GREAT LAKES - UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOARD
Illinois - Indiana - Iowa - Michigan - Minnesota - Missouri - New York - Ohio - Pennsylvania - Wisconsin - Ontario
OF STATE and PROVINCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERS
(Ten States Standards)
Individual Sewage Systems
DRAFT-2013 Annual Meeting Minutes
April 15, 2013
Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal Office Building
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Liane Shekter Smith
Brian referred to his 2012 Committee Report sent to the Board previously to highlight the topics of discussion during their meeting.
Revisions to the Recommended Standards were complete and finalized in June 2012.
The Water Supply Committee met for 1 ½ days last fall in Minnesota. They spent the first day discussing various new technologies, problems, and concerns commonly encountered by state staff during the planning and construction process of water supply systems. The second day was spent listing proposed changes that will be considered for the 2017 revision to the Recommended Standards. The Committee hopes these changes will help them get ahead of emerging technologies.
Brian requested Certificates of Appreciation for Rick Miranda (IN) and Kevin McKleary (PA).
The wastewater committee has been actively engaged in updating the 2004 edition through a series of telephone conferences facilitated by Iowa through the Teleconferencing Center. These calls happen every 3 – 4 weeks and are limited to 2 hours. All states have been actively engaged in the teleconferencing process. Telephone conferences are scheduled to encourage the greatest level of participation.
Chapter 90 will see the addition of biological nutrient removal and RBCs. These changes were facilitated by Dr. R. (Mano) Manoharan and Gerry Novotny. Basic biology is carefully described in the revision.
The Committee expects a good and healthy discussion on disinfection. Peracetic acid works well on coliform, but it has minimal impact on viruses at low dosages. Presently, peracetic acid is not mentioned in Ten States Standards as a disinfectant. Also, other methods, including membranes, may not remove viruses sufficiently or reliably even though a coliform limit might be met. Membranes are not mentioned as a disinfection method in Ten States Standards.
It has long been recognized that the minimum sewer slopes in Ten States Standards may not prevent settling under all flow and operating conditions. A sewer slope based on pipe flowing full at 2 ft/sec based on a Manning’s “n” of 0.013 is a minimum. Ten States Standards does warn that greater slopes may be desirable for self-cleansing and pipe diameter and slope shall be selected to obtain the greatest practical velocities to minimize settling problems. However, the ASCE has been encouraging regulators to take a more active role in sewer review. ASCE is recommending different slopes and friction factors which are calculated at low flow conditions and to determine if a sewer may be self-cleansing at the outset of its design life. The Wastewater Committee has had some discussion about the practical constraints and role of regulatory agencies in issuing construction permits and whether there is a need to say more about operation. Anything said needs to be carefully said because there may be no calculation method which can predict with absolute certainty that a sewer which is laid at or near minimum slope will be self-cleansing after construction.
The Committee has been discussing numerous pumping station design issues. For instance, some literature suggests that the current 30 fresh air changes per hour for a wet well should be increased to 60 fresh air changes per hour, but the committee may keep 30 fresh air changes per hours as the minimum for construction on the basis that the wet well is a confined space.
The Committee has completed preliminary drafts for updating Chapter 10 – Engineering Reports and Facility Plans, Chapter 20 – Engineering Plans and Specifications, Chapter 50 – Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Chapter 60 – Screening, Grit Removal, and Flow Equalization, Chapter 90 – Biological Treatment, and Chapter 110 – Supplemental Treatment Processes. The Committee has partially reviewed preliminary drafts for Chapter 30 – Sewers and Chapter 40 – Pumping Stations. Preliminary draft updates for Chapter 70 – Settling, Chapter 80 – Sludge Processing, Storage and Disposal, Chapter 100 – Disinfection, and the Appendix – Handling and Treatment of Septage at a Wastewater Treatment Plant have not been submitted for consideration to the wastewater committee.
The Committee intends to continue with reviewing draft updates by teleconferencing using the internet and will hold at least one meeting in October 2013 in Madison, Wisconsin to organize and finalize. After the October meeting, there should be enough time to get the document print ready, cross check references, and obtain any remaining feedback from staff at respective agencies. The proposed changes should be ready for review and approval for the 2014 Board meeting.
Committee membership has been stable. Jon VanDommelen of the Ohio EPA has done an outstanding job as the secretary for our group tracking all changes. He has also facilitated the use of WebEx. New York is again an active participant, Don Tuxill is their representative.
M. Baker started the discussion on Governance of the GLUMRB Board as it has not happened for a number of years and it is always a good idea to look at a group’s charter and operating procedures to either make sure it is operating as intended or to initiate agreed upon changes.
Discussion ensued about collaborating with the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) and/or the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA). The GLUMRB Committee could be a standing agenda item if each respective association had some sort of Technology Committee. This could be a way to help the GLUMRB committee in understanding and drafting design standards for new technologies in the industry. Another alternative would have the associations solicit input from their member states for standards revision suggestions and information. Along these same lines were discussion topics about external review of documents (i.e. local AWWA, consulting engineers, etc.) before publishing. State committee members thought it would be best to solicit input as a state employee and provide that information to the GLUMRB committee as needed instead of seeking that information as a GLUMRB Committee member. No decision was made on how to move forward.
It’s understood that approximately 50% of states use 10 State Standards, at a minimum, as an official reference standard for plan review and construction. The document is respected
throughout the industry.
There was agreement that the Board should seek out historical information pertaining to the Boards creation, charter, mission, objectives, and operating procedures. M. Baker mentioned finding a document which mentions the combination of the Great Lakes Board and the Upper Mississippi River Board to create GLUMRB in the late 1930’s. The Board originally was made up of State Public Health Commissioners and State Sanitary Engineers. It was agreed that Minnesota staff will seek historical information from all current Board and Committee members, will either update or create a Charter for the Board, and send the draft Charter around to other Board members for review and comment. All archived information will then be stored on the GLUMRB website.
It was generally agreed that the Committees function really well. The question to be answered is if the Board is there just to approve of the Committees work?
The Committees responsibility for emerging technologies was discussed. Members sometime feel the need to be out in front of new technologies. As a state employee this may be necessary and possible but the GLUMRB Committee should see how projects work and evolve so it can be determined what the best minimum standards are. The process should follow how it exists currently; Policy, Interim Standard, and Recommended Standard. States should cooperate with each other to determine pilot requirements and other common approaches and then bring that information to the GLUMRB Committee to be incorporated in to future standards.
Bob Smude will send the printed certificates to S. Grapp for signature.