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.

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.

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 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.

Source

- Absolutely disgusting.

I agree, time to do something about it.

No wonder why the Lake Michigan looks like crap. Beaches in Chicago at some point have even been shut down. It's absolutely disgusting. I know our country wants to reduce its dependency on big oil in the middle east, but the only way we are ever going to solve the problem of fuel consumption is to create NEW sources of energy. These companies have enough money to invest tons more into research for finding alternative fuels, but they're not doing anything about it. They're making so much money as it is that they know when someone does find an alternative, they'll be able to buy it right up. In the mean time, they'd rather make sure to deplete every last fossil fuel from this world first.

Eagle Point Plant, an oil refinery in West Deptford, New Jersey was listed as the 3rd largest polluter in the World. One top of being built on a Unalachtigo burial ground. Valero Refining in Paulsboro, New Jersey was allowed to rmove some of it's catalytic filters in it's stacks and is now spewing sludge on the residents. My cousin who lives up in that area says Valero and Eagle Point always donates to schools, political activities and youth activities and everybody is blinded by this PR "smoke screen".

Lapiche

The something that could be done about this is to have the toxic stuff pumped into a filter containing tons of earth before it is put into the water. The soil will do the job that the soil does and that is filter the water before it enters the lake.

There are better filtering methods, centrifuges and so on . But they cost money. If British Petroleum can get it for free why should they spend any?

I hate air pollution, but would say that Dupont leads the pack (2004, latest NJ information, 158 pages)-

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/opppc/annrpt04rev07.pdf


In 2005, Valero settled with the State ($793,000), on emmision violations from 2001-2004.

From April '05-

Valero will install a $3.5 million, state-of-the-art air pollution control at the Paulsboro refinery waste water treatment system to reduce VOC emissions by 95 percent, including benzene and other hazardous air pollutants. Annual VOC emissions at the waste water treatment plant will decline by approximately 150 tons.

Valero also agreed to meet the enhanced requirements for benzene waste reduction at its Paulsboro refinery. By changing its management practices, the Paulsboro refinery will eliminate almost six tons of stray benzene emissions annually.

The Paulsboro facility will also implement the VOC enhanced leak detection and repair (LDAR) program. This will further reduce stray VOC emissions from the facility. The enhanced program cuts VOC concentration in half from what is now required under the current federal LDAR program.

Valero has already installed a state-of-the-art emissions control scrubber system at the Paulsboro refinery that is the first of its kind in North America and the second of its kind in the world. This system began operation in October 2004 and is reducing SO2 emissions by over 1,000 tons annually.

In addition, Valero has agreed to install still further technologies on its boilers and heaters at the Paulsboro facility to meet federal standards that are not currently applicable to these units. These technologies will reduce annual SO2 emissions by at least another 500 tons beyond the reductions already achieved by the scrubber system."

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2005/05_0043.htm

This was begun in 2005, in part because EPA ruled that 80% of the BP Whiting refinery’s on-road diesel fuel must meet the new EPA specifications. By January 2010 all on-road diesel must contain no more than 15 ppm sulfur. Off-road diesel transitions to the 15 ppm specification in 2010, and locomotive and marine diesel follow in 2012.
The Whiting refinery now produces 81,000 barrels of diesel fuel per day, including limited quantities mandated ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel for Chicago Transit Authority and other customers.

BP was fined $10 million in 2001, and so, spent $600 million to cut smog pollutants at its eight U.S. facilities. Updates to Whiting were also made when they undertook to spend more than $500 million on up-to-date pollution-control technologies and work practices at nine U.S. refineries, as of 2004. In 2005, they met pollution targets, except for NOx, because of a faulty valve. I was unable to find 2006 report, but the new facility upgrade information (see upload .doc) covers some of that.

BP will now spend-

$130 million on new ultra low-sulfur diesel facilities at its Whiting, Indiana refinery. Includes new distillate hydrotreater to allow the refinery to produce 36,000 bbd of ultra low-sulfur diesel product. The project will increase capacity for coking, hydrogen production, hydrotreating and sulfur recovery. The replacement processing units and enhancements to existing refinery units will increase Canadian heavy crude oil processing capability by about 260,000 barrels per day.

BP is expected to create jobs for approximately 2,500 workers during the peak of its three-year construction phase and 60 to 80 permanent full-time employees. They will build-

A world-scale coking unit, a revamped crude distillation unit and petroleum coke handling facilities that triple resid conversion capacity.

A hydrogen production plant.

A gas oil hydrotreater and revamped existing hydrotreaters to maintain compliance with sulfur specifications for fuels.

Sulfur recovery facilities.

Refinery infrastructure facilities to support the additional heavy crude oil processing.


