ent ac tions. A l so , EMS pr ov id es the fle x ibility for each admi nistering age n cy t o de vel o p m a nagem e nt p r oc edu r es w h i c h are best s u ited to its operati o ns and resources with the goal of m o st efficiently tran slatin g com p l i an ce in formatio n in to tim e ly and appropriate e n forc e m ent action. Thu s , t h e flex i b ility d e sired by OECA was i m p licit ly co n s id eredd u ring dev e lop m en t o f th e EMS andt h e langu ag e reg ard ing tim el y and appropriat e form al enforce m ent actions t o ad dr ess SN C vi ol ati o ns. Any am bi gui ty re gar d i n g ti m el y and app r op ri at e l a n gua ge i n th eE M S was r e so l v ed in an O c tob e r 6, 1 999 , O E C A m e m o rand um that p r ovi dedth e W at e r Enforcem ent Division’s official in terpretatio n of th e EMS’s lan g u a g e regardi n g the “ b egi n date” for the peri od allowed for a ti mely and appropriate enforcem ent re sponseto a S N C vi ol ati o n. The m e m o further states that EMS re quires that a form al action mu st be t aken to pre v e n t th e SN C vi ol ati o n fr o m bei ng r e po rt ed o na seco nd QN CR an d, u n d e r QNC R rul e s , t h i s can be acc o m pli s hed o n l y if th e en forcemen t action is tak e n during th is "fo llo wi n g " qu arter. Furt h e r, th e u s e of

26# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e actio n is requ ired wh en t h e p e riodfor tim e l y st at e acti ons ha s passe d, o rt h at suc h acti o n mu st be fo rm al.

• Delete "EPA is expected t o take form al enforcem ent ac tion whe n states fail to t ake ti m el y and ap p r op ri at e a c ti on" fr om fi rst para grap h on pa ge 2."

• Ad d ne w para g r ap h a f t e r t h e tw o b u l l e t s in th e secondpar a gr aph of th i s sectio n that includes " E PA' s guidan c e indicates that EPA m a y consider taki ng direct enforcem ent ac tion whe r e: a st ate requests E P A a c tion, wherethe state en fo rcem en t resp on se is n o t ti mely o r appropriate, in cases or program areas setting national precede n ts, or whe r e th ere i s a vi ol ati on o f an EP A or der o r consent decre e
. In decidi ng whethe r to tak e enfo rcem en t EPA will con s id er wh et h e r: t h e case is n ation a lly sign ifican t, ri sk o r dam a ge t o th een vi r o n m ent or p u b lic h ealt h is sign ifican t, the v i o l ator st ands t o gai ns i gni fi cant eco n o mi c bene fit, or t h ere are repe at patt erns of vi ol ati o n s an d vi ol at o r s."

• Ad d a ne w par a grap h f o r rem a i n i n g t e xt begi nni ng , "C o m pli a nce wi th th e nati o n' s en v i ron m en tal laws. . ." th is “b eg in d at e” is con s isten t with t h e ti m e fra m e fo r v i o l atio n statu s calcu latio n s PCS m ak e s fo r th e QNCR andSNC.
No chan ge m a de.

6 C h apt e r 1 , pag e 2 Ty pes of N o nc om pl i a nce, p
. 2: O I G' s descri pti o n o f t h e QNC Rre gu l ati ons does n o t di sti n g u i s hbetw eenre p o rt abl e n onc om pl i a nce (R NC ) an d si g n i f i cant n onc o m pli a nce (S N C ). Rep o rtin g RNC at NPDES maj o rs is a regu lato ry req u irem en t. Id en tifyin g , addr essi ng , an d tr ac ki n g SN C vi ol ati o ns (a su bset of RN C ) is n o t a r e gu lato r y requ irem en t - i t is a m a n a g e men t too l used to pri o ri ti ze vi ol ati ons an d f o c u s en fo rcem ent reso u r ces. I n c ont rast to a re g u latory requ irem en t, there is inh e ren t flex ib ility – b y desi g n
-- i n t h eap pl i cati on of a pol i c y /m a nage m e nt t ool

. • "Rev ise citatio n as fo llo ws” .

. . Secti on 1 2 3

. 4 5(a ) ( 2 )

. " The rep o rt was re vi sed t o i n cl udeth e d e tailedcitatio n
.

7 C h apt e r 1 , page s 2- 3 Enf o rcem ent M a nagem e nt S y st em C r i t e ri a, p. 3: In t h is chap t e r, OIG ac knowledges t h e flex ib ility within th e EMS for th e p e rmitt in g au tho r ity to exercise d i scretion in d eci d i ng whi c h of a ran g e of p o ssi bl e r e sp onses ( n o r e spon se, in formal actio n , formal actio n ) to t ake i n a d dres s i ng vi ol ati o ns, i n cl udi ng S N C v i o l atio ns. Th at acknow ledg men t do es no t carry th r o u g h t h e e n do f pa ge 3 or th r o ug h t h e Accord ing to th e EMS, facilit ies with SNC violations mu st receivea formal enforcem ent ac tion from the admi nistering au tho r ity th at i s ti m e ly an dapp r op riate, o r retu rn t o co m p lian ce with i n t h e q u arter fo llowing t h e SNC v i o l ation

. If form al actio n is no t tak e n, th e State o r EPA is ex p ectedt o p r o d u ce a written record clearl y j u stifyin g wh y an altern ativ e actio n (o t h er

27# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e rest o f t

h e dra f t re po rt. F o r e x am ple in num erous places on pa ges 6 - 8, OIG' s fi n d i n gs ar e ba sed s o l e l y o n whet her "f orm a l " enforcem ent ac tions weretake n – in contrast to its earlier acknowledg em en t o np. 3 th at a range of res ponses ar e av ailable. TheEMS in clu d e s th e exp ectatio n th at SNC v i o l ation s receive a form al enforcem ent action. Howev e r, it also acknowledg es th at th ere m a y be circ um stances whe n form a l enforcem ent acti on i s n o t t akenan d t h e a d mi ni st eri ng ag en cy is exp e ctedto h a v e a written j u stificatio n for wh y t h e altern ativ e action was m o r e ap pr opr iate.

• "Replace "formal enforcem e n t action" wi th "e nf orce m e nt acti on" at pa ge 3 an d page s 6 - 8

. than a form al action) wa s m o re appropriate. If t h e State, as the NPDES program au tho r ity, d o e s no t tak e tim el y an d appropriate formal en forcem e n t action, E P A is expected t o t ake a form al enforcem ent acti on. Ou r fi l e an d dat abaserevi e w at EPA andStates fo undn o written j u stificatio n s fo r no t taki n g fo rm al enforcem ent ac tions.
No chan ge m a de.

8 Chapter 1, page 3 Com p liance and E n forcem ent Data System s andR e p o rt s , p. 4: T h e sec o nd andf o urth sent ences i n t h e th i r d para grap hnee dt o be rewritten to dis tinguis h betwe e n "nonc o m p liance" and " r eporta ble no nc om pl i a nce."

• Revise sec o nd sentenceas fol l ows: "T he repo rt flag s NPDES m a j o r facilit ies th at were in reportab l e non co m p lian ce with permi t or en f o r c em ent or de r r e qui rem e nt s du ri n g t h e pre v i ous si x m onth s ."

• R e vi se f o urths e nt ence as f o l l ows: "rep ort a bl e ef fl uent vi ol ati o ns ." While our ori g inal state m ent is accurate, we m a de these re v i sions i n ou r final re p o rt.

9 Att achm e nt 1, Ch ap ter 1, p a ge 3 Sco p e an dM e th o d o l o gy , p. 5, 6, 8: Thet o t a l o f

132 facilities statedin p arag r aph 2 o np. 5 as wel l as i n parag r ap h 4 o n p. 1 5 i nA p pen d i x A d o e s no t m at c h th e to tal o f 1 2 8 facilities refl ect edi n Ta bl e A

- 1 i nA p p e ndi x A. Furt her , at pag e s 6 an d 8 t h e f o l l o wi ng sentences areinconsistent:

• “At th e rem a in in g 35 facilitie s, non e o f th e action s th at we cou l dassess were ti m e ly b a sed on th e criteria i nEPA's EMS" (page 6),

• “ W e wereableto asse ss 45 of the 57 actio n s at 30 facilities fo r tim e lin ess and , base d on EM S cri t e ri a, no ne o f th e 4 5 was tim ely" (page 8),

• We co u l d n o t determin e th e timelin ess o f th e rem a i n i ng 12 f o rm al acti ons at 1 0 facilities because available i n form ation was not ade q u at e " (pa g e 8)

. Th e t o tal nu m b ers o f facilities rep r esen ted in th e three b u llets abov e are in co n s isten t (e.g., 3 0 facilities, 35 facilities an d 4 0 facilities).

