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 (13 May 2015) [DCN 0228]

Overview 

This was the twenty-sixth 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 of the changes it is 

considering in the final rule. Mr. Johnston asked for input from the meeting participants. Below 

are some questions and comments from meeting participants.

 NJ would like the term ‘biosolids’ to be removed from Appendix A as it is not a term used in Part 503

In the final rule, EPA modified Appendix to clarify that the Part 503 reporting applies to sewage 

sludge and biosolids. EPA will make this note as these terms, ‘biosolids’ and ‘sewage sludge’, are 

used interchangeably.

 David Apanian (Region 4) suggested that we keep ‘Facility Site Horizontal Reference Datum’ to 

identify latitude and longitude data that was collected under an older mapping reference system.
2

In the final rule, EPA deleted latitude and longitude metadata (e.g., Facility Site Source Map Scale 

Number, Facility Site Horizontal Accuracy Measure) from Appendix A. EPA is instead requiring that 

latitude and longitude data use of the World Geodetic System (WGS) 84 standard coordinate 

system. EPA notes that the WGS84 standard coordinate system is the modern worldwide standard 

for use in cartography, geodesy, and navigation. This coordinate system is currently the reference 

system being used by the Global Positioning System and is accurate within 1 meter. States that 

collect latitude and longitude on older coordinate systems (e.g., 1927 North American Datum) will 

need to convert their latitude and longitude to the newer, modern WGS84 coordinate system 

before they can share data with EPA. EPA has included the burden associated with these 

transformations in the economic analysis supporting the final rule.

 AL question whether EPA’s NPDES forms require the collection of ‘Permitted Feature Application 

Design Flow (MGD).

EPA confirmed that EPA’s NPDES forms (Forms 2A, 2C, and 2D) do not collect the design flow for 

each applicants permitted feature (e.g., outfall). In the final rule EPA deleted this data element from 

Appendix A.

 FL questioned EPA’s interpretation of its forms and reg with this data element: CAFO Animal 

Maximum Numbers. FL suggests that we only ask for number of animals not maximum.

EPA reviewed the instructions for NPDES CAFO application form (Form 2B) and the example EPA 

CAFO Annual Report and confirmed that these documents are looking for ‘maximum’ values. We 

are retaining maximum to be consistent with these forms and to enhance the utility of these data as 

primary purpose of the NPDES program is to manage pollutant discharges. Tracking the maximum 

number of animals at CAFOs will help authorized NPDES programs and EPA better identify when 

CAFOs are exceeding their ability to properly manage manure, litter, and process wastewater.

 MI and NJ questioned EPA’s use of a percentage for this data element: “Significant Industrial User 

Subject to Local Limits More Stringent Than Categorical Standards.”

EPA has changed the responses to this data element to be either “Yes” or “No.”

 NJ suggested that EPA delete the following data element “Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Analytical 

Methods” as they assert this is not in EPA’s regs

EPA notes that the reporting requirements in Part require a “description of how” the pollutant, 

pathogen requirements, and vector attraction reduction requirements were met by the regulated 

entity. EPA is interpreting this language to mean that regulated entities will include a listing of the 

analytic methods that they use to demonstrate compliance with Part 503. The annual report also 

includes the following data element, Biosolids or Sewage Sludge – Land Application or Surface 

Disposal Deficiencies, which will identify when the facility failed to properly collect and analyze its 

biosolids or sewage sludge in accordance with the approved analytical methods (including 

appropriate method holding times). These two data elements will provide EPA and authorized 

NPDES programs with the data that they need for proper oversight.
3

 NJ suggested that the following data element - MS4 Reliance on Other Government Entities: Status 

Flag – be yes/no and not be used to identify the specific municipality covered by the NPDES permit. 

They agreed that EPA’s approach is more useful and beneficial but they assert the overriding goal 

should be to conservatively interpret EPA’s regs and require less reporting.

EPA has made the requested edit in the final rule.

 Deborah L. DeBiasi, Virginia DEQ, suggested that EPA edit the following data element, Biomonitoring 

Inspection Method, to be more consistent with current biomonitoring inspection practices in use 

today. 

Response: After this teleconference, EPA worked with VA to make the following edits to this data 

element: The unique code that identifies the type of biomonitoring inspection method (e.g., acute, 

chronic, or flow through discrete acute, discrete chronic, discrete method, flow-through method, 

flow-through acute, flow-through chronic) and sample type (e.g., grab, composite).

 Deborah L. DeBiasi, Virginia DEQ, also suggested that: “I would make the disinfection method a 

separate item, since all POTWs, regardless of size, should have some form and it's helpful to know 

what they are doing. Make the heading something like, "POTW Disinfection Type", and in the 

second column, maybe something about a unique code to represent chlorination, UV treatment, 

etc.”

EPA added the following data element in response to the comment: “POTW Wastewater 

Disinfection Technology: The one or more unique codes/descriptions that describe the types of 

disinfection technology that are used at the facility (e.g., chlorination, ozonation, ultraviolet 

disinfection). This data element will also use a code/description to identify if this facility is using 

dechlorination, which may be required if the facility uses chlorination for disinfection. This data 

element only applies to POTWs.” EPA modeled this data element after the OMB approved NPDES 

Form 2A.

 A state representative from Oklahoma noted that the proposed Supplemental 

Environmental Project (SEP) data elements seem reasonable.

 A state representative from Alabama noted that she likes the potential changes to the 

Appendix A data elements.
4

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.
5

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members – 13 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 No

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 Yes

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 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
6

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

Yes

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 No

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 

No

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
7

State representatives from West Virginia (Marcus E. Soulsby and Terrie Sangid) also 

participated in the meeting.

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 No

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

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

Jan Pickrel OW/OWM/WPD pickrel.jan@epa.gov Yes

Ginny Phillips OECA/OCE/WED phillips.ginny@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

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