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 (12 February 2015) [DCN 0220]

Overview 

This was the eighteenth 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 reading the name of each state 

compliance monitoring, violation determination, and enforcement action 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 meeting participants. Below 

are some questions and comments from the meeting participants.

 Several state representatives suggested that EPA update the data element descriptions to 

indicate when data can be system generated or are conditional or optional depending on 

other data submissions. EPA has updated the data element descriptions to be more 

descriptive as requested.
2

 Several state representatives asked for clarification on the “Compliance Monitoring 

Activity” and “Compliance Monitoring Type” data elements. In the final rule EPA added 

clarifying language to the two descriptions for these data elements. 

 Several state representatives had questions on the difference between “Enforcement 

Action Sub-activity” and milestones. EPA clarified in the final rule that some sub-activities 

are system required and some can be system generated and that, “Data on sub-activities 

that are not milestones are optional.”

 Several state representatives also requested we add a note to Appendix A to clarify when 

construction stormwater Single Event Violation (SEV) data must be reported to EPA. In the 

final rule, EPA provided the following clarification, “Note: Single Event Violation (SEV) data 

elements are mandatory for construction stormwater inspections that identify CWA 

violations that result in a regulatory authority taking a formal enforcement action. SEV data 

elements are optional for other construction stormwater inspections.”

 A representative from Alabama suggested that we eliminate the “Enforcement Action 

Name” data element. EPA did not include this data element in the final rule as other data 

can be used to unique track and describe enforcement actions.

 A representative from Oklahoma and a number of other suggested that EPA add data 

elements to collect information on supplemental environmental projects (SEPs). In the final 

rule, EPA has included the following three SEP data elements:

o Supplemental Environmental Project Identifier: The unique identifier for each 

supplemental environmental project. This data element can be system generated. 

Source: 123.27, 123.41(a), and CWA Section 309

o Supplemental Environmental Project Amount: The assessed cost, in dollars, of the 

one or more of the defendant’s Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). This is 

the dollar amount that is assessed either in addition to civil penalties or in lieu of 

civil penalties. This data element is only required if there is a SEP and may be 

entered at a later date when the data is available. Source: 123.27, 123.41(a), and 

CWA Section 309

o Supplemental Environmental Project Description: This text field summarizes the 

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) that the respondent has completed in 

response to an enforcement action. This data element is only required if there is a 

SEP and may be entered at a later date when the data is available. Source: 123.27, 

123.41(a), and CWA Section 309

Following the meeting, EPA received additional e-mails from individual state 

government representatives on the data elements reviewed in this meeting. These are listed in 

Attachment 1.
3

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.
4

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members - 12 February 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 Yes

Elisa Willard elisa.willard@state.co.us

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

stephanie.bower@state.de.us No

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
5

Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Shawn Hokanson KY shawn.hokanson@ky.gov Yes

Grace Scott

MI

scottg@michigan.gov

No

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

Yes

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 Yes

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
6

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 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

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 Yes

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
7

Attachment 1 - Emails from Representatives from Authorized NPDES Programs

E-mail from Lawrence Bunting <Lawrence.Bunting@tn.gov>

Fri 2/13/2015 5:22 PM

TDEC concurs that it would be good to clearly identify the required data elements from those that are 

conditionally required when triggered by another data element.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has updated the data element descriptions to be more descriptive as requested.

For the Compliance Category and Compliance Monitoring Type, do these share reference table values 

with AIR? If so, is there an easy way to make sure there is no confusion over which code applies to 

which program. TDEC DWR is interested in seeing Compliance Monitoring Types suggested by TX or 

other states. 

EPA RESPONSE: The reference tables for these two data elements are specific to NPDES.

Violation Code – it would be good to note in the description that the only one that could be created and 

sent by a state is a single event violation (SEV). 

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has updated this data description to read as follows. “Violation Code: The unique 

code/description that identifies each type of violation that has occurred at the facility (e.g., D80 = 

Required Monitoring DMR Value Non-Receipt, E90 = Effluent Violation, C20 = Schedule Event Achieved 

Late). This includes single event violations (SEVs) and violations that are system generated based upon 

DMRs, schedules, etc.”

Violation Date, Single Event Violation Date, Single Event Violation Start Date – Why do we have to report 

all these? For those that are system generated, it is a non-issue. For the single event violation reported 

by the state the situation is that it is either single day or multi-day violation. For single day violation the 

Single Event Violation date should also serve as the Violation Date. For multi-day violations, the single 

event violation start date can also serve as the violation date.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA requires these data elements to adequately describe each violation. EPA has

provided clarification on when these data should be reported and when they can be system generated. 

In particular, EPA has update the “Violation Date” data element to read as follows: “This is the date of 

the violation, which varies depending on the type of violation. The date must be provided in YYYY-MMDD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day. This data element may be 

system generated and does not apply to single event violation dates.” 

TDEC agrees that the Enforcement Action Name should not be part of the required data elements in 

Appendix A. TDEC will populate and use this field for reports so they are human readable and look nice, 

but the tracking numbers (Enforcement Action Identifier) are sufficient to identify the records. A free 

text field for the name is not necessary as a required data element.
8

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has not included “Enforcement Action Name” in the final rule.

It may be good to clarify in the description for “Milestones/ Sub-activities” that these apply to the 

regulatory milestones that are met and reported by the regulatory agency and not the permit holder. 

Similarly, the header for “Compliance Schedule” should be clarified that these items are items 

done/reported by the permit holder that has a compliance schedule.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has provided the requested clarifying language in the final rule.

Penalty section for Appendix A. TDEC supports addition of fields in ICIS-NPDES for penalty assessed / 

penalty collected that will include supplemental environmental projects (SEP). A Penalty Assessed 

should not reflect a perpetually uncollected amount whenever a SEP is part of what the permit holder 

must do yet the SEP is effort of the permit holder that should not be ignored either. TDEC does not 

want enforcement actions amounts assessed that reflect SEP effort as some amount that was 

uncollected. TDEC supports the addition to Appendix A for a data element to indicate that a SEP is/is 

not part of the total Civil Penalty Amount Assessed and to conditionally require a SEP amount collected 

where the SEP is present as part of the penalty assessed. If there are suggestions from other states that 

have a better way to handle this, perhaps you could distribute it to the group.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has included three data elements to collect SEP information. 

Thanks for your work on coordinating these calls.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA appreciates the efforts by state government representatives to provide helpful 

suggestions for the final rule. 

E-mail from Elisa Willard <elisa.willard@state.co.us>

Mon 3/9/2015 9:44 AM

We ask that ICIS be modified to accept an optional data field for entering SEP amounts that are assessed 

either in addition to civil penalties or in lieu of civil penalties.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has included three data elements to collect SEP information.