## 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: 2 8 May 2014 SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting ( 22 May 2 014) [DCN 0137 ]
**Overview** This was the tenth 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 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 M unicipal Separate Storm S ewer System (MS4 ) data elements in Appendix A . The source of these MS4- specific data elements includes NPDES permit applications and Notices of Intent (NOI) (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 4609 3 ) and the MS4 Program Report (Page 4610 7 ). Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of each 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 the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and comm ents from the technical workgroup.

###  Missouri commend that the options under the **MS4 System Map** data element should

recognize that some MS4 system maps are partially complete. Mr. Johnston noted that the list of options will allow for some of these differences across MS4s.

 Missouri and Texas noted that some MS4s set
- up agreements with other municip al entities for enforcement purposes. For example, ‘non
-traditional’ MS4s like university campuses or irrigation districts may rely on a nearby local government to enforce the conditions of their MS4 NPDES permit.

 Washington state did not think that the **MS4 Public Education Program** data element is important and questions whether they should be included in Appendix A.

 New Jersey stated that it would be helpful to see some example options under the data elements related to the MS4 six minimum control meas ures. 1



###  Texas noted that MS4s are unique and that there are difference in how they comply with their NPDES permit. They suggested that the options for the MS4 six minimum control measures need to account for these differences. In particular, Missouri noted that there are many differences in how MS4s might complete the **MS4 Maintenance of BMPs** data element.

 Texas noted that some actions are on
-going, which means that there is no completion date. Texas suggested the removal of “including, as appropriate, the months and years” in the **MS4 Measureable Goals for Additional Measures** data element.

 Indiana (Mr. Tom Easterly) asked whether states would be required to summarize information from individual NPDES permit applications for these MS4 data elements. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA is focused on creating structured data elements in Appendix A (not open text fields ) as structured data elements (e.g., codes, yes/no flags) are easier to analyze than open text fields. However, Mr. Johnston noted that states can require individual NPDES permit applicants to type these MS4 data elements (and other Appendix A data element s) and electronically submit these data to the state (e.g., e
- mail, on
- line). These electronic data submissions would not need to be CROMERR compliant as the copy of record for the individual NPDES permit application is the paper form. This option would provide individual NPDES permit applicants with better control of the generation of these electronic data and reduce the state processing of these data (i.e., state staff would not need to key in these data). Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference participa nts to focus on the MS4 Program Report data element s (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46107 ). Mr. Johnston started the technical

1 The MS4 stormwater management program must include the following six minimum control measures: public education and outreach; public participation/involvement; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction site runoff control; post
-construction runoff control; and pollution prevention/good housekeeping
.

### discussion by reading the name of each 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 the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical workgroup.

 Several states noted that electronic reporting of MS4 Program Report data w ill require flexibility. In particular, state meeting participants noted that local governments often partner to share responsibilities to control urban stormwater. For example, under a single NPDES permit one local government entity may be responsible for public education and outreach while another local government entity is responsible for illicit discharge detection and elimination. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA intends to use the **Unique Number for Each Municipality Covered Under MS4 Permit**  data element fo r these types of inter
government al sharing of MS4 activities . Mr. Johnston noted that this data element could be system generated if that makes electronic reporting easier.

 States also noted that EPA will need to account for the fact that some states req uire one program report for multiple local governments that are covered one MS4 NPDES permit while other states require separate program reports, one for each local government covered a MS4 NPDES permit.

 Missouri suggested that EPA use the annual report to show a summary of enforcement actions taken. Other states noted that EPA will need to clarify how local governments that are shar ing MS4 responsibilities will complete the enforcement action data elements.

 Texas noted that some actions are on
-going, which means that there is no completion date. Texas suggested the removal of “including, as appropriate, the months and years” in the **MS4 Measureable Goals for Additional Measures** data element.

 ACWA (Mr. Sean Rolland) noted that there are a lot of differences in the MS4 universe. He suggested that EPA’s electronic reporting requirements will need to mirror what the states are doing. After the meeting, Missouri DNR and New Jersey submitted quest ions on electronic reporting for the MS4 sector (see Attachments 1 and 2, respectively). **Next Steps** The next technical workgroup meeting is May 2 9th .

### State Technical **Workgroup Meeting –**  **NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 22**  **May 2014** 
1pm Introduction/Roll Call 1: 10 Discussion of MS4 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 stat es 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 

### 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 

### 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 

### Yes Elisa Willard elisa.willard@state.co.us Bob Zimmerman DE robert.zimmerman@state.de.us stephanie.bower@state.de.us 

### Yes Beth Graves ECOS bgraves@ecos.org 

### No 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 Ruth Wallace MO ruth.wallace@dnr.mo.gov 

### Yes Christopher Miller epermitting@dnr.mo.gov 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**Main Contact State or**  **Organization Main Contact**  **Email State/Org.**  **Present? (Yes/No)**  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 

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

### Yes Holly Galavotti OW/OWM/WPD galavotti . holly@ e pa.gov 

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

### Yes**Attachment 1 –**  **Questions from Missouri DNR**

Carey, Thank you for the information on today’s call. I am coming into the conversation late, so some of my questions may reflect that. I am in the process of looking at the rule more closely, though. There were three of us from Missouri on the call today: Joshua Ernst, C hristopher Miller and me. Some things that came to mind after the call:

 Would it be possible to qualify the co
- permittee question up front rather than later in the form? **EPA Answer:** Yes. EPA will need to configure the MS4 Program Report electronic reporting form to account for the fact that a single MS4 NPDES permit may cover multiple local governments or entities (e.g., university, water district). These regulated entities may be co
- permittees or there may be one permittee that performs MS4 activities for one or more other local governments. Additionally, some states require one program report for when multiple local governments are covered one MS4 NPDES permit while other states require separate program reports, one for each local government covered a MS4 NPDES permit. EPA will need to account for all of these options in its electronic reporting form.

 Would it be possible then to correlate permit #s and unique ID #s to primary permit #s at that time? As an example, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) is the continuing authority for themselves as primary permittee, but they are also the coordinating authority for 60 co
permittees having their own continuing authority each. MSD and co
- permittees sh are authority on some permit items such as illicit discharge mapping, inspection and enforcement. (MSD owns the county
-wide system, but many discharge points are on co
- permittee properties so they all need to have prohibition, inspection and enforcement au thority.) **EPA Answer:** Yes. As previously stated, EPA will need to configure the MS4 Program Report electronic reporting form to account for the fact that a single MS4 NPDES permit may cover multiple local governments or entities . Using your example, MSD w ill record on their MS4 Program report the lead for each MS4 minimum control measure.

 County information is helpful on all forms as we store efiles by region then county. **EPA Answer:** Please let us know if this is a new data element that you would like tracked in the MS4 Program Report. Here are links to our annual report form and addendum. The addendum calls out some potentially common items as modified from EPA’s great annual report form draft. (We built in water quality qualifiers in post
-construction questions, because this is an area of great confusion and change for MS4s.) You might find the addendum helpful in that they can elicit a yes or no answer in several areas.

 St ormwater Annual Report
- Small MS4 Permits  Stormwater Annual Report
- Small MS4 Permits Addendum
- W ater Quality Program Assessment**EPA Answer:** Thank you for your suggestion. We will look at these example forms to help further refine

