United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA-905/9-84-003C
January 1935
Water Division
Master Plan for Final
Improving Water
Quality in the Grand
Calumet River/Indiana
Harbor Canal
-------
REPORT
1935
230
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
F'^ion V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street ^
Chicago, Illinois 60604 x-"'
-------
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, non-
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 public
meeting to receive citizens' comments regarding the pollution control
needs of the GCR/IHC. These comments were delivered through the Grand
Calumet Task Force (a northwest Indiana citizens group). 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 (Chapter 2) and a presentation of existing
water quality control programs (Chapter 3). A summary and conclusions
section is presented in Chapter 4. The report concludes with recommendations
for improving water quality and aquatic habitat conditions in the GCR/IHC
(Chapter 5).
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 its recommendations. These
comments and those made at a public meeting on Oct. 25, 1984 have been
considered in preparation of the final report. 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
PREFACE i
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF TABLES v
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT 1-1
1.2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES I-A
1.3 SUMMARY OF LOCAL ISSUES AND LIMITATIONS 1-6
1.4 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 1-8
1.5 AGENCY APPROACH 1-10
2. EXISTING SITUATION 2-1
2.1 GRAND CALUMET RIVER BASIN 2-1
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 2-4
2.2.1 Aquatic Habitat 2-4
2.2.2 Water Quality 2-8
2.2.3 Sediments 2-12
2.2.4 Sediment Toxicity Factors 2-22
2.2.5 Biota 2-38
2.3 POLLUTANT SOURCES 2-41
2.3.1 Industrial Point Sources 2-41
2.3.2 Municipal Point Sources 2-47
2.3.3 Combined Sewer Overflows 2-55
2.3.4 Non-point Sources 2-61
3. CONTROL PROGRAMS 3-1
3.1 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND INDUSTRIAL 3-1
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAMS
3.2 NPDES PROGRAM 3-13
3.2.1 Industrial Point Sources 3-13
3.2.2 Municipal Point Sources 3-13
3.3 PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS 3-23
3.3.1 State Pretreatment Program 3-25
3.3.2 Local Pretreatment Programs 3-25
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.4 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROGRAM 3-32
3.4.1 Gary POTW 3-34
3.4.2 Hammond POTW 3-35
3.4.3 East Chicago POTW 3-36
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4-1
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 4-2
4.2 POLLUTANT SOURCES 4-3
4.2.1 Industrial Point Sources 4-4
4.2-2 Municipal Wastewater Sources 4-4
4.2.3 Combined Sewer Overflows 4-5
4.2.4 Non-Point Sources 4-6
4.3 CONTROL PROGRAMS 4-7
4.3.1 Water Quality Standards and ladustrial
Effluent Guidelines Program 4-7
4.3.2 NPDES Program 4-9
4.3.3 Pretreatment Program 4-12
4.3.4 Municipal Wastewater Treatment 4-14
5. RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1
5.1 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES 5-1
5.2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING AND
IMPLEMENTATION 5-4
5.3 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND INDUSTRIAL
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM . 5-4
5.4 NPDES PROGRAM 5-6
5.5 PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS 5-7
5.6 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROGRAM 5-8
5.7 CSO CONTROLS 5-9
5.8 NON-POINT SOURCE CONTROLS 5-10
5.9 MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE 5-12
5.10 WASTELOAD ALLOCATION 5-13
5.11 INSTITUTIONAL 5-13
5.12 TIME FRAME AND IMPLEMENTATION 5-14
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES A-l
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2-1 Grand Calumet River Basin and Surrounding Metropolitan
Areas of Northwest Indiana and Chicago, Illinois 2-2
2-2 Stream Flow Direction in the GCR/IHC 2-3
2-3 Natural Areas Along the GCR/IHC 2-7
2-4 Locations of ISBH Monthly Water Quality Monitoring Stations 2-10
2-5 Location of Point Source Discharges 2-43
2-6 Locations of CSO Discharges and Wastefills near the GCR/IHC 2-58
5-1 Projected Time Frame for Implementation of Recommendations of
the Grand Calumet Master Plan 5-16
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2-1 Average Sediment Metal Levels in the Grand Calumet River,
the Des Plaines River, and the Cal-Sag Channel 2-14
2-2 USEPA Region V Guidelines for the Pollution Classification
of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments 2-16
2-3 Comparison of Averaged 1982 and 1984 Metals Content of
GCR Sediments 2-19
2-4 Concentrations of Priority Pollutants in Sediments
of the Grand Calumet River System, the Corresponding
K Values, and the USEPA Water Quality Criteria for
tSi Protection of Aquatic Life and Human Health 2-29
2-5 Ranking of Priority Pollutant Organics and Metals found
in the Grand Calumet River Sediments Based on a Comparison
of Sediment Concentration and USEPA Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Aquatic Life 2-33
2-6 Ranking of Priority Pollutant Organics and Metals found
in the Grand Calumet River Sediments Based on a Comparison
of Sediment Concentration and USEPA Watar Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health . 2-35
2-7 Fish Species Collected from the Indiana Harbor Canal
during November and December 1983 2-40
2-8 Industrial Point Source Loadings 2-48
2-9 Influent and Effluent Priority Pollutant Monitoring
Data for the East Chicago POTW 2-51
2-10 Influent and Effluent Priority Pollutant Monitoring
Data for the Gary POTW 2-53
2-11 Heavy Metal and Cyanide Influent and Effluent Monitoring
Data for the Hammond POTW 2-54
2-12 Combined Sewer Overflow to the Grand Calumet River
Locations and Characteristics 2-56
2-13 Combined Sewer Overflow and Wastefills Located Near Highly
Contaminated Segments of the Grand Calumet River Bed 2-59
2-14 Estimated Toxic Loadings of East Chicago Industrial Users
to Alder Combined Sewer Overflow Station 2-62
2-15 Waste Fill and Storage Lagoon Sites Mapped Within the
Grand Calumet River Watershed 2-64
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
3-1 NPDES Permit History of Major Industrial Dischargers 3-15
3-2 NPDES Permit History of POTW Dischargers 3-22
3-3 Proposed Industrial Discharge Limits for the Gary, Hammond,
and East Chicago POTWs 3-29
3-4 Industrial Toxic Pollutants Discharged to East Chicago 3-31
VI
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
This report represents the second step in a regulatory agency effort
toward improving water quality and aquatic habitat conditions in the Grand
Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal (GCR/IHC). The first step, which is
already under way, involves aggressive implementation of existing pollution
control programs. This report describes a set of regulatory and investigative
initiatives to supplement the existing regulatory emphasis. These initiatives
constitute the overall "master plan" for the GCR/IHC, and have been developed
through an examination of existing water quality problems, an evaluation of
the adequacy of existing control programs to address these problems, and
development of control strategy alternatives. Subsequent work efforts will
include joint agency implementation of selected control strategies and yearly
progress monitoring.
The Master Plan effort includes and supplements U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) and State of Indiana water quality control programs,
already in place. These programs include best available technology (BAT)
permit development, waste load allocations, pretreatment program develooment,
and compliance actions (both municipal and industrial). The Master Plan
process has been initiated to develop an implementation vehicle to coordinate
these on-going efforts with new or additional directives. The Master Plan
will be supplemented by longer-term investigations, to evaluate the
effectiveness of existing and new control programs for enhancing water quality
conditions in the GCR/IHC.
Water quality in the heavily urbanized Calumet Region of Northwest
Indiana and Northeast Illinois has been a matter of local public concern for
more than a decade. Continued poor water quality in streams draining this
region to Southern Lake Michigan has also attracted Federal attention and
involvement. In 1965, a public conference on pollution of the interstate
watars of the Calumet Region was convened by the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare, under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
1-1
-------
Control Act. This conference was intended to initiate a coordinated planning,
monitoring and evaluation program to assess the progress of continued
pollution control efforts toward improving water quality in the Calumet
Region. Baseline conditions were defined, from the existing data base, as a
reference point from which to evaluate progress toward achieving water quality
goals and objectives. Principle participants in this conference included
representatives of the City of Chicago, the States of Illinois and Indiana,
and the Federal Government.
Progress evaluation meetings were held, in 1967 and 1968, to assess the
effectiveness of ongoing pollution control programs and relative progress
toward meeting water quality objectives. The conclusions drawn from these
meetings were that no significant improvement in water quality had been
realized over the 1965 baseline conditions, despite the general publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) and industrial discharge compliance with then-existing
water quality criteria and requirements (Technical Committee on Water Quality
1970). In recognition of continuing water quality problems, the Calumet Area
Water Quality Committee was appointed to review the adequacy of the existing
water quality criteria, in light of new monitoring and surveillance data, and
to formulate recommendations "... to achieve satisfactory water quality in the
[Calumet] area." This committee included representatives from the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago, Illinois Sanitary Water Board and the Indiana Stream
Pollution Control Board.
The Committee concluded that existing and then-planned pollution control
measures would be inadequate to meet water quality criteria and recommended
implementation of additional pollution control programs. These recommended
additional controls included:
Long range programs toward recycling and re-use of municipal and
industrial wastewater effluents
Combined sewer overflow elimination by July 1, 1977
Limitations on industrial discharges to municipal sewerage systems,
allowing only those wastes for which "adequate... treatment facilities
are available."
1-2
-------
Regulatory agency contingency plans to protect streams from industrial
and municipal facility spills and equipment failures
Development and application of "adequate and consistent effluent
criteria" to protect area water quality until completion of industrial
and municipal recycle facilities
On-shore disposal of ship wastes, including provision of docking areas
Establishment of a program of surveillance control points, to monitor
compliance with existing and new (proposed) water quality standards
Daily industrial waste analyses on composite samples from each
outfall, and calculation of daily net waste loading rates
* Continuation of the Federal Water Quality Administration Surveillance
Program to assess progress toward achieving water quality objectives.
Shortly after these recommendations were proposed, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration was replaced by the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (USEPA) and a nationwide initiative of pollution control programs
was instituted. In the Calumet area, emphasis shifted away from implementa-
tion of the specific recommendations of the Calumet Area Water Quality Com-
mittee and toward implementation of the more generic, broader-scope USEPA
water pollution control programs.
Many of the specific pollution control actions recommended by the Com-
mittee were included in the new USEPA program requirements, including: com-
bined sewer overflow (CSO) control; industrial pretreatment; spill prevention,
containment and control; waste load allocation; treatment of ship wastes; and
effluent monitoring. While certain of these and other programs have been
widely implemented, others are in development and will not be implemented for
some time. Now that significant progress has been made in many areas, it is
essential that future expenditures of pollution control funds be carefully
integrated. The cause and effect nature of chronic water quality problems in
the GCR/IHC is not fully understood, which limits the opportunities to
selectively apply pollution control funds to specific water quality problems.
In recent years, citizens groups in Northwest Indiana have organized in
voicing their concern for the continuing poor water quality in the GCR/IHC.
Those concerns include unpleasant odors, health risks from proximity to (or
1-3
-------
unintentional contact with) the river, effects on Lake Michigan, aesthetics,
and the generally degraded aquatic habitat, resulting from chronic water
quality problems and physical modification of the stream channel. Public
groups include organized citizens groups, area residents, labor unions,
sportsmen and members of the scientific and academic community.
Several agencies have assisted in providing a forum for public input and
in developing the technical and scientific basis for citizens concerns. For
example, the State of Indiana entertained discussion of GCR/IHC problems
during a recent public meeting and the International Joint Commission (IJC)
coordinated a meeting of agencies and the concerned public. Also, the Lake
Michigan Federation, in cooperation with local groups (in particular, the
Grand Calumet Task Force), has organized a coordinated effort intended to
focus public concerns and to draw regulatory agency attention to problems in
the GCR/IHC.
The USEPA has recognized the limitations of the current regulatory
approach for adequately addressing the complex water quality issues in the
GCR/IHC. In November 1983, the Regional Administrator for USEPA Region V
committed the Agency to the development of a Master Plan for improving water
quality conditions in the GCR/IHC. This report is one step in the fulfillment
of this commitment.
1.2 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Master Plan is, simply stated, an implementation framework for
improving water quality in the GCR/IHC. This framework includes
identification or development of required remedial actions, additional
pollution control needs, responsible agencies, and an implementation schedule
and plan. The Master Plan emphasizes the implementation of solutions to
existing problems.
Specific goals and objectives of the Master Plan process represent the
common interests of regulatory agencies and public interest groups, including
the following:
1-4
-------
Enforce existing NPDES effluent limitations
Apply existing regulations to achieve the pollutant load reductions
required under current law
Enhance water quality to support upgraded stream use designation and
water quality standards
Improve water quality to levels suitable for limited water contact
recreation
Improve aquatic habitat to support a balanced aquatic community of
fish and other organisms
Modify effluent permits to prevent the introduction of conventional
(biological) contaminants in excess of the assimilative capacity of
the receiving water
Modify effluent permits to minimize the introduction of toxic
pollutants
- Identify and control major non-point sources of toxic or other
biologically-inhibiting pollutants
t Abate sediment contamination, which is a major potential contributor
to continuing water quality degradation
* Identify the responsible, implementing agencies for recommended
remedial programs and develop a realistic implementation timetable and
progress monitoring schedule
Abate and control pollutants contributing to water quality degradation
in Lake Michigan.
Generally eliminate health hazards, nuisance odors and degraded
aesthetics (e.g., oil slicks) in the GCR/IHC.
These objectives' will be realized through a coordinated series of Federal,
State and local initiatives.
Although the Master Plan is cognizant of water quality issues throughout
the Grand Calumet River system, the principle objective is to improve water
quality and aquatic habitat conditions in that portion of the GCR system which
drains through the IHC to Lake Michigan. Consequently, remedial alternatives
focus on the East Branch, the Canal, and that portion of the West Branch of
the GCR which normally drains east toward che IHC, taken broadly to include
the Indiana portion of the West Branch. Also, due to the practical limits of
the USEPA's jurisdictional control, the Agency is focusing attention on the
1-5
-------
immediate river channel; however, every reasonable effort will be made to
coordinate water quality improvement programs with locally-sponsored
streambank restoration and corridor enhancement efforts.
1.3 SUMMARY OF LOCAL ISSUES AND LIMITATIONS
In preparing the Master Plan, the USEPA has recognized the interactive
nature of local socioeconomic conditions, and potential remedial actions, and
the possible impacts of these actions. Certain of the recommended remedial
actions will result in additional pollution control costs for local
municipalities and industries. Certain actions may also result in additional
regulatory responsibilities for the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH).
While the interests of area industries have not yet been officially
represented in the Master Plan process, the USEPA has maintained sensitivity
to possible conflicts between these interests and water quality goals and
objectives. The action alternatives proposed in the Master Plan must be
sensitive to the unique relationship which exists between industrial
wastewater flows and the physical characteristics of the GCR/IHC.
It has been argued that the GCR/IHC is a "working river" and that its
physical characteristics are so dependant on industrial discharges that the
river should be exempted from the water quality expectations of other natural
river systems. To some extent, this philosophy has been reflected in the ISBH
use designation (partial body contact, limited aquatic life and industrial
water supply) and water quality standards.
Specifically, the water use designation for the GCR/IHC, as established
by the Indiana Stream Pollution Control'Board (330 IAC 2-2-3), is based on a
stated recognition that flows in the river are predominantly comprised of "...
treated wastewaters and wastewaters of nonpoint source origin ... and that,
historically, a major function of [the GCR/IHC] has been the conveyance of
waters of such character" (State of Indiana, Stream Pollution Control Board
1978). Other factors cited in 330 IAC 2-2-3 in support of the use designation
include the "... unnatural character of these stream beds" and the assumption
1-6
-------
that the river would not be capable of supporting a well-balanced fish com-
munity "... even if all wastewaters discharged to [the GCR/IHC] are provided
the highest degree of treatment technologically and economically feasible."
Conversely, a growing number of local and area citzens and environmental
conservation groups have questioned the Stream Pollution Control Board's water
use designation for the GCR/IHC and have rejected the arguments on which this
designation is based (see previous paragraph). While it is generally
recognized that water quality in the GCR/IHC is a reflection of the
historical, direct relationship between area industries and the river, and
that this relationship has evolved over more than a century, the environmental
interest groups do not accept these factors as justification for maintaining
the status quo. These groups argue that despite its current and historical
use patterns, the GCR/IHC is nevertheless a bona fide natural river and is
therefore entitled to the regulatory protective benefits afforded other
waterways of the state.
Support for a program to improve water quality in the GCR/IHC also comes
from interest groups outside of the" immediate watershed. These include
conservation groups, who are concerned for the impacts of the GCR/IHC
discharge on southern Lake Michigan; the City of Chicago, whose raw water
intakes (in Lake Michigan) periodically intercept plumes of contaminated
GCR/IHC waters; and environmental regulatory agencies (e.g.; other States and
the International Joint Commission) charged with maintenance of water quality
and aquatic habitat in the Great Lakes.
The State of Indiana has initiated a new wasteload allocation (WLA)
modelling study for the GCR/IHC. When completed, the results of this study
will be used in revising the existing discharge permits to the river. The
current water quality standards (promulgated in 1978) were due for revision in
1981; however these revisions have been postponed pending completion of the
WLA study. Regardless of the outcome of the current WLA process, the Indiana
water quality standards must be revised, to reflect the current Section 304
(a)(l) USEPA water quality criteria. Through USEPA/State interaction, the
GCR/IHC Master Plan process will influence the new water quality standards
ultimately adopted for the river.
1-7
-------
1.4 MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Environmental problems in Che GCR/IHC have been recognized by regulatory
agencies and citizens groups alike. Local residents have complained of
unpleasant odors emanating from the river as well as degraded aesthetics,
including oil slicks and an unnatural grayish color. The GCR/IHC has also
been identified as a source of contaminants detected in the City of Chicago's
Lake Michigan raw water intakes. Lake Michigan public beaches have been
forced to close due to periodic bacteriological contamination of the Southern
end of the Lake by the GCR/IHC discharge. The outfall of the GCR/IHC has
resulted in a general impairment of water quality in lower Lake Michigan and
may be inhibiting indigenous aquatic species. Within the GCR/IHC, concentra-
tions of toxic substances as well as conventional and non-conventional contam-
inants are high, and few aquatic organisms exist.
Although recent improvements in water quality have been observed, the
entire GCR/IHC aquatic environment has, historically, been severely degraded.
During the 1970's, violations of all water quality standards occured more
frequently in this river system than in any other Indiana stream (USEPA 1982).
Water samples from the GCR/IHC have historically been high in unionized
ammonia, cyanide, oil and grease, phenol, phosphorous, mercury, poly-
chlorinated biphenols (PCBs), zinc, lead, selenium, iron, chloride, fluoride,
and conductivity.
The sediments from the entire GCR/IHC system are characterized as
"heavily polluted" (USEPA 1982), exhibiting some of the highest pollutant
concentrations observed in the Great Lakes System (Lucas and Steinfield 1972).
High concentrations of a wide variety of toxic substances have been identified
by several investigators. Contaminants include PCBs, PAHs (polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons), toxic metals (e.g., mercury, lead, zinc, arsenic,
chromium, cadmium), and chlorinated organics. Conventional and nonconven-
tional contaminants in high concentrations include phosphorus, nitrogen, oil
and grease, biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD).
In acute toxicity tests conducted in 1972, those river sediments tested were
found to be highly toxic to both vertebrate and invertebrate test species
(USEPA 1983). However, tolerant invertebrate benthic species do inhabit
selected areas of the river bottom, suggesting that significant local
variation may exist in sediment quality.
1-8
-------
The generally contaminated nature of the GCR/IHC sediments and overlying
water column has been well documented. Pollutant loading rates from the
major, known contaminant sources (e.g., industrial dischargers, POTWs and
CSOs) have been calculated, and water quality models have been constructed to
evaluate the impacts of variable pollutant loading rates on water quality in
the river. However, the historical emphasis in these monitoring and modeling
efforts has been on dissolved oxygen related and certain other-pollutants,
including BOD, COD, phosphorus, nitrogen, ammonia, cyanide and phenol. Water
quality conditions in the GCR/IHC, as measured by these conventional indica-
tors, have improved dramatically in recent years, owing to stricter effluent
controls and a reduction in manufacturing. The frequency of water quality
standards violations has decreased, while average dissolved oxygen (DO) con-
centrations have increased.
As conventional and nonconventional contaminants become more closely
controlled, toxicants become increasingly important. Unfortunately, less is
known about the sources, distribution and impacts of such contaminants in the
GCR/IHC. In light of the demonstrated toxic properties of the sediments on
aquatic organisms and the persistance of depressed biological activity in the
GCR/IKC, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a major requirement in
improving environmental conditions in the river is to develop an understanding
of the toxicants issue.
Toxicants are known to be discharged from permitted point source outfalls
to the river. Recent improvements in treatment technologies and effluent
controls have resulted in reductions in" point source toxicant loading rates,
however a substantial reservoir of these materials is contained in river
sediments. In addition to this in situ source, toxic pollutants are thought
to be entering the GCR/IHC from other sources which are presently only poorly,
if at all, understood. These sources may include constituents which are not
specifically monitored in already-permitted point source discharges.
Significant toxicant loadings may be derived from the the following point
source categories:
Combined sewer overflows
Industrial contaminant "pass-through," from POTWs, and
Direct industrial discharges.
1-9
-------
These sources have become the focus of Federal and state pollution control
efforts in recent years.
Because of the advances in point source controls, non-point sources may
now be of equal or greater importance to restoration of the GCR/IHC.
Significant non-point toxicant loading may be derived from the following
possible sources:
Leaching and dispersal from sediments
Highway runoff, including spills
Surface runoff .from industrial properties contiguous to the river
Seepage of contaminated groundwater from dumps, landfills, waste
lagoons and underground storage tanks
Rain scour and dust fall, and
Illegal dumping.
Relatively little is known about non-point sources, in comparison with
permitted sources. Original data collection and field studies may be required
to competently evaluate the relative importance of these non-point sources.
1.5 AGENCY APPROACH
This report is structured to be consistent with the USEPA's approach for
addressing the water quality problems in the GCR/IHC. This approach is based
on the following four key precepts:
1. The efficacy of existing pollution control programs should be
maximized before new programs are considered
2. Remedial programs must be based on a detailed, thorough understanding
of the underlying problem causes
3. Remedial programs should be prioritized toward the most
biologically-limiting pollutant sources, and
4. To be effective, remedial alternatives must be both impleraentable and
enforceable.
1-10
-------
Accordingly, this report has been organized to present key information
and conclusions in the following format:
An identification of existing pollution control needs
A comparison of identified pollution control needs versus the scope of
existing control programs
An identification of additional data requirements
Recommendations for new control programs and enhanced operation of
existing programs.
The Master Plan process will continue, with interagency implementation of
selected control programs and progress monitoring.
1-11
-------
CHAPTER 2. EXISTING SITUATION
2.1 GRAND CALUMET RIVER BASIN
The Grand Calumet River Basin is located in the northwest corner of
Indiana and the adjacent area of Illinois, as depicted in Figure 2-1. The
basin encompasses approximately 43,242 acres and is almost wholly contained
within Lake County (USEPA 1982). The Little Calumet River borders the basin
to the south while Lake Michigan lies to the north.
The Grand Calumet River (GCR) originates at Marquette Park Lagoon, east
of Gary. From the headwaters, the river flows approximately 13 miles to the
west where it is joined by the West Branch and empties into the Indiana Harbor
Canal (IHC), approximately three miles east of the Illinois State line. The
IHC then flows north/northeast, for approximately five miles, and empties into
southern Lake Michigan.
The topography of the basin is flat and flow tends to be sluggish. The
bottom is covered with a mixture of organic debris, mud and sludge (USEPA
1982). Due to man-made alterations to the stream channel, the flow pattern of
the GCR and the Indiana Harbor Canal (a man-made channel which connects the
GCR to Lake Michigan) is complex. The East Branch of the GCR flows westward
to the Indiana Harbor Canal (IHC) which flows northward to Lake Michigan. The
West Branch of the GCR, however, is generally divided into two segments. One
segment flows eastward into the IHC, while the other flows westward to
Illinois. Normal flow patterns in the GCR/IHC are depicted in Figure 2-2.
