MEMORANDUM

TO: Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM: Carey A. Johnston, P.E.

USEPA/OECA/OC

ph: (202) 566 1014

johnston.carey@epa.gov

DATE: 3 July 2014

SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (12 June 2014) [DCN 0140]

Overview 

This was the thirteenth meeting for the EPA-state technical workgroup, which is 

discussing key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). These 

discussions are informing the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice and they will 

continue beyond the publication of the supplemental notice to help EPA address state 

comments. EPA participants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from 

EPA’s Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members 

are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is 

summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency 

on EPA’s outreach during the rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available 

for any other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule.

Meeting Notes

EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in 

addition to raising questions during the technical workgroup meetings, states can email their 

questions on the proposed rule (including the data elements) to EPA. Questions on all aspects 

of the proposed rule can be sent to Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference 

participants to focus on the Collection System Information, Combined Sewer System 

Information, and Sewer Overflow Inspections and Events Reports. The source of these data 

elements includes NPDES permit applications and Notices of Intent (NOI) (see 30 July 2013; 78 

FR 46094-46096), State or EPA inspections of sewer overflow events (Page 46102), and Sewer 

Overflow Event Reports (Page 46112). 

Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of each data element 

along with the corresponding data description and regulatory or policy citation. After reading 

about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from the technical 

workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical workgroup. The first 
set of data elements discussed were the Collection System Information data elements (Page 

46094), which are derived from individual NPDES permit applications or NOIs (general permit 

covered facilities).

 Florida noted that there are no combined sewer systems in their state. They asked how they 

would complete the Collection System Information data elements. Mr. Johnston noted that 

these data elements apply to both separate sanitary sewer systems and combined sewer 

systems. He also noted that states should report “0%” for the Percentage of Collection 

System That is a Combined Sewer System data element when the collection system is 

entirely a separate sanitary sewer system. 

 Arkansas (Mr. David Ramsey) had a question on how these data elements would apply to a 

satellite sewer collection system. Municipal satellite collection systems are sanitary sewers 

owned or operated by a municipality that convey sewage or industrial wastewater to a 

POTW that has a treatment plant owned or operated by a different municipality. These 

types of facilities do not typically have their own NPDES permit. Mr. Johnston noted that 

the NPDES permit applicant will use the Collection System Information data elements to 

individually identify the different sewer collection systems (including satellite collection 

systems) that are covered by the NPDES permit. Mr. Johnston provided an example of how 

a POTW seeking NPDES permit coverage would provide each data element separately for 

each sewer system covered by the permit to the state. See Figure 1. 

 A state participant asked how POTWs should calculate Percentage of Collection System 

That is a Combined Sewer System. Specifically, the state participant asked if this 

percentage was to be calculated by miles of pipe or service population. Mr. Johnston noted 

that the regulations do not specify a particular method.1Several state participants noted 

that EPA should identify a calculation method for this data element to provide clarity and 

national consistency.

 A state participant asked if EPA is planning on updating its NPDES forms to match the data 

elements in Appendix A. EPA (Ms. Jackie Clark) responded that EPA will update its forms to 

match the data in Appendix A.

 ECOS (Ms. Beth Graves) asked EPA has a budgeted upgrades to ICIS-NPDES to accommodate 

all the data elements in Appendix A. Mr. Johnston noted that OECA is planning to upgrade 

ICIS-NPDES and that EPA will provide this workgroup with an update within the next few 

months.

Mr. Johnston then continued the technical discussion by reading the name of each data 

element associated with Combined Sewer System Information (Page 46095). There were no 

 

1

40 CFR 122.21(j)(1)(vii): Collection system. Identification of type(s) of collection system(s) used by the treatment 

works (i.e., separate sanitary sewers or combined storm and sanitary sewers) and an estimate of the percent of 

sewer line that each type comprise.
suggestions or comments on these data elements. Mr. Johnston then continued the technical 

discussion by reading the name of each data element associated with Sewer Overflow 

Inspections (Page 46102). Below are some questions and comments from the technical 

workgroup. 

