Transcript Indiana Steel Environmental Group June 30, 2009 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE, QEP Commissioner IN Department of Environmental Management.

Indiana Steel Environmental Group
June 30, 2009
Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE, QEP Commissioner
IN Department of Environmental Management
1
State Budget Balances
2
Response to Reduced State Income
• Eliminated 2009 raises.
• Strategic Hiring Review—Using attrition to
reduce spending.
• Reduce/eliminate grants, contracts, etc.
• Restrictions on travel and purchasing.
• Will maintain essential State services.
3
IDEM Staffing Levels
Fiscal Year
Budgeted
Filled
2004
1,054
2005
1,054
2006
1,063
*2007
1,063
*2008
1,031
*2009
1,031
*2010
983
*2011
983
895
918
915
927
954
950
983
983
1,100
N
U
M
B
E
R
900
700
500
300
100
* The increases in staff reflect the following:
(4) new LUST Inspectors to meet Federal Energy Policy Act
(7) OLQ staff to replace the outsource contract for UST technical reviews, saving $1.6M
(11) OAQ staff to replace the outsource of permitting contracts, saving $5M
(15) SFR and Brownfield staff at IFA
(5) OWQ staff from ISDA to meet Rule 5 requirements
(2) OPPTA staff from Lt Gov Office
4
We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment
Local Agency Contracts
• Continuation of IDEM’s goal to use efficiency
gains to reduce contracting out of core
environmental protection functions.
– $3.5 Million/year in Air Permit Contracts with $1.1
Million in IDEM Resources while improving service.
– $1.5 Million/year in Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Clean ups with $0.7 Million in IDEM resources
while improving service.
5
We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment
Local Agency Contracts
• IDEM spends just over $2 Million per year on
Local Agency Contracts:
– Anderson
– Evansville
– Gary
– Hammond
– Indianapolis
– Vigo County
$66,642
$177,498
$24,000
$375,100
$1,124,139
$266,662
6
We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment
Local Agency Contracts
• IDEM believes that it can provide the same or
better level of environmental protection for
about $0.5 Million/year freeing up resources to
address remaining air quality issues in Indiana.
• Local Agency Air Quality Services include:
– Permitting
– Inspections
– Complaint Response
– Air Quality Monitoring
7
We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment
Grant and Loan Suspension
• All Grants and Loans from the following nonreverting funds to entities that had not
returned award paperwork by December 19
have been suspended:
– 2580 Recycling Promotion Assistance Fund
– 2530 Solid Waste Recycling Fund
– 2640 Waste Tire Fund
8
IDEM’s Mission and
Environmental Goal
IDEM is responsible for protecting human health
and the environment while providing for safe
industrial, agricultural, commercial and
governmental operation vital to a prosperous
economy. Our goal is to increase the personal
income of all Hoosiers to the national average
while maintaining and improving Indiana’s
Environmental Quality.
9
Pilot 2006 Environmental
Performance Index
 Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy
Yale University
 Center For International Earth Science
Information Network (CFIESIN)
Columbia University
 http://www.yale.edu/epi/
10
11
How Is IDEM Protecting Hoosiers
and Our Environment?
• Clear, consistent and speedy decisions
– Clear regulations
– Assistance first, enforcement second
– Timely resolution of enforcement actions
– Every regulated entity will have current valid
permits without unnecessary requirements
12
How Does IDEM Protect the
Environment?
• Develop regulations and issue permits to restrict
discharges to the environment to safe levels.
• Inspect and monitor permitted facilities to ensure
compliance with the permits.
• Enforce against people who exceed their permit
levels or violate regulations.
• Educate people on their environmental
responsibilities.
13
We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment
Performance Metrics Mar 2009
Quality of Hoosiers' Environment
Result
Target
Comments
% of Hoosiers in counties meeting air quality
standards
98%
100%
80%
1 county & 106,673 of
6,376,792 above standard
% of CSO Communities with approved programs to
prevent the release of untreated sewage
93%
100%
20%
90+9 (99) out of 98+9 (107)
Permitting Efficiency Total calendar days accumulated in issuing environmental permits, as determined by state statute
Land
27,110
66,565
86,864
174 permits
Air
82,806
207,000
385,000
365 permits
Water
34,500
48,000
200,000
109 permits
* Places emphasis on back logged permits
Compliance Total percentage of compliance observations from regulated customers within acceptable compliance standards
Inspections
97.14%
97%
75%
Self reporting
92.90%
99%
95%
Continuous monitoring (COM)
99.66%
99.90%
98.95%
* Tracks observations and not just inspections
Organizational Transformation Budgetary agency dollars spent on key outside contracts for core agency functions.
Dollars spent on outside services per year
$1,400,000
$0
$3,447,017
$1.4 OLQ
14
We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment
Performance Metrics June 2005
Quality of Hoosiers' Environment
Result
Target
Comments
% of Hoosiers in counties meeting air quality
standards
61%
100%
80%
12 counties & 2,408,571 of
6,195,643 above standard
% of CSO Communities with approved programs to
prevent the release of untreated sewage
4%
100%
20%
75% by 2007 is goal
Permitting Efficiency Total calendar days accumulated in issuing environmental permits, as determined by state statute
Land
100,013
66,565
86,864
Air
511,000
207,000
385,000
Water
301,000
48,000
200,000
* Places emphasis on back logged permits
Compliance Total percentage of compliance observations from regulated customers within acceptable compliance standards
Inspections
95.46%
97%
75%
Self reporting
97.11%
99%
95%
Continuous monitoring (COM)
99.19%
99.90%
98.95%
* Tracks observations and not just inspections
Organizational Transformation Budgetary agency dollars spent on key outside contracts for core agency functions.
Dollars spent on outside services per year
$6,179,367
$0
$3,447,017
15
We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment
New Drinking Water Metric
• Percent of Hoosiers Drinking Safe Water:
– Percentage of Indiana population that receives
drinking water from facilities that are in full
compliance with safe drinking water regulations.
– Federal (EPA) Goal is 95%.
– Indiana Goal is 99%.
– Indiana Current Actual is 98.2%.
16
Agency Accomplishments
• All 1,269 tons of VX Agent stored at the
Newport Chemical Agent Facility since 1969
has been safely destroyed. VX destruction
started in May of 2005 and was completed in
August 2008.
• Digital Inspector Tool is in use for solid waste
inspections including CAFOs, Auto Salvage
Yards and Landfills.
17
We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment
Agency Accomplishments
• Entire State met the 0.08 ppm Ozone air
quality standard for the period 2006-2008,
and we are working with USEPA to have Lake
and Porter Counties designated attainment.
• Entire State also met the 0.075 Ozone air
quality standard for the year 2008.
• All but Clark County met the PM2.5 Air Quality
Standards for the period 2006-2008.
18
We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment
Total Permit Calendar Days
600000
500000
400000
Air
300000
200000
Water
Land
100000
0
19
We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment
Air Permits Branch Rapid Improvement Activities
• Lean/Kaizen Methodology to improve efficiency:
– Significant Source Modifications (Construction Approvals)
9/07 Event.
• Process time reduced from 220 days to 121 days avg.
–Permit Renewals 12/07 Event.
• Process time reduced from 678 day avg. to all those
issued in ’08 within 270 days allowed (calendar days).
• Eliminate backlog of administratively extended permits:
– 1/1/08 - 156 permits.
– Currently no backlogged air permits.
20
Permit Backlog Reduction
• In 2005, there were 263 administratively
extended NPDES permits.
• Six of those 263 remain to be issued:
– US Steel Gary Works.
– US Steel Midwest Division.
– Arcelor Mittal Indiana Harbor East.
– Arcelor Mittal Indiana Harbor West.
– Arcelor Mittal Burns Harbor.
– Hoosier Energy Merom Plant.
21
Impact of NPDES Extensions
• These companies are not required to meet the
Great Lakes Initiative discharge limits—e.g.
mercury.
• These companies are not required to meet
other more stringent discharge limitations,
testing and reporting requirements.
22
Impact of NPDES Extensions
• Many of the objections to the USX permit
related to the time allowed by the permit for
the Company to meet the new standards.
• Without a renewed permit, USX has no
deadline for meeting the new standards.
• The other four steel plants with extended
permits also have no deadline for meeting the
new standards.
23
Antidegradation Rule Status
• Stakeholder kickoff Meeting on March 7, 2008.
• Discussed concepts and schedule at two large
stakeholder meetings on 4/29 and 6/25.
• Working group of twelve members from the
environmental, business and municipal
segments formed to come up with draft rule
language and/or identify areas for IDEM to
resolve.
24
Antidegradation Status
• Working group has met on 7/15, 8/12, 9/16 ,
10/30, 12/11/08, 1/6/09, and 1/26/09.
• Working group agenda items:
– Applicability (7/15) & (10/30).
– Exemptions (8/12) & (10/30).
– DeMinimis (9/16) & (10/30).
– Water Quality Improvement Projects (1/26/09).
– Antidegradation Demonstrations (12/11/08).
– Public Notice/Public Comment (1/6/09).
25
Antidegradation Status
• IDEM shared a draft with the working group
on 4/22/09 reflecting both areas of agreement
during the workgroup process and IDEM
decisions on issues where no consensus was
reached.
• A revised draft will be presented to the larger
stakeholder group in July.
• That draft will also be Second Noticed in the
formal rulemaking process.
26
Office of Enforcement
2003
Referrals
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
607
467
547
591
606
437
5,222
4,980
4,268
4,024
3,958
4,092
Notices of Violation
457
318
202
427
420
321
Agreed Orders
349
314
258
417
372
364
15
6
41
38
39
32
Dismissals
121
44
48
46
57
40
Complies/Closed
308
312
317
577
568
386
Violation Letters
Commissioner’s Orders
27
Percent of Activities Meeting Regulations
102.00%
100.00%
98.00%
96.00%
Inspections
Self Reporting
Emission Monitoring
94.00%
92.00%
90.00%
88.00%
6/1/2005
12/1/2005
6/1/2006
12/1/2006
6/1/2007
12/1/2007
6/1/2008
12/1/2008
28
IDEM Enforcement Changes
• Returned enforcement function to the air, water
and land programs and eliminated the separate
office of enforcement.
• Publishing our Compliance and Enforcement
Response Policy as a Non-rule Policy Document
to facilitate understanding of the enforcement
process.
29
Reasons for Enforcement Change
• No improvement in compliance rates in 4 years.
• EPA HQ told me both enforcement models
(separate office or in program) are used effectively.
• Enforcement was regularly “waiting on program
staff” under the control of other managers.
• Unpublished enforcement policies resulted in
unexpected actions—too timid and too aggressive.
30
Compliance and Enforcement
Response Policy (CERP)
• CERP was last revised in 2003 and was an
internal IDEM document.
• In order to meet our goal of transparency we
decided to update the CERP and publish it as a
Non Rule Policy Document under IC 13-14-111.5. Draft signed for 45 day public comment
period on 10/31/08.
31
Criminal Convictions
• Wabash Environmental Technologies and Derrik
Hagerman—Clean Water Act felonies. Sixty
months of imprisonment and $237,000 in
restitution (Terre Haute).
• Miller Environmental and Anthony
MuCullough—Clean Water Act felonies. Four
months imprisonment and $510,000 in
penalties (Shelbyville and Rushville).
32
Criminal Convictions
• Richard Reece—RCRA felonies. Six months in
half way house, six months home detention
and $60,000 restitution (Muncie).
• Hassan Barrel and Alan Hersh—RCRA felonies.
Fifteen months of imprisonment plus $2.7
million in restitution (Fort Wayne).
33
Criminal Convictions
• Erler Industries—Clean Air Act Criminal Pleas
for false reporting (North Vernon).
– $1,000,000 Criminal Fine.
– $100,000 to IDEM for Hybrid Vehicles.
– $25,000 to the Midwest Environmental.
Enforcement Association for training.
• Individual Operators and Laboratories—False
reporting cases.
34
Agency Initiatives
• Electronic Permits and Reporting
– Virtual File Cabinet—electronic filing system with
over 42,500,000 pages now online.
– TEMPO—Enterprise wide electronic integration of
all IDEM information—part of the insfrstructure to
receive and process electronic permit applications
and reports
• Two programs accepting electronic submittals, 401
Certifications and Community Right to Know
35
Agency Initiatives
• EDMR—Electronic reporting of waste water
discharge monitoring reports.
– Currently being piloted by about 100 facilities.
– Expect to be available for all facilities in June of
2009.
• Active assistance to facilities that announce
layoffs and closing to prevent environmental
Incidents.
36
Challenges--2009
• New Administration—Possible new directions:
– Greenhouse Gasses.
– Great Lakes Protections.
• Wise Stewardship of Economic Stimulus
Funds.
• Final Resolution of Unresolved Issues
Including:
37
US Courts Overturning Rules
• 2007—Industrial, Commercial and Institutional
(ICI) Boiler MACT—directly impacted about 10
sources with coal fired boilers
• May 2008—Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)
impacted all Power Plants
• July 2008—Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
impacted all Power Plants and most Indiana air
pollution strategies
38
BP Air Permit—Indiana
• 38 day public comment period, 342 written
comments received
• Public meeting and hearing – 1,200 attended,
44 commented
• Construction permit issued May 1 and
operation permit issued June 16
• Multiple appeals of these permit decisions to
OEA, Federal Court and the EPA Administrator
39
NRDC Statement on Tar Sands
• “BP’s decision to tap into the Canadian wilderness is
‘based on addiction, not reality,’ says Ann Alexander,
senior attorney at the Natural Resource Defense
Council (NRDC), a nonprofit environmental group. ‘Tar
sands crude oil is dirty from start to finish. It’s bad
enough that [BP is] fouling our natural resources here
in the Midwest, but it’s completely destroying them up
in Canada. There are good sources of energy we can
turn to that don’t involve turning entire forests into a
moonscape.’”
40
Duke-Edwardsport Power Plant
• First commercial Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant in the U.S.
• 44 day public comment period
• Public meeting and hearing – over 600 citizens
attended
• Construction permit issued January 25 and
operation permit issued in March
• Permit decision appealed
41
2009 Environmental Legislation
1162
• Water Issues including:
– Anti-degradation and
– TMDL’s
• Remediation issues including:
– Environmentally Restrictive Covenants,
– conditions subsequent and
– giving consideration to measures to eliminate
exposure pathways
42
Questions?
Tom Easterly
Commissioner
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
317-232-8611
[email protected]
43