The IHC normally flows to Lake Michigan because of the great rate at
which lake water is pumped into the canal via the Grand Calumet River by the
U.S. Steel Gary Works. This water is spent cooling water, containing com-
paratively low levels of contaminants, which has the effect of diluting other
sources and maintaining a "flushing" influence on the river. Flow in the
canal may reverse itself for short periods of time, however, depending on the
stage of Lake Michigan. Flow reversals are known to extend into the West
Branch of the GCR. Effluent from the Hammond municipal wastewater treatment
plant discharges to that portion of the GCR which normally flows westward.
2-1
-------
-------
tSJ
Figure 2-2
Scream Flow Direction in the GCK/IHC
Source: Adapted from Indiana State Board o£ Health (ISBH) 1984
-------
The surface waters of the Grand Calumet basin are prone to flooding;
drainage problems exist, due to regional topography and the character of land
development in the area. The flooding and drainage problems contribute to the
deterioration of water quality within the Basin.
No surface water gaging stations exist on the GCR/IHC. However, flow has
been estimated to average 16 cfs in the West Branch and 880 cfs in the East
Branch (USEPA 1982). Flow in the East Branch is sustained by high volumes of
cooling water, derived from Lake Michigan, which is pumped to the River from
U.S. Steel. More than 90 percent of the flow in the GCR/IHC originates as
treated municipal and industrial wastewater, industrial cooling and process
water, and stormwater runoff (USEPA 1982).
Although the entire GCR/IHC watershed is heavily urbanized, the principal
urban centers are Gary, Hammond, East Chicago and Whiting. This area supports
a population of over 500,000 and includes one of the most concentrated steel
and petrochemicals industrial complexes in the U.S.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
This section of the report summarizes the observed environmental problems
in the GCR/IHC as well as the known and suspected causes of these problems. A
summary of the existing pollution control programs in effect on the GCR/IHC is
also presented, including an assessment of the degree to which permitted dis-
chargers are in compliance with existing discharge limits (Chapter 3).
2.2.1 Aquatic Habitat '"
The aquatic habitat in any river system includes both the water column
and the substrate. The quality of the water in transit (ie; the water column)
as well as the substrate (including sediments) are major determinants con-
trolling the density, diversity and distribution of aquatic species.
The quality of the aquatic environment may be impaired by short-term
phenomena, such as pollutant spills or slug loads, which are dissolved or
suspended in the water column. These short-term phenomena may severely impact
resident aquatic species, and may shift the populations of aquatic species
2-4
-------
toward those assemblages with short replacement times. However, if these
pollutants are flushed from the stream with normal stream flow, the physical
integrity of the environment is generally not disrupted. Under these circum-
stances s recolonization will readily occur, however, substantial time may be
required before the natural species diversity and aquatic productivity return.
Long term, chronic sources of contaminants are far more damaging to the
aquatic environment, because contaminants become attached to, and deposited
in, the sediments. Under these circumstances, the substrate may become
uninhabitable, eliminating a major component of the aquatic food chain.
Contaminated sediments may then leach contaminants back into the overlying
water column even after the source of the offending pollutant(s) has been
abated.
Finally, the physical integrity of the aquatic habitat may be damaged
through alteration of the stream channel. Common alterations include chan-
nelization and dredging activities as well as flow control structures, such as
weirs and dams. These physical alterations may decrease Che diversity of the
stream habitat and correspondingly reduce the range (diversity) and density of
aquatic organisms which the stream can support.
Environmental habitat conditions in the GCR/IHC are degraded. The
sediments are grossly contaminated, resulting from long-term, chronic dis-
charges of pollutants to the river. Pollutants contained within the sediments
include persistent, non-biodegradeable as well as conventional contaminants. '
Although substantial reductions have been achieved for many pollutants,
current pollutant loading for other contaminants 'continues at levels which
exceed the natural assimilative capacity of the river; this situation is
exacerbated by the depressed biological activity levels of the ecosystem.
The capability of the river to support fish and other aquatic life has
been diminished by manmade alterations in the natural stream channel.
Further, pollutants for which there is essentially no natural assimilative
capacity have been, and continue to be, discharged to the river. As a result,
2-5
-------
the sediments contain varying amounts of persistent, toxic compounds which, in
combination with those pollutants in the water column, create an inhospitable
environment for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Although the GCR/IHC channel has been highly modified, significant
natural wetland areas exist. These areas support a varied species assemblage
of terrestrial and amphibious fauna. Water quality conditions in the GCR/IHC
are considered to be major factors limiting the range of fish species observed
in marsh areas. However, the extent of areas supporting natural emergent
vegetation is apparently increasing, expanding the range and areal extent of
habitat areas for aquatic species.
One natural area of particular note is Roxana Marsh, located near the
Hammond POTW. A recent survey found the habitat of this freshwater wetland to
include dense stands of cattails (Typha latifolia) which were rated as
"...excellent cover for wildlife" (Lake Michigan Federation 1984). This
survey also observed that cattails are spreading to shoreline areas adjacent
to the marsh, through natural succession. The Marquette Park lagoons, at the
headwaters of the GCR, represent other comparatively high-quality natural
areas in the GCR/IHC system.
Roxanna Marsh and other natural areas along the GCR/IHC are depicted in
Figure 2-3. With improvements in ambient water quality conditions in the
GCR/IHC, natural areas, such as Roxana Marsh and others, are especially
important as potential refuge and nursery areas for aquatic species.
A mechanism exists to evaluate the preservation merit of wetlands in
particular areas, as an aid to future planning for dredge and fill activities.
The USEPA is considering the merit of applying this system (the Advanced
Identification of Disposal Sites) to evaluate the wetlands resources of the
GCR/IHC basin. This consideration is coincidental with the Agency's review of
the COE draft SIS on maintenance dredging of the IHC.
Aquatic habitat problems related to water quality, sediments and aquatic
biota are summarized in the following discussions.
2-6
-------
L-Z
SI
r(
rc
ro
i
v:
O
C
D,
S3
o
n
o
a
n>
s
M*
n
=r
t
oc
n>
CL
(t
n
o
K
>
>*
O
3C
ro
n
ye
n
-------
2.2.2 Water Quality
Water quality conditions in the Grand Calumet River have improved
dramatically over the past five to ten years. Much of this recent improvement
in surface water quality can be attributed to construction of improved
treatment plants, separation of stormwater sewers from sanitary facilities,
and improved maintenance of POTW's. Industry has also played a major role in
these gains, having committed large capital investments in improved wastewater
treatment and water re-use facilities and practices.
Industrial compliance with permit limits and implementation of BPT and
BAT treatment practices has reduced effluent loads to the GCR/IHC. To some
extent, however, reductions in industrial effluent loading rates are a con-
sequence of plant closings, relocation of discharge points outside of the
watershed, and general production cut-backs resulting from the early 1980's
recessionary period. Air borne contaminant loading over the watershed has
also been significantly reduced, owing to recent reductions in industrial
emissions.
Water quality monitoring of the GCR/IHC has been performed, by both
private and governmental groups, in recent years. These efforts have been
undertaken in support of areawide water quality management planning (TenEch
1977; Besozzi et al. 1976), CSO controls (PRC Consoer Townsend 1982; HNTB
1982; TenEch 1982) and, most recently, the WLA study (ISBH 1984). These
investigations have provided evidence of a general trend of improving water
quality conditions. For example, the minimum DO level reported in the ISBH
monthly sampling records for the East Branch of the GCR at Station GCR37 (See
Figure 2-4) was 1.8 mg/1 in 1977, whereas the minimum value reported at this
location in 1983 was 7.2 mg/1 (ISBH 1984). From 1978 through 1984, no DO
levels below the 5.0 mg/1 standard were reported from this station (ISBH
1984), however, the sampling frequency may be inadequate to portray true
minimum DO conditions at this location. Other examples of improved water
quality conditions are provided in the following discussion.
The ISBH conducts monthly water quality monitoring at a total of ten
sites in the Grand Calumet River/Lake George Canal/Indiana Harbor Canal/
2-8
-------
Indiana Harbor and nearshore Lake Michigan area. Locations of these sampling
locations are shown in Figure 2-4. Within the Grand Calumet River and Indiana
Harbor Canal, regular monitoring is performed for 15 parameters which are
controlled under established water quality standards, including: pH, DO,
fecal coliform, TDS, ammonia-N, cyanide, fluoride, dissolved iron, phenol,
total mercury, PCBs, chlorides, sulfates, total phosphorus, and oil and
grease.
Monthly water quality monitoring data compiled by the ISBH indicate
chronic water quality problems for many of the monitored pollutants. Depend-
ing on sampling location, water quality standards for the GCR/IHC have
historically reflected frequent violations for ammonia-N, cyanide, phenol,
TDS, total phosphorus, chlorides, fluorides, mercury, sulfates, oil and
grease, fecal coliforms, iron, and DO (USEPA 1982; ISBH 1984).
Significant improvements in water quality conditions in recent years have
been reflected in the parameters monitored by the ISBH. In comparing 1977 to
recent (1983) monitoring data for the GCR/IHC system, DO levels increased
significantly while general decreases are evident for amraonia-N, cyanide,
phenol, total phosphorous, fecal coliforms, and oil and grease. Total iron,
mercury, chlorides and sulfates remained fairly constant during this period
(ISBH 1984),
The general improvements in ambient water quality in the GCR/IHC are
reflected in the decreased incidence of water quality standards violations in
recent years. In the Eas-fr Branch of the GCR, for example, eight of the
fifteen parameters monitored monthly by the ISBH exceeded the applicable
standards in 1977 (DO, fecal coliforms, ammonia-N, cyanide, total iron,
phenol, total phosphorus and oil and grease). This number decreased to only 3
in 1983 (ammonia-N, total iron and chlorides). Similarly, the number of
parameters in violation of the State standards in the IHC decreased frpm nine,
in 1977 (DO, fecal coliforms, ammonia-N, cyanide, total iron, phenol,
chlorides, total phosphorus and oil,and grease), to only 2 in 1983 (ammonia-N
and total iron).
2-9
-------
l-o
M
O
EXTENT Of MAHBOH W O. STOS.
INDIANA STATE BOARD Of
HEALTH UONTMIV MONITORING
STATIONS
OCM4I
CAN*
Figure 2-4
Locations of ISBH Monthly Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Source: ISBH 1984
-------
Persistent water quality problems remain, however, in the GCR/IHC system.
The West Branch of the GCR exhibits the worst of these problems. ISBH monthly
monitoring data indicated ten of 15 monitored parameters in violation of the
State water quality standards in 1977 (DO, fecal coliforms, aramonia-N, total
iron, phenol, mercury, chlorides, sulfates, total phosphorus and oil and
grease). This number decreased only to seven (fecal coliforms, ammonia, total
iron, mercury, chlorides, sulfates and total phosphorus) in 1983 (ISBH 1984).
Although the West Branch is the most polluted segment of the GCR/IHC system,
this condition is more a reflection of flow conditions than differential
pollutant loading rates. Average flow rate in the West Branch is only
approximately 2 percent of the East Branch average flow.
In the GCR/IHC system in general, 1983 violations of the water quality
standards were observed for ammonia-N; fecal coliforms, iron, mercury,
phosphorus, chlorides and sulfates, based on ISBH monthly monitoring data
(ISBH 1984). Although the ISBH has established a narrative toxicants water
quality standard for the GCR/IHC, regular monitoring is not performed for
toxic substances. Consequently, the nature and extent of priority pollutant
contamination of the system is not fully known. However, various studies have
shown substantial concentrations of toxic sustances (including PCBs, poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and a. variety of toxic metals) in the GCR/IHC
sediments. With the recent improvements in control of conventional contami-
nants, concentrations of toxic substances are felt to be the more important
factor limiting biological productivity in the GCR/IHC. However, sufficient
monitoring data do not exist to fully substantiate this hypothesis.
Since 1970, significant reductions in cyanide levels have been observed
in the Grand Calumet River. Mean cyanide concentrations in the West Branch
had often exceeded 0.8 mg/1 in the early 1970's, but by 1981 were generally
found to be below 0.05 mg/1. Throughout the basin, a 50 percent reduction in
cyanide is estimated (CMSD 1983). Similarly, a 60 percent reduction in total
ammonia nitrogen in surface waters was reported basinwide. Also, mean
suspended solids, iron, and fat-oil-and-grease content of the water were
estimated to have fallen by 50 percent from 1970 to 1981 (CMSD 1983).
2-11
-------
Between 1970 and 1981, dissolved oxygen levels in the Grand Calumet were
estimated to have increased by 30 percent, on the average (CMSD 1983). In
1972-1973, DO levels in the most degraded section of the system (from river
mile 0.5 to river mile 2.5) were below 3.0 mg/1 during the critical months of
July, August, and September (Combinatrics 1974). Dissolved oxygen throughout
most of the river system is now reported to be sufficient to support warm
water species of game fish, aquatic insects and forage species (ISBH 1984).
Between 1973 and 1977, phenol in the Grand Calumet River ranged between
0.025 and 0.085 mg/1 in the East Branch and between 0.005 and 0.018 mg/1 in
the Ship Canal (CMSD 1983). Although no significant reductions in phenol were
observed over the 1973 to 1977 period, the data base was reported to be
insufficient to support conclusions regarding phenol trends. More recent data
have been cited as evidence of currently decreasing phenol levels (ISBH 1984).
Substantial problems have always existed with oil sheens on the surface
of much of the Grand Calumet, especially in the vicinity of now-closed
refineries and the barge transfer facilities (between river miles 4.0 and Lake
Michigan, including the Lake George Branch). Historically, fat-oil-and-grease
(FOG) levels have been high throughout the GCR/IHC system. Significant
reservoirs of FOG and petroleum based materials persist in the sediments. It
may not be possible to eliminate the oil sheen problem until the historical
deposits (ie-, the sediments) as well as current sources, such as highway
runoff and combined sewer overflows, are eliminated.
2.2.3 Sediments
Sediments often reflect the history of waste discharges to a waterway.
Pollutants may sink to the bottom of their own accord, or may become attached
to settleable materials. Once deposited, sediment contaminants may influence
water quality long after the pollutant discharges have been abated, and may
inhibit biological recolonization of the ecosystem.
Extensive sediment deposits exist in many areas of the GCR/IHC, with
accumulated depths of up to 12 feet. Heaviest deposits are found in the West
Branch of the GCR and in the IHC. The sediments have been shown to contain
2-12
-------
high concentrations of toxic substances, including PCBs, PAHs (polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons), and various heavy metals, as well as conventional and
non-conventional contaminants, such as oil and grease, phosphorous, nitrogen,
iron, magnesium, manganese, volatile solids and COD (USEPA 1982).
Sediment contaminants are grouped into two broad categories: inorganic
chemicals, such as metals (in elemental or insoluable salt form) and organic
chemicals, such as solvents or insecticides. While substances from both
groups may be mixed or bound together in the river sediment, it will be
convenient to consider them separately.
Inorganics
A summary of metal concentrations measured in the GCR/IHC sediments is
presented in Table"2-1. Similar data is presented for the Cal Sag Channel and
Des Plaines River, for comparison. Although many of the metals reported in
Table 2-1 may derive from local geology, the concentrations reported in the
GCR/IHC are much greater than would be expected from natural, background
sources. Although point sources are documented contributors, non-point
sources (such as urban runoff) may also contribute materially to sediment
metal levels. For example, tire wear on nearby roadways has been found to
contribute to measurable increases in zinc levels in streams receiving highway
runoff.
The Grand Calumet River sediment metals data reported in Table 2-1 are
based on data collected as part of a 1980 sampling performed by the Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the USEPA (USEPA 1982). Using the
data reported by GLNPO, average metal levels were calculated for the Grand
Calumet sediments (Table 2-1). The averages are based on seven core samples,
taken between Bridge Street (located at the midpoint of the West Branch) and
Columbus Drive (located south of the Indiana Harbor Canal "Y"), and on one
additional core, taken in the East Branch at Indianapolis Boulevard. Each of
the values included in the averages in Table 2-1 represents a composite of
sediment characteristics across a sediment profile (by depth).
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-1
Average Sediment Metal levels in the Grand Calumet River, the Des Plaines
River, and the Cal-Sag Channel (USEPA 1982; COE 1981).
Concentrations, as milligrams per kilogram sediment (dry weight)
1
Metal
Mercury (Hg)
Cadmium (Cd)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Nickel (Ni)
Copper (Cu)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Zinc (Zn)
Iron (Fe)
Grand Calumet
(Average of
8 measurements)
0.73
8
27
96
98
182
408
1,192
1,625
2,687
128,710
Cal-Sag Channel
(Average of
4 measurements)
0.42
9
19
330
38
120
110
500
ND
2,580
ND
Des Plaines
(Average of
10 measurements)
5.4
28
21
610
252
340
200
610
ND
1,120
ND
ND=no data
1
Averages computed using less-than «) data at numerical values.
2-14
-------
The averages presented in Table 2-1 do not include data on sediment in
the Indiana Harbor, the Lake George Branch, the Harbor Canal, or the turning
basins. Sediments in these areas are being assessed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) in the Environmental Impact Statement now being prepared to
evaluate proposed maintenance dredging of the Harbor (EIS publication expected
in early 1985).
Table 2-1 includes comparable metals data for the Gal-Sag Channel and the
Des Plaines River sediments. These data were derived from a report prepared
by Argonne National Laboratories under sponsorship of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE 1981). The ten Cal-Sag Channel composite core samples from
which the averages were derived are from a portion of the waterway which
crosses a highly developed and industrialized area (the south side of
Chicago), which is similar in character to the Grand Calumet River watershed.
The four Des Plaines River composite core samples were taken between Joliet
and Seneca, IL. The Des Plaines River carries runoff and effluent discharges
from the Chicago and Joliet, IL transportation corridors and industries.
USEPA Region V has established guidelines for assessing the pollution
characteristics of Great Lakes harbor sediments. The guidelines were devel-
oped as an aid in assessing the suitability for open lake disposal of dredged
harbor sediments. These guidelines are presented in Table 2-2, expressed in
mg/kg. Comparing the average metals concentrations of Grand Calumet River
sediments with the Table 2-2 guidelines, the sediments are considered heavily
polluted for all Table 2-1 metals, except mercury.
Sediment metals reflect long term changes or trends in pollution runoff
from surrounding land areas and from effluent discharges. However, sedi-
mentary metals may be locally diluted by deposition of silt or clay from
upland erosion. Further, historically high rates of metal discharges may bias
any comparison if the water bodies being compared were not dredged to the same
extent after modern pollution control measures were implemented. Finally,
sediment metals may be released to Che overlying water column under certain
environmental conditions, such as low pH, low DO and reducing conditions. The
rate of metals resolubilization varies with the individual metal, local
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-2
USEPA Region V Guidelines for the Pollution Classification
of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments
Compound
(mg/kg dry weight)
Mercury
Cadmium
Arsenic
Barium
Nickel
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Iron
Cyanide
Ammonia
Total PCBs
Non- '
polluted Polluted
(mg/kg) (mg/kg)
XL
*
<3
<20
<20
<25
<25
<40
<300
<90
<17,000
<0.10
<75
MO
Moderately
polluted
(mg/kg)
*
3-8
20-60
20-50
25-50
25-75
40-60
300-500
90-200
17,000-25,000
0.10-0.25
75-200
Heavily
polluted
(mg/Tcg)
>6
>8
>60
>50
>50
>75
>60
>500
>200
>25,000
>0.25
>200
*Lower limits not established.
Source: USEPA 1982
2-16
-------
environmental conditions and the nature of any coraplexing with other com-
pounds .
Because of these possible sources of bias between data sets (see above),
the averages in Table 2-1 cannot be relied on to quantify the relative
severity of metal contamination in the sediments of the Grand Calumet, as
compared to the other two rivers. However, qualitative comparisons can be
made to gain insight into sediment metal contamination problems unique to the
Grand Calumet River.
Based on the averages presented in Table 2-1, seven of the eleven metals
are at similar concentrations in the sediments of all three rivers. Iron,
manganese, chromium and lead appear to have been very abundant in the Grand
Calumet sediments during 1980. Steel making is likely to have been a major
cultural source of the iron, manganese and chromium. In spite of the continu-
ous and significant progress made in pollution abatement over the last decade,
the impact of steel production on sediments of the Grand Calumet appears to
have remained significant. Elemental iron, calculated as the average of the
sediment core profiles (Table 2-1), constitutes almost 13 percent by weight of
the total average dry weight of the samples.
A lead refinery has been in operation near the East Branch of the River
for many years. The U.S.S. Lead Refinery, a secondary smelting facility
located at 5300 N. Kennedy Avenue in East Chicago, recyles scrap lead sources
such as batteries. This facility, which includes scrap stockpiles and a fill
area for process wastes, is situated on the north bank of the East Branch,
approximately 3/4 of a mile upstream of the confluence of the East and West
Branches. This facility is a suspected source contributing to the observed
high lead levels in the river sediments.
Because of periodic water level changes in Lake Michigan, the Grand
Calumet may reverse its flow direction as often as two to four times per day.
This effect extends as far upstream as the Kennedy Avenue bridge, on the East
Branch, and the Highway 90 Tollway bridge, on the West Branch (ISBH 1984;
Combinatorics 1974). Therefore, lead associated with particulate emissions
2-17
-------
and soil eroded from the vicinity of the U.S.S. Lead Refinery could have
become distributed over large areas of sediments of both branches as well as
the mainstream of the Grand Calumet.
A more recent sediment sampling program in the Grand Calumet analyzed
the metals content of surficial sediment layers only. This sampling was
conducted for the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH 1984). A total of ten
sediment grab samples were taken during January, 1984, at locations scattered
throughout the GCR/IHC. Data from this recent sediment sampling program can
be considered to be less reflective of historic pollutant deposition than the
core-composite data from the 1980 sampling (Table 2-1). However, comparison
of the recent grab sample data with the core-composite sample averages may
indicate whether any significant metal sources have recently been abated.
Table 2-3 presents selected metals content data from the 1984 sampling
effort, in direct comparison with the average 1980 data for the Grand Calumet,
as calculated for Table 2-1. Results from eight of the 1984 sampling stations
were averaged to create Table 2-3. Although 10 stations were sampled in the
1984 survey, data from the two stations located below milepoint 2.6 in the
Indiana Harbor Canal were excluded from the average, to allow direct compari-
son with the 1980 data.
Based on comparison of the averages presented in Table 2-3, the only
substantial reduction in sediment metal levels that may have occurred in
recent years is with lead and zinc. The 1984 average lead concentration is
approximately 35 percent of the 1980 average, and the 1984 average zine-
concentration is approximately 36 percent of the 1980 average. The apparent
downward trend in these two metals may indicate that transportation related
sources of lead and zinc may have abated. A trend of decreasing lead and zinc
in runoff has been reported in other U.S. locations and has been attributed to
the gradually imposed ban on leaded gasoline and to reduced traffic volumes.
Alternatively, an industrial or commercial source of zinc and lead may have
been significantly reduced between the 1980 and 1984 sampling events.
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-3
Comparison of Averaged 1982 and 1984 Metals Content of GCR Sediments -
Source
Sampling date
Metal
Mercury (Hg)
Cadmium (Cd)
Arsenic (As)
Nickel (Ni)
Copper (Cu)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Zinc (Zn)
ISBH 1984
January 1984
Reported Concentrations
0.68
7
18
140
214
561
414
955
USEPA 1982
October 1980
(ug/g dry wt.)
0.73
8
27
98
182
408
1192
2687
Data are presented only for metals which coincidentally were sampled
in both the referenced studies.
2-19
-------
Data from the 1980 and 1984 sampling programs is inadequate to determine
if lead transport from the U.S.S. Lead Refinery has recently abated, resulting
in the observed reduction in average lead levels. Sediment data from the two
studies used to develop Tables 2-1 and 2-3-were collected at the Kennedy
Avenue bridge, which is upstream of the Refinery and its associated solid
waste disposal site. Other samples were collected in the West Branch, at
Indianapolis Boulevard (1.1 mile west), and at the 151st Street bridge
(0.9 mile downstream), on the mainstem. These two stations are influenced by
combined sewer overflows which may include lead and zinc from industrial
effluent sources.
