Citizens’ Fact Sheet For Use at Public Hearing Concerning Draft Permits for BP CHXO Project, Whiting, Indiana:
Significant Source Modification No.: 089-25484-00453
and Significant Permit Modification No.: 089-25488-00453
Factual Background:
On February 5, 2008, IDEM published a notice of public comment period and hearing for a combined air permit for BP’s Whiting facility. The combined permit provides for both a state construction permit and a Title V air permit under the Clean Air Act for plant operation which the agency must approve before BP can begin the proposed $3.8 billion expansion of its Whiting facility. BP’s stated purpose for expanding its Whiting facility is to refine more, heavy crude oil from the Canada tar sands and increase motor fuels production by 1.7 million gallons per day.
IDEM’s notice triggered the required 30-day public comment period and scheduled the public hearing for February 25th which improperly gave the public a mere 20 days notice of the hearing and to review the 6,410-page combined permit documents. Seemingly in response to numerous requests for an extension of the public comment period and hearing date, IDEM extended the hearing date to March 14th and the public comment period to March 24th to correct its prior inadequate notice and to provide the required 30 day period for public comment.
Meaningful public involvement and careful review of the air permit is extremely important in light of the fact that this project will build into the refinery for coming decades the use of dirtier crude oil that requires more energy to refine, has a much higher sulfur content (and consequently much higher concentrations of hazardous H2S and SOx at the refinery), and will cause much higher emissions of greenhouse gases. Indeed, BP’s application requests increases in releases of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and lead by 2011. Furthermore, BP expects its expansion project to increase the facility’s carbon dioxide emissions by 30-50% although carbon dioxide is not regulated under the permit.
As will be discussed, there are several additional reasons for concern that have not been addressed by the proposed permits or disclosed by BP or IDEM. But first, the following explanation of the regulatory framework under which the permits must comply is provided for better public understanding of the critical issues involved.
Regulatory Background:
The primary purpose of the 1970 Clean Air Act (“CAA”) is “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” To achieve these goals, Congress instructed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to develop limits on the maximum concentrations of various pollutants allowable in different areas of the country, known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”). At present, NAAQS have been set for six criteria pollutants including: sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, and lead.
To enforce these limits, the CAA employs a system of cooperative federalism, requiring states to create plans “provid[ing] for implementation, maintenance, and enhancement” of the NAAQS. Such a plan, called a “state implementation plan” (“SIP”), must:
•
include enforceable emissions limitations and control measures, as well as compliance schedules;
•provide for monitoring and analysis of air quality;
•include an enforcement program, id. § 7410(a)(2)(C);
•regulate the construction and modification of sources of pollution;
•prohibit emissions that will harm other states' efforts toward reducing air pollution;
•assure proper funding, staffing, and legal authority to carry out the SIP; and
•require polluters to monitor the output of pollution and report the results to the state.
After several years under this regulatory regime, Congress recognized that merely setting ceilings on emissions did not discourage existing polluters from increasing their pollution levels up to these limits, or encourage new polluters to minimize their emissions. To fix this defect, Congress amended the CAA in 1977 to include the “New Source Review” program. New Source Review features “provisions for the protection of areas with relatively clean air known as Prevention of Significant Deterioration” or PSD.
Under PSD, each SIP must “contain emission limitations and such other measures as may be necessary . . . to prevent significant deterioration of air quality” by new sources of pollution or old sources that have undergone modifications. The PSD program applies to regions that the EPA classifies as being in “attainment” of NAAQS or as “unclassifiable.” Under what is commonly referred to as “Non-Attainment New Source Review” (NNSR), more stringent requirements apply to areas designated as being in “nonattainment” of NAAQS.
Because a key purpose of PSD is “to assure that any decision to permit increased air pollution is made only after careful evaluation of all the consequences of such a decision,” polluters “are required to limit emissions to a baseline rate and to obtain a permit before constructing or modifying facilities. These permits are often referred to as “PSD permits,” and they must both “set forth emission limitations for such facility,” and require that any proposed facility be “subject to the best available control technology (BACT) for each pollutant emitted from, or which results from” the facility. Under NNSR, a significant increase in emissions requires that the proposed facility be subject to the most stringent “lowest achievable emissions rate” (LAER).
Significantly, BACT is “an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction” possible, taking into account a number of factors and LAER is the most stringent emission limitation derived from any State SIP or achieved in practice by any such class or category of source. Additionally, PSD permits require the owner or operator of the plant to agree to ongoing monitoring “to determine the effect which emissions from any such facility may have, or is having, on air quality” in affected areas.
However, in Indiana the PSD program does not apply to all modifications of existing emissions sources. Instead, Indiana’s PSD regulations apply only to modifications that are considered “major” modifications. If a modification is not major, then PSD limits do not apply. Specifically, in Indiana:
[A] project is a major modification for a regulated NSR pollutant if it causes both a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase. The project is not a major modification if it does not cause a significant emissions increase. If the project causes a significant emissions increase, then the project is a major modification only if it also results in a significant net emissions increase.
Relative to BP’s air permits, this determination is critical to determining whether the expansion project is a “major” modification thereby subjecting the facility to the more stringent PSD requirements. Although, BP admits that the expansion project will result in significant increased emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, lead and CO2, it contends that the proposed facility expansion project is not a “major” modification and, therefore, not subject to the more stringent PSD requirements because the expected net emissions increases from the project are not significantly increased based on past emissions offset credits.
As discussed more fully below, the net pollution reductions that BP claims in its netting analysis to avoid major modification status are not only based on emissions offset credits from past projects that will expire in June but also by not including the significant emissions increases that will result from the project’s three new flares. By incorrectly claiming to have demonstrated a net decrease in emissions or “netting out,” BP is attempting to exempt the expansion project from the PSD requirement that significant emissions increases be accompanied by state of the art pollution control technology - either Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER).
Although it is impossible to address every concern, given the extremely limited period of time available to review this extraordinarily complex and lengthy permit, the following summarizes critical issues that have been identified and should be addressed by IDEM before the final permits are issued:
BP Failed to Include Significant Emissions Increases From New Flares in its “Netting” Analysis Which if Included Would Subject the Project to More Stringent PSD and NNSR Requirements Including BACT and LAER.
When assessing a proposed project’s emissions to determine if it is a “major modification,” Federal law requires analysis of:
The maximum annual rate, in tons per year, at which an existing emissions unit is projected to emit a regulated NSR pollutant . . . [by considering] all relevant information, including but not limited to, historical operational data . . . and fugitive emissions to the extent quantifiable, and emissions associated with startups, shutdowns and malfunctions.
BP is constructing three new flares as part of the refinery expansion project. Yet in calculating its claimed “net” emission decrease, BP simply does not include flare emissions at all asserting without any supporting evidence in its permit application that “the project will improve overall reliability at the refinery and is anticipated to reduce emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction events. Therefore, the emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction events are not included in the net emissions for the project.”
Despite the foregoing federal requirement that flare emissions be included in the analysis, the only flare emissions included in BP’s calculations are the small amounts from the flare pilot light and purge gas which are the emissions expected when the flares are off and not in use. BP’s assertion that its massive and costly new flares will sit idle for the life of the project without producing emissions is contrary to significant data showing that flaring is a major source of emissions at oil refineries.
For example, at refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area, sulfur dioxide (SOx) emissions from flare events frequently exceeded 10,000 pounds, and were as high as 70,000 pounds, in a single day. Similarly, emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from flaring frequently exceeded thousands of pounds per day, and were recorded as high as 22,000 pounds per day. Annually, that translated into SOx emissions as high as 3,000 tons and VOC emissions over 1,800 tons. Furthermore, the introduction of heavy, high-sulfur crude oil for the BP expansion increases the risk of flaring events and the quantity of emissions of SOx, VOCs, NOx, CO, PM 2.5 and toxics associated with flaring. Emphasizing the critical importance of subjecting the BP expansion project to BACT and LAER limits, after the Bay Area refineries were required to incorporate readily available flare prevention measures, their flare emissions were greatly reduced.
Federal law requires BP to include flare emissions in its netting calculation for the proposed facility to accurately reflect the significant net emissions increase that will result from the project. Because flaring emissions were not included in BP’s netting analysis, the wrong conclusion was reached. Refinery flaring emissions are substantial and, when included, demonstrate that the BP expansion project is a major modification triggering the PSD requirements for BACT and LAER in the air permits.
The Permit Fails to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 1997, BP Chief Executive, John Browne said:
The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven … but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. "We in BP have reached that point.
