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 3 February 2014 SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting ( 6 February 2014) [DCN 0129 ] **Overview** This was the second 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 other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule. **Meeting Notes** EPA started the meeting with a roll call and solicited comments on the draft notes from the previous meeting. There were no comments on the draft meeting notes. Mr. Andrew Hudock then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on waivers from electronic reporting.

 ACWA ( Sean Rolland ) asked if the temporary waiver was required to be included in the NPDES permit. EPA noted that when the eRule is fully implemented the NPDES permit will require electronic reporting that is compliant with eRule (Part 127) , which as proposed allows for temporary waivers. It is optional if states would like to include language on temporary waivers in the NPDES permit.

 Oklahoma ( Shellie Chard - McClary) noted the importance of including waivers in the eRule. She noted that there were some problems when Oklahoma switch ed to electronic direct deposit for state employee payroll and that not everyone has access to broadband Internet.2

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that some religious communities are prohibited from being connected to the Internet via a wire but can be connected through a wireless connection. He noted the importance of making some arrangements for permanent waivers from electronic reporting for religious communities. ECOS ( Beth Graves ) stated that waivers for religious reasons should be for longer durations or made permanent.

 Arkansas (Teresa Marks ) asked how EPA was identifying counties with a lack of access to broadband Internet. Mr. Hudock replied that EPA is using Federal Communications Commission (FCC) National Broadband Map ( http://broadbandmap.gov/).

 Several state participants noted that a waiver could be structured such that NPDES regulated entities self- certify that they have no access to broadband Internet.

 Alabama stated that ICIS- NPDES needs a data flag or feature to show who has a waiver from e lectronic reporting and that this flag or feature would need to have a date aspect (as conditions and state determinations or self- certifications could change over time).

 New Jersey stated that they are not in favor of automatic waivers from electronic re porting as they would like to grant waivers on an individualized basis. New Jersey doesn’t expect to issue any waivers .  Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that there are places in the United States where there is limited access to broadband Internet and automat ic waivers are necessary.
 Washington state ( Nancy Kmet ) noted that they would like to be in more control over who gets waivers and would like these decisions to only be made by the state. Ms. Kmet noted that waivers may be necessary for certain sectors li ke the construction stormwater sector because electronic reporting is not the issue but actual compliance that is actually submitting any DMR (paper or otherwise) is the issue for these often short-term permits .  Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that it would be better to allow waivers to last a permit term (approximately five years) as the one year option in the proposed rule is too short. He noted that it will provide too much burden on the state to annual ly review and re issue temporary waivers from electronic reporting. Other state participants agreed with this assessment and noted that a requirement to annually review these waivers is an undue burden.

 Colorado (Andy Putnam ) noted that EPA should recognize two factors that will likely cut down on the potential number of temporary waivers. Mr. Putnam noted that states will be required to enter data from a facility that has a temporary waiver and that states will only take on this data entry burden when necessary. He also noted that EPA and sta tes3

should strive to make electronic reporting easier than submitting reports on paper as this will make electronic reporting a more attractive option.

 Steve Chester (EPA) asked if EPA should put in a requirement that facilities with temporary waivers sh ould self- report to their aut horized NPDES program when they have access to broadband Internet. For example, they could submit a notice to the state within 30 days of their initial use broadband Internet and then start electronic reporting within 60 days a fter this notice .  With respect to the issue of whether to grant temporary waivers based on the lack of technical expertise to electronically submit NPDES program data, Washington , Texas, and other states replied that they would like to make these determinations on a case by case basis on their own authority. They noted that there is a small but important minority of the NPDES regulated universe that lacks the skills to successfully submit their NPDES program data electronically. Some states noted that some NPDES contacts cannot read and write and would be prevented from using electronic reporting. They note that they spend more time with these regulated entities than the typical user. They noted that it might be easier for the state to issue a waiver to these unskilled NPDES regulated entities, collect NPDES program data on paper, and then share the necessary data with EPA.

 Colorado asked if EPA could clarify the Phase I data that are required to be submitted electronically. EPA noted that Phase I data includes basic facility and permit data (submitted by the state to EPA), DMRs (all facilities), and general permit reports (e.g., NOIs) for federally issued NPDES general permits. Mr. Carey Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on the ‘Initial Recipient’ concept used in the proposed rule.

 Arkansas asked if EPA’s use of the Information Collection Request (ICR), issued under authority of CWA Section 308, would override the state’s authority over a NPDES regulated entity. Mr. Johnston replied that EPA’s use of an ICR would not infringe or override a state’s authority. He noted that the use of the ICR is an attempt to move facilities more quickly towards electronic reporting. He noted that the ICR is a measure to ‘fill in the gaps’ where facilities are not availing themselves of state electronic reporting tools.

 Oklahoma ( Shellie Chard - McClary) noted that it may be confusing for states and regulated entities if there are two separate submissions (one electronic to EPA and other on paper to the state) . Colorado also noted the potential confusion as two data submissions raises questions about the copy of record and potential data inconsistencies between the two submissions. Arkansas note d the need for close coordination between EPA and states during implementation.4

 Colorado ( Elisa Willard ) asked for clarification regarding the copy of record when there are two submissions of the same data one electronic to EPA and other on paper to the state). Mr. Dombrowski noted that the submission to the state on paper with a ‘wet - ink’ signature is the copy of record. EPA would be responsible for resolving any data discrepancies between the electronic submission to EPA and the paper submission to the state as EPA is the data steward for the electronic submission mandated by EPA’s ICR.
 Colorado (Andy Putnam ) suggested that EPA consider using its ICR to compel facilities to electronically report to the state instead of EPA. He noted that EPA could follo w- up with facilities that failed to electronically report with a warning letter or other action. He noted that there are several benefits for this option as it is simpler than the proposed option, requires only one data submission, and eliminates the need for the regulated entity to report to EPA. Virginia and other states voiced their support for this alternative.

 Mr. Johnston also noted the option of simplifying the Initial Recipient determination during the first stage of the rule’s implementation. He s olicited comment on making states the Initial Recipient as the default status for data flows where they are the authorized program. Under this potential change states would need to ‘opt -out’ of their Initial Recipient status for any data flows that they wo uld like EPA to be the first to receive the data.

 Oklahoma ( Shellie Chard - McClary) noted the importance of setting reasonable deadlines. **Next Steps** 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 . Oklahoma asked that one or more future meetings focus on the minimum set of federal NPDES data (Appendix A to 40 CFR 127) . EPA agreed to discuss Appendix A in future meetings but suggested the group first continue to talk about implementation of the rule as that was the focus of many comments. The next meeting will focus on the implementation schedule and the State Readiness Criteria concept used in the proposed rule.5 **State Technical Workgroup Meeting –**  **NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 6 February**  **2014** 1pm Introduction/Roll Call 1:05 Review of Draft Notes from Previous Meeting 1:15 Discussion on Waivers from Electronic Reporting 1:45 Discussion on Initial Recipient Concept 2:15 Solicitation of Topics for Next Meeting 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 form al 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 Joe DiMura NY jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us No Shellie Chard - McClary OK shellie.chard - mcclary@deq.ok.gov Yes 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 Yes Lisa Lund OECA/OC/IO lund.lisa@epa.gov Yes 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 Yes Chuck Freeman OEI/OIC/IESD freeman.charles@epa.gov No Aditi Prabhu OGC/WLO prabhu.aditi@epa.gov No Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov Yes