The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) is responsible for protecting the public health and the environment by regulating discharges of wastewater to Michigan’s surface waters. Anyone discharging wastewater into the surface waters of the state is required by law to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The NPDES program regulates municipalities and industries that discharge directly into lakes, and streams by limiting pollutants and requiring other protections.
EGLE is undertaking several efforts to address PFAS in surface waters, including monitoring municipal and industrial discharges, implementing the Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP) PFAS Initiative, and monitoring lakes and streams.
Updated: December 2, 2020
EGLE’s Water Resources Division (WRD) has added PFAS sampling into routine NPDES permit compliance sampling inspections to further understand the prevalence of PFAS in wastewaters of Michigan. Since 2017, EGLE has sampled 45 municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) and 28 industrial dischargers (industries including airports, landfills, paper plants, and groundwater clean-up sites for other contaminants) for a total of 107 samples collected.
Xổ số trực tiếp thành phốMany industries discharge to municipal WWTPs rather than discharge directly to surface waters. Municipal WWTPs often regulate their industrial users through the IPP required by their NPDES permit. The IPPs provide the basis for WWTPs to regulate industries so industrial pollutants do not interfere with treatment processes or pass through to our lakes and streams. IPPs may require industries to pretreat wastewater or otherwise reduce or eliminate harmful pollutants. The IPP is a federally mandated program and a core part of the federal Clean Water Act.
Municipal WWTPs major sources of PFOS and PFOA come from industries that have used PFAS-containing chemicals (such as chrome platers and paper manufacturers) and industrial users that may have accepted wastes that used PFAS-containing chemicals in their processes and/or products (such as landfills and centralized waste treaters). Although chemical manufacturers in the United States voluntarily stopped making PFOS and PFOA years ago, these persistent chemicals may be found in factories years after they were used. Sites contaminated by firefighting foams or PFAS-contaminated industrial wastes have also been found to be sources for WWTPs when they discharge to the sanitary sewer.
Unfortunately, conventional WWTP treatment does not effectively remove PFAS if it is discharged to the sewer system by industries or contaminated sites. Instead, PFAS may be passed through treatment to lakes, streams, and groundwater, as well as interfere with management of solids from the treatment process referred to as sludge or biosolids.
In order to address the potential that municipal WWTPs could be passing through elevated levels of PFAS through their treatment systems to lakes and streams, EGLE launched the IPP PFAS Initiative in February 2018.
Xổ số trực tiếp thành phốThe IPP PFAS Initiative required all municipal WWTPs with required IPPs (95 statewide) to find out if they were passing through PFOS and/or PFOA to surface waters and, if found, to reduce and eliminate any sources. Under the Initiative, WWTPs were required to:
Xổ số trực tiếp thành phốAs a part of this effort, theWRD developed numerous documents, including Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Wastewater PFAS Sampling Guidance, and Recommended PFAS Screening and Evaluation Guidance.
Some key observations the WRD has made to date (November 2020):
|Municipal WWTP||PFOS, Effluent (ppt, as of November 2020)||PFOS Reduction in Effluent (highest to most recent)||Actions Taken to Reduce PFOS|
|Ionia WWTP||< 8.49||99%||Treatment (GAC) at source (1)|
|Lapeer||17*||99%||Treatment (GAC) at source (1)|
|Wixom||16*||99%||Treatment (GAC) at source (1)|
|Howell||5.2||96%||Treatment (GAC/resin) at source (1)|
|Bronson||10||96%||Treatment (GAC) at source (1)|
|Kalamazoo||3.1||92%||Treatment (GAC) at source (2), change water supply|
|K.I. Sawyer*||9.3||96%||Eliminated leak PFOS-containing fire-fighting foam|
|GLWA (Detroit)||9.8||74%||Treatment (GAC) at sources (17)|
|Belding||9.4||32%||Restricted landfill leachate quanitity accepted|
|Port Huron||18*||99%||Elimination of source PFOS (2)|
*Effluent exceeds WQS of ppt
Monitoring results, if applicable, are provided for each WWTP that participated in the IPP PFAS Initiative in the interactive map below. Additional information for each WWTP can be found in the WRD’s online permitting and compliance database at Michigan.gov/MiWaters.
This application contains a complex map. Call 517-284-6726 for assistance with reading or interpreting. If you have questions or comments, please contact: EGLE-Maps@Michigan.gov.
Statewide PFAS Assessment of WWTPs and Biosolids/Sludge
In 2018, the WRD implemented two initiatives to assess potential environmental impacts of PFAS associated with municipal wastewater. The first initiative, the IPP PFAS Initiative, was launched in February 2018. As described above, the purpose of the IPP PFAS Initiative was to evaluate the potential for PFAS from industrial sources to pass through WWTPs to receiving waters (groundwater, lakes, and streams), and to reduce or eliminate significant industrial sources of PFAS to the municipal system. Two years into implementation, of the 95 WWTPs with IPPs, 46% did not identify any significant industrial sources of PFOS or PFOA to their system, 23% identified significant industrial sources but the WWTP discharge still meets state water quality values, and 31% identified significant industrial sources and the WWTP discharge exceeds state water quality values.
The WRD launched a second initiative in the fall of 2018. Under this initiative, a statewide PFAS assessment of 42 WWTPs was conducted to better understand the fate of PFOS and PFOA at municipal WWTPs. Influent, effluent and biosolids/sludge sampling was performed to calculate mass balances for PFOS and PFOA through municipal wastewater treatment processes. The 20 largest WWTPs with the highest flows, along with an additional 22 WWTPs with various treatment processes, were selected. A total of 23 agricultural fields associated with 9 WWTPs were also evaluated for potential PFAS impacts utilizing soil, surface water, tile drains, and groundwater samples. This statewide PFAS sampling study provides a robust evaluation of potential PFAS impacts to the WWTPs and biosolids from Michigan.
Identified Industrial Sources of PFOS to Municipal WWTPs (Report): The Wastewater Workgroup summarized the industrial sources of PFOS to municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) that were identified through the IPP PFAS Initiative. Sources are defined as those industrial users with discharges to WWTPs greater than 12 ppt, which was used as screening level. The majority of significant PFOS sources were metal finishers with a history of fume suppressant use, contaminated sites associated with industries or activities with PFOS usage, and landfills that accepted industrial wastes containing PFOS.
NPDES PFAS Permitting Strategy
Moving forward, the Wastewater Workgroup has developed a Municipal NPDES Permitting Strategy for PFOS and PFOA. The goal of the strategy is to continue to identify, reduce, and remove PFOS and PFOA at WWTPs.
Xổ số trực tiếp thành phốThe Wastewater Workgroup developed an Industrial Direct Discharger and Industrial Storm Water Compliance Strategy for addressing PFOS and PFOA discharges from industrial direct and industrial storm water discharges. The goal of the strategy is to reduce or eliminate PFOS and PFOA from industrial facilities holding NPDES and Groundwater Discharge permits to meet applicable criteria.