Expanded Steering Committee Meeting

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Permit Compliance System

ICIS NPDES Policy Statement

U.S. EPA/ASIWPCA/ ECOS

Expanded Steering Committee Meeting

December 11-12, 2006

Draft Meeting Summary

Participants

See attached attendee list.

Presentations and Hand Outs

See attached presentations and hand outs from the meeting.

Monday, December 11, 2006

I. Introductory Remarks

Catherine McCabe of U.S. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and Michael Shapiro of U.S. EPA’s Office of Water (OW) greeted the participants, thanked them for dedicating their time to working on the ICIS-NPDES effort, and made some introductory remarks. Ms. McCabe observed that U.S. EPA had invested much time and money into modernizing the ICIS-NPDES system. The goal is allow the agency to fulfill its reporting and compliance obligations. Recognizing the burden that reporting requirements place on states, the agency is working with states to ease that burden and their transition to the new system. The Agency needs to put the user requirements into place soon and hopes to make progress in the meeting over the next two days. Mr. Shapiro added that the demands for accountability are greater than ever, noting that the new system is needed to demonstrate the contributions of environmental programs and help defend program resources in a context of limited budgets.

II. Welcome and Introductions

Gail Bingham of RESOLVE, meeting facilitator, greeted the participants and reviewed the agenda and ground rules for the meeting. She invited questions or comments from the group and none were raised.

III. Opening Remarks

Mike Linder of Nebraska DEQ and Robert Zimmerman of Delaware DNRCmade opening remarks on behalf of the states. They thanked U.S. EPA for their willingness to expand the steering committee and to engage with the states on the issues. Mr. Linder noted that the crux of the issue for the states is whether additional resources will be provided when additional information is requested. Mr. Zimmerman emphasized that it is important that the Policy Statement be budget-neutral as well as work within the intent of the statute.

Lisa Lund of U.S. EPA OECA reviewed the background and progress of the Expanded Steering Committee (ESC). (PowerPoint presentationand handouts attached). She described the ESC’s recent activities and the creation of the Matrix Group and the Data Collection and Resource Group. Observing that the work accomplished was critical for laying the groundwork for the presentation of U.S. EPA’s straw proposals, she commented that Agency staff hopes the meeting will allow them to move forward with a draft Policy Statement in FY 2007. Accordingly, U.S. EPA’s proposals will reflect its commitment to working with states to address their concerns about burden.

In response to Ms. Lund’s presentation, state representatives clarified that their concerns were not only about additional burden. They were also concerned with how the ICIS NPDES project advanced statutory program requirements and whether the project adequately balanced Federal information needs with State flexibility and incentives to run their programs. While acknowledging that the baseline for complying with the Clean Water Act (CWA) has moved over time as Congress added new programs, U.S. EPA staff asserted that the ESC was not the appropriate forum for discussing the design of the NPDES program. Rather, the ESC’s mandate is to determine how to fulfill the environmental agencies’ responsibility of keeping the public informed on water quality management activities.

IV. ASIWPCA Presentation and ESC Discussion

Sean Rolland of ASIWPCA presented his analysis of the ASIWPCA survey results that he had previously circulated by email on December 6, 2006. (PowerPoint presentation attached). The purpose of the survey was to “groundtruth” the extent of the data that states are actually collecting. ASIWPCA surveyed state NPDES managers. For many managers, if program expectations are increased, then corresponding federal investment becomes an important question.

Of the 20 states involved in the survey, Mr. Rolland received results from 17. The survey did not examine all the data that is collected by states, but only those elements tied to RIDE. While the data collected varied according to the permit type (major, minor, or general, but not program-specific), Mr. Rolland identified several RIDE data elements where approximately a third of states were not in possession of the data, i.e. the data is uncollected, or if not collected, the facility ismaintaining it.Of the data types collected, the pretreatment program’s data was the one that most closely matched the RIDE elements. Moreover, even if the states are collecting the data in question, they are not necessarily collecting it in electronic format; if they do, however, the electronic data may not be compatible with ICIS-NPDES.

