You are not logged in.

  • Login
  • Register

backflow testing

burley

Active Member

Posts: 11

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: 3,617

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

Posts: 11

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

Posts: 306

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

Posts: 306

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

Posts: 11

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: 3,617

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