ssts advisory committee agenda september 10,...
TRANSCRIPT
SSTS Advisory Committee Agenda September 10, 2015
MPCA Office St. Paul, Room 2-3 or Via Web Ex
Next meetings in 2015 and 206: December 10th, March 10th, June 9th, September 8th, December 8th Committee Website: http://septic.umn.edu/events/sstsac/
9:00 – 9:30 AM Coffee, treats and conversation 9:30 – 9:40 AM Introductions, agenda review and appointments and vacancies on committees.
Sara Heger & Aaron Jensen 9:30 – 10:30 AM Licensing and certification topics
Goal -- AC informed of ongoing activity and provides suggestions and feedback
1. Building sewer, Nick Haig 2. Lapsed certification, Nick Haig 3. MOU between the U of M and the MPCA, Nick Haig 4. Online training accreditation, Troy Johnson
10:30 – 11:30 AM Technical topics
Goal -- AC informed of ongoing activity and provides suggestions and feedback
1. High strength waste/Updated Design Guidance, Mark Wespetal/Nick Haig 2. Funding - grant allocations, Aaron Jensen 3. Tank safety or secondary containment, Mark Wespetal 4. NRCS ISTS interpretation on the web soil survey, John Beck
11:30 – 12:00 PM Legislative/rule topics Goal -- AC informed of ongoing activity and provides suggestions and feedback
1. MOWA legislative/rule changes?, Mark Wespetal/Gene Soderbeck 2. Campground rule changes, Mark Wespetal
12:00 PM – 12:30 PM SSTS member topics/open discussion
SSTS Advisory Committee Meeting 9-10-15
Attendee’s: Sara Heger, Aaron Jensen, Mark Wespetal, Chris LeClair, Nick Haig, Mark Erickson, Craig Gilbertson, Michael Rutten, Peter Miller, Jim Larsen, Aaron Wills, Jeff Iverson, Cathy Tran, Brandon Montgomery, Pete Otterness, Ron Thompson, Troy Johnson, Matt Summers, Gene Soderbeck, Nicole Blasing, Marilee DeGroot, Steve Oscarson, Jane Seaver, Ryan Hamilton
9:30 – 9:40 AM Introductions, agenda review and appointments and vacancies on committees.
Sara Heger & Aaron Jensen Attendee’s introduced themselves and Sara went over the vacancies. Please contact Sara or Aaron for more information on vacancies. Sara called for additional agenda items and none were mentioned.
9:40 – 10:20 AM Technical topics
Goal -- AC informed of ongoing activity and provides suggestions and feedback
1. High strength waste/Updated Design Guidance, Mark Wespetal/Nick Haig – See below Mark did an overview of the discussion. He also explained the methodology of the design guidance. Craig asked what the trigger was. Mark explained the code defines high strength waste as septic tank effluent that exceeds 170 mg/L BOD, 125 mg/L TSS, and 25 mg/L FOG. Intermediate designers are allowed to design systems that treat HSW, and Intermediate Inspectors can inspect and manage the compliance of systems treating high strength waste. The agency is taking a slow approach to clarifying ambiguities in the regulations about how a designer must identify and address waste strength concerns through the design process. The draft design guidance that was shared with the group will be reviewed by volunteers before being published as recommendations. The agency will continue to gather feedback from designers and local SSTS programs over the next couple of years before making a final determination of which guidance elements will become required, and which guidance should remain as recommendations and best practices. Mark asked that folks look through the handout provided and let him know if you have any comments. We are also looking for more volunteers to test these scenarios and determine what would need to be changed. Peter mentioned that they have a couple of between systems that they would be willing to help test the methodology. Nick explained some more about the reasoning of the document. He identified that the MPCA’s first goal was to create a methodology for addressing waste strength in a way that challenges the designer to justify their assumptions and appropriately respond to anticipated effluent concentrations that exceed domestic strength. By providing a step-by-step path through that decision-making process, designers will now have a tool to do that. The code was never intended to allow designers to simply proclaim that an other establishment produces domestic strength waste, but that is what has happened in much of the state. Only after the tool has been honed and generated support from the design and inspection community as a reasonable way of addressing the issue can we discuss the differences between requirements and recommendations in a meaningful way. Sara shared a story of a
SSTS Advisory Committee Meeting 9-10-15
homeowner from Dave Tuttle that was overloading a system and it lasted 8 years. Troy thought that it was put together nicely. He asked if this was anything new and the answer is this is mainly things we have discussed in the past. It is just put into one spot. Troy asked about the average flow and the peak flow. He said that much of the design process is based on peak flows, so maybe the DG should reflect that method. Mark explained the reasoning for the average is that average waste strength is a better value to use than peak flow as is done for groundwater mounding, nitrogen and phosphorus assessments. Cathy Tran asked if the system Peter Miller explained would be considered a restaurant. Mark said yes it could be. Nick and Chris explained that they may have some differences that would make them different from a restaurant- a commercial grade kitchen does not necessarily equate commercial practices. There is probably no deep fryer, and much less food waste is generated.
2. Funding - grant allocations, Aaron Jensen Aaron went over the allocations. $2,882,907 was available for county grants this year. 62 applications were received from counties. $280,000 was granted to counties for property transfer and any permit. $163,000 was granted to counties for projects to increase compliance. $1,599,600 was distributed as the base grants to counties. $840,307 was granted to counties for low income fix-up grants. There was approximately double that amount requested for low income fix-ups. Troy asked about the orange counties. Aaron explained that those two counties have one provision in their ordinances that does not meet the current code and that the MPCA is working with them to bring their ordinances into compliance.
3. Tank safety or secondary containment, Mark Wespetal – See below Mark went over the information that was provided. He just wanted to give folks an update on what things look like. In the recent code we required all the manholes to the surface. We have talked about this in the past and advisory committee voted down a recommendation to require secondary restraint. Mark was asked to do an update for this issue to revisit the topic and share the MPCA’s concern for safety. Sara read the email provided by Eric VanDyken. Sara explained some of her thoughts. She agrees with many of Eric’s points. Troy and Jeff shared their thoughts about the longevity of the secondary containment and possible types of secondary containment. Gene also added that we are going to have SepticSmart week again this year that this type of information of securing tank lids could be provided to the homeowner’s. Sara brought up an item from Paul Brandt about the OSHA requirements for trenches deeper than 4 feet. This is something else to be considered. The secondary containment issue is more geared to educating the homeowner. Aaron said that he asked Mark to put together this information for the AC meeting just as something to think about. We discussed this issue at a recent SSTS program meeting and thought it should be something to talk about. No action was taken at this time.
10:20 – 11:30 AM Licensing and certification topics
Goal -- AC informed of ongoing activity and provides suggestions and feedback
SSTS Advisory Committee Meeting 9-10-15
1. Building sewer, Nick Haig Nick provided an overview and handed out the proposed rule language. Public comment it open through September 28th and all comments are welcome, even comments of support. Nick also provided a factsheet that outlines the requirements. The certification and training unit is moving forward with an implementation plan to begin with individualized instructions to each installer licensee around October 1st, 2015. A website has been established to communicate about this issue to interested parties: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ycurh48. This will be the primary point of contact between the MPCA and parties interested in these changes, and will be online at least through the end of 2016. The new bond form and other forms will be posted here soon. Chris asked if the rule was open to add anything and Nick explained that through the expedited rulemaking process the enabling statute is very specific to only the topics that the legislature requires us to change.. Ron had some questions about the plan submittals from SSTS professionals. So far there have been no concerns from anyone in regards to this language. Chris thanked Nick for all his hard work to get this done. Nick provided a detailed vetting of the proposed rule changes. Steve Oscarson asked about grinder pumps being part of the building sewer. Cathy explained that the location of the grinder pump is what drives the regulatory oversight jurisdiction – if the grinder pump is in the home, it is plumbing. If it is a part of the building sewer, it will now be both plumbing and SSTS, and if it is in a tank, then it would be exclusively SSTS. Chris asked about permitting and inspecting. Cathy explained that local SSTS programs will be able to issue permits and inspect building sewers when plumbing plan review and inspection is not scheduled to occur, or when permission is granted by the plumbing program administrative authority. This means that local and state plumbing program requirements apply. All public, commercial, industrial, or five-unit or greater residential building designs must submit plans to DLI. Local plumbing programs should discuss this issue with local SSTS programs to determine how this impacts their program. Mark Erickson asked if something would be added to the design forms. Sara said they could certainly add this to the design form. Mark Erickson asked if there were anything additional for building sewer abandonment. Cathy thought that each city would have abandonment provisions in their own code.
2. Lapsed certification, Nick Haig Nick explained that this is a part of the same expedited rule making process as the building sewer discussion above, but came from a separate section of the enabling statute. Nick went over the background and went through the proposed rule. Chris asked if this would be detailed in the SSTS Search. Jane explained that their certification would be listed as conditional – which means they are on the clock for meeting recertification requirements, but still able to act as the designated certified individual for a company. Ron asked if there was a penalty for these individuals. There is no monetary penalty for these people, but they do have to take one or two exams, which is a disincentive to lapsing. Sara asked if we heard from any of the people that this would affect. Jane and Nick said that we haven’t heard from anyone. This provision will
SSTS Advisory Committee Meeting 9-10-15
become available as soon as the rule is promulgated. We anticipate it being complete in November of 2015.
3. MOU between the U of M and the MPCA, Nick Haig Nick explained the background. He went though some parts of the MOU for the group. Nick asked for comments or thoughts on the document. Sara stated that the water resource center just got a new supervisor Jeff Peterson, which will probably sign the MOU for the U of M. No questions or comments.
4. Online training accreditation, Troy Johnson Troy explained the proposal for the online training that he provided the group. This proposal was discussed at the MOWA meeting last night. Pete Otterness said he was at the MOWA meeting and they were waiting to get discussion from the AC meeting before they made any official statement. Chris said that he thinks online training can be beneficial, but he thinks that it can be a complete waste of time. He has some experience with online training and feels that a classroom experience is better. Sara said that she doesn’t see a lot of detail in this proposal that talks about accountability or verification. Gene asked what is different about classroom training than online. Folks sleep in the back, play on their computer, and talk on their phone, so why should this be treated any different. Sara said one thing would be that we know who is taking the course. They can’t send their children to the face to face course and get away with it. She also mentioned that we should not design our training program to accommodate people sleeping in the back or playing on their computer. Nick stated that they have been working on it and don’t have a draft to share with the group. Troy said that they are forced to take CE’s and they are looking to use online training to gain their CE’s. There was much discussion back and forth about the issue. Chris asked who Troy is referring too when he says “everyone in the septic industry”, because Troy hasn’t talked to everyone. Sara talked about the history of the training program and the reason for the lower number of credits. Sara said that the agency has been working on this issue. Jane said that yes we are working on it and it has been brought to the commissioner level. Jane said we will take this information back to him.
