Wastewater Point Source Permitting, Compliance … Point Source Permitting, Compliance and Enforcement ... Printed/copied on paper with at least ... the MPCA has reduced the backlog,

Progress Report:

Wastewater Point SourcePermitting, Compliance

and Enforcement

REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

..Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

rebrud'Y 2003

ContentsExecutive SummaryIntroductionChallenges to Improving the

Permit ProcessCurrent MPCA StaffingRecommendations by the Office of

the Legislative Auditor,January 2002

Blue Ribbon Task ForceThe Goal: Increase the Number of

Permits IssuedThe Results: Significant Progress in

Increasing Permit Issuance in2002

Prioritizing Permit ApplicationsStabilization Pond BatchingThe Goal: Inspect More Facilities,

Major and MinorAssessing PenaltiesThe Results: More Inspections,

Compliance GainsFuture of the Wastewater Point-

Source ProgramPublic ScrutinyRecommendationsContactsAppendices I-VII

Cost of Report PreparationStaff time $5,250Printing costs $ 750TOTAL $6,000

This report can be made available inother formats, including Braille, largetype, audiotape or disk, upon request.

Printed/copied on paper with at least30 percent postconsumer waste

page 178

1010

1112

13

131416

1717

19

212223

The mission of the

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

is to help Minnesotans

protect and improve

the environment.

520 Lafayette Road NorthSt. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194(651) 296-6300Toll-free/TTY (800) 657-3864

24

www.pca.state.mn.us Page 1

This report describes the Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency’s (MPCA’s) efforts to protect, maintain andimprove the environment by ensuring that facilitiesdischarging to the state’s waters are properly permittedand in compliance with federal and state law.

In May 2001, the Legislative Audit Commissionauthorized a review of the MPCA’s performance in thepermit issuance, compliance monitoring andenforcement aspects of the wastewater point-sourceprogram. The Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA)recommendations, published January 24, 2002, were:

With regard to wastewater point-source permitting:The Legislature should require the MPCA to prepare aprogress report prior to the 2003 legislative sessionthat addresses:n The status of the agency’s permit backlog;n Improvements in the permitting process, including

(but not limited to) permit forums, time limits,permit priority-setting and phosphorus and mercuryissues.n Consistent ways to track the productivity of permit-

related staff.

With regard to wastewater compliance and enforcement:The MPCA should:n Consider options for increasing its number of

inspections per full-time equivalent (FTE) staffposition;n Update its “enforcement response matrix” and

ensure that staff uses it consistently;n Consider options for reducing the number of

instances where permittees fail to submit requiredreports; and

n Periodically monitor trends in permit violations,inspections completed and inspector productivity.

This report summarizes the MPCA’s progress, bothprior to and following the OLA report, to speedissuance of wastewater permits and increasecompliance and enforcement activities, as well asmaintain the wastewater point-source program as awhole. It has been prepared for the MinnesotaLegislature, as required in Laws 2002, Chapter 382,Section 5, found at www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/slaws/2002/c382.html.

Permitting: Results andProcess ImprovementsThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)defines major facilities as those discharging greaterthan one million gallons per day of effluent; Minnesotahas 86 majors. Those with less than one milliongallons per day are defined as minors; Minnesota has1308 minors. These definitions are used throughoutthis report.

The MPCA’s efforts to increase the number ofwastewater point-source permits issued has met orexceeded its first targets.

n During 2001 and 2002, the MPCA increased thepercentage of major facility permits that are up-to-date from 45 percent in January 2002 to 67 percentas of December 31, 2002. The backlog of out-of-date water quality major facility permitsdropped from 55 percent to 33 percent,exceeding the established goal of 38 percent.

Executive Summary

Page 2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

n The MPCA increased the percentage of minorfacility permits that are up-to-date from 55 percentin January 2002 to 70 percent as of December 31,2002. The backlog of out-of-date minor facilitywastewater permits dropped from 45 percent to30 percent, exceeding the established goal of 38percent.

The MPCA effort will continue in calendar year 2003,with backlog targets of 18 percent for majorfacilities and 28 percent for minor facilities by theend of December 2003.

Many strategies were combined to achieve theseoutcomes. The MPCA:

n Established clear goals, lines of authority,responsibility and communication among all ofthe MPCA involved in wastewater point-sourcepermitting activities. From the Commissioner’sOffice through the permit writers, staff membersestablished and met ambitious goals. Staff knowsthat wastewater point-source permitting is a highpriority. The MPCA tracks individual permits andthe backlog as a whole, focuses attention oncompleting permits efficiently and recognizes thesuccesses of permitting staff.n Reallocated MPCA resources to achieve results.

In November 2001, the legislature allowed theMPCA to reallocate four full-time equivalents(FTEs), in addition to necessary clerical support andmanagement oversight, to wastewater point-source

permitting. In addition, other aspects of thewastewater point source program that affectpermitting were enhanced and special projects andother work unrelated to permit issuance were“parked” to focus on the backlog.n Established clear priorities among permit

applications. The MPCA placed new or expandeddischargers that were financially viable and ready toconstruct, permit modifications, noncompliantfacilities and permits that had passed a five-yearexpiration date at the top of the priority list. Bydoing so, the MPCA facilitated the needs ofpermittees while working on permits with the mostpotential impacts on the environment.n Examined the workload to identify and

streamline issuance of similar types of permits.When evaluation of expired permits revealed that 20percent or more of the backlog consisted ofstabilization pond permits, the MPCA staff batchedthose permits. Common boilerplate language andapplication of laws, rules and standards streamlinedthe process and allowed the MPCA to issue allbacklogged stabilization pond permits by November2002. More batches have been identified and will bemanaged similarly.n Removed infrastructure problems hampering

permitting staff. The MPCA made significantefforts to remove impediments to efficient permitissuance by making improvements to the DELTAdatabase used to write and track permits, developingpermit forums for peer review and mentoring ondifficult permits, enhancing training, reducing the

2 0 %

2 5 %

3 0 %

3 5 %

4 0 %

4 5 %

5 0 %

5 5 %

6 0 %

% M a j o r N P D E SP e r m i t s E x p i r e d a s o fE n d o f M o n t h

% N P D E S P e r m i t sE x p i r e d a s o f E n d o fM o n t h

% M i n o r N P D E SP e r m i t s E x p i r e d a s o fE n d o f M o n t h

% N P D E S P e r m i t sE x p i r e d a s o f E n d o fS t a t e F i s c a l Y e a r

2 8 % G o a lE s t a b l i s h e d i n 1 9 9 6b y B l u e R i b b o nC o m m i t t e e

FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 Jun02 Jul02 Aug02 Sep02 Aug02

Blue Ribbon Goal (28%)

Wastewater TreatmentFacility (NPDES) PermitBacklog

Progress SinceJune 2002

Note: the state fiscal year (FY) is July 1 through June 30


number of water permitting supervisors from six totwo, and implementing a “hands-on” managementstyle with monthly or quarterly staff check-ins.n Identified external barriers that drive permit

delays and devised strategies to overcome them.Policy issues related to mercury monitoring andphosphorus limits have delayed many major permits,and the MPCA has recommendations regardingphosphorus. (Market forces have eliminatedobstacles to mercury monitoring.) Moremanagement involvement in complex orcontentious permit negotiation, efforts to identifystreamlined methods of community involvement,and other strategies are underway.n The MPCA established time tracking for all

employees in January 2002, allowing managersto monitor productivity of staff. Standards havebeen established in staff work plans of timelinessof permit issuance, number of permits expected,timeliness of establishing effluent limits and otherlandmarks, which are tracked monthly and quarterly.

Compliance and Enforcement:Results, Process ImprovementsAs the OLA reported, the number of MPCA facilityinspections declined to 17 percent in federal fiscal year2000 and 12 percent in 2001. In addition, facilitycompliance levels have room for improvement.Approximately 69 to 82 percent of Minnesota’s majorfacilities have been in “significant compliance” inrecent years. While this is comparable to statistics forother Midwestern states and the nation, the MPCA setand met aggressive targets for compliance.

The strategy for improving compliance andenforcement efforts consists of increasing the numberof facility inspections. The MPCA has met orexceeded its inspection goals for federal fiscal year2002 (to October 1, 2002):

n The goal for minor facility inspections per FTE peryear was an average of 24. To date, the average is26.5 minor facility inspections per FTE per year.n The MPCA staff inspected 70 percent of major

facilities, a total of 61 out of 86, in 2002. Inaddition, 10 wastewater permit inspections wereperformed at facilities considered major in one ofthe other media.n The MPCA staff inspected 23 percent of minor

facilities, 295 out of 1,308, in 2002. The goal was

20 percent of all minor facilities.n During the federal fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001

through September 30, 2002), MPCA staff issued 18Notices of Violation (NOVs), 15 AdministrativePenalty Orders (APOs) and eight StipulationAgreements for compliance problems.

The MPCA effort will continue in federal fiscal year2003, with goals of inspecting all major facilitiesannually (86) and 20 percent of minor facilities(262) before October 1, 2003. The compliance goalfor 2003 is 90 percent of minor and 95 percent ofmajor facilities in significant compliance. TheMPCA has made major inroads on these compliancegoals (see graphs on page 4). The strategies used toachieve these improvements are specific to compliancemonitoring and enforcement:

n Established clear goals, lines of authority,responsibility and communication amongMPCA staff involved in wastewater point-sourcecompliance monitoring and enforcement.n Reallocated MPCA resources to achieve results.

In November 2001, the legislature allowed theMPCA to reallocate two FTEs to wastewater point-source compliance and enforcement.n Established clear priorities for inspections and

enforcement cases. The MPCA updated itsmajor and minor facility enforcement responsematrices and tracked all permitted facilities forcompliance. The MPCA is developing a SignificantNoncompliance tracking system for minor facilitiesthat mirrors the tracking system that the EPA usesfor major facilities. Two of three components arecompleted -- tracking significant effluentviolations and nonsubmittal of DischargeMonitoring Reports (DMRs).n Improved infrastructure and tools for

compliance staff. The MPCA has created aninternal Web page for inspectors, includinginspection report templates, inspection checklists,performance reports, the Regional EnvironmentalManagement Inspection Strategy, technical guidance,hot links to statutes and rules, the EnforcementResponse Plan, and time-tracking guidance.n The MPCA established time tracking for all

employees in January 2002, allowing managersto monitor productivity of staff. Inspectorproductivity can be monitored and tracked, toidentify problems earlier and resolve them faster.


Future of the WastewaterPoint-Source ProgramBy focusing intently on wastewater point-sourcepermitting and compliance/enforcement, the MPCAstaff has addressed a large portion of the permitbacklog and improved compliance monitoringsignificantly. But the wastewater point-sourceprogram consists of more than permits,inspections and enforcement actions.

By making permitting, inspection and enforcement apriority, the MPCA has reduced the backlog, increasedthe number of inspections and noted significantcompliance among permittees. Work on emergingissues, innovative or complex permits, permit-relatedpolicy issues, environmental review and other aspectsof the wastewater point-source program did not getdone.

