British Petroleum (BP) runs a refinery in Indiana, and just won state approval to dump more contaminated sludge as well as ammonia into Lake Michigan. Out of this largesse, Indiana can say that BP is creating 80 jobs and helping make our oil supplies more secure.
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."
This fact sheet from March 2007 has the details as to what BP was asking for. Indiana has also kindly posted the comments from the public, and the responses including this gem:
It is the position of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management that: BP North America, Inc. has demonstrated that the increases in the permit limits for ammonia and total suspended solids are necessary due to the increased loading of those pollutant parameters to the wastewater treatment plant, the current lack of available space does prohibit the construction of any additional treatment facilities to further remove ammonia and TSS. The additional jobs, the long-term viability of the existing jobs/business and the value to our Nation’s overall security resulting from utilizing a new source of petroleum from a neighboring friendly country have justified the proposed increase in the effluent limits for ammonia and total suspended solids.
Remember, 80 new jobs were acquired! That's a lot!
And in case you're curious as to who will mind BP's Ps&Qs as far as water quality, well surely you don't think Indiana will, now do you? From the comments document -
Since the inception of the Clean Water Act in 1972, passed by the United States Congress, the NPDES permit program was designed for dischargers to monitor their own wastewater discharges. BP, formerly Amoco, received one of the first permits issued by the State in accordance with all state and federal regulations. The first NPDES permits under the Clean Water Act were issued in 1974. So, BP and all of the facilities regulated by a NPDES permit have been monitoring their own effluent since they received their NPDES permit in accordance with the Clean Water Act and federal regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Good thing I don't swim in the lake.
5 comments:
Lemme get this straight:
A company can bypass the environmental laws and further contaminate land locked bodies of water IF it can successfully prove that causing the contamination will have some OTHER benefit, such as adding 80 jobs?
And we're allowing this???!!!! for 80 jobs!!!
Think of number of jobs that could be created to clean up BP's mess in the lake!!! I'd say it would be more than 80 jobs!!!
It's insane! No wonder our planet is screwed up!!!
Do the 80 jobs offset the possible cases of illness and death that could result from the dumping of toxic effluvia into the lake?
Is BP guaranteeing that those jobs will still be here 10, 20, 30 years from now? They should, because that toxic gunk will linger in the environment forever, or at least forever for the purposes of humans and animals affected by it.
Will those 80 jobs offset the fish lost, or the added cost of treating the water for human consumption?
It is impossible, in this space, to do an accurate reckoning of the cost of those jobs, whether measured by environmental damage, loss of marine life, or damage to human health or life, but I'm betting that it is many times the combined wages of these jobs over whatever time they last.
It is time for the citizens to review their own habits and energy use, and consider the true cost of our oil-wasting lifestyles.
The claim is that BP's actions, while increasing the pollutants, will still fall under the federal limits. The problem, as I see it, is that BP is also introducing a 'mixing' station of sorts to mix the sludge and ammonia with lake water and further dilute and diffuse it. The permit that I saw at Indiana's site refers to a 5 year period for getting BP's act together on this new standard, plus a recognition that BP would be unable to reach the ultimate target standards anyway. They are going to be refining Canadian oil, possibly from Alberta, that is very heavy and sour (sulphurous in this case) so of course the waste will be more toxic than if the crude was a sweet light. I am not liking this at all and am very glad I don't live at that end of the lake.
A friend of mine told me that Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is circulating an online petition protesting this. According to a report by Michael Hawthorn in the Trib, other members of the House and Senate are demanding more information.
That "gem" you cite should be preserved in a museum somewhere. Like this one, but for words.
I saw the Trib headline while commuting to work yesterday, but didn't get a chance to read the story.
Post a Comment