### 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: 9 May 2014 SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting ( 1 May 2 014) [DCN 0135]
**Overview** This was the eight h meeting for the EPA
- state technical workgroup, which is discuss ing key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule) . These discussions are informing the forthcoming supplemental Federa l Register notice and they will continue beyond the publication of 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 asked for comments on the draft notes from the April 17 th meeting. There were no edits but a few states did ask that EPA include the questions that Arkansas sent EPA after the meeting. EPA updated the meeting notes with these questions along with its answers. Mr. Johnston reminded state participants that in addi tion to raising questions during the technical workgroup 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. A state asked for an u pdate on the supplemental Federal Register notice schedu le. Mr. Johnston noted that OMB started its review on 12 April 2014. 1 He noted that EPA hopes to finish the review and publish the Federal Register notice by the end of July or early August 2014
.

1 See: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoPackageMainMr . Johnston then asked teleconference participants to focus on the ‘ Basic Violation and

Enforcement Action Data ’ in Appendix A ( see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46 113 ). 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 workgro up .
 A state commenter asked if the ICIS
- NPDES data element that relates to Single Event Violations (SEVs) that occur on one day, Single Event Violation Date (Table Name: ICIS_NPDES_VIOLATION, Column Name: SINGLE_EVENT_VIOLATION_DATE) was the same as **Sing le Event Start Date**  . Mr. Johnston stated that he would put the answer in the meeting notes. [Answer : **Single Event Start Date** is for SEVs that span multiple days and requires the **Single Event End Date**  field to be entered to close out the SEV (otherwise ICI S
- NPDES shows this SEV as on
-going). Single Event Violation Date is for SEVs that occur on one date. EPA will likely solicit comment on whether to include Single Event Violation Date in Appendix A.]

 A state commenter noted that multiple entries may be necessary for the **Violation Code** data element and that the data element description should be modified to reflect this fact.

 A state commenter asked for more information on the **Enforcement Action Identifier** . Mr. Johnston stated that he would put the answer in the meeting notes. [Answer : The following comes from the ICIS – NPDES D etailed Design Final Document (page 10
- 8). F or federal e nforcement a ctions, this field will be have three components, each separated by a hyphen (e.g., HQ
- 2003
- 1234). These components are: (1) t he region responsible for the e nforcement a ction as identified by a region code ; (2) t he four
- digit fiscal year during which the e nforcement a ction is initiated ; and (3) a four
-digit, user
assigned sequence number between 0001 and 9999. States will be able to use this same structure, or they will be able to use a different structure of their choosing provided that the first two characters of the identifier constitute the st ate code. This flexibility should give states the option of automatically generating an **Enforcement Action Identifier**]

 A state commenter asked for clarification on the **Law Sections Violated** data element. Mr. Johnston replied that this is the unique identifier (s) for the s ection(s) of law vi olated and cited in the enforcement action
.
 A state commenter asked for clarification on the difference between the **Enforcement Action Type**  and the **Final Order Type** data elements. Mr. Johnston stated that he would put the answer in the meeting notes. [Answer : The following comes from the ICIS
– NPDES Detailed Design Final Document (page 10
- 5 and 10
- 74 ). ICIS
- NPDES separate s the enforcement initiation data (e.g., **Enforcement Action**  **Type** ) from the final order data, which allows users to track multiple final o rders for a single e nforcement a ction, and track components (e.g., p enalty, SEP) from each final o rder. ..In ICIS
- NPDES a final o rder is generally an agreed
- upon resolution to an e nforcementa ction. In an administrative action, final o rders are often in the form of Consent

Agreements/Final Orders (CA/FO). In a judicial context, final o rders are embodied in Consent Decrees signed by all parties to the action and filed in the appropri ate court. Once the e nforcement a ction has been litigated successfully in court, or an agreement has been reached for a consent decree, or an administrative order has been issued, a conclusion has been reached for the e nforcement a ction. This conclusion is known in ICIS
– NPDES as a Final Order. ]

 Several states asked for clarification on the **Milestones/ Sub -** **activities** and **Sub Activity Type**  data elements and whether these data elements are necessary. Mr. Johnston stated that he would put the answer in the meeting notes. [Answer : The following comes from the ICIS
– NPDES Detailed Design Final Document (page 10
-42). As the life cycle of an e n forcement a ction progresses from issuance through conclus i on to closure, events occur that will impact the status of that e nforcement a ction and potentially the RNC resolution status of Violations that are linked to it through its final o rder(s). These eve nts will be recorded in ICIS
– NPDES either as web
-entered, predefined tracking events known as m ilestones or as batch
-entered, standard s ub
- a ctivities. Milestones are predefined tracking events that can occur over the life of an e nforcement a ction. The composition of a m ilestone set varies depending on whether the e nforcement a ction is an administrative formal or a judicial action, and whether it is a federal or a web
entered state e nforcement a ction. Sub
- activities are additional steps that can be t aken, or events that can be achieved, to complete an e nforcement a ction (e.g., a mended complaint, start n egotiations). ] Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference participants to focus on the ‘Compliance Monitoring Activity’ data in Appendix A (see 30 July 20 13; 78 FR 461 00 ). M r. 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 if EPA could add a few columns to the Appendix A Excel spreadsheet to show the ICIS
- NPDES table name and column name . Mr. Johnston relied that he would update the spreadsheet and share it with the states.

 A state commenter asked how the **Permitted Feature Identifier** data element would be used for inspections on regulated entities without a permitted feature (e.g., MS4 regulated entity) or if an inspection did not involve a permitted feature . Mr. Johnston noted that some MS4 have monitoring requirements at permitted features; however, if facility does not have a permitted feature or if an inspection does not involve a particular permitted feature, then this field could be left blank. EPA will add a note to Appendix A. A state commenter asked about the business rules for the **Compliance Monitoring Activity**

**Planned End Date** data element. Mr. Johnston stated that he would put the answer in the meeting notes. [Answer : Currently, ICIS
- NPDES users must enter an Inspection against either a specific Permit or an unpermitted Fa cility. An Inspection record is regarded as enforcement sensitive data (i.e., not shared with the public) until a **Compliance Monitoring Activity Actual End Date**  is entered. This data element has the following edit checks against this data element [ ICIS
- NPDES Detailed De sign Final document (page 8
- 61)]
. o Batch: Must be a valid date in yyyy- mm - dd format o Must be greater than or equal to Compliance Monitoring Activity Planned Start Date o Required if **Compliance Monitoring Activity Actual End Date** i s not e ntered ] Mr. Johnston then ask teleconference participants to focus on the biosolids data elements in Appendix A ( permit application, inspection, annual program report ). Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading off the name of each data el ements 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.

 One state commenter noted that the biosolids data elements should only be required for permit renewals as new facilities will not have data available to report for these data elements. EPA will provide a note in Appendix A that NPDES regulated entities that have no historical record (e.g., “greenfield” facilities) do not need to provide data elements that rely on historical data elements.

 New Jersey noted that the **Disposition of Incinerator Ash** data element does not have a CWA or NPDES regulatory citation and should be removed from Appendix A.

 One state commenter noted that some of the data elements only apply under certain limited scenarios (e.g., when 90 percent of more of any of a Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate parameter is reached at a biosolids or sewage sludge receiving site). EPA noted that it will provide additional notes in Appendix A to make clear to provide clarity.

 New Jersey noted that many of the biosolids data elements point to EPA’s biosolids regulations (40 CFR 503) but that they are unclear as to how EPA derived the specific data elements. Mr. Johnston replied that EPA’s biosolids regulations include general st atements that require the regulated entity to provide a description of their biosolids management and disposal
. For example, the **Treatment Processes** biosolids data element is in Appendix A to assist in identifying whether the regulated entity has the neces sary treatment and management practices to meet EPA’s regulatory requirements (e.g., a facility could not claim to meet aerobic process requirements when the facility has an operating anaerobic digester )
. Mr. Sean Rolland (ACWA) asked the question, “How d o we streamline Appendix A between

the ‘nice to know’ data elements and the actual required data elements.” Texas noted that they do not want to be accountable for data not currently required by EPA’s regulations. Mr. Johnston replied that EPA used its reg ulations to develop the data elements in the proposed rule’s Appendix A and that these discussion and future discussions will help refine Appendix A.

 Minnesota asked if they can send their data to EPA in phases. They noted that they have some of these data readily available but that other data may exist on paper or in an electronic form that will take time to map to ICIS
- NPDES. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA is soliciting comments in the forthcoming supplemental notice on different ideas for implementing e lectronic reporting. He noted that phasing in state data may be one such approach among other ideas.

 A state participant suggested that EPA conduct user testing of its electronic reporting forms. Mr. Johnston noted that it has and will continue to do such testing. He gave the example of the forthcoming roll
- out of EPA’s MSGP, which uses the NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool (NeT). EPA’s developers have tested the forms on a number of users and from a number of different perspectives. Subsequent to this call , New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality submitted questions to EPA on the data elements reviewed on May 1 st . These questions and EPA’s responses are presented in Attachments 1 and 2
. **Next Steps** The next technical workgroup meeting is May 15 th

.**State Technical Workgroup Meeting**  **– NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule**  **1 May**  **2014**
1pm Introduction/Roll Call 1: 10 Discussion of Basic Violation and Enforcement Action Data 2 : 00 Discussion of Biosolids Data 2: 3 0 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 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.**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 Karen Lechner AK karen.lechner@alaska.gov 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 No Elisa Willard elisa.willard@state.co.us Bob Zimmerman DE robert.zimmerman@state.de.us stephanie.bower@state.de.us No 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 No Shelly Shores
- Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov Shawn H okanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov No Tamara D ahl MN tamara.dahl@state.mn.us Yes G reg J ackson MS greg_jackson@deq.state.ms.us No John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org No Jason Lonardo NJ jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us Yes 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**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 No 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 No 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 Tony Petruska Region 7 petruska.anthony@epa.gov Yes Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov Yes**Attachment 1: New Jersey Comments on Biosolids Data**

The State of New Jersey runs a comprehensive State Biosolids Program. The State of New Jersey is not a delegated state program for biosolids. The State of New Jersey has moved away from an annual report based program to a DMR based reporting program. DMR, and other monitoring report forms, are required to be subm itted at a frequency dependent on the size of the facility. Data parameters that are submitted, often electronically, are those necessary to determine compliance with the State rules (which, at a minimum, mirror the Federal 40 CFR Part 503 regulations). Please accept our following comments specific to the Biosolids Annual Program Reports. **Data Element: Treatment Processes**
– This information is a necessary component of a permit application in order to demonstrate how a facility will comply with federal and state regulations for land application. This information is also important as part of a permit application to establi sh appropriate sludge monitored location(s). This is not a direct 40 CFR Part 503 rule requirement. It is not believed that this should be a data element, however, if it is kept, it should not be an annual requirement. **EPA Response** : Under authority of Sections 405(d) and (e) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA p romulgat ed biosolids regulations to protect public health and the environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain pollutants that may be present in sewage sludge. The se regul ations establish requirements for the final use and disposal of sewage sludge in three circumstances : beneficial purpose (including sewage sludge or sewage sludge product s that are sold or given away for use in home gardens) ; land application (including se wage sludge
o nly landfills) ; and incineration. The standards for each end use and disposal practice consist of general requirements, numerical limits on the pollutant concentrations in sewage sludge, management practices and, in some cases, operational req uirements. For example one could not claim to meet aerobic process requirements when the facility has an operating anaerobic digester. Consequently, EPA believes that this data element should be included in the minimum set of electronically reporting data (Appendix A). It is also noteworthy that EPA’s biosolids regulations “are self
- implementing and must be followed even without the issuance of a permit.” 2 In instances where the NPDES program does not use a permit to implement Part 503, the Biosolids Annual Report is one of the main mechanisms for how the NPDES program will assess compliance and oversight of a biosolids generator or handler. **Data Element: Biosolids Class** 
– It needs to be understood that this data element will not be applicable to most facilities.

2 U.S. EPA, 1994. “A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule,” EPA/832/R

- 93/003.**EPA Response** : As previously noted, EPA’s regulations provide biosolids generators and

handlers with a set of options for managing biosolids. For example, b ulk sewage sludge applied to a lawn or a home garden must meet the Class A pathogen requirements. The reason for this requirement is that it is not feasible to impose site restrictions on a lawn or a home garden on which bulk sewage sludge is appl ied. Consequently, it is important for the NPDES program’s oversight to understand how each biosolids generator and handler manages their sewage sludge . Key to understanding how each biosolids generator and handler manag e their sewage sludge is to identify the different classes of biosolids generated at each facility along with related information such as the amount and treatment and practices. Consequently, EPA believes that this data element should be included in the minimum set of electron ically reporting data (Appendix A). **Data Element: Management Practices**
– It needs to be understood that this data element will not be applicable to most facilities. **EPA Response** : As previously noted, EPA’s regulations provide biosolids generators and han dlers with a set of options for managing biosolids. These regulations include specific requirements on management practices for Land Application (Part 503.14), Surface Disposal (503.14), and Incineration (503.45). This data element will apply to some bioso lids generators and handlers and will identify the types of biosolids management practices employed to meet EPA’s Biosolids regulation (Part 503). Consequently, EPA believes that this data element should be included in the minimum set of electronically rep orting data (Appendix A). EPA also seeks comment on how to make the data element description clear on who is required to report this information in compliance with Part 503. **Data Element: Sampling and Analytical Methods**
– This information is important to verify the validity of data, however, that does not mean it should be a data element. The State of New Jersey asks for this information as part of the permit application. In addition, if the validity of data is question ed, the Department can ask for this information at any time. Furthermore, the use of appropriate methods is validated when site inspections are performed. It should also be noted that there is no parallel data element requirement for other programs (for example, surface water discharges). It is requested that this data element be removed. **EPA Response:** EPA’s regulations include a set of conditions application to all NPDES permits (4 CFR 122.41). These regulations require that “Monitoring must be conducte d according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136 unless other meth o d is required under 40 CFR subchapters N or O,” [see 40 CFR 122.41(j)(4)]. Likewise, EPA’s biosolids regulations require specific analytic procedures for biosolids sampling (se e 40 CFR 503.8). This data element will apply to all biosolids generators and handlers and will help ensure that regulated entities are using the appropriate analytic methods. Consequently, EPA believes that this data element should be included in the mini mum set of electronically reporting data (Appendix A)
.**Data Element: Biosolids Receiving Site information (multiple fields** )
– While not a direct

requirement of 40 CFR Part 503, it is a requirement of the NPDES permit application rules (40 CFR Part 122.21(q ) for receiving sites that “the applicant does not own or operate”. It needs to be understood that receiving sites could change often, and that multiple receiving sites could be used. The State of New Jersey receives this information via monthly monitori ng report forms by linking a reported Program Interest number to a site in our database. It also needs to be understood that receiving site latitude and longitude are only supported by rule under 40 CFR Part 122.21(q) to identify certain sites that are ow ned and operated by the applicant. Therefore, latitude and longitude should not be mandatory data elements. **EPA Response:** New Jersey correctly notes that the list of sites receiving biosolids may change from year to year or month to month. EPA’s notes tha t these lists are extremely helpful in investigating issues related to public health. For example, cantaloupes contaminated with the bacteria Listeria monocytogenes in 2011 caused the deadliest foodborne disease outbreak in the United States in nearly 90 years. T he Colorado biosolids coordinator was able to confirm that th e source of the Listeria, a cantaloupe grower, did not use biosolids, which helped focus the investigation. EPA agrees with New Jersey that additional clarification is needed for the Biosolids Receiving Site annual report data elements as site location information is only required when 90 percent of more of any of the Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rat e parameters is reached at a site. EPA also solicits comment on adding Biosolids Receiving Site data elements to the ‘Biosolids Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent’ section in Appendix A to ensure that each stat e has an updated list of site receiving biosolids
. **Data Element: Biosolids Monitored Parameter Units**
– Please replace (e.g ., mg/l) with (e.g. mg/kg) to avoid confusion of proper units to be utilized for most parameters. **EPA Response:** EPA will make this clarification in Appendix A. **Data Element: Actual Measured Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate**
– It needs to be understood that this data element will not be applicable to most facilities. **EPA Response:** EPA agrees that this field will not be applicable in most cases as many pretreatment programs help reduce the potential for toxic pollutants to accumulate in sewage sludge. However, not all POTWs are adequately protected and this data element is necessary to assure th ese biosolids generators are taking adequate measures to protect public health
. Consequently, EPA believes that this data element should be included in the minimum set of electronically reporting data (Appendix A). **Data Element: Actual Measured Annual Application Rate**
– It needs to be understood that this data element will not be applicable to most facilities.**EPA Response:** This data elements helps monitoring the application rate of pollutants to ensure

that POTWs are taking adequate measures to protect public health. Consequentl y, EPA believes that this data element should be included in the minimum set of electronically reporting data (Appendix A). **Data Element: Disposition of Incinerator Ash**
– This data element is not supported anywhere in rule and should be removed. **EPA Response:**  EPA thanks New Jersey for this comment
. Please accept the following comments to Biosolids Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent: **Data Element: Average Annual Amount(s)**
– There are multiple data fields requesting the amount of biosolids produced. The rules at both 40 CFR Part 503 and 40 CFR Part 122.21(q) do not ask for “Average Annual Amount”. The rules require “total dry metric tons per 365 day period”. Clarificatio n is requested on what is expected to be reported here? **EPA Response:** EPA will change these data element descriptions to make clear that that the time period is 365 days.**Attachment 2: Arkansas Comments on Biosolids Data**

1. **Enforcement Action:** D oes the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule require informal enforcement actions on NPDES permits to be entered into ICIS - NPDES? The description leads me to believe that only formal enforcement actions are required. **Table 2: Required NPDES Data**
**Data Name Data Description**  **CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Citation**  **(40 CFR) NPDES Data** 

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1) Enforcement Action**  Enforcement Action Identifier The number of the Enforcement Action; for a judicial action, the number as referred to by the Court where the action was filed. CWA Section 309 1 Enforcement Action Name The name associated with this enforcement action. CWA Section 309 1 Enforcement Action Type A code/description that uniquely identifies the type of formal or informal enforcement action. T his code identifies, for example, whether the enforcement action is a civil judicial referral, a notice of violation, an administrative penalty order, administrative order, etc. CWA Section 309 1

**EPA Response:** This data element applies to formal and informal enforcement actions. For additional context, the following passage comes from the proposed rule, “[S] everal states have voiced concerns that EPA did not fully recognize and credit the extent to which states rely on compliance achieved through the issuance of informal enforcement actions, including a variety of enforcement actions which do not impose a compliance schedule. These states expressed concern that without such information regarding informal enforce ment actions, EPA and the public did not have a complete picture of the state efforts to obtain compliance by the NPDES
regulated facilities. EPA has made efforts to ensure that information from the states regarding such informal enforcement act ions is con sidered and made available. Similarly, this proposed rule would require states, tribes, and territories to provide EPA with facility
specific information regarding formal and informal enforcement actions for all NPDES
- regulated permittees
. ”2. **Violation** : Will the Single Event Violation (SEV) Single Event Start Date and Single Event End Date be required if the event

occurred only on one day? Some SEVs involve something that was missing, not developed, or insufficient at the time an inspection took place . This sets up a situation where a Single Event Start Date might be entered when the SEV is initially entered, and a Single Event End Date is expected in the future. It is difficult to keep track of when the violation was reso lved. Will states be required to link all Single Event Violations (SEVs) to each Compliance Monitoring Activity (Inspection)? Currently we only enter SEVs when they are addressed by a formal enforcement action (in accordance with our MOA). Inspectors do not use Single Event Violation codes with their inspection documentation. Will states be required to manually enter the RNC data for all Single Event Violations or just those that are determined to m eet RNC criteria?

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

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1) Violation**  Single Event Start Date If the single event violation (SEV) occurred over multiple days, the date the occurrence began. 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. 123.45 1

Single Event End Date If the single event violation (SEV) occurred over multiple days, the date the occurrence ended. 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. 123.45 1

RNC Detection Code The type of RNC detected. It can be entered automatically by the system or it can be entered manually. 123.45 1**Data Name Data Description**  **CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Cit** **ation (40 CFR)**  **NPDES Data**

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1)**
RNC Detection Date The date that RNC was detected. It can be entered manually or automatically. In cases in which RNC is detected by ICIS
- NPDES, the detection date entered will vary according to the type of violation detected. The dat e 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. 123.45 1

RNC Resolution Code The RNC status (i.e., noncompliant, resolved pending, waiting resolution, resolved) of the violation. It can be entered manually or automatically by the system. 123.45 1

RNC Resolution Date The date RNC was marked to its current resolution status. It can be entered manually or automatically. The date data must be provided in CCYY
- MM
- DD format where CC i s the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day. 123.45 1
**EPA Response:** As noted in the meeting notes, the **Single Event Start Date** data element is for SEVs that span multiple days and requires the **Single Event End Date** field to be entered to close out the SEV (otherwise ICIS
- NPDES shows this SEV as on
-going). **Single Event Violation Date** is for SEVs that occur on one date. EPA will likely solicit comment on whether to include Single Even t Violation Date in Appendix A. A lso
– states will be required to manually enter (if necessary) and share with EPA the RNC data for all SEV that meet the Category 1 Noncompliance and Category II Noncompliance criteria . See the se proposed criteria in the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 123.45
. 3. **Compliance Schedule** : Milestones and Sub - activities are part of the Enforcement Action, not the Compliance Schedule. Milestone Activity Types are a subset of the Sub - Activity Types. There are currently 12 mandatory Sub - activity Types that are available for formal enforcement actions (Milestones). Only a limited number of Sub - Activity Types are available for informal enforcement actions, and none of them are mandatory. Why are Sub - activities required for Enforcement Actions (Milestones are cur rently required and are system generated for formal enforcement actions)? Are Milestones and Sub - activities required for informal enforcement actions or are they conditional?**Data Name Data Description**  **CWA, Regulatory, or Policy Citation**  **(40 CFR) NPDES D** **ata**

**Group Number**  **( see**  **Table 1) Compliance Schedule**  Milestones/ Sub
activities The unique code/description that identifies the milestones/sub

-activities. CWA Section 309 1 Sub Activity Type A code/description that uniquely identifies a type of sub activities and/or Enforcement Action milestones. CWA Section 309 1 **EPA Response:** EPA will make it clear in the revised Appendix A that these two data elements related to enforcement actions. We welcome any language you would like to suggest for these data element descriptions so that the necessary conditions are included along with any flexibility you think would be helpful for states as they implement electronic reporting of these data element s . This includes making any necessary conditions between fo rmal and informal actions for these two data elements. 9. For those Data Elements that are conditionally required, please include under what conditions they are required. The descriptions I have seen do not describe when a data element is required and whe n it is not. I hope to see a designation for system generated and system required data in the descriptions. **EPA Response:** As noted above, we are using the data descriptions to identify any conditions or exemptions. We welcome any language you would like to suggest for these data element descriptions so that the necessary conditions are included along with any flexibility you think would be he lpful for states as they implement electronic reporting of these data elements
. We will also provide a spreadsheet identifying those data elements that are system generated and system required.