Policy Committee Meeting Agenda Clean Water Council July 26, 2019 9:30 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. MPCA Room 100 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 2019-2020 Policy Committee members: Rep. Patty Acomb, John Barten (Chair), Pam Blixt, Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Rylee Main, Raj Rajan, Victoria Reinhardt (Vice Chair), & Phil Sterner 9:30 Regular Business • Approve today’s agenda • Approve minutes for April 26, 2019 meeting • Chair and staff update 9:45 Next Steps for Managing Micro and Nano plastics – John Barten lead 10:45 Surface Water and Untreated Waste Water • Surface and groundwater impacts of failing subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS): Jim Zeigler and Aaron Jensen (MPCA) • County perspective: Eric Van Dyken, Kandiyohi County 12:00 Lunch 12:30 continue Surface Water and Untreated Waste Water • What has worked in the past – Sewer Squad: Sheila Craig, Cannon River Watershed Partnership and formerly of SE MN Wastewater Initiative • One Watershed, One Plan, Watershed Framework and Wastewater – Kevin Bigalke, BWSR 1:45 New Business • Future policy topics • Tentative Policy Committee meetings: ∗ August 23, 2019: Climate Change and stormwater systems ∗ September 27, 2019: Revisit Waste Pharmaceutical disposal and other recent Policy Statements 2:00 Adjourn Policy Committee web page: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/r9rq9y3 wq-cwc5-19g
70
Embed
Clean Water Council Policy Committee Meeting Packet July ......Policy Committee Meeting Agenda Clean Water Council July 26, 2019 9:30 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. MPCA Room 100 520 Lafayette
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Policy Committee Meeting Agenda Clean Water Council
July 26, 2019 9:30 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.
MPCA Room 100 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN
2019-2020 Policy Committee members: Rep. Patty Acomb, John Barten (Chair), Pam Blixt, Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Rylee Main, Raj Rajan, Victoria Reinhardt (Vice Chair), & Phil Sterner
9:30 Regular Business • Approve today’s agenda• Approve minutes for April 26, 2019 meeting• Chair and staff update
9:45 Next Steps for Managing Micro and Nano plastics – John Barten lead
10:45 Surface Water and Untreated Waste Water • Surface and groundwater impacts of failing subsurface sewage treatment systems
(SSTS): Jim Zeigler and Aaron Jensen (MPCA)• County perspective: Eric Van Dyken, Kandiyohi County
12:00 Lunch
12:30 continue Surface Water and Untreated Waste Water • What has worked in the past – Sewer Squad: Sheila Craig, Cannon River Watershed
Partnership and formerly of SE MN Wastewater Initiative• One Watershed, One Plan, Watershed Framework and Wastewater – Kevin Bigalke,
BWSR
1:45 New Business • Future policy topics• Tentative Policy Committee meetings:
∗ August 23, 2019: Climate Change and stormwater systems ∗ September 27, 2019: Revisit Waste Pharmaceutical disposal and other recent Policy
Statements
2:00 Adjourn
Policy Committee web page: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/r9rq9y3
Policy Committee Meeting Summary Clean Water Council (Council)
May 24, 2019, 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Committee Members present: John Barten (Chair), Pam Blixt, Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Rylee Main, Raj Rajan, Victoria Reinhardt (Vice Chair), and Phil Sterner Members absent: Rep. Patty Acomb
To watch the WebEx video recording of this meeting, please go to https://www.pca.state.mn.us/clean-water-council/policy-ad-hoc-committee, or contact Brianna Frisch.
Regular Business • May 24 meeting agenda, motion for approval by Raj Rajan, seconded by Phil Sterner. Agenda approved.• April 26 meeting summery motion for approval by Bob Hoefert, seconded by Phil Sterner. Meeting summary
approved.• Chair and staff update
o No updates
Legislative Update on Clean Water Fund bill and Policy progress, Paul Gardner, Clean Water Council Administrator (WebEx 00:02:45) • On Monday, May 20, the Legacy Finance Committee should have finished the work by 5 pm. However, this deadline
was not met. A draft bill was introduced in special session this week so that committees had a hearing for thepublic. The special session started at 10:00 today. It will probably by later today or into the weekend.o Most funding items follow the Council’s recommendations. Many cuts in the House version have been reduced
or restored. However, the biggest change is for $24 million to the Soil and Water Conservation Districts(SWCDs) from the Senate version.
• Regarding the Council’s policies, the chloride smart salt training does not look like it will make it through. Regardingthe pharmaceuticals take-back, the legislators are more interested in responding to the opioid issues before movingto the medication take-back process.
• Some areas were zeroed out of the House and Senate. Council budget was approved at the level it wasrecommended.
Questions/Comments: • A spreadsheet has been provided to show the final bill budget numbers compared to our recommendations and the
House and Senate versions. The chloride training and liability protection bill is not likely to make it through, probablybecause of concern over the liability protection part.
• Next Steps for Protection of Healthy Waters: Multiple Benefits of Protecting the Mississippi Headwaters, John Barten (WebEx 00:16:25) • At the previous meeting, we had speakers talk about the costs and actions it would take to protect the Mississippi
headwaters and area (about $0.4 - $0.6 billion to protect versus $1.2 billion to restore later if the water qualitydegraded). We did not have any policy pieces. This time is for some discussion on this topic, to see how we couldhelp on this effort.
