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 (27 February 2014) [DCN 0132]

Overview 

This was the fifth 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. Mr. Johnston then led the 

technical workgroup in a discussion on electronic reporting for NPDES permitted CAFOs. 

 Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted permitted CAFOs are different from other NPDES 

regulated entities in that CAFO owners and operators live onsite. He also shared his 

experience of what happened in Indiana when they transition away from papers files 

and started to electronically manage and share their permitted CAFO data. He noted 

that prior to the conversion most CAFO operators did not seem to invoke claims of 

confidential business information (CBI) as few people would come to the state office to 

request and photocopy these data. Once Indiana started to electronically manage and 

share their CAFO data they started seeing more and more CBI claims on CAFO data 

submissions as operators did not want their data and information to become widely 

available.
2

 Mr. Easterly suggested that EPA needs to make clear what data on CAFOs needs to be 

electronically collected and shared with EPA. For example, he suggested that states not 

be required to share state inspection data with EPA on unpermitted CAFOs that do not 

have any CWA violations.

 ECOS (Beth Graves) noted that when she worked in North Carolina that even big hog 

farms that were CAFOs had families living on-site. Texas and Arkansas also agreed that 

most CAFO owners live onsite and are reluctant to have their home address available on 

EPA’s website. Mr. Easterly noted that CAFO operators don’t want their home address in 

a government database and don’t want people to bother them. He noted that EPA could 

consider requiring permitted CAFOs to only submit a limited amount of locational data.

 ACWA (Sean Rolland) suggested that another option for EPA to consider is to have 

states share permitted CAFO data with EPA at the watershed level and facility latitude 

and longitude coordinates. 

Mr. Johnston then provided an overview of Appendix A to the proposed rule. Appendix 

A is the minimum set of NPDES program data that NPDES-regulated facilities or other regulated 

entities would electronically submit to their authorized programs. It is an appendix to the 

proposed Part 127.

 Mr. Johnston noted that authorized programs that are the Initial Recipient of these data 

would electronically transfer these data to EPA. OECA worked with NPDES program 

experts from the Office of Water, Office of General Counsel, and EPA Regions to develop 

Appendix A. He noted that the purpose of Appendix A is to ensure that there is 

consistent and complete reporting nationwide, and to expedite the collection and 

processing of the data, thereby making it more timely, accurate, complete, useful, and 

transparent for everyone.

 Mr. Johnston noted that not all Appendix A data applies to all facilities (e.g., CAFO data 

wouldn’t apply to POTWs) and that reporting frequency varies based on the type of data 

(e.g., permit issuance would likely be every five years; DMR data may be monthly). He 

described the process the EPA technical workgroups used to create Appendix A.

o Identify current candidate reports and information from states and NPDES regulated 

entities that are practical to standardize and electronically process, and have

important value to the permitting, compliance and enforcement program, and the 

public.

o Identify the required data elements for each candidate data flow and report based 

on the CWA or existing EPA regulations or policy. 

o Minimize the number of data elements to create efficiencies without losing the 

utility of the data. 
3

 Mr. Johnston provided an example of how EPA converted regulatory requirements to 

Appendix A. He noted that stormwater discharges, including discharges from municipal 

separate storm sewers (MS4s), industrial facilities and construction sites, can have a 

significant impact on water quality and that EPA has identified this as a area of focus for 

the NPDES program.

 In previous regulatory efforts EPA create reporting requirements for MS4s (annual for 

Phase I MS4s and year 2 and 4 of the permit term for Phase II MS4s). Below is an excerpt 

from EPA’s existing regulations that require MS4s to submit these reports:

o Phase 1 [122.42(c)(6)]: “A summary describing the number and nature of 

enforcement actions, inspections, and public education programs.”

o Phase II [122.34(g)(3)]: “ Results of information collected and analyzed, including 

monitoring data, if any during the reporting period.”

 He noted that EPA used this regulatory language to develop the following data elements 

to capture the enforcement actions take by the MS4 program report.

o Number of Notice of Violations

o Number of Administrative Fines

o Number of Stop Work Orders

o Number of Civil Penalties

o Number of Criminal Actions

o Number of Administrative Orders

 He stated that these data (and other data from the MS4 program report) will help 

states, EPA, and the public better understand the performance of each MS4 program 

and that this is lacking in the current paper-based system.

 Texas (Kim Wilson) suggested electronic reporting may not be appropriate for the MS4 

sector. She noted that the structured MS4 data in Appendix A does not give enough 

information to the authorized program on the effectiveness of the MS4 program. She 

stated that each regulated MS4 operator needs to submit a detailed analysis and that 

this analysis needs to be reviewed by trained state employees in order to determine the 

effectiveness of each MS4 program. She noted that restricting the MS4 program report 

to structured data will likely cause confusion with the public and more problems for the 

authorized state NPDES programs. Mr. Johnston noted that an important part of 

presenting information to the public is to provide the proper context on how to 

interpret and use the data. He noted that EPA tries to do this with its online tools like 

ECHO. 

 Mr. Johnston noted that Appendix A is the minimum set of data that needs to be 

electronically collected and shared between EPA and the states and that states can 

collect more data and in any format that they wish (e.g., PDFs). He also noted that EPA’s 
4

Office of Wastewater Management is encouraging states and MS4 operators to better 

define their MS4 program commitment in quantifiable and measureable goals.

 Arkansas (Teresa Marks) stated that providing Appendix A data to EPA without context 

will likely cause more problems for authorized NPDES programs and permittees. She 

asked EPA to explain the benefits of electronically collecting these data and sharing 

them with the public. Mr. Johnston referred the workgroup to the many benefits 

described in the proposed rule. These include giving everyone a more complete picture 

of water pollution, which includes an inventory of: (1) NPDES-permitted facilities; (2) 

compliance monitoring data (e.g., DMRs, program reports) from all sectors of the NPDES 

program; (3) violations identified through inspections and other compliance monitoring 

activities by EPA, states, tribes, and territories; and (4) information on enforcement 

actions and associated penalties. He also noted that it would be easier to integrate 

permit and water quality assessment information through better linkage of facility 

locational data (e.g., latitude and longitude data) and information on the receiving 

waters (e.g., receiving waterbody name for permitted feature).

 Arkansas (Teresa Marks) noted that “we really need to evaluate what we really need at 

the national level.”

 Oklahoma (Shellie Chard-McClary) agreed with Arkansas and suggested that EPA reduce 

the number data elements because of the limited resources on states for capturing 

these data. She suggested that EPA provide an analysis showing how each of the 

Appendix A data elements line up against EPA’s PCS Policy (WENDB) and ICIS-NPDES. 

Mr. Johnston stated that EPA has this analysis and will share it with the states.

 Alabama asked if EPA could cite the ICR that provides the authorization to collect NPDES 

program data from the states. Mr. Johnston cited the supporting statement for the 

consolidated NPDES program ICR and pretreatment program ICR, which list the burden 

associated with collecting and managing NPDES program data and sharing these data 

with EPA.

1

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. 

 

1

See OMB Control No: 2040-0004 and 0009.
5

State Technical Workgroup Meeting – NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

27 February 2014

1pm Introduction/Roll Call 

1:05 Finish Discussion of Comments on CAFO Sector

1:35 Overview of Appendix A

2:10 Schedule 

2:20 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 No

Elisa Willard CO elisa.willard@state.co.us No

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 No

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 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 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