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 (5 February 2015) [DCN 0219]

Overview 

This was the seventeenth 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 basic facility 

and permit application 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 questioned whether Appendix A should include latitude and 

longitude metadata. Kentucky and New Jersey representatives stated that EPA should not 

collect these data. In the final rule EPA eliminated the metadata but modified the 

descriptions of the latitude and longitude data elements to specify the WGS84 standard 

coordinate system, which is currently the most common reference system. 
2

 A representative from Texas noted that a single location is not sufficient to appropriately 

locate the boundaries of a MS4 entity. EPA noted that the latitude and longitude data 

elements allow states to “describe the two-dimensional area (polygon) regulated by a 

municipal storm sewer system (MS4).” A representative from Nevada noted that MS4 

boundaries change over time. EPA noted that these boundaries can be updated at each 

NPDES permit application.

 Representatives from Oklahoma and Virginia noted that not all facilities have a business 

email. In the final rule EPA has accounted for the burden associated with obtaining a 

business email address.

 A representative from Texas noted that the “Facility Organization Formal Name” data 

element should be optional. A representative from Arkansas noted that these are 

mandatory fields in ICIS-NPDEs now. The Arkansas representative noted that it is sometimes 

difficult to get parent corporations for some facilities.

 Several states requested that they have more control over the “Permit Termination Date” 

data element and that this data element not be auto-generated. A representative from 

Oklahoma noted that some states may need to take a formal action to terminate an NPDES 

permit.

 A representative from Oklahoma noted that they would like the ability to manage the 

“Permit Major/Minor Status Indicator” data element. Prior to the final rule this data 

element was managed by EPA Headquarters. States now have the ability to manage this 

data element as necessary.

 Representatives from Colorado and Tennessee noted that they use the “Permit 

Application/NOI Received Date” to track when NPDES permit applications where received 

by the authorized NPDES program.

 A representative from Alabama had questions about the total design flow and actual 

average design flow data elements. EPA compared these data elements with the current 

NPDES application forms and updated the data elements in the final rule.

 A state representative suggested that we add the value “Denied” for the “Permit Status” 

data element.

 A representative from Arkansas noted that the information on the permittee is often the 

same as information on the facility. In the final rule EPA streamlined the list of data 

elements in Appendix A and eliminated some of the permit contact information data. EPA 

retained the permittee mailing address information as some mailing address are different 

from the physical location of the facility (e.g., P.O. Boxes).
3

 Several state representatives requested flexibility for reporting “SIC Code” and “NAICS 

Code” data. In the final rule EPA allowed authorized NPDES programs to report either “SIC 

Code” or “NAICS Code” data or both types of data. 

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.

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 - 5 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

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 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 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 Frances Carpenter <Frances.Carpenter@dnr.state.ga.us>

Thu 2/5/2015 3:32 PM

On p. 17 of the clear vision version of Appx. A of the Supplemental Notice, there is a note that excludes 

data element requirements such as latitude and longitude and limits for “outfalls without monitoring for 

stationary point sources”. This exclusion should be modified to read “outfalls without effluent limit 

monitoring for stationary point sources”.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has made this edit as requested.

Georgia is aware of two types of storm water outfalls that are monitored but not for effluent limits that 

should be excluded from the data element reporting of Appx. A: 1) industrial storm water outfalls that 

have benchmark monitoring like those under EPA’s Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP), and 2) 

monitoring of MS4 outfalls in relation to impaired waterbodies and TMDLs. Neither of these types of 

monitoring is effluent limit monitoring, and there are no violations associated with any monitoring 

results obtained. In both case the purpose of the monitoring is to assess the effectiveness of the best 

management practices (BMPs) employed and determine if better BMPs are needed. Thanks for your 

consideration.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA disagrees with the commenter. There are many outfalls, including industrial 

stormwater outfalls, have requirements for monitoring but not effluent limits. EPA’s data systems allow 

for the proper distinctions between outfalls with effluent limits and those without. EPA finds that 

gathering effluent monitoring data on outfalls without effluent limits is helpful to assess the magnitude 

of pollutant discharges and the performance of controls at the permitted facility.

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

Thu 2/5/2015 5:18 PM

Thanks for coordination of the conference calls. Following is my commentary on the things brought up 

on the call. This is just FYI for EPA to consider.

1. Locational information 

Required information provides relatively little value to the process. To be honest, whatever information 

coming in to the regulatory agency from the public needs to have someone ground-truth it before it can 

be trusted anyway. Trusting the permittee’s information is how we get permits for TN in Illinois or the 

Pacific Ocean.

