1 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals to Reduce State Burden and EPA’s Reactions to States’ Alternative Approaches David Hindin, Director Enforcement Targeting and Data Division Office of Compliance, OECA Expanded Steering Committee Meeting Washington, DC. December 11, 2006

2 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives Outline Overview of EPA’s Straw Proposals to Modify the December 2005 draft ICIS- NPDES Policy Statement (including its RIDE list) EPA’s Reactions to “States’ White Paper: Alternative Approaches for States to Provide USEPA with NPDES Information”, October 31, 2006 revised draft

3 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives Basis for EPA Straw Proposals EPA’s Straw proposals for modifying the December 2005 draft Policy Statement are based on:  One year of discussions with the Expanded Steering Committee  Information from the EPA and State White Papers  Data entry burden estimates from the model developed in consultation with the Resources Work Group  The charts developed by the Matrix Work Group  The merged issue list from the above two work groups. Since EPA received the ASIWPCA survey results on December 7, EPA has not completed its analysis of the survey. Thus, these straw proposals have been developed without a detailed analysis of the survey results.

4 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives Goal of EPA’s Straw Proposal To Be Presented Tomorrow Reduce the State burden associated with the December 2005 draft Policy Statement Put specific proposals forward to address most of the issues raised by states during the past year. Receive preliminary feedback from the ESC states that EPA can use in developing a revised draft of the Policy Statement. Advance towards issuance of an ICIS- NPDES Policy Statement by Spring 2007.

5 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives Summary of Straw Proposals to be presented tomorrow The straw proposals will address modifications to the December 2005 draft Policy Statement in these areas:  Possible reductions to RIDE (Required ICIS-NPDES Data Elements)  Phase in permit limits and DMRs for individual minors based on environmental prioritization and as electronic DMR tools are implemented.  Phase in permit limits and DMRs for general permit covered facilities based on environmental prioritization and as electronic DMR tools are implemented.  Accept summary data for some stormwater construction facilities. (Note: stormwater construction facilities are only RIDE if there was an inspection or enforcement action.) EPA will be reviewing these proposal based on results of today’s discussions during the caucus session late this afternoon and hopes to have detailed straw proposal ready for tomorrow mornings session.

6 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives Recap of Prior Discussions on State Alternative Approaches The State’s White Paper of May 3, 2006, on pages 9 to 10, presents four alternative approaches for providing EPA with NPDES information.  Summary Data.  Data Discovery Tool  Node-to-Node Data Transfer to ICIS-NPDES Data Warehouse  Node-to-Node Data Transfer to ICIS-NPDES Using the Exchange Network (status quo)

7 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives Recap of Prior Discussions on State Alternative Approaches – continued 1 On September 11, 2006, EPA provided the states with a set of questions on the “alternatives” the states had provided in their White Paper and at the June ESC meeting.  EPA set forth questions that addressed the specifics of each proposal, as well as general questions common to all.  EPA developed this set of questions to advance the discussion of alternatives and assist the states in preparing more details on their alternatives.

8 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives Recap of Prior Discussions on State Alternative Approaches – continued 2 On November 6, EPA received a 10/31/06 revised draft States’ White Paper.  This October revision contained more information on the summary data alternative and on the data discovery tool alternative. EPA believes the ESC dialogue will be advanced by EPA now providing specific reactions to the state alternative proposals. Our discussion will be improved if we keep two related, but different concepts for alternatives clear:  The question of “what data” EPA needs from authorized NPDES states  The question of “how” the data will be provided to EPA. On the following slides, EPA has excerpted the specific proposals from the States’ White Paper, and then follows that with reactions, questions and proposals, as appropriate.

9 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives State Summary Data Proposal “We propose that US EPA revise its oversight requirements and allow states with delegated authority and who use their own database systems as their primary tool in running the NPDES program to report via summary data. Summary Data can be defined as that data that is needed by US EPA to complete their oversight commitments. We are asking US EPA to define Summary Data as follows: 1.The active inventory of facilities subject to NPDES permits. This includes NPDES number, information about these facilities, such as their geographic location, Permittee Name and Location of Activity. 2.Permit status, Permit Action, Permit Tracking dates and Discharge Type (Surface water or Stormwater). 3.Compliance monitoring and compliance status information according to 40 CFR§ Information compiled from inspections and system violation analysis including discharge monitoring non compliance. 4.Whether a facility is subject to enforcement, and information about the status and results of the enforcement actions. 5.Upon request from US EPA, additional information to be able to assess the environmental and human health impact of these facilities, such as the nature of their discharges and the watersheds. The summary data as defined would not include the state limit and monitoring data. This data may be supplied to US EPA on an as needed basis, but would be in a generic format that would supply them with the Discharge Monitoring Report data and its corresponding outfall and limit information. Additionally, some States currently have this information available on their websites.” Source: Revised Draft October 31, 2006 States’ White Paper, p 13.

