1

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

Analysis C: Electronic State NPDES 

Information

13 September 2010

DCN 0020
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 ANALYSIS-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS .......................................................................................... 3

3.0 TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................... 6

4.0 POLICY QUESTIONS............................................................................................................. 8
3

1.0 OVERVIEW

On 15 October 2009, the Agency issued the Clean Water Act Action Plan which sets 

forth a series of commitments by the Agency to revamp its NPDES enforcement program.1 A 

major commitment from the Action Plan is to improve management and performance of the 

NPDES program by requiring electronic reporting of NPDES information from regulated 

facilities. EPA is developing a rulemaking, NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (RIN: 2020-

AA47), to solicit input and formalize the requirements for electronic reporting. Electronic 

reporting will likely reduce the burden for facilities to report to regulatory agencies and for states 

to report to EPA. Expected benefits include lower processing costs for facilities and states, 

improved data quality and accuracy, greater data accessibility and transparency for the public, 

and an increased ability to target and address noncompliance that will improve and protect water 

quality.

Compliance for most NPDES program components is not solely based on the submission 

of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). NPDES program compliance is also assessed by 

inspections and the state or EPA Region’s review of periodic or incident based reports from 

permittees. NPDES program data generated by authorized NPDES programs are detailed in this 

report. Separate rulemaking analyses focus on converting DMR and program reports from paperbased to electronic reporting (see “Analysis A” and “Analysis F,” respectively). 

The key subject matter experts that were consulted for this report include Alison Kittle 

for ICIS migration and batch, and Steve Rubin for ICIS data. Andy Hudock, Carey Johnston and 

Allison Landsman are the experts for NPDES from an OECA perspective. For NPDES from an 

OW perspective, the experts are Sarita Hoyt, Jennifer Koch and Jackie Clark. Subject matter 

experts in OW will likely be consulted for more detailed subprogram-specific information. These 

experts include Jan Pickrel for pretreatment, Nina Bonnelycke for CAFOs, Kevin Weiss for 

SSOs, and Mohammed Billah for CSOs. The team lead for Analysis C is Andy Hudock, ETDD, 

OC. The workgroup members on the Analysis C team include Andy Hudock (OC), Anuj Vaidya 

(OC), Brad Yates (OC), Sarita Hoyt (OW), Jennifer Koch (OW), Jackie Clark (OW), and 

Debra Berry (Region 6). 

2.0 ANALYSIS-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

1. States undertake certain NPDES activities as part of their implementation and 

enforcement of the NPDES program, and these activities generate associated NPDES 

data. 

State activities include inspections, violation determinations (including single event

violations), required reports to EPA (such as the Annual Non-Compliance Report for nonmajor 

permittees), enforcement actions (including penalties and compliance schedules), and permit 

issuance (including identification of narrative conditions, limit sets, limits, outfalls, etc.).

 

1 These commitments are documented in the 8 November 2009, “Implementation Approach for the CWA 

Enforcement Action Plan”. This document and other key CWA Enforcement Action Plan documents are available at 

EPA’s Online Tracking Information System (OTIS). [Available at: http://www.epa-otis.gov/].
4

2. EPA should be prepared to seek information regarding facility data and permit data 

from the states and EPA Regions if reporting NPDES information by permittees is not 

feasible.

If the electronic reporting of permit information or permit application information by

permittees is not viable, then EPA should be prepared to seek this information regarding facility

data and permit data (including basic permittee information, information regarding the permit 

issuance steps, information regarding narrative conditions and permit schedules, information 

regarding permit limits and limit sets, information regarding outfalls, etc.) from the states and 

EPA Regions. This would constitute an additional set of data elements that would be sought 

directly from the states. Together with other data elements associated with state activities such as 

inspections, violation determinations and enforcement actions, these data elements may

collectively comprise roughly two thirds of the number of all of the NPDES required data 

elements. However, the data reporting frequency for much of this information is very infrequent 

(e.g., usually once every five years for permit information) and therefore the associated data 

entry burden will not be high. Other proposed electronic reporting mechanisms (e.g. eDMR) 

would still rely on this information to function.

3. EPA can best ensure that the information required under this rule will be submitted by 

the states by seeking further regulatory clarification of the types of NPDES data which 

it will require states to submit to EPA.

The NPDES information that is required to be submitted by states to EPA is, to a large 

extent, data covered by the PCS Policy Statement or in a subsequent document regarding ICISNPDES equivalent data elements. The required PDES data elements in PCS are referred to as 

WENDB data elements; WENDB is the acronym for Water Enforcement National Data Base.

This information focused primarily on major dischargers, although some information for 

nonmajor facilities and for various NPDES subprograms (such as pretreatment and biosolids) 

was also among the WENDB data elements.

Through the years, states provided this WENDB data to EPA with varying success and 

varying degrees of completeness, although the information regarding major facilities was the 

most reliable NPDES data made available to EPA by the states. However, some states were 

remiss regarding maintaining the WENDB data for discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), permit 

issuance or pretreatment, for example.

In the past, other required NPDES data might have been identified as part of meeting 

midyear or end-of-year commitments for NPDES program implementation. Some NPDES data 

may have been required, by federal regulations, to be submitted by states to EPA (such as the 

Quarterly Non-Compliance Report [QNCR] or the Annual Non-Compliance Report [ANCR]).

Some data may have been sought in conjunction with EPA preparation of specific reports to 

Congress, for example. In addition, some of this required data reporting may have been 

incorporated into Memoranda of Agreement between EPA and individual states. 

In recognition of the varying success with which states provided such NPDES 

information, EPA will likely seek, in this rulemaking, further regulatory clarification of the types 
5

of NPDES data which it will require states to submit to EPA on a timely, accurate, complete and 

nationally-consistent basis.

4. EPA will likely consider existing guidelines in developing regulatory requirements for 

the timeliness, completeness, accuracy, and national consistency of the NPDES 

information required to be submitted by permittees or by the states.

EPA established expectations for quality assurance and quality control for NPDES data 

provided to EPA through PCS. In August 1992, EPA’s Office of Wastewater Enforcement and 

Compliance, within the Office of Water, issued the “Permit Compliance System (PCS) Quality

Assurance Guidance Manual” as guidance for EPA Regions and states in the development of 

similar quality assurance procedures for PCS data entry. This guidance document described 

quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) targets for the data entry of the Water 

Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data, which is the data expected from EPA Regions 

and states for PCS, and described how states should develop and implement their own quality

assurance plans to ensure that the data provided in PCS was timely, accurate, and complete.

Specifically, the 1992 EPA guidance identifies timeliness targets (in numbers of working 

days since a specific trigger event) for availability of the NPDES data for specific data families, 

such as basic facility data, pipe schedule data, limits data, monitoring data, violation data, 

inspection data, program reports data, enforcement action data, compliance schedule data, etc.

In this rulemaking effort, EPA will likely strongly consider using these existing 

guidelines in developing regulatory requirements for such quality assurance and quality control 

for information required to be submitted by permittee or by states.

5. ICIS-NPDES may not need additional modifications beyond those development efforts 

currently planned. 

The ICIS-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventually obtain 

NPDES information in ICIS-NPDES from the states that currently batch data from their state 

NPDES data systems to PCS. At this point, there are approximately twenty state supplied data 

elements that will need to be incorporated into ICIS-NPDES. These data elements relate to their 

compliance monitoring activities. 

6. The timing of full batch capability for ICIS-NPDES is addressed in two draft 

documents. 

One draft document states that batch capability will be available for batch upload of the 

following NPDES information to ICIS-NPDES in 2011: DMRs, permits data (including basic 

permit data, narrative conditions, limit sets, limits and outfalls), and facility universe data. The 

same draft document shows that batch capability will be available for batch upload of the 

following NPDES information to ICIS-NPDES in 2012: inspections, enforcement actions, and 

violations. The same draft document shows that batch capability will be available for batch 

upload of program report information in 2013.
6

3.0 TECHNICAL QUESTIONS

1. EPA and the states have worked cooperatively to address past difficulties with flowing 

data to EPA through PCS or ICIS-NPDES.

Although some difficulties have been encountered in the past in flowing data to EPA 

through PCS or ICIS-NPDES, the states and EPA have worked cooperatively to address these 

issues. The ICIS-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventually obtain 

NPDES information in ICIS-NPDES from the states that currently batch data from their state 

NPDES data systems to PCS.

2. The reporting frequency will vary considerably depending on the type of data.

For example, under the Compliance Monitoring Strategy, the frequency of inspections 

varies based on the type of facility and the inspection type. So, if a major facility is expected to 

be inspected once every three years, that would be the frequency at which inspection data would 

be expected for that facility. Furthermore, if 50% of inspections identify potential single event 

violations (SEVs), the frequency of that inspection type (33%) times 50% would identify how 

frequently such SEVs would be reported for a major facility per year. As another example, if 

only 23% of the major facilities receive formal enforcement action in a given year, then less than 

1 in 5 major facilities would receive such an enforcement action in that year, and this would be 

the reporting frequency expected. If the states must enter basic permit and facility information, it 

will likely be required only once every five years (on the permit cycle).

3. The total volume of data to be reported and collected electronically under Analysis 

C will basically be the number of data elements times the frequency of reporting 

times the universe size of permittees.

So, for example, if there are 17 data elements for CAFO inspections, and if they are 

expected to be performed every five years and if there are approximately 17,500 CAFOs 

nationally, then the product (17 x 0.2 x 17,500) would be the number of entries expected for data 

from these CAFO inspections per year. 

Each of these factors (e.g., the number of data elements, the reporting frequency, and the 

permittee universe are likely to vary based on data type and facility type. Attached are 

summaries related to inspection frequencies and single event violation occurrence, as examples.

Table 1 provides a list of recommended inspection frequencies. 
7

Table 1 --- Compliance Monitoring Strategy Recommended Inspection Frequencies

Permit Type Indicator Type CMS Recommendation to adjust the 

inspection frequency

Major Comprehensive inspection/ (Activity Indicator) 3 years (No numerical target for Activity 

Indicators)

Minor/ 

Traditional 

Discharge

Inspection 5 years

Minor/ 

Traditional No 

Discharge

Traditional Inspection 5 years

Pretreatment audits 5 years

Pretreatment Permit Compliance Inspections 5 years

Pretreatment Permit Compliance Inspections 5 years

Pretreatment Significant Industrial users Inspections 5 years

Pretreatment Oversight 5 inspections per year

Biosolids inspection none/combined with other reports

CSS CSO Sampling Major CSS: 3 years; Minor 5 years

CSS CSO Non Sampling Major CSS: 3 years; Minor 5 years

SSS SSO Sampling, None

SSS Non Sampling, None

MS4 Phase I Audits States determine Audit frequency

MS4 Phase I Inspections As needed

MS4 Phase II Audits and Inspections As needed

Industrial 

Stormwater 

Construction

Phase I Inspect at least 10% of sites

Industrial 

Stormwater 

Construction

Phase II Inspect at least 5% of the sites

CAFOs Inspect facilities once every five years

AFOs As needed
8

4. OECA should have a high priority to obtain base data to better characterize the 

compliance monitoring and enforcement activities underway throughout the nation.

This data will include information regarding inspections, the findings from those 

inspections regarding particular NPDES subprograms, violation determinations, and enforcement 

actions. 

This information is a high priority, to allow the Office of Water to characterize the 

regulated universe as well as to characterize the implementation of the NPDES program.

Furthermore, information regarding permit limits, limit sets, and outfalls would also be essential 

to determine permit limit violations identified in discharge monitoring reports (DMRs).

5. Development efforts are underway to address existing state tools or systems and the 

feasibility of expansion for national use.

The ICIS-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventually obtain 

NPDES information in ICIS-NPDES from the states that currently batch data from their existing 

state NPDES data systems to PCS. This batch capability and the associated schemas are being 

developed to allow states to send all of the required NPDES information, and more data if the 

state chooses, from their existing state NPDES data systems to EPA’s ICIS-NPDES data system.

Through the use of standardized schema, establishment of a list of NPDES information required 

from the states, and development of associated quality assurance and quality control criteria. The 

batch capability and the rule will help considerably to stabilize and standardize the NPDES data 

reporting process from states to EPA. The project is certainly considered feasible by EPA and its 

contractors as a future tool for states to send NPDES information from their state NPDES data 

systems to EPA’s ICIS-NPDES data system.

6. The ICIS-NPDES batch capability development effort addresses data flow options 

between regulated facilities, the states, and EPA.

The ICIS-NPDES batch capability development effort is underway to eventually obtain 

NPDES information in ICIS-NPDES from the states that currently batch data from their existing 

state NPDES data systems to PCS. In general under this rule, for those states with their own tool 

to obtain NPDES information electronically from permittees, these states would need to 

complete the data flow of that information to EPA. However, for this data required to be reported 

by states to EPA, the data flow option will either be direct entry of the information by states into 

EPA’s ICIS-NPDES data system or batch uploading of information from state data systems to 

EPA’s ICIS-NPDES data system.

4.0 POLICY QUESTIONS

1. Regulation cites to be modified/added to impose the requirement:

This particular analysis deals entirely with the NPDES information which EPA will need 

to require from the States. Therefore, one of the key regulations addressing EPA’s needs for 

NPDES information from the states may likely be 40 CFR 122.41(a), which states:
9

“Any information obtained or used in the administration of a State program shall be 

available to EPA upon request without restriction.”

Another key regulation may be 40 CFR 123.43(d), which states:

“Any State permit program shall keep such records and submit to the Administrator such 

information as the Administrator may reasonably require to ascertain whether the State 

program complies with the requirements of CWA or of this part.”

2. Data stewardship issues, including responsibilities for QA/QC:

For this analysis, EPA is seeking this NPDES information directly from the states.

Therefore, it seems reasonable that the states would be identified as the data stewards for the 

quality assurance and quality control of this information because they are the ones providing it 

directly to EPA.

3. CROMERR compliance issues:

In this situation, in which EPA is seeking NPDES data from the states regarding the 

states’ NPDES activities, CROMERR really shouldn’t apply. This part of the data requirements 

does not really address electronic reporting by permittees, unless, perhaps some of the 

information supplied to EPA by states might include information that was provided 

electronically by the permittes to the states (e.g., electronically submitted permit applications).

4. Possible triggers for electronically reporting information --- policy decision regarding 

applicable universes:

For this part of the NPDES data requirements, EPA would expect to receive information 

from all states, after batch capability is made available to transmit to ICIS-NPDES all of the 

NPDES information that is sought by EPA directly from the states. Such batch capability should 

be available by 2013.

5. Phasing of the reporting universe (e.g., e-reporting of program reports for biosolids and 

CAFOs first followed by SSOs then followed by CSOs) --- policy decision regarding 

timing:

It may be advisable for EPA to first seek information regarding the facility and permit 

data from the states because such information would be very useful to identify the regulated 

universe and would also serve as the basis for other information from the states and from 

permittees.

6. Possible temporary exemptions or waivers for facilities claiming they can not complete 

an e-report:
10

When batch capability is available, all states should be able to provide EPA with the 

required NPDES information. The concepts of temporary exemptions or waivers would only

apply to possible electronic reporting by NPDES permittees.

7. System of Record:

In this situation, states are providing EPA with NPDES information and EPA needs to be 

able to rely upon that information as part of the official NPDES data system of record for the 

national NPDES program. Although it is conceivable that the state’s NPDES data system may

contain more recent or additional information, EPA should reasonably expect the states to ensure 

that the information that they provide to EPA is timely, accurate, complete and nationally

consistent.