Mr. Rick Duffy

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code: 2223A

Washington, DC 20460

RE: MPCA's Response Comments on Draft USEPA NPDES Compliance 

Monitoring

Strategy, 

 Wet Weather Significant Noncompliance Policy for Clean Water 

Act

Violations and the 

 ICIS NPDES Policy Statement.

Dear Mr. Duffy

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) would like to take this

opportunity to provide comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency's (EPA's) proposed Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) Inspection Frequency Guidance for the Core

Program and Wet Weather Sources as well as the other two policies 

listed

above. The MPCA is encouraged by the direction of the proposed

inspection strategy. Integrating a risk based approach in identifying

facilities for inspections has long been a goal for the MPCA. This 

will

enable the state of Minnesota (State) to direct its resources in a more

effective manner. 

The following are the MPCA's comments in response to the April 27, 

2007,

draft Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Inspection Frequency Guidance for the Core Program and Wet

Weather Sources.

Attachment 1 - Core NPDES Program Inspection Frequencies:

1.B.1. Goal and Measure for "Traditional" Minor Permittee Inspection -

OECA's goal is state/regional inspection frequency for each 

"traditional

minor permittee of at least once in each five (5) year term. The MPCA

prefers to target the inspection using more of a risk-based approach,

however, does believe this commitment can be achieved for traditional

municipal minors. 

1.B.1.a. - second paragraph " traditional minors that don't discharge

to impaired waters" states in part; "during the annual planning process

when determining which traditional minor facilities should be inspected

using comprehensive inspections" and "In order to ensure a minimum 

level

playing field, states and regions are encouraged (emphasis added) to

conduct a comprehensive inspection of at least 5% of their traditional

universe." This implies that states need to identify these facilities

and commit to CEIs each year; it then goes on to state that it is

"encouraged." The MPCA agrees with the encouraged goal of 5 percent of
the total "traditional" minor facilities to be comprehensively 

inspected

annually and interprets that as a goal and not a commitment on the part

of the State. However, the identification of those facilities for the

annual commitment is not acceptable based on day to day compliance

changes with permittees, which consequently may change the priority

status for a comprehensive inspection at a particular group of

facilities.

1.B.1.b. - the requirement to identify facilities that are permitted to

discharge 303(d) and 305(b) pollutants to impaired waters is under

consideration and may be achievable given the traditional universe and

the once in five year inspection frequency by the MPCA, and may be one

of several criteria for inspection planning. 

1.C.1. Pretreatment audits - The MPCA finds this acceptable.

1.C.2. Pretreatment Compliance Inspections - The MPCA finds this

acceptable.

1.C.3. SIU Inspections paragraph 1 - The MPCA finds this acceptable.

1.C.3 paragraph 2 -The revised language would require permit language 

to

be modified requiring inspections by delegated programs.

1.D. Oversite - The MPCA has no comment on this provision.

1.E. Biosolids - The MPCA does not have a delegated program and cannot

comply with this provision. However, the MPCA does a comprehensive

audit on each major facility each year. 

2.A. Combined Sewer Overflows - The MPCA finds this acceptable.

2.B. Sanitary Sewer Overflows - The MPCA finds this acceptable.

2.C.1 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)

a. Phase I Audits - The MPCA finds this acceptable

b. Phase I Inspections - The MPCA finds this acceptable

c. Phase II Audits and Inspections - Due in large part to a 

Court

of Appeals ruling in Minnesota, the MPCA is required to conduct a

comprehensive review, public notice and approve all of the 239 SWPPPs

received between June 1, 2006 and February 15, 2007. It is not 

possible

for the MPCA to inspect or audit all of the Phase II permits in seven

years. Consideration for SWPPP review and approval should be given

towards inspection and audit requirements. The MPCA does agree with

giving the State flexibility in prioritizing its inspections based on

different factors.

2.C.2 Industrial Stormwater - "The inspection goal for industrial

stormwater permits is to inspect at least 10 percent of the universe

each fiscal year. Given the size of the universe, if regions or states

experience difficulty meeting this goal, priority should be given to

inspecting facilities located in priority watersheds that contribute to
CWA Section 303(d) and 305(b) listings and at sites located near high

quality waters..." Our database currently contains approximately 1800

stormwater facilities, however, according to our Industrial Stormwater

Coordinator; new data indicates the total universe in Minnesota is

actually closer to 16,000 facilities. The expectation of inspecting 10

percent of the universe is unreasonable and unrealistic. The caveat

giving states and regions flexibility to focus on priority watersheds

does not help us much, as it is difficult to determine what facilities

discharge to 303(d) and 305(b) waters. In addition, since we are

finding such a drastic difference in the number of facilities in our

universe, it calls into question EPA's nationwide numbers.

2.C.3 Construction Stormwater - The MPCA finds this acceptable as long

as we get credit for the time invested in developing and maintaining

partnerships with local units of governments (LUG). With limited

resources, partnering with the LUGs has shown additional coverage for

the program as well as some successes.

2.C.3.a Phase I (Greater than 5 acres) The MPCA finds this acceptable

as long as LUG/partner inspections are considered part of the sum 

total.

2.C.3.b. Phase II (1 to 5 Acres) The MPCA finds this acceptable as 

long

as LUG/partner inspections are considered part of the sum total.

The following are MPCA comments on a draft of EPA's Interim Significant

Noncompliance Policy for Clean Water Act Violations Associated with

CSOs, SSOs, CAFOs and Storm Water Point Sources dated April 30, 2007.

I. Scope and Intent

Paragraph One: States in part that "This policy does not establish

compliance evaluation and enforcement commitments between EPA

Headquarters and the Regions or between EPA Regions and the states."

This statement seems contradictory to EPA's Final Single Event 

Violation

Data Entry Guide for Permit Compliance System (PCS) that was issued May

22, 2006, and requires states to identify and track SEVs which is

interpreted as a "compliance evaluation and enforcement commitment" to

identify, track and resolve SEVs. To support that interpretation, the

MPCA was criticized for not identifying and tracking SEVs during the

2007 State Review Framework - which implies SEVs are in fact 

commitments

and thus addressing them in accordance with this Interim Policy is a

commitment required of the State. Please advise.

The following are MPCA comments on a draft of EPA's ICIS NPDES Policy

Statement Draft, dated April 30, 2007.

The MPCA appreciates the changes made to the scope and applicability of

the Required ICIS Data Elements (RIDE). Subject to the following

conditions, the MPCA believes that the reduced scope and reasonable

phase-in make the requirements implementable.

The National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN) was

envisioned as a way of reducing the burden of national data sharing by
creating standard XML file formats and servers for environmental

information. States were expected to have an easier time getting data

to EPA (and other potential users) because they would be able to create

clearly defined standard outputs and then deliver those files to the

central data exchange (CDX), from whence EPA would take over and import

the data into the appropriate EPA-managed system, if desired. 

The MPCA remains concerned about the risk of being caught between the

minimum data sharing expectations of the NPDES program and the 

technical

progress of NEIEN/CDX. MPCA has first hand experience with CDX 

capacity

issues in other programs, and we are concerned that these issues may

arise with ICIS-NPDES. If EPA is willing to stipulate that delivery of

complete, well-formed data files to the CDX satisfies state reporting

requirements, the increase is potentially doable. If the EPA insists

that the data be delivered to and installed in ICIS-NPDES by the states

as a condition of meeting the requirement, it is a potentially

program-stopping burden. 

The MPCA would like to be assured that any proposed phase-in timelines

will be flexible, with expansion of the mandatory data elements

contingent upon the CDX and EPA staff being fully prepared to function

as the portal to receive data for incorporation into ICIS-NPDES.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If there 

are

questions regarding these comments, please contact Sally Patrick of our

staff at 651-297-4786.

Sincerely,

Gaylen Reetz

Division Director

Regional Division

GR/SP:wgp