IDEM UpdateIndiana Rural Water Association

2011 Spring ConferenceApril 19, 2011

Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE, QEP CommissionerIN Department of Environmental Management

1

2

IDEM’s MissionWe Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment

IDEM’s mission is to implement federal and state regulations to protect human health and the environment while allowing the environmentally sound operations of industrial, agricultural, commercial and government activities vital to a prosperous economy.

How Does IDEM Protect Hoosiers and Our 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.

3

How Does IDEM Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment?

• Use compliance assistance and/or enforcement when people exceed their permit levels or violate regulations.

• Educate people on their environmental responsibilities.

4

5

Performance Metrics April 2011Quality of Hoosiers' Environment Result Target Comments

% of Hoosiers in counties meeting air quality standards 99.99% 100% 80% Muncie Lead—675 people

% of CSO Communities with approved programs to prevent the release of untreated sewage 95.4% 100% 20% 94+9 (103) out of 98+9

(108)

% of Hoosiers receiving water from facilities incompliance with safe drinking water standards 99.6% 99% 95%

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

Land 28,809 66,565 86,864

Air 91,841 207,000 385,000

Water 70,760 48,000 200,000

* Places emphasis on back logged permits

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

Inspections 97.36% 97% 75%

Self reporting 94.82% 99% 95%

Continuous monitoring (COM) 99.72% 99.90% 99%

* Tracks observations and not just inspections

6

Performance Metrics June 2005Quality 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

Discussion Topics

• IDEM Legislative Agenda.• Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water.• Chromium 6.• Emerging Drinking Water Issues.

7

2011 IDEM Legislative Agenda• No fee increase proposals.• SB 200 IDEM Issuance of NPDES General

Permits passed both Houses of the Legislature.– Permit Terms.– Conflict of Interest of board members.

• SB565 Solid Waste Management Districts.– Defined duties and funding for SWMDs.– Subject referred to the EQSC for further study.

8

Other Environmental Bills• SB 159 Nullifies a Section 8 Rulemaking if the

underlying federal requirement is eliminated.• SB 346 Statute of Limitations for Environmental

Legal Actions—Passed Both Houses.• SB 347 IDEM to Provide Online Operator

Training for Operators of Underground Petroleum Storage Tanks to satisfy the Energy Policy Act of 2005—Passed Both Houses

9

2011 IDEM Legislative Agenda• SB 433 Environmental Issues is the IDEM general

bill that passed the senate last year (passed both houses of Legislature this year).– Authorization to pursue delegation for U.S. ACE 404

and U.S. EPA UIC programs.– EQSC study of funding for environmental programs.– Solid Waste Landfill instead of Sanitary Landfill.– Replace “wastewater” with “septage.”– Many other fix-up issues (49 sections).

10

Other Environmental Bills• HB 1112 Composting and Land Application of

Industrial Waste Products—passed both houses.• HB 1187 Satellite manure storage and

Agricultural Storm Water, passed Legislature.• HB 1200 Liability Limitation for Surficial Cleanup

of Contaminated Properties—Signed into law.• HB 1451 Mint distilling operations—to EQSC.• HB 1098 & HB 1197 Regional Sewer Districts.

11

PHARMACEUTICALS IN DRINKING WATER

12

Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply“This glass of water that you’ve given me—I’m sure

has superb Bloomington water, has no measurable benzene in it right now. Ten years from now it will. Now that’s not because your water’s going to get bad. Its because we, as scientists, cannot measure the level of benzene that’s in there now. We will ten years from now because our analytical techniques will get better.” Dr. Bernard Goldstein 4/19/2006

13

Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply

• USA Today published an article in March 2008 identifying “pharmaceuticals” in 24 drinking water supplies.

• In Indiana, Indianapolis was identified as having “caffeine” in finished drinking water—no level was given.

14

Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply• Illinois followed up on the USA Today article by

testing drinking water supplies for 56 different contaminants in: – Chicago– Aurora– East St. Louis– Elgin– Rock Island

15

Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply• Illinois found detectable levels of 16 substances

in untreated water and 12 substances in finished drinking water.

• Illinois EPA used a safety factor of 10,000 and other adjustments to calculate a “safe level” for these compounds.

