Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

FLDEP Proposal

Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building Virginia B. Wetherell
Lawton Chiles 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Secretary
Governor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

January 30, 1996

Mr. John H. Hankinson, Jr.
Administrator - Region IV
United States Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365

Dear Mr. Hankinson:

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is excited to provide you with the enclosed Draft Working Papers - "Building a New Partnership - Ecosystem Management, Compliance, Environmental Results." Senior staff of our agency, including Division Directors and District Directors worked with middle management and front line staff to produce the enclosed environmental performance and compliance measures. These measures are an encouraging step in the move towards environmental results.

Our staff have been very encouraged by Region IV's interest in pursuing a new relationship - a partnership based on mutual trust and respect and one of assistance with environmental results as a common goal. As we work together in redefining our relationship, the FDEP, like Region IV, is committed to a transparent process with stakeholder involvement in order to shape the best relationship possible. At this time, we have only worked internally. We are now ready to work with Region IV and with stakeholders as we move forward.

The FDEP has fully embraced the need for change - change that is consistent with the direction the USEPA has taken through its many initiatives. The EPA initiatives of particular interest and application to us are the Environmental Leadership Program, the Common Sense Initiative, the XL Program, the Performance Partnership System and the Performance Partnership Grant Application. A Performance Partnership Grant would help us realize a multi-media approach to environmental problem solving - something that we are both interested in accomplishing. We are tracking Congressional approval closely. We are also beginning a self-assessment of our EPA delegated programs which we hope to be sharing with you soon. A self-assessment will help us understand our strengths and weaknesses. Through our new partnership we will rely on Region IV as a resource to help us overcome any weaknesses as we strive for continued improvement.

I look forward to meeting with you on February 1 in Atlanta. Call me if I can be of any assistance.

Sincerely,

Virginia B. Wetherell
Secretary

enclosures
VBW/mp

Florida Department of Environmental Protection
and
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Building a New Partnership
Ecosystem Management, Compliance, Environmental Results

DRAFT WORKING PAPERS
LAST REVISED JANUARY 29, 1996

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, in furtherance of its ecosystem management approach and compliance initiative, believes that through a partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency it can demonstrate that environmental goals and greater environmental protection can be better achieved by providing regulatory flexibility while maintaining accountability; that flexibility can provide greater protection at a lower cost; that better decisions result when people work together; and that environmental solutions are better achieved by focusing collaborative efforts on environmental problem solving where protection is being sought. A statewide agreement between the EPA and FDEP is being sought to strengthen protection of public health and the environment by directing scarce resources toward improving environmental results, allowing greater flexibility to achieve those results and enhancing accountability to the public and taxpayers.

The statewide agreement will grant the FDEP flexibility to voluntarily offer alternative strategies to the regulatory process on the condition that they produce better environmental benefits. The following criteria are recognized as cornerstones in redefining the EPA/FDEP relationship:

1. Environmental performance:
Better environmental performance will be achieved through this approach. A focus on environmental performance includes:

a. conscious rejection of traditional output or productivity measures as a basis for assessing agency effectiveness;

b. acceptance of the continuing need to demonstrate fiscal accountability, and to enhance public accountability;

c. acknowledgment of the difficulty of establishing environmental impact measures, especially with respect to long-term environmental risks; and

d. determination to persevere in our search for more meaningful performance indicators.

2. Environmental Problem Solving:
Environmental accomplishments can be gained through the development and application of an environmental problem solving approach. Reported accomplishments can be easily understood and accepted by the public. A focus on environmental problem solving involves:

a. systematic identification of important environmental problems, recognizing that they come in many different shapes and sizes;

b. emphasis on risk assessment and prioritization as a rational and publicly defensible basis for resource allocation decisions;

c. recognition of the cross-media nature of many of Florida's significant environmental problems;

d. development of the organizational capacity to create effective, tailor-made solutions for environmental problems;

e. utilization of a broader range of tools for achieving compliance and environmental results; and

f. recognition of the need to retain and enhance enforcement, but use it economically as a part of a broader array of compliance strategies.

3. Cost savings and paperwork reduction:
Paperwork reduction will be gained through alternative strategies such as streamlined regulatory processes. These cost savings can be applied to activities that will produce better environmental results/pollution prevention (i.e. focus resources on the area in greatest need).

4. Innovative multi-media pollution prevention:
FDEP and EPA will work together in developing innovative strategies that achieve environmental protection for more than one environmental medium and across medias. Strategies developed will show preference for preventing rather than controlling pollution. Multi-media inspection protocols will be developed and shared with communities and industry to integrate them into their environmental management systems.

