LaPorte County BZA denies proposal for non-hazardous wastewater injection facility in Kingsbury

The LaPorte County Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously Tuesday to deny a special-exception request for a proposed non-hazardous wastewater treatment and injection facility in the Kingsbury area.

The petition, filed by Milestone Environmental Services LLC, MIS Kingsbury LLC and Kingsbury Investments LLC and represented by attorney David Ambers of David Ambers & Associates PC, sought approval for a facility on about 24 acres at the southwest corner of 5th Line Road and Central Road in Washington Township (Parcel 46-15-10-200-001.000-066). President Melissa Mischke said the item had been tabled last month and that procedural notice and remonstrance requirements had been met; public comment for this petition remained closed at the meeting.

During board questioning, Milestone vice president Mike Lamb and consultant Ken Cooper of Petrotech Corp. described the proposed facility and federal permitting requirements. Lamb said the company planned to request a permit for up to 500,000 gallons per day but expected routine operations of about 150,000–200,000 gallons per day. Cooper said the 500,000-gallon daily figure corresponds to roughly 350 gallons per minute if a well were operated continuously, and that actual operational rates would more likely be 150–250 gallons per minute. “There are no guarantees and EPA can send you back to the drawing board as many times as they feel like,” Cooper said when describing the Region 5 review process.

Cooper, who described his work on Class I wells in EPA Region 5, explained the federal permitting framework that regulates underground injection control under the Safe Drinking Water Act and told the board such permits are site-specific and require financial assurance. “EPA will require that bonds be posted as part of the permitting process,” Cooper said. The applicants said financial assurance (bonding) would be posted prior to drilling and must be maintained and updated annually as required by the permitting authority.

Board members pressed the applicants on truck traffic and spill response. Lamb estimated regular inbound truck traffic at about 20–25 trucks per day, with an absolute high-end estimate near 40; he said filtered solids might go to a landfill on an infrequent basis. On responsibility for spills in transit, Lamb said transportation companies typically bear responsibility while in transit, and the operator would bear responsibility for incidents involving company-owned vehicles.

Cooper and Lamb also described the typical non-hazardous uses for Class I wells—often disposal of saline or brine wastes from industrial processes—and emphasized that hazardous wastes such as spent solvents or radioactive material are not allowed under these regulations. Cooper noted existing Class I wells in the region and said Region 5 (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan) currently has about 50 Class I wells and several non-hazardous wells in nearby counties.

The board acknowledged a large volume of written remonstrance opposing the project submitted by residents. After asking their remaining questions, a motion to deny the petition was made by board member Ernie Schmidt, seconded by Eric Pointon, and carried 5-0. President Mischke announced, “your petition has been denied,” and directed petitioners to contact the building commissioner for follow-up.

The board’s denial closes this petition at the BZA level; the applicants described a federal permitting process they would have to pursue with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for any future well proposal.

What happens next: the board advised petitioners to contact the Building Commissioner for procedural questions. The BZA meeting record and the applicants’ file will show the board’s denial; no further action on this petition was taken at the meeting.