Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup: July 2016 Project Update

Transcription

1 : July 2016 Project Update

2 The state and regional agencies and entities listed below were directed by the Minnesota Legislature to prepare a comprehensive study of and recommendations for regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to water reuse for use in the development of state policy for water reuse in Minnesota, with funding through the Clean Water Fund of the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment. Workgroup representatives are listed below. Minnesota Department of Health Randy Ellingboe, Jim Kelly, Managing Sponsors Anita Anderson, Project Manager Nancy Rice Board of Water and Soil Resources Jim Haertel* Marcey Westrick Department of Labor and Industry Jim Lungstrom* Cathy Tran Bob Johnson John Parizek, Chair, Minnesota Plumbing Board Department of Natural Resources Julie Ekman* Suzanne Rhees, Technical Writer Dan Miller Metropolitan Council Ali Elhassan* Brian Davis Deborah Manning Minnesota Department of Agriculture Dan Stoddard* Ron Struss Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Rebecca Flood* Scott Fox Randy Thorson University of Minnesota, Water Resources Center Faye Sleeper Facilitators: Management Analysis and Development, MN Management and Budget Charlie Petersen Kristina Krull * Agency Sponsors

3 I. Introduction Interest in water reuse is increasing nationwide, yet Minnesota is one of many states lacking a comprehensive, statewide approach to guide municipalities, industries, and other parties interested in implementing water reuse. Various agencies, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and the Departments of Natural Resources (DNR), Health (MDH), Agriculture (MDA), and Labor and Industry (DLI) all play some role in reuse, as regulators of management and discharge of wastewater and stormwater, water appropriations, water and wastewater infrastructure, protection of public health and safety, standards for contaminants in ground or surface water, and standards for water used in food production and processing. Recognizing the need for a more comprehensive approach to reuse, in 2015 the Minnesota Legislature directed the Department of Health (MDH), in collaboration with other state water management agencies, to prepare a comprehensive study of and recommendations for regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to water reuse for use in the development of state policy for water reuse in Minnesota, (Session Law 2015, 1st special session, Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 8 1 ). The study is being funded through the Clean Water Fund of the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment. Workgroup Organization Beginning in 2013, an informal group of state agency staff met periodically in order to share information and plan for a more comprehensive study of water reuse. In response to the Legislature s directive and funding, a state interagency workgroup, referred to as the Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup (Workgroup), was formed. Led by the Department of Health, the group includes representatives from most of the state agencies with authority over some aspect of water reuse, as well as the Metropolitan Council and the Water Resources Center at the University of Minnesota. The Workgroup has been meeting on a monthly basis since January of This brief report provides an update on the Workgroup s progress over the first six months of the study, from January through June, Why Study Water Reuse? Minnesota has historically been known as a water-rich state, with a substantial supply of groundwater, many lakes and rivers, and frequent rainfall. However, changes in weather patterns, increased population, increased irrigation demands, and growth in industries that require high water input have, over time, begun to stress Minnesota s water resources in some areas of the state. 2 Drought and depletion of groundwater reserves in these areas, as well as growing attention to the long-term sustainability of our water resources, have focused attention on the need for more efficient use of water. Severe droughts in California and other western and southern states have also increased public awareness that water supplies are not unlimited EQB, Beyond the Status Quo: 2015 EQB Water Policy Report. DNR, Water Availability Assessment Report; Appendix to EQB Report. July

4 One potential approach to increasing sustainable water supplies is to intentionally collect, store, treat as needed, and reuse rainwater, stormwater, and wastewater. Water reuse has the potential to reduce demands on water resources and also improve stormwater management. Further, while clean, drinkable (potable) water has often been used for most water applications, not all activities necessarily require potable-quality water. For some applications, such as irrigation, industrial processes, or toilet flushing, water that is non-potable but is relatively clean could be collected and reused once or several times before discharging it. Although there are benefits of water reuse, such as reduced demand for potable water, there are also risks and costs to consider. Risks could include heightened potential for human exposure to pathogens or chemicals, potential creation of an environment for insect or pest habitats, cross-connections with the potable water supply, or changes to ecosystems. Costs associated with water reuse vary, but could include increased energy use and resource use, installation, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure and equipment, waste byproduct, and regulatory costs. In general, costs of reuse are higher than costs of groundwater pumping. Challenges In general, water reuse is viewed as the exception rather than the rule in most states. As reuse becomes increasingly common in water-scarce regions of the United States, many studies and guidance documents have been produced by federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences, and by nonprofit groups such as the WateReuse Research Foundation. However, the available guidance documents are not always consistent with one another. There are currently a number of federal regulations that apply to reuse in food processing. 3 However, public health data and risk assessments do not address all concerns, and federal funding for research is lacking. In Minnesota, there are currently no comprehensive policies or guidance on water reuse. Various agencies, including MDH, MDA, MPCA, DNR, and DLI, all play a role in regulating, guiding or monitoring various aspects of water use, as summarized in Table 2. Because reuse crosses so many jurisdictional lines, it has been difficult for any agency or group of agencies to develop coordinated regulations or guidance. As a result, those local governments, agencies, institutions, and others who have initiated reuse projects have gone through complex permitting and licensing processes. Updates in 2015 to the Minnesota Plumbing Code now establish standards for rainwater catchment systems from roofs for nonpotable applications, but other types of reuse lack a consistent regulatory framework. Project Objectives and Definitions of Success The Workgroup established three main project objectives: Define successful implementation of reuse in Minnesota 3 Federal Sanitation Performance Standards 9 CFR 416.2(g) regulates water reuse in meat processing facilities. Federal Produce Safety Rule, 21 DFR 112 regulates the quality of water used in the production of fruits and vegetables, including allowable e coli levels. July

5 Identify current conditions that support successful reuse and identify barriers and solutions to barriers Develop recommendations for safe, sustainable water reuse practices and policies The Workgroup also developed a preliminary definition of success for water reuse in Minnesota. Beyond success from an agency perspective, we asked, How would our clients/customers define success with water reuse? Integration into governance o Reuse is integrated into state and local regulatory systems o Water users are able to account for reuse within the water appropriation permit system There is a clear regulatory pathway for reuse o Code barriers are removed or minimized; the process is understandable o Differing agency requirements are synchronized Integration into existing water infrastructure and public services (i.e., water supply, wastewater) o Water and wastewater operations are considered: e.g., potential reduced revenue / changed solids loading in wastewater pipes Quantified benefits to water resources o Reduced demands on groundwater and surface water o Improve stormwater quality Systems are safe, sustainable, and sanitary o Systems are maintained long-term o There is adequate oversight of the operation and maintenance of existing systems o Public health concerns are addressed o Acceptable risk is defined o Systems are efficient and integrated; save water, energy, and money Water is valuable enough (or appropriately priced) so that reuse is economically feasible o Pay true cost for source water and existing infrastructure and services Continuing research and technical expertise are available o Findings and recommendations for best practices are communicated Reuse is a common practice o Reuse has moved past the pioneer phase and is now mainstream o Public acceptance is achieved, along with understanding of what is and is not allowed o Domestic graywater systems become prevalent II. Work in Progress The workgroup is divided into four teams, each with a specific assignment and work plan: Regulatory researching applicable statutes, rules and codes in Minnesota and examples from other states; identifying barriers, gaps, and issues to address July