• Currently they are using funding from the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Fund (LSOHF) to purchase easements.There are multiple funding strings going towards the upper Mississippi River, including these funds. I assume thereare One Watershed, One Plans (1W1P), which would positively impact these areas.o Do we know when the 1W1P will be complete for that area of the state? Answer: The Leech Lake 1W1P will be
complete soon, Pine River is in the process, and the plan is for the Mississippi Headwaters probably in the nextyear or two. There is a significant percentage of the state that is in the process, and that pulls staff across thestate. Those three areas are near the headwaters, and they are in progress. The size of the planning area islarge and it is something to keep in mind. There is good progress in this area. Comment: The WatershedRestoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) and the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are complete andavailable at this time.
o Regarding a policy statement, the Council could possibly a set percentage of funding towards protection versus restoration.
o The LSOHC and Legislative Water Commission are interested in this topic. Paul Gardner can continue reaching out to find how we can coordinate actions.
Micro and Nano plastics in Minnesota Waters (WebEx 00:41:00) Context on Global Plastics Consumption and Waste Management, by Paul Gardner (WebEx 00:41:00) There is a lot of media coverage lately on macro plastics in the environment. There is not much science yet on micro- and nano-plastics, and Rep. Rick Hansen has pushed for agencies to investigate using the Clean Water Fund. Macro Plastics: Recycling Plastics in Minnesota, by Wayne Gjerde and Barbara Monaco at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) (WebEx 00:45:30) • Definitions
o Mismanaged plastics waste: In addition to urban litter, mismanaged waste also includes inadequately contained waste such as open dumps and are therefore transportable via runoff and wind.
o Plastic debris size: These can be broadly divided into macro-debris (>20 mm in diameter), meso-debris (5-20 mm), and micro-debris (<5 mm).
• There are two sources for microplastics o Primary: manufactured (e.g., microbeads and industrial abrasives) o Secondary: particles created as a result of breakdown of larger plastic litter, car tires, plastic mulch, and
synthetic fibers from textiles o The MPCA Solid Waste section facilitates the management of solid waste including amounts of solid waste
generated; how it is collected, processed, and disposed of; extent of separation, recycling, reuse, and recovery of solid waste; and facilities available or under development to manage the waste.
• How can Solid Waste Management Affect Microplastics? o They can affect the creation of microplastics in Minnesota in two ways. First, to reduce, reuse, and recycle. This
helps eliminate the plastic from the waste stream. Second, to manage our own waste streams appropriately. • How are Plastics Currently Managed in Minnesota?
o Recycling, waste to energy and landfill are the three categories. Using the 2013 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Composition study, the MPCA could estimate the amount of plastic in the waste stream and determine a capture rate of that material over time. In 2017, there was about a 20% capture rate. This means that 20% of the estimated plastic generated is being recycled.
• Minnesota Solid Waste Landfills o There are 21 landfills across the state that are permitted to take MSW. In order to receive a permit from the
MPCA, a landfill must meet certain requirements: Cover exposed waste with at least six inches of soil or other approved cover Have a liner system with a leachate collection efficiency of at least 95% and maintain integrity through the
life and post-closure care period. Have a closure and post-closure plan and funds set aside to ensure adequate care once closed.
o For most Minnesotans, it is against the law to burn or bury household garbage. It has been illegal since the 1980s. Many counties are closing remaining loopholes in the state law by passing no-burn/no-bury resolutions for all residents. However, plastics are on the list of prohibited materials and should never be burned. There are 31 counties that have adopted a no-burn resolution.
• Litter Programs in Minnesota o The Minnesota Department of Transportation Adopt a Highway Program Volunteers picked up more than 35,957 bags of trash in 2018.
o Sentencing to Serve Program Sentencing to Serve is a sentencing alternative for courts that puts nonviolent offenders to work on
community improvement projects. The supervised crews work in parks and other public areas. About 451,023 hours have been worked through this program.
o Counties spent $125,867 in the program Litter Prevention with funding in 2017. These include funding for programs like “Clean City” in Minneapolis and “Come Clean Program” in St. Paul.
• Global Mismanaged Plastic Waste (MPW) generation map (2015). The largest sources of mismanaged plastic waste globally are from South and East Asia. o The East Asia and Pacific region dominates global mismanaged plastic waste, accounting for about 60% of the
world’s total. While countries across North America and Europe generate significant quantities of plastic waste (per capita basis), the well-managed waste streams mean that very little of this is a risk of ocean pollution.
o While the amount of plastic waste being managed locally will increase, this does not mean that it will be managed poorly. If we do not focus on local markets or plastic reduction, more of the waste stream going to landfills and waste to energy will be plastic if the ban in China continues.
• Plastics Recycling in Minnesota o Public and private sector investments in state-of-the-art sorting equipment. This is focused on developing local
markets. The state has provided funding to invest in new projects and equipment. o Because of these investments, Minnesota is in a better position than most states. The bale contamination rates
are at 5-10%. There are over 260 Minnesota companies that use recycled materials to manufacture products. o Prices for most recyclables have plummeted because of flooded domestic markets. Some materials have little
or no value. Transportation costs have increased. In addition, there are limited markets nationally for plastic film (Trex and Revolution plastics – both are out of state).
• What is Minnesota Doing to Develop Markets? o The state is encouraging a film plastic wash and pelletizing line in Minnesota. They are working to establish a
hub, to speak up for collecting plastics (i.e., agricultural plastics). The Recycling Market Development Working Group are working towards prioritizing materials. There is a grant and loan program, but has limited funding. There is also a Recycling Education Committee, which focuses on less contamination for better quality materials.
Questions/Comments: • Is there no water quality impact regarding macro-plastics disposal in the state? Answer: The state is not a large
source of macro-plastics to our waters, but we are a source of micro-plastics pollution. • Would the Chinese ban and shut down of the waste to energy facility in Elk River impact that at all? Answer: Any
waste not recycled or turned to energy might be landfilled but it will be managed properly. • Are there any contaminants of emerging concern from the agricultural bioplastics side? Answer: [Ginny Black from
the Minnesota Composting Council responding.] We have two plastics that we are working on. The compostable service ware has coating with chemicals PFOAs and PFOSs, and projects would eliminate them. In 2020, Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) will stop certifying PFOA and PFOS containing plastics as compostable. At this time, the U.S. Compost Council is focused on helping to get a product on the market that would help with this issue. In order to expand this, we need the right kind of materials. Comment: The Biodegradable Products Institute does have a commitment by 2022 to remove all PFOA substance from their products. It is an issue the composters do not want to deal with. Often this group of chemicals can be found in products that are resistant to absorbing grease. Compostable plastics are meant to break down and complete disintegrate, so they do not create persistent micro plastics. BPI pushes back against “degradable” plastics that just break apart but leave persistent pieces behind.
• People know to recycle glass and newspapers, but there is a lot of confusion around plastics. For example, some recycling facilities only takes certain numbers, and this is often confusing for people trying to recycle. Is there a way to promote products that minimize the non-recycling containers? Answer: Both Minneapolis and St. Paul have passed ordinances on the kind of packaging that can be used for products. It has eliminated polystyrene foam (some can be recycled into insulation foam). The industry is moving towards better options, with small strides often with tradeoffs. The Recycling Committee is also about helping move these changes.
Aquatic Plastic Pollution – Kathryn Schreiner, Ph.D., and Elizabeth Austin-Minor, Ph.D., University of Minnesota – Duluth (WebEx 01:40:30) • Plastic is a synthetic organic polymer that exhibits plasticity (the ability to deform under stress) at some point in its
life cycle and that can be molded. There are many different polymers that fit this definition, and they are often mixed with additive to adjust the properties (e.g. polyester, polypropylene, PVC). These are being found in Lake Superior. They range in size (microplastics to nanoplastics).
• UMD has not started any studies with nanoplastics (less than 300 um, which is smaller than the mesh net hole size).
• Plastic production has increased since the 1950s. A large portion of the increase is from single use plastic packaging.
• A majority of plastics being used are discarded. A lot is being managed properly, but a significant portion is not. • In Lake Superior, the concentrations of microplastics are on par with the concentrations of plastics in the oceans.
There is more than one might think. • The collection and analysis of environmental microplastics is a science that is still being developed.
o Challenges: Field collection is time intensive and there needs to be enough sample for good counting statistics. Sample preparation is time intensive Sample analysis requires specialized equipment.
• Sample Collection: It is important first to determine what types of samples are necessary for the data you want. There are various complications; including getting sufficient sample for acceptable counting statistics above background (lab banks). The Minor & Schreiner labs focus on environmental plastics in surf waters (Lake Superior and inland lakes), aquatic sediments, and beach sand. Pumping water through the filter system takes about six hours for one sample. The sediment samples take about 30 minutes, but separating plastics from sediment material is time consuming. The beach sand samples are easy to collect and take about 30 minutes, but are time consuming to process. o The sample preparation is time intensive and a multistep process. There is a lot of sieving and filtering. There is
Fenton oxidation to help remove the natural organic matter and leave the plastic behind. They complete a density separation. There is microscope melt testing and particle picking. Then, analyses are done with Pry-GC/MS machines. This helps determine what types of plastic are present. The process can only determine one type of plastic at a time.
• Analytical Challenges: o Inconsistent size ranges: smaller size ranges are hard to sample, hard to handle, and hard to analyze. The
particles are prone to fragmentation. o There is diverse polymer composition. There are many co-polymers. The plastics often look similar to
petroleum and natural products. The current analytical approaches require time-intensive methods and still often cannot deconvolute co-polymers or plastic plus natural organic matter.
o There are challenging matrix effects such as co-occurring organics (chitin-rich insect and zooplankton pieces, bird feathers, other biomass or degraded organic materials). The clays and other small inorganics have a similar density to microplastics, making the separation difficult.
• Altogether (sample, prep, and analysis) how much does this cost? o Per sample (from collection through data analysis), it is about $300. This figure includes technician time and
supplies for all steps described for the water column, sediment, and fish gut samples. o This also assumes access to expensive equipment.
