United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (4203)
Washington, DC 20460
www.epa.gov
EPA-833-R-07-007
September 2007
Report to Congress
Combined Sewer Overflows to the
Lake Michigan Basin
-------
Lake Michigan image is from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) MODIS
Satellite. Source: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov. Image is accessible at
http://veimaqes.qsfc.nasa.goV//1120/S1999254181550 md.jpq.
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ES-1
Chapter 1 -Introduction 1-1
1.1 What are Combined Sewers and CSOs? 1-1
1.2 What Comprises the Lake Michigan Basin? 1-4
1.3 How is this Report Organized? 1-5
Chapter 2-Regulation of CSOs 2-1
2.1 What is the History of Federal CSO Control Efforts? 2-1
2.1.1 Initial Efforts to Control CSOs 2-1
2.1.2 CSO Case Law 2-2
2.1.3 National Municipal Policy on POTWs 2-2
2.1.4 National CSO Control Strategy and the Management Advisory Group 2-2
2.1.5 CSO Control Policy 2-3
2.1.6 Wet Weather Water Quality Act 2-3
2.2 What is the CSO Control Policy? 2-4
2.2.1 Objectives for CSO Communities 2-4
2.2.2 Expectations for Permitting Authorities 2-5
2.2.3 Coordination with Water Quality Standards: Development, Review, and
Approval 2-5
2.2.4 Enforcement and Compliance 2-6
2.3 What Targets Have Been Established for CSOs? 2-6
2.3.1 EPA Targets for CSO Control 2-6
2.3.2 Great Lakes Strategy Targets for CSO Control 2-7
Chapter 3—CSO Discharges to Lake Michigan 3-1
3.1 How were the data collected? 3-1
3.2 What is the Occurrence of CSOs to Lake Michigan and its Tributaries? 3-3
3.2.1 Volumeand Frequency of CSO Discharges 3-4
3.3 What Problems are Caused by CSO Discharges? 3-13
3.3.1 Water Quality Impacts Attributed to CSO: 305(b) Assessments and 303(d)
Impairments 3-13
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
3.3.2 BEACH Program 3-15
3.3.3 Impacts within Great Lakes AOCs 3-18
3.3.4 Other Efforts Underway in the Lake Michigan Basin 3-19
Chapter 4—State Approaches to CSO Control in the Lake Michigan Basin 4-1
4.1 What is the Indiana Approach to CSO Control? 4-1
4.1.1 Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting 4-1
4.1.2 Status of CSO Control 4-3
4.2 What is the Michigan Approach to CSO Control? 4-6
4.2.1 Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting 4-6
4.2.2 Status of CSO Control 4-7
4.3 What is the Wisconsin Approach to CSO Control? 4-9
4.3.1 Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting 4-9
4.3.2 Status of CSO Control 4-10
4.4 What is the Illinois Approach to CSO Control? 4-11
4.4.1 Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting 4-11
4.4.2 Status of CSO Control 4-12
Chapters—Conclusions and Future Actions 5-1
5.1 What are Current Conditions in the Lake Michigan Basin? 5-1
5.2 What are Future EPA Actions to Control CSOs in the Lake Michigan Basin? 5-2
5.2.1 State Permit Oversight 5-3
5.2.2 State Enforcement Program Oversight 5-3
5.2.3 Enforcement Activity 5-3
5.2.4 Technical Assistance 5-4
5.2.5 Financial Assistance 5-4
5.2.6 Water Quality Standards Review and Approval 5-5
5.3 Summary 5-5
-------
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure ES.1—Location of CSO Communities in the Lake Michigan Basin ES-3
Figure 1.1—Typical Combined Sewer System 1-2
Figure 1.2—National Distribution of CSSs 1-4
Figure 1.3—Map of Lake Michigan Basin 1-5
Figure 3.1 —Location of CSO Communities in the Lake
Michigan Basin 3-4
Figure 3.2—Annual CSO Frequency for Michigan CSO Communities in the Lake
Michigan Basin: 2003-2004 3-8
Figure 3.3—Map of Chicago Area with Three Waterway-Controlling Works 3-11
Figure 3.4—Sources of Pollution that Resulted in Lake Michigan Beach Advisories
and Closings: 2000-2004 3-17
Figure 3.5—CSOs Reported to Cause Beach Advisories and Closings in Four Counties
Bordering Lake Michigan: 2000-2004 3-17
Figure 4.1 —Location of Indiana CSO Communities in the Lake Michigan
Basin 4-3
Figure 4.2—Location of Michigan CSO Communities in the Lake Michigan Basin 4-7
Figure 4.3—Wisconsin's CSO Community in the Lake Michigan Basin 4-10
Figure 4.4—Comparison of Pre-ISS Annual Overflow Volumes with Post-ISS Overflow
Volumes in Milwaukee, Wl 4-11
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
List of Tables
Table 3.1—Lake Michigan CSO Community Information 3-5
Table 3.2—Indiana CSO Discharge Information 3-7
Table 3.3—Annual CSO Volumes for Michigan CSO Communities in the Lake
Michigan Basin: 2003-2004 3-9
Table 3.4—MMSD Annual CSO Frequency and Volume: 1998-2004 3-10
Table 3.5—Chicago-Area River Reversals to Lake Michigan: 1985-2005 3-12
Table 3.6—Pollutants of Concern in CSOs that Are Likely to Cause or Contribute to
Impairment 3-14
Table 3.7—Sources of Pollution that Resulted in Advisories and Closings in Four Lake
Michigan Counties: 2000-2004 3-18
Table 4.1—Status of CSO Control Policy Requirements in Indiana, Lake Michigan
Basin Only 4-4
Table 4.2—Summary of CSO Controls Implemented or Proposed in Indiana CSO
Communities in the Lake Michigan Basin 4-5
Table 4.3—Status of CSO Control Policy Requirements in Michigan, Lake Michigan
Basin Only 4-8
Table 4.4—CSO Controls Implemented or Scheduled to Be Implemented in Michigan
CSO Communities in the Lake Michigan Basin 4-9
Table 4.5—Volume of Combined Sewage Captured by TARP: 1982-2004 4-12
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Appendix
Appendix A Community Profiles
-------
-------
List of Acronyms
AOC - Areas of Concern
BEACH Program - Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health Program
BG - Billion Gallons
CPU - Colony-Forming Units
CSO - Combined Sewer Overflow
CSS - Combined Sewer System
DMR - Discharge Monitoring Report
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
IDEM - Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Illinois EPA - Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
ISS - Inline Storage System
LaMP - Lakewide Management Plan
LTCP - Long-Term Control Plan
MAG - Management Advisory Group
MDEQ - Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
MG -Million Gallons
MGD - Million Gallons per Day
MMSD - Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District
MWRDGC - Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
NMC - Nine Minimum Controls
NMP - National Municipal Policy
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NWQI - National Water Quality
Inventory
PCBs - Polychlorinated Biphenyls
POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment
Works
RAP - Remedial Action Plan
SEA - Senate Enrolled Act
SRCER - Stream Reach and
Characterization and Evaluation Report
SSO - Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SSS - Sanitary Sewer System
TARP - Tunnel and Reservoir Project
TMDL -Total Maximum Daily Load
WDNR - Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant
VI
-------
-------
Glossary
This glossary includes a collection of the terms used in this manual and an explanation of each
term. To the extent that definitions and explanations provided in this glossary differ from those
in EPA regulations or other official documents, they are intended for use in understanding this
manual only.
B
Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable
(BAT) - Technology-
based standard
established by the Clean
Water Act as the most
appropriate means
available on a national
basis for controlling the
direct discharge of toxic
and nonconventional
pollutants to navigable
waters.
Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology
(BCT) - Technology-
based standard for the
discharge from existing
industrial point sources
of conventional
pollutants including
biochemical oxygen
demand, total suspended
solids, fecal coliform, pH,
oil and grease. The BCT
is established in light of a
two-part "cost
reasonableness" test. The
first test compares the
cost for an industry to
reduce its pollutant
discharge of conventional
pollutants with the cost
for a POTW for similar
levels of reduction in
their discharge of these
pollutants. The second
test examines the cost
effectiveness of additional
industrial treatment
beyond Best Practicable
Technology Currently
Available (BPT). EPA
must find limits that are
reasonable under both
tests before establishing
them as BCT.
Clean Water Act - The Clean
Water Act is an act
passed by the U.S.
Congress to control water
pollution. It was formerly
referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972 or the Federal
Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972
(P.L. 92-500), 33 U.S.C.
1251 et. seq., as amended
by: P.L. 96-483; P.L. 95-
217, 97-117, 97-440, and
100-04.
Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO) - A discharge of
untreated wastewater
from a combined sewer
system at a point prior to
the headworks of a
publicly owned treatment
works.
Combined Sewer System
(CSS) - A municipal
wastewater collection
system that conveys
domestic, commercial,
and industrial
wastewaters and
stormwater through a
single pipe system to a
publicly owned treatment
work treatment plant.
Construction Grants
Program - Federal
assistance program
authorized under Section
201 of the Clean Water
Act to make grants to
states, municipalities, and
intermunicipal or
interstate agencies for the
construction of publicly
owned treatment works.
Conventional Pollutants - As
defined by the Clean
Water Act, conventional
pollutants include BOD,
TSS, fecal coliform, pH,
and oil and grease.
VII
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
CSO Control Policy - EPA
published the CSO
Control Policy on April
19, 1994 (59 FR 18688).
The policy includes
provisions for developing
appropriate, site-specific
NPDES permit
requirements for
combined sewer systems
that overflow as a result
of wet weather events.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) -
The oxygen freely
available in water, which
is vital for sustaining fish
and other aquatic life as
well as for preventing
odors. DO levels are
considered one of the
most important
indicators of a
waterbody's ability to
support desirable aquatic
life. Secondary treatment
and advanced waste
treatment are generally
designed to ensure
adequate DO in waste-
receiving waters.
Dry Weather Flow
Conditions - Hydraulic
flow conditions within
the combined sewer
system resulting from
one or more of the
following: flows of
domestic sewage; ground
water infiltration;
commercial and
industrial wastewaters; or
any other non-
precipitation event-
related flows (e.g., tidal
infiltration under certain
circumstances).
Environmental Impact - Any
change to the
environment, whether
adverse or beneficial, that
wholly or partially results
from an organization's
activities, products, or
services.
Floatables and Trash -
Visible buoyant or semi-
buoyant solids including
organic matter, personal
hygiene items, plastics,
styrofoam, paper, rubber,
glass and wood.
H
Headworks of a Wastewater
Treatment Plant - The
initial structures, devices
and processes provided at
a wastewater treatment
plant including
screening, pumping,
measuring, and grit
removal facilities.
Infiltration - Storm water
and groundwater that
enter a sewer system
through such means as
defective pipes, pipe
joints, connections, or
manholes. (Infiltration
does not include inflow).
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) - The
total quantity of water
from both infiltration
and inflow.
Inflow - Water, other than
wastewater, that enters a
sewer system from
sources such as roof
leaders, cellar drains,
yard drains, area drains,
foundation drains, drains
from springs and swampy
areas, manhole covers,
cross connections
between storm drains and
sanitary sewers, catch
basins, cooling towers,
storm waters, surface
runoff, street waste
waters, or other drainage.
(Inflow does not include
infiltration).
Long-Term Control Plan
(LTCP) - Water quality-
based CSO control plan
that is ultimately
intended to result in
compliance with the
Clean Water Act. Long-
term control plans
consider the site-specific
nature of CSOs and
evaluate the cost
effectiveness of a range of
controls.
M
Million Gallons per Day
(mgd) - A unit of flow
commonly used for
wastewater discharges.
One mgd is equivalent to
a flow rate of 1.547 cubic
feet per second over a 24-
hour period.
VIM
-------
Glossary
N
convey wastewater to a
POTW treatment plant.
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
(NPDES) - The national
program for issuing,
modifying, revoking and
reissuing, terminating,
monitoring and
enforcing permits, and
imposing and enforcing
pretreatment
requirements, under
Sections 307, 318, 402,
and 405 of the Clean
Water Act.
Nine Minimum Controls
(NMC) - Technology-
based CSO controls that
do not require significant
engineering studies or
major construction, as
specified in the CSO
Control Policy.
Nutrient - A compound that
is necessary for
metabolism. Nitrogen
(N) and Phosphorus (P)
are required in relatively
large amounts by cells.
Nutrients, in appropriate
amounts, are essential to
the health and continued
functioning of natural
ecosystems. Excessive
nutrient loading,
however, will result in
excessive growth of
macrophytes or
phytoplankton and
potentially harmful algal
blooms (HAB), leading
to oxygen declines,
imbalance of prey and
predator species, public
health concerns, and
general decline of aquatic
resources.
Point Source - Any
discernible, confined, and
discrete conveyance,
including but not limited
to any pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit,
well, discrete fixture,
container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal
feeding operation,
landfill leachate
collection system, vessel,
or other floating craft
from which pollutants
are or may be discharged.
Primary Treatment - First
steps in wastewater
treatment wherein
screens and
sedimentation tanks are
used to remove most
materials that float or will
settle. Section 301 (h) of
the Clean Water Act,
which addresses waivers
from secondary
treatment for discharges
into marine waters,
defines primary or
equivalent treatment as
that adequate to remove
30 percent of BOD and
30 percent of suspended
solids.
Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) - As
defined by Section 212 of
the Clean Water Act, a
treatment works that is
owned by a state or
municipality. This
definition includes any
devices and systems used
in the storage, treatment,
recycling, and
reclamation of municipal
sewage or industrial
wastes of a liquid nature.
It also includes sewers,
pipes, and other
conveyances only if they
Sanitary Sewer Overflow
(SSO) - An untreated or
partially treated sewage
release from a sanitary
sewer system.
Sanitary Sewer System (SSS)
- A municipal wastewater
collection system that
conveys domestic,
commercial and
industrial wastewater,
and limited amounts of
infiltrated ground water
and storm water, to a
POTW. Areas served by
sanitary sewer systems
often have a municipal
separate storm sewer
system to collect and
convey runoff from
rainfall and snowmelt.
Secondary Treatment -
Technology-based
requirements for direct
discharging municipal
sewage treatment
facilities. 40 CFR 133.102
defines secondary
treatment as 30 day
averages of 30 mg/1 BOD5
and 30 mg/1 suspended
solids, along with
maintenance of pH
within 6.0 to 9.0 (except
as provided for special
considerations and
treatment equivalent to
secondary treatment).
State Revolving Fund
Program - A federal
program created by the
Clean Water Act
Amendments in 1987
that offers low-interest
loans for wastewater
treatment projects.
IX
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
w
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
- A measure of the
filterable solids present in
a sample of water or
waste water (as
determined by the
method specified in 40
CFR Part 136).
Toxics - Materials
contaminating the
environment that cause
death, disease, and/or
birth defects in organisms
that ingest or absorb
them. The quantities and
length of exposure
necessary to cause these
effects can vary widely.
Water Quality Standard - A
law or regulation that
consists of the beneficial
use or uses of a
waterbody, the numeric
and narrative water
quality criteria that are
necessary to protect the
use or uses of that
particular waterbody, and
an antidegradation
statement.
Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations - Effluent
limitations applied to
dischargers when
technology-based
limitations are
insufficient to result in
the attainment of water
quality standards.
Waters of the United States -
Waters of the United
States is defined at 40
CFR §122.2.
Wet Weather Event - A
discharge from a
combined or sanitary
sewer system that occurs
in direct response to
rainfall or snowmelt.
Wet Weather Flow - Dry
weather flow combined
with stormwater
introduced into a
combined sewer, and dry
weather flow combined
with inflow in a separate
sanitary sewer.
-------
Executive Summary
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer
Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is transmitting this Report
to Congress on combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) in the Lake Michigan
basin. CSOs can occur in combined
sewer systems (CSSs), which are defined
as collection systems that carry both
wastewater and storm water in the
same pipe. A CSO is defined as "the
discharge from a CSS at a point prior to
the publicly-owned treatment works
(POTW) treatment plant." Points in the
collection system at which CSOs occur
are called CSO discharge points. Some
CSOs discharge infrequently, while
others discharge every time it rains.
Overflow frequency and duration varies
from system to system and from outfall
to outfall within a single CSS. Because
CSOs contain untreated wastewater and
storm water, they contribute microbial
pathogens and other pollutants to
surface waters. CSOs can impact the
environment and human health.
Specifically, CSOs can cause or
contribute to water quality impairments,
beach closures, contamination of
drinking water supplies, and other
environmental and human health
problems.
This report presents EPA's most recent
assessment of the occurrences of CSOs
in the Lake Michigan basin, the
enforcement of existing regulations
concerning such discharges, and the
future steps EPA plans to take to
minimize such overflows.
Overview and Background
Why is EPA Preparing this Report
to Congress?
