TUs in the time of COVID-19

HELP! 

With the pandemic it seems like there is no end in sight. Usually I attend in person courses to get my training units. I get to network with other operators, I get a free lunch, and I really enjoy the class breakout sessions.

All that is not happening these days - because of COVID-19. As 2021 approaches, it is going on one year since we had traditional learning available to operators. Some may have expiration dates for their operator certificate quickly approaching. That means they need to get their Training Units (TUs) in another way. 

Don’t panic! There are online options for getting TUs. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s Local Assistance Unit provides virtual classroom style training and also one-on-one coaching that provide valuable TUs for certificate renewals. The upcoming classes and ability to request one-on-one training is online at the division Training Opportunities website. Do you have a sanitary survey coming up? Do you need to correct problems from a previous sanitary survey and need help? Confused by the Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Rule paperwork? There is training and customized coaching to help you prepare for the sanitary survey, gain compliance with sanitary survey rule requirements and get those TUs! 

Not sure if the online training you are interested in is eligible for TUs? Use the Colorado Certified Water Professionals (CCWP) Portal Course Catalog to search for training opportunities and their awarded credit values online at the CCWP portal.  To search the catalog without logging into the portal, please navigate to the general CCWP Catalog and using this how-to guide for the CCWP catalog.

➽Tyson Ingels CWP, PE and Heather Young, CWP, PE. 

Facility Operator Certification

This article provides a review of the updated facility classifications that will begin for existing facilities in March 2021. The department published an article in February 2020 reviewing these changes. Since the deadlines are fast approaching, it is appropriate to revisit these changes and confirm that you do not need to be considering higher level operator licenses for your water or wastewater treatment or distribution/collections system. 

Facility Classification Project Update

In November 2018, the Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Board (board) updated the facility classification criteria in Regulation 100 after an extensive, state-wide stakeholder process. These revisions are important because classifying treatment facilities and distribution/collection systems establishes the minimum certification level for operators who act as the certified operator(s) in responsible charge (ORC). The 2018 updates focused on the complexity of facility operations and alignment with operator certification testing.

All facilities are subject to classification according to the 2018 board’s adopted criteria.  In  many instances, facility classifications will remain unchanged. For facilities where the classification will change, the effective date for the change will begin March 1, 2021. If the classification for your facility will be changing and you do not have the proper level of certification, you will need to upgrade to the new level to remain as the ORC. 

Impacts of the 2018 Facility Classification Changes

• About 20% of facilities are expected to get a different classification.
• About 4% of ORCs are expected to need a higher certification to remain ORC.

Two-step Classification for Distribution and Collection

In the previous version of Regulation 100, the board considered population to be a good surrogate for system complexity. For example, a system with more people could be expected to have more flow, bigger and longer pipes, etc. The board did include some criteria for increasing classification of low population systems based on complexity, but the criteria were subjective and not applied consistently, if at all.

In 2018, the board adopted stakeholders’ ideas regarding objective criteria of complexities. Distribution and collection classification is now a two-step process. Step 1 considers the system’s population like before the update. The new Step 2 is a review of possible complexities. If a low-population system has one or more of the listed complexities, the classification may increase:

• Distribution system complexities include pressure zones, entry points, chloramines, etc. A pressure zone must serve at least 15 service connections to be counted as a zone for classification purposes.
• Collection system complexities include elements like larger lift stations.

When do new classifications apply?

• Beginning on March 1, 2019, new or substantially modified facilities were to be classified using the updated criteria during design review. During design review, the engineering section will evaluate any water or wastewater treatment facility that has submitted changes to the division for classification changes that would apply upon completion of construction.
• For existing facilities, the new criteria will apply beginning on March 1, 2021. Distribution and collection systems will not change until March 1, 2021 unless system population has increased to the next classification level.
• Delaying implementation for existing facilities until March 1, 2021 gives time to understand the impacts and plan appropriately.

How can I know the future facility classification?

Please review facility classification sections in Regulation 100. Sections 100.4 to 100.9 are the primary facility classification sections. Exemptions are included in section 100.1.5.

To assist owners/operators, Tables of all current and probable 2021 classifications are available on the internet. Some notes to consider: Tables may take several minutes to load, and the search functions at the top of tables are also very slow. An alternative, once the original table is loaded, is to just scroll down or use the page advance at the bottom of the tables. “O” means treatment ORC is not required. “0” means distribution or collection ORC is not required.

