State Innovation Grant Program: South Carolina
Incorporating EMS into Permitting Decisions (2004 Competition)
ie mnovauon urani rrogram 10 support
efforts led by state environmental agencies to test innovative approaches
for achieving better environmental results and improved efficiency in
permitting programs. Between 2002 and 2007, the State Innovation Grant
program competition awarded over six million dollars to support 35 state
projects that test permitting innovation for a variety of regulated entities
including several small business sectors. Asummary of the awards by year
appears in the table below.
State Innovation Grant Program Statistics, 2002-2007
Competition Proposals Proposals Total Program
Year Submitted Selected Funding ($)
2002/2003
$618,000
$1.425 Million
$1.479 Million
Cumulative
$1.243 Million
$1.611 Million
$6.376 Million
"Innovation in Permitting" has been the theme of the State Innovation Grant
competition since its inception. In the last three competition cycles states
received awards for projects in the following three categories:
The Environmental Results Program (ERP) is an innovative
approach to improving environmental performance based on a system
of the interlocking tools of compliance assistance, self-certification
(sometimes, where permissible, in lieu of permitting), and
statistically-based measurement to gauge the performance of an entire
business sector. The program utilizes a multimedia approach to
encourage small sources to achieve environmental compliance and
pollution prevention. (See: http://www.epa.gov/permits/erp/)
Environmental Management System (EMS) is a system involving a
continual cycle of planning, implementing, reviewing and improving the
processes and actions that an organization undertakes to meet its
business and environmental goals. EMSs provide organizations of all
types with a structured system and approach for managing
environmental and regulatory responsibilities to improve overall
environmental performance and stewardship.
(See: www.epa.gov/ems/info/index.htm)
Performance Track is a partnership that recognizes top
environmental performance among participating US facilities of all types,
sizes, and complexity, both public and private.
(See: http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/)
NCEI has provided awards also for projects testing watershed-based
permitting, and for permit process streamlining in past competitions. For
more information on the history of the programs, including information on
solicitations, state proposals, and project awards, please see the EPA State
i,oĞ ^,-0^0 ,.,^koi^ oj. httD://www.eDa.aov/innovation/statear "*-
Project Background:
In South Carolina, the Department of Health and
Environmental Control (DHEC) recognizes facilities
with Environmental Management Systems (EMSs)
through a voluntary environmental leadership
program (South Carolina Environmental Excellence
Program, or SCEEP), however there are no
regulatory benefits offered to these facilities.
Facilities have encouraged DHEC to integrate EMSs
into its regulatory activities, and to offer incentives for
facilities to develop EMSs. To investigate this
potential, DHEC applied for a State Innovations Grant
to explore the relationship between EMS and
environmental permitting. Specifically, the state
conducted a comparative analysis of four facilities'
EMSs and permits to:
Study how an EMS can improve the overall
performance of a facility;
Explore ways permit requirements can be
integrated and streamlined based on an EMS;
Determine how an EMS can ensure consistency in
the development, implementation, and
enforcement of a permit; and
Evaluate the possible benefits of offering
permitting incentives to facilities that have an EMS.
Project Description
DHEC first formed a cross-media project advisory
team consisting of permitting, compliance and
enforcement staff representing the major
environmental media programs (air, land, water and
NCEI
NATIONAL CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION
-------
laboratory resources). With the help of this team,
DHEC reviewed the permit activities and EMSs for four
facilities - a U.S. Air Force Base and three types of
manufacturing facilities (cement, chemical, and
automotive belts).1 These facilities were chosen
because they were members of SCEEP and/or EPA's
Performance Track program; had a fully implemented
EMS; had a good compliance record; held certain
types of permits; and were willing to participate in
DHEC training. DHEC undertook the following
activities to better understand the potential for
incorporating EMS into the permitting system. More
specifically, DHEC:
Provided EMS training to Agency staff and the
project advisory team to increase awareness and
understanding of the purpose and mechanics of an
EMS;
Studied each facility's existing permits and its EMS
to ascertain the influence an EMS could have in
addressing permitting requirements such as:
- Streamlining administrative and/or other permit
requirements;
- Improving consistency in how permits are
written, monitored and enforced; and
- Improving environmental performance and
results to meet or even exceed compliance;
Determined ways to address, alter, or consolidate
certain permit requirements through an EMS; and
Evaluated the potential to incorporate EMSs into
facility permits.
the assistance of an EMS consultant, the project
team conducted initial permit reviews. The team
assessed the participating facilities' permits in light of
the ISO 14001 EMS standard, and made general
comparisons between the permit requirements and the
EMS standards. Then the team conducted site visits to
assess the potential for each facility to use its EMS to
meet permit requirements.
