RFR-Page 4
14. Do the rules incorporate the recommendations received from the public regarding any
complaints or comments regarding the rules? If yes, please explain.
Yes, the proposed rules incorporate recommendations received from a diverse stakeholder group.
The proposed collection system and RTB facility classification and operator certification rules
were developed over a series of 18 meetings, and the group recommended facility classification
levels and requirements; proposed examination questions for future certification requirements; and
commented on EGLE’s recommendation to streamline the construction permit process.
15. If amending an existing rule set, please provide the date of the last evaluation of the rules
and the degree, if any, to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed
the regulatory activity covered by the rules since the last evaluation.
The dates of previous evaluations of the rules occurred in 1979 and 2003.
EGLE is addressing longstanding operation and maintenance issues with collection systems by
proposing a permit, facility classification, and corresponding operator certification. The additional
oversight, operation, and maintenance requirements for the collection systems will provide more
protection for public health and the environment and assist the receiving wastewater treatment
plants to better manage their systems to meet permit requirements.
The proposed RTB facility classification and corresponding operator certification requirement will
improve the quality of operation of RTB facilities by focusing operator knowledge on operational
situations and processes unique to these types of facilities. Most RTB facilities require operator
certification at the Class D level or with industrial wastewater treatment certifications that reflect
the waste treatment at those systems. Neither of those certification processes accurately reflect the
nature of an RTB facility. The proposed RTB certification will allow those operators to become
properly certified with relevant information and continuing education requirements.
In 2003, a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling invalidated R 299.2933(4), 1954 ACS 85, as
amended, promulgated pursuant to Part 41 [Subrule 33(4)]. Specifically, the court determined that
EGLE (then the Department of Environmental Quality) could not require persons who are
requesting a permit for constructing and operating a sewerage system designed for public use to
first obtain a resolution from the local unit of government (LUG) as a guarantee that the LUG
would assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the system in the event that the
private owner fails to perform these functions. The court further found that EGLE does not have
the statutory authority to force the LUG to pass the resolution. A guiding principle of Part 41 is
intended to protect property owners that depend on another person for sewage disposal. After the
court ruling, EGLE established an alternative process (WRD Policy and Procedure
No. WRD-010) to ensure that sewerage systems governed under Part 41 are continually operated
and maintained to avoid the unauthorized discharge of raw or untreated sewage into the waters of
the state and ensure that sewage is not potentially prejudicial to public health. The proposed rule
revisions include language for meeting these requirements and will streamline permitting for such
systems by setting clear expectations in rule for privately owned, publicly used systems so that
they may plan accordingly when submitting applications for Part 41 Permits.
Additionally, rule revisions for addressing revisions to approved plans so that the rule is consistent
with the statute are proposed. There are discrepancies as to how minor revisions are handled; the
statute requires approval for minor revisions to plans while the existing rules allow for minor
revisions without EGLE approval.
16. Are there any changes or developments since implementation that demonstrate there is no
continued need for the rules, or any portion of the rules?
MCL 24.239