Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) & Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) 2007 Annual Report

Transcription

1 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) & Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) 2007 Annual Report () Special Feature: 20 Years of Progress in CSO Control in Michigan (1988 to 2008)

2 This publication was prepared for the purpose of public information. Reliance on information from this document is not usable as a defense in an enforcement action or litigation. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will not discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, religion, age, national origin, color, marital status, disability, or political beliefs. Questions or concerns should be directed to the MDEQ Office of Human Resources, PO Box 30473, Lansing, MI Authority: PA 451 of 1994 PRIMARILY ELECTRONIC DISTRIBUTION Total Cost: $ Total Copies: 25 Cost Per Copy: $17.42 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Act 451 Legislative Report Requirement The Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 P.A. 451, as amended, Section (c) identifies activities to be undertaken by DEQ to make information related to known discharges of untreated or partially treated sewage from sewer systems to land or waters of the state available to the general public. This report provides a summary of releases reported to the DEQ, Water Bureau to meet these requirements.

3 Acknowledgements and Information This annual report is part of a series of reports that consolidate annual release reporting data: CSO/SSO Annual Report for 2006 CSO/SSO Annual Report for 2005 CSO/SSO Annual Report for 2004 CSO/SSO Annual Report for 2002 and 2003 CSO & SSO Annual Report - July December 2001 This 2007 report was expanded to capture the history of CSO control in Michigan. This historical section was developed by DEQ staff to document and preserve information about this important control effort for present and future generations. An invaluable part of this publication were the comments provided by retired State of Michigan employees who were directly involved in CSO control during the 1980 s and early 1990 s. Of special note is Paul Zugger, who was Chief of the Department s Surface Water Quality Division during this time; he provided the leadership necessary for the development of our CSO control strategy. A heart-felt thanks to Paul for providing comments that helped turn a listing of historical events into an informative story. In addition, we would like to extend special thanks to Paul Blakeslee, the Department s former CSO specialist, who likewise assisted with the development and review of the CSO historical section. As the former departmental specialist and manager responsible for assuring completion of the very first CSO/SSO annual release report ( ), he supported the vision of the inclusion of public education information within these annual release reports. His assistance helped assure an accurate accounting of CSO control history and his focus on the integration of public education is very much appreciated.

4 Annual Report Contents Acknowledgements and Information Page # A MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR INTRODUCTION... 1 What Is the Difference between a Sanitary Sewer System and a Combined Sewer System?... 1 In General, What are CSOs and SSOs?...1 What Laws Require Reporting of CSO and SSO Releases?... 4 Who Will Let Me Know Whether the Water Is Safe for Swimming, Fishing or Canoeing?... 4 How Does Intergovernmental Cooperation Help Fund Infrastructure Improvements?... 4 Who Do I Contact for More Information?... 5 DISTRICT CONTACTS BY COUNTY... 6 REPORT TERMS AND ACRONYMS...7 & 8 MICHIGAN S HISTORY OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL... 9 What are the Milestones and Drivers of CSO Control in Michigan? Boundary Waters Treaty was signed Establishment of Stream Control Commission s Municipalities stopped building combined sewer systems Unlawful pollution is defined in law Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement United States strengthened the Clean Water Act Detroit WWTP lawsuit began Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Renewal The Department s 1983 CSO Policy Refinement of CSO Terminology Control of Rouge River CSOs on WRC s Agenda Water Quality Standards Revision for Total Body Contact Recreation Amendments of Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement CSO control was added to NPDES permits The stalemate ends Bond proposal passes and launches state match for SRF The Department s 1989 CSO Control Policy National CSO Control Strategy Michigan s State-Wide CSO Permitting Strategy Milestone in Detroit WWTP Lawsuit National Policy Formulated Congress approved the Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project Michigan Law Amendment - Notification Requirements Abolishment of the Water Resources Commission The Federal Government Adopted a CSO Policy Michigan CSO Systems Have Approved Long Term Control Plans Michigan Law Amendment - Release Reporting Michigan s Great Lakes Water Quality Bond Referendum... 18

5 What Does the Future Hold? CSO Outfall and State Revolving Fund Historical Report by Permittee Demonstration of Adequate Treatment Completed Demonstration in-progress Construction Projects in-progress Sewer Separation Complete (Since 1988) WASTEWATER TREATMENT How is Wastewater Treated? What is Blending? What is Bypassing? COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS What are Combined Sewer Overflows and What Causes Them? How are CSOs Addressed? What is the Main Challenge for Communities to Address in Controlling CSOs? Did We Make Progress in 2007? What Data Does the Detailed CSO Report (Appendix 3) Contain? CSO Summary Report (Alphabetic by Facility) How Does 2007 Compare to Previous Years? SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS What are Sanitary Sewer Overflows? What causes an SSO? How Does the Sewage end up in the Environment? How are SSOs Addressed? What Factors Justify Long-term Plans for Eliminating SSOs? Did We Make Progress in 2007? SSO Report Summary (by Volume) What Data does the Detailed SSO Report (Appendix 4) Contain? How Does 2007 Compare to Previous Years KEY TO THE REPORTED VOLUME CODES APPENDIX 1: MCL a and MCL c...A-1 thru A-3 APPENDIX 2: DETAILED BLENDING & BYPASS REPORT B-1 thru B-15 APPENDIX 3: DETAILED CSO REPORT CSO-1 thru CSO-65 APPENDIX 4: DETAILED SSO REPORT SSO-1 thru SSO-122 APPENDIX 5: STATUS OF DETROIT LONG-TERM CSO CONTROL PLAN (LTCP)

