 |
ABPA Discussion
Be respectful of others, a professional demeanor is required
ABPA Main Website
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Forum Services
Site Admin
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 63
Location: Aurora, CO
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:24 am Post subject: Containment versus Isolation |
 |
|
| The debate always seems to center on this issue, this is the arena for that discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gerald Flis
Site Admin
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 223
Location: Redford Township, Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:59 am Post subject: Containment & isolation required at medical labs |
|
|
I was shocked (even after 30 years in the field inspecting for XC hazards) when surveying a medical clinic to find the cross-connection shown here:
A clinic maintenance worker was sent to a lab area to install a water cooled AC system, where he proceeded to tap into the cold water line under the lab's specimen sink, which was used to flush away waste (blood, urine samples etc..) and to clean equipment.... Not knowing what to do with the used cooling water discharge, he drilled into the sink's waste line and stuck the discharge in, and sealed it all up with plenty of plastic goop...
Fortunately, we've had a meter containment RPBP previously installed here to protect our water main, but this "installation" endangered the potable water system for the whole bldg., which by the way also included a kidney dialysis lab....
Bottom line: containment devices are lifesavers for the outside public, but isolation backflow prevention at all the internal cross-connection hazards out there cannot then be ignored.... Someone must do the tedious time intensive job of inspecting your facilities from the meters to the last outlets before a potentially disastrous backflow incident occurs....
Gerald Flis
Midwest Backflow Prevention &
www.BackflowPreventionTechZone.com
Last edited by Gerald Flis on Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Edwards
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 162
Location: Aurora, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good find Gerald, unbelievable what you can find on a thorough ccc survey. I would say though that most water purveyors tend to do containment only due to the complexity of surveying internal systems on large complexes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerald Flis
Site Admin
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 223
Location: Redford Township, Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:42 am Post subject: Containment is back-up protection only, isolation required.. |
|
|
Here's another (fuzzy) similar picture of the kind of hazards you can find when doing a meter to last outlet cross-connection survey/inspection:
National supermarket chain store's local manager had a lobster tank installed (his decision, not corporate's) years after initial inspections/approvals.... Installer (tank sales co. "technician", not a licensed plumber) didn't/and of course couldn't get a permit, and proceeded to directly cross-connect potable water line (smaller line on the right) into the tank's drainline to help flush out solids etc... RPBP or properly located PVB/SVB would be the appropriate backflow protection here (they installed a RPBP)
Gerald Flis
Midwest Backflow Prevention &
www.BackflowPreventionTechZone.com
Last edited by Gerald Flis on Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:34 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Edwards
Site Admin
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 162
Location: Aurora, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Backflowing lobster water, what an appealing picture that paints. Yuck! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerald Flis
Site Admin
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 223
Location: Redford Township, Michigan
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:34 pm Post subject: Dialysis unit RPBPs -- FDA vs IAPMO |
|
|
Here's a red hot article we all need to take note of...... It seems some are taking "isolation" backflow prevention into areas not previously attempted.... "Zone" isolation (zone containment??) of a kidney dialysis water pre-treatment system is appropriate, but the FDA is objecting to RPBPS at each individual dialysis station....... See the full report at:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041014/dcth044_1.html
| Quote: |
Plumbing Codes Put Dialysis Patients at Risk
" The Food and Drug Administration has put the nation's plumbing code body on notice that it will take action, if necessary, to address provisions in state and local plumbing codes that conflict with federal requirements for medical devices used to purify water for kidney dialysis. One provision in question -- related to backflow equipment -- poses significant safety risks for dialysis patients, according to members of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) Renal Disease and Detoxification Committee, who wrote FDA officials requesting a determination on the issue. "International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials [IAPMO] should not have responsibility for the design of a water system for hemodialysis," explains Lee Fischbach, committee co-chair. "I believe that protection to the potable water source by IAPMO standards should end with a backflow prevention device placed at the inlet to the water systems pretreatment." In several localities, a plumbing code provision published in 2000 has been interpreted to mandate the use of a backflow prevention device preceding each hemodialysis machine -- in addition to backflow devices routinely placed between potable water supplies and hemodialysis water purification systems. ...Placing a backflow prevention device in the purified supply line of an individual hemodialysis machine could be hazardous to the patient, AAMI committee members warned. Members cited four risks: bacterial contamination in internal flow paths, chemical germicides trapped in internal flow paths, copper and zinc leaching from brass construction, and pressure reduction caused by the devices." Yahoo Finance, Oct. 14, 2004 |
Gerald Flis
Midwest Backflow Prevention &
www.BackflowPreventionTechZone.com
Last edited by Gerald Flis on Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerald Flis
Site Admin
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 223
Location: Redford Township, Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 7:43 am Post subject: Customers opposing meter RPs when no hazards present... |
|
|
A California town water customer / homeowner understands significant backflow hazards exist, but calls for consistency in the water district's application of backflow prevention requirements....
I object to RMWD proposal
http://www.thevillagenews.com/story.asp?story_ID=5209
| Quote: |
| "The recent mail requiring all of us to install Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Preventers comes as a shock! It appears aimed directly at only Division 4 residents. It also seems that Mr. Ensminger is the spokesperson and perhaps the instigator of this “overkill” proposal. The letter states it was passed by the board of directors, and as they speak to the whole district, why is it only “required” for Division 4? In Sunday’s NCT the story reveals that most all other water districts DO NOT make this overkill statement, but only on specific cases. They use common sense where specific needs of high lift, groves and nurseries and other commercial growers use injection systems for chemical and fertilizers. That is understandable. I live in Pala Mesa Village, a small community of residential single-family homes. Like most we have a small lot, small yard and virtually no agricultural needs such as growers. Like many others we are seniors with limited resources and these charges are outrageous. The 91 homes in this small enclave, were we all required to install jut the ¾ size system at $525 each, creates a cost total of $47,775. That is staggering. ...This “request for our cooperation and assistance” seems more Gestapo-like than a “request” when we read, “If not completed by 6-13-05, you’ll be billed directly of time and materials.” It appears a contractor is locked in! This request by RMWD may be in “Accordance of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act,” but does it require all users to install? If so, has this only now came up so suddenly and such a quick timeframe? Have we all been seriously in danger of these contaminates and substances and never been informed? Should we not have been made aware of these years ago? Have there been past cases of health dangers of which we are not aware? I object to the proposal and do not plan to install. I urge the homeowners and the RMWD Board to review this whole procedure and proposal and consider facts as reported by other water districts." The Village News, May 5, 2005 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
