National Municipal 

Policy and Strategy 

For Construction Grants, 

NPDES Permits, and 

Enforcement Under 

the Clean Water Act 

October 1979 
NOTES 

To order this publication, National Municipal Policy and Strategy (UNA-13.0) 

from EPA, write to: 

General Services Administration (8FFS) 

Centralized Mailing List Services 

Bldg. 41, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

Please indicate the ordering number and title of publication. 
NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY AND STRATEGY 

For Construction Grants, NPDES Permits, and 

Enforcement Under the Clean Water Act 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water Enforcement 

Office of Water Program Operations 

October 1979 
PREFACE 

A majority of municipal dischargers, for a variety of reasons, have not 

complied with the Clean Water Act's July 1, 1977 treatment requirements. These 

discharges contribute a substantial pollutant load into the waters of the 

United States. 

This National Municipal Policy and Strategy, published after months of 

comment and discussion, will serve to guide Regions and States in a productive 

period of activity aimed at achieving the Clean Water Act's goals of fishable 

and swimmable waters, in part through full municipal compliance. 

To give effect to this National Municipal Policy and Strategy, I have 

directed the Deputy Assistant Administrators for Water Enforcement and Water 

Program Operations to produce a Municipal Management System. I have further 

directed the Deputy Regional Administrators to work directly 

Offices to implement the 

Douglas M. Costle 

Administrator 
OUTLINE 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

Introduction 

Legislative Background 

Status and Scope of Municipal Noncompliance 

o Description of Noncompliance Problem 

o Remedies to the Noncompliance Problem 

Municipal Noncompliance Classification Process 

o Purpose 

o 301(i)(1) Initial Test 

o POTWs With Active Grants 

o POTWs Without Active Grants 

o POTWs Which Have Completed Construction 

Issuance of 301(i)(1) Extensions 

o The Relationship of Section 301(h) to 

Section 301(i)(1) 

VI Issuance of 309(a)(5)(A) Administrative Orders 

VII Priorities for Issuance of Extensions and 

Administrative Orders 

VIII 

IX 

o Pretreatment Priorities 

o Funding Availability and Schedule Development 

Treatment More Stringent Than Secondary 

Municipal Referral Priority System 

o Purpose 

o Scope 

o Effect of 301(i)(1) Request on Initiated 

Referrals 

o Procedure 

o Special Enforcement: Public Health and Fragile 

Ecosystems 

o Special Enforcement: Category IV 

o Implementation 

Formulating a Municipal Management System 42 

1 

3 

5 

8 

16 

22 

27 

33 

37 
PART I: INTRODUCTION 

An analysis of compliance indicates that the majority of publicly-owned 

treatment works (POTWs) have not completed construction necessary to meet the 

1977 treatment requirements. Many of these POTWs are eligible for relief from 

enforcement under the Clean Water Act (P.L. 95-217) by the provision in section 

301(i)(1) that provides for extensions of the time for compliance until no 

later than July 1, 1983. In response to this and other provisions applicable 

to municipalities, EPA has developed a National Municipal Policy and Strategy 

for more effectively managing municipal compliance with the Clean Water Act. 

The goal is to integrate permits, enforcement, and construction grant 

activities by: 

o issuing, to qualified POTWs, extensions with enforceable 

compliance schedules based on grant funding, in the form of 

permits and administrative orders; 

o coordinating with States to develop State Project Priority Lists 

which assure that grant funding is allocated to projects 

necessary to meet the enforceable requirements of the Act before 

funding is allocated to other projects, to the extent authorized 

by law; and 

o laying the foundation to permanently coordinate grant, permits, 

and enforcement operating practices with the aim of streamlining 

compliance by municipalities while simultaneously removing 

impediments to enforcement actions, if needed. 

The National Municipal Policy and Strategy under the Clean Water Act 

contains: (1) a process for determining whether a permittee will be eligible 

for a permit extension, be issued an administrative order, or be subject to 

referral for judicial action; (2) a brief description of how Construction 

-1- 
Grant and Permit staffs will coordinate in the issuance of National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits containing actual dates based on 

grant schedules as compliance milestones; (3) a brief description of how 

Construction Grants and Enforcement staffs will coordinate to produce 

administrative orders containing grant-based compliance schedules; and (4) a 

brief description of the relationship of permit and enforcement actions to 

State Project Priority Lists (PPLs) and the Clean Water Act's enforceable 

requirements. 

-2- 
PART II: LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND 

Section 301(i)(1) provides relief to POTWs which did not have adequate 

Federal funding in time to meet the 1977 treatment requirements. This section 

authorizes permit issuing authorities to grant timely requests for extensions 

of the July 1, 1977 treatment deadline, "where construction is required . . . 

to achieve limitations . . . but . . . (B) the United States has failed to make 

financial assistance under this Act available in time" (emphasis added). Any 

permit issued or modified under section 301(i)(1) must contain, among other 

terms and conditions, "a schedule of compliance . . . based on the earliest 

date by which such financial assistance will be available . . . and 

construction can be completed, but in no event later than July 1, 1983" 

(emphasis added). 

Section 216 authorizes the Administrator to remove a project from a 

State's priority list, "if the Administrator, after a public hearing, 

determines that a specific project will not result in compliance with the 

enforceable requirements of this Act" (emphasis added). The enforceable 

requirements of the Act include the conditions of an NPDES permit, or where 

no permit applies, any condition which the Regional Administrator determines 

necessary to meet applicable criteria for best practicable wastewater treatment 

technology (see 40 CFR 35.905). 

Since they also affect compliance with the Clean Water Act, several other 

sections have a direct effect on POTWs and the National Municipal Policy and 

Strategy. Sections 307(b) and (c) and 402(b)(8), as implemented by 40 CFR 403, 

-3- 
require certain POTWs to have a pretreatment program in place and approved by 

no later than July 1, 1983. Section 301(h) authorizes applications for 

modification of the secondary treatment requirements for certain POTWs 

discharging into marine and estuarine waters (see 40 CFR 125, Subpart G) -- 

many POTWs have requested both 301(i)(1) permit extensions and 301(h) permit 

modifications. 

-4- 
PART III: STATUS AND SCOPE OF MUNICIPAL NONCOMPLIANCE 

Description of the Noncompliance Problem 

POTW compliance with the July 1, 1977 treatment deadline has been 

classified as 

CATEGORY I 

CATEGORY II 

CATEGORY III 

CATEGORY IV 

CATEGORY V 

CATEGORY VI 

follows: 

POTWs that need construction to comply; did not significantly 

contribute to the delay in construction; construction grant 

funding is or will be available to assist in complying; and can 

complete construction by the 1983 deadline. 

POTWs that need construction to comply; did not significantly 

contribute to the delay in construction; construction grant 

funding through Step 3 is available to assist in complying; but 

cannot complete construction by the 1983 deadline. 

