12VAC5-590-600 Cross connection control program requirements 

D. Instead of annual operational tests (12VAC5-590-600 C) and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), the owner may provide a public education program to residential and commercial consumers whose premise plumbing is not complex and where there are no known or suspected high hazards as identified in Table 630.1. For all other residential consumers, the department may approve a public education program provided by the owner as part of the CCCP.

This statement can be misconstrued and could lead to a dangerous situation.  This could lead an owner to implement a program in which backflow prevention assemblies are not required to be tested annually. All backflow prevention assemblies need to be tested annually! These devices are required to be installed in systems meeting the criteria, so why would it not need to be tested if it is installed? If a device is required, it's required for a reason, and therefore, should be tested to ensure it's working to prevent "the reason".

Evidence has shown these devices fail periodically. A failed device can fail to prevent the cross connection of hazardous conditions into the water system. 

The use of the term "high hazards" in this statement is ambiguous. The table referenced can be interpreted many different ways. Since the types of hazards are not specifically listed in the table, an owner could interpret a specific hazard to be "low", simply to avoid implementing a proper program with record keeping of annual testing of devices. The "public education program" could be used as a loophole for owners who may not have a proper program in place or choose not to implement one.

1. The public education program shall be designed to prompt consumer self-assessments, increase the awareness of cross-connections, and inform the consumer of the public health hazards of backflow.

As someone in the industry for over 20 years, I have never seen such a program. Should such a program be implemented, even in it's most effective method, it should be apparent to any objective party that "consumer self-assements" is an unrealistic ask. If we were to rely on consumers to "do the right thing" then why would any of these regulations even exist? It needs to be up to the owner, not the consumer, to ensure the owner's system and the public's safety is protected from hazards.

For all other residential consumers, the department may approve a public education program provided by the owner as part of the CCCP.

I don't understand this statement. The previous statement references consumers where there is no known or suspected high hazard. This would imply that "all other residential consumers" means those where there are known or suspected high hazard present. Does this mean the department will approve the public education program, in lieu of, annual testing records and a proper CCCP even for consumers with high hazards!? I may be reading it incorrectly, but it's ambiguous at best.

In summary, please consider eliminating or rewording this entire section ...

12VAC5-590-600 Cross connection control program requirements 

D. Instead of annual operational tests (12VAC5-590-600 C) and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), the owner may provide a public education program to residential and commercial consumers whose premise plumbing is not complex and where there are no known or suspected high hazards as identified in Table 630.1. For all other residential consumers, the department may approve a public education program provided by the owner as part of the CCCP.

The following proposed regulation statement has  potential to create additional hazards by allowing for interpretation as to who has a complex plumbing system, and who knows (or doesn't) about "known or suspected" high hazards.

It's understandable that Backflow Prevention Assemblies (BPA) annual testing can be viewed as frustrating or inconvenient, much similar to the Virginia registered automobile safety inspection program, in which both programs require that equipment shall be verified in good mechanical working condition, annually.  The only way to verify that a BPA is operating as designed is to perform an annual test.  Through my experience in the industry, education will not take the place of insuring a BPA functions correctly, or identify where a BPA should be installed. Please consider the proposed regulation to provide concise direction and hazard identification through table 630.1, while requiring annual inspection/test of a BPA.

Proposed:   

D. Instead of annual operational tests (12VAC5-590-600 C) and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), the owner may provide a public education program to residential and commercial consumers whose premise plumbing is not complex and where there are no known or suspected high hazards as identified in Table 630.1. For all other residential consumers, the department may approve a public education program provided by the owner as part of the CCCP.

12VAC5-590-1170 Hydrants:

Hanover County is concerned that the proposed changes will lead to fire hydrant drains being plugged regularly. The plugging of fire hydrants drains will lead to operational issues for the utility as hydrants will have to be regularly pumped to avoid freezing and posing extreme danger to the community and fire fighters when hydrants are found frozen much more when they are used for firefighting activities.  Weep holes are an engineered solution to prevent the potential for hydrants to freeze and minimize the risk of backflow. Once that engineered solution is bypassed, the likelihood for problems increases dramatically.  The risk of contamination through a hydrant drain to the water system does not out way the risk of a hydrant freezing and not being functional when needed to serve its primary purpose.

Hanover County recommends that 12VAC5-590-1170 be changed to read:

1. Where hydrant drains are not plugged, they shall be drained to the ground surface or to subsurface stone filled wells or other engineered solutions provided exclusively for this purpose.
2. Hydrant drains shall not be connected to sanitary sewers or storm drains.
3. Fire hydrants shall be connected only to water mains adequately designed for fire flows in accordance with the requirements of 12VAC5-590-1120 B.

12VAC5-590-600 Cross-Connection Control Programs:

Hanover County is concerned that that the proposed regulations require that all waterworks track annual testing for backflow devices for residential irrigation systems unless ODW approves a public education program. We estimate that Hanover would need to add 2-3 employees to move from our current public education program to a tracking program as proposed. We don’t believe this is the best use of limited resources with the many challenges that we face. We recommend that waterworks have the option to choose whether to track the annual testing of backflow devices for residential customers or utilize a public education system at their discretion rather than the ODW discretion. We suggest that section 12VAC5-590-600 D. be changed to read:

D. Instead of annual operational tests (12VAC5-590-600 C) and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), the owner has the option to provide a public education program to residential consumers.  The owner may also provide a public education program, instead of annual operational tests and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), to commercial consumers whose premise plumbing is not complex and where there are no known or suspected high hazards as identified in Table 630.1.

Water system utility owners and operators can do everything right, proper and compliant for 364 days a year, but they will only be remembered for the one day when everything goes terribly wrong.  It is a cross that we in the water industry will always bear.  When it comes to Backflow prevention, our regulations must remain strong.  We can not sit back and allow high hazards to be interpreted by just anyone.  Consumer self-assements will not be enough to protect our water supply.  Backflow devices need to be installed correctly and to the specific hazard they are preventing.  All Backflow devices must be tested annually and by a certified tester to prevent creating additional hazards.  Let's make a difference by protecting our drinking water, thank you. 

Let me begin with my appreciation to the members of WAC for their hard work and diligence in the preparation of the regulatory changes to the water works. This is a daunting task and a lot of effort has been put into these thoughts and proposed changes. I strongly support the Cross Connection Control and Backflow Prevention industry and I am deeply concerned for the safety of our drinking water.

My comments are as follows:

12VAC5-590-580, with regard to para "A" - striking the approval requirements for permitting should I assume that the CCCP will no longer have to be approved by the department (VDH) and if approval is needed what would the process be?

12VAC5-590-590, with regard to para "D" - this paragraph should be withdrawn from the proposed regulatory change. Replacing minimum testing requirements with educational programs is irresponsible at best. Although a public education program should be integral part of any CCCP it does nothing to ensure that all of the mechanical devices that are put in place to protect the safe drinking water from backflow are performing as designed. Backflow preventers have a specific purpose from protecting low to high hazards as well as protecting from backsiphonage and/or backpressure. Testing by a certified technician with an approved and certified test kit is the only way to determine if a backflow prevention assembly is working properly and this must be done after installation, after repairs or maintenance or at a minimum annually. These standards are repeated throughout the industry by the manufacturers, industry associations and labs. (USC, ASSE, etc.) The requirement for testing must not be reduce in any way and in most cases needs reinforcing through tighter legislation and more aggressive enforcement.

The residential communities are feared by the very departments and people that are entrusted to protect them and with regards to the residential lawn systems the sheer numbers of backflows not being tested annually is grossly negligent.  Corpus Christi is a prime example of what not to do with regards to testing annually.

12VAC5-590-610 - Containment of backflow. This section can only work if the "Owner" and USBC officials come together in a common effort to enforce backflow prevention. This is an ongoing effort with some jurisdictions having a good working relationship with code officials and having a common interest in protecting the drinking water but in a lot of cases this does not happen and I see nothing here that will change that. Perhaps language that would promote the code officials communication with the owner and the owner taking responsibility for enforcement and record keeping.

One point of interest to add would be for the jurisdictions to not apply devices on connections with simple plumbing and that meet USBC. This is a wasteful practice and gives the jurisdiction a false sense of security and can in some cases create a hardship on the resident. (Hot water heater T&P valves)

with regards to para "E" - Why are we removing "Lawn Sprinkler systems"? Wording can get lost in a paragraph but on a list it is easier to locate. Removing or striking from the regulation can lead people to think that it is no longer necessary. Lawn sprinkler systems are high hazards even without chemical additives and again as mentioned earlier their numbers are insurmountable.

12VAC5-590-630, with regards to para "A" - shall comply with the USBC.  The USBC should not have authority over containment assemblies. That authority should be with the owner.

I will conclude that in my years of working throughout the Commonwealth I have had many conversations with CCC Managers that desired more guidance from state in order for them to better organize and enforce their programs and perhaps standardize the CCCP in Virginia. What I have read and understand with regard to the proposed changes that there are some good and some not so good changes. I would respectfully request that the WAC add Cross Connection Professionals to the board and that the state appoint a Cross Connection Director Office dealing specifically with backflow prevention. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and listening previously to Chesterfield County Utilities' and Chesterfield County Fire Department's concerns regarding plugging fire hydrant drains. The Chesterfield County Utilities Department offers the following regarding the Waterworks Regulations Amendments and Updates. 

12VAC5-590-1170 Hydrants:

The Chesterfield County Utilities Department is concerned that the proposed additional language will require fire hydrant drains, aka weep holes, to be plugged unnecessarily due to high groundwater and surface flooding and ponding.  These are frequently seasonal conditions or happen periodically when there are periods of heavy precipitation.  These conditions do not present a hazard of contaminating the fire hydrant barrel.  If the groundwater were to become contaminated, once the fire hydrant is utilized, the pressurized water system would quickly force the water from the barrel.  If the hydrant drains are plugged and water remains in the hydrant, it would be susceptible to a complete blockage by ice during periods of below freezing temperatures.  Relying on manual removal of the water from the hydrant is not a practical solution. The weep holes are an engineered solution to automatically remove water from the fire hydrant barrel to prevent freezing.  Frozen hydrants are believed to be a higher risk to public safety. The plugging of fire hydrants drains also may cause the fire hydrant to become pressurized if the hydrant foot valve were to have a leak.  This puts utility workers and fire fighters at risk if they remove the hydrant cap and are not aware the hydrant was pressurized.  In conclusion, the risk of contamination through a fire hydrant drain to the water system does not out way the risk of a fire hydrant freezing and not being functional when needed to serve its primary purpose of protecting life and property from damage by fire.

The Chesterfield County Utilities Department recommends that 12VAC5-590-1170 be changed to read:

1. Where hydrant drains are not plugged, they shall be drained to the ground surface or to dry wells provided exclusively for this purpose. (Leave language as-is; no change recommended)
2. Hydrant drains shall not be connected to sanitary sewers or storm drains.
3. Fire hydrants shall be connected only to water mains adequately designed for fire flows in accordance with the requirements of 12VAC5-590-1120 B. (Agree with proposed language change)

12VAC5-590-600 Cross-Connection Control Programs:

The Chesterfield County Utilities Department requests that the proposed regulations provide the owner an educational program option to satisfy requirements for residential customers of their Cross-Connection Control Program.  This program is reviewed periodically by the Virginia Department of Health’s Office of Drinking Water.  Residential customers are generally required to adhere to the cross-connection control program due to their landscape and lawn irrigation systems.  We believe that the best use of our resources should be dedicated to protecting the utility system from the commercial/non-residential users with complex plumbing systems or are suspected to be high hazards.  An educational program should be allowed for residential customers at the owner’s discretion rather than at the Office of Drinking Water’s discretion.

The Chesterfield Utilities Department suggests that section 12VAC5-590-600 D. be changed to read:

D. Instead of annual operational tests (12VAC5-590-600 C) and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), the owner has the option to provide a public education program to residential consumers.  The owner may also provide a public education program, instead of annual operational tests and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), to commercial consumers whose premise plumbing is not complex and where there are no known or suspected high hazards as identified in Table 630.1.

In conjunction with the proposed changes requested to section 12VAC5-590-600 D., the Chesterfield County Utilities Department suggest that section 12VAC5-590-600 G. be changed to read:

G. Except for options allowed in 12VAC5-590-600.D., the owner shall maintain an inventory and records of testing, repairs, and maintenance of all backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices required and installed under 12VAC5-590-610.

Hanover County Fire-EMS supports initiatives aimed to increase the safety of the community to include safeguards from water contamination.  Consumers yield to the Utility and the regulatory authority to establish comprehensive laws that do not increase known risks.  Although 15 VAC5-59-1170 – Hydrants is intended to increase safety, the proposed language change decreases safety by increasing system failure.  Not to mention, a decrease in reliability and in overall increase in maintenance. 

The proposed language requires the Utility to either remove, relocate, or prevent contaminants from entering the water system by plugging the hydrants’ drain valve.  In many cases, removal or relocation is not an option as it may affect system maintenance or even service demand by emergency responders. Moreover, plugging of drain valve has an increased risk to the system.  Drain valve are engineered on dry barrel hydrants to protect the system and improve reliability during freezing conditions by allowing the hydrant drain.  Thus, returning the hydrant to its native “dry” barrel.  If the drain valve is plugged, water will remain in the barrel which will create an environment to freeze during winter months.

Another consequence to plugging the drain valve is the increase maintenance demand.  The maintenance demand will increase as plugged hydrants will need to be pumped out after each use to prevent freezing.  Currently, the drain valve is engineered as a self-maintaining feature that allows for automatic water drainage.  Inevitability, the increased maintenance cost will be passed to the consumer.  Furthermore, drain holes are designed to be located on the dry side of the main valve.  Therefore, decreasing the risk of contaminants entering the water system. 

In conclusion, Hanover County Fire-EMS does not support the proposed language change to 15 VAC5-59-1170 – Hydrants.  The proposed language change creates an unsafe environment by circumventing an engineered feature designed to maintain reliability in all environments.  Thus, decreasing the reliability and unnecessarily increasing the risk to the community.  Hanover County Fire-EMS echo’s the recommended language to read: “Where hydrant drains are not plugged, they shall be drained to the ground surface or to subsurface stone filled wells or other engineered solutions provided for this purpose”.

Respectfully,

Jethro H. Piland, III, Fire Chief

Christopher J. Anderson, Chief Fire Marshal

Chesterfield Fire and EMS is concerned that language changes within 12VAC-590-1170 may lead to engineered weep holes being plugged and subsequently having fire hydrants highly susceptible to freezing during cold weather. We recommend that no language be added that would imply or indicate that weep holes should be plugged. 

Weep holes are an engineered solution to prevent water accumulation within fire hydrants so they would not be susceptible to freezing, removing this engineered design would require that water removal be a manual process. Relying on a manual process over an engineered solution is not the most effective means to drain hydrants. We believe the probability and risk of having a frozen hydrant far outweighs the risk of contamination through a weep holes

12VAC5-590-600. D. Cross Connection Control Program Responsibilities.

The James City Service Authority is concerned about this paragraph.  Irrigation systems are high hazards – period.  They are exposed to everything in or on the ground to include insects, animal feces, animal urine, and other chemical and biological contaminants.  They also may be subject to various onsite conditions such as additional water supplies, booster pumps, and elevation changes.  In addition, many are used to feed highly toxic fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.  In most instances, without the consent or knowledge of the water system owner.  These systems are required to have a backflow prevention assembly (BPA) for a reason - because they are a high hazard.  They have been identified as such by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) for nearly 40 years.  The hazard an irrigation system presents to the waterworks doesn’t change based on whether it is zoned commercial or residential.  Given the fact that they are clearly identified as a high hazard, this section, or any other section in these regulations should not be allowed to substitute a public education system for the required testing of irrigation system BPA’s.  The safety of the consumer should be paramount, regardless of staffing requirements.  How much will it cost if one or more of these chemicals are back-flowed into one of our distribution systems?  If, for the sake of argument, cost is a consideration for some municipalities, then we would point out the many companies that offer programs that can manage and track their cross connection control program with little, or even no cost for the municipality.   

To conclude, it’s an unfortunate fact that water distribution systems experience breaks on a somewhat frequent basis.  When these breaks occur, it is a fair assumption that in many of these cases water is being back-siphoned back into our distribution systems.  It is an undeniable fact.  These breaks do not only occur on water lines serving commercial properties.  Do we want to hope that the irrigation systems hazards noted above are being controlled because we sent the irrigation system owner an educational letter, or know we are protected because we ensured they were tested each year?  Educational programs are a great way to enlighten consumers about the potential hazards associated with cross connections for properties that are without any known high hazards.  An irrigation system simply does not fall into that category.  The original regulations required that they be tested and tracked annually.  There was a Working Memo (WM801) developed by the VDH that required that they be tested and tracked annually.  If we want to keep our distribution systems safe, we should ensure that they continue to be tested and tracked at least annually.  We suggest it be changed to read:

D. Instead of annual operational tests (12VAC5-590-600 C) and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), the owner may provide a public education program to residential and commercial consumers whose premise plumbing is not complex and where there are no known or suspected high hazards as identified in 12VAC5-590-610 C. through 12VAC5-590-610 E. or Table 630.1.   

12VAC5-590-610. E. Containment of backflow.

The James City Service Authority is concerned about this section.  Item 11 as written can leave potential hazardous situations as not requiring adequate protection.  We suggest it be changed to state:

Item 11.  Buildings with commercial, mixed use, industrial, or institutional occupants served through a master meter.

Additionally, the proposed wording at item 21 is not as concise as it was under the original regulation.  The pressure created through elevation does not change for buildings above 3 stories based on the classification of use.  The concerning backpressure that can be created is the same no matter what type of building it is.  The proposed wording can create future loopholes in the requirement.  We suggest to leave it as it is currently written in the existing cross connection regulations:

Item 21. Highrise buildings (four or more stories).

12VAC5-590-630 B.3. Backflow prevention assemblies, devices, and backflow elimination methods for containment.

The James City Service Authority is concerned about this paragraph. The protection of our water distribution systems should be of the highest priority.  As such, we should want to ensure that the assemblies we utilize meet the highest quality approval standards.  No other approval listing meets the standards as set forth by the University of Southern California’s Foundation for Cross Connection Control and Hydraulic Research (USC CCC&FHR).  Their rigorous testing program emphasizes what is the most important aspect of the BPA’s we select to protect our water systems – does it actually work as it is designed under all possibilities of conditions and usage.  AT the USC CCC&FHR the various sized BPA’s are tested at various temperatures, pressures, and orientations.  Most importantly they are field tested for one year so that we can be assured that it will continue to function properly over an extended time frame, and under the harsh field conditions that they are subject to be exposed to.  It is under this final stage of field testing that upwards of thirty percent of the submitted BPA’s fail to meet the standards.  Since after the initial installation, or after repairs or relocation, we only require our BPA’s be tested annually, shouldn’t we want to have a containment BPA that has met this criteria?  The VDH developed a Working Memo (WM801) that required this designation for our containment assembly.  It stated:

Approved Containment Devices. Containment devices under the jurisdiction of the Waterworks Regulations (12 VAC 5-590-620) are those which meet AWWA standards, hold ASSE approval, and have an approval from the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross Connection Control and Hydraulic Research (USC). USC Foundation members are kept up to date on approvals. Otherwise, the supplier or manufacturer can supply approval documentation. NOTE: USC device approval is specific to orientation, horizontal or vertical, device model number and size. Approvals are continuously verified and can be rescinded.

The USC CCC&FHR no longer requires membership to access their approved listings, and it is a valuable tool that is available for all to utilize.  We suggest the standard that was set by the VDH in its WM801 be similarly transferred to replace the current wording:

12VAC5-590-630 B. 3. Containment devices under the jurisdiction of the Waterworks Regulations are those which meet AWWA standards, hold ASSE approval, and have an approval from the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross Connection Control and Hydraulic Research (USC).  NOTE:  USC device approval is specific to orientation, horizontal and vertical, device model, number and size.  Approvals are continuously verified and can be rescinded.

Henrico County Utilities Department is concerned that the proposed changes will lead to fire hydrant drains being plugged regularly. The plugging of fire hydrants drains will lead to maintenance and operational issues for the utility as hydrants will have to be regularly pumped to avoid freezing and posing extreme danger to the community and fire fighters when hydrants are used for firefighting activities and are found to be frozen more often .  Weep holes are an engineered solution to prevent the potential for hydrants to freeze and minimize the risk of backflow. Once that engineered solution is bypassed, the likelihood for problems increases dramatically.  The risk of contamination through a hydrant drain to the water system does not outweigh the risk of a hydrant freezing and not being functional when needed to serve its primary purpose.

Henrico County Utilities Department recommends that 12VAC5-590-1170 be changed to read:

1. Where hydrant drains are not plugged, they shall be drained to the ground surface or to subsurface stone filled wells or other engineered solutions provided exclusively for this purpose.
2. Hydrant drains shall not be connected to sanitary sewers or storm drains.
3. Fire hydrants shall be connected only to water mains adequately designed for fire flows in accordance with the requirements of 12VAC5-590-1120 B.

The Henrico County Utilities Department requests that the proposed regulations be clarified regarding the owner’s provision of an educational program option to satisfy requirements for residential customers of their Cross- Connection Control Program. This program is reviewed periodically by the Virginia Department of Health’s Office of Drinking Water. Residential customers are generally required to adhere to the cross- connection control program due to their landscape and lawn irrigation systems.  We believe that the best use of our resources should be dedicated to protecting the utility system from the commercial/non- residential users with complex plumbing systems and/or with suspected high hazards.  The following modifications to the proposed regulation clarify the intent that an educational program be allowed for residential customers at the owner’s discretion rather than at the Office of Drinking Water’s discretion.

The Henrico County Utilities Department suggests that section 12VAC5-590-600 D. be changed to read:

D. Instead of annual operational tests (12VAC5-590-600 C) and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), the owner has the option to provide a public education program to residential consumers. The owner may also provide a public education program, instead of annual operational tests and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), to commercial consumers whose premise plumbing is not complex and where there are no known or suspected high hazards as identified in Table 630.1.

In conjunction with the proposed changes requested to section 12VAC5-590-600 D., the Henrico County Utilities Department suggest that section 12VAC5-590-600 G. be changed to read:

G. Except for options allowed in 12VAC5-590-600.D., the owner shall maintain an inventory and records of testing, repairs, and maintenance of all backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices required and installed under 12VAC5-590-

610.

Mission H₂O appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the Virginia Department of Health (“VDH”) Waterworks Regulation. Mission H₂O is an informal stakeholder group focused on the management of Virginia’s water resources and, in particular, developments affecting water supply and water availability. Mission H₂O has a broad membership that ranges from municipal water providers and water supply professionals to manufacturers and agricultural operations. Many of our members operate in accordance with waterworks operating permits issued by VDH, and Mission H₂O is an active participant with the VDH-commissioned Waterworks Advisory Committee.

The Waterworks Regulations serve as an important component of assuring that citizens can obtain safe drinking water.  These regulations have not been comprehensively updated since 1993.  The changes that VDH is proposing are necessary and Mission H₂O supports the proposed revisions.  The changes have been reviewed and considered by numerous stakeholders since the time the amendment process was initiated in 2014.  Mission H₂O members have been active participants throughout this process, and appreciated the opportunity to work with VDH staff on the proposed revisions.

Safe Yield

During the regulatory development process, there was much discussion about the safe yield of surface water sources (12 VAC 5-590-830.A.2).  At the heart of the discussion was the question of the respective roles and responsibilities of VDH and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) in determining source water availability and the authorized volume of withdrawal.  Mission H₂O supports VDH’s decision to retain this provision as currently drafted.  Entities subject to the waterworks regulation have the experience and expertise to develop the safe yield assessment required by the regulations and satisfy this requirement. 

The purpose of the Waterworks Regulation is to ensure that the citizens of Virginia have safe, reliable drinking water.  The regulation as drafted requires entities subject to the regulation to make a demonstration that their facility is able to safely and reliably provide drinking water. Broader questions regarding water rights, water withdrawal permitting and water allocation should be addressed outside the waterworks regulation.  Mission H₂O has suggested that a broader stakeholder group be convened to address these issues, and remains willing to participate in such a meeting with VDH and DEQ. 

Waterworks Advisory Committee   

Mission H₂O supports the inclusion of provisions regarding the Waterworks Advisory Committee (“WAC”) (12VAC5-590-45).  The WAC has been an important opportunity for stakeholder involvement in issues affecting drinking water providers.  Having industry experts with extensive experience provide input to VDH related processes assists VDH staff in identifying gaps in statutes, policies and regulations and making improvements to the waterworks program.   Mission H₂O would welcome the opportunity to have a representative serve on the WAC.

Definitions

The definition of “source water” found at 12 VAC 5590-10 appears to reference only surface water sources.  The definition should be revised to make clear that source water can be either surface water or groundwater.

Practical Implementation

As noted above, Mission H₂O supports the updates to the Waterworks Regulation, and agrees that they are needed for consistency with federal requirements and to more accurately reflect actual practice.  Nonetheless, the changes that are proposed are significant.  Mission H₂O urges VDH to take a practical approach to the implementation of these regulations.  Waterworks have enjoyed a collaborative working relationship with VDH, focused on the shared goal of ensuring Virginia’s citizens have safe and reliable drinking water.  Maintaining that focus as these regulations are implemented will be of critical importance. 

Fire Hydrants

Several of our members are concerned about the proposed amendment to 12 VAC 5-590-1170.A addressing fire hydrants.  Many fire hydrants include weep holes or drain holes, designed to provide an outlet for any residual water, preventing harm to the hydrant should it freeze.  Thus, plugging these holes creates a public health risk.  Mission H₂O requests that the existing language in 1170.A remain unchanged.    

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed revisions to the waterworks regulation. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at Andrea.Wortzel@troutman.com or (804) 697-1406.

The City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities (Richmond DPU) fully endorses the comments submitted December 17, 2019 by Steve Herzog, Hanover County Department of Public Utilities Director, and available at https://townhall.virginia.gov/L/viewcomments.cfm?commentid=78531.

Therefore, Richmond DPU joins in recommending that 12VAC5-590-1170 and 12VAC5-590-600 D read as follows:

 12VAC5-590-1170

1. Where hydrant drains are not plugged, they shall be drained to the ground surface or to subsurface stone filled wells or other engineered solutions provided exclusively for this purpose.

2. Hydrant drains shall not be connected to sanitary sewers or storm drains.
3. Fire hydrants shall be connected only to water mains adequately designed for fire flows in accordance with the requirements of 12VAC5-590-1120 B.

