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: 13 November 2014 SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting ( 10 Ju ly 2 014) [DCN 01 8 1 ]

**Overview** This was the sixteen th 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 Tables 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is a lso 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 stakeholder group that would l ike to discuss the eRule. **Meeting Notes** EPA ( Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in addition 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
. Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference participants to focus on the pretreatment data elements
. This was the second discussion on the pretreatm ent data elements as the group was not able to fully review all the pretreatment data elements in first discussion on June 29 th 

### (see DCN 0141). The source of these data elements includes NPDES permit applications and Notices of Intent (NOI) (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 4609 6
- 46098 ), State or EPA pretreatment inspections or audits (Page 46102

-46103 ), and POTW Pretreatment Program Annual Report and SIU Periodic Compliance Reports in Municipalities without an Approved Pretreatment Program (Page 46111 )
. Mr. Jo hnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of each data element along with the corresponding data description and regulatory or policy citation. After reading2



### about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from the tech nical workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical workgroup. The first set of data elements discussed were the data elements that relate to the Annual POTW Pretreatment Program report (Page 46 108
-46 111 )
.

 For the **SN C Published in Ne** **wspaper Flag** data element, Michigan DEQ suggested that EPA drop the requirement that SNC be published in a newspaper. Ms. Beth Graves (ECOS) also suggested that EPA doesn’t need to specify ‘Newspaper’ in the data element.

 Michigan DEQ also noted that they have non

- Federal POTW programs that they call ‘mini

programs.’ They allow these mini

- programs to implement the pretreatment program through oversight of industrial users and enforcement of Federal pretreatment standards.

 Texas noted that after a permit is re

- issued the POTW needs to evaluate if any local limits need to be updated. Virginia DEQ noted that if a POTW is in compliance and nothing has changed then their agency doesn’t make the POTW evaluate its local limits. New Jersey DEP state they it is a permit requirement in New Jersey permits that POTWs re

-assess their local limits

 Tennessee, Michigan, and South Dakota noted that they require influent and effluent sampling at the POTW and to compare these data against the last technical evaluation. They also have the POTWs review their Industrial User (IU) list to see if there are any changes from the last revi ew.

 Michigan DEQ and Kansas suggested that EPA drop the data element requirements for Removal Credits as so few POTWs have this authority. EPA estimates that approximately 4 of the roughly 1,600 POTW Pretreatment Programs have this authority.

 Michigan DEQ suggested that EPA add ‘current’ to the Industrial User Control Mechanism Flag data element so that it reads a s, “whether the Industrial User has a current Control Mechanism. ”

 Several states (MO, KS, TX, OK, and AR) ask EPA to make clear that the POTW Pretreatment Program Annual Report data elements apply the current reporting period. For example, they suggested that EPA add ‘in the reporting period’ in the description of these data elements to make clear that the reported data is for that reporting period.

 Texas suggested that the data related to flow be simplified.

 With respect to the **Control Authority Resourc es**  data element, Texas suggested that it might be difficult for POTW Pretreatment Programs to provide a dollar amount on their annual budget. The commenter suggested that EPA re

-word this data element to capture EPA’s intent, which is to have the pretreatmen t program state whether the pretreatment3



### program has sufficient resources (e.g., budget, full

-time equivalent labor) to fully implement its pretreatment program.

 Texas also suggested that EPA clarify that the reduced reporting data element applies to Midd le Tier CIUs. After the meeting EPA received comments from the Kansas Department of Health & Environment and Washington State Department of Ecology . They are presented in Attachments 1 and 2 respectively
.4



### State Technical **Workgroup Meeting –**  **NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule**  **1 0**  **Ju ly**  **2014 Agenda** 

1pm Introduction/Roll Call 1: 10 Discussion of pretreatment data elements 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 call in to participate.

 There will b e 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.5



### 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 

### No Eric Cleckler ec leckler@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 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 

### No 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 

### 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 Frances Carpenter GA frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us 

### No 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 

### Yes Ed Dillingham KS edillingham@kdheks.gov 

### Yes Steve Caspers scaspers@kdheks.gov Shelly Shores

- Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov Shawn H okanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov 

### No Grace Scott MI scottg@michigan.gov 

### Yes Carla Davidson davidsonc@michigan.gov6

**Main Contact State or** 

**Organization Main Contact**  **Email State/Org.**  **Present? (Yes/No)**  Ruth Wallace MO ruth.wallace@dnr.mo.gov 

### Yes Walter Fett walter.fett@dnr.mo.gov Christopher Miller epermitting@dnr.mo.gov Tamara D ahl MN tamara.dahl@state.mn.us 

### Yes Paul Scheirer paul.scheirer@state.mn.us 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 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 Lawrence Bunting TN l awrence. b unting@TN.gov 

### Yes Yatasha Moore yatasha.moore@tn.gov Kim Wilson TX kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov 

### Yes Rebecca Villalba rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov 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 Deborah Debiasi Deborah.DeBiasi@deq.virginia.gov P hani 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.gov7



### 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 

### No Andy Hudock OECA/OC/ETDD hudock.andrew@epa.gov 

### No Rochele Kadish OECA/OC/ETDD kadish.rochele@epa.gov 

### No Carey Johnston OECA/OC/ETDD johnston.carey@epa.gov 

### Yes David Sprague OECA/OC/ETDD s prague.david@ e pa.gov 

### Yes Emery Harriston OECA/OC/ETDD harriston.emery@epa.gov 

### Yes R honda Golder OECA/OC/ETDD golder.rhonda@ e pa.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 

### No David Apanian Region 4 a panian.david@ e pa.gov 

### Yes Jan Pickrel OW/OWM/WPD pickrel.jan@epa.gov 

### Yes Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov 

### No8 **Attachment 1 –**  **Comments from Kansas Department of Health & Environment**  **From:** Steve Caspers [mailto:scaspers@kdheks.gov] **Sent:** Friday, July 11, 2014 1 1 : 58 A M **To:** Johnston, Carey **Cc:** Sean Rolland (srolland@acwa

- us.org); Pickrel, Jan <Pickrel.Jan@epa.gov>; Pickrel, Jan <Pickrel.Jan@epa.gov>; Dave Knight (dakn461@ECY.WA.GOV); Grace Scott (scottg@michigan.gov); Rebecca Villalba (rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov); Kirsch, Susan (skirsch@acwa

- us.org) **Subject:** Electronic Reporting

- Pretreatment data

- comments - Part 2 Carey, as per your request, below are written comments regarding our conference call yesterday, for your consideration. Note: Some of these comments may not have come directly from me, but are included if we endorse them. Hopefully other States will provide their input as well. (1) SNC with pretrea tment schedule flag: Suggest the word “enforceable” be added so the wording is “enforceable pretreatment schedules”. This needed since not all pretreatment schedules are enforceable, unless they are placed in an administrative order, permit or other enforceable document. **EPA Response:** Thank you for this suggestion. We will make this change to Appendix A so that the data element reads as, “SNC with Pretreatment Enforceable Compliance Schedule Flag .” (2) Date of most recent adoption of technically based local limits and date of most recent technical evaluation of local limits: As noted on the phone, it appears these two data names and data descriptions were accidently switched. It is also not clear what is meant by the words “the date the CA evaluated the need for local limits”. States have varied frequencies on how often they require head

-works analysis to be performed and it also varies how extensive these re

evaluations are. In Kansas, local limits are required to be re

-calculated when one of six criteria are met. (loss or gain of IUs, significant upgrade of a WWTP, change in WQ standards, a change in the city’s NPDES limits, the 503 sludge limits change or if pass through or interference occurs). It is n ot necessarily based on whether the city’s NPDES permit is expiring or not. Maybe it would be more clear to ask for two items. One, the date the local limits were “last recalculated” and second, the date the last local limits “were adopted”. These dates would be more clear, meaningful and easier to track. **EPA Response:** Thank you for this suggestion. We will make the suggested change to these two data elements. EPA solicits comment on the following revisions to two data elements. EPA notes that if the Cont rol Authority does not do an evaluation or adoption of local limits within a reporting period then these data elements can be left blank in th at annual report. Local Limits Adoption Date : This is the most recent date on which the Control Authority has ad opted new local limits within the reporting period. The date must be provided in YYYY

- MM
- DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day. Local Limits Evaluation Date : This is the most recent date on which the Control Authority evalua ted the need for local limits within the reporting period. The date must be provided in YYYY

- MM
- DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day.9

(3) POTW discharge contamination indicator: It was suggested that this item be separated into two elements. One, problems related to upset and bypass and the second, those problems related to interference and pass through. **EPA Response:**  Thank you for this suggestion. EPA is using two data elements to track any issues at the POTW with one data element focusing on the discharge ( **POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator**) and the other focusing on the biosolids management ( **POTW Biosolids**  **Contamination Indicator** ). The first data element identifies “whether there have been any problems (e.g., pass-thro ugh or interference) with the receiving POTW’s effluent discharge within the reporting period. ” The commenter’s suggestion does not seem workable as the term ‘interference’ includes events such as ‘upsets’ and ‘bypass.’ EPA is soliciting comment on retaini ng the two data elements and not trying to split t he **POTW Discharge**  **Contamination Indicator** into two separate data elements. (4) Removal credits: Since there are only a handful of programs in the nation with removal credits, it is suggested only the minimum amount of information that needs to be reported to OMB by EPA be requested and eliminate all of the other elements. **EPA Response:** Thank you for this suggestion. We will delete the data elements related to removal credits from Appendix A. (5) Industrial user city: EPA indicated on the phone that it would not create a problem if the name of the city the IU was located in, was not the same name of the approved program the IU was located in. It was also pointed out that an IU could even be located in a different State than the approved program was located in, if the IU was near a state border. **EPA Response:** Thank you for this comment. The tracking of locational data for Industrial Users is independent of the corresponding pretreatment program locational data. Th e commenter’s scenario (different cities or states for an Industrial User and its pretreatment program) will not be a problem with EPA’s electronic data collection tools or ICIS

