May 2025

May 2025

Inside the Newsletter:

School Waste | PFAS? Source Identification & Tools | Reducing Energy Use | Events | Funding Opportunities

First Year Review: MnTAP School Waste and Recycling Work in Hennepin County

MnTAP just wrapped up the first year of its school waste reduction and recycling project with Hennepin County. From May 2024 to April 2025, MnTAP conducted outreach to over 350 schools, ranging from preschool organizations to higher education institutions across the county.

We were able to achieve the following outputs and outcomes from our activities:

  • Sent 428 physical mailers marketing free technical assistance to district nutrition and administrative staff, principals, teachers, and custodians.
  • Conducted 22 site visits to examine outdoor dumpster signage, size (i.e., volume), and hauler information, and performed seven waste audits with green teams.
  • Engaged 27 schools through outreach efforts to assist with a variety of inquiries, including starting compost and recycling programs, conducting waste audits, giving classroom presentations on waste and carbon footprints of food, and assisting with grant applications.
  • Recommended retrofitting light bulbs in one school equating to 464,000 kWh and $38,000 in energy savings.
  • Recommended reducing 34,000 pounds of excess food prep in kitchens.
  • Recommended diverting 233,000 pounds of materials in the trash to recycling, share tables, compost, and liquid pour buckets.
  • Estimated waste recommendations could save the six schools we audited up to $52,000 in hauling charges and taxes.

On average, our waste audits showed 91% of trash from front-of-house bins can be recycled, poured down the drain (i.e., liquids), composted, or put on a share table. The results varied from school to school, as two schools in particular had started organics recycling for compost with certain grade levels. Items that could be diverted to recycling were predominantly milk cartons and plastic containers for food. Items for compost included uneaten food, napkins, and compostable ware. To be eligible for share tables, items had to remain sealed in the manufacturer packaging or unopened; these items included fruit cups, milk, string cheese, vegetable packets, whole fruit, and pre-packaged sandwiches.

Key insights and learnings from our first year on this project include:

  • Technical assistance is most successful when principals, teachers, and parents of students are engaged in planning out initiatives.
  • Taxes on trash (e.g., 38.5% in Hennepin County) can be significantly reduced through diverting materials. In addition, this reduced hauling expenses as less frequent pickups meant less fuel surcharges and labor.
  • Share tables are a powerful tool for waste reduction; however, lack of understanding is a barrier to implementation. This prompted MnTAP to research share table regulations at the federal and Minnesota state levels.
  • Students and staff benefit from clear signs to reference above or near the bin where items are discarded.
    • Sometimes, physically attaching materials to the signs is most useful (e.g., a napkin above a compost bin or a milk carton above the recycling bin).
  • Differentiation between bag colors and signs for each type of collection is an important practice to ensure proper disposal (e.g., blue for recycling, green for organics, and black for trash).
  • Reusable food service items can significantly decrease waste but can be hard to implement in certain schools due to limited storage space and washing capacity from lack of employees.

We noted that sorting activity that occurs in cafeterias is pointless when bag colors aren’t differentiated between recycling, organics, and trash. When bags are the same color, custodial staff cannot tell the difference, and may throw everything in the trash dumpster. Some schools had organics dumpsters and weren’t using them, while others only used recycling dumpsters for cardboard from classrooms.

We also noted peer pressure can set expectations in cafeterias. In one school, someone started placing uneaten whole fruits next to the trash and recycling bins, and this action prompted other students and lunch aides to do the same. These fruits would later be put out for consumption in after-school programs. Another high school had students stand by the bins as their fellow peers disposed of materials in front of them. We noted the contamination in recycling and organics bins were low, which demonstrates the effectiveness of assistance at the point of disposal. Two schools had staff or students come directly to the table and ask students for certain materials so they wouldn’t have to sort them out later, and this practice reduced contamination.

Changing behavior in the cafeteria starts with appropriate signage and consistent training to custodial staff, teachers, and students on proper sorting techniques. To help encourage students to take only what they need, it can be helpful to communicate which food and drink items are required to be served as part of federal guidelines. Additionally, students and staff can benefit from reminders about what items (i.e., unopened and uneaten) can be placed on shared tables if they’re not going to eat or drink them. To address back-of-house food prep behavior, tracking the amount of food being thrown out each day can prompt menu changes and reduce procurement costs.  The less food that needs to be prepped, the less food that will need to be ordered.

