RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Steve Leyton]

So call the AHJ and ask for the basis of design.

SL



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
firs...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 

It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this
project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should
all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here
according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but
now they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
wrote:
> 
> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk
management/loss prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or
installing contractor and ask for approved basis of design?
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
> 
> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive
therefore you can't allow something less? This particular system looks
like a 13R but they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So
now they argue it is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's
separated by 1 hour construction. My thinking is since it is 5 units,
not one or two family dwelling, the exception for electrical monitoring
does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I correct?   
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
wrote:
>> 
>> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the

>> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple 
>> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
>> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   
>> 
>> Steve L.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>> 
>> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be 
>> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family 
>> Dwellings, 13D.
>> 
>> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA

>> to a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour 
>> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each
unit.
>> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
>> 
>> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings 
>> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting 
>> off the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self
monitoring.
>> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement 
>> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.
>> 
>> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on 
>> the DCVA would need tampers, correct?
>> 
>> Owen Evans
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>> ler
>> .org
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>> ler.org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Steve Leyton]

Good points, which also beg the question:  Does the 2" meter also feed
the domestic water?   If so, you can take the handles off the
double-check, or lock them open if they're not already or ... or ... 

Really, if you have questions about that basis of design or want to play
the part of community gadfly, take it to the AHJ.

SL





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
Larry Keeping
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:50 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 

If I've read things correctly the only shutoff to the system is at the
BFP which serves 5 units. 

Since 13D in Section 6.2.3 says that where more than one dwelling unit
are served by the same water supply, each unit must have its own
individual control valve, so I am having trouble seeing the set up
described as a 13D system.

It looks like a 13R application to me.

Larry Keeping

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
firs...@aol.com
Sent: October-05-15 1:44 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 

It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this
project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should
all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here
according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but
now they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
wrote:
> 
> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk
management/loss prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or
installing contractor and ask for approved basis of design?
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
> 
> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive
therefore you can't allow something less? This particular system looks
like a 13R but they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So
now they argue it is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's
separated by 1 hour construction. My thinking is since it is 5 units,
not one or two family dwelling, the exception for electrical monitoring
does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I correct?   
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
wrote:
>> 
>> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the

>> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple 
>> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
>> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   
>> 
>> Steve L.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>> 
>> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be 
>> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family 
>> Dwellings, 13D.
>> 
>> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA

>> to a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour 
>> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each
unit.
>> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
>> 
>> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings 
>> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting 
>> off the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self
monitoring.
>> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement 
>> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.
>> 
>> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on 
>> the DCVA would need tampers, correct?
>> 
>> Owen Evans
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>> ler
>> .org
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprin

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this 
project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should all 
play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here according 
to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but now they're saying 
its a 13D without DCVA monitoring. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
> 
> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk management/loss 
> prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or installing contractor and 
> ask for approved basis of design?
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
> 
> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore you 
> can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but they 
> failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it is a 
> 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour construction. 
> My thinking is since it is 5 units, not one or two family dwelling, the 
> exception for electrical monitoring does not apply. Therefore tampers are 
> required. Am I correct?   
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
>> 
>> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
>> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple
>> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
>> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   
>> 
>> Steve L.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>> firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
>> 
>> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be
>> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family
>> Dwellings, 13D.
>> 
>> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA to
>> a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour
>> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit.
>> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
>> 
>> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings
>> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting off
>> the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring.
>> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement
>> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.
>> 
>> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on the
>> DCVA would need tampers, correct? 
>> 
>> Owen Evans
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
>> .org
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Larry Keeping]

If I've read things correctly the only shutoff to the system is at the BFP 
which serves 5 units. 

Since 13D in Section 6.2.3 says that where more than one dwelling unit are 
served by the same water supply, each unit must have its own individual control 
valve, so I am having trouble seeing the set up described as a 13D system.

It looks like a 13R application to me.

