SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/9-84-003B
January 1985
Water Division
Master Plan for Final
Improving Water
Quality in the Grand
Calumet River/Indiana
Harbor Canal
Summary
-------
FINAL REPORT
MASTER PLAN FOR
IMPROVING WATER QUALITY IN THE
GRAND CALUMET 'RIVER/INDIANA HARBOR CANAL
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
January, 1985
USEPA-REGION V
Water Division
230 South Dearborn Street (5WQ-TUB)
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
PREFACE
The Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal (GCR/IHC) drains a narrow, heavily
industrialized watershed area of northwest Indiana, at the southern tip of Lake
Michigan. Water quality and aquatic habitat problems in the GCR/IHC have been a
matter of public concern for more than a decade. These problems are reflected in
high concentrations of conventional, and toxic pollutants in the river sediments
and overlying water column, and in sharply reduced levels of biological activity.
On November 15, 1983, the International Joint Commission convened a meeting to
receive citizens' comments regarding the pollution control needs of the GCR/IHC.
At this meeting, the U.S. EPA, Region V committed to the preparation of a plan,
in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Indiana State Board
of Health, for improving water quality in the GCR/IHC. This report has been
prepared in fulfillment of this commitment.
The Master Plan report includes a discussion of existing environmental problems
and pollutant sources, a presentation of existing water quality control programs,
and recommendations for improving water quality and aquatic habitat conditions in
the GCR/IHC.
This report was originally released in draft form to provide an opportunity for
agencies, industries, municipalities.and other affected publics to comment on the
content of the report and the recommendations proposed. A public meeting address-
ing the report was held in Gary, Indiana on October 25, 1984. These comments are
much appreciated and have been considered in preparation of the final report.
Further comments are still welcomed and may be addressed to:
Director, Water Division
U.S. EPA Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Note:
This report was developed by the U.S. EPA with the assistance
of JRB Associates and has been approved for distribution. Mention
of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS S-l
1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS S-2
1.2 POLLUTANT SOURCES S-3
1.2.1 Industrial Point Sources S-4
1.2.2 Municipal Wastewater Sources S-4
1.2.3 Combined Sewer Overflows S-5
1.2.4 Non-Point Sources S-6
1.3 CONTROL PROGRAMS S-7
1.3.1 Water Quality Standards and Industrial
Effluent Guidelines Program S-7
1.3.2 NPDES Program S-9
1.3.3 Pretreatment Program S-12
1.3.4- Municipal Wastewater Treatment S-14
2. RECOMMENDATIONS S-16
2.1 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES S-16
2.2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING AND
IMPLEMENTATION S-l9
2.3 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND INDUSTRIAL
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM S-l9
2.4 NPDES PROGRAM S-21
2.5 PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS S-22
2.6 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROGRAM S-23
2.7 CSO CONTROLS S-24
2.8 NON-POINT SOURCE CONTROLS S-25
2.9 MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE S-27
2.10 WASTELOAD ALLOCATION S-28
2.11 INSTITUTIONAL S-28
2.12 TIME FRAME AND IMPLEMENTATION S-29
-------
1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Environmental problems in the Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal
(GCR/IHC) include high concentrations of conventional, nonconventional and
toxic pollutants in the sediments and overlying water column. Although
improved point source controls have resulted in significant improvements in
ambient water quality conditions in recent years, the contaminated sediments
continue to represent a major in-situ reservoir of accumulated pollutants.
Although compliance problems persist for municipal dischargers, major
regulated industrial pollutant sources are generally in compliance with their
NPDES discharge limits. However, these limits are based largely on oxygen-
demanding substances, including BOD (biological oxygen demand), COD (chemical
oxygen demand), nitrogen, and ammonia. While DO (dissolved oxygen) values in
the GCR/IHC have risen dramatically in recent years, biological recolonization
of the river has been limited. Given the current status of point source con-
trols, it is suspected that continued discharge of toxic and nonconventional
pollutants (including contaminants leaching from sediments) are now the major
limitation to the biological recovery of the GCR/IHC system.
Principle sources of toxic and nonconventional pollutants to the GCR/IHC
include industrial contaminants passthrough from municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants, combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges, potential contributions
from groundwater discharge and, to a lesser extent, direct industrial dis-
charges and pollutant cycling from contaminated sediments. Existing environ-
mental/regulatory programs provide a vehicle for control of many pollutant
sources and significant reductions in total pollutant loadings have been
achieved in recent years.
The purpose of the Master Plan is to provide a management and implementa-
tion plan for 1) achieving the maximum control of pollutants possible under
existing regulatory programs and 2) developing and implementing such addi-
tional control programs as necessary to reduce total pollutant loadings to
levels which permit achievement of water uses designated under the water
quality standards program.
S-l
-------
1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Aquatic Habitat
Historically, the quality of the GCR/IHC as habitat for fish and other
aquatic organisms has been severely degraded. Pollutants from industrial and
municipal point source discharges have depressed DO concentrations to below
the levels necessary to sustain a balanced aquatic community. Also, river
sediments have become contaminated with conventional, nonconventional and
toxic pollutants, further degrading the quality of the aquatic environment.
Finally, man-made changes in the river channel have diminished the quality and
quantity of natural habitat areas in the GCR/IHC.
In recent years, significant improvements have been realized in control
of industrial and municipal point source discharges of conventional and non-
conventional contaminants. As a result, average DO values have returned to
levels capable of supporting a balanced aquatic community. Overall, the
incidence of water quality standards violations in the GCR/IHC has decreased
dramatically since 1977. The number of violations decreased by more than 60%,
from 1977 through 1983, in the East Branch. More than a 75% reduction in
violations was observed in the IHC during this same period. However, less
than a 30% reduction was observed during this same period in the West Branch,
which continues to exhibit the most degraded water quality conditions of the
GCR/IHC system, based on Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) monthly
monitoring data.
Sediment quality has not significantly improved over the past ten years.
Although average concentrations of certain toxic metals have decreased (lead
and zinc, in particular), concentrations of other metals have remained roughly
constant. Significant levels of oil and grease and organic contaminants
persist in the sediments, including PCBs (polychlorinated biphenols), PAHs
(polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons), phenols and other organics. Based on the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region V Guidelines for the
Pollution Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments, the GCR/IHC sedi-
ments are considered heavily polluted for all tested metals except mercury,
and polluted to heavily polluted for PCBs. Average mercury levels were near
the threshold concentration for classification as polluted.
S-2
-------
Wide variations exist between the various sediment contaminants in their
bioavailability and the rates at which they are exchanged between the sedi-
ments- and overlying water column. .A preliminary comparison of available
sediment contaminants data and established water quality criteria indicated
the greatest concern for heavy metals (particularly mercury and cadmium),
PCBs, certain PAHs (the two and three membered rings), phenol and bis
(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
Small natural areas exist along the GCR/IHC which provide habitat for
aquatic flora and fauna. Limited field surveys indicate that these areas may
be expanding. Emergent vegetation (e.g. cattails) may be restricting movement
of sediment deposits.
Biota
Historically, aquatic biota have been depressed in the GCR/IHC, both with
respect to species diversity and population density. Only reduced numbers of
aquatic earthworms (oligochaetes) were found in benthie samples in the 1960s.
The density of oligochaetes increased by a factors of 100 to 4600 in the same
areas in a 1973 survey.
In a 1983 fish survey, 16 species of fish were collected in the Indiana
Harbor Canal (the River was not sampled during this survey). These results
are interpreted as evidence of recolonization of the GCR/IHC, reflecting
improving water quality. The potential for bioaccumulation and biomagnifica-
tion of toxics in aquatic organisms (particularly the benthos) is recognized,
but cannot be quantified with the existing data base.
1.2 POLLUTANT SOURCES
Principal pollutant sources include industrial and municipal wastewater
discharges, CSOs and non-point runoff. Because industrial and municipal point
sources have been subject to regulatory control for over a decade, these
sources are the most completely understood. However, until recently, most
data from these sources concentrated on conventional and nonconventional
contaminants. Little historical data exist from these sources regarding
toxics; this data is only now beginning to be collected.
S-3
-------
1.2.1 Industrial Point Sources
Based on NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) records
at USEPA Region V, seven major industries discharge to the GCR/IHC, including
Citgo Petroleum, E. I. duPont, Inland Steel, J&L Steel, U.S.S. Lead Refinery,
U.S. Steel, and Vulcan Materials. A number of minor dischargers also exist,
including Industrial Disposal, American Steel Foundries, Blaw Knox Foundry and
Explorer Pipelines. Of the minor dischargers, Industrial Disposal Company is
most significant based on daily loading rates.
Three major dischargers (Inland Steel, J&L Steel and U.S. Steel) account
for approximately 90% (by flow volume) of industrial point source discharges
to the GCR/IHC, totalling more than 1,000 mgd. These three steel mills,
together with DuPont and Industrial Disposal, contribute the bulk of the
industrial pollutants discharged.
Because most combined wastewater from the five principal industrial
sources is noncontact cooling water, effluent quality is relatively good.
Total BOD loading from these sources is very low, relative to discharge
volume, especially in comparison with POTW (publicly owned treatment works)
discharges.
Industrial outfall monitoring data include conventional contaminants,
nonconventional contaminants and a few metals. Sufficient data is only now
becoming available to evaluate the toxics loading from the direct discharge
industrial sources. In reissuing industrial NPDES permits, Indiana is
requiring full analytical testing for toxic organic compounds and is incor-
porating limits on these compounds in the new permits. Little is known about
the biological impacts of toxic constituents in these discharges on the
GCR/IHC.
1.2.2 Municipal Wastewater Sources
Three POTWs discharge to the GCR/IHC, representing the Gary, Hammond and
East Chicago Sanitary Districts. The Gary plant discharges to the East Branch
while the Hammond and East Chicago plants discharge to the West Branch. Due
to flow patterns in the West Branch, however, the Hammond POTW effluent enters
S-4
-------
that portion of the West Branch draining to the IHC only under certain flow
conditions.
Historically, these PQTWs have represented major sources of biological
contaminants discharged to the GCR/IHC. Recent improvements to these plants
have reduced effluent loading rates. Daily BOD loadings from the Gary,
Hammond and East Chicago POTWs have been reduced by 32%, 96% and 25%,
respectively, from 1968 to 1982.
Comparing 1968 to 1982, total wastewater flows treated by these POTWs
have decreased for Gary (by 15%) and increased for Hammond and East Chicago
(by 13% and 38%, respectively). These POTWs have traditionally received large
quantities of industrial flows from the service areas. However, until
recently, effluent monitoring was conducted primarily for only conventional
and nonconventional contaminants. All three are currently developing indus-
trial pretreatment pro-grams in response to Federal regulations (40 CFR 403).
Influent and effluent sampling conducted in support of pretreatment program
development have indicated the presence of toxic compounds, including organics
and heavy metals, being discharged to the POTW (full data is not yet available
for Hammond).
Tests conducted in February, 1980 on the East Chicago effluent revealed
this discharge to be highly toxic to fish and also indicated the presence of
mutagenic compounds. Available toxic pollutants data are insufficient to
evaluate the re'lative impacts of the three POTWs on aquatic life in the
GCR/IHC.
1.2.3 Combined Sewer Overflows
Fourteen CSOs discharge a combined, estimated total of over 11 billion
gallons per year to the GCR/IHC. It is calculated that over 50 percent of the
annual CSO volume is discharged to the GCR/IHC within eight miles of Lake
Michigan. These outfalls have contributed to fecal coliform contamination of
near-shore Lake Michigan.
S-5
-------
The water quality impacts of CSOs on southern Lake Michigan are under
investigation in a USEPA-sponsored modeling study and, in a more limited way,
in an ISBH-sponsored wasteload allocation study.
Both of these studies, however, are concentrating primarily on conven-
tional and nonconventional contaminants and BOD/DO interactions. The impacts
of CSOs on water quality and biological habitat, as a result of toxics
bypassing, is largely undocumented. However, limited data from one CSO in
East Chicago indicate substantial daily loading rates for heavy metals and
other toxics (e.g., over 1,000 pounds/day phenol; over 5 pounds/day lead; 3.5
pounds/day nickel and 1.5 pounds/day cadmium). Over 30 industrial discharges
to the collection system exist upstream of this CSO.
Insufficient data are available to quantify the CSO impacts on water
qualtiy and biological habitat in the GCR/IHC. However, based on the limited
POTW influent monitoring data, the CSOs are believed to represent major
sources of toxic pollutants to the river.
1.2.4 Non-Point Sources
A variety of non-point sources may contribute to toxic pollutants loading
to the GCR/IHC. These include highway runoff; runoff from industrial sites
near the river; seepage of contaminated groundwater from dumps, landfills and
waste lagoons; rain scour and dust fall; and illegal dumping.
