1 

# NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule **Analysis C**  **: Electronic State NPDES**  **Information**

13 September 2010 DCN 002 02 **TABLE OF CONTENTS Page**  1.0 O VERVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3 2.0 A

NALYSIS - S PECIFIC Q UESTIONS ................................ ................................ .......................... 3 3.0 T ECHNICAL Q UESTIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 6 4.0 P OLICY Q UESTIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 83

**1.0 O**  **VERVIEW** On 15 October 2009, the Agency issued the Clean Water Act Action Plan which sets forth a series of commitments by the Agency

to revamp its NPDES enforcement program. 1 A major commitment from the Action Plan is to improve management and performance of the NPDES program b y requiring electronic reporting of NPDES information from regulated facilities. EPA is developing a rulemaking, NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (RIN: 2 020
- AA47), to solicit input and formalize the requirements for electronic reporting. Electronic reporting will likely

reduce the burden for facilities to report to regulatory agencies and for states to report to EPA. Expected benefits include lower process ing costs for facilities and states, improved data quality and accuracy, greater data accessibility and transparency for the public, and an increased ability

to target and address noncompliance that will improve and protect water quality
. Compliance for m ost NPDES program components is not solely based on the submission of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). NPDES program compliance is also assessed b y inspections and the state or EPA Region’s review of periodic or incident based reports from permittees. NPDES program data generated by authorized NPDES programs are detailed in this report. Separate rulemaking anal ys es focus on converting DMR and program reports from paper

based to electronic reporting ( see “Anal ys is A” and “Anal ys is F,” respectively). Th e key subject matter experts that were consulted for this report include Alison Kittle for ICIS migration and batch, and Steve Rubin for I CI S data. Andy Hudock, Carey

Johnston and Allison L andsman are the experts for NPDES from an OECA perspective. For NPD ES from an OW perspective, the experts are Sarita Ho yt , Jennifer Koch and Jackie Clark. Subject matter experts in OW will likely be consulted for more detailed subprogram

- specific information. These experts include Jan Pickrel for pretreatment, Nina Bonnel yck e for CAFOs, Kevin Weiss for SSOs, and Mohammed Billah for CSOs. The team lead for Anal ys is C is Andy Hudock, ETDD, OC. The workgroup members on the Anal ys is C team include Andy Hudock (OC), Anuj Vaidya (OC), Brad Yates (OC), Sarita Ho yt(OW), Jennifer Koch (OW), Jackie Clark (OW), and Debra Berry

(Region 6). **2.0 A** **NALYSIS -**  **S PECIFIC**  **Q UESTIONS**  **1. States undertake certain NPDES activities as part of their implementation and**  **enforcement of the NPDES program, and these activities generate associated NPDES data.**  State activities include inspections, violation determinations (including single event violations), required reports to EPA (such as the Annual Non

- Compliance Report for nonmajor permittees), enforcement actions (including penalties and compliance schedule s), and permit issuance (including identification of narrative conditions, limit sets, limits, outfalls, etc.).

1 These commitments are documented in the 8 November 2009, “Implementation Approach for the CWA Enforcement Action Plan”. This document and other key CWA Enforcement Action Plan documents are available at EPA ’s Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) . [Av ailable at: http://www.epa

- otis.gov/ ].4

**2. EPA should be prepared to seek information regarding facility data and permit data**  **from the states and EPA Regions if reporting NPDES information by permittees is not feasible.**  If the electronic reporting of permit information or permit application inform ation by permittees is not viable, then EPA should be prepared to seek this information regarding facility data and permit data (including basic permittee information, information regarding the permit issuance steps, information regarding narrative conditi ons and permit schedules, information regarding permit limits and limit sets, information regarding outfalls, etc.) from the states and EPA Regions. This would constitute an additional set of data elements that would be sought d i rectly from the states. Tog ether with other data elements associated with state activities such as inspections, violation determinations and enforcement actions, these data elements may collectively

comprise roughl y two thirds of the number of all of the NPDES required data elements
. However, the data reporting frequency for much of this information is very infrequent (e.g., usuall y once every five years for permit information) and therefore the associated data entry burden will not be high. O ther proposed electronic reporting mechan isms (e.g. eDMR) would still rely

on this information to function. **3. EPA can best ensure that the information required under this rule will be submitted by**  **the states by seeking further regulatory clarification of the types of NPDES data which**  **it will require states to submit to EPA.**  The NPDES information that is required to be submitted by states to EPA is, to a large extent, data covered b y the PCS Policy Statement or in a subsequent document regarding ICIS

NPDES equivalent data elements. The requir ed PDES data elements in PCS are referred to as WENDB data elements; WENDB is the acronymfor Water Enforcement National Data Base. This information focused primarily on major dischargers, although some information for nonmajor facilities and for various N PDES subprograms (such as pretreatment and biosolids) was also among the WENDB data elements. Through the years, states provided this WENDB data to EPA with varying success and varying degrees of completeness, although the information regarding major faci lities was the most reliable NPDES data made available to EPA by the states. However, some states were remiss regarding maintaining the WENDB data for discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), permit issuance or pretreatment, for example. In the past, other re quired NPDES data might have been identified as part of meeting midyear or end

- of

- ye ar commitments for NPDES program implementation. Some NPDES data may have been required, by

federal regulations, to be submitted by states to EPA (such as the Quarterl y Non
- Compliance Report [QNCR] or the Annual Non

- Compliance Report [ANCR]). Some data may

have been sought in conjunction with EPA preparation of specific reports to Congress, for example. In addition, some of this required data reporting may have been incorpor ated into Memoranda of Agreement between EPA and individual states. In recognition of the varying success with which states provided such NPDES information, EPA will likely seek, in this rulemaking, further regulatory clarification of the types5

of NPDE S data which it will require states to submit to EPA on a timely , accurate, complete and nationally

- consistent basis. **4. EPA will likely consider existing guidelines in developing regulatory requirements for**  **the timeliness, completeness, accuracy, and nation al consistency of the NPDES**  **information required to be submitted by permittees or by the states.**  EPA established expectations for quality assurance and quality control for NPDES data provided to EPA through PCS. InAugust 1992, EPA’s Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, within the Office of Water, issued the “Permit Compliance System (PCS) Quality Assurance Guidance Manual” as guidance for EPA Regions and states in the development of similar quality

assurance procedures for PCS data entry
. Thi s guidance document described quality assurance and quality

control (QA/QC) targets for the data entry of the Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data, which is the data expected from EPA Regions and states for PCS, and described how states should develop and implement their own quality assurance plans to ensure that the data provided in PCS was timely , accurate, and complete. Specificall y, the 1992 EPA guidance identifies timeliness targets (in numbers of working day s since a specific trigger eve nt) for availability of the NPDES data for specific data families, such as basic facility

data, pipe schedule data, limits data, monitoring data, violation data, inspection data, program reports data, enforcement action data, compliance schedule data, etc. In this rulemaking effort, EPA will likely strongl y consider using these existing guidelines in developing regulatory requirements for such quality assurance and quality

control for information required to be submitted by permittee or by

states. **5. ICIS**  **- N**  **PDES may not need additional modifications beyond those development efforts currently planned.**  The I CI S
-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventually

obtain NPDES information in ICI S
-NPDES from the states that currentl y batch data from their state NPDES data sy stems to PCS. At this point, there are approximately twent y state supplied data elements that will need to be incorporated into I CI S
-NPDES. These data elements relate to their compliance monitoring activities. **6. The timing of**  **full batch capability for ICIS -**  **NPDES is addressed in two draft**  **documents.** One draft document states that batch capability will be available for batch upload of the following NPDES information to I CI S
-NPDES in 2011: DMRs, permits data (including basic permit data, narrative conditions, limit sets, limits and outfalls), and facility universe data. The same draft document shows that batch capability will be available for batch upload of the following NPDES information to I CI S
-NPDES in 2012: inspections, e nforcement actions, and violations. The same draft document shows that batch capability will be available for batch upload of program report information in 2013.6