Regarding the suggestion that they help with alternative fuels, and not supress them (I'd like to know, too), BP is building a $400 million bioethanol plant in the UK, and $160 million jatropha biodiesel plant in India. The U.S. Congress recently tried unsuccessfully to make Big Oil underwrite more alternative fuel research, which seemed political since that is the job of the government, itself. It all comes out in the wash though, if Big Oil must give up certain subsidies, as of 2008.


Here is a .doc of items I culled from the State ( those in Indiana probably know the information, already). It really lays to rest the news bytes that focus on selected, narrow information.

Welcome to BP = Bullshi.tting People....
''Our products and services contribute to a better quality of life for you and the environment''(motto)

A few examples of reponses by the State, to questions in the .doc-

"Estimated ammonia loading to the wastewater treatment plants is expected to be more than doubled as a result of the conversion to process Canadian crudes. Ammonia removal is and will continue to be achieved through stripping of sour water and the wastewater treatment system. The reliability and efficiency of sour water stripping and wastewater treatment will be improved as part of the refinery reconfiguration. These control systems, however, are not specifically designed to remove ammonia, so they cannot be operated to achieve a specific ammonia discharge level, and are not expected allow BP to achieve the current permit limits after reconfiguration. Direct biological treatment of ammonia would require at least 12,000 sq. ft. located in close proximity to the existing Lakefront WWTP aeration tanks. Land area to accommodate new construction and installation of biological ammonia treatment is not available at the BP Lakefront property, and remote location of such a system would not provide sufficient treatment reliability and efficiency to achieve existing permit limits."

The following table illustrates the existing effluent limits for ammonia, the proposed effluent limits for ammonia and the highest limits that BP could possibly receive that meet the federal effluent guidelines and Indiana Water Quality Criteria:

Ammonia Effluent Limitations

___________________Monthly Average_____Daily Maximum
Existing Limits_______1,030 lbs/day________2,060 lbs/day
Proposed Limits______1,584 lbs/day________3,572 lbs/day
Fed Guideline Limits___3,358 lbs/day________7,387 lbs/day
Water Quality Limits___3,215 lbs/day________7,501 lbs/day

IDEM is confident that the increase in the effluent limits for ammonia will not result in any harm to the aquatic life in Lake Michigan and it will not cause any adverse impacts to human health by drinking the water from Lake Michigan.

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.

and

Response 20:
BP's wastewater treatment plant does have the capacity to treat the wastewater being generated now and when they are processing the heavy Canadian crude oil because the amount of wastewater will not be increasing.

and

Total Suspended Solids is a generic pollutant parameter which includes pollutants being discharged such as mercury, selenium, vanadium, etc. The specific pollutants are measured in the effluent and there are limits on the specific pollutants so that none of the specific pollutants will be at a level which is harmful to the environment or human health. The increase in the effluent limits for TSS are justified based on the 645% increase in TSS estimated to be present in the influent wastewater to the WWTP. The monthly average effluent limit is increasing by 35%. BP will initiate additional controls related to assuring optimal and reliable operations of the Lakefront WWTP that will allow further reduction of TSS that includes: pre-treatment of the de-salter effluent, water reduction projects to reduce hydraulic loading to the WWTP, installation of an additional storm water / surge equalization tank to allow more consistent feed to WWTP, and replacing the existing media filters (tertiary treatment) with a higher efficiency filter system.

(Also, I presume how they treat for mercury is what oil/gas refineries usually do. They remove some vapor by using charcaol; incinerate and release some as vapor; and discharge the rest in sludge. The level of mercury in refinery effluents is generally
~10 - 100 ng/L, which is generally orders of magnitude lower than traditional technologies for metals treatment are expected to achieve.)

and

If the effluent limits for ammonia remained equal to the existing limits for ammonia, there is no rule provision for including a schedule of compliance in the permit. If BP violated the effluent limits for ammonia, they would face an enforcement action from IDEM and possibly from EPA. The agreed order resulting from the enforcement action would possibly include a schedule of compliance.

Everyone expects BP to operate their WWTP as efficiently as possible to make their effluent water quality as good as possible. No one at this time knows exactly how the processing of the Canadian crude will impact the ammonia loading to the WWTP other than we expect the loading to be higher than it is now. BP and IDEM worked together to determine what is expected to happen based on data from another refinery that has been processing similar crude. The increase in the ammonia monthly average effluent limit is 53.8% (554 lbs/day). BP requested and sought an increase of 212% (2,185 lbs/day) based on the effluent limit calculated using Indiana water quality criteria when using the high rate diffuser/alternate mixing zone, but that level of increase could not be justified.

and

Comment/Question 47:
Expansion of the wastewater treatment plant - perhaps adequate treatment programs can be designed within existing property constraints. With the elimination of the sludge incinerators and existing parking lot, additional room to expand would be available. However, if additional space is needed, we suggest that the use of RCRA licensed areas be evaluated. A more detailed analysis of the existing facility needs to be done.

