WEF Submits Comments on Proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

WEF submitted comments on December 12 regarding the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule published in the Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 146 on Tuesday, July 30, 2013. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OECA–2009–0274.

WEF noted the following:

. . . . The project implementation portion of the proposed rule is critical to success of this rule. For example, if the project is implemented behind schedule, then the target dates defined in the rules would be meaningless such as Phase 1 and 2 Implementation. The primary project objective is to implement a national data base system for storing, retrieving, and reporting NPDES compliance information. Although the first phase of implementation as reported in the FR 78 is reported as nearly completed, the second phase has not been started and has several data gaps. WEF believes that the data requirements in Phase 2 are orders of magnitude higher than Phase 1. Additionally, the number of approved State programs are lower, notably the Approved Biosolids (Sludge) Programs with only 8 out of the 59 states or regions defined by the EPA.

The biosolids regulations (40 CFR Part 503) set different and unique monitoring requirements and limits depending on the end use of the biosolids. This nuance is not captured in the proposed regulations. Since EPA is expecting to be able to judge compliance from the reports, there must be a means to identify monitoring requirements based on the end use of the biosolids. The end use may change from monitoring period to monitoring period or even within a single monitoring period. The electronic reporting tool must be able to delineate those differences since different compliance requirements apply based upon the end use. Similarly a single permittee may produce multiple biosolids types (i.e., liquid and dewatered; Class A and Class B; anaerobically digested and lime stabilized; etc.) so the electronic reporting mechanism must be able to account for each and its associated requirements for every monitoring period and for every end use. In some states, including California, biosolids from multiple generators may be applied to the same land application site. If there is intent to track individual site information as when 503.13(b) (2) applies; then this needs to be captured. Due to the ready public availability of the electronic data to be collected, it is incumbent upon EPA to collect the required data that can be verified in a regulatory context. The electronic reporting system should be able to alert one as to the need for further review but should not be viewed as the means to a final determination of compliance. In addition, POTWs should have a mechanism for submitting corrections or modifications to the electronic system if errors are found.

The proposed rule states that all of the electronic reporting tools, whether already existing or to be developed in implementing this rule need to be compliant with EPA’s CROMERR (40 CFR part 3) if it is transmitted to EPA. Presently, California does not have delegated authority for the biosolids program, and its electronic reporting system (California Integrated Water Quality System) does not support biosolids monitoring data. As a result, POTWs are required to report directly to US EPA. Clarification is sought on whether POTWs need to be CROMERR certified to authorize electronic reporting directly to EPA.

The EPA appears to be eliminating the benefits and responsibilities for delegated authority by phasing out the annual summary reports now provided to EPA and relying solely on electronic reporting by permittees. While we agree that electronic reporting will yield many benefits and improve accuracy of biosolids management and quality overall, we do not agree that it will allow determination of compliance in most cases.

See full version of comments, at
WEF-NPDESElectronicReportingRuleComments-EPADocketIDNo-EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274