Larry Keeping

-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of firs...@aol.com
Sent: October-05-15 1:44 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 

It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this 
project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should all 
play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here according 
to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but now they're saying 
its a 13D without DCVA monitoring. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
> 
> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk management/loss 
> prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or installing contractor and 
> ask for approved basis of design?
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
> 
> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore you 
> can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but they 
> failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it is a 
> 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour construction. 
> My thinking is since it is 5 units, not one or two family dwelling, the 
> exception for electrical monitoring does not apply. Therefore tampers are 
> required. Am I correct?   
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
>> 
>> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the 
>> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple 
>> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
>> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   
>> 
>> Steve L.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>> 
>> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be 
>> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family 
>> Dwellings, 13D.
>> 
>> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA 
>> to a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour 
>> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit.
>> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
>> 
>> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings 
>> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting 
>> off the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring.
>> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement 
>> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.
>> 
>> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on 
>> the DCVA would need tampers, correct?
>> 
>> Owen Evans
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>> ler
>> .org
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>> ler.org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl
> er.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

I did, they said it's a 13D even though it is a stand alone and has an FDC. 
That's why I'm asking questions on the forum. Again, it's a five unit building 
with no tampers on double OS They are claiming 13D exception to tampers in 
CBC. Can they do that? If so we can all save money on our next installations by 
calling it a 13D and use that exception. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
> 
> So call the AHJ and ask for the basis of design.
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:44 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
> 
> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this
> project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should
> all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here
> according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but
> now they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk
> management/loss prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or
> installing contractor and ask for approved basis of design?
>> 
>> SL
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>> 
>> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive
> therefore you can't allow something less? This particular system looks
> like a 13R but they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So
> now they argue it is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's
> separated by 1 hour construction. My thinking is since it is 5 units,
> not one or two family dwelling, the exception for electrical monitoring
> does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I correct?   
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
> 
>>> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple 
>>> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
>>> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   
>>> 
>>> Steve L.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>>> 
>>> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be 
>>> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family 
>>> Dwellings, 13D.
>>> 
>>> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA
> 
>>> to a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour 
>>> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each
> unit.
>>> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
>>> 
>>> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings 
>>> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting 
>>> off the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self
> monitoring.
>>> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement 
>>> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.
>>> 
>>> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on 
>>> the DCVA would need tampers, correct?
>>> 
>>> Owen Evans
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>>> ler
>>> .org
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>

RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Steve Leyton]

Owen:

I don't think that I, or anyone else on this forum is going to affirm or
reject the adequacy of a particular condition based on theoreticals,
especially when it's being done in the context of an
after-the-fact-over-the-shoulder inspection, i.e. second guessing.
Again and finally, my best advice is that if you have a question about
something like this, ask the AHJ.  You were once one yourself - wouldn't
you appreciate the opportunity to learn from a past mistake or affirm a
decision made previously?

SL




-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
firs...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 11:05 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 

No, it's a stand alone. No domestic service. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
wrote:
> 
> Good points, which also beg the question:  Does the 2" meter also feed
> the domestic water?   If so, you can take the handles off the
> double-check, or lock them open if they're not already or ... or ... 
> 
> Really, if you have questions about that basis of design or want to 
> play the part of community gadfly, take it to the AHJ.
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
> Larry Keeping
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:50 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
> 
> If I've read things correctly the only shutoff to the system is at the

> BFP which serves 5 units.
> 
> Since 13D in Section 6.2.3 says that where more than one dwelling unit

> are served by the same water supply, each unit must have its own 
> individual control valve, so I am having trouble seeing the set up 
> described as a 13D system.
> 
> It looks like a 13R application to me.
> 
> Larry Keeping
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
> firs...@aol.com
> Sent: October-05-15 1:44 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
> 
> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on 
> this project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We

> should all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is 
> correct here according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks 
> like a 13R but now they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton 
>>> <st...@protectiondesign.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk
> management/loss prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or 
> installing contractor and ask for approved basis of design?
>> 
>> SL
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>> 
>> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive
> therefore you can't allow something less? This particular system looks

> like a 13R but they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. 
> So now they argue it is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's 
> separated by 1 hour construction. My thinking is since it is 5 units, 
> not one or two family dwelling, the exception for electrical
monitoring
> does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I correct?   
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton 
>>> <st...@protectiondesign.com>
> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if 
>>> the
> 
>>> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple 
>>> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.
Perhaps
>>> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   
>>> 
>>> Steve L.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of

