UNITED STA T ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WA S HINGT ON

, D .C

. 20 4 60



### OC1 

### 1 7 2 007

O FF I CE 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 

### 4 t A Je 

# j ;1~~

Assistant Administrato f 

### 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 fu l l 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 qualit y degradation

, particularl y stemmin g 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 b e increasingly innovative and efficient, directing resources toward the most important noncompliance and environmen t al problems. To better meet toda y' s challenges

, O E CA i s updating inspection frequency goal s for the core NPDES program and is articulating goals for the wet weather program areas

. Regulations found at 40 CFR Part 123.26 s et forth requirement s for compliance

Inter n et Addre s s ( URL ) • hltp : l / www

. epa

. gov
Re cy cl e d / R ecyc l a bl e

. Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100 % Postconsumer

, Pro c ess 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 prog ram and wet weather inspection frequencies which, from a national perspective, EPA believe s constitute a strong and balanced compliance monitoring program.

We recognize that achieving these frequencies ma y be an ambitious goal. As a result, we would expect that there will be a dialogue betw een regions and individu al states about annual program commitments and potential resource tr ade-offs. Goals are a starting point for negotiations, and flexibility allows adaptation to pa rticular 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, a nd to identify and document state-specific NPDES inspection frequency goals that differ from the frequencies recommended in this memorandum. States and regions may utilize fl exibility to alter inspection fre quency goals for facilities with good compliance records that are not contributing to water quality impairments. Trade-offs should be considered in the context of supporti ng 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 out side that which is o ffered 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 m onitored 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. Th ese changes are appropriate to
ensure an effective balance acr oss the NPDES compliance monitori ng program. We believe that

1 This regulation includes, in part, th e 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 identif y 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 an d 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 rega rding violations of applicable program and permit requirements; and (4) Procedures for receiving and ensuri ng proper consid eration of information submitted by the public about
violations.- 3 -

this balancing provides deterrence to noncompliance in the most sign ificant environmental areas. In addition, these changes will allow increase d 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: Combin ed 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 addresse d in the Attachments is one that separately identifies core program inspection needs and we t weather program needs and then strikes an appropriate balance between the two by consider ing factors including: noncompliance trends, water quality considerations w ithin individual states, and st ate 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 inspec tion resources overall; it is not intended to draw resources from other NPDES program areas. These inspection planning expectations are intended to promote joint planni ng 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 st ate 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 c hooses a different mix of inspection frequencies from those recommended here, it will be useful for regional EPA NPDE S programs to identify
and describe these different a pproaches. At the conclusion of the EPA and state inspection planning process, regions and st ates should prepare a brief docum ent describing the rationale for any deviations and tradeoffs to whic h 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 fr equencies 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 th e region and/or state. The CM S will be fully effective in FY 2009 planning cycle. The CMS may be utilized in FY2008 if a state wish es to negotiate the
flexibilities available in the Strategy with their region. Regi ons will be asked to consider beginning implementation of the Strate gy in FY2008 if a state so requests.- 4 -

EPA and state inspection planning will rely on compliance data obtained from PCS and ICIS

NPDES, and on citizen tips and complaints. To support attainment of water qual ity goals, the inspection planning process should in creasingly be influenced by inform ation on nonattainment of water quality standards to which facili ties may be contributing (pursuan t to listings under CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b)). As discusse d further in Attachment 1, Secti on 1.A.1 and Section 1.B.1., to support a more data driven planning process, OECA will deve lop two software tools to assist the regions and states in preliminary screening, id entification 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 Info rmation System (OTIS) base d tools are expected to be available for testing in during the Spring of 2008. Refinements to th e 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 pr ogress in implementing the goals contained in this memorandum. Existing procedures such as mid-y ear 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 regiona l 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 da ta 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 fo r the FY 2009 – FY 2010 timeframe; the percent of
the “traditional” minor univers e 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 “t raditional” 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 year s 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 associatio ns, 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 regul atory 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 an other and next steps for each of them.

If you have any questions or concerns re garding this memorandum please contact Rick Duffy (202-564-5014) or Mike Alushin (202-56 4-2300). Thank you in advance for your cooperation as we implement the revise d 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 Noncomplia nce 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, Executi ve Director, ECOS
State Environmental Commissioners

## Attachment 1 - Core NPDES Program In spection Frequencies

1.A. Major Permittees

Major NPDES permits cover discharges from Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) facilities with designed discharge flows of great er 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 ma jor 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 comprehens ive inspection every two fiscal years . This modifies the existing measure of inspections of major permitte es which expresses the goal of inspecting 100% of major permittees annually (a lso known as the “inspection c overage measure”). The existing measure for major permittee inspections does not stipulate a minimum frequency for conducting comprehensive, in-depth Compliance Evalua tion Inspections (CEI), Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI), Performan ce Audit Inspections (PAI), Diagnostic Inspections (DI), Compliance Bio-monitoring Inspecti ons (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 insp ection 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, a nd/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 Sewe r 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 stat e participants to provide input to OECA in developing the model. A separate memorandum will be sent to regions a nd states to solicit membership on the workgroup. The purpose of this model is to distinguish be tween facilities that have strong records of compliance and those who have records indicating compliance problems, particularly for effluent violations for pollutants that may be contribu ting 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 facili ties 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 that1 – 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 Performanc e 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 Majo r Permittee Inspection and Compliance
Assessment

EPA will continue to report data on the tota l 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 conducte d, including reconnaissance (R), enforcement follow-up (@), oversight (O), and sludge-biosolid s (Z) inspection types. Inspections coded in PCS as C, S, A, D, B, X, R, @, O, and Z will be counted for th is 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 a nd the appropriate compliance m onitoring 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 fi elds to count “operations and maintenance” inspections (O & M). O & M inspections ma y 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 u tilizing ICIS-NPDES should use the OPM (alternative) code for O & M inspections.

In lieu of conducting an on-site inspection unde r 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 ev aluations is to ascertain compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit, self monito ring reports, and other information. Off-site
evaluations are intended for use sole ly at facilities that have a c onsistent track record of being well operated and in compliance with permit terms and conditions. Determination of facilities
that are candidates for off-site evaluations shou ld be based on the knowledge of the inspector, and in conjunction with information obtained fr om 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 comp liance 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 mo re late/missing DMR submissions in the previous eight (8) quarters; (4) ha ve unresolved single event violation(s) identified in prior inspection(s); (5) discharge to CWA 303(d)/305(b ) listed waters for pollutant(s) c ontributing to the listing; or1 – 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 pol icy on conducting off-site evaluati ons. Off-site evaluations are expected to be more detailed than the mont hly 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 complian ce. Routine review of DMR data and phone contacts with the facility woul d 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 th rough user defined fields.



### 1.B. Minor Permittees: Goal and Meas ure 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 faci lities (facilities scori ng less than 80 for the si x 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 Pe rmits, however, inspection frequency goals under
this section is are intended to apply to such facilities.

There are no current inspec tion type or frequency goals for “traditional” minor NPDES permittees. EPA reports annual totals for the nu mber 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 rate s, 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, PA I, DI, CBI or XSI) with in the previous five

years.

Separate goals are contained in Attachment 2 to address individual inspection frequencies for the Wet Weather program areas (Combined Se wer 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 le ss 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 atte ntive to facilities th at do not appear, based on the data, to have been inspec ted in more than 5 years. In addition, a preference for early1 - 4

inspection attention should be given to facilities with histor ies of noncompliance, citizen complaints, and/or facilities that may be contributi ng to water quality viola tion(s). Inspections of “traditional” minor POTW’s may be conducted in conjunction with inspections of the Sanitary Sewer Systems (and their satellites) and Combin ed Sewer Systems are connected to the POTW.

To facilitate the targeting of inspections for “t raditional” minors, OECA will develop a software tool to assist the regions and states in preliminary screening and id entification of inspection targets. The first version of this On-line Tracking and Informati on System (OTIS) based facility sorting tool is expected to be available for test ing 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 complete ness of data for traditional minors and how that might affect the results obtained from a weighted model. The sorting t ool will allow regions and states to sort facilities based on factors including: inform ation on water quality impairments; associated pollutants that may be discharged by the permittee; SNC within the most r ecent two years; unresolved Single Event Violations; days since last comprehensive inspec tion; days since last inspection (a ll 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 t ool or the inspection targ eting 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 wi ll 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 facili ties are not dischargi ng 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 a nd the appropriate compliance m onitoring type (i.e., CEI for evaluation or SA1 for sampling insp ection) will be counted for this measure. States utilizing ICIS-NPDES should use the OPM (alternat ive) code for O & M inspections.

