Action | Amend and update the Waterworks Regulations |
Stage | Proposed |
Comment Period | Ended on 1/10/2020 |
33 comments
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:
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:
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:
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
12VAC5-590-600 D (in its entirety, without any subsections)
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:
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:
VA ABPA COMMENTS, CONTINUED:
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:
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:
Section Concerns & Recommendations:
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:
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).
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.