The Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal
The Facts of Dredging
Disposal of Dredged Material
The Plan
Safety
Defending the Project
The Opposition
 

The Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal

     The Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal is located in East Chicago, Indiana and lies at the southern tip of Lake Michigan, about twelve miles southeast of downtown Chicago.  The Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal is a federal navigation channel that connects to the Grand Calumet River via the canal.  These three waterways are in the center of what was once one of the world’s largest concentrations of industry.  Though the industry in this area has decreased, pollution of these waterways has not.  Ninety percent of the discharge into these areas is either industrial or municipal which has led to severe contamination and pollution of the water and sediment in all three areas (1).

     The Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal was last dredged in 1972.  At that time, open water disposal of the sediment into Lake Michigan was allowed.  Today, that method is no longer acceptable due to the highly polluted nature of the sediment.  It is estimated that approximately 200 million pounds (150,000 CY) of contaminated sediment enters Lake Michigan from the harbor and ship canal annually.  This 200 million pounds of sediment contains at least 77,000 pounds of chromium, 100,000 pounds of lead, and 420 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) to name just a few.  Contained in an area the size of the harbor and ship canal, removing the sediment proves difficult enough.  But once it enters Lake Michigan, removal is much more difficult if not impossible, posing serious health risks to millions of people who receive their drinking water from Lake Michigan.  Also at risk is the aquatic and wildlife in that area.  In 1987, the EPA, under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, identified the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal as well as the Grand Calumet River as a Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC), ranking them number one on the list.

     The dredging will occur inside the breakwaters of the harbor and upstream from the harbor.  The canal is the portion of water upstream from the harbor.  The canal extends from the E.J. & E. Railway Bridge upstream to the Forks, approximately 7400 feet.

The Facts of Dredging

     First of all, dredging is simply the removal of material from the bottom of lakes, rivers, harbors and other bodies of water.  Most dredging is done to maintain or deepen navigation channels.  Environmental dredging is performed for the express purpose of reducing human and aquatic and wildlife exposure to contaminants and to prevent the spread of these contaminants to other bodies of water.

     One might ask why dredge a body of water that we know is contaminated.  Unfortunately, since that Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal is a navigational channel with heavy ship traffic, every time a ship passes through, it is dragging on the bottom of the sediment and stirring it up which causes re-suspension of the pollutants in that sediment.  This re-suspension makes it easier for the polluted sediment to be carried into cleaner areas, in this case, Lake Michigan.

     There are two main ways to dredge:  mechanical and hydraulic.

¨ Mechanical dredging has two types.  Dipper and clam – shell dredges, in which a crane uses a closed bucket to remove sediment from the canal or harbor bottom.

¨ Hydraulic dredging uses a pump and pipeline to “vacuum” sediment from the bottom, which can then be pumped directly to a disposal site or transferred onto a barge and transported
 
 

     Before dredged material is authorized for disposal, it must satisfy a three - part review in accordance with the applicable regulation:
 

1) There must be a demonstrated need for the dredging
2) There must be a comprehensive analysis of all reasonable methods of and places of disposal of the dredged material
3) Testing must be performed to ensure that the material to be placed must not harm the environment in which it is to be placed

          Some of the options available for the management of dredged material include:

• Open water placement
•  Beneficial use
•  Capping
•  Confined disposal facility (CDF)
•  Treatment

     Beneficial use involves the placement of dredged material directly onto a beach, into shallow water, as construction fill or as landscaping.  Again, if the sediment is contaminated, this method cannot be used.

     Capping is the placement of contaminated dredging material into an underwater hole and then covering with a layer of clean material.

     Confined disposal is placement of dredged material – usually contaminated – into a secure area where the sediment is physically contained.  Confined disposal facilities (CDF) are walled structures and are used mainly when the previous methods cannot be used.

     Treatment technologies are available to destroy, extract or immobilize sediment contaminants.  Currently in varying stages of development, there is no one, universal fix, one treatment that would address all the contaminants in the sediment at one time.

back to top

The Plan

     Currently, the planned method to be used by the USACE will be the closed bucket or clam - shell mechanical dredge method.  One of the main reasons for the use of this method is that less water is included in the dredged material and because of the large amount of debris and sediment that is to be dredged.  Because the project is to last thirty years or longer, the Corp says that they will evaluate the use of new dredging and disposal technology throughout the process.