• The majority of the microplastics found are fibers. There are many different types of plastics at the different sites (estuary to open water).
• Ingested micro plastics morphology (fish guts) included mostly fibers as well. This most likely because fibers are the highest frequency of microplastics in their environment.
• They will be corroborating with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to complete a plastic analysis in some of the sentinel lakes using funds from LCCMR. They are going to be looking at four lakes for the next few years.
Questions/Comments: • How do you analyze small Nano plastics when you collect the fish? Answer: This is why we have been doing the
visual analysis. We are identifying individual particles. There is no good chemical way to separate these. It becomes more challenging the smaller it is.
• How small can these be analyzed? Answer: The machines can only analyze to 0.5µm. Current technology does not get smaller than 0.2 µm. It is a challenge.
• How much time does it take for one sample? How many samples are collected in one day? Answer: In one day for the net towing, we collect about five samples. Those samples then take about a week. Then, individually measure the items we find, about three weeks.
• Will you take this net for the sentinel lakes? Answer: Yes.
• Do you have any idea of how much is airborne? Answer: One of the reasons why we saw so many particles in equal concentrations is possibly because some of the particles are airborne. Some might be from the breakdown of plastics as well. Right now, we cannot say. There are preliminary studies that reveal airborne plastics are real. It would be great to have an atmospheric chemist to collaborate with us on some research in this area.
Microplastics fibers in wastewater – Sara Heger, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities (WebEx 02:22:00) • There are many sources of microplastics that impact wastewater. A lot of fibers come from the washing machine
discharge. • Sources of microplastics in wastewater
o Use of top loading washing machines and detergent greatly increases the microplastics released. The “flushable” hygiene wipes contain plastic interlocking fibers and do not completely biodegrade.
• Sorption Behavior: o Microplastics can adsorb and concentrate other pollutants present in wastewater. The persistent organic
pollutants (e.g., PAHs, PCBs, pesticides), as well as metals (e.g., mercury, zinc, cadmium, lead). • The Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) as a Source
o These facilities are not designed to remove microplastics from the effluent o The amount removed will vary from site to site depending on the processes used. o About 90% removal rates are commonly reported, but due to the volume of water discharged, 10% is still a
significant addition. o Studies from around the world reveal a majority of microfibers appear to be removed during the primary
sedimentation and mechanical removal period (in sludge and bio solids). The smallest microplastics making their through are often the fibers.
• The Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) as a Source o Synthetic microplastics may contribute to septic system failures due to clogging of soil pores. o Failing or improper systems likely allow microplastics to reach surface water or groundwater through limestone
and karst geology. • Septic System Failure
o Small non-biodegradable solids may not settle out in septic tanks and cause a surface layer of untreated septate.
• Groundwater Study in Illinois o Seventeen groundwater samples were taken from wells and springs. There were eleven from a highly fractured
limestone aquifer near the St. Louis metropolitan area. There were six from an aquifer containing much smaller fractures in a rural area. There were microplastics shown in sixteen samples, along with contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) indicating wastewater sources were likely.
• Septage and Bio solids as a Source o Land application of septage (SSTS) and bio solids (WWTP) on agriculture land is common. These microplastics
can then reenter the aquatic environment via agricultural runoff or travel to groundwater. Previous studies show that up to 90% of the microplastics from the influent wastewater would be retained and accumulated in the sludge.
• Research to Date o One study found microplastics in field sites up to fifteen years after the application of sludge products. o Fibers were found after five years in long-term greenhouse soil columns.
• Research Needs o Potential Reduction Methods Method 1: Source reduction
• Public outreach. • Filter installation at washing machines
Method 2: Upgrade WWTPs and SSTS to treat and filter out microplastics from the effluent water prior to discharge
Method 3: Treat the bio solids to reduce microplastics in land application. o Needs for Resources
Determine effectiveness, practicality and economic feasibility of attaching a filter on the output pipe of washing machines (i.e., the guppy friend, Back to Real Water filter).
Evaluate if consumers will purchase less synthetic clothing Evaluate washing machine impacts on microplastics production (water temperature, cycle length,
detergent additives to reduce fiber breakage) Assess factors influencing consumers to wash garments less frequently and to switch to frontload washing
machines. o Needs for WWTPs
Standardization of size of microplastics measurement and method needed. The work is underway. Options for Entrainment of Microplastics in Sludge
• Activated sludge treatment – flocculation helps settle the microplastics • Dissolved air floatation • Tertiary treatment options (membrane filtration or rapid sand filters)
o Needs for SSTS Pretreatment systems
• Evaluate septic tank sizing and configurations for removal of microplastics • Assess septic tank screens for prevention of microplastics release • Determine advanced treatment system effectiveness at microplastics removal
Soil treatment systems • Determine effectiveness of good STA with three feet of soil prior to water table or bed rock at
removing microplastics • Evaluate how microplastics may be increasing the development of a biomat and decreasing
infiltration. o Needs in Septage and Bio Solids
Fate and transport of microplastics in bio solids Effect of microplastics on soil organisms and their impact on farm productivity and food safety Alternative method for reduction (incineration or anaerobic digestion).
o Need for Sludge and Microplastics Reduction Coagulation/flocculation/precipitation Micro screening (e.g., drum filters and disc filters)
Questions/Comments: • It sounds like you focused primarily on micro fibers. What about microbeads? Answer: Those were ignored because
they have been banned. • You mentioned natural fibers, even cotton fibers take about six months to break down and wool takes a few years.
