By VICKI URBANIK

Angered by the state’s decision allowing the BP-Amoco oil refinery to increase its pollution in Lake Michigan, participants at an environmental forum on Saturday in Chesterton voted in favor of a resolution calling for the resignation of Indiana Department of Environmental Management Commissioner Tom Easterly.

The resolution passed 13-7. A number of participants opted not to vote or they had left the forum by the time the resolution was acted upon.

Presented by Whiting environmentalist Carolyn Marsh, the resolution calls upon the Hoosier Environmental Council to demand Easterly’s resignation “so that IDEM can resume its mission of environmental stewardship for the State of Indiana.”

The resolution will now be sent to the HEC Board of Directors for action.

The local resolution comes on the heels of a vote earlier in the week by the U.S. House of Representatives, which voted 387-26 in support of a concurrent resolution criticizing the BP permit and calling on Indiana to rescind it. The permit will allow the BP refinery to dump 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more total suspended solids into Lake Michigan daily.

The permit has prompted a firestorm of opposition, with critics blasting the permit as dismantling years of work cleaning up Lake Michigan. Some of most vocal and powerful critics are from Illinois, such as U.S. Reps. Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, and Mark Kirk, a Republican. Other critics have included Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board.

Meanwhile, Easterly and Gov. Mitch Daniels have defended the permit, noting that the higher pollution limits are still within federal law. They have also argued that BP refinery’s current expansion project will create jobs and may lower gas prices.

The local resolution, presented near the end of a nearly six-hour forum hosted by HEC at the Westchester Public Library’s Service Center, prompted debate.

Several people who spoke against the resolution said that calling for Easterly’s resignation would be counterproductive. They argued that Easterly as an individual isn’t the problem and that he is only carrying out the will of the state administration. If Easterly were to resign, they said Daniels could appoint someone potentially worse for the environment.

Others strongly disagreed.

They said that the resolution would send a powerful message from this part of the state, especially given the considerable opposition from outside of Indiana. They argued that Easterly was given the responsibility to defend the environment and that he should have stood up to anyone who wanted him to backslide on Lake Michigan water protection..

One of those who spoke the most passionately in support of the resolution was Marsh, who authored the resolution with two others from neighboring communities near the refinery.

Marsh said the resolution represents northern Lake County residents who are tired of the pollution and who realize the very real danger of living near the huge refinery.

“We live there. We want you to support this resolution,” she said.

After the vote, environmentalist Herb Read questioned how many people would have voted in support if the resolution were reworded to say that Easterly failed his responsibilities by issuing the BP permit, and that he should step down if he doesn’t do more to protect the environment. Nine hands went up.

Saturday’s forum was planned long before the BP oil refinery’s new waste water permit became a hot topic. BP nonetheless was a major issue throughout the day, with one entire workshop was devoted to the topic.

HEC Policy Strategist Tim Maloney gave an overview of what led up to the permit, noting that BP has been operating on an extended wastewater permit that expired in 1995. He also addressed the highly contentious bill that passed the Indiana Legislature in 1994 that allowed BP the use of a “mixing zone” in an attempt to dilute pollution in the lake.

The Clean Water Act prohibits significant increases of water pollution, unless an anti-degradation demonstration shows that the environment won’t be harmed. But Indiana’s rules on this are weak, Maloney said, adding that Indiana was able to justify the permit in part by saying that BP doesn’t have the room for an upgraded treatment plant and that its refinery expansion is needed to reduce dependency on foreign oil.

With the permit, Maloney said, Indiana is allowing one of the world’s five largest corporations to increase pollution “instead of finding a way to control it.”

Posted 7/30/2007