CWA Action Plan Implementation Priorities: 

Changes to Improve Water Quality, Increase Compliance and 

Expand Transparency

May 2011

Office of Compliance

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (MC 2221-A)

Washington, D.C. 20460

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/cwaenfplan.html
Page 1 of 15

CWA Action Plan Implementation Priorities: Changes to Improve 

Water Quality, Increase Compliance and Expand Transparency

May 11, 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EPA, in consultation with a working group of state CWA agency representatives, has 

developed a suite of new approaches to revamp the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permitting, compliance and enforcement program. These approaches are 

aimed at improving water quality by using 21st century information technology and “best 

practices” to more effectively and efficiently achieve greater pollution reductions at the universe 

of approximately one million NPDES water pollution sources. There are four key changes to 

how we implement the NPDES program:

1. Switch existing paper reporting to electronic reporting with automated compliance 

evaluations and improved transparency. 

2. Create a new paradigm in which our regulations and permits compel compliance via 

public accountability, self-monitoring, electronic reporting and other methods.

3. Address the most serious water pollution problems by fundamentally re-tooling key 

NPDES permitting and enforcement practices, while continuing to vigorously enforce 

against serious violators.

4. Conduct comprehensive and coordinated permitting, compliance, and enforcement 

programs to improve state and EPA performance in protecting and improving water 

quality. 

Some of the specific, creative new approaches included in these significant changes are:

 Require electronic reporting of key permitting, compliance and enforcement information to 

reduce resource burdens associated with a paper-based system.

 Secure better, more transparent accountability from regulated sources through innovations 

in regulatory and permit requirements and public information systems.

 Align EPA/State planning and improve performance metrics and accountability to effectively 

direct limited regulatory resources to serious water quality problems related to NPDES 

regulated sources. 

 Systematically evaluate all NPDES sources and watershed-specific concerns to identify key 

water quality problems and associated violations, and deploy appropriate solutions. This 

evaluation should use all relevant existing water quality data to drive better decision-making. 

 Use a new multi-tier violation classification framework to categorize violations for appropriate 

responses to more effectively remedy noncompliance. 

 Deploy new tools for improving compliance at self-reporting sources.

 Improve transparency by providing the public with better, more complete information on 

pollutant discharges, whether such discharges are in compliance, and how the government 

is addressing noncompliance. 

These new approaches represent fundamental overhauls to some of the tools, policies, and 

regulations by which the states and EPA implement the NPDES permitting and enforcement 

program. Major changes require time and effort to deliver: thus, EPA and states will be at work 

for several years to realize the vision and complete these changes. And, these changes do not 

reduce the need for continued vigorous enforcement of the Clean Water Act. 
Page 2 of 15

INTRODUCTION

 Since EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued the Clean Water Act (CWA) Action 

Plan in October 2009, EPA and state co-regulators have collaboratively researched and 

debated a wide range of new approaches for fundamentally changing how we 

implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting and 

enforcement program. This constructive dialogue between state Clean Water Act 

agencies and EPA has facilitated a long-term, goal-oriented commitment to improving 

compliance with the Clean Water Act. These approaches address numerous challenges 

facing EPA and state agencies as we implement the NPDES program in this decade:

• The type and number of significant water quality stressors have grown 

substantially since the CWA was enacted. Today’s NPDES regulated universe 

includes approximately one million diverse and widely dispersed water pollution 

sources ranging from traditional wastewater treatment facilities to several acre 

construction sites to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs); 

• Many of our most serious water pollution problems involve pollutants from these 

sources, including nutrients. 

• State and EPA resources are not adequate to ensure compliance across large

regulated universes via the traditional individual inspection and enforcement action 

approach.

• Compliance information about many regulated entities is unavailable to regulators 

and the public without exhaustive on-site inspections and/or information requests;

• Many state and EPA compliance and enforcement tools and policies were 

designed for more traditional, end-of-pipe wastewater dischargers and do not work 

well for the broader universe, especially wet weather sources. 

• The information we have on noncompliance for those dischargers submitting 

discharge monitoring reports that were evaluated in a nationally consistent, 

automated manner, indicates a high noncompliance rate: 22% of majors in serious 

noncompliance at least once in FY2009, while 46%of non-majors were in serious 

noncompliance at least once in calendar year 2009. And for many of these 

violations, there was no response from the government.1

• Permitting and enforcement programs are stove piped.