A review of USEPA ERRIS (Emergency Remedial Response Information System)
and NPL (National Priority List) file data revealed 38 waste disposal/storage
sites ("wastefills") in the GCR/IHC basin of northwest Indiana. Eleven of
these sites are within one fifth mile of the river bank; several are essen-
tially on the banks of the river. A number of additional wastefill sites have
been tentatively identified by the State and are currently under review.
Limited file data is available for these wastefills. However, it is
known that one site (the Gary POTW sludge lagoon) is contributing to PCB
contamination of the river. Possible lead contamination is being investigated
at another site.
S-6
-------
Even less is known about the potential magnitude of other non-point
sources (e.g., highway runoff, rain scour, dust fall, etc.). However, based
on their number and immediate proximity to the riverbanks, wastefill sites are
targeted as the priority non-point sources for further investigation.
1.3 CONTROL PROGRAMS
Existing water quality control programs include NPDES permits for
municipal and industrial dischargers, the municipal pretreatment program and
the construction grants program. Other control programs, including RCRA
(Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) and CERCLA (Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act), may also be applied
to specific problems.
1.3.1 Water Quality Standards and Industrial Effluent Guidelines Programs
The basis for water quality controls are the water quality standards and
effuent guidelines programs. Direct industrial dischargers are required to
comply with technology based standards. Industries were required to meet BPT
(best practicable control technology currently available) standards by July 1,
1977 and BAT (best available technology economically achievable) and BCT (best
conventional pollutant control technology) standards by July 1, 1981.
Where technology based standards are insufficient to meet water quality
objectives, such additional treatment as is necessary for compliance with
water quality based standards is also required. The need for water quality
based standards is evaluated under the State water quality management process
(Section 303 of the Clean Water Act [CWA]).
Water quality standards for particular streams consist of a designated
use(s) and ambient water quality criteria to protect that use(s). If a State
wishes to adopt a use designation other than "fishable/swimmable", a use
attainability analysis is required, indicating what the practical limitations
are.
The USEPA has promulgated specific procedures which States must follow in
developing and revising water quality standards; the Agency reviews the State
S-7
-------
programs periodically to ensure compliance. The USEPA provides financial
assistance to the States (under Sections 106 and 205 of the CWA) to assist in
water quality management and planning. States are required to review and
update their water quality standards every three years, at a minimum.
Water quality standards for the GCR/IHC were first promulgated in 1967.
The original standards were revised in 1973 and 1978. Following the 1973
revisions, the water quality standards for the GCR/IHC were considered to be
comparatively advanced and were effective in achieving substantial water
quality improvements in the system. In 1978, the State established a desig-
nated use for the GCR/IHC for "...partial body contact, limited aquatic life
and industrial water supply." This use designation allows the establishment
of water quality standards less stringent than those established for recrea-
tional use waterways. However, the CWA requires that stream standards protect
downstream uses, and GCR/IHC standards must be adequate to protect the
separate standards established for Lake Michigan, Indiana Harbor and the
Illinois River.
The State also established an antidegradation policy in 1978. This
policy requires that existing instream beneficial uses be maintained and that
water quality in streams exceeding the minimum standards be maintained at
these higher levels. Limited degradation is permitted only if justified on
economic and social grounds.
The State water quality standards for the GCR/IHC, promulgated in 1978,
concentrated primarily on conventional and nonconventional parameters.
Because these standards were promulgated before the USEPA National Ambient
Water Quality Criteria, the numerical standards which were included in the
1978 revisions did not reflect the currently available toxic pollutant
criteria. Narrative standards were included, however.
The 1978 use designation did not fully include the "fishable/swimmable"
uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA. Also, more than three years
have elapsed since the last revision to the State standards. Unless the water
quality standards are revised to include the Section 101(a)(2) uses, the State
must conduct a use attainability analysis, in accordance with USEPA guidance.
S-8
-------
If practical limitations exist to attainment of the "fishable/swimmable" uses,
these limitations must be identified and an alternative designated use(s) must
be specified, as supportable by the results of the analysis. This analysis
must also consider downstream water uses. Also, the State should develop and
specify the methods to be used for implementing its antidegradation policy
(none currently exist).
Because the existing water quality standards are more than six years old,
the State must adopt new standards to protect the existing or revised desig-
nated uses. These standards must be consistent with the National water
quality criteria for toxic pollutants, ammonia, chlorine and DO. Criteria are
to be developed based on 1984 USEPA guidelines.
The State may adopt pollutant-specific numerical criteria, narrative
criteria or a combination of the two for toxic pollutants. If narrative
criteria are adopted in lieu of numerical criteria (which is presently the
'case for the GCR/IHC), the State should specify the methods which will be used
to regulate point sources for control of toxic, persistent or bioconcentrating
pollutants.
The State is currently evaluating existing water quality standards
through an ongoing wasteload allocation (WLA) study. Effects on Lake Michigan
(a downstream water body) are being considered in the WLA effort as well as in
another ongoing modelling study, under Federal contract. The results of the
WLA study will contribute to revisions of existing discharge limits applicable
to the GCR/IHC, currently being developed by the State under the NPDES
program.
1.3.2 NPDES Program
The CWA requirements for reduction of point source pollutant discharges
are implemented-through the NPDES permit system authorized in Section 402 of
the Act. NPDES permits have a set lifespan of from several months to a
maximum of five years. The permittee must comply with NPDES .permit conditions
for continued discharge. The permittee must also apply for permit renewal
before expiration or in the event of major changes in treatment or manufac-
turing processes.
S-9
-------
Industrial Dischargers
Seven major and four minor industrial dischargers exist on the GCR/IHC,
many of which have multiple discharge points. Pertinent data from the seven
major dischargers are summarized as follows:
Industry
Citgo
DuPont
Inland Steel
J & L Steel
U.S.S. Lead
U.S. Steel
Vulcan Materials
Date of
Flow Most Recent
(mgd) Permit
Intermittant
4.70
592
154
0.06
309
0.12
12/14/81
1/1/79
3/6/84
2/27/81
6/10/75
6/1/83
8/5/81
Scheduled
Permit Compliance in
Expiration Date Third Quarter 1984
11/30/86
6/30/81
2/89
6/30/81
3/31/80
5/31/88
7/31/86
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No (total lead)
Yes
Yes
State and USEPA effluent monitoring during the fourth quarter 1984 indicated
significant violations of total lead limits at U.S.S. Lead. U.S. Steel was in
noncompliance for daily average zinc levels in September, 1984.
