Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Larry KramkaAssistant Commissioner