These challenges demand that States and EPA adapt and retool many permitting 

and enforcement practices and approaches that were developed for more traditional 

industrial and municipal facilities to realize significant future gains in environmental 

performance and water quality. Collectively, these new approaches and tools will 

provide critical missing elements of the NPDES regulatory program and will improve the 

environmental performance of NPDES sources impacting water quality. 

 This document presents the four key changes needed for the revamped NPDES 

program and describes the new features of the retooled system, including the specific 

 1 See Annual NonCompliance Report (ANCR), Calendar Year 2009, at http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/. 
Page 3 of 15

actions, tools, policies and regulations that EPA believes are most important for 

implementing the new system starting in FY2011.2

 The four critical changes are:

1. Switch existing paper reporting to electronic reporting with automated compliance 

evaluations and improved transparency. 

2. Create a new paradigm in which regulations and permits compel compliance via 

public accountability, self-monitoring, electronic reporting, and other methods.

3. Address the most serious water pollution problems by fundamentally re-tooling 

key NPDES permitting and enforcement practices, while continuing to vigorously 

enforce against serious violators.

4. Conduct comprehensive and coordinated permitting, compliance, and 

enforcement programs to focus state and EPA efforts on improving water quality. 

 In general, many of the new approaches envisioned as key components of these 

bold changes are not quick or easy fixes. These are major changes that will require 

time and effort to deliver. Thus, EPA and states will be at work for several years to 

realize the vision and complete these changes.

NEED FOR CHANGE

Originally, the NPDES permitting, compliance, and enforcement program focused 

on pollution from the large individual sources, such as factories and sewage treatment 

plants. These sources, called “majors” (approximately 6,700 facilities) are subject to 

detailed national regulations and policies that govern permitting, compliance monitoring, 

violation classification (e.g., reportable and significant noncompliance (RNC and SNC)), 

enforcement response and national information collection. We now face more complex 

challenges. The NPDES regulated universe has expanded from the roughly 100,000 

traditional point sources to approximately one million dispersed and sometimes 

transient sources, such as CAFOs, construction sites, and other types of storm water 

dischargers. Many of these sources discharge pollutants that cause serious water 

quality problems. The NPDES regulations, policies, and tools that EPA and states use 

to set permitting, compliance, and enforcement priorities, plan activities, and provide 

benchmarks and performance standards have been modified in a piecemeal manner 

over the last 25 years with each change to the scope of the NPDES program (e.g., 

CAFOs, pretreatment, biosolids, storm water, vessels, and pesticides). A strategic 

revision of the appropriate permitting, enforcement and water quality assessment 

policies, practices and, where needed, key regulations, to better aim and leverage our 

resources and fully utilize 21st century information technologies is overdue and vital to 

our success in securing better water quality for our communities and ecosystems. 

 2 While there were numerous good ideas identified by EPA and the states for improving the NPDES permitting and 

enforcement program, EPA recognizes the practical need to focus EPA and state resources. This document 

identifies the changes to the NPDES permitting and enforcement program selected for development and 

implementation in FY2011 and FY2012.
Page 4 of 15

FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES

EPA has identified four fundamental changes needed to revamp the NPDES 

permitting, compliance and enforcement program to better address today’s serious 

water quality problems. EPA and states will take specific actions to implement these 

changes to enhance and retool the NPDES program over the next several years as 

described below. 

1. S witc h exis ting paper reporting to elec tronic reporting with automated 

c ompliance evaluations and improve trans parenc y. 

EPA and states will use electronic reporting and 21st century information 

technology to increase the speed, quality and scope of the information that EPA, 

states, regulated facilities, and the public receives on permits, water pollution, water 

quality, and government agencies’ actions to implement the NPDES permitting, 

compliance, and enforcement program. Electronic reporting is a key component of 

the new system and will greatly reduce the burden on states, EPA, and regulated 

facilities involved in submitting, processing, reviewing, and evaluating traditional 

paper forms. To improve transparency, EPA and States will undertake a series of 

actions in FY2011 to provide nationally consistent information on NPDES regulated 

sources, the applicable permits, the pollutants they are permitted to discharge, their 

compliance status and the actions of regulatory agencies (permit renewals, 

inspections, enforcement actions). 

a. EPA will propose an NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule by Fall 2011 and a final 

rule by Fall 2012. This proposed rule is anticipated to contain five key provisions

as set forth below. The plan for how these provisions will be phased in will be 

addressed in the proposed rule.

i) Require all facilities subject to discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) to submit 

this information electronically to the states and/or EPA using the Exchange 

Network to ensure that EPA and states have immediate access to the 

information without duplicate data entry. 

ii) Convert existing paper program reports, currently required of regulated 

sources through permits, to electronic reports and require their electronic 

submission to EPA and states using the Exchange Network. This electronic 

conversion will not substantively change what information must be reported 

pursuant to the existing paper reporting requirement. The existing paper 

reports that are under consideration for conversion to electronic include: 

(1) Annual reporting requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations 

(CAFOs). 40 CFR§122.42(e)(4).

(2)

This subsection requires CAFO 

permittees to submit an annual report regarding their operation. 

Combined sewer overflow (CSO), separate sewer overflow (SSO), and 

bypass incident reports in the context of twenty-four hour and five-day 

reporting of noncompliance. 40 CFR§122.41(l)(6). This subsection 
Page 5 of 15

requires the permittee to report orally within 24 hours any noncompliance 

that “may endanger health or the environment.” This oral report would 

then be followed by an electronic (rather than written, as currently 

required) submission within 5 days of the time that the permittee became 

aware of the circumstances. 

(3) Annual pretreatment reports from publicly owned treatment works 

(POTWs). 40 CFR§403.12(i).

(4)

This subsection requires POTWs with 

approved pretreatment programs to provide a report at least annually to 

the pretreatment approval authority describing their pretreatment 

implementation and enforcement activities. 

Annual biosolids reports for land application, surface disposal or 

incineration of sewage sludge. 40 CFR§§503.18, 503.28 and 503.48.

(5)

These subsections require all sewage sludge management facilities (e.g., 

POTWs and treatment works treating domestic sewage [TWTDSs]) that 

prepare biosolids (sewage sludge) for land application, apply sewage 

sludge to the land, prepare sewage sludge for surface disposal, or 

incinerate sewage sludge, to submit a biosolids annual report. 

Annual reports by municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). 40 

CFR §§122.34(g)(3) and 122.42(c).

(6)

 These sub-sections require annual 

reports from the MS4 operators and identify what these reports must 

include.

Pretreatment reports by significant industrial users

iii) Using the Exchange Network, require all facilities subject to a general permit 

(state or EPA issued) to electronically submit notices of intent to be covered 

to a national or state electronic information system (similar to EPA’s existing 

eNOI system), and then make this information publicly accessible. 

located in cities without 

approved local pretreatment programs: periodic reports on continued 

compliance for categorical industrial users, as required by 40 CFR 

§403.12(e), and periodic reports on continued compliance for noncategorical industrial users, as required by 40 CFR §403.12(h).

iv) Using the Exchange Network, require States and EPA regions to 

electronically exchange more complete NPDES program performance and 

results information for majors and non-majors, including basic facility and 

permit information (e.g. facility name, location and limits), inspections, 

violations and enforcement actions. 

v) After states provide EPA with more complete information electronically, EPA 

will eliminate the state obligation to provide paper versions of the Quarterly 

Non-Compliance and Annual Non-Compliance Reports in 40 CFR§123.45. 

EPA may integrate and modernize these two reports to reduce redundancy 

and support new ways to identify, categorize and respond to the most serious 

violations pursuant to the fundamental change #3 described below.
Page 6 of 15

b. EPA will implement six projects to improve transparency of the NPDES 

program:

i) Pollutant Loadings Tool. In December 2010, EPA launched the beta version 

of a new analytic tool that shows the pounds of pollution (pollutant loads) 

being discharged from sources submitting discharge monitoring reports. This 

tool provides the public, EPA, and states with more understandable 

information about who is discharging what pollutants and to where. Later in 

FY2011, EPA will: a) convert the “beta” version to a “final” version; b) provide 

more recent facility pollutant discharge and watershed data; and c) integrate 

compliance data (ECHO) with the loadings data which will allow users to view 

pollutant releases and violations on one screen. (See

www.epa.gov/pollutantdischarges.)

ii) General Permits Web Inventory

iii)

. EPA and states use general permits to 

regulate over 90 percent of NPDES regulated sources. Information about 

these permits, including what each permit requires, who is covered, and 

where they are located is not readily available nationally. In FY2012, EPA will 

release a national web-based inventory of all non-stormwater general permits 

issued by states and EPA. The inventory will provide the public, EPA, and 

states for the first time with easily accessible information on master general 

permits, such as: permit numbers, sector/activities subject to the permit, 

issuance and expiration dates, and estimated number of facilities covered by 

each master general permit. Where a general permit is available on state 

websites, the web inventory will provide links so that the specific terms of the 

general permit can be easily reviewed by the public. Where a general permit 

is not already posted on the state website, EPA will encourage states to make 

them available. EPA will use existing data sources to build this inventory. As 

information becomes available on the specific facilities covered by general 

permits (e.g., thru electronic reporting of eNOIs), EPA may enhance this Web 

inventory or use other tools provide public access to facility specific 

information. 

Quick Fixes to NPDES SNC Information

iv) Make existing NPDES data easier to access, understand and 

appropriately use. To improve information access and transparency, in 

FY2010 EPA launched a 

. EPA will correct two data 

problems that make the use and analysis of quarterly information about 

violations difficult. The first change will be to update software in the national 

systems to not present stale noncompliance data pertaining to missing old 

DMRs as a current SNC violation. The second software upgrade will create a 

distinction between facilities that have reported their DMRs (but the state was 

not able to enter the data into the national system in time), and violators that 

have not submitted their DMRs. These corrections are expected to be 

implemented in FY2012. These two changes will save resources, improve 

public transparency, and allow states and regions to more effectively focus on 

water quality. 

new interactive state map with information about 

non-major dischargers subject to an individual NPDES permit. In March 
Page 7 of 15

2011, EPA made several improvements to this site including: a) expanding 

mapping to majors, b) incorporating trends information, and c) adding state 

dashboard reports. EPA’s plan for future years is to continue adding more 

data content for other segments of the NPDES universes. (See 

http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/.)

v) EPA will provide a single public repository of EPA and state Memoranda 

of Agreement (MOAs), which are used to define baselines and collaborative 

expectations for enforcement and compliance activities, to improve 

transparency and access to these important agreements.3

vi) P romoting us e of elec tronic reporting prior to final promulgation and 

implementation of E -R eporting R ule. EPA will promote voluntary use of 

electronic reporting of DMRs using NetDMR and similar state tools while the 

electronic reporting rule is under development. EPA will also, as appropriate, 

require e-reporting of key compliance information as injunctive relief in its 

federal enforcement actions.

2. Create a new paradigm in which regulations and permits compel compliance

via public accountability, self-monitoring, electronic reporting and other 

methods. 

EPA, states, and the public can no longer primarily rely on the traditional single 

facility inspection and enforcement approach for assessing and ensuring compliance. 

With approximately one million regulated NPDES facilities, EPA and states cannot rely 

on on-site inspections and enforcement actions as the primary way to identify and 

remedy noncompliance, and promote compliance. Instead, we must consider 

structuring key regulations and permits so that facilities are required to take periodic, 

objective actions to self-monitor, maintain and/or demonstrate their compliance 

pursuant to objective standards and provide that information electronically to states, 

EPA and the public. This will offer a new level of transparency and accountability and 

yield accompanying pressure for facilities to comply, regardless of when a government 

inspector arrives. 

a. In FY2011, EPA will choose key regulated sectors that have both the 

potential for significant water quality impacts and sparse compliance 

information to evaluate whether one or more of the approaches des cribed 

below are appropriate to inc lude in new regulations. In doing these

evaluations, EPA will consider that there are many ways to enhance and promote 

compliance and one approach may not fit all situations. Some options to 

consider include:

i) Self-monitoring, including continuous emissions monitoring and ambient 

monitoring

 3 This implements Recommendation 2-4 in the OIG report, "EPA Should Revise Outdated or Inconsistent EPA-State 

Clean Water Act Memoranda of Agreement," Report No. 10-P-0224, September 14, 2010.

. The obligation to periodically monitor (sample and test) using 

established, objective methods is often an effective way to compel 
Page 8 of 15

compliance. The NPDES DMR is one such example. In contrast, selfmonitoring in which there are not established test methods and/or the criteria 

are subjective is not likely to be as effective. The threat of criminal liability for 

submitting false or fraudulent information is also an important part of this tool.

ii) Self-certifications for qualitative requirements

iii)

. If a regulated entity is subject 

to requirements that cannot be quantified and monitored with established test 

methodologies, having the regulated entity periodically certify that it is in 

compliance with the specific requirements (such as nutrient management 

plans) may enhance compliance. Further, having the regulated entity publicly 

document this compliance certification information may enhance the 

effectiveness of such self-certifications. 

