Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/369926025/Clean-Water-Act-Lawsuit
Timestamp: 2019-09-18 12:27:26
Document Index: 613735098

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1251', '§ 1251', '§ 1365', '§ 1311', '§ 1342', '§ 1311', '§ 1365', '§ 1331', '§1367', '§ 1319', '§ 2201', '§ 1365', '§ 135', '§ 1365', '§ 1391', '§ 1362', '§ 1365', '§ 1365', '§ 1365', '§ 1251', '§ 1251', '§ 1311', '§ 1342', '§ 123', '§ 1362', '§ 1362', '§ 1362', '§ 1342', '§ 1311', '§ 1362', '§ 1318', '§ 1342', '§ 1311', '§ 1365', '§ 1365', '§ 1319', '§ 1311', '§ 1342', '§ 1319', '§ 19', '§ 2461', '§ 301', '§ 1365', '§ 1317', '§ 401', '§ 1362', '§ 1362', '§ 1362', '§ 1362', '§ 1362', '§ 1362', '§ 1362', '§ 1311', '§ 1311', '§ 1319', '§ 19', '§ 1311', '§ 19', '§ 1311', '§ 1365', '§ 1319', '§ 1311', '§ 19', '§ 1311', '§ 1319', '§ 1311', '§ 19', '§ 1319', '§ 1311', '§ 1365', '§ 1319', '§ 1311', '§ 19', '§ 1319', '§ 2461', '§ 19', '§ 1365']

Clean Water Act Lawsuit | Clean Water Act | Environmental Technology
The city filed suit in federal court alleging that the firm violated the Clean Water Act by allowing nearly 300 pounds of “carcinogenic” hexavalent chromium into Lake Michigan— threatening the city’s drinking water — last spring.
speichernClean Water Act Lawsuit für später speichern
Washington Channel - Watershed Description
9837ff.pdf
EPA Wastewater Treatment Information
Full Lab Report 3
Wetlands Subsurface Flow
Kecenderungan Ars Abad 21
NOI for Barre Solar One dated 6-10-2011 didnt site work start far before then?
Sludge Treatment_Sludge Disposal
Chapter 5 - Composting Process and Techniques
Sensor Oxigeno Disuelto Optico DS_ADS430-En_C
Notice: Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Availability of List Decisions
Onsite MBR Systems and Ezflow Dispersal Fields Enable Transformation of Reclaimed Strip Mine...by Dennis Hallahan, Infiltrator Water Technologies
Dead Ismail Tosun
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 1 of 34
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, )
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-33
UNITED STATES STEEL )
The City of Chicago (“City”), by its Corporation Counsel, Edward N. Siskel, files this
Complaint under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water
Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq., seeking relief against United States Steel Corporation
(“U.S. Steel”), and in support states as follows:
1. This action seeks to uphold the objective of CWA, to “restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a).
Specifically, the City aims to restore and maintain Lake Michigan, which U.S. Steel has harmed
and continues to harm through repeated and significant violations of its CWA permit limitations
and maintenance failures. These harmful and illegal acts include, but are not limited to, multiple
excessive discharges of toxic chemicals into the body of water that supplies the City’s two water
treatment plants, which serve as the source of drinking water for over 5 million people, over 40%
of the population of the State of Illinois. U.S. Steel has repeatedly evaded responsibility for
violating the CWA, and state and federal regulators have failed to enforce the law adequately.
The City seeks to hold U.S. Steel responsible for the injuries it has caused to Lake Michigan and
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 2 of 34
the adverse impacts upon the City’s interest in being able to provide drinking water to over 5
million people in Chicago and surrounding suburbs, uncontaminated by U.S. Steel’s illegal
discharges of pollutants into Lake Michigan. In addition, the City seeks to protect its crucial
interests in Lake Michigan, a vital economic engine for the City, a beloved source of recreation
and tourism for the City’s residents and guests, and the City’s aesthetic heart and soul.
2. This is a civil action for injunctive relief and civil penalties, brought under
Section 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, against U.S. Steel for the discharge of pollutants in
violation of Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, and in violation of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits issued to U.S. Steel pursuant to
Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. As a result, and as further alleged herein, U.S. Steel
has violated the terms and conditions of its NPDES permits and has violated Sections 301(a) and
402(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342(a).
3. The City seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, the imposition of civil
penalties, damages, and the award of costs, including attorney and expert witness fees.
4. Plaintiff, the City is an Illinois municipal corporation and home rule unit of local
government organized and existing under Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Illinois
and the laws of Illinois, located in Cook County, Illinois.
5. Defendant, U.S. Steel is a corporation registered in the state of Delaware with its
principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
Section 505(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), and pursuant to federal question jurisdiction
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 3 of 34
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367
with regard to the Sixth Claim For Relief (Negligence).
7. The relief requested is authorized pursuant to Sections 309 and 505(a) of the
CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319 and 1365(a), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
8. In compliance with Section 505(b)(1)(A) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A),
on November 20, 2017, the City gave notice of the violations specified in this Complaint and of
the City’s intent to file suit to U.S. Steel, the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (“USEPA”), the Regional Administrator of USEPA, the United States
Attorney General, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”), and the
Attorney General for the State of Indiana. The City’s notice letter meets the requirements of 40
C.F.R. § 135.1 et seq. and provided U.S. Steel with notice of the CWA violations in this
Complaint. A copy of the City’s notice letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
9. More than sixty days have passed since the City’s notice was served, and the
violations complained of in the notice letter are continuing at this time or are reasonably likely to
continue. U.S. Steel therefore remains in violation of its NPDES permit and the CWA.
10. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 505(c)(1) of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1395(a), because the U.S.
Steel facility at issue is located in this District and the causes of the action alleged in this
Complaint arose in this District.
a. The CWA’s Citizen Suit Provisions
11. The City and U.S. Steel are “persons” pursuant to Section 502 of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. § 1362(5), which defines “person” as “an individual, corporation, partnership,
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 4 of 34
association, State, municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a State, or any interstate
12. The City is a “citizen” pursuant to Section 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)
and 1365(g), because it is a “person[] having an interest which is or may be adversely affected”
by U.S. Steel’s illegal discharges.