>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
&

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

This is a stand alone, it does not serve domestic. It is a double check with 
OS 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Parsley Consulting  
> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
>You haven't given us enough information.  Does this underground supply 
> also provide domestic water?  Even if the systems were regarded as conforming 
> to 13R, the valve monitoring wouldn't be required by the CFC if the domestic 
> were served from the same piping.
> 
>I might ask several other questions as well.  Are the gate valves on the 
> backflow preventer OS's or ball type?  I've seen a retrofit tamper switch 
> for a ball valve, however, now you're talking about making a change to an 
> existing (presumably) approved installation of a backflow valve.  Water 
> districts, not to mention valve manufacturers get sort of territorial over 
> their equipment.
> 
>As for the 13D argument, I'd have to suggest you're now swerving into a 
> legal argument.  13D doesn't mandate anything other than conformance to the 
> plumbing code, which presumably required the backflow valve.  The building 
> and fire codes, at least in California, don't make any mention of what you're 
> describing.  Perhaps it's one of those things they didn't see as an issue.
> 
>Just a few thoughts.
> 
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website  ***
>> On 10/05/2015 9:37 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore 
>> you can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but 
>> they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it 
>> is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour 
>> construction. My thinking is since it is 5 units, not one or two family 
>> dwelling, the exception for electrical monitoring does not apply. Therefore 
>> tampers are required. Am I correct?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
>>> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple
>>> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
>>> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.
>>> 
>>> Steve L.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>>> 
>>> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be
>>> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family
>>> Dwellings, 13D.
>>> 
>>> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA to
>>> a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour
>>> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit.
>>> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
>>> 
>>> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings
>>> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting off
>>> the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring.
>>> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement
>>> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.
>>> 
>>> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on the
>>> DCVA would need tampers, correct?
>>> 
>>> Owen Evans
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
>>> .org
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> 
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Parsley Consulting]

Owen,

What money are you suggesting we save?  I'm completely lost here.  
An NFPA 13D system control valve doesn't require a tamper switch, not 
from 13D or the CFC, right?  I don't quite understand why you believe 
this is so in error.


While we're on the subject of money, I think it's worth asking why 
a system designed to serve only NFPA 13D systems needed a 2" meter.  
Based on some research Steve Leyton did a short time ago, if this were 
truly individual 13D systems the cost of the larger meter added 
thousands of dollars to the cost, perhaps tens of thousands.


Another relevant question to me might be why there's a backflow 
preventer in the first place?  No possibility of cross connection from a 
stand alone 13D system, right?  Or was it one of those things the water 
purveyor mandated?


*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> ***
On 10/05/2015 11:02 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:

I did, they said it's a 13D even though it is a stand alone and has an FDC. That's 
why I'm asking questions on the forum. Again, it's a five unit building with no 
tampers on double OS They are claiming 13D exception to tampers in CBC. Can 
they do that? If so we can all save money on our next installations by calling it a 
13D and use that exception.

Sent from my iPhone


On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:

So call the AHJ and ask for the basis of design.

SL



-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
firs...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:44 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this
project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should
all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here
according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but
now they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring.

Sent from my iPhone


On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>

wrote:

Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk

management/loss prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or
installing contractor and ask for approved basis of design?

SL


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive

therefore you can't allow something less? This particular system looks
like a 13R but they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So
now they argue it is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's
separated by 1 hour construction. My thinking is since it is 5 units,
not one or two family dwelling, the exception for electrical monitoring
does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I correct?

Sent from my iPhone


On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>

wrote:

It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple
solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.

Steve L.





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
firs...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be
electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family
Dwellings, 13D.

What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA
to a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour
separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each

unit.

Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).

The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings
because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting
off the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self

monitoring.

The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement
therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.

Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on
the DCVA would need tampers, correct?

Owen Evans

Sent from my iPad
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
ler
.org

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

Yes, thank you Steve. I was just trying to get a consensus from the forum on 
does the CBC exception to tamper monitoring apply to a 13D, option one, stand 
alone system? Building details being a 5 unit building served by a 2" service 
with double OS No domestic water service off this line. 
Thanks for your input. 
Owen

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
> 
> Owen:
> 
> I don't think that I, or anyone else on this forum is going to affirm or
> reject the adequacy of a particular condition based on theoreticals,
> especially when it's being done in the context of an
> after-the-fact-over-the-shoulder inspection, i.e. second guessing.
> Again and finally, my best advice is that if you have a question about
> something like this, ask the AHJ.  You were once one yourself - wouldn't
> you appreciate the opportunity to learn from a past mistake or affirm a
> decision made previously?
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 11:05 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
> 
> No, it's a stand alone. No domestic service. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Good points, which also beg the question:  Does the 2" meter also feed
>> the domestic water?   If so, you can take the handles off the
>> double-check, or lock them open if they're not already or ... or ... 
>> 
>> Really, if you have questions about that basis of design or want to 
>> play the part of community gadfly, take it to the AHJ.
>> 
>> SL
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Larry Keeping
>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:50 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>> 
>> If I've read things correctly the only shutoff to the system is at the
> 
>> BFP which serves 5 units.
>> 
>> Since 13D in Section 6.2.3 says that where more than one dwelling unit
> 
>> are served by the same water supply, each unit must have its own 
>> individual control valve, so I am having trouble seeing the set up 
>> described as a 13D system.
>> 
>> It looks like a 13R application to me.
>> 
>> Larry Keeping
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>> firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: October-05-15 1:44 PM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>> 
>> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on 
>> this project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We
> 
>> should all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is 
>> correct here according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks 
>> like a 13R but now they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton 
>>>> <st...@protectiondesign.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk
>> management/loss prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or 
>> installing contractor and ask for approved basis of design?
>>> 
>>> SL
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>>> 
>>> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive
>> therefore you can't allow something less? This particular system looks
> 
>> like a 13R but they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. 
>> So now they argue it is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's 
>> separated by 1 hour construction. My thinking is since it is 5 units, 
>> not one or two family dwelling, the exception for electrical
> monitoring
>> does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I correct?   
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>&g

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

No, it's a stand alone. No domestic service. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
> 
> Good points, which also beg the question:  Does the 2" meter also feed
> the domestic water?   If so, you can take the handles off the
> double-check, or lock them open if they're not already or ... or ... 
> 
> Really, if you have questions about that basis of design or want to play
> the part of community gadfly, take it to the AHJ.
> 
> SL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> Larry Keeping
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:50 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
> 
> If I've read things correctly the only shutoff to the system is at the
> BFP which serves 5 units. 
> 
> Since 13D in Section 6.2.3 says that where more than one dwelling unit
> are served by the same water supply, each unit must have its own
> individual control valve, so I am having trouble seeing the set up
> described as a 13D system.
> 
> It looks like a 13R application to me.
> 
> Larry Keeping
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> firs...@aol.com
> Sent: October-05-15 1:44 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
> 
> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this
> project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should
> all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here
> according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but
> now they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk
> management/loss prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or
> installing contractor and ask for approved basis of design?
>> 
>> SL
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>> 
>> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive
> therefore you can't allow something less? This particular system looks
> like a 13R but they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So
> now they argue it is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's
> separated by 1 hour construction. My thinking is since it is 5 units,
> not one or two family dwelling, the exception for electrical monitoring
> does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I correct?   
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
> 
>>> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple 
>>> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
>>> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   
>>> 
>>> Steve L.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>>> 
>>> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be 
>>> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family 
>>> Dwellings, 13D.
>>> 
>>> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA
> 
>>> to a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour 
>>> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each
> unit.
>>> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
>>> 
>>> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings 
>>> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting 
>>> off the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self
> monitoring.
&g

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Timothy W Goins]

Sounds like it's outside the scope of a simple 13d system. 13d is a combination 
domestic/fire 1&2 family dwelling not dwellings.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God's power for salvation to 
everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 
"Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to 
men that all people everywhere should repent,..." NASB Acts 17:30

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 12:44 PM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
> 
> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this 
> project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should all 
> play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here 
> according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but now 
> they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk management/loss 
>> prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or installing contractor and 
>> ask for approved basis of design?
>> 
>> SL
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
>> Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
>> 
>> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore 
>> you can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but 
>> they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it 
>> is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour 
>> construction. My thinking is since it is 5 units, not one or two family 
>> dwelling, the exception for electrical monitoring does not apply. Therefore 
>> tampers are required. Am I correct?   
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
>>> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple
>>> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
>>> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   
>>> 
>>> Steve L.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
>>> 
>>> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be
>>> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family
>>> Dwellings, 13D.
>>> 
>>> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA to
>>> a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour
>>> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit.
>>> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
>>> 
>>> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings
>>> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting off
>>> the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring.
>>> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement
>>> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.
>>> 
>>> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on the
>>> DCVA would need tampers, correct? 
>>> 
>>> Owen Evans
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
>>> .org
>>> ___
>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
>> 
>> ___
>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Steve Leyton]

