You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to SPRINKLER TALK FORUM - You Got Questions, We've Got Answers. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains how this page works. You must be registered before you can use all the page's features. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

burley

Active Member

1

Thursday, May 31st 2007, 8:42pm

backflow testing

It's my understanding that any backflow prevention device other than perhaps an anti-siphon valve or atmospheric vaccum breaker (if those are even permitted) requires annual testing by a certified testing service. But this never seems to be discussed.

So do residential users generally comply with testing requirements? If so, what's a reasonable or typical cost for testing a PVB or RPP assembly? And is testability a consideration for choosing one over the other? The PVB from what I can tell is easy to test, but the RPP is a rather complicated device. If one is wants to be safe but doesn't necessarily like the idea of signing up for certified annual testing, what are the options?

Wet_Boots

Supreme Member

Posts: 3,884

Location: Metro NYC

2

Friday, June 1st 2007, 3:15am

The testing requirement is not universal. Devices with an air opening have a better chance of remaining effective in the absense of annual testing.

burley

Active Member

3

Sunday, June 3rd 2007, 3:05pm

Is there anyone who gets their system tested annually (or does the testing) that can suggest what a typical testing fee might be for a residential backflow device? Would the type of device affect the fee? If so, what would be the difference in testing cost between a PVB and RP assembly?

Tom

Supreme Member

4

Monday, June 4th 2007, 3:36am

$50 to $60 testing fee and no difference between the 2 devices as far as testing cost goes.

Fertigation Guru

Active Member

Posts: 42

Location: USA

5

Monday, June 4th 2007, 10:41am

Big difference in testing costs...a PVB does not need to be tested. That is why a PVB is used whenever possible. With uphill situations like yours, the RPZ is unavoidable.

Tom

Supreme Member

6

Monday, June 4th 2007, 3:16pm

Both PVB's and RP's are testable devices. Not sure why Fert-guru saya a PVB does not need to be tested.

There should be hardly any difference in testing costs. If you live a city that requires testing, you will find that a PVB and RP will cost the same to test. It only takes 5 minutes to test the devices.


burley

Active Member

7

Monday, June 4th 2007, 8:15pm

From what I've read, I think that I could test a PVB myself using a "sight tube" (following Febco's testing instructions for the 765 for instance). An RP on the other hand seems to require an expensive calibrated testing assembly and is obviously not a DIY tested device.

If testing is not required by the city, is it still advised to have a RP tested annually? Or is it safe to just wait until it leaks to call for repairs?

Wet_Boots

Supreme Member

Posts: 3,884

Location: Metro NYC

8

Tuesday, June 5th 2007, 4:49am

While any device with the testcocks is testable, a PVB's functionality is gravity-based, and the (testable) check valve is a backup. For an RPZ, the checks are the primary protection, and testing is more important. Still, in the absense of annual testing, the relief valve is a good second line of defense, being ready to dump water if the checks aren't working.

Fertigation Guru

Active Member

Posts: 42

Location: USA

9

Tuesday, June 5th 2007, 10:40am

Tom-

I did not intend to imply that it is impossible to test a PVB. I merely wanted to point out that water districts do not require PVB's to be tested like the RP's. While it is a good idea to test your PVB periodically, it is not required.

Sorry for the confusion.

Rate this thread