During the annual planning process, when dete rmining which “traditional” minor facilities should be inspected using a comp rehensive inspection, regions a nd states should inform that decision by carefully reviewing available information on the permittees, such as noncompliance
information and information that is indicativ e 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 th e status of receiving waters, strong consideration should be given to utilizing a comprehensive in spection. In order to ensure a minimum level playing field, stat es and regions are encouraged to conduct a comprehensive inspection at least 5% of th eir “traditional” minor universe each year.1 - 5

b. “Traditional” minors that discharg e 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 th e 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 di scharges are not in fact contributing to the water quality conditions that have resulted in the Section 303(d) or 305(b) listings; such faciliti es on impaired waters that are not contributing to the impairment may be insp ected with a less comprehensive inspection (e.g., a reconnaissance inspection). Comp rehensive inspections coded in PC S as either C, S, A, D, B, or X will be counted for this measure. Compre hensive 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 activ e programs. Data retrievals for this measure will count audits coded in PCS as: G. The corresponding IC IS-NPDES code is AU1 with program code

CWAPRTRT.

During each audit, oversight inspections shoul d be conducted of at least two Industrial Users (IU) discharging to the POTW . The purposes of these ove rsight inspections include verifying that the IU permit correctly reflects the physical and operational conditions of the facility, validating whether the POTW has b een 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 Samp ling Inspection, IU Non- Sampling Inspection, IU Toxics Inspection, IU Sampling In spection 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 (industr ial), and TX2 (industrial).



### 1.C.2. Pretreatment Co mpliance Inspections

Approved active POTW pretreatment programs s hould receive at least two (2) Pretreatment Compliance Inspections (PCI) dur ing each five year permit term . Data retrievals will count the following types of inspections: Pretreatment Compliance Inspections, Pretreatment Follow-up Inspections, and Pretreatment Compliance Oversi ght. 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 Industr ial User Inspections

For the industrial pretreatment program, the appropriate EPA or state permitting authority should track the submission of POTW reports ma de pursuant to C.F.R. 403.12(i) and review
100% of all submissions to determine if the POTW is correctly impl ementing the program, including, as appropriate, enforcement of SIUs. For SIUs discharging to non-authorized POTWs where EPA or the state are the direct implem enting authority, EPA or the state should track submission of SIU semi-annual reports submitte d 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 (i ndustrial), and TX2 (industrial).

For the industrial pretreatment program, 100% of SIUs permitted by approved POTWs should be inspected, and sampled subject to re gulations 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 s hould evaluate POTW programs to ensure that follow-up to reports of noncompliance by SIUs routinely occurs. SIUs directly regulated by regional offices or states shoul d 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 w ill count the following inspections: Sampling Inspection, IU Non-Sampling Inspection, IU Toxics Inspection, IU Samp ling Inspection with Pretreatment, IU Non-Sampling Insp ection 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 (indus trial), 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 we ll the state inspectors are determining compliance; (2) be tailored to fi t 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 reduc ing 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, provi de 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-s tate 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 of1 - 7

oversight inspections. EPA oversight inspections should ordinarily occur before an SRF review
and the information from them should be consider ed in the SRF. A minimum of five (5) EPA oversight inspections should be co nducted in each state where an SRF review is scheduled to take place in the subsequent fiscal year. Thes e inspections may also include joint state/EPA inspections where the state has th e 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) th e state is reporting low violation identification rates; (4) the state is reporting low inspection cove rage rates; or (5) patterns in complaints from
citizens.

EPA’s Annual Commitment System (ACS) c ontains 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/E PA 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 ove rsight 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 sl udge inspection are to determ ine compliance with Federal sludge regulations for any facility engaged in a regulated sludge or disposal practice and to evaluate the permittee’s compliance with sl udge monitoring, record keeping and reporting, treatment operations, and sampling a nd laboratory quality assurance.