The wastewater point-source program has beenchronically underfunded for many years (see January2002 OLA report on MPCA funding atwww.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/2002/pe0202.htm. The complexity of permits, new typesof permits, new standards, new laws and new water-quality priorities increase the effort needed inpermitting, compliance, enforcement and other areasof the wastewater point-source program while staffingand funding have eroded.

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July

Augu

st

Septe

mberOcto

ber

Novem

ber

December

Janu

ary

Febru

aryMarc

h April

MayJu

ne July

Augu

st

Septe

mber

Majors in SignificantCompliance

Majors with No EffluentCompliance Issues

Compliance Goal

2001 2002

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

July

Au

gu

st

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ob

er

No

vem

ber

Dec

emb

er

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

Ju

ne

July

Au

gu

st

M i n o r s i nS i g n i f i c a n tC o m p l i a n c e

M i n o r s w i t h N oE f f l u e n tC o m p l i a n c eI s s u e sG o a l2001 2002

Percent of NPDES Major and MinorPermittees in Significant Compliance

Engineers8%

Other 7%

Effluent Review

9%

Compliance/Enforcement

19%

Permit Writers 23%

Environmental Review 6%Supervisors

7%

Clerical Support

10%

Data Mgmt. 4%

Managers 4%

Mining/Other Tech. Assistance 3%

Hydrologists 3%

Policy/Rules/Pollution Prevention

2%

Pretreatment 1%

Training 1%

Citizen Asst. and Public Info. 1%

Wastewater Point-Source Program StaffThe OLA Report focused on permitting andcompliance/enforcement activities (in green)


The major forces and trends predicted to affect thefuture of the wastewater point-source programinclude:

n Funding water quality. Current water-quality feesdo not cover the MPCA’s staff costs for permitting,inspections, compliance determination andenforcement. If associated essential activities suchas standard setting and effluent review, ruledevelopment, environmental review, technicalassistance, engineering, hydrology and administrativeoverhead are added, then fees cover less than 24percent of the MPCA’s costs for wastewater pointsource efforts. These costs are currently defrayedby the state General Fund and federal funds.Federal funding for wastewater permitting andcompliance has remained flat, and thus has erodeddue to inflation. The legislature has reduced GeneralFund “bridge” funding by five percent every yearduring fiscal years 1998 - 2001.n Competing for priority. According to MPCA’s

2000 305(b) report to the EPA, 14 percent ofMinnesota’s water pollution comes from pointsources; 86 percent from nonpoint sources. Amongthose water-quality issues competing withwastewater point-source regulation for funding are:industrial and construction stormwater permits,sewer overflow collection system permits, one-timedischargers, nutrient reduction, impaired watersefforts and other watershed management efforts.Wastewater point-source activities must be balancedwith other water program needs to maintain gains inwater quality.n Federal expectations. While the MPCA has set

and met ambitious goals for permit issuance andinspections, further efficiencies can only be gainedby developing and implementing streamliningmeasures. The MPCA can realistically accomplishan 18 percent backlog on major permits and 28percent on minor, a significant improvement. Thenational goals are 10 percent for major facilities and25 percent for minors -- until 2004, when the minorfacility goal drops to 10 percent. The EPA isworking with the MPCA on a streamlining processfor permitting point sources. This work will beprioritized against other critical programs and couldbe delayed if additional resources are not available.

n Lack of program development. Innovation,process improvements, training, technologicalupgrades, development of laws and rules,community involvement, trend and data analysis,standard-setting and watershed-based services taketime from permit-writing, inspections andenforcement. Program development efforts arecurrently lacking, because resources are focused onproduction.n Economic impacts. There are substantial costs

associated with lack of prompt wastewater pointsource permitting and enforcement. From apermitting standpoint, delays in permit issuance canresult in lost economic development opportunitiesfor municipalities and industries. From anenforcement standpoint, an inability to addressproblems and violations can result in resourcedegradation affecting tourism, fishing, recreationand public health. Cost-benefit analyses ofwastewater point source funding should considerthese impacts.n Stakeholder scrutiny. The wastewater point-

source program has been a focus of public scrutiny,in part because end-of-pipe impacts are visual,measurable and understood, while nonpoint sourcesof water pollution are not. Water plays a large role inthe state’s life and economy, and people notice andvoice concern over the degradation of lakes, riversand streams. This concern often translates to publicopposition of permits that are assumed to “permit”pollution rather than provide enforceable limits toreduce it. This slows down permit issuance, whichslows down improvements in point sources, whichallows further resource degradation and promptsmore criticism and complaints which needinvestigation.


December 2003. These backlog levels still fallbehind the EPA goals of 10 percent for majorand minor facilities.

Meeting federal permit backlog goals is onlyone indicator of wastewater point-sourceprogram success. Other program goalsinclude improving timeliness of permitissuance, increasing inspections, improvingcompliance monitoring, developingstreamlining measures, training wastewateroperators and providing the technical expertise(engineers, hydrologists, staff setting effluentlimits) to make the program work. TheMPCA estimates that an additional nine FTEs(an estimated $740,000 annually) will need tobe allocated to the wastewater point-sourceprogram in order for the MPCA to meetfederal goals and better protect the state’swaters.

The Minnesota Legislature should providea clear policy statement regardingphosphorus limits for municipal facilitiesdischarging more than 1,800 pounds ofphosphorus per year. Clarification aboutwhen limits apply to facility discharges wouldeliminate time-consuming disputes amongmunicipalities, nongovernmental organizationsand the MPCA. The MPCA could solicitinput from its stakeholders and develop arecommended approach for legislativeconsideration in 2004.

In 2002, the MPCA made substantial progress inreducing the backlog in wastewater point-sourcepermits and increasing inspections, but furtherprogress will require a partnership with the legislature,facility owners and operators with wastewater permits,the EPA, interest groups and citizens.

The Minnesota Legislature should developa broad-based, stable funding source tosupport core water resource protectionfunctions. The wastewater point-sourceprogram is a core function of the MPCA,required by both state and federal laws. Feeincreases and appropriations for performingthis core function have not been forthcomingfrom the legislature. If the MinnesotaLegislature wants to maintain the gains inwater quality that the state has achievedthrough permitting and compliance activitiesduring the past 30 years, broad-based, stablefunding will be crucial.

The Minnesota Legislature should giveguidance to the MPCA regardingallocation of resources necessary to meetnational Environmental Protection Agencytargets for expired wastewater point-sourcepermits and to operate an adequateprogram.

The MPCA has made significant progress inthe last year by reducing the major permitbacklog from 55 percent to 33 percent andminor permit backlog from 45 percent to 30percent. The MPCA is well on the way toreach the goal of 18 percent for majorfacilities and 28 percent for minor facilities by

The MPCA Citizens’ Board:Involvement in Permitting

The MPCA is unique among state agencies inhaving a nine-member Citizens’ Board governingthe agency. By law, the Commissioner is the chairof the Board and all members are appointed bythe Governor to staggered terms. One membermust represent organized labor, one must beknowledgeable about agriculture, up to two maybe local government officials, but all are citizenmembers. The Board adopts agency rules, acts onrequests for variances, decides on whetherenvironmental assessment worksheets or impactstatements are needed or adequate, considerscontested-case hearing requests, and reviewsbroad policies. The Board’s regular meetings areopen to the public.

3

Recommendations

1

2


IntroductionThis report describes the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s effortsto protect, maintain and improve the environment by ensuring thatfacilities that discharge to the state’s waters are properly designed,permitted and monitored for compliance with federal and state law.

In May 2001, the Legislative Audit Commission authorized a limitedreview of MPCA’s performance, focusing on MPCA’s permit issuance,compliance monitoring and enforcement in the wastewater point-sourceprogram.

This report summarizes the MPCA’s progress, both prior to andfollowing the OLA report, to speed issuance of water quality permits andincrease compliance and enforcement activities. It has been prepared forthe Minnesota Legislature, as required in Laws 2002, Chapter 382, Section5 at www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/slaws/2002/c382.html.

It comprises both those actions recommended by the OLA, as wellas other process improvements implemented by the MPCA in thewastewater point-source program, which consists of manyfunctions beyond permitting and compliance/enforcement.Strategies that have shown significant success or posed significantchallenges are emphasized, to provide legislators with a qualitative as wellas quantitative view of the wastewater point-source program.

MPCA Authorities forWastewater RegulationThe MPCA’s wastewater point-source program makesup only part of the state’s environmental protectionefforts to preserve the state’s lakes, rivers, streams andground water. This is because the sources of waterpollution have changed. In the early days ofenvironmental protection, the MPCA focused on “end-of-pipe” or point-source pollution – large industriesand municipalities that treated and dischargedwastewater to surface waters. A strong wastewaterpoint-source program is essential for maintaining thesubstantial gains in water quality achieved through 30years of point-source water-pollution control.

Today, the MPCA is focusing not only on wastewaterpoint sources, but other categories of point andnonpoint sources as well – feedlots, industrial and

municipal stormwater, individual sewage treatmentsystems (ISTS), farm field runoff and bank erosion,for example. According to a recent MPCA report tothe EPA, 14 percent of Minnesota’s water pollutiontoday comes from point sources; 86 percent comesfrom nonpoint sources. Balancing limited resourcesfor water quality programs is sometimes a difficult task.

Water Pollution Come From?

86%

14%

Point Source

NonpointSource

Where doesMinnesota’s waterpollution come from?


As part of the MPCA’s core functions as a regulatoryagency, the MPCA issues wastewater point sourcepermits for municipal and industrial facilities thatdischarge wastewater to surface water or land throughdiscrete discharge points. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) has delegated to the MPCAthe authority to issue National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permits. The MPCAalso issues State Disposal System (SDS) permits eitherconcurrently with the NPDES permit or for activitiesnot addressed through the NPDES program.

Major and Minor PermitsPermits fall into two different categories, dependingupon a facility’s discharge rate to the receiving water.The distinction between the “major” and “minor”permits is important: major facility permits have morerequirements, need more oversight, take longer tocomplete than minor permits and discharge a muchgreater volume of wastewater. The EPA classifiesmunicipal facilities with a greater than one milliongallon per day (MGD) discharge rate as major facilities.

Those with less than one MGD are defined as minorfacilities. EPA closely monitors the permitting andcompliance activities at major facilities.

MPCA Water Permitting Work LoadThe MPCA’s progress report focuses on the substantialworkload represented by these 1394 permits (86 major,1308 minor), but NPDES permits are issued for otherdischarge impacts not discussed here because they werenot included in the OLA report. These includepretreatment (special discharge limits for significantindustrials users of a municipal system), biosolids(residuals left from wastewater treatment processes),industrial storm water (runoff from industrial sites),construction storm water (runoff from constructionactivities) and municipal storm water (runoff from citystreets).

Permit/Process Complexityn The permitting process has become one

implementation tool for broader MPCA and EPApolicy initiatives.n The standards-setting process for toxics reviews,

nondegradation issues, mercury-reductionconsiderations or variance requests complicates somepermits.n The number of permit modifications and variance

requests has increased.n The MPCA staff spends time providing up-front

administrative and technical assistance on projectsunable to secure funding.

Stakeholders Playing an Active Rolen Organized and legally sophisticated groups challenge

many MPCA policies during the public notice processon NPDES permits.n Permittees are resisting additional requirements placed

into permits.

