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: 9 May 2014

SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (1 May 2014) [DCN 0135]

Overview 

This was the eighth 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 with a roll call and then asked for 

comments on the draft notes from the April 17th meeting. There were no edits but a few states 

did ask that EPA include the questions that Arkansas sent EPA after the meeting. EPA updated 

the meeting notes with these questions along with its answers. Mr. Johnston reminded 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. A state asked for an 

update on the supplemental Federal Register notice schedule. Mr. Johnston noted that OMB 

started its review on 12 April 2014.1 He noted that EPA hopes to finish the review and publish 

the Federal Register notice by the end of July or early August 2014.

 

1

See: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoPackageMain
Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference participants to focus on the ‘Basic Violation and 

Enforcement Action Data’ in Appendix A (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46113). Mr. Johnston started 

the technical discussion by reading off 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. 

 A state commenter asked if the ICIS-NPDES data element that relates to Single Event 

Violations (SEVs) that occur on one day, Single Event Violation Date (Table Name: 

ICIS_NPDES_VIOLATION, Column Name: SINGLE_EVENT_VIOLATION_DATE) was the same as 

Single Event Start Date. Mr. Johnston stated that he would put the answer in the meeting 

notes. 

[Answer: Single Event Start Date is for SEVs that span multiple days and requires the Single 

Event End Date field to be entered to close out the SEV (otherwise ICIS-NPDES shows this 

SEV as on-going). Single Event Violation Date is for SEVs that occur on one date. EPA will 

likely solicit comment on whether to include Single Event Violation Date in Appendix A.]

 A state commenter noted that multiple entries may be necessary for the Violation Code

data element and that the data element description should be modified to reflect this fact.

 A state commenter asked for more information on the Enforcement Action Identifier. Mr. 

Johnston stated that he would put the answer in the meeting notes. 

[Answer: The following comes from the ICIS – NPDES Detailed Design Final Document (page 

10-8). For federal enforcement actions, this field will be have three components, each 

separated by a hyphen (e.g., HQ-2003-1234). These components are: (1) the region 

responsible for the enforcement action as identified by a region code; (2) the four-digit 

fiscal year during which the enforcement action is initiated; and (3) a four-digit, userassigned sequence number between 0001 and 9999. States will be able to use this same 

structure, or they will be able to use a different structure of their choosing provided that 

the first two characters of the identifier constitute the state code. This flexibility should give 

states the option of automatically generating an Enforcement Action Identifier]

 A state commenter asked for clarification on the Law Sections Violated data element. Mr. 

Johnston replied that this is the unique identifier(s) for the section(s) of law violated and 

cited in the enforcement action.

 A state commenter asked for clarification on the difference between the Enforcement 

Action Type and the Final Order Type data elements. Mr. Johnston stated that he would 

put the answer in the meeting notes. 

[Answer: The following comes from the ICIS – NPDES Detailed Design Final Document (page 

10-5 and 10-74). ICIS-NPDES separates the enforcement initiation data (e.g., Enforcement 

Action Type) from the final order data, which allows users to track multiple final orders for 

a single enforcement action, and track components (e.g., penalty, SEP) from each final 

order...In ICIS-NPDES a final order is generally an agreed-upon resolution to an enforcement 
action. In an administrative action, final orders are often in the form of Consent 

Agreements/Final Orders (CA/FO). In a judicial context, final orders are embodied in 

Consent Decrees signed by all parties to the action and filed in the appropriate court. Once 

the enforcement action has been litigated successfully in court, or an agreement has been 

reached for a consent decree, or an administrative order has been issued, a conclusion has 

been reached for the enforcement action. This conclusion is known in ICIS – NPDES as a 

Final Order.]

 Several states asked for clarification on the Milestones/ Sub-activities and Sub Activity 

Type data elements and whether these data elements are necessary. Mr. Johnston stated 

that he would put the answer in the meeting notes. 

