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 ( 27 February 2014) [DCN 0132]
**Overview** This was the fifth 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. Mr. Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on electronic reporting for NPDES permitted CAFOs
.
 Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted permitted CAFOs are different from other NPDES regulated entities in that CAFO owners and operators live onsite. He also shared his experience of what happened in Indiana when they transition away from papers files and started to elect ronically manage and share their permitted CAFO data . He noted that prior to the conversion most CAFO operators did not seem to invoke claims of confidential business information (CBI) as few people would come to the state office to request and photocopy t hese data. Once Indiana started to electronically manage and share their CAFO data they started seeing more and more CBI claims on CAFO data submissions as operators did not want their data and information to become widely available.2

 Mr. Easterly suggeste d that EPA needs to make clear what data on CAFOs needs to be electronically collected and shared with EPA. For example, he suggested that states not be required to share state inspection data with EPA on unpermitted CAFOs that do not have any CWA violatio ns.

 ECOS (Beth Graves) noted that when she worked in North Carolina that even big hog farms that were CAFOs had families living on
- site. Texas and Arkansas also agreed that most CAFO owners live onsite and are reluctant to have their home address availabl e on EPA’s website . Mr. Easterly noted that CAFO operators don’t want their home address in a government database and don’t want people to bother them. He noted that EPA could consider requiring permitted CAFOs to only submit a limited amount of locational data.

 ACWA (Sean Rolland) suggested that another option for EPA to consider is to have states share permitted CAFO data with EPA at the watershed level and facility latitude and longitude coordinates. Mr. Johnston then provided an overview of Appendix A to the proposed rule . Appendix A is the minimum set of NPDES program data that NPDES
- regulated facilities or other regulated entities would electronically submit to their authorized programs. It is an appendix to the proposed Part 127.

 Mr. Johnston noted that a uthorized programs that are the Initial Recipient of these data would electronically transfer these data to EPA. OECA worked with NPDES program experts from the Office of Water, Office of General Counsel, and EPA Regions to develop Appendix A. He noted that t he purpose of Appendix A is to ensure that there is consistent and complete reporting nationwide, and to expedite the collection and processing of the data, thereby making it more timely, accurate, complete, useful, and transparent for everyone.

 Mr. Johnston noted that not all Appendix A data applies to all facilities (e.g., CAFO data wouldn’t apply to POTWs) and that reporting frequency varies based on the type of data (e.g., permit issuance would likely be every five years; DMR data may b e monthly). He described the process the EPA technical workgroups used to create Appendix A. o Identify current candidate reports and information from states and NPDES regulated entities that are practical to standardize and electronically process, and have important value to the permitting, compliance and enforcement program, and the public. o Identify the required data elements for each candidate data flow and report based on the CWA or existing EPA regulations or policy. o Minimize the number of data element s to create efficiencies without losing the utility of the data.3

 Mr. Johnston provided an example of how EPA converted regulatory requirements to Appendix A. He noted that stormwater discharges, including discharges from municipal separate storm sewers ( MS4s), industrial facilities and construction sites, can have a significant impact on water quality and that EPA has identified this as a area of focus for the NPDES program.

 In previous regulatory efforts EPA create reporting requirements for MS4s (annual for Phase I MS4s and year 2 and 4 of the permit term for Phase II MS4s). Below is an excerpt from EPA’s existing regulations that require MS4s to submit these reports: o Phase 1 [122.42(c)(6)]: “A summary describing the number and nature of enforceme nt actions, inspections, and public education programs.” o Phase II [122.34(g)(3)]: “ Results of information collected and analyzed, including monitoring data, if any during the reporting period.”

 He noted that EPA used this regulatory language to develop the following data elements to capture the enforcement actions take by the MS4 program report. o Number of Notice of Violations o Number of Administrative Fines o Number of Stop Work Orders o Number of Civil Penalties o Number of Criminal Actions o Number of Administrative Orders

 He stated that t hese data (and other data from the MS4 program report) will help states, EPA, and the public better understand the performance of each MS4 program and that t his is lacking in the current paper
- based system .
 Texas ( Kim Wilson ) suggested electronic reporting may not be appropriate for the MS4 sector. She noted that the structured MS4 data in Appendix A does not give enough information to the authorized program on the effectiveness of the MS4 program. She stated that each regulat ed MS4 operator needs to submit a detailed analysis and that this analysis needs to be reviewed by trained state employees in order to determine the effectiveness of each MS4 program. She noted that restricting the MS4 program report to structured data will likely cause confusion with the public and more problems for the authorized state NPDES programs. Mr. Johnston noted that an important part of presenting information to the public is to provide the proper context on how to interpret and use the data. He noted that EPA tries to do this with its online tools like ECHO.

 Mr. Johnston noted that Appendix A is the minimum set of data that needs to be electronically collected and shared between EPA and the states and that states can collect more data and in any format that they wish (e.g., PDFs). He also noted that EPA’s4

Office of Wastewater Management is encouraging states and MS4 operators to better define their MS4 program commitment in quantifiable and measureable goals
.
 Arkansas (Teresa Marks ) stated that providing Appendix A data to EPA without context will likely cause more problems for authorized NPDES programs and permittees. She asked EPA to explain the benefits of electronically collecting these data and sharing them with the public . Mr. Johnston referred the workgroup to the many benefits described in the proposed rule. These include giving everyone a more complete picture of water pollution, which includes an inventory of : (1) N PDES
- permitted facilities ; (2) compliance monitoring data (e.g., DMRs, program reports) from all sectors of the NPDES program; (3) violations identified through inspections and other compliance monitoring activities by EPA, states, tribes, and territories ; and (4) i nformation on enforcement actions and associated penalties . He also noted that it would be easier to integrate permit and water quality assessment information through better linkage of facility locational data (e.g., latitude and longitude data) and information on the receiving waters (e.g., receiving waterbody name for permitted feature)
.
 Arkansas (Teresa Marks ) noted that “we really need to evaluate what we really need at the national level. ”

 Oklahoma (Shellie Chard
- McClary) agreed with Arkansas and suggested that EPA reduce the number data elements because of the limited resources on states for capturing these data. She suggested that EPA provide an analysis showing how each of the Appendix A data elements line up against EPA’s PCS Policy (WENDB) and ICIS
- NPDES. Mr. Johnston stated that EPA has this analysis and will share it with the states.

 Alabama asked if EPA could cite the ICR that provides the authorization to collect NPDES program data from the states. Mr. Johnston cited the supporting statement for the consolidated NPDES program ICR and pretreatment program ICR, which list the burden associated with collecting and managing NPDES program data and sharing these data with EPA . 1 **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.

1 See OMB Control No: 2040
-0004 and 0009.5 **State Te chnical Workgroup Meeting**  **– NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule**  **27 February**  **2014**
1pm Introduction/Roll Call 1:05 Finish Discussion of Comments on CAFO Sector 1:35 Overview of Appendix A 2:10 Schedule 2:20 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 fo r 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 No Elisa Willard CO elisa.willard@state.co.us No 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 No 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 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 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