• If you disagree with the probable classification in the table based on your own review of the updated Regulation 100 criteria, you can use an online form to provide feedback. 
• We will review responses to the Google form and contact facilities that responded along with any others where additional information suggests a discrepancy between the estimate and the classification. 

Where do I get information about certification testing?

The board has improved the operator testing program to provide more testing opportunities each year and in more locations. Certification testing is provided through the board’s contractor, Colorado Certified Water Professionals (CCWP). Examination information and CCWP operator portal tutorials are available on the CCWP program webpage.

What should we do if an ORC needs a higher certification?

We estimate that about 4% of current ORCs will need a higher certification. Operators are encouraged to study and test for the higher certification before March 2021. If a facility's classification is increasing and the ORC needs to get a higher certification to remain ORC, there are a few situations where an existing ORC can remain as ORC for a while before testing for the new certification level. These situations are described in section 100.10.8 (a)-(c). The site-specific ORC must be requested by December 31, 2020. Request consideration of site-specific ORC status by completing the application. 

Online Resources:

• Regulation 100 Facility Classification -  Tables of all current and probable 2021 classifications

• Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Board - Regulation 100 is available on the board's webpage. We encourage you to review the updated Regulation 100.  

Questions?

Drinking water, distribution 
Tyson Ingels | tyson.ingels@state.co.us 
Lead Drinking Water Engineer 

Domestic wastewater, collection, reclaimed water, industrial wastewater
David Kurz | david.kurz@state.co.us 
Lead Wastewater Engineer

Corrosion immersion testing case study – Chloramine conversion complete

In Spring 2020, the City of Craig switched disinfection treatment from free chlorine to chloramines to address frequently low free chlorine residuals in their distribution system. Low disinfectant residuals increase risk of pathogen presence in tap water, which can lead to waterborne disease outbreaks. Since this treatment change could potentially affect water corrosivity, the city and the department teamed-up to conduct a proactive coupon immersion study to simulate whether the chloramines would impact lead and copper levels in the distribution system. In our January 2020 article, we discussed the corrosion immersion study setup and in our August 2020 article, we discussed the immersion study results. 

Figure 1: Jars with copper with lead solder and brass coupons.

For lead, the immersion study results predicted that switching from free chlorine to introducing chloramines would not meaningfully affect the existing lead concentrations at customer’s taps. Craig’s 90th percentile average lead concentration from 2018 and 2019 was 0.0026 mg/L which is considered quite low. The lead action level is 0.015 mg/L and the maximum contaminant level goal is 0.0 mg/L. The EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) agree that there is no known safe level of lead in a child's blood. Lead is harmful to health, especially for children, therefore it is always advisable to minimize lead concentrations in water to the extent possible.

For copper, the immersion study results indicated some copper release may be expected with the disinfectant change but that would be a nominal change in copper concentrations. The immersion tests results indicate that introducing chloramines could increase copper concentrations by approximately 17% for the copper with lead solder coupons to 36% for the brass coupons.

The city has been operating the chloramines disinfection system for over 6 months. The city executed a chloramines conversion project despite significant challenges from the pandemic and state lockdown and should be applauded for the countless hours of hard work and diligence required.

Figures 2 and 3 below are graphs of the 90th lead and copper concentrations for the past 5 years. Again, based on immersion testing predictions - we did not expect to see the values for lead go up.  The lead and copper 90th percentile results before and after the chloramines switch are roughly equivalent as predicted by the immersion testing. 

Figure 2: Lead 90th percentile results over the past 4 years

Figure 3: Copper 90th percentile results over the past 4 years - note - a slight increase in copper concentrations was not seen full scale, which could be due to the nature of older pipes in distribution versus new coupons in the immersion study.

During the treatment transition period, the department also worked with the City to take sequential samples from two example homes in the city’s distribution system. For sequential sampling, also called a lead profile, consecutive samples (typically 1 liter bottles) are taken from a single home. Depending on the piping configuration, up to 20 liters need to be collected in order to capture the water from the home’s plumbing and service line (pipe underground to the water main in the street). Lead profile sampling may be helpful when trying to characterize household plumbing type and potentially identify lead service lines or other lead-containing plumbing like older solder or galvanized pipes. 

In this instance, the profile testing was looking for potential lead release from older homes during the disinfection transition period. Two homes were sampled before and after the transition to chloramines. The profile sampling results did not indicate any notable change and for the most part indicated a low level of lead within the selected households. Figure 4 shows the results from one home prior to the transition to chloramines. The other home had all non-detects for lead for all samples.  

Figure 4: Lead sequential profile sampling results from one home prior to chloramines.

Treatment and source changes can have impacts on distribution system lead release. The Lead and Copper Rule requires that these changes be approved by the Department prior to implementation.  The corrosion immersion study helped the city predict the negligible corrosion impacts their treatment change would have on the distribution system, prior to making the change. The study helped build confidence in the treatment change and no notable corrosion impacts have been observed. While the sequential sampling in this case showed no effect, sequential sampling can be helpful if corrosion concerns occurred during the transition period or if the public needed reassurances that the new water chemistry was not causing a problem with public health. These modeling and sampling tools can help public water systems successfully plan and implement source and treatment changes in the future.

The department would like to thank the City of Craig for their constant communications and proactive approach to solving these water quality issues. 

➽ Tyson Ingels and Melanie Criswell

Dear Aqua Man - Customers Refusing to Comply with the Cross Connection Rule

Dear Aqua Man, 

How do I respond to a customer that refuses to install or test their backflow device due to COVID-19?

Sincerely,
Sy Phoning

Dear Sy,

Recently the WQCD has been contacted by citizens requesting extensions from CDPHE to extend backflow device installation deadlines or device testing deadlines issued by their drinking water supplier. Frequently, they express COVID-19 exposure concerns. The Division has taken the approach to help educate citizens that the backflow prevention and cross connection control (BPCCC) requirements are an important part of the Drinking Water Regulations. Many people are unaware that Colorado has about one known waterborne disease outbreak that makes people sick every year due to unprotected cross-connections. Drinking water suppliers must protect the water in their piping by making sure that backflow prevention assemblies are installed and tested annually. Installing these assemblies and keeping them in proper working order are the only barrier to prevent unintentional contamination of the drinking water supply from backflow events. Therefore, this kind of work, and other plumbing work responding to pipe breaks, etc. are considered essential functions that need to be carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Drinking water suppliers across the state and their customers are proceeding with backflow prevention work including installation and testing during the pandemic with COVID-19 safety precautions. Drinking water suppliers and their customers are working together with plumbing contractors and others to safely and effectively protect their water systems against backflow while avoiding unnecessary exposure to COVID-19 by taking appropriate safety precautions. 

Resources:

• Guidance for safe construction projects during COVID-19 
• CDC guidelines for hiring contractors for in-home projects during COVID-19 
• The Division is developing a COVID-19 backflow prevention brochure for customers that will be published on the WQCD website. Please stay tuned!

CDPHE oversees implementation of the rules by water systems. CDPHE does not override decisions made by drinking water suppliers unless they are failing to protect the drinking water. There is no provision in the regulations allowing CDPHE to do this. In this case, drinking water suppliers are acting in the interest of public health to protect drinking water via their rule implementation and CDPHE will not override their determinations. Therefore, CDPHE will not grant extensions to citizens for deadlines their drinking water supplier has implemented to install or test backflow prevention assemblies. The customer needs to continue to work with the drinking water supplier to protect their piping from uncontrolled cross connections. If the drinking water supplier needs an alternative schedule for installation or replacement of a device, then they can apply to the Division for an extension under Regulation 11.

For any questions or concerns about backflow prevention please email our backflow team at cdphe_wqcd_fss_questions@state.co.us. 

Program Manager Message

Perspective on the 2010s

A few months ago, we republished an Aqua Talk article I authored in late 2009 entitled “Perspectives on a New Decade.” It looked back on what happened in the 2000s and attempted to look forward to what might happen in the 2010s. This article will briefly look back on what actually happened in the 2010s. Next time we will look forward to the 2020s after this messed up initial year known as 2020. The late 2009 article asked a few questions, so let’s answer those.

Question: Will we be able to effectively implement the regulations adopted in the late 2000s?

Answer: Yes, with challenges. Implementing the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2), Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection  Byproducts Rule (Stage 2), has gone relatively well largely due to the investment in training and early implementation efforts of the mid- to late-2000s. Fortunately, very few public drinking water systems in Colorado fell outside of Bin 1 for LT2. Stage 2 has been considerably more challenging for water systems to comply with and CDPHE to implement. Watershed changes associated with climate change or wildfires still trigger new maximum contaminant level violations and these can be difficult to address.

Question: What new regulations will be promulgated by EPA before 2020?

