PDA

View Full Version : Corrosion Resistant Backflow Handles


jbell36
11-14-2011, 09:52 PM
an irritating issue that we run into when dealing with backflows (in-ground double check) is the #1 and #2 shutoff handle/levers start rusting out and breaking off...is it just me or does this bother anyone else? seems like a stainless steel or brass handle, like the backflow itself, would be a much more logical choice...do companies like watts or febco offer this or at least replacement levers that you could simply swap out before you install the backflow?

mitchgo
11-14-2011, 10:04 PM
Yeah they do sell them. Stainless steel handles.

It's super fun to carefully sawzall the corruded handle off the spindle to put a new one on

jbell36
11-14-2011, 10:07 PM
yeah i know what u mean, it def doesn't look fun but it might be worth it...seems like this should be standard from the factory, i honestly can't believe they would sell a $100 backflow and skimp on something so simple and inexpensive

Wet_Boots
11-14-2011, 11:30 PM
yeah i know what u mean, it def doesn't look fun but it might be worth it...seems like this should be standard from the factory, i honestly can't believe they would sell a $100 backflow and skimp on something so simple and inexpensiveIf you buy in quantity, you can always specify stainless handles and nuts as an option

mitchgo
11-15-2011, 02:15 AM
yeah i know what u mean, it def doesn't look fun but it might be worth it...seems like this should be standard from the factory, i honestly can't believe they would sell a $100 backflow and skimp on something so simple and inexpensive

I agree completely

To my knowledge . Conbraco is the only one that has stainless steel handles stock on some of their assemblies

2" or less

mitchgo
11-15-2011, 02:17 AM
sounds like a large investment .

Yes I need to order 100 back flow devices so I can get the discount on stainless steel handles please

koster_irrigation
11-15-2011, 05:43 AM
Mitch, You're right on conbraco, Made right here in NC.

Their handles are stainless.

Everyone pushes wilkins / watts so hard around here, id rather install conbraco myself and support a local business.

AI Inc
11-15-2011, 05:45 AM
how much is a 1 " conbraco pvb? I asked my supplier to get me pricing and he never did.

greenmonster304
11-15-2011, 07:02 AM
The Conbracos are nice if you are putting them in a valve box because you can service both checks from the top unlike the Wilkins.
Posted via Mobile Device

FIMCO-MEISTER
11-15-2011, 08:52 AM
Why not just buy the replacement ss handles when you purchase it and swap them out when its a piece of cake.. Getting a supply house to stock stuff like that can be a biatch.

Sprinkus
11-15-2011, 09:09 AM
Here's a link (http://www.turfsurgeons.com/OurCatalog.asp) to a supplier of aftermarket stainless steel handles.

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 09:11 AM
The Conbracos are nice if you are putting them in a valve box because you can service both checks from the top unlike the Wilkins.
Posted via Mobile DeviceWilkins used upward facing checks on their smaller devices. I actually placed a few 1/2-inch 375 RPZs in systems fed from hose bibs. Watts has a new RPZ design with upward-facing check valves.

jbell36
11-15-2011, 09:36 AM
do many of you deal with double checks? seems like every time i look on youtube all i see is pvb's...double check is now our standard code around here although you will still run into the grandfathered pvb's and other "devices," and from reading others' posts it doesn't sound like double checks are that popular in other parts of the country...

jbell36
11-15-2011, 09:38 AM
Here's a link (http://www.turfsurgeons.com/OurCatalog.asp) to a supplier of aftermarket stainless steel handles.

thanks for the link...i found this last night too...really contemplating buying some

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 09:39 AM
the DCVA is not rated for toxic service, and most regional codes are written to a toxic backflow standard for lawn sprinkler systems.

Mike Leary
11-15-2011, 09:43 AM
the DCVA is not rated for toxic service, and most regional codes are written to a toxic backflow standard for lawn sprinkler systems.

Maybe Mitch will chime in, but as far as I know, the DCVA is rated for low-hazard up north. And, yes, corrosion-proof handles should be standard, not an add-on. :hammerhead:

jbell36
11-15-2011, 09:43 AM
we deal with double check backflow assemblies, not to be confused with device, if that changes anything...

jbell36
11-15-2011, 09:48 AM
nevermind, you got it, the dcva is what we use, dual check is what to not get it confused with...

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 10:20 AM
I would embrace a code change to DCVA usage somewhat reluctantly, because it might be changed again down the road, and all the existing DCVAs might need replaced.

AI Inc
11-15-2011, 10:33 AM
Not supposed to use double checks around here, but that is what I will typicly replace a junk rpz with.
Otherwise use a pvb when grade allows ( 90% of the time)

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 10:49 AM
Not supposed to use double checks around here, but that is what I will typicly replace a junk rpz with.
Otherwise use a pvb when grade allows ( 90% of the time)What prevents replacing the RPZ with another one? (besides the cost)

AI Inc
11-15-2011, 10:53 AM
My hatred for them , thats about it. That and the fact that I usualy dont stock em , but almost always have a dcva on each truck.

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 10:56 AM
Hopefully you don't stock the 805Y ;)

AI Inc
11-15-2011, 11:02 AM
wasnt that discontinued in 03?

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 11:13 AM
I haven't installed a DCVA in 20 years, so I have no idea. I think you can still get the RPZ version, the 825Y

AI Inc
11-15-2011, 11:17 AM
The natural reaction would be to ask if you installed anything in 20 yrs. Although I prolly have a better chance of getting an honest reply asking if you have been laid in 20 yrs.

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 11:35 AM
I've been working the toxic-backflow beat, so the DCVA is persona non grata.

Mike Leary
11-15-2011, 08:01 PM
I've been working the toxic-backflow beat, so the DCVA is persona non Greta.

Like we care: Until some governing body tells us that DCVA assemblies, properly tested and maintained are a high hazard, I call b.s. :hammerhead: From what I've heard, Boots is a troll on most internet sites with the same garbage.

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 08:05 PM
the industry may find that an insurance company and a civil court jury will make them care very much

Mike Leary
11-15-2011, 08:09 PM
I've been working the toxic-backflow beat, so the DCVA is persona non Greta.

I don't know who mandates the east coast regs for backflow, but since very few of you are licensed testers, it's moot.

koster_irrigation
11-15-2011, 08:20 PM
greenmonster wrote
The Conbracos are nice if you are putting them in a valve box because you can service both checks from the top unlike the Wilkins

Actually the wilkins do make two versions of the 950 the 950XL (over under) and the 950XLT T stands for Top entry, my suppliers mixes and matches sometimes i'll get either or.

Conbraco does the same thing, comes in either top entry double checks or over under models. it will end with a T as well for the model number like 40105A2T

agreed the top versions are easier to service

koster

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 08:21 PM
I don't know who mandates the east coast regs for backflow, but since very few of you are licensed testers, it's moot.If you think a license and testing indemnifies you, think again.

Mike Leary
11-15-2011, 08:32 PM
If you think a license and testing indemnifies you, think again.

Total b.s., as usual. Most of you seem too lazy to get in touch with your local purveyors and your State and get involved with a proper cross-connection program. Anyone who is not licensed to test has no right to pontificate. :hammerhead:

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 08:35 PM
You know law like I know opera. Nothing that is in the statues or regulations is capable of removing a contractor from the legal crosshairs in the event that something goes horribly wrong.

Kiril
11-15-2011, 08:54 PM
Until some governing body tells us that DCVA assemblies, properly tested and maintained are a high hazard, I call b.s.

USC does not consider a DCVA as providing high hazard protection.

Mike Leary
11-15-2011, 09:02 PM
USC does not consider a DCVA as providing high hazard protection.

Lawn sprinklers are still not considered a high hazard, as far as I know. Anyhews, any man-jack worth his salt would have a tester that would release them from any form of lawsuite.

watts.com/pages/_products_details.asp?pid=907

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 09:06 PM
Lawn sprinklers are still not considered a high hazard, as far as I know. Anyhews, any man-jack worth his salt would have a tester that would release them from any form of lawsuite.

watts.com/pages/_products_details.asp?pid=907Just because you followed every instruction given you by a manufacturer does not indemnify you. A (very) good attorney could carve up anyone in the industry, over a case involving a failed DCVA.

Kiril
11-15-2011, 09:09 PM
Lawn sprinklers are still not considered a high hazard, as far as I know.

They are in states that consider irrigation as high hazard .... for example CA. Given the potential for all kinds of toxic stuff to be drawn back into the irrigation system, every state should consider irrigation high hazard.

Anyhews, any man-jack worth his salt would have a tester that would release them from any form of lawsuite.

A tester does not trump state code nor release one from liability. If code calls for a high hazard rated backflow ... then that is what shall be used.

FIMCO-MEISTER
11-15-2011, 09:13 PM
Maybe the lawyer who made the woman that spilled coffee on herself rich. Maybe the lawyer that will try and convince the supreme court a govt. mandate to buy health insurance is constitutional. Maybe the lawyer that got OJ off. Or the one that kept M. Jackson from being guilty as a child molester.

When a case comes up on a lawsuit involving cross connection I hope you bring it to our attention Boots.

Mike Leary
11-15-2011, 09:19 PM
Just because you followed every instruction given you by a manufacturer does not indemnify you. A (very) good attorney could carve up anyone in the industry, over a case involving a failed DCVA.

More b.s. You test every year (or more often if there becomes a history of low numbers) note the p.s.i.d., check the historicals that any decent tester/ purveyor should have, replace (or flip) the checks until you can get back with parts. What can go wrong with a properly maintained DCVA?

Kiril
11-15-2011, 09:23 PM
Maybe the lawyer who made the woman that spilled coffee on herself rich. Maybe the lawyer that will try and convince the supreme court a govt. mandate to buy health insurance is constitutional. Maybe the lawyer that got OJ off. Or the one that kept M. Jackson from being guilty as a child molester.

When a case comes up on a lawsuit involving cross connection I hope you bring it to our attention Boots.

If the state requires a high hazard rated backflow, and you don't have one ... you don't even need a lawyer .... you are in the wrong plain and simple.

Kiril
11-15-2011, 09:24 PM
More b.s. You test every year (or more often if there becomes a history of low numbers) note the p.s.i.d., check the historicals that any decent teester/ purveyor should have, replace (or flip) the checks until you can get back with parts. What can go wrong with a properly maintained DCVA?

Other than they are not rated for high hazard protection for a good reason?

Mike Leary
11-15-2011, 09:32 PM
Other than they are not rated for high hazard protection for a good reason?

I don't consider irrigation a high hazard, unless a cross-connection, such as a fertilizer input, etc., is introduced. I've installed a ton of RPs for good reason, but irrigation was not one of them.

Kiril
11-15-2011, 09:35 PM
I don't consider irrigation a high hazard, unless a cross-connection, such as a fertilizer input, etc., is introduced. I've installed a ton of RPs for good reason, but irrigation was not one of them.

Doesn't really matter what you think dad if the state requires high hazard protection for irrigation. But since you don't feel it is a risk, the next time you see puddled water on top of a sprinkler then drink it. Be sure to wait until the dog, cat, etc... has shiit in it and the fert and squirt guys have also shiit in it .... and any other of the numerous sources of contamination there are.

SoCalLandscapeMgmt
11-15-2011, 09:45 PM
Doesn't really matter what you think dad if the state requires high hazard protection for irrigation. But since you don't feel it is a risk, the next time you see puddled water on top of a sprinkler then drink it. Be sure to wait until the dog, cat, etc... has shiit in it and the fert and squirt guys have also shiit in it .... and any other of the numerous sources of contamination there are.

As much as it pains me to say this Kiril is 100% right. Somewhere I have an old Rain Bird book about backflow prevention that has actual real world instances where people were made sick from irrigation related cross connections. I'll see if I can find it and scan it and post it here....

mitchgo
11-15-2011, 10:35 PM
Man I'm tired of this battle

Up here in Washington Irrigation systems are considered Low-Risk health hazard from the DOH. ..... The Department of HEALTH... Not Mike Leary... Not Mitchgo..The effing department of he..a..ll..thhhhh . There are other states that are like this too. Every state is different- Every water district will enforce what they feel is needed to be enforced differently.

Double checks are the normal up here. Just like some area's have pure RP's and some PVB's. To be honest I'm not to sure how it caught on but about 99% of irrigation systems here are of double check assemblies.

