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: 24 April 2014 SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting ( 1 7 April 2014) [DCN 0134] **Overview** This was the seventh 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. EPA 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 stakehold er group that would like to discuss the eRule. **Meeting Notes** EPA ( Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting with a roll call and then turned the meeting over to Ms. Lisa Lund, Office Director for EPA’s Office of Compliance . Ms. Lund started the meeting by noting that that the next set of teleconferences will focus on different aspects of the minimum set of data for electronic reporting (“Appendix A” to the proposed rule). In particular, she noted that EPA would like to use the next set of meetings to exp lain how EPA used its NPDES regulations to create Appendix A and how EPA economize d the data elements. Ms. Lund said that EPA will use the next set of meetings to discuss the different sections of Appendix A and solicit feedback. Ms. Lund also explained th at EPA has made a public commitment to publish a supplemental notice within 180 days (including OMB review time) from the end of the proposed rule comment period. She noted that EPA is using the supplemental notice to gain additional input on options for E PA to consider as it develops the final rule.2



### Ms. Lund mentioned that ECOS and ACWA have added new names to th e Technical Workgroup. She reminded all workgroup participants that the goal of th e EPA-state workgroup discussion is to clarify issues where the re is confusion, explore the issues of most concern to the states, and solicit state input on the issues and potential solutions. She noted that EPA does not expect to find resolution of these issues prior to publication of the supplemental Federal Registe r notice but that EPA would like highlight the most important issues and identify potential regulatory options. Ms. Lund also noted that EPA would like to continue this dialogue after publication of the supplemental notice, as an on -going and meaningful exchange between EPA and the states is critica l to the success of the eRule. Finally, Ms. Lund noted that while EPA is interested in hearing input and ideas from states, the technical workgroup is not a FACA and is not a decision - making body. Mr . Johnsto n then gave an overview of Appendix A, which including information on how this appendix is organized and how EPA developed the data elements. Mr. Johnston then ask teleconference participants to focus on the ‘ Basic Facility and Permit Data ’ in Appendix A ( see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46084). Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading off the name of each data elements 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 the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical workgroup .  A state commenter asked about mobile permitted entities that don’t have a fixed latitude and longitude. In particular, they a sked about requirements on states for mobile permitted entities with respect to the **Facility Site Longitude** and **Facility Site Latitude** data elements. Mr. Johnston stated that he would look into how ICIS- NPDES manages these data elements. [Subsequent to this meeting Mr. Johnston confirmed with Mr. Steve Rubin (EPA) that these two data elements are not system required. This means that a facility record ca n be entered or shared with ICIS- NPDES with out these two data elements.]

 Another state commenter about outfalls that are not fixed at a single location (e.g., hydrostatic testing operations). Mr. Johnston stated that he would look into how ICISNPDES mana ges these data elements : **Permitted Feature Longitude** and **Permitted Feature Latitude**  . [Subsequent to this meeting Mr. Johnston confirmed with Mr. Steve Rubin (EPA) that these two data elements are not system required. This means that a permitted feature record (e.g., outfall) can be entered or shared with ICIS- NPDES with out these two data elements.]

 Several states asked if EPA could identify the data elements that are system -generated (e.g., no key entry required as the state data system or ICIS- NPDES will generate these data) or system - required (e.g., a record cannot be successfully entered without these data). EPA noted that it will identify these system -generated or system - required data for states.3



###  A few states pointed out that the latitude and longitude metadata are required by EPA policy ( EPA National Geospatial Data Policy – CIO Policy Transmittal 05 -002 ) and not EPA regulations. These data elements include: o Facility Site Source Map Scale Number o Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure o Facility Site Horizontal Collection Method o Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum o Facility Site Reference Point o Permitted Feature Source Map Scale Number o Permitted Feature Horizontal Accuracy Measure o Permitted F eature Horizontal Collection Method o Permitted Feature Horizontal Reference Datum o Permitted Feature Reference Point Mr. Johnston noted that these data elements are meant to improve the accuracy and utility of the latitude and longitude data. He also noted that electronic reporting tools can be setup in a way to allow NPDES regulated entities to identify their location via an online map with marker or mouse click and that these metadata can be created in the background by the electronic reporting tool. Mr. Andrew Hudock (EPA) noted that the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulator activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In particul ar, he noted that these data elements are part of the data standard for latitude and longitude data ( see 78 FR 46071 ).

