# Trailer Park, Boys



## Regulator (Aug 20, 2009)

*Sani-dump Station. No Backflow Preventer Whatsoever!
* 
















Watch out where you hook up water to your RV. You may get more than you bargained for.


----------



## futz (Sep 17, 2009)

Regulator said:


> Watch out where you hook up water to your RV. You may get more than you bargained for.


Well at least they put a sign to tell people that the water isn't guaranteed to be drinkable. Drink at your own risk.


----------



## Regulator (Aug 20, 2009)

*It's Not Just This Outlet*



futz said:


> Well at least they put a sign to tell people that the water isn't guaranteed to be drinkable. Drink at your own risk.


Remember your training, now. 

Without the correct backflow preventer, that's not the only water connection that's at risk of contamination. Everything on that water distribution is at risk. In the event of a backflow incident involving this cross connection , no connection on the system is safe.


----------



## futz (Sep 17, 2009)

Regulator said:


> Remember your training, now.


I remember most of the important parts of it - took that course a long time ago as a 3rd year? apprentice. I let the ticket lapse immediately though - there was no work for it where I lived at the time.



> Without the correct backflow preventer, that's not the only water connection that's at risk of contamination. Everything on that water distribution is at risk. In the event of a backflow incident involving this cross connection , no connection on the system is safe.


True enough. 

There could be a BFP somewhere you can't see though. Maybe there's a mechanical room somewhere there in a building or pit nearby...


----------



## Regulator (Aug 20, 2009)

futz said:


> I remember most of the important parts of it - took that course a long time ago as a 3rd year? apprentice. I let the ticket lapse immediately though - there was no work for it where I lived at the time.
> 
> True enough.
> 
> There could be a BFP somewhere you can't see though. Maybe there's a mechanical room somewhere there in a building or pit nearby...


Futz, you're right. 3rd year contains cross connection control awareness.

There is no hidden backflow preventer, trust me. I would not have posted this thread if there was.


----------



## SlickRick (Sep 3, 2009)

At our fairgrounds We removed 13 HB's from below ground level. Left 1 above ground w/vb and installed RPZ at the service entrance.


----------



## Regulator (Aug 20, 2009)

slickrick said:


> At our fairgrounds We removed 13 HB's from below ground level. Left 1 above ground w/vb and installed RPZ at the service entrance.


Sounds like appropriate corrective practice.


----------



## 1703 (Jul 21, 2009)

RV parks, camp grounds and marinas- cross connection control at it's worse, IMO.


Like I was told by a marina operator when I refused to pipe his new docks because he wouldn't spring for backflow protection- "I've checked into it and that kinda stuff doesn't really happen."


----------



## ROCKSTARPLUMBER (Dec 14, 2008)

I grew up in the trailer park.


----------



## Optimus Primer (May 20, 2009)

Two trailer park girls go round the outside
Round the outside, round the outside
Two trailer park girls go round the outside
Round the outside, round the outside


----------



## GREENPLUM (Jul 27, 2008)

Trailer Park Boys, funny funny stuff


----------



## ROCKSTARPLUMBER (Dec 14, 2008)

house plumber said:


> Two trailer park girls go round the outside
> Round the outside, round the outside
> Two trailer park girls go round the outside
> Round the outside, round the outside


Fightin over you?:laughing:


----------



## Bayside500 (May 16, 2009)

best show ever LOL



GREENPLUM said:


> Trailer Park Boys, funny funny stuff


----------



## Optimus Primer (May 20, 2009)

ROCKSTARPLUMBER said:


> Fightin over you?:laughing:


fighting me..


----------



## Optimus Primer (May 20, 2009)

Bayside500 said:


> best show ever LOL


which one is bert?


----------



## SPH (Nov 4, 2008)

most sani flush stations are like that


----------



## Regulator (Aug 20, 2009)

SPH said:


> most sani flush stations are like that


Really? 

That's contrary to all the CCC manuals I have read. RPBA or PVBA minimum required at the connection.


----------



## Regulator (Aug 20, 2009)

GREENPLUM said:


> Trailer Park Boys, funny funny stuff


Hey, I know people like this. It's a reality show! :laughing:


----------



## Scott K (Oct 12, 2008)

Trailer Park Boys is my favourite show. Not speaking from experience or anything.

I too took my Cross Connection ticket in 3rd year plumbing school in 2006 (finished 4th year in 2007) and I also let it lapse as I just didn't do enough testing. Now they are changing it so you take it and you are certified for 5 years and then you have to recertify completely.

Regulator - from your experience, how much "retrofitting" is going on in the world of cross connections? Are cross connections "grandfathered" from the past, or if someone observed something like this out of the blue and reported it, would they be forced to add an RPBA?


----------



## Regulator (Aug 20, 2009)

Scott K said:


> Trailer Park Boys is my favourite show. Not speaking from experience or anything.
> 
> I too took my Cross Connection ticket in 3rd year plumbing school in 2006 (finished 4th year in 2007) and I also let it lapse as I just didn't do enough testing. Now they are changing it so you take it and you are certified for 5 years and then you have to recertify completely.
> 
> Regulator - from your experience, how much "retrofitting" is going on in the world of cross connections? Are cross connections "grandfathered" from the past, or if someone observed something like this out of the blue and reported it, would they be forced to add an RPBA?


Scott, excellent question. 

This is dependent on a municipality's bylaw and political will to correct the issues.

I do not believe that an uncontrolled cross connection that is a moderate or severe hazard (what used to be known as low and high) can be grandfathered anywhere.

I have been informed that both Coquitlam and Vancouver are in the process of requiring existing cross connections controlled in accordance with their bylaw/standard. Others are following suit but may not yet have a policy in place to fully formalize the process.

Some bylaws require anyone who becomes aware of an uncontrolled cross connection to inform the AHJ of the condition. Most bylaws have language that require that the water consumer to correct any improperly controlled cross connection. The issue is enforcement.

I expect that in the next year or so, there will be a fair amount of upgrading going on in the area of existing conditions in the Metro Vancouver area.


----------



## SPH (Nov 4, 2008)

Regulator - in your interpretation of the CCC manual what is the level of protection for a commercial dishwasher with soap injection?


----------



## Regulator (Aug 20, 2009)

SPH said:


> Regulator - in your interpretation of the CCC manual what is the level of protection for a commercial dishwasher with soap injection?


Ah, but which manual?


PNWS AWWA CCC Manual 6th edition
Canadian AWWA CCC Manual 1st edition
CSA B64.10-01 w/amendments as of June 2003 (BC Code referenced document)
CSA B64.10-07
USC FCCCHR CCC Manual 9th edition
AWWA M14
Undoubtedly I missed some. Maybe others could add those manuals they are familiar with?

The BC Plumbing Code referenced document, CSA B64.10-01 w/amendments as of June 2003, in Table B1 the hazard level of a Commercial dishwasher is identified as moderate. It does not specify application of automatic soap/detergent/chemical injection. So, without automatic soap/detergent/chemical injection by the formula as determined by this manual, the "minimum" backflow device would be:


A DCVA where backpressure is a possibility (temperature booster)
An AVB where backpressure is not possible (but only if there is no control valve downstream, otherwise you back to the DCVA)
Unfortunately this does not answer your question because the manual is far too ambigous. It does not address the issue of soap/detergent storage that is connected to the water.

This being said, Table B1 is an appendix item and not a mandatory specification. Ultimately, it is the AHJ's to apply a hazard level rating to those fixtures and equipment that are not readily dealt with in the code. 

My personal opinion on a commercial dishwasher - the hazard level of the equipment you describe is severe. The "Minimum" required backflow preventer is:


A RPBA where backpressure is a possibility (temperature booster)
A PVBA where backpressure is not possible


----------



## SPH (Nov 4, 2008)

The reason for my question is because we have installed a lot of commercial dishwashers with and without soap injection and a temperature booster. Normally we have always used a DCVA and all inspectors in many jurisdictions have been fine with it.

