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 February 2014

SUBJECT: Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (13 February 2014) [DCN 0130]

Overview 

This was the third meeting for the EPA-state technical workgroup, which is discussing

key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). These discussions 

will help inform the upcoming planned supplemental Federal Register notice and will continue 

beyond the supplemental notice to help EPA address state comments. EPA participants will 

include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA’s Office of Water and Office 

of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members are listed below in Tables 1 and 

2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is summarizing the notes from these 

discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA’s outreach during the 

rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available for any other stakeholder group 

that would like to discuss the eRule.

Meeting Notes

EPA started the meeting with a roll call and solicited comments on the draft notes from 

the previous meeting. New Jersey and Washington state each made one comment that were 

incorporated into the draft meeting notes. Mr. Carey Johnston then led the technical 

workgroup in a discussion on the State Readiness Criteria. 

 Oklahoma suggested that EPA consider a lower participation rate trigger at the 

beginning of the eRule implementation and then increasing the required participation 

rate over time. They also suggested that EPA provide additional flexibility regarding the 

state collection and sharing of Appendix A data. These suggestions were also supported 

by the other states.

 Colorado (Andy Putnam) stated that the current proposed schedule is too aggressive

and suffers from two problems. He stated that the first problem is insufficient amount 

of time in the proposed schedule for authorized state NPDES programs to update their 
2

state policies and regulation along with the development of their own electronic 

reporting tools. Mr. Putnam then noted the challenge of educating, training, and 

changing the behavior of NPDES regulated entities within the proposed rule’s 

implementation schedule. Mr. Putnam noted that Colorado has an eDMR system but 

that the participation is approximately 9 percent. He noted that it will likely be 

extremely difficult to get this participation rate to 90 percent within one year of the 

effective date of the final rule.

 New York echoed the concerns from Mr. Putnam and made a specific comment on the 

challenge states face in getting their electronic reporting tools CROMERR approval. He 

noted that EPA has not processed state CROMERR applications in a timely manner. 

 A state commenter asked for the basis for setting the participation rate threshold at 90 

percent. Mr. Dombrowski replied that this was the level at which states should see an 

adequate return on their investment. He noted that any participation rate lower than 90 

percent likely means that the state will need to operate two systems (one to handle 

paper submissions and another for electronic submissions) and consequently won’t see 

any savings or efficiencies.

 Several state participants noted that EPA should include in the implementation costs the 

enforcement efforts that states will need to expend to require electronic reporting.

These states suggested that some enforcement actions will be necessary even though 

states have updated their policies, regulations, and permits with respect to electronic 

reporting.

 Washington state (Nancy Kmet) noted their support for the idea that any electronic 

reporting that is mandated by EPA’s Information Collection Request (ICR), which 

accompanies the eRule, should go to the authorized state and not EPA. Ms. Kmet noted 

several benefits with this option such as the elimination of data inconsistencies that 

might arise from dual submissions going to two different recipients. 

 Ms. Kmet also noted the problem in getting compliance with some sectors. She noted 

that there are 2,000 construction operators regulated by their construction stormwater 

general permit. She estimates that only two-thirds of these NPDES regulated entities 

submit DMRs as required by the permit. Ms. Kmet offered this example to note how 

difficult it will be to get the electronic reporting participation rate above 90 percent.

 New York (Bob Wither) suggested that EPA consider making an electronic reporting 

participation rate calculation for individually permitted facilities and another electronic 

reporting participation rate calculation for general permit covered facilities. He noted 

that this was especially important for regulated entities in the NPDES stormwater sector 

as states have historically had difficulty in getting full participation and consistent 

reporting even when reporting can be done on paper forms. Mr. Wither noted that 
3

most individually permitted facilities are familiar with the NPDES program and generally 

comply with NPDES reporting requirements.

 Florida noted the difficulty in making the electronic reporting participation rate 

calculation for General Permit Reports [e.g., Notices of Intent (NOIs)]. For example, she 

noted that during the recent real estate boom in Florida the state annually issued 

approximately 7,000 NOIs under their construction stormwater permits. More recently 

due to the downturn in the economy they are annually issuing approximately 3,000 

NOIs. Mr. Johnston agreed with Florida and also noted that this NPDES data group (i.e., 

General Permit Reports) differs from the other data groups in that facilities submitting 

General Permit Reports [i.e., NOIs, Notices of Termination), Low Erosivity Waivers (for 

construction stormwater), and No Exposures Certifications (for industrial stormwater)] 

may not be submitting these reports on a regular schedule. 

 Oklahoma and New York also suggested that EPA extend the implementation schedule 

and application of the State Readiness Criteria for some sectors (e.g., construction 

stormwater).

Mr. Carey Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on the schedule for 

implementation of the eRule. 

 Oklahoma suggested that EPA needs to stretch out the implementation schedule for the 

eRule. They noted offered the following suggestion: 

o Phase 1 – two year deadline (DMRs, Federal General Permit Reports)

o Phase 2 – three year deadline (some State NOIs, some Program Reports)

o Phase 3 – four or five year deadline (remaining data flows that require more time)

 New Jersey noted that they would like more time to comply with the transfer of basic 

facility, permit, compliance, and enforcement data to EPA (i.e., NPDES Data Group No. 1 

in Table 1 in Appendix A to Part 127). Under the proposed rule states have nine months 

after the effective date of the rule to transfer these data to EPA [see Part 127.26(c)]. Mr. 

Johnston noted that sharing these data is necessary as EPA’s NPDES data system, ICISNPDES, cannot accept other NPDES program data (e.g., DMRs) without these data. Mr. 

Johnston noted that EPA would likely extend the date when basic facility, permit, 

compliance, and enforcement data need to be shared with EPA if Phase 1 was extended.

 Arkansas suggested that the technical workgroup focus on the business need for the 

data elements listed in Appendix A. Mr. Johnston agreed that it would be helpful to 

focus on the data elements in Appendix A in future technical workgroup meetings. He 

noted that this discussion will likely last over multiple meetings and will likely need 

program experts from states and EPA to review the data elements.
4

 Texas (Kim Wilson) suggested that the eRule implementation use the NPDES permit 

cycle. Ms. Wilson noted that this alternative implementation schedule would allow 

states to stagger out development of the electronic reporting tools as well as the 

accompanying outreach and training to NPDES regulated entities. Ms. Wilson noted that 

EPA and states must not underestimate the amount of outreach and training as this 

many require even more resources that the necessary IT upgrade and enhancements for 

electronic reporting. She also noted that outreach and training to NPDES regulated 

entities will be ongoing even after the initial implementation of the eRule.

 New Jersey (Jason Lonardo) supported the development of individual plans as states 

have different capabilities with respect to implementing electronic reporting. Mr. 

Lonardo suggested that EPA allow states to negotiate these individualized electronic 

reporting plans as part of the existing Performance Partnership Agreements process.1

Washington state, Florida, and Colorado also agreed with this suggestion.

Next Steps

EPA agreed to summarize the meeting notes as well as summarize and compile a few 

examples of public comments on a topic schedule for discussion. EPA will share these materials 

with the technical workgroup in advance of the next weekly meeting. The next meeting will 

focus on EPA’s economic analysis for the proposed rule, comments on the CAFO sector, and 

comments on the stormwater sector (i.e., facilities that manage industrial and construction 

stormwater and MS4s). 

 

1

See http://www.epa.gov/ocir/nepps/pp_agreements.htm.
5

State Technical Workgroup Meeting – NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

13 February 2014

1pm Introduction/Roll Call

1:05 Review of Draft Notes from Previous Meeting

1:15 Discussion on State Readiness Criteria

1:45 Discussion on Implementation Schedule

2:15 Solicitation of Topics for Next Meeting

2:30 End of Call

Quick Reminder

 The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected 

to develop, research, and evaluate 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 formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is 

expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not 

achieve consensus.

 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. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the

discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.
6

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

Main Contact State or 

Organization Main Contact Email

State/Org. 

Present? 

(Yes/No)

Sean Rolland ACWA srolland@acwa-us.org Yes

Christy Monk AL cvm@adem.state.al.us Yes

Teresa Marks AR marks@adeq.state.ar.us Yes

Andy Putnam CO andrew.putnam@state.co.us

goff@adeq.state.ar.us Yes

Elisa Willard CO elisa.willard@state.co.us Yes

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

stephanie.bower@state.de.us Yes

Beth Graves ECOS bgraves@ecos.org Yes

Lee Garrigan ECOS lgarrigan@ecos.org Yes

Chris Klena FL chris.m.klena@dep.state.fl.us Yes

Tom Easterly IN teasterl@idem.in.gov

ckoontz@idem.in.gov No

John Murphy NEIWPCC jmurphy@neiwpcc.org Yes

Jason Lonardo NJ jason.lonardo@dep.state.nj.us Yes

Robert Wither NY rewither@gw.dec.state.ny.us Yes

Shellie Chard-McClary OK shellie.chard-mcclary@deq.ok.gov Yes

Roy Walker OK roy.walker@deq.ok.gov No

Sean Furjanic PA sefurjanic@pa.gov Yes

Kim Wilson TX kim.wilson@tceq.texas.gov Yes

Jerome Brooks VA jerome.brooks@deq.virginia.gov No

Nancy Kmet WA nkme461@ecy.wa.gov Yes

Tab le 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

Name EPA Office Email Present? 

(Yes/No)

Steve Chester OECA/IO chester.steven@epa.gov Yes

Lisa Lund OECA/OC/IO lund.lisa@epa.gov No

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

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

Chuck Freeman OEI/OIC/IESD freeman.charles@epa.gov No

Aditi Prabhu OGC/WLO prabhu.aditi@epa.gov No

Glynis Hill OP/ORPM/PRAD hill.glynis@epa.gov Yes