






NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule Analysis C: Electronic State NPDES Information







                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                              13 September 2010
                                                                       DCN 0020
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                           Page
1.0	Overview	3
2.0	Analysis-Specific Questions	3
3.0	Technical Questions	6
4.0	Policy  Questions	8
                                                                               

1.0 Overview
      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. A major commitment from the Action Plan is to improve management and performance of the NPDES program by 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. Electronic 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 accessibility 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 reports (DMRs). NPDES program compliance is also assessed by inspections and the state or EPA Region's review of periodic or incident based reports from permittees. NPDES program data generated by authorized NPDES programs are detailed in this report. Separate rulemaking analyses focus on converting DMR and program reports from paper-based to electronic reporting (see "Analysis A" and "Analysis F," respectively). 
      
      The key subject matter experts that were consulted for this report include Alison Kittle for ICIS migration and batch, and Steve Rubin for ICIS data. Andy Hudock, Carey Johnston and Allison Landsman are the experts for NPDES from an OECA perspective. For NPDES from an OW perspective, the experts are Sarita Hoyt, Jennifer Koch and Jackie Clark. Subject matter experts in OW will likely be consulted for more detailed subprogram-specific information. These experts include Jan Pickrel for pretreatment, Nina Bonnelycke for CAFOs, Kevin Weiss for SSOs, and Mohammed Billah for CSOs. The team lead for Analysis C is Andy Hudock, ETDD, OC. The workgroup members on the Analysis C team include Andy Hudock (OC), Anuj Vaidya (OC), Brad Yates (OC), Sarita Hoyt (OW), Jennifer Koch (OW), Jackie Clark (OW), and 
Debra Berry (Region 6). 

2.0 Analysis-Specific Questions
   1.    States undertake certain NPDES activities as part of their implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program, and these activities generate associated NPDES data. 

      State activities include inspections, violation determinations (including single event violations), required reports to EPA (such as the Annual Non-Compliance Report for nonmajor permittees), enforcement actions (including penalties and compliance schedules), and permit issuance (including identification of narrative conditions, limit sets, limits, outfalls, etc.).

   2.    EPA should be prepared to seek information regarding facility data and permit data from the states and EPA Regions if reporting NPDES information by permittees is not feasible.

      If the electronic reporting of permit information or permit application information by permittees is not viable, then EPA should be prepared to seek this information regarding facility data and permit data (including basic permittee information, information regarding the permit issuance steps, information regarding narrative conditions and permit schedules, information regarding permit limits and limit sets, information regarding outfalls, etc.) from the states and EPA Regions. This would constitute an additional set of data elements that would be sought directly from the states. Together with other data elements associated with state activities such as inspections, violation determinations and enforcement actions, these data elements may collectively comprise roughly two thirds of the number of all of the NPDES required data elements. However, the data reporting frequency for much of this information is very infrequent (e.g., usually once every five years for permit information) and therefore the associated data entry burden will not be high. Other proposed electronic reporting mechanisms (e.g. eDMR) would still rely on this information to function. 

   3.    EPA can best ensure that the information required under this rule will be submitted by the states by seeking further regulatory clarification of the types of NPDES data which it will require states to submit to EPA.

       The NPDES information that is required to be submitted by states to EPA is, to a large extent, data covered by the PCS Policy Statement or in a subsequent document regarding ICIS-NPDES equivalent data elements. The required PDES data elements in PCS are referred to as WENDB data elements; WENDB is the acronym for Water Enforcement National Data Base. This information focused primarily on major dischargers, although some information for nonmajor facilities and for various NPDES subprograms (such as pretreatment and biosolids) was also among the WENDB data elements.
      
      Through the years, states provided this WENDB data to EPA with varying success and varying degrees of completeness, although the information regarding major facilities was the most reliable NPDES data made available to EPA by the states. However, some states were remiss regarding maintaining the WENDB data for discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), permit issuance or pretreatment, for example.
      
      In the past, other required NPDES data might have been identified as part of meeting midyear or end-of-year commitments for NPDES program implementation. Some NPDES data may have been required, by federal regulations, to be submitted by states to EPA (such as the Quarterly Non-Compliance Report [QNCR] or the Annual Non-Compliance Report [ANCR]). Some data may have been sought in conjunction with EPA preparation of specific reports to Congress, for example. In addition, some of this required data reporting may have been incorporated into Memoranda of Agreement between EPA and individual states. 
	
	In recognition of the varying success with which states provided such NPDES information, EPA will likely seek, in this rulemaking, further regulatory clarification of the types of NPDES data which it will require states to submit to EPA on a timely, accurate, complete and nationally-consistent basis.

   4.    EPA will likely consider existing guidelines in developing regulatory requirements for the timeliness, completeness, accuracy, and national consistency of the NPDES information required to be submitted by permittees or by the states.
      
