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 ( 12 February 201 5 ) [ DCN 02 20]
**Overview** This was the eighteenth 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 questions 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 d oes not constitute a decision

- making body (see “Quick Reminder” section below). Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of each state compliance monitoring, violation determination, and enforcement action data element 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 meeting participants. Below are some questions and comments from the meeting participants.

 Several state representatives suggested that EPA update the data element descriptions to indicate when data can be system generated or are conditional or optional depending on other data submissions. EPA has updated the data element descriptions to be more descriptive as requested.2



###  Several state representatives asked for clarification on the “Compliance Monitoring Activity” and “Compliance Monitoring Type” data elements. In the final rule EPA added clarifying language to the two descriptions for these data elements
.

 Several state representatives had questions on the difference between “ Enforcement Action Sub

-activity” and milestones. EPA clarified in the final rule that s ome s ub

-activities are system required and some can be system generated and that, “ Data on sub

-activities that are not milestones are optional
. ”

 Several state representatives also requested we add a note to Appendix A to clarify when construction stormwater Single Event Violation (SEV) data must be reported to EPA. In the final rule, EPA provided the following clarification, “ Note: Single Event Violation (SEV) data elements are mandatory for construction stormwater inspections that identify CWA violations that result in a regulatory authority taking a formal enforcement action. SEV data elements are optional for other construction stormwater inspections .”

 A representative from Alabama suggested that we eliminate the “Enforcement Action Name” data element. EPA did not include this data element in the final rule as other data can be used to unique track and describe enforcement actions.

 A representative from Oklahoma and a number of other suggested that EPA add data elements to collect information on supplemental environmental projects (SEPs). In the final rule, EPA has included the following three SEP data elements:

o Supplemental Environmental Project Identifier : The unique identifier for each supplemental environmental project. This data e lement can be system generated. Source: 123.27, 123.41(a), and CWA Section 309 o Supplemental Environmental Proj ect Amount : The assessed cost, in dollars, of the one or more of the defendant’s Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). This is the dollar amount that is assessed either in addition to civil penalties or in lieu of civil penalties. This data element i s only required if there is a SEP and may be entered at a later date when the data is available. Source: 123.27, 123.41(a), and CWA Section 309 o Supplemental Environmental Project Description : This text field summarizes the Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) that the respondent has completed in response to an enforcement action. This data element is only required if there is a SEP and may be entered at a later date when the data is available. Source: 123.27, 123.41(a), and CWA Section 309 Following the meeting, EPA received additional e- mails from individual state government representatives on the data elements reviewed in this meeting. These are listed in Attachment 1.3



### 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
.4



### Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

- 12 February 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 Yes 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 No 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 Yes Elisa Willard elisa.willard@state.co.us Bob Zimmerman DE robert.zimmerman@state.de.us stephanie.bower@state.de.us No 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 No Scott Miyashiro HI scott.miyashiro@doh.hawaii.gov 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 No Ed Dillingham KS edillingham@kdheks.gov No Steve Caspers scaspers@kdheks.gov Shelly Shores

- Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov5

**Main Contact State or** 

**Organization Main Contact Email**  **State/Org. Present?**  **(Yes/No)** Shawn Hokanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov Yes Grace Scott MI scottg@michigan.gov No 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 Yes 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 Yes 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 Yes 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 Yes 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 Yes Yatasha Moore yatasha.moore@tn.gov Kim Wilson TX kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov Yes 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 Yes 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.gov6



### 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 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 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 Yes 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 data7 **Attachment 1 -**  **Emails from Representatives from Authorized NPDES Programs E** **- mail**  **from Lawrence Bunting <Lawrence.Bunting@tn.gov> Fri 2/13/2015 5:22 PM**  TDEC concurs that it would be good to clearly identify the required data elements from those that are conditionally required when triggered by another data element. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA has updated the data element descriptions to be more descriptive as requested. For the Compliance Category and Complian ce Monitoring Type, do these share reference table values with AIR? If so, is there an easy way to make sure there is no confusion over which code applies to which program. TDEC DWR is interested in seeing Compliance Monitoring Types suggested by TX or other states. **EPA RESPONSE:** The reference tables for these two data elements are specific to NPDES. Violation Code
– it would be good to note in the description that the only one that could be created and sent by a state is a single event violation (SEV). **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA has updated this data description to read as follows. “Violation Code: The unique code/description that identifies each type of violation that has occurred at the facility (e.g., D80 = Required Monitoring DMR Value Non

- Receipt, E90 = Effluent Violation, C20 = Schedule Event Achieved Late). This includes single event violations (SEVs) and violations that are system generated based upon DMRs, schedules, etc.” Violation Date, Single Event Violation Date, Single Event Violation Start Date
– Why do we have to report all these? For those that are system generated, it is a non

- issue. For the single event violation reported by the state the situation is that it is either single day or multi

-day violation. For single day violation the Single Event Violation date should also serve as the Violation Date. For multi

-day violations, the single event violation start date can also serve as the violation date. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA requires these data elements to adequately describe each violation . EPA has provided clarification on when these data should be reported and when they can be system generated. In particular, EPA has update the “Violation Date” data element to read as follows: “This is the date of the violation, which varies depending on the type of violation. The date must be provided in YYYY

- MM
DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day. This data element may be system generated and does not apply to single event violation dates.” TDEC agrees that the Enforcement Action Name should not be part of the required data elements in Appendix A. TDEC will populate and use this field for reports so they are human readable and look nice, but the tracking numbers (Enforcement Action Identifier) are sufficient to identify the record s. A free text field for the name is not necessary as a required data element.8

**EPA RESPONSE:** EPA has not included “Enforcement Action Name” in the final rule. It may be good to clarify in the description for “Milestones/ Sub

-activities” that these apply to the regulatory milestones that are met and reported by the regulatory age ncy and not the permit holder. Similarly, the header for “Compliance Schedule” should be clarified that these items are items done/reported by the permit holder that has a complia nce schedule. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA has provided the requested clarifying language in the final rule. Penalty section for Appendix A. TDEC supports addition of fields in ICIS

- NPDES for penalty assessed / penalty collected that will include supplemental enviro nmental projects (SEP). A Penalty Assessed should not reflect a perpetually uncollected amount whenever a SEP is part of what the permit holder must do yet the SEP is effort of the permit holder that should not be ignored either. TDEC does not want enfo rcement actions amounts assessed that reflect SEP effort as some amount that was uncollected. TDEC supports the addition to Appendix A for a data element to indicate that a SEP is/is not part of the total Civil Penalty Amount Assessed and to conditionally require a SEP amount collected where the SEP is present as part of the penalty assessed. If there are suggestions from other states that have a better way to handle this, perhaps you could distribute it to the group. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA has included three data elements to collect SEP information. Thanks for your work on coordinating these calls. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA appreciates the efforts by state government representatives to provide helpful suggestions for the final rule. **E -**  **mail from Elisa Willard <** **elisa .willard@state.co.us** **> Mon 3/9/2015 9:44 AM**  We ask that ICIS be modified to accept an optional data field for entering SEP amounts that are assessed either in addition to civil penalties or in lieu of civil penalties. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA has included three data elements to collect SEP information.