USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 1 of 63
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and
`the STATE OF INDIANA,
`
`
`
`
`
`CLEVELAND-CLIFFS BURNS
`HARBOR LLC and CLEVELAND-
`CLIFFS STEEL LLC,
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 22-26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`The United States of America, by the authority of the Attorney General of the United
`
`States and through its undersigned attorneys, acting on behalf of the Administrator of the United
`
`States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and the State of Indiana (“State” or
`
`“Indiana”), on behalf of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”),
`
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), file this Complaint and allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`
`
`This civil action comprises claims brought by the United States and Indiana
`
`against two Defendants, Cleveland-Cliffs Steel LLC (“CC Steel”) and Cleveland-Cliffs Burns
`
`Harbor LLC (“CCBH”) (collectively “Defendants” or “Cleveland-Cliffs”). The claims relate to
`
`the Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor facility (“Burns Harbor Facility” or “Facility”) in Burns
`
`Harbor, Porter County, Indiana, owned and operated by Cleveland-Cliffs. The Facility is used
`
`by Cleveland-Cliffs to manufacture and finish steel.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 2 of 63
`
`
`
`For over five years, Defendants and their steelmaking operation have violated
`
`pollution laws aimed at protecting health and the environment. Those violations include illegal
`
`discharges of cyanide, ammonia, and other pollutants, as well as violations of emergency
`
`reporting requirements in the event of spills. In responding to these illegal discharges, the
`
`United States and Indiana have also incurred costs that are recoverable from Cleveland-Cliffs.
`
`
`
`The United States asserts claims pursuant to the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33
`
`U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., as amended; the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
`
`Act of 1986 (“EPCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11001 et seq.; and the Comprehensive Environmental
`
`Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 9601 et seq. The United States seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, and cost recovery
`
`against Cleveland-Cliffs under the CWA, EPCRA, CERCLA, and their implementing
`
`regulations.
`
`
`
`Indiana asserts claims in this action under Title 13 of the Indiana Code (“IND.
`
`CODE”) and Title 327 of the Indiana Administrative Code (“IAC”). Indiana seeks injunctive
`
`relief, civil penalties, and cost recovery against Cleveland-Cliffs under Title 13 and Title 327,
`
`and the rules adopted thereunder.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 1355; CWA Section 309(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b); EPCRA Section
`
`325(b)(3) and (c)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 11045(b)(3) and (c)(4); and CERCLA Section 113(b), 42
`
`U.S.C. § 9613(b).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 3 of 63
`
`
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted by
`
`Indiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the State claims are related to the federal
`
`claims and form part of the same case or controversy.
`
`
`
`Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, 1391(b) and (c)
`
`and 1395(a); CWA Section 309(b), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(b); EPCRA Section 325(b)(3), 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 11045(b)(3); and CERCLA Sections 107 and 113(b), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607 and 9613(b), because
`
`the violations at the Facility have occurred and are occurring in this judicial district, and the
`
`release occurred within this district.
`
`NOTICE
`
`
`
`As a signatory to this Complaint, Indiana has actual notice of the commencement
`
`of this action in accordance with Section 309(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs are the United States, on behalf of EPA, and the State of Indiana, on
`
`behalf of IDEM.
`
`
`
`The United States Department of Justice has authority to bring this action on
`
`behalf of the Administrator of the EPA, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 516 and 519.
`
`
`
`The Indiana Attorney General is authorized to appear and represent Indiana in this
`
`case pursuant to IND. CODE §§ 4-6-3-2(a), 13-30-4-1, and 13-14-2-6.
`
`
`
`Defendant CCBH is organized as a limited liability company under the laws of
`
`Delaware, with a principal place of business in Burns Harbor, Indiana.
`
`
`
`Defendant CC Steel is organized as a limited liability company under the laws of
`
`Delaware, with a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. CC Steel is the parent
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 4 of 63
`
`company of CCBH. CC Steel and CCBH are collectively referred to as “Cleveland-Cliffs” in
`
`this Complaint.