[Answer: The following comes from the ICIS – NPDES Detailed Design Final Document (page 

10-42). As the life cycle of an enforcement action progresses from issuance through 

conclusion to closure, events occur that will impact the status of that enforcement action 

and potentially the RNC resolution status of Violations that are linked to it through its final 

order(s). These events will be recorded in ICIS – NPDES either as web-entered, predefined 

tracking events known as milestones or as batch-entered, standard sub-activities.

Milestones are predefined tracking events that can occur over the life of an enforcement 

action. The composition of a milestone set varies depending on whether the enforcement 

action is an administrative formal or a judicial action, and whether it is a federal or a webentered state enforcement action. Sub-activities are additional steps that can be taken, or 

events that can be achieved, to complete an enforcement action (e.g., amended complaint, 

start negotiations).]

Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference participants to focus on the ‘Compliance 

Monitoring Activity’ data in Appendix A (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46100). Mr. Johnston started 

the technical discussion by reading off 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.

 A state commenter asked if EPA could add a few columns to the Appendix A Excel 

spreadsheet to show the ICIS-NPDES table name and column name. Mr. Johnston relied that 

he would update the spreadsheet and share it with the states.

 A state commenter asked how the Permitted Feature Identifier data element would be 

used for inspections on regulated entities without a permitted feature (e.g., MS4 regulated 

entity) or if an inspection did not involve a permitted feature. Mr. Johnston noted that 

some MS4 have monitoring requirements at permitted features; however, if facility does 

not have a permitted feature or if an inspection does not involve a particular permitted 

feature, then this field could be left blank. EPA will add a note to Appendix A.
 A state commenter asked about the business rules for the Compliance Monitoring Activity 

Planned End Date data element. Mr. Johnston stated that he would put the answer in the 

meeting notes. 

[Answer: Currently, ICIS-NPDES users must enter an Inspection against either a specific 

Permit or an unpermitted Facility. An Inspection record is regarded as enforcement 

sensitive data (i.e., not shared with the public) until a Compliance Monitoring Activity 

Actual End Date is entered. This data element has the following edit checks against this 

data element [ICIS-NPDES Detailed Design Final document (page 8-61)]. 

o Batch: Must be a valid date in yyyy-mm-dd format

o Must be greater than or equal to Compliance Monitoring Activity Planned Start Date

o Required if Compliance Monitoring Activity Actual End Date is not entered]

Mr. Johnston then ask teleconference participants to focus on the biosolids data 

elements in Appendix A (permit application, inspection, annual program report). Mr. Johnston 

started the technical discussion by reading off 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.

 One state commenter noted that the biosolids data elements should only be required for 

permit renewals as new facilities will not have data available to report for these data 

elements. EPA will provide a note in Appendix A that NPDES regulated entities that have no 

historical record (e.g., “greenfield” facilities) do not need to provide data elements that rely 

on historical data elements.

 New Jersey noted that the Disposition of Incinerator Ash data element does not have a 

CWA or NPDES regulatory citation and should be removed from Appendix A. 

 One state commenter noted that some of the data elements only apply under certain 

limited scenarios (e.g., when 90 percent of more of any of a Cumulative Pollutant Loading 

Rate parameter is reached at a biosolids or sewage sludge receiving site). EPA noted that it 

will provide additional notes in Appendix A to make clear to provide clarity.

 New Jersey noted that many of the biosolids data elements point to EPA’s biosolids 

regulations (40 CFR 503) but that they are unclear as to how EPA derived the specific data 

elements. Mr. Johnston replied that EPA’s biosolids regulations include general statements 

that require the regulated entity to provide a description of their biosolids management 

and disposal. For example, the Treatment Processes biosolids data element is in Appendix A 

to assist in identifying whether the regulated entity has the necessary treatment and 

management practices to meet EPA’s regulatory requirements (e.g., a facility could not 

claim to meet aerobic process requirements when the facility has an operating anaerobic 

digester).
 Mr. Sean Rolland (ACWA) asked the question, “How do we streamline Appendix A between 

the ‘nice to know’ data elements and the actual required data elements.” Texas noted that 

they do not want to be accountable for data not currently required by EPA’s regulations. 

Mr. Johnston replied that EPA used its regulations to develop the data elements in the 

proposed rule’s Appendix A and that these discussion and future discussions will help refine 

Appendix A.

 Minnesota asked if they can send their data to EPA in phases. They noted that they have 

some of these data readily available but that other data may exist on paper or in an 

electronic form that will take time to map to ICIS-NPDES. Mr. Johnston noted that EPA is 

soliciting comments in the forthcoming supplemental notice on different ideas for 

implementing electronic reporting. He noted that phasing in state data may be one such 

approach among other ideas.

 A state participant suggested that EPA conduct user testing of its electronic reporting forms. 

Mr. Johnston noted that it has and will continue to do such testing. He gave the example of 

the forthcoming roll-out of EPA’s MSGP, which uses the NPDES Electronic Reporting Tool 

(NeT). EPA’s developers have tested the forms on a number of users and from a number of 

different perspectives.

Subsequent to this call, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and 

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality submitted questions to EPA on the data 

elements reviewed on May 1st. These questions and EPA’s responses are presented in 

Attachments 1 and 2.

Next Steps

The next technical workgroup meeting is May 15th. 
State Technical Workgroup Meeting – NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

1 May 2014

1pm Introduction/Roll Call 

1:10 Discussion of Basic Violation and Enforcement Action Data

2:00 Discussion of Biosolids 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 No

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 Yes

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

Tony Petruska Region 7 petruska.anthony@epa.gov Yes

Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov Yes
Attachment 1: New Jersey Comments on Biosolids Data

The State of New Jersey runs a comprehensive State Biosolids Program. The State of 

New Jersey is not a delegated state program for biosolids. The State of New Jersey has moved 

away from an annual report based program to a DMR based reporting program. DMR, and 

other monitoring report forms, are required to be submitted at a frequency dependent on the 

size of the facility. Data parameters that are submitted, often electronically, are those 

necessary to determine compliance with the State rules (which, at a minimum, mirror the 

Federal 40 CFR Part 503 regulations). Please accept our following comments specific to the 

Biosolids Annual Program Reports.

Data Element: Treatment Processes – This information is a necessary component of a permit 

application in order to demonstrate how a facility will comply with federal and state regulations 

for land application. This information is also important as part of a permit application to 

establish appropriate sludge monitored location(s). This is not a direct 40 CFR Part 503 rule 

requirement. It is not believed that this should be a data element, however, if it is kept, it 

should not be an annual requirement.

EPA Response: Under authority of Sections 405(d) and (e) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), EPA

promulgated biosolids regulations to protect public health and the environment from any

reasonably anticipated adverse effects of certain pollutants that may be present in sewage

sludge. These regulations establish requirements for the final use and disposal of sewage sludge

in three circumstances: beneficial purpose (including sewage sludge or sewage sludge products 

that are sold or given away for use in home gardens); land application (including sewage sludgeonly landfills); and incineration. The standards for each end use and disposal practice consist of

general requirements, numerical limits on the pollutant concentrations in sewage sludge,

management practices and, in some cases, operational requirements. For example one could

not claim to meet aerobic process requirements when the facility has an operating anaerobic

digester. Consequently, EPA believes that this data element should be included in the minimum 

set of electronically reporting data (Appendix A).

It is also noteworthy that EPA’s biosolids regulations “are self-implementing and must be 

followed even without the issuance of a permit.”2In instances where the NPDES program does 

not use a permit to implement Part 503, the Biosolids Annual Report is one of the main 

mechanisms for how the NPDES program will assess compliance and oversight of a biosolids 

generator or handler.

Data Element: Biosolids Class – It needs to be understood that this data element will not be 

applicable to most facilities.