• Please clarify, co rrect and provide Ap pe ndi x A w a s re vi sedso th at th e facilities in Tab l e A-1 ad d to 1 3 2 facilities.
We e v aluate d t h e tim eliness of actions at 35 total facilities. Som e facilities received m o re than one enfor cem ent ac tion. Eac h acti on was as s e ssed i ndi vi d u a l l y , thus o n e facility m a y h a v e h a d an action j udg ed u n tim el y an d an o t h e r actio n fo r wh ich we coul d not a sses s th e ti m eli n ess. T h us, 4 5 actio n s at 30 o f th e 3 5 facilities were unti m ely

. W ecoul d not det e rmi n e th e ti m e lin ess of t h e rem a in in g 12 action s t h at o ccurredat 10 o f th e 35 facilities. Th e appare nt i n c o n s i s t e ncy st em s fr om th e ove rlap that oc curred during our an alysis because facilities m a y have ha d m o re than oneaction. Thus, an action was classified as either untimely or not asses s ed. In co n t rast, a facility with m o re th an on e acti on c oul d bei n cl u d edas b o th u n ti m ely andn o t asse sse d. W ead de d c l ari f y i ng l a ng uagei n t h ere po rt

.

28# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e accurate facility and enforce m ent action to tals. 10 C h apt e r 2 , page s 3- 4 " E P A Gu id an ce Mis i n t e rpr e t edan d Ina d e quat e , p
. 6 - 7: OEC A st ro n g l y di sag r e e s with OIG's state m en ts th at th e EMS g u i d a n c e th at desc ri bes ti m e ly and ap pr op ri at e enforcem ent ac tions is i n ade q uate. On the cont rary, t h e E M S provide s fully adequate gui danceo n ti m e l y and ap p r op ri at e en fo r cem en t r e sp on ses fo r vario u s typ e s o f vi ol ati o n s , i n cl udi ng th ose de si gnat e d as SN C

. OI G ac kn o w l e dge s at page6 th at "Flex i b ility is n eed edi n an y n atio n a l enforcem ent program " yet co ntrad i cts th is state m ent by continuing t o ap ply the EMS as a set o f ri g i d requ irem en ts (rat h er th an flex i b le gui dance ) . TheOIG fails to re cognize that a flexible e n forc e m ent respons e is neces sary t o m a nage th e N P DES en forcement program

. Th e n e edfor fl ex ib ility is ev en g r eater tod a y th an wh en th e g u i d a n c e was first estab lish e d because of t h e significant e x pansion of the u n i v e rse of regu lateden tities co v e red b y th e NP DES p r o g ram wi thout a c o rres p on di n g increase i n E P A resources. Onpa ge 6, O I G st at es th at " E M S gui dancei s un cl ear re gar d i n g ap pr o p ri at enes s of

enforcem ent actions

. . ." O E CA str o ngly disagrees - the EMS is very cl ear that an appropriate res p onseshould, ". . . reflect the natu re an dsev e ri ty of t h e vi o l ati ons, an d, u n l ess th ere is su ppo rtab le ju stificatio n , th e response mu st be a form al enforcem ent action, or a ret u rn t o c o m p liance by t h e permittee . . . Inthe rarecirc um stances whe n fo rm al enforcem ent ac tion is not take n, t h e admi nistrating agency is expe cted to have a written record th at clearly ju stifies wh y t h e alternate action (infor m a l enforcem ent action or

pe rmit m odi fi cati on) wa s m o re appropriate" (s ee EMS, C h ap ter 11, Att achm e nt B , p . 2 an d page7 o f th i s doc um ent )

. On pa ges 6-7, t h e OIG states t h at "EMS gu id an ce is clear with reg ard to ti m e lin ess" in o n ep arag r ap h yet relies o na sub s eq ue nt Oct obe r 6, 1 9 9 9 O E C A m e m o rand um in anot her para grap h t o de fi ne wh at is ti m e ly. Th e OIG relies on t h is me m o randum and not theE M S guidan ce t h at reflects c u rrent practice. OECA a g ree di n its Octob e r 200 6 meetin g with OIG to rescind th e 1 999 O E CA me m o r a ndu m th at co nf licts w i t h the EMS. OECA als o stres s ed that 1999 OEC A ’s c o mm e nt i s di rect l y cont radi ct ed b y its O c t o b e r 6 , 20 06 , r e spon se, wh ich st at es “that i t s gui danced o c u m e nt s are in d e fin ite in reg ardt o th e ti melin ess standard.”
Our report states th at EPA h a s ind i stin ct gui dancet o det e rmi n e i f acti ons ar e appropriate be cause t h e gui dance doe s not state h o w exp e d itio u s ly facilit ies sho u l d com e back i n to com p liance after an action is tak e n. Our report states th at we b e liev e th e gui dancei s cl e ar onth e defi ni ti on of “tim ely

. ” H o w e ver , we were gi ve n in con s isten t i n terpretatio n s of wh at EPA co nsid ers tim e l y. EMS states a timely form al enforcem ent acti on mu st be t aken by th ee n d of th e quart er f o l l o wi ng th e SNC vi ol ati on. F o r in stan ce, if a facilit y ex p e riences an SNC v i o l atio n in Feb ru ary of th e fi rst qu arter, a form al enforc e m ent mu st be t aken by t h e admi nistering agency by J une 30 of the second quarte r. Th e O c tob e r 6, 19 99 , m e m o r a n d u m p r ov id es clarifi catio n o f ex isti n g EMS l a ng uageco nc erni ng ti m e l y andap p r o p ri at e enforcem ent re sponse t o S N C. T h e me mo rep r ese n ts the Water E n fo rce m ent Div i sion ’s o f ficial in terpretatio n of t h e EMS l a ng uageco nc erni ng ti m e l y andap p r o p ri at e enforcem ent. OECA st ates that the m e m o has n o t bee n re sci nde d. OEC A has c h osen n o t t o im p l e m e n t th e m e m o , bu t th e m e m o is the c u rrent guidan ce. We ar e c once r ne d th at OEC A is m o re co n c ernedab ou t cu rren t practice than i m ple m enting c u rrent gui dance

.

29# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e m e m o i s not be i ng i m pl em ent e d by H eadqu arters an d th e Reg i on s. 11 C h apt e r 2 , pag e 4 OEC Adi sa gre e s wi thth e OI G' s concl u si o n s onpa ge 7 re gardi n g w h ethe r t h e resp o n se t o East Chicago was ap propriate. T h e i m p licatio n th at th ere was i n ad equ ate en fo rcem en t atten tio n at th is site b e tween 1 988 an d 200 4 is no t v a lid(see attach m e n t 2 for a PCS list of all fo rm al an dinfo rm al actio n s at t h e facility, in clu d i n g av ailab l e co m p lian ce sch e du le milesto n es). It is unclear how theOIG calc u lated th e rang e o f excess po llu tan t lo ad i n gs for East Chicago. It is unclear if theOIG used the actual fl o w dat at akenf r om th e DM R s du ri n g i t s fi l e revi e w , or use ddesi gnfl o w dat a f r om PCS. Fl ow dat aare not availa ble in OT IS. Si nce th e1 9 8 8 co nse n t o r de r, EPAand/or Ind i an a h av e issu edth e fo llowing form al actions: a pret reatm e nt ad mi nistrative orde r in Jan u ar y 1993 , a State- ag r e ed o r d e r in No vem b er 20 0 3 (n ot s h o w n i n OEC A ’s attachm e nt 2), and a pretre atment enforcem ent ac tion in 200 4. A stipu l ated co urt o r d e r was co m p letedin Octob e r 199 1. All othe r actions i n cluded in t h e attachm e nt are inform al ac tions, suc h a s phone calls an d warn ing letters. Despi t e t h ese a c ti ons, East C h i cago ha d 12 co nsec uti v eq u art e r s of e f f l uent vi ol ati o n s f r o m Jul y 20 0 2 th ro ug h J u ne 20 0 5

. W eeval uat e d t h e a g ree d or der an d determined it was untim ely because it addr esse d vi ol ati ons fr om March an d A p ri l 20 0 0

. W e co ul d not m ake a d e t e rmi n ati on on the pretreatment enforc ement action t aken i n 20 0 4 duet o a l ack o f i n fo rm ati on in PCS andt h e d ata files.
A s stated in ourr e po rt , w equestio n t h e appropriatenes s of an e n force m ent action t aken i n 19 8 8 t h at , acc or di n g t o O E C A , “ren der s al l ef f l uent vi ol ati o n s res o l v e d p e nd ing sin ce t h at ti m e ,” wh ile th e facility conti n ues t o vi ol at e pe rmit s l i mi t s and d i sch arg es to an im p a ired waterbod y. Fo r th is facility, ou r esti m ate of p o llu tan t l o adi n gs use dt h e desi g n fl o w
. T h e re p o rt ’ s scop e an d m e th odo log y clearly lays o u t h o w we calcu latedt h e ex cess po llutan t lo ad i n g s
. 1 2 Ch ap ter 2, p a ge 5 In su fficien t Form al Actio n s at 2 2 Facilities, p

. 8: OECA is rel u ctant to acce pt this finding without furthe r evaluati on under a c o rrect in terpretatio n of th e gu id an ce. Th is relu ctan ce i s base d onO E C A ' s expe ri enc e re vi ewi n g t h e facilities th at th e OIG ex ami n ed in its Au gust 2 006 d r af t r e po rt wh er ein its f i nd ing s w e r e dram atically diffe rent th a nOIG ' s f i n d i n g s (e.g., 53 or 93% r eceive d an appropriate enforcem ent re sponse ). As explained in O E CA 's r e spon se t o th e Augu st 2 006 d r af t report, OIG' s inaccurate inte rpretation of t h e EMS, failu re t o co nsid er wh eth e r a facility was i n "res ol ve d pen d i n g" st atus, an d t h e ex clu s i o n of relev a n t info rm at io n , resu lts in inaccurate fi ndings . T h e sam e problem s exist in th is d r aft repo rt. See O I Gres p o n se t o c o mm e nt s 7 an d 10 above.
We foun d th at 2 2 facilities (21 facilities o n c e D e ch er d is r e mo v e d, s e e r e sp on s eto comment #23) in SNC recei ve d insufficient form al actio n s an d 30 facilitie s d i d n o t receive tim ely actions. We st ated that we coul d not j u d g e th e ap p r op ri at eness of th e actions becaus e OEC A had not clearly and u n a m b ig uou sl y d e f i n e d how q u i ck ly a facility mu st co m e in to co m p lian ce. OECA stated that 53 facilities received an appropriate res p onse , but it failedto state 5 3 receive d a tim e l y response. We co nsid ered wh eth e r a faci lity was in

30# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e “resol vedpe n d i ng” a s i n di cat ed by PC S o r OTIS an d OECA su b mittedd a ta. W e foun d th at 1 3 facilities h a dreceiv e d no fo rm al acti on d u ri ng o u r re vi e w peri odb u t had recei ved a c tions pri o r to t h e start of our r e v i ew p e r i od

. W e con s id er ed th es e a c tion s in our re view

. Howe ver , w e f o und that all 1 3 facilities h a d u n a dd ressed SNC vi ol ati o n s du ri ng o u rre vi ew peri od

. As stated in C h apter 3, OT IS data for Reg i on s 4 , 5 , an d 6 do no t sho w facilities with activeenforcem ent actions as res o lve d pen d i n g e v e n t h o u g hth ey ar ere qui re d t o do so. T hus , OEC A ’s data system s do not s h ow th e co rr ec t e n fo rcem ent status of facilities, as req u i red b y regu l atio n
. 13 C h apt e r 2 , pag e 5 OEC Abas e s i t s fi n d i n gs o n f o l l o w - up discussi ons with Re gional staff - to OEC A ' s know ledg e it do es no t appear that the OIG base d i t s fi ndi n g s onf o l l o w- u p di scussi o n s with Reg i on al staff. The fact that we disa gree with OEC A on many of the fa cts and infere nces in t h is r e po rt do es no t i m p l y th at w e ig no r e dEPA ' s views

. On thecont rary , we caref u lly rev i ewed all written co mm en t s and v e rb al comm e nt s m a d e at th e num erous m eeti ngs we attended wi th OECA an d regional staff. Fo llowing co mp letio n of fiel d wo rk and submi ssi on of ou r di scu ssi o n dra f t t o OEC A o nMay 26 , 200 6, w e m e t w i th O E CA and/or re gi o n alst aff o n J u ne 7 , Ju ne2 9 , Oct o ber 2 4 , Oc t obe r 26 , an d No vem b er 8, 20 0 6

. Fu rt her, OEC A s ubmi t t e d dat a o n No vem b er 16 ( i n res p on se t o th e No vem b er 8 m eeti ng wi thOEC A an dre gi o n al st af f) th at reflectedco n s u ltatio n wit h reg i o n a l staff. 1 4 Ch ap ter 2, p a ge 5 OECA d i sag r ees with th e stat e m en t th at ".

. . facilities with SNC violations mu st receive a fo rm al enforc e m ent action

. . . o ra retu rn to co m p lian ce with in t h e q u arter fo llowing t h e SNC vi ol ati o n. " OI G' s st ate m ent, e x cerpted in p art, fro m th e EMS im p lies th at ev ery SNC violation re quires a form al enforcem ent actio n
. In fact, th e EMS prov i d es flex ib ility to Regions an d st ates to a d dress SNC - theEM S allows t h at an appropriate res p onsem a y be form al o rin formal, with ju stificatio n , o r th at a facility m a y retu rn t o co m p lia n ce o nits own

. As stated prev io u s ly, th e OIG's draft report doe s ac knowledgethat informal actions arean o p tion ; h o wever, t h e repo rt fo cuses so lely on whet her EPA or thestates took form al en fo rcem en t actio n at the 5 7 facilities. By only e v aluating whet her a formal enforcem e n t acti on hadb e e n t ake n, th e ev al uati on i g no re s th e pro v i sion s in th e EMS which allo w an See O I Gres p o n se t o c o mm e nt s 7 an d 10 above.
Alabam a and/or EPA s h oul d have iss u ed a form al enforc e m ent action by the e n d of Sep t em b e r2004

. Th e inf o r m al actio n w a s issu ed after th e facility h a d b e en in SNC for fo ur co nsec uti v e quart ers
.

31# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e in fo r m al en f o rce m en t r e sponse. Th e EMS recognizes that an i n form al enforcem ent r e spon se m a y b e th e m o st app r op r i ate response give n the circ um stances of thecase. Inform al responses ar e use ds u ccess f ully by EPA and states to a d dress SNC violations.

• For e x am ple, Alabam a issued a Notice of Vio l atio n (NOV) t o Cen t erv ille to address ch lorin e t o tal resid u a l. Th e NOV resu lted in th e p e rmi tte e ch an g i n g its treatm e n t t echn o l o gy f o r di si nfecti o nan d su b mittin g a sch e du le for m aki n g su ch change. Clearl y , this inform al action induced the pe rmittee to tak e co rrectiv e acti on. 1 5 Ch ap ter 2, p a ge 5 Th e d r aft repo rt fails to ackn owledg e th e com p liance status classification of " r esol ve d p e nd ing , " i.e., a p e rmi ttee in co m p lian ce with enforcem ent order and on track to ach iev e co m p lian ce pursu an t to a co mp lian ce sch e d u le b u t h a s no t yet ach iev e d fu ll co m p lian ce with p e rmit co n d ition s
. OEC A b e liev e s t h at th e OI G mi si nt erpr et ed S N C vi ol ati ons fo r sev e ral facilitie s as b e ing "u n a d dressedb y enforcem ent ac tion" whe n i n fact, they we re addresse d. Below arejust a fe w e x am ples of facilities th at were reso lv ed p e nd ing du ri n g OI G' s 1 2 quart er re vi ew pe ri o d: We co nsid ered wh eth e r a faci lity was in “resol vedpe n d i ng” a s i n di cat ed by PC S o r OTIS an d OECA su b mittedd ata. We fo und that 13 facilitie s ha d receive d no form al acti on du ri n g o u r re vi ew pe ri o dbut ha d receive d actions prior to the st art of our r e v i ew p e r i od

. W e con s id er ed th es e a c tion s in our re view

. Howe ver , w e f o und that all 1 3 facilities h a d u n a dd ressed SNC vi ol ati o n s du ri ng o u rre vi ew peri od

. As stated in C h apter 3 of our dra f t re port, O T IS d ata fo r Reg i on s 4 , 5 , an d 6 do no t sh ow facilities with activ e enfo rcem en t actions as res o l v ed pe nding e v en though they are required to do so. T hus , OECA’s dat asy st em s do not sh o w th e cor r ect en fo rcem en t statu s o f facilitie s, as req u i red b y regu latio n
. To ov erco m e th is issue, OIG u tilizedOEC A ’s o w n ex tensiv e d ata col l ecti on e f f o rt s pr o v i d e donNo vem b er 16 , 2 006

. See OI G r e spon se t o co mmen t s 16 to 19 bel o w. 1 6 Ch ap ter 2, p a ge 6 City o f Attalla, AL - Alab am a issu edan admi ni strati v e con s ent or de r on Fe bruary 2 6 , 2 002 , t o th is facilit y ad dressing v i o l atio ns o f efflue nt limits fo r BO D 5 m a ss an d conce n tr ati o n, TSS m a ss, TS S % rem oval , B O D 5 % rem oval , pH , an dT oxi ci ty , an df o r Sanitary Se wer Overflows. The conse n t orde r requ ired retu rn to co m p lian ce with in 10 95 day s up o n th eeffecti v e dat e of th e or de r. Wh en prob lems p e rsisted , Alab am a fileda co m p lain t in state co urt o nFeb ru ary 10 , 20 03 resu lting in a co n s en t d ecree wh ich was finalized on M a y 13, 2005. Alabam a did not w a it un til Febru ary 20 05 (1095 d a ys) t o The c o nsent de cree iss u ed on May 13, 2005, is an escalation of an e x isting action. T hus , it is u n c lear if t h is escalation i s ti m e ly according t o the EMS c riteria. Howeve r, it sh ou l db e n o t ed th at t h e Febru ary 26 , 20 02 , action, which precede d our e v aluation tim e peri od , wo ul dbe c o n s i d ere dunti m ely si nce it addresse d 27 sanitary se wer overflows r e po rt edf r o m Janu ary 1 999 t h rou g h Oct o ber 2 0 0 1 and 1 2 vi ol ati o ns of bi oc hemi cal oxy gen dem a nd an dt o t a l sus p en de d s o l i d s fr om June t h r o ug h Nov e m b er 2 001

. Th is facility h a d 1 1 quart ers o f e ffl uent vi ol ati o ns fr om Jul y

32# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e escalate form al enforcem ent whe n it believe d a stronger approach wa s nece ssary to ass u re th e facility will add r ess its prob lem s ex p e d itio usly. 2 002 thro ugh Ju n e200 5.

