# NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule **Analysis F: Program Reports**

1 5 September 2010

DCN 00221 **TABLE OF CONTENTS Page**  1.0 O VERVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 2 2.0 B IOSOLIDS M ANAGEMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ . 11 3.0 S EWER O VERFLOW REPORTING (INCLUDING S AT ELLITE S YSTEMS )

................................ .. 23 4.0 C ONCENTRATED A NIMAL F EEDING OPERATIONS (CAFO S )

................................ ............... 35 5.0 M UNICIPAL S EPARATE S TORMWATER S EWER S YSTEMS (MS4 S )

................................ ....... 43 6.0 P RETREATMENT P ROGRAM ................................ ................................ ................................ 49 Appendix A Analy sis F Team Members2

**1.0 O**  **VERVIEW** 1.1 Background On 15 October 2009, the Agency issued the Clean Water Act Action Plan , which sets forth a series of commitments by the Agency

to revamp its NPDES enforcement program. 1 A major commitment from the Action Plan is to improve management and performance of the NPDES program b y requiring electronic reporting of NPDES information from regulated facilities. EPA is developing a rulemaking, NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (RIN: 2020

- AA47), to solicit input and formalize the requirements for electronic reporting. Electroni c reporting will likely

reduce the burden for facilities to report to regulatory agencies and for states to report to EPA. Expected benefits include lower processing costs for facilities and states, improved data quality and accuracy, greater data accessib ility and transparency

for the public, and an increased ability

to target and address noncompliance that will improve and protect water quality

. Compliance for most NPDES program components is not solely based on the submission of discharge monitoring rep orts (DMRs). NPDES program compliance is also assessed b y inspections and the state or EPA Region’s review of periodic or incident based reports from permittees. These non

- DMR reports (also known as “program reports”) are required under EPA’s regulations and provide an update to program implementation items beyond what is included in the permit application or permit issuance process . Assessing compliance status for these NPDES program components may be difficult and often requires significant resources. Thi s document focuses on the current requirements for program reports and the recommended options for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. This document was prepared b y a set of subject matter experts from EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Office of Water. See Appendix A. This document focuses on the NPDES sectors that use program reports to assess compliance. These sectors are listed in the table below.

**Table 1 -**  **1: Approximate Universe of NPDES Regulated Entities**  **NPDES Program Element**  **Approximate Number of Regulated Entities**  **Data Source** Biosolids Generators 14,780 Clean Watershed Needs Survey, 2008 CAFOs (75% are likely to require permitting) 19,000 2008 CAFO Rulemaking (73 FR 70418) Com bined Sewer Systems 800 EPA Office of Water Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems 7,300 EPA Office of Water Pretreatment Programs (Approved) 1,600 PCS & ICIS

-NPDES Separate Sewer Systems (including satellite systems) 20,000 EPA Office of Water **Note:** These estimates are not mutually exclusive ( e.g. , POTWs are regulated as biosolids generators and may have an approved pretreatment program). Additionally, the pretreatment program controls discharges from approximately 20,000 significant industrial users , which pretreatment programs are required to list and rep ort to their approval authority

.
1 These commitments are documented in the 8 November 2009, “Implementation Approach for the CWA Enforcement Action Plan”. This document and other key CWA Enforcement Action Plan documents are available at EPA ’s Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) . [Av ailable at: http://www.epa

- otis.gov/ ].3

This document presents a preliminary anal ys is of the overall feasibility and utility

of electronic program reports received d irectl y from NPDES permittees. Some gen eral findings on the current collection and management of data from program reports include:

 Program reports are not standardized across regulatory programs and are generall y managed in hard

- cop y formats

.  State and EPA personnel derive summary statistics from these program reports (e.g., total number of significant industrial users for a control authority) and enter these summary data into PCS and I CI S

- NPDES. Consequently , PCS and I CI S

- NPDES do not generall y contain facilit y specific information for a wide range of NPDES program sectors.  In consistencies in program report data entry results in inaccurate reporting on these program sectors.  The PCS and I CI S

- NPDES data derived from these program reports provide a limited view of who is regulated and their comp liance status. This document answers a set of questions for each NPDES sector that relies on program reports. These questions were developed with input by subject matter experts from OECA, OW, and Regions. This document also highlights recommended options for converting the collection and processing of program reports from paper to electronic. 1.2 Benefits and Challenges There are a number of potential benefits to the permittees, regulatory authorities, and the federal government. The following ta ble describes some of the benefits of electronicall y collecting program report data from regulated entities.

**Table 1 -**  **2: Potential Benefits of Program Report Electronic Data Collection**  **Benefit Description**  **Benefactor CWA Plan**  **Goal Met** Decreased Burden on All Parties • Decreased burden on permittee to print, mail, and track/store reports.

• Decreased burden on regulatory authority to receive reports, archive reports, and execute data entry related to reports. All Stakeholders Yes

Increased Accuracy of Data Allowing the permittee to enter the data online removes all intermediate steps and resources from the process, reducing the chance for error and provides permittee with immediate notification of data entry errors . All Stakeholders Yes

Reusable Solution The open platform model, discussed below , leverages e xisting third

- party software and avoids “re

- inventing the wheel” costs

. All Stakeholders Yes Reduced Redundancy in Data Storage I ncorporating program report data from other systems reduces the resource s spent on maintaining duplicate systems for very similar functionality

. Public, Regulatory Authority Yes4 **Table 1 -**  **2: Potential Benefits of Program Report Electronic Data Collection**  **Benefit Description**  **Benefactor CWA Plan**  **Goal Met** Increased Transparency of the Process By submitting and tracking data in an online tool, the mystery of tracking paperwork and storing the physical p apers is removed. The Program Reports wo uld be stored online in secure environments. Public, Regulatory Authority Yes

Meeting the data collection needs of the State as well as Federal Regulators • Allowing States to have standard fields that can have labels customized will reduce the needs of states to develop their own tool to meet their additional needs.

• Allowing data to flow into the State systems that have nodes will permit flexibility of the tool for state use as well as federal use. Regulatory Authority Yes

Standardized processes and data collection for some program reports These program r eports could be standardized at a national level. Federal Government Yes

Real

- time data flows Providing data and results in real time to and from ICIS instead of lon g wait times associated with mailing in forms will increase usability of the tool. All Stakeholders Yes Increased data security Migrating away from paper

- based reporting and towards electronic reporting will enable regulated entities to securely back

- up their data offsite. This can protect import data from such events as fires and floods. 2 All Stakeholders Yes

Im proved Asset Management Migrating away from paper

- based recordkeeping and reporting and towards electronic data management will help POTWs and m

unicipalities better identify the causes and factors that inhibit their environmental performance. In particular, using third

- party commercial software with electronic reporting can help POTWs and municipalities better manage their infrastructure capital a ssets to minimize the total cost of owning and operating them, while delivering the service levels customers desire. All Stakeholders Yes

Standard technology

project challenges and risks will apply to converting paper

- based program reports to electronic

- based reporting. Table 1

- 3 lists the specific challenges that must be taken into consideration for this effort.

2 For example, on 30 April 2010 the Warwick Sewer Authority POTW was completely inundated with floodwaters and lost all of their paper records. They had previous backed up all of their records offsite through a commer cial software vendor and lost no data when they re

- started their operations.5 **Table 1 -**  **3: Potential Challenges of Program Report Electronic Data Collection**  **Challenge Description**  **Affected Party** Each program report requires custom coding Each program report will require custom coding, even if a tool such as Adobe Livecycle is employed. When im plementing such a tool , careful attention will need to be paid to implementing in such a way that addition of new reports is made as efficient as possible. Federal Government

Variability in state reports and requirements In addition to the federal program reports requirements, the states may have their own requirements that could be constantly evolving. Managing these changes through user defined fields and creating labels for these fields could be difficult. If state changes exceed the number of user defined fields, additional problems would arise. In addition, training for individual states could be demanding if training mate rials are not updated with each user defined field change. Regulatory Authority, Federal Government

Association of program reports and DMRs Some program reports require concurrent submittal of DMR data. DMR data are currently gathered by NetDMR
. NetDMR al so gathers attachments of program reports. Coordination/integration between the two systems will need to be performed. All Stakeholders

Flowing data to States States would need Exchange Network nodes to receive data from a national tool. The state would also need to maintain the node. If states do not have nodes, they would not be able to receive any data into their own systems from the national tool. Regulatory Authority

Standardized processes and data collection for Pretreatment Reporting Due to the vo lume and variance in pretreatment program reports among states and federal requirements, standardization may not be feasible immediately. Data analysis and pretreatment stakeholder work groups would help facilitate the agreement on processes and data that could be standardized in a national tool. Regulatory Authority, Federal Government Development of real

- time batch data flows Currently, there are no federal EPA NPDES systems that have a real

- time batch data flow from application to CDX to ICIS and back. Given the level of integration and requirement that all systems be available 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, additional complexity is introduced

. Federal Government

Coordination with third

- party commercial software vendors EPA does not currently have a formal governance structure to work with third

- party commercial software vendors

. Federal Government6

1.3 General Approach for Converting Paper

- based Program Reports to Electronic Data Collection In short, the concept is to modify existing paper based reports that permittees must submit to authorized states and EPA per existing federal regulations as follows: 1. Id entify

candidate program reports that are practical to standardize and electronically process, and have important value to the compliance and e nforcement program. 2. Id entify

the required data elements for each program report. This step should also identify how states can add their own unique set of data elements to the national form, including document attachments (e.g. PDF) , as needed. 3. Establish procedures consistent with the Exchange Network that will enable regulated entities to submit their program report data with any state addendums. 4. Test the deplo ym ent of the program report data collection in a phased approach. This may mean focusing on one sector initially to identify

problems prior to full scale deploy ment. 5. Develop standardized, web

- accessible queries that build off of program report data to better demonstrate who is regulated b y the NPDES program and how EPA and state programs can evaluate and improve the effectiveness of their compliance activities. 1.4 Proposed Tools for Electronic Data Collection The Team examined the different NPDES sectors that rely on program reports for demonstrating compliance. Over time EPA has added sectors to the NPDES permit program that do not necessarily

have an individual NPDES permit with monitored discharge . The approximate number of regulated entities helps explain why EPA and states have developed their permitting and compliance activities for each NPDES pro gram element (e.g., small MS4s are most often controlled through general permits)

. As documented in this report there are important differences between the NPDES sectors that rely on program reports. These differences can include number of regulated entiti es, range of regulatory

knowledge between electronic data reporters (e.g., the ty pical CAFO electronically reporting to EPA will likely have less interaction with EPA or state enforcement programs); and different t ypes of regulatory structures and permits (e.g., Federal pretreatment authority can be delegated to the State and to local governments, some program reports are managed through general permits). Consequently , there will likely not be one national tool to meet the needs for all NPDES sectors that r el y on program reports for demonstrating compliance. The Team investigated different tools for each NPDES sector. These discussions are found in the sections below

. The Team also noted that POTWs are providing multiple different reports to EPA and the states. These include four of the six NPDES sectors identified in Table 1

- 1: (1) b iosolids g enerators , (2) co mbined s ewer s ys tems , (3) pretreatment programs, and (4) s eparate s ewer sy stems. The Team also noted that there are existing third

- part y commercial so ftware vendors that provide tools for POTWs to manage their operational and environmental compliance data. Therefore an electronic data collection tool that i s integrated into a third

- party commercial software tool might provide an integrated and easier me thod for POTWs to electronically provide EPA with program report data. As discussed in more detail below, the Team identified7

two business models for developing an electronic reporting tool, which is the user interface for inputting data. These two busines s models are not mutually exclusive . B oth can be developed to accommodate the different NPDES program sectors and the different needs of regulated entities. Additionally , both models will need to conduct similar tasks in defining how the data will be migrated from the regulated entity into ICIS

- NPDES. The following tasks can be used to support both business models. Both models will need to e stablish the procedures consistent with the Exchange Network that will enable permittees to submit the ir Federal progr am report data with an option to allow state addendums. The two models will also need to create an Extensible Markup Language (XML) schema for each program report that feeds data into IC IS

- NPDES

. T he data element crosswalk for each program report should be harmonized with the EPA's Environmental Data Standard (EDSC) and Exchange Network. Development of this crosswalk might include the following tasks:

 Link data element names with the EDSC to ensure that the data element naming and definition are consistent with the EDSC standards.

 Link the data elements with the EPA's Shared Schema Components (SCC) to select/reuse current SCC to form the building blocks for the XML schema. In some cases, there might be a need to extend the current SCCs to accommodate new dat a elements based on the Exchange Network XMLschema design guidelines.

 Create a XML schema with schema documentation. Create a schema conformance report and submit it to the Exchange Network Network Technical Group (NTG) to be approved and adopted as the s tandard for future data flow schema

. Th ese steps will help support both business models and will help prepare EPA Regions and states to share program r eport data with EPA via the Centralized Data Exchange (CDX). EPA will also need to develop the Flow Confi guration Documents (FCD) for defining how EPA Regions, states, and facilities will share program report data via the Exchange Network node protocols and the CDX. A FCD is intended to define the supported data services and processes that are used to exchang e information. This document will identify the entity responsible for reporting each data element, how this data will be transmitted to EPA (e.g., web

based submission, network submission, web services) and whether the submissions will be from an EPA built electronic collection tool or an open platform (third party commercial software vendor tool). This document will also describe an y software or information technology needed to complete these program reports and show how the standardized program report dat a compl y with CROMERR

. 1.4.1 Closed Platform Model (EPA Built Tool) This model relies on EPA to build and maintain an electronic reporting tool. This model has the benefits of EPA controlling all aspects of electronic data collection and offering this tool to regulated entities at no cost. The challenges for this tool woul d be the costs for EPA to build8

and maintain this tool, market the tool, and provide customer support. EPA’s netDMR is an example of this ty

pe of tool for electronic data collection. 3 1.4.2 Open Platform Model (Third Party Commercial Software Vendors) This model involves partnering with commercial software vendors in order to lower the burden for facilities to report program report data. The open platform model is based on the IRS model for collection and transmission of tax data. See Figure 1

- 1.

**Figure 1**  **- 1:**  Schematic of IRS Open Platform Model for Collecting Tax Data Similar to the IRS sy stem EPA’s open platform ‘e

- File’ sy stem would rely on third

- part y commercial software vendors to provide the user interface with the regulated community . EPA’s open pl atform model would also specify how these third

- part y commercial software vendors would share program report data with EPA and the states through the Central Data Exchange and the Environmental Information Exchange Network. There are man y benefits to the open platform model as compared to an EPA built and maintained sy stem (closed platform sy stem). These business benefits include:

 Through open market competition vendors will strive to develop software that is eas y, user friendl y, provide additional suppo rt, and integrate with other data management sy stems.  Vendors will improve and maintain the software. This will shift some of the costs of development to the regulatory community

(removing the burden and cost from the EPA and states).  Vendors are generall y expert s in the fields in which they develop software; they

work in the regulated community everyday and understand the reporting needs of their clients. Vendors have a stake in client satisfaction.  Vendors are likel y to compete with one another through t iered services, which will keep costs lower for those who want minimum data management and reporting capabilities. This open platform model also builds on the “good government” recommendations from the recent White House Forum on Modernizing Government. 4 Inparticular, the report from this

3 See http://www. epa.gov/netdmr/9

forum strongl y encourages Federal agencies to “consider available technology solutions before defaulting to costly , long

- term sy stem development efforts.” Finall y, this model will lead to faster adoption of new software and technologies because commercial software vendors are likely to be more adaptable to new information technology requirements (e.g., new PC operating sy stems). The environmental benefits of such new requirements include lower processing costs for facil ities and states, improved data qualit y completeness and accuracy, greater data accessibility and transparency

for the public, and an increased ability to target and address noncompliance that will improve and protect the environment through shifting of re sources from information technology

tool development. EPA will need to have appropriate controls on commercial software vendors. These controls will ensure that commercial software vendors are correctl y and appropriatel y collecting the required data elements and correctl y sharing this data with EPA and the states through the Central Data Exchange and the Environmental Information Exchange Network. These controls may include:

 Standards, Guidelines, and Procedures: EPA will identify standards (exchange s, schema design guidelines and conventions), CROMERR procedures, and other protocols to ensure the Agency is clear on what data it expects from the third

- part y sy stem and how it expects to get this data.  Monitor Development: EPA will need to iteratively c heck in with third

- party software vendors to ensure that adoption of EPA’s open platform sy stem is not going off course.  "Certify " or Approve software: Once the software is in final testing or completed testing, EPA will review and “certify” the software a s meeting EPA’s requirements. The EPA workgroup will ensure that the third

- party software is receives CROMERR review and approval from the TRC and NTG review and approval of the schema adopted b y the third

- party software vendor. EPA may wish to formalize this governance structure in a policy memo with a technical workgroup

. EPA management should provide oversight and signatory approval. 1.4.3 CROMERR Compliance EPA will need to ensure that both the closed model (EPA built tools) and open model (third party

commercial software) includes the appropriate identity - proofing, authentication, and encry ption standards for demonstrating compliance with Cross

- Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR). EPA will need to show how the program report data from the user front end tool will identify the name of the responsible official attesting to the accuracy of the submission and how this official is subject to criminal sanctions for misreporting or other fraud.

4 See http://www. whitehouse.gov/omb/modernizing_government

.10

1.5 Potential Hy

brid Approach For Any

Regulated E ntities Exempt from Electronic Reporting EPA may exempt some regulated entities from electronic reporting. The following sections provide some recommendations on whether an y regulated entities should be exempt from electronic reporting. The Team recommend s that EPA use current technology to convert paper - based standardized forms to electronic data if EPA does exempt some regulated entities from electronic reporting. Current technology allows for regulated entities to provide their data on paper - based forms that allow for eas y conversion to electronic data. In particular, Optical Character Recognition (OCR) scanning s ys tems allow for regulated entities that are exempt from electronic reporting to send their program data to EPA on standardized forms that can be read b y OCR scanning s ys tems. These s ys tems take scanned images and use computer software to recognize the shapes of printed or handwritten characters such as numbers and letters and store them as computer

readable data. Using this business model, EPA would require exempt regulated entities to use standardized forms, available via EPA’s website, to hand record their data. These regulated entities would then send their completed standardized forms to an EPA central location. EPA would then use its OCR scanning equipment to read the data from these completed forms and transmit this data to I CI S

- NPDES. EPA would establish record retention procedures for the paper forms and retain the scanned versions of these forms permanently

. Using OCR scanning sy stems would reduce the burden on those regulated entities identified by

EPA as not capable of performing electronic reporting, while also providing EPA, states, and the public with the benefits of electronically managing and reporting program data

.11

**2.0 B**  **IOSOLIDS M**  **ANAGEMENT 2.1**  **Overview** Wastewater treatment necessaril y produces at least two end products: effluent and sewage sludge. Other end products include methane and other gases for energy and water for reuse. All wastewate r generated in homes, businesses, industries, and other venues that is conveyed to wastewater treatment plants is treated to allow effluent discharges or beneficial uses. Sewage or wastewater is likewise treated at POTWs to generate sewage sludge for benef icial use or disposal. Sludge treatment usually involves a variet y of processes (e.g., aerobic or anaerobic microbial degradation, time and temperature, high pH, lime stabilization and dewatering ). Both effluent and sewage sludge require treatment to ensure that their release into the environment is protective of human health and the environment as required b y the Clean Water Act (CWA). The ability to effectivel y treat and return wastewater and sewage sludge to the environment in a protective manner is of p aramount importance from both a public health and an environmental perspective. 5 Without proper controls biosolids can present health hazards and cause water quality impairments

. Based upon the recentl y released 2008 CWNS Report to Congress, there are no w only 14,780 POTWs, which would represent an updated universe of sewage sludge (biosolids) generators. Note that the same, (updated with more accurate data from the states) more recent 2008 CWNS Report to Congress indicates that the 14,780 POTWs serve 73. 7% of the U.S. population (226,302,213) and treat over 32.345 billion gallons of wastewater

. In almost equal amounts these biosolids are either beneficiall y re - used ( e.g. , agriculture amendments) or disposed ( e.g. , municipal landfill, incineration). This number will continue to increase with population growth and more stringent treatment requirements (e.g. nutrient removal)

. The most recent national survey estimated that over seven million tons (dry weight) of biosolids were nationally generated b y POTWs in 2004

. 6 Additionally , the management of the septage removed from the numerous onsite/decentralized treatment s ys tems is also covered b y the Part 503 requirements. EPA’s biosolids regulations (40 CFR 503) also regulate biosolids incinerators. There are ap proximately 112 biosolids incinerators. 7 Sections 307 and 405 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) set the statutory framework for regulating sewage sludge (“biosolids”). EPA has established a protective regulatory framework to manage the use and disposal of biosolids at 40 CFR Part 503. These are minimum requirements for the safe management of biosolids. EPA used joint authority under RCRA, CAA, and the CWA to establish the Part 503 requirements in 1993. Part 503 is a “self implementing” rule , which means that all entities producing biosolids are regulated whether or not these requ irements are included in a permit. This means that all POTWs and operators managing septage wastewater are regulated b y Part 503.

5 National Research Council, 2002. “Biosolids Applied To Land: Advancing Standards And Practices.” [Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/biosolids/nas/complete.pdf]. 6 North East Biosolids and Residual Association, 2007. A National Biosolids Regulation, Quantity, End Use & Disposa l Survey, July 20th. [Available at: www.nebiosolids.org] 7 NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plant Incineration (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1063.11, OMB Control Number 2060

- 0035, 27 July 2010 (75 FR 43972 ).12

Depending on use or disposal practice , EPA’s biosolids regulations require monitoring of up to 10 metals and pathogen indicat ors. Recently detected contaminants in biosolids have become an area of emerging concern ( e.g. , pharmaceuticals, perfluorinated compounds (PF Cs), flame retardants). In 2009, the results of the Office of Water Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey were rel eased. 8 This effort focused on determining what chemicals and pollutants were found in sewage sludge. Limited biosolids data can be found in databases such as PCS/I CI S and the Toxics Release Inventory

(TRI). More detailed information on monitoring and bio solids management is provided in annual reports submitted by Class I sewage sludge management facilities , which are facilities that have an approved pretreatment program or are in a state that has assumed direct pretreatment responsibilities under 40 CFR 4 03.10(e) ( the list currentl y includes Connecticut, Vermont, Alabama, Mississippi, and Nebraska). EPA and approved states can also identify other sewage sludge management facilities as Class I facilities because of the potential for its sewage sludge use or disposal practice to affect public health and the environment adversel y . 9 The vast majority

of these annual reports are submitted in hard

- cop y format to EPA’s regions. These reports document the measures taken to protect watersheds from the mishandling of biosolids. However, key data from these reports are not generall y available or shared because no easily accessible data storage is maintained . The following quote provides a good example of the effort required to complete a one

- time assessment of the bi osolids program, which mostly relies on non

- standardized hardcop y reports: “Consistent data on biosolids management is difficult to obtain and compile...With no centralized data collection and storage s ys tem yet in place, disparate pieces of data from variou s states and USEPA regions must be painstakingl y collected and interpreted to produce a useful national picture.” North East Biosolids and Residuals Association, “A National Biosolids Regulation, Quality, End Use & Disposal Survey,” 20 July 2007. [Funded b y CWA 104(b) grant.] Only eight states have been formall y authorized to carry out the program for EPA relative to at least part of the sewage sludge (biosolids) management practices under Part 503. Not all authorizations are complete ( e.g. , M ichigan has land application only , while Utah and S outh Dakota have adopte d 503 by reference. Some states incorporate EPA's biosolids regulaton in other state programs outside of their NPDES program ( e.g. , solid waste management programs)

. **2.2 Current Program R**  **eporting** Both PCS and I CI S have data fields for collecting and reporting some aspects of biosolids data. Some of these data fields are identified as Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data elements. 10 Itis the responsibility of the biosolids regulatory authority to enter WENDB data elements into PCS and I CI S. For compliance monitoring inspections the

8 See: http://epa.gov/waterscience/biosolids/tnsss

- overview.html

. 9 See: 40 CFR 503.9 (c). 10 U.S. EPA, 1994. “WENDB Data Elements for Sludge. Memorandum from Carol Galloway, Chief, Compliance Information Evaluation Branch, and Richard Kuhlman, Acting Branch Chief, Policy Development Branch, January 25 th

.13

corresponding PCS code is “ Z. ” To enter biosolids inspections in I CI S

- NPDES , data entry professionals use the CWAS program code and the appropriate compliance monitoring ty pe code ( i.e. , CEI or SA1). A review of these two databases shows that there are relatively little biosolids data in either PCS or I CI S. EPA’s biosolids regulations (40 CFR 503) require annual reports from Class Isewage sludge management facilities to the appropriate state or EPA region. For example, Class I sewage sludge management facilities must report annually to the permitting authorit y biosolids monitoring data, quantity of biosolids managed, ultimate end use or disposal of the biosolids, end use or disposal location(s), and vector and pathogen reduction measures. However, there is no standardized format for these reports nor are the data in these reports generally collected electronically

. The most recent national review o f state management of biosolids data found a variety of data collection, management, and reporting activities

. 11 Ten states are able to efficientl y produce data on biosolids management projects in their state. Nine states require extensive help to collect and anal yz e their state data on biosolids management projects. Additionally, EPA Regions 8 and 9 maintain databases on biosolids management projects and can easil y produce biosolids data for eight states. There is no data collection on sludge removal from septic sy stems, which is regulated by EPA’s regulations (Part 503). Additionally , there are recordkeeping requirements but no Federal reporting requirements for non - Class I sewage sludge management facilities

. **2 .3**  **Biosolids Program Report Recommended for Inclusion in the NPDES Electronic**  **Reporting Rule** The Team recommends converting the annual biosolids program report to an electronic report and expanding electronic reporting to all sewage sludge management facilities generating 290 dry metric tons or more of sewage sludge per y ear . The following tables provide a listing of the data elements that are specific to the biosolids annual program report

.

Treatment Processes This data element identifies the biosolids treatme nt processes at the facility. For example, this may indicate whether primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment is being used, and the type of the sewage sludge treatment proces s or processes used, including drying processes. Biosolids Class This data e lement will identify the class or classes (e.g., Class A, Class A EQ, Class B) of biosolids generated by the facility. M anagement P ractice This data element will identify the type of biosolids management practice or practices (e.g., land application, su rface disposal, incineration) for biosolids generated by the facility. Sam pling and analytical methods Describe the representative sampling processes for compliance with 40 CFR 503, 40 CFR 136, or an issued NPDES permit including analytical methods used to analyze for enteric viruses, fecal coliforms, helminth ova , Salmonella sp ., and regulated metals, as well as the reporting limit.

11 North East Biosolids and Residual Association, 2007. A National Biosolids Regulation, Quantity, End Use & Disposal Survey, July 20th. [Available at: www.nebiosolids.org]14

Biosolids Volume Amount This is the amount (in dry metric tons) of biosolids. If there is more than one biosolids class, then the facility will separately report a biosolids volume amount for eac h biosolids class and management practice. Biosolids Receiving Site Name This is the name of the off

- site facility receiving biosolids from this facility. If the biosolids generator sends biosolids to more than one receiving facility, then the biosolids generator will report each site name for each biosolids class code and management practice code. Biosolids Receiving Site Street Address This is the street address, if applicable, of the Biosolids Receiving Site. Biosolids Receiving Site City This is the city name of the Biosolids Receiving Site, if applicable. Biosolids Receiving Site State This is the state code of the Biosolids Receiving Site, if applicable. Biosolids Receiving Site Zip Code This is the zip code of the Biosolids Receiving Site, if applicable.

Biosolids Receiving Site Latitude The measure of the angular distance on a meridian north or south of the equator for the Biosolids Receiving Site. If this is a field, the measurement should be made at the center of the field. Entered in either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council , L atitude/ L ongitude D ata S tandard , Standard No.: EX000017.2 , January 6, 2006

.
Biosolids Receiving Site Longitude The measure of the angular distance on a meridian east or west of the prime meridian for the Biosolids Receiving Site

. If this is a field, the measurement should be made at the center of the field. Entered in either Decimal Degrees or in D egrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council , L atitude/ L ongitude D ata S tandard , Standard No.: EX000017.2 , January 6, 2006

. Biosolids Monitored Parameter This is the moni tored parameter for each biosolids class code and each management practice. If the biosolids generator produces more than one biosolids class, then the biosolids generator will separately report each mo nitored parameter for each biosolids class and manage ment practice. Biosolids Monitored Parameter Concentration This is the concentration value of the Biosolids Monitored Parameter. Biosolids Monitored Parameter Units This is the measurement unit (e.g., mg/l) associated with the Biosolids Monitored Parameter Concentration

Actual Measured Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate This is the measured cumulative amount of a pollutant (on a dry weight basis) that has been appli ed to an area of land (Biosolids Receiving Site) as specified in the regulations at 40 CFR 503. The list of pollutants to be measured is at 40 CFR 503.13, Table 2. This value is the total mass of a particular pollutant (on a dry weight basis) that has be en applied to a unit area of land during the entire life of the application site. When the Actual Measured Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate exceeds the Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate (CPLR) limit for any pollutant, as identified at 40 CFR 503.13, Tabl e 2, no additional bulk biosolids subject to CPLR limits may be applied to the site. Actual Measured Annual Application Rate This is the measured annual application rate (on a dry weight basis) that has been applied to an area of land (Biosolids Receiving Site). This value is compared against the Annual Pollutant Loading Rate (see 40 CFR 503.13, Table 4) to determine compliance for each Biosolids Receiving Site for each year. Disposition of Incinerator Ash This provides information regarding the method o f disposal of incinerator ash (e.g., in surface disposal units, use in cement kilns, or other practice).15

**2 .**  **4 Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics**  A common theme found across all NPDES program sectors is that there are major limitations with the current NPDES program and enforcement data collection, management, anal ys is, and reporting activities. These limitations exist in part because the existing data management requirements originated when “major” individually permitted dis chargers were the main focus of the NPDES program. EPA has not issued sufficientl y clear guidance and support materials relating to program and data entry expectations regarding other NPDES programs (e.g., pretreatment, biosolids, wet weather, CAFOs). Cons equently , EPA’s data sy stems are not fully meeting the needs of EPA , the state NPDES programs , and the public’s need for information to address questions about the activities and performance of the various programs. This lack of clarity undermines the impo rtance of current data collection, management, analy sis, and reporting. The Team behind this paper identif ied the following key

programmatic and compliance questions and metrics . These key questions and metrics are derived from statutory obligations, programmatic needs (e.g., re - issuance of information collection requests, GPRA performance measures ), and enforcement obligations. The Team recommends that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web

- based annual reports for the bios olids sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities. 2.4.1 Will the needs of EPA and the states be met through this proposal? The collection, management, anal ys is, and reporting of data from th e annual biosolids report identified for conversion from paper

- based reporting to electronic reporting will fully meet the needs of EPA and the states . EPA and the states will be able to use this data to more effectivel y reach the inspection goals for the biosolids program. The inspection goal for biosolids inspections is that each major POTW receive at least one biosolids inspection every five ye ars. POTW sludge land disposal operations should receive at least one biosolids inspection every five ye ars. The se inspections may be conducted in conjunction with compliance inspections at major and minor POTWs. Additional i nspections may also be conducted to respond to citizen complaints. Additionally , the biosolids data collected electronically will enable EPA, states, and the public to more readil y answer the following questions : General Provisions

 Provide a description of the treatment technology (e.g., aerobic, anaerobic, lime stabilization, composting, drying practices) in place at the facility , as well as an y pretreatment processes in place.

 Does your facility generate Class A or Class B? In clude a description of how the Class A or Class B pathogen requirements in Section 503.32 are met (including time and temperature or high pH as applicable), the pathoge n densit y or indicator organism densit y results per Section16

503.32, and which Vector Attraction Reduction requirement per Section 503.33 was utilized for bulk sewage sludge applied to agricultural land, forest, a public contact site, a reclamation site, or a lawn or home garden; sewage sludge sold or given away in a bag or other container for application to land; or when sewage sludge is place on an active sewage sludge unit. In clude an y applicable calculations (e.g., Van Kleek VS

- in was 0.85 and VS

- out was 0.65).

 Quantity

of biosolids generated and percentage going to beneficial use, disposal, or other management practices.

 Names of all parties receiving the sewage sludge, as well as information on any blended material.

 For an y m aterial that is subsequently blended after leaving the POTW, parties must ensure compliance with pathogen reduction and agronomic rate requirements.

 What sampling techniques and anal ys is methods were used to ensure the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 503 were met, including the app ropriate reporting limits in the anal yt ical methodology

and holding times for pathogens and indicator organism? Land application and surface disposal :

 What is the concentration of each pollutant listed in Tables 1 through 4 of Section 503.13 and Tables 1 and 2 of Section 503.23, as applicable?

 What are the N, P, K values?

 A description of how the site restrictions (e.g., grazing, harvesting, and public access restrictions) in Section 503.32 are met for each site on which sewage sludge is applied.

 A descri ption of how management practices in Section 503.14 and Section 503.24 are met for each site on which sewage sludge is applied, including the calculation of agronomic rate and the actual rate applied.

 The location, b y either street address or latitude/long itude, to which sewage sludge was used or disposed (by

entrance).

 The amount of sewage sludge (i.e., metric tons) applied to each site, the number of hectares, and the crop or site, as well as date and time (or range of time / time period).

 Did the prepare r provide to the land applier with the organic and ammonium nitrogen concentrations? What were those concentrations?

 For domestic septage applied to land, provide the location, number of acres, date and time of application, the nitrogen requirement for the crop or vegetation grown on each site during a 365 day period, the rate in gallons per acre, and a description of how the pathogen and vector attraction reduction requirements are met. In cineration :

 What is the concentration of lead, arsenic, cadmium, c hromium, and nickel in the sewage sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator (SSI)?

 What are the total h ydrocarbons or carbon monoxide concentrations in the exit gas from the SSIstack?

 Provide information that indicates the NESHAP requirements for beryll ium and mercury are met.
 What are the combustion temperatures, including the max combustion temperature, for the SSI ?17

 What are the values for the air pollution control device operating parameters?

 What are the ox ygen concentration and other information use d to measure moisture content in the exit gas from the SSIstack?

 What are the sewage sludge feed rate and stack height for the SSI ?

 What is the dispersion factor for the site where the SSI is located?

 Provide the control efficiency for lead, arsenic, cadmium, and nickel for each SSI(i.e., some POTWs have more than one SSI . The control efficiency is determined using performance testing of the SSI and the appropriate equation from Section 503.43.

 Provide the daily

concentrations for lead, arsenic, cadm ium, chromium, and nickel calculated using the appropriate equations in Section 503.43.

 The risk

- specific concentrations for arsenic, cadmium, and nickel are provided in Table 1 of Section 503.43. Provide the risk specific concentration for chromium calcu lated using the appropriate equation in Section 503.43. Program Integrit y Data :

 What is the concentration of each state

- regulated priority pollutant for which a facility is required to monitor? [Results for 'other' pollutants could help inform the Agenc y's activities related to 'Emerging Contaminants'].

 State agency

regulating biosolids.

 Number of full time staff for their biosolids program.

 Management and other practices (e.g., setbacks from surface waters or neighboring properties, slope restrictions, or certification and monitoring) where the state's biosolids regulations more restrictive than Part 503.

 Provide an annual report containing a summary of the items for each facility in 2.4.1 (or Table 2

- 1 / 2

- 1) to EPA by May 1 of each calendar year.
 Facil ities inspected and each land application site, landfill, and incinerator inspected.

 Number and t ype of enforcement actions taken. 2.4.2 Will EPA or the states need specific reports to better access or use this information? Improvements to Enforcement & Compliance History Online (ECHO) d atabase and Online Tracking Information Sy stem (OTIS ) database will be required in order to make full use of the biosolids data identified for conversion from paper

- based reporting. The Team recommends that these key progr ammatic and compliance questions be used to develop web

based annual reports for the biosolids sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities . Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual Noncompliance Report for individual permitted non

- majors, 12 these web

- based reports will use the list of performance questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query results at various scales (watershed, state, regional, National). These web

- based annual reports would provide regulated entities, states, EPA and the public with an eas y way to retrieve data. The public could run standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These web

based annual reports would present an e as y to use front

- end, with the underlying data bases (such as I CI S, IDEA, OT IS , ECHO and state NPDES sy stems) operating in the background via the Exchange Network to support all the functionality.

12 See http://www.epa

- echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/18

These web

- based annual reports can also provide the publi c with an eas y way to assess the performances of different regulatory agencies. **2 .5**  **Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics**  The following table identifies the questions that EPA, states, and the public will be able to answer with the new electronic data collection, management, and reporting from the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.



### Table 2 **- 2: Data Elements Supporting Key Prog**  **rammatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics**  **Key Question Required Data Elements**  **Purpose of Key Questions**  **Subpart A**

**– General Provisions**   1. Treatment Processes : What treatment process are used at your facility?  Describe any pretreatment processes in place for any given pollutant
 Does your facility practice primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment?
 Indicate the process or processes used (e.g., aerobic or anaerobic digestion, lime stabilization, centrifugation or other drying practices, composting) 1

2. Does your facility generate Class A or Class B biosolids?  Indicate Class A, Class A EQ, or Class B
 Pathogen or indicator organism densities
 Describe treatment process used, per Section 503.32
 Describe the vector attraction reduction method used, per Section 503.33 1

3. Quantity : What volume of sewage sludge does your facility generate?  Metric Tons dry weight
 Per day
 Per annum
 If a partial treatment facility, tonnage sent to other POTWs; indicate which POTW completes the treatment
 Tonnage sent to other sewage sludge preparers, such as regional composters or heat drying facilities 1, 2

4. Selection of a use or disposal practice : Which 40 CFR 503 management practice was utilized?  Volumes for each management practice (i.e., use, disposal, or storage)
 Volume used for other management options (e.g., energy recapture)
 Names of all parties receiving the sewage sludge
 Information on any blended material 1, 219



### Table 2 **- 2: Data Elements Supporting Key Prog**  **rammatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics**  **Key Question Required Data Elements**  **Purpose of Key Questions**  5. Sampling and analysis : What sampling and analytical methods were used to ensure the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 503 were met when sewage sludge is applied to land, placed on a surface disposal site, or fired in a sewage sludge incinerator?  Description of the representative sampling process
 Analytical methods used to analyze for enteric viruses, fecal coliforms, helminth ova, Salmonella sp., and regulated metals, as well as the reporting limit
 Description of the appropriate holding time (i.e., 6 h ours or 12 hours), depending on the analytical method used for Salmonella or fecal coliforms
 For any materi als that are subsequently blended or sent to other preparers (e.g., composters or heat drying facilities), other than the POTW, parties must ensure compliance with pathogen reduction and agronomic rate requirements 1, 2, 3

**Subpart B**

**– Land Application**  6. What is the concentration of each pollutant listed in Tables 1 through 4 of Section 503.13, as applicable?  Ceiling concentration in mg/kg dry weight basis
 Cumulative pollutant loading rate in kg/ha
 Monthly Average pollutant concentrations in mg/kg dry wei ght basis
 Annual pollutant loading rate in kg/ha per 365 day period 1, 3

7. What were the values for N, P, K?  Concentrations for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium 1 8. How w ere management practices and operational standards in Sections 503.14 and 503.15, respectively, met?  Requirements for protecting threatened and endangered species
 The annual whole sludge application rate for sewage sludge that does not cause any of the annual pollutant loading rates in Table 4 of Section 503.13 to be exceeded
 A descript ion of how the site restrictions (e.g., grazing, harvesting, and public access restrictions) are met for each site on which Class B sewage sludge was applied 1, 320



### Table 2 **- 2: Data Elements Supporting Key Prog**  **rammatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics**  **Key Question Required Data Elements**  **Purpose of Key Questions**  9. What is the location, amount, number of hectares, crop or site, nitrogen requirements, and date and time for each site to which sewage sludge was applied?  Street address
 Latitude / longitude
 Metric tons applied to land
 Crop or site to which sewage sludge wa s applied
 Nitrogen requirement for the crop or vegetation grown on each site during a 365 day period
 Did the preparer provide to the land applier with organic and ammonium nitrogen concentrations
 NPDES Permit Number, if applicable, of the person who prepares or applies the sewage sludge 1, 3

**Subpart C**

**– Surface Disposal**  10. What is the concentration of each pollutant listed in Tables 1 and 2 of Section 503.23, as applicable?  Pollutant concentrations in mg/kg dry weight basis
 Pollutant concentrations in mg/kg dry weight basis and distance from unit to boundary of property line up to 150 m eters 1

11. What is the location to which sewage sludge was disposed?  Street address for disposal unit
 Latitude / longitude 1 **Subpart E -**  **Incineration** 12. What is the concentration of lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and nickel per Section 503.43?  Risk specific concentration in ug/m 3 1 13. What are the total hydrocarbons or carbon monoxide concentrations in the exit gas from the SSI stack? or What are the CO emissions, and, in certain cases, the monthly average CO concentration?  Concentration of THC or CO in ppm
 Monthly / yearly average 1

14. What correction factor for percent mo isture (Section 503.44, equation 7) and oxygen (Section 503.44, equation 8) was used?  Decimal fraction of the percent mo isture in the sewage sludge incinerator exit gas in hundreths
 Percent oxygen in the sewage sludge incinerator stack exit gas (dry volume/dry volume) 1

15. Were NESHAP requirements for beryllium and mercury met?  Information that indicates the requirements in the National Emission Standard for beryllium in subpart C of 40 CFR part 61 were met  Information that indicates the requirements in the National Emission Standard for mercury in subpart E of 40 CFR part 61 were met 121



### Table 2 **- 2: Data Elements Supporting Key Prog**  **rammatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics**  **Key Question Required Data Elements**  **Purpose of Key Questions**  16. What were the combustion tem peratures, including the max combustion temperature for your SSI?  SSI co mb ustion temperature, including maximum temperature, in degrees F 1 17. What are the values for the air pollution control device operating parameters?  SSI operating parameters are specified by the permitting authority and shall be based on information obtained during the performance test of the sewage sludge incinerator to determine pollutants control efficiencies 1

18. What is the oxygen concentration and other information used to measure moisture content in the exit gas from the SSI stack?  Oxygen concentration 1 19. What is the sewage sludge feed rate for the SSI?  Feed rate(s) 1 20. What is the dispersion factor for the site where the SSI is located?  Dispersion factor(s) 1 21. What is the control efficiency for lead, arsenic, cadmium, and nickel for each SSI (i.e., some POTWs have more than one SSI)?  The control efficiency is determined using the performance testing of the SSI and the appropriate equation from Section 503.43 1 22. What is the daily concentration for lead, arsenic, cadmium, and nickel?  Calculated using the appropriate equation in Section 503.43 1 23. What is the risk

- specific concentration for chromium?  The risk

- specific concentration for chromium used in equation 5 shall be obtained from Table 2 of Section 503.43 or shall be calculated using equation 6, as specified by the permitting authority 1

24. What is the SSI stack height?  SSI Stack height in meters
 When the sewage sludge incinerator stack height is equal to or less than 65 meters, the actual sewage sludge incinerator stack height shall be used in an air dispersion model, as specified by the permitting authority, to determine the dispersion factor (DF) in equation (5).
 When the sewage sludge incinerator stack height is greater than 65 meters, the creditable stack height shall be determined in accord ance with 40 CFR 51.100(ii) and the creditable stack height shall be used in an air dispersion mo del, as specified by the permitting authority, to determine the dispersion factor (DF) in equation (5) 122



### Table 2 **- 2: Data Elements Supporting Key Prog**  **rammatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics**  **Key Question Required Data Elements**  **Purpose of Key Questions**  25. What was the disposition of incinerator ash?  Disposal in surface disposal units, use in cement kilns, or other practice 2 **Program Integrity Data**  26. What is the concentration of each state
- regulated priority pollutant for which your facility is required to monitor?  Concentration on a dry weight basis 4 27. Which State agency regulates biosolids in your state?  Department
 Biosolids staff contact information 5 28. What management practice is used in the state? Are the states’ biosolids regulations more restrictive than 40 CFR 503? If so, in what areas are state r egulations mo re restrictive?  Setback in meters from surface waters or neighboring properties
 Slope restrictions
 Other use or disposal restrictions
 Certification and monitoring requirements 2,5

29. Which of your facilities and use or disposal sites were inspected?  List by each facility, land application site, landfill, and incinerator 1,3 30. What is the number and types of enforcement actions taken during the preceding calendar year?  Number of enforcement actions
 Ty pe of enforcement action
 Disposition of en forcement action 1,2,3
1 / Ensure that Part 503 requirements have been fulfilled and to help provide proper oversight and compliance. 2 / This is needed to ensure that all sewage sludge use and disposal is accounted for, that long term storage is accounted for, that sewage sludge is not sent to landfills that do not meet the requirements in Part 258, and that Federal Facilities, privately o wned facilities, and independent sludge

- only facilities (e.g., composters and alkali treaters) are automatically required to report, as well as POTWs. 3 / Information by land appliers are necessary in order to track compliance with site restrictions and man agement practices. 4 / Results for “other” pollutants could help inform the Agency’s activities related to “Emerging Trace Contaminants” 5 / Provides updated contact information for a variety of issues related to compliance and complaints
.23

**3.0 S**  **EWER O**  **VERFLOW R** **EPORTING (**  **I NCLUDING**  **S ATELLITE**  **S YSTEMS**  **) 3.1**  **Overview** Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) , and By pass Events are of special concern to public health because they expose citizens to bacteria, viruses, intestinal parasites, and other microorganisms that can cause series illness such as cholera, dy sentery , hepatitis, cry

ptosporidiosis, and giardiasis. Sensitive pop ulations

– children, the elderl y and those with weakened immune systems

- can be at a higher risk of illness from exposure to sewage sewer overflows . Runoff from rain and melting snow is responsible for beach closings, swimming and fishing advisories, and habitat degradation. Municipal sewage discharges contribute to 15 percent of impaired rivers and streams, 6 percent of impaired lakes, and 33 percent of impaired bay s and estuaries. The main pollutants in raw sewage from municipal sewage discharges are ba cteria, viruses, pathogens, excessive nutrients, industrial wastes, toxic pollutants such as oil and pesticides, and wastewater solids and debris. The Office of Water’s (OW) 2004 Report to Congress on “Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs” estimated the annual CSO discharge volume at 850 billion gallons per year. This section of the report discusses CSOs, SSOs , and Bypass Events , as the wastewater pollution sources are similar (municipal sewage conduits discharging untreated sewage). The most significant difference between these sectors is that CSOs were designed to have overflows above a designed flow threshold (in order to protec t the treatment works). Therefore , the location of each CSO outfall is known and permitted. SSOs are a result of blockages in sewage treatment conduits (e.g., fats, oils, grease, roots) and are the result of inadequate sewer inspection and cleaning. SSOs are unplanned events and should not be permitted for discharge. By pass Events are largel y unplanned events due to large rainfall events. 3.1.1 Combined Sewer Sy stems (CSSs) Combined sewer s ys tems (CSSs) are designed to collect stormwater runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the same pipe and transport it to a sewage treatment plant, where it is treated and then discharged to a water body . During periods of rainfall or snowmelt, however, the wastewater volume in a combined sewer s ys tem can exceed the capacit y of the sewer s ys tem or treatment plant. When the capacity of the s ys tem or the treatment plant is exceeded, the excess wastewater overflows directly into nearby

streams, rivers, or other water bodies, ty picall y violating water qualit y s tandards. CSSs can also have By pass Events due to large rainfall events. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are primarily caused b y wet weather events, when the combined volume of wastewater and stormwater entering the sy stem exceeds the capacity of the CSS or treatment plant. Overflow frequency and volume varies from s ystem to sy stem and from outfall to outfall within a single CSS. Discharges from a CSS during dry weather, referred to as dry weather overflows, are prohibited under the NPDES program. Combined sewer overflows can also back up into buildings, including private residences

.24

There are 800 NPDES permits that regulate 853 CSO universes with 8,828 outfalls. There is not a one

- to
- one relationship between NPDES permit coverage and a combined sewer sy st em , as a NPDES permit may regulate more than one CSO and one CSO may have multiple NPDES permits. These combined sewer s ys tems are heavil y concentrated in the Northeast (MA, ME), Mid

- Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA), and Midwest (IL, OH, IN) and in older urban commun ities. Currently OW and OECA separatel y track combine sewer s ys tems and outfalls.

**Table 3 -**  **1: Number of CSO Permits**
**EPA Region CSO NPDES** 

**Perm it Count**  1 83 2 97 3 213 4 24 5 340 6 0 7 24 8 1 9 3 10 15 Source: OWM CSO Data 3.1.2 Sanitary Sewer S ys tems (SSSs) Properly designed, operated, and maintained separate sanitary sewer s ys tems should collect and transport all of the sewage that flows into them to a publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) for treatment. However, releases of raw sewage from municipal separate sanitary sewers can occur in these sy stems. These ty pes of releases, called sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), may

be caused by

poor sewer collection sy stem management, operation and mai ntenance, and often pose a substantial risk to public health and environment. SSSs can also have By pass Events due to large rainfall events. EPA estimates that between 23,000 and 75,000 SSOs occur each ye ar in the United States, resulting in releases of b etween 3 billion and 10 billion gallons of untreated wastewater. 13 About 15,500 wastewater treatment facilities have sanitary sewer collection sy stems which may have SSOs. In addition, there are at least 5,000 municipal satellite collection sy stems with san itary sewers, although EPA does not have a good estimate of these facilities. Municipal satellite collection sy stems collect sewage and transfer it to another collection system or POTW for treatment and discharge. The universe includes approximately 63 lar ge municipal authorities (total treatment capacity >100mgd), and approximately 516 medium municipal authorities (total treatment capacit y >10mgd, but <100mgd).

13 U.S. EPA, 2004. “ Report to Congress: I mp acts and Control of CSOs and SSO,” EPA 833

- R
- 04

- 001, August.25

Most municipal sanitary

sewer collection sy stems currentl y do not have an NPDES permit to require reporting of SSOs. Most permits for sewage treatment facilities do not specificall y refer to SSOs. Rather, standard permit conditions, including requirements to report non - compliance events, are used to address reporting and other requirements for SSOs. This has resulted in inconsistency

in reporting t yp es of SSOs and building backups . SSOs are prohibited and thus should not be authorized in NPDES permits.26

**3.2 Current CSO/SSO Reporting** 

**Table 3 -**  **1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart: SSO, CSO & Bypass REGULATION**  **NUMBER REPORT**  **REPORTING ENTITY**  **RECIEVING**

**ENTITY FREQUENCY**  **REPORT DATE 40 CFR**  **122.21(g)(7)(iii)** Quantitative Data Report for

certain pollutants Applicant/POTWs Control Authority Once per event When applying for a permit **40 CFR 122.21(k)(5)(i)**  Estimated daily maximum, daily

average, and source of information for each outfall for certain pollutants or parameters Applicant/POTWs Control Authority Once per event When applying for the permit
**40 CFR 122.41 (l)(1) (reporting**  **requirements applicable to all**  **NPDES per mits)**  Notice Permittee/POTWs Control Authority When any planned physical

altercations or additions occur to the permitted facility As soon as possible

**40 CFR 122.41(l)(2)**  Advance Notice Permittee/POTWs Control Authority When there are planned

changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements Advance notice

**40 CFR 122.41(l)(3)**  Transfer Permittee/POTWs Control Authority When the director requires

mo dification or revocation and reissuance of the permit to change the name of the permittee and incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under the CWA Prior to transfer

**4 0 CFR**  **122.41(l)(4)** Discharge Monitoring Report

(DMR) or forms provided or specified by the Director for reporting results of monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices Permittee/POTWs Control Authority At the intervals specified

elsewhere in this permi t At the intervals specified elsewhere in this permit

**40 CFR 122.41(l)(5)**  Com pliance Schedules Permittee/POTWs Control Authority Following interim and final

requirements contained in any compliance schedule No later than 14 days following each schedule date27 **Table 3 -**  **1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart: SSO, CSO & Bypass REGULATION**  **NUMBER REPORT**  **REPORTING ENTITY**  **RECIEVING**

**ENTITY FREQUENCY**  **REPORT DATE 40 CFR**  **122.41(l)(6)(i)** 24 hour oral report (requirement to

report SSO discharge that may endanger health or the environment

– may be waived) Permittee/POTWs Control Authority When Permittee observes any

noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment

– once per event Within 24 hours of becoming aware of circumstances

**40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)(i)**  Writen 24 hour report (requirement

to report SSO discharge that may endanger health of the environment

– may be waived) Permittee/POTWs Control Authority When Permittee observes any

noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment

– once per event Within 5 days of becoming aware of the circumstances (unless waived by an NPDES authority) **40 CFR 122.41(l)(7)**  DMR report (requirement to report

SSOs not reported within 24 hours Permittee/POTWs Control Authority Permit establishes frequency

(ty pically once per month) Permit established reporting date **40 CFR 122.41(l)(7)**  By

pass that do not exceed permit limits Permittee/POTWs Control Author ity Permit establishes frequency

(ty pically once per month) Permit established reporting date **40 CFR 122.41(l)(8)**  Report of missing or incorrect facts Permittee/POTWs Control Authority When Permittee becomes

aware of error Prom ptly after Permittee becomes aw are of error. **40 CFR 122.41(m** **)(3)(i)** Report Permittee/POTWs Control Authority Once per event Anticipated : If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it must submit prior notice at least 10 days before the date of the bypass **40 CFR 122.41(m** **)(3)(ii), 122.41(l)(6)(i),**  **and 122.41(l)(6)(ii)(A)**  24 hour oral report (Bypass which

exceeds any effluent limitation) Permittee/POTWs Control Authority Once per event Unanticipated : Within 24 hours from the time the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances **40 CFR 122.41(m** **)(3)(ii) 122.41(l)(6)(i),**  **and 122.41(l)(6)(ii)(A)**  Written report (requirement to

report bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation) Permittee/POTWs Control Authority Once per event Within 5 days of becoming aware of the circ umstances (unless waived by an NPDES authority) **40 CFR 122.42(c)** Annual Report by operator of a Permittee/POTWs Control Annually By the anniversary of the28 **Table 3 -**  **1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart: SSO, CSO & Bypass REGULATION**  **NUMBER REPORT**  **REPORTING ENTITY**  **RECIEVING**