We enjoyed our first year of working on this project with Hennepin County and look forward to assisting schools over the coming years!

Contact:

Jon Schroeder – Sustainable Materials Management Specialist
  jschro@umn.edu
612-624-4645

Do WE have PFAS? Source Identification Tools for Industry

As PFAS (per- and poly- fluoroalkyl compounds), also known as forever chemicals, are increasingly in the news, many businesses are concerned about how they may be impacted by upcoming regulations. PFAS compounds are not usually listed on Safety Data Sheets, so how can you know if any of your products contain PFAS?

The Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP), with support from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and US EPA Region 5, has put together a process and tools to help Minnesota businesses identify PFAS in their operations.

Identifying PFAS in operations is a multi-step exercise that can often span several months. We suggest developing a plan to guide your organization through the process and creating a framework for documenting the progress and outcomes. This article describes recommended tools and activities to help you get started. Documenting your plan as early in the process as possible will clarify the scope of the task and provide continuity between personnel if turnover occurs.

Part 1: Where should I be looking?

A good first step is using the desktop screening tool developed by the MPCA. This screening is intended as an educational and awareness tool to help identify sources of PFAS in your operations, understand your risk of unintentional disposal or discharge of PFAS, and develop a source reduction plan. The self-evaluation includes questions about general industry and activity, NAICS code(s), and additional risk factors, and it should take no longer than 10 to 15 minutes to complete. It will provide an estimate of your business’ PFAS risk as lower, medium, or higher compared to other facilities.

Next, you can use MnTAP’s customized Excel tool (based on the PFAS Guide developed by ChemSec) to generate a list of the most common applications for PFAS in your specific industry or industries. This tool also highlights common uses of PFAS that are found in many facilities regardless of industry, such as floor coverings and waxes, bearings, and roofing materials. This will give you an idea of where to begin looking for products that may contain PFAS.

Along with common uses, it can be helpful to screen your materials based on their function. Some of the most common functions of PFAS compounds include:

  • Water, oil, and stain repellence
  • Friction reduction
  • Durability
  • Non-stick coatings
  • Lubrication
  • Anti-static properties
  • Mold release
  • Flame retardance

Any products which demonstrate these functions have an increased potential to contain PFAS and therefore should be investigated further.

To assist in these reviews, MnTAP is developing a tool to assess product lists for these and other common PFAS functionalities. If you would like MnTAP to assess your product list as part of our pilot testing, please reach out to us for more information.

Part 2: Confirming presence or absence of PFAS

Once you have performed the steps above, you should have a good idea of which products in your facility are most likely to contain PFAS and should be investigated further. Determining the presence of PFAS will become easier once Minnesota reporting requirements go into effect in 2026, but in the meantime, requesting information directly from suppliers is the best route available.

Given the various definitions of PFAS used by EPA, Minnesota, and other groups, we have found it can be difficult to get the right information. For instance, we found that in one supplier’s response to a company’s inquiry about PFAS, they indicated that their products do not contain PFAS but then later mentioned that some of their products do contain PTFE. PTFE is considered PFAS under the Minnesota definition of one fully fluorinated carbon. While the supplier was responding accurately according to their working definition of PFAS, it became apparent that Minnesota businesses need to be explicit in the definition within their request.

To help manufacturers get accurate information from their suppliers, we have prepared a supplier letter template to clearly explain what information is needed to comply with Minnesota regulations. It includes specific information for Minnesota, EPCRA, and TSCA reporting requirements as well as PFAS definitions and a data table the supplier can use to provide the requested information.

As you work through this process of identifying and prioritizing potential sources of PFAS and working with vendors and suppliers to confirm its presence or absence, we recommend that you document the full list of materials to be considered, what has been evaluated, responses received, and dates of any communications.

Part 3: Evaluating alternatives to products containing PFAS

Once you have identified products that contain PFAS, you can begin to evaluate alternatives for substitution. MnTAP has resources available to help with this process. It is helpful to document whether each product can be substituted, the reason(s) behind why a product can or cannot be substituted, and what criteria were used to make this determination. Finally, you should develop a timeline for substituting or eliminating PFAS in each product.