 

2

U.S. EPA, 1994. “A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule,” EPA/832/R-93/003. 
EPA Response: As previously noted, EPA’s regulations provide biosolids generators and 

handlers with a set of options for managing biosolids. For example, bulk sewage sludge applied 

to a lawn or a home garden must meet the Class A pathogen requirements. The reason for this 

requirement is that it is not feasible to impose site restrictions on a lawn or a home garden on 

which bulk sewage sludge is applied. Consequently, it is important for the NPDES program’s 

oversight to understand how each biosolids generator and handler manages their sewage 

sludge. Key to understanding how each biosolids generator and handler manage their sewage 

sludge is to identify the different classes of biosolids generated at each facility along with 

related information such as the amount and treatment and practices. Consequently, EPA 

believes that this data element should be included in the minimum set of electronically 

reporting data (Appendix A).

Data Element: Management Practices – It needs to be understood that this data element will 

not be applicable to most facilities.

EPA Response: As previously noted, EPA’s regulations provide biosolids generators and 

handlers with a set of options for managing biosolids. These regulations include specific 

requirements on management practices for Land Application (Part 503.14), Surface Disposal 

(503.14), and Incineration (503.45). This data element will apply to some biosolids generators 

and handlers and will identify the types of biosolids management practices employed to meet 

EPA’s Biosolids regulation (Part 503). Consequently, EPA believes that this data element should 

be included in the minimum set of electronically reporting data (Appendix A). EPA also seeks 

comment on how to make the data element description clear on who is required to report this 

information in compliance with Part 503.

Data Element: Sampling and Analytical Methods – This information is important to verify the 

validity of data, however, that does not mean it should be a data element. The State of New 

Jersey asks for this information as part of the permit application. In addition, if the validity of 

data is questioned, the Department can ask for this information at any time. Furthermore, the 

use of appropriate methods is validated when site inspections are performed. It should also be 

noted that there is no parallel data element requirement for other programs (for example, 

surface water discharges). It is requested that this data element be removed.

EPA Response: EPA’s regulations include a set of conditions application to all NPDES permits (4 

CFR 122.41). These regulations require that “Monitoring must be conducted according to test 

procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136 unless other method is required under 40 CFR 

subchapters N or O,” [see 40 CFR 122.41(j)(4)]. Likewise, EPA’s biosolids regulations require 

specific analytic procedures for biosolids sampling (see 40 CFR 503.8). This data element will 

apply to all biosolids generators and handlers and will help ensure that regulated entities are 

using the appropriate analytic methods. Consequently, EPA believes that this data element 

should be included in the minimum set of electronically reporting data (Appendix A).
Data Element: Biosolids Receiving Site information (multiple fields) – While not a direct 

requirement of 40 CFR Part 503, it is a requirement of the NPDES permit application rules (40 

CFR Part 122.21(q) for receiving sites that “the applicant does not own or operate”. It needs to 

be understood that receiving sites could change often, and that multiple receiving sites could 

be used. The State of New Jersey receives this information via monthly monitoring report 

forms by linking a reported Program Interest number to a site in our database. It also needs to 

be understood that receiving site latitude and longitude are only supported by rule under 40 

CFR Part 122.21(q) to identify certain sites that are owned and operated by the applicant. 

Therefore, latitude and longitude should not be mandatory data elements.

EPA Response: New Jersey correctly notes that the list of sites receiving biosolids may change 

from year to year or month to month. EPA’s notes that these lists are extremely helpful in 

investigating issues related to public health. For example, cantaloupes contaminated with the 

bacteria Listeria monocytogenes in 2011 caused the deadliest foodborne disease outbreak in 

the United States in nearly 90 years. The Colorado biosolids coordinator was able to confirm 

that the source of the Listeria, a cantaloupe grower, did not use biosolids, which helped focus 

the investigation. EPA agrees with New Jersey that additional clarification is needed for the 

Biosolids Receiving Site annual report data elements as site location information is only 

required when 90 percent of more of any of the Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate parameters 

is reached at a site. EPA also solicits comment on adding Biosolids Receiving Site data elements

to the ‘Biosolids Information on NPDES Permit Application or Notice of Intent’ section in 

Appendix A to ensure that each state has an updated list of site receiving biosolids.