**ENTITY FREQUENCY**  **REPORT DATE** large or medium municipal separate storm sewer system or a municipal separate storm sewer Authority date of issuance of the permit for such system **40 CFR 122.42(d) (storm** **water discharges)**  Report on compliance with permits

for discharge of storm water Permittee/POTWs Control Authority Once As expeditiously as practicable but in no event later than 3 years after the date of issuance of the permit **40 CFR 122.47(a)(4)**  Report on compliance or

noncompliance with the interim or final requirements Permittee/ POTWs Control

Authority Following each interim date

and date of final compliance No later than 14 days following each interim date and the final date of compliance **40 CFR 122.48** Recording and reporting of

mo nitoring results (applicable to State programs Permittee/ POTWs Control

Authority Requirements in the permit When permit is approved

**40 CFR 123.45(a)**  Program reports by Director

-

Quarterly Control Authority Regional administrator (who then submits to EPA headquarters) Quarterly Quarterly

**40 CFR 123.45(b)** Program reports by Director

–

semi

- annually Control Authority Regional administrator (who then submits to EPA headquarters) Semi

- annually Semi

- annually

**40 CFR 123.45(c)** Program reports by Director

-

Annually Control Authority Regional administrator (who then submits to EPA headquarters) Annually Annually29

**3 .3**  **Sewer Overflow Report**  **ing Recommended for Inclusion in the NPDES Electronic**  **Reporting Rule** The Team recommends that POTWs electronically report the following data in order to better estimate the volume of overflows, location, likely cause, and receiving waters. These data include the following categories : (1) t ype of overflow (CSO, SSO, By pass); (2) name of the permittee ; (3) NPDES permit ID ; (4) enforcement order ID (if applicable); ( 5 ) date discovered; ( 6 ) time discovered; ( 7) duration (hours); (8 ) quantity of untreated and treated overflow (best professional judgment on the estimated number of gallons of overflow); (9 ) overflow location ( street location, latitude and longitude); ( 10 ) best professional judgment on the likely cause of the overflow; (11) related weather data; (1 2 ) r eceiving waterbody (name and REACH ID) ; and (13) description of corrective actions taken b y permittee . The location of the receiving waterbody can be inputted b y the user if known , or the user can use an EPA provided web service which can determine the likel y receiving water body given a user defined latitude and longitude. The following table identifies the data e lements specific for sewer overflow events.

Sewer Overflow

Longitude (Sewer Overflow Event Report) This data element is required for sewer overflows that do not have a permitted feature identifier, which is reported on the NPDES permit application or Not ice of Intent for NPDES permit coverage. The measure of the angular distance on a meridian east or west of the prime meridian for the sewer overflow . Entered in either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council , L atitude/ L ongitude D ata S tandard , Standard No.: EX000017.2 , January 6, 2006

.

Sewer Overflow Latitude (Sewer Overflow Event Report) This data element is required for sewer overflows that do not have a permitted feature identifier, which is reported on the NPDES permit application or Notice of Intent for NPDES permit coverage. The measure of the angular distance on a meridian north or s outh of the equator for the sewer overflow . Entered in either Decimal Degrees or in Degrees Minutes Seconds; stored in decimal degrees. These data are provided in accordance with Environmental Data Standards Council , L atitude/ L ongitude D ata S tandard , Stan dard No.: EX000017.2 , January 6, 2006

. Ty pe of Sewer Overflow (Sewer Overflow Event Report) A code identifying the type of sewer overflow (including CSO, SSO, By pass , Other Discharge from the Collection System or Treatment Works ). Sewer Overflow

Cause The likely cause of the overflow event (e.g., broken pipe, fats/oil/grease,

mechanical failure , pum

p station electrical failure, inadequate sewer system capacity, etc.). Date of Sewer O verflow D iscovery (Sewer Overflow Event Report) Date when the sewer overflow is discovered by EPA or the delegated NPDES program authority, the permitted facility, or when the sewer overflow is reported by the public to the permitted facility. The date data must be provided in CCYY

- MM
- DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day

. Duration of Sewer O verflow event (hours) (Sewer Overflow Event Report) Duration of the se wer overflow event (in hours). I f the discharge has not been corrected, the b est professional judgment from the permitted facility of the time the sewer overflow is expected to continue

. Sewer Overflow Discharge Volume (Sewer Overflow Event Report) Best professional judgment from the permitted facility on the estimated number of gallons of sewer overflow

. Receiving Wat erbody Name for Permitted Feature (Sewer Overflow Event Report) This data element is required for sewer overflow inspections without a permitted feature identifier. Best professional judgment from the permitted facility of the name of the waterbody that is or will likely receive the discharge from each sewer overflow

.30

Dry or W et W eather Occurrence for Sewer Overflow B est professional judgment from the permitted facility on whether the sewer overflow event occurred during dry or wet weather. Corrective Actions Taken or Planned for Sewer Overflows (Sewer Overflow Event Report) The unique code/description that describes the steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of future se wer overflows. Ty pe of Potential Im

pact of Sewer Overflow Event (Sewer Overflow Event Report) Th is describes the ty pe of potential human health or environmental im pact(s) of the sewer overflow event (e.g., beach closure)

. Under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6), “the permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment.” This data element would provide information regarding the nature of such potential endangerment. Finally , the team identified that the following fields in I CI S are not either not required for each overflow event report or are made redundant due to the change in reporting. For example, since each overflow event is reported there is no need to have POTWs report the number of SSO events per ye ar as this value can be calculated from the individual overflow event reports.

 SSO sy stem component code  SSO sy stem component description  Other steps to reduce, prevent, mitigate (text field)  Description of steps taken  Step code  Step description  SSO annual report ye ar  Number of SSO events per year  Volume of SSO events per year (gal)  SSO monthly

event month  SSO monthly

event year  Number of SSO events per month  Volume of SSO events per month (gal) **3 .**  **4 Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics**  A common theme found across all NPDES program sectors is that there are major limitations with the current NPDES program and enforcement data collection, management, anal ys is, and reporting activities. These limitations exist in part because the existing data management requirements originated when “major” individually permitted dischargers were the main focus of the NPDES program. EPA has not issued sufficientl y clear guidance and support materials relating to program and data entry expectations regarding o ther NPDES programs (e.g., pretreatment, biosolids, wet weather, CAFOs). Consequently , EPA’s data sy stems are not fully meeting the needs of EPA and the state NPDES programs to address questions about the activities and performance of the various programs. This lack of clarity undermines the importance of current data collection, management, analy sis, and reporting. The Team behind this paper identif ied the following key

programmatic and compliance questions and metrics . These key questions and metrics are derived from statutory obligations, programmatic needs (e.g., re - issuance of information collection requests, GPRA performance measures ), and enforcement obligations. The Team recommends that these key programmatic31

and compliance questions be used to deve lop web

- based annual reports for the sewer overflows that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities. 3.4.1 Will the needs of EPA and the states be met through this proposal? The collection, management, anal ys is, and reporting of data from the sewer overflow reports identified for conversion from paper

- based reporting to electronic reporting will fully meet the needs of EPA and the states . In particular, EPA and states will be able to estimate the freque ncy , magnitude, and duration of sewer overflows, the environmental/public health impacts, and the culpability

of the violator. EPA and states will be able to use this data to address all: (1) sewer overflows which cause or contribute significantly to water quality

or public health problems as soon as ph ys ically and financially

possible; (2) sewer overflows which occur in high public use or public access areas as soon as ph ys ically and financially

possible; and (3) dry weather sewer overflows as soon as ph ys icall y and financiall y possible. In particular , the sewer overflow data collected electronicall y will enable EPA, states, and the public to more readily answer the following questions

.

 Id entify

the owner/operator of the sewer collection sy stem by name of municipality , and Permit ID number.  Id entify

the size of the collection Area (square miles) covered b y combined sewer collection sy stem, area (square miles) covered by separate storm sewer s ys tem, and name(s) of the receiving waterbody(i es).  Id entify

sate llite combined sewer collection sy stem collection sy stem(s) and the population served b y ea ch satellite collection sy stem.  For each overflow occurring during dry weather, provide: date and time of the overflow event; latitude and longitude or street addres s location of the overflow; duration of the overflow; volume of overflow; affected high public use or public access areas; date and time overflow was discovered; cause of the overflow; remedial work to address the overflow; date and time the overflow was o rally reported to the NPDES authority ; date and time a written report was submitted to the NPDES authority

.  Provide all complaints and service requests from the service population concerning sewer backups (e.g., basement backups and backups to public areas ), and all work requests in response to sewer backup complaints and service requests. Identify whether the municipality

undertook remedial work in response to the complaint.  Id entify

all enforcement actions against the municipality concerning violations of environmental regulations or statutes; include all warning and non

- compliance letters, notices of violation, court orders, administrative orders b y federal, state and local agencies, and actions b y citizen groups.  Indicate the final disposition for each enforcement action identified in the previous question was based; include penalty assess ments and remedial work ordered.  Municipalities operating a combined sewer s ys tem shoul d identify the number of combined sewer outfall points and regulators in the combined sewer collection sy stem; identify regulators that are activel y controlled (opened and closed) b y the municipality in response to w et weather (peak flow) events.32

 Municipal ities operating a combined sewer s ys tem should identify combined sewer overflow points that discharge to a sensitive area (as defined by the 1994 CSO Control Policy).  Municipalities operating a combined sewer s ys tem should identify SIUs located upstream fr om each combined sewer ov erflow regulator and CSO point.  Municipalities operating a combined sewer s ys tem, provide for eac h wet weather (peak flow) event : date and time of the event; peak flow capacity of the treatment plant; amount of precipitation; durat ion of precipitation; inflow volume at the head of the treatment works (identify

time interval); flow volume of overflows at each combined sewer regulator and CSO point (identify time interval); for combined sewer overflow regulators that are activel y controlled, duration during which controls were used to close (partiall y close) the regulator.  Municipalities operating a sanitary sewer s ys tem, provide the latitude and longitude or street address location of emergency overflow points.  Municipalities operatin g a sanitary sewer s ys tem, provide flow volume and duration at each emergency

overflow point for each wet weather (peak flow) event.  Municipalities operating a sanitary sewer s ys tem, for each by pass event, provide: volume and duration of the b yp ass dischar ge, conditions at the time of the event (dry weather, peak flow, precipitation amount), date and time the overflow was orally reported to the NPDES authority ; date and time a written report was submitted to the NPDES authority

. 3.4.2 Will EPA or the stat es need specific reports to better access or use this information? Improvements to ECHO and OTIS will be required in order to make full use of the sewer overflow data identified for conversion from paper

- based reporting. The Team recommends that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web

- based annual reports for sewer overflows that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities . Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual Noncompli ance Report for individual permitted non

- majors, 14 these web

- based reports will use the list of performance questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query results at various scales (watershed, state, regional, National). These web

- based annual reports would provide regulated entities, states, EPA and the public with an eas y way to retrieve data. The public could run standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These web

- based annual reports would present an e as y to use front

- end, with the underlying data bases (such as I CI S, IDEA, OTI S, ECHO and state NPDES sy stems) operating in the background via the Exchange Network to support all the functionality . These web

- based annual reports can also provide the public with an eas y way to assess the performances of different regulatory agencies

. For example, Michigan, California, and King County , Washington have on

- line reporting and mapping to display overflow data. 15 , 16 , 17

14 See http://www.epa

- echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/ 15 See http://www.deq.state.mi.us/csosso/

. 16 See http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/index.shtml 17 See http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wastewater/CSO/RealTime/SeattleOverview.aspx33

**3 .5**  **Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and**  **Metrics** The following table identifies the questions that EPA, states, and the public will be able to answer with the new electronic data collection, management, and reporting from the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. **Key Qu estion**  **Purpose of Key Questions** Identify the owner/operator of the sewer collection system by name of municipality, and Permit ID number. Program maintenance. Identify the size of the collection Area (square miles) covered by combined sewer collection system, area (square miles) covered by separate storm sewer system, and name(s) of the receiving waterbody(ies). Program oversight. Identify satellite combined s ew er collection system collection system(s), and the population served by each satellite collection system, Program oversight. For each overflow occurring during dry weather, provide: date and time of the overflow event; latitude and longitude or street address location of the overflow; duration of the overflow; volume of overflow; affected high public use or public access areas; date and time overflow w as discovered; cause of the overflow; remedial work to address the overflow; date and time the overflo w was orally reported to the NPDES authority; date and time a w ritten report was submitted to the NPDES authority. Maintenance of best management practices. Com pliance monitoring.

Provide all complaints and service requests from the service population c oncerning se wer backups ( e.g., basement backups and backups to public areas), and all work requests in response to sewer backup complaints and service requests. Identify whether the municipality undertook remedial work in response to the complaint. Mainte nance of best management practices. Com pliance monitoring. Identify all enforcement actions against the municipality concerning violations of environmental regulations or statutes; include all warning and non

compliance letters, notices of violation, co urt orders, administrative orders by federal, state and local agencies, and actions by citizen groups. Com pliance monitoring.
Indicate the final disposition for each enforcement action identified in the previous question was based; include penalty asses sments and remedial work ordered. Com pliance monitoring. Municipalities operating a combined sewer system should identify the num ber of combined sewer outfall points and regulators in the combined sewer collection system; identify regulators that are actively controlled (opened and closed) by the municipality in response to wet weather (peak flow) events. Maintenance of best management practices. Com pliance monitoring. Municipalities operating a combined sewer system should identify com bined sewer o verflow points that discharge to a sensitive area (as defined by the 1994 CSO Control Policy). Maintenance of best management practices. Com pliance monitoring. Municipalities operating a combined sewer system should identify SIUs located upstream from ea ch com

bined sewer overflow regulator and CSO point. Maintenance of best management practices. Com pliance monitoring.34 **Key Qu estion**  **Purpose of Key Questions** Municipalities operating a combined sewer system, f or each wet weather (peak flow) event provide: date and time of the event; peak flow capacity of the treatment plant; amount of precipitation; duration of precipitation; inflow volume at the head of the treatment works **(identify tim**  **e interval)** ; flow volume of overflows at each combined sewer regulator and CSO point **(identify tim**  **e interval)** ; for combined sewer overflow regulators that are actively controlled, duration during which controls were used to close (partially close) the regulator. Maintenance of best management practices. Com pliance monitoring.

Municipalities operating a sanitary sewer system, provide the latitude and longitude or street address location of emergency overflow points. Maintenance of best management practices. Com pliance monitoring. Municipalities operating a sanitary sewer system, provide flow volume and duration at each emergency overflow point f or each wet weather (peak flow) event. Maintenance of best management practices. Com pliance monitoring. Municipalities operating a sanitary sewer system, for each bypass event, provide: volume and duration of the bypass discharge, conditions at the time of the event (dry weather, peak flow , precipitation amount), date and time the overflow was orally reported to the NPDES authority; date and time a written report was submitted to the NPDE S authority. Maintenance of best management practices. Com pliance monitoring.35

**4.0 C**  **ONCENTRATED A**  **NIMAL F**  **EEDING OPERATIONS (**  **CAFO S**  **) 4.1**  **Overview** The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that operations that confine livestock and poultry animals generate about 500 million tons of manure annually

– three times the amount of EPA’s estimate of 150 million tons of human sanitary waste produced annually in the U.S. Pollutants commonly associated with manure include nutrients (mainly nitrogen an d phosphorus), organic matter, solids, and pathogens. Under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), states have consistently reported that agricultural activities

– including animal feeding operations

– are leading sources of pollutants such as nutrie nts, pathogens (bacteria), and organic enrichment (low dissolved oxygen) that are contributing to water quality impairment in U.S. surface waters. Adverse environmental and human health impacts associated with pollutants in animal manure include: eutrophic ation or nutrient over

- enrichment of surface waters, fish kills, reductions in dissolved ox ygen available for aquatic life, increase in suspended solids resulting in an increase in turbidity of surface waters and inhibition of the functioning of aquatic pl ants and animals, nitrate contamination of drinking water, and transmission of pathogens associated with food and waterborne diseases in humans. EPA and the states receive inconsistent information about the CAFO sector because most CAFOs do not have Natio nal Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, do not have traditional effluent discharge points and controls and, therefore, do not submit discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). Permit coverage for this universe includes individual permits and general permits. Man y states have their own permit programs for livestock operations, but because these operations do not meet EPA 's definition of NPDES "major," the states are not required to submit much data to EPA. To date, approximately 40 percent of the estimated 19,200 CAFOs nationall y have NPDES permits. However, it is unclear how many CAFOs in the U.S. “discharge or propose to discharge” and therefore could ultimately need NPDES permits. For the 2008 CAFO rule, EPA estimated that as many as 75 pe rcent of all CAFOs could experience discharges based on standard operational profiles for CAFOs in the major animal sectors. Under the terms of the NPDES CAFO regulations at 40 CFR §122.23, an animal feeding operation is defined as a large CAFO based on the number of animals raised in confinement, for example, 700 mature dairy cows, 1,000 beef cattle, or 2,500 swine (each weighing 55 pounds or more). An animal feeding operation is defined as a medium CAFO based on both ty pe and number of animals confined, for example 200 to 699 mature dairy cows or 300 to 999 beef cattle, 750 to 2,499 swine (each weighing 55 pounds or more) as well as certain other conditions at the facility , including pollutants discharged to jurisdictional waters via a man

- made ditch or other man - made device or pollutants are discharged directly into waters of the United States which pass over/through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the confined animals. Predominant animal agriculture sectors include dairy , beef cattle, poultry , egg laying operations, and swine. Every

EPA region has CAFOs. The states with the highest numbers of CAFOs include: Arkansas, Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota, Texas, and California. Collectively , these states have more than a third of all CA FOs in the U.S.36

**4.2 Current Program Reporting**  Under the terms of EPA’s CAFO NPDES regulations , as revised in 2008, only CAFOs that either discharge or propose to discharge must seek NPDES permit coverage. 18 This aspect of the NPDES program requires NPDES permit authorities to obtain site

- specific information in order to require CAFOs to seek permit coverage if CAFOs do not seek coverage independentl y. CAFOs do not have outfalls and effluent controls like oth er industrial point sources. Instead, CAFO permits require implementation of best management practices. A CAFO that determines that it does not discharge or propose to discharge can voluntaril y certify this to the permitting authority and would not need to seek NPDES permit coverage. Onl y the permitting authorit y receives cop ies of the CAFO certifications. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4) require permitted CAFOs to submit an annual report to the NPDES Director. The annual report must include: (1) the number and t ype of animals, whether in open confinement or housed under roof; (2) estimated amount of total manure, litter and process wastewater generated by the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons/gallons); (3) estimated amount of total manure, litter and process wastewater transferred to other person b y the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons/gallons); (4) total number of acres for land application covered by the CAFO’s nutrient management plan; (5) total number of acres under control of the CAFO that were used for land application of manure, litter and process wastewater in the previous 12 months; (6) summary of all manure, litter and process wastewater discharges from the production area that have occurred in the previous 12 months, including date, t ime, and approximate volume; (7) a statement indicating whether the current version of the CAFO's nutrient management plan was developed or approved b y a certified nutrient management planner; (8 ) actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) for each field; the actual nitrogen and phosphorus content of the manure, litter, and process wastewater; calculations of maximum amounts of manure, litter, and process wastewater to be land applied at least once per ye ar; and the amount of manure, litter, and process was tewater applied to each field in the previous 12 months; results of any soil testing for nitrogen and phosphorus taken during the previous 12 months; and any supplemental fertilizer applied during the previous 12 months. **4 .3**  **CAFO Program Report Recommend**  **ed for Inclusion in the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule**  The Team recommends converting the annual CAFO program report to an electronic report( 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4)). The following tables provide a listing of the data elements specific to the CAFO annual pro gram report.

