FINAL REPORT

Project Title Contaminants of New or Emerging Concern Wastewater Initiative – WWTP Design Team

Principal Investigator Paige Novak, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering, University of Minnesota

Motivation, Goals, and Objectives

Surface water protection requires effective wastewater treatment. Challenges that face Minnesota with respect to wastewater treatment include, but are not limited to: efficient nutrient removal, the effective treatment of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), and salts. To best address such challenges with limited resources (human and monetary), the development of a focused group of professionals with a range of perspectives was created, a “Wastewater Think Tank”. This core group was extremely knowledgeable about wastewater treatment and water contaminants, but from very different perspectives. Indeed, representatives from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA, Bruce Henningsgaard, Katrina Kessler, and Randy Thorson), utilities from across the State (Al Parrella, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District – Duluth; Larry Rogacki, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services – St. Paul; Colleen Thompson, Willmar, now Green Lake Sanitary Sewer & Water District – Kandiyohi County; and Bob Zimmerman, City of Moorhead), faculty from the University of Minnesota (Bill Arnold, Ray Hozalski, Tim LaPara, and Paige Novak) and internationally recognized technical experts (Drs. Charles Bott, Glen Daigger, and J.B. Neethling, CVs available) participated as members of the Think Tank.

The objectives of the Minnesota Wastewater Think Tank were to: • Assess the current wastewater treatment needs of the State from a variety of perspectives,• Determine the most critical questions to be answered to safeguard Minnesota’s water

resources,• Raise awareness within the group on state of the art wastewater treatment technologies,

particularly those that provide opportunities to conserve energy and reduce costs whileachieving treatment goals,

• Identify barriers to achieving maximal water quality protection via wastewater treatment(regulatory, technological, behavioral),

• Address these barriers as possible, moving Minnesota closer to achieving water qualitygoals,

• Make recommendations to the State of Minnesota regarding larger actions that the Statecould engage in to achieve surface water quality goals while simultaneously conservingenergy and reducing treatment costs, and

• Develop a final report summarizing this information.

wq-wwtp5-92

Outcomes These objectives were met through a series of workshops and one trip to the Hampton Roads Sanitation District in Norfolk, Virginia to observe the application of cutting-edge wastewater technologies (urine collection, low-energy anaerobic nitrogen removal, ammonia-based aeration control, and phosphorus recovery). In addition, the Think Tank fostered the development of a true community of wastewater professionals within the State that could call upon one another for a variety of perspectives and advice when needed, creating a broader and more connected network of wastewater treatment experts in Minnesota. With respect to determining the most critical questions to be answered to safeguard Minnesota’s water resources, the team identified the following:

1. What cost-effective, low-energy sustainable nutrient removal technologies exist that potentially could be deployed in Minnesota?

2. What are the best methods for the removal of contaminants of emerging concern (CEC)? 3. What opportunities exist to remove excessive salt from wastewater effluents, including

opportunities to prevent them from entering the waste stream? 4. What are regulatory barriers to advancing wastewater treatment and water protection in

the state? 5. How can we better educate the public regarding the importance of wastewater treatment

and the importance of their own purchasing/use choices in safeguarding Minnesota’s water?

6. How can energy use be minimized in wastewater treatment? Over the past two years, conversations within the Wastewater Think Tank focused on questions 1-3. The ability of the State to address these problems through cost-effective means while simultaneously promoting energy conservation requires addressing these questions from technological, regulatory, and behavioral perspectives, thereby touching on questions 4-6 as well. In fact, as the group increased its overall knowledge and understanding of state of the art treatment technologies, the importance of regulatory flexibility and the role of public awareness and choice in addressing some of these treatment problems—particularly those surrounding salts and CECs—became clear. Barriers to achieving maximal water quality protection via wastewater treatment were identified as regulatory, technological, and behavioral. The removal of these barriers was undertaken by the Think Tank itself (see below) and is also addressed in recommendations to the State of Minnesota regarding larger actions that could achieve water quality goals while simultaneously conserving energy and saving money.

Removal of Barriers A. Outcomes from the Think Tank itself:

1. A “Viewpoint” paper in Environmental Science and Technology, a leading disciplinary journal, on the need for regulatory flexibility to spur innovation was written and published.

The paper has been widely shared by the Think Tank team and will serve as a reference point regarding examples of regulatory flexibility and resultant positive outcomes. An expected outcome of the publication, as it is shared and used as a reference document, is a greater willingness among all of the EPA regions to allow states to embrace flexibility and take calculated and well-managed risks to innovate with respect to process technology. This is expected to have benefits of decreased energy use, decreased chemical use, increased capability for nutrient recovery, better potential to remove some pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds (compounds that have the potential to interfere with reproduction, development, behavior, and metabolism in vertebrates), and decreased pollutant discharge. This paper is attached as Appendix A.

