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 ( 5 February 2 01 5 ) [ DCN 0219 ]

**Overview** This was the seventeenth 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 basic facility and permit application 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 questioned whethe r Appendix A should include latitude and longitude metadata. Kentucky and New Jersey representatives state d that EPA should not collect these data
. In the final rule EPA eliminated the metadata but modified the descriptions of the latitude and longitude da ta elements to specify the WGS84 standard coordinate system , which is currently the most comm on reference system.2



###  A representative from Texas noted that a single location is not sufficient to appropriately locate the boundaries of a MS4 entity. EPA noted that the latitude and longitude data elements allow states to “describe the two

- dimensional area (polygon) regulated by a municipal storm sewer system (MS4) .” A representative from Nevada noted that MS4 boundaries change over time. EPA noted that these boundaries can be updated at each NPDES permit application.

 Representatives from Oklahoma and Virginia noted that not all facilities have a business email. In the final rule EPA has accounted for the burden associated with obtaining a business email address.

 A representative from Texas noted that the “ Facility Organization Formal Name” data element should be optional. A representative from A rkansas noted that these are mandatory fields in ICIS

- NPDEs now
. The Arkansas representative noted that it is sometimes difficult to get parent corporations for some facilities.

 Several states requested that they have more control over the “ Permit Termination Date” data element and that this data element not be auto

-generated. A representative from Oklahoma noted that some states may need to take a formal action to terminate an NPDES permit.

 A representative from Oklahoma noted that they would like the ability to manage the
“ Permit Major/Minor Status Indicator” data element. Prior to the final rule this data element was managed by EPA Headquarters. States now have the ability to manage this data element as necessary.

 Representatives from Colorado a nd Tennessee noted that they use the “ Permit Application/NOI Received Date” to track when NPDES permit applications where received by the authorized NPDES program.

 A representative from Alabama had questions about the total design flow and actual average design flow data elements. EPA compared these data elements with the current NPDES application forms and updated the data elements in the final rule
.

 A state representative suggested that we add the value “Denied” for the “ Permit Status” data element.

 A representative from Arkansas noted that the information on the permittee is often the same as i nformation on the facility. In the final rule EPA streamlined the list of data elements in Appendix A and eliminated some of the permit contact information data. EPA retained the permittee mailing address information as some mailing address are different from the physical location of the facility (e.g., P.O. Boxes).3



###  Several state representatives requested flexibility for reporting “SIC Code” and “ NAICS Code” data. In the final rule EPA allowed authorized NPDES programs to report either “SIC Code” or “NAICS Code” data or both types of data. Following 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.
**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

- 5 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

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 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 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 Frances Carpenter <Frances.Carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us>**  **Thu 2/5/2015 3:32 PM** On p. 17 of the clear vision version of Appx. A of the Supplemental Notice, there is a note that excludes data element requirements such as latitude and longitu de and limits for “outfalls without monitoring for stationary point sources”. This exclusion should be modified to read “outfalls without effluent limit monitoring for stationary point sources”. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA has made this edit as requested. Georgia i s aware of two types of storm water outfalls that are monitored but not for effluent limits that should be excluded from the data element reporting of Appx. A: 1) industrial storm water outfalls that have benchmark monitoring like those under EPA’s Multi

-Sector General Permit (MSGP), and 2) monitoring of MS4 outfalls in relation to impaired waterbodies and TMDLs. Neither of these types of monitoring is effluent limit monitoring, and there are no violations associated with any monitoring results obtained. In both case the purpose of the monitoring is to assess the effectiveness of the best management practices (BMPs) employed and determine if better BMPs are needed. Thanks for your consideration. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA disagrees with the commenter. There are many outfalls, including industrial stormwater outfalls, have require ments for monitoring but not effluent limits. EPA’s data systems allow for the proper distinctions between outfalls with effluent limits and t hose without. EPA finds that gathering effluent monitoring data on outfalls without effluent limits is helpful to assess the magnitude of pollutant discharges and the performance of controls at the permitted facility. **E -**  **mails from**  **Lawrence Bunting <**  **Lawrenc e.Bunting@tn.gov** **> Thu 2/5/2015 5:18 PM**  Thanks for coordination of the conference calls. Following is my commentary on the things brought up on the call. This i s just FYI for EPA to consider. 1. Locational information Required information provides relatively little value to the process. To be honest, whatever information coming in to the regulatory agency from the public needs to have someone ground

-truth it before it can be trusted anyway. Trusting the permittee’s information is how we get permits for TN in Illinois or the Pacific Ocean.