Does it matter if it is wool fiber or plastic fiber floating around? Answer: That is a good question. There are no studies on this yet. Comment: The soil will break down the cotton and wool fibers faster due to soil organisms.
• We need to move forward carefully because we do not know the impacts of all of these concerns. Asking people to change their habits (washing machines, clothing, etc.). We will need to think about the best way for approaching this.
• We need to think about impacts. Looking at the impacts of these microplastics in the environment, and how might it impact our food supply or health? We need to pay attention to this research and these results. This is important research. We cannot prioritize until we know more, and reducing is the best approach moving forward at this time.
Persistent, Potential, and Emerging Contaminants (including micro and nanoplastics), Catherine Neuschler, MPCA (WebEx 03:13:00) • This is broader than CECs. It includes:
o Contaminants that are long-lasting in the environment o Contaminants that bio accumulate in the environment o Contaminants that are emerging as a risk (new concerns about known pollutants, or concerns about new
contaminants) o Contaminant impact on endocrine system o Contaminant types (pharmaceuticals, illicit drugs, personal care products, commercial and industrial products, as
well as pesticides)
• The Path from “Emerging” to “Regulated” o Initial Screening: the use of literature, information from other states to try to figure out if a contaminant is likely
to be a human health or environmental concern and if it is likely to occurring Minnesota’s waters. o Monitoring and Impact: identify and quantify the presence of the contaminant o Risk Assessment: understand the exposure and effects; establish some kind of “benchmark” for human health or
environmental impacts o Risk Management: If needed, create regulatory or voluntary programs to reduce exposure and risk
• What is needed to do this Work? o There is a need for sampling and analytical methods (consistent methods) o Regarding microplastics, there is a need to agree on the methods. There is not a lot of research outside of
academia. This is a need and would be a first area of work for state agencies to tackle this issue. o Understanding exposure routes and the mechanisms of the health or environmental impact. Regarding
microplastics, it is largely unknown. Looking into if these microplastics end up in blood and tissue, does the shape of the microplastics matter, does the type of plastic or chemical property impact, and what other chemicals are carried away with the plastics? There is more risk assessment needed.
o The next step would be benchmarks. However, we cannot understand what the levels of a contaminant in our waters mean unless we know what level is harmful. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and the MPCA both work on benchmarks and screening values but these first require knowing the route of exposure and mechanism of impact.
• Summary and Next Steps o Microplastics are a growing concern and are found all over. They are in the very early phase of “emerging” as a
contaminant of concern o The Legislature directed agencies to work cooperatively and “sample surface water, groundwater, including
drinking water sources, and evaluate potential risks from micro plastics and Nano plastics and identify appropriate follow up actions.” Agencies will be working to scope and implement this directive over the next biennium. Key steps will include sampling and analytical methods and review of literature related to risks. They will
work closely with researchers on these issues. Questions/Comments: • There is a lack of studies on the risks of microplastics. There is a need for this research. Response: The studies that
are published often have many mixed results. • Regarding the banned microbeads, what is the overall global impact of these? These impacts need to be researched. • We do not even know how to sample microplastics. • Is anyone at MDH looking into this topic? Answer: They would know who is tracking it. There are some chemists
looking into absorption. There is a work group that is focused on the CECs, so there is work on this topic, but there are so many more CECs that we know the health impact of, so focusing on what we know about versus what we do not know about.
• What is the best practice at this point? Answer: It depends. We do not know which are best. In Japan, they are doing a lot of research on turning plastics into oil and gas. They fuel many power plants with plastic. We do not know if it is better or worse in terms of environmental impacts. That is with macro plastics. It is not completely carbon free either.
• The less waste we have to deal with later would be a good start. • Follow up in the summer or fall regarding this topic. This is currently far reaching with many potential implications. It
would be a good idea to digest the information. In terms of where we need to go, we might need to brainstorm about what would be some good policy implications. Connecting with the agency folks, figuring out what would be useful.
New Business (WebEx 03:36:00) • Cancel June 28 meeting. Next Policy Committee meeting will be July 26. Adjournment (WebEx 03:59:09)
STATEWIDE SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATMENT
JIM ZIEGLER, PROGRAM MANAGER JULY 26, 2019
SSTS PROGRAM – PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
• 537,354 SSTS reported by LGUs in 2017• ~25% of the wastewater in MN
• Minn. Statue 115.55• Partner with Counties, Cities, and Townships
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE CWC POLICY COMMITTEE
¡ In March 2019, the Clean Water Council Policy Committee asked the MPCA for additional information
¡ Cost comparisons of constructing a residential septic system versus connecting to a wastewater treatment facility.