5. NRCS ISTS interpretation on the web soil survey, John Beck John wasn’t in attendance. Sara talked about his topic. “I’ve been receiving your email/correspondences for the past couple of years and have been meaning to attend a meeting if only to see if there’s anything we (NRCS, soils discipline) can assist you with. The NRCS maintains a Minnesota specific ISTS interpretation (for soils) on the Web Soil Survey and I trust that it’s still working well? Do many of your people use it as a first cut to get a feel for the soils onsite? If so, is there anything new with the state regulations/guidelines that will require us to review/update that interpretation? Also, while reviewing your last meeting’s notes, I found that your soils portion of the exams for certification seems to be a troubling area for test takers. Am I understanding the data correctly when I interpret those as highlighting the field portion of soils being most challenging? I would like to visit with you (or Dan Wheeler) if you agree with my assessment. Let me know if you would like to discuss further.” Mark, Brandon, and Dan Wheeler are going to meet to discuss if there is anything that needs to changed or
SSTS Advisory Committee Meeting 9-10-15
updated. Mark asked if we have the pre and post 2008 rule passing rate. In 2008 the rule changed to separate the field portion from the written portion. Matt stated that the soils are the hardest part of a design and should be still held to a greater standard.
11:30 – 12:00 PM Legislative/rule topics
Goal -- AC informed of ongoing activity and provides suggestions and feedback
1. MOWA legislative/rule changes?, Mark Wespetal/Gene Soderbeck – See below Mark went over the MOWA /MPCA discussion information. He provided some information to the group in a previous email. So far the agreement to remove the greater of has been agreed upon. Currently the agency is taking comments from the other MPCA staff in regards to the issue that MOWA has proposed. We will continue to work on this. Sara asked if there was another meeting scheduled. Mark stated that Jim was working on scheduling one.
2. Campground rule changes, Mark Wespetal – See below Mark talked about the campground legislation. The language included in the email to the group was the bill language. Mark explained the legislation and updated the group on where we are at with the rulemaking process. Currently the campground group is reviewing the rule language and has not provided comment. There was nothing in the draft rule that raised any red flags, the campground group just wanted to think about it for a while. Mark went over some of the highlights of the proposed rule. Sara asked how this would affect the design guidance. She said that this is different than what is currently in the design guidance. Mark stated that some of this may affect the design guidance. The MOWA discussion will have some bearing on the design guidance as well.
12:00 PM – 12:30 PM SSTS member topics/open discussion Sara added that the MOWA conference will be held this year in St. Cloud on January 26, 27, and 28.
They are looking for speakers, so if you are interested please let her know. What about the December meeting? Should it be face to face or like we are doing now. Most wanted face to face.
SSTS Advisory Committee Meeting 9-10-15
From: Wespetal, Mark (MPCA) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 1:31 PM Subject: RE: SSTS AC Meeting Material Here is some material for my topics for the Advisory committee tomorrow:
1. High strength waste - a. Three issues
i. Who can do high strength waste designs? ii. What types of establishments generate high strength waste?
1. Dwellings are OK 2. Restaurants generate high waste mass 3. What about the systems in-between dwellings and restaurants?
iii. What is the appropriate design for high strength waste systems? b. Who can high strength waste designs.
i. Intermediate designers can do Type 4 high strength waste designs for systems under 2,500 gpd. ii. Basic designers can design a Type 3 system for high strength waste systems under 2,500 gpd
c. What is the appropriate design for high strength waste systems i. Will now focus more on the mass of the waste and the mass loading to the soil ii. If the concentration is high, but the flow is low, the mass will be low and an option could be a
large and more robust Type 1 system (aka – Type 3 system) iii. If the concentration is high and the flow is moderate to high, then it is likely that the system will
need to significantly reduce the waste strength before the soil system with a registered treatment product.
A draft of the high strength waste design has been completed. We are looking to test the criteria by
review of those who deal with high strength waste. We are also looking for volunteers to use the criteria the design of a new other establishment. We are also looking to conduct troubleshooting high strength waste systems with hydraulic issues. The trouble shooting is to compare the design vs. the system’s performance.
We anticipate a somewhat lengthy trial period. The criteria is planned to go into the next revision of the design guidance as suggestions for voluntary use.
2. Tank safety and secondary restraint –
There appears to be a recent rash of fatal and near fatal accidents due to small children falling into SSTS sewage tanks. In a recent code change we now require all tanks to be accessible for maintenance from the ground surface. If the tank cover is not secure, sound or other unsafe condition, there is no back-up to stop a child from falling into a tank. Here is a synopsis of known accidents (verified by news reports on the web). There were many more reported accidents than these, but those accidents involved accidents that occurred during system maintenance and repair, or an old (not used) SSTS tank which collapsed and people fell in.
Date Location Victim Reason Result 8/10/15 Ocala, Florida 1 year old Fell into “hole” died
7/13/14 Tewksbury Township, New Jersey
4 year old Tank lid flipped when stepped on
rescued
SSTS Advisory Committee Meeting 9-10-15
3. Campground rule change
Legislation was passed this last session (Chapter 4 Section 144 – 2015 1st Special Session) requiring the agency to use expedited rulemaking to add a method for seasonal resorts and campgrounds – open for 180 days per year or less to measure their flow to see if they trip the 10,000 gpd threshold. The statute language is as follows:
Sec. 144. beginRULEMAKING; SSTS; EXISTING CAMPGROUNDS AND RESORTS.new text end new tex t begin(a) The commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency shall adopt rules, using the expedited
rulemaking process in Minnesota Statutes, section 14.389, to eliminate the need for existing campgrounds and resorts that are open for 180 days or less per year to estimate wastewater flow rates to subsurface sewage treatment systems as required by Minnesota Rules, part 7081.0040, subpart 1, item B. The rules shall establish flow monitoring and recording for subsurface sewage treatment systems at existing campgrounds and resorts that are open for 180 days or less per year as provided in paragraphs (b) to (f).new text end
new tex t begin(b) The rules shall provide that existing campgrounds and resorts are allowed to use the following flow measurement methods:new text end
new tex t begin(1) sewage lift station pump with runtime meter and counter;new text end
new tex t begin(2) sewage flow meter;new text end
new tex t begin(3) flow meters on wells; andnew text end
new tex t begin(4) water softener system with flow measurement when the measurement includes all flow to the subsurface soil treatment system, including backwash.new text end
6/15/2014 Gallia Georgia 5 year old Fell into hole died 4/25/14 Kissimmee, Florida 2 year old Not secure cover rescued
2/6/2014 Fruitland Park, Florida 2 year old Tank cover knocked off
died
3/13/2012 Lakewood, New Jersey toddler Open hole died 1/18/2012 Starke, Florida 2 year old Open hole? died
11/28/2009 Hillsborough County, Florida
2 year old Damaged cover died
1/28/2007 Missoula MT 3 year old Damaged cover died 5/4/2006 Taunto MA 3 year old Lid flipped open died
From Taunto court case: “Fifty children a year die from falling into unsecured septic systems. It’s a very important community problem.”
In Minnesota 3/25/14 Blue Earth County, MN 7 year old Lid left open rescued
Few years back Metro landscaper Thin lid stepped on
and broke
Victim straddle the
riser unknown Spoke with a contractor at a workshop who knew of an incident.
SSTS Advisory Committee Meeting 9-10-15
new tex t begin(c) The measured flow rate must include the total of all treatment systems that are located on the resort or campground. If fewer than 25 percent of the systems are not measured, an average of the metered systems can be used to determine the flow from the unmetered systems.new text end
new tex t begin(d) A daily flow rate and daily campground occupancy rate must be recorded for a minimum of two weeks, centered on and including July 4. Weekly monitoring must also be done for an additional continuous two weeks prior and two weeks following July 4.new text end
new tex t begin(e) If no flow data exists, the existing campground or resort owner or operator shall implement an acceptable flow measurement plan and start measuring and recording flow data within 120 days of notification.new text end
new tex t begin(f) Flow measurement devices must be calibrated before start-up of monitoring and another calibration during the test to verify results.
Draft rules have been completed and shared with MN Hospitality for their comments. The
language/provisions must closely follow the law requirements. The draft rule has some language modifications for clarity and some implementation requirements. The rule is planned to be promulgated by 2/1/16.
4. MOWA SDS permit proposal
MOWA is interested in modifying the requirements in 7081 concerning when a SDS permit is needed. Their concerns are:
1. The high cost of the SDS permit
2. The high cost of SDS system design, monitoring, reporting and operation
3. Estimated flows are excessively high
4. Estimated flows cannot be averaged
5. Must use the greater of estimated or measured flow
6. Questions what an SDS permit affords vs. a local permit
MOWA Solutions include:
1. Drop the single ownership and ½ mile clause
2. Allow 7-day averaging of estimated flow
3. Drop the greater than estimated or measured flow.
4. Only a single system over 10,000 gpd needs a permit
5. Modify rule to bolster operating permit requirements
Currently the agency has agreed to drop the “greater of” the estimated or measured flow. Negotiations are continuing.
SSTS Advisory Committee Meeting 9-10-15
From: Eric VanDyken [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 8:40 AM Subject: RE: SSTS AC Meeting Material Hello Everyone, I have a late-arriving comment concerning Mark’s renewed concern about secondary restraint in septic tanks. I cannot tell from the information below what the goal of presenting this information is, but it would seem most likely that it is presented with an eye toward somehow mandating secondary restraint. I would note the following:
1. The SSTS AC has previously taken up this topic at Mark’s request and was not supportive of mandatory secondary restraint.
2. It is bad public policy to legislate broadly based on isolated incidents. There is no way to legislate absolute safety in this world, and attempts to do so create a regulatory framework that is burdensome in cost and administration.