 A state participant asked if EPA could modify the existing “Twenty-four hour reporting” 

requirement in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6). Currently these regulations state: “The permittee shall 

report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. Any 

information shall be provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes 

aware of the circumstances.” [emphasis added] The state participant suggested that it 

would be better if EPA did not specify “orally” and instead left the notification mechanism 

up to the authorized state NPDES program.

Washington state noted that they would like the option of having the immediate 

notification be an electronic notice and not an oral report. Florida noted that they have a 

24-hour hotline to report sewer overflows. They noted that it may not be possible to 

electronically report these twenty-four hour reports if the POTW has lost power due to a 

large disaster (e.g., hurricane).

Mr. Johnston first noted that these twenty-four hour reports are not identified for 

conversion to electronic reporting in the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting rule. Mr. 

Johnston also noted that any state that would like to change the requirement for “oral 

notice” to “immediate notice” for these twenty-four hour reports should make this 

suggestion in their comments on the forthcoming supplemental notice. Mr. Johnston 

further noted that this provision, Twenty-four hour reporting, is intended to provide the 

authorized NPDES program with immediate notification of non-compliance that “may 

endanger health or the environment” and that this provision was written before the wide 

adoption of the Internet.

 Arkansas (Mr. David Ramsey) noted that their inspectors usually identify the street 

intersection where a sewer overflow has taken place, not the latitude and longitude as is 

listed in Appendix A. Mr. Johnston noted that it may be possible for EPA to take 

standardized street address data and convert it to a longitude and latitude

 Alabama noted that EPA’s enforcement initiative on sewer overflows often requires 

compliance monitoring and reporting through enforcement actions. These data are often 

submitted on paper and are above and beyond the permit requirements. The state 

participant suggested that the eRule Team coordinate with EPA’s enforcement staff on 

these reporting requirements from enforcement actions and the reporting requirements 

from the eRule. 

Mr. Johnston then continued the technical discussion by reading the name of each data 

element associated with Sewer Overflow Events Reports (Page 46112). Below are some 

questions and comments from the technical workgroup.
 New York asked about how receiving waterbody data will be reported. Mr. Johnston noted 

that it is EPA’s plan on have these data be reported in a standardized way such that the 

sewer overflow can be linked to a particular waterbody on the National Hydrography 

Dataset (NHD). He noted that simply providing a text field with the receiving waterbody 

name is not sufficient to uniquely identify a waterbody. Mr. Johnston gave the example that 

there are 84 waterbodies with the name “Pigeon Creek” in the U.S. official list of geographic 

names (Geographic Names Information System – GNIS). See Table 1. Given that receiving 

waterbody names are not unique, Mr. Johnston noted that simply providing the name of 

the receiving waterbody does not automatically located the waterbody on a map. He noted 

that it is important that the electronic reporting tool capture the unique location of the 

receiving waterbody. Mr. Johnston noted that Appendix A collects permitted feature (e.g., 

outfall) latitude and longitude, which can be systematically mapped to the NHD. However, 

since SSOs can occur at any point in a collection system (i.e., SSOs should not be allowed 

under an NPDES permit) it is important that the receiving waterbody name be reported in a 

way to link it to the NHD.

 Oklahoma asked if there was a de minimus threshold for reporting sewer overflow spills. 

Tenessee noted that EPA should include a de minimus threshold for reporting sewer 

overflow spills and New Jersey noted that if there is a de minimus threshold that this 

threshold should be clearly stated. 

 Tennessee noted that most sewer overflow events are related to storm events and asked if 

EPA considered adding a data element related to inches of precipitation. Mr. Johnston 

noted that EPA did consider adding a data element on the Sewer Overflow Events Report 

that collected inches of precipitation. He noted that EPA proposed the following data 

element, Dry or Wet Weather Occurrence for Sewer Overflow, which EPA intended to use 

for inspection and enforcement targeting. Mr. Johnston suggested that states include their 

preference with respect to collecting inches of precipitation data in their comments on the 

forthcoming supplemental notice. 

