Yesterday marked the annual Kane County Water Association Taste Test Contest. It was my first time attending their taste test competition as I was one of the judges alongside Ray Stevens aka Ramblin Ray from WUSN, US99 radio personality and Mike Danahey, reporter with the Courier News.
The meeting was a very good time as Mark Donnelly, Vice President of the Kane County Water Association started things off with the agenda and then led into the taste test, a great lunch followed by raffling off a number of door prizes.
Thanks KCWA for putting on a great Holiday meeting and congratulations to the City of Aurora for taking home the winnings in the taste test competition!
Lisa Jordan
Education Coordinator
Illinois Section AWWA
Friday, December 19, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
2009 Joint Water Conference
Well booths are starting to sell out. As of today we have about 20 booths left. This is one of the best opportunities to get in front of your target market. Of course, if you just sit in the your booth and read the paper or play sodoku, you won't get much out this show or any show. Exhibitors need to be engaging and interesting. You need to show that you are interested in what your potential client needs are. You can't sell them something you don't yet know they want. Find out! Find out about them and what they are planning. How would they like to be contacted? Do they want you to call them, email them, fax them, take them to lunch or twitter them! Yes - you may not know what twittering is but soon everyone will be tweeting!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Water quality and the levels of pharmaceuticals in water
Testimony for Illinois Senate Public Health Committee
Subject - Water quality and the levels of pharmaceuticals in water
September 9, 2008
16-503 Thompson Center
Chicago
Good morning. My name is Bill Soucie. I am a chemist and water quality laboratory supervisor at the Central Lake County Joint Action Water Agency in Lake Bluff. I am also an elected Trustee for the Illinois Section of the American Water Works Association which I represent today. Founded in 1909, the Illinois Section of the AWWA has over 2,250 members representing 1770 public water supplies.1 Our objective is the advancement and dissemination of knowledge concerning water works, and the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. That is why I am here today.
The presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in water has been the subject of research over the past 38 years.2,3,4 During this time span, waste water has been identified as a major contributor of these compounds to the environment.5 Waste water contains pharmaceuticals and personal care products because people excrete them after consumption, wash them off after use, or dispose of them in the sink or down the toilet.6 It makes sense that avoiding pharmaceuticals disposal in this manner would reduce their presence in waste water.
Traditionally, human and animal health care facilities and pharmacies disposed of pharmaceuticals down the drain.7, 8 Their advice to patients was to do the same, establishing this all too common practice.9 We must now break this habit. To do so, we encourage continuation of programs like the Prescription Pill and Drug Disposal program in Pontiac;10 local waste collection events;11,12,13 the EPA funded ARCHS: RxMeds program allowing drug drop-off at grocery stores;14 and finally pharmaceutical manufacturer programs like disposal pouches for medical patches.15
But pharmaceuticals get into water in other ways too.16 Medicated pets and animals excrete pharmaceuticals directly into the environment.17,18 In 1997 alone, between 7 and 15 thousand tons of antibiotics were used for farm animals compared to about 5 thousand tons for humans.19,20 By one estimate, over 12 thousand pounds of pharmaceuticals are used each year in livestock for nontherapeutic purposes alone.21 Recent testing in this State by the Illinois EPA also suggests “agricultural sources may be important contributors to the load of pharmaceuticals in the source water…” 22
The old adage “out of sight out of mind” is no longer accurate. We can now detect less than one drop of some medicines in more than 13 million gallons of water.23 And with the continued march of science, we will eventually detect more compounds at even lesser amounts. Fortunately, detection of a compound does not imply a health risk. The highest detected level thus far is 5,000,000 times lower than a therapeutic dose.24 Based on water tests conducted this spring; IL EPA has determined that the levels in water are not currently a health concern.22
But more science needs to be done, especially health effects research. The US EPA is moving forward to address the information gaps.25 They are funding research, pilot collection programs, and have assembled 300 pages of existing scientific references related to this topic. 26 They have also commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to assemble a panel of experts to advise them on the topic later this year.27
We support the EPA’s comprehensive science based approach to setting water quality standards. The Safe Drinking Water Act and related Contaminant Candidate List and Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule identify, prioritize, and study contaminants in a scientifically rigorous manner. 28, 29, 30 This process assures the public that the standards are both needed and protective of public health. Regulatory limits and monitoring requirements must be based on health protection and not on trace occurrence.31
Water treatment folks take drinking water seriously. We are on the front line of protecting public health. Our community residents rely on us for a lifetime of safe drinking water. We understand clearly our role in the environment and desire healthy watersheds and source waters that are free of compounds that pose a health concern. However, watersheds, rivers, lakes and aquifers know no boundaries. We are all going to have to take part in this effort. We ask that everyone everywhere properly use and dispose of all chemicals, especially pharmaceuticals and personal care products.
Thank you Senator Garrett and colleagues on the Public Health Committee for this opportunity to appear before you today. We offer you our organization as a source of information and we offer the expertise of our members. We look forward to working with you as partners in protecting our environment and its natural resources to assure public health protection.
Respectfully Submitted September 9, 2008.
William J. Soucie, M.S.
Illinois Section AWWA Trustee Region 2
Water Quality Laboratory Supervisor
Central Lake County Joint Action Water Agency
200 Rockland Road
PO Box 278
Lake Bluff, IL, 60044
Postscript
When it comes to the levels of pharmaceuticals in drinking water, perspective is an important factor. My utility and others have detected DEET, a compound used to repel mosquitoes, in Lake Michigan. Consider what happens to a single small dab, a gram to be exact, of the popular “Sun & Bug” lotion that contains DEET.32 Let’s assume that half of the dab washes into the Lake as the bather jumps in to cool off. That half a dab creates a detectable DEET level in 26 million gallons of water.33 That sounds bad. Will accidental consumption of this water while swimming pose a health risk to the bather? For perspective, consider that when applied to the skin, 100,000 times more DEET will enter the person’s bloodstream than if they accidently swallowed a liter of this water.34,35 Yet DEET is considered safe and has been used for decades.
References
1. Dougherty, Laurie. Personal Communication. 8/25/2008
2. Tabak, H. and R. Bunch. 1970. “Steroid hormones as water pollutants. I. Metabolism of natural and synthetic ovulation-inhibiting hormones by microorganisms of activated sludge and primary settled sewage.” Developments in Industrial Microbiology. 11: 367-376.
3. Endocrine Disruptors & Pharmaceutically Active Chemicals in Drinking Water Workshop. April 19 – 21, 2000. AWWARF. Chicago, Illinois.
4. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs). US EPA. Accessed 9/4/08. http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/
5. Kolpin, D.W., et al. 2002. “Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 36: 1202-1211.
6. Snyder, S. et al. Comprehensive Utility Guide for Endocrine Disruptors and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water. AWWARF. Denver, CO. 2008.
7. Smith, C.A. 2002. “Managing Pharmaceutical Waste.” Journal of the Pharmacy Society of Wisconsin, 11: 17-22
8. Pines, E. & C. Smith. “Managing Pharmaceutical Waste: A 10-Step Blueprint for Health Care Facilities in the United States”. Hospitals for a Healthy Environment. April 2006. US EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Innovative Initiative. Accessed 8/23/2008. http://www.h2e-online.org/docs/h2epharmablueprint41506.pdf.
9. Disposal of Unwanted or Unused Pharmaceuticals Fact Sheet. Illinois EPA. Accessed 9/6/08. http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/hazardous-waste/household-haz-waste/pharmaceuticals-disposal.html
10. Ritter, P. Prescription Drug Disposal Program. Pontiac Township H.S. Accessed 8/22/08. http://www.p2d2program.org/
11. Household Chemical Waste (HCW) Collections. Solid Waste Agency of Lake County. Accessed 8/25/08. http://www.co.lake.il.us/swalco/events/hcw.asp
12. Boehme, S. & E.H. Malloy. “Disposal of Unwanted Medicines: A Resource for Action in Your Community.” Habitats and Ecosystems. July 2007. Illinois – Indiana Sea Grant. Accessed 8/22/08. http://www.iisgcp.org/unwantedmeds/updatedToolkitMaterials/2.0CaseStudies.pdf.
13. Medicine Drop Off. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County. Accessed 9/4/08. http://swancc.org/recycling/medicinedropoff.html
14. 2008 Medicine Cabinet Cleanup ARCHS: RxMEDS Community Partnership. Area Resources for Community and Human Services. Accessed 8/28/08. http://www.stlarchs.org/rxmeds.htm
15. Batt, S. “Pharmaceuticals in Our Water: A New Threat to Public Health?” Women and Health Protection. October 2004. Accessed 8/21/08. http://www.whp-apsf.ca/en/documents/pharmWater.html.
16. Origins and Fate of PPCPs in the Environment Poster. USEPA. March 2006. Accessed 9/7/08. http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/pdf/drawing.pdf
17. Boxall, A.B.A. et al. 2003. “Are Veterinary Medicines Causing Environmental Risks?” Environ. Sci. Technol. 8: 286A – 294A
18. “Pharmaceuticals and Pathogens”. EPA Regional Priority AFO Science Question Synthesis Document. Workshop Review Draft: Supporting Documentation for the EPA Regional Science Workshop on Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) – Science and Technical Support Needs. December 6-9, 2004. Accessed 9/4/2008. http://www.epa.gov/OSP/regions/afo.htm
19. Cicmanec, J. L. “Veterinary Pharmaceuticals: Potential Environmental Impact and Treatment Strategies.” Presentation for Emerging Pollutants Workshop. US EPA Region 5. Accessed 8/28/08. www.epa.gov/osp/regions/emerpoll/cicmanec2.ppt
20. Cicmanec, J.L. “Veterinary Pharmaceuticals: Potential Environmental Impact and Treatment Strategies.” Presentation for Animal Feeding Operations Workshop. US EPA. Accessed 9/4/08. http://www.epa.gov/OSP/regions/afo.htm
21. Mellon, M. et al. 2001. Hogging It – Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Livestock. Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS Publications. Cambridge, MA.
22. Report on Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Illinois Drinking Water. Bureau of Water, Illinois EPA. June 2008.
23. One drop of water weighs about 50 mg or 50 million nanograms. One part per trillion equals 1 ng/L which equals 50 million nanograms per 50 million liters. 50,000,000 liters / 3.785 l/gal = 13,210,000 gallons.
24. Statement of Dr. Shane Snyder, Southern Nevada Water Authority before the Senate Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality on Pharmaceuticals in the Nation’s Water: Assessing Potential Risks and Actions to Address the Issue. April 15, 2008.
25. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Water, USEPA. Accessed 8/28/08. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ppcp/
26. “Literature Citations Relevant to Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs).” U.S. EPA, ORD. July 2008.Accessed 8/28/08. http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/citations20080701.pdf
27. “EPA Continues Work to Understand Potential Impacts of Pharmaceuticals in Water.” Press Release 8/6/08. USEPA. Washington DC.
28. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List and Regulatory Determinations – Basic Information. US EPA. Accessed 9/4/08. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/basicinformation.html
29. National Drinking Water Advisory Council Report on the CCL Classification Process to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 19, 2004. NDWAC. Accessed 9/4/2008. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/basicinformation.html
30. Classifying Drinking Water Contaminants for Regulatory Consideration. Committee on Drinking Water Contaminants. National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington D.C., 2001.
31. Snyder, S.A. et al. Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment Processes. AWWARF, Denver ,CO 2007.
32. Repel Sun and & Bug Stuff ® Lotion. 20% DEET. Spectrum Brands. Accessed 8/28/08. http://www.repel.com/ProductCategories/Insectrepellents/SunBug/
33. Typical use is much more than one gram. However, here we assume only half of the applied one gram completely dissolves and disperses in water. And we assume a detection limit of one part-per-trillion. 0.5 grams of lotion contains 20% DEET or 0.1 grams of DEET. One gram of DEET in one trillion grams of water is equal to one part-per-trillion. One tenth of a gram of DEET in one tenth of a trillion or 100 billion grams of water is also equal to one-part-per-trillion. Since 1 gram of water = 1 mL of water and 3785 mL = one gallon: 100,000,000,000 mL / 3785 mL per gallon = 26,000,000 gallons of water.
34. More than 5% of applied DEET is absorbed through the skin. DEET Chemical Technical Summary for Public Health and Public Safety Professionals. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. December 2004. Accessed 8/22/08. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/consultations/deet/pharmacokinetics.html.
35. 5% of the 0.1 gram of 20% DEET left on the skin is absorbed into the body. That is 0.005 grams absorbed into the body. If one drank a liter of Lake water with 1 part-per-trillion of DEET, their exposure would be 5 million times LESS than the exposure from DEET applied to the skin.
Subject - Water quality and the levels of pharmaceuticals in water
September 9, 2008
16-503 Thompson Center
Chicago
Good morning. My name is Bill Soucie. I am a chemist and water quality laboratory supervisor at the Central Lake County Joint Action Water Agency in Lake Bluff. I am also an elected Trustee for the Illinois Section of the American Water Works Association which I represent today. Founded in 1909, the Illinois Section of the AWWA has over 2,250 members representing 1770 public water supplies.1 Our objective is the advancement and dissemination of knowledge concerning water works, and the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. That is why I am here today.
The presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in water has been the subject of research over the past 38 years.2,3,4 During this time span, waste water has been identified as a major contributor of these compounds to the environment.5 Waste water contains pharmaceuticals and personal care products because people excrete them after consumption, wash them off after use, or dispose of them in the sink or down the toilet.6 It makes sense that avoiding pharmaceuticals disposal in this manner would reduce their presence in waste water.
Traditionally, human and animal health care facilities and pharmacies disposed of pharmaceuticals down the drain.7, 8 Their advice to patients was to do the same, establishing this all too common practice.9 We must now break this habit. To do so, we encourage continuation of programs like the Prescription Pill and Drug Disposal program in Pontiac;10 local waste collection events;11,12,13 the EPA funded ARCHS: RxMeds program allowing drug drop-off at grocery stores;14 and finally pharmaceutical manufacturer programs like disposal pouches for medical patches.15
But pharmaceuticals get into water in other ways too.16 Medicated pets and animals excrete pharmaceuticals directly into the environment.17,18 In 1997 alone, between 7 and 15 thousand tons of antibiotics were used for farm animals compared to about 5 thousand tons for humans.19,20 By one estimate, over 12 thousand pounds of pharmaceuticals are used each year in livestock for nontherapeutic purposes alone.21 Recent testing in this State by the Illinois EPA also suggests “agricultural sources may be important contributors to the load of pharmaceuticals in the source water…” 22
The old adage “out of sight out of mind” is no longer accurate. We can now detect less than one drop of some medicines in more than 13 million gallons of water.23 And with the continued march of science, we will eventually detect more compounds at even lesser amounts. Fortunately, detection of a compound does not imply a health risk. The highest detected level thus far is 5,000,000 times lower than a therapeutic dose.24 Based on water tests conducted this spring; IL EPA has determined that the levels in water are not currently a health concern.22
But more science needs to be done, especially health effects research. The US EPA is moving forward to address the information gaps.25 They are funding research, pilot collection programs, and have assembled 300 pages of existing scientific references related to this topic. 26 They have also commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to assemble a panel of experts to advise them on the topic later this year.27
We support the EPA’s comprehensive science based approach to setting water quality standards. The Safe Drinking Water Act and related Contaminant Candidate List and Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule identify, prioritize, and study contaminants in a scientifically rigorous manner. 28, 29, 30 This process assures the public that the standards are both needed and protective of public health. Regulatory limits and monitoring requirements must be based on health protection and not on trace occurrence.31
Water treatment folks take drinking water seriously. We are on the front line of protecting public health. Our community residents rely on us for a lifetime of safe drinking water. We understand clearly our role in the environment and desire healthy watersheds and source waters that are free of compounds that pose a health concern. However, watersheds, rivers, lakes and aquifers know no boundaries. We are all going to have to take part in this effort. We ask that everyone everywhere properly use and dispose of all chemicals, especially pharmaceuticals and personal care products.
Thank you Senator Garrett and colleagues on the Public Health Committee for this opportunity to appear before you today. We offer you our organization as a source of information and we offer the expertise of our members. We look forward to working with you as partners in protecting our environment and its natural resources to assure public health protection.
Respectfully Submitted September 9, 2008.
William J. Soucie, M.S.
Illinois Section AWWA Trustee Region 2
Water Quality Laboratory Supervisor
Central Lake County Joint Action Water Agency
200 Rockland Road
PO Box 278
Lake Bluff, IL, 60044
Postscript
When it comes to the levels of pharmaceuticals in drinking water, perspective is an important factor. My utility and others have detected DEET, a compound used to repel mosquitoes, in Lake Michigan. Consider what happens to a single small dab, a gram to be exact, of the popular “Sun & Bug” lotion that contains DEET.32 Let’s assume that half of the dab washes into the Lake as the bather jumps in to cool off. That half a dab creates a detectable DEET level in 26 million gallons of water.33 That sounds bad. Will accidental consumption of this water while swimming pose a health risk to the bather? For perspective, consider that when applied to the skin, 100,000 times more DEET will enter the person’s bloodstream than if they accidently swallowed a liter of this water.34,35 Yet DEET is considered safe and has been used for decades.
References
1. Dougherty, Laurie. Personal Communication. 8/25/2008
2. Tabak, H. and R. Bunch. 1970. “Steroid hormones as water pollutants. I. Metabolism of natural and synthetic ovulation-inhibiting hormones by microorganisms of activated sludge and primary settled sewage.” Developments in Industrial Microbiology. 11: 367-376.
3. Endocrine Disruptors & Pharmaceutically Active Chemicals in Drinking Water Workshop. April 19 – 21, 2000. AWWARF. Chicago, Illinois.
4. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs). US EPA. Accessed 9/4/08. http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/
5. Kolpin, D.W., et al. 2002. “Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 36: 1202-1211.
6. Snyder, S. et al. Comprehensive Utility Guide for Endocrine Disruptors and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water. AWWARF. Denver, CO. 2008.
7. Smith, C.A. 2002. “Managing Pharmaceutical Waste.” Journal of the Pharmacy Society of Wisconsin, 11: 17-22
8. Pines, E. & C. Smith. “Managing Pharmaceutical Waste: A 10-Step Blueprint for Health Care Facilities in the United States”. Hospitals for a Healthy Environment. April 2006. US EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Innovative Initiative. Accessed 8/23/2008. http://www.h2e-online.org/docs/h2epharmablueprint41506.pdf.
9. Disposal of Unwanted or Unused Pharmaceuticals Fact Sheet. Illinois EPA. Accessed 9/6/08. http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/hazardous-waste/household-haz-waste/pharmaceuticals-disposal.html
10. Ritter, P. Prescription Drug Disposal Program. Pontiac Township H.S. Accessed 8/22/08. http://www.p2d2program.org/
11. Household Chemical Waste (HCW) Collections. Solid Waste Agency of Lake County. Accessed 8/25/08. http://www.co.lake.il.us/swalco/events/hcw.asp
12. Boehme, S. & E.H. Malloy. “Disposal of Unwanted Medicines: A Resource for Action in Your Community.” Habitats and Ecosystems. July 2007. Illinois – Indiana Sea Grant. Accessed 8/22/08. http://www.iisgcp.org/unwantedmeds/updatedToolkitMaterials/2.0CaseStudies.pdf.
13. Medicine Drop Off. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County. Accessed 9/4/08. http://swancc.org/recycling/medicinedropoff.html
14. 2008 Medicine Cabinet Cleanup ARCHS: RxMEDS Community Partnership. Area Resources for Community and Human Services. Accessed 8/28/08. http://www.stlarchs.org/rxmeds.htm
15. Batt, S. “Pharmaceuticals in Our Water: A New Threat to Public Health?” Women and Health Protection. October 2004. Accessed 8/21/08. http://www.whp-apsf.ca/en/documents/pharmWater.html.
16. Origins and Fate of PPCPs in the Environment Poster. USEPA. March 2006. Accessed 9/7/08. http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/pdf/drawing.pdf
17. Boxall, A.B.A. et al. 2003. “Are Veterinary Medicines Causing Environmental Risks?” Environ. Sci. Technol. 8: 286A – 294A
18. “Pharmaceuticals and Pathogens”. EPA Regional Priority AFO Science Question Synthesis Document. Workshop Review Draft: Supporting Documentation for the EPA Regional Science Workshop on Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) – Science and Technical Support Needs. December 6-9, 2004. Accessed 9/4/2008. http://www.epa.gov/OSP/regions/afo.htm
19. Cicmanec, J. L. “Veterinary Pharmaceuticals: Potential Environmental Impact and Treatment Strategies.” Presentation for Emerging Pollutants Workshop. US EPA Region 5. Accessed 8/28/08. www.epa.gov/osp/regions/emerpoll/cicmanec2.ppt
20. Cicmanec, J.L. “Veterinary Pharmaceuticals: Potential Environmental Impact and Treatment Strategies.” Presentation for Animal Feeding Operations Workshop. US EPA. Accessed 9/4/08. http://www.epa.gov/OSP/regions/afo.htm
21. Mellon, M. et al. 2001. Hogging It – Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Livestock. Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS Publications. Cambridge, MA.
22. Report on Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Illinois Drinking Water. Bureau of Water, Illinois EPA. June 2008.
23. One drop of water weighs about 50 mg or 50 million nanograms. One part per trillion equals 1 ng/L which equals 50 million nanograms per 50 million liters. 50,000,000 liters / 3.785 l/gal = 13,210,000 gallons.
24. Statement of Dr. Shane Snyder, Southern Nevada Water Authority before the Senate Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality on Pharmaceuticals in the Nation’s Water: Assessing Potential Risks and Actions to Address the Issue. April 15, 2008.
25. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Water, USEPA. Accessed 8/28/08. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ppcp/
26. “Literature Citations Relevant to Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs).” U.S. EPA, ORD. July 2008.Accessed 8/28/08. http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/citations20080701.pdf
27. “EPA Continues Work to Understand Potential Impacts of Pharmaceuticals in Water.” Press Release 8/6/08. USEPA. Washington DC.
28. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List and Regulatory Determinations – Basic Information. US EPA. Accessed 9/4/08. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/basicinformation.html
29. National Drinking Water Advisory Council Report on the CCL Classification Process to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 19, 2004. NDWAC. Accessed 9/4/2008. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/basicinformation.html
30. Classifying Drinking Water Contaminants for Regulatory Consideration. Committee on Drinking Water Contaminants. National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington D.C., 2001.
31. Snyder, S.A. et al. Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment Processes. AWWARF, Denver ,CO 2007.
32. Repel Sun and & Bug Stuff ® Lotion. 20% DEET. Spectrum Brands. Accessed 8/28/08. http://www.repel.com/ProductCategories/Insectrepellents/SunBug/
33. Typical use is much more than one gram. However, here we assume only half of the applied one gram completely dissolves and disperses in water. And we assume a detection limit of one part-per-trillion. 0.5 grams of lotion contains 20% DEET or 0.1 grams of DEET. One gram of DEET in one trillion grams of water is equal to one part-per-trillion. One tenth of a gram of DEET in one tenth of a trillion or 100 billion grams of water is also equal to one-part-per-trillion. Since 1 gram of water = 1 mL of water and 3785 mL = one gallon: 100,000,000,000 mL / 3785 mL per gallon = 26,000,000 gallons of water.
34. More than 5% of applied DEET is absorbed through the skin. DEET Chemical Technical Summary for Public Health and Public Safety Professionals. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. December 2004. Accessed 8/22/08. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/consultations/deet/pharmacokinetics.html.
35. 5% of the 0.1 gram of 20% DEET left on the skin is absorbed into the body. That is 0.005 grams absorbed into the body. If one drank a liter of Lake water with 1 part-per-trillion of DEET, their exposure would be 5 million times LESS than the exposure from DEET applied to the skin.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Illinois EPA
Illinois EPA releases final report on pharmaceuticals in public drinking supplies finding no immediate
public health risk
Results found only trace levels of several prescription drugs and
common chemical; further study needed
SPRINGFIELD –The Illinois EPA has completed its report summarizing the findings of unregulated pharmaceuticals and personal care products in Illinois drinking water supplies from samples taken in Chicago and four water supplies that rely on river water as their source. The report indicates that Illinois’ drinking water continues to be safe, and the Illinois EPA sees no cause for immediate concern; however, low levels of several pharmaceuticals were found in Illinois drinking water.
While there are no federal standards established for pharmaceuticals, the Illinois EPA tested drinking water as a proactive step to assess the scope of the presence of pharmaceuticals in our waterways to ensure that our drinking water supplies are adequately protected. Illinois EPA screened for 56 chemicals typically found in drugs and personal care products that may be released from water treatment plants into lake and river water. Illinois EPA detected low concentrations of 17 of these chemicals.
“I am pleased that the report found that concentrations of chemicals measured in drinking water supplies do not pose a threat to human health,” said Illinois EPA Director Doug Scott. “We believe that the consumers deserve as much information about their drinking water as we can provide to them. That’s why we’ll continue to monitor the safety of drinking water supplies and educate the public about how to keep pharmaceuticals and personal care products out of our water supplies.”
In March of this year, the Illinois EPA collected samples from both untreated “source” water and from the treated drinking water from public water supplies in Chicago, Aurora, Elgin, East St. Louis and Rock Island. In addition, the city of Springfield collected its own samples and provided the data to Illinois EPA; these data can be seen at www.epa.state.il.us. The samples were analyzed for 56 pharmaceuticals and chemicals commonly found in prescription medications and commonly used in personal products, including: pain relievers, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, an insect repellant, and chemicals derived from coffee and tobacco.
In order to assess the safety of the very low levels of the chemicals found in the treated drinking water, Illinois EPA toxicologists consulted with the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH)to determine what chemical concentrations will adequately protect public health. Illinois EPA and IDPH used the best available international risk assessment standards and then adjusted them to a level 3.5 times more stringent to ensure even greater public health protection. These protective thresholds were then compared to the chemical concentrations found in collected samples to determine if any of the chemicals pose a public health risk.
Cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine, was the chemical found closest to its threshold of concern, but still 333 times below the threshold of concern for human health. At the opposite extreme Lincomycine, a veterinary anti-biotic, had a margin of safety greater than ten million. The margin of safety for other chemicals fell between these levels.
While all samples revealed low chemical concentrations far below levels that could likely pose a public health risk, chemical concentration in samples of lake water were lower than samples of river water. Because river samples were collected during “high-flow” conditions, which could potentially dilute the concentrations, the report recommended additional sampling under low-flow conditions. The report suggested that additional chemicals may need to be tested beyond the 56 for which Illinois EPA screened in this study.
As a follow up step, the Illinois EPA will continue to do additional sampling, to provide an even better understanding of potential risks from pharmaceuticals in water. The Agency will continue to assess the results, and do more sampling and testing as necessary. As with the initial sampling results, future analysis will add to the growing base of information currently available, and further reduce the uncertainty about the presence of pharmaceuticals in water.
For people who would like to dispose of unused pharmaceuticals in their home, the Illinois EPA will continue collecting unused pharmaceuticals at its household hazardous waste collection event, which are held across the state each spring and fall. Residents are advised to save all old or unwanted medications for an Illinois EPA-sponsored household hazardous waste collection: the current collection schedule is on the Agency’s web page: http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/hazardous-waste/household-haz-waste/hhwc-schedule.html.
The Illinois EPA advises people to not flush pharmaceuticals down the toilet or pour them down the drain because wastewater treatment plants and septic systems are not designed to treat pharmaceutical waste and the drugs often end up in our waterways, and ultimately in our drinking water. Instead, residents should save old or unwanted medications for an Illinois EPA sponsored household hazardous waste collection. At such an event last year, seven 55-gallon drums of pharmaceuticals were collected and properly disposed.
In the event that citizens cannot attend one of the Agency’s Household Hazardous Waste collections, four permanent household hazardous waste collection facilities in Rockford, Naperville, Chicago and Lake County also accept pharmaceutical waste. In addition, many hospitals, pharmacies and police departments also offer programs to collect and dispose of unwanted drugs.
To discourage illegal and unsafe ingestion of discarded pharmaceuticals, the state encourages people remove unused or unneeded drugs from their original containers, mix them with coffee grounds or kitty litter, and put them in non-descript impermeable containers, such as empty cans.
In an effort to reduce the amount of pharmaceuticals discharged into our environment, the Illinois EPA is working with communities across the state to collect and safely dispose of unwanted and unused pharmaceuticals. If your community is interested in cosponsoring a collection, please call the Illinois EPA’s Waste Reduction Unit at (217) 785-8604.
public health risk
Results found only trace levels of several prescription drugs and
common chemical; further study needed
SPRINGFIELD –The Illinois EPA has completed its report summarizing the findings of unregulated pharmaceuticals and personal care products in Illinois drinking water supplies from samples taken in Chicago and four water supplies that rely on river water as their source. The report indicates that Illinois’ drinking water continues to be safe, and the Illinois EPA sees no cause for immediate concern; however, low levels of several pharmaceuticals were found in Illinois drinking water.
While there are no federal standards established for pharmaceuticals, the Illinois EPA tested drinking water as a proactive step to assess the scope of the presence of pharmaceuticals in our waterways to ensure that our drinking water supplies are adequately protected. Illinois EPA screened for 56 chemicals typically found in drugs and personal care products that may be released from water treatment plants into lake and river water. Illinois EPA detected low concentrations of 17 of these chemicals.
“I am pleased that the report found that concentrations of chemicals measured in drinking water supplies do not pose a threat to human health,” said Illinois EPA Director Doug Scott. “We believe that the consumers deserve as much information about their drinking water as we can provide to them. That’s why we’ll continue to monitor the safety of drinking water supplies and educate the public about how to keep pharmaceuticals and personal care products out of our water supplies.”
In March of this year, the Illinois EPA collected samples from both untreated “source” water and from the treated drinking water from public water supplies in Chicago, Aurora, Elgin, East St. Louis and Rock Island. In addition, the city of Springfield collected its own samples and provided the data to Illinois EPA; these data can be seen at www.epa.state.il.us. The samples were analyzed for 56 pharmaceuticals and chemicals commonly found in prescription medications and commonly used in personal products, including: pain relievers, antibiotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, an insect repellant, and chemicals derived from coffee and tobacco.
In order to assess the safety of the very low levels of the chemicals found in the treated drinking water, Illinois EPA toxicologists consulted with the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH)to determine what chemical concentrations will adequately protect public health. Illinois EPA and IDPH used the best available international risk assessment standards and then adjusted them to a level 3.5 times more stringent to ensure even greater public health protection. These protective thresholds were then compared to the chemical concentrations found in collected samples to determine if any of the chemicals pose a public health risk.
Cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine, was the chemical found closest to its threshold of concern, but still 333 times below the threshold of concern for human health. At the opposite extreme Lincomycine, a veterinary anti-biotic, had a margin of safety greater than ten million. The margin of safety for other chemicals fell between these levels.
While all samples revealed low chemical concentrations far below levels that could likely pose a public health risk, chemical concentration in samples of lake water were lower than samples of river water. Because river samples were collected during “high-flow” conditions, which could potentially dilute the concentrations, the report recommended additional sampling under low-flow conditions. The report suggested that additional chemicals may need to be tested beyond the 56 for which Illinois EPA screened in this study.
As a follow up step, the Illinois EPA will continue to do additional sampling, to provide an even better understanding of potential risks from pharmaceuticals in water. The Agency will continue to assess the results, and do more sampling and testing as necessary. As with the initial sampling results, future analysis will add to the growing base of information currently available, and further reduce the uncertainty about the presence of pharmaceuticals in water.
