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: 3 March 2014

SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (20 February 2014) [DCN 0131]

Overview 

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

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

will help inform the upcoming planned supplemental Federal Register notice and will continue 

beyond 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 (Carey Johnston) started the meeting with a roll call and solicited comments on the 

draft notes from the previous meeting. New Jersey made one comment on the draft meeting 

notes and Florida noted that they should be listed as present on the last call. EPA incorporated 

both comments in the meeting notes. 

Mr. Johnston provided an overview of the schedule for the supplemental notice. He 

noted that EPA plans to send the notice to OMB in mid-March. OMB has requested a 90-day 

review for this supplemental notice. EPA hopes to have the supplemental notice published in 

July. Publication of the supplemental notice will also start a 30-day public comment period. Mr.

Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on the economic analysis supporting 

the eRule.

 New Jersey (Jason Lonardo) stated that the benefits for the eRule will be overestimated 

if a state cannot comply with the implementation deadlines. Mr. Londardo noted that 
2

EPA should include a factor in the economic analysis (EA) to reflect the fact that some 

states may not meet the eRule implementation deadlines.

 ACWA (Sean Rolland) asked if EPA could describe the data it needs to refine its EA. He 

suggested that EPA create a spreadsheet template for states so that they know what 

data to share wih EPA. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA cannot survey all NPDES authorized 

programs without an OMB approved Information Collection Request (in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act). He noted that EPA will provide a spreadsheet 

template to ECOS and ACWA in order to provide clarity on the data EPA can use to 

refine the eRule economic analysis.

 New York asked about how the eRule accounts for state implementation costs 

associated with electronic reporting tools developed by states. Mr. Johnston noted that 

the rule includes costs for states to use EPA electronic reporting tools but does not 

include the costs states incur when they develop their own electronic reporting tools. 

Mr. Johnston noted that the EPA is making its electronic reporting tools (NetDMR and 

NeT) available to states with no licensing costs or purchase costs and is bearing the costs 

of the enhancement and development work for these tools. These tools will be able to 

meet the requirements of the eRule and be flexible enough to accommodate the varying 

ways in which states electronically collect and manage their NPDES program data.

 ACWA (Sean Rolland) noted that there should be some factor in the eRule EA to account 

for the possibility that some states won’t be able to meet their NPDES program 

responsibilities with EPA’s electronic reporting tools and will need to develop their own 

electronic reporting tools. Mr. Rolland noted that some states may need to use their 

own electronic reporting tools as these tools electronically collect data for their NPDES 

program and other state regulatory programs. Mr. Johnston suggested that states might 

be able to provide comment on the supplemental notice detailing the potential 

limitations of EPA’s electronic reporting tools.

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) asked for more details on EPA’s electronic reporting tools. Mr. 

Johnston provided a very quick overview of EPA’s CROMERR approved electronic 

reporting tools: NetDMR (http://www.epa.gov/netdmr/) and NeT. Several states noted 

that they were familiar with NetDMR since it has been in production since 2009 and has 

been deployed to a number of states; however, they were unfamiliar with the newer 

electronic reporting tool (NeT), which EPA intends to use for general permit reports 

(e.g., NOIs) and program reports (e.g., CAFO annual report, biosolids annual report). Mr. 

Johnston noted that EPA would set up a demo of NeT for the state technical workgroup 

and other states in a future meeting.

Mr. Carey Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on the stormwater 

sector for the eRule. 
3

 Several states noted that it would be very difficult to successfully implement a 

requirement that small business construction operators seek and obtain a digital 

signature so that they may use a CROMERR approved electronic reporting tool. These 

states noted that some small business construction operators only infrequently apply 

for coverage under a construction stormwater general permit and may be unclear on 

how to get a digital signature. 

 Mr. Johnston solicited comment from the states on the suggestion from North Dakota 

to use automatic identification and data capture technology (e.g., two dimensional 

barcodes, optical character recognition) for NPDES sectors, like the construction 

stormwater sector, to reporting their NPDES program data. This option potentially 

addresses the issue of how to get a large and diverse group of small business 

construction operators to electronically report NOIs and low erosivity waivers (LEWs). 

This option would allow NPDES regulated entities to report their data on paper; 

however, these submissions would be signed with a wet-ink signature and could be 

easily scanned into an electronic database. Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that he doesn’t 

see a problem with EPA giving states the option of using this technology. However, he 

noted that EPA should include the costs of implementing this technology in the 

economic analysis. 

 Virginia (Jerome Brooks) asked how long states would need to retain the wet-ink 

signatures on these paper submissions. Mr. Johnston replied that depends on the

specific recordkeeping requirement in EPA’s existing regulations and that recordkeeping costs associated with automatic identification and data capture technology 

option would not be a new incremental compliance cost for the eRule. He noted that 

EPA would investigate the typical costs associated with the application of this 

technology and evaluate its potential use for the construction stormwater sector.

 Washington State (Nancy Kmet) also noted a problem in getting construction operators 

to comply with their construction stormwater general permit. She noted that there are 

2,000 construction operators regulated by their construction stormwater general permit

but that only two-thirds of these NPDES regulated entities submit DMRs as required by 

the permit. Ms. Kmet suggested that they have a real problem in getting any 

information from the one-third of the 2,000 construction operators regulated by their 

construction stormwater general permit.

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) questioned why there needs to be a digital signature with a 

CROMERR compliant tool for the construction stormwater sector. He noted that the 

violation they most often enforce is non-submittal of the required forms (e.g., NOIs) and 

not the information construction operators submit on these forms. Florida suggested 

that EPA remove the construction stormwater sector from the eRule. Colorado also 

suggested that the benefits from converting the construction stormwater sector to 

electronic reporting would be smaller than other NPDES sectors. Mr. Dombrowksi noted 

that this is a large portion of the NPDES universe (by number of regulated entities) and 
4

that EPA does not have good information on the location and controls on large 

construction projects regulated by NPDES permits.

 ECOS (Beth Graves) suggested that EPA consider extending the schedule for the 

construction stormwater sector by creating a new implementation phase (“Phase 3”). 

 With respect to the MS4 program reports several states noted that it may be difficult to 

standardize these reports as there are many different BMPs that municipalities can use 

to comply with their permits. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA’s Region 1 is planning on 

using drop downs lists and categories of BMPs to facility electronic reporting. He also 

noted that EPA’s NeT will be capable of electronically collecting data for state 

requirements (non-Appendix A data).

 Washington state asked if NeT will allow users to upload PDFs. Mr. Johnston noted that 

NeT does have the capability of allowing users to upload PDFs as part of the electronic 

submission. Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA is focused on getting structured data 

shared between EPA and the states and that ICIS-NPDES will not be storing PDF data.

Mr. Carey Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on the CAFO 

sector. 

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that there are 600 farms in Indiana that fit the CAFO size 

definition but that only 10 have NPDES permits. Indiana periodically inspects all large 

farms in its state (about 1,900 farms) but doesn’t share the inspection data with EPA. 

 Texas agreed with the comments submitted by the agricultural sector on the proposed 

rule. In particular, Texas was worried about the potential release of personal identifiable 

information that might be part of NPDES permit applications, NOIs, or annual reports. 

Texas noted that one difference between a CAFO and a traditional point source (e.g., 

POTW, industrial facility) is that families live on location of the NPDES regulate entity.

 Mr. Dombrowski noted that EPA is currently collecting and displaying permitted CAFO 

information to the public and that the eRule would simply make reporting more 

efficient so that more of this information could be available.

Next Steps

EPA agreed to summarize the meeting notes as well as summarize and compile a few 

examples of public comments on a topic schedule for discussion. EPA will share these materials 

with the technical workgroup in advance of the next weekly meeting. The next meeting will 

focus on the CAFO sector, overview of Appendix A, and schedule for the supplemental notice 

and rulemaking. 
5

State Technical Workgroup Meeting – NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

20 February 2014

1pm Introduction/Roll Call

1:05 Review of Draft Notes from Previous Meeting

1:15 Discussion of eRule Economic Analysis

1:45 Discussion of the Stormwater Sector

2:15 Discussion of the CAFO Sector

2:30 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.
6

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 Yes

Christy Monk AL cvm@adem.state.al.us Yes

Teresa Marks AR marks@adeq.state.ar.us Yes

Andy Putnam CO andrew.putnam@state.co.us

goff@adeq.state.ar.us Yes

Elisa Willard CO elisa.willard@state.co.us Yes

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

stephanie.bower@state.de.us Yes

Beth Graves ECOS bgraves@ecos.org Yes

Lee Garrigan ECOS lgarrigan@ecos.org Yes

Chris Klena FL chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us Yes

Tom Easterly IN teasterl@idem.in.gov

ckoontz@idem.in.gov Yes

John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org Yes

Jason Lonardo NJ jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us Yes

Robert Wither NY rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us Yes

Shellie Chard-McClary OK shellie.chard-mcclary@deq.ok.gov Yes

Roy Walker OK roy.walker@deq.ok.gov No

Sean Furjanic PA sefurjanic@pa.gov No

Kim Wilson TX kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov Yes

Jerome Brooks VA jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov Yes

Nancy Kmet WA nkme461@ecy.wa.gov Yes

Tab le 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

Name EPA Office Email Present? 

(Yes/No)

Steve Chester OECA/IO chester.steven@epa.gov No

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

John Dombrowski OECA/OC/ETDD dombrowski.john@epa.gov Yes

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

Rochele Kadish OECA/OC/ETDD kadish.rochele@epa.gov Yes

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 Yes

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