3. It is questionable whether the documented incidents illustrated by Mark can properly be called a “rash” of accidents. A rash is defined as “a large number of instances in a short period”. Thirteen cases in ten years among over three hundred million people can hardly be described as a large (in proportion) number in a short period of time. By contrast, more than 300 children die in pool drownings in the U.S. each year, and yet pools are required to have only primary restraint, not secondary.
4. State rule already requires a sound and secure lid. If a landowner or maintainer fails to meet this requirement, what makes us believe that they will be faithful to meet another requirement?
5. Continuous rule tinkering is not conducive to a stable, efficient, and publicly-supported SSTS program. I speak against any proposal to make secondary restraint mandatory. Sara, if you get this email and are willing to read it during this discussion, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Sincerely, Eric Van Dyken Assistant Zoning Administrator Department of Environmental Services 320-231-6200, ext. 5257 www.co.kandiyohi.mn.us From: Paul Brandt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 2:00 PM Subject: Re: SSTS AC Meeting Material Good Comments Mark, I would also suggest OSHA regulations on excavations are being ignored and people are working in dangerous excavations. OSHA say only 4 feet deep without a stepped excavation or shoring. Eventually someone will die or be badly injured as a result of unsafe work practices. Paul Brandt PSS
1
III. Other Establishments
III. A. Introduction
Hydraulic performance, treatment performance, and longevity of an SSTS can be drastically affected by the mass of organic substances and solids in the waste. It is understood that most Other Establishments will produce a higher mass of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS) and/or fats, oils and grease (FOG) per volume of sewage as compared to a dwelling. This mass of organic substances and solids in the sewage is calculated by multiplying the concentration of the waste contaminants by the volume of flow. Compounds causing higher mass waste are generally derived from food sources and other non-toxic, non-hazardous wastes and are not to be confused with hazardous organic compounds such as petroleum products, solvents, volatile cleaners, etc., that are addressed in Section II.
The relationship between waste mass and SSTS design flow is fundamental to the implementation of long-term and cost effective wastewater treatment and dispersal. Designing a system based on waste mass is equally as important as designing a system on flow volume. When excessive organic materials or solids (BOD5, TSS and FOG) reach the soil dispersal system, the biological clogging mat can become prematurely restrictive to the point of hydraulic failure, resulting in system back-ups or surface failure, both of which are considered imminent threats to public health and safety. Excessive fats, oil and grease (FOG) also can also physically clog supply lines, distribution pipe perforations and treatment components.
Soil dispersal system longevity is important, especially if there is limited or no area for a replacement system. Another concern is an economic one, as the life of the soil dispersal system may be limited to the point that the overall gallons treated per system cost are very high. It has been reported to the agency that designs that did not account for higher mass waste have shortened the design life by many years, or resulted in hydraulically failed systems within months. Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080.1710 item A, 7080.1550 Subp. 2 Item B, 7080.2150 Subp. 3 Item K, and 7081.0130 Subp 2 require the system designer to determine anticipated waste strength and use those values in the design process. Because of the variability in Other Establishments waste generation, these facilities must undergo a waste strength assessment. Therefore the design process for SSTS that serve Other Establishments must identify the waste mass and modify the design to address the increased waste load. The general design process is as follows:
• Estimate or measure the influent or effluent concentration of (BOD5/TSS/FOG)
• Estimate or measure the design flow
• Calculate the influent or effluent mass of the BOD/TSS/FOG
• If using influent values, calculate the reduction in waste mass by septic tanks or registered treatment devices
• Calculate the area of the proposed soil dispersal system by comparing the results of:
o hydraulic loading of estimated design flows (Type I system)
o organic and solids loading of higher strength septic tank effluent (Type III system)
o hydraulic loading of pretreated effluent (Type IV system)
If the combination of higher strength waste and flow results in unsustainable organic loading and the soil dispersal system is to be sized based on organic and solids loading, the proposed soil dispersal system size might
2
need to be very large. To reduce the size of the soil dispersal system a registered treatment product can be employed and the system designed as a Type IV system. A Type IV system will reduce the BOD/TSS/FOG concentrations to residential strength so the soil dispersal system can be sized based on a Type IV Treatment Level C hydraulic loading rate.
Based on the higher strength waste generated by the Other Establishment, there are two design choice options; 1) enhance Type I design standards to accommodate the waste stream with a Type III SSTS, (design specifications may vary and are discussed in Section III.I), or 2) design a Type IV system with a pretreatment component.
Determining the waste mass for system design does not need to take place if the system is serving a dwelling unless the dwelling has a home business, unusual hobbies or unusual cooking habits. For typical dwellings the soil dispersal system can be sized based on the hydraulic loading rates with the assumption that the waste strength will meet residential strength thresholds.
III. B. Definitions
The terms used in describing waste mass are as follows:
Biochemical oxygen demand - "Biochemical oxygen demand" (BOD5) means the measure of the amount of oxygen required by bacteria while stabilizing, digesting, or treating biodegradable organic matter under aerobic conditions over a five-day incubation period.
Fats, oil and grease - “Fats, oil and grease” (FOG) means a component of sewage typically originating from foodstuffs such as animal fats or vegetable oils or consisting of compounds of alcohol or glycerol with fatty acids such as soaps and lotions.
Total suspended solids or TSS - "Total suspended solids" (TSS) means solids that are in suspension in water and that are removable by laboratory filtering.
III. C. Determining waste mass
It can be argued that the most important step in designing a system for an Other Establishment is the correct determination of influent waste mass. However, this important step is subject to many challenges and uncertainties, due to the inherent variability of the flow and waste strength over time and and difficulty in measuring or estimating waste strength.
Higher mass waste can be a result of the following:
• High/peak inputs of BOD, TSS and FOG • Lack of dilution from low waste strength inputs (shower, laundry, etc.) • Lack of dilution from low flow (water conservation) plumbing fixtures • Chemical upset of the septic tank (treatability)
• Operational/maintenance issues (lack of tank pumping or missing baffles)
Therefore, designs should be based on conservative waste strength estimates or careful measurement of actual waste strength plus a safety factor. A combination of all applicable assessment methods is recommended to be used for design of SSTS receiving higher mass waste. The protocol used to determine waste mass must be acceptable to the LGU.
3
This section of the manual will deal with remedies for the first three issues.
A waste strength estimate or measurement must serve as the basis for design for Other Establishments. The investigation of waste strength should begin by surveying the owner/operator of the facility on the use and practices of the facility relating to waste strength. For more information on evaluating commercial wastewater sources, please see Chapter 7 in Analyzing Wastewater Treatment Systems Serving Residential and Commercial Facilities for High Strength and Hydraulic Loading which can be found at http://www.onsiteconsortium.org/shop.html#awts. Other helpful areas to explore would be:
• toilet paper use • frequency and type of sanitation • significant peak/surge flows • flow from specific devices/equipment or building wash-down • blueprints of the proposed establishment for the number and use of the plumbing fixtures (those that
generate higher strength waste and those that dilute the waste) – do a mass balance estimate • business data on waste generation
This information will also help in the design of a sampling protocol for future measurements of the system waste strength.
III.C.1. Estimating waste mass Estimating waste mass will be determined by one of three methods:
• Estimated flow x 0.7 x estimated waste concentration (mg/l) x 8.34 / 1,000,000 • Measured peak 7-day average flow / percent occupancy (decimal) x 0.70 x estimated concentration
(mg/l) x 8.34 / 1,000,000 • Estimated mass per unit x 0.70 x # of units
The 0.7 factor in these methods results in a more representative waste mass as compared to a peak waste mass. When using published data to estimate mass per unit, estimates depend on additional information about the source influent (number of customers, meals served, seats, units, etc.) that must also be collected to determine possible impacts to the SSTS design. Waste strength estimates can be found many places, the sources known to the agency are:
• Manual for Septic System Professionals in Minnesota (2011), University of Minnesota – Table 5.8. • Analyzing Wastewater Treatment Systems Serving Residential and Commercial Facilities for High
Strength and Hydraulic Loading (no Date), Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment – Table A2.
• Management of Small Waste Flow (1978). Small Scale Waste Management Project – University of Wisconsin Madison – Tables A-42 and A-43.
• Extra waste strength surcharge table (2012), Water Services Department, Kansas City MO. • Brewery Process Wastewater “101”- Wastewater per Barrel • Brewery Process Wastewater “101” – Side Stream • Manufacturers of pretreatment units
4
Published waste strength estimates should be viewed as general in nature, and the estimates should be used with an abundance of caution. Some references are dated and may not reflect modern flow values. It is also essential to recognize whether the data you are using is measured influent or effluent – which will depend on whether you add an additional reduction for septic tank removal when sizing your soil dispersal system. Data that is not clearly defined as influent must be assumed to be measured septic tank effluent.
Extrapolating waste strength from a similar facility would appear to be a good method to determine waste strength for a design. However, establishments are affected by subtle and often intangible influences that can cause significant variation in wastewater characteristics. For example, popularity, price, cuisine, management, competition, and location can produce substantial variations in wastewater flow and waste strength among seemingly similar restaurants.
Things to consider in examining measured data from similar establishments are as follows:
• If measurements were conducted according to section III.C.2. (below) within the past 5 years.
• If the similar establishment has the same owner or same franchise as the new establishment.
• If the similar establishment is “comparable” according to real estate appraisal methodologies . Some form of quantitative comparison analysis should be used to reflect significant variations between the two facilities (number of fixtures, square footage, business transactions, water use, other business data, popularity, price, cuisine, management, competition, and location).
III.C.2. Measuring waste mass One of the following methods can be used to determine measured waste mass for existing other establishments:
• Measured peak 7-day average flow / percent occupancy (decimal) x 0.70 x measured concentration(s) (mg/l) x 8.34 / 1,000,000
• Estimated flow in Table 1 – 7081.0130 x 0.70 x measured waste concentration (mg/l) x 8.34 / 1,000,000
The 0.7 factor in these methods results in a more representative waste mass as compared to a peak waste mass. Due to variations in flow and waste strength, knowing when and where to collect representative samples is very important, and understanding the wastewater generation processes and patterns is helpful. Incorrect sampling can result in over or under design of a system.With under-designing reducing longevity, accelerating premature clogging, and increasing risks to public and environmental health, and over-designing unnecessarily increasing costs and reducing land use effectiveness.
Nearly all sampling being conducted by SSTS designers will be septic tank effluent grab sampling. Using a set of grab samples that meets the considerations identified in this section is an acceptable way to identify an anticipated effluent concentration and resulting waste mass for design purposes.
Good sampling methods should be:
• Representative • Reproducible • Defensible • Useful
Things to consider when wastewater strength measurements are to be taken:
5
• Suitability of the collection point (static water sample in a pump tank versus outflow from a pre-treatment device)
• Number and timing of samples • Sampling order (sample the cleanest effluent first) • Sample preservation and shipping requirements • Type of analysis to be conducted. BOD5 and TSS is recommended. FOG can be sampled and analyzed
if it is suspected to be elevated • Expected waste concentration (so the lab can use the appropriate dilution) • Potential interpretations of results
Other things to consider:
• If working with a registered product that treats higher strength waste, the measured value can be used
in conjunction with the knowledge and experience of the manufacturer. • How long the existing system functioned and what its waste strength is. Determine the life of the
current soil dispersal system as compared with the level of treatment before the soil. • Ask the system’s maintainer and service provider of issues or estimation of the concentration of the
waste. • Determine the hours per day that the facility is generating waste and the liquid volume of waste
generated (aka – flow). • Compare the measured value with the estimated value in Section III.C.1. above.
For more information on sampling for waste strength, please see Appendix B in the publication Analyzing Wastewater Treatment Systems Serving Residential and Commercial Facilities for High Strength and Hydraulic Loading which can be found at http://www.onsiteconsortium.org/shop.html#awts.
III. D. Treatment by tanks
Treatment of waste mass prior to soil discharge can be accomplished by the use of exterior grease interceptors, septic tanks, or Type IV pretreatment products registered for high strength waste.
III.D.1. Exterior grease interceptors
III.D.1.a. Introduction
An exterior gravity grease interceptors (EGGI) will be necessary if the establishment disposes of high amounts of oil and/or grease. This would include facilities with commercial kitchens or other high FOG producers. EGGI are defined as treatment devices located outside of a building receiving only kitchen waste (non-petroleum wastes), which separate grease from water by gravity separation. An EGGI must be employed where FOG introduced into the sewage system will hinder performance of the SSTS. An estimated or measured influent concentration of greater than 50 mg/l (7080.1550 subpart 2 item B) is the threshold at which FOG is anticipated to cause concerns. The final determination of the necessity of an EGGI shall be made by the SSTS designer and approved by the local permitting authority. The intended outcomes of EGGI are:
• Reduce FOG mass so downstream pipes will not clog
6
• Reduce FOG mass so downstream treatment components can achieve the designed mass loading to the soil dispersal system. A target concentration of FOG to the soil dispersal system is25 mg/l or less (7080.2150 subpart 3 item K.)
It is recommended that EGGI be used in combination with hydro-mechanical grease interceptors located inside the building. A general rule-of-thumb is that 60 to 80% of the FOG can be removed with a properly designed EGGI under cooling and quiescent conditions. However as restaurants have increased their use of vegetable oils, the percent removal may be less. If the EGGI is employed by the plumber to protect the adjacent downstream piping from plugging, the EGGI is considered as plumbing and is regulated under MN Rules 4715 and plumber licensing requirements. If the EGGI is employed by the SSTS designer for SSTS performance reasons, the EGGI is considered as a component of the SSTS and is not regulated by the plumbing code but regulated by MN Rules chapters 7080 to 7083.
III.D.1.b. Suitable and unsuitable wastes
• Only waste requiring grease separation should be discharged to a grease interceptor.
o Suitable wastes can include: waste from pot and pan sinks food grinder (but must be approved by LGU) pre-rinse station at the dishwasher dishwashers (but must be approved by LGU) scullery sinks floor drains located in areas where grease-containing materials exist
o Unsuitable wastes
Food-waste grinders should not be connected to the EGGI except where permitted by the manufacturer/engineer and the administrative authority
Unless specifically required or permitted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, food waste disposal unit or dishwasher should not be discharged into a EGGI. Commercial food waste disposers shall be permitted to discharge directly into the building’s drainage system
Wastes from water closets, toilets, urinals, other fixtures conveying human waste, and laundry waste should not be discharged into the EGGI
III.D.1.c. Number of building sewers
If only one building sewer exists at a high FOG producing establishment, a secondary building sewer to serve the high FOG source should be employed. If a secondary building sewer is not to be employed, the first tank connected to the building sewer shall be considered a septic tank and (at a minimum) subject to all the SSTS requirements for septic tanks. It is highly recommended that this first tank be afforded additional design considerations to replicate the function of an EGGI. These specifications include but are
7
not limited to; capacity above and beyond the minimal septic tank requirements for sizing, baffling, etc. and that multiple tanks or tanks with multiple compartments be employed.
III.D.1.d. EGGI Specifications
EGGI should conform to IAPMO/ANSI Standard Z1001 or ASTM Standard C1613 (4715.1105 subpart 4) and any additional requirements found in MN rules chapter 4715. Other units may be accepted which are engineered and manufactured specifically for the intended function and which are documented by the manufacturer and project design engineer to be properly designed and sized for the specific project (such a preceding a registered treatment product).
III.D.1.e. EGGI Location
• Each EGGI installation must preclude siphoning and provide air relief. • EGGI must be installed in approved locations and must be readily accessible for inspection and
maintenance. • EGGI shall be located as close as practical to the fixtures served. • If multiple EGGI’s are to be used, they shall be connected in series. • An EGGI must be installed to be protected from freezing • Buoyancy protection measures must be employed • Surface run-on must be diverted from the interceptor • Each interceptor and separator shall be so installed that it is readily accessible for removal of cover,
servicing, and maintenance. If installed substantially below grade a manhole with flush manhole cover should be provided.
• It is recommended that the grease waste run by gravity to the EGGI, not lifted with a pump • EGGI must be set back as specified in Table VII in part 7080.2150, subpart 2, item F. • The depth of burial shall not exceed the maximum rated burial depth of the tank (7080.2000 item C). • EGGI must not be placed in floodways, drainageways, or swales. Upslope drainage must be diverted
away from the location of all tanks. A tank's final cover must be crowned or sloped to shed surface water (7080.2000 Item D).
• EGGI must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular traffic unless engineered for the anticipated load (7080.2000 Item E).
• EGGI and risers must be installed according to manufacturer's requirements and in a structurally sound and watertight fashion (7080.2000 Item G).
• Connections between the concrete tank and the building sewer or supply pipe must meet the requirements of American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Specification for Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures, Pipes, and Laterals, ASTM C923 (2002), or equivalent (7070.200 Item J).
• Joints of concrete tanks, concrete tank lids, and concrete risers must be sealed using a bonding compound that meets American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Specification for Joints for Concrete Pipe, Manholes, and Precast Box Sections Using Preformed Flexible Joint Sealants, ASTM C990 (2003) (7080.2000 Item K).
III.D.2. Septic tank sizing If a Type III system is chosen to treat the higher strength waste (i.e., septic tank(s) with no additional pretreatment product) then the natural tendency would be to increase the septic tank capacity to account for the higher waste strength. However, it is unclear if additional septic tank capacity, over-and-above
8
what is sized by hydraulic flow will be beneficial. However, additional septic tank capacity would likely not be detrimental. For sizing and configuration of septic tanks, the following is recommended:
• Employ multiple tanks or compartments, • Employ an effluent screen on the outlet of the final tank, • During initial operation, check the solids level at frequent intervals to determine the
pumping frequency required. • Regardless of the septic tank sizing, effluent limits identified in 7080.2150 subpart 3 item K
must be met or the size of the soil treatment area must be increased. Effluent should be monitored regularly to ensure the soil treatment area is adequately protected.
When a registered pretreatment product is employed the septic tank is sized subject to the product registration criteria.
III.D.3. Registered pretreatment product The choice to employ a pretreatment product will depend on whether there is an economic advantage to do so. The economic considerations should include:
• Capital costs • Operation and maintenance costs • Expected soil dispersal system longevity w/o pretreatment before failure by clogging • System replacement costs • Available suitable land area for a replacement system(s)
The Agency currently registers treatment devices that treat high strength wastes. The list of proprietary treatment products registered for use in Minnesota to treat high strength waste is found on the MPCA’s Product Registration webpage at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/pyrib0b.
Besides the list of registered proprietary treatment products for high strength waste, the webpage provides the individual approval letters sent to each manufacturer specifying “conditions of product use” in Minnesota. For high strength waste applications, the designer is required to work directly with the manufacturer’s designated representative during system design as specified in each approval letter. The following are two general conditions specified in MPCA approval letters to manufacturers of high strength waste treatment products:
• The manufacturer’s designated representative is required to review all designs provided by SSTS designers for systems proposing to use the treatment product. Designers need to work directly with the manufacturer to ensure the wastewater is properly characterized and that the product and other related components used in the treatment train (i.e. septic tanks and grease interceptors) are properly sized and compatible to meet designed performance requirements.
• The manufacturer’s designated representative will issue a review letter to the designer documenting: a) details of the manufacturer’s review, and b) agreement that the product is an appropriate fit for the planned system at the facility. The review letter will be signed by the manufacturer’s designated representative.
If a non-registered treatment device is to be employed to reduce waste strength, it must be designed by an AELSLAGID engineer with adequate training and experience.
9
III.E Determining waste strength of final effluent
III.E.1. Type III systems – septic tank inffluent If the designer uses influent data as the basis for SSTS design, an estimation must be made on how much waste strength reduction will take place in septic tanks receiving higher strength wastes. No standard method to make this determination exists and would be dependent on the waste characteristics, additional capacity chosen along with the number or compartments of tanks, baffle lengths and use of effluent screens. It should be noted that soluble BOD will not be removed in septic tanks. For guidance to make a septic tank treatment reduction determination, the typical influent reduction rates for domestic strength waste with normal septic tank sizing are as follows:
• BOD5 – 45% (55% w/effluent screen) • TSS – 70% (85% w/effluent screen) • FOG – 50%
Perform the following calculations to determine the expected waste strength concentration in septic tank effluent: BOD5
________ x __________ = ____ __ Septic tank effluent concentration of BOD (mg/l) Influent BOD5 Expected Concentration Reduction*
(mg/l) (decimal percent)
TSS
________ x __________ = ____ __ Septic tank effluent concentration of TSS (mg/l) Influent TSS Expected Concentration Reduction*
(mg/l) (decimal percent) FOG
________ x __________ = ____ __ Septic tank effluent concentration of FOG (mg/l) Influent FOG Expected Concentration Reduction*
(mg/l) (decimal percent) *The expected reduction will have to be estimated based on waste characteristics, tank sizing, number of tanks/compartmentalization, use of effluent screens and other factors
III.E.2. Type IV systems - registered treatment product effluent The treatment efficiency/final effluent strength for a registered treatment product will be determined for the application by the manufacturer.
III.F. Determining the waste constituent of concern
III.F.1. Type III System
10
The design calculations for the sizing of the soil dispersal area will be based on the contaminant that has the highest ratio above domestic septic tank effluent (BOD = 170 mg/l, TSS of 60 mg/l and FOG of 25 mg/l). Please see the example below for an establishment with a proposed Type III system with a septic tank effluent quality of - BOD- 400 mg/l, TSS- 80 mg/l and FOG-40 mg/l:
BOD concentration of facility = 400 mg/l BOD concentration of domestic septic tank effluent = 170 mg/l Ratio = 400/170 = 2.4 TSS concentration of facility = 80 mg/l TSS concentration of domestic septic tank effluent = 60 mg/l Ratio = 80/60 = 1.3 FOG concentration of facility = 40 mg/l FOG concentration of domestic septic tank effluent = 25 mg/l Ratio 40/25 = 1.6
The calculation for design of the soil dispersal area will use the BOD concentration since it has the highest ratio of 2.4
III.F.2. - Type IV System The effluent quality from a registered treatment product will be determined by its registered treatment level (A, B or C). The current list of registered treatment products for high strength waste are all registered as meeting treatment level C with an effluent quality of: BOD5 – 170 mg/l (CBOD5 = 125) TSS – 60 mg/l FOG - 25 mg/l
III.G. – Determine mass of the contaminant of concern (Type III system) III.G.1. - Type III system The mass of the contaminant of concern in Section III.F.1. will need to be calculated to size the soil dispersal system. Contaminant of concern: ___________ (Section III.F.1.) ______________ x _________ x 0.7 x 8.34 / 1,000,000 = _________ mass of contaminant of
Concentration of Design flow concern (lbs/day) contaminant of (g/d) concern (mg/l)
III.G.2. - Type IV system
If a registered treatment product is to be employed with a Type IV design, this calculation/determination does not need to be completed. See Section III.H.3. .
11
III.H. – Soil dispersal system sizing
III.H.1. - Introduction
Designs will be completed for both a Type III and Type IV soil dispersal system to determine the most cost-effective design.
III.H.2. – Type III soil dispersal system design
If the waste is determined to be higher than domestic strength waste and septic tank effluent from this waste is discharged to the soil dispersal system, the size of the soil treatment system will be based on organic loading. The waste mass calculated in Sections III.G.1. will be used to determine the size of the soil dispersal unit.
The following design steps are provided:
Step 1. – Determine the soil loading rate based on waste strength for the contaminant of concern from the following chart*:
Soil Texture Sustainable BOD
Loading
(lbs/ft2/day)
Sustainable TSS Loading
(lbs/ft2/day)
Sustainable FOG Loading
(lbs/ft2/day)
All Sands 0.001191 0.00042 0.000175
Sandy loam 0.000774 0.000273 0.000114
Fine sand, loam 0.000595 0.000210 0.000088
Silt loam 0.000496 0.000175 0.000073
Clay loams 0.000447 0.000158 0.000094 *These values are 70 % of maximum allowable organic loading rates for Type I systems to provide a more representative waste loading versus a peak waste loading.
Step 2. – Divide the mass of the contaminant of concern in Section III.G. by the allowable loading rate from Step 1.
___________ / _________ = _________ Size of soil dispersal system (ft2) Mass of Allowable Type III design contaminant loading rate of concern (lbs/ft2/day) (lbs/day)
III.H.3. – Type IV soil dispersal system design
If the waste is to be treated by a registered treatment product the size of the soil dispersal system will be based on soil loading rates found in 7080.2150 subpart 3 (Table IX or IXa).
___________ / ___________ = _________ Size of soil dispersal system (ft2) Design flow Soil loading Type IV design
12
(g/d) rate (g/ft2/day)
III.I. Higher waste mass design recommendations
The following is a list of design recommendations for all system components of higher mass waste systems. These recommendations can be used for systems with or without pretreatment, but use of these measures are critically important for Type III systems.
• Treatment Tanks o Place the first external tank close to the establishment (e.g., a short building sewer) to
keep sewage from cooling and grease from solidifying in the building sewer. o Use gravity flow to the first treatment tank. o Increase size of septic tanks above hydraulic sizing (may or may not be helpful) o Increase number of tanks or compartments o Employ an effluent filter on the outlet of the last septic tank. o Provide space and elevation drop for a future registered Type IV pretreatment product.
• Flow Restriction, Equalization, and Storage Capacity o If the waste strength has cyclic variations, flow equalization methods can be employed to
store and dilute the high strength wastes with flow from lesser waste strength periods. The same flow equalization methods use for flow volume variation can be used for waste strength variation. See Section xx.
• Soil Dispersal Systems o The soil loading rate should be sized on the greater of the hydraulic flow or mass loading. o Use dispersal trenches vs. seepage beds to promote greater oxygen transfer to the
absorption area,maximizing the breakdown of the clogging mat. o Employ pressure distribution to minimize biomat formation. Use the larger of the allowed
perforation sizing (not to exceed ¼”) and greater distal head (>2’) to avoid plugging of the perforations. Perforations can be drilled in the top of the pipe.
o The calculated soil dispersal system size can be increased by 50 percent and divide the system into three (3) zones for dosing and resting cycles
o Provide elevation drop and space for additional soil dispersal capacity. • Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring
o Require system to be actively operated under an operating permit (already required for Type IV systems)
o Require flow measurement (already required for all Type III systems). o Provide cleanouts more regularly than required in the plumbing code. o Install sampling ports for future waste strength measurement. o Check squirt height on pressure distribution systems at the time of installation so a
baseline height is established. o Check future squirt heights against baseline for evidence of plugging. o Soil dispersal system inspection pipes can be finished above the ground surface and
include in Management Plan that ponding in the soil dispersal system must be measured semiannually.
o During initial operation, check the solids level in the treatment tanks frequently (quarterly) to determine appropriate pumping frequency.
o Annual visit with the system owner about waste strength concerns and practices to minimize the strength of the waste, such as:
Minimize the use of garbage disposals, scrape food waste into garbage cans, etc…..
13
Avoid large amounts of waste food (buffets and salad bars are examples)
III.J. Choose design Based on the size of the soil dispersal system and the recommended design considerations in Section III.I., choose the design based on factors that are amenable/important to the owner or required by the local unit of government. The factors to consider are:
• Capital costs • Operation and maintenance costs • Amount of internal housekeeping responsibilities (waste reduction, waste transfer to other forms
of disposal (as a solid waste), etc….. • System reliability • System longevity
III.K. Follow-up performance, check for higher strength systems
After a Type III high strength system becomes operational, the following is suggested:
• It is recommended that an operating permit be issued for all Type III high strength waste systems • Monitor flow data daily • After three months, but before six months of facility operation, test the effluent on three separate
occasions during peak use. o The parameters tested will be BOD and TSS. FOG can be tested if is identified as a possible problem. o If the concentrations of these parameters exceed the design, then the soil dispersal system longevity will be
decreased. • The owner(s) will take full responsibility for the system’s performance and operation. If failure
occurs, the owner(s) will discontinue use of the system and it will be retrofitted, repaired or replaced.
III.L. Design Example
The following is a step-by-step procedure, in a worksheet format, to design a system receiving higher strength waste. The loading of the soil dispersal system will be based on either the hydraulic load (Type IV system) or organic loading rate (Type III system). The Other Establishment that will be used for this example will be:
• New motel • Capacity of 100 guests • 7 employees w/8hour shift • Square foot of motel = 10,000 ft2 • Soil absorption area texture of a loam with moderate, friable sub-angular structure
Waste Strength Design Worksheet
Type I - Hydraulic Design
14
Step 1. – Determine the flow per unit: Determine flow per unit from Table I from 7081.0130 =
• 38 g/d guest • 0.33 g/d/ft2 of motel • 15 g/d for employees (8 hour shift)
Step 2. – Calculate total flow: ___38 _ x ____100____ = _3,800 __ g/day flow/unit # of units ___0.33 _ x ____10,000____ = _3,300 _ g/day flow/ft2 # ft2 ___ 7 _ x _____15_______ = ___105__ _ g/day # of employees flow/employee
___ 3,800 _ + ________105_______ = __3,905___ _ g/day Highest estimated flow from employees
flow from motel g/d g/d Or use measured flow if measured: __________________
Step 3. – Determine the soil hydraulic loading rate from Table IX – 7080.2130 sub. 3 for Treatment Level C effluent: = __0.6__ g/d/ft2
Step 4. – Calculate soil absorption system size based on hydraulic loading (based on Treatment level C):
___3,905 _ / ____0.6 ____ = _6,508 __ size of absorption area (ft2) Step 2 Step 3 flow (g/d) soil hydraulic
loading rate (g/d/ft2)
Type III Higher strength waste design
If you know that a Type III system (no registered treatment product) will not be cost effective, you can skip to Step 11.
15
Step 5. – Estimate the waste strength concentration for the establishment from a reliable source (See Section III.C.1.), or list the measured waste strength (See Section III.C.2):
BOD = 450 mg/l TSS = 160 mg/l
FOG = 35 mg/l Identify Basis of Estimate (Published Source or Measured Values): _________Register Product Manufacturer__________________
Step 6 – If influent values are used in Step 5, calculate treatment by septic tanks. If effluent values are used, skip to Step 7.
