Comments

Steven Serrano, CWT Mon, 12/7/15 - 14:27 The following commentary is specific for cooling towers that operate on a seasonal basis: The regulations state that a seasonally operated cooling tower should be inspected every 90 days (during normal operation). However, there is currently no requirement for an inspection to be conducted during the off season (prior to the tower’s start up date). Not conducting a cooling tower inspection prior to start up, may prove to be counterproductive in achieving the ultimate goal: Providing consistent water treatment applications, which safeguard a cooling tower from the development and proliferation of Legionella Pneumophila.  There are a multitude of reasons why an off season inspection would benefit the building owner of a cooling tower. For this commentary, I will provide 3 reasons why it would be beneficial to conduct off season cooling tower inspections. 1st reason: A water treatment company may have no other alternative but to run their chemical tubing outside and then this same tubing drops into the cooling tower basin. Unfortunately, there is a high inclination for this tubing to freeze and then crack during the winter. All chemical tubing lines should be inspected prior to start up. 2nd example: There are hundreds of water treatment stations that are located outside (next to the cooling tower) in the winter. These water treatment stations, water treatment devices, cooling tower manifolds, and valves may freeze and then crack. All of these necessary water treatment devices must be fully operational prior to a cooling tower’s start up. 3rd example: Ice may damage the plastic fill over the winter. If the fill is damaged, then this section of fill will need to be repaired/replaced prior to start up or this damage will leave the tower susceptible to more drift misting out of the eliminators. *** Taking into consideration the above noted commentary, it is highly recommended that the NY State and NYC law makers consider adding the following statement into the future rules: • One (1) off season cooling tower inspection should be conducted for seasonally operated cooling towers. This inspection should be conducted 4 – 6 weeks prior to the start up the seasonally operated cooling tower; this will allow enough time to correct problems found during the inspection. Steven Serrano, CWT President of Empire Cooling Tower Inspections and Services

Dan Coday Wed, 12/16/15 - 18:07 These amendments are helpful as they provide greater specificity on proper requirements for routine inspection, operation, maintenance, and water treatment. However, they lack a critical component of cooling tower Legionnaires’ disease risk mitigation, which is the specificity on minimum cooling tower design requirements. There is no meaningful deviation in acceptable design features contained within this document compared to the cooling towers associated with the 2015 outbreaks, the same basic design still being installed throughout NYC on a daily basis. As reported by the New York Times on October 1, 2015, a new cluster of Legionnaires’ disease took place in the Bronx less than two (2) months after the cooling towers were disinfected. Routine inspection, maintenance, and water treatment is not enough, and the root cause has to be addressed through minimum cooling tower design requirements. Cooling towers can feed, breed, and spread Legionella in an accelerated or limited manner, depending on their design. Readily available technology already commonly exists and is offered by the major manufacturers that substantially reduces the ability for the cooling tower to feed, breed, and spread Legionella. These design features that can help dramatically reduce the potential for a person to become infected with Legionnaires’ disease from a cooling tower are rarely installed. This is because they cost slightly more, are not in “base” specifications, and are not required by building code. Not all cooling towers have the exact same design, and design features for significantly reducing the feeding, breeding, and spreading of Legionella vary by design. Design features that allow almost any manufacturer to immediately participate in substantially reducing the ability for Legionella to feed, breed, or spread include: 1) Feed – scale and algae are commonly present in cooling towers and are primary food sources for Legionella. Many forced draft cooling towers block 100% of the sunlight contact from the circulating water, and therefore eliminate algae. Induced draft cooling towers can be outfitted with antimicrobial fill media and drift eliminators that substantially reduce scale build up. Require either a design that allows no sunlight to contact the water so algae is no longer present or the use of antimicrobial fill media and drift eliminators for reduced scale build up to significantly help the effectiveness of routine maintenance and water treatment.

