Subscribe
Jobs
Cars
Real Estate
Apts
Classifieds
Shop
It took far too long, but Indiana leaders are finally recognizing the need to address outrage over an Indiana permit that will allow the BP Refinery in Whiting – a suburban Chicago community just east of the state line – to increase the pollution it dumps into Lake Michigan.
After an outcry from environmentalists, numerous petitions and a bipartisan resolution from the U.S. House scolding Indiana for granting the permit, Gov. Mitch Daniels asked for an expert review of the state laws regarding Great Lakes water quality and the state’s permitting process. He chose wisely when he asked James Barnes, the former dean of Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, to lead the review.
And on Wednesday, Indiana Department of Environmental Management Commissioner Tom Easterly attended a Great Lakes Summit held in Chicago by the EPA. The summit’s purpose was to give environmental advocates an opportunity to voice their concerns to state and federal regulators as well as BP executives.
The review and the summit are positive steps. But the issue is more complicated than the need to expand oil production versus the need to protect the Great Lakes. Here are some of the important questions:
Why are residents and political leaders from other states outraged about a permit that will allow BP to expand, create jobs and help the U.S. meet the crucial goal of energy independence from foreign oil?
Illinoisans are irate because BP is dumping its pollutants into Lake Michigan close to the source of Chicago’s drinking water – consumed by more than 8 million people.
Michigan residents are livid because the economy of many lakeshore communities depends on tourism, and water pollution can make beaches too toxic for recreational activity and aquatic life.
People in neighboring states are also upset that Indiana failed to consult with municipal and state representatives of the communities affected by the increased pollution prior to its approval by IDEM.
What is the IDEM permit in question?
Indiana granted BP a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit that regulates the company’s water pollution. The permit, issued in June, allows BP to increase discharges of ammonia by 54 percent and suspended solids by 35 percent. Environmentalists say the suspended solids also could contain fine particles of toxic heavy metals, such as lead, nickel and mercury.
Is BP willing to pollute the environment to boost investor profits?
It’s too easy, and incorrect, to frame the disagreement between BP and concerned residents from Great Lakes states as a question of economic development versus the environment. The expansion will allow BP to refine heavy Canadian crude oil and boost production by about 15 percent. The increased production is needed to reduce the nation’s reliance on Mideastern oil.
The refinery is essential to the company. When Standard Oil Co. opened the refinery in 1890, it was the largest petroleum refinery in the world. Today, it is fourth largest in the U.S., producing about 420,000 barrels a day.
Is it fair that one state can unilaterally regulate dumping into Lake Michigan when the pollution affects several states?
No. But Indiana’s permit was also reviewed and approved by federal regulators. And on Wednesday, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., accused both IDEM and the EPA of shirking their responsibility in approving the permit.
“I don’t think what happened here is in compliance with the Clean Water Act,” Emanuel said at a news conference held after the Lake Michigan summit. He called for a congressional investigation and said that this permit would open the door to more lenient permits for other companies looking to increase the amount of pollution dumped into the Great Lakes.
Emanuel also rightly pointed out that increasing pollution goes against recent efforts to protect the Great Lakes.
Will the permit be revoked?
It’s unlikely, but at the summit Easterly pledged to consider the review of the permit process and warned BP that he would enforce the permit if the company exceeded its pollution parameters. BP contends the permit is valid and necessary for the expansion. But BP leaders also showed an interest in working with concerned community leaders.
Indiana regulators and BP need to follow through on their promises. BP’s advertising leans heavily on the premise that it is “doing better” environmentally. Emanuel, for one, intends to hold BP to its marketing. He said he would send a letter to BP investors advising them that “there are consequences to a company who advertises one way and acts another.”
