PDA

View Full Version : All irrigation systems are high hazard


irritation
06-04-2008, 11:34 PM
Please help protect our water.
PVB'S must be 12" above the highest sprinkler head, if not then a RPZ device must be installed.
All devices must be tested at time of installation and once per year by a certified tester. A copy of the test results must be submitted to your local water authority.
DCA's are unacceptable for all irrigation systems.
Devices used for such important testing must be calibrated and if required, certified on a regular basis.

Thank you for your cooperation
:waving:

Wet_Boots
06-04-2008, 11:38 PM
Sorry, Charlie, but every code book has yet to agree with you.

nylan8888
06-04-2008, 11:44 PM
Oh No, it's the PVB Police!:hammerhead::hammerhead::hammerhead:

Wet_Boots
06-04-2008, 11:49 PM
Hey, me likey PVB. Gravity is our friend.

irritation
06-05-2008, 12:20 AM
Failure to comply has yet to see any action.:(

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 12:26 AM
Failure to comply has yet to see any action.:(In English?

EagleLandscape
06-05-2008, 12:26 AM
Go Home.....

irritation
06-05-2008, 12:32 AM
Go Home.....

Fine, at least I have reverse osmosis there.:)

Mr. Bow Raker
06-05-2008, 02:37 AM
Failure to comply has yet to see any action.:( Utilizing DCA's has resulted in what? C'mon, I hope you have a good knowledge of cross connections and their dangers. If the loss of pressure on the supply side is severe enough, the purveyor will always mandate an extended period of boiling of potable water before consumption. Your agenda promotes a "the sky is falling" mentality. DCA's are a more than adequate solution for a low hazard irrigation system. If a system has been classified otherwise, then by all means comply with local ordinances.

AI Inc
06-05-2008, 06:36 AM
Utilizing DCA's has resulted in what? C'mon, I hope you have a good knowledge of cross connections and their dangers. If the loss of pressure on the supply side is severe enough, the purveyor will always mandate an extended period of boiling of potable water before consumption. Your agenda promotes a "the sky is falling" mentality. DCA's are a more than adequate solution for a low hazard irrigation system. If a system has been classified otherwise, then by all means comply with local ordinances.

Please explain a "low hazard irrigation system"

CAPT Stream Rotar
06-05-2008, 06:59 AM
give this horse sh1t a rest pal

EagleLandscape
06-05-2008, 07:39 AM
Top Of The Morning To You Too Rotar, Hahahaha

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 07:40 AM
Please explain a "low hazard irrigation system"That's old language still in place. Code writers could look at the staggering death toll (not) from lawn sprinkler backflow, and decide that it's all low hazard. Modern code writers look at the specific nature of the likeliest contaminants, and call it "toxic backflow" ~ the DCVA was always on the wrong side of the toxic fence.

FIMCO-MEISTER
06-05-2008, 08:38 AM
I personally think the MV with an AVB is far safer for the public than a DCVA. We have so many failed DCVAs in Dallas it is ridiculous. The mere fact we haven't had a serious cross contamination issue in all these years due to an irrigation system convinces me they should be considered low toxic.

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 08:45 AM
I personally think the MV with an AVB is far safer for the public than a DCVA. We have so many failed DCVAs in Dallas it is ridiculous. The mere fact we haven't had a serious cross contamination issue in all these years due to an irrigation system convinces me they should be considered low toxic.Why not a PVB? I only expect to see an AVB on a one-per-zone basis, downstream of the zone valve.

As a side note, has anyone using (at behest of local officials) the master-valve AVB and 'wild-head' combo ever seen a codified detailing of the combination, as a genuine written requirement?

FIMCO-MEISTER
06-05-2008, 08:51 AM
Why not a PVB? I only expect to see an AVB on a one-per-zone basis, downstream of the zone valve.

As a side note, has anyone using (at behest of local officials) the master-valve AVB and 'wild-head' combo ever seen a codified detailing of the combination, as a genuine written requirement?

A PVB would definitely be better. I was just stating a comparison to DCVAs.

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 09:03 AM
I wonder what the track record is per DCVA make and model. No question that I see jammed poppets in Febco 805Y DCVAs, and they were the big local favorite.

DanaMac
06-05-2008, 09:06 AM
We don't have BF inspections here. But when blowing out a system in the fall, quite often we use the upper testcock of the PVB (don't start, don't start). Sometimes air will blow out through the lower one, indicating a damaged check valve. Or the retainer clip and spring are popped out of place. So I replace it and charge them.

Tom Tom
06-05-2008, 10:14 AM
Please help protect our water.
PVB'S must be 12" above the highest sprinkler head, if not then a RPZ device must be installed.
All devices must be tested at time of installation and once per year by a certified tester. A copy of the test results must be submitted to your local water authority.
DCA's are unacceptable for all irrigation systems.
Devices used for such important testing must be calibrated and if required, certified on a regular basis.

Thank you for your cooperation
:waving:


Did you just take a backflow course?

Tom Tom
06-05-2008, 10:18 AM
I personally think the MV with an AVB is far safer for the public than a DCVA. We have so many failed DCVAs in Dallas it is ridiculous. The mere fact we haven't had a serious cross contamination issue in all these years due to an irrigation system convinces me they should be considered low toxic.

I think it happens alot more than we realize, we just don't know it.

Alamosa, Colorado went thru a huge deal with their municipal system a couple months back. Not sure if they ever found the source of the contamination, but the towns residents could not use the water for several weeks as the system was being flushed. Some 200 plus people became ill

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 10:29 AM
The nice thing about going to toxic-rated backflow, as opposed to DCVAs, is the ability of the devices to protect, even without inspections.

Mike Leary
06-05-2008, 10:55 AM
The nice thing about going to toxic-rated backflow, as opposed to DCVAs, is the ability of the devices to protect, even without inspections.

Just because a RP will dump water if there's a problem is no reason to not
have annual tests, some of our high hazard RPs are mandated to be tested
twice yearly.

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 11:03 AM
"Should be tested" doesn't always translate into action. AVBs are in their own class, since they protect by way of gravity. Not much to test there, but pay me a service charge, and I'll show up with an apple and certify that gravity is still in working order. :)

Mike Leary
06-05-2008, 11:09 AM
"Should be tested" doesn't always translate into action.

True, however, our purveyor has a Canadian backflow software system that
tracks all backflow assemblies & the results of the tests over the years.
If any tester does a "drive-by" & the psid numbers don't jive with historical,
the tester loses his license, period.

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 11:30 AM
I'm thinking more of areas that require the toxic-rated backflow, but never test any of it. For those guys, the design of the devices becomes important, to cover up for slacking off on the testing.

jimmyburg
06-05-2008, 11:31 AM
the best backflow device is the air gap

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 11:41 AM
the best backflow device is the air gapIt do tend to reduce the pressure a mite...

Kiril
06-05-2008, 12:03 PM
My solution, just install toxic rated back flow units and cover all your bases.

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 12:07 PM
My solution, just install toxic rated back flow units and cover all your bases.In a locale with DCVAs tucked out of sight in valve boxes, your toxic-rated backflow will stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. Difficult sell.

Kiril
06-05-2008, 12:23 PM
In a locale with DCVAs tucked out of sight in valve boxes, your toxic-rated backflow will stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. Difficult sell.

Who cares when you can walk away from the job knowing your @ss is covered no matter what happens with silly local codes or possible toxic contamination of water supplies.

BTW, you can pit certain RPZA models, it is just not a recommended practice.

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 12:39 PM
You'll care when you don't get paid. Some folks simply nod when you state that you are putting in proper backflow, then when they actually see it, all but blow a gasket.

WalkGood
06-05-2008, 01:31 PM
In a locale with DCVAs tucked out of sight in valve boxes, your toxic-rated backflow will stick out like the proverbial sore thumb. Difficult sell.


Then cover it with ...... a shrubery!

http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/python2.gif

irritation
06-05-2008, 01:38 PM
Did you just take a backflow course?

Nope, I've been certified since 1989. Irrigation has been considered high hazard in my area since the mid 80's. All devices hooked up to city water must be tested annually. Non irrigation RP's bi-annually. Testing is strictly enforced, they threaten to pull your meter if test results are not received by a certain date but I have yet to see that happen.

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 02:08 PM
Nope, I've been certified since 1989. Irrigation has been considered high hazard in my area since the mid 80's. All devices hooked up to city water must be tested annually. Non irrigation RP's bi-annually. Testing is strictly enforced, they threaten to pull your meter if test results are not received by a certain date but I have yet to see that happen.What kind of test results would you submit for a system with antisyphon valves? You do understand that the original post came off as naive, considering the nationwide variations in the plumbing codes.

irritation
06-05-2008, 02:20 PM
You don't see AVB'S around here unless it's an old system (pre 1980's) but they "grandfathered" them and they must be inspected yearly to ensure the poppet drops when pressure is released. Even some air gaps must be inspected yearly and results turned in.