     Once the sediment is dredged, it will be transported to a CDF approximately one mile away.  According to the Corps, the CDF will be a clay CDF that is to be built on an open Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) site.

     Just briefly, the site will be capped with clay and a cut-off wall will enclose the site and extend approximately thirty feet into the ground to provide a barrier to the movement of ground water on and off the site.  In addition to the clay cap and cut-off wall, a ground water extraction system will be installed to maintain the flow of groundwater towards the site so that contaminated groundwater can be captured and treated before being discharged.  Clay – lined dikes will be built on the property, and the dredged sediment will be placed in the diked enclosure.  The sediment will be allowed to de-water, with the water from the sediment along with the groundwater from within the cut-off walls, being treated in a specially designed on-site treatment plant.  After the dredging is completed, the material will be capped with clay as well.
 

Safety

     The USACE website states that the project is designed to dredge and safely dispose of the contaminated sediment in a way that is:

• Safe to human health
• Improves the environment
• Economically beneficial

     The environment will improve because removing these polluted sediments greatly decreases the risk to our drinking water supply.  We also get two for the price of one, since the area designated for the CDF is currently on open RCRA location site, located approximately 800 feet behind East Chicago Central High School.  This site will also be “cleaned up” in the process of disposing of the toxic sediment.  When it is completed in approximately 30 years, the site will be capped.  The UASCE website states that dredging will increase boating, fishing, and swimming opportunities – though I personally would not feel safe boating, fishing, or swimming in an area that has mostly barges and huge ore boats passing through all the time.  And lastly, there will be recreational potential on the CDF site – tennis anyone?

     The dredging will be economically beneficial because it will restore full use of the navigation channel by deepening the waterway allowing deep-draft shipping that is currently limited.  It will also expand business opportunities in the harbor area by providing employment, increasing the tax base and improving livability in the area.
 

Defending the Project

     The project partners are quick to remind us of the risk assessment completed in 1995, and the additional risk assessments that are currently being done to show us that the CDF will pose no health risks to the neighborhood and school nearby.  To determine the potential air pollution downwind of the CDF, the EPA and Corps have conducted testing of air emissions from the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal sediment in lab settings.  In these “controlled” settings, results showed that the air quality 100 meters away from the CDF would be the same as the existing air quality.  The EPA risk analysis also indicated that the CDF operation would not add any additional “quantifiable” risks to the environment.  Controlled lab simulations of the CDF confirm the conclusion that the CDF will not have a quantifiable air quality impact as well.

     To measure the air quality, five monitoring stations have been installed and operational since November 6, 2001.  Four stations are on the perimeters of the property and one was installed directly next to the high school football field.  The results of the initial background monitoring and current readings taken every six days can be accessed from the Corps website – http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil.

back to top

Opposition

     First, there is no argument on whether the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal should be dredged.  Most agree that it is a necessary “evil” that must be undertaken because of the potentially devastating effects it could have if just left there and not removed.

     The areas of disagreement come in when talking about the methodology for dredging and disposing of the sediment, the placement of the CDF and the potential health risks associated with the CDF.

     Members of the Coalition for a Clean Environment would prefer that a hydraulic method for dredging be used as discussed earlier.  The sediment would be pumped directly to the CDF, with no possible risk of volatilization occurring in the transporting process.

     But even more “volatile”  is the issue of the disposal of the sediment once it has been dredged, which would be into a CDF.  This 131-acre CDF, to be located on the former Energy Cooperative property, is just 800 yards from East Chicago Central High School and amongst hundreds of residential homes.

     The Corps Environmental Impact Statement that the CDF would pose a “minimal health threat” is of very little comfort to residents living in that area or to parents of children attending Central High School.  The EPA’s risk analysis for potential air emissions from the proposed CDF states that the CDF will not have a quantifiable impact on air quality.  Another article from the EPA states that the CDF would pose an increased lifetime cancer risk to an individual of two in a million.  I guess that’s what they mean when they say that the risk is not quantifiable.  After all, two people out of a million.