13. U.S. Steel may be sued pursuant to Section 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a),
which authorizes any citizen to “commence a civil action . . . against any person . . . who is
alleged to be in violation of an effluent standard or limitation.” “[T]he term ‘effluent standard or
limitation’” includes “a permit or condition thereof issued under section 1342 of this title.” 33
U.S.C. § 1365(f).
b. The CWA’s NPDES Program
14. The purpose of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a).
15. Section 101(a)(3) of the CWA prohibits “the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(3).
16. Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the “discharge of any
pollutant by any person” into navigable waters except in compliance with a NPDES permit
issued by the USEPA or an authorized state administrator pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA,
33 U.S.C. § 1342.
17. At all times relevant to this Complaint, IDEM has been and continues to be
authorized by the USEPA to implement the NPDES permit program for discharges into
navigable waters within its jurisdiction pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 123.1.
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 5 of 34
18. Section 502 of the CWA defines “navigable waters” as “waters of the United
States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).
19. Under Section 502 of the CWA, the term “discharge of a pollutant” includes “any
addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12).
20. Section 502 of the CWA defines “pollutant” as “dredged spoil, solid waste,
incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6).
21. Section 502 of the CWA defines “point source” as “any discernible, confined and
discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well,
discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or
22. Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a), provides that a permit-issuing
authority may “issue a [NPDES] permit for the discharge of any pollutant” into navigable waters
of the United States, but only in compliance with the applicable requirements of Section 301 of
the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, and such other conditions as the permit-issuing authority
determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of the CWA.
23. NPDES permits establish “effluent limitations,” which are defined as “any
restriction established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of
chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources
into navigable waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11).
24. Section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1318, requires NPDES permittees to
establish and maintain records; to install, use and maintain monitoring equipment; to sample
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 6 of 34
effluents; and to “make such reports” as required in the permit regarding permittees’ pollutant
25. Section 402(a)(2) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(2), authorizes the
Administrator to “prescribe conditions for [NPDES] permits to assure compliance . . . including
conditions on data and information collection, reporting, and such other requirements as he
deems appropriate.”
26. Failure to comply with any condition of a permit is a violation of Section 301 of
the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, and is actionable under Section 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
§ 1365(a)(1).
c. Judicial Relief in CWA Citizen Suits
27. Section 505 of the CWA authorizes the district courts “to enforce such an effluent
standard or limitation . . . and to apply any appropriate civil penalties under section 1319(d)” in
suits filed by citizens pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a).
28. Section 309 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d), provides that “any person” who
violates Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, or violates any permit condition or
limitation in an NPDES permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342,
“shall be subject to a civil penalty.”
29. Each exceedance of a daily effluent limitation shall be treated as a distinct
violation, and each exceedance of a monthly average limit shall be treated as a violation for
every day in the month in which the violation occurred.
30. Each separate violation of the CWA subjects the violator to a penalty of up to
$37,500 per day per violation for all violations occurring from January 12, 2009 through
November 2, 2015, and up to $52,414 per day for all violations that occurred after November 2,
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 7 of 34
2015, pursuant to Sections 309(d) and 505(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365(a), and
40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2461, 31 U.S.C. § 301.
31. Under the citizen suit provision of the CWA, Section 505, the court may also
award “costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any
prevailing or substantially prevailing party.” 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d).
32. The City owns and operates two of the world’s largest conventional water
treatment plants with a combined capacity of 2,100 million gallons per day. These two plants,
operated by the City’s Department of Water Management (“DWM”), serve the City’s citizens,
schools, health care facilities, food establishments and other businesses, as well as 125
surrounding Illinois communities. In total, the City provides drinking water to over 5 million
people or over 40% of the population of Illinois.
33. Lake Michigan is the sole source of the water, which DWM, in accordance with
state and federal drinking water laws and regulations, supplies for ultimate use and consumption
by its citizens and other customers through conventional water treatment processes and a
network of water mains and pipes consisting of approximately 4,400 miles in total.
34. At all times relevant to this Complaint, U.S. Steel has owned and operated a steel
refinery known as the United States Steel Corporation, Gary Works – Midwest Plant at 6300
U.S. Highway 12, Portage, IN 46368 (“Midwest Plant”), which is located in Porter County.
35. The Midwest Plant is located on Burns Waterway, a small industrial ditch, into
which the facility discharges both wastewater and stormwater, and which empties directly into
Lake Michigan. U.S. Steel is responsible for processing its wastewater in accordance with the
terms of its NPDES permit No. IN0000337.
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 8 of 34
36. U.S. Steel discharges wastewater into Burns Waterway a few hundred feet from
where waters flowing from Burns Waterway enter Lake Michigan.
37. U.S. Steel has repeatedly violated pollutant-discharge and maintenance provisions
in its permit during the past five years.
a. The April 2017 Illegal Discharge
38. In April 2017, a broken pipe or pipes and a corroded collection trough or troughs
resulted in a spill, reported by U.S. Steel as consisting of approximately 350 pounds of total
chromium, of which nearly 300 pounds was carcinogenic hexavalent chromium.
39. According to public reports, this spill began on April 10, 2017 and continued into
April 11, 2017. Under USEPA oversight, U.S. Steel collected water samples on April 11th that
showed levels of hexavalent chromium that were (i) hundreds of times greater than standards set
to be protective of human health in Burns Waterway and (ii) more than double those standards at
the point where Burns Waterway flows into Lake Michigan. Nonetheless, it appears that no
samples were collected in Lake Michigan itself until April 12, 2017.
40. According to IDEM reports, U.S. Steel failed to notify any downstream users of
the waters affected by the April 2017 chromium spill.
41. In response to U.S. Steel’s April 2017 chromium spill, numerous public beaches
were closed for several days, including the Portage Lakefront and the Indiana Dunes National
42. Additionally, the public drinking water intake of Indiana American Water, serving
the City of Portage, ceased drawing Lake Michigan water and remained shut down for nearly a
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 9 of 34
43. On the afternoon of Tuesday April 11, 2017, the City received notification from
Illinois EPA of a hexavalent chromium spill into Lake Michigan from the U.S. Steel’s plant in
Portage, Indiana. Chromium and its components is a toxic pollutant under Section 307(a) of the
CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(a). 40 C.F.R. § 401.15.
