UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OC1 17 2007

OFFICE OF

ENFORCEMENT AND

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE

Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Core Program and Wet Weather Sources

. Granta Y. Nakayama 4tAJe j ;1~~

Assistant Administratof U

Regional Administrators

Deputy Regional Administrators

Regional Enforcement Division Directors

Regional Water Division Directors

This Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) memorandum provides inspection

frequency goals for the core National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program

and for wet weather sources. Your leadership and close coordination by your staff with our state

and local program partners will be essential as full implementation of the CMS occurs at the start

ofFY 2009.

Compliance monitoring is a cornerstone ofEPA's program to achieve clean water. The

primary goal of the combined EPA and state compliance monitoring efforts -- on-site inspections

plus evaluation of permittee self reported Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data -- is to

ensure and document whether entities possessing NPDES permits are complying with their Clean

Water Act (CW A) obligations. EPA and state compliance monitoring programs should

accurately identify and document compliance and noncompliance, support the enforcement

process, monitor compliance with enforcement orders and decrees, establish presence in the

regulated community, support the permitting process, and further the broad watershed

improvement goals of the NPDES program.

Achieving these goals has always been a challenge. The challenges have increased as the

program has increased emphasis on addressing water quality degradation, particularly stemming

from wet weather discharges, while resources at all levels of government have been limited.

Given these competing challenges, both EPA and state NPDES inspection programs must be

increasingly innovative and efficient, directing resources toward the most important

noncompliance and environmental problems. To better meet today's challenges, OECA is

updating inspection frequency goals for the core NPDES program and is articulating goals for

the wet weather program areas. Regulations found at 40 CFR Part 123.26 set forth requirements

for compliance

Internet Address (URL) • hltp:l/www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclable. Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 2 -

evaluation programs for states seeking to obtain or retain program authorization.1 Analogous 

regulations for the pretreatment program are set forth in 40 CFR Part 403.10(f) (2). This 

memorandum provides benchmarks for core program and wet weather inspection frequencies 

which, from a national perspective, EPA believes constitute a strong and balanced compliance 

monitoring program. 

We recognize that achieving these frequencies may be an ambitious goal. As a result, we 

would expect that there will be a dialogue between regions and individual states about annual 

program commitments and potential resource trade-offs. Goals are a starting point for 

negotiations, and flexibility allows adaptation to particular situations as necessary. We note that 

EPA’s Annual Commitment System (ACS) provides opportunities for program commitment 

flexibility. ACS allows regions and states to address the unique mix of regulated entities and 

environmental issues in particular states, and to identify and document state-specific NPDES 

inspection frequency goals that differ from the frequencies recommended in this memorandum. 

States and regions may utilize flexibility to alter inspection frequency goals for facilities with 

good compliance records that are not contributing to water quality impairments. Trade-offs 

should be considered in the context of supporting overall NPDES program integrity. Where state 

programs have demonstrated that they have met the inspection frequency goals in this 

memorandum and would like to seek flexibility outside that which is offered in this strategy, 

states may make proposals under Element 13 of the State Review Framework (SRF). It is 

expected that these proposals will be strategic in nature (focused on particular sources, 

watersheds or water bodies) and result in additional compliance and environmental gains. In 

general, proposals under Element 13 should be monitored over time and limited in duration (i.e., 

should be evaluated after one planning cycle). 

We recognize that we are reducing longstanding inspection frequency goals in some 

NPDES program areas in order to direct resources toward other non-compliance and 

environmental problems that are currently not well addressed. These changes are appropriate to 

ensure an effective balance across the NPDES compliance monitoring program. We believe that 

1

 This regulation includes, in part, the requirement that a state maintain: 

(1) A program which is capable of making comprehensive surveys of all facilities and activities subject to the 

State Director’s authority to identify persons subject to regulation who have failed to comply with permit 

application or other program requirements. Any compilation, index or inventory of such facilities and 

activities shall be made available to the Regional Administrator upon request. 

(2) A program for periodic inspections of the facilities and activities subject to regulation. These inspections 

shall be conducted in a manner designed to: 

(i)	 Determine compliance or non-compliance with issued permit conditions and other permit 

requirements 

(ii)	 Verify the accuracy of information submitted by permittees and other regulated persons in 

reporting forms and other forms supplying monitoring data; and 

(iii)	 Verify the accuracy of sampling, monitoring and other methods used by permittees and other 

regulated persons to develop that information; 

(3) A program for investigating information obtained regarding violations of applicable program and permit 

requirements; and 

(4) Procedures for receiving and ensuring proper consideration of information submitted by the public about 

violations. 
 

- 3 -

this balancing provides deterrence to noncompliance in the most significant environmental areas. 

In addition, these changes will allow increased effort in other important NPDES program 

areas that we expect will result in water quality improvements in priority watersheds and water 

segments. 

Planning Process 

Attachment 1 addresses inspections for the Core NPDES program: major permittees, 

minor permittees, pretreatment, oversight, and biosolids. Attachment 2 addresses planning for 

inspections of Wet Weather sources: Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO), Sanitary Sewer 

Overflows (SSO), Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), and Storm Water. 

Core and Wet Weather programs may be quite different. The suggested overall planning 

process to implement the program areas addressed in the Attachments is one that separately 

identifies core program inspection needs and wet weather program needs and then strikes an 

appropriate balance between the two by considering factors including: noncompliance trends, 

water quality considerations within individual states, and state and EPA resources. The 

suggested process is not intended to disrupt or replace existing EPA and state planning processes 

that are working well. The purpose of this CMS is to better focus inspection resources overall; it 

is not intended to draw resources from other NPDES program areas. These inspection planning 

expectations are intended to promote joint planning where such processes do not exist or need to 

be strengthened. The planning process, guided by the goals articulated in Attachments 1 and 2, 

is also intended to provide an opportunity to identify state-specific circumstances and encourage 

dialogue on the approaches the state expects to implement. 

EPA regional NPDES programs should work closely with each of their states to plan for 

core program and wet weather priority inspections, and to ensure a reasonable inspection 

presence in each program area. Where a state chooses a different mix of inspection frequencies 

from those recommended here, it will be useful for regional EPA NPDES programs to identify 

and describe these different approaches. At the conclusion of the EPA and state inspection 

planning process, regions and states should prepare a brief document describing the rationale for 

any deviations and tradeoffs to which the region and states agreed. 

EPA’s Annual Commitment System (ACS) provides an opportunity, at the beginning of 

the fiscal year and at mid-year, to review plans and commitments, and should be used to 

communicate to OECA the variations from the frequencies contained in this memorandum that 

are agreed to by the regions and states. Proposed revisions to numerical end-of-year 

commitments contained in the plans that regions and states request at mid-year will be 

reviewed by OECA based on information in ACS justifying the change (i.e., issues related to 

staffing, funding, etc.) supplied by the region and/or state. The CMS will be fully effective in 

FY 2009 planning cycle. The CMS may be utilized in FY2008 if a state wishes to negotiate the 

flexibilities available in the Strategy with their region. Regions will be asked to consider 

beginning implementation of the Strategy in FY2008 if a state so requests. 
- 4 -

EPA and state inspection planning will rely on compliance data obtained from PCS and ICISNPDES, and on citizen tips and complaints. To support attainment of water quality goals, the 

inspection planning process should increasingly be influenced by information on nonattainment of water 

quality standards to which facilities may be contributing (pursuant to listings under CWA Sections 

303(d) and 305(b)). As discussed further in Attachment 1, Section 1.A.1 and Section 1.B.1., to support 

a more data driven planning process, OECA will develop two software tools to assist the regions and 

states in preliminary screening, identification of inspection targets, and inspection plan development 

based on data taken from PCS, ICIS-NPDES, and the AskWATERS database from the Office of Water. 

The first versions of these On-line Tracking and Information System (OTIS) based tools are expected to 

be available for testing in during the Spring of 2008. Refinements to the tools will be made over time as 

regions and states use them and identify additional needed analytical functions. 

Oversight 

No changes in current oversight practices are contemplated; however OECA will generate new 

data reports from PCS and ICIS-NPDES to assess progress in implementing the goals contained in this 

memorandum. Existing procedures such as mid-year and end-of-year reviews and periodic State 

Review Framework evaluations will be utilized to assess regional and state performance. The goal of 

performance assessments should be to improve regional or state compliance monitoring programs, 

identifying strengths and weaknesses of regional and state programs, and developing mutual 

commitments to achieve ongoing program improvement. 

Reporting and Measurement 

State and regional compliance monitoring activities described in this memorandum 

should be reported into the appropriate national information system, either PCS or ICIS-NPDES, 

in accordance with documents which establish data requirements and reporting timeframes for 

those systems. Measurement relative to CMS goals will commence at the beginning of FY 2009. 

Reporting at the end of FY 2009 and each fiscal year thereafter will provide cumulative statespecific data on accomplishments for each goal over the relevant timeframe for each goal (e.g., 

the percent of the major universe inspected for the FY 2009 – FY 2010 timeframe; the percent of 

the “traditional” minor universe inspected for the FY 2009 – FY 2013 timeframe, etc.). Under 

this cumulative approach to reporting over the relevant timeframe of the individual goal, for 

example, the results at the end of FY 2009 for “traditional” minors could show that more or less 

than 20% of the universe has been inspected, and at the end of FY 2010 the data might show that 

more or less than 40% of the universe has been inspected. 

Conclusion 

At the conclusion of FY 2011, after three years of implementation of these revised NPDES 

inspection frequencies, OECA will evaluate whether the CMS is achieving the desired results and will 

adjust it as appropriate for any areas that may not be producing the desired results. 
 

- 5 -

I want to thank the individuals in the states, state associations, EPA regions and Headquarters 

who have helped in developing this set of new and revised inspection frequencies for the NPDES 

program. My staff and I will regularly monitor and evaluate implementation of these revised NPDES 

inspection frequencies. If needed, in advance of the FY 2009 inspection commitment setting process, 

we will modify and refine the frequencies to address any components which are not producing the 

desired results. 

Lastly, in addition to the CMS, OECA has worked with the states and EPA regional offices to 

develop two additional policies that align with the current NPDES program regulatory structure. The 

two additional policies are the Wet Weather Significant Noncompliance Policy, and the Integrated 

Compliance Information System for NPDES (ICIS-NPDES) Policy Statement. Attachment 4 discusses 

how the three policies relate to one another and next steps for each of them. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this memorandum please contact Rick 

Duffy (202-564-5014) or Mike Alushin (202-564-2300). Thank you in advance for your 

cooperation as we implement the revised NPDES inspection frequency goals. 

Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Core NPDES Program Inspection Frequencies 

Attachment 2 - Wet Weather Programs 

Attachment 3 - Inspection Type Descriptions 

Attachment 4 - Next Steps for the Three NPDES Policies: the ICIS NPDES Policy Statement, 

the Wet Weather Significant Noncompliance Policy, and the NPDES Compliance 

Monitoring Strategy 

cc: Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water 

Linda Eichmiller, Executive Director, ASIWPCA 

Sean Rolland, Deputy Director, ASIWPCA 

State NPDES Program Directors 

David Paylor, President, ECOS 

Michael Linder, Compliance Subcommittee Chair, ECOS 

Stephen Brown, Executive Director, ECOS 

State Environmental Commissioners 
 

 

Attachment 1 - Core NPDES Program Inspection Frequencies 

1.A. Major Permittees 

Major NPDES permits cover discharges from Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) 

facilities with designed discharge flows of greater than 1 millions gallons per day and active 

major industrial facilities scoring more than 80 for the six factors on the “NPDES Permit Rating 

Work Sheet”. As of March 2006, there are 6,524 active major NPDES permits (4,200 active 

major POTW permits, 2,230 active major industrial permits, and 94 active Federal permits). 

OECA’s revised goal for state and regional inspection of major permittees is a minimum 

frequency of at least one comprehensive inspection every two fiscal years. This modifies the 

existing measure of inspections of major permittees which expresses the goal of inspecting 100% 

of major permittees annually (also known as the “inspection coverage measure”). The existing 

measure for major permittee inspections does not stipulate a minimum frequency for conducting 

comprehensive, in-depth Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI), Compliance Sampling 

Inspections (CSI), Performance Audit Inspections (PAI), Diagnostic Inspections (DI), 

Compliance Bio-monitoring Inspections (CBI), and/or Toxics Sampling Inspections (XSI). Data 

from the Permit Compliance System (PCS) indicate that nearly one-fifth (~20%) of major 

permittees have not received a comprehensive inspection within the most recent two years. 

1.A.1. Goal and Measure for Major Permittee Comprehensive Inspection 

The goal for inspections of major permittees is revised as follows: 100% of major 

permittees should receive at least one CEI, CSI, PAI, DI, CBI, and/or XSI every two fiscal years. 

At the end of each federal fiscal year, data will be taken from the appropriate automated national 

information system (either ICIS-NPDES or PCS) to report on both a regional and state-by-state 

basis on the percentage of majors that have received a CEI, CSI, PAI, DI, CBI, or XSI within 

the most recent two completed federal fiscal years. Inspections coded in PCS as either C, S, A, 

D, B, or X will be counted for this measure. Inspections coded in ICIS-NPDES as either AU1, 

CBI, CEI, DIA, SA1, or TX1 will be counted for this measure. Inspections of major POTW’s 

inspections may be conducted in conjunction with inspections of the Sanitary Sewer Systems 

(and their satellites) and Combined Sewer Systems are connected to the POTW. 

OECA will develop an inspection targeting model to assist regions and states in targeting 

inspections at major permittees. This model will be available on OTIS, will integrate data from 

PCS, ICIS-NPDES, AskWATERS, and other systems. OECA will convene a workgroup 

including regional and state participants to provide input to OECA in developing the model. A 

separate memorandum will be sent to regions and states to solicit membership on the workgroup. 

The purpose of this model is to distinguish between facilities that have strong records of 

compliance and those who have records indicating compliance problems, particularly for effluent 

violations for pollutants that may be contributing to water quality impairments reflected in 

Section 303(d) or 305(b) listings. States that use this targeting model can adjust the inspection 

frequency for NPDES major facilities that are in compliance and are not contributing to Section 

303(d) or 305(b) listings to one comprehensive inspection every three (3) years. Facilities that 
1 – 2 

do not meet these criteria will remain subject to a minimum comprehensive inspection frequency 

of once every two fiscal years. Flexibility relative to the goal in this section is available for 

major permittees participating in the Performance Track program. Regions and states should 

refer to current EPA issued documents addressing inspection frequencies for permittees 

participating in the Performance Track program. 

1.A.2. Activity Indicator for Major Permittee Inspection and Compliance 

Assessment 

EPA will continue to report data on the total number of inspections that are conducted at 

major permittees each fiscal year. This will be an activity indicator only and will not be 

compared to a numerical goal or target. This indicator will use the CEI’s, CSI’s, PAI’s, DI’s 

CBI’s, and XSI’s that are counted under measure A.1. above, and will add to it other types of 

inspections that are conducted, including reconnaissance (R), enforcement follow-up (@), 

oversight (O), and sludge-biosolids (Z) inspection types. Inspections coded in PCS as C, S, A, 

D, B, X, R, @, O, and Z will be counted for this measure. Inspections coded in ICIS-NPDES 

either as AU1, CBI, CEI, DIA, SA1, TX1, RWS, ROS, FLP, OVS, or, for sludge/biosolids, 

sludge/biosolids CWAS program and the appropriate compliance monitoring type (i.e., CEI for 

evaluation or SA1 for sampling inspection) will also be counted for this measure. 

Some state data system users have defined fields to count “operations and maintenance” 

inspections (O & M). O & M inspections may be more detailed than a reconnaissance 

inspection, but not as in-depth as a CEI, CSI, or diagnostic inspection. O & M inspections are 

not an officially recognized inspection type. O & M inspections will not be counted toward the 

1.A.1 inspection targets, but will be counted under the 1.A.2. activity indicator. States will need 

to provide the appropriate region and OECA with information on which user defined field they 

are using to store information on O & M inspections. States utilizing ICIS-NPDES should use 

the OPM (alternative) code for O & M inspections. 