This publication will also serve as a basis for the creation of a Manual of Practice for regulators—an effort that Glen Daigger has initiated based on Think Tank interactions. The creation of such a Manual of Practice would serve to codify the regulatory flexibility that has been applied in various EPA regions and the outcomes that resulted from this flexibility.

2. An exhibit was designed, built, and displayed at the Minnesota State Fair in the

EcoExperience Building this past August and September (2015) highlighting the link between effective wastewater treatment and good water quality. An emphasis was placed on the role of personal choice in protecting our State’s waters. Katrina Kessler engaged in a media campaign through the MPCA to highlight this new exhibit, and the exhibit was also highlighted by an opinion piece published by Think Tank members in the Star Tribune a number of days before the opening of the State Fair.

The goals of these efforts were to increase public awareness of the challenges faced by wastewater utilities and empower the public to take an active role in reducing harmful discharges from their homes to the treatment plant. Meeting these goals will take continued effort, but the work of the Think Tank represents an excellent first step. An estimated 254,000 people went through the EcoExperience Building during the State Fair in 2015 and our reach was broadened via the news media (print and television).

The opinion piece published in the Star Tribune and photos of the State Fair exhibit and Ms. Kessler’s media appearances are attached as Appendix B.

3. A website focusing on CECs was constructed at the University of Minnesota.

The website is designed to provide comprehensive information in one location for wastewater-focused professionals about CEC occurrence, fate, wastewater treatment outcomes, and impacts. Such a resource was previously unavailable. Web pages have also been created that target the public. Think Tank members Dr. Novak and Dr. LaPara will continue to explore the best long-term options for upkeep of the website.

Screen shots of the website are attached as Appendix C.

4. A presentation about the Minnesota Wastewater Think Tank process and

outcomes was made at the Gordon Research Conference, Environmental Sciences: Water, to highlight the excellent work that the State of Minnesota has engaged in regarding the protection of water quality. Participants at this conference are influential and should be in the position to move other states and countries forward in similar ways to more clearly institutionalize innovative and forward-thinking wastewater treatment.

B. Recommendations by the Think Tank for the State of Minnesota:

1. In line with the paper written on the need for regulatory flexibility, the Think Tank recommends that the State of Minnesota continue to actively pursue flexible and innovative wastewater permitting strategies, including (1) an expanded use of point source and non-point source trading to achieve cost effective pollutant reductions and (2) as much as possible, provide regulatory certainty to municipal wastewater dischargers to incentivize early adoption of advanced nutrient removal technologies.

2. The Think Tank recommends that the State of Minnesota increase public investment in wastewater infrastructure to minimize the burden on municipalities to protect water quality. In addition, the Think Tank recommends that an Innovation Fund be established, either by the State of Minnesota, or as a public-private partnership, to provide matching funds or grant funds to municipalities, industries, and utilities to incentivize the implementation of new treatment technologies for improved treatment outcomes. The overall goal of these projects would be to decrease pollutant discharge, decrease energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and increase resource recovery from wastewaters. Many options exist to address nutrient, salt, and CEC contamination of receiving waters. Nevertheless, utilities throughout the state differ in size (i.e., volume treated per day), existing infrastructure and treatment technologies, the types and flows of industrial discharges, and regulatory requirements, all of which inform how the removal of various pollutants should or could be addressed. Unfortunately, determining the best path forward, in terms of technological and regulatory approaches that maximize contaminant removal and resource recovery while minimizing cost and energy usage,

often requires expensive pilot studies. The implementation of new technologies, such as phosphorus recovery or low-energy anaerobic nitrogen removal (e.g., anammox) requires substantial capital investment, creating a potential barrier to trying technologies that are new to the State of Minnesota. Indeed, as new and/or stricter regulations are imposed on wastewater treatment facilities (particularly with respect to total nitrogen removal), novel technologies will almost certainly be the most cost-effective solutions. In cases where a wastewater treatment facility needs to meet strict effluent limits, the Innovation Fund could be used to fund pilot studies to determine the best type of treatment technology for a specific plant. This could include the testing of new, innovative and unproven technology, which would be very helpful to permit holders whose funds are limited. Additionally, such a piloting process/system would provide valuable information that could be applied to other treatment plants across the state. A one-year effort is currently being funded by the University of Minnesota to explore the development of a public-private partnership that can be used to (1) support this type of pilot study for both drinking water and wastewater treatment, (2) share the results and help troubleshoot if needed, and (3) offer a means to vet piloted technologies, thereby enhancing economic development. Utilities would benefit from such a program by being able to try new technologies that would decrease their material and energy footprints and choose technologies that have been thoroughly vetted. Small Minnesota technology companies would benefit by having a forum through which to prove/improve the performance of their products and position themselves for economic growth. Large Minnesota technology companies would benefit by having a way to try their technologies in combination with those of other companies (e.g., an Ecolab monitoring system coupled with a Pentair filtration system for optimal performance), facilitating new partnerships and collaborations and promoting economic growth and business development. Finally, the public would benefit by having cleaner, safer, more sustainably treated drinking water and wastewater for a lower cost. This effort dove-tails well with the recommendation by the Think Tank.