     The EPA says that the risk for cancer is “statistically irrelevant” because people that live in East Chicago and breath the air already have a three in 10,000 chance of getting cancer already.  So??  Does that make it more acceptable to increase their risk even further?  Does that mean that the residential community that had no industry or heavy traffic flow, and had a much lower risk of cancer, would not “qualify” for a CDF??

     In essence, what the EPA is saying is that areas that have a lower socio-economic base, such as East Chicago, would be more suited to have a CDF.  That way, we wouldn’t know the exact source of the cancer.  And an area that was mostly middle to upper class would miss out on the perils of such a facility.    Could this be an example of environmental injustice?

     Betty Balanoff of the Coalition for a Clean Environment said that is exactly these statistical insignificances that are the most important to them. One thing she pointed to was the whole idea of the risk assessments.  Risk assessment is simply the determination of the probabilities and magnitudes of potential toxic effects due to a exposure to and chemical(s) in a specific situation.  The risk assessment involve four steps:

• Hazard identification – what effects can a toxic compound have?
• Dose-response assessment – at what doses do the effects occur?
• Exposure assessment – to what levels of the compound are people exposed?
• Risk characterization – based on the answers to 1, 2, & 3, are people likely to be at risk?

     Consequently, over the years, risk assessment has shown us that:
 

• It is an art rather than science
• Risk assessments are inherently unfair and exclude the public from decision making
• Risk assessments ask the wrong questions because they assume that some level of risk is acceptable
• Risk assessments can be easily manipulated
• Risk assessments are often used to justify pre-determines policy choices – not to make decisions about what would be safe

     In response to the air-monitoring stations, Colleen Aquirre, a well-known East Chicago activist states that the monitors are just a false sense of security.  “It is a testing procedure, not a protection procedure”.  If contamination levels increase and site activities are thought to be the cause, work will stop until the data is evaluated, according to a written response by the USACE.  Furthermore, work will proceed only after it is determined that there are no potential adverse impacts to human health and safety.

    What does all this mean?  In my opinion Nothing!!!  How high do the levels have to get?  Who determines if the site activities are the cause?  Who will evaluate the data?  And, will the dredging really stop for months in order to determine the adverse impacts to human health and safety?  That sounds like something that should have been done before the project started.

     Also conveniently missing or not easily accessible is the scientific data.  The Corps and EPA give links to this information but if you already live in a depressed socio-economic area, will you have a computer, let alone be able to afford the monthly internet fee?

     All these concerns and questions have also prompted Rep. John Aguilera to author House Resolution 72, which passed the House on a voice vote.  The resolution urges the formation of an interim legislative study committee to examine the effects of the current plan by the USACE.  The decision on whether to support such a committee rests with the Indiana Legislative Council, a leadership group of Representatives and Senators charged with handling such issues.

     Lastly, an interesting point brought up by members of the Grand Cal Task Force.  Their criticism is not with the Corps who they feel has been given the job of dredging the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal in the most cost-effective manner.  They instead feel that it is wrong for the EPA, which is supposed to protect people against environmental risks, to tell the people of East Chicago that is should not be concerned about a 2 in a million additional risk of cancer.  It is also wrong of IDEM and the City of East Chicago not to require the EPA to do more to protect the community and its residents.  The EPA and IDEM have in actuality allowed the sources to pollute and make the community an unhealthy place to live.  Now they expect the citizens to “pay” for the clean -up!!

     The principle of environmental justice is that no community should have to accept an unfair burden of pollution yet that seems to be what is happening here.  Should the people who live around the proposed CDF site or the student’s of Central High School be expected to accept these “non-quantifiable” or “statistically irrelevant” risks?

     When we say 3 in 10,000 or 2 in a million we are talking about people here – someone’s mom, dad, son or daughter.  Try telling a parent that their child is statistically insignificant!!
 

back to top

---

3400 Broadway - Gary, Indiana  46408
888-YOUR IUN
219-980-6500

http://www.iun.edu/~environw/index.htm
Comments:  Ellen Szarleta
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity