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: 14 September 2015 SUBJECT: Notes from Technical Meeting with States ( 5 March 2 01 5 ) [ DCN 02 2 2 ]

**Overview** This was the twentieth 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 construction and i ndustrial stormwater i nformation data element along with the corresponding 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 representatives asked for addition text to be added to the construction stormwater data elements to make clear that these data elements are to be collected and shared with EPA at the time of the permit application or modification . EPA confirmed that this is the current pa per process and will continue with electronic reporting. EPA notes this final rule does not change the existing NPDES reporting requirements regarding when NPDES regulated entities must give notice to the Director of any “planned physical2



### alterations or ad ditions to the permitted facility.” See 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1). Consequently, this final rule does not change the frequency or reporting or the criteria when NPDES regulated entities must report.

 Several state representatives asked for clarification on the l evel of precision that will be necessary for some of the data elements. EPA modified these data elements to provide clarity. For example, the data description for the “Total Area of the Site” data element is as follows: “This is an estimate of the total area of the construction site at the time of permit application (in acres). This data element is only required for individual construction stormwater permit applications. Values under 5 acres will be reported to the nearest tenth of an acre or nearest quarte r acre. Authorized NPDES programs will have the discretion to choose whether permittees should report to the nearest tenth of an acre or nearest quarter acre for values under 5 acres. ”

 A representative from Alaska suggested that EPA should delete the “So il and Fill Material Description” data element in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127. In the final rule EPA retained this data element as this text field describes the nature of fill material and existing data describing soils or the quality of the discharge. More t han one soil type can be described with this data element. This data field is based on pre

-existing NPDES reporting requirements for individual construction stormwater permit applications [see 122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E)]. This data element aids in oversight and i mproved targeting of stormwater pollution (e.g., some soils are more subject to erosion and have a greater potential for causing water quality impacts).

 Several state representatives questioned if EPA would require the electronic submission of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) . EPA noted that the rule does not require the electronic reporting of SWPPPs.

 Several state representatives questioned the utility of the “ Runoff Coefficient of the Site (Post

-Construction)” data element. EPA retained this data element in the final rule as an estimate of the overall runoff coefficient of the site after the construction addressed in the permit application is completed. This final rule does not define or amend the term “runoff coefficient” Which is required by the existing reporting requirement at 122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E).This data field is only required for individual construction stormwater permit applications. EPA also provided an overview of the “Hybrid Approach,” which was discussed in the Suppleme ntal Notice to the proposed rule. EPA noted that this approach can address the concerns that some states have regarding requiring construction operators to be first obtain a CROMERR

-compliant digital signature before they can submit their NOI. Several state representative s noted that there might be technical issues to work out but that providing this option for this sector might be a solution for some state NPDES program s.3



### Following the meeting, EPA received an e

- mail from an individual state government representative on the data elements 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 formal 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

- 5 March 2015

**Main Contact**  **State or**

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

- us.org Yes Karen Lechner AK karen.lechner@alaska.gov Yes Christy Monk AL cvm@adem.state.al.us Yes 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 Yes 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 Yes Scott Miyashiro HI scott.miyashiro@doh.hawaii.gov Yes 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 No Ed Dillingham KS edillingham@kdheks.gov Yes 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 No Bradley Bennett bradley.bennett@ncdenr.gov Jason Lonardo NJ jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us No 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 Yes 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 No 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 Yes Carey Johnston OECA/OC/ETDD johnston.carey@epa.gov Yes Jackie Clark OW/OWM/WPD clark.jackie@epa.gov Yes Erika Farris OW/OWM/WPD farris.erika@epa.gov Yes Roy Chaudet OEI/OIC/IESD chaudet.roy@epa.gov No 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 Yes 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 Representative from Authorized NPDES Program**  **E -** **mail from Lawrence Bunting <Lawrence.Bunting@tn.gov> Thu 4/2/2015 2:33 PM**  Sorry I’m late with this response to the industrial and construction permit information. I’m out for the next two weeks and I’m catching up on what I should have already done and sent to you. Applications on

- line may be challenging for most states. Tracking wet

- ink signatures that have to be ti ed back to the electronic application sounds like a problem. Once an applicant gets even provisional coverage, there is less motivation to finish the paper and mail it in with a signature on it. Third party validation for CROMERR should work for most of the active developers. The occasional players may be more challenging. TN has not gotten a decision on how we will meet CROMERR for application systems on - line. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA has included the ‘Hybrid Approach’ in the final rule to address the concer ns about getting construction operators to seek and obtain a CROMERR digital signature. The ‘Hybrid Approach’ will allow authorized NPDES programs to benefit as construction operators will electronically submit their NOI data and also send in a paper

-copy of these data with the handwritten (“wet

- ink”) signature. The preamble to the final rule provides more information on this potential implementation option. TDEC has never used the Permit Required by Residual Designation provision. It has no meaning to us at the moment as a required field, but we are OK with it as conditionally required if applicable. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA has included this data element as some states and EPA Regions use this regulatory option to control stormwater. The Total Area of the Site is described as applicable to individual permits, yet my notes from the call noted that this should also apply to general permit coverages as well. If it applies to general permit coverage, the description on page 29 of your Word document should be change d. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA reviewed its stormwater regulations and matched the data elements to the appropriate permits (industrial vs. contruction stormwater; individual permits vs. general permits). TN agrees that specifying “to the nearest quarter of an acre” should be re

-worked to reflect the size of the area. For less than 10 acres, it may be appropriate, but for hundreds of acres it is not a reasonable level of accuracy. For the industrial storm water permits, the Current Total Impervious Area is repo rted on the application as an estimate. To the “nearest quarter of an acre” may be better off if it is replaced with to the “nearest acre.” **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA provided more flexibility in the final rule and modified these data elements with the following language: “Values under 5 acres will be reported to the nearest tenth of an acre or nearest quarter acre. Authorized NPDES programs will have the discretion to choose whether permittees should report to the nearest tenth of an acre or nearest quarter acre for values under 5 acres.”8



### For applications, if there are changes to the construction project as development takes place, there needs to be a way to either amend an application and revise data submitted to modify permit or to require that a re-application be made for the permit. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA notes this final rule does not change the existing NPDES reporting requirements regarding when NPDES regulated entities must give notice to the Director of any “planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility.” See 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1). Consequently, this final rule does not change the frequency or reporting or the criteria when NPDES regulated entities must report.