3. The new exhibit created for the EcoExperience Building at the Minnesota State Fair was an excellent first step in connecting the public to the challenges of wastewater treatment and water quality protection. Therefore, the Think Tank recommends that additional interactive exhibits be developed in collaboration with the Science Museum of Minnesota, the Bell Museum, and Children’s Museums and Science Museums throughout the State to continue to educate Minnesotans about the importance of their own personal choices and behavior in protecting Minnesota’s waters. The Think Tank pledges to be a resource for such collaborations as needed.

4. The Think Tank recommends that 2-3 educational opportunities for wastewater

professionals be developed and offered each year to create and maintain a highly educated work force that can effectively meet Minnesota’s water quality

challenges in the context of wastewater treatment in an energy, materials, and carbon-constrained environment.

New wastewater treatment technologies, operational strategies, and regulatory approaches are being developed at a rapid pace. It is difficult for wastewater and water treatment professionals to keep pace with these new developments, which limits an individual’s comfort with respect to exploring new approaches, and therefore limits innovation. Wastewater and water professionals need targeted educational opportunities to provide them with information on cutting-edge technologies (e.g., anammox), strategies (e.g., ammonium-based control of aeration for optimizing energy and chemical usage), and regulatory approaches (e.g., water quality trading). Such opportunities do not currently exist. Rather, this type of information is currently only available to graduate students enrolled in an advanced degree program or at conferences, which might be expensive to attend, far away, or provide information in 15 to 20 minute segments, which is inappropriate for effectively educating a diverse group of professionals.

5. The Think Tank recommends that a Water and Wastewater Research Center be

established at the University of Minnesota to advance knowledge, train the next generation of water and wastewater professionals, and serve the needs of the state. Such a research center will serve as an umbrella organization, coordinating research and technology transfer to utilities and industries across the State and serving as a focal point for knowledge and technology creation and implementation.

Given the great number of challenges that exist in the state around water and wastewater treatment and water quality protection, research and training are needed to advance both fundamental and applied knowledge. This will lead to new developments in treatment technology, risk mitigation, and surface and groundwater protection so that the maximum benefits for the State can be achieved. The establishment of a Research Center to focus such efforts is needed.

A Technical Advisory Board made up of knowledgeable working professionals should guide this Center and ensure that the Center serves the State and the water and wastewater communities. The Center may also serve as an administrator of the Innovation Fund (recommendation B2), provide funding and guidance for outreach activities such as the exhibit created for the Minnesota State Fair (recommendation B3), and provide training for existing water and wastewater professionals on the state of the art in treatment, monitoring and control, and regulatory approaches to ensure the health of the State’s waters in the most flexible manner while minimizing resource use (recommendation B4). A proposal, submitted to the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources, describing such a research center is attached as Appendix D.

6. Finally, the Wastewater Think Tank recommends that some form of this group continue to exist, either through the Water and Wastewater Research Center or via continued support for the current Wastewater Think Tank.

APPENDIX A

Viewpoint Article

Innovation Promoted by Regulatory FlexibilityPaige J. Novak,*,† William A. Arnold,† Bruce Henningsgaard,‡ Raymond M. Hozalski,† Katrina Kessler,‡

Timothy L. LaPara,† Al Parrella,§ Larry Rogacki,∥ Colleen Thompson,⊥ Randy Thorson,‡

Robert A. Zimmerman,# Charles B. Bott,∇ Glen T. Daigger,○ and J. B. Neethling◆

†Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, United States‡Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, United States§Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, Duluth, Minnesota 55806, United States∥Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, United States⊥Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Water District, Spicer, Minnesota 56288, United States#City of Moorhead, Moorhead, Minnesota 56561, United States∇Hampton Rhodes Sanitation District, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455, United States○Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States◆HDR Engineering, Folsom, California 97630, United States

■ INTRODUCTIONHumanity’s footprint, in terms of water use, water degradation,and resource consumption, is unsustainable.1 In addition tochanging behavior with respect to resource use, technicalinnovation is needed to reduce this footprint, enabling lowenergy water treatment and effective resource recovery. Inresearch, there has been a push to stimulate/support newtechnology development, effective scale-up, and translation toapplication. These efforts are important for moving our societytoward “sustainability,” where economic, social/societal, andenvironmental health are considered. Nevertheless, we positthat one of the largest barriers to the adoption of innovativetechnologies, and therefore to humanity becoming more“sustainable,” is a regulatory one. To meet global challengeswith respect to water and energy conservation, and therebyprotect human and ecological health long-term, regulatoryflexibility is critical.

