QUOTE
Indiana is moving to scrap, relax or omit limits on toxic chemicals and heavy metals dumped into a Lake Michigan tributary by the sprawling U.S. Steel Corp. mill in Gary, according to environmental lawyers and former federal regulators who have reviewed a proposed water permit.
Language outlining the changes is buried in 117 densely worded pages under consideration by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, which provoked a public outcry this year when it gave a nearby BP refinery permission to significantly increase pollution discharged into the lake.
BP explicitly asked to dump more pollution. By contrast, Indiana regulators and U.S. Steel officials insist the latest proposal will not allow the Gary Works to increase the amount of oil, grease, metals and chemicals pumped into the Grand Calumet River before it empties into Lake Michigan.
Related links
Lake Michigan and pollution coverage
Steel mill's contributions to water pollution Graphic The permit appears to tell a different story, raising questions about Indiana's enforcement of federal and state laws intended to clean up the nation's lakes and rivers.
The Gary Works, a massive complex of blast furnaces, coke ovens and steel-finishing mills about 15 miles southeast of Chicago, already is the largest source of water pollution in the Lake Michigan basin, dumping more than 1.7 million pounds in 2005.
Experts who have analyzed the mill's proposed new permit say that at some points where the steel mill discharges waste into the Grand Calumet, Indiana regulators eliminated or failed to include limits on toxic chemicals and metals that have turned the river into one of the most contaminated sites along the Great Lakes.
Specifically, U.S. Steel reports discharging oil and grease, lead, arsenic, benzene, fluoride and nitrates from waste-water pipes at the mill, yet the draft permit fails to limit emissions of these pollutants at all discharge points.
The permit also relaxes the limits on chromium, a heavy metal that builds up in fish over time. In humans, long-term exposure can damage the liver, kidneys and nervous system. The average allowable amount of chromium discharged from one waste-water pipe into the Grand Calumet would increase by 62 percent, to 17,702 pounds a year, and the permit does not require U.S. Steel to curb discharges from other pipes.
For other pollutants, regulators agreed to give U.S. Steel an additional five years to meet federal standards that have been on the books for more than a decade. Mercury, cyanide, ammonia, zinc, copper and a chemical called benzo(a)pyrene fall into that category.
Violations charged
Though limits on the oil and grease flowing from some pipes would change under the new permit, the total amount that ends up in the river would remain at a minimum of 1 million pounds a year. Moreover, no limits are set on several pipes where U.S. Steel reports the pollutants are discharged into the river. Historical dumping of oil and grease is one reason why the Grand Calumet remains one of the region's most polluted waterways.
Critics contend that the lack of more stringent standards for the Gary Works violates the Clean Water Act. The Grand Calumet carries the mill's pollution into Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for Chicago and scores of other communities.
If the permit is approved, critics note, the mill would be cleared to dump more pollutants even as Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel is paying to dredge out of the river millions of cubic yards of contaminated muck from decades of past industrial abuse.
"There are very serious problems with this permit that must be addressed," said Ann Alexander, a Chicago attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. "Given what happened with the BP situation, there should be much greater public scrutiny before Indiana moves forward."
State regulators gave citizens and environmental groups until the beginning of October to file comments about the proposed U.S. Steel permit. Most who have tried to make sense of the document said they found it impossible to determine whether overall levels of various pollutants would increase, decrease or remain the same.
Citizens who attended a recent public hearing said they also were frustrated by the state's response to their questions.
"This permit is indecipherable," said John Crayton, a Chesterton, Ind., physician. "They tell me I'm going to get some answers, but I'm still waiting."
After initially offering to give the Tribune a tour of the Gary Works, U.S. Steel declined to answer questions related to the permit. The company instead provided a slide presentation, titled "Environmental Stewardship is a Core Value," that declares the permit "has no discharge limit increases" and "will further ensure the protection of aquatic life and human health."
"We aren't going to hash this out in the media," said John Armstrong, a U.S. Steel spokesman.
The Tribune asked Indiana regulators in early September to provide more details on the permit. After demanding that questions be submitted in writing, a spokesman responded on Oct. 5 by saying the agency still is compiling a list that summarizes how overall pollution limits would change at the Gary Works.
On Wednesday, the agency issued a statement contending that the new permit will do more to protect the environment than the existing document. In some cases, the statement said, the steel mill changed its processes and eliminated the potential to release certain pollutants.
The agency also is reviewing comments submitted by environmental groups to determine whether any revisions are necessary, it said.
Steel mill's contributions to water pollution Graphic "This is a very big permit, and I understand why people are confused," Bruno Pigott, the agency's assistant commissioner, said in an interview Thursday. "Our analysis shows we are protecting water quality."