• Source Map Scale Number,

• Horizontal Accuracy Measure,

• Horizontal Collection Method,

• Horizontal Reference Datum,

• Reference Point

These are important to GIS. But the values depend on the GIS tool, GPS instrument or paper map used 

to get a latitude and longitude. Most permit holders will either use a GPS or get it from internet mapping 
8

or whatever web GIS tool the EPA/state provides for finding the location. These fields put an 

unnecessary hurdle in front of the applicant to try to figure out this required information. If state/EPA is 

providing on-line tool, the GIS behind the tool should handle this and it will probably be available if online applications are developed. However, if the applicant in on their own to independently come up 

with the information, it is asking too much.

I would prefer to get lat/long and a pick list for how it was done (GPS, on-line mapping, paper map, 

provided by regulatory staff, other) and perhaps a verification field for regulatory program staff to 

confirm verification of the location.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has specified the use of the WGS84 standard coordinate system for latitude and 

longitude data elements. EPA is not requiring the submission of the location metadata (e.g., Source Map 

Scale Number). 

2. Facility Site Name vs Facility Organization Formal Name vs Permittee Organizational Formal Name 

Important data are what it at the physical site and who is operating the site. The name and addresses in 

Appendix A have a Facility Site Name, but also have the Permittee Organizational Formal Name and the 

Facility Organizational Formal Name.

Form 1 currently has a Facility, a Facility Mailing Address, Facility location address and an Operator with 

address. To TN the “site” is a physical location where activity is being regulated and TN cares because 

we have to know what is at that place. We care about the permittee who is operating the 

treatment/discharge. From this, I can use the Facility Site Name and address and the Permittee 

Organizational Formal Name and TN can do a pretty good job of keeping up with the data. But Facility 

Organization Formal Name becomes a bit more questionable to me as a required field.

It’s not be something the state regulatory agency is will be able to track very well. If on the application, 

it will get updated to whatever the permit applicant submits to us. When a company merges, has a site’s 

operations put under a holding company in Ohio, then ends up sold and transferred to a separate 

company in Atlanta, the state regulators often don’t hear about all that. The water program just gets 

information to the effect that we need to change Nu-Foam plant in Chattanooga to Advanced Foam 

Products. Changes to business entities are recorded within TN at the Secretary of State’s office, but 

there is no mechanism for the changed information to transfer to the regulatory agency tied to a 

particular permit.

What is intended by the Facility Organization Formal Name and who is expected to QA/QC the data?

Once the data is entered, how will it be kept up-to-date? It may be nice to have the field available, but is 

this going to be the business name at the time of application that no one needs to worry about again 

until the next application?

EPA RESPONSE: In the final rule EPA included the “Facility Organization Formal Name” data element in 

Appendix A. This data element is submitted on the NPDES permit application and can be useful to 

identify different facilities operated by the same corporation. 

3. Expired permits, Termination, Un-termination

The states need to have a process to “un-terminate” permits. In TN, we have a process for termination 

of permits that includes public notice. It would probably not be a good idea to terminate them in ICIS if 

they have not been terminated in the state. We do not have an issue with leaving expired permits as 
9

expired. There is a data quality issue where permits that should be administratively continued are left as 

expired by mistake. But the solution to us is not to automatically terminate, but to consider the expired 

permit as just that – expired. 

TN would prefer to not automatically terminate permits that are expired after a period of time, 

particularly if we have no easy, pragmatic option to un-terminate.

EPA RESPONSE: In the final rule EPA has deleted the note that permits could be ‘auto-terminated.’ EPA 

will rely on states and Regions to decide when to terminate NPDES permits. 

4. Permit application total design flow 

This needs better definition. For a sewage plant the design flow for TN is flow of water that needs to be 

processed (whether influent or re-use). It is not necessarily the same as the discharge flow. For a 

stormwater structure, it is the amount of water the structure is designed to provide some treatment for.

All re-use in TN is at larger facilities and we are a wet enough state that it really doesn’t matter to us.

But it sounds like some states have concerns about this being one of the determining factors for the 

classification of “Major”.

EPA RESPONSE: In the final rule EPA has updated the description of the following data element to read, 

“Permit Application Total Actual Average Flow: This is the annual average daily flow rate that a 

permitted facility will likely accommodate at the start of its permit term, in MGD. This is only required 

for wastewater treatment plants.”

TN would not object to being delegated on the “Major” designation or not. TDEC has had some 

difficulties getting ratings changed in the past as the other states on the call indicated. In the past, the 

information provided was that the definition in 40 CFR 122.2 requires the Regional Administrator and 

therefore, EPA had to make the call, not the states.

EPA RESPONSE: In the final rule EPA has provided authorized states NPDES programs with the ability to 

change the “Permit Major/Minor Status Indicator.”

4. Permit Name and Address

TN agrees with Dave Apanian that the permit name and address should have a contact person. We have 

had problems with permit name not being what we call the permit elsewhere – “Bubba Johnson” could 

be in ICIS-NPDES while our permit is issued to “Shiny Star Car Wash.” It makes things confusing and we 

would prefer to have place for both permittee and contact under the permit information in ICIS.

