Q: What does Lake Michigan need more of? BP's answer: Lead and ammonia!

The Coffee Shop
2

I read this article and the preceding July 15 article as well. Both are horribly written - no analysis, no context. I used to work in this arena; first doing pure research at University and then in the “real” world. I also worked on the old Inland Steel site to do assessment and remediation work.

This is not the EPA’s doing. Both Illinois and Indiana are “Designated States” meaning that the states are responsible for issuing discharge permits - which include setting water quality standards for the receiving waters. The increase in ammonia and “sludge” (an unnecessarily alarmist word) is actually pretty small. Lake Michigan has bigger problems from non-point sources and from municipal sewage treatment plants (especially in the area of ammonia and suspended solids).

Unfortunately, kerfuffles like this usually revolve around money. Since BP is perceived to have deep pockets, they will cough up some dough to the politician’s re-election funds, donate some money to “environmental” groups, and create some man-made wetlands somewhere and everyone will pat themselves on the back and the real problems won’t be addressed.

This is a prime example of why I got out of the field and why newspaper reporters suck at scientific articles.

4

My complaint is that anything gets dumped into Lake Michigan. I especially disapprove of heavy metal dumping.

Understood. However the storm sewers from Chicago dump (ultimately) into Lake Michigan. Based on my previous experience it is likely that the runoff from an average thunderstorm is will carry heavy metal loads at least 1000 times greater than what BP will discharge into the Lake. Are you (and the fine tax payers of Cook County) willing to pay to treat this? As I mentioned, the article is crap. Yes the “sludge” (or suspended solids) will contain metals - however, these metals must meet their respective discharge limits. They are not being hidden away in the suspended solids and not being accounted for.

The heavy metals sorbed on sediments and transported from the Grand Calumet should be much more of a concern and dwarfs what BP is discharging.

That Indiana is still issuing permits to increase dumping volume is unacceptable, and that the EPA is not stepping in to say no is also troublesome. I also find it morally objectionable that BP feels O.K. with all their toxic waste getting dumped into Lake Michigan.

I doubt that BP dumps all of their toxic waste into Lake Michigan. Their treatment plant (mentioned in the article) removes a substantial amount of pollutants and these pollutants must be disposed according to a RCRA permit.

The discharge permit issued is based on meeting Federal and State water quality standards. The state can make the standards more stringent than the Feds, but they can’t make them looser. BP’s discharge meets these water quality standards. What happens when municipalities hook up more homes to their sanitary sewer system? Their dumping volume increases - the loads to Lake Michigan increase.

The BP permit is not a scientific or health issue it has become a political issue. Senator Durbin can make as many speeches as he wants, but he still drives a car that car will leave organics on the road from his tires, oil from his crankcase, and heavy metals from the chassis and body. These toxic wastes, as well as the wastes from 2 million other cars, will end up “downstream”.

The plague of industry generating “waste” (is there such a thing?) and then making it “disappear” by dumping it in landfills, bodies of water, or burying it has got to stop.

This highlights my point. It is not industry. It is us and everything we do. Do we focus our attention on a company discharging less than 1% of the ammonia load to Lake Michigan or do we focus our attention on the municipal systems that contribute over 50% (or higher)? Do we focus on a company that meets the state’s discharge requirements for lead, or do we focus on stormwater and other nonpoint sources that likely contribute over 90% of the load? Keep in mind that these loads will increase as population and miles driven as well.

My point (and I do have one) is not to defend BP per se; rather to highlight the inherent problems of environmental regulation. BP is doing what the regulators and regulations (both state and federal) have required of them. Is it enough? If not, change the regulations. If your objective is to stop pollutant levels at some arbitrary baseline (i.e., no increase into the Lake) ask Cook County to hold non-point sources at the current level. It will have a much larger impact on the lake than BP’s discharge permit.

6

I don’t understand why anyone is allowed to dump anything into the lake!!

I mean, we don’t let people litter in our parks or in our towns. Why would we let a company dump its waste into our fresh water systems?

Retarded.

Anecdotally, I grew up near Cleveland and remember finding a penny on the ‘beach’ at Lake Erie (Mentor Headlands, I think). It was so corroded and destroyed that it was barely distinguishable. That doesn’t just ‘happen’ under normal circumstances.

7

As a society, what do we do with our wastes? I used to teach an Environmental Ethics class and it is very easy to say “we should be a ‘zero waste’ society”. Technologically, economically, scientifically, it will never happen. Working toward that goal, however, is what we should be doing. Before sewage treatment plants, Chicago used to dump untreated waste directly into the Chicago River and ultimately into Lake Michigan. People got sick and it stunk. Then someone had the great idea to change the direction of flow of the river and the wastes flowed inland. The waste didn’t go away, it just went someplace else. We can make the waste go someplace else, but are people willing to pay for it?

Think about what our waterways in urban areas were like 50 or 100 years ago. Government and industry has made huge strides in reducing wastes released to the environment. And, in general, water is cleaner today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Every organism, every society generates waste. Fortunately we have the economic wherewithal to substantially reduce our wastes, more than any other economy on earth.

It is our decision on what we do. I did the “Ride the Rockies” bike tour a few years ago and we went past the Climax Mine outside of Leadville, CO. It was one of the largest molybdenum mines in the world. I was riding with a guy on a nice steel Serotta. He complained up and down of how ugly the mine was, how it ruined the mountain, and how the mining industry was raping the land, etc. I pointed out that he was riding a steel chrome-moly frame and it was likely that the moly in his bike came from this mine. What is important to us? I think western countries have done a pretty good job balancing environmental concerns and