Dan Coday Wed, 12/16/15 - 18:08 2) Breed – cold water basins commonly have stagnant zones, making it easy for bacteria to breed. Increased water velocity and turbulence in the basin can be accomplished making it more difficult for Legionella to breed. Require either the use of a “flow through” basin, sloped basin, or basin sweeper system to significantly help the effectiveness of routine maintenance and water treatment. Corrosion can be a source for breeding. Many cooling towers are constructed from galvanized metal and susceptible to corrosion. Although this can be a more expensive upgrade, consider requiring a minimum of 304 stainless steel or FRP (with fire sprinkler system if FRP and over 250 ft2 in base area) construction and compatible piping materials to reduce the possibility of corrosion to significantly help the effectiveness of routine maintenance and water treatment. 3) Spread – once Legionella feeds and breeds inside the cooling tower, it is spread from the cooling tower to the susceptible host through mist or drift. Section 8-04.c.e. calls for drift losses between 0.005% and 0.002%. This is already the same drift loss percentage in most base specifications and likely the cooling towers that caused the 2015 outbreaks. It doesn’t help. The major cooling tower manufacturers and OEM/aftermarket providers of drift eliminators promote drift eliminators with maximum drift loss of 0.0005%. Some variance may be needed for some designs based on specific applications. Require a maximum drift rate of 0.001% when operating at design conditions across the board for all cooling tower designs. This represents an average 71% reduction in the amount of mist or drift that’s able to travel from a cooling tower to a susceptible host. With 5,000 cooling towers registered, there is a cooling tower being installed, replaced or rebuilt almost every day in NYC. There are many additional minimum design feature requirements that can incrementally reduce the potential for Legionnaires’ disease from cooling towers. However, these are very simple and significantly meaningful requirements that can be added to building code now for new and replacement or rebuilt cooling towers to ensure a substantial reduction in the root cause feeding and breeding Legionella in cooling towers. When combined with 71% fewer emissions working in conjunction with Chapter 8 inspection, operating, maintenance, and water treatment guidelines, we hold the keys to substantially reducing Legionnaires’ disease from cooling towers.

Diane Miskowski Tue, 12/22/15 - 12:29 1) Using HPC dipsides may underestimate or overestimate HPC concentrations buy an order of magnitude or more. Also every different HPC dipslide manufaturer uses different formulations of agar; some use different formulations of "nutrient agar" while others use BCYE agar for HPC counts. These dipslides are not supported by consistent manufacturing processes nor are they supported by scientifically sound method verification or validation. I suggest that the use of dipslides be eliminated and replaced by HPC culture tests following Standard Methods for HPC Testing using Standard Plate Count Agar and following Standard Method specified shipping/holding time requirements. 2) Please define what you mean by Legionella species. Do you want all Legionella species identified and enumerated? Do you want all Legionella species serotypes identified and enumerated? 3) CDC and other international health agencies have conducted research that documents that potable water is responsible for more cases of Legionnaires' Disease than cooling towers. Do you have any plans to expand testing of roof top potable water storage tanks beyond coliform testing to also include HPC and Legionella testing. Do you have plans to include remedial action levels for those potable water storage tanks as well?

Julianna Belelieu Wed, 12/30/15 - 9:21 Please see attached comment letter from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Paul Errigo Wed, 12/30/15 - 9:45 Part I Based on the proposed rules we believe the following should be added to prevent human error and fatalities: • An integrated water treatment system should have a Fail-Safe redundancy of multiple levels. • This is important for many reasons. Bacteria can build up a tolerance and immunity to chemicals biocides over time. Utilizing multiple forms of biocide treatment increase the effectiveness of controlling and eliminating bacteria in cooling towers. • A Closed Loop side-stream filtration, either with Centrifugal Separators with micronic discharge filters or High Efficiency Multi-Media Filters, dedicated to clean the sump or basin of the tower and part of the Process Water. o This design returns filtered and treated water back to the system for water conservation as well. Particulates are collected in the Filter Bag Housing. • Combine the above side-stream filtration with an Electronic Descaling Frequency Resonator that restructures water molecules. This is so the calcium and magnesium carbonates, the most common form of scales and bio-film in process water, may precipitate and be filtered. This device would remove existing scales in pipes, tubes and in plates. Scaling and bio-film become the habitat for bacteria even after cooling towers are drained. When cooling towers are drained the bacteria lies dormant and multiplies again over time. This is similar to cases we have heard about last summer after a full cleaning. • Manifolded Basin Sweeper-Nozzles prevents stagnation of water in the basin and cleans majority of the basin area of particulates, sediments from the air and process water. In almost all cases bacteria is found lying in the stagnant areas of the cooling tower. • Integrating these side-stream filtration, electronic descaling and basin sweeping with any two of the following disinfection systems would ensure redundancy and fail-safe operation of the cooling tower by preventing and controlling growth of bacteria, molds and algae. The system would work in conjunction with current chemicals being used, namely: 1. Copper-Silver Ionization 2. Ultra-Violet Light 3. Ozonation