Significant variation in concentrations of sampled metals exists between
locations in the 1980 and 1984 sampling events. However, variations in
sampling location, technique and analytical protocol may be significant
contributors to these variations. Additional sources of sample bias may
include local contribution of recent, "clean" sediments, or sediment scour.
Differences in sampling design and technique between the 1980 and 1984
sampling events limits further direct comparisons and conclusions. While
conditions appear to have improved for some contaminants, the reverse appears
to be indicated for others. The WLA for the GCR/IHC (ISBH 1984) suggests some
improvement in sediment quality, however, a reliable analysis of the represen-
tative sediment contaminant levels, and identification of priority zones for
remedial actions, can only be achieved following a carefully designed and
executed sampling program.
Organics
Organic contaminants in Grand Calumet River sediments may derive from a
large number of historic and modern sources. Among the more'dominant indus-
trial sources are steel mill coking ovens, petrochemical producers and
shippers, .and refineries. Municipal wastewater treatment plant discharges and
combined sewer overflows also are major sources of organic chemicals, partic-
ularly oils, fats, and greases. Oils and grease also are prevalent in
transportation corridor and parking lot runoff to the river. Air emissions of
hydrocarbons may be rain scavenged and deposited in the watershed.
2-20
-------
Metal fabrication industries, which once used PCBs extensively in
hydraulic production machinery, are a potential source of PCS contamination.
PCS arochlor 1248 was the predominant isomer in the 1984 sampling results
(ISBH 1984). No readily discernible patterns are recognized through compari-
son of 1984 PCS (1248 isomer) levels with 1980 total PCB levels.
Highest PCB sediment concentrations are reported from the IHC, with up to
89.2 mg/kg recorded in one core sample (USEPA 1982). Although high variabil-
ity exists in the sediment cores PCB data, the highest concentrations are
believed to exist in the deeper portions of the IHC sediments and in the more
surficial layers of the GCR sediments (USEPA 1982).
Additional parameters which may indicate the relative degree of organic
pollution include phenol and total organic carbon (TOG). While the West
Branch also has relatively high concentrations of phenol in surficial sedi-
ments, the highest phenol concentrations were found in the East Branch. TOC
data are insufficient to support comparisons of relative pollution charac-
teristics.
High concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have been
identified in various sampling locations in the GRC/IHC. PAH concentrations
as high as 1800 ppm have been identified, including benz(a)pyrene, phenan-
threne and anthracene. Benz(a)pyrene, a carcinogenic PAH, was observed in
concentrations as high as 50 ppm in the IHC. In the GCR, phenanthrene and
anthracene concentrations of as much as 5300 ppm have been reported (near U.S.
Steel), while benz(a)pyrene was reported at 380ppm at this location (USEPA,
1982).
'Analysis of the history of sediment contamination is complicated by
sediment scour and re-deposition throughout the GCR/IHC system. As a result,
some areas are nearly devoid of sediments while deep deposits exist in other
areas. Contaminants have become mixed, and deposited in areas of accumulated
sediments. Principle areas of sediment scour occur from approximately river
mile 7.5 in the East Branch to the East Branch/West Branch confluence. An
area of sediment deposition occurs in the vicinity of this confluence. The
2-21
-------
more southerly portion of the IHC is also scoured, while the portion nearer
the Lake (the dredged portion of the IHC) is marked by sediment deposits. The
highest concentrations of sediment contaminants are observed in the zones of
sediment accumulation (USEPA 1982).
2.2.4 Sediment Toxicity Factors
The sediments of the GCR/IHC have been found to be contaminated with both
inorganic and synthetic organic pollutants (see preceding discussion).
Although integrated biological/chemical surveys have not been conducted, the
monitoring data that are available clearly indicate widespread contamination
of sediments. No formal evaluation has been made, however, of the risks to
aquatic life or human health from exposure to waters or sediments of the
GCR/IHC. Although insufficient data and other site specific information is
available to develop a full risk assessment, a preliminary comparison of known
contaminants and potential health risks is presented in this section.
In general, risk assessment consists of several .independent but related
assessments, the results of which are used in understanding and anticipating
adverse health effects, and in predicting their incidence of occurence. Risk
assessment may be divided into three major components: (1) hazard assessment,
consisting of hazard identification and dose-response (toxicological) assess-
ment; (2) exposure assessment, including the process of identifying exposure
pathways, measuring or estimating che levels of exposure to contaminants, and
the identification of the species, populations, or systems at risk; and (3)
risk characterization, consisting of the comparison of doses (or levels of
exposure if dose cannot be estimated) received by exposed populations, with
acceptable toxicological endpoints for subchronic and chronic exposure.
The most meaningful evaluation of sediment contamination of the GCR/IHC
would consist of an assessment (as outlined above) of risks to aquatic life
and human health. The data requirements necessary to conduct such an evalua-
tion (excluding risks to human health through consumption of contaminated
organisms or drinking water) are as follows:
2-22
-------
» Monitoring data on levels of contaminants in sediments, biota, the
water column, and discharges (point and non-point sources) to the
GCR/IHC
lexicological information on identified contaminants: levels
associated with subchronic and chronic effects, and carcinogenic risks
Physical/chemical, water and sediment quality data on the GCR/IHC
systems (e.g., TOG, sediment type, DO, etc.)
Physical/chemical and biological data on the transport and transforma-
tion of selected contaminants in the environment. Of particular
importance to this effort is information on the movement of con-
taminants between sediment and water, and sediment and biota
Identification of species and populations at risk of exposure
Estimates of dose/levels of exposure for each contaminant under
investigation, for each exposure route, and each species/population at
risk of exposure.
The data currently available is generally limited to sampling results which
describe only the concentration or absence of pollutants in GCR/IHC sediments.
This data is clearly insufficient to fully evaluate the magnitude and severity
of the contamination problem. This may be accomplished only through a
knowledge of mobility of the selected compounds, the levels of exposure to
species/populations at risk, and the effective toxicity of the pollutants in
the aquatic system under existing environmental conditions (e.g., hardness,
pH, DO). Because of the highly limited nature of the available data, the
level of evaluation must be modified accordingly to include only a very
limited and qualitative assessment of the sediment contamination problem.
2.2.4.1 Data Sources
A limited number of studies are available on the Grand Calumet River
sediments on which to base an analysis. The major historical studies were
conducted by the, USEPA Office of Enforcement and General Counsel
Cincinnati (in 1973), Chicago District Corps of Engineers (in 1979), and
Hydroqual (in 1983). A USEPA study conducted in 1977 sampled only Indiana
Harbor Canal sediments.
2-23
-------
In the 1973 study,.the USEPA collected sediment samples from the Grand
Calumet River system, from Lake Street through the undredged portion of the
canal. Sediment cores were taken at each of the eight sampling stations. The
cores were divided into strata and a chemical analysis performed on each
stratum. Samples were analyzed for phenols, cyanide, solids, and a variety of
metals. No analyses for organic compounds were conducted.
The Chicago District Corps of Engineers conducted sediment sampling of
the Indiana Harbor and the Indiana Harbor Canal in 1979 in relation to
proposed maintenance dredging. Samples were collected from various depths and
composited to make one sample for each three foot depth increment. A total of
34 composite samples were prepared. Samples were analyzed for PCBs, solids,
nitrogen, phosphorus, oil and grease, and a variety of metals. No analyses
for organic compounds were conducted.
The most recent and most extensive sampling and analysis of Grand Calumet
River sediments was conducted by Hydroqual in 1983 as part of a wasteload
allocation modeling effort prepared for the ISBH. Sediment samples were
collected at 10 locations to include the East Branch, West Branch, and Indiana
Harbor Canal. Surface sediment samples were collected with a ponar dredge.
Sediment samples were analyzed for all priority pollutants except the volatile
organic pollutants.
The analysis and interpretation of the sediment contaminants that follows
concentrates on the results of the Hydroqual study. All calculations, except
where' noted, are based on the maximum concentrations of contaminants that were
measured by this study. The Hydroqual study contains the most recent and
comprehensive sampling data on the sediments. Although only surface sediments
were sampled, and may not reflect historical contamination, they appear
representative of the greatest sediment concentrations (USEPA 1982).
2.2.4.2 Approach to Analysis
Only limited information is available with which to evaluate the risks to
aquatic life and human health of the sediment contamination of the GCR/IHC.
As discussed previously, the minimum data requirements for this type of
2-24
-------
assessment are information on species and populations at risk of exposure, an
estimate of levels of exposure, and a knowledge of the toxicity of the
selected contaminants under investigation. In the absence of this informa-
tion, and given the available data, this assessment focuses only on identif-
ying and ranking sediment contaminants of concern. The ranking provides a
preliminary evaluation of the magnitude of sediment contamination in the
GCR/IHC, and focuses attention on compounds most likely to pose the greatest
potential risk to aquatic life and human health.
In order to rank the sediment contaminants, a simple index has been
developed which incorporates both maximum observed concentration of a con-
taminant and toxicity of the compound to aquatic life or human health. The
index is of the following form:
CX
Score ~ s
x (CR) (K ) (TOG)
oc
where:
X
C = concentration of contaminant x in the sediment;
S
CR = the ambient water quality criterion for contaminant x;
K - the sediment/water partition coefficient for contaminant x adjusted
for organic carbon content of sediment; and
TOG = the total organic carbon content of the sediment (expressed as a
percentage).
The right side of the preceding equation is equivalent to the ratio of the
predicted concentration of contaminant x in the sediment interstitial water
divided by the ambient water quality criteria:
CX
w
JL
KDX TOG
:A) (TOG)
w
2-25
-------
cx
x s
Cw = OK) (TOG)
oc
CX CX
w = s
CR (CR) (K ) (TOG)
oc
where:
K_ = the sediment-water partition coefficient unadjusted for dependence
on organic carbon; and
C = the concent-ration of contaminant x in the water phase.
w ^
Emphasis has been placed on evaluating priority pollutants [CWA Section
307(a)(l)] because of the availability of ambient water quality criteria or
general toxicological information for these chemicals (USEPA 1980, 1984).
Separate rankings, based on index scores, have-been developed for aquatic life
and human health. The summary for human health has further been divided into
separate rankings for non-carcinogens and carcinogens.
Levels of contaminants in the sediment would most readily be evaluated
using sediment criteria as a basis for comparison. Although methods for
derivation of sediment criteria are under consideration by the USEPA, these
criteria are not yet available. Therefore, ambient water quality criteria
have been used in discussing the magnitude of the sediment contamination
problem in the GCR/IHC. Appropriate use of ambient criteria requires com-
parison with pollutant levels in the water column. For the purposes of this
analysis, the ambient water column concentrations which would result from the
known levels of these compounds in the sediment must be estimated. The
sediment-water partition coefficient (Koc) has been used in the equation in
conjunction with the maximum sediment concentrations to derive this estimate.
The K value indicates the extent to which a compound partitions between
oc
the solid and solution phases of water-saturated sediment. It expresses the
ratio of the amount of the chemical adsorbed per unit weight of organic carbon
in the sediment to the concentration of the chemical in solution at equilib-
rium.
2-26
-------
The K values may be used Co calculate Che concentration of a contami-
oc 7
nant in the interstitial or pore water of the sediments, as a function of the
measured concentration of material absorbed to the sediment substrate itself.
Given the sediments as the sole source of contaminants under investigation,
the concentrations of these contaminants in the overlying water column would
be a function of the rate of diffusive exchange of the interstitial water with
the overlying water column. Concentrations in the water column are therefore
affected by the total volume and flow rate of the overlying water. It is
important to note that the calculated ambient water concentrations presented
in this discussion refer to the concentrations of contaminants in the inter-
stitial water at the sediment/water interface. In the absence of other
sources of contamination, water column concentrations may be considerably less
than the concentration in the interstitial water.
Certain limitations exist to the use of the sediment/water partition
coefficient. For example, many contaminants of environmental concern are
base-neutral organic compounds. These chemicals are relatively insensitive to
changes in reduction/oxidation (redox) potential, pH, and dissolved oxygen in
the surrounding environmental media. Therefore, K values for these con-
oc
taminants may be more confidently used in predicting mobility in the aquatic
system than for ionizing organic compounds or trace metal contaminants.
Mobility of these latter two classes of pollutants is much more a function of
the prevailing environmental conditions than for neutral compounds. Under
reducing conditions, low pH and low levels of dissolved oxygen, for example,
resolubilization of heavy metals may occur, releasing these elements to the
water column.
It should also be noted that the K values used in this report were
oc
derived independently of the sediment type and organic carbon content of the
GCR/IHC system. In the absence of available data on the GCR/IHC system, a 5
percent organic carbon content has been assumed in this analysis. The K
values for trace metals used in this report have been derived empirically (see
JRB Associates 1984) from measurements of trace metal concentrations in
interstitial water and bulk sediments from a variety of substrate types.
Empirical K values were calculated for each substrate type (as an arithmetic
mean, with an assigned standard derivation).
2-27
-------
The variability of the K values for metals reflects the complexity of
oc
the partioning process between the interstitial water and sediments. Parti-
tioning is a, function of chemical speciation, the oxidation-reduction poten-
tial at the solid-aqueous interface, the type of clay minerals present, the
nature of the organic matter on both sedimentary particles and interstitial
water, pH, and particle size. Neither these variables nor the physical/
chemical processes responsible for mediating the transport of trace metals
from sediments to the aqueous phase are well understood. These relationships
are not sufficiently quantified to support a theoretical computation of
sediment-water partition coefficient as has been conducted for the organic
compounds.
Although this discussion concentrates on the water quality impacts
resulting from resolubilization of sediment contaminants, additional impacts
may occur as a result of resuspension. Eroded sediments, suspended in the
water column, may impair water quality and aquatic biota in transit. Addi-
tional impacts may then occur in downstream areas where these suspended
sediments settle out of the water column and redeposit.
2.2.4.3 Results of Analysis
As discussed previously, the predicted concentrations of toxic substances
are based on the rates at which contaminants in the sediments are exchanged
with interstitial water in the sediments and are predicated upon certain
assumptions. This analysis cannot predict the concentrations of toxics in the
water column overlying the sediments, as the rate of exchange between inter-
stitial and overlying water is not known. Therefore, the effects of dilution
on calculated toxic concentrations cannot be included in this analysis. There-
fore, the predicted concentrations presented here are an approximation of the
anticipated concentrations at the sediment surface.
Results of the evaluation of the types and concentrations of contaminants
in the GCR/IHC sediments are presented in Tables 2-4 through 2-6. Table 2-4
is a listing of (1) maximum contaminant levels in sediments as measured by
Hydroqual in 1983, (2) sediment-water partition coefficients (K ), (3)
calculated interstitial water concentrations, and (4) ambient water quality
2-28
-------
TABLE 2-4
CONCENTRATIONS OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN SEDIMENTS OF THE
GRAND CALUMET RIVER SYSTEM, THE CORRESPONDING K VALUES, AND THE
USEPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF
AQUATIC LIFE AND HUMAN HEALTH
ro
I
Pollutant
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Arochlor 1248
Arochlor 1254
Sediment
concen-
tration
(ug/g)
17
6.9
K
oc
2.8 x
5.3 x
5
10
5
10
Inter-
stitial
water
concen-
tration
(rag/ I)
i.2 x
2.6 x
Aquatic life
(2)
acute
(rag/1)
-3
10 0.002
-4
10 0.002
criteria
chronic
(mg/1)
-5
1.4 x 10
-5
1.4 x 10
Human health
(3)
criteria
(mg/1)
Q
7.9 x 10 °
ft
7.9 x 10 °
Monocycllc aromatic chemicals
1 , 2-Dichlorobenzene
I ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Phthalate esters
Di-N-octyl phthalate
0.04
0.14
47
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 26.0
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-N-butyl phthalate
0.6
0.8
1.7 x
1.7 x
3.6 x
1.7 x
1.7 x
1.7 x
103
io3
109
io5
IO5
io5
5.2 x
1.6 x
2.6 x
3.9 x
7.0 x
9.4 x
IO-3 <1.12
10~3 <1.12
10"7 <0,94
10~3 <0.94
10~5 <0.94
10~5 <0.94
<0.763
0.763
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
<0.003
0.4
0.4
34
Polycycllc aromatic hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
100.0
27.0
170.0
4.6 x
2.5 x
1.4 x
io3
io3
io4
0.44
0.22
0.24
<1.7
<1.7
<1.7
2.8 x 10 6
2,8 x 10~6
2.8 x 10"6
-------
TABLE 2-4
CONCENTRATIONS OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN SEDIMENTS OF THE
GRAND CALUMET RIVER SYSTEM, THE CORRESPONDING K VALUES, AND THE
USEPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF
AQUATIC LIFE AND HUMAN HEALTH
(Continued)
K)
I
O
Pollutant
Sediment
concen-
tration
(ug/g)
Polycycllc aromatic hydrocarbons (cont
Benzol a Jan thracene
Benzol b]f luoranthene
Benzo [k ] f luoranthene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzol a] pyre ne
Chrysene
Di benzol a, h] anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
140.0
200.0
120.0
38.0
200.0
130.0
11.0
120.0
98.0
6.8
K
oc
d)
2.0 x 105
5.5 x 105
5.5 x 105
A
1.6 x 10
£
5.5 x 10
2.0 x 105
A
3.3 x 10
3.8 x 104
3.9 x 103
6
1.6 x 10
33.0 940
200.6
65.0
1.4 x 104
3.8 x 104
Inter-
stitial
water
concen- Aquatic life criteria
(2)
tration acute chronic
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
0.01 <1.7
7.1 x 10~3 <1.7
4.2 x 10~3 <1.7
-4
4.7 x 10 * <1.7
-3
1.9 x 10 J <1.7
1.2 x 10~2 <1.7
-5
7.0 x 10 <1.7
6.0 x 10~2 <4.0
0.48 <1.7
-5
8.5 x 10 <1.7
0.70 <1.7
0.29 <1.7
0.03 <1.7
Human health
criteria
(mg/1)
2.8 x 10~6
2.8 x 10~6
2.8 x 10"6
-6
2.8 x 10
-6
2.8 x 10
2.8 x 10~6
-6
2.8 x 10
0.042
2.8 x 10~6
-6
2.8 x 10
2.8 x 10~6
2.8 x 10~6
2.8 x 10~6
-------
TABLE 2-4
CONCENTRATIONS OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN SEDIMENTS OF THE
GRAND CALUMET RIVER SYSTEM, THE CORRESPONDING K VALUES, AND THE
USEPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF
AQUATIC LIFE AND HUMAN HEALTH
(Continued)
Pollutant
Nitrosamines
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenol
(4)
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Iron 128,
Lead
Manganese 1,
Sediment
concen-
tration^
(ug/g) KQC
1.1 2.4 x IO3
1.66 14.2
80.0
36.7 1.3 + 1.2
96^5*
2.0
18,0 6.4 +_ 8.6
1,330.0
710.00 170.0 + 210
21.77
710(5> -
854.0 38.0 + 40
(5)
625^ ;
Inter-
stitial
water
coricen- Aquatic life
(2)
tration acute
(mg/1) (mg/1)
9.2 x 10~3 <5.8
2.2 <10,2
<9.0
440 0.440 -
<0.130
58.1 1.53 x 10~3
89.2 0.021
0.0324
0.052
367
0.2823
criteria Human health
(3)
chronic criteria
(mg/1)
<2.6
<1.6
0.040
5.3 x 10~3
5.7 xlO~4
2.9 x IO"4
5.4 x 10~3
3.5 x 10~3
9.92 x 10~3
(ing/1)
0.49
35
0.146
i i in~6
2.2 x 10
3.7 x 10~6
0.010
1.7 x IO2
0.2
0.050
-------
TABLE 2-4
CONCENTRATIONS OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN SEDIMENTS OF THE
GRAND CALUMET RIVER SYSTEM, THE CORRESPONDING K VALUES, AND THE
USEPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF
AQUATIC LIFE AND HUMAN HEALTH
(Continued)
Pollutant
(4 )
Metals (cont'd)
Mercury
r,° Nickel
N Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Inter-
stitial
Sediment water
concen- concen-
tration tration
(ug/g) KQC (mg/1)
2.44 0.8 _+ 1.1 64.6
670.0
7.3
19.0
90.0
1,465.0 33.0 + 63 855
Aquatic
life criteria Human health
(2)
acute chronic
(mg/1) (mg/1)
1.7 x
7.83 x
0.260
8.15 x
0.450
10 6 5.7 x 10 7
10~3 4.87 x 10~4
0.035
10~3 <1.2 x 10~4
<0.040
<0.047
(3)
criteria
(mg/1)
1.44 x 10~2
0.013
0.010
0.050
0.013
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Source: USEPA 1980, except where otherwise Indicated.
Due to the lack of aquatic toxicity information for most of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), the most conservative number available (based on tests with acenaphthene) was selected for
use in this table. It is suspected that the toxicity of other PAHs would increase (meaning criteria
value would be progressively lower) as the number of benzoid rings increases.
For some compounds, the human health criterion is based on the potential carcinogenic effects of the
material. The value_expressed in the table is the level which may result in an incremental increase
in cancer risk of 10 over a lifetime.
USEPA November 28, 1980 criteria were used for all of the metals rather than the more recent criteria
published February 7, 1984, because the 1984 criteria are expressed as active metal and the available
data are expressed as total metal.
-------
TABLE 2-5
RANKING OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT ORGANICS AND METALS
FOUND IN THE GRAND CALUMET RIVER SEDIMENTS BASED ON A
COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS AND USEPA WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE
Compound Score
Ranking based on acute Coxicity
Aroclor 1248 0.61
Naphthalene 0.41
Fluorene 0.28
Acenapthene 0.26
Phenol 0.22
Phenanthrene 0.17
Anthracene 0.14
Acenapthylene 0,13
Arochlor 1254 0.13
Pyrene 0.02
Fluoranthene 1.5 x 10~^
Benzofa]anthracene 3.0 x 10
Chrysene 7.6 x 10~^
Benzofbjfluoranthene 4.2 x 10~^
3is(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4.2 x 10^
Benzo[a]pyrene 3.2 x 10~^
Benzo[k]fluoranthene 2.5 x 10"°^
N-Nierosodiphenylamina 1.6 x 10
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.5 x 10~^
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 4.7 x 10"^
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 2.8 x 10~*7
Di-N-butyl phthalata 1.0 x 10~"I
Butyl benzyl phthalate 7.5 x 10~^
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 5.0 x 10~^
Dibenzof a,h] anthracene 4.1 x 10":?
Di-N-octyl phthalata 2.8 x 10
Ranking based on chronic toxicity
Arochlor 1248 85.7
Arochlor 1254 18.8
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1.0
Phenol 0.07
Di-N-butyl phthalate 0.03
Butyl benzyl phthalate 0.02
1,4-Dichlorohenzene 2.1 x 10
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 5.8 x 10
Di-N-octyl phthalate 8.9 x 10
2-33
-------
TABLE 2-5 (Continued)
RANKING OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT ORGANICS AND METALS
FOUND IN THE GRAND CALUMET RIVER SEDIMENTS BASED ON A
COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS AND USEPA WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE
Compound
Ranking based on acute toxicity
Mercury
Cadmium
Copper
Zinc
Lead
Arsenic
Ranking based on chronic toxicity
Mercury
Cadmium
Copper
Zinc
Nickel
Arsenic
Score
3.5 x 107
3.8 x 104
2.6 x 103
1.9 x 103
1.6 x 103
1.0 x 103
1.1 x 108
1.0 x 105
4.5 x 104
1.9 x 104
1.5 x 104
1.2 x 104
2-34
-------
TABLE 2-6
RANKING OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT ORGANICS AND METALS FOUND IN
THE GRAND CALUMET RIVER SEDIMENTS BASED ON A COMPARISON OF
SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS, AND USEPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR
THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
Compound Score
Non-Carcinogens
Lead 9.0 x 103
3
Cadmium 5.6 x 10
Mercury 4.2 x 103
Fluoranthene 1.5
Phenol . 6.7 x 10~2
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4.1 x 10~
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.2 x 10~3
Di-N-butyl phthalate 2.7 x 10~6
Carcinogens
Arsenic 2.6 x 108
Naphthalene 2.5 X 105
Acenaphthene 1.6 X 10
Fluorene 1.8 X 10
Phenanthrene 1.02 X 105
4
Anthracene 8,7 x 10
Acenaphthylene 7.7 X 10
Arochlor 1248 1.5 X 1Q4
Pyrene 1.2 x 10
Benzo[a]anthracene 5.0 x 10
Chrysene 4.6 x 103
Arochlor 1254 3.3 x 103
Benzo[bjfluoranthene 2.6 x 103
Benzo[h]fluoranthene 1,7 x 10
Benzo[a]pyrene 260
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 170
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 30
Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene 24
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1.9 x 10~^
2-35
-------
criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health. In Table 2-5,
contaminants of concern are ranked based upon scores derived using the
equation discussed in this section and aquatic life criteria. In Table 2-6,
contaminants are ranked based upon scores derived using the equations and the
human health criteria.
The most recent aquatic life water quality criteria for metals (USEPA
1984) were not used in this evaluation. Although the 1984 criteria are based
on the most recent toxicological data, they are expressed as dissolved or
"active" metal and the Hydroqual monitoring data available for use in this
evaluation are expressed as total metal. Where water quality criteria values
were not available for specific compounds, LC values for the most sensitive
organism tested were presented. These values appear in the tables with a
"less than" symbol because, based on EPA's current methodology for criteria
derivation (USEPA 1982), all water quality criteria are set at levels less
than results of toxicity tests for the most sensitive species. Due to the
lack of aquatic toxicity information for most of the polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), the most conservative LCrQ value available (based on
toxicity tests with acenapthene) was selected as the criterion for the PAHs.
It is suspected that this number will underestimate the toxicity of PAHs which
have a greater number of benzoid rings than acenapthene (Haque 1980).
Based on the scoring system used in this report, the sediment contami-
nants of greatest concern to aquatic life are the heavy metals (particularly
mercury and cadmium), Aroclors 1248 and 1254 (PCBs), the two- and three-
membered ring PAHs (e.g., napthalene, fluorene), phenol and bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate. Using human health criteria as the basis of scoring, the non-
carcinogenic sediment contaminants of greatest concern are the heavy metals
(scores could be calculated only for mercury, cadmium and lead). Carcinogenic
contaminants that rank highest are arsenic, the two- and three-ring PAHs and
Aroclor 1248.
As discussed previously, the scoring and ranking of the sediments of the
GCR/IHR constitutes only a preliminary and qualitative assessment of the
sediment contamination problem. Given the lack of available data, it is not
2-36
-------
. possible to meaningfully project risks to aquatic life or human health. The
results of the ranking of sediment contaminants should be used only as an
indicator of compounds that may be of concern and those for which additional
monitoring data would be valuable.
Use of the scoring system developed for this assessment identifies
compounds of concern as a function of estimated water column concentrations as
based on partitioning between sediment and water phases. However, scoring
does not reflect risks to aquatic life of direct contact with sediments (e.g.,
through ingestion), or of bioaccumulation or biomagnification of contaminants.
Although it is possible to project the potential for bioaccumulation using
physical/chemical parameters of the identified sediment contaminants (e.g.,
solubility, octanol-water partition coefficients, sediment-water partition
coefficients), this information is of limited value in the absence of reliable
data on the abundance and distribution of indigenous species, and of food
chain dynamics.
2.2.5 Biota
Presently, the State of Indiana classifies the Grand Calumet River system
as suitable for "limited aquatic life." This classification, last reviewed in
1978, must either be revised to "full fish and aquatic life" by the State or
the State must conduct a use attainability analysis to determine the classifi-
cation which can be met in the river.
Natural obstacles inhibit the quality of biological habitat in portions
of the system. Foremost of these is the tendency of the slow flowing West
Branch to stagnate, becoming excessively warm and oxygen deficient, when
periodic lake-level changes cause the river to temporarily back up. Under
these transient conditions, particulate matter settles to the bottom, silting
over detrital material and suffocating bottom dwelling animals. While these
conditions are typical of many Great Lakes stream mouth environments, the
effects are exaggerated in the West Branch.
2-37
-------
Flow reversals have less impact on the East Branch and Main Stem of the
Grand Calumet because of the high lakeward rate of flow sustained by indus-
trial effluent discharges, particularly at the U.S. Steel plant in Gary.
Without the high industrial flows, the majority of the Grand Calumet system
would probably be much less suitable for fish and aquatic life (assuming
adequate control of pollutants in those effluent). The turbulence and
flushing action assisted by industrial discharges encourages re-oxygenation of
the river.
Another obstacle to fish and aquatic life potential in the system is the
intensity of urban and industrial development within the watershed. Most of
the precipitation falling on the basin presently is captured in roof drains,
parking lots, roadways and storage yards and thence diverted to the river
through stormwater sewers. Three impacts result from this: 1) reduced oppor-
tunity for soil filtering of dissolved and suspended pollutants; 2) exag-
gerated peak flows and skewed storm flow hydrographs, followed by depressed
low flows; and 3) reduced dilution of groundwater contaminants and slower
dispersion from origin to points of discharge along the river.
One positive aspect of the biological habitat of this area is the
existence of a number of wetland, bog and dune habitat areas adjacent to the
river. These areas may serve as spawning and rearing areas for many important
fish species. The river-contiguous marshes listed in the Lake Michigan
Federation Report on the Grand Calumet River (Lake Michigan Federation 1984),
are especially important to the biological future of the river.
Further, the Marquette Park lagoons, located at the headwaters of the
GCR, may represent a natural reserve of indigenous species which could con-
tribute to the recolonization of the river, with improving habitat conditions.
At present, these lagoons are reported to be largely isolated from the river
by partially constricted culverts on U.S. Steel property. These and other
natural areas along the GCR/IHC are depicted in Figure 2-3.
A. biological survey of the Grand Calumet River waters would likely have
been a summarily unproductive search prior to 1970. A survey of benthic
2-38
-------
macroinvertebrate organisms of Che Grand Calumet conducted in 1973 (CMSD 1980)
referenced the observation that residues from waste acid pickle liquors once
covered the bottom of the river. During the early 1960's, for example, only
22 to 108 oligochaetes (aquatic earthworms) per square meter were found in
Harbor Mouth sediments. In 1973, the density of these organisms were found to
range between 2,400 to 500,000 per square meter in the same area. Although
the presence of large numbers of oligochaetes is often interpreted as an indi-
cation of a pollution stressed environment, the increase in density of these
pollution tolerant organisms is interpreted as an indication of amelioration
in environmental conditions. Even in 1973, however, the appearance of the
harbor sediment was reported as "black mud", closely resembling crude oil;
oily substances were observed in several of the harbor and canal stations
(CMSD 1980).
Because of the substantial increases observed in macroinvertebrate
densities from the 1960's to 1973, it is logical to anticipate that this
presence of fish food organisms would encourage the reestablishment of a
native fish population. A recent fish survey sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE 1984) suggest that this may have occurred. Fish species
captured in the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal during this survey are presented in
Table 2-7. Resident fish cannot be distinguished with certainty from
migrants, based on the COE data. However, a preponderance of fish collected
were young-of-the-year of species known to inhabit nearby areas of Lake
Michigan. They do not represent a stable fish population, and are probably
migrants.
Yellow perch were by far the most abundant gamefish in the IHC in this
survey, comprising as much as 29 percent of the total number captured at a
single sampling station. Sampling of the GCR was not performed in this
survey.
The Marquette Park lagoons are connected to the GCR by up to 1800 feet of
culvert, crossing U.S. Steel property. The existing Indiana DNR permit for
this culvert (Docket #636; issued 1958) specifies that a 50 cfs flow capacity
be maintained. This culvert is reportedly constricted and passing little
2-39
-------
TABLE 2-7
FISH SPECIES COLLECTED FROM THE INDIANA HARBOR CANAL
DURING NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 1983
Fish Species Collected
Species Name
Common Name
Alosa pseudoharengus (Wilson)
Dorosoma cepedianum (Lesueur)
Umbra limi (Kirtland)
Carassius auratus (Linnaeus)
Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus)
C. auratus x C. carpio
Nocemigonus crysoleucas (Mitchill)
Notropis atherinoides (Rafinesque)
NotropJLs hudsonius (Clinton)
Pimephales notatus (Rafinesque)
Pimephales promelas (Rafinesque)
Lepomls cyanellus (Rafinesque)
Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus)
Lepomis macrochirus (Rafinesque).
Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur)
Perca flavescens (Mitchell)
Alewife
Gizzard shad
Central mudminnow
Goldfish
Carp
Goldfish x Carp hybrid
Golden shiner
Emerald shiner
Spottail shiner
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Bluegill
Black crappie
Yellow perch
2-40
-------
water to the GCR. Opening this culvert could contribute relatively clean
water to the headwaters of the GCR, which would affect dilution of downstream
contaminant sources as well as enhancing "flushing" of the waterway. These
lagoons could also represent a source of biota for recolonization of the
river. Reopening of the culvert could be affected under the existing author-
ity of the Indiana DNR and the City of Gary.
While biological habitat improvement is certainly indicated by the
presence of dense macroinvertebrate populations as well as perch and other
panfish in the Canal and Harbor, the potential issue of toxins transfer from
the sediments to the fish, via bottom dwelling food organisms, is significant.
These organisms may bioaccumulate and bioconcentrate toxins from the sedi-
ments. This issue should be addressed in any future biological studies.
Corollary concerns include whether it is cost-effective to control the
discharge of oxygen-demanding substances to the river, to improve biological
habitat, when 1) toxics are entering the water and sediments from existing
discharges; and 2) high levels of toxins and toxin-producing chemicals are
present in the sediments and may be accumulating in aquatic organisms. As
reflected in the discussions contained in Section 2.2.4 of this report,
relatively little is known regarding the dynamics of biological contaminant
movement in the GCR/IHC.
2.3 POLLUTANT SOURCES
Historically, industrial and municipal wastewater outfalls have been
regarded as the principal sources of contaminants to the GCR/IHC. While this
may be true for oxygen demanding contaminants, other sources may be of equal
importance when considering toxic materials input. This section assesses the
point and non-point sources contributing pollutants to the GCR/IHC. Addi-
tional information describing the pollutant characteristics and NPDES program
discharge limitations on the municipal and principle industrial point source
discharges to the GCR/IHC is presented in Section 3.2 of this report.
2.3.1 Industrial Point Sources
Industrial point sources have been classified by the USEPA as either
major or minor dischargers. Based on a review of National Pollutant Discharge
2-41
-------
Elimination System (NPDES) records maintained by the Agency, seven major
industries discharge into the GCR/IHC system, including:
Citgo Petroleum Corporation
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Inland Steel Corporation
Jones and Laughlin Steel Company
U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc.
United States Steel Corporation
Vulcan Materials Company.
There are also several minor industrial point sources, including: Industrial
Disposal, American Steel Foundries, Blaw Knox Foundry, and Explorer Pipeline
Company. A brief description of each major industrial point source is
provided in the following discussion. This information is based on the NPDES
permits and recent ISBH sampling data.
NPDES effluent limitations reported in the following discussion represent
30 day average values unless stated otherwise. ISBH data represent average
effluent values obtained from two separate samplings in 1983. Average
effluent values for each of the seven major dischargers are summarized in
Table 2-8, which is presented following the discussion of individual dis-
chargers. Locations of NPDES-permitted industrial point source dischargers to
the GCR/IHC are depicted in Figure 2-5.
Citgo Petroleum Corporation
Citgo Petroleum Corporation is a petroleum storage facility used for
receipt and distribution of petroleum products, via pipeline systems. The
company has one outfall to the Grand Calumet River through which it discharges
collected surface runoff following treatment by an oil/water separator. NPDES
effluent limitations limit oil and grease to 10 mg/1 and pH to between 6 and 9.
E.I, du Pont de Nemours and Company
E.I. du Pont manufactures inorganic industrial chemicals, including
herbicides and fungicides. Non-contact cooling water and process wastewaters
are discharged to the GCR from these permitted outfalls. Wastewaters are also
discharged to the East Chicago Sanitary District. Based on 1983 sampling
2-42
-------
LAKt UICHIGAH
HAMMOKO
N
LEGEND:
/\ OUFONT
Q J&L STEEL
INLAND STEEL
U.S. STEEL
OTHER OUTFALLS
Tabular data for identified
dischargers presented on
following page.
GAftv
Figure 2-5
Location of Point Source Discharges
Modified from ISBH 1984
-------
Legend for Figure 2-5
Type of
Map Source Discharge
1. U.S. Steel
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. Gary STP
15. Industrial Disposal
16. Vulcan Materials
17. Explorer Pipe
18. Citgo Petroleum
19. Harbison-Walker
20. Dupont
21. 1
22. t '
23. U.S.S. Lead
24. E. Chicago STP
25. Hammond STP
26. Blaw-Knox
27. y
28. Inland Steel
29.
30.
31. <
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39. J&L Steel
40. 1
S: 1
43. American Steel
44. J&L Steel
P/C
C
P/C
p
C
C
C
P/C
p
P/C
C
C
P/C
p
P/C
C
C
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
P/C
C
C
P/C
p
P/C
P/C
p
C
C
C
C
p
Flow (MGD)
60
2
14
5
1
55
70
90
35
90
7
3
14
60
M.D.
N.A.
M.D.
M.D.
M.D.
5
5
5
.06
20
48
2.2tgd
2.2tgd
1
135
3
13
30
45
90
18
42
30
130
57
46
43
2
.22
9
Motes
P« Process wastewater, treated process
wastewaters, and/or contact cooling
waters
C" Non-contacc cooling waters, and/or
stormwater runoff
P/C=Outfall discharges both types of
waters
M.D.= Minor discharge
MGD- Million gallons per day
tgd- thousand gallons per day
-------
data, this facility discharges approximately 4.7 mgd of wastewater, with the
following general characteristics: 4 mg/1 of BOD, 0.005 mg/1 of phosphorus,
29 mg/1 of chlorides, 1,340 mg/1 of TDS, 865 mg/1 of sulfates and trace
amounts of lead (ISBH 1984).
Inland Steel Corporation
The Inland Steel Corporation plant in East Chicago is an integrated steel
and coke production facility. The plant produces iron, coke, coal chemicals,
steel and steel products, as well as a portion of its own electricity. The
facility has thirteen permitted outfalls discharging into the Indiana Harbor
Canal and Indiana Harbor, and two permitted underground injection wells. The
discharges consist of cooling waters and process wastewaters amounting to more
than 500 mgd. Wastewater treatment is provided for industrial process waters
and sanitary wastewaters. About 150 mgd of cooling and treated process waters
are recycled within the plant. Some wastewaters are also discharged to the
East Chicago Sanitary District.
The 1983 ISBH survey found this facility to be discharging about 592 mgd
of wastewater from its permitted outfalls. The wastewater quality discharged
from this facility averages: 5 mg/1 of SOD, 0.4 mg/1 of ammonia, 0.03 mg/1 of
phosphorus, 17 mg/1 of chlorides, 186 mg/1 of TDS, 27 mg/1 of sulfates, 0.008
mg/1 of cyanides, 0.07 mg/1 of iron and 0.006 mg/1 of phenols (ISBH 1984).
Jones and Laughlin Steel Company
The Jones and Laughlin Steel Company's Indiana Harbor Works, formerly
owned by Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, manufacturers sheet, tube and
structural steel shapes. The facility has nine permitted outfalls which
discharge about 200 mgd of cooling process waters into the Indiana Harbor
Canal. Another 57 mgd, which was discharged prior to 1981, is recycled within
the plant. About 9 mgd of process wastewaters receive physical-chemical
treatment prior to discharge. Coke plant and sanitary wastewaters are also
discharged to the East Chicago POTW. Based on 1983 sampling data, this
facility discharges approximately 154 mgd from its permitted outfalls. The
average pollutant characteristics of the discharge are: 4 mg/1 of BOD, 0.4
mg/1 of ammonia, 0.04 mg/1 of phosphorus, 40 mg/1 of chlorides, 261 mg/1 of
TDS, 39 mg/1 of sulfates, and 0.02 mg/1 of cyanides (ISBH 1984).
2-45
-------
U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc.
U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc. has one permitted outfall discharging to the
Grand Calumet River. Some wastewaters are also discharged to the East Chicago
Sanitary District. A 1974 waste load allocation study indicated that the
discharge was "completely non-contact cooling water," but that sulfates
"infiltrate into the drainage pipe from battery storage areas." Data fron the
1983 ISBH survey indicate that about 0.06 mgd of wastewater is discharged from
the facility. The average discharge characteristics are: 8 mg/1 of BOD, 190
mg/1 of chloride, 805 mg/1 of IDS, and 520 mg/1 of sulfates (ISBH 1984).
United States Steel Corporation
The Gary Works and Tubing Specialities facility, operated by U.S. Steel,
produces iron and steel products, coke, coal chemicals, seamless tube rounds,
and steel foundry products. The facility has 20 permitted outfalls discharg-
ing into the Grand Calumet river, five permitted outfalls discharging into
Lake Michigan and an on-site, permitted, injection well. Approximately 350
mgd of cooling water and process wastewaters are discharged from the outfalls
entering the GCR, and an additional 91 mgd is recycled within the facility.
Treatment is provided for process wastewaters and some cooling waters. Based
on data from the 1983 survey, an average of 309 mgd of wastewater is dis-
charged to the GCR from the facility's permitted outfalls. The average
characteristics of these outfalls are: 4 mg/1 of BOD, 0.3 mg/1 of ammonia,
0.04 mg/1 of phosphorus, 23 mg/1 of chlorides, 204 mg/1 of TDS, 26 mg/1 of
sulfates, 0.25 mg/1 of iron and trace amounts of cyanides and phenols (ISBH
1984).
Vulcan Materials Company
The Vulcan Materials Company recycles tin plated scrap metals into steel
bundles and tin ingots. One permitted outfall discharges to the Grand Calumet
River. Based on NPDES permit data, average flow from this facility is about
0.03 mgd and consists of non-contact cooling water, softener regeneration and
boiler blow down waters, and periodic scormwater. However, based on 1983 ISBH
survey data, approximately 0.12 mgd is discharged from the plant. The waste-
water was characterized as containing: 14 mg/1 of BOD, 950 mg/1 of chlorides,
1660 mg/1 of TDS and 42 mg/1 of sulfates (ISBH 1984).
2-46
-------
Minor Dischargers
Industrial point source loadings from minor dischargers are summarized in
Table 2-8. Based on this data, the only important discharger in this group is
Industrial Disposal Company. This facility is a landfill discharging 5,000 to
10,000 gpd of seepage, as well as storm water runoff. Filling material
utilized at the site are sand, concrete and brick. The 1983 ISBH survey found
the facility to be discharging 1 mgd, with pollutant concentrations estimated
at the following levels: 15 mg/1 of BOD, 0.35 mg/1 of phosphorus, 1,122 mg/1
of chlorides, 2,825 mg/1 of TDS, and 357 mg/1 of sulfates (ISBH 1984).
A summary of the pollutant contributions from the major and minor
industrial point sources just described is provided in Table 2-8. It can be
seen from this table that the greatest mass of pollutants is discharged by
three steel mills: Inland Steel, Jones & Laughlin Steel and U.S. Steel. The
combined wastewater flow from these three sources (1,056 mgd) accounts for
about 90 percent, by flow, of all point sources discharging into the GCR/IHC.
Since most of this wastewater is non-contact cooling water, the water quality
(as- measured by the 1983 ISBH survey) is quite good. In fact, the BOD loading
from these three significant industrial point sources was less than that from
the Gary or East Chicago POTWs.
The data presented in the 1983 ISBH survey includes conventional
pollutants, non-conventional pollutants and a few metals. Additional measure-
ments for metals and toxic organics are required to adequately determine the '
impact of industrial point sources on the GCR/IHC.
2.3.2 Municipal Wastewater Sources
Three municipal wastewater treatment plants, serving the East Chicago,
Gary and Hammond Sanitary Districts, discharge into the GCR/IHC system. How-
ever, due to flow patterns in the West Branch, the Hammond POTW effluent
enters that portion of the GCR which drains to the IHC only under conditions
of high rainfall (USEPA 1982). Brief descriptions of each of these plants,
their NPDES limitations, and pollutants loadings to the GCR/IHC are provided
in this section. Discharge locations of these POTWs to the GCR/IHC are
provided in Figure 2-5.
2-47
-------
TABLE 2-8
INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE LOADINGS
ISBH (1984) SURVEY
10
Co
Industry
Citgo
DuPont
Inland Steel
J & L Steel
U.S.S. Lead
U.S. Steel
Vulcan Materials
Industrial Disposal
American Steel
Blaw Knox
Explorer Pipeline
Totals
Flow
-
4.70
592
154
0.06
309
0.12
1.00
0.13
0.04
-
BOD
-
157
23,704
5,195
4
10,710
14
127
2
4
-
Ammonia Phosphorus
_
0.2
1,977 147
484 47
-
827 107
_
3
-
-
-
Chlorides
-
1,137
85,322
51,878
95
58,221
950
9,365
39
24
-
J/l = lho/,1
TDS
, -
52,486
919,578
335,274
403
525,617
1,661
23,567
358
140
'
Sulfates Cyanides Iron 1
-
33,935
135,306 39 352
50,059 32 0
260
66,572 J 637
42
2,977
69 - I
33
_
1
Pheno
-
-
31
9
-
6
-
-
-
-
-
8.34
Flow
- indicates parameter not measured
0 indicates parameter measured to be zero
Flow is in mgd
-------
East Chicago
The East Chicago Facility is a 20 mgd, conventional activated sludge
facility, using alum addition for phosphorus removal. Flow from the final
clarifiers discharges into a 20 acre lagoon which also receives wastewater
diverted from the Magoun Combined Sewer Overflow Station. Wastewater from the
lagoon is subject to seasonal chlorination prior to final discharge to the
Grand Calumet River. The effluent contains typical conventional and non-
conventional pollutants: BOD, TSS, oil and grease, phosphorus, and ammonia.
Other constituents are chlorides, fluorides, cyanide and sulfate.
Historical data provided by the East Chicago Sanitary District indicate
increased average flows over the last 15 years. This trend is reflected in
the following example data:
1968 11.31 mgd
1976 12.93 ingd
1982 16.70 mgd
1983 15.63 ragd
The 38 percent flow increase observed over this 15-year period has occurred
despite the elimination of discharges from a number of large industries,
including M&T Chemicals/MRI Corporation, Inland Steel Coke Plant #3, and
Railoc of Indiana, Inc.
Comparing 1968 and 1982 average effluent data, BOD concentrations
decreased by 50%, from 146 to 73 mg/1. Although TSS concentrations also
decreased during this period, the increment was much smaller (approximately
10%), dropping from 110 mg/1 in 1968 to 99 mg/1 in 1982. Due to increases in
flow rates during this same period, however, total effluent loading reductions
to the GCR/IHC were not as dramatic. For BOD, the 1982 loading rate of 10,415
Ibs/day was only 25% less than the 13,746 Ibs/day 1968 value. TSS loading
actually increased during this period, from 10,399 Ibs/day in 1963 to 15,013
Ibs/day in 1982 (a 44% increase).
Little historical data exists on the amount of toxic pollutants dis-
charged by the East Chicago treatment plant. As part of pretreatment program
2-49
-------
development, Ease Chicago collected.composice samples of the influent, ef-
fluent and sludge for three consecutive days in the spring of 1984. These
samples were analyzed for the list of 126 priority pollutants. Those pol-
lutants detected in the wastewater -are listed in Table 2-9. The loadings
presented in the table were calculated using the 1983 average daily flow of
15.63 mgd.
To aid in evaluating the impact of the East Chicago discharge on the GCR,
the USEPA conducted bioassay and mutagenicity testing of the POTW's discharge
in February, 1980. Analysis of the results of acute, static bioassays indi-
cated the effluent to be highly toxic to fish, and mutagenicity testing of
concentrated (lOOx and 200x) effluent samples indicated the presence of muta-
genic compounds. These preliminary data indicate the need for more in-depth,
conclusive studies.
