Makes you wonder what we did before all the DCDA, RPZ, etc. Oh, that's right- a single check, sometimes with a cheater meter, and/or an ALV or DPV. Gosh, remember how many people used to get sick and/or die from our sprinkler systems before we added $1200 to $10,000 per system for REAL BFPs? Hmm....no, now that I think about it, I don't recall a single one. And I believe we had a tread about it in the Forum's infancy, and no one else did, either.....
George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Cahill, Christopher Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 1:10 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Really RW? We have a few problems with corrosion and MIC in potable water. What else might be in these RW system that is going to eat up our systems or I suppose might be better as a slim chance. Can the chemical makeup of RW change over time and seasons further complicating what is does to our systems? What's the FD going to wash and flush? Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 ccah...@burnsmcd.com www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 11:53 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants We are doing our first building system off RW at this time. From our due diligence for the current project, we learned that in NorCal, there have been a few building systems connected to reclaimed. There are some in the Dublin/Pleasanton/Livermore area, if I recall correctly (Tom McKinnon are you out there?). We've been told by the water purveyor that no special treatment is required, but the fire dept. wants a wash & flush station on the property. We're configuring the site main with BFP's as if the source main was potable, and on paper everything looks utterly conventional. SML -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Letterman, Todd Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:38 AM To: 'sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org' Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Hey Steve have you been on the design end of a Fire Protection System using reclaimed water? If you have wanted to know what issues you ran across if any? ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Leyton [mailto:st...@protectiondesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:33 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org <sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org> Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Well ... as ridiculous as all this may sound ... In SoCal, we have water districts that are moving hard into reclaimed water. Golf courses and public green areas such as parks and right of way planters and medians, are being irrigated with reclaimed. Easiest and most obvious application for RW as it can work quite well at low residual pressures. But water wise thinking being as it is, and bureaucracy being as IT is, we are now seeing reclaimed used for fire water. And of course, the California Dept. of Health has a few opinions on what you have to do with fire apparatus that has pumped RW, such as completely clean and flush. So a BFP on a public hydrant, or on FD suction hose is the next logical legislative "solution". SML -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Art Tiroly Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 9:29 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants Then should public street hydrants need BFP installed? Arthur Tiroly ATCO Fire Protection Design Tiroly and Associates 24400 Highland Rd rm 25, CLE 44143 216-621-8899 216-570-7030 Cell WWW.ATCOfirepro.com -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:49 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having fire hydrants I heard more about this today from an Illinois plumbing inspector. For those interested, they (or maybe just he) consider a fire hydrant as a device to which applies Part 890 Plumbing Code Section 890.1140 "Special Applications and Installations". The catching sections are 890.1140 e) 1) and 890.1140 e) 2) A) i). All the applications and installations mentioned by this section, i.e. that which are special, are hose outlets, yard hydrants with weeps, flush valves, laundry machines, dishwashers, medical water aspirators, mobile homes and carbonated beverage machines. One would think that section title "Special Applications and Installations" intends to single out specifically named applications and installations. For example there is a trade distinction between Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants that any reasonable tradesman would know. If this code truly intends to apply to both Yard Hydrants and Fire Hydrants then it would not be "special" and the wording would be "Hydrants". Incidentally there is no mention of any fire protection related devices at all in the section. All mention of fire protection devices, which surely must have special distinction to most, occurs in a different 890 subsection. Claiming this section applies also to fire protection is to expand its special scope to included another very special application, thereby denying the section's purpose. The question stills stands for those in the Illinois area. Is this actually the state's stance? For the case where I heard about this, the "state" will be making another arm of the "state" put an RPZ device in a hot box on the piping between an ordinary, existing fire hydrant and the private main it connects to, because that one hydrant is being moved due to a new drive and that section of existing underground is being replace, not as its own small project but as part of a much larger project. Allan Seidel St. Louis, MO On Jun 6, 2012, at 8:13 AM, <rfletc...@aerofire.com> wrote: > The 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code 603.4.16.1requires backflows in lines > to FP systems. RPZ's are required for systems with chemicals like > antifreeze or AFFF and double checks for others. It says they are not > required for private hydrant only lines that comply with city water > main and AWWA standards. > > To the best of my knowledge there is no requirement in the > International Plumbing Code. > > > Ron Fletcher > Aero Automatic > Phoenix, AZ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org > [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org > ] On Behalf Of Timothy W Goins > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 5:40 AM > To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having > fire hydrants > > Most THINK that the AWWA recommends BFP's on ALL firelines, especially > deadened lines over 100 feet, but the AWWA does NOT recommend backflow > protection on hydrant only lines. > > "For I am not ashamed of the gospel , , because it is God's power for > salvation to everyone who believes..." HCS Romans 1:16 > > On Jun 6, 2012, at 12:56 AM, bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: > >> accounting departments see plus signs when they see marketing >> department, lunch n learn, and regulatory agencies on the same spread >> sheet line lol (and some consulting engineering firms). >> Steve- can you explain the USC friction loss graphs? there is some >> diff in turning on and turning off? >> Quoting Ron Greenman <rongreen...@gmail.com>: >> >>> I think the backflow prevention device manufacturers have a lot of >>> influence with a fair share of regulatory agencies. >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Steve Leyton >>> <st...@protectiondesign.com >>> >wrote: >>> >>>> Private fire service mains in CA have required backflows for years. >>>> The type of device varies by water authority standards, but pretty >>>> much throughout Southern California the use of an RPDA is standard >>>> practice. >>>> Whether the downstream connections are sprinklers only, plus one >>>> hydrant or with multiple hydrants, a backflow appliance is required >>>> on a private >>>> fire service main. The thinking isn't that hydrants represent a >>>> cross >>>> connection or contamination threat per se, but that a private >>>> property owner can make whatever connections they want in the dark >>>> of night after >>>> final acceptance testing. So better safe than sorry, >>>> bureaucratically >>>> speaking ... >>>> >>>> SML >>>> In SoCal, where nothing surprises anymore >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org on behalf of >>>> AKS-Gmail-IMAP >>>> Sent: Tue 6/5/2012 7:24 PM >>>> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >>>> Subject: RPZ for a dedicated private underground fire mains having >>>> fire hydrants >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am hearing that in Illinois the state plumbing inspectors insist >>>> on RPZ back flow prevention for fire hydrants on dedicated >>>> underground private service mains. What is up with that? >>>> >>>> Allan Seidel >>>> St. Louis. MO >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >>>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was >>>> scrubbed... >>>> Name: winmail.dat >>>> Type: application/ms-tnef >>>> Size: 4685 bytes >>>> Desc: not available >>>> URL: < >>>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/ >>>> att >>>> achments/20120605/c0c6b675/attachment.bin >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >>>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ron Greenman >>> Instructor >>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College >>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. >>> Tacoma, WA 98405 >>> >>> rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu >>> >>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ >>> >>> 253.680.7346 >>> 253.576.9700 (cell) >>> >>> Member: >>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC >>> >>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis >>> Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was >>> scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/ >>> att >>> achments/20120605/19d8453d/attachment.html> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >>> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attach ment s/20120606/015d1967/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
