EPA approves BP's new pollution dumping

[NorthSideSox72]

So some of you have probably been following this issue, but I don't see a thread on it.

 

BP wants to dump about 1500 pounds of new pollution every day into Lake Michigan. The state of Indiana allowed their restrictions, more stringent than existing federal standards, to be loosened for this to occur. The new pollution still falls within federal limits. The U.S. congress, under pressure from the voters, passed a bi-partisan measure urging the EPA to stop it. The EPA, today, said no.

 

So here is the real problem - the EPA says its within federal limits, so they can't act. Except, they seemed to have forgotten the part of the Clean Water Act that says NO INCREASE OF POLLUTION LEVELS can be permitted. Seems smart, and to me, crystal clear. Unfortunately, this adminsitration seems to think that the world is its personal litter box, so the EPA issues their bogus statement. I am 95% sure a lawsuit will be brought very, very soon, since the EPA's stand seems to clearly violate the Clean Water Act.

 

We discuss global warming a lot, but sometimes forget about jsut plain common sense environmentalism. We get our drinking water from that lake, we eat fish from that lake, and thousands of people's careers are staked on having a clean lake. It would be nice if BushCo would consider that.

 

[kapkomet]

What is it that they are trying to dump? And is it really an increase in pollution levels?

 

It's a big lake, you know... - and yes, I'm kidding.

 

I see that you're saying "1500 pounds of NEW pollution"... is it different or truely new?

 

Either way, it's bad, and I understand that... but why would they directly ignore federal law on this?

 

(waiting for the - he does it with everything else, so why not this, response...

 

 

[Soxy]

What is it that they are trying to dump? And is it really an increase in pollution levels?

 

It's a big lake, you know... - and yes, I'm kidding.

 

I see that you're saying "1500 pounds of NEW pollution"... is it different or truely new?

 

Either way, it's bad, and I understand that... but why would they directly ignore federal law on this?

 

(waiting for the - he does it with everything else, so why not this, response...

From the NYT:

According to documents on BP’s Web site, the new permit allows the refinery to discharge 1,584 pounds of ammonia, an increase of 54 percent over the current level, into the lake each day. Also allowed is discharge of up to 4,925 pounds of suspended solids into the lake each day, an increase of 35 percent.

 

 

That's effing weak. Seriously. Again, shows that governments have slightly less common sense than a common slub.

[kapkomet]

Wow, so the loophole is that it's an "increase" and not new?

 

Blech. Let's drink some more ammonia!

 

And I don't even want to know what "suspended solids" mean.

 

[StrangeSox]

I don't understand why the environmental standards aren't enforced. They already dump about 20 times as much mercury as they should into the lake with zero consequences.

 

Humans can be the dumbest, most short-sighted animals on the planet some times.

[FlaSoxxJim]

There has been an online petition up at Environment Illinois on this. Sounds like it may alrteady be a done deal but here's the link.

 

https://www.environmentillinois.org/action/.../bp-epapetition

 

Rahm Emanuel co-sponsored a resolution last week that was overwhelmingly approved by the House that condemned BP's plans to increase the pollution load. Not that it seems to have done much good but at least people are aware what's going on.

 

Fun Fact: The Indiana BP facility is also one of only two plants that still dump mercury directly into Lake Michigan.

[FlaSoxxJim]

They already dump about 20 times as much mercury as they should into the lake with zero consequences.

 

Ah, you beat me too it.

 

[kapkomet]

There has been an online petition up at Environment Illinois on this. Sounds like it may alrteady be a done deal but here's the link.

 

https://www.environmentillinois.org/action/.../bp-epapetition

 

Rahm Emanuel co-sponsored a resolution last week that was overwhelmingly approved by the House that condemned BP's plans to increase the pollution load. Not that it seems to have done much good but at least people are aware what's going on.

 

Fun Fact: The Indiana BP facility is also one of only two plants that still dump mercury directly into Lake Michigan.

Nice place to do business, eh?

[GoSox05]

why does this come to a shock to people? Look whos in power. Dick Cheeny is one of the few people to be against the clean water act. When you vote in people like George Bush don't be suprised when your swiming in toxic waste.

[Rex Kickass]

BP has been pouring a lot of crap in Lake Michigan a lot longer than since 2001. And, beyond that, the state approved it too.

 

The truth is that a Clinton led EPA probably would have allowed this too, because the EPA is entirely too weak an organization to do its job effectively.

[sox4lifeinPA]

 

I have no idea what this means...but I KNOW they mean it.

 

 

Beyond Petroleum......and a b-line straight towards Ammonia

[kapkomet]

BP has done a lot of hazy crap long before now. Of course, so has US Steel, and everyone else in Gary, Indiana.

 

[Balta1701]

BP has done a lot of hazy crap long before now. Of course, so has US Steel, and everyone else in Gary, Indiana.

BP is in Whiting

[kapkomet]

BP is in Whiting

Ah... ok. Well, Gary is close enough, just like BushCo said 9/11 and Iraq were linked. ZING!

 

[southsider2k5]

I have a thread about it, complete with a bunch of news articles and local reactions. There is also a local Indiana list of politicians if you guys want to rant and b**** at someone in Indiana for this.

