Policy Committee Meeting Agenda Clean Water Council

January 26, 2018 10:30 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

MPCA Conference Room 100 MPCA, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN

2017-2018 Policy Committee members: John Barten (Chair), Pam Blixt, Gary Burdorf, Sharon Day, Warren Formo, Bob Hoefert, Rylee Main, and Victoria Reinhardt (Vice Chair)

10:30 Regular Business · Approve today’s agenda· Approve minutes for December 8, 2017 meeting· Chair and staff update

10:45 Pre-softening drinking water to meet chloride standards: Joel Peck, MPCA

11:45 Lunch

12:15 Pharmaceutical management to protect human health and water: Ashley Suchomel, MDH and Jennifer Volkman, MPCA

1:45 New Business · Future Policy Committee meetings:

o January 26, 2018o February 16, 2018o March 30, 2018

· Speakers/approach for future policy topics· Other items from members

2:00 Adjourn

Policy Committee web page: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/r9rq9y3

wq-cwc5-18a

Policy Committee Meeting Summary Clean Water Council (Council)

December 8, 2017, 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Committee Members present: John Barten, Pam Blixt, Gary Burdorf, Warren Formo, and Bob Hoefert Members absent: Sharon Day, Rylee Main, and Victoria Reinhardt

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 · Approve today’s agenda and 10-27-17 meeting minutes, seconded, and approved.

Drainage Policy Group update – Al Kean, Board of Water and Soil Resources (WebEx 00:04:30) · The Drainage Work Group (DWG) received the Policy Committee’s letter last November (2016). They were able to

discuss it in June of 2017. This was part of the discussions for a number of months. The documents you have is aproduct of that discussion. This document has an executive summary, overview, what they discussed, what theycame up with, and an appendix A with more details. We use discussion papers to help track relevant information toevolve consensus recommendations and decisions by the DWG.

· One of the fundamental perspectives of the DWG is that they are looking to the One Watershed One Plan (1W1P) tobe the primary driver of multipurpose water management across the state. Back in 2014, the DWG put forth a fixedset of consensus recommendations to update section 103E.015 “considerations before drainage work is done”section. In that section of drainage law, it includes a number of drainage criteria that drainage authorities need toconsider when they are doing a drainage project. The DWG updated the MN Drainage Law to make it morecompatible to the 1W1P.

· In appendix A, a review of the EPA – USGS Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of Hydrologic Alteration is presented.· The DWG also had a presentation from one of the chief officers on the Collaborative for Sediment Source Reduction

in the Greater Blue Earth River Basin, Summary of Findings, March 2017. They found that water storage in high riverflow areas, helps with reducing sediment erosion, and this supports the importance water storage, as a way to helpaddress sedimentation and high suspended soils in river systems.

· In addition, the Interagency Management Team, primarily staff from agencies (both state and federal), so peoplecollectively try to all understand the science. For the North Fork Crow, they developed methodology to helpunderstand the altered hydrology. They are calling it a framework. They used the gauge records, and statisticalanalysis to define the historical relationships between rainfall and runoff, and then any trends over time. They haveused the past as the benchmark, to help identify a storage goal to bring the relationship back to where it waspreviously. This may be used in other watershed methods.

Questions: · As we alter the hydrology of watersheds, there is a lot of stream erosion and sediment in the water. Therefore, to

what degree do we think that the drainage systems are mature enough that going forward we are not going to see alot of alterations? Response: That is a difficult question. First, recognize that the majority of the drainage ditchconstruction under Minnesota drainage law occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Then, in the 20s and 30s(draught issues and depression). In the 40s and 50s there was more drainage work going on. I think it is fair to say, ofdrainage ditches, there are not a lot of new ones that occur. Improvements to older systems are happeningcontinuously. It depends on commodity prices and whether farming is profitable. Commodity prices are low and it isa tough time to be farmers, so these are not improving. Once plastic tile came into play (versus clay or concrete), itwas more affordable tile. In land that has a high water table, or generally wet, the tile can increase productivitydramatically. We do not have numbers of the land that is tiled, or that need tiles in the future.

· Comment: I think that we need to recognize the ditch systems that you have described. They carry ditch and tilewater, and most of it is surface water runoff (especially in a rain event). The recognition that these systems are reallyold is important. I think that what we are seeing is consideration of where we can store water. Previously wedrained wetlands. Now, we often see adding wetlands in this area. The net effect of that will positively contribute.This is especially influencing in the Red River Valley, where they are using these areas as retention spaces. Response:The United State Department of Agriculture data has shown that more than half of Minnesota’s agricultural landbenefits from water storage. In the Red River Valley, where they have issues, are now instead they are using the low

areas for water storage instead of draining them. They are building into the plan for water storage. The cropping systems have changed over time too.

· Comment: It seems like a lot of the existing tiled land, there has been an attempt at drainage. You see a lot of themains that are being replaced too. Response: What we are seeing, many of the tiles were placed at 100 feet insteadof about 60 feet. The bigger tile mains are going in because the old ones are collapsing. The drainage infrastructurewill need to be replaced in the next 50 years. If we get it right, it is a really good opportunity to help and benefit inthese areas.

· Another thing raised in this conversation, the 1W1P does include measureable goals (including water retention inthe landscape). On page 4, we tried to summarize that. For example, the Red River Basin, they have storage goals,the goal is to reduce flooding. The Yellow Medicine 1W1P has modest storage goals, and we think it is a good start.They are targeting BMPs, including storage-based practices. They are also trying to reduce volume.

· The bottom line for the DWG in terms of comments from the 2016 Policy statement: They did not feel that it wasreally necessary. It is possible to polish the requirements in the 1W1P law, but there are storage goals required.There is some flexibility in how those storage goals are put into the plans. It is a prudent thing because of the state’sdifferent landscapes, and different ways to complete these actions. The DWG supports distributed temporarystorage. In the DWGs report, they characterized short term and longer-term retention storage. In therecommendations and comments, there are funding support to try to improve that storage. You will also see theoverlap in the recommendations (page 6).

· Within the 1W1P content requirements guidance (March 2016), it reflects the CWC recommendation statement of2014, which is what is being looked at to update. Therefore, it is recognized and reflected in the guidelines aboutplan content requirements, including the storage as one of the goals.

· Note, there is a group the interagency-UMN Drainage Management Team of scientists currently developing anAltered Hydrology whitepaper to enable more consistent, science-based understanding of the definition, causes,effects, and best management practices associated with altered hydrology.