6 A Message from the Director Thank you for taking the time to learn about Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) in Michigan. This report contains 2007 annual release reporting information along with a special feature providing the history of how Michigan became a national leader in CSO control. This year s special CSO Historical Section documents and preserves for history the extensive investment that has been made in public infrastructure to address this important public health problem. Perhaps the seriousness of this challenge can best be understood through an expression of progress. The good news is that Michigan communities have eliminated 75 percent of the CSO outfalls that existed in 1988 with the expenditure of over $2 billion. This is an excellent example of how public investment in pollution control and infrastructure can improve our water resources for public safety and enjoyment. Yet even with this investment and progress, it is still expected to cost an additional $2.875 billion for continuance of construction work on CSO projects (in 2007 dollars) to address the remaining 25 percent of the CSO outfalls. There is still much progress to make, but our efforts appear to be having a significant impact. As expressed above, addressing CSOs and SSOs is a multiyear, multibillion dollar challenge. As such, yearly progress seems minimal when compared to 20 years of progress. However, the sharing of yearly achievements can help all of us recognize the steady gains that we are making toward our long-term goals. During 2007, the DEQ awarded nearly $300 million in low-interest loan assistance for projects to address sewer overflows. The cities of Lansing and Port Huron received assistance for ongoing combined sewer separation programs, while Detroit and Dearborn received assistance for additional retention/treatment facilities. Significant State Revolving Fund investments were also made in Genesee County s regional sewer system and in the city of Harbor Beach to address chronic SSO problems. Assistance from the Strategic Water Quality Initiatives Fund is being used for a footing drain disconnection program in Ann Arbor, while a number of other communities with wet sanitary systems are conducting flow monitoring work as a prerequisite to seeking loan funding to address system capacity problems. Aside from financial aspects of CSO control, annual progress has been measured in terms of CSO outfall elimination, along with volume and number of CSO events in comparison to previous reporting years. In terms of CSO outfall elimination, which is a good indicator of the implementation of construction projects pursuant to long-term control plans, ten CSO outfalls were eliminated in The city of Dearborn eliminated three, the city of Lansing eliminated two, and the city of St. Joseph eliminated five. For CSOs, both event numbers and volume of

7 discharge appear to be closely related to rainfall in any given year (see Figures 7, 8, and 9 on pages 34 and 35). However, it is expected that the amount of partially treated releases will become a greater percentage of the overall CSO discharge volume as control plans are implemented. SSO control has been measured in past reports by the number of administrative settlements that were entered between the DEQ and facilities that are addressing SSO issues along with some trend data from past reporting years. In 2007, the DEQ entered into four administrative settlements with municipalities that require corrective actions to address SSOs. These were with the cities of Northville, Plymouth, Westland, and Garden City. In addition, an agreement was reached with the city of Grand Rapids that resolved violations associated with an SSO event in December 2004 and requires the submittal of an updated Emergency Response Plan. Based on seven years of SSO data, a downward trend in the volume of SSOs is evident (see Figure 11 on page 44). As expressed in the CSO Historical Section of this report, a Michigan citizenry with a strong environmental ethic has already played an important role in advancing CSO control in Michigan. You can continue to provide vital assistance to address and eliminate many of these discharges from entering the environment. Please continue your Web site visit and learn whether your community is causing, or is impacted by, these discharges. Providing support to your community to address these discharges will help promote a healthy environment that is critical to our social, cultural, and economic well-being. Sincerely, Steven E. Chester, Director Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

8 Introduction The DEQ is concerned about releases of raw and partially treated sewage from municipal and privately owned sewer systems, an environmental and public health problem that has plagued Michigan for decades. The State of Michigan took a more aggressive approach to address these discharges in 1988 by initiating an aggressive Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) control program and in the year 2000 by adopting a Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) control strategy. As part of the 2000 initiative, local units of government were called upon to step up to the plate to help protect Michigan s waters. This report is one step in addressing these types of discharges for the people of Michigan. Specifically, it defines and publicizes the extent of this statewide problem and the actions being taken to control these discharges. What Is the Difference between a Sanitary Sewer System and a Combined Sewer System? In order to understand the difference between a CSO and an SSO, it is necessary to understand some basics of sewer system design. Separate sanitary sewers are designed to carry only sanitary sewage to a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) (see Figure 1); storm water is directed to a nearby river, lake or stream via storm sewers. Combined sewer systems are generally older sewer systems designed to convey both sewage and storm water (combined in one pipe) to a WWTP (see Figure 2). Generally, combined sewer systems were designed with overflow points in the sewer system and/or at the WWTP. This is because the system can not handle all the volume of water that is associated with some larger storm water events. As part of corrective action programs, many combined sewer systems have installed or are installing Retention Treatment Facilities (RTFs), which are designed to capture the combined sewage and rain water that would otherwise flow to surface waters untreated. These basins hold the combined sewage long enough to provide treatment and disinfection before the combined sewage is released into waters of the state during periods of intense precipitation (see Figure 3). In General, What are CSOs and SSOs? CSOs are releases of raw or partially treated sewage from older combined sewer systems designed to carry both sanitary sewage and storm water. SSOs are releases of raw or inadequately treated sewage from separate sanitary sewer systems, which are designed to carry sanitary sewage but not storm water. Both CSO and SSO events discharge untreated or partially treated human and industrial waste, toxic materials, debris and disease causing organisms on to the ground or into our rivers, lakes or streams. 1