Owen:

I'll bet most on this forum have seen townhomes protected by 13R in one
case and multiple-13D systems in others.   I know I have.   Many
jurisdictions will grant individual meters to row homes - City of San
Diego does it as a matter of regular practice.  What may or may not have
been agreed to here is between the project principals and the municipal
agencies that approved the project - planning, building, development
services, fire prevention, stormwater, environmental and health, etc.,
etc.  You already know all that.If you want to know what the intent
was, contact the AHJ but you can't really say whether a design is
conforming or not unless you know what basis of design (right or wrong)
was required.  If you find that the contractor installed exactly what
the AHJ directed them to, then you may have an issue (or a teachable
moment) with the AHJ.   But continuing to mill this topic whilst fishing
for some measure of condemnation isn't really ... productive.   

SL





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
firs...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 12:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

Ken,
Good questions. Correct, 13D does not require tamper on one and two
family dwellings. But what about an Option one 13D system serving a
building with 5 town homes?

In other words, this is a stand alone 13D system (no domestic service
from this line) serving 5 attached town homes. Does the exception from
CBC, no tampers require, apply to this building of 5 units?

What I meant about saving money was; let's say you have a building that
consisted of 10 town houses. According to 13D you can install an Option
one, stand alone 13D system and (according CBC) not monitor the control
valves on the DCVA that was require by the water company. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Parsley Consulting
<parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
>What money are you suggesting we save?  I'm completely lost here.
An NFPA 13D system control valve doesn't require a tamper switch, not
from 13D or the CFC, right?  I don't quite understand why you believe
this is so in error.
> 
>While we're on the subject of money, I think it's worth asking why
a system designed to serve only NFPA 13D systems needed a 2" meter.
Based on some research Steve Leyton did a short time ago, if this were
truly individual 13D systems the cost of the larger meter added
thousands of dollars to the cost, perhaps tens of thousands.
> 
>Another relevant question to me might be why there's a backflow
preventer in the first place?  No possibility of cross connection from a
stand alone 13D system, right?  Or was it one of those things the water
purveyor mandated?
> 
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> ***
>> On 10/05/2015 11:02 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>> I did, they said it's a 13D even though it is a stand alone and has
an FDC. That's why I'm asking questions on the forum. Again, it's a five
unit building with no tampers on double OS They are claiming 13D
exception to tampers in CBC. Can they do that? If so we can all save
money on our next installations by calling it a 13D and use that
exception.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Steve Leyton
<st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So call the AHJ and ask for the basis of design.
>>> 
>>> SL
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of

>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:44 AM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>>> 
>>> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on 
>>> this project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. 
>>> We should all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what 
>>> is correct here according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it 
>>> looks like a 13R but now they're saying its a 13D without DCVA
monitoring.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton 
>>>>> <st...@protectiondesign.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk
>>> management/loss prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or 
>

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

Ken, 
Good questions. Correct, 13D does not require tamper on one and two family 
dwellings. But what about an Option one 13D system serving a building with 5 
town homes?

In other words, this is a stand alone 13D system (no domestic service from this 
line) serving 5 attached town homes. Does the exception from CBC, no tampers 
require, apply to this building of 5 units?

What I meant about saving money was; let's say you have a building that 
consisted of 10 town houses. According to 13D you can install an Option one, 
stand alone 13D system and (according CBC) not monitor the control valves on 
the DCVA that was require by the water company. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Parsley Consulting <parsleyconsult...@cox.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
>What money are you suggesting we save?  I'm completely lost here.  An NFPA 
> 13D system control valve doesn't require a tamper switch, not from 13D or the 
> CFC, right?  I don't quite understand why you believe this is so in error.
> 
>While we're on the subject of money, I think it's worth asking why a 
> system designed to serve only NFPA 13D systems needed a 2" meter.  Based on 
> some research Steve Leyton did a short time ago, if this were truly 
> individual 13D systems the cost of the larger meter added thousands of 
> dollars to the cost, perhaps tens of thousands.
> 
>Another relevant question to me might be why there's a backflow preventer 
> in the first place?  No possibility of cross connection from a stand alone 
> 13D system, right?  Or was it one of those things the water purveyor mandated?
> 
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> ***
>> On 10/05/2015 11:02 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>> I did, they said it's a 13D even though it is a stand alone and has an FDC. 
>> That's why I'm asking questions on the forum. Again, it's a five unit 
>> building with no tampers on double OS They are claiming 13D exception to 
>> tampers in CBC. Can they do that? If so we can all save money on our next 
>> installations by calling it a 13D and use that exception.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So call the AHJ and ask for the basis of design.
>>> 
>>> SL
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-----
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 10:44 AM
>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>>> 
>>> It appears that both the AHJ and contractor  have made mistakes on this
>>> project. I am interested in finding out what exactly happened. We should
>>> all play by the same rules. Im trying to figure out what is correct here
>>> according to standard, CFC & CBC. Like I said, it looks like a 13R but
>>> now they're saying its a 13D without DCVA monitoring.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk
>>> management/loss prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or
>>> installing contractor and ask for approved basis of design?
>>>> SL
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
>>>> Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
>>>> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive
>>> therefore you can't allow something less? This particular system looks
>>> like a 13R but they failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So
>>> now they argue it is a 13D serving a building with 5 townhouse's
>>> separated by 1 hour construction. My thinking is since it is 5 units,
>>> not one or two family dwelling, the exception for electrical monitoring
>>> does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I correct?
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>
>>> wrote

RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Pete Schwab]

Remember that the options/arrangements are found in the Annex. This method of a 
single tap and backflow then feeding multiple single family dwellings 
(Townhomes) is a common arrangement here in Florida.
It is up to the AHJ to accept it. Generally we do not provide an additional 
control valve in each dwelling unit. The backflows are not monitored based on 
the chapter 9 IBC allowance. The AHJ's usually want at least a chain and lock.

Peter Schwab
VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
222 Capitol Court
Ocoee, Fl 34761

Mobile: (407) 468-8248
Direct: (407) 877-5570
Fax: (407) 656-8026

www.waynefire.com






-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On 
Behalf Of Steve Leyton
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 3:56 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

Owen:

I'll bet most on this forum have seen townhomes protected by 13R in one
case and multiple-13D systems in others.   I know I have.   Many
jurisdictions will grant individual meters to row homes - City of San Diego 
does it as a matter of regular practice.  What may or may not have been agreed 
to here is between the project principals and the municipal agencies that 
approved the project - planning, building, development services, fire 
prevention, stormwater, environmental and health, etc.,
etc.  You already know all that.If you want to know what the intent
was, contact the AHJ but you can't really say whether a design is conforming or 
not unless you know what basis of design (right or wrong) was required.  If you 
find that the contractor installed exactly what the AHJ directed them to, then 
you may have an issue (or a teachable
moment) with the AHJ.   But continuing to mill this topic whilst fishing
for some measure of condemnation isn't really ... productive.   

SL





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of 
firs...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 12:45 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

Ken,
Good questions. Correct, 13D does not require tamper on one and two family 
dwellings. But what about an Option one 13D system serving a building with 5 
town homes?

In other words, this is a stand alone 13D system (no domestic service from this 
line) serving 5 attached town homes. Does the exception from CBC, no tampers 
require, apply to this building of 5 units?

What I meant about saving money was; let's say you have a building that 
consisted of 10 town houses. According to 13D you can install an Option one, 
stand alone 13D system and (according CBC) not monitor the control valves on 
the DCVA that was require by the water company. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Parsley Consulting
<parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
>What money are you suggesting we save?  I'm completely lost here.
An NFPA 13D system control valve doesn't require a tamper switch, not from 13D 
or the CFC, right?  I don't quite understand why you believe this is so in 
error.
> 
>While we're on the subject of money, I think it's worth asking why
a system designed to serve only NFPA 13D systems needed a 2" meter.
Based on some research Steve Leyton did a short time ago, if this were truly 
individual 13D systems the cost of the larger meter added thousands of dollars 
to the cost, perhaps tens of thousands.
> 
>Another relevant question to me might be why there's a backflow
preventer in the first place?  No possibility of cross connection from a stand 
alone 13D system, right?  Or was it one of those things the water purveyor 
mandated?
> 
> *Ken Wagoner, SET
> *Parsley Consulting***
> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
> *Escondido, California 92025
> *Phone 760-745-6181*
> Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> ***
>> On 10/05/2015 11:02 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
>> I did, they said it's a 13D even though it is a stand alone and has
an FDC. That's why I'm asking questions on the forum. Again, it's a five unit 
building with no tampers on double OS They are claiming 13D exception to 
tampers in CBC. Can they do that? If so we can all save money on our next 
installations by calling it a 13D and use that exception.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 5, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Steve Leyton
<st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So call the AHJ and ask for the basis of design.
>>> 
>>> SL
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sprinklerforum
>>> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of

>>> firs...@aol.com
>>> Se

RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Steve Leyton]

Are you doing a 3rd party inspection or some sort of risk management/loss 
prevention analysis?  Why not just call the AHJ or installing contractor and 
ask for approved basis of design?

SL


-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of firs...@aol.com
Sent: Mon 10/5/2015 9:37 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
 
Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore you 
can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but they 
failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it is a 13D 
serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour construction. My 
thinking is since it is 5 units, not one or two family dwelling, the exception 
for electrical monitoring does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I 
correct?   

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
> 
> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple
> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   
> 
> Steve L.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
> 
> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be
> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family
> Dwellings, 13D.
> 
> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA to
> a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour
> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit.
> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
> 
> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings
> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting off
> the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring.
> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement
> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.
> 
> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on the
> DCVA would need tampers, correct? 
> 
> Owen Evans
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
> .org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Parsley Consulting]

Owen,

You haven't given us enough information.  Does this underground 
supply also provide domestic water?  Even if the systems were regarded 
as conforming to 13R, the valve monitoring wouldn't be required by the 
CFC if the domestic were served from the same piping.


I might ask several other questions as well.  Are the gate valves 
on the backflow preventer OS's or ball type?  I've seen a retrofit 
tamper switch for a ball valve, however, now you're talking about making 
a change to an existing (presumably) approved installation of a backflow 
valve.  Water districts, not to mention valve manufacturers get sort of 
territorial over their equipment.


As for the 13D argument, I'd have to suggest you're now swerving 
into a legal argument.  13D doesn't mandate anything other than 
conformance to the plumbing code, which presumably required the backflow 
valve.  The building and fire codes, at least in California, don't make 
any mention of what you're describing.  Perhaps it's one of those things 
they didn't see as an issue.


Just a few thoughts.

*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit our website  ***
On 10/05/2015 9:37 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:

Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore you 
can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but they 
failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it is a 13D 
serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour construction. My 
thinking is since it is 5 units, not one or two family dwelling, the exception 
for electrical monitoring does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I 
correct?

Sent from my iPhone


On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:

It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple
solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.

Steve L.





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
firs...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be
electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family
Dwellings, 13D.

What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA to
a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour
separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit.
Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).

The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings
because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting off
the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring.
The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement
therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.

Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on the
DCVA would need tampers, correct?

Owen Evans

Sent from my iPad
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org



___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

RE: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[Steve Leyton]

It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple
solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   

Steve L.





-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
firs...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 

The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be
electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family
Dwellings, 13D.

What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA to
a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour
separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit.
Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).

The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings
because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting off
the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring.
The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement
therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.

Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on the
DCVA would need tampers, correct? 

Owen Evans

Sent from my iPad
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Re: Monitoring 13D control valves in California

[firstin]

Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore you 
can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but they 
failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it is a 13D 
serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour construction. My 
thinking is since it is 5 units, not one or two family dwelling, the exception 
for electrical monitoring does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I 
correct?   

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton  wrote:
> 
> It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
> sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers.  NFPA offers multiple
> solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves.  Perhaps
> the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.   
> 
> Steve L.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sprinklerforum
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
> firs...@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California 
> 
> The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be
> electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family
> Dwellings, 13D.
> 
> What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA to
> a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour
> separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit.
> Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
> 
> The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings
> because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting off
> the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring.
> The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement
> therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.
> 
> Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on the
> DCVA would need tampers, correct? 
> 
> Owen Evans
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
> .org
> ___
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
___
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org