Permitting and Environmental Review Legislative Presentation

Permitting and Environmental Review

Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee

Jeff J. SmithMPCA Industrial Division Director

Larry R. KramkaMnDNR Assistant Commissioner

January 27, 2011

lppt-2bsy11

Presentation Overview

Permitting and Environmental Review Basics

Process Improvement and Streamlining

Results and Data

Priority Projects

Department of Natural Resources comments

MPCA Mission

3

Working with Minnesotans to protect, conserve and improve our environment and

enhance our quality of life.

Permitting Authority

Federal Regulations

Authority Delegated to States

Specific State Legislation and Rules

4

Required Permits

Air emissionsWastewater discharges Land – solid waste, hazardous waste, tanksMPCA, DNR: >15,000 permits for building,

changing and operating facilities

5

Permit Contents

Facility Description Owner/Operator Location Description Site Activity Pollution Control Equipment

Effluent/Emission LimitsReporting RequirementsFederal and State Standardized

Requirements

6

Types of Permits

Individual One Permit → One Facility 30-day public notice each permit

General One Permit → Many Facilities 30-day public notice for main permit Some additional notice for component

7

Permitting Process

Submit Application

MPCA Completeness Review General Permit: coverage issued if meet qualifications Individual Permit: evaluation, modeling, project

adjustments

Environmental Review, if necessary Public Notice – as required Public Meeting – as appropriate MPCA Citizens’ Board meeting – as required Issuance

8

Environmental Review

Informs decision-makers, public, and project proposers

Environmental Quality Board

Responsible Governmental Units State Agencies

• MPCA, MnDOT, MnDNR Local Governmental Units

• Cities, Counties, Townships

9

MEPA:Minnesota

Environmental Policy Act

Minn. Stat.§116D;Mn Rule 4410

Types of Environmental Review

10

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

[EAW]

Environmental Impact Statement

[EIS]

Standard forms

Used by all RGUs

31 questions

Decision:Potential for significant environmental impact?

Yes → EIS

No → Permitting

Follows EAW

Detailed analysis of environmental impacts

Alternatives analysis

Socio-economic effects

Decision:Adequacy of the EIS

Who manages environmental review?

11

29%

26%

23%

7%

5%

4%4% 2%

208 total projects

City

County

MPCA

MnDOT

DNR

Watershed District

Township

Others

What types of projects undergo environmental review?

12

Process Improvements

Focus on systematic review, adjust, and design more efficient and effective processes

Continuous improvement tools Assess processes

Gather customer input

Collect and utilize data

Analyze current problems

Improve ways to accomplish work

Eliminate waste – maintain quality

13

Process Improvement Efforts Underway

Low risk permitting General permits Electronic submission of DMRs

https://netweb.pca.state.mn.us/private/

Exploring e-business opportunities E-signature Report and application submittals New State Financial System for payments

Use information for Legislative Audit

14

Permit Timeliness

Air Permits 80% in less than 150 days Average 110 days

Water Permits 75% in less than 180 days Average 130 days

Land Permits Tanks – average 90 days Hazardous Waste – average 180 days Industrial Landfills – average 365 days

15

16

Perm

it T

imel

ines

s

Environmental Review Timeliness

17

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Da

ys

Fiscal Year

Feedlot EAWs

All EAWs

Permitting Priorities

Construction Permits - top

Types of Construction Permits >3500 air registration and general permits

• Issued in 14 days of completed application

1500 -2800 construction stormwater permits• Issued within 2 days of completed application• Others issued within 30 days

Modifications of existing facilitiesReissuance with no modification

18

Metallic Mineral Mining and Environmental Review

19

Recent EISs

Arcelor Mittal Expansion EIS (completed 2007)

Develop East Reserve mining area

Joint Federal-State EIS (Corps of Engineers)

Minnesota Steel EIS (completed 2007)

Mine, DRI plant, steel mill

Joint Federal-State EIS (Corps of Engineers)

PolyMet NorthMet EIS (DEIS 2009) New nonferrous mineral mine and processing facility

Joint Federal-State EIS (Corps of Engineers & USFS)

20

Recent EISs (continued)

US Steel Keetac Expansion EIS (completed 2010*)

Expand mine and restart Phase 1 production line

Joint Federal-State EIS (Corps of Engineers)

Mesabi Nugget Phase II EIS (in prep) Reactivate 2 mine pits

Joint Federal-State EIS (Corps of Engineers)

Essar Steel EIS Supplement (in prep)

Expanded indurating furnace, additional line

State-only EIS Supplement

21

Required Review

Both state and federal EISs are required for most

Joint state/federal EISs are prepared

Full Federal (NEPA) review is required, with state procedures and staffing providing a process framework

22

Joint Environmental Review

Increases efficiency, reduces total time and costs, but:

Increases complexity:

Multiple lead agencies

Different regulations, procedures

Federal staffing limitations

EPA role

Federal cooperating agencies

Tribal Trust responsibilities

23

What does MEPA do for NEPA?

Provides resources federal agencies lack Dedicated project manager

Technical staff

Contractor

Funding In MEPA proposer pays state EIS costs

Timing MEPA time lines can influence NEPA

24

Major Elements of an Environmental Impact Statement

Proposed Project Description

Required permits and approvals

Potential alternatives

Existing Conditions

Analysis of environmental, social, economic impacts Proposed action Alternatives Mitigation Cumulative effects

25

EIS Preparation

Scoping State scoping EAW Draft Scoping Decision Document Public Meeting Final Scoping Decision Document Federal Notice of Intent to prepare EIS

State EIS Preparation Notice State 280-day clock begins

Proposer conducts studies Lead/cooperating agencies review Can require study modification Can lead to project changes Final reports delivered to consultant for EIS preparation

26

EIS Preparation (continued)

Draft EIS Preparation Prepared by consultant Preliminary draft reviewed by lead/cooperating agencies

Draft EIS Public Review EQB Monitor (state); Federal Register (federal) Public meeting

Final EIS 14-day review (state); 30-day (federal) Response to Draft EIS comments

State Adequacy DeterminationFederal Record of DecisionFinal Permit Decision

27

Potential Delays in EIS Process

Joint federal-state EIS Project Complexity Project Description Technical studies

Baseline data, methodologies, assumptions Results, errors, interpretations New types of impacts and necessary mitigation

Conflict, communication, coordination Project modifications Changing regulations, policies and procedures Public controversy Staffing

28

Process Improvement Efforts

Organizational structures

Complete project description before scoping

Stronger focus on NEPA scoping procedures

Lead agency collaboration with proposer on study designs

Formal procedures for communication, coordination, and decisionmaking

Formal, consistent project management approach

29

30

Jeff SmithIndustrial Division Director

651.757.2735jeff.j.smith@state.mn.us

Larry KramkaAssistant Commissioner

651.259.5033larry.kramka@state.mn.us