I did think of this and I left 25# excess in the hydraulics so I'm not too worried about that. I just need to stop the damn thing from flooding the place out. No drains so I had them dig a hole and bury a sump and basin below it but it overwhelms the 1/2 hp sump pump in 5 mins. What a mess. I left a spare parts kit there in case but it tests fine. Tom
Tom, and anyone else. The transition from one BFP Device to another requires analysis of the water supply specifically how losses thorough the BFP may effect sprinkler performance. In most jurisdictions when a fire protection system is compromised the result is an unsafe structure/imminent hazard. The water purveyor has no authority what so ever to create an unsafe condition endangering occupants. The cite is simple, NFPA-13 Water Supplies. John Drucker I may be jumping in here a little late but I'm finding more and more purveyors ARE requiring RPZ's and it's really causing havoc where this has been enforced. I put one in on cape cod this summer because it was close to the beach, always had to, no argument there. I've run down there 4 times since because of it spitting and not stopping due to street pressure fluctuations (resort). My plan is to augment the RPZ with a DCVA downstream which technically makes the spkr. system potable but it's not. I'm so tired of the 90 min. drive each way and getting the alarm guy there that I'm just gonna retro it and hopefully be done with the 3 and 5 # checks hopefully holding back the surges. I'm sure the water guy will not want this and if he did maybe want the RP first but I'm bolting it in right off the flange. I'll keep you guys posted to see if it works, I plan to go down in a couple of weeks. He'll probably have a baby when he goes to test it next year but it's an Ames and that stupid relief cone doesn't contain the spray, it even spits during a main drain test. What a can of worms! I'm a member of the FCCCHR and get their mailings, short money to belong and very informative btw. Tom GRS FGOL John - your postings are very informative and you sound like a great guy. Nothing personal was intended. And once written it has to be enforced, we just don't have to buy into any misinformation about its' origin. Garth > Good try George, > > But you have to read 10.5.9 a. which only lists four permissible > BFP's, Two > DC's and Two RPZ's. Take away the two DC's prohibited by 10.5.9 > Exception > (3) and what are you left with ?. > > I figure by now Garth is saying that damn AHJ is behind all this, > actually no not even a proposal, however as a code official I have no > choice to enforce it. > > John > > I'm surprised that contractors don't read that as saying "ya don't > need a BFP at all if ya gotta FDC." > > Glc > > Ps- todd, can your FD draft up 250'? holy golf ball! > > > The 2006 NSPC eliminated 1700 Ft FDC criteria, now any FDC equals RPZ. > Heres how the section now reads; > > 10.5.9 Exception (3) "Where fire protection systems include a fire > department connection double check valve assemblies shall not be permitted." > > John _______________________________________________ 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)