- NPDES
. (6) IU control mechanism: It was suggested the words “active” be added to indicate that only control mechanisms that were active need to be reported, not the number of “expired or inactive” control mechanisms. **EPA Response:** Thank you for this suggestion. We will make the suggested change to these two data elements in Appendix A. (7) Number of IU sampling events: Not sure why this information is even being requested and why it would be important to know. The term “sampling events” could also be interpreted diffe rently. For example, do “all” of the parameters mentioned in a permit need to be analyzed to be considered a “sampling event”? What if only a portion of the parameters were sampled, due to a non

-compliance event? **EPA Response:** Thank you for this comment. The tracking of IU sampling events, those performed by the IU and those performed by the Control Authority, provides important information on the adequacy and robustness of the pretreatment program. These data will help the Approval Authority improve their10

oversight of the Control Authority. EPA will provided additional clarity in the Appendix A data elements regarding the sampling events that must be counted and reported on the annual report. (8) IU process flow rate: The current data description asks for “process” flow but it appeared the intent was to gauge the impact of the IU, on the POTW. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to request the “total” flow of the IU. **EPA Response:** Thank you for this suggestion. We will simply the tracking of IU flow rate i n Appendix A. (9) Control Authority budget resources: It appears the current data description requests the budget amount in dollars. This information will be very difficult to derive, since most programs do not have a line item budget. To better meet the intent of the regulations, it is suggested the data description be replaced with the following language or similar. “Does the POTW have adequate resources to properly implement and administer their pretreatment program?” This would be a “yes” or “no” answe r. **EPA Response:** Thank you for this suggestion. We will make the suggested change to the data element. EPA solicits comment on the following revision to this data element. Control Authority Resources : A unique code/description that identifies whether the pretreatment program has sufficient resources (e.g., budget, full

-time equivalent labor) to fully implement its pretreatment program. Overall comments; (1) For items that will require a “yes or no” reply, it would be more clear to mention that in the data d escription. **EPA Response:**  Thank you for this suggestion. We added text in the data descriptions in Appendix A to provide more clarity on the data format. (2) There are inconsistencies when the data name refers to “Industrial Users” but the data description only specifies “Significant Industrial Users”. SIUs are only a subset of IUs. **EPA Response:**  Thank you for this comment . We added text in the data descriptions in Appendix A to provide more c larity. EPA is soliciting comment on any additional text that can provide more clarity
. (3) The words “in the previous 12 months” is used often and can be interpreted differently on when the 12 months actually begin. Furthermore, not all programs use the calendar year that would better define the time period. Suggest t he words “reporting period” be used in the data description, since this timeframe is clearly defined in control mechanisms. The down side is you will not be comparing all data for exactly the same time period, because varying report periods are utilized. H owever, you already have this problem with the current verbiage, because the 12 month time periods are not going to be the same either. **EPA Response:**  Thank you for this suggestion. We used the term, ‘in the reporting period,’ in the Appendix A data elements to provide clarity on what actions and data should be reported in each annual report.11

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and look forward to working with EPA on making these changes a reality. Steve Caspers, Pretreatment Specialist Bureau of Water Industrial Programs Section Kansas Department of Health & Environment E
- Mail address:SCaspers@kdheks.gov 785.296.5551 Fax 785.296.008612 **Attachment 2 –**  **Washington State Department of Ecology From:**  Knight, David J. (SWRO) (ECY) [mailto:dakn461@ECY.WA.GOV] **Sent:** Tuesday, Ju ly 15, 2014 2 : 46 PM **To:** Johnston, Carey **Cc:** Pickrel, Jan <Pickrel.Jan@epa.gov>; Grace Scott (scottg@michigan.gov); Rebecca Villalba (rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov); Steve Caspers <scaspers@kdheks.gov>; Kmet, Nancy (ECY) <nkme461@ECY.WA.GOV> **Subject:** RE: Electronic Reporting

