PDA

View Full Version : ********Pics********


Bobcat s250 NY
03-06-2007, 09:10 AM
Hey guys all of the hardscape guys on here are always showing pictures of their work. Do you guys have any pictures of systems running? I have a few. We do so many installs a year, but for some reason just never take the pictures.. Oh well maybe this year.:hammerhead:This was a big pretty big one, 36 zones, 1"1/2 looped main Head spacing was between 24 and 30 feet. This picture was taken right before winterizing sometime in Early December .:hammerhead:

Bobcat s250 NY
03-06-2007, 09:15 AM
Heres a few making a sytem legal . Installing Retrosetter

Dirty Water
03-06-2007, 10:48 AM
Interesting concept with the retro-setter, I've never seen that here. It looks just like a Watts DCV, with union ends?

Of couse, it would be just as simple to not cram all that in the little box there and just dig out a bit and install the DCV, thats how I did all my retrofits.

Flow Control
03-06-2007, 11:41 AM
That's a beautiful estate. Nice truck too.

Bobcat s250 NY
03-06-2007, 11:43 AM
DirtyWater,
Normaly I would but it isnt legal to do that in this township. Out here on the Island many townships have there own requirements for backflow. In this town the only thing they will accept is a retrosetter bought from them placed in the meter pit. Cost for the valve is Around 230- 260. Its basically more money for them. They really started to crack down on the illegal systems there last year. We picked up many customers that had flyby nights that had to clue how to make the sytem conform to the water departments requierments. This town isnt that bad, 1 town over on every install you need to dig down to the watermain(average 5 feet deep and install a self draining curbstop and install the same retro in the meter pit. On average it adds another $1000 buck on each install in that town. They also require permits and an as built when complete. The reason they want the curbstop is so they can shut your water off if they catch you watering on the wrong day. Plus big fine. What a pain in the ass. :hammerhead:

Bobcat s250 NY
03-06-2007, 11:47 AM
Thanks ICS. Its alil overkill for a service truck but i figured better 2 heavy than 2 light. Its a 2004 F450 6.0 diesel flatbody with a 175 cfm skid mount compressor on it.
Heres another shot winterizing though with on of our Installation trucks

Wet_Boots
03-06-2007, 12:02 PM
Just shows how things vary. That stop & waste curb stop is being discontinued elsewhere as it is now being considered an avenue to contamination.

One town I worked in, years ago, bumped up their outdoor meter pits to 36" diameter, making it really easy to include a BP on a curbside lawn sprinkler connection. At the same time, they stopped using pit covers with an inner plastic sub-cover. Seems they figured out that a hole at least four feet deep provides enough heat to keep the pit plumbing from freezing, even without an inner cover.

GreenN'Clean
03-06-2007, 12:10 PM
That is a sweet estate

Flow Control
03-06-2007, 12:19 PM
It's against code here to install any BF with unions. I like the idea of having unions on BF's from a service standpoint it can't get any easier.

Wet_Boots
03-06-2007, 12:32 PM
You might google up your codes and look for actual language. In a meter pit with unions and tight fits, it only makes sense. The 36" pit (or maybe it was a 30") was so roomy that I could use threaded brass elbows if I wanted. I think I did pull the inlet ball valve and threaded on an elbow, then replaced the ball valve, compacting the assembly a bit.

Bobcat s250 NY
03-06-2007, 12:40 PM
Hey wet Boots. When you installed the double checks in the pits how did you handle the situation if the household didnt have a expantion tank installed. Did you install one or did u make the home owner get it done? Really sucks to have the hot water heater dumping all over the basements. :nono:

Wet_Boots
03-06-2007, 01:05 PM
No expansion tank needed, because my work was for irrigation only. Separate tap and meter. I did see a few pages where towns were demanding check-valve type backflow at the meters, without taking into account what would happen with water heaters in the circuit. Kaboosh!! goes the water heaters.

Dirty Water
03-06-2007, 02:40 PM
No expansion tank needed, because my work was for irrigation only. Separate tap and meter. I did see a few pages where towns were demanding check-valve type backflow at the meters, without taking into account what would happen with water heaters in the circuit. Kaboosh!! goes the water heaters.