The inspection goal for sludge-biosolids inspecti ons is that each major POTW receive at least one sludge-biosolids in spection every five years. POTW sludge land disposal operations should receive at least one sludge-bio solids inspection every five years . These inspections may be conducted in conjunction w ith compliance inspections at major and minor POTWs. Inspections may also be conducted to respond to ci tizen complaints. Inspection type counted for this indicator measure: sludge-bio solids. The corresponding PCS code is Z. To enter biosolids inspections in ICIS-NPDES us e 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 year s of implementation of these revised NPDES inspection frequencies, OECA will evaluate whethe r the CMS is achieving the desired results, will adjust the goals as appropriate for any areas that may not be produci ng the desired results.



## 2.A. Combined Sewer System

Combined Sewer System (CSS) inspections evaluate compliance with Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) provisions present in the NPDE S 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 sensitiv e areas, adhering to effluent limitations, and implementing a monitoring program.

As of the date of this memorandum, nationa lly 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 leas t 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 co unt the following inspection types: PCS: CSO Sampling (#), CSO Non-Sampling ($). Th e corresponding ICIS-NPDES codes are SA1 (comprehensive) with program code CWACSO, and CEI (comprehensive) with program code CWACSO. CSS inspections, as we ll 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 st ates are not able to meet th is goal, proposals for alternate frequency goals may be considered for particular systems based on information such as: overall history of good compliance based on informa tion from prior CSO inspections (e.g., permit conditions, Nine Minimum Contro ls), 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 or der, a consent decree, or another enforceable document. The inspector collects information to ve rify 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 al so determines whether there have been any unpermitted discharges, or discharges from a locati on other than the discha rge 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 in formation about overflow occurren ces received directly by EPA,2 – 2

or from other governmental organizations, citiz ens groups, or non-governme ntal organizations. SSO inspections, as well as broader inspections of Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSS) and their satellites, may be conducted in conjunction wi th 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 CWAS SO. When entering EPA SSO inspections, the OECA National Priority “Wet Weather – Sanitary Sewer Over flow (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 2 80 Phase I MS4 permits which covers approximately 1,000 permittees (the difference be ing that many MS4 permits include two or more co-permittees). Audits (definition containe d 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 audi t 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 CWASTM M. When entering EPA audits, the OECA National Priority “Wet Weather – Stor m Water – MS4” should be selected.

b. Phase I Inspections

MS4 inspections (definition contained in A ttachment 3) assess a subset of the MS4’s permit compliance, respond to citi zen complaints, or respond to re quests 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 (com prehensive) and CEI (comprehensive) with program code CWASTMM. When entering EPA in spections, 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 ther e are approximately 5,000 Phase II MS4’s nationally. There is a strong need for permitting authorities to assess th e 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 complian ce with permit requirements.

The goal is to conduct an appropriate combina tion 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 complian ce within the Phase II universe. Since the size of the universe is large, if re gions or states experience difficu lty 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 Ph ase II MS4s located near high quality waters that the state has designated for hi gher 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 inform ation (e.g., review of annual reports, citizen complaints, etc.). If violations are discovered that require the i ssuance of an enforcement order, regions or states should conduct a follow-up audit or on-site inspecti on 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) Aud it (>), 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 in spections, the OECA National Priority “Wet
Weather–Storm Water–MS4” should be selected.



### 2.C.2. Industrial Storm Water

Industrial storm water in spections are designed to ensure th at regulated facilities have an NPDES permit for storm water discharge and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and that the facility is in complian ce with the permit and is implementing the SWPPP to ensure that the permittee is meeting technolog y and water quality based requirements. During the inspection the inspector reviews the permit a nd 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 meeti ng this goal, priority2 - 4

should be given to inspecting permittees of enviro nmental 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. OE CA will work with the re gions and states during FY 2008 – FY 2010 to incrementally improve info rmation on the universe of industrial storm water permittees, particularly fo r the subset of industrial ca tegories addressed in OECA’s national storm water priorities: Ready-Mix C oncrete; Sand and Gravel; Crushed Stone; Road Building; and Ports.

Data retrievals for the industrial storm wa ter 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 OE CA National Priority “Wet Weather–Storm
Water-Industrial-Non-construc tion” should be selected.



### 2.C.3. Construction

Storm water inspections are designed to ensu re that regulated facilities have a NPDES permit for storm water discharge and a Storm Wa ter Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and are following the specifications in each. During the in spection, the inspector reviews the permit and
the SWPPP and determines whethe r the SWPPP meets the requirement s 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 pl ace and functioning properly.

a. Phase I (Greater than 5 acres)

OECA recommends a joint EPA and state annua l 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 impa ired for construction-associated pollutants, and at sites located near high quality waters that th e state has designated for higher le vels of protection to prevent degradation.