Response 47:
There are no known or proposed plans from BP to eliminate their hazardous waste incinerator, so that space will not be available. The RCRA area cannot be built upon, so that space is not available.

and

Response 55:
The refinery is not expanding, it is being re-configured to process the heavy crude from Canada. The existing and proposed limits in the permit are far below the limits that are protective of all existing aquatic life and uses of the water such as drinking water. The amount of profit that an industry makes is not a factor in setting NPDES permit limits. BP's existing wastewater treatment plant produces wastewater quality that is at least three times better than the quality required to be protective of Lake Michigan.

and

Response 63:
This is the first high rate diffuser being placed into the Indiana Waters of Lake Michigan. IDEM's Biological Studies Section reviewed the application and the revisions to the application for an alternate mixing zone/diffuser submitted by BP on August, 1994, March, 1998 and April 8, 2002.

The evaluation by the IDEM, OWQ Biological Studies Section recommends the following:

1. A comprehensive Toxicity Identification Evaluation and Toxicity Reduction Evaluation should be conducted prior to the diffuser being implemented

2. Careful consideration should be made on the support structure for the diffuser head to avoid creating attractive habitat that would draw aquatic life into the mixing zone

3. A monitoring and preventative maintenance program should be developed that prevents damage or failure of the diffuser heads, and

4. A chemical and biological monitoring program should be implemented that demonstrates the ongoing efficacy of the diffuser operation.

The effluent from the process wastewater treatment plant has demonstrated periodic toxicity. However, the mixing zone will mitigate the toxicity through the quick dispersion and mixing of the effluent. Although there is no longer as much concern about the toxicity of the effluent after the diffuser becomes operational, the permit will contain a requirement to test the effluent for chronic toxicity prior to the operation of the diffuser and for chronic toxicity after the diffuser becomes operational.

IDEM does not possess the authority to adjust the construction of the diffuser head support structure due to Indiana Statute IC 13-14-8-11.6. The statute states that a discharger is not required to obtain a state permit for the modification or construction of a water pollution treatment or control facility if the discharger has an effective NPDES permit.

Part II.B.1 of the permit requires the following: The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and efficiently operate all facilities and systems (and related appurtenances) for the collection and treatment which are installed or used by the permittee and which are necessary for achieving compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit in accordance with 327 IAC 5-2-8(8). BP will be required to submit their operation and maintenance plan for the diffuser to IDEM.

The permit contains effluent monitoring and limitations for the pollutants that are expected to be present and for Whole Effluent Toxicity. The maintenance of the diffuser should maintain the efficacy of the diffuser. However, to ensure that the diffuser is not causing harm to the aquatic life near the diffuser, BP will be required to conduct an annual survey of the aquatic life in the vicinity of the diffuser.

There was a public meeting in 1994 in Whiting regarding the original submittal of an application for an alternate mixing zone. This information was also made known to the public when the permit was public noticed on March 7, 2007.

Nothing is being done to prevent exposure of aquatic life to the effluent in the discharged induced mixing zone just like nothing is being done to prevent aquatic life from being exposed to the effluent mixing zone from Outfall 001 that has been discharging on the bank of Lake Michigan for several decades without the benefit of the rapid mixing that will occur out in the lake.

and

Response 65:
IDEM is aware of the presence of Lake Sturgeon in the near shore environment of Lake Michigan. The size of the mixing zone (a radius 182 feet from the diffuser) is not very large and the diffuser ports will be pointed up. The rapid mixing of the effluent caused by the high rate of discharge from the diffuser will create a mixing zone that is much better for aquatic life than the existing situation where the effluent is discharged at the shore of Lake Michigan and it slowly mixes with the water of Lake Michigan. The existing discharge has not caused any fish kills, and using a high rate diffuser will reduce the amount of exposure and concentration of pollutants that may be present whenever a fish wanders into the mixing zone. The proposed mass effluent limits for ammonia are approximately ½ the mass allowed for this discharge to meet Indiana water quality criteria for ammonia, so it is well below the level deemed to be protective of all aquatic life.

and

Response 87:
The anticipated increase in the loading of ammonia to BP's wastewater treatment plant is an estimate based on the information available at this time. The increases in the loading of ammonia to Lake Michigan will be well below the allowable loading calculated using Indiana water quality criteria for ammonia. Therefore, the increase in ammonia loading will not have substantial, negative impacts on the health and vitality of Lake Michigan.

PUBLIC NOTICE ADDENDUM (QUESTIONS/RESPONSES)

Do y'all remember the fish that were found dead all along the shores of Lake Michigan not too long ago. It was the same time that the spinach scare on the west coast was happening. I believe that the spinach scare was to draw the attention of the public away from the actions of BP in the Great Lakes.