Third party verification of a regulated source’s compliance can be effective if 

the program is structured appropriately. For example, a recent article 

identified six factors to consider in evaluating whether information reporting 

from a third party will be effective in promoting compliance.4

iv)

 One key factor is 

whether there is an arm’s length relationship between the regulated entity and 

the third party certifying agent such that the possibility of collusion is 

minimized. Another key factor is whether the third party certification is based 

on objective standards and established methodologies. Some states, such as 

New York, have already implemented such programs for NPDES.

Direct public disclosure. The public disclosure of objective compliance 

information by regulated entities to their customers, ratepayers, investors, and 

the local community has been shown to generate real reductions in pollution.

5

v)

If objective information on compliance status is not available, public 

disclosure of who is regulated and their compliance plans (e.g., best 

management plans for stormwater management) may create new incentives 

for compliance. 

Electronic reporting to government, and subsequent public access.

 4

 Leandra Lederman, Reducing Information Gaps to Reduce the Tax Gap: When is Information Reporting 

Warranted”, 78 Fordam Law Review, 1733, March 2010.

 The 

submission of paper reports and forms by regulated entities to EPA and the 

states should be avoided. Thus, where a rule requires reporting, electronic 

reporting should be considered as the preferred choice if feasible. To be 

effective, electronic reporting must be carefully developed and implemented 

with objective data elements, electronic signature requirements, automatic 

data validation checks, and clear user interfaces. 

5

 The 1998 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments required larger utilities to directly mail annual Consumer 

Confidence Reports (CCRs) to water consumers. An analysis of Massachusetts facilities showed total violations 

reduced by 30%-44% and more severe health violations reduced by 40-57% based on this new reporting 

requirement. The study concluded: “The public disclosure of compliance status information, in and of itself, can 

generate real, measurable, and significant additional deterrence even when underlying substantive regulatory 

requirements are unchanged.” Bennear & Olmstead; The Impacts of the “Right to Know” Information Disclosure 

and the Violation of Drinking Water Standards, JEEM Vol. 50, Iss. 2; pp. 117-130 (2008).
Page 9 of 15

The approaches set forth above should be used strategically based on the 

specific regulatory requirements, the technology practically available for 

monitoring compliance, and other considerations.

b. EPA will continue research on identifying new ways to compel compliance

using the above tools and other tools. EPA will consult with the states in 

doing this research. In FY2011, we will provide training for EPA staff engaged in 

developing new regulations and general permits to promote these new regulatory 

approaches for compelling compliance. In FY2012, EPA will provide training to 

the states on how to apply this to the rules and permits the states issue. This 

research and training will not be restricted to the CWA, but will be applied to all 

environmental programs.

c. In FY 2011, EPA will identify options for modifying the EPA rule 

development process so that new proposed regulations are better 

structured to ensure that regulated entities have a strong incentive to 

comply via self-monitoring, self-certification, public accountability, 

electronic reporting and other tools. 

3. Address the most serious water pollution problems by fundamentally retooling key NPDES permitting and enforcement practices, while continuing to 

vigorously enforce against serious violators.

To effectively manage, analyze, and prioritize violations, compliance, 

enforcement and permitting actions that are critical in improving water quality, EPA 

and states will change how we identify and address serious water pollution violations 

by deploying a suite of new approaches, including using improved analytical tools, 

implementing new national polices, and where needed, revising federal regulations 

starting in FY2011 and beyond. 

Too many sources submitting DMRs are in violation today and receive limited to 

no government responses. In addition, many existing policies, metrics and tools 

have been developed in a piecemeal fashion over the past twenty-five years and 

focus only on a narrow piece of the NPDES regulated universe, the traditional 

majors group. EPA will need to deploy the “next generation” of analytic tools and 

approaches to address/respond to remaining serious water quality problems. 

Important NPDES water pollution stressors today can include clusters of smaller 

regulated sources in particular watersheds (including sources who have failed to 

apply for NPDES permits altogether), in addition to large factories and municipal 

POTWs. The transient nature of construction sites, vessels and pesticides 

applications points to the need for new techniques and strategies. New information 

technologies present us with many opportunities to create these exciting new 

capabilities for identifying serious water quality problems, exposing those regulated 

entities who fail to obtain required authorization to discharge their pollutants, and 

showing the magnitude of the pollutant contributions from the full spectrum of 
Page 10 of 15

regulated NPDES point sources. While state water quality assessments (e.g., 

impaired waters) provide useful information on water quality problem areas, 

significant variations in state assessment methodologies and a large percentage of 

unassessed watersheds limits the effective use of this information for setting 

regulatory priorities. To improve national consistency in using some of these new 

approaches and tools, EPA needs to restructure national policies, guidance, and 

regulations to ensure that limited resources are focused on the most important water 

pollution problems and violators. 

