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 (27 May 2015) [DCN 0229]

Overview 

This was the twenty-seventh 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 reviewing some state comments on the 

rulemaking on EPA’s options for the final rule. The following is a summary of the discussion.

1. Initial Recipient: Will this process be Opt-in or Opt-out? Will states have to affirmatively 

take action to sign up as the initial recipient for a data set?

As published in the supplemental notice to the proposed rule, EPA is considering an 

‘opt-out’ process for authorized state, tribe, or territory NPDES programs. Under this 

process, an authorized NPDES program must notify EPA within 120 days of the effective 

date of the final rule if it wishes EPA to be the Initial Recipient for a particular NPDES 

data group. If EPA receives no such notification, EPA will designate the authorized state, 

tribe, or territorial NPDES program as the Initial Recipient for all NPDES data groups.
2

2. State Readiness Criteria: 

a. Will EPA phase in the participation rate requirements (e.g. Year 1 = 20%, Year 2 = 

40%, Year 3 = 60%, Year 4 = 80%, Year 5 = 90%)? Is 90% still the target goal?

EPA solicited comment on the 90 percent participation rate metric that EPA used to 

develop its implementation plan. Commenters noted difficulties in outreach and 

training for the large number of NPDES-regulated entities that will need to switch 

from paper to electronic reporting. As published in the supplemental notice to the 

proposed rule, EPA is considering providing more time for authorized NPDES 

programs to switch their processing of Phase 2 NPDES program data (e.g., general 

permit reports, program reports) from paper to electronic. This additional 

implementation time can help authorized NPDES programs build or adopt electronic 

reporting tools for Phase 2 data as well as register and train NPDES regulated 

entities. EPA is still considering the proposed one-year schedule for the DMR data 

flow since many authorized NPDES programs and NPDES permittees are already ereporting DMRs, many using NetDMR and eDMR tools. EPA is also considering the 

retention of the 90 percent participation rate goal as this single simple measure will 

be an effective tool to prompt NPDES regulated entities and authorized NPDES 

programs to switch from paper to electronic reporting within a reasonable time 

period.

EPA is considering whether to only include the 90 percent figure in the preamble to 

the final and the accompanying Information Collection Request (ICR) as a goal to 

promote electronic reporting and as a reasonable estimate of the number of entities 

that EPA may directly contact. If this goal is included in the preamble, EPA will work 

with states if there is a significant delay in the adoption of electronic reporting and 

re-assess the 90 percent participant rate goal as necessary.

Finally, EPA anticipates that the use of its CWA authority to compel electronic 

reporting will likely not be a widespread occurrence as electronic reporting, over the 

long term, reduces burden for the reporter. EPA estimates that any use of its CWA 

authority to compel electronic reporting will taper off over time as more NPDESregulated entities utilize electronic reporting and as we learn more about electronic 

reporting. It is also important to note that many facilities have already made the 

switch to electronic reporting (e.g., most DMR filers in Ohio are using Ohio’s e-DMR 

tool).

b. If EPA uses their authority to require electronic submission, will EPA require the data 

to come to the state vs EPA?

EPA is proposing to phase in the electronic reporting requirements of this final rule 

over several years. In accordance with the proposed schedule, and as a means to “fill 
3

in the gaps” where NPDES-regulated entities are not yet reporting electronically, 

EPA is proposing to use its authority as appropriate under CWA sections 101, 304(i), 

308, 402(b), and 501 to require NPDES-regulated entities to electronically report 

their NPDES program data (Appendix A to 40 CFR 127). EPA initially proposed to 

have these data come directly to EPA. Authorized NPDES programs suggested that 

instead EPA should require NPDES regulated entities to use state, tribe, or territorial 

electronic reporting systems, which are in compliance with the final rule, as this 

would be more efficient. As published in the supplemental notice, EPA is considering 

the adoption of this approach.

c. States may choose to manually enter data – will those facilities be vulnerable to 3rd 

party lawsuits based on the rules requirements?

EPA does not see the potential for NPDES regulated entities to be subject to 3rd

party lawsuits when these entities are properly submitting their NPDES data in 

accordance with a state approved waiver. EPA is considering whether to provide

authorized NPDES programs with more flexibility in how they may grant waivers. 

This can help authorized NPDES programs better implement electronic reporting. 

3. Data Correction - Is EPA clearly articulating in the rule the roles and responsibility for 

addressing data discrepancies? 

EPA is considering how best to eliminate the potential for data discrepancies. In 

particular, EPA is considering whether it should require NPDES regulated entities to use 

state, tribe, or territorial electronic reporting systems, which are in compliance with the 

final rule, as this would be more efficient. EPA also confirm that the proposed rule does 

not change the current requirements or definition for the ‘Copy of Record.’ 

Furthermore, EPA confirmed that the permitting authority remains the data steward for 

the information collected under the proposed rule. Under current practice, authorized 

NPDES programs can make corrections to the data it has already submitted to EPA at 

any time. This proposed rule does not change EPA’s error correction process.

4. Unpermitted Facilities - Is EPA planning to require electronic data submission for 

unpermitted facilities? 

This proposed rule does not change the existing requirements for NPDES programs to 

report information on certain unpermitted facilities to EPA. Under the 2014 Clean Water 

Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

authorized NPDES programs can propose an alternative Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

(CMS) plan, which could include the state’s plan to conduct “focused inspections” or 

“off-site desk audits” instead of “comprehensive inspections” for certain facilities. As a 

condition for EPA approval of the alternative CMS plan, the state must commit to share 

the compliance monitoring data for the focused inspections and/or off-site desk audits 

with EPA. For more details, see Part 1 of the 2014 NPDES CMS. Additionally, EPA policy 
4

calls for authorized NPDES programs to share compliance monitoring data with EPA on 

unpermitted facilities found to be in violation of the Clean Water Act (e.g., discharging 

without an NPDES permit). 