Today, BP recognizes that “It’s time to go on a low carbon diet,” and makes the following statement on its website:
"Based on current scientific opinion, BP believes that it is realistic to promote actions that ensure stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at around 500-550 ppm. This is a considerable challenge, given that global energy demand is expected to double between 2000 and 2050.
To achieve carbon stabilization, we need to ask ourselves some tough questions: What exactly is our current relationship with carbon? How can we reduce our dependency on carbon emitting technologies and fuels? What steps are others taking around the world? Let’s start. "
Despite the company’s public position statements on climate change, the Whiting refinery expansion project will allow BP to process a greater amount of crude oil extracted from the Canadian tar sands. This crude oil is heavy, meaning it contains longer carbon chains that require greater energy to break down in the refining process, and results in the emission of a substantial volume of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Indeed, the company admits that the expansion project will nearly double the facility’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, IDEM imposes no limits on carbon dioxide emissions in the proposed air permits although the Clean Air Act requires the agency to do so.
BP incorrectly claims that there is “no local, regional or national framework at present in the United States for managing GHG emissions.” Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court recently recognized that the Clean Air Act is the legal framework for regulating CO2. Concluding that CO2 is an air pollutant subject to regulation, the Court explained:
The Clean Air Act's sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical ... substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air ... .” § 7602(g). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.” Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical ... substance [s] which [are] emitted into ... the ambient air.”
Because carbon dioxide is a recognized air pollutant under the Clean Air Act, a significant increase in carbon dioxide emissions must be subject to the same scrutiny as any other significant emissions increase. In other words, IDEM is required to search for and require the Best Available Control Technology to control greenhouse gas emissions in the proposed air permits for BP’s expansion project. Allowing BP to significantly increase its GHG emissions not only violates the Clean Air Act but is simply unconscionable in the face international scientific consensus that our consumption of energy and other critical resources is disrupting the climate and undermining life on the planet.
The Permit Fails to Address Fine Particulate Emissions
Discussing the necessity of regulating fine particle emissions (PM 2.5), EPA’s Fine Particle Implementation Rule explains:
EPA established air quality standards for PM2.5 based on evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to elevated levels of PM2.5. Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important effects associated with PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children.
Despite this federal rule, BP’s draft air permits contain no PSD netting analysis specifically for PM2.5 and treat coarse particulate matter (PM10) as a surrogate. This is problematic because PM2.5 has substantially different and greater health impacts than PM10. Also, both Porter and Lake Counties are in nonattainment for PM2.5. Accordingly, IDEM must protect the public health and welfare by requiring a separate netting analysis for PM2.5 and require the BP to achieve LAER if the analysis demonstrates that the proposed expansion project will cause a significant increase in PM2.5 emissions.
The Permit Fails to Include a Schedule of Compliance to Address BP’s Clean Air Act Violations Identified by USEPA
In November, 2007, the United States EPA issued a Notice of Violation to the BP Whiting facility for:
-failing to obtain a permit when it made major modifications to its catalytic cracking unit . . . which caused significant increases of NOx, SO2, PM10, and CO emissions;
-violating New Source Performance Standards by modifying flares without complying with requirements;
-exceeding SO2 emissions limits;
-failing to monitor emissions from several sources;
-failing to conduct timely performance tests of hydrogen chloride emissions from its catalytic reforming units.
The Clean Air Act requires Title V permits to include all air pollution limits that apply to a regulated facility as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that will assure the facility’s compliance with those limits. In addition, a permit issued to a facility that is already violating an air pollution limit must include a “compliance schedule” consisting of enforceable measures designed to bring the facility into compliance.
BP’s Title V draft permit fails entirely to comply with this requirement in that it does not even mention the violations cited by USEPA. Thus, the permit must be revised to address these concerns as well.
IDEM Has Abrogated its Duty to Serve the Public Trust By Failing to Allow for Meaningful Public Involvement in this Permitting Process
The foregoing concerns were discovered with limited resources and time to review more than 6,000 pages of permitting documents. Given time and the significant problems with the permits uncovered thus far, it is certainly probable that many additional problems exist with BP’s air permits of which we are not yet aware. Unfortunately, IDEM, the agency charged with serving the public trust refuses to extend the public commenting period to allow for meaningful public participation and review of these extremely complex permits for a project that will have significant environmental impacts on the surrounding community and region for decades to come.