10 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives State Summary Data Proposal: EPA Reaction Treating the full batch states (about 20) different than the direct user and hybrid states is very problematic:  EPA is not aware of any legal or policy basis to treat states differently in terms of NPDES oversight based on whether they are direct users of ICIS-NPDES or not.  EPA’s need for data to manage the NPDES program on a national basis does not vary based on whether the state is a direct/hybrid user of ICIS-NPDES or a batch user. o Water pollution problems do not vary based on whether a state is a direct/hybrid user of ICIS-NPDES or a batch state. o One of EPA’s responsibilities is ensuring national consistency in the NPDES permitting and enforcement program; this proposed alternative would make this even more challenging than it is today. EPA may present a proposal tomorrow to accept summary data from all states for certain small stormwater construction facilities.

11 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives State Summary Data Proposal: EPA Reaction- continued 1 State summary data proposal focuses only on EPA’s oversight needs. But EPA needs data to meet is federal obligation to manage the NPDES permitting and enforcement program. EPA needs ready access to detailed information on the universe of facilities subject to NPDES regulations, the pollutants that are discharged and their compliance status. EPA uses this information not just for individual state program oversight, but for multiple purposes as set forth in its March 2006 White Paper, Section IV:  National Program Direction by EPA Headquarters, which includes developing regulations, strategies, policies, and national priorities to identify and address water pollution problems.  Reporting Results to Congress, OMB, and the public, including meeting statutory requirements under GPRA to demonstrate program results and outcomes.

12 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives State Summary Data Proposal: EPA Reaction- continued 2 State proposal would provide EPA with less information than that set forth in the 1985 Policy Statement (WENDB):  EPA would no longer have ability to quickly access and analyze permit limit and DMR data for majors from the full batch states. Yet limits and DMRs are the foundation of the NPDES program. EPA’s presentation on the existing summary reporting approach, the Annual Non-Compliance Report for minors, at the June 2006 ESC meeting highlighted the problems with summary data and why it does not meet EPA’s NPDES management needs.  EPA’s pubic access tools, such as ECHO, will show detailed information on facility noncompliance status in direct user and hybrid states, while batch states will appear to have no compliance problems. This is misleading and inaccurate.  The next 3 slides (the first was presented at the June meeting) highlights how disparate information can be misleading to the public and hampers EPA’s ability to nationally understand and then address water pollution problems.  The slides come from EPA’s OTIS tools, which are available to EPA and states. OTIS uses integrated data from PCS, AFS, RCRA Info, TRI, FRS, Census, and other sources.

13 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives Blind spots in understanding compliance status at non- majors in Region 7 This map is derived from a query of PCS data (via OTIS) The query asks for all non-majors in Region 7 that have more than 25 effluent violations in the last 3 years. Iowa and Nebraska use PCS to track DMRs and violations, while Kansas and Missouri do not. Nebraska and Iowa, EPA, and public are able to identify violators, and see which ones are currently at “SNC” levels (red) or compliant (blue).

14 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives N Minor DMR Entry Rates OH – 99% IN - 94% IL - 72% MI - 58% MN - 2% WI – 0% Region 5 CWA Minor Facilities on Priority Watersheds AND with >25 Effluent Violations Significant blind spots exist in states where DMR data are not entered for non- majors. EPA, the public, and states without such information in the national system, are unable to get a full picture in regard to permitted loads and violations. EPA cannot easily understand problems in MN and WI and assess how they compare to other Region 5 states

15 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives WV Ohio NPDES Minor Facilities Discharging to the Upper Ohio River. Data Entry Rates for NPDES Minor DMRS: OH – 99%, WV - <15%, PA - < 1%. We suspect that all the compliance problems are not in Ohio. Pennsylvania

16 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives State Alternative Proposal for an ICIS-NPDES Warehouse “Node-to-Node Data Transfer to ICIS-NPDES Data Warehouse - States map to XML schema and send their NPDES data via their Node to US EPA’s CDX node and the data is pushed into a data warehouse. US EPA would then be responsible for getting the data from the warehouse into ICIS-NDPES. Data warehouses or data marts are often easier to get data from outside sources into them as the relationships to each data element are not as complex as those of a database linked to a production data entry system. This is a similar model that the Office of Water is now implementing for STORET data.” Source: States’ White Paper, page 10 of May White Paper, and page 14 of the October White Paper. The entire text of the State proposal is shown above.