Regulations have been put in place across the globe to helpprotect the environment and moderate humanity’s footprint. Inthe US, regulations tend to be prescriptive, rather thanperformance-based, and carry penalties when these regulationsare not met. This approach enables control of point sourcedischarges and environmental protection at some critical level,and was certainly needed in the past to address gross pollutionissues. Nevertheless, the current regulatory structure isinadequate to meet many of today’s challenges. Indeed, thisapproach does not foster innovation, incentivize superiorperformance, or enable appropriate consideration of thestochastic nature of environmental systems and treatmentprocesses. In some cases, such prescriptive regulations mayeven fall short of desired outcomes in terms of protectingecological or human health (e.g., The Obama Executive Orderon the Chesapeake Bay and the EPA TMDL on the same).Regulations must be protective of the environment and based

on sound science, but not narrowly focused or overlyprescriptive, which may discourage alternative solutions.Regulations instead should be framed dif ferently, enablinginnovation and, in the end, enhancing environmental andsocial/societal protection along with economic develop-ment. We invite our colleagues in policy development, rulemaking, and regulatory compliance to become partners toachieve greater sustainability by considering the followingrecommendations.

■ RECOMMENDATIONSRegulations Should Include Both Penalties for Poor

Performance and Rewards for Superior Performance.Utilities often fear that producing an effluent significantly betterthan their discharge requirements could lead to more stringentlimits in subsequent permitting cycles, simply because theutility has demonstrated that “they can do it” or regulations areframed in terms of “anti-backsliding.” As a result, utilities maymoderate their performance to avoid unnecessarily stringent

Received: November 2, 2015

Viewpoint

pubs.acs.org/est

© XXXX American Chemical Society A DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05394Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

discharge requirements in the future. The vastly different timescales of permit cycles and debt schedules for facility repair/upgrades only compound this problem. Dischargers demon-strating consistent and exemplary performance should insteadbe rewarded via financial benefits or simplified outcome-baseddischarge permits, providing incentives to continued improve-ment. This approach has been successful in other countries andthere is reason to believe that it would be equally effective inthe US. For example, in Denmark, minimum requirements areset to guarantee environmental protection, while additionalpollution discharges above this level are taxed. Those whoperform better (discharge less) pay less pollution tax, financiallyincentivizing good performance.2

Regulations Should Be Outcome-Based, Not Concen-tration-Based. Allowable discharges are typically determinedon a mass-loading basis, but are often expressed in dischargepermits on both a mass loading and concentration basis. This isthe case for total nitrogen and phosphorus in Virginia forutilities discharging into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Inaddition, some permits require that this concentration-basednumber be met on a daily basis,3 regardless of how that specificrequirement impacts a desired outcome and without regard forthe stochastic and variable nature of natural systems andtreatment processes. These requirements hamper the adoptionof innovative technology that might have ancillary benefits suchas lower energy or material use, lower average discharge levels,or removal of additional pollutants such as pharmaceuticals.The use of outcome-focused regulations would uphold the goalof environmental protection while simultaneously facilitatingthe use of innovative technologies. In fact, when implemented,outcome-based approaches have met with success. For example,the total mass load of phosphorus and ammonia discharged permonth to Las Vegas Wash is allocated with no concentration-based limit. Utilities are therefore able to meet the outcome ofprotecting Lake Mead (to which Las Vegas Wash discharges)while also limiting their chemical and energy usage, solidsproduction, and overall expenditure. Outcome-focused WaterQuality Trading has also been applied successfully, reducingcostly plant upgrades that may not have resulted in a waterquality benefit.4,5

Finally, Prescriptive Codes and Standards Should BeExamined and Updated More Frequently to Adapt toand Allow Innovative Practices/Technologies. Codes andstandards have their place to ensure that public health and theenvironment are protected and that any required infrastructureis implemented efficiently and effectively. Nevertheless, littleflexibility is provided for the consideration of new, higherperforming approaches, and the time lag between earlyexperiments and revisions of codes and standards is excessive.Plumbing codes, for example, are often impediments to theadoption of new practices, such as source separation, gray-waterreuse, or rainwater harvesting. Indeed, several decades wererequired for the adoption of codes and standards for “purplepipe” dual “fit for purpose” water systems, which significantlyretarded the adoption of water- and energy-efficient practices. Ifcodes and standards were examined and updated frequently,updates would occur as new technologies were demonstrated,and not when crises, such as the droughts in Wichita Falls andBig Spring Texas, forced code/standard reexamination.