EPA RESPONSE: In the final rule EPA has streamlined the list of data elements in Appendix A. This 

included deleting the permittee contact name as other states noted this is often the same as the facility 

contact.

5. Application Design Flow OR DESIGN VOLUME 

In contrast to the Total Design Flow above, this should really be defined to be the designed DISCHARGE 

flow a permitted feature is designed to accommodate. Where design is not based on flow, it may 

represent a volume or other basis.

EPA RESPONSE: In the final rule EPA has modified the following data element as follows: “Permit 

Application Total Design Flow: This is the design flow rate that a permitted facility was designed to 
10

accommodate, in millions of gallons per day (MGD). This is only required for wastewater treatment 

plants.”

If the “Major” category is to be based on water discharged, the addition of the flows for permitted 

features that are outfalls to the environment may be a better way to go than the treatment capacity 

above.

EPA RESPONSE: This final rule does not change how EPA defines “major” facilities.

6. New fields for POTW Treatment Technology to be included on application

Application forms will need to be revised. Is the 10 MGD flow mentioned a design flow? Permit feature 

discharge design flow summation? Historic average actual flow? Average influent flow? Needs to be 

defined so everyone is certain.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA solicited comment in the supplemental notice to the proposed to include a few 

data elements from the “Clean Watersheds Survey,” which is conducted in response to Sections 205(a) 

and 516 of the Clean Water Act. In the final rule, EPA included the following data elements:

• POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Level Description This data element describes the 

level of wastewater treatment technology [e.g., raw discharge (no treatment), primary 

treatment, secondary wastewater treatment, advanced treatment] used at the facility. This 

data element only applies to POTWs. Source: 122.21(j)(3)(iii), 122.28(b)(2)(ii) and CWA 

Section 516

• 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. 

Source: 122.21(j)(3)(iii), 122.28(b)(2)(ii)

• POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Unit Operations The one or more unique 

codes/descriptions that describe the wastewater treatment technology unit operations 

(e.g., grit removal, flow equalization, complete mix activated sludge secondary treatment, 

trickling filter, facultative lagoon, biological nitrification) used at the facility. This data 

element is required for POTWs that have a design flow capacity equal to or above 10 million 

gallons per day (MGD) and is optional for POTWs with a design flow capacity below 10 MGD. 

Source: 122.21(j)(2)(ii)(A), 122.28(b)(2)(ii) and CWA Section 516

In a separate rulemaking, EPA will update the NPDES application forms to conform with Appendix A.

7. Stay Limit Value

If we include a new pollutant parameter into a permit that gets appealed, there will be no previous 

permit limit to fall back on. We agree with Dave Ramsey on the stay limit value may need to be allowed 

to be null for some situations.
11

EPA RESPONSE: This final rule does not change how EPA addresses limits with a stay.

8. Permit Status

TDEC would like to have a permit status for “Denial” or “Denied” so that a record with NPDES number 

can be created for a permit denial. The “Retired” is something I’ve never really understood. “Not 

Needed” may do for someone who applies and then withdraws an application or goes out of business 

before anything happens. But if we have to get application, act on it, hold public meetings, etc. and then 

deny that permit, there really needs to be a way to reflect that action in ICIS. Right now if permit is 

denied and not issued, we delete the record and it disappears from ICIS as if it never happened. I would 

like to deny permits and show it in ICIS. It would be nice to have date for denial as well, but a denial 

status and notes in the comments would probably be just fine since they are rare.

EPA RESPONSE: The final rule includes the value of “Denied” for the “Permit Status” data element as 

requested.

Fri 2/6/2015 10:18 AM

Here are my thoughts on the Complete Permit Application Receive Date and the Permit Application 

Received Date.

Our process is that an application comes in, gets evaluated by regulatory staff who will make the 

judgment that it is incomplete or complete. If incomplete, notification is made to the applicant and a 

revised application is expected. The process may have several iterations. Once an application is judged 

complete, TN (and some other states) have a time clock start which tracks compliance with timely 

issuance goals.

For states that have to do manual data entry, there is extra work to enter both the Application Received 

Date and the Complete Application Received Date. However, once implementation is made for 

electronic submittals, a Permit Application Received Date will just be a computer-generated date stamp 

that does not require any extra human data entry effort. The regulatory agency will still have to review 

application materials and make a determination whether the application is complete or not. Where the 

application is complete, the completion date will be the only data entry provided by the regulatory staff.

If the application is not complete, there will probably be further tracking within a state system for the 

initial submittal date, the notification of the incomplete application, and a date(s) for 

corrected/amended/re-corrected application was received. There will be multiple received dates.

Therefore, a decision needs to be made on which received date is used for an Application Received Date 

in ICIS-NPDES.