**3.0 T**  **ECHNICAL Q**  **UESTIONS 1.**  **EPA and the states have worked cooperatively to address past difficulties with flowing**  **data to EPA through PCS or ICIS -**  **NPDES.** Although some difficulties have been encountered in the past in flowing data to EPA through PCS or I CI S
-NPDES, the states and EPA have worked cooperatively to address these issues. The I CI S
-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventuall y obtain NPDES information in ICI S
-NPDES from the states that currentl y batch data from their state NPDES data sy stems to PCS. **2. The reporting frequency will vary considerably depending on the type of da**  **ta.** For example, under the Compliance Monitoring Strategy , the frequency of inspections varies based on the ty

pe of facilit y and the inspection type. So, if a major facility is expected to be inspected once every

three years, that would be the frequency at which inspection data would be expected for that facility
. Furthermore, if 50% of inspections identify potential single event violations (SEVs), the frequency of that inspection ty

pe (33%) times 50% would identify how frequentl y such SEVs would be repor ted for a major facilit y per ye ar. As another example, if only 23% of the major facilities receive formal enforcement action in a given year, then less than 1 in 5 major facilities would receive such an enforcement action in that year, and this would be th e reporting frequency

expected. If the states must enter basic permit and facility information, it will likely

be required only

once every

five ye ars (on the permit cycle). **3. The total volume of data to be reported and collected electronically under Analysi**  **s C will basically be the number of data elements times the frequency of reporting**  **times the universe size of permittees.** So, for example, if there are 17 data elements for CAFO inspections, and if they are expected to be performed every five years and if there are approximately 17,500 CAFOs nationally , then the product (17 x 0.2 x 17,500) would be the number of entries expec ted for data from these CAFO inspections per year. Each of these factors (e.g., the number of data elements, the reporting frequency , and the permittee universe are likely to vary based on data ty

pe and facility

t ype. Attached are summaries related to i nspection frequencies and single event violation occurrence, as examples. Table 1 provides a list of recommended inspection frequencies.7

**Table 1**
--- Compliance Monitoring Strategy Recommended Inspection Frequencies

**Perm it Type**  **Indicator Type CMS**  **Recommendation to adjust the inspection frequency** 
Major Comprehensive inspection/ (Activity Indicator) 3 years (No numerical target for Activity Indicators)
Minor/ Traditional Discharge Inspection 5 years Minor/ Traditional No Discharge Traditional Inspection 5 years Pretreatment audits 5 years
Pretreatment Permit Compliance Inspections 5 years

Pretreatment Permit Compliance Inspections 5 years

Pretreatment Significant Industrial users Inspections 5 years

Pretreatment Oversight 5 inspections per year
Biosolids inspection none/combined with other reports
CSS CSO Sampling Major CSS: 3 years; Minor 5 years CSS CSO Non Sampling Major CSS: 3 years; Minor 5 years SSS SSO Sampling, None SSS Non Sampling, None MS4 Phase I Audits States determine Audit frequency MS4 Phase I Inspections As needed MS4 Phase II Audits and Inspections As needed Industrial Stormwater Construction Phase I Inspect at least 10% of sites Industrial Stormwater Construction Phase II Inspect at least 5% of the sites CAFOs Inspect facilities once every five years AFOs As needed8

**4. OECA should have a high priority to obtain base data to better characterize the**  **compliance monitoring and enforcement activities underway throughout the nation.** This data will include information regarding inspections, the findings from those inspections regarding particular NPDES subprograms, violation determinations, and enforcement actions. This information is a high priority , to allow the Office of Water to characterize the regulated universe as well as to characterize the implementation of the NPDES program. Furthermore, information regarding permit limits, limit sets, and outfalls would also be essential to determine permit limit violations identified in discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). **5. Development efforts are underway to address existing state tools or systems and the**  **feasibility of expansion for national use.** The I CI S
-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventually

obtain NPDES information in ICI S
-NPDES from the states that currentl y batch data from their existing state NPDES data s ys tems to PCS. This batch capability and the associated schemas are being developed to allow states to send all of the required NPDES informatio n, and more data if the state chooses, from their existing state NPDES data sy stems to EPA’s ICIS
- NPDES data sy stem. Through the use of standardized schema, establishment of a list of NPDES information required from the states, and development of associate d quality assurance and quality

control criteria. The batch capability

and the rule will help considerably to stabilize and standardize the NPDES data reporting process from states to EPA. The project is certainl y considered feasible by EPA and its contrac tors as a future tool for states to send NPDES information from their state NPDES data sy stems to EPA’s ICIS
- NPDES data sy stem. **6. The ICIS**  **- NPDES batch capability development effort addresses data flow options**  **between regulated facilities, the states, and EP A.**  The I CI S
-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventually

obtain NPDES information in ICI S
-NPDES from the states that currentl y batch data from their existing state NPDES data s ys tems to PCS. Ingeneral under this rule, for those st ates with their own tool to obtain NPDES information electronically from permittees, these states would need to complete the data flow of that information to EPA. However, for this data required to be reported by states to EPA, the data flow option will ei ther be direct entry of the information by

states into EPA’s I CI S
- NPDES data sy stem or batch uploading of information from state data s ys tems to EPA’s I CI S
- NPDES data sy stem. **4.0 P**  **OLICY Q**  **UESTIONS 1.**  **Regulation cites to be modified/added to impose the requiremen t**  **:** This particular anal ys is deals entirel y with the NPDES information which EPA will need to require from the States. Therefore, one of the key regulations addressing EPA’s needs for NPDES information from the states may likel y be 40 CFR 122.41(a), whi ch states:9

“An y information obtained or used in the administration of a State program shall be available to EPA upon request without restriction.” Another key

regulation may

be 40 CFR 123.43(d), which states: “An y State permit program shall keep such records and submit to the Administrator such information as the Administrator may reasonabl y require to ascertain whether the State program complies with the requirements of CWA or of this part.” **2. Data stewardship**  **issues, including responsibilities for QA/QC :**  For this anal ys is, EPA is seeking this NPDES information directl y from the states. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the states would be identified as the data stewards for the quality assurance and quality

control of this information because they are the ones providing it directly to EPA. **3. CROMERR compliance issues**  **:** In this situation, in which EPA is seeking NPDES data from the states regarding the states’ NPDES activities, CROMERR really shouldn’t apply
. This part of the data requirements does not reall y address electronic reporting b y permittees, unless, perhaps some of the information supplied to EPA by states might include information that was provided electronically

by the permittes to the s tates (e.g., electronically submitted permit applications). **4. Possible triggers for electronically reporting information**  **--- policy decision regarding**  **applicable universes :**  For this part of the NPDES data requirements, EPA would expect to receive info rmation from all states, after batch capability is made available to transmit to I CI S
- NPDES all of the NPDES information that is sought by EPA directly

from the states. Such batch capability should be available b y 2013. **5. Phasing of the reporting universe**  **(e.g., e -**  **reporting of program reports for biosolids and CAFOs first followed by SSOs then followed by CSOs)**  **--- policy decision regarding**  **timing:** It may be advisable for EPA to first seek information regarding the facilit y and permit data from the states because such information would be very useful to identify

the regulated universe and would also serve as the basis for other information from the s tates and from permittees. **6. Possible temporary exemptions or waivers for facilities claiming they can not complete**  **an e -**  **report :** 10

When batch capability

is available, all states should be able to provide EPA with the required NPDES information. The concep ts of temporary exemptions or waivers would only apply to possible electronic reporting by NPDES permittees. **7. System of Record**  **:** In this situation, states are providing EPA with NPDES information and EPA needs to be able to rel y upon that information as part of the official NPDES data s ys tem of record for the national NPDES program. Although it is conceivable that the state’s NPDES data sy stem may contain more recent or additional information, EPA should reasonabl y expect the states to ensure that the in formation that they provide to EPA is timely , accurate, complete and nationally consistent.