■ SUMMARYEnvironmental, social/societal, and economic sustainabilityshould be the ultimate goal of regulation, and this is more

achievable if regulations are implemented in a flexible mannerto allow for protection via a variety of technical andmanagement approaches. Flexibility in regulation should alsolead to the adoption of new technologies that provide corollarybenefits such as energy efficiency, resource recovery, andultimately, a move toward greater sustainability and a reducedhuman footprint on the Earth.

■ AUTHOR INFORMATIONCorresponding Author*E-mail: novak010@umn.edu.NotesThe authors declare no competing financial interest.

■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe acknowledge the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amend-ment (Legacy Amendment) to the Minnesota Constitution forfunding of the Minnesota Wastewater Think Tank. All authorsare members of the Minnesota Wastewater Think Tank. The viewsexpressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those oftheir organizations.

■ REFERENCES(1) Hoekstra, A. Y.; Wiedmann, T. O. Humanity’s unsustainableenvironmental footprint. Science 2014, 344 (6188), 1114−1117.(2) Water Management Performances and Challenges in OECDCountries; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,1998.(3) Clark, D. L., Hunt, G., Kasch, M. S., Lemonds, P. J., Moen, G.,Neethling, J. B. Nutrient Management: Regulatory Approaches To ProtectWater Quality, Volume 1 - Review Of Existing Practices, WERFNUTR1R06i . 2010; DOI: 10.2166/9781780403465(4) Brown, J.; Sadick, T. A.; Daigger, G. T. Operating Experience ofthe First and Largest Low Level Nitrogen Removal Facility in LongIsland Sound. Water Practice 2007, 1 (5), 1−11.(5) EPRI. Case Studies of Water Quality Trading Being Used forCompliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PermitLimits, 3002001454, 2013

Environmental Science & Technology Viewpoint

DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05394Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

B

APPENDIX B

Exhibit documentation and opinion article

Figure B1. Katrina Kessler, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Wastewater Think

Tank Member, discussing the new wastewater-themed exhibit at the State Fair with WCCO Television.

Figure B3. Photograph of the giant sink wastewater-themed exhibit at the State Fair

developed by Think Tank team members and the MPCA.

Figure B4. Photograph of the information displays of the wastewater-themed exhibit at the

State Fair.

8/24/15, 10:43 AMTo save water quality, think before you flush - StarTribune.com

Page 1 of 2http://www.startribune.com/to-save-water-quality-think-before-you-flush/322553101/

COMMENTARY

To save water quality, think before youflushTreatment plants can't handle some of those products beingdiscarded.

By PAIGE J. NOVAK and LARRY ROGACKI AUGUST 21, 2015 — 6:06PM

You flush, and it goes away. Or does it?

There’s more going down the sewer pipes than you might imagine, and some of it isdamaging stuff.

Newspaper headlines report the presence of drugs in our drinking water, male fishproducing eggs, and the alarming fact that tiny plastic beads may be killing our lakes. It’seasy to ignore our role in all of this. We just assume that someone, somewhere, is dealingwith our waste — if we think about it at all.

But we have to remember that there is no “flush, and away.” The choices we make everyday are critical to solving these problems.

Thousands of chemicals exist in consumer products and medications, many of themunnecessary. Tests of water quality routinely find antibiotics and prescription drugs foreverything from epilepsy to depression in the discharge from wastewater treatmentplants. Although critical for human health, medications are often flushed down thetoilet and find their way into our surface water, where they can harm fish, nativemussels and other aquatic life.

Unnecessary perfumes and antimicrobials, routinely used in soaps, shampoos andpersonal-care items, also end up in surface water, where they can damage rivers andlakes. Wastewater treatment plants were not designed to eliminate these man-madecompounds. As a result, we cannot reliably and affordably remove them.

Nonchemical, inert materials in our wastewater also have economic and environmentalimpacts. Microbeads, the tiny plastic particles used in personal-care products such astoothpaste and facial scrubs, aren’t biodegradable and persist in the environment. Thebeads are so small that they pass through treatment plants and are released into rivers,lakes and eventually the ocean. Along the way, they adsorb contaminants from the waterand enter the food chain as food for small aquatic species. As those animals are eaten bylarger animals, the concentrated contaminants move up the food chain, eventuallybecoming part of our diet.

“Flushable” wipes cause expensive and damaging clogs in sewer systems, resulting inplugged drains, sewer backups, clogged and broken pumps, and increased maintenanceand repair costs for taxpayers.

Wastewater treatment comes at a price, one that we continue to make worse with ourpersonal choices. In Switzerland, the upgrade of 123 wastewater treatment plants toremove trace chemicals such as medications and personal-care products is estimated tocost $3.38 billion; a similar effort in the United States would cost hundreds of billions ofdollars.

There are, however, easy and inexpensive ways to stop the discharge of these chemicals,beads and wipes into our sewer system and environment. We can all help theenvironment through some very simple actions:

• Dispose of unused medicines responsibly, not down the drain. The Minnesota PollutionControl Agency, as well as many law enforcement agencies, can provide guidance on thebest way to dispose of these products.

(http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/ows_144019780136922.jpg)JULIO CORTEZ • ASSOCIATED PRESS

Bathroom wipes — thick, premoistenedtowelettes that are advertised as !ushable —are creating clogs and backups in sewer

8/24/15, 10:43 AMTo save water quality, think before you flush - StarTribune.com

Page 2 of 2http://www.startribune.com/to-save-water-quality-think-before-you-flush/322553101/

• Purchase personal-care products with the environment in mind, limiting perfumes,antimicrobials and other synthetic chemicals.

• Purchase products that either do not contain microbeads or that substitute naturalmaterials (such as ground nut hulls) in their manufacture.

• Flushable wipes are neither degradable nor trouble-free. Dispose of these wipes in thetrash, not down the toilet.

We all have choices — ones that we make almost daily through our purchases andbehavior. Let’s make those choices smart ones that help preserve our lakes, rivers andenvironment.

Learn more about how you play a critical role in keeping our surface water clean andsafe for all living creatures at the EcoExperience at the Minnesota State Fair.

Paige J. Novak is a professor in the University of Minnesota’s Department of Civil,Environmental and Geo-Engineering and its BioTechnology Institute. Larry Rogacki isassistant general manager, support services, for the Metropolitan Council’s EnvironmentalServices Division.

APPENDIX C

Screen shots of the CEC Website

Figure C1. Screenshot of the home page of the CEC website. The CECs website is organized

based on audience: the “For General Information” pages provide basic information on CECs (“What are CECs? Learn the Basics”) and actions that can be taken (“Recommendations: What You Can Do”) for Minnesota residents; the “For Professionals and Academics” pages provide information on the fate, occurrence, and removal of CECs for professionals based on their field; the “More Resources” pages are for individuals that want more information on individual CECs as well as information on statutes and regulations for CECs. The Wastewater Think Tank’s goal is to populate the “CECs in Wastewater” section of the website. In the future the website could be expanded to include “CECs in the Environment” and “CECs in Drinking Water” sections.

46

Figure C-1: Home page of the CECs Website

Figure C2. Screenshot of the “What are CECs” Page of the CEC website. This section of the

CEC website is designed for the public and provides basic information on CECs.

47

Figure C-2: "What are Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs)? Known the Basics" webpage

Figure C3. Screenshot of the “CECs in Wastewater” Page of the CEC website. This section is

designed for professionals or people with more scientific knowledge.

51

Figure C-7: The "CECs in Wastewater" webpage

APPENDIX D

Proposal for The Minnesota Center for Water Treatment Technology Innovation to the Legislative-

Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources

!

Environment*and*Natural*Resources*Trust*Fund*(ENRTF)*2017*Main*Proposal*Project*Title:*The$Minnesota$Center$for$Water$Treatment$Technology$Innovation!

!

1!!

$I.*PROJECT*STATEMENT!

The!goal!of!this!request!is!to!establish*the*Minnesota*Center*for*Water*Treatment*Technology*Innovation*in!the!Department!of!Civil,!Environmental,!and!Geo;!Engineering!(CEGE)!and!in!conjunction!with!the!Saint!Anthony!Falls!Laboratory!(SAFL)!at!the!University!of!Minnesota!(UMN).!The!main!goal!of!the!Center!is!to!preserve*and*improve*Minnesota’s*water*resources*by*developing*and*disseminating*sustainable*water*management*and*treatment*technologies.!The!center!will!work!to!solve!current!and!emerging!water!quality!problems!by!performing!cutting;edge!research,!build!the!State’s!technical!capacity!through!the!training!of!water!treatment!engineers,!and!perform!outreach*and*education!activities!aimed!at!drinking/waste/storm;water!professionals!and!the!general!public.!The!Center!also!will!serve!as!a!catalyst*for*economic*development!by!cultivating!private!industry!partners!to!collaborate!on!technology!development!and!implementation.!The!Center!will!fill!a!much;needed!niche!by!focusing*on*engineered*systems*and*technologies*for*treating*drinking*water,*wastewater,*and*stormwater.!!