Program Management Issuesn When ongoing facility noncompliance is integrated

into a facility’s permitting process, reissuance issubstantially slowed.n Before January 2002, a comprehensive system for

tracking the progress of permit issuance had beenlacking.n The water quality DELTA database, the MPCA

computerized permit-management system, needsadditional development to make it a more effectivetool for permitting and compliance tracking activity.n Vacated permit-writer positions remained unfilled due

to budget limitations in 2000 and 2001.n Training for new permitting supervisors and staff is

needed on a routine basis.n The 1998 MPCA reorganization caused various

problems, many of which have been addressed by theNovember 2001 organization change.

Challenges to Improving the Permit ProcessEven though very few states have met the national goals of no more than a 10 percent backlog in major and minorfacility permits, many states have experienced more movement toward this goal than has Minnesota. Here are somechallenges that faced the MPCA in improving the permit process.


During the past 10 years, the number of permitsredefined by the EPA as National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) has grown considerably.Despite developing efficient ways to expedite thesenew permits, permit efficiency does not eliminate theneed for complaint response, technical assistancerequests, inspections and enforcement expectationsregarding those permits. This overall picture isimportant, because agency responsibilities are definedin statute and a smaller staff complement must bespread over growing water program work loads.

Impacts of Wastewater Point SourcesControlling water pollution discharged fromwastewater point sources continues to be an importantcore function of the MPCA. According to the mostrecent federal data for Minnesota, an estimated 60,315pounds of chemicals were released from industrialsources in 2000, as well as 8.8 million pounds ofchemicals from municipal wastewater treatmentfacilities.

Constraining and reducing these discharges andmonitoring compliance is important to theenvironment. The state has 92,000 miles of rivers andstreams and 11,842 lakes of 10 acres or more, andmany are receiving waters for wastewater from pointsources. These discharges have impacts on fish,wildlife, biological diversity and habitat.

However, discharges have economic impacts as well.Tourism contributes $10 billion annually to the state’seconomy, supporting 117,000 jobs. People clearlycome for water recreation; 98 percent of Minnesota’sresorts, 80 percent of campgrounds and 24 percent ofhotels are located on lakes and rivers, attracting morethan 1.5 million anglers each year who spend anestimated $846 million.

Toxic Release Inventory Data on Industrial Water Discharges and Publicly Owned Treatment Works

0

2

4

6

8

10

1988 1991 1994 1997 2000Year Reported

Am

ou

nt

in M

illio

ns

of

Po

un

ds

Water

PubliclyOwnedTreatmentWorks

Funding for Wastewater Point Source RegulationThe MPCA receives most of its funding forwastewater point-source staff from four sources: thestate environmental fees and taxes (37 percent), thestate General Fund (20 percent), federal funds (31percent) and the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority(10 percent).

According to a report by the Office of the LegislativeAuditor, “Minnesota Pollution Control AgencyFunding,” Minnesota’s water quality fee revenues donot cover the cost of MPCA’s water-related regulatoryactivities. Currently, water quality fees cover anestimated 24 percent of staff and associated support.

Current Staff ComplementThe agency’s 1998 decentralization placed staff in allmedia programs closer to where their services wereneeded throughout the state. The goal was to improveservice delivery and ensure that decision-making wasfaster. Accordingly, regional FTE numbers increasedfrom 116 in 1997 to 187 by the end of 2002. Inaddition to staff actually providing environmentalregulatory activity, additional administrative andmanagement support had to be assigned locally toassist them. The FTE numbers for program activitydescribed in this report include technical staff, as wellas administrative and management support.

Staff working on wastewater point-source permittingand compliance/enforcement are located in all officesand all divisions. The Majors and Remediation (MAR)Division provides permits, compliance determinationand enforcement for major facilities. The RegionalEnvironmental Management (REM) Division providessimilar services for minor facilities. Technical supportstaff members are located in various divisions,depending upon their primary responsibilities.

The MPCA staff involved with wastewater pointsources also:

n Reviews routine compliance data from permittedfacilities;n Performs facility inspections – announced,

unannounced, complaint-related and multimedia;n Undertakes enforcement activities at sites not in

compliance with state and federal regulations;n Reviews, comments on, and sometimes prepares

Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) or

IndustrialWastewaterDischarges

MunicipalWastewaterTreatmentDischarge

Toxic Release Inventory Data on Industrial Wastewater andMunicipal Wastewater Treatment Core Chemical Discharges


In recent years, the MPCA’s wastewater point-sourceprogram has faced funding shortfalls and beencriticized for unsatisfactory performance. During the2001 legislative session, some legislators expressedconcern about whether the MPCA’s core functions,such as permitting and enforcement, were beingadequately managed by the agency.

In May 2001, the Legislative Audit Commissionauthorized a limited review of MPCA’s performance,focusing on MPCA’s permit issuance, compliancemonitoring and enforcement in the wastewater point-source program. The recommendations that emergedfrom this audit are as follows, broken down into maintasks for convenience:

With regards to permitting:The Legislature should require the MPCA to prepare aprogress report prior to the 2003 legislative sessionthat addresses:n The status of the agency’s permit backlog;n Improvements in the permitting process, including

(but not limited to) permit forums, time limits,permit priority-setting and phosphorus and mercuryissues.n Consistent ways to track the productivity of permit-

related staff.

With regards to compliance and enforcement:The MPCA should:n Consider options for increasing its number of

inspections per full-time equivalent (FTE) staffposition;n Update its “enforcement response matrix” and

ensure that staff uses it consistently;n Consider options for reducing the number of

instances where permittees fail to submit requiredreports; andn Periodically monitor trends in permit violations,

inspections completed and inspector productivity.

Recommendationsof the LegislativeAuditor

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) if apermit is being sought for a new facility orexpansion;n Coordinates public involvement activities for

permits of high public interest;n Reviews engineering plans and specifications for

new, updated or expanding facilities;n Determines appropriate water quality standards to

apply to permitted facilities;n Reports progress to MPCA management, the

Governor, the Minnesota Legislature, the EPA andthe public;n Maintains a database of permitted facilities and

compliance issues;n Prepares Citizens’ Board items, findings of fact and

expert testimony on contested case hearingsinvolving permits or rule hearings; andn Evaluates emerging science regarding water

pollution and its health or ecological impacts, as wellas its implications for water quality permits.

Table 1 shows the current number of FTEs assignedto the wastewater point-source program.

Table 1: MPCA FTEs Assigned to theWastewater Point-Source ProgramProgram Function FTEsPermit writers 22.50Compliance/enforcement 18.25Clerical support 10.00Water quality standards/effluentreview

9.25

Engineers 7.75Supervisors 7.50Environmental review 6.00DELTA system/data management 4.25Managers 4.00Technical assistance/mining 3.25Hydrologists 2.75Policy development, rule-writingand pollution prevention

1.75

Pretreatment 1.00Training 1.00Customer assistance 0.50Public information 0.50TOTAL FTEs 100.25


History Lesson:Blue Ribbon Task Force

The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Funding Minnesota’sWater-Quality Programs was established by actionsof the legislature and Governor in Laws ofMinnesota 1995, Chapter 220 (Sec. 2, Subd. 2). Ashortfall in the budget for water quality programsspurred the effort, which involved a wide range ofstakeholders.

The Task Force made a number of recommendationsin 1996, including “stretch” goals for permit issuanceand staff performance, implementation of a flow-based fee system, a time-tracking system and otherstrategies to improve permitting and enforcementefficiency and stabilize funding.

Why weren’t the Task Force recommendationsimplemented? Many were implemented, but somewere not. The reasons include the failure of threerequests to the legislature for increased fee fundingrecommended by the Task Force. The MPCA’s 1998reorganization, the state’s focus on developing thefeedlot program, and the increasingly high priority ofnonpoint source pollution problems also preventedTask Force recommendations from beingimplemented.

This report summarizes the MPCA’s progress, bothprior to and following the OLA report. It comprisesboth those actions recommended by the OLA, aswell as other process improvements implementedby the MPCA in the wastewater point-sourceprogram. Strategies that have shown significantsuccess or posed significant challenges are emphasized,to provide legislators with a qualitative as well asquantitative view of the wastewater point-sourceprogram. Parts of the report highlighted pertaindirectly to the OLA’s recommendations.

The report updates a July 2002 Special Report widelydisseminated by the MPCA outlining the agency’s planfor implementing the OLA recommendations (seeAppendix I). The Special Report described goals forpermitting, inspections and enforcement, includingnumerical targets, for both the short- and long-term.A summary of results of these strategies to date will beincluded in each section of the report.

The agency’s 1998decentralization placedstaff in all mediaprograms closer to wheretheir services were neededthroughout the state. Thegoal was to improveservice delivery andensure that decision-making was faster..Accordingly, regional FTEnumbers increased from116 in 1997 to 187 by theend of 2002.


The wastewater point-source permitting program setambitious targets for staff to achieve in terms of thenumber of permits issued and individual staffperformance. By developing strategies to improveefficiency, track progress, set priorities, developconsistency and innovate, the MPCA is achieving itsfirst landmarks. The steps that led to increased permitissuance during the last year are:

Step One: Set GoalsIn setting goals for wastewater point-sourcepermitting, the MPCA took into accountcommitments, resources and realities. Table 2 showsthe numerical goals and timeline established by theMPCA, along with reference values from the EPA andthe Blue Ribbon Task Force.

Step Two: Translate Goals into Work PlansTo achieve these reductions in the backlog, the MPCAintegrated the following targets into division workplans. This made clear what was expected of divisionmanagement and what outcomes were desired.

n The Majors and Remediation (MAR) Division goalwas to reissue 25 major facility permits by end ofDecember 2002.n The Regional Environmental Management (REM)

Division goal was to reissue 100 minor facilitypermits by end of December 2002.

Step Three: Develop Staff Productivity Goals toIntegrate into Work PlansThe next step has been to formulate staff productivitygoals, looking at reasonable timeframes for permitissuance, setting timelines and integrating these goalsinto division, section, unit and individual work plans.This made clear what was expected at all levels in theorganization and what outcomes were desired. Theseproductivity goals include:

n An average of 13.6 permits will be issued perpermit-related FTE per year. This goal applies tothe entire wastewater point-source permittingprogram, both majors and minors.n A maximum of 120 days from the date a permit

application is assigned to a permit writer to a draftpermit being placed on public notice.n A maximum of 60 days from the date permit

application information is provided to technicalsupport staff to the date that technical support staffprovides permit writers with effluent limits for adraft permit.

Step Four: Develop and Implement ProcessImprovementsUsing information from the OLA report, the 1995Blue Ribbon Task Force Recommendations and thereport of internal design teams, the MPCA designedand implemented several types of processimprovements. Some of these improvements wereunderway before the OLA report was released, othersemerged after the OLA audit. This report containsprogress to date in implementing the processimprovements described. (See Appendix II for a listof process improvements.)

Step Five: Track Performance and EvaluateResultsIn January 2002, the MPCA implemented time trackingfor all staff, giving managers and supervisors data ontime spent on permitting. In addition, systems to trackprogress on permits have been implemented for bothmajor and minor facilities.