We understand that this can be a long and daunting process, and MnTAP is here to help in any way we can. All MnTAP staff services are confidential, at no cost, and non-regulatory. The tools described here, as well as other resources for identification and substitution of PFAS, are available on our website. Please reach out to Jane Paulson at MnTAP for questions, assistance with these tools, or to have a discussion to see how else MnTAP can help with your PFAS journey.

Contact

Jane Paulson – Senior Engineer
Janep2@umn.edu
612-624-1826

Framework for Reducing Energy Use in Business Operations [Part1]

MnTAP staff have been working on frameworks to help manufacturers identify resource saving opportunities they can implement on their own or with MnTAP’s assistance. Last month, MnTAP proposed a framework for water conservation opportunities, and for the next couple of months, MnTAP will focus on a framework to capture the many ways a facility can reduce its energy use. Businesses stand a lot to gain from discovering how to use less energy to achieve the same results or even increase their productivity without compromising quality. These benefits include saving money on their energy bills and reducing their environmental impact, whether that is their carbon footprint or greenhouse gas emissions.

To come up with this framework, MnTAP staff reviewed energy efficiency strategies proposed by MnTAP interns over the past 5 years to 37 different entities. These entities include manufacturers of household goods (e.g., food products, pet products, and textiles); inputs for other businesses (e.g., metal and concrete parts or data storage technologies); and goods for aerospace and national defense along with healthcare systems, state agencies and correctional facilities, utilities, and grocery stores.

The strategies can be largely grouped into 5 categories. The first is reviewing or auditing how much energy is currently used and where that energy is being used. This in-depth analysis will then reveal further opportunities for energy savings that are captured in the 4 other categories, namely:

  • Reducing energy use in current operations through new equipment and optimal procedures.
  • Resolving leaks and loss of heated air, refrigerated air, air conditioning, and compressed air, which all can require considerable energy to produce.
  • Maintaining existing systems so they can operate at their peak energy efficiency.
  • Investigating recoverable energy (i.e., energy currently discarded or lost) or renewable energy opportunities onsite. These may help companies reduce their dependence on the electrical grid, which can be expensive and unpredictable.

Image 1 illustrates how the review category can lead to the other 4 categories.

Due to length constraints, this article will elaborate only on the first two categories: reviewing and reducing energy use. The next article will cover resolving leaks, maintaining existing systems, and investigating recoverable or renewable energy opportunities onsite.

Review or Audit

This stage begins by assembling a team that includes employees across different departments (e.g., operations, facilities, or manufacturing engineering) and external consultants (e.g., MnTAP staff or interns). This team should carry out a document review to uncover how much energy this facility uses on paper from a variety of sources. Source include utility bills; building size, layout, and occupancy patterns; and equipment inventory, specifications and operating schedules.

Next, this team should carry out a walkthrough of the facilities to see how energy is currently being used by equipment, systems, and processes at each stage of manufacturing along with how energy is used in general building operations (e.g., air conditioning or washrooms). Walk-through audits should cover areas that the team suspect are the top energy-consuming culprits, and common culprits include lighting; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; or weaknesses in the building envelope (i.e., “the exterior walls, foundations, roof, windows and doors” that “separate the indoors from the outdoors”).

Other culprits for energy loss— including inefficient processes or equipment, leaks or energy waste, and idling machinery— are going to be specific to manufacturing processes or the facility itself. Therefore, it might be helpful to review some common assessments that MnTAP interns have performed when considering which energy audits to carry out in one’s own facility. These include:

  • Compressed air audit. The first step is making it easier to carry out annual audits by planning and documenting walking routes that will take auditors to all areas (e.g., air hoses and lines, instrument stands, filters, and receivers) that regularly use compressed air. Auditors can use ultrasonic leak detectors in these key areas to locate compressed air leaks, or the facility can install flow monitors at the inlets to each compressed air line if these prove difficult to audibly or visually check for leaks.
  • Audits to identify cooled air leakage and heat loss. To investigate cooled air and heat loss, MnTAP interns have used the following measurement tools and techniques: Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) cameras, anemometers, and visual inspections. These help identify weaknesses in the building envelope and opportunities to improve insulation around piping and equipment.
  • Steam trap audits. MnTAP interns have used ultrasonic leak detectors to identify failing steam traps. They have also recommended that facilities set a routine inspection schedule to repair faulty steam traps and promptly replace any traps that are reaching their end of life.
  • Lighting audit. Lower-efficiency plant and office lighting (e.g., metal halide, fluorescent lighting, and incandescent lighting) can both consume a lot of energy and put off heat that increases air conditioning costs. To investigate the benefits of switching to light emitting diode (LED) lights, MnTAP interns have collected data on what lighting is used around the facility and its desired quality to complete tasks, worked with vendors to uncover suitable replacements, and carried out a cost-benefit analysis for implementation.