9 Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer WWTP Figure 1: Separate Sewer System Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer Combined Sewer WWTP Figure 2: Combined Sewer System Dry Weather Conditions 2

10 Without Treatment With Treatment Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer Combined Sewer WWTP RETENTION TREATMENT BASIN Figure 3: Combined Sewer System Wet Weather Conditions 3

11 What Laws Require Reporting of CSO and SSO Releases? Section (a) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), Public Act 451 of 1994, as amended requires responsible parties to report releases of untreated or partially treated sanitary sewage. Section (c) of NREPA requires an annual reporting of these releases. This section was added in July, The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has produced this report as a means of providing the public with information regarding known discharge of untreated and partially treated sewage to land and waters of the state. Prior to 2004, only releases from municipalities were required to be reported. However, in 2004, Section a was amended to include reporting of treated and partially treated sewage releases from private systems (system serving more than a duplex). Who Will Let Me Know Whether the Water Is Safe for Swimming, Fishing or Canoeing? When raw or partially treated sewage is released into a river, lake or stream, the responsible party is required to notify the local health department and others as specified in the law. The local health department may sample, or may require the responsible party to sample, the waterbody that received the sewage discharge. If the discharge poses a public health threat, then the local health department is responsible for issuing a public health advisory to notify people of the dangers associated with river or lake water contact. Additionally, the local health department gathers information related to health aspects of water pollution for public and semi-public beaches (this activity may not be specifically related to CSO and SSO releases). They issue swimming advisories and track reported illnesses related to water borne organisms. Some local health departments provide citizens with information and resources to do their own beach monitoring. More information about water quality monitoring related to health aspects of water pollution, including a list of local health departments with phone numbers can be found online through the state of Michigan Beach Monitoring Website found at: Phone books also contain local health department contact information. When searching the phone book, look for either the county health department or the district health department for your area. How Does Intergovernmental Cooperation Help Fund Infrastructure Improvements? The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF or SRF) and the Strategic Water Quality Initiatives Fund (SWQIF) remain the primary sources of financial assistance for local units of government facing wastewater infrastructure investment needs. Created in 1989 and capitalized with Federal grant funds and a required state match, the SRF has tendered over $2.8 billion in loan assistance to Michigan communities for the construction, expansion and upgrade of publicly owned sewers and wastewater treatment facilities. Fully one-half of this assistance has been expended for projects to address combined sewer overflows. Remediation of sanitary sewer overflows and addressing non-point sources of pollution are increasingly becoming a focus of the SRF. The passage of the $1 billion Great Lakes Water Quality Bond referendum in November of 2002 (Proposal 2) injected additional capital into the SRF, dramatically increasing its annual lending capacity. That vote also created the SWQIF, another revolving loan fund that provides low interest loan assistance for wastewater system improvements that remain in private ownership. The portion of Proposal 2 monies dedicated to the SWQIF is available for projects that remove clear water from sewer leads on private property (often a component of successful SSO projects) or for projects to upgrade or replace failing on-site wastewater systems. A portion of these funds ($40 million) was used to provide grants to assist loan 4

12 applicants with completing the planning and design of their projects. The revolving funds will operate in perpetuity and result in significant cost savings for system owners and users compared to open market financing alternatives, while remaining the primary source of funding for water quality protection efforts in the state. Who Do I Contact for More Information? While compiling the information in this report, the DEQ identified some data integrity issues and other related problems. These problems and issues were eliminated whenever possible. The DEQ has made sincere efforts to assure the accuracy of this report, which is intended for informational purposes only. If you believe the information is inaccurate or if you have any questions or concerns regarding the information contained in the report, please contact the appropriate district office for your area. For additional information regarding the Water Bureau s overall CSO/SSO control strategies and policies, or questions regarding specific events, please contact the appropriate district office for your area. More information, including a continually-updated database of reported events can be found online at: 5

