we protect hoosiers and our environment idem update indiana chamber of commerce environmental issues...

We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

IDEM Update Indiana Chamber of Commerce

Environmental Issues ConferenceMarch 6, 2008

Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE, QEP Commissioner

IN Department of Environmental Management


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.


Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index

Yale Center for Environmental Law & PolicyYale University

Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN)Columbia University

http://www.yale.edu/epi/


How Is IDEM Protecting Hoosiers and Our Environment?

Clear, consistent and speedy decisionsClear regulationsAssistance first, enforcement secondTimely resolution of enforcement actionsEvery regulated entity will have current valid

permits without unnecessary requirementsWritten Standard Operating Procedures Improved staff training and development


Performance MetricsQuality of Hoosiers' Environment Result Target Comments

% of Hoosiers that live in counties that meet air quality standards 85% 100% 80% 2 counties @ 964,725 of

6,271,973 failed

% of CSO Communities with approved programs to prevent the release of untreated sewage

65% 100% 20% 64+9 (73) out of 98+9 (108)

Permitting Efficiency Total calendar days accumulated in issuing environmental permits, as determined by state statute

Land 21,761 66,565 86,864 91 permits

538 permits

29 permits

Air 187,860 207,000 385,000

Water 27,426 48,000 200,000

* Places emphasis on back logged permits

Compliance Total percentage of compliance observations from regulated customers within acceptable compliance standards

Inspections 97.15% 97% 75%

Self reporting 95.68% 99% 95%

Continuous monitoring (COM) 99.65% 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 $2,800,000 $0 $3,447,017 $1,5 OLQ + $1.3 OAQ


Performance Metrics


Counties above AQ StandardsJanuary 10, 2005 Allen--Ozone Boone--Ozone Clark--PM & Ozone Dubois--PM Elkhart--Ozone Hamilton--Ozone Hancock--Ozone LaPorte--Ozone Madison--Ozone Marion--PM & Ozone Shelby--Ozone St. Joseph--Ozone

January 1, 2007 Clark--PM Marion—PM

Possible Addition Lake—Ozone

(Whiting Monitor)


Permit Backlog ReductionIn 2005, there were 263 administratively extended NPDES permits

Six of those 263 remain to be issued:US Steel Gary WorksUS Steel Midwest DivisionArcelor Mittal Indiana Harbor EastArcelor Mittal Indiana Harbor WestArcelor Mittal Burns HarborHoosier Energy Merom Plant


Office of Enforcement2003-20072003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Referrals 607 467 547 591 606

Violation Letters 33 47 203 231 77

Notice of Violations 457 318 202 427 420

Agreed Orders 349 314 258 417 372

Commissioner Orders 15 6 41 38 39

Dismissals 121 44 48 46 57

Complies/ Closed 308 312 317 577 568

AG Referral 13 17 4 33 52


2008 Legislative IssuesProperty Tax Reform is the Major Issue in the 2008 Legislative SessionSB 45—The Great Lakes Water Compact with implementing legislation was signed into law by Governor DanielsHB 1120—Ban phosphates in residential dishwasher detergent sold after July 1, 2010 was signed into law by Governor Daniels


2008 Legislative Issues• SB 200 addresses a number of issues

includingTransfers lead program from IDEM to ISDHClarifies mercury switch removal program

requirements to:Allow payment for removal of mercury containing ant-

lock braking switches and other mercury containing devices

Exempt wrecked vehicles where the mercury switch is not easily accessible

Allows IDEM to accept electronic signatures


2008 Legislative Issues• SB 200 Continued

Removes the requirement that IDEM have a laboratory division

Removes the requirement to display operator certificates at a treatment plant

Allows a single vehicle ID and land application permit approval for a septage hauler

Eliminates the requirement that IDEM obtain social security numbers as part of good character approval process

Allows IDEM to use ELTF for tank inspections


2008 Legislative Issues• SB 43

Requires public notice of rules that are proposed to sunset

Protects a community from being required to pay storm water fees to two entities

SB 46 modifies the marketable record title for real property to eliminate the need to renew a environmental restrict covenant every 50 years—Signed by the Governor

Other issues could be added in conference


Dr. Barnes Review of BP NPDES Permit


BP PermitPermit issued June 21, 2007 after extensive public outreach and no apparent opposition.

Post Tribune Article stating that IDEM’s NPDES permit for BP did not require treatment.

Sunday July 15 Article in Chicago Tribune “BP gets break on dumping in Lake—Refinery expansion entices Indiana”


BP Permit MediaThe July 15 Tribune article resulted in:July 16 letters from Senator Durbin and

Representative Emanuel of Illinois to EPA and others criticizing IDEM’s permit action.

July 19th Commissioner Media Availability re BPHouse Concurrent Resolution #187 on July 26,

2007 “Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the dumping of industrial waste into the Great Lakes”

An EPA led August 15 “Great Lakes Summit”Numerous petitions, letters, etc.


BP Permit & Barnes ReportGovernor Daniels Requested the Barnes Review on August 13, 2007Dr. Barnes is the former Dean of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs—he served USEPA both times Bill Ruckelshaus was the AdministratorDeputy AdministratorGeneral Counsel

Dr. Barnes Issued His Report on December 3, 2007


BP Permit & Barnes Report“Permit complies with existing regulations and the explicit requirements of state and federal law.”“The wastewater discharge would not be expected to cause a violation of water quality standards or interfere with designated uses in Lake Michigan (including full body contact recreation such as swimming, maintaining the aquatic community, and drinking water supply).”


BP Permit & Barnes Report

“The limitations in the BP permit are as demanding, and in several instances much more restrictive than, those issued by adjoining states to refineries.”

“With a flat ban on new or increased discharges of bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs) to Lake Michigan, Indiana is more protective of the Lake than the adjoining states…”


BP Permit & Barnes Report“Indiana should clarify its antidegredation regulations for Lake Michigan to make them easier for permit applicants and the public to understand and for the agency to apply.”

“By modifying the regulations to address the shortcomings that I identified, Indiana can readily provide a more transparent process with clear requirements for making antidegredation decisions…”



“The initial press reports that mischaracterized some of the material that BP is authorized to discharge as “sludge” created a misconception in the minds of many members of the public officials that does not accord with the actual facts in this case.”



“Knowledgeable observers in both the environmental and business communities gave IDEM and its commissioner, Tom Easterly, credit for cutting the backlog of expired permits and for their efforts to engage the public early in the permit process.”



In addition to the antidegradation demonstration, public concerns include:The “Necessity” DecisionMixing Zone/DiffuserMercury (especially the compliance schedule)Monitoring and Reporting Requirements


Future IDEM ActionsIDEM will process an antidegradation regulation—Governor’s Stakeholder Meeting March 7 at 1 PM in IGCS Conference Rm AWill apply to entire StateSpecial protection for Lake Michigan

IDEM will require more documentation for Compliance SchedulesIDEM will obtain an EPA non-objection determination prior to placing an NPDES permit on public notice


Forbes “America’s Greenest States” Article 10/17/2007

“So who’s at the bottom? Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Indiana and, at No. 50, West Virginia. All suffer from a mix of toxic waste, lots of pollution and consumption and no clear plans to do anything about it. Expect them to remain that way.”


Forbes Continued“We ranked each state in six equally rated

categories:

• Carbon footprint (Carbon Dioxide per capita)• Air Quality (American Lung Assn 2007)• Water Quality (PIRG 2007 “Troubled Waters”)• Hazardous Waste Management (per capita)• Policy Initiatives (American Council for an Energy-

Efficient Economy’s energy efficiency Scorecard)• Energy Consumption (per capita)”


Forbes Continued“Regarding energy consumption and lifestyle

choice, we examined a number of factors, including vehicle miles traveled and the number of alternative fuel and hybrid-electric vehicles per capita by state, as well as the number of buildings that have received the U.S. Green Building Council’s energy efficient “LEED” certification. We have also relied on information from the EIA, EPA, DOT, NRDC and the Sierra Club.”