Paul Errigo Wed, 12/30/15 - 9:46 Part II Copper-Silver Ionization, Ultra-Violet Light, and Ozonation are non-chemical biocides recognized by regulating bodies and have been used by thousands building operators and industries. With the right sizing, application and dosing, these integrated water treatments could prove to be an effective tool in eradicating these problems in Cooling Tower operations and maintenance. At the same time the system would drastically reduce the chances of human error leading to fatalities originating from the cooling towers. Return on Investment (ROI) considering Water and Power Savings can be less than 5 years. These closed loop filtration with electronic descaling and basin sweeping systems could be retro-fitted with existing chemical treatment as a Hybrid System, making the non-chemical approach the fail-safe option to prevent fatalities. This option can also reduce water consumption by more than 30% of the total water being used in a building. 1. Benefits of these integrated system are the following: • Eradication of Bacteria, targeting Legionnaire’s disease in particular • pH balance with acceptable Langlier Saturation Index(LSI) and Ryznar Index(RI) for better corrosion and scaling control • Increased Equipment Life • Improved and Reliable System with Higher Efficiency • Reduced Maintenance and Labor Costs • Improved Chemical Control • Safe Environment • Water Savings of more than 30% in the building • Energy Savings of more than 5% in a building • 24/7 monitoring system with remote access that send indicators/markers of possible high bacteria These redundancies are justified by the resulting higher Cycles of Concentration that leads to balanced water chemistry with less make-up water, less bleed off and less sewer charges.

Paul Errigo Wed, 12/30/15 - 9:47 Part III References: 1. The use of Copper-Silver Ionization - Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations - US EPA Safe Water Drinking Act 2. CDC Updated Guideline and Best Practices for the Control of Legionella by Rand Corporation for Western 3. Pennsylvania, Oct 2014, Executive Summary, page X 4. ASHRAE/ANSI Standard 188-2015 Section 7 5. Cooling Tower Institute (CTI) Guideline: Best Practices for Control of Legionella, July 2008, Section IX 6. Legionella Exposure Control Plan, Sept 2013, Ohio state University EHS/OSIH Section 4.1 7. Dept of Energy, for Energy Consumption using Biofouling Thickness Chart and Savings calculation with the increase efficiency of heat transfer equipment. It is worthy to note that these references cited the alternative use of Copper-Silver Ionization, UV Lights, Electro-Magnetic Frequency devices, Ozonation with side-stream filtration. As a brief education on cooling towers: In a building envelope, the majority of cooling water passes through an open circuit cooling tower where used cooling water undergoes a thermal reduction of 10 degrees or more. A Cooling Tower operates like a wet scrubber that draws surrounding air that mixes with hot process water. It is through the contact of atmospheric air and cascading water inside the cooling tower that brings down airborne particles and waterborne debris, including dissolved solids to the water basin or sump. Because of inadequacies of water treatment in the majority of these buildings, the following hazards occur: • Incorrect water chemical balance • Buildup of scales and/or corrosion • Water stagnation, which breeds bacteria • Heat transfer becomes ineffective causing electrical draw to increase, thus decreasing efficiency • Clogged fills or tubes cause more water vapors drifting - more aerosols that may have bacteria that could affect air quality • Dilution of highly concentrated solubilized chemically-treated water leads to higher water usage by increase in bleed off and make up water Submitted by: Green Crown Water Systems, LLC Fluidyne

Daniel Avery Thu, 12/31/15 - 12:29 See the attached document from REBNY and BOMA/NY.

Paul Errigo Thu, 12/31/15 - 13:26 This question is about the section in the proposed rules and regulations to exclude side stream filtration. To single out and exclude side stream filtration has no benefit and actually hinders the ability to increase safety. Side stream filtration allows for increased redundancy which actually decrease chances of fatalities exponentially. This is bc all fatalities from legionella came from human error in form or another. This could mean the correct chemical was not present, the chemical could have been diluted, staffing could have been on vacation and someone not as proficient was in charge. There also could have been a build up of scaling and bio - film that was present and created a habit for bacteria to lay dominant until the right conditions were present to multiply. Side stream filtration might not need to be a mandatory solution, however this engineered solution to add to the safety of an overall system should not be excluded. Many best practices in collaborative reports that have been done as recent as 2014 by RAND organization with CDC, ASHRAE, and Cooling tower institute sight side stream filtration and associated forms of bacteria control as a best practice. Side stream filtration also allows for water conservation and energy measures. This is a global concern but even more of a concern in NYC where the aqueduct will be shut reducing almost half of the in coming water supply into NYC. In most commercial buildings cooling tower make up water can be responsible for as much as 50 percent.

Jack Soost Sun, 01/3/16 - 20:30 This is first of three comments. Ladies and Gentlemen, January 3, 2016 I offer the following comments relative to your November 20th notice proposing a new Chapter 8 (Cooling Towers) to Title 24 of the Rules of the City of New York. Your document for Maintenance of Cooling Towers appears to be well written and contains a great deal of useful information for Building Owners and Operators to consider and act upon. I do, however, believe that a few items need to be clarified and some sections deleted. You need to avoid the appearance of micro-managing and rely on the experience and qualifications of water treatment professionals. I offer the following. 1. The 1st, 3rd and 4th columns of Table 1 on pages 13 and 14 are quite similar to Appendix 4-A in the recent New York State Legionella regulations and the Legionella “Cooling Tower Control Strategy” guidelines as published by The Special Pathogens Laboratory (SPL). However, neither the NY State nor the SPL documents contain the bacteria testing data you show in your 2nd column. If fact, I have never seen such a comparison by anyone else. Please acknowledge your data source and validity for such data comparisons. All data I have seen shows very poor correlation between your Column 2 bacteria tests and Column 3 Legionella results. Also, on-site bacteria dip slides and laboratory HPC test results typically do not produce comparable test results with themselves or with Legionella. Bacteria dip slide manufacturers may use different formulations for their dip slide agar. Standard Methods for laboratory HPC tests can utilize different agars. Some tests may produce results in 2 days such as typical with dip slides whereas laboratory HPC tests may require 2 days or 5 to 7 days depending upon the agar used and testing objectives. In comparison to dip slides, laboratory HPC procedures can measure a wider range of bacteria types and can include biocide stressed organisms that can be cultured during the 5-7 day procedure. I recommend you consider deleting the 2nd column and let the water treatment professionals decide what bacteria tests they want to utilize to evaluate the effectiveness of their water treatment programs to best comply with your requirements for quarterly testing of Legionella.

Jack Soost Sun, 01/3/16 - 20:33 Here are my 2nd and 3rd comments. 2. Sections 8-04 (a) and 8-05 (f) (1) conflict. The first says “weekly” and the latter says “daily”. If a cooling system is equipped with a conductivity monitor (as most all are), weekly testing is adequate. Also, the “water Quality Parameters” listed at the end of Section 8-02 are examples and much more extensive than needed. For example, conductivity is an indirect measurement of total dissolved solids (TDS). Depending upon the type of water, TDS may be about 80% of the conductivity. Unfortunately, TDS tests require the expense of laboratory analysis and a week or longer to get the test result. Temperature and pH will not vary for a given system. The water treatment professional anticipates and considers fluctuations when designing the treatment program. ORP is not needed unless the water treater is utilizing ORP to control the halogen biocide feed. Test procedures do not exist for many biocide chemistries. The water treatment service company will test many other chemistry parameters monthly or quarterly to best understand the treatment program for corrosion and scale control. Weekly bacteriological indicator tests using dip slides should be adequate to estimate microbial content (as stated in Section 8-05 (f) (2)), but please do not incorporate this type of data in your Table 1. 3. Section 8-05 (e) Makeup Water includes the statement …”must install a drift eliminator”…. I cannot envision how a drift eliminator would be installed or needed in a reclaim water tank being used for tower makeup. Your Section 8-04 (e) already requires drift eliminators in the cooling towers. Why mention it in Section 8-05 (e)?

Zach Gallagher Sun, 01/3/16 - 22:34 Please see the attached comment letter and supporting documentation from Natural Systems Utilities. The purpose of this letter is to respond to Section 8-05(e): Make-up water and provide information about on-site water reclamation facilities and the use of reclaimed water within evaporative cooling towers. Our extensive testing indicates that these water reclamation facilities provide superior pathogen protection for cooling towers due to their on-site disinfection and continuous monitoring and that these water reclamation facilities should be encouraged as sources of supply for cooling tower make-up water.

Benny Castro Mon, 01/4/16 - 8:37 Please see attached .

William Pearson Mon, 01/4/16 - 10:44 Bill Pearson, CWT See attached PDF for comment.

Michael Tatch Mon, 01/4/16 - 11:40 Towers used by Dry Cleaners are significantly smaller than cooling towers used on large buildings. In addition, Dry Cleaners are small businesses where the owner does all the maintenance, etc. Some of the revised Rule 8 is beyond the ability and resources of the small tower owner. The attached comments attempt to provide a version for small tower owners that they can comply with, one that also accomplishes the goal of eliminating the spread of Legionella.

Robert Hoffmann Mon, 01/4/16 - 14:57 The following comments are submitted on behalf of Consolidated Edison Company of NY, Inc. (“Con Edison”): Con Edison owns and operates cooling towers that are part of the critical utility infrastructure. These units include providing cooling for underground power feeders and chilling for liquid natural gas storage. The continuous operation of these units is critical for reliable utility service. As such, Con Edison performs regular maintenance and water quality of testing of these units. These units are currently registered with NYC and NY State. (1) Proposed Section 8-04 requires a weekly visual inspection of all wetted surface within the cooling tower. Con Edison operates a process cooling tower at its liquid natural gas (LNG) plant used for the chilling of liquid natural gas from April through November. Con Edison also operates cooling towers used for the cooling of underground electrical feeder cables. These units cannot be shut down for a weekly inspection without negatively impacting utility system reliability. A partial visual inspection can be performed by opening access doors, but not all areas within the towers are visible from the access doors. We request consideration in the regulation for critical utility infrastructure cooling towers that cannot be shut down on a routine basis.

Robert Hoffmann Mon, 01/4/16 - 14:58 The following comments are submitted on behalf of Consolidated Edison Company of NY, Inc. (“Con Edison”): (2) Proposed Section 8-05 requires the daily treatment of cooling tower water with a biocide registered with New York State DEC. This section also specifically forbids the use of non-chemical water treatment devices. Con Edison currently operates a cooling tower at its LNG plant that uses Residual Oxygen Species (Ozone) as the daily water treatment method. This is an accepted and well established water treatment method in the potable water treatment industry. ROS can persist in water for up to 20 minutes while the cooling tower in question has a turnover rate of less than 3 minutes, thus ensuring that there is residual ROS in the system at all times that it is in operation. We request consideration in the regulation for the use of this technology as an acceptable equivalent to the use of a DEC approved chemical biocide for daily water treatment. As described below, chemical biocide can be harmful to the LNG infrastructure and may reduce reliability of the system. In the event of a positive legionella test, a chemical disinfection of the unit would be performed. (2A) The unit serves multiple shell and tube heat exchangers of varying metallurgy. The introduction of harsh oxydizers into the system risks degradation of the metal and system failure. Many components of this system are custom made and have a replacement lead time in excess of 2 years due to engineering and fabrication requirements. A failure of one of these components would endanger system reliability by removing the liquid natural gas (LNG) storage from the system. The LNG storage is used to provide additional supply to the system during peak demand and is an emergency backup supply should one of the main gas supply lines into the city be disrupted.