Answer: Colorado completed adoption and began implementing the groundwater rule in about 2010 and the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) in 2016. These regulations were impactful, especially with respect to monitoring and repeat sampling requirements. Complying with some of the details remains challenging today. But overall Colorado’s long-standing disinfection rules prepared us pretty well to avoid water safety problems associated with these rules. For example, we have had to conduct very few Level 2 assessments under RTCR. 

Question: What progress will be made in understanding and dealing with unregulated contaminants?

Answer: See below for more information, but from a full-fledged regulatory perspective little changed. EPA went back and forth a couple of times on whether or not to regulate perchlorate and their present position is not to move forward with developing a final rule for that contaminant. 

Question: What additional precautions will water utilities need to take to as part of our nation’s efforts to protect the homeland?

Answer: Since its launch in 2008, membership in the Colorado Water and Wastewater Area Response Network (CO-WARN) increased dramatically. CO-WARN has helped many water systems in times of need, like the 2013 floods. About 270 utilities in Colorado are CO-WARN members and have signed the mutual aid agreement. CO-WARN strongly supports utility resiliency and helps the state’s overall capacity to respond to emergencies. Unfortunately, in 2020 we have seen an uptick in vandalism and cyberattacks perpetrated against water utilities. America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 requires that community water systems serving more than 3,300 people update risk assessments and emergency response plans. 

Question: What about climate change?

Answer: We have certainly seen impacts from climate change with prolonged dryness and large wildfires in numerous locations throughout the state during the 2010s culminating in the terrible year of 2020. We will be dealing with its aftermath for years to come and there is no end in sight. We will be working to foster safe potable reuse over the next decade, which will improve climate resiliency.

In addition, over the last ten years we adopted and implemented new or revised rules (mostly in 2016) regarding disinfection waivers, storage tanks, backflow prevention and cross connection control, disinfectant residual in distribution, hand pumps, and water haulers. The number of disinfection waivers was about 126 in 2009 and stands at about six today. Overall, no waterborne disease outbreaks have occurred at a regulated public drinking water system since 2008, and E. coli violations were reduced by 70% in the 2010s as compared to the 1990s. Since 2014 these violations have been exceedingly rare (only one) at regulated drinking water systems. But outbreaks and E. coli violations continue to occur at water systems that went undetected over the years and were not regulated. This suite of rules continues to be challenging for water systems and CDPHE to implement, but the positive results are astounding! Other states cannot believe that a state the size of Colorado has essentially eliminated E. coli violations in drinking water.

In 2009, I stated that surely new challenges would arise as well. Boy, did they! Lead and PFAS. Water systems and CDPHE undertook Herculean efforts after the Flint crisis in 2015-16 to improve Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) implementation. Our approach to nearly every aspect of the rule from materials identification to sampling requirements and optimum corrosion control treatment was reinvigorated or overhauled. Since LCR is the most complicated rule, it was a painful process. We were successful in working with Denver Water and EPA to obtain the first-of-its-kind variance from the LCR allowing for lead service line removal and supplying filters to the public instead of adding orthophosphate. This was a supreme challenge but represented real wins for public health, the environment, health equity and cost effectiveness. While all that was going on, Colorado became the number one state in terms of its population consuming drinking water close to or above EPA’s revised health advisory for PFAS compounds after it was revised downward by nearly an order of magnitude in May 2016. That is a list no one wants to be on top of! Through partnerships with impacted water systems, EPA, local health departments and potentially responsible parties, these situations all received considerable attention and effort. Today, no one in Colorado served by a public drinking water system is known to consume tap water above or near EPA’s health advisory.  

Lastly, in 2009 I projected that resource issues were likely to remain a challenge for water systems and CDPHE as well. That played out beyond expectation for the Safe Drinking Water Program. We began projecting financial difficulties in about 2014. By 2017 the problem was severe. To avoid a crisis, we were forced to abolish 11 technical positions representing about 15% of our direct program workforce. That was a painful time. Fortunately, increased federal funding helped us get back on the right track, but we are still struggling to fill positions and adequately implement the 2016 rules. Without more funding, we are not in a strong position to adopt and fully implement the expected revisions to the LCR.

Overall, the 2010s were a wilder ride than expected but we can all be proud that tap water today in Colorado is undeniably safer than ever before! In my next program manager message, we’ll look ahead to the 2020s. Thanks again for all you do to protect public health by keeping drinking water safe.

➽ Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Manager

Lead and Copper Rule Revisions Update

In early 2020 the public comment period on EPA's proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) closed and EPA indicated that it would finalize the rule in summer 2020. EPA had long stated their goal to finalize the LCRR in 2020 and we expected it to occur no later than lead poisoning prevention week, which was the last week in October. However, EPA did not finalize the LCRR and has not stated a new target date. Obviously, there is a great deal of uncertainty at present in Washington, D.C. It is also uncertain how the rule may be altered based on public comments that EPA received.

Once the LCRR are finalized, CDPHE will plan a broad and robust stakeholder process as we move forward toward developing revisions to the lead and copper rule within the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Regulation 11). The rule covers a broad range of topics from sampling to public notice and education to Optimum Corrosion Control Treatment (OCCT). We envision that each of these topics, and probably more, would warrant individual workgroups to discuss key issues and develop a path forward. Ultimately, based on all of the stakeholder input, CDPHE will draft a new rule that is no less stringent than the federal rule and bring that forward for a formal rulemaking process before the Water Quality Control Commission. The Commission would then entertain further public input before adopting the final rule. Typically, that entire process is allowed to take a maximum of two years. Implementation and compliance dates typically follow. However, for LCRR there are indications that certain aspects of the rule may need to be implemented more quickly. At present, early implementation is expected to be involved with lead service line inventory requirements at a minimum. So, our advice to water systems is to plan now for a full lead service line inventory to be part of the final LCRR and consider how your water system would tackle that effort.

Stay tuned for more information when EPA finalizes the LCRR.

➽ Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Manager

Disinfection of Drinking Water Promotes a Culture of Health

How does disinfection of drinking water relate to a culture of health:

In Colorado, all public drinking water systems are required to have continuous chemical disinfection, except for a few rare systems that meet strict standards to retain disinfection waivers and hand-pumped wells at campgrounds. Most folks understand that surface water sources used for drinking water are filtered and disinfected to remove and kill harmful organisms such as Giardia lamblia or Cryptosporidium. However, some may question the need to disinfect groundwater and spring sources. Why? Perhaps they believe that a groundwater source or a spring must be pure and free of harmful organisms by nature.

News Flash! Springs and groundwater can be contaminated with viruses and bacteria from any number of sources - from animal waste, septic systems, from the influence of a stream just across the road, from a dead animal 100 yards upstream, and on and on. Even if the water from the well or spring is not contaminated, contamination can enter the distribution system due to line breaks, leaks in pipelines, low pressure events, backflow events, or storage tank contamination, just to name a few. Yuck! 

Additionally, there are regions in Colorado where nitrate, arsenic, uranium and other acute or chronic contaminants are known to occur naturally in groundwater. Thus, it would be a mistake to assume that it’s safe to consume untreated water from a well or a spring. Arsenic and E. coli are “natural” but they can also be harmful or even deadly. 

Some common examples of unprotected openings are inadequately protected access hatches, overflow pipes and air vents at storage tanks as well as unprotected well caps (check for holes or cracks in electrical conduits and vents where critters could enter).

The photos below show an unprotected opening into a storage tank (left) and a well cap with unprotected openings (right).

Multiple Lines of Defense:

Disinfection of drinking water supplies effectively inactivates bacteria and viruses. Continuous disinfection of drinking water sources is one of the best lines of defense in the multiple barrier approach to providing safe drinking water. Even if water from a groundwater source meets safe drinking water standards, unprotected openings can allow contamination to enter storage tanks, wells, spring boxes or distribution systems. Frequently, unprotected openings and sanitary defects are found at storage tanks and wells by Field Service Section staff during sanitary surveys. 

Disinfection with chlorine or chloramines provides a persistent disinfectant residual. Maintaining a sufficient disinfectant residual throughout the distribution system is an important second line of defense against harmful organisms that can unknowingly enter a water system at unprotected openings.

The photos below show a storage tank with significant deficiencies. 

Case Study:

Positive total coliform (TC) samples were collected from the distribution system of a previously unregistered community water system in Costilla County, indicating contamination in the water system. Upon investigation it was found that the system was using two wells which were not being properly disinfected. In addition, unprotected openings into the supplier’s wells and storage tanks were found during a sanitary survey. Although the exact source of the contamination was not determined, it is noteworthy that the supplier’s TC samples came back clean after the supplier began disinfecting the system with chlorine. 

The photo to the right is a close-up of a significant deficiency - the tank’s overflow pipe is unprotected. 

Conclusion: 

Lack of appropriate disinfection can lead to positive bacteria (TC) samples in the distribution system, which points to a source of bacteriological contamination and a pathway for contamination to enter the water. Chemical disinfection is a critical part of the multiple barrier approach to providing safe drinking water and is a safe and effective way of protecting our communities and promoting a culture of health. 