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 02:31 PM
So, how do you inspect an AVB poppet? Not like you can see through a cover. Good chance you can hear the sounds that would indicate proper functioning, once a zone is turned off, but that could make an inspection a two-man job, with someone operating the controller, and someone listening for air inflow and/or water gurgling on an AVB.

irritation
06-05-2008, 04:56 PM
DCA's are a more than adequate solution for a low hazard irrigation system. If a system has been classified otherwise, then by all means comply with local ordinances.

I see you're from South Carolina. I'm not sure but I think this link may apply to you.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:1CqHTqAv2CUJ:www.charlestonwater.com/downloads/cross_connect/bldg_code_changes.pdf+%22DCVA+no+longer+allowed+on+Lawn+Irrigation+systems%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Mike Leary
06-05-2008, 05:18 PM
Great link, Irritation. I think that's where everybody's going due to the laxness of
purveyors to have a active cross-connection program. DCVAs are fine if tested &
maintained regularly, but we don't see it outside our service area. BATs & purveyors
should be monitoring all installations & replacing parts when psid numbers start to fall,
not when they have failed. :nono:

Wet_Boots
06-05-2008, 05:25 PM
I see you're from South Carolina. I'm not sure but I think this link may apply to you.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:1CqHTqAv2CUJ:www.charlestonwater.com/downloads/cross_connect/bldg_code_changes.pdf+%22DCVA+no+longer+allowed+on+Lawn+Irrigation+systems%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=usNote that 608.16.5 does allow for the usage of the AVB to protect against lawn sprinkler backflow. I wonder if their use of the phrase "containment protection" refers to a single device upstream of all parts of the sprinkler system, which, of course, could not be the AVB.

Mike Leary
06-05-2008, 05:57 PM
I wonder if their use of the phrase "containment protection" refers to a single device upstream of all parts of the sprinkler system

DCVA? :laugh:

irritation
06-05-2008, 06:06 PM
Here's a nice device, but I can't find field testing procedures for it.;)

http://www.nobackflow.com/cross-breed.jpg

Mike Leary
06-05-2008, 06:19 PM
Here's a nice device, but I can't find field testing procedures for it.;)

What the f**k? Is that a angle pattern RP with what, a heater? Always nice to
see sch 40 exposed to the elements. :dizzy: I'd refuse to test it, or get within 20'. :hammerhead:

irritation
06-05-2008, 07:06 PM
What the f**k? Is that a angle pattern RP with what, a heater? Always nice to
see sch 40 exposed to the elements. :dizzy: I'd refuse to test it, or get within 20'. :hammerhead:

:laugh: Well, I don't see a heater but that would be a nice addition.
Looks like a Watts 1" PVB with the downstream ball valve removed and a Febco 1" RP screwed on to it.
Actually the brass will freeze and crack before the pvc will, but the sunlight is not good for the pvc.

Waterit
06-05-2008, 07:33 PM
I see you're from South Carolina. I'm not sure but I think this link may apply to you.

That applies to anyone in any state that has adopted International Code. But they're still accepting DCVA's down here.

On pump and well systems, a hydro-indexing valve is accepted (for those not familiar: http://www.krain.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=indexingVlvs.4000series).

DanaMac
06-05-2008, 08:25 PM
Here's a nice device, but I can't find field testing procedures for it.;)

http://www.nobackflow.com/cross-breed.jpg

That is phenomenal. Thanks for the laugh. That is one of the best set ups I have seen in a long time. What do you call it? A PVRP? Or an RPVB?

Tom Tom
06-05-2008, 08:28 PM
That is phenomenal. Thanks for the laugh. That is one of the best set ups I have seen in a long time. What do you call it? A PVRP? Or an RPVB?


Definitely a chunk of coin sittin' there

Mike Leary
06-05-2008, 08:30 PM
Definetly a chunk of coin sittin' there

Should have been brass risers, let's not be pikers, here.

h2o2gunr
06-05-2008, 09:12 PM
go and do some reading jr. irrigation systems are low hazards if the potential contaminate is indirectly connected. example low hazard fertilizer pooled around head. example high hazard direct injected or siphoned/aspirated fertilizer.

cross connection, an actual or potential connection between potable and any non potable source. protection from direct connection= backpressure or back siphon. indirect=back siphon only.

