SEWA GE OVE RF L OWBillions of Gallons of Sewage

Contaminate Lake ErieOhio PIRG and Ohio PIRG Education Fund

November 2005

AC KNOWLED GE MEN T S

SEWAGE OVERFLOW: BILLIONS OF GALLONSOF SEWAGE CONTAMINATE LAKE ERIE

Written by Amy Gomberg, Environmental Associate with Ohio PIRG Education FundNovember 2005

© 2005, Ohio PIRG Education Fund

Ohio PIRG would like to acknowledge the support of the George Gund Foundation, and the ClevelandFoundation without which this report would not have been possible. This report is part of the state PublicInterest Research Groups “Around the Lakes” Series and is funded in part by the Healing Our Waters –Great Lakes Coalition which receives generous support from the Wege Foundation.

The author would like to thank the following people for their assistance in producing this report: MikeShriberg, State Director of PIRGIM, John Rumpler, Senior Policy Analyst for the State PIRGs, CyaneGresham of the Sierra Club and Christy Leavitt, Clean Water Advocate for Ohio PIRG.

The author would also like to thank the following individuals for their time and the information theyshared: Gary Stuhlfauth of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Frank Greenland of the NortheastOhio Regional Sewer District, Mike McGlinchy of the City of Akron Public Utilities Bureau, and KurtErichsen of TMOCAG.

Photos courtesy of Public Interest GRFX, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Erin Yakunich, and theToledo Waterways Initiative. Design by Lori McCarthy, ViewPoint Consulting & Design.

The author alone is responsible for any factual errors. The opinions expressed in the report are those ofthe Ohio PIRG Education Fund and do not necessarily express the views of our partners or funders.

ABOU T O HIO PIRGThe Ohio Public Interest Research Group Education Fund is a statewide nonprofit public interest advo-cacy organization. Since 1973, Ohio PIRG has been working to serve the public interest by protectingour environment, encouraging a fair, sustainable economy, and fostering responsive, democratic govern-ment. Visit us at www.ohiopirg.org.

To receive a copy of this report, please visit our website or contact the author at:

36 West Gay St., Suite 315, Columbus, Ohio 43215

Phone: (614) 460-8732 info@ohiopirg.org

agomberg@ohiopirg.org www.ohiopirg.org

2

TABLE O F C O N TEN T S

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Problem with Combined Sewer OverflowsCombined Sewer Overflows: what are they? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

CSO history and how we should be protecting our waterways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Health Affects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

ResultsThe Lake Erie Basin: a dumping ground for Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A Closer Look: NEORSD, Toledo, and Akron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Cleveland: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Toledo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Akron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Remaining CSO Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Monitoring, Reporting and Notification Inadequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Conclusion: Too much sewage in our Great Lake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Eliminate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Mitigate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Monitor, Report, and Notify the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Great Lakes Restoration: An Opportunity for Resources and Innovation . . . . . . 14

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

E XECU TIVE SUMMARY

More than thirty years after the Cuyahoga River was engulfed in flames and the Clean Water Act waspassed to clean up America’s waterways, Ohio’s lakes, rivers, and streams continue to be plagued bypollution.

Lake Erie, arguably Ohio’s most important waterway continues to be threatened by pollution. Cherishedby boaters, fishers, and families for its beaches, wildlife, and recreational uses, our Great Lake also pro-vides drinking water to over eleven million people. While many different contaminants, ranging frommercury to PCBs, negatively impact Lake Erie, this report focuses on one major pollutant that we can elim-inate: raw, untreated sewage. From January - December 2004, Lake Erie was flooded with more thaneight billion gallons of untreated sewage.

This report surveys how much sewage was dumped into the Lake Erie watershed basin from January -December 2004, looks critically at how our communities and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency(OEPA) are dealing with sewage pollution and protection of public health, and offers a range of solu-tions for eliminating sewage and protecting the public.

Th e ProblemCombined sewers take in and attempt to treat sewage and rainwater. Combined sewer overflows areinstances in which rainwater and untreated sewage overflow into our streams, lakes and rivers, includingLake Erie. Fifty-three communities within the Lake Erie Watershed Basin, ranging from small towns likeAvon Lake, to the larger metropolitan cities, have combined sewers and are plagued by combined seweroverflows (CSOs). Together, these fifty-three communities have 623 combined sewer overflow outfalls, orpipes, that feed into waterways that lead into Lake Erie, or directly into the Lake itself.1 An analysis ofjust eleven of the fifty-three communities that dump untreated sewage shows that these communitiesdumped more than eight billion gallons of sewage into the Lake Erie watershed from January - December2004. This is equivalent to more than two billion toilets flushing into Lake Erie: a drinking water sourcefor over eleven million people.

Combined sewage overflows are a major source of beach advisories, wildlife destruction, and humanhealth problems.2 Untreated sewage contains disease-causing pathogens including E. Coli, Hepatitis A,and Giardia.3 Anyone who comes into contact with water that is contaminated with sewage is puttingtheir health at risk. Sewage is also a likely contributor to the dead zone in Lake Erie’s central basin.

The Clean Water Act calls for the elimination of untreated or partially treated sewage releases into ourwaters. The law also requires that until sewage discharges are eliminated, sewage treatment facilitiesmust monitor, report, and notify the public of all CSO events. Here in Ohio, sewage discharges go largelyunmonitored and are severely underreported to the OEPA. The OEPA does not enforce any consistentreporting of sewage dumping, nor do they enforce any public notification requirements when rawsewage is dumped. Therefore, neither the state agency, nor the public, is consistently aware of the bil-lions of gallons of sewage being dumped into Lake Erie’s waterways. Without this information, the OEPAcannot achieve its goals of enforcing the Clean Water Act and eliminating pollution in our waterways. Inthe meantime, the public cannot adequately protect themselves from the disease-causing bacteria foundin untreated sewage.

4

S olutionsTo eliminate sewage from entering our waterways and protect public health, the Ohio PIRG EducationFund recommends the following:

1) Communities need to incorporate technologies that help prevent excessive stormwater from flooding our sewer systems. With more control over the storm water thatenters our combined sewer systems, there will be less sewage overflowing into ourwaterways.

2) Our state officials need to support more funding for sewage infrastructure improve-ments that strive toward the elimination of sewage overflows, such as the separationof septic and storm sewage systems.

3) The OEPA needs to make reporting of any and all sewage discharges mandatoryand consistent. The wastewater treatment facilities and the OEPA should notify thepublic in real time when these public health threats occur.

4) One promising development in the effort to stop sewage dumping is the recent cre-ation of the Healing Our Waters - Great Lakes coalition and the EPA-led Great LakesRegional Collaborative. Both efforts are in the process of finalizing a fundable planto restore the Great Lakes, including the “virtual elimination” of sewage dumping. Theoutcomes from this process will impact the future of eliminating sewage discharges intothe Great Lakes.

Eliminating sewage dumping will take political will, citizen activation, funding and forward thinking. And,until the day comes when sewage dumping is eliminated, state officials need to track how much sewagewe are dumping and develop comprehensive public notification programs to protect the public.

“Civilized people shouldbe able to dispose of

sewage in a better waythan by putting it into

drinking water.”

President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

5

C OMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW S: C S Os

WHAT ARE THEY?

Many of the earliest sewage systems were built to manage both municipal sewage (waste from domestic,commercial and industrial sources), and storm water, which flows into our sewers after a wet weatherevent. A combined sewer system delivers both types of wastewater to the treatment plant simultaneously.However, in periods of wet weather or large snowmelts, the combined sewer systems are inundated withstorm water and sewage which often exceeds the system’s capacity. Combined sewer systems are builtwith an overflow pipe that discharges untreated sewage and storm water directly into the closest watersource, such as the Cuyahoga River or Lake Erie. This discharge of untreated waste is termed a combinedsewer overflow or CSO.4

FIGURE 1. TYPICAL COMBINED SEWER SYSTEMCombined sewer systems are designed to discharge untreated sewage and stormwater directly to surface water bodies such as rivers and lakes during wet weather,causing a Combined Sewer Overflow or CSO. In dry weather the sewage is directedto the waste water treatment plant (POTW).5

Communities that are built with combined sewer systems will experience increased sewage overflows withcontinuous land development. A decrease in the amount of land that is available to absorb storm watercreates an increase of storm water that runs off the surface of the land and feeds into our sewage sys-tems. Subsequently, this inundates the combined sewer system which then overflows untreated sewageand storm water into lakes, rivers, and streams.

6

C S O HI STO RY AND HOW WE SHOULD BE

PROTECTING OUR WATERWAY S

The development of combined sewer systems began in the mid-1800’s, as a solution to the lack of san-itary sewage disposal systems. By the 1960’s, it was clear that CSOs were a major threat to publichealth, and research efforts were developed to search for better solutions to our growing sewage prob-lems. It is clear to the current EPA that “CSOs are remnants of an aged infrastructure from a time beforeenvironmental effects of human action were of great concern to most people, partly because we didn’tknow the detriment that would be caused to the environment and public health, and partly because pop-ulation and industry were much smaller at these times.” 6

In order to address the growing problems related to combined sewage, in 1994, the U.S. EPA adopteda CSO Control Policy which required all CSO communities to characterize their collection systems andoverflows and implement nine minimum control measures. In 1995, the Ohio EPA released the “State ofOhio Combined Sewer Overflow Strategy,” which was modeled after the U.S. EPA’s CSO Control Policy.7

The goal of the Control Policy was to minimize the pollutants from CSOs by eliminating them where pos-sible. The minimum controls include expectations for CSO communities to monitor, report, and notify thepublic of all CSO events. As stated in the Ohio Combined Sewer Overflow Strategy, “the Ohio EPAexpects communities to develop and implement an effective public advisory system that inform the publicof the possible health and environmental impacts associated with CSOs, that notifies the public when dis-charges from CSOs occur and advises against contact recreation when elevated bacteria levels mayendanger public health.” 8

In 2000, Congress incorporated the nine minimum control strategies into the Federal Clean Water Act. 9

Unfortunately, Ohio’s communities continue to dump sewage without notifying the public of the health andenvironmental impacts. Combined sewers are systems of the past. Decision makers need to work towardsthe permanent elimination of sewage overflows, and until sewage discharges are eliminated, the publicshould be appropriately informed.

7

HE ALTH THRE AT SCSOs pose dangerous effects to the health of humans and the envi-ronment. CSOs deliver raw sewage, industrial waste, and large vol-umes of storm water which contain pathogens, suspended solids,oxygen-depleting chemicals, and toxic pollutants to receiving waters.They contribute to beach closures, contamination of drinking watersupplies, wildlife destruction, and human health problems.10

Untreated sewage contains disease-causing pathogens including E.coli, salmonella, fecal coliform, enterococci, shigella, typhoid, cholera,dysentery, hepatitis, diphtheria cryptosporidium, and giardia. Thesepathogens pose a risk for those who ingest contaminated waterdirectly, through inadequately purified drinking water, or indirectly,through the consumption of food that has been contaminated byinfected water. Pathogens from untreated sewage are particularlyharmful to those with weakened immune systems, such as young chil-dren, pregnant women, and the elderly.11

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) collaborated with theNational Park Service (NPS) during 2000-2004 to complete a studyregarding water contamination in the Cuyahoga River. The resultsfrom this study showed:

The Hepatitis A virus was detected in 29% of the tested watersamples

Unacceptable levels of E. Coli. in 87% of the river samples

Salmonella was detected in 52% of the river samples

Giardia was detected in 44% of the river samples and 67% of the samples from the effluent of the Akron WaterPollution Control Station (WPCS).12

The USGS report suggests that the Akron Water Pollution Control Station was the principal source of the Hepatitis A foundin the river.13 The Cuyahoga National Park discourages any contact with the river due to health threats caused by the fre-quently high bacteria concentrations.14

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention detail some of the primaryparasites and bacteria in untreated sewage that pose major public healththreats:

Escherichia coli: known as E. Coli causes severe illness ranging frombloody diarrhea to kidney failure which can lead to death.15

Giardiasis also known as Giardia causes a variety of intestinal symptomsincluding diarrhea, flatulence, cramps, and nausea.16

Cryptosporidium, also known as Crypto causes the diarrheal diseaseknown as cryptosporidiosis, including symptoms such as: watery diarrhea,dehydration, stomach pain, fever, nausea, weight loss, and vomiting.17

Shigellosis causes diarrhea, but may also lead to painful urination, irrita-tion of the eyes, as well as, chronic arthritis. One type of this bacteriumthat is found in the non-industrialized (third) world causes deadly epi-demics.18

These known sewage contaminants endanger public health. The Ohio Department of Health suggests that anyone who swimsin Lake Erie should keep their head and face out of the water, not swallow the water, shower after swimming, and wait atleast 24 hours after a heavy rainfall before swimming.19 In 2004, the monitored beaches along the Lake Erie shorelinefailed to meet criteria for primary-contact recreation, including swimming on 16 percent of the assessed days. Using E. colias the indicator for swimmable beaches, Lake Erie’s beaches resulted in health advisories for a total of 271 days in 2004.20

This is an increase from the 255 beach advisory days in 2003, and the 227 beach advisory days in 2002.21

RESULTS OF SEWAGE POLLUTION:LAKE ERIE'S "DEAD ZONE"

The untreated sewage pollution that is dis-charged into Lake Erie likely contributes to thedead zone that has formed in the lake's centralbasin. Excess nutrients such as phosphorouslead to an overabundance of plant life thatchokes the lake. When oxygen is depleted,nothing can survive. There is one dead zone inthe central basin of Lake Erie from Ashtabula toCleveland, and this past summer, researchersdiscovered another dead zone in the lake'sbasin off the shores of Sandusky. The deadzones can have detrimental effects on the entirelake ecosystem, decreasing fish populationsand upsetting the food chain from the micro-scopic level up to the humans who eat the fish.

Results of Sewage Pollution:Drinking Water Contamination

400,000 people got sick and 100 diedin Milwaukee, Wisconsin due to drinkingwater contaminated with the parasitecryptosporidium from a sewage dis-charge, in 1993. The Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC) found thatas many as half of the water utilities inthe country sometimes failed to removecryptosporidium, which caused half ofthe people in Milwaukee to get sick.

Source: Greenwell, Megan (July 19, 2005) “Newest LakeErie ‘Dead Zone’ brings horror story for fish near

Sandusky” The Toledo Blade

Source: Rultz, Dan (Sept.2, 1996). "Milwaukee learned itswater lesson, but many other cities haven't" CNN - Health.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9609/02/nfm/water.quality/

8

RE SULT STHE LAKE ERIE BASIN: A DUMPING GROUND FOR OHIO

Ohio is one of the largest contributors to our nation’s sewage pollution problems with 88 CSO communities thatdump sewage out of 1,378 CSO outfalls throughout the state.22 These outfalls are the actual pipe locations (pointsources) where untreated sewage is released into our state’s waterways. Of this number, there are 53 CSO com-munities that discharge sewage out of 623 CSO outfalls into Lake Erie or the waterways that feed into the lake.23

This report looks at eleven communities that discharge sewage through 357 CSO outfalls throughout the Lake Eriewatershed basin.24

FIGURE 225

From January to December 2004, the eleven communities included in thisreport dumped over eight billion gallons of untreated sewage into Lake Erieand its tributaries. To put that into perspective, one toilet bowl flush uses anaverage of three and one half gallons of water.26 Therefore, the Lake Eriesewage dumping problem is equivalent to over two billion toilet flushes intoLake Erie, a drinking water source for eleven million people.

This report looks at eleven of the communities that are the largest contribu-tors to the sewage pollution in Lake Erie. The sewage discharges detailed inthis report account for less than half of the actual CSO outfall pipes that feed untreated sewage to Lake Erie. TheOEPA does not track information from all of the contributing CSO communities and is not able to provide data toshow the total amount of sewage discharged into Lake Erie. The information that is available is not easily acces-sible to the public, and is arduously attainable by the OEPA. The following results highly underestimate the actualamount of untreated sewage that is dumped into Lake Erie’s waterways.

"Lake Erie’s sewagedumping problem is equiv-alent to over 2 billion toilet

flushes into Lake Erie, adrinking water source for

11 million people."

9

Distribution of CSO Outfalls by Region and by State

Total Outfalls: 9,348

A CLOSER LOOK:

NEORSD, TOLEDO AND AKRON

CLEVELAND: THE NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT

The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) treats the sewage of the Greater Cleveland area, includingdowntown Cleveland, and parts of 59 surrounding communities. Their facilities include three wastewater treatmentplants. The NEORSD is the largest dumper of combined sewage in the Lake Erie Basin. Unfortunately, they havenot implemented any significant public notification system to educate the 1.1 million citizens who live in theirservice territory.

The City of Cleveland and portions of the surrounding suburbs were built with combined sewer systems. TheNEORSD discharges untreated sewage directly into Lake Erie through 19 CSO outfalls, and dumps sewage throughtheir 107 other CSO outfalls to receiving waters including Mill Creek, the Cuyahoga River, Rocky River, and BigCreek.40

In the NEORSD’s “CSO Facilities Planning” report, they note that “Floating matter and debris is a highly visibleproblem that CSOs can cause. A more significant problem, however, is the bacteria carried in the overflow. Highbacteria counts may pose health hazards to people involved in contact recreation, such as swimming.”41 The bil-lions of gallons of combined sewage that the NEORSD discharges into Greater Cleveland’s waterways is a healththreat. Unfortunately, the public is not made aware of these threats, because the NEORSD currently does notengage in any significant public awareness programs regarding the combined sewage released from their system.In fact, their website and annual report are largely absent of the occurrence and health threats of the billions ofgallons of untreated sewage that they dump into Lake Erie every year. The NEORSD does not engage in any real-time efforts to notify their 1.1 million customers of the dangers related to the over 5 billion gallons of sewage thatthey dump annually.

TABLE 1Combined Sewer Overflows in the Lake Erie Basin, January 1, 2004 - December 31, 2004(partial list)

CSO Volume of CSOCSO Community outfalls Million of Gallons

Akron 38 639.0327

Avon Lake 14 153.6028

Bucyrus 22 0.8529

Cleveland - Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District 126 5479.4930

Defiance 44 357.0031

Elyria 27 0.4132

Findlay 18 32.3333

Lima 19 277.7134

Port Clinton 135 11.7536

Sandusky 15 331.6937

Toledo 33 1623.2038

TOTAL 357 8907.0739

10

TOLEDOToledo contributes an average of 1.6 billion gallons of combined sewage to the Lake Erie Basin, every year. Theirfacilities serve approximately 340,000 people in the Toledo area, and their 33 CSO outfalls discharge sewageinto the Ottawa River, Maumee River and Swan Creek, which all feed into Lake Erie.42 The City of Toledo reportstheir CSOs to the OEPA on a monthly basis, and recently implemented a website which shows the locations andactivity of all of the combinedsewer outfalls in their system(http://www.toledowaterwaysinitia-tive.com/sewer_overflows.asp).43

In August of 2002, The UnitedStates Environmental ProtectionAgency ordered a consent decreerequiring Toledo to address thebillions of gallons of sewage theyrelease into the environment. Under the settlement, Toledo created the Toledo Waterways Initiative which isworking towards eliminating most of the raw sewage they discharge. The city held a special referendum in Julyof 2002, in which 78 percent of the voters approved of the improvements to the sewer systems. Ohio’s FormerAttorney General, Betty D. Montgomery, spoke in favor of the improvements, stating “We applaud the city’s will-ingness to commit to a long-term solution that will benefit citizens and the environment.”45 The Former Ohio EPADirector stated, “For years, Toledo has struggled to address environmentally damaging sewer overflows…Thissettlement will result in a dramatic improvement in the health of Northwest Ohio’s waterways.”46

In Toledo, 20 percent of the city is still served by combined sewers, but the city is committed to major improve-ments. A large portion of their webpage is devoted to their plan to reduce CSOs, and there are opportunitiesavailable for public involvement. The citizens of Toledo may educate themselves about Toledo’s combined sewersystem through their website.

AKRONThe city of Akron treats its own wastewater, as well as that of several neighboring communities, and has been incontinuous service since 1928.47 The entire service area that drains into the Lake Erie watershed is serviced withcombined sewers. In the early 1990’s the City of Akron installed monitors on all of their CSO outfalls in order toeffectively measure the amount of untreated sewage that is released from their system. They calculate this dis-charge and report it to the OEPA on a monthly basis. From January to December 2004, the City of Akron dis-charged approximately 603 million gallons of untreated sewage into the Cuyahoga River, and other waterwaysfeeding into Lake Erie.48

The USGS released a report in 2004, regarding the water quality in the Cuyahoga River. The report looked atthe water quality of the river water, as well as wastewater discharged directly from the Akron Water PollutionControl Station (WPCS). The study discovered the Hepatitis A virus in Akron’s wastewater, as well as giardia, sal-monella, and other dangerous viruses (coliphage, c. perfringes, enterovirsuses etc). Unfortunately, the city of Akronhas not implemented any significant public notification system to educate the 356,000 people who live in theirservice territory.

THE REMAINING CONTRIBUTORSThe remaining eight CSO communities discharge a combined 1.2 billion gallons of untreated sewage through 160CSO outfalls into the waterways that feed into Lake Erie, and directly into the lake itself. Some of these commu-nities submit a monthly report of their sewage overflows to the OEPA, others report once a year, and some stillfail to report, at all.

“Our antiquated sewer system is broken. Toledo votersoverwhelmingly approved an initiative to upgrade oursewer system because they understand the importance ofprotecting our waterways. We want clean rivers. TheToledo Waterways initiative is the long-term solution.”

– Toledo Mayor Jack Ford44

11

MO NI TO RING, REP O RTING AND

NOTIFIC ATIO N INAD EQUATE

Despite the monitoring, reporting, and notification requirements detailed in the Clean Water Act, it is clear thatneither the OEPA nor the CSO communities are abiding by the law. The OEPA has confirmed that while they usedto require wastewater treatment plants to report sewage discharges into Ohio’s waterways, they suspended thatrequirement years ago. Now, the OEPA mandates no consistent reporting when sewage is discharged. This lack ofreporting ties the hands of agency officials whose job it is to enforce the Clean Water Act by holding pollutersaccountable. With no reporting, comes no enforcement. With no reporting also comes an un-willingness by waste-water plant owners and operators to track sewage discharges. Without consistent and timely tracking, monitoring,or reporting, the public is kept in the dark about the quality of their recreational and even drinking water.

For example, the OEPA cannot provide plant by plant sewage discharge information on a timely basis. Nor canthe OEPA provide any data as to the amount of sewage that is being poured into Ohio’s waterways annually orLake Erie, specifically. Simply put, the OEPA is not doing its job when it comes to eliminating sewage from ourwaterways, tracking and monitoring pollution through reporting, or, enforcing the Clean Water Act by crackingdown on polluters.

The following are a few examples of how inconsistently the OEPA and CSO communities track and report sewagedischarges, or CSOs.

The City of Bucyrus reported to the OEPA that they discharge .85 million gallons of sewage into LakeErie’s waterways each year. This information was not approved by the OEPA, and the city of Bucyrus isreassessing their CSO impact. The preliminary results show that approximately 240 million gallons ofsewage are being dumped into Lake Erie’s waterways every year. The City of Bucyrus still does not haveany conclusive results.49

The OEPA currently does not collect any information regarding the 18 CSOs in the City of Euclid.50

The City of Tiffin was not reporting their sewage dumping until July 2005. Currently, they are reportingthe amount of sewage that they are dumping from their 30 CSOs on a revolving basis. However, theOEPA has no estimate for how much sewage Tiffin’s system dumps into the Lake Erie watershed basinannually.51

With over a decade to implement the nine minimum CSO control strategies outlined by the U.S. EPA, the OEPA,and the Clean Water Act, both the largest and smallest sewage dumping communities and the OEPA continue toneglect the law.

12

C O NC LUSIO N : TOO MUCH SEWAGE IN OUR GREAT LAKE

From January 2004 - December 2004 over eight billion gallons of untreated sewage was dumped into Lake Erieand waterways within the Lake Erie watershed basin. The billions of gallons of untreated sewage that flow intoour waterways each year is unacceptable, and even more so when factoring in the lack of monitoring, reportingand public notification. Ohioans are left in the dark about a silent health threat that could expose themselves ortheir children to disease threatening bacteria.

We must accomplish the Clean Water Act’s goal of eliminating sewage discharges into our waterways, includingLake Erie. In the meantime, state officials must do more to track, monitor, and report, discharges and hold pol-luters accountable to violating the law.

S olutionsThe bottom line is that eliminating sewage dumping, in all but extreme circumstances, is not a technological issue(we know exactly how to do this), but rather is an issue of political will, citizen activation, funding, and creativethinking about problems and solutions.

1. ELIMINATEThe most efficient way to stop sewage overflows is to stop storm water from flooding sewage treatment systemswhen it rains. In natural or forested areas the ground absorbs storm water and the water infiltrates and regener-ates ground water supplies. This natural process cannot occur at the same rate in developed areas with extendedimpervious surfaces. Many cities are built with almost 100% impervious surfaces.52 Concrete streets and pavedover developments do not allow for storm water infiltration. Instead, the storm water ‘runs off’ into our sewer sys-tems. Our sewer systems were not created to manage the amount of storm water that typically runs off during amoderate to heavy rain event. The lack of pervious surfaces, or “green space,” in urbanized areas createsincreased storm water run-off and enhanced burden on our sewer systems.

There are many innovative and cost-effective methods to reduce storm water runoff: “Soft-path” or “Low-ImpactDevelopment” (LID) and other non-infrastructure ways to reduce dumping have received scant attention andfunding. Soft-path approaches include onsite wastewater treatment technologies, storm water retention and fil-tration (such as rain gardens, constructed wetlands and native species plantings), stream buffers, water conserva-tion fixtures, rain barrels, reuse of “grey water,” and other low impact development designs.53 The goal is to“retain, detain, filter, treat, use, and reduce storm water.”54 Incentives, strategies, examples, and tools for control-ling overflows without costly infrastructure improvements are needed.

The U.S. EPA and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay have also described methods to reduce storm water runoff:

Develop construction erosion/sediment control ordinances.

Limit the amount of impenetrable surfaces through the use of permeable paving surfaces, such as wooddecks, bricks, and concrete lattice to let water soak into the ground.

Allow thick vegetation or buffer strips to grow along waterways to slow runoff and soak up pollutants.Plant trees, shrubs, and ground cover (they will absorb up to 14 times more rainwater than a grass lawnand don’t require fertilizer).

Divert runoff from pavement to grassy, planted, or wooded areas, so storm water can seep slowly intothe ground.55

2. MITIGATEThe old, crumbling infrastructure in Ohio’s Lake Erie watershed basin is in dire need of improvements to preventoverflows. These improvements often involve better maintenance and operation, but also can involve major cap-ital investments. Infrastructure improvements such as the separation of combined sewers and the construction ofsewage holding facilities have resulted in thirteen communities in Ohio eliminating their sewage overflows.

13

3. MONITOR, REPORT AND NOTIFY THE PUBLICSewage treatment facilities need to report to the OEPA and notify the public when combined sewer overflowsare occurring. Improvements in our sewer systems and changes in land use and urban green space developmentwill take decades to fully eliminate the negative effects of combined sewer overflows. While we are waitingfor these changes to materialize, we will continue to experience the harmful pollution from the billions of gal-lons of untreated sewage that are dumped into the Lake Erie Basinevery year. The Ohio PIRG Education Fund’s report released in Mayof 2005, “Sewage Warning: What the Public Doesn’t Know aboutSewage Dumping in the Great Lakes,” shows that Ohio has the worstpublic notification system of all of the Great Lakes states. Currently,Ohio has no functioning public notification system.

In order for Ohioans to protect themselves from the dangers of com-bined sewer overflows, leaders should work to develop a combinedsewer overflow tracking, reporting, and notification system. The ele-ments of a strong sewage right-to-know program includes constantmonitoring of sewage overflows by plant operators, immediate andconsistent reporting of overflows to the OEPA, and direct, immediatepublic notification. Notification should include multiple methods, aswell as, pre-notification of potential sewage discharges, annualreports that detail the extent of the problem, and a public educa-tion and outreach program that teaches citizens how to avoidsewage contamination.

It is essential to show the extent of sewage Ohio will be able toeliminate, in order for Ohio to secure federal funding to alleviatethe expensive burden of sewage overflows. More importantly, weneed the public to be aware of the health threats of combinedsewage and the potential for major improvements.

4. GREAT LAKES RESTORATION: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RESOURCES ANDINNOVATION Sewage dumping is a major problem throughout the Great Lakes region. Since all Great Lakes basin residentsare dependent on an interconnected source of water and since the Great Lakes have such a high concentrationof sewage dumping, a coordinated regional solution is desperately needed. Fortunately, an unprecedentedcoalition of environmental and conservation organizations-the Healing Our Waters (HOW) Great LakesCoalition-was formed to advocate for restoration of the Lakes. This Coalition is currently working with the EPA-led Great Lakes Regional Collaborative to develop a consensus Great Lakes Restoration plan. The goal is forthis plan to be submitted to Congress by the end of 2005. A significant component of this plan is a new per-spective and additional resources for stopping sewage dumping in the Great Lakes. A team of government offi-cials, wastewater treatment plant operators, industry officials and environmental organizations are in theprocess of setting goals, timelines and funding requests for “virtual elimination” of sewage dumping in the GreatLakes. The emphasis is on comprehensive storm water management, including the use of low-impact develop-ment and other “softpath” controls as a trigger for funding. If the restoration plan is acted on in Congress andin the Great Lakes states, this unprecedented approach and collaboration has the potential to turn the tide andput an end to sewage dumping in the Lakes.

FIGURE 3.CSO Signage in Toledo, Ohio

14

NOTE S1 Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Ohio CSO Inventory, August 2005. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/cso/ohiocsoinventory%208%2005.pdf

2 U.S. EPA Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, Fact Sheet August 2004. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/csosso_rtc_fact-sheet.pdf

3 U.S. EPA, Mid-Atlantic Water Protection: Combined Sewer Overflows & Sanitary Sewer Overflows. Last updated June 21st, 2005http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/cso/EnvironmentalHealth.htm

4 U.S. EPA, Mid-Atlantic Water Protection: Combined Sewer Overflows & Sanitary Sewer Overflows. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/cso/. Lastupdated June 21st, 2005. Note: CSOs may also be minimally treated.

5 U.S. EPA Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs. 2004 Chapter 2, Page 2.http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/csossoRTC2004_chapter02.pdf

6 U.S. EPA, Mid-Atlantic Water Protection: Combined Sewer Overflows & Sanitary Sewer Overflows. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/cso/. Lastupdated on Tuesday, June 21st, 2005

7 Ohio CSO Strategy – March, 1995, Page 5. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/cso/csostrem.pdf :

Nine minimum control measures identified by U.S. EPA:1. Proper operation and maintenance programs for the sewer system and CSO points;2. Maximum use of the collection system for storage;3. Review and modification of pretreatment programs or other local programs to minimize the impact of nondomestic discharges from CSOs;4. Maximization of flow to POTW for treatment;5. Prohibition of dry weather overflows;6. Control of solid and floatable materials in CSO discharges;7. Required inspection, monitoring and reporting of CSOs;8. Pollution prevention to reduce CSO impacts; and9. Public notification for any areas affected by CSOs, especially beach areas and areas where contact recreation occurs. (Ohio EPA expects communitiesto develop and implement an effective public advisory system that informs the public of the possible health and environmental impacts associated withCSOs, that notifies the public when discharges from CSOs occur and advises against contact recreation when elevated bacteria levels may endangerpublic health.)

8 Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water “State of Oho Combined Sewer Overflow Strategy” March 1995.

9 Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Combined Sewer Overflow Control Program www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/cso/csoindex.html

10 U.S. EPA Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, Fact Sheet August 2004. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/csosso_rtc_fact-sheet.pdf

11 U.S. EPA, Mid-Atlantic Water Protection: Combined Sewer Overflows & Sanitary Sewer Overflows. Last updated June 21st, 2005http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/cso/EnvironmentalHealth.htm

12 Cuyahoga Valley National Park - Water Quality. Updated Jan. 2005. http://www.nps.gov/cuva/management/rmprojects/wquality.htm

13 Rebecca N. Bushon and G.F. Koltun, (2000 and 2002). Microbiological Water Quality in Relation to Water-Contact Recreation, Cuyahoga River,Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri034333/

14 Cuyahoga Valley National Park – Water Quality. Updated Jan. 2005. http://www.nps.gov/cuva/management/rmprojects/wquality.htm

15 Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic disease. Oct. 6, 2005http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/escherichiacoli_g.htm

16 Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Parasitic Diseases. Last updated Sept. 17, 2004.http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm

17 Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Parasitic Diseases. Last updated August 19, 2005.http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/cryptosporidiosis/factsht_cryptosporidiosis.htm

18 Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic disease Oct. 13, 2005.http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/shigellosis_g.htm

19 Ohio Department of Health, South Bass Island Q & A. Feb. 22, 2005.www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/9AD40C304B814361BF8E8417FB65A842/SBIFAQ.pdf

20 Natural Resource Defense Council “Testing the Waters 2005” http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/sumohi.pdf

21 Natural Resource Defense Council “Testing the Waters 2004”

22 U.S. EPA Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, Chapter 4 p. 15 August 2004.http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/csossoRTC2004_chapter04.pdf

23 See Appendix #1. Complete list of CSO communities and outfalls in the Lake Erie watershed basin. Provided by the Ohio EPA Sept. 2005.

24 These CSO communities were chosen based on estimates of their contribution to the overall sewage overflow problem and the available information.Estimates were based off of conversations with the OEPA and the Ohio PIRG Education Fund report “Troubled Waters: an analysis of Clean Water Actcompliance, Jan. 2002-2003.”

25 U.S. EPA Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, Chapter 4 p. 15 August 2004.http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/csossoRTC2004_chapter04.pdf

26 The U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, content last updated 01/25/2004. http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/tech-nologies/eep_toilets.cfm

27 See Appendix #2. City of Akron, Ohio Wet Weather Combined Sewer Overflows Monthly Operating Reports Jan. - Dec. 2004.

15

28 See Appendix #3. Long Term Control Plan, City of Avon Lake Municipal Utilities Department, Brown and Caldwell Ohio, LLC. Dec-03 p. 4-7

29 See Appendix #4. Information received directly from Ohio EPA. Sept. 5, 2005

30 See Appendix #12. Outfall list with CSO volumes August 30, 2005 edits, provided by Frank Greenland, Deputy Director of Engineering andConstruction on October, 10, 2005.

31 See Appendix #5. Combined Sewer Overflow Annual Report. Arcadis FPS. Defiance, Ohio. January 2005.Table 3.

32 See Appendix #6. Information received directly from Ohio EPA. Sept. 5, 2005.

33 See Appendix #7. City of Findlay, Ohio Water Pollution Control Center, Annual Report, January 10, 2005.

34 See Appendix #8. Information received directly from Ohio EPA. Sept. 5, 2005.

35 Phone Conversation with Ernie Isaac, Port Clinton Wastewater Plant Operator, Nov. 1, 2005.

36 See Appendix #9. Information received directly from Ohio EPA. Oct. 10, 2005

37 See Appendix #10. Information received directly from Ohio EPA. Oct. 10, 2005

38 See Appendix #11. City of Toledo, Ohio Long Term CSO Control Plan Existing Conditions Report. The Black & Veatch Team,Table 7.8.

39 Sum total of the volume of CSO from the 11 included communities.

40 See Appendix #12. Outfall list with CSO volumes August 30, 2005 edits, provided by Frank Greenland, Deputy Director of Engineering andConstruction on October, 10, 2005.

41 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District “CSO Facilities Planning Report”

42 City of Toledo Long Term CSO Control Plan Existing Conditions Report, May 2005 p. 3-1, 4-1,

43 Phone conversation with Frank Chris Middlebrough, Acting Manager, Bay View Treatment Plant, Nov. 21, 2005. http://www.toledowaterwaysinitia-tive.com/sewer_overflows.asp

44 Toledo Waterways Initiative: http://www.toledowaterwaysinitiative.com/index.asp

45 United States and Ohio Reach Clean Water Act Settlement with City of Toledo, Ohiohttp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/59f70abeaacc274885256c24005e6240?OpenDocument

46 Toledo Waterways Initiative: http://www.toledowaterwaysinitiative.com/index.asp

47 Public Utilities Bureau, City of Akron, Ohio, Water Pollution Control Division http://ci.akron.oh.us/PubUtil/wpc/index.htm

48 Interview with Mike McGlinchy, Akron Public Utilities Bureau, September, 2005.

49 Phone conversation with Bob Greytak, City of Bucyrus Project Manager, CT Consultants, Nov. 2, 2005.

50 Email exchange with Gary Stuhlfauth, Environmental Specialist, OEPA Division of Surface Water. Oct. 20, 2005.

51 ibid.

52 Developing Successful Runoff Control Programs for Urbanized Areas, 1994, Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District. Fairfax,Virginia.http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/RUNOFF.html , Pg. 7.

53 Woodworth, James. Out of the Gutter: Reducing Polluted Runoff in the District of Columbia. Natural Resources Defense Council: July 2002.

54 Belan, Gary & B. Otto. Catching the Rain: A Great Lakes Resource Guide for Natural Storm water Management. America Rivers: 2004.

55 U.S. EPA and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/abc.html

NOTE S (C O N T ’ D)

16

COMMUNITY CSO's Permit #

AKRON 38 3PF00000AVON LAKE 14 3PD00003BLUFFTON 20 2PC00005BOWLING GREEN 1 2PD00009BUCYRUS 22 2PD00021CLYDE 3 2PD00004CRESTLINE 1 2PC00006DEFIANCE 44 2PD00013DELPHOS 6 2PD00029DELTA 9 2PB00003DESHLER 7 2PC00002DUNKIRK 6 2PB00061ELYRIA 27 3PD00034EUCLID 18 3PE00003FAYETTE 15 2PB00045FINDLAY 18 2PD00008FOREST 3 2PB00044FOSTORIA 5 2PD00031FREMONT 13 2PD00007GIBSONBURG 3 2PA00005GREEN SPRINGS 1 2PB00026GREENWICH 10 2PB00059HAMLER 6 2PB00043HICKSVILLE 5 2PB00042LAKEWOOD 9 3PE00004LEIPSIC 1 2PB00040LIMA 19 2PE00000

COMMUNITY CSO's Permit #

LUCKEY 4 2PA00080MCCOMB 2 2PB00002METAMORA 4 2PB00065MONTPELIER 3 2PD00003NAPOLEON 3 2PD00000NEORSD 126 3PA00002NORTH BALTIMORE 2 2PB00033NORWALK 3 2PD00024OAK HARBOR 9 2PB00032OHIO CITY 2 2PB00030PANDORA 7 2PB00029PAULDING 2 2PD00027PAYNE 2 2PA00019PERRYSBURG 4 2PD00002PORT CLINTON 2 2PD00014PUT IN BAY 3 2PA00067SANDUSKY 15 2PF00001SWANTON 9 2PB00025TIFFIN 30 2PD00025TOLEDO 33 2PF00000UPPER SANDUSKY 1 2PD00039VAN WERT 6 2PD00006WAPAKONETA 3 2PD00019WAUSEON 4 2PD00016WILLARD 3 2PD00005WOODVILLE 17 2PB00052TOTAL 623 Outfalls

Overflow OverflowLocation (19) Volume (MG)

Westwind Drive 20Jaycox Road 10Sunset Drive 1.3Avon Point Avenue 0.2Armour Road 0.4Beachdale Drive 0Center Road 39.6Inwood Blvd. 0Moorewood Avenue 19.6Belmar Blvd. 10.8Moore Road 12.5Avondale Avenue 0.1Miller Road 0.8North Point Drive 0Brookfield Road 14.6Miller Road @ LRI 22.8Curtis Drive 0Parkwood Drive 0Center Road PS 0.9 TOTAL 153.6

APPE N D I X # 1 LAKE ERIE WATERSHED BASIN CSO INVENTORY

APPE N D I X # 3APPE N D I X # 2

CITY OF AKRON, OHIO WET WEATHER COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS

2004

Source: Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Ohio CSO Inventory. August 2005 http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/cso/ohiocsoinventory%208%2005.pdf

City of Akron, Ohio Wet Weather Combined Sewer Overflows MonthlyOperating Reports Jan. - Dec. 2004.

Long Term Control Plan, City of Avon Lake MunicipalUtilities Department, Brown and Caldwell Ohio, LLC.Dec-03 p. 4-7.

Total# of # of Duration Volume

Month Days Events (hours) (MGD)January 88 201 283.17 40.7073February 11 20 17.85 0.3574March 114 296 182.67 37.0863April 84 133 70.86 6.2719May 267 598 450.51 179.2626June 263 450 202.13 63.133July 149 238 89.53 32.9377August 211 372 134.95 52.7326September 87 245 305.44 128.6223October 107 187 143.68 50.0461November 80 173 80.35 9.4446December 93 147 148.78 35.3539TOTAL 1554 3060 2109.92 635.9557

17

OverflowVolume

OEPA Permit # STATION DATE (MGD)

2PD00021*HD 19 03/01/04 0.025992PD00021*HD 22 03/01/04 0.025992PD00021*HD 24 04/08/04 0.017332PD00021*HD 25 04/08/04 0.017332PD00021*HD 26 04/08/04 0.017332PD00021*HD 17 06/10/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 19 06/10/04 0.12992PD00021*HD 18 07/02/04 0.001622PD00021*HD 22 08/05/04 0.021662PD00021*HD 23 08/05/04 0.021662PD00021*HD 24 08/05/04 0.021662PD00021*HD 25 08/05/04 0.021662PD00021*HD 26 08/05/04 0.021662PD00021*HD 26 08/23/04 0.004332PD00021*HD 7 08/23/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 5 09/08/04 0.017322PD00021*HD 9 09/08/04 0.017322PD00021*HD 11 09/08/04 0.017322PD00021*HD 12 09/08/04 0.017322PD00021*HD 13 09/08/04 0.017322PD00021*HD 16 09/08/04 0.017322PD00021*HD 5 09/17/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 17 09/17/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 19 09/17/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 20 09/17/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 21 09/17/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 22 09/29/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 23 09/29/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 24 09/29/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 25 09/29/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 26 09/29/04 0.012992PD00021*HD 9 10/15/04 0.019492PD00021*HD 12 10/15/04 0.019492PD00021*HD 13 10/15/04 0.019492PD00021*ID 16 11/02/04 0.017332PD00021*ID 17 11/02/04 0.017332PD00021*ID 19 11/02/04 0.017332PD00021*ID 5 11/04/04 0.021662PD00021*ID 20 11/04/04 0.021662PD00021*ID 21 11/04/04 0.021662PD00021*ID 22 11/04/04 0.021662PD00021*ID 23 11/04/04 0.021662PD00021*ID 24 11/04/04 0.02166TOTAL 0.8483

APPE N D I X # 4

Information received directly from Ohio EPA. Sept. 5, 2005

CITY OF BUCYRUS - COMBINED SEWEROVERFLOWS JAN. 2004 - DEC. 2004

OverflowLocation Volume Frequency(44) (MG/YR) (Days/Year)

A-1 17.432 148A-2 9.703 148A-3 0.951 28A-4 0.268 14A-5 2.335 52A-6 17.042 148A-7 10.908 148A-8 23.859 148A-9 9.443 148A-10 20.151 86A-11 0.280 14A-12 0.254 14A-13 6.774 148A-14 0.481 14A-15 2.448 59A-16 11.916 148A-17 1.007 29A-18 0.526 18A-19 1.381 31M-1 14.050 148M-2 17.558 148M-3 4.010 80M-4 29.217 148

OverflowLocation Volume Frequency(44) (MG/YR) (Days/Year)

M-5 22.017 148M-6 29.896 148M-7 26.011 148M-8 8.322 148M-9 10.052 148NE-1 25.840 148NE-2 5.142 30NE-3 8.613 45NE-4 3.209 26MH-24 1.705 19MH-183 4.006 26MH-454 1.804 19MH-720 0.192 31MH-1043 0.985 94MH-1115 0.000 0MH-1423 1.401 19MH-1516 0.127 18MH-1587 3.567 19MH-1639 1.041 28MH-1801 0.000 0MH-1818A 1.078 124

Total 357.002 3453

APPE N D I X # 5

Combined Sewer Overflow Annual Report. Arcadis FPS. Defiance, Ohio. January2005. Table 3.

CITY OF DEFIANCE – 2004 OVERFLOW ANNUAL TOTALS

OEPA Permit # station Date Volume (MGD)

3PD00034*HD 15 01/27/04 0.0033PD00034*HD 32 01/27/04 0.0043PD00034*HD 38 03/04/04 0.0173PD00034*HD 31 03/20/04 0.0123PD00034*HD 32 03/30/04 0.0543PD00034*HD 38 05/15/04 0.0123PD00034*HD 32 05/30/04 0.0173PD00034*HD 15 06/13/04 0.0313PD00034*HD 31 07/17/04 0.0113PD00034*HD 32 08/28/04 0.0293PD00034*HD 19 09/08/04 0.1153PD00034*HD 38 10/15/04 0.0043PD00034*HD 38 11/17/04 0.0093PD00034*HD 15 11/24/04 0.0173PD00034*HD 32 11/30/04 0.0623PD00034*HD 32 12/29/04 0.017

TOTAL 0.414

APPE N D I X # 6

Information received directly from Ohio EPA. Sept. 5, 2005

CITY OF ELYRIA

Overflow FlowLocation (17) (MG)

8003 0.00008004 14.66608005 9.97518006 0.00008007 0.00008008 0.00008009 0.00008010 0.00008011 3.7700

Overflow FlowLocation (17) (MG)

8012 0.00008013 0.00008014 0.00008015 0.00008016 0.00008017 0.00008018 0.00008019 3.9235

Total 32.335

APPE N D I X # 7

City of Findlay, Ohio Water Pollution Control Center, Annual Report, January 10, 2005.

CITY OF FINDLAY – ANNUAL TOTALS 2004

18

OverflowVolume

OEPA Permit # STATION DATE (MGD)

2PE00000*JD 2 01/03/04 0.012PE00000*JD 2 01/04/04 13.452PE00000*JD 3 01/04/04 0.082PE00000*JD 4 01/04/04 0.012PE00000*JD 5 01/04/04 6.182PE00000*JD 2 01/05/04 2.872PE00000*JD 5 01/05/04 0.342PE00000*JD 2 01/06/04 0.012PE00000*JD 2 02/20/04 0.152PE00000*JD 2 03/01/04 0.742PE00000*JD 2 03/04/04 5.412PE00000*JD 2 04/22/04 0.352PE00000*JD 2 05/07/04 3.212PE00000*JD 2 05/11/04 3.272PE00000*JD 3 05/11/04 0.252PE00000*JD 4 05/11/04 0.42PE00000*JD 5 05/11/04 8.682PE00000*JD 5 05/14/04 2.272PE00000*JD 2 05/15/04 0.952PE00000*JD 2 05/21/04 15.442PE00000*JD 5 05/22/04 0.062PE00000*JD 2 05/30/04 8.272PE00000*JD 3 05/30/04 0.192PE00000*JD 4 05/30/04 72PE00000*JD 5 05/30/04 13.632PE00000*JD 2 06/11/04 4.672PE00000*JD 3 06/11/04 0.582PE00000*JD 4 06/11/04 10.92PE00000*JD 5 06/11/04 9.952PE00000*JD 2 06/12/04 8.352PE00000*JD 3 06/12/04 1.252PE00000*JD 4 06/12/04 3.32PE00000*JD 5 06/12/04 0.092PE00000*JD 2 06/13/04 4.562PE00000*JD 3 06/13/04 0.22PE00000*JD 4 06/13/04 3.442PE00000*JD 5 06/13/04 1.182PE00000*JD 6 06/13/04 0.01

OverflowVolume

OEPA Permit # STATION DATE (MGD)

2PE00000*JD 2 06/14/04 2.732PE00000*JD 2 06/24/04 0.052PE00000*JD 3 07/11/04 0.322PE00000*JD 4 07/11/04 4.592PE00000*JD 5 07/11/04 0.162PE00000*JD 4 07/16/04 13.52PE00000*JD 3 07/21/04 1.522PE00000*JD 6 07/21/04 0.662PE00000*JD 3 07/22/04 4.932PE00000*JD 4 07/22/04 11.12PE00000*JD 5 07/22/04 0.552PE00000*JD 6 07/22/04 0.12PE00000*JD 3 07/27/04 2.212PE00000*JD 4 07/27/04 2.72PE00000*JD 4 07/31/04 22PE00000*JD 3 08/04/04 1.152PE00000*JD 4 08/04/04 6.42PE00000*JD 5 08/04/04 0.022PE00000*JD 6 08/04/04 0.412PE00000*JD 2 08/19/04 3.752PE00000*JD 3 08/19/04 0.62PE00000*JD 2 08/20/04 6.922PE00000*JD 2 08/28/04 17.582PE00000*JD 3 08/28/04 3.42PE00000*JD 4 08/28/04 13.62PE00000*JD 5 08/28/04 5.672PE00000*JD 2 10/18/04 1.312PE00000*JD 2 11/02/04 0.962PE00000*JD 2 11/04/04 2.912PE00000*JD 5 11/04/04 0.042PE00000*JD 2 11/19/04 1.842PE00000*JD 2 11/24/04 12.512PE00000*JD 2 11/25/04 0.982PE00000*JD 2 12/07/04 1.192PE00000*JD 2 12/30/04 0.032PE00000*JD 2 12/31/04 7.62

TOTAL 277.71

APPE N D I X # 8

Information received directly from Ohio EPA. Sept. 5, 2005

CITY OF LIMA

OverflowVolume

OEPA Permit # STATION DATE (MGD)

2PD00014*JD 3 05/21/04 0.52PD00014*JD 3 05/30/04 0.52PD00014*JD 3 06/14/04 0.252PD00014*JD 3 06/17/04 12PD00014*JD 3 07/22/04 12PD00014*JD 3 08/29/04 1.5

OverflowVolume

OEPA Permit # STATION DATE (MGD)

2PD00014*JD 3 10/15/04 12PD00014*JD 3 10/29/04 1.52PD00014*JD 3 11/04/04 22PD00014*JD 3 12/31/04 2.5

TOTAL 11.75

APPE N D I X # 9

Information received directly from Ohio EPA. Oct. 10, 2005

THE CITY OF PORT CLINTON – 1/04 - 12/04

19

VolumePermit# STATION DATE (MGD)

2PF00001*LD 5 01/04/04 0.0222PF00001*LD 7 01/04/04 0.1992PF00001*LD 9 01/04/04 0.1312PF00001*LD 11 01/04/04 0.1472PF00001*LD 13 01/04/04 0.0732PF00001*LD 17 01/04/04 0.6082PF00001*LD 19 01/04/04 0.142PF00001*LD 21 01/04/04 0.0922PF00001*LD 17 01/05/04 1.912PF00001*LD 17 01/05/04 1.912PF00001*LD 19 01/05/04 0.132PF00001*LD 21 01/05/04 0.1292PF00001*LD 4 03/04/04 0.0042PF00001*LD 5 03/04/04 0.0212PF00001*LD 6 03/04/04 0.9412PF00001*LD 7 03/04/04 0.1692PF00001*LD 11 03/04/04 0.0552PF00001*LD 13 03/04/04 0.0262PF00001*LD 16 03/04/04 0.1172PF00001*LD 17 03/04/04 1.972PF00001*LD 21 03/04/04 0.0872PF00001*LD 5 03/05/04 0.0052PF00001*LD 6 03/05/04 0.7422PF00001*LD 7 03/05/04 0.2622PF00001*LD 16 03/05/04 0.042PF00001*LD 17 03/05/04 0.4162PF00001*LD 21 03/05/04 0.012PF00001*LD 5 03/20/04 0.0052PF00001*LD 6 03/20/04 0.9442PF00001*LD 7 03/20/04 0.1332PF00001*LD 11 03/20/04 0.022PF00001*LD 13 03/20/04 0.0182PF00001*LD 14 03/20/04 0.0072PF00001*LD 16 03/20/04 0.0862PF00001*LD 17 03/20/04 1.32PF00001*LD 19 03/20/04 0.022PF00001*LD 21 03/20/04 0.0872PF00001*LD 6 03/21/04 0.5892PF00001*LD 7 03/21/04 0.1812PF00001*LD 13 03/21/04 0.0052PF00001*LD 16 03/21/04 0.0912PF00001*LD 17 03/21/04 1.122PF00001*LD 21 03/21/04 0.0672PF00001*LD 6 03/29/04 0.7242PF00001*LD 7 03/29/04 0.1292PF00001*LD 13 03/29/04 0.0432PF00001*LD 16 03/29/04 0.0932PF00001*LD 17 03/29/04 1.32PF00001*LD 21 03/29/04 0.0722PF00001*LD 4 03/30/04 0.2762PF00001*LD 5 03/30/04 0.3272PF00001*LD 6 03/30/04 7.852PF00001*LD 7 03/30/04 1.62PF00001*LD 11 03/30/04 0.482PF00001*LD 13 03/30/04 0.482PF00001*LD 14 03/30/04 0.0672PF00001*LD 16 03/30/04 0.4832PF00001*LD 17 03/30/04 17.62PF00001*LD 19 03/30/04 0.482PF00001*LD 21 03/30/04 0.4272PF00001*LD 4 03/31/04 0.0052PF00001*LD 5 03/31/04 0.0142PF00001*LD 6 03/31/04 3.562PF00001*LD 7 03/31/04 0.982PF00001*LD 13 03/31/04 0.0192PF00001*LD 17 03/31/04 0.1972PF00001*LD 21 03/31/04 0.0192PF00001*LD 4 04/01/04 0.0112PF00001*LD 5 04/01/04 0.1092PF00001*LD 6 04/01/04 3.82PF00001*LD 7 04/01/04 0.4812PF00001*LD 11 04/01/04 0.132PF00001*LD 13 04/01/04 0.1312PF00001*LD 16 04/01/04 0.1842PF00001*LD 17 04/01/04 2.282PF00001*LD 19 04/01/04 0.132PF00001*LD 21 04/01/04 0.132PF00001*LD 4 04/02/04 0.0242PF00001*LD 6 04/02/04 3.67

VolumePermit# STATION DATE (MGD)

2PF00001*LD 7 04/02/04 1.262PF00001*LD 13 04/02/04 0.1562PF00001*LD 16 04/02/04 0.2752PF00001*LD 17 04/02/04 2.432PF00001*LD 19 04/02/04 0.152PF00001*LD 21 04/02/04 0.1882PF00001*LD 6 04/03/04 2.942PF00001*LD 7 04/03/04 0.3082PF00001*LD 16 04/03/04 0.0852PF00001*LD 17 04/03/04 0.3312PF00001*LD 21 04/03/04 0.0112PF00001*LD 6 04/04/04 0.6562PF00001*LD 8 04/04/04 0.0142PF00001*LD 21 04/04/04 0.0082PF00001*LD 17 04/21/04 1.222PF00001*LD 21 04/21/04 0.0232PF00001*LD 6 05/01/04 0.8972PF00001*LD 7 05/01/04 0.0772PF00001*LD 8 05/01/04 0.0012PF00001*LD 11 05/01/04 0.0232PF00001*LD 13 05/01/04 0.0082PF00001*LD 14 05/01/04 0.0012PF00001*LD 16 05/01/04 0.0652PF00001*LD 19 05/01/04 0.0232PF00001*LD 21 05/01/04 0.0852PF00001*LD 5 05/02/04 0.0152PF00001*LD 6 05/02/04 6.112PF00001*LD 7 05/02/04 0.4832PF00001*LD 8 05/02/04 0.0222PF00001*LD 11 05/02/04 0.12PF00001*LD 13 05/02/04 0.1342PF00001*LD 14 05/02/04 0.0062PF00001*LD 16 05/02/04 0.3632PF00001*LD 17 05/02/04 0.6152PF00001*LD 19 05/02/04 0.12PF00001*LD 21 05/02/04 0.2612PF00001*LD 4 05/07/04 0.0322PF00001*LD 5 05/07/04 0.0172PF00001*LD 6 05/07/04 0.8842PF00001*LD 7 05/07/04 0.1762PF00001*LD 8 05/07/04 0.0052PF00001*LD 11 05/07/04 0.0682PF00001*LD 13 05/07/04 0.0322PF00001*LD 14 05/07/04 0.0232PF00001*LD 16 05/07/04 0.1612PF00001*LD 17 05/07/04 1.482PF00001*LD 19 05/07/04 0.0682PF00001*LD 21 05/07/04 0.1072PF00001*LD 6 05/11/04 0.2292PF00001*LD 14 05/11/04 0.0022PF00001*LD 16 05/11/04 0.0442PF00001*LD 21 05/11/04 0.0512PF00001*LD 5 05/14/04 0.0082PF00001*LD 6 05/14/04 0.3762PF00001*LD 7 05/14/04 0.0532PF00001*LD 11 05/14/04 0.0162PF00001*LD 13 05/14/04 0.0092PF00001*LD 14 05/14/04 0.0122PF00001*LD 16 05/14/04 0.1272PF00001*LD 17 05/14/04 0.272PF00001*LD 19 05/14/04 0.0092PF00001*LD 21 05/14/04 0.142PF00001*LD 6 05/17/04 0.192PF00001*LD 11 05/17/04 0.032PF00001*LD 14 05/17/04 0.0012PF00001*LD 16 05/17/04 0.0092PF00001*LD 17 05/17/04 0.1742PF00001*LD 21 05/17/04 0.0082PF00001*LD 4 05/18/04 0.0312PF00001*LD 5 05/18/04 0.012PF00001*LD 6 05/18/04 2.792PF00001*LD 7 05/18/04 0.2072PF00001*LD 8 05/18/04 0.0242PF00001*LD 11 05/18/04 0.032PF00001*LD 13 05/18/04 0.0542PF00001*LD 14 05/18/04 0.0342PF00001*LD 16 05/18/04 0.1922PF00001*LD 17 05/18/04 3.012PF00001*LD 19 05/18/04 0.054

VolumePermit# STATION DATE (MGD)

2PF00001*LD 21 05/18/04 0.1512PF00001*LD 6 05/19/04 0.9212PF00001*LD 7 05/19/04 0.0412PF00001*LD 8 05/19/04 0.0042PF00001*LD 13 05/19/04 0.0092PF00001*LD 19 05/19/04 0.0092PF00001*LD 21 05/19/04 0.0212PF00001*LD 4 05/21/04 0.0192PF00001*LD 5 05/21/04 0.032PF00001*LD 6 05/21/04 4.072PF00001*LD 7 05/21/04 0.2872PF00001*LD 8 05/21/04 0.0232PF00001*LD 13 05/21/04 0.1582PF00001*LD 14 05/21/04 0.042PF00001*LD 16 05/21/04 0.2882PF00001*LD 17 05/21/04 3.112PF00001*LD 19 05/21/04 0.1582PF00001*LD 21 05/21/04 0.1882PF00001*LD 6 05/22/04 5.232PF00001*LD 7 05/22/04 0.0692PF00001*LD 8 05/22/04 0.0052PF00001*LD 13 05/22/04 0.042PF00001*LD 19 05/22/04 0.042PF00001*LD 21 05/22/04 0.0382PF00001*LD 6 05/23/04 0.0552PF00001*LD 7 05/23/04 0.0252PF00001*LD 8 05/23/04 0.0562PF00001*LD 11 05/23/04 0.0412PF00001*LD 13 05/23/04 0.122PF00001*LD 16 05/23/04 0.012PF00001*LD 17 05/23/04 0.262PF00001*LD 19 05/23/04 0.0412PF00001*LD 21 05/23/04 0.0412PF00001*LD 4 05/24/04 0.0152PF00001*LD 6 05/24/04 4.542PF00001*LD 7 05/24/04 0.1892PF00001*LD 8 05/24/04 0.0552PF00001*LD 11 05/24/04 0.0282PF00001*LD 13 05/24/04 0.1452PF00001*LD 14 05/24/04 0.0662PF00001*LD 16 05/24/04 0.1922PF00001*LD 17 05/24/04 2.992PF00001*LD 19 05/24/04 0.0662PF00001*LD 21 05/24/04 0.1152PF00001*LD 4 05/30/04 0.022PF00001*LD 5 05/30/04 0.0232PF00001*LD 6 05/30/04 22PF00001*LD 7 05/30/04 0.2222PF00001*LD 11 05/30/04 0.4682PF00001*LD 13 05/30/04 0.122PF00001*LD 14 05/30/04 0.0572PF00001*LD 16 05/30/04 0.0662PF00001*LD 17 05/30/04 0.8022PF00001*LD 19 05/30/04 0.142PF00001*LD 21 05/30/04 0.142PF00001*LD 5 05/31/04 0.0042PF00001*LD 6 05/31/04 2.312PF00001*LD 7 05/31/04 0.1372PF00001*LD 8 05/31/04 0.0082PF00001*LD 11 05/31/04 0.0192PF00001*LD 13 05/31/04 0.0742PF00001*LD 16 05/31/04 0.0012PF00001*LD 17 05/31/04 1.162PF00001*LD 19 05/31/04 0.0432PF00001*LD 21 05/31/04 0.0432PF00001*LD 4 06/10/04 0.0042PF00001*LD 5 06/10/04 0.0262PF00001*LD 6 06/10/04 3.22PF00001*LD 7 06/10/04 0.1542PF00001*LD 8 06/10/04 0.022PF00001*LD 9 06/10/04 0.2232PF00001*LD 11 06/10/04 0.2232PF00001*LD 13 06/10/04 0.2232PF00001*LD 14 06/10/04 0.0962PF00001*LD 16 06/10/04 0.2482PF00001*LD 17 06/10/04 2.232PF00001*LD 19 06/10/04 0.2232PF00001*LD 21 06/10/04 0.1762PF00001*LD 5 06/11/04 0.025

APPE N D I X # 1 0CITY OF SANDUSKY – 1/04 - 12/04

20

VolumePermit# STATION DATE (MGD)

2PF00001*LD 6 06/11/04 4.62PF00001*LD 7 06/11/04 0.182PF00001*LD 8 06/11/04 0.0642PF00001*LD 9 06/11/04 0.3322PF00001*LD 11 06/11/04 0.3322PF00001*LD 13 06/11/04 0.3322PF00001*LD 14 06/11/04 0.1582PF00001*LD 16 06/11/04 0.0982PF00001*LD 17 06/11/04 6.232PF00001*LD 19 06/11/04 0.3322PF00001*LD 21 06/11/04 0.1792PF00001*LD 5 06/12/04 0.0072PF00001*LD 6 06/12/04 0.6282PF00001*LD 7 06/12/04 0.0282PF00001*LD 9 06/12/04 0.0282PF00001*LD 13 06/12/04 0.0282PF00001*LD 14 06/12/04 0.2042PF00001*LD 17 06/12/04 1.52PF00001*LD 19 06/12/04 0.0282PF00001*LD 21 06/12/04 0.0172PF00001*LD 6 06/13/04 0.7662PF00001*LD 14 06/13/04 0.0012PF00001*LD 16 06/13/04 0.0442PF00001*LD 17 06/13/04 0.2132PF00001*LD 21 06/13/04 0.0562PF00001*LD 4 06/14/04 0.182PF00001*LD 6 06/14/04 2.842PF00001*LD 7 06/14/04 0.2462PF00001*LD 8 06/14/04 0.1062PF00001*LD 9 06/14/04 0.2632PF00001*LD 11 06/14/04 0.2362PF00001*LD 13 06/14/04 0.2362PF00001*LD 14 06/14/04 0.112PF00001*LD 16 06/14/04 0.3312PF00001*LD 17 06/14/04 9.532PF00001*LD 19 06/14/04 0.2362PF00001*LD 21 06/14/04 0.2542PF00001*LD 6 06/15/04 3.812PF00001*LD 9 06/15/04 0.2142PF00001*LD 13 06/15/04 0.2142PF00001*LD 14 06/15/04 0.1252PF00001*LD 19 06/15/04 0.2142PF00001*LD 21 06/15/04 0.0842PF00001*LD 5 06/16/04 0.0042PF00001*LD 6 06/16/04 2.832PF00001*LD 9 06/16/04 0.1882PF00001*LD 11 06/16/04 0.1882PF00001*LD 13 06/16/04 0.1882PF00001*LD 14 06/16/04 0.0172PF00001*LD 16 06/16/04 0.112PF00001*LD 17 06/16/04 0.2532PF00001*LD 19 06/16/04 0.1882PF00001*LD 21 06/16/04 0.1592PF00001*LD 5 06/17/04 0.0222PF00001*LD 6 06/17/04 2.692PF00001*LD 7 06/17/04 0.1142PF00001*LD 8 06/17/04 0.0372PF00001*LD 9 06/17/04 0.1922PF00001*LD 11 06/17/04 0.1922PF00001*LD 13 06/17/04 0.1922PF00001*LD 14 06/17/04 0.0342PF00001*LD 16 06/17/04 0.0922PF00001*LD 17 06/17/04 1.532PF00001*LD 19 06/17/04 0.1922PF00001*LD 21 06/17/04 0.1512PF00001*LD 5 06/18/04 0.012PF00001*LD 6 06/18/04 1.052PF00001*LD 9 06/18/04 0.0472PF00001*LD 13 06/18/04 0.0472PF00001*LD 19 06/18/04 0.0472PF00001*LD 21 06/18/04 0.0652PF00001*LD 5 06/25/04 0.0142PF00001*LD 6 06/25/04 0.7182PF00001*LD 7 06/25/04 0.0792PF00001*LD 8 06/25/04 0.0062PF00001*LD 9 06/25/04 0.0452PF00001*LD 13 06/25/04 0.0452PF00001*LD 14 06/25/04 0.0012PF00001*LD 17 06/25/04 0.6582PF00001*LD 19 06/25/04 0.0452PF00001*LD 21 06/25/04 0.0732PF00001*LD 6 06/28/04 0.1352PF00001*LD 7 06/28/04 0.134

VolumePermit# STATION DATE (MGD)

2PF00001*LD 8 06/28/04 0.0052PF00001*LD 14 06/28/04 0.0032PF00001*LD 21 06/28/04 0.042PF00001*LD 4 07/04/04 0.2322PF00001*LD 5 07/04/04 0.3952PF00001*LD 6 07/04/04 4.1332PF00001*LD 7 07/04/04 0.5252PF00001*LD 8 07/04/04 0.2812PF00001*LD 9 07/04/04 0.3952PF00001*LD 11 07/04/04 0.3952PF00001*LD 13 07/04/04 0.3952PF00001*LD 14 07/04/04 0.1922PF00001*LD 15 07/04/04 0.0582PF00001*LD 16 07/04/04 0.4672PF00001*LD 17 07/04/04 7.8942PF00001*LD 19 07/04/04 0.3952PF00001*LD 21 07/04/04 0.2072PF00001*LD 4 07/17/04 0.4442PF00001*LD 5 07/17/04 0.0392PF00001*LD 6 07/17/04 3.9662PF00001*LD 7 07/17/04 0.3112PF00001*LD 8 07/17/04 0.2332PF00001*LD 9 07/17/04 0.9982PF00001*LD 11 07/17/04 0.552PF00001*LD 13 07/17/04 0.772PF00001*LD 14 07/17/04 0.3552PF00001*LD 15 07/17/04 0.1112PF00001*LD 16 07/17/04 0.772PF00001*LD 17 07/17/04 14.0082PF00001*LD 19 07/17/04 0.552PF00001*LD 21 07/17/04 0.5662PF00001*LD 4 07/18/04 0.4282PF00001*LD 6 07/18/04 9.6682PF00001*LD 7 07/18/04 0.1652PF00001*LD 8 07/18/04 0.0462PF00001*LD 9 07/18/04 2.7112PF00001*LD 11 07/18/04 0.312PF00001*LD 13 07/18/04 0.6552PF00001*LD 14 07/18/04 0.172PF00001*LD 15 07/18/04 0.0052PF00001*LD 16 07/18/04 0.6652PF00001*LD 17 07/18/04 6.5462PF00001*LD 19 07/18/04 0.312PF00001*LD 21 07/18/04 0.3172PF00001*LD 6 07/31/04 0.292PF00001*LD 16 07/31/04 0.0672PF00001*LD 21 07/31/04 0.0192PF00001*LD 6 08/04/04 0.6192PF00001*LD 8 08/04/04 0.052PF00001*LD 9 08/04/04 0.042PF00001*LD 13 08/04/04 0.132PF00001*LD 16 08/04/04 0.1272PF00001*LD 17 08/04/04 0.2612PF00001*LD 21 08/04/04 0.0232PF00001*LD 6 08/19/04 2.022PF00001*LD 7 08/19/04 0.1952PF00001*LD 9 08/19/04 0.5672PF00001*LD 13 08/19/04 0.0862PF00001*LD 14 08/19/04 0.0262PF00001*LD 16 08/19/04 0.1722PF00001*LD 17 08/19/04 0.8452PF00001*LD 19 08/19/04 0.0862PF00001*LD 21 08/19/04 0.0432PF00001*LD 6 08/20/04 1.272PF00001*LD 7 08/20/04 0.0382PF00001*LD 8 08/20/04 0.0032PF00001*LD 9 08/20/04 0.0542PF00001*LD 13 08/20/04 0.0282PF00001*LD 16 08/20/04 0.0552PF00001*LD 17 08/20/04 1.022PF00001*LD 19 08/20/04 0.0282PF00001*LD 21 08/20/04 0.0052PF00001*LD 5 08/27/04 0.0122PF00001*LD 6 08/27/04 0.6612PF00001*LD 7 08/27/04 0.1462PF00001*LD 8 08/27/04 0.0212PF00001*LD 9 08/27/04 0.092PF00001*LD 13 08/27/04 0.0872PF00001*LD 14 08/27/04 0.0622PF00001*LD 16 08/27/04 0.1742PF00001*LD 17 08/27/04 2.092PF00001*LD 19 08/27/04 0.0872PF00001*LD 21 08/27/04 0.076

VolumePermit# STATION DATE (MGD)

2PF00001*LD 5 08/29/04 0.0072PF00001*LD 6 08/29/04 0.8882PF00001*LD 7 08/29/04 0.0252PF00001*LD 8 08/29/04 0.0032PF00001*LD 9 08/29/04 0.052PF00001*LD 13 08/29/04 0.0732PF00001*LD 14 08/29/04 0.0222PF00001*LD 19 08/29/04 0.0732PF00001*LD 21 08/29/04 0.0362PF00001*LD 5 09/08/04 0.0972PF00001*LD 6 09/08/04 1.262PF00001*LD 7 09/08/04 0.0742PF00001*LD 9 09/08/04 0.0392PF00001*LD 13 09/08/04 0.0392PF00001*LD 14 09/08/04 0.0392PF00001*LD 16 09/08/04 0.0782PF00001*LD 17 09/08/04 2.062PF00001*LD 19 09/08/04 0.0392PF00001*LD 21 09/08/04 0.0082PF00001*LD 6 10/29/04 0.3782PF00001*LD 7 10/29/04 0.1392PF00001*LD 17 10/29/04 22PF00001*LD 19 10/29/04 0.0272PF00001*LD 21 10/29/04 0.0372PF00001*LD 6 11/02/04 0.0092PF00001*LD 7 11/02/04 0.0152PF00001*LD 11 11/02/04 0.0062PF00001*LD 16 11/02/04 0.0282PF00001*LD 21 11/02/04 0.0572PF00001*LD 5 11/04/04 0.0612PF00001*LD 6 11/04/04 1.542PF00001*LD 7 11/04/04 0.4512PF00001*LD 9 11/04/04 0.1232PF00001*LD 13 11/04/04 0.0282PF00001*LD 14 11/04/04 0.0182PF00001*LD 16 11/04/04 0.232PF00001*LD 17 11/04/04 3.952PF00001*LD 19 11/04/04 0.1162PF00001*LD 21 11/04/04 0.1032PF00001*LD 6 11/19/04 0.0742PF00001*LD 7 11/19/04 0.0742PF00001*LD 11 11/19/04 0.0112PF00001*LD 13 11/19/04 0.0032PF00001*LD 14 11/19/04 0.0042PF00001*LD 16 11/19/04 0.0382PF00001*LD 17 11/19/04 1.3962PF00001*LD 21 11/19/04 0.0452PF00001*LD 5 11/24/04 0.0232PF00001*LD 6 11/24/04 6.4892PF00001*LD 9 11/24/04 0.5092PF00001*LD 13 11/24/04 0.1032PF00001*LD 16 11/24/04 0.362PF00001*LD 17 11/24/04 1.2462PF00001*LD 19 11/24/04 0.182PF00001*LD 21 11/24/04 0.0762PF00001*LD 6 11/25/04 2.0362PF00001*LD 7 11/25/04 0.3332PF00001*LD 16 11/25/04 0.1442PF00001*LD 17 11/25/04 0.4962PF00001*LD 17 11/30/04 12PF00001*LD 21 11/30/04 0.0322PF00001*LD 6 12/10/04 0.8062PF00001*LD 16 12/10/04 0.0712PF00001*LD 21 12/10/04 0.0242PF00001*LD 6 12/30/04 0.1442PF00001*LD 7 12/30/04 0.0862PF00001*LD 16 12/30/04 0.0912PF00001*LD 17 12/30/04 1.0852PF00001*LD 21 12/30/04 0.0142PF00001*LD 4 12/31/04 0.9422PF00001*LD 5 12/31/04 0.5862PF00001*LD 6 12/31/04 7.7382PF00001*LD 7 12/31/04 1.5842PF00001*LD 8 12/31/04 0.012PF00001*LD 9 12/31/04 1.1892PF00001*LD 11 12/31/04 0.2362PF00001*LD 13 12/31/04 0.2362PF00001*LD 14 12/31/04 0.0712PF00001*LD 16 12/31/04 0.9472PF00001*LD 17 12/31/04 30.9582PF00001*LD 19 12/31/04 0.9472PF00001*LD 21 12/31/04 0.323TOTAL 331.69

Information received directly from Ohio EPA. Oct. 10, 2005

21

Overflow Frequency of Annual Overflow Annual Overflow Location (36) Overflows Volume (MG) Duration (HR)

Avg. Per Year Avg. Per Year Avg. Per Year (1997-2001) (1997-2001) (1997-2001)

Paine 16 6.7 97Dearborn 28 29.7 333Main 14 4.7 66Nevada 30 77 554Fasset 4 1.1 15Oakdale 25 115.2 558Columbus 13 5 64Galena 5 0.4 18Ash 15 5.2 86Magnolia 17 5.3 94Locust 23 9.6 177Jackson 1 0.1 2Adams 0 0 0Jefferson 7 0.6 31Bostwick 6 0.7 24Maumee 33 38.2 478Knapp 3 0.7 23Hamilton 5 53.3 72Ewing 2 1.4 12Hawley 3 1 23Junction 11 12.1 64Hillside 0 0 0Highland 0 0 0Lagrange 11 4.7 59Windermere 24 56.7 304Devilbiss 3 1.6 33Lockwood 21 77.5 294Ayers 13 5.9 68Monroe 13 17.1 158Downtown Tunnel 9 74.1 90Swan South Tunnel 4 18.8 45Maumee River, Combined 33 374.4 770Maumee River, East 30 234.6 718Maumee River, West 33 139.6 542Swan Creek 11 86.4 126Ottwa River 26 163.8 405TOTAL AVERAGE 492 1623.2 6403

APPE N D I X # 1 1

City of Toledo, Ohio Long Term CSO Control Plan Existing Conditions Report. The Black & Veatch Team, Table 7.8.

CITY OF TOLEDO, OHIOSUMMARY OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW INFORMATION AT INDIVIDUAL OUTFALLS

22

A PPE N D I X # 1 2 Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District

23

A PPE N D I X # 1 2 (C O N T ’ D ) Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District

24