Tom:
Why a double check, when a single check in front of the RPZ will do the same
thing with less pressure loss. Your only trying to capture the spike
pressure so your system will equalize at the higher pressure. We have been
forced to use Pressure Reducing Valves like the watts 23 HP in front of the
RPZ, then the spike hits a closed valve and goes elsewhere, much larger
pressure loss than either a single check or double check assembly, but the
big advantage is "Set it and Forget it" if it saves just one 90 min. drive
its worth it.
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Duross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:50 AM
Subject: RE: Double-check and RPs
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
http://phcc.files.cms-plus.com/Depts/Technical/2006NSPCNonIllustratedWeb
_______________________________________________
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)
