IKE Sewage in Our Streams Newsletter

April 2002 Edition 

Please contact Tom Neltner at mccabe@ikecoalition.org with any questions or comments.  For a copy of this newsletter in Word.

KIDS AND CSOs:  Children play in streams.  They fish.  They turn over rocks.  They simply play.  It is hard to keep them away.   The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) recognized this reality when it finalized its Combined Sewer Overflow Long-Term Control Plan and Use Attainability Guidance on December 14, 2001.  The guidance establishes "a presumption in favor of finding an existing use for full-body contact recreation if the water is free of physical hazards and accessible when flowing near residential neighborhoods, parks or schools.  Indiana recognizes that some of those waters may be too shallow during dry periods of the year to allow for adult swimming activities.  However, Indiana also recognizes that:  (a) children will still splash in these streams and may ingest the water; and (b) wet weather events that trigger CSO discharges often provide additional flow that attracts people, especially children, to the water during such times." 

ASSESSING THE SITUATION:  EPA's Office of Environmental Justice funded an intern position for IKE this summer through the Environmental Careers Organization.  The intern will evaluate the Long-Term Control Plans that Indiana's combined sewer overflow communities must submit.  Sixty of Indiana's 105 CSO communities are required to have their LTCP to IDEM by May 1, 2002.  For IDEM's status report of the CSO communities.  

The intern will review the LTCPs, sewer connection/construction permits, and monthly CSO discharge monitoring reports at IDEM to assess the situation.  The intern will score the plans based on the CSO Scoring System developed by eight Indiana environmental organizations in July 2000.  The intern will also evaluate:

• Whether IDEM and the cities met their obligation under the Civil Rights Act to ensure that their decisions do not disproportionately impact minorities regardless of how neutral their decision may have appeared or been intended;  
• Whether IDEM and the cities are complying with antidegradation requirements when it approves new sewer connections that increase sewage overflows during wet weather; 
• The total amount of increased sewage overflows IDEM and cities are allowing by not considering wet weather impacts when approving new sewer connections.  

OVERFLOWS IN YOUR COMMUNITY:  Starting October 1, 2001, IDEM requires Indiana's CSO communities to submit a special CSO Discharge Monitoring Report each month.  The time, duration, and volume of each overflow from each outfall must be reported along with the amount of precipitation.   For IDEM's sample form, cover letter and FAQs see www.in.gov/idem/water/facmang/wwet/csoindex.html.  Well done!

194 IMPAIRED WATERS FOR E. coli:  IDEM has proposed listing 484 impaired waterbodies in its 2002 303(d) list - up from 207 in 1998.  44% of the listings are for E. coli.  While there are many sources of E. coli, with 105 CSO communities and failing septic systems across the state, it is no surprise that 194 waterbodies exceed the E. coli. standard.  

SEWER CONNECTIONS - 8 DAYS A YEAR OF DRY WEATHER COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS OK BY IDEM:  On February 27, 2002, IDEM published a draft non-rule policy document in response to the Water Pollution Control Board's request December 12, 2001 request.  IDEM disagrees with the Board's hearing officer report and with IKE's contention that IDEM must consider wet weather impacts when reviewing sewer connection permit applications.  

In the draft, IDEM proposed tightening its definition of wet weather related overflows so that overflows that occur more than one calendar day instead of the current three days after a precipitation event would be consider "non-inflow related" overflows - essentially dry weather overflows.  Even then, IDEM proposed issuing sewer connection permits that increase sewer loading and wet weather overflows if a CSO community has less than 9 calendar days of dry weather overflows from its combined sewer system - without regard to whether the city is implementing is CSO Operating Plan and LTCP.  Only when a CSO community has 18 or more calendar days of dry weather overflows from a combined sewer system would a sewer connection permit be denied.   

At a March 7 meeting on the issue, IKE made it clear that it believes that IDEM has a distorted reading of the sewer capacity certification requirements.  For a copy of the letter to IDEM and IKE's evaluation of IDEM's interpretation.  At the March 13 and April 10 meeting of the Water Pollution Control Board, IDEM committed to continuing efforts to resolve the dispute.

Please note that IKE was wrong in its February edition of the newsletter.  IKE understood that the WPCB's hearing officer, Dave Wagner, asked the Board on December 12, 2001 to accept his report on the "no net increase in sewage overflows" citizen's petition.  IDEM pointed out at its March 6, 2002 meeting on the issue that the hearing officer's motion - unanimously adopted by the Board - asked that IDEM publish a construction permit application and review procedure as a non-rule policy in lieu of promulgation of the proposed rule amendments.  The Board never was asked to accept or adopt the hearing officer's report.   

ANTIDEGRADATION IMPLICATIONS IGNORED:  IDEM is approving sewer connection permits that increase sewage overflows to waterbodies that it has identified as impaired for E. coli despite anti-degradation prohibitions in the rules.   In the Great Lakes Basic, 327 IAC 2-1.5-4(a) which states "where designated uses of a waterbody are impaired, there shall be no lowering of the water quality with respect to the pollutants or pollutants that are causing the impairment."  Outside of the Great Lakes Basin, 327 IAC 2-1-2 states "no degradation of water quality shall be permitted which would interfere with or become injurious to existing or potential uses."  According to IDEM's procedures, they do not consider antidegradation requirements when they approve new sewer connections that increase sewage to impaired waterbodies.  Hard to rationalize!

CSO RIGHT-TO-KNOW RULE PRELIMINARILY ADOPTED:  On April 10, 2002, the Indiana Water Pollution Control Board preliminarily adopted a rule that would require communities to be notified whenever a combined sewer overflows.  The revised rule will be published in the June 1, 2002 Indiana Register.  A hearing on the final adoption of the rule should occur in July or August with a final rule in place by the end of 2002 - 15 months after the deadline mandated in SEA-431 by the General Assembly in the Spring of 2000.  For a copy of the proposed rule, changes from the draft rule..  Expect changes in the rule to respond to concerns raised by the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns (IACT).

The problem with combined sewer overflows (CSOs) will not be solved overnight.  It may take ten years in some cities.  Several cities have asked for 20 years.  In the meantime, children continue to play in the sewage-laden streams - and parents let them - unaware of the hazard.  Thanks to EPA's nine-minimum controls, CSO communities have generally posted signs at the outfalls and have educated the public in broad terms.  However, the signs are often not at access points - usually the outfalls are difficult to get near - and the broad education efforts lack the timeliness and focus that parents need to protect children. 

Fortunately, the General Assembly mandated that the gap in protection be filled as part of a broader effort to fix Indiana's CSO Control program.  Communities must be notified whenever CSO communities have information from a reliable source that an overflow is occurring or there is a reasonable likelihood that a discharge will occur within the next 24 hours. 

For CSO communities such as LaPorte, Seymour, and Michigan City, that have taken great efforts to reduce overflows, the notice will be an unusual event.  For communities that have been slow to significantly reduce the overflows, they may need to notify the communities 60 times a year - whenever it rains.  However, as these cities implement their long-term control plans, the notices will get less frequent. 

The Board adopted the rule to keep the process moving despite recognizing flaws in the rule it preliminarily adopted.  IACT and IKE both recommended delaying adoption until the issues could be resolved.  However, the Board asked IDEM to work through the issues with the interested parties quickly and report back to it by June 12.  The basic concerns were:

• Notice to Individuals: The statute calls for community notification.  The proposed rule calls for notice to individuals who ask for the notice if they most likely would be exposed to CSO-contaminated water.  Every March, affected persons would be invited to get on the registry.  IACT notes that this notice is more extensive that required for contaminated drinking water.  IACT is also concerned that there is no real limit to who would be on the registry and the registry could be abused.  IKE noted the cost of an automated call is $0.10 - a small price to pay to keep children out of sewage.  There is room for compromise on this issue to avoid abuse yet still ensure that key persons get notice such as schools, parks departments, and others.
• Signs at Access Points:  The proposed rule calls for signs at access points and parks.  The signs would require specific language.  Unfortunately, the language is different that IDEM's prior recommendations.  Existing signs are likely to be grandfathered and there may be flexibility on language.
• Flexibility:  A CSO community can vary from the specific community notification requirements in the proposed rule if it demonstrates to IDEM that an alternative notification methods are more effective at providing actual notice.  IACT asked that CSO communities have the flexibility to develop their own system without comparison to the baseline that would be established by the specific requirements.

The City of Indianapolis is the only Indiana city that IKE knows has agreed to notify the public when a CSO overflows.  They are developing a proposal but have not set a date for the program to begin.