For people who would like to dispose of unused pharmaceuticals in their home, the Illinois EPA will continue collecting unused pharmaceuticals at its household hazardous waste collection event, which are held across the state each spring and fall. Residents are advised to save all old or unwanted medications for an Illinois EPA-sponsored household hazardous waste collection: the current collection schedule is on the Agency’s web page: http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/hazardous-waste/household-haz-waste/hhwc-schedule.html.
The Illinois EPA advises people to not flush pharmaceuticals down the toilet or pour them down the drain because wastewater treatment plants and septic systems are not designed to treat pharmaceutical waste and the drugs often end up in our waterways, and ultimately in our drinking water. Instead, residents should save old or unwanted medications for an Illinois EPA sponsored household hazardous waste collection. At such an event last year, seven 55-gallon drums of pharmaceuticals were collected and properly disposed.
In the event that citizens cannot attend one of the Agency’s Household Hazardous Waste collections, four permanent household hazardous waste collection facilities in Rockford, Naperville, Chicago and Lake County also accept pharmaceutical waste. In addition, many hospitals, pharmacies and police departments also offer programs to collect and dispose of unwanted drugs.
To discourage illegal and unsafe ingestion of discarded pharmaceuticals, the state encourages people remove unused or unneeded drugs from their original containers, mix them with coffee grounds or kitty litter, and put them in non-descript impermeable containers, such as empty cans.
In an effort to reduce the amount of pharmaceuticals discharged into our environment, the Illinois EPA is working with communities across the state to collect and safely dispose of unwanted and unused pharmaceuticals. If your community is interested in cosponsoring a collection, please call the Illinois EPA’s Waste Reduction Unit at (217) 785-8604.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
…And Not a Drop to Drink. Water, a Test for Emergency Managers
Michael Byrne
Water is the most basic and essential ingredient of life, so it is appropriate that the ability to get water to victims is the litmus test of success or failure of a disaster response. Too often, we fail the test because of the emergency management process imposed on something as simple as water. Most Americans don’t give much thought to water in normal times. For the most part, clean water is there when we want it. Turn on the tap and it flows easily. Walk into just about any store and it is there, in pints, quarts, liters or gallons – from mountain springs, Alpine snow melt, or Fijian aquifers. Trucks deliver five-gallon bottles to our offices.
When disaster strikes, however, we realize how precious clean water can be. And Americans expect their emergency managers to be able to deliver when the local water company cannot.
Most Americans would find it surprising to know that the process used to deliver water to a disaster scene has a complexity that could rival a space launch. While there are always variations in most cases, let us take a moment or two to consider the process, in hopes we will find lessons for all emergency management.
First, the local community hit by the disaster must decide if water is needed, if they can supply it without outside help and, if not, where to seek help.1 Should local officials decide they cannot supply water, the chief elected officer in the community must declare an emergency. That declaration is more than just asking for help. It requires a legal document signed by the mayor or other official to be sent to the next level of government. In some cases it is sent from a city to a
county, or a town or village to a parish.
At the next level the process repeats: the county or parish executive must determine what is needed and if it can be supplied locally. If not, it must declare an emergency and look to the next level of government – usually the state or commonwealth.
Now we need a state governor to declare an emergency, in order to ask the federal government to get involved. In our federal system, only the states can ask the federal government for help. You might assume this is a simple decision – but consider that we are expecting elected officials to make a legal statement that says, in essence: “I have a problem in the state I’m supposed to be running, and I can’t manage to send a bottle of water to a disaster victim.”
Think for a moment about our fifty governors. They hold very powerful positions, and generally earn our respect and admiration. I have had the opportunity to work for a number of governors and have been impressed with their management and leadership skills. These are not weak men and women. They are strong, determined managers who take seriously their responsibilities to
their state.
To get federal help in an emergency, however, the governor must write a letter to the president of the United States, saying “this condition our state finds itself in has overwhelmed us, and we don’t have the resources to respond.” That is not an easy letter for a governor to write, and they never see it as a trivial matter. Once the governor writes to the president, the letter usually will make its way to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in particular the FEMA “declaration” office. Officials there consider the request and determine if it is actually true. I find this particular part of the process hard to accept – if a governor has taken the dramatic step of acknowledging helplessness, should some federal bureaucrat really be able to second-guess what is needed from hundreds of miles away?
Still, our current process requires FEMA to evaluate the preliminary damage assessments to determine whether or not a need really exists, even though the governor has risked his or her political future to declare the need exists. If FEMA sees the need, the president is likely to declare either an emergency or a major disaster, depending on the severity of what is found on the scene. Either one will trigger the ability to supply water. Remember, we’re this far along in the process and we still have not provided an ounce to those in need.
The emergency or disaster declaration allows FEMA to begin working. A forward joint field office is established, a federal coordinating officer is designated to head a command structure under the well-practiced process of the National Incident Management System, or City Incident Management System or State Incident Management System or whatever flavor incident management system you want. You would think at this point in time, after what our entire nation has been through, that we could agree on a single process to work together.
There are fifteen “emergency support functions” in NIMS, and one of them has responsibility to supply water. Now delivery mechanisms must be identified, the cost of the requirement has to be estimated, and the operations chief must issue a “mission assignment” to the appropriate federal agency or agent to supply water. While FEMA has recently pulsed up its stockpile of water and can meet the immediate demand better than it ever has, the fundamental water supplier in the federal family comes under emergency support function number three, “public works,” and the lead federal agency for that is the United States Army Corps of Engineers.2 I must say the first time I learned this, I was a bit puzzled. I knew the Corps of Engineers was famous for redirecting rivers, building levees, building dams, and generally performing feats that change the face of our nation – but who knew they were in the bottled water business?
Actually, the Corps of Engineers doesn’t directly provide bottles of water. But they do have contracting vehicles in place that allow them to take the mission assignment, which will have a dollar amount based on the amount of water needed and an estimate of how long it is needed. Those contracting vehicles will allow the Corps to begin the process of supplying water to people in the disaster area.
Even though the contracting vehicles are already in place, the process takes several days to begin supplying water, and once started, it takes a few days to stop after the need ends. And you better believe it’s costly. It is not as simple as loading an Army truck from some stockpile and driving to the scene. Because the Corps of Engineers doesn’t bottle water, they must first go to a manufacturer who does. Then they enlist the emergency support function number one, transportation, to help pick up from the supplier and deliver to the disaster area. Our bottle is still not in the hands of a thirsty victim, however, because the federal government will only deliver to a distribution point within the affected state. It is still the state’s responsibility to deliver it to the “point of service” – what most of us would call a thirsty person.