· The DWG discussed a suggestion to place more restriction on the drainage law on the “adequacy of the outlet” inSection 103E.015. This was a discussion point during the update to the public drainage manual. Recognizing thatdrainage law does not have requirements for storage. On page 7, there is a summary of the existing programsfederal and state) which help support the multipurpose drainage management.

· The DWG sends a one-pager to new 1W1P groups. Al Keen and Julie Westerland (the Board of Water and SoilResource’s 1W1P coordinator) will be working on an update to help further the guidance to the 1W1P localgovernments on how to better integrate drainage management in the overall multipurpose water management. Thiswas another outcome of the Policy committees request and the DWG’s discussion. It is a work in progress.

· If the committee would like further discussion, I would be happy to answer any questions.Discussion:· Based on what Al has said, do we need to move this forward? The 1W1P already includes these requirements.

Answer: Based on my interpretation, there is no harm, but we are unsure on how effective it will be. Otherwise, wewould need a motion to move it to a full Council.· Motion approved to move to full Council (once Pam Blixt arrived to the meeting to meet the quorum

requirement for voting). Comment: This is being done now. It is more of an endorsement, which we are inharmony with current policy. I am not convinced it is not necessary.

Statement from Stop Over Salting (SOS): Sue Nissen (WebEx 00:45:00) · We have teaspoons on rope to hand out to everyone, because one teaspoon of salt will permanently pollute five

gallons of water. We are citizen volunteers and we are master water stewards. This group is newer (about 4 years),so you may not be familiar yet, and it came from the Freshwater Society. As master water stewards, we haveworked in our communities to educate people about chloride. From that work, we saw in our communities thatthere was a gap in what was happening in chloride applicators. The cities, counties, and municipalities are on theusing less salt: they are attending the smart salting trainings and implementing best practices. However, the privateapplicators have a very different market. They are subject to liability for slip and fall accidents, and that really driveswhat is going on in their market place. Therefore, they tend to over salt and use the “visual” standard, which is anissue. It is hard to overcome a fear of liability for the private applicators. Seeing the visible salt, assures safely. Welearned about the limited liability law in the legislature, we thought there would be great value in providing liabilityassurance to private applicators. We have been working this fall on creating a coalition (including five master waterstewards); because we think it is a good idea.

· It is good for businesses and for public safety. There are many success stories. People are going to the trainings and they are making changes. The question is how do we get the private applicators to change? Many of them know they are putting down too much salt, but the market forces are such that they feel obligated over apply salt.

· We are happy to say the coalition is moving forward. From the business side, the Minnesota Landscape Association and the Salt and Ice Management Association, have been strong voices for this bill. At our last meeting on Monday, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce was present, along with the Minnesota Retailers, and the Minnesota Grocer Association. Therefore, we are widening the support on the business end.

· There are positive meetings happening in the legislature and positive comments on the chloride liability law. We are looking forward to more discussions on that.

· On the clean water side, the watershed districts voted last week to support the bill. The resolution went before their annual meeting. Conservation Minnesota, Friends of the Mississippi River, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, are some of the organizations that have been active in working with us.

· Most recently, we met with four legislators (Representatives Anselmo and Hornstein, and Senators Dibble and Franzen). All four are supportive in looking to work further with this. We have a meeting with Representative Anselmo next week. We are getting some legislative buy-in and we are continuing to build our coalition.

· We wanted to update you on our activities today. We are happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions: · Is there a draft of the legislative language written already? Answer: Last spring Alice Hausman (#1016) introduced a

bill in the House, which was patterned after the New Hampshire’s Limited Liability legislation of 2013. New Hampshire pattered their training after Minnesota’s. Illinois has already placed a law into place, so Minnesota would be the third state.

· Comment: The problem is visible in the metropolitan area, less visible in greater Minnesota. We want to work with some legislatures to support us and work with us. To take the training and have it go further to greater Minnesota, the environmental impact is large (i.e., money saver and environment saver). It just needs to be supported and moved forward. We want to ask for support from you. You have a statewide reach and a breadth of different types of organizations that are represented. We would love to have state agency support, but we understand we will not know about that until the spring. Is there some statement that we can make of support? Answer: We have a draft chloride reduction policy. As the policy committee, we would make a recommendation to the full Council, if approved; we would recommend that to the state. This would be in our biennial report.

· Have you heard anything form the legal community? Response: Not directly, we have some people out to talk to the legal community. There are two perspectives about that. We are curious how it might be viewed.

· You had mentioned you reached out to the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. Are you going to circle back on how they might be able to support this? Answer: Yes, we plan to.

Review, update, and approve CWC Chloride Policy statement (WebEx 01:03:00) Follow up questions on chloride with Brooke Asleson (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)). Review of the Draft Chloride Reduction Policy statement. There are a few maps to review as well (Municipal WWTPs with Reasonable Potential (RP) for Chloride based on the 230 mg/L Water Quality Standard; 2014 Metro Chloride Assessment; Chloride in Minnesota Surface Water). · The subcommittee leaders are working on putting together more language on the water softener issues, regarding

chloride. Rather than wait until we have problems with discharge from the wastewater treatment plants, if there is a reasonable potential that chloride might be a problem in the future, prevention is key. Therefore, we thought we should look at some language in this policy that would preventively address some of these issues before they become major problems. Our thought had been to do a few things to support centralized water softening by providing financial and technical support to communities that are addressing these issues. In addition, water softeners; if these can be switched to the municipal level; it can help, versus individual water softeners in people’s homes. We could provide funds when these communities are upgrading their drinking water supply facilities, with a way to do an assessment to find out what it would take to switch to that form of water softening (i.e., lime softening systems). We do not know what the costs would be yet, and they would probably differ by city.

· Do we have any idea of the cost to have a lime softening system put in place for these municipalities? Do we know the breakdown of the cost per household versus having a water softener? Answer: I do not have those numbers off the top of my head. I do know in the MPCA chloride management plan, we use the best information we have to develop a cost for reverse osmosis at a treatment plant, based on the cost from water treatment. I know the lime softening is the preferred option, but there are significant costs associated with building the facility if it is not

already in place. There may be size requirements, in addition to the costs of the system, so I would need to check on that data. Comment: That would be valuable to find out.