EPA also recognizes that in many instances the largest stressors to water quality 

may involve non-point sources, not regulated by the NPDES program. The Agency 

is examining other strategies to address these issues as described in EPA’s March 

2011 strategy Coming Together for Clean Water.

6

 

EPA is moving forward with the following set of actions over the next several 

years to implement these changes:

a. EPA will develop and implement the “next generation” of analytical tools 

and approaches aimed at uncovering serious water quality problems 

related to the compliance and regulation of the full universe of NPDES 

point sources. These tools will use 21st century information technologies and 

will serve multiple priority-setting and transparency needs related to permitting 

actions, compliance monitoring efforts, enforcement actions and water quality 

assessments.

i) Loadings Tool (see description in #1 above). In FY2011, EPA will provide 

training on how EPA and states could use this tool for enforcement targeting 

purposes as well as prioritizing permitting and water quality assessment work.

ii) Better use of existing water quality monitoring and assessment data to drive 

improved decision-making.

 6

 See

 There are substantial limitations today to using 

and understanding existing water quality information. While state water 

quality assessments (e.g., impaired waters) provide useful information, there 

are significant variations in state assessment methodologies and wide 

variation across states in how many waters have been assessed for purposes 

of determining whether a water is impaired. Thus, using impaired water data 

by itself can lead to uneven targeting for permitting and enforcement. To 

overcome these limitations and improve the ability of states and EPA to use 

watershed monitoring data in setting priorities for permitting and compliance 

oversight activities, in FY2011, EPA will develop options for new tools to 

array, analyze and use existing water quality monitoring data, in addition to 

assessment data, to identify vulnerable waters for prioritizing the use of state 

and EPA permitting and enforcement actions. These tools could help states 

identify when monitoring data supports the delisting of impaired waters and 

help states prioritize future assessment work. EPA will develop these water 

quality tools in consultation with the State-EPA Monitoring and Assessment 

http://blog.epa.gov/waterforum/
Page 11 of 15

Partnership. EPA began this effort with the presentation of a straw proposal 

to this Partnership in February 2011. This effort is neither intended to alter 

state water quality standards nor how states perform water quality 

assessments. 

iii) EPA and the states need to improve the infrastructure for collecting and georeferencing state water quality attainment decisions per CWA Sections 303(d) 

and 305(b). In FY 2011, EPA will identify the necessary steps for 

streamlining the collection and geo-referencing of state water quality 

attainment decisions reported under CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b). EPA 

will then work with the states to develop a data standard for this data flow for 

more consistent and timely reporting while allowing states flexibility in 

implementing their programs. EPA will improve the Exchange Network data 

flow for Integrated Reporting (assessed and impaired waters), and will 

streamline the geo-referencing of attainment decisions. 

b. In FY2011, EPA will deploy new approaches for improving compliance at 

NPDES sources who self-report their pollutant discharge amounts to EPA 

and states. Compliance rates at segments of the NPDES universe reporting 

discharge monitoring reports to states and EPA need to be improved.7

i) In FY2011, EPA will analyze self-reported DMR noncompliance and launch 

tailored compliance and enforcement strategies to address a range of 

compliance problems, including those that are sector (e.g., mining) and 

watershed (e.g., Chesapeake Bay) focused. EPA will also take administrative 

enforcement actions (including issuing penalty orders) to augment state 

enforcement efforts where warranted.

 A 

preliminary analysis indicates that there are a large number of self-reported 

violations, and that a focused use of administrative enforcement authorities can 

be an effective approach to improving compliance rates. 

ii) In FY 2012, EPA will pilot a program for using expedited administrative 

compliance/penalty actions to improve compliance at selected sources. 

 7 EPA analyzed FY2008 available information and found that approximately 25% of the “majors” were in 

SNC for at least one quarter. A general explanation of why they were in SNC:

 46% were in SNC because of effluent violations, meaning they discharged pollutants substantially 

above their permit limits for multiple months.

 11% were in SNC because they violated a compliance order. These orders generally require facilities 

to upgrade their pollution control equipment to correct existing violations, and thus these violations 

often are associated with effluent violations as well. 

 41% were in SNC because EPA had not received the required discharge monitoring data. This 

means that EPA lacked critical information on whether these facilities were complying with their limits. 

Some of these facilities may have submitted their DMRs in a timely manner to the state, but the state 

did not provide this data to EPA as required. We expect this problem to be partially fixed by 

implementation of our “Quick Fixes” proposal in 2011, and in the longer term, the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule will fully fix this problem.

 2% were in SNC because they failed to submit required reports pursuant to the terms of an 

enforcement order.
Page 12 of 15

iii) Starting in FY2012, EPA will develop electronic methods compatible with 

expanded electronic reporting information to use compliance assistance and 

informal enforcement responses in responding to “minor” violations (to be 

defined by EPA). EPA may build this functionality into ICIS-NPDES for states 

to use, or states may implement this through their own systems. EPA will 

encourage states to use electronic methods to deliver compliance assistance 

and respond to “minor” violations.

c. In FY2011 and beyond, EPA will review, revise, and integrate current 

regulations, policies, and tools to guide how EPA and states prioritize 

permitting and enforcement actions and address serious problems. As 

described below, EPA will develop a detailed proposal for doing this in FY2011.

i) These regulations, policies, and tools include: the Significant NonCompliance (SNC) Policy, Reportable Non-Compliance (RNC), the Interim 

Wet Weather Significant Non-Compliance Policy, the Quarterly NonCompliance Report (QNCR), the Annual Non-Compliance Report (ANCR), 

the Watch List, the definition of priority permits, and the definition of majors. 

EPA and states will use these revised policies and tools in joint planning and 

performance discussions, including new sets of program performance criteria 

and metrics to guide more focused discussions on how to improve/correct 

specific water quality problems most impacting our nation’s communities and 

critical ecosystems.

ii) EPA will work with states to align and integrate the appropriate changes to 

policies and regulations implemented above in c(i) through a new multi-tier 

violation classification framework to categorize violations and drive 

appropriate and nationally consistent responses. Using more robust 

information obtained through electronic reporting and improved analytical 

tools that draw from a variety of information sources, including those outside 

of EPA and state data systems, this new classification framework will 

evaluate the seriousness of violations and water quality problems not just on 

an individual source basis, but at corporate, sector, watershed, and 

geographic levels. This will replace the current system which limits violation 

classification to an individual facility basis and only includes the “majors” 

universe. This new framework will facilitate better use of all tools for 

identifying serious violations and for responding to a variety of other 

violations, including compliance assistance, informal responses (e.g., NOVs), 

administrative orders, administrative penalty orders, civil actions, criminal 

actions, and transparency (public disclosure).

d. In FY 2011 to 2013, EPA will implement CWA NPDES National Enforcement 

Initiatives and will continue to vigorously enforce against serious violators. 

These initiatives will use new, creative targeting approaches aimed at addressing 

serious, national noncompliance problems by requiring sustainable solutions to 

several of our nation’s biggest water quality challenges: getting raw sewage, 

polluted storm water runoff and animal wastes from illegal discharges out of our 
Page 13 of 15

communities’ waterways. In addition to these national initiatives, EPA is currently 

pursuing targeted federal enforcement involving polluting sectors causing largescale water quality concerns in certain geographic regions, such as Appalachia 

and the Chesapeake Bay.

4. Conduct comprehensive and coordinated permitting, compliance and 

enforcement programs to improve state and EPA performance in protecting 

and improving water quality. 

EPA and states will integrate and improve how we set priorities for permitting, 

monitoring, and enforcement programs to solve serious water quality problems. There 

is considerable variation between EPA regions in how annual planning processes are 

conducted. In many cases, EPA and states conduct planning discussions and NPDES 

program performance reviews separately for permitting and enforcement program 

components, thereby missing critical opportunities to identify and implement more 

strategically coordinated solutions to water quality problems. On October 26, 2010, the 

Assistant Administrators for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

(OECA) and Office of Water (OW) invited States to engage with EPA in this effort.

a. Beginning in FY2011, EPA Regions and states will develop joint annual 

NPDES work plans, which will consider all available resources and tools to 

get work done, such as federal and state work sharing and 

watershed/pollutant-based strategies. On June 22, 2010, OW and OECA

jointly issued Interim Guidance on Strengthening EPA and State Performance 

and Oversight to begin implementing this new practice. See 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/cwa/interim-guid-npdes062210.pdf

b. On October 22, 2010, OECA and OW jointly issued a memorandum “Using 

the Results of NPDES Permit and Enforcement Reviews to Address 

Significant Issues” which requested the regions implement three actions to 

enhance our oversight of state programs: (1) incorporate an evaluation of 

past permit and enforcement review results into the FY2012 planning process; 