Pigott declined to answer specific questions about the permit, but said the agency will not finalize it until officials respond to public questions and concerns. Federal regulators also are reviewing the proposal, but a spokeswoman for the U.S. EPA's regional office in Chicago said any questions must be answered by Indiana officials.
Under federal law, states are required to renew water permits every five years to help meet the Clean Water Act goal of eliminating pollution. The Gary Works is one of 10 major polluters in Indiana operating under expired permits that have been extended by state officials. Its permit hasn't been reissued since 1994.BP's refinery in Whiting also had been operating under an expired permit. After the Tribune reported that regulators had approved the oil company's bid to dump more pollution into Lake Michigan, a groundswell of public protest and threats of legal action forced the company to back down. BP promised to abide by the more stringent limits in its previous permit.
In a document posted on the Internet, Indiana regulators wrote that they removed some pollution limits from the old U.S. Steel permit because they concluded the mill wasn't likely to exceed them in the future.
For instance, the document states that the company's coke plant is a major source of benzene, a toxic chemical that can damage the immune system and cause cancer. U.S. Steel reported to federal regulators that it released 220 pounds of benzene into the Grand Calumet in 2005.
Yet regulators said they eliminated specific limits for benzene in the new permit after the company provided data showing it "no longer shows reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards."
At several of the waste-water pipes, the permit merely requires the company to report how much benzene and other pollutants it discharges into the Grand Calumet.
Regulators can amend the permit if those reports indicate any problems, Pigott said. But critics argue that the lack of specific limits gives U.S. Steel permission to discharge unlimited amounts of pollution, threatening to undercut years of efforts to clean up the heavily industrialized waterway.
Starting in late 1960s, environmental regulators from Illinois, Chicago and the federal government waged epic legal battles with U.S. Steel to control pollution from the Gary Works. In 1977, five years after Congress approved the Clean Water Act, the company settled several lawsuits by agreeing to install pollution controls.
Overall discharges from the plant dropped to 1.7 million pounds in 2005 from 3.2 million pounds five years earlier, according to federal records. But three decades after U.S. Steel promised to clean up the Gary Works, the steel mill remains one of the region's largest sources of water pollution.
"This isn't supposed to be happening," said Dale Bryson, chairman of the Alliance for the Great Lakes and former chief of the EPA's regional water office. "The whole purpose behind these laws and rules is to reduce pollution, not allow it to increase."
----------
mhawthorne@tribune.com
Language outlining the changes is buried in 117 densely worded pages under consideration by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, which provoked a public outcry this year when it gave a nearby BP refinery permission to significantly increase pollution discharged into the lake.
BP explicitly asked to dump more pollution. By contrast, Indiana regulators and U.S. Steel officials insist the latest proposal will not allow the Gary Works to increase the amount of oil, grease, metals and chemicals pumped into the Grand Calumet River before it empties into Lake Michigan.
Related links
Lake Michigan and pollution coverage
Steel mill's contributions to water pollution Graphic The permit appears to tell a different story, raising questions about Indiana's enforcement of federal and state laws intended to clean up the nation's lakes and rivers.
The Gary Works, a massive complex of blast furnaces, coke ovens and steel-finishing mills about 15 miles southeast of Chicago, already is the largest source of water pollution in the Lake Michigan basin, dumping more than 1.7 million pounds in 2005.
Experts who have analyzed the mill's proposed new permit say that at some points where the steel mill discharges waste into the Grand Calumet, Indiana regulators eliminated or failed to include limits on toxic chemicals and metals that have turned the river into one of the most contaminated sites along the Great Lakes.
Specifically, U.S. Steel reports discharging oil and grease, lead, arsenic, benzene, fluoride and nitrates from waste-water pipes at the mill, yet the draft permit fails to limit emissions of these pollutants at all discharge points.
The permit also relaxes the limits on chromium, a heavy metal that builds up in fish over time. In humans, long-term exposure can damage the liver, kidneys and nervous system. The average allowable amount of chromium discharged from one waste-water pipe into the Grand Calumet would increase by 62 percent, to 17,702 pounds a year, and the permit does not require U.S. Steel to curb discharges from other pipes.
For other pollutants, regulators agreed to give U.S. Steel an additional five years to meet federal standards that have been on the books for more than a decade. Mercury, cyanide, ammonia, zinc, copper and a chemical called benzo(a)pyrene fall into that category.
Violations charged
Though limits on the oil and grease flowing from some pipes would change under the new permit, the total amount that ends up in the river would remain at a minimum of 1 million pounds a year. Moreover, no limits are set on several pipes where U.S. Steel reports the pollutants are discharged into the river. Historical dumping of oil and grease is one reason why the Grand Calumet remains one of the region's most polluted waterways.