44. Later that afternoon, DWM staff was mobilized for the purpose of implementing a
plan of action to assess the threat posed by U.S. Steel’s illegal discharge of hexavalent chromium
to the City’s Lake Michigan drinking water source and to DWM’s water intake cribs nearest to
the U.S. Steel plant in Portage, Indiana. The action plan called for: (i) every two hours sampling
of the Eugene Sawyer Water Purification Plant (“SWPP”) water intake crib, located
approximately 20 miles west north west of the point where the Burns Waterway enters Lake
Michigan, to identify any increase in hexavalent chromium levels at the crib; and (ii) initiation of
a hexavalent chromium sampling survey of Lake Michigan water in the area between the mouth
of the Burns Waterway and DWM’s SWPP crib in order to track the direction, speed, and size of
any advancing plume of hexavalent chromium contaminated water.
45. Laboratory results from Lake Michigan water samples collected by the City on
April 12, 2017, showed that a plume of hexavalent chromium-contaminated water was migrating
in a westerly direction toward the SWPP intake crib at levels well in excess of residual values
normally recorded in the Lake by DWM.
46. Laboratory results from water samples collected by the City on April 13, 2017,
showed that the plume of hexavalent chromium-contaminated water was continuing to migrate
further west, advancing toward the SWPP intake crib at levels still well in excess of residual
values normally recorded in the Lake by DWM.
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 10 of 34
47. Laboratory results from water samples collected by the City on April 14, 2017,
showed that a plume of hexavalent chromium-contaminated water was still continuing to migrate
further northwest toward the SWPP intake crib. While levels of hexavalent chromium were
lower than the levels from the previous days’ sampling, levels were still well in excess of
residual values normally recorded in the Lake by DWM.
48. On or around April 15, 2017, the fifth day after U.S. Steel’s illegal discharge of
hexavalent chromium into Lake Michigan, laboratory results from water samples collected on
April 15, 2017 revealed that hexavalent chromium levels had dissipated to residual levels.
49. The costs incurred by the City to sample, analyze, and monitor the potential
adverse effects and threat posed by U.S. Steel’s illegal hexavalent chromium discharge of April
10 – 11, 2017 were well in excess of $75,000.
50. Prior to U.S. Steel’s April 2017 illegal discharge of chromium, it had violated the
chromium discharge limits set in its NPDES permit on at least two separate occasions in the
preceding five years, including in January 2017.
b. The October 2017 Illegal Discharge
51. Sometime in October, 2017, on a date best known by U.S. Steel, U.S. Steel again
illegally discharged an excessive amount of chromium. Despite a third-party contractor working
for U.S. Steel observing a blue discharge with visible solids, U.S. Steel did not test to see how
much of the total chromium discharged was comprised of the more toxic hexavalent chromium.
52. U.S. Steel did not notify anyone who might or actually did use Lake Michigan for
recreation, drinking water, or other purposes of its October 2017 illegal chromium discharge.
Instead, U.S. Steel notified only IDEM, and the company’s written report requested that IDEM
treat as confidential the information about the October 2017 discharge.
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 11 of 34
53. IDEM did not conduct an accident inspection related to the October 2017 incident
until approximately three weeks later, on November 16.
54. According to public reports, neither U.S. Steel nor IDEM officials notified
USEPA of the October exceedance. The Chicago Tribune reported that USEPA only learned of
the October 2017 incident when a Tribune reporter requested USEPA’s comment for an article
on U.S. Steel’s persistent CWA violations.
55. In October, 2017, the City learned from after-the-fact newspaper accounts of this
additional illegal chromium discharge into Lake Michigan by US Steel’s Midwest Plant. Unlike
the illegal discharge of chromium in April, 2017, the City did not receive any notification from
U.S. Steel or any regulatory agency concerning the unlawful October chromium discharge.
56. U.S. Steel’s failure to report the spill and its failure to notify the public and the
City prevented the City from initiating the timely surveillance actions necessary to assess the
potential threat posed to the City’s drinking water supply by a hazardous chemical and known
human carcinogen. U.S. Steel’s failure to notify the City of its unlawful chromium discharges
poses an unreasonable and unacceptable threat to the City’s drinking water source for over 5
57. The City is concerned by the threat to its public drinking source posed by U.S.
Steel’s illegal discharges. Specifically, U.S. Steel’s unlawful discharges of chromium and other
pollutants harm water quality in Lake Michigan in the vicinity where the City obtains water for
drinking water purposes. U.S. Steel’s unlawful discharges have directly and adversely
threatened and adversely affected, and continue to threaten and adversely affect, the City’s
ability to provide safe drinking water to its over 5 million citizens and suburban water
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 12 of 34
58. In addition, the City has a vital interest in maintaining the quality of Lake
Michigan for purposes other than drinking water. Hotels and Navy Pier depend on the aesthetic
quality of the Lake for guests, tourists, and conventioneers. The City also receives revenues
from, among other things, fishing, boating, hotels, restaurants, convention business, beachgoers,
all of which would be adversely impacted by illegal discharges into the Lake.
59. The City also has an interest in when and how the City and the public receive
notice of U.S. Steel’s illegal discharges. Receiving early and timely notification is imperative to
the City’s ability to take effective actions to avoid having the City’s water intake and distribution
system contaminated by U.S. Steel’s illegal discharges and to protect public health. U.S. Steel’s
failure to provide the City with timely notification of U.S. Steel’s illegal discharges and other
violations alleged herein pose an unacceptable and continuing risk of harm to the City’s ability to
provide safe drinking water to its over 5 million citizens and suburban water purchasers.
60. The adverse effects and threats to the City’s use of Lake Michigan as a source of
public drinking water for over 5 million people as alleged herein are directly traceable to the
failures of U.S. Steel to comply with the terms of its NPDES permit.
61. The relief requested herein from the Court would serve to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of Lake Michigan redress the threat to the interests of
City in being able utilize the Lake as a source of drinking water for millions of people without
being adversely affected by the illegal discharges of U.S. Steel.. The Court should enjoin U.S.
Steel from further discharges in violation of law, and require U.S. Steel to expeditiously take all
actions necessary to control its illegal discharges. In addition, the Court should impose a
significant monetary penalty to ensure that U.S. Steel enjoys no economic benefit from the
practices that led to these repeated violations and to serve as a meaningful deterrent for a
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 13 of 34
company as large as U.S. Steel. Thereby, U.S. Steel would control its discharges of chromium
and other pollutants as required by law, improving the quality of the water used by the City, and
addressing concerns about protecting the quality of Lake Michigan water used by the City to
provide drinking water to over 5 million people.