18 In 2008, EPA revised the NPDES permit regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to address the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA . Among other things, the 2008 final rule addressed the court’s ruling by specifying that a CAFO that “discharges or proposes to discharge” must seek NPDES permit coverage. The rulemaking also clarifies that a CAFO “proposes to discharge” if an objective assessment determines that the CAFO is designed, constructed, operated, or maintained such that a discharge will occur (73 FR 70424).37

Animal Types The unique code/description that identifies the permittee ’s applicable animal sector(s) in the previous 12 months

. This includes ( but not limited to) beef cattle, broilers, layers, swine weighing 55 pounds or more, swine weighin g less than 55 pounds, mature dairy cows, dairy heifers, veal calves, sheep and lamb s, horses, ducks, and turkeys. Total Number The total number of each type of livestock at the facility in the previous 12 months

. Total Number of Animals in Open Confinement The total number of each type of livestock at the facility in open c onfinement in the previous 12 months. CAFO Waste T ype The type of CAFO waste described (i.e., manure, litter, process wa stewater). Amount of CAFO Waste The amount of CAFO waste described, in gallons, as a total for the previous 12 months. Status of the CAFO Waste The status of the CAFO waste described (i.e., generated, generated and transferred, or applied onsite ). Total Number of A cres for L and A pplic ation C overed by the N utrient M anagement P lan Total number of acres (to the nearest quarter acre) for land application covered by the nutrient management plan in the previous 12 months.
Total Number of Acres Used for L and A pplication The total number of acres (to the nearest quarter acre) under control of the CAFO used for land application in past 12 mo nths. Discharges During Year from Production Area The flag indicating if there is any discharge from the production area in the previous 12 months

. Discovery Date s of Discharges from Production Area The date of each discharge from the permittee’s production area in the previous 12 months

. The date data must be provided in CCYY

- MM
- DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day

. Duration of Discharge from Production Area The duration (in hours) of each discharge from the permittee’s production area in the previous 12 months

. If the discharge is continual , the best professional judgment from the permitted facility o f the time the discharge from the permittee’s production area is expected to continue. Approximate Volume of Discharges from Production Area Best professional judgment from the permittee on the estimated number of gallons for each discharge from the permittee’s production area in the previous 12 months. Whether NMP A

pproved or D eveloped by C ertified P lanner A flag indicating whether the NMP was approved or developed by a certified nutrient management planner.
Actual C rop(s) P lanted for E ach F ield Actual crop(s) planted for each field

. Actual Crop Y ield(s) for E ach F ield Actual crop yield(s) for each field (amount of production that wa s grown on each field, e.g., 300 bushels per acre ).38

Concentration Units/ Quantity Units The code/description representing the unit of measure applicable to quantity or concentration limits and measurements as entered by the permittee. The same units must be used across all sampling data for manure, litter, process wastewater, and fertilizer a s well as the maximum calculation methods specified in the Linear Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)].

N itrogen C ontent of the CAFO Waste Type Results of sampling and analysis of a particular CAFO wa ste ty pe (i.e., manure, litter, or process wastewater)

. The same form of nitrogen must be used across all sampling data for manure, litter, process wastewater, and fertilizer as well as the maximum calculation methods specified in the Linear Approach [ 40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)].

P hosphorus C ontent of the CAFO Waste Type Results of sampling and analysis of a particular CAFO waste ty pe (i.e., manure, litter, or process wastewater). The same form of phosphorus must be used across all sampling data for manure, litter, process wastewater, and fertilizer as well as the maximum calculation methods specified in the Linear Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5) (ii)]. Method for Calculating Maximum Amounts of Manure, Litter, and Process Wastewater Flag identifying for each field whether the CAFO used the Linear Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)].
Field Identification Number A unique field number to which CAFO waste was or will be applied. This data element will be used whether the term “for each field” is used in the CAFO Annual Program Report.
Calculated Maximum Amount of That CAFO Waste to Be Land App lied to that Field The maximum amount of manure , litter, or process wastewater (in gallons) that can be applied to each field in the previous 12 mo nths in accordance with procedures in the Linear Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i) (B) ] or the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii) (D) ]. Actual Amount of That CAFO Waste Applied to that Field The actual amount of a particular CAFO waste (i.e., manure, litter, or process wastewater) applied to a particular filed in the previous 12 months.
CAFO Waste T ype Applied to That Field The type of CAFO waste (i.e., manure, litter, or process wa stewater) applied to that particular field.
Pollutant Parameter Measured in the Soil Test, under the Narrative Rate Approach The pollutant parameter (i.e., nitroge n or phosphorus) of the CAFO waste measured, in accordance with procedures in the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii) (D) ]. Nitrogen Amount of Any S upplemental Fertilizer A

pplied For CAFOs using the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)( 5)(ii)] the nitrogen amount of supplemental fertilizer (in pounds or gallons) that wa s applied to each field in the previous 12 months. Phosphorus Amount of Any S upplemental Fertilizer A

pplied For CAFOs using the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)( 5)(ii)] the phosphorous amount of supplemental fertilizer (in pounds or gallons) that was applied to each field in the previous 12 months.39

**4 .**  **4 Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics**  A common theme found across all NPDES program sectors is that there are major limitations with the current NPDES program and enforcement data collection, management, anal ys is, and reporting activities. These limitations exist in part because the existing data management requirements originated when “major” individually permitted dischargers were the main focus of the NPDES program. EPA has not set rigorous data entry requirements for “non

majors” (e.g., facilities regulated under the pretreatment, biosolids, sewer overflow, and CAFO programs ). Consequentl y, EPA’s data s ys tems are not fully meeting the needs of EPA and the state NPDES programs to address questions about the activities and performance of the se programs. The Team behind this paper identif ied th e following key

programmatic and compliance questions and metrics . These key questions and metrics are derived from statutory obligations, programmatic needs (e.g., re - issuance of information collection requests, GPRA performance measures ), and enforcement obligations. The Team recommends that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web

- based annual reports for the CAFO sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities. 4.4 .1 Will the needs of EPA and the states be met through this proposal? In conjunction with all other required reporting from permittees and permit authorities , 19 the collection, management, anal ys is, and reporting of data from the annual CAFO report identified for conversion from paper

- based reporting to electronic reporting will meet the needs of EPA and the states

. For example, the CAFO data collected electronically will enable EPA, states, and the public to more readily answer the following questions :

 How man y permitted CAFOs are there in the U.S.?  How man y permitted CAFOs are there of each animal type? (Cattle, chickens, etc.)  How man y animals of each animal type are being raised at permitted CAFOs?  Where are th e permitted CAFOs located?  How man y are located on impaired waterbodies?  How man y permitted CAFOs have/had discharges w/in last y ear?  What ty

pe and how much manure has been generated by permitted CAFOs in the last ye ar?  How man y permitted CAFOs transfer large amounts of manure off site ?  How man y permitted CAFO operations land appl y manure ?  How man y acres were used for land application by permitted CAFOs in the last year?  How man y permitted CAFOs have fields with high levels of P?  How man y permitted CAFOs have fields with high levels of N?  How man y permitted CAFOs used commercial fertilizer to supplement manure during the previous year?

19 See other supporting analyses for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (Analysis A through E).40

 How man y permitted CAFOs have nutrient management plans developed by a certified planner?  How man y permitted CAFOs may gen erate more manure than can be properly land applied to land they

control?  How man y permitted CAFOs may generate more manure than is either transferred offsite or that can be properly land applied to land they control? 4.4.2 Will EPA or the states need spe cific reports to better access or use this information? Improvements to ECHO and OTIS will be required in order to make full use of the CAFO data identified for conversion from paper

- based reporting. The Team recommends that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web

- based annual reports for the CAFO sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities . Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual Noncompliance Report for indiv idual permitted non

- majors, 20 these web

- based reports will use the list of performance questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query results at various scales (watershed, state, regional, National). These web

- based annual reports would provide regulated entities, states, EPA and the public with an eas y way to retrieve data. The public could run standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These web

- based annual reports would present an eas y to use front

- end, with the underlying data bases (such as I CI S, IDEA, OTI S, ECHO and state NPDES sy stems) operating in the background via the Exchange Network to support all the functionality

. **4 .5**  **Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metric**  **s** The following table identifies the questions that EPA, states, and the public will be able to answer with the new electronic data collection, management, and reporting from the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.



### Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic **and Compliance Questions and Metrics Key Question**  **Required Data Elements Purpose of Key**  **Questions** How many permitted CAFOs are there in the U.S.? Animal Type, Total Number of Each Ty pe Program Im plementation How many permitted CAFOs are there of each animal ty

pe? (Cattle, chickens, etc.) Animal Types Program Im plementation
How many animals of each animal type are being raised at permitted CAFOs? Total Number of each type Program Im plementation Where are the permitted CAFOs located? Facility location information Com pliance mo nitoring, targeting

20 See http://www.epa

- echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/41 

### Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic **and Compliance Questions and Metrics Key Question**  **Required Data Elements Purpose of Key**  **Questions** How many are located on impaired waterbodies? Facility location information Targeting

How many permitted CAFOs have/had discharges w/in last year? Dates , types and volume of discharges in past 12 months Program im plementation, targeting compliance mo nitoring What type and how much manure has been generated by permitted CAFOs in the last year? The type (e.g., manure, litter, wastewater) and the amounts generated in the past 12 mo nths. Program im plementation, targeting compliance mo nitoring How many permitted CAFOs us ed commercial fertilizer to supplement manure during the previous year? The amount (pounds/gallons) and type of supplemental fertilizer (anhydrous ammonia, urea) applied during the last 12 mo nths. Program im plementation, targeting compliance mo nitoring How many permitted CAFOs transfer large amounts of manure off site? Ty pe and amount of manure transferred in the past 12 months Program im plementation, targeting compliance mo nitoring How many permitted CAFO operations land apply manure? Number of acres used for land application in last 12 months Program im plementation, targeting compliance mo nitoring How many acres were used for land application by permitted CAFOs in the last year? Number of acres used for land application in last 12 months Program im plementation, targeting compliance mo nitoring How many permitted CAFOs have fields with high levels of P? Results of any soil testing for nitrogen and phosphorus taken during the previous 12 months ( Sam

ple Location , Date , N c ontent /units , P content

/units Program

im plementation, targeting compliance mo nitoring How many permitted CAFOs have fields with high levels of N ? Results of any soil testing for nitrogen and phosphorus taken during the previous 12 months ( Sam

ple Location , Date , N c ontent /units , P content

/units Program

im plementation, targeting compliance mo nitoring How many permitted CAFOs have a nutrient management plan developed by a certified planner? NMP developed by certified planner Program im plementation, targeting compliance mo nitoring42 

### Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic **and Compliance Questions and Metrics Key Question**  **Required Data Elements Purpose of Key**  **Questions**

How many permitted CAFOs appear to be calculating land application rates correctly, based on reasonable crop yields? The type (e.g., manure, litter, wastewater) and the amounts generated in the past 12 mo nths., a ctual crop(s) planted for each field, actual yield(s) for each field (amount of production that was grown on the field, e.g., 300 bushels per acre.), results of samp ling and analysis of manure, litter and wastewater, the maximum amount and type of manure, litter, wastewater that can be applied to each field, the volume of manure that was applied to each field receiving manure, during the last 12 months. Program im plem entation, targeting compliance mo nitoring

How many permitted CAFOs generate mo re manure than can be properly land applied to land they control? The type (e.g., manure, litter, wastewater) and the amounts generated in the past 12 mo nths., a ctual crop(s) planted for each field, actual yield(s) for each field (amount of production that was grown on the field, e.g., 300 bushels per acre.), results of sampling and analysis of manure, litter and wastewater, the maximum amount and type of manure, litter, wastewater that can be applied to each field, the volume of manure that was applied to each field receiving manure, during the last 12 months. Program im plementation, targeting compliance mo nitoring

How many permitted CAFOs generate mo re manure th an is either transferred offsite or that can be properly land applied to land they control? The type (e.g., manure, litter, wastewater) and the amounts generated in the past 12 mo nths., the type (e.g., manure, litter, wa stewater) and the amounts transferr ed offsite to a separate party in the past 12 mo nths, the maximum amount and type of manure, litter, wastewater that can be applied to each field., the volume of manure that was applied to each field receiving manure, during the last 12 mo nths. Program im plementation, targeting compliance mo nitoring43

**5.0 M**  **UNICIPAL S**  **EPARATE S**  **TORMWATER S**  **EWER S**  **YSTEMS (**  **MS4 S**  **) 5.1**  **Overview** Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Sy stems (MS4s) are required to develop and implement a stormwater management program (SWMP) to reduce the contamination of stormwater runoff and prohibit illicit discharges. The Phase I rule, issued in 1990, requires medium and large cities or certain counties with populations of 100,000 or more to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. The Phase II rule, issued in 1999, requires regulated small MS4s in urbanized areas , as well as small MS4s outside the urbanized areas that are designated b y the permitting authority, to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. Generally , Phase I MS4s are covered by individual permits and Phase II MS4s are covered b y a general permit issued by

the stat es, local jurisdictions, and certain Federal and state operating entities. Stormwater runoff, including discharges from municipal storm sewers, industrial facilities and construction sites, can have a significant impact on water quality . Such discharges are responsible for beach closings, swimming and fishing advisories, and habitat degradation. Several studies reveal that stormwater discharges from urban areas can include a variety of pollutants, such as turbidity , pathogens, organic nutrients, hydrocarbo ns, metals, oil and grease, and debris. As stormwater flows over a construction or industrial site or urbanized areas, it can pick up a variet y of pollutants such as sediment, debris, pesticides, petroleum products, chemicals, solvents, asphalts and acids, and in extreme cases it can alter the pH of the receiving stream or river. These pollutants can harm the environment and public health. According to EPA’s National W

ater Quality Inventory: 2002 Report , prepared under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Ac t, 40% of surveyed rivers & 45% of surveyed lakes are not clean enough to meet basic uses ( e.g. fishable, swimmable and drinkable). The Report further showed the sediment contributes to the impairment of 31% of impaired rivers and streams (84,503 river mil es) and 21% of impaired lake areas (1.5 million acres) and is the second leading cause of impairment for rivers and streams and the third leading cause for lakes. EPA estimates that there are over 8,000 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer permits nationwide. There are approximately 280 Phase I MS4 permits which cover approximately 1,000 permittees (the difference being that man y MS4 permits include two or more co

- permittees). According to the ICIS

- NPDES database, there are 1,299 permits with an MS4 program component. Due to s ys tem limitations in PCS, permits with an MS4 component are unable to be identified and evaluated for compliance and enforcement rates. Additionall y, these NPDES permits are mostly

based on BMPs. The lack of water quality monitoring data makes enforcement and demonstrations of permit effectiveness difficult.44

**5.2 Current Program Reporting**  EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.42(c) require operators of large or medium municipal separate storm sewer s ys tem or a municipal separate storm sew er that has been designated b y the Director under §122.26(a)(1)(v) to submit an annual program report. Due to the nature of stormwater management program there is tremendous variability in these annual program reports. Additionally , these program reports are a mix of narrative and numeric information. The annual program report must include the following information:

 The status of implementing the components of the stormwater management program that are established as permit conditions;  Proposed changes to the stormwater management programs that are established as permit condition;  Id entification of an y revisions to the assessment of controls and the fiscal analy sis reported in the permit application;  A summary

of compliance data, including monitoring data, that is accumulated throughout the reporting year;  Annual expenditures and budget for ye ar following each annual report;  A summary

describing the number and nature of enforcement actions, inspections, and public education programs; and  Id entification of water quality improvements or degradation. EPA requires similar recordkeeping for small MS4s; however, EPA regulations do not require small MS4 to report data to their NPDES permitting authority. However, a NPDES permitting authority may require an operat or of a MS4 to regularly report compliance data. MS4 operators have some flexibility to select the best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for each minimum control measure that are most appropriate for their sy stem and still meet their NPDES permit requirements. MS4 operators must design an d implement a comprehensive program (using the minimum measures framework) to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Once submitted in the NPDES permit application, the BMPs and measurable goals that the MS4 operator selected become requirements of their stormwater management program. Measurable goals are BMP design objectives or goals that quantify the progress of program implementation and the performance of the MS4 BMPs. They

are objective markers or milestones that EPA can use to tra ck the progress and effectiveness of the MS4 B MPs in reducing pollutants to the MEP. There are a number of different way s to write measurable goals and they fall into the following general categories:

 Tracking implementation over time. Where a BMP is co ntinually implemented over the permit term, a measurable goal can be developed to track how often, or where, this BMP is implemented.  Measuring progress in implementing the BMP. Some BMPs are developed over time, and a measurable goal can be used to track this progress until BMP implementation is completed.45

 Tracking total numbers of BMPs implemented. Measurable goals also can be used to track BMP implementation numericall y, e.g., the number of wet detention basins in place or the number of people changing their behavior due to the receipt of educational materials.  Tracking program/BMP effectiveness. Measurable goals can be developed to evaluate BMP effectiveness, for example, by evaluating a structural BMP's effectiveness at reducing pollutant loadings, or e valuating a public education campaign's effectiveness at reaching and informing the target audience to determine whether it reduces pollutants to the MEP. A measurable goal can also be a BMP design objective or a performance standard.  Tracking environment al improvement. The ultimate goal of the NPDES stormwater program is environmental improvement, which can be a measurable goal. Achievement of environmental improvement can be assessed and documented by ascertaining whether state water quality

standards ar e being met for the receiving waterbody or by tracking trends or improvements in water qualit y (chemical, physical, and biological) and other indicators, such as the h ydrologic or habitat condition of the waterbody or watershed. EPA recommends that measur able goals include, where appropriate, the following three components: (1) the activity , or BMP, to be completed; (2) a schedule or date of completion; and (3) a quantifiable target to measure progress toward achieving the activity or BMP. Measurable goals that include these three components and are eas y to quantify will allow EPA and MS4 operators to assess progress at reducing pollutants to the MEP. **5 .3**  **MS4 Program Report Recommended for Inclusion in the NPDES Electronic**  **Reporting Rule** Due to the nature and variability of the MS4 program reports, the Team recommends summary data from MS4 program report be converted to electronic reporting (40 CFR 122.42(c)) . The following tables provide a listing of the specific data elements that are recommended for e lectronic reporting for MS4 program reports

. MS4 Reliance on Other Go vernment E ntities Names of all municipalities that are included in the permit coverage. Unique Number for Each Municipality Covered Under MS4 Permit Unique number for each municipality covered under MS4 permit. This will allow greater geographic resolution for the MS4 components being tracked and ensure consistency from year to year. The number would essentially be similar to an outfall number, for distinguishing complianc e at various locations.
Listing of MS4 Permit Components This code/description will identify for each municipality all of the permitted components that are included in the MS4 permit. The groupings of these MS4 components will include public education and outreach on stormwater im pacts; public involvement/participation; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction site stormwater runoff; post

- construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment; and pollution prevention/g ood housekeeping for municipal operations. Identified Measurable Goal for Each MS4 Permit Component Identified measurable goal for each MS4 permit component for each municipality.46

Status and Assessment of Im plementing MS4 Components in Permit Status an d assessment of each MS4 permit component for each municipality.
Number of Notice of Violations For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number notice of violations. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the MS4 permitt ee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement action. Number of Administrative Fines For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number of administrative fines. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement action. Number of Stop Work Orders For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number of stop work orders. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement action. Number of Civil Penalties For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number of civil penalties. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the MS4 permi ttee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement action. Number of Criminal Actions For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number of criminal actions. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement action. Number of Administrative Orders For each municipality covered under the MS4 permit, identify the number of administrative orders. The MS4 permittee will identify “No Authority” if the MS4 permittee does not have the authority to conduct this enforcement action. The Team notes that the MS4 annual reports may be good candidates for being managed as electronic documents (e.g., searchable PDFs) and posting on EPA, state, or local gove rnment websites. Making these documents available to the public will provide added transparency

on the MS4 program. 21 **5 .**  **4 Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics**  A common theme found across all NPDES program sectors is that there are major limitations with the current NPDES program and enforcement data collection, management, anal ys is, and reporting activities. These limitations exist in part because the existing data management requirements originated when “major” individually permitted dischargers were the main focus of the NPDES program. EPA has not issued sufficientl y clear guidance and support materials relating to program and data entry expectations regarding o ther NPDES programs (e.g., pretreatment, biosolids, wet weather, CAFOs). Consequently , EPA’s data sy stems are not fully meeting the needs of EPA and the state NPDES programs to address questions about the activities and performance of the various programs. This lack of clarity undermines the importance of current data collection, management, analy sis, and reporting. The Team behind this paper identif ied the following key

programmatic and compliance questions and metrics . These key questions and metrics are derived from statutory obligations, programmatic needs (e.g., re - issuance of information collection requests, GPRA performance

21 The Missouri DNR website is an example of such a PDF repository of static searchable documents. See http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/w pcpermits

- issued.htm

.47

measures ), and enforcement obligations. The Team recommends that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to deve lop web

- based annual reports for the MS4 sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities. 5.4.1 Will the needs of EPA and the states be met through this proposal? The collection, management, anal ys is, and reporting of data from the MS4 data identified for conversion from paper

- based reporting to electronic reporting will fully meet the needs of EPA and the states . In particular, these data will help implement EPA’s Clean W ater Act National Polluta nt Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Core Program and Wet Weather Sources (2007) , which expects the regions and states to audit each Phase I MS4 by

2013. For Phase II MS4, the goal is to conduct an appropriate combination of audits and inspections to determine compliance by 2014. Since the size of the universe is large, priorit y should be to MS4s located in priority watersheds that contribute to CWA Section 303(d) or 305(b) listings (impaired waterbodies), and MS4s located near high qualit y waters that the state has designated for higher levels of protection to prevent degradation. For example, the MS4 data collected electronically will enable EPA, states, and the public to more readil y answer the following questions :

 [Nam e or count the number] of MS4 permits in the State of "x" [insert various names of states]; and  Number of MS4 outfalls for a given NPDES ID.  Number of MS4 activities or BMPs completed in the reporting year  Name and number of MS4 permits and outfalls near 3 03d listed waters and other state designated impaired or protected waters  H ow man y MS4s have (or have not) submitted their annual reports ?  Gallons of stormwater runoff abated as a result of MS4 control activities/BMPs 5.4.2 Will EPA or the states need specific reports to better access or use this information? Improvements to ECHO and OTIS will be required in order to make full use of the MS4 data identified for conversion from paper

- based reporting. The Team recommends that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web

- based annual reports for the MS4 sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities . Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual Noncompliance Repo rt for individual permitted non

- majors, 22 these web

- based reports will use the list of performance questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query results at various scales (watershed, state, regional, National). These web

- based annual reports would provide regulated entities, states, EPA and the public with an eas y way to retrieve data. The public could run standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These web

- based annual reports would present an eas y to use front

- end, with the underlying data bases (such as I CI S, IDEA, OTI S, ECHO and state NPDES sy stems) operating in the background via the Exchange Network

22 See http://www.epa

- echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/48

to support all the functionality . These web

- based annual reports can also provide the public with an eas y way to assess the performances of different regulatory agencies

.49

**6.0 P**  **RETREATMENT P**  **ROGRAM 6.1**  **Overview** Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) receive wastewater from households (domestic waste), as well as a wide variet y of commercial and industrial facilit ies, referred to as Industrial Users (IUs). The ty pes of IUs range widely , from restaurants to manufacturers of organic chemicals and plastics. EPA has develop ed a comprehensive pretreatment program implemented through state agencies and POTWs t o control pollutants from IUs that might pass through or interfere with POTW treatment processes or contaminate sewage sludge , thereby posing a threat to human health or the environment. POTWs with approved pretreatment programs are required to develop, implement, and enforce program elements through provisions written into their NPDES permits or waste discharge requirements. The pretreatment program focuses on controlling pollutants from IUs that: (1) have the potential to cause the POTW to violate its N PDES permit discharge limits; (2) may pose a safety concern to the POTW; and (3) affect the POTW’s sludge disposal method. See 40 CFR 403.3(i). The pretreatment program also has several other equally important regulatory

requ irements and initiatives. First , the pretreatment program ensure s implementation and compliance with the technology

- based categorical standards. Man y pr etreatment enforcement actions concern violations of categorical standards and those standards and the associated enforcement actions are not strictl y tied to interference and pass thr ough. Second, the pretreatment program contains regulatory

provisions for preventing sewer blockages and collection s ys tem spills due to FOG, which contributes to a vast majority of spills nationally

. Finall y, municipal pretreatment programs are the source of significant pollution prevention and innovation initiatives. Such efforts involve controlling dental mercury and pharmaceutical reverse distribution. Through the pretreatment program regulations at 40 C FR 403 and requirements within the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122, EPA regulates over 1,600 approved pretreatment program, who in turn oversee approximately 20,000 Significant IUs (SIUs

–those required to be issued a control mechanism), while EPA and appr oved state pretreatment programs directly oversee 1,300 SIUs. 23 This number of SIUs is approximately three times the number of industrial National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem (NPDES) major dischargers. The pretreatment program is considered a co mponent of the NPDES program but in a larger sense its regulatory framework is as comprehensive as the NPDES permit program

. As with the NPDES permit program , the authorit y to enforce the pretreatment program can be authorized and EPA has authorized pretre atment program authorit y to 36 states. The pretreatment program has additional complexity as states can further authorize pretreatment program authorit y to local governments

. This complexity is reflected in the different types of the compliance monitoring reporting, the associated report preparers and reviewers, and reporting timing.

23 U.S. EPA, 2004. “EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program,” Office of Inspector General, Report No. 2004

- P
- 00030, September 28 th . [Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040928

- 2004

- P
00030.pdf]50

**6.2 Current Program Reporting**  Section s 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 provide a listing of the fifteen pretreatment program reports that are current ly managed in hardcopy between industria l users, control authorities, and approval authorities that are candidates for electronic reporting. These reports are summarized in Table 6

- 1. In general, these reports fall into the following categories:

 Industrial User Reports : **Twelve** program reports from industrial users to control authorities (local POTWs, states, or EPA Regions in cities without approved programs); and

 Control Authority Reports : **Three** program reports from control authorities to approval authorities (states or EPA R egions). These pretreatment reports are entirel y managed in hardcop y format. Additionally, each local government, state, and EPA Region has its own hardcop y format for pretreatment reporting and other formats, including Word

. Some states have Excel spread sheet formats that they distribute to the Pretreatment Programs for preparation of Annual Reports. This means that program data is not centrall y located nor is it standardized. However, these non

- standardize d reports all derive from the same Federal regulations (40 CFR 403) and can be standardized with coordination between EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions, states, and local governments. All entities must be willing to adhere to the template, and be willing to require, or at least strongl y encourage adoption of whatever standardization methods and reports that are developed. States or EPA Regions enter b asic POTW data into the PCS or I CI S

- NPDES ( e.g. , POTW name, address latitude and longitude, POTW NPDES ID, POTW effluent limits, name of receiving waterbody). 24 POTW Pretreatment status for PO TW s should default to the authorized pretreatment state or EPA unless it is known that an approved program has been submitted and approved. Pretreatment Program Audits and Compliance Inspection summary data, collected by stat e or EPA, is entered into I CI S; similar summary data on POTW performance actions is submitted annually

by the POTW [in accordance to NPDES permit conditions and also 403.12(i)] , but not necessarily entered into either database

. EPA limited the required number of pretreatment data elements as a means to reduce the reporting burden on states. Consequently , PCS and I CI S

- NPDES pretreatment data only provide very

general information about each pretreatment program and do not contain programmatic or compliance in formation on individual significant industrial users. Failure to track and enforce compliance of IUs for which state s and EPA are the control authorities was cited as a weakness by EPA’s Office of Inspector General

. Some control authorities try to enter data but it is very limited. There are also inconsistencies in data entry between the state and Regional pretreatment programs. A recent Office of Water anal ys is of pretreatment data in PCS and I CI S

- NPDES coupled with interviews of EPA Regional pretreatment data entry staff indicate considerable inconsistencies in data entry , including use of database codes, typ es of data entered, and whether the data is entered at all . This limits the ability to draw comparative statistics across different

24 U.S. EPA, 1988. “Update of PCS Policy Statement/WENDB Data Elements,” Memorandum from J. William Jordan, Director, Enforcement Division, March 23 rd

.51

pretreatment programs or accuratel y respond to questions regarding the pretreatment program at the national level

. Currently there is no known existing national or state sy stem, aside from EPA sy stem for online PDFs, to facilitate the online data entry , signature, and sub mission of program report data. Some States also have Excel spreadsheet formats that they distribute to their Pretreatment Programs for preparation of annual reports

. Under current procedures, paper

- based program reports are filled out b y Control Authorities and Approval Authorities. EPA and states must manage this consistently

large volume of paper work and enter the federally required data into IC IS or into their own state internal tracking s ys tem, which is then batched to I CI S. See Figure 6

- 2. H owever , due to s ys tem incompatibilities s ome states are unable to successfull y upload to their data into I CI S

.

Data from current paper

- based pretreatment program reports are diffic ult to share and anal yz e as these reports are not standardized or collected electronicall y. The lack of standardization and the inefficient data collection methods are barriers to showing who is regulated b y the pretreatment program and how EPA and state regulators demonstrate the effectiveness of their compliance activities. This rulemaking will be useful in standardizing data collection and reporting. Moreover, Regional and state program authorities must review and assess compliance against these n on - standard, hardcopy reports and identify

facilities for enforcement and compliance activities. The non

- standard hardcopy formats limits the usefulness of these reports as data cannot be easily

compared or shared across different regulatory programs. Stan dardization and electronic data submittals can help track submissions and automate some compliance checks, which might lead to a burden reduction. Finall y, standardization and electronic data submittals will lead to better identification of facilities that have the potential to impact impaired waters. **Figure 6 -**  **2:** Annual Pretreatment Reports to one EPA Region (2009)52 

### Table 6 **- 1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart**  **REGULATION NUMBER**  **REPORT REPORTING**  **ENTITY REC**  **EI VING** 

**ENTITY FREQUENCY**  **REPORT DATE SIMILAR TO**  **NPDES**

40 CFR 403.6 Categorical

Determination Request CIU/POTW EPA ONCE Within 60 days after the effective date of new categorical pretreatment standard for existing sources and prior to discharge for new sources. NO

40 CFR 403.7 Removal Credit

Authorization and Com pliance Monitoring Control Authority Approval

Authority ONCE Schedule for removal credit application is set by POTW. After application approval the POTW must annual ly demonstrate compliance to Approval Authority. NO

40 CFR 403.12 (b) Baseline Monitoring Report CIU Control Authority ONCE Within 180 days after the effective date of new F ederal categorical pretreatment standard or existing users and 90 days prior to discharge for ne w industrial users. Application Form

40 CFR 403.12 (d) Initial report on Com pliance with Categorical Pre treatment Standard CIU Control Authority ONCE Within 90 days after the effective date of new categorical pretreatment standard for existing sources and immediately after discharge for new sources. YES

40 CFR 403.12 (e) Periodic Reports on

Continued Com

pliance for CIUs CIU Control Authority MINIMUM OF

EVERY SIX MONTHS (JUNE & DECEMBER) Periodic reports on

continued compliance. Yes, Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)53 

### Table 6 **- 1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart**  **REGULATION NUMBER**  **REPORT REPORTING**  **ENTITY REC**  **EI VING** 

**ENTITY FREQUENCY**  **REPORT DATE SIMILAR TO**  **NPDES** 40 CFR 403.12 (f) Notice of Potential

Problems, Including Slug Loading IU Control Authority CASE BY CASE Immediate notification NO 40 CFR 403.12 (h) Periodic Reports on

Continued Compliance for Non

- CIUs SIU Control Authority MINIMUM OF

ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS Periodic reports on

continued compliance. Yes, DMRs
403.12(g)(2) 24 hour notification of

violations, 30 day resampling SIU Control Authority Case by Case Within 24 hours (notification) and 30 days of violation (Re

sampling) YES

40 CFR 403.12 (i) Annual POTW Reports Control Authority Approval

Authority MIN I MUM OF

ANNUALLY (some states require semiannual or quarterly reports) No later than one year

after program approval and annually thereafter. NO

40 CFR 403.12 (j) Notification of Changed Discharge IU Control Authority CASE BY CASE Prom pt notice to Control Authority of new pollutant discharges or substantial changes NO 40 CFR 403.12 (k) Com pliance Schedule for POTWs Control

Authority Approval

Authority ONCE Based upon the Com pliance Schedule NO 40 CFR 403.12 (p) Hazardous Waste

Notification and BMP Certifi cation IU Control Authority CASE BY CASE Initial reports due in 1991. New

dischargers must report 180 days after start of the IU discharge. NO

40 CFR 122.42(b) POTW Disclosure

Requirements on IU Discharges for NPDES Permitting POTW NPDES Program Director CASE BY CASE Timely notice to Director of new pollutant discharges or substantial changes YES54 

### Table 6 **- 1: Current Reporting Requirements Summarization Chart**  **REGULATION NUMBER**  **REPORT REPORTING**  **ENTITY REC**  **EI VING** 

**ENTITY FREQUENCY**  **REPORT DATE SIMILAR TO**  **NPDES**

40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) SIUs, identify in terms

of volumes and character of pollutants (similar to 122.42(b) for non approved pretreatment programs) POTW NPDES Program Director Case by Case Timely notice to Directo r of characterizing SIUs, in term s of volume and character of pollutants YES

40 CFR 403.12 (q) Annual Certification by Non
- Significant Categorical Industrial Users CIU Control Authority ANNUALLY Must a ccom pany an alternative report NO

40 CFR 403.16 Upset CIUs Control Authority CASE BY CASE Verbal report within 24 hours of upset and w

ritten report with 5 days Yes, 122.41(n)
40 CFR 403.17 By pass IUs Control Authority CASE BY CASE Verbal report within 24 hours of upset and w

ritten report with 5 days Yes, 122.41(m)55

The NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule will alleviate state programs from entering many pretreatment data elements into ICIS

NPDES as these data will be submitted by the POTW (contro l authority) or significant industrial user (for facilities in cities or states without approved programs). Section 6.3 identifies the program reports and data elements that are candidates for electronic r eporting. The following definitions are useful in understanding the responsible report preparer and signatory and report reviewer as defined by EPA regulations.

 “Approval Authorit y” is defined in Section 403.3(c): “Director in an NPDES State with an approved State pretreatment program and the appropriate Regional Administrator in a non

- NPDES State or NPDES State without an approved State pretreatment program.”

 “Control Authority” is defined in Section 403.3(f): (1) The POTW if the POTW's Pre treatment Program Submission has been approved in accordance with the requirements of §403.11; or (2) the Approval Authority i f the Submission has not been approved.”

 “Director” is defined at Section 403.3(g) as “the chief administrative officer of a Stat e or Interstate water pollution control agency

with an NPDES permit program approved pursuant to section 402(b) of the Act and an approved State pretreatment program.” There are other program reports that are not good candidates for electronic reporting. The regulations at 40 CFR 403.10 provide the application and reporting requirements for the states to seek approval from EPA to run their State pretreatment p rogram. States are required to implement the pretreatment program requirements set forth in 40 CFR 403.8(f) for the IUs in their jurisdictions. The state must identify

and characterize IUs; issue control mechanisms ; conduct oversight monitoring (sampling and inspections) ; request, receive, and analyze required reports from its IUs; and enforce against pretreatment program and control mechanism violations. R egulations at 40 CFR 403.11 provide procedures and reporting requirements for approving, denyi ng, or modifying requests for approval of POTW Pretreatment Programs and applications for removal credit a uthorization. The reporting requirements at Parts 403.10 and the reporting procedures in 403.11 can be extensive and contain a mix of non

- standardized quantitative and narrative data so may

not be good can didates for electronic submission. Examples of othe r report s that might be identified as not appropriate for electronic submission are: 403.9 (POTW pretreatment programs and/or authorization to revise pretreatment standards: Submission for approval), 403.10 (Development and submission of NPDES State pretre atment program), 403.13 (Variances from categorical pretreatment standards for fundamentally different factors), 403.15 (Net/Gross calculations) or 403.18 (Modifications of POTW pretreatment programs). Likewise, there may be o ther reports required by e nforc ement actions ( e.g., administrative orders. These reporting requirements are also one

- time or infrequent events. Consequently , the Team recommends that these program reports remain as paper

- based reports.56

Finally , i t is noteworthy

that only one pretreatme nt data element PRET [ Pretreatment Program Required Indicator] is included in EPA’s IDEA database and even that code is not made available through the ECHO or OTI S website. Without direct access to PC S or I CI S

- NPDES there is no ability to gain access to pr etreatment data submitted by the EPA Regions and states. 6.2.1 Industrial User Reports These reports are submitted by Industrial Users to the Control Authority (POTW, state, or EPA Region). Currentl y there is no known existing national or state s ys tem to facilitate the online data entry, signature, and submission of these program report data. Under current procedures, paper

- based program rep orts are filled out b y IU/SIU s and provided to their Control Authority

.

 40 CFR 403.6 provides industrial users with the ability to request written certification on the categorical pretreatment standards that appl y to their operations (“ Categorical Determination R equest ”).

 4 0 CFR 403.12(b) addresses “ **Baseline Monitoring Reports** ” : “... **Industrial users** [that are subject to categorical pretreatment standards]... shall **submit to the Control Authority** a report which contains the information listed in p aragraphs (b)(1)

– (7) of this section. ” The information identified in this section to be submitted is simil ar to a permit application and, if applicable, a schedule b y which the industrial user can meet the standards if it does not meet the standards at the time of submittal.

 40 CFR 403.12(d) addresses “ **Report on compliance with categorical pretreatment standard Deadline**  ”: “any **Industrial User** subject to Pretreatment Standards and Requirements shall **submit to the Control Authority** a report containing the information described in paragraphs (b) (4)

- (6) of this section”.

 40 CFR 403.12(e) addresses “ **Periodi c reports on continued compliance**  ”:“ ...(1) an y **Industrial User** ... shall **submit to the Control Authority** ... a report indicating the nature and concentration of pollutants in the effluent which are limited by

such categorical Pretreatment Standards.” These repor ts are similar to DMRs in the NPDES permit program.

 40 CFR 403.12(f) addresses “ **Notice of potential problems, including slug loading** ”: “All categorical and non

categorical **Industrial Users** shall notify the **POTW** immediately of all discharges that could cau se problems to the POTW...”57

 40 CFR 403.12(g) addresses the requirement for SIUs to report within 24 hours of becoming aware of a violation and the requirement to re

- sample and submit within 30 day s.

 40 CFR 403.12(h) addresses “ **Reporting requirements for In dustrial Users not subject to categorical Pretreatment**  **Standards** ”: “...Significant Non

- categorical **Industrial Users** must **submit to the Control Authority** at least once every six months (on dates specified by the Control Authority) a description of the nature, concentration, and flow of the pollutants required to be reported by the Control Authority ...” These reports are similar to DMRs in the NPDES permit program.

 40 CFR 403.12(j) addresses “ **Notification of changed Discharge** ”: “...All **Industrial Users** shall promp tly notify the **Control Authority (and the POTW if the POTW is not the Control Authority)** in advance of any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants in their Discharge, including the listed or characteristic hazardous wastes for which the Industrial User has submitted initial notification under paragraph (p) of this section.”

 40 CFR 403.12(p) addresses “an y [ **Industrial User** ] discharge into the POTW of a substance, which, if otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous waste”: “The **Industrial User** shall notify the **POTW, the EPA Regional Waste Management Division Director, and State hazardous waste authorities**  in writing of an y discharge into the POTW of a substance, which, if otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261.” This requirement also requires that the IU submit certification to the Control Authority that the IU has a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity

of the hazardous waste discharges to the degree that it has determined to be econo mically practicable.

 40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) addresses **Characterizing SIUs, in terms of volume and character of pollutants**

. This regulation requires POTWs to “I dentify , in terms of character and volume of pollutants, any Significant Industrial Users discharging into the POTW subject to Pretreatment Standards under section 307(b) of CWA and 40 CFR part 403. ” Further, this regulations requires POTWs to “Provide a written technical evaluation of the need to revise local limits under 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1), following permit issuance or reissuance .”

 40 CFR 403.12(q) addresses “ **Annual certification by Non -**  **Significant Categorical Industri al Users**  ”: “A facility determined to be a Non

- Significant Categorical **Industrial User** pursuant to Sec. 403.3(v)(2) must annually submit the following certification statement, signed in accordance with the signatory requirements in paragraph (l) of this sec tion. This certification must accompan y an y alternative report **required by the Control Authority** ...” Although “facilit y” is58 not separatel y defined, the term “Non

- Significant Categorical Industrial User” is defined within the definition of Significant Industrial User in 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2).

 40 CFR 403.16(c)(3) addresses the **“Upset” Regulation** . “An Industrial User who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of Upset shall ... submit the following information to the POTW and Control Authority within 24 hours o f becoming aware of the Upset (if this information is provided orall y, a written submission must be provided within five day s): (i) A description of the Indirect Discharge and cause of noncompliance; (ii) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue; (iii) Steps being taken and/or planned to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance.” These regulations are similar to the “Upset” regulatio ns for the NPDES permit program.

 40 CFR 403.17(c) addresses the **“Bypass” Regulation.** “If an Industrial User knows in advance of the need for a by pass, it shall submit prior notice to the Control Authority , if possible at least ten day s before the date of the b ypass. An Industrial User shall submit oral notice of an unanticipated b ypass that exceeds applicable Pretreatment Standards to the Control Authority

within 24 hours from the time the Industrial User becomes aware of the by pass. A written submission s hall also be provided within 5 day s of the time the Industrial User becomes aware of the by pass. The written submission shall contain a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration of the b yp ass, including exact dates and times, and, if the by pass has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the b ypass. The Control Authority may waive the written report on a case

- by

- case basis if the oral report has been received within 24 hours.” These regulations are similar to the “By

pass” regulations for the NPDES permit program. As noted earlier, f

ailure to track and enforce compliance of S IUs for which states and EPA are the control authorities was cited a s a weakness b y EPA’s Office of Inspector General in its 2004 pretreatment program report

. There are some states that do not track or enforce compliance of SIUs in cities without approved pretreatment programs. When tracked, IU data are infrequently entered into national databases and, when they are entered, are often incorrectl y entered. For example, m an y states and EPA personnel believe that individual IU data cannot be entered into I CI S or PCS. Electronic receipt of basic IU information and IU monitoring efforts wo uld facilitate tracking of compliance report receipt and IU compliance with control mechanism requirements , and EPA w ould be able to identify all S IUs, the ir applicable categorical pretreatment standards, and their related discharge data in cities without approved pretreatment programs
. 6.2.2 Control Authority Reports59

These reports are submitted by POTWs with approved Pretreatment Program to the Approval Authority , which can either be a delegated state program or an EPA Region. Currentl y there is no known existing national or state system to facilitate the online data entry , signature, and submission of these program report data. Under cur rent procedures, paper

- based Program Reports are filled out by Control Authorities and provided to their Approval Authority

.

 40 CFR 403.7 provides the reporting requirements for control authorities to request authorization from the Approval Authority to grant removal credits to industrial users.

 40 CFR 403.12(i) addresses “ **Annual POTW Reports** ”: “ **POTWs with approved Pretreatmen t Programs**  shall **provide the Approval Authority** with a report that briefl y describes the POTW's program activities, including activities of all participating agencies, if more than one jurisdiction is involved in the local program.” At a minimum this report must contain the following: (1) An updated list of the POTW's Industrial Users, including their names and addresses, or a list of deletions and additions keyed to a previously submitted list. The POTW shall provide a brief explanation of each deletion. This list shall identify

which Industrial Users are subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards and specify which Standards are applicable to each Industrial User. The list shall indicate which Industrial Users are subject to local standards that are more stringent than the categorical Pretreatment Standards. The POTW shall also list the Industrial Users that are subject only to local Requirements. The list must also identify Industrial Users subject to categorical Pretreatment Standards that are subject to reduced reporting requirements under paragraph (e)(3), and identify

which Industrial Users are Non

- Significant Categorical Industrial Users. (2) A summary

of the status of Industrial User compliance over the reporting period; (3) A summary

of compliance and enfor cement activities (including inspections) conducted b y the POTW during the reporting period; (4) A summary

of changes to the POTW's pretreatment program that have not been previousl y reported to the Approval Authorit y; and (5) Any other relevant information requ ested b y the Approval Authorit y. It is worth noting that in practice Control Authorities only report on Significant Industrial Users (SIUs) and the Categorica l Industrial Users (CIUs), not the entire list of Industrial Users (which includes restaurants and any other non

- domestic source of wastewater). The Office of Water notes that quantification of the SIUs and CIUs is needed to calculate burden hours for their programmatic Information Collection Request (a prerequisite to run the national program). The listing of SIUs and CIUs (and n ot IUs) is also necessary

to determine if a POTW Pretreatment Program is in SNC for failure to implement its pretreatment program and should be on the QNCR (if the facilities have too high percentage of expired control mechanisms, too many facilities in long t erm60

SNC, etc., hinting at some issue with oversight deficiencies). Consequently , EPA may wish to reduce the reporting burden on P OTWs to only report on SIUs and CIUs and not include all other IUs.

 4 0 CFR 403.12(k) addresses “ **Compliance Schedule for POTWs** ” : “The following conditions and reporting requirements shall appl y to the compliance schedule for development of an approvable POTW Pretreatment Program required b y Sec. 403.8. . . **the POTW** shall submit a progress report **to the Approval Authority** including , as a minimum, whether or not it complied with the increment of progress to be met on such date and, if not, the date on which it expects to comply with this increment of progress, the reason for delay , and the steps taken by the POTW to return to the sch edule established

. ”

 40 CFR 122.42(b) addresses **POTW disclosure requirements on Industrial User discharges for NPDES permitting**  . This regulation states that “ All POTWs must provide adequate notice to the [NPDES] Director of the following: (1) An y new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be subject to section 301 or 306 of CWA if it were directl y discharging those pollutants; and (2) An y substantial change in the volume o r character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the [NPDES] permit. (3) For purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (i) the quality and quantity

of effluent introduced into the POTW, and (ii) any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity

or quality

of effluent to be discharged from the POTW. ”

 Follow Up reports required by Audits/PCI s or enforcement actions? **6.3 Pretreatment**  **Program Report Recommended for Inclusion in the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule** The regulatory

framework for the pretreatment program is as comprehensive as the NPDES permit program . There are numerous reporting requirements that vary from one

- time events to more frequent reports (e.g., biannual compliance monitoring reports b y C IUs to their Control Authority). Adding more complexity is the fact that the recipient of these program reports d epends on whether the POTW or state has been granted authorization to act as a Control Authority or Approval Authority . Consequentl y, the Team evaluated the ability and need to convert paper

- based pretreatment program reports to electronic reports against the following factors: (1) the ability

to standardize a pretreatment report; (2) the frequency of the pretreatment report (e.g., one

- time or very infrequent reporting may not warrant conversion to electronic reporting); (3) the need to collect and manage data from the pretreatment report on a national basis for measuring programmatic and compliance activities; and (4) whether summary data from various paper

- based reports could be combined into a new electronic based reports. Reports that are not considered candidates for electronic reporting for the NPDES Electronic Report ing Rule will remain as paper

- based reporting requirements. Additionally , the61

pretreatment program reports that are not considered candidates for this rulemaking may be good candidates for being managed as electronic documents (e.g., searchable PDFs) and p osting on EPA, state, or local government websites. Making these documents available to the public will provide added transparency on the pretreatment program. The Team solicits input on whether such pretreatment reports should be included in the rulemakin g but managed as static electronic documents (e.g., searchable PDFs). 25 Using the above three criteria the Team identified that the following reports are not likel y good candidates for electronic reporting on a national basis.

 40 CFR 403.6 C ategorical determination request;  40 CFR 403.7 Removal credits;  40 CFR 403.10 State pretreatment program applications;  40 CFR 403.11 Approval procedures for POTW pretreatment programs and POTW granting of removal credits ;  40 CFR 403.12(b) Baseline monitoring report;  40 CFR 403.12(d) Initial report on compliance with categorical pretreatment standard;  40 CFR 403.12(f) Notice of potential problems including slug loadings;  40 CFR 403.12(j) Notice of change in Industrial User discharge;  40 CFR 403.12(k) Compliance sche dule for POTW pretreatment program;  40 CFR 403.12(p) Hazardous waste notification and BMP certification;  40 CFR 122.42(b) POTW disclosure requirements to NPDES Director;  40 CFR 403.12(q) Annual certification b y Non
- significant CIUs  40 CFR 403.16 Upset noti fication;  40 CFR 403.17 By pass notification; and  40 CFR 403.18 Modification of POTW pretreatment programs. The team recommends adding summary data to the annual POTW report on slug loadings, upset notifications and by pass notifications. However, the Team identified that summary data from these reports are good candidates for electronic reporting . In particular, summary

data from the following reports can be electronically submitted by

the Control Authority

through their Annual

25 The Missouri DNR website is an example of such a PDF repository of static searchable documents. See http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/w pcpe rmits

issued.htm

.62

POTW Report (40 CFR 403.12(i)). For example, Control Authorities can identify in their Annual POTW Report the number of Slug Loadings Reports (40 CFR 403.12(f)) reported b y each Industrial User.

 40 CFR 403.6 Categorical determination request;  40 CFR 403.7 Rem oval credits;  40 CFR 403.12(f) Notice of potential problems including slug loadings;  40 CFR 403.12(j) Notice of change in Industrial User discharge;  40 CFR 403.12(p) Hazardous waste notification and BMP certification;  40 CFR 403.12(q) Annual certification b y Non
- significant CIUs;  40 CFR 122.42(b) POTW disclosure requirements to NPDES Director;  40 CFR 122.44(j)(1) POTW disclosure requirements to NPDES Director (SIUs, need to evaluate local limits after permit reissuance  40 CFR 403.16 Upset notification;  40 CFR 403.17 By pass notification The Team also noted that the following Industrial User reports should be collected electronicall y for Industrial Users in cit ies without approved pretreatment programs. This will facilitate tracking and enforc ing compliance of IUs for which states and EPA are the control authorities

.