 A state commenter asked about whether the eRule would change EPA’s business rules for the **Permit Major/Minor Status Indicator** data element. Currently, this value defaults to minor (non - major) and updatable only by EPA OECA Headquarters. Mr. Johnston replied that the eRule is has not proposed changes but would like to states to provide comment on options for alternative business rules for this data element.

 A few state commenters asked about the two flow data elements in the “Basic Permit Information” section of Appendix A: **Permit Application Total Design Flow** and **Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow**  . The state commenters questioned whether it should be part of NPDES Data Groups 1 and 2 instead of Groups 1 through 9. Other states noted that EPA regulations and forms may only require the reporting of these data elements for POTWs. Mr. Dombrowski (EPA) al so noted that the eRule is looking to electronically capture data as currently required by EPA’s regulations. Mr. Johnston also noted that EPA is seeking comment in the forthcoming supplemental notice on different implementation approaches (e.g., state imp lementation plans). These alternative approaches might allow states to share with EPA within nine- months of the effective date of the final rule the Appendix A data that they currently have in an electronic format and provide more time for states to electronically share with EPA the remaining Appendix A data over a longer time period.4



###  Mr. Andy Putnam (Colorado) asked if the **Permit Application/NOI Received Date** could be modified to account for the fact that this data element can be configured to be system generated for NOI submissions.

 A few commenters had suggestions for the **SIC Codes** and **NAICS Codes** data elements. They asked if these data elements could be simplified to one data element or allow states and permittees to only provide one or the other industrial category code.

 One state commenter asked why EPA is **Application Design Flow (MGD)** and **Application Actual Average Flow (MGD)**  in the “ Permitted Feature” section of Appendix A when it has the **Permit Application T otal Design Flow**  and **Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow**  data elements. Mr. Johnston replied that the NPDES permit program regulates wastewater pollution at the point of discharge and that EPA’s ICIS- NPDES is set to track pollutant discharges at e ach outfall. Since facilities can have more than one outfall it is necessary to individually identify the flow rates for each outfall. Subsequent to this call, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality submitted questions to EPA on the data elements reviewed on April 17 th



### . These questions and EPA’s responses are presented in Attachment 1. **Next Steps** The next technical workgroup meeting is May 1 st


### .5 

### State Technical **Workgroup Meeting –**  **NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 1**  **7 April**  **2014** 1pm Introduction/Roll Call 1:05 Introduction and Purpose of Reviewing Appendix A 1: 10 Overview of Appendix A 1 : 2 0 Discussion of Basic Facility and Permit Data 2: 00 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 ca ll 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 d issenting 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 Glenda Dean gld@adem.state.al.us Teresa Marks AR marks@adeq.state.ar.us 

### Yes Pat Goff goff@adeq.state.ar.us Mo S hafii 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 

### Yes Robin B elley belley.robin@azdeq.gov David Lelsz lelsz.david@azdeq.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 

### Yes Beth Graves ECOS bgraves@ecos.org 

### Yes Chris Klena FL chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us 

### Yes J essica K leinfelter jessica.kleinfelter@dep.state.fl.us E dward S mith edward.c.smith@dep.state.fl.us F rances Carpenter frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us Tom Easterly IN teasterl@idem.in.gov ckoontz@idem.in.gov 

### Yes Jeremy Chenevert jcheneve@idem.in.gov Ed Dillingham KS edillingham@kdheks.gov 

### Yes Shelly Shores- Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov Shawn H okanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov 

