« Courts - "Police use GPS to track suspects despite murky law" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next »

Monday, May 25, 2009

Environment - More on "Feds warn state agency on pollution enforcement"

Updating this ILB entry from yesterday, Gitte Laasby of the Gary Post-Tribune has a different take today:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will not ask the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to change its proposed enforcement policy, reinstate contracts with local air agencies in Gary and Hammond, or maintain a separate enforcement office.

The EPA made the decision despite objections from Indiana's major environmental groups that IDEM's proposed new enforcement policy does not comply with federal regulations and would make IDEM less likely to enforce against a facility for violating its permits.

EPA's acting regional administrator sent his response to IDEM Commissioner Tom Easterly last week. * * *

In the letter to IDEM, EPA indicated IDEM should consider potential as well as actual threats and that EPA would review IDEM's performance to make sure the agency complies with federal law. It said IDEM has the discretion to decide who should enforce and do local air monitoring, but that IDEM should seek input from stakeholders on its decisions.

"While you have adequately addressed our concerns regarding the three changes, we do want to highlight concerns regarding intent and transparency," acting regional administrator Bharat Mathur wrote in the May 21 letter. "It is our expectation that you will implement the necessary steps to overcome these perceptions and ensure a high level of communication in the state's programs."

Before EPA's involvement, IDEM posted the proposed policy on its Web site, but did not put a public notice in the Indiana Register as the law requires.

BTW, as the ILB pointed out in this March 3rd entry correcting a P-T article from that date, and despite the P-T's statement again that IDEM "did not put a public notice in the Indiana Register as the law requires," there is in fact NO such requirement in the law. Read the March 3rd ILB entry for details.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 25, 2009 07:28 PM
Posted to Environment