Carbon Footprint

Indiana does not have nuclear power generation—about 20% of the power generation in the US (and rest of the Midwest) is nuclear.

Indiana’s coal is a secure home grown source of energy.


Indiana Projects to Reduce Our Carbon Footprint

The recently permitted Duke Edwardsport plant will be the first commercial scale IGCC plant to sequester carbon in the US

The largest wind-farm east of the Mississippi River is under construction in Indiana and additional projects are on the horizon


2006 Air Quality (EPA)Forbes Ozone PM AverageGreenest State Vermont 1st 1st 12nd Oregon 1st 1st 13rd Washington 1st 1st 14th Hawaii 1st 1st 15th Maryland 46th 39th 42.56th Connecticut 49th 1st 257th New Jersey 48th 35th 41.58th Rhode Island 37th 1st 199th New York 38th 42nd 4010th Arizona 1st 1st 111th Massachusetts 34th 1st 17.549th Indiana 1st 40th 20.5


PIRG Troubled Waters RankingGreenest State Vermont 23rd

2nd Oregon Did not supply useful data3rd Washington 7th

4th Hawaii 20th

5th Maryland 6th

6th Connecticut 45th

7th New Jersey 16th

8th Rhode Island 48th

9th New York 44th

10th Arizona 11th

11th Massachusetts 49th

49th Indiana 40th


EPA 2006 Water Permits RankingGreenest State Vermont 19th 93.0%2nd Oregon 42nd 63.9%3rd Washington 14th 94.4%4th Hawaii 13th 94.7%5th Maryland 31st 79.7%6th Connecticut 39th 70.3%7th New Jersey 35th 76.8%8th Rhode Island 26th 83.2%9th New York 8th 96.8%10th Arizona 23rd 88.7%11th Massachusetts 45th 52.1%49th Indiana 16th 93.2%


Hazardous Waste Management No Data Source Provided in Report

Indiana has about 2% of the US Population, but makes 25% of the steel and over 50% of the of the Recreational Vehicles produced in the US.

Pollution Prevention does reduce waste generation, but as long as our manufacturing sector is strong, waste will be (properly) managed in Indiana


Policy InitiativesSpending on Utility and Public Benefits Energy Efficiency Programs (0/15)Energy Efficiency Resource Standards: Requiring Utilities to meet electric and gas savings targets (0/5)Combined Heat and Power Including Renewable Portfolio Standards and Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (3/5)Building Energy Codes (2/5)


Policy InitiativesTransportation—California GHG tailpipe emission standards; exemplary land use policies; transit funding and state fleet requirements (0/5)Appliance and Equipment Efficiency Standards (0/3)“Green” Tax Incentives (0/3)State Lead by Example Programs: Facilities, Equipment, Procurement, R&D (0/3)Total (5/44) tied for 41st


Energy Consumption (per Capita) No Data Source Provided in Report

Indiana uses energy to make products consumed in other states. We have 2% of the US population, but make 25% of the Steel and over 50% of the recreational vehicles in the US.


Forbes Report Conclusion

The Forbes Report does not rank States based upon government verified environmental quality data

The Forbes Report appears to be a ranking based upon the adherence of States to a group of policies advocated by the NGO’s providing information used in the rankings


Questions?

Tom Easterly

100 N. Senate Ave. IGCN 1301

Indianapolis, IN 46204

(317) 232-8611

Fax (317) 233-6647

[email protected]

we protect hoosiers and our environment idem update indiana chamber of commerce environmental issues...

Documents

environmental permits

environmental goalidem

indianas environmental

tracks observations

regulated customers

outside services

current valid permits

core agency functions