Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:57:49 -0500
Reply-To: "Erik A. Talley" <ert2002**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: "Erik A. Talley" <ert2002**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Eyewash / shower flushing frequency
In-Reply-To: <7E8EC36F-7732-4383-A141-73C0D0B42CCA**At_Symbol_Here**>

Remember, we are dealing with a living bug that is endemic in the 
water. You want to be very careful if you decide to test for 
Legionella. I would not be shocked to find Legionella in water since 
it is endemic. The amount varies depending on many conditions (water 
temp, re-circulation, etc.). You need to have a good plan in place 
that follows your state guidelines (if there even are any) before you 
ever test. It may include reporting findings to your health 
department. You won't eradicate Legionella, only control it.

The article I referenced to Ralph earlier this week (Isolation of 
Amoebae and Pseudomonas and Legionella spp. from Eyewash Stations) is 
publicly available on NIH's site:



At 09:09 AM 1/29/2009, ILPI wrote:
>I also thought that test was expensive.  I checked with some
>colleagues and found one firm that told me "Yes, we can do the testing
>for Legionella and Acanthamoeba.  Depending on the methods used, the
>pricing would be between $200 and $300, all-inclusive (i.e. both tests
>on each station).  There are other options to bring costs down such as
>collecting composite samples, etc."
>But, as numerous posters already pointed out, there are other
>compelling reasons to test/flush weekly (sediment, damage, water
>supply integrity) regardless.  And weekly testing goes a long way
>towards reinforcing the location and operation of the safety
>equipment, an intangible benefit that should not be overlooked.
>Recall the recent list posting about the worker who apparently ran
>away from the safety shower location after catching fire, for example.
>On Jan 28, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Carl Zipfel wrote:
>>The original question on this subject discussed costs associated with
>>testing.  An updated e-mail indicated that the $400/unit costs,
>>which I
>>thought were excessive, included biological testing.  In that case I
>>recommend the following:
>>Provided that:
>>a) All systems are essentially the same
>>b) All systems rely on the same water supply, and
>>c) There are no know, or recurring problems
>>Select an appropriate statistical sample, and on a weekly basis
>>select the appropriate number of units to test.  Based on that
>>sampling one
>>should be able to identify problematic units, and/or establish a more
>>precise sampling program.  This should drastically reduce the number
>>units tested.  This should, also, establish an appropriate due
>>Carl Zipfel csp
>>EHS Management Systems LLC
>   =====================================================
>Safety Emporium - Lab & Safety Supplies featuring brand names
>you know and trust.  Visit us at
>esales**At_Symbol_Here**  or toll-free: (866) 326-5412
>Fax: (856) 553-6154, PO Box 1003, Blackwood, NJ 08012

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.