Questions: EPA NPDES eRule Phase 2 Implementation Overview Webinar

March 26, 201

9

State/Province

Organization

EPA Region

Primary Job Focus

Webinar Question

Webinar Response

Alabama

Alabama Dept of
Environmental
Management

4

Information
Technology

Re:slide 30 What is the rationale for asking EDT
states to do what you couldn't (meet the 2020
deadline), and then turn around and ask them to
do it again when you get around to doing it
"right"?

EPA believes there are significant benefits to implementing
NPDES electronic reporting, particularly cost savings to the
regulated community, states, and EPA. EPA wants both
states and EPA to implement as much of Phase 2 as feasible.

EPA will work with states to create a data sharing protocol
that is efficient and minimizes impacts to EDT states. EPA will
be working with the NPDES IPT on a refined approach that
allows EDT partners to continue submitting to the ICIS-
NPDES dataflow. Where possible, the intent will be to
support backwards compatibility to schema version 5.9. This
proposed approach would allow states to continue sharing
NPDES oversight data with the current schema (Version 5.9)
or forthcoming versions of the schema (Version 6.x) if the
state would like to share Phase 2 data.

Alabama

Alabama DEM

4

Data Management

Slide 11 Question: What about the Appendix A
data elements that are collected from individual
permit applications that are not in ICIS-NPDES
(e.g. POTW treatment info, MS4 Phase 1
application data elements, cooling water intake
structure application data elements, etc.)? When
is the work going to be done on those to put them
in ICIS-NPDES or the next system? Are they
considered Phase 2 data?

These data elements are considered Phase 2 data. States that
are flowing data via EDT will work on that prior to December
2020. We will discuss in greater detail further in the webinar.
EPA worked with states to develop reference values and
business rules for these data elements in the technical
papers. EPA will provide more information on these data
elements as it builds out new forms in NeT.

The xml schema will be updated to support the additional
phase 2 data elements.

Alabama

Alabama DEM

4

Data Management

Slide 15 Comment Only: While the technical
papers are a helpful reference, they do NOT
address all Appendix A data elements, nor do they
give an EDT state the certainty needed to change
their systems. The technical papers are the
equivalent of a plan, and when it comes time to
put that plan into production in a data system,
there may be changes or additions needed.

States don't want to retraces their steps in
implementing the Appendix A data elements.

EPA recognizes that the technical papers are not specific
enough to develop an electronic reporting tool or data
sharing protocol. EPA will generate new Phase 2 data sharing
requirements for these data through the XML schema that
will be developed in collaboration with states. The new
Phase 2 schema will help states build their own electronic
reporting tools (for the states that elected to build their own
tools).

Alabama

Alabama Dept of
Environmental
Management

4

Information
Technology

Why is EPA spending time building an "interim"
system instead of just building it into ICISfrom
the start? This causes everyone to have to do
double the work.

The current ICIS system is unable to support the necessary
requirements in a cost effective manner.

Alabama

Alabama Dept of
Environmental
Management

4

Information
Technology

After this call, will you post all of the questions
asked via chat, including those that were not
chosen to be answered on this call?

Yes.

Page 1


-------
State/Province

Organization

EPAHegion

Primary Job Focus

Webinar Question

Webinar Response

Alabama

Alabama DEM

4

Data Management

Slide 30 Comment Only: EPA surely cannot
believe it is an appropriate approach to have EDT
states use their resources to develop and
implement a flow to send data to the equivalent
of a black hole for the data elements don't exist in
ICIS-NPDES. EPA is asking states to waste valuable
resources when the data will probably not even
by used by EPA or be viewable to the public or
even the states themselves. What about the
same data from non-EDT states? Are they off the
hook?

This approach will expend (and waste) more state
and EPA resources than the logical option of
opening the rule to extend the deadline. If EPA
pursues this approach, you are turning a
legitimate electronic reporting effort into a
boondoggle. The only logical solution is to open
the rule and extend the deadline. Won't EPA have
to open the rule anyway to modify Appendix A for
the MS4 Phase II remand rule data elements?

Also, how does this approach not violate the
assertions EPA made to obtain OMB approval for
the data elements affected

EPA believes there are significant benefits to implementing
NPDES electronic reporting, particularly cost savings to the
regulated community, states, and EPA. EPA wants both
states and EPA to implement as much of Phase 2 as feasible.

The proposed option has ICIS-NPDES2 as an initial repository
for Phase 2 data. EPA will coordinate with states to ensure
that states have an easy method of sharing Phase 2 data with
this system as well as to ensure that all data were accurately
received. EPA will work with states to also make these data
available the public.

EPA does not have current plans to extend the Phase 2
deadline. EPA estimates that most general permit and
program reports will have an electronic reporting tool in
NeT. EPA is working to have the data sharing protocol for
Phase 2 data available one year before the Phase 2 deadline.

EPA is working with OW/OWM on the changes to the MS4
data elements. These changes are detailed in Technical Paper
No. 9.

Alabama

Alabama DEM

4

Data Management

Slide 42 Comment: 40 CFR §127.15(b)(1) clearly
states that "Authorized NPDES programs cannot
grant a temporary waiver to an NPDES-regulated
entity without first receiving a temporary waiver
request from the NPDES regulated entity." EPA's
contention that states can grant temporary
waivers to its regulated facilities due to the delay
in development of eReporting tools does not
mention that the regulations require that the
facilities first submit a request that contains the
information required in 40 CFR §125.17(b)(2). As
presented, isn't EPA endorsing that states
contravene federal regulations if EPA is saying
states can grant a wholesale temporary waiver for
specific reports.

The only logical solution is to open the rule and
extend the deadline. Won't EPA have to open the
rule anyway to modify Appendix A for the MS4
Phase II remand rule data elements?

EPA continues to look for flexibility in how states can
implement the temporary waiver provision of the NPDES
Electronic Reporting rule.

Facilities seeking coverage under a general permit can
submit a request for a temporary waiver. EPA can provide
assistance to states to help issue these temporary waivers.
Moreover, EPA's review of all general permits issued after
publication of the NPDES electronic reporting rule (22
October 2015) has only identified a few general permits that
specifically reference the NPDES electronic reporting rule
and the start date of December 2020.

EPA does not have current plans to extend the Phase 2
deadline. EPA estimates that most general permit and
program reports will have an electronic reporting tool in NeT
and that EPA's new data sharing protocol for Phase 2 data
will be available one year before the Phase 2 deadline.

EPA is working with OW/OWM on the changes to the MS4
data elements. These changes are detailed in Technical Paper
No. 9.

Alabama

Alabama DEM

4

Data Management

So it is optional for EDT states to do the interim
data flow?

EPA will work with states in a collaborative fashion so that
states can share Phase 2 data in a timely fashion. EPA plans
to issue a new schema for Phase 2 data by December 2019.
The target start date for sharing Phase 2 data is December
2020.

Alaska

ADEC

10

Compliance &
Enforcement data,
Permitting
deliverables

Is he referring to SEV's regarding new violation
codes?

The EPA-state technical workgroups recommended revisions
to the current list of NPDES violation codes in ICIS-NPDES. In
particular, each sector-specific technical workgroup revised
the manually created violation codes (also known as "single
event violations" or "SEVs").

Alaska

Alaska DEC/DOW
Compliance Data
Group

10

Program
Coordinator, Data

Steward,
Compliance and
Enforcement Data,
E-Reporting (E-

Rule)
implementation

Does NeT work with all types of permits? Or only
certain (i.e. stormwater).

EPA's NPDES eReporting Tool (or "NeT") is focused on NPDES
permits and program reports. EPA and states will collaborate
to ensure that each form and workflow is specific to the
needs of each state.

Page 2


-------
State/Province

Organization

EPAHegion

Primary Job Focus

Webinar Question

Webinar Response

Alaska

ADEC

10

Compliance &
Enforcement data,
Permitting
deliverables

We just got done working with Windsor on a gap
analysis and on several occasions they said that if
a document is sent in via PDF through an email
then we have fulfilled the phase 2 requirements.
Is that correct?

EPA continues to look for flexibility in how states can
implement the temporary waiver provision of the NPDES
Electronic Reporting rule.

Please note that CROMERR compliant electronic reporting
tools may allow users to included or attach a PDF document.

Alaska

ADEC

10

Compliance &
Enforcement data,
Permitting
deliverables

Do you intend to keep this a high topic of
discussion at the Exchange Network conference
this year?

We will engage with EN Conference to ensure it maintains
relevance.

Arkansas

ADEQ

6

Enforcement

How many States are going to use NeT?

EPA's current estimate is that there are 13 states that will be
using NeT for general permits and two additional states that
will use NeT for program reports.

California

EPA Region 9

9

Enforcement

What is ICIS NPDES 2? Is it a new database?

ICIS-NPDES2 is the placeholder name EPA gave to the
proposed dataflow approach. From feedback received on the
webinar and NPDES EDT IPT, EPA is reassessing the proposed
option.

Connecticut

CTDEEP

1

Regulatory,
including
permitting and
enforcement.

Why EPA opted for creating NeT as a separate toll
as supposed to revamping or updating ICIS to
enable Phase 2 data to be entered?

EPA's national NPDES data system (ICIS-NPDES) was not
designed to be an industry facing application. NeT is an
industry facing application and therefore has different
security requirements. In what was mentioned earlier, with
re-architecture, that effort would unify the user experience
and result with appropriate user access.

Delaware

DNREC

3

Compliance and
Enforcement, Data

On slide 16, you talked about revised sector
specific violation codes - are all sectors getting
revised violation codes? Or can you name any
sectors specifically?

The EPA-state technical workgroups recommended revisions
to the current list of NPDES violation codes in ICIS-NPDES. In
particular, each sector-specific technical workgroup revised
the manually created violation codes (also known as "single
event violations" or "SEVs"). These sector specific codes are
detailed in the EPA-state technical papers:
https://www.epa.gov/compliance/data-entry-guidance-and-
technical-papers

Florida

Florida Department of
Environmental
Protection

4

Compliance and
enforcement at
wastewater
facilities

Will data flowed to ICIS-NPDES2 be
available/queryable through ICIS Bl? We need to
be able to verify data we upload.

EPA will work with states to create a data sharing protocol
that is efficient and minimizes impacts to EDT states. Under
this new approach states will be able to review and confirm
that their Phase 2 data were correctly captured by NPDES-
ICIS2.

Florida

ACWA

4

Advocacy

Thank you for the update! At the end of the
webinar can you send me the total number of
participants?

EPA will send the participant list to ACWA to help promote
collaboration with states.

Florida

Florida Department of
Environmental
Protection

4

permitting,
database, training

In regard to 316(b)- how in depth of information
will states be required to submit to EPA?

The EPA-state Technical Paper No. 8 provides an overview.
You can see the interconnection between the permit
application and annual report data. This paper also describes
some of the expected business rules.

Florida

ACWA

4

Advocacy

Does EPA feel confident in the total amount of
resources needed to complete all the state
NeT/NeTDMRwork?

EPA estimates that it has sufficient resources to accomplish a
majority of our objectives prior to the December 2020
deadline.

Florida

ACWA

4

Advocacy

For the end of the webinar - just a comment:
Thank you Randy for you and all of your staff
providing states a status update on where things
are with Phase II implementation and ICIS 2.0.
This update was important, helpful, and timely.
Updates like this show a continued investment in
working closely with states, help the water
program staff stay current on the issues you all
are dealing with, and hopefully reduce the
number of surprises. We also greatly appreciate
EPA's continued support in helping states move
towards greater electronic reporting and data
exchange.

EPA appreciates the help and coordinating efforts by ACWA.

Georgia

DNR-EPD

4

Information
Technology

If this dataflow will not be ready until the end of
this year, how long will the state have to develop
our node?

EPA will work with states in a collaborative fashion so that
states can share Phase 2 data in a timely fashion. EPA plans
to issue a new schema for Phase 2 data by December 2019.
The target start date for sharing Phase 2 data is December
2020.

Georgia

EPA

4

Enforcement

This is a R4 specific question and does not need to
be answered for the general office. How many
states in R4, if any, plan to use this tool? Who are
they?

EPA's current estimate is that only Mississippi and North
Carolina have elected to use NeT.

Page 3


-------
State/Province

Organization

EPAHegion

Primary Job Focus

Webinar Question

Webinar Response

Hawaii

Hawaii State
Department of Health

9

Enforcement/Comp
liance, Data
Management

Will there be a timeline extension for compliance
with Phase 2 of the NPDES reporting rule?

EPA does not have current plans to extend the Phase 2
deadline. EPA estimates that most general permit and
program reports will have an electronic reporting tool in NeT
and that EPA's new data sharing protocol for Phase 2 data
will be available one year before the Phase 2 deadline.

Hawaii

Hawaii State
Department of Health

9

Enforcement/Comp
liance, Data
Management

Will the new fields required by the e-Rule, but not
currently supported in the ICIS schema v5.9, be
added to a new version of the existing ICIS
schema?

EPA's new data sharing protocol for Phase 2 data will be
available one year before the Phase 2 deadline. EPA will be
working with the EDT IPT to update the current ICIS schema.

Hawaii

Hawaii State
Department of Health

9

Enforcement/Comp
liance, Data
Management

Regarding a new version of the existing ICIS
schema, when will this schema be made available
for review? And when will a new version of the
ICIS batch user guide be made available explaining
the business rule for the new fields?

EPA's new data sharing protocol for Phase 2 data will be
available one year before the Phase 2 deadline. EPA will work
with the EDT IPT to develop the new schema and
documentation.

Hawaii

Hawaii State
Department of Health

9

Enforcement/Comp
liance, Data
Management

For the data going into ICIS-NPDES 2 1 have a
couple of questions: 1) will EPA be providing
training on the new system, 2) when will the new
system be available for testing or training
purposes, 3) will the new system eventually
replace ICIS, or will it be alongside ICIS (if
alongside, will anything in the existing EDT or the
existing data need to change as a result of this
new system?) 4) will there be an import process
to bring over existing information into the new
system? 5) when will the new system be in
production?

EPA will work with state agencies on the necessary support
on how to use the interim solution. Please see the following
answers: (1) Yes, EPA will provide documentation and user
guides for the new functionality; (2) The capability will be
made available in phased releases; EPA will be working with
the EN NPDES EDT IPT to create a schedule; (3) The interim
solution will be made available alongside ICIS-NPDES; (4) EPA
is investigating options to minimize this impact; and (5) EPA
is developing this schedule and will be released soon.

Indiana

Indiana Department of
Environmental
Management

5

Information
Technology

What are the assumptions made from the Rhode
Island collaboration?

EPA affirmed from the Rl DEM industrial stormwater general
permit development that regular coordination is a key factor
to ensure a successful deployment. EPA and Rl DEM
discussed all aspects of the general permit and processing.
As an outcome of the RIDEM effort, EPA is working on
creating a Permit Onboarding Package (POP) to help set
expectations.

Maryland

Maryland Department
of the Environment

3

Permitting

Question from Maryland. How long has your first
trial with Rhode Island taken? Is it to the stage we
can see a demonstration?

EPA estimates that it took nine months of collaboration with
Rl DEM. This effort exposed several types of discussions that
states should expect to be engaged on; level of commitment
needed from state; and sample outcome. EPA expects that it
will take less time to develop future electronic tools as it is
implementing more efficient processes with each new
electronic tool deployment.

Massachusetts

EPA R1

1

Enforcement

Can EPA discuss how it will approach/consider
requests from states to "customize" NeT
programs for their use?

EPA will work in a collaborative fashion to develop the web
application for submitting permit and program report forms
and related workflows to meet as many of the state needs a
possible. EPA will work with states on a case by case basis.
EPA will need to balance each state need with the overall
NeT backlog of development. The discussion with the state is
an important part of the process.

Massachusetts

US EPA R1

1

enforcement

Do you envision a similar MOU process for EPA
regions with non-delegated states?

EPA HQ would like to use slightly more informal means to
document roles and

responsibilities for development, maintenance, and change
management with EPA Regional staff.

New Jersey

New Jersey
Department of
Environmental
Protection

2

Permitting,
Information
Technology

You had indicated that EPA anticipates that the
flows to legacy and NPDES2 will be in parallel.
You had also indicated that all of the Phase 2 data
will be sent to the ICISNPDES2 repository and the
Phase 1 data will continue to be submitted to
legacy. Since the information that will be
submitted as part of Phase II will be linked to the
information in Phase 1, how will the Phase 2 data
be correctly associated with Phase 1 repository
data? Will some/all of the data in the Phase 1
repository have to be submitted in duplicate into
the Phase 2?

EPA will work with states to create a data sharing protocol
that is efficient and minimizes impacts to EDT states. EPA will
be working with the NPDES IPT on a refined approach that
allows EDT partners to continue submitting to the ICIS-
NPDES dataflow. Where possible, the intent will be to
support backwards compatibility to schema version 5.9. This
proposed approach would allow states to continue sharing
NPDES oversight data with the current schema (Version 5.9)
or forthcoming versions of the schema (Version 6.x) if the
state would like to share Phase 2 data.

New York

NYSDEC

2

NPDES permitting

How soon can EDT states expect to get the
information that will allow them to develop their
tools and processes to transfer collected data to
EPA?

EPA will work with states in a collaborative fashion so that
states can share Phase 2 data in a timely fashion. EPA plans
to issue a new schema for Phase 2 data by December 2019.
The target start date for sharing Phase 2 data is December
2020.

Page 4


-------
State/Province

Organization

EPAHegion

Primary Job Focus

Webinar Question

Webinar Response

New York

NYSDEC

2

NPDES permitting

Back to an earlier comment, if the EDT states
don't know the schema, it is hard to develop
solutions

EPA will work with states to create a data sharing protocol
that is efficient and minimizes impacts to EDT states. Under
this new approach states will be able to review and confirm
that their Phase 2 data were correctly captured by NPDES-
ICIS2.

New York

NYSDEC

2

NPDES permitting

Can a temporary waiver be granted by an EDT
state for a general permit where the ereporting
tool is not ready by the Phase2 deadline?

The NPDES electronic reporting rule (NPDES eRule) allows
states to grant temporary waivers. The NPDES eRule does
not require any pre-conditions for approval of these
temporary waivers.

Oregon

Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality

10

Information
Technology

What is the benefit of separating Phase 1 and 2
schemas over just incorporating phase 1 in to
phase 2?

EPA will work with states to create a data sharing protocol
that is efficient and minimizes impacts to EDT states. EPA will
be working with the NPDES IPT on a refined approach that
allows EDT partners to continue submitting to the ICIS-
NPDES dataflow. Where possible, the intent will be to
support backwards compatibility to schema version 5.9. This
proposed approach would allow states to continue sharing
NPDES oversight data with the current schema (Version 5.9)
or forthcoming versions of the schema (Version 6.x) if the
state would like to share Phase 2 data.

Oregon

Oregon DEQ

10

NPDES
compliance/EPA
Region 10 liaison;
key staffer for EPA
eRule workgroups

for phase 1
including phase 2
plan for OR.

Will data in ICIS-NPDES2 be available via
ECHO/ECHO Gov?

We are currently evaluating the best approach to make data
available to ECHO and ECHO Gov in the interim period of ICIS
re-architecture.

Oregon

Windsor Solutions

N/A

Systems Analyst

Will Phase 2 EDT be integrating to the same back
end database at EPA or will the data be routed to
a separate reporting system?

EPA will work with states to create a data sharing protocol
that is efficient and minimizes impacts to EDT states. Under
this new approach states will be able to review and confirm
that their Phase 2 data were correctly captured by NPDES-
ICIS2. EPA will work with states to help meet their reporting
needs. This may include use of new reporting tools.

Pennsylvania

US EPA Region III

3

NPDES
Enforcement

When will funds be available to states for Open
Node 2 plug in development? Is that different
than exchange network grant requests?

States that would like support with OpenNode to fix or
improve their data sharing with EPA's national NPDES data
system (ICIS-NPDES) should contact Joe Carioti (lead) or Eric
French (backup). EPA also notes that EPA will provide
updates to the Open Node 2 as it creates the new schema for
Phase 2 data.

Pennsylvania

US EPA Region III

3

NPDES
Enforcement

Who is the lead for developing MOU? EPA HQ or
EPA Regions?

EPA HQ maintains the MOU template. Each state will have a
change to review and edit the MOU as necessary.

Rhode Island

RIDEM

1

Data Steward

Rl is on the line and willing to provide a demo or
contact information for questions

EPA thanks Rl DEM for their offer of help to answer
questions during the webinar. EPA also thanks Rl DEM for
supporting the development of an electronic reporting tool
using EPA's software for the Rl industrial stormwater general
permit.

Texas

State Agency

6

IT, permitting and
enforcement

Funding comment was for Open Node 2. NEIEN
grants are due 4/8/19 for FY20. Any other
funding mechanism available for states who are
not on Open Node 2?

States that would like support with OpenNode to fix or
improve their data sharing with EPA's national NPDES data
system (ICIS-NPDES) should contact Joe Carioti (lead) or Eric
French (backup). EPA also notes that EPA will provide
updates to the Open Node 2 as it creates the new schema for
Phase 2 data.

Texas

State Agency

6

IT, permitting and
enforcement

Will the MOU cover all the program reports the
state intends to use the NetTool for or will a MOU
be needed for each?

The MOU will be tailored for the specific State/EPA working
partnership. It could cover all the products that will be
developed, or it could be product specific.

Texas

State Agency

6

IT, permitting and
enforcement

Some states have requested an extension to the
Dec 2020 deadline. Does EPA plan to extend this
deadline?

EPA does not have current plans to extend the Phase 2
deadline. EPA estimates that most general permit and
program reports will have an electronic reporting tool in NeT
and that EPA's new data sharing protocol for Phase 2 data
will be available one year before the Phase 2 deadline.

Texas

State Agency

6

IT, permitting and
enforcement

EDT states are dependent upon EPA to even start
our projects. With procurement processes, etc.
the clock is ticking. When can EDT states expect a
finalized schema for ICIS-NPDES 2?

EPA's new data sharing protocol for Phase 2 data will be
available one year before the Phase 2 deadline.

Page 5


-------
State/Province

Organization

EPAHegion

Primary Job Focus

Webinar Question

Webinar Response

Texas

State Agency

6

IT, permitting and
enforcement

How many states will be in "development" at the
same time for the NET tools?

EPA plans to have multiple teams working on the
development. The development process is set up to address
permits by category where we think there are similarities so
we can achieve efficiencies. We also think services and
reusable parts will help to be more efficient. A key factor in a
successful deployment is the availability of the states.

Page 6


-------