These audits and assessments collect data and provide context that are vital to identifying energy conservation measures that work for that facility. The next section will cover the most common category of energy conservation measures recommended by MnTAP interns.

Reduce Energy Use in Current Systems

Unlike the other 3 categories of energy conservation measures, MnTAP intern recommendations in this category are all centered on proposing new changes that can be made without hindering performance or business operations.  Most of these changes can be further broken up into 3 subcategories: adding new equipment or technologies, optimizing processes, and incentivizing employees to adopt energy-saving practices and habits.

  • Upgrading to more energy efficient equipment or technologies. Many of these recommendations involve replacing equipment that is nearing its end of life or is inefficient compared to newer equipment and models. While many of the recommendations in Table 1 consist of replacing older equipment with newer and functionally equivalent models, there was one outlier. In that instance, the MnTAP intern recommended the company purchase a smaller air compressor that could power the HVAC during scheduled downtimes, and therefore, the existing and more energy-intensive larger air compressor would only need to run during operational hours.

Table 1. Examples of full-scale equipment upgrades or additions

Equipment Recommended upgrade or addition
Boilers High-efficiency fire tube or water tube boilers
Process heaters Higher-frequency induction heaters
Chillers More energy-efficient model
Washing machines Ozone laundry system or higher-efficiency models
Lights LED fixtures

Since full-scale replacement of equipment or addition of new equipment can result in a long payback period, MnTAP interns have also come up with numerous ways to optimize existing equipment with smaller equipment additions. A couple of common examples of these additions include:

  • Sensors, valves, and automation that reduce or shut off power to equipment when devices are not actively in use or when less power is needed. Instead of manually turning off equipment, technologies such as solenoid valves ensure that equipment is shut down when processing is complete. These controls can also ensure that equipment is shut off during the weekend and night hours. Sensors paired with automation can do a better job than timers by instantaneously turning off high-energy consumers, such as compressed air, once a predetermined setpoint is reached. Another popular example in this subcategory is recommending installing motion and occupancy sensors to turn off or dim lights when no one is in certain parts (e.g., washroom) of the facility.
  • A central device that coordinates multiple machines so they can run more efficiently together. An example of this is implementing a master controller so that several air compressors can work in sync and with demand. This reduces overall energy consumption.
  • Variable Frequency Drive (VFD). A VFD is a device that can alter the speed and torque of a motor by changing the voltage and frequency being supplied to that electric motor. Captured in many recommendations from MnTAP interns, adding VFDs allow manufacturers to more finely adjust things like fan speeds or compressed air flow to reduce energy use while still meeting the demands of the process.
  • Optimizing processes to be more efficient. Instead of upgrading or modifying equipment, sometimes the process itself can be changed to be more energy efficient. In this sample of MnTAP intern recommendations, processes were adjusted in the following ways:
    • For chemical processes, MnTAP interns have recommended switching to chemicals or enzymes that could still work at or near ambient temperatures, which reduces the need to heat up certain production processes.
    • In two separate examples, MnTAP interns found more energy efficient ways to operate existing laundry equipment within their current constraints. For textile manufacturing, employees were recommended to stagger wash cycles so that the existing water heater could provide consistent hot water supply throughout a busy production day. For a correctional facility, the total number of laundry cycles could be reduced if the facility provided mesh bags so that multiple people’s laundry could be washed at the same time.
    • MnTAP interns created new instructions or standard operating procedures for employees to be more energy efficient in their tasks. Examples have included establishing a standardized size or “crop length” of horseshoes that can reduce the energy use associated with forging excess steel, finding optimal temperature setpoints for when a building is and is not occupied, and finding optimal speeds or flow rates for equipment without negatively impacting production.
    • In one instance, a MnTAP intern suggested turning on a pre-existing control that would allow the facility’s ammonia refrigeration system to run more efficiently regardless of external weather temperatures across different weather seasons.
  • Encouraging employees to adopt new best practices. For systems to become more sustainable over time, it is not enough to simply change equipment or procedures. Leaders and employees of a company also need to make a switch by adapting and becoming more accustomed to energy-saving habits and practices that they might not have followed before. Looking at MnTAP intern recommendations around employee engagement, two major strategies emerged: a staff-led Green Team and creating reminders for staff to manually turn off equipment before going on break or going home for the night or weekend.
    • Establish a Green Team: This is a group of leaders and employees at a company who are passionate about sustainability. They bring their own unique perspectives, based on their training and observations from day-to-day tasks, to help the team explore future opportunities to save energy. Not only could this group help businesses set energy conservation goals, but they can also introduce their peers and teams to new processes and oversee the implementation of these new ideas with supervisors and peers.
    • Providing reminders and trainings to employees for energy-saving best practices: A best practice that kept showing up across different MnTAP intern projects was turning off equipment when it was not in use, and types of equipment ranged from coffee machines to equipment on the production line (e.g., turning off natural gas burners used for heating process tanks during nonproduction days). One interesting variation on this was a MnTAP intern’s recommendation to turn off idling steam humidifiers or boiling water during the summer because those were only needed in the winter. MnTAP interns recommended adding labels to equipment, such as light switches, to serve as reminders and increase the likelihood that employees would manually turn equipment off. Other methods for encouraging best practices could include increasing training and resources to help employees better understand their role in saving energy and its benefits to their facilities, communities, and the environment.