POTWs that need construction to comply; did not significantly 

contribute to the delay in construction; for which construction 

grant funding through Step 3 does not appear to be available by 

July 1, 1983, and consequently, may not complete construction by 

the 1983 deadline. 

POTWs that need construction to comply and are causing significant public health or pollution problems, but due to lack of 

position on project priority lists, may require judicial action 

to assure prompt achievement of NPDES permit requirements. 

POTWs that have completed construction and are not meeting 

effluent limitations or other NPDES requirements. 

POTWs that need construction to comply and did significantly 

contribute to the delay in construction. 

Remedies to the Noncompliance Problem 

Major municipal compliance with the treatment requirements of the Clean 

Water Act along with the Major Source Enforcement Effort (MSEE) for industrial 

dischargers are the primary water enforcement priorities. Now that the number 

of major industrial sources out of compliance has been reduced, enforcement 

actions aimed at significant POTWs which have not installed secondary or more 

-5- 
stringent treatment will be stepped up in accordance with procedures discussed 

in this National Municipal Policy and Strategy. 

Initially, placing POTWs on enforceable compliance schedules is essential 

to an effective municipal compliance effort. The methods of accomplishing this 

are: 

(1) Section 301(i)(1) extensions to qualified POTWs, as discussed in 

Part V; 

(2) Section 309(a)(5)(A) administrative orders or comparable State 

mechanisms, as discussed in Part VI, to certain POTWs unable to 

comply by July 1, 1983; and 

(3) Referral for judicial action in appropriate cases, as discussed 

in Part IX. 

A process for determining which compliance response is appropriate is 

described in Part IV. Procedures and priorities for administering each 

response are described in Parts V-IX. 

Table A illustrates the six categories of municipal noncompliance and the 

appropriate Regional or NPDES State compliance responses. 

-6- 
TABLE A 

CATEGORIES OF AND RESPONSES TO MUNICIPAL NONCOMPLIANCEV 

I 

301 (i l(l) EXTENSION NOT REQUESTED 1 

^ . NONCOMPLIANCE 

CATEGORY EXTENSION REQUESTED ' NO ECSLg WITH ECSL 

-- _--.. _ _- 

COMPLIANCE 

WITH ECSL I 

_ -.- - 

Category I 

schedule assuring cornGrant 301(i) request; 

pletion of construction 

by 1983. 

issue permit with compl. 

Revoke ECSL. 

and 309(a) (5)(A) Administrative Order(s) 3/ 

with compl. schedule 

Issue permit requiring 

assuring completion of 

construction by 1983. 

imnediate compliance 

Category II 

and 

Category III 

Deny 301(i) request; 

Issue permit, or continue permit where ESCL 

exists, requiring 

immediate compl. with 

secondary or more 

stringent treatment; 

Issue 309(a)(S)(A) 

Administrative Order(s) 

with compl. schedule 

not extending beyond 

1983. 

Issue permit requiring 

immediate compl. with 

secondary or more stringent treatment; Issue 

309(a)(5)(A) Administrative Order(s) not 

extending beyond 1983. 

Category IV 

Category V 

Deny 301(i) request; 

referral for judicial 

action. 

Referra 

action. 

1 for judicial 

Deny 301(i) request; Issue 309(a)(5)(A) 

Issue 309(a)(5)(A) Administrative Order(s) 

Administrative Order(s) or referral for judicial 

or referral for judicial action. 

action. 

Category VI Deny 301(i) request; Referral for judicial Referral for jud 

referral for judicial action. action. 

action. 

~~q~--f-6~~~i;lc?uded. (N 

-- _ _-.~_- 

ote: 301(h) requests should be 

Revoke ECSL; Continue 

permit and issue 

309(a)(5)(A) Administrative Order(s) with 

compl. schedule assuring completion of 

construction by 1983. 

Revoke ECSL; Continue 

permit requirinq 

immediate compl. with 

secondary or more 

stringent treatment; 

Issue 309(a)(5)(A) 

Administrative Order(s) 

not extending beyond 

1983. 

Referra 

action. 

1 for judicial 

Monitor 

compliance 

with ECSL 

Not ApplicableG' 

Not Applicable. 

Issue 309(a)(5)(A) 

Administrative Order(s) 

or referral for judicial 

action. 

processed before 3Ov r--- J requesti-). 

---- -- -_ -_-_ 

2_ ECSL means Enforcement Compliance Schedule Letter or a comparable State procedural mechanism. 

!/ A 309(a)(5)(A) Administrative Order or a comparable State procedural mechanism. 

s/ ECSL policy prohibited the issuance of ECSLs beyond the life of a NPDES permit (e.g., beyond July 

cial 

Not Applicable. 

Not Applicable. 

9 1983). 

-7- 
PART IV: MUNICIPAL NONCOMPLIANCE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS 

Purpose 

The process outlined in this part provides a systematic method to 

determine whether a POTW should receive a section 301(i)(1) permit extension, 

be issued a section 309(a)(5)(A) administrative order, or be subject to 

referral for judicial action. * 

The flow diagram (Figure A) divides POTWs into two groups -- those with and 

those without active grants. POTWs with active grants which have not 

significantly contributed to a delay in funding or completion of construction 

will either be granted 301(i)(1) extensions or issued administrative orders in 

lieu of a 301(i)(1) permit extension, depending on whether the POTW submitted a 

timely request for an extension and can complete construction by July 1, 1983. 

POTWs which have significantly contributed to a delay in funding OF subsequent 

construction will be candidates for referral for judicial action, or 

administrative orders. POTWs without active grants, particularly POTWs in 

Category II I, should be moved into the grant process wherever possible. 

301(i)(1) Initial Test 

The 301(i)(1) regulations (40 CFR 125.93) state that no extension can be 

* Part IX contains a discussion of when States with administrative penalty 

procedures should use administrative penalties first rather than referral for 

judicial action. 

-8- 
FIGURE A

PROCESS FUR CLASSIFYING STATUS NONCOMPLYING OF POTWs 

-9- 
granted unless a POTW requires construction to meet treatment requirements, and 

either: 

(a) The issuance of a notice to proceed under a construction 

contract for any segment of Step 3 project work (or if notice to proceed is not 

required, the execution of the construction contract) occtirred before July 1, 

1977, but construction could not physically be completed by July 1, 1977 

despite all expeditious efforts by the POTW (see initiation of construction 

as defined in 40 CFR 35.905 for Step 3); or 

(b) Federal financial assistance either- was not available, OF was 

not available in time for construction required to achieve NPDES permit 

limitations, and the POTW did not in any significant way contribute to this 

unavailability OF delay. 