5. Monitoring reporting and evaluation:
As the new system of environmental protection is implemented, the EPA and FDEP will review results and experiences to insure continuous results and improvements. Success will be judged by the new system's a) effectiveness; b) public credibility; and c) fiscal soundness and program accountability. The goal is to shift from "bean counting" to identification of environmental priorities and the appropriate actions to address them.

6. Public measures of accountability and public involvement:
EPA and FDEP will develop performance measures that are accurate and meaningful to the public and which can replace more prescriptive command and control approaches. Community involvement will be emphasized in environmental problem solving to include input in the identification and resolution of environmental problems. The FDEP will share more information with the public to:

7. Cleaner, cheaper, and smarter:
By working together, the EPA and FDEP will channel ingenuity and creativity to create environmental strategies that are cleaner, cheaper and smarter.

-Cleaner -- strategies to achieve real measurable environmental protection;

-Cheaper -- flexible strategies "tailor-made" to address environmental problems specific to Florida, an identified place or particular concern; and

-Smarter -- strategies that include the public and other involved parties working together to solve environmental problems.

8. Collaborative Partnerships:
Investment in collaborative partnerships is an effective mechanism to prevent or solve environmental problems. An investment with industry groups, businesses, municipalities, environmental groups, and other government agencies can produce:

a. a greater sense of shared purpose, through collaborative agenda setting and prioritization;

b. more effective interventions, resulting from the active engagement of multiple parties; and

c. optimal leveraging of agency (public) resources, giving the public and the environment greater value for the money spent.

Partnership Operating Principles
United States Environmental Protection Agency
and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection

1. This agreement serves as the workplan for an overall environmental grant and supersedes any requirement for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to be a party to any other workplan, compliance and enforcement agreement, interagency agreement, or any other agreement with the EPA.

2. In the event the opportunity to better manage and streamline the following EPA delegated program occurs, EPA authorizes the State of Florida to modify all state rules without EPA approval related to: Title V, NPDES, UIC, RCRA, Drinking Water, and PSD. Such modifications shall be consistent with the underlying federal statutes and accomplish the objectives of the programs but need not mirror the federal regulations nor address every issue raised in the federal regulations. Modifications must be comparable in substance, not process.

3. EPA agrees to limit reporting requirements to the information itemized in this agreement with the following exceptions:

a. Data currently provided to EPA databases
1. Monitoring data for all programs
2. Inventory data for all programs

b. Financial, end-of-year reporting reflecting total expenditures for environmental programs as outlined in the grant application(s).

4. Local air programs receiving an EPA grant under Section 105 of the Clean Air Act may submit an agreement similar or identical to the air elements of this agreement in lieu of a workplan. Doing so will entitle a program to receive the local EPA air grant in the same manner as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection receives the statewide environmental grant.

5. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection commits to the performance measures contained in the following pages.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PERFORMANCE MEASURES

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
1. Acid Rain - For sources to which the acid rain program applies

Goal: Reduction of the precursors (SO2 and NOx) which form acid rain

Performance Measures:

a. Tons of NOx reduced from 1985 base year
b. Tons of SO2 reduced from 1985 base year
c. Percent of audited CEM's meeting performance specifications
d. Percent of NOx reduced from 1985 base year
e. Percent of SO2 reduced from 1985 based year

Rationale: Acid rain continues to be a global problem which affects the health of our forests, lakes, and streams. The Clean Air Act provides for reductions in SO2 emissions through a national emissions trading program. However, Phase II of the program which states must implement, will also achieve significant reductions in NOx emissions.

Compliance Measures:

Inspection Rate - A. % of sources inspected =

# of sources inspected X 100
# of sources in data base

AND

Compliance Rate - B. % of sources found in compliance =

# of inspected sources in compliance X 100
# of sources inspected

2. Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP's) - For non-major sources

a. Area HAP Sources
b. Asbestos NESHAP

Goal: Reduction of hazardous air pollutants from non-major sources for which National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standards have been promulgated.

Performance Measures:

a. estimated tons of HAPs reduced from area sources per source category for which a standard has been promulgated.

b. The amount of regulated asbestos-containing material removed within the state (square feet plus linear feet annually).

Rationale: Hazardous air pollutants generally have more public health impact than environmental impact. Their reduction is presumed to result in reduced public health problems.