Data Element: Biosolids Monitored Parameter Units – Please replace (e.g., mg/l) with (e.g. 

mg/kg) to avoid confusion of proper units to be utilized for most parameters.

EPA Response: EPA will make this clarification in Appendix A.

Data Element: Actual Measured Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate – It needs to be 

understood that this data element will not be applicable to most facilities.

EPA Response: EPA agrees that this field will not be applicable in most cases as many 

pretreatment programs help reduce the potential for toxic pollutants to accumulate in sewage 

sludge. However, not all POTWs are adequately protected and this data element is necessary to 

assure these biosolids generators are taking adequate measures to protect public health.

Consequently, EPA believes that this data element should be included in the minimum set of 

electronically reporting data (Appendix A).

Data Element: Actual Measured Annual Application Rate – It needs to be understood that this 

data element will not be applicable to most facilities.
EPA Response: This data elements helps monitoring the application rate of pollutants to ensure 

that POTWs are taking adequate measures to protect public health. Consequently, EPA believes 

that this data element should be included in the minimum set of electronically reporting data 

(Appendix A).

Data Element: Disposition of Incinerator Ash – This data element is not supported anywhere in 

rule and should be removed.

EPA Response: EPA thanks New Jersey for this comment.

Please accept the following comments to Biosolids Information on NPDES Permit Application or 

Notice of Intent:

Data Element: Average Annual Amount(s) – There are multiple data fields requesting the 

amount of biosolids produced. The rules at both 40 CFR Part 503 and 40 CFR Part 122.21(q) do 

not ask for “Average Annual Amount”. The rules require “total dry metric tons per 365 day 

period”. Clarification is requested on what is expected to be reported here?

EPA Response: EPA will change these data element descriptions to make clear that that the 

time period is 365 days.
Attachment 2: Arkansas Comments on Biosolids Data

1. Enforcement Action: Does the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule require informal enforcement actions on NPDES permits to 

be entered into ICIS-NPDES? The description leads me to believe that only formal enforcement actions are required. 

Table 2: Required NPDES Data

Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Enforcement Action

Enforcement Action 

Identifier

The number of the Enforcement Action; for a judicial action, the number as referred to 

by the Court where the action was filed. CWA Section 309 1

Enforcement Action 

Name The name associated with this enforcement action. CWA Section 309 1

Enforcement Action Type

A code/description that uniquely identifies the type of formal or informal enforcement 

action. This code identifies, for example, whether the enforcement action is a civil 

judicial referral, a notice of violation, an administrative penalty order, administrative 

order, etc. 

CWA Section 309 1

EPA Response: This data element applies to formal and informal enforcement actions. For additional context, the following passage 

comes from the proposed rule, “[S]everal states have voiced concerns that EPA did not fully recognize and credit the extent to which 

states rely on compliance achieved through the issuance of informal enforcement actions, including a variety of enforcement actions 

which do not impose a compliance schedule. These states expressed concern that without such information regarding informal 

enforcement actions, EPA and the public did not have a complete picture of the state efforts to obtain compliance by the NPDESregulated facilities. EPA has made efforts to ensure that information from the states regarding such informal enforcement actions is 

considered and made available. Similarly, this proposed rule would require states, tribes, and territories to provide EPA with facilityspecific information regarding formal and informal enforcement actions for all NPDES-regulated permittees.”
2. Violation: Will the Single Event Violation (SEV) Single Event Start Date and Single Event End Date be required if the event 

occurred only on one day? Some SEVs involve something that was missing, not developed, or insufficient at the time an 

inspection took place. This sets up a situation where a Single Event Start Date might be entered when the SEV is initially 

entered, and a Single Event End Date is expected in the future. It is difficult to keep track of when the violation was resolved.

