what a jewel

[EagleLandscape]

henry just called me and told me he posted this on facebook.

(5) 205's and a DCVA in one box.

insane.

[Wet_Boots]

looks fine to me :)

http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/6049/eightvalvemanifold23fz.jpg

[Mike Leary]

I wish I had Dirty Water's abilities to red-line all the fu*ck-ups in that pic.

[CAPT Stream Rotar]

is that some of MEX and ME's work?

[Inspired]

I'm not sure which picture is worse. The funny thing is, the guys that installed both are probably proud of their work.

Is that CAT 5 in the first picture? That would make it a "High Tech" install!

[mitchgo]

Looks like a very old school febco 805y. which was just put on the 2009 list of unapproved assemblies

[Wet_Boots]

Whose list? What determines the 'unapproved' status?

[mitchgo]

Well you know it varies from state to state.

But your department of health approves/disapproves them.

I don't know how to view the list online with out ordering it..

https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/eh/dw/publications/publications.cfm?action=pubdetail&type=subject&PubId=333

They go by statistics

The febco 805y failed often...

[Wet_Boots]

Failed what? All I know is that the device was ASSE approved, which is more or less the beginning and end of what is or is not permitted in our neck of the woods.

[mitchgo]

Well I don't know about ASSE. In our neck of the woods WETRC uses the same guidelines as USC ( California) which is apart of the ABPA ( American backflow prevention association)
As far as I know they updated our approved assembly list that is allowed in the ground/ installed.

We test all of our backflow assemblies every year.
I would love to see the stats at the water districts..

My bosses compiled data of 2004 we had almost a 22% failure rate of Febco 805y's..

Also we aren't the enforcers, just the informants. The water district is

[Mike Leary]

My bosses compiled data of 2004 we had almost a 22% failure rate of Febco 805y's..

So what? At least they were tested. They were damn good DCVA assemblies.

[Wet_Boots]

I understand an untested and unmaintained 805Y is likely to fail, but that is not what gets the device into the field in the first place. ASSE is probably the gold standard of approvals, as the devices will often have the ASSE standard number on it. We also see UPC and CSA approvals on backflow preventers, often as part of the body casting.

[mitchgo]

Jeez... All I said was there not approved on our list anymore.

With that said, they may have been good ' back in the day'

But now, there are lower costing units , ( imo) better quality, with lower percentage failure rates.

[Wet_Boots]

I just wanted to understand the process involved. If I was making a list, I would gladly toss out the 805Y, since much of the nation never tests the damn things, which would also lead to moving up to toxic-rated devices.

[Mike Leary]

Yearly service and testing is the norm; we approve of "flipping the check", but want to see some paperwork real soon about the replacement kit.

[mitchgo]

I'm not to sure on how they decided. My guess would be statistics.

There not 'bad' assemblies... They can be a pain sometimes to repair, but there parts are relatively cheap. They are one the most frequent ones I test.

As the saying goes ' out with the old, in with the new '

Also on the newly updated list is assembly Watts 709 DC-140 , which was disapproved for installed a long time ago, but they still had repair parts available.

Now it's just disapproved which on this one I fully agree because a double failure on this device the repair cost in parts alone almost equals the cost of a new back flow device, the 805y does not by a long shot.

[Wet_Boots]

Is the 709 the one with unions built into the basic assembly? Real old-time stuff?

[mitchgo]

Nah.. this one there is no way to repair #2 with physically spinning the device visa versa

[ARGOS]

I thought USC calls the shots on "who is on the list". I don't know how much it cost to get the list, but I think it is +/-$100 a year. Reminds me of music copyrights.

I also "heard" it cost over a million dollars to run a new back flow device through USC. That's after it is developed, engineered, and tested by the manufacturer.

[EagleLandscape]

Well a home owner installed the first pic. I guess that means Boots and home owners are on the same skill set level:)?

[Wet_Boots]

don't make me come over there :nono:

[Kiril]

For all you DCVA boys, an interesting point of view on irrigation backflow protection from the boys at USC (pg. 3 of the pdf)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/fccchr/Crosstalks/Summer.2005.pdf

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

henry just called me and told me he posted this on facebook.

(5) 205's and a DCVA in one box.

insane.

You know that made me homesick...seriously.

[mitchgo]

For all you DCVA boys, an interesting point of view on irrigation backflow protection from the boys at USC (pg. 3 of the pdf)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/fccchr/Crosstalks/Summer.2005.pdf

I'm not trying to get into a back flow prevention fight here.

I'm aware of everything that page says and states . It doesn't change my thoughts and views on double checks though.

In washington, irrigation systems are considered Low-Risk Health Hazard. Which I personally believe is true. Dog piss/ feces or fert's diluting it's self into thousands of gallons... I mean considering what's already so diluted into our water system..

If you want to start throwing out the ' What if's ' ... But Mitch- What if there is oil on top of the sprinkler head and it gets sucked back because your double check had a double failure and there was a 14" water main break 2 blocks away.. But they were able to shut off that water and repair that break before that oil was sucked out of the main break, Then someone turned on their sink and filled a glass of water and drank some oil and died!!?!?!?
... Well Ya..... Sure .. what if a meteor hit's me ... Ya know what I mean? It's far fetched and I believe the degree of hazard is low enough for me not to over worry about an unlikely event. I think there are far more higher risks out there in the world that are Allowed in our society that people do and don't care about such as drugs, drinking, smoking, driving ect ect. How far is too far to worry about something so minimal?

RP's can be considered do to the same exact thing. They are just above ground, it just had one extra level of protection. There is the probability of both checks failing and the relief valve to be stuck closed.

I don't see why everyone hates dcva's so much..

[BrandonV]

think of all the $ they saved on valve boxes

[Mike Leary]

Like Mitch says, a properly maintained DCVA will protect all irrigation systems if serviced yearly, or more often if a record of failures comes up because of water conditions. The problem, as I have witnessed, is lazy, stupid purveyors not monitoring the testing and enforcing proper installation specs. We tested in WA State for twenty years, and our purveyor was on top of of what was permitted and what was not. He also used a Canadian backflow software that tracked the tests over the years so "drive-by-testing" never occurred, though it did in Oregon and a "sting" was set up; the guy lost his BAT certificate and could never test again. We of "The Group" lobbied to have his plumber's ticket pulled, for life.

[MEXANDME]

Hey Capt,

Not my work!

I visit this board in an effort to "do things right AND to do the right things!"

Regards / Have a Great Holiday,

Mex

[FIMCO-MEISTER]

Hey Capt,

Not my work!

I visit this board in an effort to "do things right AND to do the right things!"

Regards / Have a Great Holiday,

Mex

I agree MEX.you are what every old timer hopes the newcomers will be.
Best of luck to you in 2010.

[ARGOS]

"drive-by-testing"...though it did in Oregon and a "sting" was set up; the guy lost his BAT certificate and could never test again. We of "The Group" lobbied to have his plumber's ticket pulled, for life.

My instructor last year helped in a "sting" on a drive by tester last year. They were able to document enough drive bys and enough money received to have the guy thrown in jail.