Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Potable water vs legionella 20131127
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Potable water vs legionella 20131127

140

Published on

presented at CWWA Ottawa on the 27th of November 2013

presented at CWWA Ottawa on the 27th of November 2013

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
140
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • LeChevallier
  • Michelle Prévost
  • Venne diagram: Interaction of the four dimensions of the Maintenance Plan
  • & a lot more…. 
  • source Gulf news June 2005 and Statistics provided by US GBC’s LEED for Product Manufacturers presentation, ©2005Statistics provided by US Department of Energy: Buildings info and components
  • Transcript

    • 1. Potable Water vs Atypical Pneumonia Risk Management & Bionebulisation CWWA, Ottawa 27th of November 2013
    • 2. Transferable Approaches TOC & Phosphorus : • High levels increase tendency to form Biofilm. • Concentration in CTs will be 3 to 6 times higher
    • 3. Transferable Approaches Stale or slow moving water: • Risk №1 demonstrated to cause outbreaks Disinfectants: • negative synergies, half life, Minimal Effective Concentration, Corrosion, Contact time, Temperature & pH effects.
    • 4. Transferable Approaches • Cyst control vs Amoeba & Protozoa • Outbreak much more likely if water source is from surface water • Giardia & Crypto reduction may reduce risk • Potable technologies difficult to transfer to CTs • Zero risk does not exist. • Risk = Probability x Consequences
    • 5. Transferable Approaches • • • • • Reservoir hydraulics Last in, last out reservoirs Cross connections Back-flow preventers IRBs : SRBs & Ferrogineous
    • 6. Transferable Approaches • Risk management: Critical control points, Gradated risk management, Audits, Check lists, Maintenance plan, Documentation & Tests history, Training. • Multiple barriers approach • Use of indicators : fast drop in HOCl, Aerobes levels, Turbidity • Algae management-reduction • Chemical pumps, controllers, sensors, on-site chemical tests
    • 7. Transferable Approaches • ≠ Materials = Different tendencies for biofilm. • Biofilm media: PVC high surface area • CTs use exactly the same in cooling towers! Coated to reduce surface tension? No. Impregnated with silver ions-zeolite? No • No kidding, no joke.
    • 8. Counterintuitive & Different • • • • Fecal microorganisms vs water-borne Oral vs Inhalation Planktonic Vs Sessile Indicators in potable water allow validation. NOT in CTs. There is no definitive validation in CTs with a test. • Finished water quality control vs Process QC
    • 9. Counterintuitive & Different • In CTs same bug (DNA) can be mostly innocuous or highly pathogenic! • Potable water can contain 3 logs of Legionella that are non-cultivable but viable & infectious. • You do it right nobody gets sick. In CTs we are never sure. • You can get away with important deposits & biofilm. Not in CTs.
    • 10. Counterintuitive & Different Cleaning: • Flushing does not work • High levels of disinfectant do not work
    • 11. Québec 2012: lessons • Do not disinfect without having clean surfaces. Remove the deposits 1st. • Install high efficiency drift eliminators at the onset : very low implementation • Validate biocide concentration, contact time & circulation at time of injection: >75% wrong. • Involve external pros & a chemist (please)!
    • 12. Québec 2012: lessons • • • • • Have a plan of action. If this then that, etc. What, Where, How, When, Whom. Priorities. Work upstream of Legionella pneumophila. Do not ASSume.
    • 13. Québec Law : the Excellent • Mandatory documentation of actions & test results. • Schematics of the CT system.
    • 14. Québec Law : the Excellent • Maintenance plan signed by a professional with an ethic’s code to be revised after: 1. Over limit Legionella result 2. Change to the equipment or systems 3. Changes vs the Maintenance plan
    • 15. Québec Law : the Excellent • Maintenance plan covers: 1. 2. 3. 4. CT layout & start-up CT operational stops & starts. Decontamination Normal operation
    • 16. Québec Law : the Excellent
    • 17. Québec Law : the Excellent
    • 18. Québec Law – Interpretation - Who
    • 19. Québec Law : the Good • Law: any law is great. • List of CTs, owners, localisation, tons. • 40 inspectors actually visiting every CT!!! – Systematic validation of back-flows, existence of required signed documentation. Issuance of ‘tickets’ with 7 days to comply! Pictures. • Technical guide & training sessions.
    • 20. Québec Guide : the Good • • • • • • Iron as a virulence & amplification factor. Relationship between biofilm, amoeba & Lp. Association between deposits & Lp. Indicators & Lp analysis w/ action levels. Personalised planning. Hydraulic management.
    • 21. Québec Law : the Missing • • • • ASHRAE 188, 62.1 Penalties & Responsabilisation. Content of the plans & documentation. Not specific as to the actors: Eng, Chemist, Water treat, Mechanics, Control cie., Chiller & CT maintenance cies. • Reducing agents as microbiostat –cide • Risk analysis framework.
    • 22. Québec Guide : the Bad • False information: 1. Non oxidizing biocides can be measured with test kits on site or off-site (GC).
    • 23. Consumption Implications
    • 24. Reduced consumption • When risk is perceived as hard to control then managers replace CTs with Air-cooled units. • ~ 2x more energy consumption • HVAC: 40-60% of the bld energy consumption. • Buildings = 39% of total energy consumption. • Island heat effect amplified. In Paris over 3°C. • Ex. L’Oréal
    • 25. Increased Consumption • Fastest way to reduce risk is to reduce cycles of concentration • Also improves energy efficiency • Increases water consumption. Usually 2nd biggest after toilets & urinals. • Increases proportion of water returned to drain. • Reduces water gas thus reducing Island heat.
    • 26. District Cooling – Water2Water • • • • • • Ex. Toronto, Morocco. No potable water or net water use. Energy & GHG savings. No island heat effect. Less smog. Increased floor space & competitiveness. Less city hollowing. • NO LEGIONELLA RISK
    • 27. Quantitative Microbiology Case: 1000 tons CT, 35% in operation, Lp within guidelines at 3 logs Drift eliminators at 0.5% vs 0.0005% efficiency 20 000 vs 20 cfu Lp/minute Material cost of about 300$/CT CTI’s 1st recommendation is for validation of drift control. Never followed.
    • 28. Questions, Comments ?

    ×