12VAC5-590-600 D (in its entirety, without any subsections)

2. Instead of annual operational tests (12VAC5-590-600 C) and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), the owner has the option to provide a public education program to residential consumers.  The owner may also provide a public education program, instead of annual operational tests and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices (12VAC5-590-600 G), to commercial consumers whose premise plumbing is not complex and where there are no known or suspected high hazards as identified in Table 630.1.

How serious is the state in protecting our drinking water?

What is the cost of even one contamination?

Residential lawn irrigation is not only a high hazard (pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, animal feces, mold, and other soil contaminates), but conditions change constantly. Backflow devices not only fail to operate over time, but any change to an existing irrigation system can result in a backflow device falling out of compliance. An annual visit by a state-certified backflow tester is needed not only to test the device, but make sure the device is in compliance with current regulations. Basically, every homeowner with a lawn irrigation system, would not only need to be able to pass the state certification exam (administered to backflow prevention specialists), but also have a working knowledge of lawn irrigation. A "public education program", as the sole source of backflow prevention, would be inadequate and potentially dangerous. 

If there are concerns about the cost and implementation of this cross-connection and backflow prevention program, all you need to do is study the success of the program at James City County. Since 2008, residential lawn irrigation systems have been tested and cataloged with minimal cost to the homeowners and run by a very lean and efficient team of two. I can't see how a well-run "public education program" would cost any less than a well-run cross-connection department. And here I ask the question again, "What would be the cost of even one incident of contamination?". 

Minimum 50% media expansion is very high and above typical AWWA recommendations of 20-30% and there is not necessarily significantly improved media scouring at higher expansions. Surface water plants would also find it difficult if not impossible to reach 50% expansion in summer months due to water temperature.

I'm assuming that operational backwash strategies and physical positioning of backwash troughs are adequate methods for avoiding media loss through backwash.  I think it would be useful to clarify that methods can include operational strategies, filter design, or equipment installed on the troughs if the intent is to allow any of these as acceptable methods to prevent media loss.

Please do not leave the safety of drinking water to public education programs. There are too many people who don't even what backflow protection is and to leave this extremely important, life threatening matter to informational packets, mailed letters that will never be read and websites that people won't check is irresponsible. There are many severe and even deadly health threats that can come from unprotected residential irrigation systems. These systems must have backflow protection device tests that are tracked by municipalities and must be stated in the regulations as high hazards because they absolutely are high hazard. Please revise the amendments to ensure that the residential irrigation systems must be protected and the testing of the devices must be tracked.

The City of Virginia Beach Public Utilities Department considers residential irrigation systems to be high hazards that need to be regulated in order to protect the drinking water system. These systems which likely aren't complex can have severe and even deadly contaminants enter the water system (i.e. animal urine and feces, pesticides and other chemicals). These systems must have backflow prevention devices that are tested annually and are tracked through the municipality. In a city with over 450,000 people, a public outreach program will be extremely difficult and costly but more importantly it will not be sufficient enough to protect the drinking water system. The regulations need to state that residential irrigation systems are high hazards that need to have their backflow devices tested annually and submitted to the municipality for tracking. It is all of our responsibility to protect the drinking water system which includes protection from all irrigation systems.

There are two separate, but related, issues associated with this section of the proposed regulations.

At the very least, and by far of most importance, is the recommendation that the last sentence of the paragraph be removed entirely. Leaving the sentence in place and unchanged is extremely ambiguous, and is likely to be interpreted that an educational program may be used in lieu of testing a residential backflow assembly that protects a potentially high-hazard situation. The first sentence of the Section focuses on situations where the "... premise plumbing is not complex and where there are no known or suspected high hazards...". The opening phrase of sentence #2 "... for all other residential consumers..." clearly implies the reverse of sentence #1; i.e., instances of complex premise plumbing and/or potential high hazards. Even the most robust educational program can never serve to replace the need for regular testing of a backflow assembly, particularly in a high-hazard situation.

Elimination of the last sentence of this Section will be a significant improvement. However, there is still concern with sentence #1 as a stand-alone sentence. While an educational effort will always be beneficial, if a backflow assembly has been installed, regardless of the level of potential hazard, the assembly needs to be tested on an annual basis. If the assembly is not to be tested, it needs to be removed.      

The City of Lynchburg appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Revisions to the VDH Waterworks Regulations.

In the interest of public safety we oppose the changes to 12VAC5-590-600.D. Specifically we oppose allowing the substitution of education programs for the annual testing and record keeping requirement.  The determination of whether the premise plumbing is not complex is subjective and allowing options opens water utilities further scrutiny and conflict over our CCCP.  A review of a high hazard from Table 630.1, reinforces the need for annual operational tests, and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices.

As a result of irrigation, irrigation-related, and fire sprinkler systems being added more frequently by residential consumers, as well as frequent changes to commercial consumer sites, etc., and restrictions on the owner with regard to determining if premise plumbing is or is not complex, we propose that 12VAC5-590-D be eliminated.

PART 2 - COMMENTS BY THE VIRGINIA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSOCIATION

12VAC5-590 Definitions, concerns and recommendations:

1. Add definition: “ASSE” means American Society of Sanitary Engineering.
2. “Backflow Prevention Assembly” CONCERNS:  The definition oversimplifies and makes assemblies seem equivalent for all backflow conditions, but they are designed to control specific cross-connections; industry-accepted nomenclature and abbreviations should be used for all assemblies herein; and gate valves are no longer universally used on DCVA’s. 
   1. RECOMMENDATION: Rephrase: “Backflow prevention assembly” means a mechanical unit designed to control various cross-connections and stop the reversal of flow, that includes an inlet and outlet shutoff valve and test cocks to facilitate testing of the assembly.  Backflow prevention assemblies include the reduced pressure principle or reduced pressure zone (or RPZ) assembly, the double check valve (or DCVA) assembly, and the pressure vacuum breaker (or PVB) assembly.
3. “Backflow Prevention Device”  CONCERNS are like those noted above, and verbiage should include important limitations.
   1. RECOMMENDATION: Rephrase: “Backflow prevention device" means  a mechanical unit designed to control cross-connections and stop the reversal of flow, that is not testable because it does not have inlet and outlet shutoff valves or test cocks. A backflow prevention device is not generally designed or constructed to withstand backpressure, or continuous pressure over 12 hours, or to control high hazards. A backflow prevention device generally includes atmospheric type vacuum breakers and the dual check valve type devices.

4. Add definition: “CCCP” means Cross-Connection Control Program.

5. “Cross-connection”:  After “contamination” add “or pollution” for consistency.

6. “Double gate-double check valve assembly”  CONCERNS are like those noted for assemblies; gate valves are not universally used; “pet cocks” are actually “test cocks”; “test gauges” are not part of the assembly, and are used to test water-tightness and differential pressure, but no other assembly definition has such verbiage.
   1. Recommendation: Rephrase, for example: “"Double check valve assembly" (or DCVA) means an assembly composed of two single independently acting check valves including tightly closing shutoff valves located at each end of the assembly and test cocks to facilitate testing of the assembly.”

7. “Pressure Vacuum Breaker Assembly”:  CONCERNS are like those noted above.
   2. RECOMMENDATION: Add “(or PVB)” and the phrase “to facilitate testing of the assembly.” 

8. “Reduced pressure principle backflow prevention assembly”:  CONCERNS are like those above.
   3. RECOMMENDATIONS: After “principle” add the phrase “or reduced pressure zone” and add “(or RPZ)”; and add “to facilitate testing of the assembly” at the end of the definition.

9. “Service connection”  CONCERNS: the definition lacks examples where the waterworks generally ends.  The phrase “and to all other points where finished water is delivered…to a consumer” seems to extend the waterworks beyond the actual service to all fixtures in the building. Many of the proposed regulations assume and rely on a clear definition of “service connection.” Eliminating verbiage referring to the meter or distribution main is inadvisable, and goes against the USBC (see 2015 VPC definition of “Water Service Pipe”) and the Memorandum of Agreement of 2013 between VDH & DHCD, Item 2, which states the USBC governs all buildings, structures and equipment up to the point of connection to the water meter or to the waterworks main.  But flexibility is needed when exceptions exist.  The proposed regulations should uphold these general distinctions, while retaining jurisdictional flexibility for containment backflow preventers installed downstream of a service connection, as approved by the owner. 
   4. RECOMMENDATION: Rephrase:  "Service connection" means the point of delivery of finished water from a waterworks to a consumer's water system.  Generally, the service connection occurs at the water meter, or at the distribution main if no water meter is installed, but may extend to a consumer’s water system, fire protection system, or irrigation system and to all other points where finished water is delivered through the distribution system to a consumer’s system.  Service connections may be permanent, temporary, or emergency. 

10. MISSING DEFINITION: “Service line” CONCERN: Undefined terms present a loophole for interpretation and lawsuits.  12VAC5-590-55 B refers directly to “water service piping from the service connection” identifying a service line, and 12VAC5-590-360 B and C refer directly to the “service line” as do many other of these regulations; and “service pipe” is used by the USBC.
    5. RECOMMENDATION: add a definition, for example: “’Service Line’ means the pipeline or service pipe between the service connection and the building connection.”

11. Add definition: “USC” means the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research.”

12. “Waterworks”  CONCERN: As noted in “service connection” above, the phrasing “except inside the building where such water is delivered” extends the waterworks up to the building in all cases, rather than as an exception, conflicting with 12VAC5-590-55-B, the USBC, and the Memorandum of Agreement of 2013 between VDH & DHCD.  The waterworks should be clearly defined as stopping at the service connection. 
    6. RECOMMENDATION: rephrase by ending the definition with: “…and distribution of potable water up to the service connection.”  

REFERENCE MATERIALS: 

While training and experience for CCCP personnel is a needed addition to the regulations, the department should direct owners to authoritative resources, to aid in development and implementation of the CCCP.  We recommend incorporating VDH documents by way of reference, and including the others recommended below on a “Suggested Reference Materials” list or as an Appendix:     

1. VDH - Working Memo 801 (WTR-801) – This document contains invaluable commentary and experience in backflow prevention and issues that impact CCCPs.  Some information is outdated due to regulatory and USBC changes, however most of its content remains applicable and valid.  WTR-801 and any future revisions should be incorporated by way of reference, and included in any suggested reference materials list. 
2. VDH – Effective Cross Connection Control Programs (current and future revisions).  This “Hip Pocket Tool for Operators” also contains valuable information and experience concerning backflow prevention.  Like WTR-801, it contains some outdated information, but much of it is practical and useful for CCCPs.  It and any future revisions should be incorporated by way of reference, and included in any suggested reference material list. 
3. M-14 Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control: Recommended Practices (4^th and subsequent editions) by the American Water Works Association (AWWA).  These regulations incorporate many AWWA standards, and including Manual-14 is appropriate, as it provides practical general and technical guidance for CCCPs. 
4. Backflow Prevention Theory and Practice (3rd and subsequent editions) by the University of Florida TREEO Center (UF-TREEO).  Like AWWA M-14, UF-TREEO provides practical general and technical guidance for CCCPs.
5. Manual of Cross -Connection Control (10^th and subsequent editions) by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research (USC).  Like AWWA M-14, USC provides practical general and technical guidance for CCCPs.

VA ABPA COMMENTS, CONTINUED:

3. 12VAC5-590-610:
   7. CONCERN: the word “reduce” is highly subjective, unreliable and insufficient for protection of the potable water.  “Reduction” is an inferior level of protection, both physically and legally, versus “controlling” a cross-connection with an assembly, device or method that is approved by the USBC and recognized approval agencies. 
      2. RECOMMENDATION: replace “reduced” with “controlled” in keeping with the stated purpose of the cross-connection Control program.
   8. CONCERN in subsection 610 E:  Containment is limited to specific facility types, while the original phrasing included “a consumer’s water system serving the following types of facilities.”  This is an important distinction, since a low-hazard facility can install high-hazard cross-connections noted in this section, which does not change the facility type per se.  For example, a low-hazard commercial or residential system can have high hazards, such as a swimming pool, spa, pier, brewery equipment (beverage processing), printing equipment, pesticide equipment, etc.  The facility does not become a “health club,” “waterfront facility,” “beverage processing plant,” “exterminating company,” etc. and provides a loophole, since the verbiage specifies “facility type.” 
      1. RECOMMENDATION: rephrase 610 E: “A backflow prevention assembly or backflow elimination method shall be installed at consumer water systems serving the following types of facilities, including:” 
   9. CONCERNS in subsection 610 E:  Multi-use commercial, office and warehouse facilities have been rephrased and re-assigned on the containment facilities list, but some have been removed, likely unintentionally.  For example, these facilities are not always served by a master meter (item 11) and frequently do not exceed three stories in height (item 21).  But these facility types have always required containment because of the likelihood of high hazard cross-connections being created by owners and tenants, without the waterworks’ knowledge or control once a service connection is established.  In addition, not all residential buildings classified as commercial by the USBC are over 3 stories tall, but may also be served by a master meter.  Often these facilities have high hazards requiring containment, but the CCCP may not have local authority or resources to properly assess them for these.    
      2. RECOMMENDATION:  Restore “Multi-use commercial, office or warehouse facilities” to the required containment list.  The proposed items 11 and 21 should also remain on the list. 
      3. RECOMMENDATION: add verbiage to proposed item 11 from proposed item 21 “including residential buildings classified by the USBC as commercial.”

4. 12VAC5-590-630:  
   10. CONCERN in subsection 630 A:  “The approved type” does not say who is doing the approving.  The word “approved” has been omitted from much of the regulations, greatly limiting the context of its use.  The regulations should specify that all assemblies & devices must be approved by the waterworks owner as an appropriate safeguard. 
       3. RECOMMENDATION: Rephrase 630 A, for example: “Any backflow prevention assembly or device or backflow elimination method shall be approved by the owner [as an appropriate safeguard,] and comply with the USBC.“
   11. CONCERN in subsections 630 A & 630 B 3:  “The approved type” is also implies that backflow preventers may be approved by any agency.  For example, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) is an approval agency, but is not in this country.  Subsection 630 B 3 requires owners to consult the USBC and manufacturer specifications, but devices and assemblies must still hold recognized agency approvals.  While the USBC recognizes ASSE standards for backflow prevention assemblies and devices used for isolation, assemblies used for containment have required approval from the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research (or USC), as noted in Working Memo 801 (WTR-801) subsection III-F “Approved Containment Devices.”  While WTR-801 is not part of the regulations, it provides invaluable guidance from VDH for CCCPs, and uses the phrase “shall.”  Furthermore, USC approval is important for several reasons and should be included in these regulations, for example: USC approval is performance-based and includes exhaustive laboratory and field testing in real-world conditions; USC approval is only given for the specific device model type, size and valve tested; USC approval is rescinded for field modifications or improper installation; USC approval is specific to the direction of flow that is evaluated, whether horizontal, vertical, or some combination; and USC approval is continuously verified and can be revoked when an assembly proves to be defective.  USC publishes this information, but CCCPs may not know to consult USC or verify USC approval  for assemblies without guidance.  Because assemblies are used for high hazards, contamination can result if they are not thoroughly evaluated or are installed with unapproved valves, unapproved field modifications, or in unapproved flow orientations, but these problems are commonly found in the field.  For example, assemblies installed on vertical fire risers may meet ASSE design standards, but are not approved for vertical flow by USC (or ASSE).  These problems could be dramatically reduced and eventually eliminated by requiring USC approval. 
       2. RECOMMENDATION: The regulations should specify ASSE and USC approval for assemblies and devices used for containment, by adding verbiage to 630 A or 630 B 3 (or by creating item 630 B 4), for example: “Backflow prevention assemblies shall meet ASSE standards and hold USC approval, and shall be installed in the approved flow orientation.  Backflow prevention devices shall meet ASSE standards.”
   12. CONCERN in subsection 630 B 3.  In addition to the above, the USBC does not identify devices that are unfit for continuous pressure over 12 hours, which may render them useless.  Manufacturer specifications generally disclose this information, but devices are often installed without regard pressure conditions, on both low and high hazards.  Valves downstream of a backflow prevention device are a common source of continuous pressure.  If non-testable devices are acceptable for isolation instead of containment, the regulations should clarify this issue and provide guidance.
       4. RECOMMENDATION: Clarify continuous and non-continuous pressure conditions to ensure owners require the appropriate safeguards.  Rephrase 630 B 3, for example: “The USBC and the manufacturer specifications shall be used to determine the appropriateness of the backflow prevention assembly or device application for containment.  Only backflow prevention devices approved for continuous pressure shall be used for continuous pressure conditions.  Valves downstream of a backflow prevention device are sources of continuous pressure.”

5. 12VAC5-590-630 Table 630.1:  
   13. CONCERN: High hazard examples are vague and may not prompt thorough evaluation, particularly if Table 630.1 is used solely for assessing commercial & residential consumers for exemption under 12VAC5-590-600 D.  Fire sprinklers in general should be identified as potential high hazards, since most use nonpotable plumbing, where contaminants leach into stagnant water.  These should not be considered a low hazard, as previously documented (see article “Wet-Pipe Fire Sprinklers and Water Quality” by Duranceau, Pool & Foster in AWWA Journal Vol. 91 Issue 7).  Also, historic and recent case studies abound where e. coli outbreaks originated from residential and commercial irrigation systems.  While Table 630.1 is not designed to be exhaustive, it should include examples of high hazard systems that are often overlooked, or considered to be “medium” hazards.
       4. RECOMMENDATION: Table 630.1 should include fire sprinklers*, lawn irrigation systems, and any other high hazards, including those previously considered to be medium hazards, that are common to commercial & residential systems. 
       5. EDITOR’S NOTE: (*) Fire sprinkler systems installed “as a portion of the building’s water distribution system in accordance with” do not require isolation according to the USBC (2015 Va. Plumbing Code Sec. 608.16.4, Exception 1), but should be evaluated during hazard assessment.  NOTE: while 2015 VPC Section 608.16.4 “Exception 2” does not require isolation, it conflicts with waterworks regulations because deluge, pre-action or dry pipe systems may contain stagnant water and/or contaminants from nonpotable pipes, and may be modified into different types of sprinkler systems without notice to the waterworks owner, thus posing a potential high hazard. 
   14. CONCERN: Low Hazard examples should not include “nontoxic” or “nonhazardous” chemicals.  Chemicals are rightly prohibited from entering a potable supply by the USBC, and should be prohibited by these regulations.  Waterworks owners & CCCPs should not be determining which chemicals are non-toxic or non-hazardous; chemical types can be changed by the consumer at any time, for any reason, without notice to the waterworks owner; low hazard devices and assemblies may not be approved for chemical use; there is no way to know how much chemical will enter a system or pass through an unapproved low-hazard device or assembly under backflow conditions; and “the dose makes the poison,” where ingestion of high enough doses can result in injury or death, depending on the age and health status of the actual consumer.  For example, Nitrogen is harmless at low levels and is present in food, but is found in fertilizer (from irrigation) and can be toxic at higher levels; and nontoxic chemicals such as propylene glycol or glycerin are often used in food processing equipment and fire sprinkler systems.  In contrast, the USBC requires isolation from chemical contamination or pollution by installing high hazard assemblies or devices for these and other chemicals (2015 VPC Sec. 608.5, 608.16.2, 6083.16.4.1, 608.16.7). 
       3. RECOMMENDATION:  Remove “non-toxic chemicals” and “nonhazardous chemicals” from the “Examples of Low Hazards”, and use appropriate examples.   

6. 12VAC5-590-1170:
   15. CONCERNS: Like backflow preventers, fire hydrants are a critical piece of health and life safety equipment.  But the implied requirement that hydrants must be plugged if they do not comply with these regulations could result in freezing, inoperability, or other unintended consequences too numerous to discuss (and is better left to organizations that specialize in this equipment).  That said, backflow prevention is critical to public health, but subsection 1170 A lacks examples of methods for owners to achieve the prescribed results, and should be included as subsections or as an appendix. 
       6. RECOMMENDATION: the subsection should be revised to include clear examples, or an appendix should be added, for new and retrofitted hydrants, since modification of existing waterworks falls under Part III (12VAC5-590-50 B & C) and retrofits require specific guidance, and must comply with numerous other regulations.     

The majority of the Proposed Regulations are a welcome update.  As backflow professionals from across the industry, the VA ABPA appreciates the Department for clarifying and aligning these regulations with the USBC, in cooperation with the DHCD.  Waterworks owners & building officials share the responsibility of enforcing cross-connection control, while consumers and other stakeholders must install, maintain & test backflow preventers.  Eliminating redundancy & improving efficiency are important goals, but the Department must not lose sight of the ultimate goal: to ensure that waterworks furnish potable water to consumers, which requires protecting it from backflow & contamination.  Waterworks and government agencies across the country are being scrutinized and legally challenged on the failure to protect this vital resource.  The Department should not lower the standards of protection, especially for high hazard cross-connections of any kind.  If waterworks are too complex or lack personnel or funding to implement an effective CCCP, the Department and each waterworks should develop ways to ensure regulatory compliance, rather than lowering the standards of protection.  To do otherwise risks the safety of potable water and the public health, and could irreparably breach the public’s trust.  A mistrustful public could resort to installing auxiliary systems and create cross-connections with these systems, and negatively impact the public health.  In the spirit of cooperation, and to ensure that potable water remains potable, we submit the following general and technical concerns that should be addressed and resolved before legislation:

Section Concerns & Recommendations:

1. 12VAC5-590-55 B: 
1. CONCERN:  “Backflow prevention method” is a defined term, meaning a physical separation or air gap.  However, the USBC governs backflow generally and specifically, and is not limited to backflow methods, devices and assemblies.

• 1. 1. RECOMMENDATION: Remove “method” to rephrase as “backflow prevention” in general.  Alternatively, rephrase to include “backflow prevention methods, backflow prevention assemblies, and backflow prevention devices.”

2. 12VAC5-590-600:     
2. CORRECTION in subsection 600 B, “consumer water system” should be plural, i.e. “systems.”
3. CORRECTION in subsection 600 D, “premise” should be plural, i.e. “premises.”
4. CONCERNS in Subsection 600 B & C:  Consumer water systems are subject to change after assessment.  Assessments should be performed annually or at some minimum specified interval.

2. 2. 1. RECOMMENDATION: add the word “annually” or a minimum interval to subsection 600 B; or add the word “assessments” to the required testing and evaluations required in subsection 600 C.

5. CONCERNS in Subsection 600 D:  A public education program is a welcome improvement, to give owners a flexible option for low risk consumer systems.  But any exemption increases the risk of contamination.  However, 600 D is ambiguously worded, is dangerously lacking in detail and minimum standards, and includes unnecessary loopholes.  Misinterpretation and/or misapplication could result in unintended consequences and contamination of water distribution systems across the State.  It is arguable that such an exemption should be allowed by the Department of Health, since 12VAC5-590-450 & 12VAC5-590-461 requires competent and adequate staff to operate and maintain a waterworks (including the CCCP).  Substantial modification is recommended to address the following concerns:   

I feel the language of this Section pertaining to the mandatory installation of a backflow prevention assembly, or backflow elimination method, in instances of building height of at least four (4) stories, needs to be simplified.  A slight modification of the current verbiage of 610.E.20 would not only be adequate, but less complicated and thus less confusing. 

A structure of four (4) or more stories above grade, whether multi-story office or other commercial buildings, or whether adjoining townhomes, duplexes or free-standing residences, all present the same issue and potential hazard to the municipal water supply. The hydraulics of downward force generated by water at this height does not distinguish between whether this water is contained within a commercial or residential building. It is unimportant whether the lowest level is an above-ground garage or the first floor of the residence or commercial building, and it is equally unimportant whether the 4th level is referred to as a "habitable space" less than 750 square feet if this space is plumbed to serve a bathroom and/or a wet bar.  

My recommended wording for this Section is as follows: "Buildings, whether commercial or residential, and whether adjoined or free-standing, that are four (4) or more stories above the water meter serving the building".  

12VAC5-590 Definitions, concerns and recommendations:

1. Add definition: “ASSE” means American Society of Sanitary Engineering.
2. “Backflow Prevention Assembly” CONCERNS:  The definition oversimplifies and makes assemblies seem equivalent for all backflow conditions, but they are designed to control specific cross-connections; industry-accepted nomenclature and abbreviations should be used for all assemblies herein; and gate valves are no longer universally used on DCVA’s. 
   1. RECOMMENDATION: Rephrase: “Backflow prevention assembly” means a mechanical unit designed to control various cross-connections and stop the reversal of flow, that includes an inlet and outlet shutoff valve and test cocks to facilitate testing of the assembly.  Backflow prevention assemblies include the reduced pressure principle or reduced pressure zone (or RPZ) assembly, the double check valve (or DCVA) assembly, and the pressure vacuum breaker (or PVB) assembly.
3. “Backflow Prevention Device”  CONCERNS are like those noted above, and verbiage should include important limitations.
   1. RECOMMENDATION: Rephrase: “Backflow prevention device" means  a mechanical unit designed to control cross-connections and stop the reversal of flow, that is not testable because it does not have inlet and outlet shutoff valves or test cocks. A backflow prevention device is not generally designed or constructed to withstand backpressure, or continuous pressure over 12 hours, or to control high hazards. A backflow prevention device generally includes atmospheric type vacuum breakers and the dual check valve type devices.

4. Add definition: “CCCP” means Cross-Connection Control Program.

5. “Cross-connection”:  After “contamination” add “or pollution” for consistency.

6. “Double gate-double check valve assembly”  CONCERNS are like those noted for assemblies; gate valves are not universally used; “pet cocks” are actually “test cocks”; “test gauges” are not part of the assembly, and are used to test water-tightness and differential pressure, but no other assembly definition has such verbiage.
   1. Recommendation: Rephrase, for example: “"Double check valve assembly" (or DCVA) means an assembly composed of two single independently acting check valves including tightly closing shutoff valves located at each end of the assembly and test cocks to facilitate testing of the assembly.”

7. “Pressure Vacuum Breaker Assembly”:  CONCERNS are like those noted above.
   2. RECOMMENDATION: Add “(or PVB)” and the phrase “to facilitate testing of the assembly.” 

8. “Reduced pressure principle backflow prevention assembly”:  CONCERNS are like those above.
   3. RECOMMENDATIONS: After “principle” add the phrase “or reduced pressure zone” and add “(or RPZ)”; and add “to facilitate testing of the assembly” at the end of the definition.

