By Jim Tankersley
The House today overwhelmingly approved a measure opposing BP's plans to increase ammonia and suspended solids dumping into Lake Michigan from an Indiana oil refinery.
The measure, sponsored by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) passed 387 to 26, with no one in the Illinois delegation opposed (though Republican Rep. Ray LaHood apparently missed the vote). It urges the state of Indiana to reconsider a waste discharge permit it issued to BP, and it tells the federal Environmental Protection Agency to "not allow increased dumping of chemicals and pollutants into the Great Lakes."
It's the latest in a series of congressional attacks on BP, (for more read this story in today's Tribune) and Illinois lawmakers were quick to laud its passage.
Emanuel issued a statement saying "This Congress will not simply stand by while our Great Lakes are treated like a dumping zone." Republican Rep. Mark Kirk's statement declared "If BP refuses to stop this environmental degradation, Congress is clearly ready to step in with a legislative solution."
Read on for the full text of the resolution:
Whereas the Great Lakes are the largest surface freshwater system on the planet;
Whereas the Great Lakes account for 95 percent of the United States' surface fresh water and about 21 percent of the world's supply;
Whereas the Great Lakes provide drinking water for more than 30 million Americans;
Whereas, on May 18, 2004, President George W. Bush said `the Great Lakes are a national treasure';
Whereas Congress has expressed its commitment to protecting the Great Lakes from pollutants and contaminants through the Clean Water Act and subsequent legislation;
Whereas the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Environment Canada joined together in promulgating the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy to eliminate the presence of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes basin;
Whereas the `mixing zones' that dilute toxic chemicals discharged into the Great Lakes system have been controversial as a possible threat to humans, fish and wildlife;
Whereas the Great Lakes are plagued by pollutants such as mercury, PCBs, ammonia, DDT, alkylated lead, hexachlorobenzene, TCDD, toxaphene, and others;
Whereas high amounts of ammonia can cause algae blooms that threaten fish and water quality;
Whereas the Indiana Department of Environmental Management recently issued a permit to BP PLC to allow their facility in Whiting, IN, to release 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more total suspended solids into Lake Michigan each day;
Whereas the BP Whiting facility will now be allowed to dump an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of total suspended solids daily into Lake Michigan;
Whereas the Great Lakes already face myriad challenges from chemicals and pollutants, including a steep increase in fish consumption warnings and record numbers of beach closures; and
Whereas Congress has a clear role in protecting the Great Lakes as an entity that spans across State and international boundaries: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress expresses its disapproval of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's issuance of a permit allowing BP to increase their daily dumping of ammonia and total suspended solids into Lake Michigan;
(2) Congress urges the State of Indiana to reconsider issuance of a permit allowing BP to increase their daily dumping of ammonia and total suspended solids into Lake Michigan;
(3) Congress should take action to protect and restore the Great Lakes;
(4) the United States Environmental Protection Agency's actions in the Great Lakes basin should be consistent with the goal of preserving and restoring the Great Lakes; and
(5) the United States Environmental Protection Agency should not allow increased dumping of chemicals and pollutants into the Great Lakes.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Ever care to see "Not In My Back Yard" in practice? Funny how many of these same politicians were whining about gas prices a few weeks ago. Do you want cheap gas, or to save the environment? Personally, I'll take the environment, but it does come with a cost. As Dick Durbin (Democrat) said in this mornings news paper...
"increasing refinery capacity, and lowering gas prices in the process, would be unacceptable if it came at the expense of the water that we drink."
Posted by: Troy | July 25, 2007 2:57 PM
Aren't these the same folks who air all those ads promoting BP's heroic environmental efforts? Just more bs greenwashing from BP.
Posted by: dt | July 25, 2007 3:21 PM
They can't put together a friggin' budget, but they can pass a resolution that does absolutely nothing to stop BP from dumping. What a bunch of idiots.
Posted by: Linda | July 25, 2007 3:35 PM
little dick "Cheney",was the only rep in Congress years ago to vote against the "Clean Water Act".
Tells ya all you need to about the evil person he is.
Posted by: Raving Loon | July 25, 2007 3:43 PM
Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks. Whatever you think of Congress, they are not the ones suggesting the dumping and are not the ones that granted the permit. Do you want them to try and solve the problem or not? 80 jobs are not worth the dumping. BP is one of the companies that reported record profits last year and they can afford to clean their waste. They are simply trying to avoid it. Remember, folks- the problem is BP, not Congress.
Posted by: LES | July 25, 2007 3:49 PM
Linda the only idiotic statement in here is yours, if you feel the need to express your displeasure with Congress then pick a subject from fox noise or rush limp. Personally I give credit to Congress for taking fast action to prevent BP from polluting the Great Lakes any further. Remember even that water your drinking from that plastic bottle most likely came from Lake Michigan.
Posted by: Rory M | July 25, 2007 4:06 PM
You're a bunch of environmental whiney baby's who were probably bitching last week about the gas prices...
"The approved increases in ammonia and suspended solids still fall within federal limits" and are approximately half of the federal max limit.
By the way, the global warming conspiracy is based on flawed data also just incase you want to know the truth...
Posted by: Daren | July 25, 2007 4:15 PM
Rory, what was the fast action by COngress? Is this "scolding" going to stop BP from dumping more pollutants in the lake? No. It means nothing.
And, yes, the same folks who keep whining about high gas prices apparently are the same folks who don't want refinery expansion (see folks, demand exceeds supply, hence higher prices). The same folks who continually whine about high-paying jobs going by the wayside and that those folks now work for minimum wage at McDonalds apparently are the same folks who say, "80 jobs are worth the price."
You see, Loonhy Lefties the 80 high-paying jobs you deny here, the 100 high-paying jobs you deny there, the 250 high-paying jobs you deny there, all add up to lots of high-paying jobs gone!
Having said all of that, I don't like the idea of more pollution entering Lake Michigan. There has to be some alternative option available in which the refinery can be expanded without endangering the environment.
Posted by: John D | July 25, 2007 4:42 PM
You whiny folks have got to be kidding....
You want cheaper gas....but don't allow ANY expansion of refining capacity.
You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Did any one read how much more and what type of pollution is being discussed? The EPA rules were probably set by some of the very people that are whining about a company that followed those rules.
Sen. Turban and the rest of the ILL politicians are just SHOWBOATING for the news media...to draw attention from their own HUGE FOUL UPS !!!!
Gov Blago....no budget no clue what he's doing is probably on his knees thanking God for something he can use to deflect attention away from him..
Sen. Turban is an idiot who wants attention cause Barak is on the main stage.
Mayor Daley....the feds are are circling and his whine about the water is safe cover for him.
And the rest of you are acting all high and might about the enviroment and pollution as you are drinking water out of PLASTIC BOTTLES that won't breakdown for thousands of years! And you're drinking the bottled water cause you don't like tap water..Geez
Do you thing that BP would be that foolish to try and slip something like this by and risk lossing huge dollars in the future?
Apparently they've followed the federal and state rules in applying for these permits and met the requirements that were set out.
Here's something to consider...Are ILL's politicians really upset about the lake water or the fact that they don't have control over a big play in Indiana. They want their share!!!
Posted by: bob | July 25, 2007 5:09 PM
bob,
You just hit a grand slam!
Oh,and it's "Barack" not Barak...kinda like, Muslim vs.Muslam
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | July 25, 2007 5:34 PM
I won't go off on an off-topic tangent like some of the folks here already have. I will just say that I find it refreshing to see a true bipartisan effort to stop one state's plans to pollute on such an offensive level (regardless of what some think in terms of volume or content).
I for one would gladly pay more to drive my car than to give up on a Lake that can provide so much more for many generations after our selfish one is gone.
Leave the ignorance at home and start thinking to what you are leaving to the future.
Posted by: Brice | July 25, 2007 6:03 PM
"Do you thing that BP would be that foolish to try and slip something like this by and risk lossing huge dollars in the future?"
Yes, Yes I do. They've been that foolish before.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2283576
Posted by: Tony | July 25, 2007 6:22 PM
Those who think more pollution is okay probably have no one they care about left so they don't care what kind of world they leave behind.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | July 26, 2007 7:03 AM
It’s hard to believe that letting BP pollute the Great Lakes even further than they are now, they will somehow they’ll find it in their hart to lower gas prices , YEAH RIGHT. Refining capacity is the excuse they use to keep prices high, not the reason, that would be that they will charge as much as the public will tolerate. At over a billion a month profit they can certainly afford to dispose of their waste byproducts in an environmentally acceptable way without polluting the source of drinking water for millions of Americans.
And by the way Little Johnny Dipstick, that action Congress took was not just a “scolding” as you seem to think. It is the first step in taking action to passing legislation, and BP’s going to lose.
Posted by: Rory M | July 26, 2007 8:22 AM
I bet most of the lefty enivros are also the same people putting all energy efficient compact florescent light bulbs in their home...
...you know those things are full of mercury, each time you break one you're filling your house, landfill, lake with a toxic chemical that causes leukemia, birth defects, learning problems etc. Good luck finding a place that recycles them safely.
Posted by: Dan | July 26, 2007 10:27 AM
I bet most of the lefty enivros are also the same people putting all energy efficient compact florescent light bulbs in their home...
...you know those things are full of mercury, each time you break one you're filling your house, landfill, lake with a toxic chemical that causes leukemia, birth defects, learning problems etc. Good luck finding a place that recycles them safely.
Posted by: Dan | July 26, 2007 10:27 AM
I bet most of the lefty enivros are also the same people putting all energy efficient compact florescent light bulbs in their home...
...you know those things are full of mercury, each time you break one you're filling your house, landfill, lake with a toxic chemical that causes leukemia, birth defects, learning problems etc. Good luck finding a place that recycles them safely.
Posted by: Jan | July 26, 2007 10:30 AM
Brice,
Thanks for being honest. To cry on one hand for gasoline prices to come down, and on the other, to cry for people to stop using so much gas, is entirely irrational. For those who are worried about pollution and global warming, it is entirely appropriate to hope the price of gas goes even higher than it is now. As long as fuel prices remain at a level with which consumers are comfortable, consumption will only continue to rise, and there will be little incentive to find alternative fuel sources. Otherwise, the only option remaining is government fiat, and such compulsion usually results in poor quality products, as the businesses that are good at what they do leave the market because there is no profit to be made, and only businesses that produce to meet an arbitrary standard will remain.
Posted by: JB | July 26, 2007 10:58 AM
Hey Roy M,
BP wouldn't lose when Congress completes thier "process" and establishes new legislation...We'll pay the price !!!
Next...in ILL you know who makes the most money on a gallon of gas...here are some hints..NOT BP...NOT ExxonMobil...NOT SHELL...
A. It's the goverement...40+% of the price of Gas is TAXES..Surprise
Why do you think the taxes charged on a gas purchase aren't spelled out on your receipt at the station like on receipts for ALL other purchases you make.
YES we should keep where we live as clean as possible but it has to been tempered with some common sense too.
Refining is a dirty business as is steel manufacturing, auto making, chemical manufacture.
What do you want and how bad do you want it?
No refineries...OK if you are willing to walk everywhere cause making a bike requires steel, alumium, etc
EPA and state EPA rules we set by YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES...in this instance this company followed those rules and got approval...Now YOUR REPRESENTATIVES are crying foul because the rules they setup are being followed.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Posted by: bob | July 27, 2007 8:39 AM