The photo below demonstrates another significant deficiency - the tank has an inadequately protected access hatch with debris inside the tank. 

Guidance & Resources:  

• Quick guide: Disinfectant residual and 
• Quick guide: Minimum disinfection for groundwater 
• Additional information about disinfection is available at the division's Revised Total Coliform Website
• Please feel free to reach out to the field services section at cdphe_wqcd_fss_questions@state.co.us with any related questions.

➽ Monique Morey, PE, field services section

Regulation 11 - Cross Connection Regulation Updates

In the early summer 2020, the department proposed minor modifications to the Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control Rule along with the Finished Water Storage Tank Rule - see other Aqua Talk post for storage tank discussions. The department completed a stakeholder effort and presented the modifications to the Water Quality Control Commission. The Commission approved all proposed modifications in early August and the changes took effect September 30, 2020. The Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control Rule (Regulation 11, Section 11.39) protects public health from contamination associated with cross-connections and backflow events. The department proposed three changes that will lessen the burden on water systems while still protecting public health:

1. Keep requiring distribution system surveys, but move the violation from a treatment technique to a monitoring violation.
2. Allow systems to continue to request alternative survey compliance ratios with justification.
3. Given delays due to pandemic, allow for a longer time to comply with higher survey ratios and assembly testing ratios.  

Changes to the Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Rule

Distribution System Survey:

Each public water system is required to survey their distribution system and waterworks to determine a list of cross connections that need to be controlled. The previous regulatory requirement was to survey 100% of each distribution system by December 31, 2020. Also, systems could only apply for a specific alternative survey compliance ratio for the compliance periods between January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019. The latest version of the regulation has extended the requirement to survey 90% of the distribution system from December 31, 2019 to December 31, 2020. The 100% requirement has therefore been pushed back to December 31, 2021. Also, the department's ability to grant alternative compliance ratios has been reinstated and will be ongoing. Systems can continue to request specific alternative compliance ratios with proper justifications.

The above approach is still protective of public health because of the overwhelmingly excellent work public water systems have done over the last 5 years in surveying their systems. Many, if not most, public water systems have nearly finished surveying their water users, however the final few percent can be difficult to finish. Therefore, the department recommended that the Commission modify the type of violation that distribution system surveying represents to a monitoring violation. This means that if a violation occurs, instead of requiring Tier 2 public notice (within 30 days, health effects language) for treatment techniques, it now will only result in Tier 3 public notice (included in the annual consumer confidence report). Also, given the pandemic, water systems reported struggles with being able to enter properties to execute surveys due to exposure concerns.

The department would like water systems to continue diligently surveying their distribution systems. If an alternative survey compliance ratio will be necessary for 2020, the department encourages water systems to send in that request as soon as possible. Such requests can be submitted to the drinking water portal labeled as a sanitary survey response or the the Field Services Section general email address at CDPHE_WQCD_FSS_Questions@state.co.us.

Testing Ratios for Assemblies:

The other notable change to the regulation was to extend the assembly testing compliance ratio an additional year. Previously, systems were required to have 80% of assemblies tested for calendar year 2019 and 90% tested in 2020. With the newly approved regulation change, systems will only be required to have at least 80% of assemblies tested for calendar year 2020 and at least 90% for 2021. Hopefully, this will offer some measure of relief to water systems as they navigate the pandemic and interfacing with private properties while still progressing with protecting public health from potential cross-connections.

What's next?

It is important to stay tuned over the winter months as the department will initiate a stakeholder process to perform needed updates to Policy 7 which deals with cross connection control. These updates are necessary because of regulatory changes discussed above and also due to lessons learned in implementing the regulation over the last four years.

Additional Information and Responsibilities for Extending Deadlines:

Recently, several upset customers of water systems have approached the department asking for extensions to control or repair backflow assemblies when the public water system felt it was not justifiable to grant further extensions for that customer. It is important to remember that the department will override decisions of water systems when those decisions are considered protective of public health. Therefore, customers can be referred to the department and the department will gladly reiterate the importance of backflow prevention, but will not make decisions that extend deadlines on behalf of customers. If a water system believes an extension is warranted, the department will consider those requests and frequently grants them. But if a customer becomes upset, please do not have them ask the department for an extension because we will not grant one if the water system does not think it is justified.

➽ By Tyson Ingels, Clayton Moores