### Yes Tamara D ahl MN tamara.dahl@state.mn.us 

### Yes G reg J ackson MS greg_jackson@deq.state.ms.us 

### Yes John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org 

### Yes Jason Lonardo NJ jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us 

### Yes Julio Collazo julio.collazo@dep.state.nj.us Nancy Kempel NJ nancy.kempel@dep.state.nj.us J effrey M ac M ullen jeffrey.macmullen@dep.state.nj.us Robert Wither NY rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us 

### Yes Joseph DiMura jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us7

**Main Contact State or** 

**Organization Main Contact**  **Email State/Org.**  **Present? (Yes/No)**  Shellie Chard - McClary OK shellie.chard - mcclary@deq.ok.gov 

### Yes Roy Walker roy.walker@deq.ok.gov D avid P ruitt david.pruitt@deq.ok.gov Jim B illings OR billings.jim@deq.state.or.us 

### Yes Sean Furjanic PA sefurjanic@pa.gov 

### Yes Kent Woodmansey SD kent.woodmansey@state.sd.us 

### Yes Tim F lor tim.flor@state.sd.us A lbert S pangler albert.spangler@state.sd.us Kim Wilson TX kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov 

### Yes Lynley D oyen lynley.doyen@tceq.texas.gov K imberly S hepard kimberly.shepard@tceq.texas.gov Jeff Studenka UT jstudenka@utah.gov 

### Yes Jerome Brooks VA jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov 

### Yes P hani Eturu phani.eturu@deq.virginia.gov Stephen Bernath WA sber461@ecy.wa.gov 

### Yes Nancy Kmet nkme461@ecy.wa.gov 

### Table **2 :**  EPA Technical Workgroup Members

**Name EPA Office**  **Email Present?**  **(Yes/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 

### Yes8 **Attachment 1: Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality**  **Comments on the ACWA/ECOS/EPA Technical WG Meeting on NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule** 

**Appendix A -**  **Basic Facility and Permit Data Teleconference April 17, 2014**  **Questions:** 1. Basic Facility/Permit Information (general): What is the source of the Basi c Facility/Permit Information for Industrial Users, the POTW at application or the IUs (directly)? Is all of this information available for all IUs on the POTW application? EPA Response: The source of each data element is shown in the ‘NPDES Data Group Number’ column. For example, the ‘Complete Permit Application/NOI Received Date’ data element has “1” in this fourth column, which means it comes from the NPDES program . In general, data elements with “1” in the fourth column means that the NPDES program is the source of the data (e.g., identifying the date when the NPDES permit application is complete, inspection data). These data elements with “1” in the fourth column also inc lude data that come from individual NPDES permit applications (that are most li kely submitted on paper). 2. Basic Facility Information ( metadata ): “Facility Site Source Map Scale Number”, “Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure”, “Facility Site Horizontal Collection Method”, “Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum”, and “Facili ty Site Reference Point” - Since the Latitude/Longitude metadata is required and will be collected via the application/NOI, what/who is the source of information for the allowable entries for different Codes/descriptions? For instance, if the owner of an individual facility (residence) is completing a NOI and is not sure what codes/descriptions to select for the coordinates from Google Earth; to what source would this person refer for the definitions of each code/description of the metadata? These questio ns also apply to the same metadata Data Names for “Permitted Feature”. **Table 2: Required NPDES Data Data Name**  **Data Description CWA, Regulatory, or**  **Policy Citation (40 CFR)**  **NPDES Data**

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1) Basic Facility Information** 9 **Table 2: Required NPDES Data Data Name**  **Data Description CWA, Regulatory, or**  **Policy Citation (40 CFR)**  **NPDES Data**