 40 CFR 403.12(e) Periodic reports on continued compliance for CIUs  40 CFR 403.12(h) Periodic reports on continued compliance for Non

- CIUs The Team also noted that the following Control Authority report should be collected electronically : Annual POTW Report (40 CFR 403.12 (i)). As previously noted, the Team also recommends that this annual report include summary data from paper

- based reports that are not candidates for electronic reporting, especially data on by

pass and upset notification s and slug loadings and a quantification summary

of the reports received by the POTW

. The following tables provide a listing of the data elements that are specific to the two Industrial User reports (40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)) and the Annual POTW Report (40 CFR 403.12(h)). Compliance monitoring data from Industrial Users will also be submitted using data elements that are also used for Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) (e.g., initial monitoring date).63

SNC Published in Ne wspaper Flag An indication as to which Significant Industrial User s (SIUs) and Non
Significant Catego rical Industrial Users (NSCIUs) in SNC were published in the newspapers

. SNC with Pretreatment Schedule Flag An indication as to which Significant Industrial User s (SIU) and Non
Significant Catego rical Industrial Users (NSCIU) were in SNC with pretreatment schedule s. Date of Most Recent Adoption of Technically Based Local Limits The date on which the Control Authority has technically evaluated the need for local limits . The date data must be provi ded in CCYY

- MM
- DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day

. Date of Most Recent Technical Evaluation & or Local Limits The date on which the Control Authority adopted local limits for pollutants

. The date data must be provided in CCYY

- MM
- DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day

. Local Limits Pollutants This is the list of the pollutants for which the Control Authority derived, which is calculated using data from the headw orks of the POTW. POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator (Program Report) The flag indicating if there have been any problem s (including upset, bypass, interference, pass

- through) with the receiving POTW’s effluent discharge within the previous 12 months

. POTW Biosolids Contamination Indicator (Program Report) The flag indicating if there have been any problem s (including upset, bypass, interference, pass

- through) with the receiving POTW’s biosolids within the previous 12 months. Removal Credits Application Status The status of the POTW’s application for administering removal credits

. Date of Most Recent Removal Credits Approval This is the date the POTW’s application for removal credits was approved by the Approval Authority. The date data must be provided in CCYY

- MM
DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day

. Removal Credits Pollutants This field contains a list of pollutants for which the Approval Authority granted the POTW authorization to administer removal credits

. Industrial User Name (Program Report) The name of each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW. Industrial User Address (Program Report) The mailing address of each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW. Industrial User City (Program Report) The name of the city, town, village, or other locality, when identifiable, within whose boundaries (the majority of) for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW.64

Industrial User State (Program Report) The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) abbreviation that represents the state or state equivalent for the U.S. fo r each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW.
Industrial User Zip Code (Program Report) The combination of the 5

- digit Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP) code and the 4

- digit extension code (if available) that represents the geo graphic segment that is a sub unit of the ZIP Code assigned by the U.S. Postal Service to a geographic location for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW. Industrial User SIU Flag This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User is a Significant Industrial Users (SIU)

. Industrial User Control Mechanism Flag This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User has a Control Mechanism. Industrial User Control Mechanism Expiration Date The date when the Control Mechanism for the Industrial User will expire. The date data must be provided in CCYY

- MM
- DD format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day

. Industrial User Subject to Categorical Standards and Type (Program Report) This code/description will identify whether the Industrial User is a Categorical Industrial Users (CIU) and its type (including Standard CIU, Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU), and Middle Tier Categorical Industrial User). Applicable Categorical Standards (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Categorical Industrial User (CIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the applicable categorical pretreatment standards. Industrial User Subject to Local Limits (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Indus trial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW w hether the IU is subject to local limits. Industrial User Subject to Local Limits More Stringent Than Categorical Standards (Program Report) This data element will ident ify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW w hether the IU is subject to local limits that are more stringent than the applicable c ategorical standards. SNC with Pretreatment Standards (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW w hether the IU was in Significant Non

- Compliance (SNC) with discharge requirements (including effluent limit violations) in the previous 12 months.65

SNC with Reporting Requirements (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW w hether the IU was in Significant Non

- Compliance (SNC) with reporting requirements ( including baseline monitoring reports, notice of potential problems, periodic self mo nitoring reports, notice of change in Industrial User discharge, hazardous wa ste notification and BMP certification) in the previous 12 months

. SNC with Other Control Mechanism Requirements (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW w hether the IU was in Significant Non
- Compliance (SNC) with any other control mechanism requirements in the previous 12 months

. Number of Quarters in SNC This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) th at is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the number of yearly quarters the IU is in SNC in the previous 12 months. Number of Industrial User Inspections This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of inspections conducted by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months. Number of Industrial User Sampling Events This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SI U) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of sampling events conducted by the Control Authority in the previous 12 mo nths. Number of Industrial User Violation Notices This data element will identify for each Significant Industr ial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of formal notices of violation or equivalent actions issued by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months. A dm inistrative Orders Issued to IUs (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of administrative orders issued by the Control Authority in the previous 12 mo nths. Civil Suits Filed Against IU s (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of civil suits filed by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months. Criminal Suits Filed Against IUs (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) the number of criminal suits filed by the Control Authority in the previous 12 months.66

Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty Amount Assessed For civil judicial Enforcement Actions, the dollar amount of the penalty assessed against each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) in the previous 12 months as specified in the final entered Consent Decree or Court Order. For Administrative Enforcement Actions, it is the dollar amount of the penalty assessed in the Consent/Final Order. Industrial User Cash Civil Penalty Amount Collected For civil judicial Enforcement Actions, the dollar amount of the penalty collected from each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) in the previous 12 months . For Administrative Enforcement Actions, it is the dollar amount collected of the penalty assessed in the Consent/Final Order. Industrial User POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the Industrial User caused or contributed to any problems with the receiving POTW’s effluent discharge 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 (including upset, bypass, interference, pass

- through) at the receiving POTW.
Industrial User Biosolids Contamination Indicator (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical 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 Co ntrol Authority to develop and enforce local limits when the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any problems (including upset, bypass, interference, pass

- through) at the receiving POTW. Industrial User Process Wastewater Flow Rate (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the process wastewater flow rate (in gallons per day). Ty pe of Significant Industrial User Process Wastewater Flow (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transp ortation) to this POTW the type of process wa stewater flow

(continuous or intermittent). Significant Industrial User Non

Process Wastewater Flow Rate (Program Report) This data element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Signi ficant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the non

- process waste water flow rate (in gallons per day).67

Ty pe of Significant Industrial User Non
- Process Wastewater Flow (Program Report) This d ata element will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW the type of non

- process wa stewater flow

(continuous or intermitte nt). Industrial User Removal Credits Flag This code/description will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the POTW has granted the IU removal credits. Industrial User Removal Credits Pollutants This code/description will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) the list of pollutants for which POTW has granted the IU removal credits. Industrial User Reduced Re porting Flag This code/description will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the Control Authority has granted reduced reporting requirements [403.12(e)(3)]. Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) Certification to Control Authority This code/description will identify for each Non
- Significant Catego rical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether it has given its annual compliance certification. Control Authority Budget Reso urces Annual pretreatment implementation budget

.68

**6.4 Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and Metrics**  A common theme found across all NPDES program sectors is that there are major limitations with the current NPDES program and enforcement data collection, management, anal ys is, and reporting activities. These limitations exist in part because the existing data management requirements originated when “major” individually permitted dischargers were the main focus of the NPDES program. EPA has not issued sufficientl y clear guidance and support materials relating to program and data entry expectations regarding o ther NPDES programs (e.g., pretreatment, biosolids, wet weather, CAFOs). Consequently , EPA’s data sy stems are not fully meeting the needs of EPA and the state NPDES programs to address questions about the activities and performance of the various programs. This lack of clarity undermines the importance of current data collection, management, analy sis, and reporting. The Team behind this paper identif ied the following key

programmatic and compliance questions and metrics . These key questions and metrics are derived from statutory obligations, programmatic needs (e.g., re - issuance of information collection requests, GPRA performance measures ), and enforcement obligations. The Team recommends that these key programmatic and compliance questions be used to deve lop web

- based annual reports for the pretreatment sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities. 6.4.1 Will the needs of EPA and the states be met through this proposal? The collection, management, anal ys is, and reporting of data from the pretreatment reports identified for conversion from paper

- based reporting to electronic reporting will fully meet the needs of EPA and the states

. For example, the pretreatment data collected electronicall y will enable EPA, states, and the public to more readily answer the following questions :

 Number and names of POTWs with approved pretreatment programs;  Number and names of POTWs that are not required to have pretreatment programs;  Number an d names of industrial users (IUs) in cities without pretreatment programs inspected or sampled during a time period (not just as part of audits);  Number of significant industrial users (SIUs) and categorical industrial users (CIUs) in approved pretreatment programs and number without permits or with expired permits ;  Number of SIUs and CIUs in cities without pretreatment programs and number without permits ;  Number and name of IUs in cities without pretreatment programs that are in compliance/not in complianc e with their monitoring/reporting requirements;  Number of SIUs discharging to POTWs with pretreatment programs that are not inspected or sampled annually by the CA;  Number and names of IUs that have been issued enforcement actions including the ty pe of enforcement (SNC publication, AO, APO), who issued it (EPA, state, POTW), and any

dollar amounts;  Number and names of POTWs that are late in submitting local limits ree valuations;69

 Number and names of POTWs that are required to submit local limits reevaluations and the dates the submissions are due;  Numbers and names of POTWs in various stages of local limits development and approval;  Number and names of SIUs that have ha d SNC violations in the last two consecutive ye ars;  Number of enforcement actions taken against SIUs;  Number of SIUs in SNC that have been published in the local paper;  Number of incidents of pass

- through and/or interference at POTWs;  Number and names of POTWs with control mechanism deficiencies;  Number and names of POTWs with SIU sampling and inspection deficiencies;  Number and names of POTWs with inadequate pretreatment resources;  NPDES permit compliance for POTWs with approved pretreatment programs (rep ortable or significant noncompliance) ;  Sludge compliance for POTW with approved pretreatment programs;  Number and n ames of POTWs that have exceeded their influent, effluent, or sludge goals;  Numbers and names of POTWs that have not incorporated the require d pretreatment streamlining revisions into their legal authorit y ;  Numbers and names of POTWs that have incorporated the optional pretreatment streamlining revisions into their legal authority;  Numbers and names of POTWs in various stages of pretreatment streamlining approval;  Numbers and names of POTWs that are late in submitting annual reports;  Numbers and names of POTWs whose annual reports have been reviewed/not been reviewed; and  Id entification POTW with approved pretreatment programs that are covered b y a TMDLor other 303d listing. 6.4.2 Will EPA or the states need specific reports to better access or use this information? Improvements to ECHO and OTIS will be required in order to make full use of the pretreatment data identified for conversion from paper

- based reporting. The Team recommends that these key

programmatic and compliance questions be used to develop web

- based annual reports for the pretreatment sector that demonstrate in plain language the effectiveness of the NPDES program and compliance activities . Similar to the ECHO website for the Annual Noncompliance Report for individual permitted non

- majors, 26 these web

- based reports will use the list of performance questions from the program management plans to allow viewers to query results at various scales (watershed, state, regional, National). These web

- based annual reports would provide regulated entities, stat es, EPA and the public with an eas y way to retrieve data. The public could run standardized reports to see information on regulated facilities. These web

based annual reports would present an eas y to use front

- end, with the underlying data bases (such as I CI S, IDEA, OT IS , ECHO and state NPDES sy stems) operating in the background via the Exchange Network to support all the functionality.

26 See http://www.epa

- echo.gov/echo/ancr/us/70

These web

- based annual reports can also provide the public with an eas y way to assess the performances of different regu latory agencies. For example, Region 9 provide d the Team with a draft conceptual model on how to assess the performance of different Control Authorities. The data to support this conceptual model would be electronicall y captured and stored in ICIS

NPDES an d IDEA. **Figure 6**  **- 1:**  Pretreatment Program Performance Measures Conceptual Model

**6.5 Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic and Compliance Questions and**  **Metrics** The following table identifies the questions that EPA, states, and the public w ill be able to answer with the new electronic data collection, management, and reporting from the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule.71 

### Table 6 **- 4: Data Elements Supporting Key Programmatic**  **and Compliance Questions and Metrics Key Question**  **Required Data Elements**  **Purpose of Key Question** Number and names of industrial users (IUs) in cities without pretreatment programs inspected and/or sampled during a time period (not just as part of audits) IU name / identifier ( Not in ICIS?), POTW identifier; inspection flag

– NOIN

- opposite ; Control Authority NPDES ID ; SIUs Not Inspected; SIUs

Not Sampled Checking inspection coverage against the Compliance Monitoring Strategy for approval authority ; Im plications for CA compliance status Number of SIUs and CIU s in approved pretreatment programs and number without permits SIUs; SIUs Without Control Mechanism; CIUs; Num ber of NSCIUs; Num

ber of Middle Tier CIUs; GPRA; Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic ICR ; Determination of RNC/SNC Number and names of POTWs that are late in submitting local limits reevaluations NPDES ID; local limit reevaluation due date (not in ICIS?) Control authority management ; General interest; Congressional interest; program implementation Number and names of POTWs that are requi red to submit local limits reevaluations and the dates the submissions are due NPDES ID; local limit re

- evaluation flag ; local limit reevaluation due date Control authority management ; General interest; Congressional interest ; program implementation Numbe rs and names of POTWs in various stages of local limits development and approval NPDES ID; Date of Most Recent Adoption of Technically Based Local Limits; Date of Most Recent Technical Evaluation & or Local Limits; local limit reevaluation flag (not in ICI S?); local limit reevaluation

due date (not in ICIS?) Control authority management; General interest; Congressional interest ; program implementation Number and names of SIUs that have had SNC violations in the last two consecutive years SIUs; SIUs in SNC with Pretreatment Standards; SIUs in SNC with Reporting Requirements; SIUs in SNC with

Pretreatment Schedule Determination of RNC/SNC ; general enforcement interest NPDES permit compliance for POTWs with approved pretreatment programs NPDES ID; Pretreatment Program Required Indicator; Pretreatment Program Approved Date ; various violations indicators already in ICIS, depending on violation Im plications for POTW c om pliance status; general enforcement interest ; Determination of RNC/SNC Sludge com

pliance for POTW with approved pretreatment programs NPDES ID; Sludge Contamination Indicator Enforcement interest? Number and n ames of POTWs that have exceeded their influent, effluent, or sludge goals NPDES ID; various violations indicators already i n ICIS, depending on violation Im plications for POTW compliance status; general

enforcement interest72

Numbers and names of POTWs that have not incorporated the required pretreatment streamlining revisions into their legal authority; NPDES ID; Program Modification Date for Required Streamlining General program interest; Im plications for CA compliance status ; program implementation
Numbers and names of POTWs in various stages of pretreatment streamlining approva l POTW name /identifier; pretreat streamlini ng approval flag (code?) Control Authority interest? Numbers and names of POTWs that are late in submitting annual reports NPDES ID; Annual Report Due Date (NOT IN ICIS); Annual Report Receipt Date (NOT IN ICIS) General program interest; Im plications for CA compliance status Numbers and names of POTWs whose annual reports have been reviewed/not been reviewed NPDES ID; Annual Report Receipt Date; Annual Report Revie w Date General program interest; Im plications for CA compliance status Identification POTW with approved pretreatment programs that are covered by a TMDL or other 303d listing POTW name/ identifier; TMDL flag General interest

- prioritize for inspections. Number and names of POTWs with approved pretreatment programs NPDES ID; Pretreatment Program Required Indicator; Pretreatment Program Approved Date General interest; Congressional interest; GPRA ; Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic ICR

Number and names of POTWs that are not required to have pretreatment programs POTW name /identifier; ; Pretreatment Program Required Indicator; Need new

indicator code for facilities that have been determined NOT to need a pretreatment program, so we can distinguish them from POTWs that haven’t been evaluated yet for the need to develop a pretreatment

program Pretreatment Program Approved Date General interest; Congressional interest; GPRA ; Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic ICR

Number of SIUs and CIUs in cities without pretreatment programs and number without permits Control Authority NPDES ID; SIUs; SIUs Without Control Mechanism; CIUs; Num ber of NSCIUs; Number of Middle Tier CIUs; GPRA; Question Assists Renewal of Programmatic ICR ; Determination of RNC/SNC Number and name of IUs in cities without pretreatment programs that are in compliance/not in compliance with their mo nitoring/reporting requirements Control Authority NPDES ID; SIUs in SNC with Pretreatment Standards; SIUs in SNC with Reporting Requirements; Violation Notices Issued to SIUs Determination of RNC/SNC Number of SIUs discharging to POTWs with pretreatment programs that are not inspected or sampled annually by the CA SIUs Not Inspected; SIUs Not Sampled Determination of RNC/SNC73

Number of enforcement actions taken against SIUs Violation Notices Issued to SIUs; Admi nistrative Orders Issued to SIUs; Civil Suits Filed Against SIUs; Criminal Suits Filed Against SIUs ; Industrial Users (IUs) from which Penalties have been collected Im plications for CA compliance status; general

enforcement interest Number of SIUs in SNC that have been published in the local paper SIUs in SNC Published in Newspaper Im plications for CA compliance status; general

enforcement interest Number of incidents of pass

- through and/or interference at POTWs Pass
- Through/ Interference Indicator Im plications for CA compliance status; general enforcement interest ; Determination of RNC/SNC ;

OECA Number and names of POTWs with control mechanism deficiencies Control Mechanism deficiencies Determination of RNC/SNC Number and names of POTWs with SIU sampling and inspection deficiencies Inadequacy of sampling and inspections Determination of RNC/SNC Number and names of POTWs with inadequate pretreatment resources Adequacy of pretreatment resources Im plications for CA compliance status; general interest ; program implementation Numbers and names of POTWs that have incorporated the optional pretreatment streamlining revisions into their legal authority NPDES ID; Program Modification Date for Optional Streamlining; Optional Streamlining Program

Modification T ype General program interest ; program implementation74 **Appendix A** Analy sis F (Program Reports) T eam Members **Workgroup Member Organization**  **Biosolids/Pretreatment** Carey Johnston (L ead) OECA/Office of Compliance Virginia Lathrop OECA/Office of Compliance Peter Bahor OECA/Office of Compliance Laura Paradise OECA/Office of Compliance Ginny Phillips OECA/ Office of Civil Enforcement Jan Pickrel OW/Office of Wastewater Management Robin Danesi OW/Office of Wastewater Management Chry stal Beasle y OW/Office of Wastewater Management Rick Stevens OW/Office of Science and Technology **CAFOs** Michael Mundell OECA/Office of Compliance Al H aving a OECA/Office of Compliance Kathry n Greenwald OECA/ Office of Civil Enforcement Carol Galloway EPA/Region 7 Nina Bonnelycke OW/Office of Wastewater Management **Combined Sewer Systems/ Separate Sewer Systems (including satellite systems)** Andrew Cherry OECA/ Office of Civil Enforcement Bob Klepp OECA/ Office of Civil Enforcement Mohammed Billah OW/Office of Wastewater Management Kevin Weiss OW/Office of Wastewater Management Charles Glass OW/Office of Wastewater Management

**Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems (MS4s)**  Kelly Brantner OW/Office of Wastewater Management Holly Galavotti OW/Office of Wastewater Management