Actually there is no gray area that needs discussion.
The Fed. "Safe Drinking Water Act - 1986 Title XIV
Backflow prevention is required for all non-potable water connections to
potable water supplies.
Yes a wet sprinkler system is a non-potable water connection. (A low hazard
one and therefore able to be protected with a double check assembly.)
An antifreeze system or any system which has additative's present (Yes that
includes MIC treatment) is a high hazard system and requires a reduced
pressure zone type backflow preventor.
In addition to the SDWA-1986 OSHA is also in on backflow requirements for
any workplace, with the Standards (29 CFR 1910) Subpart J 1910.141 a) and
b).
Then there are the additional requirements from individual states, which
each of you should become familiar with in those states where you install
systems. And finally the purveyor may have additional regulations for
discharge of non-potable and waste water, as well as backflow requirements
that exceed the fed. or state requirements. Just be aware, that if a
purveyor doesn't have a backflow prevention program in place that does not
mean you don't need to do it, it just means that you'll share the liability
if there is ever a problem.
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: Sprinkler Drainage
This issue was discussed briefly at the recent meeting of the NFSA
Contractors Board.
I have heard about the issue of treating sprinkler water as a contaminant
in
Southern California.
I read the article you linked to, and don't think the author has a clear
understanding of the annual tests we perform on sprinkler systems. For
example,
he writes that Main Drain Test's are rarely conducted. In reality, they're
probably the most important part of an annual inspection.
One issue to consider: If the system contains additives (ie anti-freeze),
then there may be cause for concern.
What does the local water purveyor say? If he allows sprinkler systems to
be
connected without backflow devices (ie Detector Check Assembly), then he
says
the system is good enough to mix with his Water Supply.
If he requires a Double Check Backflow, then he say's it's a "low Hazard."
(ie, it may smell bad, taste funny , etc)
If he requires an RPZ Backflow, then he considers it high hazard
contaminant. (These areas may be the ones that want sprinkler water
discharged into
sewers).
I think the NFSA, AFSA and AWWA should jointly study this issue and write
a
paper to guide municipalities on this matter. Perhaps they have?
Forest Wilson
Cherokee Fire Protection Co.
Dayton OH 45434
In a message dated 4/17/2007 6:24:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- David Autry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This article has come to my attention. I'm just
wondering if anyone else has
seen this. Anyone have any thoughts?
http://www.plumbingengineer.com/april_07/designers.php
David Autry
Plans Examiner
Nebraska State Fire Marshal's Office
246 S. 14th Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
402-471-9659
402-471-3118 fax
www.sfm.ne.gov
************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