In lieu of conducting an on-site inspection under this indicator measure, as new reporting 

capabilities in ICIS-NPDES come on-line, regions and states may receive credit for conducting 

thorough off-site compliance and engineering evaluations of major permittees that meet certain 

qualifying standards. The purpose of off-site evaluations is to ascertain compliance with the 

terms and conditions of the permit, self monitoring reports, and other information. Off-site 

evaluations are intended for use solely at facilities that have a consistent track record of being 

well operated and in compliance with permit terms and conditions. Determination of facilities 

that are candidates for off-site evaluations should be based on the knowledge of the inspector, 

and in conjunction with information obtained from DMR’s and prior on-site inspections from 

PCS and ICIS-NPDES. Off-site evaluations are not appropriate for facilities that: (1) are 

currently subject to enforcement actions or compliance schedules that are the result of concluded 

enforcement actions; (2) have been reported in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) within the 

previous eight (8) quarters; (3) have one or more late/missing DMR submissions in the previous 

eight (8) quarters; (4) have unresolved single event violation(s) identified in prior inspection(s); 

(5) discharge to CWA 303(d)/305(b) listed waters for pollutant(s) contributing to the listing; or 
 

1 – 3 

(6) have known potential to impact drinking water supplies (discharge points or outfalls within 2 

miles of drinking water intakes). 

OECA will convene a workgroup consisting of regional and state compliance officers and 

inspectors to develop further policy on conducting off-site evaluations. Off-site evaluations are 

expected to be more detailed than the monthly and quarterly Discharge Monitoring Report 

(DMR) reviews that states and regions already conduct. Off-site evaluations are a broad and 

comprehensive examination of information, data, records, facility annual reports, and 

engineering information to ascertain compliance. Routine review of DMR data and phone 

contacts with the facility would not qualify for credit as an off-site evaluation. ICIS-NPDES has 

capability to record these off-site evaluations. For states reporting through PCS, OECA will 

provide instructions on how report these evaluations, most likely through user defined fields. 

1.B. Minor Permittees: Goal and Measure for “Traditional” Minor Permittee 

Inspection 

Minor NPDES permits (also sometimes referred to as “traditional” minor permits) cover 

discharges from POTW facilities with designed discharge flows of less than 1 million gallons per 

day (1 MGD)(generally serving communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons) and 

active minor industrial facilities (facilities scoring less than 80 for the six factors on the “NPDES 

Permit Rating Work Sheet”). As of March 2006, there are 40,210 active minor NPDES standard 

permits (10,750 active minor POTW permits, 28,800 active minor industrial permits, and 660 

active minor Federal permits). These permit data do not include facilities that are minor POTWs 

or industrial sites operating under General Permits, however, inspection frequency goals under 

this section is are intended to apply to such facilities. 

There are no current inspection type or frequency goals for “traditional” minor NPDES 

permittees. EPA reports annual totals for the number of EPA and state inspections conducted at 

minor permittees from data obtained from PCS. While EPA has not previously set goals or 

reported minor permittee inspection coverage rates, or reported data by inspection type, an 

OECA analysis indicates that more than half of the universe of “traditional” minors has not 

received a comprehensive inspection (CEI, CSI, PAI, DI, CBI or XSI) within the previous five 

years. 

Separate goals are contained in Attachment 2 to address individual inspection frequencies 

for the Wet Weather program areas (Combined Sewer Systems, Sanitary Sewer Systems, Storm 

Water, and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations). 

“Traditional” minor permittees include POTWs with daily flows of less the 1 MGD, and 

industrial facilities scoring less than 80 for the six factors on the “NPDES Permit Rating Work 

Sheet.” OECA’s goal is state/regional inspection frequency for each “traditional” minor 

permittee of at least once in each five (5) year permit term. In the early years of strategy 

implementation, the screening process should be attentive to facilities that do not appear, based 

on the data, to have been inspected in more than 5 years. In addition, a preference for early 
1 - 4 

inspection attention should be given to facilities with histories of noncompliance, citizen 

complaints, and/or facilities that may be contributing to water quality violation(s). Inspections of 

“traditional” minor POTW’s may be conducted in conjunction with inspections of the Sanitary 

Sewer Systems (and their satellites) and Combined Sewer Systems are connected to the POTW. 

To facilitate the targeting of inspections for “traditional” minors, OECA will develop a software 

tool to assist the regions and states in preliminary screening and identification of inspection targets. The 

first version of this On-line Tracking and Information System (OTIS) based facility sorting tool is 

expected to be available for testing in mid-2008. Refinements to the tool will be made over time as 

regions and states use the tool and identify additional needed analytical functions. The sorting tool will 

not utilize weightings (differing from the model described under 1.A.1 for targeting majors) due to 

concerns about the current completeness of data for traditional minors and how that might affect the 

results obtained from a weighted model. The sorting tool will allow regions and states to sort facilities 

based on factors including: information on water quality impairments; associated pollutants that may be 

discharged by the permittee; SNC within the most recent two years; unresolved Single Event Violations; 

days since last comprehensive inspection; days since last inspection (all types), and current enforcement 

actions. The use of the sorting tool will be optional. States that achieve and maintain sufficiently good 

quality for their universe of “traditional” minors in PCS or ICIS-NPDES will have the option of utilizing 

the inspection targeting model described in 1.A.1 above. EPA Regional Offices will determine the 

adequacy of the data. Whether using the sorting tool or the inspection targeting model, the goal to 

inspect traditional minors at least once in each five (5) year permit term will not be altered by use of 

either tool. 

a. “Traditional” minor permittees that do not discharge to water bodies listed on 

the CWA Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. This indicator will count the following 

types of inspections: CEI, CSI, PAI, DI, CBI, XSI, reconnaissance, enforcement follow-up, 

oversight, and sludge-biosolids. The corresponding PCS codes will be used for data retrievals: 

C, S, A, D, B, X, R, @, O, and Z. The non-comprehensive R, @, O, and Z inspections will be 

counted under this measure because these facilities are not discharging to CWA Section 303(d) 

listed waters. In addition, user specified fields such as those discussed in Section 1.A.2. (e.g., O 

& M inspections) above will be counted under this measure. Inspections coded in ICIS-NPDES 

either as AU1, CBI, CEI, DIA, SA1, TX1, RWS, ROS, FLP, OVS, or, for sludge/biosolids, 

sludge/biosolids CWAS program and the appropriate compliance monitoring type (i.e., CEI for 

evaluation or SA1 for sampling inspection) will be counted for this measure. States utilizing 

ICIS-NPDES should use the OPM (alternative) code for O & M inspections. 

During the annual planning process, when determining which “traditional” minor facilities 

should be inspected using a comprehensive inspection, regions and states should inform that 

decision by carefully reviewing available information on the permittees, such as noncompliance 

information and information that is indicative of the completeness and currency of ambient 

monitoring information for the receiving waters to which the permittees discharge. Where 

information indicates patterns of noncompliance or uncertainty about the status of receiving 

waters, strong consideration should be given to utilizing a comprehensive inspection. In order to 

ensure a minimum level playing field, states and regions are encouraged to conduct a 

comprehensive inspection at least 5% of their “traditional” minor universe each year. 
1 - 5 

b. “Traditional” minors that discharge to CWA Section 303(d) and 305(b) listed 

waters. As of March 2006, more than 5,200 of the 40,210 “traditional” minors are indicated as 

discharging to water bodies on the CWA Section 303(d) impaired waters list. “Traditional” 

minor facilities that are permitted to discharge pollutants of concern corresponding to the Section 

303(d) or 305(b) listing parameter should be inspected at least once in each five year permit term 

with a comprehensive inspection including CEI, CSI, PAI, DI, CBI, and/or XSI. Of the 5,200 

permittees that discharge to Section 303(d) listed waters, OECA expects there are some that due 

to the nature of their discharges are not in fact contributing to the water quality conditions that 

have resulted in the Section 303(d) or 305(b) listings; such facilities on impaired waters that are 

not contributing to the impairment may be inspected with a less comprehensive inspection (e.g., 

a reconnaissance inspection). Comprehensive inspections coded in PCS as either C, S, A, D, B, 

or X will be counted for this measure. Comprehensive inspections coded in ICIS-NPDES either 

as AU1, CBI, CEI, DIA, SA1, or TX1 will be counted for this measure. 

1.C. Pretreatment 

1.C.1. Pretreatment Audits 

For the pretreatment program, all approved active POTW pretreatment programs should 

receive at least one audit in each five year permit term, generally corresponding to an annual 

audit rate of 20% of approved active programs. Data retrievals for this measure will count audits 

coded in PCS as: G. The corresponding ICIS-NPDES code is AU1 with program code 

CWAPRTRT. 

During each audit, oversight inspections should be conducted of at least two Industrial 

Users (IU) discharging to the POTW. The purposes of these oversight inspections include 

verifying that the IU permit correctly reflects the physical and operational conditions of the 

facility, validating whether the POTW has been correctly evaluating compliance (including 

correct sampling), and assessing the POTW’s IU inspection procedures. Data retrievals for this 

measure will count the following inspection types: Pretreatment Compliance Oversight, IU 

Inspection with Pretreatment Audit, IU Sampling Inspection, IU Non-Sampling Inspection, IU 

Toxics Inspection, IU Sampling Inspection with Pretreatment, IU Non-Sampling Inspection with 

Pretreatment, and IU Toxics with Pretreatment. The corresponding PCS codes are: !, U, 2, 3, 4, 

5, 6, 7. The corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes with program code CWAPRTRT are: OVS 

(alternative), AU2 (industrial), PSI (industrial), CE2 or PIU (industrial), TX2 (industrial), PSI 

(industrial), CE2 or PIU (industrial), and TX2 (industrial). 

1.C.2. Pretreatment Compliance Inspections 

Approved active POTW pretreatment programs should receive at least two (2) Pretreatment 

Compliance Inspections (PCI) during each five year permit term. Data retrievals will count the 

following types of inspections: Pretreatment Compliance Inspections, Pretreatment Follow-up 

Inspections, and Pretreatment Compliance Oversight. The corresponding PCS codes are: P, F, 

and!. The corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes with program code CWAPRTRT are: CEI 

(comprehensive), FLP (alternative), and OVS (alternative). 
 

1 - 6 

1.C.3. Significant Industrial User Inspections 

For the industrial pretreatment program, the appropriate EPA or state permitting authority 

should track the submission of POTW reports made pursuant to C.F.R. 403.12(i) and review 

100% of all submissions to determine if the POTW is correctly implementing the program, 

including, as appropriate, enforcement of SIUs. For SIUs discharging to non-authorized POTWs 

where EPA or the state are the direct implementing authority, EPA or the state should track 

submission of SIU semi-annual reports submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h). The 

corresponding PCS codes are: !, U, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes with 

program code CWAPRTRT are: OVS (alternative), AU2 (industrial), PSI (industrial), CE2 or 

PIU (industrial), TX2 (industrial), PSI (industrial), CE2 or PIU (industrial), and TX2 (industrial). 

For the industrial pretreatment program, 100% of SIUs permitted by approved POTWs 

should be inspected, and sampled subject to regulations or ERP requirements, by the approved 

POTW when required semi-annual self monitoring reports from SIUs show noncompliance, or 

based on tips or complaints received by EPA, state, or approved POTW. In the course of 

conducting audits of approved POTW’s, states should evaluate POTW programs to ensure that 

follow-up to reports of noncompliance by SIUs routinely occurs. SIUs directly regulated by 

regional offices or states should be inspected annually, with sampling as appropriate, except 

where the SIU is designated with a reduction in monitoring and inspection frequency designated 

in 403.12(e)(3). Data retrievals for this measure will count the following inspections: Sampling 

Inspection, IU Non-Sampling Inspection, IU Toxics Inspection, IU Sampling Inspection with 

Pretreatment, IU Non-Sampling Inspection with Pretreatment, and IU Toxics with Pretreatment. 

The corresponding PCS codes are: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes with 

program code CWAPRTRT are: PSI (industrial), CE2 or PIU (industrial), TX2 (industrial), PSI 

(industrial), CE2 or PIU (industrial), and TX2 (industrial). 

1.D. Oversight 

OECA does not contemplate any changes to its oversight processes as a result of issuance 

of the CMS. Oversight inspections are described in the memorandum Revised Policy 

Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements (August 1986) and an Office of Water 

memorandum 1987 National Guidance for Oversight of NPDES Programs (April 1986). These 

memoranda establish that oversight inspections should: (1) assess how well the state inspectors 

are determining compliance; (2) be tailored to fit state performance; (3) provide incentives to 

strong state performance by reducing the number, level and/or frequency of some reporting 

requirements consistent with regulations or reducing the frequency of oversight inspections. In 

states where criteria for good performance are not met, EPA may suggest changes in procedures 

and the state use of resources or training, provide technical assistance, and/or increase the 

number of oversight inspections. 

OECA reaffirms the principle that there is “no one size fits all way to do oversight.” 

Regions will develop a state-by-state oversight proposal for each year. The OECA State Review 

Framework (SRF) is the major oversight activity for the NPDES compliance monitoring 

program, and the schedule of SRF reviews should be a significant factor in scheduling of 
 

 

1 - 7 

oversight inspections. EPA oversight inspections should ordinarily occur before an SRF review 

and the information from them should be considered in the SRF. A minimum of five (5) EPA 

oversight inspections should be conducted in each state where an SRF review is scheduled to 

take place in the subsequent fiscal year. These inspections may also include joint state/EPA 

inspections where the state has the lead role in the inspection. 

Additional factors that EPA may consider when scheduling oversight include: (1) 

significant changes in state program structures or personnel are taking place; (2) a new state 

regulatory structure is being implemented; (3) the state is reporting low violation identification 

rates; (4) the state is reporting low inspection coverage rates; or (5) patterns in complaints from 

citizens. 

EPA’s Annual Commitment System (ACS) contains a measure requiring the regions to 

project the combined number of oversight inspections and joint state / EPA inspections (state 

lead) that they will conduct. Data retrievals for this measure will count inspections under the 

following inspection types Compliance Evaluation Oversight, and state inspections designated 

under the inspector code for Joint/EPA Inspectors – State Lead that are at the level of CEI, CSI, 

PAI, DI, CBI, and/or XSI. The corresponding PCS codes are: ! and O. The corresponding 

ICIS-NPDES code is OVS (alternative). Compliance evaluation oversight inspections should be 

entered using the code OVS (alternative) and a program code different than CWAPRTRT. 

Pretreatment oversight inspections should be entered using the code OVS (alternative) and 

program code equal to CWAPRTRT. 

1.E. Biosolids 

The objectives of a sewage sludge inspection are to determine compliance with Federal 

sludge regulations for any facility engaged in a regulated sludge or disposal practice and to 

evaluate the permittee’s compliance with sludge monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting, 

treatment operations, and sampling and laboratory quality assurance. 

The inspection goal for sludge-biosolids inspections is that each major POTW receive at 

least one sludge-biosolids inspection every five years. POTW sludge land disposal operations 

should receive at least one sludge-biosolids inspection every five years. These inspections may 

be conducted in conjunction with compliance inspections at major and minor POTWs. 

Inspections may also be conducted to respond to citizen complaints. Inspection type counted for 

this indicator measure: sludge-biosolids. The corresponding PCS code is Z. To enter biosolids 

inspections in ICIS-NPDES use the CWAS program code and the appropriate compliance 

monitoring type code (i.e., CEI or SA1). 
Attachment 2 - Wet Weather Programs 

At the conclusion of FY 2011, after three years of implementation of these revised NPDES 

inspection frequencies, OECA will evaluate whether the CMS is achieving the desired results, will 

adjust the goals as appropriate for any areas that may not be producing the desired results. 

2.A. Combined Sewer System 

Combined Sewer System (CSS) inspections evaluate compliance with Combined Sewer 

Overflow (CSO) provisions present in the NPDES permit, an enforcement order, a consent 

decree, or another enforceable document. The inspector verifies that the permittee is preventing 

CSOs during dry weather, implementing the nine minimum CSO controls, adhering to a schedule 

for development, submission, and implementation of a Long-Term CSO Control Plan, 

eliminating or relocating overflows from sensitive areas, adhering to effluent limitations, and 

implementing a monitoring program. 

As of the date of this memorandum, nationally there are 837 permitted CSS’s. The CSS 

inspection goal is: Major CSS’s should receive at least one CSO inspection every three (3) fiscal 

years. Minor CSS’s should receive at least one CSO inspection every five (5) years. These 

inspections may be conducted in conjunction with compliance inspections at major and minor 

POTWs. Data retrievals for this measure will count the following inspection types: PCS: CSO 

Sampling (#), CSO Non-Sampling ($). The corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes are SA1 

(comprehensive) with program code CWACSO, and CEI (comprehensive) with program code 

CWACSO. CSS inspections, as well as broader inspections that include connected satellite 

systems, may be conducted in conjunction with compliance inspections at major and minor 

POTW’s. When entering EPA CSS inspections, the OECA National Priority “Wet Weather – 

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)” should be selected. 