Will states be required to link all Single Event Violations (SEVs) to each Compliance Monitoring Activity (Inspection)? Currently 

we only enter SEVs when they are addressed by a formal enforcement action (in accordance with our MOA). Inspectors do not 

use Single Event Violation codes with their inspection documentation.

Will states be required to manually enter the RNC data for all Single Event Violations or just those that are determined to meet 

RNC criteria? 

Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Violation

Single Event Start Date

If the single event violation (SEV) occurred over multiple days, the date the occurrence 

began. The date data must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

123.45 1

Single Event End Date

If the single event violation (SEV) occurred over multiple days, the date the occurrence 

ended. The date data must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is the 

century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

123.45 1

RNC Detection Code The type of RNC detected. It can be entered automatically by the system or it can be 

entered manually. 123.45 1
Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

RNC Detection Date 

The date that RNC was detected. It can be entered manually or automatically. In cases 

in which RNC is detected by ICIS-NPDES, the detection date entered will vary according 

to the type of violation detected. The date data must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD 

format where CC is the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

123.45 1

RNC Resolution Code The RNC status (i.e., noncompliant, resolved pending, waiting resolution, resolved) of 

the violation. It can be entered manually or automatically by the system. 123.45 1

RNC Resolution Date 

The date RNC was marked to its current resolution status. It can be entered manually 

or automatically. The date data must be provided in CCYY-MM-DD format where CC is 

the century, YY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day.

123.45 1

EPA Response: As noted in the meeting notes, the Single Event Start Date data element is for SEVs that span multiple days and 

requires the Single Event End Date field to be entered to close out the SEV (otherwise ICIS-NPDES shows this SEV as on-going). 

Single Event Violation Date is for SEVs that occur on one date. EPA will likely solicit comment on whether to include Single Event 

Violation Date in Appendix A.

Also – states will be required to manually enter (if necessary) and share with EPA the RNC data for all SEV that meet the Category 1 

Noncompliance and Category II Noncompliance criteria. See these proposed criteria in the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 123.45.

3. Compliance Schedule: Milestones and Sub-activities are part of the Enforcement Action, not the Compliance Schedule. 

Milestone Activity Types are a subset of the Sub-Activity Types. There are currently 12 mandatory Sub-activity Types that are 

available for formal enforcement actions (Milestones). Only a limited number of Sub-Activity Types are available for informal 

enforcement actions, and none of them are mandatory. Why are Sub-activities required for Enforcement Actions (Milestones 

are currently required and are system generated for formal enforcement actions)? Are Milestones and Sub-activities required 

for informal enforcement actions or are they conditional?
Data Name Data Description

CWA, Regulatory, or 

Policy Citation

(40 CFR)

NPDES Data 

Group 

Number

(see Table 1)

Compliance Schedule

Milestones/ Subactivities The unique code/description that identifies the milestones/sub-activities. CWA Section 309 1

Sub Activity Type A code/description that uniquely identifies a type of sub activities and/or Enforcement 

Action milestones. CWA Section 309 1

EPA Response: EPA will make it clear in the revised Appendix A that these two data elements related to enforcement actions. We 

welcome any language you would like to suggest for these data element descriptions so that the necessary conditions are included 

along with any flexibility you think would be helpful for states as they implement electronic reporting of these data elements. This 

includes making any necessary conditions between formal and informal actions for these two data elements.

9. For those Data Elements that are conditionally required, please include under what conditions they are required. The 

descriptions I have seen do not describe when a data element is required and when it is not. I hope to see a designation for 

system generated and system required data in the descriptions. 

EPA Response: As noted above, we are using the data descriptions to identify any conditions or exemptions. We welcome any 

language you would like to suggest for these data element descriptions so that the necessary conditions are included along with any 

flexibility you think would be helpful for states as they implement electronic reporting of these data elements. We will also provide a 

spreadsheet identifying those data elements that are system generated and system required.