Gary
The Gary facility is a 60 mgd advanced wastewater treatment plant. The
plant uses an activated sludge process with two-stage nitrification, phos-
phorus removal, and sand filtration. The following pollutants may be dis-
charged from this facility under the NPDES permit conditions: BOD, SS,
phenol, phosphorus, fluoride, chloride, sulfate, ammonia, oil and grease, and
cyanide.
Historical data provided by the Gary Sanitary District indicate a
reduction in treated flow over the last 15 years, from an annual average of
48.5 mgd in 1968 to 41.4 mgd in 1982. Effluent quality, in terms of BOD and
TSS, has improved over the same period. Daily BOD loadings to the GCR/IHC
have been reduced by 32%, from 4,589 Ibs/day in 1968 to 3,107 Ibs/day in 1982.
Over this same period, TSS loadings have decreased by 75%, from 8,475 Ibs/day
to 2,072 Ibs/day. Additional improvements occurred in 1983 and 1984, fol-
lowing installation of new equipment at the POTW. However, treatment plant
performance has been somewhat erratic, due to operation and maintenance
problems.
2-50
-------
TABLE 2-9
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT
PRIORITY POLLUTANT MONITORING DATA
FOR THE EAST CHICAGO POTW
Pollutant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanides
Lead
Mercury
Phenols
Selenium
Silver
Antimony
Beryllium
Copper
Nickel
Thallium
Zinc
Barium
Methylene Chloride
1,1, 1 ,-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Toluene
Phenol
4 , -Nitrophenol
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Fluoroanthene
Pyrene
Benzo (A) Anthracene
Chrysene
Bis(2-Ethylehexyl) Phthalate
1984
Influent
mg/1
-------
Very little data is available on levels of toxic pollutants discharged by
the Gary treatment plant. Composite samples of the influent and effluent were
collected on three randomly selected days over a two-week period in May, 1981.
The samples were analyzed for the 126 priority pollutants. Sample analysis
results are reported in Table 2-10. Only those pollutants detected in the
wastewater are listed in Table 2-10. The loadings presented in the table were
calculated using a daily average flow of 40 mgd.
Hammond
The Hammond facility is an AWT facility using the activated sludge
process, with the Kraus modification, followed by multimedia filtration and
chlorination. The average design flow is 48 mgd.
The addition of tertiary treatment in mid-1977 resulted in dramatic
reductions in pollutant loadings from this facility, as shown below:
1968 1976 1982
Ave Flow
BOD
TSS
33.4 mgd
38.9 mg/1
36.6 mg/1
36.6 mgd
17.0 mg/1
29.8 mg/1
37.9 mgd
1.7 mg/1
1.9 mg/1
These data represent a 96 percent reduction in BOD loading, and a 95 percent
reduction in solids loading to the GCR/IHC from 1968 to 1982.
Composite samples were collected on the influent and effluent of the
Hammond treatment plant on three consecutive days in April, 1984, and analyzed
for cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, chromium (heavy metals) and cyanide.
Results of this sampling are provided in Table 2-11. The effluent loadings
presented in the table were calculated using an average wastewater flow of 40
mgd.
2-52
-------
TABLE 2-10 '
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT
PRIORITY POLLUTANT MONITORING DATA
FOR THE GARY POTW
Pollutant
Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Selenium
Thallium
Volatiles
Benzene
Toluene
All Others each
Acid Extractables
Phenol
All Others each
1981
Influent
rag/1
0.02-0. 03(2)
0.12-0.21
<0. 05-0. 05
0.20
<0. 001-0. 003
<0.1
0,01-0.02
0.22-0.30
<2.5
<0. 01-0. 01
<0.05
<0. 01-0. 02
<0.02
<0.005
<0.002
<0.001
0.029-0.281
<0.009
1981
Effluent
mg/1
0.02-0.03
<0. 02-0. 04
<0. 05-0. 06
0.20
<0.001
<0.1
0.01-0.02
0.06-0.20
<2.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0. 01-0. 01
<0.02
<0.005
-------
TABLE 2-11
HEAVY METAL AND CYANIDE
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT MONITORING DATA
FOR THE HAMMOND POTW
Pollutant
Cadmi urn
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Chromium
Cyanide
1984
Influent
mg/1
0.01-0.015('2)
0.228-0.256
0.1-0.60
0.071-0.08
0.611-3.85
0.191-0.20
1984
Effluent
mg/1
0.006-0.011
0.051-0.058
0.118-0.267
0.031-0.036
0.266-0.336
0.04-0.074
0.04
Effluent, x
Loading
Ibs/day
2.00
17.01
39.36
10.34
88.74
13^34
13.34
Assumes 40 mgd average flow.
(2)
Two values reflect maximum and minimum concentrations for three composite samples
collected over a three-day sampling period.
2-54
-------
2.3.3 Combined Sewer Overflows
Characteristics of combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges to the Grand
Calumet River system are summarized in Table 2-12. The map number codes in
the left-most column refer to the CSO locations on Figure 2-6. Annual dis-
charge volume estimates for the reported CSO points are listed, as billions of
gallons per year, in Table 2-12.
If the annual overflow volume estimates for each outfall are grouped and
summed according to Sanitary District boundaries, it is found that the CSO
problem is distributed more-or-less equally (i.e.; roughly one third of the
problem is attributed to each Sanitary District). In actuality, however, the
impact on each subarea will depend more strongly on what pollutant loads are
associated with each CSO and on CSO locations relative to areas of oxygen
deficiencies and sediment accumulation.
Some examination of dissolved oxygen impacts of the various CSO
discharges will be included in the waste load allocation study currently being
conducted for the Indiana State Board of Health. This study will not consider
the toxic and non-convencional pollutants discharged from CSO outfalls. How
ever, preliminary determinations of CSO impacts on sediment contamination can
be accomplished by correlating industrial discharger locations with those
portions of the various collection systems wherein CSO problems originate.
Table 2-13 summarizes geographic information on CSO discharge points relative
to surficial sediment contamination levels. The industrial user data devel-
oped in the ongoing pretreatment programs for Gary, Hammond and East Chicago
(see. Section 3.3) should yield data necessary to better correlate CSOs and
areas of contaminated sediments.
CSO outfalls in the GCR/IHC have been shown to be sources of contaminants
adversely affecting near-shore water quality in southern Lake Michigan. Fecal
coliform organisms, the principal analog parameter for sewerage pollution from
CSOs, are short-lived in sunlight and die off in a matter of hours or days.
Therefore, it is most probable that CSOs from the IHC and the lower half of
the Grand Calumet River have the most direct, adverse impact on beaches along
the southwest Lake Michigan coast.
2-55
-------
TABLE 2-12
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS TO THE GRAND CALUMET RIVER
LOCATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Map
CSO
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mile-Segment^1'
[Cross St.]
12.6-E.Br.
12.3-E.Br.
[Virginia St.]
11.2-E.Br.
[Hwy 90]
11.0-E.Br.
[Buchanan St. ]
10.0-E.Br.
[Bridge St.]
9.4-E.Br.
[Hwy 90]
7.6-E.Br.
6.5-E.Br.
[Cline Ave. ]
4.7-E.Br.
Sanitary
District
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
E. Chicago
Hammond
Est. Annual
Overflow Vol.
[References below]
1.25 bg/year
(USEPA, 1983)
0.59 bg/year
(USEPA, 1983)
0.09 bg/year
(USEPA, 1983)
0.27 bg/year
(USEPA, 1983)
0.43 bg/year
(USEPA, 1983)
0.89 bg/year
(USEPA, 1983)
0.75 bg/year
(USEPA, 1983)
0.49 bg/year
(USEPA, 1983)
1.80 bg/year
10
(2)
11
12
[Kennedy Ave. ]
4.6-W.Br.
[Indianapolis
Boulevard]
6.0-W.Br.
[Columbia Ave.]
6.0-W.Br.
[Columbia Ave.]
E. Chicago
Hammond
(pump sta.)
Hammond
(USEPA, 1983)
2.93 bg/year
(USEPA, 1983)
1.22 bg/year
(USEPA, 1983)
0.09 bg/year
(USEPA, 1983)
2-56
-------
TABLE 2-12 (Continued)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS TO THE GRAND CALUMET RIVER
LOCATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Map
CSO
Number
Mile-Segment
(Cross St. ]
Sanitary
District
Es t . Annual
Overflow Vol.
[References below]
13
14
1.7-S.Ca.
[Turning basin]
1.7-S.Ca.
[Opposite turning
basin]
E. Chicago
E. Chicago
0.23 bg/year (N/A)
(3)
(1)
(2)
(3)
River miles, as delineated in ISHB 1984. Name of Segment or Reach: E.Br.=
East Branch; W.Br.= West Branch; M.St.= Main Stem; S.CA.3 Ship Canal, from
Lake George Branch to Harbor.
Assumed point of entry for Magoun Avenue Pumping Station CSO.
Although listed as a CSO, this outfall is a storm sewer only. This outfall
has been included because it discharges significant volumes of oily wastes
which infiltrate into the storm sewer from contaminated groundwater and
soils at the Energy Cooperative, Inc. site.
References: Williams, G.G. East Chicago Lab and Field data, Volume 3.
Howard, Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff, September 1981. As
cited in Combined Sewer Overflow Loading Inventory for Great
Lakes Basin, Final Report. March 1983. Prepared for USEPA
Great Lakes National Progam Office, Chicago, by GCS Corporation.
Howard Needless Tammen and Bergendoff Company for Bessozzi,
Carpenter, and Ignelzi, Inc. of Hammond, IN. East Chicago
Combined Sewer Overflow Water Quality Impact Analysis. Volume
I: Technical Report. January 1982.
2-57
-------
Figure 2-6. Locations of CSO Discharges and Wastefill near the GCR/IHC
US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1985 555-457
-------
TABLE 2-13
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS AND WASTSFILLS LOCATED NEAR
HIGHLY CONTAMINATED SEGMENTS OF THE GRAND CALUMET RIVER BED
River
Mile
11.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0 '
6.5
6.5
6.9
6.9
6.9
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
River
Segment v
E. Br.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
E.
W.
W.
W.
W.
Wo
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Sediment
Contaminant
Cadmium
PCB-1248
Phenol
Zinc
Chromium
PCB-1248
Zinc
Phenol
Lead
Mercury
Copper
Cadmium
Silver
Selenium
Arsenic
Cyanides
Zinc
Contaminant
Level
(mg/kg)
6.
17.
1.
855.
1330.
10.
1025.
0.
644.
1.
710.
18.
15.
7.
36.
27.
1465.
0
0
66
0
0
1
0
88
0
48
0
0
0
31
7
67
0
Potential Sources:
Wastefill #rs(2) CSO #'s(3;)
11B
__
__
,
12B & 28C
[also mile 10.0]
12B & 28C
[also mile 10.0]
38D
38D
[also mile 5.3,
Hwy 1-90 Bridge]
38D
37D
37D
37D
37D
37D
37D
37D
1,2,3 & 4
4 & 5
4 & 5
4 & 5
4 & 5
7 & 8
7 & 8
11 & 12
11 & 12
11 & 12.
10
. 10
10
10
10
10
10
4.6
W. Br.
Lead
854.0
[also mile pt. 5.3,
Hwy 1-90 Bridge]
37D
[also mile 5.3]
10
2-59
-------
TABLE 2-13 (Continued)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS AND WASTEFILLS LOCATED NEAR
HIGHLY CONTAMINATED SEGMENTS OF THE GRAND CALUMET RIVER BED
Contaminant
River River ., . .
Mile Segment UJ
4.6 W. Br.
3.2 M. St.
3.2 M. St.
2.6 M. St.
2.0 Sh. C.
2.0 Sh. C.
2.0 Sh. C.
2.0 Sh. C.
2.0 Sh. C.
2.0 Sh. C.
Sediment
Contaminant
Nickel
Copper
Mercury
Silver
Cyanides
PCB-1248
Lead
Chromium
Mercury
Mercury
Level Potential Sources: ,_,.
(mg/kg) Wastefill #'su; CSO #'s^;
670.0 37D
94.0 36D
[also mile 4.6]
2.44 36D
19.0 36D
[also mile 4.6]
4.14 36D
[also mile 4.6]
7.7 36D
[also miles 10 & 6.5]
654.0 36D
[also mile 4.6]
740.0 36D
[also mile 10.0]
0.72 36D
[also mile 3.2]
0.73 3A
[also mile 3.2]
10
13
13
13
13
13
14
(2)
(3)
W. Br. = West Branch GCR
M. St. = Main Stem GCR
Sh. C. = Ship Canal
Refer to Table 2-12'
Refer to Table 2-15
2-60
-------
It is calculated that 57% of the CSO volume, on an annual basis, stems
from discharge points downstream of river mile 8.0 (dine Avenue). -Impacts of
CSO and other waste sources on Lake Michigan is currently under investigation
in a study being performed for the Great Lakes National Program Office of the
USSPA.
The East Chicago Sanitary District's pretreatment program document (see
Section 3.3) provides information on industrial process wastewater sources
which discharge to permitted combined sewer overflows. Using the District's
1983 industrial monitoring data, estimated dry weather toxic pollutant
loadings from industrial discharges to the Alder CSO station (CSO Number 8 on
Figure 2-6) were derived. These estimates are included in Table 2-14. During
CSO events, all or a fraction of these industrial process wastewaters are
discharged without treatment to the receiving stream and could result in
significant toxic pollutant loadings, particularly for phenols and oil and
grease.
Dry weather CSO discharges have been reported from outlets at Canal and
145th streets, in East Chicago. Because these discharges occur during periods
of comparatively lower streamflow, the impacts of dry weather CSOs may be
magnified.
2.3.4 Non-Point Sources
Non-point sources of contaminant input to the GCR/IHC include such
diverse categories as highway runoff (including spills); surface runoff from
industrial properties contiguous to the river; seepage of contaminated ground-
water from dumps, landfills and waste lagoons; rain scour and dust fall; and
illegal dumping.
Little is known about the extent of possible non-point contamination of
the GCR/IHC. With the continued integration of various pollution control pro-
grams (i.e., RCRA, NPDES, CAA, CWA), the magnitude of many such sources may be
declining. For example, with the implementation of industrial emissions con-
trols under the Clean Air Act, significant reductions in rain scour and dust-
fall (as non-point pollutant sources) has occurred, especially during the
1970s.
2-61'
-------
TABLE 2-14
ESTIMATED TOXIC LOADINGS OF EAST CHICAGO INDUSTRIAL USERS
TO ALDER COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW STATION
(All values in Ibs/month unless otherwise indicated)
INDUSTRY NAME
AMERICAN RECOVERY
AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRY
ARTIM TRANSPORTATION
BESTWAY STEEL DELIVERY SERVICE
CALUMET LAUNDRY
GATX PLANT 1: #1 EUCLID
GATX PLANT 1: #2 CARREY
GATX PLANT 1: #3 143RD
INDIANA FORGE
INDIANA RADIATOR
INLAND STEEL: #1 COKE PLT #2
INLAND STEEL: #2 COKE PLT #2-1
INLAND STEEL: #3 COKE PLT #3
INLAND STEEL: #4 NORTH EXPAN
INLAND STEEL: #5 STL PLTS 3&4
INLAND STEEL: RESEARCH CENTER
JONES & LAUGHLIN: #1 OLD SHT 9
JONES & LAUGHLIN: #2 TIN MLL 2
JONES & LAUGHLIN: #3 OLD SHT N
JONES & LAUGHLIN: #4 TIN MLL 1
JONES & LAUGHLIN: #5 CKE-STL P
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS
NAT. MATERIALS CORP. EAST
NAT. MATERIALS CORP. ALDER
NAT. MATERIALS CORP. BLOCK
NAT. MATERIALS CORP. PARISH
STANDARD FORGE
UNION CARBIDE ACETYLENE PLANT
UNION CARBIDE LINDE DIV.
UNION CARBIDE SPECIALTY GAS
US GYPSUM
PHENOLS
1104.89
1.00
.05
.03
.01
.44
.39
.03
11839.55
17752.10
1738.44
1.06
327.68
0.29
2.34
1.69
0.22
1.36
5.92
_ ^
0.31
0.55
0.16
1.30
1.82
0.45
LEAD
4.93
6.66
.18
.06
.10
1.60
1.97
2.75
9.50
28.09
4.44
2.12
33.73
1.93
7.42
3.94
1.39
7.15
41. -44
0.04
1.38
1.59
0.12
2.89
2.02
2.97
ZINC
13.03
19.97
0.22
0.11
0.16
1.74
3.15
4.34
10.73
38.31
9.36
6.04
96.38
5.22
7.42
7.32
2.86
18.37
165.75
0.04
2.75
1.52
0.38
14.00
2.42
2.38
COPPER
1.89
1.66
.08
.02
.04
.044
.49
3.54
2.48
10.21
1.81
0.53
8.03
1.06
1.95
1.50
0.44
2.38
15.79
0.01
1.81
__
0.48
0.10
0.87
0.71
0.74
CADIUM
0.18
0.33
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.01
0.83
22.98
0.49
0.32
12.85
0.19
0.78
0.19
0.07
1.70
1.97
0.00
0.75
__
0.07
0.01
0.14
0.20
0.15
NICKEL
0.85
1.66
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.36
0.49
0.02
3.72
16.60
1.31 .
0.53
9.64
0.58
2.34
1.31
0.51
1.70
59.20
0.01
1.81
0.35
0.05
0.72
0.50
1.04
OIL&GREASE
13009.63
289.51
11.65
1.83
1.29
68.57
77.06
91.48
679.93
2046.80
1319.64
226.98
2772.45
93.94
208.04
1666.14
31.63
202.80
1844.98
0.48
52.54
53.09
2.82
72.00
57.32
184.08
TOTAL Lbs/Day
1092.74
5.68 14.48
1.97
1.48
3.52
835.64
2-62
-------
Based on the numbers of industrial waste disposal sites.in close
proximity to the GCR/IHC, these sites were targeted as the priority category
of non-point sources for further investigation. These sources are summarized
in the following discussion, to the extent possible with the currently avail-
able database.
2.3.4.1 Waste Disposal Sites
At least 38 waste disposal/waste storage sites ("wastefills") are located
within the planning area for this study, as depicted in Table 2-15. These 38
known sites are mapped on Figure 2-6. Based on the proximity of these sites
to the river bank, and results of recent field investigations, eleven of the
38 mapped sites were selected for further investigation. These eleven are
marked with asterisks in Table 2-15. The potential for chemicals in or at
these sites to enter the Grand Calumet River is currently under investigation.
Further study needs and potential regulatory actions are currently under
consideration.
USEPA file data for the eleven sites marked with asterisks in Table 2-15
were reviewed. Because of the close proximity of these sites to the GCR
(within 0.2 miles), these sites were initially chosen as presenting the
greatest potential for contributing pollutants to the river.
Available information for the eleven sites in Table 2-15 is summarized
below. This information was developed from review of ERRIS and NPL file data
at USEPA, Region V.
Site 3A, Indiana Harbor Works, was used as a landfill and also for liquid
waste groundwater injection by the Youngstown Steel Company and by 'its current
owner, J&L Steel Company. Qualitative information indicates the presence of
oily wastes and heavy metals in the landfill.
Site 11B. USSC Gary Works and Tubing Specialties, is used as a waste
storage lagoon. No quantitative data on waste constituents currently are
available for this site.
2-63
-------
TABLE 2-15
WASTE FILL AND STORAGE LAGOON SITES MAPPED WITHIN THE GRAND
CALUMET RIVER WATERSHED
(USEPA 1984)
Site(1)
No./Qd.
1A
2A
* 3A
4A
5A
6B
7B
SB
9B
10B
*11B
*12B
13B
14B
15B
16B
*173
*18B
19B
20B
Indiana State
ERRIS Number
IND-0 14387880
IND -077042034
IND-005462601
IND-005460753
IND-074375585
IND-005159199
IND-980607469
IND-040888992
IND-980679559
IND-980500516
IND-005444062
IND-980500573
IND-980679211
LND-067469437
IND-980500565
IND-044250587
IND-005 174354
IND-047030226
IND -077001 147
IND-0 94738762
Miles
to
River
Bank
2
1/3
<1/10
1
141/4
2/5
141/2
1
4/5
3/5
<1/10
<1/10
2/5
1/3
1
3/5
<1/10
<1/10
2/5
2/5
City
Gary
E. Chicago
E. Chicago
Hammond
Whiting
E. Chicago
E. Chicago
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
E. Chicago
E. Chicago
E. Chicago
E. Chicago
E. Chicago
Owner or Name
Calumet Ind.
Hodges Lloyd
Ind. Harbor
Works
American
Amoco Wh.
Refinery
Inland Steel
Cities' Ser.
Refinery
Conservation
Chemical
MIDCO II
Samacki Bros.
Trucking
USSC Gary Wks.
& Tubing Spec.
Site #75
Industrial
Cinder , Inc
Municipal
Airport
Site #18
Industrial
Disposal Co.
Du Pont Co.
USS Lead
Refinery
Union
Carbide
Union
Carbide
2-64
-------
TABLE 2-15 (Continued)
WASTE FILL AND STORAGE LAGOON SITES MAPPED WITHIN THE GRAND
CALUMET RIVER WATERSHED
(USEPA 1984)
Site(1)
No./Qd.
21C
22C
23C
24C
25C
26C
27C
*28C
*29C
30C
31C
32C
33C
J4c
*35D
*36D
*37D
*38D
Indiana State
ERRIS Number
IND-001859032
IND-0947 60444
IND -068584432
IND-0 10294304
IND-980500540
IND-077005916
IND-005444732
IND-077001808
IND -074403296
IND-000606731
IND-045046810
IND-980679849
&-980794432 .
IND-980500532
IND-042329631
IND -074429895
IND-980500227
Miles
to
River
Bank
1/3
1/5
3/10
3/10 -
1/4
2/5
1/2
1/10
<1/10
1/4
1&1/4
1&1/2
1&1/10
1/2
1/10
1/5
1/5
<1/10
City
Hammond
Hammond
Hammond
Hammond
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
Gary
Co.
Gary
Gary
Gary
Hammond
E. Chicago
E. Chicago
E. Chicago
Hammond
Owner or Name
Stauffer
Chemical
Shell Oil
Terminal
Ruan Trans-
port Co.
Chemical
Haulers
Site #10
Gary Dev. Co.
Vulcan Mater-
ials
Sanitary Dist.
Sanitary Dist.
Andersen Dev.
Mobile Chem.
Phos. Div.
RJ Conner,
Inc.
Ninth Ave.
Dumps
Old Hammond
Dump
Mobile Oil
Terminal
Gen. American
Transp. Co.
Sanitary Dist.
Sanitary Dist.
Figure 2-6
Sites within 1/5 mile of riy^-r
2-65
-------
Site 12B, Number 75, is an uncontrolled waste fill with open access. No
data on waste characteristics currently are available for this site.
Site 17B, DuPont Site, file not available for review.
Site 18B, USS Lead Refinery, is used for landfill or storage of plastic
battery case shards (cleaned), smelting furnace slag disposal, and flue scrub-
ber residual waste disposal." Lead and arsenic contamination at this site
currently is under investigation by USEPA.
Site 28C, Gary Sludge Lagoon, is used for storage of municipal wastewater
treatment plant sludge. No quantitative data on sludge characteristics cur-
rently are available.
Site 29C, Gary Sludge Lagoon located west of the WWTP and adjacent to the
Grand Calumet River, is used for storage of municipal wastewater treatment
plant sludge. This site currently is under investigation by the Indiana State
Board of Health and USEPA for high PCS levels.
Site 35D, Mobil Oil Terminal, was used for disposal of tank bottoms, tank
wastes and sludges from 1926 through 1974. Refinery wastes of unknown origin
were disposed of in both a landfill and surface impoundment at this site.
Refinery operations were discontinued in 1974; since that time, this site has
been used for bulk storage of petroleum. No data are available regarding the
quantity or types of wastes materials remaining on this site.
