Permitting and Environmental Review

Transcription

1 Permitting and Environmental Review Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee Jeff J. Smith MPCA Industrial Division Director Larry R. Kramka MnDNR Assistant Commissioner lppt-2bsy11 January 27, 2011

2 Presentation Overview Permitting and Environmental Review Basics Process Improvement and Streamlining Results and Data Priority Projects Department of Natural Resources comments

3 MPCA Mission Working with Minnesotans to protect, conserve and improve our environment and enhance our quality of life. 3

4 Permitting Authority Federal Regulations Authority Delegated to States Specific State Legislation and Rules 4

5 Required Permits Air emissions Wastewater discharges Land solid waste, hazardous waste, tanks MPCA, DNR: >15,000 permits for building, changing and operating facilities 5

6 Permit Contents Facility Description Owner/Operator Location Description Site Activity Pollution Control Equipment Effluent/Emission Limits Reporting Requirements Federal and State Standardized Requirements 6

7 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

8 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

9 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 MEPA: Minnesota Environmental Policy Act Minn. Stat. 116D; Mn Rule

10 Types of Environmental Review Environmental Assessment Worksheet [EAW] Standard forms Used by all RGUs 31 questions Decision: Potential for significant environmental impact? Yes EIS No Permitting Environmental Impact Statement [EIS] Follows EAW Detailed analysis of environmental impacts Alternatives analysis Socio-economic effects Decision: Adequacy of the EIS 10

11 Who manages environmental review? 7% 5% 4% 4% 2% 29% 208 total projects City County MPCA MnDOT DNR Watershed District 23% 26% Township Others 11

12 What types of projects undergo environmental review? 12

13 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

14 Process Improvement Efforts Underway Low risk permitting General permits Electronic submission of DMRs Exploring e-business opportunities E-signature Report and application submittals New State Financial System for payments Use information for Legislative Audit 14

15 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 Permit Timeliness 16

17 Environmental Review Timeliness Feedlot EAWs All EAWs Days Fiscal Year 17

18 Permitting Priorities Construction Permits - top Types of Construction Permits >3500 air registration and general permits Issued in 14 days of completed application construction stormwater permits Issued within 2 days of completed application Others issued within 30 days Modifications of existing facilities Reissuance with no modification 18

19 Metallic Mineral Mining and Environmental Review 19

20 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

21 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

22 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

23 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

24 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

25 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

26 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 EIS Preparation 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

27 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 Determination Federal Record of Decision Final Permit Decision 27

28 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

29 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 Larry Kramka Assistant Commissioner Jeff Smith Industrial Division Director