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.