&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
April 2016
EPA 833-R-16-006
ombined Sewer Overflows
into the Great Lakes Basin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table of Contents
List of Figures ii
List of Tables iii
List of Acronyms iv
Executive Summary ES-i
1 Introduction and Background i
1.1 Why Is EPA Preparing this Report to Congress? 1
1.2 The Challenges of Combined Sewer Systems and Combined Sewer Overflows 1
1.3 What is the "Great Lakes Basin"? 3
1.4 How Do CSOs Impact the Great Lakes? 5
1.5 The Federal Framework for CSO Control 6
1.5.1 CSO Control Policy 7
1.5.2 Wet Weather Water Quality Act 7
2 Methodology 9
2.1 Data Collection Method 9
2.2 What Data Were Collected? 9
3 Results 13
3.1 Distribution of CSO Communities 13
3.2 LTCP Status of CSO Communities 15
3.3 Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status of CSO Communities 16
3.4 Treated and Untreated CSOs 18
3.5 Untreated CSO Events in 2014 18
3.6 Summary of Untreated CSO Volume Reported in 2014 20
3.7 Treated CSO Events in 2014 22
3.8 Summary of Treated CSO Volume Reported in 2014 23
3.9 Summary of Individual State Data 25
3.9.1 New York 25
3.9.2 Pennsylvania 26
3.9.3 Ohio 27
3.9.4 Michigan 28
3.9.5 Indiana 30
3.9.6 Illinois 31
3.9.7 Wisconsin 32
References 35
Appendix A-i
Glossary G-i
Page
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
List of Figures
Figure ES-i 2014 CSO Volume by State ES-5
Figure ES-2 2014 CSO Volume by Great Lake ES-5
Figure 1-1. Typical Combined Sewer System 2
Figure 1-2. National Distribution of CSSs 3
Figure 1-3. Drainage Area of the Great Lakes Basin in the United States 5
Figure 1-4. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin 6
Figure 3-1. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in the U.S 13
Figure 3-2. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in New York 25
Figure 3-3.CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Pennsylvania 26
Figure 3-4. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Ohio 27
Figure 3-5. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Michigan 29
Figure 3-6. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Indiana 30
Figure 3-7. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Illinois 32
Figure 3-8. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Wisconsin 33
Cover: Fisherman and Great Blue Heron on a pier in Lake Erie. Cover Photo: Posnov/Getty Images
Page
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
List of Tables
Table ES-1. Summary of LTCP Status and 2014 CSO Events and Volume by State for States in Great
Lakes Basin ES-3
Table ES-2. Summary of LTCP Status and 2014 CSO Events and Volume by Lake for States in Great
Lakes Basin ES-4
Table 1-1. Drainage Areas and Other Data for the Great Lakes 4
Table 2-1. Data on CSO Permittees 10
Table 2-2. Data on LTCPs 10
Table2-3. Data on Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Programs 10
Table 2-4. Data on CSOs. n
Table 3-1. CSO Communities by State in the Great Lakes Basin in the U.S 14
Table 3-2. CSO Communities by Lake in the Great Lakes Basin 14
Table 3-3. CSO Control Plan Status of Great Lakes Basin CSO Communities by State Based on
Available Data 15
Table 3-4. CSO Control Plan Status of Great Lakes Basin CSO Communities by Lake Based on
Available Data 16
Table 3-5. Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status of Great Lakes Basin CSO
Communities Based on Available Data 17
Table 3-6. Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status of Great Lakes Basin CSO
Communities by Lake Based on Available Data 18
Table 3-7. Reported Untreated CSO Events by State in 2014 Based on Available Data 19
Table 3-8. Reported Untreated CSO Events by Lake in 2014 Based on Available Data 20
Table 3-9. Reported Untreated CSO Volume by State in 2014 Based on Available Data 21
Table 3-10. Reported Untreated CSO Volume by Lake in 2014 Based on Available Data 21
Table 3-11. Reported Treated CSO Events by State in 2014 Based on Available Data 22
Table 3-12. Reported Treated CSO Events by Lake in 2014 Based on Available Data 23
Table 3-13. Treated CSO Volume by State in 2014 Based on Available Data 24
Table 3-14. Treated CSO Volume by Lake in 2014 Based on Available Data 24
Table 3-15. Largest CSO Dischargers in Michigan by Volume, 2014 29
Page
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
List of Acronyms
AOC - area of concern
BAT - best available technology economically
achievable
BCT - best conventional pollutant control
technology
BOD - biochemical oxygen demand
CAFO - concentrated animal feeding operation
CSO - combined sewer overflow
CSS - combined sewer system
CWA-Clean Water Act
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO - Great Lakes National Program Office
GLRI - Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
LTCP - long-term control plan
MAG - management advisory group
MG - million gallons
MGD - million gallons per day
MS4 - municipal separate storm sewer system
NA - not applicable
NMC - nine minimum controls
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
POT W - publicly owned treatment works
SSO -sanitary sewer overflow
SSS - separate sanitary sewer
TARP - Tunnel and Reservoir Plan
TSS - total suspended solids
WWTP - wastewater treatment plant
WQS -water quality standards
Page | iv
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Executive Summary
There are 184 combined sewer systems (CSS) in the Great Lakes Basin designed to collect and transmit
both wastewater and stormwater to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) through a single network
of pipes. Wet weather events can cause combined sewer overflows (CSO) when the stormwater entering
the CS S exceeds the capacity of the collection system. CSO events can be detrimental to human health and
the environment because they introduce pathogens, bacteria and other pollutants to receiving waters,
causing beach closures, contaminating drinking water supplies, and impairing water quality. Fish and
other aquatic populations also can be impacted by the depleted oxygen levels that can be caused by CSOs.
This Report to Congress presents the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) most recent
assessment of the implementation status of CSO long-term control plans (LTCPs) in the Great Lakes
Basin, as well as a summary of existing data on the CSO discharge volume in the basin during calendar
year 2014.
Data Collection Methodology
EPA's methodology for data collection focused on obtaining existing data from federal and state sources.
Data were collected through a combination of direct data requests to the states and research of previously
published or available federal, state, and local government and nongovernmental agency sources. EPA
compiled an initial CSO inventory based on its in-house data and used the inventory to develop a data
collection template spreadsheet for each of the seven states that have CSO discharges in the Great Lakes
Basin. EPA sent the template spreadsheet to the seven states and then held a series of conference calls
with those states and their EPA regions to discuss how to update and complete the spreadsheet. Lastly,
EPA evaluated the returned state spreadsheets for consistency with the data collection instructions.
Statutory and Regulatory Requirements For CSOs
EPA issued a CSO Control Policy on April 19,1994 (59 FR18688, April 19,1994). 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 CS 0 controls that ultimately meet appropriate health and environmental obj ectives."
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year2OOi, P.L. 106-554, Congress amended the Clean
Water Act (CWA) to add Section 4O2(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 11,1994."
Status of LTCPs in the Great Lakes Basin
LTCPs or other alternative CSO control plans are required for 183 of 184 (99 percent) of the CSO
communities located in seven states throughout the Great Lakes Basin (Table ES-i). These communities
have submitted 181 LTCPs or other alternative CSO control plans and 178 have been approved. New York,
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin have all CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin in
their state operating under approved LTCPs or other alternative CSO control plans. Ohio has received 52
LTCPs and has not received an LTCP from 2 CSO communities. Ohio has approved 50 of the 52 LTCPs it
has received. Indiana has received 26 LTCPs and has not received an LTCP from one CSO community.
Indiana has approved 25 of the 26 LTCPs it has received.
Page | ES-1
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Similarly to Table ES-i, Table ES-2 presents the information about CSOsbut summarized by the Great
Lake to which they drain rather than by state.
CSOs in the Great Lakes Basin During 2014
The seven states reported 1,482 events where untreated wastewater was discharged from CSOs in the
Great Lakes Basin in 2014 (Table ES-i). Ohio reported 824 untreated CSO events; however, the state had
only partial data available on CSO events for five communities. Michigan reported 273 untreated CSO
events and New York reported 376 untreated CSO events. New York had no readily available data for
three communities. Pennsylvania reported seven untreated CSO events, while Illinois and Wisconsin each
reported one untreated CSO event. Indiana did not have data readily available on the number of CSO
events for 20 of the 27 communities discharging CSOs into the Great Lakes Basin. Indiana reported no
overflow events for the 7 communities for which it reported.
The states reported an estimated volume of 22 billion gallons (BG) of untreated wastewater discharged
from CSOs into the Great Lakes Basin in 2014 (Table ES-i). However, Ohio had only partial data available
on CSO volume for eight communities and New York had no data available for five
communities. Michigan reported that CSOs in the state discharged a volume of 8.8 BG of untreated
wastewater, Indiana reported that CSOs in the state discharged a volume of 8. i BG of untreated
wastewater, Ohio reported that CSOs in the state discharged a volume of 3.2 BG of untreated wastewater
(Ohio had no available data on untreated CSOs from eight communities), New York reported that CSOs in
the state discharged a volume of 1.8 BG of untreated wastewater (New York had no available data for 5
CSO communities), Illinois reported that CSOs in the state discharged a volume of 500 MG of untreated
wastewater, Wisconsin reported that CSOs in the state discharged a volume of 30,000 gallons of
untreated wastewater and Pennsylvania reported that CSOs in the state discharged a volume of 10,000
gallons of untreated wastewater.
The seven states reported 187 events where CSOs discharged treated wastewater in the Great Lakes Basin
in 2014 (Table ES-i). Ohio reported 27 treated CSO events; however, the state had only partial data
availableon CSO eventsfor five communities. Michigan reported i6otreated CSO events. New York,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin reported no treated CSO events in 2014. However, New
York did not have data readily available for three communities and Indiana did not have data readily
available for 20 of the 27 communities discharging CSOs into the Great Lakes Basin.
The states reported an estimated volume of 26 BG of wastewater that was treated with a minimum of
primary treatment (or its equivalent) and disinfected was discharged from CSOs into the Great Lakes
Basin in 2014 (Table ES-i). However, Ohio had no available data for five communities. Michigan reported
that CSOs in the state discharged a volume of 25 BG of treated wastewater, Ohio reported that CSOs in the
state discharged a volume of 400 MG of treated wastewater (Ohio had no available data on treated CSOs
from eight communities), and Indiana reported that CSOs in the state discharged a volume of 20 MG of
treated wastewater.
Table ES -2 presents the results discussed above by Great Lake. Figure ES -i depicts the volumes of treated
and untreated CS 0 volumes by state. Figure ES-2 depicts the same information by lake.
Page | ES-2
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table ES- 1. Summary of LTCP Status and 2014 CSO Events and Volume by State for States in Great
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Totals
CSO
Communities
13
1
54
46
27
41'
2
184
LTCPs
Required/
Approved
13/13
1/1
53/50
46/46
27/25
41/41
2/2
183/178
2014 Treated
CSO Events
O
0
27
160
Qe
0
0
187
20 14 Treated
Discharge
Volume (MG)
Ob
0
400
25,200
20
0
0
26,000
2014
Untreated
CSO Events
376"
7
824-=
273
Qe
19
1
1,482
2014 Untreated
Discharge
Volume (MG)
1,800b
0.1
3,20Qd
8,800
8,100
500
0.3
22,000
•Three communities in New York had no readily available data on the number of CSO events in 2014.
bFive NewYork communities (Clayton Village, Ogdensburg, the Frank E. VanLare STP in Rochester, Lockport, and Niagara Falls) had no readily
available data on CSO volumes.
'Five Ohio communities [Elyria, Oak Harbor, Tiffin, Bucyrus, and Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitation District (Cleveland)] had no available
data on the number of untreated CSO events in 2014.
dEight Ohio communities [Avon Lake, Crestline, Elyria, Oak Harbor, Tiffin, Bucyrus, Lima, and Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitation District
(Cleveland)] had no available data on untreated CSO volume.
"20 Indiana communities had no readily available data on the number of CSO events in 2014.
'Includes the City of Chicago and 40 satellite communities within the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) adopted by the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC).
^Illinois reported 41 CSO events from TARP in 2014. However, most of the eventsgo to Chicago-area rivers and only one event was to Lake
Michigan.
Page | ES-3
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table ES- 2. Summary of LTCP Status and 2014 CSO Events and Volume by Lake for States in Great
Lakes Basin
Great Lake
Ontario/ St
Lawrence
Seaway
Erie
Huron
Michigan
Superior
F£~
T
f
s*
Totals
CSO
Communities
10
93
6
72
3
184
LTCPs
Required/
Approved
10/10
92/89
6/6
72/70
3/3
183/178
2014 Treated
CSO Events
0"
162-=
11
8s
6
187
2014 Treated
Discharge
Volume (MG)
Ob
24,700^
800
10
200
26,000
2014
Untreated
CSO Events
74a
1,334^
1
739.1
0
1,482
2014
Untreated
Discharge
Volume (MG)
150"
16,400".'
0.4
5,900
0
22,000
"Two communities in New York discharging into La keOntario/St. Lawrence Seaway had no available data on the number of treated or
untreated CSO events.
bFour communities in New York discharging into Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Seaway had no a vail able data on the volume of treated or
untreated CSO events.
cOne New York community and six Indiana communities discharging into Lake Erie had no a vail able data on the number of treated or
untreated CSO events.
dOne community in New York discharging into Lake Erie had no a vail able data on the volume of treated or untreated CSO events.
eFive Ohio communities discharging into Lake Erie had no available data on the number of untreated CSO events.
'Eight Ohio communities discharging into Lake Erie had no available data on the volume of untreated CSO events.
s!4 Indiana communities discharging into Lake Michigan had no a vail able data on the number of treated or untreated CSO events.
hlllinoisreported41 CSO events fromTARP in 2014. However, most of these events go to Chicago-area rivers andonlyonedischargedto Lake
Michigan.
Page | ES-4
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Great Lakes Basin Treated & Untreated
CSO Volumes (MG)
Wisconsin
Indiana
Michigan
Pennsylvania
New York
25200,
MILLION GALS (MG)
Untreated Treated
Figure ES-l 2014 CSO Volume by State
Great Lakes Basin Treated & Untreated
CSO Volumes (MG)
Superior
MILLION GALS (MG)
Untreated Treated
Figure ES-2 2014 CSO Volume by Great Lake
Page | ES-5
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
This page intentionally left blank.
Page | ES-6
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
1 Introduction and Background
1.1 Why Is EPA Preparing this Report to Congress?
In the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Congress directed the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide available information on the status of the
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Long Term Control Plans (LTCPs) for each CSO community in the Great
Lakes Basin. In addition, Congress requested a summary of the annual CSO discharge volumes in the
Basin during 2014. The Act provides:
CSOs are a major contributor to water quality issues in the Lake Michigan Basin and it is noted that
many communities have made strides to update wastewater infrastructure to mitigate the impact of
CSOs. As such, the Agency is directed to provide a report based on available data indicating, for
each CSOcommunity in the Great Lakes Basin, the implementation status of each CSOlong term
controlplan. Additionally, the report should include a summary ofannualdischarge volumes.
EPA published three previous Reports to Congress that addressed CSO issues:
• Report to Congress—Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy (EPA 2OOib), about progress made by EPA, states, and municipalities in
implementing andenforcingthe CSO Control Policy.
• Report to Congress—Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs (EPA 2004), about the
characteristics and impacts that CSOs have on receiving waters and human health and
technologies used to control CSOs.
• Report to Congress—Combined Sewer Overflows to the Lake Michigan Basin (EPA 2007), about
EPA's assessment of CSO events in the Lake Michigan Basin, the enforcement of existing
regulations concerning such discharges, and the future steps EPA planned to take to minimize
such overflows.
1.2 The Challenges of Combined Sewer Systems and Combined Sewer
Overflows
There are two types of public wastewater collection systems in the United States: combined sewer systems
(CSS) andseparatesanitarysewers(SSS). CSSs were among the earliest sewer systems constructed in the
United States until the first part of the twentieth century. In contrast to SSSs, CSSs were specifically
designed to collect wastewater and stormwater in a single-pipe system to transmit the combined waters to
a publically owned treatment works (POTW) (see Figure 1-1).
Wet weather events (i.e., rain and snow events) can exceed the capacity of the CSS to convey
wastewater through the system and cause CSOs. During wet weather, most CSSs are designed to
discharge CSO flows directly to surface waters, including rivers, streams, estuaries, and coastal waters.
A CSO discharge is defined as "the discharge from a CSS at a point prior to the POTW treatment plant."
Page | 1
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Wet Weather
Dry Weather
Dam J Outfall pipe
to river
Figure l-l. Typical Combined Sewer System.
SomeCSO 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 system. When
constructed, CSSs were commonly designed to handle between two and four times more than the average
dry weather flow (Moffa 1997). Thus, there is usually considerable conveyance capacity within a CSS
during dry weather. Consequently a CSS should not discharge during dry weather, but shouldconvey
flows to a treatment plant. One of the nine minimum controls (NMCs) of the CSO policy prohibits
discharges from a CSS during dry weather.
CSO discharges that occur as the result of wet weather can include wastewater from domestic,
commercial, and industrial sources as well as stormwater runoff. As a result, CSO discharges can contain
the waste from these sources as well as pollutants washed from streets, parking lots, and other surfaces.
CSO discharges vary greatly, both in terms of the specific pollutants in an individual CSO discharge and in
the concentrations of those pollutants in the discharge (EPA 2004). Pollutant concentrations in CSO
discharges depend on a number of factors, including the service population, the characteristics of theCSS,
weather conditions, and any treatment provided to the CSO prior to discharge.
CSO discharges can cause or contribute to water quality impairments and potentially expose people to
untreated sewage. Sewer overflows can also back up into residential homes, publicbuildings and
commercial facilities.
CSO discharges that occur as the result of a wet weather event are point source discharges subject to
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements including both
technology-based and water quality-based requirements of the CWA As of September 2015,859 active
NPDES permits for CSO discharges had been issued in 30 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico. Of these 859 CSOs, 184 are located in the Great Lakes Basin. NPDES permits for CSO discharges are
issued to either:
• The operator of the wastewater treatment plant if the CS 0 outfall is owned and operated by the
same entity as the treatment plant.
• The operator of a CS 0 outfall that operates a portion of a CS S that conveys flows to a wastewater
treatment plant that is owned and operated by a separate entity.
Page | 2
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
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 2004).
Figure 1-2. National Distribution of CSSs.
1.3 What is the "Great Lakes Basin"?
The Great Lakes Basin is the connected watershed of lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Ontario (including the
St. Lawrence Seaway), and Superior. Together, the Great Lakes span both the United States and Canada
and drain an area of over 200,000 square miles (Table 1-1). The portion of the basin that lies in the
United States is approximately 111,548 square miles, exclusive of the St. Lawrence Seaway area
(Figure 1-3). As shown in the figure, the basin reaches into eight states (i.e., New York, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota1) and includes many major cities. The Great
Lakes Basin has relatively undeveloped portions in its northern reach, but is also home to major
metropolitan areas including Chicago, Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Detroit, Michigan; Cleveland,
Ohio; and Buffalo, New York. I n total, more than 30 million people live within and impact the
environment of the Great Lakes Basin.
1 There are no CSO communities discharging to the Great Lakes Basin in Minnesota. The only remaining CSO
community in Minnesota is designed to discharge to the Mississippi River. Therefore, no results are provided for
Minnesota in this report.
Page | 3
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
The Great Lakes provide immeasurable value. They contain approximately 84 percent of the fresh surface
water in the United States. They provide sustenance and drinking water for millions of people, support
recreation and tourism, and provide transportation of materials and goods for industry. As many as 1.5
million jobs are supported by the Great Lakes, contributing to an estimated $62 billion in annual wages
(EPA 20153).
Table 1-1. Drainage Areas and Other Data for the Great Lakes
Feature
Drainage Area (U.S.
Only)
Drainage Area
(Total: U.S. and
Canada)
Surface Area
Volume
Average Depth
Unit
square
miles
square
miles
square
miles
cubic
miles
feet
Lake
Superior
16,628
49,300
31,700
2,900
483
Lake
Michigan
44,878
45,600
22,300
1,180
279
Lake
Huron
15,878
51,700
23,000
850
195
Lake Erie
21,598
30,140
9,910
116
62
Lake Ontario3
12,566
24,720
7,340
393
283
Total
111,548
201,460
94,250
5439
-
Note:
•While the St. Lawrence Seaway is included with Lake Ontario for the purposes of assigning CSOs to the Great Lakes, the data in this
table are for Lake Ontario only.
Page | 4
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Canada
Drainage Areas
Great Lakes
St. Lawrence
Figure 1-3. Drainage Area of the Great Lakes Basin in the United States.
1.4 How Do CSOs Impact the Great Lakes?
EPA has documented in earlier Reports to Congress that CSOs can cause human health and
environmental impacts (EPA2OOib, 2004). CSOs are one of many pollutant sources that impact the Great
Lakes. Other point sources include wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater discharges [e.g., from
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)], and concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs). Nonpoint sources of pollution include agricultural runoff, atmospheric pollution, legacy
pollutants, and natural background sources. As shown in Figure 1-4, CSO communities are scattered
across the Great Lakes Basin, with the greatest concentration in Ohio, southeastern Michigan, and
northeastern Indiana discharging to Lake Erie, and in northern Indiana and southwestern Michigan
discharging to Lake Michigan.
Page | 5
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Great Lakes CSO
Communities
Drainage Areas
Lake Erie
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
Lake Ontario
(including St.
Lawrence
Seaway)
Lake Superior
Lake Superior
Figure 1-4. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin.
CSOs often discharge simultaneously with other wet weather sources of water pollution, including
stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4s) and other sources, wet
weather sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) from SSSs, and other nonpoint sources of pollution. The
combined effect of the wet weather pollution can make it difficult to identify and assign specific cause-
and-effect relationships between CSOs and observed water quality problems. The environmental impacts
of CSOsaremost apparent at the local level (EPA2OO4).
1.5 The Federal Framework for CSO Control
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes national goals and requirements for maintaining and restoring
the nation's waters. CSO discharges are subject to the technology-based and water quality-based
requirements of the CWA. CSOs are not subject to limits based on secondary treatment requirements
applicable to POTWs. Technology-based effluent limits for CSO discharges are based on the application
of best available technology economically achievable (BAT) for toxic and nonconventional pollutants and
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) for conventional pollutants. BAT and BCT effluent
limits are determined based on "best professional judgment." Permits authorizing discharges from CSO
outfalls must include more stringent water quality-based requirements, when necessary, to meet water
quality standards (WQS).
Page | 6
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
For more information about the development of the federal framework to address CSOs and CSO control
history see, Report to Congress—Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy (EPA 2OOib).
1.5.1 CSO Control Policy
EPA issued the CSO Control Policy on April 19,1994 (59 FR18688, April 19,1994). The CSO Control
Policy "represents a comprehensive national strategy to ensure that municipalities, permitting authorities,
WQS authorities, and the public engage in a comprehensive and coordinative effort to achieve cost-
effective CS 0 controls that ultimately meet appropriate health and environmental obj ectives." The policy
assigns primary responsibility for implementation and enforcement to NPDES authorities and water
quality standards authorities.
The policy also established objectives for CSO communities: i) to implement the NMCs and submit
documentation on NMC implementation; and 2) to develop and implement a long-term CSO control plan
(LTCP).
The policy provides that permittees with CSOs are responsible for developing and implementing an
LTCP that includes measures to ultimately result in compliance with the requirements of the CWA,
including water quality-based requirements. The policy identified the following nine minimum elements
that an LTCP should address:
• Characterization, monitoring, and modeling of the CSS;
• Public participation;
• Consideration of sensitive areas;
• Evaluation of alternatives;
• Cost/performance considerations;
• Operational plan;
• Maximization of treatment at the POTW treatment plant;
• Implementation schedule; and
• Post-construction compliance monitoring program.
The policy provides that at the discretion of the NPDES Authority, jurisdictions with populations under
75,000 may not need to complete each of the LTCP elements outlined above. In addition, the policy
provides that the NPD ES permitting authority may determine that some of the LTCP elements listed
above should not apply to certain permittees that had addressed their CS Os before the policy was issued.
1.5.2 Wet Weather Water Quality Act
In December 2000, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-554),
Congress amended the CWA by adding Section 4O2(q). This amendment is commonly referred to as the
"Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000." It requires that each permit, order, or decree issued
pursuant to the CWA after the date of enactment for a discharge from a municipal CSS shall conform to
the CSO Control Policy.
Page | 7
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
This page intentionally left blank.
Page | 8
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
2 Methodology
2.1 Data Collection Method
The data collection supporting this report emphasized collecting readily available data from federal, state,
and local sources. Subsequent to the directive from Congress to develop this report, EPA conducted initial
discussions with the states by telephone and e-mail to get preliminary feedback on the types of data
relating to CSO communities that were available. EPA compiled an initial CSO inventory based on its in-
house data and used this inventory to develop and populate a data collection template for state
information. The collection template included three spreadsheets:
• The Data Collection Template spreadsheet, which included fields for all elements to be
completed/updated by the states. In cases in which EPA had draft data from the states, draft data
were included in the appropriate field, and states were asked to review and update them as
necessary. In cases where no draft data were available, the fields were left blank and states were
instructed to provide the information.
o In many cases, updates were made from prepopulated data choices accessible from drop-
down menus [e.g., Yes, No, or Not Applicable (NA) options]. That approach helped
ensure consistency of data between states. I n other cases, the state was able to enter
information without restriction.
• The I nstructions spreadsheet contained specific instructions for each element to be completed on
the Data Collection Template spreadsheet.
• The Definitions spreadsheet included definitions of key terms to help states complete the Data
Collection Template spreadsheet. The definitions were intended to ensure that all states
interpreted terms in a consistent manner and completed the data updates in a way that would be
comparable across all states.
Data returned by the states were evaluated for consistency with the Data Collection Template spreadsheet
instructions. Because there is no specific guidance in the CSO Control Policy for CSO data collection,
reporting, or CSO volume quantification, information collected by the responsible agencies varies greatly
among states. Therefore, while the emphasis remained on collecting only readily available details (i.e.,
states were not requested to do additional collection or research to find requested data if they were not
immediately available), EPA reviewed the data the states returned to ensure they complied with the data
request—particularly with respect to the instructions and definitions included in the Data Collection
Template spreadsheet. EPA made requests for clarification to the states as necessary.
2.2 What Data Were Collected?
Data collected included information on CSO permittees, their discharge locations, the status of LTCPs and
post-construction compliance monitoring programs, historical and anticipated future CSOs, and 2014
CSOs. The various data collected are summarized in Tables 2-1 through 2-4.
Page | 9
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table 2-1. Data on CSO Permittees
Data Element
EPA Region
State
Name of municipal operator ofCSS
NPDES permitnumber
Name of Great Lake to which Permittee discharges
Does the CSO discharge directly into a Great Lake?
If not a direct discharge to a Great Lake, then provide the name of water body to which directdischarges occur
Population served by CSS
Population served by wastewatertreatmentplant(WWTP)
Design capacity of WWTP [m illion gallons per day (MGD)]
Table 2-2. Data on LTCPs
Data Element
LTCP required (Y/N/NA)
Alternative CSO Control Plan instead of LTCP (Y/N)
Description of alternative CSO Control Plan
CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO control plan) submitted (Y/N)
CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO control plan) approved (Y/N)
CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO control plan) approval date
Projected date for full im plementation of LTCP or alternative CSO Control Plan
CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO Control Plan) m ilestones
Table 2-3. Data on Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Programs
Data Element
Post Construction Com pliance Monitoring Plan required (Y/N)
Post Construction Com pliance Monitoring Plan submitted (Y/N))
Post Construction Com pliance Monitoring Plan approved (Y/N)
Post Construction Com pliance Monitoring Plan approval date
Page | 10
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table 2-4. Data on CSOs
Data Element
Average annual number of CSO events before implementation of CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO control plan)
(Treated)
Average annual number of CSO events before implementation of CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO Control
Plan) (Untreated)
Average annual historic volume of CSOs before implementation of CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO Control Plan)
(MG/yr) (Treated)
Average annual historic volume of CSOs before implementation of CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO Control Plan)
(MG/yr) (Untreated)
Average annual number of CSO events after im plementation of CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO Control
Plan) (Treated)
Average annual number of CSO events after im plementation of CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO Control Plan)
(Untreated)
Average annual volume of CSOs anticipated after implementation of CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO Control
Plan) (MG/yr) (Treated)
Average annual volume of CSOs anticipated after implementation of CSO Control Plan (LTCP or alternative CSO Control
Plan) (MG/yr) (Untreated)
Total numberof CSO events in 2014 (Treated)
Total numberof CSO events in 2014 (Untreated)
Total CSO volume in 2014 (MG) (Treated)
Total CSO volume in 2014 (MG) (Untreated)
Page | 11
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
This page intentionally left blank.
Page | 12
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
3 Results
3.1 Distribution of CSO Communities
The Great Lakes Basin in the United States includes 184 CSO communities in seven states (New York,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin).2 As shown in both Figure 3-1 and Table
3-1, Ohio has the most CSO communities in the Great Lakes basin (54), while Pennsylvania has the least
(i). Only 4 percent (8 out of 184) of CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin discharge directly into the
Great Lakes; most discharge to a stream or river that eventually discharges to a Great Lake.
Great Lakes CSO
Communities
Figure 3-1. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in the U.S.
Note that parts of the state of Minnesota are also included in the Great Lakes basin area, but no communities in
Minnesota have CSO discharges to the Great Lakes.
Page | 13
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table 3-1. CSO Communities by State in the Great Lakes Basin in the U.S.
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois3
Wisconsin
Total
CSO
Communities
13
1
54
46
27
41
2
184
CSO Communities Discharging
Directly into a Great Lake
1
1
4
0
0
0
2
8
CSO Communities Discharging into a
River or Lake Leading to a Great Lake
12
0
50
46
27
41
0
176
Note:
* Includes the City of Chicago and 40 satellite communities within the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) adopted by the Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC).
All five of the Great Lakes receive CSO discharges from communities in the United States (see Table 3-2).
Lake Erie receives CSO discharges from the most communities in the Great Lakes Basin in the United
States (92), including direct discharge from six CSO communities. Lake Michigan receives CSO discharges
from the second most communities in the Great Lakes Basin in the United States (72). Lake Ontario/St.
Lawrence Seaway has 11 communities discharging CSOs, Lake Huron has six, and Lake Superior has
three.
Table 3-2. CSO Communities by Lake in the Great Lakes Basin
Great Lake
Ontario/St. Lawrence
Seaway
Erie
Huron
Michigan
Superior
Total
CSO Communities
11
92
6
72"
3
184
CSO Communities Discharging
Directly into a Great Lake
0
6
0
1
1
8
CSO Communities Discharging
into a River or Lake Leading to a
Great Lake
11
86
6
71
2
176
Note:
• Lake Michigan includes the Chicago-area TARP communities. Most TARP discharges are outside the Great Lakes Basin. However, the TARP
system is designed to discharge to Lake Michigan under extreme weather conditions.
Page | 14
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Most of thelarger CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin in the U.S. discharge to Lake Erie and Lake
Michigan. For example, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Toledo, Akron, and Erie discharge to Lake Erie; and
Chicago,3 Milwaukee, South Bend, Grand Rapids, and Lansing discharge to Lake Michigan.
3.2 LTCP Status of CSO Communities
As shown in Table 3-3, the vast majority of CSO communities in each Great Lakes Basin state required to
submit an LTCP or other alternative CSO control plan are operating under approved plans. New York,
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin have all CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin in
their state operating under approved LTCPs or other alternative CSO control plans.
Table 3-3. CSC
Available Dat
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Total
Control Plan Status of Great Lakes Basin CSO Communities by State Based on
a
LTCPorOther Alternative CSO
Control Plan Required
Yes
13
1
53
46
27
41
2
183
No
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
LTCP or Other Alternative CSO
Control Plan Submitted
Yes
13
1
52
46
26
41
2
181
No
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
3
LTCP or Other Alternative CSO
Control Plan Approved
Yes
13
1
50
46
25
41
2
178
No
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
6
The status of LTCPs and other alternative CSO control plans by lake is shown in Table 3-4. Similar to the
analysis of LTCP and other alternative CSO control plan status by state, the vast majority of CSO
communities draining to each lake operate under approved LTCPs or other alternative CSO control plans.
Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Seaway, Lake Huron and Lake Superior have 100 percent of their CSO
communities operating under approved LTCPs or other alternative CSO control plans.
Chicago is part of the TARP system, where CSOs are designed to discharge to the Illinois River system. Discharges
occur to Lake Michigan only under extreme weather conditions.
Page | 15
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table 3-4. CSO Control Plan Status of Great Lakes Basin CSO Communities by Lake Based on Available
Lake
Ontario/St.
Lawrence
Seaway
Erie
Huron
Michigan
Superior
Total
LTCPorOther Alternative CSO
Control Plan Required
Yes
10
92
6
72
3
183
No
0
1
0
0
0
1
LTCPorOther Alternative CSO
Control Plan Submitted
Yes
10
91
6
71
3
181
No
0
2
0
1
0
3
LTCPor Other Alternative CSO
Control Plan Approved
Yes
10
89
6
70
3
178
No
0
4
0
2
0
6
3.3 Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status of CSO
Communities
The states that had available data on post-construction compliance monitoring plans indicated they are
requiring 153 out of 183 (84 percent) of U.S. CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin to submit post-
construction compliance monitoring plans (Table 3-5). The majority of the communities in the Great
Lakes Basin that are not required to submit post-construction compliance monitoring plans are in
Michigan (26). New York (3) and Ohio (i) also indicated they are not requiring some CSO communities to
submit post-construction compliance monitoring plans. Pennsylvania had no available data on post-
construction compliance monitoring plans.
The majority of required post-construction compliance monitoring plans have been submitted in
Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and New York. Michigan and Wisconsin have received 100 percent,
Indiana 93 percent, and New York 80 percent of their required plans. Ohio reported receiving 91 percent
post-construction compliance monitoring plans for which they have available data; however, Ohio had no
available data on the submission of 42 required post-construction compliance monitoring plans. In
addition, as described above, Ohio has one community that does not require a post-construction
compliance monitoring plan. Illinois has received 32 percent of their required plans.
Sixty-three of the 78 post-construction compliance monitoring plans (81 percent) that have been received
have been approved by the states. Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin haveapproved 100 percent of
the post-construction compliance monitoring plans they have received, and New York has approved 75
percent of the plans it has received. No post-construction compliance monitoring plans have been
approved in Illinois.
Page | 16
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table 3-5. Post Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status of Great Lakes Basin CSO
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Total
Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Required
Yes
10
No Available
Data
53
20
27
41
2
153
No
3
No Available
Data
1
26
0
0
0
30
Required Post-Construction
Compliance Monitoring Plan
Submitted
Yes
8
No Available
Data
10
20
25
13
2
78
No
2
No Available
Data
1"
0
2
28
0
33
Received Post-Construction
Compliance Monitoring Plan
Approved
Yes
6
No Available
Data
10
20
25
0
2
63
No
2
No Available
Data
0
0
0
13
0
15
Note:
3 Ohio had no available data for 42 permittees, and one permittee did not require a post-construction compliance monitoring plan.
The states require post-construction compliance monitoring plans for most of the CSO communities
discharging into lakes Ontario, Erie, and Michigan. However, states have not required the majority of
communities with CSOs discharging to lakes Huron and Superior to submit post-construction compliance
monitoring plans (Table 3-6). With respect to submission and approval of post-construction compliance
monitoring plans, of those communities for which the states had available data, Lake Huron and Lake
Superior had 100 percent of their required post-construction compliance monitoring plans approved.
LakeOntario/St. Lawrence Sea way had five of eight required plans approved (63 percent), while Lake
Erie had 34 of 78 required plans approved (44 percent) and Lake Michigan had 21 of 64 required plans
approved (33 percent).
Page | 17
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table 3-6. Post Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status of Great Lakes Basin CSO
Communities by Lake Based on Available Data
Lake
Ontario/St.
Lawrence Seaway
Erie3
Huron
Michigan
Superior
Total
Post-Construction
Compliance Monitoring Plan
Required
Yes
8
78
2
64
1
153
No
3
13
4
8
2
30
Required Post-Construction
Compliance Monitoring Plan
Submitted
Yes
6
35
2
34
1
78
No
2
1
0
30
0
33
Received Post-Construction
Compliance Monitoring Plan
Approved
Yes
5
34
2
21
1
63
No
1
1
0
13
0
15
Note:
" Pennsylvania had no available data on post-construction compliance monitoring data for the City of Erie, which discharges into Lake Erie.
Ohio had no available data on the submission or approval of post-construction compliance monitoring plans for 42 communities that
discharge into Lake Erie. One permittee in Ohio that discharges into Lake Erie did not require a post-construction compliance monitoring
plan.
3.4 Treated and Untreated CSOs
Treatment is provided for some CSOs prior to discharge. Other CSO outfalls discharge untreated
wastewater and stormwater. This Report distinguishes between treated CSO discharges and untreated
CSO discharges. For the purposes of this Report, "treated CSO discharges" refers to those discharges that
receive a minimum level of treatment as described in the 1994 CSO Control Policy FR18688,18693:
• Primary clarification (Removal of floatables and settleable solids may be achieved by any
combination of treatment technologies or methods that are shown to be equivalent to primary
clarification.);
• Solids and floatables disposal; and
• Disinfection of effluent, if necessary, to meet WQS, protect designated uses and protect human
health, including removal of harmful disinfection chemical residuals, where necessary.
