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 (5 March 2015) [DCN 0222]

Overview 

This was the twentieth 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 construction 

and industrial stormwater information 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 meeting participants. Below are some questions and 

comments from the meeting participants.

 Several state representatives asked for addition text to be added to the construction 

stormwater data elements to make clear that these data elements are to be collected and 

shared with EPA at the time of the permit application or modification. EPA confirmed that 

this is the current paper process and will continue with electronic reporting. EPA notes this 

final rule does not change the existing NPDES reporting requirements regarding when 

NPDES regulated entities must give notice to the Director of any “planned physical 
2

alterations or additions to the permitted facility.” See 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1). Consequently, 

this final rule does not change the frequency or reporting or the criteria when NPDES 

regulated entities must report.

 Several state representatives asked for clarification on the level of precision that will be 

necessary for some of the data elements. EPA modified these data elements to provide 

clarity. For example, the data description for the “Total Area of the Site” data element is as 

follows: “This is an estimate of the total area of the construction site at the time of permit 

application (in acres). This data element is only required for individual construction 

stormwater permit applications. Values under 5 acres will be reported to the nearest tenth 

of an acre or nearest quarter acre. Authorized NPDES programs will have the discretion to 

choose whether permittees should report to the nearest tenth of an acre or nearest quarter 

acre for values under 5 acres.” 

 A representative from Alaska suggested that EPA should delete the “Soil and Fill Material 

Description” data element in Appendix A to 40 CFR 127. In the final rule EPA retained this 

data element as this text field describes the nature of fill material and existing data 

describing soils or the quality of the discharge. More than one soil type can be described 

with this data element. This data field is based on pre-existing NPDES reporting 

requirements for individual construction stormwater permit applications [see 

122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E)]. This data element aids in oversight and improved targeting of 

stormwater pollution (e.g., some soils are more subject to erosion and have a greater 

potential for causing water quality impacts).

 Several state representatives questioned if EPA would require the electronic submission of 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs). EPA noted that the rule does not require 

the electronic reporting of SWPPPs. 

 Several state representatives questioned the utility of the “Runoff Coefficient of the Site 

(Post-Construction)” data element. EPA retained this data element in the final rule as an 

estimate of the overall runoff coefficient of the site after the construction addressed in the 

permit application is completed. This final rule does not define or amend the term “runoff 

coefficient” Which is required by the existing reporting requirement at 

122.26(c)(1)(ii)(E).This data field is only required for individual construction stormwater 

permit applications.

EPA also provided an overview of the “Hybrid Approach,” which was discussed in the 

Supplemental Notice to the proposed rule. EPA noted that this approach can address the 

concerns that some states have regarding requiring construction operators to be first obtain a 

CROMERR-compliant digital signature before they can submit their NOI. Several state

representatives noted that there might be technical issues to work out but that providing this 

option for this sector might be a solution for some state NPDES programs. 
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 - 5 March 2015

Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Sean Rolland ACWA srolland@acwa-us.org Yes

Karen Lechner AK karen.lechner@alaska.gov Yes

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 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

Yes

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 Yes

Scott Miyashiro HI scott.miyashiro@doh.hawaii.gov Yes

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 No

Ed Dillingham

KS

edillingham@kdheks.gov

Steve Caspers scaspers@kdheks.gov Yes

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

No

Bradley Bennett bradley.bennett@ncdenr.gov

Jason Lonardo

NJ

jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us

No

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 Yes

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

No

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 Yes

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

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

Erika Farris OW/OWM/WPD farris.erika@epa.gov Yes

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

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 Yes

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 2:33 PM

Sorry I’m late with this response to the industrial and construction permit information. I’m out for the 

next two weeks and I’m catching up on what I should have already done and sent to you.

Applications on-line may be challenging for most states. Tracking wet-ink signatures that have to be tied 

back to the electronic application sounds like a problem. Once an applicant gets even provisional 

coverage, there is less motivation to finish the paper and mail it in with a signature on it. Third party 

validation for CROMERR should work for most of the active developers. The occasional players may be 

more challenging. TN has not gotten a decision on how we will meet CROMERR for application systems 

on-line.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has included the ‘Hybrid Approach’ in the final rule to address the concerns about 

getting construction operators to seek and obtain a CROMERR digital signature. The ‘Hybrid Approach’ 

will allow authorized NPDES programs to benefit as construction operators will electronically submit their 

NOI data and also send in a paper-copy of these data with the handwritten (“wet-ink”) signature. The 

preamble to the final rule provides more information on this potential implementation option. 

TDEC has never used the Permit Required by Residual Designation provision. It has no meaning to us at 

the moment as a required field, but we are OK with it as conditionally required if applicable.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has included this data element as some states and EPA Regions use this regulatory 

option to control stormwater.

The Total Area of the Site is described as applicable to individual permits, yet my notes from the call noted 

that this should also apply to general permit coverages as well. If it applies to general permit coverage, 

the description on page 29 of your Word document should be changed. 

EPA RESPONSE: EPA reviewed its stormwater regulations and matched the data elements to the 

appropriate permits (industrial vs. contruction stormwater; individual permits vs. general permits). 

TN agrees that specifying “to the nearest quarter of an acre” should be re-worked to reflect the size of the 

area. For less than 10 acres, it may be appropriate, but for hundreds of acres it is not a reasonable level 

of accuracy.

For the industrial storm water permits, the Current Total Impervious Area is reported on the application 

as an estimate. To the “nearest quarter of an acre” may be better off if it is replaced with to the “nearest 

acre.” 

EPA RESPONSE: EPA provided more flexibility in the final rule and modified these data elements with the 

following language: “Values under 5 acres will be reported to the nearest tenth of an acre or nearest 

quarter acre. Authorized NPDES programs will have the discretion to choose whether permittees should 

report to the nearest tenth of an acre or nearest quarter acre for values under 5 acres.”
8

For applications, if there are changes to the construction project as development takes place, there needs 

to be a way to either amend an application and revise data submitted to modify permit or to require that 

a re-application be made for the permit. 

EPA RESPONSE: EPA notes this final rule does not change the existing NPDES reporting requirements 

regarding when NPDES regulated entities must give notice to the Director of any “planned physical 

alterations or additions to the permitted facility.” See 40 CFR 122.41(l)(1). Consequently, this final rule 

does not change the frequency or reporting or the criteria when NPDES regulated entities must report.