Cost Analysis of Cross-Connection Control Management

Transcription

1 w w w. b s i p rog r a m s. c o m Cost Analysis of Cross-Connection Control Management BSI WHO WE ARE Administering backflow management programs for 15 years Invented and implemented the concept of online backflow tracking programs Currently providing cross-connection control management to municipalities across the country Comprised of industry experts 1

2 4/10/2012 PRESENTATION GOALS To explain the legal requirements associated with running a backflow program Outline the various steps that comprise an effective program Illustrate the very real costs of backflow problems Analyze the different management options available (i.e. In- house versus Outsourcing) and their associated costs 2

3 ILLINOIS STATE REGULATIONS Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) IEPA Rules and Regulations; Title Most importantly, calls for the elimination of all cross-connections Frames what a water purveyor must do to run an effective program, including adopting regulations, locating cross-connections and ongoing management. ILLINOIS STATE REGULATIONS (CONTINUED) Illinois Department of Public Health 77 IL Administrative Code Section Like Title 35, also mandates that water systems are protected against backflow Explains in more detail the various types of backflow assemblies, and how they are to be applied to potential hazards. 3

4 FAMOUS BACKFLOW INCIDENTS Michigan: unprotected cadaver table in a hospital morgue resulted in blood contaminating drinking fountains. Illinois: ethylene glycol from a hospital a/c unit entered dialysis machines, resulting in several fatalities. Kansas: a large number of lunch patrons at a restaurant became violently ill due to carbonic acid poisoning caused by a backflow incident IMPORTANCE OF A BACKFLOW PROGRAM It s the law both Federal and State regulations exist regarding cross-connection control. A report issued by the Office of the Inspector General indicates that the majority of contamination from crossconnections is largely undetected and not reported. This makes running an effective backflow program undeniably vital to your community s safety 4

5 ABPA STUDY In 1999, 135 water systems (of all sizes) were surveyed to analyze the various costs associated with running a backflow program. 90,171 cross-connections were identified Most common cross-connections were on irrigation systems 51% of all respondents had directly experienced a backflow incident Average cost to respond to a backflow incident: $43,

6 WHAT GOES INTO AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM? Ordinance development establishing the rules for your community Public education explaining what backflow actually is and why this program is important AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Inspections to identify cross-connections (ABPA study shows 42% of inspections identify a cross-connection) Survey / inventory of existing assemblies: locating all assemblies in your community 6

7 AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Annual tracking of backflow assemblies Sending letters Tracking licenses and test kits AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Customer service Enforcement Meeting with regulatory agencies 7

8 PROGRAM COST CONSIDERATIONS Employee / Labor data entry, customer service, inspections Training Software and equipment Supplies Mailing Legal BOX AND BINDER PROGRAM Description: very little being done by the municipality inhouse, most often due to lack of resources and perceived low priority Little to no inspections / surveys No letters being sent, no annual tracking Test reports that are received are simply thrown into a filing cabinet or box. No enforcement 8

9 BOX AND BINDER PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Cost to administer: very little as nothing is being done Cost in penalties: high This includes fines of up to $25,000 a day for a lack of program Degradation of reputation and citations by regulators BOX AND BINDER PROGRAM (CONTINUED) Pros: it costs nothing, because nothing is being done Cons: Countless. High risk of contamination, penalties are extremely high, citations from IEPA, loss in confidence of water quality Verdict: This should not be considered as a viable option. 9

10 ESTABLISHED IN-HOUSE PROGRAM Description: Run by municipal staff using either commercial software or Excel / Access type program. Varying levels of inspections / surveys performed Letters typically being sent Enforcement varies Test results and test licenses verified ESTABLISHED IN-HOUSE (CONTINUED) Cost to administer: high Requires, at minimum, 1-2 dedicated staff members (depending on size of municipality) for data entry, customer service, letters Inspector costs (higher than customer service) Software Often ranges from $15k-30k, plus annual support Miscellaneous supplies Cost in penalties: if run correctly, low; if not properly run, moderate to high 10

11 ABPA STUDY ON AVERAGE COST Average cost for a system under 10k people (small): $9, start up and $6, annually Average cost for a system over 10k people (large): $63, start up and $92, annually ESTABLISHED IN-HOUSE (CONTINUED) Pros: Maintain control Utilize idle manpower (less common currently) Already a good knowledge of your water system Cons: Costly. Software alone is very expensive Lack of resources (money and manpower) Lack of expertise Verdict: In-house programs can be effective and well run. Can be costly in both money and manpower, which should be planned for well in advance. 11

12 TRADITIONAL OUTSOURCING Description: Municipality hires a 3 rd party experienced in backflow to administer all or portions of the program. Letters are sent Inspections / surveys performed Test results and licenses verified Enforcement done by municipality 12

13 TRADITIONAL OUTSOURCING (CONTINUED) Cost to administer: moderate to high Higher when first establishing your program, but usually more cost effective than in-house once running Cost in penalties: low Since you are hiring experts in the industry, they are more adept (and have more dedicated resources) to ensure compliance. Reputable firms carry extensive insurance TRADITIONAL OUTSOURCING (CONTINUED) Pros: Expertly run: 3 rd party firms provide a team of experts at a much lower cost that to higher individually in-house Frees up your time and manpower Compliance with all regulations / greatly reduces risk of backflow incidents Cons: Cost, born entirely by the municipality Less control Verdict: a good option, especially if cost is not an issue. Finding the right firm that understands your community is important 13

14 14

15 ONLINE MANAGEMENT Description: 3 rd party technology that tracks all backflow assemblies online Letters being sent Test results entered online by the tester, who pays a filing fee for each report Test results and licenses verified Other services such as inspections and surveys usually available ONLINE MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED) Cost to administer: low The cost is covered by filing fees, paid by testing contractors and those with backflow assemblies Cost in penalties: low Since you are hiring experts in the industry, they are more adept (and have more dedicated resources) to ensure compliance. Reputable firms carry extensive insurance 15

16 ONLINE MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED) Pros: Most cost effective of all options Green technology minimizes paper waste Team of experts at virtually no cost to you Cons: Less control Change from traditional program Verdict: A good option for communities of all sizes due to low cost and high return. 16

17 No matter which option you choose it is important to administer an effective backflow program. Thank you for your participation in this presentation! Doug Eisenhauer - BSI deisenhauer@backflow.com 17