VIOLATIONS OF QUANTITATIVE PERMIT LIMITS
62. NPDES Permit No. IN0000337 places limits on the quantity and concentration of
pollutants that U.S. Steel is legally permitted to discharge into Burns Waterway through Outfalls
004, 204, 304, and 500 by setting effluent limitations for Total Recoverable Chromium,
Hexavalent Chromium, Whole Effluent Toxicity, Oil and Grease, and Temperature, as well as
63. One version of NPDES Permit No. IN0000337 was in effect from March 1, 2011
to February 28, 2016 (“2011 permit”). U.S. Steel renewed NPDES permit No. IN0000337 in
2016, which came into effect on April 1, 2016 and will remain in effect until March 31, 2021
(“2016 permit”). The 2011 permit is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The 2016 permit is attached
hereto as Exhibit C. At all times relevant to this Complaint, U.S. Steel’s NPDES permit No.
IN0000337 remained in effect, and the effluent limitations for the pollutants listed in ¶ 97
64. NPDES Permit No. IN0000337 describes Outfalls 004, 204, 304, and 500 at the
U.S. Steel Midwest Plant, each of which are “point source[s]” within the meaning of Section 502
of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). These outfalls are “point source[s]” within the meaning of
Section 502 of the CWA because they are pipes from which pollutants are discharged into Burns
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 14 of 34
65. Pursuant to Part I.C.2 of NPDES permit No. IN0000337, U.S. Steel is required to
“submit federal and state discharge monitoring reports to the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management containing results obtained during the previous month . . . no later
than the 28th day of the month following each completed monitoring period.”
66. Pursuant to Part II.C.6.c of NPDES permit No. IN0000337, U.S. Steel is required
to certify upon signing the monthly reports that the information is “to the best of [the signer’s]
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete.”
67. U.S. Steel’s monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (“DMRs”) report chronic and
frequent violations of NPDES permit No. IN0000337. According to DMRs that U.S. Steel filed
within the five-year statute of limitations period for CWA claims, and pursuant to USEPA
guidance on civil penalties, U.S. Steel has a total of ninety violations of its effluent limitations
for Total Recoverable Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium, Whole Effluent Toxicity, Oil and
Grease, and Temperature.
68. Specifically, U.S. Steel self-reported violations of the following pollutants within
the five-year statute-of-limitations period:
TOTAL RECOVERABLE CHROMIUM
69. Chromium is a “pollutant” as defined by Section 502 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
§ 1362(6).
70. Total chromium includes both trivalent and hexavalent forms of chromium
because it can convert between forms under different conditions. Hexavalent chromium, also
known as chromium-6, has been linked to cancer in studies.
71. Both the 2011 permit and the 2016 permit contain a daily maximum quantity limit
of 30 pounds per day of total recoverable chromium discharged from Outfall 304. The 2016
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 15 of 34
permit imposes a monthly average rate of 10 pounds per day of total recoverable chromium
discharged from Outfall 304.
72. According to U.S. Steel’s DMRs, U.S. Steel exceeded its (i) daily maximum
quantity limit for total recoverable chromium four times within the five-year statute of
limitations period and (ii) the monthly average rate for total recoverable chromium one time
within the five-year statute of limitations period, for a total of thirty-four days of violation.
73. Hexavalent chromium is a “pollutant” as defined by Section 502 of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. § 1362(6).
75. Both the 2011 permit and the 2016 permit contain a daily maximum quantity limit
of 0.51 pounds per day of hexavalent chromium discharged from Outfall 304. The 2016 permit
imposes a monthly average rate of 0.17 pounds per day of hexavalent chromium discharged from
Outfall 304.
76. According to U.S. Steel’s DMRs, U.S. Steel exceeded (i) its daily maximum
quantity limit for hexavalent chromium three times within the five-year statute of limitations
period and (ii) the monthly average rate for hexavalent chromium one time within the five-year
statute of limitations period, for a total of thirty-three days of violation.
77. Both the 2011 permit and the 2016 permit require U.S. Steel to conduct quarterly
bioassay tests on model organisms to monitor the toxicity of the discharge from Outfall 004. If
the effluent exceeds 1.5 chronic toxicity units (TUc) during the tests on Ceriodaphnia dubia, this
is considered to demonstrate chronic toxicity and constitutes a failure of the toxicity test.
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 16 of 34
78. Section 101(a)(3) of the CWA prohibits the discharge of “toxic pollutants in toxic
79. According to U.S. Steel’s DMRs, U.S. Steel failed the quarterly toxicity test on C.
dubia three times during the five-year statute of limitations period for a total of three violations.
80. Heat is a “pollutant” as defined by Section 502 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6).
81. USEPA’s Analysis and Control of Thermal Pollution Training Manual states that
even “temperatures which are not lethal to fish or shellfish may affect metabolism, reproduction
and growth, as well as reduce important food organisms, thereby inducing a change in the
balance of the entire system.”
82. All temperature limits are for Outfall 500, which measures the “combined effect
of the [thermal] effluent from Outfalls 002, 003 and 004.” Both the 2011 permit and the 2016
permit mandate that “there shall be no rise in the temperature of the Portage-Burns Waterway of
greater than 2F, as determined from upstream temperature and downstream temperature at the
edge of the mixing zone.” The 2016 permit defines the “mixing zone” as “the area of Portage-
Burns Waterway extending laterally from Outfall 002 to one-half the width of Portage-Burns
Waterway and to a distance of 300 feet downstream of Outfall 004.”
83. Both the 2011 permit and the 2016 permit mandate that during the months of
December through March, the downstream temperature at the edge of the mixing zone may not
exceed the maximum limit for the month by more than 3F at any time. The relevant monthly
maximums are: 57F in December, 50F in January, 50F in February, and 60F in March.
84. During the months of April through November, the downstream temperature may
not exceed the limit for each month (subject to the below exceptions). For April, May,
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 17 of 34
September, October, and November, the limit for each month is 65F; for June, July, and August,
the limit for each month is 70F.