`
`
`
`Since December 9, 2020, Defendants CCBH and CC Steel have owned and
`
`operated a steel manufacturing and finishing facility known as the Burns Harbor Facility located
`
`at 250 U.S. Route 12, in Burns Harbor, Porter County, Indiana.
`
`
`
`Prior to December 9, 2020, the Burns Harbor Facility was owned and operated by
`
`ArcelorMittal USA, LLC, and ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor, LLC (“AMBH”).
`
`
`
`Cleveland-Cliffs completed its acquisition of ArcelorMittal USA, LLC, and all its
`
`subsidiaries, including AMBH, on December 9, 2020. As part of the acquisition, Cleveland-
`
`Cliffs assumed all ArcelorMittal liabilities relevant to the claims in this action.
`
`
`
`Defendants CCBH and CC Steel are each “persons” within the meaning of CWA
`
`Section 502(5), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5), EPCRA Section 329(7), 42 U.S.C. § 11049(7); CERCLA
`
`Sections 101(21), 103(a) and 107, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(21), 9603(a) and 9607.
`
`
`
`CC Steel is the corporate parent of CCBH and, based upon reasonable
`
`investigation and the opportunity to take further discovery, exercises financial and managerial
`
`control over the Facility and over CCBH and has participated in, controlled, and/or directed the
`
`activities underlying the violations alleged in this Complaint.
`
`STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`
`Provisions of the Clean Water Act and Indiana Law
`CWA Section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of any
`
`
`
`pollutant by any person except, inter alia, in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge
`
`Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued by EPA or an authorized state pursuant to CWA
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 5 of 63
`
`Section 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. Pursuant to 327 IAC 5-2-2, Indiana prohibits the discharge of
`
`pollutants to “waters of the state” except as authorized by a duly issued NPDES permit.
`
`
`
`CWA Section 502(12), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12), defines “discharge of a pollutant”
`
`to mean, among other things, “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point
`
`source.” See also 327 IAC 5-1.5-11 (similarly defining “discharge of a pollutant”).
`
`
`
`CWA Section 502(6), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6), defines “pollutant” as “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.” See also 327
`
`IAC 5-1.5-41.
`
`
`
`CWA Section 502(7), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7), defines “navigable waters” as “waters
`
`of the United States, including territorial seas.” Indiana law defines “waters of the state” to
`
`include “the accumulations of water, surface and underground, natural and artificial, public and
`
`private, or a part of the accumulations of water that are wholly or partially within, flow through,
`
`or border upon Indiana.” IND. CODE § 13-11-2-265.
`
`
`
`CWA Section 502(14), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14), 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 other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be
`
`discharged.” See also 327 IAC 5-1.5-40.
`
`
`
`CWA Section 402(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a), provides that EPA may issue NPDES
`
`permits that authorize the discharge of any pollutant to navigable waters, upon the condition that
`
`such discharge will meet certain specific requirements of the CWA or such other conditions as
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 6 of 63
`
`EPA determines necessary to carry out the provisions of the CWA. In addition, EPA may
`
`prescribe conditions pertaining to test procedures, data and information collection, reporting, and
`
`such other requirements as deemed appropriate by EPA.
`
`
`
`40 C.F.R. § 122.21(g) requires permit applicants to identify “each type of process,
`
`operation, or production area which contributes wastewater to the effluent for each outfall,”
`
`along with average flows and a description of the treatment the wastewater receives. An
`
`applicant must also provide “[a] line drawing of the water flow through the facility with a water
`
`balance, showing operations contributing wastewater to the effluent and treatment units.”
`
`
`
`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 the point
`
`sources into navigable waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11).
`
`
`
`Effluent limitations can be numeric effluent limitations, which prohibit a facility
`
`from exceeding concentration or mass-based limits on pollutants in a discharge into receiving
`
`waterbodies.
`
`
`
`Pollutants are subject to different types of numeric effluent limitations, such as
`
`maximum, minimum, daily maximum, 7-day average, and monthly average. A pollutant may be
`
`subject to multiple limits, such as a daily and a 7-day or monthly average limit.
`
`
`
`Effluent limitations can also be narrative standards, which prohibit a facility from
`
`causing unacceptable impacts onto and into receiving waterbodies.
`
`
`
`327 IAC 2-6.1-5(4) requires a facility to report “spills to surface waters that
`
`include . . . hazardous substances or extremely hazardous substances when the amount spilled
`
`exceeds one hundred (100) pounds or the reportable quantity, whichever is less.” Pursuant to
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 7 of 63
`
`327 IAC 2-6.1-7(3), upon discovery of a reportable spill, a facility must communicate the spill to
`
`IDEM as soon as possible, but within two hours of discovery.
`
`
`
`CWA Section 402(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b), provides that a state may establish and
`
`administer its own permit program, and, after EPA authorizes the state’s program, it may also
`
`issue NPDES permits.
`
`
`
`On January 1, 1975, pursuant to CWA Section 402(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b), EPA
`
`delegated the administration of the federal NPDES permit program to the State of Indiana for
`
`discharges into the navigable waters within its jurisdiction. IDEM administers the NPDES
`
`permitting program in Indiana pursuant to IND. CODE § 13-13-5-1(1) and, with EPA, maintains
`
`concurrent enforcement authority over NPDES permits in Indiana.
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding the delegation of NPDES permitting and enforcement authority
`
`to a state under CWA Section 402(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b), EPA retains the authority to
`
`commence a civil action for appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction,
`
`when any person violates, among other things, CWA Section 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, or violates
`
`any of the terms or conditions of an NPDES permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b). Additionally, Indiana
`
`may seek injunctive relief for a violation of Indiana’s water pollution control laws pursuant to
`
`IND. CODE §§ 13-30-1-1; 13-30-4-1(b)(2).
`
`
`
`CWA Section 309(d), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d), provides that any person who violates
`
`Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, or who violates any condition or limitation of an
`
`NPDES permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, shall be subject to
`
`civil penalties not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation.
`
`
`
`The Civil Penalties Inflation Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. § 2461 et seq., as amended
`
`by the Debt Collection Improvements Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq., and the Federal
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 8 of 63
`
`Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, require EPA to periodically
`
`adjust its civil penalties for inflation. On December 11, 2008, August 1, 2016, January 15, 2017,
`
`January 15, 2018, January 13, 2020, and January 12, 2022, EPA adopted and revised regulations
`
`entitled “Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule,” 40 C.F.R. Part 19, to upwardly
`
`adjust the maximum civil penalty under the CWA. For each violation that occurs between
`
`January 13, 2009, and through November 2, 2015, inclusive, penalties of up to $37,500 per day
`
`may be assessed; and $59,973 per day for each violation occurring on or after November 2,
`
`2015. 73 Fed. Reg. 75340 (Dec. 11, 2008); 81 Fed. Reg. 43091 (July 1, 2016); 85 Fed. Reg.
`
`1753 (Jan. 13, 2020), as amended at 85 Fed. Reg. 83820 (Dec. 23, 2020); 87 Fed. Reg. 1676
`
`(Jan. 12, 2022).
`
`
`
`The provisions of 327 IAC § 5-2-20 and IND. CODE §§ 13-30-4-1 and 13-14-2-6
`
`authorize Indiana to commence a civil action “in any court with jurisdiction” for appropriate
`
`relief to address environmental violations, including violations of Title 327 of the IAC, Article 5.
`
`Such relief may include a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day for each violation.
`
`Provisions of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
`
`
`
`EPCRA was enacted on October 17, 1986, as Title III of the Superfund
`
`Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-499 (1986) (codified at 42 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 11001-11050).
`
`
`
`The purpose of EPCRA is to provide communities with information on potential
`
`chemical hazards within their boundaries and to foster state and local emergency planning efforts
`
`to control any accidental releases. Emergency Planning and Community Right to-Know
`
`Programs, Interim Final Rule, 51 Fed. Reg. 41,570 (1986).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 9 of 63
`
`
`
`EPCRA mandates that state emergency response commissions (“SERC”) and
`
`local emergency planning committees (“LEPC”) be created. 42 U.S.C. § 11001(a) and (c).
`
`EPCRA establishes a framework of state, regional, and local agencies designed to inform the
`
`public about the presence of hazardous and toxic chemicals, and to provide for emergency
`
`response in the event of a health-threatening release. 42 U.S.C. § 11001.