Current NPDES permits control primarily conventional, nonconventional and
selected other contaminants, including:
o Oil & Grease
o pH
o BOD
o Suspended Solids
o Dissolved Solids
o Chlorides
o Fecal Coliforms
o Chlorine Residual
o Fluoride
o Temperature
o Sulfates
o Phosphorus
o Ammonia
o Lead
o Zinc
o Cyanide
o Phenols
o Chromium
o Copper
o Nickel
o Tin
o Arsenic
o Mercury
The range of parameters controlled varies widely from outfall to outfall.
S-10
-------
Generally, the industrial dischargers have achieved compliance with BPT,
BAT and BCT standards and are generally in compliance with existing NPDES
permit conditions. However, more information is needed regarding toxics
discharged from these facilities and resulting impacts on the biological
habitat of the GCR/IHC. Toxicant studies on blast furnaces, coke plants and
cold rolling mills have been completed, or are in progress, at steel facili-
ties.
Municipal Dischargers
Three POTWs, representing the Gary, Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary
Districts, discharge treated wastewater to the GCR/IHC. Pertinent data from
these dischargers are summarized as follows:
POTW
Gary SD
Hammond SD
East Chicago SD
Approx.
Flow
41.4 mgd
37.9 mgd
15.6 mgd
Date of Most
Recent Permit
mm
1/8/79
10/15/77
Scheduled Permit
Expiration Date
4/30/82
6/30/83
2/2/82
Compliance
in
September 1984
No (NH )
Yes
No (NH3, Phenol,
CN, Fluorides,
Chlorides, Sul-
fates, O&G, BOD,
TSS)
All three POTWs are discharging under expired NPDES permits. New permits will
be issued after completion of the WLA.
All three POTWs have experienced chronic problems in meeting NPDES
discharge limitations. All have a history of court ordered compliance
mandates and consent judgements. The Gary POTW is deteriorating rapidly and
suffering from poor operation and maintenance practices. In addition to the
NPDES permit, the Gary POTW is regulated by a Federal consent judgement. The
USEPA is pursuing enforcement action against Gary for violation of this
judgement.
S-ll
-------
The Hammond POTW has completed substantial plant improvements and has
controlled major CSO sources. Sludge handling practices are inadequate and
on-site sludge lagoons are at capacity. However, award of a USEPA construc-
tion grant to support upgrading of sludge handling facilities and partial
emptying of sludge lagoons was made in September, 1981. The POTW is the
subject of a USEPA law suit.
The East Chicago POTW has completed major plant improvements, under the
terms of a Federal court ordered consent judgment. However, the plant is
still unable to meet NPDES discharge limitations. Negotiations are continuing
to develop a comprehensive pollutant abatement schedule.
Discharge limitations for the three POTWs control primarily conventional
and nonconventional contaminants, including:
BOD
Ammonia
Chlorides
Flourides
Oil and Grease
Phosphorus
Suspended Solids
pH
Sulfate.
Fecal Coliforms
Cyanides
Phenol
Flow Rate
All three POTW's receive substantial industrial flows. However, available
data are inadequate to evaluate the degree of toxic pollutants passthrough
which may be occurring, or the resulting impacts on the GCR/IHC.
1.3.3 Pretreatment Program
The National Pretreatment Program is described in 40 CFR Part 403. The
pretreatment program is intended to protect both the POTW and the receiving
waters from harmful constituents included in industrial effluents discharged
to the collection system. Specifically, the program prevents the introduction
of pollutants which inhibit or otherwise interfere with the treatment works,
reduce opportunities for recycle or reuse of sludge, or pass through the plant
to receiving waters.
S-12
-------
Under pretreatment program regulations, the Gary, Hammond and East
Chicago POTWs are required to develop local pretreatment programs: all three
receive substantial industrial flows, including industries subject to cate-
gorical pretreatment standards, and all treat design flows of over five
million gallons per day (mgd).
Although Indiana does not yet have a state approved pretreatment program,
an informal draft program application has been made to the USEPA and Indiana
has assumed de facto delegation of major program review activities. All three
POTWs have been required to prepare pretreatment programs. In response to
USEPA orders issued under Section 309 of the CWA, all three POTWs have sub-
mitted program applications to the USEPA. These program applications were
prepared using USEPA guidance for local pretreatment program development.
All three POTWs have identified industries subject to control and have
proposed local limits for discharges to the collection system, based on
influent sampling and industrial discharge data. These limits are intended to
protect the treatment plant and to prevent pollutant passthrough, which inter-
feres with POTW compliance with Water Quality Standards. The limited con-
stituents are summarized as follows:
POTW Constituents Limited
Gary Metals, Cyanide (CN)
Hammond Metals, CN, Phenols, Oil & Grease (O&G), Mineral or
Petroleum origin O&G, PCBs ("no discharge allowed")
East Chicago Metals, CN, Phenols, O&G, Mineral or Petroleum origin O&G,
total Phosphorus (P), Fluoride, Thallium, Methylene
Chloride, Fluoranthene, bis '(2-ethylhexy) Phthalate
Limited metals include cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc for
all three POTWs, in addition to chromium for Gary and Hammond, soluble iron
for East Chicago, and silver for Hammond and East Chicago. Although addi-
tional pollutants (including toxics) are known to be discharged to these
POTWs, many of these compounds were not detected in the POTW effluents and
were therefore not added to the list of controlled constituents.
S-13
-------
The USEPA is currently completing review of the revised POTW pretreatment
program documents submitted by East Chicago and is anticipating receipt of
revised program documents from Gary and Hammond in early 1985. All three
programs are expected to be approved by Summer, 1985. After program approval
and implementation, the resultant monitoring of industry and POTW effluents
will provide additional data to determine the extent of toxics passthrough to
the GCR/IHC. The existing data are marginally sufficient to indicate those
toxic pollutants for which additional monitoring is required.
1.3.4 Municipal Wastewater Treatment
The NPDES and pretreatment programs regulate the quality of wastewater
effluent discharged from POTWs. The construction grants program (Section 201
of the CWA) provides financial assistance to municipal POTWs for construction
of sewerage conveyance and treatment systems to assist in meeting discharge
limitations. These funds are provided through the delegated State programs,
on the basis of State priorities, and are generally available for planning and
design, facilities construction, and personnel training. Grantees are
required to comply with general USEPA requirements as well as any additional
State or USEPA conditions specific to the POTW.
Since 1970, more than $108 million in Federal grant assistance has been
provided to the Gary, Hammond and East Chicago POTWs. Overall, the progress
of facilities planning for all three POTWs has been slow; despite the more
than 10 years since these municipalities initiated participation in the 201
program, substantial program elements have yet to be completed.
Six major grants have been received by Gary, for planning, construction
and operator training. Facilities planning has been concluded and all
elements of the plan have been approved except solids handling and disposal,
which remains as the weak point in the overall sewerage collection, transport
and treatment system. Gary has applied for $30-40 million in grant assistance
for improvements to the sludge handling system. However, the USEPA has denied
this request because the proposed solution was not found to be cost effective
and failed to address the issue of PCB-contaminated sludge in the Ralston
Street lagoon.
S-14
-------
Facilities planning in Hammond is also essentially complete. Construc-
tion of the advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) facilities is complete and has
resulted in 95 percent reductions in BOD and solids loading to the GCR/IHC. A
CSO study is under review by the State. This study recommends full sewer
separation. Evaluation of CSO impacts on water quality is underway.
East Chicago has experienced chronic problems in completing facilities
planning activities. Progress has been minimal and those reports and plans
which have been completed have been found to be seriously deficient by the
State and USEPA. The Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) analysis is the only facili-
ties planning element which has been approved. The Sewer System Evaluation
Survey (SSES) report and a facilities plan segment addressing rehabilitation
of the existing plant were returned due to major deficiencies. An estimated
$35 million is required to meet wastewater treatment needs through the year
2000, for renovation of existing primary and secondary treatment units,
addition of AWT facilities and renovation of sludge management facilities.
Progress toward completion of facilities planning has been suspended while
East Chicago selects a new consultant. While no plans for CSO control
presently exist, the need for such controls is being re-evaluated by the
USEPA.
S-15
-------
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Water quality in the Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Ship Canal
(GCR/IHC) has improved dramatically in the past 10-15 years, however,
improvements in the West Branch have been more limited. Dissolved oxygen
levels were once too low to support any but the most pollution tolerant
aquatic species, and even these organisms were greatly reduced in numbers.
Today, average DO levels are adequate to support a varied species assemblage
of freshwater fish and other aquatic organisms, and recent data suggest that
some recolonization of the GCR/IHC has begun.
Significant reductions in point source pollutant loading rates have been
achieved through both municipal and industrial effluent controls. These
controls have focused on regulation of conventional and non-conventional
contaminants, which are closely related to DO levels in the receiving water.
As these pollutants have come under increasing control, the potential impor-
tance of toxic pollutants to the water quality and aquatic habitat of the
GCR/IHC has become more apparent.
In recognition of the above, the following recommendations have been
formulated in order to:
1. Continue the existing emphasis on pollutant controls.
2. Clarify the role of toxic pollutants in the river system.
3. Develop any additional toxic pollutant control programs that are
necessary for restoration of the GCR/IHC.
These recommendations will be implemented through a cooperative, interagency
effort which will be directed and sustained by EPA. The following recommen-
dations have been developed pursuant to a thorough review of existing water
quality and aquatic habitat problems in the GCR/IHC, to the extent practical
with the existing data base.
2.1 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES
Improving water quality in the Grand Calumet River will require the
sustained efforts and cooperation of a least seven public and regulatory
S-16
-------
agencies. The Master Plan recognizes, the importance of utilizing the scienti-
fic expertise of the various agency staff members. Successful implementation
of Plan recommendations will require administrative coordination between these
agencies. This will minimize the procedural delays associated with develop-
ment and implementation of additional control programs and will facilitate
more effective use of existing controls. Key agency roles are discussed
below.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The USEPA will continue with preparation of the Master Plan to final
draft. The USEPA will encourage implementation of recommendations by
responsible agencies, particularly with respect to Indiana, which has be'en
delegated authority for the construction grants and NPDES permit issuance
programs. Emphasis will be placed on USEPA and State enforcement of existing
regulations and completion of studies in progress. The USEPA will stress full
implementation of existing programs as a basis for new control programs.
Field studies will be undertaken as required to support control programs. The
USEPA will assume the lead role in coordinating interagency implementation of
the final Master Plan and will designate a key contact individual to manage
and monitor plan progress. In addition, the USEPA will work closely with the
State and will cooperate with and support applied research programs and field
investigations of other agencies pursuant to establishment of new control
programs.
INDIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
The ISBH will play a major role in implementation of the final Master
Plan. Through management of the Federal regulatory authorities delegated to
the State of Indiana, the ISBH plays a key role in management of the environ-
mental resources of the Grand Calumet. The State has primary responsibility
for revising water quality standards, wasteload allocations, and NPDES permits.
The ISBH will also closely coordinate with the USEPA in completion of pre-
treatment programs for the Gary, Hammond and East Chicago POTWs. The ISBH
should also designate a key contact person.
S-17
-------
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (COB)
Completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Indiana Harbor
project maintenance dredging is an essential step toward implementation of the
Final Master Plan. The COE assessment of alternatives to dredging and spoils
disposal from the Harbor and Ship canal will contribute to public and Agency
perceptions of the feasibility of remedial actions proposed for upriver sedi-
ment contamination. In addition, the COE is performing a special investiga-
tion to consider control alternatives for the most highly polluted areas of
the IHC. As part of this effort, the COE will investigate the overall
relationship between contaminated sediments and water quality in the GCR/IHC,
as well as effects on near-shore Lake Michigan. The USEPA will cooperate with
the COE in these efforts, with the intention of applying study results to the
consideration of control alternatives for areas of contaminated sediments
upstream of the COE dredging project.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)
The USGS has a high degree of interest in establishing a flow monitoring
program for the East and West Branches of the GCR, in cooperation with the
ISBH and USEPA. Data will be used to refine existing water quality models and
to support continued pollutant monitoring and dispersion analyses.
OTHER AGENCIES
The following agencies have been invited to review and comment on the
draft and final Master Plan. These agencies may contribute to determining
priorities, assessing the feasibility of proposed remedial actions, and
evaluating new regulatory approaches and standards for the Grand Calumet
River.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC).
The NIRPC has exhibited a strong interest in assuming a continuing role in
addressing water quality issues in northwest Indiana. The Master Plan has
S-18
-------
been made available to other interested agencies, in addition to those
discussed above.
2.2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
The Lake Michigan Federation, the Grand Calumet Task Force, and other
public interest groups have been (and will continue to be) invited to attend
public information meetings and comment on research findings, proposed
technologies, and overall Master Plan recommendations and conclusions. A
mailing list has been prepared for public interest groups. A public infor-
mation meeting was held in October 1984 to announce completion of the Plan.
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS AND CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
Master Plan recommendations will be distributed to these groups by the
USEPA. A contact person at the Agency and at the ISBH will be identified. It
is anticipated that the major items of interest of these groups will be the
schedule for implementation of industrial wastewater pretreatment regulations
and any revisions to NPDES permits.