9. “Service connection”  CONCERNS: the definition lacks examples where the waterworks generally ends.  The phrase “and to all other points where finished water is delivered…to a consumer” seems to extend the waterworks beyond the actual service to all fixtures in the building. Many of the proposed regulations assume and rely on a clear definition of “service connection.” Eliminating verbiage referring to the meter or distribution main is inadvisable, and goes against the USBC (see 2015 VPC definition of “Water Service Pipe”) and the Memorandum of Agreement of 2013 between VDH & DHCD, Item 2, which states the USBC governs all buildings, structures and equipment up to the point of connection to the water meter or to the waterworks main.  But flexibility is needed when exceptions exist.  The proposed regulations should uphold these general distinctions, while retaining jurisdictional flexibility for containment backflow preventers installed downstream of a service connection, as approved by the owner. 
   4. RECOMMENDATION: Rephrase:  "Service connection" means the point of delivery of finished water from a waterworks to a consumer's water system.  Generally, the service connection occurs at the water meter, or at the distribution main if no water meter is installed, but may extend to a consumer’s water system, fire protection system, or irrigation system and to all other points where finished water is delivered through the distribution system to a consumer’s system.  Service connections may be permanent, temporary, or emergency. 

10. MISSING DEFINITION: “Service line” CONCERN: Undefined terms present a loophole for interpretation and lawsuits.  12VAC5-590-55 B refers directly to “water service piping from the service connection” identifying a service line, and 12VAC5-590-360 B and C refer directly to the “service line” as do many other of these regulations; and “service pipe” is used by the USBC.
    5. RECOMMENDATION: add a definition, for example: “’Service Line’ means the pipeline or service pipe between the service connection and the building connection.”

11. Add definition: “USC” means the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research.”

12. “Waterworks”  CONCERN: As noted in “service connection” above, the phrasing “except inside the building where such water is delivered” extends the waterworks up to the building in all cases, rather than as an exception, conflicting with 12VAC5-590-55-B, the USBC, and the Memorandum of Agreement of 2013 between VDH & DHCD.  The waterworks should be clearly defined as stopping at the service connection. 
    6. RECOMMENDATION: rephrase by ending the definition with: “…and distribution of potable water up to the service connection.”  

Section Concerns & Recommendations:

1. 12VAC5-590-55 B: 
   1. CONCERN:  “Backflow prevention method” is a defined term, meaning a physical separation or air gap.  However, the USBC governs backflow generally and specifically, and is not limited to backflow methods, devices and assemblies.
      1. RECOMMENDATION: Remove “method” to rephrase as “backflow prevention” in general.  Alternatively, rephrase to include “backflow prevention methods, backflow prevention assemblies, and backflow prevention devices.”

2. 12VAC5-590-600:     
   2. CORRECTION in subsection 600 B, “consumer water system” should be plural, i.e. “systems.”
   3. CORRECTION in subsection 600 D, “premise” should be plural, i.e. “premises.”
   4. CONCERNS in Subsection 600 B & C:  Consumer water systems are subject to change after assessment.  Assessments should be performed annually or at some minimum specified interval.
      1. RECOMMENDATION: add the word “annually” or a minimum interval to subsection 600 B; or add the word “assessments” to the required testing and evaluations required in subsection 600 C.
   5. CONCERNS in Subsection 600 D:  A public education program is a welcome improvement, to give owners a flexible option for low risk consumer systems.  But any exemption increases the risk of contamination.  However, 600 D is ambiguously worded, is dangerously lacking in detail and minimum standards, and includes unnecessary loopholes.  Misinterpretation and/or misapplication could result in unintended consequences and contamination of water distribution systems across the State.  It is arguable that such an exemption should be allowed by the Department of Health, since 12VAC5-590-450 & 12VAC5-590-461 requires competent and adequate staff to operate and maintain a waterworks (including the CCCP).  Substantial modification is recommended to address the following concerns:   
      1. As subsection 600 D is an exemption, the catch-all phrase “related records and inventory” implies that the owner does not need to perform, or retain records of, assessments, evaluations or inventories, to in fact prove that a consumer’s system is not complex and has no known or suspected high hazards.  Without assessment, high hazards cannot be “known or suspected,” and without records, how can the owner comply with the department when records for exempt consumer systems are reviewed?
         1. RECOMMENDATION: Reiterate that assessment is required to qualify for the public education exemption, and stipulate that all assessment and evaluation records shall be retained. 
      2. Once a consumer’s system is exempted, there is no requirement to re-assess it, and no guarantee that all high hazards were discovered.  High hazards may exist, or could be installed later without the owner’s knowledge; low hazard assemblies and devices could fail or be removed, and may not be repaired or replaced unless required by the owner; and other risks may also apply.  Since the primary intent of 600 D appears to be to reduce the burden on CCCPs for low-risk consumer systems, the following recommendation is made, and is dependent on all other ambiguities and conflicts of 600 D being resolved:
         1. RECOMMENDATION: Require re-assessment by the owner at a reduced but specified minimum interval, and only apply the exemption to consumer systems which are determined to be a low risk as specified by the recommended revisions.   
      3. As written, this exemption specifically limits the assessment of high hazards to “Table 630.1.”  This is inadvisable because Table 630.1 provides insufficient guidance for a CCCP without substantial additions to the Table’s examples, and the entire Chapter provides the necessary guidance that should be used. 
         1. RECOMMENDATION: replace the phrase “Table 630.1” with “this Chapter” to ensure all requirements for containment are considered.   
      4. A public education program does not appear mandatory, but is only required for owners opting to exempt low-risk consumers from the requirements. 
         1. RECOMMENDATION: consider mandating a public education program as part of the CCCP. 
      5. The phrase “all other residential consumers” contradicts the previous provision that allows only systems of low complexity with no known or suspected high hazards to be exempt from testing, record-keeping and inventory.  As written, it allows high-hazard residential systems to forego these requirements in lieu of a public education program.  Public education is needed but cannot prevent backflow like a tested, functional backflow prevention assembly.  WARNING: Exempting residential systems from annual testing violates and contradicts the USBC, and conflicts with numerous authorities who uphold annual or periodic testing of all backflow prevention assemblies, including AWWA, ASSE, EPA, UFL-TREEO, USC-FCCCHR, etc.  In the event of litigation, an owner’s claim of “due diligence” based on 600 D could be refuted by plaintiffs citing the USBC and the aforementioned agencies’ standards.  The department could become party to litigation for not requiring waterworks to ensure adequate protection due to reduced minimum standards that contradict established laws and precedents.  Simply put, a high hazard cross-connection remains a high hazard, regardless of it being located on a residential system, and all backflow prevention assemblies should require testing annually.
         1. RECOMMENDATION: Remove the last sentence of subsection 600 D. 
      6. Based on the above concerns, subsection 600 D should be rephrased to remove all ambiguity, and incorporate the recommended modifications.
         1. RECOMMENDATION: Rephrase: “A public education program is required for the CCCP.  Where the owner’s assessment determines that a commercial or residential consumer’s premises plumbing is not complex, and there are no known or suspected high hazards as identified in this Chapter, the owner may provide a public education program instead of annual operational tests (12VAC5-590-600 C) and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, devices or methods (12VAC5-590-600 G).  Exempted consumer systems must be assessed by the owner every [specify minimum] years to ensure they qualify for exemption under this section.  The owner shall retain records of all assessments (12VAC5-590-550).”
      7. In 600 D 2, the phrase “or reduce” is insufficient & improper.  See comments under section 12VAC5-590-610 for an explanation. 
         1. RECOMMENDATION: Replace the word “reduce” with “control”.  
   6. CONCERN in Subsection 600 E:  Isolation by devices is allowed instead of containment (12VAC5-590-610 B) and referenced by (12VAC5-590-600 B, C & D) but devices could also be removed, faulty or bypassed.
      1. RECOMMENDATION: Add the phrase “backflow prevention device” after “backflow prevention assembly” in E1 and E2.

COMMENTS FROM THE VIRGINIA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSOCIATION

The majority of the Proposed Regulations are a welcome update.  As backflow professionals from across the industry, the VA ABPA appreciates the Department for clarifying and aligning these regulations with the USBC, in cooperation with the DHCD.  Waterworks owners & building officials share the responsibility of enforcing cross-connection control, while consumers and other stakeholders must install, maintain & test backflow preventers.  Eliminating redundancy & improving efficiency are important goals, but the Department must not lose sight of the ultimate goal: to ensure that waterworks furnish potable water to consumers, which requires protecting it from backflow & contamination.  Waterworks and government agencies across the country are being scrutinized and legally challenged on the failure to protect this vital resource.  The Department should not lower the standards of protection, especially for high hazard cross-connections of any kind.  If waterworks are too complex or lack personnel or funding to implement an effective CCCP, the Department and each waterworks should develop ways to ensure regulatory compliance, rather than lowering the standards of protection.  To do otherwise risks the safety of potable water and the public health, and could irreparably breach the public’s trust.  A mistrustful public could resort to installing auxiliary systems and create cross-connections with these systems, and negatively impact the public health.  In the spirit of cooperation, and to ensure that potable water remains potable, we submit the following general and technical concerns that should be addressed and resolved before legislation.  (Recommendations follow, with one partially duplicated section).

It is recommended that the word "located" be removed as unnecessary.

The examples of water usage included under "High Hazard" fail to mention one of the most significant and most common potential high hazard situations, that being "irrigation and lawn sprinkler systems". This pertains to both commercial and residential water usage, and with most municipal water systems, represents by far the greatest hazard among residential water customers.

My recommendation would be to include "irrigation and lawn sprinkler systems" right after "sewage" in the list.    

The approval of backflow prevention assemblies should include not only compliance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code, but also acceptance by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research (USC-FCCCHR). USC is the only organization that tests backflow assemblies under both laboratory and field conditions before granting their approval. Approval is based upon several criteria in addition to performance, including size, configuration, and flow orientation.

My recommended wording for this Section would be as follows: "Any backflow prevention assembly or device or backflow elimination method shall be in compliance with the USBC, and be approved by the University of Southern California Foundation for Cross-Connection Control and Hydraulic Research".

VBDPU opposes the changes to allow the substitution of education programs in lieu of annual testing and record keeping.  The determination of whether the premise plumbing is or is not complex is subjective, subject to change, brings scrutiny on the safety of the public water system  and conflicts with current CCCP in Virginia Beach. Ponding water in lawns is not potable water and this water can cover sprinkler heads. A review of a high hazard from Table 630.1, reinforces the need for annual operational tests, and the related records and inventory of backflow prevention assemblies, backflow elimination methods, and backflow prevention devices. Educational outreach has limited success and are not equivalent of the prevention provided by an annually tested device. VBDPU has encounter numerous homeowners who are not aware of our public water supply, its connection to their premise plumbing which they own should maintain.

VBDPU proposes that 12VAC5-590-D be eliminated.

Isle of Wight County Public Utilities Comments for 12VAC5-590

CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION:

When contamination of a waterworks occurs, the public outcry is typically “Who’s job was it to protect the water and the citizens?” and “Why wasn’t anything done to protect us better?” and “There ought to be more laws to protect us!”  Illness and death can result, lawsuits ensue, and only then do waterworks realize the true cost and high responsibility of providing potable water.  The cost to make water safe, and keep it safe, simply pales in comparison to plaintiff’s awards, penalties, and fines.  But laws do not protect people: public servants and professionals tasked with implementing the laws do.  As waterworks, we must uphold the laws and regulations we’re given, and depend on public and private sectors to do their part to ensure compliance.  But laws require revision from time to time, and should always improve; they should never reduce the protections afforded to the public. 

The proposed regulations include many improvements, but fall short in some areas concerning Cross-Connection Control.  By reducing redundancy and making efficiencies, the Department has created loopholes and ambiguities that must be addressed prior to legislation.  The Department should ensure its regulations do not conflict, violate or supersede other laws which play a role in backflow protection, such as the USBC.  Otherwise, consumers may not have equal protection afforded by waterworks across the state, as intended by public health regulations in general.  Regulations, after all, are minimum standards, leaving little room for error.  Lack of enforcement and noncompliance both pose great risks to the public health, particularly when it comes to backflow prevention, as case histories and recent events irrefutably prove.  American consumers have generally assumed that tap water is safe and potable.  But due to recent contamination events across the country, whether from source water contamination to backflow events, the fact that water is safe cannot and should not be assumed.  Making and keeping water safe is a constant task that requires diligence, and cannot rely on assumptions. 

Backflow prevention is assumed to be adequate when a building is built or modified, but this is not always the case, and modifications are often made without permits or inspections.  Cross-connections are often made by unqualified or unlicensed individuals out of ignorance of established codes, or for convenience.  High hazard connections can just as easily be made that put the consumer and the waterworks at risk.  For these reasons and more, the Department requires a CCCP, and to be effective, it must be competently staffed by an adequate number of personnel.  Without the minimum prescribed protection required by implementation of the regulations, waterworks can be contaminated, resulting in numerous unintended consequences, and consumer confidence can fail.  Again, the cost and ramifications of remedying a contamination event dwarfs the costs of a properly staffed and trained CCCP, to protect the waterworks from contamination in the first place.   

As a utility, we wholeheartedly support and echo the recommendations offered by the VA ABPA and of those waterworks who seek to improve the regulations while keeping and improving the level of protection provided to the consumer.

Sections 12VAC5-590-55 and 12VAC5-590-630 should be carefully reviewed and rephrased to ensure optimal coordination with the USBC, and to ensure that owners and CCCPs are guided by the Department regarding the limitations of backflow devices, assemblies, methods, and the hydraulic or other conditions which render them ineffective, whether or not they are mentioned in the USBC or the manufacturer’s specifications.

Section 12VAC5-590-600 in its entirety should be carefully reviewed and reworded to remove all ambiguity, loopholes and gray areas.  It should only allow public education to be used in place of CCCP required assessments and recordkeeping for consumers with very low risk systems.  Because conditions can change over time, it should include a re-assessment clause, to ensure periodic assessment, rather than assuming nothing has changed.

12VAC5-590-610 Should be carefully reviewed; words like “reduced” should be replaced by “controlled” to remove ambiguity, since reduction is not the same as control or elimination of hazards.

12VAC5-590-610 E should be carefully reviewed and rephrased to restore or include unintentional deletions or reclassified facilities, such as “consumer systems” serving the listed facilities; multi-use commercial, office and warehouse facilities that are less than four stories tall and are not served by a master meter; and residential buildings classified by the USBC as commercial that are not four stories tall but are served by a master meter.   

12VAC5-590-630 The word “approved” is conspicuously lacking for some reason throughout the proposed regulations.  Approval is quantifiable and not subjective, and must be an integral part of any standard or regulation.  Approval agencies recognized by industry standards and current regulations including the USBC and VDH regulations and memoranda should be included as approved agencies, including ASSE and USC-FCCCHR, as these agencies set standards and approve backflow preventers using different criteria, all of which is required to provide the best protection for the potable water, the public health and the waterworks. 

12VAC5-590-630 Table 630.1 should be reviewed and further updated to reflect that anything not considered a low hazard is by default considered a high hazard or potential high hazard, and the appropriate backflow protection according to the regulations and the USBC.  Table 630.1 should include additional examples of recognized high hazards which have previously been considered medium hazards, such as fire sprinkler systems, and include high hazard systems that are typical to residential and commercial consumers, such as lawn irrigation, swimming pools, and other high hazards.  Low hazard examples should not include chemicals of any kind.

12VAC5-590-750 was repealed, but as worded appeared to provide a stronger reference to require a water purveyor to provide an adequate shop facility.   The revised shop related references appear to be associated with the design of new building or the expansion of an existing building only if a locality is contemplating such construction activities.  The new references do not appear to require construction of an adequate shop facility should one not already exist.  Although the construction of an adequate shop seems basic enough to be inherently understood as necessary, a more direct reference (or allowing the previous reference to remain) would help smaller localities justify the establishment of an adequate shop facility.

DEFINITIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. “Consumer” and “Human Consumption” are narrowly defined, and do not include the numerous uses of water or methods of consumption which actually exist by consumers of a waterworks.  For example, hemodialysis and other medical procedures require potable water, but these are not considered methods of “human consumption,” and a person using water for this purpose is not considered a “consumer” by such a strict definition.  Numerous other examples could be made where potable water is used for residential, commercial and institutional uses which are outside these narrow definitions.  The definitions should be modified and broadened to fit existing and anticipated conditions and consumers, to include general usage of potable water, and any method of consumption. 

2. “Service Connection”, “Service Line” and “Waterworks” should include verbiage and/or examples of where the  service connection and waterworks generally end, and the consumer system begins.  If possible, these should align with the USBC as this is a stated goal and intention of VDH and DHCD.  The phrasing should retain the proposed flexibility to address containment of backflow downstream of the service connection.

Thank you to the team for their time and hard work on this document.

I agree with the numerous posts advocating for the classification of lawn irrigation systems as “High Hazard” in table 630.1.  To classify as “Low Hazard” would be a dangerous reversal.

I support public education programs as a vital component of a successful CCCP; however, it is a complement to annual inspections to confirm the operation of the backflow assemblies (12VAC5-590-600C).

• When you eliminate the requirement for annual inspection of backflow assemblies, even for a limited subsegment of consumers, you increase the risk to the owner and ultimately the consumers.
• When you eliminate the requirement for annual inspection of backflow assemblies, even for a limited subsegment of consumers, you immediately diminish the importance of the CCCP.
• Consider this analogy - with all the education provided, we have learned the dangers of speeding.  Everyone chooses to obey or not obey the posted speed limits.  Some choose to obey because of the education, and some obey because there is someone monitoring compliance.  Regardless of the reason, we are all safer because of their compliance.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulatory changes. Fauquier County Water and Sanitation Authority strongly opposes language requiring fire hydrant weep holes to be plugged, and concurs with comments entered by other waterworks owners and public safety organizations. Specifically, the public safety risk posed by a frozen hydrant will always outweigh any theoretical public health risk from an "unplugged" weep hole. Consequently, we object to the inclusion of any language regarding fire hydrant weep holes and/or draining hydrants, and request removal of 12VAC5-590-1170/A entirely.