Tom Tom
06-05-2008, 09:14 PM
. example low hazard fertilizer pooled around head.

.

high hazard to me

and welcome to the show :drinkup:

Mike Leary
06-05-2008, 09:16 PM
go and do some reading jr..

Different all over the country. Did you ever know Wilbert Harrison?

irritation
06-05-2008, 10:09 PM
I realize the chances are slim but it has happened and it could happen to affect thousands.
I've serviced systems that have not been run in months and the water that came out was very "questionable". Who knows what they used on their lawn. Weed killers? You bet.
I've also witnessed back siphonage when they have had to turn the water off from a water main break and you can actually hear the suction all over the neighborhood.

EagleLandscape
06-05-2008, 11:13 PM
I would cut your losses and bow out gracefully. No sense in looking like an elitest right off the bat. Your name has to start with a M and end with an -ike for that:)

Mike Leary
06-05-2008, 11:29 PM
I would cut your losses and bow out gracefully. No sense in looking like an elitest right off the bat.)

Piker......

DanaMac
06-06-2008, 06:04 PM
Alamosa, Colorado went thru a huge deal with their municipal system a couple months back. Not sure if they ever found the source of the contamination, but the towns residents could not use the water for several weeks as the system was being flushed. Some 200 plus people became ill

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9503435

here's a link with today's latest. Don't know if this link is permanent.

Mike Leary
06-06-2008, 06:11 PM
here's a link with today's latest. Don't know if this link is permanent.

If the town even has a cross-control specialist, he should lose his job.
If they don't have a active program & inspection, no tomar. :nono:

Mr. Bow Raker
06-09-2008, 10:52 PM
I see you're from South Carolina. I'm not sure but I think this link may apply to you.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:1CqHTqAv2CUJ:www.charlestonwater.com/downloads/cross_connect/bldg_code_changes.pdf+%22DCVA+no+longer+allowed+on+Lawn+Irrigation+systems%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Thanks for the link, but the issue is much cloudier than that and has yet to be resolved. While your link indicates that the requirements for SC have changed, in reality they have not. As irrigation contractors go, compliance with the local water purveyor is the first concern. Upgrading the device to surpass the requirements might seem like a good idea, but it makes no financial sense. I have never seen a residential irrigation system here in Greenville with a device other than a DCVA. (unless you count no device, gate valve or residential dual check.) Here is an article about changes made to the code your link above references:http://www.dwbp-online.com/DWBP-03-02-PG24-26.pdf

Wet_Boots
06-09-2008, 11:31 PM
Thanks for the link, but the issue is much cloudier than that and has yet to be resolved. While your link indicates that the requirements for SC have changed, in reality they have not. As irrigation contractors go, compliance with the local water purveyor is the first concern. Upgrading the device to surpass the requirements might seem like a good idea, but it makes no financial sense. I have never seen a residential irrigation system here in Greenville with a device other than a DCVA. (unless you count no device, gate valve or residential dual check.) Here is an article about changes made to the code your link above references:http://www.dwbp-online.com/DWBP-03-02-PG24-26.pdfWhy would you cite an article that's six years old? If you have a state law that demands toxic-rated backflow prevention, then local rule has been more or less eliminated. A local authority can and should see to it that the state requirements are met, but they do not have the authority to rewrite them as they choose. Some regional codes are very specific on this - they will recognize a local authority's right to have ordinance requirements that are stricter than state requirements, but the reverse is not in any way possible.

South Carolina looks like they were where Jersey was when they adopted the National Standard Plumbing Code. Suddenly the DCVA was not permitted. Better yet, all existing DCVA installations were non-compliant, and not grandfathered. Much unhappiness. And many a town had ordinances requiring the DCVA for lawn sprinkler use, and their inspectors didn't get the memo from the capitol, and kept demanding DCVAs. More unhappiness.

Once the state adopts a requirement for toxic-rated backflow protection, you can expect the DCVA to become a memory, and if they aren't grandfathered, then all the DCVAs you ever installed will have to be removed, and replaced by a toxic-rated device.

Kiril
06-10-2008, 01:13 AM
I agree with boots :hammerhead: Local authority cannot ignore state law at their discretion. They can add onto it however.

Mr. Bow Raker
06-10-2008, 07:50 PM
Why would you cite an article that's six years old? If you have a state law that demands toxic-rated backflow prevention, then local rule has been more or less eliminated. A local authority can and should see to it that the state requirements are met, but they do not have the authority to rewrite them as they choose. Some regional codes are very specific on this - they will recognize a local authority's right to have ordinance requirements that are stricter than state requirements, but the reverse is not in any way possible.

South Carolina looks like they were where Jersey was when they adopted the National Standard Plumbing Code. Suddenly the DCVA was not permitted. Better yet, all existing DCVA installations were non-compliant, and not grandfathered. Much unhappiness. And many a town had ordinances requiring the DCVA for lawn sprinkler use, and their inspectors didn't get the memo from the capitol, and kept demanding DCVAs. More unhappiness.

Once the state adopts a requirement for toxic-rated backflow protection, you can expect the DCVA to become a memory, and if they aren't grandfathered, then all the DCVAs you ever installed will have to be removed, and replaced by a toxic-rated device.
The article was the only one that had documentation that refuted the original link. It may be six years old, but the changes the state made have not changed to this day. Did you read the article?

Mr. Bow Raker
06-10-2008, 07:55 PM
I agree with boots :hammerhead: Local authority cannot ignore state law at their discretion. They can add onto it however. I never said my local purveyor ignores the state law. My local purveyor is acting on the orders from SC DHEC. SC DHEC was fully prepared to enforce the new codes back before 2000, but the SC State Legislature changed the rules as referenced in the six year old article. Not many publications are writing articles about backflow prevention legislation, so thats the best I could do after a short search.

londonrain
06-10-2008, 08:27 PM
Our local purveyor (Greenville Water system) no longer requires a back flow preventer be installed on residential systems because the water meters now have a residential dual check.... I still install DCAV's regardless of their requirements ...

Mike Leary
06-10-2008, 08:34 PM
Our local purveyor (Greenville Water system) no longer requires a back flow preventer be installed on residential systems because the water meters now have a residential dual check.... I still install DCAV's regardless of their requirements ...

What a crock!!!! "Slap checks" have been a joke forever in cross-connection. Good that you install DCVAs, question is, are you a certified
backflow assembly tester & , if not, do you sub that (verry important) testing out?

londonrain
06-10-2008, 08:41 PM
What a crock!!!! "Slap checks" have been a joke forever in cross-connection. Good that you install DCVAs, question is, are you a certified
backflow assembly tester & , if not, do you sub that (verry important) testing out?I am a certified backflow tester for the state of SC.....tested about 10 this week, did find one system with no Backflow and only a gate valve, out it came and installed a DCVA.....

Mike Leary
06-10-2008, 08:50 PM
I am a certified backflow tester

So? Where's the help with the remote pigtail?

londonrain
06-10-2008, 09:00 PM
So? Where's the help with the remote pigtail?in the other thread :hammerhead:

Mr. Bow Raker
06-10-2008, 10:42 PM
What a crock!!!! "Slap checks" have been a joke forever in cross-connection. Good that you install DCVAs, question is, are you a certified
backflow assembly tester & , if not, do you sub that (verry important) testing out? The initial legislation that increased the device requirements resulted in a relaxing of requirements. Go figure that out.

Tom Tom
06-10-2008, 11:53 PM
What a crock!!!! "Slap checks" have been a joke forever in cross-connection. Good that you install DCVAs, question is, are you a certified
backflow assembly tester & , if not, do you sub that (verry important) testing out?

Mike are you a certified tester? And/Or , is that required in WA?

Kiril
06-11-2008, 12:35 AM
Mike are you a certified tester?

I'll attest to the fact that Mike is a certified lunatic. :laugh:

Wet_Boots
06-11-2008, 12:38 AM
The article was the only one that had documentation that refuted the original link. It may be six years old, but the changes the state made have not changed to this day. Did you read the article?Yes, I read the article. There's an old thread where a Long Island installer was describing the local purveyor's disinterest in any lawn sprinkler backflow. Didn't matter what the purveyor did or didn't do or say, since there's NYS Board of Health requirement for lawn sprinkler backflow protection.

You should avail yourself of your local library's reference desk, and read through what you can find on your state building codes, and anything else that might affect your choice of backflow.