¡ Counties who use Point of Sale
COST COMPARISONS FOR SSTS VS PUBLIC SEWER
System type 20yr Total Cost
SSTS - Trench $7743
SSTS - Mound $11671
Public Sewer (Metro Area) $11827
Public Sewer (Rural) $15768
• All Costs assumed a 300 gpd flow• Smallest design flow for comparison• Equivalent to a 2 bedroom home
• SSTS costs included pumping over 20 years• Public sewer costs did not include hook-up
fees• Factors for existing lots/new lots were not
included (already stubbed in pipe)
POINT OF SALE
¡ Point of Sale illustration by county.
POLICY COMMITTEE – REQUEST FOR SSTS PROGRAM NEEDS
¡ In late 2018, the MPCA created an internal team to look at innovative ways to accelerate the rate of compliance in unsewered areas. This included rules, statutes, policies, funding, and communication.
¡ The next step is to add our outside partners to the team and gather their input.
¡ In early 2019, the CWC policy committee asked the MPCA for recommendations.
¡ While we hope to bring formal recommendations back in the near future, the next few slides outline some of the ideas our internal team considered.
EXPLORE INCREASING GRANT FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR LOW-INCOME HOMEOWNERS
¡ Provide additional funds to the low-income upgrade grant program.
¡ Grant requests exceed the current availability of funds.
¡ Helps counties accelerate compliance
¡ Low income homeowner's have few options for financing new systems.
CURRENT LOW INCOME FIX-UP GRANT
¡ Clean Water Fund: At least $750,000 each year made available to counties for grants to low-income landowners. $40,000 cap per county per year.¡ SSTS must be non-compliant and either Imminent Threat to
Public Health or Failing to Protect Groundwater¡ Homesteaded single family homes or duplexes¡ Homeowner must be low income
¡ Over $6.8 million CWF awarded to counties for low income fixes in fiscal year 13 through fiscal year 19
¡ ~700 Low-income fixes as of April 2018
¡ Over $11.6 million requested
¡ Close to $2 million per year
CURRENT PROGRESS
¡ We have averaged about $1 million for low-income upgrades per year
¡ Approximately $16,000 replacement cost per system for a mound¡ ~63 systems can be fixed per year at 100% grant
¡ ~78 systems can be fixed per year at 80% grant
¡ ~125 systems can be fixed per year at 50% grant
EXPLORE CREATING A STATEWIDE UNSEWERED COMMUNITY FACILITATOR PROGRAM OR POSITION TO ASSIST COMMUNITIES WITH WASTEWATER ISSUES.
¡ Having a statewide Unsewered Community Facilitator would accelerate the rate of compliance for unsewered areas. Facilitators help communities with tasks that are new, foreign, and simply overwhelming to small communities. ¡ Assist communities with understanding their wastewater needs and options for compliance.
¡ Helping the communities understand funding and the best long-term option for each area.
¡ Assist communities with the initial process of applying to the PPL.
¡ Hiring an engineer or consultant to complete a Community Assessment. This might even include interviews and basic information gathering.
SOUTHEAST MINNESOTA WASTEWATER INITIATIVE –CREATING A MODEL FOR THE FACILITATOR ROLE
¡ Often know as the Sewer Squad, the SEMWI worked with over 30 communities to resolve non compliant wastewater.
¡ They helped each community understand the problem, assess all available options, and implement a solution.
¡ Removed an estimated 450,000 gallons per day of raw or partially treated sewage from being released to the environment.
¡ Solutions fit the needs of the community and included;¡ Individual upgrades¡ Cluster Systems¡ Wastewater Treatment Facilities¡ Regionalization.
UNSEWERED COMMUNITIES
¡ Some areas are Incorporated Communities
¡ In a better place to obtain a community solution
¡ More opportunity for state grants
¡ Unincorporated Communities
¡ Not organized
¡ Individual fixes
¡ Very little grant money available
EXPLORE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO ACCELERATE THE RATE OF ATTAINING COMPLIANCE FOR UNSEWERED AREAS.
The MPCA has created an internal team that has been looking at innovative ways to accelerate and assist unsewered communities. The next step is to bring in our outside partners and county representatives, such as ¡ Board of Water and Soil Resources
¡ Public Facilities Authority
¡ University of Minnesota Extension
¡ Minnesota Department of Health
¡ Association of Minnesota Counties
NEXT STEP - BRINGING IT ALL BACK FOR RECCOMENDATIONS
¡ Accelerating the rate of compliance in the remaining unsewered areas is the teams ultimate goal. Thinking outside the box, being creative, and looking at the problem from multiple perspectives will give us some valuable ideas on how to move forward.
¡ Once the joint team has fully explored all the ideas, the MPCA would like to bring the teams recommendations back to the Clean Water Council.
Provide educational and technical assistance to unsewered and under-sewered communities to help them start and complete theirwastewater project.