Section 301(i)(T) does not authorize the granting of any extensions here 

construction cannot be completed by July 1, 1983. For this reason, the section 

301(i)(l) regulations (40 CFR 125.93) require States to certify that funding 

will be available in time to ensure compliance by July 1, 1983. It is 

anticipated that award dates for Step 3 grants can be projected with reasonable 

accuracy based on the new construction grant requirement for five-year Project 

Priority Lists beginning in FY 1980. 

POTWs with Active Grants 

POTWs which are either on their grant schedule OF had begun a continuous 

program of physical construction of the facility before July 1, 1977 (i.e., into 

-lO- 
Step 3) can camp lete construction 

of section 301(i 

extensions. 

)(l) as outlined i 

by July 1, 1983, and which meet the criteria 

n 40 CFR 125.93 should be granted 301(i)(l) 

Generally, there are two ITUJOF ways in which PGTWs may be off grant 

scheaules -- (1) preconstruction lag (POTWs that have been awarded grants but 

have not begun WOFk, primarily at the Step 3 stage), OF (2) POTWs that have 

begun WOFk but have encountered delays. Only off-schedule POTWs that can be 

considered not to have caused funding OF construction delays are imnediately 

eligible fOF 301 

State law prohib 

Federal funds). 

i)(l) extensions (e.g., preconstruction lag occurred because 

ted the raising of matching local funds prior to the award of 

Where delays exist, the Region OF NPDES States should review the cause and 

nature of delay to determine whether compliance would better be assured by 

referral for Judicial action, or issuance of a 301(i)(l) extension or a 

309(a)(5)(A) administrative order. In determining that a judicial action 

should be taken against a POTW for failing to meet the July 1, 1977 deadline, 

the Agency has necessari ly determined that the fai lure of the POTW to meet that 

deadline is attributable in significant measure to the POTW's own action OF 

inaction Father than the unavailability of Federal funds. Since this 

determination is dispositive of 301(i)(l) requests, such requests should be 

denied for any POTW against which a judicial action for failure to construct 

necessary treatment works by July 1, 1977 has been filed or referred. However, 

where no referral for judicial action is either pending OF planned, and if the 

cause and nature of any funding or construction delay is less serious, the 

Region OF NPDES State should exercise its prosecutorial discretion through an 

administrative form of enforcement action prior to the 301(i)(l) detenination 

-ll- 
to give the POTW an opportunity to demonstrate its intention and ability to 

meet the new deadline. 

By using enforcement actions short of referral first, the Region or NPDES 

State carries out enforcement actions in conjunction with an offer of Federal 

financial assistance. If a POTW fails to comply with such enforcement actions, 

the subsequent case for referral for Judicial action will be strengthened 

because Agency program actions appear consistent to the court. 

If a POTW camp lies with interim enforcement act ions (conf 

taking all reasonab le steps to comply with the Clean Water Act 

the 

301 

and 

1983 deadline, referral for judicial action is not necessary, and a 

(i)(l) extension may be granted. If the POTW did not request an extens 

does not hold an ECSL or cannot meet the 1983 deadline, an administrat 

ion 

ive 

order may be issued. This approach does not mean that administrative orders 

are to be the enforcement mechanism of first choice in all cases. Where the 

POTW has a history of delay despite efforts by the Aqency to urge the POTW to 

proceed, referral for Judicial action should be considered the enforcement 

mechanism of first choice. 

rming that it is 

and can meet 

POTWs Without Active Grants 

The right side of the flow chart (Figure A) addresses the three types of 

POTWs without an active grant: (1) those on the fundable portion of a State 

Project Priority List (PPL), (2) those not on the fundable portion of a PPL, 

and (3) those which completed final construction but are not meeting required 

effluent limitations. Some POTWs on the fundable portion of a PPL may not have 

applied for a grant. For those POTWs that fail to app ly for a construct ion 

-12- 
grant: in a timely manner, appropriate enforcement actions should be t,jben, 

informing such PI)TWs that felnds are available and Chat they have either "Y" 

i!>ys +3 d?:!ly for 2 v-apt OF their 301fil~l) real/es+ will be r?en;ed. , 

If '.he 

nfl-2 cornlies and enters into an active rlrant posSt;re, a de+en-*jna:'on +o isss:e 

a 3nlli)'l) reql:es+ r?r adi-inistra'ive order c?n he mdr!e h?s=! on 'hc dh;l;tv ?f 

'he PoTW to co-rlete cnns+rlrcticn by ,!!:?y 1, 142.3. 

In the case of VITGs not on the fundable ?ortior of the nPL, dn effort 

should he made to elevate significant @OTWs selected by the Pegion and YPPCS 

State into the fundable portion of the PPL (i.e., move PoTWs fror Category IT1 

to II). !n all cases, Enforcement will analyze the vdtrlre of the violation and 

deter-vine if a revision to the PnTW's project ranking aT;Pears to he justified. 

!f, for example, the aCtiOn was for an effluent violation resulting in serious 

strear degradation (e.g., precluding or restrictinq beneficial Ilses, or 

credt i ng pub1 ic health hazdrds) , the Pegional Administrator should contact the 

f;tdte to request that the PnTW's project be considered for nlacement. in the 

fundable range of the PPL. 

If projects which do not meet the enforceable requirements of the Clean 

Zater Act are proposed for funding, the Regional Administrator should ask the 

State to revise its PPL to rank the noncomplying PnTW higher -- above the fundjng line, if possible (see 40 CFR 35.q15). For example, should the fundable 

portion of the State PPL include pipe-related projects beyond the State's 

dllowdnce of 25 oercent not required to meet the enforceable requirements of 

the Clean C!ater Act, the Regional Administrator nay ask the qtate to revise its 

Project Priority List to substitute a noncomplying P?T;J for one or more of the 

-13- 
pipe projects. All such requests should be made through and approved by the 

heyional program office responsible for PPL management. 

:ne process of reevaluation of proJect priority does not increase the 

total funus available to the State for water pollution abatement. Thus, given 

d flxecl dl:~Gu!I; of dollars aliocatea, increasing the priority of one proJect 

wi 11 clttcredse tllat of another. For States that have developed priority systems 

dna lists in acCOrddnCe with the September 27, 1 978 construction grant 

re+latlons (see 40 C;Fk 35.915) and program yuid ante, it is expected tnat 

requests for reevaluation will be few and limited to those cases where it 

appears new information exists regarding the particular proJect in question 

that was not considered in establishing the proJect's priority. 

When requests are made, the State will be asked to: (1) reevaluate the 

original priority rating, or (2) consider funding from the Step I and Step 2 

yrant reserve. If the State increases the priority rating or agrees to fund 

from the reserve, then Enforcement, if necessary, will issue a letter or 

adm inistrative order soliciting an application, and the process would follow 

the pattern outlined in the section on Active Grants (see pages 10-12). Should 

the State aeny increased priority, the POTW should be considered to have no 

Federal funding available by July 1, 1963, and hence may not meet the 1983 

construction deadline necessary for granting of a 301(i)(l) extension. Since 

lution problem, seri ous consideration must 

1 action under secti on 309 of the Ciean 

the PIjTW presents a significant pol 

then be given to bringiny a Judicia 

Water Act. 

Determining the appropriate compliance response (301(i)(l) permit 

extension, administrative order, or referral) is clearly dependent on grant 

-14- 
funding. Since a delay may be experienced in the development of more complex 

PPLs, the processing of some 301(i)(l) requests may be deferred until fiscal 

year 1960, and in the case of some minors, beyond fiscal year 1980. 

POTUs Which Have Completed Construction 

PtiTWs that have completed construction and are not meeting their NPlltS 

permit limitations are not eligible for 301(i)(T) extensions and are canaiddtes 

for various enforcement remedies. 

Section 203(e) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Administrator, at 

the grantee's request, to provide technical and legal assistance in the 

administration and enforcement of contracts necessary to construct treatment 

works. The extent of this assistance will depend upon available resources. 

The construction grant regulations (40 CFR 35.970) indicate the request must 

general?y be made in writing, and States may also proviae such assistance. The 

grantee is responsible for enforcing all contracts necessary to build the PGTW 

independently of EPA. 

-15 
PART V: ISSUANCE OF 301(i)(1) EXTENSIONS 

Issuing or NPDES modifying permits to incorporate 301(i)(1) extensions is 

directly construction related to the grant process, and close coordination and 

sharing of information is required. between the Similarly, two program offices 

awarding or amending grants to POTWs that are issued 301(i)(1) extensions must 

also be coordinated so that fixed permit compliance milestones ensure that 

major construction grant dates are enforceable and consistent with grant 

agreements. Since the great bulk of program coordination will occur through 

the 301(i)(1) mechanism, the following chart (Figure B) illustrates how the 

Permits and construction Grants staff must work together to formulate 301(i)(1) 

permit terms and conditions and award construction grants to POTWs with 

301(i)(1) extensions. The same coordination must take place in formulating 

compliance schedules in administrative orders (see Part VI). 

As shown, a suggested sequence of activities beginning in fiscal year 

1979 for implementing the 301(i)(1) process at the Regional and State level 

would be as follows: 

(1) Permits staff will provide the list of 301(i)(1) applicants to 

the Grants staff. 

(2) Grants staff will determine which of the applicants are on the 

fundable portion of the PPL and supply the grants schedule to 

Permits staff. 

(3) Permits and Enforcement staff will simultaneously prepare 

additional permit and compliance information in accordance with 

the suggested processing priorities in Part VII. 

(4) Permits staff will determine which of the 301(i)(1) applicants 

have active grants through use of the Grants Information Control 

System (GICS) and will extract necessary project information 

from GICS. If the information is not available from GICS, then 

Grants will furnish all necessary information to Permits. 

-16- 
FIGURE B 

APPROACH TO PERMIT ISSUANCE FOR APPROVED 301(i)(1) EXTENSIONS 

-17- 
The remaining 3Gl(ij(l) applicants not covered by the Permit Compliance 

Systeril ,,?LS) or I;ICS would be the unfunded proJects. Processing of 301(i)m 

requests from tinfunded PGTWs should be delayed until the State Proiect 

._ 

Priority L;st nas been properly adJusted in fiscal year 1980. 

A final list of eligible extension candidates should be developed by the 

Permits staff and sent to the Water Division. Where effluent limit.ations are 

established sased upon water quality standards, the Water Guality Management 

staff generally will provide the effluent limitations; the Permits staff is not 

expectea to aevelop water quality-related effluent limitations. When a proJect 

is either underyoiny review for treatment more stringent than secondary or is 

awaitIn such review pursuant to Office of Water ?rogram Operations, Program 

Requirements Yemorandum (PRM 79-7), an NPDES permit should not be issued prior 

to corrlpletion of that review (see Part VIII). The Permits staff will review 

these effluent limitations for legal and procedural (not technical) adequacy to 

assure that they are supportable arid enforceable. If the 2ermits staff is not 

satisfied that the limits are supportable and enforceable, Permits should inform 

Grants and Water tJuality Management of the nature of their concerns and attempt 

to reach mutual agreement on effluent limitations. Once the limits are 

acceptable, construction schedules will be developed by either Grants or 

Permits staff based on the project list and/or schedule in existing grant 

agreements and concurred on by both programs. 

-18- 
Once the schedule and effluent limitations information is available, 

the Permits staff will develop a draft permit based on information received 

from the Construction tirants and Water Quality Management staffs, and the 

Grants staff will develop a proposed grant award agreement. 

The draft and finai permit must include a compliance schedule which 

contains actual milestones derived from the yrants process. The PCS and GICS 

systems have been reviewed, and the necessary and discretionary grant events 

that will make up the milestone dates will be listed in the Compliance and 

Grants Interaction Systems Workyroup Report (see Part X). At a minimum, the 

compliance scheaule should contain dates for submission of the grant 

application to the State, project completion dates, the date for completion of 

construction, pretreatment milestones (see the Rhett-Miller memorandum on 

pretreatment program coordination dated November 28, 

achievement of final effluent limitations. l 

1978), and the date for 

Whenever possible, representatives knowledgable of both Permits and 

Construction Grants programs should be at meetings w 

to discuss the information placed in the draft NPDES 

conditions. A pre-public notice, conference, and/or 

ith the grantee/permi ttee 

permit and grant 

grant preapplication 

conference may also resolve certain permit problems before the permit is issued 

and thus reduce the number of evidentiary hearing requests. 

* For a discussion of interim compliance date slippage, see 40 CFR 

122.31(f)(3). 

-19- 
if no pre-publ;c notice conference is held, the permittee should be made aware 

of the proposec scheaule and al!owea to comrient on the schedule befcre publ!C 

notice of the permit is given. 

