State of Arizona Project S.L.I.M. report on the Department of Environmental Quality

              I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATE OF ARIZONA
PROJECT S. LI. M. REPORT ON THE
DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY
JLiy 2. 1992
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY
PROJECT SUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXEaJTIYE SUMMARy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
RECOMMENDATIONS
Vehlde Emissions Waiver Lanes 35
Denied Portion of Waiver Lane Process 43
Revision of Public Notices/ Public Hearing Process 47
Combining Permit & Compliance Units 52
Pre- Application Meeting Requirement 57
Cursory Evaluation Improvement 62
Draft Permit Review Process 66
Monitoring Unit, Instrumentation Team 70
Reassignment of Analysis Team 72
Assignment of Special Studies Function 74
Assignment of Modeling Workload ....................................•....... 78
Combine Federal Facilities & Pre- Remedial Units 82
Emergency Response Unit 87
Transfer of Inspections Functions 96
Compliance Unit ... '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
SaIki Waste Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Special Waste Unit ...................................•.................. 113
Permit Unit, Hazardous Waste Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAIJTY
PROJECT SUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Waste DMsIgn - Cor01ued
Transfer of FacUlties Reporting Unit Functions 122
Combining Units In the Underground Storage Tank Section 127
Contracting/ Legal Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Water Qually DMsion
Program Coordination/ Certification Section Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Revolving Fund Unit Transfer 148
AssIgnment of Water Quality Field Offices 152
Combine Drinking Water Enforcement and Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Bond submission in Ueu of Finar•.:: 1aI Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Establishing Deadline for Deficiency Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Combining Units in Plan Review & Permit Section 178
Pesticides Unit 186
Groundwater Protection Ust 192
ADA- DEQ Coordination of Inspections 202
Groundwater Hydrology Section 206
1/
I
, I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
i
: 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,,
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY
PROJECT SUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Simplify EDP Equipment Purchases 214
EDP MaIntenance Coritract Renewals 229
Payroll Unit 234
Accounts Receivable 239
Accounting Unit Functions 243
Cost Recovery Process 246
Procurement 249
Accounts Payable 256
Reorganize Information Resources Management 260
UtIlization of Human Resource Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 265
Budget Workload 269
Rules Drafting 273
III
DEPARllENT OF ENVIRONaENTAL QUAU1Y
PROJECT SUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RE~ TIONS
General RecomnwM-.
DeQ Laboratory ServIces 281
Policies, Procedures. Training. Management & Personnel ..................•....... 283
Providing DeQ with Staff Attorneys 288
Oeparbnent Organization Structure. DeQ 291
Work Standards/ Work Measurements ...............................•..•..... 294
Requirements for Standardization Policy/ Procedure ....................•..•...... 297
Need for Service- Orlented. Customer Concerned Attitude 299
establishment of Central Planning OffIce 301
P~ cenHKrtofAudkFu~ 304
EXHIBITS
1. Interview Ust 9
2. Summary of Tides and SavIngs 13
3. DeQ Current Organization Charts 16
4. Layering ( present & Proposed) .....................................•..... 21
5. Recommended Organization Charts 22
6. Implementation Schedule ..................................•............ 27
7. exhibit Ust - Air Quality 30
8. exhibit Ust - Waste Division ....................................•........ 31
9. exhibit Ust - Water Quality Division 32
10. exhibit Ust - Administration Division ...........................•.•.•....... 33
11. Exhibit Ust - Rules Development 34
Iv
I
IJ
I
Ii
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
II
I
I,
t
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
July 2,1992
Mr. Edward Fox
Director
Department Of Environmental Quality
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, ArIzona 85004
Dear Mr. Fox:
The Governor's Project SUM review of your agency has been completed, and the project team Is
pleased to present you with this summary of our findings and recommendations. The study was Initiated
on November 8, 1991 and the field work was completed approximately February 3, 1992.
This summary restates the objectives of the review, the approach which was used, and highlights
the major changes recommended as a result of the study. It quantifies the potential benefits for your agency
and the public at large and summarizes the key Implementation actions and legislative support needed to
convert the proposed recommendations into actual benefits. The summary Is followed by the detailed
findings and recommendations.
In total. the recommendations identify approximately $ 7.6 mUlion In benefits for your agency.
OBJECTlVES & GOALS
The overall objective of this study was to find ways to Improve the delivery of services In the
ArIzona Department of Environmental Quality ( DEQ). The goals were to Improve the process of delivering
public services and reduce the cost of government whenever and wherever possible. Impediments to
prompt and effective services were to be Identlflecl for removal, and structures established which support
the long term goal of continuous Improvement using total quality management concepts throughout the
agency.
We reviewed the shelf data from the Department to understand the mission. responsibilities. and
workloads. A preliminary scoplng and defaMed diagnostic were petfotmed. Interviews were conducted with
all levels of management, supervision and selected technlcaJ and clerical positions. We observed work
activities and computer system use, and obtained either actual or estimated work measurement standards
for the processes which were reviewed. We discussed procedural findings with work center managers and
supervisors.
exhibit 1, Interview LIst, lists the 145 Individuals we contacted during the review. Many of these
Individuals were contacted more than once to confirm our understanding of their areas of responsibUity and
to discuss the feaslbUity of proposed process changes and organizational structures. Because of their
cooperation and participation, the study team and your managers have a high level of confidence that these
recommendations can be successfully Implemented.
exhibit 2, Current Organization Chart, shows the structure of each division as It was presented to
us at the time of the review. Changes have occurred during and since Project SUM, and these are Included
to provide the reader a frame of reference and a benchmark against which ali changes can be measured.
SUMMARY RNDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Major potential savings come from combining Units or Sections where there Is duplication or
fragmentation of workloads. These patterns were found In all three major divisions including Air, Waste, and
Water Quality.
Air Qualltv OMslon
In the Air Quality DMslon, we recommend combining the Permit and Compliance Units, and the
air modeling function of the Air Assessment Section, providing a single unit for public interaction, a reduction
of inter- unlt paperwork and duplication of effort.
Providing, and In most cases requiring, a pre- application conference with permit applicants can
both reduce the cycles of OEQ- appllcant Interaction and shorten the permit process by as much as a year.
This conference would Include representatives of all appropriate dMsions, to replace up to three separate
application conferences under the present structure.
Revising the draft permit review process and modifying the public notice procedures would further
Improve service to permit applicants and reduce costs.
We recommend changes In the emission testing " waiver" process In the Vehicle Emissions Section
by Imposing a $ 3.00 fee for waiver test, thereby collecting fees which are now lost to the State. Combining
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
II
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I'
II
II
I
I
I
I
Mr. Edward J. Fox, Director
Department of Environmental Quality
Page 3
the Quality Assurance Unit and the Phoenix Operations Unit and structuring It simUar to Tucson Operations
will further increase staffing f1ex1bUIty and reduce costs.
The Implementation of these recommendations will require cross- training of the personnel In those
Units or Sections which are combined, but otherwise may be Implemented on Instruction from the Director.
Waste DMsiQIJ
In the Waste DMslon, major savings are available by streamlining the Underground Storage Tank
( UST) Section. We recommend reducing one level of supervision by flattening the vertical structure.
combining functions. and transferring some of the administrative aetMtles to the Administration DMsion.
This will result In a savings of about $ 1.58 mUlion In both cost avoidance and reduction. This will also
accelerate the processing of cases by establishing a one- stop processing and follow- up point to handle all
actions required within the UST Section regarding complaints. release reports. compliance. enforcement.
responses to pUblic Inquiries and reporting.
Significant savings from combinations In the Waste DMslon Include the Pre- Remedial and
Department Of Defence Units. the Inspections and compliance functions In Emergency Response. and the
Solid and Special Waste Units.
Water Qualltv DMsion
In the Water Quality Division. we recommend eliminating the Ground Water Hydrology, Program
Coordination & Certification, and Field Services Sections and consolidating them In Compliance and Water
Assessment Sections together with transferring some of the planning functions to the Deputy Director, thus
creating a new Central Planning SectIon. This section will be a centralized planning office for the DEQ which
will provide management with appropriate Information from which long te"" goals and objectIves may be
evaluated on a periodic basis.
Within the Compliance Section we recommend re- comblning the two Drinking Water Units which
or sampling/ testing modalities.
Mr. Edward J. Fox, Director
Department of Environmental Cuaiity
Page 4
AdminlstratiQn DMsiQn
The Labor ActIvIty Reporting System ( LARS) currently does not have a fully automated
computerized system to capture labor costs on a site specIflc basis. We concur with the study being done
by DEC and support the plan for automating the cost recovery system by July 1, 1992. Once Implemented,
we believe It will save the agency over $ 35,670 directly In manpower and will help In collecting costs from
permit holders which are estimated In mUllens.
Placement of the audit function In the Administrative DivislQn could be viewed as Inhibiting an
accurate and unbiased evaluation of financial operations. This Is not tQ say that the present QrganizatiQnaI
assignment of the audit functiQn has created any problems and nQ evidence was found which might so
indicate. However, we recommend that the audit functiQns be in the Deputy Director's Office. This will
assure the DirectQr that the auditing functiQns are performed withQut an appearance of bias Qr influence and
will enhance the independence and perceived objectivity of the audit reports.
Most of the tasks perfQrmed In DEO do not have WQrk Qr job standards. The lack of standards
makes it difficult to determine staffing requirements and measure prodUctivity. FQr example, the Issuance
of permits, inspectiQns, ensuring compliance, testing and mQnltQring in Air, Waste and Water DMsIQns are
measurable. The paper handling process In the Comptroller's OffIce, being repetitive In nature, Is easily
measured. Past experience with work measurement studies has shown there Is at least a 15% Improvement
In Qperatlonal effectiveness In those QrganizatlQns where WQrk measurement techniques have been applied
and WQrk standards established. We believe approximately 170 posltlQns will be subject tQ WQrk
measurement standards. This will result in an addltlQnaI savings of approximately 26 FTEs, or $ 1,040,000
including ERE, after Implementation is complete.
A comparison was made with other state agencies for payroll and budget functiQns. Based upon
the number of transactiQns and the number of people emplQyed, It was clear that DEC has more people
perfQrming actlvltles s1mUar tQ those performed in other agencies. We recommend those functions be as
effective as other state agencies.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Edward J. Fox, Director
Department of Environmental Quality
PageS
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
As this Team commenced Its study of the Department of Environmental Quality, we learned that
you had only been at the helm of the agency for ( at that time) approximately five months. Having accepted
a charge of making changes and Improvements In the agency, there has been a continuous change In the
organization and staffing of the Department, even whUe the Project SUM evaluation study was being
conducted.
The Team's recommendations, and the accompanying exhibits which describe them, are based
on the situation as It existed at the time of the interviews and analyses. Some of the recommendations which
are being submitted by the Project Team already are in the process of being Implemented by you. Others
may be altered In the final analysis because the context of the recommendations have been changed since
they were prepared.
Implementation leadership wUl determine the achievement of maximum savings by putting In place
the concepts proposed in this document, and resolving any differences which exist due to Interim changes
In the organization.
SUMMARY OF SAVINGS
The improved services and benefits outlined above are achieved through the 53 points discussed
In this report The recommendations apply to several areas such as organization restructuring, process
changes, income enhancement, management controls, functional realignment, work measurement, public
benefits, and staffing requirements.
exhibit 3, DEQ Summary of Titles and Savings, shows the impact of each of the recommendations
and includes Increases in income, future cost avoidances, and present cost reduction. The magnltucle of
each is:
IMPLEMENTATION
exhibit 4, Layering ( Present & Proposed) compares Management layers before and after the
Department's proposed restructure,
Mr. Edward J. Fox, Director
Department of Environmental Quality
Page 6
The Implementation process Is best carried on soon after the review process. This maintains
momentum whUe the topics are fresh In people's minds. We estimate that most of the recommendations
contained in the report can be Implemented within a period of 18 months.
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
$ 7' 698,468
$ 34,300
4,107,112
3,557,056
Savings Symmarv
Income Enhancement
Cost Avoidance
Cost Reduction
Total
exhibit 5, Recommended Organization Charts, shows the proposed structure of DEQ following the
implementation of the recommendations. These structures are consistent with the recommendations, but
are not the only possible structures which can achieve the Improved service and benefits. Actual structures
will be finalized as the recommendations are Implemented.
Personnel Services savings may vary somewhat during the Implementation phase of the SUM
Project. Redeployment procedures could, in some cases, result in ' bumplng down' which will reduce a
portion of the savings. Further, since averages were used for the affected grade levels, these figures may
not exactly coincide with the current salary of the individuals occupying the position In question.
Implementation is the critical step In the process of achieving savings. Potential savings are often
identified but not achieved when the Implementation process is distracted by day to day activities, and
managers shy away from the necessary reduction In staff, Successful Implementations are marked by two
things: a strong commitment from senior management to achieve as much of the savings as proves
possible; and designation of Implementation team leaders with the requisite mental toughness to see the
task through to completion.
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I,
I
I
Mr. Edward J. Fox. Director
Department of Environmental Quality
Page 7
Our recommended Implementation Plan In exhibit 6, DEQ Implementation Schedule, shows an
Implementation sequence and approximate duration for each recommendation. A detaBed plan can be
established at the outset of the Implementation. Individual recommendation Implementation requirements
are shown with the recommendation In the detaU section of this report.
There are three major components of cost associated with Implementation. These are typically
one- time costs and represent a reduction in first year benefits. They include the costs of current employee
time during implementation, outside assistance, and employee redeployment. Outside Implementation
assistance can significantly Improve the total value of benefits achieved, the probabUlty that benefits wUl be
achieved, and can reduce the total time necessary to achieve Implementation through the use of focused,
dedicated resources. These costs depend on the total scope of the assistance requested. and are not
included In this individual agency report.
* * * * *
Mr. Edward J. Fox, Director
Department of Environmental Quality
Page 8
We wish to thank you as the Director of DEQ and your entire staff for their complete cooperation,
participation, suggestions and comments, and support of our efforts durlng this study.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Govemor and the SUM Steerlng Committee
In this endeavor. Should you have any questions " regarding this report, please feel free to contact the
Project executive or any member of your Project SUM Team:
• Ken Boyd, Department of Agrlculture
• Les Jennings, Dept. of Youth Treatment & Rehab.
• William RBey, Department of Transportation
• Amjad Huda, Coopers & Lybrand
The Agency Director's comments follow this signature page.
David St. John
executive Direct
Project SUM
I,
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
The Department of Environmefllal Quality U All EqtI4l OpportlUlity AjfirfNltive Action Employer.
Dear Mr. st. John:
June 8, 1992
ARIZONA DEPARTlYIENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
OEQ · SA Phoenix, Arizona 85001- 0600
Recycled Paper
.,.
Post Office Box 600
a) SLIM calculated savings from Grade 19 and higher positions
at the mid- point of the salary range. Actual calculation of
salaries by my staff for these positions produced a savings
of $ 495,413 less than reported by SLIM.
Note that ADEQ was established with 132 positions in FY
1987. Since that time the number of positions has grown by
approximately 400%. These new positions were funded by the
Legislature at entry level. Additionally, since FY 1987 the
State has only funded pay increases two times - 3.5% July 1,
1988 and 4.5% July 1, 1990. Therefore, most of the
positions at ADEQ are funded at a significantly lower level
than the mid- point utilized by Project SLIM.
1. Calculation Approach - The report identified $ 1,335,011 more in
savings ( see attachment) than I believe actually exist. This is
attributable to four specific SLIM policies.
In the last draft of the SLIM report reviewed by ADEQ there are numerous
areas with which I disagree. Examples of these differences are:
During our review of the SLIM document, it became readily apparent that
many new and/ or inexperienced managers were interviewed due to the state of
flux the agency was in at the time of the SLIM interviews. In addition,
the time for the SLIM interviews was too short. As a result, a significant
amount of the data gathered by the SLIM team was incomplete resulting in
what I believe to be inaccurate analysis.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ) is totally
committed to the Governor's efforts to reduce costs by eliminating waste
and improving the effectiveness of our work efforts.
