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: 14 September 2015 SUBJECT: Notes from Technical Meeting with States ( 13 May 201 5 ) [ DCN 0228]
**Overview** This was the twenty-sixth meeting between EPA and individual representatives from authorized NPDES programs. These meetings provided greater clarity regarding public comments on the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). Participants are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA’s outreach during the rulemaking process (see Table 3). EPA also met with other stakeholders to discuss public comments. **Meeting Notes** EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in addition to raising quest ions during these 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 also reminded everyone that this outreach does n ot constitute a decision
- making body (see “Quick Reminder” section below). Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reviewing some of the changes it is considering in the final rule. Mr. Johnston asked for input from the meeting participants . Below are some questions and comments from meeting participants
.

 NJ would like the term ‘biosolids’ to be removed from Appendix A as it is not a term used in Part 503 In the final rule, EPA modified Appendix to clarify that the Part 503 reporting applies to sewage sludge and biosolids. EPA will make this note as these term s, ‘biosolids’ and ‘sewage sludge’, are used interchangeably.

 David Apanian (Region 4) suggested that we keep ‘Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum’ to identify latitude and longitude d ata that was collected under an older mapping reference system.2



### In the final rule, EPA deleted latitude and longitude metadata (e.g., Facility Site Source Map Scale Number, Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure) from Appendix A. EPA is instead requiring that latitude and longitude data use of the World Geodetic System (WGS) 84 standa rd coordinate system. EPA notes that the WGS84 standard coordinate system is the modern worldwide standard for use in cartography, geodesy, and navigation. This coordinate system is currently the reference system being used by the Global Positioning System and is accurate within 1 meter. States that collect latitude and longitude on older coordinate systems (e.g., 1927 North American Datum) will need to convert their latitude and longitude to the newer, modern WGS84 coordinate system before they can share d ata with EPA. EPA has included the burden associated with these transformations in the economic analysis supporting the final rule.

 AL question whether EPA’s NPDES forms require the collection of ‘Permitted Feature Application Design Flow (MGD). EPA confirmed that EPA’s NPDES forms (Forms 2A, 2C, and 2D) do not collect the design flow for each applicants permitted feature (e.g., outfall). In the final rule EPA deleted this data element from Appendix A.

 FL questioned EPA’s interpretation of its forms and reg with this data element: CAFO Animal Maximum Numbers. FL suggests that we only ask for number of animals not maximum. EPA reviewed the instructions for NPDES CAFO application form (Form 2B) and the example EPA CAFO Annual Report and confirmed that these documents are looking for ‘maximum’ values. We are retaining maximum to be consistent with these forms and to enhance the utility of these data as primary purpose of the NPDES program is to manage pollutant discharges. Tracking the maximum number of ani mals at CAFOs will help authorized NPDES programs and EPA better identify when CAFOs are exceeding their ability to properly manage manure, litter, and process wastewater.

 MI and NJ questioned EPA’s use of a percentage for this data element: “Significant Industrial User Subject to Local Limits More Stringent Than Categorical Standards.” EPA has changed the responses to this data element to be either “Yes” or “No.”

 NJ suggested that EPA delete the following data element “Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Analytical Methods” as they assert this is not in EPA’s regs EPA notes that t he reporting requirements in Part require a “description of how” the pollutant, pathogen requirements, and vector attraction reduction requirements were met by the regulated entity. EPA is interpreting this language to mean that regulated entities will include a listing of the analytic methods that they use to demonstrate compliance with Part 503. The annual report also includes the following data element, Biosolids or Sewage Sludge
– La nd Application or Surface Disposal Deficiencies, which will identify when the facility failed to properly collect and analyze its biosolids or sewage sludge in accordance with the approved analytical methods (including appropriate method holding times). These two data elements will provide EPA and authorized NPDES programs with the data that they need for proper oversight.3



###  NJ suggested that the following data element
- MS4 Reliance on Other Government Entities: Status Flag
– be yes/no and not be used to identify the specific municipality covered by the NPDES permit. They agreed that EPA’s approach is more useful and beneficial but they assert the overriding goal should be to conservatively interpret EPA’s regs and require less reporting. EPA has made the requested edit in the final rule.

 Deborah L. DeBiasi, Virginia DEQ, suggested that EPA edit the following data element, Biomonitoring Inspection Method, to be more consistent with current biomonitoring inspection practices in use today. Response: After this teleconference, EPA worked with VA to make the following edits to this data element: The unique code that identifies the type of biomonitoring inspection method (e.g., acute, chronic, or flow through discrete acute, discrete chronic, discrete method, flow
-through method, flow
-through acute, flow
-through chronic) and sample type (e.g., grab, composite)
.

 Deborah L. DeBiasi, Virginia DEQ, also suggested that: “I would make the disinfection method a separate item, since all POTWs, regardless of size, sho uld have some form and it's helpful to know what they are doing. Make the heading something like, "POTW Disinfection Type", and in the second column, maybe something about a unique code to represent chlorination, UV treatment, etc.” EPA added the followi ng data elem ent in response to the comment: “ POTW Wastewater Disinfection Technology: The one or more unique codes/descriptions that describe the types of disinfection technology that are used at the facility (e.g., chlorination, ozonation, ultraviolet dis infection). This data element will also use a code/description to identify if this facility is using dechlorination, which may be required if the facility uses chlorination for disinfection. This data element only applies to POTWs .” EPA modeled this data e lement after the OMB approved NPDES Form 2A.