In the event that regions and states are not able to meet this goal, proposals for alternate 

frequency goals may be considered for particular systems based on information such as: overall 

history of good compliance based on information from prior CSO inspections (e.g., permit 

conditions, Nine Minimum Controls), no dry weather overflows (identified through inspections 

or record reviews), declining CSO activation rates, and status of receiving waters. 

2.B. Sanitary Sewer Systems 

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) inspections evaluate compliance with SSO provisions 

present in the NPDES permit, an enforcement order, a consent decree, or another enforceable 

document. The inspector collects information to verify that the permittee is complying with the 

NPDES permit conditions (duty to mitigate and proper operation and maintenance) and the 

required notification procedures. The inspector also determines whether there have been any 

unpermitted discharges, or discharges from a location other than the discharge point specified in 

the permit, to waters of the United States. 

There is no set inspection frequency or goal for SSO inspections. Inspections are 

scheduled as needed based on information about overflow occurrences received directly by EPA, 
2 – 2 

or from other governmental organizations, citizens groups, or non-governmental organizations. 

SSO inspections, as well as broader inspections of Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSS) and their 

satellites, may be conducted in conjunction with compliance inspections at major and minor 

POTWs. Data retrievals for the indicator measure for SSO inspections will count inspections 

under the following inspection types: PCS: SSO Sampling (+), SSO Non-Sampling (&). The 

corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes are SA1 (comprehensive) with program code CWASSO, and 

CEI (comprehensive) with program code CWASSO. When entering EPA SSO inspections, the 

OECA National Priority “Wet Weather – Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO)” should be selected. 

2.C. Storm Water 

2.C.1. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) 

a. Phase I Audits 

Nationally, there are approximately 280 Phase I MS4 permits which covers 

approximately 1,000 permittees (the difference being that many MS4 permits include two or 

more co-permittees). Audits (definition contained in Attachment 3) of Phase I MS4’s should be 

completed within five years of the issuance of this memorandum. After the first audit on the 

MS4 is completed, regions and states will determine future audit frequency based on permit 

compliance. If violations were discovered that require the issuance of an enforcement order, 

regions or states should conduct a follow-up audit within one year. If either minor or no 

violations were discovered, regions or states should conduct another audit within 5 years. Data 

retrievals for the indicator measure for MS4 Phase I audits will count under the following PCS 

code: Stormwater (MS4) Audit (>).The corresponding ICIS-NPDES code is AU1 

(comprehensive) with program code CWASTMM. When entering EPA audits, the OECA 

National Priority “Wet Weather – Storm Water – MS4” should be selected. 

b. Phase I Inspections 

MS4 inspections (definition contained in Attachment 3) assess a subset of the MS4’s 

permit compliance, respond to citizen complaints, or respond to requests or referrals from other 

governmental organizations, citizens groups, or non-governmental organizations. Inspections of 

Phase I MS4’s should be conducted on an as needed basis. Many Phase I MS4’s may technically 

qualify as “major permittees” per the “NPDES Permit Rating Sheet.” The inspection frequency 

for major permittees under heading 1.A.1 is not intended to apply to Phase I MS4’s. Data 

retrievals for the indicator measure for MS4 Phase I inspections will count under the following 

PCS codes: Stormwater (MS4) Sampling (<),Stormwater (MS4) Non-Sampling (-).The 

corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes are SA1 (comprehensive) and CEI (comprehensive) with 

program code CWASTMM. When entering EPA inspections, the OECA National Priority “Wet 

Weather – Storm Water – MS4” should be selected. 
2 - 3 

c. Phase II Audits and Inspections 

The Office of Water estimates that there are approximately 5,000 Phase II MS4’s 

nationally. There is a strong need for permitting authorities to assess the quality of these MS4 

programs. Audits (evaluating all aspects of the MS4), on-site inspections (inspecting individual 

parts of the MS4 program), and review of annual reports are valuable tools to determine if the 

Phase II MS4s are in compliance with permit requirements. 

The goal is to conduct an appropriate combination of audits and inspections to determine 

compliance within seven years of the issuance of this memorandum. Given the overarching need 

to assess the Phase II programs, this goal provides flexibility to regions and states to determine 

the most appropriate approach to assess compliance within the Phase II universe. Since the size 

of the universe is large, if regions or states experience difficulty meeting this goal, priority 

should be given to auditing or inspecting Phase II MS4s located in priority watersheds that 

contribute to CWA Section 303(d) or 305(b) listings, and at Phase II MS4s located near high 

quality waters that the state has designated for higher levels of protection to prevent degradation. 

After the region or state has made compliance determination at individual Phase II MS4s the 

future assessment frequency should be based on whether the Phase II MS4 was or was not in 

compliance with the permit, and other information (e.g., review of annual reports, citizen 

complaints, etc.). If violations are discovered that require the issuance of an enforcement order, 

regions or states should conduct a follow-up audit or on-site inspection within one year. If either 

minor or no violations were discovered, regions or states should conduct another follow-up audit 

or inspection within 5 years. 

Data retrievals for the indicator measure for MS4 Phase II audits will count under the 

following PCS codes: Stormwater (MS4) Audit (>), Stormwater (MS4) Sampling (<), 

Stormwater (MS4) Non-Sampling (-). The corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes AU1 

(comprehensive), SA1 (comprehensive), and CEI (comprehensive) with program code 

CWASTMM. When entering EPA audits and inspections, the OECA National Priority “Wet 

Weather–Storm Water–MS4” should be selected. 

2.C.2. Industrial Storm Water 

Industrial storm water inspections are designed to ensure that regulated facilities have an 

NPDES permit for storm water discharge and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP), and that the facility is in compliance with the permit and is implementing the SWPPP 

to ensure that the permittee is meeting technology and water quality based requirements. During 

the inspection the inspector reviews the permit and the SWPPP, reviews self-inspection reports 

and other records to verify that the facility is complying with its permit and is implementing the 

SWPPP, and walks the site to verify that the SWPPP is accurate and BMPs are in place and 

functioning properly. 

Estimates indicate that there are more than 100,000 industrial storm water permittees 

nationwide, contained within 29 industrial categories. The long-term inspection goal for 

industrial storm water permittees is to inspect at least 10% of the universe each fiscal year. 

Given the size of the universe, if regions or states experience difficulty meeting this goal, priority 
 

2 - 4 

should be given to inspecting permittees of environmental concern and those located in priority 

watersheds that may discharge a pollutant(s) that contributes to CWA Section 303(d) or 305(b) 

listings, and permittees located near high quality waters that the state has designated for higher 

levels of protection to prevent degradation. OECA will work with the regions and states during 

FY 2008 – FY 2010 to incrementally improve information on the universe of industrial storm 

water permittees, particularly for the subset of industrial categories addressed in OECA’s 

national storm water priorities: Ready-Mix Concrete; Sand and Gravel; Crushed Stone; Road 

Building; and Ports. 

Data retrievals for the industrial storm water inspection indicator measure will count 

under the following PCS codes: Stormwater (Non-Construction) Sampling (:), Stormwater (NonConstruction) Non-Sampling (~). The corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes are SA1 

(comprehensive) and CEI (comprehensive) with program code CWASTMN. When entering 

EPA industrial storm water inspections, the OECA National Priority “Wet Weather–Storm 

Water-Industrial-Non-construction” should be selected. 

2.C.3. Construction 

Storm water inspections are designed to ensure that regulated facilities have a NPDES 

permit for storm water discharge and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and are 

following the specifications in each. During the inspection, the inspector reviews the permit and 

the SWPPP and determines whether the SWPPP meets the requirements set forth in the permit. 

The inspector also reviews records, such as self-inspection reports, to verify that the facility is 

complying with its permit and the SWPPP and walks the site to verify that the SWPPP is 

accurate and BMPs are in place and functioning properly. 

a. Phase I (Greater than 5 acres) 

OECA recommends a joint EPA and state annual goal to inspect at least 10% of the 

permitted Phase I construction sites, with priority given to sites located near Section 303(d) or 

305(b) listed waters that are impaired for construction-associated pollutants, and at sites located 

near high quality waters that the state has designated for higher levels of protection to prevent 

degradation. 

