1



## MEMORA**NDUM** TO: Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

EPA Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OECA

- 2009

-0274 (www.regulations.gov) FROM: Carey A. Johnston, P.E.

USEPA/OECA/OC ph: (202) 566 1014 johnston.carey@epa.gov DATE: 1 4 September 2015 SUBJECT: Notes from Technical Meeting with States ( 12 March 2 01 5 ) [ DCN 02 2 3 ]

**Overview** This was the twenty-first meeting between EPA and individual representatives from authorized NPDES programs. These meetings provided greater clarity regarding public comments on the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). Participants are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA’s outreach during the rulemaking process (see Table 3). EPA also met with other stakeholders to discuss public comments. **Meeting Notes** EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in addition to raising questions during these meetings, states can email their questions on the proposed rule (including the data elements) to EPA. Questions on all aspects of the proposed rule can be sent to Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston also reminded everyone that this outreach d oes not constitute a decision

- making body (see “Quick Reminder” section below). Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of each data element related to sewer systems, sewer overflows, and bypass events along with the correspondin g data description and regulatory or policy citation. After reading about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from meeting participants. Below are some questions and comments from the meeting participants.

 Several state representa tives asked for clarification on the “Combined Sewer System Information” data elements. EPA streamlined these data elements and provided clarifying language for these data elements in the final rule.

 Several state representatives asked about the frequency for updating these data elements. EPA added the following note in the final rule: “All Phase II and post

- Phase II combined2



### sewer system NPDES permittees are required to complete and implement a long

-term CSO control plan (LTCP) as described in EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy (19 April 1994; 59 Federal Register 18688

- 18698). These data will be updated by the authorized NPDES program on a timely basis as changes occur with the combined sewer system and the LTCP as well as with the POTW’s implementation and compliance with the LTCP.] ”

 Several state representatives asked for clarification regarding how the rulemaking would address satellite sewer systems. EPA notes that this rule only changes the mode of transmission of NPDES infor mation from paper to electronic. This rule does not change substantive requirements, but instead requires electronic reporting of existing reporting obligations. Satellite sewer systems were addressed by the Environmental Appeals Board in In re Charles River Pollution District, No. 14

-01 (Feb. 4. 2015).

 Several state representatives asked for EPA to provide flexibility on sewer overflow and bypass reporting in cases of extreme weather events, which can cause sewer overflows and bypasses too numerous to count. In the final rule EPA included the following language in a number of data e lements to provide this flexibility: “The POTW can leave this data element blank on the Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report if the sewer overflows are caused by an extreme weather event (e.g., hurricane) that floods the entire sewer system and are too numerous to count. ”

 Several state representatives from Indiana, Oklahoma, and New Jersey asked for EPA to provide flexibility on how to report the location of the sewer overflow. In the final rule EPA included the following language in a number of data element s to provide this flexibility: “This data element can also be system generated if the Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report collects the street location of the sewer overflow and the street location can be used to generate an accurate longitude [or latitude] value.”

 A state representative from Kentucky suggested that EPA include a data element that captures the type of structure associated with the sewer overflow event. In the final rule EPA included the following data element: “Type of Sewer Overflow/Bypass Structure : A unique code/description that identifies the type of sewer overflow or bypass structure (e.g., manhole, CSO outfall) for each Sewer Overflow/Bypass Identifier. The POTW can leave this data element blank on the Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report if the sewer overflows are caused by an extreme weather event (e.g., hurricane) that floods the entire sewer system and are too numerous to count.”

 A state representative suggested that responses for the “Wet Weather Occurrence for Sewer Overflow/Bypass Status” data element be limited to Yes or No. EPA has incorporated this recommendation in the final rule.3



### Following the meeting, EPA received an e- mail from an individual state government representative on the data elemen ts reviewed in this meeting. This e- mail is provided in Attachment 1.
**Quick Reminder**

 The technical workgroup is not a decision

- making body. Members of the workgroup provide clarity on their comments and suggest options for consideration by EPA and state senior management.

 There are no fo rmal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

 There will be no voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, members of the workgroup are providing individual input reflecting their various perspectives.

 Summaries of the workgroup’s discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the rulemaking record

.4



### Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

- 12 March 2015

**Main Contact State or** 

**Organization Main Contact**  **Email State/Org.**  **Present? (Yes/No)**  Sean Rolland ACWA srolland@acwa

- us.org No Karen Lechner AK karen.lechner@alaska.gov Yes Christy Monk AL cvm@adem.state.al.us No Eric Cleckler ecleckler@adem.state.al.us Glenda Dean gld@adem.state.al.us Teresa Marks

