1

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: 14 September 2015

SUBJECT: Notes from Technical Meeting with States (12 March 2015) [DCN 0223]

Overview 

This was the twenty-first meeting between EPA and individual representatives from 

authorized NPDES programs. These meetings provided greater clarity regarding public 

comments on the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). Participants are listed below in 

Tables 1 and 2. EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to 

provide transparency on EPA’s outreach during the rulemaking process (see Table 3). EPA also 

met with other stakeholders to discuss public comments.

Meeting Notes

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

addition to raising questions during these 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 also reminded everyone that this outreach does 

not constitute a decision-making body (see “Quick Reminder” section below).

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

related to sewer systems, sewer overflows, and bypass events 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 meeting participants. Below are some questions and 

comments from the meeting participants.

 Several state representatives asked for clarification on the “Combined Sewer System 

Information” data elements. EPA streamlined these data elements and provided clarifying 

language for these data elements in the final rule. 

 Several state representatives asked about the frequency for updating these data elements. 

EPA added the following note in the final rule: “All Phase II and post-Phase II combined 
2

sewer system NPDES permittees are required to complete and implement a long-term CSO 

control plan (LTCP) as described in EPA’s Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy (19 

April 1994; 59 Federal Register 18688-18698). These data will be updated by the authorized 

NPDES program on a timely basis as changes occur with the combined sewer system and 

the LTCP as well as with the POTW’s implementation and compliance with the LTCP.]” 

 Several state representatives asked for clarification regarding how the rulemaking would 

address satellite sewer systems. EPA notes that this rule only changes the mode of 

transmission of NPDES information from paper to electronic. This rule does not change 

substantive requirements, but instead requires electronic reporting of existing reporting 

obligations. Satellite sewer systems were addressed by the Environmental Appeals Board in 

In re Charles River Pollution District, No. 14-01 (Feb. 4. 2015).

 Several state representatives asked for EPA to provide flexibility on sewer overflow and 

bypass reporting in cases of extreme weather events, which can cause sewer overflows and 

bypasses too numerous to count. In the final rule EPA included the following language in a 

number of data elements to provide this flexibility: “The POTW can leave this data element 

blank on the Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report if the sewer overflows are caused by an 

extreme weather event (e.g., hurricane) that floods the entire sewer system and are too 

numerous to count.”

 Several state representatives from Indiana, Oklahoma, and New Jersey asked for EPA to 

provide flexibility on how to report the location of the sewer overflow. In the final rule EPA 

included the following language in a number of data elements to provide this flexibility: 

“This data element can also be system generated if the Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event 

Report collects the street location of the sewer overflow and the street location can be used 

to generate an accurate longitude [or latitude] value.”

 A state representative from Kentucky suggested that EPA include a data element that 

captures the type of structure associated with the sewer overflow event. In the final rule 

EPA included the following data element: “Type of Sewer Overflow/Bypass Structure: A 

unique code/description that identifies the type of sewer overflow or bypass structure (e.g., 

manhole, CSO outfall) for each Sewer Overflow/Bypass Identifier. The POTW can leave this 

data element blank on the Sewer Overflow/Bypass Event Report if the sewer overflows are 

caused by an extreme weather event (e.g., hurricane) that floods the entire sewer system 

and are too numerous to count.”

 A state representative suggested that responses for the “Wet Weather Occurrence for 

Sewer Overflow/Bypass Status” data element be limited to Yes or No. EPA has incorporated 

this recommendation in the final rule.
3

Following the meeting, EPA received an e-mail from an individual state government 

representative on the data elements reviewed in this meeting. This e-mail is provided in 

Attachment 1.

Quick Reminder

 The technical workgroup is not a decision-making body. Members of the workgroup provide 

clarity on their comments and suggest 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 voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, members of the workgroup 

are providing individual input reflecting their various perspectives.

 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.
4

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members - 12 March 2015

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 Yes

Christy Monk

AL

cvm@adem.state.al.us

Eric Cleckler ecleckler@adem.state.al.us No

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 No

David Lelsz lelsz.david@azdeq.gov;

Darren Polhemus 

CA

dpolhemus@waterboards.ca.gov

No

Renee Purdy renee.purdy@waterboards.ca.gov

Deborah Smith dsmith@waterboards.ca.gov

Vicky Whitney vwhitney@waterboards.ca.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

Tom Tyler ECOS ttyler@ecos.org No

Chris Klena

FL

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

No

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

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

Frances Carpenter GA frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us No

Scott Miyashiro HI scott.miyashiro@doh.hawaii.gov No

Tom Easterly

IN

teasterl@idem.in.gov

ckoontz@idem.in.gov

Yes Jeremy Chenevert jcheneve@idem.in.gov

Mark Stanifer mstanife@idem.in.gov

Courtney Cswercko IA courtney.cswercko@dnr.iowa.gov Yes

Ed Dillingham

KS

edillingham@kdheks.gov

Steve Caspers scaspers@kdheks.gov No

Shelly Shores-Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov
5

Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Shawn Hokanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov No

Grace Scott

MI

scottg@michigan.gov

Yes

Carla Davidson davidsonc@michigan.gov

Ruth Wallace

MO

ruth.wallace@dnr.mo.gov

Walter Fett walter.fett@dnr.mo.gov Yes

Christopher Miller epermitting@dnr.mo.gov

Tamara Dahl

MN

tamara.dahl@state.mn.us

No

Paul Scheirer paul.scheirer@state.mn.us

John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org No

Deborah Gore 

NC

deborah.gore@ncdenr.gov

Yes

Bradley Bennett bradley.bennett@ncdenr.gov

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

Alan Tinney 

Dave Gaskin NV

atinney@ndep.nv.gov

Yes

dgaskin@ndep.nv.gov

Brian Hall 

OH

brian.hall@epa.ohio.gov

Yes

Erin Sherer erin.sherer@epa.ohio.gov

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 No

Albert Spangler albert.spangler@state.sd.us

Lawrence Bunting

TN

lawrence.bunting@tn.gov 

Yes

Yatasha Moore yatasha.moore@tn.gov 

Kim Wilson

TX

kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov

Yes

Rebecca Villalba rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov

Lynley Doyen lynley.doyen@tceq.texas.gov

Kimberly Shepard kimberly.shepard@tceq.texas.gov

Jeff Studenka UT jstudenka@utah.gov No

Jerome Brooks

VA

jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov

Deborah Debiasi deborah.debiasi@deq.virginia.gov Yes

Phani Eturu phani.eturu@deq.virginia.gov

Stephen Bernath

WA

sber461@ecy.wa.gov

Dave Knight dakn461@ecy.wa.gov Yes

Nancy Kmet nkme461@ecy.wa.gov
6

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

Name EPA Office Email Present? 

(Yes/No)

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

Andy Hudock OECA/OC/ETDD hudock.andrew@epa.gov Yes

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

Kevin Weiss OW/OWM/WPD weiss.kevin@epa.gov Yes

Ginny Phillips OECA/OCE/WED phillips.ginny@epa.gov Yes

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

David Apanian Region 4 apanian.david@epa.gov Yes

Sandra Chew Region 9 chew.sandra@epa.gov No

Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov No

Table 3: State Technical Workgroup Discussions to Discuss Public Comments

DCN Date Topic Data Source

DCN 0219 02/05/2015 Basic Facility and Permit Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs

DCN 0220 02/12/2015 Basic Violation and Enforcement 

Action Data States & Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs

DCN 0221 02/26/2015 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer 

System (MS4) Information

Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & MS4 

Program Report

DCN 0222 03/05/2015 Construction and Industrial 

Stormwater Information Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs

DCN 0223 03/12/2015 CSO & Collection System Information & 

Sewer Overflow Data

Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Sewer 

Overflow Event Reports

DCN 0224 03/19/2015 Pretreatment Data

Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual 

POTW Pretreatment Program Reports, 

CIU/SIU Reports When EPA or State is 

Control Authority

DCN 0225 03/26/2015 Cooling Water and Thermal Variance 

Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs

DCN 0226 04/02/2015 Biosolids Data States & Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs 

& Annual Biosolids Reports

DCN 0227 04/09/2015 CAFO Data Ind. Permit Applications/NOIs & Annual 

Biosolids Reports

DCN 0228 05/13/2015 Review of Appendix A All NPDES program data

DCN 0229 05/27/2015 Review of State Representative

Questions to EPA All NPDES program data
7

Attachment 1 - Email from Representative from Authorized NPDES Program

E-mail from Lawrence Bunting <Lawrence.Bunting@tn.gov>

Thu 4/2/2015 2:41 PM

Here are some more late comments. Thanks for keeping these calls organized. I appreciate it when we 

get finished on time or ahead of time.

Permitted Feature:

TDEC sees no problem on addition of the two data elements to applications for POTW treatment 

technology associated with Permitted Feature for POTW. POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology 

Level Description for each outfall that will be handled as a drop-down may be difficult to accommodate 

all options. As pointed out by Washington, the situation can be complex and can change over time. As 

plants review ways to change plant operations to reduce energy, recycle water and improve treatment, 

it may be a bit complex to use a simple drop-down for this. 

POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Unit Operations is based upon whether “discharge” is above 

10 MGD. Is the value of 10 MGD the average flow rate, the daily maximum, the design flow for the 

POTW? How do the recycle systems figure into the 10 MGD level?

EPA RESPONSE: EPA clarified in the final rule that the “POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Unit 

Operations” only applies to “POTWs that have a design flow capacity equal to or above 10 million 

gallons per day (MGD) and is optional for POTWs with a design flow capacity below 10 MGD.” 

Collection Systems:

The POTW collection system data elements raise question on what is “unique collection system” and 

how is this tracked. The table states this includes “unincorporated connector districts and satellite 

collection systems.” Collection systems may be government-owned or privately owned and application 

must require which ownership applies to the collection system. Collection systems in Tennessee are 

given a separate state permit # and may not tie to an NPDES permit number for no-discharge systems. 

(The state permit number will not fit the ICIS field validations.) “Permit Number for Collection System” 

will have a permit number, but it won’t be a proper NPDES number. It would be good to allow this field 

to allow for more that the federal number on the permit application or NOI if possible.

EPA RESPONSE: See response above for a similar comment on satellite sewer systems. As previously 

noted, this rule only changes the mode of transmission of NPDES information from paper to electronic. 

This rule does not change substantive requirements, but instead requires electronic reporting of existing 

reporting obligations. 

“Population of Collection System” needs to be expressed as an estimate. Connections are countable 

and relatively fixed, but people come and go. 
8

Percentage of Collection System That Is a Combined Sewer System – needs to be an estimated per cent. 

EPA RESPONSE: EPA clarified the data element, “Percentage of Collection System That Is a Combined 

Sewer System,” with the following description as requested by the state representative: “For each 

unique collection system that provides flow to the permittee, this is the estimated percentage of the 

collection system that is a combined sewer system. This includes unincorporated connector districts and 

satellite collection systems. This estimated percentage is calculated separately for each unique 

collection system that provides flow to the permittee and is based on the service population of each 

unique collection system. This data element applies to POTWs.” EPA also added the word “estimate” to 

the description of the “Population of Collection System” data element.

Complete and Implement a Long-Term CSO Control Plan – needs clarification. It may be set up as 

conditional where initial answer controls what the next information is being populated. But on the call 

there seemed to be confusion over what is being reported. If LTCP is required, has it been done? An 

approved LTCP may be compliant with the permit requirement to have one. But it is not the same thing 

as compliance with implementation of the plan/permit. Also, plans/implementation strategies may 

need revision over time. Presumably, the data reported will be a snapshot picture at the time of the 

application.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA clarified the data element, “Long-Term CSO Control Plan Permit Requirements and 

Compliance,” with the following description: “This data element uses a unique code/description that 

identifies whether the permit requires the permit holder to complete and implement a LTCP and 

whether the permit holder is in compliance with these permit requirements.”

Nine Minimum CSO Controls Developed – The understanding on the call is this would be Yes/No. Yes, all 

have been developed or no, something is missing.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA clarified the data element, “Nine Minimum CSO Controls Developed,” with the 

following description: “This data element uses a unique code/description to identify by number each of 

the nine minimum control measures outlines in the CSO Control Policy that the permit holder has 

implemented in compliance with the applicable permit and/or enforcement mechanism. These unique 

codes are: (1) Proper operation and regular maintenance programs for the sewer system and the CSOs; 

(2) Maximum use of the collection system for storage; (3) Review and modification of pretreatment 

requirements to assure CSO impacts are minimized; (4) Maximization of flow to the publicly owned 

treatment works for treatment; (5) Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather; (6) Control of solid and 

floatable materials in CSOs; (7) Pollution prevention; (8) Public notification to ensure that the public 

receives adequate notification of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts; and (9) Monitoring to effectively 

characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls. For example, if the permit holder has only 

developed the “Maximum use of the collection system for storage” minimum control measure then the 

permitting authority will record “2” for this data element. Likewise, if the permit holder has developed 

all nine minimum control measures then permitting authority will record 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 for 

this data element.”