Letter to Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Letter

Durbin Opposes Permit That Will Allow Indiana Refinery to Pollute Lake Michigan

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) today sent a letter to Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to express his strong opposition to a permit that will allow BP's Whiting refinery in Indiana to discharge more pollution into Lake Michigan. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, recently approved by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), will allow BP to increase ammonia and sludge pollution discharges into Lake Michigan by 50 percent and 35 percent respectively.

In today's letter Durbin said, "Lake Michigan is one of our nation's greatest natural resources and serves as the drinking water supply for over 40 million people - including the entire Chicago metropolitan area, supports a significant commercial fishing industry, and supports numerous recreational activities… It is our responsibility to support efforts to restore, rather than further degrade Lake Michigan. We should be working toward the goal of eliminating pollution in this fresh water ecosystem."

The permit runs counter to the Clean Water Act and the State of Indiana's anti-degradation policy. A specific provision in the federal Clean Water Act prohibits any downgrade in water quality near a pollution source even if discharge limits are met. In today's letter, Durbin asked EPA, which has authority over state environmental agencies, to: justify their decision to grant the permit; answer to the harmful environmental impact of granting it; explain the legality of the permit under the Clean Water Act.

Senator Durbin also joined with Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) in sending a letter to the EPA Administrator, Stephen L. Johnson expressing strong concern over the issuance of the permit and requesting for a hold to be placed on the permit until certain assurances have been met.

The text of the letters appears below:

July 16, 2007

Benjamin Grumbles
Assistant Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4101M)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Assistant Administrator Grumbles:

I write in strong opposition to a proposed National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit approved by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) that will allow BP's Whiting refinery in Indiana to discharge more pollution into Lake Michigan. This permit will allow BP to increase ammonia and sludge pollution discharges into Lake Michigan by 50 percent and 35 percent respectively.

The goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to minimize and eventually eliminate the discharge of pollutants into our rivers and lakes. As you know, the anti-backsliding regulation prohibits the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from reissuing NPDES permits that allow more pollutant discharge than was allowed in the previous permit.

The NPDES permit issued to BP by IDEM is clearly out of step with federal regulation as well as the State of Indiana's anti-degradation policy. With respect to the authority provided to EPA by Section 401 of the CWA, please provide specific answers to the following questions:

* To what extent has EPA been involved with and reviewed the IDEM's proposed permit for the Whiting BP refinery expansion proposal? On what basis did EPA allow or not object to IDEM's issuance of this permit?
* How does EPA reconcile the terms of this proposed permit with the anti-backsliding and/or anti-degradation language of the CWA?
* News reports identify a space constraint at the BP facility as an impediment to reducing ammonia and sludge waste from the proposed expanded facility. Has EPA examined whether BP has the capability to increase the on-site wastewater treatment facility to eliminate the additional pollution expected by this facility's expansion? Does EPA believe that such a space limitation justifies the increased levels of pollution into Lake Michigan?
* News reports also identify economic growth as a justification for the expanded plant. Does the EPA believe that "economic growth" and "environmental protection" are contradictory? If not, under what provisions or implementing regulations of the CWA did EPA allow or not object to the issuance of this permit?
* In this regard, what was the analytical rationale for EPA's allowance or lack of objection?
* Is it EPA's intent to allow a permit that runs counter to the goals of the CWA, especially in a situation where the affected industry has the technological capability to eliminate the pollution covered by this proposed permit?
* What is EPA's understanding of the cumulative environmental impact of an additional 578,160 pounds per year of ammonia that will be dumped into Lake Michigan?
* What is EPA's understanding of the cumulative impacts on the Lake Michigan ecosystem of the nearly 2 million additional pounds of sludge that will be allowed by this proposed permit?
* To what extent has EPA examined the cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed refinery expansion including the emissions of greenhouse gasses, mercury emission releases as well as mercury contamination is suspended solids and chlorides?
* What is EPA's understanding of the cumulative impact on the Lake Michigan ecosystem of the anticipated new emissions of mercury that could be allowed by this plant's expansion?
* Does EPA plan to object to IDEM's issuance of any other permits until the above concerns regarding the NPDES permit are fully addressed?

Lake Michigan is one of our nation's greatest natural resources and serves as the drinking water supply for over 40 million people - including the entire Chicago metropolitan area, supports a significant commercial fishing industry, and supports numerous recreational activities. Pollution from industrial, agricultural and municipal sources already poses a serious threat to the ecological health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. It is our responsibility to support efforts to restore, rather than further degrade Lake Michigan. We should be working toward the goal of eliminating pollution in this fresh water ecosystem.

I appreciate your immediate attention and response to this issue.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

Cc: The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, U.S. EPA

Source