[Pharmwaste] Finding clarity in water testing - testing for CECs in AZ

[Catherine Zimmer]

Hi all,

EPA's proposed pharmaceutical waste management rules are an opportunity to
support bans on: excreted chemotherapy wastes and sewer disposal of all
pharmaceuticals.  EPA is opening the door with the proposed ban on sewering
of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals.  They are concerned about aquatic life
and potentially human health risks.  Get your two cents in.  Due date for
comments is Dec. 24.  

 

Very truly yours,

 

Catherine Zimmer, MS, BSMT

Zimmer Environmental Improvement, LLC

Reducing and managing healthcare related waste and costs for fifteen years.


St. Paul, MN 

Ph:  651.645.7509

 <mailto:zenllc at usfamily.net> zenllc at usfamily.net

 

From: pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us
[mailto:pharmwaste-bounces at lists.dep.state.fl.us] On Behalf Of Tenace,
Laurie
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:19 PM
To: pharmwaste at lists.dep.state.fl.us
Subject: [Pharmwaste] Finding clarity in water testing - testing for CECs in
AZ 

 

One million, seven hundred sixty thousand.

Or 1,760,000.

That's the number of 8-ounce glasses of water from Flagstaff's Foxglenn Well
a resident would have to drink to ingest a standard dose of Prozac from
trace amounts in the well water, according to the latest testing numbers. 

It's a figure Erin Young, the city's water resources manager, makes sure to
emphasize when explaining the latest data from the city's efforts to test
water for a multitude of trace substances that aren't currently regulated by
state or federal agencies. The substances are categorized as compounds of
emerging concern, or CECs, and they include things like pharmaceuticals,
personal care products and endocrine disruptors.

Young presented interim results of that testing to the Flagstaff City
Council last month.

The challenge for Young and the city is to interpret those results, verify
their accuracy and help people understand exactly what the data mean for
their health and safety.

"Since (CEC's) are not regulated, what we're missing is that conversation
about...even if we find them, what do they mean?" said Brad Hill, director
of the city's utilities department. "Putting these things in perspective is
something we struggle with in our industry."

Crunching numbers

Flagstaff is one of only a handful of cities willing to test for compounds
of emerging concern, said Hill said. The city has been doing so since 2002. 

The effort to sample for these substances stems in part from a federal
mandate and part from a local push to know more about the potable water
coming out of taps and the reclaimed wastewater being sprayed over local
parks and ski slopes.

Young's report to city council in September reviewed results of water
testing completed since 2013. It showed that zero to five CECs were detected
at each of seven drinking water sources across the system. The compounds
that showed up include fluoxetine, or Prozac; Acesulfame-K, a calorie-free
sugar substitute; and azithromycin, an antibiotic used to treat various
types of infections.

The number of such compounds detected in reclaimed wastewater and effluent
discharged from the city's treatment plants was approximately four to eight
times higher, ranging from 23 to 47 substances detected at each test site.
The sweetener sucralose; TDCPP, a flame retardant; amoxicillin, an
antibacterial; and iohexol, an agent used in contrast radiography, were
found in the highest concentrations.

The city also separately tested for the chemical NDMA, a potential
carcinogen, which was detected in both reclaimed wastewater and treated
discharge. The chemical results when ammonia lingering in wastewater reacts
with chlorine used as a disinfectant. That reaction creates chloramines,
which can form NDMA.

Those tests are on top of EPA-mandated testing the city completes for a list
of 30 contaminants the agency is considering for future regulation. 

Putting numbers in perspective

Beyond the numbers themselves, key from a public health standpoint is the
amount or concentration of the substances detected in Flagstaff's water
system. Prozac, which was detected at the city's Foxglenn groundwater well,
was measured at 24 parts per trillion. That's the equivalent of 24 grains of
salt in an Olympic-sized pool, Young wrote in her report to the city.

Azithromycin, an antibiotic, was another compound found in Flagstaff's
drinking water at 37 nanograms per liter, or approximately 37 parts per
trillion. A person would have to drink more than 22,864 8-ounce glasses of
water to ingest an amount of the chemical that would pose a health concern,
according to data provided by the Water Research Foundation, a nonprofit
that invests research dollars in a wide range of water issues.

In reclaimed wastewater the concentrations of CECs were much higher.

Sucralose was the substance found in the highest concentrations in
Flagstaff's reclaimed wastewater at a maximum of 58,000 parts per trillion.
A person would have to drink more than 773 glasses of water per day of
reclaimed water to receive a dosage above the level deemed safe.

TDCPP, the flame retardant, was found to occur in Flagstaff's reclaimed
wastewater at a maximum level of 1400 nanograms per liter in reclaimed
wastewater. At that concentration, someone would have to drink more than
1,148 glasses of reclaimed wastewater to ingest a dangerous amount.

At this point, no one in Flagstaff is drinking reclaimed wastewater.

In all, Young wrote in her report that the trace contaminant levels found in
Flagstaff's drinking water and reclaimed water have remained much the same
as in past years when the city has tested for them.

Need for review

Young also emphasized that the city's testing data hasn't yet been reviewed
by the city's CEC advisory panel, a group of doctors, private, government
and university researchers, city officials and health experts.

That's important because some of the results don't seem quite right. Tests
that detected fluoxetine, for example, didn't detect sucralose, which
commonly shows up with fluoxetine, Young said. Fluoxetine levels also were
much higher than other samples collected by the Water Research Foundation.
The city found 20 to 30 nanograms per liter compared with a maximum level of
0.82 nanograms per liter listed in WRF statistics.

Young said the city's testing lab compared Flagstaff's results with 558
other test results for fluoxetine, though, and found the highest level
detected was 215 nanograms per liter.

"It may be that the results WRF is getting were run using a different
analytical method. Or perhaps (WRF) has a mistake in units," Young wrote in
a follow-up email.

Determining the accuracy of the test results and the potential human health
impacts also is becoming increasingly important, and sometimes increasingly
difficult, as the sensitivity of technology improves, compounds to be
detected at smaller and smaller concentrations, Young said.

"It's really easy to contaminate samples at parts per trillion level," she
said.

At such a small scale, there is a greater chance the devices detected false
positives, or that a sample was contaminated.

"We haven't had somebody to look at data to see if it makes sense," Young
said.

Evaluating health risk

It's important to remember that the compounds of emerging concern haven't
been found to have health impacts at levels found in drinking water, said
Alice Fulmer a senior research manager with the Denver-based Water Research
Foundation. The compounds also vary seasonally and even daily, so levels
found one day may not be the same as those found a few months later, she
said.

"Detecting these compounds doesn't necessarily indicate any risk," Fulmer
said. "Instead it's the starting point that tells us, 'Hey, let's start
paying attention.'"

 

 

Laurie Tenace

Environmental Specialist

Waste Reduction Section

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 4555

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

850.245.8759

Laurie.Tenace at dep.state.fl.us

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/attachments/20151030/39f0b4fa/attachment-0001.htm