Calculate BOD5
___450___ x (1 - __0.30__) = __315__ __ Septic tank effluent influent BOD5 expected concentration of BOD (mg/l) concentration reduction* (mg/l) (decimal percent)
TSS
___160___ x (1 - __0.50__) = __80_ __ Septic tank effluent influent TSS expected concentration of TSS (mg/l) concentration reduction* (mg/l) (decimal percent)
FOG
___35___ x (1 - __0.50__) = __18_ __ Septic tank effluent influent TSS expected concentration of TSS (mg/l) concentration reduction* (mg/l) (decimal percent)
*The expected reduction will have to be estimated based on waste characteristics, tank sizing, number of tanks/compartmentalization, use of effluent screens and other factors
Step 7. – Determine domestic strength waste: For comparison purposes, the domestic strength waste is:
BOD = 170 mg/l TSS = 60 mg/l
FOG = 25 mg/l
16
If the any of the values in Step 6 exceed these amounts, go to Step 8, if not, use the size of the soil absorption area in Step 4. You are done with this worksheet.
Step 8. – Calculate the constituent of concern:
BOD ___315___ / ___170___ = _1.85__ BOD ratio BOD from BOD from Step 6 Step 7 (mg/l) (mg/l)
TSS __80___ / ___60___ = __1.33__ TSS ratio TSS from TSS from Step 6 Step 7 (mg/l) (mg/l)
FOG
___18___ / ___25___ = ___0.72__ FOG ratio FOG from FOG from Step 6 Step 7 (mg/l) (mg/l)
Step 9. – Calculate the size of the soil dispersal system based on use of only septic tank(s) for pretreatment – Type III system. Step 9a. Choose the contaminant with the highest ratio from Step 8: _BOD__ Step 9b. Choose the concentration of that contaminant from Step 8: _315__ mg/l Step 9c. - Calculate pounds of that contaminant:
_ 315__ x __3,905_ x 8.34 / 1,000,000 x 0.7 = _7.2_ lbs of contaminant of Step 9b. Step 2. concern/day
Type III Soil dispersal system higher strength waste design
Step 10. – Calculate the size of the soil dispersal system based on waste strength from use of only septic tank(s) – Type III system:
BOD __7.2_______ / ____0.000595_____ = ________12,101_______
17
Step 9c. (from table below) size of absorption area (lbs of BOD/day) allowed BOD (lbs/ft2/day) (ft2)
Soil Texture Allowed BOD
Loading
(lbs/ft2/day)
All Sands 0.001191
Sandy loam 0.000774
Fine sand, loam 0.000595
Silt loam 0.000496
Clay loams 0.000447
TSS
not necessary – BOD is the limiting contaminant__ / ______-_________ = ______- _ __ Step 9b. (from table below) size of absorption area lbs of TSS/day allowed TSS (lbs/ft2/day) (ft2)
Soil Texture Allowed TSS
Loading
(lbs/ft2/day)
All Sands 0.00042
Sandy loam 0.000273
Fine sand, loam 0.000210
Silt loam 0.000175
Clay loams 0.000158
FOG
not necessary – BOD is the limiting contaminant__ / ________-__________ = _______-__________ Step 8b. (from table below) size of absorption area lbs of FOG/day allowed FOG (lbs/ft2/day) (ft2)
Soil Texture Allowed FOG
Loading
(lbs/ft2/day)
All Sands 0.000175
Sandy loam 0.000114
18
Fine sand, loam 0.000088
Silt loam 0.000073
Clay loams 0.000094
Type IV Soil dispersal system higher strength waste design
Step 11. – Determine the soil dispersal system sized based on use of a Registered Treatment Product which can reduce higher strength waste to Treatment Level C: Record Step 4. here: ___6,508___ft2
Final determination
Step 12. – Compare and choose Record the following: Higher value of Step 4 or 10: _ 12,101___ ft2 (Type III Waste design method) Value in Step 11: _ 6,508___ ft2 (Type IV Waste concentration method)
Compare the soil absorption sizing. Choose the desired design (Type III or Type IV). To
aid in this decision, consider the following costs:
Type III Higher strength design
Type IV Higher strength design
Possible larger and/or more septic tanks with a effluent filter1
Registered pretreatment product for higher strength waste2
Generous Cleanouts1 Adequate Cleanouts1
Sampling points1 Sampling points2
Pressure distribution, larger perforations, more head
pressure1 Pressure Distribution2
Check solids level in septic tanks more frequently1
Operation and Maintenance costs for pretreatment product2
Operating Permit1 Operating Permit2
Employ trenches over beds1 Employ trenches over beds1
Provide space for additional soil absorption area1
-
Add 50% additional capacity and divide system into three zones
-
19
for dosing and resting cycles1
Annual visit with system owner on proper system use1
Annual visit with system owner on proper system use1
Provide Flow Equalization1 Provide Flow Equalization1
1Recommended 2 Required
III.M. Additional assistance
Additional helpful information can be found at:
• Analyzing Wastewater Treatment Systems for High Strength and Hydraulic Loading developed by the Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment. Please refer to the following websites for downloadable analysis forms and additional information:
o http://www.onsiteconsortium.org/awts.html
o http://www.onsiteconsortium.org/awtschecklists.html
• Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities issued by the Great Lakes Upper Mississippi Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers (aka – “10 State Standards”) (paragraphs 11.251 to 11.253) http://10statesstandards.com/wastewaterstandards.html.
• Wastewater - Quality / Strength / Content. Washington State Department of Health Wastewater Management Program. http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/337-107.pdf
III. N. Literature reviewed
• Metcalf and Eddy, Wastewater Engineering Treatment Disposal and Reuse – 1972. • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Rules Chapter 7081 – Mid-Sized Subsurface Sewage
Treatment Systems Office of the Revisor of Statutes – 2011 • R. L. Siegrist, D. L. Anderson, and J.C. Converse – 1984.Commercial Wastewater On-site Treatment and
Disposal pp. 210 to 219.In Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph Missouri.
• United States Environmental Protection Agency, Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual, February 2002 pages 3-11.
• Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities issued by the Great Lakes Upper Mississippi Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers (10 states), 2004 Edition.
• State of Maine – Septic System Code 2008 • University of Minnesota – Onsite Sewage Treatment Manual – Appendix A-5, 2009 • B.J. Lesikar, O.A. Garza, R.A. Persyn, A.L. Kenimer, and M.T. Anderson, Food-Service Establishment
Wastewater Characterization, 2005Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment. Analyzing Wastewater Treatment Systems Serving Residential and Commercial Facilities for High Strength and Hydraulic Loading, 2009.
20
• Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services, 2009 Policy for Processing High-Strength Wastewater POWTS Plans http://drl.wisconsin.gov/Documents/Industry%20Services/Forms/POWTS/SB-PowtsHiStrengPol0409.pdf
• M. Gross, Wastewater Characterization, 2004, University Curriculum Development for Decentralized Wastewater Management. http://onsite.tennessee.edu/WW%20Characterization%20Text.pdf
• Onsite Sewage Treatment Program, University of Minnesota. 2009. Manual for Septic System Professionals in Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. http://septic.umn.edu/sstsmanual/index.htm
• Washington State Department of Health Wastewater Management Program Wastewater - Quality / Strength / Content (2002)
• Onsite Sewage Disposal of High Strength Wastewater. Don Hammerlund/ Barry Glotfelty MDE - Water Management Admin. Onsite Systems Division
• Basic Principles for Sizing Grease Interceptors (no date listed online version viewed on 3/11/2014) Plumbing and Drainage Institute (http://www.pdionline.org/storage/publications/Basic-Principles-for-sizing-Grease-Interceptors.pdf )
• Capture Kitchen Grease (no date listed online version viewed on 3/11/2014) Plumbing and Drainage Institute http://www.pdionline.org/storage/publications/Capture-Kitchen-Grease.pdf
• Guide To Grease Interceptors Eliminating the Mystery (2010) Plumbing and Drainage Institute http://www.pdionline.org/storage/publications/Guide-To-Grease-Interceptors.pdf
• Guidelines for Precast Concrete Grease Interceptors. Andy Winkler Wieser Concrete Products Inc. • Minnesota Plumbing Code – Chapter 4715 (2014), MN Department of Labor and Industry. • Model Grease Ordinance Plumbing and Drainage Institute (no date listed version online on 3/11/2014)
(http://www.pdionline.org/storage/publications/Model-Grease-Ordinance-PDI.doc ) • Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems (1998) Crites and Tchobanoglous
WCB/McGraw-Hill • Testing and Rating Procedure for Hydro Mechanical Grease Interceptors with Appendix of Installation and
Maintenance (2012) Plumbing and Drainage Institute http://www.pdionline.org/storage/publications/PDI-G101.pdf
• Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse Fourth Addition (2003) Medcalf and Eddy, Inc. McGraw-Hill.
• Uniform Plumbing Code – 2012. International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency | 6512966300, 8006573864 | [email protected]
Building sewers connected to septic systemsThe 2015 Legislature directed the MPCA to simplify the regulation and administration of work on building sewers connected to septic systems.
• Building sewers connected to septic systems What septic professionals need to know (wqwwists326)
2015 legislative changes will impact your license: $25,000 surety bond to cover plumbing and SSTS.
1. All installers, pipe layers, and plumbing license holders will need to submit new surety bond documentation to the MPCA to maintain SSTS licensure beyond December 31, 2015.
2. All installer Designated Certified Individual (DCIs) will need to submit proof of completed pipe laying training or a personal plumbing license to the MPCA to maintain Installer DCI status beyond December 31, 2015.
3. All other SSTS business license holders will have to submit new bond documentation with their 2016 renewal (next year’s renewal).
For more informationContact Jane Seaver at the MPCA at 6517572711 or [email protected] with questions about these legislative changes.
Specific instructions will be mailed to all license holders prior to changes taking effect.
New forms will be posted here and on the Certification and Licensing webpage in the coming weeks.
Administrative Rule changesPublic comment is invited through September 28, 2015.
Public Notice Notice of Intent to Adopt Expedited Rules Relating to Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems
Updates on this rulemaking process
Sign up to receive email updates on the rulemaking process regarding building sewers: Rulemaking: Expedited – SSTS: Building Sewers Connected to Septic Systems and Lapsed Certification Eligibility Reinstatement
Email Next
Last modified on September 08, 2015 14:52
Page 1 of 1Building sewers connected to septic systems - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
9/16/2015http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/subsurface-sewage...