1 7 Ch ap ter 2, p a ge 6 Laf a yette STP, TN- Tenn essee issu edan ad mi n i strativ e o r d e r ag ai n s t t h is facility in Ap ri l 2 0 0 2 t o a d dr ess vi ol ati ons of ef fl ue nt limits for Nitrogen, Amm onia , TSS, fecal coliform , and DO. T h e orde r require d expansi o no f t

h e pl ant (com pl et ed i n 20 0 4 ) t o achieve com p liance. TheLafayette STP was n o t a m a j o r facilit y u n til th e 3rd Qu arter o f 20 0 4

. TheSTPco nti nue d t o h a ve pr o b l e m s with Nitrog en , Amm o n i a, an d Settleab le Sol i d s
. It i s n o t u n comm on f o r vi ol ati ons t o occur during pl ant ex pansi o n and st art

- u p because it take s tim e fo r the a c tivated sludge to fo r m , to estab lish op ti mu m activ atedsludge wasting rate, mix liq uor co n c en tration , andto reach a stea dy state of operati o n. Whe n vi ol ati o n s persi s t e d aft er th e st art-up of th e new pl an t an d al l o wi n g fo r a peri odo f ti m e t o reach steady st ate of operati o n, Tennessee issued a sec ond a d mi nistrative orde r in May 2 006

. Th e Facility R e g i stry System, wh ich relies o nPCS d ata, lists Lafayette as a m a j o r sin c e A ugu st 2002

. ( S ee C o mmen t #2 3)
Th e Ap r il 2002 ad mi n i str ativ e or d e r d i d no t ad dress settleab le so lid s. D u ri ng o u r re vi ew p e ri o d , th e faci lity was in SNC for sev e n q u arters fo r settleab le so lid s th at were no t addresse d by form al enforce m ent actions. Mo reo v e r, th is facility h a dthree consecutivequarters of SNC efflue nt v i o l atio ns for settleab le so lid s after t h ird quarter 2004, whe n OEC A cl aim s this facility b eca m e a m a j o r. Thu s , ev en un d e r OECA’s facility classificatio n, th is facility shoul d havere ceived a form al enforcem ent acti on bef o r e t h e e n do f sec o ndq u art e r 2 005

.

18 C h apt e r 2 , pag e 6 Austi n , IN - P e r th e PC S c o mm e nt fi el d fo r th is facility, the state's 2 0 0 2 ord e r sp ecifically addr esse d t h e NP DES sche d u l e vi ol ati ons
. The only issue was t h at the order was not p r op erly lin ked in PCS to show th at t h e sche dul e vi ol ati ons we re resol v ed pe n d i n g. Austi n Municipal W a stewate rT r eatm e nt Plant ha d at least four c onsec utive quarte rs of

com p l i a nce sche dul e vi ol ati ons aft e r th e Febru ar y 200 2 Co n s en t O r d e r. Th ese SN C v i o l atio ns w e r e un addr essedby en fo r cem en t actions. According to OECA, the state’s 20 0 2 C onse n t Or der ad dr esse d th eN P D E S sche dule violations that occurred after the o r d e r was issued

. If issu ing an admi nistrative or der res o lve s fut u re com p l i a nce sched u l e pr o b l e m s , we d o not u n d e rstand h o w OECA h a s an y facilities in SNC fo r c o m p l i a nce sc hed u l e s vi ol ati ons an d do no t under s tand w h y it w o u l d b ea categ ory of SNC. 1 9 Ch ap ter 2, p a ge 6 Hillsb o ro, TX- Th e city o f Hi llsb o r o h a d mu lti p l e effl ue nt vi ol ati ons d u ri ng 2 0 0 2

. Texas a s ke d R e gi o n 6 t o i ssu e an admi nistrative order addressing the s e vi ol ati o n s whi l e th e st at e deve l ope d an enforcem ent ac tion. An a d mi n i strative o r de r was i s s u edby EPA R e gi o n 6 on M arc h 25 , 2 003

. When the city failedto respon d adeq uat e l y t o t h e or der , R e gi on6 i ssue d anot her admi ni strati v e o r der o n J u n e 12 , 20 0 3 , whi c h al s o a d dr esse d c onti n ui ng ef fl ue nt violations. Thecity submitted an acce pta b le co m p lian ce p l an o nJu ly 17 , 20 03 , wh ich w a s m oni t o red cl os el y whi l e Te xa s co nti n uedt o OIG’s analysis indicates t h at bot h of these enforcem ent ac tions we r eun timely. Th e M arch 2 0 0 3 A d mi ni strati v e Or der addr esse d vi ol ati ons fr om January 20 0 2 t o O c tob e r 200 2. Th e Jun e 20 03 Admi ni strati v e Or de r a d dr ess e d vi ol ati o ns fr om Novem b er 20 0 2 t o M arc h 20 0 3

.

33# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e d e v e l o p its enfo rcem en t actio n
. Th e p e rmit te e has bee n i n res o l v e dpen d i n g st atus f r om A p r il 200 4 th ro ugh th e pr esen t ex cep t f o rt h e quart er o f Ap ri l th r o u g h J une 2 005 w h en th ey h a d add ition a l efflu e n t v i o l atio n s
. Th ese violations wereaddres sed by a state admi ni strati v e or der i ssue d o nJul y 14 , 20 0 6

. Th is action requ iredth e facility to co m e in to fin a l co m p lian ce with effl u e nt li mits n o later th an Octob e r 12 , 20 06

. Th e facilit y co m p lied wi th th i s re qui r e m e nt andh a s hadn o f u rthe r v i o l atio ns to date. 2 0 Ch ap ter 2, p a ge 7 OIG's d r aft repo rt still in clud es Mich ig an facilities (e.g ., Flin t In k and Great Lakes Tissue) eve n t h ough a known state-wide data sy st em pro b l e m , di scussedat l e ngt h wi th t h e O I G in r e spon se to its A ugu st 2 006 d r af t, resu lted in i n co rrect SNC d e termin atio n s and sub s eq ue nt m a nagem e nt deci si ons n o t t o resp o n dt o som e effl uent vi ol ati ons. DM R d ata inp u t issues in Mich i g an ex isted fro m Oct o ber 2 0 0 3 th r o ug h S e pt ember 2 0 0 5

. As suc h , rep o rt s o f vi ol ati ons o c cur r i n g du ri n g th is ti m e fram e , in clud ing n on-repo rting vi ol ati o n s , ar e que sti ona bl e. OEC A bel i e ve s EPA Re gion 5 appropriately exercise d its enforcem ent di scretion to m ake th edeci si on n o t t o r e spon d. OECA ’s earlier c o mm e nts on ly refer r edto St at e-wi dedat asy st em pr obl em s i n v o l v i n g DMRs and com p liance sc he dul e re po rti n g. As a res u l t o f t

hos e c o mm e nt s, we eli min ated2 5 o f th e 30 Michig an facilities from our tim e liness as sessm ent. We retain ed fi v e Mich ig an facilities th at h a d effl ue nt vi ol ati ons i no u r ti m e l i n ess re vi ew
. If PCS c o din g issues e x ten dt o e fflue nt vi ol ati o n s , as OEC An o w s u gge st s, we ar e even m o re concerne d a b out t h e inte grity of EPA ’ s dat asy s t em s. H o we ve r, wi th out ad d ition a l ev iden ce o f tho s e newly rep o rted dat ap r obl em s, we ar e ret a i n i n g th e s e fi ve cases in t h e final report.
21 C h apt e r 2 , pag e 7 • For e x am ple, the 12 consec utive quarters of

ef fl ue nt vi ol ati ons ci t e di n OI G' s dra f t repo rt at Flin t In k were act u a lly to x i city vi ol ati o n s th at occu rre d f o r o n e quart er (Fe b ru ary an d M arch 2 0 0 0 ) . As e xpl ai ned to the OIG on several occasi o ns, t h ese vi ol ati o n s c onti nue d t o ap pear duet o im pro p er c o di n g i nPC S

. Fu rt her , Mich ig an wo rked with Flin t In k to find th e so urce o f th e tox i city and d i sco v e red an issu e with a water add itiv e. Flin t Ink ' s permi t was su b s eq uent l y m odi fi ed t o with draw p e rmissio n t o u s e t h e add itiv e and the c o m p any cease d use. A mu lti

m e di a i n specti o nco n duct e d b y R e gi o n 5 in 200 6 confirmedcessation o f th e ad d itiv e andt h at th e co m p an y was m ovi ng a m a jo ri ty of i t s pr oce ss o u t of state th u s elimi n atin g all d i scharg es to surface waters . Thetoxicity violations wereaddre ssed and resol v ed by state acti on (com pl i a nce assi st an cean d permi t m odi fi cati on), and th e ge neral n o n
rep o rti n g vi ol ati ons were a di rect res u l t o f Michigan' s dat asyste m issues

. O E CA r e po rt edth at t h e kn ow n State-w i d e dat asy st em probl em s i n v o l v e d onl y r e po rting is su es s u ch a s d i s c har g e m o n ito rin g repo rting andco mp lian ce sche dul e rep o rti ng. Fl i n t ha d 12 q u art e rs of effl ue nt vi ol ati ons d u r i n g ou r revi e w peri o d

. Flin t was still in SNC for effl u e n t s violations in Septem ber 2006 accordi n g to EPA ’ s data sy s t em , ECHO. OECA ’s data pr o v i d e don N ovem b er 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , di d not state that the 12 quarters of e f flue nt vi ol ati o n s weret oxi ci ty vi ol ati ons f r om Feb ruary an d M arch 2 0 0 0

. OEC A ’s r e spon se is contr a d i cto ry. O E CA states th at th e vi ol ati o ni s d u e t o i m prop er c odi ng
. Th en it states th ere was a tox i city p r ob lem , and that it was addresse d an d resol v ed th r o u g h St at e a c ti on. Fr om O E C A ’s respon se and ou r an alysis, we b e liev e Flin t was i n SNC an d did not recei ve tim ely acti on.

34# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e 22 C h apt e r 2 , pag e 7 • The tw o conse c utive quarters of m e rcury violations at Great Lake' s Tissue cited in OIG' s dra f t re port wereaccurately po rtray e d

. Ho weve r, since t h ey occu rre d at

th e ve ry e n do f O I G' s revi e w peri od , O E CA do es not u n d e r s tand ho w th e concl u sion was reac hed that no action was t aken

. PC S i n di cat es, an d th eR e gi on has c o nfi r m e d, th at M i chi g an refe rre d th e case to t h e stat e Attorney Ge neral i n J u ly o f

200 5. A tim e l y en force m en t actio n sh ou l d h a v e beent ake n by M i chi g ant o a d dress th e m e rcury e ffl u e nt vi ol ati ons at Gr eat Lake s Tissu e b y Ju n e20 05 , wh ich is pr io r to t h e en d of ou rev al u atio n p e r i od

.

23 C h apt e r 2 , page s 7- 9 OI G c o m p letely disre g ar de d OECA' s Oct o b e r 2 006 co mmen t s to t h e A ugu st 20 06 dr af t repo rt relatin g to a n u m b e r o f min o rfacilities in Regi ons 4 an d 6 that were inaccurately include d i n his analysis as m a jors - these facilities were n o t classi fiedas m a j o rs du ring the analysis an d the r ef ore not subject t o SNC scr een i n g dur in g all or p art of th e OI G ' s eval uati o n peri od

. R e gi o n 4 has r econ f i r m e d th at 3 facilities in Ten n e ssee (Lafay ette STP, Deche r d C i ty STP an d M u n f or d La g o o n ) w e re n o t m a j o r facilities d u r i n g all o r p art of t h e OI G' s 1 2 quart er re vi ew pe ri o d

. Lafay e tt e di d n o t b e co m e a maj o r facility u n til th e 3rd quart er o f 20 0 4 whe n t h e pl ant ex pande d. Two o th e r Regio n 4 facilities in TN (Dech e rd City STP and Mu nf or d Lag o o n ) w e r eno t classifiedas m a j o r facilities u n til th e 4 t h Q u arterof 2 004 an d th e 4 th Q u arterof 2 005 , resp ectiv ely. Neith er o f t

h ese facilities h a d SNC vi ol ati o ns re po rt ed i n t h eQ N C Rd u ri n g th e O I G e v al uati on peri odan dth ere f o r e sho u l dnot hav e bee n s u bject t o S N C evaluation by t h e OIG (see att achm e nt 2 for l e tt e rs fr om R e gi o n 4 fi l e s d o c um enti ng st atus change dates). R e gi o n 6 has r econ f i r m e d th at 4 facilities in Tex a s (New B o st o n , SWS Hol d i n gs, Tex a s De pt

. of C r i mi n al Justi ce, an d W i n d e rm e r e Utility) were no t m a j o r facilities d u r i n g th e OIG's 1 2 q u arter rev i ew p e ri o d

. Alth oug h PCS is th e l e g a l d atab a se of record for the NPDES program , dates of status change ar e not tracke din PCS - t h e date asso ciated with a ch ang e in facilit y statu s fr om a mi nor t o a m a jo r i s m a nual l y tr ac kedi n files at the Re gional office. For three of the fou r Tex a s facilities (New B o sto n , SWS Hol d i n gs, Tex a s De pt

. of C r i mi n al Justi ce), the OIG' s conc lusions werebased on dates it foun d in t h e Facilit y Reg i stry Syste m (FRS) - an in teg r ated , co m p reh e n s iv e, mu l ti- m e d i a W e r e m o v e dDech erd( T N 0020 508 ) fr o m our sam p le. We included De c h erd, as well as th e o th e r facilit ies OECA qu estion s , i n ou r sam p l e bec ause E P Adat a bases s h ow ed th at facility was a m a j o r facility in SNC th r o u g h o u t ou r re vi ew peri od

. H o weve r, o u r find ing s reg ard ing t h e o ther six facilities are still v a lid

. W e o b t ained data o nth e status of th e six facilities fro m th e Facility Reg i stry System

. According to Office of E n vironm ental In fo rm ati on st aff an d dat ad o c u m e nt ati on, th e Facility Reg i stry System p u lls in fo rm atio n from PCS. Th e Facility R e gi stry Sy st em woul d o n l y sho w t h at a facility is a m a j o r if PCS was u p d ated and also co n s i d eredit a m a j o r. Th e Facility Reg i stry System sh o w s t h e st atu s o f facility (m ajor or mi nor) an d th edat e i n w h i c hth e last ch ang e was m a d e in th e Facility R e gi stry Sy st em
. Offi ce of E nvi ro nm ent a l In fo rm ation staff ve rifi ed t h at the date t h e i n f o rm ati on wa s l a st u pdat e d wo ul do n l y chan ge i f th ed at ai n PC S change d.
Th e Facility R e g i stry System con f irm s th at Laf a yette STP ( T N00 208 77) h a s b e en a m a jor si nce A u gust 2 0 0 2

. E v en usi n g OECA’s d ata i n terp retation , Lafayette h a d th ree c o nsecuti ve quart ers o f SNC e ffl uent v i o l atio ns for settleab le so lid s after becomi ng a m a jo r. T h i s faci l i ty di d not receive a tim e ly form al enforce m ent action t o ad dr ess t hos e SNC vi ol ati ons. Accord ing to th e Facility Registry Syste m , th e Tex a s Dep t . of C r imin al Ju stice ( T X00 315 77) h a s b e en a m a j o r sin ce N o v e m b er 2 001 ; N e w B o ston ( T X 002 601 8) h a s b e en a m a j o r sin ce May 20 02 ; SW S Hol d i n gs (T X0 07 0 9 5 5 ) has be en a m a jo r sin ce A ugu st 20 02 ; W i nd er m e r e

35# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e d ata system main tain ed b y EPA's Office o f Env i r o n m en tal In fo r m atio n (O EI)

. OEI staff confirm e d that FRS does not t r ack dates asso ciated with a ch ang e in facilit y statu s - it tracks dates of permit application receipt and issu an ce. Thu s , it is no t po ssi ble to d e termin e whe n a facility becam e a m a j o r by l o oking i n the FRS. For e x am ple, th e A u g u s t 30 , 200 2 d ate th at t h e IG b a sedits conclu sion o nfo r SW S Ho ld i n gs was t h e d ate t h e p e rmit application wa s receive d, not the date t h e facility b eca m e a m a j o r. FRS i s no t th e leg a l database o f rec o r dfo r NP DE S p r o g r am
. It sho u l dbe not e d th at t h e ne w IC IS -N PDE S dat asy st em wil l im proveo n t h e c u r r ent fun c tion a lity av ailab l e in PC S b y p r ov id i n g a "begi n date" an d "end date" t o trac k t h e co nv ersion

. In ad d ition , as a resu lt of th e State Rev i ew Fr am e w ork pro j ect, the Inte grate d D a ta fo r En fo rce m en t A n alysis Syste m (I DEA ) n o w c ont ai n s quart erl y "snaps h o t s " of th e m a j o r/mi n o ran d activ e/inactiv e facility st atus o f t

h e N P DES pe rmi t t e d uni verse
. T h i s featurei s an a d di ti onal s o urceo f hi st ori cal inform ation that OECA now can access as neede d

. Fo r on e of th e fou r Tex a s facilities (W i n d e rm ere Utility), th e OIG b a sedits co n c l u sion t h at th e facility was a m a j o r on the fact th at th e facilit y h a s a d e sig n flow o f 2 MGD. EPA's defin itio n of a maj o r mu n i cip a l facility is a facilit y with a d e sig n flow > 1 MGD, howev er, t h is facility is no t a mu n i cip a lity. It h a s an SIC cod e o f 655 2 and i s th ere f o r e s u bject t o E P A' s defi ni ti on o f m a jor ( w hi c h i s a c o m p l e x fo rmul a consideri n g a num b er of factors) for an in du strial facility (see attach men t 2 fo r letters fr om R e gi on 6' s fi l e s doc um enti n g st atus change dates). ( T X00 748 53) h a s b e en a m a j o r sin ce Mar c h 2 004 ; andM unf or d Lag oon (TN0 062 499 ) has bee n a m a jor si nce Sept e m ber 20 0 4

. W i nderm e re had three c o nse c utive quarters of

SNC vi ol ati ons aft e r M arc h 20 0 4 th at were no t ad dressed with fo rmal enforcem ent ac tions s o it did not receive ti m e ly actio n
. Si milarly, Mu n f ord Lag oon had three c ons ecutive quarters of SNC vi ol ati o n s a f t e r Sept em ber 20 04 th at were not a d dres sed with form al enforcem ent acti ons. As ad d ition a l ev id en ce, we spo k ewith th e co nsu lting en g i n eer fo r th e City o f New Bo ston , wh o st atedth at New Boston has been a m a jor for at least 10 y ears.

2 4 Ch ap ter 2, p a ge 9 Un tim el y En forcem en t at 3 0 Facilities, p

. 8 - 9: OECA is rel u ctant to acce pt this finding because of OIG' s mi sinterpre t ation of t h e EMS ti m e lin ess stand ard

. See comm ents 25 to 27 below.

25 C h apt e r 2 , pag e 9 As not e da b ov e, th e O I Grel i e s o n a 1 9 9 9 m e m o rand um in s p i t e o f OEC A ' s expl an ati o n th at th e tim el y stan d ard in t h e me m o ran d u m i s not bei n g i m pl em ent e d. OEC A st at edi n Octob e r 200 6 th at th e tim ely s t an d ard n e ed s t o b e clarifiedand we will rescin d th e 19 99 me m o
. We relied on the 19 9 9 m e m o ran d u m because it provides the W ate r Enforcem ent Div i sion ’s o f ficial in terpretatio n of t h e EMS l a ng uageco nc erni ng ti m e l y andap p r o p ri at e enf o rcem ent

. OI G doe s not b e l i e ve rescind i ng the me m o will clarify th e ti m e lin ess stand ard

. On th e co n t rary, rescind i ng the me m o will m ak e th e ti m e lin ess stand ard op en to i n terp retation

.

36# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e 2 6 Ch ap ter 2, p a ge 9 Th e OIG i g nores flex i b ility in th e EMS lan g u a g ereg ard ing tim el in ess (see C h ap ter II, Attachm e nt B). T h e purp ose of guidan ce, such as th e EM S, i s t o p r ovi de rec o mm e ndati ons an d set p r o g ram ex p ectatio n s - no t estab lish regu lato ry req u irem en ts (see App a lach ian Pow e rC o . v. EPA , 208 F. 3 d

- 1 015 (D .C

. Cir. 2 0 0 0 ) an d Barrick G o ldst rike M i ne s I n c
. v
. B r own e r, 2 1 5 F.3d 45 ( D .C . Cir

. 200 0) , fi n d i n g th at EP A gui dance cann ot have th e bi n d i n g e ffect of a ru l e m aki ng) . T h e OI G co n tinu e s, h o wev e r, to treat the recomm endations in the EM S as rigid requ irem en ts on th e Ag en cy. Our e v aluation does not advocate using t h e EMS as regu lato ry requ irem e n ts. It sim p ly uses OEC A ’s ow n pr o g ram p r i n ci pl es t o assess how wel l the Age n cy is issuing tim e ly and appropriate form al enforcem ent acti ons fo r l o n g -t erm SNC vi ol ati ons
. In our view, OEC A needs to have criteria in place s o that it can provide a d equate ove rsi g ht t o re gi o n an dSt at e pr o g ram s
.

27 C h apt e r 2 , page s 9- 10 Th e OIG fails to tak ein to acco u n t th e tim e neede d t o work with a state, gathe r m o re evide n ce t o s u pport a case, al locate res o urce s to an action and n e go tiate com p lex co rrectiv e measures t o re solvenoncom p liance. T h e OIG doe s not ac kn o w l e d g e th at state enforcem ent pr ocesses an d ti m e li nes mu st be c o n s i d ere di n d e termin in g reason ab le tim el i n ess. To illu strate, m a n y states h a v ethe au thority to issu e m o n e tary p e n a lties with i n a co m p lian ce order. Issuanceof s u ch an order m a y require lo ng er ti m e frames th an i n th e EMS d u eto p u b lic co mm e n t and p articip atio n requirem ents, or because a he aring is sche dule d , or because of com p lex ne gotiation sche dul es. T h u s , ju d g m e nt s on what i s a reason ab le time tab l e fo r actio n mu st u lti m a tel y b e case-sp ecific in co nsid eration of co m p lex co m p lian ce prob lems th at m a y require l o ng te rm studies and com p lex in

ju n c tive relief (see Barn es Me m o , Criteri a for Direct Fed e ral Enfo rcem en t in Deleg ated States, at pa ges 21 - 25). See O I Gres p o n se t o c o mm e nt s 7 an d 10 above.
Th e OIG’s ev alu atio n app lies th e p r og ramm a tic p r i n cip l es set fo rt h in th e EMS to d e termin e how well EPA reg i on s an d States are fu lfillin g t h eir en fo rcem en t respon sib ilities. Th e EM S represen ts O E CA’ s ow n en fo r cem ent principles for EPA re gions an d States. TheEMS als o p r ov id es t h e flex ib ility for each admi nistering agency t o deve lop m a nagem e nt p r oce d ures w h i c h ar e best su itedt o its operatio n s and reso urces with the goal of m o st efficiently translating co m p lian ce in fo rm atio n in to ti m e l y an d appropriate enforcem ent action. T hus , the flex ib ility d e sired b y OECA, to co nsid er man y o f th e issu es m e n tio n e d , is im p lic itl y considere di n t h e EMS. We ap preciate the n eed fo r flex ibilit y; h o w ev er, we b e liev e that OEC A nee d s t o havecrite ria in place s o th at it can p r ovid e appr op r i ate ov er si g h t t o regi onan d St at e p r o g ram s
. 28 C h apt e r 2 , page1 0 • Fo r ex am p l e, itis in co rr ect fo r O I G to concl ude o n pa ge 8 of th e dra f t rep o rt t h at EPA' s Admi nistrative Order against Co no co Ph illip s was un tim e l y
. Th ere are co m p lex selen i u m water qu ality stan d ard and pe rmitting issues as so ciat edwith th is facility. EPA was i n ex ten s i v e n e go tiatio n s wi th state p artn e rs, as well as Fish and W i l d life Serv ice and th e facility to reso lv e th e co m p lex p e rmi tt i n g issu es. Th e flex ib ility in h e ren t i n EPA's enforcem ent guidan ce is critical to b e i n g ab le to accoun t fo r su ch co m p lex circum stances. EPA issu edan Ad mi n i strativ e Ord e r ag ain s t Co no co Ph illip s Co m p an y on Augu st 14, 20 0 3 , t o a d dr es s ef fl ue nt vi ol ati ons fo r sel e ni um begi n n i n g J u l y 2 0 0 2

. T h e acti o n was untim ely because it was not take n by Decem ber 2002 (the end of t h e next quart er ), as re q u i r e d by EM S. Acc o r d i n g t o PCS, the facility continue d t o exceed selen i u m p e rmit li mits th rou g h Ju ne 2 005

.

37# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e 29 C h apt e r 2 , page1 0 • For e x am ple, the OIG states on pa ge 8 of th e draft rep o rt th at it cou l d no t d e termin e ti m e lin ess of 12 form al actio n s inv o l v i ng 1 0 facilities b e cau se t h e av ailab l e in fo rm atio n was no t ad equ ate. Furt herm ore, th e OI G st at es on pa ge 9 o f th e draft rep o rt th at fo r Co l u mb ian a WWTP, AL, timelin ess co u l d no t b e assessed because the action was not l i nkedt o t h e vi ol ati on. O E C Ad o es n o t un de rst a n dth i s st at em ent gi ve n th at Alabam a provi ded com p lianc e and enforcem ent files cont aining a copy of a C onse n t Or der , C o m p l a i n t an d C onse n t Decree fo r th is facility to th e OIG d u ring i t s onsi t e fi l e r e vi ew o n Fe b ruary 6 - 7, 2006 an d the OIG i n dicates that Alab am a ' s files were 1 0 0 % co m p lete in Tabl e 3- 1 on p a ge 11 o f t h e dr aft rep o rt

. As stated in t h e re port, we c o uld not d e termin e th e ti m e l i n e ss of t h e rem a in in g 1 2 fo rm al actio n s at 10 facilities b ecau s e av ailab l e informatio n was not sufficient. Specifically, the enforcem ent actions were not di rect l y l i n kedt o t h e S N C vi ol ati o n addr esse d or w h enth e SNC vi ol ati ons o ccurred

. W i t h ou t th is in formatio n , we coul d not det e rmi n e whet her th e acti o n was ti m e ly.
Alab am a d i dhav e files on all eig h t facilities fr om our sam p l e
. T h e C o nse n t Dec r ee was in th e file. Howev e r, the C o nsent Decree sim p ly accelerates an e x isting c o m p liance sche dul e fo r a C onse n t Or der i ssued o n Mar c h 21 , 20 02

. Th e langu ag e in th e d o c u m en t d o es no t d i rectly lin k th e action t o anS N C vi ol ati on. T h ere f o r e, we c o ul d n o t add r ess timelin ess. 30 C h apt e r 2 , page1 0 I t is no t clear w h y t h e I Gd i d no t tak e advant ageo f t

h e Wat c h Li st fo r i t s an al y s i s
. The Watch list and ass o ciated data provi des mu ch better insight related t o case-s p ecific circum stances and OECA' s tracking of enforcem ent timeliness. The OIG was provide dacces s to t h e Watch List, but it is uncl e ar whet he r i t was u s ed

. The OI G e v al u at e d w h ethe r E P A c o nd uct e d (1 ) tim ely enfo rcem ent on NP DES m a jo r facilities in SNC, and (2) p r oper o v e rsigh t ove r regi on s an dSt at es. The W at c hLi st i s deri vedf r om EPA’ s dat asy st em s. To av oi d erro rs, we u tili zedth e orig i n al d a ta in EPA’s data sys t e m s. Our m e thodology is p r esen ted in Ap p e nd ix A. 31 C h apt e r 2 , page1 0 Tim e ly Enforc e m ent Helps Minimi ze Excess Pol l u t a nt Di sc har g es, p
. 9: Se e OEC A response at pa ge 3, At A Glance, c o ncerning the accuracy of the pollutant reduction estim ate presented he re. See OI G r e spon se t o co mmen t 2 ab ov e.