Results
South Carolina's EMS/permitting study demonstrated
that, each participating facility was compliance-
oriented, and that using EMSs helped facilities stay in
compliance. DHEC found the facilities' EMSs and
permits were compatible, with the EMS providing a
"road map" for verifying permit management through
the "plan-do-check-act" cycle. The permit drove the
regulatory obligations of each facility; while the EMS
ensured compliance with those obligations. Other
findings from DHEC's EMS/permitting study include:
. There may be an opportunity to allow facilities to
provide self-certification for certain aspects of
permits, where it can be demonstrated that an EMS
provides sufficient details/safeguards for meeting the
regulatory requirement.
. To include incentives, such as reduced frequency of
inspections, a commitment from the U.S. EPA is
needed to provide flexibility to state regulatory
programs. This would allow the state's annual
grants/work plan commitments to consider EMSs
when determining the frequency of facility
inspections.
. Regardless of the type of EMS, it is critical for a
facility to have its EMS independently audited and
certified before receiving state recognition.
Although not a substitute for permits, EMSs serve as
the basis for streamlining certain permit requirements.
For example, since some permitting information
typically identified through a pre-inspection interview
may instead be gathered by reviewing a facility's EMS,
inspectors can use EMSs as a tool to evaluate facility
compliance, minimizing the level of effort required for
traditional facility inspections. However, its unclear
whether this will translate into administrative cost
savings for permitting agencies, because EMSs
contain components that could require extra
verification, adding to the permitting timeline.
11nvolvement of one of these facilities (the cement manufacturer) was later discontinued because it was determined that the facility did not have the types of permits that
were initially targeted for study.
-------
In reviewing DHEC's project, the EPA also found a
number of lessons. First, management support is
crucial to exploring the use of EMSs in the regulatory
framework. In addition, program staff must receive
upfront and ongoing training. While EMSs play a
prominent role in the national dialogue on
environmental performance - both for industry and
for the EPA - program staff (e.g. permit inspectors
and enforcement staff who interact with a facility on a
day-to-day basis), are generally unfamiliar with EMSs
and their potential to promote compliance and
environmental performance. EPA also found that
having an EMS does not guarantee compliance.
Facilities still had some instances of non-compliance
that were neither prevented nor identified through
their EMSs. The relationship between the presence
of an EMS and environmental performance and
compliance merits additional review and analysis
through future EMS projects.
DHEC's study provided valuable information about
the relationship of EMSs to the permitting process
and, more importantly, the value of EMSs to facilities
in managing compliance obligations and enhancing
environmental performance. DHEC would like to
continue its research by conducting a cross-media
pilot study in 2008 to gather information on the
universe of facilities with EMSs (i.e. which facilities
have an EMS, what type, and is it certified by an
independent third-party auditor). This study would
provide valuable information as DHEC further
considers incorporating EMS into the regulatory
framework.
Connection to EPA's Goals
DHEC's project directly supports EPA's Strategic
Goal #5, focused on compliance and environmental
stewardship, by promoting an innovative approach to
improve compliance and pollution prevention. It also
supports EPA's Cross-Goal Strategy of promoting
innovation and collaboration with states.
Project Contacts:
For more specific information on the South
Carolina State Innovation Grant, please
contact one of the individuals below:
Claire Prince
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control
Environmental Quality Control Administration
Columbia, SC
803.896.1132
princech@dhec.sc.goc
Denise Roy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Environmental Response
Washington, DC
703-308-8458
roy.denise@epa.gov
Lisa Comer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Headquarters
Washington, DC
202.566.2206
comer.lisa@epa.gov
Program Contact:
Sherri Walker
State Innovation Grant Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460 (MC1807T)
(202)-566-2186; FAX (202) 566-2220
walker.sherri@epa.gov
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy,
Economics and Innovation
(1807T)
February 2008
EPA-100-F-08-017
------- |