Compliance Measures: For each category (i.e., Area, Asbestos NESHAP):

Inspection Rate - A. % of sources inspected =

# of sources inspected X 100
# of sources in database

AND

Compliance Rate - B. % of sources found in compliance =

# of inspected sources in compliance X 100
# of sources inspected

3. Monitoring Criteria Air Pollutants

Goal: Maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria pollutants, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Lead, Particulate Matter and Carbon Monoxide

Performance Measures:

a. Annual certification by the Senior Air Pollution Control Officer that:
1. The SLAMS ambient monitoring data reported to EPA are properly quality assured to ensure that the 75% data completeness criteria are met
2. The monitors are properly sited to assure representative samples
3. The monitors meet EPA reference/equivalent standards
4. The precision and accuracy probability limits meet or exceed plus or minus 15%
5. The air monitoring and related precision and accuracy data have been reported to the National Air Data Branch on a quarterly basis, or within 90 days after the end of each reporting period

b. During the first year of the agreement, DEP will evaluate and analyze its ambient air monitoring network of data and develop reports to show trend in the data and salient information. The reports will incorporate various growth indicators, consider meteorological conditions, include human exposure, or integrate other factors that have a direct or indirect impact on the data for each criteria pollutant. In subsequent years, DEP will generate these reports and submit to EPA those reports (including data) that most clearly demonstrate trends in monitoring data within the state during that year.

Rationale: Knowing the ambient air concentrations for the criteria pollutants is the foundation for any air pollution control program. Ensuring that the data are reliable and accurate is paramount. While the mobile source contribution to pollution levels is estimated, the contribution from stationary sources can be more definitively ascertained.

Compliance Measures: Percentage of time air quality complies with NAAQS.

4. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

Goal: Greater reduction of pollutants emitted as a result of the application of PSD Best Available Control Technology (BACT) standards

Performance Measures:

Emission reductions achieved from application of BACT to the affected source(s) as compared to NSPS or other standards.

Rationale: Florida provides more PSD reviews than almost any other state. The additional reductions in pollutant emissions as a result of this review are significant.

Compliance Measures: Percentage of facilities in compliance with BACT standards.

5. State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Goal: Reduction in unnecessary procedural activities for SIP revisions.

Performance Measures:

The DEP will compile, and update as required, a single document containing all regulations and agency commitments comprising Florida's SIP, as submitted to the EPA and either approved, or under review, by the EPA. The EPA will not initiate any enforcement action against any source which is operating in compliance with the submitted SIP, if not the approved SIP. Upon initiation of work on any proposed SIP change, the DEP and EPA, in consultation with one another, will determine if the change is environmentally significant. If the SIP change is determined to be environmentally significant, it will be treated as a formal SIP revision under the Clean Air Act. The DEP and EPA will consult with one another throughout the development of all formal SIP revisions, and each such SIP revision will be submitted in accordance with the procedures of 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V. If the proposed SIP change is determined not to be environmentally significant, it will be treated as an administrative change. Administrative changes to the SIP will not go through the SIP revision process; instead, the DEP will simply update the SIP document to reflect each such change and provide the EPA with an updated copy.

Rationale: Current SIP procedural requirements are unnecessarily burdensome. Greater efficiency can be obtained with proposed revisions without compromising accountability.

6. Title V and Non-Title V New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

Goal: Reduction of pollutants from Title V and Non-Title V NSPS Sources.

Rationale: These stationary sources represent a significant amount of air pollution emissions. Effective reduction measures will have a positive effect on air quality.

Compliance Measures:

1. Rate of compliance for Title V sources in the state:

Inspection Rate - A. % of sources inspected =

# of sources inspected X 100
# of sources in data base

AND

Compliance Rate - B. % of evaluation events in compliance =

number of Title V sources inspected + number of stack tests showing
compliance + number of CEM reports showing compliance X 100
total number of Title V sources inspected + number of stack tests
performed + number of CEM reports reviewed

2. Rate of compliance for non-Title V, NSPS sources in the state:

Inspection Rate - A. % of sources inspected =

# of sources inspected X 100
# of sources in database

AND

Compliance Rate - B. % of non-Title V sources in compliance by inspection or test:

number of non-Title V NSPS sources in compliance by inspection or test X 100
total number of non-Title V NSPS sources inspected or tested

7. Pollution Prevention

Goal: Reduction of pollutant emission to the air though a voluntary pollution prevention program. Pollution reductions must be above and beyond what would normally be obtained through regulation. Compliance assistance would increase the compliance rate and reduce the need for deterrence through enforcement actions and penalties.