The Goal:Increase theNumber ofPermits Issued

Table 2: Timeframe and Goals for Reducing Wastewater Point-Source Permit BacklogExistingBacklog1/1/02

MPCA Goal12/31/02

MPCA Goal12/31/03

National Goal2003/2004

Blue RibbonTask ForceGoal

Majors 55% 38% 18% 10%/10% 28%Minors 45% 38% 28% 25%/10% 28%

25 majors100 minors


Who’s on First?Prioritizing Permit ApplicationsWith limited MPCA resources and permit applicantswith time and cost constraints, it is important toprioritize the permitting process to best serve theinterests of the majority of permittees. Therefore,developing a clear-cut priority list was important forMPCA staff attempting to clear the backlog.

The following criteria is used to prioritize projectsstatewide:n Priority 1: New or expanded dischargers that are

financially viable and ready to go into constructionor operation within six months of filing anapplication.n Priority 2: New or expanded dischargers that are

financially viable and ready to go to constructionafter six months.n Priority 3: Permit modifications without additional

construction constraints.n Priority 4: Noncompliant facilities that meet any of

the criteria listed above.n Priority 5: Permits that have passed the five-year

expiration date.n Priority 6: Permits that require changes because the

facilities discharge to waters that have beenidentified as impaired. These permits will beprioritized also to assure that the most impairedwaters are managed promptly.n Priority 7: All other types of permits.

The Results:SignificantProgress inIncreasing PermitIssuance in 2002

The MPCA’s efforts to increase the number of water-quality point-source permits issued has met orexceeded its first targets.

n The MPCA has increased the percentage of majorfacility permits that are up-to-date from 45 percentin January 2002 to 67 percent as of December 31,2002. The backlog of out-of-date water qualitymajor facility permits dropped from 55 percentto 33 percent surpassing the 2002 goal of 38percent.n The MPCA has increased the percentage of minor

facility permits that are up-to-date from 55 percentin January 2002 to 70 percent as of December 31,2002. The backlog of out-of-date minor facilitywater quality permits dropped from 45 percentto 30 percent, surpassing the 2002 goal of 38percent.

During the federal fiscal year, October 1, 2001 throughSeptember 30, 2002, the MPCA issued 337 totalpermits -- 127 general and 210 individual facilitywastewater point-source permits. Of these, 103 werepart of a batching process (see sidebar, page 14).

In July 2002, the MPCA issued a summary ofproposed goals, performance measurements andstrategies. Appendix III provides a summary of thesestrategies and progress to date.

27 majors310 minors


Key Successes, ChallengesCompressing the Timeframe from PermitApplication to IssuanceThe MPCA set a goal of 120 days (or roughly 17weeks) from the receipt of a completed permitapplication to placing the permit on public notice.This goal may be approachable in 2003, but could notbe achieved in 2002 because the focus has been on thepermits that have waited the longest. Most of thesepermits were backlogged well over 120 days at the timeof the OLA Report and the MPCA’s push to diminishthe backlog.

Progress is definitely moving in the right direction, andthe MPCA predicts substantial strides toward the 120-day goal in 2003. The following graph shows historicalinformation about the time lag between the date ofreceipt of application and permit issuance between1997 and 2002.

40.2

62.9

95.5108.6

133.7

113

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Weeks

Number of Weeks Between Permit Applicationand Issuance, 1997 - 2002

Stabilization Pond BatchingCertain types of wastewater point-source permitsapply to facilities with very similar features andpollution concerns. “Batching” involves identifyinggroups of similar facilities and developing permits inwhich significant permit conditions would be similaror identical.

Writing permits for batched facilities involves lesseffort, since boilerplate language or comparable waterquality effluent limits could be applied. In addition,an assigned staff group working exclusively on aparticular type of facility is able to quickly identifyroot problems, set up re-issuance strategies andextrapolate those strategies to other like permits.

Stabilization ponds for small municipal wastewatertreatment systems are a good example of facilitieswith many common features. The REM StabilizationPond “Batching” Project arose from analysis of thefocused wastewater backlog system, which revealedthat pond systems currently make up approximately20-25 percent of the current backlog and aregenerally low risk. For six months starting in March2002, two permit writers and a compliance personfocused their time on efficiently completing pondpermits.

The REM staff on the project completed all of thebacklogged stabilization pond permits in mid-August2002, as the result of this approach, with the last finalpermit issued post public notice in November 2002.This cleared 103 permits in roughly seven months.

Other potential batching projects now beingconsidered include wastewater permits for mechanicalplants, noncontact cooling water systems andmunicipal land-application facilities. After assessinghow well the batching works to both increase permitissuance and protect the environment, the MPCA willalso evaluate these types of facilities to determine if ageneral permit would be appropriate.

Quantity Versus ComplexityBoth MAR and REM Division staff worked hard tomeet the 2002 goals established by the plan, but thedifferences in success deserve discussion (27 majors,310 minors). Major facility permits take substantiallymore time to write, are much harder to negotiate withpermittees, are often controversial, sometimes requireCitizens’ Board approval, and often involve majorpolicy issues. The permit for the St. Cloud WastewaterTreatment Plant is a good case in point. The draftpermit was placed on public notice in December 2000.The permit has involved issues regarding a phosphoruseffluent limitation. There have been four Citizens’Board appearances regarding the St. Cloud permit,with a decision to issue the permit in December 2002.Staff time, Board time, policy research, legal costs andother resources are spent in these discussions.


Importance of Technical SupportThe technical support staff for the wastewater point-source permitting program develops effluent limits fordraft permits, reviews engineering and water qualityaspects of construction, writes rules, develops trainingand more. Inadequate numbers of technical supportexperts can create a “bottleneck” in the permitting

process. Among these technical support staff are theone-person program experts, in pretreatment, biosolidsand other specialty areas. The MPCA is consideringways in which these staff members can mentorcolleagues and extend expertise.


The steps to achieve more inspections and increases incompliance rates closely resemble those followed toincrease wastewater point-source permitting:

Step One: Set GoalsIn considering goals for inspection and compliance(referred to as “compliance monitoring” by the OLA),the MPCA considered a number of factors, includingEPA requirements, current staffing, significantnoncompliance rates and priorities for inspection.These goals were and are:

n The MPCA will inspect 70 percent of majorfacilities (61 total) before October 1, 2002, the endof the federal fiscal year.n The MPCA will inspect all major facilities (86)

before October 1, 2003, and annually thereafter.n The MPCA will inspect 20 percent of minor

facilities (262 total) annually.n Compliance rate goals for minor facilities is 90

percent and for major facilities 95 percent.

Step Two: Translate Goals into Work PlansThe MPCA integrated these targets into division workplans. This made clear what was expected of divisionmanagement and what outcomes were desired.

Step Three: Develop Staff Productivity Goals toIntegrate into Work PlansLooking at reasonable timeframes and resources, theMPCA developed the following productivity goal:

n The MAR staff were assigned to major facilities andmade accountable for inspections and enforcement.n The REM staff were assigned to minor facilities and

were expected to conduct an average of 24inspections per FTE per year.

Step Four: Develop and Implement ProcessImprovementsUsing information from the OLA report, the 1995Blue Ribbon Task Force Recommendations and thereport of internal design teams, the MPCA designedand implemented several types of processimprovements. See Appendix IV for a list of processimprovements.

Step Five: Track Performance, Evaluate ResultsIn January 2002, the MPCA implemented time trackingfor all staff, giving managers and supervisors data ontime spent on inspections and enforcement.

The Goal:Inspect More

Facilities

As the OLA reported, approximately 18 to 31 percentof Minnesota’s major facilities have been in “significantnoncompliance” in recent years. This is comparable toother Midwestern states and the nation. However, theOLA reported that facility compliance levels haveroom for improvement since 41 percent of majorfacilities and 45 percent of major facilities withNPDES permits exceeded effluent limits at least once.In addition, six percent of facilities never submittedrequired discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), andmany DMRs submitted were incomplete.

The MPCA has set ambitious compliance rate goals formajor and minor facilities and has made major inroadson these goals. (See graphs on page 4 for facilitycompliance rates.)

Further, the OLA reported that the number of MPCAfacility inspections declined from 32 percent in federalfiscal year 1995 to 17 percent in 2000 and 12 percent in2001. In 2002, the MPCA set inspection goals, met itsgoal for major facility inspections and has exceeded itsgoal for minor facility inspections.

The MPCA’s enforcement actions at wastewater point-source permitted facilities have been increasing since1997, as the graph below shows.

22

35

45 4855

38

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Wastewater Permit Enforcement Actions

61 majors262 minors


The Result:More Inspections,Compliance Gains

The MPCA built on existing strengths in thewastewater compliance monitoring and enforcementprogram to meet or exceed its goals for inspections.

n The MPCA has exceeded its goal for minor facilityinspections (an average of 24 per year per FTE). In2002, the average number of inspections perFTE in was 26.5.n The MPCA staff has inspected 70 percent of

major facilities, a total of 61 out of 86, in 2002.In addition, 10 water quality permit inspections wereperformed at facilities considered major in one ofthe other media.n The MPCA staff has inspected 23 percent of

minor facilities, a total of 295 out of 1,308, in2002. The goal was 20 percent.n During the federal fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001

through September 30, 2002), the MPCA staff hasissued 18 Notices of Violation (NOVs), 15Administrative Penalty Orders (APOs) andeight Stipulation Agreements for complianceproblems. This is on par with previous years interms of enforcement actions.

In July 2002, the MPCA issued a summary ofproposed goals, performance measurements andstrategies for compliance monitoring and enforcement.Appendix V. includes a summary of these goals, alongwith progress to date.

Assessing Penalties by the NumbersWhen the MPCA assigns penalties during anenforcement action, staff uses a formula thattakes into account the following factors:n The risks a violation posed to public health or

the environment.n Whether the violation is an isolated incident

or part of a pattern of violations.n The damage the violation causes to natural

resources.n Whether the violation was intentional or

accidental.n How quickly a violation was reported to

appropriate authorities.n Whether an operation achieves a financial

advantage over its competitors.n How prompt and cooperative a party is in

fixing the problem.

One penalty used increasingly by the MPCA inenforcement cases is the SupplementalEnvironmental Project (SEP). The regulatedparty must complete a project of some specificdollar amount that will benefit the communityaffected by the pollution. These generally fallwithin one or more of the following categories:

n Pollution prevention,n Pollution reduction,n Environmental restoration and protection,n Public health,n Assessments and audits,n Environmental compliance promotion orn Emergency preparedness or planning.

61 majors295 minors


Key Successes, ChallengesDo more inspections translate to moreenforcement?It is important to note that increasing the number offacility inspections does not necessarily translate tomore enforcement. Inspections are fact-findingmissions, and the end result is frequently advice,technical assistance, or confirmation of compliance.Operators of most permitted facilities want to complywith the law, although they may not know applicablerules and statutes or be aware of technology fixes forpollution problems. The desired goal is notenforcement, but compliance, however that may bemost productively achieved.

Compliance tracking system under constructionThe MPCA infrastructure designed to trackcompliance determination and enforcementinformation is still under construction, but has beensubstantially improved. The systems differ for majorfacilities (which have existing requirements fordocumentation) and minor facilities (where moreflexibility is allowed). Major and minor facility trackingsystems have been designed to be complementary.Among those factors being tracked are significant

At the end of the federal fiscal year 2002 (September 30, 2002), 94 percent of NPDESEPA Major Facilities were in significant compliance and 87 percent had no effluentcompliance issues.

During the same period, 90-91 percent of EPA Minor Facilities were in significantcompliance, and 84-85 percent had no effluent compliance issues.

effluent violations, Discharge Monitoring Report(DMR) nonsubmittals, compliance schedule violations,status of enforcement cases, lapse time betweendiscovering noncompliance and issuing an appropriateenforcement document, and more.

Wastewater operator training and recognitionneeds supportThe MPCA hosts many training opportunities forwastewater treatment plant operators, includingcertification and yearly recognition of those doing agood job protecting water quality and the environmentin their local communities. Through training andtechnical assistance, many compliance problems can beprevented. Wastewater operator training isunderfunded, and an investment in these popular andsuccessful efforts would pay great dividends.


By focusing intently on wastewater point-sourcepermitting and compliance/enforcement, the MPCAreduced a large portion of the permit backlog. Withcurrent resources, the MPCA can make more progress-- maintaining a permit backlog of 18 percent formajor facilities, 28 percent for minor facilities. Inaddition, the MPCA can maintain inspection rates of100 percent per year for major facilities and 20 percentper year for minor facilities. These are substantialimprovements within a short timeframe.

These improvements are a step toward meeting federalgoals and citizen expectations. The next challenges willinvolve prioritization.

n The national goal for major facilities permits is nomore than 10 percent backlog. With existingcircumstances and resources the MPCA can reducethe backlog to 18 percent.n The national goal for minor facilities permits is no

more than 25 percent backlog, with a reduction ofthat goal to 10 percent starting in 2004. The MPCAcan reduce the backlog to 28 percent (the goal in theBlue Ribbon Task Force recommendations).n To maintain water quality gains, the MPCA must

complete inspections at all major facilities andshould inspect 30 percent of minor facilitiesannually. Current resources stretch to coverinspections at major facilities, but the MPCA canonly perform inspections at 20 percent of minorfacilities each year. Further, not all complianceproblems and violations can be addressed withcurrent resources.

The MPCA has succeeded in issuing more permits andincreasing inspections by making these activities apriority. But this effort is a short-term fix for a long-term problem -- underfunding of the wastewaterpoint-source program. The Minnesota Legislatureshould provide guidance regarding program prioritiesand future funding.

Wastewater Point-Source FundingWater-quality permitting fees have never beencommensurate with the services the MPCA provides topermittees. At present, the wastewater point-sourcefees paid to the MPCA cover only 24 percent of theactual costs of operating this delegated program, if alltechnical activities, as well as clerical and managementoversight costs, are included.

This is especially true for major permits, which ofteninvolve lengthy discussions with permittees, policyquestions and public involvement. It is also truefor other wastewater point-source program activities,such as environmental review, standard setting,rulemaking, engineering, pretreatment and hydrology.

The MPCA has repeatedly requested legislative actionto fill the gap between this core federal and stateregulatory program’s basic needs and its actualresources.

In this context, the recently projected $4.2 billiondeficit in the state budget for 2004-2005 signals furtherdifficulties for the wastewater point-source program.Approximately 20 percent of wastewater point-sourcefunding is derived from the General Fund, which willbe one potential source of dollars to offset the deficit.

Future of theWastewater Point-Source Program


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1990 1995 2003

Municipal

Industrial

Construction

Stormwater Permit Workload Historyand Projections

Pre-Phase I Phase I Phase II

Federal ExpectationsThe national goals for permit backlog are 10 percent orless for major permits and 25 percent or less for minorpermits (changing to 10 percent in 2004). The EPAalso expects annual inspections of all major facilities,stormwater phase II permit issuance, a confined animalfeedlot regulatory program and total maximum dailyload (TMDL) studies for impaired waters, as well asimplementation of restoration activities. Sufficientfederal funding to achieve these objectives is notforthcoming.

The MPCA is working closely with EPA on a Region 5states NPDES permit streamlining effort for thewastewater program. The work group is looking atalternatives to facility-specific, five-year NPDESpermits, which is one of the MPCA’s long-termstrategies (see Appendices VI and VII). The MPCAwill strive toward fulfilling the EPA’s expectations foroperation of a wastewater point-source programwithin existing resource constraints.

Program Development NeedsFurther implementation of the long-term strategies inthe wastewater point-source permitting andcompliance/enforcement plan hinges on whethersufficient staff time is available to devote to programdevelopment: training, streamlining, innovations, trendanalysis, general permit development, rulemaking,better integration of permit writing and standardssetting, developing processes for emerging issues andfacilitating cross-training on such topics aspretreatment and biosolids.

Currently, 90 percent of permit writers’ time is spentwriting permits. The MPCA has contracted forassistance with identifying potential batches andgeneral permits, but the majority of staff in theprogram are tackling permit issuance, reissuance ormodification. Investment of time in developing betterways to achieve success in permitting and compliancemonitoring is limited for staff. However, during thenext year, a process improvement project will beundertaken, with results coming to bear in 2004.

Program development efforts to date have focused ontraining new permit writers, developing guidances anda permit writers’ training manual, working to improvedata tracking and management and streamlining theoperator training and awards effort. Future efforts toset up “low risk” permit teams, procedures for dealing

Competing for PriorityAccording to the MPCA’s 2000 305(b) report to theEPA, 14 percent of Minnesota’s water pollution comesfrom point sources; 86 percent from nonpoint sources.Wastewater permitting and compliance/enforcementresources must be balanced with other priorities.

In 1999, for example, the MPCA diverted fundingfrom wastewater point-source efforts to feedlots, torespond to concerns raised in the 1999 LegislativeAudit on Feedlots. Twelve employees from thewastewater program worked in feedlot regulation forone year to achieve changes recommended by theOLA. The competition for resources within the waterquality arena may be fierce in the near term. Amongthose water-quality issues looming:

nMunicipal, industrial and constructionstormwater permits required by the federal CleanWater Act. The chart below illustrates the estimatednumber of facilities required to have storm waterpermits beginning in March 2003.n Impaired waters. There are 1,779 lakes and rivers

defined as impaired in Minnesota’s 2002 303(d)submittal to the EPA. As studies begin todetermine total maximum daily loads for thesebodies of water -- and allocate controls -- majorefforts will be needed to integrate point- andnonpoint-source strategies to restore and maintainthe state’s waters. A separate legislative report hasbeen prepared on the needs of the impaired watersprogram.


simultaneously with permitting and enforcement at afacility, and coordinating permitting efforts withimpaired waters processes all require concentratedprogram development efforts.

The High Cost of Not Doing BusinessEconomic, health and environmental costs associatedwith delays in wastewater point-source permit issuanceand inadequate compliance/enforcement are rarelyweighed in decisions about these programs. However,those costs can be considerable:

n Postponed business construction or expansion. Ifcontruction cannot begin until a permit is issued orif financing is contingent upon a permit, delays canhave significant economic impacts.n Pressures on drinking water utilities and wastewater

plants downstream. Expired permits must befollowed, but a facility that has one may be releasingmore pollutants to the environment, putting agreater burden and cost on water users ordischargers downstream.n Effects on natural resources. Facilities with expired

permits or those not adequately monitored candamage natural resources with great economic valueto Minnesota. If fish populations deteriorate due towater quality problems, an estimated 1.5 millionanglers per year, who spend an estimated $846million in the state may vacation elsewhere.n Accidental releases of untreated effluent. While

many wastewater bypasses result from weather-related situations, others result from lack of afacility-wide overview and updating, which permitprocesses, inspections and operator trainingforestall.n Increased complaints response. The deterioration

of water quality that results from insufficientpermitting and compliance monitoring increasescomplaints and the time spent by federal, state andlocal officials in responding to concerns.n Erosion of public trust. MPCA’s inability to issue

timely permits and respond to violations has erodedcitizens’ trust, thereby increasing their suspicionsabout and participation in draft permit proceedings.n Litigation and contested case hearing requests.

Environmental groups, local governments,community coalitions and permittees themselveshave contested requirements and policies, causingincreased permit delays and backlogs. The expensesinvolved, to the state, permittees and citizens, can beconsiderable.

Public Scrutiny: Increased PublicInvolvement in Wastewater PermittingThe wastewater point-source program has repeatedlybeen the focus of public scrutiny in the legislature,environmental community, local government and thenews media, among others. This occurs because end-of-pipe pollution impacts are visual, measurable andunderstood, while nonpoint pollution is not. Waterplays a large role in the state’s life and economy, andpeople note and voice concern over degradation oflakes, rivers and streams. Other factors that stimulatemore public involvement:n Increasing population in Minnesota -- more people,

more opinions.n Increasing diversity of the state, bringing new and

different perspectives and issues (such asenvironmental justice) not previously raisedn Housing shortages that restrict people with

environmental concerns about their communitiesfrom moving easily.n Public safety concerns about water supplies,

wastewater plants and other infrastructure.n Information technologies making new science (or

misinformation) immediately accessible.

Public concern often translates to opposition of“permits to pollute,” slowing permit issuance andimprovements in water quality that permits wouldrequire. The resulting resource degradation promptsmore public criticism. Strategies to involve andeducate the public about controversial permits will beimportant in maintaining progress in the wastewaterpoint-source program.


Recommendations

The MPCA has made substantial progress in reducingthe backlog in wastewater point-source permits andimproving compliance monitoring. Further progresswill require partnerships with the legislature,permittees, local governments, the EPA, interestgroups and citizens.

In Minnesota, clean water resources are essential toour health, economy and way of life. Tourismcontributes $10 billion annually to the state’s economy,supporting 117,000 jobs. Our rich resources include:

n 11,842 lakes of 10 acres or more;n more than one trillion gallons of ground water; andn 92,000 miles of rivers and streams.

The wastewater point source program is a corefunction of the MPCA. The recommendationsoutline steps to protect and improve Minnesota’swater quality into the future.

Recommendation 1: The Minnesota Legislatureshould develop a broad-based, stable fundingsource to support core water resource protectionfunctions.

Wastewater point-source program is a core function ofthe MPCA. Fee increases and appropriations forperforming this core function have not kept up to thecosts. Currently, fees cover only 24 percent of the costof these functions and associated technical activities,clerical support, environmental review andmanagement oversight. Federal funding has remainedlevel, but inflation has eroded those federal dollars sothat they buy less.

The MPCA has worked with stakeholders on possiblefunding options, which can be found on the MPCA’sWeb site at www.pca.state.mn.us/about/funding.html. Stakeholder meetings were conductedin 2002 on the MPCA budget. The Funding OptionsWorking Group, consisting of business, localgovernment, environmental, citizen and other keystakeholders, found the existing funding mechanismsunstable and inefficient. The current MPCA fundingstructure:

n Does not adequately fund environmental protection;n Is complicated and difficult to manage; andn Is inflexible and does not allow resources to be

directed to the state’s top environmental priorities.An OLA audit, “Minnesota Pollution Control AgencyFunding” published January 24, 2002, recommendedthat the legislature decide what water permitting feesshould cover and assess fees accordingly. However, theMPCA has worked with the Funding Options WorkingGroup to develop possible options for streamliningenvironmental funding.

