1 / 45

IDEM Update Indiana Rural Water Association April 22, 2008

Learn about IDEM's mission to protect human health and the environment in Indiana, as well as their efforts to increase personal income and improve environmental quality. Discover their performance metrics, current initiatives, and new environmental laws.

gjunior
Download Presentation

IDEM Update Indiana Rural Water Association April 22, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IDEM Update Indiana Rural Water AssociationApril 22, 2008 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE, QEP Commissioner IN Department of Environmental Management We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  2. 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. We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  3. Pilot 2006 & 2008 Environmental Performance Index Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy Yale University Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Columbia University http://www.yale.edu/epi/ We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  4. We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  5. Currently No Similar Chart for 2008 • “Wealth correlates highly with EPI scores. But at every level of development, some countries achieve results that exceed their income-group peers. Statistical analysis suggests that good governance contributes to better environmental outcomes.” • US drops from 28th to 39th—Climate Change

  6. 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 Written Standard Operating Procedures Improved staff training and development We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  7. Performance Metrics We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  8. Performance Metrics We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  9. Performance Metrics We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  10. Counties above AQ Standards January 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, 2008 Clark--PM Marion—PM Lake—Ozone (Whiting Monitor) We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  11. 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 90% We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  12. 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 We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  13. Total Permit Calendar Days

  14. Enforcement 2003 to 1Q 2008 We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  15. New 2008 Laws • HEA 1001 Property Tax Reform was the Major Issue in the 2008 Legislative Session • SEA 45—The Great Lakes Water Compact with implementing legislation • HEA 1120—Ban phosphates in residential dishwasher detergent sold after July 1, 2010 We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  16. New 2008 Laws • SEA 43 addresses many environmental issues • Clarifies mercury switch removal program requirements to: • Allow payment for removal of mercury containing anti-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 • Clarifies Requirements for Local Land Use Approvals for Solid Waste Landfills that have not yet accepted Waste We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  17. New 2008 Laws • SEA 43 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 We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  18. New 2008 Laws SEA 43 Continued • Requires public notice of rules that are proposed to sunset • Protects a community from being required to pay storm water fees to two entities • Clarifies Environmental Criminal Language • SEA 46 modified the marketable record title for real property to eliminate the need to renew a environmental restrictive covenant every 50 years We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  19. 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.” We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  20. 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)” We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  21. 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.” We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  22. 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. We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  23. 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 We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  24. 2006 Air Quality (EPA) Forbes Ozone PM Average Greenest State Vermont 1st 1st 1 2nd Oregon 1st 1st 1 3rd Washington 1st 1st 1 4th Hawaii 1st 1st 1 5th Maryland 46th 39th 42.5 6th Connecticut 49th 1st 25 7th New Jersey 48th 35th 41.5 8th Rhode Island 37th 1st 19 9th New York 38th 42nd 40 10th Arizona 1st 1st 1 11th Massachusetts 34th 1st 17.5 49th Indiana 1st 40th 20.5 We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  25. PIRG Troubled Waters Ranking Greenest State Vermont 23rd 2nd Oregon Did not supply useful data 3rd 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 We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  26. EPA 2006 Water Permits Ranking Greenest 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% We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  27. 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 We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  28. Policy Initiatives Spending 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) We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  29. Policy Initiatives Transportation—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 We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  30. 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. We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  31. 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 We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  32. Questions? Tom Easterly 100 N. Senate Ave. IGCN 1301 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 232-8611 Fax (317) 233-6647 teasterly@idem.in.gov We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

  33. BP Permit Public Outreach • IDEM considers all stakeholders when making a permit decision. We respond to all comments received and include the responses in the fact sheet before making the final permit decision. • In January, 2007, IDEM, EPA and BP commenced an extraordinary outreach to and consultation with the Northwest Indiana environmental community during the development of the final draft permit

  34. BP Permit Public Outreach • A public comment period on the draft permit was offered from March 16 to May 11, 2007. • A public meeting held in Whiting on April 26, 2007—attended by BP representatives, the environmental community and one citizen. • IDEM received and responded to comments from 46 people before issuing the final permit on June 21, 2007.

  35. BP Permit Public Outreach • IDEM coordinated with EPA to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act. On April 5, 2007, EPA issued a written notice of no objection concerning the BP Permit. • The 18-day appeal period for the permit ended on July 9, 2007 and no appeal was filed within that period. The permit became effective August 1, 2007 and the permit expires July 31, 2012.

  36. BP Permit Media • June 29, 2007—Post Tribune Headline: “BP not required to build treatment plant in Whiting” • July 10, 2007—Lee Botts, Board Member, Alliance for the Great Lakes wrote a letter to the editor pointing out that the headline in the Post Tribune article was not correct • Sunday July 15 Article in Chicago Tribune “BP gets break on dumping in Lake—Refinery expansion entices Indiana”

  37. BP Permit Media • The 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 BP • House 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.

  38. BP Permit & Barnes Report • Governor Daniels Requested the Barnes Review on August 13, 2007 • Dr. Barnes is the former Dean of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs—he served USEPA both times Bill Ruckelshaus was the Administrator • Deputy Administrator • General Counsel • Dr. Barnes Issued His Report on December 3, 2007

  39. 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).”

  40. 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…”

  41. 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…”

  42. BP Permit & Barnes Report • “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.”

  43. BP Permit & Barnes Report • “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.”

  44. BP Permit & Barnes Report • In addition to the antidegradation demonstration, public concerns include: • The “Necessity” Decision • Mixing Zone/Diffuser • Mercury (especially the compliance schedule) • Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

  45. Future IDEM Actions • IDEM will process an antidegradation regulation • Will apply to entire State • Special protection for Lake Michigan • IDEM will require more documentation for Compliance Schedules • IDEM will obtain an EPA non-objection determination prior to placing an NPDES permit on public notice

More Related