AR marks@adeq.state.ar.us

Yes Pat Goff goff@adeq.state.ar.us Mo Shafii shafii@adeq.state.ar.us Karen Bassett bassett@adeq.state.ar.us David Ramsey ramsey@adeq.state.ar.us Ellen Carpenter carpenter@adeq.state.ar.us Wendy LeStarge AZ lestarge.wendy@azdeq.gov No Robin Belley belley.robin@azdeq.gov David Lelsz lelsz.david@azdeq.gov; Darren Polhemus CA dpolhemus@waterboards.ca.gov No Renee Purdy renee.purdy@waterboards.ca.gov Deborah Smith dsmith@waterboards.ca.gov Vicky Whitney vwhitney@waterboards.ca.gov Andy Putnam CO andrew.putnam@state.co.us goff@adeq.state.ar.us Yes Elisa Willard elisa.willard@state.co.us Bob Zimmerman DE robert.zimmerman@state.de.us stephanie.bower@state.de.us No
Tom Tyler ECOS ttyler@ecos.org No Chris Klena FL chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us No Jessica Kleinfelter jessica.kleinfelter@dep.state.fl.us Edward Smith edward.c.smith@dep.state.fl.us Frances Carpenter GA frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us No Scott Miyashiro HI scott.miyashiro@doh.hawaii.gov No Tom Easterly IN teasterl@idem.in.gov ckoontz@idem.in.gov Yes Jeremy Chenevert jcheneve@idem.in.gov Mark Stanifer mstanife@idem.in.gov Courtney Cswercko IA courtney.cswercko@dnr.iowa.gov Yes Ed Dillingham KS edillingham@kdheks.gov No Steve Caspers scaspers@kdheks.gov Shelly Shores

- Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov5

**Main Contact State or** 

**Organization Main Contact**  **Email State/Org.**  **Present? (Yes/No)**  Shawn Hokanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov No Grace Scott MI scottg@michigan.gov Yes Carla Davidson davidsonc@michigan.gov Ruth Wallace MO ruth.wallace@dnr.mo.gov Yes Walter Fett walter.fett@dnr.mo.gov Christopher Miller epermitting@dnr.mo.gov Tamara Dahl MN tamara.dahl@state.mn.us No Paul Scheirer paul.scheirer@state.mn.us John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org No Deborah Gore NC deborah.gore@ncdenr.gov Yes Bradley Bennett bradley.bennett@ncdenr.gov Jason Lonardo NJ jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us Yes Julio Collazo julio.collazo@dep.state.nj.us Robert Wither NY rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us Yes Joseph DiMura jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us Alan Tinney Dave Gaskin NV atinney@ndep.nv.gov Yes dgaskin@ndep.nv.gov Brian Hall OH brian.hall@epa.ohio.gov Yes Erin Sherer erin.sherer@epa.ohio.gov Shellie Chard

- McClary OK shellie.chard

- mcclary@deq.ok.gov Yes Roy Walker roy.walker@deq.ok.gov David Pruitt david.pruitt@deq.ok.gov Jim Billings OR billings.jim@deq.state.or.us Yes Sean Furjanic PA sefurjanic@pa.gov No Kent Woodmansey SD kent.woodmansey@state.sd.us No Tim Flor tim.flor@state.sd.us Albert Spangler albert.spangler@state.sd.us Lawrence Bunting TN lawrence.bunting@tn.gov Yes Yatasha Moore yatasha.moore@tn.gov Kim Wilson TX kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov Yes Rebecca Villalba rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov Lynley Doyen lynley.doyen@tceq.texas.gov Kimberly Shepard kimberly.shepard@tceq.texas.gov Jeff Studenka UT jstudenka@utah.gov No Jerome Brooks VA jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov Yes Deborah Debiasi deborah.debiasi@deq.virginia.gov Phani Eturu phani.eturu@deq.virginia.gov Stephen Bernath WA sber461@ecy.wa.gov Yes Dave Knight dakn461@ecy.wa.gov Nancy Kmet nkme461@ecy.wa.gov6



### Table **2 :**  EPA Technical Workgroup Members

**Name EPA Office**  **Email Present?**  **(Yes/No)** John Dombrowski OECA/OC/ETDD dombrowski.john@epa.gov No Andy Hudock OECA/OC/ETDD hudock.andrew@epa.gov Yes Rochele Kadish OECA/OC/ETDD kadish.rochele@epa.gov No Carey Johnston OECA/OC/ETDD johnston.carey@epa.gov Yes Jackie Clark OW/OWM/WPD clark.jackie@epa.gov Yes Kevin Weiss OW/OWM/WPD weiss
. kevin @epa.gov Yes Ginny Phillips OECA/OCE/WED phillips.ginny@epa.gov Yes Aditi Prabhu OGC/WLO prabhu.aditi@epa.gov No David Apanian Region 4 apanian.david@epa.gov Yes Sandra Chew Region 9 chew.sandra@epa.gov No Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov No