###  A state representative from Oklahoma noted that the proposed Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) data elements seem reasonable.

 A state representative from Alabama noted that she likes the potential changes to the Appendix A data elements.4



### Quick Reminder

 The technical workgroup is not a decision
- making body. Members of the workgroup provide clarity on their comments and suggest 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 voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, members of the workgroup are providing individual input reflecting their various perspectives.

 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
.5



### Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members
– 13 May 2015
**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 No Christy Monk AL cvm@adem.state.al.us Yes Eric Cleckler ecleckler@adem.state.al.us Glenda Dean gld@adem.state.al.us Teresa Marks
AR marks@adeq.state.ar.us
No Pat Goff goff@adeq.state.ar.us Mo Shafii 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 Belley belley.robin@azdeq.gov David Lelsz lelsz.david@azdeq.gov; Darren Polhemus CA dpolhemus@waterboards.ca.gov No Renee Purdy renee.purdy@waterboards.ca.gov Deborah Smith dsmith@waterboards.ca.gov Vicky Whitney vwhitney@waterboards.ca.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 Yes Tom Tyler ECOS ttyler@ecos.org No Chris Klena FL chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us Yes Jessica Kleinfelter jessica.kleinfelter@dep.state.fl.us Edward Smith edward.c.smith@dep.state.fl.us Frances Carpenter GA frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us Yes Scott Miyashiro HI scott.miyashiro@doh.hawaii.gov Yes 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 No Ed Dillingham KS edillingham@kdheks.gov Yes Steve Caspers scaspers@kdheks.gov Shelly Shores
- Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov6



### Main Contact **State or**

**Organization Main Contact**  **Email State/Org.**  **Present? (Yes/No)**  Shawn Hokanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov No Grace Scott MI scottg@michigan.gov Yes Carla Davidson davidsonc@michigan.gov Ruth Wallace MO ruth.wallace@dnr.mo.gov Yes Walter Fett walter.fett@dnr.mo.gov Christopher Miller epermitting@dnr.mo.gov Tamara Dahl MN tamara.dahl@state.mn.us No Paul Scheirer paul.scheirer@state.mn.us John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org No Deborah Gore NC deborah.gore@ncdenr.gov No Bradley Bennett bradley.bennett@ncdenr.gov 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 No Joseph DiMura jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us Alan Tinney Dave Gaskin NV atinney@ndep.nv.gov Yes dgaskin@ndep.nv.gov Brian Hall OH brian.hall@epa.ohio.gov No Erin Sherer erin.sherer@epa.ohio.gov Shellie Chard
- McClary OK shellie.chard
- mcclary@deq.ok.gov Yes Roy Walker roy.walker@deq.ok.gov David Pruitt david.pruitt@deq.ok.gov Jim Billings OR billings.jim@deq.state.or.us No Sean Furjanic PA sefurjanic@pa.gov No Kent Woodmansey SD kent.woodmansey@state.sd.us No Tim Flor tim.flor@state.sd.us Albert Spangler albert.spangler@state.sd.us Lawrence Bunting TN lawrence.bunting@tn.gov No Yatasha Moore yatasha.moore@tn.gov Kim Wilson TX kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov No Rebecca Villalba rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov Lynley Doyen lynley.doyen@tceq.texas.gov Kimberly Shepard 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 Phani 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



### State representatives from West Virginia ( Marcus E. Soulsby and Terrie Sangid ) also participated in the meeting. **Table 2**  **:** EPA Technical Workgroup Members

**Name EPA Office**  **Email Present?**  **(Yes/No)** John Dombrowski OECA/OC/ETDD dombrowski.john@epa.gov No Andy Hudock OECA/OC/ETDD hudock.andrew@epa.gov Yes Rochele Kadish OECA/OC/ETDD kadish.rochele@epa.gov No Carey Johnston OECA/OC/ETDD johnston.carey@epa.gov Yes Jackie Clark OW/OWM/WPD clark.jackie@epa.gov Yes Jan Pickrel OW/OWM/WPD pickrel.jan@epa.gov Yes Ginny Phillips OECA/OCE/WED phillips.ginny@epa.gov Yes Aditi Prabhu OGC/WLO prabhu.aditi@epa.gov No David Apanian Region 4 apanian.david@epa.gov Yes Sandra Chew Region 9 chew.sandra@epa.gov No Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov No


### Table 3: State Technical Workgroup Discussions to Discuss Public Comments **DCN Date**  **Topic Data Source**  DCN 0219 02/05/2015 Basic Facility and Permit Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs DCN 0220 02/12/2015 Basic Violation and Enforcement Action Data States & Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs DCN 0221 02/26/2015 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Information Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & MS4 Program Report DCN 0222 03/05/2015 Construction and Industrial Stormwater Information Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs DCN 0223 03/12/2015 CSO & Collection System Information & Sewer Overflow Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Sewer Overflow Event Reports
DCN 0224 03/19/2015 Pretreatment Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual POTW Pretreatment Program Reports, CIU/SIU Reports When EPA or State is Control Authority DCN 0225 03/26/2015 Cooling Water and Thermal Variance Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs DCN 0226 04/02/2015 Biosolids Data States & Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual Biosolids Reports DCN 0227 04/09/2015 CAFO Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual Biosolids Reports DCN 0228 05/13/2015 Review of Appendix A All NPDES program data DCN 0229 05/27/2015 Review of State Representative Questions to EPA All NPDES program data