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1)** Facility Site Source Map Scale Number The number that represents the proportional distance on the ground for one unit of measure on the map or photo for the facility. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Dat a Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006. EPA National Geospatial Data Policy – CIO Policy Transmittal 05 -002 1 through 9 Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure The measure of the accuracy (in meters) of the facility’s latitude and longitu de coordinates. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006. EPA National Geospatial Data Policy – CIO Policy Transmittal 05 -002/ CWA 301(d), 3 04(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9 Facility Site Horizontal Collection Method The text that describes the method used to determine the latitude and longitude coordinates for the facility. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, Janua ry 6, 2006. EPA National Geospatial Data Policy – CIO Policy Transmittal 05 -002 1 through 9 Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum The code/description that represents the reference datum used in determining latitude and longitude coordinates for the facility. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No .: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006. EPA National Geospatial Data Policy – CIO Policy Transmittal 05 -002 1 through 9 Facility Site Reference Point The code/description for the place for which geographic coordinates were established. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council, Latitude/Longitude Data Standard, Standard No.: EX000017.2, January 6, 2006. EPA National Geospatial Data Policy – CIO Policy Transmittal 05 -002 1 through 9 EPA Response: These data elements are meant to improve the accuracy and utility of the latitude and longitude data. As noted in our teleconference, electronic reporting tools can be set - up in a way to allow NPDES regulated entities to identify their location via an online map with marker or mouse c lick such that these metadata can be created in the background by the electronic reporting tool. In other words, all the NPDES regulated entity has to do is pin point their location (facility and/or outfall) and the electroni c reporting tool will autocompl ete the five associated data elements (highlighted in red above).10

3. Basic Permit Information: “Permit Issue Date, Permit Effective Date, Permit Expiration Date, Termination Date, and Permit Status” – Not all states issue (or reissue) Industrial User perm its. The individual IU coverage is through the self- implementing regulations in 40 CFR 403. Since no specific Permit Issue Date, Permit Effective Date and Permit Expiration Date exist and no NOI or NOT is su bmitted for IUs, how do those states submit/enter these required dates into the NPDES data system (ICIS)? If there is an acceptable procedure, please include it in this rule. EPA Response: The technical workgroup has not yet talked about the pretreatment data elements . In general, we are trying to mi rror the existing NPDES regulations (including Part 403). EPA welcome s any language you would like to suggest for these data element descriptions so that there is the necessary flexibility for IU control mechanisms. EPA would also reflect these changes in the ICIS NPDES. Permittees (especially those with stormwater permits) will allow their permits to expire without renewing the permit (or perm it coverage), and do not submit any notice of termination. What can be used for a “Termination Date” when there i s no request for termination? EPA Response: T he submission of NOTs varies from permit to permit. EPA welcomes any suggestion you might have on the business rules for this data element. For example, EPA could auto - populate this data element if the permit i s terminated and the facility has not re - applied for its permit. “Permit Status” is described as a code/description that indicates whether the permit is Effective, Expired, Administratively Continued, Pending, Not Needed, Retired, or Terminated. What status should be used for a permit that has expired without renewal ( coverage is canceled by letter, but the Director has not formally Terminated the permit)? EPA Response: Below is the language on permit termination, administratively continued, and expiration from ICIS - NPDES User’s Manual (Page 7 - 63):

– Effective. A Permit that is in its lifetime (Effective Date <= current date < expiration date)

– Administratively Continued. A Permit that is at the Permit’s Expiration Date. All monitoring data are still collected and use d against the Permit’s terms.

– Pending. A Permit with in complete data or a Permit with an Effective Date that has not yet been reached.

– Expired. A Permit that 90 days after the expiration date has been reached on a Permit that has no new Application Received Date or complete Application Received date entered.11

– Retired. A Permit that all monitoring data is stopped against a retired Permit; used in conjunction with Reissue. If a Permit is reissued before its expiration date, the Permit Status Code or the previous version of the Permit will be set to Retired. Also, the Compliance Tracking Status will be set to Inactive.