EPA estimates that there are approximately 157,500 Phase I construction starts 

nationwide annually. EPA and the states should establish the additional goal to inspect all Phase 

I sites where there is an indication (including tips and complaints) of unpermitted construction 

activity. Inspections conducted pursuant to a tip or complaint will count toward the annual Phase 

I universe coverage goal. For states that enter all construction storm water inspections in ICISNPDES, data retrievals for the construction storm water inspection indicator measure will count 

under the following PCS codes: Stormwater (Construction) Sampling ( { ), Stormwater 

(Construction) Non-Sampling ( } ). The corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes are SA1 

(comprehensive) and CEI (comprehensive) with program code CWASTMC. When entering 

EPA industrial storm water inspections, the OECA National Priority “Wet Weather–Storm 

Water-Industrial Construction” should be selected. 
2 – 5 

Given the size and transient nature of the Phase I construction storm water universe, EPA 

has provided in the draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement that only the inspections that should be 

entered into ICIS-NPDES are those where the state, territory, or tribe issues a formal 

enforcement action, administrative penalty order, or informal enforcement action (but only if 

informal action addresses Significant Noncompliance). For estimating joint EPA and state 

progress relative to the joint annual goal at the end of the federal fiscal year, states should submit 

to the appropriate EPA regional office aggregate reporting of the total number of NPDES Phase I 

construction storm water inspections that have been conducted during the fiscal year. This report 

may also include separate numerical data on the NPDES Phase I construction storm water 

inspections conducted by counties or localities. 

b. Phase II (1 to 5 acres) 

OECA recommends a joint EPA and state annual goal to inspect at least 5% of the 

permitted Phase II construction sites, with priority given to sites located near Section 303(d) or 

305(b) listed waters that are impaired for construction-associated pollutants, and at sites located 

near high quality waters that the state has designated for higher levels of protection to prevent 

degradation. 

EPA estimates that there are 87,875 Phase II construction starts nationwide annually. 

EPA and the states should establish the additional goal to inspect all Phase II sites where there is 

an indication (including tips and complaints) of unpermitted construction activity. Inspections 

conducted pursuant to a tip or complaint may count toward the annual Phase II universe 

coverage goal. For states that enter all construction storm water inspections in ICIS-NPDES, 

data retrievals for the construction storm water inspection indicator measure will count under the 

following PCS codes: Stormwater (Construction) Sampling ( { ), Stormwater (Construction) 

Non-Sampling ( } ). The corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes are SA1 (comprehensive) and CEI 

(comprehensive) with program code CWASTMC. When entering EPA industrial storm water 

inspections, the OECA National Priority “Wet Weather–Storm Water-Industrial Construction” 

should be selected. 

Given the size and transient nature of the Phase II construction storm water universe, 

EPA has provided in the draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement that only the inspections that 

should be entered into ICIS-NPDES are those where the state, territory, or tribe issues a formal 

enforcement action, administrative penalty order, or informal enforcement action (but only if 

informal action addresses Significant Noncompliance). For estimating joint EPA and state 

progress relative to the joint annual goal at the end of the federal fiscal year, states should submit 

to the appropriate EPA regional office aggregate reporting of the total number of NPDES Phase 

II construction storm water inspections that have been conducted during the fiscal year. This 

report may also include separate numerical data on the NPDES Phase II construction storm water 

inspections conducted by counties or localities. 
 

2 - 6 

2.D. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 

The objective of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) inspections is to 

verify that CAFOs are not illegally discharging to waters of the United States, as well as to verify 

that permitted CAFOs are in compliance with their NPDES permits. 

2.D.1. Large and Medium CAFOs with NPDES permits. 

EPA recommends that states and regions inspect at least once every five years to 

determine compliance with the permit, including terms of the nutrient management plan. More 

frequent inspections, including annual inspections, may be appropriate for facilities that meet any 

of the following criteria (Section 2.2.1 NPDES Permit Writers Guidance for CAFOs, December, 

2003): 

- Exceptionally large operations (existing and new) 

- Operation that has historical compliance problems 

- Operation that has significant environmental concerns 

- Operation located in an area of significant environmental concern or with particular 

water quality impairment 

- Operation subject to voluntary alternative performance standard 

- Operation subject to additional state requirements that apply to specific areas of 

operations 

Data retrievals for the large and medium CAFOs with NPDES permits inspection 

indicator measure will count under the following PCS codes: CAFO-Sampling 

( \ ), CAFO-Non-Sampling ( = ). The corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes are SA1 

(comprehensive) and CEI (comprehensive) with program code CWACAFO. When entering 

EPA CAFO inspections, the OECA National Priority “Wet Weather–CAFO” should be selected. 

2.D.2. Large CAFOs without NPDES permits. 

If not inspected to date, inspect all unpermitted large CAFOs within five years to 

determine whether the facility discharges. Thereafter, as needed based on the possibility for an 

unauthorized discharge. 

Data retrievals for the large CAFOs without NPDES permits inspection indicator 

measure will count under the following PCS codes: CAFO-Sampling ( \ ), CAFO-Non-Sampling 

( = ). The corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes are SA1 (comprehensive) and CEI (comprehensive) 

with program code CWACAFO. When entering EPA CAFO inspections, the OECA National 

Priority “Wet Weather–CAFO” should be selected. 

2.D.3. Medium AFOs without NPDES Permits 

Assess one-time initially to determine whether the facility is a medium CAFO, including 

whether the facility discharges. Prioritize assessments based on priority watersheds, nutrient 
 

 

2 – 7 

impairments, complaints, or other information. After the initial assessment if the facility is not a 

medium CAFO, States and regions should inspect and designate as needed based on citizen 

complaint or other information to determine whether facility is a significant contributor of 

contaminants and has a discharge through a manmade conveyance or there is direct contact by 

animals in the production area. (Note: assessments evaluate whether the facility meets the 

definition of a medium CAFO -- manmade ditch, or pipe carries manure or process waste water 

from the facility to surface waters or animals come into contact with surface water that runs 

through the area they are confined). 

Data retrievals for the medium AFO assessment indicator measure will count under the 

following PCS codes: CAFO-Sampling ( \ ), CAFO-Non-Sampling ( = ). The corresponding 

ICIS-NPDES codes are SA1 (comprehensive) and CEI (comprehensive) with program code 

CWACAFO. When entering EPA CAFO inspections, the OECA National Priority “Wet 

Weather–CAFO” should be selected. 

2.D.4. Small AFOs 

States and regions should inspect and designate as needed based on citizen complaint or 

other information to determine whether facility is a significant contributor of contaminants and 

has a discharge through a manmade conveyance or there is direct contact by animals in the 

production area. 

Data retrievals for the small AFO inspection indicator measure will count under the 

following PCS codes: CAFO-Sampling ( \ ), CAFO-Non-Sampling ( = ). The corresponding 

ICIS-NPDES codes are SA1 (comprehensive) and CEI (comprehensive) with program code 

CWACAFO. When entering EPA CAFO inspections, the OECA National Priority “Wet 

Weather–CAFO” should be selected. 
Attachment 3 – Inspection Type Descriptions 

(Source: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Inspection Manual, 

July 2004) 

Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) 

The CEI is a nonsampling inspection designed to verify permittee compliance with applicable 

permit self-monitoring requirements, effluent limits, and compliance schedules. Inspectors must 

review records, make visual observations and evaluate treatment facilities, laboratories, effluents 

and receiving waters. During the CEI, the inspector must examine both chemical and biological 

self-monitoring, which form the basis for all other inspection types except the Reconnaissance 

Inspection. 

Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI) 

During the CSI, NPDES permitted or unpermitted facilities, inspectors must take representative 

samples. Inspectors then verify the accuracy of the permittee's self-monitoring program and 

reports through chemical and bacteriological analysis; determine compliance with discharge 

limitations; determine the quantity and quality of effluents; develop permits; and provide 

evidence for enforcement proceedings where appropriate. In addition, the CSI includes the same 

objectives and tasks as a CEI. 

Performance Audit Inspection (PAI) 

The inspector conducts a PAI to evaluate the permittee's self-monitoring program. As with a 

CEI, the PAI verifies the permittee's reported data and compliance through a records check. 

