Replies

[Southsider2k12]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi...ll=chi-news-hed

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."

---------

mhawthorne@tribune.com

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...;ArticleID=3450

Pelath wants answers at state hearing

Rick Richards
City Editor, The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - State Rep. Scott Pelath is looking for answers.

The Michigan City Democrat isn't sure he'll get the answers he's looking for when his Administrative Rules Oversight Committee convenes at the Statehouse on Wednesday, but he's

certain it's a step in the right direction.

Pelath, D-Michigan City, is upset about BP Amoco's plans to discharge more ammonia and particulate matter into Lake Michigan because he doesn't think BP has explored all options available to it to prevent that. It's the first time since the Clean Water Act was passed in the 1970s that a Great Lakes state has approved a permit allowing a company to dump more polluting material into the water.

BP officials, who defended the reason for seeking the permit, are saying the

facility uses the best available wastewater treatment technology in refining. It is investing about $150 million to further enhance this wastewater treatment capability at the 1,400-acre refinery in Whiting to expand existing treatment facilities.

"There is a very fundamental question here," said Pelath. "Oil companies are reaping record profits, so why do they need to discharge anything into the lake?"

In the most recent quarter, BP posted a profit of more than $6 billion.

Among the questions Pelath wants answers to is whether there were any preconditions to granting BP Amoco a permit to expand its Whiting refinery.

Pelath said that even though the Whiting refinery - the third largest refinery in the United States - is being expanded, he wants to make sure the company explored all other options for treating its extra discharge before it was allowed to dump it into Lake Michigan.

"Lake Michigan is the reason our community is here," said Pelath. "It's where we get our drinking water."

BP Amoco wants to switch from processing light Middle Eastern oil to heavier - and dirtier - Canadian crude oil. To do that, BP needs to reconfigure its refinery to handle the Canadian crude oil, which will mean more byproducts will result.

Pelath said he isn't against economic development.

"Some folks believe that the environment and economic development are mutually exclusive. That's wrong headed," he said. "We need to do both."

Pelath said he wants to make sure regulators really believe the state was going to lose out on 80 permanent jobs, more than 2,000 temporary construction jobs and $3.6 billion in investment in the refinery if it didn't grant the permit.

"There are a lot of questions to be answered," said Pelath. "If anyone in our country is not hurting for resources, it's the oil companies. Many do not understand why BP Amoco needs breaks on environmental compliance. Quite frankly, neither do I."

In July, Pelath criticized the administration of Gov. Mitch Daniels for granting the discharge permit. Last week, Daniels asked James Barnes, a former dean of the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, to review the state's environmental permitting process.

"After nearly a month of reluctance to consider criticism of IDEM's decision, the governor decided this week that maybe there might be a problem," said Pelath. "The idea that the BP permit was opposed by residents and elected officials in at least three separate states seems to have registered."

In addition to the Michigan City Common Council, the Berrien County, Mich., Commissioners and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley have come out against the permit allowing more material to be discharged into Lake Michigan.

The U.S. House of Representatives has also voted for a resolution asking BP Amoco to reconsider.

Pelath said he has invited a representative from BP Amoco to testify as well as IDEM Commissioner Thomas Easterly, the agency that granted the permit.

Also expected to testify are representatives of environmental groups, including the Save the Dunes Council and the League of Women Voters, which have come out against BP's permit.

"Lake Michigan is one our nation's most prized possessions. Thanks in part to environmental protection, the lake has become cleaner in recent years," said Pelath. "Surely, anything that smacks of going in the other direction deserves heavy scrutiny."

Besides Pelath, members of the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee are State Reps. Dennis Oley, D-English; Mike Murphy and Phil Hinkle, both R-Indianapolis; and State Sens. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis; Joe Zakas, R-Granger; Richard Young, D-Milltown; and Lindel Hume, D-Princeton.

The hearing begins at 8:30 a.m. (Central time) in the Ways and Means Committee Room at the Statehouse.