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: 21 May 2014

SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (15 May 2014) [DCN 0136]

Overview 

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

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

are informing the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice and they will continue 

beyond the publication of 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 (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in 

addition to raising questions during the technical workgroup 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 then asked teleconference 

participants to focus on the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) data elements in 

Appendix A. The source of these CAFO-specific data elements includes NPDES permit 

applications and Notices of Intent (NOI) (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46091), state and EPA 

inspections of animal feeding operations and CAFOs (Page 46101), and the CAFO Annual Report 

(Page 46106). Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of each 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 the technical 

workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical workgroup.
 Texas suggested that the Facility Annual Average Total Number and Facility Annual 

Average Total Number (Unhoused Confinement) data elements be changed from annual 

average to maximum number allowed by the permit. This would provide regulators a 

measure of the maximum number of animals that can be maintained under the permit, 

which can be checked during an inspection. These data elements are from the permit 

application or NOI.

 Texas suggested that the Permit/NOI 12-Month Amount of CAFO Waste data element be 

changed from a total amount in the previous 12 months to the maximum amount allowed 

under the permit and that the data element description should be modified to reflect this 

fact. Texas also suggested that the data element Facility Manure Annual Average Total 

Capacity also be changed, in the title and the description, to remove the words annual 

average.

 Texas suggested that the phrase ‘in the previous 12 months’ be eliminated from the Total 

Number of Acres for Land Application Covered by the Nutrient Management Plan data 

element.

Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference participants to focus on the CAFO-specific 

inspection data elements (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46101). Mr. Johnston started the technical 

discussion by reading the name of each data elements 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 the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and 

comments from the technical workgroup.

 Texas made clear that the date of inspection needs to be included. Mr. Johnston replied 

that the date of inspection is applicable to all data elements and is listed on Page 46100 

(Compliance Monitoring Activity Actual End Date).

 Texas suggested that the containment and storage capacity data element should be based 

on the design capacity (i.e., maximum allowed under the permit). Mr. Kent Woodmansey

(South Dakota) disagreed and noted that it may be difficult for an inspector to calculate the 

total capacity. Mr. Woodmansey suggested that the data element be changed such that the 

inspector only needs to identify whether or not the CAFO is operating within the design 

capacity for each type of containment and storage used by the facility for CAFO material.

 Texas also suggested that the Animal Type, Total Number of Animals, and Total Number of 

Animals in Open Confinement all be clearly linked to what was there on the date of the 

inspection.

 Ms. Tamara Dahl (Minnesota) asked if the CAFO Designation Date can be carried forward 

from the state files or permit application forms. Ms. Dahl also asked for more clarification 

on the Designation Reason data element. [Answer: The Designation Reason is a text field 
for the reason used by the State Director or the Regional Administrator that designates an 

animal feeding operation as a small CAFO. Large and medium CAFO definitions are in 40 CFR 

122.23(b). This text field can include the following factors: (1) the size of the AFO and the 

amount of wastes reaching waters of the United States; (2) the location of the AFO relative 

to waters of the United States; (3) the means of conveyance of animal wastes and process 

waste waters into waters of the United States; (4) the slope, vegetation, rainfall, and other 

factors affecting the likelihood or frequency of discharge of animal wastes manure and 

process waste waters into waters of the United States; and (5) other relevant factors,]

 South Dakota suggested that the following data elements be eliminated (starting on Page 

46101):

o Did Facility Make a No Discharge Certification?

o Is an NMP Being Implemented?

o Is an NMP Being Implemented Annually?

o Land Application BMP Type

o Mortality Disposal Method

o Monitoring Well Data Availability

o Storage Type

o Storage Total Capacity

 South Dakota also noted that they work with small AFOs so that they don’t require 

designation as a CAFO. See the five factors above. Large and medium CAFO definitions are 

in 40 CFR 122.23(b). 

Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference participants to focus on the CAFO Annual 

Report data elements (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46106). Mr. Johnston started the technical 

discussion by reading the name of each data elements 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 the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and 

comments from the technical workgroup.

 On the inspection data, one state indicated that the data element “Did Facility Make a No 

Discharge Certification?” was outdated and perhaps should be deleted.

 South Dakota suggested that the metric for animal counts be changed to maximum (instead 

of total number) to facility comparison against the permitted maximum counts that are 

captured in the permitting process. Mr. Kent Woodmansey (South Dakota) noted that EPA 

and states will need to have good instructions on the electronic reporting forms to improve 

data quality as they have seem problems with animal count numbers in previous reporting.

 New Jersey also asked whether days of confinement should be tracked as a key factor in 

whether the facility constitutes a CAFO.
 Mr. Woodmansey (South Dakota) suggested that a units data element may be necessary as 

not all CAFO manure, litter, and process wastewater is measured in gallons. He also 

suggested that EPA remove the word ‘waste’ from the description of CAFO manure, litter, 

and process wastewater.

