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: 1 4 September 2015 SUBJECT: Notes from Technical Meeting with States ( 1 9 March 2 01 5 ) [ DCN 02 24 ]

**Overview** This was the twenty- second 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 reading the name of each pretreatment data element a long 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 asked for clarification on the “ Listing of Months in SNC” data element. EPA added clarification in the final rule for this data element: “This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non

-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) the month or months the IU is in SNC within the reporting period. These data must be provided in YYYY

- MM format where YYYY is the year and MM is the month. ” This approach is flexible and will accommodate the different reporting periods used by Approval Authorities
.2



###  A state representa tive from Missouri as k how the rulemaking addresses how to define significant noncompliance (SNC). Mr. Johnston noted that the rulemaking does not change how EPA defines SNC, rather this rulemaking focuses on transitioning NPDES reporting from a paper to a n electronic processing system.

 Several state government represe n tatives asked for clarification on the “ Pretreatment Program Approval or Modification Date ” data element. EPA provided clarification in the final rule: “The date the pretreatment program wa s approved or substantially modified. This data element can be system generated by carrying forward the most recent date (approval or modification). The date must be provided in YYYY

- MM
- DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day. ” States also requested that EPA include a notation that t hese data elements do not apply to the development, evaluation, or compliance monitoring activities supporting wastewater surcharge rates. EPA has included this note in the final rule.

 Several state representatives asked for clarification on the ‘Significant Industrial User Subject to Local Limits” data element. These representatives suggested that EPA limits responses for this data element to “Yes” or “No.” EPA has incorporated this suggestion in th e final rule
.

 Several state representatives asked for clarification on the “Significant Industrial User Wastewater Flow Rate” data element. In the final rule EPA included the following description for this data element: “This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) or Categorical Industrial User (CIU) that is discharging to a POTW (including non

- domestic wastewater delivered by truck, rail, and dedicated pipe or other means of transportation) the estimated maximum monthly ave rage wastewater flow rate (in gallons per day). ”

 Several state representatives as ked for EPA to include the phrase “ unique c ode/description that identifies” for each of the following data elements: Industrial User Causing Problems at POTW, Receiving RCRA Waste, and Receiving Remediation Waste . States requested this change as the use of codes instead of free text fields will help make data entry and sharing easier
. EPA included this phrase in the final rule to facilitate easier data entry and sharing.

 Several state representative s asked that EPA delete the “Control Authority Resources” data element from the final rule. EPA has not retained this data element in the final rule.
F ollowing the meeting, EPA received e

- mails from individual state government representatives on the data elements reviewed in this meeting. These e

- mails 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

- 1 9 March 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

Yes 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 Yes 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 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 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 Yes 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 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 Yes 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 Yes 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 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.gov6



### Participants in this meeting also included state representatives from Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. **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 data7 **Attachment 1 -**  **Emails from Representatives from Authorized NPDES Programs E**  **- mail from David Ramsey <RAMSEY@adeq.state.ar.us>**  **Thu 3/12/2015 3:20 PM** ADEQ does not have a permit for CIUs where the State is the control authority. When we entered the ARPs into PCS we did not have to enter the permit issue, effective, and expiration dates, so when they were migrated to ICIS and the data elements were required, they were marked as “Pending”. We could use the POTW dates, but since the State is the control authority, neither State nor the permittee issues permits or permit coverage to these facilities (as far as I know). Also, if we used the POTW dates, we would have to renew all of the CIUs and update their information in ICIS

- NPDES every time we renew the POTW pe rmit (unless this could be done automatically. Another problem is that the ICIS staff does not receive updates when CIUs are added, terminated, or updated (transfer of ownership, legal name changes, changes of authorization, etc.). If all of this inform ation is automatically populated through the permit application in electronic reporting system, I guess my opinion really won’t make any difference. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA is interpreting its exi sting regulation at 40 CFR 403.12(i) to include Industrial User (I U) effective and expiration dates. EPA notes that many Regions and States have already been requiring that information as either a way to key the IU facilities to previous lists [see 403.12(i)(1) as well as under 403.12(i)(5)]. **E -**  **mail from Tina McFarling <** **Tina.McFarling@state.sd.us >**  **Mon 3/23/2015 9:51 AM** I have a few questions and concerns that came up during the conference call last Thursday. The first concern is on the permit application section for NPDE S permits. South Dakota is the control authority for the majority of POTWs in the state. How will our POTWs know what to enter under the control authority’s NPDES number? Will that information be readily available for our POTWs. I’m just worried that their applications will not be accepted without this information and this will cause further delays in the permitting process. **EPA RESPONSE:** The NPDES Electronic Reporting rule is not requiring NPDES application forms to be submitted electronically. The NPDES Electronic Reporting rule is focused on required reports like Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), Notices of Intent (NOIs), and Program Reports (examples: Approved POTW Pretreatment Program annual report and annual sludge reports). Consequently, South D akota’s permit drafting shouldn’t be affected. As a matter of good oversight and practice, the NPDES permit writing staff and pretreatment staff should be working together to review the applications [which includes that the POTW is required to identify SIU s and other discharges per 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6) & (7)] and to ensure that the appropriate permit conditions are included in all POTW permits. The second question and concern is about the two data elements that I brought up during the conference call. On the annual reports section there is a proposed data element for the IU’s control mechanism’s effective and expiration dates. As I brought up in the conference call, 40 CFR 403.12(i) does not specifically require this information and we are concerned about add ing these specific data elements because the proposed rule is not supposed to be changing current requirements. Also, I have a8

question about 40 CFR 403.12(i)(5). Will there be a way that the approval authority require additional information and for the ap proved POTWs to report that information electronically? **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA is interpreting its exiting regulation at 40 CFR 403.12(i) to include Industrial User (IU) effective and expiration dates. EPA notes that many Regions and States have already been requiring that information as either a way to key the IU facilities to previous lists [see 403.12(i)(1) as well as under 403.12(i)(5)]. It is particularly relevant when the approved POTW programs have reviewed or changed local limits per 40 CFR 122.44(j)( 2)(ii) and the IU permit effective/modification/expiration date information helps demonstrate that the POTW is implementing new local limits. Regarding the last question, “Will there be a way that the approval authority require additional information and for the approved POTWs to report that information electronically,” the final rule only requires electronic reporting of Appendix A data. All other data, non

-Appendix A data, can be submitted on paper to the authorized NPDES program or electronically submitted as attachments to the NPDES forms. EPA’s electronic reporting tools (NetDMR, NeT) are an example of such an arrangement, as they currently allow for electronic attachments (e.g., PDF files, CSV files). The final rule provides flexibility to states to cu stomize their electronic reporting tools to collect additional information beyond the Appendix A requirements. My final comment is about the annual report requirement for listing the months that the SIU is in SNC. I was confused, as SNC is calculated on a quarterly basis. I talked with Al Garcia from Region 8 for more clarification and I understand that this is more for tracking how long before the SIU is in compliance. I think that this data element may confuse some users (as it confused me) and additional explanation that this is for determining how long an SIU is out of compliance and not the actual SNC determination calculation may be needed. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA’s existing report requirements [40 CFR 403.12(i)(3)] require reporting on a “summary of the st atus of Industrial User compliance over the reporting period.” EPA is using the “Listing of Months in SNC” data element to track the months each SIU/CIU is in SNC. It is important to note that this rulemaking does not redefine SNC for the pretreatment prog ram. **E -**  **mail from Grace Scott <SCOTTG@michigan.gov> Tue 3/24/2015 6:42 PM**  During the call we talked about the SIU data and how it will need to be added. Currently, the complete SIU lists (with detailed information) come in with the permit application. An nual reports only describe additions and subtractions. Will it take a full five year permit cycle to fully populate the database or will POTWs and/or states be expected to add all the background SIU information the first year? Certainty, there will a nee d to have at least some SIU info entered initially, but will the bulk of it be required up front or with the permit application? **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA’s existing NPDES permit applications require a full listing of SIU/CIUs [see 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)]. EPA is req uiring authorized NPDES programs to share these data with EPA. EPA is implementing this final rule over five years, which should provide enough time for all authorized NPDES programs to share information on SIU/CIUs in advance of the deadline for the Pretreatment Program Report [403.12(i)], which is five years after the effective date of the final rule.9

**E -**  **mail from Valentin Kouame <** **valentin.kouame@dep.nj.gov >**  **Mon 3/30/2015 11:51 AM** The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is offering the following comments on the data elements for pretreatment electronic reporting following the March 10, 2015 and March 19, 2015 teleconference calls between EPA and the States. Local Limits Adoption Date: The most recent date on which the Control Authori ty has adopted new local limits within the reporting period. **Comment:** This data entry is in conformity with the ICIS data entry. In New Jersey, any local limits developed by a delegated POTW (POTW with an approved pretreatment program) and approved by the NJDEP must be adopted by the POTW’s Board of Commissioners in accorda nce with the local law in order to be incorporated in the POTW’s local Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO) or Rules and Regulations for legal implementation and enforcement. Without that adoption, the local limits are not enforceable. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA has included the “Local Limits Adoption Date” and “Local Limits Evaluation Date” data elements in the final rule. SNC with Pretreatment Standards (Program Report) : This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non

