By Gitte Laasby, Post-Tribune staff writer
According to records from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, BP's main argument for not treating its wastewater better was that it lacked the space for a treatment plant to specifically reduce ammonia.
IDEM records state that on Dec. 8, 2006, the agency called BP to ask why the company "had not considered any upgrades to their wastewater treatment plant to enhance its ammonia removal capabilities."
BP responded four days later, saying, "BP North America stated that they do not have the space available at the Whiting refinery to expand their wastewater treatment plant to further enhance its ability to remove ammonia from the wastewater."
To be allowed to discharge more, BP had to demonstrate that "all economically and technically feasible measures have been taken to avoid" increasing pollution and that it's not "feasible" to limit the added pollution to a shorter time, IDEM states in a fact sheet.
Asked why the document doesn't list technological capabilities as the main barrier to reducing pollution, BP spokesman Tom Keilman said BP's technical review team examined the options during the permitting process. The company demonstrated it considered technologically feasible alternatives, he said.
"I believe in the discussion that we had with some of the local environmental groups that we mentioned that. My understanding is, we had to demonstrate in the permit process that we reviewed the best available technologies. These were all things IDEM took into consideration when they issued the permit to us," Keilman said. "That's why IDEM made the exception they did in regards to ammonia and TSS (total suspended solids)."
Technology of the size, scale and reliability that BP needed wasn't available, he said.
BP officials are still trying to figure out what "feasible alternatives" the company agreed to look over before officials report back to Congress on Sept. 1.
Meanwhile, public pressure continues to make BP do more than required.
BP officials and others have said the reason for the outrage is that people wrongly believe the company is discharging sludge into Lake Michigan. The company says the discharge is not "sludge" but "suspended solids."
Tom Anderson, executive director of Save the Dunes Council, said BP's own experts indicated more treatment was possible when they told environmentalists and state officials that additional treatment would take 12,000 square feet of space for larger wastewater vessels.
"They told us they needed more space for larger vessels - for denitrification. It was not a technical issue. This seems to be a contradiction. According to what they told us, it was a money issue because they couldn't find the space," Anderson said. "I don't understand why they can say it's not feasible to treat ammonia. It's very feasible to treat ammonia. That's according to their own engineers."
Anderson said that's the spin the company and government officials are putting on the issue. He said people are outraged because the company is allowed to increase its discharges to Lake Michigan after efforts to clean up the lake --regardless what is discharged.
"They can explain it away and say, 'The process is this' but it comes down to, are you adding more pollution to the lake? You're going to benefit, we're going to lose. People are saying, 'You can't do this anymore,' " Anderson said.