This report has been prepared in
response to a congressional direction in
H.R. Rep. No. 108-674 at 101
(September 9,2004).
The Committee is concerned about the
occurrences of combined sewage
overflow from wastewater treatment
facilities into Lake Michigan. The
committee is also concerned that
existing regulations concerning such
discharges are not sufficiently
enforced so as to prevent negative
impacts on the Lake Michigan
ecosystem. The committee directs the
EPA to report, by September 30,2005,
outlining what future steps it plans to
take to minimize such overflows.
What Methodology did EPA Use
for this Report to Congress?
The basic study approach for this report
was to collect data and report on CSO
implementation and enforcement
activities in the Lake Michigan basin,
which includes parts of Indiana,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois. This
ES-1
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
approach principally entailed the review
of existing state, EPA headquarters, and
EPA Region 5 permit and enforcement
files, as well as other federal and state
databases. This report is centered on a
summarization, presentation, and
description of existing state and EPA
information on CSOs in the Lake
Michigan basin.
Data presented in this report were
collected from previously published or
previously available state, regional, and
local data sources (for example, data on
overflows into Lake Michigan in Illinois
were taken from the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(MWRDGC) website at
http://www.mwrdgc.dst.il.us/mo/csoap
p/default.htm, while data on CSOs in
Indiana were compiled from Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted
to the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) by
each CSO community as part of these
communities' National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements; a full discussion of the
data collection methodology used in
this report is provided in Chapter 3). No
attempts were made to interpret data to
reconcile differences in reporting
methods or data collection timeframes,
primarily due to the fact that there is no
specific guideline in the CSO Control
Policy for CSO data collection, and
therefore such comparisons or
reconciliation attempts might lead to
misrepresentations of the original data.
Therefore, readers are cautioned against
attempting to draw conclusions
between localities because of the
differences in data sets. Yet despite the
differences between the data sets, EPA
believes that the data present general
information that is characteristic of the
extent of CSOs in the Great Lakes area.
What Statutory and Regulatory
Framework Applies to CSOs?
The Clean Water Act establishes national
goals and requirements for maintaining
and restoring the nation's waters. CSOs
are point source discharges subject to
the technology-based and water
quality-based requirements of the Clean
Water Act, but not subject to the
secondary treatment standards that
apply to discharges from POTWs.
EPA issued a CSO Control Policy on April
19,1994 (59 FR 18688). The CSO
Control Policy "represents a
comprehensive national strategy to
ensure that municipalities, permitting
authorities, water quality standards
authorities, and the public engage in a
comprehensive and coordinated effort
to achieve cost-effective CSO controls
that ultimately meet appropriate health
and environmental objectives."
When the CSO Control Policy was
released, many stakeholders, key
members of Congress, and EPA
advocated for it to be endorsed in the
Clean Water Act to ensure its full
implementation. In the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001,
P.L. 106-554, Congress amended the
Clean Water Act to add Section 402(q),
which provided that:
...each permit, order, or decree issued
pursuant to this Act after the date of
enactment of this subsection for a
discharge from a municipal combined
storm and sanitary sewer shall
conform to the CSO Control Policy
signed by the Administrator on April
77,7994.
ES-2
-------
Executive Summary
Figure ES.1
Location of CSO Communities in
the Lake Michigan Basin
The shaded area defines the Lake
Michigan basin, which includes portions
of Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Illinois. The white circles ( ) indicate
Lake Michigan CSO communities. The
black circle (•) indicates Chicago.
What is the Occurrence ofCSOs in
the Lake Michigan Basin?
The Lake Michigan basin includes
portions of northern Indiana,
approximately half of Michigan, eastern
Wisconsin, and a small section of
northeast Illinois. There are currently 30
CSO communities with 347 CSO outfalls
that discharge within the Lake Michigan
basin. Eighteen of the Lake Michigan
CSO communities are in Indiana, 11 are
in Michigan, and one is in Wisconsin.
There are no Lake Michigan CSO
communities in Illinois.
Chicago is not considered to be a Lake
Michigan CSO community. Chicago-
area CSOs drain away from Lake
Michigan to the Mississippi River basin
under most wet weather conditions.
However, Chicago-area CSOs have the
potential to impact Lake Michigan
under certain wet weather conditions.
This can occur when flow in Chicago-
area rivers is reversed and is directed to
Lake Michigan to prevent flooding-
related property damage. In addition to
flow reversals, there are two Chicago-
area CSOs that have the potential to
discharge directly to the lake, although
they have not done so since 2003.
Because of Chicago's proximity to the
lake and the potential for CSO
discharges, EPA has included a
discussion of Chicago-area CSOs (e.g.,
past CSO discharges and current CSO
control efforts) in this report, where
appropriate.
The locations of CSO communities in the
Lake Michigan basin, along with major
tributaries and state boundaries, are
presented in Figure ES.1. The majority of
these CSO communities are located
inland along rivers that drain to Lake
Michigan.
ES-3
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
What is the Extent of Impacts to
the Lake Michigan Basin Caused
byCSOs?
CSO discharges include a mix of
domestic, commercial, and industrial
wastewater, and storm water runoff.
CSOs contribute pollutant loadings to
waterways where discharges occur. The
principal pollutants found in CSOs are:
Microbial pathogens
Oxygen-depleting substances
Total suspended solids
Toxics
Nutrients
Floatablesand trash
Pollutant concentrations in CSOs vary
substantially based on weather
conditions, the characteristics of the
sewer system, the service population,
the treatment provided to the CSO, and
other factors.
WATER QUALITY IMPAIRMENT
EPA documented that CSOs cause
human health and environmental
impacts in two recent national
assessments of CSOs: Report to
Congress—Implementation and
Enforcement of the Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Policy (EPA 2001 b) and
Report to Congress—Impacts and Control
of CSOs and SSOs (EPA 2004b). EPA
found that pollutant concentrations in
CSOs may be sufficient to cause
violations of water quality standards,
precluding the attainment of one or
more of the designated uses (e.g.,
recreation or drinking water supply) for
the waterbody. CSOs often discharge
simultaneously with storm water, wet
weather sanitary sewer overflows
(SSOs), and other nonpoint sources of
pollution. EPA recognizes this can make
it difficult to identify and assign specific
cause-and-effect relationships between
CSOs and observed water quality
problems.
In the Lake Michigan basin, EPA found:
• In Indiana, all 18 CSO communities
in the Lake Michigan basin
discharge in the vicinity of 303(d)-
impaired waters. Thirteen of these
communities discharge to waters
where pathogens (£ coli) and/or
siltation were cited as reasons or
causes of impairment.
• In Michigan, 10 of the 11 CSO
communities in the Lake Michigan
basin discharge to 303(d)-
impaired waters. The waters in
close proximity to the 11th CSO
community, Norway, have not
been assessed. Three CSO
communities in Michigan
(Manistee, Niles, and St. Joseph)
discharge to 303(d)-listed waters
that specifically cite "CSO-
pathogen (Rule 100)" as a source
of impairment. In addition, three
CSO communities (East Lansing,
Lansing, and Crystal Falls)
discharge to waterbodies where
pathogens or pathogens and
dissolved oxygen are cited as
reasons or causes of impairment.
• In Wisconsin, the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MMSD) operates the only CSS in
the Lake Michigan basin. MMSD's
CSOs discharge to, or in close
proximity to, 303(d)-impaired
waters where pathogens and/or
dissolved oxygen have been cited
as reasons or causes of
impairment.
ES-4
-------
Executive Summary
The proximity of a CSO outfall to an
impaired water segment does not in
and of itself demonstrate that the CSO is
the cause of the impairment. EPA
believes the association between CSO
location and impaired waters is due to a
number of factors in addition to CSO
discharges. For example, CSOs are
generally located in urban areas where
waterbodies also receive relatively high
volumes of storm water and other
pollutant loads. Nevertheless, the strong
correlation between CSO location and
impaired waters does suggest that CSOs
should be considered as a potential
source of pollution when developing a
total maximum daily load (TMDL) for an
impaired waterbody.
DESIGNATED USE IMPAIRMENT
EPA's BEACH (Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health)
Program compiles and reports on beach
monitoring and notification activities for
the nation's coastal recreational waters
on an annual basis. A total of 165 Lake
Michigan beaches had at least one
beach advisory or closing during the
2000-2004 swimming seasons. Elevated
bacteria levels accounted for 94 percent
of recreational use impairments, which
were manifested as beach advisories
and closings. Approximately 81 percent
of the advisories and closings in Lake
Michigan were caused by an unknown
source of pollution. CSOs were reported
to be responsible for two percent of
total reported advisories and closings,
and eight percent of advisories and
closings where a known source was
identified.
At the local level, CSOs were reported to
be a source of pollution for eight
percent and 18 percent of all beach
advisories and closings in LaPorte
County and Porter County, Indiana,
respectively. CSOs were also cited as a
source of pollution for approximately
three percent of the beach advisories
and closings in Cook Country, Illinois,
and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
GREAT LAKES AREAS OF CONCERN
Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) are
severely degraded areas within the
Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement, as amended
via the 1987 protocol, directs the U.S.
and Canadian governments to
cooperate with state and provincial
governments to develop and
implement Remedial Action Plans
(RAPs) for each AOC. Ten AOCs have
been identified within the Lake
Michigan basin. Three of the Lake
Michigan AOCs—Grand Calumet,
Menominee River, and Manistique River
AOCs—specifically mention CSOs.
What is the Status of CSO Control
in the Lake Michigan Basin?
All four of the Lake Michigan states are
authorized to issue NPDES permits. The
NPDES authorities in each state have
developed specific strategies and
programs for addressing CSO discharges
in their states. EPA oversees these
permitting programs and provides
funding support to the states. Both the
states and EPA have independent
authority to take enforcement actions
for violations of the Clean Water Act,
including permit violations.
• In Indiana, there are 18 CSO
communities in the Lake Michigan
basin; permits for 17 of the 18
communities require
implementation of the nine
minimum controls (NMC) and
development of a long-term
control plan (LTCP). One CSO
community, Albion, does not have
NMC or LTCP requirements
ES-5
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
because it eliminated its CSOs
through sewer separation prior to
the LTCP submission requirement.
Fifteen of the 17 communities with
LTCP requirements have
submitted plans that are currently
under review by the IDEM and/or
EPA. The LTCP for Michigan City
has been approved. The permit for
the Gary Sanitation District
requires the submission of an
LTCP, but does not specify a
submittal date. IDEM is currently
developing a new permit that will
clarify LTCP submittal
requirements.
In Michigan, all 11 CSO
communities in the Lake Michigan
basin have NMC and LTCP
requirements in their permits, and
all 11 have submitted LTCPs that
have been approved by the
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). A
variety of CSO controls are being
implemented in Michigan.
In Wisconsin, Milwaukee is the only
CSO community that discharges
within the Lake Michigan basin.
The CSO permit issued to MMSD
contains NMC and LTCP
requirements. MMSD constructed
a large inline storage system (ISS)
to store and convey wet weather
flows that has significantly
reduced CSOs. MMSD is also
subject to a 2001 stipulation
agreement requiring it to
construct several SSO projects. For
most wet weather events,
Milwaukee's combined sewer
flows are captured by the ISS,
where they are stored until they
can be pumped to one of the
treatment plants for treatment.
CSOs occur during very large wet
weather events when there is not
enough storage capacity in the ISS.
MMSD's permit requires that CSOs
be limited to no more than six
overflows per year, consistent with
the presumption approach in the
CSO Control Policy. Since the ISS
began operation in 1994, MMSD
has averaged approximately three
CSO events per year. A new LTCP is
scheduled for completion in 2007.
On October 27, 2005, the State of
Wisconsin filed a complaint
against MMSD for SSO and CSO
discharges to the Menomonee
River, Milwaukee River, and Lake
Michigan.
In Illinois, CSOs in the Chicago
metropolitan area have the
potential to impact Lake Michigan
under certain wet weather
conditions. The Tunnel and
Reservoir Project (TARP) was
approved as the LTCP for the
MWRDGC, the City of Chicago, and
40 satellite communities. The TARP
project is designed to capture
combined sewer overflows from
369 sewer overflows, 303 of which
could backflow into Lake Michigan
during intense storm conditions.
The storage of combined sewage
in TARP tunnels and TARP
reservoirs, that are to be
constructed, will reduce the
possibility of backflows during
these storm events. Construction
of TARP began in 1976 and has
been implemented in two phases.
The first phase, which focused on
reducing CSO discharges, is
complete and greatly reduced CSO
discharges to Chicago-area waters.
The second phase provides flood
control benefits as well as
increased capture of combined
sewage in the tunnel and reservoir
ES-6
-------
Executive Summary
system. The current estimate for
completion of TARP is 2015.
What Actions is EPA Taking to
Reduce the Impacts ofCSOs?
EPA believes that a sound regulatory
program is in place that will lead to full
implementation of the CSO Control
Policy to protect Lake Michigan from
water quality impacts related to CSO
discharges. Significant progress has
been made in reducing CSO discharges
to Lake Michigan, most notably in the
Chicago and Milwaukee Metropolitan
areas, but also in many smaller
communities. Many CSO controls are in
the process of being implemented to
further reduce the potential impacts on
the lake. Planning for additional CSO
controls is underway as communities
comply with requirements under NPDES
permits and enforcement orders. EPA is
engaged in active discussions to
establish enforceable schedules for the
implementation of LTCPs in the Lake
Michigan basin.
The CSO Control Policy includes
expectations that NPDES permitting
authorities would issue permits
consistent with the provisions of the
policy. In general, EPA envisioned a
phased permit approach, including
initial requirements to implement the
NMC and develop an LTCP, followed by
requirements to implement the controls
in the approved LTCP. The Wet Weather
Water Quality Act of 2000 requires that
each permit issued pursuant to the
Clean Water Act for a discharge from a
municipal CSS shall conform to the CSO
Control Policy.
EPA is working with state NPDES
authorities to ensure that CSO
communities are under enforceable
requirements to comply with the Clean
Water Act and the CSO Control Policy.
Specific EPA activities include oversight
of state NPDES permit actions and
enforcement actions, review of state
water quality standards related to CSO
discharges, provision of financial and
technical assistance, and federal
enforcement actions.
EPA has developed work plans and
Memoranda of Agreement with states
to ensure that state enforcement efforts
on CSOs are consistent with federal
efforts and the CSO Control Policy.
Some activities undertaken to ensure
consistency between EPA and state
efforts include periodic reporting, work-
sharing arrangements, and discussions
of case-specific issues. EPA will continue
to work cooperatively with the state
NPDES authorities to assure that
consistent approaches to address CSO
control are sought at the state and
federal levels. EPA will continue to
explore work-sharing opportunities in
order to utilize federal and state
resources more efficiently.
Bringing all CSOs, including those within
the Lake Michigan basin, into
compliance with the Clean Water Act
and the CSO Control Policy is a vital step
in ensuring that surface waters are safe
for fishing, swimming, and public water
supply. However, other sources of
pollution (e.g., nonpoint sources, storm
water runoff, SSOs, and wastewater
treatment system bypasses) must also
be addressed before these goals can be
fully realized.
ES-7
-------
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
This Report to Congress presents the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) most recent
assessment of the occurrences of
combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
from wastewater treatment facilities
in the Lake Michigan basin, the
enforcement of existing requirements
concerning such discharges, and the
future steps EPA plans to take to
minimize such overflows. This report
has been prepared in response to a
congressional directive in H.R. Rep.
No. 108-674 at 101 (September 9,
2004):
The Committee is concerned about
the occurrences of combined
sewage overflow from wastewater
treatment facilities into Lake
Michigan. The committee is also
concerned that existing regulations
concerning such discharges are not
sufficiently enforced so as to
prevent negative impacts on the
Lake Michigan ecosystem. The
committee directs the EPA to report,
by September 30,2005, outlining
what future steps it plans to take to
minimize such overflows.
EPA prepared this report between
March and December 2005. During
this time, EPA developed a
methodology for data collection;
collected data from federal and state
sources; performed analyses; and
wrote this report. EPA emphasized
the collection, compilation, and
analysis of existing data for this
report.
This Report to Congress follows two
CSO reports required as part of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2001, P.L. 106-554 (or "2000
amendments to the Clean Water
Act"). The first report was transmitted
to Congress in December 2001 as
Report to Congress—Implementation
and Enforcement of the Combined
Sewer Overflow Control Policy (EPA
2001 b). The second report was
transmitted to Congress in August
2004 as Report to Congress—Impacts
and Control of CSOs andSSOs (EPA
2004b).
1.1 What are Combined
Sewers and CSOs?
There are two types of public
wastewater collection systems in the
United States: combined sewer
systems (CSSs) and separate sanitary
sewers (SSSs). CSSs were among the
earliest sewer systems constructed in
the United States and were built until
the first part of the 20th century. As
defined in the 1994 CSO Control
Policy (EPA 1994), a CSS is:
1-1
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
A municipal wastewater collection
system that conveys domestic,
commercial, and industrial
wastewaters and storm water
through a single pipe system to a
publicly owned treatment work
(POTW) trea tmen t plant.
The combined volume of wastewater
and storm water runoff entering CSSs
often exceeds conveyance capacity
during wet weather events. Most CSSs
are designed to discharge flows
directly to surface waters (e.g., rivers,
streams, estuaries, and coastal waters)
when their conveyance capacity is
exceeded, as shown in Figure 1.1.
These discharges are called CSOs. A
CSO is defined as:
The discharge from a CSS at a point
prior to the POTW treatment plant.
Figure 1.1
Typical Combined
Sewer System
Some CSO outfalls discharge
infrequently, while others discharge
every time it rains. Overflow
frequency and duration vary from
system to system and from outfall to
outfall within a single CSS. When
constructed, CSSs were typically sized
to carry three to five times the
average dry weather flow. Thus, there
is usually considerable conveyance
capacity within a CSS during dry
weather. Discharges from a CSS
during dry weather, which are
referred to as dry weather overflows,
are infrequent and are prohibited
underthe national pollutant
discharge elimination system (NPDES)
program. CSSs can back up into
buildings, including private
residences and commercial
establishments. These discharges
provide a direct pathway for human
contact with untreated sewage and
can pose risks to human health.
Dry Weather
r
1-2
-------
Chapter 1-Introduction
CSO discharges include a mix of
domestic, commercial, and industrial
wastewater, and storm water runoff.
As such, CSO discharges contain
human, commercial, and industrial
wastes, as well as pollutants washed
from streets, parking lots, and other
surfaces. These CSO discharges are
highly variable, both in terms of the
specific pollutants in an individual
CSO discharge, and also in the
concentrations of those pollutants in
that discharge (see Chapter 4 of the
2004 Report to Congress—Impacts and
Control of CSOs andSSOs). Pollutant
concentrations in CSO discharges are
determined by a number of factors,
including the service population, the
characteristics of the CSS, weather
conditions, and any treatment
provided to the CSO.
CSOs can impact the environment
and human health. Specifically, CSOs
can cause or contribute to water
quality impairments, beach closures,
shellfish bed closures, contamination
of drinking water supplies, and other
environmental and human health
problems (EPA 2004b).
CSO permits are issued to the owners
and operators of two types of CSSs:
• CSSs owned and operated by the
same entity that owns and
operates the receiving POTW
• CSSs that convey flows to a POTW
owned and operated by a
separate entity under a different
NPDES permit
As of September 2005,824 active CSO
permits have been issued to 746
communities in 32 states (including
the District of Columbia). These
permits regulate 9,119 CSO discharge
points. Most of the communities
served by CSSs are located in the
Northeast and Great Lakes regions as
shown in Figure 1.2.
Additional information on CSOs is
provided in Report to Congress—
Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs
(EPA 2004b).
1-3
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Figure 1.2
National Distribution of
CSSs
CSSs are most heavily
concentrated in the
Northeast and Great Lakes
1.2 What Comprises the
Lake Michigan Basin?
Lake Michigan is the second largest
Great Lake by volume (approximately
1,180 cubic miles of water), and it is
the only Great Lake entirely within the
United States. As shown in Figure 1.3,
Lake Michigan is approximately 307
miles long and 118 miles wide, and it
has more than 1,600 miles of
shoreline. It averages 279 feet in
depth, with a maximum depth of 925
feet. The Lake Michigan drainage
basin covers 45,600 square miles,
which is approximately twice as large
as the surface area of the lake, and
includes portions of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, and Wisconsin. The lake's
northern reach is relatively
undeveloped, while the southern
basin includes the Milwaukee,
Chicago, and northwest Indiana
metropolitan areas (Environment
Canada and EPA 1995).
Lake Michigan supports many
beneficial uses: drinking water supply;
internationally significant habitat and
natural features; food production and
processing; fish for food, sport and
culture; and valuable commercial and
recreational uses. Most shoreline
areas along Lake Michigan support
swimming and secondary contact
recreation (LMTC 2004).
1-4
-------
Chapter 1-Introduction
Figure 1.3
Map of Lake Michigan
Basin
The shaded area delineates
the Lake Michigan drainage
basin.
1.3 How is this Report
Organized?
The purpose of this report is to
respond to Congress with a current
assessment of the occurrences of
CSOs in the Lake Michigan basin, the
enforcement of existing regulations
concerning such discharges, and the
future steps EPA plans to take to
minimize such overflows. The report
includes this introduction plus four
additional chapters. The content and
purpose of each subsequent chapter
are summarized below.
• Chapter 2 summarizes the history
of regulatory efforts to control
CSOs.
• Chapter 3 describes the location
of CSO outfalls, by state, in the
Lake Michigan basin. This chapter
summarizes available information
on the occurrence of CSO
discharges in the basin. The
chapter also documents reported
environmental impacts
attributable to CSO discharges in
terms of water quality standards
violations and lost uses (i.e., beach
closures).
• Chapter 4 evaluates the status of
CSO control, by state, in the Lake
Michigan basin. The chapter
presents state-specific approaches
to addressing CSOs in the Lake
Michigan basin and documents
the issuance of permits and other
enforceable orders requiring
control of CSOs. The chapter then
describes the technologies used
by CSO communities to control
CSO discharges, including
operation and maintenance
practices, sewer system controls,
storage facilities, treatment
technologies, and low-impact
development techniques.
1-5
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Chapter 5 presents report
findings and key considerations
for EPA in developing future
actions to minimize CSO
discharges in the Lake Michigan
basin.
1-6
-------
Chapter 2
Regulation of CSOs
This chapter summarizes the history of
federal CSO control efforts. It then
describes the principles and objectives of
the CSO Control Policy (EPA 1994) and
presents EPA targets related to CSO
control. Additional information on the
federal framework for CSO control is
provided in EPA's Report to Congress—
Implementation and Enforcement of the
CSO Control Policy (EPA 2001 b) and Report
to Congress—Impacts and Control of CSOs
andSSOs (EPA 2004b). Information on
state-specific programs to control CSO
discharges is described in Chapter 4.
2.1 What is the History of
Federal CSO Control
Efforts?
The Clean Water Act establishes national
goals and requirements for maintaining
and restoring the nation's waters. As
point source discharges, CSOs are subject
to the technology-based and water
quality-based requirements of the Clean
Water Act. CSOs are not subject to limits
based on secondary treatment
requirements otherwise applicable to
POTWs. NPDES permits for CSOs must
include technology-based effluent limits
based on the application of best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT) for toxic and non-conventional
pollutants and best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT) for
conventional pollutants. Additionally, like
all NPDES permits, permits authorizing
discharges from CSO outfalls must
include more stringent water quality-
based requirements, when necessary, to
meet water quality standards.
The development of the federal
framework to address CSOs is described
in detail below. The discussion on CSO
control history summarizes findings from
Report to Congress—Implementation and
Enforcement of the Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Policy (EPA 2001 b).
2.1.1 Initial Efforts to Control
CSOs
In 1965, Congress authorized funding for
research, development, and
demonstration of techniques for
controlling CSOs and storm water. The
absence of an explicit mandate for CSO
control, however, meant that the CSO
problem received little attention. Passage
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendment of 1972 (P.L 92-500),
commonly known as the Clean Water Act,
focused greater attention on CSOs.
The Clean Water Act established the
regulatory framework for controlling
point source dischargers through the
NPDES program. This legislation also
established the Construction Grants
Program for wastewater infrastructure
(Clean Water Act Section 201). Most
2-1
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
investment in municipal facilities during
the 1970s focused on POTW upgrades (to
secondary and advanced treatment) and
expansion, not on wet weather issues.
However, some communities used
Construction Grants Program funds for
CSO control projects.
2.1.2 CSO Case Law
In 1980, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit accepted EPA's interpretation
of the Clean Water Act that discharges at
CSO outfalls are not discharges from
POTWs, and thus are not subject to limits
based on secondary treatment standards
otherwise applicable to discharges from
POTW plants (Montgomery Environmental
Coalition vs. Costle, 646 F2d 568 [D.C. Cir.
1980]). Following this decision, EPA and
states renewed their focus on permit
requirements for CSO discharges under
the NPDES program.
2.1.3 National Municipal Policy
on POTWs
EPA's 1984 National Municipal Policy on
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (NMP)
provided an impetus for control of all
discharges from municipal sewer
systems, including CSOs (EPA 1984). The
NMP encouraged collaboration between
EPA and states to address compliance
with the Clean Water Act at POTWs. The
NMP focused EPA's compliance efforts on
three types of POTWs: those that had
received federal funding and were out of
compliance, all major POTWs, and minor
POTWs that discharged to impaired
waters. The NMP recommended that
each EPA region draft a strategy to bring
POTWs into compliance with the Clean
Water Act. The NMP was intended to
facilitate compliance at all POTWs by July
1,1988. While the main focus of the NMP
was to ensure that POTWs complied with
secondary treatment and water quality-
based NPDES requirements, many
enforcement actions brought under the
NMP addressed CSO problems at POTWs.
2.1.4 National CSO Control
Strategy and the
Management Advisory
Group
In 1989, EPA issued the National CSO
Control Strategy (54 FR 37371). The
National CSO Control Strategy encouraged
states to develop statewide permitting
strategies to ensure all CSOs were subject
to an NPDES permit. Six minimum
measures for CSO control were
recommended:
• Proper operation and regular
maintenance
• Maximum use of the collection
system for storage
• Review and modification of
pretreatment programs
• Maximum flow delivery to the
POTW for treatment
• Prohibition of dry weather
overflows
• Control of solid and floatable
materials in CSO discharges
Additional controls could be required as
necessary. As EPA, states, and
municipalities worked to implement the
National CSO Control Strategy in the early
1990s, the impacts of CSOs continued to
receive national attention. Environmental
interest groups pushed for further action,
and municipal organizations, concerned
that the National CSO Control Strategy
did not provide sufficient clarity, sought a
consistent national approach to CSO
control.
In response to these concerns, EPA
formed a Management Advisory Group
(MAG) in 1992.The MAG included
2-2
-------
Chapter 2-Regulation of CSOs
representatives from states,
municipalities, industry associations, and
environmental interest groups. In
addition to continuing with the six
minimum controls identified in the
National CSO Control Strategy, the MAG
recommended three additional measures
(MAG 1992):
• Inspection, monitoring, and
reporting of CSOs
• Pollution prevention, including
water conservation, to reduce CSO
impacts
• Public notification for any areas
affected by CSOs, especially beach
and recreational areas
The MAG recommended that EPA begin a
dialogue with key stakeholders to better
define the Clean Water Act expectations
for controlling CSOs. A workgroup of CSO
stakeholders was assembled during the
summer of 1992. The workgroup
achieved a negotiated dialogue that led
to agreement on many technical issues;
however, no consensus was reached on a
policy framework. Individuals from the
workgroup representing stakeholder
groups met in October 1992 and
developed a framework document for
CSO control that served as the basis for
EPA's draft CSO Control Policy issued for
public comment in January 1993 (MAG
1993).
2.1.5 CSO Control Policy
EPA published the CSO Control Policy on
April 19,1994 (59 FR 18688). The purpose
of the CSO Control Policy was two-fold: 1)
to elaborate on EPA's 1989 National CSO
Control Strategy; and 2) to expedite
compliance with Clean Water Act
requirements. The CSO Control Policy
"represents a comprehensive national
strategy to ensure that municipalities,
permitting authorities, water quality
standards authorities, and the public
engage in a comprehensive and
coordinative effort to achieve cost-
effective CSO controls that ultimately
meet appropriate health and
environmental objectives."The policy
sought to minimize adverse impacts from
CSOs on water quality, aquatic biota, and
human health. More information on the
CSO Control Policy and its objectives is
presented in Section 2.2.
2.1.6 Wet Weather Water Quality
Act
When the CSO Control Policy was
released, many stakeholders, key
members of Congress, and EPA
advocated that it be endorsed in the
Clean Water Act to ensure its full
implementation. In December 2000, as
part of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-554),
Congress amended the Clean Water Act
by adding Section 402(q).This
amendment is commonly referred to as
the Wet Weather Water Quality Act of
2000. Section 402(q) requires that each
permit, order, or decree issued pursuant
to the Clean Water Act after the date of
enactment for a discharge from a
municipal CSS shall conform to the CSO
Control Policy.
P.L 106-554 also:
• Required EPA to issue guidance to
facilitate the conduct of water
quality and designated use reviews
for CSO receiving waters. EPA issued
this guidance on August 2,2001
(EPA 2001 a)
• Required EPA to submit two CSO
Reports to Congress (EPA 2001 b,
EPA 2004b)
2-3
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
• Required EPA to develop and
maintain a clearinghouse of
technologies for addressing the
impacts of CSO and sanitary sewer
overflow (SSOs) discharges
2.2 What is the CSO Control
Policy?
The CSO Control Policy provides
guidance to CSO communities, NPDES
authorities, and water quality standards
authorities for planning, selecting, and
implementing CSO controls. The policy
established four key principles to ensure
that CSO controls are cost-effective and
meet the objectives of the Clean Water
Act:
1. Provide clear levels of control that
would be presumed to meet
appropriate health and
environmental objectives
2. Provide sufficient flexibility to
municipalities, especially financially
disadvantaged communities, to
consider the site-specific nature of
CSOs and to determine the most
cost-effective means of reducing
pollutants and meeting [Clean
Water Act] objectives and
requirements
3. Allow a phased approach to
implementation of CSO controls
considering a community's financial
capability
4. Provide for review and revision, as
appropriate, of water quality
standards and their implementation
procedures when developing CSO
control plans to reflect the site-
specific wet weather impacts of
CSOs
EPA's CSO Control Policy established
objectives for CSO communities and
expectations for NPDES and water quality
standards authorities. The policy assigns
primary responsibility for its
implementation and enforcement to
NPDES authorities and water quality
standards authorities. It also presents
elements of an enforcement and
compliance program to address CSOs
that overflow during dry weather and for
enforcement of NPDES permits issued in
accordance with the CSO Control Policy.
2.2.1 Objectives for CSO
Communities
Objectives for CSO communities with
NPDES permits are 1) to implement the
nine minimum controls (NMC) and
submit documentation on NMC
implementation; and 2) to develop and
implement a long-term control plan
(LTCP). There are certain circumstances,
which the 1994 CSO Control Policy
anticipated, where a permittee would not
have to develop an LTCP (59 FR 18690).
The NMC are:
Proper operation and regular
maintenance programs for the
sewer system and the CSOs
Maximum use of the collection
system for storage
Review and modification of
pretreatment requirements to
assure CSO impacts are minimized
Maximize flow to the POTW for
treatment
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Prohibition of CSOs during dry
weather
Control of solids and floatable
materials in CSOs
Pollution prevention
Public notification to ensure that
the public receives adequate
2-4
-------
Chapter 2-Regulation of CSOs
notification of CSO occurrences and
CSO impacts
9. Monitoring to effectively
characterize CSO impacts and the
efficacy of CSO controls
Municipalities were expected to
implement the NMC and to submit
appropriate documentation regarding
compliance with the NMC to NPDES
authorities as soon as reasonably
possible, but no laterthan January 1,
1997.
In addition to implementing the NMC,
CSO communities are expected to
develop and implement an LTCP that
includes measures to provide for
attainment of water quality standards.
The policy identified nine elements that
an LTCP should include. These are:
1. Characterization, monitoring, and
modeling of the CSS
2. Public participation
3. Consideration of sensitive areas
4. Evaluation of alternatives
5. Cost/performance considerations
6. Operational plan
7. Maximization of treatment at the
POTW treatment plant
8. Implementation schedule
9. Post-construction compliance
monitoring
LTCP implementation schedules were
expected to include project milestones
and a financing plan for design and
construction of necessary controls as
soon as practicable (EPA 1994).
2.2.2 Expectations for Permitting
Authorities
The CSO Control Policy expected
permitting authorities to undertake the
following:
• Review and revise, as appropriate,
state CSO permitting strategies
developed in response to the
National CSO Control Strategy
• Develop and issue permits requiring
CSO communities to 1) immediately
implement the NMC and document
their implementation; and 2)
develop and implement an LTCP
• Promote coordination among the
CSO community, the water quality
standards authority, and the
general public through LTCP
development and implementation
• Evaluate water pollution control
needs on a watershed basis and
coordinate CSO control with the
control of other point and nonpoint
sources of pollution
• Recognize that it might be difficult
for some small communities to
meet all of the formal elements of
LTCP development, and that
compliance with the NMC and a
reduced scope LTCP may be
sufficient
• Consider sensitive areas, use
impairment, and a CSO
community's financial capability in
the review and approval of
implementation schedules
2-5
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
2.2.3 Coordination with Water
Quality Standards:
Development, Review, and
Approval
Communities develop and implement
LTCPs to meet water quality standards,
including the designated uses and criteria
to protect those uses for waterbodies
that receive CSO discharges. The CSO
Control Policy recognized that substantial
coordination and agreement among the
permitting authority, the water quality
standards authority, the public, and the
CSO community would be required to
accomplish this objective. The CSO
Control Policy also recognized that the
development of the LTCP should be
coordinated with the review and
appropriate revision of water quality
standards and their implementation
procedures.
2.2.4 Enforcement and
Compliance
The CSO enforcement effort described in
the CSO Control Policy was to commence
with an initiative to address CSOs that
occur during dry weather. This was to be
followed by an enforcement effort in
conjunction with CSO permitting:
Under the CWA [Clean Water Act],
EPA can use several enforcement
options to address permittees with
CSOs. Those options directly
applicable to this Policy are Section
308 Information Requests, Section
309(a) Administrative Orders, Section
309(g) Administrative Penalty Orders,
Section 309(b) and (d) CivilJudicial
Actions, and Section 504 Emergency
Powers. NPDES states should use
comparable means.
EPA recognized that the success of the
enforcement effort would depend on
expeditious action by NPDES authorities
in issuing enforceable permits with NMC
requirements and other Clean Water Act
requirements. Enforcement priorities
were to be based upon human health
impacts, environmental impacts, and
impacts on sensitive areas.
2.3 What Targets Have Been
Established for CSOs?
EPA understands that achieving the goal
of complete control of CSOs will be a
long-term effort and will require large
capital investments on the part of CSO
communities. In order to continue to
make progress in meeting that goal,
EPA's Office of Water and Office of
Enforcement and Compliance established
interim targets for CSO control. In
addition, the U.S. Policy Committee—a
forum of senior-level representatives
from federal, state, and tribal government
agencies—established annual CSO
targets for the Great Lakes as part of the
Great Lakes Strategy.
2.3.1 EPA Targets for CSO Control
As part of its National Water Program
Guidance for FY06, EPA's Office of Water
established the following target for CSO
control:
By 2008,75 percen t of CSO permittees
will have schedules in place in permits
or other enforceable mechanisms to
implement approved LTCPs (EPA
2006).
2-6
-------
Chapter 2-Regulation of CSOs
To date, 40 percent of the CSO
communities in the Lake Michigan basin
have enforceable schedules to
implement approved LTCPs.1'2
In its Performance-based Strategy for
CSOs, EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assistance established six
goals, including one specific to LTCPs:
By the end ofFY07,65% of all
permitted CSOs (2004 baseline) have
an approved Long Term Control Plan
with an enforceable schedule that will
ultimately result in compliance with
the technology-based and water
quality-based requirements of the
Clean Water Act, or action has been
initiated to achieve that result (EPA
2004a).
Currently, 40 percent of the CSO
communities in the Lake Michigan basin
have approved LTCPs.1'2
2.3.2 Great Lakes Strategy
Targets for CSO Control
The Great Lakes Strategy 2002 was
developed by the U.S. Policy Committee
to advance the restoration and
protection of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem (USPC 2002). The Strategy is
focused on U.S. federal, state and tribal
government environmental protection
and natural resource management
activities as they relate to fulfilling the
goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. The U.S. Policy Committee
will set overall priorities and coordinate
the development of individual actions
and commitments by each agency to
achieve the goals, objectives, and actions
in this Strategy.
The Strategy established specific targets
for the Great Lakes with respect to CSO
control:
By 2005,100% of all combined sewer
overflow (CSO) permits in the Great
Lakes basin will be consistent with the
national CSO [Control] Policy. All
issued/reissued permits for CSO
discharges will contain conditions
that conform to the national CSO
[Control] policy, and states will
prioritize the reissuance of CSO
permits under their permit backlog
strategies (USPC2002).
Progress towards meeting this target for
CSO permittees in the Lake Michigan
basin is listed below by state:1
• INDIANA: All 18 CSO permits in
the Lake Michigan basin are
consistent with the CSO Control
Policy.
• MICHIGAN: All 11 CSO permits in
the Lake Michigan basin are
consistent with CSO Control Policy.
• WISCONSIN: The only Wisconsin
CSO permit in the Lake Michigan
basin is consistent with the CSO
Control Policy.
Chicago-area CSOs are not included in these
measures; Chicago-area CSOs drain away from
Lake Michigan under most wet weather
conditions.
! Forty percent (12 of 30) of CSO communities in
Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin are
implementing approved LTCPs. An additional
community, Albion, Indiana, completed sewer
separation and was not required to develop an
LTCP.
2-7
-------
-------
Chapter 3
CSO Discharges to Lake Michigan
This chapter describes the location of
CSO outfalls and the occurrence of CSO
discharges in the Lake Michigan basin.
The chapter also describes the types of
impacts caused by or attributed to
CSOs. The chapter then documents
CSO-related impacts identified through
national programs, including the
National Water Quality Inventory
(NWQI) of assessed waters under
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act;
listings of impaired waters identified by
states under Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act; recreational use impairments
tracked under the BEACH (Beaches
Environmental Assessment and Coastal
Health) Program; and impacts
associated with Great Lakes Areas of
Concern (AOC). Data collected for two
recent CSO Reports to Congress (EPA
2001 b, EPA 2004b), where relevant to
the Lake Michigan basin, were updated
for this report.
3.1 How were the Data
Collected?
Data presented in this chapter were
collected from previously published or
available state, regional, and local data
sources. Because there is no specific
guidance in the CSO Control Policy for
CSO data collection, reporting, or CSO
volume quantification, data collected
by the responsible agencies vary greatly
among states, and even among
localities when localities are responsible
for collecting and reporting CSO-related
data.
The individual sources for the CSO data
used in this Report are summarized
below. Each summary provides the
name of the agency submitting the
data and background information on
how the data were collected.
Indiana
NPDES permits in Indiana contain
language requiring communities to
monitor CSO discharge volume using a
flow measurement device. CSO
volumes for individual communities are
reported on DMRs. In order to compile
CSO volumes for Indiana communities,
EPA requested hard copies of DMR
reports from each CSO community and
tabulated the CSO volumes from each
DMR received.
Michigan
In Michigan, CSO discharge volume is
monitored and reported by each
individual community. No standard
method for monitoring and recording is
required by the state.
Each community proposes its own
methodology for approval by the state.
Some communities use flow meters.
Others use estimates based on models
or other methods. For example, the
East Lansing, Michigan permit states
that East Lansing must report the
3-1
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
amount of discharge measured in
accordance with the procedures
approved by the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The
city must also report the reason for the
discharge and the time the discharge
began and ended. The permit also
states that the city shall estimate the
volume and quality of discharges.
CSO discharge volumes in Michigan are
reported on the web page:
www.deq.state.mi.us/csosso/.
Wisconsin
In Wisconsin, the only CSS in the Lake
Michigan Basin is managed by the
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District (MMSD). MMSD estimates CSOs
using a computer model that takes into
account the impact of the river
elevation on overflow volumes. The
actual CSO flows are not measured.
MMSD reports these flows to Wisconsin
DNR on a quarterly basis.
Illinois
In Illinois, Chicago is not considered to
be a Lake Michigan CSO community.
However, under certain wet weather
conditions, Chicago-area CSOs have the
potential to impact Lake Michigan. Data
on potential CSO impacts in Lake
Michigan were provided by the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC).
These data were taken from the
MWRDGC website at
http://www.mwrdgc.dst.il.us/mo/csoap
p/default.htm. MWRDGC calculates
river reversals into the lake at three
waterway controlling works using the
theoretical discharge formula for flow
through an opening under pressure
which is:
Q (flow rate) = cA(2gh)Ai/2, where
c = discharge coefficient
A = area of orifice
g = gravity
h = head or the depth of the water to
the center point of the orifice.
River reversal events are monitored by
MWRDGC personnel, and those data are
entered either every 5 or 15 minutes to
best reflect the actual event. The
MWRDGC formula has been reviewed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and by an independent panel of
specialists.
Summary
As discussed, there is no specific
guidance in the CSO Control Policy for
CSO data collection, reporting, or CSO
volume quantification. The data
collection, reporting, and volume
quantification methods used range
from flow monitoring to computer
modeling to other forms of estimating.
Therefore CSO data can vary greatly
among states, and even among
localities when localities are responsible
for collecting and reporting CSO-related
data.
In addition to the variability in CSO data
generated due to the different data
collection methodologies, modeled
data also contain inherent uncertainty
owing to the assumptions underlying
the modeling. Both the MMSD and the
MWRDGC use modeling approaches to
generate their reported CSO data.
Michigan does not require a standard
method for determining CSOs, and it is
likely that some Michigan communities
use modeling as well. Therefore, the
uncertainty inherent in the data
modeling must be considered when
reviewing CSO data generated using
modeling approaches.
Because of the inherent differences
among the different states and
3-2
-------
Chapter 3-CSO Discharges to Lake Michigan
municipalities in the way data were
collected, EPA limited the scope of its
data interpretation to avoid drawing
potentially inaccurate conclusions from
the data. As described, the data
presented in this chapter were
collected and compiled from
previously-published or available
sources. No primary data were collected
and no raw data were analyzed or
interpreted for this Report. In addition,
the limited availability of CSO data on
the state and local level led to the
inclusion of data sets from different
localities or states that cover different
time periods. No attempts were made
to adjust these data for a specific time
period. Readers should not attempt to
draw time-dependent comparisons for
these data.
Despite the differences between the
data sets summarized in this Report,
EPA believes that the data present
general information that is
characteristic of the extent of CSOs in
the Lake Michigan basin.
3.2 What is the Occurrence
of CSOs to Lake
Michigan and its
Tributaries?
For the purpose of this report, the term
"CSO community" refers to an entity or
entities (e.g., municipal government,
sanitary district) that hold an NPDES
permit for CSO discharges. There are 30
CSO communities with 347 CSO outfalls
that discharge to the Lake Michigan
basin. Eighteen of these communities
are in Indiana, 11 are in Michigan, and
one is in Wisconsin. There are no Lake
Michigan CSO communities in Illinois.
Chicago is not considered to be a Lake
Michigan CSO community. Chicago-
area CSOs drain away from Lake
Michigan to the Mississippi River basin
under most wet weather conditions.
However, under certain wet weather
conditions, Chicago-area CSOs have the
potential to impact Lake Michigan. This
can happen when flow in Chicago-area
rivers is reversed and directed to Lake
Michigan to prevent flooding-related
property damage. In addition to flow
reversals, there are two Chicago-area
CSOs that have the potential to
discharge directly to Lake Michigan,
although they have not done so since
2003. Because of Chicago's proximity to
the lake and the potential for CSO
discharges during certain wet weather
events, EPA has included a discussion of
Chicago-area CSOs (e.g., past CSO
discharges and current CSO control
efforts) in this report.
The location of CSO communities in the
Lake Michigan basin, along with major
rivers and state boundaries, is presented
in Figure 3.1. Approximately one-third of
the CSO communities (9 of 30) are
located within 10 miles of the Lake
Michigan shoreline. The majority are
located inland along rivers that drain to
Lake Michigan.
The number of active CSO outfalls for
each CSO community in the Lake
Michigan basin and the 2005 average
daily flow at the wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP) are presented in Table 3.1.
Sixty percent (18 of 30) of the CSO
communities in the basin have five CSO
outfalls or fewer.
3-3
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Figure 3.1
Location of CSO Communities in
the Lake Michigan Basin
The shaded area defines the Lake
Michigan basin. The white circles ( )
indicate Lake Michigan CSO
communities. The black circle (•)
indicates Chicago.
3.2.1 Volume and Frequency
of CSO Discharges
CSO permittees in the Lake Michigan
basin are required to report CSO
frequency and volume information to
their state NPDES authority. State
reporting requirements differ among
the Lake Michigan states. For example,
Indiana tracks the number of days
during which CSO discharges occur,
while Michigan tracks CSO
events.
Data on CSO frequency and volume
reported by CSO communities in the
Lake Michigan basin are presented
in this section. For a given CSO
community, the frequency and
volume of observed/estimated CSO
discharges can vary substantially from
year to year due to natural variations in
rainfall and snowmelt conditions.
Due to the variability in rainfall-related
discharges from community to
community, differences in time frames
represented, differences in the
definitions of CSO events, and
limitations in the accuracy and
availability of discharge volume
information, EPA has not attempted to
draw any comparisons or conclusions
regarding the data. However, this
information does provide an indication
of the relative magnitude of discharges
within the Lake Michigan basin.
3-4
-------
Chapter 3-CSO Discharges to Lake Michigan
Table 3.1
Lake Michigan CSO Community
Information
CSO Community
Albion
Angola
Chesterton
Crown Point
East Chicago
Elkhart
Gary
Goshen
Hammond
Kendallville
Ligonier
Michigan City
Milford
Mishawaka
Nappanee
South Bend
Valparaiso
Wakarusa
Crystal Falls
East Lansing
Grand Rapids
Iron Mountain - Kingsford
Lansing
State
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
— i
i
i
i
Number of CSO
Outfalls3
Ob
1
1
4
3
39
11
6
20
1
1
1
Ob
18
13
44
1
6
1
1
11
1
27
2005 Average Daily Flow
at the WWTP Million
Gallons per Day (MGD)
0.18
1.19
2.66
2.76
10.08
14.29
40.02
3.91
32.48
1.63
0.83
6.34
0.18
11.93
1.15
32.83
4.27
0.23
0.57C
12.81
56.28
1.67
16.13
3-5
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Table 3.1
Lake Michigan CSO Community
Information continued
CSO Community
Manistee
Manistique
Menominee
Miles
Norway
St. Joseph
Milwaukee
Total CSO outfalls in
State
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Wl
Lake Michigan basin:
Chicago-area CSOs:
Total CSO outfalls including Chicago-area CSOs:
Number of CSO
Outfalls3
4
1
Ob
8
1
5
117
347
(369)'
(716)'
2005 Average Daily Flow
Million Gallons per Day
(MGD)
0.96
1.19
1.48
2.79
0.28
8.64d
172.8
3 It should be noted that the presence of an outfall does not necessarily imply CSO discharge; it only indicates the potential for a
discharge.
Outfalls have been separated or eliminated.
c
No NPDES permit effluent data because POTW discharges to groundwater. Discharge to groundwater allowed May through
October, so daily maximum allowed flow could be estimated atone-half of the 1.14 MGD design flow or 0.57 MGD.
d Benton Harbor - St. Joseph POTW
303 of the 369 Chicago-area CSO outfalls discharge to Chicago area rivers that originally flowed into Lake Michigan, but which
currently discharge into the Mississippi River basin due to a canal and lock system. CSO flows captured by the Chicago Tunnel and
Reservoir Project (TARP) system are transported and stored for eventual treatment at wastewater treatment facilities. These 303
CSOs, if they do overflow, can backflowinto Lake Michigan during intense rain storms if the locks along Lake Michigan are opened to
prevent loss of life and widespread property damage. The need for backflow events has been reduced by the ability of TARP Phase 1
storage tunnels to capture CSO flows and will be further reduced by TARP Phase 2 storage basins which are anticipated to be
completed by 2015.
3-6
-------
Chapter 3-CSO Discharges to Lake Michigan
Table 3.2
Indiana CSO Discharge
Information
This table shows the number of days
Indiana CSO communities reported CSO
discharges and the CSO volume
discharged, to the Lake Michigan basin
(September 1,2004-June 30,2005).
Indiana CSO Community Number of Days with CSO Volume
CSO Discharges Million Gallons
(MG)
Albion
Angola
Chesterton
Crown Point
East Chicago
Elkhart
Gary
Goshen
Hammond
Kendallville
Ligonier
Michigan City
Milford
Total: 2,490
2005 Average
Daily Flow
at WWTP (MGD)
South Bend
Valparaiso
Wakaru
a Completed sewer separation
b Incomplete volume estimate (estimated for 1 of 2 days)
c CSO outfall eliminated April 20,2005
d No volume estimate; 176 hours of overflow reported during the 10-month period.
INDIANA
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) has required CSO
communities to report CSO discharges
that occur as a result of wet weather
through a standardized CSO DMR since
October 2001. CSO DMRs must be
submitted every month, even if no
CSOs occur (IDEM 2005).
The number of days with CSO
discharges and the CSO volume
discharged for a recent 10-month
period (September 1,2004-June 30,
2005) reported by Indiana CSO
communities in the Lake Michigan
basin are summarized in Table 3.2. As
shown, Indiana communities in the
Lake Michigan basin discharged
approximately 2,490 MG of combined
sewage during this period. This can be
compared to the 50,255 MG of flow
through the WWTPs in these
communities that received treatment
during this same period (166.96 MGD
total average daily flow for these
WWTPs multiplied by 301 days during
the reporting period of September 1,
2004-June 30, 2005).
3-7
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Figure 3.2
Annual CSO Frequency for
Michigan CSO Communities in the
Lake Michigan Basin:
2003-2004
Ten CSO Communities reported CSO
events in 2003 and 2004. The 11th CSO
Community, Menominee, separated i
CSS and eliminated all CSO outfalls.
>0
I its
c
Crystal Falls
East Lansing
Grand Rapids
Iron Mtn-Kingsford
Lansing
Manistee
Manistique
Miles
Norway
St. Joseph
) :
r
> i
-
0 1
CS
5 2
iO Event
0 2
t
5 3
0 3
5
•
40
• 2003
2004
1
45
MICHIGAN
CSO communities in Michigan are
required to notify the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) within 24 hours of the onset of
a CSO event. A "CSO event" is defined
as a discharge from one or more CSO
outfalls in response to a single wet
weather event. After the discharge
ends, the CSO community must submit
a report on the CSO event, including
the location and volume of the
discharge as well as the start/end date
and time. MDEQ compiles the event
information into annual reports, and it
publishes CSO event information
along with SSO data on its CSO and SSO
Discharge Information web page
(http://www.deq.state.mi.us/csosso/).
The frequency of CSO events for
Michigan CSO communities in the Lake
Michigan basin for the period 2003
through 2004 is shown in Figure 3.2.
The annual CSO volumes reported by
these Michigan CSO communities are
shown in Table 3.3 for the period 2003
through 2004. CSO communities also
report the level of treatment provided
to the CSO discharge. That is, partially
3-8
-------
Chapter 3-CSO Discharges to Lake Michigan
treated sewage, where treatment
usually consists of solids removal and
some disinfection (partially treated
CSO), or diluted raw sewage (no CSO
treatment). Some communities did not
specify the level of treatment provided.
As shown in Figure 3.2 and Table 3.3,
the frequency and volume of
observed/estimated CSO discharges
vary substantially from year to year. This
is principally due to natural variations in
rainfall and snowmelt that affect the
annual volume of CSOs. Forthe
Michigan CSO communities in the Lake
Michigan basin, total reported CSO
volume was 41 percent higher in 2004
than in 2003. In May 2004, many parts
of Michigan experienced a storm event
approximating a once in 25-year, 24-
hour rainfall event that contributed to
greater CSO volumes in 2004 than in
the previous year (MDEQ 2005).
The increase in partially treated CSO
from 2003 to 2004 resulted from the
increase in CSO volume available for
treatment, and not necessarily from an
increase in treatment capacity.
Table 3.3
Annual CSO Volumes for Michigan
CSO Communities in the Lake
Michigan Basin: 2003-2004
Annual CSO volumes were 403.14 MG
and 678.89 MG for the years 2003 and
2004, respectively.
2003 2004
Community Partially No CSO Treatment Partially No CSO Treatment
Treated CSO Treatment Not Treated CSO Treatment Not
(MG) (MG) Specified (MG) (MG) Specified
(MG) (MG)
Crystal Falls3
East Lansing
Grand Rapids
Iron Mountain
Kingsford
Lansing
Manistee
Manistique
Miles
Norway
St. Joseph
Totals
10.72
384.08
aCSO volumes were not specified on MDEQ web page.
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
WISCONSIN
In Wisconsin, MMSD manages the only
Wisconsin CSS in the Lake Michigan
basin. The annual CSO frequency and
volume reported for Milwaukee for the
period 1998 through 2004 is presented
in Table 3.4. In its original estimate for
2004, MMSD reported CSO discharges
totaling 4,142 MG resulting from
particularly heavy rains in May of that
year. It was later discovered that the
computer model used to estimate CSO
volume had not been applied properly,
and MMSD subsequently revised its
estimate to 1,088 MG in a press release.
This revision corresponds to a 70
percent decrease in the CSO volume
estimated for the year 2004 (MMSD
2004). Reported CSO volumes were re-
calculated and MMSD developed
revised model results for the period
1998 through 2004. The revised CSO
volumes are shown with the originally
reported CSO volumes in Table 3.4. On
average, MMSD reported three CSO
events per year for the last seven years.
No CSOs occurred during 2003.
Table 3.4
I MMSD Annual CSO Frequency and
Volume: 1998-2004
This table shows the CSO volumes
originally reported and later revised by
MMSD.
Frequency Originally Reported CSO Volume
(No. of Events) (MG)
Revised CSO Volume
(MG)
1998
1999
2001
2002
2003
2004
3-10
-------
Chapter 3-CSO Discharges to Lake Michigan
Figure 3.3
Map of Chicago Area with Three
Waterway-Controlling Works
• - Indicates a waterway controlling
works where river reversals can occur.
LAKE MICHIGAN
Chicago River
Chicago River
Controlling Works
ILLINOIS
In the Chicago metropolitan area,
there are 369 CSO outfalls owned by
the City of Chicago, the Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago (MWRDGC), and 40 tributary
communities. Chicago-area CSOs
discharge to the Chicago River, the
Des Plaines River, the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal, and the
Calumet River systems. These
waterways drain away from Lake
Michigan during most wet weather
conditions. Consequently, the
majority of CSO events in the Chicago
metropolitan area do not affect Lake
Michigan. However, the gates at the
waterway controlling works that
separate the Chicago-area waters and
Lake Michigan are opened during
certain heavy rainfall events in order
to prevent local flooding. River water
affected by CSOs is discharged to the
lake during these river reversals.
When this occurs, discharges from
303 of the 369 Chicago-area CSO
outfalls have the potential to impact
Lake Michigan in this manner. River
reversals that discharge CSO-
impacted flow to Lake Michigan can
occur at three waterway-controlling
works in the Chicago area: O'Brien
Lock & Dam, Chicago River
Controlling Works (CRCW), and
Wilmette Pump Station (Figure 3.3).
The frequency and volume of river
reversals to Lake Michigan are
summarized for a 20-year period
(1985-2004) in Table 3.5 (MWRDGC
2005b). The volume of river reversals
does not directly correspond with the
volume of CSO discharged to the lake.
It does, however, provide an indication
of periods when CSO discharges could
cause or contribute to water quality
impacts in Lake Michigan. As shown in
Table 3.5, no river reversals have
occurred since 2002, when 1.7 billion
gallons (BG) of river water impacted by
3-11
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
CSO discharges were diverted to Lake
Michigan.
Two additional CSO points are located
at MWRDGC pump stations on the
Lake Michigan side of the O'Brien
Lock & Dam. These CSOs have the
potential to discharge to the Lake
Michigan basin independent of a river
reversal. MWRDGC reports that these
CSOs have not discharged to the Lake
Michigan basin since 2003.
MWRDGC maintains an on-line map
showing CSO events in the Chicago
area. The system displays the water
segments that have received CSO
discharges and indicates whether
discharges to Lake Michigan have
occurred
(http://www.mwrd.Org/mo/csoapp/d
efault.htm).
Table 3.5
Chicago-Area River Reversals to
Lake Michigan: 1985-2005
River reversals that discharge CSO-
impacted water can occur at three
waterway controlling works: O'Brien
Lock & Dam, CRCW, and Wilmette
Pumping Station. This table shows the
volume of water (MG) discharged to
Lake Michigan during river reversals.
O'Brien Lock
&Dam(MG)
CRCW
(MG)
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
997
1998
1999
2000
2001
'
2002
2003
2004
2005
Aug-6
Mar-4
Oct-3
Aug-25 to Aug-26
Aug-13to Aug-14
None
Aug-3 to Aug-4
Nov-27 to Nov-28
Aug-17to Aug-18
May-9toMay-10
None
None
None
None
None
July-17toJuly-18
Aug-16toAug-17
Feb-20 to Feb-22
None
Jun-13
None
Oct-13
Aug-31
Aug-2
Aug-22
None
None
None
Wilmette Total Volume of
Pump Station River Reversals
(MG) (MG)
3-12
-------
Chapter 3-CSO Discharges to Lake Michigan
3.3 What Problems are
Caused by CSO
Discharges?
EPA documented that CSOs cause or
contribute to environmental and
human health impacts in two recent
national assessments of CSOs: Report
to Congress—Implementation and
Enforcement of the Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Policy (EPA 2001 b)
and Report to Congress—Impacts and
Control of CSOs andSSOs (EPA 2004b).
Pollutant concentrations in CSOs
alone may be sufficient to cause a
violation of water quality standards in
a particular waterbody, precluding
the attainment of one or more of the
designated uses (e.g., swimming and
fishing) for that waterbody. It is
important to note that impacts from
CSOs are often compounded by
impacts from other sources of
pollution. CSOs can discharge
simultaneously with SSOs, storm
water runoff, agricultural runoff, and
other nonpoint sources of pollution.
This makes it difficult to identify and
assign cause-and-effect relationships
between CSO events and specific
impairments.
The principal pollutants identified in
CSOs are oxygen-depleting
substances, total suspended solids,
microbial pathogens, toxics, nutrients,
and floatables and trash. The
designated uses that are likely to be
impaired by each of these pollutants
are summarized in Table 3.6.
3.3.1 Water Quality Impacts
Attributed to CSO:
305(b) Assessments and
303(d) Impairments
EPA's National Water Quality Inventory
(NWQI) 2000 Report (EPA 2002) is a
national assessment that identified
the types of pollutants or stressors
most often found to impair the
assessed waters and the leading
sources of these pollutants. The NWQI
2000 Report is based on a compilation
of individual state assessments. Five
thousand sixty-six (5,066) miles of the
total of 5,521 miles of the Great Lakes
shoreline (92 percent) were assessed
for the NWQI2000 Report. For Lake
Michigan, 100 percent of the
shoreline miles were assessed for at
least one use (Section 305(b) reports
for Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Illinois, 2000).
Overall, EPA found that the three
pollutants most often associated with
impaired waters of the United States
were solids, pathogens, and nutrients.
All of these pollutants are typically
present in CSO discharges.
Specifically, the NWQI2000 Report
showed that the three pollutants
most often associated with impaired
miles of Great Lakes shoreline are
priority toxic chemicals, nutrients, and
pathogens (NWQI 2000, p. 34).
Therefore, CSOs can be assumed to
contribute to the loading of these
pollutants to waterbodies where CSO
discharges occur.
Reporting of the source of
impairment varies widely from state
to state. CSOs are tracked as a specific
pollutant source in many, but not all,
states that have CSSs. The lack of
uniformity in state assessments and
reporting makes it difficult to fully
identify the magnitude of CSO
impacts.
3-13
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
The NWQI2000 Report did not cite
CSOs as a leading source of
impairment in any of the five
waterbody types assessed: rivers and
streams; lakes, rivers, and ponds;
estuaries and bays; ocean shoreline,
and Great Lakes shorelines.
Nationally, CSOs were identified as a
source of impairment for 1,466 square
miles (5 percent) of assessed estuaries
and 56 miles (1 percent) of Great
Lakes shoreline.
IMPAIRMENT IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN
BASIN
Waters designated as impaired are
included on a state's 303(d) list. A
total maximum daily load (TMDL) is
required for each pollutant causing
impairment. For this report, EPA
compared CSO permittee locations
with water segments identified in the
Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin
303(d) lists of impaired waters. Of the
reported 303(d) impairments, CSOs
would be most likely to contribute to
pathogen, organic enrichment, and
sediment and siltation impairments
Table 3.6
Pollutants of Concern in CSOs that
Are Likely to Cause or Contribute
to Impairment
The pathogens present in CSO
discharges have the potential to impact
several designated uses, including
drinking water supply, fish
consumption, and recreation.
Oxygen-demanding
substances
Sediment (TSS)
Microbial Pathogens
Toxics
Nutrients
Floatables and Trash
3-14
-------
Chapter 3-CSO Discharges to Lake Michigan
because of the pollutants found in
CSOs. However, as discussed above,
different communities vary widely in
the frequency, length, and loading
from CSO discharges.
However, it is important to note that
the proximity of a permitted CSO
outfall to an impaired segment does
not in and of itself demonstrate that
the CSO is the cause of the
impairment. It does suggest, however,
that CSOs should be considered as a
source of pollution with respect to
TMDL development.
The results of this analysis are
summarized below by state.
In Indiana, all 18 CSO communities in
the Lake Michigan basin discharge in
the vicinity of 303(d)-impaired waters.
Thirteen of these communities
discharge to waters where pathogens
(£ co//) and/or siltation were cited as
reasons or causes of impairment.
In Michigan, 10 of the 11 CSO
communities discharge to 303(d)-
impaired waters. The waters in close
proximity to Norway have not been
assessed. Three CSO communities in
Michigan (Manistee, Miles, and St.
Joseph) discharge to 303(d)-listed
waters that specifically cite "CSO-
pathogen (Rule 100)" as a source of
impairment. In addition, three CSO
communities (East Lansing, Lansing,
and Crystal Falls) discharge to
waterbodies that include pathogens
or pathogens and dissolved oxygen
as reasons or causes of impairment.
In Wisconsin, MMSD, the only CSO
permittee in the basin, also
discharges to or in close proximity to
303(d)-impaired waters where
pathogens and/or dissolved oxygen
were cited as reasons or causes of
impairment.
EPA believes the association between
CSO location and impaired waters is
due to a number of factors in addition
to CSO discharges. CSOs are generally
located in urban areas where
waterbodies also receive relatively
high volumes of storm water and
other pollutant loads. Waters within
urban areas are also much more likely
to be assessed than non-urban waters
(EPA 2004b).
3.3.2 BEACH Program
Recreation is an important designated
use for most waters of the United
States. The Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health Act of
2000 (P.L. 106-284) resulted in EPA's
BEACH Program, which compiles and
reports on beach monitoring and
public notification activity for the
nation's coastal recreational waters
on an annual basis. In the first years of
EPA's BEACH Program, local and state
agencies representing beaches in
coastal, Great Lakes, and some inland
waters collected and submitted beach
monitoring data through the National
Health Protection Survey of Beaches.
Participation in this annual survey was
voluntary from 1997 through 2002.
Beginning with the 2003 season, state
recipients of BEACH Act grants are
required to submit data collected as
part of the state's program for beach
monitoring and notification for
coastal and Great Lakes recreation
waters.
With respect to designated use
impairment, 165 Lake Michigan
beaches had at least one advisory or
closing during the 2000-2004
swimming seasons. Elevated bacteria
levels accounted for 94 percent of
these recreational use impairments,
which were manifested as beach
advisories and closings. A summary of
the sources of pollution attributed to
advisories and closings at Lake
Michigan beaches during the period
3-15
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
2000-2004 is presented in Figure 3.4.
Multiple pollutant sources are
identified for a single event in some
instances, and a single pollution
source could also be identified as
"unknown". As shown in Figure 3.4, a
wide variety of pollutant sources were
reported as causing beach advisories
and closings. Approximately 81
percent of the advisories and closings
in Lake Michigan were caused by an
unknown source of pollution. CSOs
were reported to be responsible for
two percent of total reported
advisories and closings, and eight
percent of advisories and closings
where a known source was identified.
As shown in Figure 3.5, CSOs were
reported as causing a total of 63
beach advisories and closings in four
counties in three states adjacent to
Lake Michigan (2000-2004). No beach
advisories or closings attributed to
CSOs were reported in Michigan
counties bordering the lake during
this five-year period. A summary of all
pollutant sources reported as causing
all advisories and closings in these
four counties during the period 2000-
2004 is presented in Table 3.7. As
shown, CSOs were reported to be a
source of pollution for 18 percent and
eight percent of all beach advisories
and closings in Porter County and
LaPorte County, Indiana, respectively.
CSOs were cited as a source of
pollution less than three percent of
the time at beaches in Cook County,
Illinois, and Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin. This does not in and of
itself indicate that CSOs cause a larger
percentage of advisories and closings
at Indiana beaches. Similarly to CSO
data collection methods, public
health reporting methods are not
standardized. This leads to differences
in the ways that states report the
causes of beach closures. For
example, in Illinois and Wisconsin, a
large number of advisories and
closures at beaches are attributed to
unknown sources. Overall, the Indiana
counties attributed fewer beach
advisories and closings to an
unknown source than did Illinois or
Wisconsin.
3-16
-------
Chapter 3-CSO Discharges to Lake Michigan
Figure 3.4
Sources of Pollution that Resulted
in Lake Michigan Beach Advisories
and Closings: 2000-2004
CSOs were responsible for two percent
of reported advisories and closings,
during the period 2000 through 2004.
BOAT H 2
CSO D2
POTW ] 1
SSO
SEPTIC
<1
T
STORM
WILDLIFE
OTHER
UNKNOWN
| 5
| 7
]1
181
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Percent
Figure 3.5
CSOs Reported to Cause Beach
Advisories and Closings in Four
Counties Bordering Lake
Michigan: 2000-2004
The number shown in each county
represents the total number of beach
advisories or closings attributed (wholly
or in part) to CSO during the period
2000-2004.
oily
Milwaukee
County
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
3-17
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Table 3.7
Sources of Pollution that Resulted
in Advisories and Closings in Four
Lake Michigan Counties: 2000-
2004
Four counties bordering Lake Michigan
reported CSOs as causing beach
advisories and closings. This table shows
all pollutant sources attributed to all
beach advisories or closings at these
four beaches.
shows
,11
M
Pollutant Cook County, IL La Porte County, IN Porter County, IN Milwaukee County, Wl
Source
Boat
CSO
POTW
SSO
Septic
Storm
Wildlife
Other
Unknown
3.3.3 Impacts within Great
Lakes AOCs
In an effort to clean up the most
polluted areas in the Great Lakes, the
United States and Canada, in Annex 2
of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, committed to cooperate
with State and Provincial
Governments to ensure that RAPs are
developed and implemented for all
designated AOCs in the Great Lakes
basin. AOCs are defined by the US-
Canada Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (International Joint
Commission 1989) as "geographic
areas that fail to meet the general or
specific objectives of the agreement
where such failure has caused or is
likely to cause impairment of
beneficial use of the area's ability to
support aquatic life."
Ten AOCs have been identified in the
Lake Michigan basin. Three of the
Lake Michigan AOCs specifically
mention CSOs as contributing to
impairment (EPA 2005). Each of these
three AOCs is described briefly below.
The Grand Calumet AOC includes
nearshore areas along Lake Michigan
in the vicinity of Gary, East Chicago,
and Hammond, Indiana; portions of
the Grand Calumet River; and the
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. Problems
within the Grand Calumet AOC
include contamination from
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
heavy metals, microbial
pathogens, oxygen-depleting
substances, and oil and grease. Point
sources of pollutants include several
industrial discharges, three POTWs, 15
3-18
-------
Chapter 3-CSO Discharge to Lake Michigan
CSO outfalls, and municipal and
industrial storm water. Other sources
include contaminated sediment,
leaking underground storage tanks,
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(Superfund) sites, and atmospheric
deposition. The Stage One RAP for the
Grand Calumet AOC (produced in
1991) identified CSOs as a major
cause of contamination of sediments.
The Menominee River AOC includes
the lower three miles of the
Menominee River; the cities of
Marinette, Wisconsin, and
Menominee, Michigan; and adjacent
nearshore areas at the mouth of the
Menominee River within Green Bay.
The principal pollutant of concern in
the Lower Menominee River is
arsenic, which has been linked to
industrial discharges. Other pollutants
of concern are paint sludge and coal
tar. CSOs are largely controlled within
the AOC and are not considered to be
a major source of pollutants.
The Manistique River AOC includes
the lower 1.7 miles of the Manistique
River and the Manistique River Harbor
on Lake Michigan. The principal
pollutants of concern are PCBs, oils,
and heavy metals. Historically,
impairments to beneficial use
included beach closings associated
with CSO discharges, and CSO
elimination was determined to be a
priority. Recent improvements to
Manistique's CSS have minimized CSO
frequency at the one remaining CSO
outfall.
3.3.4 Other Efforts Underway
in the Lake Michigan
Basin
LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement as amended in 1987, the
United States and Canada agreed to
"restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of
the waters of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem." In consultation with
states and provincial governments,
the parties agreed to develop and
implement Lakewide Management
Plans (LaMPs) for open waters. In the
case of Lake Michigan, which lies
wholly within the borders of the
United States, EPA is responsible for
the LaMP. EPA produced the Lake
Michigan LaMP 2000 (LMTC 2000) and
two updates in 2002 and 2004 (LMTC
2002,2004). The Lake Michigan LaMP
2004 status report can be accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakemich/
2004update/index.html.
3-19
-------
-------
Chapter 4
State Approaches to CSO Control
in the Lake Michigan Basin
This chapter presents the approaches
that Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Illinois have taken for CSO control. The
descriptions of each state's approach
are based upon information originally
collected for EPA's Report to Congress—
Implementation and Enforcement of the
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy
(EPA 2001 b) and were updated to
provide Lake Michigan-specific
information. This chapter also
summarizes the status of NMC and
LTCP requirements by state, and
reports on the implementation of CSO
control efforts by communities in the
Lake Michigan basin.
All four of the Lake Michigan states are
currently authorized to issue NPDES
permits. The NPDES authorities in each
state have developed specific
strategies and programs for addressing
CSO discharges in their states. EPA
oversees these permitting programs
and provides funding support to the
states. Both the states and EPA have
independent authority to take
enforcement actions for violations of
the Clean Water Act, including permit
violations.
4.1 What is the Indiana
Approach to CSO
Control?
4.1.1 Strategy for CSO Control
and NPDES Permitting
IDEM is the NPDES authority in Indiana.
IDEM issued its Final Combined Sewer
Overflow Strategy, consistent with
EPA's CSO Control Policy, in May 1996.
The IDEM final strategy enhanced the
six minimum control requirements in
IDEM's 1991 State CSO Strategy by
including three additional minimum
controls and a requirement to develop
an LTCP (EPA 2001 b).
PERMITTING PROGRAM
Indiana has a statewide total of 107
CSO permits. Eighteen of these permits
authorize discharges in the Lake
Michigan basin. CSO communities are
required to implement the NMC and to
report compliance with the first eight
minimum controls through submission
and approval of CSO Operational Plans.
A Stream Reach and Characterization
and Evaluation Report (SRCER) is
required for most communities to
address the monitoring requirement of
the NMC. Several small communities
and communities pursuing complete
4-1
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
sewer separation do not have
requirements to develop SRCERs.
IDEM, in some cases, has issued "CSO-
only" permits to communities that
establish CSO control requirements
consistent with current regulation and
policy. This approach accelerates CSO
controls for communities whose NPDES
permits for POTW discharges have
expired, and where delays in reissuing
these permits would slow the
implementation of CSO control
requirements. IDEM issued CSO-only
permits to five communities within the
Lake Michigan basin.
Inspections of POTWs operated by CSO
communities are performed
approximately every two years. IDEM
conducts approximately 90 percent of
these inspections, and EPA Region 5
conducts the remaining 10 percent.
CSO-specific inspections are performed
on an as-needed basis.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
PROGRAM
Use attainability analyses and water
quality standards reviews are
conducted by IDEM. The Indiana Water
Pollution Control Board, the rule-
making arm of the IDEM water group, is
responsible for reviewing and revising
water quality standards. In 1990,
Indiana required that all waters at all
times must support full-body contact
recreation uses. The state's E. coll
bacteriological criteria for full-body
contact recreation are a daily maximum
of 235 colony-forming units (cfu) per
100ml in a single sample in a 30-day
period, and a geometric mean of 125
cfu per 100ml based on no fewer than
five samples over a 30-day period. This
standard has been judicially
interpreted as an end-of-pipe standard.
Partly as a result of this decision, the
legislature adopted Senate Enrolled Act
(SEA) 431 in 2000 to allow targeted
relief from this requirement provided
specific criteria are met.
Under SEA 431, CSO communities may
request a suspension of designated use
for no more than four days after a CSO
discharge. Such suspensions of use are
considered to be changes to water
quality standards and must be
reviewed and approved by EPA.
Suspensions of use are not likely to
take place in areas that are genuine
swimming areas, e.g., Lake Michigan
beaches. IDEM guidance on SEA 431
provisions was issued in May 2001.
In 2005, state law was further amended
by SEA 620. SEA 620 amended the
permissible terms of certain water
quality standards variances and
variance renewals. It also established a
CSO wet weather use designation for
waters affected by CSOs, as specified in
an approved LTCP. SEA 620 provides
for compliance schedules for meeting
water quality-based requirements
during development, approval, and
implementation of an LTCP. IDEM plans
to develop regulations to implement
portions of SEA 620.
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
IDEM has issued warnings of
noncompliance over the past few years
to several CSO communities, generally
for failure to develop a SRCER or a CSO
Operational Plan. Indiana's recently
enacted legislation, SEA 620, allows
IDEM to enter into judicially
enforceable orders with CSO
communities to develop and
implement CSO controls. IDEM also
developed a CSO plan that describes
how IDEM will implement the CSO
Control Policy in Indiana. The plan
recognizes that several large CSO
4-2
-------
Chapter 4-State Approaches to CSO Control in the Lake Michigan Basin
communities will implement CSO
controls through a federal consent
decree. Other high priority CSO
communities will implement CSO
control through a state order or permit.
Two formal enforcement actions have
been concluded against Indiana CSO
communities discharging in the Lake
Michigan basin.
• Hammond—Federal CSO Judicial
Order (Effective Date: 4/23/99)
• Ligonier—State CSO
Administrative Penalty Order,
$6,450 (Effective Date: 11/04/04)
4.1.2 Status of CSO Control
Indiana has 18 CSO communities in the
Lake Michigan basin, and 16 of these
communities have one or more active
CSO outfalls. The location of Indiana
CSO communities in the Lake Michigan
basin is presented in Figure 4.1.
The status of NMC and LTCPs for these
communities is presented in Table 4.1.
As shown, permits for 17 of the 18
communities require implementation
of the NMC and development of an
LTCP. Albion eliminated all CSOs
through sewer separation and is not
required to implement the NMC or
develop an LTCP. Fifteen ofthe17
communities required to develop
LTCPs have submitted plans currently
under review by IDEM and/or EPA. The
permit for the Gary Sanitation District
requires the submission of an LTCP, but
does not include a fixed submittal date.
Gary Sanitation District has not yet
submitted an LTCP. IDEM is currently
developing a new permit that will
clarify the LTCP submittal
requirements. Angola's LTCP is due in
2006.
Figure 4.1
Location of Indiana
CSO Communities
the Lake Michigan
Basin
na
sin
n
Eighteen of the 107 Indiana
CSO permits are issued to
CSO communities in the
Lake Michigan basin.
Michigan ~ ) Elkhart
— --\
South- i-"
Bend
Mishawaka
Wakarusa'
Nappanee
OHIO
4-3
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Table 4.1
Status of CSO Control Policy
Requirements in Indiana, Lake
Michigan Basin Only
As of 2005, nearly all Indiana CSO
communities in the Lake Michigan basin
have developed and submitted LTCPs.
NMC Required
No. of Communities
Percent of Communities
YES
17
94.4%
NO
0
0%
N/A
1a
5.6%
LTCP Required
No. of Communities
Percent of Communities
YES
17
94.4%
NO
0
0%
N/A
1a
5.6%
LTCP Submitted
No. of Communities
Percent of Communities
YES
15
83.3%
NO
2
11.1%
N/A
1a
5.6%
LTCP Approved
No. of Communities
Percent of Communities
YES
1
6%
NO
14°
88%
N/A
1a
6%
"Albion, Indiana, has no NMC or LTCP requirements because sewer separation was completed before the LTCP submission
requirement.
bLTCPs are under review.
The CSO controls proposed by or
implemented in Indiana communities are
summarized in Table 4.2. As shown, six
types of control technologies are in place
or are being considered in the Lake
Michigan basin. Michigan City's LTCP has
been approved and is being implemented;
it includes outfall elimination and a
retention basin retrofit that adds
disinfection and dechlorination processes.
Many other Indiana communities are
waiting for LTCP approval and have begun
to implement controls. For example,
Milford increased treatment plant capacity
and eliminated its CSOs. Goshen is
implementing multiple controls that
include relief sewer construction, a
treatment plant capacity upgrade, and
screening and disinfection at the
treatment plant outfall.
Detailed profiles for Indiana CSO
communities including the number of
active outfalls, NMC and LTCP
requirements, LTCP status, CSO control
requirements, and existing and planned
controls are presented in Appendix A.
For further information on the
technologies and operational practices
most commonly used to control CSOs, see
Appendix L of Report to Congress—Impacts
and Control of CSOs and SSOs (EPA 2004b).
4-4
-------
Chapter 4-State Approaches to CSO Control in the Lake Michigan Basin
Table 4.2
Summary of CSO Controls
Implemented or Proposed in
Indiana CSO Communities in the
Lake Michigan Basin
Albion
Angola
Chesterton
Crown Point
East Chicago
Elkhart
Gary
Goshen
Hammond
Kendallville
Ligonier
Michigan City
Milford
Mishawaka
Nappane
South Bend
Valparaiso
Wakarusa
• Control is in place or is being implemented.
o Control has been proposed or is scheduled to be implemented.
4-5
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
4.2 What is the Michigan
Approach to CSO Control?
4.2.1 Strategy for CSO Control and
NPDES Permitting
MDEQ is the NPDES authority in Michigan.
Prior to the issuance of EPA's CSO Control
Policy in 1994, Michigan had a CSO
strategy in place. MDEQ modified its CSO
program to include elements of the CSO
Control Policy. MDEQ requires all CSO
communities to implement the NMC and
to develop an LTCP. During the
interim/initial phases of the CSO Control
Plan, Michigan did not emphasize solids
and floatables control, one of the NMC. The
control of solids and floatables is required
as part of the LTCP construction phase
(EPA 2001 b). Michigan requires that
communities either eliminate (via sewer
separation) or provide "adequate
treatment" of CSOs. Adequate treatment is
defined as follows:
• Retention and full treatment of the
one-year, one-hour design storm
• Primary treatment of the ten-year,
one-hour design storm (primary
treatment is defined as 30-minute
detention time)
• Limited treatment of flows above the
ten-year, one-hour design storm
Communities that meet the adequate
treatment requirements, which are more
protective than the presumption approach
outlined in the CSO Control Policy, are
presumed to meet Michigan's water
quality standards. Some communities are
attempting to demonstrate that they can
achieve water quality standards with lesser
treatment than that required under
Michigan's adequate treatment definition.
This approach is explicitly allowed in the
permit.
Michigan Public Act 451 requires facilities
in Michigan to notify MDEQ within 24
hours of when a CSO discharge begins.
After the discharge ends, the facility must
submit a complete report that includes the
location and volume of the discharge as
well as the start/end date and time.
PERMITTING PROGRAM
Michigan has a statewide total of 42 CSO
permits with 11 CSO permits in the Lake
Michigan basin. Michigan's CSO program is
implemented in two phases. Phase I
requires operational improvement to
minimize CSOs, CSO monitoring, and
construction of interim CSO control
projects where feasible. Phase I also
requires development of a final program
leading to elimination or adequate
treatment of CSOs. Phase II requires
implementation of the final program in
subsequent NPDES permits.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
MDEQ has jurisdiction over the water
quality standards program. In general,
Michigan water quality standards staff are
not involved in LTCP reviews, except when
a community is attempting to demonstrate
that it can achieve water quality standards
with lesser treatment than that required
under Michigan's adequate treatment
approach. All communities meeting the
adequate treatment design standards
specified for CSO control are presumed to
meet water quality standards. Michigan
rules allow the use of alternate design
flows—i.e., alternate to the average low
flow over seven consecutive days in a 10-
year period (7Q10) or 95 percent
exceedance flows—when determining
water quality-based requirements for
intermittent wet weather discharges such
as treated CSOs.
4-6
-------
Chapter 4-State Approaches to CSO Control in the Lake Michigan Basin
Location of Michigan CSO
Communities in the Lake
Michigan Basin
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Enforcement actions have been taken
where municipalities have been unwilling
or unable to agree to CSO program
schedules acceptable to MDEQ. Several
Director's Final Orders have been issued to
communities to develop and implement
an LTCP. Two formal enforcement actions
have been concluded against Michigan
CSO permittees discharging to the Lake
Michigan basin.
• Manistee—Federal CSO Judicial Order
(Effective Date: 4/21/88)
• East Lansing—State CSO
Administrative Penalty Order (Effective
Date: 6/29/99)
4.2.2 Status of CSO Control
As shown in Figure 4.2,11 Michigan CSO
communities are located in the Lake
Michigan basin. All 11 Michigan CSO
communities in the Lake Michigan basin
have NMC and LTCP requirements, have
submitted LTCPs to MDEQ, and have
approved LTCPs (Table 4.3).
The CSO controls implemented or
scheduled to be implemented in these
Michigan CSO communities are
summarized in Table 4.4. As shown, a
variety of control technologies are being
implemented. The communities of Norway
and Menominee have completed
implementation of their LTCPs. Norway has
a retention treatment basin at its single
CSO outfall, and Menominee has
completed a sewer separation project to
eliminate its CSOs. Another community,
Iron Mountain-Kingsford, has a retention
4-7
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
treatment basin in place, and its sewer
separation project is under construction.
Sewer separation is scheduled or
underway for five other communities.
Other controls in place or planned include
retention treatment basins, pipe
rehabilitation, and inflow and infiltration
(I/I) reduction or removal. Retention
treatment basin controls include primary
sedimentation, skimming, and disinfection.
Retention treatment basins are currently
used by six of the 11 communities.
Discharge characterization reports are
required for retention treatment basin
discharges. Several communities currently
use more than one control method or plan
to introduce additional controls.
Detailed profiles for Michigan CSO
communities, including the number of
active outfalls, NMC and LTCP
requirements, LTCP status, control
requirements, and existing and planned
controls, are presented in Appendix A.
Table 4.3
Status of CSO Control Policy
Requirements in Michigan, Lake
Michigan Basin Only
All Michigan CSO communities in the
Lake Michigan basin have submitted
LTCPs that have been approved by the
state.
NMC Required
No. of Communities
Percent of Communities
YES
11
1 00%
NO
0
0%
LTCP Required
No. of Communities
Percent of Communities
YES
11
1 00%
NO
0
0%
LTCP Submitted
No. of Communities
Percent of Communities
YES
11
1 00%
NO
0
0%
LTCP Approved
No. of Communities
Percent of Communities
YES
11
1 00%
NO
0
0%
4-8
-------
Chapter 4-State Approaches to CSO Control in the Lake Michigan Basin
Table 4.4
CSO Controls Implemented or
Scheduled to Be Implemented in
Michigan CSO Communities in the
Lake Michigan Basin
Michigan CSO communities are using a
variety of technologies to control CSOs.
Community
Crystal Falls
East Lansing
Grand Rapids
Iron Mountain-
Kingsford
Lansing
Manistee
Manistique
Menominee
Sewer
Separation
Sewer
Rehabilitation
I/I Reduction
• Control is in place or is being implemented.
o Control has been proposed or is scheduled to be implemented.
4.3 What is the Wisconsin
Approach to CSO Control?
The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) is both the NPDES
authority and the water quality standards
authority in Wisconsin. There are only two
CSO communities in Wisconsin, and
Milwaukee is the only CSO community
located within the Lake Michigan basin
(Figure 4.3). MMSD serves the City of
Milwaukee and 28 neighboring
communities. The CSS covers
approximately 24 square miles and has 117
active CSO outfalls. All of the CSOs are
underthejurisdiction of MMSD.
4.3.1 Strategy for CSO Control and
NPDES Permitting
PERMITTING PROGRAM
WDNR required CSO communities to
submit CSO facility plans prior to the
issuance of the CSO Control Policy in 1994.
MMSD currently has NMC and LTCP
requirements in its permit, and its LTCP is
scheduled for completion in 2007.
4-9
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Figure 4.3
Wisconsin's CSO Community in
the Lake Michigan Basin
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District (MMSD) operates the only
Wisconsin CSS in the basin.
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
The MMSD is subject to a 2001 stipulation
agreement that requires it to build several
SSO projects and to develop an LTCP for
CSOs. On October 27, 2005, the State of
Wisconsin filed a complaint against MMSD
for SSO and CSO discharges to the
Menomonee River, Milwaukee River, and
Lake Michigan.
4.3.2 Status of CSO Control
MMSD has maintained an inline storage
system (ISS) based on tunnels to store and
convey wet weather flows, including
combined sewage, since 1994. The ISS
tunnels have a total capacity of 400 MG
and a combined length of over 20 miles.
Since 1994, the ISS tunnels have prevented
more than 37 BG of CSOs and SSOs from
entering area waterways, including Lake
Michigan. Between 1994 and 2000, CSOs
decreased from 40-60 events per year to an
average of 2.5 events per year (WDNR
2001). Operation of the system has been
modified in the last few years to decrease
CSO capture rates in order to increase SSO
capture from the satellite communities.
MMSD has also implemented a stream and
lake monitoring program and a sewer
separation project that identifies areas
where storm flow can be rerouted out of
the CSS. A comparison of pre-ISS annual
overflow volumes with post-ISS overflow
volumes is presented in Figure 4.4. This
comparison was made in 2002, prior to the
release of revised CSO statistics by MMSD
in 2004. See section 3.1.1 of this report for
more information.
4-10
-------
Chapter 4-State Approaches to CSO Control in the Lake Michigan Basin
Figure 4.4
Comparison of Pre-ISS
Annual Overflow
Volumes with Post-ISS
Overflow Volumes in
Milwaukee, Wl (State of
Wisconsin, Legislative
Audit Bureau 2002)
10
_O
5
M—
O
,ooo
5AAA-
,UULr
4AAA-
,UULr
,UUlr
ZjUULr
A-
LJCSO
Estimated Pre-ISS
Actual Post-ISS
4.4 What is the Illinois
Approach to CSO Control?
4.4.1 Strategy for CSO Control and
NPDES Permitting
PERMITTING PROGRAM
The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Illinois EPA) is the NPDES authority
in Illinois. Illinois EPA implements CSO
control through the NPDES permit process.
Illinois' program includes an approach that
pre-dates the 1994 CSO Control Policy in
establishing control criteria presumed to
protect water quality, and it allows a
demonstration that other criteria are
protective. Three additional Best
Management Practices from the CSO
Control Policy were incorporated into the
existing Illinois program, so that its CSO
permits are consistent with NMC
requirements (EPA 2001 b).
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
Water quality standards are under the
jurisdiction of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board. Illinois bacterial standards for
"general use" waters are based on a
geometric mean fecal coliform level of 200
cfu/100ml, with no more than 10 percent
of samples exceeding 400 cfu/100ml. This
standard is applicable May through
October. In parts of the Chicago River
system where the State's "secondary use"
designation applies, there is currently no
bacterial criterion in place.
4-11
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Table 4.5
Volume of Combined Sewage
Captured byTARP: 1982-2004
(MWRDGC 2005a)
Date
Stickney Flow3 Calumet Flow3
(BG) (BG)
Kirie Flow
(BG)
61.94
Total
(BG)
303.70
28.01
34.51
39.04
50.23
42.12
42.23
68.01
53.82
43.58
46.27
787.31
aStickneyand Calumet data were taken from TARP pumpback reports.
bKirie data were taken from LIMS KRRAW69 Report. CSO capture was calculated by subtracting the average dry weather flow
from the average daily flow. The flow data were provided by the MWRDGC Maintenance and Operations Department
(Technical Projects).
'Data were supplied by the MWRDGC Engineering Department.
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Illinois EPA does not have direct
administrative order authority. Significant
noncompliance is referred to the State
Attorney General.
4.4.2 Status of CSO Control
MWRDGC, the City of Chicago, and 40
satellite communities in the Chicago
metropolitan area are part of the TARP,
which captures and transports CSO flows
for storage and treatment at wastewater
treatment facilities. Illinois EPA reviewed
and approved the TARP as the LTCP for all
of these communities. Construction of
Chicago's TARP began in 1976 and has
been implemented in two phases. The first
phase focused on reducing CSOs and is
nearing completion. River reversals to Lake
Michigan have also been reduced in Phase
I, and no river reversals have occurred
since 2002. The second phase provides
flood control benefits and further increases
CSO capture. Under Phase II, O'Hare
Reservoir was completed in 1998,
construction on McCook Reservoir began
in 2000, and Thornton Reservoir has a
planned completion date of 2015.
CSO volumes (in billion gallons) captured
by TARP since 1982 are presented in Table
4.5. Stickney, Calumet, and Kirie are the
treatment plants to which TARP flows are
conveyed. Natural variations in the rainfall
conditions affect the annual volume of
combined sewage generated and
captured.
4-12
-------
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Future Actions
This chapter summarizes the progress
made in controlling CSOs that
discharge within the Lake Michigan
basin, and it describes the future
actions that EPA and state regulatory
authorities plan to take to address the
remaining CSO discharges. Success in
CSO control efforts will be achieved
when all CSO discharges are either
eliminated or brought under a level of
control consistent with the water
quality-based and technology-based
requirements of the Clean Water Act.
EPA recognizes that this will be a
long-term effort and has established a
process under the CSO Control Policy
for achieving this goal.
Progress towards controlling CSOs is
based on the establishment of
requirements, typically under NPDES
permit conditions, for CSO
communities to implement
immediate measures to reduce CSO
discharges (i.e., NMC) and to develop
an LTCP to meet the requirements of
the Clean Water Act. Following
approval of LTCPs by the NPDES
authority, implementation schedules
are incorporated into enforceable
documents such as NPDES permits,
administrative orders, or judicial
consent decrees. Review and
modification of water quality
standards may be carried out as part
of LTCP development in some cases.
Changes to water quality standards
must be adopted by state water
quality standards authorities and
approved by EPA. Implementation
schedules for completing CSO
controls in some cases extend over
many years because of factors
such as scope, complexity, and
financial capability.
Much progress has been made in
controlling CSOs in the Lake Michigan
basin, both prior to and following the
release of the CSO Control Policy.
5.1 What are Current
Conditions in the Lake
Michigan Basin?
All CSO communities discharging
within the Lake Michigan basin have
either brought their CSOs under
control, are under implementation
schedules to bring their CSOs under
control, or are under permits that
require the implementation of the
NMC and development of an LTCP.
(The CSO permit for the Gary Sanitary
District in Indiana will be reissued to
clarify the submittal date
requirements for the LTCP.)
5-1
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
In Indiana, 15 of 18 CSO communities
in the Lake Michigan basin have
developed and submitted LTCPs.The
LTCP for Michigan City has been
approved. The remaining LTCPs are
under review by IDEM and/or EPA.
One CSO community, Albion, does
not have NMC or LTCP requirements
because it eliminated its CSOs
through sewer separation prior to the
LTCP submission requirement. As
noted above, the permit for the Gary
Sanitation District requires the
submission of an LTCP, but it does not
specify a submittal date. IDEM is
currently developing a new permit
that will clarify LTCP submittal
requirements.
In Michigan, all 11 CSO communities
within the Lake Michigan basin have
approved LTCPs and are under
enforceable schedules to implement
these LTCPs. Two communities
(Menomineeand Norway) have
already completed their CSO control
projects. Two additional CSO
communities will complete their
control projects by 2007. All Michigan
CSO communities are targeted to
complete their CSO control projects
by 2020, and most are presently
under construction. Michigan CSO
communities have achieved CSO
control through a number of
approaches including sewer
separation, retention/treatment, and
disinfection.
In Wisconsin, CSO discharges in the
Milwaukee area have been reduced in
frequency from 40-60 times per year
to an average of 2.5 times per year
since the MMSD sewage system
began operation of the ISS in 1994.
Nevertheless, large volumes of
combined sewage can be discharged
in the Milwaukee area when CSOs
occur. In recent
years, the MMSD and tributary
communities have experienced SSOs,
and MMSD's ability to address SSOs is
interrelated with its CSO control
program via ISS. MMSD is required to
develop an LTCP by 2007 to address
concerns about the potential water
quality impacts of the remaining CSO
discharges.
CSOs in the Chicago, Illinois area have
been greatly reduced due to the
construction of the tunnel system
underTARP. Completion of the
reservoir portion of TARP, currently
scheduled for 2015, is expected to
further reduce CSOs and the
likelihood of river reversals affecting
Lake Michigan.
5.2 What are Future EPA
Actions to Control
CSOs in the Lake
Michigan Basin?
EPA expects that future actions to
control CSOs in the Lake Michigan
basin will entail continued oversight
to implement existing programs.
While all states in the Lake Michigan
basin are authorized to implement
NPDES permit programs, including
CSO control, EPA maintains a number
of functions that help facilitate the full
achievement of CSO control goals.
These functions include state permit
program oversight, state enforcement
program oversight, federal
enforcement activity, technical
assistance, financial assistance, and
review and approval of changes to
state water quality standards related
to CSOs. These activities are discussed
below.
5-2
-------
Chapter 5-Conclusions and Future Actions
5.2.1 State Permit Oversight
The CSO Control Policy includes
expectations for NPDES permitting
authorities. In general, EPA
envisioned a phased approach to
permitting, including initial
requirements to implement the NMC
and develop an LTCP, followed by
requirements to implement controls
outlined in the approved LTCP. The
Wet Weather Water Quality Act of
2000 requires that each permit issued
pursuant to the Clean Water Act for a
discharge from a municipal CSS shall
conform to the CSO Control Policy.
State NPDES authorities in the Lake
Michigan basin have issued NPDES
permits to CSO communities that are
consistent with the CSO Control
Policy. The particular permit
requirements depend on the state
and the status of CSO control within a
given community. Where the LTCP or
specific CSO control projects have
been constructed, permits include
requirements to properly operate
these systems, limitations on
discharges (where appropriate),
and/or prohibitions on discharge
where the LTCP was based on
elimination of CSOs. Where an LTCP
has been developed but controls
have not been constructed, permits
include requirements to construct
specific controls. In other cases,
permits require the development and
submission of LTCPs.
In Indiana, 14 CSO communities in the
Lake Michigan basin have developed
and submitted LTCPs that are not yet
approved. One community has an
LTCP approved by the state. The state
also has a backlog of unapproved
LTCPs from areas outside of the Lake
Michigan basin. IDEM and EPA have
been working together to develop an
approach to complete the review and
approval of these plans. The state has
targeted 65 of its 107 LTCPs, including
13 for CSO communities in the Lake
Michigan basin, for approval by 2007.
An additional 10 LTCPs, including one
for a CSO community in the Lake
Michigan basin, are targeted for
approval by 2008. Approval of all
LTCPs is expected by 2009.
EPA will continue to work with state
NPDES authorities to ensure that
reissued permits contain appropriate
conditions for CSO control in order to
minimize CSO discharges in
accordance with the CSO Control
Policy.
5.2.2 State Enforcement
Program Oversight
EPA developed work plans and
Memoranda of Agreement with states
to ensure that state enforcement
efforts on CSOs are consistent with
federal efforts and the CSO Control
Policy. Some activities undertaken to
ensure consistency between EPA and
state efforts include periodic
reporting, work sharing
arrangements, and discussions of
case-specific issues. These activities
are designed to ensure that the entire
CSO universe is addressed; that there
is minimal duplication of effort; and
that there is consistency in the levels
of control and timing sought for CSO
control.
5.2.3 Enforcement Activity
EPA is engaged in active discussions
with five of the larger Lake Michigan
CSO communities in Indiana to
establish enforceable schedules for
the implementation of LTCPs. These
five communities represent 28
percent of the 18 Indiana Lake
5-3
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Michigan CSO communities and 17
percent of the 30 total Lake Michigan
CSO communities. The priority
ranking system used by Region 5
established these communities as
high priority, high impact CSO areas
because of CSO discharges to
interstate waters and the nature and
extent of impacts on those receiving
waters.
All 11 Michigan CSO communities in
the Lake Michigan basin are subject
to state enforceable schedules to
implement LTCPs. In all cases,
implementation is nearing
completion or is in compliance with
the state enforceable schedules. EPA
deemed that federal enforcement
was not necessary for these
communities because of the
advanced nature of LTCP
implementation and the State of
Michigan's record in ensuring that
schedules are maintained.
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, MMSD has
substantial CSO control in place,
including a very large storage tunnel.
Implementation of additional CSO
control is being sought under a state
court consent agreement. A revised
LTCP is due to the state in 2007.
In Chicago, Illinois, EPA is engaged in
discussions with the MWRDGC about
establishing an enforceable schedule
to complete the reservoir stage of
TARP. When completed, TARP will
further minimize the potential for
discharges to Lake Michigan.
5.2.4 Technical Assistance
EPA has sponsored two Region 5 LTCP
development and review seminars in
Indiana. In addition, state inspectors
are invited to, and regularly attend,
wet weather inspections conducted
by EPA. Concurrent review of
technical documents from EPA-led
enforcement cases is conducted with
the states. EPA has reviewed and
commented on a number of LTCPs
outside of the enforcement context to
help build state capacity.
5.2.5 Financial Assistance
Congress created EPA's Clean Water
State Revolving Fund in 1987 to serve
as a long-term funding source for
infrastructure projects related to
water quality. All 50 states and Puerto
Rico maintain revolving loan
programs through the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund to provide low-
cost financing for these projects
through low-interest loans. The Clean
Water State Revolving Fund provided
over $5.3 billion in funds for
assistance in 2004.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund
loans used forCSO-related projects in
the four Lake Michigan states totaled
more than $1.8 billion over the period
1987 through 2004. Eighteen of the
CSO communities in the Lake
Michigan basin received Clean Water
State Revolving Fund loans that
supported ongoing and completed
CSO projects, particularly in Illinois
and Michigan. Several CSO
communities, including Chicago,
Milwaukee, and Lansing, are on the
list for substantial loans in the future.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
needs for Indiana CSO communities
will be better defined once LTCPs are
approved.
There has also been considerable
investment in CSO projects by Great
Lakes states. It is expected that CSO
control will continue to be a priority
in these states.