Now this week in Abbotsford we installed a dishwasher with soap injection but no temperature booster, and the city inspector wants an RPBA. 

And this same inspector called for a non testable double check on a previous job I had looked at for an ice maker! And there was no built in air gap or anything. 

There has to be a better way to regulate the CCC program. Having each jurisdiction make up their own rules and each inspector having his own way of interpreting those rules is just not working.

Personally I always go by the PNWS AWWA CCC Manual 6th edition.


----------



## futz (Sep 17, 2009)

SPH said:


> Having each jurisdiction make up their own rules and each inspector having his own way of interpreting those rules is just not working.


My point (from the other thread) exactly! The inconsistency makes me (and probably all plumbers) crazy.


----------



## Regulator (Aug 20, 2009)

SPH said:


> The reason for my question is because we have installed a lot of commercial dishwashers with and without soap injection and a temperature booster. Normally we have always used a DCVA and all inspectors in many jurisdictions have been fine with it.
> 
> Now this week in Abbotsford we installed a dishwasher with soap injection but no temperature booster, and the city inspector wants an RPBA.
> 
> ...


SPH, I could be wrong, but believe the DCVA may have less applications the future.

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I assume that by non testable double check you mean a dual check valve, Watts #7 or equivalent. This is different approach than what most local AHJ's follow. This is I'm sure, your experience, RPBA required for most and some will accept the air gap where applicable.

The cross connection issue with ice makers as I understand it are twofold, firstly, bacteria buildup on the cooling tray and secondly the refrigerant. As you are aware, the PNWS AWWA CCC Manual identifies the risk as high and specifies ether an air gap or RPBA as the only two acceptable backflow preventers. 

The air gap, when present, is almost invariably an integral part of the equipment. This presents issues unto its own that may be difficult for some AHJ's to accept. Location of the air gap may be such that airborne bacteria could enter the at the water discharge point in the event of a backsiphonage event. 

IMO, such an air gap does not meet BC plumbing code sentence 7.6.2.9. 1) *An air gap shall not be located in a noxious environment.*

Those AHJ's that consider future adaptations, conduct or intend on conducting periodic CCC inspections/surveys/audits may disallow such integral backflow prevention techniques as the air gap is not readily accessible, can be easily bypassed or the equipment swapped out for another model/manufacturer w/o a permit.

Futz, SPH, ScottK and everyone else who experience this frustration, no doubt you are absolutely correct about there needing to be a better way to deal with such different requirements across the region. I am hopeful that a more uniform approach can and will come to pass. People are working on it.

In the mean time, all I can suggest is ensuring at the plan check stage, contractors ensure with the plumbing inspection dept. that all equipment and fixtures have been identified and confirmation on acceptance of proposed backflow prevention measures.


----------



## ToUtahNow (Jul 19, 2008)

Most of the dump station we set up, we were required to use irrigation water for the wash down line. The logic was if anyone ever circumvented the backflow it would shut down all of the irrigation too.

Mark


----------



## Scott K (Oct 12, 2008)

Hey, there's nothing wrong with installing and RPBA for EVERY water line, fixture, etc, right?


All kidding aside, I agree with SPH completely, that having each municipality adminster their cross connections program is a PITA. How hard would it be to just include this kind of crap in the BC plumbing code? I realize it's more work but if the municipalities could all agree on it, then there wouldn't be this ambiguity.

The other thing that bugs the hell out of me is clearances, and drains, for RPBA's. Some municipalities have specific, anal clearances for how far away an RPBA can be from this, how high you are allowed to be above it, and below it. Some also have fairly anal specs on exactly how long the stand pipe must be below the RPBA for the drain. And better yet what size drain pipe you need for what size RPBA, and what size drain do you need for multiple RPBA's. The other one that concerns me is when you have a hot line feeding an RPBA, there has to be something about where this can discharge as many may discharge a cold RPBA drain into a mop sink, or somewhere else, but if it's HOT you can't because if it goes off it's uncontrollable (technically) and could present a scalding issue. 