6 Outreach and non-regulatory researching guidance materials available nationally and internationally Risk assessment assessing health risks and acceptable levels of risk, drawing on two research projects underway at the University of Minnesota and other national-level guidance. Also addressing other risks such as product liability and permit/regulatory risk, for groups that have an interest in reusing wastewater (i.e., is the supplier or the user of reuse water responsible for compliance?) Water projects gathering information on active and planned projects in Minnesota The following summarizes the work of each team and the group as a whole through June Working Definitions of Reuse In attempting to define the term reuse, the Workgroup found a surprising lack of uniformity of definitions across different fields. After reviewing numerous definitions from Minnesota rules and federal guidance materials, the group established a working definition, which may be revised as new information becomes available. Reuse: The capture and use of stormwater, graywater, wastewater, and subsurface water to meet water demands for intentional and beneficial uses such as flushing, irrigation, cooling, washing, industrial processes and drinking. The definition includes a number of source water categories. The relationships between each of these categories can be defined and organized in multiple ways. For example, rainwater is treated as a subset of stormwater, not because of the source the same precipitation that produces stormwater but because it is regulated separately in the plumbing code and, because it is collected from roof surfaces, is generally considered cleaner than stormwater. Similarly, graywater is a subset of wastewater that typically requires less treatment. Stormwater: Water generated by rainfall or snowmelt that causes runoff. o Rainwater: Water generated by rainfall or snowmelt that can be collected directly from roof surfaces. Wastewater: Used or discharged water from homes, institutional buildings, public buildings, commercial establishments, or industries. o Domestic Wastewater: Used water from bathing, laundry, toilet, kitchen, or other organic sources. o Graywater: Wastewater segregated from a domestic wastewater collection system, typically from laundry and bathing water. (In contrast, wastewater sourced from toilets and kitchens is sometimes termed blackwater, although this term seems to discount the potential reuse of this water after treatment.) o Industrial Process Wastewater: Wastewater generated by industrial establishments, including backwash water. July

7 Irrigation Toilet flushing Cooling water [Accelerated infiltration for recharge] Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup Subsurface water: Water that is collected from below the ground surface to maintain the structural integrity of a building, discharged through dewatering, or pumped for pollution containment. The Treatment Train of Reuse The Water Reuse Interagency Workgroup is currently addressing five types of source water sources: stormwater, rainwater (viewed in this context as a type of stormwater), graywater, treated wastewater (including domestic and industrial process water) and subsurface water such as groundwater pumped from building foundations. There are multiple end uses for reused water, such as toilet flushing, irrigation, aquifer recharge, industrial processes, and others. Table 1 below categorizes each type of source water as it follows a treatment train from source to disposal or reuse. While not all types of water are collected or treated, the table helps organize water use and reuse in a consistent sequence. The table does not capture all levels of treatment or all potential reuse options, but focuses on the most common applications. Table 1. Reuse Options by Water Source (bracketed text = not yet in use in MN, to our knowledge) Type Source Collection/ Storage Treatment Discharge Examples of Reuse Options Rainwater Precipitation Rooftops, cisterns Filtration, disinfection Runoff, infiltration, discharge Irrigation Toilet flushing Cooling water [Accelerated infiltration for recharge] Stormwater Precipitation Basins, ponds, cisterns Filtration, disinfection Runoff, infiltration, discharge Irrigation, Toilet flushing, Cooling water [Accelerated infiltration for recharge] Graywater Household sources (limited) Plumbing fixtures, tanks Filtration, disinfection See wastewater Wastewater Domestic Household sources (all), light commercial, light industrial (similar to domestic) Sewer collection system On-site (septic) tanks Tanks Primary, secondary, tertiary, full - advanced Surface water Subsurface discharge; Land discharge (e.g., spray irrigation, Irrigation: Surface Subsurface Toilet flushing Cooling water [Accelerated infiltration for recharge] [Indirect potable (IPR)] [Direct potable (DPR)] Industrial Process Water Industrial processes Tanks, ponds, etc. Varies Industrial wastewater Varies wash water, cooling, process water, etc. Subsurface Water Groundwater found in mining, buildings, construction sites, roads Not generally stored Not generally treated varies greatly in quality depending on source Surface discharge Irrigation Toilet flushing Cooling water Augment water supply Injection for pollution containment July

8 III. The Regulatory Framework for Reuse Many state, regional, and local agencies play a role in managing Minnesota s water resources. While by no means comprehensive, Table 2 below provides a brief summary of the major state water management agencies roles pertaining to reuse. State statutes and rules pertaining to reuse will be compiled in future project reports. Table 2. State Agency Oversight and Statutory Authorities Agency s primary role Statutory authority Guidance MDH: Focus on safe water use and drinking water protection; charged with implementing the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. DLI: Focus on building safety, safe water use within buildings, crossconnection prevention, and drainage systems. Administers the plumbing code and other construction codes and licensing requirements, occupational safety and health. DNR: Focus on water supply planning and management, water conservation, and habitat protection Drinking water safety Administers Minnesota Well Code o Standards for wells and borings o Well driller licensing and oversight Wellhead Protection Areas; WHPA Plans Controls infiltration in sensitive groundwater areas Establishes health risk limits for contaminants in drinking water Minn. Stat. 103H, 103I Minn. Rules Administers Minnesota Plumbing Code (2015), based on the Uniform Plumbing Code: o Rainwater catchment systems o Plumbing fixtures o Building water supply systems o o Backflow prevention Storm drainage/sewer systems to point of disposal Minn. Rules 4714 Water appropriation permitting most uses of > 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year require appropriation permit o o Fee exemption for projects using stormwater Permit conditions to protect ecosystems Public water supply plans - oversight Minn. Stat. 103G Source Water Protection o Source Water Assessments Evaluating safety of common rainwater and stormwater reuse installations Plumbing Board adopts plumbing code and reviews variance applications for nonstandard reuse practices (i.e., graywater, stormwater) Water supply planning and conservation assistance July

9 Agency s primary role Statutory authority Guidance MDA: Protecting the safety of the state s food supply by overseeing its production, manufacturing, processing, selling, handling, and storage. Protecting groundwater from pesticide and fertilizer contamination. MPCA: Primary responsibility for water quality protection; charged with implementing the federal Clean Water Act through a cooperative agreement with the US EPA. Barriers and Gaps End use applications that involve food crops or food processing Implements federal food safety regulations within state Fertilizer and pesticide use Minn. Stat. 31 Food Minn. Stat. 34A Food Law (inspections) Minn. Stat 32 Dairy Products Minn. Rules 4626 Food Code Federal Produce Safety Rule 21 DFR 112 Federal Sanitation Performance Standards 9 CFR 416.2(g) Minn. Stat. 103H, Groundwater Protection NPDES permitting program o MS4 stormwater permitting o Construction stormwater permitting o Industrial stormwater permitting o Wastewater discharge permitting State disposal system permits for subsurface or land discharge of wastewater Development of water quality standards Impaired waters assessments and development of TMDLs to address identified impairments Minn. Stat. 115 Minn. Rules 7001 (NPDES), Minn. Rules 7050 (Water Quality Standards) Minn. Rules 7052 (Lake Superior Water Standards Minn. Rules 7080 (ISTS) Technical support to crop producers, food processers, and food marketers in the safety of water supplies. Fertilizer and pesticide best management practices for crops and turf Irrigation management technical support with U of M Provides educational nitrate testing for domestic water systems Technical support to MDH and MPCA in establishing risk limits for contaminants Develops and maintains Minnesota Stormwater Manual o Developing guidance for stormwater harvesting Developed Minimal Impact Design Standards: performance goals, standards, calculator and ordinance guidance for a higher level of stormwater management that mimics a site s natural hydrology Applies California wastewater reuse standards on a case-bycase basis While the Workgroup anticipates more detailed exploration of this topic, we have identified an initial list of barriers, gaps, and other issues that create or are perceived as creating obstacles to water reuse. There is a general lack of rules specific to water reuse, including rules governing water quality, system design, and operation and maintenance. July

10 Agency responsibilities and authorities differ based on the respective statutes and rules that authorize and guide each agency. Statutes and rules were created at different times for specific purposes, and water reuse was rarely if ever a consideration. Agency authorities overlap in confusing and sometimes contradictory ways. For example, the MPCA treats stormwater harvesting as one among many best management practices for improving water quality, while the DNR views the use of harvested stormwater as one among many types of water use, all of which require appropriation permits above a defined volume. Agency expertise does not always align with agency authority. For example, the MPCA has a comprehensive program for wastewater treatment and disposal, but has relatively little experience with reuse of graywater, a subset of wastewater. With the exception of rainwater catchment systems, now included in the 2015 Plumbing Code, most in-building applications of graywater reuse and combined rainwater/stormwater reuse require variances through the Plumbing Board, which involve more in-depth scrutiny than a standard permit. With the exception of wastewater reclamation and dairy product manufacturing, there is no standardized system of oversight or monitoring for existing reuse systems. Because many reuse projects do not fit customary permit categories, they may require increased scrutiny, which can cause delays in approvals. Some applicants are frustrated with the DNR s appropriation permitting requirements, which call for annual reporting of monthly water use quantities. However, these requirements are the only method currently available to track stormwater reuse activity (wastewater/graywater reuse does not require an appropriation permit, since the source water was already permitted). Local plumbing authorities (delegated to administer building and plumbing codes) are not always open to considering variances or interpreting the rules to allow for reuse. Outreach Resources The outreach team conducted a survey of those states that provide guidance on water reuse, as well as a number of cities or regions with comprehensive reuse programs, and national organizations that support water reuse. The survey focused on outreach resources at the organizational level, rather than information on individual reuse such as rain barrels, rain gardens, etc. Many programs are largely regulatory in nature, but some provide good examples of guidance for project developers and funding or rebate programs. A summary of the results will be posted on the MDH project website. July

11 IV. Water Reuse Project Surveys MnTAP Survey In early 2015, the University of Minnesota s Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) conducted a survey on water reuse in Minnesota. The purpose of this survey was to: Get an estimate of the number of reuse applications taking place in Minnesota Gauge the level of interest in future applications Identify any barriers or gaps that currently limit or prevent water reuse Identify any concerns related to water reuse The survey asked for information on situations where water reuse replaces a traditional potable (drinking water) use for systems that include: Irrigation Toilet & urinal flushing Vehicle washing Decorative fountains Industrial processes Water reuse applications included reuse of reclaimed municipal wastewater, stormwater, graywater, and rainwater harvesting (from roofs). The survey did not seek information on: Residential rain barrels used for gravity feed irrigation Traditionally designed septic systems Stormwater infiltration practices (e.g., raingardens or infiltration from a pond) The survey had 588 responses. Respondents included golf course managers, watershed district staff, soil and water conservation districts, institutions such as K-12 schools, corporations, wastewater utilities, consultants, and others. Responses varied by category of user, and have not been completely aggregated. However, some findings can be summarized. Barriers to reuse: the primary barrier for most respondents is cost, but other responses focus on the lack of technical information or design standards, code/regulatory issues, and public health concerns The lack of examples and state-specific guidance in Minnesota also discourages reuse Desired resources include financial resources/incentives, design standards, case studies, applicable water quality standards, and information on treatment options MS4 Survey A related study of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permittees on stormwater reuse was conducted by the MPCA via phone interviews in 2015-early Out of 235 MS4 permittees, 177 were reached and interviewed. Forty-six respondents used stormwater for irrigation (about 60 sites); there July

12 were 37 rain barrel programs and four projects using stormwater for toilet flushing and another four for vehicle washing. Fifty-four respondents had plans for reuse projects. Existing projects were implemented primarily for purposes of water conservation, to meet stormwater regulatory requirements, and to achieve cost savings There were challenges in designing systems that could operate year-round and a lack of building and plumbing code guidance determining treatment and filtration requirements. Water appropriation permitting requirements were seen as a barrier by some respondents. The survey also looked at treatment methods, monitoring, the volume of stormwater managed per year, and system cost. A more detailed summary will be provided by MPCA. Ongoing Survey of Projects The water projects team has prepared a more detailed survey of existing projects, which was sent to approximately 300 entities or individuals in June 2016; responses are due in mid-july. V. Health Risk Assessments The risk assessment team is addressing risks associated with reuse, including health, product liability, and regulatory risk. University of Minnesota Research Formalized water reuse on a municipal or organizational scale is a rather recent development in Minnesota. Some system designers/installers, operators, regulators and users have concerns about potential health risks associated with the quality of the water in these systems. After receiving requests to evaluate potential health risks associated with water reuse, Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) teamed up with the University of Minnesota to study microbial populations (i.e., bacteria, protozoa, and viruses) in water reuse systems. Two systems have been selected and are being tested for pathogens (microbes that cause human illness) present in the water. One site uses stormwater collected in a pond to irrigate ball fields. At the other site, rainwater is collected from the roof of a building and the ground surface and stored for flushing toilets. Testing the water in these systems allows us to determine the type and amount of pathogens present in the water that is being reused. Knowing the level of microbes in the water, however, will not necessarily tell us if people are at high risk of infection if exposed to the water. Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) will help in determining if these water reuse systems create public health concerns. QMRA is a mathematical modeling approach for determining the likelihood of human infection from exposure to a pathogen. Information about the amount of the pathogen in the water is combined with information about pathways of exposure to the pathogen, such as inhalation of mist created during spray irrigation, to estimate the risk of infection with the pathogen. A component of the modeling July

