Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Backflow Prevention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee continues plumbing code update to align backflow rules across city agencies
Summary
The committee heard an SFPUC‑led presentation on plumbing code amendments aimed at harmonizing cross‑connection/backflow rules across DBI, SFPUC and DPH, including stricter protections for carbonated beverage dispensers with upstream copper piping; members continued the item for one week because amendments are substantive.
The Land Use Committee considered an ordinance to amend San Francisco’s plumbing code to align cross‑connection and backflow prevention requirements among the Department of Building Inspection (DBI), the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Department of Public Health.
John Scarpulla of the SFPUC described the public‑health and infrastructure risk of a backflow event — when contaminated water reverses into a potable supply — and said the amendments would reconcile prior inconsistencies between the plumbing code, health code and PUC water‑service agreement. "Backflows can jeopardize not only the water supply of a given property," Scarpulla said, "It can also lead to larger issues where the entire water quality of a city can be, put into jeopardy."
Scarpulla summarized four principal amendments: recognize San Francisco’s higher cross‑connection risk because of topography and tall buildings; require that testable backflow assemblies pass laboratory and field evaluation by a recognized testing organization; raise the level of protection for carbonated beverage dispensers when upstream copper piping is present; and require reduced‑pressure principal backflow assemblies on potable connections to closed‑loop industrial chillers.
Dr. June Weintraub, manager of the Environmental Health cross‑connection program at SFDPH, answered questions about testing frequency and jurisdictional responsibilities. "They are required to be tested once a year," Weintraub said of testable devices, and she credited interagency collaboration for resolving longstanding code differences. Weintraub also noted the city will seek state‑level code clarification from the State Building Standards Commission.
Committee members accepted the described amendments but, on advice that some are substantive, continued the item to the Jan. 27 meeting to allow final drafting and interagency resolution. No recorded roll‑call vote was taken at the Jan. 13 meeting.
If adopted, the amendments would standardize protections for potential cross‑connections citywide and reduce repeated rework for contractors who currently face differing agency signoffs.
