toxics in our environment goshen college—january 11, 2011 thomas w. easterly, p.e., dee, qep...
TRANSCRIPT
Toxics in our EnvironmentGoshen College—January 11, 2011
Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., DEE, QEP Commissioner, Indiana Department
of Environmental Management
1
2
IDEM’s MissionWe Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment
IDEM’s mission is to implement federal and state regulations to protect human health and the environment while allowing the environmentally sound operations of industrial, agricultural, commercial and government activities vital to a prosperous economy.
How Does IDEM Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment?
• Develop regulations and issue permits to restrict discharges to the environment to safe levels.
• Inspect and monitor permitted facilities to ensure compliance with the permits.
3
How Does IDEM Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment?
• Use compliance assistance and/or enforcement when people exceed their permit levels or violate regulations.
• Educate people on their environmental responsibilities.
4
5
Performance Metrics Dec 2010Quality of Hoosiers' Environment Result Target Comments
% of Hoosiers in counties meeting air quality standards
99.99% 100% 80% Muncie Lead—675 people
% of CSO Communities with approved programs to prevent the release of untreated sewage
95.4% 100% 20%94+9 (103) out of 98+9 (108)
% of Hoosiers receiving water from facilities incompliance with safe drinking water standards
99.3% 99% 95%
Permitting Efficiency Total calendar days accumulated in issuing environmental permits, as determined by state statute
Land 12,402 66,565 86,864
Air 21,789 207,000 385,000
Water 24,558 48,000 200,000
* Places emphasis on back logged permits
Compliance Total percentage of compliance observations from regulated customers within acceptable compliance standards
Inspections 96.45% 97% 75%
Self reporting 96.60% 99% 95%
Continuous monitoring (COM) 99.82% 99.90% 99%
* Tracks observations and not just inspections
6
Performance Metrics June 2005Quality of Hoosiers' Environment Result Target Comments
% of Hoosiers in counties meeting air quality standards
61% 100% 80%12 counties & 2,408,571 of 6,195,643 above standard
% of CSO Communities with approved programs to prevent the release of untreated sewage
4% 100% 20% 75% by 2007 is goal
Permitting Efficiency Total calendar days accumulated in issuing environmental permits, as determined by state statute
Land 100,013 66,565 86,864
Air 511,000 207,000 385,000
Water 301,000 48,000 200,000
* Places emphasis on back logged permits
Compliance Total percentage of compliance observations from regulated customers within acceptable compliance standards
Inspections 95.46% 97% 75%
Self reporting 97.11% 99% 95%
Continuous monitoring (COM) 99.19% 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 $6,179,367 $0 $3,447,017
Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply“This glass of water that you’ve given me—I’m sure
has superb Bloomington water, has no measurable benzene in it right now. Ten years from now it will. Now that’s not because your water’s going to get bad. Its because we, as scientists, cannot measure the level of benzene that’s in there now. We will ten years from now because our analytical techniques will get better.” Dr. Bernard Goldstein 4/19/2006
7
Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply
• USA Today published an article in March 2008 identifying “pharmaceuticals” in 24 drinking water supplies.
• In Indiana, Indianapolis was identified as having “caffeine” in finished drinking water—no level was given.
8
Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply
• Illinois followed up on the USA Today article by testing drinking water supplies for 56 different contaminants in: – Chicago– Aurora– East St. Louis– Elgin– Rock Island
9
Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply
• Illinois found detectable levels of 16 substances in untreated water and 12 substances in finished drinking water.
• Illinois EPA used a safety factor of 10,000 and other adjustments to calculate a “safe level” for these compounds.
10
Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply• The highest pollutant level in finished drinking
water (for cotinine, a breakdown product of nicotine) was 1/333rd of the calculated safe level. A person would need to drink 1,470 pounds (175 gallons) of water a day to reach the calculated safe intake level of cotinine.
• All other pollutants detected were much lower in relation to the “safe intake level.”
11
Pharmaceuticals in Water Supply• The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO) looked for 158 potential contaminants at 25 locations on and near the Ohio River, including at the discharges from sewage treatment plants.
• At least one of the 25 samples had detectable results for 71 of the 158 compounds. No unsafe levels have yet been identified.
12
Sampling Challenges• What do you sample for?
– As of April 2007, U.S. EPA had identified 31,000,000 organic and inorganic compounds.
– About 14,000,000 of these compounds were commercially available at that time.
– U.S. EPA has calculated that there are potentially 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1060) compounds in the environment.
13
Sampling Challenges• What do you sample for?
– About 245,000 (0.8%) of the commercially available compounds were being tracked or regulated by some entity.
– One ounce of water contains about 520,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules.
– We currently can detect compounds at the 1 ppt level so need 520,000,000,000 molecules of a compound in an ounce of water to detect that compound.
14
Sampling Challenges• What can we afford to sample for?
– The ORSANCO analytical cost for 158 compounds was $3,120 per sample (average of $20 per compound per sample).
– If it was possible to analyze for all of the 245,000 compounds being tracked or regulated at $20 per compound, the cost would be about $5,000,000 ($5 million) per sample.
15
Science Challenges• What is a safe level?
– New drugs go through rigorous testing to determine both the therapeutic dose and the level below which there is no effect—both for humans and other living organisms such as fish and amphibians.
– Most other compounds in commerce have not been through enough testing to determine a level that is safe for all organisms.
16
U.S. EPA’s Plan
• U.S. EPA recently recognized that it would take them 70 years to develop safe levels for the compounds currently in their backlog if they continued with their normal scientific process.
• U.S. EPA has developed a new four step process to significantly accelerate their process to ensure that drinking water is safe.
17
U.S. EPA’s Four Step Process
1. Rather than working on each compound one at a time, U.S. EPA plans to address water contaminants in groups.
2. U.S. EPA will engage private innovators, entrepreneurs and small business to improve drinking water treatment technology.
18
U.S. EPA’s Four Step Process3. U.S. EPA will leverage all appropriate
authorities—such as pesticide and chemical laws—to confront and preempt drinking water contaminants.
4. U.S. EPA will work closely with State and Local Partners on up-to-date information sharing, monitoring, analysis and other assistance.
19
IDEM’s Recommendations• Continue with common sense programs to
keep contaminants, such as unwanted medications, out of our waters (brochure).
• Follow the work of U.S. EPA and others in their efforts to determine which, if any, products have the potential to reach unsafe levels.
• Continue to participate with ORSANCO and other States to develop the science.
20
Information Needs?• What is the safe level for every chemical?• What synergistic effects should be
considered?• What is the optimum level for nutrients in
lakes and rivers? (Gulf Hypoxia)• What is an affordable way to determine
surface water quality around the state in real time?
21
Information Needs?• What are the sources of mercury in fish?
– Methylization process and bioavailability– Impact and source of air deposition– Impact of sediment reservoirs of mercury
• What is the proper indicator of viral and bacterial contamination and how can we measure it inexpensively in real time?
22
Information Needs?• What are the sources of nutrients in our
waters and how do we control them?– Air deposition– Point source discharges– Lawn fertilization– Row crop agriculture– Animal agriculture– Natural or background sources
23
Information Needs?• How do we deal with dissolved solids?• What is the safest disinfection method of
water and wastewater (including consideration of disinfection byproducts and residual treatment of contamination in the distribution system)?
24
Office of Water Quality Blue Green Algae Initiative
• Increasing Public Awareness.
• Concerns from citizens around Geist Reservoir in 2007.
• Senator Gard urged agencies to investigate.
• Partnership among ISDH, IDNR, IUPUI Center for Earth and the Environmental Science to collect and report information.
25
Office of Water QualityActivities
• Blue Green Algae– Blue Green Algae in Central Indiana Reservoirs– This Algae known as Cynobacteria that can produce
toxins• Microcystins - liver, tumor promotor• Saxitoxins - neurotoxin• Anatoxin-a - neurotoxin• Anatoxin-b - neurotoxin• Nodularins - liver, tumor promotor• Lipopolysaccharide - inflammation• Cylindrospermopsin – liver other organs
26
Phosphorus Reductions• IDEM encourages the use of low phosphorus
fertilizer in yards through our “Know Your Numbers” education campaign.
• IDEM currently regulates the application of phosphorous in manures at CAFOs and is revising its CFO regulatory program to regulate phosphorous application at all regulated animal feeding operations.
27
Phosphorus Science• Most phosphorus binds to soil particles, so
control of soil erosion and keeping grass clippings out of waters reduces phosphorus loadings.
• Phosphorus is an essential nutrient, so the goal is to achieve proper levels, not to eliminate all phosphorus.
28
IDEM’s TOXWATCH Report• Air toxics risk levels in Indiana are comparable
to levels normally found in urban areas in the U.S.
• Except for two pollutants associated with motor vehicle emission (benzene and acrolein) and one pollutant no longer produced (carbon tetrachloride), all measured air toxics are at levels considered safe.
29
IDEM’s TOXWATCH Report
• http://www.in.gov/idem/files/air_ambient_toxwatch_report.pdf
• http://www.in.gov/idem/6544.htm
30
Nitrogen DioxideNO2 Annual Average
St. Joseph County 1994-2009
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Con
cent
ratio
n (p
pm)
Monitoring Values Annual Standard Trendline
OzoneOzone Maximum Values
Elkhart & St. Joseph Counties 1979-2009
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Con
cent
ratio
n (p
pm)
1- Hour Monitoring Values 1-Hour Ozone Standard (.12) 8-Hour Monitoring Values
8-Hour 1997 Standard (.085) 8-Hour 2008 Standard (.075) Trend Line
Particulate MatterTSP Maximum 24-Hour Value St. Joseph County 1979-1991
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Year
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
24-Hour TSP Standard (260 ug/m3-Revoked in 1987) Monitoring Values Trend Line
Particulate MatterTSP Maximum Annual Value St. Joseph County 1979-1991
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Year
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Annual TSP Standard (75 ug/m3-Revoked in 1987) Monitoring Values Trend Line
Particulate MatterPM 10 Maximum 24-Hour ValueSt. Joseph County 1985-2007
0
50
100
150
200
250
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
Year
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Monitoring Values 24-Hour PM 10 Standard (150 ug/m3) Trend Line
Particulate MatterPM 10 Annual Value
St. Joseph County 1985-2007
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
Year
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
Monitoring Values Annual PM 10 Standard (50 ug/m3--Revoked in 2006) Trend Line
Particulate MatterAnnual PM 2.5
St. Joseph County 1999-2009
02468
1012141618
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
ug
/m3
)
Annual Arithmatic Mean Annual PM 2.5 Standard (15.0 ug/m3) Trend Line
Particulate MatterDaily PM 2.5
St. Joseph County 1999-2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
Year
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ug
/m3)
98% Value 1997 Daily PM 2.5 Standard (65 ug/m3)
2006 Daily PM 2.5 Standard (35 ug/m3) Trend Line
LeadLead Maximum Values
Marion County 1977-2009
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Con
cent
ratio
n (u
g/m
3)
Monitoring Values Lead Standard 2009 Lead Standard Trend Line
LeadLead Maximum Values
Delaware County 1992-2009
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Co
nc
en
tra
tio
n (
ug
/m3
)
Monitoring Values Lead Standard 2009 Lead Standard Trend Line
Thank You
Tom EasterlyCommissioner
Indiana Department of Environmental Management317-232-8611
41