EPA estimates that there are approximately 157,500 Phase I construction starts nationwide annually. EPA and the states should esta blish the additional goal to inspect all Phase
I sites where there is an indi cation (including tips and compla ints) 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 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 IC IS-NPDES codes are SA1 (comprehensive) and CEI (comprehensive) with program code CWASTMC. When entering EPA industrial storm water inspections, the OE CA National Priority “Wet Weather–Storm
Water-Industrial Constructi on” should be selected.2 – 5

Given the size and transient nature of the Ph ase I construction storm water universe, EPA has provided in the draft ICIS-N PDES Policy Statement that only the inspections that should be
entered into ICIS-NPDES are t hose 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 Noncomp liance). For estimating joint EPA and state progress relative to the joint annua l 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 be en conducted during the fis cal year. This report may also include separate numerical data on the NPDES Phase I c onstruction storm water inspections conducted by counties or localities.

b. Phase II (1 to 5 acres)

OECA recommends a joint EPA and state annua l 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 impa ired for construction-associated pollutants, and at sites located near high quality waters that th e state has designated for higher le vels of protection to prevent degradation.

EPA estimates that there are 87,875 Phase II construction starts nationwide annually.
EPA and the states should establis h the additional goal to inspect a ll Phase II sites where there is an indication (including tips and complaints) of unpermitted construction activity. Inspections conducted pursuant to a tip or complaint ma y count toward the annual Phase II universe coverage goal. For states that enter all constructi on storm water inspectio ns in ICIS-NPDES,
data retrievals for the construc tion storm water inspection indicat or measure will count under the following PCS codes: Stormwater (Construction) Sampling ( { ), Stormwater (Construction) Non-Sampling ( } ). The corresponding ICIS-N PDES 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-I ndustrial Construction”
should be selected.

Given the size and transient nature of the Phase II construction storm water universe, EPA has provided in the draft IC IS-NPDES Policy Statement that only the inspections that
should be entered into ICIS-NPDES are those where the state, terri tory, or tribe issues a formal enforcement action, administrative penalty order, or informal enforcement action (but only if informal action addresses Significant Noncomp liance). For estimating joint EPA and state progress relative to the joint annua l goal at the end of the federal fiscal year, states should submit to the appropriate EPA regional office aggregat e reporting of the total number of NPDES Phase II construction storm water inspec tions 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 Anim al Feeding Operations

The objective of Concentrated Animal Feedi ng 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 in spect 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 f acilities 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 significan t environmental concern or with particular water quality impairment

- Operation subject to voluntary alternative performance standard

- Operation subject to additional state requi rements 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 Weat her–CAFO” should be selected.



### 2.D.2. Large CAFOs witho ut NPDES permits.

If not inspected to date, inspect all unpermitted large CAFOs within five years to determine whether the facility discharges. Therea fter, as needed based on the possibility for an unauthorized discharge.

Data retrievals for the large CAFOs w ithout 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 in spections, 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 disc harges. Prioritize assessments based on priority watersheds, nutrient2 – 7

impairments, complaints, or other information. Afte r 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 whet her facility is a sign ificant contributor of
contaminants and has a discharge through a manmade conve yance or there is direct contact by animals in the production area. (Note: assessments evaluate whether the facility meets the definition of a medium CAFO -- m anmade ditch, or pipe carries manure or process waste water from the facility to surface waters or animals co me into contact with surface water that runs through the area they are confined).

Data retrievals for the medium AFO assessm ent 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 inspec tions, the OECA National Priority “Wet
Weather–CAFO” should be selected.



### 2.D.4. Small AFOs

States and regions should insp ect and designate as needed based on citizen complaint or
other information to determine wh ether facility is a significant contributor of contaminants and has a discharge through a manmade conveyance or there is direct cont act 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 inspec tions, the OECA National Priority “Wet
Weather–CAFO” should be selected.

## Attachment 3 – Inspectio n 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 li mits, and compliance schedules. Inspectors must review records, make visual observations and eval uate treatment facilities , laboratories, effluents and receiving waters. During the CEI, the inspect or must examine both chemical and biological self-monitoring, which form the basis for all ot her inspection types exce pt the Reconnaissance Inspection.