SANITARY DISTRICT RESIDENTS
Conclusions and recommendations regarding municipal wastewater collection
and treament facilities, and especially regarding proposed CSO controls or
impending enforcement actions, will be described in the Master Plan. Plan
recommendations will be distributed to the Sanitary District offices of Gary,
Hammond, and East Chicago. Local residents should monitor plan implemen-
tation.
2.3 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAMS
Need
The existing water quality standards for the GCR/IHC are overdue for
revision and updating, based on the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Also, the designated uses of the GCR/IHC (which the criteria and standards are
developed to protect) do not include the full range of uses possible under the
CWA.
S-19
-------
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
The ISBH 1) adopt the "fishable/swimmable" goals of Section 101(a)(2)
of the CWA, or 2) conduct a use attainability analysis, pursuant to
Section 131.10 of the Act, and adopt the resulting appropriate use
designation. Such an analysis be conducted pursuant to the 1983 USEPA
publication: Water Body Survey and Assessment Guidance for Conducting
Use Attainability Analysis. Practical limitations to the attainment
of the "fishable/swimmable" goals of the CWA be identified and that an
alternative, designated use be proposed, consistent with the result of
the use attainability analysis.
The ISBH adopt water quality criteria protective of the designated
use. Such criteria be derived pursuant to USEPA draft guidelines
published (49 FR 4551) in February 1984. Such criteria include
conventional, non-conventional and toxic substances (including the
Section 307(2)(1) priority pollutants). Criteria be either pollutant-
specific, narrative, or a combination of the two. If narrative
criteria are adopted, these be developed pursuant to Section 131.11(2)
of the Act and include specifics to describe the methods proposed by
the ISBH to regulate point source discharges of toxic substances.
The ISBH propose new water quality standards for the GCR/IHC based on
the above. Such analyses consider an accelerated schedule for stan-
dards upgrading for those portions of the system already exhibiting
elevated water quality conditions (e.g., the Marquette Park Lagoons).
The ISBH augment the wasteload allocations for point source discharges
presently being completed to include toxic pollutants.
The ISBH revise its antidegradation policy, pursuant to Sections
131.6(d) and 131.12 of the Act. This policy identify proposed methods
for protecting the instream uses designated pursuant to Section
101(a)(2) of the Act, or a use attainability analysis, as described
above.
Status
The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board is currently evaluating the
possibility of changing the GCR/IHC use designation from limited aquatic life,
industrial water supply, and partial-body contact recreation to aquatic life
and whole-body contact recreation, pursuant to the recommendations of the
Grand Calumet Task Force. The Board is also considering changing the total
ammonia standard to un-ionized ammonia, expanding the number of toxic
parameters included under the regulation, and updating the fecal coliform
S-20
-------
standards. The results of the nearly completed WLA are being considered in
these evaluations. The chloride, sulphate, and total dissolved solids
standards are also being reevaluated, especially as regards impacts on Lake
Michigan.
A public hearing on the proposed revision process will be conducted, in
northwest Indiana, in early 1985. Limited standards revisions are expected to
be adopted in mid-1985. The State then intends further review of water
quality standards, with emphasis on toxicants.
2.4 NPDES PROGRAM
Need
Historically, NPDES permit limits were based primarily on conventional
and nonconventional contaminants as well as selected metals and other pol-
lutants. These permits did not generally include provisions for control of
toxic pollutants.
Recommendation
It is recommended that:
In reissuing industrial NPDES permits, full analytical testing for
toxic organic pollutants continue to be required for sources whose
wastewater is suspected of containing these pollutants. Appropriate
limits are being included in the new permits.
The State and USEPA perform biomonitoring at the Gary, Hammond and
East Chicago POTW outfalls. Biomonitoring also be performed at
selected outfalls among the seven major industrial point sources
(Citgo, duPont, Inland Steel, J&L Steel, U.S.S. Lead, U.S. Steel and
Vulcan Materials) as part of Indiana and USEPA's joint, long-term
biomonitoring. program. Biomonitoring results be used as a screening
test to determine the need for revisions to NPDES permit limits for
control of specific toxic substances. Revisions to POTW limits be
implemented through the NPDES program.
The USEPA cooperate with the 1SBH to ensure that the U.S.S. Lead
Refinery comply with the NPDES permit conditions.
* The ISBH and USEPA ensure implementation of NPDES requirements for
POTW pretreatment program development, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 403,
for the Gary, Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts.
S-21
-------
The Gary NPDES permit be reissued to reflect effluent limits specified
in the wasteload allocation analysis. This new permit include
requirements for proper operation and maintenance of existing POTW
facilities, establishment of a replacement fund and correction of
sludge handling and storage deficiencies.
The Hammond NPDES permit be reissued to reflect effluent limits
specified in the wasteload allocation analysis. This new permit
include requirements for completion of sludge handling equipment
construction.
The East Chicago NPDES permit be reissued to reflect effluent limits
specified in the wasteload allocation analysis. This new permit
include requirements for construction and operation of sludge handling
facilities.
Under the NPDES program, a comprehensive CSO program be implemented;
dry weather discharges from CSO outfalls be eliminated. CSO frequency
be minimized through maximizing the efficiency of existing POTW
facilities. Controls be established for CSO outfalls which require
them.
* Toxic pollutants monitoring may be required for selected CSOs, based
on water quality data and the nature of the industrial discharges
contributing to the collection system upstream of the CSO.
Status
All major industrial discharger NPDES permits have been reissued, except
those for duPont, Jones and Laughlin and U.S.S. Lead, which have been public
noticed (for intent to reissue) and are expected to be reissued by Summer,
1985. The three POTW permits are subject to the conclusions of the nearly
completed WLA, but are also expected to be reissued by Summer, 1985. Effluent
monitoring and biomonitoring are scheduled for U.S.S. Lead, the Gary Sanitary
District and the East Chicago Sanitary District during 1985, Effluent
monitoring is scheduled at Inland Steel, also in 1985.
2.5 PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS
Need
A wide variety of industrial facilities discharge process wastewaters to
the Gary, Hammond and East Chicago POTWs. These wastewaters contain toxic
pollutants which may pass through the POTW and be discharged to receiving
waters. Also, these pollutants may be displaced in the POTW sludge in suf-
ficient concentrations to restrict sludge recycling or reuse opportunities, or
S-22
-------
may result in environmental contamination as a result of sludge disposal
practices.