All Back Flow Devices are approved for the proper application. I personally am testing about 1,100 back flow devices a year ( Not all irrigation systems).. About 1,000 of these are double checks.. My failure rate for 1 single check to fail is 5-7% in a year's time. A double failure is less then 1%. There are a lot of double checks out there that are 20-25 years old that still work just fine.

What pisses me off.. It's not my fault the government can't control these agencies to come up with a standard installation process for all irrigation systems around the country.... It's apparently the wild west..

Yes I get it... Rp's are the best for high hazard.. PVB's... AVB's.. can't be beat if installed at a proper height .. But double checks do just fine too..
One thing to consider is that irrigation is a luxury item. I would way rather have a double check in a cute little green box in the ground then some pvb on the side of my house above ground ... I deal with people who have millions of dollars and expect there house and yard to be absolutely perfect.

You want to whine and b*tch about it. Something that other people created and got approved for.. Go complain to them not me.. Because I'm not in control of this. Go occupy USC

I'm out here.. working.. Doing my job to the best damn ability that I can do.. Following the rules that I've been told to follow. If that's not good enough for you then seriously screw you all and get over your selves.

Lets find some fun facts here and see how many people have been effected from an actual back flow event from a failed double check that caused harm to humans... Now lets compare that to the statistics of every day deaths of car accidents.. drunk drivers . drug users.. Shootings..

Just do your job and follow the rules and stop b*tching about it

mitchgo
11-15-2011, 10:44 PM
Somewhere I have an old Rain Bird book about backflow prevention that has actual real world instances where people were made sick from irrigation related cross connections. ..

exactly my point

Wet_Boots
11-15-2011, 11:01 PM
Would you trust your very life and the lives of all your family on the DCVA you installed never failing and being responsible for someone suffering harm from backflow?

jbell36
11-15-2011, 11:39 PM
As much as it pains me to say this Kiril is 100% right. Somewhere I have an old Rain Bird book about backflow prevention that has actual real world instances where people were made sick from irrigation related cross connections. I'll see if I can find it and scan it and post it here....

yeah they made sure we knew these cases during my backflow certification class...i have a whole book on the subject, pretty boring

mitchgo
11-15-2011, 11:50 PM
Would you trust your very life and the lives of all your family on the DCVA you installed never failing and being responsible for someone suffering harm from backflow?

before a auto accident or any other major risk taking things in life yes.

Just as much as a chemcially induced system with a rp installed.. The same possibility is there.. Say some rocks get into the preventer.. Get both checks stuck open and stick the relief.. It's possible right??


I never said they never failed.. That's why they are tested.. Or any other back flow device. Can you honestly say that every back flow prevention device that you Don't Ever Test is working properly with your families life?

Again.. I said I'm doing my job the the best of my ability.. I follow the rules that are given to me.

How this any different from a food illness from a improperly cooked hamburger at some fast food place. That's why there are people that test temps.. Monthly check ups.. They are there to help prevent a desiaster.. Never claiming nothing will never ever happen


jeez man there's other things in this world that will kill you.

FIMCO-MEISTER
11-16-2011, 06:01 AM
I'm with you Mitch. "SKY IS FALLING! SKY IS FALLING!" screams boots. In Boots world an rp never tested is better than a dcva tested every year. Like I said boots when some clever lawyer takes a dcva failure to court and wins let me know.

AI Inc
11-16-2011, 07:03 AM
Just as much as a chemcially induced system with a rp installed.. The same possibility is there.. Say some rocks get into the preventer.. Get both checks stuck open and stick the relief.. It's possible right??

.

That is the theory as to why a dcva isnt legal in these parts.

Wet_Boots
11-16-2011, 08:43 AM
Theme song for the "backflow will never happen on my DCVAs" crowd :p

vKITpVovTAE

mitchgo
11-16-2011, 09:09 AM
That is the theory as to why a dcva isnt legal in these parts.

well right

but a chemically induced system.. The water.. Right away is 100% contaminated..

A sprinkler system is not and has a much much lower probability of being contaminated with foreign substances

AI Inc
11-16-2011, 09:54 AM
Never said I agree with it as the chance of it happening is about the same as the chance of me scoring a night with 3 swimsuit models.
Thats the reason I ignore it.