1

Indiana Environmental IssuesIEA, September 20, 2007

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

IN Department of Environmental Management

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.

3

Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index

Yale Center for Environmental Law & PolicyYale University

Center for International Earth ScienceInformation Network (CIESIN)Columbia University

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

4

5

How Is IDEM Helping to Increase Personal Income?

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

6

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

50% 100% 20% 45+9 out of 98+9

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

Land 61,779 66,565 86,864 142 permits

6972 permits

45 permits

Air 311,986 207,000 385,000

Water 58,806 48,000 200,000

* Places emphasis on back logged permits

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

Inspections 95.58% 97% 75%

Self reporting 97.77% 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 $4,458,843 $0 $3,447,017 $2.1 OLQ + $2.3 OAQ

7

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)

8

Ozone Attainment Status

9

PM 2.5 Attainment Status

10

Total Permit Calendar Days

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Air

Water

Land

11

Percent of Activities Meeting Regulations

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

Inspections

SelfReporting

EmissionMonitoring

12

Office of Enforcement2002-2006

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007*

Referrals 887 607 467 547 591 372

Violation Letters

17 33 47 203 231 70

Notice of Violations 561 457 318 202 427 263

Agreed Orders 311 349 314 258 417 207

Commissioner's Orders 15 15 6 41 38 19

Dismissals 125 121 44 48 46 24

*August 2007

13

Enforcement Backlog

In early 2005, IDEM identified 120 open enforcement cases over 2 years old—all of those cases have been resolved.

Our goal is to resolve all enforcement cases within one year of the referral.

We currently have 24 cases that are more than 12 months old—no cases over 2 years old.

14

EPA’s Proposed Revisions to NAAQS for Ozone

EPA proposing revised Air Quality Standards Primary standard to protect human health Secondary standard to protect public welfare and

the environment Both currently .08 parts per million (ppm), effectively .084 due to rounding conventionsEPA proposed reduction of primary standard to within the range of .07-.075 ppmEPA proposed two alternative revisions of secondary standard: A new cumulative, seasonal standard, or A standard identical to proposed primary standard

15

Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Revisions to NAAQS for Ozone

Non-attainment designation would trigger planning requirements and other potential clean air measures

Difficult to predict designations Range of options being considered Nothing finalized in federal rule yet

Predictions based on 2003-2005 data, recent data shows fewer monitors violate proposal

Several control measures implemented that do not take effect until 2009-2010

16

PM 2.5 StatusNew 35 microgram per cubic meter 24 hour standard issued in September, 2006—Annual standard retained

Designations will initially be based upon 2004-2006 air quality, but the process may allow the use of data up to 2009

New nonattainment designations will be made April 2010, SIPS due by 2013

SIPS for current nonattainment areas due April, 2008—redesignations and SIPs

17

PM 2.5 StatusBased upon monitored 2004-2006 Air Quality, the following monitor locations exceed the new 35 microgram per cubic meter short term PM 2.5 Standard:Jeffersonville (Clark County) 37SW Purdue Ag Center (Knox County) 36Gary IITRI (Lake County) 38Gary Burr St. (Lake County) 38 Indianapolis S. West St. (Marion County) 38 Indianapolis English Ave (Marion County) 37 Indianapolis W 18th St. (Marion County) 37

18

Recent RulemakingsAir Pollution Control BoardOutdoor Wood Boilers/Hydronic Heaters -

Second notice under review to be issued soon—concept is emission limits for new installations

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) – final adoption expected 10/07

Control measure for regional haze State Implementation Plan

CAIR satisfies rule for EGUs Affects ALCOA, ESSROC Cement Corp., ESSROC

Materials, GE Plastics, and Mittal Steel-Burns HarborEast Coast States are asking us to do more even

though their class I areas are “below the glide path”

19

Recent RulemakingsClean Air Mercury Rule – preliminarily

adopted 5/07—final adoption hearing 10/07Based on federal rule

Clean Air Interstate Rule – final adopted State Implementation Plan submitted to EPA

2/07Enhancement to auto emissions inspection

– Preliminarily adopted 9/5/07Lake and Porter County inspection and

maintenance planVOC rules – first and second notice stages

Regional effort to reduce Ozone

20

Climate RegistryIndiana is one of a handful of States that has not signed on to the Climate Registry

We have no objection to voluntary programs to inventory greenhouse gas emissions

We do not want to spend Hoosier taxpayer dollars on a not-for-profit organization based in Washington DC

Signing on to the Climate Registry might improperly imply that Hoosier businesses need to participate in the Climate Registry

21

Continuous ImprovementIT initiativesTempo – Unified environmental databaseVirtual File Cabinet – File room via Web

Pay for performance Set clear performance expectationsHold staff accountable for their decisionsProvides an incentive to go beyond minimum

job requirements to assist regulated community

22

BP NPDES PermitIDEM issues permits to protect human health and the environment

No exceptions were made with BP’s wastewater permit which is fully protective of drinking water, recreation and aquatic life in Lake Michigan

23

BP NPDES PermitBP’s permitted discharge levels are established at or below the lower of technology based effluent limits and water quality based effluent limits.

BP’s New Permit does allow increased discharges of ammonia and Total Suspended Solids to accommodate the processing of Canadian Heavy Crude derived from tar sands

24

BP NPDES Permit

This permit had the most extensive public outreach to the environmental community of any permit issued by IDEM.

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.

25

BP NPDES Permit

The permit was issued on June 21, the permit ended on July 9, 2007 and no appeal was filed—the permit effective date is August 1, 2007 and the permit expires July 31, 2012.

The Alliance for the Great Lakes, which was involved in pre permit discussions with EPA and IDEM has now filed a appeal on the NPDES Permit

26

BP NPDES Permit

At the urging of Illinois politicians, the US House passed a resolution critical of the permit

The City of Chicago and others have delivered petitions with tens of thousands of signatures objecting to allowing increased discharges to Lake Michigan

USEPA originally supported the IDEM BP permit, but is urging BP to go beyond compliance to address public concerns

27

BP NPDES Permit

USEPA has also indicated that they will engage in extensive review of all future major IDEM NPDES permits

USEPA is also raising numerous issues with IDEM’s draft air pollution permit for BP and is taking very conservative positions

Does a legally issued permit allow an activity, or is it the starting point for a beyond compliance negotiation?

28

Thank You—Questions

Tom Easterly

100 N. Senate Ave. IGCN 1301

Indianapolis, IN 46204

(317) 232-8611

Fax (317) 233-6647

teasterly@idem.in.gov