1. 1 US EPA Straw Proposals for Modifying the 12/2005 draft Policy Statement Jim Hanlon, Director Office of Wastewater Management, OW Expanded Steering Committee Meeting December 12, 2006

2. 2 Background EPA’s proposals address the what data and when questions EPA’s driving NPDES information management needs are: RIDE is the data EPA needs to meet its national program management responsibilities, which includes oversight. Complete facility/permit information on the full regulated universe. Data on permit limits and DMRs, which are the heart of the NPDES permitting and enforcement program. Compliance monitoring and enforcement action information. ICIS-NPDES is the national database of record for the NPDES program.

3. 3 RIDE Reduction Proposal Required ICIS-NPDES Data Elements

4. 4 Reduction of RIDE At the states’ request, EPA’s performed a RIDE review and identified 65 data elements that could be deleted from RIDE (i.e., states would not be required to enter these into ICIS-NPDES). An additional 24 data elements have been identified as conditionally-required since their entry is based on special circumstances and are infrequent. EPA will analyze the 8 system required RIDE to determine if they can be deleted from RIDE. EPA will further evaluate this proposal after additional analysis of the ASIWPCA survey.

5. 5 Reduction of RIDE Elements Impacts of RIDE reduction: Deletions of the 65 data elements provides some burden reduction for the direct user and hybrid states. RIDE deletions should result in burden reduction for batch states since: Fewer data elements to map from state system to ICIS-NPDES XML schema; May reduce necessary modifications to state system; and Less data to exchange (fewer transactions).

6. 6 Phasing for Non-Majors Addressing Individual and General Permit Covered Facilities

7. 7 Background on Individual Non-Majors Individual permits: 1 application submitted  1 permit issued. Appropriate where site-specific limits, management practices, or site- specific considerations are needed. Minors: POTWs <1 mgd and Industrials with< 80 points based on NPDES Permit Rating Worksheet. 40,000 minors are covered by individual permits. 1985 PCS Policy Statement does not require DMR data entry for minors but allows option for States to enter. Approximately 51% of this universe today has limits and DMRs entered in PCS and ICIS-NPDES. EPA lacks consistent and reliable information. Inventory and tracking are good but location data is incomplete (24 percent are missing lat/long, compared with 2.5 percent for majors). Complete Limits and DMR data will improve EPA management of the national water program, especially on a watershed basis.

8. 8 Background on Non-SW General Permit Covered Facilities General permits are authorized by 40 CFR 122.28 (appropriate where multiple dischargers require permit coverage, sources and discharges are similar, permit conditions are relatively uniform. Approximately 384 Master General Permits cover 59,000 facilities Includes categories like Aquaculture, Oil and Gas, WWTPs (very small), Landfills Most facilities (except for 45) are non-Majors Existing PCS Policy Statement requires facility-level information for non-SW GPs (along with information on inspection, compliance, and enforcement). National information on general permits and their covered facilities is incomplete and not reliable. ( Approximately 21% of this universe currently has limits and DMRs in PCS and ICIS- NPDES.)

9. 9 Key Terminology for Phasing Non- Majors “Non-majors” for this straw proposal includes individual minors, general permit covered facilities, and the wet weather universe (CAFO, CSO/SSO, and non- construction stormwater.) Create a new category for “priority non-majors”. Define priority non-majors as facilities located on impaired water bodies as defined by the CWA Section 305(b) reports and other state information. Use the priority non-major category to focus DMR data entry into ICIS-NDPES (approximately 8,000 facilities). EPA will establish and maintain this national list (e.g.,annually) of facilities on impaired waters using WATERS architecture and identifying (flagging) in ICIS-NPDES.

10. 10 Phasing non-Majors Facilities General Permits 1.First complete entry of facility, permit and limit information within two years of moving to ICIS-NPDES, or December 2009, whichever is later. 2.Enter DMRs for up to 25% of this universe, focusing on priority non-majors, within 3 years of moving to ICIS- NPDES, or December 2010, whichever is sooner. 3.Commence DMR entry two years after state implements NetDMR or similar electronic reporting tool. Individual Permits 1.First complete entry of facility and permit information within one year of moving to ICIS-NPDES, or December 2008, whichever is later. 2.Enter limits and DMRs for up to 50% of this universe, focusing on priority non-majors, within 2 years of moving to ICIS-NPDES, or December 2009, whichever is sooner. 3.Enter remaining limits and commence DMR entry one year after state implements NetDMR or similar electronic reporting tool.

11. 11 Stormwater Construction Straw Proposal Addressing a large and transient universe

12. 12 Stormwater Construction Facilities Phase I (Construction Sites > 5 acres) Facility and permit information as specified by RIDE for sites where an inspection is conducted and/or formal enforcement has occurred only. (No change) Phase II (Construction Sites >1 acre and < 5 acres) Facility and permit information as specified by RIDE when an inspection is conducted and violations are found, and/or formal enforcement has occurred. Summary data provided when an inspection is conducted and violations are not found. RIDE does not apply to construction sites <1 acre in size.

13. 13 EPA Positions on States’ “Alternative Approaches”

14. 14 States’ Summary Data Proposal: EPA Conclusion The EPA management team on the ESC does not believe the summary data proposal is viable. As discussed yesterday, There is no sound reason to treat full batch states different than direct user and hybrid states. EPA’s responsibility to nationally manage the NPDES program does not vary based on whether a state decided to build its own data system, or uses ICIS-NPDES. The summary data proposal will hinder the goal of national consistency in the NPDES permitting and enforcement program. EPA cannot manage the NPDES permitting and enforcement program without permit limit and pollutant discharge information (DMR). The design of ICIS-NPDES did not include summary data, and given that summary data does not meet EPA’s management needs, EPA will not redesign ICIS-NPDES or create another database to handle summary data.

15. 15 States’ ICIS-NPDES Warehouse and Data Discovery Alternatives: EPA Conclusion The EPA management team on the ESC believes: These alternatives are inconsistent with the design of ICIS-NPDES. These alternatives are inconsistent with the Exchange Network. Further evaluation of these alternatives would delay completion of PCS modernization (thus hindering EPA’s ability to nationally manage the NPDES program) with little chance of producing a feasible solution.