13 Houghton S. Casey Keweenaw S. Casey 42 District Contacts by County Ontonagon S. Casey Baraga Marquette S. Casey Gogebic Luce S. Casey S. Casey 31 7 S. Casey 66 Alger Schoolcraft Chippewa Iron S. Casey Upper S. Casey 48 S. Casey 27 Peninsula 2 S. Casey Mackinac Delta S. Casey Dickinson S. Casey S. Casey Water Bureau Main Office Number Environmental Assistance Center: S. Casey Emmet Menominee 55 B. Jankowski Cheboygan B. Jankowski Presque Isle B. Jankowski Charlevoix B. Jankowski Otsego Montmorency Antrim B. Jankowski B. Jankowski 45 B. Jankowski Alpena B. Jankowski Gaylord Leelanau Office Location B. Jankowski Kalkaska Crawford Oscoda Alcona 28 Benzie Grand B. B. B. B. Jankowski Traverse Jankowski Jankowski B. 10 Jankowski Jankowski District Boundary B. Jankowski Wexford Missaukee Roscommon Manistee Ogemaw Iosco Cadillac T. McDowell T. McDowell B. Jankowski B. B. Jankowski B. Jankowski Jankowski Mason Lake Osceola Clare Gladwin Arenac T. McDowell B. B. Jankowski B. Jankowski T. T. McDowell Huron Jankowski 6 McDowell 18 Bay T. McDowell Upper Peninsula: Steve Casey P.E T. Oceana Isabella Midland Newaygo Mecosta McDowell 32 T. Cadillac: Brian Jankowski P.E x 6268 C. Veldkamp T. C. Veldkamp C. Veldkamp McDowell McDowell 9 Sanilac Bay City Tuscola T. McDowell Gaylord: Brian Jankowski P.E x Muskegon Saginaw Montcalm Gratiot T. McDowell C. Bennett T. McDowell Saginaw Bay: Thomas McDowell P.E x C. Veldkamp 79 C. Kent Lapeer 76 Veldkamp C. Veldkamp Genesee Grand Rapids: Christine Veldkamp C. Bennett St. Clair Ottawa Ionia Clinton Shiawassee C. Bennett P. Argiroff C. Veldkamp Grand Rapids C. Bennett C. Bennett Lansing: Charles Bennett P.E C. Veldkamp Oakland Macomb 34 SE Michigan: Phil Argiroff P.E Eaton Lansing P. Argiroff Allegan Barry P. Argiroff 74 Ingham Livingston C. S. Norton C. Bennett C. Bennett C. Bennett 50 Kalamazoo: Marcus Tironi P.E Veldkamp SE Michigan Jackson: Tiffany Myers Van Buren Kalamazoo Jackson S. Norton Washtenaw Wayne Kalamazoo Calhoun Jackson P. Argiroff S. Norton S. Norton T. Myers T. Myers Berrien Monroe Cass St. Joseph Branch Hillsdale Lenawee T. Myers S. Norton S. Norton S. Norton S. Norton T. Myers T. Myers

14 Report Terms and Acronyms For the purposes of this report, the following terms and acronyms are described below. Explanation of Report Headings: EventID: A unique internal DEQ tracking number assigned to an event. If you have questions about a specific event, or need additional information, providing this number to the DEQ district office staff in your area will assist them in finding the correct information. Start Date/Time: The date and time the CSO/SSO discharge event began. If there were multiple discharge locations associated with a single event, all discharging at different dates/times, then this is the date/time of the earliest discharge. End Date/Time: The date and time the CSO/SSO discharge event ended. If there were multiple discharge locations associated with a single event, all discharging at different dates/times, then this is the date/time of the latest discharge. Event Volume: Total CSO/SSO discharge volume for the event (in millions of gallons) reported by the responsible party. This value can be an estimated value as is often the case with SSOs. When the report lists Not Specified, no volume information was reported to the DEQ. Discharge Quality: Description of the quality of the wastewater discharged. See Acronym/Definitions section for detailed explanations. Point(s) of Discharge: Narrative description of wastewater discharge location(s) (separated by *** where multiple points of discharge occurred during a single event). It provides information about receiving waters and/or land areas impacted by the discharge. A three digit number preceding a receiving water name is the permittee s outfall discharge location as listed in their NPDES permit. When the report lists Not Specified, discharge information was not reported to the DEQ for the land area or waterbody impacted. Note that this term is used in the appendix. Control Program: For CSOs this area of the report provides information and status of the permittee s long term control program corrective actions as contained in their NPDES permit. Outfall Corrective Actions: For SSOs this area of the report provides information regarding corrective actions taken to reduce/eliminate future discharges from a particular SSO outfall discharge location (Note: these corrective actions do not pertain to a specific discharge event or to the owner of the sewer system as a whole). The specific locations where these corrective actions have taken place are listed under Associated Outfall(s). Definitions/Acronyms: Adequately Treated: CSO discharges that have been demonstrated to meet Water Quality Standards or discharges from an RTF that was designed to meet the presumptive regulatory approach. Clear Water: Clear Water is non-sanitary or non-industrial wastewater that may enter the sewer system. It includes, but is not limited to: groundwater that seeps in through cracks in the sewer pipes; rain water or snow-melt that flows into the sanitary system through improperly connected roof drains; groundwater that enters from footing drains and sump pumps; and storm water that enters when storm sewers are inadvertently connected to the sanitary sewer. Collection System: System of subsurface sewer pipes designed and used to convey either sanitary sewage or both sanitary sewage and storm water to a wastewater treatment plant. Combined Sewer: Sanitary sewage and storm water are conveyed in the same (combined) sewer pipe. CSO: Combined Sewer Overflow Demonstrative Regulatory Approach: For CSO retention treatment facilities that are built based on approved designs that are less conservative then the presumptive approach, and 7

15 therefore require a demonstration upon completion of construction to prove that discharges meet Water Quality Standards. DEQ: The State of Michigan s Department of Environmental Quality Diluted Sanitary Sewage: Sanitary sewage diluted with rain water, snow melt, or ground water. Infiltration/Inflow (I/I): rainwater, snowmelt, or groundwater flowing into separate sanitary or combined sewers via connected roof downspouts and/or building footing drains or infiltrating into the pipe through cracks in the pipe walls or joints. MG: Million Gallons, e.g., 24,000 gallons = MG MH: Manhole NPDES Permit: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. A permit issued by the DEQ, authorized under the federal Clean Water Act, to discharge treated wastewater to waters of the United States. mg/l: Milligrams per liter, concentration unit equivalent to parts per million. Outfall: Point of discharge of treated, partially treated or untreated wastewaters to surface waters of the state. Partially Treated Sewage: Any sewage, sewage and storm water, or sewage and wastewater, from domestic or industrial sources that meets 1 or more of the following: 1) Is not treated to national secondary treatment standards for wastewater or that is treated to a level less than that required by the person s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit; 2) Is treated to a level less than that required by the person s Groundwater Discharge Permit; and 3) Is found on the ground surface (Section c of NREPA). Presumptive Regulatory Approach: For CSO facilities that are designed using a conservative engineering approach. In this approach, meeting WQS is assumed and there is no need for a demonstration following completion of construction. PS: Pump station Raw Sewage: Untreated sanitary sewage. RTB & RTF: Retention Treatment Basin or, more generally, Retention Treatment Facility used for treatment of combined sewage. Separate Sanitary Sewer: Separate sanitary sewer pipe, designed to convey only sanitary sewage and minor amounts of infiltration and inflow to a wastewater treatment facility. Sewer System: A public or privately owned wastewater collection facility designed and used to convey or treat sanitary sewage or sanitary sewage and storm water. Sewer system does not include an on-site wastewater treatment system serving 1 residential unit or duplex. SSO: Sanitary Sewer Overflow Surface Waters of the State: e.g., rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, some open ditches, and wetlands (as opposed to ground waters, i.e., aquifers). TSS: Total Suspended Solids Twp: Township WQS: Water Quality Standards are regulations that establish the uses for which surface waters of the state are protected and include numeric and narrative criteria to protect those uses. WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant or other treatment facility such as a treatment lagoon. 8

16 Michigan's History of Combined Sewer Overflow Control What were the Milestones and Drivers of CSO Control in Michigan? A number of factors enabled Michigan to become the national leader in CSO control. Primary among these were a citizenry with a strong environmental ethic, a state agency prepared to take on this controversial and costly issue, and leadership and political will at the state and local level to get it done. The drivers of the CSO control program include public outcry, international treaties, water quality agreements, federal law, state laws and rules, and most notably an overwhelming need to protect public health and the ability of citizens to safely swim and fish in our waters. Michigan's program evolved to focus on CSOs after water pollution control efforts driven by strong state water laws of the 1970 s and the federal Clean Water Act of 1972 improved water quality in surface waters, especially downstream of urban areas allowing these waters to be used for recreational purposes. People once again started to enjoy these waters. It became clear that the impacts on recreational use of waters and the threat to public health caused by overflows from combined sewers, mixing raw sewage with storm water during wet weather conditions, could no longer be tolerated. The control of raw sewage discharges during wet weather was necessary for the protection of public health. Once the problem was recognized, most Michigan municipalities committed substantial local resources to cooperatively pursue plans with the state and federal governments to remedy this large and costly water pollution concern. Many stakeholders and agencies have played important roles in advancing CSO control in Michigan. These include most notably the citizens and public interest groups, municipalities, the Michigan Water Resources Commission, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (formerly organized within the Department of Natural Resources, "Department"), the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Federal District Court Judge John Feikens. The following is a timeline of water pollution and CSO control in Michigan: 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty was signed. Boundary Waters Treaty was entered into between the United States and Great Britain, relating to boundary waters between the United States and Canada. This agreement provided a mechanism for the two countries (United States and Canada) to prevent disputes and settle questions regarding the boundary waters between the two countries. The treaty provided in Article IV: "It is further agreed that the boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health and property of the other." The International Joint Commission (IJC) was established through this treaty. This commission has provided the basis for resolving differences between the two nations through shared information and common understandings that are developed through IJC consultative processes Establishment of the Stream Control Commission PA 245 of 1929 established the Michigan Stream Control Commission, which was authorized to control the management of Michigan s streams and rivers. PA 117 of 1949 changed the name of the commission to the Water Resources Commission and vastly 9

17 increased the scope of the commission s authority to address all waters of the state, including groundwater and the Great Lakes, and strengthened its authority to control water pollution. The Water Resources Commission was in charge of protecting and conserving the water resources of the state until it was abolished in 's Municipalities stopped building combined sewer systems. Most municipalities in the Great Lakes basin stopped building combined sewer systems. Expansions to existing systems were with separate sanitary and storm sewers resulting in many systems having a mix (old combined and new separate systems) Unlawful pollution is defined in law. PA 328 of 1965 (effective March 31, 1966) changed the Michigan Water Resources Commission Act PA 245 of 1929, as amended, to expand the definition of unlawful pollution, making the discharge of raw sewage prima facie evidence of a violation of the act and holding municipalities responsible for correction. This language is now contained in MCL (2), Part 31, Water Resources Protection of PA 451 of 1994, as amended: 323.6(2) "The discharge of any raw sewage of human origin, directly or indirectly into any of the waters of the state shall be considered prima facie evidence of a violation of this act by the municipality in which the discharge originated unless the discharge shall have been permitted by an order or rule of the commission." Municipalities were therefore responsible for the control of the all sewage generated within the municipality. These changes led to a significant increase in the construction of sewers and treatment plants. CSOs, however, were rarely addressed as the primary focus was on addressing continuous (dry weather) discharges of inadequately treated sewage Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement This Agreement between the United States and Canada called on governments, industry, agriculture and the people of these two countries to work together to clean up the Great Lakes environment. This 1972 agreement also required the identification of problem areas with degraded water quality due to pollution from industrial, municipal or non-point sources. The Detroit River was listed as a problem area (Category A Area of Concern) due to point source discharges, including upstream inputs. The Agreement helped drive the construction of additional treatment facilities, but did not focus on CSOs United States strengthened the Clean Water Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (now called the Clean Water Act, P.L ) objective is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." The Act established an interim goal of fishable and swimmable waters wherever attainable by 1983 and established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requiring a discharge permit for all point source discharges of wastewater into the nation's waters. Michigan was one of the first states to submit an approvable program to EPA and was the fourth state that received federal authorization to administer the NPDES program. 10

18 The Clean Water Act required all municipalities to provide, as a minimum, secondary treatment of sewage. This mandate placed a huge financial burden on the nation s cities and to help deal with that, the Act authorized greatly expanded funding for a new Construction Grants Program for municipal wastewater infrastructure improvements (Clean Water Act Section 201). Most investment in municipal facilities during the decade after the Clean Water Act focused on new and upgraded treatment plants (secondary and advanced treatment where needed) and collection systems. Wet weather issues were seldom directly addressed except where new separate sewers replaced old combined sewers. In some areas, however, where CSOs were identified as causing severe water quality problems, communities constructed CSO controls utilizing construction grant funds. These improvements were made well before this problem was getting much statewide attention, and inmost cases, had to be upgraded in subsequent years. Milk River: The initial CSO structure (3.5 million gallon retention treatment facility) was built in This initial CSO structure was upgraded or replaced in 1994 with a 19 million gallon facility. South Macomb Sanitation District: The initial Martin and Chapaton CSO basins were constructed in 1969; these systems were subsequently updated during the years 2000 through Oakland Co GWK RTF (Oakland Co SOCSDS 12 Towns RTB): The initial CSO facility (66 million gallon retention treatment storage tunnel) was constructed in 1972 with a federal grant for $11,739,566 and it was accompanied by a state grant of $5,336,167; a total project cost of approximately $21.3 million. Subsequently, additional sewers were separated and the initial CSO facility was upgraded during the years 1998 to Bay City (Bay City WWTP): The initial CSO facility consisted of five retention treatment basins constructed in 1977 with $30 million in construction grant funds. A subsequent upgrade to the WWTP and basins was undertaken in The performance of these basins is currently being reviewed to see if upgrades are needed. Southgate Wyandotte: The initial CSO facility (a 15 million gallon retention treatment facility) was constructed in 1977 with $45,875,000 in construction grant funds. The performance of this facility is currently being reviewed to see if upgrades are needed Detroit WWTP lawsuit began. Detroit's WWTP was identified in various Great Lakes research projects (associated with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement) as the largest discharger of phosphorus to the Great Lakes system. Detroit, along with several municipalities tributary to the Detroit WWTP collection system, were sued by the federal government (and later joined by the State of Michigan) to address permit violations that required secondary treatment and phosphorus control from the City of Detroit's WWTP. This action was initially filed to seek full secondary treatment with phosphorus removal and for industrial pretreatment issues. By 1980, Detroit had spent $350 million over the prior 10 year period but had missed an interim compliance requirement in July The Mayor of the City was then appointed administrator of the plant, subject only to the Court, under the direction of the Honorable John Feikens of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. Judge Feikens appointed Charles Moon and Dr. Jonathon W. 11

19 Bulkley, P.E. to assist the court in guiding Detroit and their contributing communities. Detroit was required to achieve full secondary treatment with phosphorus removal in the early 1980's. By the mid to late 1980's the court and parties were ready to discuss wet weather discharges. Judge Feikens eventually returned enforcement oversight of the wastewater discharges to the Water Resources Commission and the Department. The court still oversees Detroit's progress and is currently involved in a rate dispute Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Renewal The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was renewed introducing an ecosystem approach, which considers the interaction of air, land, water and all living organisms including humans in an effort to clean up the Great Lakes. The US and Canada also agreed to the development and implementation of practical programs for reducing pollution from storm, sanitary and combined sewer discharges. The Detroit River and Rouge River basin were both designated "Class A" Areas of Concern at this time The Department's 1983 CSO Policy Up until this time, the Department's attention had been directed towards the control of continuous discharges, especially point source discharges regulated under the NPDES program. By the mid 1980 s virtually all of the municipal wastewater treatment plants (of which there were over 400) in Michigan had achieved compliance with the Clean Water Act requirement to at least provide secondary treatment of all continuous flows. Michigan s treatment plants were also required to reduce phosphorous loadings to control nutrient impacts in the Great Lakes Basin in accordance with commitments made under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. It was becoming clear, however, that in many areas of the state, CSOs had to be addressed to achieve the state s water quality goals and assure public health protection. To start to deal with this issue on a broad basis, the Department developed a draft CSO policy. The draft policy aimed to define the problem and provide overall direction and priorities for action. Dry weather discharges from sanitary and combined sewers not due to storm events were considered controllable discharges and would be permitted and controlled in the same manner as other continuous discharges. Under the policy, the Department would identify waters that were impaired to the point of not meeting protected designated uses due to intermittent wet weather discharges from sewer systems and initiate action to require necessary corrective programs. In effect, the policy relied on demonstrated water quality impairment to justify action. For example, in 1983 Grand Rapids and Lansing were studied in context of qualifying for funding under the Clean Water Act's Construction Grants program (Section 201) and it was concluded that there was insufficient demonstrated water quality impairment to qualify these areas for Section 201 funding for CSO correction Refinement of CSO Terminology CSO was a catchall term for wet weather discharges from WWTPs and their collection systems (including SSOs and bypasses). To distinguish and determine what level of control was required for CSOs under the Clean Water Act, EPA defined CSOs as discharges from a combined system due to wet weather events that occurred prior to the collected flows reaching the headworks of a treatment facility. Emergency intentional releases within the POTW were identified as bypasses. This categorization of wet weather discharges was refined over time as the Department's control program developed, but clear definitions were difficult, especially in large systems that had both separated and combined sewers. Also, many systems had what came to be referred to as wet sanitary systems that were separated sanitary sewers with excessive rainwater 12

20 of groundwater inflow and infiltration. Some of the systems listed in 1988 as CSOs were actually wet sanitary systems, and the discharges were not CSOs but are SSOs under today s definitions. Under state and federal law, SSOs must receive secondary treatment Control of Rouge River CSOs on Water Resources Commission s Agenda In July 1985 the Michigan Water Resources Commission recognized the Rouge River as an extremely valuable resource with a "deplorable and intolerable" environmental condition. The commission committed to do all in its power to restore the Rouge River. In October of that same year, they adopted a "Rouge River Basin Strategy" that highlighted CSOs as the most notable concern in the basin and outlined an action-based strategy to address CSOs in the Rouge River Water Quality Standards Revision for Total Body Contact Recreation In November of 1986, Michigan's Part 4 Rules, Water Quality Standards, 1979 AC, R , were revised to protect all surface waters of the state for total body contact recreation (swimming). This change strengthened the state s ability to require correction of CSOs Amendments of Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was strengthened in 1987 to require more specific measures for cleanup of the local areas of concern. Community members and governments were called on to work together to develop "Remedial Action Plans" to address identified impairments. Several Southeast Michigan Watersheds were listed as Areas of Concern and uncontrolled CSO discharges were identified as a major source of pollution throughout much of the Rouge River Basin, the Clinton River Basin, and portions of the Lake St. Clair and Detroit River shoreline CSO control was added to NPDES permits. In September 1987, NPDES permits were issued to Lansing, Port Huron and Belding containing new CSO control requirements. These permits established a phased approach to eliminate or provide adequate treatment for CSOs. Long term programs were to be developed and implemented under fixed date schedules established in subsequent permits, and interim corrections were to be pursued immediately. Those CSO correction requirements of these permits were contested by the municipalities for being too vague and also because municipalities realized that major expenditures of public works funds would be involved in implementing corrections. The Department formed a CSO advisory committee consisting of key stakeholders and Department staff with the purpose of developing consensus CSO language for future permits. Consensus was not reached, however, and the Department staff proposed a revised approach to the Water Resources Commission that was more specific. The Department recommended that the commission issue CSO permits that provided specific treatment requirements but also provided flexibility. The commission accepted this recommendation and directed staff to draft permits for issuance with these CSO requirements. However, stakeholders, especially municipalities, continued to object to these requirements The stalemate ends. In the fall of 1988, a large CSO event in Grand Rapids ended the stalemate. A major storm following a long drought resulted in large CSOs causing water quality impacts as far downstream as Grand Haven. Public health agencies issued warnings against any 13