After tne permittee has made any colrments on the draft permit, the Permits 

staff will puDlish notice of tne draft permit ana make any changes resultin 

from tne pub1 ic notice. ?ermits and Construction Grants staffs should then 

JO1 nt!y GetermIne if such changes to the draft permit may affect the existing 

or proposed construction grant award. If so, the grant should be adjusted 

accoraingly. The Permits staff would then issue the permit in final form. 

depenalni; on the c'rcunstances, the final permit may be issued either before or 

after the awara of the construction grant. Where the grant award satisfies 

permit requirements, Grants staff shouid reference the lvPDES permjt number in 

tne srant, ant Permits staff shoul d reference the construction grant award 

1cientificatIon number in the permi t. !t is not necessary to defer grant aware 

untii the permit is issued, unless significant permit issues directly affect 

the type of pro;ect for whicn the award is intended. However, if an 

evidentiary neariny is requested and granted on construction qrant-related 

issues, both proyrams must again coordinate to share information necessary to 

resoive the evidentiary hearing (e.g., how schedules were developed, etc.). No 

grants to PuTWs shoula be awarded that relate to the permit issue in question 

whi Te relevant portions of the permit are stayed by the evidentiary hearing. 

tince the eviaentary hearing is resolved, Permits should issue a final permit 

and Construction Grants should make necessary amendments to the grant award. 
The Relationship of Section 301(h) to Section 3Ol(i)(ll 

In the Regions and NPDES States which have POTWs discharging into marine 

or estuarine waters, almost all POTWs wtiich submitted preliminary apl ications 

for section 301(h) permit modifications also requested 301(i)(l) permit 

extensions. Where the PCS's submit final applications for 3C?(h) permit 

modifications, the 301(h) application should be processed first. l :f the 

301(h) is grdnted, it will be the basis for the new compliance schedu?e and the 

301(i)(l) request becomes moot. If the 301(h) is denied, the 3Ol(i)[l) request 

should then be considered in the same manner as other 301(i)(l) requests. 

Specifically, if the POTW can complete construction by July 1, 1983, the 

request should be granted; if the POTW cannot complete construction by July ?, 

1983, the request should be denied and a 309(a)(5)(A) order may be issued not 

extending beyond July 1, 1983. 

In some cases, the delay pending the 301(h) determination will force a 

POTW in Category I into Category II, and a 309(a)(5)(A) order must be issued 

rdther than a 301(i)(l) extension. In order to minimize this occurance, POTWs 

should be advised to proceed with construction until they reach the critical 

point at which further construction will depend on EPA's decision concerning 

the 301(h) application. 

l See 40 CFR 125 Subpart G, "Nodification of Secondary Treatment Requirements 

for Discharges into Marine Waters." 

-21- 
PART VI: ISSUANCE OF 309(a)(5)(A) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS 

Where construction cannot be completea by July 1, 1983, a 309(a)(5)(A) 

order must be issued. The objective of issuing section 309(a)(5)(A) 

administrative orders in lieu of 301(i)(1) extensions is to establish an 

enforceable schedule for compliance based on progress which can be made up to 

1983 -- even though the schedule does not require completion of construction. 

The following flow chart (Figure C) illustrates an approach to issuance of 

section 309(a)(5)(A) administrative orders (or comparable State procedural 

mechanisms) when used as a means to obtain an enforceable compliance schedule. 

Section 309(a)(5)(A) administrative orders in lieu of 301(i)(1) extensions 

must always be issued (and notice given to the public) in conjunction with an 

underlying permit which requires compliance with the July 1, 1977 treatment 

requirements, except as described in Part VIII for treatment more stringent 

than secondary. Where section 309(a)(5)(A) administrative orders in lieu of 

Ml(i)(l) extensions are appropriate, compliance schedules in the 

administrative order will be determined by the identified dates on which 

funding either is available in an existing grant agreement or will be available 

in projected grant funding derived from the approved Project Priority List. 

The coordination between Enforcement and Grant programs in the issuance of 

these orders should be the same as that discussed in Part V. 

The contents of these 309(a)(5)(A) administrative orders will differ 

slightly depending on whether the administrative order is for a POTW in 

Category I, II, or III. Each administrative order is to contain a compliance 

schedule which reflects milestone dates derived from the grant process. Since 

-22- 
FIGURE C 

APPROACH TO THE ISSUANCE OF § 309 (a)(5)(A) 

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS 

-23- 
construction r;rants are awarded in steps, and the funding fray not be continuous 

(except for corr,bined Steg 2+3 grants), issuance of shcceediny adrr;i nistrative 

3rcers rriay often ae necessary. In no event should an administrative or@er 

contain a zcr:pliance schedule extendins beyond July 1, 1963, the final date for 

7uniciFa; rI:;p;iance established by Lonl;ress in section 3i;l.zi j(l). Thus, the 

last compliance cate rn the administrative order ~111 be the last identifiea 

cate in tne 2c;Yk's srant schedule prior to July 1, 1983, even if that date only 

takes the P~i;r tnrouyh part of the construction grant process dnd toward final 

1 imits. 

?GLs in iateyory 1 which have not requested X(i)(l) extensions and 

wnich do not hoid tLSLs :rlay be issued administrative orders. It should be 

noted thdt only one administrative order need be issued for each 2ClTW in 

Latekjory 1 in this case. This administrative order will move the permittee 

through the entire grant process toward completion of construction by July 1, 

1%3 {see Part V). 

PljTWs in Categories II and I11 cannot receive 301(i)(l) extensions because 

construction will not be completed by July 1, 1983. Such POTWs should be 

issued 309(a:(5)(A) administrative orders. Each administrative order should 

reflect one step in the permittee/grantee's construction grant award and should 

require compliance with the requirements of that step by the final date for the 

completion of the step, or July 1, 1983, whichever is earlier. 

In Category II, a POTW may not currently be funded beyond facility planning 

(Step l), requiring issuance of an administrative order in which the final 

-24- 
compliance date will be the Step 1 completion date. kbsequent administrative 

orders would be issiled incremental!y, with cwpliance schedules reflecting the 

las'. dates of each cons?ruction grant award. Public notice need not be giver! 

for crders slibseauent to the first. 

!n Category :I!, mere +.han one adrinistrative order 'nay he necessary to 

carry the Pfi'k! as far as possible throuah the construction grant process by 

JIJ~Y 1, 7983, as grant nilestones are identified. Again, Public rotice need 

not be given for orders subseauent to the first. 

Administrative orders are intended to be managed like 301(i)(l) 

extensions. Thus, a POTW's compliance with its administrative order should be 

monitored as would a 301(i)(l) extension, and the enforcement resronse to any 

violations of such an administrative order would be carried out in accordance 

with procedures de1 ineated in a Peqion or State's Enforcement Management Syster 

(see Part Xl. 

Should a NPPES State propose to grant a 301(i)(l) extension to a Pr)'W in 

Categories II, IIT, IV, V, or VI, the Region should object to and if necessary, 

veto the permit. When a NPDEC State proposes to issue an administrative order 

in lieu of a 301(i)(l) extension to a PnTW within Categories !I or IIT, the 

Pegion should closely review the administrative order to assure that it 

comports with this National Municipal Policy and Strategy. If the order does 

not conport with this Policy and Strategy, for example, because the State 

administrative order goes beyond July 1, 1983, the Region should request that 

-25- 
the order be issued in conformity with this Policy and Strategy. If the State 

does not so modify the administrative order, the Region should inform the 

PCTW dnd the State that the State order is without authority and that 

corqliance with it alone will not protect the PCTW from Federal enforcement. 

Further, the Region always retains its right to take enforcement action 

independent of any State enforcement action. 

-26- 
PART VII: PRIORITIES FOR ISSUANCE OF EXTENSIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS 

Optimum use of resources is required in the issuance of modified permits 

and administrative orders and the awarding of construction grants if the 1983 

deadline is to be met. Following is the priority in which these activities 

should occur: 

PRIORITY FOR ISSUING 301(i)(1) EXTENSIONS 

AND 309(a)(5)(A) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS 

1. Active Grants with Pretreatment Requirements 

--Step 3 

--Step 2 

--Step 1 

2. Grantees on Fundable (One Year) Portion of Project Priority List 

(Grants not yet awarded) 

--Step 3 

--Step 2 

--Step 1 

3. Active Major Grantees (Funded from Previous Project Priority List) 

--Step 3 

--Step 2 

--Step 1 

4. Active Minor Grantees (Funded from Previous Project Priority List) 

--Step 3 

--Step 2 

--Step 1 

5. Unfunded 

-27- 
This priority ranking takes several considerations into account including 

the Agency's toxic emphasis substances on control, funding availability, 

ability to formulate date permit fixed schedules, and size and environmental 

effecthe of discharge. 

Pretreatment Priorities 

The General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403) require POTWs with 

design flows of greater than 5 mgd to develop pretreatment programs (POTWs with 

flows of 5 mgd or less may be required to develop a pretreatment program in 

certain circumstances). Compliance schedules for development of pretreatment 

programs must be incorporated into all such permits when the permits are 

reissued or modified (e.g., when a permit is reissued or modified to 

incorporate a 301(i)(1) extension). Some NPDES States have the authority to 

place pretreatment compliance schedules in permits prior to the approval of 

State pretreatment programs. Where NPDES States do not have the authority to 

write pretreatment compliance schedules prior to State pretreatment approval, 

the NPDES permit must contain a reopener or modifier clause (see 40 CFR 

403.10(d)(1)) and the permit must be subsequently modified, or revoked and 

reissued. Alternatively, in those NPDES States lacking such pretreatment 

authority, issuance of NPDES permits to POTWs with pretreatment requirements 

may be deferred until the State obtains this authority. 

Federal funding for the development of pretreatment programs is available 

under the Construction Grants Program. The construction grants regulations 

(40 CFR Subpart E) require the completion of certain elements of the 

pretreatment program prior to award of Step 2 grants after June 30, 1980, the 

-28- 
completion of the remaining elements prior to award of Step 3 grants after 

December 31, 1980, and the approval of a POTW pretreatment program by the 90 

percent completion stage of Step 3. The pretreatment regulations (4C CFR 403) 

require POTW pretreatment program approval by July 1, 1983, or three years 

after the permit is either modified or reissued, whichever is earlier. It is 

anticipated that it will take up to six months after submission of the program 

to obtain approval. Accordingly, submission of an dpprovable pretreatment 

program should be six months before the 90 percent Step 3 completion stage, or 

Z-l/Z years after the permit is modified or reissued, or January 1, 1983, 

whichever is earlier. 

Given the above deadlines, the first order of 

Grants Program must be to amend existing grants as 

for development of pretreatment programs. Simi lar 

provide for pretreatment programs is of top priori 

priority of the Construction 

soon as possible to provide 

y, issuance of permits to 

Y* 

Funding Availability and Schedule Development 

The second order of priority is POTWs on the fundable portion of the 

Project Priority List. These POTWs represent the fiscal year's workload for 

the Construction Grants Program and will require construction to comply with 

NPDES permit limitations. 

The priority established for issuinq 301(i)(l) extensions requires Step 3 

projects to be processed first, Step 2 second, and Step 1 last. The rationale 

in support of this hierarchy is that, generally speaking, more information is 

available at the later steps in the grant process. Additionally, schedules 

-29- 
with shorter time intervals and hence with a greater accuracy will be 

developed, thus either minimizing or reducing the possibility of formal permit 

modification due to the inclusion of unrealistic dates in the NPDES permit. In 

the case of schedule development for Step 2 and Step 3 projects for which 

facility planning requirements (Step 1) have been completed, the States or 

Regions are to establish the appropriate time intervals required to complete 

Step 2 and Step 3 projects, and, together with the dates of funding 

availability contained in the State's PPL, to specify accurate fixed dates for 

-- 

initiation and completion of the step. A key point to note is since funding is 

available for these POTWs, 301(i)(l) permits are required to contain fixed 

-- 

schedule dates. 

Many of the factors which led to the utilization of the "trigger date" 

schedule n the past have either become moot or less relevant. Thus the Agency 

has reeval uated its position regarding continued utilization of this type of 

schedule and the 301 (i) regulations (40 CFR 125.94 (a) (1)) now requires use of 

fixed dates. 

Of the three step grant process, Step 1, which provides for development of 

facility plans, has been the most difficult to maintain on schedule. A number 

of other Federal statutes (e.g. the Historic Preservation Act, Endangered 

Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and 

certain Executive Orders) establish requirements which may affect the scope of 

the planning process and hence the completion date in mid-course. The scope 

of the project may also be revised as a result of the public hearing required 

prior to approval of the facility plan under the Construction Grant 

regulations. 

-3o- 
In recognition of the above, the fixed schedule approach adopted in the 

NPDES regulations distinguishes Step 1 schedule development from that of Steps 

2 and 3. Under this approach, the Step 1 schedules would be based upon the 

expected date of the Step 1 award, in consideration of availability of Federal 

funding, and establishment of an appropriate time period to complete Step 1 

work, based on the estimated project scope and the project's ranking on the PPL 

for Step 2 funding. Fixed dates would then be incorporated in the NPOES permit 

and would also serve as the basis for the grant period in the subsequent grant 

award. The permit may be conditioned to expire at that completion date. For 

active Step 1 grants for which the permit is expected to expire prior to 

completion of the Step 1 project and for which permit reissuance is urgent, it 

must be determined if planning has progressed to the point where a completion 

date can be specified and the required schedule (40 CFR 35.917-1(a)) for 

completion of Steps 2 and 3 is available. Where this information is available, 

the schedule should be checked against the PPL. If the schedule dates precede 

dates of funding availability, the schedule should be adjusted to reflect the 

earliest expected date of grant eligibility. If those dates fall outside the 

fundable range of current allotments, the Regions or States should assume 

appropriations to the extent indicated in the Agency's annual operating 

guidance. In the event facilities planning has not sufficiently progressed to 

establish Step 2 and Step 3 schedules, the permit should be conditioned to 

expire or be modified shortly after the date of project completion contained in 

the Step 1 grant awarded as previously discussed. 

Schedules for which Step 1 activities have been completed prior to permit 

reissuance should be developed based upon the grantee's submitted schedule and 

Federal funding availability, allowing for reasonable Agency review time. 