Highly trained and experienced engineers have described the netting calculations in the BP Whiting draft permits as the most complex they have ever seen. Relevant public records requested by the Illinois Attorney General last September were not released by IDEM until the end of February. The public is entitled to review this voluminous stack of records in addition to the lengthy permits themselves. And yet, IDEM initially gave the public only 20 days to review and comment on highly technical, complex information contained in literally thousands of pages of documents.
When IDEM re-noticed the public hearing and commenting period, seemingly in response to our requests for more time, the agency gave the public a paltry two week extension which we now know was magnanimously provided so that IDEM would be in compliance with the bare, statutory 30-day minimum. In this context, the newly discovered fact that an emissions offset credit relied on by BP (to achieve its proclaimed “net emissions decrease” and avoid major modification status) will expire shortly in June, provides an unsavory explanation for IDEM’s actions in limiting public involvement to allow BP to avoid PSD requirements.
The public must be able to rely on IDEM to protect or, as the agency’s name infers, “manage” our environment through proper implementation and enforcement of our federal and state environmental laws. However, continuously, IDEM demonstrates that it is an agency pursuing an agenda of neither environmental protection nor environmental management. Indeed, IDEM’s recent decisions relative to BP’s expansion project seem to blatantly disregard the overwhelming will of the people to serve industry interests at the expense of public health and environmental protection.
For Further Information or Questions about this Citizen Legal/Fact Sheet please contact Kim Ferraro, Legal Environmental Aid Foundation, 15 N. Franklin, Suite 200, Valparaiso, IN 46383; 219/464-0104; kim.ferraro@leafindiana.org.
OUR COMMENTS ON DRAFT NPDES PERMIT IN 0000281 FOR US STEEL GARY WORKS
Posted: Fri, September 28, 2007
COMMENTS OF SAVE THE DUNES COUNCIL AND
SAVE THE DUNES CONSERVATION FUND
Save the Dunes Council supports protecting Lake Michigan as an Outstanding State Resource Water, without degradation. We have also worked for years to protect and restore the Grand Calumet River from its headwaters in Marquette Park to Lake Michigan, serving on the Citizens Advisory to Remediate the Environment (CARE) Committee for the past 10 years. We have completed a sub watershed plan for the Grand Calumet Lagoons in 1998 and continue to work on projects with the City of Gary to implement that plan. Our members use the Grand Calumet River Lagoons for boating, fishing and recreation. Our members also use Lake Michigan for drinking water, fishing, boating, and other recreation purposes.
In addition, Save the Dunes Conservation Fund, our non-lobbying, educational arm, owns property along the Grand Calumet River, just west of Cline Avenue in Hammond along the "Dupont Reach" of the Grand Calumet River. We direct impactS from the discharge from US Steel indirectly through the sediments deposited along this reach.
Save the Dunes submitted comments on this draft NPDES permit in 2003 (Attachment 1). Many of these same issues remain. Save the Dunes comments focus on the following areas:
1) Impaired waters status
2) Cyanide, including site specific cyanide criteria
3) Oil & Grease
4) Mercury
5) Total Suspending Solids (TSS)
6) Temperature/Thermal impacts
7) Grand Calumet River Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL)
8) Stormwater contribution
9) Monitoring requirements
10) WQBELs
11) Sediment quality - Grand Calumet River
12) Grand Calumet River Lagoons
13) Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing (WETT)
14) Water treatment additives
15) "Daylighting" the Grand Calumet River
16) Compliance schedule
17) Visible Oil
In addition to these specific issues, Save the Dunes urges the agency to provide more outreach and information early in the NPDES permitting process to help the public understand these complicated permitting issues. We also request the agency provide a better understanding of the overall impact of a permit on the environment. For example, with the US Steel permit it is hard to determine how much of a given pollutant is being discharged due to the multiple discharge points and changing internal outfalls. Are things getting better or worse? Are they discharging more of any regulated pollutant? What is the trend in water quality on the receiving waters?
According to IDEM, over $500,000,000 has been spent on cleanup efforts in the Grand Calumet River. Save the Dunes Conservation Fund has led several projects to protect and restore the headwaters at the Grand Calumet River Lagoons. The agency has also compiled a list of over 270 individual projects and efforts in the Grand Calumet River Area of Concern (Attachment 2).
Save the Dunes is concerned that projects to restore the river are not negated by this and other future discharges. Since many of the pollutants discharged into the river are the same as pollutants that exceed Indiana Water Quality Standards, we challenge the agency to show how this permit will help the river comply with the Clean Water Act.