Compliance Sampling Inspection (CSI)

During the CSI, NPDES permitted or unpermitted fac ilities, 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 appr opriate. 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-inten sive 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 inspecto r makes a cursory visual observation of the treatment facility, laboratory, effl uents, and receiving waters. In a PAI, the inspector observes the permittee performing the self-mon itoring process from sample co llection and flow measurement through laboratory analyses, data workup, and re porting. The PAI does not include the collection of samples by the inspector. However, the in spector 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 main tenance to evaluate compliance with the bio

monitoring terms of the NPDES permit and to de termine 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 testi ng to evaluate the biological ef fect of a permittee's effluent discharge(s) on test organisms. Each state s hould have the ability to conduct bio-monitoring inspections, have a designated co ntractor conduct inspections, or have an equivalent program to independently verify a disc harger’s compliance with Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) permit requirements.3 - 2

Toxics Sampling Inspection (XSI)

The XSI has the same objectives as a conventiona l CSI. However, it places increased emphasis on toxic substances regulated by the NPDES perm it. 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 pollutant s. 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 Treat ment Works (POTWs) that have not achieved permit compliance. POTWs that are having diffi culty diagnosing their problems are targeted. The purposes of the DI are to identify the cause s 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 anal ysis and develop a com posite correction plan.

Reconnaissance Inspection (RI)

The RI is used to obtain a preliminary ove rview of a permittee's compliance program. The inspector performs a brief visual inspection of the permittee's trea tment facility, effluents, and receiving waters. The RI uses the inspector's ex perience and judgment to summarize quickly any potential compliance problems. The objective of the RI is to expand inspection coverage without increasing inspection resour ces. The RI is the briefest and least resource intensive of all NPDES inspections.

Pretreatment Compliance Inspecti on (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 supplemente d with IU inspections. An IU inspection is an inspection of any significant IU that discharges to the PO TW. The inspection can include sampling or not, depending on the reason for th e 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 relate d type of review procedure, th e pretreatment audit, is also performed by Approval Authorities. The pretreatment audit is de fined and discussed in Section 1.2, page 1-1, of EPA’s Pretreatment Complia nce Inspection and Audit Manual for Approval Authorities (July 1986) and the C ontrol Authority Pretreatment A udit Checklist and Instructions (May 1992).3 - 3

Follow-up Inspection

The follow-up inspection is a resource intens ive 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 assemb led to deal effectively with a specific enforcement problem.

Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) Inspection

The objectives of a sewage sl udge (biosolids) inspection are to determine compliance with Federal 503 sludge regulations for any facility engaged in a re gulated sludge or disposal practice and to evaluate the permittee’s comp liance 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 designe d to ensure that regulated facilities have a NPDES permit for storm water discharge and a Stor m Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and are following the specifications in each. Du ring the inspection, the inspecto r reviews the permit and the
SWPPP and determines whether the SWPPP meets the requirements set forth in the permit. The inspector also reviews records, su ch 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 im plementing the program. MS4 audits involve a comprehensive review of the local government's MS4 storm water progra m including: a review of the program elements includi ng structural and source control measures, detection and removal of illicit discharges and improper disposal in to storm sewers, monitoring and controlling pollutants in storm water discharges, implementi ng and maintaining structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMP s), verification of implementati on schedules, assignment of appropriate individuals, review of the inspection and enfor cement 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 im plementing an adequate program in one or more selected MS4 program elements. If the region or a state conduct s 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 signif icant 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 re gion or a state, or

2. Conduct an inspection at an indi vidual 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 adequa te inspection program. In other words this would be an MS4 oversig ht 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 pe rmittee is preventing CSOs duri ng dry weather, implementing the nine minimum CSO controls, adhering to a schedule for development, submission, and implementation of a Long-Term CSO Control Pla n, eliminating or relo cating overflows from sensitive areas, adhering to effluent limita tions, and implementing a monitoring program.