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
o The ISBH cooperate with the USEPA to effect the early completion and
implementation of municipal pretreatment programs for the Gary,
Hammond and East Chicago POTWs. These programs be consistent with 40
CFR Part 403 regulations as well as State guidance.
o After pretreatment program development and implementation, POTWs
monitor for toxic pollutant pass through. Sludge be analyzed for
priority pollutants and other toxics, as necessary. Effluent biomoni-
toring tests be conducted to determine the possible presence of toxic
pollutants in the final effluent. Pretreatment and effluent limits be
revised, following industrial discharge monitoring and biomonitoring
of the municipal effluent, to control pass"through pollutants, protect
treatment operations and enhance sludge disposal opportunities.
Pretreatment program monitoring and control needs be implemented
through the NPDES program.
Status
East Chicago has submitted revised program documents to the State and
USEPA. Revised programs are expected to be submitted by Gary and Hammond in
early 1985. Program approval for all three POTWs is anticipated by fall,
1985, based on current progress. Municipal pretreatment programs will include
time schedules for implementation of various monitoring requirements.
Effluent biomonitoring is being performed by the USEPA and State.
2.6 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROGRAM
Need
Since 1970, more than $108 million in Federal grant assistance has been
provided to the Gary, Hammond and East Chicago Sanitary Districts for plan-
ning, construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities. Although
significant progress has been realized, existing facilities are inadequate to
ensure consistent control of municipal effluent, for protection of the
receiving water. Poor management and operation of facilities also exists in
some instances.
S-23
-------
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
o The USEPA work with the Gary Sanitary District and the Indiana State
Board of Health to ensure compliance with the existing consent decree
regarding sludge handling, Ralston Street Lagoon cleanup, operator
training and operation maintenance.
o The USEPA work with the Hammond Sanitary District and the ISBH to
ensure complete construction of necessary sludge management facili-
ties. Hammond provide a study which effectively evaluates cost-
effective CSO control alternatives.
o The USEPA work with the East Chicago Sanitary District and the ISBH to
ensure complete facilities planning, construction of short-term and
long-term sludge handling facilities, and other requirements needed to
achieve compliance with the NPDES permit. East Chicago determine the
need for additional controls by performing the revisions to its CSO
study requested by the USEPA.
Status
A construction grant has recently been awarded to Gary for plant operator
training. Hammond was awarded a grant for solids handling facilities in
September, 1984. East Chicago has retained an engineering firm (TenEch
Environmental Engineers) to complete the facilities planning process.
The USEPA is pursuing an enforcement action in response to continuing
violations of Gary's consent judgment. In Hammond, a consent judgment is
under negotiation. East Chicago has been subject to several court orders
previously; the USEPA anticipates negotiation of a consent judgment as the
next step toward permit compliance.
2.7 CSO CONTROLS
Need
CSO outfalls discharge an estimated 11 billion gallons of raw wastewater
to the GCR/IHC, on an annual basis. These CSO discharges may include signifi-
cant quantities of toxic pollutants from industrial discharges contributing to
the sewer system upstream of CSO overflows.
S-24
-------
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
o The ISBH and USEPA evaluate the need for additional CSO controls on
the basis of the wasteload allocation program and the current evalua-
tion study of CSO impacts on water quality in near-shore Lake
Michigan. These evaluations focus primarily on the need to control
conventional and nonconventional contaminants.
o The ISBH and USEPA identify additional data needs to determine the
impacts of CSO toxics loading on near-shore Lake Michigan, on the
basis of the modeling study currently underway. These needs be
coordinated with the future toxics WLA modeling process.
o Under the NPDES program, dry weather CSO overflows be eliminated,
infiltration be reduced, inflow be retarded and existing POTW
facilities be managed to achieve maximum reduction of CSO overflow
events.
o Additional CSO control needs be identified through the NPDES program.
o The USEPA require the Cities of Gary, Hammond and East Chicago, as
part of their pretreatment programs, to strictly enforce local sewer
use ordinances to control the introduction of toxic industrial pol-
lutants to portions of the sewer system subject to CSO discharges.
Status
The USEPA is currently developing a CSO policy position, which will guide
the development of CSO permits. This policy document will clarify funding
priorities for CSO projects and will assist in planning and implementation of
additional CSO controls and permits. Completion of the CSO policy is anti-
cipated in mid-1985.
2.8 NON-POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
Need
Non-point source pollutant loading to the GCR/IHC derives from a variety
of potential sources, including contaminated sediments, highway runoff, rain-
scour, dustfall, seepage of contaminated groundwater and surface runoff from
industrial properties contiguous to the river. The most significant sources
are currently believed to include contaminants released from sediments, direct
runoff from facilities contiguous to the river and contaminated groundwater
seepage.
S-25
-------
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
The USEPA coordinate with the Indiana State review of ERRIS and NPL
waste storage and disposal sites in the GCR/IHC basin. The USEPA
explore, with the State of Indiana, alternatives for assigning
priority to a coordinated investigation of the wastefill sites located
within 1/5 mile of the river. The review of groundwater issues at
individual sites be coordinated to enhance the utility of data col-
lected in other efforts. Regulatory action under RCRA, "Superfund,"
NPDES or other applicable regulatory mechanisms will be pursued where
appropriate.
The USEPA cooperate with the COE-sponsored investigation of alter-
natives for control of contaminated sediments in two areas in the
harbor maintenance dredging zone. (This COE investigation has begun
and is centering on two areas of the river exhibiting.high levels of
sediment PCBs. This study is including an investigation of the over-
all interaction of sediment contaminants and water quality in the
GCR/IH.C system. These investigations are being performed by the^COE's
Waterways Experiment Station.)
Following additional data aquisition, based in part on the COE efforts
referenced above, USEPA investigate alternatives for remedial action
for contaminated sediments in the GCR/IHC system, upstream of the
navigation channel.
The USEPA cooperate with Indiana and the USGS to establish a flow
monitoring program on the GCR/IHC. This program include consideration
of groundwater contributions and be coordinated with the priority
investigation of wastefill sites. The resulting flow data be utilized
in pollutant disperson monitoring and modeling activities.
Status
Several of the ERRIS sites are currently under investigation by the
State, but a coordinated investigation of ERRIS listed sites in the GCR/IHC
basin has not yet been initiated. Investigations should be completed in 1986.
The COE study of alternatives for control of contaminated sediments in the IHC
has been initiated. Stage 1 of this study will be completed in 1985. Data
generated in the COE investigations will contribute to the investigation of
alternatives for control of contaminated sediments in upstream areas, which
will be performed in 1986. The USEPA is considering a program for the advance
identification of disposal sites, as a follow-on to the nearly completed COE
draft EIS for disposal of dredged harbor sediments, to be conducted in late
1985. The cooperative USGS/Indiana/USEPA flow monitoring program study has
been initiated.
S-26
-------
2.9 MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE
Need
Existing control programs and strategies are oriented toward those
pollutant sources which are best understood and for which at least preliminary
data exist. As the existing and new proposed control programs are imple-
mented, the relative magnitudes and importance of various pollutant sources
will change. Long-term monitoring is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness
-\
of control programs and to discover any remaining, uncontrolled contaminants
sources of significance.
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
The State and USEPA conduct fish flesh contaminant monitoring for
toxics, as an indicator of bioaccumulation. Also, toxics monitoring
be conducted at representative locations in the GCR/IHC.
The USEPA cooperate with the ISBH, USGS, and COE to develop a
coordinated monitoring effort for groundwater, surface water and
sediment quality, as regards known contaminant sources and concen-
trating on toxic pollutants and resolving uncertainties in flows and
loads.
The USEPA and ISBH develop a long-term monitoring plan for specific
target pollutants, to be implemented by individual agencies under
existing monitoring programs. Data from all sources be provided to
the State for collating. This data will be instrumental for devel-
opment of a toxics WLA system and other future modelling efforts.
Status
The State and USEPA have initiated a fish flesh contaminant monitoring
program and have collected preliminary samples for analysis. An initial
study, conducted by the State and USGS to resolve uncertainties in flows and
loads, was conducted in October, 1984. A coordinated USEPA/COE/USGS/ISBH
multimedia monitoring program has not yet been developed. An interagency task
force is being formed, comprised of Federal and State agencies, to develop a
long-term program for monitoring of target pollutants.
S-27
-------
2.10 WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Need
Many of the preceding recommendations have been directly or indirectly
related to the ongoing WLA modelling effort. This model, when complete, will
provide a basis for regulating the discharge of primarily conventional and
nonconventional contaminants to the GCR/IHC. However, as the role of toxic
pollutants in the GCR/IHC becomes more clearly understood, a similar alloca-
tion mechanism will be necessary for the effective control of toxics.
Re commendat ions
It is recommended that:
The USEPA coordinate with the State to implement such additional
studies as are needed to empirically define the relationship between
point and non-point sources of toxics and the resulting impacts on
water quality, sediments and aquatic biota. Such studies include
impacts on Lake Michigan and biological risk assessment evaluations.
The USEPA support the development of a toxics WLA model as a basis for
establishing discharge limits in future NPDES permits This model
include point and non-point sources of pollutants; consider impacts on
water quality, sediments, aquatic biota and downstream water bodies;
be developed as an extension of the current WLA; and be based on
updated hydrologic and pollutant source data developed as results of
the preceding recommendations.
Status
A WLA study, including the contaminants regulated by existing water
quality standards, is nearing completion. A modeling study of CSO impacts on
water quality in near-shore Lake Michigan is also nearing completion. When
complete, the results of both investigations will be utilized in determining
the additional data needs to support development of a toxics WLA.
2.11 INSTITUTIONAL
Need
Comments from residents of Northwest Indiana have indicated a strong
interest in the establishment of a regional or field office of the ISBH in the
S-28
-------
area. A need for such an office is perceived in order to provide for more
effective communication between area residents and the State, as well as- to
enable more timely and effective response to environmental problems.
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
The ISBH, through an arrangement with local agencies or other means,
provide for an expanded local presence to act as a focus for more
effective communication with the citizens of northwest Indiana, for
all environmental media.
Status
The State Environmental Policy Commission has recommended the
establishment of a regional office in northwest Indiana to better respond to
local concerns. This recommendation is under review by the Governor. The
State is considering an arrangement whereby the NIRPC would function as a
local laison office for the State Board of Health.
2.12 TIME FRAME AND IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 1 presents time bands in which activities recommended in the
Master Plan and other ongoing activities are targeted. It is important to
note that events may occur which result in delay or acceleration of the
recommended activities. For example, a newly discovered problem pollutant or
problem pollutant source could require immediate investigation, shifting
resources and time frames for other activities.
Implementation of the Master Plan will be closely monitored and the
subject of periodic meetings and reports by the agencies involved. Details of
planned activities will be presented in the annual program plans by the State.
Members of the public may participate by comment on the State's program plan,
by comment at public hearings, and by response to public notices on such
matters as proposed permit revisions and water quality standards.
S-29
-------
Comments on the report or on the issues raised may be made at any time to
the following address:
Director, Water Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
S-30
-------
Figurt 1. Projected Time Frame for Implementation of the Grand Calumet Master Plan
1985
1986
1987
Water Quality Standards 1
1. Waste Load Allocation completed f
2. Current Water Quality Standard 1
Reviewed
3. Limited Standard Revisions adopted
toxicants
. NPDES Permits
1. Reissue remaining industrial permits
with toxic limits
2. Reissue municipal permits
effluents
municipal effluents
6. Re issuance as Permits cone due or
standards are revised
;. Pretreatment
1. Revised program documents recieved
from municipalities
2. Preliminary approval
3. Ordinances & NPDES Revisions adopted
4. Final approval
5. Implementation by municipalities
6. Enforcement & Oversight 5y USEPA &
State
0. Municipal Wastewater Treatment
1. Resolve consent decree violations at
Gary
2. Negotiate consent judgements with East
Chicago and Hammond
E. CSO Controls
1. USEPA Region V issues policy on CSO
3. L'SEPA completes report on wet weather
CSO impact on Lake
4. Futher CSO impact analysis if needed
P011Cy
-J
I
^
-
1
§
ma^m
=
M
.
* 1 1 1
S-31
-------
Figure 1. (continued)
1985
1986
1987
F. Non-Point Source Controls '
1. Preliminary Assessment of wastefills
along the GCR/IHC
2. Site inspections of wastefills
3. Followup action at wastefills
4. COE study of Sediment Contamination
5. USEPA consideration of remedial
alternatives for sediments
6. Propose Action on sediments
7. USGS/Indiana/USEPA flow monitoring
b. further study
G. Monitoring & Surveillance
1. Chemical Analysis for fish collected
in FY84
3. Form interagency task force & develop
monitoring plan
4. Implement Monitoring Plan
H. Waste load Allocation
current standards 1
impacts
3. Determine additional data needs for a
wasteload allocation for toxicants
4. Data Acquisition
5. Toxicant waste load allocation
development
1
S-32
------- |