Robert Hoffmann Mon, 01/4/16 - 14:59 The following comments are submitted on behalf of Consolidated Edison Company of NY, Inc. (“Con Edison”): (3) Con Edison operates a cooling tower at its LNG plant that is covered by a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit. The cooling tower discharges water directly into the ground. For this reason, the unit uses the Residual Oxygen Species (ROS) system described above to eliminate the presence of chemicals in the discharge water. We request consideration in the regulation for all sites that are governed by a SPDES permit such that compliance with the proposed rule cannot violate the requirements of the SPDES permit. The SPDES permit holder can work with city and state agencies to determine an acceptable treatment method while maintaining compliance with all other regulations and permit requirements.

Robert Hoffmann Mon, 01/4/16 - 15:00 The following comments are submitted on behalf of Consolidated Edison Company of NY, Inc. (“Con Edison”): (4) The definition for “Responsible Person” in proposed section 8-02 discusses required daily water quality treatment measurements. Proposed Section 8-04(a) discusses “at least weekly” monitoring. Proposed Section 8-05(f) “Water Quality Monitoring” requires a daily test of pH, temperature and residual biocide. We request that the requirement for water quality testing be set to “at least weekly” as a daily water quality test is unnecessarily burdensome. The incubation period for legionella is 2 to 10 days. In a routinely maintained system, a weekly test would be sufficient to detect any irregularities and take corrective action.

Robert Hoffmann Mon, 01/4/16 - 15:01 The following comments are submitted on behalf of Consolidated Edison Company of NY, Inc. (“Con Edison”): (5) While the summary on page 3 of the proposed rule recognizes a difference between specifying new cooling towers with a drift eliminator and the difficulty of retrofitting a drift eliminator onto an existing cooling tower, proposed Section 8-04(e) “Aerosol and Mist Control” does not include this distinction. The addition of a drift eliminator onto an existing cooling tower requires an engineering evaluation to determine the feasibility of this modification without reducing the effectiveness of the unit to the point of eliminating its usefulness. If an engineering analysis determines that no manufacturer provided drift eliminator can be fitted to an existing unit without causing a significant negative impact on unit efficiency and effectiveness, then that unit would be exempt from the requirement.

Robert Hoffmann Mon, 01/4/16 - 15:02 The following comments are submitted on behalf of Consolidated Edison Company of NY, Inc. (“Con Edison”): (6) Proposed Section 8-06(b) requires a Legionella sample be tested and analyzed prior to the startup of a cooling tower that has been shutdown for 5 days or more. It can take up to 2 weeks to obtain the results of a Legionella test. Con Edison operates utility system critical cooling towers. The delay of an additional 2 weeks before bringing a unit back into service will negatively impact utility system reliability. We request the ability to test and clean the cooling tower and bring the unit into service prior to receiving the test results. If a positive legionella test result is received, additional disinfection would be carried out as indicated by the result. (6) Proposed Section 8-06(b) requires a Legionella sample be tested and analyzed prior to the startup of a cooling tower that has been shutdown for 5 days or more. It can take up to 2 weeks to obtain the results of a Legionella test. Con Edison operates utility system critical cooling towers. The delay of an additional 2 weeks before bringing a unit back into service will negatively impact utility system reliability. We request the ability to test and clean the cooling tower and bring the unit into service prior to receiving the test results. If a positive legionella test result is received, additional disinfection would be carried out as indicated by the result.

