Although officials at BP's Whiting refinery admit the facility dumps about 37,000 pounds of ammonia in Lake Michigan each year, members of a government watchdog group say the public is misled because the company is required to report to the EPA only 10 percent of that amount.

Moreover, the watchdogs say, the EPA system meant to inform the public of chemical releases by industry gives an incomplete snapshot of what is actually being dumped into the environment nationwide.

Federal reporting law, maligned by the Washington-based watchdog group OMB Watch, requires BP and other companies only to report to the EPA -- and therefore the public -- about 10 percent of the ammonia it dumps into Lake Michigan.

BP officials argue that its Whiting facility only releases a fraction of what it is allowed to dump under permits approved by the state and federal governments. In 2005 for example, permits allowed the facility to release an average of 1,030 pounds of ammonia per day, but company officials said it only dumped an average of 103 pounds.

"On average -- a day-in, and day-out basis -- we operate well below the current limits that are set for both ammonia and suspended solids," BP spokesman Tom Keilman said. "We always continually strive to be well below the limit."

But Sean Moulton, of OMB Watch, argues the permits are not the issue. The Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI, which the EPA uses to inform the public of chemical discharges by companies, is not telling the public the whole story, Moulton said.

"There are a variety of problems with how they've constructed the system," Moulton said. "I think the way the system is going, we're getting less information."

What the law says

In the case of the BP Whiting refinery, TRI data states that the facility released about 3,700 pounds of ammonia into the lake in 2005. That's only about 10 percent of what the company estimates it dumped that year.

Part of the 1986 federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act requires companies and the EPA to make data on some toxic chemicals available in TRI, a publicly searchable database.

Certain chemicals in the TRI have limits on what is reported, and in 1995, the EPA decided companies would report 10 percent of the total aqueous ammonia, or ammonia solution that goes into water sources such as Lake Michigan.

OMB Watch, a nonprofit watchdog focusing on regulatory policy, has been a vocal critic of the TRI and past EPA changes in lowering TRI reporting limits.

"It's almost ironic that in an age where information is getting more easy to access, EPA seems to be going in the opposite direction in TRI," said Moulton, director of federal policy information for OMB Watch.

Is it citizen-friendly?

An EPA spokesman said the goal is not to mislead citizens researching their community's pollution but to tell them what they need to know.

"The intent is ... to be more accurate about what portion of an ammonia release is toxic to the environment," said Seth Dibblee, EPA environmental data coordinator.

But the agency's own rule does not dispute that the total amount of ammonia released -- not just 10 percent of the discharge -- can be toxic to the environment.

"EPA does not believe that reporting total aqueous ammonia in some manner would drastically overstate the amount of toxic chemical released, since both forms of ammonia contribute to the toxicity of an aqueous solution of ammonia," the EPA's rule states.

In a time of public concern, with BP pushing to increase its daily dumping, why not require companies to report all of their ammonia released into the lake?

"I just don't know," EPA spokesman Mick Hans said.

Local environmental groups echo that TRI fails to tell the full story.

"You can't rely on (TRI) to give you the whole picture out there," said Cameron Davis, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes.

But its intent, in part, is to do just that.

According to the EPA, "The goal of TRI is to empower citizens, through information, to hold companies and local governments accountable..."

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management, in fact, uses the TRI, in part, to monitor companies, IDEM spokeswoman Amy Hartsock said.

Region environmentalist Lee Botts warned that while TRI may not paint a full picture, "Even if (citizens) know the full amount, I don't think that informs them."

She cautioned that citizens shouldn't view ammonia as being as hazardous as other TRI-listed chemicals, such as cyanide.

But OMB Watch's Moulton criticized the lack of risk information included with the TRI's chemical data.

"People just want to know, 'How bad is it?'" Moulton said. "EPA just doesn't present the information in a way that makes an easy question to answer."

Staff writer Pat Guinane contributed to this report.