       EPA established expectations for quality assurance and quality control for NPDES data provided to EPA through PCS. In August 1992, EPA's Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, within the Office of Water, issued the "Permit Compliance System (PCS) Quality Assurance Guidance Manual" as guidance for EPA Regions and states in the development of similar quality assurance procedures for PCS data entry. This guidance document described quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) targets for the data entry of the Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data, which is the data expected from EPA Regions and states for PCS, and described how states should develop and implement their own quality assurance plans to ensure that the data provided in PCS was timely, accurate, and complete.
      
      Specifically, the 1992 EPA guidance identifies timeliness targets (in numbers of working days since a specific trigger event) for availability of the NPDES data for specific data families, such as basic facility data, pipe schedule data, limits data, monitoring data, violation data, inspection data, program reports data, enforcement action data, compliance schedule data, etc. 
      
      In this rulemaking effort, EPA will likely strongly consider using these existing guidelines in developing regulatory requirements for such quality assurance and quality control for information required to be submitted by permittee or by states.

   5.    ICIS-NPDES may not need additional modifications beyond those development efforts currently planned. 

      The ICIS-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventually obtain NPDES information in ICIS-NPDES from the states that currently batch data from their state NPDES data systems to PCS. At this point, there are approximately twenty state supplied data elements that will need to be incorporated into ICIS-NPDES. These data elements relate to their compliance monitoring activities. 

   6.   The timing of full batch capability for ICIS-NPDES is addressed in two draft documents. 

      One draft document states that batch capability will be available for batch upload of the following NPDES information to ICIS-NPDES in 2011: DMRs, permits data (including basic permit data, narrative conditions, limit sets, limits and outfalls), and facility universe data. The same draft document shows that batch capability will be available for batch upload of the following NPDES information to ICIS-NPDES in 2012: inspections, enforcement actions, and violations. The same draft document shows that batch capability will be available for batch upload of program report information in 2013.

1.0 Technical Questions
   1.    EPA and the states have worked cooperatively to address past difficulties with flowing data to EPA through PCS or ICIS-NPDES.

      Although some difficulties have been encountered in the past in flowing data to EPA through PCS or ICIS-NPDES, the states and EPA have worked cooperatively to address these issues. The ICIS-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventually obtain NPDES information in ICIS-NPDES from the states that currently batch data from their state NPDES data systems to PCS.
   
   2.    The reporting frequency will vary considerably depending on the type of data.
 
      For example, under the Compliance Monitoring Strategy, the frequency of inspections varies based on the type of facility and the inspection type. So, if a major facility is expected to be inspected once every three years, that would be the frequency at which inspection data would be expected for that facility. Furthermore, if 50% of inspections identify potential single event violations (SEVs), the frequency of that inspection type (33%) times 50% would identify how frequently such SEVs would be reported for a major facility per year. As another example, if only 23% of the major facilities receive formal enforcement action in a given year, then less than 1 in 5 major facilities would receive such an enforcement action in that year, and this would be the reporting frequency expected. If the states must enter basic permit and facility information, it will likely be required only once every five years (on the permit cycle).

   3. The total volume of data to be reported and collected electronically under Analysis C will basically be the number of data elements times the frequency of reporting times the universe size of permittees.
 
      So, for example, if there are 17 data elements for CAFO inspections, and if they are expected to be performed every five years and if there are approximately 17,500 CAFOs nationally, then the product (17 x 0.2 x 17,500) would be the number of entries expected for data from these CAFO inspections per year. 

	Each of these factors (e.g., the number of data elements, the reporting frequency, and the permittee universe are likely to vary based on data type and facility type. Attached are summaries related to inspection frequencies and single event violation occurrence, as examples. Table 1 provides a list of recommended inspection frequencies. 
Table 1 --- Compliance Monitoring Strategy Recommended Inspection Frequencies
Permit Type
Indicator Type
CMS Recommendation to adjust the inspection frequency
Major
Comprehensive inspection/ (Activity Indicator)
3 years (No numerical target for Activity Indicators)
Minor/ Traditional Discharge
 Inspection
5 years
Minor/ Traditional No Discharge
Traditional Inspection
5 years
Pretreatment
audits
5 years
Pretreatment
Permit Compliance Inspections
5 years
Pretreatment
Permit Compliance Inspections
5 years
Pretreatment
Significant Industrial users Inspections
5 years
Pretreatment
Oversight
5 inspections per year
Biosolids
inspection
none/combined with other reports
CSS
CSO Sampling
Major CSS: 3 years; Minor 5 years
CSS
CSO Non Sampling
Major CSS: 3 years; Minor 5 years
SSS
SSO Sampling,

None
SSS
Non Sampling,
None
MS4
Phase I Audits
States determine Audit frequency
MS4
Phase I Inspections
As needed
MS4
Phase II Audits and Inspections
As needed
Industrial Stormwater Construction
Phase I
Inspect at least 10% of sites
Industrial Stormwater Construction
Phase II
Inspect at least 5% of the sites
CAFOs

Inspect facilities once every five years
AFOs

As needed


   4.    OECA should have a high priority to obtain base data to better characterize the compliance monitoring and enforcement activities underway throughout the nation. 

      This data will include information regarding inspections, the findings from those inspections regarding particular NPDES subprograms, violation determinations, and enforcement actions. 
      
	This information is a high priority, to allow the Office of Water to characterize the regulated universe as well as to characterize the implementation of the NPDES program. Furthermore, information regarding permit limits, limit sets, and outfalls would also be essential to determine permit limit violations identified in discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). 

   5.    Development efforts are underway to address existing state tools or systems and the feasibility of expansion for national use.
 
       The ICIS-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventually obtain NPDES information in ICIS-NPDES from the states that currently batch data from their existing state NPDES data systems to PCS. This batch capability and the associated schemas are being developed to allow states to send all of the required NPDES information, and more data if the state chooses, from their existing state NPDES data systems to EPA's ICIS-NPDES data system.
Through the use of standardized schema, establishment of a list of NPDES information required from the states, and development of associated quality assurance and quality control criteria. The batch capability and the rule will help considerably to stabilize and standardize the NPDES data reporting process from states to EPA. The project is certainly considered feasible by EPA and its contractors as a future tool for states to send NPDES information from their state NPDES data systems to EPA's ICIS-NPDES data system.

   6.    The ICIS-NPDES batch capability development effort addresses data flow options between regulated facilities, the states, and EPA.
 
      The ICIS-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventually obtain NPDES information in ICIS-NPDES from the states that currently batch data from their existing state NPDES data systems to PCS. In general under this rule, for those states with their own tool to obtain NPDES information electronically from permittees, these states would need to complete the data flow of that information to EPA. However, for this data required to be reported by states to EPA, the data flow option will either be direct entry of the information by states into EPA's ICIS-NPDES data system or batch uploading of information from state data systems to EPA's ICIS-NPDES data system.

1.0 Policy  Questions
   1.    Regulation cites to be modified/added to impose the requirement:
		
	This particular analysis deals entirely with the NPDES information which EPA will need to require from the States. Therefore, one of the key regulations addressing EPA's needs for NPDES information from the states may likely be 40 CFR 122.41(a), which states:

      "Any information obtained or used in the administration of a State program shall be available to EPA upon request without restriction."

	Another key regulation may be 40 CFR 123.43(d), which states:

      "Any State permit program shall keep such records and submit to the Administrator such information as the Administrator may reasonably require to ascertain whether the State program complies with the requirements of CWA or of this part."

   2.    Data stewardship issues, including responsibilities for QA/QC:
		
	For this analysis, EPA is seeking this NPDES information directly from the states. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the states would be identified as the data stewards for the quality assurance and quality control of this information because they are the ones providing it directly to EPA. 

   3.     CROMERR compliance issues:
	
	In this situation, in which EPA is seeking NPDES data from the states regarding the states' NPDES activities, CROMERR really shouldn't apply. This part of the data requirements does not really address electronic reporting by permittees, unless, perhaps some of the information supplied to EPA by states might include information that was provided electronically by the permittes to the states (e.g., electronically submitted permit applications). 	 

   4.    Possible triggers for electronically reporting information --- policy decision regarding applicable universes:
	
	For this part of the NPDES data requirements, EPA would expect to receive information from all states, after batch capability is made available to transmit to ICIS-NPDES all of the NPDES information that is sought by EPA directly from the states. Such batch capability should be available by 2013. 

   5.    Phasing of the reporting universe (e.g., e-reporting of program reports for biosolids and CAFOs first followed by SSOs then followed by CSOs) --- policy decision regarding timing:

	It may be advisable for EPA to first seek information regarding the facility and permit data from the states because such information would be very useful to identify the regulated universe and would also serve as the basis for other information from the states and from permittees.		

   6.   Possible temporary exemptions or waivers for facilities claiming they can not complete an e-report:

	When batch capability is available, all states should be able to provide EPA with the required NPDES information. The concepts of temporary exemptions or waivers would only apply to possible electronic reporting by NPDES permittees.

   7.    System of Record: 
	
	In this situation, states are providing EPA with NPDES information and EPA needs to be able to rely upon that information as part of the official NPDES data system of record for the national NPDES program. Although it is conceivable that the state's NPDES data system may contain more recent or additional information, EPA should reasonably expect the states to ensure that the information that they provide to EPA is timely, accurate, complete and nationally consistent. 	