· Looking at the map of Minnesota: Douglas, Meeker, and Lyon counties have impaired lakes and rivers. What is the cause of the impairment in those counties? Answer: In Douglas County, the city of Alexandria has a wastewater issue. The area lake (Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary District) discharge to a lake, which is in a chain of lakes. Therefore, those chloride impairments are a direct result of water softeners. They have a combination of sewer and septic systems, and they have water softening issues. I would suspect the same issue with the impairments in the other two counties. However, I do not know the details, especially if there have not been studies completed to identify the issues. For example, in Scott county in the Metro area, we completed a chloride TMDL and they were found to be wastewater driven impairments. Three wastewater facilities discharged along that stream. Due to the concentration and timing of the chloride, this was another sign that it is wastewater driven.

· Is the current surface water standard 230? Answer: Correct. Response: Is there a standard for the effluent limits? Answer: The effluent limits are defined for each wastewater facility. We do not have a defined statewide effluent limit. It is based on many different variables. These limits vary, anywhere from 100 mg/L to perhaps 300 mg/L. A lot depends on the variables and the natural geology (natural chloride concentration in a given water body). Not all of the facilities are monitoring for chloride. In the last eight years, we have started to require chloride monitoring as the facility permits were reissued. We do not have long-term records of chloride at many facilities, and this will help with collecting that data. Therefore, we are just now starting to monitor, which will help us target areas. Then, we will have a better idea on what they are discharging. There are also staff working on this data to try to figure out the trends. There is a lot of data, and they are trying to understand it more.

· Does road salt get into the sanitary sewer system? Answer: It would depend on the inflow and infiltration. For example, for Madison Wisconsin, they found they could meet there wastewater effluent limits by reducing road salt, as water from street drains enter [really old] wastewater drain system. Rather than spending money to add a reverse osmosis system at the end of the system pipe. It was found to be more cost effective to take this approach. As a result, many folks from Wisconsin are taking the smart salting certification training based on this issue to reduce road salt application.

· Question: How much does the receiving water body influence the reasonable potential? Answer: You will notice that there is no reasonable potential in the Metro, because our facilities discharges into large rivers. In the other areas of the state, they are discharging into smaller bodies of water. Therefore, that will have an impact.

· Question: Do we have estimates of how many years the cities can be discharging these levels of salt before the smaller bodies of water become impaired? Answer: I think that will be depended on each water body and the levels. If it is at or below 230 mg/L, that is what the MPCA is looking for, for the runoff concentration because it will probably be below the standard. For lakes, there was a different approach because the chloride does not move out of the lake very fast. That would depend on the residence time of the lake.

· Question: Does a significant amount of salt bind with something and settle down, or does it continue to flow out of the state? Answer: When looking at the seven Metro county area, there was a mass balance study (UMN), which revealed that 80% of the chloride is being retained. I think there was this assumption that the chloride was flowing away, but these results reveal it is sticking around. Response: Where is it being retained? Answer: I think it is a combination of lakes, wetlands, and groundwater. The soils as well, especially the clay soils. Therefore, however long the water takes to move through the soils, will be how long the chloride will take to move out of the area it is retained. Discussion on the Draft Chloride Policy statement

· Question: Do we need to define the certification program? Answer: At this time, that term covers the private and the public groups. I think you are safe with the name “smart salting”, if you want to make it specific to identify this particular training. Comment: There are similar MNDOT trainings, so it is probably good to be specific on this particular one. Deepa adjusted name and training description in first and second bullet. Added “…best management practices” at the end of the third bullet.

· Question: What is the cost of the training program? Answer: That is included in the program information provided to you. It is $228,000 would include all of the costs for the program.

· Question: The water softening statements were drafted to help move forward in this area. We are hoping that the cities can at least be able to do a cost analysis – not that they have to implement – so they know what the cost would be for a lime softening system. Comment: I think we should split these two. There is more comfort moving forward with the winter de-icing side. There is a record of accomplishment of good data and a lot of good

information about that area right now. I think it would be important to gather the data of the water softening to review before moving forward with that drafted policy statement. We could create a policy about gathering more information, which could be okay. I think it is premature to move forward, without knowing the costs of these kinds of items. I think if we want to move forward quickly, we can send forward the de-icing statement, and then hold the water softening statement for a later date, unless you would like to move them together. Comment: I would want to do more with the public facility folks to get more background to better understand how to implement these. Perhaps, make the first bullet vaguer.

· I agree, I think we do need to collect more information, and I agree we should talk to the public facility folks. So, do we want to have one or two chloride policies? Is it time sensitive? Answer: On the de-icing, it is possible that there will be legislative action on this. We have had the most activity recently than ever before. Now with MNLA taking the lead, they are serious about getting it passed this session. I think we have the best chance this session, than in the past. In addition, it is something that was talked about at the Governor’s Town Halls 25 by 25 this summer, especially with the SOS (Stop over Salting) group. I think there are many folks that are interested in seeing something happen with this.

· I think we should separate the two, and have the first part go forward to the full Council to be approved, before session starts. Therefore, we could piggyback on what others are doing to help move this forward. It would give us more time to talk about the water softener issue. It sounds like it might have more cost applications.

· The draft that Brooke provided was a statement. They have it as encouraging language, versus a policy statement. Therefore, that might be something to consider changing.

· Is it ready to recommend to the full Council? The earliest would be December, if you approve this at this meeting. Then, it would be ready in time for the legislative session.

· Motion to approve, seconded, and motion carries. The revised Draft Chloride Reduction Policy will be brought to the December full Council meeting for approval. They would like to include the chloride maps as well for the meeting.

· Deepa will check with Public Facilities Authority (PFA), to talk with them at the next Policy Committee meeting. As well as follow up and review the background water softening costs data from the MPCA staff.

Pharmaceuticals in water, by Mark Ferrey, MPCA (WebEx 02:04:30) · Pharmaceuticals in Minnesota’s Surface Water: · Lakes and Rivers Sampled for 300 chemicals

· Ranges from Northern Minnesota to the Southern regions (urban and rural developed) · 140 Pharmaceuticals; 23 hormones · Alkylphenols (compounds of detergents), but they can behave like some hormones (weakly) · Bisphenol A (product of plastic, weakly estrogenic) · Triclosan and Triclocarban (topical disinfectants found frequently in the environment) · Benzotriazoles (used in deicing as well as detergents for dishwashers - they work to prevent corrosion) · We have compiled a database of these contaminants. We are proud of the work we have done through our

studies. · Probabilistic studies: These were studies of about 50 locations around the state, sampling water in randomly

selected\ locations. Then, they are analyzed for these contaminants. The map is from the 2015 River study and 2012 Lake study. The circles are the samples, the size reveals the number of contaminants (larger is more). Many are found in the more developed regions in the state. Less in the Northern regions, although they are found statewide.