(2) before conducting an SRF or permit quality review, to evaluate past 

performance issue and determine if progress has been made to improve those 

areas of performance; and (3) as part of regular state progress meetings (twice a 

year, or more frequently as appropriate), look at outstanding performance issues 

and work plan commitments to ensure that appropriate progress is being made to 

improve performance. 

c. In FY2011, EPA will begin to integrate and streamline NPDES enforcement 

and permitting oversight activities. On August 30, 2010, OW and OECA 

jointly issued a memorandum informing the regions that OECA’s State Review 

Framework and OW’s Permit Quality Review oversight tools should be integrated 

and streamlined. In FY2011 and FY2012, OW and OECA will develop and issue 

guidance and provide training to EPA Regions on how to integrate and 

streamline NPDES enforcement and permitting oversight activities. In FY2012, 

these integrated reviews will be piloted in selected states.
Page 14 of 15

d. In FY2011, EPA will initiate systematic efforts to improve permits by 

ensuring that lessons learned from permit quality reviews and compliance 

monitoring and enforcement actions are used to improve the quality, 

including the enforceability, of newly issued permits, especially general 

permits. In FY2011, EPA will implement a new permit feedback process for 

several general permits, most likely for the federal Multi-Sector General Permit 

(MSGP), and a subset of state and/or EPA general permits for CAFOs and 

MS4s.

e. OECA has developed a High Priority Performance Goal (HPPG) as one 

initial measure of implementing the Action Plan in FY 2011. The goal, as 

publicly posted on OMB’s website, states that by the end of FY 2011, EPA will 

increase pollutant-reducing enforcement actions in waters that do not meet water 

quality standards, and post results and analysis on the web. The HPPG applies

nationwide, but only to enforcement actions taken by EPA. OECA issued final 

guidance to implement the HPPG in November 2010. 

CONCLUSION

EPA and states must ensure that vigorous enforcement continues to occur while 

these changes are being made to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and 

transparency of NPDES permitting, compliance and enforcement. These changes will 

better equip EPA and states to improve water quality through their regulatory efforts, 

provide the public with information it needs to understand and participate in water 

quality improvement involving sources in their communities, and motivate regulated 

sources to comply by creating a more certain level playing field that is more visible and 

transparent to regulators and the public. The end result of all these changes will be 

improved water quality for our citizens. 

These changes offer a broad range of new approaches, going well beyond 

traditional end-of-pipe based compliance and enforcement programs, and better 

integrating key components of the NPDES regulatory program, including permitting, 

water quality assessments and standards, and compliance and enforcement. 

The actions reflect thoughtful discussions between EPA and representatives of 

states which considered resource implications to states and EPA, and the need to rethink how EPA and states implement the NPDES program. A key foundation for these 

efforts is the use of 21st century technology to reduce resource burdens and facilitate

more reliable information for decision-making and transparency. The goal of these 

efforts is to achieve better water quality and to provide the public with clear, 

understandable information about their water quality, the pollution sources impacting its 

quality and the actions taken by government officials to protect their waterways. 

EPA and states recognize that many of today’s water quality problems are 

predominately caused by nonpoint sources that are not regulated by the NPDES 

program. Thus, EPA held the April 2010 “Coming Together for Clean Water” event to 

identify federal and state efforts to address nonpoint source problems while recognizing 
Page 15 of 15

the importance of implementing more effective regulatory programs for point sources 

whose discharges can cause serious water quality problems if not properly controlled. 

The CWA Action Plan’s series of new approaches and program improvements 

are aimed at critical NPDES pollution contributions, including those involving 

concentrated animal feeding operations, urban storm water discharges and municipal 

sewage treatment and collection systems. Some of these actions are already underway 

and will be completed and fully implemented this year. Others will require a longer-term 

effort and commitment to develop and complete over the next several years. EPA and 

states will continue their teamwork and commitment to implement the changes 

described above to protect and improve our nation’s water quality. As technology and 

science is ever changing and evolving, so too must EPA’s leadership and vision for the 

NPDES program if we are to provide the public with cleaner and better protected water.