While I readily admit the process can and does vary, the essential point I make here is valid. Believe it or not, there are steps that – under certain circumstances – would be needed in addition to what is presented here. There are multiple people involved all along the way, paperwork to file, boxes to check, and forms to fill out. To actually execute the process is much more complicated than I’ve described. Hard-working and resourceful emergency management professionals find ways to speed up the process and we are blessed with their ingenuity and courage to find a better way. But at the end of the day, this is how the plan is designed to work.
Remember, each one of these steps costs money and takes time. Agencies and individuals must be compensated for their time, there are travel costs to get water teams in place, there are rental fees for housing and office space and warehouse space – all before you even get to the cost of the water.
It is clear by looking at the long twisted road of our bottle of water that we are overdue for a rigorous performance evaluation of disaster response. Good businesses in this country have learned the value of performance evaluation tools and there are many valid methods. Six Sigma and Lean process reviews are examples of the types of tools that can help emergency managers.3 In its basic form, a Lean review begins with the steps of a process completely laid out on paper. Then a question is asked about each individual step: “Does this step add value; does it improve the process?” If it does not help our efforts, it is clear the step should be eliminated. The second question, if the step does add value, is “What is the cost in time and money?” and then, “Is the added value worth the cost?”
Consider again the steps to get a bottle of water to a disaster victim. Can we honestly say each of the steps adds value, and is worth the cost? The current process might eventually get water to a thirsty person, but it is an awfully expensive bottle.
Clearly, many of these steps are not necessary if we change the focus from the process to the victim and the responder at the point of service. Who really wants to argue that twenty steps are necessary to take care of water? For a better option, let us look at the hurricane season of 2004 in Florida, where one of the most accomplished emergency managers in the country, Craig Fugate, began asking himself the cost and value questions because of his fiduciary responsibility to the state of Florida. As an emergency manager, he knows that even though the federal government offers disaster assistance, there is a cost to the state and city – about twenty-five cents for every dollar of aid. During a conversation with Fugate. he shared with me that he started asking himself if that 25 percent of what the federal government proposed to spend on
water was worth what the state would get. When he considered other options, he realized there were facilities like Wal-Marts and Home Depots around the state, and if he could spend a little money to do whatever it took to allow them to operate – simple things like providing extra security, lifting weight restrictions, or providing curfew passes – the local stores would take care of the water. “The point is, getting a store open is a better solution than trying to replicate its function,” Fugate says. “We still provide bottled water in areas where there are no stores, the stores were destroyed, or to folks who cannot get to the store or afford basic supplies like water.”
Fugate’s two- or three-step solution took the problem and put it in the hands of organizations whose day-to-day business is supplying water and food to the community. It didn’t require new distribution points, a complicated paperwork and personnel chain or special contracting mechanisms – and the water got to thirsty people quicker and at less cost.
In the 14th-century, English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham came up with the concept of parsimony or in other words the intriguing idea that, “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."4 What better time, no, what more essential time, is there for us to heed this concept than when people are in need. It is my hope we will all remember the story as we evaluate how we respond to all aspects of an emergency, for it is not only this process that is in need of a review. It doesn’t have to be as complicated or as costly as we make it. We have got what is takes to do this, both in resources and expertise; what is needed is the resolve. A rigorous process review is really worth the effort – before the next disaster strikes.
Michael Byrne is senior vice president at ICF International in Fairfax, Virginia. He was formerly FEMA operations chief in New York and has served as federal coordinating officer in multiple disaster responses.
1 United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Response Framework:
Stafford Act Support to States (Washington, DC: DHS, 2008): 1-2.
2 DHS, National Response Framework: Emergency Support Function, Annex 3 (Washington,
DC: DHS, 2008): 4.
3 Six Sigma, “What is Six Sigma?” (n.d.), http://www.isixsigma.com/sixsigma/six_sigma.asp.
4 Widely cited, and often debated, this is the theory commonly referred to as ‘Occam’s Razor.”
Water is the most basic and essential ingredient of life, so it is appropriate that the ability to get water to victims is the litmus test of success or failure of a disaster response. Too often, we fail the test because of the emergency management process imposed on something as simple as water. Most Americans don’t give much thought to water in normal times. For the most part, clean water is there when we want it. Turn on the tap and it flows easily. Walk into just about any store and it is there, in pints, quarts, liters or gallons – from mountain springs, Alpine snow melt, or Fijian aquifers. Trucks deliver five-gallon bottles to our offices.
When disaster strikes, however, we realize how precious clean water can be. And Americans expect their emergency managers to be able to deliver when the local water company cannot.
Most Americans would find it surprising to know that the process used to deliver water to a disaster scene has a complexity that could rival a space launch. While there are always variations in most cases, let us take a moment or two to consider the process, in hopes we will find lessons for all emergency management.
First, the local community hit by the disaster must decide if water is needed, if they can supply it without outside help and, if not, where to seek help.1 Should local officials decide they cannot supply water, the chief elected officer in the community must declare an emergency. That declaration is more than just asking for help. It requires a legal document signed by the mayor or other official to be sent to the next level of government. In some cases it is sent from a city to a
county, or a town or village to a parish.
At the next level the process repeats: the county or parish executive must determine what is needed and if it can be supplied locally. If not, it must declare an emergency and look to the next level of government – usually the state or commonwealth.
Now we need a state governor to declare an emergency, in order to ask the federal government to get involved. In our federal system, only the states can ask the federal government for help. You might assume this is a simple decision – but consider that we are expecting elected officials to make a legal statement that says, in essence: “I have a problem in the state I’m supposed to be running, and I can’t manage to send a bottle of water to a disaster victim.”
Think for a moment about our fifty governors. They hold very powerful positions, and generally earn our respect and admiration. I have had the opportunity to work for a number of governors and have been impressed with their management and leadership skills. These are not weak men and women. They are strong, determined managers who take seriously their responsibilities to
their state.
To get federal help in an emergency, however, the governor must write a letter to the president of the United States, saying “this condition our state finds itself in has overwhelmed us, and we don’t have the resources to respond.” That is not an easy letter for a governor to write, and they never see it as a trivial matter. Once the governor writes to the president, the letter usually will make its way to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in particular the FEMA “declaration” office. Officials there consider the request and determine if it is actually true. I find this particular part of the process hard to accept – if a governor has taken the dramatic step of acknowledging helplessness, should some federal bureaucrat really be able to second-guess what is needed from hundreds of miles away?
