IBJNews

State's big polluters spewed less last year

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State environmental regulators say toxic emissions by larger Indiana polluters fell 18 percent, or 20.6 million pounds, last year.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management disclosed the 2009 data this month, citing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s newly released Toxic Release Inventory, or TRI.

Electric-generating utilities accounted for 50 percent of the state’s pollution, with 49 percent from manufacturers.

The TRI data aren’t considered a comprehensive measure of pollution, however, in part because reporting is limited to firms that make or process more than 25,000 pounds of chemicals on the toxics list or use more than 10,000 pounds of the chemicals in a given year.

It’s also unknown to what extent the lower numbers stem from better practices among polluters—or to what degree emissions reflected reduced manufacturing output during the recession.

Many businesses have found ways to switch to safer chemicals or to eliminate them altogether, “and many have increased the efficiency of their processes to reduce or virtually eliminate chemical use,” IDEM Commissioner Tom Easterly said in a statement.

Overall, the Indiana manufacturing sector reduced toxic emissions 19 percent last year, while electric utilities curbed pollution 13 percent, according to TRI data.

The state’s coal-burning electric utilities have been upgrading their pollution-control devices in the last decade to comply with tougher federal and state limits on sulfur and nitrogen dioxide.

Last week, Indianapolis Power & Light asked state utility regulators to collect an additional $8 million from ratepayers to cover cost overruns on a flue gas desulfurization project at its Petersburg generating station, now estimated to cost $128 million.

The TRI data do not measure non-industrial activities that generate toxics, such as vehicle exhaust, which contains chemicals like toluene and xylene.  The data are more useful in identifying trends in chemical use and ways to modify industrial processes.

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. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT