BP gets break on dumping in lake Refinery expansion entices Indiana

[Rick]

BP gets break on dumping in lake Refinery expansion entices Indiana
By Michael Hawthorne
Tribune staff reporter
Published July 15, 2007


The massive BP oil refinery in Whiting, Ind., is planning to dump significantly more ammonia and industrial sludge into Lake Michigan, running counter to years of efforts to clean up the Great Lakes.

Indiana regulators exempted BP from state environmental laws to clear the way for a $3.8 billion expansion that will allow the company to refine heavier Canadian crude oil. They justified the move in part by noting the project will create 80 new jobs.

Under BP's new state water permit, the refinery -- already one of the largest polluters along the Great Lakes -- can release 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more sludge into Lake Michigan each day. Ammonia promotes algae blooms that can kill fish, while sludge is full of concentrated heavy metals.

The refinery will still meet federal water pollution guidelines. But federal and state officials acknowledge this marks the first time in years that a company has been allowed to dump more toxic waste into Lake Michigan.

BP, which aggressively markets itself as an environmentally friendly corporation, is investing heavily in Canadian crude oil to reduce its reliance on sources in the Middle East. Extracting petroleum from the thick goop is a dirtier process than conventional methods. It also requires more energy that could significantly increase greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Environmental groups and dozens of neighbors pleaded with BP to install more effective pollution controls at the nation's fourth-largest refinery, which rises above the lakeshore about 3 miles southeast of the Illinois-Indiana border.

"We're not necessarily opposed to this project," said Lee Botts, founder of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. "But if they are investing all of these billions, they surely can afford to spend some more to protect the lake."

State and federal regulators, though, agreed last month with the London-based company that there isn't enough room at the 1,400-acre site to upgrade the refinery's water treatment plant.

The company will now be allowed to dump an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of sludge into Lake Michigan every day. The additional sludge is the maximum allowed under federal guidelines.

Company officials insisted they did everything they could to keep more pollution out of the lake.

"It's important for us to get our product to market with minimal environmental impact," said Tom Keilman, a BP spokesman. "We've taken a number of steps to improve our water treatment and meet our commitments to environmental stewardship."

BP can process more than 400,000 barrels of crude oil daily at the plant, which was built in 1889 by John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Co. Total production is expected to grow by 15 percent by the time the expansion project is finished in 2011.

In sharp contrast to the greenways and parks that line Lake Michigan in Chicago, a string of industrial behemoths lie along the heavily polluted southern shore just a few miles away. The steady flow of oil, grease and chemicals into the lake from steel mills, refineries and factories -- once largely unchecked -- drew national attention that helped prompt Congress to pass the Clean Water Act during the early 1970s.

Paul Higginbotham, chief of the water permits section at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, said that when BP broached the idea of expanding the refinery, it sought permission to pump twice as much ammonia into the lake. The state ended up allowing an amount more than the company currently discharges but less than federal or state limits.

He said regulators still are unsure about the ecological effects of the relatively new refining process BP plans to use. "We ratcheted it down quite a bit from what it could have been," Higginbotham said.

The request to dump more chemicals into the lake ran counter to a provision of the Clean Water Act that prohibits any downgrade in water quality near a pollution source even if discharge limits are met. To get around that rule, state regulators are allowing BP to install equipment that mixes its toxic waste with clean lake water about 200 feet offshore.

Actively diluting pollution this way by creating what is known as a mixing zone is banned in Lake Michigan under Indiana law. Regulators granted BP the first-ever exemption.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been pushing to eliminate mixing zones around the Great Lakes on the grounds that they threaten humans, fish and wildlife. Yet EPA officials did not object to Indiana's decision, agreeing with the state that BP's project would not harm the environment.

Federal officials also did not step in when the state granted BP another exemption that enables the company to increase water pollution as long as the total amount of wastewater doesn't change. BP said its flow into Lake Michigan will remain about 21 million gallons a day.

In response to public protests, state officials justified the additional pollution by concluding the project will create more jobs and "increase the diversity and security of oil supplies to the Midwestern United States." A rarely invoked state law trumps anti-pollution rules if a company offers "important social or economic benefits."

In the last four months, more than 40 people e-mailed comments to Indiana officials about BP's water permit. One of the few supportive messages came from Kay Nelson, environmental director of the Northwest Indiana Forum, an economic development organization that includes a BP executive among its board of directors. She hailed the company's discussions with state and community leaders as a model for others to follow.

Nearly all of the other comments, though, focused on the extra pollution in Lake Michigan.

"This is exactly the type of trade-off that we can no longer allow," wrote Shannon Sabel of West Lafayette, Ind. "Possible lower gas prices (I'll believe that when I see it!) against further contamination of our water is as shortsighted as it is irrational."

[Rick]

Illinois lawmakers assail company over plan to dump more pollutants in lake

By Jim Tankersley and Michael Hawthorne, Tribune staff reporters: Jim Tankersley reported from Washington and Michael Hawthorne from Chicago
July 25, 2007

WASHINGTON - Executives from the oil company BP hit a bipartisan buzz saw on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, as Illinois lawmakers rebuked them in a private meeting and the House prepared to condemn BP's plans for increasing the dumping of pollutants into Lake Michigan.

Bashing BP, which recently secured an Indiana state permit to discharge more ammonia and suspended solids from its massive oil refinery in Whiting, is a new sport for Illinois politicians who see big problems with the permit -- and little political downside to attacking an oil giant over drinking-water quality, especially with no Illinois jobs hanging in the balance.

The House appears set to approve a resolution Wednesday, sponsored in part by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), that condemns the dumping permit. It allows BP to release 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more solids, tiny particles of pollutants that make up sludge, than it already dumps daily into Lake Michigan.

BP said Tuesday it has done everything possible to keep more pollution out of the lake. And BP executives -- including the company's American president, Bob Malone -- pledged to re-evaluate their Indiana expansion plans by Sept. 1 with environmental quality in mind during a noontime meeting in the office of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the politicians in attendance said and a BP spokesman confirmed.

Emanuel called the meeting "a clear, frank, unambiguous conversation" between BP and a bipartisan coalition opposed to increased Lake Michigan dumping. Durbin called the meeting a "wake-up call" for BP. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), one of a half-dozen Great Lakes lawmakers at the meeting, said Malone ended the meeting by indicating that "he gets it now."

There were no Indiana lawmakers at the meeting. They generally have been reluctant to criticize BP, at least in part because the refinery expansion would add 80 jobs.

Republicans and Democrats from Illinois warned throughout the day that BP would lose any fight over Great Lakes pollution and that the company was risking an environmentally friendly image it promotes heavily in advertising campaigns.

"I told Mr. Malone that BP will not win this battle," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). "For my purposes, this bipartisan meeting was to discuss the terms of surrender for BP."

The company wants to overhaul its 118-year-old refinery, the nation's fourth-largest, to process heavier Canadian crude oil. Dug out of tar-like sands in northern Alberta, the oil is considered a more reliable source than supplies in the Middle East. But extracting petroleum from the thick goop is a dirtier process than conventional methods.

When the company sought a new water permit for the Whiting refinery, state and federal regulators agreed there isn't enough room at the 1,400-acre site to upgrade the water treatment plant enough to keep more pollution out of Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for Chicago and scores of other communities.

As a result, BP now will be allowed to dump an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of suspended solids into the lake daily.

The additional solids, tiny sludge particles that escape water treatment filters, are the maximum allowed under federal guidelines.

Ammonia promotes algae blooms that can kill fish, while suspended solids contain heavy metals such as lead, nickel and vanadium.

In advertisements and e-mails published during the past two weeks, BP has insisted the treated water it pumps into the lake is largely free of toxic waste. Federal records, though, show the refinery already is one of the largest sources of industrial pollution pumped directly into Lake Michigan.

BP officials said they plan to spend $150 million to upgrade the refinery's water treatment plant. They note that federal and state regulators concluded the additional pollution would not harm the environment.

"We're always looking for ways to minimize the environmental impact of our actions," said Scott Dean, a BP spokesman.

Schakowsky said the controversy had rendered BP's pro-environment ad spending "wasted." Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said the company was acting as if its initials stood for "Back to Pollution."

Illinois lawmakers have complained about the Indiana permit in several press releases and letters to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich joined the list of angry politicians Tuesday with a statement threatening to sue Indiana in federal court if the permit isn't reworked.

Several Illinois lawmakers said Tuesday that protecting the Great Lakes, the world's largest source of fresh surface water, is more important than the potential for cheaper gasoline.

Durbin said increasing refinery capacity, and perhaps lowering gas prices in the process, would be "unacceptable" if it came "at the expense of the water that we drink."

"It's your money or your life," Durbin said. Politically speaking, the controversy is a chance for Illinois lawmakers to show off a cooperative spirit and for a congressman such as Kirk -- whose swing suburban district north of Chicago produced a tough race last year -- to tout his environmental credentials.

The politics are less clear-cut in Indiana, as reflected by the position of Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) on the issue.

"We can't compromise Lake Michigan or any part of our environment for economic progress," said Jonathan Swain, Bayh's press secretary. But, he added, the refinery "is vital to issues relating to the nation's energy supply and our economy."

[Rick]

Refinery has been exempt -- and new permit gives it 5 more years

By Michael Hawthorne | Tribune staff reporter
July 27, 2007

Although the federal government ordered states more than a decade ago to dramatically limit mercury discharges into the Great Lakes, the BP refinery in northwest Indiana will be allowed to continue pouring small amounts of the toxic metal into Lake Michigan for at least another five years.

A little-noticed exemption in BP's controversial new state water permit gives the oil company until 2012 to meet strict federal limits on mercury discharges. In documents, Indiana regulators predict the refinery won't be able to comply and will ask to continue polluting after that date.

Federal records analyzed by the Tribune show BP puts 2 pounds of mercury into the lake every year from its sprawling plant 3 miles southeast of Chicago in Whiting, Ind. That amount is small compared with the mercury that falls into the water from air pollution, but mercury builds up in the environment and is so toxic that even tiny drops can threaten fish and people.

The BP refinery and a power plant in nearby Chesterton, Ind., are the only two industrial polluters that still dump mercury directly into Lake Michigan, federal records show. Under standards adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1995, BP's annual discharge of the metal should be reduced to 8/100th of a pound.

BP already is drawing fierce opposition to its plans to dump significantly more ammonia and suspended solids into Lake Michigan. Although the amounts are still below federal water quality guidelines, BP's new permit marks the first time in years that a company has been allowed to increase the amount of pollution pumped into the lake, a magnet for sport fishing and the source of drinking water for Chicago and scores of other communities.

"With one permit, this company and this state are undoing years of work to keep pollution out of our Great Lakes," said U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), co-sponsor of a resolution overwhelmingly approved by the House this week that condemned BP's plans. "Nothing surprises me at this point about what Indiana is allowing them to do."

Company officials and Indiana regulators contend the refinery's wastewater poses no threat to people or aquatic life. They also say they did everything they could to keep more pollution out of the lake.

In an e-mail response to questions, BP said Thursday that it doubts any industrial polluter or municipal sewage treatment plant can meet the stringent federal limit of 1.3 parts mercury per trillion parts water for discharges into the Great Lakes. The company said some of its mercury discharge likely comes from storm runoff and lake water drawn into the refinery.

"BP will work with [Indiana regulators] to minimize mercury in its discharge, including implementation of source controls," the company said in its response.

Other exemptions given

Peter Swenson, chief of the water permits section at the EPA's regional office in Chicago, said some Great Lakes polluters have been granted exemptions to the mercury limits when they renew their permits. But others have been forced to comply immediately, he said, noting that emerging technology can remove the metal from waste water.

A Tribune review of federal records shows that the waste water the BP refinery pumps into Lake Michigan includes more than a dozen toxic byproducts of oil refining, including benzene, toluene and suspended solids containing mercury, lead, nickel and vanadium.

The refinery is the top industrial source of lead, nickel and ammonia pollution directly released into the lake, according to the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory. It also is one of only two industrial polluters on the lake that dump acetonitrile, a chemical that metabolizes in the environment to cyanide.

If BP were to meet the federal mercury standard for the Great Lakes, it would take the refinery 25 years to put the same amount of the toxic metal into Lake Michigan that it does now in one year.

BP sought a new water permit to accommodate an expansion project that will enable the refinery to process more heavy Canadian crude oil, which is considered a more dependable source than supplies in the Middle East.

When Indiana regulators last month allowed the company to increase its pollution, they justified the move in part by noting the project will create 80 new jobs.

Little effect cited

The "waste-water permit for BP's Whiting refinery fully complies with the federal Clean Water Act and assures the full protection of Lake Michigan," Thomas Easterly, commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, said in a prepared statement. "The permitted levels will not affect drinking water, recreation or aquatic life."

In documents filed with the permit, though, the agency noted that levels of mercury and lead detected in the refinery's waste water "show a reasonable potential" to violate water quality standards.

Mercury concerns environmental regulators because of its staying power in the environment. The metal accumulates as it moves up the food chain from bacteria to fish to people.

All of the states on the Great Lakes advise people to limit eating certain types of fish because of high levels of mercury contamination. Consuming even small amounts of mercury can damage the developing brain and nervous system of infants and young children.

Prodded by Congress, the EPA moved during the 1990s to virtually eliminate direct mercury discharges into the lakes. "The risks posed to human health and to the Great Lakes themselves by these toxic pollutants are simply too high to ignore," then-EPA Administrator Carol Browner said in 1999.

Air pollution remains the greatest source of manmade mercury in the lakes. A recent federal study estimated that 880 pounds of the metal drop into Lake Michigan every year, mostly from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants along and near the shore.

Mercury discharged directly into the lake by BP's refinery is a mere fraction of that amount. But a growing chorus of critics, including Mayor Richard Daley, Gov. Rod Blagojevich and members of Congress, argue that BP's new state permit sets a bad precedent that threatens to reverse more than three decades of slow but steady progress cleaning up the lake.

"We determined a long time ago that Lake Michigan is a very special resource that deserves added protection," said Dale Bryson, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes and former chief of the EPA's regional water office. "This isn't harmless stuff. By now they should have figured out what to do about it."

[Rick]

It must be Jim's fault.

[JAYKAY]

Everything is my fault, but this is a load of crap. The hypocrisy of the people that write these articles is truly amazing. The refinery was granted the permit because net pollution in the lake is down and because people are tired of $3.50 gasoline but refuse to buy smaller cars (like the Lotus).

The comment about "spending all of those billions" and not spending more to clean up the lake is really priceless. "Sludge" is not just some random term that people trot out when they oppose the expansion of industry, it is an actual EPA defined term and BP does not dump Sludge into the lake. These suckers also have nothing to say about the steel mills that cast a brown haze over all of Gary and Whiting. I am sure that there are no heavy metals in the output of the mills. :uhoh:

Here are some of the key facts surrounding the permit process at the Whiting Refinery:

The BP Whiting Refinery does not, and will not, dump sludge or toxic waste into Lake Michigan.

BP practices comply with federal and state laws, regulations and guidelines that protect aquatic, other wildlife and human life. There were no exceptions to state or federal water quality regulations.

The water that BP returns to the lake is just that – water. It has been treated at BP’s lakefront facility and is more than 99.9 percent water.

The permit granted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management was approved because our operations are done in a manner that protects aquatic life in Lake Michigan and the drinking water supplies that come from the lake. This permit was granted after a careful, thorough, open and transparent review of our application.

BP received no exceptions to state or federal water quality regulations when receiving this permit.

[Martin Lenick]

If you want to be truly embarrassed, research what the "sludge" is.

The refinery uses lake water for cooling. The entire circuit for this water is a closed circuit. It is returned to the lake "cleaner" than it was received because most of the suspended solids (mostly silt and some organic matter) get left behind in the refinery's cooling equipment.

On a regular basis the refinery must take equipment out of service to remove this "sludge" - a costly activity. They must then dispose of it, but where can they put it? Obviously not back in the lake from whence it came.:hum: