november 17, 2017 michael mcclellan, deputy director · michael mcclellan, deputy director. deq...
TRANSCRIPT
Department of Environmental Quality
Michigan Chapter of the NationalAssociation for Surface Finishing
Lansing Summit
November 17, 2017Michael McClellan, Deputy Director
DEQ Mission
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality promotes wise management of Michigan’s air, land, and water resources to support a sustainable environment, healthy communities, and a vibrant economy.
DEQ Organizational Structure
• Air Quality Division• Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance Division• Oil, Gas, and Minerals Division• Remediation and Redevelopment Division• Waste Management and Radiological Protection Division• Water Resources Division
DEQ Priorities
• Protect public health and environment• Assist Michigan communities with
addressing infrastructure needs• Build external partnerships to address
Michigan’s environmental issues
2018 State of Michigan Budget
Health & Human Services
45%
Education29%
Jobs 11% Government Services
7% Public Safety6%
Quality of Life2%
Total: $56.3 Billion
7
2018 DEQ Budget by Fund SourceState GF/GP$51.3 Million
10%
Bond Funds$88.2 Million
17%
Federal Funds$170 Million
33%
Restricted Funds$201.3 Million
40%
Total: $510.8 Million
2018 DEQ Budget by Category
Local Grants & Loans
$218.3 Million, 43%
Remediation & Redevelopment$100.9 Million,
20%
Water Resources$96.5 Million, 19%
Administration$34.8 Million, 7%
Air Quality$27.1 Million, 5%
Waste Management
$16.5 Million, 3%
Oil, Gas, Mineral$10.7 Million, 2%Environmental
Assistance$6.4 Million, 1%
Total: $510.8 Million
Clean Environment InitiativeTop DEQ Budget Priority
• Environmental Cleanup and Brownfield Redevelopment
• Waste Management and Recycling
• Emerging Contaminants (PFAS)• Water Quality• State and Local Parks
10
Address risk at 3,000 sites
Double Michigan’s Recycling Rate
Other Budget Priorities
• Modernize information technology systems• Support oil and gas program• Provide water infrastructure financing to local communities
11
PFAS**Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances** • USEPA designation ‐ national emerging contaminant
• PFAS ‐ suite of chemicals with thousands of applications
• Used in industrial, food, and textile industries • Characteristics
– Incredibly stable – Break down very slowly – Highly soluble – Easily transferred through soil to groundwater
Statewide Concerns• PFAS contamination identified in several locations in Michigan
• Currently – 14 locations, 28 sites • Sources include:
– Current and former military installations– Tanneries– Plating operations– Legal and illegal disposal sites
Confirmed PFAS Locations/# sitesAlpena/2Ann Arbor/1Escanaba/1Flint/1Grayling/3Gwinn/1Lansing/2Lapeer/2Mt. Clemens/2Mt. Pleasant/1Oscoda/7Plainfield Township/2Rockford/2Tawas/1 14 location
28 sites
State Response
• Governor Snyder’s Executive Directive 2017‐4– Michigan PFAS Action Response Team– Comprehensive, cohesive, and timely response– Team lead – Carol Issacs– Team advisor – Dr. David Savitz, Brown University– Team composition:
DEQDMVAOther agencies as needed
DHHSMDARD
Challenges
• Funding• Test analysis time frame• Lack of public health and environmental standards
• Unsettled science
16
Next Steps
• Secure additional financial support• Stand up state laboratory capabilities• Work with USEPA, pass state cleanup criteria standards
• PFAS technical team • MPART• Web site: www.michigan.gov/pfasresponse
17
2013/2014 – StatewideSurface Water PFAS Monitoring
• DHHS & DEQ’s Water Resources Division obtained a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) grant to perform statewide PFAS monitoring (ambient and fish tissue) of select rivers.
• PFASs have been measured in all surface water samples collected to date, and PFOS was measureable at 85% of sites sampled.
• Flint River ‐ PFOS levels in the Flint River exceeded the Rule 57 Human Non‐cancer Value of 12 ng/L and DHHS screening values for fish.
• 2015 ‐ DHHS updated the Eat Safe Fish Guide to include fish consumption advice due to PFOS in the Flint River.
Flint River Surface WaterMonitoring to Find Source
• 2016 – Additional PFAS surface water and fish monitoring was conducted on the Flint River and its tributaries.‐ Initial focus was on the Flint area due to historical presence of industrial sites, unregulated dump sites, and landfills.
‐ Surface water and fish results both indicated a source was further upstream.
• 2017 – Surface water monitoring expanded to include upstream locations, including the North Branch and South Branch (Lapeer area) of the Flint River. Effluents from three wastewater treatment plants were also sampled.
Genesee WWTP3
Brent Run11
Flint WWTP28
Lapeer WWTP440
4
4.2
3.4
ND
ND
5.7
25 3Gilkey CreekSwartz Creek
3
4.2
ng/L (ppt)
May 2017
PFOS Source Tracked to Lapeer WWTP• Effluent results identified the City of Lapeer WWTP as the source.
• The high effluent levels led the WRD to look at the city’s biosolids .‐ High biosolids results caused the WRD to suspend Lapeer’s residual management program – cannot land apply.
‐ City has hired contractors to press their biosolids for landfill disposal and treat the filtrate water through activated carbon prior to returning to the WWTP.
• Where did it come from? The city implements an Industrial Pretreatment Program and permits industrial process wastewater from a categorical industrial user to their system, Lapeer Plating & Plastics.