5. Construction Stormwater - Did EPA agree that the construction stormwater universe 

should be optional unless an enforcement inspection/action has occurred?

As an alternative to use of a CROMERR electronic reporting system one commenter 

suggested that EPA modify the final rule to allow initial recipient the option to use 

automatic identification and data capture technology [e.g., two dimensional barcodes 

such as Quick Response (QR) codes, optical character recognition]. In particular, in 

discussions with EPA, authorized NPDES programs have noted their difficulty in getting 

construction operators to apply for and maintain electronic signatures for use with 

CROMERR electronic reporting systems for stormwater related discharges. Authorized 

NPDES programs suggested that EPA provide some flexibility in the final rule that would 

allow construction operators the ability to electronically submit data from construction 

stormwater general permit reports but without an electronic signature. EPA solicited 

comment on this approach in the supplemental notice to the proposed rule. Several 

comments expressed support for EPA to include this option in the final rule as a means 

to provide authorized NPDES programs with more options in implementing the final 

rule. EPA is considering the option for the initial recipient, which may also be the 

authorized NPDES program, to use automatic identification and data capture technology 

for construction stormwater general permit reports (i.e., NOIs, NOTs, NECs, LEWs).

EPA is also considering the option to only required to share with EPA SEV data from a 

construction stormwater inspection when the authorized NPDES program also issues a 

formal enforcement action against the inspected construction site. As noted in the 

proposal, EPA made this distinction based on the large number of facilities in this 

segment of the NPDES universe (approximately new 200,000 construction sites each 

year).

6. Implementation Schedule - If EPA is not allowing state-specific implementation plans, 

how much flexibility will each state be provided to customize their implementation 

approach? How much total time is EPA going to give states?

As noted above, EPA is considering the retention of the proposed one-year schedule for 

the DMR data flow since many authorized NPDES programs and NPDES permittees are 

already e-reporting DMRs, many using NetDMR and eDMR tools. EPA is considering the 

option to allow authorized NPDES programs to have five years to begin electronically 

collecting, managing, and sharing the remaining set of data in Appendix A in 40 CFR 127. 

This data include: (1) general permit reports [Notice of Intent to be covered (NOI); 

Notice of Termination (NOT); No Exposure Certification (NEC); Low Erosivity Waiver 

(LEW)]; Biosolids Annual Program Report (where the state is the authorized NPDES 

biosolids program); and all other remaining NPDES program reports (e.g., CAFO Annual 
5

Report, Pretreatment Program Annual Report). EPA is considering the option where 

states will be required to submit to EPA and implementation plan within one year after 

the effective date of the rule with key milestones describing how they will implement 

the Phase 2 data collection.

7. Waivers - What is the complete list of waiver justifications or did EPA decide to allow 

states to set the criteria? 

As noted in the supplemental notice – EPA is considering whether to provide authorized 

NPDES programs with more flexibility in how they may grant waivers. EPA is considering 

whether the waiver provision should only have the following two requirements: (1) 

temporary waivers cannot exceed five years; and (2) authorized NPDES programs must 

seek EPA review and approval on how they plan to implement waivers every five years. 

EPA is considering to require states to include their waiver process in the 

implementation plan they submit to EPA. This could allow EPA and authorized NPDES 

programs to assess the effectiveness of the waiver process against advances in 

information technology.

8. Resources - During the implementation period, will OECA actively pursue §106 funding 

increases to support the NPDES eReporting Rule implementation?

This is not addressed by the rulemaking. However, OECA continues to advocate for §106 

funding increases and other funding mechanisms to support the NPDES eReporting Rule 

implementation.

9. Will the final rule or associated materials articulate all of the other areas where states 

can receive support to implement the rule? (relate grant programs, use of NeT, use of 

the CROMERR Shared Services, new dedicated EPA resources to support the transition, 

updated electronic permit application forms, etc.) 

Yes. EPA is currently developing a suite of tools and resources to help states implement 

electronic reporting. These tools and resources will be made available through a new 

website, online training, printed materials, webinar training, individual training, and 

dedicated staff.
6

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.
7

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members – 27 May 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

No

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 No

Elisa Willard elisa.willard@state.co.us

Bob Zimmerman DE robert.zimmerman@state.de.us

stephanie.bower@state.de.us Yes

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 No

Scott Miyashiro HI scott.miyashiro@doh.hawaii.gov No

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 No

Shelly Shores-Miller sshoresm@kdheks.gov
8

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

Yes

Julio Collazo julio.collazo@dep.state.nj.us

Robert Wither

NY

rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us

No

Joseph DiMura jxdimura@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Alan Tinney 

Dave Gaskin NV

atinney@ndep.nv.gov

No

dgaskin@ndep.nv.gov

Brian Hall 

OH

brian.hall@epa.ohio.gov

No

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 No

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 No

Phani Eturu phani.eturu@deq.virginia.gov

Stephen Bernath

WA

sber461@ecy.wa.gov

Dave Knight dakn461@ecy.wa.gov No

Nancy Kmet nkme461@ecy.wa.gov
9

A state representative from West Virginia also participated in this meeting.

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

Name EPA Office Email Present? 

(Yes/No)

John Dombrowski OECA/OC/ETDD dombrowski.john@epa.gov Yes

Andy Hudock OECA/OC/ETDD hudock.andrew@epa.gov Yes

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

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

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

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 No

Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov No

Other EPA representatives included Region 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10.

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