85. The 2011 permit allows an exception to the above April-through-November limits
when the upstream temperature equals or exceeds the maximum limitation for that day. The
2016 permit allows an exception to the above April-through-November limits when “the
upstream temperature is within 2F of the maximum limitation for that day.” This exception in
the 2016 permit allows for downstream temperatures to exceed the limit for the month so long as
the downstream temperature is within 2F of the maximum limit for that day.
86. According to U.S. Steel’s DMRs, U.S. Steel exceeded the applicable daily-
maximum downstream-temperature limit for Outfall 500 sixteen times, when no exception
applied, within the five-year statute-of-limitations period. It also exceeded the daily-maximum
receiving-water temperature-difference limit for Outfall 500 three times within the five-year
statute-of-limitations period. Thus U.S. Steel had a total of nineteen temperature violations
within the five-year statute-of-limitations period.
87. Oil and grease are “pollutants” as defined by Section 502 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
88. The USEPA website states that petroleum and non-petroleum oils can “cause
devastating physical effects, such as coating animals and plants with oil and suffocating them by
oxygen depletion; be toxic and form toxic products; destroy future and existing food supplies,
breeding animals, and habitats; produce rancid odors; foul shorelines, clog water treatment
plants, and catch fire when ignition sources are present; and form products that linger in the
environment for many years.”
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 18 of 34
89. Both the 2011 permit and the 2016 permit contain a daily maximum-quantity limit
of 765 pounds per day of oil and grease discharged from Outfall 304.
90. According to U.S. Steel’s DMRs, U.S. Steel exceeded its daily maximum-
quantity limit for oil and grease one time within the five-year statute-of-limitations period for a
total of one violation.
TABLE OF QUANTITATIVE LIMIT VIOLATIONS
91. Each row of the following table sets forth an individual violation by U.S. Steel of
a numeric permit violation, by describing the discharge type, violation date(s), outfall, measured
value, allowance type, and relevant permit allowance.
Discharge Date(s) of Violation Outfall Measured Type of Permit
Type Value Allowance Allowance
Chromium, 02/03/2013 304A 36.17 pounds Daily 30 lbs/day
Total per day maximum
Recoverable (lbs/day)
Whole Week of 08/04/2013 004 2.0 TUc Quarterly 1.5 TUc
Effluent maximum (100/IC25)
Chronic – C.
Temperature, 05/26/2014 500A 65.66F Daily 65F
Downstream maximum
Temperature, 05/27/2014 500A 65.37F Daily 65F
Temperature, 05/29/2014 500A 66.25F Daily 65F
Whole Week of 06/08/2014 004 2.9 TUc Quarterly 1.5 TUc
Effluent (100/NOEC) maximum (100/NOEC) /
Toxicity, / 2.3 TUc 1.5 TUc
Chronic – C. (100/IC25) (100/IC25)
Whole Week of 06/22/2014 004 2.9 TUc Quarterly 1.5 TUc
Toxicity, / 1.6 TUc 1.5 TUc
Temperature, 06/02/2014 500A 71.11F Daily 70F
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 19 of 34
Temperature, 06/03/2014 500A 70.64F Daily 70F
Temperature, 09/15/2014 500A 66.65F Daily 65F
Temperature 10/01/2014 500A 7.55F Daily rise 2F
Temperature, 10/02/2014 500A 66.73F Daily 65F
Oil & Grease 03/19/2015 304A 848 lbs/day Daily 765 lbs/day
Temperature, 10/07/2015 500A 65.6F Daily 65F
Temperature, 10/08/2015 500A 65.6F Daily 65F
Temperature, 10/09/2015 500A 65.1F Daily 65F
Temperature, 10/10/2015 500A 65.4F Daily 65F
Temperature, 10/22/2015 500A 65.7F Daily 65F
Temperature, 10/23/2015 500A 65.5F Daily 65F
Temperature 09/07/2016 500A 2.1F Daily rise 2F
Temperature 11/02/2016 500A 2.1F Daily rise 2F
Chromium, 01/12/2017 304A 2.371 lbs/day Daily 0.51 lbs/day
Hexavalent maximum
Temperature, 02/26/2017 500A 53.35F Daily 50F
Temperature, 02/27/2017 500A 53.93F Daily 50F
Temperature, 02/28/2017 500A 54.54F Daily 50F
Chromium, 04/10/2017 304A 138.8 lbs/day Daily 30 lbs/day
Chromium, 04/11/2017 304A 204.0 lbs/day Daily 30 lbs/day
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 20 of 34
Chromium, April 2017 304A 13.97 lbs/day Monthly 10 lbs/day
Recoverable maximum
Chromium, 04/11/2017 304A 902.8 lbs/day Daily 0.51 lbs/day
Chromium, 04/12/2017 304A 1.782 lbs/day Daily 0.51 lbs/day
Chromium, April 2017 304A 50.26 lbs/day Monthly 0.17 lbs/day
Hexavalent average
Chromium, 10/25/2017 304A 56.7 lbs/day Daily 30 lbs/day
92. The February 3, 2013 Total Recoverable Chromium violation reflects the amount
reported by U.S. Steel in the narrative cover letter it appended to its DMR submission. The
DMR data that U.S. Steel reported for this day was 34.37 lbs/day, which would also violate the
relevant permit limit.
93. The April 11, 2017 Hexavalent Chromium figure was submitted by U.S. Steel in
its April 2017 DMR. U.S. Steel staff attested to the accuracy of this figure in certifying its
submission. Nonetheless, U.S. Steel stated in a footnote that this figure represented “an absurd
result” of the mathematical formula required by the permit. According to other reports U.S.
Steel submitted to IDEM, during April 11 and 12, 2017, the facility released a total of
approximately 346 pounds of total chromium, approximately 298 pounds of which was
NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY PERMIT CONDITION VIOLATIONS
94. Pursuant to Part I.B. in both the 2011 permit and the 2016 permit, U.S. Steel is
required to follow certain “Narrative Water Quality Standards.” These standards mandate that
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 21 of 34
the Midwest Plant’s “[d]ischarge . . . shall not cause receiving waters, including the mixing zone,
to contain substances, materials, floating debris, oil, scum or other pollutants . . . that are in
amounts sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious . . . [or] that produce color, visible oil sheen,
odor, or other conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance.” The discharge must also not be
“in amounts sufficient to be acutely toxic to, or to otherwise severely injure or kill aquatic life, or
other animals, plants, or humans.” Outside the mixing zone, the discharge must not contain
“substances in concentrations which . . . are believed to be sufficient to injure, be chronically
toxic to, or be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to humans, animals, aquatic life, or
95. Upon information and belief, U.S. Steel has violated the Narrative Water Quality
Standards in its permit. On the morning of April 11, 2017, U.S. Steel reported a bluish-green
color in the effluent from Outfall 004.
96. Additionally, as reported in the relevant monthly DMRs and other reports made
by U.S. Steel to IDEM, effluent discoloration was also observed one time in December 2013 and
two times in April 2016. In all three cases prior to the April 2017 chromium incident, U.S. Steel
reported white or cloudy discoloration observed at Outfall 004, and in all three cases, IDEM
noted these events as violations.
97. Upon information and belief, the April 2017 discharge of hexavalent chromium
also constitutes a violation of the permit condition forbidding water “outside the mixing zone, to
contain substances in concentrations which on the basis of available scientific data are believed
to be sufficient to injure, be chronically toxic to, or be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to
humans, animals, aquatic life, or plants.” The USEPA’s Final Removal Report for this incident
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 22 of 34
describes observed concentrations of hexavalent chromium outside of the mixing zone as
potentially harmful to human health.
VIOLATIONS OF PERMIT CONDITIONS REQUIRING PROPER MAINTENANCE
AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSES TO DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS
98. Pursuant to the 2016 permit, U.S. Steel “shall at all times maintain in good
working order and efficiently operate all facilities and systems . . . for the collection and
treatment which are installed or used by the permittee and which are necessary for achieving
compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit.”
99. Based on publicly available data, U.S. Steel failed to meet maintenance
obligations required by the permit. Photographs taken immediately after the April 2017 spill
show extensive corrosion that allowed for the unpermitted discharge of chromium into Burns
100. The IDEM inspection report following the April 2017 incident rated the facility’s
“Operations and Maintenance” as “unsatisfactory” because of the equipment failure that led to
the re-routing of toxic wastewater. Additionally, IDEM’s post-incident inspection rated “flow
measurement” as “marginal” due to potential obstructions in the channels of two of the facility’s
outfalls.
101. In February 2013, U.S. Steel attributed its excessive chromium discharge to
control malfunctioning.
102. In March 2015, the Midwest Plant exceeded its permitted levels of oil and grease
discharge because a loss of oil-processing capabilities led, according to U.S. Steel’s report, to
“accumulation” of oil “during the week prior” that was either not detected or inadequately
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 23 of 34
103. In two separate but related incidents in April 2016, leaking oil was not properly
contained and mingled with non-contact cooling water, leading to the discharge of untreated oil-
104. In October 2017, U.S. Steel discharged almost twice as much total chromium as
its permit allows. According to U.S. Steel’s report, a technician reported that a daily 24-hour
composite sample for Outfall 204 was “discolored.” Subsequent investigation revealed that flow
through a lamella clarifier was not uniform “due to heavier solids buildup on one side of the
lamella, and as a result there was excessive solids carryover.”
105. According to IDEM, the technician discovered the October 2017 total chromium
violation when, in the course of conducting routine sampling at Outfall 204, the technician
observed that the discharge was “blue with visible solids.”
106. Pursuant to the 2016 permit, in the event of an unauthorized release or discharge,
including any spill, leak or discharge of non-stormwater not authorized by the permit, U.S. Steel
must “take all reasonable steps to minimize or correct any adverse impact to the environment
resulting from noncompliance with [the] permit,” including by conducting accelerated or
additional monitoring to determine the nature and impact of the noncompliance.
107. According to IDEM, U.S. Steel failed to take reasonable steps to minimize or
correct the October 2017 illegal total chromium discharge because U.S. Steel failed to perform
monitoring necessary to determine how much of that illegal discharge was comprised of
hexavalent chromium. IDEM described such monitoring as necessary because the discharge was
“blue with visible solids.”
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 24 of 34
108. These documented maintenance failures indicate a pervasive and persistent failure
by U.S. Steel to maintain the Midwest Plant in good working order as necessary to comply with
the limitations and conditions of its NPDES permit.
109. Upon information and belief, U.S. Steel’s failure in performing its maintenance
responsibilities at the Midwest Plant are not limited to the single days on which the above
consequences of such failures were observed. These observed and reported incidents indicate
that U.S. Steel continues not to maintain properly the Midwest Plant.
REPORTING AND MONITORING VIOLATIONS
110. Both the 2011 permit and the 2016 permit contain conditions that impose various
reporting and monitoring obligations upon U.S. Steel.
111. Pursuant to Part III.A.8 of both the 2011 permit and the 2016 permit, U.S. Steel is
required to list the calculated temperature difference between the daily maximum upstream and
daily maximum downstream temperature.
112. Pursuant to Special Condition [5] to Parts I.A.4–5 of the 2016 permit, U.S. Steel
is required to submit a certification statement in lieu of quarterly monitoring for Total Toxic
113. Pursuant to Part I.A.7 of the 2011 permit, U.S. Steel is required to conduct
quarterly monitoring of stormwater runoff from Outfalls 001, 102, and 103. Per Special
Condition [3], U.S. Steel is allowed to conduct the sampling during any month in the quarter, but
“the result from this reporting timeframe shall be reported on the [quarterly final month] DMR,
regardless of which of the months within the quarter the sample was taken.”
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 25 of 34
114. Pursuant to Parts I.A.4–5 of the 2016 permit, U.S. Steel is required to monitor the
pollutants Total Cyanide, Total Recoverable Zinc, Total Recoverable Chromium, Total
Suspended Solids, and Oil & Grease five times per week for Outfalls 204 and 304.
