By TOM COYNE

Associated Press Writer

GARY, Ind. (AP) — The federal Environmental Protection Agency did not go far enough in its objections to a proposed state permit on the amount of pollution U.S. Steel can discharge into the Grand Calumet River and Lake Michigan, environmental groups said Tuesday.

“We believe EPA’s objections do not go far enough in certain respects,” said Kim Ferraro of the Lake Michigan Environmental Coalition, a group of 12 environmental groups that urged the EPA to hold Tuesday’s public hearing.

More than 300 people attended the afternoon session of the public hearing on EPA’s objections. More than 100 people attended the session Tuesday evening. EPA Regional Administrator Mary A. Gade and other agency officials listened to the public comments.

One of the biggest complaints by speakers was that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s proposed permit gave U.S. Steel five years to limit discharges of several pollutants — including benzo(a)pyrene, a cancer-causing chemical, cyanide, copper, zinc, ammonia and mercury. The EPA said in objecting to the permit in October that the Clean Water Act requires compliance as quickly as possible.

Some speakers said allowing U.S. Steel five years to meet limits in a five-year permit amounted in effect to a variance.

“Everyone has known since the early 1990s that these more stringent limits were going to come into effect. There is absolutely no reason to give U.S. Steel additional time to comply with them,” said Ann Alexander, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Some in the crowd, including some U.S. Steel employees and suppliers, supported U.S. Steel’s permit request and urged the EPA to approve the permit. Barbara Quandt, speaking on behalf of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said the steel industry is vital to the state economy and has made major investments to reduce pollution.

“U.S. Steel has respected the detailed permit process, submitted data based on sound science and is deserving of its water permit,” she said.

Mike Williams, general manager of U.S. Steel’s Gary Works, said the company has spent millions of dollars to meet environmental requirements and is committed to environmental stewardship.

“We are committed to full environmental compliance,” he said. “We will continue to work with IDEM in their important mission to protect human health and the Lake Michigan aquatic environment. We expect the conditions of the final permit to improve the water quality in Lake Michigan and the Grand Calumet River, a goal that we share with the community.”

Bruno Pigott, IDEM’s assistant commissioner for water quality, told the EPA that IDEM was prepared to address the issues listed by the EPA, calling the discussions with EPA a normal part of issuing a permit.

“We are sure these discussions will result in a sound environmentally protective permit,” he said.

Gade said part of the reason for the public hearing was the outcry over the state granting BP’s Indiana refinery a permit in June that allowed it to increase its average daily discharges of ammonia into the lake by 54 percent and increase the amount of suspended solids by 35 percent.

“Clearly this is a huge facility, it discharges onto Lake Michigan, one of our most precious resources. There is a heightened level of public interest in protecting the Great Lakes,” Gade said.

U.S. Steel’s Gary Works facility is the largest fully integrated steel mill in North America, producing more than 800 million tons of raw steel a year. It uses 600 million gallons of water from Lake Michigan every day and discharges back about 525 million gallons of wastewater and cooling water a day.

The EPA will continue to accept written public comment until Dec. 28. It will then review the comments and could then either inform IDEM that it reaffirms its objections, modifies them or withdraws them.

If EPA reaffirms or modifies its objections, IDEM will have 30 days to send EPA a revised permit that address its objections.

Gade said the EPA would prefer the state grant the permit.

“The whole way the Clean Water Act has been set up is the states should have the lead roles for the issuance of these wastewater permits. We think that’s appropriate,” she said. “So we think it would be highly desirable for Indiana to make the appropriate revisions and submit it to us.”

Posted 12/12/2007