ILNews

State must seek EPA approval before reclassifying ethanol plants

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though the Environmental Protection Agency changed a rule to exclude ethanol plants from the category of chemical process plants which would affect emissions permitting, Indiana had to seek approval from the federal agency before it could reclassify the ethanol production facilities.

In 2010, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management issued permits to some fuel-grade ethanol production facilities which did not categorize them as “chemical process plants,” as had been the case in the past. Those that fall under the chemical process plant category are permitted to emit only 100 tons of certain air pollutants a year. Other facilities not under that category may emit up to 250 tons of certain air pollutants a year.

The Natural Resources Defense Council challenged the reclassification, which led IDEM’s Office of Environmental Adjudication to find the plants should have been considered under the chemical process plants category. But the Marion Superior Court reversed.

The issue before the Indiana Court of Appeals is whether the state could properly exclude fuel-grade ethanol plants from this category without EPA approval of a modification of the Indiana State Implementation Plan.

The last EPA-approved SIP from 2001 includes these plants as chemical process plants. In 2007, the EPA promulgated a final rule excluding the ethanol plants from the definition of “chemical process plant.” Indiana never sought approval from the EPA to change its SIP but did enact a new law and administrative rule making the modifications.

“As the EPA rule change was more than a mere ‘clarification,’ Indiana was obliged to seek approval of an amendment to its SIP. Because it did not, the OEA was correct that the facilities were chemical process plants pursuant to the Indiana SIP and permits allowing pollutant emissions at the 250 ton-per-year level should not have been issued absent an EPA-approved change in the Indiana SIP,” Judge Melissa May wrote in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Poet Biorefining-North Manchester, LLC; Poet Biorefining-Cloverdale, LLC; Central Indiana Ethanol, Inc., et al., 49A02-1205-MI-423.

“Even if the failure to amend Indiana SIP could be disregarded, as the appellees suggest, IDEM’s past consistent treatment of fuel ethanol plants as chemical process plants would dictate the result we reach,” she continued. “Because IDEM had, in its prior permitting decisions, given the term ‘chemical process plant’ a ‘definitive interpretation, and later significantly revise[d] that interpretation,’ it was obliged to seek EPA approval for an amended SIP.”

 

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 Indiana Lawyer 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT