Me bad. Thanks Ron.
John -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 6:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Backflow: Sprinkler System John, You don't want to take these good people over to the fiascoes of the other list. Not on a Friday. Have a good weekend. On 7/13/07, John Drucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Todd, and everyone else for that matter. > > Lets not take a reactive approach here, we hear way too much when statistics > are used against prudent fire protection simply because something bad hasn't > happened. We need to remain focused and proactive. > > The problem isn't with the concept of preventing backflow, it's a damn good > idea for public safety, the problem is with the technology in accomplishing > it. > > I liken the situation to elevator power shunt trip, now that's a fiasco. > > John Drucker > Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams > - work > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 4:58 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Backflow: Sprinkler System > > Let me throw one more thing into this. Is there > any history of a water supply protected by a DCVA > being contaminated by water pumped through an FDC? How about one with an > RPZ? > > > > At 04:50 PM 7/13/2007, you wrote: > >the probability of a pumper or 2nd-due engine > >gettin the connections wet is more ProbablY > >good odds if there is fire showing. > > > >foam in the tank is possible, though highly > >improbably as it is usually inducted at a > >hose outlay rather than > >poured into the belly of the engine's tank. > > > >what we are arguing over (probability of a > >engine contaminating a potable water supply) > >is best visited by those that do this work: > >engineers on fire trucks. They know the > >Probability of them contaminating potable > >water is very, very low, for most municipal > >jurisdictions. > > > >These musings will continue to be just that, > >until the people who are doing what we are > >talking about, weigh in. > > > >What happened to common sense? Out in > >Enviro world, I hear of people using Ca(SO4)2 > >to precipitate dissolved chlorine from water > >flow test discharge. I thought the disassociation > >constant for Sulfates were much lower than for > >Chlorides, even without speaking to the fact of > >mixing times. Are we trying to > >solve a problem that may not exist in > >epidemiological terms? NIH must have stats on > >that. I don´t think pumpers in large cities are > >doing much drafting from ponds. > > > >Leakage creeping around a 15 year old BFP > >holding back sprinkler muck-water... that is another > >story. > > > >scot deal > >excelsior fire > > > > > > > >On 7/13/07, Michael O'Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>How about an end thought as the day winds down. > >> > >>I spoke with the ICC about the RPBP vs DDC thing out of the IPC > >> > >>Specifically section 608. The funny part about this section is that it > >>speaks to a DDC throughout the section except when you have antifreeze or > >>foam in the system. > >> > >>The unique part is the commentary of the code. The commentary (for you > >>sprinkler folks that's like the handbooks in ICC language) speaks very > >>specifically that if a non-potable water source is used in a fire truck > >>then > >>a RPBP is required. That is every single fire truck in the US. If they > >>suck out of a pond, use hose to connect to a hydrant, use foam in a tank, > >>use any solvent or the like in the tank, etc. . . > >> > >>What is frustrating to me is that this language is very clear in the > >>commentary. If that is what the "intent" truly is, then change the code > >>language to reflect the commentary. I work for many municipalities and > >>work > >>on the AHJ side and this is a tough issues. > >> > >>What is truly the probability of a Fire truck pumping into a FDC? > >>I think we all can agree that the RPBP is a maintenance nightmare. If you > >>want I can summarize the commentary language on a future email. > >> > >> > >>Michael O'Brian > >>Code Savvy Consultants > >>www.codesavvyconsultants.com > >>313-618-6401 > >>Fax 313-557-0294 > >> > >>************************************************ > >>Take a look at www.inspector911.com the first site dedicated to code > >>enforcmenet (inspectors, fire marhsals, building officals, and plan > >>reviewers). > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John > >>Drucker > >>Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:11 AM > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: RE: Backflow: Sprinkler System > >> > >>Roland > >> > >>Take a look at this; > >> > >>2006 NSPC 10.5.9 - Exception (3) "Where fire protection include a fire > >>department connection, double check valve assemblies shall not be > >>permitted." > >> > >>John > >> > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland > >>Huggins > >>Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 10:04 AM > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: Re: Backflow: Sprinkler System > >> > >>One of the aspects that drive an RPZ is when the fire dept draft from > >>non-potable sources (anytime). > >> > >>Roland > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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) > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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) > > Todd G. Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, Connecticut > 860-535-2080 > www.fpdc.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) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ 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)