My preference would be the date of the initial successful application submittal to the electronic report 

system. There is some risk of an applicant turning in a “place-holder” application that is obviously 

deficient and known to be deficient when the applicant turns it in. In the electronic submittals, there will 

probably be sufficient validations within the process to block an entirely bogus application. The other 

situation is where a permit writer needs more detail dealing with a specific situation for the site or 

treatment process. The initial application simply did not include information the permit writer needs.

That information may be something that a permit applicant, through no fault of their own, has not 

realized is needed.

EPA RESPONSE: In the final rule EPA included the following two data elements in the final rule.
12

• Complete Permit Application/NOI Received Date: This is the date on which the complete 

application for an individual NPDES permit was received or a complete Notice of Intent 

(NOI) for coverage under a master general permit was received. The date must be provided 

in YYYY-MM-DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day. This 

data element can be system generated when the complete NOI is electronically received by 

the NPDES program. Source: 122.21, 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 403.10(f) 

• Permit Application/NOI Received Date: This is the date on which the application for an 

individual NPDES permit was received or a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage under a 

master general permit was received. The date must be provided in YYYY-MM-DD format 

where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day. This data element can be 

system generated when the NPDES permit application or NOI is electronically received by 

the NPDES program. Source: 122.21, 122.28(b)(2)(ii), 403.10(f)

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

Fri 2/6/2015 3:14 PM

During yesterday’s ACWA/ECOS Technical Workgroup call regarding Basic Facility and Permit Data, I told 

you that I would send you written comments addressing the last sentence in the Data Description for 

the Permit Termination Date (“This data element can be system generated when the permittee does not 

file a permit renewal application.”) My notes from the previous call showed that the way this process 

would work would be “determined later”. So I was curious if you had looked into the issue.

At what point in time in relation to the permit expiration date might system generated permit 

termination occur. I believe that ICIS-NPDES currently changes the Permit Status from “Effective” to 

“Expired” ninety (90) days following the Expiration Date. Currently, if a permit is terminated in ICISNPDES, the regulatory agency must request that the USEPA HQ staff “Un-Terminate” the permit. The 

amount of time that it takes for USEPA HQ to “Un-Terminate” a permit is variable. If a permit remains 

terminated and a new permit is issued using a different NPDES ID, the link to the previous permit history 

could be lost.

Also, I’m not sure how I would know when the system -generated termination took place. Would some 

sort of notification be sent to the permittee and the regulatory agency? If a permittee has not submitted 

a renewal application/NOI within 180 days prior to expiration, ADEQ sends a letter to the permittee 

warning them that their permit or permit coverage may be canceled (terminated). In most cases a letter 

is sent to the permittee notifying them that the permit has been canceled and any discharge is a 

violation of applicable laws.

One possible solution recommended is that States, Tribes, etc. be allowed to “Un-Terminate” permits.

Another possible solution I heard was to make system-generated termination to be an optional feature 

available to the States, Tribes, etc. Another possible solution is to remove the system-generated 

termination statement from the description and shelve the idea. Colorado mentioned that some expired 

permits never get terminated under the current regulations, so they do not want the permits 

automatically terminated (unless the regulations change). I agree and suggested adding a new Permit 

Status (e.g. “Expired without Renewal”) so that these permits might be dropped from USEPA counts 

(e.g. State Framework Review), reflect the current regulations, and stop logging needless violations.

If you have any questions, please contact me. 
13

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the data elements in Appendix A of the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule Supplemental Notice.

EPA RESPONSE: In the final rule EPA has deleted the note that permits could be ‘auto-terminated.’ EPA 

will rely on states and Regions to decide when to terminate NPDES permits. 

E-mails from Christy Monk <CVM@adem.state.al.us>

Wed 2/11/2015 1:42 PM

During last week’s discussion of basic facility and permit information, I forgot to bring up an issue we 

have regarding the data elements for “Permit Application Total Design Flow” and “Permit Application 

Total Actual Average Flow”. These data elements actually only appear on EPA Form 2A (see below), 

which is used for municipal wastewater treatment facilities. For industrial sources, EPA Forms 2C/2D ask 

for average flow from each outfall, but it is never given on a facility-wide/permit basis. I guess my 

comment is, those two data elements have historically only been meaningful for municipal wastewater 

treatment facilities.

EPA RESPONSE: In the final rule EPA has limited the “Permit Application Total Design Flow” and “Permit 

Application Total Actual Average Flow” to wastewater treatment plants.

Thu 2/12/2015 11:32 AM

In looking at it further, I don’t know that any language changes are necessary. The fact that the 

description for data elements both states “as state on its NPDES application” really narrows it down to 

municipal wastewater facilities because the fields only appear on Form 2A. If EPA is not changing its 

Forms 2C or 2D, the argument can be made that those data elements don’t apply to industrial and 

commercial sources. 

EPA RESPONSE: See previous response.

This image cannot currently be displayed.