 

http://www.citybythelake.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=644

[NorthSideSox72]

Update. EPA is getting BP execs and a bunch of local folks together to discuss 7 alternative actions for BP to consider, in response to public outcry over the new dumping. EPA still maintains officially that they cannot rescind the permit, which of course is bogus for at least two reasons*. But at least SOMETHING is being done. Hopefully BP volunteers to take some of the recommended courses of action, which include routing some of the pollution through a treatment plant (duh, why not do this more often!), and/or spending money on clean-up efforts in the region.

 

*Two reasons why the EPA's position is manifestly B.S.:

 

1. The Clean Water Act has a provision specifically PROHIBITING any increase in pollution levels, which this clearly violates (Illinois and Chicago are both promising legal action, using this as grounds)

2. The EPA, I believe, has authority to restrict levels of allowed pollution on specific businesses if it represents an immediate danger. They could elect to use that authority here, if they so chose. OF course they won't, because god forbid we touch big oil.

 

[vandy125]

I feel a boycott coming on...

 

Do they own any gas stations other than the BP one's? Am I thinking of the wrong company?

[rangercal]

I will never use BP again. This is just sickening.

[FlaSoxxJim]

For trying so hard to paint themselves as green, the last two years have really showed BP really only thinks green when the green in question is money. Before the Prudhoe Bay oil field leaks last year and teh subsequent maintenance shutdowns, the lines on the west side of the field had not been pigged since 1998 and those on the east side hadn't been pigged since 1991! (Contrast that to the Trans-Alaskan pipeline where they pig the line every two weeks).

 

By August last year when the north slope pipes were finally shut down, "more than 70 percent of the wall of the tube had eroded in 12 places. At another 187 spots, wall loss exceeded 50 percent."

 

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/02/magazines/...rtune/index.htm

 

All for the sake of profit.

 

One current BP employee who worked at both Prudhoe Bay and in Texas and spoke to Fortune on condition of anonymity says no one should be surprised by what eventually occurred. "The mantra was, Can we cut costs 10 percent?" he recalls. At Texas City even money for painting and external corrosion control was tight - until leaks started appearing. "There was an it-can't-happen-here mentality on the part of middle management," he says. Constant turnover only worsened matters, as new bosses would seek to beat the previous manager's numbers.

[vandy125]

I will never use BP again. This is just sickening.

Yep, I'm staying away from them unless I hear about some major changes.

[NorthSideSox72]

I am all for BP trying to make a profit like any other company. But the Clean Water Act is there for a reason - specifically, that some things (our basic health needs) need to take precedence over profit, from a national perspective. It would be NICE if BP was more green, but its not required of them. That is why we have regulations like this in a market economy - because the drive for profit runs counter to the common good in this instance. I put the responsibility here almost entirely with the EPA and the state of Indiana, for chosing to endanger people's health (and the environment) in order for a little financial gain.

 

But that said, I can't boycott the EPA or the state of Indiana. So that seems like maybe a good idea. I am considering doing that to BP. Just one note, to those considering it: its only effective if they know its happening. That means that if you do it on your own... write them a letter as well. If they get enough letters, and/or if some large scale media-covered boycott occurs, then they might take action.

 

[BigSqwert]

Just one note, to those considering it: its only effective if they know its happening. That means that if you do it on your own... write them a letter as well. If they get enough letters, and/or if some large scale media-covered boycott occurs, then they might take action.

I highly recommend doing that. Whenever I avoid a company I will make sure to write them so that they know why.

[Steff]

I am all for BP trying to make a profit like any other company. But the Clean Water Act is there for a reason - specifically, that some things (our basic health needs) need to take precedence over profit, from a national perspective. It would be NICE if BP was more green, but its not required of them. That is why we have regulations like this in a market economy - because the drive for profit runs counter to the common good in this instance. I put the responsibility here almost entirely with the EPA and the state of Indiana, for chosing to endanger people's health (and the environment) in order for a little financial gain.

 

But that said, I can't boycott the EPA or the state of Indiana. So that seems like maybe a good idea. I am considering doing that to BP. Just one note, to those considering it: its only effective if they know its happening. That means that if you do it on your own... write them a letter as well. If they get enough letters, and/or if some large scale media-covered boycott occurs, then they might take action.

 

 

There's been a group at the BP on the corner of 59 and Caton Farm Road for weeks handing out info on the dumping and also a list of names, numbers, and addresses to write and call to complain. In the biggest "stand up" move I've seen in a long time, the owners of the station are very nice to them and give them free ice for their coolers, let them use the restrooms, etc.

[NorthSideSox72]

I highly recommend doing that. Whenever I avoid a company I will make sure to write them so that they know why.

 

I have looked around the BP website and cannot find anything helpful in terms of who to send a letter to. I've already written it. If any of you happen to have gotten a name and address, could you post it here for us to use?

 

Thanks.

[Cknolls]

Did anyone read Dennis Byrne in the Chicago Tribune. Pretty good piece. Where is the outrage over the steel plants pollution of the Lake. How about the city of Chicago's polluting of the River system. BP is not even in the same ball park as these two but they are an easy target because they are the evil oil company..