This article introduces a framework to reduce energy use for manufacturers that will be expanded on in the next month’s newsletter. Businesses and companies should not feel as if they must take all this on by themselves. The strategies outlined here are what MnTAP staff work on every day, and MnTAP staff are available to carry out site visits and consultations. All MnTAP staff services are confidential, at no cost, and non-regulatory. When more in-depth assistance is needed, the MnTAP intern program provides extended, hands-on assistance for a nominal cost-share.

Author:

Jocelyn Leung- Communications Specialist

Contact

Matt Domski – Intern Program Manager
  mdomski@umn.edu
612-624-5119

Events

Northeast Minnesota Solar 101
Solar United Neighbors & Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs)

June 17, 2025, 6:30-8:00 PM
Virtual, No-cost

Learn about solar energy and its benefits for your home, or small business. We’ll take you through technology, economics, financing and more. You’ll also learn about the Solar Co-op in Northeast Minnesota. The program is free to join, and members are not obligated to buy solar panels. Register!

Members will get:

  • A free review of your roof to see if solar panels will work for you
  • One-on-one support for all your questions about going solar
  • Help with installer proposals, selection and installation expectations

CUB Call-In Energy Bill Consultation
Citizen Utility Board of MN & Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs)

June 12, 2025, 11:00-2:00 PM
June 23, 2025, 11:00-2:00 PM

Would you like to learn how to save energy and money on your gas and electric bills? Would you like to learn more about how to be more energy efficient or learn about renewable options in your area? Have you ever been confused by your bill? What do all the charges mean? This is a special time reserved for energy bill consultations by phone or video call. Call in to have your energy bills reviewed and get suggestions of ways to reduce energy usage and save money. Find times.

Achieving Environmental Justice Through Toxics Use Reduction
Toxic Use Reduction Institute (TURI)

June 4, 2025, 1:30-2:30 PM ET [12:30-1:30 PM CT] Virtual, No-cost

Join us for a free 1-hour webinar to hear how businesses, advocates, and government agencies use Toxics Use Reduction to advance environmental justice and improve economic competitiveness.  Environmental Justice is based on the principle that all people have a right to be protected from environmental hazards regardless of race, national origin or income. TURI’s 2025 Environmental Justice Report highlights Toxics Use Reduction (TUR) as a best practice approach for strengthening the protection of vulnerable communities from harmful chemicals. The session will summarize key findings from TURI’s report and provide helpful guidance for companies and communities in designing and executing environmental justice strategies. Register.

 Expert speakers include:

  • Michelle Peedin, Community Outreach Associate at the Environmental Protection Network
  • Kayla Powers, Environmental Justice Manager at Clean Production Action
  • Colin Hannahan, Policy Analyst at the Toxics Use Reduction Institute

Funding Opportunities