Oh, heck Garth, I thought you were a fitter and hence a caveman ;) I have no idea how long ago, but there was a prior thread on BFPs in the early days of the Forum- and I believe some items surprised me, perhaps there were some incidents, since I had never heard of anyone getting sick, either- one of those societal things, we can shove the BFP cost on the building owner, instead of taking half that money and putting it toward healing a larger, more festering societal ill.
Let's face it, we'd save more lives than we do now, if our entire spkr industry were able to put down our pixels, spend a year eradicating drunk driving (I know we can't, this is an example of prioritizing), and then resume where we left off on spkrs. Or would society be better served if we then started feeding the hungry, educating the ignorant (oh, that's why the Forum is here).... So every building owner who has spkrs installed in the past 25 years +/- has spent a couple to several grand on BFP(s). Have we gotten a good bang for our buck? Well, deaths from spkr backflow probably haven't increased any:) but I'm sure there have been better opportunities for that size of an investment in our society. Not that FP isn't important, just that those further down on Maslow's hierarchy of needs would rather have something to eat, pain to stop, etc. than sprinklers in their homeless/refuge shelter. My ref to Roland was that he could update us on how things are progressing; if we've made some headway, and the next generation of BFP recommendations are lightening up, then this could be ammo for Gayle to use in pointing out that the road to progress has veered back toward reality, and the (maybe I'm dreaming) new AWWA/DEP/etc requirements are heading back to simple DCA or DCDA's. This could, with a temporary stay by a code/fire official or other political ally we could muster support from (since they'd be sharing our concern for pressure losses, reliability, etc) until the new regs become law. A muddier version of applying something from #13 '07 when you're under '02 or '99, shows the intent of the committee. And if an ally couldn't be found, an atty- depending on the amount of expense being faced (like a pump!) could take the water purveyor to court to stay enforcement and likely win- at least for awhile. Hopefully a sharp judge would look past the code or whatever mandate the water guys are using, and ask "Just how big a problem is this? How many deaths last year from spkr backflow when just the DCA/DCDA is installed, and how would an RPZ have changed this?" in which case slam-dunk, you have a great day in court, a precedent is set, and your other customers don't have to do anything but follow precedent. Ok, having theoretically conquered drunk driving, won in court, and told the water purveyor No, I'll gather up the bids due tomorrow and head on back to the ranch. If someone wants to pursue this further, there is something in the darker recesses of the Archive. Take your interlard pincers and start searching, I gotta sell some work. Gayle, here's your chance to show Chris or Gretchen how the archives work! glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Garth W. Warren Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Double-check vs RPs John, I have to take issue with one of your statements..."Is there good reason for BFP you bet". We all know fire sprinkler systems have been installed in this country for a century with NO backflow preventers and some even contained anti-freeze and used pumps and almost all had FDCs and many had nonpotable water pumped through the FDC. So what exactly are the stats for contamination that initiated the panic and the requirements for BFPs on fire sprinkler systems? Was it the testing done by the manufacturers of the BFP devices? Except for the chicken little theory that it might happen someday, it never did. And I still go outside for the paper without wearing a hard hat or carrying an umbrella even though there are statistical possibilities that a bird may dump on my head. The furthest contamination of any kind that I can remember from reading the details of the testing of sprinkler systems without backflow prevention devices was 5' from the face of the system check valve. The only way contamination was observed farther than 5' away was when a 2x4 was placed in the clapper of the valve if my memory of the testing serves me. And I have to think that a 2x4 in the clapper of a DCV would cause failure of that device too. Thousands (or tens of or hundreds of thousands) of preexisting systems still exist with nothing more than a shotgun check valve or an alarm valve. Are people flocking to hospitals from the dreaded fire water contamination? IF anyone has any statistical information that states the installation of these devices was anything other than a great sell job by their lobbyists I would love to read a copy - complete with the detailed testing procedure - so I can finally believe this requirement is based on other than manufacturer profits. Repeating something a lot does not make it true. And no, I am not a Neanderthal. ;-) Garth ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Drucker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:34 PM Subject: RE: Double-check vs RPs > George, et.al. > > It goes way beyond the AWWA and NSPC. As I posted earlier New Jersey DEP's > Clean Water Act regulations usurp everything. Everyone including water > purveyors and code officials are MANDATED to abide by these regulations. So > please don't shoot the messengers. Is there good reason for BFP you bet, are > there alternatives perhaps but that doesn't mean a hill of beans unless the > regulations allow same. > > John Drucker > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 5:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Double-check vs RPs > > I believe Roland is on the AWWA committee to try to head off the backflow > Nazis at the root. Imagine when he gets done what he's doing and reads this, > he'll chime in with a better statement than "Just tell the water purveyor > NO!". > > glc > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 5:19 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Double-check vs RPs > > One of those little extras we do without much fanfare. When Washington > first implemented backflow regulation through the Dept. of Health the > backflow folks started going crazy on retrofits wherever possible. The > hydraulic implications concerned me so I got involved and eventually > got a line into the administrative code to the effect that whenever a > retrofit was required to a sprinkler system consideration would be > given to the hydraulics. Although pretty weak it did open the eyes of > the water folks to the fact that their decision had life safety > implications beyond their own concerns. This started a dialogue and to > my knowledge these retrofits are usually negotiated when an issue > arises. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ 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)