A few years ago we installed 250 domestic DCV's on a private watersystem.

No mention was ever made of expansion tanks. As we never recieved one complaint call regarding it, I don't think your typical house water heater really effects things that much.

Bobcat s250 NY
03-06-2007, 02:46 PM
Yeah well i learned that the hard way by getting a call after we left an install with the homeowner saying hey the sprinklers work great but there is water all over my basement.:nono: Live and learn. LOL Guess my pops forgot to tell me about installing the expansion tank. Ever since then i havent installed a retro without a expansion tank in 6 + years.

DUSTYCEDAR
03-06-2007, 02:49 PM
IT seems that half azz is a good way to do it in pa as i have seen many things over the years and no 2 are the same
i like the tuck by the way

Wet_Boots
03-06-2007, 03:08 PM
Just look at the description of a pressure reducing valve - they have an internal bypass to account for thermal expansion. This is not a problem that began with towns placing dual checks after the water meters.

Now if you install a check valve after a streetside meter, that feeds a poly pipe supply line, that poly pipe might actually be providing some safety cushion. In a home with all copper plumbing, there isn't any comparable wiggle room. This is why codes spell out the requirement for expansion tanks on any check-valve-isolated area of plumbing.

Bobcat s250 NY
03-06-2007, 05:13 PM
Hey boots thanks for the science behind it... Its weird that there are so many things that people know have to be done , but not necessarily the reasoning of why. Thanks again.

Wet_Boots
03-06-2007, 05:34 PM
Lots of these plumbing changes have been introduced rather haphazardly. I recall the very early days of the RPZ, when installers were asking suppliers if they were supposed to install them in the same way they would a DCVA, that meaning to install them in the basement plumbing. "Sure! Why not?" they were told. Some guys got a rude awakening when they learned what the relief valve was all about.

Ground Master
03-06-2007, 06:31 PM
I'm amazed at how many water suppliers still allow double checks.

mikecaldwell1204
03-06-2007, 09:38 PM
Just come on down to Florida and see all the double checks. Some counties only recently started requiring Vacuum type breakers and the only code then is 1 foot above the highest head.:dizzy:

Ground Master
03-07-2007, 07:39 PM
Wondering how many systems with double checks also have fertilizer units on them...........

bicmudpuppy
03-07-2007, 09:28 PM
Wondering how many systems with double checks also have fertilizer units on them...........

Fertigation should automatically require an RPZ by code. You no longer fall under irrigation, but fertigation. Seperate uses.

Ground Master
03-08-2007, 02:05 PM
Fertigation should automatically require an RPZ by code. You no longer fall under irrigation, but fertigation. Seperate uses.

Well yeah, thats my point.

Code requires that. But code also does not allow double checks for irrigation.

It seems as if many water suppliers out there are allowing double checks, which are a low hazard device protecting a high hazard application(sprinkler systems). You then get some guy, whether it be the homeowner or uninformed contractor adding on a fertilization system at some point in the system thinking that their double check is providing adequate backflow protection.

Wouldn't you want to live next door to one of those situations?

So, as I stated in an earlier post, I'm wondering how many systems with double checks have fertilization units on them.........

Wet_Boots
03-08-2007, 02:46 PM
...But code also does not allow double checks for irrigation.This varies by state, and even within a state. It all depends on whether a state adopts a regional code (or writes their own) that uses the toxic / non-toxic dividing line, which leaves the DCVA out in the cold.

Older codes would often use low-hazard / high-hazard as a dividing line, and that could often lead to calling a lawn sprinkler system a low-hazard backflow risk. Fertigation would make for a high-hazard system, but the ordinary sprinkler system would be called low-hazard. (because who's been killed by an ordinary lawn sprinkler system lately?) That designation is strictly playing the odds, and not actually looking at the exact nature of the risks involved, many of which are definitely toxic. But as long as a DCVA is accepted in a region, it's a very hard sell to have a customer accept any above-ground backflow prevention. No one wants to look at the stuff, if they don't have to.

Sadly enough, I expect some people will have to become very sick, or die, before all lawn sprinkler backflow will toxic-rated only.