- Messages
- 34,363
- Solutions
- 2
Discuss .....Thoughts....... in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net
New regs @Shaun ?
When is that coming in mate?
yea the water board have decided that the the fill valves that fill from the bottom dont comply any more and you need to fit check valves or use an air gap fill valve
Agree, up to is so indecisive, my concern is that things like water saving hippo bags in the cistern greatly effect macerators."up to" weasel words from the BS dept aka marketing...
No doubt they will cast far more than a std fill valve.
Glad I'm no longer on the tools...
Banish blue water? So how does a fill valve...? - oh, never mind.
Probably saves water by having a delayed fill action. Torbeck Ecofil or whatever it's called does exactly the same.
So how does a Part 3 not already have an air gap? How do most WRAS approved existing fill valves not have an air gap or anti-siphonic design? I think they do, usually. Even in 1990, we had collapsable tube silencers (which didn't always prevent backflow, but hey ho).
Too much lobbying by firms. Illegal to fit a twin flush valve to a single flush toilet unless: it has WRAS approval as a specifically designed retrofit. Probably illegal to fit a brick to the pan, but a Hippo bag or PHS Flush-wiser fitted to the siphon (which does exactly the same thing) are okay because WRAS approved them.
Shaun. Any links to this new legislation, or is this still just a rumour? Not seen anything in Installer yet.
Ah. I thought they were referring to blue water caused by bacterial action in the system causing the copper pipework to degrade and turn the water blue.blue water ric is the backflow issue (eg blue block)
Many Thanks Shaun
But what if the WRAS-approved DCV fails to prevent backflow because it is also faulty? Perhaps we should put another anti- backflow device behind that?
Some of the valves identified were WRAS-approved, which means that others were not WRAS-approved. If we (reasonably, I think) assume that some of the floatvalves fitted had no approval at all, then they should never have been fitted without a DCV in the first place. The irony is that the same kind of installer who failed to fit the checkvalves where they were already required (with the unapproved valves), is very unlikely to fit them as a result of this edict.
But, hey, easier to write a new rule for us to have to deal with than to ask WRAS how the *#@! they approved valves that don't prevent backflow!
What if it's a flat?
Reply to .....Thoughts....... in the Plumbing Jobs | The Job-board area at PlumbersForums.net
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.