• Source Map Scale Number,
• Horizontal Accuracy Measure,
• Horizontal Collection Method,
• Horizontal Reference Datum,
• Reference Point
These are important to GIS. But the values depend on the GIS tool, GPS instrument or p aper map used to get a latitude and longitude. Most permit holders will either use a GPS or get it from internet mapping8

or whatever web GIS tool the EPA/state provides for finding the location. These fields put an unnecessary hurdle in front of the applicant to try to figure out this required information. If state/EPA is providing on

- line tool, the GIS behind the tool should handle this and it will probably be available if on

line applications are developed. However, if the applicant in on their own to ind ependently come up with the information, it is asking too much. I would prefer to get lat/long and a pick list for how it was done (GPS, on

- line mapping, paper map, provided by regulatory staff, other) and perhaps a verification field for regulatory program staff to confirm verification of the location. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA has specified the use of the WGS84 standard coordinate system for latitude and longitude data elements. EPA is not requiring the submission of the location metadata (e.g., Source Map Scale Number). 2. Facility Site Name vs Facility Organization Formal Name vs Permittee Organizational Formal Name Important data are what it at the physical site and who is operating the site. The name and addresses in Appendix A have a Facility Site Name, bu t also have the Permittee Organizational Formal Name and the Facility Organizational Formal Name. Form 1 currently has a Facility, a Facility Mailing Address, Facility location address and an Operator with address. To TN the “site” is a physical location where activity is being regulated and TN cares because we have to know what is at that place. We care about the permittee who is operating the treatment/discharge. From this, I can use the Facility Site Name and address and the Permittee Organizational For mal Name and TN can do a pretty good job of keeping up with the data. But Facility Organization Formal Name becomes a bit more questionable to me as a required field. It’s not be something the state regulatory agency is will be able to track very well. If on the application, it will get updated to whatever the permit applicant submits to us. When a company merges, has a site’s operations put under a holding company in Ohio, then ends up sold and transferred to a separate company in Atlanta, the state regul ators often don’t hear about all that. The water program just gets information to the effect that we need to change Nu

- Foam plant in Chattanooga to Advanced Foam Products. Changes to business entities are recorded within TN at the Secretary of State’s offi ce, but there is no mechanism for the changed information to transfer to the regulatory agency tied to a particular permit. What is intended by the Facility Organization Formal Name and who is expected to QA/QC the data? Once the data is entered, how will it be kept up

-to
-date? It may be nice to have the field available, but is this going to be the business name at the time of application that no one needs to worry about again until the next application? **EPA RESPONSE:** In the final rule EPA included the “Fa cility Organization Formal Name” data element in Appendix A. This data element is submitted on the NPDES permit application and can be useful to identify different facilities operated by the same corporation. 3. Expired permits, Termination, Un

-terminatio n The states need to have a process to “un

-terminate” permits. In TN, we have a process for termination of permits that includes public notice. It would probably not be a good idea to terminate them in ICIS if they have not been terminated in the state. We do not have an issue with leaving expired permits as9

expired. There is a data quality issue where permits that should be administratively continued are left as expired by mistake. But the solution to us is not to automatically terminate, but to consider t he expired permit as just that
– expired. TN would prefer to not automatically terminate permits that are expired after a period of time, particularly if we have no easy, pragmatic option to un

-terminate. **EPA RESPONSE:** In the final rule EPA has deleted th e note that permits could be ‘auto

-terminated.’ EPA will rely on states and Regions to decide when to terminate NPDES permits. 4. Permit application total design flow This needs better definition. For a sewage plant the design flow for TN is flow of wate r that needs to be processed (whether influent or re

- use). It is not necessarily the same as the discharge flow. For a stormwater structure, it is the amount of water the structure is designed to provide some treatment for. All re

- use in TN is at larger fa cilities and we are a wet enough state that it really doesn’t matter to us. But it sounds like some states have concerns about this being one of the determining factors for the classification of “Major”. **EPA RESPONSE:** In the final rule EPA has updated the description of the following data element to read, “Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow: This is the annual average daily flow rate that a permitted facility will likely accommodate at the start of its permit term, in MGD. This is only required for wastewater treatment plants.” TN would not object to being delegated on the “Major” designation or not. TDEC has had some difficulties getting ratings changed in the past as the other states on the call indicated. In the past, the information provided was that the definition in 40 CFR 122.2 requires the Regional Administrator and therefore, EPA had to make the call, not the states. **EPA RESPONSE:** In the final rule EPA has provided authorized states NPDES programs with the ability to change the “Permit Maj or/Minor Status Indicator.” 4. Permit Name and Address TN agrees with Dave Apanian that the permit name and address should have a contact person. We have had problems with permit name not being what we call the permit elsewhere
– “Bubba Johnson” could be i n ICIS
- NPDES while our permit is issued to “Shiny Star Car Wash.” It makes things confusing and we would prefer to have place for both permittee and contact under the permit information in ICIS. **EPA RESPONSE:** In the final rule EPA has streamlined the list of data elements in Appendix A. This included deleting the permittee contact name as other states noted this is often the same as the facility contact. 5. Application Design Flow OR DESIGN VOLUME In contrast to the Total Design Flow above, this should really be defined to be the designed DISCHARGE flow a permitted feature is designed to accommodate. Where design is not based on flow, it may represent a volume or other basis. **EPA RESPONSE:** In the final rule EPA has modified the following data element as follows: “Permit Application Total Design Flow: This is the design flow rate that a permitted facility was designed to10

