IBJNews

State still issuing water permits under controversial, old rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than three years after sparking an uproar by issuing BP a permit allowing it to discharge more pollution from its Whiting refinery, Indiana is still issuing permits under the same problematic set of rules that played a role in that 2007 controversy.

The Post-Tribune of Merrillville reports that an overhaul of those rules that began in early 2008 is stalled and that permits are still being issued under the old rules.

State officials say new rules won't be ready until next year. And critics say that with the rules in limbo, industry and the public don't know when it's fine to increase pollution to Lake Michigan and other waters. That, they say, opens the possibility for lawsuits.

The delay in getting new rules in place prompted one of Indiana's most respected veteran environmentalists, Miller resident Lee Botts, to recently send a letter to Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels announcing she's resigning effective Dec. 1 from the state panel charged with approving the new rules.

She had served on the Indiana Water Pollution Control Board since 2006.

"I cited my frustration with the failure of (the Indiana Department of Environmental Management) to deal with that issue as a reason for my withdrawal" from the board, Botts said. "I have had no reply from the governor's office."

In June 2007, IDEM issued a new wastewater permit for BP's $3.8 billion expansion of its Whiting oil refinery. The permit angered environmentalists because it allows the refinery about 20 miles southeast of Chicago to increase its discharges of ammonia and pollution called suspended solids into Lake Michigan.

BP later announced that it would find ways to keep the expanded Whiting refinery's discharges to the limits set under its previous water permit.

After the 2007 imbroglio over BP's permit, Daniels commissioned an independent report, which concluded that Indiana's so-called antidegradation rules were vague and were a major cause of the BP controversy. That report suggested the rules be revised.

Those rules determine under what circumstances, and by how much, polluters can increase pollution to Lake Michigan and other waters. They are intended to prevent new and increased pollution that would degrade water quality unless the increase is necessary to accommodate important social and economic benefits.

After Barnes' report was released, state officials held hours of meetings, workshops and discussions with industry, environmentalists and municipalities on new rules that would cover the entire state, unlike the current rules.

But the parties couldn't reach agreement about which pollutants should be covered, what companies would have to do to prove an increase is necessary—and what level of increased pollution can be considered "insignificant" under federal rules and thus doesn't require proof that it's necessary.

"What's at stake, fundamentally, is compliance with regulations and protection of the environment," said Jim Flannery, a former environmental manager at ArcelorMittal Indiana Harbor. "I don't know that anybody who has a position of authority, or even just works in the industrial base, wants to pollute the water or wants to pollute the air, but we have these contentious issues, and it gets into regulatory language and the impact of it for compliance. How clean is clean and how dirty is dirty? Some of those answers aren't easy."

Flannery represented industry on the Water Pollution Control Board until he resigned on Oct. 1, a move unrelated to the rules. He said opinions are strongly entrenched on both sides of the issue, which had been debated, but not solved, for years before 2007.

Frustration rose at the end of January after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sent a letter to IDEM saying EPA would not approve the rules as drafted because they don't live up to federal standards—an argument environmentalists had also made. In some circumstances, the revamped rules would allow up to 2 1/2 times more pollution than is acceptable under federal law, EPA said.

"It seems that IDEM is frozen in its tracks in the rulemaking for antidegradation ever since EPA criticized the draft rule. So I don't think we understand completely how Indiana is handling the antidegradation analysis here under the old rules" for permits like U.S. Steel Midwest, said Lyman Welch, water program manager for the Alliance for the Great Lakes.