"Untreated CSO discharges" refers to those that either receive no treatment or less treatment than
described above.
3.5 Untreated CSO Events in 2014
The states reported 1,482 untreated CSO events in the Great Lakes Basin in 2014 (Table 3-7). The states
reported the following numbers of CSO events:
• Ohio—824 untreated CSO events. NotethatOhiohadonlypartialdataavailableforfive
communities;
• New York—376 untreated CSO events. Note that New York had no data available for three
communities;
• Michigan—273 untreated CSO events;
Page | 18
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
• Pennsylvania—seven untreated CSO events;
• Illinois—one untreated CSO event;
• Wisconsin—one untreated CSO event; and
• Indiana—zero untreated CSO events. Note that Indiana hadno readily available data for 20 of the
27 communities discharging CSOs.
Table 3-7. Reported Untreated CSO Events by State in 2014 Based on Available Data
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Totals
CSO
Communities
13
1
54
46
27
41
2
184
Communities Reporting Overflow Events
Full Data
Available
10
1
49
46
7
41
2
156
Partial Data
Available
0
0
5"
0
0
0
0
5
No Data
Available
3"
0
0
0
20'
0
0
23
Number of Untreated CSO
Events
376
7
824
273
0
1"
1
1,482
Note:
•Three communities in New York had no readily available data on the number of CSO events in 2014.
bFive Ohio communities [Elyria, Oak Harbor, Tiffin, Bucyrus, and Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitation District (Cleveland)] had no available
data on the number of untreated CSO events in 2014.
C20 Indiana communities had no readily available data on the number of CSO events in 2014.
•'Illinois reported 41 CSO events from TARP in 2014. However, most of the events go to Chicago-area rivers that are outside the Great Lakes
Basin and only one event in 2014 was to Lake Michigan.
A tabulation of reported untreated CSO events in 2014 by Great Lake is presented in Table 3-8. A total of
1,334 untreated CSO events were reported for Lake Erie in 2014, which was the most by far for any of the
Great Lakes. Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Seaway had the second most events (74 untreated CSO events),
followed by Lake Michigan (73 untreated CSO events) and Lake Huron (one untreated CSO event). The
states reported no untreated CSO events occurred in the Lake Superior basin.
Page | 19
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table 3-8. Reported Untreated CSO Events by Lake in 2014 Based on Available Data
Lake
Ontario/St.
Lawrence
Seaway3
Erie"
Huron
Michigan0
Superior
Totals
CSO
Communities
10
93
6
72
3
184
Communities Reporting Overflow Events
Full Data
Available
8
81
6
58
3
156
Partial Data
Available
0
5
0
0
0
5
No Data
Available
2
7
0
14
0
23
Number of Untreated CSO
Events
74
1,334
1
73
0
1,482
Note:
•Two communities in New York discharging into Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Seaway had no available data on the number of treated or
untreated CSO events.
bOne New York community discharging into Lake Erie had no available data on the number of treated or untreated CSO events. Five Ohio
communities discharging into Lake Erie had no available data on the number of untreated CSO events. Six Indiana communities discharging
into Lake Erie had no available data on the number of treated or untreated CSO events.
'14 Indiana communities discharging into Lake Michigan had no available data on the number of treated or untreated CSO events. In
addition, Illinois reported 41 CSO events from TARP in 2014. However, most of these events go to Chicago-area rivers that are outside of the
Great Lakes Basin and only one discharged to Lake Michigan.
3.6 Summary of Untreated CSO Volume Reported in 2014
The states reported a total discharge of approximately 22,000 MG of untreated combined sewage from
CSOs to the Great Lakes in 2014 (Table 3-9). The states reported the following numbers of untreated CSO
overflow volumes:
• Michigan—8,800 MG.
• Indiana—8,100 MG.
• Ohio—3,200 MG. Note that eight Ohio communities had no available data on untreated CSO
volume.
• New York—1,800 MG. Note that five New York communities had no readily available data on CSO
volumes.
• Illinois—500 MG.
• Wisconsin—0.3 MG.
• Pennsylvania—o.i MG.
Page | 20
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table 3-9. Reported Untreated CSO Volume by State in 2014 Based on Available Data
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Totals
CSO
Communities
13
1
54
46
27
41
2
184
Communities Reporting Overflow Volume
Full Data
Available
8
1
46
46
27
41
2
171
Partial Data
Available
0
0
8"
0
0
0
0
8
No Data
Available
5"
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Volume of Untreated Events
(MG)
1,800
0.1
3,200
8,800
8,100
500
0.3
22,000
Note:
•Five NewYork communities (Clayton Village, Ogdensburg, the Frank E. VanLare STP in Rochester, Lockport, and Niagara Falls) had no readily
available data on CSO volumes.
bEight Ohio communities [Avon Lake, Crestline, Elyria, Oak Harbor, Tiffin, Bucyrus, Lima, and Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitation District
(Cleveland)] had no available data on untreated CSO volume.
As reported in Table 3-10, Lake Erie received 16,400 MG of untreated combined sewage in 2014, which
was by far the highest untreated CSO volume discharged to a Great Lake in 2014. Lake Michigan received
about 35 percent of what Lake Erie received (approximately 5,900 MG untreated discharge). Lake
Ontario/St. Lawrence Seaway (150 MG untreated discharge), Lake Huron (0.4 MG untreated discharge),
and Lake Superior (o MG untreated discharge) received the lowest volumes of untreated CSO discharges
in 2014.
Table 3-10. Reported Untreated CSO Volume by Lake in 2014 Based on Available Data
Lake
Ontario/St.
Lawrence
Seaway3
Erie"
Huron
Michigan
Superior
Totals
CSO
Communities
10
93
6
72
3
184
Communities Reporting Overflow Volume
Full Data
Available
6
84
6
72
3
171
Partial Data
Available
0
8
0
0
0
8
No Data
Available
4
1
0
0
0
5
Untreated CSO Volume
(MG)
150
16,400
0.4
5,900
0
22,000
Note:
'four communities in NewYork discharging into Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Seaway had no available data on the volume of treated or
untreated CSO events.
bEight Ohio communities had no available data on the volume of untreated CSO events. In addition, one community in NewYork had no
available data on the volume of treated or untreated CSO events.
Page | 21
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
3.7 Treated CSO Events in 2014
The states reported 187 treated CSO events in the Great Lakes Basin in 2014 (Table 3-11). The states
reported the following numbers of treated CSO events:
• Michigan—160 treated CSO events;
• Ohio—27 treated CSO events;
• New York—zero treated CSO events. Note that three communities in New York had no readily
available data on the number of CSO events in 2014;
• Pennsylvania—zero treated CSO events;
• Illinois—zero treated CSO events;
• Wisconsin—zero treated CSO events; and
• Indiana— zero treated CSO events. Note that Indiana had no readily available data for 20 of the
27 communities discharging CSOs.
Table 3-11. Reported Treated CSO Events by State in 2014 Based on Available Data
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Totals
CSO
Communities
13
1
54
46
27
41
2
184
Communities Reporting Overflow Events
Full Data
Available
10
1
54
46
7
41
2
156
Partial Data
Available
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Data
Available
3"
0
0
0
20"
0
0
23
Number of Treated CSO
Events
0
0
27
160
0
0
0
187
Note:
•Three communities in New York had no readily available data on the number of CSO events in 2014.
b20 Indiana communities had no readily available data on the number of CSO events in 2014.
A tabulation of reported treated CSO events in 2014 by Great Lake is presented in Table 3-12. Atotal of
162 treated CSO events were reported for Lake Erie in 2014, which was the most by far for any of the
Great Lakes. Lake Huron had the second most events (11 treated CSO events), followed by Lake Michigan
(eight treated CSO events), and Lake Superior (six treated CSO events). The states reported no treated
CSO events occurred in the Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Seaway.
Page | 22
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table 3-12. Reported Treated CSO Events by Lake in 2014 Based on Available Data
Lake
Ontario/St.
Lawrence
Seaway3
Erie"
Huron
Michigan0
Superior
Totals
CSO
Communities
10
93
6
72
3
184
Communities Reporting Overflow Events
Full Data
Available
8
86
6
58
3
156
Partial Data
Available
0
0
0
0
0
0
No Data Available
2
7
0
14
0
23
Number of Treated CSO
Events
0
162
11
8
6
187
Note:
•Two communities in New York discharging into Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Seaway had no available data on the number of treated or
untreated CSO events.
bOne New York community discharging into Lake Erie had no available data on the number of treated or untreated CSO events. Six Indiana
communities discharging into Lake Erie had no available data on the number of treated or untreated CSO events.
'14 Indiana communities discharging into Lake Michigan had no available data on the number of treated or untreated CSO events.
3.8 Summary of Treated CSO Volume Reported in 2014
The states reported a total discharge of approximately 26,000 MG of treated combined sewage from CSOs
to the Great Lakes in 2014 (Table 3-13). The states reported the following numbers of treated CSO
overflow volumes:
• Michigan—25,200 MG.
• Ohio—400 MG.
• Indiana—20 MG
• New York—o MG. Note that five New York communities had no readily available data on CSO
volumes.
• Pennsylvania—o MG
• Illinois—o MG.
• Wisconsin—o MG.
Page | 23
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table 3-13. Treated CSO Volume by State in 2014 Based on Available Data
State
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Totals
CSO
Communities
13
1
54
46
27
41
2
184
Communities Reporting Overflow Volume
Full Data
Available
8
1
46
46
27
41
2
171
Partial Data
Available
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
8
No Data
Available
5"
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Treated CSO Volume (MG)
0
0
400
25,200
20
0
0
26,000
Note:
•Five New York communities (Clayton Village, Ogdensburg, the Frank E. VanLare STP in Rochester, Lockport, and Niagara Falls) had no readily
available data on CSO volumes.
As reported in Table 3-14, Lake Erie received 24,700 MG of treated combined sewage in 2014, which was
by far the highest untreated CSO volume discharged to a Great Lake in 2014. Lake Huron received 800
MG of treated discharge, while Lake Superior received 200 MG of treated discharge and Lake Michigan
received 10 MG of treated discharge. Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Seaway reported no treated discharge
volume in 2014.
Table 3-14. Treated CSO Volume by Lake in 2014 Based on Available Data
Lake
Ontario/St.
Lawrence
Seaway3
Erie"
Huron
Michigan
Superior
Totals
CSO
Communities
10
93
6
72
3
184
Communities Reporting Overflow Volume
Full Data
Available
6
84
6
72
3
171
Partial Data
Available
0
8
0
0
0
8
No Data
Available
4
1
0
0
0
5
Treated CSO Volume (MG)
0
24,700
800
10
200
26,000
Note:
'four communities in New York discharging into Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Seaway had no available data on the volume of treated CSO
events.
bOne community in New York had no available data on the volume of treated CSO events.
Page | 24
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
3.9 Summary of Individual State Data
3.9.1 New York
New York has 13 communities with CSO discharges in the Great Lakes Basin, including 10 that discharge
to LakeOntario/St. Lawrence Seaway and three that discharge to Lake Erie (Figure 3-2 and Appendix
Table A-i). New York's CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin are primarily small, with the exception
of Buffalo, which discharges into waterbodies leading to Lake Erie; and Rochester, which discharges into
waterbodies leading to Lake Ontario. Most CSO communities in New York do not discharge directly into
the Great Lakes, although Dunkirk discharges directly into Lake Erie.
CSO Communities
Major CSO Communities
Drainage Areas
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
Figure 3-2. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in New York.
All CSO communities in New York require LTCPs, and LTCPs for all of these communities have been
submitted and approved (AppendixTable A-2). Post-construction compliance monitoring plans are
required for all CSO communities except Rochester, Medina, and Gouverneur (AppendixTable A-3). Post-
construction compliance monitoring plans have been submitted for eight out of the 10 communities where
they are required and approved in six.
New York reported 376 untreated CSO events in 2014, consisting of 1,800 MG of combined sewage
(Appendix Table A-s). They included 302 CSO events with a total of 1,650 MGto Lake Erie, and 74 CSO
events with a total of 150 MG to Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence Seaway. However, no data was readily
Page | 25
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
available for the number of CSO events for the Frank E. VanLare STP in Rochester, or for Lockport or
Niagara Falls. In addition, no CSO volume data was readily available for Clayton Village, Ogdensburg, the
Frank E. VanLare STP in Rochester, Lockport, or Niagara Falls. The number of CSO events and volume of
combined sewage discharge are estimates based mostly on local modeling the overflows using a baseline
annual precipitation. They are not actual measured quantities.
3.9.2 Pennsylvania
The City of Erie, located in northwestern Pennsylvania on Lake Erie, is the only CSO community in
Pennsylvania that is in the Great Lakes Basin (Figure 3-3 and Appendix Table A-6). The city's CSOs
include direct discharges into Lake Erie. The city's LTCP was approved in 2001 (Appendix Table A-y), but
no data was available regarding its post-construction compliance monitoring program (Appendix Table A-
8). Erie reported seven untreated CSO events in 2014, which discharged 0.12 MG of untreated combined
sewage into Lake Erie (Appendix Table A-io).4
Erie L _____ —
Pennsylvania
Figure 3-3.CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Pennsylvania.
The City of Erie used the presumption approach in its LTCP (with an 85 percent capture WQBEL); however, the
city has documented as of its 2014 Annual Report that it is capturing more than 99 percent of its CSO volume.
Page | 26
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
3.9.3 Ohio
The 54 CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Ohio all discharge to Lake Erie (Figure 3-4). The
communities range from very large systems [e.g., Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD)
around Cleveland] to very small systems (several communities, including Hamler and Metamora, serve
populations of fewer than 1,000). Avon, Euclid, Lakewood, and NEORSD discharge directly into Lake
Erie, while the remainder of the communities discharge to other receiving waters that eventually drain to
Lake Erie (see Appendix Table A-n for a list of individual communities).
Lake Erie
O
0-Q Cleveland
(NEORSD)
OAk
ron
Ohio
O CSO Communities
O Major CSO Communities |
Drainage Areas
Lake Erie
Figure 3-4. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Ohio.
A total of 52 of the 54 communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Ohio required LTCPs or alternative CSO
control plans (Table 3-3 and Appendix Table A-12).5 Two communities did not require LTCPs or
alternative CSO control plans:
• Wauseon submitted an LTCP to the state of Ohio, although the city's NPDES permit did not
require it.
• Willard achieved compliance with the CSO Control Policy without needing an LTCP.
Luckey's NPDES permit required submission of a sewer separation plan as an alternative CSO control plan rather
than an LTCP.
Page | 27
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Fifty-one of the 52 communities required to submit LTCPs or alternative CSO control plans have done so;
Elyria is the exception (Appendix Table A-12). With the exception of Bucyrus and Lakewood, all of the
LTCPs or alternative CSO control plans that have been submitted have been approved.
Fifty-three of 54 communities had a requirement to develop a post-construction compliance monitoring
plan (Appendix Table A-is). Willard was the exception. Ten communities have submitted post-
construction compliance monitoring plans that have been approved.
Thirty-two Ohio communities reported CSO events in 2014 (five communities did not have complete
available data on CSO events in 2014) (Appendix Table A-IS). They ranged from a high of 107 CSO events
in Lakewood to single events in Bowling Green and Paulding. Almost all reported CSO events were
untreated. However, NEORSD reported 27 treated CSO events resulting in 435 MG of discharge, but had
no available data on untreated CSO events. The total reported volume of CSO discharges in in Ohio in
2014 was approximately 3,200 MG of untreated combined sewage and 440 MG of treated combined
sewage. Akron and Fremont reported the highest volume of untreated combined sewage, at over 800 MG
each. This was more than double the next highest reported volume, which was approximately 300 MG by
the City of Toledo.
3.9.4 Michigan
There are46 communities discharging CS Os to the Great Lakes in Michigan (Figure 3-5 andAppendix
Table A-i6). They include 18 CSO communities in the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD)
service area, as well as medium-sized cities like Grand Rapids and Lansing. There are also much smaller
communities, like Croswell and Crystal Falls, which have populations under 3,000 people. CSO
communities in Michigan discharge to four out of the five Great Lakes: 27 to Lake Erie (including the
Detroit area CSOs), six to Lake Huron, 11 to Lake Michigan (including Grand Rapids and Lansing), and
two to Lake Superior. There are no CSOs discharging directly to the Great Lakes in Michigan; all CSOs
discharge to a river, stream, or other water body leading to a Great Lake.
Page | 28
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Minnesota
O CSO Communities
O Chicago, IL
Drainage Areas
Lake Erie
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
Lake Superior
Lake Superior
\ Michigan} 0i5££L
\ i
Figure 3-5. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Michigan.
Michigan has approved LTCPs for all 46 communities discharging CSOs to the Great Lakes in the state
(Appendix Table A-iy). Twenty of these communities also have approved post-construction compliance
monitoring plans. Twenty-six communities do not require post-construction compliance monitoring plans
(Appendix Table A-i8).
Thirty-two of the 46 communities reported CSO events in 2014 (Appendix Table A-2O). The number of
events per community ranged from one to 60 (treated plus untreated events). The largest CSO volumes
are summarized in Table 3-15.
CSO Name
Detroit WWTP
South Oakland County Sewerage Disposal System/George W. Kuhn CSO
Retention Treatment Basin
Dearborn CSO
CSOs in 2014 (MG)
Treated
18,800
2,500
344
Untreated
7,000
0
698
Page | 29
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
3.9.5 Indiana
There are 27 CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Indiana (Figure 3-6 and Appendix Table A-2i).
Nine of these communities (primarily in the northeastern part of the state) have CSOsthat discharge to a
water body that eventually discharges to Lake Erie, while the remaining 18 (mostly in the northwestern
part of the state) have CSOs that discharge to a water body that eventually discharges to Lake Michigan.
Most of the communities are relatively small, with only Gary, South Bend, Hammond, and Fort Wayne
having substantial populations. There are no CSOs discharging directly to the Great Lakes in Indiana; all
CSOs discharge to a river, stream, or other water body leading to a Great Lake.
I
Lake
Michigan
Chicago
Hammond
O CSO Communities
O Major CSO Communities
Drainage Areas
Lake Michigan
South
Bend
o
o
°0 ° r> ° ° °
u ° o o
Fort OO
Wayne
Indiana
O
O
Figure 3-6. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Indiana.
All 27 Indiana CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin require LTCPs except Kendalville, which has
completed an alternative control plan (Appendix Table A-22). All communities have submitted their
LTCPs except for Gary, and all have had their plans accepted except for Gary and Hammond. A similar
pattern occurs with post-construction compliance monitoring plans. All communities have submitted and
had their plans approved except Gary and Hammond, which have yet to submit plans (Appendix
TableA-23).
Indiana did not have data readily available on the number of CSO events in 2014 for a large majority of
CSO communities (Appendix Table A-25). However, the state did have data available on CSO volume. All
communities reported untreated CSO overflows in 2014 except the seven communities that had
Page | 30
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
completely separated their sewers, with untreated CSO volumes ranging from under i MG (in Angola,
Auburn, Kendalville, and Ligonier) to over 1,000 MG (in Fort Wayne, Gary, and Hammond). Butler,
Goshen, Valparaiso, and Waterloo also reported some treated CSO discharges, with volumes ranging from
less than i MG to 14 MG.
3.9.6 Illinois
All CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Illinois are in the Chicago metropolitan area (Figure 3-7
and Appendix Table A-26) and part of the TARP. TARP was approved as the LTCP for the Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), the City of Chicago, and 40 satellite
communities. TARP provides a good example of an LTCP with CSO remedial control measures that, upon
completion, are expected to address CSOs containing untreated sewage in Chicago area waterways that
occur during flood and wet weather events. TARP is the subject of a Federal Judicial Consent Decree that
was upheld in July 2015 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Under the Consent Decree, MWRDGC
will complete implementation of TARP to eliminate a substantial percentage of CSOs by December 31,
2029, that, upon completion, is estimated will cost more than $3 billion. This plan includes the
construction of 109 miles of tunnels that will have a storage capacity of approximately 2.3 billion gallons
and the completion of three reservoirs. The tunnel and reservoirs will have a combined capacity of
approximately 17 billion gallons of sewage and flood water.
MWRDGC is required under the CSO Decree to implement a green infrastructure program. Under that
program, where feasible, MWRDGC will prioritize green infrastructure projects where they (i) will help
reduce flooding and basement backups; (2) can be readily accommodated as permanent stormwater
control measures on vacant parcels that can be retrofitted into "stormwater parks" that would store and
infiltrate or reuse rainfall and runoff, and be an amenity for local residents; and (3) can improve
socioeconomic conditions in the MWRDGC service area where the need is greatest, specifically by
improving conditions in areas impacted by environmental justice concerns.
Page | 31
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
I
s
f
\
\
Lake
Michigan
Chicago
i
Illinois
Q Major CSO Community
Drainage Areas
Lake Michigan
Figure 3-7. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Illinois.
Illinois reported 41 CSO events from TARP in 2014 (becauseTARP is an integrated system, this means
that on 41 occasions in 2014, at least one of the CSO points in the TARP interceptors discharged combined
sewageto the local waterway (Appendix Table A-so). However, only one of the events discharged to Lake
Michigan; the other 40 discharged to Chicago-area rivers draining away from Lake Michigan. The one
discharge event to Lake Michigan in 2014 resulted in a discharge of 525 MG of untreated CSO into the
lake.
3.9.7 Wisconsin
Wisconsin has two CSO communities that discharge to the Great Lakes Basin (Appendix Table A-3i).
Milwaukee's Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) discharges to Lake Michigan and the community of
Superior discharges to Lake Superior (Figure 3-8). MMSD is a large system that serves 26 communities,
including the City of Milwaukee; Superior is smaller. The MMSD permit includes discharges to
waterbodies leading to Lake Michigan and two discharges into Milwaukee's Outer Harbor on Lake
Michigan. Similarly, the City of Superior has direct discharges to Superior Bay and St. Louis Bay on Lake
Superior, aswell as to waterbodies leading to the lake.
Page | 32
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Lake Superior
Wisconsin
Major CSO Communities
Lake Michigan
Lake Superior
Figure 3-8. CSO Communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Wisconsin.
Both MMSD and Superior have submitted required LTCPs (Appendix Table A-32). MMSD's LTCP was
approved in 2007, while Superior's was approved in 2013. Both communities also have approved post-
construction compliance monitoring plans (AppendixTable A-33). MMSD's plan was approved at the
sametime as its LTCP in 2007, while Superior's was approved in 2015.
MMSD reported one untreated CSO event in 2014, with an untreated CSO volume of 0.3 MG (Appendix
Table A-35). Superior reported no CSO overflow events and no CSO overflow volume in 2014.
Page | 33
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
This page intentionally left blank.
Page | 34
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
References
EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 19 84. National Municipal Policy on Publicly Owned
Treatment Works. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy.
EPA 830-94-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Accessed
September 2015. https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-cso-control-policv.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 20013. Guidance: Coordinating Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Long-Term Planning with Water Quality Standards Reviews. EPA 833-R-o 1-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2OOib. Report to Congress—Implementation and
Enforcement of the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy. EPA 833-R-o 1-003. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Report to Congress—Impacts and Control of CSOs
andSSOs. EPA 833-R-O4-OO1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,
DC. Accessed September 2015.
https://www.epa.gov/npdes/2OO4-npdes-cso-report-congress.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Report to Congress—Combined Sewer Overflows to
the Lake Michigan Basin. EPA-Sss-R-oy-ooy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Officeof
Water, Washington, DC. Accessed September 2015. https://www.epa.gov/npdes/2OO7-report-
congress-combined-sewer-overflows-csos-lake-michigan-basin.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 20153. Great Lakes website. Accessed September 2015.
http: / /epa .gov/greatlakes/.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2Oisb. Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) On-line.
Accessed September 2015. https://www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs.
MAG (Management Advisory Group). 1992. Recommendationsfrom the Management Advisory Group to
the Assistant Administrator for Water Concerning EPA's Proposed Expedited Combined Sewer
Overflow Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
MAG (Management Advisory Group). 1993. Combined Sewer Overflow Work Group Policy Dialogue
Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Moffa, P., ed. 1997. The Controland Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows, Second Edition. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Page | 35
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
This page intentionally left blank.
Page | 36
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Appendix
Table A-1. New York CSO Community Summary Information A-2
Table A-2. New York LTCP Status A-3
Table A- 3. New York Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status A-4
Table A-4. New York Pre and Post-Construction CSO Status A-5
Table A-5. New York 2014 CSO Status A-6
Table A-6. Pennsylvania CSO Community Summary Information A-6
Table A-7. Pennsylvania LTCP Status A-y
Table A- 8. Pennsylvania Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status A-y
Table A- 9. Pennsylvania Pre- and Post-Construction CSO Status A-y
Table A-10. Pennsylvania 2014 CSO Status A-8
TableA-n. Ohio CSO Community Summary Information A-g
Table A-12. Ohio LTCP Status A-ii
Table A-13. Ohio Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status A-14
Table A-14. Ohio Pre-and Post-Construction CSO Status A-i6
Table A-15. Ohio 2014 CSO Status A-i8
Table A-16. Michigan CSO Community Summary Information A-2O
Table A-17. Michigan LTCP Status. A-22
Table A-18. Michigan Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status A-2.J
Table A-19. Michigan Pre-and Post-Construction CSO Status A-29
Table A-20. Michigan 2014 CSO Status A-31
Table A-21. Indiana CSO Community Summary Information A-33
Table A-22. Indiana LTCP Status A-35
Table A- 23.1 ndiana Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status A-36
Table A- 24. Indiana Pre- and Post-Construction CSO Status A-37
Table A-25. Indiana 2014 CSO Status A-38
Table A-26. Illinois CSO Community Summary Information A-39
Table A-27. Illinois LTCP Status A-41
Table A- 28. Illinois Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status A-43
Table A-29. Illinois Pre-and Post-Const ruction CSO Status A-45
Table A-30. Illinois 2014 CSO Status A-47
Table A-31. Wisconsin CSO Community Summary Information A-48
Table A-32. Wisconsin LTCP Status. A-49
Table A- 33. Wisconsin Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status A-49
Table A-34. Wisconsin Pre-and Post-Const ruction CSO Status A-so
Table A-35. Wisconsin 2014 CSO Status A-so
Page | A-l
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 1. New York CSO Community Summary Information
c
o
'5b
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 2. New York LTCP Status
Name of Municipal Operator
of CSS
Gouverneur
STP
Watertown
WPCP
Clayton
Village WTF
Ogdensburg
WWTP
Massena
WWTP
Oswego-
WestSide
STP
City of
Oswego, East
Side STP
Medina
WWTP
Frank E.
VanLare STP
(Rochester)
Niagara Falls
WWTP
Lockport
WWTP
Dunkirk
WWTP
Buffalo
Sewer
Authority
NPDES Permit Number
NY0020117
NY0025984
NY0027545
NY0029831
NY0031194
NY0029106
NY0029114
NY0021873
NY0028339
NY0026336
NY0027057
NY0027961
NY0028410
LTCP Required (Y/N/NA)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Alternative CSO Control Plan
Instead of LTCP (Y/N/NA)
N/A
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Description of Alternative
CSO Control Plan
NDA
SS
Other
SS
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
Submitted (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Approved (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Approval Date
NDA
04/29/2011
11/19/2012
07/26/2012
02/03/2009
03/09/2010
01/26/2006
08/14/2007
NDA
04/21/2008
03/12/2012
04/19/2007
01/01/2014
Projected Date for Full
Implementation
NDA
12/1/2017
2023
2023
NDA
2016
5/16/2015
8/7/2015
NDA
12/1/2009
2012
5/1/2008
3/1/2034
c
o
«
£
m
Approved by NYSDEC on Sept. 9, 2015
Reconstruction and separation of sewers
Removal of excessive I/I; diversion of flow
away from the Riverside Pump Station;
increase capacity to the existing pump
stations
Sewer separation along Paterson Street,
green infrastructure projects, optimization of
capture rate through weir modifications,
hydraulic improvements, and installation of an
800,000 gallon storage including sewer
separation along Paterson Street, green
infrastructure projects, optimization of capture
rate through weir modifications, hydraulic
improvements, and installation of an 800,000
gallon storage facility for CSOs 001 and 002
Sewer extension
Continuation to maintain the existing Excess
Flow Management Facility (EFMF),
disinfection, inline storage, and 0 best
management practices.
Increase in capacity at the existing storage
tank; pump station upgrade; and increase in
headworks capacity.
Continue with the current best management
practices and reduce CSO discharges
CSO storage/conveyance tunnel system
Continuation of CSO BMP implementations
especially weir adjustment at Gorge pump
station, and Garfreld; elimination of Bath and
Walnut outfalls.
CSO BMPs, sewer improvements including
sewer separation, overflow weir modification,
and sewer replacement
WWTP upgrade
Proposed controls include weir modifications,
real time controls, green infrastructure,
storage, treatment upgrades
Key: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = Not Applicable; NDA= No Data Available; SS = Sewer Separation
Page | A-3
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 3. New York Post Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status
TO
f 8
'E 0
i °
o °
V £
E o
re Q.
Z O
GouverneurSTP
WatertownWPCP
Clayton Village WTF
OgdensburgWWTP
Massena WWTP
Oswego-West S ide STP
CityofOswego, East Side STP
Medina WWTP
Frank E. VanLare STP (Rochester)
Niagara Falls WWTP
LockportWWTP
Dunkirk WWTP
Buffalo Sewer Authority
NPDES Permit Number
NY0020117
NY0025984
NY0027545
NY0029831
NY0031194
NY0029106
NY0029114
NY0021873
NY0028339
NY0026336
NY0027057
NY0027961
NY0028410
Post-Construction
Compliance Monitoring
Plan Required (Y/N)
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Post- Const ruction
Compliance Monitoring
Plan Submitted (Y/N)
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Post- Const ruction
Compliance Monitoring
Plan Approved (Y/N)
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Post-Construction
Compliance Monitoring
Plan Approval Date
N/A
NDA
NDA
NDA
1/28/2011
9/24/2012
NDA
NDA
NDA
3/11/2013
5/26/2011
NDA
NDA
Key: Y = Yes; N = No; NDA = No Data Available
Page | A-4
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 4. New York Pre and Post Construction CSO Status
CO
w
o
o
o
E
V
Q.
O
1
3
O
E
re
Z
GouverneurSTP
WatertownWPCP
Clayton Village WTF
OgdensburgWWTP
Massena WWTP
Oswego-WestSide
STP
City of Oswego, East
Side STP
Medina WWTP
Frank E. VanLare STP
(Rochester)
Niagara Falls WWTP
LockportWWTP
Dunkirk WWTP
Buffalo Sewer
Authority
.a
E
3
Z
J>
a
Q_
z
NY0020117
NY0025984
NY0027545
NY0029831
NY0031194
NY0029106
NY0029114
NY0021873
NY0028339
NY0026336
NY0027057
NY0027961
NY0028410
8l
o .0 "£•
M- *- i_ re
o S o 51
jj ! o S
E J b =
3 "o 51 °>
1 i i s
111!
3. iS o 5
Treated
0
0
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Untreated
6
30+
30
50
35
60
10
1
8
39
20
23
296
0
° 0 o
2 «- >
E o =
3 c re
o o c
1111
-8 = 0=.
.2 0 Q. X
1 -5.<£ re
^ £ !_l Q_
III 1
f o 1 o
< 0 0 0
Treated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Untreated
NDA
61
NDA
NDA
38
80
8
0
232
282
40
27
1,749
o
o = i
M- O C
r_ ±i ±i
1 1 <
E g o
= 2 =d ^
1 1 1 1
O) W> O O
11=0
> > 0 CO
< LJJ O O
Treated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Untreated
NDA
NDA
19
16
6
15
3
0
7
43
10
23
0-9 each
location
o
S o
o 3 i
o v o Q-
o E Q- "5
E « o 2
J Q. h-j ^
3 *^ E S
Ills
« re o +-
0) a. ft re -c-
E " _ c -ft1
o ^ O v (n
< < O < S.
Treated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
1870
NDA
Untreated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
504
Key: NDA = No Data Available
Page | A-5
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 5. New York 2014 CSO Status
TO
.9- ,
o
£
Q
O
^
V C
re ^
S 0
0 re
O .E
= o
re .!2
z b
Lake Erie
CO
*-*
«
V
CO
P
0.
£
NDA
Q_
g
^
•o
V
CO
P
0.
s.
200,000
§
"o
'o
Q.
0) ' — '
'
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 7. Pennsylvania LTCP Status
1
V
a.
O
&
o
V
E co
S 8
The City of Erie
V
E
3
—
i
UJ
o
Q.
•z
PA0026301
•z.
•z.
£
•o
S
3
Q.
O
1—
Y
c
ll
g p
O C.
° 0
IS TJ
E S
NDA
o
8
is
E
a.
M-
i |
1-1
Q 0
NDA
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
S
¥
s
E
.a
3
CO
Y
z
^
S
a.
a.
Y
3
re
a
S
a.
a.
10/1/2001
=
LL.
3 =
-2 .2
Q JS
•o g
1 I
NDA
o
V
NDA
Key: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = Not Applicable; NDA= No Data Available
Table A- 8. Pennsylvania Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status
O
E
V
Q.
O
Q.
"E
3
0 W
E o
ro i«_
Z 0
The City of Erie
^
o
-Q
E
^
±i
a!
CO
M i
•z
PA0026301
c
re
Q.
0)
c
•c
c £
0 •£
lip
w> o C-
= E -o
o .5 o
"w> E o~
£ o £
NDA
c
re
Q.
0)
c
•c
= 3
0 '£
lip
•« o ^T
= re £
O ^ ~
tn = -a
S. 0 ^
NDA
c
re
Q_
0)
c
•c
= 3
0 '^
III
vt <^
= = ^
o re o
S> =5. 1
•S E S.
O O Q.
a. u <
NDA
c
re
Q.
0)
c
•c
= s
0 '^
1 1 is
(A O O
= = —
o re re
S> =5. 1
•S E £.
O O Q.
a. u <
NDA
Key: NDA = No Data Available
Table A- 9. Pennsylvania Pre- and Post-Construction CSO Status
CO
8
M—
O
o
2
V
r>
o
1
.0
c
3
M—
O
V
g
TO
The City of Erie
V
_Q
E
•^
Q.
UJ
Q
Q.
Z.
PA0026301
O "o
w c
" 1 - "s
o jH
o 5!
1 1 & 1
I JB =i 5
^ £
"ro —
= c
^ *a
• c o
— O
"o °
"^ S£
1 1 S 1
< uj u <
Treated
NDA
Key: NDA = No Data Available
Untreated
NDA
il
E o
3 ^
"o JS
c
re
0 0-
1 l&|
o o
1/1 Q.
in J
ro o
3 %
C ®
< CO
5. o
^" ^
E °
0 °
H o
_ 5«
S) =
CO "^
8 s
"S 0
u E
E -2
= Q.
"S E
> •Z
TS £
= •if
c <
^ O
o "re
0) a.
E o
1 1
Treated
NDA
0 J
pr Q_
3 "s
rl
JS O
T
- 0
g w
o £
O ~
O JS -C"
CO £ ^
D « O
M— — S
^ < e.
Untreated
NDA
Page | A-7
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 10. Pennsylvania 2014 CSO Status
o
"o
o
E
V
a.
O
"ro
Q.
"E
3
?~
V
E
TO
The City of Erie
!_
O
E
3
^
O
Q_
CO
UJ
s
•z
PA0026301
•£
1
UJ
O
8
V
.a
E
3
•z
~3 2.
o o
1— CM
Treated
NDA
Untreated
7
O -,
1 "
o «
•= £ o £
o o c/3 ro
« «
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 15. Ohio 2014 CSO Status
Name of Municipal
Operator of CSS
Payne
Perrysburg
Sandusky
Swanton
Tiffin
Upper Sandusky
VanWert
Wapakoneta
Wauseon
Willard
Woodville
Akron
Bucyrus
Clyde
Euclid
Fostoria
Lakewood
Lima
NEORSD
Port Clinton
Toledo
NPDES Permit Number
OH0021326
OH0021008
OH0027332
OH0020524
OH0052949
OH0020001
OH0027910
OH0027952
OH0023400
OH0028118
OH0020591
OH0023833
OH0052922
OH0024868
OH0031062
OH0025364
OH0026018
OH0026069
OH0043991
OH0052876
OH0027740
o
CO
"£ •*
1
z »
3 §
£ Si
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
0
Untreated
0
12
20
14
NDA
45
13
10
5
0
0
80
NDA
5
58
56
107
69
NDR
6
39
1
1 *
(5 s
o .=
8 Eg
a 1 £
5 5 S.
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
434.7
0
0
Untreated
0
82.78
73.61
0.535
NDR
34.51
26.09
19.4
5.68
0
0
878.25
NDA
1.46
71.56
169.14
210.73
NDR
NDR
7.7
311.05
at
£
0
z
LTCP submitted with no requirements in
permit to do so
Achieved compliance with CSO Policy
without need for LTCP
Key: NDA = No Data Available; NDR = No Data Reported
Page | A-19
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 16. Michigan CSO Community Summary Information
C
O
'g>
OL
2
UJ
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Name of Municipal
Operator of CSS
Adrian WWTP
Bay City WWTP
Birmingham
Bloomfeld Village
CSO
Chapaton RTB
Croswell WWTP
Crystal Falls CSO
Dearborn CSO
Dearborn Heights
CSO
Detroit WWTP
Dundee WWTP
East Lansing
WWTP
Essexville WWTP
Gladwin WWTP
Grand Rapids
WWTP
Grosse Pointe
Farms CSO
Grosse Pointe
Shores CSO
Inkster/Dearborn
Heights CSO
Iron Mountain
Kingsford WWTP
Lansing WWTP
Manistee WWTP
Manisfque WWTP
Marysville WWTP
Menominee WWTP
Milk River CSO
RTB
Mt Clemens
WWTP
Miles WWTP
NPDES Permit
Number
MI0022152
MI0022284
MI0025534
MI0048046
MI10025585
MI10021083
MI0048879
MI0025542
MI0051811
MI0022802
MI0020401
MI0022853
MI0022918
MI0023001
MI0026069
MI0026077
MI0026085
MI0051837
MI0023205
MI0023400
MI0020362
MI0023515
MI0020656
MI0025631
MI0025500
MI0023647
MI0023701
Name of Great Lake
Discharged to
Lake Erie
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Direct Discharge
into Great Lakes?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Name of Water body
Directly Discharged
into
South Branch Raisin
River
Saginaw River
Rouge River
Rouge River
Chapaton Canal
Black River
Paint River
Rouge River;
Lower Rouge River
Middle Rouge River
Rouge River;
Detroit River
Raisin River
Red Cedar River
Saginaw River
Cedar River
Grand River
Lake St. Clair
Lake St. Clair
Lower Rouge River
Menominee River
Grand River;
Red Cedar River
Manistee Lake
Manisfque River
St. Clair River
Menominee River
Milk River
Clinton River
St. Joseph River
Population Served
by CSS
21,133
70,971
11,410
9,180
42,508
2,447
1,900
98,153
56,620
1,016,585
4,600
46,500
3,478
3,000
197,800
9,310
2,450
NDA
12,757
114,297
6,226
3,483
9,959
8,600
30,275
16,399
11,200
Population Served
by WWTP
35,789
94,157
2,959,021 (Detroit)
2,959,021 (Detroit)
2,959,021 (Detroit)
2,447
1,900
2,959,021 (Detroit)
2,959,021 (Detroit)
2,959,021 (Detroit)
4,600
85,500
57,01 8 (West Bay Co
Regional WWTP)
3,000
261,189
2,959,021 (Detroit)
2,959,021 (Detroit)
2,959,021 (Detroit)
14,200
122,451
7,226
3,483
9,959
8,600
2,959,021 (Detroit)
16,699
23,504
Design Capacity of
WWTP (MGD)
7.0
32.0
930.0
930.0
930.0
0.5
1.15 (ground
water discharge)
930.0
930.0
930.0
1.5
18.8
10.3
0.7
61.1
930.0
930.0
930.0
3.3
35.0
1.3
1.5
3.6
3.2
930.0
6.0
5.8
Page | A-20
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 16. Michigan CSO Community Summary Information
C
O
'g>
OL
2
UJ
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Name of Municipal
Operator of CSS
North Houghton Co
WSSA CSO
Norway VWVTP
Oakland Co-
ACACIA Park CSO
Oakland Co-
SOCSDS 12
Towns RTF
(George W. Kuhn
CSO RTB)
Port Huron VWVTP
Redford TWP CSO
River Rouge CSO
Saginaw TWP
VWVTP
Saginaw VWVTP
Sault St. Marie
VWVTP
South Macomb SD
Martin RTB
Southgate/
Wyandotte CSO
RTF
St. Clair VWVTP
St. Joseph CSO
Wakefeld WWSL
Wayne
Co/Dearborn
Heights CSO
Wayne Co/lnkster
CSO
Wayne Co/lnkster/
DRBRN HTS CSO
Wayne Co/RDFRD/
Livonia CSO
NPDES Permit
Number
MI0043982
MI0020214
MI0037427
MI0026115
MI0023833
MI0051829
MI0028819
MI0023973
MI0025577
MI0024058
MI0025453
MI0036072
MI0020591
MI0026735
MI0021440
MI0051489
MI0051471
MI0051462
MI0051535
Name of Great Lake
Discharged to
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Huron
Lake Huron
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Lake Superior
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Direct Discharge
into Great Lakes?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Name of Water body
Directly Discharged
into
St. Louis Creek;
Douglas Creek
White Creek
Rouge River
Red Run Drain
St. Clair River;
Black River
AshcrofrSherwood
Drain
Rouge River
Titebawassee River
Saginaw River
St. Marys River;
Edison Power Canal
Lake St. Clair
Trenton Channel
St. Clair River
St. Joseph River
Planter Creek
Middle Rouge;
Upper Rouge;
Lower Rouge Rivers
Lower Rouge River
Lower Rouge River
Ashcroft-Sherwood
Drain; Upper Rouge
River; Bell Branch of
Upper Rouge River
Population Served
by CSS
2,130
2,835
7,650
208,279
32,000
48,360
8,255
40,000
70,971
15,000
67,728
58,142
7,564
8,800
1,851
5,000
26,031
Unavailable
15,000
Population Served
by WWTP
6,680
3,408
2,959,021 (Detroit)
2,959,021 (Detroit)
64,000
2,959,021 (Detroit)
268,706 (Wayne Co
Downriver WWTP)
49,000
94,157
15,500
2,959,021 (Detroit)
268,706 (Wayne Co
Downriver WWTP)
7,564
57,581
1,851
2,959,021 (Detroit)
2,959,021
(Detroit)
2,959,021 (Detroit)
2,959,021 (Detroit)
Design Capacity of
WWTP (MGD)
2. 4 (ground
water discharge)
0.5
930.0
930.0
20.0
930.0
125.0
6.5
32.0
8.0
930.0
125.0
1.4
15.3
0.6
930.0
930.0
930.0
930.0
Key: N = No; NDA = No Data Available
Page | A-21
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 17. Michigan LTCP Status
Name of Municipal Operator of
CSS
Adrian WWTP
Bay City WWTP
Birmingham
Bloomfield Village
CSO
Chapaton RTB
Croswell WWTP
Crystal Falls CSO
Dearborn CSO
Dearborn Heights
CSO
Detroit WWTP
Dundee WWTP
East Lansing
WWTP
Essexville WWTP
Gladwin WWTP
Grand Rapids
WWTP
Grosse Pointe
Farms CSO
Grosse Pointe
Shores CSO
Inkster/Dearborn
Heights CSO
Iron Mountain
KingsfordWWTP
Lansing WWTP
Man istee WWTP
ManistiqueWWTP
NPDES Permit Number
MI0022152
MI0022284
MI0025534
MI0048046
MI10025585
Ml 10021 083
MI0048879
MI0025542
MI0051811
MI0022802
MI0020401
MI0022853
MI0022918
MI0023001
MI0026069
MI0026077
MI0026085
MI0051837
MI0023205
MI0023400
MI0020362
MI0023515
LTCP Required (Y/N/NA)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Alternative CSO Control Plan
Instead of LTCP (Y/N/NA)
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Description of Alternative CSO
Control Plan
SS
Other
Other
Other
Other
SS
SS
Other
SS
Other
SS
Other
Other
SS
SS
SS
SS
Other
Other
SS
SS
SS
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Submitted
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Approved
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Approval
Date
4/28/2010
Unavailable, 5 RTBs
constructed in 1977,
last upgrade to RTB
in 2001
10/1/1989
10/1/1989
Original fecilities
constructed in 1969,
12/1/1998 LTCP
update
Unavailable
5/15/1997
2002
revised May 2014
2001
July 1996,
last updated March
2015
-1994
5/19/1993
Unavailable,
last updated 2012
Unavailable
10/1/1991, addenda
2/13/2001 &
9/21/2006
1997
1997
5/1/2007
Unavailable;
RTB constructed in
1983
3/9/1992
1996/97
1988
Projected Date for Full
Implementation of LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan1
4/1/2-16
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Completed in
2008
Complete
1/1/2027
Complete
12/1/2019
Complete
Complete
10/1/2018
Complete
9/1/2021
Complete
Complete
12/1/2022
Complete
12/1/2019
12/1/2016
6/1/2022
CSO Control Plan (LTCP or
Alternative CSO Control
Plan) Milestones
Footnote 1
Footnote 2
Footnote 3
Footnote 4
Footnote 5
Footnote 6
Footnote 7
Footnote 8
Footnote 9
Footnote 10
Footnote 7
Footnote 11
Footnote 12
Footnote 7
Footnote 13
Footnote 7
Footnote 7
Footnote 14
Footnote 15
Footnote 16
Footnote 17
Footnote 18
Page | A-22
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 17. Michigan LTCP Status
Name of Municipal Operator of
CSS
Marysville WWTP
MenomineeWWTP
Milk River CSO
RTB
Mt. Clemens
WWTP
Niles WWTP
North Houghton
CoW&SACSO
Norway WWTP
Oakland Co-
ACACIA Park CSO
Oakland Co-
SOCSDS12Towns
RTF(GeorgeW.
KuhnCSORTB)
Port Huron WWTP
RedfordTWPCSO
River Rouge CSO
SaginawTWP
WWTP
SaginawWWTP
Sault St. Marie
WWTP
South MacombSD
Martin RTB
NPDES Permit Number
MI0020656
MI0025631
MI0025500
MI0023647
MI0023701
MI0043982
MI0020214
MI0037427
MI0026115
MI0023833
MI0051829
MI0028819
MI0023973
MI0025577
MI0024058
MI0025453
LTCP Required (Y/N/NA)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Alternative CSO Control Plan
Instead of LTCP (Y/N/NA)
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Description of Alternative CSO
Control Plan
SS
ss
Other
Other
SS
Other
Other
Other
Other
SS
Other
Other
Other
Other
SS
Other
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Submitted
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Approved
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Approval
Date
1992
Unavailable
Unavailable, original
facility constructed
in 1960, last
upgraded in 1994
1997
1998, last updated
2014
Unavailable, last
updated 6/25/2007
Original facility
constructed in
1977/78
10/1/2989
Original facility
constructed in 1972,
6/1/2000 LTCP
update
1998; last updated
July 2009
5/1/2007
1992
Unavailable, last
upgrade to RTB in
1991
Unavailable, last
upgrade to RTB in
1998
1993, last updated
2010
Original facilities
constructed in 1969,
12/1/1998 LTCP
update
Projected Date for Full
Implementation of LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan1
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
6/1/2019
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
12/1/2016
(one outfall
correction may
be extended
past 2016)
12/30/2022
(pending
extension to
October 2025)
Complete
Complete
Complete
4/1/2022
Complete
CSO Control Plan (LTCP or
Alternative CSO Control
Plan) Milestones
Footnote 7
Footnote 7
Footnote 19
Footnote 20
Footnote 21
Footnote 22
Footnote 23
Footnote 3
Footnote 24
Footnote 25
Footnote 26
Footnote 27
Footnote 28
Footnote 29
Footnote 30
Footnote 23
Page | A-23
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 17. Michigan LTCP Status
Name of Municipal Operator of
CSS
Southgate/Wyando
tteCSORTF
St.ClairWWTP
St. Joseph CSO
WakefieldWWSL
Wayne
Co/Dearborn
Heights CSO
Wayne Co/I nkster
CSO
Wayne
Co/lnkster/DRBRN
HTSCSO
Wayne Co/RDFRD/
Livonia CSO
NPDES Permit Number
MI0036072
MI0020591
MI0026735
MI0021440
MI0051489
MI0051471
MI0051462
MI0051535
LTCP Required (Y/N/NA)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Alternative CSO Control Plan
Instead of LTCP (Y/N/NA)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Description of Alternative CSO
Control Plan
Other
SS
SS
SS
Other
Other
Other
Other
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Submitted
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Approved
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Approval
Date
Original facility
constructed in
1977,6/1/2003
LTCP update
1990
Original 2002, last
updated 2011,
Projected Update
2015
1995, last updated
2004, Projected
Update 2015
5/1/2007
5/1/2007
5/1/2007
5/1/2007
Projected Date for Full
Implementation of LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan1
10/1/2015
Complete
11/1/2020
Complete
9/1/2015
(pending
extension to
October 2025)
3/1/2016
9/1/2018
Partially
complete
(pending
extension to
October 2025)
CSO Control Plan (LTCP or
Alternative CSO Control
Plan) Milestones
Footnote 31
Footnote 7
Footnote 32
Footnote 33
Footnote 34
Footnote 35
Footnote 36
Footnote 37
Key: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A= Not Applicable; SS = Sewer Separation
1 Hearing completion of separation and storage projects.
2 Currently collecting flow and rain fall data to conduct an evaluation study (Submitted) and model collection system for each of the 5 retention/treatment basins
b determine whether adequate presumptive treatment is provided for the discharges; improvements to the retention/treatment basins may be required in the
future pending the results of the evaluation studies. The study will evaluate basin 4 as a representative of basins 1 thru 4, and basin 5 separately.
3 Long-term Control Program being implemented; retention/treatment basin (RTB) construction complete and facility is "on-line"; no remaining untreated
overflow outfalls; RTB has been shown to provide treatment that meets criteria for elimination of raw sewage S protection of public health, protection of
dissolved oxygen standard, protection of physical characteristic standard, and no significant impact on downstream biological communities. The permit
required "Total Residual Chlorine Mixing Zone/Plume Definition Study" has been submitted and reviewed and it has been determined that TRC in discharges
does not cause violations of water quality standards. Therefore dechiorinafon is not required.
4 Long-term Control Program being implemented; retention/treatment basin (RTB) construction complete and facility is "on-line"; no remaining untreated
overflow outfalls; RTB has been shown to provide treatment that meets criteria for elimination of raw sewage S protection of public health, protection of
dissolved oxygen standard, protection of physical characteristic standard, and no significant impact on downstream biological communities. The permit
required "Total Residual Chlorine Mixing Zone/Plume Definition Study;" has been submitted and is currently under review by the Department. The report
evaluates whether or not the Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) discharges from the RTB cause violations of water quality standards.
6 Long-term Control Program has been completed; program & permit required 3-phase sewer construction project designed to reduce wet-weather flow
quantities directed to the retention/treatment basin (RTB); permit also required submittal of RTB Evaluation Study to determine whether adequate treatment is
provided to meet water quality standards (the results of the study were ultimately approved on Jan. 31, 2007); the actual construction phase of the current
project is complete; there are no "uncontrolled" (i.e., untreated) CSO outfalls associated with this permittee/program. An "In-Stream Total Residual Chlorine
(TRC) Effluent Plume Evaluation" is required by the permit (October 1, 2012) and shall identify the location and size of the TRC effluent plume during and
after CSO discharge events and identify the maximum TRC concentrations instream at various downstream locations.
6 Mostly separated, retention basin and overflow pond constructed to retain excess wet weather flow.
Page | A-24
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A-17. Michigan LTCP Status
1
Q
Q.
Q.
?!
is
E S
±^ "w
< .E
O
8
<
•s
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
-53
I
_
o >
s
1
— s
!§!
_ o —
o > =
£15
-
3l'l
o S =
83E
Separation complete.
Long-term Control Program being implemented; the Department reissued a permit that recognizes a modified LTCP. The permittee submitted a revised basis
of design report in late 2009 followed by a f nancial capability assessment. The City requested a modified LTCP (and NPDES permit), to extend the
construction schedule due to economic hardship. The modified LTCP will 1) correct existing construction issues with some shafts by using sewer separation
and/or reconfigured use of shafts, and 2) revise some of the additional shaft projects to sewer separation projects. The Department approved the City's
request and issued a schedule in the modified permit requiring elimination of all overflow outfalls by December 31, 2025; several outfalls and the associated
overflows have already been eliminated.
Final outfall re-routed to Wayne Co Dearborn Heights RTB.
' Long-term Control Program being implemented; controls include retention/treatment basins (6 online), CSO Screening/Disinfection Facilities (3 online), and
13 in-system storage dams in the collection system sewers (online) for temporary storing and subsequent transport of combined flow to the wastewater
treatment plant; expansion of primary treatment capacity attheWWTP to 1700 MGD (online). To date, 14 CSOs have been eliminated, and construction of
the Oakwood RTB has been completed. In addition to these 14 outfalls, 5 untreated Rouge River CSOs downstream of the turning basin are now controlled.
An amended LTCP was submitted in late 2008 that proposed control projects and associated schedules for 3 untreated CSOs to the Old Channel of the
Rouge River, and the 39 remaining untreated CSOs to the Detroit River. However, in 2009, due to its deteriorating financial condition, Detroit terminated
construction of (he Upper RougeCSO Capture Tunnel (URT). A f nancial capability assessment (FCA) was submitted and approved by the Department. The
alternative LTCP was included in the 2011 permit modification. Another FCA was submitted by Detroit in 2012 as required by the Permit. The FCA again
documented that costs associated with continued implementation of the CSO correction program were a high burden to the City of Detroit residents.
Reflecting the 2012 FCA and updated costs for effectively operating the WWTP and other facilities, and taking into account opportunities to use Green
Infrastructure and apply adaptive management, the permit again revised the LTCP. Remaining high-priority outfalls are due corrected by 2037. Note that the
adaptive approach was acceptable to EPA because of the high level of treatment (95%) by 2019 upon completion of disinfection of all excess flow at the
VWVTP.
1 Long-term Control Program complete; controls included both sewer separation and construction of a retention treatment basin (RTB) and tunnel.
- Presumptive basin construction complete. An "In-Stream Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Effluent Plume Evaluation" is required by the permit (October
2018) and shall identify the location and size of the TRC effluent plume during and after CSO discharge events and identify the maximum TRC
concentrations in-stream at various downstream locations.
' Long-term Control Program being implemented; controls include 30-MG Market Ave. Retention Treatment Basin in conjunction with sewer separation
construction; permittee has completed sewer separation projects; permit is in the process of being revised to include a schedule for a system project
performance certification.
' Outfall 011 scheduled to be eliminated by 12/30/22.
> Long-term Control Program considered complete (an existing retention/treatment basin); permittee submitted 2008 report characterizing discharges from
existing retention/treatment basin based upon the type of sewer collection system (i.e., separate or combined) leading to this CSO treatment facility adjacent
b the municipal wastewater treatment plant. Facility is implementing revisions to disinfection feed system and conducting visual assessments of CSO
discharges to evaluate screening effectiveness.
1 Long-term Control Program (sewer separation project) being implemented; separation construction is to be conducted in 6 phases; Phases I, II, III and IV
have been completed; permit schedule requires completion of construction of sewer separation phases and elimination of overflows by 2019.
' Long-term Control Program (sewer separation project) being implemented; permit requires elimination of overflows from Outfall 018 by Dec. 31, 2016.
1 Long-term Control Program being implemented; permit requires elimination of discharges from the one remaining outfall by Jan. 1, 2020. Facility is one
construction project away from elimination of the last CSO.
1 Long-term Control Program being implemented; existing retention/treatment basin was upgraded in mid-1990s; reissued permit required an "Instream
Dissolved Oxygen Study" to determine whether discharges from the facility cause violations of water quality standards and if additional corrections might be
necessary; there are no uncontrolled (i.e., untreated) CSO outfalls associated with this permittee/program.
' Long-term Control Program has been implemented; controls included partial sewer separation & in-system storage tunnel in conjunction w/exisfng
retention/treatment basin; construction phase of the project is complete and all discharges have been re-directed to the storage tunnel; and the permittee has
certified the project; there are no remaining "uncontrolled" (i.e., untreated) CSO outfalls associated with this permittee/program.
1 Separation and basin construction complete; sewer lining and manhole rehabilitation planned.
- Long-term Control Program being implemented; too existing clarifers with disinfection and dechlorinafon; additional work is being conducted
(infiltration/inflow reduction) to increase transport capacity to the wastewater treatment plant; permit requires submittal of Evaluation Study to confirm whether
adequate treatment is provided.
1 RTB construction complete.
Page | A-25
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A-17. Michigan LTCP Status
1
Q
Q.
Q.
?!
is
E S
±^ "w
< .E
O
8
<
•s
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
-53
I
_
o >
s
1
— s
!§!
_ o —
o > =
£15
-
3l'l
o S =
83E
24 Long-term Control Program has been completed; permit S program required construction project to upgrade the George W. Kuhn (formerly "12 Towns")
Retention Treatment Facility to ensure that fealty provides adequate presumptive treatment of discharges; upgrades included capacity /volume increase and
disinfection improvements; construction offecilty upgrades was completed on Dec. 22, 2005; presumptive basin; there are no "uncontrolled" (i.e., untreated)
CSO outfalls associated with this permittee/program.
26 Long-term Control Program (sewer separation project) being implemented; Director's Final Order (issued 2/19/98) & permit include schedule requiring
elimination of all overflow oufells by Dec. 31, 2012. The City requested a 4-year schedule extension in April 2007, due to economic hardship. The
Department approved the City's request and issued a schedule in the modified permit requiring elimination of all overflow oufells by December 31, 2016;
several oufalls and the associated overflows have already been eliminated through sewer separation construction.
26 Long-term Control Program being implemented. The reissued permit will require CSO correction that may include a regional project with DWSD, with
completion by 2025.
27 Long-term Control Program has been implemented; the program included a presumptively sized retention/treatment basin to provide adequate treatment of
all combined sewer overflows (the facility went "on-line" and began treating overflows in 1999); remaining corrective projects have been completed and the
project has been certified. The permit required "Total Residual Chlorine Mixing Zone/Plume Definition Study" has been submitted and is currently under
review by the Department. The report evaluates whether or not the Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) discharges from the RTB cause violations of water quality
standards.
28 Long-term Control Program complete; existing retention/treatment basin provides adequate treatment to meet Water Quality Standards at times of discharge.
' Long-term Control Program being implemented; upgrades for too of the "RTBs" (Weiss St. RTB & 14th St. RTB) in order to provide for adequate treatment of
all overflows has been completed; in accordance with the permit & approved program, permittee is re-conducing a Retention/Treatment Basin Evaluation
Studies for the "East Side" system and "West Side" system to determine whether these facilities provide adequate treatment and whether facility upgrade will
be required; the original studies were not approvable.
' Long-term Control Program (sewer separation project) being implemented; approved program with phased construction requires elimination of all discharges
by Dec. 31, 2018.
1 Long-term Control Program currently considered complete (existing retention/treatment facility); reissued permit requires a Water Quality Study (due October
1, 2015) for a determination of whether the facility provides adequate treatment of all overflows; Long-term Control Program for facility upgrade and
provisions for adequate treatment may be required in the future. The NPDES permit also requires the permittee to submit a Hydraulic Capacity Study for the
Pine St PS. The study will be used to determine if any improvements can be made to eliminate CSO discharges from the Pine St PS.
- Long-term Control Program approved; program requires elimination of overflows through reduction of flows (via sewer rehabilitation, infiltration/inflow
removal, et.) and transport of all flows to the wastewater treatment plant; on or before April 30, 2016, the permittee shall submit apian and schedule for
implementation of Corrective Measures. On or before November 30, 2017, the permittee shall complete construction/implementation of the collection system
corrective measures. The construction for the in-line storage tanks shall be completed by November 30, 2020. A Project Performance Certification (PCC) will
follow.
33 Long-term Control Program (sewer separation project) was agreed to in February 1995 and modified in June 1996 and includes sewer separation to eliminate
discharges. A number of separation projects have been completed to date, resulfng in elimination of all oufells. Permit is in the process of being revised to
include a schedule for a system project performance cerflcation.
34 Long-term Control Program revised in reissued permit; construction of retention/treatment basin is complete & facility is "on-line" and the Department agrees
that the RTB protects public health, eliminates raw sewage, protects the physical characteristics standard, and does not impact biological communities. An
evaluation of the RTB discharges on the dissolved oxygen standard has been submitted and is under Department review. Oufells M18 S M19 have been
eliminated and certified by December 2005 (flow has been directed to the existing RTB). The permit requires control of one oufell by October 2012. The
reissued permit will require CSO correction that may include a regional project with DWSD, with completion by 2025.
36 Long-term Control Program revised in reissued permit; construction of retention/treatment basin is complete & facility is "on-line" and the Department agrees
that the RTB protects public health, eliminates raw sewage, protects the physical characteristics standard, and does not impact biological communities. An
evaluation of the RTB discharges on the dissolved oxygen standard has been submitted and is under Department review. Oufells M18 SM19 have been
eliminated and certified by December 2005 (flow has been directed to the existing RTB). The permit requires control of one oufell by October 2012.
Upcoming permit reissuance will likely include a schedule extension due to financial considerations.
5 Long-term Control Program revised in reissued permit; the program will address the too remaining "uncontrolled" (i.e., untreated) CSO oufells; permit
requires completion of construction by July 1, 2015 of an approved program for facilities to meet criteria for elimination of raw sewage discharges & protection
of public health, and to ensure compliance with water quality standards; the Department agreed to a revised correction schedule for control of the remaining
untreated oufalls based on the City of Inkster's financial demonstration.
Page | A-26
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 17. Michigan LTCP Status
Name of Municipal Operator of
CSS
NPDES Permit Number
LTCP Required (Y/N/NA)
Alternative CSO Control Plan
Instead of LTCP (Y/N/NA)
Description of Alternative CSO
Control Plan
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Submitted
(Y/N)
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Approved
(Y/N)
CSO Control Plan (LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan) Approval
Date
Projected Date for Full
Implementation of LTCP
or Alternative CSO
Control Plan1
CSO Control Plan (LTCP or
Alternative CSO Control
Plan) Milestones
37 Long-term Control Program revised in reissued permit the program will address the too remaining "uncontrolled" (i.e., untreated) CSO outfalls; permit
requires completion of construction by July 1 , 201 5 of an approved program for facilities to meet criteria for elimination of raw sewage discharges & protection
of public health, and to ensure compliance with water quality standards; the Department agreed to a revised correction schedule for control of the remaining
untreated outfalls based on the City of Inkster's financial demonstration. The reissued permit will require CSO correction that may include a regional project
with DWSD, with completion by 2025.
Table A- 18. Michigan Post Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status
*0
O
E
V
a.
O
"ro
a.
|o
"c
3
*0
V
E co
z8
Adrian WWTP
Bay City WWTP
Birmingham
Bloomfield Village CSO
ChapatonRTB
Croswell WWTP
Crystal Falls CSO
Dearborn CSO
Dearborn Heights CSO
Detroit WWTP
Dundee WWTP
East Lansing WWTP
Essexville WWTP
Gladwin WWTP
Grand Rapids WWTP
Grosse Pointe Farms CSO
Grosse Pointe Shores CSO
Inkster/Dearborn Heights CSO
Iron Mountain Kingsford WWTP
Lansing WWTP
NPDES Permit Number
M 100221 52
MI0022284
MI0025534
MI0048046
Ml 10025585
MI10021083
MI0048879
MI0025542
MI0051811
MI0022802
MI0020401
MI0022853
Mi0022918
MI0023001
MI0026069
MI0026077
MI0026085
MI0051837
MI0023205
MI0023400
Post- Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Required (Y/N)
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Submitted (Y/N)
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Post- Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Approved (Y/N)
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
S £
c ro
ro Q
"5. "ro
1 1
" S:
i <
^ c
o re
E a:
If
2 1
0) =
<£ i
N/A
Total Residual Chlorine Plume Evaluation Work Plan due 201 6
All 4 parts of the post construction monitoring approved in 2015
3 of 4 parts of the post construction monitoring approved in 2000
3 of 4 parts of the post construction monitoring approved in 2007
N/A
N/A
2 of 4 parts of the post construction monitoring approved in 201 1
N/A
July 1996, last updated March 2015
N/A
1/10/2010
Total Residual Chlorine Plume Evaluation Work Plan due 201 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5/1/2007
1999
N/A
Page | A-27
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 18. Michigan Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status
M—
O
5
2
I
TO
CL
"o
"c
3
M—
O
V
1 8
•z. o
ManisteeWWTP
ManistiqueWWTP
Marysville WWTP
MenomineeWWTP
Milk River CSORTB
Mt. Clemens WWTP
Niles WWTP
North Houghton Co W&SACSO
Norway WWTP
Oakland Co-ACACIA Park CSO
Oakland Co-SOCSDS 12Towns
RTF (George W. Kuhn CSORTB)
Port Huron WWTP
RedfordTWPCSO
River Rouge CSO
SaginawTWP WWTP
SaginawWWTP
Sault St. Marie WWTP
South MacombSD Martin RTB
Southgate/Wyandotte CSO RTF
St.ClairWWTP
St. Joseph CSO
WakefieldWWSL
Wayne Co/Dearborn Heights CSO
Wayne Co/I nkster CSO
Wayne Co/lnkster/DRBRN HTS
CSO
Wayne Co/RDFRD/Livonia CSO
NPDES Permit Number
MI0020362
MI0023515
MI0020656
MI0025631
MI0025500
MI0023647
MI0023701
MI0043982
MI0020214
MI0037427
MI0026115
MI0023833
MI0051829
MI0028819
MI0023973
MI0025577
MI0024058
MI0025453
MI0036072
MI0020591
MI0026735
MI0021440
MI0051489
MI0051471
MI0051462
MI0051535
Post- Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Required (Y/N)
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Submitted (Y/N)
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Post- Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Approved (Y/N)
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
S £
c ro
.5 Q
! «
i s.
" S:
i <
1 J
E Q.
1/1 0)
i -1
0 0
•s '=
o o
£ s
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2006
N/A
N/A
N/A
Unavailable
All 4 parts of the post construction monitoring approved in 2015
Project Performance Certification approved Jan 2006
N/A
5/1/2007
TBD
Due October 2018
2008, Need to re-conduct evaluations and another plan to be
submitted
N/A
2006
3 of 4 parts of the post construction monitoring approved in 2007
N/A
N/A
N/A
5/1/2007
5/1/2007
5/1/2007
5/1/2007
Key: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = Not Applicable; TBD = To Be Determined
Page | A-28
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 19. Michigan Pre- and Post-Construction CSO Status
Name of Municipal Operator of
CSS
Adrian WWTP
Bay City WWTP
Birmingham
Bloomfield Village
CSO
ChapatonRTB
Croswell WWTP
Crystal Falls CSO
Dearborn CSO
Dearborn Heights CSO
Detroit WWTP
Dundee WWTP
East Lansing WWTP
Essexville WWTP
Gladwin WWTP
Grand Rapids WWTP
Grosse Pointe Farms
CSO
Grosse Pointe Shores
CSO
Inkster/Dearborn
Heights CSO
Iron Mountain
KingsfordWWTP
Lansing WWTP
ManisteeWWTP
ManistiqueWWTP
Marysville WWTP
MenomineeWWTP
Milk River CSO RTB
Mt. Clemens WWTP
Niles WWTP
NorthHoughtonCo
W&SACSO
Norway WWTP
NPDES Permit Number
MI0022152
MI0022284
MI0025534
MIOO 48046
MM 0025585
MI10021083
MIOO 48879
MI0025542
MI0051811
MI0022802
MI0020401
MI0022853
MI0022918
MI0023001
MI0026069
MI0026077
MI0026085
MI0051837
MI0023205
MI0023400
MI0020362
MI0023515
MI0020656
MI0025631
MI0025500
MI0023647
MI0023701
MIOO 43982
MI0020214
Average Annual Number of
CSO Events Before
Implementation of CSO
Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control
Plan)
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Average Annual Historic
Volume of CSOs Before
Implementation of CSO
Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control
Plan) (MG/yr)
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
NDR
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Average Annual Number of
CSO Events After
Implementation of CSO
Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control
Plan)
Treated
0
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
0
0
Footnote 2
0
Footnote 2
0
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
0
0
0
0
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
0
0
0
0
0
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Untreated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average Annual Volume of
CSOs Anticipated After
Implementation of CSO
Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control
Plan) (MG/yr)
Treated
0
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
0
0
Footnote 3
0
Footnote 2
0
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
0
0
0
0
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
0
0
0
0
0
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Untreated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Page | A-29
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 19. Michigan Pre- and Post-Construction CSO Status
Name of Municipal Operator of
CSS
Oakland Co-ACACIA
Park CSO
Oakland Co-SOCSDS
12 Towns RTF (George
W.KuhnCSORTB)
Port Huron WWTP
RedfordTWPCSO
River Rouge CSO
SaginawTWP WWTP
SaginawWWTP
Sault St. Marie WWTP
SouthMacombSD
Martin RTB
Southgate/Wyandotte
CSO RTF
St.ClairWWTP
St. Joseph CSO
WakefieldWWSL
Wayne Co/Dearborn
Heights CSO
Wayne Co/I nkster CSO
Wayne
Co/lnkster/DRBRNHTS
CSO
Wayne Co/RDFRD/
Livonia CSO
NPDES Permit Number
MI0037427
MI0026115
MI0023833
MI0051829
MI0028819
MI0023973
MI0025577
MI0024058
MI0025453
MI0036072
MI0020591
MI0026735
MI0021440
MI0051489
MI0051471
MI0051462
MI0051535
Average Annual Number of
CSO Events Before
Implementation of CSO
Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control
Plan)
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Average Annual Historic
Volume of CSOs Before
Implementation of CSO
Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control
Plan) (MG/yr)
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Average Annual Number of
CSO Events After
Implementation of CSO
Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control
Plan)
Treated
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
0
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
0
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
0
0
0
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
NDA
Untreated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average Annual Volume of
CSOs Anticipated After
Implementation of CSO
Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control
Plan) (MG/yr)
Treated
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
0
0
0
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Footnote 3
Untreated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Key: NDR= No Data Reported; NDA = No Data Available
1 Using dab from 2005-2013, the average annual statewide total volume of treated discharges of combined sewage from existing RTBswas 16,882 MG/year. In
2019, when Detroit provides disinfection for discharges from outfall 050A, that average (using 2005-2013 data) will increase to 28,833 MG/year. For reference,
during the time period 2005-2013, the average annual discharge of untreated CSOs was 16,348 MG/year (including discharges from Detroit outfall 050A).
2 RTBs designed under the Presumptive definition in Michigan are expected to discharge adequately treated combined sewage -4 times per year or less. Those
designed under the Demonstration definition areexpected to discharge adequately treated combined sewage -4-10 times peryear.
3 Generally, a 0.2" rainfall event might trigger a CSO. Using this estimate, and an average number of 0.2" or greater events occurring approximately 30-50 times
per year, a rough estimate of the number of events per outfall would be -30-50 times per year. In 1 988, Michigan had 61 3 untreated CSOs, in 201 3 there were
136 untreated CSOs remaining.
Page | A-30
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 20. Michigan 2014 CSO Status
O
E
V
a.
O
"ro
a.
|o
"c
3
li
ro i|_
z ^
Adrian WWTP
Bay City WWTP
Birmingham
Bloomfield Village CSO
ChapatonRTB
Croswell WWTP
Crystal Falls CSO
Dearborn CSO
Dearborn Heights CSO
Detroit WWTP
Dundee WWTP
East Lansing WWTP
Essexville WWTP
Gladwin WWTP
Grand Rapids WWTP
Grosse Pointe Farms CSO
Grosse Pointe Shores CSO
Inkster/Dearborn Heights CSO
Iron Mountain Kingsford WWTP
Lansing WWTP
ManisteeWWTP
ManistiqueWWTP
Marysville WWTP
MenomineeWWTP
Milk River CSO RTB
Mt. Clemens WWTP
Miles WWTP
North Houghton Co W&SACSO
Norway WWTP
Oakland Co-ACACIA Park CSO
Oakland Co-SOCSDS 12Towns RTF (George
W.KuhnCSORTB)
Port Huron WWTP
RedfordTWPCSO
River Rouge CSO
NPDES Permit Number
MI0022152
MI0022284
MI0025534
MI0048046
Ml 10025585
Ml 10021 083
MI0048879
MI0025542
MI0051811
MI0022802
MI0020401
MI0022853
MI0022918
MI0023001
MI0026069
MI0026077
MI0026085
MI0051837
MI0023205
MI0023400
MI0020362
MI0023515
MI0020656
MI0025631
MI0025500
MI0023647
MI0023701
MI0043982
MI0020214
MI0037427
MI0026115
MI0023833
MI0051829
MI0028819
o
Ss
ii
z »
3 g
0 >
i- in
Treated
0
2
2
2
8
0
0
8
0
27
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
17
3
0
6
0
5
8
0
0
7
Untreated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
9
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
15
0
ȣ
1 ~
1 *
(5 8
o =
8g
3 =
.2 5
Treated
0
133.1
10.5
14.5
304.6
0
0
344.4
0
18829.7
0
2.9
4.8
0
0
0
0
0
4.2
0
0
0
0
0
525.5
45.3
0
180.1
0
22.9
2513.2
0
0
39.7
Untreated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
698.4
0
6957.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
521.9
46.8
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.5
14.1
0
Page | A-31
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 20. Michigan 2014 CSO Status
O
E
V
a.
O
"ro
a.
|o
"c
3
li
ro i|_
z ^
SaginawTWP WWTP
SaginawWWTP
Sault St. Marie WWTP
South MacombSD Martin RTB
Southgate/Wyandotte CSO RTF
St.ClairWWTP
St. Joseph CSO
WakefieldWWSL
Wayne Co/Dearborn Heights CSO
Wayne Co/I nkster CSO
Wayne Co/lnkster/DRBRN HTS CSO
Wayne Co/RDFRD/ Livonia CSO
NPDES Permit Number
M 10023973
M 10025577
M 10024058
M 10025453
M 10036072
MI0020591
MI0026735
MI0021440
MI0051489
MI0051471
MI0051462
MI0051535
o
Ss
ii
z »
3 g
0 >
1- UJ
Treated
4
4
0
6
20
0
0
0
7
10
0
5
Untreated
0
0
1
0
9
0
14
0
14
22
27
12
ȣ
1 ~
1 *
(5 8
o =
8g
JS 5
.2 5
Treated
89.3
614.3
0
290.7
1138.1
0
0
0
49.8
61.5
0
11
Untreated
0
0
0.4
0
310.8
0
2.1
0
26.4
97.4
70.9
57.8
Page | A-32
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 21. Indiana CSO Community Summary Information
C
O
'8>
OL
I
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Name of Municipal Operator of
CSS
Angola
Auburn
Berne
Butler
Chesterton
Crown Point
Decatur
East Chicago
Goshen
Kendallville
Ligonier
Nappanee
New Haven
(Satellite
Community
Wakarusa
Elkhart
Fort Wayne
Gary
Hammond
Mishawaka
Albion
Avilla
Lagrange
Michigan City
NPDES Permit Number
IN0021296
IN0020672
IN0021369
IN0022462
IN0022578
IN0025763
IN0039314
IN0022829
IN0025755
IN0020656
IN0023582
IN0021466
IN0020346
IN0024775
IN0025674
IN0032191
IN0022977
IN0023060
IN0025640
IN0022144
IN0020664
IN0020478
IN0023752
Name of Great Lake Discharged
to
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Direct Discharge into Great
Lakes?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Name of Water Body Directly
Discharged into
UNT Pigeon Creek
Cedar Creek
Habegger Ditch,
Spruger Dith
Big Run
East Arm Little
Calument River
Main Beaver Dam Dith
St. Mary's River
Indiana Harbor Canal,
Grand Calument River
Elkhart River
UNT Henderson Lake
Elkhart River
Berlin Court Dith,
Armey Dith
Martin Dith, UNT
Maumee River
Werntz Dith
Elkhart River, St.
Joseph River, Christina
Creek
Maumee River, St
Mary's River, Spy Run
Creek, St. Joseph
River, UNT
Grand Calumet River,
Little Calumet River
Grand Calumet River,
East Arm Little Calumet
River
St. Joseph River, Eller
Dith
None
None
None
Trail Creek
Population Served by CSS
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Population Served by WWTP
7,922
13,086
3,999
2,700
13,199
27,317
9,300
32,000
30,000
9,616
3,600
6,648
12,406
1,700
37,347
252,339
99,961
83,048
48,252
NDA
NDA
NDA
11,474
Design Capacity of WWTP
(MGD)
1.7
4.5
0.673
2
4.6
5.2
3.25
15
5
2.68
1.5
1.9
NoVWVTP
0.5
20
60
60
37.8
20
NDA
NDA
NDA
12
Page | A-33
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 21. Indiana CSO Community Summary Information
O
*S
<£
M i
5
5
5
5
O
O
E
V
a.
O
"ro
a.
o
"c
o
V
E co
£ 8
Milford
Valparaiso
Waterloo
South Bend
V
i
±i
£
CO
HI
•z.
IN0038318
IN0024660
IN0020711
IN0024520
V
TO
.E
O
O
•i
1
o
0
V
E
z 5
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
TO
E1
TO
O
.£2
Q o-
o _§;
5 J3
N
N
N
N
O
O
0
V "c
si
M- P>
o n
« .E
S 5
None
Salt Creek
Cedar Creek
St. Joseph River
CO
CO
o
>,
_Q
1
V
CO
c
0
re
a.
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Q.
>,
1
V
CO
c
_0
TO
CL
<£
NDA
31,360
2,200
101,163
Q_
E
•s
"o
TO
a
TO
o
c — ^
w> o
NDA
8
0.369
48
Key: N = No; NDA = No Data Available
Page | A-34
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 22. Indiana LTCP Status
Name of Municipal Operator of
CSS
Angola
Auburn
Berne
Butler1
Chesterton
Crown Point
Decatur1
East Chicago
Goshen
Kendallville
Ligonier
Nappanee
New Haven (Satellite
Community
Wakarusa
Elkhart
Fort Wayne
Gary
Hammond
Mishawaka
Albion
Avilla
Lagrange
Michigan City
Milford
Valparaiso
Waterloo
South Bend
NPDES Permit Number
IN0021296
IN0020672
IN0021369
IN0022462
IN0022578
IN0025763
IN0039314
IN0022829
IN0025755
IN0020656
IN0023582
IN0021466
IN0020346
IN0024775
IN0025674
IN0032191
IN0022977
IN0023060
IN0025640
IN0022144
IN0020664
IN0020478
IN0023752
IN0038318
IN0024660
IN0020711
IN0024520
LTCP Required (Y/N/NA)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Alternative CSO Control Plan
Instead of LTCP (Y/N/NA)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Description of Alternative CSO
Control Plan
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Other
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
Submitted (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Approved (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Approval Date
7/1/2007
9/1/2007
2/27/2006
4/1/2007
11/1/2006
2/1/2008
6/1/2007
12/30/2011
6/1/2006
7/1/2006
2/1/2008
1/1/2011
4/1/2007
1/4/2008
5/1/2012
4/1/2008
NDA
NDA
5/23/2014
8/1/2004
9/9/2010
4/1/2002
1/1/2009
2/1/2006
11/29/2006
2/1/2007
5/2/2012
Projected Date for Full
Implementation
Completed
9/30/2027
12/31/2024
Completed
Completed
9/30/2018
Completed
12/31/2032
Completed
Completed
6/30/2016
12/31/2017
12/31/2026
12/31/2017
3/31/2029
12/31/2025
NDA
NDA
12/31/2031
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
12/31/2031
Milestones
Key: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = Not Applicable; NDA = No Data Available
1 The original LTCP implementation is complete, however the communily is currently in or developing a CSO Compliance Plan for not meeting the LTCP level of
control.
Page | A-35
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 23. Indiana Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status
M—
O
5
2
I
TO
_o-
"o
"c
3
M—
O
V
1 8
z o
Angola
Auburn
Berne
Butler
Chesterton
Crown Point
Decatur
East Chicago
Goshen
Kendallville
Ligonier
Nappanee
New Haven (Satellite Community)
Wakarusa
Elkhart
Fort Wayne
Gary
Hammond
Mishawaka
Albion
Avilla
Lagrange
Michigan City
Milford
Valparaiso
Waterloo
South Bend
NPDES Permit Number
IN0021296
IN0020672
IN0021369
IN0022462
IN0022578
IN0025763
IN0039314
IN0022829
IN0025755
IN0020656
IN0023582
IN0021466
IN0020346
IN0024775
IN0025674
IN0032191
IN0022977
IN0023060
IN0025640
IN0022144
IN0020664
IN0020478
IN0023752
IN0038318
IN0024660
IN0020711
IN0024520
Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Required (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Submitted (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Approved (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Approval Date
7/1/2007
9/1/2007
2/27/2006
4/1/2007
11/1/2006
2/1/2008
6/1/2007
12/30/2011
6/1/2006
7/1/2006
2/1/2008
1/1/2011
4/1/2007
1/4/2008
5/1/2012
4/1/2008
N/A
N/A
5/23/2014
8/1/2004
9/9/2010
4/1/2002
1/1/2009
2/1/2006
11/29/2006
2/1/2007
5/2/2012
Key: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = Not Applicable
Page | A-36
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 24. Indiana Pre- and Post-Construction CSO Status
Name of Municipal Operator of CSS
Angola
Auburn
Berne
Butler
Chesterton
Crown Point
Decatur
East Chicago
Goshen
Kendallville
Ligonier
Nappanee
New Haven
(Satellite Community)
Wakarusa
Elkhart
Fort Wayne
Gary
Hammond
Mishawaka
Albion
Avilla
Lagrange
Michigan City
Milford
Valparaiso
Waterloo
South Bend
NPDES Permit Number
IN0021296
IN0020672
IN0021369
IN0022462
IN0022578
IN0025763
IN0039314
IN0022829
IN0025755
IN0020656
IN0023582
IN0021466
IN0020346
IN0024775
IN0025674
IN0032191
IN0022977
IN0023060
IN0025640
IN0022144
IN0020664
IN0020478
IN0023752
IN0038318
IN0024660
IN0020711
IN0024520
Average Annual Number of CSO
Events Before Implementation of
CSO Control Plan (LTCP) or
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Treated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Untreated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Average Annual Historic Volume
ofCSOs Before Implementation
of CSO Control Plan (LTCP or
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
(MG/yr)
Treated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Untreated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Average Annual Number of CSO
Events Afterlmplementation of
CSO Control Plan (LTCP or
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Treated
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
None
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
None
None
NDA
NDA
None
0
0
0
Footnote 1
None
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
None
Untreated
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
None
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
9
4
NDA
NDA
4
0
0
0
Footnote 1
None
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
4 events
Average Annual Volume of CSOs
Anticipated After Implementation
of CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
(MG/yr)
Treated
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
None
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
0
0
0
Footnote 1
None
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
NDA
Untreated
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
None
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
0
0
0
Footnote 1
None
Footnote 1
Footnote 1
NDA
Key: NDA= No Data Available
1 Treatment of 10-yr,1-hr design storm
Page | A-37
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 25. Indiana 2014 CSO Status
TO
.9-
3 Z
£ I&
Treated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NDA
Untreated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NDA
O
!-
(5 8
o =
s | -=-
3 2 (5
£ g S.
Treated
0
0
0
2.2
0
0
0
0
2.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.78
14.37
0
Untreated
0.67
0.2
129.29
13.42
1.27
41.15
41.35
450.29
1.3
0.94
0.53
64.92
3.09
3.11
191.4
3,123.93
1,257.22
2,355.03
12.34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
409.6
Key: NDA= No Data Available
Page | A-38
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 26. Illinois CSO Community Summary Information
C
_0
"o
&
S.
LJJ
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Name of Municipal Operator of
CSS
TARR1
Brookfeld CSOTARP
Chicago CSO TARP
City of Blue Island CSO
TARP
City of Calumet City CSO
TARP
City of Evanston CSO TARP
City of Harvey TARP
Des Plaines TARP
Dixmoor CSO TARP
Franklin Park CSO TARP
Golf CSO TARP
LaGrange Park CSO TARP
Lansing CSO TARP
Lincolnwood CSO TARP
MWRDGC Calumet TARP
MWRDGC Kirie TARP
MWRDGC Sfckney TARP
MWRDGC Northside TARP
Park Ridge CSO TARP
Phoenix CSO TARP
Posen CSO TARP
Riverside CSO TARP
Skokie CSO TARP
Summit CSO TARP
NPDES Permit Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Name of Great Lake Discharged to
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Direct Discharge into Great
Lakes?
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
£•
b
5*
•o
O
m o
£ I
Sl
o £
0 .=
£ tj
m .2
•z. b
Lake Michigan
Salt Creek
'Chicago CSO - North Shore
Channel, North Branch Chicago
River, Little Calumet River, Calumet
River, Chicago River, South Branch
of Chicago River (SBCR), South Fork
of SBCR, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Collateral Channel and Des
Plaines River
Cal-Sag Channel
Little Calumet River
North Shore Channel
Little Calumet River
Des Plaines River
Little Calumet River
Des Plaines River
North Branch Chicago River
Salt Creek
Little Calumet River
North Shore Channel
Little Calumet River
Weller's Creek
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
North Shore Channel
Des Plaines River
Little Calumet River
Cal-Sag Channel
Des Plaines River
North Shore Channel
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
Population Served by CSS
N/A
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Population Served by WWTP
N/A
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Design Capacity of WWTP (MGD)
N/A
1200
1200;
354;
333
354
354
333
354
1200
354
1200
333
1200
354
333
354
52
1200
333
1200
354
354
1200
333
1200
Page | A-39
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 26. Illinois CSO Community Summary Information
C
_0
"o
&
S.
in
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Name of Municipal Operator of
CSS
Village of Arlington Heights
CSO TARP
Village ofBurnhamCSO
TARP
Village of Calumet Park CSO
TARP
Village ofDolton CSO TARP
Village of Forest Park CSO
TARP
Village of LaGrange CSO
TARP
Village of Lyons CSO TARP
Village of Maywood CSO
TARP
Village of Melrose Park CSO
TARP
Village of Morton Grove CSO
TARP
Village of Miles CSO TARP
Village of North Riverside
TARP
Village of River Forest CSO
TARP
Village of River Grove CSO
TARP
Village of Riverdale CSO
TARP
Village of Schiller CSO TARP
Village of South Holland CSO
TARP
Village ofSfckney CSO
TARP
NPDES Permit Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Name of Great Lake Discharged to
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Direct Discharge into Great
Lakes?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
£•
b
5*
•o
O
m o
£ I
Sl
o £
0 .=
£ tj
m .2
•z. b
Weller's Creek
Grand Calumet River
Cal-Sag Channel
Little Calumet River
Des Plaines River
Salt Creek
Des Plaines River
Des Plaines River
Des Plaines River
North Branch Chicago River
North Branch Chicago River
Des Plaines River
Des Plaines River
Des Plaines River
Little Calumet River
Des Plaines River
Little Calumet River
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
Population Served by CSS
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Population Served by WWTP
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Design Capacity of WWTP (MGD)
52
354
354
354
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
333
333
1200
1200
1200
354
1200
354
1200
Key: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = Not Applicable; NDA = No Data Available
1 All CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Illinois are in the Chicago metropolitan area and part ofthe Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP).TARPwas
approved as the LTCP for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), the City of Chicago, and 40 satellite communities.
Therefore, while each individual community that is part of TARP is listed in this table, there is also a record for the TARP system as a whole because all LTCP
and CSO-related data is reported for TARP as a whole.
Page | A-40
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 27. Illinois LTCP Status
Name of Municipal Operator of CSS
TARP'
Brookfield CSO
TARP
Chicago CSO TARP
City of Blue Island
CSO TARP
City of Calumet City
CSO TARP
City of Evanston
CSO TARP
City of Harvey TARP
Des Plaines TARP
Dixmoor CSO TARP
Franklin Park CSO
TARP
Golf CSO TARP
LaGrange Park CSO
TARP
Lansing CSO TARP
Lincolnwood CSO
TARP
MWRDGC Calumet
TARP
MWRDGC Kirie
TARP
MWRDGC Stickney
TARP
MWRDGC Northside
TARP
Park Ridge CSO
TARP
Phoenix CSOTARP
Posen CSO TARP
Riverside CSO TARP
Skokie CSO TARP
Summit CSO TARP
NPDES Permit Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LTCP Required (Y/N/NA)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Alternative CSO Control Plan Instead
of LTCP (Y/N/NA)
N/A
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Description of Alternative CSO
Control Plan
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Submitted (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Approved (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Approval Date
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
Projected Date for Full
Implementation of LTCP or
Alternative CSO Control Plan
N/A
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2015
12/31/2015
12/31/2029
12/31/2015
12/31/2029
12/31/2015
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2015
12/31/2029
12/31/2015
completed
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2015
12/31/2015
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Milestones
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Page | A-41
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 27. Illinois LTCP Status
Name of Municipal Operator of CSS
Village of Arlington
Heights CSO TARP
Village of Burnham
CSO TARP
Village of Calumet
Park CSO TARP
Village of Do Iton
CSO TARP
Village of Forest
Park CSO TARP
Village of LaGrange
CSO TARP
Village of Lyons CSO
TARP
Village of Maywood
CSO TARP
Village of Melrose
Park CSO TARP
Village of Morton
Grove CSO TARP
Village of Niles CSO
TARP
Village of North
Riverside TARP
Village of River
Forest CSO -TARP
Village of River
Grove CSO TARP
Village of Riverdale
CSO TARP
Village of Schiller
CSO TARP
Village of South
Holland CSO -TARP
Village of Stickney
CSO -TARP
NPDES Permit Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LTCP Required (Y/N/NA)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Alternative CSO Control Plan Instead
of LTCP (Y/N/NA)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Description of Alternative CSO
Control Plan
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Submitted (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Approved (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Approval Date
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
June 28,1995
Projected Date for Full
Implementation of LTCP or
Alternative CSO Control Plan
completed
12/31/2015
12/31/2015
12/31/2015
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2029
12/31/2015
12/31/2029
12/31/2015
12/31/2029
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Milestones
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Progress reports every 6 months
Key: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = Not Applicable
1 All CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Illinois are in the Chicago metropolitan area and part of the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). TARPwas
approved as the LTCP for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), the City of Chicago, and 40 satellite communities.
Therefore, while each individual community that is part of TARP is listed in this table, there is also a record for the TARP system as a whole because all LTCP
and CSO-related data is reported for TARP as a whole.
Page | A-42
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 28. Illinois Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status
CO
8
•s
o
E
V
§•
TO
a.
[o
"c
3
1
V
E
re
z
TARP'
BrookfieldCSOTARP
Chicago CSOTARP
City of Blue Island CSOTARP
City of Calumet City CSO TARP
City of Evanston CSO TARP
City of Harvey TARP
DesPlainesTARP
Dixmoor CSO TARP
Franklin Park CSO TARP
Golf CSO TARP
LaGrange Park CSOTARP
Lansing CSO TARP
Lincolnwood CSOTARP
MWRDGC Calumet TARP
MWRDGCKirieTARP
MWRDGC StickneyTARP
MWRDGC Northside TARP
Park Ridge CSO TARP
Phoenix CSOTARP
Posen CSO TARP
Riverside CSO TARP
Skokie CSO TARP
Summit CSO TARP
Village of Arlington Heights CSO TARP
Village of Burnham CSOTARP
Village of Calumet Park CSOTARP
Village of Dolton CSOTARP
Village of Forest Park CSO TARP
Village of LaGrange CSOTARP
Village of Lyons CSO TARP
Village of Maywood CSO TARP
NPDES Permit Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Required (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Submitted (Y/N)
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Approved (Y/N)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Post- Construction Compliance
Monitoring Plan Approval Date
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Page | A-43
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 28. Illinois Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program Status
CO
s
"5
O
CL
O
TO
a.
"E
"o
V
E
re
z
Village of Melrose Park CSOTARP
Village of Morton Grove CSO TARP
Village of Niles CSO TARP
Village of North Riverside TARP
Village of River Forest CSO TARP
Village of River Grove CSOTARP
Village of Riverdale CSO TARP
Village of Schiller CSO TARP
Village of South Holland CSOTARP
Village of Stickney CSOTARP
,_
S
E
3
1
£
ft
Q
Q.
z
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
= S
.s fc.
°- "o
O 3
0 o-
c °
o °^
t3 re
E E
1 =>
=
is
E «
o E
0 s*
= 3
0 <"
t3 re
E E
1 =>
o I
•g =
° 5
Q. S
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
__^
O ^.
C >-
^= "O
E >
o S
o a.
E a-
0 <
E §.
= .=
0 "-
S" -2
0 °
a. S
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
V
0 ^j
~ Q
E >
o £
O Q.
c a.
.2 <
11
"S o
C c
0 0
o o
Q. S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Key: Y = Yes; N = No; N/A = Not Applicable
1 All CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Illinois are in the Chicago metropolitan area and part ofthe Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). TARPwas
approved as the LTCP for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), the City of Chicago, and 40 satellite communities.
Therefore, while each individual community that is part of TARP is listed in this table, there is also a record for the TARP system as a whole because all LTCP
and CSO-related data is reported for TARP as a whole.
Page | A-44
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 29. Illinois Pre- and Post-Construction CSO Status
Name of Municipal Operator of CSS
TARP'
BrookfieldCSOTARP
Chicago CSO TARP
City of Blue Island CSO
TARP
City of Calumet City
CSO TARP
City of EvanstonCSO
TARP
City of Harvey TARP
Des Plaines TARP
Dixmoor CSO TARP
Franklin Park CSO
TARP
Golf CSO TARP
LaGrange Park CSO
TARP
Lansing CSO TARP
Lincolnwood CSO
TARP
MWRDGC Calumet
TARP
MWRDGC Kirie TARP
MWRDGC Stickney
TARP
MWRDGC Northside
TARP
Park Ridge CSO TARP
Phoenix CSOTARP
Posen CSO TARP
Riverside CSO TARP
Skokie CSO TARP
Summit CSO TARP
Village of Arlington
Heights CSO TARP
Village of Burnham
CSOTARP
NPDES Permit Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Average Annual Number of CSO
Events Before Implementation of
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Average Annual Historic Volume of
CSOs Before Implementation of
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
(MG/yr)
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Average Annual Number of CSO
Events After Implementation of
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Treated
0
0
NDA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Average Annual Volume of CSOs
Anticipated After Implementation of
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
(MG/yr)
Treated
0
0
NDA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
Page | A-45
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 29. Illinois Pre- and Post-Construction CSO Status
Name of Municipal Operator of CSS
Village of Calumet Park
CSOTARP
Village of Dolton CSO
TARP
Village of Forest Park
CSO -TARP
Village of LaGrange
CSOTARP
Village of Lyons CSO
TARP
Village of Maywood
CSOTARP
Village of Melrose Park
CSOTARP
Village of Morton Grove
CSOTARP
Village of Niles CSO
TARP
Village of North
Riverside TARP
Village of River Forest
CSOTARP
Village of River Grove
CSOTARP
Village of Riverdale
CSOTARP
Village of Schiller CSO
TARP
Village of South Holland
CSOTARP
Village of Stickney CSO
TARP
NPDES Permit Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Average Annual Number of CSO
Events Before Implementation of
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Average Annual Historic Volume of
CSOs Before Implementation of
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
(MG/yr)
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Average Annual Number of CSO
Events After Implementation of
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
NDA
Average Annual Volume of CSOs
Anticipated After Implementation of
CSO Control Plan (LTCPor
Alternative CSO Control Plan)
(MG/yr)
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
Key: NDA= No Data Available; N/A = Not Applicable
1 All CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Illinois are in the Chicago metropoltan area and part ofthe Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). TARPwas
approved as the LTCP for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), the City of Chicago, and 40 satellite communities.
Therefore, while each individual community that is part of TARP is listed in this table, there is also a record for the TARP system as a whole because all LTCP
and CSO-related data is reported for TARP as a whole.
Page | A-46
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 30. Illinois 2014 CSO Status
TO
f 8
'E o
i °
o °
V re
E o
re Q.
Z O
TARP'
BrookfieldCSOTARP
Chicago CSO TARP
City of Blue Island CSOTARP
City of Calumet City CSO TARP
City of Evanston CSO TARP
City of Harvey TARP
DesPlainesTARP
Dixmoor CSO TARP
Franklin Park CSO TARP
Golf CSO TARP
LaGrange Park CSOTARP
Lansing CSO TARP
Lincolnwood CSOTARP
MWRDGC Calumet TARP
MWRDGCKirieTARP
MWRDGC StickneyTARP
MWRDGC Northside TARP
Park Ridge CSO TARP
Phoenix CSOTARP
Posen CSO TARP
Riverside CSO TARP
Skokie CSO TARP
Summit CSO TARP
Village of Arlington Heights CSO TARP
Village of Burnham CSOTARP
Village of Calumet Park CSOTARP
Village of Dolton CSOTARP
Village of Forest Park CSO TARP
Village of LaGrange CSOTARP
Village of Lyons CSO TARP
Village of Maywood CSO TARP
Village of Melrose Park CSOTARP
Village of Morton Grove CSO TARP
Village of Miles CSO TARP
NPDES Permit Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
o
CO
"£ •*
i
z »
£ §
.2 .5
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
1
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
1
1*
(5 s
O .E
» IS
3 = a
.2 5 E
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
525
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Page | A-47
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 30. Illinois 2014 CSO Status
TO
f 8
'E o
i °
o °
V re
E o
re Q.
Z O
Village of North Riverside TARP
Village of River Forest CSO TARP
Village of River Grove CSOTARP
Village of Riverdale CSO TARP
Village of Schiller CSO TARP
Village of South Holland CSOTARP
Village of Stickney CSOTARP
NPDES Permit Number
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
o
CO
"£ •*
i
•z »
3 g
.2 Si
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
1
1*
(5 s
O .E
» IS
3 = a
.2 5 E
Treated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Untreated
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Footnote 2
Key: N/A = Not Applicable
1 All CSO communities in the Great Lakes Basin in Illinois are in the Chicago metropolitan area and part ofthe Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). TARPwas
approved as the LTCP for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), the City of Chicago, and 40 satellite communities.
Therefore, while each individual community that is part of TARP is listed in this table, there is also a record for the TARP system as a whole because all LTCP
and CSO-related data is reported for TARP as a whole.
2 Illinois reported 41 CSO events from TARP in 2014. However, most ofthe events goto Chicago-area rivers and only one event went to Lake Michigan.
Table A- 31. Wisconsin CSO Community Summary Information
_o
rv>
<
UJ
5
5
•S
TO
53
Wl
Wl
„
O
,_
O
E
V
a.
o
"ro
•jj
I
"o
V
re
•z
Milwaukee
Superior
V
-Q
g
Z
1
CO
LLJ
g
z
WI0036820
WI0025593
3
•o
V
E>
re
.E
O
b
re
— l
13
S
c
C3
"o
V
re
Z
Lake Michigan
Lake Superior
8
TO
TO
s
o
—
g)
o
b
S
b
Y
Y
>,
"o
£
b
•o
0
i_ 5
V C
*i "^
i "S
14- 0)
° re
« .E
e o
re .2
Z Q
Lake Michigan
Lake Superior
CO
CO
o
"S
E
V
CO
0
re
a.
^
NDA
NDA
Q.
\,
"S
E
V
CO
0
re
a.
^
1.1 million
27,000
5"
C3
Q.
1
0
^
'o
re
a.
re
O
E
O)
°
123
7.6
Key: Y = Yes; NA = No Data Available
Page | A-48
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 32. Wisconsin LTCP Status
CO
o
Q
Q
V
Q
TO
.S-
"E
J
V
TO
Milwaukee
Superior
V
E
z
1
-
" — *
I
3
Q.
O
Y
Y
•o
re
o
(A
—
re
Q_
1
"c
O
O —
o ^
> s.
Alternati
ofLTCP
NA
NA
1
"c
o
o
o
8
o
^
=
JS
<£
M—
O
O
•c
o w
Other
Other
LTCP or Alternative CSO Control Plan
c
i_ re
o E
Q. —
° S
!~j "c
— o
= 0
-2 O =-
1§!
•£ > ~°
O o .1
S 5 S
Y
Y
f ^
C
i_ ro
o E
Q_ —
° £
^ "c
— o
= o
1§!
•£ > -o
O
o -^
O o
8 §
D_ 2
Y
Y
£= 15
.2 Q
F" "§
o o
O Q.
CL
O c
? £
j=
£Z C
o -^
0 o
8 §
D_ 2
12/26/2007
3/23/2015
8
"o
^
Key: Y = Yes; N = No
Page | A-49
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Table A- 34. Wisconsin Pre- and Post-Construction CSO Status
„
o
0
"re
a.
O
a.
•5
V
re
Milwaukee
Superior
j_
V
E
•z.
*;
V
Q_
CO
UJ
g
•z
WI0036820
WI0025593
•o
"c"
i£
.3 o . e
i S i
Z 0 «
re lo !
? 5 -g
' Q- o
3OO
: h O
3 m 0 =. (/J
= ,n -K E O
Ml||
Si 1 o 1
1 o i
Treated
NDA
N/A
2 i t
a. c o
E 0 <
Untreated
50 to 60
NDA
.0 "S "
™ IS
"H"
re
Q-
3 ^ 5
Q_ °
3O
= h o
i 1 1 r 8
= S >
o < E "o "<3 -c-
< 0
Treated
NDA
NDA
3. "S 1 ^
E 0 < S.
Untreated
770
NDA
Key: N/A = Not Applicable; NDA = No Data Available
Table A- 35. Wisconsin 2014 CSO Status
o
"o
o
E
V
a
O
"ro
a
;«
c
J
o
V
ro
Milwaukee
Superior
^
o
•2
*;
£
o!
CO
UJ
g
z.
WI0036820
WI0025593
_C
W>
-s
V
LJJ
o
CO
o
o
"i
z.
•§ '
1 — CM
Treated
0
0
Untreated
1
0
V
E
_3
.O
^
Q
V
o j^1
<-> ^.
•5 ^
1 — CM
Treated Untreated
0 0.337
0 0
Page | A-50
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Glossary
A
Altern ative Co mbined
Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Control Plan
Any CSO control plan that is
recognized by a regulatory
authority as an acceptable
CSO control plan but does
not meet the nine elements of
a long-term control plan as
documented in the CSO
Control Policy, and/or does
not meet the minimum
requirements for a long-term
control plan for a small
community under 75,000, as
described in the CSO Control
Policy. Examples include
sewer separation,
grandfathered or pre-policy
CSO control, and Tunnel and
Reservoir Plan.
B
Best Available
Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT)
Technology-based standard
established under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) for effluent
limitations in National
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for toxic antim sd
nonconventional pollutants.
Best Conventional
Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT)
Technology-based standard
established under the C WA
for effluent limitations in
NPDES permits for
conventional pollutants,
including biochemical oxygen
demand, total suspended
solids, fecal coliform, pH, and
oil and grease.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Refers to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (P.L.
92-500), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq., as amended.
Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO)
The discharge from a
combined sewer system at a
point prior to the publicly
owned treatment works
treatment plant.
Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Control
Policy
An EPA policy published on
April 19,1994 (59 FR18688).
Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Event
One or more overflows from a
combined sewer system
resulting from a wet weather
event that does not receive at
least primary clarification,
solids and floatables disposal,
and disinfection of the
effluent.
Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Volume
The total volume (in millions
of gallons) of effluent
discharged in a combined
sewer overflow event.
Combined Sewer System
(CSS)
A wastewater collection
system owned by a state or
municipality [as defined by
section 502 (4) of the CWA]
that conveys sanitary
wastewaters (domestic,
commercial, and industrial
wastewaters) andstormwater
through a single-pipe system
to a publicly owned treatment
works treatment plant [as
defined in4O CFR4O3-3(p)].
Construction Grants
Program
Federal assistance program
authorized under Section 201
of the Clean Water Act to
make grants to states,
municipalities, and inter-
municipal or interstate
agencies for the construction
of publicly owned treatment
works.
Conventional Pollutants
The CWA defines
conventional pollutants that
include biochemical oxygen
demand, total suspended
solids, fecal coliform, pH, and
oil and grease.
Page | G-l
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
D
Demonstration Approach
One of two methods
described in the CSO Control
Policy for developing a LTCP.
The CSO Control Policy
provides that a permittee
may demonstrate that a
selected control program is
adequate to meet the water
quality-based requirements
oftheCWA
Direct Discharger
For the purposes of this
Report to Congress, an
owner/operator of a
combined sewer system with
one or more combined sewer
overflow outfalls discharging
directly into one of the Great
Lakes.
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 water body's ability to
support desirable aquatic life.
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
nonprecipitation event-
related flows (e.g., tidal
infiltration under certain
circumstances).
Floatables and Trash
Visible buoyant or semi-
buoyant solids including but
not limited to organic matter,
personal hygiene items,
plastics, styrofoam, paper,
rubber, glass, and wood.
G
Great Lakes Basin
The total watershed areas
within the United States
discharging into the Great
Lakes. Note that areas of
Canada also discharge into
the Great Lakes, but they are
not considered in this Report.
Green Infrastructure
An engineered structure or
natural feature that utilizes
natural processes to control
stormwater runoff as close to
its source as possible. Green
infrastructure reduces the
quantity and rate of
stormwater flows through the
processes of infiltration,
evapotranspiration, and
capture and use (i.e.,
rainwater harvesting).
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
Stormwater and ground
water 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 combined volume of flow
in a sewer system 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, stormwater,
surface runoff, street waste
waters, and other drainage.
(Inflow does not include
infiltration).
Long-Term Control Plan
(LTCP)
A combined sewer overflow
control plan that is ultimately
intended to result in
compliance with the CWA.
LTCPs consider the site-
specific nature of combined
sewer overflows and evaluate
the cost-effectiveness of a
range of controls. The CSO
Control Policy describes two
Page | G-2
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
approaches for selecting an
adequate level of control in
the LTCP - the presumption
approach and the
demonstration approach.
M
Major Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
(POTW)
A classification for POTWs
that are designed to
discharge i million or more
gallons per day. Some
publicly owned treatment
works with smaller design
flows are classified as major
when the NPDES authority
deems it necessary for a
specific NPDES permit to
have a stronger regulatory
focus.
Million Gallons per Day
(MOD)
A unit of flow commonly used
for wastewater discharges.
One million gallons per day is
equivalent to a flow rate of
1.547 cubic feet per second
over a 24-hour period.
Minor Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
(POTW)
A classification for POTWs
that are designed to
discharge less than i million
gallons per day.
N
National Pollutant
Disch arge 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
CWA
Nine Minimum Controls
(NMC)
Specific steps set forth in the
CSO Control Policythat
comprise the minimum
technology-based effluent
limitations to be included in a
NPDES permit for combined
sewer overflows.
Nutrient
A compound that is necessary
for metabolism.
Point Source
Defined in section 502(14) of
the CWA as 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
could be discharged. The
term does not include
agricultural stormwater
discharges and return flows
from irrigated agriculture.
Post-Construction
Compliance Monitoring
A water quality monitoring
program to verify compliance
with WQSs and protection of
designated uses as well as to
ascertain the effectiveness of
combined sewer overflow
controls after completion of
construction called for in the
long-term control plan, as
described in Section 11. C. 9 of
the CSO Control Policy.
Presu mption Approach
One of two methods
described in the CSO Control
Policy for developing a LTCP.
The CSO Control Policy
provides that a program in a
LTCP that meets certain
minimum performance
criteria defined in the Policy
".. .would be presumed to
provide an adequate level of
control to meet the water
quality-based requirements
of the CWA, provided the
permitting authority
determines that such
presumption is reasonable in
light of the data and analysis
conducted in the
characterization, monitoring,
and modeling of the system
and the consideration of
sensitive areas..." (CSO
Control Policy II.C.4.a).
Primary Treatment
First steps in wastewater
treatment wherein screens
and sedimentation tanks are
used to remove most
materials that float or will
settle. For purposes of this
Report, "primary treatment"
means the same as "primary
treatment or equivalent
treatment" in Section 3Oi(h)
of the CWA: "treatment by
screening, sedimentation,
and skimming adequate to
remove 30 percent of
biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and 30 percent of
suspended solids."
Page | G-3
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
(POTW)
As defined in 40 CFR
4O3-3(q), a treatment works
as defined by section 212 of
the CWAthat 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
convey wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment
works treatment plant.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow
(SSO)
An untreated or partially
treated sewage release from a
separate sanitary sewer
system.
Secondary Treatment
Technology-based
requirements for discharges
from municipal sewage
treatment facilities. 40 CFR
133.102 defines secondary
treatment as so-day averages
of 30 milligrams per liter
BOD and 30 milligrams per
liter suspended solids, along
with maintenance of pH
within 6. o to 9.0 (except as
provided for special
considerations and treatment
equivalent to secondary
treatment).
Separate Sanitary Sewer
(SSS)
A municipal wastewater
collection system that
conveys domestic,
commercial, and industrial
wastewater, andlimited
amounts of infiltrated ground
water and stormwater to a
publicly owned treatment
works treatment plant. Areas
served by separate sanitary
sewer systems often have a
municipal separate storm
sewer system to collect and
convey runoff from rainfall
andsnowmelt.
Sewer Separation
The practice of separating a
combined sewer system into
storm sewers for stormwater
flows and separate sanitary
sewers for sanitary flows.
State Revolving Fund
(SRF) Program
A federal program created by
the CWA Amendments in
1987 that offers low-interest
loans for wastewater
treatment projects.
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)
A measure of the filterable
solids present in a sample of
water or wastewater (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.
Treated CSO Discharges
CSO discharges that receive a
minimum of:
- Primary clarification
(Removal of floatables and
settleable solids may be
achieved by any combination
of treatment technologies or
methods that are shown to be
equivalent to primary
clarification.);
- Solids and floatables
disposal; and
- Disinfection of effluent, if
necessary, to meet WQSs,
protect designated uses and
protect human health,
including removal of harmful
disinfection chemical
residuals, where necessary.
w
Water Quality Standard
(WQS)
A law or regulation that
defines the goals for a water
body by designating its use,
setting criteria to protect
those uses, and establishing
provisions such as
antidegradation policies to
protect waterbodies from
pollutants.
Water Quality-based
Effluent Limitations
(WQBELs)
Effluent limitations in
NPDES permits that are
required when technology-
based limitations are
insufficient for attainment of
WQSs.
Page | G-4
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
Waters of the United
States (WOUS)
Defined in 40 CFR§122.2.
Wet Weather Event
A discharge from a combined
or separate sanitary sewer
system that occurs in direct
response to rainfall or
snowmelt.
Wet Weather Flow
Dry weather flow along with
flows from a wet weather
event in a sewer.
Page | G-5
-------
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows to the Great Lakes Basin
This page intentionally left blank.
Page | G-6
------- |