Site 36D, GATX Corporation, was until recently used as a waste storage
lagoon. Both liquid and semi-solid wastes were present until removed between
1980 and 1983. No data are available regarding waste materials remaining at
or near the site.
Site 37D, East Chicago Municipal Landfill, is a 50 acre site. No data
are available regarding waste characteristics at this site.
2-66
-------
Site 38D, Hammond Sludge Lagoon, is used for storage of municipal
wastewater treatment plant sludge. Hammond Sanitary District presently is
seeking a site for disposal of sludge from this lagoon.
Public review comments received after publication of the draft Master
Plan report described additional wastefill sites. These sites are summarized
in the following discussions:
U.S. Steel Landfill is reported to be comprised of several disposal areas
on U.S. Steel Gary Works property. Land on both the north and south sides of
the river is reportedly affected. At least two disposal areas are indicated.
These areas include tracts of land authorized for Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore park acquisition. High levels of arsenic, chlorides, sodium and
ammonia were reported in a 1983 report entitled Chemical and Biological
Quality of Streams at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana, 1978-80
(U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4208). The
U.S. Steel landfill is identified on the ERRIS listing as site #IND 005444062.
Four disposal areas, on the north side of Che river, in Gary, were
indicated to exist by a commentor- These areas are between river miles 14 and
10 and include the following:
o Stockton Dump (approximately river mile 10.5)
o Waste and Storage Lagoons (approximately river mile 11)
o Mason Basins (approximately river mile 12)
o East Dump (approximately river mile 13.5).
The Mason Basins reportedly receive blast furnace scrubber blowdown water
containing ammonia, phenol, cyanide and heavy metals. Five of these basins
are reported to be within 40 feet of the GCR and leach directly to the river.
Energy Cooperative, Inc. (ECI) is a bankrupt, 280-acre refinery on the
IHC. An environmental investigation of the site, ordered by the bankruptcy
court, indicated direct contamination of oil and other hydrocarbons to the
Lake George Branch and the IHC as well as the East Chicago sanitary sewer.
2-67
-------
On-site contaminant sources reportedly include drums containing catalyst,
paint, oils and grease; PCB-containing transformers; storage tanks containing
residual amounts of gasoline, fuel oil, caustic/phenolic mixtures, sulfide
caustic and crude oil; process equipment containing residuals of P?0c, crude
stills, H»S, gasoline dyes and tetraethyl lead; miscellaneous containerized
chemicals including acids, mercaptans, chlorine, caustics and cooling tower
chemicals; and areas of contaminated soils. In addition, at least three
on-site wastefills are alleged. The SCI landfill is identified on the ERRIS
listing as site #IND082547803. This site is currently under investigation by
the USEPA and the State.
Inland Steel Landfill is a large area of fill extending into Lake
Michigan from the Inland Steel shoreline, forming a protective enclosure along
the eastern edge of the Indiana Harbor mouth. Leachate from this extensive
fill area is reported to escape directly to the Lake, or into the mouth of the
IHC. The Inland Steel landfill is identified on the ERRIS listing as site
//IND005159199.
These sites are being systematically reviewed for possible remedial
action under CERCLA (Superfund) by the ISBH. Following this review, the State
may propose individual sites for inclusion on the national Superfund list.
Based on information from Indiana, the potential number of wastefills
in the GCR/IHC basin may be approximately double the number of confirmed sites
considered in this report. The State is continuing to review and investigate
these sites to determine their potential severity and candidacy for inclusion
on the Superfund list.
2-68
-------
CHAPTER 3. CONTROL PROGRAMS
This chapter presents the environmental/regulatory programs currently in
effect to control pollutant discharges to the GCR/IHC. This discussion
focuses on the major, known pollutant sources: municipal and industrial
discharges. The existing control programs are largely implemented by the
State; however, their programs are developed and operated on the basis of
USEPA direction and are subject to periodic review by the Agency. The water
quality control programs are developed and operated under the provisions and
requirements of the Clean Water Act.
3.1 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAMS
This section includes a presentation of the current USEPA guidelines and
requirements (under the authority of the Clean Water Act) for the establish-
ment of water quality criteria and standards. A discussion of the existing
Indiana water quality control program for the GCR/IHC is also included.
Although the USEPA has delegated the authority to establish such programs to
the State, the Agency reserves the right to review these programs for con-
sistency with USEPA guidelines and statutory requirements. A discussion of
the statutory basis for water quality programs development is provided, fol-
lowed by a comparison of Indiana's program with USEPA guidance and require-
ments.
3.1.1 Introduction
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the statutory basis for the comprehensive
national strategy to restore and maintain the physical, biological and
chemical integrity of U.S. waters. The Act focuses on controlling the sources
of those pollutants determined to be most deleterious to receiving waters.
Regulated pollutants include conventional pollutants, such as BOD and sus-
pended solids; nonconventional pollutants, such as iron and ammonia; and toxic
pollutants, such as heavy metals and toxic organic compounds. Sources of
water pollution subject to regulatory control include point sources and
nonpoint sources, dredge or fill material discharges, discharges from vessels,
and spills.
3-1
-------
Point source pollutant discharges are controlled through a permit system
authorized in Section 402 of the CWA. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits are issued to individual point sources by USEPA
Regional Offices or by 36 USEPA-approved State authorities. Limits for pollu-
tant reduction contained in NPDES permits are binding obligations that must be
met for continued discharge. Initial reliance is placed on technology-based
standards for direct and indirect point source discharges. Ambient water
quality-based standards are used to protect the integrity of the nation's
waters where technology-based standards are insufficient to achieve water
quality standards.
3.1.2 Technology-based Standards
Technology-based standards that reduce.the regulated pollutant load in
the discharges of regulated industries are called effluent standards.
Effluent standards are nationally uniform discharge limitations developed and
promulgated by the USEPA. Technology-based standards for industrial point
sources are targeted toward regulated pollutants (including conventional,
nonconventional and toxic pollutants), and on the industrial categories that
contribute the majority of these pollutants. Certain industrial categories
which are subject to technology-based standards are referred to as "primary
industries." Primary industries are specified in the settlement agreement
reached in National Resources Defense Council v. Train. 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C.
1976), modified 12 SRC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979), and are deemed to be the major
contributors of toxic pollutants.
Under the 1976 settlement agreement, USEPA was to promulgate technology-
based standards to be attained by 21 specific industrial categories (primary
industries), for 65 toxic chemicals and classes of chemicals. The 65 chemi-
cals and classes of chemicals were subdivided into 129 (now 126) distinct
substances commonly known as priority pollutants. The 1979 modification of
the settlement agreement expanded the list of primary industries from 21 to 34
categories.
To date, technology-based standards are promulgated for 13 industrial
categories and proposed for an additional 9 categories. The remaining 12
3-2
-------
industrial categories are now excluded from regulation under paragraph eight
of the settlement agreement. Paragraph eight allows the Administrator to
exclude industrial categories from regulation, under certain conditions, and
after appropriate studies have been conducted. Regulated industrial cate-
gories not specified in the settlement agreement are referred to as '"secondary
industries." At present, technology-based standards exist for 15 secondary
industries.
The CWA required industries to meet interim standards based on best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT) by July 1, 1977. The
next level of industrial effluent limitations, to be attained by July 1, 1984,
is best available technology economically achievable (BAT), established
primarily for control of toxic pollutants, and best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT), for maximum control of conventional pollutants* In
addition to the BPT, BAT and BCT regulations for existing sources, the CWA
also established new source performance standards (NSPS) for new industrial
discharges. Effluent guidelines for the steel industry (BPT, BAT, BCT), the
major discharger to the Grand Calumet River, have been in place since 1982.
Indirect industrial dischargers (i.a., regulated industries that
discharge wastewater to municipal sewage treatment plants) must comply with
pretreatinent standards for existing sources or pretreatment standards for new
sources. These pretreatment standards, combined with pollutant removals
achieved by municipal treatment plants, result in an approximate equality
between direct and indirect industrial discharges with regard to regulated
pollutants and ultimate pollution reduction. _
3.1.3 Water Quality Based Standards
In situations where water quality objectives are not being met, water
quality-based standards are employed to supplement technology-based controls.
The need for water quality-based standards is evaluated within the framework
of the water quality management process. States have the lead role in
initiating the water quality management process, as established under Section
303 of the CWA. Each State is required to review its existing Water Quality
Standards at least every three years, revise them when appropriate, and submit
3-3
-------
such revisions to EPA for approval. If EPA determines that the revised stan-
dards meet the requirements of the CWA, it approves the standards. EPA must
propose and promulgate its own standards under Section 303(C)(3)(A) where it
finds State revision inadequate.
Water Quality Standards for a particular stream segment consist of two
basic elements: a designated use (or multi-use) such as recreation, protec-
tion and propagation of fish, agricultural and industrial uses or public water
supply; and criteria for ambient concentrations of various pollutants, to
protect the designated use. Use designations are to be consistent with the
goals of Sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the Act. If a state designates
or has designated uses that do not include those specified in Section
101(a)(2), of the Act (i.e., uses other than for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish and wildlife and "...for reaction in and oh the
water") the state must conduct and submit to EPA a use attainability analysis.
A use attainability- analysis is also required when a state wishes to
remove a designated use specified in Section 101(a)(2) or to adopt subcate-
gories of uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) (e.g., limited protection and
propagation of aquatic life) that require less stringent criteria than are
currently adopted. Guidance for conducting use attainability analyses was
published on November 1983, by the EPA Criteria and Standards Division, of the
Office of Water Regulations and Standards (Technical Support manual entitled
"Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses).
States must adopt water quality criteria to protect the designated use of
a given water body. The criteria adopted must provide sufficient parametric
coverage and be adequately stringent to protect the designated use. USEPA
development of ambient water quality criteria (as required by Section
304(a)(l) of the CWA) has occurred through a series of key publications:
1968 "Green Book": contains general narratives and a range of
possible water uses and concentrations necessary to support the use.
1973 "Blue Book": presents criteria in a numerical format based on
limited data. The use of an application factor is introduced.
3-4
-------
1976 "Red Book": derives criteria from an expanded data base.
1980 Guidelines for Deriving National Water Quality Criteria: Two
number criteria are developed for each pollutant-maximum permissible
and 24-hour average values. Criteria are based on a minimum accept-
able data base. Publication of Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Documents.
1984 Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality
Criteria: Latest revision replaces the previous 24-hour maximum
exposure limits with a 30-day average value. An allowance for one
episode of excursion over the average is also presented for a period
not to exceed 96 hours in any 30 consecutive days. Criteria are based
upon an expanded minimum data base and methods of statistical analysis
less subject to bias and anomalous behavior. Metal criteria are
expressed as active metal rather than total metal.
To date, National Ambient Water Quality Criteria have been published for
65 toxic substances (Section 307(a)(l). priority pollutants). Criteria for
dissolved oxygen, ammonia, chlorine and 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin), and revised
criteria for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead and mercury
were published in 1984. These criteria are of two basic kinds: concentra-
tions estimated to be protective of aquatic life and wildlife; and concentra-
tions relevant to the protection of human health. These concentrations are
derived according to the procedures in the Guidelines issued in 45 FR 79318
(November 28, 1980) and revised Guidelines summarized in 49 FR 4551 (February
7, 1984). These criteria are best estimates of the concentration-effect
relative informed scientists are able to make, based on information from
published studies. Specific, numerical, concentration limitations are
established for most pollutants.
A State may adopt these USEPA-recommended criteria in support of State
standard setting. However, these are laboratory-derived values and may not
adequately reflect a local condition. Therefore, the Agency has also pub-
lished guidance, recently updated and revised, to assist States in deriving
site-specific criteria which consider sensitive resident species and receiving
stream conditions, and whole effluent toxicity bioassay techniques where
pollutant-specific analyses may be impractical or inappropriate.
3-5
-------
3.1.4 Water Quality Standards Review and Revision Process
In November 1983, EPA published a new water quality standards regulation
(40 CFR 131) in order to update and revise the water quality standards pro-
cess. The regulation outlines the procedures for developing, reviewing, re-
vising, and approving State water quality standards. States are not required
to use a single method for their standard-setting process. Instead, States
are encouraged to choose new or different methods if they are appropriate.
Methods for updating water quality standards are explained in the Water
Quality Standards Handbook, also published in November.
USEPA is responsible for reviewing State water quality standards and the
overall water quality management process to ensure consistency with the CWA.
States are required to submit the results of their Water Quality Standards
reviews to the appropriate Regional EPA Offices. Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.6,
States must submit, at a minimum, the following elements:
(a) Use designations consistent with the provisions of Sections
101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the Act.
(b) Methods used and analyses conducted to support water quality
standards revisions.
(c) Water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses.
(d) An anti-degradation policy consistent with §131.12.
(e) Certification by the State Attorney General or other appropriate
legal authority within the State that the water quality standards
were duly adopted pursuant to State law.
(f) General information that will aid the Agency in determining the
adequacy of the scientific basis of the standards that do not
include the uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, as well
as information on general policies applicable to State standards
that may affect their application and implementation.
USEPA will review each aspect to ensure that analyses and methods are sound
and that resulting standards are consistent with CWA objectives. As mentioned
above, a key element of SPA's review will be devoted to evaluating State
anti-degradation policies, which are specified plans that evidence State
3-6
-------
efforts Co maintain existing stream uses and prevent the deterioration of
pristine waters.
The Water Quality Standard Process described in the preceding discussion
is tied to many other USEPA programs and must interface properly to be suc-
cessful. States may receive grants for water quality planning and management
under §106 and 205 of the Act. The Continuing Planning Process is meant to
integrate the State's planning, construction grants, and enforcement activi-
ties into a coordinated strategy to meet the water quality goals of the Act.
The water quality standards process is also linked to the §201
Construction Grants Program in that, after 1984, grants may be awarded to
POTWs only in areas where standards have been reviewed. Also, proposals for
construction of advanced treatment plants must be justified in terms of the
water quality of the affected stream segment.
NPDES permits are also part of (actually the result of) the water quality
standards process. Not only can water quality standards be translated into
permit limits, permit conditions can be used to collect data on a stream
segment to improve the standard-setting process. Alternatively, narrative
water quality standards can serve as the basis for toxicity-based permits.
3.1.5 Indiana Water Quality Standards Program for the Grand Calumet River and
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal
State water quality standards for the GCR/IHC were first promulgated in
1969. At time of promulgation, separate sets of standards existed for the
River and Canal, with control points established for monitoring. Combined
GCR/IHC standards were first issued in 1973. When established, these stan-
dards were considered advanced, based on prevailing custom at the time. The
1973 standards were subsequently revised in 1978. Although no further
revisions or updates have since occurred, these are anticipated following
completion of the current wasteload allocation process.
At the time the 1978 standards were issued, the "Red Book" was the
current guidance available from EPA on ambient water quality criteria. The
3-7
-------
"presumptive applicability" of these criteria had been established by legis-
lation, requiring water quality standards to be at least as restrictive as the
Red Book criteria. Criteria were not yet available for CWA Section 307(a)(l)
priority pollutants, however. Guidance on deriving site-specific water
quality criteria had not been developed. Finally, the requirement (and
methods) to conduct use attainability analyses had not yet been established.
3.1.5.1 Designated Use of the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
In 1978, the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board (SPCB) classified the
Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal "for partial body contact,
limited aquatic life and industrial water supply". The SPCB cited the
following as reasons for this classification.
- The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal are predominantly
comprised of treated wastewatars and wastewaters of tionpoint source
origin
Historically, the major function of these streams has been the
conveyance of waters of such character and quality
The stream beds are of "unnatural character"
The streams may not be capable at all times of sustaining a
well-balanced fish community even if all discharged wastewaters were
treated to the highest degree technologically and economically
feasible.
The use classification adopted by the SPCB allows the State to set water
quality standards less stringent than those established for recreational use
waterways. However, Lake Michigan, Indiana Harbor, and the Illinois River
have their own water quality standards. Consequently, effluent limitations
set on the GCR/IHC system must be adequate to assure compliance with the
standards of these downstream waterways.
3.1.5.2 Indiana State Antidegradation Policy
The State adopted an antidegradation policy in May 1978. Specifically,
the policy requires:
Maintaining existing instream beneficial uses (i.e., limited aquatic
life and partial body contact)
3-8
-------
Maintaining waters whose existing quality exceeds that of established
standards.
The SPCB may allow-"limited degradation" of such waters, however, if it is
"affirmatively demonstrated" to be "justifiable on the basis of...economic or
social factors and will not interfere with or become injurious to any bene-
ficial uses made of, or presently possible, in such waters".
3.1.5.3 Indiana Water Quality Standards for Protection of the Grand Calumet
River and Indiana Harbor Canal
Numerical standards were promulgated by the State in May, 1978, for the
following parameters: pH, DO, temperature, fecal coliform, filterable
residue, total ammonia, total phosphorus, chlorides, sulfates, cyanide,
fluoride, dissolved iron, total mercury, phenol, and PCS. Narrative standards
were established for oil and grease, toxic substances, persistent or biocon-
centrating substances, and miscellaneous trace contaminants and radionuclides.
The 1978 water quality standards focused primarily on limits for
conventional pollutants. As was true for most State programs of that era, the
Indiana standards did not specifically include many of the contaminants listed
in the "Red Book", much less for the Section 307(a)(l) priority pollutants.
As the May 1978 revision is the current edition of the State standards, the
SPCB has not incorporated the currently available guidelines and data on
ambient water quality criteria, as specified in 45 FR 7931 (November 1980) and
49 FR 4551 (February 7, 1984).
3.1.6 Comparison of Indiana Water Quality Standards Program for the GCR/IHC
With Current USEPA Guidance and Regulations
Designated Use
The use designation established by the State of Indiana for the Grand
Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal does not fully include those uses
specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA (i.e., "fishable, swimmable").
Although the GCR/IHC may not currently be capable of meeting the full
EishableVswimmable goals of the Act, the State is nevertheless required (under
Section 131.10 of the CWA) to conduct a use attainability analysis to deter-
mine the uses which are appropriate and which can be maintained. Guidance for
3-9
-------
conducting this evaluation is provided in the USEPA publication: Water Body
Survey and Assessment Guidance for Conducting Use Attainability Analysis
(USEPA 1983b).
In conducting a use attainability analysis for the GCR/IHC, the State
must determine: (1) what are the aquatic use(s) currently being achieved; (2)
what are the potential uses that can be attained based on the physical,
chemical and biological characteristics of the water body; and (3) what are
the causes of impairment of these uses. The critical element of this evalua-
tion is determining the potential of the aquatic system(s) in the absence of
human-caused sources of pollution.
States may establish subcategories of a use specified in Section
101(a)(l), only if the State can demonstrate (through use attainability
analysis) that attaining the designated use is not feasible because:
Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of
the uses; or
* Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water
levels prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may
be compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent
discharges (without violating State water conservation requirements)
to enable uses to be met; or
Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment
of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental
damage to correct than to leave in place; or
Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude
the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water
body to its original condition or to operate such modification in a
way that would result in the attainment of the use; or
Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body,
such as the lack of proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools,
riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality, preclude attainment
of aquatic life protection uses; or
Controls more stringent than those required by Sections 301(b) and 306
of the Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and
social impact.
3-10
-------
Section 131.10(b) of the CWA specifies that in designating water body
uses and the corresponding criteria for protection of said uses, the State
must consider the designated uses and water quality standards of downstream
waters. Adopted standards for the water body under consideration must provide
for attainment and maintenance of the duly established water quality standards
of downstream waters. Although certain of the existing standards were
promulgated to protect Lake Michigan (e.g., phosphorus), the existing Indiana
water quality standards do not fully consider potential impacts on the Lake or
the Illinois River. However, the impacts on Lake Michigan are being con-
sidered in the WLA modeling study currently being performed by the State.
Additionally, the ISBH has begun an initiative toward revising water quality
standards, based on the information developed in the WLA study.
Finally, the Marquette Park lagoons, located at the headwaters of the
GCR, are not separated from the GCR with respect to standards, yet represent
an area of higher biological integrity and reduced levels of contaminants. It
may therefore be appropriate to consider a higher designated use for this area
than would be appropriate for the downstream areas of the GCR/IHC.
Antidegradation Policy
Section 131.6(d) of the CWA specifies that the State adopt an anti-
degradation policy consistent with Section 131.12. Pursuant to the latter
Section, the State must identify methods for implementing the antidegradation
policy such that existing instream uses are maintained and protected. ' No
methods have yet been developed or specified by the State for maintaining and
protecting the designated uses ("limited aquatic life or partial body
contact"). The CWA requires that levels of water quality be specifically
linked to designated uses.
Water Quality Standards Revision
The CWA requires that each State review its promulgated water quality
standards at least once every three years and either revise or adopt standards
protective of the aquatic systems under examination. The last revision of the
Indiana State water quality standards occurred more than six years ago.
3-11
-------
Section 131.11 of the CWA specifies that States must adopt water quality
criteria protective of designated uses. Such criteria are to be based on
sound scientific rationale. The last revision to the State water quality
standards for the GCR/IHC occurred in 1978. Subsequent to that time, the
USEPA published new guidelines for deriving water quality criteria, in
November 1980 (45 FR 79318). These guidelines were later revised, in February
1984 (49 FR 4551). Ambient water quality criteria were published for 65
Section 307(a)(l) priority pollutants as well as for ammonia, chlorine, and
DO. The 1978 water quality standards issued by the State of Indiana do not as
yet reflect this information.
The existing water quality standards for the Grand Calumet River and
Indiana Harbor Canal are only partially linked to the protection of the
designated uses for these waters. In particular, standards for toxic con-
taminants have not yet been sufficiently developed to protect the uses
"limited aquatic life and partial body contact". The CWA specifies that
pollutant-specific numerical criteria, narrative criteria, or a combination of
the two be adopted.
Pollutant-specific criteria are commonly used when the control of
specific contaminants is a major concent. Narrative criteria may be adopted
in lieu of numerical criteria as the basis for setting standards for the
control of toxic pollutants. Section 131.11(2) of the CWA specifies, however,
that the State must then provide to EPA information identifying the methods by
which the State intends to regulate point source discharges of toxic con-
taminants on water quality limited segments, based on narrative criteria.
The State of Indiana has adopted narrative criteria for toxic as well as
persistent or bioconcentrating substances. No methods have yet been estab-
lished by the State, however, for regulating discharge of these substances
based on the narrative criteria (e.g; biological monitoring of effluents such
that a particular tolerance or LC-« value is not exceeded). Further, no
guidelines have yet been adopted by the State on time, place, method and
duration of sampling, or on the statistical requirements of data collection
and analysis.
3-12
-------
3.2 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Information presented in this section summarizes the pollutant
characteristics and discharge limitations for the municipal and principle
industrial point source discharges to the GCR/IHC, as relates to the NPDES
program. Additional information describing these sources is prescribed in
Section 2.3 of this report. Locations of these point sources are depicted in
Figure 2-5.
The requirements of the CWA for pollutant reduction by point source
dischargers are implemented through a permit system authorized in Section 402.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are issued to
individual point sources by EPA Regional Offices or by 36 EPA-approved State
authorities. Pollutant discharge limits contained in NPDES permits are
obligations that must be met by the permittee for continued discharge.
Each NPDES permit has a set lifespan, from several months to a maximum of
five years. The time period may be affected by new regulations, new waste
handling facilities or new industrial processes contributing to the effluent.
The permit may also be amended during its lifespan as a result of the above
actions. It is the responsibility of the discharger to apply for extension or
renewal of the permit prior to its expiration, or in the event of major
changes in treatment processes or wastestream characteristics. Should a
permit expire during the issuance period, provisions of the old permit remain
in effect.
3.2.1 Industrial Point Sources
There are seven major industries currently discharging to the GCR/IHC
system, including:
Citgo Petroleum Corporation
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
Inland Steel Corporation
Jones Laughlin Steel
U.S.S. Lead Refinery, Inc.
U.S. Steel Corporation
Vulcan Materials Company.
3-13
-------
A brief description of the'NPDES permit discharge limitations and the permit
compliance status for each of these facilities is provided below. This
information is summarized in Table 3-1.
Citgo Petroleum Corporation
The latest permit for the Citgo Petroleum facility became effective on
December 14, 1981 and is scheduled to expire on November 30, 1986. Effluent
limitations, which are based on Indiana Water Quality Standards, control oil
and grease and pH. During the third quarter of 1984, che company was in
compliance with permit limitations.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
The most recent NPDES permit for the du Pont facility became effective on
January 1, 1979 and expired on June 30, 1981. Effluent limitations -in the
expired permit were based on Indiana Water Quality Standards and Grand Calumet
River waste load allocations. Limitations were included on oil and grease,
pH, BOD, suspended solids, dissolved solids, chlorides, sulfates, phosphorus,
and ammonia. A briefing memo accompanying the permit indicated that the
company utilized herbicides and fungicides and that the handling and disposal
of these items were analyzed in a toxics review submitted to the State of
Indiana. During the third quarter of 1984, the company was in compliance with
its permit conditions.
Inland Steel Corporaton
The current Inland Steel NPDES permit became effective on March 6, 1984
and expires in February, 1989. The permit regulates 13 separate outfalls to
the GCR/IHC. Effluent limitations are based on Federal guidelines for Iron
and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Categories and water quality standards
for the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, Grand Calumet River and Lake Michigan.
Pollutants regulated by the permit vary from outfall to outfall, due to the
different wastewaters discharged. The permit limits the discharge of sus-
pended solids, oil and grease, pH, lead, zinc, cyanide, phenols, ammonia, BOD,
and fecal coliforms. The permit also requires monitoring at several outfalls
for chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, lead, chlorine residual, chloride, sulfate
3-14
-------
TABLE 3-1
NPDES PERMIT HISTORY OF MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS
Industry
NPDES Permit History
Compliance During
Third Quarter 1984
Citgo Petroleum
Corporation
E.I. DuPont
de Nemours and Company
Inland Steel
Corporation
Jones and Laughlin Steel
U.S.S. Lead
Refinery, Inc.
United States Steel
Corporation
Vulcan Materials Company
12/14/81 Issued
5/30/83 Amended
11/30/86 Expires
1/1/79 Issued
6/30/81 Expired
3/6/84 Issued
2/28/89 Expires
10/31/79 Expired
2/27/81 Reissued
6/30/81 Expired
7/25/84 Public Notice
6/15/75 Issued
3/31/80 Expired
5/24/84 Prehearing
Conference
6/1/83 Issued
5/31/88 Expires
8/5/81 Issued
7/31/86 Expires
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance.
Compliance
Noncompliaace with
total lead
Compliance"
Compliance
1
Public notice of intent to reissue permit has been issued.
?
"Based on fourth quarter State and USEPA monitoring data.
Daily average zinc levels exceeded permit limits in September, 1984.
3-15
-------
and fluoride. Additionally, the permit requires s.everal unique study programs
and subsequent construction to reduce process wastewater contamination of non-
contact cooling waters, increase recycled water usage, and reduce priority
pollutant discharges. This work is expected to be completed July 1, 1987.
During the third quarter of 1984, Inland Steel was in compliance with its
permit conditions.
Jones and Laughlin Steel Company
The Jones and Laughlin (J&L) NPDES permit became effective on October 31,
1978, was reissued on February 27, 1981, and expired on June 30, 1981. Public
notice of the intent to issue a new permit to J&L was posted on July 25, 1984.
Permit effluent limitations exists for ammonia, phenol, cyanide, chlorides,
sulfates, fluorides, oil and grease, pH, suspended solids, tin, zinc,
chromium, and temperature. These limitations are based on Indiana Water
Quality Standards and the wasteload allocation study for the GCR/IHC. When
issued, the new NPDES permit will also contain lead discharge limitations,
will require monitoring for organic pollutants, and will require implemen-
tation of a Best Management Practices plan for reducing cooling water con-
taminants. During the third quarter of 1984, the plant was in compliance
with existing permit conditions.
U. S. S. Lead Refinery
The United States Steel Lead Refinery permit became effective on June 10,
1975 and expired on March 31, 1980. Public notice of the intent to issue a
new permit was posted on August 15, 1984. The current NPDES permit limits
discharges of total lead, arsenic, sulfate, fluoride, pH, and suspended
solids. The company was reported as being in compliance during the third
quarter but was found to be significantly out of compliance with total lead
limits in State and USEPA effluent monitoring.
U. S. Steel Corporation
The present NPDES permit for U. S. Steel became effective on June 1, 1983
and expires on May 31, 1988. The permit regulates 20 separate outfalls to the
GCR/IHC. The effluent limitations are based on Federal guidelines for the
3-16
-------
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category, Indiana Water Quality
Standards for the GCR, and a Consent Decree issued September 27, 1977 (as
modified July 10, 1980).
Effluent limitations at each outfall vary according to the type of waters
discharged. Depending on the particular outfall, the permit controls pH,
ammonia, cyanides, phenols, oil and grease, zinc, lead, total residual
chlorine and chromium. At several outfalls, monitoring is required only for
sulfates, fluorides, mercury, iron, and water temperature. The permit also
includes two special conditions. The first is a characterization and monitor-
ing study designed to minimize the discharge of coke making and iron, making
wastewater pollutants. The second condition is an organic pollutant monitor-
ing study designed to determine the presence and quantity of certain toxic
organic pollutants in process wastewaters. Depending on the results of these
studies, the permitted effluent limitations could be revised. During the
third quarter of 1984, U. S. Steel was reported as being in compliance with
its permit conditions, although daily average zinc levels exceeded the
permitted limits in September, 1984.
Vulcan Materials Company
According to EPA Region V records, Vulcan Materials is subject to two
permits. One permit, which regulates the facility's major discharge, was not
available for review. The other NPDES permit was issued on August 5, 1981 and
authorizes the facility to discharge to the Grand Calumet River until July 31,
1986. This permit regulates a discharge consisting of noncontact cooling
water, boiler blowdown, stormwater runoff and softener regeneration. The
permit contains limitations for oil and grease, TSS, BOD, chlorides, tin, pH
and temperature.
During the third quarter of 1984, the facility was in compliance with its
permit conditions.
Minor Industrial Dischargers
Minor industrial dischargers to the Grand Calumet include: American
Steel Foundries, Blaw Knox Foundry, Industrial Disposal and Explorer Pipeline'
3-17
-------
Company. Discharges from each of these facilities are subject to the limita-
tions of current NPDES permits.
3.2.2 Municipal Point Sources
Like the industrial dischargers, municipal treatment works operate under
NPDES permits that establish the plant's effluent limitations as well as
monitoring, reporting and operating requirements. Brief NDPES permit his-
tories, permit discharge limitations and compliance status for the three POTWs
are provided below.
East Chicago
The latest NPDES permit was issued on October 15, 1977, and contained
limitations for the discharge of ammonia, BOD, chlorides, fluoride, cyanide,
oil and grease, phenol, phosphorus, suspended solids, pH and sulfate. The
following permit-related activities have occurred since 1977:
October 3, 1978 - a compliance- schedule for pretreatment program
development was amended to the permit. The cover letter attached to
this amendment cited a concern for heavy metals content in the sludge
from the plant.
August 31, 1981 - the plant was allowed to change from year-round
disinfection to seasonal disinfection as a result of revisions to
Indiana wastewater treatment guidelines.
May 31, 1982 - the 1977 NPDES permit expired.
February 2, 1982 - a court order was issued in U. S. District Court
which required the East Chicago Sanitary District to improve operation
'and maintenance at all facilities, install additional solids and
sludge handling equipment, enlarge the sludge lagoon, and develop a
sludge disposal plan.
The East Chicago Sanitary District has experienced chronic violations of
its^NPDES permit discharge limits and has been slow in completing the treat-
ment system modifications necesary to achieve consistent compliance. Because
of unreasonable delays in correcting effluent control problems (a Facilities
Plan has yet to be developed, despite nearly a decade of Federal grant sup-
port), USEPA has sought legal recourse to protect water quality in the GCR/IHC.
The Agency issued an Administrative Order in October, 1980, regarding serious
3-18
-------
operation and maintenance problems and permit violations. This order imposed
a ban on additional sewer connections and required a number of improvements to
the plant. In November, 1981, the State of Illinois filed suit against the
East Chicago Sanitary District in the Federal Court of the Northern District
of Indiana. The USEPA joined the suit as a co-plaintiff on January, 1982.
A court order was also signed by the Magistrate of the U. S. District
Court in.February, 1982. This order required 34 detailed steps to be under-
taken to ensure adequate operation and maintenance of the treatment works, to
provide as much removal of pollutants as possible without major plant expen-
sion and to eliminate unpermitted combined sewer and dry weather overflows.
East Chicago POTW effluent quality has improved significantly, and all
major treatment units are in operation. However, the plant is still unable to
consistently meet the NPDES permit requirements. Negotiations toward develop-
ment of a comprehensive pollutant abatement schedule are continuing, to
include pretraatment, sludge handling, construction planning and sewer
cleaning.
During September, 1984, the East Chicago facility- was in non-compliance
with NPDES permit discharge limitations for ammonia, phenol, cyanide,
fluorides, chlorides, sulfates, oil and grease, BOD and total suspended solids.
The latest NPDES permit for the Gary POTW was issued on July 1, 1977 and
contained limits for flow rate, BOD, suspended solids, fecal coliform,
phosphorus, phenol, cyanide, fluoride, chloride, sulfate, ammonia, oil and
grease and pH. On April 4, 1979, Gary was required to develop a pretreatment
program as part of the NPDES permit. The 1977 NPDES permit expired on April
30, 1982.
On June 15, 1983, a Consent Judgment was issued in U. S. District Court
against the City of Gary. The Judgment included requirements for increased
staffing and training, restoration of existing equipment, construction of
additional secondary treatment and sludge handling facilities, construction of
3-19
-------
advanced wastewater treatment facilities, improved operating and maintenance
procedures, new effluent limitations, and compliance with pretreatment
regulations.
The Gary Sanitary District has experienced chronic problems in complying
with effluent standards and has been frequently cited by EPA for non-com-
pliance. Major actions include a 1976 Administrative Order for effluent
violations; a 1978 Federal lawsuit for failure to comply with NPDES discharge
permit conditions; a 1978 injunction to prevent raw sewage bypassing to the
Grand Calumet River; and a 1983 Consent Judgment requiring proper operation
and maintenance of the plant. Earlier compliance problems resulted from old
or inadequate treatment facilities, but 'the majority of these problems have
been corrected (with the assistance of Federal grants). Current compliance
problems are occurring as a result of improper or inadequate operation and
maintenance of the facilities. Rapid deterioration of new equipment and lack
of a replacement fund have jeopardized the Federal investments in the treat-
ment works.
During September, 1984, the Gary POTW was in non-compliance with the
NPDES permit for violation of ammonia limits. A notice of violation will be
issued for this occurrence. USEPA is pursuing an enforcement action in
Federal court for violation of the Consent Judgment; a decision is pending in
Federal court.
The most recent NPDES permit for Hammond became effective on January 8,
1979. The permit included limitations on flow rate, BOD, suspended solids,
phosphorus, phenol, cyanide, chloride, sulfate, fluoride, fecal coliforms, pH
and oil and grease. The permit indicated that the maximum discharge loadings
for BOD, phosphorus and ammonia would be reduced upon completion of additional
treatment works construction (which was anticipated by July 1, 1983). The
permit also required Hammond to develop a pretreatment program. The NPDES
permit expired on June 30, 1983.
3-20
-------
The Hammond Sanitary District has experienced problems in. meeting permit
conditions. These problems have concerned combined sewer overflow discharges
of fecal material, fats, and oils and grease to Lake Michigan, and overfilling
of sludge lagoons proximal to the Calumet River. In 1980, the USEPA filed a
civil action to prevent the CSO related contamination of Lake Michigan. Two
orders resulted from this suit causing the construction of a five mile force
main, from the Robertsdale pump station to the plant, and the separation of
combined sewers in that portion of the collection system. Work was completed
in 1981 and has successfully prevented further CSO contamination of Lake
Michigan from the Robertsdale area.
In 1983, the USEPA filed civil action to prevent the discharge of sewage
sludge and for development of an environmentally acceptable short and long
term sludge management plan. In response to this suit, the Hammond Sanitary
District has retained a consultant to develop interim and long term sludge
management solutions. Current plans are for removal of sufficient sludge from
the existing lagoons (via a private, contract hauler) to recover partial
storage capacity while a sludge dewatering system is designed and constructed
for long term use. Dewatered sludge would be removed for off-site landfill
disposal. Award of a USEPA construction grant to support upgrading of sludge
handling facilities and emptying of sludge lagoons is probable by the end of
1984. It is not anticipated that the sludge dewatering system could be
operational before 1986.
During September, 1984, the Hammond POTW was in compliance with its
permit conditions.' A consent judgment is under negotiation.
Brief NPDES permit histories for each of the three POTWs are presented in
Table 3-2. All three POTWs are discharging under expired permits, which
remain in force. New permits will be issued after completion of the wasteload
allocation study currently being performed by the ISBH. In the absence of
current permits, discharge requirements for East Chicago are specified by a
court order; discharges from the Gary facility are controlled under a consent
judgment. The Hammond facility is presently the subject of a civil suit filed
in U.S. District Court by the USEPA.
3-21
-------
TABLE 3-2
NPDES PERMIT HISTORY
OF
POTW DISCHARGERS
Sanitary
District
East Chicago
NPDES Permit History
10/15/77 Issued
10/3/79 Amended
8/31/81 Amended
5/31/82 Expired
11/8/82 Court Order Issued
Compliance During
September 1984
Non-Conipliance with ammonia-N,
phenol, cyanide, fluorides,
chlorides, sulfates, oil and
grease, BOD and TSS.
Gary
7/1/77 Issued
4/S/79 Amended
4/30/82 Expired
6/15/83 Consent Judgement Issued
Non-Compliance with ammonia-N,
Hammond
1/8/79 Issued
6/30/83 Expired
Compliance.
3-2;
-------
During September 1984, East Chicago and Gary were found by the State of
Indiana to be in non-compliance based on violations of effluent limitations
(see Table 3-2). Notices of violation are expected to be issued for these
occurrences.
3.3 PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS
The goal of the National Pretreatment Program (40 CFR Part 403) is to
protect municipal treatment plants and the environment from the adverse
impacts that may occur when hazardous or toxic wastes are discharged into a
sewage system. Pretreatment programs regulate nondomestic (i.e., commercial/
industrial) users that discharge nonconventional (e.g., toxic) or unusually
strong conventional wastes. The objectives of the program are to:
1. Prevent the introduction of pollutants which will cause inhibi-
tion/interference with the operation of the treatment plant,
including interference with its sludge disposal
' 2. Prevent the introduction of pollutants which will pass through or
otherwise be incompatible with the treatment plant
3. Improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim wastewaters and sludges.
The General Pretreatment Regulations (promulgated on January 28, 1981)
require POTWs with design flows greater than five mgd to establish a local
pretreatment program if they receive pollutants from industrial users which
pass through or otherwise interfere with the operation of the plant or are
otherwise subject to categorical pretreatment standards. POTWs are required
to establish local pretreatment programs by July 1, 1983. States with an
approved (i.e., delegated) NPDES permit program are required to develop and
implement a State pretreatment program by March 27, 1980. States with
approved pretreatment programs may assume responsibility for implementing the
pretreatment program requirements in lieu of requiring local POTWs to develop
pretreatment programs.
The State or local pretreatment program provides the legal, technical,
and administrative framework for implementing and enforcing National, State
3-23
-------
and local pretreatment standards. EPA has promulgated two sets of pretreat-
raent standards: prohibited discharge standards and categorical pretreatment
standards.
Prohibited discharge standards are designed to protect the treatment
plant and apply to all industrial and commercial users connected to the
treatment works. These standards are contained in the General Pretreatment
Regulations (40 GFR Part 403).
National categorical pretreatment standards apply to specific industries
determined to be the most significant sources of toxic pollutants. Each
categorical pretreatment standard contains numerical pollutant discharge
limitations based on the best available technology economically achieveable
(BAT) for existing industrial users, or best available demonstrated technology
economically achievable for new sources. The USEPA has promulgated, or will
soon promulgate, pretreatment standards for 26 industrial categories. In
developing these standards, the Agency has focused on the 126 priority pollu-
tants which are the most toxic or hazardous, and other nontoxic pollutants
found to be incompatible with the treatment works. In addition to the general
prohibitive standards and the categorical pretreatment standards, POTWs
developing local pretreatment programs must develop and enforce specific
effluent limits, for pollutants contributed by nondomestic users, to prevent
interference with plant operations or pollutant pass through.
A local POTW may also request authority (from the State and/or EPA) to
grant "removal credits" to industrial users to reflect removal of pollutants
by the POTW. Industrial users granted such credits are permitted to dis-
charge larger quantities of regulated pollutants to the POTW than would other-
wise be permissible under the National Categorical Pretreatment Standards.
However, the POTW must demonstrate that "consistent removal" occurs as the
result of actual treatment processes. The POTW must also demonstrate that
revision of the categorical standards(s) will not cause the POTW to violate
its NPDES permit or prevent the POTW from complying with statutory provisions,
regulations, or permits applicable to the POTW's sludge disposal plans.
3-24
-------
3.3.1 State Pretreatment Program
Though the State of Indiana does not have an approved State Pretreatment
Program, it has been actively involved in developing such a program. Indiana
has submitted a pretreatment program application to USEPA Region V for
approval, adopted the National Categorical Pretreatment Standards as State
Pretreatment Standards, and enacted State Pretreatment Rules and Regulations.
The State has also assumed major program activities in overviewing and coor-
dinating the development of local pretreatment programs through a Memorandum
of Understanding with Region V. Fifty-nine local POTWs have been required to
develop local pretreatment programs. Categorical industries not subject to a
local pretreatment program will be controlled under a State permit system.
3.3.2 Local Pretreatment Programs
In 1979, the State modified the NPDES permits for Hammond, Gary and East
Chicago to require these municipalities to develop local pretreatment programs
by 1981. East Chicago has submitted a revised pretreatment program to the
SBA and USEPA; revised programs are expected from Gary and Hammon in the near
future. All three are expected to be approved by Summer, 1985, based on
current progress.
For local pretreatraent programs to be effective in controlling the
discharge of toxic pollutants into the treatment works, the following elements
must be in place:
Adequate legal authority and procedures to control industrial
dischargers and enforce categorical and local limits
Identification of existing and new industries subject to control
Development of local discharge limits to prevent interference or pass
through
Procedures to determine/verify industrial compliance with discharge
limits and requirements.
All three POTWs have established the necessary legal authority to enforce
their proposed pretreatment program through the local sewer use ordinance.
3-25
-------
Permits containing specific discharge limits as well as monitoring and
reporting requirements will be issued by the POTWs to significant industrial
dischargers. Industries found to be in violation of the permit conditions may
be subject to enforcement actions.
The three POTWs conducted industrial surveys to identify the industries
subject to control. Results of the surveys assisted the POTWs in charac-
terizing and quantifing the industrial wastewater discharged to the treatment
systems. Analytical data on the levels of pollutants actually discharged by
the industries was either limited or non-existent. However, implementation of
proposed industry and POTW monitoring requirements is expected to provide this
information.
Each POTW has proposed local discharge limits to prevent the discharge of
toxic pollutants in amounts which would interfere with treatment plant
processes, or pass through the treatment plant and cause violation of water
quality standards. In developing these limits, each POTW calculated discharge
concentration limits for each pollutant based on inhibition values for treat-
ment processes, water quality standards or NPDES limits, and sludge criteria.
The most stringent limit was applied and translated into discharge limits for
industrial users discharging that pollutant into the sewage system.
Water quality or inhibition-based limits are expected to prevent the
discharge of toxic pollutants in amounts which would cause violation of water
quality standards or NPDES limits.. In calculating the local limits, all three
POTWs used treatment plant removal rates based on limited data or "national
removal rates" documented in the "40 POTW Study." Since removal rates are a
critical factor in determining the maximum pollutant loading to the treatment
plant and, consequently, the amount of pollutants industries are allowed to
discharge, these local limits should be re-evaluated when additional plant-
specific data becomes available. A change in water quality standards or NPDES
limits would also necessitate such a re-evaluation.
The following sections provide brief reviews of the status of
pretreatment program development for each POTW.
3-26
-------
3.3.2.1 Gary Pretreatment Program
The State modified the Gary NPDES permit on April 9, 1979 requiring
development of a pretreatment program by June 1, 1981. Gary submitted a
pretreatment program document on January 10, 1981 which EPA found unap-
provable. The June 15, 1983 Consent Decree required development of an
approvable program. The USEPA issued a Director's letter on December 6, 1983
requesting submittal of a document within 45 days. Gary submitted revisions
to its 1981 document on March 7, 1984. The State issued an Order of
Compliance on March 23, 1984 requiring subraittal of a final program applica-
tion by May 1, 1984. To date, Gary has not complied with this order,
although a revised program application is expected soon and approval is
anticipated in Summer, 1985, based on current progress.
The Gary Sanitary District has identified 19 major industries which
contribute 14.5 percent (5.8 mgd) of the total influent flow. The District
has limited toxic monitoring data on the discharges from these 19 industries.
However, this data was not provided in the pretreatment program document
submitted to the USEPA. Therefore, no estimated industrial loadings of toxic
pollutants could be derived.
The industrial users discharging to the Gary POTW are known to contribute
COD, TSS, phosphorus, oil and grease, cyanides and chlorides and the following
heavy metals: chromium, mercury, zinc, iron, and copper. Industries have
also reported discharge of the following toxic organics: naphthalene,
anthracene, methyl naphthalene, acenapthene, 5-methyl acenapythlene, phenol,
chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, butadiene, stryrene, 11 base-neutral
compounds (not specified) and PCBs. None of these organics, except phenol,
were detected in the wastewater treatment plant's effluent.
Ten of the nineteen major industries are subject to National Categorical
Pretreatment Standards. Four industries are subject to Iron and Steel
Standards; four industries are subject to Metal Finishing Standards and one
industry is subject to Pulp and Paper Standards.
3-27
-------
In addition to enforcing the categorical pretreatment standards, Gary
will impose local discharge limits on all industrial users. Proposed local
industrial discharge limits for the Gary, Hammond and East Chicago POTWs are
provided in Table 3-3. Gary has not proposed industrial discharge limits on
phenols, or oil and grease of mineral or petroleum origin.
3.3.2.2 Hammond Pretreatment Program
The January 8, 1979 NPDES permit for the Hammond POTW required
development of a pretreatment program by June 1, 1981. Hammond submitted a
document which EPA determined to be unapprovable. EPA issued a Director's
letter on February 1, 1984 requesting submittal of a pretreatment program
document within 45 days. An Administrative Order was issued on April 30, 1984
requiring submittal of a document by June 1, 1984. Hammond submitted a
pretreatment program document on June 7, 1984. A revised program application
is expected to be submitted soon and approval is anticipated in Summer, 1985,
based on current progress.
The Hammond Sanitary District identified 21 major industrial dischargers
which contribute 10 percent (4 mgd) of the total influent flow. These
industries report discharging the following pollutants: oil and grease,
cyanide, cadmium, copper, chromium, nickel, lead, zinc, silver, phenol,
benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, benzidine, methylene
chloride, tetrachloroethylane, 1,2-transdichloroethylene, chloroform, and
chloroethane. Actual industrial loadings of these pollutants are not known.
Hammond has nine industries potentially subject to categorical
pretreatment standards. Two industries are subject to Iron and Steel
Standards; two industries are subject to Electroplating/Metal Finishing
Standards, and one industry is subject to Pulp and Paper Standards. In
addition, four chemical companies may be subject to Organic or Inorganic
categorial standards.
Hammond has proposed local industrial discharge limits for metals,
phenols, and oil and grease. In addition, discharge of PCBs is prohibited.
The Hammond POTW proposed local discharge limits are provided in Table 3-3.