Background• In 2001 SE MN Water Resources Board
(Joint Powers agreement of 11 SE MN counties) working on feedlots expressed a desire to address wastewater issues with ISTS and unseweredsmall communities
• Met with MPCA & U of M Extension– Implement ISTS educational program – Counties and U of M Extension– Adapt small community model from Blue Earth River Basin Initiative
(BERBI)• Community facilitator(s)• Training• Funding
Initiative Structure• 2002 – Clean Water Grant (319) funding
awarded to the Southeast MN Water Resources Board
• 2 Community Wastewater Facilitators• Advisory Committee to provide project guidance• Administration of project:
– 2002 – 2006 – SE MN Water Resources Board Olmsted Co. as fiscal agent
– 2006 through 2018 - Subcontracted to CannonRiver Watershed Partnership
Started in 2003, continued through 2018
Successive grants allowed facilitators to stay with community projects from start to finish
319 Clean Water Grant awarded through MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) thru 2012
BWSR funding since 2012
Funded by Grants
Advisory/Steering Committee
• Became known as “The Sewer Squad”
•Comprised of: MPCA staff, county septic staff, retired University of MN faculty, volunteers
• Meet quarterly to discuss overall program, projects, and project strategies
B. Working with Professionals• County Professionals
- Planning & Zoning Staff - Septic Staff- County Public Health- Assessor - Recorder - GIS - Highway Department- Auditor- County Attorney
C. Solutions• Promoted looking at a wide range of
solutions, from individual septic systems to “city” sewer and everything in between. – Individually owned, maintained, and operated– Individual septic systems that are owned, operated,
and maintained by the city – Combination of individual septic systems and cluster
systems– Centralized or municipal system, owned by the City or
Township (through SSD)
Criteria for selecting a treatment system
• Cost– Construction– Operation & Maintenance
• Permitting• Land Availability• Level of management• Reliability
C. Solutions
D. Funding• County Ag BMP Loan Funds
• County Loan Funds
• USDA Rural Development
• MN Public Finance Authority
• State of MN - Small Cities/DEED
• SE MN Wastewater Initiative
• Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR)
• Others
TAOPITILEOUTLET
TAOPI
• Task Force formed
A. Relationships/Community Process
B. Working with Professionals• General Site & Soil Evaluation Completed
• Designed by ISTS designer; review by engineer
• Oversight by U of M Onsite Sewage Treatment Staff
• County Assessor and County Recorder
• Lawyer and Bond Counsel
TAOPIC. Solutions• Mound Systems Needed
• Individual Sewage Treatment Systems: 20 homes
• Cluster Treatment System: Shared by two homes
TAOPI
• 50% grant through Small Communities Program• 16% grant through TMDL funds• Remainder in a 1% loan from PFA to City of
Taopi• Payable by homeowner over 10 years by tax
assessment• Rural Development low income grants to 2
homeowners• Permit fees reduced by the county
D. Funding
HOPE
HOPE
A. Relationships / Community Process- Project started many times in the past. None successful.
- Task Force formed
- Difficulty working with the Township
B. Working with Professionals– Numerous changes in engineers
C. Solutions- Best solution determined by what system was feasible
for the available land
- Municipal style system
D. Funding - Both Federal and State funding
- USDA Rural Development, PFA - TMDL & WIF $$s
HOPE
HOPE
Results SEMWI Projects• Helped 25 communities
remove 129 million gallons of untreated sewage annually from streams in SE MN
Southeast Minnesota Wastewater Initiative Raw Sewage Reduction Summary
Projects Completed (as of December 2018) Number of Systems Installed: 1,306 Sewage Treated: 454,090 gallons/day Shallow Wells Sealed: 33 Projects in Process (as of December 2018) Number of Systems: 1,084 Sewage Treated: 443,550 gallons/day Septic System Inventory Projects Assisted Number of Failing Systems Identified: 707 Number Posing Imminent Threat to Human Health: 135 Options used by Communities working with SMWI Individual and cluster septic systems; some in-ground and some mounds Constructed wetland Stabilizations ponds Annexation to nearby city with municipal system New municipal water system; new shared wells New municipal wastewater treatment system Funding Resources Utilized Self-funded County Ag BMP loans Small Community Grants and loans from PFA USDA Rural Development grants and loans Grant from August 2007 funding City Assessment TMDL (PSIG) Grants through PFA Low interest loan funds through PFA
www.bwsr.state.mn.us 1
FY 2020 Clean Water Fund Competitive Grant Policy
From the Board of Water and Soil Resources, State of Minnesota
Version: FY2020
Effective Date: 06/25/2019
Approval: Board Order #19-32
Policy Statement
The Clean Water Fund was established to implement part of Article XI, Section 15, of the Minnesota
Constitution, and Minnesota Statutes §114D with the purpose of protecting, enhancing, and restoring water
quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water sources from degradation.
Applicable Clean Water Fund Programs and Grants
Projects and Practices
Multi-purpose Drainage Management
Reason for the policy
The purpose of this policy is to provide expectations for implementation activities conducted via the Board of
Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Clean Water Fund (CWF) competitive grant program.
BWSR will use grant agreements for assurance of deliverables and compliance with appropriate statutes, rules
and established policies. Willful or negligent disregard of relevant statutes, rules and policies may lead to
imposition of financial penalties or future sanctions on the grant recipient.
The FY 2020 Clean Water Fund Competitive Grants Request for Proposal (RFP) may identify more specific
requirements or criteria when specified by statute, rule or appropriation language. BWSR’s Grants
Administration Manual (http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/grants/manual/) provides the primary framework for
local management of all state grants administered by BWSR.
4.1 Activities that do not have a primary benefit of water quality.
4.2 Routine and/or baseline water quality monitoring.
4.3 Household water conservation appliances and water fixtures.
4.4 Wastewater treatment with the exception of Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems.
4.5 Municipal drinking water supply facilities or individual drinking water treatment systems.
4.6 Stormwater conveyances that collect and move runoff, but do not provide water quality treatment
benefit.
4.7 Replacement, realignment or creation of bridges, trails or roads.
4.8 Aquatic plant harvesting
4.9 Routine maintenance or repair of best management practices, capital equipment and infrastructure
within the effective life of existing practices or projects.
4.10 Feedlots
a. Feedlot expansions beyond state registered number of animal units, with exception of activities under
section 3.8 Livestock Waste Management Practices.
b. Slats placed on top of manure storage structures.
4.11 Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS):
a. Small community wastewater treatment systems serving over 10,000 gallons per day with a soil
treatment system, and
b. A small community wastewater treatment system that discharges treated sewage effluent directly to
surface waters without land treatment.
4.12 Fee title land acquisition or easement costs, unless specifically allowed. If not specifically allowed, land
acquisition and easement costs can count toward the required match if directly associated with the
project and incurred within the grant period.
4.13 Buffers that are required by law (including Drainage Law and Buffer Law).
5. Technical Expertise
The grantee has the responsibility to ensure that the designated technical staff have the appropriate technical
expertise, skills and training for their assigned role(s). See also the Technical Quality Assurances section of the
Grants Administration Manual.
5.1 Technical Assistance Provider. Grantees must identify the technical assistance provider(s) for the
practice or project and their credentials for providing this assistance. The technical assistance
provider(s) must have appropriate credentials for practice investigation, design, and construction.
Credentials can include conservation partnership Job Approval Authority (JAA), also known as technical
approval authority; applicable professional licensure; reputable vendor with applicable expertise and
liability coverage; or other applicable credentials, training, and/or experience.
5.2 BWSR Review. BWSR reserves the right to review the qualifications of all persons providing technical
assistance and review the technical project design if a recognized standard is not available.
www.bwsr.state.mn.us 7
6. Practice or Project Construction and Sign-off
Grant recipients shall verify that the practice or project was properly installed and completed according to
the plans and specifications, including technically approved modifications, prior to authorization for
payment.
7. BWSR Grant Work Plan, Reporting and Reconciliation Requirements
BWSR staff is authorized to develop grant agreements, requirements and processes for work plans and project outcomes reporting, closeouts, and fiscal reconciliations. All grantees must follow the Grants Administration Manual policy and guidance. In the event there is a violation of the terms of the grant agreement, BWSR will enforce the grant agreement and evaluate appropriate actions, up to and including repayment of grant funds at a rate up to 100% of the grant agreement.
The grantee board is the authority and has the responsibility to approve the expenditure of funds within their own organization. The approval or denial of expenditures of funds must be documented in the Grantee Board’s meeting minutes.
BWSR recommends all contracts be reviewed by the grant recipient’s legal counsel.
Grant reporting, fiscal management, and administration requirements are the responsibility of the grant recipient.
History
This policy was originally created in 2010 and is updated annually for each fiscal year of funding.
Contact
For Clean Water Programs: Marcey Westrick, Clean Water Coordinator
www.bwsr.state.mn.us 1
FY 2018 Watershed-Based Funding Pilot Program
Policy
From the Board of Water and Soil Resources, State of Minnesota
Version: FY2018
Effective Date: 12/20/2017
Approval: Board Resolution #17-96
Policy Statement
The Clean Water Fund was established to implement part of Article XI, Section 15, of the Minnesota
Constitution, and Minnesota Statutes §114D with the purpose of protecting, enhancing, and restoring water
quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater and drinking water sources from degradation.
Applicable Clean Water Fund Programs and Grants
Watershed-based Funding Pilot Program
Reason for the policy
The purpose of this policy is to provide expectations for implementation activities conducted via the Board of
Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Clean Water Fund (CWF) Watershed-based Funding Pilot program as defined
by the Clean Water Fund appropriation under Laws of Minnesota 2017, Chapter 91, Article 2, Section 7 (a).
$4,875,000 the first year and $4,875,000 the second year are for a pilot program to provide performance-based
grants to local government units. The grants may be used to implement projects that protect, enhance, and
restore surface water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams; protect groundwater from degradation; and protect
drinking water sources. Projects must be identified in a comprehensive watershed plan developed under the One
Watershed, One Plan or metropolitan surface water management frameworks or groundwater plans. Grant
recipients must identify a non-state match and may use other legacy funds to supplement projects funded under
this paragraph.
BWSR will use grant agreements for assurance of deliverables and compliance with appropriate statutes, rules
and established policies. Willful or negligent disregard of relevant statutes, rules and policies may lead to
imposition of financial penalties or future sanctions on the grant recipient.
BWSR’s Grants Administration Manual (http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/grants/manual/) provides the primary
framework for local management of all state grants administered by BWSR.