This inconsistency is doing more harm then good and sooner or later someone is going to get killed. They should put CCC under the Provincial Plumbing Code, period. How can one municipality say it's a dual check with atomspheric port, yet the other requires an RPBA. Why is that? If it's the same machine, same hazard level, same risk, is one municipality more anal then the other? Or do they just not mind a few extra lawsuits per year?


----------



## Regulator (Aug 20, 2009)

[quote=Scott K;77630]Hey, there's nothing wrong with installing and RPBA for EVERY water line, fixture, etc, right?


All kidding aside, I agree with SPH completely, that having each municipality adminster their cross connections program is a PITA. How hard would it be to just include this kind of crap in the BC plumbing code? I realize it's more work but if the municipalities could all agree on it, then there wouldn't be this ambiguity.

The other thing that bugs the hell out of me is clearances, and drains, for RPBA's. Some municipalities have specific, anal clearances for how far away an RPBA can be from this, how high you are allowed to be above it, and below it. Some also have fairly anal specs on exactly how long the stand pipe must be below the RPBA for the drain. And better yet what size drain pipe you need for what size RPBA, and what size drain do you need for multiple RPBA's. The other one that concerns me is when you have a hot line feeding an RPBA, there has to be something about where this can discharge as many may discharge a cold RPBA drain into a mop sink, or somewhere else, but if it's HOT you can't because if it goes off it's uncontrollable (technically) and could present a scalding issue. 

This inconsistency is doing more harm then good and sooner or later someone is going to get killed. They should put CCC under the Provincial Plumbing Code, period. How can one municipality say it's a dual check with atomspheric port, yet the other requires an RPBA. Why is that? If it's the same machine, same hazard level, same risk, is one municipality more anal then the other? Or do they just not mind a few extra lawsuits per year?[/quote]

A CCC program is a lot more than simple backflow preventer selection and installation requirements. 

Of course it would be simpler for everyone if backflow preventer selection and installation was specified entirely by the Plumbing Code. But have you noticed the the changes to 2006 BC Plumbing Code? "Objective based" is another way of saying deregulation. I wouldn't expect any improvement in the situation from the code. Any measure of uniformity will happen at a regional level at best. 

Minimum clearances for backflow preventers are specified in CSA B64.10-01. As this is a code referenced document, every plumber should own a copy or have access to one. No excuses for not understanding minimum and maximum heights and clearances.

I have been informed that RPBA relief port research was carried out by the City of Vancouver Plumbing Inspections decades ago, resulting in specifications available for relief port drain pipe sizing/arrangement. Some are aware of these findings, others are not.

My interpretation of the code would be that any RPBA that feeds anything other than a potable connection should not discharge to a sink, unless the RPBA was feeding a detergent dispenser that was also used for the same sink. See Code sentence 7.7.3.2. 

Some municipalities apply greater funding to CCC Programs and as a result conduct hazard research to a greater degree than others. Inconsistency is never a desirable condition, but it is what it is and it is not confined to CCC only. 

As stated in an earlier post, I suggest that, at the design stage, communication with the plumbing inspection department is the best policy when selecting the correct backflow preventer. Do it in writing if you have to.

If you want answers from each municipality on rational relating to Cross Connection Control policy and decisions, I suggest you write each a letter. You may also approach the POABC for an interpretation of any portion of the plumbing code or referenced document you feel needs clarification.

I am not a religious man, but often in religion there is wisdom. I agree with this prayer...

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.


----------



## Scott K (Oct 12, 2008)

Reg,

Cross Connection Control, while it IS in the interests of protecting the potable water system, and ultimately the safety of the general public, is mainly about reducing liability of the governing body. In a nutshell, it's about $$$.

Subsequently the goal of this program is to eliminate the likelihood of a cross connection to occur, which, in the right circumstances, could cause backflow of a substance that could constititude a low hazard (mainly aesthetic conditions) or high hazard (injury or death), into the potable water system. 

Your post tried to show me and explain the little idiosychracies (sp?) in the CCC management system that I may not be able to change. I will try and elaborate on the idiosychracies that I deal with so you can see where I am coming from. 

When you work on a commercial plumbing project, Engineers are responsible for designing the mechanical systems and making decisions. Master/Journeyman Plumbers & Foreman's jobs are to interpret the plans that the Engineers have laid out and make them become something tangeable. Engineers are involved because they are supposed to have worldly training, & education, on top of just the "sizing pipe" for the right application, to design something that is durable, efficient, performs properly, and ultimately safe. 

The Plumbers job is to try and apply the Engineers specifications in a manner that is code approved with inspections by the authority having jursidiction. 

The problem lies in who makes the decisions. AS a Plumber on a job, I am told I am just an installer and I let the Engineer make the decisions. Often times the Engineer and the AHJ will butt heads as I'm sure you may have expierienced because the Engineer tries to make decisions that go over the AHJ's head, and sometimes the AHJ likes to pull the AHJ card. In the middle of this, is the PLumber, who's head may be spinning, just trying to meet his bosses budget requirements to make the money on the job. A lot of times the Engineer needs some more education, and a reality check for what they are asking, and sometimes, the Inspector asks a little more then he or she should, or has "preferences" that you may be able to challenge at the appeals process, BUT if you start taking the Inspector on about stuff like this, you KNOW your life will be a living hell from the moment that happens.

At the end of the day, the 2 people who are liable for their decisions are the Engineer when he signs off that he approves of your workmanship, AND the Plumbing Inspector. A lot of Engineers also have crap in their specs that says something along the lines of that everything irregardless of what they require in their specs, must meet the BC building code section 7. 

So if cross connection control is more than just simple backflow preventer selection and installation, if we can't even get the backflow selection and installation stuff down pat, how can there be anything more? I have run into an engineer who wanted to borrow my PNWS manual because he didn't have it. I have run into a Vancouver inspector who told me I should be able to select the backflow preventers for this restaurant as I'm the "TQ PLumber" when my boss is telling me it's not my job, it's what the city requries because it's their program, and it's the job of the Engineer to abide by the City's program when he lists backflow preventers in the specs. We are there to quote the specs, and install it to specs if we win the job. 

The only time I actually felt good about a cross connection control program being done properly and safely was when I did the Surrey Mr. Mikes earlier this year. I actually felt like they cared about their CCC program. Then you go to another municipality and they don't give a crap.

Well hello - it's the SAME POTABLE WATER SYSTEM and one municipality cares and one doesn't seem to? 

At the end of the day, like I said above, it's about liability. And at the end of the day, the AHJ passes it. But I feel as though the lack of consistency accross municipalities in adminstering and enforcing CCC doesn't allow for us plumbers to take things seriously. I can understand an AHJ preference, but this is far beyond that.


----------



## SlickRick (Sep 3, 2009)

While I was an inspector in the early '90's CCC was really just starting to draw attention. I don't remember a specific incident that triggered the attention, It was always a fundamental part of a plumbing system. But the state through the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commision mandated the programs be implimented by all water purveyers accross the state. By creating the mandate. It took the liability from the state and moved it to the muncipal level. So the city sends me through all the training that Texas A&M had to offer (like Reg is now) so that I could impliment a program that would meet TNRCC regs. The city could really care less about contamination , just a program that would meet state requirements. When I put it all together I contacted TNRCC and gave them a overview of my program and ask the guy if it met requirements. He responded that it sounded like I knew more about it than the TNRCC did and to impliment the program and they would refer other municipalities to us for advice. It has been a cloudy situation since its conception. At the time I wondered, What did we do all that work for ? We could have waited like everyone else. 18 yrs later and it's still not consistant.


----------



## Regulator (Aug 20, 2009)

Scott, no disagreement from me. I am a plumber as well.

All I can speak to is that although at the higher levels it is a liability issue, I personally take CCC seriously. One must pick their battles carefully and keep the own yard in order first and foremost.

I wish the same mandate was placed upon the water purveyors here as what was in Texas as Slickrick described, maybe then there would be more funding for CCC programs.

We do what we can with what we have in the parameters allowed.


----------