13 system, called a dose-response curve, is available for use in QMRA assessments for several different types of pathogens. Samples from the system are being evaluated for a number of different pathogens. At the end of the project, the data collected and the QMRA results will help MDH make decisions about treatment to recommend, if any, for the water in these systems and systems like them in Minnesota. Participation in National Research The Minnesota Department of Health is a member of the stakeholder advisory committee for the National Water Research Institute project called, Technical Requirements for Public Health Standards for Onsite Water Systems (WERF Project No. SWIM10C15). The project includes a five member expert panel, a stakeholder advisory committee, and two interactive workshops. The expert panel includes technical experts in the fields of risk assessment, microbiology, and water quality standards and regulations. The stakeholder advisory committee, comprised of local and state public health officials from across the United States, provides guidance and feedback to the expert panel. The goal is to establish water quality criteria along with monitoring and reporting recommendations to create a cohesive set of guidelines that can be implemented by local officials and create uniform practice across jurisdictions for the management and oversight of onsite water reuse systems. The following topics will be addressed: Water quality criteria for a number of alternate water sources (e.g., graywater, rainwater, wastewater, stormwater, and foundation drainage) Applications of treated alternate water sources (e.g., toilet/urinal flushing and irrigation) Available treatment technologies Monitoring and reporting Operational requirements and permitting strategies Water reuse system guidelines can address not only water quality specifications but also monitoring and operational considerations for water reuse systems. For example, recommendations about how, when, and how often to inspect a system, maintenance practices to complete, or qualifications of system operators could help ensure the safe use of water reuse systems. The Panel will discuss these options and identify what needs to be included in their recommendations. Most studies on water reuse systems have not been based on systematic evaluations of risks to health and safety, leading to regulations that may be more or less protective than necessary. There is interest in a cost-effective approach to decentralized water reuse. Because failures in treatment or operations could result in significant health risks to those exposed to the systems, regulators are seeking a way to balance cost effectiveness with health and safety considerations. The report for this project should be available in fall 2016, and will be used in combination with the University of Minnesota study to help inform decisions regarding water quality recommendations for water reuse in Minnesota. July

14 VI. Public Engagement and Next Steps Recognizing that there is considerable interest among water managers, local government, and the general public, the Workgroup has developed a communications plan for this project. Desired outcomes for public engagement are: Identify a comprehensive list of ideas for water reuse Acceptance and support for water reuse ideas Two-way sharing of information about water reuse Identification of resources needed to implement water reuse ideas Opportunities for communications include the workgroup meetings, the project website, periodic bulletins to be sent through the GovDelivery service, presentations at conferences, and a Stakeholder Advisory Group, to be convened beginning in fall of A project website has been established and includes notes from past workgroup meetings. An invitation to sign up for GovDelivery bulletins is being shared through agency newsletters. Workgroup meetings are open to the public. In addition, the project has been discussed at several conferences, including: Clean Water Council Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, Metro District Minnesota Groundwater Association spring meeting, which focused on reuse in general Freshwater Society workshop on opportunities for water reuse, summarized in a report by the Freshwater Society Environmental Initiative Policy Forum The workgroup has identified key organizations and individuals to participate in a stakeholder advisory group, which will also be open to the public. The intent is to invite participants to attend an initial meeting in late September. The group will meet at least four times between September 2016 and April 2017 to review draft work products and share the perspectives of their respective organizations. Additional focus groups and individual meetings will be scheduled as needed. July