Lessons Learned USDA Rural Development Funded Alternative Wastewater Systems

1. Lessons LearnedUSDA Rural Development FundedAlternative Wastewater Systems

2. Jon Melhus PE State Engineer USDA Rural Development 952 322-5008 jon.melhus@mn.usda.gov

3. Alternative WW Systems • RD Funded Alternative WW Systems • Definition • History • Recent Problems • Lessons Learned/Looking Ahead

4. Definition of “Alternative” Wastewater System • This is Jon’s definition • Different than traditional RD funded treatment systems, which largely consisted of ponds, regionalization & mechanical plants

5. Types of Alternative WW Systems • In general, RD has financed three types of alternative systems: • Constructed Wetland/Re-circulating Gravel Filter • Sand Filter • Soil Based Disposal

6. Why Alternative Systems? • Several hundred unsewered areas in MN • Available grant dollars on downward trend • Traditional treatment systems often have high capital costs • If alternative costs less (construction and O&M), than we can help more communities

7. Timeline • 1998 – Present • Promote Alternative Systems • 1998 • First RD alternative system funded • 2003 • Failures/extent of problem started to become apparent • 2004 • More problems, consulted outside experts • 2005 • State funding of repairs ($5M for 6 towns), on the road to recovery • July conference of experts, funders, regulators • 2006 • State may fund more repair/replacement

8. Status of RD Funded Alternative WW Systems • 21 Systems constructed since 1998 • 4 Systems in operation less than one year • Of the 17 systems in operation more than one year: • 30% have failed outright • 40% are operating below expectations or experience intermittent problems

9. Definitions • Failure • Systems simply don’t work • Mounds - water draining out side • Sand filters - flooding and/or freezing • Cannot handle flows • Permit limits not met on a regular basis

10. Definitions cont. • Intermittent Problems • Freezing during coldest winter periods • Significant amount of additional operator time • Occasional failure to meet permit limits • Wetlands - flooding, plant survival rate • Bottom line – system may not last, or work as intended, for length of loan/design life

12. Some Comparisons…

13. Discharge Method • Surface • 9 Systems • 4 Failures/Problems • 5 OK • Sub-Surface • 12 Systems • 9 Failures/Problems • 3 OK

14. Permit Agency vs. System Status • 8 County Permitted Systems • TOTAL: 6/8 Failure/Problems = 75% • 12 MPCA Permitted Systems • TOTAL: 6/12 Failure/Prob = 50% • 1 Tribal Permit • 1 Problem = 100% ?

15. Date of Operation Have we gotten better? OR Are the new systems yet to report failure?

16. O&M Cost vs. System Status • Higher O&M costs = reduced rate of failure ? • No

17. Cost per Unit • No apparent relationship between cost and success rate

18. Repair/Replace • A failure is not necessarily a total loss • Collection system may be OK/salvaged • An intermittent problem could be tweaked to work • Repair/replace may cost more than original project • 2005 - State of MN has kicked in $5M for failing systems • 2006 – State has proposal of $6.5M for problems

19. Typical Situation • Small Town <100 residents • Never had a complying system (might have a central sewer but no treatment) • Low income/Elderly residents • Little or no growth in the last 20 years • Small lot sizes

20. Why Failure/Problems? • Design • Independent third party reviews show majority of responsibility lies here for outright failures • Construction • added to problems in some cases • Operation & Maintenance • Much of the problem for intermittent problem systems • Other?

21. Typical Reasons for Failure/Problem Systems • Design • Hydraulically Undersized • Design flow • I&I • Incorrect Media – RSF’s • Soil Classification/Loading Rates

22. Typical Reasons for Failure, contd. • Construction • Incorrect materials • Installation & Methods • Lack of inspection/proper inspection • O&M • No O&M manual • Failure to pump tanks – solids pushed through • Cleaning UV system

23. July 2005 RD Alternative WW Conference • Four day conference held 7/05 • Attendees • Funders • Regulators • Technical Experts • Two days in meetings • Two days in field visiting problem systems

24. Recommendations from Summer 2005 Conference • Improve Technical Review Process – RD, State, Outside Experts • Establish Education Committee • Establish Engineering/Design Standards Committee

25. What is RD doing? • Independent studies/review • In general, no additional RD funds until determination is made as to cause of failure • Require borrowers to seek remedies from responsible parties • Working with others to identify design/O&M problems • Improve review process • Held conference - summer 2005

26. Is The Problem Only With RD Funded Projects or State-wide? • Not Sure • We’re working with the State to compare data

27. What Now? • Stop The Bleeding • Repair/replace current problem systems • Prevent future failures • Everyone has been affected • Bad name for technologies • Engineers • Lack of trust • Funders • Regulators • Taxpayers

28. What Next? • RD’s Position • Alternative Technologies Work • RD Will Still Fund and we want to have Preliminary Engineering Reports consider them

29. Food For Thought • Water Systems • RD also funds Water Systems • Wide variety of treatment • Some pilot projects, etc. • Nowhere near the amount of problems

30. Lessons Learned • Technical Review • Establish Review Committee • Better job of estimating true costs for construction and O&M • Develop Design Guidelines • Capacity Development • Establish Education Committee • Improve ability of borrowers to manage projects

31. MOSTCA & On-Site Systemsin RD Funded Projects • There is definitely a growing need for on-site and cluster systems • Reasons: • 1. May be more cost effective for small users • 2. May be easier to operate and maintain

32. MOSTCA & On-Site Systemsin RD Funded Projects contd. • Hurdles • 1. Acceptance by communities that this is really state of the art for them • 2. Central Ownership and maintenance required by RD • 3. How to get everybody into the system (esp. those that have working OSTS) • 4. No man's land • Too big for designers, not on engineer's radar • Designer may have to find engineer to work with when over 10,000 GPD – possible State rule changes

33. QUESTIONS?