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Inspection

During an SSO inspection, the inspector evaluate s compliance with SSO provisions present in the NPDES permit, an enforcement order, a cons ent decree, or another enforceable document. The inspector collects information to verify th at 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 al so determines whether there have been any unpermitted discharges, or discharges from a locati on other than the discha rge 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 ot her requirements. The three types of CAFO inspections are the Status Determination Insp ection, the Permit Compliance Inspection, and the Settlement Agreement Inspection. The type of info rmation that the inspector gathers depends on the type of CAFO inspection being conducted.

Summary

The inspector should plan all activities and coordi nate 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. Co mpliance personnel shoul d choose the type of inspection to be conducted based on the complian ce status and history of the facility, the3 - 5

information needed from the facility, and the type of facility involved. Note that some types of NPDES inspections may encompass several elem ents 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 Th ree 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 Disc harge Elimination System (NPDES) program has evolved through the years to include importa nt wet weather pollution sources. To keep the enforcement and information management comp onents of the NPDES program in alignment with the current NPDES program re gulatory 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 revi sion, 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 Environm ental Council of States (ECOS) and the
Association of State and Inters tate 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) Polic y for CWA Violations Associated with Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs), Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), and St ormwater 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 Complia nce Monitoring Strategy”).

There are several commonalities between these policies. Each policy:

• Promotes both national consistency and flex ibility 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 pr actices among the authorized states and territories to reflect the changes in the program over the last 20 years.

2 Relationship between three NPDE S 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 do cument expands on the initial paper about the relationships of the three NPDES policies to in clude EPA’s current appr oach for proceeding on these policies.

Compliance Monitoring Strategy

Objective: Both the Permitting for Environmen tal Results and the State Review Framework reviews highlighted the need to revisit the inspec tion frequency goals set in the Enforcement Management System (EMS) writt en in 1989. The revised Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) will establish new goals for al l 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 qualit y standards. The NPDES CMS is intended to guide this decision-making proce ss, and focus resources on the most critical environmental areas. The NPDES CMS includes flexibility to set priorities in annual ag reements 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 offe rs. 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 Polic y 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 pr ioritizing and tracking violati ons in EPA’s Clean Water Act wet weather national enforcement pr iority areas. The objective is the same as EPA’s original policy – to help focus limited enforcement resour ces with some degree of national consistency. A critical part of implementing this Policy in cludes the ability to track and manage the
identification of violations a nd follow-up actions by EPA and St ates on a national level.

Comments: Only a few States submitted substantive comments on the policy approach, including: 1) appreciation of the flexibility buil t into the policy with some concern that it mayalso lead to inconsistent interpretations of th e 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 doe s not have a final revised CAFO rule yet.

Next Step: The draft Interim Policy did not identi fy 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 (R IDE) in the draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement. Because of the multi-step ap proach 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 AS IWPCA State-EPA NPDES Advisory Group, develop an approach for tracking and re porting wet weather SNC information. Full implementation of this policy will be coordina ted with the implementation of the new ICIS

NPDES data system and associated policies.

ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement

Objective: The ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement w ill 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 ICIS

NPDES Policy Statement will provide EPA and NPDES-authorized States with guidance on information management practices and responsibi lities 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 ICIS

NPDES Data Elements (RIDE), which will allow EPA to manage the national NPDES program.

Comments: State comments on this Policy centere d 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 St ate data to maintain a na tional NPDES data base.

Next Steps: In consideration of the States’ conc erns about the draft Policy Statement, EPA developed an approach that will allow provid e the necessary guidance to the States already using ICIS-NPDES while allowing additional time to work on issu es concerning what new data to exchange and how to exchange it. There ar e currently 21 States, 2 Tribes and 9 Territories that directly use ICIS-NPDES; 9 hybrid States (tha t use ICIS-NPDES but also batch some data to PCS) that will begin using ICIS-NPDES in FY20 08; 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 wh at 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 requ irements 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 Statem ent for direct users of the ICIS-NPDES system that will require them to submit the equi valent set of data that is now required to
be submitted to PCS.

• Continue to work with the hybr id States to migrate their data from PCS and develop the batch data flow through the Exchange Networ k. 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 NetD MR tool and other electronic DMR tools are the key way of re ducing data entry burden since 90% of the
burden associated with the data elements id entified in the ICIS-N PDES Policy Statement
is associated with DMRs.

• Continue to work with States through Inte grated 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 havi ng this data available at the national level. These policies are important to keep the info rmation 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 meeti ng EPA’s national NPDES program management
needs.