To that end, my executive staff and I dedicated significant time over the
past eight weeks working with the SLIM project consultants and the ADEQ
State employee team. My goal had been to develop a SLIM report that would
be a useful " s trawman" blueprint for a more effective ADEQ.
Mr. David St. John
Executive Director
Project SLIM
Capitol West Wing
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
~-,~...... J'
~ J
~ SYM[ NGTON. GOVERNOR
EDWARD Z. FOX. DIRECTOR
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEQ - 88
3. State Match - The report did not acknowledge that much of the
Federal funding that ADEQ receives requires State match. Of the
savings amount iderttified by this report, approximately $ 923,000
of General and dedicated funds are required for State match for
Federal programs.
2. Source of Funds - The report did not acknowledge the difference
between Federal funds, State dedicated funds and State General
Fund monies. Of the savings identified in the report, most
( approximately $ 1.2 million in Federal funds and approximately
$ 2.2 million in dedicated funds) will not result in savings to
the State General fund.
4. Proqram Analysis - The report shows all Underground Storage Tank
( UST) Program work to be remedial in nature. The SLIM Flow Chart
incorporates parts of only four out of nineteen UST work
processes. Thus, the recommendation to eliminate 49 positions is
based upon limited analysis and would seriously reduce the
current level of service of this program.
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2
.,.
b) The SLIM report identifies cost avoidance of $ 416,843 from
12 unfunded positions ( many of which appeared with the
designation of FROZEN on the ADEQ organization chart) and
$ 133,851 from five additional unfunded positions which were
abolished in the FY 1992 budget by the Legislature but still
appeared on the ADEQ organization chart in error.
c) The SLIM report identifies savings of $ 114,857 from
downgrading three positions. Administrative Rule R2- 5- 303
specifically states that " The salary of an employee in a
position Which is reclassified to a lower class, or in a
class which is changed to a lower grade, and which is within
the salary range of the new pay grade, will remain the
same." Hence, no savings are generated from these three
downgrades.
d) The SLIM report includes a reduction of $ 1,040,000 for 26
unspecified positions at an average salary including
employee related expenses ( ERE) of $ 40,000 per position to
be achieved by implementation of work standards/ work
measurements. The average salary per position in ADEQ
including ERE is $ 33,306. Therefore, I believe the savings
is overstated by $ 174,047.
5. Developmental Programs - During the last two legislative
sessions, the Legislature- established five new programs in ADEQ:
Underground Storage Tanks, Recycling, Waste Tires, Pollution
Prevention and Special Waste. In addition, the Legislature
mandated increased staffing in FY 1992 for: 1) the Aquifer
Protection Program to address the backlog of approximately 994
permits and 2) the Safe Drinking Water Program where 90% of the
systems are out of compliance. All of these actions were
initiated to protect human health and the environment.
Mr.- David st. John
DEQ · 8C
Despite the differences in approach and analysis identified above, I am
committed to implementing SLIM and to working out these differences during
the implementation process. It is, however, critical that implementation
be completed in a quality manner for two specific reasons:
2. Protection of Human Health and the Environment - The fundamental
mission of this Department is to protect the environment and
pUblic health. In the areas of inspection and enforcement which
are fundamental components of that mission, it is important that
any reduction be looked at very closely.
The SLIM report eliminated positions as cost avoidance if those
positions were vacant at the time of the investigation. While
efficiencies can be achieved in these programs, automatic
elimination of. FTE positions for newly created programs, which
were established to protect human health and the environment, is
not in the best interest of the state of Arizona.
Page 3
1. Economic Development - Many of the recommendations were made in
the areas of permitting and approvals which are critical to the
economic development of this state. Therefore, overly optimistic
reductions would directly impact the ability of businesses to
open and the ability of real estate to be transferred in this
State. Reductions in these areas should be approached
cautiously.
Because of the amount of time required to design new programs,
develop and promulgate rules, establish new positions and
complete the hiring process, most of the positions associated
with these new or enhanced programs were vacant at the time the
SLIM team was conducting interviews and researching programs
within ADEQ.
After completion of the implementation process, I expect that some SLIM
recommendations will be implemented exactly as they are proposed, some
recommendations will be implemented in concept, and other recommendations
will not be implemented at. aJ... l.. Additionally, becaUSE: cur imple. mentation
plan will cover all aspects of ADEQ, I expect to add innovations and
improvements that SLIM did not address.
In an effort to implement SLIM in a quality way, I intend to create a
steering committee made up of the Department's customers, including private
industry and environmental groups, to oversee this implementation. Our
implementation plan for SLIM recommendations will contain Office by Office
and program by program evaluations of ADEQ's work processes. Development
of these baseline data will be completed with the help of, and input from,
the Steering Committee and knowledgeable staff in each of the program
areas.
Mr: David st. John
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I'
Attachment
Sincerely,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 4
cc: Governor Fife Symington
Rita Pearson, Deputy Chief of Staff
Office of the Governor
Edward Z.
Director
DEQ - eo
Mr." David St. John
For example, ADEQ's area of greatest inefficiency is its annual 17%
employee turnover. The problem of attracting and retaining qualified
employees increases costs not only to ADEQ but also to the regulated
industry because permits are delayed. ADEQ exit interviews indicate that
turnover is principally due to the disparity in pay between ADEQ
environmental positions and similar positions in industry and local
government. We have proposed to the SLIM steering Committee, and the
steering committee has agreed, that ADEQ retain some of the SLIM savings to
be used to improve pay parity.
I hope this letter communicates my commitment to the SLIM process as well
as my concerns about some of the specific components of the SLIM report.
Thank you for your continuing personal courtesy.
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
II
I
I
I
I
I
Interview List
Exhibit 1
DEQ
Name Title/ Department Date
Kickoff Meeting NA Nov. 8,91
Nancy Wrona A. D. Air Quality Nov. 12.91
Bill Wiley A. D. Rules Nov. 13.91
Joe Smith A. D. Administration Nov. 14.91
Stephanie Wilson A. D. Waste Program Nov. 14,91
Marc Lame Ombu1~' nan Nov. 14. 91
Sean Mclaughlin Env. Eng. Spec.- Permits Unit Nov. 15,91
William Jasper Unit Supv.- Compliance Unit Nov. 18,91
Mike Traubert Env. Eng. Spec.- Compliance Nov. 18.91
Bill Watson Manager- Vehicle Emissions Nov. 19.91
Gary Neuroth Manager- Air Assessment Nov. 19.91
Prabhat Bhargava Permits Unit Mgr. Nov. 19.91
Jim Guyton Monitoring- Air Assessment Nov. 19.91
Cathy Stevens Air- Assessment Nov. 20. 91
Joe Soporowski Unit Manager- Air Assessment Nov. 20. 91
Marylou Smithana Vehicle Emission Nov. 20, 91
Mark Klinger Vehicle Emission Nov. 20. 91
Dan Grubbe Vehicle Emission Nov. 20. g1
Dan Bauer Vehicle Emission Nov. 20, 91
Dick Cisco Vehicle Emission Nov. 20. 91
Ed Fox Director Nov. 21. 91
John Walls Vehicle Emissions Nov. 21. 91
Frank Cox Vehicle Emissions Nov. 21. 91
Larry Rich Chief- Tucson office Nov. 21. 91
Robert Wetterstrom ERS- Vehicle Emission- Tucson Nov. 22, 91
Ira Domsky Section chief- Planning Nov. 22, 91
Marylou Smithana Vehicle Emissions Nov. 25, 91
Mark Klinger Vehicle Emissions Nov. 25. 91
Ron Taut Vehicle Emissions Nov. 25. 91
Manager Gordon Darby Nov. 25, 91
Jim Guyton Mgr. Monitoring unit Nov. 25, 91
Rose Jessen Data Analyst Nov. 26, 91
Sandy Connery Data Analyst Nov. 26. 91
Ed Fox Director- DEQ Nov. 27,91
Stephanie Wilson A. D.- Waste Division Dec. 3,91
Ty Canez Section Mgr.- Hazardous Waste Dec. 3.91
Dan Marsin Section Mgr.- Remedial Proj. Dec. 3,91
LundlWatters Section Mgr.- UST Dec. 3,91
Dale Anderson Supervisor- Waste Insp. Unit Dec. 4,91
Wendy Kristin Supv- Corrective Action Unit Dec. 4.91
OhnmeisslThaut Carp Team Leader/ EHS II Dec. 4.91
Mike Ballot Pre- Remedial Unit Supv. Dec. 4.91
AI Roesler IEx- Supv.- Permlt Unit- Haz. Waste luee. 5.91 I
AI Brown Ex- Supv.- Comp. Unit- Haz. Waste Dec. 5.91
Doug Wheeler EDP- MIS Dec. 5,91
Linda Burgess P& PS- Tech. Prog. Unit Dec. 5,91
DEQ - 9
EXHIBIT 1
1 OF 4 PAGES
Interview List
Exhibit 1
DEQ
Name Title/ Department Date
Kathy Feliberty P& PS- Tech. Prog. Unit Dec. 5,91
Sandra Eberhardt Eng. Prog. Supv.- PolI. Prev. Unit Dec. 5,91
Andy Soesilo Section Mgr.- Waste Assess. Dec. 5,91
Bill Shafer Fin. Cnsltnt- Fac. Rep. Unit Dec. 5,91
Barbara Herron R& SA Dec. 5,91
Mike Greenslave Supv.- Engrng. Unit Dec. 5,91
Barry Recktorovich EHS- II- Engrng. Unit Dec. 5,91
AI Brown Unit Supv.- Remedial Proj. Dec. 6,91
Bill Soleberg EPS- Waste Insp. Unit Dec. 6,91
Allen Johnson Supv.- Hydrology Unit Dec. 6,91
Joe Drosendahl RP- Team Leader Dec. 6,91
Laura Manley RP- Team- Hydro II Dec. 6,91
Mike Leach State LeadTeam- TL Dec. 9,91
Ed Fox Director -- DEQ Dec. 6,91
Ed Csira Compl. Unit Supv.- Haz. Waste Dec. 9,91
Tammy Martel Admin. Secy.- Emerg. Resp. Unit Dec. 9,91
Carrol Ferrel Clk. Typ. III- Emerg. Resp& lnsp. Dec. 9,91
Dan Zeller Engnr- Solid Waste Dec. 10,91
Barry Abott Unit Supv.- Solid Waste Dec. 11,91
Bill Shafer A. D.- Water Quality Dec. 16,91
Syed Amanatullah EES- Landfill- WQ Dec. 17,91
Roger Kennett Mining- Unit Mgr. Dec. 17,91
Skip Hellurud Section Mgr- Water Permit Dec. 18,91
Bill Engstrom Unit Mgr- APP Wastewater/ Drywls Dec. 18,91
Wayne Palsma EPS- NPDES Dec. 18,91
Stephanie Ostrom Section Mgr- Prog. Coord. Dec. 18, 91
Carol Aby Unit Supv.- Planning & Grants Dec. 18,91
John Bulanowski Unit Supv.- Operator Cert. Dec. 18,91
Larry Pierson Admin. Asst. II- Plan'g & Grants Dec. 18,91
Hains, Charles Field Services- MGA. Dec. 20,91
Dan Williams Central Regional- Env. Engr. Dec. 20, 91
Perry James MIS- WQ Dec. 18,91
Ed Pond EHS II- Mining APP Dec. 18,91
Chiou Chen EPS Dec. 18,91
Lionel Klikoff NPDES- Unit Mgr. Dec. 18,91
Corraine Lujan AA II- NPDES Unit Dec. 18,91
Ed FoX: Director- DEQ Dec. 19,91
Forrest Woodwick Lab Coord. Unit Supv. Dec. 19,91
Dorothy Hains Unit MGA.- Tech. Review Dec. 20,91
Brian Munson MGA.- Water Assessment Jan. 2,92
Don Shroyer Unit Supv.- Non- point source Jan. 2,92
Ed Swanson Unit Supv.- Point Source Jan. 3,92
WangYu Unit Supv.- Pesticides Jan. 3,92
Edna Heard Lab Coord Jan. 6,92
Reza Azizi Unit Mgr.- Wastewater Compo Jan. 6,92
Bob Munari Section Mgr- Comp. Section Jan. 6,92
DEQ - 10
I
I
E2XOHFIB4ITP1 AGES I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Interview List
Exhibit 1
DEQ
Name Title/ Department Date
Jon Dahl Unit Mgr- Drlnking Water Compo Jan. 6,92
Ed Csira lab. Coord- Water Assess. Jan. 7,92
louis Parsons Tl- Water PolI. Comp. Jan. 8,92
Elizabeth Ridgely Tl- Drinking Water Enf. Jan. 8,92
Dan Williams Data Mgr- Drinking Water Unit Jan. 8,92
Walid Alsmadi Tl- Drinking Water Compo Jan. 8,92
linda Bragg R& SA- Drinking Water Data Jan. 8,92
Jim Maston SRO Mgr- Field 5erv.( Tueson) Jan. 8,92
Steve Devereaux SRO- EES ( Tucson) Jan. 8.92
Andrew Rendes SRO- EES ( Tucson) Jan. 8,92
Michele Kennard Unit Supv.- GW Hydrology Jan. 13,92
Judy Heywood Unit Supv.- GW Hydr. Site Ass. Jan. 14,92
SCott Goodwin Site Ass.- Hydr. Unit Jan. 14,92
Chuck Graf Section Mgr.- GW Hydr. Jan. 14,92
Bud Paulson A. D.- Envir. Serv. Div.- Agrieul. Jan. 17,92
Wayne Hood Supv.- GW Hydr. Jan. 17,92
Harley Hiett NRO- Supv. Field Services Jan. 14,92
Joe Smith A. D.- Administration Jan. 16,92
Ed Fox Director Jan. 21,92
Rich Beissel Comptroller Jan. 22,92
Fred Goebel FIS SVS. MGRII Jan. 22,92
Janet Gafford FISSVSSP IV Jan. 22,92
Ajita Athalye FISSVSSP II Jan. 22,92
Gary Borrman FIS SVC SP III Jan. 22,92
Delores Rankin Aeet. Tech III Jan. 22,92
Mark lammle Acet. Tech II Jan. 23,92
Annette Davis Acct. Tech II Jan. 23,92
Robert Jones Acet. Tech II Jan. 23,92
Barbara Abalos Temporary Clerk Jan. 23,92
Aurora lopez Buyer III Jan. 23,92
Sal Derner Bud. Cont. Dev. SP II Jan. 23,92
Dan Smolnik Contr. Mgt. SP II Jan. 23,92
Phyllis Johnson Acctg. Unlt- FIS SVS SP I Jan. 24,92
Jane Thompson AIR Unit- FIS SVC SP III Jan. 24,92
Carol Frantz Payroll- Unit Supv. Jan. 24,92
Theresa Thomas Payroll- Acct. Tech III Jan. 24,92
Brad Sains Cost Recovery- FIS SVC SP III Jan. 24,92
Sue Rice Human Resources- AA III Jan. 24,92
Paul Donovan Human Resources- Tr. Off. II Jan. 24, 92
Jose Farias Business Sys- Prog. Anal. III Jan. 23,92
Terry Fields SCientific Sys.- Proj. leader Jan. 23,92
Yvonne Goolsby IRMS- Proj. Mgr. Jan. 23,92
Gloria Mathews Info, Center- ProoAnaL III . Jan 24.92
David Harper [ Como. CoOl. III - IJ"". 24: 92
I
George Giarrusso Data Base- DB SP II Jan. 24,92
Gary Crockett Bus. Sys- Prog. Anal. III Jan. 24,92
DEC - 11
EXHIBIT 1
3 OF4 PAGES
Interview List
Exhibit 1
DEQ
Name Title/ Department Date
Tam Warner Info. Center- Intern Jan. 24,92
Tara Fuchs Mgmt. Budg.- Exac. Consult II Jan. 27,92
Beth Reely Budg.- Bud Conti Dev Off II Jan. 27,92
Warren SChrier Budg.- Bud Conti Dev Off II Jan. 27, 92
Broderick- Hurley Int. Audit- Prog. CompI. Aud. III Jan. 27, 92
Ronald Gray Int. Audit- Rev Field Aud. III Jan. 27, 92
Martha seaman Mgr.- RUles Development Jan. 30,92
Ronald Dalrymple Exac. Dir.- B. T. A. Jan. 31,92
James Dixon Investigation Mgr.- B. T. A. Jan. 31,92
Mike Miller Chairman of the B. T. A. Jan. 31, 92
Roger Brewer Env. Consultants- B. T. A. Jan. 31,92
Roger Palmenberg Env. Consultnt.- Palmenberg Inc. Jan. 31,92
Steven Pawloski ASOII Jan. 31,92
Ed Fox Director Feb. 3,92
DEQ - 12
EXHIBIT 1
4 OF 4 PAGES
I
I
I
I
; 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
... - - ,. .. - - - .. .. '.. - .. .. - .. - - • •
[) EQ SUMMARY OF TITLES & SAVINGS
EXHIBIT 2
1 OF 3 PAGES
§
. I.. (,.)
nHle Federal State Others Grand Total
FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE
Avoid Reduction Total Vac, Avoid Reduction Total Vac. Avoid Reduction Total Vac, Dollars Vac.
Air Qualily Division
Vehicle Emissions Waiver Lanes SO S24.470 S55,717 l' 80,187 3 1 $ 31.780 S113,033 S144.813 5 1 S225, OOO 8 2
Denied Portion of Waiver Lane P, ocess SO SO SO SO 0 0
Revision of Public NotlceslPut'lic Hearing Process SO $ 0 SO SO 0 0
Combining Permit & Compllan': e Units S104,300 S104.300 5 S68.657 S124.166 S1i92,823 2 $ 43,430 $ 43,430 1 1 S340,553 8 1
Pre- Application Meeting Requirement SO SO SO SO 0 0
Cursory evaluation Improvement SO SO SO SO 0 0
Draft Permit Review Process SO SO SO SO SO 0 0
Monitoring Unit, lnstrumentation -" eam SO SO $ 44,136 $ 44.136 1 $ 44,136 1 0
Reasaignment of Analysis Tealll SO SO SO SO 0 0
of Special Studies Function SO SO SO SO 0 0
Assignment of Modeling Workloa~ SO S18,101 l. 18.101 1 S31,123 S52,998 S84.121 2 1 S102,222 3 1
"'/'::,: S;~: f::;~:-' Sub- Total Air ':: Illallty Division' SO S104,300 S104,300 5 0 S93.127 S197,984 S;! 91.111 6 1 S106,333 S210,167 S316,500 9 3 S711.911 20 4
Waste : Jlvision
Combine Federal Facilities & Fre- Remedlal Units $ 43.430 $ 43,430 1 1 S38,926 l' 38.926 1 1 S86,860 S86.860 2 2 S169,216 4 4
Emergency Response Unit SO $ 41,497 l> 41.497 1 1 SO $ 41.497 1 1
Transfer of tnspeclions Function! S63.054 S8.862 S71.916 2 2 S39.559 $ 39.559 1 SO S111.475 3 2
ComplIance Unit S135.258 S135,258 4 4 S26,548 l' 26.548 1 1 SO S161 ,806 5 5
Solid Walle Unit SO S57,679 S79.961 S' 137.840 4 2 S31.115 S31,115 1 1 S168,755 5 3
Special Waste Unit SO $ 229.562 S; 129.562 7 7 SO S229.562 7 7
Permit Unlt, Hazardous Waste Se,: lion SO SO SO $ 0 0 0
Transfer of Facilllies Reporting U, olt Functions S26.422 S26,422 1 $ 0 $ 180,002 $ 46.169 S226.171 8 7 $ 252.593 9 7
Combining Units in the Underg!?' Jnd Storage Tank ~ lion $ 123,000 S244.129 S367,129 9 3 $ 0 S1.021,326 $ 190.800 S1,212,126 31 26 Sl, 579.255 40 29
Contracting/ Legal Services I SO $ 0 $ 53,100 Sn. 019 S130,119 5 3 $ 130,119 5 3
Sub- Total'tiaste Division ,.,.', $ 3.64,742 $ 279,413 I $ 644,155 17 10 $ 394.212 S119,520 $ 513,732 15 12 $ 1,372,403 S313,988 S1,686,391 47 39 S2,644.278 79 61
I
DEQ SUMMARY OF TITLES & SAVINGS
EXHIBIT 2
2 OF 3 PAGES
~•
•...
Tltle Federal State Others Grand Tolal
FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE
Avoid Reduction Total Vac. Avoid Reduction Total Vac. Avoid Reduction Total Vac. Dollars Vac.
Water Quality Division
Program Coordination/ Certification Section Placement 556.484 556,484 1 1 5128.928 5104.229 5233.157 7 4 SO $ 289.841 8 5
Revolving Fund UnU Transfer 5108,760 5108,760 3 3 SO 5114.035 $ 72,875 5186,910 6 4 5295.670 9 7
Assignment of Water Quality Field Olflces 571,003 516.664 587.667 3 2 5124,893 586,860 5211.753 6 3 518,300 518.300 1 1 5317.720 10 6
Combine Drinking Waler Enforcement and Data 595,410 552,150 5147.560 4 3 5225,495 5225.495 6 6 50 5373,055 10 9
Bond Submission In lieu of Financial Data SO SO 50 50 0 a
Establishing Deadline lor Deliciency Responses SO SO SO 50 a 0
Combining Units in Plans Review & Permit Section SO 5130.419 5137,627 5268,046 6 3 5134,799 5134,799 3 3 $ 402.845 9 6
Peslicides UnU SO 526.548 551.615 578.163 2 1 50 578.163 2 1
Groundwater Protection list SO 560,000 560,000 50 560.000 a a
ADA- DEQ Coordination of Inspections 531,250 $ 31.250 1 1 SO SO 531,250 1 1
Groundwater Hydrology Section 5113,709 540.899 5154.608 4 3 5105,180 5105,180 3 565.689 565.689 2 2 5325,477 9 5
a a
0 a
Sub- Total' Water Quality Division ...... 5476,616 5109,713 5586.329 16 13 5636,283 5545,511 51.181.794 30 17 $ 332,823 $ 72.875 ...• 5405,698 12 10 $ 2.173.821 58 40
Administration Division
Slmpllly eDP equipment PurChases SO 50 SO 50 0 0
EDP Maintenance Contract Renewals SO 530.000 530.000 50 $ 30,000 0 0
Payroll Unll SO 535.670 535.670 2 SO 535.670 2 0
Accounts Receivable $ 0 520,773 $ 20.773 1 1 $ 55,809 $ 55.809 3 576,582 4 1
Accounting Unit Functions $ 0 571,246 539.559 5110.805 5 4 SO 5110,805 5 4
Cost Recovery Process SO 517,811 535,623 $ 53,434 3 1 589.055 SS9.055 5 5 5142,489 8 6
Procurement SO 551.041 551,041 2 521,393 521,393 1 572,434 3 0
Accounts Payable SO 579,421 579,421 4 4 518,101 518.101 1 597.522 5 4
Reorganize Information Resources Management $ 0 552.267 555.646 $ 107.913 3 2 50 5107,913 3 2
Ulilizalion of Human Resource Personnel SO $ 14,363 514,363 2 50 514.363 2 a
Budget Workload SO 540.880 540.880 2 50 540,880 2 0
Sub- Tolal Adminislration Division 50 SO SO 0 0 5241,518 .. c- 5302,782 5544,300 24 12 589.055 595,303 5184,358 10 5 5728,658 34 17
.. - .. - - - - - - .. '... - ... .. - .. - - -
... - - - .. - - - - .. ~ .. '. .. - .. - - -
DEQ SUMMARY OF TITLES & SAVINGS
EXHIBIT 2
3 OF3 PAGES
ntle Federal State Others Grand Total
FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE
Avoid Reduction Total Vac. Avoid Reduction Total Vac. Avoid Reduction Total Vac. Dollars Vac.
• Development
SO S17,8OO S17,800 1 SO 517.800 1 0
Rules Development . { ... ..... •...•.••• i SO .... S17,8OO $ 17,800 1 . .. , , .... SO 517.800 1 0
iecommendations
SO SO SO SO 0 0
I, Management & Personnel SO SO SO SO 0 0
meys SO S147.700 S147.700 SO S147.7oo 0 0
! cture. DEQ SO SO SO SO 0 0
" ements SO SO S1.040. OOO S1.040, OOO 26 S1,040, OOO 26 0
! Policy/ Procedure SO SO SO SO 0 0
ustomer Concerned Allitude SO SO SO SO 0 0
ning Ollice SO SO SO SO 0 0
SO SO SO SO 0 0
'" al Recommendations ....... SO ..... SO SO 0 0 SO S147,7OO S147,7OO 0 0 , SO S1,040, OOO 51,040.000 26 0 51; 187,700 26 0
TOTALS $ 841,358 $ 493,426 S1,334,784 38 23 S1,365,140 S1,331.297 $ 2.696,437 76 42 $ 1,900,614 S1.732.333 $ 3,632.947 104 57 $ 7.684,168 218 122
Pub. Income 534,300
Total $ 7.698.468
IF
C
ar
ns
*'
as
in
lie
Itn
as
,! oat
al
_.",,- RUI
Rules Drafting
Sub- Tot;
Generl
DEQ Laboratory Services
Policies, Procedures, Trair
Providing DEQ with Stall A
Department Organization!
Work Standards I Work ME
Requirement lor Standardi
Need lor Service- Oriented
Establishment 01 Central P
Placement of Audit Functic
.. Sub- Total G
, .... en
~
o
CURRENT ORGANIZATION CHART
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
EXHIBIT II 3
PAGE 1 OF 5
~•
....
Q)
DIRECTOR
4
T
I I I I I
OFFICE OF DEPUTY AlII WASTE ADIIINISTIlAT ION
1" UIl1lC AFFAIIlS DIRECTOR & IlULES
14 1& 99 23e le3
.. ....-' .. _.. __ .. ~ d_
- - .. .. .... - - .. .... - - .. - .. - - -
CURRENT ORGANIZATION CHART EXHIBIT # 3
AIR QUALITY PAGE 2 OF 5
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
99 TOTAL FTEs
3
19 27 I 44 I 6 I ."'";""''' I PERMITS & VEHICLE PLANNING
COMPLIANCE EMISSION
~ 2 6 6
0
.... I ...., M') NITORINO PERMIT ADIlIN .
f- - f-
10 14 3 "'-,
E'IALUAT ION COMPLIANCE PHOENIX
"- I- ~ OPERATOR
7 9 12
S. R. O. TUCSON
I- ~ OPERATOR
1 8
N. R. O. Q. A.
'-- l-
I 7
EMISSIONS
'-- RESEARCH
8
7AHOO2
02fH/ 92
CURRENT ORGANIZATION CHART
WASTE PROGRAMS
EXHIBIT # 3
PAGE 3 OF 5
§ - Clll
DIRECTOR
230 TOTAL FTE.
3
25 I 39 I < 42 33 I 1111 I
SOLID & SPECIAL HAZAROUS & SOLID EMERGENCY WASTE ASSESSMENT U. S. T.
WASTE WASTE RESPONSE & & POlUTION
2 2 REMEDIAL PROJECTS PREVENTION 3 5
2
SOLID ENERG. RESP. E. D. P. CORR. - WASTE ~ & HAL WASTE PRE- - ~ ACTION
12 INSP. 13 - REMEDIAL 2 211
10
SPECIAL HAZ. WASTE TECH. FAC.
'-- WASTE ~ PERMITS REMEDIAL I- PROG. I- REPORTING
11 7 - COORDINATOR 9 12
11
HAZ. WASTE RECYCLING ENGINEERING
'-- COMPLIANCE REMEDIAL ~ - 17 - PROJECTS 7 1.
12
POlUTIOM . HYDROLOGY
FEDERAL L.- PREVENTION - L.- FACILITIES 12 33
7
3 ; .----- - .... - - - - - - ..~ Q, I-
.. .. .. - .. .. - - - .... - .. - - .. - - ..
CURRENT ORGANIZATION CHART
ADMINISTRATION
EXHIBIT / I 3
PAGE 4 OF 5
~•
....
CO
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
3
I
I 11 I 19 I II I 7 I 11 I
'""""~ MANAGEMENT INFO. RES. CONT RACTING & GENERAL HUIlAN IIESOUIICES
FINANA. CE BUDGET & AUDIT MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENT SERVICES
3 11 1 II 7 3
~~ INFORMATION PERSONNEL
I- CENTER -
"
S 6
"---.
I, CrOUNTS BUS. SYSTEM TRAINING - PI'. YABLE I- -
"
S 1
ACCOUNTS SCIENTIFIC SAFETY - R!' CEIVABLE I- SYSTEMS - 7 3 ,
_~ P" IY: OLL OPER. AND
f.- R& D
4
"---.
,; OST DATA BASE
'-- IIE,; OVERY '--
10 1
7AHOO6
02124/ 92
CURRENT ORGANIZATION CHART
WATER QUALITY
EXHIBIT # 3
PAGE 5 OF 5
~ o
~
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
4
I
I 53 I 37 I 4S I 37 I 15 I
PLAN REVIEW & WATER AS5ESSMENT COMPLIANCE FIELD SERVICES G. W. HYDROLOOY PROO. COOIID.
PERMITS CERTIFICATION
3 4 2 3 2 I
LANDFILLS PESTICIDE WATER POLL. NORTHERN REMEDIAL PLANMING & - APP f- - COMPLIANCE f- REGION - INVEST. HYDR. >-- EVALUATION
9 11 12 10 9 5
MINING APP POINT SOURCE DRINKING REV. FUND SITE PLANNING & - I-- & MONITORING - WATER - AONIN. I-- ASSESSNENT - GRANT5
8 12 ENFORCEMENT 6 HYDROLOOY 7 6
14
WASTEWATER WATER QUALITY REV. FUND NON- POINT OPER.
I-- APP & DRY- I-- STD. & LAB DRINKING - PROJECTS I-- SOURCE/ OW '-- CERTIF ICATION
WELLS 9 COORD. 10 - WATER DATA 8 MONITOR. 11 3
9
REUSE / MON - POINT CENTRAL OW HYDROLOGY
- NPDES '-- SOURCE - REGION - TECH. SERVo
6 16 9 9
PERMITS SOUTHERN - HYDROLOOY '-- REGION
9 9
TECH. REVIEW -
8 - ..._. -----..-..--...- ..- ... .. ~._" " m_" - 7AHOO8
"~/ 92
3 s
DEQ - 21
LAYERS
2
' 0
o ...-=======~::::::..----~-----~----_ 1
20
EXHIBIT 4
40
so
60 ..,-------------------------------.,
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
EXHIBIT # 5
PAGE 1 OF 5
§
I
IS
S20 TOTAL FTE.
I I DIRECTOR - 26 FTE. WORK MEASUREMENT/ STANDARDS
~ --
49~ FTE.
PUBLIC LEGAL DEPUTY
AFFAIRS OFFICE DIRECTOR ~ I I I 1~ 6
L PLANNING BUDGET AUDIT
5 8 3
RULES
13
I I I
OFFICE DF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF
AIR QUALITY WASTE WATER QUALITY ADMINI5TRATION
79 H6 173 65
i*------------..-.------ ­AH026
~~~__ _ .~ ...-......- ~~ __ ~! 26In
...... - .... .. .. ....... - - - .. - - -
RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION CHART
AIR QUALITY
EXHIBIT # 5
PAGE 2 OF 5
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
79 TOTAL FTE.
3
r 23 I 36 I 7 I
PERMITS & VEHICLE PLANNING
COMPLIANCE EMISSION
20 6 7
S. R. O. ADMIN.
f- -
I 3
N. R. O. PHOENIX
f-- - OPERATOR 0., 11.
I 11
EPS MODELERI TUCSON
'-- PERMIT f-- OPERATOR
1 5
EMISSIONS
'-- RESEARCH
5
10
i I"""". 11
£ j
fi o
7AHOO3
0212~/ 92
RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION CHART
WASTE PROGRAMS
EXHIBIT # 5
PAGE 3 OF 5
~
o
~
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
146 TOTAL FTEs
3
I 3Z I 33 I 36 I
HAZARDOUS SOLID & EMERO. RESI'. & WASTE ASSESSMENT U. S. T.
SPECIAL WASTE REMEDIAL PROJECTS & POLLUTION
2 3 PREVENTION 3 3
EMERGENCY PRE- E. D. I'. TEAM 1
~ RESPONSE ~ REMEDIAL - - 4 14 2 11
PERMITTING REMEDIATION TECH. TEAM 2
!- - !- PROO. I--
7 15 9 11
SOLID & RECYCLING TEAM 3
I-- SPECIAL WASTE ~ - 12 7 11
INSP. COMPL. POLLUTION
'- '- PREVENTION
17 12
_ & £ .._. .._....~,. ._ 1--- 1- - - lAHOO5 tla'W9
.. .. .. .. ..'.. - .. .. .. .. .. .. - - .. - .. -
§
~
RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION CHART
ADMINISTRATION
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
65 TOTAL FTEs
3
24 I 16 I 6 7 I 9 I
BUSINESS & INFO. RES. CONTRACTING & O£ NEftAL HUIlAIl RESOUftCES
FINANACE llANAO£ llENT PROCUREllENT SERVICES
3 2 5 • 1 TRANSFERRED 7 2
ACCT. UNIT TECH. PEIlSONNEL - ( INCLUDES - OPERATOil r-
TftANSFEIlS) ,. 7 4
ACCOUNTS " 1100. TftAINING - PAYABLE - OPERATOil - 4 7 Z
ACCOUNTS SAFETY - RECEIVABLE -
3 1
PAYIlOLL - 2
COST - RECOVERY
2
EXHIBIT / I 5
PAGE 4 OF 5
I -,--_._._._.-...._. __.
7AHOO7
02124192
,
RECOMMENDED ORGANIZATION CHART
WATER QUALITY
EXHIBIT # 5
PAGE 5 OF 5
~
o
~
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
173 TOTAL FTEe
4
42 I 77 5. I
l'LAN REVIEW & WATER ASSESSMENT COMl'LIANCE
l'ERMITS
3 4 2
l'ERMITS CHEMICAL OI'ER. - HYDROLOGY ~ l'ESTlC IDES & - CERTIFICATION
II TECH. SUPPDRT 3
III
TECH. REVIEW I'OLLUTION
~ POINT - COMl'LIANCE
7 ~ SOURCE 12
12
PERMIT UMIT DRINKING
"- WATER - WATER
3 ~ QUALITY LAIl CONPL. 13 ,.
TEAll A FIELD
~ NON- POINT "- SERVICES
9 ~ SOURCE 2
III
TEAll B NDIITHERN - REMEDIAL - 9 "- INVESTIGATION 6
& SITE
ASSESS. IS
NPDES CENTRAL - - 3 6
SOUTHERN - 6
_ r-_ J-_ t-_ J-.- t-.- a-... I-- i__" ........-..--..----- - - - .. .. ..
7AH009
. fHf9
.. .. .. - - .. - .. .. .. -, .. - - .. .. - - -
o mo
tl
DEQ IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE EXHIBIT 6
( PRELIMINARY) PAGE I OF 3
I IIONTHS
TITLE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 lUI 111 112 113 114 115 I 16 I 17 118 I 19 lze I I
AIR qUALITY DIVISION
" RE • III" LEIIENTATION ''' REPAIlATION - VEHICLE EII15SIONS WAIVER LANES I
I
DENIED PORTION OF WAIVER LANES " ROCESS I
I I I I I I I I
REVISIONS OF PUBLIC NOTICES/" UBLICHEARING " ROCESS I
I
CONBINING " ERIIIT & COIIPLIANCE UNITS I
I
P'R!- AP'PLICATION IIEETIttG REQUIREIIENT I
CUR50RY EVALUATION XIII'ROVEIIENT I - DlW'T " ERIUT REVIEW PIIOCESS I
IIOIlJTORING UNIT- iNSfRIJIIENTATION TlEAIl I
I
UASSIONIIENT OF ANAI. Y!' lIS TEAll I
I
AS5IIIIIIENT OF SPECIAL STUDIES FUNCTION I
I
ASSIIIIIIENT Of MOOEUlIll WORKLOAD I
W' 5TE DIVISION
" RE - IMPLEMENTATION " REPARATION - COMBINE FEDERAL FACILITIES & PRE- REMEDIAL UNITS I
I
EMERGENCY RESPONSE UNIT I
I
TRANSFER OF INSPECTI~ S FUNCTIONS I
COMPLIANCE UNIT I
I
SOLID WASTE UNIT I
I
S" ECIAL WASTE UNIT I
I I
" ERIIIT UNIT HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION I
I
TRANSFER OF FACILITIE$ REPORTING UNIT FUNCTIONS I
I
COMBINING UNITS IN rH~ UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS SECTION I
I
CONTRACTING/ LEGAL SER~ ICES- WATER QUALITY I
~
-
DEQ IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE EXHIBIT 6
( PRELIMINARY) PAGE 2 OF 3
I ~~
TITlE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I II I 9 I 11 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 111 I 19 I H I I
WATER QUALITY DIVISION
PRE - IMPLEMENTATION I'REI'ARATION _
I'ROORAM COORDINATION/ CERTIFICATION SECTION I'LACENENT I I
REVOLVING FUND UNIT TRANSFER I
I
ASSIGNMENT OF WATER QUALITY FIELD OFFICES I
CONBINING DRINKING WATER ENFORCEMENT AND DATA I I
IOND SUBMISSION IN LIEU OF FINANCIAL DATA I
ISTAILISHING DEADLINE FOR DEFICIENCY RESPONSES : I I
ca. IIlING UNITS IN PLANS REVIEW & I'ERMIT SECTION I
I HSTICIDES UNIT I I I I I I •
eItOUIlDWATER I'ROTECTION LIST I I I I I I I I I I I I I
ADA - DEQ COORDINATION OF INSI'ECTIONS I I
eItOUIlDWATER HYDROLOGY SECTION •
ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
I'RE - IM!' LEMENTATION I'REI'ARATION -
SIMI'UFY EOI' EQUI!' MENT I'URCHASES I I ·
ED!' MAINTENANCE CONTRACT RENEWALS I
I'AYROLL UNIT I I
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE I •
ACCOUNTING UNIT FUNCTIONS I
COST RECOVERY PROCESS •
I'ROCUREMENT I I
ACCOUNTS I'AYABLE I I
REORGANIZE INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT I
UTILIZATION OF HUMAN RESOURCE PERSONNEL I •
BUDGET WORKLOAD •
~ _ ._ ••_ _ ..... ........ ....... 1-.. 1. J....- • _,_..- I-. -.... l... _ _. - ...
....--.- ----~--..--_~~-
~
.. - .. .. - - .. .. .. .. .. - - - .. - - - -
DEQ IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE EXHIBIT 6
( PRELIMINARY) PAGE 3 OF 3
I MONTHS
TITLE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I II I 9 11. 111 112 113 I 14 115 I 16 117 I III I 19 121 I I
RULEl, DEVELOI'MENT
RULES DlIAFTINO •
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
' DREEQ - LABIMOR'LAETMOERNYTASETRIOVNICE" ES'ARATION - I I I I I I I I I I I •
roLICIE5, ' ROCEDURES, TRAINING. MANAGEMENT &' ERSONNEL I I I I I I I
I
, I I I I , I" ROVIDINO DEQ WITH STAFf ATTORNEYS I I I I I •
) or'ARTMENT ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE. DEQ I
I I I I I
WORK STANDARDS , WORK MEASUREMENTS I
I MOUIMMENT FOR STAIIDA'OIlED ' OLlCY" ROCEDURE • I
NEED FOR SERVICE- ORIENTED, CUSTOMER CONCERNED ATTITUDE I
ESTAIlLlSHMENT OF CENTRAL ' LAIINING OFFICE •
' LACEMENT OF AUDIT FUIICUONS -
-._-_.-'~"'-'-'~~'~--""-- -._-.-,
Ql
~
o
EXHIBIT 7
ExtibIs for 0fIicemAll Quality Recornrn8IldaIioI.
EXHIBIT
12. Waiver Lane Process Evaluation - Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38
13. Phoenix Vehicle Emissions Waiver, StatIstical Summary .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
14. Emissions Waiver, Summary . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
15. Vehicle Emissions · Section, Current Organization Chart 41
16. Vehicle Emissions Section, Proposed Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
17. Permit Application Process, Proposed Flow Chart 51
18. Permits & Compliance Section, Current Organization Chart 55
19. Permits & Compliance Section, Proposed Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56
20. Major Source installation Permit Process, Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 60
21. Permit Application Cursory Review, Flow Chart 65
22. Draft Permit Approval, Current Flow Chart .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69
23. Air Assessment Section, Current Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71
24. Air Quality Planning Section, Current Organization Chart 76
25. Air Quality Planning Section, :> roposed Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. n
26. Air Assessment Section, Proposed Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81
DEQ - 30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT 8
Exhibb for 0IIice f1 Waste Products RecommeIdatioIl8
EXHIBIT
27. Remedial Projects Section, Current Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85
28. Remediation Section, Proposed Organization Chart 86
29. Hazardous and Solid Waste Section, Current Organization Chart 90
30. Incident Process, Hazardous Waste, FlaIN Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91
31. Property Release. Statistical Summary, Oncident Log) 92
32. Arizona Hazardous Material Incident Report Form 93
33. Phoenix IX Incident NotlfIcatlon Report Form 94
34.1 Hazardous, Solid and Special Waste Section, Proposed Organization Chart . . . . . . . . .. 95
35. Inspection Case Development Process, Emergency Response Unit, FlaIN Chart . . . . .. 100
36. Inspection Log, Statistical Report 101
37. Solid and Special Waste Units, Current Organization Chart 107
38. Directory, Municipal landfills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108
39. Directory, Oosed LandfIlls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110
40. Process Timetable, Hazardous Waste 118
41. Permit Process, Hazardous Waste, Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119
34.2 Hazardous, Solid & Special y1aste Section. Proposed 121
42. U. S. T. Organization Chart. Current 125
43. U. S. T. Organization Chart, Proposed 126
44. U. S. T. Corrective Action Reporting, Flow Chart 133
45. Site Evaluation Process, Waste DMsIon, FlaIN Chart 140
46. Remedial Projects Section, Current Organization Chart 141
47. Remediation Section, Proposed Organization Chart 142
DEC · 31
EXHIBIT 9
EXHiBIT
48. Program Coordination - Certification Section,
Water DMslon - Current Organization Chart 147
49. Field Services Section, Current Organization Chart , 151
50. Compliance Section, owe, Current Organization Chart 156
51. Compliance SectIon, owe, Proposed Organization Chart 161
52. APP Application Process, Plan Review & Permit Section, Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 164
53. Plan Review & Permit Section, Current Organization Chart ... . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . .. 167
54. A. R. S. 49- 241, APP Statutes, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 168
55. APP Permit Writing Process, Flow Chart 174
56. Plan Review and Permit Section, Current Organization Chart 182
57. Plan Review and Permit Section, Proposed Organization Chart 183
58. APP Process Costs, Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 184
59. Water Assessment Section, Current Organization Chart 189
60. 1991 Estimated Team TraVel, Time & Cost, Chart 190
61. Draft, 1991 Pesticides List 196
62. Reduced 1991 Pesticides List 199
63. ArIzona laboratories List 201
64. CAFO FacUlty Inspection ( Complaint) Tracking Log" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 205
65. Groundwater Hydrology Section, Current Organization Chart 211
66. " Superfund Hydrology Unit Document Submittal," Form 212
67. Water Assessment Section, Proposed Organization Chart 213
DEO - 32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I EXHBIT
I 68.
I 69.
70.
71. I 72.
73.
I 74.
I 75.
76.
n.
I 78.
79.
I 80.
81.
I 82.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT 10
Exhibb for the 0IIk: e d AdmH& tIBIioo
Management. Budget & Information Resources Management Section.
CurrentOrgan~ Chart 219
Business & Finance Section, Current Organization Chart 220
Purchase Requisition for Computer Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 221
EDP Equipment Procurement Process. Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 227
Automation- Maintenance Contract Renewal. Flow Chart .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 233
Contracting, Procurement and Human Resources Sections.
Current Organization Chart 251
Business & Finance Section, Current Organization Chart 237
Business & Finance Section, Proposed Organization Chart , 238
Accounts Receivable. Quarterty BOling. Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 242
Commodities Procurement Process, Current Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 252
Commodities Procurement Process. Proposed Flow Chart .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 254
Payment Process. Accounts Payable, Current Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 259
Information Resources Management Section. Proposed Organization Chart . . . . . . . .. 264­OffIce
of Administration. Human Resource & Contract Procurement
Proposed Organization Chart 268
Management and Budget Section, Proposed Organization Chart .. '.' . . . . . . . . . . . .. 272
DEQ - 33
EXHBIT 11
ExhIbIs for AD. E. Q. Rues Recommendadons
EXHIBIT ~
83. Office of the Director, Current Organizational Chart 2n
84. List of Certlfled Rules 278
85. Rules Development - Informal and Formal Process, Row Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 279
86. Man- hours Required In Rules Drafting 280
DEQ - 34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
OFACE OF AIR QUALITY RECOMMENDATIONS
VEHICLE EMSSIONS WAIVER lNI: S
Vehicle emissions testing In ArIzona 18 conducted by the Gordon- Darby CorporatIon of Kentucky
under contract with ADEQ. Once a vehicle has exhausted the normal emissions testa options administered
by Gordon Darby, and adl fds to meet state standards, It 18 referred to the ADEQ waiver lanes. This
process identifies approximately 47,000 waiver requests In Maricopa and Pima counties. The waiver request
process Is handled by ADEQ at one location In Tucson and two locations In Phoenix.
The process used by the personnel at the waiver lane locations Is shown In the attached exhibit
12, Waiver Lane Process Evaluation, Flow Chart The vehicle owner may be Issued a · Pass, · " Waiver. ·
- ramperlng Pass or FaI, · or denied certificate. Besides this activity, the Waiver lanes are available to
conduct regliar emissions testa on some government vehicles which do not have seff- lnspected fleet status.
The traffic volume through the two locations of the Phoenix Operations Unit ( p. O. U.) 18 shown In
exhibit 13, Phoenix Vehicle Emissions Waiver, Statistical Summary. ApproxJmately 32,500 requests for
waivers and approximately 2,000 regular emission testa for government vehicles are processed annually.
In addition, approxJmately 3,100 tampering cases In calendar 1991 were processed ( see Exhibit 14,
Emissions Waiver. Summary).
The Southern Operations Unit ( S. O. U.) located In Tucson processed approximately 14,500 waivers.
1.200 tampering cases and 1,000 government vehicles In 1991 ( see exhibit 13, Phoenix Vehicle Emissions
Waiver. StatIstical Summary). The organization of these two units 18 shown In ExhIbIt 15.
