Spring 2019 edition

MPCA appreciates LGU participation in our soil dispute survey

Last fall, the MPCA sent out a survey seeking information on soil disputes occurring around the state. We want to say thank you to the 161 local units of government that responded – a very impressive 70% return rate on the survey. The responses we received demonstrates local regulators' commitment to the SSTS program, and that is one of the strongest assets a program can have. One of the MPCA’s core values is to make decisions and policies based on data, and we couldn’t do that without such active participants at the local level. Here are some of the main takeaways on the results from the soils dispute survey: Out of 161 responding LGUs, 53 or 33% reported having at least one soil dispute occur in their jurisdiction over the last three years. When asked whether the local dispute process successfully resolves disputes, it appears the majority of LGU processes are effective with only 4% reporting it rarely resolves the dispute and 0% reporting it never resolves the dispute. More specific on the local process, 47% LGUs report disputing parties resolve the dispute themselves by meeting together on site, 34% are resolved by LGUs rendering a final opinion, 13% reported using a licensed PSS, and 6% reported other. No discernible correlations were observed tying soil disputes to property inspection triggers, infield verification of soils, or the age of the system.  Based on our results, the MPCA does not anticipate any direct action aimed toward soil disputes at this time. We will continue to keep our finger on the pulse, and may issue another survey at a later time. Again, the MPCA sincerely appreciates all of your efforts at the local level. We will continue to reach out to gather information as demand warrants in order to make data-driven decisions, and we strongly encourage your continued participation in future short surveys.

Notify MPCA early during straight-pipe enforcement cases

Locating and correcting straight-pipe discharges of septic waste is a priority for local units of government (LGUs) as well as the MPCA. The straight pipe law (Minn. Stat. 115.55 Subd. 11) provides an additional tool LGUs can use to correct straight-pipe discharges within their jurisdictions by facilitating a cooperative local-state enforcement process. The law states that an inspector who discovers the existence of a straight-pipe system shall issue a noncompliance notice to the owner of the straight-pipe system and forward a copy of the notice to the MPCA. The notice must state that the owner needs to replace or discontinue the use of the straight-pipe system within 10 months of receiving the notice. The notice should include a specific date by which compliance should occur. If the owner does not replace or discontinue the use of the straight-pipe system within 10 months, the owner is subject to an administrative penalty of $500 per month of noncompliance beyond the 10-month period. If the system owner fails to replace or discontinue the straight-pipe discharge by the due date, the LGU may refer the case to the MPCA by filling out the SSTS Enforcement Referrals from Local Programs form. At month 10 plus one day, the MPCA will initiate the Administrative Penalty Order (APO) process. The MPCA will issue subsequent combined APOs until the system owner has completely satisfied all the required items.  We encourage LGUs to contact their assigned SSTS field staff early in the process. They can provide technical assistance regarding what documentation the MPCA needs from the LGU to be able to accept the referral after the initial 10-month period.

Rulemaking continues on SSTS inspection/permit requirements

By Brandon Montgomery, MPCA

The MPCA is considering rule amendments that clarify when a State Disposal System (SDS) permit is required rather than a local permit, and when tank pumping is required for completion of a compliance inspection on an existing SSTS. General background information on this rulemaking can be found in previous editions of the SSTS Bulletin (May 2016, May 2017).

Sign-up with GovDelivery to receive rulemaking updates

The first public comment period related to this rulemaking process was posted in the state register on Dec.11, 2017. The comment period was open until Feb. 20, 2018, and multiple comments were received.The official Notice of Intent to Adopt should be published in the State Register in the coming months. In order to stay informed of this rulemaking and to ensure you have adequate time to comment, please subscribe to the GovDelivery rulemaking mailing list. Subscribing to Gov Delivery is as easy as 1-2-3.

Additionally, a rulemaking webpage has been created with information about the rulemaking process and expected timeframe. 

The upcoming Notice of Intent to Adopt will serve as the MPCA’s legal notice of its intent to adopt new SSTS rule language. This step will allow for additional public comment and input on this project.

At this stage, a draft rule and statement of need and reasonableness (SONAR) has been drafted and will be made publicly available at the time of the notice. Comments received in the upcoming notice period will be entered into the official record and available for an Administrative Law Judge to review should the rule change prove to be controversial.

The previously proposed timeline for adoption and implementation of this rule has been modified due to rule revision steps that took longer than anticipated and were out of the MPCA’s control. An updated timeline for adoption will be provided once the public notice of intent to adopt is published. 

Written comments, questions, and requests for more information on these possible rule amendments should be directed to Katie Izzo, Rule Coordinator—Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Rd. N, St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; Telephone: 651-757-2595; Toll-free: 1-800-657-3864; or email.

Type III SSTS systems: what they are, how they should be managed

Type III SSTS systems are type I systems that deviate from one or more of the standards found in Minnesota rule parts 7080.2210 to 7080.2240. The requirements for these type III systems can be found in Minnesota Rule 7080.2300. It is important to note that type III systems must still have three feet of vertical separation, and must always deal with sewage in a safe manner that adequately protects from physical injury or harm and prevents sewage from coming into contact with humans.

Rules specific to designing type III system were created in order to allow flexibility for systems located on sites requiring special design considerations. Type III rules have evolved over time and were most recently modified in 2011. Prior to the 2011 modifications, type III rule modifications occurred in 2008 and 1999. The 1999 rule modifications introduced the term “other” systems, and the 2008 rules modified the “other” designation to type III, as we know it today. Previous rule change statements of need and reasonableness (SONAR) documents provide background and justifications for the incorporation of type III (other) systems into state rule. Some pertinent language has been highlighted below.

1999 SONAR

• “Other systems” are necessary to provide design flexibility for sites, particularly those with problem soil conditions, lack of space and highly saturated soils or bedrock, and must be an option available without being attached to the new concept of performance systems.

2008 SONAR

• A Type III system is proposed to replace the “Other System” category in former Minn. R. 7080.0178

2011 SONAR

• The MPCA’s reason for developing the Type III classification was to provide an SSTS option for sites with soil conditions that could pose hydraulic problems.
  
  
• The amendments clarify that a Type III system is a system that is designed to address all of the components of other types of systems, (eg. trench, mound, etc) but which may deviate from some of them if approved by the local unit of government. The MPCA’s intention for this rule governing Type III systems is that certain standards would be required, but that variations from other aspects of system design and operation would be left to the discretion of the local unit of government. The MPCA believes that it is reasonable for the MPCA to establish a baseline for every type of system, as required by Minn. Stat. § 115.55, but that it is also reasonable to allow flexibility for local concerns and site specific variability.

Remember that the local unit of government (LGU) must approve all type III systems. Type III systems are not meant to be an after the fact classification. Minnesota Rule 7080.2300 states “Deviations from the standards in parts 7080.2210 to 7080.2240 must be submitted to the local unit of government for approval or denial.” Local units of government should not issue permits for designs not meeting all state and local regulations and local permitting requirements. 

For local programs struggling with type III design approvals, one potential approach to managing type III deviations is to create a type III justification document. This allows the designer to provide their type III deviations in writing along with a justification for why the deviation from a type I is being requested.

The designer would submit the form to the LGU for approval or denial. Local programs are not compelled to approve all Type III requests, but the LGU should be reasonable in the consideration and approval of rule deviations.

These forms can also contain mitigation steps in the event of a system failure. A place on the form can be used for homeowners to acknowledging the type III deviations with their signature. Additionally, many LGUs have implemented type III specific ordinance provisions requiring operating permits. Ultimately, local SSTS programs should define the role of type III systems in their program. 

For questions pertaining to type III system designs, type III history, or questions on local ordinance modifications specific to type III systems, please contact Brandon Montgomery at 651-757-2230 or Brandon.Montgomery@state.mn.us.

Beware email scams; MPCA does NOT send bills, receipts, etc. via email

MPCA SSTS staff have received reports from county program staff that they are receiving bills purportedly sent to them from the MPCA. These are not legitimate as the MPCA does not send bills, invoices, receipts, etc., via email. All MPCA billing related business is done using regular mail services. A key point to remember is NEVER click on a link contained in a message that is the least bit suspicious.  If you have any questions or doubts about an email you receive from the MPCA, give us a call (using a phone number you know for certain is one of our legitimate numbers). Again, do not click on any links contained in an email that you have any doubts about.

Welcome Aaron Patrick, Connor Hegrenes to the SSTS team

Aaron Patrick and Connor Hegrenes have joined the MPCA as part of our team involved with SSTS compliance and enforcement activities with septic system professionals, counties, cities and townships. Aaron is assigned to the MPCA office in Brainerd. Previously he worked for Crow Wing County's Environmental Services Department where he was involved in in permitting structures and shoreline issues. He replaces Sadie Wunder who has taken on a new role at the MPCA working in training and development at the main office in St Paul.

Connor is assigned to the office in Marshall. The past three summers Connor was lead inspector for the watercraft inspection program in Itasca County based in Grand Rapids, supervising more than 20 other inspectors. In addition to serving as a substitute teacher in Grand Rapids, he has also been involved in ATV, snowmobile and firearms safety training. He replaces Kristi Kalk who is now an industrial wastewater permit writer for the MPCA.

Who to call with SSTS questions

Visit the MPCA website for a list of MPCA staff available to assist with questions about SSTS policies and programs, as well as compliance and enforcement issues.