 Washington state asked EPA if it would be involved in the future enhancements of ICISNPDES. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA would involve the states in any future enhancements 

of ICIS-NPDES.

 A state participant suggested that data elements in Appendix that are not in ICIS-NPDES 

means that these data elements are new reporting requirements. Mr. Johnston noted that 

there is a distinction between what is in ICIS-NPDES and what is required in EPA regulations. 

Mr. Johnston noted the OECA eRule Team started the development of Appendix A from 

EPA’s existing regulations. The OECA eRule Team worked with NPDES program experts from 

the Office of Water, Office of General Counsel, and EPA Regions to develop Appendix A. He 

noted that the purpose of Appendix A is to ensure that there is consistent and complete 

reporting nationwide, and to expedite the collection and processing of the data, thereby 

making it more timely, accurate, complete, useful, and transparent for everyone. He noted 
that The EPA technical workgroups used the following process to create Appendix A: (1) 

Identify current candidate reports and information from states and NPDES regulated 

entities that are practical to standardize and electronically process, and have important 

value to the permitting, compliance and enforcement program, and the public; (2) Identify 

the required data elements for each candidate data flow and report based on the CWA or 

existing EPA regulations or policy; and (3) Minimize the number of data elements to create 

efficiencies without losing the utility of the data. 

 ECOS (Ms. Beth Graves) asked EPA if it accounted for state information technology system 

upgrade costs. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA did account for these upgrade costs (see 

Section 1.4.2, 3.4.4, and 4.7). 

After the meeting EPA received questions from the Kentucky Energy and Environment 

Cabinet and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. See Attachments 1 and 

2.

Next Steps

The next technical workgroup meeting is June 19th. 
State Technical Workgroup Meeting – NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

12 June 2014

1pm Introduction/Roll Call 

1:10 Discussion of Sewage Collection System, Combined Sewer System, and 

Sewer Overflow Data from Individual Permit Applications and NOIs, 

Inspections, and Sewer Overflow Event Reports

2:00 End of Call

Quick Reminder

 The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected 

to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior 

management.

 There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will 

proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

 There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is 

expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not 

achieve consensus.

 Summaries of the workgroup’s discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the 

workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the 

rulemaking record. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the 

discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.
Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Sean Rolland ACWA srolland@acwa-us.org No

Karen Lechner AK karen.lechner@alaska.gov No

Christy Monk

AL

cvm@adem.state.al.us

Eric Cleckler ecleckler@adem.state.al.us Yes

Glenda Dean gld@adem.state.al.us

Teresa Marks

AR

marks@adeq.state.ar.us

Yes

Pat Goff goff@adeq.state.ar.us

Mo Shafii shafii@adeq.state.ar.us

Karen Bassett bassett@adeq.state.ar.us

David Ramsey ramsey@adeq.state.ar.us

Ellen Carpenter carpenter@adeq.state.ar.us

Wendy LeStarge

AZ

lestarge.wendy@azdeq.gov

Robin Belley belley.robin@azdeq.gov Yes

David Lelsz lelsz.david@azdeq.gov;

Andy Putnam

CO

andrew.putnam@state.co.us

goff@adeq.state.ar.us Yes

Elisa Willard elisa.willard@state.co.us

Bob Zimmerman DE robert.zimmerman@state.de.us

stephanie.bower@state.de.us No

Beth Graves ECOS bgraves@ecos.org Yes

Chris Klena

FL

chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us

Yes

Jessica Kleinfelter jessica.kleinfelter@dep.state.fl.us

Edward Smith edward.c.smith@dep.state.fl.us

Frances Carpenter frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us

Frances Carpenter GA frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us Yes

Tom Easterly

IN

teasterl@idem.in.gov

ckoontz@idem.in.gov No

Jeremy Chenevert jcheneve@idem.in.gov

Ed Dillingham

KS

edillingham@kdheks.gov

No Shelly Shores-Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov

Shawn Hokanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov Yes

Ruth Wallace

MO

ruth.wallace@dnr.mo.gov

Yes Christopher Miller epermitting@dnr.mo.gov

Tamara Dahl MN tamara.dahl@state.mn.us No

Greg Jackson MS greg_jackson@deq.state.ms.us No

John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org No
Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Jason Lonardo

NJ

jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us

Yes Julio Collazo julio.collazo@dep.state.nj.us

Robert Wither

NY

rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Yes Joseph DiMura jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Shellie Chard-McClary

OK

shellie.chard-mcclary@deq.ok.gov

Roy Walker roy.walker@deq.ok.gov Yes

David Pruitt david.pruitt@deq.ok.gov

Jim Billings OR billings.jim@deq.state.or.us Yes

Sean Furjanic PA sefurjanic@pa.gov No

Kent Woodmansey

SD

kent.woodmansey@state.sd.us

Tim Flor tim.flor@state.sd.us Yes

Albert Spangler albert.spangler@state.sd.us

Lawrence Bunting TN lawrence.bunting@TN.gov Yes

Kim Wilson

TX

kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov

Lynley Doyen lynley.doyen@tceq.texas.gov No

Kimberly Shepard kimberly.shepard@tceq.texas.gov

Jeff Studenka UT jstudenka@utah.gov No

Jerome Brooks

VA

jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov

No

Phani Eturu phani.eturu@deq.virginia.gov

Stephen Bernath

WA

sber461@ecy.wa.gov

Yes Nancy Kmet nkme461@ecy.wa.gov

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

Name EPA Office Email Present? 

(Yes/No)

Lisa Lund OECA/OC/IO lund.lisa@epa.gov No

John Dombrowski OECA/OC/ETDD dombrowski.john@epa.gov No

Andy Hudock OECA/OC/ETDD hudock.andrew@epa.gov No

Rochele Kadish OECA/OC/ETDD kadish.rochele@epa.gov No

Carey Johnston OECA/OC/ETDD johnston.carey@epa.gov Yes

Jackie Clark OW/OWM/WPD clark.jackie@epa.gov Yes

Roy Chaudet OEI/OIC/IESD chaudet.roy@epa.gov No

Chuck Freeman OEI/OIC/IESD freeman.charles@epa.gov No

Aditi Prabhu OGC/WLO prabhu.aditi@epa.gov No

David Apanian Region 4 apanian.david@epa.gov No

Mohammed Billah OW/OWM/WPD billah.mohammed@epa.gov Yes

Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov Yes

Table 1: Example Showing the Importance of Linking the Receiving Waterbody Name to a Specific Location

GNIS Name GNIS ID Class County State Latitude Longitude Elevation GNIS Entry Date

Pigeon Creek 156883 Populated Place Butler AL 313928N 0863026W 394 4-Sep-80

Pigeon Creek 124713 Stream Clarke AL 313131N 0873633W 10 4-Sep-80

Pigeon Creek 124714 Stream Jackson AL 345913N 0861459W 781 4-Sep-80

Pigeon Creek 155196 Stream Conecuh AL 312043N 0864213W 141 4-Sep-80

Pigeon Creek 53359 Stream Logan AR 350955N 0940336W 535 30-Apr-80

Pigeon Creek 53360 Stream Madison AR 360042N 0935410W 1,220 30-Apr-80

Pigeon Creek 53361 Stream Baxter AR 362405N 0922151W 699 30-Apr-80

Pigeon Creek 73069 Stream Scott AR 345956N 0934803W 919 30-Apr-80

Pigeon Creek 73070 Stream Crawford AR 353638N 0941049W 673 30-Apr-80

Pigeon Creek 73071 Stream Scott AR 345259N 0940842W 653 30-Apr-80

Pigeon Creek 32891 Stream Gila AZ 340414N 1111028W 4,252 8-Feb-80

Pigeon Creek 32892 Stream Yavapai AZ 341804N 1114212W 2,710 8-Feb-80

Pigeon Creek 32893 Stream Greenlee AZ 331607N 1091144W 4,094 8-Feb-80

Pigeon Creek 234460 Stream Amador CA 383234N 1205053W 843 19-Jan-81

Pigeon Creek 234461 Stream Glenn CA 392603N 1223010W 984 19-Jan-81

Pigeon Creek 247459 Stream Tulare CA 360236N 1184431W 1,588 19-Jan-81

Pigeon Creek 264716 Stream Shasta CA 410955N 1215929W 4,173 19-Jan-81

Pigeon Creek 272961 Stream Tulare CA 362049N 1184507W 4,245 19-Jan-81

Pigeon Creek 187784 Stream La Plata CO 373807N 1074128W 8,241 13-Oct-78

Pigeon Creek 288801 Stream Bay FL 302011N 0854937W 3 19-Oct-79

Pigeon Creek 288802 Stream Nassau FL 304651N 0815817W 3 19-Oct-79

Pigeon Creek 320507 Stream Meriwether GA 325325N 0843035W 614 25-Sep-79

Pigeon Creek 329200 Stream Fannin GA 344526N 0841150W 1,854 25-Sep-79

Pigeon Creek 329201 Stream Dawson GA 342600N 0840801W 1,204 25-Sep-79

Pigeon Creek 460132 Stream Pottawattamie IA 411911N 0955314W 961 30-Apr-79

Pigeon Creek 460133 Stream Scott IA 413249N 0902635W 564 30-Apr-79

Pigeon Creek 460134 Stream Appanoose IA 403736N 0924455W 840 30-Apr-79
Pigeon Creek 415652 Stream Williamson IL 374309N 0890155W 404 15-Jan-80

Pigeon Creek 415653 Stream Jefferson IL 382214N 0884530W 446 15-Jan-80

Pigeon Creek 415654 Stream Pike IL 394242N 0911551W 449 15-Jan-80

Pigeon Creek 415655 Stream Iroquois IL 403536N 0875107W 646 15-Jan-80

Pigeon Creek 415656 Stream Marshall IL 405804N 0892528W 456 15-Jan-80

Pigeon Creek 441114 Stream Steuben IN 414100N 0851600W 912 14-Feb-79

Pigeon Creek 441115 Stream Vanderburgh IN 375938N 0873421W 344 14-Feb-79

Pigeon Creek 500585 Stream Edmonson KY 371534N 0861520W 433 20-Sep-79

Pigeon Creek 500586 Stream Johnson KY 375118N 0825647W 761 20-Sep-79

Pigeon Creek 500587 Stream Anderson KY 380506N 0850109W 755 20-Sep-79

Pigeon Creek 500588 Stream Ohio KY 372500N 0865031W 397 20-Sep-79

Pigeon Creek 1627918 Stream St. Helena LA 304329N 0905020W 95 4-Jun-80

Pigeon Creek 634850 Stream Calhoun MI 421632N 0850433W 860 14-Apr-80

Pigeon Creek 634851 Stream Allegan MI 424204N 0854854W 650 14-Apr-80

Pigeon Creek 724326 Stream Dent MO 372736N 0914100W 935 24-Oct-80

Pigeon Creek 724327 Stream Buchanan MO 393848N 0944342W 820 24-Oct-80

Pigeon Creek 724328 Stream Marion MO 395126N 0913857W 554 24-Oct-80

Pigeon Creek 738761 Stream Ralls MO Unknown Unknown 718 1-Apr-90

Pigeon Creek 751578 Stream Ripley MO 364135N 0910159W 486 24-Oct-80

Pigeon Creek 788851 Stream Silver Bow MT 454802N 1122359W 6,083 4-Apr-80

Pigeon Creek 992181 Stream Swain NC 353232N 0831602W 2,247 17-Jun-80

Pigeon Creek 1014386 Stream Swain NC 352131N 0832633W 2,195 17-Jun-80

Pigeon Creek 832100 Stream Dixon NE 422242N 0964054W 1,220 9-Mar-79

Pigeon Creek 832101 Stream Dakota NE 422005N 0962421W 1,073 9-Mar-79

Pigeon Creek 960372 Stream Jefferson NY 434547N 0754839W 1,581 23-Jan-80

Pigeon Creek 1867464 Populated Place Summit OH 410639N 0814022W 1,040 15-May-00

Pigeon Creek 1044430 Stream Summit OH 410258N 0813600W 961 12-Jul-79

Pigeon Creek 1057921 Stream Vinton OH 391231N 0824247W 591 12-Jul-79

Pigeon Creek 1066893 Stream Jackson OH 391002N 0824555W 594 12-Jul-79

Pigeon Creek 1076627 Stream Gallia OH 384137N 0822806W 807 12-Jul-79
Pigeon Creek 1096628 Stream Latimer OK 345452N 0950245W 522 18-Dec-79

Pigeon Creek 1101583 Stream Le Flore OK 343849N 0943233W 1,040 18-Dec-79

Pigeon Creek 1125368 Stream Polk OR 445143N 1234050W 942 28-Nov-80

Pigeon Creek 1132179 Stream Tillamook OR 452254N 1233449W 732 22-May-86

Pigeon Creek 1135534 Stream Lincoln OR 444154N 1233933W 361 1-Nov-91

Pigeon Creek 1183708 Stream Chester PA 401200N 0753448W 102 2-Aug-79

Pigeon Creek 1183709 Stream Berks PA 402939N 0755815W 295 2-Aug-79

Pigeon Creek 1183710 Stream Washington PA 401155N 0795508W 728 2-Aug-79

Pigeon Creek 1199936 Stream Sullivan PA 412737N 0761923W 1,729 2-Aug-79

Pigeon Creek 1297437 Stream Greene TN 361533N 0825504W 1,109 19-May-80

Pigeon Creek 1297438 Stream Greene TN 360435N 0825545W 1,138 19-May-80

Pigeon Creek 1382498 Stream Sabine TX 311316N 0935115W 203 30-Nov-79

Pigeon Creek 1444348 Stream Sanpete UT 392324N 1113452W 5,502 31-Dec-79

Pigeon Creek 1444349 Stream Juab UT 393337N 1114954W 5,502 31-Dec-79

Pigeon Creek 1479321 Stream Lynchburg (city) VA 372653N 0791027W 512 28-Sep-79

Pigeon Creek 1486198 Stream Wise VA 365348N 0824728W 1,614 28-Sep-79

Pigeon Creek 1507420 Stream Snohomish WA 475812N 1221352W 7 10-Sep-79

Pigeon Creek 1510354 Stream Skagit WA 482553N 1221156W 253 1-Oct-90

Pigeon Creek 1528854 Stream Pierce WA 470026N 1214207W 2,749 1-Aug-90

Pigeon Creek 1571360 Stream Grant WI 424628N 0904937W 686 29-Aug-80

Pigeon Creek 1571361 Stream Jackson WI 441222N 0903913W 902 29-Aug-80

Pigeon Creek 1571362 Stream Trempealeau WI 442159N 0911817W 804 29-Aug-80

Pigeon Creek 1571363 Stream Barron WI 453643N 0913430W 1,201 29-Aug-80

Pigeon Creek 1571364 Stream Ozaukee WI 431350N 0875858W 650 29-Aug-80

Pigeon Creek 1544813 Stream Wyoming WV 373522N 0814124W 1,132 27-Jun-80

Pigeon Creek 1549518 Stream Mingo WV 374724N 0822104W 600 27-Jun-80

Pigeon Creek 1552473 Stream Mercer WV 372008N 0805702W 1,693 27-Jun-80

Source: http://geonames.usgs.gov/
Attachment 1: Comments from Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet

I listened in on the ACWA/ECOS/EPA Technical WG Meeting on NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

conference call yesterday afternoon, and have some comments and questions. I am not the usual 

person for Kentucky that participates in these calls. I am in the section that oversees the CSO, SSO, and 

collection system programs. 