The Working Group felt any new funding structureshould:n Be simple and understandable for fee payers, the

general public and the legislature;n Ensure revenue sources come from nonpoint-

source pollution generators as well as point-sourcegenerators;n Retain some linkage between the revenue source and

environmental protection activities it funds; andn Be fiscally sustainable over time and generate

enough revenue to adequately addressenvironmental problems.

It is expected that the Minnesota Legislature will bediscussing environmental funding options for waterquality programs in Session 2003.


Recommendation 2: The Minnesota Legislatureshould give guidance to the MPCA regardingallocation of resources necessary to meet nationalEnvironmental Protection Agency targets forexpired wastewater point-source permits and tooperate an adequate program.

The MPCA has made significant progress in the lastyear by reducing the major permit backlog from 55percent to 33 percent and minor permit backlog from45 percent to 30 percent. The MPCA is well on theway to reach the goal of 18 percent for major facilitiesand 28 percent for minor facilities by December 2003.These backlog levels still fall behind the EPA goals of10 percent for major and minor facilities.

Meeting federal permit backlog goals is only oneindicator of wastewater point-source program success.Other program goals include improving timeliness ofpermit issuance, increasing inspections, improvingcompliance monitoring, developing streamliningmeasures, training wastewater operators and providingthe technical expertise (engineers, hydrologists, staffsetting effluent limits) to make the program work. TheMPCA estimates that an additional nine FTEs (anestimated $740,000 annually) would need to beallocated to the wastewater point-source program (seetable at right) in order for the MPCA to meet federalgoals and better protect the state’s waters.

If the legislature determines that backlog levels of 18and 28 percent are acceptable, this still would representa significant improvement over the MPCA’s pastperformance. The state should then be prepared forresulting consequences and costs associated with notachieving federal goals.

These may include: delayed business construction orexpansion, pressures on drinking water utilitiesdownstream of dischargers, natural resource damages,loss of water use for tourism and recreation, accidentalrelease of untreated wastewater and its cleanup,installation of control technologies that do not providea good long-range solution for facilities, increasedcomplaints about water quality coming in to all levelsof government, lawsuits by environmental groupsseeking more stringent permits and enforcement,lawsuits by permittees disputing permit conditions,contested case hearings, and potential federalenforcement action or program involvement.

n 2 FTEs for program and rule development,innovations, general permit development and otherstreamlining strategies;n 1 FTE for effluent limits review, which is currently a

bottleneck in completing permits;n 2 FTEs for major facility inspections, compliance

monitoring and enforcement;n 2 FTEs for minor facility inspections, compliance

monitoring and enforcement;n 1 FTE for wastewater treatment operator

certification training; andn 1 FTE for data management and ensuring that

report submittals are on time and complete.

Recommendation 3: The Minnesota Legislatureshould provide a clear policy statement regardingphosphorus limits for municipal facilitiesdischarging more than 1,800 pounds ofphosphorus per year. Clarification about when limitsapply to facility discharges would eliminate time-consuming disputes among municipalities,nongovernmental organizations and the MPCA. TheMPCA could solicit input from its stakeholders anddevelop a recommended approach for legislativeconsideration in 2004.

For More InformationOverview and Legislative:Lisa Thorvig, Assistant Commissioner,(651) 296-8811

Water Quality Media Lead(all water programs)Rodney Massey, Director, RegionalEnvironmental Management (REM) Division,(651) 296-7202

Major FacilitiesMichael Tibbetts, Manager, Majors andRemediation (MAR) Division, Water and LandSection, (651) 297-8381

Minor FacilitiesSuzanne Hanson, Manager, REM Division,Duluth Regional Office, (218) 723-4665

Wastewater Point Source ProgramStaffing Increases Recommended


ENVIRONMENTM I N N E S O T A

SPECIAL REPORT

For progress updates on this plan, visit the MPCA Web site, www.pca.state.mn.us.

Water-Quality Point-SourcePermitting and Compliance/Enforcement PlanThis special report provides an overview of the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency’s (MPCA’s) Water-QualityPoint- Source Permitting and Compliance/EnforcementPlan. This plan is one part of a comprehensive approachto the regulation of water issues in Minnesota.

Plan BackgroundThe MPCA regulates water pollution from both point andnonpoint sources. Point sources of water pollution includedomestic and industrial facilities that discharge treatedwastewater to surface water or land through distinctdischarge points. (Permits for nonpoint sources, such asstormwater and feedlots, are not covered in this plansummary.)

Staff members in the water-quality point-source programissue permits, monitor compliance through data reviewand inspections, and enforce permit conditions.Specialists in engineering, hydrology, biosolids,pretreatment and effluent limits review provide technicalsupport for the permitting and compliance/enforcementstaff.

The MPCA’s current staff complement working onpermitting, compliance/enforcement and technical supportis illustrated below. These figures include a reallocation inNovember 2001 of four full-time equivalents (FTEs) towater-quality point-source permitting and two FTE towater-quality point-source enforcement.

When this Plan was drafted, the MPCA had 1,394 totalpoint-source water-quality permits for wastewatertreatment facilities. Using the federal definitions, 86

facilities are classified as “major” and 1308 are “minor,”based upon the size of the facility, its potential discharges,and other factors. The distinction between majors andminors is important; major facility permits have morerequirements, need more oversight, take longer than minorpermits to complete, and discharge a much greaterpercentage of water pollutants statewide.

Internal agency analysis and two audits performed by theOffice of the Legislative Auditor identified a currentbacklog of water-quality permits. The backlog consists offacilities operating under expired permits beyond fiveyears (expired permits continue to remain in effect). As ofJanuary 2002, these backlogs were 54 percent forfacilities defined as major and 45 percent for facilitiesdefined as minor. Factors contributing to the permitbacklog include circumstances both within and outside ofMPCA control:

Outside of MPCA Controln Regulatory policy changes have increased the complexity

of some permits;n Environmental groups, local governments and permittees

have challenged more draft permits and prolongeddiscussions about permit content;

n Budget reductions in the MPCA’s point-source permittingprogram (recommended by the Blue Ribbon Task Forceand adopted by the Legislature) of 5 percent per yearbetween 1999 and 2001; and

n In recent years, there has been an increase in the numberof facilities requiring water-quality permits.

Within MPCA Controln The MPCA’s 1998 reorganization slowed the permitting

process;n In fiscal year 1999, the MPCA temporarily transferred

water permitting staff into feedlot regulation; andn The implementation in 1998 of the new computerized

permit system (called DELTA) that eventually will speedpermit issuance initially added time to the permittingprocess.

The MPCA has developed plans for reducing backlogs andstepping up compliance monitoring and enforcement.These plans are summarized briefly here, along with keyprogram contacts.

MPCA FTEs Assigned to Water QualityPermitting and Compliance/Enforcement.

July 1, 2002

MPCA Permit Compliance TechnicalDivision Writers Enforcement Support

Majors/ 7.25 4.25 8.75Remediation(MAR)Regional 7.75 10.50 15.25Environ.Mgmt. (REM)TOTALS 15.00 14.75 24.00

Appendix I


PermittingThe following proposed strategies for reducing the permitting backlog includeshort-term strategies and long-term strategies or strategies dependent uponadditional resources. The performance goals are ambitious, reflecting theMPCA’s determination to improve efficiency.

The MPCA will reduce its January 2002 45 percentbacklog of minor facility water-quality permits to:n 38 percent by 12-31-02n 28 percent by 12-31-03

The MPCA will reduce its January 2002 54 percentbacklog of major facility water-quality permits to:n 38 percent by 12-31-02 andn 18 percent by 12-31-03

The Goal: Increase the Number of Permits Issued

Short-Term Strategies By Whom? By When? Measurement

Reissue 25 major facility permits Majors and 12-31-02 Number completed, reportRemediation monthlyDivision (MAR)

Reissue 100 minor facility permits Regional 12-31-02 Number completed, reportEnvironmental monthlyMgmt. (REM)Division

Place draft permits on public notice an MAR, REM Beginning Days elapsed betweenaverage of 120 days after receipt of a Divisions 7-15-02 receipt of completecomplete application application and public

notice, report quarterlyProvide effluent limits for a draft permit Environmental Beginning Days elapsed betweento the permit writer in 60 days or less Outcomes (EO) 7-15-02 application for limits andafter the complete application is provided Division receipt, report quarterlyto technical support staffEstablish a permit forum, where staff bring MAR and REM Completed Hold permit forum once aunresolved permit issues for resolution Divisions 4-1-02 monthAssign priorities to permit applications MAR, REM Completed Supervisors track prioritized

Division 4-1-02 assignments, meet with staffSupervisors quarterly

Develop a permit-writers' manual with Policy and 12-31-02 Manual completed,clear direction and procedural assistance Planning (P&P) distributedfor staff new to permit writingBatch similar permits, allowing permit REM Division Underway Identify batch criteria,writers to develop language, limits and since 4-1-02 report quarterlystrategies that will expedite all permitsof similar type and scopeRevise phosphorus strategy to improve EO Division 12-31-02 Revised strategy proposed,efficiency of permit issuance implementedDevelop batch permits or general permits EPA Contractor Beginning Report quarterlyfor minor facilities 7-15-02Improve DELTA computerized permit Information 9-1-02 Percent of permit writerssystem; 1) provide training for permit Services, REM trained, report monthly,writers; 2) fix identified problems; and and MAR (REM and MAR);3) improve boilerplate permit language Divisions improvements completed

report quarterly (IS)Implement more detailed permit tracking MAR, REM Underway Tools completed, reporttools designed to streamline reporting Division since 4-1-02 quarterly

SupervisorsResist sidetracking permit staff on MAR, REM Underway Permit goals being metemerging issues, such as innovative Divisions since 4-1-02 evaluate monthlypermits, pilot projects, or emergingissues permit-related strategies byone to two years


Proposed Timeline for Increasing the Percentage ofUp-to-Date Water-Quality Point-Source Permits

n Overview andLegislative:Lisa Thorvig,(651) 296-8811AssistantCommissionern Major Facilities:

Mike Tibbetts,(651) 297-8381Majors/Remediation(MAR) Divisionn Minor Facilities:

Suzanne Hanson,(218) 723-4665RegionalEnvironmentalManagement(REM) Division

Contacts

To improve performance in water-quality point-source permitting, theMPCA will need the assistance of allMinnesotans.

n The Minnesota Legislaturedetermines the MPCA’s budget andpriorities. Even after implementingmany of the efficiency measuresoutlined here, the federal goal ofno more than a 10 percent permitbacklog for major facilities and 25percent backlog for minor facilitiesis not achievable with the currentstaffing level. The Legislatureneeds to decide whether theMPCA will meet national standardsor accept the best achievable goalswith current staffing levels.

n Permit applicants can speed thepermitting process by maintaining

facility compliance, forging positiverelationships with neighboringcommunities, and providingthorough information that theMPCA needs to complete a permit.

n Public involvement helps theMPCA write better permits and is awelcome part of the process.

Notes for External Stakeholders

Long-Term Strategies or By Whom? By When MeasurementStrategies Requiring More Staff

However, if citizens focus on the specificenvironmental impacts of specificpermits, fewer permits would besidetracked for months or yearsbecause of policy or land-use issuesunrelated to the permit on publicnotice.

Establish "low-risk" permit team, which REM Division 12-31-03 Report quarterlycan work quickly with applications for on progressfacilities with limited health orenvironmental risk.Determine categories of general permits REM Division 12-31-03 General permitthat apply to multiple facilities categories identifiedExplore alternatives to facility-specific P&P, REM and 12-31-03 Develop procedurespermits, including permit-by-rule and MAR Divisions for feasiblepermittingconditional/de minimus exceptions alternativesAssess the impacts of compliance matters REM, MAR 12-31-03 Completeon a facility's permitting process Divisions recommendationsDetermine need for statute revisions P&P Division 8-1-03 Recommendations

available by 2004legislative deadline

Work on better integration of the MAR, REM, 12-31-03 Completestandard-setting process with the P&P, EO recommendationspermit-writing process DivisionsAssess the efficiency of central versus MAR, REM 12-31-03 Completeregional permitting Divisions recommendationsCoordinate efforts between permitting MAR, REM, 12-31-03 Develop a regularstaff and staff developing Total P&P, EO forum for informationMaximum Daily Loads Divisions exchange and

problem solvingDevelop backup and seek funding for MAR, REM 12-31-03 Develop and"one person program" experts Divisions implement(in pretreatment, biosolids, etc.) to ensurecontinuity of program expertise

0

20

40

60

80

January 2002 December 2002 December 2003

46% 55% 62% 62% 82% 72%

Per

cent

age

Major Facilities

Minor Facilities


Compliance andEnforcement

As the Office of the Legislative Auditor reported, approximately18 to 31 percent of Minnesota’s major facilities have been in“significant noncompliance” in recent years. This is comparableto other midwestern states and the nation. The MPCA Water-Quality Point-Source Plan has set aggressive targets forcompliance inspections and enforcement actions. Byimplementing the following strategies, the MPCA staff plans tobring 95 percent of Minnesota’s major facilities into complianceby the end of 2003.

The Goal:Inspect MoreFacilities, Majorand Minor

n The MPCA will inspect 70 percentof major facilities (61 total) beforeOctober 1, 2002

n The MPCA will inspect all majorfacilities (86) before October 1,2003

n Overview andLegislative:Lisa Thorvig,(651) 296-8811AssistantCommissionern Major Permit

Enforcement:Ann Foss,(651) 296-7512MARn Minor Permit

Enforcement:Suzanne Hanson,(218) 723-4665Regional Envir.Management

Contacts

n The MPCA will inspect 20 percentof regular facilities (262 total) beforeOctober 1, 2002

n The MPCA compliance andenforcement staff will conduct anaverage of 24 inspections per FTEper year for regular facilities.

Short-Term Strategies By Whom? By When? Measurement

Long-Term Strategies or Strategies By Whom? By When? MeasurementRequiring More Staff

Printed on recycledpaper with at least 30percent postconsumerwaste content.

This report can bemade available inother formats,including Braille,large type, computerdisk or audiotape,upon request.

Provide clear expectations for enforcement MAR, REM 7-1-02 Expectations integratedstaff responding to water-quality point- Divisions into employee worksource violations in the Enforcement plans, results trackedResponse Plan monthlyDevelop inspection guidance to determine MAR, REM 12-31-02 Guidance completedwhether inspections will be announced Divisions and implementedor unannouncedOnly inspections entered into the MAR, REM Beginning Inspections entered intoDELTA database are counted toward Divisions 7-15-02 DELTA, evaluate quarterlyperformance goalsImprove timeliness of enforcement actions, MAR, REM Beginning Report quarterly on time-with the clock starting with the initial Supervisors 7-15-02 liness of enforcementdiscovery of noncompliance actionsAssess training needs of and provide training All Affected Completed Percent of compliance andfor compliance and enforcement staff Staff 4-1-02 enforcement staff trained,to improve staff efficiency report quarterlyDevelop and deliver a staff training program MAR 12-31-02 Complete training program,for compliance and enforcement, with Level I Division report quarterlyand Level II certificationDraft an enforcement prioritization system, MAR, REM, Completed Report quarterly onbased upon federal guidance, human health P&P, EO 5-1-02 implementationrisk, persistence of noncompliance, magnitude Divisionsof violations, pollutant type, and associated risks

Data-entry staff will perform low-level REM, MAR 12-31-03 Report quarterlyenforcement actions for facilities that fail to Divisionssubmit, delay or inadequately completeDischarge Monitoring ReportsDevelop a DELTA-related system to track Information 12-31-03 Report quarterlypermit and compliance schedule violations Servicesand alert staffImprove coordination among permitting and MAR, REM 12-31-03 Recommendationscompliance staff Managers and developed, implemented

SupervisorsSupport external training efforts, which help REM, MAR 12-31-03 Report quarterlyachieve compliance and P&P

DivisionsDevelop a library of common enforcement MAR, REM 12-31-03 Library developedresponses to certain violations in lieu of Divisionstaking routine cases to forum


Appendix II: Permit Streamlining Strategies

Process Improvements Affecting the EntireWastewater Point Source ProgramSome improvements were applied to the overall pointsource program and therefore will be implemented byboth divisions (MAR and REM).

Set Goals for Improvementn The MPCA set target issuance rates in the MAR

work plan (25 major facility permits in 2002) and inthe REM work plan (100 minor facility permits in2002).n The MPCA established a 120-day goal from receipt

of a complete permit application to public notice.

More Time, More Staff Assigned to Water Permitsn The MPCA assigned 40 percent of permitting staff

time to permit reissuances.n The MPCA reallocated four additional staff to the

wastewater point-source permitting program fromother areas of the agency.n The MPCA developed a common permitting

priorities system between the MAR and REMDivisions.n The MPCA has assigned 8-10 major facility permits

to staff in the REM Division to be completed incalendar year 2002, to ensure that the highestpriority and most labor-intensive permits arecompleted.

Improvements in Information Services andCommunication Supportn The MPCA Information Services staff has

eliminated errors and incomplete information fromthe water quality DELTA database and updatedsoftware, so that the database can be used moreefficiently for permit tracking and compliance issues.n The MPCA Organizational Training and

Development staff has undertaken a process todevelop more effective and efficient strategies forpublic participation in permit decisions forcontroversial permits.

Improving Program Management Decisionsn The MPCA restructured the agency into media-

based leads to centralize the roles andresponsibilities for water quality permitting andenforcement.

Process Improvements Affecting Major FacilitiesAddressing Permit and Process Complexities forMajor Facility Permitsn The MPCA focused permit reissuance priority on

major facilities with less complicated permits toexpedite reduction of the permit backlog.n The MPCA implemented permit forums for

difficult permit decisions to expedite quick andconsistent policy decisions.n The MPCA implemented a project-tracking system

to establish baseline data on the permitting processand use it as a basis for evaluating progress.n The MPCA permitting staff identified common

delays in permit issuance so that common solutionscould then be evaluated.n The MPCA management decided to delay assigning

innovative permit, pilot projects or emerging issuesto majors permit writing staff for one to two years.n The MPCA allowed more types of permit

modifications to be classified as minor to eliminateunnecessary requirements.

Addressing Interactions with StakeholdersInvolved with Permitsn The MPCA will work with key stakeholder groups

to resolve policy issues or public concerns thathamper issuance of permits.n The MPCA will reconsider implementing strategies

through water quality permits that lead to permitteesand stakeholder contesting and delaying permitissuance.

Improving Program Management Decisionsn The MPCA established separate municipal and

industrial permit reissuance units to concentrate andstreamline efforts to complete expired permits.n The MPCA senior management becomes involved

early in permit negotiations to resolve problemsexpeditiously.n The MPCA has designed and will implement a plan

to balance the permit reissuance workload over thefive-year cycle established for major permits to makecertain that permits due for renewal are evenlydispersed from year-to-year.


Establishing an Effective PerformanceManagement Systemn Using the positive time tracking system, the MPCA

determines the amount of total staff time needed toissue each major facility permit.n On a quarterly basis, MPCA supervisors meet with

individual staff to discuss permit issuance work-plangoals.n The MPCA has established a list of assigned

projects with permittee name, assigned staff andtarget dates for public noticing and issuance.n MPCA supervisors track the progress of issuance

monthly and report to managers in the monthlyindicators report.n As problems are identified, the MPCA has

developed specific actions plans to assuremeasurable progress in meeting established goalsand objectives.

Process Improvements Affecting Minor PermitsAddressing Permit and Process Complexities forMinor Wastewater Permitsn The MPCA developed a focused wastewater permit

backlog system, allowing for assessment of typesand numbers of permits with the goal of findingstrategies to streamline.n The MPCA staff has begun “batching” projects by

identifying similarities among backlogged permitsand dedicating staff to work on these similarpermits.n The MPCA staff also developed a streamlined and

regionalized sewer-extension permitting process.This process puts more of the responsibility on thepermittee and less on the MPCA staff.n The MPCA is also exploring other approaches to

speeding permit issuance, including Web-basedpermits.n On a quarterly basis, the MPCA supervisors and

managers discuss the permitting work-plan goalsand identify performance problems or obstacles,strategies for continued progress and ideas forstreamlining the process.n Focusing on quick permitting of loan/grant/

financial assistance projects throughout the state toassure that permitting processes do not endanger aproject’s financial status.n Short-term “crunch time” efforts that have all

appropriate staff working on reducing the backlog.

n Issuing permits in an assigned basin, allowingregional offices with a thorough understanding ofgeographic considerations to manage better.

Addressing Interactions with StakeholdersInterested in Water Quality Permitsn The MPCA staff will streamline the variance

process.n The MPCA has developed a rulemaking and policy

development needs list and prioritized these needsfor future implementation. There are no availableresources within the point source program to workon rulemaking and policy development, but thispoises the agency to move quickly if resourcesbecome available.

Improving Program Management Decisionsn The MPCA set up clear lines of responsibility and

communication.n The MPCA established a Project Tracking System

for use by supervisors to track projects andencourage staff accountability.n The MPCA established permit prioritization criteria

to speed the staff’s ability to decide which permitsmust be issued first.n The REM Division is working with MAR to expand

the permit forum into a more useful tool forregional staff.

Establishing an Effective PerformanceManagement Systemn The MPCA is working to track minor permits

issued, remove issuance roadblocks and initiate thenext batching project.n The MPCA established a Permit Prioritization

Queue for minor facilities, which was in place inMarch 2002.n Supervisors received training on the use of the new

DELTA database and clear guidelines as regardstheir responsibilities and management expectations.n The MPCA supervisors have been evaluating

progress monthly, monitoring negotiations progressand assessing permit forum outcomes.n The MPCA supervisors discuss individual progress

with each of their staff members to assure that theyare meeting permit issuance goals.

Appendix III: Progress to Date, Short-Term Permit StrategiesShort-Term Strategies By Whom? By When? Results to DateReissue 25 major facility permits Majors and

RemediationDivision(MAR)

12-31-02 The MPCA issued 27 major facilitypermits as of 12-31-02

Reissue 100 minor facility permits RegionalEnvironmental Management(REM)

12-31-02 The MPCA issued 310 minor facilitypermits as of 12-31-02

Place draft permits on publicnotice an average of 120 days (17.1weeks) after receipt of a completeapplication

MAR, REMDivisions

Beginning7-15-02

The MPCA has improved itsperformance, from 133.7 weeks in 2001to 113 weeks in 2002 for major facilities.(See narrative, page 17)

Provide effluent limit reviews(ELRs) for a draft permit to thepermit writer in 60 days or lessafter the complete application isprovided to technical support staff

Environmental Outcomes(EO) Division

Beginning7-15-02

The MPCA set targets of 35 ELRs formajor facilities, 90 for minors. As ofSeptember, the staff completed 36 ELRsfor major facility permits, 177 for minorfacility permits.

Establish a permit forum, wherestaff bring unresolved permit issuesfor resolution

MAR andREMDivisions

Completed4-1-02

The MPCA scheduled permit forumonce a month, with staff bringing casesto two forums since 4-1-02.

Assign priorities to permitapplications

MAR, REMDivisionSupervisors

Completed4-1-02

The MPCA established permit prioritycriteria. See sidebar, page 15.

Develop a permit-writers’ manualwith clear direction and proceduralassistance for staff new to permitwriting

Policy andPlanning(P&P)Divisions

12-31-02 The initial permit-writers manual will becompleted by 12-31-02, but it willcontinue evolving to meet programneeds. The MPCA also brought in theEPA to provide NPDES training fornew permit writers.

Batch similar permits, allowingpermit writers to develop language,limits and strategies that willexpedite all permits of similar typeand scope

REMDivision

Underwaysince 4-1-02

The MPCA batched stabilization ponds,issuing permits for 103 facilities in thiscategory within a six-month period. TheMPCA has identified other potentialbatches and will undertake the nextproject in early 2003. See page 17.

Revise phosphorus strategy toimprove efficiency of permitissuance

EO Division 12-31-02 The MPCA revised the phosphorusstrategy and has proposed an initiativefor the legislature to establishphosphorus limits in law.

Develop general permits for minorfacilities

EPAContractor

Beginning7-15-02

The EPA contractor provided its firstreport, and recommendations are beingassessed.

Improve DELTA computerizedpermit system; 1) provide trainingfor permit writers; 2) fix identifiedproblems; and 3) improveboilerplate permit language

InformationServices,REM, MARDivisions

9-1-02 1) Training for permit writers has beencompleted. 2) Problems identified withDELTA to date have been corrected. 3)The MPCA is waiting for a consultantreport.

Implement more detailed permittracking tools designed tostreamline reporting

MAR, REMDivisionSupervisors


MAR, REM Divisions have completedtracking tools and are reportingquarterly.

Resist sidetracking permit staff onissues, such as innovative permits,pilot projects, or permit-relatedstrategies by one to two years

MAR, REMDivisions


See narrative on page 24 for types ofprojects in the “parking lot”

Overall Program Improvementsn The MPCA updated the water quality portion of the

Enforcement Response Plan to provide clearexpectations for enforcement staff responding toviolations.n Developed an inspection guidance to assist staff in

deciding when an inspection should be announcedversus unannounced.n Established a policy not to credit any inspection

unless it has been entered into the Water QualityDELTA database.n Modified the enforcement database to track

timeliness of enforcement actions, triggered by thediscovery of noncompliance.n Developed and implemented a staff training plan,

including a Level I and II certification process forcompliance determination and enforcement staffand individual training assessments for all staff.n Modified the enforcement forum process to make it

a better resource for the MAR and REM Divisions.n Developed a system whereby data-entry staff can

undertake enforcement actions (e.g., letters ofwarning) for failure to submit DMRs, late DMRs orincomplete DMRs.n Developed a system to track and respond to

compliance schedule violations.

Process Improvements Affecting Major FacilityCompliance/Enforcementn Established clear compliance determination and

enforcement priorities and principles, designed touse limited staff resources to address top prioritynoncompliance and “high risk” facilities first.n Established clear roles and responsibilities for

compliance determination and enforcement,including reducing reportability from six to twosupervisors.n Began tracking number of inspections and number

of hours spent on inspections to determineperformance averages per FTE.n Developed an enforcement prioritization system,

with priorities based on federal guidance, basis ofthe limitation being violated (is the standard set toprotect human health or industrial use, for example),amount of time in violation, magnitude of violation,pollutant type and associated risks.n Considered opportunities such as generic forums,

sector initiatives and the like.

Process Improvements Affecting Minor FacilityCompliance/Enforcementn Tracked and responded to significant effluent

violations using existing systems, eliminatingoverlapping enforcement efforts and requiringmonthly reporting.n Developed inspection prioritization process,

including consideration of high-risk areas, pre-permitting inspections, regional/local issues andrandomness (so that permittees may expect aninspection at any time).n Tracked and responded to violations identified

during inspections, with monthly report.

Appendix IV. Process Improvements Affecting Compliance/Enforcement Staff

Short-TermStrategies

By Whom? By When? Measurement Results to Date

Provide clearexpectations forenforcement staffresponding towastewater point-source violations in theEnforcement ResponsePlan (referred to as the“enforcement matrix”in the OLA report)

MAR, REMDivisions

7-1-02 Expectations integratedinto employee workplans, results trackedmonthly

Expectations setin work plans,first target (24inspections perFTE per year)exceeded. TheERP for majorand minorfacilities has beenupdated.

Develop inspectionguidance to determinewhether inspectionswill be announced orunannounced

MAR, REMDivisions

12-31-02 Guidance completedand implemented

Draft guidance iscompleted, willbe finished ondeadline

Only inspectionsentered into theDELTA database arecounted towardperformance goals

MAR, REMDivisions

Beginning 7-15-02

Inspections entered intoDELTA, evaluatequarterly

Policyimplemented,staff complianceis 100 percent

Improve timeliness ofenforcement actions,with clock starting withthe initial discovery ofnoncompliance

MAR, REMSupervisors

Beginning 7-15-02

Report quarterly ontimeliness ofenforcement actions

Database to tracktimeliness still inprocess

Assess training needsof and provide trainingfor compliance andenforcement staff toimprove staff efficiency

All Affected Staff Completed4-1-02

Percentage ofcompliance andenforcement stafftrained, report quarterly

Training ongoing,all staff havereceivedindividualtrainingassessment

Develop and deliver astaff training programfor compliance andenforcement, withLevel I and Level IIcertification

MAR Division 12-31-02 Complete trainingprogram, reportquarterly

Training has beencompleted andstaff has beencertified at theappropriate level.

Draft an enforcementprioritization system,based upon federalguidance, human healthrisk, persistence ofnoncompliance,magnitude ofviolations, pollutanttype, and associatedrisk

MAR, REM,P&P, EODivisions

DraftCompleted5-1-02

Report quarterly onimplementation

The prioritizationsystem is still indraft, but willplace anenforcementsituation within aTier (I, II or III)based on manyfactors that willreflect itspotential risk.

Appendix V. Progress to Date on Short-Term Strategies to IncreaseWastewater Inspections and Enforcement

Long-Term Strategies By Whom? By When? MeasurementEstablish “low risk” permit team,which can work quickly withapplications for facilities with limitedhealth or environmental risk

REMDivision

12-31-03, ifstaff resourcesavailable

Report quarterly on progress

Determine categories of generalpermits that apply to multiplefacilities

REMDivision

12-31-03 General permit categoriesidentified

Explore alternatives to facility-specific permits, including permit-by-rule and conditional/de minimusexceptions, work with EPA RegionV on federal streamlining efforts.

P&P, MAR,REMDivisions

12-31-03, ifstaff available

Develop procedures for feasiblepermitting alternatives. Mayrequire rulemaking

Assess the impacts of complianceissues on a facility’s permittingprocess

MAR, REMDivisions

12-31-03 Complete recommendations

Determine need for statute revisions P&P Division 8-1-03 Recommendations available by2004 legislative deadline

Work on better integration of theeffluent limit-setting process withthe permit-writing process

MAR, REM,P&P, EODivisions

12-31-03, ifstaff resourcesavailable.

Complete recommendations

Assess the efficiency of centralizedversus regional permitting

MAR, REMDivisions

12-31-03 Complete recommendations

Coordinate efforts betweenpermitting staff and staff developingTotal Maximum Daily Loads forimpaired waters

MAR, REM,EO, P&PDivisions

12-31-03 Develop a regular forum forinformation exchange and problemsolving

Develop backup and seek fundingfor “one person program” experts(in pretreatment, biosolids, etc.) toensure continuity of programexpertise

MAR, REMDivisions


Develop and implement

Appendix VI. Long-Term Strategies for Improving Wastewater PointSource Permitting


Long-Term Strategies By Whom? By When? MeasurementData-entry staff will perform low-levelenforcement actions for facilities that failto submit, delay or inadequately completeDMRs

REM, MARDivisions

12-31-03 Report quarterly onprogress

Develop a DELTA-related system totrack permit and compliance scheduleviolations and alert staff

InformationServices

12-31-03 Report quarterly

Improve coordination among permittingand compliance staff

MAR, REMManagers andSupervisors


Recommendationsdeveloped,implemented

Support external training efforts, whichhelp achieve compliance

MAR, REM, P&PDivisions


Report quarterly

Develop a library of commonenforcement responses to certainviolations in lieu of taking routine casesto forum

MAR, REMDivisions


Library developed

Participate in EPA Region V complianceand enforcement streamlining efforts.

MAR, REMDivisions


Recommendationsdeveloped andimplemented.

Appendix VII. Long-Term Strategies for Improving WastewaterCompliance/Enforcement


MPCA OfficesMPCA Brainerd Office1800 College Road SouthBaxter, MN 56425(218) 828-2492

MPCA Detroit Lakes OfficeLake Avenue Plaza714 Lake Avenue, Suite 220Detroit Lakes, MN 56501(218) 847-1519

MPCA Duluth Office525 Lake Avenue South, Suite 400Duluth, MN 55802(218) 723-4660

MPCA Mankato Office1230 South Victory DriveMankato, MN 56001(507) 389-5235

MPCA Marshall Office1420 E. College Drive, Suite 900Marshall, MN 56258(507) 537-7146

MPCA Rochester Office18 Wood Lake Drive S. E.Rochester, MN 55904(507) 285-7343

MPCA Willmar Office201 28th Avenue S.W.Willmar, MN 56201(320) 214-3786

MPCA St. Paul Office520 Lafayette Road NorthSt. Paul, MN 55155(651) 296-6300Toll-free/TTY (800) 657-3864

Documents

Wastewater Point Source Permitting, Compliance … Point Source Permitting, Compliance and Enforcement ... Printed/copied on paper with at least ... the MPCA has reduced the backlog,