Eric Dlugosz Mon, 01/4/16 - 15:59 I am in favor of cooling towers regulation. I believe treatment should be required, along with monitoring. However, after reading the extensive rules that have been proposed, I believe some modifications should be made. Unfortunately, the timing of the law and the limited window for public comment, would not allow for complete technical debate on the merits of each rule. I believe that some rules regarding the constant circulation of systems and/or extremely low bacteria levels (Legionella counts 10x lower than past OSHA recommendations haven no proven benefit). It will lead to increased doses of microbiocides and/or excessive electrical consumption. This will lead to both water and carbon pollution. It is approximately 20 pounds of carbon/ pump-horsepower to operate a circulation pump with some pumps requiring more than 50hp. This will add over 1000 pounds of carbon into the atmosphere for every extra day that this pump is required to run. For some system this is more than 100,000 lbs of carbon per year! I believe daily testing has many merits. However, some facilities are not staffed seven days a week. This will be quite burdensome on owners and operators.

Tory Schira Mon, 01/4/16 - 16:02 LiquiTech Environmental has been successfully remediating and preventing Legionella bacteria in water for approximately 30 years. LiquiTech is proud to call most of NYC's top hospitals our client for the last couple decades, providing highly effective long term solutions that prevent the occurrence of Legionnaires Disease (LD) when the program is properly maintained. These facilities have proven that LD is a completely preventable public health problem when an effective disinfection program is effectively maintained by achieving the goal of no LD cases. We applaud the DOH for taking decisive action to address this significant public health concern. It is a good first step to improving public safety. We believe some important adjustments could make the regulation more pragmatic for building operators while simultaneously improving the outcomes by reducing the incidence of Legionnaire's Disease. Regarding the scope of exposure to Legionella, the causative agent. Historical records show that cooling towers account for less than 25% of Legionnaire's Disease cases. While this is an area of significant concern, greater consideration should be given to preventing Legionella in potable water systems. Potable drinking water systems have been identified as the source of many more cases of Legionnaire's Disease accounting for approximately 60% to 70% of overall cases and must be considered in order to reduce the overall impact of LD. Additionally, many experts believe that because cooling towers tend to result in larger clusters of cases they are historically more easily implicated in outbreaks. As testing for LD intensifies, it is predicted that we will catch more cases associated with potable water and cooling towers will account for even less of the overall cases of LD as a percentage. We are confident that the 323% increase from 2005-2014 is a result of greater awareness and better detection of a pre-existing problem, not that LD is actually occurring more, its just being detected more. Biocides should also be appropriately registered with US EPA Office of Pesticides Program for the effective control specifically against Legionella. Biocides without this registration have not met US EPA requirements under FIFRA and have not demonstrated an effective capability to control Legionella. Additionally, unregistered treatment methods are prohibited from making any claims against Legionella and cannot be installed for this purpose. Without an automated system, a daily testing regimen should be reconsidered as it is overkill from a monitoring control standpoint, may not be feasible for many facilities and will likely be too burdensome for others. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Tim Keane Mon, 01/4/16 - 16:15 see attached document

Roger Caiazza Mon, 01/4/16 - 16:33 Comments are attached

paul lamarca Mon, 01/4/16 - 16:43 Dear nycdoh, my family and I run a small FSE in Manhattan.Years ago the city started a water conservation program and we were told that all water-cooled refrigeration equipment would be required to use a water recirculation system in order to save water.We use water cooled equipment because it is more energy efficient, which it seems to be encouraged now by the city.Our cooling tower is the smallest(7 tons capacity) that was commercially available at the time, a little bigger than a standard refrigerator.we have always cleaned and maintained the system ourselves because it operates more efficiently when it is clean.The recent problems with very large Air Conditioning system cooling towers that were not being maintained in NYC has caused concern and we feel we are being unfairly included in this group.The nycdoh should realize that all cooling tower systems are not the same and should draft their new regulations accordingly, possibly by size and configuration, proximity to hospitals,ect.We understand the concerns of the nycdoh to protect the public from health hazards caused by improperly maintained equipment,but just as all restaurants are inspected and graded on their performance maintaining their cleanliness and food protection practices,so should cooling tower systems on their size,use and the realistic risk they could possibly pose to their immediate areas.Thank you for allowing me to comment on this ongoing issue,Paul LaMarca, plant manager,Lamarca Pasta Inc. 161 e 22nd st. NY NY 10010, 212 673 7920