Given!our!location!in!the!upper!Midwest,!Minnesota!must!address!relatively!unique!water!treatment!challenges!driven!by!the!cold!climate,!including:!ice!cover!on!lakes!and!rivers!resulting!in!water!quality!changes!(e.g.,!oxygen!depletion),!frozen!ground!that!hinders!rain;!and!melt;water!infiltration,!reduced!water!temperature!in!winter!that!results!in!less!efficient!water!and!wastewater!treatment!due!to!significantly!decreased!chemical/biological!reaction!rates!and!increased!water!viscosity,!large!seasonal!variations!in!natural!organic!matter!concentration!that!impacts!drinking!water!treatment,!and!increasing!chloride!levels!from!the!use!of!salt!for!deicing.!Furthermore,!given!projected!investment!needs!of!$11!billion!for!public!water!and!wastewater!infrastructure!over!the!next!20!years!and!the!fact!that!Governor!Dayton!is!making!this!a!priority!for!the!State,!it*is*important*that*the*proposed*Center*be*established*to*help*guide*critical*water*infrastructure*decisions*and*investments*throughout*Minnesota,*particularly*in*small*communities*where*funds*for*research,*and*training*are*scarce.!Based!on!conversations!with!utility!managers!throughout!the!State,!the!activities!of!a!recent!state;funded!partnership!between!the!Minnesota!Pollution!Control!Agency!(MPCA)!and!the!UMN!to!plan!for!the!future!of!wastewater!treatment!in!Minnesota,!and!critical!current!and!future!water!quality!challenges,!the!Center’s!initial!research!priorities!are:!

• Removal!of!current!and!emerging!contaminants!in!drinking!water,!wastewater,!and!in!surface!waters!through!innovative!and!efficient!treatment!approaches!

• Low;energy,!low;cost,!reliable!nutrient!removal!and!resource!recovery!from!wastewater!&!stormwater!• Development!of!water/wastewater!treatment!technologies!for!small!communities!&!rural!households!• Technologies!to!facilitate!reuse!of!stormwater!and!wastewater!

II.*PROJECT*ACTIVITIES*AND*OUTCOMES$!Activity*1:$Research$and$Training$to$Improve$Water$Quality$and$Build$Technical$Capacity! Budget:*$9,304,897!

Performing!research!to!solve!the!state’s!water!problems!while!training!future!water!professionals!is!the!main!focus!of!the!Center.!Approximately!5;8!major!research!projects!will!be!run!simultaneously!for!2;3!years!duration!each.!Each!project!will!align!with!the!Center’s!research!priorities.!At!the!outset,!the!Center!will!focus!on!the!following!specific!projects:!(1)!!Effects!and!Removal!of!Antimicrobials!and!Antimicrobial!Resistance!in!Wastewater,!(2)!Carbon!Filtration!for!Treating!Nitrate;Contaminated!Groundwater!&!Stormwater,!(3)!Biosorption!and!Bioaccumulation!of!Precious!Metals!in!Wastewater,!(4)!Seasonal!Dynamics!of!Comammox!During!Wastewater!Treatment,!(5)!Occurrence!and!Control!of!Bacteria!on!Water!Mains,!(6)!Innovative!Membrane;Based!Low;Energy!Biological!Nitrogen!Removal,!and!(7)!Producing!Renewable!Energy!and!Clean!Water!from!Waste;Phase!II.!As!these!initial!projects!end,!new!research!project!ideas!will!be!solicited!through!a!Request!for!Proposals!(RFP)!process,!reviewed!and!selected!by!a!Center!Board!consisting!of!8!to!10!members!including!the!Center!Director!and!professionals!from!private!industry!(e.g.,!consulting!firms,!water!technology!companies),!public!utilities,!watershed!districts,!and!government!agencies!(e.g.,!Minnesota!Department!of!Health!or!MDH,!MPCA)!and!a!member!of!the!LCCMR!staff!(non;voting).!Each!proposal!will!include!at!least!one!

!

Environment*and*Natural*Resources*Trust*Fund*(ENRTF)*2017*Main*Proposal*Project*Title:*The$Minnesota$Center$for$Water$Treatment$Technology$Innovation!

!