the MS4 data elements . Also, all individual permit applicants (or site
-specific as we say in Missouri) submit hard
-copy applications on our FORM A. Does that have any relevance to this discussion? **EPA Answer:** The proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule does not require electronic reporting of individual NPDES permit applications. However, the proposed rule does require electronic reporting of Notices of Intent (NOI), which will include many Phase II (small) MS4s. Finally, I am curious to know if this is for all MS4s, or just general permittees. **EPA Answer:** The proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule required electronic reporting of all MS4 Program Reports (Phase I and Phase II MS4s). Will this include TMDL info and related monitoring as called for in some Small MS4 SW MPs? **EPA Answer:** The data elements for the MS4 Program Reports are listed on page 46107 and 46108 of the proposed rule. The NPDES permitting authority may require the MS4 to include information related to a TMDL as part of these data elements. Additionall y, the NPDES permitting authority may require monitoring, which can be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). EPA’s proposed rule also requires electronic reporting of DMRs. Additionally, EPA’s electronic reporting systems, NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool (NeT) and NetDMR, also allow for PDF attachments to be submitted alongside other data. Either way, it appears to me that Missouri will need to: 1. Significantly modify the MS4 application form for inclusion of specific permit and SWMP questions; 2. Significantly modify MoCWIS to accommodate online appliction info; 3. S ignificantly modify MoCWIS to accommodate online annual report info; and 4. Majorly modify MoCWIS to correlate unique ID#s (co
- permit billing #s) to other permit #s or to Other non
- permit #s. We look forward to the draft on
- line documents. Thanks again for your time and effort on this and for accommodating my late
-to -the
-scene questions/comments. Best regards, Ruth A. Wallace, CMS4S Municipal Stormwater Program Coordinator PO Box 176 Jeffe rson City, MO 65102
-0176 573 522 1131 Stormwater Information Clearinghouse http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/stormwater/index.html**Attachment 1 –**  **Questions from New Jersey DEP**

New Jersey’s Follow
- up Comments on MS4 E - Reporting Data Elements Not all states implemen t their programs consistently. States have relied on EPA guidance and flexibility (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/measurablegoals.pdf) that have encouraged development of stormwater management programs and measurable goals that meet their individual needs. Requiring standardized reporting elements that coincide directly with the regulations will be difficult. Having the code element details is necessary to determine if the information that will be requested is available, necessary, or even relevant for tra cking. It would be useful to better understand the purpose for the information and its intended use that would allow consideration of possible other reporting methods that could achieve the same purpose and intent. **EPA Answer:** EPA will need to configure t he MS4 Program Report electronic reporting form to account for the differences in how MS4 report their activities and measurable goals for each of the six minimum control measures. For example, for the first minimum control measure, “ Public Education and O utreach on Storm Water Impacts,” an MS4 may elect to initiate or continue a stormwater education program for school children with a measurable goal of educating 50 percent of all school children (K
- 12) every two years on the effects or stormwater pollution and activities they can do to prevent this pollution. EPA will work with states to develop useful data for states, EPA, and the public along with the flexibility that MS4s need to report these data. It may be desirable to have discrete reporting categori es that differentiate between Phase I, Phase II, general permits and individual permits. NJ has no Phase I municipalities, no individual permits,no co
permittees sharing responsibilities and each municipality is permitted separately. EPA should be able to populate the database with this information so that the reports for each municipality are auto
populated so that only the applicable catetory(s) [ sic ] with the associated reporting elements appear. **EPA Answer:** EPA agrees with New Jersey that Appendix A should be able to distinguish between Phase I, Phase II, general permits and individual permits . We are also planning on pre
- populating data in its electronic reporting forms to facilitate and expedite electronic reporting. Construction Site Runoff Control reporting requirements should be part of the Construction and Industrial Activities e
- report. Although related to the MS4 permits through the Phase II regulation, construction activities are regulated through s eparate required permits and not the MS4 permit. **EPA Answer:** The construction and industrial stormwater data on individual construction sites will come from the individual construction sites’ NPDES permit applications and NOIs not the MS4. NJ utilizes its own Statewide soil erosion and sediment control regulations and 15 Soil Conservation Districts to control construction site runoff for projects that disturb 5,000 sq. ft. or more of land. Through a Statewide Construction General Permit and in coordination with the SCDs all construction site runoff is regulated for projects that disturb 1 or more acres. **EPA Answer:** EPA thanks New Jersey for this information.