NPDES on Exchange | Exchange.Regulations.gov

Intent of this Exchange Page and Discussion Forum

This web page is one of several ways the EPA is inviting the public to participate in an ongoing rulemaking. In the Federal government, regulatory decisions are made through the rulemaking process. Please use the features of this web page to let the EPA know what you think about the topics listed for discussion.

Focus of this Rule

EPA is in the early stages of developing a proposed rule on electronic reporting for various aspects of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Rulemaking is a formal decision making process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires the government to fully document its decisions and, when appropriate, to take public comments into consideration.

The focus of this rule is to establish new reporting requirements for facilities, and other parties such as the states, that currently are required to report certain data under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Each of these parties are already collecting and submitting substantial amounts of data, on a number of program areas, to the states or to EPA. The proposed rulemaking, is expected to require that some portion of that reporting submitted electronically, rather than on paper, set the necessary standards for the electronic reporting.

Through the rulemaking process, EPA will examine a number of alternatives, ask for and receive comments and advice from many parties, including the public, and eventually develop a proposal outlining which types of reporting would be required to be done electronically, and how electronic reporting would be done. The proposal will be published in the Federal Register, and the public will have an opportunity to comment at that time.

EPA will then consider the comments received, revise the rule as necessary, and issue a final rule. The final rule is expected to be issued in 2012, and include a process for phased implementation over several years.

Who is Affected?

The proposed rule is expected to affect both permitted facilities and states, tribes and territories that administer the NPDES program. EPA believes that most reporting facilities would benefit from electronic reporting. The rulemaking would not create any new reporting requirements. Rather, the rule would simply require certain existing reporting to be done electronically. Moreover, it is possible that electronic reporting would actually reduce the reporting burden on the reporting facilities.

States would also be directly affected, and mostly to their benefit. Electronic reporting would dramatically reduce the need for the states to process paper submissions. This is expected to save them time and money, and could free-up resources for compliance assurance and enforcement of the Clean Water Act. The states may incur some conversion costs in the move to electronic reporting, but EPA will likely offer several potential types of assistance. The Facilities that discharge pollutants into the water under an NPDES permit are expected to be affected the most, but states, municipalities, tribes, and territories also may be affected.

As the various aspects of the rule are implemented, they are expected to make it possible for EPA and the states to improve management of the Clean Water Act programs, which then would lead to cleaner water for everyone.

Background Regarding the NPDES Program

The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act or CWA) prohibits the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States unless that discharge is done in compliance with the requirements of the Act. The primary method for discharges to be consistent with the Act is for the discharges to be authorized by a permit. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program is the primary permitting program under the Act (the Act also created a second significant permitting program, the section 404 permitting program, for the discharge of dredged and fill material). Through the NPDES permitting program, EPA, or authorized states, set limits and conditions on the discharge of pollutants to water.

Forty-six states and the Virgin Islands have been authorized by EPA to implement and enforce the main NPDES program within their own boundaries. EPA implements and enforces the main NPDES program in the other four states, in most US territories, and on tribal lands. EPA also administers several NPDES subprograms (e.g., biosolids or pretreatment) in other states, permits Federal facilities in many states, maintains oversight responsibilities over these 46 NPDES-authorized states, has the authority to inspect permittees throughout the nation and take enforcement actions, and manages the national NPDES program.

NPDES Program in the Past

The scope of the NPDES program has expanded considerably since the mid-1980s, when EPA’s primary focus was on the compliance status of major dischargers. There is now an increased understanding of the potential impacts from nonmajor facilities, including so-called “wet weather” discharges of stormwater. EPA’s recent enforcement initiatives have focused more on these nonmajor discharges.

Throughout this evolutionary process, EPA’s goal has always been to provide national program direction and oversight and ensure that implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program protects human health and the environment consistently throughout the U.S., and to give the public access to information regarding NPDES facilities of interest to them.

To achieve these goals EPA needs a substantial amount of data. The information sought by EPA covers a wide range of data types, such as basic facility and locational data, basic information regarding the permit, and information regarding outfalls (permitted features), numerical effluent limits and limit sets, permit-required events and reporting, self-monitoring data, inspections, program reports from the permittees, violation determinations, and enforcement actions. In addition, EPA is examining what information might be needed to properly administer particular NPDES subprograms, such as pretreatment, biosolids, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), separate sewer overflows (SSOs), concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), stormwater, and vessels.

Since 1985, the Permit Compliance System (PCS) has served as the national data base for the NPDES program and as the primary source of NPDES information for EPA, many NPDES-authorized states, Congress, and the public. But over time the NPDES program has changed significantly, and there is growing need to present a more complete picture of the NPDES program and include the diverse universe of regulated sources, including smaller and non-traditional sources (such as storm water, CAFOs, and overflows from sewage treatment plants [CSOs and SSOs]). As the NPDES program has evolved, PCS has become increasingly ineffective in meeting the full scope of EPA’s and individual state’s needs to manage, direct, oversee, and report on the implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program.

NPDES Program Today and In the Future

To manage data for the full breadth of the NPDES program, and to take advantage of the current generation of information technology, PCS is being phased out. It is being replaced by the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). The NPDES portion of ICIS (ICIS-NPDES) was designed based on EPA and state input. Compared to PCS, ICIS-NPDES more accurately reflects the full scope of the NPDES program, and it includes data for a variety of permit types and program areas that could not be easily tracked in PCS. EPA has facilitated the transfer of data from PCS to ICIS-NPDES for 28 states, 2 tribes, and 9 territories. EPA intends to continue the migration process until all states, tribes, and territories are migrated to ICIS-NPDES.

Through this rule, EPA will begin establishing a nationally consistent set of required NPDES electronic reports for the full scope of the NPDES program. As a by-product, EPA intends to also refine previous work regarding the actual data elements that would be required to be submitted to ICIS-NPDES. In addition to the required data, EPA, states, tribes, and territories would also have the option of loading additional information into ICIS-NPDES for particular program areas, for instance data that may only be of local interest.

Expected Benefits

The proposed rule is expected to have both direct and indirect benefits. How large those benefits will be is dependant upon which of the alternatives being considered are actually included in the final rule. The direct benefits are expected to be primarily cost savings for the reporting facilities and states. By adopting modern electronic reporting technologies the reporting facilities – many of whom are still reporting on paper forms – will spend less time preparing their reports, and because of the built in accuracy checks, the reports are expected to be more accurate, resulting in the facility spending less time revising and resubmitting forms due to errors.

States are expected to save money by not having to process large volumes of paper forms. Currently, when states receive paper submissions they need to check them for errors, return them to the senders if there are errors, and when they are accurate, they have to be entered into the state’s data system. All of that takes time, which costs the states money, and means it can take months before the reported data is actually available for use. Electronic reporting by facilities would dramatically reduce the processing costs of the states, freeing up resources that could be used to work with permittees, including following-up on permit violations.

Electronic reporting is expected to result indirectly in cleaner water for the public and the environment. With electronic reporting the data would be placed directly into data systems that can scan for violations which means the states and EPA can take corrective actions sooner, and which would lead to fewer pollutants being discharged into the water.

NPDES Reporting Rule Events

As work proceeds EPA also intends to determine whether additional meetings and consultations are warranted in order to comply with various statutes and Executive Orders. The statutes and Executive Orders direct federal agencies, including EPA, to coordinate with organizations representing states, counties, and municipalities, and consult, as required, with tribes and small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions.