BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1173
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Williams |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |3/26/2015 |Hearing |7/15/2015 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Rachel Machi Wagoner |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Water equipment: backflow prevention devices testing:
certification.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Under the California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to administer
provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to
protect public health, including, but not limited to,
conducting research, studies, and demonstration programs
relating to the provision of a dependable, safe supply of
drinking water, enforcing the federal Safe Drinking Water
Act, adoption of enforcement regulations, and conducting
studies and investigations to assess the quality of water in
domestic water supplies.
2) Requires any person who owns a public water system to ensure
that the system does certain things, including, but not
limited to, that it will not be subject to backflow under
normal operating conditions.
3) Authorizes local health officers to maintain programs for the
certification of backflow prevention device testers in order
to ensure that testing and maintenance of backflow prevention
devices are performed by persons qualified to do testing and
maintenance.
AB 1173 (Williams) Page 2
of ?
4) Requires backflow preventers to be tested by persons who have
demonstrated their competency in testing of these devices to
the water supplier or health agency.
5) Requires that certification standards be consistent with the
backflow protection regulations adopted by the Department of
Public Health.
This bill: states, that if a local health officer does not
maintain a program for certification of backflow prevention
device testers, that the local water system must hire a person
who has received a California-specific certification for testing
backflow prevention devices from any one of the following: the
California-Nevada Section of the American Water Works
Association (AWAA), American Society of Sanitary Engineering
(ASSE) International, American Backflow Prevention Association
(ABPA), or by other similar certification provider deemed
acceptable by the SWRCB or the local health officer to conduct
the testing and maintenance of a backflow prevention device.
Background
1) What is Backflow? Backflow is the undesirable reversal of
the flow of liquid, gas or solid into the potable water
supply. Water supply systems are maintained at a pressure
significant enough to enable water to flow from the tap.
However, when pressure fails or is reduced, which may happen
if a water main bursts, pipes freeze, or there is
unexpectedly high demand on the water system, water or
substances from the ground, storage, or other sources may be
drawn up into the system.
Additionally, non-potable substances may be pushed into a
potable water supply if the pressure in the downstream piping
system exceeds the pressure in the potable water system.
Either of these backflow conditions can enable contaminated
water or substances to enter the potable water distribution
system, potentially risking public health and safety.
2) Backflow prevention? Backflow preventers are mechanical
assemblies used to prevent contaminated fluids from entering
the water supply system. According to the United States
AB 1173 (Williams) Page 3
of ?
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), a wide choice of
devices exists that can be used to prevent backflow from
adding contaminated fluids or gases into a potable water
supply system. These include air gaps, barometric loops,
vacuum breakers-both atmospheric and pressure type, double
check with intermediate atmospheric vent, double check valve
assemblies, and reduced pressure principle devices. US EPA
reports that, generally, the selection of the proper device
is based upon the degree of hazard posed by the
cross-connection. Additional considerations are based upon
piping size, location, and the potential need to periodically
test the devices to ensure proper operation.
3) Certification of backflow prevention device testers? Because
the only way a water system or the local health officer
becomes aware of a broken or failed backflow system is when
an incident has occurred resulting in the contamination of
the water supply leading to a public health incident or the
risk of a public health incident, the proper testing of
backflow prevention assemblies is crucial to the prevention
of backflow and is a cornerstone of a cross-connection
control program. In order to ensure that testing and
maintenance of backflow prevention devices are performed by
qualified persons, statute authorizes local health officers
to maintain programs for certification of backflow prevention
device testers. Additionally, regulation requires backflow
preventers to be tested by persons who have demonstrated
their competency in testing of these devices to the water
supplier or local health agency.
Per statute and regulation, in jurisdictions where the local
health officer has not established a program for
certification of backflow prevention device testers, water
systems are responsible for hiring testers that have
"demonstrated their competency."
Should a backflow prevention device not be properly tested or
maintained and result in an incident, the water system is
responsible for the damage caused by that failure.
4) What happens when a backflow prevention fails? If a backflow
preventer fails potable water supplies are compromised and
contaminants enter the water. Contaminants that may enter
the potable water include, but are not limited to, untreated
AB 1173 (Williams) Page 4
of ?
river, sea or lake water, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides,
propane gas, boiler water with chemicals, anti-freeze,
numerous chemicals, water from car wash establishments, dyes,
sewage, worms, heavy metals such as arsenic, petrochemicals,
water from flush toilets or other drains.
The presence of contaminants from backflow in water can lead
to adverse health effects, including both acute and long term
effects like gastrointestinal illness, reproductive problems,
cancer and neurological disorders which can lead to
hospitalization or death.
While there is currently no federal reporting requirement for
backflow cases, US EPA published a white paper in 2001 that
gives several examples of backflow and risks associated with
backflow incidents:
In 1982 a Colorado high school's drinking water was
contaminated with antifreeze from a malfunctioning valve from
the schools solar heating system.
In 1991 a small amount, 2.5 gallons, of herbicide
backsiphoned into a Utah water system affecting 2,000 homes,
a nursing home and a day-care facility.
In 1987 a child in Minnesota suffered acute copper toxicity
when the backflow from a carbon dioxide machine contaminated
a restaurants potable system. There was a similar incident
from a soft drink machine at a fair in Springfield Missouri
in 1995.
In 1989, backpressure from a propane tank car forced propane
into the water supply in a town in Arkansas. Three people in
separate buildings were injured from explosions after
flushing toilets and two houses were destroyed and a business
was damaged by explosions and subsequent fires.
In 1995 in Monterey, California, sodium nitrate from a boiler
AB 1173 (Williams) Page 5
of ?
and cooling system backflowed into the potable water supply
of the county courthouse because of a faulty backflow
prevention device. In this incident 19 people became sick
from drinking coffee from the courthouse snack bar.
In February, 1990 a cross-connection between an auxiliary
irrigation system supporting a golf course and country club
and the Seattle Water Department's distribution system
resulted in total and fecal coliform contamination of the
drinking water supply that was detected by a neighboring
water system that purchased water from the Seattle Water
Department.
In the summer of 1990 1,100 guests of a country club in
Tennessee suffered intestinal disorders in two mass incidents
after consuming the clubs contaminated water supplies from an
auxiliary well that had become contaminated with sewage due
to a cross-connection.
Information from US EPA about current incidents was not
available. However, the white paper shows that over several
decades these types of incidents appear to be declining. It
can be derived from the white paper that increased regulation
and improved technology have contributed to the decline of
backflow incidents. However, the white paper does also
strongly note that on-going testing and maintenance continues
to be crucial in order to ensure public health protection.
Comments
1) Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "To ensure that
testing of backflow prevention devices are performed by
persons qualified to do testing and maintenance, Health &
Safety Code Section 116810 currently provides that "local
health officers may maintain programs for certification of
backflow prevention device testers." In practice, only a few
jurisdictions maintain their own programs for certification
of backflow prevention device testers?
AB 1173 (Williams) Page 6
of ?
"The lack of guidance on acceptable private statewide
certification of backflow protection device testers has
resulted in inconsistent requirements throughout the state,
burdening plumbing installers, stifling competition, and
increasing customer costs. Inconsistencies from the three
private certification bodies and the local health officers
create discrepancies in water supply standards and do not
protect the public from cross-contamination. As a result,
backflow protection device testers must maintain two or three
separate, duplicative certifications to work in more than one
jurisdiction in California. Statewide consistency is needed
regarding what certifications are acceptable? AB 1173
clarifies the certification standards required for backflow
prevention device testers."
2) Codifying certification standards. According to the author
and sponsor, there is inconsistency in California over the
qualification of the three current private certification
agencies and insufficient guidance on acceptable
certification.
It is unclear how codifying all three of the current bodies
in statute as qualified bodies addresses that inconsistency
and lack of guidance.
By codifying these agencies and requiring water systems to
accept all three certifications, this legislation is assuming
that all three certification bodies not only have adequate
and similar certification processes but are also all equally
protective of public health. It also assumes that these
certification bodies will always be adequately compliant with
law and regulations and sufficiently protective of public
health. Several questions arise from this legislation:
a) How is it in the best interest of the state and the
Legislature to limit a water system's ability to choose
between the various certification bodies and instead
require the systems to accept any of these certifications?
b) How is requiring water systems to accept all three
bodies' certifications, without any discretion to
AB 1173 (Williams) Page 7
of ?
determine whether the system believes a tester's
certification is adequate, in the state's best interest?
c) If a water system is required to accept a tester's
certification despite reservations, and then an incident
occurs because of inadequate testing or maintenance, how
is it that the water system is responsible/liable for the
harm and damage caused when the state took away the
system's discretion to choose certification bodies for
that tester?
Potential Amendment. If the committee wishes to address the
concern over the lack of consistency and opportunity for various
certification entities to be eligible to work in this field,
then a more appropriate solution would be to designate the state
to approve the certification entities: an amendment would be
needed to designate SWRCB to develop a state approval process
for these entities.
SOURCE:
The California State Pipe Trades Council
SUPPORT:
California State Association of Electrical Workers
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
OPPOSITION:
Association of California Water Agencies
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Water Association
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
ARGUMENTS IN
SUPPORT: According to the sponsor of the bill, the California State
Pipe Trades Council, "The current Health & Safety Code provision
for local certification of backflow protection device testers by
local health officers does not reflect the actual practice in
most jurisdictions of relying on private state certifications of
backflow protection device testers? The Health & Safety Code
should be updated to clarify that, where a local agency does not
AB 1173 (Williams) Page 8
of ?
have its own certification program, backflow connections may be
tested by technicians certified by one of these [specified]
certification bodies. This change will streamline approval of
backflow protection device testers by local jurisdictions,
create statewide consistency regarding what certifications are
acceptable, and simplify compliance by installers and
customers."
The International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical
Officials (IAPMO), which jointly develops, with ASSE
International, a tester certification standard deemed acceptable
by the bill, argues that, "The lack of guidance on these private
certifications, however, has created a patchwork of acceptable
certifications across the state, burdening backflow prevention
device testers, causing confusion to customers and increasing
customer costs. Backflow prevention device testers certified by
ASSE, for example, are frozen out of the market when a local
jurisdiction or water agency arbitrarily determines that it will
accept only AWWA certifications. This reduces the choice of
testers for property owners and increases costs."
ARGUMENTS IN
OPPOSITION: California Water Service argues that, "We believe that this
legislation could jeopardize the safety of water systems across
California for several reasons: First, the legislation
presupposes that each of the three certification agencies it
lists are equivalent to each other and have certification
standards sufficient to ensure the health and safety of the
public. These types of decisions are best left to industry
experts? Second, far from promoting competition in the
industry, the legislation will serve to eliminate competition.
By dictating which organizations have appropriate certification
standards, the legislation would create a significant entry
barrier to new certification organizations, even if they are
superior, as the only way they would be able to enter the
marketplace is by having a future Legislature amend California
Code to include them as one of the approved organizations.
Picking winners is the opposite of competition? Finally, the
legislation presupposes that each of three listed certifying
agencies will continue to have the same standards as they do
today. If this legislation were enacted, each of the three
listed organizations would be guaranteed that they will be able
to certify the testers of backflow prevention devices even if
their certification standards precipitously decline."
AB 1173 (Williams) Page 9
of ?
-- END --