Indiana is currently not limiting the discharge of some pollutants in U.S. Steel's proposed new wastewater permit.

That lack of limits was one critique of more than 20 written comments environmental groups, city and state officials and private individuals sent to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management during the draft's public comment period, which ended Nov. 30.

Other issues the critics noted include a decrease in the frequency of monitoring the discharges and a system of taking water into the plant they believe does not do enough to protect aquatic life.

U.S. Steel is operating under a wastewater permit IDEM issued in 1994 and modified -- not renewed -- at least four times in the past 15 years. The permit should be renewed every five years, according to IDEM. A modification is an amendment, and a renewal signifies the creation of a new, updated permit that requires a public comment period.

Most recently, IDEM drafted renewals and invited public comment on drafts in 2003 and 2007. The regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency, based in Chicago, objected to the 2007 draft but removed its objection in October because of revisions that were made.

"We made a number of changes," said Bruno Pigott, assistant commissioner of IDEM's office of water quality. "By all accounts, this is a much more protective (of the environment) permit than U.S. Steel's had before."

Pigott said the agency worked closely with the EPA to reanalyze discharge limits placed on pollutants and examine the reasons behind permit guidelines.

"We looked at compliance schedules thoroughly," Pigott said. "Compliance schedules have been shortened, and in some instances they have been removed entirely, and in all instances the length of the compliance schedules have been justified."

Some say limits don't go far enough

Indiana's toxic releases to water decreased for the second year in a row -- by 6.7 million pounds -- last year. But Indiana still leads all states in discharging pollutants and toxic chemicals into waterways, according to EPA and IDEM.

U.S. Steel's Gary Works is one of the largest dischargers of pollutants into water in the region. Under the new 2009 draft permit, the company is allowed to release more than 520 million gallons of wastewater into the Grand Calumet River and Lake Michigan each day. The facility is the company's largest manufacturing plant, which is capable of producing more than 7 million net tons of raw steel each year. The company employs about 7,000 people in Indiana, including nearly 5,000 at Gary Works.

Nearly 15 percent of the limits in the 2009 draft are more stringent than in the current permit, according to U.S. Steel, with an additional third of the draft permit limits being new requirements. U.S. Steel uses independent labs to test its wastewater.

"We continue to work with IDEM and our stakeholders on working towards this much-needed permit for Gary Works," said Courtney Boone, spokeswoman for U.S. Steel.

But some groups say the new permit does not go far enough to limit pollutants and protect the environment.

"It's clear that a lot of work was done on the permit following the U.S. EPA objection," said Ann Alexander, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council's Midwest Program. "(But) we do think there were a number of issues that still need to be addressed."

Alexander submitted comments to IDEM on behalf of the NRDC, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Hoosier Environmental Council, the Alliance for the Great Lakes and the Save the Dunes Council.

No limit, no regulation?

Last year, U.S. Steel Gary Works released into the Grand Calumet River about 800 tons of nitrate pollutants -- which can cause excessive algae growths that can kill off aquatic life -- according to the EPA's federal database. Some toxic algae that has been proven to cause death in dogs also has been noted in state waters, according to area environmental groups.

IDEM's Pigott said those federal database numbers -- called TRIs, or, toxic release inventories -- are estimates, and the state has different measurement standards.

"It's a public information purpose, not for developing permits," Pigott said. "It's not that if you discharge any amount of something, you get a limit. We really feel that the limits that are in the permit are appropriate limits for this facility."

Alexander, however, said the numbers show the public something should be done to regulate the pollutant discharge. She said without a limit, there is nothing to prevent increased pollution.

"We're not talking about comparisons in volumes now, we're looking at a source of pollution that is without a limit, and that's problematic," she said.

IDEM senior environmental engineer Stan Rigney said the volume of discharge does matter.

"I understand that sounds like a lot," said Rigney, who has been in charge of writing most steel company permits, including the U.S. Steel Gary Works drafts. "But you're looking at 50 million gallons (of wastewater discharged) a day, every day." In the case of nitrates, for example, he said that translates to about 10 (milligrams) discharged per liter.

"That coke plant is nitrifying," Rigney said. "We don't want the ammonia discharged, so it's turned into nitrate." Rigney said the amount being discharged did not call for a specific limit.

But Alexander disagrees, homing in on one of the major disagreements between the permit writers and environmentalists, namely whether certain pollutants should have specific discharge limits in wastewater permits (technically called NPDES permits). She said not having such limits violates the Clean Water Act, which, as a federal law, overrides state law.

Pigott, however, said it all depends on if the pollutants being discharged have the potential to exceed water quality standards.

The EPA limits certain pollutant discharges. When a limit is not listed, it is up to the permit writer to decide whether the pollutant discharge will "cause, have a reasonable potential to cause, or contribute" to exceeding state water quality standards. Enesta Jones, an EPA spokeswoman in Washington, D.C., said a permit writer is not required to develop a case-by-case limit for a pollutant.

Monitoring, fish mortality also of concern

Environmental groups also raised concerns about the decrease in monitoring frequency of some pollutants, noting some monitoring decreased from weekly to once or twice monthly.

Previous monitoring guidelines for some pollutants were about 10 times a month, IDEM's Rigney said.

"What it did was create a sample every three days," Rigney said. "Some of it fell on weekends and holidays."

He said it was a judgment call to reduce certain monitoring regulations, and that monitoring frequency can change depending on the company's compliance history.

"I just felt that reporting every three days was not that necessary to get the information we needed to meet the limits in the permit," Rigney said. "We feel that two times weekly is sufficient to do that."

But some environmentalists, including Alexander, would like to know why.

"You generally wouldn't decrease your monitoring frequency unless there was a reason to believe that you don't need the monitoring system that you have," Alexander said.

Other draft comments questioned whether best available technologies were being used at water intakes to prevent trapping and killing fish.

According to the permit fact sheet, in 2003 the Gary Works facility experienced an incident in which fish were colliding against screens in large numbers and dying at Pump Station No. 1. The pump station, unlike others, does not have a fish return system.

"We don't understand how it can be the best technology at Pump Station 1 not to have a fish return and at Pump Station 2 to have a fish return," Alexander said. "Which is best?"

Alexander said the analysis done on intake structures for the current permit was insufficient.

"They've got to take a harder look at what is U.S. Steel doing and what is being done in the country to find out the best way to prevent damage to aquatic life," she said.

According to the permit fact sheet, a site visit to the Gary Works plant indicated there might be areas for improvement in the current fish return systems.

Rigney said IDEM reviewed information U.S. Steel submitted and determined the company needs to conduct studies on ways to improve the fish return system.

"We're asking for them to evaluate the fish return for all fish intakes to determine if they minimize fish mortality and to submit to us within one year of the effective date of the permit options," Rigney said.

Rigney said it was important to issue the permit in the interim because Gary Works has been operating under a permit that dates to the 1990s. Waiting for the studies to come back would postpone issuing the permit, he said.

"We tried in 2003, we tried in 2007 and now we're trying again in 2009," Rigney said. "During that period we've made improvements, but until this permit becomes effective, (Gary Works is) still operating under their previous permit."

Alexander said IDEM and U.S. Steel both reached out to NRDC to hear the organization's concerns, and it had been a cooperative process with everyone talking with one another.

"I think that many people at IDEM got together and buckled down to do a good job on the revisions, and certainly some things were improved," Alexander said.

Permit steps

Once a draft permit is completed, there is a 30-day comment period and public hearing. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management reviews the comments and decides whether to revise the permit draft. IDEM then issues a final version of the permit, which contains responses to all the public comments. There is an 18-day window after the creation of the final permit during which anyone not satisfied with the document can file an appeal. Appeal are heard by the state Office of Environmental Adjudication. Appeals of that office's decisions move to state court.

Source: IDEM and Ann Alexander, NRDC senior attorney for the Midwest Program