Need to adopt and develop onsite water reuse technologies

US States Respond to NS /ANSI Standards 350 and 350-1  Standards for onsite water reuse treatment systems

Background The interest and necessity surrounding the use of treated wastewater for non-potable applications is rising due to the growing pressures on water supply infrastructure. Municipal reclaimed water is well established, and now this concept is being applied to small-scale, onsite treatment systems, where wastewater generated onsite can remain onsite for treatment and use within the same structure. In response to the need for standards of treatment quality and treatment product evaluation of promote safe, acceptable water reuse technologies, NSF International developed NSF/ANSI Standard 350 and NSF/ANSI Standard 350-1 for onsite residential and commercial water reuse treatment systems. The standards establish minimum material, design and construction, and performance requirements for onsite residential and commercial water treatment systems.

Natasha Borgen Environmental Health, University of Washington, Seattle

NSF Scholar Project Goals and Questions •  Conduct exploratory survey to characterize how

states have responded to NSF 350 and 350-1•  Have the standards been adopted?•  What are the barriers?•  How are they enforced?

•  Gather information about prevalence of onsite water reuse treatment systems

•  Where are they allowed?•  What are concerns surrounding onsite

reuse systems?

“Even if there were a shortage of water, the cost involved for a specific population of residents would be too high, and subsequently there would be a lack of routine maintenance of equipment, for which is already an issue with onsite wastewater systems for individual homes, as well as commercial, small and large. While I personally like the idea of conserving our natural resources, I just don't think this idea would garner a lot of support […] at this time, and maybe never.”

Please select your top public health concerns about onsite water reuse systems

What are the biggest barriers for implementation of onsite residential and commercial water treatment systems for reuse in non-potable applications?

Would your state be more likely to consider on-site water reuse treatment systems if the technologies met a national standard such as NSF/ANSI Standards 350 and/or 350-1?

Does your state have any future plans to adopt, permit, or implement NSF/ANSI Standards 350 and/or 350-1?

Methods •  Identify proper contacts through state

government websites•  Conduct informational interview to gauge

states’ familiarity with 350 and 350-1•  Create 9 to 11 question survey based on

interviews using Qualtrics •  Distribute survey and promote

participation

How interested are you in learning more about NSF/ANSI Standards 350 and 350-1 for possible consideration in state legislation?

Perception of onsite wastewater treatment systems for recycling

Perception of NSF 350 and 350-1

“There is little interest in this area due to lack of demand or need for this type of program. There is also resistance to implementation of a requirement for this type of technology. The availability of water supplies, at least to date, has not been an issue.”

Conclusions The survey results suggest that interest surrounding NSF Standards 350 and 350-1 are low. The major barriers for adoption of these standards relate to attitudes towards onsite water reuse systems. Survey feedback identified three main barriers:1.  Lack of interest

•  Cost of systems is too high •  Negative public perception towards

reuse technologies•  Feel that water sources are not

threatened2.  Lack of management and regulatory

structure•  No authority to require Operation and

Maintenance•  Testing for “real-world” effectiveness

after installation•  Lack of oversight/follow-up

3.  Lack of education and accountability for homeowners and business managers

•  No accountability for end users•  How will applicants be trained?

NSF 350 and 350-1 offer a piece to the puzzle of implementing safe, effective onsite reuse systems; however, at the time, most states are not ready to adopt these technologies

Limitations/Challenges This was an exploratory survey. The results provide some interesting observations, which lead to further research questions, but should not be taken as definite as many limitations were present.

•  Creating a survey that was generalizable to each state

•  Many questions were opinion based. Did the respondent accurately represent their state?

•  Would surveying people who work with building/ plumbing code have been more helpful?

•  Only surveyed state officials, while onsite systems are often delegated to local health jurisdictions

What do you think?

Acknowledgments Thank you to Chuck Treser and the University of Washington Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences for their support. Special Thanks to AEHAP and NSF International for funding this internship and providing this valuable opportunity