1. 1 Electronic DMRs: Key to Burden Reduction and Improved NPDES Program Management David Hindin, Director, Enforcement Targeting and Data Division Office of Compliance Expanded Steering Committee Meeting Washington, DC February 13, 2006

2. 2 Overview 1. Paper DMRs and Typewriters 2. Electronic DMR Concept 3. Current Status of DMR Tracking 4. Benefits of Electronic DMRs 5. Electronic DMR Progress to Date 6. National/ Multi-state Net-DMR Project 7. Challenges

3. 3 Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)  DMRs are generally submitted by individually permitted NPDES facilities, majors and non- majors, usually on a monthly basis. Contain self-monitoring data on the permit limits, typically daily maximums, and weekly/monthly averages. Can be hundreds of values for a large facility. Federal requirement of the NPDES program. Some states require more detailed daily monitoring data than found in the DMR.  DMRs have been the primary means of NPDES compliance monitoring, at least for majors.  Like Typewriters, paper DMR submission and manual entry is an old, inefficient technology.

4. 4 Electronic DMR: Concept Allows permitted NPDES facilities to electronically sign and submit DMRs via a secure Internet site, such that data is electronically entered into ICIS-NPDES or the state equivalent. Electronic DMRs are not: Traditional PDF or spreadsheet file sent by e- mail to agency Electronic documents that do not have the necessary features to use in a legal proceeding.

5. 5 Electronic DMR: General Requirements from a software perspective: 1) Registration for facilities to submit electronically and individuals to electronically sign 2) Webform with pre-populated DMR based on specific permit requirements for that facility  Fill out on web, or upload as XML file or spreadsheet 3) Validation and edit checks before submittal. 4) Electronic Signature valid in legal proceeding pursuant to CROMERR 5) Flow DMR data to EPA (ICIS-NPDES) or state database 6) E-mail confirmations 7) Archival records of electronic transactions sufficient for user support and legal proceeding.

6. 6 Tracking of DMRs  Electronic tracking of DMRs has two components: entering the DMR data into a database; and having the database automatically evaluate noncompliance against the limits.  Almost all states and Regions are meeting or exceeding permit limit and DMR data entry 95% standard for NPDES majors per 1985 PCS Policy Statement. This allows for automated compliance determinations (QNCR, SNC) which are more effective and efficient than manual reviews of paper DMRs.  Manual tracking and review of DMRs from majors result in missed violations.  Some states and some regions are also doing a good job entering permit limit and DMR data for non-majors.  But, not surprising, there are significant gaps for non- majors, which was cited as a serious enforcement deficiency by the EPA Inspector General (August 2001).

7. 7  Resource constraints may limit states and EPA from manually enter all non-major DMRs into a database.  Manual review of the DMRs to identify noncompliance is inefficient and ineffective. EPA’s analysis of the federal required Annual Noncompliance Compliance Report (submitted by Regions and states showing noncompliance rates at non-majors) indicates:  States that do not enter DMRs into PCS are reporting significantly lower noncompliance rates than states that are electronically tracking this information in PCS. Indication is that in these states, states are not aware of serious (QNCR) violations because staff are not available to make the limit/DMR comparison. Potentially serious noncompliance problems are being missed. National targeting to identify non-compliance problems at majors cannot be done. Tracking of DMRs (continued)

8. 8 Benefits of Electronic DMR Major cost savings  If all or most NPDES facilities submitted DMRs electronically, annual savings to industry, states and EPA could be around $100 million per year.  OECA developing preliminary estimated cost savings.  DMR system implemented in Michigan last year could result in an annual savings of between $250,000 and $500,000 assuming 100% facility participation (i.e., no more paper submissions). Better quality data and more timely data. Improved NPDES program implementation from using the data rather than entering it:  Better knowledge of the noncompliance problems.  Better targeting of inspections.  Improved watershed analysis.  Improved permitting. Improved public access to NPDES compliance data, such as EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) website

9. 9 Progress to Date  In 2002, 9 states received EPA OEI Network Challenge Grant to develop set of tools for electronic exchange of DMR data. XML schema Tools sets for programmers  Some states have implemented their own DMR systems: Michigan: Michigan E-DMR tool flows DMRs to state NPDES database, then via IDEF and Network to PCS Illinois: Illinois E-DMR tool that flows DMRs to PCS directly. Other state systems are in development or being implemented (e.g., New Jersey, Mississippi, Wisconsin, California)

10. 10 Progress to Date: (continued)  In 2004, OECA, in consultation with states and OEI, developed a proposal to create a national, multi- state electronic DMR tool that states could use as part of ICIS-NPDES and the Exchange Network. See NETDMR paper at www.epa.gov/idea/netdmrwww.epa.gov/idea/netdmr  In September 2005, an OEI Network grant was awarded to 12 states (Texas Multi-state) to build a national (Net) DMR tool.  In October 2005, EPA promulgated final Cross Media Electronic Reporting rule (CROMERR). This established regulatory requirements for states and EPA to implement electronic submission and electronic signature, including DMRs.

11. 11 NetDMR Vision and Project Partners  Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) received a $750,000 EPA Challenge Grant in Sept. 2005 to develop a generic eDMR system.  This system will integrate with ICIS-NPDES, and the interfaces between this system and ICIS-NPDES will be designed to be useable by both direct and indirect user states.

12. 12 NetDMR Conceptual Design

13. 13 Potential Benefits of NetDMR vs Individual State E-DMR Systems  Significant savings to state from not building separate E-DMR software.  If EPA is able to operate and maintain NetDMR hardware, software and associated business processes, significant savings since each state will not have to do this itself: Preliminary view is many states will want EPA run NetDMR for them, rather than take the software and implement separately.

14. 14 NetDMR Challenges  Preliminary schedule projects NetDMR could be ready for implementation by end of 2007, but resource issues need to be addressed.  A State EPA NetDMR Steering Committee is overseeing effort.  Close coordination and integration with ICIS-NPDES batch release necessary.  Challenges will be how to operate and maintain NetDMR as national tool.

15. 15 Challenges: Success of Electronic DMR Needs More than Software Development  Need to establish new state and EPA business practices, policies, funding, and perhaps regulations to: Encourage and/or require facilities to submit DMRs electronically.  Some states may mandate electronic DMRs, or create incentives Develop and implement registration, identity proofing, and user support functions, as well as operate and maintain hardware and software.  Some states will elect to do this individually, while some will want to use a national approach, such as NetDMR. For national NetDMR to be implemented by EPA:  Challenge is taking costs that are spread all over the country, significantly reducing these costs, but concentrating a small portion of them as new business for EPA.