The Quality Assurance ( QA) Unit In Phoenix performs start- up audits for garages, automotive
repair shops, service stations and Gordon- Darby. They also conduct fleet audits once a year, shallow audits
which are simplified annual fleet audits rN& ry 90 days, and handle complaints. These functions are
performed within the Operations Unit In Tucson.
Based on our Interviews and time studies, the P. O. U. waiver lane process 18 seven minutes In
duration, tampering related cases Is ten minutes and government vehicle emission testa 18 four minutes.
DEQ - 35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Using the above time frame for the three processes noted and evenly distributing the traffic Into
the waiver lanes ( I. e. one vehicle after another), the staffing required to handle the P. O. U. volume woUd be:
· WaMw..... At 7 minutes each, this equals 8.5 processed per hour, for 32,500 per year = 3,824
hours
• TamperkIg: At 10 minutes each, this equals 6 tests per hour, for 3,100 cases per year = 517 hours
• ~ Vel**: At 4 minutes each this equals 15 tests per hour, for 2.000 per year = 134
hours.
The total time required should be 4,475 hours or 3.74 FTEs based on an avalable 1,675 working
hours per year. The current staffing is 12 FTEs in Phoenix.
The S. O. U. processes Its workload with the equivalent of one FTE compared to the Phoenix
operation where they wi! process about 4,062 waivers per FTE. This is due primarly to the cross- trained
personnel and combined functions In Tucson. This allows the QA team to utilize their slack time to perfonn
Inspections on the waiver lane, which resUts In a more efficient utilization of personnel.
We recommend that the QA unit be combined with P. O. U. in the Phoenix area and the personnel
be cross- trained just like the Tucson operation. An organization slmMar to that shown In exhibit 16 will
accomplish this recommendation.
Combining the two units wit allow the P. O. U. to achieve approximately the same ratio of cars
processed per FTE as Tucson's operation. There are currently 12 FTE positions In the Phoenix Operation
Unit of which two positions are vacant. There are six FTEs, plus one Carl< In the QA Unit In Phoenix which
makes a total of 19 FTE positions.
DEQ - 36
Combining the two Units will reduce the total number of positions from 19 to 11. theraby
eliminating eight FTEs, of which two are currently vacant. This will result In a reduction of approximately
$ 168,750 and cost avoidance of approximately $ 56,250 for a total savings of approximately $ 225,000 per
year.
Combining these units will extend the supervisory span of control - I. a.• ten FTEs per supervisor
versus six FTEs per supervisor In the QA Unit.
The breakdown of savings are: Stata funds $ 80,000. Other funds $ 145.000.
• Evaluata methodology Tucson operating unit uses for manning waiver lane
• Cross train personnel
• TIme frame - approximately two month.
DEQ - 37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I WAIVER LANE PROCESS EVALUATION EXHIBIT 12
I GORDON DARBY WAIVER LANES CASHIER
I EMISSION
TESTS
1. a MILLION
VEHICLES
I VEHICLE
ARRIVES
AT
.. 7 •••• LANE
I REQUESTS
I
I
I
I
I $ 5 .••
PASS FOR
DOCUMENT
I FAIL
I DENIED
NO
CHARGE
I
I FAIL
I PASS
I ISSUE $ 5."
FOR
WAIVER DOCUMENT I
I DEQ - 38
V7007
I
.. -- -
PII X- loW JJ. IJ( Y / I ~- Il~ t 1:.- I
_.. _--_ ..
t= 11< I Z[ I,- 1A l/ t'l Pr< OGR-'
- ..
ExhIbIt 13
WOl WAI',,' ER SUMMARY 1991 CALANDER YEAR TAMPERING
Y. PASS DENIED Y- DEI'- lI ED WAVIER ;.(. WAVIER REQUEST PASS FAIL
23. 12~/: 572 L12. ( IE. i- 788 57.94/: 88 ':' 8 4( 1
19.521- 511 39. ' 381- 757 50.021- 58 30 28
19. =:.( 1,: £. 58 LI5.79i- 779 54.21~ 1( 10 38 r- .::,., t:,,_
20.481- 790 50.221- 783 4' 3.781- 98 54 44
20. 43,: 835 49.7'::;/: 8 Lt4 5( 1.27" 1: 92 38 C • -,. it
21). 561- 73' 3 50.341- 72' 3 4' 3.65;,(, 125' 58 67
22. 1()~/~ 9EA ~, 2. 791- 802 LI7.21" 1: 241 121 12')
21.531- 8' 35 4' 3.6' 31- 3( 15 50.311- 328 leG 1 ... 2
22. B81- 874 ~ 13. ( 13~ 774 46. 97': 23i) 123 117
25.141- 75' 3 48.22~~ 815 51.781- 28( 1 145 1 ~ 5
ERR E Rf< ( l ERR
ERR ERF~ 0 ERR
21. 73:/. 7=-,'-; 1/ LIB. 5ci- 8i) 47 =, 1 . 44:,: 1fA( I 841 8( 1': 1
':' 0': 1
310
348
405
431
380,
518
4' 37
489
557
--
4344
PASS
1759
15138
1785
197B
21 1( I
1848
2344
2298
21::. 7
2131
19988
REQUESTS
eLl;; !;. I · J 1. ;-- . lVI'"
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
rlAY
JUrJ
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
roTAL
~
I
18
W02 WAIVER SUMMARY 1' 331 CAL~\ I~[ IER yEAR b- LN - ' 10% 0 W, AUcrUS T A
TAMPERING
REQUESTS PASS ~~ PAS3 llErJ 1 ED ~~ I) Et · 1 I ED \.- Irw I E: r~ i': \.- 1AVI ER REQUEST PASS FAIL
JAN 55"~ 1.:' •. 22. ( h)': r~ 239 5~. 82:' · ~ 197 45.181- 29 19 1( 1
... .. J
FEB f, 32 11 b 18.351- 29' 3 57.951- 217 42. ( I::, i- 3' 3 If, 23
MAR E. E. 2 1( 1E! 1E.. 311- 318 57. 4( 1~~ 2~; o 42. E.( I1- 41 i9 22
APR 732 132 18. ( 13;'; 34h :' 7.671- 2= · 4 42. 33~<' (; 5 28 ::', 7
MAY 7~: 4 1::' 3 18. 12:. 0: 33(. 5. l•• 91 · ,,~ 271 45.091- 54 2( 1 34
JUI'J 754 14 i l 1' 3.1( l~'; 3£: 3 bl). it9~': 2' 11 ~-: J. 51' l- E. it 32 ~ 2
_ lUL 973 24( 1 2' 1. 57~~ 452 L1. Lb:/' 281 38.34i- lit 3 67 7E,
AUG ' 372 231 23. 77i': 458 i:, 3. 1 b /; 273 ; jE.. B41- 1' 37 1') 4
.::..;." _.. J
SEP 9=' 0 2 115 25.73' l. 375 52.82' l. 335 47. l8' i. l e - & 2 7 L,
..... 0
OCT 1( 1( 11 224 22. 38 · /~ 446 :. 7 • '~( I~': 2'. 31 ' i2. bc) 1- 1 E.. 5 £. 5 1 .)( 1
t~ OV ERR f::- RR ( I E. ; r~
DEC E. RR EFlH ( I ERH
TOTriL 7':: t75 llS97 21 ..~~ B'l. ;':' b LI2 :: ie.. ( Ii'/- 2lS3b 4 1• 9' 3: 1. 9=;~;
4 < 0-: 1'._;:_. 50i
.. - --
- -
WAVIE. R ' i': WAVIER REQUEST F~ ll L
- - - - .. - eM14"
CALAl\ lDER YEAR / Tic - LI OLIO f. ; lqt hS'fl...[ Er
TAMPERING
PASS
1'; 1'" 31
/~[) EtH ED
..
~~ P. 4SS DENIED
- - .. W03 WAIVER SUMMARY - --
REQIJI:: STS PASS
.. ..
JAN 731
FEB 95E.
tolAR 994
APR 1201
tolRY 12; 29
JUN 12bb
JUL J4E> B
AUG 1572
SEP 1 ::; 42
OCT 1:; 1) 4
NOV
DEC
21 20 1
17 16 1
25 22; .=. '-
42 28 14
J::'~, ......::. 21 31
101 4' 3 52
196 ': iE. 1 ( 10
2£ 3 1 :,;, E. 127
lE. 7 74 '=. 1";-
~-. J
187 II)':, 8~
_' -. J
TOTAL 1.::,~ E. 3
...._- -- - ._-----_._.. _.. - - ---_.
242 33. 1 1 · ,: 202; 111 . 51;< c' 8E. 58. 119;'.
19' 3 20.82;< 179 23.£ 5;< 57B " iE.. 35;'.
21)" 20.121- 227 28. 59:/. =, 67 71. 41;'.
243 2( 1. 23~~ 254 2E.. 51 i: 70it 73.491-
3( lc 23. () 2~ 358 35. ( 11) 1- tSS5 55. ( 11)~~
273 21 .. 5b';.~ 364 ~, b. 66i1. b2' 3 63.34i1.
3£. 5 24.85-,,: 408 ~, E•• 99~~ E,' 95 53.01;'.
47b 28.47:.'. 41' 3 35.03i1. 777 6' 1. ' 37i1.
257 2£.. f.( I"/. ~ · £': f 27. 3,1 ;'. 716 7 2. f. 9~{
349 2E.. 7f.;'. 274 2Li. 5' 3/: E. 81 ' 71 • 31; 1:
ERR E r< r< ( l ERR
ERH ERR ( I ERR
3010 24 .. 55~' 2' 3~, 5 31. 9 1.: 1. E. 238 sn. otS;'. 1071 5E. 7 =.( 14
§ ,
l)
WA I'JER E; llfYIM. · HiY 19' 01 1 CI1Lt~\ I\ JDE R yErlR ~ Cl f': t!:! J1:'! E [ I
T~ lfYIPER lr- lG
REQUEETS PASS i~ P~) SS DEI'lIED :/: i: JEt~ I EIJ W( I ... · IER ~ l- JA\' JER REQUEST PASS fAIL
JAN 3(.• · 59 774 25. 3( J~~ 1( 114 44. 2; 8-,,: 1271 ~ 5. E. 2;'. 138 ~ 7 51
FEB 3176 625 1' 3.6BiI. 98' 3 3B. 77"/. 15£. 2 f., 1. 23i'; 114 E,~: c;-.:;,
~''-
"' lAR 3441 E. 56 1' 3. ( lE. i~ 1203 1. 3. 2() i~ 1582 5E.. 80y. 16E. 80, BE,
APR 3' 311 780 1' 3.94;'. 1390 44.39il. 1741 55.5 j /; 205 1 10 ': 1=~
,.. IAY ~ 173 670 2( 1.85;( 1523 l. E.. l11- 1780 53. 8' 3:'~ 19B 79 1 13
JUI-. J 38EB 797 20. bO/: 1472 47. ': U~~ 159' 3 52.07;'. c:' 30 139 151
JUL 4785 1123 23.47;'. 18211 1. g. 81;'. 1838 50. 19i1. 580 284 2': JE.
RUG 4942 1204 24.35;'. 1782 47. b/ i. 1' 3=. 6 t. 2.33~ 7EIB 425 3£ 2
SEP 4435 1( 132 24. £ 2-,,: 1518 115. 4 1 i~ 1825 54. 59:/. 553 279 284
OCT 4 .... 35 113( 1 25. " 7:,~ 147: 3 44.7iti. 1827 55.25/: £ 32 314 318
I'Jl)\} 0 ( I =. RR ,) =' F: t< ( J t:: RR I) I) ( I
[ IEC ( I ( I ERR ( I ERR ( I ERR ( I 0 ( I
TGTi= IL l. t') I~ I:~ O 9051 22.5( 1% 11113" 1 115. 53~~ lE- 9Ell 5 11.47i1. 25611 lE. 1E. O ISJ4
DEO - OFFICE OF AIR OIlALITY
V[ HICLE EHISSION SECTION
mum 01, 1m exhibit 15
cal
EJlY fROO SUPY
S om 6' t
NT YACm
GSPEC - eLK TYP III
51 t 5 om it t
WALLS
Ens II
S OC5C it I
GRAY
Ens I s om it •
REDIIAK - ! Os I
5 0114 it t
~ VACANT
EHS I
I S 0156 5t •
ncAKT
ST SERY mEU
S 0105 , t t
YACA
£ IIY fROO
5 om II
t
BERHEA CELLINO
CL~ TIP III '- CL~ TIP II
S mc I 5 om t
CRUBBl
ENV PROG SPEC
Y om I
LUm
- CLX TIP
Y om
BAUER
- EHS I " om t
SCHERER
- Elf II
5 mc t
GIBBONS
EIT II
S om t
GASS
! IT II
Y 0185 t
HcDANIEL
EIT II
S om I
] IJOBROOS~ I
ADK SECY I-S
0593 I
SIIICART
£ IT II
Y om t
FOSTER
lIT II
S om f
Lill
En II
S 0588 t
WETTERSTROH
EHS I
Y 0601 t
WATSON
EIIY PROG hllR - Pl
S om
CARRICG en TIP III
Y om t
KALlKGS
ill
, 016C t
VACANT
REV tTL IKfO TECH
Y om t
mNE STUDHAII
lIlY ENG SPEC 1- P'PS I
Y 0691 I Y 0585 I
I CISCO TRAUT
US II EKS II
, OIn t Y om t
QPJlART CARREL
III II lIlS I
, 0" I , 0511 f
SHARP LUCERO
, lIoTmII f 5! IoTmII f
RELooK ms
lEY con TEClI lit II
, 0165 • S 0513 I
CLIPTOK
, loitmII f
MUTTERS
- lit II
, 0606 I
TOCCO
lit II
5 0590 •
~
§
( 5/ 1)
II, I 1tlimT fEICI
- I-~-~
ADHlmfRATIOK PHOEKII O~ ERATlOIS TUCSON OPWTiONS QUALITY AhURAKCE EIlISSIOifSlRESEARCH om um . um um LABORATORY um
SHUHANA UUGER RICH ~
il II EIIY fROO SPEC EIlY PROO SPEC , om t y 0571 I S om I
( S/ D) ~ I REV, CTLomlIto•! tCll
VEST 5101 lAST SIDE ADHIHISTRATIOK WAIVER LAKE
WAIVER WE NAma LAKE
I. ~
OA02. l* 0
---------~---~-----
------~------------
PROPOSED ORGANIZATION
DEQ - OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY
VEHICLE EMISSION SECTION
EXHIBIT 16
SECTION
MANAGER
SUPERVISOR
ENV ENG
SPEC
SID
I
PHOENIX
OPERATIONS UNIT
I M,. I
, ---. J
1- 1 EIT II 1-- 1 EHS II
_._~
III I I CLERK II - T--- I TUCSON EMISSIONS
OPERATIONS UNIT RESEARCH UNIT
I
SUPERV::- l SUPERVISOR
ENV CLERK
AA I I I I CLERK III I I
ENG TYP III
I
CLERK
TYP II
PIPS I
T EAST SIDE
OAIWAIVER LANE
I • i
.- i EHS II
TIL
I
I WEST SIDE
OAIWAIVER LANE
. I ,
r- I EHS II
TIL
INFO']
TECH -
I" AOMIIlISTIU, TION
UNIT
I
~
§
It
L....--- J REV co" J TECH -
1- 1 EHS I 1-- 1 EHS I 1- 1 EHS I 1-- 1 EHS I
1- 1 Ell II 1-- 1 EIT II 1-- 1 Ell II t-- I EHS I
L.- I EIT II 1-- 1 EIT II ~ EIT II 1-- 1 EHS I
L-. I EIT II L-INFO
TECH
'-- I INTERN
V7004
" DENIED" PORTION OF WAIVER LANE PROCESS
Once a vehicle has exhausted the normal emission test options administered by the contractor
Gordon- Darby, the vehicle Is referred to the ADEQ waiver lanes ( see exhibit 12, Waiver Lane Process
Evaluation · Flow Chart).
In our Interview we learned that 47,000 requests for waivers In Maricopa and Pima counties does
not mean vehicles. A given vehicle may pass through the waiver lane several times before It gets a pass
or a waiver. Some of the " Pass" certificates and some of the " Waiver" certificates are Issued the first time
through and those would equal a single Vehicle. Other " Pass" and " Waiver" certificates are Issued after a
vehicle has already been denied one or more times. If a vehicle does not get a " Pass" or a " Waiver" It
always gets a " Denied" certificate.
In the Gordon- Darby testing a vehicle is allowed two passes for a $ 5.40 fee. A vehicle may pass
through the waiver lanes an unlimited number of times and only pays a $ 5.00 fee for either a " Pass" or
" Waiver" certificate.
The number of certificates Issued for 1991 was approximately 10,800 " Pass", 20,500 " Waiver" and
17,000 " Denied" ( see exhibit 13, Phoenix Vehicle Emissions Waiver, Statistical Summary, and exhibit 14,
Emissions Waiver, Summary). 10,800 " Pass" certificates X $ 5 =$ 54,000, and 20,500 " Waiver" certificates
X $ 5 = $ 102.500, for a total revenue of $ 156,500.
Because the waiver lanes track only certificates Issued rather than certificates and vehicle
identification, there are substantial Impacts because management:
• Cannot determine haN many vehicles are not In compliance following normal testing
procedures at contractor site
• Cannot determine how many vehicles never meet emission compliance
• Must use more resources to process vehicles which pass through m~ p1e times.
DEQ · 43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
According to our interviews almost everyone who is given a - Denied- certificate returns to the
waiver lanes at a later date. We were also told that many vehicles which eventually still cannot meet
compliance requirements for emissions simply go outside the attainment area and secure a post office box,
using that address for vehicle registration, thus no longer requiring any emission testing.
It Is unknown how many vehicles presently operate Inside the attainment area and thus UlegaJly
circumvent the emissions testing requirement year after year. It Is likely that this number Is graNIng each
year.
Under the current situation, they are processing 17,000 - Denied" certificates using four minutes per
certificate which turns out to be 68.000 minutes or 64 % of one FTE.
Since there Is no charge for - Denied- certificates, $ 34,000 Is not being recovered because they
never pay their $ 5.00 charge.
The customer may have to make several trips to the waiver lane in order to accomplish compliance
which causes inconvenience.
Recommer! dIIiQI! S
We recommend the foilaNIng actions be taken:
• That both Maricopa and Pima Counties operation units track both Certificates and Vehicles
• Waiver lanes not accept requests that have not met the corr8ctive action requirements of
previous emissions testing
• That a $ 3.00 charge per waiver request be Imposed, Including - Pass-, - FaB- or - Denied:
Implementing these recommendations:
DEC - 44
• WDI allow the Vehicle Emissions Section to determine how many vehicles are not In
compl1ance
• Under the current system, with 31,300 vehicles being issued a " Pass" or - Watver- at $ 5.00
each, the Department receives $ 156,500
• Under the proposed system, It Is estimated there will be 31,300 Certificates, Pass or Watver
requested, each of which wli be charged $ 3.00, for a revenue of $ 93,900
• Also the 17,000 Denied Certificates would be charged $ 3.00, or $ 51,000
• If 90% of the 17,000 " Denied" Certificates return, then 15,300 X$ 3.00 =$ 45,900 more revenue
would be generated
• The total revenue exceeding the current method of doing business would be $ 93,900 +
$ 51,000 + $ 45,900 = $ 190.800 ( proposed)- $ 156,5OO{ current) = $ 34,300
• There Is also a public savings of $ 62,600 to the vehicle owners who come in compliance
dUring the first trip. This will encourage the other vehicle owners from making multiple trips.
• Additional benefits are as follows:
The financial load is borne appropriately by those who must retum to the watver lanes
multiple times
The work load on the waiver lanes will be reduced since there are no " free trips
The environment will benefit from the increased number of vehicles In compliance.
Implementation of this recommendation may require:
• Publication of new or amended rules with an anticipated time frame of 9 months
DEQ - 45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Public notification of the fee change
• Writing of appropriate policy and procedure, with any required new forms.
DEC - 46
REVISION OF Pl& JC NOTICa;/ PUBUC HEARING PROCESS
Operators of any designated air pollutant source under Jurisdiction of ADEQ are required to obtain:
• An Installation Permit, prior to construction of the potentially polluting facUlty/ operation
• An Operating Permit within 90 days of commencing operation ( and, In some cases, prior to
~ operation other than to actually test equipment functioning)
• A Renewed Operating Permit every three years.
Additionally, DEQ receives citizen complaints regarding any permitted operation, and acts promptly
to investigate and, as needed, bring Into compliance any operation on which a complaint Is received.
There also Is a regularly scheduled, on- golng compliance monitoring program designed to lcIentify
operations which are not functioning within their permit limits, and to cause them to achieve compliance.
• All of these Permit acquisition steps require
fling of applications
processing of the applications
public notice publishing
potentially require public hearings
compilation of Responsiveness Summaries
Engineer's time to respond
Clerical time to type
Staff resources to
print
mal
- file.
DEQ · 47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Although the source applicant pays all costs ( when identified and charged to them) for these
activities, via the Permit Fee assessed, there still is a major direct monetary cost to the Department, the
Source ( which then is passed on to the pUblic), and a major time Impact.
A. R. S. 49- 246.0 ( Ch. law 283, S. 5, 1991) requires publication of a public notice of a pending
application " once each week for two weeks," and provides that any person " may tHe a written objection to
the permit within 15 days after the last publication of notice".
This time bracket provides a span of 23 days from first publication to the last comment being
accepted. In practice and by Rules, the Department accepts these comments for a period of 30 days from
the date c: A first publication.
The request for a public hearing may be made by any person and, whKe not further delineated in
statute, the Department follows the same published notice and time lines as for the Permit notice.
Depending upon the complexity of the application and operation, there may be from one ( probably
the permit engineer) to several ( Including the Director, Assistant Director, Section Chief, Unit Administrator,
Ombudsman, and clerical staff) Department personnel in attendance at the public hearing. A Hearing
Officer, either of Department staff or by outside contract, must be provided. Clerical staff record the
proceedings, and later transcribe them. The permit engineer also must provide a response to fNery
comment submitted, a process of several hours to a week or more, thereby creating a document known as
the " Responsiveness Summary."
The time and flscaJ impact of this process is extensive • fNen though we are advised that only
about 10% of the approximately 300 Permits processed per year generate any significant public comments.
Although there Is not a high proportion of pUblic hearings held ( one report was 15 or fewer in the last 18
months; another stated " not more than one or two per month," which would equal 12 to 24 per year), all
Permits ( Installation, original operating, and renewal) are published for public notice, and all comments
received require written responses by the engineer.
RecomrnM'fW-.
We recommend taking the following actions:
DEC · 48
Benefits of Implementing these recommendations Include:
• Computing the potential number eX staff Involved In publishing, receMng and responding to
Public Notice, In an anticipated average publication ( required by all 300 Permits Issued
annually), the Department expends approximately $ 340 each, or $ 102,000 annually on this
process
• Amend A. R. S. 49- 426. E to require published public notice, and potential public hearings, only
at the time of Issuing an Installation permit. This will eliminate the duplicate process for
Operating and Renewal Permits.
The Installation permit process provides the In- depth review of all technical data on the
operation
The Installation permit must be obtained prior to construction of the facility,
or prior to any major changes In a facUlty's operation or equipment components
The Department provides the public an adequate and very responsive vehicle, through
the Compliance Inspectors, for voicing complaints and concerns about the operation of
any permitted facUlty
Citizen complaints are accepted at any time, not just at an Issuance or renewal cycle
Citizen complaints are promptly investigated and enforcement measures taken, to the
maximum extent avaUabie to the Department
The public notice/ public hearing process serves the monitoring Interest of the public less
effectively than does the citizen complaint process, whUe being both duplicative and
more costly.
DEC - 49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Assuming an additional 15 Permits per year go to the Public Hearing process, and computing
averaG, a staff Involvement, time and associated costs. the Department Is expending an
additional $ 1,400 per hearing, or $ 21,000 per year for the hearings
• Added to the $ 102,000 for the public notices, this totals $ 123,000 eXpended for these
processes, based on the estimated number of times It Is utilized. and costs associated
• Reduction of the staff time involved In preparing for, attending and responding to public
comments and public hearings for after- the- faet operations ( faclltles already constructed
under a permit, and found to be operating according to that permit) will save a significant
portion of that $ 123,000
• Using the FY 91 data which showed a total of 51 Installation Permits Issued, the remainder
of the 300 annual permits would be Operating and Renewal which, under these
recommendations, would no longer Involve the public notice/ public hearing process.
Applying that percentage to the total cost estimated above shows a potential savings of
$ 102,090 per year
• Staff time now involved In preparing for, attending and responding to public notices and
public hearings can be directed toward processing of permits, thereby reducing the reported
backlog without employing additional staff.
• A. R. S. 49- 426.0 will need to be amended. It could be 13 months minimum prior to statutory
authorization to change these procedures
• Draft appropriate Administrative Rules to cover the change. which could be accomplished
within the same 13 month period ( draft, and have ready for submission when the Jaw was
changed).
DEC - 50
PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS - PROPOSED
AIR QUALITY DIVISION
SOURCE
DATA
GATHERING
APPLICATION
-
PERMITS/ COMPLIANCE
PRE- APPLICATION
MEETING
SECRETARY
~ IiEE7ED AND
LOGGED
CURSORY
EVALUATION
-- MODELED
-- COMPLIANCE SET
-- PERMIT WRITTEN
RESPONSIVENESS
SU..." RY
WRITTEN
PERMIT ISSUED
CLASS 8 AND C
FEES COLLECTED
DEQ - 51
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
I
IIII
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I f
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
f ( INSTALLATION PERMITS ONLY) I
PERMIT ISSUED
CLASS A
EXHIBIT 17
PUBLIC
PUBLIC NOTICE
I
t
PUBLIC HEARING
I
Y7e13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COMBINING PERMIT Nt) COW\ IANCE UNITS
One Unit within the Air Quality DMsion, under the Permits and Compliance Section ( which has no
Manager at present) is charged with writing and processing Permits for Installation, Operating and Renewal
Permit Applications from Sources.
Their work, however, depends on Input and review from the Compliance Unit of this Section, and
from the air modelers assigned to the Evaluation Unit of the Air Quality Section.
Under the current structure an estimated backlog exists of 300 permit applications. The
Compliance Unit conducts inspections of existing and planned facUlties, to determine compliance with permit
requirements and to respond to citizen complaints. The protection of public health and the environment are
thus addressed, with these inspections possibly resulting in administrative enforcement, civU complaint or
criminal actions, thereby improving the Department's abUIty to protect health and the environment.
Because of the need to send data from the Permits Unit to the modelers, and to both obtain data
from and have reviews of the applications performed by the Compliance Unit, as well as having the final draft
Permit signed off by both Units, there Is considerable time lost in transferring data and Information back and
forth.
There also exists some duplications of effort ( e. g., we are advised that permit engineers frequently
perform their own modeling aetivlties, to see If an applicant is " in the ball park", then request a formal
modeling from that Unit as the official component of the permit), as well as opportunities for lost time,
information and paperwork.
CurrenUy there Is no cross- training of these Interrelated staff, and the permit engineers do minimal
field work, so there Is often no direct viewing of the operation for which they are writing the permit. On- site
data gathering Is performed by the Compliance Unit staff.
DEQ - 52
We recommend the following actions be taken:
• Adopt the recommendations In " Revision of Public Notice/ Public Hearing Requirements," by
which it Is noted that the time required for working Permits of all classes wli be significantly
reduced
Action relative to this Point wli. free time of the engineer from having to prepare
documents for public notice, prepare for and attend public hearings, and compUe and
prepare " responsiveness summaries" for all comments received on all Permits. Thus,
Increased time will be avaUabie for processing more reports per year per engineer
• Adopt the recommendations In " Assignment of Modeling Workload" and the recommendations
In " Draft Permit Review Process Revision," by which much of the duplication and Intra- Unit
application transferring wli be eliminated
• Delete the requirement for an Operating Permit Issuance ( with full application presentation and
processing) at conclusion of a permitted Installation, thus reducing by at least 20 per year the
total number of appllcatloru. being processed
• Combine the Permits Unit and the Compliance Unit Into one functional Unit, cross train
compliance engineers who wli then be able to assist with the permit processing ( thus even
more readUy allowing the 40 applications per year to be reached), whUe enhancing Information
exchange and flow, eliminating the time now spent In passing applications and permit
conditions back and forth between Units
• Cross- train Permit Engineers to perform compliance functions, with the expectation they also
wli do the field site work for permit evaluations.
• When the production Is Increased, through all the above steps, to 40 completed permits per
year per engineer, total staff requirements wBl be seven and a half staff ( round to eight).
DEC - 53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEQ - 54
• One vacant Administrative Secretary I may be eliminated for a savings of $ 19,103.
Placing these combined recommendations Into effect will require:
$ 112,087
228.466
$ 340,553
Total savings: - cost avoidance
- cost reduction
Total:
Further, by reduction of the total applications/ renewal reviews by 20. the staffing requirements
( at 40 per year completed) will be seven
• With the combining of these Units. two vacant EES positions and three filed EES positions
In the Permits Unit may be eliminated which wli resUt In cost avoidance of $ 86.860 and cost
reduction of $ 130.290
• No supervisor wi! be needed as staff will be reporting directly to the Section Manager through
Team Leaders. therefore two supervisors may be eliminated for a savings of $ 104,300
• Time frame: Approximately 2 months.
• Redeployment of those persons who positions are now eliminated
• Restructuring of this Section. per the attached Draft Organization Chart
• Adopting the cited recommendations. with the time frames set forth as a part of those Points
The breakdown of savings are: State funds $ 192,823; Federal funds $ 104,299 and Other funds
$ 43.430.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
o•
s:
PEAAITS
ONIT
BHARGAVA
EIIV PROG SUPV - PE
P om
JACM! JANCIC
SEct ADK SEcr I
P OSH S 0620
MOHAll AGARWAL
EIIV ENG SPEC m EKG SPEC
S 0617 P 0614
EIIVBURECKHGARSDPEC ! KV , SN/ GDlPEC r 0619 S 0616
GARCIA PINTOK
EIIV EKG - PE ! KV ENG SPEC •
S 0600 S 0618
! PIKEIIlO VACM!
EKY EKG SPEC EIIV EKG SPEC
U 0281 * 1 U 0280 * 1
HASp'GS 15' 01 McLAUGHLIN ~ 510)
EES 0 r PP I) EIlY EKG SEC
S 0143 S 0145
JAcm
EKY EKG SPEC
5 0144
DEO - OFFICE OF AIR OUALITY
PERlfITS , COHPLIMC£ SECTION
JANUARY 01, 1992
VACANT
ENV PROG HGR - PE
S 0608
VACANT
ADK SEcr I
S em
COMPLIANCE
um
JASPER'KeHPSOH ~ D/ f)
EN PROG SU V
F 0610
STIVERS
ADK SEcr I
F 0622
COSTELLO , SID! ENV £ IlG SPEC -- EIlY NG PEC
S 0615 P 0613
TRAUBERT HAMILTON
ENY EKG SPEC - - EKV ENG SPEC
F om S om
HUKT JACMT
ENY £ IlG SPEC - EMS [ I
S om F 0709
DAVID
EIlY PROG SPEC
S 0660
SOOTHERN' REGIOHAL
OFFiCE
VACM!
EIIV ENG - PE
S 0609 •
EXHIBIT 18
HORTBERN1REGIOHAL
OFFICE
HUlIEIB
ENY EftG • PE
S 0612 · t
OAQI. NG -------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE SECTION
PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM
MANAGER - PE
EXHIBIT 19
~, S
SECRETARY
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEER SPEC.
PERMITS TEAM
LEADER
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEER SPEC.
COMPLIANCE TEAM
LEADER
ADMINISTRATIVE
SECRETARY I
NORTHERN REG.
OFFIC~
SOUTHERN REG.
OFFICE
AHC1l25
, ,,_,,!_ 4/~ 6/ 9 /
PRE- APPUCATlON IiEEllNG REQUIREMENT
Pre- appllcatlon meetings are not now required of applicants and. whle generally they are
conducted with major source applicants. they are called at the discretion of the person who may Initially be
contacted by the applicant. An engineer Is not currently assigned to the application untl after It Is fUed,
which may be over two years from the date of first contact.
Attendance at any pre- appllcation meetings now held wli usually Include only the Air Quality
DMslon staff and the applicant. If the applicant hapoens to Initially contact the Department's Ombudsman,
he might Involve personnel of all DMslons which wUl be Impacted by the Applicant's operation.
Major Source Permit Applications almost always generate " deficiency letters," or written requests
from the assigned engineer back to the applicant, following the " cursory evaluation" of the application, to
supply formulas, processes, descriptions or other additional information ( see exhibit 20, Air Quality Major
Source Installation Permit Process. Flow Chart).
Applicants spend considerable amounts of time and money to prepare applications, according to
their best understanding of what D. E. Q. requires. These applications are very complex, and may be
extremely confusing to an entity which does not regularly deal with the forms and terminology. extensive
engineering and mathematical computations are likewise required to complete these forms. The result for
major source applicants, In almost all instances, Is their submitting an Incomplete application, or one which
does not answer all the questions which the engineer might have about the source of the data provided, the
manner In which It was calculated, or the format In which It Is provided. This was expressed as being
essentially up to the discretion of the engineer assigned to work up the permit.
• Significant time may eJapse ( two to six months) between the filing of the application, and the
receipt by the applicant of any notice there Is a deficiency In that application. ( Further
discussed In the " Cursory Evaluation" point)
DEQ - 57
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• The applicant may not be in touch with all components of the Department who may require
permitting for this particular source operation, unless the applicant " accidentally" comes into
contact with the Ombudsman, or with someone who advises contact with that office to
arrange a comprehenstve meeting
• The Source is required to augment data originally submitted, at the discretion of the assigned
Permit Engineer, several months after the original document is provided, resulting In time loss
and dissatisfaction with the service provided
• Based on the Permits Issued Log, of which a copy was provided, in FY ' 91 there were a total
of 84 Permits issued. Flfty- one ( 61 %) of which were Installation Permits; thirty- three ( 39%)
were Operating Permits. From analysis of that log, It appears approximately fourteen ( 17%)
of the Installation Permits were for Class " A," or Major Source, operations, with a total of 67
Permits of all classes Issued In the year
Class " S" Permits, for major equipment installation or changes, are estimated at only one
or two per year
Qass " C" Permits for minor sources or " portables" ( i. e., any operation which can be
entirely relocated Into another geographical area) are estimated to be 75 per year.
• The engineer's work In preparing the permit draft is delayed by having to prepare " deficiency
letters," and await response. then provide the required Information.
Recornmwdrlt' · ••
We recommend taking the following actions:
• Requiring pre- application meetings for all Major Source applicants. and for all Class " S" and
" C" ( Including portables) of any complexity
• Requiring attendance by appropriate representatives of III Divisions whose oversight will be
impacted by the applicant's operation if/ when constructed
DEC - 58
• Ensuring that, as nearly as may be reasonably determined, II! Information required together
with the format and criteria for Its presentation and supply, are presented to the applicant prior
to the end of the meeting, with as many questions answered as possible
• AssIgning the Permit Engineer to the application R! 12r to the pre- appllcatlon meeting, to assure
the best processing.
The benefits of Implementing these recommendations will Include:
• A significant reduction In the number of deficiency letters prepared and sent. This will result
In minimizing the delays in commencing and preparing the applicant's Permit
• Reduction of the engineering and clerical staff time currently expended on composing, typing,
maUlng, logging, tracking, receMng and analyzing deficiency letters, and the responses to
them
• The Implementation of this recommendation will communicate to the customer- public the
Department's desire to actually be a service provider, concerned with the needs of Its clients,
whUe performing the appropriate reviews to protect the environment.
• Training and, perhaps, Rules or Procedures will need to be implemented
• Establish a single Inltlal- contaet point within the Department, whose responsibility will be to
set up the pre- appllcatlon meetings, and arrange for the appropriate D. E. Q. personnel to
attend.
DEQ - 59
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MAJOR SOURCE INSTALLATION
PERMIT PROCESS
I
I
I
I
APPLICANT
OR
SOURCE
SOURCE
FIRST AGENCY
CONTACT
I
L..... _
PERMIT UNIT
I1I
r-----....,\
PRE- APPLICATION
MEETING
- OPTIONAL-AIR
ASSESSMENT
COMPLIANCE
UNIT
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
Page 1 of 2 Pages
EXHIBIT 20
PUBLIC HEARING
I
I
I
I
FIELD DATA
COLLECTION
BY APPLICANT
9- 24 MONTHS
PERMIT
APPLICATION
FILED
LOG
I
I
1 DAY
I ASSIGN
ENGINEER
.---':==::; r--'" 2- 6 MONTHS
ENGINEER
CURSORY
EVALUATION I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ADDITIONAL
DATA
2- 4 MONTHS
1 .....--..-_-- 11IIII
YES EMISSION
DATA TO
IiIODELERS
IiIODELED
DEQ - eo
V7008A
MAJOR SOURCE INSTALLATION
PERMIT PROCESS
Page 2 of 2 Pages
EXHIBIT 20
I
I
PERMIT UNIT
APPLICANT
OR
SOURCE
IENGR
( DRAFTS
PERMIT
B
AIR
ASSESSMENT
COMPLIANCE
UNIT
PERMIT (
UNIT I
Q_ R_'+------- t<
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
N 0
PUBLIC
CO.... ENTS
HEARING I
I
I
I
I
PERMIT
FEES
PAID
RESPONSIVENESS+---< t------- t-------+----- t-'
SUMMARY
PERMIT
ISSUED
CEQ · 81
HEARING
V7008B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CURSORY EVALlJAnoN IMPRQYEMENT
Permit applications are received from the Source ( applicant) either by mag or hand delivery. After
logging and data entry ( a same day clerical function) they are hand delivered to the Initially assigned Permit
Engineer.
These applications routinely lie In that engineers file rack for anywhere from four to six months.
whUe the engineer completes work on any projects he may already have In progress. prior to being
evaluated by the engineer for completeness and adequacy of the submitted data ( this Is the · cursory
evaluation").
If deficiencies exist ( and we are Informed that, at present, It Is almost guaranteed there will be
some; reference " Pre- Application Meeting Requlrement"), the engineer then wUI prepare and have sent to
the Source a " deficiency letter," which outlines that information stUI required. The application file then is
returned to the engineer's rile rack to await response from the Source In providing that necessary data. This
delay varies with the Source. and with the clarity of the deficiency letter.
Significant time delays ( four to six months. perhaps longer) exist In commencing the permit
processing, during which time the applicant has DQ communication with or from the Department
After that time period the applicant Is Informed, by letter. that new or additional data. or even a
complete refBing of the application, Is required. The applicant's staff and/ or the consultants who first
prepared the application now must become re- acqualnted with that process and all that Is Involved. This
contrlbutes to the three to six month response time delay described by the permit engineers.
Recomnw- Wh,"
We recommend taking the following actions:
DEC - 62
• Require the cursory evaluation of all applications to be started within 15 working days of Its
logged receipt
• Reorganize the permit engineer's work load to designate one person to be the primary
cursory evaluation engineer, perhaps a junior engineer within the Unit
• This person should have consulting access to other engineers, partlcularty the one to whom
this application has been primarily assigned
Having a single Gunlor) engineer doing ill. cursory evaluations, with consult access as
described, will allow the regular engineers to continue, without significant Interruption, the
permit processes for those applications which are complete.
The benefits of Implementing these recommendations will include:
• Better response from the applicant on deficiencies, due to their having more recency to the
work previously done In preparing the application
• Improved customer attitude, knowing D. f:. C. Is working on their project application
• Time savings for the engineer by eliminating the " refresher time" between the cursory
evaluation, and when the applicant finally responds to the ( any) deficiency letter.
• Calcliated savings Include:
Major Permits: 3 days = 24 hours @$ 16.85 per hour =$ 400.00 X 1.25 = $ 500.00 per
Permit
$ 500.00 per Permit X 14 Major Permits = $ 7,000.00
Minor Permits: 1 day = 8 hours@ $ 16.85 per hour =$ 16.85 X 1.25 =$ 21.06 per Permit
$ 21.06 per Permit X 37 Minor Permits = $ 779.22.
DEC - 63
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Implementation of this Point must follow the Implementation of the Recommendation · Pre­Application
Meeting Requirement. ·
• By cleaning up the original applications through the pre- appllcatlon meeting mandate. the
cursory evaluation wli require less time. and be more capable of being carried out as
described above.
It should thereafter be possible to implement this recommendation within one month, by:
• Writing appropriate job descriptions
• Making required job assignments
• Preparing necessary Procedures.
DEQ · 64
PERM IT APPL ICAT ION CURSORY REV IEW
SOURCE CLERICAL PERMIT ENGINEER MODELER
APPLICATION
FILE~ Y LOG NUMBER
AND ASSIGN +
PLACED IN ENG1R
IN BASKET
2- 6"' 05
INCO... P
** 2- 4 MOS
ADDITIONAL ~ DEFECIENCY EVALUATE • OATA SUP! 1..:.. 2.. LETTER
y" o~ COMPLETE DATA MODELED
1- 5 DAYS
PERMIT READY
TO DRAFT
** If emission data
is complete
DEQ · 85
EXHIBIT 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAfT PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS
Complete draft Permits ( both Installation and Operating) are sent by the engineer to the Permits
Unit Manager for review and sign- off, or return. ( Normally. It Is assumed, approved Permits would go to the
Permits and Compliance SectIon Chief, presently a vacant position, for review and sign- off, or be returned
to the Permits Unit Manager.)
Approved drafts then are sent ( a lateral move) to the Compliance Unit Manager, who reviews them
to determine that mandated conditions can be met, and Compliance staff can test to assure compliance.
Requests for edits of the Permit conditions are returned to the Permits Unit Manager, and Engineer.
Approved drafts are forwarded to the DMslon Assistant Director for review and signature ( or
rejection).
If all aspects of the Permit are approved. It Is forwarded to the appropriate area for preparation of
the Public Notice ( reference Recommendation - Revision of Public Notice/ Public Hearing Processj.
Disapproved applications will be returned to the Permits Unit for appropriate editing.
Time delays occur In completing this endorsement/ approval of the completed Permit draft,
amounting ( as we are told) to anywhere from two days to a month or more. This circulation of the
completed document delays the application, slows down timing of the Public Notice/ Hearing; creates
additional tracking and handling time and energy demands, and extracts costs from all segments involved.
Recomnwrlrflo••
We recommend taking the following actions:
• As the engineer gathers data from which to develop the Permit, the Compliance Section
should be consulted relative to their concerns and needs. That consultation should be signed
and Incorporated In the Permit document. Eliminate the route slip sign- off to Compliance after
completion of the araft Permit
DEC · 66
• When the engineer has completed the draft Permit It should be signed by the Permits Unit
Manager, forwarded to the Permits and Compliance Section Chief ( when/ If that position Is
filed), with the documentation from Compliance and Modeling Units Incorporated, and c1earty
marked
• From that point, If approved, It should go directly to the AssIstant Director, Air Quality Division,
for Draft Permit signature, and then to commencement of the public notice processing
• Some Information received Indicated the completed draft and route slip Is also sent back to
Modeling, for signature of that Section Manager. If that Is accurate, the following also Is
recommended:
Upon modeling completion/ approval, let the above sign- off suffice; eliminate a return of
the completed draft for route slip signing
• Delegate signature authority for all Class . C" ( minor and portables) to the Permits Unit
Manager, who is ( and must be) a certificated Professional Engineer ( PE)
The benefits of implementing these recommendations will include:
• Routing time savings of from one to two weeks, or as much as one month would be realized.
Maximum routing time would be reduced ( from the engineer to the Manager to the final
signer) to a maximum of three days, thus providing better customer service
• Lowered level of slgn- of authority will significantly reduce time of processing reviews
• Speedier service provided to the customer ( the applicant), Is of significant value, although
difficult to assign a dollar value
• Elimination of excess handling steps - clerical time to route; staff time to determine document
process needs and to perform them; speed up of agency handling time
DEC - 67
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Speeding up the elimination of the backlog of pennlt applications. ( consistently related to us
as being approximately 300. at an average value. from Permit Fees to be charged upon
completion of $ 5.000 each), represents a total outstanding uncollected value of $ 1.5 to $ 2
millen dollars. Accelerated collection of these fees would be substantially Improved by the
process change which speeds up the completion and Issuance of a requested pennIt.
InQemQI" elh! O
• Procedural changes and management decisions will suffice for these recommendations
• Time frame: Approximately 2 months.
DEC - 68
CURRENT DRAFT PERM IT APPROVAL FLOW CHART
PERMIT
PERMIT ENGINEER
COIIIPL lANCE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PUBLIC
EXHIBIT 22
I
I
I
I
I
REJECT
PERMITS
UNIT
MANAGER
EDIT
COMPLIANCE
UNIT MANAGER
OK
REJECT
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
IIIII
APPROVE
PUBLIC
NOTICE
AND
PUBLIC
HEARING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RESPONSIVENESS
DEQ - fJ9
DRAFT
PERMIT
SIGNED
11/ 26/ 91
V7002
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MONITORING UNIT. INSTRUMENTATION TEAM
The position of one Environmental Program Specialist, Grade 20, assigned to the Monitoring Unit
has been vacant for several months. Information provided dUring our Interviews did not reveal any backlog
In the Units' activity due to this vacancy. Workload projections did not Indicate a near future requirement
tor this position ( see Exhibit 23, Air Assessment Section, Current Organizational Chart).
The elimination of this position would not have a detrimental effect on the operation of the
Monitoring Unit. The mid- point salary, plus ERE for a Grade 20 position equates to approximately $ 44,136
per year.
We recommend that the position of Environmental Program Specialist, Grade 20, be eliminated in
the Monitoring Unit. The resulting organization chart Is shown In Exhibit 26, Air Assessment Section,
Proposed Organizational Chart.
The recommendation wDl result in a budgeted FTE savings of $ 44,136 per year ( funds from UST).
IDXJIerrOAdun
• Administrative action to prepare necessary personnel documents
• Time frame: Approximately 2 months.
DEQ - 70
CURRENT ORGANIZATION CHART
DEQ - OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY
AIR ASSESSMENT SECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM
MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE
SECRETARY
I
EXHIBIT 23
~
o
.........
I
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
( VACANT)
MONITORING
UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM
SUPERVISOR
INSTRUMENTATION
TEAM
EHS II
l DATA ANALYSIS
TEAM
EHS II
EVALUATION
UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM
SUPERVISOR
f-
I SPECIAL STUDIES
TEAM
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
SECRETARY
I
IlIOOELING
TEAM
EHS II
f- EHS I f- R & SA I- EHS II
CLERK
~ EHS I I L... I TYPI ST I H EHS II
II ( VACANT)
ENVIRONMENTAL
1- 1 EHS I I Y PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
- L- I EHS I - --'-----~---"'--------- - - v_ -
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
i
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REASSIGfMNT OF ANALYSIS TEAM
The principal activity of the analysis team Is the processing of the various types of titers used In
the air monitoring equipment. In addition, two of the FTEs assist In the conduct of special studies and
prepare the monthly and quarterly reports. Actual analysis Is not performed by this team.
The two analysts In actual practice report directly to the supervisor of the monitoring unit rather
than the supervisor of the analysis team. The supervisor of the analysis team Is engaged almost full time
on the task of performing quality control In the Instrumentation team efforts. This work Is unrelated to the
basis functions of the analysis team.
The organization chart for the Analysis Team and Instrumentation Team Is shown In EXHIBIT 23,
Air Assessment Section, Current Organizational Chart.
The above situation does not reflect the relationship or functions carried out In what Is described
as the analysis team, nor does It Indicate a relationship with the modeling team which Is situated In another
organization, the evaluation unit.
We recommend that the position assigned to the analysis team be reassigned to the
instrumentation function. The two FTEs who now perform the titer processing task should be assigned
directly under the manager of the Air Assessment section. This proposed organization structure Is shown
in Exhibit 26, Air Assessment Section, Proposed Organizational Chart. This recommendation Is related to
those discussed in Recommendation - Monitoring Unit, Instrumentation Team:
• The recommendations above wli place the FTE performing quality tasks with like functions
In the Instrumentation Team
DEO - 72
• The placement of the two FTEs performing fBter processing and assisting In special studies
under the supervision of the section manager wit eliminate two levels of supervision
• No direct cost reduction wli be realized by Implementing these recommendations, however
the levels of supervision wli be reduced.
• Prepare necessary personnel documents for transfer of positions
• Time frame: Approximately 2 months.
DEO · 73
I
it
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
ASSIGNMENT OF SPEQAl.. STUDIES FUNC110N
One FTE Is assigned the function of special studies in the Air Assessment Section of Air Quality.
The duties of this person basically are those of coordinating the special studies effort and monitoring the
special studies budget, which wli approximate $ 5.0 milion In FY 92. This function Is closely associated with
the activities performed In the Air Quality Planning Section. There Is no effort In support of any field
Instrumentation or evaluation functions. The present organization of the Air Quality Planning SectIon Is
shown in exhibit 24, Air Quality Planning Section. Current Organizational Chart.
It was discovered during the interview that there Is a lack of coordination of studies monitored by
this position with other sections or units within the office of Air Quality.
The functions performed by the Special Studies position do not Impact any other team or unit
within the Air Assessment Section.
We recommend that the FTE currently performing the tasks assigned be transferred along with
functions, to the Air Quality Planning Section.
The Implementation of this recommendation wli result In a more homogeneous assignment of the
Special Studies effort with that of Planning, and physIcaJly place their function In close proximity with the
related Planning effort. There Is also an unquantlfled savings by eliminating duplicate or s1mHar studies. The
transfer of the special studies position Is shown In exhibit 25. Air Quality · Planning Section. Proposed
Organizational Chart.
DEQ - 74
Implementation of the recommendations wli require personnel actions to reassign the Individual
and to re- strueture the organization.
EstImated time line for Implementation Is 60 days.
DEO · 75
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-~~---~~~~-~~~~--~
om
o I
Of
CURRENT ORGANIZATION CHART
DEQ - OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY
AIR QUALITY PLANNING SECTION
PLANNER III
SECRETARY
'- PLANNER II
- PLANNER II
r- P & PS II
'-- EHS II
EXHIBIT 24
V7010
~
o,
:: j
PROPOSED ORGANIZATION CHART
DEQ - OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY
AIR QUALITY PLANNING SECTION
PLANNER III
SECRETARY
- PLANNER II
- PLANNER II
- P & PS II
- EHS II
~ EPS
EXHIBIT 25
7 - liiiia- ... _. i.~_"_~ .... _ _ 1
~\
I
I
~
I:
I
I
I,
I
I
I
­I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ASSIGNMENT OF MOOEUNG WORKLOAD
Personnel who perform the modeling tasks are now assigned as a team under the Evaluation Unit
of the Air Assessment S8ctIon. There are two modelers, one supervisor and one vacant position In the
Modeling Team. The current organization chart Is shown In exhibit 23, Air Assessment Section, Current
Organization Chart.
Models are prepared based on the data provided by the Monitoring Unit and the Permits and
Compliance S8ctIon. One modeler Is fully dedicated to do modeling on the data provided by the Monitoring
Unit which Is used for studies and research, one being the Clean Air Ad. The other two modelers, which
Includes the supervisor, do modeling on the data provided by the Permit and Compliance S8ctIon. These
models are used to perform a complete evaluation of the viabUIty of the permits and form the basis for a
reasonable compliance effort. The modelers run the models, screen them for Inltlal compliance, write up
the screen results, and return their analyses to the Permit Unit through their supervisors and managers. The
coordination effort between the modelers and the permits people Is critical to the success and completeness
of the permitting tasks.
The current organizational p1' icement of the modelers requires that permitting decisions and
reviews pass through five levels of supervision, requiring a minimum of two extra weeks In the permits
process. Further, communication between the permits personnel and the modelers Is made more dlfflcutt
by the extra hands through which the present process flows. The current permitting process depicting the
interaction with the modelers Is shown In exhibit 20, Permit Process Aow Chart
The same coordination and communication Impediments hold true between the modelers and the
Instrumentation team within Air Assessment, atthough to a lesser extent. One modeler on the modeling team
spends most of his time devoted to the Instrumentation team data, as mentioned above.
The current assignment of personnel In the Assessment Section resutts In a ratio of six supervisors
to ten journeymen, with one team consisting of one person. Based on the Information collected during
Interviews. the workload and amount of time reQuired to accomDiish It Is as follows:
DEO - 78
• There were 120 screen modeling and 30 refined modeling projects performed last year. The
screen modeling takes about two hours to perform and one hour to review and write- up. The
refined model Is complicated and, therefore, takes about a week ( 40 hours) to perform and
write- up. Therefore, the total amount of time required to actually do the tasks Is ( 120 x 3) +
( 30 x 40) = 1560 hours which Is equivalent to. 93 FTE ~ ng 1675 working hours per person
per year.
RecomrnIIM-.
We recommend Improving the current structure through the following steps:
• Transferring three modeler FTEs to the Permit Unit of Permit and Compliance Section
• Training Permit Engineers to run models and obtaining authorization from Permit Team Leader
to sign- off on results of models
• Transferring the Environmental Program Specialist in the Special StudiesTeam to the Planning
Section ( as discussed in the Recommendation " Assignment of Special Studies Function")
• Eliminating three positions consisting of one Air Modeler ( which Is vacant EHS II), one
Environmental Program Supervisor and one Secretary.
Exhibit 26, Air Assessment Section, Proposed Organizational Chart, shows the recommended
organizational structure.
The following benefits wUl result by Implementing the above recommendations:
• Reduces permit processing time by a at least two weeks
• Relocates modelers within the functional units they serve, allowing ease of coordination and
enhancement of communication
• Reduces a level of supervision not needed under a reasonable span of control
DEC - 79
' J
I
I,
\ 1
1\
I
I
I
I
I
.~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III
I
I
I
, I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Eliminates three FTEs resutting In a direct savings of $ 102,222. One Unit Supervisor, grade
22 at $ 52,998; one vacant Air Modeler, grade 19 at $ 31,123; one Secretary, grade 11 at
$ 18,101. All of the salaries include ERE ( employee related expense which is 25%). Cost
avoidance $ 31,123: and cost reduction $ 71,099 • Total $ 102,222. The breakdown of funding
sources are: State funds $ 18,101; Other funds $ 84,121
• Transferring and eliminating of Air Modelers and Environmental Program Specialists will
eliminate the Evaluation Unit.
Implementation will require only the administrative action, including personnel, to prepare
necessary documents, personnel assignments and administrative procedures.
Estimated implementation time frame Is approximately 60 days.
DEQ - 80
~•
C.. D..
PROPOSED ORGANIZATION
DEQ - OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY
AIR ASSESSMENT SECTION
AIR
ASSESSMENT
SECTION
MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIVE
SECRETARY
EHS II EHS II
EHS I EHS I
EHS I R & S A
EHS I CLERK TYPIST II
EXHIBIT 26
.. ..--:~_~ " _(_ 1_ 0_____ '.....
­I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENTAl.. QUAUTY
OFFICE OF WASTE DMSION RECOMMENDATIONS
COMBIttNG FEDERAl fAaUDES AN) Tt£ PRE- REMEDlAL. lNTS
The " federal Faclltles Site Inspection ( DOD) Unit," Is one of four Units In the Pre- Remedlal &
Remedial ( Emergency Response & Remedial Projects) Section, presently having seven staff positions
established, four of which are vacant. Although differentially funded, both this program and the Pre­Remedial
Unit with ten positions ( of which one is special detailed, and one vacant) are essentially Involved
In the same type of site Inspection and evaluation prior to the Initiation of any dean up aetivltles, other than
the Federal Facilities' concentration upon just mlltary sites ( see exhibit 27. Pre- Remedlal & Remedial
Section).
The " site Inspection and evaluation" activity Includes the physical Inspection of a site of a suspected
contaminant spUI, evaluating the type of chemical or other substance which has been spUled through visual
screening and laboratory testing of samples taken. It also involves evaluating the substance's potential for
penetrating through or running off the soH to an extent which will cause It to contaminate the ground water
( aqUifer). The DOD Unit has been created for the specific purpose of performing these evaluations on
mUltary property, such as Air Force Bases and National Guard locations.
Of the seven DOD positions, four are state funded, three are federally funded. All ten of the Pre­remedial
Unit positions are federally funded. WIthin the Federal Facllties Unit, the present organizational
chart shows the unit supervisor to be supervising three other positions of the same pay grade. two of which
are the same title ( Environmental Program Specialist).
Tracking of hours, project assignments and responsibilities seem to be confused between these
Units at present, with a potential for duplicated efforts, lost responsibility and wasted time. That duplication
of effort creates a loss of personal service hoUrs and additional documentation, transfer efforts, directives
and oversight.
We recommend the following actions be taken:
DEQ · 82
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
, I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
• Combine these two Units, with elimination of the below listed duplicated positions:
One currently vacant Unit Manager, Federal Faclltles ( DOD) Site Inspection
( Environmental Program Specialist), grade 20, at $ 43,430 per year
Two vacant Environmental Program Specialists In the DOD Unit, grade 20, at $ 43,430 for
$ 86,860 per year; and one vacant Environmental Health Specialist II, pay grade 19, at
$ 38,926 annual
• Transfer one Clerk Typist III, one Environmental Engineer Specialist and one Environmental
Health Specialist II to the Pre- Remedlal Unit
• The changes referenced above are shown In the Proposed Organization Chart, exhibit
attached.
Benefits of Implementing these recommendations Include:
• Savings ( cost avoidance) of $ 169,216 annually. Federal funds $ 43,430, State funds $ 38,926,
Other funds $ 86,860
• Better coordination of job assignments, hours worked and designated responslbHIties of staff
by eliminating much of the present dUplication and wasted effort occurring because of having
these divided duties
• More accurate tracking of actual hours Invested, to enhance the agency's abUIty to assure
cost recovery by providing a more streamlined, concentrated functional structure for this
Section In which to carry out Its evaluation and remediation responslbDltles
• Less time lost In transferring documents, flies and Information between two different units.
DEC · 83
IrnoIemeIWh - c
Implementation requires a management decision to reorganize this SectIon as recommended
above.
• Time frame: Approximately 2 months.
( NOTE - See " Contracting and Legal Services.")
DEQ · 84
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- ~ ...... - - - j ., - .. <.. ~' - ......... -
OEO- OrrICE OF IIASTE PROGRAHS
REllEDIAL PROJECTS SECTiON
JANUARY 01, 1m
EXHIBIT 27
HARSIK
ENY PROC HGR
S 0414 41
'---,---'
80TCE
ADKIN SECT I
S om 41
I
PRE R& EDIAL RFJlEDIAL ~ ROJECTS REMEDIAL ' PROJECTS FEDERAL ,1CILITIES um COORDIHA1IOft um om um
' Acm
EKV PROG SPEC
5 0110 { I
JIK
CL~ TIP lit
5 0188 41
YACMT fAcm
ENY PROG SPEC ElY PRoo SPEC
S om 4' s am 4@ DD
YARGAS VAl ' LEmEN
ElY EKG mc EUS II o am 51 r am 51
YACAIf
! liS II
S aUf
8Rooll
ENY fROG SUPf
5 am 41
, ¥ Acm
- m m lit
S 0118 41
HATHAl/ AT CURRt
EKV ENG - fE - EH' PROG SPEC
S 0190 4' , 0123 sit
cmf mlNSOI
ENY EKG SPEC - - EHY PROG SPEC
, 0480 51 r om 51
~ ULON 8ADRI
EUS II EUS II
S om 4' 5 am 41
STEEL! HAlE
EHS II - - Efty PROC SPEC
S om 41 o am 51
uUtUtltlltUUtl
VACANT ' PROPOSED '
ST SERY IHTERII '- I INTERII ( Ell '
S 0804 414 , S 18 { I
t1t1lt1Utllttttltl
nYAHRO
EKV fROG SUPY
5 0186 { I
STERRm
SECt r om
mms YACAHT mEHG - PE - m ENG - PE , om 5' , om 51
HCDOXALD HrB2C~
CONT HGT SPEC III LEGAL ASST II
S 0499 4' o om 51
HUHPHREt VACANT
LEGAL ASST II - ST SERY INTERN
o 0108 5 S 0801 41
HAGGARD fAcm
M III ST SERY INTERN
S om 4t 5 0802 { I
VACANT
ST SERY UTEO
S 080) 41
mBELLOPTRoolSStDPl
F 0180
MAR
SECf r om
HiLLER VACANT
YPRoo SPIC ST SERY IKTIRI
0111 5 r Olll
AI- SCHUSTER JAMISON
YfRoo SPEC EHS II
0101 51 o 0101 5t
f ~ i~) sPlc mcalum ! liS I
0111 5 r om
YAM HILLER lUI')
EHS II ! liS I
I om 4t F0122
[~
[
u
E"
~
G [
I
~
~
o
Wfl.: MG
WASTE DIVISION
REMEDIATION SECTION
PROPOSED ORGANIZATION CHART EXHIBIT 28
,- .... 1 i--':-.-:? ..._.....~. - .. ......
MANAGER
EP SUPERVISOR
CLERK TYPIST ADMINISTRATIVE
III SECRETARY
I
PRE- REMEDIAL REMEDIATION
MANAGER MANAGER
SECRETARY SECRETARY
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEER
P. E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEER PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIROIOl£ NTAL
ENGINEER PROGRAM
SPECIALIST SPECIALIST
ENVIROllMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEER PROGRAM
SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEER PROGRAM
SPECIALIST SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH SPECALIST PROGRAM
II SPECIALIST
EHS ENS
II II
EHS EHS
II II
EHS ENS
II II
ENS EHS
II II
ENS ENS
II II
EHS
II
EHS
II EPS
STATE SERVICE
INTERN
~
I
II
­a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
­I
I,
I
I
I
' I
I
EMERGENCY RESPONSE \ HI
The Emergency Response part of this Unit receives and responds to Hazardous Waste
Emergencies stat8lNlde. In 1991, Emergency Response ( ER) will receive approximately 500 calls and will
respond to about 50% or 250 of them.
The ER responds to hazardous material Incidents which threaten public health or the environment.
The activities of ER are short- term, I. e., they respond, neutralize, wrap- up and refer over a period
of a few hours to 21 days. These activities are currently handled by a Secretary, three Emergency Response
Specialists and one working Supervisor position which Is vacant at present ( see Exhibit 29, Hazardous and
Solid Waste