Performance Measure: To the extent possible, report the amount of pollution prevented through the implementation of pollution prevention programs.

Rationale: Pollution prevention and compliance assistance efforts reduce pollution for which corrective measures would otherwise be taken in the future, often in a more cost effective manner. This common sense approach of prevention and assistnace will assure compliance and should be applied and promoted wherever possible.

Compliance Measures:

a. Develop and implement a policy whereby in lieu of paying fines or penalties assessed for pollution violations, the facility would voluntarily develop and incorporate an approved pollution prevention plan that will cost an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the fine. If a pollution prevention project is not feasible, the policy would provide for a supplemental environmental project at the facility that would go beyond the compliance requirements of current rules and permits.

b. Develop environmental education classes for pollution prevention that are industry specific. Special emphasis will be placed on assistance to small businesses and newly regulated industries.

c. Develop a recognition/awards program for facilities which achieve pollution emission reductions through pollution prevention efforts.

d. Develop and distribute industry-specific information packages to encourage pollution prevention and ensure compliance.

e. Conduct compliance assistance field inspections to assist industry in complying with new regulations and applying pollution prevention.

8. Mobile Sources

Goal: Reduction of ozone precursor pollutants (VOC and NOx)

Performance Measure: Tons (and/or percent) of NOx and VOC reduced from the attainment inventory for each of the three Air Quality Maintenance areas measured by subsequent emission inventories performed every three years.

Rationale: Emissions from mobile sources remain a major air quality concern from impacts on tropospheric ozone formation. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, through more stringent fleet performance standards and the conformity of transportation plans to State Implementation Plans (SIP's), will implement additional programs to off-set the impact of increasing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT's) and will ensure sustained in-use compliance within the fleet.

Compliance Measures: Number of quality maintenance areas in compliance with ozone NAAQS.

WATER QUALITY
1. Drinking Water (Public Water Supply Supervision) Program - For systems regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Florida primacy program

Goal: To protect public health through protection of drinking water supplies.

Performance Measure:

a. 95% of all Community Water Systems (CWS) and Non-Transient Non-Community (NTNC) systems in Florida will meet all acute health-based drinking water standards each year.

b. 90% of all CWSs and NTNCs in Florida will meet all chronic health-based drinking water standards each year

c. 90% of all CWS and NTNC in Florida will meet monitoring/reporting (M/R) requirements for acute health-based contaminants each year

d. 80% of all CWS and NTNC in Florida will meet M/R requirements for chronic health-based contaminants each year

e. 95% of all facilities in significant non-compliance (SNC) will be resolved within six (6) months after appearing on the Federal SNC list.

Rationale: The federal program requires a substantial amount of monitoring and reporting due to the concern for public health, but it is minimally effective in being responsive to specific risks and encouraging prompt corrective action.

Compliance Measures:

Percentage of facilities in compliance with prioritized reporting requirements and primary contaminant standards.

2. Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program - For facilities regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Florida primacy program

Goal: To protect public health through protection of underground sources of drinking water by ensuring appropriate emplacement of fluids underground

Performance Measure:

a. Percentage of Class I and major Class V injection facilities in compliance with the fluid movement requirements of 40 CFR 144.12(a) and (b).

b. Percentage of Class I and major Class V facilities in compliance with environmental quality-related monitoring and reporting requirements.

c. Percentage of Class I and major Class V facilities inspected and the number of environmental quality-related violations discovered.

d. Percentage of Class I and major Class V wells in compliance with mechanical integrity requirements.

e. Compliance status (for all indicators) of Class I and major Class V facilities not included in a - d above.

Rationale: The new performance measures focus on operational performance of the injection wells and will provide real measures of environmental protection. Current measures (enforcement dollars assessed, types of compliance actions, financial form 7520-5) are not pertinent to determining performance or environmental impact.

Compliance Measures:

Percentage of facilities in compliance with environmental quality-related permit conditions.

3. Wastewater Program (Domestic/Industrial Wastewater Pollutants) - For regulated industrial and domestic wastewater treatment facilities discharging to surface waters.

Goal: To reduce wastewater pollutants for which Technology-Based and Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits have been established to meet State Water Quality Standards.