– Terminated. A Permit that if the user enters the Termination Date, upon that date being reached, the system will automaticall y change the Permit Status Code to Terminated. Also, the Compliance Trackin g Status will be set to Inactive. There are also facilities that are automatically covered under a regulation (e.g. 40 CFR 403, 503), but are not issued permits by a regulatory authority. If there is an acceptable procedure, please include it in this rul e. Should there be other “Permit Status” codes (Expired w/o Renewal” & “Self- Implementing”) for these cases? We haven’t yet talked about the pretreatment data elements but we will. In general, we are trying to mirror the existing NPDE S EPA Response: The technical workgroup has not yet talked about the pretreatment data elements. In general, we are trying to mirror the existing NPDES regulations (including Part 403). EPA welcomes any language you would like to suggest for these data element descriptions so that there is the necessary flexibility for IU control mechanisms. EPA would also reflect these changes in the ICIS NPDES. **Table 2: Required NPDES Data Data Name**  **Data Description CWA, Regulatory, or**  **Policy Citation (40 CFR)**  **NPDES Data**

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1) Basic Permit Information**  **Permit Issue Date** This is the date the permit was issued. The date data must be provided in CCYY- MM - DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day. 122.46/CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9 **Permit Effective Date** This is the date on which the permit is effective. The date data must be provided in CCYY- MM - DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day. 122.46 1 **Permit Expiration Date** This is the date the permit will expire. The date data must be provided in CCYY- MM - DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day. 122.46/ CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 **Permit Termination Date** This is the date the permit was terminated. The date data must be provided in CCYY- MM - DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day. 122.64 112 **Table 2: Required NPDES Data Data Name**  **Data Description CWA, Regulatory, or**  **Policy Citation (40 CFR)**  **NPDES Data**

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1) Permit Status**  This is a code/description that indicates whether the permit is Effective, Expired, Administratively Continued, Pending, Not Needed, Retired, or Terminated. 122.64, 122.46 1 4. Basic Permit Information & Permitted Feature, Data Names: “Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow & Application Actual Average Flow (MGD)” – What is the acceptable value for “Application Total Actual Average Flow” submitted for permit facilities with variable flow, or no flow for the last permit cycle, or a new non - municipal facility? This is common for small wet - weather related facilities. Please include instructions or examples with the Data Description. EPA Response: In the April 17 th technical workgroup meeting EPA noted that it would likely provide language i n the data element description that exempts states and facilities from reporting these two data elements for stormwater dischargers as stormwater discharges are mostly weather dependent. EPA welcome s any language you would like to suggest for these data el ement descriptions. For process wastewater, EPA is looking for the most representative flow from the facility from the previous permit cycle. This flow is likely already reported on NPDES permit applications and NOIs as NPDES permit writers need these data to calculate WQBELs. If the flow is zero – then the value for this data element is zero. **Table 2: Required NPDES Data Data Name**  **Data Description CWA, Regulatory, or**  **Policy Citation (40 CFR)**  **NPDES Data**

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1) Basic Permit Information**  Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow This is the actual average flow that a permitted facility will likely accommodate, in MGD, as stated on its NPDES application. 122.21,122.41 1 through 9 **Permitted Feature** Application Actual Average Flow (MGD) The flow that a permitted feature actually had at the time of application, in MGD. 122.21/ CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 113

5. Basic Permit Information: “Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines” – I noticed that the examples used under the Description of “Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines ” (e.g., BPT, BCT, BAT) are not available ELGs in ICIS - NPDES. In ICIS - NPDES ”Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines” are related to the **Basic Permit Information** included in Appendix A of the ‘ Electronic Reporting Rule’ . The codes are **3 -**  **digit** numeric and correspond to 40 CFR Chapter I Subchapter N Parts 400 – 471 (e.g., ELG Code = 413, description = “Electroplating point source category”). See ”Effluent Limitations Guidelines.xls ” attached. E PA Response: EPA used the parenthetical to explain the term ‘effluent limitations guidelines’. To avoid confusion, EPA will strike that parenthetical from Appendix A. On the other hand, “Basis of Limits” (e.g., BPT, BCT, BAT) are related to specific **Limi t**  information in ICIS - NPDES and are not included in Appendix A of the ‘ Electronic Reporting Rule ’. They are **single -**  **character** (0 - B) codes that represent an environmental standard or regulation which was the basis for imposing a particular effluent limitati on (e.g., Basis of Limits Code = 2, Description = BCT = “Best Control Technology”). See ”Basis of Limits Codes.xls” attached. EPA Response: You are correct. EPA is not requiring the submission of the “Basis of Limits” at the limit level. States are welco me to continue to use this existing feature in ICIS - NPDES. EPA opted to use the “Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines” at the permit level to more easily track permits with ELG effluent limits. Please let us know if you have any thoughts on this approach. **Table 2: Required NPDES Data Data Name**  **Data Description CWA, Regulatory, or**  **Policy Citation (40 CFR)**  **NPDES Data**

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1) Basic Permit Information**  Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines The applicable effluent limitations guidelines (e.g ., BPT, BCT, BAT) and new source performance standards (NSPS) for the NPDES permit. 122.44/ CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 6. Basic Permit Information: “SIC Codes” & “NAICS Codes” – It should be stated that if the “NAICS Code” is suppli ed, then the “SIC Code” is optional.14

EPA Response: Please see the draft notes from the April 17 th technical workgroup me eting.

**Data Name Data Description**  **CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Citation**  **(40 CFR) NPDES Data** 

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1) Basic Permit**  **Information** SIC Codes The four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code/description that represents the economic activity of the permitted facility. 122.21/ CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9
NAICS Codes The six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code/description that represents the economic activity of the permitted facility. **Agency Data Standard to replace SIC Codes** / CWA 301(d), 304(b), and 304(m) 1 through 9
7. Basic Permit Information: “Permittee Street Address” – The Data Description refers to the “physical location of the permit holder”. Is this the mailing address of the applicant (possibly not their physical location)? **Data Name Data Description**  **CWA, Regulatory, or Poli** **cy Citation (40 CFR)**  **NPDES Data**

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1) Basic Permit Information**  Permittee Street Address The address that describes the physical location of the permit holder. 122.21 1 through 9 EPA Response: This is the mailing address of the permittee. EPA will make this clear in Appendix A. 8. Limits: “Stay Limit Value” – Is the “Stay Limit Value” only required when that limit value is numeric? In many cases (permit appeals) this value is “Report Only”. ICIS - NPDES does not allow “Report On ly” Stay Limit Values. EPA Response: The following comes from the ICIS - NPDES User’s Guide (page 7 - 264):

“A Limit on a parameter may be stayed by a court injunction or an appeal. During the life of the stay, the Limit parameter may not be required to be reported, considered monitor only, or subject to new Limit Values. In legacy PCS, stays were handled by flagging a15

Limit as a contested parameter that was either monitor- only or not required on the Permit. ICIS – NPDES will augment Limit stay handling. Use rs will continue to be able to stay a parameter so that it does not appear on DMR preprints and does not generate DMR Non Receipt Violations. They will also continue to be able to change a Limit to monitor- only so that Effluent Violation generation is supp ressed. In addition, they will be able to enter a Stay Value for compliance to be measured against during the period of a sta y. Users will now also be able to indicate a reason for a Limit stay and the start and end date of the stay. Finally, users will be able to indicate when they lift a stay whether or not the system should evaluate the DMR data for the monitoring periods covered by the stay. ”

**Data Name Data Description**  **CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Citation**  **(40 CFR) NPDES Data** 

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1) Limit**  Stay Limit Value The numeric limit value imposed during the period of the stay for the limit; if entered, during the stay period, the system will use this limit value for calculating compliance, rather than the actual limit value that was stayed. 124.19 1

9. For those Data Elements that are conditionally required, please include under what conditions they are required. EPA Response: EPA is using the data descriptions to identify any conditions or exemptions. EPA welcome s any language you would like to suggest for thes e data element descriptions so that there is the necessary flexibility.