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 ofthe 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 toCWA 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 bycreating 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