------------------
1) Impaired Waters 303(d) Listing - In our 2003 comments, Save the Dunes raised concerns about the impairments to the river. According to the 2006 IDEM 303(d) list, the Grand Calumet River continues to be listed as impaired for Ammonia, Cyanide, Oil and Grease, E. coli, and Impaired Biotic Communities. In addition, the waters are listed for FCA for Hg and for PCBs. We do not see these facts contained in the information on the permit and request this information be included in any decision by IDEM. In addition, we request IDEM provide a timetable to show when the Grand Calumet River will meet Indiana's water quality standards as required by the Clean Water Act.
2) Free Cyanide - This pollutant has the reasonable potential to exceed the water quality based effluent guideline. In 1998, IDEM granted US Steel's request for a site-specific cyanide criteria. The issue of the presence was debated at that time. Save the Dunes Council is encouraged to see the agency and the company now admit that salmonids are present in the Grand Calumet River, something United States Fish and Wildlife Service reported in 1994. The presence of salmonids requires a lower limit for Cyanide, something we strongly support. We do not support weakening that level during part of the year and use the reference cited by IDEM to support our position. "Implications of Chinook Salmon Presence on Water Quality Standards in a Great Lakes Area of Concern" by Thomas P. Simon, Paul M. Stewart, et.al., identifies the presence of salmonids in the Grand Calumet River and attribute that to the improved water quality from reduced surface water toxins from effluent since 1986 and increased dissolved oxygen since 1990. However, they conclude that: "The previous absence of salmonids in the Grand Calumet River may actually have been a result of discharge temperatures associated with point sources than any other reason", page 135, 2004 Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 113(2): 133-139, Simon, et. al. We support the lower limit for cyanide year-round and urge reductions be required to meet Indiana water quality standards for cyanide as required by the Clean Water Act. In addition we raise the idea that the high temperatures are the cause of the absence of salmonids during parts of the year one would expect them to be present. Therefore, we cannot support a higher level for cyanide if other pollutants, such as temperature, are the cause. See our comments on Thermal. To do that would be like saying if you pollute the water enough so nothing lives, you don't have to protect aquatic life.
We want IDEM to pay special attention to the coke oven area, especially for benzo(a)pyrene, TSS and cyanide, and to require reductions over time. Outfall 0501, which includes the coke oven and landfill leachate discharges are cause for concern. Although limited by New Source Performance Standards, the discharge of cyanide is 27 pounds per day and TSS is 706 pounds average. These huge discharges must be reduced and we urge IDEM develop a plan to address this source.
3) Oil and Grease We support the reduction of Oil & Grease and urge an even more aggressive program to detect leaks, spill detection and notification. We would request you to calculate the volume of oil and grease allowed by the proposed permit and the amounts estimated to be discharged by US Steel. How do the contributions from non-point sources (stormwater) enter the calculations and limits?
4) Mercury - Mercury is a neurotoxin and considered a bioaccumulating chemical of concern (BCC). The limit under Indiana's Great Lakes Initiative rules is 1.3 parts per trillion (ppt). The discharge from Outfall 005 and 010 exhibit a RPE based on very limited sampling. While 2 of the intake samples exceed Indiana's WQS for Hg, 2 do not, according to the EPA Method 1631 Mercury Ambient data, updated April 9, 2003. In fact, at only one location, USS Gary Works Lake Michigan Intake 2, does the mean exceed the standard. The mean at that intake is 1.409 ng/l. RPE for Hg is identified at several outfalls. Outfall 020 seems to have the highest sampled values for Hg at 6.15 ng/l, obtained during Hg sampling for the Grand Calumet River TMDL for Hg. We understand that no mercury variance can be issued by IDEM unless the facility has a current NPDES permit. Save the Dunes also knows that US Steel has an aggressive mercury reduction program, which we strongly support.
However, due to the fact that mercury is a BCC and there are other substantial unregulated sources of mercury such as coke ovens, at the facility, we urge IDEM to require a multimedia mercury reduction program that includes reducing mercury from all sources. We know a Mercury Pollution Prevention Management Plan would help and should be required. A mass balance study looking for all sources, including air emissions should be required.
