PDA

View Full Version : why is a dca bad?


CAPT Stream Rotar
05-18-2012, 11:23 PM
it fails in some towns around me..

I always thought it was the big dog?

Sprinkus
05-18-2012, 11:27 PM
Dichloroacetic Acid does not appear to be approved by the FDA yet.

CAPT Stream Rotar
05-18-2012, 11:36 PM
im slow
what is dichloraaetic?

Mike Leary
05-18-2012, 11:44 PM
All kidding aside, I assume you are talking about a DCVA backflow assembly?
You know this gets my goat when they are badmouthed, as, with proper testing and service they work wonderful. Do you have your BAT (backflow assembly technician) ticket, Eddie?

S.O.Contracting
05-19-2012, 12:28 AM
Here we go again. :hammerhead::hammerhead:

It's all in how your water purveyors classify irrigation being high hazard or low hazard.

mitchgo
05-19-2012, 01:45 AM
this is cute

1idejim
05-19-2012, 01:57 AM
snuck a boot in there mitch, sweet shot

Wet_Boots
05-19-2012, 08:11 AM
speaking of DCVAs in Washington State, if they changed the building code five-plus years ago, why are they still being used?

mitchgo
05-19-2012, 09:50 AM
becuase you wet the bed at night..

Why does new york not require the device to be tested .. Who enforces a proper back flow protection device..

Lets compare the % of sprinkler systems that have testable back flow devices here compared to over there?

get over yourself dude

Wet_Boots
05-19-2012, 09:55 AM
am I ruffling some feathers in the Prozac State - it is a simple question deserving of a straight answer

Mike Leary
05-19-2012, 12:08 PM
am I ruffling some feathers in the Prozac State - it is a simple question deserving of a straight answer

We've been down this rocky road before, ad naseum. As far a I know, DCVAs are still permitted for sprinklers and premise isolation or any other LOW Hazard application. I know my buddy, Russ, tests and installs and would be the first to know of any changes with regs, as we have an active cross-connection controller officer here.

Wet_Boots
05-19-2012, 12:29 PM
When purveyors, or anyone for that matter, can nullify building codes, let us all know what legal basis provides for it.

Sounds here like some backwards local officials haven't gotten the memo yet, just like some municipal yahoos I know of thought a master valve followed by a single atmospheric vacuum breaker made for swell backflow protection.

Mike Leary
05-19-2012, 12:35 PM
Most water purveyors and BATs in WA & Oregon belong to "THE GROUP", a cross-connection organization hosted by WA State's water quality division. If there were any changes, "THE GROUP" would know about.

Wet_Boots
05-19-2012, 12:44 PM
your "THE GROUP" can get bent - Washington State has a building code with toxic-rated backflow requirements that they imported from a regional code. Done deal. If they enact legislation to change their building codes to allow DCVA use, only then would they be legally permitted. Absent that, DCVA installs will be illegal, according to Washington State building codes.

FIMCO-MEISTER
05-19-2012, 12:47 PM
Post the building code boots. I'm just curious to read. Don't doubt what you are saying.

Mike Leary
05-19-2012, 12:51 PM
Unless a BAT is also a licensed plumber, we are not allowed to install a backflow device inside a premise, so the code you speak of could only affect interior applications, which we sprinkler guys would not have (or care to) a clue about. A BAT can test inside a premises, but install and removal is up to the plumbers.

Wet_Boots
05-19-2012, 01:02 PM
While I still use the term "building code", the proper terminology would be "construction code", which covers just about anything a contractor might undertake.
http://archive.org/stream/gov.wa.plumbing/wa_plumbing_djvu.txt (badgerbadgerbadger.com/)

603.4.6 Protection from Lawn Sprinklers and
Irrigation Systems.

603.4.6.1 Potable water supplies to systems
having no pumps or connections for pumping
equipment, and no chemical injection or
provisions for chemical injection, shall be
protected from backflow by one of the
following devices:

(1) Atmospheric vacuum breaker

(2) Pressure vacuum breaker

(3) Spill-resistant pressure vacuum breaker

(4) Reduced-pressure backflow preventer

603.4.6.2 Where sprinkler and irrigation
systems have pumps, connections for pumping
equipment, or auxiliary air tanks, or are
otherwise capable of creating back-pressure, the
potable water supply shall be protected by
the following type of device if the backflow
device is located upstream from the source
of back-pressure:

(1) Reduced-pressure backflow preventer

603.4.6.3 Where systems have a backflow
device installed downstream from a potable
water supply pump or a potable water supply
pump connection, the device shall be one of
the following:

(1) Atmospheric vacuum breaker

(2) Pressure vacuum breaker



(3) Spill-resistant pressure vacuum breaker

(4) Reduced-pressure backflow preventer

603.4.6.4 Where systems include a chemical
injector or any provisions for chemical injection,
the potable water supply shall be protected
by the following:

(1) Reduced-pressure backflow preventer