17 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives States’ ICIS-NPDES Warehouse Alternative Proposal: EPA Questions In specific response to this May 2006 proposal, EPA in its September 11, 2006 document (“Towards Understanding State Proposals..”, set forth these questions to the states: a) Would states be mapping to the transactional based ICIS-NPDES XML schema? b) Would states be running the RNC/SNC and QNCR processing fully consistent with the federal regulations and providing the results to EPA for input into the warehouse? This is an important question as a warehouse usually does not do complex data processing, and ICIS- NPDES has been specifically built to do this complex processing to meet the business needs of the NPDES program. c) What responsibility would states have in assisting EPA in moving the data from the warehouse into ICIS-NPDES? d) How would data errors and data problems be addressed? These questions have not yet been addressed by the states. EPA has informally raised additional questions about this proposal, such as:  In batch states, EPA issues some permits, conducts inspections and enforcement actions and makes violation determinations. These EPA activities are entered into ICIS-NPDES.  Of course, batch states do these same activities, but in greater frequency.  How would a warehouse translate between the state production data base and the ICIS- NPDES production data base? Would a warehouse end up being a new complicated middleware software, with connections both into and out of ICIS-NPDES?

18 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives States’ ICIS-NPDES Warehouse Alternative Proposal: EPA Concerns EPA and the States would need to spend considerable time to define the requirements for such warehouse. And to then evaluate its feasibility.  EPA believes this effort would delay the overall PCS modernization project, with little chance of producing a feasible solution. EPA believes this proposal is inconsistent with Exchange Network principles as states should be mapping to the XML schemas for ICIS-NPDES (which incorporate the state/EPA data standards), and not asking EPA to create a special database to accept their data.

19 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives States’ Data Discovery Tool Alternative Proposal “ A viable alternative for data sharing provided by the EN is an approach that allows States to “publish” their NPDES data on their Nodes and make it available for US EPA or other partners to query at any given time. The basic concept is that US EPA and States develop a national set of data standards, schema, and queries which meet US EPA and State business need for management and oversight of the NPDES program. Any authorized user can use a web-based interface to access States’ NDPES data. US EPA will use this data to answer specific questions, and may download the data for further analysis. US EPA may also elect to publish ICIS direct-user States’ data for access through this user- interface for combined analysis of all States’ data. The publication of direct-user States’ data also allows these States easy access to their own data residing in ICIS for state or local analysis and program management. The concept seeks to substantially improve NPDES data quality by eliminating double data entry errors and manual correction of uploaded data. The end result materially improves the effectiveness of US EPA oversight of state authorized NPDES programs. The vision for Data Discovery is to create a mechanism by which all State and US EPA information can be discovered, queried, and presented within a single user interface. The Data Discovery tool provides the ability to discover what Nodes are available on the EN for data sharing, what data (data flows) are available on the EN, and the ability to dynamically query those Nodes and data sources to meet specific information needs. The Data Discovery tool assists all partners in the EN to leverage their existing infrastructure by sharing technologies and utilities across the EN.” Source: Revised Draft October 31, 2006 States’ White Paper, p 15.

20 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives States’ Data Discovery Tool Alternative Proposal: EPA Reaction EPA believes this proposal is a major change from the current design of ICIS and the Exchange Network planned Node-to-Node Data Transfer.  The Node-to-Node transfer is the original design of the Exchange Network and is expected to be an automated process, and will include detailed feedback to states on whether data was accepted into ICIS-NPDES.

21 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives States’ Data Discovery Tool Alternative Proposal: EPA Reaction – continued 1 EPA’s questions about this proposal as set forth in its September 11, 2006, paper, remain largely unanswered: a) Would this approach require EPA to go to multiple sites to pull the data? Or would the data be available for all these states at one site? b) Who is responsible for developing this tool, at what cost and schedule? c) Who would be responsible for operations and maintenance of this tool? Who would pay for the costs of operation and maintenance? d) Would states “publish” this data consistent with the transactional based ICIS-NPDES XML schema? If not, how would EPA determine which data is changed (new, modified, or deleted) on the site since the previous time the data was published? e) Would states that “publish their data” in this way have no other responsibility for providing EPA with data for entry into ICIS-NPDES? f) Would states periodically update this data pursuant to established, nationally consistent schedules? g) Would EPA be able to then load this published data into ICIS-NPDES? If the data was provided without the transactional information, then would EPA need to build sound kind of “middleware” to interpret and load this published data into ICIS-NPDES? h) How does this approach "eliminate manual correction of uploaded data?" How would date errors or data problems be addressed? i) What is meant by "US EPA will use this data to answer specific questions?" Will the data be provided on a facility-level basis?

22 Overview of EPA Straw Proposals and EPA Reactions to States’ Alternatives States’ Data Discovery Tool Alternative: EPA Reaction – continued 2 EPA does not know if this alternative is feasible, e.g., can the data discovery tool handle large and numerous data transfers? EPA and the States would need to spend considerable time to define the requirements for such a tool. And to then evaluate its feasibility.  EPA believes this effort would delay the overall PCS modernization project, with little chance of producing a feasible solution. If this alternative is just a different technical “how” data is exchanged proposal, then EPA believes the current design for a Node to Node Exchange Network approach is the more efficient way for the large data exchanges associated with ICIS-NPDES. If this alternative would give EPA less data, then it is not a “how” data alternative, but a “what” data proposal. EPA would consider using the Data Discovery Tool for non-RIDE data, and for RIDE data that is being phased in over a long time.