 A number of states had questions on the discharge data. South Dakota noted that knowing 

where the discharge came from was important. New Jersey suggested that EPA also clarify if 

the data element applies to discharges that don’t enter waters of the United States. [Note: 

Mr. Kent Woodmansey made the following suggestion in a May 15th email to Mr. Johnston: 

“Thinking some more about the discharge questions in the annual report, maybe rather 

than where the discharge was from, it would be worthwhile to know if the discharge was 

allowed as a result of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. This is allowed for open lot systems 

as long as they are properly, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained.”]

 Mr. Woodmansey (South Dakota) suggested that EPA provide examples of a certified 

nutrient management planner as that term is not clear to many CAFOs in his state. He also 

suggested the EPA work with some agricultural producers to review and refine the data in 

Appendix A as well as the electronic reporting forms.

 Appendix A asks for operators to identify whether they are using the Linear Approach [40 

CFR 122.42(e)(5)(i)] or the Narrative Rate Approach [40 CFR 122.42(e)(5)(ii)] to manage 

their CAFO manure, litter, and process wastewater. Mr. Woodmansey (South Dakota) noted 

that many operators won’t know what approach they are using to control their CAFO 

manure, litter, and process wastewater. Commenters also mentioned that the method 

might be standard for the entire state and could be built into the form, eliminating the need 

for certain questions to be listed for a particular state. One commenter also asked whether 

a “deviation amount” should be identified because the measurements and estimates may 

not be exact. On the inspection data, one state indicated that the data element Did Facility 

Make a No Discharge Certification? was outdated and perhaps should be deleted.

 Several states asked if the Field Identification Number will be system generated or if states 

and CAFOs will have flexibility in creating unique numbers. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA will 

work with states to create flexibility when this data element is created in ICIS-NPDES. The 

intention behind this data element is to create a number that will uniquely identify an area 

that has applications of CAFO manure, litter, and process wastewater. 

 Mr. Woodmansey (South Dakota) asked how ICIS-NPDES handles multiple facilities under 

one NPDES permit. [Answer: ICIS-NPDES does allow multiple facilities to be covered under a 

master general permit. In such cases, each general permit covered facility has its own 

unique permit number (e.g., MSG180005) that is related to the master general permit 

(MSG18). However, ICIS-NDPES does not allow one unique NDPES permit number to be 

applied to multiple facilities.]
 Texas commented that there are privacy issues related to the animal feeding sector as some 

private residences are co-located with the animal feeding operations. 

 Mr. Sean Rolland (ACWA) asked about the information that states and EPA collect on 

unpermitted CAFOs during inspections. He questioned whether these data would be 

required to be submitted to EPA and whether they would be made publicly available. 

[Answer: As noted in the proposed rule (Page 46022), “The NPDES information described in 

the proposed rule would generally not be required for facilities without NPDES permits, 

with the following exceptions: Unpermitted facilities that have action, an administrative 

penalty order, or an informal enforcement action (if such informal action addressed 

significant noncompliance); Unpermitted facilities that have been inspected; and Industrial 

users located in cities without approved local pretreatment programs. For the first two 

types of exceptions identified above, EPA, authorized states, tribes, and territories would be 

expected to electronically provide the following information: basic facility information; 

inspection-related information; and, if applicable, violations, and information regarding 

enforcement actions. For the first two exceptions, there would not be any expectation for 

data to be submitted to EPA regarding narrative permit conditions, permitted features, 

permit limit sets, permit limits, DMRs, or program reports.”] 

Next Steps

The next technical workgroup meeting is May 22nd. 
State Technical Workgroup Meeting – NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

15 May 2014

1pm Introduction/Roll Call 

1:10 Discussion of CAFO Data

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.
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

Karen Lechner AK karen.lechner@alaska.gov Yes

Christy Monk

AL

cvm@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 Yes

David Lelsz lelsz.david@azdeq.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

Beth Graves ECOS bgraves@ecos.org Yes

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 frances.carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us

Tom Easterly

IN

teasterl@idem.in.gov

ckoontz@idem.in.gov No

Jeremy Chenevert jcheneve@idem.in.gov

Ed Dillingham

KS

edillingham@kdheks.gov

No Shelly Shores-Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov

Shawn Hokanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov No

Tamara Dahl MN tamara.dahl@state.mn.us Yes

Greg Jackson MS greg_jackson@deq.state.ms.us No

John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org No

Jason Lonardo

NJ

jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us

Yes 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
Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

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

Kim Wilson

TX

kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov

Lynley Doyen lynley.doyen@tceq.texas.gov Yes

Kimberly Shepard kimberly.shepard@tceq.texas.gov

Jeff Studenka UT jstudenka@utah.gov No

Jerome Brooks

VA

jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov

Yes

Phani Eturu phani.eturu@deq.virginia.gov

Stephen Bernath

WA

sber461@ecy.wa.gov

Yes Nancy Kmet nkme461@ecy.wa.gov

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

Name EPA Office Email Present? 

(Yes/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

Simma Kupchan OGC/WLO kupchan.simma@epa.gov Yes

David Apanian Region 4 apanian.david@epa.gov Yes

Becky Mitschele OW/OWM/WPD mitschele.becky@epa.gov Yes

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