-31- 
Agency review time should be 

experience, average review t 

System (LiICS) data, Regional 

Budgeting process. 

established based on State and Regional 

imes as determined from Grants Information Contro 1 

workplans, output commitments, or the Zero Base 

In the case of segmented projects where more than one Step 2 or Step 3 

grant exists or is expected to be awarded, schedules should be developed as 

previously discussed for each significant project segment for inclusion in the 

NPDES permit. For this purpose, a significant project segment is one for which 

completion is necessary in order for the permittee to meet final permit 

limitations or a project for which a delay would result in delay of attainment 

of final effluent limits by the date established in the NPDES permit. If there 

is any question concerning whether a project sequent is significant under this 

defi n 

final 

ident i 

tion, Grants, Permits, and Enforcement staff should jointly arrive at a 

determination. Individual or multiple pennit schedules should clearly 

fy the associated construction grant proJect number. 

Priority numbers 3 and 4 are consistent with past policy for issuance of 

NPDES permits. Priority number 5 is self-explanatory. 

-32- 
PART VIII: TREATMENT MORE STRINGENT THAN SECONDARY 

In considering the fiscal year 1979 appropriations bill for the 

construction grants program, the Appropriations Conference Committee indicated 

that the Administrator must personally approve all projects providing treatment 

more stringent than secondary (see Appropriations Conference Committee Report, 

Amendment No. 23). The Report states that Federal funds may be awarded for 

construction of such advanced treatment with an incremental cost of more than 

$1,000,000 only if the Administrator personally determines that it will 

definitely result in significant water quality and public health improvements. 

The advanced treatment review requirement will affect the permit process and 

enforcement under the Clean Water Act in a number of ways. 

During the grant award review period for advanced projects, some NPDES 

permits requiring treatment more stringent than secondary will expire. Since 

compliance schedules and final effluent limitations in the reissued NPDES 

permit depend upon the results of the review, these permits should not be 

reissued until the initial review is completed in accordance with the Office of 

Water Program Operations, Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM) 79-7. However, 

advanced projects are to be promptly identified. 

In all cases where the NPDES permit, whether current or expired, requires 

treatment more stringent than secondary and the PRM review has not been 

completed, enforcement of effluent limitations requiring the more stringent 

treatment should be deferred pending completion of the review. The POW 

should proceed with any fundable steps which can be taken toward achievement 

-33- 
of secondary treatment as long as such steps are not incompatible with the 

more stringent facility design. 

In some cases (e.g., where 1977 NPDES permit requirements have not 

been clearly established and the NPDES permit has expired), it may be 

necessary to issue a section 309(a)(5)(A) administrative order (absent an 

underlying NPDES permit) which incorporates interim effluent limitations 

and a schedule of compliance to assure progress toward the installation of 

secondary treatment. 

Five possible determinations may be expected from the PRM review 

process: 

(1) The more stringent project as proposed is fully justified and is 

fully fundable (although the project may not currently be on the 

fundable portion of the Project Priority List); or 

(2) The more stringent level of treatment required of the POTW was 

based on incorrect or inadequate water quality analysis and, therefore, 

the more stringent portion of the project as proposed is not required 

and is not fundable, but a lesser level of treatment is justified and 

is fundable; or 

(3) The more stringent level of treatment required of the POTW was 

based on incorrect or inadequate water quality analysis, and advanced 

treatment may not be required to satisfy water quality requirements, 

but additional information is needed to determine what is the 

appropriate andfundable treatment level; or 

-34- 
(4) The more stringent level of treatment is justified but a reevaluation of the cost-effective analysis and/or design of the entire 

project or portion of the project is recommended to arrive at a less 

costly treatment alternative or configuration; or 

(5) Treatment greater than secondary is required to achieve more 

stringent State requirements, but the greater level of treatment has 

been determined by the PRM review to be ineligible for construction 

grant funding, and the State has chosen not to relax its requirements. 

Should the PRM review result in determinations (1) or (2) above, the 

PGTW will fall into one of the categories of POTWs as outlined in Part III 

and should be dealt with accordingly. 

Determinations (3) or (4) above could result in funding being deferred 

for the entire facility or any element of the facility pending the further 

information gathering and subsequent analysis. In these situations, 

although the final PRM review is not complete, the process previously discussed for determining eligibility for a 301(i)(l) extension under Part IV 

of this document should be applied. Should application of this process 

result in a POTW falling into Categories I, II or III as outlined in Part 

III, the appropriate requirements of any construction grant or grant amendment awarded the POTW for purposes of gathering additional information are 

to be incorporated into the NPDES permit or 309(a)(5)(A) order, whichever 

instrument is applicable under this National Municipal Policy and Strategy. 

-35- 
If the PRM review results in determination (5), the reissued permit 

must contain final effluent limitations which are necessary to meet the mare 

stringent State requirements. However, since the more stringent treatment 

will not be Federally funded in these instances, enforcement of these permit 

requirements calls for special consideration. For Federally-issued permits, 

there should be a commitment from the non-NPDES State prior to permit 

issuance to enforce the more stringent requirements. 

With regard to enforcement by EPA, if the POTW has not significantly 

contributed to construction delays, enforcement of more stringent than 

secondary requirements imposed pursuant to determination (5) should be 

postponed, and a construction schedule taking the POTW through to completion 

of that portion of the pro.ject which the PRM review has determined to be 

fundable (secondary treatment at a minimum) should be required, generally by 

means of a section 309(a)(5)(A) administrative order. If, however, the POTW 

subsequently violates its compliance schedule, action to enforce the more 

stringent treatment requirements consistent with the Municipal Referral 

Priority System (see Part IX) is appropriate. Even though a POTW has expeditiously completed construction to the fundable treatment level, the more 

stringent requirements are legally enforceable. 

The State may elect to relax its more stringent requirements to the 

level which has been determined by EPA's PRM review to be fundable. In that 

case, the NPDES permit may be modified to require the less stringent final 

effluent limitations, and a compliance schedule for achievement of the 

fundable treatment level should be established. 

-36- 
PART IX: MUNICIPAL REFERRAL PRIORITY SYSTEM 

Purpose 

The Municipal Referral Priority System (MRPS) is a system for identifying 

and setting priorities for case referrals to the Department of Justice by EPA 

and to State Attorneys General by the State. This system assumes that 

enforcement actions short of referral, if appropriate, have been taken and did 

not achieve the desired results. 

Referral for judicial action against POTWs which failed to meet the July 1, 

1977 treatment requirements can have one or more of the following results: 

o assessment of penalties for past violations in accordance with the 

April 11, 1978 Penalty Policy Memorandum 

o imposition of judicially enforceable compliance schedules 

o penalties for noncompliance with the judicially imposed schedules 

o appointment of a special master 

o sewer hook-up bans as authorized by section 402(h) of the Clean Water 

Act 

o the availability of the funding necessary for completion of 

construction as a result of 309(e) of the Clean Water Act 

NPDES States which have the authority to assess administrative penalties 

should do so first, because administrative penalties contain some (but not all) 

elements present in the referral process and may achieve the desired results 

more expeditiously than referral or judicial action. 

NOTE: Judicial action against POTWs which did not significantly contribute to 

delays in construct on and for which judicial action is necessary to 

assure the availability of construction grant funding will not ordinarily 

seek assessment of penalties for past violations. 

-37- 
Scope 

Candidates for judicial action under the MRPS are: (1) all POTWs for which 

construction is needed but which do not qualify for a 301(i)(1) extension and 

will not receive a 309(a)(S)(A) administrative order (Category VI): (2) 

recipients of section 301(i)(1) permit extensions, 301(h) permit modifications, 

ECSLs, or administrative orders which subsequently violate such extensions, 

ECSLs or administrative orders; and (3) POTWs which have completed construction 

but are not meeting the final effluent limits or other requirements of permits 

(Category V). POTWs in Category IV which are subject to referral as a means of 

moving the POTW into Category II are discussed in a separate section in this 

Part entitled, Special Enforcement. 

Effect of 301(i)(1) Request on Initiated Referrals 

In determining that a Judicial action should be taken against a POTW for 

failing to meet the July 1, 1977 deadline, the Agency has necessarily 

determined that the failure of the POTW to meet that deadline is attributable 

in a significant measure to the POTW's own action or inaction rather than the 

unavailability of Federal funds alone. Since this determination is dispositive 

of 301(i)(1) requests, requests in these cases should be denied for any POTWs 

against which such a judicial action has been filed or referred. The initiated 

referral shall continue unaffected by the MRPS. 

Procedure 

The referral priority rank for a POTW is based on the POTW's size and 

treatment level, with possible adjustments if certain factors are present. The 

-38- 
referral priority ranking of each POTW within either an EPA Region or a NPGES 

State should be derived as follows: 

(1) List all major POTWs in the Region or State according to population 

served, from the largest to the smallest (regional sewer authorities 

should be ranked according to the total population served by the 

regional POTW); and 

(2) Rank those POTWs into three population-served groups (POTUs with 

populations greater than OF equal to 100,000, POTWs with populations 

from 50,000 to 99,999, and all other POTWs); and 

(3) Within each of these three population groups, Faflk the POTUs 

according to current treatment level: 

(a) POTWs with no treatment (raw sewage dischargers). 

(b) POTWs with primary treatment installed and waste treatment 

required. 

(c) POTUs with primary treatment installed and secondary treatment 

required. 

(d) POTWs with intermediate treatment installed and advanced 

waste treatment required. 

(e) POTWs with intermediate treatment installed and secondary 

treatment required. 

(f) POTWs with secondary treatment installed and advanced waste 

treatment required. 

(g) POTWs with secondary treatment installed but not in compliance 

with effluent limitations. 

(h) POTWs with advanced wastewater treatment installed but not in 

compliance with effluent limitations. 

(4) Within each of the eight current treatment level groups, rank POTWs 

according to the following eight priority factors in order of 

importance: 

(a) Significant drinking water use/public health hazard; 

(b) Fisheries, shellfish and PFOteCted areas, and/or scenic and 

recreational areas threatened; 

-39- 
(c) Failure to develop adequate pretreatment programs or to operate 

an approved program under 40 CFR 403, or have had a spill of 

toxic and/or hazardous riaterials within the previous calendar 

year; 

(6) Preconstruction lag greater than twelve months (see Cffice of 

Water Program Operations, Program Requirements Memorandun? 78-12) ; 

[e) PGTW is eligible but has not appl 

months late); 

ied for a grant (more than SIX 

(f) POTW is eligible but has not appl 

months late); 

ied for a grant (less than six 

(y) Blatant disregard of standard operation and maintenance (O&M) 

procedure; 

(h) Poor O&M practices which have detrimental effects on POTW 

performance. 

Special Enforcement: Public Health and Fragile Ecosystems 

Developent of d referral priority list should not be perceived as 

restricting the Region's discretion to if%nediateTy pursue actions against other 

significant municipal pollution sources where violations of a POTW's NPDES 

effluent criteria result in a threat to the general public health and safety in 

an area. The POTW would move into a top priority position for the allocation of 

Regional dnd State resources, overriding the normal OFdeF of referral as 

established by the MRPS. 

Consideration for special enforcement may be given on a case-by-case basis 

for municipalities causing damage to fragile ecosystems, defined as fisheries 

or special recreational areas. Such requests should be made in writing to the 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Enforcement. 

-4o- 
Special Enforcement: Category IV 

Additionally, selected POTWs which would otherwise fall into Category III 

should be candidates for referral when the POTWs are causing either significant 

threats to the public health and safety or damage to fragile ecosystems, and 

they are low on the State Project Priority List. In these cases, the referral 

mechanism is the best or only one available to assure prompt achievement of 

NPDES permit requirements. 

Implementation 

EPA Regional Offices are required to use the MRPS to produce lists of 

identified Regional and NPDES State municipal referral candidates. As POTWs 

fail to meet the terms and conditions of their ECSLs, administrative orders, 

permit modifications or extensions, or are deemed to be enforcement candidates 

under MRPS, they should be added to the MRPS lists and ranked accordingly. 

Candidates ranked according to MRPS include those POTWs in the municipal Major 

Source Enforcement Effort (MSEE) which have violated the July 1, 1977 statutory 

deadline for the installation of secondary treatment technology. 

-41- 
PART X: FORMULATING A MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

An overall Municipal Management System (MMS) will serve as the key 

mechanism through which EPA Regional and State Enforcement and Grants staffs 

develop formal operating procedures to support preparation of compliance 

schedules in 301(i)(1) extensions and 309(a)(5)(A) administrative orders as 

well as to respond to instances of noncompliance when they occur. While the 

emphasis of this system will be on updating the current Enforcement Management 

System (EMS), numerous grants management activities must be added. 

Four work groups were specified in the "Interim National Municipal Policy 

and Strategy" (September 1978). These workgroups, comprised of State and EPA 

representatives, met in the period from November 1978 through March 1979 and 

addressed the following subjects: 

o Permits and Grants interaction 

o Compliance and Grants information systems 

o Noncompliance response guidance 

o State-U.S. EPA cooperation 

The products of the four municipal workgroups are designed to provide a more 

detailed framework for Regional and State program managers to implement the 

policies herein. The municipal workgroup products provide for: 

o Issuing effective NPDES permits 

o Developing a common data link between the Permit Compliance System (PCS) 

and the Grants Information Control System (GICS) 

-42- 
o Implementing a consolidated noncompliance response guide for 

coordinating Grants and Enforcement response 

o Developing formal Regional and State operating procedures for dealing 

with POTWs 

o Instituting time frame controls for implementing action steps specified 

in the MMS 

-43-