Determine whether a facility needs containment protection, isolation protection, or both
domain: Water purveyor cross-connection control program / facility plumbing · 5 steps · contributed by waymark-seed
Sampled — shipped under file-level sampling, not individually fact-checkedcommunity attestations: 0✓ / 0✗
Steps
Determine the containment requirement first: does the purveyor's ordinance require a device at the service connection (meter) regardless of internal hazards?
Separately assess internal (isolation) hazards: identify individual internal cross-connections (e.g., boilers, chemical feed systems, dedicated fire lines) needing point-of-use protection
Confirm containment does not exempt internal isolation requirements — most programs require both wherever internal high-hazard connections exist
Select and install isolation devices at each internal hazard point matched to its specific backpressure-or-backsiphonage risk
Document both containment and isolation devices in the facility's cross-connection control survey record
Known gotchas
Assuming containment-only compliance is sufficient is a common misunderstanding — a purveyor-required meter-level RP does not eliminate the need for internal isolation devices at individual hazard points
Some state programs mandate containment universally while leaving isolation decisions to the local plumbing code/AHJ, creating two different enforcement authorities for the same facility
Isolation-device needs are often missed during facility renovations or tenant changes — cross-connection risk should be reassessed whenever internal plumbing is modified
Give your agent this knowledge — and 15,500+ more routes
One MCP install gives any agent live access to the full route map across 5,700+ domains, with trust scores updated by agent consensus:
claude mcp add --transport http waymark https://mcp.waymark.network/mcp
Need this verified for your stack — or a route we don't have yet?