- Pretreatment data

- comments - Part 2 Carey, the electronic reporting rule (ERR) determines how data is collected and reported, and thus will have a significant bearing on program implementation. Accordingly, I would like to make a few finer points I think are important to capture on this that haven’t been brought to light. Please consider changing Table 1 (data sources) of the FR notice NPDES Data Group #7 from “Pretreatment Control Authorities” to “POTWs that are Pretreatment Control Authorities”. Annual pretreatment reports are only required of POTWs administering pretreatment programs, not of States and EPA when they act as the Pretreatment Control Authority. The referenced primary citation 403.12(i)) specifically only applies to delegated POTWs. States assuming a POTW’s responsibilities are required (by 40 CFR 403.10(e)) to carry out the provisions of 403.8(f), but are not required to submit annual reports per 403.12(i). EPA has already developed a separate area (section 21
– “Reports outside Delegated Pretreatment Programs” with data items 284

-294) to capture the reporting needed on SIUs where States and EPA regions that act as control authorities. Reporting requirements of states with respect to SIUs they permit (including middle tier CIUs, and NSCIUs) should be compiled there. **EPA Response:** Thank you for this comment . We added text in Table 1 to provide more c larity that these annual reports are to be submitted by POTWs and not states that are acting as the Control Authority. In particular, we added ‘POTW’ to the title of this report so that it now reads as: POTW Pretreatment Program Annual Report
. For data relating to POTW Annual Reports (section 25), eight of the data items list the data sources as both ‘7’ (Pretreatment Control Authorities) and ‘8’ (SIUs outside of delegated POTW pretreatment programs). Please consider removing the ‘8’ for these basic data field s which identify the User and their flows. For SIU’s permitted by the State or EPA, they duplicate information which States and EPA would enter in sections 1 (basic facility information) & 2 (basic permit information) for their Permittees. It would be better if information on SIU’s outside of delegated POTW programs not already addressed by Sections 1 and 2 was consolidated in section 21 “Reports Outside Pretreatment Programs” (data items 284
- 294). **EPA Response:** Thank you for this comment . EPA has simplified the collection of facility and flow data in Appendix A. We are soliciting comments on these revisions. Please consider removing the reference to PCI’s and Audits in the title of Section 13. The title now reads: “Pretreatment Information on Permit A pplications, Notices of Intent, (or Pretreatment Compliance Audit or Inspection)...”. However, a different section (#20

- Compliance Monitoring Activity

– Pretreatment Inspections and Audits) already addresses information needed to be compiled from PCI’s a nd Audits. It would be unmanageable to attempt to collect and enter all data listed in section 13 (including a number of data items on each SIU) as part of a PCI or Audit. EPA should compile in section13

20 all data which EPA expects to be tabulated from a PCI or Audit (except perhaps basic inspection data such as inspector, date, etc.). **EPA Response:** Thank you for this comment . We have made the suggested change to Appendix A. With respect to Steve Casper’s comments, I would add two things: With respect to comment (7) below, I presume that EPA’s reason for ERR data fields relating to POTW sampling and inspection activities is to ensure that the POTW has fulfilled their legal obligation to inspect each SIU at least once annually and annually perform oversi ght monitoring for each SIU for all pollutants for which the SIU has permit limits. If this is the case, the data field descriptions might make this a bit clearer by asking this more directly. **EPA Response:** Thank you for this comment . We have made change s to Appendix A. See response to comment #7 above. With respect to overall comment (2) below, I would add that the pretreatment rules have not been as clear they might about POTW obligations with respect to IU’s which are not SIU’s, and the ERR could hel p foster consistency in the degree of reporting of these “other IU’s”. My understanding is that information relating to an IU that is not an SIU is only required to be reported when the IU meets applicable SNC criteria. But EPA’s definition of ‘SIU’ allows (at 40CFR403.3(v)(3)) a CA to determine that an IU meeting the SIU criteria is not an SIU. And while this provision requires the action be consistent with 403.8(f)(6), that doesn’t stipulate how such determinations need to be documented, and listing of such Users isn’t specifically reinforced in annual reporting 403.12(i)(1). Because 403.8(f)(6) is primarily focused on an initial list, and 403.12(i)(1) is focused on updates to prior lists, there may be any number of high flow and/or high strength ind ustries which have at some point been delisted and are no longer permitted, tracked, or reported on in any manner. Because the rules don’t require specific documentation be kept or for the POTW to periodically revisit such de

- listings, there is an unaddre ssed potential for inconsistent application of this provision. To address this, I believe it would be appropriate and consistent with 403.8(f)(6) and 403.12(i) to specifically require POTWs annually provide an updated list of their IU’s which includes all SIU’s and all IU’s which otherwise meet the criteria for being an SIU (at 403.3(v)(1)), but have been delisted, and give the reason for the delisting. **EPA Response:** Thank you for this comment . We have made change s to Appendix A so that POTWs can update their list of IUs through the annual report. Dave Knight David J. Knight P.E. Environmental Engineer Southwest Regional Office, Water Quality Program Washington State Department of Ecology PO Box 47775, Olympia WA 98504

-7775 Phone (360) 407

- 6277 Email

- david.j.knight@ecy.wa.gov