IDEM spokeswoman Amy Hartsock said revised rules won't be ready until the summer of 2011.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Good ideas
    New rules starting now. It is difficult to hold BP to new rules when they are not in place at the "local" level. As described in other comments to similar stories, other states are more progressive in the ordinances and restrictions to pollutants. Clearly we all want clean drinking water and really we want it at any price. But lets think about what that price is, what is the pollutant and how do we measure it.
    One can easily understand that ammonia or nitrates discharged from a factory into the waters of the state are obvious pollutants, but what about dirt? Every farmer or home builder is a pollutant (when it comes to soil erosion) according to EPA soil is a pollutant. Shall we be as progressive as California? Erosion control plans (ammended to the submitted plans) that must be submitted to the permit authority 24 hours prior to a rain event? How do you manage that? Farmers that must harvest and or till in the rain so as not to cause wind erosion (suggested by the EPA).
    Dont forget that every municipality has been directed by IDEM to monitor and permit these types of activities (unfunded mandate that increased taxes at the local level).
    IDEM is making strides to improve the water quality of the state through the MS4 programs.
    Water Quality is a not a good idea it is a great idea and we (the state) need to fund IDEM to manage and encourage compliance. Just remember the ripple affects of the shotgun approach of the government the next time that you want to build a nice little house with a pond in the back.

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:
 
thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Cramer agrees...says don't buy it and sell it if you own it! Their "pay to play" cost is this issue. As long as they charge customers, they never will attain the critical mass needed to be a successful on company...Jim Cramer quote.

  2. My responses to some of the comments would include the following: 1. Our offer which included the forgiveness of debt (this is an immediate forgiveness and is not "spread over many years")represents debt that due to a reduction of interest rates in the economy arguably represents consideration together with the cash component of our offer that exceeds the $2.1 million apparently offered by another party. 2. The previous $2.1 million cash offer that was turned down by the CRC would have netted the CRC substantially less than $2.1 million. As a result even in hindsight the CRC was wise in turning down that offer. 3. With regard to "concerned Carmelite's" discussion of the previous financing Pedcor gave up $16.5 million in City debt in addition to the conveyance of the garage (appraised at $13 million)in exchange for the $22.5 million cash and debt obligations. The local media never discussed the $16.5 million in debt that we gave up which would show that we gave $29.5 million in value for the $23.5 million. 4.Pedcor would have been much happier if Brian was still operating his Deli and only made this offer as we believe that we can redevelop the building into something that will be better for the City and City Center where both Pedcor the citizens of Carmel have a large investment. Bruce Cordingley, President, Pedcor

  3. I've been looking for news on Corner Bakery, too, but there doesn't seem to be any info out there. I prefer them over Panera and Paradise so can't wait to see where they'll be!

  4. WGN actually is two channels: 1. WGN Chicago, seen only in Chicago (and parts of Canada) - this station is one of the flagship CW affiliates. 2. WGN America - a nationwide cable channel that doesn't carry any CW programming, and doesn't have local affiliates. (In addition, as WGN is owned by Tribune, just like WTTV, WTTK, and WXIN, I can't imagine they would do anything to help WISH.) In Indianapolis, CW programming is already seen on WTTV 4 and WTTK 29, and when CBS takes over those stations' main channels, the CW will move to a sub channel, such as 4.2 or 4.3 and 29.2 or 29.3. TBS is only a cable channel these days and does not affiliate with local stations. WISH could move the MyNetwork affiliation from WNDY 23 to WISH 8, but I am beginning to think they may prefer to put together their own lineup of syndicated programming instead. While much of it would be "reruns" from broadcast or cable, that's pretty much what the MyNetwork does these days anyway. So since WISH has the choice, they may want to customize their lineup by choosing programs that they feel will garner better ratings in this market.

  5. The Pedcor debt is from the CRC paying ~$23M for the Pedcor's parking garage at City Center that is apprased at $13M. Why did we pay over the top money for a private businesses parking? What did we get out of it? Pedcor got free parking for their apartment and business tenants. Pedcor now gets another building for free that taxpayers have ~$3M tied up in. This is NOT a win win for taxpayers. It is just a win for Pedcor who contributes heavily to the Friends of Jim Brainard. The campaign reports are on the Hamilton County website. http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/publicdocs/Campaign%20Finance%20Images/defaultfiles.asp?ARG1=Campaign Finance Images&ARG2=/Brainard, Jim

ADVERTISEMENT