BP shouldn't even be allowed to do that, its not their lake to dump all their crap in

--Under the circumstances-- they are being allowed- through every legal process provided by the State. The people can change the law, if they see fit. As of now, the decision is deemed legally, environmentally, technically, socially, and economically acceptable.

The U.S. has 3 times the lakeshore residents compared to Canada, but each side has runoff/ untreated problems. I also recognize that decades of environmental rulings have kept the Lakes viable.

I think BP Whiting does produce about 2% of Great Lakes pollution, which is a lot. No doubt. But, they can not bury it. Nor, can they burn it all. They recycle what they can, and spread the rest around (air; water; and haul off the sulfur). It is the least of all evils, so to speak.

As for "not their lake to dump ... in"- not exactly. They are an american division of an international company, which is located and discharges within Indiana and its territory. I would guess they are seven miles from the lake boundary to the north, and four miles from the western lake boundary. Since the diffuser will be 3500 ft. from shore, they are within jurisdictional limits of the State of Indiana.

Considering how serious the topic is, this almost sounds like one step forward, then two steps back. Some algae can be noxious or toxic. Last I heard, don't eat the fish. And, drink highly filtered water (some areas).

It's not relevant, but BP Products North America was charged with cornering the propane market (2004) and manipulating the price of propane (2003), for millions of dollars. They never made any money, but they drove prices up in late Febuary, 2004.

Refineries bled billons of dollars the last decade. With high gas prices, they now do better. I'm not real sure about
sugarcane or corn or wood scrap or bamboo grass or whatever replacing oil. Canada has all those tar sands they are trying to export to the U.S., and it's convenient.

Indiana isn't the only state on Lake Michigan, why don't Wisconsin and Michigan do something. Oh well, maybe they would given BP the same deal if they had the chance.

Man, when I was a kid in Michigan I use to love lake perch. There was a place in Ludington, MI where you could get all you could eat. Now most the fish are gone and what is left is inedible, what a waste. Maybe we should picket our locals BP's.

We are talking about BP 'cause they made the news. The others aren't much better either.

Seriously trying to save 10% energy this year could make a difference though. But that would mean more walking, less driving. Turn up the thermostats in summer and down in winter. Change you traditional light bulbs for energy savers. But I guess you have heard it before....

I changed my light bulbs, I turned up my thermostats (even though it is hard on my health), I limit my driving and drive a small car. I can't change to walking or biking anymore like I use to, but I do my best to protect the environment as much as I can. These big oil and manufacturing companies in most cases aren't even trying. It is like we are making a big step back to the fifties environmental practice when rivers were so polluted they would catch fire. We have taken one of the greatest inland fisheries and destroyed it. It is sad, very sad.

Darkwind, you are aware that those new "I-gotta-be-environmentally-conscious" lightbulbs have high amounts of mercury in them, right? And that you have to dispose of them via proper channels, lest the mercury infect our landfills?

Most folks don't realize that - and they happily dump the old bulbs because of the energy savings... and don't realize that they are killing the planet via mercury poisoning.

Home Depot and other stores have proper disposing methods for CFL's, just ask around and they will take them. BTW, the levels of mercury in CFL's are the same as watch batteries but we should still never toss them in the regular trash.

When one of the things burns out I'll make sure I dispose of it properly. I think they last about 5 years and save me about $20 dollars a month on my electric bill. I try to recycle every thing I can and dispose of bad waste properly. I don't think dumping 1,584lbs pounds of ammonia and 4,925lbs of sludge a day in Lake Michigan is disposing of waste properly. BP and the State of Illinois are not doing their fair share.

Absolutely!

And this bulb contains mercury ... so does your thermometer. Your smoke alarm contains radioactivity. The point is not that there is a harmful element in a closed environment. The question is to properly dispose of them instead of throwing it into the trash. Which, by the way is also problematic for traditional light bulbs.

I've been using those energy saving fluros though out my house workshop & garage for yrs...they don't save that much more than standard bulbs and as for them lasting 1000 hrs or 3yrs which ever comes first...bulsh*t. My electrician has been saying for yrs that the tiny computer chip inside the base blows before the bulb does in most cases from constantly switching them on and off. He also said it's actually cheaper to run them by leaving them on thats what they were originally designed for(fluorescent)rather than switching them off and on all the time, thats where most of the power is drawn also.
To top it all off we're getting hit with yet another price rise from AGL at the end of August. lol!

Can't say the same, and that thing you call computer, at least in the brand I am using, is a cheap low tech thermo switch (very much like a florescent tube's)

You shouldn't be allowed to pollute the great lakes. Thats bull! Green peace needs an assassin branch.

They had a gang called Sea Shepperd, got kicked out though after trying to sink Iceland's whaling fleet. Whatever happened to them?

The ones i use are a Phillips brand, very similar to this ...they retail for about $6-8 depending where you buy them.

I use the cheap Chinese imitations (shame, shame)