View Rule

Statement of Need: As the NPDES program and information technology have evolved in the past several decades, the Permit Compliance System (PCS)--EPA's NPDES national data system, which has been in use since 1985--has become increasingly ineffective in meeting the full scope of EPA's and individual States' needs to manage, direct, oversee, and report on the implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program. Therefore, a NPDES component of EPA's existing Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), ICIS-NPDES, was designed and constructed based upon EPA and State input to manage data for the full breadth of the NPDES program. This rulemaking would identify essential NPDES-specific information EPA needs to receive from NPDES agencies (authorized States and tribes, as well as EPA regions). This information would be sought in a format compatible with the new NPDES component of the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) in order to better enable EPA to ensure the protection of public health and the environment, effectively manage the national NPDES permitting and enforcement program, identify and address environmental problems, and ultimately replace PCS. This action would be of interest primarily to NPDES permittees, NPDES-authorized States, and to the public at large, which would ultimately have increased access to this NPDES information.

Summary of the Legal Basis: In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The Clean Water Act established a comprehensive program for protecting and restoring our Nation's waters. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the United States except when authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The Clean Water Act established the NPDES permit program to authorize and regulate the discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA has issued comprehensive regulations that implement the NPDES program at 40 CFR parts 122 to 125, 129 to 133, 136, and subpart N. Under the NPDES permit program, point sources subject to regulation may discharge pollutants to waters of the United States subject to the terms and conditions of an NPDES permit. With very few exceptions (40 CFR 122.3), point sources require NPDES permit authorization to discharge, including both municipal and industrial discharges. NPDES permit authorization may be provided under an individual NPDES permit, which is developed after a process initiated by a permit application (40 CFR 122.21), or under a general NPDES permit, which among other things, applies to one or more categories of dischargers (e.g., oil and gas facilities, seafood processors) with the same or substantially similar types of operations and the same effluent limitations, operating conditions, or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the primary responsibility to ensure that the NPDES program is effectively and consistently implemented across the country, thus ensuring that public health and environmental protection goals of the CWA are met. Many States and some territories have received authorization to implement and enforce the NPDES program, and EPA works with its State partners to ensure effective program implementation and enforcement. CWA section 304(i)(2) directs EPA to promulgate guidelines establishing the minimum procedural and other elements of a State, territory, or tribal NPDES program, including monitoring requirements; reporting requirements (including procedures to make information available to the public); enforcement provisions; and funding, personnel qualifications, and manpower requirements [CWA sec. 304(i)(2)]. EPA published NPDES State, territory, and tribal program regulations under CWA section 304(i)(2) at 40 CFR part 123. Among other things, the part 123 regulations specify NPDES program requirements for permitting, compliance evaluation programs, enforcement authority, sharing of information, transmission of information to EPA, and noncompliance and program reporting to EPA. This proposed rulemaking may add some specificity to those particular regulations regarding what NPDES information is required to be submitted to EPA by States and may modify other regulations to require electronic reporting of NPDES information by NPDES permittees to the States and EPA.

Alternatives: For this proposed rulemaking, EPA has determined that the need for EPA's receipt of such NPDES information exists. If, for whatever reason, electronic reporting by permittees is not a feasible option for certain NPDES information, the obvious alternative would be for EPA to require States to provide that information to EPA. The States already receive that information from the permittees, and therefore, they have the information that EPA seeks. Within the rulemaking process itself, various alternatives are under consideration based on the feasibility of particular electronic reporting options. For example, EPA may consider establishing requirements for electronic reporting of discharge monitoring reports by NPDES permittees. Under this proposed rulemaking, EPA may consider establishing similar requirements for any or all of the following types of NPDES information: Notices of Intent to discharge (for facilities seeking coverage under general permits), permitting information (including permit applications), various program reports (e.g., pretreatment compliance reports from approved local pretreatment programs, annual reports from concentrated animal feeding operations, biosolids reports, sewage overflow incident reports, annual reports for pesticide applicators, annual reports for municipal stormwater systems), and annual compliance certifications. Some States might also raise the possibility of supplying only summary-level information to EPA rather than facility-specific information to EPA. Based upon considerable experience, EPA considers such alternative non-facility-specific data to be insufficient to meet its needs, except in very particular situations or reports. One alternative that EPA may consider for rule implementation is whether third-party vendors may be better equipped to develop and modify such electronic reporting tools than EPA.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The economic analysis for this proposed rulemaking has not yet been completed; therefore, the dollar values of estimated costs and benefits are not yet known. However, some generalizations can still be made regarding expectations. EPA anticipates that electronic reporting of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) by NPDES permittees will provide significant data entry cost savings for States and EPA. These discharge monitoring reports are already required to be submitted by NPDES permittees to States and EPA, which in turn currently enter that information into the State NPDES data system or EPA's national NPDES data system. These discharge monitoring reports contain significant amounts of information regarding pollutants discharged, identified concentrations and quantities of pollutants, discharge locations, etc. Through electronic reporting by permittees, States and EPA will no longer have associated data entry costs to enter this information. Electronic reporting by NPDES permittees of other NPDES information (such as notices of intent to discharge or various program reports) may also yield considerable data entry savings to the States and EPA. In addition, some States have been able to quantify savings by the permittees to electronically report their NPDES information using existing electronic reporting tools. Such savings are being examined in the economic analysis process for this rulemaking. Additional benefits of this rule will likely include improved transparency of information regarding the NPDES program, improved information regarding the national NPDES program, improved targeting of resources and enforcement based on identified program needs and noncompliance problems, and ultimately improved protection of public health and the environment. Some NPDES information will need to be reported by States to EPA; therefore, there will be some data entry costs associated with that information, but it will likely be far less than the savings that will be realized by States through electronic reporting by NPDES permittees. In addition, EPA will likely have sizable costs to develop tools for electronic reporting by permittees, as well as operation and maintenance costs associated with those tools.

Risks: Given the scope of this proposed rulemaking, the most significant risks associated with this effort may be those if EPA does not proceed with this rulemaking. At this point, EPA does not receive sufficient NPDES information from the States to be able to fully assess the implementation of the national NPDES program nor the smaller subprograms. Such information is not currently required by EPA from the States, and the lack of such reporting requirements perpetuates this problem. Furthermore, EPA does not have facility-specific information regarding most of the facilities regulated under the NPDES program, and therefore, EPA cannot easily identify potential implementation problems or noncompliance problems. This lack of information may adversely impact EPA's ability to better ensure the protection of public health and the environment, nationally and locally. A potential risk associated with this rule may involve EPA efforts to develop electronic reporting tools for use by permittees. The costs associated with the internal development of such tools, possibly for multiple types of NPDES information from various types of NPDES permittees, and the future costs of operation and maintenance may be substantial for EPA, possibly impacting the availability of funding for other purposes. Furthermore, EPA would also need to determine the feasibility of ensuring that the electronic tools can be flexible enough to meet state needs and work well with State data systems. Problems in the development and maintenance of these electronic tools could pose significant risks for the effective implementation of this rule.