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: 13 February 2014

SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (6 February 2014) [DCN 0129]

Overview 

This was the second 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 started the meeting with a roll call and solicited comments on the draft notes from 

the previous meeting. There were no comments on the draft meeting notes. Mr. Andrew 

Hudock then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on waivers from electronic reporting. 

 ACWA (Sean Rolland) asked if the temporary waiver was required to be included in the 

NPDES permit. EPA noted that when the eRule is fully implemented the NPDES permit 

will require electronic reporting that is compliant with eRule (Part 127), which as 

proposed allows for temporary waivers. It is optional if states would like to include 

language on temporary waivers in the NPDES permit.

 Oklahoma (Shellie Chard-McClary) noted the importance of including waivers in the 

eRule. She noted that there were some problems when Oklahoma switched to 

electronic direct deposit for state employee payroll and that not everyone has access to 

broadband Internet.
2

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that some religious communities are prohibited from being 

connected to the Internet via a wire but can be connected through a wireless 

connection. He noted the importance of making some arrangements for permanent 

waivers from electronic reporting for religious communities. ECOS (Beth Graves) stated 

that waivers for religious reasons should be for longer durations or made permanent.

 Arkansas (Teresa Marks) asked how EPA was identifying counties with a lack of access to 

broadband Internet. Mr. Hudock replied that EPA is using Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) National Broadband Map (http://broadbandmap.gov/). 

 Several state participants noted that a waiver could be structured such that NPDES 

regulated entities self-certify that they have no access to broadband Internet. 

 Alabama stated that ICIS-NPDES needs a data flag or feature to show who has a waiver 

from electronic reporting and that this flag or feature would need to have a date aspect 

(as conditions and state determinations or self-certifications could change over time).

 New Jersey stated that they are not in favor of automatic waivers from electronic 

reporting as they would like to grant waivers on an individualized basis. New Jersey 

doesn’t expect to issue any waivers.

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that there are places in the United States where there is 

limited access to broadband Internet and automatic waivers are necessary.

 Washington state (Nancy Kmet) noted that they would like to be in more control over 

who gets waivers and would like these decisions to only be made by the state. Ms. Kmet 

noted that waivers may be necessary for certain sectors like the construction 

stormwater sector because electronic reporting is not the issue but actual compliance

that is actually submitting any DMR (paper or otherwise) is the issue for these often 

short-term permits. 

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted that it would be better to allow waivers to last a permit 

term (approximately five years) as the one year option in the proposed rule is too short. 

He noted that it will provide too much burden on the state to annually review and reissue temporary waivers from electronic reporting. Other state participants agreed with 

this assessment and noted that a requirement to annually review these waivers is an 

undue burden.

 Colorado (Andy Putnam) noted that EPA should recognize two factors that will likely cut 

down on the potential number of temporary waivers. Mr. Putnam noted that states will 

be required to enter data from a facility that has a temporary waiver and that states will 

only take on this data entry burden when necessary. He also noted that EPA and states 
3

should strive to make electronic reporting easier than submitting reports on paper as 

this will make electronic reporting a more attractive option. 

 Steve Chester (EPA) asked if EPA should put in a requirement that facilities with 

temporary waivers should self-report to their authorized NPDES program when they 

have access to broadband Internet. For example, they could submit a notice to the state 

within 30 days of their initial use broadband Internet and then start electronic reporting 

within 60 days after this notice.

 With respect to the issue of whether to grant temporary waivers based on the lack of 

technical expertise to electronically submit NPDES program data, Washington, Texas, 

and other states replied that they would like to make these determinations on a case by 

case basis on their own authority. They noted that there is a small but important 

minority of the NPDES regulated universe that lacks the skills to successfully submit their 

NPDES program data electronically. Some states noted that some NPDES contacts 

cannot read and write and would be prevented from using electronic reporting. They 

note that they spend more time with these regulated entities than the typical user. They 

noted that it might be easier for the state to issue a waiver to these unskilled NPDES 

regulated entities, collect NPDES program data on paper, and then share the necessary 

data with EPA.

 Colorado asked if EPA could clarify the Phase I data that are required to be submitted 

electronically. EPA noted that Phase I data includes basic facility and permit data 

(submitted by the state to EPA), DMRs (all facilities), and general permit reports (e.g., 

NOIs) for federally issued NPDES general permits.

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

Recipient’ concept used in the proposed rule. 

 Arkansas asked if EPA’s use of the Information Collection Request (ICR), issued under 

authority of CWA Section 308, would override the state’s authority over a NPDES 

regulated entity. Mr. Johnston replied that EPA’s use of an ICR would not infringe or 

override a state’s authority. He noted that the use of the ICR is an attempt to move 

facilities more quickly towards electronic reporting. He noted that the ICR is a measure 

to ‘fill in the gaps’ where facilities are not availing themselves of state electronic 

reporting tools.

 Oklahoma (Shellie Chard-McClary) noted that it may be confusing for states and 

regulated entities if there are two separate submissions (one electronic to EPA and 

other on paper to the state). Colorado also noted the potential confusion as two data 

submissions raises questions about the copy of record and potential data 

inconsistencies between the two submissions. Arkansas noted the need for close 

coordination between EPA and states during implementation.
4

 Colorado (Elisa Willard) asked for clarification regarding the copy of record when there 

are two submissions of the same data one electronic to EPA and other on paper to the 

state). Mr. Dombrowski noted that the submission to the state on paper with a ‘wet-ink’ 

signature is the copy of record. EPA would be responsible for resolving any data 

discrepancies between the electronic submission to EPA and the paper submission to 

the state as EPA is the data steward for the electronic submission mandated by EPA’s 

ICR.

 Colorado (Andy Putnam) suggested that EPA consider using its ICR to compel facilities to 

electronically report to the state instead of EPA. He noted that EPA could follow-up with 

facilities that failed to electronically report with a warning letter or other action. He 

noted that there are several benefits for this option as it is simpler than the proposed 

option, requires only one data submission, and eliminates the need for the regulated 

entity to report to EPA. Virginia and other states voiced their support for this 

alternative.

 Mr. Johnston also noted the option of simplifying the Initial Recipient determination 

during the first stage of the rule’s implementation. He solicited comment on making 

states the Initial Recipient as the default status for data flows where they are the 

authorized program. Under this potential change states would need to ‘opt-out’ of their 

Initial Recipient status for any data flows that they would like EPA to be the first to 

receive the data.

 Oklahoma (Shellie Chard-McClary) noted the importance of setting reasonable 

deadlines.

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. Oklahoma asked that one 

or more future meetings focus on the minimum set of federal NPDES data (Appendix A to 40

CFR 127). EPA agreed to discuss Appendix A in future meetings but suggested the group first 

continue to talk about implementation of the rule as that was the focus of many comments. 

The next meeting will focus on the implementation schedule and the State Readiness Criteria 

concept used in the proposed rule. 
5

State Technical Workgroup Meeting – NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

6 February 2014

1pm Introduction/Roll Call

1:05 Review of Draft Notes from Previous Meeting

1:15 Discussion on Waivers from Electronic Reporting

1:45 Discussion on Initial Recipient Concept 

2:15 Solicitation of Topics for Next Meeting

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

Joe DiMura NY jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us No

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

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 Yes

Lisa Lund OECA/OC/IO lund.lisa@epa.gov Yes

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 Yes

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

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

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