Lapeer Plating & Plastics• Lapeer Plating & Plastics is a decorative chrome plater located within the city of Lapeer.‐ Process involves etching, copper plating, nickel plating, and chrome plating on plastics
‐ Historically, LP&P used PFOS as a foam suppressant in electroplating tanks as a control measure for hexavalent chromium air emissions
‐ However, use of PFOS was phased out by LP&P in 2013, and a “PFOS‐free” product has been in use since that time
• The DEQ conducted multimedia inspections at LP&P and confirmed the facility as the source of PFOS to the Lapeer sanitary sewer system.
• Samples of storm water taken at the facility were also found to be at levels of concern.
Next steps...• Continue working with LP&P and the Lapeer WWTP to eliminate the discharge of PFOS at the source‐ Initial efforts by LP&P to remove PFOS from their discharge by cleaning out tanks and associated process lines/units were not successful. Activated carbon treatment of the process wastewater may be best short‐term solution.
• City of Lapeer biosolids land application sites – conduct monitoring to determine potential impacts
• Implementation of an Industrial Pretreatment Program strategy to address potential sources of PFAS discharges to WWTPs
• Work with USEPA ‐ Biosolids – need assistance on developing criteria for land application
‐ Explore potential of “PFOS‐free” products being converted to PFOS during electroplating and/or etching process
‐ Work with plating associations to understand operational practices that may impact PFAS discharges from these facilities
Waste Management and Radiological Protection
• Education and Outreach‐ Michigan Waste and Materials Management Conference – December 13‐14, 2017
• Materials Management‐ Solid Waste Law
• Market Development Survey
– Hazardous Waste Rules– Pollution Prevention
• Assessment Program
AIR QUALITY DIVISION
• Air Quality Division (AQD) 2018 Priorities• Michigan and Ozone• Initiatives Affecting Finishers
2018 AQD Priorities
• Staff focus • Reduce risks to public health and the
environment• Build partnerships to address Michigan’s
environmental issues
Staff Focus
• Lean – Permit to Install (Rd 3), Title V (Rd 2), and Enforcement
• Planning for AQD division‐wide database to replace existing systems (ORR & audit findings)
• Training and technology• Title V Fees – Sunset in September 2019• Succession planning to address retirements
Reduce Risks to Public Health and the Environment
• Ensure demolition of structures comply with the asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
• Address areas not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ‐ sulfur dioxide and ozone(?)
• Inspect hard chrome platers
Build Partnerships to Address Michigan’s Environmental Issues
• Continue to meet with the regulated community• Continue to update the public participation process• Continue to provide outreach materials
• LPI implementation• MDEQ Minute
• Implement the Gordie Howe Bridge monitoring program• Continued involvement in the Integrated Resource Planning
(IRP) process• Continued involvement with issues such as vapor intrusion,
PFAS, etc.
Michigan and Ozone
• November 6, 2017, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) designated areas in Michigan as attainment/unclassifiable
• USEPA took no action on designations for the rest of Michigan
• What does this mean? • Short term – there are no areas designated as non‐attainment
so there are no non‐attainment permitting requirements• USEPA will eventually take action, at which time a plan to
reduce ozone will be needed, as well as non‐attainment permitting requirements will kick in
National Emission Standard40 CFR Part 63 Subpart N
• Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks
• After September 21, 2015, subject facilities shall not add PFOS‐based fume suppressants to any open or closed hard chromium electroplating tank
• Facilities can demonstrate compliance through fume suppressant safety data sheets and/or waste manifests
Initiatives Affecting Surface Finishing/Finishers
• MDEQ focus on PFAS• AQD to inspect hard chrome platers subject to the NESHAP during
Fiscal Year 2018• Subject sources include chrome electroplating or chromium
anodizing tanks at facilities performing hard chromium electroplating, decorative chromium plating, or chromium anodizing
• Sources not subject include process tanks associated with chromium electroplating or chromium anodizing processes but in which neither chromium electroplating nor chromium anodizing is taking place (rinse tanks, etching tanks, cleaning tanks, and tanks containing chromium solution but no electrolytic process)
Cleanup Criteria Rules
Joshua Mosher, Acting Assistant DirectorRemediation and Redevelopment Division
34
Rules Promulgation Process
Draft Rules Published
Public Comment
Period
Public Hearing
Final Draft Rules submitted to
JCAR
Promulgated Rules
Cleanup Criteria Rules Overview
• Scope of Rule Changes1. Revisions and Reorganization2. Equations and Inputs3. Volatilization to Indoor Air Tiered Approach
• Implementation
36
VI Tiered Process
37
VI Tier 1 VI Tier 2 VI Tier 3A
Facility‐specific inputs to establish
Generic Unrestricted Residential Criteria
Facility‐specific inputsto establish
Generic Restricted Criteria
Generic Screening Level
*University of Wisconsin*images from vastree.com
Implementation
• Extended effective date for rules [6 months after promulgated]
• “Grace Period” – Part 201 NFA reports and Part 213 Closure Reports submitted 6 months before promulgation up to the effective date will be reviewed under 2013 criteria unless DEQ Director determines the actions taken are no longer protective
38
ImplementationEffective Date & Grace Period
39
June 30, 2018* December 30, 2018*December 15, 2017*
August 31, 2017 Proposed revisions available for review
Rules/Criteria Promulgated
Rules/Criteria Effective
*Note: Dates for demonstration purposes only