08/12/15 REVISOR CKM/AA RD4349
Pollution Control Agency1.1
Proposed Expedited Permanent Rules Relating to Subsurface Sewage Treatment1.2Systems1.3
7080.1100 DEFINITIONS.1.4
[For text of subps 1 to 11, see M.R.]1.5
Subp. 11a. Building sewer. "Building sewer" has the meaning given in part1.6
4715.0100, subpart 27.1.7
Subp. 11b. Building sewer connected to a subsurface sewage treatment system.1.8
"Building sewer connected to a subsurface sewage treatment system" has the meaning1.9
given in Minnesota Statutes, section 115.55, subdivision 1.1.10
[For text of subps 12 to 40, see M.R.]1.11
Subp. 41. Individual subsurface sewage treatment system or ISTS. "Individual1.12
subsurface sewage treatment system" or "ISTS" means a subsurface sewage treatment1.13
system or part thereof, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, sections 115.03 and 115.55, that1.14
employs sewage tanks or other treatment devices with final discharge into the soil below1.15
the natural soil elevation or elevated final grade that are designed to receive a sewage1.16
design flow of 5,000 gallons per day or less.1.17
ISTS also includes all holding tanks that are designed to receive a design flow of 10,0001.18
gallons per day or less; sewage collection systems and associated tanks that discharge1.19
into ISTS treatment and dispersal components; and privies. ISTS does not include those1.20
components defined as plumbing under the Minnesota Plumbing Code, chapter 4715,1.21
except for a building sewer connected to a subsurface sewage treatment system.1.22
[For text of subps 42 to 60, see M.R.]1.23
Subp. 60a. Plumbing program administrative authority. "Plumbing program1.24
administrative authority" means the commissioner of labor and industry or the governing1.25
7080.1100 1 Approved by Revisor_______
08/12/15 REVISOR CKM/AA RD4349
body of the adopting unit of government, its agents, and its employees according to the2.1
Minnesota Plumbing Code, part 4715.0100, subpart 2.2.2
[For text of subps 61 to 93, see M.R.]2.3
7081.0020 DEFINITIONS.2.4
[For text of subps 1 to 3, see M.R.]2.5
Subp. 4. Midsized subsurface sewage treatment system or MSTS. "Midsized2.6
subsurface sewage treatment system" or "MSTS" means a subsurface sewage treatment2.7
system, or part thereof, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, sections 115.03 and 115.55, that2.8
employs sewage tanks or other treatment devices with final discharge into the soil below2.9
the natural soil elevation or elevated final grade and that is designed to receive sewage2.10
design flow of greater than 5,000 gallons per day to 10,000 gallons per day.2.11
MSTS also includes sewage collection systems and associated tanks that discharge2.12
into MSTS treatment or dispersal components. MSTS does not include those components2.13
defined as plumbing under the Minnesota Plumbing Code, chapter 4715, except for a2.14
building sewer connected to a subsurface sewage treatment system.2.15
[For text of subps 5 to 8, see M.R.]2.16
7083.0740 DESIGN LICENSE.2.17
Subpart 1. Authorization.2.18
A. A licensed basic design business is authorized to conduct site and soil2.19
evaluations, design systems all system components, including the building sewer2.20
connected to a subsurface sewage treatment system, and write management plans for a2.21
Type I, II, or III ISTS as described under parts 7080.2200 to 7080.2300 serving dwellings2.22
or other establishments with a design flow of 2,500 gallons per day or less.2.23
B. A licensed advanced design business is authorized to conduct site and2.24
soil evaluations, design systems all system components, including the building sewer2.25
7083.0740 2
08/12/15 REVISOR CKM/AA RD4349
connected to a subsurface sewage treatment system, and write management plans for all3.1
sizes and types of SSTS.3.2
Subp. 2. Responsibilities. All design licensees must:3.3
A. inform the proposed system owner of the type classification of the system3.4
under parts 7080.2200 to 7080.2400;3.5
B. provide written reasonable assurance of system performance to the local unit3.6
of government including, but not limited to:3.7
(1) adherence to system type requirements; or3.8
(2) technical basis for design elements for Type II to Type V systems; and3.9
C. prepare detailed design sheets, drawings, calculations, materials, system3.10
layout, and elevations.; and3.11
D. prior to installation, submit plans and specifications for the building sewer3.12
connected to a subsurface sewage treatment system for approval as required by part3.13
1300.0215, subpart 6.3.14
[For text of subp 3, see M.R.]3.15
7083.0750 INSPECTION LICENSE.3.16
[For text of subps 1 and 2, see M.R.]3.17
Subp. 3. Certified inspectors. Certified inspectors are responsible for personally3.18
conducting the necessary procedures to assess system compliance. Certified inspectors3.19
must complete and sign the agency's existing system inspection form. Certified inspectors3.20
may permit, inspect, or permit and inspect a building sewer connected to a subsurface3.21
sewage treatment system for compliance with the Minnesota Plumbing Code when:3.22
A. the installation is not subject to the requirements of part 1300.0215, subpart3.23
6, and no other approval is required by the plumbing program administrative authority; or3.24
7083.0750 3
08/12/15 REVISOR CKM/AA RD4349
B. authorized by the appropriate plumbing program administrative authority.4.1
7083.0760 INSTALLATION LICENSE.4.2
Subpart 1. Authorization. A licensed installation business is authorized to construct,4.3
install, alter, extend, maintain, or repair all SSTS and the building sewer connected to a4.4
subsurface sewage treatment system only according to an approved design.4.5
Subp. 2. Responsibilities. Installation licensees must:4.6
A. ensure all work is done according to an approved a design report approved by4.7
the local SSTS authority under part 7082.0500 and the plumbing program administrative4.8
authority as required under part 1300.0215, subpart 6;4.9
B. notify provide adequate notice to the local unit of government and the4.10
plumbing program administrative authority when work is in need of required inspections4.11
requires inspection;4.12
C. ensure that all work is done according to applicable storm water regulations4.13
and the Minnesota Plumbing Code;4.14
C D. provide as-built drawings to the owner and local unit of government4.15
within 30 days of system installation;4.16
D E. maintain quality control and quality assurance records for five years;4.17
E F. provide system owners with information concerning system operation and4.18
maintenance;4.19
F. ensure that all construction activities comply with applicable storm water4.20
regulations;4.21
G. follow recommended standards and guidance documents for registered4.22
products and check the quality of materials used;4.23
7083.0760 4
08/12/15 REVISOR CKM/AA RD4349
H. negotiate with the system owner and jointly determine who will be5.1
responsible for seeding, erosion and frost protection, watering, and other vegetation5.2
establishment activities; and5.3
I. pay the septic system tank fee and submit the form according to Minnesota5.4
Statutes, section 115.551, including notification if no tanks were installed during the5.5
reporting year. The form and payment are due to the commissioner by January 31 for5.6
the previous calendar year's installations.5.7
[For text of subp 3, see M.R.]5.8
7083.1000 BONDING AND INSURANCE FOR SSTS LICENSED BUSINESSES;5.9LIABILITY.5.10
Subpart 1. Bond and insurance requirements.5.11
[For text of items A and B, see M.R.]5.12
C. To be eligible for SSTS licensing, a business must hold a corporate surety5.13
bond in the amounts specified in Table I or greater. If a business seeks more than one5.14
license, then the license category with the highest bonding amount fulfills the bond5.15
requirement for all licenses sought of at least $25,000.5.16
Table I5.17
License Minimum Bond Amounts5.18
Basic design $10,0005.19
Advanced design $25,0005.20
Inspection $10,0005.21
Advanced inspection $25,0005.22
Installation $10,0005.23
Maintenance $10,0005.24
Service provider $10,0005.25
7083.1000 5
08/12/15 REVISOR CKM/AA RD4349
D. The corporate surety bond must be written by a corporate surety licensed to6.1
do business in Minnesota.6.2
E. The corporate surety bond must be submitted to the commissioner on6.3
the bond form provided in this chapter, or on an alternate bond form provided by the6.4
commissioner, and must name the applicant as the principal.6.5
F. The corporate surety bond must be signed by an official of the business who is6.6
legally authorized to represent the business and must list a contact if a claim is to be filed.6.7
G. The corporate surety bond must cover work to be done under all SSTS6.8
licenses to be held by the business and must be for the benefit of persons injured or6.9
suffering financial loss by reason of failure to comply with the Minnesota Plumbing Code6.10
and Minnesota Statutes, sections 115.55 and 115.56.6.11
[For text of subp 2, see M.R.]6.12
Subp. 3. Term of bond. The term of the corporate surety bond must be continuous6.13
with the term of the license or, in the case of a plumbing bond provided according to6.14
Minnesota Statutes, section 326B.46, subdivision 2, concurrent with the term of the6.15
plumbing license. The penal sum of the bond is noncumulative cumulative and must not6.16
be aggregated every year two years that the bond is in force. The aggregate liability is6.17
limited to the bond penalty shown on the bond form for each two-year period the bond6.18
remains in effect for any losses that occur during each two-year period6.19
Subp. 4. Notification of bond actions. The corporate surety must provide written6.20
notice to the commissioner within 30 days of cancellation or 15 days of reduction of6.21
a licensee's bond. If a corporate surety bond is canceled or the amount of coverage is6.22
reduced to less than the amounts in subpart 1, Table I item C, the license immediately and6.23
automatically becomes invalid and the business must not perform SSTS work until the6.24
business obtains another corporate surety bond meeting the requirements of this part and6.25
submits notification of renewed bond coverage to the commissioner. The corporate surety6.26
7083.1000 6
08/12/15 REVISOR CKM/AA RD4349
must notify the principal and commissioner of any claims pending against the bond within7.1
five 15 days of the receipt of the claim and notify the principal and commissioner of any7.2
payments made against the bond within five 15 days of payment.7.3
Subp. 5. Other professional assistance. An SSTS business that seeks, accepts, and7.4
implements work products developed by a noncertified individual is responsible and liable7.5
for the related performance of the system.7.6
7083.1040 EXAMINATION.7.7
[For text of subp 1, see M.R.]7.8
Subp. 2. Expiration of test score. An examination that qualifies for certification7.9
expires if the continuing education requirements under part 7083.1060, subpart 1, are not7.10
fulfilled. The period within which continuing education must be completed starts when7.11
the first examination is taken in which a passing score is received or when conditional7.12
eligibility under part 7083.1060, subpart 1, item E, is awarded by the commissioner.7.13
[For text of subp 3, see M.R.]7.14
7083.1060 CONTINUING EDUCATION.7.15
Subpart 1. Renewal requirements.7.16
[For text of items A and B, see M.R.]7.17
C. Certified individuals and apprentices must complete the applicable hours7.18
of continuing education under items A and B that meet the criteria under subpart 27.19
for each time period specified in those items. The continuing education requirement7.20
is not increased for multiple specialty area certifications. Continuing education hours7.21
earned in excess of those required under this subpart shall not be carried over to meet7.22
the requirements for future renewal periods. The renewal period begins when the first7.23
examination is taken in which a passing score is received under part 7083.1040 or when7.24
conditional eligibility under item E is awarded by the commissioner.7.25
7083.1060 7
08/12/15 REVISOR CKM/AA RD4349
