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 February 2014 SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (30 January 2014) [DCN 0128 ] **Overview** This was the kick- off meeting for an EPA- state technical workgroup that will discuss key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. These discussions will help inform the upcoming supplemental Federal Register notice and will also cont inue afterwards to help EPA address state comments. These technical workgroup meetings are likely to be held on Thursdays at 1pm (Eastern). EPA plans to work with the group to identify the agenda for each meeting in order to focus these discussions. EPA p articipants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA’s Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information. State technical workgroup members are listed in Table 1 and the agenda for this meeting is also provided below . EPA is engaging with the states to help clarify issues where there is confusion, explore the issues of most concern to the states, and solicit state input on the issues and scenarios that they would like to highlight in the forthcoming supplemental Federal R egister notice. The supplemental notice will be accompanied by another public comment period, which gives the Agency more time and flexibility to craft the final rule. In general, changes to any proposed rule are to be expected during the notice - and - commen t process; however, such changes to a proposed rule must develop as a "logical outgrowth" of the proposed regulation and public comments. EPA will highlight the most important issues and scenarios in the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice. 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 OECE eRule team will also be available for any other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the e Rule.2

**Meeting Notes** For the first meeting EPA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator, Steve Chester, provided an overview and suggested goals for this technical workgroup. He re-stated the importance of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule and the importance of EPA to engage with states. He noted the following goals:

 The goal of this EPA-state workgroup discussion is to clarify issues where there is confusion, explore the issues of most concern to the states, and solicit state input on the issues and potentia l solutions that could be highlighted in the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice.

 EPA does not expect to have resolution of these issues prior to publication of the supplemental Federal Register notice but does want to make sure to include t he most important issues and potential regulatory options. Mr. Chester noted that EPA staff from our Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information will also be part of our discussions. He noted that t his will help ensure that the necessary IT a nd NPDES programmatic experts are on hand in each call to explore potential options. He 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 critical to the success of the eRule. With respect to these on -going discussions Mr. Chester noted that EPA is open to discuss any aspect of the comments on the rule with states, and we will work with ECOS and ACWA to develop the agenda for each meeting. He also asked that the technical workgroup members think more broadly than the interests of an individual state. EPA’s job is to balance the perspectives of all stakeholders. He also noted that this technical workgroup is not a FACA; EPA is interested in input and ideas from the workgroup, but that this group is not a decision making body. Finally, Mr. Chester stressed the importance of work ing expeditiously towards agreement on electronic reporting. He reference an article from the September 1993 edition of the Environmental Protection magazine that quote d George Gray, former chief of EPA’s compliance evaluation section in the Office of Water, as saying “In the near future, EPA will establish a protocol that will enable dischargers to electron ically submit their DMR data and help expedite form processing.” Mr. Chester emphasized that EPA and states need to move as quickly as possible to electronic reporting to unlock the many benefits of electronic reporting. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. John Dombrowski, EPA’s Division Director for the Enforcement Targeting Data Division. Mr. Dombrowksi outlined the following ground rules for this technical workgroup :3

 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 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. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views. Mr. Dombrowksi then turned over the meeting to Mr. Carey Johnston who provided a high level summary of the public comments on the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. See attached slides. After this presentation Mr. Johnston asked the technical workgroup to list the topics they would like to disc uss.
 Oklahoma recommended a re - evaluation of the data elements in Appendix A and the option of phasing in these data elements.

 New Jersey asked if EPA could recognize the different capabilities between state NPDES programs to implement electronic reporting. He suggested that Performance Partnership agreements could be used to implement electronic reporting.

 Texas noted that their concerns are related to the implementation of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. They suggested allowing states to develop their own implementation plans and that the overall workload would be less if electronic reporting was done via the five-year NPDES permit cycle. Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA would need more specifics and that this could not be an open - ended option with no final deadline for electronic reporting.

 Oklahoma ( Shellie Chard - McClary) asked about the schedule for the supplemental notice and if that could be delayed. Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA has a tight deadline and needs to move forward in as practi cal a manner as possible.

 Florida asked if the EPA-state MOU for the NPDES program could be a vehicle to implement electronic reporting.4

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that having a phase
- in implementation process is important as is a “level playing field. ” He noted that there is a disincentive for states to be the first to implement electronic reporting for fear of additional EPA oversigh t . He also asked if there were any incentives that EPA could offer to encourage facilities to adopt electronic reporting . Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA has limited incentives but will continue to thing about this question.

 Arkansas noted that EPA should discuss the QA/QC requirements for electronically reporting data and the roles of EPA and states as data stewards. He specifically asked who would be the data steward if EPA were to be the initial recipient for a data flow. Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA will make the roles of data stewards clear in the supplemental notice. He noted that this rule does not change the cu rrent arrangement of data in ICIS- NPDES, which is that states are the data stewards for NPDES facilities in their states regardless of the initial recipient status. For example, facilities that use EPA’s NetDMR tool (Federal instance) actually send their d ata first to EPA but that the local state NPDES program is the responsible data steward. Arkansas also noted that the proposed schedule is too ambitious.

 Delaware ( Bob Zimmerman ) asked if EPA could clarify the ‘initial recipient status’ from the proposed rule as well as any flexibility in the rule’s implementation.

 Colorado asked if EPA could clarify the Phase I data that are required to be submitted electronically. **Next Steps** EPA agreed to summarize the meeting notes as well as summarize and compile a few example public comments on a topic. EPA will share these materials with the technical workgroup in advance of the next meeting (6 February 2014).5 **State Technical Workgroup Meeting –**  **NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 30 January 2014**  1pm Introduction/Roll Call 1:05 Overview from Steve Chester, OECA/DAA 1:10 Workgroup Logistics & Schedule 1:20 High Level Summary of Comments on Proposed Rule 1:30 Listing of Initial Topics for Discussion (examples provide below) o Implementation (sch edule, initial recipient status, state readiness criteria), o CROMERR, o CAFO related data o Data from stormwater regulated stormwater entities, o Waivers, and o Other topics? 1:40 Beginning Discussion of Implementation (or another topic chosen by states) 2:00 End of Call6

**Tab le 1:** State Technical Workgroup Members

**Name State or**  **Organization Email**  Sean Rolland ACWA srolland@acwa - us.org Christy Monk AL cvm@adem.state.al.us Teresa Marks AR marks@adeq.state.ar.us Andy Putnam CO andrew.putnam@state.co.us goff@adeq.state.ar.us Elisa Willard CO elisa.willard@state.co.us Bob Zimmerman DE robert.zimmerman@state.de.us stephanie.bower@state.de.us Beth Graves ECOS bgraves@ecos.org Lee Garrigan ECOS lgarrigan@ecos.org Chris Klena FL chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us Tom Easterly IN teasterl@idem.in.gov ckoontz@idem.in.gov John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org Jason Lonardo NJ jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us Joe DiMura NY jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us Shellie Chard - McClary OK shellie.chard - mcclary@deq.ok.gov Kim Wilson TX kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov Jerome Brooks VA jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov Nancy Kmet WA nkme461@ecy.wa.gov