21 contact with the river water, and the issue received wide-spread attention in the press and at all level of government. Downstream communities, public interest groups (such as Western Michigan Environmental Action Council and Michigan United Conservations Clubs), legislators, the press, and individual citizens all demanded action. Bumper stickers adorned vehicles with statements like "When it Rains, Grand Rapids Flushes." This public awakening was driven in part by the improved water quality due to tighter regulation control of continuous discharges from industries and cities over the previous two decades. As a result of these water quality improvements, citizens were using the rivers and streams in urban areas for recreation, and the idea that raw sewage was being discharged during large storm events was clearly not acceptable. Prior to this major overflow event, the Department had already presented a draft permit to the city of Grand Rapids, with requirements for a long term CSO correction program including the construction of a large storage basin. In response to the public outcry, the Michigan Attorney General and the Director of the Department held a press conference in Grand Rapids to announce their joint intent to take enforcement action to require corrective action. Following this event, the city agreed to the permit as proposed and on September 15, 1988 the first non-contested permit requiring a long term CSO correction program was issued. Grand Rapids was able to secure a Clean Water Act Section 201 Construction grant for construction of the required storage basin, which is called the Grand Rapids Market Avenue Retention Basin. The cost was $29,670,000 when it was constructed in (More recent improvements are summarized in the SRF summary report.) The Department also required Grand Rapids to institute a notification system by which local health departments would be advised of overflows and be able to issue prompt public health advisories. This notification process was an essential component of the CSO corrective program. The Department subsequently issued a letter to all Michigan CSO Daryl Smith, former Grand Rapids WWTP Superintendent and member of the Municipal Wastewater Operator Certification Board along with the Department s Paul Zugger, former Chief of Surface Water Quality Division and Fred Eyer, former Grand Rapids District Supervisor in the Grand Rapids WWTP Control Building. communities advising them that long term CSO controls would be required in NPDES permits, and public notifications of overflows would be required. CSO communities were invited by the Department to formulate the basis of an effective CSO notification system, which would assure that local health agencies would be provided the necessary information to issue advisories when appropriate. As a result overflows were reported statewide and public health advisories were placed on many waterways. 14

22 The Department also advised communities of the possibility of a moratorium on sewer construction permits (required by Part 41 of NREPA and issued by the Department) unless certain conditions such as off-set programs and schedules for design and construction of control facilities were met. The off-set program provided that any increase in sewage loading to the system had to be off-set by a corresponding removal of storm water from the system at a ratio of five gallons of storm water for one gallon of new sanitary flow. The sewer moratorium and offset program provided another strong incentive for CSO correction Bond proposal passes and launches state match for SRF. Michigan voters passed the "Quality of Life Bond" proposal in the Fall of Sixty million dollars of the bond was targeted as Michigan's match for $350 million of federal grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF or SRF) program. The Department took the necessary steps (e.g. rule promulgation, application to EPA) to begin program implementation in the Fall of While funds can be obtained through various sources, the SRF is the primary source of financial assistance for local units of government facing wastewater infrastructure investment needs. Capitalized with federal grant funds, a required state match and funds from Michigan's Great Lakes Water Quality Bond Fund, as of 2007 the SRF has tendered nearly $1.5 billion in loan assistance to Michigan communities for projects to address combined sewer overflows. It is noteworthy to mention that in today's dollars this number would be much higher because this number is not normalized. Since program inception, the Department has been committed to making this program function in a manner that would provide the maximum benefit to municipalities pursuing critical water pollution control projects. In December 2003, EPA published a Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Fact Sheet: Funding Wet Weather Projects with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. In their article entitled Addressing CSOs in Michigan, EPA acknowledged: "The CWSRF contribution to Michigan's ambitious CSO program serves as a model for other states' stormwater permitting processes." 1989 The Department's 1989 CSO Control Policy In January of 1989 the Department outlined a multi-phase approach to addressing CSOs. The goal of the 1989 policy was to issue/reissue NPDES permits for all CSOs and have all overflows under a corrective program within that year. The Rouge River in Southeast Michigan was a primary focus of the 1989 policy due to the severe CSO impacts. The Department was working closely with Rouge River communities and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) in developing a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the Rouge River as required under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Annex II (1987). The RAP recommended basinwide CSO correction as the key initiative necessary to restore the designated uses of the Rouge River Basin. The RAP also highlighted the need for NPDES permits to establish requirements for the correction of CSOs National CSO Control Strategy In August of 1989, EPA issued a National CSO Control Strategy that required states to develop a state-wide permitting strategy to address CSOs through NPDES no later than January 15, Michigan's State-Wide CSO Permitting Strategy Based on the Department s 1989 CSO Policy, the Water Resources Commission 15