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.