`
`
`
`Sections 304(a) and (b) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11004(a) and (b), require the
`
`owner and operator of a facility at which a hazardous chemical is produced, used, or stored, to
`
`immediately notify the SERC and LEPC of certain specified releases of a hazardous or extremely
`
`hazardous substance. See also IND. CODE 13-25-2-6.
`
`
`
`Section 304(c) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11004(c), requires the owner and operator
`
`of a facility at which a hazardous chemical is produced, used, or stored, to provide follow-up
`
`written emergency notice to the SERC and LEPC of certain specified releases of a hazardous or
`
`extremely hazardous substance. See also IND. CODE 13-25-2-7.
`
`
`
`Section 329(4) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11049(4), and 40 C.F.R. § 355.20 define
`
`“facility” to mean, in relevant part, all buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary
`
`items which are located on a single site and that are owned or operated by the same person.
`
`
`
`Section 325(b)(3) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11045(b)(3), provides that any person
`
`who violates the notice requirements of Section 304 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11004, shall be
`
`liable to the United States for civil penalties.
`
`
`
`Section 325(b)(3) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11045(b)(3), authorizes EPA to assess
`
`a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day of violation, and in the case of a second or subsequent
`
`violation $75,000 per day of violation, of EPCRA Section 304, 42 U.S.C. § 11004. The Debt
`
`Collection Improvements Act of 1996, 31 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq., and the Federal Civil Penalties
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 10 of 63
`
`Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, require EPA to periodically adjust its civil
`
`penalties for inflation. On December 11, 2008, August 1, 2016, January 15, 2017, and January
`
`15, 2018, EPA adopted and revised regulations entitled “Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation
`
`Adjustment Rule,” 40 C.F.R. Part 19, to upwardly adjust the maximum civil penalty under
`
`EPCRA. For each violation that occurs after November 2, 2015, penalties of up to $62,689 per
`
`day may be assessed. Additionally, in the case of a second or subsequent violation, for each
`
`violation that occurs after November 2, 2015, penalties of up to $188,069 per day may be
`
`assessed. 87 Fed. Reg. 1676 (Jan. 12, 2022).
`
`
`
`The provisions of IND. CODE §§ 13-30-4-1 and 13-14-2-6 authorize Indiana to
`
`commence a civil action “in any court with jurisdiction” for appropriate relief to address
`
`environmental violations, including violations of IND. CODE § 13-25-2. Such relief may
`
`include a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day for each violation.
`
`
`
`Provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
`Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
`
`
`
`CERCLA’s immediate emergency notification requirements are designed to
`
`provide the government with information necessary to quickly evaluate the need for response
`
`action to prevent or mitigate damage to public health or welfare or the environment.
`
`
`
`Section 103(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a), provides that: “Any person in
`
`charge of . . . an onshore facility shall, as soon as he has knowledge of any release (other than a
`
`federally permitted release) . . . of a hazardous substance from such . . . facility in quantities
`
`equal to or greater than those determined pursuant to Section 9602 of this title, immediately
`
`notify the National Response Center . . . of such release.”
`
`
`
`The Burns Harbor Facility is an “onshore facility” as defined in Section 101 of
`
`CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(18), and 40 C.F.R. § 355.20.
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 11 of 63
`
`
`
`Section 104(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604(a), provides, among other things,
`
`that “[w]henever (A) any hazardous substance is released or there is a substantial threat of such a
`
`release into the environment, or (B) there is a release or substantial threat of release into the
`
`environment of any pollutant or contaminant which may present an imminent and substantial
`
`danger to the public health or welfare, the President is authorized to act, consistent with the
`
`national contingency plan, to remove or arrange for the removal of, and provide for remedial
`
`action relating to such hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant at any time (including its
`
`removal from any contaminated natural resource) or take any other response measure consistent
`
`with the national contingency plan which the President deems necessary to protect the public
`
`health or welfare or the environment.”
