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 (19 March 2015) [DCN 0224]

Overview 

This was the twenty-second 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 pretreatment 

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 asked for clarification on the “Listing of Months in SNC” data 

element. EPA added clarification in the final rule for this data element: “This data element 

will identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) the month or months the IU is in SNC within the reporting period. 

These data must be provided in YYYY-MM format where YYYY is the year and MM is the 

month.” This approach is flexible and will accommodate the different reporting periods 

used by Approval Authorities. 
2

 A state representative from Missouri ask how the rulemaking addresses how to define 

significant noncompliance (SNC). Mr. Johnston noted that the rulemaking does not change 

how EPA defines SNC, rather this rulemaking focuses on transitioning NPDES reporting from 

a paper to an electronic processing system. 

 Several state government representatives asked for clarification on the “Pretreatment 

Program Approval or Modification Date” data element. EPA provided clarification in the 

final rule: “The date the pretreatment program was approved or substantially modified. This 

data element can be system generated by carrying forward the most recent date (approval 

or modification). The date must be provided in YYYY-MM-DD format where YYYY is the year, 

MM is the month, and DD is the day.” States also requested that EPA include a notation that 

these data elements do not apply to the development, evaluation, or compliance 

monitoring activities supporting wastewater surcharge rates. EPA has included this note in 

the final rule.

 Several state representatives asked for clarification on the ‘Significant Industrial User 

Subject to Local Limits” data element. These representatives suggested that EPA limits 

responses for this data element to “Yes” or “No.” EPA has incorporated this suggestion in 

the final rule.

 Several state representatives asked for clarification on the “Significant Industrial User 

Wastewater Flow Rate” data element. In the final rule EPA included the following 

description for this data element: “This data element will identify for each Significant 

Industrial User (SIU) or Categorical Industrial User (CIU) that is discharging to a POTW 

(including non-domestic wastewater delivered by truck, rail, and dedicated pipe or other 

means of transportation) the estimated maximum monthly average wastewater flow rate 

(in gallons per day).”

 Several state representatives asked for EPA to include the phrase “unique code/description 

that identifies” for each of the following data elements: Industrial User Causing Problems at 

POTW, Receiving RCRA Waste, and Receiving Remediation Waste. States requested this 

change as the use of codes instead of free text fields will help make data entry and sharing 

easier. EPA included this phrase in the final rule to facilitate easier data entry and sharing.

 Several state representatives asked that EPA delete the “Control Authority Resources” data 

element from the final rule. EPA has not retained this data element in the final rule. 

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

representatives on the data elements reviewed in this meeting. These e-mails 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 - 19 March 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

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 No

David Lelsz lelsz.david@azdeq.gov;

Darren Polhemus 

CA

dpolhemus@waterboards.ca.gov

Yes

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 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 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 Yes

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

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

Yes

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 Yes

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 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
6

Participants in this meeting also included state representatives from Idaho, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, and 

Wisconsin.

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
7

Attachment 1 - Emails from Representatives from Authorized NPDES Programs

E-mail from David Ramsey <RAMSEY@adeq.state.ar.us>

Thu 3/12/2015 3:20 PM

ADEQ does not have a permit for CIUs where the State is the control authority. When we entered the 

ARPs into PCS we did not have to enter the permit issue, effective, and expiration dates, so when they 

were migrated to ICIS and the data elements were required, they were marked as “Pending”. We could 

use the POTW dates, but since the State is the control authority, neither State nor the permittee issues 

permits or permit coverage to these facilities (as far as I know). 

Also, if we used the POTW dates, we would have to renew all of the CIUs and update their information 

in ICIS-NPDES every time we renew the POTW permit (unless this could be done automatically. Another 

problem is that the ICIS staff does not receive updates when CIUs are added, terminated, or updated 

(transfer of ownership, legal name changes, changes of authorization, etc.). 

If all of this information is automatically populated through the permit application in electronic 

reporting system, I guess my opinion really won’t make any difference.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA is interpreting its existing regulation at 40 CFR 403.12(i) to include Industrial User 

(IU) effective and expiration dates. EPA notes that many Regions and States have already been requiring 

that information as either a way to key the IU facilities to previous lists [see 403.12(i)(1) as well as under 

403.12(i)(5)]. 

E-mail from Tina McFarling <Tina.McFarling@state.sd.us>

Mon 3/23/2015 9:51 AM

I have a few questions and concerns that came up during the conference call last Thursday. The first 

concern is on the permit application section for NPDES permits. South Dakota is the control authority for 

the majority of POTWs in the state. How will our POTWs know what to enter under the control 

authority’s NPDES number? Will that information be readily available for our POTWs. I’m just worried 

that their applications will not be accepted without this information and this will cause further delays in 

the permitting process.

EPA RESPONSE: The NPDES Electronic Reporting rule is not requiring NPDES application forms to be 

submitted electronically. The NPDES Electronic Reporting rule is focused on required reports like 

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), Notices of Intent (NOIs), and Program Reports (examples: 

Approved POTW Pretreatment Program annual report and annual sludge reports). Consequently, South 

Dakota’s permit drafting shouldn’t be affected. As a matter of good oversight and practice, the NPDES 

permit writing staff and pretreatment staff should be working together to review the applications 

[which includes that the POTW is required to identify SIUs and other discharges per 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6) 

& (7)] and to ensure that the appropriate permit conditions are included in all POTW permits.

The second question and concern is about the two data elements that I brought up during the 

conference call. On the annual reports section there is a proposed data element for the IU’s control 

mechanism’s effective and expiration dates. As I brought up in the conference call, 40 CFR 403.12(i) 

does not specifically require this information and we are concerned about adding these specific data 

elements because the proposed rule is not supposed to be changing current requirements. Also, I have a 
8

question about 40 CFR 403.12(i)(5). Will there be a way that the approval authority require additional 

information and for the approved POTWs to report that information electronically?

EPA RESPONSE: EPA is interpreting its exiting regulation at 40 CFR 403.12(i) to include Industrial User 

(IU) effective and expiration dates. EPA notes that many Regions and States have already been requiring 

that information as either a way to key the IU facilities to previous lists [see 403.12(i)(1) as well as under 

403.12(i)(5)]. It is particularly relevant when the approved POTW programs have reviewed or changed 

local limits per 40 CFR 122.44(j)(2)(ii) and the IU permit effective/modification/expiration date 

information helps demonstrate that the POTW is implementing new local limits. Regarding the last 

question, “Will there be a way that the approval authority require additional information and for the 

approved POTWs to report that information electronically,” the final rule only requires electronic 

reporting of Appendix A data. All other data, non-Appendix A data, can be submitted on paper to the 

authorized NPDES program or electronically submitted as attachments to the NPDES forms. EPA’s 

electronic reporting tools (NetDMR, NeT) are an example of such an arrangement, as they currently 

allow for electronic attachments (e.g., PDF files, CSV files). The final rule provides flexibility to states to 

customize their electronic reporting tools to collect additional information beyond the Appendix A 

requirements.

My final comment is about the annual report requirement for listing the months that the SIU is in SNC. I 

was confused, as SNC is calculated on a quarterly basis. I talked with Al Garcia from Region 8 for more 

clarification and I understand that this is more for tracking how long before the SIU is in compliance. I 

think that this data element may confuse some users (as it confused me) and additional explanation that 

this is for determining how long an SIU is out of compliance and not the actual SNC determination 

calculation may be needed. 

EPA RESPONSE: EPA’s existing report requirements [40 CFR 403.12(i)(3)] require reporting on a 

“summary of the status of Industrial User compliance over the reporting period.” EPA is using the 

“Listing of Months in SNC” data element to track the months each SIU/CIU is in SNC. It is important to 

note that this rulemaking does not redefine SNC for the pretreatment program. 

E-mail from Grace Scott <SCOTTG@michigan.gov>

Tue 3/24/2015 6:42 PM

During the call we talked about the SIU data and how it will need to be added. Currently, the complete 

SIU lists (with detailed information) come in with the permit application. Annual reports only describe 

additions and subtractions. Will it take a full five year permit cycle to fully populate the database or will 

POTWs and/or states be expected to add all the background SIU information the first year? Certainty, 

there will a need to have at least some SIU info entered initially, but will the bulk of it be required up 

front or with the permit application?

EPA RESPONSE: EPA’s existing NPDES permit applications require a full listing of SIU/CIUs [see 40 CFR 

122.21(j)(6)]. EPA is requiring authorized NPDES programs to share these data with EPA. EPA is 

implementing this final rule over five years, which should provide enough time for all authorized NPDES 

programs to share information on SIU/CIUs in advance of the deadline for the Pretreatment Program 

Report [403.12(i)], which is five years after the effective date of the final rule.
9

E-mail from Valentin Kouame <valentin.kouame@dep.nj.gov>

Mon 3/30/2015 11:51 AM

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is offering the following comments on 

the data elements for pretreatment electronic reporting following the March 10, 2015 and March 19, 

2015 teleconference calls between EPA and the States.

Local Limits Adoption Date: The most recent date on which the Control Authority has adopted new local 

limits within the reporting period.

Comment: This data entry is in conformity with the ICIS data entry. In New Jersey, any local limits 

developed by a delegated POTW (POTW with an approved pretreatment program) and approved by the 

NJDEP must be adopted by the POTW’s Board of Commissioners in accordance with the local law in 

order to be incorporated in the POTW’s local Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO) or Rules and Regulations for 

legal implementation and enforcement. Without that adoption, the local limits are not enforceable.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has included the “Local Limits Adoption Date” and “Local Limits Evaluation Date” 

data elements in the final rule. 

SNC with Pretreatment Standards (Program Report): This data element will identify for each Significant 

Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is discharging (including 

truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU was in Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) with 

pretreatment requirements in the reporting period.

SNC with Pretreatment Standards Pollutants (Program Report): This data element will identify for each 

Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is 

discharging (including truck transportation) the pollutants that related to the IU’s Significant NonCompliance (SNC) with pretreatment requirements in the reporting period.

SNC with Other Control Mechanism Requirements (Program Report): This data element will identify for 

each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) that is 

discharging (including truck transportation) to this POTW whether the IU was in Significant NonCompliance (SNC) with any other control mechanism requirements in the reporting period.

Comment: 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A) through (H) specify eight (8) specific SNC criteria. The descriptions 

of data elements for SNC are grouped into four (4) groups which are not consistent with the existing ICIS 

Pretreatment data entry for SNC criteria grouping, and the existing SNC criteria grouping noted on page 

PCA-14 , Section I.F.3.a of the EPA’s Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist. In order to avoid 

any confusion and ensure consistency in the pretreatment data reporting, the NJDEP recommends two 

(2) options for the data elements for SNC criteria grouping:

Option 1 (similar to ICIS Data Entry):

 SNC with pretreatment standards pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A), (B), (C), (D), and (H),

 SNC with reporting requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(F) and (G)

 SNC with pretreatment compliance schedule(s) pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(E)
10

Option 2 (similar to Pretreatment Audit Checklist)

 SNC with applicable pretreatment standards and other reporting pursuant to 40 CFR 

403.8(f)(2)(viii)(A), (B), (C), (D), (G), and (H),

 SNC with self-monitoring requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(F)

 SNC with pretreatment compliance schedule(s) pursuant to 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(E)

In addition, the NJDEP recommends that a reference citation be included with each SNC criteria 

grouping.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA will work with states to identify the possible reference values for these four data 

elements: SNC with Pretreatment Standards or Limits (Program Report), SNC with Pretreatment 

Standards or Limits Pollutants (Program Report), SNC with Reporting Requirements (Program Report), 

and SNC with Other Control Mechanism Requirements (Program Report). EPA will also develop training 

and guidance on how to properly report these data elements.

Industrial User Biosolids Contamination Indicator (Program Report): This data element will identify for 

each Significant Industrial User (SIU), Dental Industrial User (DIU), and Non-Significant Categorical 

Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the Industrial User caused or contributed to any problems with the 

receiving POTW’s biosolids in the previous reporting period. EPA regulations require the Control 

Authority to develop and enforce local limits when the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any 

problems (e.g., pass-through or interference) at the receiving POTW.

POTW Biosolids Contamination Indicator (Program Report): A unique code/description that identifies 

whether there have been any problems (e.g., pass-through or interference) with the receiving POTW’s 

biosolids within the reporting period.

Comment: These two data elements noted above include the pass-through prohibition. The definition of 

pass-through under 40 CFR 403.3(p) does not involve an inhibition or disruption of the POTW’s sludge 

processes, or the prevention of the POTW’s chosen sludge management, rather a discharge exiting the 

POTW’s treatment plant without treatment and causing a violation of the POTW’s NPDES permit. 

Therefore, these two data elements should be based on the interference prohibition in accordance with 

the General Pretreatment Regulations, 40 CFR 403.3(k), which includes the prohibition of inhibition or 

disruption of the POTW’s sludge processes, use or management. Thus, references to pass-through 

should be removed.

In addition, as mentioned by some callers, the definitions of the terms pass-through and interference 

should be included or referenced.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA revised these two data elements to read as follows.

 POTW Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Contamination Indicator (Program Report): The one or more 

unique codes/descriptions that identify any problems (e.g., interference with the use or disposal 

of biosolids or sewage sludge, violation of NPDES permit requirements or EPA’s regulations at 40 

CFR 503) with the receiving POTW’s biosolids or sewage sludge within the reporting period. See 

40 CFR 403.3(k). EPA regulations require any Control Authority that must develop a 

Pretreatment Program also to develop and enforce local limits to ensure that the discharge from 

an IU does not cause or contribute a disruption of biosolids’ use or disposal at the receiving 

POTW.
11

 Industrial User Biosolids or Sewage Sludge Contamination Indicator (Program Report): The one 

or more unique codes/descriptions that identify for each Significant Industrial User (SIU) and 

Non-Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) whether the Industrial User caused or 

contributed to any problems (e.g., interference with the use or disposal of biosolids or sewage 

sludge, violation of NPDES permit requirements or EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 503) with the 

receiving POTW’s biosolids or sewage sludge in the previous reporting period. See 40 CFR 

403.3(k). EPA regulations require the Control Authority to develop and enforce local limits when 

the discharge from an IU causes or contributes to any problems e.g.at the receiving POTW.