115. Each row in the following table represents an individual violation by U.S. Steel of
a reporting or monitoring requirement in the 2011 permit or the 2016 permit, by setting forth the
discharge type, date(s) of violation, outfall, description of the violation, and the type of violation:
Discharge Date(s) of Outfall Description of Violation Type of Violation
December No quarterly testing was Not conducted as
2012 conducted in this month required
June 2013 Required quarterly testing data Not reported as required
Temperature 10/01/2014 500A 7.55 F temperature difference Incorrectly calculated
reported as a 2 F difference temperature difference
Temperature 01/06/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
F difference temperature difference
Temperature 01/07/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 01/09/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 01/10/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 01/15/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 01/16/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 01/20/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 01/21/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 01/22/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 04/23/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 04/24/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 06/07/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 26 of 34
Temperature 06/09/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 06/22/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 06/26/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 06/28/2016 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 08/19/16 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 08/20/16 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Temperature 08/21/16 500A 2 F difference reported as 1 Incorrectly calculated
Total Toxic October Missing Total Toxic Organic
Organics 2016 Certification
Total December, 204A, Inadequate monitoring 5 days in a row without
Suspended 2016 304A frequency (should be 5/week) tests (6 days in a row
Solids, Oil & without a test for
Grease, * Note: This constitutes ten cyanide)
Cyanide, independent monitoring
Zinc, and violations as each pollutant
Chromium must be monitored at each
116. Every instance in which U.S. Steel violated its obligation to report accurately the
temperature difference involved U.S. Steel under-reporting the temperature difference, including
one time in which it reported a 7.55F temperature difference as a 2F difference.
STORMWATER ROUTING VIOLATIONS
117. Pursuant to the 2016 permit, certain stormwater management practices that the
2011 permit authorized are currently disallowed. Specifically, the 2016 permit no longer allows
Outfall 004 to discharge stormwater runoff, whereas the 2011 permit allowed for stormwater
discharges to be routed through Outfall 004.
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 27 of 34
118. The fact sheet attached to the 2016 permit indicates that Outfall 004 continues to
handle stormwater runoff from over twenty-five acres of industrial property. If the Midwest
Plant is continuing to route stormwater through Outfall 004, then U.S. Steel has been committing
ongoing permit violations every day—or at least every rainy day on which it has discharged
stormwater—since the issuance of the 2016 permit.
119. In sum, the allegations in this Complaint are based on publicly available
information. Additional information, including information in U.S. Steel’s possession, may
reveal additional violations, and the City expressly reserves the right to amend this Complaint to
reflect, or to otherwise introduce evidence of, any additional violations discovered hereafter
through discovery in this litigation or otherwise.
Pollutant Discharges in Violation of the Permit and the CWA
120. Paragraphs 1 through 119 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
121. At all times relevant to this Complaint, U.S. Steel has discharged and continues to
“discharge” “pollutants” within the meaning of Section 502 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362, into
Burns Waterway.
122. U.S. Steel’s pollutant discharges are discharges from a “point source” into
“navigable waters” of the United States within the meaning of Section 502 of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. § 1362.
123. Burns Waterway and Lake Michigan are “navigable waters” within the meaning
of Section 502(7) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).
124. Between November 13, 2012 and November 13, 2017, U.S. Steel self-reported
ninety violations of the effluent limitations contained in its permit. These ninety violations
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 28 of 34
included excessive discharges of Total Recoverable Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium, Oil &
Grease, and Temperature and violations of Whole Effluent Toxicity standards.
125. Each of U.S. Steel’s ninety permit violations constitutes a violation of Section 301
of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, and is actionable under Section 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
126. Based on U.S. Steel’s ongoing violations of its permit, U.S. Steel will continue to
discharge in violation of Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, unless enjoined by this
127. Pursuant to Sections 309 and 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319 and 1365, and
40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4, U.S. Steel is liable for injunctive relief and civil penalties of up to
$37,500 per day for each of the nineteen violations occurring from January 12, 2009 through
November 2, 2015 and $52,414 per day for each of the seventy-one violations occurring after
November 2, 2015. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1365; 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4.
Violations of Narrative Water Quality Standards in the Permit and the CWA
128. Paragraphs 1 through 127 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
129. Part I.B in both the 2011 permit and the 2016 permit prohibit U.S. Steel from
violating certain “Narrative Water Quality Standards.”
130. U.S. Steel has violated the Narrative Water Quality Standards in its permit on at
least four occasions according to U.S. Steel’s DMRs for the months covering April 2017,
December 2013, and April 2016 (describing two violations).
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 29 of 34
131. Each of U.S. Steel’s four narrative water quality violations constitutes a violation
of a condition or limitation of NPDES permit No. IN0000337 and Section 301 of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. § 1311, and is actionable under Section 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1).
132. Pursuant to Sections 309 and 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319 and 1365, and
$37,500 per day for the violation that occurred between January 12, 2009 and November 2, 2015
and $52,414 per day for each of the three violations occurring after November 2, 2015. 33 U.S.C.
§§ 1311, 1365; 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4.
Failures to Maintain Equipment or to Respond as Required to Permit Violations in
Violation of the CWA
133. Paragraphs 1 through 132 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
134. Pursuant to the 2016 permit, U.S. Steel “shall at all times maintain in good
135. As described above, on at least six occasions, U.S. Steel failed to maintain
properly the Midwest Plant to such a degree as to lead directly to violations of other permit
limitations or conditions.
136. Pursuant to the 2016 permit, in the event of an unauthorized release or discharge,
resulting from noncompliance with the permit,” including by conducting accelerated or
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 30 of 34
137. As described herein, U.S. Steel failed to minimize the adverse impact of its
October 2017 illegal chromium discharge by failing to perform appropriate additional
monitoring for hexavalent chromium.
138. Each of U.S. Steel’s six observed maintenance violations, as well as its additional
failure to minimize the adverse impacts of its October 2017 total chromium violation, constitutes
a violation of a condition or limitation of NPDES permit No. IN0000337 and Section 301 of the
CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, and is actionable under Section 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
139. Because U.S. Steel must meet the maintenance obligations in NPDES permit No.
IN0000337 at all times, U.S. Steel has been in violation of maintenance requirements
continuously for the entire time period relevant to this Complaint, punctuated by the incidents
alleged herein to have been caused by such ongoing maintenance failure.
140. Pursuant to Sections 309 and 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319 and 1365, and
$37,500 per day for each violation occurring from January 12, 2009 through November 2, 2015
and $52,414 per day for each violation occurring after November 2, 2015. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311,
1365; 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4.
Failure to Report or Monitor in Violation of the Permit and the CWA
141. Paragraphs 1 through 140 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
142. According to U.S. Steel’s DMRs, U.S. Steel incorrectly calculated the difference
between daily maximum downstream and daily maximum upstream temperatures, which is
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 31 of 34
required to be accurately reported under Part III.A.8 of both the 2011 permit and the 2016
permit, twenty times during the five-year statute of limitations period.
