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.