Critics contend that the lack of more stringent standards for the Gary Works violates the Clean Water Act. The Grand Calumet carries the mill's pollution into Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for Chicago and scores of other communities.
If the permit is approved, critics note, the mill would be cleared to dump more pollutants even as Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel is paying to dredge out of the river millions of cubic yards of contaminated muck from decades of past industrial abuse.
"There are very serious problems with this permit that must be addressed," said Ann Alexander, a Chicago attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. "Given what happened with the BP situation, there should be much greater public scrutiny before Indiana moves forward."
State regulators gave citizens and environmental groups until the beginning of October to file comments about the proposed U.S. Steel permit. Most who have tried to make sense of the document said they found it impossible to determine whether overall levels of various pollutants would increase, decrease or remain the same.
Citizens who attended a recent public hearing said they also were frustrated by the state's response to their questions.
"This permit is indecipherable," said John Crayton, a Chesterton, Ind., physician. "They tell me I'm going to get some answers, but I'm still waiting."
After initially offering to give the Tribune a tour of the Gary Works, U.S. Steel declined to answer questions related to the permit. The company instead provided a slide presentation, titled "Environmental Stewardship is a Core Value," that declares the permit "has no discharge limit increases" and "will further ensure the protection of aquatic life and human health."
"We aren't going to hash this out in the media," said John Armstrong, a U.S. Steel spokesman.
The Tribune asked Indiana regulators in early September to provide more details on the permit. After demanding that questions be submitted in writing, a spokesman responded on Oct. 5 by saying the agency still is compiling a list that summarizes how overall pollution limits would change at the Gary Works.
On Wednesday, the agency issued a statement contending that the new permit will do more to protect the environment than the existing document. In some cases, the statement said, the steel mill changed its processes and eliminated the potential to release certain pollutants.
The agency also is reviewing comments submitted by environmental groups to determine whether any revisions are necessary, it said.
Steel mill's contributions to water pollution Graphic "This is a very big permit, and I understand why people are confused," Bruno Pigott, the agency's assistant commissioner, said in an interview Thursday. "Our analysis shows we are protecting water quality."
Pigott declined to answer specific questions about the permit, but said the agency will not finalize it until officials respond to public questions and concerns. Federal regulators also are reviewing the proposal, but a spokeswoman for the U.S. EPA's regional office in Chicago said any questions must be answered by Indiana officials.
Under federal law, states are required to renew water permits every five years to help meet the Clean Water Act goal of eliminating pollution. The Gary Works is one of 10 major polluters in Indiana operating under expired permits that have been extended by state officials. Its permit hasn't been reissued since 1994.BP's refinery in Whiting also had been operating under an expired permit. After the Tribune reported that regulators had approved the oil company's bid to dump more pollution into Lake Michigan, a groundswell of public protest and threats of legal action forced the company to back down. BP promised to abide by the more stringent limits in its previous permit.
In a document posted on the Internet, Indiana regulators wrote that they removed some pollution limits from the old U.S. Steel permit because they concluded the mill wasn't likely to exceed them in the future.
For instance, the document states that the company's coke plant is a major source of benzene, a toxic chemical that can damage the immune system and cause cancer. U.S. Steel reported to federal regulators that it released 220 pounds of benzene into the Grand Calumet in 2005.
Yet regulators said they eliminated specific limits for benzene in the new permit after the company provided data showing it "no longer shows reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards."
At several of the waste-water pipes, the permit merely requires the company to report how much benzene and other pollutants it discharges into the Grand Calumet.
Regulators can amend the permit if those reports indicate any problems, Pigott said. But critics argue that the lack of specific limits gives U.S. Steel permission to discharge unlimited amounts of pollution, threatening to undercut years of efforts to clean up the heavily industrialized waterway.
Starting in late 1960s, environmental regulators from Illinois, Chicago and the federal government waged epic legal battles with U.S. Steel to control pollution from the Gary Works. In 1977, five years after Congress approved the Clean Water Act, the company settled several lawsuits by agreeing to install pollution controls.
Overall discharges from the plant dropped to 1.7 million pounds in 2005 from 3.2 million pounds five years earlier, according to federal records. But three decades after U.S. Steel promised to clean up the Gary Works, the steel mill remains one of the region's largest sources of water pollution.
"This isn't supposed to be happening," said Dale Bryson, chairman of the Alliance for the Great Lakes and former chief of the EPA's regional water office. "The whole purpose behind these laws and rules is to reduce pollution, not allow it to increase."
----------
mhawthorne@tribune.com