MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule  -  Phase 2 Extension
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2019-0408 (www.regulations.gov)	

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

DATE:		13 November 2019

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Notes from State Outreach Meeting (5 November 2019) [DCN 0011]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Overview 
EPA convened the second meeting with the state NPDES program staff to discuss initial concepts for the NPDES Phase 2 Extension Rule. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Carey Johnston (EPA/OECA). The agenda for the meeting was to finish reviewing the initial concepts for the NPDES eRule Phase 2 Extension Rule. These staff-level clarifying edits were sent to meeting shortly before the start of the meeting.
Clarifying Edits/2019 NPDES Program Update Rule Changes Reviewed with Start Participants
Mr. Johnston walked the group through the 13 suggest clarifying edits to the 2015 NPDES eRule and the rationale behind each item. Comments or questions from the group are listed below. Below are the comments we received on these proposed changes. Changes that did not illicit any comments are listed below.
 Correct title for 40 CFR 123.45
 Correct Appendix A deficiency descriptions to match current practices of authorized NPDES programs. 
 Correct data element name and description and reference for Biosolids or Sewage Sludge  -  Land Application or Surface Disposal Deficiencies 
 Correct the title of the "Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report" in Table 1 of Appendix A and Table 1 of 40 CFR 127.16 
 Deletion of the following two data elements: Reportable Noncompliance Tracking and Reportable Noncompliance Tracking Start Date.
 Provide greater clarity for the "Facility CAAP Designation" data element description. 
 Provide greater clarity on the `Permit Component' data element with respect to unpermitted facilities.
 Provide greater clarity on the Notice of Termination (NOT) electronic reporting requirements only apply to general permit covered facilities.
 Provide greater clarity on the "Receiving Waterbody Name for Permitted Feature" data element name and description.
 Add Waiver Data Elements to Appendix A to Match the 2019 NPDES Applications and Program Updates Final Rule.
The following summarizes the questions and comments on the other changes reviewed during the meeting.
    Provide greater clarity on Category I Noncompliance in 40 CFR 123.45 
   
Mr. Johnston reviewed a number of proposed changes for the NNCR. 
Ms. Christy Monk (Alabama): Why did you change "Compliance Schedule" to "Enforcement Order"? And why did you change "Compliance Construction Milestones" to "Compliance Construction Violations"? And "Effluent Limits" to "Effluent Limit Violations"? 
   Carey Johnston (EPA): The update was to specify these were enforcement order violations, not permit schedule violations, which is more consistent with the previous Category I noncompliance definition. Compliance construction violations and effluent limit violation text updates were to be more consistent with the other Category I noncompliance headings. 
Ms. Monk: On "Reporting Violations" and the use of the term `complete', sometimes when a facility reports incorrect data, it will rereport the data and if it's more than 30 days after the due date, the system will generate overdue DMR violations even if the original submission was on time. 
   Mr. Johnston: Perhaps there is something that can be added to this section to address data resubmissions, or with agreement from the group could discussion how to get the language correct. Mr. Johnston asked meeting participants to send him suggestions on how to improve this section of the NNCR.
Ms. Monk: What is "compliance schedule report for noncompliance"? 
   Mr. Johnston: This is text taken from the previous Category I noncompliance definition. He will discuss this report with his colleagues in Office of Civil Enforcement.
    Provide greater clarity on the "Applicable Effluent Limitations Guidelines" data element and delete the duplicative data element, "Applicable Categorical Standards."

Ms. Courtney Cswercko (Iowa): Why would we need to tell you if there are no ELGs? It seems like if there isn't an ELG and the data isn't reported, EPA could assume that it doesn't exist? 
   Mr. Johnston: Similar to DMR reporting, this would be a situation where it would be hard to distinguish situations where there are no ELGs, there were data sharing issues, or some other issue that results in no ELG data in ICIS-NPDES.  
    Requiring NAICS Code Data to Match the 2019 NPDES Applications and Program Updates Final Rule

Ms. Monk: This paragraph is worded a bit awkwardly. Is this on a rolling basis, permit-by-permit as the permits are reissued?  
   Mr. Johnston: Yes. We are asking that you send this data in on a rolling basis after the deadline for each permit as it is reissued.
Ms. Monk: This may have been discussed during the last call, but for the biosolids program, it looks like the deadlines of 2016 and the 2023 are together and thought that the biosolids annual program report were all Phase 1 data? 
   Mr. Johnston: EPA is the regulatory authority for the biosolids program in 42 states and that was a Phase 1 reports. Where states are the regulatory authority for the biosolids program, the biosolids annual program report is Phase 2. States that are authorized to run the biosolids program are Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. 
Mr. Johnston concluded the meeting by noted that all comments on the recommended changes are welcome. Also, if there is something that you think was left out that should have been or be added, we are happy to hear from the states. Ms. Stacia Bax (Missouri) asked when EPA would like comments. Mr. Johnston replied that it would be helpful to have comments within the next few weeks. He noted that all states will have the ability to provide comments on the proposed rule when it is published in the Federal Register. The current plan is to start the public comment period in January 2020.
Mr. Sean Rolland (ACWA): What is the timing of when you think you will share this with management? 
   Mr. Johnston: First this will be shared with EPA program offices and the EPA Regions, then hoping to get management approval in early December with OECA senior management approval. We hope to start the 60-day comment period in January 2020. Hopefully this will allow us lots of time to finalize the rule before the existing December 2020 deadline. 
Ms. Monk: Are we allowed to share this with some of our coworkers? 
      Mr. Johnston: Yes. 
Mr. Johnston asked the group if they feel they need to schedule another meeting. 
      Ms. Monk and Mr. Wade Strickland (WI DNR): No, don't think we need to have another meeting right now, but more time is needed to review the document. 
      Mr. Rolland: Maybe once the comments start coming in Carey and you hear something specific from a specific state and would like to run it by others, then we could call another meeting. 
Participants
 Carey Johnston (EPA)
 Jackie Clark (EPA)
 Jane Wallace (EPA) 
 Sean Rolland (ACWA)
 Christy Monk (Alabama)
 Jamie Bates (Vermont)
 Wade Strickland (Wisconsin)
 Stacia Bax (Missouri)
 Courtney Cswercko (Iowa) 
 Courtney Tuxbury (EPA)