Kiril
06-11-2008, 12:51 AM
Or you can just put in a toxic rated back flow and walk away. :clapping:

londonrain
06-11-2008, 07:30 AM
Or you can just put in a toxic rated back flow and walk away. :clapping:Not in my area..you will install what the water system requires or you get disconnected or no service.... I learned my years ago the this is not Burger King and you dont get it your way. If I set a new residential grounds water meter, just for irrigation, the only requirement is that I install a cut off valve The valve can be a gate valve or a ball valve in a 6" or larger VB...I install a DCVA since it has cut off valves and meets their requirements. If I set a commercial grounds irrigation meter then it is required that I install a DCVA....Their rules, so I must comply with their requirements, if not then no meter....

Tom Tom
06-11-2008, 09:59 AM
Not in my area..you will install what the water system requires or you get disconnected or no service.... I learned my years ago the this is not Burger King and you dont get it your way. If I set a new residential grounds water meter, just for irrigation, the only requirement is that I install a cut off valve The valve can be a gate valve or a ball valve in a 6" or larger VB...I install a DCVA since it has cut off valves and meets their requirements. If I set a commercial grounds irrigation meter then it is required that I install a DCVA....Their rules, so I must comply with their requirements, if not then no meter....

So, if you installed a RP, you would not get a meter?

Amazing how ignorant city inspectors can be if thats the case.

Kiril
06-11-2008, 10:59 AM
Not in my area..you will install what the water system requires or you get disconnected or no service.... I learned my years ago the this is not Burger King and you dont get it your way. If I set a new residential grounds water meter, just for irrigation, the only requirement is that I install a cut off valve The valve can be a gate valve or a ball valve in a 6" or larger VB...I install a DCVA since it has cut off valves and meets their requirements. If I set a commercial grounds irrigation meter then it is required that I install a DCVA....Their rules, so I must comply with their requirements, if not then no meter....

Yes I agree, must be approved or I would think at least could be shown to meet or exceed the requirements. Don't the locals in your area have toxic rated back flows on their list of approved/acceptable units that can be used?

Mike Leary
06-11-2008, 11:04 AM
Mike are you a certified tester? And/Or , is that required in WA?

I used to be, WA does require certification of BATs.

Wet_Boots
06-11-2008, 11:12 AM
Hard to believe that an RPZ would not pass muster - one might point out the possibility, however remote, that fertilizer injection might be attempted, not now, but maybe later, and that nothing but an RPZ could provide code-approved protection.

Mr. Bow Raker
06-11-2008, 01:58 PM
Yes, I read the article. There's an old thread where a Long Island installer was describing the local purveyor's disinterest in any lawn sprinkler backflow. Didn't matter what the purveyor did or didn't do or say, since there's NYS Board of Health requirement for lawn sprinkler backflow protection.

You should avail yourself of your local library's reference desk, and read through what you can find on your state building codes, and anything else that might affect your choice of backflow.This has been covered, but since you want to be contrary, I'll restate it. I understand the SC State law, SC DHEC's interpretation of it, and my local purveyor's compliance with the two. Go to the library? Silly suggestion, but thanks for your concern.:drinkup:

Wet_Boots
06-11-2008, 02:28 PM
This has been covered, but since you want to be contrary, I'll restate it. I understand the SC State law, SC DHEC's interpretation of it, and my local purveyor's compliance with the two. Go to the library? Silly suggestion, but thanks for your concern.:drinkup:Listen, Chuckles, I don't give a rat's ass how your state does or doesn't conduct their affairs, backflow-wise. I do know from long experience, that the local level is where you get the most misinformation. It never hurts to actually read the written codes, as opposed to hearing it verbally from a local official. We hear from any number of folks who 'do as they're told' that will face a future situation of having to rip out their own work, in order to comply with codes they were not fully aware of. If there are conflicting regulations, you have my sympathies, to an extent.

Wanna hear the one about the plumbing inspector who required all sprinkler systems be supplied through an atmospheric vacuum breaker, installed below grade, in a valve box? :hammerhead:

Mike Leary
06-11-2008, 03:51 PM
In WA, there is a informal gathering once a month of "The Group", composed of
purveyors, contractors & State Health Dept. officials. It has been very effective in
clarifying the many issues that other states seem to be groping with. In my experience,
the guys that know diddly are the plumbers.

londonrain
06-11-2008, 07:59 PM
So, if you installed a RP, you would not get a meter?

Amazing how ignorant city inspectors can be if thats the case.
That is correct.....Water company states that the DCVA must be 3'-5' behind the meter in a 12" or larger valve box......

londonrain
06-11-2008, 08:08 PM
Listen, Chuckles, I don't give a rat's ass how your state does or doesn't conduct their affairs, backflow-wise. I do know from long experience, that the local level is where you get the most misinformation. It never hurts to actually read the written codes, as opposed to hearing it verbally from a local official. We hear from any number of folks who 'do as they're told' that will face a future situation of having to rip out their own work, in order to comply with codes they were not fully aware of. If there are conflicting regulations, you have my sympathies, to an extent.

Wanna hear the one about the plumbing inspector who required all sprinkler systems be supplied through an atmospheric vacuum breaker, installed below grade, in a valve box? :hammerhead:
State law/codes were changed in the past few years. As the state law stand right now, each water purveyor is responsible for their own cross connection program. The largest purveyor, in my area, requires that residential BFs be tested every 5 years, if it is a testable device. If a residential dual check is installed , then it is replaced every 5 years. Commercial BFs, which is a DCVA only, are tested annually. Second largest purveyor requires that all BFs are tested every two years.

Wet_Boots
06-11-2008, 08:09 PM
That is correct.....Water company states that the DCVA must be 3'-5' behind the meter in a 12" or larger valve box......Anyone ever take a purveyor to court over not following the state's building codes? Or are they believing they're a power unto themselves? It can get to be kind of a mish-mosh over who enforces what.

londonrain
06-11-2008, 08:11 PM
Yes I agree, must be approved or I would think at least could be shown to meet or exceed the requirements. Don't the locals in your area have toxic rated back flows on their list of approved/acceptable units that can be used?No irrigation is considered low hazard, they now allow residential dual checks as protection....

londonrain
06-11-2008, 08:18 PM
Anyone ever take a purveyor to court over not following the state's building codes? Or are they believing they're a power unto themselves? It can get to be kind of a mish-mosh over who enforces what. The building codes have been changed....SC adopted the southern building codes back in 2000 or there abouts....then the state changed the law on backflow protection...each purveyor is responsible for their own cross connection program... The SC Department of Health and Environmental Control oversees the entire Cross Connection Program.....I am certified via DHEC..

Wet_Boots
06-11-2008, 08:26 PM
So they wrote a special law that specifically nullified their own adherence to a portion of a regional code? That's interesting. Never heard of that. Sounds messy. More common would to steer clear of regional codes, and just write their own, and copy what they want, and leave out any details they don't want to have set down in writing.

BOCA, for instance, allows a regional plumbing code to be 'plugged in' ~ Jersey went with the National Standard Plumbing Code, which brought in the brave new world of RPZs.

irritation
06-11-2008, 09:58 PM
It seems DCA's are acceptable in most areas but are they being tested regularly?

I would think there would be a high failure rate and many that are set in boxes that would make testing them a pain in the butt.

Mike Leary
06-11-2008, 10:14 PM
When the testers get a chance to write the code, clearance & unions become important.
DCVA testing is no big deal in valve boxes, unless someone else installed it.

irritation
06-11-2008, 10:29 PM
DCVA testing is no big deal in valve boxes, unless someone else installed it.

I would have to charge extra. The clay soil around here would hold the water and I would need to pump them out. I ***** when a PVB is hidden behind a Juniper.:laugh:

Mr. Bow Raker
06-12-2008, 09:17 PM
SC State Government passed H4767 after adopting the Universal Building Codes in 1997:http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/query.exe?first=DOC&querytext=irrigation&category=Legislation&session=113&conid=3852289&result_pos=0&keyval=1134767

Tom Tom
06-12-2008, 10:16 PM
In my experience,
the guys that know diddly are the plumbers.

exactly........:laugh:

londonrain
06-12-2008, 10:25 PM
It seems DCA's are acceptable in most areas but are they being tested regularly?

I would think there would be a high failure rate and many that are set in boxes that would make testing them a pain in the butt. Yes they are being tested regularly and the failure rate is very low...On an average 1 out of every 50 fails its test. When it does fail the test all it needs are new seals. One of the water systems I test for has over 12,000 known backflows.... I average about 8-10 tests a week....

Wet_Boots
06-12-2008, 10:40 PM
SC State Government passed H4767 after adopting the Universal Building Codes in 1997:http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/query.exe?first=DOC&querytext=irrigation&category=Legislation&session=113&conid=3852289&result_pos=0&keyval=1134767Nice find! Looks like there were a lot of second thoughts about adopting regional codes. That Charleston document made it seem like they were wrestling with the changes to existing backflow practices.

The first version of the bill (http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess113_1999-2000/prever/4767_20000412.htm) has some interesting language, which I'll excerpt ~
(1) an estimate of the likelihood of occurrence;

(2) a rating as to type of hazard controlled; and

(3) on existing technology or systems there must be a documentable history of failures with high enough risk to warrant the costs involved with code changes and implementation." Item 2 is the interesting one, since possible types of lawn-sprinkler-system contamination are definitely toxic and/or infectious in nature. Is there a reasoning that the infrequency of backflow events effectively nullifies the risks? One could also apply similar reasoning to the frequency of lightning strikes, and state that lightning poses no personal danger.

So, what manner of plumbing code does South Carolina have, if they want no part of a regional code?

Mr. Bow Raker
06-12-2008, 10:43 PM
Yes they are being tested regularly and the failure rate is very low...On an average 1 out of every 50 fails its test. When it does fail the test all it needs are new seals. One of the water systems I test for has over 12,000 known backflows.... I average about 8-10 tests a week....

Can't remember when I tested a device that had both checks fail. londonrain would most likely concur.

Wet_Boots
06-12-2008, 10:46 PM
Can't remember when I tested a device that had both checks fail. londonrain would most likely concur.I've encountered a number of them. Some DCVAs were prone to jamming.

Mr. Bow Raker
06-12-2008, 10:46 PM
Nice find! <snip>That was in the original dated article, but I knew about it before the article was published.

londonrain
06-12-2008, 10:48 PM
Can't remember when I tested a device that had both checks fail. londonrain would most likely concur.True and I can contest that Mr. Bow Raker has tested many 1000's of DCVAs...

Wet_Boots
06-12-2008, 10:58 PM
True and I can contest that Mr. Bow Raker has tested many 1000's of DCVAs...contest? or attest?

londonrain
06-12-2008, 10:59 PM
contest? or attest?both...lol

Mr. Bow Raker
06-12-2008, 11:00 PM
<snip> One could also apply similar reasoning to the frequency of lightning strikes, and state that lightning poses no personal danger.<snip>Or, we could legislate that standing outside when thunder is heard is illegal in order to insure safety.:rolleyes: Look, I don't wan't to debate the pros and cons of the tug of war going on here in SC in regards to cross connection control and backflow prevention. I want to comply with the rules. I want to avoid confusing the folks here in SC about what they need to do to be compliant with the State, SCDHEC and their local purveyor. I've been trying to add to that. You say that you could give a rats ass about it. I don't believe you.

Wet_Boots
06-12-2008, 11:08 PM
Or, we could legislate that standing outside when thunder is heard is illegal in order to insure safety.:rolleyes: Look, I don't wan't to debate the pros and cons of the tug of war going on here in SC in regards to cross connection control and backflow prevention. I want to comply with the rules. I want to avoid confusing the folks here in SC about what they need to do to be compliant with the State, SCDHEC and their local purveyor. I've been trying to add to that. You say that you could give a rats ass about it. I don't believe you.I'm not drinking the water, so what the hey. I do trust the gravity function of a PVB more than any group of code writers and/or legislators. So, does the state of South Carolina have a plumbing code?

Mr. Bow Raker
06-12-2008, 11:15 PM
both...lolGood one.:) I do solemnly swear the vertical tube held the required level long enough to verify a "closed tight" rating every time.:drinkup:

Mr. Bow Raker
06-12-2008, 11:18 PM
I'm not drinking the water, so what the hey. <snip>Wow, you suddenly seem to not care again.

Mr. Bow Raker
06-12-2008, 11:24 PM
<snip> I do trust the gravity function of a PVB more than any group of code writers and/or legislators. <snip>You understand the way backflow preventers work too? We should start an exclusive club. We are both quite clever.

Wet_Boots
06-12-2008, 11:58 PM
Wow, you suddenly seem to not care again.Hoops are on. Maybe I'll care during the next timeout.

Mr. Bow Raker
06-13-2008, 12:13 AM
Hoops are on. Maybe I'll care during the next timeout.That provides some insight regarding your post count.