We also point out that over $ 1,000,000 has been spent on the Grand Calumet River TMDL which was placed 'on hold' and never completed. This TMDL must be completed and to do otherwise would waste a considerable amount of public and private money. Finally, we ask IDEM to provide an estimate of the total mass of mercury that is currently discharged to surface water so the public has a perspective of the contributions from this source as compared with others.
5) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - Save the Dunes continues to have concerns about TSS and the contributions of TSS to the build-up of sediments in the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. It is estimated as much as 200,000 yards of highly contaminated sediments are released into Lake Michigan from the river and ship canal. As much as 100,000 pounds of lead, 67,000 pounds of Chromium and 420 pounds of PCBs are discharged into Lake Michigan, from these sediments, one of the leading contributors to pollution of Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes. It is important to minimize the discharge of solid waste into the Great Lakes system. Stormwater also contributes sedimentation to the discharge, and that must be addressed and reduced.
6) Temperature/Thermal impacts The federal CWA at §316(a) requires demonstration to assure that effluent limitations protect aquatic resources, including propagation. The thermal impact from the US Steel discharge exhibits RPE at Outfall 005. The IDEM fact sheet states the data for Outfall 005 shows the discharge cause excursions (violations?) of the water quality criteria for temperature. However, we do not find a §316(a) demonstration for the discharge as required by the CWA. While there is some information about the monitoring site location, we find nothing about the requirements to reduce the impact by reducing thermal impact. We request US Steel be required to perform an updated §316(a) demonstration that meets the requirement of the law, based on current conditions and flows.
Save the Dunes does support continuous temperature monitoring at the Outfalls on the Grand Calumet River and the one into Lake Michigan as proposed. It will determine the impact on aquatic resources. However, we want to see action to reduce the thermal impact. If this were a new plant, would cooling towers be required to address the huge thermal impact of this facility?
7) Grand Calumet River Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) Because the river is listed as impaired for a variety of pollutants, the state is required to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load for those pollutants that exceed water quality standards. What is the status of the required TMDLs and how can IDEM issue an NPDES permit on impaired segments without the data to show what reductions are needed from point sources to comply with Indiana law? In addition, Save the Dunes participated in the development of the Mercury TMDL for the Grand Calumet River which has been on hold for years. What is the status of that TMDL is why has there been no action? We understand over $ 1,000,000 was spent on it and this should be finished to help protect the environment and public health from additional impacts to fish from mercury.
In addition, a new Waste Load Allocation should be required for the waterway. All dischargers should be required to reduce their free cyanide limit to reflect the presence of salmonids. We think the ammonia limits would also be lowered as a result of a new WLA.
8) Stormwater contribution Save the Dunes is very concerned about the stormwater impacts to Lake Michigan and the Grand calumet River from stormwater. We understand there is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, but do not find information about the impact of the plan now being implemented. We are especially concerned about the current requirements relating to stormwater that are in the current permit and ask for compliance data from IDEM on the issue. We are especially concerned about stormwater near the coke plant due to contaminants especially PAHs. We request IDEM be more aggressive on requiring reductions and treatment of stormwater from this facility and not allow untreated, polluted runoff from this industrial facility to enter waters of the United States. There are many Best Management Practices (BMPs) that could be included in management of their runoff, such as vegetated swales.
9) Monitoring requirements We oppose reducing monitoring requirements at Internal Outfall 00502 and think it should stay in place.
10) WQBELs We urge IDEM to make this section easier to understand for the public and others. We support monitoring for flow as that will help in future management.
11) Sediment quality - Grand Calumet River This is an issue that has plagued the Grand Calumet River for generations. Designated an international Area of Concern by EPA and the International Joint Commission (IJC), IDEM established the Citizens Advisory to Remediate the Environment (CARE) Committee to develop the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). One of the documents supporting restoration is the Grand Calumet River - Indiana Harbor Ship Canal Sediment Cleanup and Restoration Alternatives Project (SCRAP) report (September 1997) and is important to consider in any permitting along the Grand Calumet River. More information is found at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/arcs/EPA-905-B94-002/B94002-ch1.html
Save the Dunes is a member of the CARE Committee and the impact of this discharge on sediment quality must be considered to assure there will not be recontamination of the sediments. We point out that US Steel has spent millions of dollars dredging highly contaminated sediments as part of an Agreed Order. That project, dredging about 700,000 yards along a 5-mile stretch of the river, is almost complete.