accommodate, in millions of gallons per day (MGD). This is only required for wastewater trea tment plants.” If the “Major” category is to be based on water discharged, the addition of the flows for permitted features that are outfalls to the environment may be a better way to go than the treatment capacity above. **EPA RESPONSE:** This final rule does not change how EPA defines “major” facilities. 6. New fields for POTW Treatment Technology to be included on application Application forms will need to be revised. Is the 10 MGD flow mentioned a design flow? Permit feature discharge design flow summation? Historic average actual flow? Average influent flow? Needs to be defined so everyone is certain. **EPA RESPONSE:** EPA solicited comment in the supplemental notice to the proposed to include a few data elements from the “Clean Watersheds Survey,” which is con ducted in response to Sections 205(a) and 516 of the Clean Water Act. In the final rule, EPA included the following data elements:

• POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Level Description This data element describes the level of wastewater treatment technology [e.g., raw discharge (no treatment), primary treatment, secondary wastewater treatment, advanced treatment] used at the facility. This data element only applies to POTWs. Source: 122.21(j)(3)(iii), 122.28(b)(2)(ii) and CWA Section 516

• 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 disinfection). 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. Source: 122.21(j)(3)(iii), 122.28(b)(2)(ii)

• POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Unit Operations The one or more unique codes/descriptions that describe the wastewater treatment technology unit operations (e.g., grit removal, flow equalization, complete mix activated sludge secondary treatment, trickling filter, facultative lagoon, biologi cal nitrification) used at the facility. This data element is required for POTWs that have a design flow capacity equal to or above 10 million gallons per day (MGD) and is optional for POTWs with a design flow capacity below 10 MGD. Source: 122.21(j)(2)(ii )(A), 122.28(b)(2)(ii) and CWA Section 516
In a separate rulemaking, EPA will update the NPDES application forms to conform with Appendix A. 7. Stay Limit Value If we include a new pollutant parameter into a permit that gets appealed, there will be no previous permit limit to fall back on. We agree with Dave Ramsey on the stay limit value may need to be allowed to be null for some situations.11

**EPA RESPONSE:** This final rule does not change how EPA addresses limits with a stay. 8. Permit Status TDEC would like to have a permit status for “Denial” or “Denied” so that a record with NPDES number can be created for a permit denial. The “Retired” is something I’ve never really understood. “Not Needed” may do for someone who applies and then withdraws an application or goes out of business before anything happens. But if we have to get application, act on it, hold public meetings, etc. and then deny that permit, there really needs to be a way to reflect that action in ICIS. Right now if permit is denied and not issue d, we delete the record and it disappears from ICIS as if it never happened. I would like to deny permits and show it in ICIS. It would be nice to have date for denial as well, but a denial status and notes in the comments would probably be just fine since they are rare. **EPA RESPONSE:** The final rule includes the value of “Denied” for the “Permit Status” data element as requested. **Fri 2/6/2015 10:18 AM** Here are my thoughts on the Complete Permit Application Receive Date and the Permit Application Received Date. Our process is that an application comes in, gets evaluated by regulatory staff who will make the judgment that it is incomplete or complete. If incomplete, notification is made to the applicant and a revised application is expected. The process may have several iterations. Once an application is judged complete, TN (and some other states) have a time clock start which tracks compliance with timely issuance goals. For states that have to do manual data entry, there is extra work to enter both the App lication Received Date and the Complete Application Received Date. However, once implementation is made for electronic submittals, a Permit Application Received Date will just be a computer

-generated date stamp that does not require any extra human data en try effort. The regulatory agency will still have to review application materials and make a determination whether the application is complete or not. Where the application is complete, the completion date will be the only data entry provided by the regula tory staff. If the application is not complete, there will probably be further tracking within a state system for the initial submittal date, the notification of the incomplete application, and a date(s) for corrected/amended/re

