IBJNews

Indiana panel passes new water quality rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

An Indiana regulatory panel passed new rules Wednesday aimed at protecting the quality of the state's waterways.

The Indiana Water Pollution Control Board met Wednesday afternoon in Indianapolis to approve the state's new anti-degradation rules. The new rules are aimed at lowering the levels of pollutants released into waterways by companies.

Kim Ferraro of the Hoosier Environmental Council said that under the previous system, when someone applied for a permit to release wastewater into Indiana waterways, there were blanket limits on the levels of pollutants companies could release. The rule didn't take into account what may have already been in the waterway.

The new rule will require the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to consider whether what's discharged will push levels of the chemical in the waterway to a dangerous or polluting level.

Ferraro said her group was pleased with IDEM's proposed rule.

"It's rare for environmentalists to rally behind something backed by IDEM," Ferraro said.

After months of public comment and board consideration, the approved rule now heads to the attorney general's office for review before being sent to Gov. Mitch Daniels to be signed.

The rules have been in the works since IDEM issued a permit allowing BP to increase its discharges of pollutants after expanding its Whiting oil refinery. Daniels then ordered an independent review, which found Indiana's anti-degradation rules were too vague.

After the uproar over the permit, BP said it would keep the expanded plant's discharges to the same limit of the previous permit. The $3.8 billion Whiting expansion is expected to open next year.

IDEM Commissioner Thomas Easterly said, however, the state has been trying to create an anti-degradation rule for decades.

"For 37 years, Indiana has been required to have these rules but has not had them," Easterly said.

Board chairman Gary Powdrill said the effort to create clearer anti-degradation rules is akin to what he says the state was trying to accomplish with its right-to-work legislation this year — making the state more attractive for businesses that wish to relocate here.

Before this clearer standard, Powdrill said, companies may have looked to states with better permitting procedures.

Easterly received written comments on the rule from 15 different groups prior to Wednesday's meetings. Many criticized the rule as vague, though Easterly said IDEM opted to keep the language less specific to allow regulators to adapt it to a range of permit applicants.

He said the rule was far from perfect, but was a good starting point for the state.

"We're going to find something to change, but we're getting closer," Easterly said.

But Dennis Wene, of aluminum manufacturer Alcoa, said he worried the language was too vague, which he said would make it ineffective. He introduced two amendments to add more specific language and definitions, but both were struck down by the board.

"We want to ensure the rule is applied correctly," Wene said. "There's a lot more work that needs to be done."

Ferraro said ambiguous language in anti-degradation rules can also make them targets for litigation, but she said IDEM's years of consideration were a sign that all the issues had been thoroughly considered.

"This is what can happen when all the stakeholders come together and talk about something," Ferraro said. "This is a really good rule. That doesn't happen often."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. As a St. Vincent employee of over 20 years, I am saddened and disheartened by this announcement. Unfortunately, as the healthcare "industry" continues on this political and corporate path, all that St. Vincent Hospital has stood for spiritually for its employees and this community is being sucked dry. I know it truly has no choice. It is not just Obamacare or just competition or just any single thing. This trend started long before I was even born when the government became involved in healthcare and it became an "industry." I grieve for those who will lose their jobs, one of whom may be me, but I also grieve for this hospital which I have served for over 20 years. May God give us and it the grace to withstand the future of healthcare.

  2. Why do people constantly harp on this issue and act ignorant about what a city population measures? A city's population is the city's population. There is no argument or debate about it. If you want to measure the density of a city--measure it. If you want to measure the size of a metropolitan area, then measure the metropolitan population. City boundaries cover different sized areas--and they always have (though the disparity has probably increased since about 1900 or so when more cities began annexing their surrounding communities). For example, San Francisco only covers 49 square miles while Houston cover nearly 600 square miles. No one argues about the population rankings of either city even though they clearly cover extremely different sized areas. Indianapolis is the 13 largest city by population in the U.S. That is a fact. While the population of a metropolitan area may give you a better sense of how large a community is, as noted, even metro areas can vary widely in the size of geographic area they cover--so that is not a perfect comparison either.

  3. If Whole Foods went in, I doubt the Nora one would stay open, and with all those customers coming to Broad Ripple traffic would be horrible, and forget about a run to the grocery on weekend nights. I think concern over the number of apartments is misplaced, but the 400 space parking garage has me concerned - someone needs to ask the developer just how much traffic they think this development is going to generate. I am not against more neighborhood residents, but heavy commercial traffic going in and out at that location sounds like a mess.

  4. I thought everyone was innocent until guilt was proven. Seems people have already convicted Reggie in the press. My nephew was a good kid and is a good man, more to this story im sure

  5. Going by the Marion County population only is of little use. 13th largest? No Way! To judge the real size of a metro area, the easy way is to look at the Arbitron rating list. Indianapolis hovers around 40th largest in the nation--sometimes more, sometimes less. Advertisers want to know exactly how large the population is before they buy radio advertising. Arbitron figured it out long ago. Indianapolis is estimated at 1,427,500. The real #13 is Seattle-Tacoma with a metro population of 3,470,400. So, the population of just Marion County is completely irrelevant to anything useful as far as metro area planning.

ADVERTISEMENT