Recent Posts
- Emerson: Watching the ceremony
- Your own home fuel cell plant
- Death of the typewriter (man)
- Living: How green is green enough?
- ISA Expo: Show must go on
- Re-branding a legacy
- Back to the "smart grid"
- Learning to live with change
- Back to $100 oil?
- Economics of not driving to work
Recent Comments
- Sandor Fule, Hungary on I am not a socialist
- Sandor Fule, Hungary on Economics of not driving to work
- Nico on Making gasoline out of coal
- Mark Hoske, Control Engineering on Learning to live with change
- Nancy McIntyre on ExxonMobil helping plug skills gap
Most Commented On
- I am not a socialist (3)
- Chinese pharma plants go un-inspected? (2)
- Making gasoline out of coal (2)
- Economics of not driving to work (1)
- Learning to live with change (1)
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
Blog
Feds and Indiana battle over Lake Michigan
October 16, 2007
For its small coastline on Lake Michigan, Indiana plays a big part in the environmental health of this critical water resource. We've already discussed environmental issues related to BP's Whiting refinery, but now there is a battle between the U.S. EPA and Indiana state environmental regulators over U.S. Steel Gary Works. This fixture among the other steel mills in the Indiana Harbor Belt is now regarded as the largest polluter on Lake Michigan, single-handedly responsible for 1.7 million pounds of pollutants in 2005.
My purpose in discussing this is not to make a point about dirty steel mills, but to consider how process industries are regulated, and this case is an interesting example. The Chicago Tribune has covered this heavily in articles last Friday and Saturday. Both are worth reading.
The point, ultimately, is that the feds caught Indiana regulators trying to give U.S. Steel their blessing to continue and even increase pollution levels. As the Saturday article puts it, "The U.S. EPA said Friday it has blocked the proposal, which would scrap, relax or omit limits on pollution the U.S. Steel Corp. mill dumps into the Grand Calumet River before it empties into the lake." States are supposed to regulate their industries, and are required to renew water permits every five years. U.S. Steel has been operating on the same permit since 1994.
The cautionary tale here for other industries is that your state can't protect you forever. Even if it has a strong motivation to preserve jobs in a depressed area, a state can't keep something like this under the radar forever. The lessons of BP and U.S. Steel is that the EPA can be forced to do its job if enough people get moving and create some media attention. That is, after all, the reason we have a federal government, isn't it? The feds are supposed to keep the bigger picture in mind, beyond one state's small coastline.
Posted by Peter Welander on October 16, 2007 | Comments (0)