![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090512011417im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Region 10's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Program
EPA Office of Inspector General
Region 10's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program
#8100076
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
The purpose of the audit was to determine whether Region 10 (the Region) effectively regulated point sources discharging pollutants into the waters of the United States. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 initiated a broad Federal effort to restore and maintain the Nation's waterways, including the creation of a permit program to regulate and reduce point source pollution. The Region is responsible for operating the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program in nondelegated States and for Federal and Tribal dischargers in delegated States. The audit focused principally on dischargers in the nondelegated States of Alaska and Idaho.
The objectives were to determine whether the Region:
Issued required NPDES permits for all municipal and industrial dischargers.
Regulated dischargers to comply with permit conditions through effective compliance monitoring activities.
Took appropriate and timely enforcement actions against permittees in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) in the States of Alaska and Idaho, and Federal facilities in the State of Washington.
Maintained a management reporting system that was current and complete for dischargers in the States of Alaska and Idaho.
| RESULTS IN BRIEF |
The Region could make improvements in several areas of its NPDES Permit Program to more effectively regulate and reduce point source water pollution. It needs to improve: (i) the process for issuing and renewing permits; (ii) compliance monitoring of dischargers; (iii) enforcement of compliance for dischargers that violated permit conditions; and (iv) reporting on new permit limits and conditions. Our findings are summarized below and discussed in detail in CHAPTERS 2 through 5 of this report.
Permits Not Issued or Renewed
The Region did not issue or renew most of the required NPDES permits for municipal and industrial dischargers in the States of Alaska and Idaho. While it issued 33 permits in the past 2 1/2 years, there were 1,000 applications from dischargers waiting to be processed. Seventy percent of these applications were received over 4 years ago. Dischargers without permits were not subject to regulation. Dischargers operating under administratively extended permits that were written prior to the Water Quality Act of 1987 were not subject to these more stringent requirements. Regional information for three watersheds in the States of Alaska and Idaho identified dischargers without current permits that were contributing to water quality problems. We attribute the large backlog of applications principally to a Regional decision, made with EPA Headquarters, Office of Water's knowledge, to focus management attention and resources on a few selected permits and watershed permitting.
Also, for fiscal 1997, the Regional Administrator (RA) did not report the significant permit backlog in the annual Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) assurance letter to the EPA Administrator. In our opinion, the backlog should be reported as a deficiency because it is adversely affecting the Region's ability to meet the Office of Water's program goals, and is resulting in large numbers of dischargers in the States of Alaska and Idaho violating the Clean Water Act (CWA).
To address the permit backlog, the Region issued a Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) in April 1997 that sets out a 3-year plan (fiscals 1997-1999) "that prioritizes the permits, implements innovative policies, relies on partnerships, and lays the foundation for issuing permits for the period after completion of this plan (year 2000 +)." While the Plan is a positive step toward addressing the problem, the Region acknowledges that the Plan will not substantially reduce the backlog by fiscal 1999 and "with current resources, will result in NPDES Permit Unit (NPU) addressing only 6% of the total universe of permits and 39 % of all major facilities in Idaho and Alaska." Also, our review disclosed that during the first year (fiscal 1997) several tasks critical to the success of the Plan had not been performed.
Compliance Monitoring Could Be Improved
The Region could improve its compliance monitoring to help ensure that dischargers comply with permit conditions and NPDES regulations:
Compliance Inspections. The Region did not perform some of the NPDES compliance inspections of major dischargers that it committed to in its Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with EPA Headquarters. Without compliance inspections, there is an increased opportunity for permit violations to go undetected. In addition, many inspection reports were not timely and actions were not taken on reported problems. As a result, instances of noncompliance were not corrected or not corrected timely.
Citizen Complaints. The Region did not have adequate procedures to track citizen complaints, document actions taken on such complaints, and notify citizens of actions taken. Actions were not taken on some complaints related to permit and other NPDES violations which appeared to warrant followup, resulting in potential adverse environmental impact.
Some Dischargers Not Adequately Regulated. The Region did not have procedures to ensure that dischargers under storm water and seafood general permits, and minor dischargers were in compliance with permit conditions. Some dischargers violated permit conditions and NPDES regulations, and adversely affected water quality.
Enforcement Against Significant Violators Can Be Improved
The Region did not respond in an appropriate or timely manner to violations by dischargers that were in SNC with NPDES permit conditions. The Region did not take formal enforcement action as required against 19 of the 25 dischargers in SNC for 1 or more quarters during the period October 1994 through December 1996. In addition, we reviewed files for all 10 dischargers that were in SNC for 2 or more consecutive quarters and concluded that the Region did not have written justification for not taking formal enforcement action against 9 dischargers. EPA's enforcement guidance requires that formal enforcement actions be taken against dischargers in SNC. At a minimum, the guidance requires a written justification in those rare instances when formal enforcement action is not taken. These conditions occurred because the Region did not have effective management controls to ensure that either appropriate and timely enforcement actions were taken or that decisions to take no action were justified and documented. Failure to take appropriate enforcement action against violators weakens the effectiveness of the NPDES Program to protect public health and the environment.
The Region took formal enforcement action consistent with EPA guidance against 6 of the 25 dischargers in SNC during the period of our audit. However, actions against three of the dischargers did not meet EPA's timeliness guidelines of 2 months after identifying the violation. For the three dischargers, formal enforcement action was not taken for 5 to 8 months after the violations became known to the Region. More timely enforcement action could lead to quicker return to compliance with permit requirements.
Management Reporting System Could Be More Current and Complete
The Region's management reporting system for NPDES permit information is the Permit Compliance System (PCS). The PCS was generally current and complete, except for new or renewed permits. The Region did not input some permit effluent limits and reporting requirements into the PCS timely and completely for dischargers receiving new or renewed permits. For four major dischargers, permit effluent limits were not input for an average of 4 months after the permits were issued. Also, for six of the eight new permits, reporting requirements were not input to PCS. Without current and complete permit information in PCS, Quarterly Noncompliance Reports (QNCRs) generated from the PCS were not an effective tool for identifying violations for dischargers with new or renewed permits. The PCS was not updated timely for new or renewed permits because the Region had not given high enough priority to this effort.
| RECOMMENDATIONS |
Specific recommendations follow the findings in CHAPTERS 2 through 5. Overall, we recommend that the Regional Administrator strengthen the NPDES Permit Program by:
1. Reporting the permit backlog as a deficiency in the annual assurance letter to the Administrator and fully implementing the NPU's Comprehensive Plan.
2. Monitoring dischargers' compliance with permit conditions and NPDES regulations.
3. Taking appropriate and timely enforcement actions for SNC dischargers.
4. Updating the management reporting system to input priority data for new permits.
REGION COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION
A draft report was provided to the Region on November 25, 1997 for its comments. The Region responded to the draft report on January 23, 1998 and its response is included as APPENDIX C to this report. Except for recommendation 2-1, the Region concurred with the recommendations and described corrective actions that have been taken or will be taken.
The Region did not concur with recommendation 2-1 in Chapter 2 that the Region report the backlog of NPDES permit applications as a material weakness in the next annual FMFIA assurance letter to the EPA Administrator. The Region acknowledged the backlog and stated that a strategic plan has been developed and is being implemented to address the backlog.
We have changed the recommendation to state that the Region report the backlog of NPDES permit applications as a management control deficiency instead of a material weakness in the next annual FMFIA assurance letter to the Administrator for EPA's Integrity Act Report. We believe that the large backlog of permit applications is an indicator that the NPDES Permit Program is not achieving its intended results and should be reported as a management control deficiency. While the strategic plan is a positive step toward correcting the problem, the Region acknowledged that the Plan will not substantially reduce the backlog by fiscal 1999 .