### Table 3: State Technical Workgroup Discussions to Discuss Public Comments
**DCN Date**  **Topic Data Source**  DCN 0219 02/05/2015 Basic Facility and Permit Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs DCN 0220 02/12/2015 Basic Violation and Enforcement Action Data States & Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs DCN 0221 02/26/2015 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Information Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & MS4 Program Report DCN 0222 03/05/2015 Construction and Industrial Stormwater Information Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs DCN 0223 03/12/2015 CSO & Collection System Information & Sewer Overflow Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Sewer Overflow Event Reports
DCN 0224 03/19/2015 Pretreatment Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual POTW Pretreatment Program Reports, CIU/SIU Reports When EPA or State is Control Authority DCN 0225 03/26/2015 Cooling Water and Thermal Variance Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs DCN 0226 04/02/2015 Biosolids Data States & Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual Biosolids Reports DCN 0227 04/09/2015 CAFO Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual Biosolids Reports DCN 0228 05/13/2015 Review of Appendix A All NPDES program data DCN 0229 05/27/2015 Review of State Representative Questions to EPA All NPDES program data7 **Attachment 1 -**  **Email from Representativ e from Authorized NPDES Program**  **E -**  **mail from Lawrence Bunting <Lawrence.Bunting@tn.gov> Thu 4/2/2015 2:41 PM**  Here are some more late comments. Thanks for keeping these calls organized. I appreciate it when we get finished on time or ahead of time. Permitted Feature: TDEC sees no problem on addition of the two data elements to applications for POTW treatment technology associated with Permitted Feature for POTW. POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Level Description for each outfall that will be handled as a drop

- down may be difficult to accommodate all options. As pointed out by Washington, the situation can be complex and can change over time. As plants review ways to change plant operations to reduce energy, recycle water and improve treatment, it may be a bit com plex to use a simple drop

- down for this. POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Unit Operations is based upon whether “discharge” is above 10 MGD. Is the value of 10 MGD the average flow rate, the daily maximum, the design flow for the POTW? How do the recycle systems figure into the 10 MGD level? **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA clarified in the final rule that the “POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Unit Operations” only applies to “POTWs that have a design flow capacity equal to or above 10 million gallons per day (MGD) and is optional for POTWs with a design flow capacity below 10 MGD.” Collection Systems: The POTW collection system data elements raise question on what is “unique collection system” and how is this tracked. The table states this includes “unincorp orated connector districts and satellite collection systems.” Collection systems may be government

-owned or privately owned and application must require which ownership applies to the collection system. Collection systems in Tennessee are given a separate state permit # and may not tie to an NPDES permit number for no

- discharge systems. (The state permit number will not fit the ICIS field validations.) “Permit Number for Collection System” will have a permit number, but it won’t be a proper NPDES number. It would be good to allow this field to allow for more that the federal number on the permit application or NOI if possible. **EPA RESPONSE:** See response above for a similar comment on satellite sewer systems. As previously noted, this rule only changes th e mode of transmission of NPDES information from paper to electronic. This rule does not change substantive requirements, but instead requires electronic reporting of existing reporting obligations. “Population of Collection System” needs to be expressed as an estimate. Connections are countable and relatively fixed, but people come and go.8

Percentage of Collection System That Is a Combined Sewer System

– needs to be an estimated per cent. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA clarified the data element, “Percentage of Collection System That Is a Combined Sewer System,” with the following description as requested by the state representative: “For each unique collection system that provides flow to the permittee, this is the estimated percentage of the collection system th at is a combined sewer system. This includes unincorporated connector districts and satellite collection systems. This estimated percentage is calculated separately for each unique collection system that provides flow to the permittee and is based on the s ervice population of each unique collection system. This data element applies to POTWs.” EPA also added the word “estimate” to the description of the “Population of Collection System” data element. Complete and Implement a Long

-Term CSO Control Plan
– need s clarification. It may be set up as conditional where initial answer controls what the next information is being populated. But on the call there seemed to be confusion over what is being reported. If LTCP is required, has it been done? An approved LTCP may be compliant with the permit requirement to have one. But it is not the same thing as compliance with implementation of the plan/permit. Also, plans/implementation strategies may need revision over time. Presumably, the data reported will be a sn apshot picture at the time of the application. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA clarified the data element, “Long

-Term CSO Control Plan Permit Requirements and Compliance,” with the following description: “This data element uses a unique code/description that identifies whether the permit requires the permit holder to complete and implement a LTCP and whether the permit holder is in compliance with these permit requirements.” Nine Minimum CSO Controls Developed
– The understanding on the call is this would be Yes/No. Yes, all have been developed or no, something is missing. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA clarified the data element, “Nine Minimum CSO Controls Developed,” with the following description: “This data element uses a unique code/description to identify by number each of the nine minimum control measures outlines in the CSO Control Policy that the permit holder has implemented in compliance with the applicable permit and/or enforcement mechanism. These unique codes are: (1) Proper operation and regular maintenance programs for the sewer system and the CSOs; (2) Maximum use of the collection system for storage; (3) Review and modification of pretreatment requirements to assure CSO impacts are minimized; (4) Maximization of flow to the publicly owned treatment works for treatment; (5) Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather; (6) Control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs; (7) Pollution prevention; (8) Public notification to ensure that the public receives adequate notification of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts; and (9) Monit oring to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls. For example, if the permit holder has only developed the “Maximum use of the collection system for storage” minimum control measure then the permitting authority will record “2” for this data element. Likewise, if the permit holder has developed all nine minimum control measures then permitting authority will record 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 for this data element.”