However, the PAI provides a more resource-intensive review of the permittee's self-monitoring 

program and evaluates the permittee's procedures for sample collection, flow measurement, 

chain-of-custody, laboratory analyses, data compilation, reporting, and other areas related to the 

self-monitoring program. In a CEI, the inspector makes a cursory visual observation of the 

treatment facility, laboratory, effluents, and receiving waters. In a PAI, the inspector observes the 

permittee performing the self-monitoring process from sample collection and flow measurement 

through laboratory analyses, data workup, and reporting. The PAI does not include the collection 

of samples by the inspector. However, the inspector may require the permittee to analyze 

performance samples for laboratory evaluation purposes. 

Compliance Bio-monitoring Inspection (CBI) 

This inspection includes the same objectives and tasks as a CSI. A CBI reviews a permittee's 

toxicity bioassay techniques and records maintenance to evaluate compliance with the biomonitoring terms of the NPDES permit and to determine whether the permittee's effluent is 

toxic. The CBI also includes the collection of effluent samples by the inspector to conduct 

acute and chronic toxicity testing to evaluate the biological effect of a permittee's effluent 

discharge(s) on test organisms. Each state should have the ability to conduct bio-monitoring 

inspections, have a designated contractor conduct inspections, or have an equivalent program 

to independently verify a discharger’s compliance with Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) permit 

requirements. 
 

3 - 2 

Toxics Sampling Inspection (XSI) 

The XSI has the same objectives as a conventional CSI. However, it places increased emphasis 

on toxic substances regulated by the NPDES permit. The XSI covers priority pollutants other 

than heavy metals, phenols, and cyanide, which are typically included in a CSI (if regulated by 

the NPDES permit). An XSI uses more resources than a CSI because sophisticated techniques 

are required to sample and analyze toxic pollutants. An XSI may also evaluate raw materials, 

process operations, and treatment facilities to identify toxic substances requiring controls. 

Diagnostic Inspection (DI) 

The DI primarily focuses on Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that have not achieved 

permit compliance. POTWs that are having difficulty diagnosing their problems are targeted. 

The purposes of the DI are to identify the causes of noncompliance, suggest immediate remedies 

that will help the POTW achieve compliance, and support current or future enforcement action. 

Once the cause of noncompliance is defined, an administrative order is usually issued that 

requires the permittee to conduct a detailed analysis and develop a composite correction plan. 

Reconnaissance Inspection (RI) 

The RI is used to obtain a preliminary overview of a permittee's compliance program. The 

inspector performs a brief visual inspection of the permittee's treatment facility, effluents, and 

receiving waters. The RI uses the inspector's experience and judgment to summarize quickly 

any potential compliance problems. The objective of the RI is to expand inspection coverage 

without increasing inspection resources. The RI is the briefest and least resource intensive of all 

NPDES inspections. 

Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) and Pretreatment Audit 

The PCI evaluates the POTW's implementation of its approved pretreatment program. It includes 

a review of the POTW's records on monitoring, inspections, and enforcement activities for its 

industrial users (IUs). The PCI may be supplemented with IU inspections. An IU inspection is an 

inspection of any significant IU that discharges to the POTW. The inspection can include 

sampling or not, depending on the reason for the inspection. If feasible, inspectors should 

conduct the PCI concurrently with another NPDES inspection of the POTW. Additional 

information is available in EPA’s Guidance for Conducting a Pretreatment Compliance 

Inspection (September 1991). 

It should be noted that a related type of review procedure, the pretreatment audit, is also 

performed by Approval Authorities. The pretreatment audit is defined and discussed in Section 

1.2, page 1-1, of EPA’s Pretreatment Compliance Inspection and Audit Manual for Approval 

Authorities (July 1986) and the Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist and Instructions 

(May 1992). 
3 - 3 

Follow-up Inspection 

The follow-up inspection is a resource intensive inspection conducted when a compliance 

problem is identified as a result of a routine inspection or a complaint. For a follow-up 

inspection, the appropriate resources are assembled to deal effectively with a specific 

enforcement problem. 

Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) Inspection 

The objectives of a sewage sludge (biosolids) inspection are to determine compliance with 

Federal 503 sludge regulations for any facility engaged in a regulated sludge or disposal 

practice and to evaluate the permittee’s compliance with sludge monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting, treatment operations, and sampling and laboratory quality assurance. The PCI, 

CEI, and PAI are the most likely vehicles for evaluating compliance with sludge requirements. 

Storm Water Inspection 

Storm water inspections are designed to ensure that regulated facilities have a NPDES permit for 

storm water discharge and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and are following 

the specifications in each. During the inspection, the inspector reviews the permit and the 

SWPPP and determines whether the SWPPP meets the requirements set forth in the permit. The 

inspector also reviews records, such as self-inspection reports, to verify that the facility is 

complying with its permit and the SWPPP and walks the site to verify that the SWPPP is 

accurate and BMPs are in place and functioning properly. 

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Audit 

An MS4 audit is used to evaluate overall MS4 storm water program implementation, and identify 

problems the local government may have in implementing the program. MS4 audits involve a 

comprehensive review of the local government's MS4 storm water program including: a review 

of the program elements including structural and source control measures, detection and removal 

of illicit discharges and improper disposal into storm sewers, monitoring and controlling 

pollutants in storm water discharges, implementing and maintaining structural and nonstructural 

Best Management Practices (BMPs), verification of implementation schedules, assignment of 

appropriate individuals, review of the inspection and enforcement program for industrial 

facilities and construction sites, evaluation of the dry weather screening program, determination 

of whether controls are in place and are in good working order, and whether facilities have 

schedules for construction of structural control measures. 

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Inspection 

An MS4 inspection involves reviewing some, but not all, elements of the MS4's permit. The 

MS4 inspection would involve some amount of field work to observe some of the MS4's 

operations. MS4 inspections may involve the following two activities designed to determine if 

the MS4 control authority is implementing an adequate program in one or more selected MS4 

program elements. If the region or a state conducts either of the following two activities it would 

meet the definition of an MS4 inspection. 
3 – 4 

1. Review a limited subset of the MS4 control authority's permit elements. The subset would 

be determined by the region or a state after a review of the MS4 permit. The inspection 

could involve either a significant review of one specific aspect of the program (e.g., 

structural and source control measures), or a review of 2-3 specific MS4 permit program 

elements (see MS4 audit definition for program elements), depending upon the specific 

objectives laid out by the region or a state, or 

2. Conduct an inspection at an individual site (e.g., construction, industrial) within the MS4's 

jurisdiction that is not linked to a specific MS4 audit. The specific purpose of this MS4 

inspection would be to determine if the control authority has an adequate inspection program. 

In other words this would be an MS4 oversight inspection. Based on the general definition 

of oversight inspections, this MS4 inspection could be conducted at the same time with the 

MS4 inspector, or shortly after (within 2-3 weeks) the MS4 inspector visited the facility/site. 

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Inspection 

During a CSO inspection, the inspector evaluates compliance with CSO provisions present in the 

NPDES permit, an enforcement order, a consent decree, or another enforceable document. The 

inspector verifies that the permittee is preventing CSOs during dry weather, implementing the 

nine minimum CSO controls, adhering to a schedule for development, submission, and 

implementation of a Long-Term CSO Control Plan, eliminating or relocating overflows from 

sensitive areas, adhering to effluent limitations, and implementing a monitoring program. 

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Inspection 

During an SSO inspection, the inspector evaluates compliance with SSO provisions present in 

the NPDES permit, an enforcement order, a consent decree, or another enforceable document. 

The inspector collects information to verify that the permittee is complying with the NPDES 

standard permit conditions (duty to mitigate and proper operation and maintenance) and the 

required notification procedures. The inspector also determines whether there have been any 

unpermitted discharges, or discharges from a location other than the discharge point specified in 

the permit, to waters of the United States. 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Inspection 

The objective of this inspection is to evaluate a CAFO’s compliance with permit requirements, 

permit conditions, applicable regulations, and other requirements. The three types of CAFO 

inspections are the Status Determination Inspection, the Permit Compliance Inspection, and the 

Settlement Agreement Inspection. The type of information that the inspector gathers depends on 

the type of CAFO inspection being conducted. 

Summary 

The inspector should plan all activities and coordinate with the appropriate compliance personnel 

in their office before the inspection. The type of inspection may serve as a basis for deciding 

what activities will be conducted onsite and for determining what additional information is to be 

gathered or verified during the inspection. Compliance personnel should choose the type of 

inspection to be conducted based on the compliance status and history of the facility, the 
3 - 5 

information needed from the facility, and the type of facility involved. Note that some types of 

NPDES inspections may encompass several elements of the primary inspection types (e.g., a 

storm water inspection may encompass elements from both a CSI and a PAI). 
 

