Document ID: EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0410
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2014-12-12T05:00Z

MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)	

FROM:		Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
            USEPA/OECA/OC
            ph: (202) 566 1014
            johnston.carey@epa.gov

DATE:		14 February 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (13 February 2014) [DCN 0130]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview 

      This was the third meeting for the EPA-state technical workgroup, which is discussing key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). These discussions will help inform the upcoming planned supplemental Federal Register notice and will continue beyond the supplemental notice to help EPA address state comments. EPA participants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA's Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA's outreach during the rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available for any other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule.
      
Meeting Notes
      
     EPA started the meeting with a roll call and solicited comments on the draft notes from the previous meeting. New Jersey and Washington state each made one comment that were incorporated into the draft meeting notes. Mr. Carey Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on the State Readiness Criteria. 
      
         *       Oklahoma suggested that EPA consider a lower participation rate trigger at the beginning of the eRule implementation and then increasing the required participation rate over time. They also suggested that EPA provide additional flexibility regarding the state collection and sharing of Appendix A data. These suggestions were also supported by the other states.

         *       Colorado (Andy Putnam) stated that the current proposed schedule is too aggressive and suffers from two problems. He stated that the first problem is insufficient amount of time in the proposed schedule for authorized state NPDES programs to update their state policies and regulation along with the development of their own electronic reporting tools. Mr. Putnam then noted the challenge of educating, training, and changing the behavior of NPDES regulated entities within the proposed rule's implementation schedule. Mr. Putnam noted that Colorado has an eDMR system but that the participation is approximately 9 percent. He noted that it will likely be extremely difficult to get this participation rate to 90 percent within one year of the effective date of the final rule.

         *       New York echoed the concerns from Mr. Putnam and made a specific comment on the challenge states face in getting their electronic reporting tools CROMERR approval. He noted that EPA has not processed state CROMERR applications in a timely manner. 

         *       A state commenter asked for the basis for setting the participation rate threshold at 90 percent. Mr. Dombrowski replied that this was the level at which states should see an adequate return on their investment. He noted that any participation rate lower than 90 percent likely means that the state will need to operate two systems (one to handle paper submissions and another for electronic submissions) and consequently won't see any savings or efficiencies.

         *       Several state participants noted that EPA should include in the implementation costs the enforcement efforts that states will need to expend to require electronic reporting. These states suggested that some enforcement actions will be necessary even though states have updated their policies, regulations, and permits with respect to electronic reporting.

         *       Washington state (Nancy Kmet) noted their support for the idea that any electronic reporting that is mandated by EPA's Information Collection Request (ICR), which accompanies the eRule, should go to the authorized state and not EPA. Ms. Kmet noted several benefits with this option such as the elimination of data inconsistencies that might arise from dual submissions going to two different recipients. 

         *       Ms. Kmet also noted the problem in getting compliance with some sectors. She noted that there are 2,000 construction operators regulated by their construction stormwater general permit. She estimates that only two-thirds of these NPDES regulated entities submit DMRs as required by the permit. Ms. Kmet offered this example to note how difficult it will be to get the electronic reporting participation rate above 90 percent.

         *       New York (Bob Wither) suggested that EPA consider making an electronic reporting participation rate calculation for individually permitted facilities and another electronic reporting participation rate calculation for general permit covered facilities. He noted that this was especially important for regulated entities in the NPDES stormwater sector as states have historically had difficulty in getting full participation and consistent reporting even when reporting can be done on paper forms. Mr. Wither noted that most individually permitted facilities are familiar with the NPDES program and generally comply with NPDES reporting requirements.

         *       Florida noted the difficulty in making the electronic reporting participation rate calculation for General Permit Reports [e.g., Notices of Intent (NOIs)]. For example, she noted that during the recent real estate boom in Florida the state annually issued approximately 7,000 NOIs under their construction stormwater permits. More recently due to the downturn in the economy they are annually issuing approximately 3,000 NOIs. Mr. Johnston agreed with Florida and also noted that this NPDES data group (i.e., General Permit Reports) differs from the other data groups in that facilities submitting General Permit Reports [i.e., NOIs, Notices of Termination), Low Erosivity Waivers (for construction stormwater), and No Exposures Certifications (for industrial stormwater)] may not be submitting these reports on a regular schedule. 

         *       Oklahoma and New York also suggested that EPA extend the implementation schedule and application of the State Readiness Criteria for some sectors (e.g., construction stormwater).
      
      Mr. Carey Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on the schedule for implementation of the eRule. 

         *       Oklahoma suggested that EPA needs to stretch out the implementation schedule for the eRule. They noted offered the following suggestion: 
               o          Phase 1  -  two year deadline (DMRs, Federal General Permit Reports)
               o          Phase 2  -  three year deadline (some State NOIs, some Program Reports)
               o          Phase 3  -  four or five year deadline (remaining data flows that require more time)

         *       New Jersey noted that they would like more time to comply with the transfer of basic facility, permit, compliance, and enforcement data to EPA (i.e., NPDES Data Group No. 1 in Table 1 in Appendix A to Part 127). Under the proposed rule states have nine months after the effective date of the rule to transfer these data to EPA [see Part 127.26(c)]. Mr. Johnston noted that sharing these data is necessary as EPA's NPDES data system, ICIS-NPDES, cannot accept other NPDES program data (e.g., DMRs) without these data. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA would likely extend the date when basic facility, permit, compliance, and enforcement data need to be shared with EPA if Phase 1 was extended.

         *       Arkansas suggested that the technical workgroup focus on the business need for the data elements listed in Appendix A. Mr. Johnston agreed that it would be helpful to focus on the data elements in Appendix A in future technical workgroup meetings. He noted that this discussion will likely last over multiple meetings and will likely need program experts from states and EPA to review the data elements.

         *       Texas (Kim Wilson) suggested that the eRule implementation use the NPDES permit cycle. Ms. Wilson noted that this alternative implementation schedule would allow states to stagger out development of the electronic reporting tools as well as the accompanying outreach and training to NPDES regulated entities. Ms. Wilson noted that EPA and states must not underestimate the amount of outreach and training as this many require even more resources that the necessary IT upgrade and enhancements for electronic reporting. She also noted that outreach and training to NPDES regulated entities will be ongoing even after the initial implementation of the eRule.

         *       New Jersey (Jason Lonardo) supported the development of individual plans as states have different capabilities with respect to implementing electronic reporting. Mr. Lonardo suggested that EPA allow states to negotiate these individualized electronic reporting plans as part of the existing Performance Partnership Agreements process. Washington state, Florida, and Colorado also agreed with this suggestion.

Next Steps
      
      EPA agreed to summarize the meeting notes as well as summarize and compile a few examples of public comments on a topic schedule for discussion. EPA will share these materials with the technical workgroup in advance of the next weekly meeting. The next meeting will focus on EPA's economic analysis for the proposed rule, comments on the CAFO sector, and comments on the stormwater sector (i.e., facilities that manage industrial and construction stormwater and MS4s). 
     State Technical Workgroup Meeting  -  NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
                               13 February 2014

      1pm		Introduction/Roll Call
      
      1:05		Review of Draft Notes from Previous Meeting
      
      1:15		Discussion on State Readiness Criteria
      
      1:45		Discussion on Implementation Schedule 
      
      2:15		Solicitation of Topics for Next Meeting
      
      2:30		End of Call
      
      
      
Quick Reminder
   *    The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior management.
   
   *    There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

   *    There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not achieve consensus.

   *    Summaries of the workgroup's discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the rulemaking record. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members
                                 Main Contact
                             State or Organization
                              Main Contact Email
                         State/Org. Present? (Yes/No)
                                 Sean  Rolland
                                     ACWA
                             srolland@acwa-us.org
                                      Yes
                                 Christy Monk
                                      AL
                             cvm@adem.state.al.us
                                      Yes
                                 Teresa Marks
                                      AR
                            marks@adeq.state.ar.us
                                      Yes
                                  Andy Putnam
                                      CO
                           andrew.putnam@state.co.us
                             goff@adeq.state.ar.us
                                      Yes
                                 Elisa Willard
                                      CO
                           elisa.willard@state.co.us
                                      Yes
                                 Bob Zimmerman
                                      DE
                         robert.zimmerman@state.de.us
                          stephanie.bower@state.de.us
                                      Yes
                                  Beth Graves
                                     ECOS
                               bgraves@ecos.org
                                      Yes
                                 Lee Garrigan
                                     ECOS
                              lgarrigan@ecos.org
                                      Yes
                                  Chris Klena
                                      FL
                         chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us
                                      Yes
                                 Tom Easterly
                                      IN
                             teasterl@idem.in.gov
                              ckoontz@idem.in.gov
                                      No
                                  John Murphy
                                    NEIWPCC
                              jmurphy@neiwpcc.org
                                      Yes
                                 Jason Lonardo
                                      NJ
                         jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us
                                      Yes
                                 Robert Wither
                                      NY
                          rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us
                                      Yes
                             Shellie Chard-McClary
                                      OK
                       shellie.chard-mcclary@deq.ok.gov
                                      Yes
                                  Roy Walker
                                      OK
                             roy.walker@deq.ok.gov
                                      No
                                 Sean Furjanic
                                      PA
                               sefurjanic@pa.gov
                                      Yes
                                  Kim Wilson
                                      TX
                           kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov
                                      Yes
                                 Jerome Brooks
                                      VA
                        jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov
                                      No
                                  Nancy Kmet
                                      WA
                              nkme461@ecy.wa.gov
                                      Yes
      
Tab le 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members
                                     Name
                                  EPA Office 
                                     Email
                               Present? (Yes/No)
                                 Steve Chester
                                    OECA/IO
                            chester.steven@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                   Lisa Lund
                                  OECA/OC/IO
                               lund.lisa@epa.gov
                                      No
                                John Dombrowski
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
                            dombrowski.john@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                  Andy Hudock
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
                             hudock.andrew@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                Rochele Kadish
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
                            kadish.rochele@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                Carey Johnston
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
                            johnston.carey@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                 Jackie Clark
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
                             clark.jackie@epa.gov
                                      Yes
                                  Roy Chaudet
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
                              chaudet.roy@epa.gov
                                      No
                                 Chuck Freeman
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
                            freeman.charles@epa.gov
                                      No
                                 Aditi Prabhu
                                    OGC/WLO
                             prabhu.aditi@epa.gov
                                      No
                                  Glynis Hill
                                 OP/ORPM/PRAD
                              hill.glynis@epa.gov
                                      Yes