-Significant Categoric al Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU was in Significant Non

- Compliance (SNC) with pretreatment requirements in the reporting period. S NC with Pretreatment Standards Pollutants (Program Report) : This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non

-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) the pollutants that related to the IU’s Significant Non
Compliance (SNC) with pretreatment requirements in the reporting period. SNC with Other Control Mechanism Requirements (Program Report) : This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non

-Significant Categorical Industri al User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU was in Significant Non

Compliance (SNC) with any other control mechanism requirements in the reporting period. **Comment:** 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A) through (H) specify eight (8) specific SNC criteria. The descriptions of data elements for SNC are grouped into four (4) groups which are not consistent with the existing ICIS Pretreatment data entry for SNC criteria grouping, and the existing SNC criteria grouping n oted on page PCA
- 14 , Section I.F.3.a of the EPA’s Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist. In order to avoid any confusion and ensure consistency in the pretreatment data reporting, the NJDEP recommends two (2) options for the data elements for SNC criteria grouping: Option 1 (similar to ICIS Data Entry):

 SNC with pretreatment standards pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A), (B), (C), (D), and (H),
 SNC with reporting requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(F) and (G)
 SNC with pretreatment compliance schedule(s) pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(E)10

Option 2 (similar to Pretreatment Audit Checklist)

 SNC with applicable pretreatment standards and other reporting pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A), (B), (C), (D), (G), and (H),
 SNC with s elf

- monitoring requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(F)
 SNC with pretreatment compliance schedule(s) pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(E) In addition, the NJDEP recommends that a reference citation be included with each SNC criteria grouping. **EPA RESPONSE:**  EPA will work with states to identify the possible reference values for these four data elements: SNC with Pretreatment Standards or Limits (Program Report), SNC with Pretreatment Standards or Limits Pollutants (Program Report), SNC with Reportin g Requirements (Program Report), and SNC with Other Control Mechanism Requirements (Program Report). EPA will also develop training and guidance on how to properly report these data elements. Industrial User Biosolids Contamination Indicator (Program Report) : This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU), Dental Industrial User (DIU), and Non

-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the Industrial User caused or contributed to any problems with the receiving POTW’ s biosolids in the previous reporting period. EPA regulations require the Control Authority to develop and enforce local limits when the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any problems (e.g., pass

-through or interference) at the receiving POTW. POTW Biosolids Contamination Indicator (Program Report) : A unique code/description that identifies whether there have been any problems (e.g., pass

-through or interference) with the receiving POTW’s biosolids within the reporting period. **Comment:** These two data elements noted above include the pass

-through prohibition. The definition of pass -through under 40 CFR 403.3(p) does not involve an inhibition or disruption of the POTW’s sludge processes, or the prevention of the POTW’s chosen sludge management, rat her a discharge exiting the POTW’s treatment plant without treatment and causing a violation of the POTW’s NPDES permit. Therefore, these two data elements should be based on the interference prohibition in accordance with the General Pretreatment Regulati ons, 40 CFR 403.3(k), which includes the prohibition of inhibition or disruption of the POTW’s sludge processes, use or management. Thus, references to pass

-through should be removed. In addition, as mentioned by some callers, the definitions of the terms pass -through and interference should be included or referenced. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA revised these two data elements to read as follows.

 POTW Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Contamination Indicator (Program Report) : The one or more unique codes/descriptions that identify any problems (e.g., interference with the use or disposal of biosolids or sewage sludge, violation of NPDES permit requirements or EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 503) with the receiving POTW’s biosolids or sewage sludge within the reporting period. S ee 40 CFR 403.3(k). EPA regulations require any Control Authority that must develop a Pretreatment Program also to develop and enforce local limits to ensure that the discharge from an IU does not cause or contribute a disruption of biosolids’ use or dispo sal at the receiving POTW.11

 Industrial User Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Contamination Indicator (Program Report) : The one or more unique codes/descriptions that identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
-Significant Categorical Industrial Us er (NSCIU) whether the Industrial User caused or contributed to any problems (e.g., interference with the use or disposal of biosolids or sewage sludge, violation of NPDES permit requirements or EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 503) with the receiving POTW’s bi osolids or sewage sludge in the previous reporting period. See 40 CFR 403.3(k). EPA regulations require the Control Authority to develop and enforce local limits when the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any problems e.g.at the receiving POTW.