# The Supplemental Notice for the

**Proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule** 

Presentation to State Technical Workgroup

10 December 2014

# Agenda

• Basic Review of Proposed NPDES e- Reporting Rule
• Overview of Comments received
• Purpose of the Supplemental Notice
• Key Areas identified in Public Comments
• Contact Information
• Appendix

– Matters for which Comments are Sought

10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 2

## Goals Of The Proposed **Rule** This rule will help EPA and states clean up the nation’s waters, by:  Bring the NPDES Program into the 21 st Century by shifting from paper to electronic reporting. Proposed rule establishes no new reporting requirements  Save money and time for the regulated community and for states (reduce data entry time, improve accuracy)  Improves transparency and frees up resources to focus on the most important problems  Uses technology to obtain more accurate, timely, and complete information about the NPDES program 10 December 2014 3 State Te chnical Workgroup 

## Basic Review

## Data Flows Covered by the Proposed Rule

10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 4 **Data Sources D** **a t** **a f** **r o** **m N** **P D** **E S** **P e** **r m** **i t** **t e** **e s**  Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) General Permit Reports (NOI, NOT, NECs, LEW s) Biosolids Annual Program Reports CAFO Annual Program Reports MS4 Program Reports Pretreatment Program Annual Reports Industrial User Compliance Reports in Municipalities Wi thout Approved Pretreatment Programs

– Wh en EP

A or State is Control Authority Sewer Overflow Event Reports (CSOs, SSOs, Bypass events)**D a** **t a** **f r** **o m** **S t** **a t** **e** Require electronic reporting by NPDES -authorized states, territories, tribes, and Regions of program implementation information (individual permits, inspections, violations, and enforcement actions) 

## Basic Review5 

## Proposed Rule Implementation Approach

• **Phase 1 Data (one year**  **after the effectiv e**  **date of the final rule):** EP A and states would electronically receive:  Basic facility and permit information as well as inspections, violation determinations, and enforcement actions data from states;  DMR information (if required) from facilities; and  Information (NOIs, etc.) from general permit covered facilities for Federally- issued general permits.

• **Phase 2 Data (tw o**  **years after the effectiv** **e date of the final rule):**  In addition to Phase 1 data, EP A and states would receive:  Information (NOIs, etc.) from general permit covered facilities for other state- issued general permits; and  All identified program reports from facilities.

• **Possible use of CW A**  **308 authority by EP A**  **as a means to ‘fill in the**  **gaps.’** 10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 5 

## Basic Review6 

## What the Proposed **Rule Does and Does N**  **ot D**  **o**

• DOES NOT: increase the amount of information required from NPDES - regulated entities under existing regulations

• DOES : Changes the method by which NPDES General Permit information is provided  From paper to electronic

• DOES : Require authorized NPDES programs to share their NPDES program implementation information electronically with EP A (Appendix A)

• DOES : Require public access to data already required under current law 10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 6 

## Basic Review

## 170 Public Comments

10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 7 

## Overview of Comments Received

• Generally supportive of electronic reporting as modern and efficient

• Raised issues on aspects of the proposed implementation and operation of the rule

• The Supplemental Notice is not intended to respond to all comments submitted  All comments will be addressed wh en EPA takes final action on the proposed rule

## Submissions by Commenter Type

10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 8 

## Overview of Comments Received

**Com menter**  **Ty pe**  **Number of**  **Submissions Number**  **of Com ment**  **Pages** Anonymous or Individual Person 32 44 Environmental Advocacy Organization 3 22 Government (Local) 28 11 4 Government (State) 39 308 Government (Federal) 2 5 Industry (Misc.) 39 188 Industry (Agriculture) 25 163 Industry (Software V

endors) 2 6 **To tal:**  170 850

### 1. Soliciting additional comments on key areas identified during the Proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule comment period. A. Implementation Plan B. Cross - Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR ) C. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Sector D. Stormwater Sector E. Economic Analysis F. Miscellaneous Issues 

### 2. Opens a new 60 day comment period.

- Comment period closes on 30 January 2015.