In the ensuing discussion, participants questioned the definition of “unpermitted facilities”. It appeared the states and U.S. EPA may be using the term differently. The group flagged that term as an area for U.S. EPA to clarify later. In addition, a state representative pointed out that the states do not necessarily have a uniform understanding of the data elements, which could be a factor in the states responding that they do not collect a particular piece of data. Clarification of how the RIDE elements correspond to WENDB, as well as ensuring that the required elements appear on all the application and inspection forms, would be helpful steps in getting all the states and U.S. EPA on the same page regarding which data elements are required. Group members also commented:

• State programs collect many data in addition to that required by U.S. EPA and they can have their own ways of tracking that data, which can present problems for transferring the information to ICIS-NPDES.
• Some of the RIDE elements were not previously required data, so some states have not been collecting them.
• It is not clear to all state users how the pull-down menus and blank boxes in ICIS correspond to the questions that were asked in the PCS system. U.S. EPA staff assured the group that clarifying the connections between the two systems is an intended step.
• Given that approximately half of the RIDE data elements are conditionally required, if states had a low response rate on those elements, the aggregate response rate may be skewed too low.

V. Presentation & Discussion: U.S. EPA Review of RIDE

Betsy Smidinger of U.S. EPA OECA gave a synopsis of the results of the U.S. EPA’s review of the RIDE data elements. (PowerPoint presentation and handouts attached). The U.S. EPA agreed to review the RIDE after the ASIWPCA meeting. The goal of the review was to ascertain that only elements the Agency needed were included in ICIS-NPDES. The U.S.EPA distributed the list of elements under consideration for deletion to the ESC by email (12/1/06).In its review of RIDE, U.S. EPA determined the following:

• 65 elements may not be necessary;
• 24 elements are conditionally required;
• 8 system-required elements may not be necessary and are subject to further U.S. EPA review; and
• As a result, U.S. EPA was able to reduce by 20% the number of required RIDE elements for 267, of which 145 are system-required. As a comparison, WENDB called for 206 data elements.

In response to the information presented, state representatives and the U.S. EPA discussed the list of 267 elements and the importance of the elements for different goals.State representatives asked whether U.S. EPA needed to list every facility. State representatives noted that general permits are used as a method of reducing the reporting burden. They also raised the point that it is important to weigh the cost of reporting additional data against the cost of making software modifications. In answer to these and other questions raised, U.S. EPA staff made the following clarifications:

• The “system-required” elements are those data elements essential for a full record.Data elements are marked as system-required when entry of the data element is required by ICIS-NPDES in order for a user to add particular record into the system... If [system-] required data elements are not entered, ICIS-NPDES will reject the transaction. U.S. EPA needs a full record so U.S. EPA can fulfill its dual responsibilities to conduct national program management and report national program data.
• The draft documents distributed at the meeting explain that not all the RIDE elements apply to every facility. It is not necessary to enter the information each time; rather, the decision points determine what information should be entered. Furthermore, stormwater construction is a unique case that U.S. EPA will address in its’ proposals.
• For data that is “federal only,” the states are not required to collect or enter the information.
• In an impaired waterway, for example, it is critical for U.S. EPA to know the discharges and to be able identify the facilities located in that watershed.

As a result of this exchange, the group concluded that it would be worthwhile to match the results of the ASIWPCA survey with the revised list of required RIDE data elements.

VI. Presentation & Discussion: The Resource Workgroup’s RIDE Data Entry Estimate Model

Betsy Smidinger described the Resource Workgroup’s data entry estimate model and its resulting predictions (PowerPoint presentation and handouts attached). U.S. EPA and the Resource Workgroup developed the model with the goal of helping to quantify the resource implications of RIDE data entry into ICIS-NPDES. The model includes the number of data elements, the frequency of data entry, facility universes, and the data that states already enter into PCS. It does not account for the data collection step. U.S. EPA also revised the model to reflect changes to the following: the RIDE list; the national universe and universe sub-division estimates; estimated inspection frequencies; and DMR-related assumptions.

With these updates, the model now predicts the average number of full-time employees (FTEs) needed per state per year at 1.8, which is approximately 45% of the previous estimate of 4.0 FTEs. U.S. EPA has not yet recalculated the results for specific states, but once U.S. EPA refines the model, the Agency can work with states to produce individual estimates. Analysis of the model also revealed that DMRs constitute about 90% of data entry work, with special program areas accounting for less than 10% of the total work.

State representatives expressed concern that the 1.8 estimate was not realistic. They pointed out that they already employ greater numbers of FTEs to carry out only a portion of the RIDE data entry. U.S. EPA staff observed that the 1.8 figure was for an average state, so a number of states, including several of those present, are above the average and/or are exceeding federal requirements. Some state members reminded the group that U.S. EPA had encouraged them to incorporate federal requirements for new programs into their existing state programs, which often exceed federal requirements.

States also explained that the data entry itself was a small portion of the workload associated with data collection, processing, and quality control. Working on the assumption that States would perform those tasks regardless of the data entry component, U.S. EPA did not incorporate those aspects of the workload into the model. A state member estimated that the DMR data entry portion of the workload was significantly smaller than predicted by the model and another suggested that the stormwater data entry workload would be higher than predicted. Finally, not all state members are currently processing minor DMRs, so they will have to add that the task to their workload.

Some state members acknowledged that the model could be useful for estimating the resource implications of increased workload for their states, and U.S. EPA offered to run the model for individual states once the modifications to it are complete. U.S. EPA staff also observed that the time invested in entering DMRs into the system in the short-term could pay off for states in the longer term with greater efficiencies. An U.S. EPA representative referred to the Agency’s electronic system for entering stormwater general permits online,and suggested that a similar system could help to further alleviate state data entry burdens.

VII. PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION: OVERVIEW OF U.S. EPA STRAW PROPOSALS TO REDUCE STATE BURDEN AND U.S. EPA’S REACTIONS TO STATES’ ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

David Hindin of U.S. EPA OECA presented an overview of U.S. EPA’s reactions to the states’ white paper of October 31, 2006 and a brief preview of the straw proposals that U.S. EPA had developed to present the next day. (PowerPoint and handouts attached) The straw proposals aim to reduce the burden associated with the December 2005 draft Policy Statement and address states’ issues. He noted that U.S. EPA staff hope to obtain ESC feedback on the proposals, allowing them to revise the Policy Statement and issue a revised version in the spring of 2007. In order to put together the proposals, U.S. EPA drew on input from the ESC; the U.S. EPA and state white papers; the Resource Workgroup’s data entry workload estimates; the Matrix Workgroup’s charts; and the two workgroups’ merged issue list. As the Agency had not yet had the opportunity to review the ASIWPCA survey results, the straw proposals were developed without that analysis.

Mr. Hindin sketched the outlines of the straw proposals to be presented the next day and gave a more detailed response to the alternatives laid out in the states’ white paper. U.S. EPA reactions to specific state alternatives are as follows:

• Summary Data Proposal: U.S. EPA views treating batch states differently from direct user and hybrid states as problematic, citing the need for a level playing field and national consistency, as well as the absence of any legal or policy basis for making a distinction. Furthermore, the Agency feels summary data would be inadequate for meeting its responsibilities to 1) manage the NPDES permitting and enforcement program; 2) develop national program direction; and 3) report results to Congress, OMB, and the public.In its proposals, however, U.S. EPA may suggest accepting summary data from all states for stormwater construction facilities.
• ICIS-NPDES Warehouse: Mr. Hindin highlighted U.S. EPA’s outstanding questions regarding the implementation of a warehouse, and such an effort would only delay implementation of the modernization project while offering little chance of a feasible solution. U.S. EPA considers it more productive to focus on states mapping to the XML schemas for ICIS-NPDES rather than creating a special new database.
• Data Discovery Tool: U.S. EPA believes the tool would be a major departure from the current system design and still has unresolved questions about its implementation. As with the warehouse option, U.S. EPA thinks the tool would only cause delay without producing results. The Agency would, however, consider using the tool for non-RIDE data or RIDE data phased in over the long term.

The group discussed what the states and U.S. EPA each meant by the term “summary data” and many ESC members concluded that they did not have a common understanding of it. For example, U.S. EPA asked whether summary data was a subset of RIDE or another type of data consisting of summary statistics like the ANCR. U.S. EPA reminded the states that the ANCR summary data was very problematic and did not meet its needs. State representatives thought that U.S. EPA needs would be satisfied with summary data, as it would include limits and DMRs for existing majors. However, U.S. EPA pointed out that was not the summary data proposal presented in the States’ White Paper (which did not include limits or DRMS for majors). As a next step, the states will compare the revised RIDE list to the elements the provided in their summary data proposal and make suggestions to U.S. EPA on which RIDE elements could potentially be eliminated. A state member also corrected a statement in the states’ White Paper, clarifying that they did not intend their proposal on summary data to apply to all states, only to batch states.

Some state representatives expressed the view that a data warehouse was more feasible and flexible than a transactional base scheme. If such a proposal involves making additions, changes or deletions to the information provided, then U.S. EPA staff believe it would be necessary to create new software that could be both expensive and inaccurate.

State committee members were concerned that the U.S. EPA straw proposals seem as though they could fundamentally change the design of states’ programs by requiring a large amount of raw data that the states have not traditionally provided. Under the current regulations, states provide data on minor facilities in a summary form. Some states may also provide summary data for new programs like CAFOs and biosolids. The states questioned whether U.S. EPA’s data requests were realistic in light of the amount of data that is actually being collected and the resources available for the work. Finally, some asked what questions the U.S. EPA hoped to answer with the data collected.