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: 3 March 2014 SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting ( 20 February 2014) [DCN 0131]
**Overview** This was the fourth meeting for the EPA- state technical workgroup , which is discuss ing key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule) . These discussions will help inform the upcoming planned supplemental Federa l Register notice and will continue beyond the supplemental notice to help EPA address state comments. E PA participants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA’s Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members are listed below in Table s 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is summariz ing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA’s outreach during the rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available for any othe r stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule. **Meeting Notes** EPA ( Carey Johnston ) started the meeting with a roll call and solicited comments on the draft notes from t he previous meeting. New Jersey made one comment on the draft meeting notes and Florida noted that they should be listed as present on the last call. EPA incorporated both comments in the meeting notes . Mr. Johnston provided an overview of the schedule for the supplemental notice. He noted that EPA plans to send the notice to OMB in mid
- March. OMB has requested a 90
- day review for this supplemental notice. EPA hopes to have the supplemental notice published in July. Publication of the supplemental notice will also start a 30
- day public comment period. Mr. Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on the economic analysis supporting the eRule.

 New Jersey (Jason Lonardo) stated that the benefits for the eRule will b e overestimated if a state cannot comply with the implementation deadlines. Mr. Londardo noted that2

EPA should include a factor in the economic analysis (EA) to reflect the fact that some states may not meet the eRule implementation deadlines.

 ACWA (Sean Rolland) asked if EPA could describe the data it needs to refine its EA. He suggested that EPA create a spreadsheet template for states so that they know what data to share wih EPA . Mr. Johnston noted that EPA cannot survey all NPDES authorized programs wi thout an OMB approved Information Collection Request (in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act). He noted that EPA will provide a spreadsheet template to ECOS and ACWA in order to provide clarity on the data EPA can use to refine the eRule economic a nalysis .
 New York asked about how the eRule accounts for state implementation costs associated with electronic reporting tools developed by states. Mr. Johnston noted that the rule includes costs for states to use EPA electronic reporting tools but does n ot include the costs states incur when they develop their own electronic reporting tools. Mr. Johnston noted that the EPA is making its electronic reporting tools (NetDMR and NeT) available to states with no licensing costs or purchase costs and is bearing the costs of the enhancement and development work for these tools. These tools will be able to meet the requirements of the eRule and be flexible enough to accommodate the varying ways in which states electronically collect an d manage their NPDES program data .
 ACWA (Sean Rolland) noted that there should be some factor in the eRule EA to account for the possibility that some states won’t be able to meet their NPDES program responsibilities with EPA’s electronic reporting tools and will need to develop their own electronic reporting tools. Mr. Rolland noted that some states may need to use their own electronic reporting tools as these tools electronically collect data for their NPDES program and other state regulatory programs. Mr. Johnston suggested that states might be able to provide comment on the supplemental notice detailing the potential limitations of EPA’s electronic reporting tools.

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) asked for more details on EPA’s electronic reporting tools. Mr. Johnston provided a very quick overview of EPA’s CROMERR approved electronic reporting tools: NetDMR ( http://www.epa.gov/netdm r/ ) and NeT. Several states noted that they were familiar with NetDMR since it has been in production since 2009 and has been deployed to a number of states; however, they were unfamiliar with the newer electronic reporting tool ( NeT), which EPA intends to use for general permit reports (e.g., NOIs) and program reports (e.g., CAFO annual report, biosolids annual report) . Mr. Johnston noted that EPA would set up a demo of NeT for the state technical workgroup and other states in a future meeting. Mr. Carey Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on the stormwater sector for the eRule.3

 Several states noted that it would be very difficult to successfully implement a requirement that small business construction operators seek and obtain a digital signature so that they may use a CROMERR approved electronic reporting tool. These states note d that some small business construction operators only infrequently apply for coverage under a construction stormwater general permit and may be unclear on how to get a digital signature.

 Mr. Johnston solicited comment from the states on the suggestion f rom North Dakota to use automatic identification and data capture technology (e.g., two dimensional barcodes, optical character recognition) for NPDES sectors, like the construction stormwater sector, to reporting their NPDES program data. This option pote ntially addresses the issue of how to get a large and diverse group of small business construction operators to electronically report NOIs and low erosivity waivers (LEWs). This option would allow NPDES regulated entities to report their data on paper; however, these submissions would be signed with a wet
- ink signature and could be easily scanned into an electronic database . Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that he doesn’t see a problem with EPA giving states the option of using this technology. However, he not ed that EPA should include the costs of implementing this technology in the economic analysis.

 Virginia (Jerome Brooks ) asked how long states would need to retain the wet
- ink signatures on these paper submissions. Mr. Johnston replied that depends on the specific recordkeeping requirement in EPA’s existing regulations and that record
keeping costs associated with automatic identification and data capture technology option would not be a new incremental compliance cost for the eRule . He noted that EPA woul d investigate the typical costs associated with the application of this technology and evaluate its potential use for the construction stormwater sector .
 Washington State ( Nancy Kmet ) also noted a problem in getting construction operators to comply with their construction stormwater general permit. She noted that there are 2,000 construction operators regulated by their construction stormwater general permit but that only two
-thirds of these NPDES regulated entities s ubmit DMRs as required by the permit. Ms. Kmet suggested that they have a real problem in getting any information from the one
-third of the 2,000 construction operators regulated by their construction stormwater general permit.

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) questioned why there needs to be a digital signature with a CROMERR compliant tool for the construction stormwater sector. He noted that the violation they most often enforce is non
- submittal of the required forms (e.g., NOIs) and not the information construct ion operators submit on these forms. Florida suggested that EPA remove the construction stormwater sector from the eRule. Colorado also suggested that the benefits from converting the construction stormwater sector to electronic reporting would be smaller than other NPDES sectors. Mr. Dombrowksi noted that this is a large portion of the NPDES universe (by number of regulated entities) and4

that EPA does not have good information on the location and controls on large construction projects regulated by NPDES p ermits.

 ECOS (Beth Graves) suggested that EPA consider extending the schedule for the construction stormwater sector by creating a new imp lementation phase (“Phase 3”).

 With respect to the MS4 program reports several states noted that it may be difficul t to standardize these reports as there are many different BMPs that municipalities can use to comply with their permits. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA’s Region 1 is planning on using drop downs lists and categories of BMPs to facility electronic reporting . He also noted that EPA’s NeT will be capable of electronically collecting data for state requirements (non
-Appendix A data).

 Washington state asked if NeT will allow users to upload PDFs. Mr. Johnston noted that NeT does have the capability of allowing users to upload PDFs as part of the electronic submission. Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA is focused on getting structured data shared between EPA and the states and that ICIS
- NPDES will not be storing PDF data. Mr. Carey Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on the CAFO sector.

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that there are 600 farms in Indiana that fit the CAFO size definition but that only 10 have NPDES permits. Indiana periodically inspects all large farms in its state (about 1,900 farms) but doesn’t share the inspection data with EPA.

 Texas agreed with the comments submitted by the agricultural sector on the proposed rule. In particular, Texas was worried about the potential release of persona l identifiable information that might be part of NPDES permit applications, NOIs, or annual reports . Texas noted that one difference between a CAFO and a traditional point source (e.g., POTW, industrial facility) is that families live on location of the NP DES regulate entity.

 Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA is currently collecting and displaying permitted CAFO information to the public and that the eRule would simply make reporting more efficient so that more of this information could be available . **Next Ste ps**  EPA agreed to summarize the meeting notes as well as summarize and compile a few example s of public comments on a topic schedule for discussion . EPA will share these materials with the technical workgroup in advance of the next weekly meeting . The next meeting will focus on the CAFO sector, overview of Appendix A, and schedule for the supplemental notice and rulemaking .5 **State Technical Workgroup Meeting –**  **NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 20**  **February 2014** 
1pm Introduction/Roll Call 1:05 Review of Draft Notes from Previous Meeting 1:15 Discussion of eRule Economic Analysis 1:45 Discussion of the Stormwater Sector 2:15 Discussion of the CAFO Sector 2:30 End of Call
**Quick Reminder**

 The technical workgroup is not a formal decision
- making body. The workgroup is expected to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior management.

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

 There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not achieve consensus.

 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. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.6

**Table 1:** State Technical Workgroup Members **Main Contact State or** 

**Organization Main Contact**  **Email State/Org.**  **Present? (Yes/No)**  Sean Rolland ACWA srolland@acwa
- us.org Yes Christy Monk AL cvm@adem.state.al.us Yes Teresa Marks AR marks@adeq.state.ar.us Yes Andy Putnam CO andrew.putnam@state.co.us goff@adeq.state.ar.us Yes Elisa Willard CO elisa.willard@state.co.us Yes Bob Zimmerman DE robert.zimmerman@state.de.us stephanie.bower@state.de.us Yes Beth Graves ECOS bgraves@ecos.org Yes Lee Garrigan ECOS lgarrigan@ecos.org Yes Chris Klena FL chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us Yes Tom Easterly IN teasterl@idem.in.gov ckoontz@idem.in.gov Yes John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org Yes Jason Lonardo NJ jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us Yes Robert Wither NY rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us Yes Shellie Chard
- McClary OK shellie.chard
- mcclary@deq.ok.gov Yes Roy Walker OK roy.walker@deq.ok.gov N o Sean Furjanic PA sefurjanic@pa.gov No Kim Wilson TX kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov Yes Jerome Brooks VA jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov Yes Nancy Kmet WA nkme461@ecy.wa.gov Yes **Tab le 2**  **:** EPA Technical Workgroup Members

**Name EPA Office**  **Email Present?**  **(Yes/No)** Steve Chester OECA/IO chester.steven@epa.gov No Lisa Lund OECA/OC/IO lund.lisa@epa.gov No John Dombrowski OECA/OC/ETDD dombrowski.john@epa.gov Yes Andy Hudock OECA/OC/ETDD hudock.andrew@epa.gov Yes Rochele Kadish OECA/OC/ETDD kadish.rochele@epa.gov Yes Carey Johnston OECA/OC/ETDD johnston.carey@epa.gov Yes Jackie Clark OW/OWM/WPD clark.jackie@epa.gov Yes Roy Chaudet OEI/OIC/IESD chaudet.roy@epa.gov No Chuck Freeman OEI/OIC/IESD freeman.charles@epa.gov No Aditi Prabhu OGC/WLO prabhu.aditi@epa.gov Yes Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov Yes