D. The continuing education must be taken during the time specified in this8.1
subpart and remains valid even though not reported before the end of the certification8.2
period. However, certification is considered expired until the training is reported. If8.3
adequate continuing education training is not taken during the certification period,8.4
recertification must be gained by taking the necessary continuing education hours and8.5
retaking the examinations.8.6
E. If adequate continuing education training is not taken during the certification8.7
period, certification eligibility must be regained by retaking the required training and8.8
passing the examinations under parts 7083.1030 and 7083.1040, or by commissioner8.9
approval of an application for a nonrenewable, one-year conditional certification eligibility8.10
extension. The application must be submitted on a form provided by the commissioner.8.11
The application must contain a signed statement that the applicant agrees to complete,8.12
within one year, all continuing education that was not taken and to pass no more than8.13
two different specialty area examinations within one year applicable to the certification8.14
eligibility that the commissioner determined has lapsed. The applicant must include8.15
information with the application to verify compliance with part 7083.1090, when8.16
applicable. If the applicant does not meet the conditions of the one-year conditional8.17
certification eligibility agreement, the certification eligibility expires and the individual8.18
must complete all missed continuing education and pass exams under part 7083.1040 for8.19
each specialty area sought in order to regain eligibility for certification.8.20
E F. In each certification period, certified individuals and apprentices must8.21
accrue continuing education hours specified in items A to C. At least one-half of the8.22
required training must be directly related to the administrative and technical parts of8.23
chapters 7080 to 7083 as determined by the commissioner.8.24
[For text of subp 2, see M.R.]8.25
7083.1060 8
08/12/15 REVISOR CKM/AA RD4349
RENUMBERING INSTRUCTION. Effective January 23, 2016, in each part of9.1
Minnesota Rules referred to in column A, the reference in column B shall be deleted and9.2
the reference in column C shall be inserted.9.3
Column A Column B Column C9.4
7080.1100, subp. 11a part 4715.0100, subp. 27 the Minnesota Plumbing9.5Code, chapter 47149.6
7080.1100, subp. 41 chapter 4715 chapter 47149.7
7080.1100, subp. 60a part 4715.0100, subp. 2 chapter 47149.8
7080.2050, subp. 2 chapters 4715 and 4725 chapters 4714 and 47259.9
7080.2150, subp. 2 chapters 4715 and 4725 chapters 4714 and 47259.10
7081.0020, subp. 4 chapter 4715 chapter 47149.11
7081.0270, subp. 2 chapters 4715 and 4725 chapters 4714 and 47259.12
7082.0300, subp. 2 chapters 4715, 4720, 4725,6105, and 6120
chapters 4714, 4720, 4725,9.136105, and 61209.14
REPEALER. Minnesota Rules, part 7083.2030, is repealed.9.15
7083.1060 9
DRAFT 2015 - 2020 Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Program Memorandum of Understanding between
University of Minnesota Onsite Sewage Treatment Program and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
This memorandum of understanding (MOU) summarizes the background, shared goals and roles of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the University of Minnesota (U of M) Onsite Sewage Treatment Program (OSTP) in the delivery of Minnesota’s Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) Program. The purpose of this MOU is to ensure that communication and shared understanding of roles and responsibilities between the MPCA and U of M is an ongoing priority. Both organizations hope to continue to fully support this partnership and uphold the important role effective decentralized wastewater treatment solutions play in a balanced wastewater treatment infrastructure strategy.
Background Following adoption of the Individual Sewage Treatment System standards by the MPCA Citizens’ Board in 1978, the U of M and MPCA have continued to work cooperatively to present the Onsite Sewage Treatment Workshops. The workshops were initially developed and offered in 1971 by the Agricultural Extension Service of the U of M. In 1974, MPCA staff began to participate in the workshops and the agency has been actively involved since that time. Between 1980 and 1995, a strong voluntary certification program developed to the point that in 1989, the Minnesota Legislature tasked the MPCA with the obligation to train SSTS personnel. Support for the program grew and in 1994, an industry-led initiative resulted in the Legislature making the certification and licensing of septic system professionals mandatory. Through 2015, over 1,000 workshops have taken place throughout Minnesota with over 50,000 participants. Individuals have taken more than 23,000 certification exams and MPCA has awarded nearly 10,000 individual certifications to septic system professionals, including designers, installers, maintainers, service providers, and inspectors.
Shared Goals of Minnesota’s SSTS Program The MPCA and U of M agree that a strong onsite wastewater treatment educational program focused on managing nonpoint pollution and protecting public health with properly designed, installed, inspected, and maintained septic systems plays an essential role in creating a balanced and equitable wastewater treatment infrastructure strategy. To support this effort, the MPCA and U of M share the following goals for the SSTS program:
− Eliminate negative public health and environmental impacts from improperly treated sewage in a cost-effective
manner. − Provide high quality education to improve knowledge of principles, practices, and impacts of onsite sewage
treatment for all parties active in onsite sewage treatment. − Assist local governmental units in managing their programs to provide effective permitting, inspection, and
compliance management activities. − Administer a fair licensing and certification program that protects Minnesotan investments in septic systems and
assures a minimum level of professional competence. − Develop and maintain sound administrative rule and policy reflective of the scientific understanding of onsite
sewage treatment, while remaining cognizant of the needs of the program’s stakeholders. − Secure the needed financial resources to support and implement program goals. − Conduct and continue research in onsite sewage treatment technology and disseminate this information to the
program stakeholders to keep the program up-to-date technically.
Roles of MPCA and U of M in the SSTS Program
MPCA roles:
Protect Environment and Public Health − Advocate for onsite sewage treatment as a viable wastewater infrastructure choice − Provide technical assistance for onsite professionals and the general public − Identify and develop a strategy to address improper wastewater treatment at the community level
Education − Participate in training and certification programs led by U of M; negotiate the extent of involvement annually − Develop accreditation standards and accredit educational programs − Maintain licensing and certification records − Prepare, revise, and distribute publications and website − Manage Need-to-Know process to align specialty area job tasks, curriculum priorities, and exam competencies
Local Program Support − Maintain relationships between state and local SSTS programs − Share concerns from local programs with the U of M OSTP − Collect and report Local SSTS Annual Report
Laws and Governance − Develop and administer rules that govern the SSTS program − Administer and facilitate an effective state and local compliance and enforcement program − Manage stakeholder participation
o SSTS Advisory Committee (SSTS AC) o Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) o SSTS Implementation and Enforcement Task Force (SIETF)
− Solicit input from U of M and other partners about policy formulation during developmental stages
Administration − Maintain professional improvement of staff − Advocate for resources to fund research, outreach, and targeted program objectives − Coordinate quarterly meetings with U of M with the central purpose of:
o Identifying issues that warrant development of policy, guidance, education or communication o Collaborating on development of solutions to issues and concerns o Debriefing on past issues or conflicts that have arisen o Planning and collaboration about upcoming policy, guidance, and educational events
U of M roles:
Protect Environment and Public Health − Educate and advocate about onsite sewage treatment as a viable wastewater infrastructure choice − Provide technical assistance for onsite professionals and the general public − Provide technical expertise and community education to address improper wastewater treatment at the
community level
Education − Plan, develop and execute appropriate certification and continuing education programs − Prepare workshop materials, including manual and handouts − Make meeting room arrangements, handle registrations, and collect registration fees for educational events − Prepare, revise, and distribute publications and website − Extensively participate in Need-to-Know process to align specialty area job tasks, curriculum priorities, and exam
competencies − Maintain and share training records − Develop and conduct research and outreach programs and disseminate results
Local Program − Support relationships between state and local SSTS programs − Share concerns from local programs with the MPCA − Evaluate and incorporate Local SSTS Annual Report data
Laws and Governance − Provide input and expertise during rulemaking process − Advocate necessity and reasonableness of rules that govern SSTS program − Support effective state and local compliance and enforcement program and integrate enforcement message,
outcomes, and priorities in educational programming. − Manage stakeholder participation
o Serve as SSTS AC Chair o Represent educational perspective at TAP o Stay informed of SIETF activities
− Communicate with MPCA and other partners about policy formulation during developmental stages
Administration − Maintain professional improvement of staff − Advocate for and request resources to fund research, outreach, and targeted program objectives − Participate in quarterly meetings with MPCA with the central purpose of:
o Identifying issues that warrant development of policy, guidance, education, or communication o Collaborating on development of solutions to issues and concerns o Debriefing on past issues or conflicts that have arisen o Planning and collaboration about upcoming policy, guidance, and educational events
This MOU does not obligate the MPCA or the U of M to expend funds, enter into any contract or assistance agreement, or incur any other financial obligation. All financial transactions in furtherance of this MOU shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and procedures, and shall be subject to separate agreements and be contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. Such activities must be independently authorized by appropriate statutory authority. This MOU does not provide such authority. Negotiation, execution, and administration of each such agreement must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations. The MPCA and U of M agree to revisit this Memorandum of Understanding five years after the date of signature below. This is a voluntary document and can be nullified by either party at any time with 15 days written notice to the other party’s designated contact person. The following will serve as the designated contact for their respective party with respect to this MOU: MPCA: Nick Haig, Certification and Training Unit, 651-757-2536 U of M: By the signatures below we hereby agree on this date to the goals, principles, and roles described above: ___________________________________ Signature [Title] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ___________________________________ Date
___________________________________ Signature [Title] University of Minnesota ___________________________________ Date