5-4
-------
Chapter 5-Conclusions and Future Actions
5.2.6 Water Quality Standards
Review and Approval
The CSO Policy provides that
"[development of the LTCP should be
coordinated with the review and
appropriate revision of water quality
standards and implementation
procedures on CSO-impacted waters
to ensure that long-term controls will
be sufficient to meet water quality
standards" (59 FR 18694). In 2001, EPA
issued Guidance: Coordinating
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Long
Term Planning with Water Quality
Standards Reviews (EPA 2001 a), which
details the process for coordinating
LTCP development and
implementation with water quality
standards review.
While states regularly review the
adequacy of proposed CSO control
measures based on their ability to
meet water quality standards, no
states have yet submitted requests for
changes in water quality standards for
CSO-impacted waters within the Lake
Michigan basin. As discussed in
Section 4.1, Indiana has passed
legislation (SEA 341) that would allow
for suspensions of designated use in
certain cases and establish wet
weather use designations for waters
affected by CSOs (SEA 620). EPA is
currently working with IDEM as it
develops rules to implement portions
of SEA 620. EPA does not believe that
changes to recreational uses for Lake
Michigan beaches are likely.
5.3 Summary
EPA believes that a sound regulatory
program is in place that will lead to
full implementation of the CSO
Control Policy to protect Lake
Michigan from water quality impacts
related to CSO discharges. CSO
control efforts, to date, have greatly
reduced discharges of untreated
CSOs to the lake, most significantly
from the Chicago and Milwaukee
metropolitan areas. In Michigan, all
communities have adequate controls
in place or are implementing
programs to correct their CSO
problems. Significant additional
reductions are expected, particularly
as communities in Indiana complete
CSO planning and construct controls.
EPA will continue to work
cooperatively with the state NPDES
authorities to ensure that consistent
approaches to addressing CSO
control are sought at the state and
federal levels. EPA will also continue
to explore work-sharing opportunities
in order to utilize federal and state
resources more efficiently.
Bringing all CSOs into compliance
with the Clean Water Act and the CSO
Control Policy is necessary to ensure
that surface waters are safe for
fishing, swimming, and public water
supply. However, other sources of
pollution (e.g., nonpoint sources,
storm water runoff, SSOs, and other
wastewater treatment system
bypasses) must be addressed before
these goals can be fully realized.
In many cases, those communities
required to remediate CSSs are also
being called upon to address other
wet weather pollution problems,
5-5
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
including storm water and SSOs. For
example, CSSs are often part of larger
collection systems that contain SSSs.
The sanitary sewer portions of these
collection systems may be prone to
SSOs, and communities will be
required to address SSOs in addition
to their CSOs.
EPA believes that a degree of
flexibility is appropriate with respect
to the establishment of
implementation schedules to
complete CSO controls, due to the
often substantial costs associated
with technologies to control wet
weather pollution problems (e.g.,
CSOs and SSOs) and the complexity
associated with corrective actions.
EPA will continue to seek early actions
to reduce CSO discharges to the
extent possible, while LTCPs are being
implemented. On a case-by-case
basis, EPA will evaluate the length of
LTCP implementation schedules for
each community. In such evaluations,
EPA will examine factors that include
financial, technical, environmental,
and public health considerations.
5-6
-------
References
Environment Canada and EPA. 1995. "Great
Lakes Atlas." Retrieved July 13,2005.
http://www.epa.gov/qlnpo/atlas/index.html.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1984.
Office of Water. Regional and State Guidance on
the National Municipal Policy. No document
number.
EPA. 1989. Office of Water. National CSO
Control Strategy (54 FR 37371).
EPA. 1994. Office of Water. Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Control Policy. EPA 830-94-001.
EPA. 2001 a. Office of Water. Guidance:
Coordinating Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Long-Term Planning with Water Quality
Standards Reviews. EPA 833-R-01 -002.
EPA. 2001 b. Office of Water. Report to
Congress—Implementation and Enforcement of
the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy. EPA
833-R-01-003.
EPA. 2002. Office of Water. National Water
Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress. EPA
841-R-02-001.
EPA. 2004a. Office of Enforcement and
Compliance. "Performance-Based Strategy for
the Combined Sewer Overflow National
Compliance and Enforcement Priority." October
21,2004.
EPA. 2004b. Office of Water. Report to
Congress—Impacts and Control ofCSOs and
SSOs. EPA833-R-04-001.
EPA. 2005. Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs)
On-line. Retrieved July 13, 2005.
http://www.epa.qov/glnpo/aoc/index.html.
EPA. 2006. Office of Water. "National Water
Program Guidance: FY 2006." Retrieved August
15,2005.
http://www.epa.gov/water/waterplan/tfnwpQ6.
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM). 2005. Combined Sewer
Overflow Group web page. Retrieved August
17,2005.
http://www.in.gov/idem/permits/water/wastew
ater/wetwthr/cso/index.html.
International Joint Commission. 1989.
Agreement, with Annexes and Terms of
Reference Between the United States and
Canada signed at Ottawa November 22,1978,
and Phosphorus Load Reduction Supplement
signed October 16,1983, as amended by
Protocol signed November 18,1987 Office
Consolidation. Retrieved July 13,2005.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwqa/1978/.
Lake Michigan Technical Committee (LMTC).
2000. Lake Michigan Lakewide Management
Plan (LaMP) 2004. Retrieved September 13,
2005.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakemich/index.
html.
LMTC. 2002. Lake Michigan Lakewide
Management Plan (LaMP) 2004. Retrieved
September 13,2005.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakemich/lm02/ind
ex.html.
LMTC. 2004. Lake Michigan Lakewide
Management Plan (LaMP) 2004. Retrieved
September 13,2005.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakemich/2004upda
te/index.html.
Management Advisory Group (MAG). 1992.
Recommendations from the Management
Advisory Group to the Assistant Administrator
for Water Concerning EPA's Proposed
Expedited Combined Sewer Overflow Plan,
Washington, DC.
MAG. 1993. Combined Sewer Overflow Work
Group Policy Dialogue Final Report.
Washington, D.C.
REF-1
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago (MWRDGC). 2005a. "River
Reversals to Lake Michigan, 1985-Present."
Retrieved August 17,2005.
http://www.mwrdgc.dst.il.us/mo/csoapp/excelf
iles/Reversals.xIs.
MWRDGC. 2005b. Summary of CSO Reversals,
CSO main page. Retrieved July 21,2005.
http://www.mwrdgc.dst.il.us/mo/csoapp/defaul
t.htm.
MDEQ. 2005. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
and Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Annual Report
(January 1,2004-December 31,2004).
Retrieved December 20,2005.
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-
wb-csossoreport04.pdf.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MMSD). 2004. News Release: Extensive
investigation leads to 70% reduction in May
2004 overflow estimate. Retrieved August 19,
2005.
http://www.mmsd.com/news/news detail.cfm?
id=74.
State of Wisconsin, Legislative Audit Bureau.
2002. An Evaluation: Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District. Prepared by Paul Stuiber,
Director of Audit Bureau. 02-12.
U.S. Policy Committee for the Great Lakes
(USPC). 2002. "Great Lakes Strategy 2002: A Plan
for the New Millennium." Retrieved August 15,
2005.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/gls2002.pdf.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WONR). 2001. Sewer Overflows in Wisconsin - A
Report to the Natural Resources Board. Retrieved
December 15,2005.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/WW/
so/seweroverflows.pdf.
REF-2
-------
Appendix A
Community Profiles
A.I Indiana
A.2 Michigan
A.3 Wisconsin
-------
-------
Appendix A
Appendix A
A.I INDIANA
Community: Albion
Active Outfalls: 0
Permit ID: IN0022144
NMCRequired: NO
LTCP Required: NO
LTCP Status: n/a
Summary of Controls: Sewer separation, completed before the LTCP submission
requirement.
LTCP Implementation: n/a
Community: Angola
Active Outfalls: 1
Permit ID: IN0021296
NMCRequired:YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Not submitted.
Summary of Con trols: A sewer separation project is in place and is expected to be
completed in 6 to 8 months.
LTCP Implementation: LTCP due in 2006.
Community: Chesterton
Permit ID: IN0022578, INOM22578*
Active Outfalls: 1
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Submitted in 2004.
Summary of Controls: Planning on or have installed screening at the WWTP.
LTCP Implementation: Evaluating
infrequently).
additional controls (Note: the community discharges
A-1
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Community: Crown Point
Active Outfalls: 4
Permit ID: IN0025763
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCPStatus: Submitted in 2002.
Summary of Controls: Has proposed sewer separation. Storage for transport and
treatment at the wastewater treatment plant.
Community: East Chicago
Active Outfalls: 3
Permit ID: IN0022829, INOM22829*
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Submitted in 2004.
Summary of Controls: The permittee is under a consent decree covering a portion of
CSO requirements - additional CSO control is likely. Retention equalization pond is in
place.
Community: Elkhart
Active Outfalls: 39
Permit ID: IN0025674
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Submitted in March 2002.
Summary of Controls: DOJ, EPA, and IDEM are currently discussing completion and
approval of a Long Term Control Plan and an enforceable plan of implementation with
the City.
Community: Gary Sanitation District
Active Outfalls: 11
Permit ID: IN0022977
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Permit will be reissued to clarify submittal date requirements.
A-2
-------
Appendix A
Community: Goshen
Active Outfalls: 6
Permit ID: IN0025755, INOM25755*
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCPStatus: Submitted in 2003.
Summary of Controls: Construction of 3 relief sewers and a siphon and gravity sewer,
screening and disinfection at the treatment facility, plant capacity upgrade.
Elimination of all outfalls except for the outfall at the treatment plant, and fine
screening and disinfection for the treatment plant outfall, are required.
Community: Hammond
Active Outfalls: 20
Permit ID: IN0023060
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Submitted in 1997.
Summary of Controls: The permittee is under a consent decree covering a portion of
the CSO requirements - additional CSO control is likely. Has eliminated direct
downspout connections, and has proposed storage basin construction.
LTCP Implementation: Required to eliminate 3 largest outfalls by May 1,2010.
Community: Kendallville
Active Outfalls: 1
Permit ID: IN0020656
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Submitted in 2002.
Summary of Controls: Sewer separation is mostly complete. Six catch basins remain
connected to the CSS.
Community: Ligonier
Active Outfalls: 1
Permit ID: IN0023582
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Submitted in 2003.
Summary of Controls: LTCP proposes sewer separation.
A-3
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Community: Michigan City
Active Outfalls: 1
Permit ID: IN0023752
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Approved
Summary of Controls: Retrofit of a 5 MGD retention basin that adds disinfection and
dechlorination processes. Effluent limitations and monitoring requirements, active
outfall should not cause or contribute to exceedences of water quality criteria.
Com m unity: Milford
Active Outfalls: 0
Permit ID: IN0020478
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Submitted
Summary of Controls: The treatment plant was upgraded to increase plant capacity.
Enough sewer separation has been completed to eliminate all CSO outfalls.
Community: Mishawaka
Active Outfalls: 18
Permit ID: IN0025640
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Submitted in January 2003.
Summary of Controls: DOJ, EPA and IDEM are currently discussing completion and
approval of a Long Term Control Plan and an enforceable schedule of implementation
with the City. The City is currently modeling its sewer network and receiving waters.
The City has proposed a WWTP expansion (to be completed in May 2007) and new
interceptor construction as part of its LTCP.
Community: Nappanee
Active Outfalls: 13
Permit ID: IN0021466
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Submitted in 2002.
Summary of Controls: Planning on sewer separation, retention treatment basin
construction, and high-rate treatment installation.
A-4
-------
Appendix A
Community: South Bend
Active Outfalls: 44
Permit ID: IN0024520, M24520*
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCPStatus: Submitted in December 2004.
Summary of Controls: DOJ, EPA and IDEM are currently discussing completion and
approval of a Long Term Control Plan and an enforceable schedule of implementation
with the City.
Community: Valparaiso
Active Outfalls: 1
Permit ID: IN0024660
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Submitted in 2003.
Summary of Controls: A retention treatment basin is in place.
Community: Wakarusa
Active Outfalls: 6
Permit ID: IN0024775, M24775*
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Submitted in 2004.
Summary of Controls: One CSO has been eliminated. Wakarusa continues separation
and has raised weirs.
"Indicates 'CSO-only' permit has been issued.
A-5
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
A.2 MICHIGAN
Community: Crystal Falls
Active Outfalls: 1
Permit ID: MI0048879
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Approved
Summary of Controls: Sewer separation project is nearing completion. Discharge
monitoring and reporting.
LTCP Implementation: Administrative Consent Order was amended on February 25,
2004 which has extended the required date for the elimination of the remaining CSO
outfalls due to the Michigan Department of Transportation post-separation road
repairs. The new CSO outfall elimination date is November 15,2007.
Community: East Lansing
Active Outfalls: 1
Permit ID: MI0022853
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required:
LTCP Status: Approved
Summary of Controls: Retention treatment basin in use. Study of WWTP discharges to
ensure Water Quality Standards compliance when retention treatment basin is in use.
Discharge monitoring and reporting.
LTCP Implementation: Permit requires elimination of outfalls by March 1,2006.
Community: Grand Rapids
Active Outfalls: 11 (1 with a retention treatment basin)
Permit ID: MI0026069
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Approved
Summary of Controls: A retention treatment basin is in place. A separation project
eliminated several outfalls in 2001; additional separation will eliminate 10 outfalls by
2019. Primary sedimentation, skimming, and disinfecting for Outfall 003. Discharge
monitoring and reporting.
LTCP Implementation: Completion of Phase
2019.
of the control program is required by
A-6
-------
Appendix A
Community: Iron Mountain-Kingsford
Active Outfalls: 1
Permit ID: MI0023205
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Approved
Summary of Controls: An existing retention treatment basin and primary
sedimentation, skimming, and disinfection processes are in place. A sewer separation
project is under construction. Characterization reports of retention treatment basin
discharges and monitoring of basin performance. Discharge monitoring and reporting
ofallCSOs.
LTCP Implementation: On or before April 4,2008, the permittee is required to submit to
MDEQ a CSO report that characterizes discharges from the retention treatment basin
outfall.
Community: Lansing
Permit ID: MI0023400
Active Outfalls: 27 (2 with retention treatment basins)
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Approved
Summary of Controls: Six-phase sewer separation is under construction, with first three
phases essentially complete. An existing retention treatment basin is in place.
Discharge monitoring and reporting.
LTCP Implementation: Permit requires complete separation and elimination of
overflows by 2019.
Community: Manistee
Active Outfalls: 4
Permit ID: MI0020362
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Approved
Summary of Controls: Sewer separation project is currently being implemented.
Discharge monitoring and reporting.
LTCP Implementation: Permit requires elimination of overflows from outfall 014 by
end-of-year 2011, and elimination of 3 remaining outfalls by December 31,2016.
A-7
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
Community: Manistique Permit ID: MI0023515
Active Outfalls: 1
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Approved
Summary of Con trols: The remaining outfall is scheduled to be separated.
monitoring and reporting.
LTCP Implementation: Permit requires elimination of discharges from the
outfall by 2020.
Discharge
remaining
Community: Menominee
Permit ID: MI0025631
Active Outfalls: 0
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Approved
Summary of Con trols: The LTCP was a sewer separation project, and is complete. No
CSO discharges are authorized.
LTCP Implementation: LTCP complete,
CSO discharges have been eliminated.
Community: Miles
Active Outfalls: 8
Permit ID: MI0023701
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Approved
Summary of Controls: A sewer separation project will eliminate outfalls. An existing
retention treatment basin is in place. Effluent limitations and primary sedimentation
and disinfection requirements for the retention treatment basin outfall. Other outfalls
may not overflow during a 10-year/1 hour storm event. Discharge monitoring and
reporting.
LTCP Implementation: Permit requires elimination of overflows by 2012, and
elimination of retention treatment basin discharges by 2014.
Community: Norway
Active Outfalls: 1
PermitlD:MI0020214
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Approved
A-8
-------
Appendix A
Summary of Controls: Retention treatment basin. Discharge monitoring and reporting.
LTCPImplementation: LTCP has been completed.
Community: St. Joseph
Permit ID: MI0026735
Active Outfalls: 5
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required: YES
LTCP Status: Approved
Summary of Con trols: The LTCP
and inflow/infiltration remova
reporting.
calls for flow reduction through sewer rehabilitation
, which will eliminate CSOs. Discharge monitoring and
LTCP Implementation: Permit requires completion of LTCP construction by 2013.
A-9
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin
A3 WISCONSIN
Community: Milwaukee
Active Outfalls: 117
Permit ID: WI0036820
NMC Required: YES
LTCP Required?: YES
LTCPStatus: Complete LTCP due by June 2007.
Summary of Controls: Diversion of CSOs to the Inline Storage System (ISS). Discharge
monitoring and reporting.
A-10
------- |