Our concerns are with the huge amount of TSS proposed to be discharged. It is important to continue to reduce the volume of solid waste material dumped into the river, and therefore into Lake Michigan. The Grand Calumet River is identified as the largest contributor of E. coli into Lake Michigan according to the Lake Michigan TMDL for E.coli completed a few years ago. Since there is a relationship between turbidity and high E. coli levels, which can lead to beach closings due to unhealthy levels of bacteria. It is important to reduce these levels.
We find stormwater to be another significant source of TSS and efforts to reduce that should be required.
12) Grand Calumet River Lagoons & Daylighting the River - The Grand Calumet River lagoons are the headwaters of the Grand Calumet River. However, there is significant contamination of the sediment in the far-western lagoon, identified more than 10 years ago and subject of numerous studies and alternatives for clean up. We support those efforts such as the barrel removal that was recently completed. We urge further action to remediate the highly contaminated sediments. Sediments have PAH levels as high as 120,000 ppm, or 12% , according to published studies, which are unacceptable. Fish tissue monitoring has shown significant levels of contaminants described by one researcher as the 'hottest' fish they had ever seen alive. This condition must be remediated.
After sediment remediation, Save the Dunes urges IDEM to require removing the 1,800 feet of the Grand Calumet River that was put in a pipe in 1958. 'Daylighting' the river would accomplish significant restoration of the aquatic habitat and would provide a connection between the lagoons and the rest of the river. A water control structure would probably be required, but proper planning could identify alternatives. Save the Dunes points to the recently daylighted Dunes Creek as an example of improving water and habitat quality by this technique. Daylighting the river would also show to the public there is nothing to hide underground, and there are no hidden discharge points that were forgotten.
13) Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing (WETT) Please explain (Tu c) on page 45 of the fact Sheet and how these units were derived. Save the Dunes supports WETT testing and an aggressive program to investigate causes of impact if determined during the testing. We support WETT testing at Outfalls 005 (Chronic), 034 (Chronic), 010, and 028/030. We find the 2000 WETT testing report by Advent confusing since it seems there were impacts at lower levels of effluent. Please explain historic WETT results at the facility and what was done to correct any problems. Save the Dunes also requests the reason EPA did not approve 5-2-11.5(c)(1) which then required IDEM to use 40 CFR Part 132. What is the one exception identified in the Fact Sheet?
14) Water treatment additives Save the Dunes requests that IDEM explain any potential negative impacts from water additives contained on pages 45-47 of the Fact Sheet and information about the impact of each of these chemicals on water quality.
15) "Daylighting" the Grand Calumet River Save the Dunes supports IDEM in investigating daylighting the Grand Calumet River. About 1,800 feet of the river was placed in a pipe in 1958 (Attachment 3). There are sediment issues that need to be addressed, but there may be long term benefits to the ecosystem if this connection with the headwaters is reestablished. (See Comment 12)
16) Compliance schedule We find the 5-year compliance schedule too long and urge IDEM shorten any compliance schedule to 1 year maximum. Testing and assessment of the data can be done in a much shorter time period to further protect the environment.
17) Visible Oil - Save the Dunes supports the Visible Oil program at US Steel as a way to detect problems with oil and grease contamination earlier than sampling for those parameters. We support other early detection programs, like this one, to alert the company on potential environmental problems before there are water quality violations.
Conclusions US Steel is the largest steel maker in the nation and produces about 8,000,000 tons per year. The Grand Calumet River has been identified one of the most contaminated rivers in the nation, due today mainly from the legacy sediments. However, there are hundreds of restoration projects underway and IDEM must protect these projects from negative impacts of additional contamination.
We also understand the need to have a current NPDES permit for facilities, and know the permit backlog has been an issue for some time. We realize having new permits will improve water quality over time as new standards are included in permits.
Save the Dunes urges IDEM to push for further reductions to require compliance with Indiana Water Quality Standards to help the protection and restoration of the Grand Calumet River. We further urge the agency to press for implementation of other Agreed Orders that have been filed in this area including the Ralston St. Lagoons and the Gary Sanitary District that would require an additional 5 miles of dredging from the railroad bridge (the downstream end of the US Steel dredging project), as well as other activities that support the Remedial Action Plan and cleanup of the Grand Calumet River Area of Concern.
Residents along the river have suffered long enough and IDEM should take a more aggressive lead in solving these long time environmental travesties.
.
