Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE WATER MANAGEMENT SOCIETY
www.wmsoc.org.uk ISSN 0954 7711 • Autumn 2016
The Journal of the Water Management Society
waterline
Organic Water TreatmentCurrent Guidelines & Myths - Part II
PLUS Chair's Vision
Planning some plumbing work? Know the law
Thematic Sections
Carbapenem resistant organisms,Water and the hospital environment
The latest BSI:Where is your water going - Part 1
3
Council of Management and Officers 2017
The Water Management Society is governed by a Council of Management which has the responsibility for the day-to-day supervision of operational and financial control. It meets bimonthly and the executive officers meet more frequently.
There is continuing cooperation and liaison between the Council and the Secretariat.
Council Members 2017
Chair - Colin Shekleton
IPC / Vice Chair - Elise Maynard
Technical Committee Chairman - Giles Green
Honorary Secretary - Sue Pipe
Honorary Treasurer - Dr Andy Dobbins
Dr John Alvey
Howard Barnes
David Bebbington
Colin Brown
Dean Francis
David Harper
Simon Hughes
Mike Hunter
Garry Kerin
Ian E Kershaw
Dr Tom Laffey
John Lindeman
Dr Alan Pomfret
Dr Bill Thomas
Graham Thompson
Geoff Walker
All Full members of the Society can apply for election to the Council. Elections are held at the AGM annually, and final selection is made (by ballot if necessary). Additional members may be co-opted. It only remains to be pointed out that the responsibilities and obligations of Council members require a clear and definite commitment in terms of time and effort.
waterline Editors: Executive Editors: G B Hill and G Walker
General Editor: S D Pipe
IN THIS ISSUE5 Letter to the Editor
8 Organic Water Treatment Inhibitors
- Part II
12 Waterscan
18 Thematic Sections
24 H&V News - Combating Legionella & Water Treatment Event Report
28 Carbapenem resistant organisms, water and the hospital environment
30 The latest BSI: where is your water going - Part 1 - Event Report Special
32 Contracts, Products & Publications
37 Chair's Vision
waterlineThe Journal of the Water Management Society
Copyright of The Water Management Society 2016. The use of the WMSoc logo or any related imagery is not permitted for personal or commercial use. Please report any improper use to the office.
The WMSoc Training Programme is not commercially biased and is provided at a competitive cost.
©
THE WATER MANAGEMENT SOCIETY
Water Management Society
6, Sir Robert Peel Mill, Hoye Walk, Fazeley,
Tamworth, Staffordshire. B78 3QD
Telephone: 01827 289 558 Fax: 01827 250 408
Email: [email protected]
www.wmsoc.org.uk
@WMSoc1
The WMSoc is grateful for the continuing support of this publication by the advertisers. To advertise in the next
issue of waterline contact the WMSoc secretariat on 01827 289 558
or email [email protected] The next issue will be published in
January 2017. The deadline date for all advertising copy is 16th December 2016.
15
22
27
28
32The information and advertising of products and services throughout this publication is not necessarily endorsed by the editors or the Water Management Society, who accept no responsibility for the accuracy of information in contributing articles.
water treatment experts
private label products experienced manufacturer
BPR - Water Treatment Products only uses biocidal active substances which are supportedfor review in the appropriate product types under the BPR review program and is committed
to work with biocidal active suppliers and consortia that meet BPR criteria.
The one and only EU Biocide Article 95 compliant
Hydrogen Peroxide / Silver based Disinfectants
Disinfection
One stop shop for all water treatment products - Saves you time and money
Test Kits Photometers Inhibitors
WTP is the only UK approvedsupplier of PrimeLab
photometers, reagents and technical support.
Build Cert.WTPCW55M awarded Build Cert
BC1426; DWTA Industry standard.
BSRIA BG550Test Kit
Everything youneed for tests
stated in BG50.
To find out more about our product range, contact us on:T: 01495 792790 Email: [email protected] www.watertreatmentproducts.co.uk
WTP A4 Advert_Layout 1 05/10/2016 09:21 Page 1
A U T U M N 2 0 1 6 feature article
30
The latest BSI:where is your watergoing - Part 1by Susan Pearson
2015 saw the publication of a raft of new and updated BSI guidance for the water industry but what are the practical implications of the new BS 8554 and PD 855468 and updated BS 8558 in practice? A recent Water Management Society meeting at the SCI (Society of Chemical Industry) in London provided an opportunity to gain insight from members of the working parties instrumental in drafting these documents.
The meeting was chaired by Tim white, Chair of the SCI’s environmental health and safety group and the BSI’s sampling committee. Along with several of the speakers, White repeatedly stressed the importance of feedback on standards from those that use them: “it is difficult to write standards, we need industry consensus” he said, “so we really need to engage in a dialogue with users. If a paragraph in a standard doesn’t work for you, let us know what would work instead. We are really keen to receive constructive criticism so that we can move standards forward for everybody.”*
With plenty of audience input, ‘The latest BSI guidance: where is your water going’ provided a forum for a lively discussion on topics such as the need for flushing v. sustainability and the need to save water, the importance of design of water systems and the financial implications of risk management. The meeting was unusual in bringing a very wide range of expertise together and prompted some significant new collaboration.
How standards are madeTom Digby-Rogers, lead programme manager in BSI’s sustainability sector set the scene for the conference by describing BSI’s role in making standards.
BSI is the UK’s only national standards body, a not-for-profit Royal Charter organisation responsible for the drafting, implementation and maintenance of all British standards. It is the only route for UK comment on European and International Standards through bodies such as the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), allowing consistency on a “huge scale,” as well as providing an international platform for championing British ways of working.
Digby-Rogers defined standards as open, consensus-based documents, developed by experts from industry, government and academia who agree on best practice and convert it into requirements, recommendations and guidelines. Standards exist for “the common and repeated use, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context,” he said, to help organisations perform better, reduce costs, manage risk, differentiate themselves in markets and grow sustainably.
Standards are entirely voluntary. While the industry does not have to use them, their purpose is to enable industry to take positive action and can be used to support compliance. A standard can help meet directives and some have standards written into them, effectively making them mandatory, eg the Drinking Water Directive.
While ‘regulations’ are imposed, ‘standards’ are “about industry taking control,” Digby-Rogers said. As a tool they “cannot be underestimated..... a national standards body ...creating a national standard ... allows industry, on a national level, to get together around a new idea or challenge and collectively take action for the greater good.”
BSI manages its work through a series of committees and panels working across every discipline and all committee and panel membership is voluntary Committees are made up of stakeholders who nominate experts in their fields. The role of the committees is to help BSI look for gaps in good practice and highlight how standards
can address these unmet needs, via open, consultative collaboration. “BSI process demands that all relevant voices are afforded equal importance in developing standards, be they from industry, government, academia, NGOs / civil society or consumer groups, and as a result the outputs are more robust and credible.”
The BSI produces several different ‘tools’ (see Table 1), all developed after several levels of public consultation with the final draft put together by the panel after discussion of all comments. The panels also work on revisions of documents to update them in line with feedback from users.
However, Mr Digby-Rogers emphasised that European Standards must be implemented as part of the UK’s agreement with CEN, taking precedence over UK standards. This is not the case with international standards, which BSI can choose to adopt.
Mr Digby-Rogers stressed that the strength of standards lies in the independence of the committee and panel members and urged the audience to get involved.*
Table 1. BSI publications
• Specifications – requirements that have to be met in order for conformity (compliance) to be claimed;• Codes of practice – recommendations (should/may) on good practice, usually for one or more processes or procedures, again demonstrates compliance; • Methods of test – detailed instructions for carrying out one or more procedures for measurement, testing, sampling or evaluating performance; • Guides – more informative, not used for testing compliance. Used to demonstrate what can be done to go further to provide greater quality. • Corporate technical specifications and private standards.
The cost of failureGiles Green, Chairman of WMSoc’s technical committee and Chair of the Legionella Control Association, examined in detail what ‘risk’ actually means in the context of a ‘risk assessment’ as set out in guidance such as ACOPs (approved codes of practice) L8 and HSG 274. In particular, he examined the central notion ‘reasonably practicable’, put forward in the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act, and discussed the literal ‘price of failure’.
Reasonably practicable means that the measures required to avoid putting somebody at risk of harm should include taking into account the effect a harmful event has on someone’s life. In a legal situation, a court needs to be satisfied that anything that could possibly have been done, but was not, would have been unreasonable, or impracticable to do. So risk assessments need to consider not only potential ‘hazards,’ but also the consequences that might ensue, factoring in the likelihood of both. 1,2
But how do you rationalize this? How might costs be balanced against the chances of a harzardous event happening? Although it is impossible to place a value on someone’s death, this rationalisation still has to be made, Green said, and the HSE have put forward cash valuations, outlined in Table 2.
In determining how ‘ risk’ might be assessed, he set out an equation along the lines of: Risk = Hazard x Likelihood (of something happening). However guidance is needed Green said, and this falls into two categories: ‘best practice’ and ‘first principles’.
Best practice is defined as being what is recognised as satisfying the law, although
event report special e
31
feature article waterline | THE JOURNAL OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT SOCIETY
this may not always be enough and a legal judgement is based on what is relevant. “But there may be [an appropriate] British Standard, [in which case] it would be hard to argue that it is sufficient to do something that doesn’t meet a British Standard.” It would be necessary to judge how much of the document should be applied to particular circumstances so “you’re looking at proportionality v. relevance.” However, where this guidance is not available it is necessary to go back to first principles, i.e. directly defining consequences and solutions in relation to problems.
Green also outlined a cost benefit analysis for reasonably practicable expenditure for prevention of potential ‘harm’.
He presented the HSE’s formula for calculating the ‘cost of risk.’ This gives as an example a chemical plant that, if it were to explode, would cause £9,300-worth of ‘harm’ in terms of fatalities and injuries using the values given in Table 2. The rate of likelihood for this happening has been analysed at 1 in 100,000 (10-5) per year. So it would be reasonably practicable to spend around £93,000 (£9,300 x 10) to eliminate the risk of explosion (see Table 3).3
Table 2. 2003 values for injury (HSE)
• Death £1,336,800• Permanent incapacity £207,200• Permanent incapacitatng illness £193,100• Serious injury £20,500k• Other ill health £2300 + £180 /day off work• Minor (Lees than a week off) £530• Cuts, bruises etc £300
Table 3. Calculations for amount of ‘risk’ per year for plant explosion
Fatalities 20 £1.336,800 x1x10-5 x25yrs =6684
Permanent injuries 40 £207,200 x1x10-5 x25yrs =2072
Serious injuries 100 £20,500 x1x10-5 x25yrs =512
Slight injuries 200 £300 x1x10-5 x25yrs =15
Total benefits =£9,283
PD 855468A detailed discussion on flushing from independent water management consultant Graham Thompson focused on Published Document (PD) 855468, the latest guidance on the flushing and disinfection of services supplying water for domestic use within buildings and their curtilages (Table 4). Dealing specifically with hot and cold water systems and excluding closed systems, which already have their own guidance, the new document separates cleaning and flushing guidance from BS 8558, with BS8558:2015 carrying less information on flushing. While PD 855468 is not a specification or code of practice at present, it is eventually likely to be developed into some form of British Standard.
Graham has 25 years’ experience in the water treatment industry and has been involved in the redrafting of HSG274 and several BSI documents. He noted that the new document covers working to an operational plan including health and safety, risk assessments and method statements, including considering neutralisers, and backs the need for a schematic diagram when cleaning and disinfecting water systems to make it clear from which outlets chlorine might emerge.
Thompson described how the sections that deal with new builds and alterations introduce two types of flushing: cleansing flushes to remove debris, organic debris, corrosion, disinfection residuals etc; and hygiene flushes to draw off water for the avoidance of stagnation. The document notes that after any cleaning or any remedial works a system should be up and running within 30 days, otherwise further flushing may be needed to prevent stagnation. Thompson emphasised that the document consistently encourages the importance of keeping water moving, even during early stages of commissioning and building of projects.
Homing in on the question of the costs of flushing and how water use can affect profits for service providers, Thompson put forward his view that at a cost of £2-3/m3 flushing is worthwhile to avoid £100,000s in remedial works. While regulators such as the DWI (drinking water inspectorate) promote avoidance of water wastage, Thompson’s take on sustainability is that flushing is not a waste of water and that weekly flushing of under used outlets is essential.However, not all of the audience agreed. Participants in the subsequent question and answer session commented that
Table 4. Scope of PD 855468
a) residues of construction are adequately flushed from water distribution systems;b) appropriate water quality is achieved;c) appropriate disinfectants and processes are used;d) construction debris and dust are removed;e) risk of corrosion and damage to fixtures, fittings and sensitive plant is minimised;f) adequate records of cleaning are produced;g) stagnation is avoided or managed; andh) appropriate tools and personnel are deployed for the relevant tasks.
The guidance applies to: 1) initial commissioning of new or extended systems; 2) maintenance of existing systems; 3) alteration of existing systems; 4) water quality management prior to occupation or as a result of low / no occupancy or usage; and 5) (remedial) response to microbiological problems is identified.
some regular flushing as part of LP control regimes could be seen as a “complete waste of water.”
On disinfection, Thompson stressed the importance of cleaning prior to disinfection, particularly of tanks, noting that this is covered in some detail by the document.
PD 855468 puts forward chlorine-based products as the ‘example disinfectant,’ to be used at 50ppm, but “other disinfectants may be used where they are shown to be effective”, although they must appear in the list of products approved by the DWI for use in public water supplies. However, the DWI requires the use of BS EN-compliant products where it has provided acceptance criteria; chlorine requirements fall under a BS EN standard. DWI requirements for water quality are based wholly on water being safe and wholesome to drink – it does not imply fitness for purpose of biocides. However, PD 855468 stresses that the “intended application [of a disinfectant] should take into account the type of system and user profile, the specified concentration levels and contact period.”
Thompson commented that in future the biocidal products regulations (BPR) are likely to take over in defining what substances can be used and many products are currently undergoing the approval process.
PD 855468 also covers: pH considerations for dosing with sodium hypochlorite – the document suggests that pH correction is replaced by working on a pH, time/concentration basis;Residual disinfection – it proposes leaving in some residual chlorine, at 0.5 mg/L - 0.1 mg/L free chlorine, with no over-dosing of neutralising agents, which would removing all oncoming chlorine.Getting consent for discharging effluent – is a licence required?Sampling Record keeping responsibilities
References1] HSE: “Reducing risks, protecting people”, 2001.
2] HSE: “Principles and guidelines to assist HSE in its judgements that duty-holders have reduced risk as low as reasonably practicable,” www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp3.htm
3] HSE: Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) checklist, www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpcheck.htm
* If you would like to become more involved with BSI, contact:[email protected], tel: 0208 996 7838 or visit:www.shop.bsigroup.com/upload/forms/newsletter-signup.html
LOOK OUT FOR PART 2 OF THIS EVENT REPORT IN THE NEXT ISSUE OF WATERLINE.
Susan Pearson BSc ([email protected]) is a freelance journalist and communications consultant specialising in medicine and the environment.
Originally published in waterline Autumn 2016