`
`
`
`Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), provides in pertinent part:
`
`Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject only to the defenses set forth in
`subsection (b) of this section:
`
`
`(1) the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility, . . . from which there is a release, or a
`threatened release which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance, shall
`be liable for—
`all costs of removal . . . action incurred by the United States Government . . . not
`(A)
`inconsistent with the national contingency plan . . .;
`
`
`
`
`Section 109(c)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9609(c)(1), includes provisions for
`
`civil enforcement in United States District Court and judicial assessment of penalties. CERCLA
`
`provides that EPA may commence a civil action in United States District Court to assess and
`
`recover a civil penalty for violation of the emergency reporting requirements for each day during
`
`which the violation continues.
`
`
`
`CERCLA authorizes a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day for each violation
`
`and, in the case of a second or subsequent violation, of up to $75,000 for each day during which
`
`the violation continues. These amounts have been increased under the Debt Collection
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 12 of 63
`
`Improvement Act of 1996, as implemented by the Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment
`
`Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 19, such that the statutory maximum penalties for the EPCRA/CERCLA
`
`violations addressed in this Complaint are $62,689 per day and $188,069 per violation per day
`
`(depending on when the violation occurred) in the case of a second or subsequent violation. 87
`
`Fed. Reg. 1676 (Jan. 12, 2022).
`
`
`
`CERCLA Section 113(g)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2), provides in pertinent part:
`
`“In any such action [for recovery of costs] . . ., the court shall enter a declaratory judgment on
`
`liability for response costs or damages that will be binding on any subsequent action or actions to
`
`recover further response costs or damages.”
`
`
`
`The President has delegated most of his authorities under CERCLA, including
`
`authorities under Sections 103(a), 104(a) and 107(a), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9603(a), 9604(a) and 9607(a),
`
`to the Administrator of EPA, who in turn has re-delegated them to the Regional Administrators
`
`of EPA and other officials, including the Director of Superfund Division for EPA Region 5.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants or their predecessors have
`
`owned and operated the Burns Harbor Facility, a steel manufacturing and finishing facility, in
`
`Burns Harbor, Porter County, Indiana.
`
`The Burns Harbor Facility and its Outfalls
`
`
`
`The Burns Harbor Facility is one of the largest fully integrated steel mills in
`
`North America, with the capacity to produce approximately 5 million tons of raw steel per year.
`
`
`
`As an integrated steel mill, the Burns Harbor Facility is classified under Standard
`
`Industrial Classification Code 3312 (Integrated Steel Mill). Facility operations include sintering,
`
`iron making, steel making, continuous casting, acid pickling, hot forming, cold rolling, alkaline
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 13 of 63
`
`cleaning, and galvanizing. The Burns Harbor Facility’s intermediate and final products include
`
`coke and coke making byproducts, sinter, molten iron, raw steel, steel slabs, hot rolled strip,
`
`plate, cold rolled strip, and hot dip galvanized strip.
`
`
`
`Under the authority of CWA Section 402(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b) and IND.
`
`CODE § 13-13-5-1 (1), the State of Indiana issued to CCBH NPDES Permit number IN0000175
`
`(“Permit”) imposing terms and conditions on all discharges from the Burns Harbor Facility.
`
`
`
`A prior version of NPDES Permit No. IN0000175 was in effect from March 1,
`
`2011 to June 30, 2016 (“2011 Permit”). IDEM renewed NPDES permit, No. IN0000175 in
`
`2016, which came into effect on July 1, 2016, and remains in effect (“2016 Permit”).
`
`
`
`Cleveland-Cliffs uses water for a number of steelmaking and pollution-control
`
`operations at the Facility. The Facility’s NPDES Permit authorizes it to discharge treated
`
`wastewater, stormwater, and non-contact cooling water, as well as treated sanitary sewage
`
`wastewater from the Town of Burns Harbor’s wastewater treatment plant, which is permitted
`
`under Operational Permit Number INJ060801.
`
`
`
`Cleveland-Cliffs operates one water treatment plant, called the Secondary
`
`Wastewater Treatment Plant (“SWTP”), to treat wastewater after the water has been used in
`
`various Facility processes. The SWTP treats the following process wastewaters prior to
`
`discharge: Sintering; Iron Making (Blast Furnaces C and D); Steel Making (Basic
`
`Oxygen Furnaces Nos. 1, 2, and 3); Vacuum Degassing; Continuous Casting (casters Nos. 1 and
`
`2); Hot Forming (110” Plate Mill, 160” Plate Mill, and 80” Hot Strip Mill); Acid Pickling (Nos.
`
`1 and 2 Picklers, Continuous Heat Treat Line); Cold Rolling (Tandem Mill and Temper Mill);
`
`Alkaline Cleaning (Continuous Heat Treat Line and Hot Dip Coating Line); Galvanizing (Hot
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 14 of 63
`
`Dip Coating); and Landfill leachate from the Deerfield Retention Pond. The SWTP treatment
`
`includes pH adjustment, oil separation, flocculation/coagulation, and clarification.
`
`
`
`The Facility’s NPDES Permit authorizes discharge via three external outfalls
`
`(Outfalls 001, 002, and 003). Outfall 001 discharges from the Facility to the East Branch of the
`
`Little Calumet River, Outfall 002 discharges from the Facility to Burns Harbor, and Outfall 003
`
`discharges from the Facility to Lake Michigan.
`
`
`
`The Facility’s NPDES Permit also authorizes discharge via two internal outfalls
`
`(Outfalls 011 and 111). Internal outfalls carry water from Facility processes or operations and
`
`are combined with other waters or waste streams prior to ultimate discharge from an external
`
`outfall.
`
`
`
`All discharges from the Facility’s External Outfalls 001, 002, and 003, and
`
`Internal Outfalls 011 and 111, are subject to the terms and conditions of the Facility’s NPDES
`
`Permit.
`
`
`
`Outfall 001 discharges into the East Branch of the Little Calumet River, which
`
`flows into Lake Michigan. The flow to Outfall 001 includes treated wastewater from the SWTP;
`
`treated sanitary sewage wastewater from the Town of Burns Harbor’s wastewater treatment
`
`plant; and the flow from a storm ditch, which is comprised of non-contact cooling water, storm
`
`water, and Lake Michigan water. Between April 2015 and December 2019, Outfall 001 had an
`
`average discharge of approximately 121 million gallons per day (“MGD”).
`
`
`
`Internal Outfall 011 is comprised of treated process wastewater from the
`
`Facility’s SWTP and treated sanitary sewage wastewater from the Town of Burns Harbor. The
`
`effluent from the Town of Burns Harbor’s wastewater treatment plant merges with the effluent
`
`from the SWTP and this combined wastestream is routed through two polishing lagoons prior to
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 15 of 63
`
`discharge through Outfall 011. Between April 2015 and December 2019, Internal Outfall 011
`
`had an average discharge of approximately 65 MGD. External Outfall 001 is approximately 600
`
`feet downstream of Outfall 011.
`
`
`
`Outfall 002 discharges into Burns Harbor. The discharge from Outfall 002
`
`consists of noncontact cooling water, treated process wastewater from the lagoon re-circulating
`
`pump station, building dewatering, groundwater, miscellaneous non-process waters, and
`
`stormwater. Between April 2015 and December 2019, Outfall 002 had an average discharge of
`
`approximately 197 MGD.
`
`
`
`Outfall 003 discharges to Lake Michigan. The discharge from Outfall 003
`
`consists of backwash from the No. 1 and 2 Lake Water Pump Station’s traveling screens. The
`
`traveling screens are used to filter Lake Michigan water that is taken into the Facility, before the
`
`lake water is used in the Facility’s operations. The screens are regularly backwashed, using Lake
`
`Michigan water again, and the backwash goes back out into Lake Michigan via Outfall 003.
`
`
`
`Internal Outfall 111 is an internal monitoring point from the final thickener at the
`
`Reclamation Services Building. Its discharge is limited to treated process wastewater from the
`
`sinter plant and blast furnace hydrocyclone overheads. This discharge flows to the SWTP, then
`
`to Outfall 011, then to the East Branch of the Little Calumet River through Outfall 001.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 16 of 63
`
`
`
`The diagram below is a “Flow Diagram” included in the Fact Sheet for
`
`Cleveland-Cliffs’ draft NPDES Permit currently being considered for renewal. It shows the flow
`
`of water through the Facility, to the various outfalls.
`
`
`
`Burns Harbor Facility Blast Furnace and Wastewater Treatment and Recycle System
`
`
`
`The Burns Harbor Facility has two blast furnaces, C Furnace and D Furnace,
`
`which are used for smelting and under normal circumstances run continuously. Each furnace has
`
`a dust catcher and a wet scrubber to remove pollution from blast furnace gas.
`
` Wet scrubbers are air pollution control devices for removing pollutants from
`
`industrial exhaust gases. A wet scrubber operates by introducing the dirty gas stream with a
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 17 of 63
`
`scrubbing liquid, usually water. At the Burns Harbor Facility, water is added to the dirty gas
`
`stream from the blast furnaces to collect the pollutants.
`
`
`
`The wet scrubber process generates wastewater that contains pollutants, including
`
`cyanide and ammonia. The scrubber wastewater is recycled and reused for the Facility’s wet
`
`scrubber process through a “closed loop” system in the blast furnace gas water recycling system
`
`(“Blast Furnace Gas Cleaning Recycle System” or “Recycle System”).
`
`
`
`The Blast Furnace Gas Cleaning Recycle System includes pumps, wells, and
`
`other equipment, housed in the Blast Furnace Closed Water Pumping Station (“Pump Station”).
`
`The power source for the pumps is a 5,000-volt electrical feed. The power source for the pump
`
`controls is a self-recharging 250-volt DC battery system (“Recycle Pump Control Battery”).
`
`
`
`The closed loop Recycle System consists of two thickeners that clarify
`
`wastewater and remove certain pollutants, underground sewers connecting the thickeners to the
`
`Pump Station, and the Pump Station, which recirculates treated scrubber wastewater for reuse in
`
`the blast furnace wet scrubbers. The Pump Station includes a hot well, cooling towers that cool
`
`the wastewater, and a cold well.
`
`
`
`Scrubber wastewater is clarified in the pair of 90-foot diameter thickeners. The
`
`thickeners work by removing suspended solids from the scrubber wastewater. Overflow from
`
`these thickeners flows by gravity through an underground sewer and into the Pump Station hot
`
`well. Thickener “underflow,” or settled sludge from the thickeners, goes to the Reclamation
`
`Services Building for dewatering and disposal of solids.
`
`
`
`Hot well water is conditioned and pumped to parallel cooling towers using two of
`
`three available AC-powered hot well lift pumps. The cooled water then flows by gravity to the
`
`cold well. There are four AC-powered cold well pumps. One pump is typically operated with
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`USDC IN/ND case 2:22-cv-00026 document 1 filed 02/14/22 page 18 of 63
`
`the other three in standby mode. Cold well water is pumped to the “C” and “D” scrubber pump
`
`houses to be reused in the wet scrubbers for the blast furnace gas. This completes the recycle
`
`loop.
`
`
`
`Under normal operations, 200 to 500 gallons per minute (“GPM”) of recycled
`
`scrubber wastewater is “blown down” (i.e. removed from the Recycle System) on an intermittent
`
`basis from the cold well to the SWTP to maintain chemical and hydraulic balances. “Make-up”
`
`water (i.e. additional water from Lake Michigan) may be added to the wells to maintain balance
`
`within the Recycle System.
`
`
`
`In the event the Recycle System experiences elevated concentrations of cyanide,
`
`the scrubber wastewater that is blown down from the Recycle System can be directed to a
`
`cyanide treatment system to destroy cyanide before discharging to the SWTP. It would typically
`
`be used when a furnace is being shut down or being brought back online after an extended
`
`outage, which can result in higher concentrations of cyanide in blast furnace gases during the
`
`startup period.
`
`
`
`The sole waste streams from the Recycle System to the SWTP authorized by the
`
`NPDES Permit are: (1) underflow from the thickeners that has been dewatered; and (2) treated
`
`blown down scrubber wastewater that has been blown down to maintain a hydraulic balance
`
`within the R