-corrected application was received. There will be multiple received dates. Therefore, a decision needs to be made on which received date is used for an Application Received Date in ICIS
- NPDES. My preference would be the date of the initial successful application submittal to the e lectronic report system. There is some risk of an applicant turning in a “place

- holder” application that is obviously deficient and known to be deficient when the applicant turns it in. In the electronic submittals, there will probably be sufficient valida tions within the process to block an entirely bogus application. The other situation is where a permit writer needs more detail dealing with a specific situation for the site or treatment process. The initial application simply did not include information the permit writer needs. That information may be something that a permit applicant, through no fault of their own, has not realized is needed. **EPA RESPONSE:** In the final rule EPA included the following two data elements in the final rule.12

• Complete Permit Application/NOI Received Date : This is the date on which the complete application for an individual NPDES permit was received or a complete Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under a master general permit was received. 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 can be system generated when the complete NOI is electronically received by the NPDES program. Source: 122.21, 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 403.10(f)
• Permit Application/NOI Rece ived Date : This is the date on which the application for an individual NPDES permit was received or a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under a master general permit was received. 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 can be system generated when the NPDES permit application or NOI is electronically received by the NPDES program. Source: 122.21, 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 403.10(f) **E -**  **mail from David**  **Ramsey <**  **RAMSEY@adeq.state.ar.us >**  **Fri 2/6/2015 3:14 PM** During yesterday’s ACWA/ECOS Technical Workgroup call regarding Basic Facility and Permit Data, I told you that I would send you written comments addressing the last sentence in the Data Description for the Permit Termination Date (“This data element can be system generated when the permittee does not file a permit renewal application.”) My notes from the previous call showed that the way this process would work would be “determined later”. So I was curious if you had looked into the issue. At what point in time in relation to the permit expiration date might system generated permit termination occur. I believe that ICIS

- NPDES currently changes the Permit Status from “Effective” to “Expired” ninety (90) days following the Expiration Date. Currently, if a permit is terminated in ICIS

NPDES, the regulatory agency must request that the USEPA HQ staff “Un

-Terminate” the permit. The amount of time that it takes for USEPA HQ to “Un

-Terminate” a permit is variable. If a permit remains terminated and a new permit is issued using a different NPDES ID, the link to the previous permit history could be lost. Also, I’m not sure how I would know when the system

-generated termination took place. Would some sort of notification be sent to the permittee and the regulatory agency? If a permittee has not submitted a renewal application/NOI within 180 days prior to expiration, ADEQ sends a letter to the permittee warning them that their pe rmit or permit coverage may be canceled (terminated). In most cases a letter is sent to the permittee notifying them that the permit has been canceled and any discharge is a violation of applicable laws. One possible solution recommended is that States, Tribes, etc. be allowed to “Un

-Terminate” permits. Another possible solution I heard was to make system

-generated termination to be an optional feature available to the States, Tribes, etc. Another possible solution is to remove the system

-generated terminat ion statement from the description and shelve the idea. Colorado mentioned that some expired permits never get terminated under the current regulations, so they do not want the permits automatically terminated (unless the regulations change). I agree and s uggested adding a new Permit Status (e.g. “Expired without Renewal”) so that these permits might be dropped from USEPA counts (e.g. State Framework Review), reflect the current regulations, and stop logging needless violations. If you have any questions, please contact me.13

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the data elements in Appendix A of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Supplemental Notice. **EPA RESPONSE:** In the final rule EPA has deleted the note that permits could be ‘auto

-terminated.’ EPA will rely on states and Regions to decide when to terminate NPDES permits. **E -**  **mails from Christy**  **Monk <**  **CVM@adem.state.al.us >**  **Wed 2/11/2015 1:42 PM** During last week’ s discussion of basic facility and permit information, I forgot to bring up an issue we have regarding the data elements for “Permit Application Total Design Flow” and “Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow”
. These data elements actually only appear on EPA Form 2A (see below), which is used for municipal wastewater treatment facilities. For industrial sources, EPA Forms 2C/2D ask for average flow from each outfall, but it is never given on a facility

-wide/per mit basis. I guess my comment is, those two data elements have historically only been meaningful for municipal wastewater treatment facilities.

**EPA RESPONSE:** In the final rule EPA has limited the “Permit Application Total Design Flow” and “Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow” to wastewater treatment plants. **Thu 2/12/2015 11:32 AM** In looking at it further, I don’t know that any language changes are ne cessary. The fact that the description for data elements both states “as state on its NPDES application” really narrows it down to municipal wastewater facilities because the fields only appear on Form 2A. If EPA is not changing its Forms 2C or 2D, the arg ument can be made that those data elements don’t apply to industrial and commercial sources. **EPA RESPONSE:** See previous response. This image cannot currently be displayed.