16

Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply• The highest pollutant level in finished drinking

water (for cotinine, a breakdown product of nicotine) was 1/333rd of the calculated safe level. A person would need to drink 1,470 pounds (175 gallons) of water a day to reach the calculated safe intake level of cotinine.

• All other pollutants detected were much lower in relation to the “safe intake level.”

17

Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply• The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation

Commission (ORSANCO) looked for 158 potential contaminants at 25 locations on and near the Ohio River, including at the discharges from sewage treatment plants.

• At least one of the 25 samples had detectable results for 71 of the 158 compounds. No unsafe levels have yet been identified.

18

Sampling Challenges• What do you sample for?

– As of April 2007, U.S. EPA had identified 31,000,000 organic and inorganic compounds.

– About 14,000,000 of these compounds were commercially available at that time.

– U.S. EPA has calculated that there are potentially 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1060) compounds in the environment.

19

Sampling Challenges• What do you sample for?

– About 245,000 (0.8%) of the commercially available compounds were being tracked or regulated by some entity.

– One ounce of water contains about 520,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules.

– We currently can detect compounds at the 1 ppt level so need 520,000,000,000 molecules of a compound in an ounce of water to detect that compound.

20

Sampling Challenges• What can we afford to sample for?

– The ORSANCO analytical cost for 158 compounds was $3,120 per sample (average of $20 per compound per sample).

– If it was possible to analyze for all of the 245,000 compounds being tracked or regulated at $20 per compound, the cost would be about $5,000,000 ($5 million) per sample.

21

Science Challenges• What is a safe level?

– New drugs go through rigorous testing to determine both the therapeutic dose and the level below which there is no effect—both for humans and other living organisms such as fish and amphibians.

– Most other compounds in commerce have not been through enough testing to determine a level that is safe for all organisms.

22

U.S. EPA’s Plan

• U.S. EPA recently recognized that it would take them 70 years to develop safe levels for the compounds currently in their backlog if they continued with their normal scientific process.

• U.S. EPA has developed a new four step process to significantly accelerate their process to ensure that drinking water is safe.

23

U.S. EPA’s Four Step Process

1. Rather than working on each compound one at a time, U.S. EPA plans to address water contaminants in groups.

2. U.S. EPA will engage private innovators, entrepreneurs and small business to improve drinking water treatment technology.

24

U.S. EPA’s Four Step Process3. U.S. EPA will leverage all appropriate

authorities—such as pesticide and chemical laws—to confront and preempt drinking water contaminants.

4. U.S. EPA will work closely with State and Local Partners on up-to-date information sharing, monitoring, analysis and other assistance.

25

IDEM’s Recommendations• Continue with common sense programs to

keep contaminants, such as unwanted medications, out of our waters.

• Follow the work of U.S. EPA and others in their efforts to determine which, if any, products have the potential to reach unsafe levels.

• Continue to participate with ORSANCO and other States to develop the science.

26

Chromium 6• In December, 2010, the Environmental

Working Group released a report showing 31 of 35 sampled public water supplies exceeded the “CA public health goal of 0.06 ppb for this carcinogenic “Erin Brockovich Chemical.”

• The current 100 ppb MCL for total chromium was determined to be protective in 1991.

27

Chromium 6• In September, 2010, U.S. EPA released a

Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium including oral dose carcinogenic data.

• When this review is final, EPA will reevaluate the MCL for chromium.

• In the interim, EPA has released: “recommendations for enhanced monitoring for Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water.”

28

Chromium 6• The U.S. EPA guidance provides information

“to show how a system could enhance chromium monitoring through additional sampling and analysis specifically for chromium-6.”

• The guidance notes that the best laboratories have a detection limit of 0.02 ppb with a reporting limit of 0.06 ppb (the EWG/CA goal).

29

Emerging DW Issues• DW utilities on the Ohio River have recently

reported two concerns:– The possibility of ammonia in raw water

interfering with proper disinfection due to its chlorine demand.

– Bromide in raw water contributing to THMs.• ORSANCO has established a 1 mg/l ammonia

standard measured at the drinking water intake, still studying bromide.

30

Thank You

Tom EasterlyCommissioner

Indiana Department of Environmental Management317-232-8611

teasterly@idem.in.gov

31