Still, our current process requires FEMA to evaluate the preliminary damage assessments to determine whether or not a need really exists, even though the governor has risked his or her political future to declare the need exists. If FEMA sees the need, the president is likely to declare either an emergency or a major disaster, depending on the severity of what is found on the scene. Either one will trigger the ability to supply water. Remember, we’re this far along in the process and we still have not provided an ounce to those in need.
The emergency or disaster declaration allows FEMA to begin working. A forward joint field office is established, a federal coordinating officer is designated to head a command structure under the well-practiced process of the National Incident Management System, or City Incident Management System or State Incident Management System or whatever flavor incident management system you want. You would think at this point in time, after what our entire nation has been through, that we could agree on a single process to work together.
There are fifteen “emergency support functions” in NIMS, and one of them has responsibility to supply water. Now delivery mechanisms must be identified, the cost of the requirement has to be estimated, and the operations chief must issue a “mission assignment” to the appropriate federal agency or agent to supply water. While FEMA has recently pulsed up its stockpile of water and can meet the immediate demand better than it ever has, the fundamental water supplier in the federal family comes under emergency support function number three, “public works,” and the lead federal agency for that is the United States Army Corps of Engineers.2 I must say the first time I learned this, I was a bit puzzled. I knew the Corps of Engineers was famous for redirecting rivers, building levees, building dams, and generally performing feats that change the face of our nation – but who knew they were in the bottled water business?
Actually, the Corps of Engineers doesn’t directly provide bottles of water. But they do have contracting vehicles in place that allow them to take the mission assignment, which will have a dollar amount based on the amount of water needed and an estimate of how long it is needed. Those contracting vehicles will allow the Corps to begin the process of supplying water to people in the disaster area.
Even though the contracting vehicles are already in place, the process takes several days to begin supplying water, and once started, it takes a few days to stop after the need ends. And you better believe it’s costly. It is not as simple as loading an Army truck from some stockpile and driving to the scene. Because the Corps of Engineers doesn’t bottle water, they must first go to a manufacturer who does. Then they enlist the emergency support function number one, transportation, to help pick up from the supplier and deliver to the disaster area. Our bottle is still not in the hands of a thirsty victim, however, because the federal government will only deliver to a distribution point within the affected state. It is still the state’s responsibility to deliver it to the “point of service” – what most of us would call a thirsty person.
While I readily admit the process can and does vary, the essential point I make here is valid. Believe it or not, there are steps that – under certain circumstances – would be needed in addition to what is presented here. There are multiple people involved all along the way, paperwork to file, boxes to check, and forms to fill out. To actually execute the process is much more complicated than I’ve described. Hard-working and resourceful emergency management professionals find ways to speed up the process and we are blessed with their ingenuity and courage to find a better way. But at the end of the day, this is how the plan is designed to work.
Remember, each one of these steps costs money and takes time. Agencies and individuals must be compensated for their time, there are travel costs to get water teams in place, there are rental fees for housing and office space and warehouse space – all before you even get to the cost of the water.
It is clear by looking at the long twisted road of our bottle of water that we are overdue for a rigorous performance evaluation of disaster response. Good businesses in this country have learned the value of performance evaluation tools and there are many valid methods. Six Sigma and Lean process reviews are examples of the types of tools that can help emergency managers.3 In its basic form, a Lean review begins with the steps of a process completely laid out on paper. Then a question is asked about each individual step: “Does this step add value; does it improve the process?” If it does not help our efforts, it is clear the step should be eliminated. The second question, if the step does add value, is “What is the cost in time and money?” and then, “Is the added value worth the cost?”
Consider again the steps to get a bottle of water to a disaster victim. Can we honestly say each of the steps adds value, and is worth the cost? The current process might eventually get water to a thirsty person, but it is an awfully expensive bottle.
Clearly, many of these steps are not necessary if we change the focus from the process to the victim and the responder at the point of service. Who really wants to argue that twenty steps are necessary to take care of water? For a better option, let us look at the hurricane season of 2004 in Florida, where one of the most accomplished emergency managers in the country, Craig Fugate, began asking himself the cost and value questions because of his fiduciary responsibility to the state of Florida. As an emergency manager, he knows that even though the federal government offers disaster assistance, there is a cost to the state and city – about twenty-five cents for every dollar of aid. During a conversation with Fugate. he shared with me that he started asking himself if that 25 percent of what the federal government proposed to spend on
water was worth what the state would get. When he considered other options, he realized there were facilities like Wal-Marts and Home Depots around the state, and if he could spend a little money to do whatever it took to allow them to operate – simple things like providing extra security, lifting weight restrictions, or providing curfew passes – the local stores would take care of the water. “The point is, getting a store open is a better solution than trying to replicate its function,” Fugate says. “We still provide bottled water in areas where there are no stores, the stores were destroyed, or to folks who cannot get to the store or afford basic supplies like water.”
Fugate’s two- or three-step solution took the problem and put it in the hands of organizations whose day-to-day business is supplying water and food to the community. It didn’t require new distribution points, a complicated paperwork and personnel chain or special contracting mechanisms – and the water got to thirsty people quicker and at less cost.
In the 14th-century, English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham came up with the concept of parsimony or in other words the intriguing idea that, “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."4 What better time, no, what more essential time, is there for us to heed this concept than when people are in need. It is my hope we will all remember the story as we evaluate how we respond to all aspects of an emergency, for it is not only this process that is in need of a review. It doesn’t have to be as complicated or as costly as we make it. We have got what is takes to do this, both in resources and expertise; what is needed is the resolve. A rigorous process review is really worth the effort – before the next disaster strikes.
Michael Byrne is senior vice president at ICF International in Fairfax, Virginia. He was formerly FEMA operations chief in New York and has served as federal coordinating officer in multiple disaster responses.
1 United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Response Framework:
Stafford Act Support to States (Washington, DC: DHS, 2008): 1-2.
2 DHS, National Response Framework: Emergency Support Function, Annex 3 (Washington,
DC: DHS, 2008): 4.
3 Six Sigma, “What is Six Sigma?” (n.d.), http://www.isixsigma.com/sixsigma/six_sigma.asp.
4 Widely cited, and often debated, this is the theory commonly referred to as ‘Occam’s Razor.”
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Executive Director
Greetings - I am your Executive Director, Laurie Dougherty. I have been employed by the Illinois Section since 1992. If there is anything we can do to provide you with better membership benefits, please don't hesitate to contact me at 866-521-3595. We encourage you to post your own introduction and photo.
Welcome
Welcome to the new Illinois Section AWWA blog. We will keep you informed on what's going on here and invite you to post your own comments. We also have a new FACEbook page that you can post a link to your favorite water youtube!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)