143. According to U.S. Steel’s DMRs, U.S. Steel failed to attach the certification
statement for 2016 Q3 (July-September), which is required to be submitted under Special
Condition [5] to Parts I.A.4-5 of the 2016 permit, which constitutes a permit violation during the
five-year statute of limitations period.
144. According to U.S. Steel’s DMRs, U.S. Steel failed to report the quarterly
monitoring results in the final month of 2012 Q4 (December) and 2013 Q2 (June), as required by
Part I.A.7 of the 2011 permit, which constitutes two permit violations during the five-year statute
of limitations period.
145. According to U.S. Steel’s DMRs, U.S. Steel did not monitor for the pollutants
Total Cyanide, Total Recoverable Zinc, Total Recoverable Chromium, Total Suspended Solids,
and Oil & Grease for at least five consecutive days at Outfalls 204 and 304 in December 2016,
making it impossible to comply with the five times per week monitoring requirement under Parts
I.A.4-5 of the 2016 permit. This monitoring failure constitutes ten total permit violations—one
for each pollutant at each Outfall.
146. Each of U.S. Steel’s thirty-three monitoring or reporting violations constitutes a
violation of a condition or limitation of NPDES permit No. IN0000337 and Section 301 of the
147. Pursuant to Sections 309 and 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319 and 1365, and
$37,500 per day for each of the three violations occurring from January 12, 2009 through
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 32 of 34
November 2, 2015 and $52,414 per day for each of the thirty violations occurring after
Stormwater Routing in Violation of the Permit and the CWA
148. Paragraphs 1 through 147 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
149. Pursuant to the 2016 permit, certain stormwater management practices that the
150. The fact sheet attached to the 2016 permit indicates that Outfall 004 continues to
handle stormwater runoff from over twenty-five acres of industrial property. If the Midwest Plant
is continuing to route stormwater through Outfall 004, then U.S. Steel has been committing
151. Each of U.S. Steel’s potential stormwater violations constitutes a violation of
NPDES permit No. IN0000337 and Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, and is
actionable under Section 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1).
152. Pursuant to Sections 309 and 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319 and 1365, and
$52,414 per day for each violation occurring after November 2, 2015. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1365;
40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4.
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 33 of 34
153. Paragraphs 1 through 152 are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
154. U.S. Steel has a duty of reasonable care not to discharge toxic pollutants,
including hexavalent chromium, into Lake Michigan in violation of its NPDES permit.
155. U.S. Steel breached its duty of reasonable care to not illegally discharge
hexavalent chromium into Lake Michigan in violation of its NPDES permit.
156. U.S. Steel’s discharge of hexavalent chromium into Lake Michigan was the direct
and proximate cause of the City incurring costs in excess of $75,000, the exact amount to be
proven at trial, to sample, monitor, and assess the threat posed to the City’s drinking water
supply from U.S. Steel’s illegal discharge of hexavalent chromium.
WHEREFORE, the City respectfully request that this Court:
A. Declare that U.S. Steel is in violation of the CWA and NPDES permit No.
IN0000337;
B. Enjoin U.S. Steel from discharging pollutants from its facility into Burns
Waterway unless and only to the extent authorized by NPDES permit No. IN0000337;
C. Order U.S. Steel to complete expeditiously all actions necessary to ensure that it
complies with its permits and all applicable requirements of the CWA;
D. Order U.S. Steel to provide written notice to the City of any illegal discharge by
U.S. Steel’s Midwest Plant into Lake Michigan within one hour of the time of the illegal
USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00033 document 1 filed 01/24/18 page 34 of 34
E. Order U.S. Steel to pay a civil penalty to the United States for each violation that
occurred during the five-year statute of limitations period, and for each subsequent violation until
the company achieves compliance or until this suit is resolved, pursuant to Section 309(d) of the
CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d); 28 U.S.C. § 2461; and 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1–19.4;
F. Award the City its costs of litigation, including attorney and expert fees, pursuant
to Section 505(d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d);
G. Enter an award of damages in favor of the City and against U.S. Steel in an
amount to be determined at trial resulting from U.S. Steel’s negligence, including but not limited
to the costs incurred to sample, monitor, and assess the threat posed to the City’s drinking water
supply from U.S. Steel’s illegal discharge of hexavalent chromium; and
H. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Dated: January 24, 2018. Respectfully submitted,
Corporation Counsel, City of Chicago
BY: /s/ Fiona A. Burke
Fiona A. Burke, Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel
Aviation, Environmental, Regulatory, and Contracts Division
30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1400
312-744-6929
Fiona.Burke@cityofchicago.org
Dokumente ähnlich wie Clean Water Act Lawsuit
fadlifaozy
Paula Karina Sepúlveda Alcayaga
Notice: Environmental statements; notice of intent: Hinton, Summers County, WV; Bluestone Hydropower Project; public scoping meeting
api-242423759
Anonymous f8HBch
api-269833411
Mehr von The Daily Line
Draft Cook County Pension Legislation 05.13.19
Draft Cook County Pension Fund Concerns
C UsersBrownDownloadsConyerErvinletter
S2019 Election Contest 05 Calloway CBOE
S2019 Election Contest 33 Mell CBOE
S2019 Election Contest 46 Lalonde CBOE
Lightfoot Economic Development Policy
Lightfoot Environmental Policy
Beliebt in Hexavalent Chromium
09 Erin Brockovich
MDSW-Orissa09
ALODINE 1200_593964
Sameen Baber
misstish37
7199-Determination of Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water, Groundwater and Industrial Wastewater Effluents by Ion Chromatography
Effect of Chromium Carcinogen
15619015 Hexavalent Chromium is Carcinogenic to F344N Rats and B6C3F1 Miceafter Chronic Oral Exposure
3500_Cr
hex chrome training ppt
api-254303808
CLADOPHORA CELLULOSE–POLYANILINE COMPOSITE FOR REMEDIATION OF TOXIC CHROMIUM (VI).pdf
Mónica Francisca
08-23-13 Edition
EWH-VII
Kolkata Metropolitan Area Water Contamination Report
Case about Hinkley Contamination Water
Ke Yan On
Plating Technology[1].pdf
Gobi PS
03-20-15 Edition
Efectos Cromo hexavalente
70-0716-2599-3_Speedglas Full Line Catalog_LR (1)