 

Attachment 4 

Next Steps for the Three NPDES Policies: 

 the ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement, the Wet Weather Significant Noncompliance 

Policy, and the NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

October 2, 2007 

Overview 

The Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program 

has evolved through the years to include important wet weather pollution sources. To keep the 

enforcement and information management components of the NPDES program in alignment 

with the current NPDES program regulatory structure, EPA has been working with the States to 

update its policies, guidance, and database. The relationship between the program’s regulatory 

structure, EPA’s past policies and their revision, and program implementation and management 

was explained in an April 30, 2007 paper.2

 On this same date, EPA distributed the following 

three NPDES policies to States, the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) and the 

Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) for 

review and comment: 

o	 the Integrated Compliance Information System for NPDES (ICIS-NPDES) Policy 

Statement; 

o	 EPA’s Significant Noncompliance (SNC) Policy for CWA Violations Associated with 

Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), Concentrated 

Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), and Stormwater Point Sources (aka “Interim Wet 

Weather SNC Policy”); and 

o	 CWA NPDES Inspection Frequency Guidance for the Core Program and Wet Weather 

Sources (aka “NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy”). 

There are several commonalities between these policies. Each policy: 

•	 Promotes both national consistency and flexibility in NPDES program management and 

implementation. 

•	 Focuses resources to the most critical programmatic and environmental areas. 

•	 Updates and strengthens existing NPDES program decision-making and management 

policies that were out-of-date. 

•	 Prompts changes in current NPDES business practices among the authorized states and 

territories to reflect the changes in the program over the last 20 years. 

2

 Relationship between three NPDES Policies: the ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement, the Wet Weather Significant 

Noncompliance Policy, and the NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy, U.S. EPA, April 30, 2007. 
 EPA received comments from 30 States, the majority of which dealt with resource or 

program oversight issues. EPA received few specific substantive comments on any of the three 

policies. 

On September 12, 2007, EPA sent ECOS a letter outlining EPA’s next steps on the 3 

policies based on the States’ comments. This document expands on the initial paper about the 

relationships of the three NPDES policies to include EPA’s current approach for proceeding on 

these policies. 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

 Objective: Both the Permitting for Environmental Results and the State Review 

Framework reviews highlighted the need to revisit the inspection frequency goals set in the 

Enforcement Management System (EMS) written in 1989. The revised Compliance Monitoring 

Strategy (CMS) will establish new goals for all parts of the current core program, while 

acknowledging the emergence of wet weather sources and “traditional” minor facilities that may 

be contributing to non-attainment of water quality standards. The NPDES CMS is intended to 

guide this decision-making process, and focus resources on the most critical environmental areas. 

The NPDES CMS includes flexibility to set priorities in annual agreements between EPA 

regional offices and States that take into account resource constraints. 

 Comments: State comments received focused on three major recommendations: (1) 

accommodate limited State inspection resources; (2) maintain adequate presence in core program 

areas as attention turns toward wet weather issues; and (3) ensure that the flexibility that is built 

into the CMS is actually implemented. 

 Next Step: OECA has accommodated many of the comments that States and regions 

have made in the review periods of the CMS, which have improved the clarity of the document 

and increased the flexibilities the CMS now offers. OECA will finalize the CMS by the end of 

September 2007. The CMS may be utilized in FY2008 if a State wishes to negotiate the 

flexibilities available in the CMS with their region, but will be fully effective in the FY2009 

planning cycle. Regions will be asked to consider beginning implementation of the strategy in 

FY2008 if a State so requests. 

Interim Wet Weather SNC Policy 

Objective: The Interim Wet Weather SNC Policy supplements the existing 1986 NPDES 

SNC Policy and will provide EPA and States with a tool to better manage the current NPDES 

program by providing guidance on prioritizing and tracking violations in EPA’s Clean Water Act 

wet weather national enforcement priority areas. The objective is the same as EPA’s original 

policy – to help focus limited enforcement resources with some degree of national consistency. 

A critical part of implementing this Policy includes the ability to track and manage the 

identification of violations and follow-up actions by EPA and States on a national level. 

 Comments: Only a few States submitted substantive comments on the policy approach, 

including: 1) appreciation of the flexibility built into the policy with some concern that it may 
 

 

also lead to inconsistent interpretations of the SNC criteria and response options in the policy, 2) 

the desire to establish specific thresholds within some of the definitions in the policy, and 3) the 

elimination of the CAFO section because EPA does not have a final revised CAFO rule yet. 

 Next Step: The draft Interim Policy did not identify the related data elements that are 

critical to tracking and managing these activities, as it relied on a small subset of the data 

elements set out in the Requisite ICIS-NPDES Data Elements (RIDE) in the draft ICIS-NPDES 

Policy Statement. Because of the multi-step approach EPA is taking to resolve ICIS-NPDES 

Policy Statement issues (see below), OECA will be initially issuing the Interim Wet Weather 

SNC Policy only at the federal level by the end of September 2007. OECA welcomes any 

State’s interest in piloting the Interim Wet Weather SNC Policy, and recommends that those 

States contact and work through their regions. 

EPA will, in consultation with the ASIWPCA State-EPA NPDES Advisory Group, 

develop an approach for tracking and reporting wet weather SNC information. Full 

implementation of this policy will be coordinated with the implementation of the new ICISNPDES data system and associated policies. 

ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement 

Objective: The ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement will reflect the move from the Permit 

Compliance system (PCS) to the new Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS-NPDES) 

as the national database for the NPDES permitting and enforcement programs. The ICISNPDES Policy Statement will provide EPA and NPDES-authorized States with guidance on 

information management practices and responsibilities to ensure that ICIS-NPDES contains 

accurate, complete, consistent, and timely information, which will support effective management 

of the NPDES program. The Policy Statement also identifies a set of data, the Requisite ICISNPDES Data Elements (RIDE), which will allow EPA to manage the national NPDES program. 

 Comments: State comments on this Policy centered on the following areas on concern: 

resource implications related to the number of data elements; the amount of time to transition to 

this policy; and sharing State data to maintain a national NPDES data base. 

 Next Steps: In consideration of the States’ concerns about the draft Policy Statement, 

EPA developed an approach that will allow provide the necessary guidance to the States already 

using ICIS-NPDES while allowing additional time to work on issues concerning what new data 

to exchange and how to exchange it. There are currently 21 States, 2 Tribes and 9 Territories 

that directly use ICIS-NPDES; 9 hybrid States (that use ICIS-NPDES but also batch some data to 

PCS) that will begin using ICIS-NPDES in FY2008; and 23 full batch States (that use their own 

data system and currently send data to PCS). It is critical that the approach taken ensures fair 

and equal treatment of all states, regardless of what system they use, as well as the continuance 

of a consistent national data set for the NPDES program. 

EPA intends to pursue a rule-making approach to establish the required data elements in 

ICIS-NPDES and the reporting requirements for the full NPDES program. Since this can be a 

lengthy process, EPA will, in the interim take the following steps: 
•	 Issue an Interim ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement for direct users of the ICIS-NPDES 

system that will require them to submit the equivalent set of data that is now required to 

be submitted to PCS. 

•	 Continue to work with the hybrid States to migrate their data from PCS and develop the 

batch data flow through the Exchange Network. Once these States are on ICIS-NPDES, 

the Interim ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement will apply. 

•	 Continue to work with Texas and 10 other States on a net DMR tool that will allow 

facilities to directly submit DMR data to ICIS-NPDES. The NetDMR tool and other 

electronic DMR tools are the key way of reducing data entry burden since 90% of the 

burden associated with the data elements identified in the ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement 

is associated with DMRs. 

•	 Continue to work with States through Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) on how data will 

flow from States with their own systems through the Exchange Network and the Central 

Data Exchange into ICIS-NPDES. 

Conclusion 

The business needs of the national CWA NPDES permitting and enforcement program 

build a strong case for these policies and for having this data available at the national level. 

These policies are important to keep the information management components of the NPDES 

program in alignment with the current NPDES program regulatory structure as it has evolved 

over the past 20 years. EPA’s approaches outlined above for updating its permitting and 

enforcement policies take into consideration the input and concerns of our State partners and 

provide EPA with a path forward for meeting EPA’s national NPDES program management 

needs.