· In the Lake study, 47 of 50 lakes had at least one detection · In River study, 49 of 50 river segments had at least one detection · Because water bodies were randomly selected, these two studies can predict the kind of surface water

issues statewide. · Question: How did you randomize the selection? Answer: We work closely with the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). They generate the locations for a national lake assessment program, so we have people collecting this data for that study. There will be random GPS location points across the whole state. Then, sampling crews will find the nearest water to the randomly selected areas identified by the EPA. They struggled sometimes to get these samples. This was a good representation of the state, because it collects from all sizes of body waters. Comment: This is a great example of how we can be as efficient as possible. We made this decision, because sampling for these complicated chemicals could become expensive quick. We would not be able to do this kind of study without dovetailing in the other research (EPA national research) with this cooperation. Everyone benefits.

· There is a large variety of pharmaceuticals and other chemicals found at these locations. For example, looking at the frequency of detection and the percent of locations with detections, Iopamidol (an X-ray contrast agent), is sometimes found at very remote locations. We find antidepressants like Sertraline and Amitriptyline. In addition, we also find DEET at many locations (sometimes almost at 100% of the locations). We also find chemicals that behave similar to weak hormones, such as Metformin (Type 2 diabetes medication) or Bisphenol A (BPA).

· This data helps reveal the percentage of river miles affected by these different contaminants, which is most of the surface water around the state. Based on this data, it is predicted that about 82% of the Minnesota rivers contain Iopamidol.

· It can be easier to review by pharmaceutical categories: neurological (46 detections), Anti-infective (18 detections), Cardiovascular (seven detections), and Dermatological (five detections). This was from the data of the 2012 Lake Study

· Antibiotics: They analyzed for 35 different ones over the years and detected 13 in the surface waters. These are at parts per trillion – so very low detections. These are not dangerous levels, but we are concerned about any detection of antibiotics.

· Neurological: They find a variety (antidepressants, anticonvulsive, sedatives, and stimulants). Our concern, these are biologically active, so we do not know what effects these are having on our ecosystems. We do not know what interactions there may be either.

· Effects? · Oxycodone human therapeutic dose is 10mg. · WWTP effluents: frequently detected at >40 ug/L (250L effluent = one therapeutic dose) · WWTP effluent contributes 20% flow of river water (1,250 L of river water = one therapeutic dose) · Water flow over fish gill: 5 g fathead minnow: 795 Liter/day; 830 g smallmouth bass: 6,134 Liter/day. For

humans, this would equals five therapeutic doses per day of oxycodone! · Diclofenac was introduced to India for treatment of livestock in 1990s (treats rheumatism in livestock).

· This is lethal to Gyps vultures: causes visceral gout in internal organs and about 97% of vulture’s population became eradicated in about 15 years. The vultures ate the dead livestock, so they were exposed to it. The contamination of 1/760 livestock carcasses is sufficient to explain the collapse in vulture population. Now the wild dogs clean up the carrion. About 40% of the wild dog population carrying rabies, which can infect humans. There are unintended consequences. Some of these can be toxic in wildlife in ways they are not to humans.

· Interactions: · Iopamidol is not toxic to humans, except when you treat it with chlorine (e.g., wastewater treatment plants)

it creates iodinated disinfection by-products (Iodoacetic acid and Iodoform). These chemicals are extremely toxic. Iodoacetic acid is 288 times more cytotoxic (toxic to cells) than chloroacetic acid and 47 times more genotoxic (toxic to genes) than chloroacetic acid. We should be concerned about these interactions.

· Environmental Effects · A researcher in Canada dosed an experimental lake with 5 part per trillion of the synthetic estrogen

ethinylestradiol, which caused the minnow population to collapse within two years (then the entire fish population in the lake declined because of the food chain effects). The fish population returned after they stopped dosing the lake. Some of these chemicals can act like triggers (as if a hormone would). They are not toxic per say, but they do cause changes in fish and wildlife.

· Just 30 parts per trillion fluvoxamine (an antidepressant) in water triggers immediate spawning in freshwater mussels. This affects their nesting sites and reproductive behavior.

· Fish behavior is altered after exposure to 1 part per trillion of estradiol. · Genetic effects – turning genes on or off

· They used lab minnows and exposed them to these chemicals. They found the exposure caused them to turn off and on genes that were responsible for these: thyroid hormone receptor, cardiovascular effects, reduced growth, possible tumor formation, and DNA transcription control.

· How will these affect these populations as the fish are exposed to these contaminants? · Are we promoting development of antibiotic resistant bacteria? One study found there was a correlation

between the numbers of antibiotic resistance strains to how much antibiotic resistance were found in the sediment.

· Sources?

· Wastewater treatment plants – 2009 study of 25 Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs). It revealed that the primary sources to contaminate water were: Septic systems, Stormwater, and Agriculture

· How are these chemicals getting into these remote locations? · Precipitation Study (Rain, Snow, Air (PM10)) · They found antibiotics in all three. Therefore, we can anticipate why our pristine locations are

contaminated. Questions: · How are some of these chemicals getting into the precipitation? Answer: Some of them can evaporate out of

wastewater. Others can be carried by fine particulates, so they can be carried in the air as well. People process these chemicals as well (excrete them).

Human Health Impact of Pharmaceuticals in the Environment - by Ashley Suchomel, Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) (WebEx 02:38:00) · Pharmaceuticals are in the environment at low levels. What do we do with that information?

· They can enter the environment through industrial release, improper disposal, runoff, and excretion after normal use. They are consistently detected in potential drinking water sources as well as remote locations throughout the country. They are not consistently removed via wastewater treatment processes. They are formulated for maximum potency, for specific biological targets. Even when they are found at relatively low concentrations, we need a way to assess detections.

· In addition to MDH derived Health-Based Guidance Values, the Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC) Initiative developed a methodology that relies on minimal information sources to derive screening level values for pharmaceutical ingredients that can be used to assess potential health risk and provide context to environmental detections.

· CEC Initiative Pharmaceutical Rapid Assessment · The MDH employed its novel method to derive conservative screening level values for 119 pharmaceuticals.

They were able to derive values for most commonly prescribed compounds in the United States, as well as those commonly monitoring for in the environment.

· Includes: antibiotics, antidepressants, cholesterol medications, blood thinners, diuretics, steroids, and pain relievers.

· Use of MDH Pharmaceuticals Rapid Assessments: · When detections approach rapid assessment values, further action or prioritization may be warranted · Not used as definitive measure of risk, but rather conservative estimates to provide context and prioritize

monitoring · Modifications of analytical schedules to focus on pharmaceuticals with low rapid assessment values and no

occurrence information · Do environmental detections of pharmaceuticals in water pose a potential human health concern?

· The MDH/MPCA Collaborate on CEC Monitoring · The MDH works with the MPCA to provide human health context to detections of CECs in the

environment. They have the MDH Pharmaceutical Rapid Assessments. They currently have the guidance of: sufamethoxazole, carbamazepine, Triclosan, Venlafaxine, and 17a-EthinylEstradiol

· Providing Context to Environmental Detections · Overall, the majority of pharmaceutical detections in Minnesota waters occur at concentration below the

MDH rapid assessment value. · Few pharmaceuticals detected in finished drinking water in recent EPA study, and none above a MDH

comparison value. · In the most recent MPCA surface water study, no pharmaceutical was detected above a MDH comparison

value. · What is Entering the Environment Now May Change

· The MDH will monitor trends in morbidity and prescription habits to look ahead at which pharmaceuticals may need closer attention in the future

· Increased use could lead to potential increased concentrations in the environment (Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension)

· Type 2 diabetes is on the rise, in both children and adults. Minnesota has a rapidly aging population, so we can expect to see a rise in this more. Therefore, we will see a rise in the prescriptions.

· Metformin: used in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes. It is detected in Minnesota surface waters at a maximum of 0.667 µg/L, and detected at 0.0227 µg/L in groundwater. The derived screening value is 4 µg/L. So, monitoring will continue due to potential increasing use. This is not prioritized for health-based guidance development at this time, but it could be considered in the future.

· Hypertension (High Blood pressure). This assessment value has changed (lowered), so now people may see increased prescription rates (more cardiovascular drugs prescribed

· Metoprolol: used in the treatment of hypertension. It is detected in Minnesota surface waters at a maximum of 51 µg/L, but not yet detected in groundwater. The derived screening value is 3,000 µg/L. So, they will continue to monitor due to potential increasing use. This is not prioritized for health-based guidance development at this time, but it could be considered in the future.

· Future Directions for Protection Human Health: · Assessing the human health impact of pharmaceuticals in water is a big job. Providing context to monitoring

data from the MPCA and other groups with the MDH derived health protective values is the first step in prioritizing efforts and focusing Minnesota resources where they are most impacting.

· They will continue to provide context to environmental detection with health-based guidance values and rapid assessments.

· They will be proactive, look for changes in prescribing habits that could impact Minnesota. · They will use monitoring data and derived values to focus efforts upstream to keep pharmaceuticals from

entering the environment. Questions: · Regarding the effluent issues, St. Cloud pulls their drinking water from the Mississippi River, treats the wastewater,

and puts it back in the river. Minneapolis does the same thing. As we continue down the river, the same thing keeps happening. Is there a cumulative effect of these chemical compounds? Have we examined that happening geographically? Answer: I do not think there has been a study that has looked at that specifically, but we do have data from monitoring along the Mississippi River. There are studies out in the literature, so we could detect from those different monitoring locations. However, it would be hard to know the interactions between the treated water versus what is newly added along the river. We can look at the detections only.

· Regarding water systems for filtration, does the membrane system work better than the sand systems to remove these? Is there a treatment process that would address this issue? Answer: I do not know at this time. There have been studies to look at the efficacy of these different treatments, but there are a few issues with these, but as far as treatment technology, they are not regulated so they have less technologies working towards these areas. There is some research out in the literature, but I am not sure off the top of my head. Comment: If you filter with reverse osmosis it will work, but it is very expensive to have that kind of system.

Collection and Management of Household Generated Pharmaceutical Waste, by Jennifer Volkman, MPCA (WebEx 02:57:00) · Why Do We Collect?

· Prevent abuse and overdose: controlled substance abuse, points to family, friends and other’s medicine cabinets as being a significant source · Recent study showed 50% of prescribed controlled substances were not taken.

· Prevent Poisoning: · #1 cause of accidental poisoning: · Medications were responsible for 26.4% of poison calls in 2015 for children under 6 · Pain medications are the single most frequent cause of pediatric fatalities reported to Poison Control · 41.9% of poisonings in adults over 20 years were from medications

· Negative Environmental Impacts: · USGS did initial studies measuring medications in the natural environment, around 1999 · This revealed evidence of death and endocrine disruptions in both fish and birds due to medications · Dose does not make the poison with endocrine disruptors (can cause negative impacts in very low (parts per

trillion) concentrations.

· How Collection Started · Western Lake Superior Sanitary District did the first pilot events; determined the costs for managing

controlled substances made it unsustainable · Chisago County started collecting in 2007 under purview of law enforcement · The MPCA, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and the Board of Pharmacy put together a work group to

figure out how we could collect all medications, while complying with rules/statutes · Program decision to allow for “pharm only” collection with less regulatory burden · They found a pathway through rules to allow pharmaceuticals to be burned for energy recovery · The Board of Pharmacy worked with the Legislature to revise State statutes so law enforcement

could possess prescription medications for disposal · Who Collects Household medications?

· There are 343 permanent year-round collection sites in Minnesota: · 220 law enforcement locations (1/3 are sheriff and 2/3 are police) · 91 pharmacies (Thrifty White and Walgreens are doing a great job, and Essentia is next) · 26 pharmacies (do not collect controlled substances) · 6 American Indian Reservations · Total: Hennepin County has completed more than 20 event collections

· What Do Collectors Have to Do? · Pharmacies must modify their DEA registration · Pharmacies and law enforcement must notify the MPCA · All collectors provide annual collection numbers to the MPCA (no cost or participation numbers) · They must comply with the DEA storage and on-site management requirements · Incinerate collected waste at the Solid Waste combustors or Haz Waste incinerators.

· 2007 – 2016 Over 425,000 pounds of drugs were collected · About 285,000 pounds of actual drugs (without packaging) · About 14,250 pounds of controlled substances

· DEA Biannual Collections · They started in September, 2010 · Discontinued after 2014 due to new DEA rules were passed, but increased again in 2015 due to pressure

from collectors needing funds · Collected 10,000 pounds of pharmaceuticals in Minnesota in 2016 · Most recent event held October, 2017, where they covered waste management costs

· Cost to Host Collection Boxes · Law Enforcement: Supplies and disposal is 15% to 30% of law enforcement collection system costs. The

majority is staff time for law enforcement. The cost to a county to deal with one overdose/emergency is about $3,000, which might be the cost of a year’s worth of collection for a small county (prevention cost).

· Pharmacies: The disposal costs are higher since the waste disposal companies manage the boxes: fees include box or box rental, changing of the liners, disposal cost. The labor investment is lower; pharmacists monitor and contact disposal services when needed.

· Disposal Options for Households · Permanent collection sites to incinerators (preferred option) · One-day collection events · Mail back programs (expensive for HH volume) · Shake and toss pouches (most costly and less preferred environmentally)

· How Much Do People Have? · About ½ a grocery bag of miscellaneous bottles/ointments · Mail back holds about 4 bottles · Shake and toss pouches hold 15-45 pills · Drop boxes at permanent collection sites hold everything! (most cost effective and preferred)

· Disposal Options – Businesses · Healthcare: currently allowed to flush medications · Manufacturers: allowed to sewer process water/medications, or human waste management

· In 2009, the MPCA issued a letter to wastewater treatment plant operators to consider not approving requests to sewer endocrine disruptors (listed specific hormones and antidepressants; no antibiotics)

· How Do We Collect More? · Encourage partnerships between law enforcement and pharmacies · Encourage large health groups to collect medications (and sharps) · Fill in the gaps: 5 counties are still without collection (Big Stone, Kittson, Lincoln, Red Lake, and Swift) · Outreach and education: take advantage of the interest in reducing opioid abuse; relate it to poisoning;

relate it to the antibiotic resistance issue. · Cost Sharing and Prevention

· Manufacture Product Stewardship: Attempted in 2010; failed. Most success with the product stewardship legislation is a t the county or city level

· Some studies show up to a 50% wastage rate, which is a large cost to society. There can be a change in the number of pills for drugs that are commonly wasted. In addition, drug repositories to share drugs that would be wasted (i.e., cancer medications).

· Education: both patients and doctors No questions asked CEC Education and Outreach Grants and the Minnesota One Health Antibiotic Stewardship Collaborative by Ashley Suchomel, MDH (WebEx 03:22:00)

· CEC Outreach and Education Grant: · The MDH has awarded over $330,000 in outreach and education grants to local governments, non-profits, and

academic institutions to: · raise awareness of emerging contaminants, how they enter the environment, and their health impacts; · highlight the value of clean drinking water and how CEC imitative activities (health-based guidance

development, rapid assessments, and other special projects) contribute to Minnesota’s clean water; or · promote individual, family, and community behaviors that reduce environmental releases of emerging

contaminants. · Past Projects Related to Pharmaceuticals:

· Upper Mississippi River Watershed Basin Area: Education about pharmaceutical take-back, especially pharmacies. As well as billboard, we presence, and other ads to promote action.

· Red River of the North Watershed Basin Area: Education about proper pharmaceuticals disposal, take-back, and drop boxes. As well as an advisory group to further educate, promote pharmaceutical take-back, and make recommendations on future pharmaceutical disposal needs.

· Lake Superior Watershed Basin Area with impacts throughout Minnesota: A CEC toolkit for use by any organization or state agency to promote proper pharmaceutical disposal. As well as promoted connection of protecting the environment with pharmaceutical stewardship.

· Current Grant Projects that have a Pharmaceutical Presence · Targeted education about contaminants affecting septic systems · Watershed level education of public about CECs in stormwater runoff · Web presence to reach and education the public about CECs

· Goal: Keep Pharmaceuticals out of the Environment · Education resources and messaging about pharmaceutical disposal · Providing information so the public can make informed decisions · Planning for future pharmaceutical disposal and education needs of local areas · Creating resource for other organizations to leverage across Minnesota

· One Health Antibiotic Stewardship Collaborative Overview: · Who Uses Antibiotics?

· Human health care: clinics and hospitals, long-term facilities, outpatient facilities, and dental clinics · Animal health: companion animal medicine, animal agriculture · Aquaculture · Bee production · Plant agriculture (i.e., fruit production) · Industry (i.e., ethanol production)

· What is Antibiotic Resistance? · Antibiotic resistance is the ability of bacteria to withstand the effects of antibiotics · This occurs naturally, but misuse of antibiotics in human and animal health accelerates bacterial changes · This reduces efficacy of antibiotics and leads to drug resistant organisms

· Antibiotic Stewardship · Process of improving antibiotic use by using coordinated actions · Focused on optimizing use, not withholding antibiotics · Goal is to optimize the “5 Ds” + 1:

· Diagnosis (determining if an antibiotic is needed) · Drug (choosing the right antibiotic for the infection and patient) · Dose (giving the right amount of antibiotic) · Duration (giving the antibiotic for the right amount of time) · De-escalation (discontinuing or narrowing antibiotic as appropriate) · Disposal (properly getting rid of unused antibiotics and keeping them out of the environment)

· Minnesota One Health Antibiotic Stewardship Collaborative · State agency representatives: The MDH, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the MPCA, the

Department of Natural Resources, the Boards of Animal Health, Vet Med, Pharmacy, and Dentistry. · Stakeholders form all fields: University researchers, professional and industry associations, physicians,

nurses, administrators, and pharmacist, veterinary professionals, human and animal pharmaceutical companies

· Working Together as a State · Antibiotics are a shared resource, and optimizing use benefits everyone. · Minnesota is the only state currently addressing antibiotic resistance at this level and with a one health

approach · Efforts recognize that: human, animal, and environmental health are inseparable; all antibiotic use can

lead to resistance; and behavior change is key. · One Health Stewardship 5-year Strategic Plan

· Mission is to provide a collaborative environment to: promote judicious antibiotic use; reduce impact of antibiotic-resistant pathogens of human, animal, and environmental health importance

· Vision: that Minnesota leaders in human, animal, and environment health will work together to raise awareness and change behaviors to preserve antibiotics and treat infections effectively

· Strategic Plan Goals and Current Projects: · Promote understanding of One Health antibiotic stewardship

· Support public engagement on antibiotic use · Field exchanges among professionals in different fields

· Improve healthcare antibiotic stewardship · Tools to track antibiotic use across continuum of care · Setting state antibiotic goals · Honor Roll recognition system for health care facilities

· Improve veterinary antibiotic stewardship · Promoting animal agriculture best practices · Increasing access to stewardship resources for companion animal medicine · Public engagement on animal stewardship

· Develop “antibiotic footprint” tools (some are LCCMR funded) · Further understanding of impact of antibiotics in the environment · Natural environment footprint – modeling and sampling · Tool to help prescribers make choices to decrease their own antibiotic footprint and make

smarter prescribing choices · Antibiotic Stewardship Efforts

· One piece of the puzzle when evaluating pharmaceuticals in the environment · Promote upstream behaviors to use antibiotics effectively and keep them out of the environment · Help Minnesota better understand impact of antibiotics in the environment on resistance

· Other Upstream Efforts and Ideas · Additional efforts and ideas to prevent pharmaceuticals form entering the environment and/or lessen

their environmental impact are underway or being pursued as upstream initiatives. · Green Pharmacy Initiatives: guides for environmentally responsible prescribing · Higher Education Classes: training upcoming veterinarians about pharmaceutical stewardship

Questions: · Do we know what percent of prescribed medications are unused? Answer: I think we would have to do surveys

to help figure that out to get an idea. We might be also able to get sales information. I have not seen anyone do that yet. It is not easily acceptable to know what people are being prescribed; it is private data.

· I was wondering about the Antibiotics Stewardship program that you just described, how is that being funded, and how long would it be funded. Answer: Currently, all of the collaborative members from agriculture, environment, and human health are all volunteer. The only person on a payroll for this is the director through MDH. Everyone else is interested and see this as a necessary thing for the state. It is considered volunteer hours.

· This is a grant program? Answer: The Center for Disease Control grant program, which is different from the Antibiotic Stewardship because that is in the Health Risk Assessment Unit in CEC initiative, which is funded by Clean Water Funds.

· What are the gaps and what is needed going forward? · Answers: From the pharmaceutical collection side, education and outreach are the areas. There is a lot of

Minnesota still unaware of these collection options. More funding is always welcome. · From the human and environmental health side, it is important to be thinking more about those upstream

issues. More education for the prescriber level, and continued education of the public. We need to maintain the ability to monitor different locations in the environment that have not been monitored yet, or complete research on pre- and post-treatments at drinking water treatment plants. We can do the upstream efforts, but we need to make sure we are monitoring as well to make sure treatments are working.

· From the MPCA pharmaceuticals in the surface water, we do have a lot more data than other states, but we have a small snapshot of what is going on in the environment. For example, we do not have water-sediment data. We do not know how this could be affecting the soils. We also could use more data on how these chemicals are changing over time. Right now, we only have a snapshot of what is coming out of a wastewater treatment facility. Therefore, we do not know how that may be changing year-by-year. That is a data gap. We need to keep monitoring this data and expanding it. Due to the studies that we have been able to do over the last decade, we have been able to whittle out what we are seeing so we know which areas to focus more on (i.e., hormones), or items that are more toxic. Perhaps in the future, we can identify more of the items we need to monitor directly. In addition, the education gap needs to be addressed. There is interest out there, so knowing how best to reach these groups is important too.

· Question: Are there any guidance or directions that we could help with from a policy standpoint? You do not need to respond to that question today, instead we need for you to strategize, and bring something back to us. If it is more public education, we can recommend that. Response: Similar to electronic waste, letting consumers know what to do with their leftover pharmaceuticals (on the label) could be helpful. There was an attempt to do this in 2010, but the volume of drugs, looking at the pharmaceutical industry; it costs money to do it, so let us get them to be part of the solution. Response: We will have Deepa talk to you folks for some policy ideas.

New Business · Future Policy Committee meetings:

· Next meeting will be Friday, January 26 · February 23 approved to move to February 16, as the full Council meeting would be following Monday · November 23 approved to move to November 30 (due to holiday)

· Other items from members · Barb Huberty provided this information: It was the House file 897 and Senate file 795, which were introduced to

require pharmacies to maintain collection boxes for disposal of pharmaceutical drugs. This was introduced, but it did not pass last year (Representatives Hillstrom and Eaton). The Policy committee would like to review it.

Adjournment (WebEx 04:02:52)

Pre-Softening toDrinking Water to Meet

Chloride Standards

Road Salt Versus WWTP Salt

Over 100 MN facilities will

receive effluent limits to

protect 230 mg/L chloride

standard

Chloride sources To WWTPsAlexandria, MN (2014) Morris, MN (2014) Madison, WI (2016)

Chloride Loading Categories Concentration Load Concentration Load Concentration Load

mg/L % mg/L % mg/L %Source Water 75 11% NA NA 34 8%

Industrial/Commerial 121 17% 700 19% 77 18%Residential (Non-IX) ~ 50 7% ~ 50 6% 34 8%

Residential (IX) 466 65% 788 81% 245 57%Road Salt Infiltration NA NA NA NA 30 7%

Hauled Septage NA NA NA NA 9 2%Average WWTP Effluent 712 830 430

Source

Water Treatment

With Softening

Wastewater Treatment

Plant

Source

Water TreatmentWithout

Softening

Wastewater Treatment

Plant

PrivateWell

Centralized Softening Point-of-Entry Softening (IX)

= Ion Exchange Softener

Sends lots of Chloride to WWTP!

Source Water(High Hardness)

Treated Water(Low Hardness)

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Salt Brine(NaCl)

Na NaNa Na

Forward Use

Source Water(High Hardness)

Treated Water(Low Hardness)

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Salt Brine(NaCl)

Forward Use

Source Water(High Hardness)

Treated Water(Low Hardness)

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Salt Brine(NaCl)

Forward Use

Source Water(High Hardness)

Treated Water(Low Hardness)

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Salt Brine(NaCl)

Forward Use

Source Water(High Hardness)

Treated Water(Low Hardness)

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Salt Brine(NaCl)

Forward Use

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Salt Brine(NaCl)

Backwash(High NaCl)

Backwash Resin Regeneration

Salt Brine(NaCl)

Backwash(High NaCl)

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Cl ClCl Cl Cl Cl

Cl Cl

Backwash Resin Regeneration

Na NaNa

Na NaNa

Cl ClCl Cl Cl

Cl

Ca MgCa

Mg

MgCa

Mg

MgCa

Mg

Salt Brine(NaCl)

Backwash(High NaCl)

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Cl ClCl Cl Cl Cl

Cl Cl

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Ca Mg Ca MgCa

Mg

Backwash Resin Regeneration

Source Water(High Hardness)

Treated Water(Low Hardness)

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Na NaNa Na

Salt Brine(NaCl)

Na NaNa Na

Forward Use

How to treat chloride at a WWTP?Alternative WWTP Chloride

Reductions Possible?

Ability to bring WWTP into chloride compliance

(~230 mg/L)?

TechnicalFeasibility

Implementation Feasibility

Estimated Relative Cost

Drinking Water Source Reduction

Centralized Lime Softening Yes Likely* Feasible Feasible Very HighCentralized RO Softening Yes Likely* Feasible Feasible Very High

Ferric Chloride --> Ferric Sulfate Yes Unlikely Feasible Feasible Low

Softeners

Upgrade to High Salt Efficiency Home Softeners Yes Unlikely Feasible Feasible Medium

Upgrade Industry to High Efficiency Softeners Yes Unlikely Feasible Feasible Medium

Outlaw Ion Exchange Home Water Softeners Yes Likely Not Feasible Not Feasible Medium

Create Softener Column Exchange and Collection Program Yes Likely Feasible Feasible High

Switch to Non Ion Exchange Softeners Yes Likely Feasible YetUnproven Feasible Medium

Increase Residential Softening Target Yes Unlikely Not Feasible Not Feasible Medium

WWTP Chloride Treatment

RO effluent - Concentrate Discharged to Surface Water Yes Likely Not Feasible Not Feasible

(Permitting) Very High

RO effluent - Concentrate Crystalized/Evaporated Yes Likely Feasible Not Feasible

(Energy) Extremely High

RO effluent - Concentrate Deep Well Injection Yes Likely Not Feasible Illegal Extremely High

Chlorination to UV disinfection Yes Unlikely Feasible Feasible MediumFerric Chloride to Ferric Sulfate Yes Unlikely Feasible Feasible Low

Chloride Precipitation with Silver Nitrate Yes Yes Not Feasible Not Feasible Extremely High

Chloride Anion Exchange Yes Possible Not Feasible Not Feasible(Untested) Extremely High

Electrodialysis Yes Possible Feasible Feasible Extremely High

Biological Treatment No Unlikely Not Feasible Not Feasible(Not Possible) NA

*If all residential wells eliminated and in-home softeners disconnected

Ranking feasibility of chloride compliance engineering alternatives1. Upgrade residences, industry and business to high efficiency

point-of-entry softeners2. Centralized lime softening and uninstalling point-of-entry softeners3. Centralized RO Softening and uninstalling point-of-entry softeners

Upgrading to high efficiency softeners

Pros• Maintains status quo• Uses less chloride

Cons• Chloride limit compliance

WWTP unlikely• O&M schedules• Replacement schedules

• Political will• Finance IX replacement• Verify IX replacement

Santa Clarita, CA Chloride Story

Madison, WI Chloride Story

High Efficiency softeners still use lots

of chloride!

Committed to high efficiency softener

compliance strategy!

Detroit Lake, MN Chloride Story

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

6/1/2007 5/31/2008 5/31/2009 5/31/2010 5/31/2011 5/30/2012 5/30/2013 5/30/2014 5/30/2015 5/29/2016 5/29/2017

Chloride (mg/L)

Effluent Chloride230 mg/L Limit

230 mg/L Limit must be complied with every single

month forever!

High Efficient Softener Upgrade Summary

• High efficiency softeners are a good tool to reduce chloride loading• Any rebate program must be accompanied by tuning assistance and

inspections program

• For most MN cities, upgrading softeners won’t achieve limit compliance

• Cities need to able to decide softener management strategies for themselves

Does Centralized Softening Save Money?

YES! MAYBE!NO!

Bloomington, MNSave $30/Month with Central Softening!

Saint Peter, MNSome people still run water softeners!

Rochester, MNExisting Distributed Well Network Makes

Centralized Softening Impossible!

Does Centralized Softening Produce Better Water Quality?

My Recommendations

•Remember that chloride limits must be complied with!•Don’t invest money in solutions that won’t guarantee

compliance!•Let cities investigate chloride solutions for themselves!•Fund tools to help cities investigate chloride solutions!•Help cities develop laws to manage water softeners!•Fund money for new drinking water plant infrastructure!

Ranking feasibility of chloride compliance engineering alternatives1. Upgrade residences and business to high efficiency point-of-entry

softeners2. Centralized lime softening and uninstalling point-of-entry

softeners3. Centralized RO Softening and uninstalling point-of-entry softeners

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Drinking Water Source Lime Treated IX Treated

meq/L

Chloride

Sodium

Magnesium

Calcium

Pottasium

Sulfate

Alkalinity

Chloride linkage*

Parameter UnitsAverage Range

Water Quality Standard

Chloride mg/L < 230 230 (2B)

Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 < 500 500 (3B)

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L < 700 700 (4A)

Bicarbonates mg/L as CaCO3 < 250 250 (4A)

Specific Conductance µmho/cm < 1000 1000 (4A)

*Centralized Lime Softening and Removing All Ion Exchange Softeners

Ranking feasibility of chloride compliance engineering alternatives1. Upgrade residences and business to high efficiency point-of-entry

softeners2. Centralized lime softening and uninstalling point-of-entry softeners3. Centralized RO Softening and uninstalling point-of-entry softeners

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

US

dolla

rs ($

)

Population Served by Facility

Cost per 1,000 gallons

Lime softeningReverse Osmosis

Takeaways…So Far

• Currently chloride limits are recommended based on RP• There are ways to come into compliance with Chloride limits• Those compliance alternatives are costly and difficult

Chloride Limit Compliance Strategy

• MPCA is engaging a working group of municipalities to develop a municipal chloride permitting strategy

• All Options On The Table• Variances• Extended Compliance Schedules• Chloride Management Plans• Chloride Linkage• Do Nothing

What is a variance?

• A temporary modification of a water quality standard based on substantial and widespread economic hardship

• Allows time to come into compliance with final effluent limits

• Provision in Clean Water Act to formally consider cost of compliance with effluent limits

12 Pre-populated demographic data points already incorporated into tool for each city (data from census, MDH, MN Auditor, etc…)

Variance Tool

Only 3 data fields require entry from applicant

Variance Tool Yes/No Screener

Final Takeaways

• Currently Chloride Limits are recommended based on RP• There Are Ways To Come Into Compliance With Those Limits

• None Of Those Options Will Be Easy

• We Want Your Input In This Process!!!

Questions?

• Scott Kyser• 651-757-2665• Scott.Kyser@state.mn.us

• Joel Peck• 651-757-2202• Joel.Peck@state.mn.us