10 December 2014 9 State Te chnical Workgroup 

## Purpose of the Supplemental Notice10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 10 

## Key Area A. Implementation Plan Clarifications 1. Initial recipient status  Initial recipient is defined as: the first to receive electronically reported NPDES program data, the permitting authority or EPA  A Permitting authority will request to be the initial recipient for specific NPDES data groups ( e.g Pretreatment NOIs, DMRs)  EPA will support all initial recipient requests and work to resolve any intervening issues  The initial recipient status is not contingent on the State Readiness Criteria. 

### 2. State Readiness Criteria  Participation Rate: 90% by data group  CROMERR Approved Electronic Reporting System  Initial Recipient Status: permitting authority has requested the data group10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 11 

## Key Area A. Implementation Plan (continued) 

### Comments 1. Initial recipient status  Burden of double reporting  Conflicting data - which is the copy of record  Differing initial recipients for various data groups could be very confusing and burdensome for facilities 

### 2. State Readiness Criteria  Two year implementation plan will inhibit 90% threshold o COMMERR approval o Required outreach and training  Suggestion of phasing in State Readiness Criteria10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 12 

## Key Area A. Implementation Plan (continued) 

### Comments 3. Implementation Plan Schedule  Two year implementation plan will inhibit 90% threshold (as noted previously)  Individual State Plans  Integrated electronic reporting with permit cycle 

### 4. Copy of Record (COR)  The proposed rule does not change EPA’s authentication and encryption standards for electronic reporting  The wet signature is the COR when a facility is required to report both electronically and by paper. 

### e. Modifications of State regulations and statutes  EPA regulations require any updates within one -year of the effective date of the final rule10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 13 

## Key Area B. Cross - Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) Comments 1. Improve/Streamline the application approval process 2. Burdensome requirements for Signature Authorization  High processing costs for paper signature agreements o Paperless, real time identity proofing is now b eing implemented  Facilities with high turnover and overall infrequent reporting 

### 3. CROMMER requirements for NPDES - Regulated Entities  Clarification: NPDES regulated entities (e.g., POTWs) are not required to submit a CROMERR application to electronically report NPDES program data. 

### 4. EPA Password Reset Requirement  The 90 day password reset standard is a long standing EPA requirement not CROMERR10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 14 

## Key Area C. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Sector Clarifications 1. The proposed rule would only require CAFOs with NPDES permits to submit information to permitting authorities and be publically available, as currently required.  Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) are not required electronically  No changes to public accessibility to information pursuant to existing legal requirements  No changes to the long -standing procedures for dealing with public and confidential information in the existing NPDES regulations 

### Comments 1. Privacy concerns for unpermitted CAFOs and AFOs that have been inspected with no CWA violations  A proposal for comment, is to not make facility name, location, and contact information publically available for these facilities.10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 15 

## Key Area D. Stormwater Sector Comments 1. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)  Difficult to convert diverse paper forms into a standardize electronic format  Prepopulate data to reduce data entry burden  Adjust Appendix A to better reflect the different requirements and terminology between Phase I and Phase II MS4s 

### 2. Industrial and Construction Stormwater  Large changing universe – CROMERR signature agreements difficult o Automatic identification and data capture technology was suggested 

###  Required data elements should better distinguish between Municipal and Industrial stormwater facilities10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 16 

## Key Area E. Economic Analysis Comments 1. Implementation costs  Under estimated system development and upgrade costs  Outreach and training  Purchase new equipment 

### 2. Data entry burden  Easier to manage paper for large universes with infrequent reporting 

### 3. Dual reporting requirements10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 17 

## Key Area F. Waivers Comments 1. Permanent waivers for NPDES - regulated entities located in religious communities 2. Automate for certain locations 3. Longer duration than one year 4. Available for circumstances beyond broadband availability, such as, undue burden or cost 5. Some States requested flexibility while others suggested EPA make the determination10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 18 

## Key Area G. Miscellaneous Issues Clarification 1. How the rule applies to the Vessels and Pesticides General Permits Comments 1. Modification of Data Elements in Appendix A  EPA request for comment on two additional data elements that support the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey. o Additional data will reduce state burden in reporting for the quadrennial survey. 

### 2. Biosolids Annual Report  EPA requests comment on using an electronic DMR system to submit these annual reports  Proposal to move Biosolids Annual Report from Rule Implementation Phase II to Phase I

## Additional Information

• Please contact the following for additional information

– General information about the rule: John Dombrowski, 202 -566 -0742. e- mail: dombrowski.john@epa.gov ; Andy Hudock, 202 -564 -6032; e- mail: hudock.andrew@epa.gov ;



### – Implementation, economic analysis and tool development: Andy Hudock, 202 -564 -6032; e- mail: hudock.andrew@epa.gov ; Carey Johnston, 202 -566 - 1014; e- mail: johnston.carey@epa.gov ;



### – Outreach and communication: Rochele Kadish, 202 -564 -3106; e- mail: kadish.rochele@epa.gov 10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 19

## Useful 

# Links

• Federal Register Link

– https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/30/2013 - 17551/npdes -electronic- reporting - rule 

### • EPA Website Link

– http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/proposed - npdes-electronicreporting - rule 

### • Press Release Link

– http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/A38B17B5643E 001D85257BB9005882DA 

### • Email sign up for future outreach activities

– https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USAEPAOECA/subs criber/new? 10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 20

## Providing comments

to the docket

• Federal Rulemaking Portal : http://w ww. regulations.gov: Follow t he on - line instructions for submitting comments.
• E - mail : docket.oeca@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA- HQOECA-2009 -0274.
• Mail : U.S. EPA, EPA Docket Center, Enforcement and Compliance Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA- HQ- OECA2009 -0274.
• Hand Delivery : Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA- HQ- OECA2009 -0274.

10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 21

# Appendix Matters for which Comments are Sought

10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 2210 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 23 

## Matters for Which Comments are Sought A. Implementation Plan  Initial Recipient status process and details  Different State Readiness Criteria options  Use of EPA’s CWA authority through an ICR to o require NPDES - regulated entities to electronically submit data to the permit authority o Require facilities operating under backlogged permits to electronically report their NPDES data  Extending or adding additional phasing to the implementation plan  Calculate DMR submission rates separately by program area and Individual permit or General permit  Practical ways to streamline CROMERR approvals within the required regulation10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 24 

## Matters for Which Comments are Sought (continued) 

### B. Stormwater Sector  Use of a combination of drop-down lists and text fields for electronic reporting  Flexible Electronic Signature Credentialing options for Construction Stormwater  Different Appendix A, required data elements, for Municipal and Industrial 

### C. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Sector  Removing facility specific information from unpermitted CAFOs and AFOs inspected with the finding of no violations  Modifications to CAFO specific Appendix A data elements10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 25 

### D. Economic Analysis  What technology upgrades might be necessary  CROMERR costs for electronic NPDES reporting  Training costs  Computer and Internet access  Current costs associated with NPDES electronic reporting  Costs associated with reporting and review for the current Annual Non - Compliance Report (ANCR) and those for the proposed electronic NPDES noncompliance report. 

### E. Waiver  Automatic for limited broadband availability  Effective timeframe for an automatic broadband waiver  Timeframe for temporary waivers  Temporary waivers for lack of technical expertise  Permanent waiver for religious communities 

## Matters for Which Comments are Sought (continued)10 December 2014 State Te chnical Workgroup 26 

### F. Miscellaneous Issues  Improvements to public accessibility and usability of the data  Changes to some of the Appendix A data elements  Practicality of using the DMR form for the Biosolids annual Report  Move the Biosolids Annual report from Phase II to Phase I of Rule implementation  Suggestion on how to reach and inform the broad range of facilities covered under this propose rulemaking 

## Matters for Which Comments are Sought (continued)