Performance Measure:

a. Tons of "conventional pollutants" (BOD and TSS) discharged to surface waters since a specified baseline year, normalized by population served.

b. Tons of industrial pollutants (BOD and TSS) discharged to surface waters from representative industry types such a specified baseline year, normalized for production.

c. Million gallons per day of reclaimed water reused since baseline year of 1987.

d. Percentage of wastewater treatment plants discharging to surface waters which meet permit conditions based on data gathered during field inspections.

Rationale: Wastewater pollutants adversely affect public health and the flora and fauna of Florida's watersheds. The new performance measures will more effectively indicate pollution reduction and improvement in Florida's surface waters.

Compliance Measures: Percentage of major wastewater sources discharging to surface waters which are operating in compliance with facility effluent limitations.

HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL
1. Waste Reduction

Goal: Reduce the amount of hazardous substances/waste generated and used in the state on a per capita basis.

Performance Measure:

a. Total volume of hazardous substances reduced in the state this year on a per capita basis compared to last year and the trend over the past five years of:
- Inventory of manufactured
- Inventory of imported

b. Number of products and processes redesigned to eliminate or reduce hazardous waste/substances from the previous year, and the trend over the past five years; and the amount of waste reduction accomplished by the redesigned products and processes from the previous year and the past five year average.

c. Total volume of waste reduced from the previous year and the trend in waste reduction over the past five years, as shown by the:

Total volume of waste
- Toxics Release Inventory (Sara 313)
- Permitted facilities
- Manifested waste
- Illegal releases, abandoned, spills, clean-ups
- Biannual reports
- Total waste transported to Hazardous Waste Permitted Facilities

d. Percentage change in generator status, shifts from LQG to SQG to CESQG to Non-handler from the previous year and the trend over the past five years.

Rationale: Reduce the chance of human exposure to toxics, reduce the opportunity for the mismanagement of waste, reduce the opportunity for releases of hazardous materials to the environment

Compliance Measures: Percentage reduction in hazardous waste generated by industrial production process or business operation from the previous year and the trend in reduction over the past five years on a per capita basis.

2. Proper Management of Hazardous Waste/Substances

Goal: Reduction or elimination of contamination of the environment or harm to human health, through proper waste management.

Performance Measure:

a. Total number of documented unpermitted releases, spills, or discharges including the amount of waste illegally disposed of and remediated by emergency response, compared to last year's number and amount, and the trend over the past five years.

b. Total number of companies participating in Product Stewardship Programs (reverse distribution, where the manufacturers and suppliers take responsibility for proper disposal of the waste generated by the use of its products and the total amount of waste recovered through the Product Stewardship programs); compared to the number that participated last year and the amount of waste recovered last year and the trend over the past five years.

c. Number of those who voluntarily participate in waste analysis, Pollution Prevention Programs, and EPA's self audits (measures above and beyond regulatory requirements); compared to last year and the trend in participation over the past five years.

Rationale: Prevent human exposure to hazardous waste and prevent the mismanagement of waste that may lead to releases of hazardous constituents/waste to the environment.

Compliance Measures:

a. The percentage of hazardous waste permitted facilities that have returned to compliance with or without formal enforcement, in relation to the number of facilities inspected this year.

b. Rate of time to return to compliance including with or without formal enforcement.

c. The percentage of hazardous waste generators that have returned to compliance with or without formal enforcement in relation to the number inspected.

d. The percentage of hazardous waste permitted facilities and hazardous waste generators in compliance with their compliance schedules.

3. Timely and Efficient Cleanup

Goal: Remediate and quickly stabilize hazardous waste contamination.

Performance Measure:

a. Number of sites identified as sites needing remediation this year compared to last year, and the total number identified over the last five years.

b. Number of sites assessed this year, compared to the total universe, and the time from date of discovery.

c. Number of sites where Interim Measures have been approved/implemented this year, compared to the total universe, and the time from the date of discovery.

d. Number of sites where Remedial Action Plans have been approved/implemented this year, compared to the total universe, and the time from the date of discovery.

e. Number of sites cleaned-up (including monitoring only or clean closure) this year, compared to the total universe, and the time from the date of discovery.

f. Increase in the amount of remediation waste generated at contaminated sites (dirty soil and dirty groundwater removed) - volume generated this year compared to last year, and the total volume over the last five years.

Rationale: Minimize the damage to human health and the environment that may result from the release and minimize the cost of the cleanup.

Compliance Measures: Percentage increase in the number of contaminated sites where: assessments are complete, interim measures are implemented, remedial action plans are implemented; the number of sites cleaned-up, and the amount of remediation waste generated from clean-ups.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

Local Navigation