3-28
-------
TABLE 3-3
PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE LIMITS FOR THE
GARY, HAMMOND, AND EAST CHICAGO POTWS
Parameter
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Fe
Hg
Ni
Ag
Zn
CN
Phenols (4-AAP)
O&G
O&G (mineral or
petroleum origin)
PCBs
Total Phosphorus
Fluoride
Thallium
Methylene Chloride
Fluoranthene
bis (2-ethylhexy) Phthalate
Gary
0.25
6.0
2.5
1.0
0.7
2.7
,_
1.6
1.0
._
Hammond
0.17
25
0.2
1.8
-
0.04
12.4
0.24
1.9
0.45
0.5
200
100
No discharge allowed
_»_.
East Chicago
0.14
__^i-)
0.27
2.8
1.5 (soluble)
0.002
0.39
0.47
5.5
1.63
20.76
50
50
3.7
2.2
1.25
0.95
0.69
1.03
(1)
Dashes indicate no limits specified.
3-29
-------
3.3.2.3 East Chicago Pretreatment Program
On October 3, 1979, the State modified the East Chicago NPDES permit,
requiring development of a pretreatment program by January 1, 1981. East
Chicago submitted a pretreatment program document on March I, 1982 which the
USEPA subsequently determined to be unapprovable. USEPA issued a Director's
letter on December 6, 1983 requesting submittal of a revised document within
45 days. USEPA then issued an Administrative Order on March 8, 1984 requiring
submittal of a program application by June 1, 1984. East Chicago responded
to this order by submitting various pretreatment program documents on March
29, April 24 and May 17, 1984. Revised program documents were submitted to
the State and USEPA in November, 1984. Program approval is anticipated by
Summer, 1985, based on current progress.
The" East Chicago Sanitary District has sampled its major industrial users
since 1981 and has identified 51 major industrial discharge sources. Using
the District's 1983 industrial monitoring data, and the results of the three-
day toxic sampling program on the POTW influent and effluent, the toxic
loadings to the treatment plant attributable to industrial sources were
estimated. These estimates are presented in Table 3-4. The total industrial
flow (3.72 mgd) is 24 percent of the total influent flow to the treatment
plant and contributes the following toxic metal loadings to the treatment
plant: 62 percent of the nickel, 31 percent of the zinc,' 30 percent of the
cadmium and lead and 4 percent of the copper.
Although the industrial discharge data indicated a total loading of 1,094
Ibs/day"of phenols to the POTW, the plant influent data reflect a total
loading to the plant of only approximately 17 to 63 Ibs/day. This discrepancy
may be due to:
The limited influent phenol data (the 1,094 Ibs/day calculation is
based on a single, three-day sampling period), or
Volatization of the phenols in the sewer collection system.
Longer term monitoring is required to confirm the actual phenol loading rates
to the POTW from industrial sources.
3-30
-------
TABLE 3-4
INDUSTRIAL TOXIC POLLUTANTS DISCHARGED TO
EAST CHICAGO SANITARY DISTRICT POTW
(Ibs/day)
Cadmium
Total
Influent Loading
5.21
Industrial
Loading
1.56
Percent
Industrial Loading
30%
Copper
65.18
2.43
4%
Nickel
6.52
4.04
62%
Lead
23.46
7.08
30%
Zinc
78.21
24.10
31%
O&G
893.46
Phenols
16.95 - 62.57
1093.72
6%
3-31
-------
Approximately 45 percent of the major discharges to the East Chicago POTW
are subject to National Categorical Pretreatment Standards. The types of
categorical industries included are listed below:
Aluminum forming - one industry (one discharge point)
Foundries - two industries (four discharge points)
Inorganic Chemicals - one industry (one discharge point)
Iron and Steel - three industries (16 discharge points)
Nonferrous Metal Manufacturing - one industry (one discharge point).
All industries are subject to local discharge limits. Those industries
subject to both local and Federal categorical pretreatment standards must
comply with the more stringent limits. Table 3-3 lists the proposed East
Chicago local discharge limits.
Until the State and local POTWs have approved pretreatment programs,
Region V is the Control Authority for implementing and enforcing the National
Categorical Pretreatment Standards. Industries subject to categorical pre-
treatment standards (as promulgated by USEPA) are required to be in compliance
within three years of the effective date of promulgation. Industries subject
to the Iron and Steel categorical standards must be in compliance by July 10,
1985.
3.4 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROGRAM
Federal grant assistance for the construction of wastewater treatment
works was initiated under an authorization included in the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1956 (Public Law 84-660). Major amendments to this
legislation occurred with passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (Public Law
92-500). Subsequent amendments occured with passage of the Clean Water Act of
1977 (Public Law 95-217). Further amendments occurred in 1980 and 1981, under
Public Laws 96-483 and 97-117, respectively.
The municipal wastewater treatment works Construction Grants Program is
currently operated under the provisions of Public Law 97-117. The
Construction Grants Program provides Federal grant assistance to assist
3-32
-------
municipal governments in meeting the wastewater treatment and pollution
control requirements of the Clean Water Act, as amended.
A provision common to all Federal wastewater treatment grants programs,
from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act through the present, is the
relegation of priority setting for individual projects to the States. Changes
have occurred over the history of the grants programs, however, with respect
to both the annual appropriation amount and the maximum percentage of the
project eligible for grant assistance.
Under Public Law 84-660, up to 30% of project costs (not to exceed
$250,000) were grant eligible. This increased to 55% (and the maximum amount
limitation was deleted) in the mid 1960's and peaked at 75% (up to 85% for
innovative and alternative projects) with passage of Public Law 92-500. Under
the provisions of the present legislation (Public Law 97-117), the maximum
decreased to 55% of eligible project costs on October 1, 1984. Also, the
grant eligibility requirements have been made more strict.
Federal Grant assistance for water pollution control is generally
available for planning and design, facilities construction, and personnel
training. Although the grants are administered by the individual States, the
grantees are required to comply with general USEPA Construction Grants Program
requirements as well as specific project limitations which may be imposed by
either the State or USEPA. Federal Construction Grants Program regulations
are provided in 40 CFR Part 35', Subpart E.
The GCR/IHC tranverses three political jurisdictions (ie; municipalities)
which are eligible for Federal grant assistance under the Construction Grants
Program. These municipalities (Gary, Hammond and East Chicago) have all
participated in the program, receiving variable grant amounts for facilities
planning, construction, operator training and special purpose investigations,
such as sewer system evaluation surveys.
Since 1970, more than $108 million in Federal grant assistance has been
provided to the cities of Gary, Hammond and East Chicago. In addition.
3-33
-------
Federal grant monies allocated to the State of Indiana are currently being
used to fund a Wasteload Allocation Study (WLA) for the GCR/IHC. The WLA,
which is currently in progress, was funded with $350,000 from the Section 205
(j) budget for FY82.
A summary of construction grants awards to Gary, Hammond and East
Chicago, and the status of facilities planning in these POTWs, is
provided below.
3.4.1 Gary PQTW
The Gary Sanitary District initiated participation in the Construction
Grants Program in 1973. Grants were received for facilities planning and
construction, including targeted grants for sewer system evaluation and
rehabilitation. Since 1973, six major grants have been received by Gary;
although construction is complete on the earlier grants, none have been closed
out.
The Gary Sanitary District formally initiated Facilities Planning
activities in 1975, with receipt of a Federal grant to support planning
studies. Approximately $2 million in grant money has been provided to support
continuing planning activities. This effort has resulted in a series of
segmented facilities planning reports addressing various aspects of the
wastewater system.
Facilities planning efforts have been concluded for the Gary POTW. With
the exception of solids handling and disposal components, all elements of the
facilities plan have been approved. The solids handling and disposal com-
ponent is currently in review. Plant expansion and upgrading (to advanced
wastewater treatment) has been completed. The sewer system evaluation survey
for large diameter sewers and sewers of more than 50-years in age has been
completed and sewer rehabilitation is currently underway. Major combined
sewer overflow control programs have not been recommended for the Gary system
as a result of the planning studies and evaluations.
3-34
-------
In total, Gary has received over $100,000,000 in grants related to the
upgrading of the sewage collection, conveyance and treatment system. It is
currently estimated that an additional $50,000,000 (approximately) is needed
for construction of required sludge handling, sewer rehabilitation and plant
appurtenances. Gary has applied to the USEPA for a sludge handling grant
($30-40 million requested). A training grant (approximately $640,000) for
treatment plant operators was awarded in March, 1984.
Due to the previous grant-supported construction projects, the major
remaining weak point in the sewage system is in sludge handling facilities.
However, as mentioned above, Gary may be ineligible for the grant assistance
which would be a necessary prerequisite to construct these facilities. Con-
sequently, the Sanitary District may be required to comply with environmental
regulations but be unable to finance the improvements necessary to achieve
compliance. Rapid deterioration of new equipment and lack of a replacement
fund are conditions which are jeopardizing the existing Federal investment in
the treatment works.
3.4.2 Hammond POTW
The Hammond Sanitary District initiated facilities planning activities in
the early 1970's and has received approximately $500,000 in grant support for
planning. Planning investigations have included Combined Sewer Overflow
studies, infiltration/inflow studies, sewer system evaluation surveys and
engineering evaluations of possible sludge handling and nitrification improve-
ments.
Facilities planning for the Hammond sewerage collection system is
essentially complete. The infiltration/inflow study has been approved;
combined sewer overflow discharges to Lake Michigan have been eliminated
(through construction of the Robertsdale pumping station and force main); an
inter-municipal combined sewer overflow study has been completed .(with East
Chicago and Gary); and a sewer system evaluation survey was conducted (in the
Robertsdale area).
3-35
-------
The combined sewer overflow study is being reviewed by the State of
Indiana and has not yet been forwarded to the USEPA for review. This study
recommended full sewer separation for Hammond (no-action was recommended for
Gary and East Chicago). Although it may be cost-effective to separate com-
bined sewers in certain portions of the sewer system (as was the case in the
Robertsdale area), it is doubted that the full separation alternative recom-
mended in the CSO study will be found to be cost-effective. The Robertsdale
combined sewer overflow control project, which eliminated raw sewage dis-
charges to Lake Michigan, was facilitated by a 1981 grant of over $6 million.
A modification to the sewer use ordinance has been approved by the City
of Hammond to increase user charges. The increased revenues will be used by
the Sanitary District to meet increasing operation and maintenance costs.
3.4.3 East Chicago PQTW
The East Chicago Sanitary District initiated participation in the
Contruction Grants Program in 1975 with receipt of a grant for facilities
planning. This effort has been facilitated by more than $100,000 in Federal
grant support. In 1975, East Chicago's facilities planning grant was
increased by approximately $500,000 for performance of a sewer system
evaluation survey. The focus of East Chicago's facilities planning process
has been on evaluation of the condition of existing facilities and deter-
mination of additional treatment needs.
Since 1975, the East Chicago Sanitary District has received approximately
$1.4 million for facilities planning. It is currently estimated that~an
additional $35 million (approximately) will be needed to meet wastewater
treatment needs through the year 2000. These costs are associated with
renovation of existing primary and secondary treatment units, addition of
advanced wastewater treatment facilities, and renovation of sludge handling
equipment.
The facilities plan concluded that combined sewer overflow corrective
measures would not be necessary; therefore, no plans exist for CSO control
programs in the facilities plan. However, the USEPA may elect to investigate
CSO controls in more detail and re-evaluate the need for additional controls.
3-36
-------
The East Chicago Sanitary District has experienced difficulties in
completing facilities planning activities. Progress has been minimal and
those reports and plans which have been completed and submitted have been
found to be seriously deficient, by the State of Indiana and USEPA.
The infiltration/inflow analysis is the only element of the overall
facilities planning process to be approved; such approval being a necessary
prerequisite for initiation of a sewer system evaluation survey. Other
submittals which have not been approved, due to major deficiencies or
inadequacies, include the sewer system evaluation survey report and a
facilities plan segment which addressed rehabilitation of the existing plant.
An application for a grant amendment for pretreatment program development was
returned due to major deficiencies.
Delays in completing facilities planning efforts in East Chicago have
been complicated by administrative and financial problems. For example, grant
payments from USEPA to East Chicago for ongoing facilities planning activities
have been co-mingled with other City funds and payments to consultants have
been delayed. These delays resulted in a successful lawsuit against East
Chicago brought by the consultant, for payment.
Additional delays have resulted from termination of East Chicago's
consulting contract with their facilities planning engineer. Activities
toward completion of the facilities plan will be essentially suspended pending
selection of a new consultant. East Chicago has selected TenEch Environmental
Engineers, Inc., to complete the facilities planning process.
Two major issues which must be addressed by the new facilities planning
consultant selected by East Chicago are completion of the facilities planning
process and construction of sludge handling facilities. Because the existing
sludge lagoon system is filled to capacity, East Chicago has initiated efforts
for off-site sludge disposal. A plan for land application of sludge from the
lagoon system was initiated, but subsequently stopped due to apparent viola-
tion of competitive bidding requirements. East Chicago now intends to adver-
tise for competitive bids for this work and anticipates selection of a sludge
disposal contractor, in 1984.
3-37
-------
East Chicago has retained contractors for the cleaning of its major
sewers and that work has begun. The smaller sewers can be kept clean with
district staff but the six major sewers have not been properly cleaned in
years. Sewer cleaning work is expected to be completed during 1984 and will
help to reduce combined sewer overflows.
3-38
-------
CHAPTER 4. 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 (e.g., BOD, COD, nitrogen, ammonia). While DO 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.
4-1
-------
4.1 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 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
(including PCB's, PAH's, phenols and other organics) persist in the sediments.
Based on the USEPA Region V Guidelines for the Pollution Classification of
Great Lakes Harbor Sediments, the GCR/IHC sediments are considered heavily,
polluted for all tested metals except mercury, and polluted to heavily pol-
luted for PCB's. Average mercury levels were near the threshold concentration
for classification as polluted.
4-2
-------
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 benthic samples in the 1960's.
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-
cion of toxics in aquatic organisms (particularly the benthos) is recognized,
but cannot be quantified with the existing data base.
4.2 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.
4-3
-------
4.2.1 Industrial Point Sources
Based on NPDES records at USEPA Region V, seven major industries
discharge Co the GCR/IHG, 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 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 re-issuing 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.
4.2.2 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
that portion of the West Branch draining to the IHC only under certain flow
conditions.
4-4
-------
Historically, these POTWs 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 programs 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 relative impacts of the three POTWs on aquatic life in the
GCR/IHC.
4.2.3 Combined Sewer Overflows
Fourteen CSO's 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.
The water quality impacts of CSO's 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.
4-5
-------
Both of these studies, however, are concentrating primarily on conven-
tional and nonconventional contaminants and BOD/DO interactions. The impacts
of CSO's 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 CSO's are believed to represent major
sources of toxic pollutants to the river.
4.2.4 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 and State ERRIS and NPL 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 essentailly 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.
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.
4-6
-------
'4.3 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 (e.g., RCRA and
CERCLA) may also be applied to specific problems.
4.3.1 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
standards by July 1, 1977 and BAT and BCT standards by July 1, 1984.
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 OTA).
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
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
4-7
-------
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/swinmable"
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.
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 Che 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 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.
4.3.2 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.
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:
4-9
-------
Industry
Citgo
DuPont
Inland Steel
J & L Steel
U.S.S. Lead
U.S. Steel
Vulcan Materials
Date of Scheduled
Flow Most Recent. Permit Compliance in
(mgd) Permit Expiration Date Third Quarter 1984
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
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, nonconventionai 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 Flouride
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.
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
4-10
-------
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
Approx.
Flow
41.4 mgd
37.9 mgd
East Chicago SD 15.6 mgd
Date of Most Scheduled Permit
Recent Permit Expiration Date
7/1/77
1/8/79
10/15/77
4/30/82
6/30/83
2/2/82
Compliance
in
September 1984
No (NH3)
Yes
No (NH , Phenol,
CN, Fluorides,
Chlorides, Sul-
fates, O&G, BOD,
TSS)
All three POTWs are discharging under expired NPDES permits.
be issued after completion of the WLA.
New permits will
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 O&M 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.
The Hammond POTW has completed substantial plant improvements and has
controlled major CSO sources. Sludge handling practices are inadequate and
on-sita 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, 1984. The POTW is the
subject of a USEPA law suit.
4-11
-------
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
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.
4.3.3 Pretreatment Program
The National Pretreatinent 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.
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 ragd.
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
4-12
-------
POTWs have been required do prepare pretreatment programs. In response Co
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), Flouride, Thallium, Methylene
Chloride, Flouranthene, 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.
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.
4-13
-------
4.3.4 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.
Facilities planning in Hammond is also essentially complete. Construc-
tion of the AWT facilities is complete and has resulted in 95 percent reduc-
tions 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
4-14
-------
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.
4-15
-------
5. 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.
5.1 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
5-1
-------
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 Indiana, which has been delegated authority
for the construction grants and NPDES permit issuance programs. Emphasis will
be placed on USEPA and State enforcement of existing regulations and com-
pletion 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.
5-2
-------
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
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
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
been made available to other interested agencies, in addition to those
discussed above.
5-3
-------
5.2 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 researh findings, proposed tech-
nologies, and overall Master Plan recommendations and conclusions. A mailing
list has been prepared for public interest groups. A public information
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.
5.3 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.
5-4
-------
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/JHC 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 wastaload 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
standards. The results of the nearly completed WLA are being considered in
these evaluations. The chloride, sulphate, and total dissolved solids
5-5
-------
standards are also being re-evaluated, 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.
5.4 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 ISBH 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.
The Gary NPDES permit be reissued tro reflect effluent limits specified
in the wasteload allocation analysis. This new permit include
5-6
-------
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.
5.5 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
may result in environmental contamination as a result of sludge disposal
practices.
5-7
-------
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
o The ISBH cooperate with the USSPA 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 bioraoni-
toring tests be conducted to determine the possible presence of toxic
pollutants in the final effluent. Pretreatraent 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. Pre-
treatment 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.
5.6 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROGRAM
Need
Since 1970, more than $108 million in Federal grant assistance has been
provided t-o 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 muncipal effluent, for protection of the
receiving water. Poor management and operation of facilities also exists in
some instances.
5-8
-------
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.
5.7 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.
5-9
-------
Re commenda t ions
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
pollutants 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.
5.8 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.
5-10
-------
Re c omme ndacions
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 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
overall interaction of sediment contaminants and water quality in the
GCR/IHC 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 L985. 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 Che 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.
5-11
-------
5.9 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 Eoxic 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.
5-12
-------
5.10 WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
Need
Many of Che 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 GGR/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.
Recommendations
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.
S_tatu_s
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.
5.11 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
5-13
-------
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.
5.12 TIME FRAME AND IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 5-1 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.
5-14
-------
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
5-15
-------
Figure 5-t. Projected Tine Frane for Implementation of the Grand Calu»E Master Plan
1985
1986
1987
Water Quality Standards
1. Waste Load Allocation completed
2. Current Water Quality Standard
Reviewed
3. Limited Standard Revisions adopted
4. Standards reviewed emphazing
toxicants
5. Further Standards Revisions adopted
HPDES Permits
1. Reissue remaining industrial permits
with toxic limits
Z. Reissue municipal permits
3. 3iooonitoring of industrial & municipal
effluents
4. Effluent monitoring at industrial S
municipal effluents
5. Include CSO limits in Municipal Permits
4. Re issuance as Permits cone due or
standards are revised
. Pretreatment
I, Revised program documents recieved
from omnicipalities
2. Preliminary approval
3. Ordinances S, NPDES Revisions adopted
4. Final approval
5. Implementation by municipalities
6. Enforcement S, Oversight by ITSEPA 4
State
3. Municipal Wastewater Treatment
1. Resolve consent decree violations at
Gary
2. Negotiate consent judgements with East
Chicago and Hammond
3. Implement terms of consent decrees
E. CSO Controls
\. L'SEPA Region V issues policy on CSO
2. N'PDES revisions
3. I'SEPA comolaces report on wet weather
CSO impact on Lake
-* . Futher C30 iapact analysis if needed
5. Implementation of CSO Policy
-,
I
(Sill
Ǥ
mmm
1
r
MMH
5-16
-------
Figure 5-1. ^co
1985
1986
1987
". Non-Point Source Controls
1. Prelioinarv Assessment of wascefills
along the GCS/IHC
3. rollowup action at wascefills
5. USEPA consideration of remedial
alternatives for sediments
7. 'JSGS/Indiana/USEPA flow monitoring
G. Monitoring 4 Surveillance
1. Chemical Analysis for fish colieeted
3. Font interagency task force & develop
aonicoring plan
4. totpletMnc Monitoring Plan
H. Was ce load Allocation
1. Comoiete wasceload allocation for
current standards
2. Complete analysis of Lake Michigan I
impacts
was ca load allocation for toxicants
5. toxicant waste load allocation
development
5-17
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
COE. 1981. Chemistry of bottom sediments from the Cal-Saq Channel and the Des
Plaines and Illinois Rivers between Joliet and Havana, Illinois.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island, Illinois by
Argonne National Laboratory Applied and Engineering Group, Argonne,
Illinois.
COE. 1984. Biological and chemical water quality survey in Indiana Harbor,
the Indiana Harbor Canal, and Southwestern Lake Michigan for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District. Research and Development
Department. Prepared by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago.
Combinatorics. 1974. Load allocation study of the Grand Calumet River and
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, January 1974. For the State of Indiana Stream
Pollution Control Board, Indianapolis, Indiana.
CMSD. 1980. Benthic macroinvertebrates as pollution indicators in the Indiana
Harbor Canal. Report No. 80-17.
CMSD. 1983. Progress of the United States Steel Corporation and other steel
mills in the Metropolitan Chicago area toward water pollution control and
water and sediment quality, conditions, and trends in Southwestern Lake
Michigan and river systems in the Calumet area. Report No. 83-13.
Hague, R. (ed). 1980. Dynamics, exposure, and hazard assessment of toxic
chemicals. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pg. 496.
HNTB. 1982. East Chicago combined sewer overflow water quality impact
analysis Volume I: Technical Report. Prepared for Besozzi, Carpenter,
and Ignelzi, Inc.
ISBH. 1984. Grand Calumet River Wasteload Allocation Study. Draft Report
Prepared for the Indiana State Board of Health by Hydroqual Inc., Mahwah,
New Jersey.
JRB Associates. 1984. Initial evaluation of alternatives for development of
sediment related criteria for toxic contaminants in marine waters (Puget
Sound). Phase II: Development and testing of the sediment-water
equilibrium partitioning approach. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C, under EPA Contract No, 68-01-6388.
Lake Michigan Federation. 1984. The Grand Calumet: Exploring the river's
potential.
Lucas, Allen M. and Steinfeld, James D., 1972. Toxicity Studies of Grand
Calumet River Sediments, September 1972. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S.
Environmetnal Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement and General
Counsel, National Field Investigations Center, Water Sciences Branch.
A-l
-------
PRC Consoer Townsend. 1982. Combines sewer overflow study Grand Calumet
River, Little Calumet River for the Sanitary District of Hammond,
Indiana. Prepared for the Board of Sanitary Commissioners, an element of
the 201 facilities plan.
State of Indiana, Stream Pollution Control Board. 1978. Water quality
standards for Lake Michigan and contiguous harbor areas. Regulation 330
IAC 2-2. Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.
Technical Committee on Water Quality. 1970. Water quality in the Calumet
area. Conference on Pollution of Lower Lake Michigan Calumet River,
Grand Calumet River, Little Calumet River, and Wolf Lake Illinois and
Indiana. Technical committee on water quality. September 1970.
TenEch. 1982. Water quality modeling of combined sewer overflow alternatives
for the Grand Calumet River-Indiana Harbor Ship Canal Basin, Indiana.
Prepared for the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission.
USEPA. 1980. Ambient water quality criteria documents, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, B.C.
USEPA. 1982. Environmental regulatory review. Grand Calumet River and
Indiana Harbor Canal. Chicago, Illinois: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National.Program Office.
USEPA. I983a. Environmental Management Report. Attachment B. Chicago,
Illinois. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5. Valdas V.
Adankus, Regional Administrator.
USEPA. 1983b. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody surveys and assessments
for conducting use attainability analyses. Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Washington, B.C.
USEPA. 1984. Revised Section B of ambient water quality criteria documents.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.
A-2
------- |