2!!

faculty!member!from!the!core!Center!faculty!in!CEGE!to!ensure!that!every!project!fits!with!the!Center’s!research!priorities.!In!addition!to!these!“major”!research!projects,!funds!will!be!reserved!for!shorter;term!(~6;12!months)!rapid*response!research!projects!to!address!water!crises!around!the!state!as!they!arise.!It!is!expected!that!the!Center’s!research!priorities!will!shift!with!time.!Research!priorities!will!be!set!by!the!Board!after!soliciting!input!from!Minnesota’s!water!professionals.!All!investigators!will!be!required!to!submit!work!plans!to!LCCMR!for!review!and!approval!prior!to!beginning!a!project.!

A!critical!function!of!the!Center!will!be!to!build!technical!capacity!through*education!and!training*of!graduate!and!undergraduate!engineering!students.!Through!research!and!outreach!activities,!the!Center!will!train!B.S.!(~10!per!year),!M.S.!(~5!per!year),!Ph.D.!(~5!per!year),!and!post;doctoral!(~5!per!year)!level!engineers!to!build!the!capacity!of!the!water!treatment!and!management!workforce!in!the!state.!With!established!connections!to!water!and!wastewater!utilities!and!watershed!districts!in!the!state,!the!Center!will!be!in!a!privileged!position!to!expose!students!to!real;world!problems!and!full;scale!treatment!facilities.!!Outcome* Completion*Date*1.$Complete$initial$research$projects,$train$~40$grad/undergrad$students$&$10$postFdocs$ June!30,!2020!2.$Complete$2nd$round$of$6F8$projects,$train$~40$grad/undergrad$students$&$10$postFdocs$ June!30,!2023!!Activity*2:$Outreach$&$Education$to$Enable$Treatment$Innovation$&$Pollution$Prevention! Budget:*$1,002,002!

The!center!will!perform$outreach!and!education!activities!to!disseminate!research!findings,!to!aid!in!water!pollution!reduction,!and!to!promote!innovation!in!water,!wastewater,!and!stormwater!treatment!practice.!We!will!work!with!the!MPCA!and!MDH!to!develop!interactive!educational!modules!aimed!at!the!general!public.!These!educational!modules!will!be!designed!to!promote!behavior!change!(i.e.,!consumer!choice!and!product!disposal)!that!protects!treatment!infrastructure!and!water!resources!by!reducing!the!release!of!problematic!contaminants!such!as!“flushable”!wipes!and!microbeads.!We!will!also!develop!and!deliver!modules!for!conveying!cutting;edge!research!findings!to!water!and!wastewater!operators!and!Public!Facilities!Authority!(PFA)!personnel!to!promote!adoption!of!innovative!technologies.!The!center!will!establish!a!website!with!links!to!research!publications!and!other!resources!(e.g.,!“Ask!the!Experts”!blog),!and!will!develop!a!semi;annual!newsletter.!Journal!articles!produced!by!center!personnel!will!be!open;access!to!maximize!dissemination!of!research!findings,!and!center!activities!will!be!promoted!via!social!media.!!Outcome* Completion*Date*1.$Establish$outreach$activities$(website,$newsletter,$social$media)$ June!30,!2018!2.$Begin$technology$transfer$(education)$programs$for$workers$in$water$industry$ June!30,!2019!

III.*PROJECT*STRATEGY*A.*Project*Team/Partners:*!The!natural!home!of!the!described!water!technology!center!is!in!the!College!of!Science!and!Engineering!and!specifically!CEGE,!where!the!faculty!members!are!skilled!in!technology!development!and!well!respected!by!engineers!working!with!and!for!municipal!water!treatment!entities.!Center!activities!will!be!managed!by!a!center!Director!(4!months!effort!paid/year),!who!will!be!a!faculty!member!in!CEGE,!together!with!a!full;time!Associate!Director!who!will!be!responsible!for!managing!center!activities!including!preparing!budgets,!interfacing!with!the!Board,!coordinating!outreach!and!education!activities,!and!overseeing!the!center!website/social!media!activities.!The!Board!will!provide!oversight!on!all!center!activities!including!the!research!agenda.!Partners!include!SAFL!and!the!UMN!Water!Resources!Center!(WRC).!B.*Project*Impact*and*Long^Term*Strategy:*!The!long;term!goal!of!the!proposed!project!is!to!preserve!and!protect!public!health!and!the!environment!by!improving!the!management!and!treatment!of!Minnesota’s!critical!water!resources.!The!Center!will!take!a!leadership!role!in!water!research,!technology!development,!training,!outreach,!and!education!in!the!State.!C.*Timeline*Requirements:*This!Center!project!requires!a!longer!period!of!funding!than!a!typical!ENTRF!project!to!enable!the!training,!outreach,!and!education!aspects!of!the!Center!to!fully!develop.!Therefore,!we!request!six!years!of!funding.!!!