32 C h apt e r 2 , page s1 0- 1 1 R ecomm e ndati o n2

- 1, p. 9: C l ari f y an d en fo rce EMS gu id an ce to en su re th at tim e l y and appropriat e form al enforce m ent actions are tak e n ag ainst NPDES facil ities in SNC.
O E CA Response: O E C A co ncu r s w ith th e reco mm en d a tio n to clarify its NPDES ti m e lin ess gu idan ce. As d i scussedwith OIG, OECA will rescin dt h e 1 999 OECA me m o ran d u m i n co nflict with th e EMS and will d i scu s s th i s with th e Reg i o n a l NPDES Enforcem ent Branc h C h iefs at th e n atio nal N P D E S m eetin g in Apr il, 2007

. O E C A disagrees, however, with the OI G' s comm e ndati o nt o "e nf orceE M S g u i d an ce." The EM S i s a m a nagem e nt t ool w h i c h facilitates ev alu a tio n and p e rfo r m a n ce rev i ew. It

i s n o t a set o f ri gi d re gul at o r y re qui rem e nts whi c h E P Ai mpos es onth e st at es or R e gi on s as the use of the term "enforc e " suggests. Rescin d i ng t h e gu id an ce witho u t a satisfacto r y replace m e n t will n o t “en s u r e th at ti m e ly an dap propriate form al enforcem ent ac tions ar e taken against NPDES faciliti es in SNC.” If OEC A rescind s t h e 1 9 9 9 m e m o ran dum , i t will n eed to exp l ain ho w it will u n a m b ig uou sly d e fin e tim e ly and appropriate e n forc e m ent.
We un de rst a n dOEC A ’s co nc erns ab o u t th e use of the word “e nforce” in the reco mm en d atio n. We will chan g eth e wo rd “enforce” to “im p le ment ” in th e fin a l repo rt.

38# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e 33 C h apt e r 3 , page1 1 Ch ap ter 3 : In ad equ ate Reco rd s andReportin g In hi bi t EP A O v ersi ght o f NP DES M a j o r Facilities, p

. 10 – 1 3

. C o m p lian ce and Enforcem ent Files Are In co m p lete, p. 1 0 : The authorize dstat es are res p onsi ble for kee p ing accurate rec o rds. As s u ch, E P A does not requ ire t h at all in fo rm atio n b esto r edi n duplicate in t h e Regi onal offices. T h e OIG appear s t o ass u m e th at EPAs h o u l dhave har d copies of all st ate files. T h is redundancy is neither practical nor e fficient. EPA has the ab ility to requ est in fo rm atio n at an y tim e an d h a s t h e ab ility t o au d it state files. Th e State Review Fram e w ork (SRF) establishe d a file rev i ew p r o t o c ol th at will b eim p l e m en tedin all 50 states by the e n d of FY 2007. When a state is not kee p ing acc urate records (e.g., in sp ection rep o rts or en forcemen t action s ), the SRF pro cess will id en tify th is an d fo rm al reco mm en d a tio n s an d mi lest o n e s will b e m a de t o e n s u rebett e r fi l e m a nagem e nt . To t h e ext e nt th at vi ol ati ons or p r obl em s not e di n files are no t in th e d atab a ses, t h e SRF p r o cess will also ad dress th is. An accurate history of the c o m p liance and en fo rcem en t activ ities at a facility is im port a nt f

o r o v ersi ght an d m aki n g fut u re enforcem ent decisions. T h e l ack of accurate i n formation inhi bits EPA’s a b ility to pro v i d e effectiv e ov ersi gh t to NPDES maj o r facilities andthu s pro t ect h u m an health an d the envi ronm ent from excess lev e ls of tox i c o r h armfu l po llu tan t s. We recognize that the State Review Fram ework m a y hel p a d dres s fi l e deficiencies at States no tedi n th is rep o rt. Ho we ver , onl y th e acti v eo v er si ght an d m a nagem e nt o f th eSt at e R e v i ew Fram ewo rk p r o cess will result in im provem ents. It is not clear what steps EPA pl an s t o t ake t o i m provei t s o v ersi ght and m a nagem e nt in t h is area.

34 C h apt e r 3 , page1 1 EPA' s Enforce m ent Data Syst e m s Are Inacc urat e , p. 11

- 1 2 : O E CA do es no t agr e e with thestatement that E P A' s data system s are inaccurate. T h e OIG provide s no c o ntext su ppo rting t h is bro a dstatem e n t bu t rath er appear s t o m ake th i s st at em ent base d up o n a specific, known problem in one state (M i c hi gan) . T h e O I G sh o u l di ndi cat e t h at EPA re qui res s t ates to ente r at least 95% of dischargem onitorin g rep o rt ( D M R ) an d effl ue nt l i mit dat a(w hi chge n e rat e S N C statu s ). Histori cally th ere are only two states that do not m eet or com e very close to this goal - M i chi g an , an d Ore g on
. As EP A p r ov id es C W Ad a ta to hun dr ed s o f tho u sands o f

u s ers v i a th e ECHO web site, it is unfortunate t h at the OIG re port classifies the data system s a s inacc urate be cause t h ere are d a ta tran slatio n issu es i n tw o o f fifty states. The EC HO we b site clearly c a veats these problem s
. These caveats should ha ve first alerted OIG sta ff t h at Michigan data s h ould be avoi dedan d c o ul d n o t beu s edt o dra w accurate c o nclusions a b out fa cilit y SNC statu s
. In add itio n, OECA, andth e Reg i o n a l of

fi ce p o i n t e d out t o th eO I G st aff o n num erous occa sions that the Michigan data sho u l dnot be u s ed i n th e O I Gstudy ; ho we ver , the OIG decide d to includethe flawe d data anyway. In re gard to t h e SNC status in ot her O u rf i nd ing s ab ou t N P D E S pr og r a m enforcem ent data syst e m s being inacc urate g o w e ll b e yond o u r f i nd ing s i n Mich i g an. Ou r rep o rt co n t ai ns seve ral e x am pl es of EPA ’ s dat asy s t em pro b l e m s , i n cl udi ng several t h at EP A has ac kn o w l e dge d elsewhe r e. EPA’s d a ta syste m s d o no t accu rately reflect th e SNC statu s o f faci lities. On ce a fo rm al enforc e m ent action is i ssue df o r an SNC v i o l ation , a facility sho u ldb e desi g n at edas “ r esol vedpe n d i ng” f o r

th at v i o l atio n, accord i n g to Title 40 , C o d e o f Fede ral R e g u l ati ons, Secti o n 12 3. 4 5

. Ho we ver , O E C A st at es th at R e gi o n s 4, 5, and6 (t he th re e re gio n s revie w ed ) d o not d e sign ate facilities in “reso l v e d p e nd ing

. ” Thu s , facilities in th ese reg i o n s m a y ap p ear to rem a in in SNC statu s in EPA’s d ata syste m s for a l o ng tim e despi t e ope rating with an ex isting en fo rcem en t actio n
. EPA staff also statedth at o n c e a facility receives a vi ol ation for submi tting DMRs late, th at v i o l atio n will con tinu a lly sho w as a v i o l ation i n EPA’s d ata syste m s u n til regi ons or States m a nually correct the pr o b l e m
.

39# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e states evaluate d, t h e OIG audit points out that man y facilities th at are flag g e din th e d a ta sy st em s as hav i ng SNC vi ol ati ons are act ual l y cove re d un der enf o rcem ent o r ders (t hus are t echni cal l y "re s ol ve d pe ndi ng "). E P Ai s aw ar e th at m a ny R e gi ons an dst at es pre f er

t o kee p th e SN C f l ag on to k e ep pr essu r eon t h e facility to co mp lete enforcemen t ord e r milestones. OE CA believes that states shoul d h a v eth e flex i b ilit y to m a n a g e SNC d ata as th e states determine is appropriat e. Kee p ing t h e SNC flag on is m o re in fo rm at iv e to t h e pu b l i c ( e .g ., it pu ts mo r epr essu r eon th e o w n e r / op er ator of th e p l an t to co m e b ack i n to com p liance).

• Rev i se th e title of th is sectio n to read "SNC an d vi ol ation data areinaccurate in Mich ig an " - t h is rev i sed lang uag e is co nsisten t with wh at OECA has already p o s ted on its web site. The State of M i chigan ha s ha d data pr o b l e m s
. W e coul d not e v al uat e th e tim e liness of e n forcem en t acti ons at 2 5 of th e 30 Mich ig an facilities d u e to th e State

w i d e d ata p r oble m
. Ev en thou gh w e d i d no t evaluate tim eliness of e n force m ent actions at th e 25 facilities, we d i drepo rt on th e ob vi o u s o v er si ght p r o b l e m s that exi s t fr om a State having syste m proble m s for years

. Th e EC HO Web s ite no tes t h e fo llo wi n g data acc uracy i ssues. 1. A num ber of E P A-au t h o r i zed NPDES faciliti es in Reg i on 10 d o not ha ve up -t o
- dat e pe rmi t limi t s en teredin PCS. 2. DMR non -receip t is no t b e ing tracke df o r Cal i forn ia Clean Water Act N P DE S pe rmits. 3. In Indian a, m a ny non-receipt vi ol ati o n s ar e e rr one o u s an d ar e cu rren tly b e i ng in v e stig ated with reso l u tio n p e nd ing

. 4. InDela ware, V i rginia, an d W e st Virg in ia, so m e pH v i o l atio ns are in erro r. No re vision is necessary. 35 C h apt e r 3 , page1 2 M a ny Vi ol ati ons F o un d D u ri ng I n s p ecti o n s n o t Repo rted i n PCS, p
. 12 : Th is is an issu e th at has co nce rnedO E C A , an d we havebee n w o rkin g w i th th e R e g i o n s an ds t a t e s t o im pro v e s u chr e po rti n g si nc e 20 0 3

. As n o t e d i n O E C A ' s Oct obe r 2 0 0 6 res p ons e, t h e num ber of re p o rt e dvi ol ati o n s r o se fr om 22 0 in 200 3 to 4 , 441 in 200 5. Th e O I G Rep o rt fails to acknowled g e sub s tan ti a l p r og ress mad e b y OEC A in th is area. EPA h a s also been res p onsive to state reque s ts for cl ari f i cati on o nre po rti n g st an dar d s by fin a lizin g m o re clear g u i d e lines in reg ardto ho w s u c h i n f o rm ati on sh o u l d be rep o rt e dt o PCS. To en su re EPA h a s a full r eco rd of vi ol ati o n s f o un d, EPAh a s al s o pr o pose dt o th e st at es th at vi ol ati o nre p o rti ng be e xpan d e d to non -m aj o r facilities. T h e s t ep s tak e n b y OE CA are e n co ur ag ing ; h o wev e r, OEC A mu st i m p l emen t a qu ality assur a ncep r o g r am t o ensu re t h at vi ol ati ons f oun d du r i n g in spectio n s ar e r e po rt edin PCS.

36 C h apt e r 3 , page1 2 Bacteria not Reported as SNC, p. 12: T h e permi t param e ters th at ar e "el i gi bl e" t o be autom atically tracke dar e sp ecifically n o t ed in th e R N C re gul ati on, so EP A wo ul dbeu n a b l e t o si m p l y begi n tr ac ki n g t h es e as R N C o r SNC witho u t a reg u l atory chan g e
. Desp ite this o b s tacle, OEC A h a s p ilo ted ad d ition a l See O I Gres p o n se t o c o mm e nt 38 bel o w
.

40# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e m a nagem e nt cont rol s t o assi s t i n tr ac ki n g bact eri avi ol ati ons at di rect di schar g e r s. Fo r d i rect d i sch arge facilities, th e Watch List p r o cess pr ov ides Reg i on s and states with t h e cap ab ility to fl ag facilities th at h a v e continuing exc eedan ce s - w h i c h i n cl ude s b acteria an d o t h e r po llu tan t s th at are no t eval uat e d f o r S N C

. Whi l e o n l y som e R e gi on s an d states ar e req u i r e d to r e port und ert h is pi l o t , othe r R e gi o n s an d st at es useth e Wat c h Li st as way t o m oni t o r th ese othe r param e t e rs th at are no t in clu d e din th e reg u l ation

. OEC A is con s id ering wh et h e r th is p ilo t shou ld b e ext e n d ed

. OEC A i s al s o devel opi ng ne w repo rting cap a b ilities th at will en ab le u s ers t o autom atically a ccess thesevi olations. In OECA's Oct o ber 2 006 co mmen ts to th e OIG, EPA's ex isting NPDES SNC po licy was descri bedw h i c h i n cl ude s th e di screti o n t o fl ag "any ot her vi ol ati on of co nce rn" ( s uc h as b acteria) as SNC. OEC A is wo rking with an EPA-state advi sory group to s u pplem e nt the ex istin g NPDES SNC po licy to ad dress si gni fi cant vi ol ati ons fr om wet weathe r poi nt sou r ces (C om bi ned Sewe r O v erfl o w s , Sanitary Se wer Overflows, Concent r ated Anim al Feeding Ope r ations an d stormw ater) whic h incl ude the m o st significant source s of pol l u t ant s (i ncl udi ng bact e r i a ) n o t co ve redb y th e ex isting SNC Po licy . 37 C h apt e r 3 , page1 2 R ecomm e ndati ons 3

- 1, pa ge 1 2 : Im pl em ent a q u a lity assurance prog ram add r essi ng th e co m p leten e ss of co m p lia nce and enforcem ent files, accuracy of EPA data sy ste m s, and r e po rting i n PCS th e v i o l ation s f oun d dur ing in sp ection s
. • O E CA Response: O E C A co ncu r s and b e liev e s t h at its ex isting p r o c esses - wh ich in cl u d e SRF, the Watch List an d EC HO - p r o v i d e a reas ona bl e am ount o f q u a lity assurance. Th ese sub s tan tial eff o rt s we re no t di scus sedi n t h e OI G repo rt. In reg ardto in sp ection-related v i o l atio ns, EPA co n tinu e s to n e go tiate with states to ob tain th is repo rtin g , andis ju st be gi n n i n g a ne w R e gi o n al pi l o t t o ens u re t h at EPA-determined violations are acc urately tracke d

. OECA’s ex istin g activ ities (State Rev i ew Fram ework, t h e W atch List, an d ECHO) do n o t rep r esen t a q u a lity assurance prog ram
. The Watch Lis t and ECHO do not ap pear su fficien t to add r ess co m p lete n e ss o f files, data acc uracy, and re porting i n spection violations. Moreover, theStat e Review Fram ework m a y help States a d dress t h ese i ssues, b u t not necessari l y EPA r e gi ons
. OIG is no t conv in cedth at th ese ex isting effo rts will sufficien tly ad dress ou r recomm endati o n
. OEC A nee d s t o i m p l e m en t a qu ality assu ran c e prog ram addressi ng the com p leteness of c o m p liance and enforcem ent files, ac cura cy of EPA d ata system s, an d repo rting in PCS the vi ol ati o n s f o un d du ri n g i n spe c ti ons.
38 C h apt e r 3 , page s 12 -1 3 R ecomm e ndati o n 3

- 2, pa ge 1 2 : Est abl i s h co n t ro ls all o wi n g EPA lead ersh ip to i d en tify si gni fi cant no n c om pl i a nce by bact eri a
- o nl y violators for e n forcem ent action.

• O E CA Response : O E C A concu r s andis p u rsu i ng th is in three o th e r ways th at m a y If OEC A b e liev e s t h ese action s will estab lish co n t ro ls so EPA lead ersh ip can id en tify SNC by bact eri a
- o nl y vi ol at o r s f o r enforcem ent ac tion, we will a ccept their respon se. We will n eed to obtain an actio n

41# OECA Re sp o n se, Section/Page OECA Comm ents (Attachme n t 1 of its respons e) OIG Respons e haveth e sam e i n t e nde d e f f ect o f addr essi ng bac t eri awi th out t

h e si gni fi cant re so urceex pe ndi tu re i t w o ul d tak e to re-op e n th e tab l e of p aram e ters f oun d in t h e QN CR r e gu latio n at 4 0 CFR Part 12 3 .4 5 : 1 ) use of W at c h Li st pi l o t criteria wh ich in clud es bacteri a , 2) devel o p better analytical tools that can assist the Regi ons an d states in easily fl ag gi n g th es e pr o b l e m s and ty i ng th e pr o b l e m s t o wat e rshe d qual i ty , an d 3) conti n ue t o pr o v i d e di screti on f o r Regions an d st ates to elevate serious bact eri a vi ol ati ons t o SNC st atus vi a th e ex istin g NPDES SNC po licy . In ad d ition , to im provepublic access to i n form ation ab ou t su ch v i o l atio n s , OEC A will b e addi ng ef fl ue nt re po rt charti n g (i ncl u di n g bact eri a vi ol ati ons ) t o i t s EC HO dat a base i n 2 0 0 7

. Inad d i ti on, th em o st si gni fi cant sources of bacteria (c om bined sewe r ove rfl ow s, sani t ary sewe r ove rfl o w s, conce n tr at e dan i m al feedi n g ope rati o ns, and storm water) ar e i n cluded in an effort un de rway by OEC A ' s O ffi ceo f C i vi l Enforcem ent to devel o p a we t weathe r SNC p o licy. pl an an d mi l e stonedat e s f o r

w h enth ese actio n s will o c cu r.

42

### Appendix E 

# Distribution

Office of the Admi nistrator Assistan t Admi nistrator for Enforcem ent and Compliance As surance Regional Admi nistrator, Region 4 Regional Admi nistrator, Region 5 Regional Admi nistrator, Region 6 Agency Followup Official (the CFO) Agency Followup Coordinator General Cou n sel Principal Deputy Admi nistrator for E n forcem ent and Comp liance Assurance Director, Office of Regional Operations Director, Water Enforcem ent Division, Office of Enforce m e n t and Compliance Assurance Office of Enforcem ent and Comp liance Assuran ce Followup Coordinato r Regional Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 4 Regional Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 5 Regional Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 6 Associate A d mi nistrator for Congressi onal and Intergovernmental Relations Associ at e Ad mi ni strat o r for Publ i c Affai r s Acting Inspector General

43