1. For the Compliance Monitoring Activity (Sewer Overflows Inspections and Audits) section of Table 2 

on page 46102, our section does CSO and SSO program inspections, but not inspection of individual 

discharge events. Would our programmatic inspections use these data elements? Or is there a 

different set of data elements that we would use?

EPA Response: The data elements on Page 46102 are specific to state or EPA inspection of individual 

sewer over flow events.

2. For Compliance Monitoring Activity (Data Elements Specific to Sewer Overflow Event Reports) on 

page 46112, I believe that these fields only apply to SSOs, bypasses, and non-compliant CSOs. Can 

you clarify if that is the case? I didn’t hear anything on the call that said that, although page 46029 

of the preamble differentiates between non-compliance CSOs that are to be reported per 

122.41(l)(6) and (7) and compliant CSOs that are to be reported on DMRs.

EPA Response: The Sewer Overflow Events Report data elements are related to non-compliant sewer 

overflow events.

3. In December 2013, I was on a webinar with Mo Billah and OECA. On that call it was discussed that 

the compliant CSOs are to be reported on DMRs, but that netDMR currently only takes a single value 

(max, min, total, average, etc.) for each reporting period, and not information on each discharge 

event. On the call it was said that netDMR would be modified to accept each CSO event. Is that still 

the plan? Are those modifications to be part of this rule? There is nothing in the Federal Register 

notice that discusses it. 

EPA Response: EPA will upgrade its electronic reporting tools (NetDMR, NeT) to allow for sewer 

overflow event reporting.

4. Since a non-compliant CSO discharge is usually from a permitted CSO outfall that should already be 

entered as a Permitted Feature in ICIS, should these data elements include listing the Permitted 

Feature? The Permitted Feature already includes lat/long and receiving water name and code.

EPA Response: EPA has latitude and longitude data on CSO outfalls and can work with states to upload 

these data as outfall locations (permitted features) in ICIS-NPDES. 

5. ICIS has the ability to find the nearest receiving water from WebRIT based on an entered lat/long for 

Permitted Features. Can that ability be used for these data elements too?

EPA Response: EPA is planning to incorporate a feature in its electronic reporting tools that allow for the 

capture of the unique location of the receiving waterbody. 
Attachment 2: Comments from New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

From: Jason Lonardo <Jason.Lonardo@dep.nj.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 1:21 PM

To: Johnston, Carey

Cc: 'srolland@acwa-us.org'; 'bgraves@ecos.org'; Janice Brogle <Janice.Brogle@dep.nj.gov>; Julio Collazo 

<Julio.Collazo@dep.nj.gov>; Nancy Kempel <Nancy.Kempel@dep.nj.gov>; Andrew Doyle 

<Andrew.Doyle@dep.nj.gov>; Pilar Patterson <Pilar.Patterson@dep.nj.gov>

Subject: ACWA/ECOS/EPA Technical WG Meeting on NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

Hello Carey,

In following up on our conference calls, please accept the following document outlining some of NJ’s 

comments/concerns regarding the data elements related to Basic Permit Information and CSS/CSOs. 

If you have any additional questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Jason

*************************************************************************************

Jason T. Lonardo, Environmental Scientist 2 Jason.Lonardo@dep.nj.gov

NJDEP: Division of Water Quality Tel #: (609) 292-4396

Mail Code 401-02B Fax #: (609) 984-2147

401 East State Street, P.O. Box 420 www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420

*************************************************************************************

<See attached PDF file for NJDEP comments and EPA’s responses.>