If the intent is to prove the backflow at system demand, why shouldn't the flow be measured if compelling evidence of adequate flow isn't visually apparent? If you're a contractor doing service, you need to have the right tools and accessories. Sounds to me as if carrying 1.5" hose with 1.25" NPT x 1.5" NST adapter, or a 2.5" hose with 2" NPT x 2.5" NST adapter, along with a means of measuring flow might be the new price of a complete inspection including the backflow.
Steve L. Trippin' on pitots -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg McGahan Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test Steve, The probelm is how vague it is - some AHJs want flow Pitot'd, Some say a 2" main drain is fine for everything, some say prove the size before you pull a permit.... I simple chart would be awesome - IN THE BOOK - so we have something to point to. Greg On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Steve Leyton <[email protected]>wrote: > The required flow is the highest system demand. This has been in 25 for > (somebody help me out here) at least two cycles, I believe? You can > use the main drain if you can develop enough flow, you can modify the > main drain connection possibly to create multiple connections, you can > modify and existing riser, put a permanent or temporary valved > connection on the downstream side of the backflow (interior or > exterior) ... This AIN'T rocket science, y'all. > > Steve L. > Trippin' on da backflows > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test > > So basically, nobody has a clue what is really required or how to > accurately measure how to properly "exercise" the backflow. Looks like > 2" main d rain test works for me until I'm told otherwise. I'll just > keep the hose monster in the back of the truck just in case. > > > In a message dated 7/29/2013 5:18:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > This is kind of like the story where a guy in a bar asks the shapely > young thing on the next barstool if she'd sleep with him for > $100,000.00. She answers with an enthusiastic yes. He then asks if > she'd sleep with him for $10.00. Her response is an indignant, "what > do you take me for, a whore?" > His reply is, "we've already established that. Now we're just > negotiating price." > > This was an illustrative metaphor Steve, not a dirty joke. > > We've established that a forward flow is required. And surprisingly > we've actually got a fairly definitive description of what we're > testing for by the committee in the next edition. To me it's in two > parts though. First we're not testing so much as "exercising" a > component, which to me is a maintenance issue. In the process though > we're also testing as we're determining if said component is working. > But when you do a "test" you need a standard of performance. That > brings us to part 2 and that standard appears to be "at system demand." > That requires a measurement for verification and the comparative > baseline standard. So, and to me only, this new language is as > convoluted as the old and doesn't give me a clear directive. Am I > exercising or comparing results, or both? Can I say that a > 15 head design, using nominal 1/2 inch orifices has a total surface > area of > 2.94 square inches and a nominal 2 inch main drain has a surface area > of > 3.14 square inches so I'll easily flow as much through my 2 inch main > drain as system demand? Or do I have to calculate BOR flow demand, > test and measure (pitot or buckey) for flow there at acceptance for > verification, and then do that same procedure each year for > confirmation? Or can I just see a good stream from the main drain, > note the pressure are consistent with the acceptance test and > say,"That there no backlow thingie is workin' > just fine."? > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Depends on the edition of the standard a local jurisdiction has > > adopted, as well as any local amendments - but yes, forward flow > > tests of the backflow assembly are required by NFPA 13 and 25. > > > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire > > Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: > > 701.371.5759 | > > > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of > > [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:49 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow > > Test > > > > Is this "forward flow test" now part of the required code? I was > > just > > > on > a > > job the other day. New Construction. I noticed that all the systems > > had a setup with (2) 2 1/2" hose valves after the backflow and > > alarm > > > valve, > in > > addition to the 2" main drain. I take it that these 2 1/2's are > > for this test? > > > > > > In a message dated 7/29/2013 3:57:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > [email protected] writes: > > > > That isn't what the intent of the code is as stated.....just flow > > at > > > system demand. I can only speak for us, but we do a LOT of risers > > with > only > > a 250 gpm or so demand...sometimes even less. > > > > A 4" drain is well over what we need to open it up enough for > > system > > > demand. I would bet a 2" drain gets really close. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, David Autry <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Wouldn't it be easier, if you have a 4" backflow preventer you > > > run > 4" > > > out the wall, 3" BFP, 3" out the wall, etc... > > > That should open her up all the way. > > > > > > > > > David Autry > > > > > > Meininger Fire Protection Inc. > > > 2521 W L St. Suite No.4 > > > Lincoln, Ne 68522 > > > Voice (402) 466-2616 > > > Fax (402) 466-2617 > > > [email protected] > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On > > > Behalf Of > > Greg > > > McGahan > > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:35 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow > > > Test > > > > > > What would be simple and helpful would be a table similar to the > one > > > used for sizing fire pump Suction/Discharge/Relief Valve Piping > etc. > > > > > > Since you are not measuring pressure, you could say 2" up to X > > > gallons, 2.5" for Y etc.... > > > > > > A 2-1/2" Main drain is much easier and cheaper than some of the > > > arrangments left / required on backflow preventers. > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Ron Greenman > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Better but it is still interpretable as requiring a measured > > > > flow be established (if using the main drain location then the > > > > BOR > > > > design > > data). > > > > Then you'd need a port that flowed that much, main drain or > > > > otherwise, and then measure your annual test against > > > > anticipated > > > > > flow to make > > > > sure you are meeting or exceeding the required flow. Or am I > > > missing > > > > something? I'm pretty certain that newer fire service rated > > > > backflows don't fail any more often than normal FS checks, and > > > > that that type of failure is either catastrophic (doesn't open > or barely > > > > opens) wouldn't a simple main drain test with decent flow > > > > demonstrate that the valve is working? just a Forum question > > > > as this is a done deal and I wasn't invited to join the > > > > exclusive > > > > 25 club. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Roland Huggins > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > the next edition has been cleaned-up on this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > > > > 25-271 > > > > Log > > > > > #CP15 Final Action: Accept > > > > > (13.6.2.1, 13.6.2.2 (New)) > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > _ > > > > Submitter: > > > > > Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance > > > > > of > > > > Water-Based > > > > > Systems, > > > > > > > > > > Recommendation: Revise 13.6.2.1 to read as follows: > > > > > 13.6.2.1 All backflow preventers installed in fire > > > > > protection system piping shall be exercised annually by > > > > > conducting a forward flow test at a minimum flow rate of the system design. > > > > > Add new 13.6.2.2 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly: > > > > > 13.6.2.2 Where hydrants or inside hose stations are located > > > > > downstream of the backflow preventer, the forward flow test > > shall > > > > > include hose stream demand. Substantiation: This change was > > > > > needed to better reflect that the backflow preventer is not > > > > > a > > > > > > precise test whereby the flow through it must be measured but > > > > > effort to exercise the device at flows as near as > > > > possible > > > > > to the system demand. > > > > > Committee Meeting Action: Accept > > > > > Number Eligible to Vote: 33 > > > > > Ballot Results: Affirmative: 32 Negative: 1 Explanation of > Negative: > > > > > > > > > > RAY, R.: This proposal should have been accepted in principle: > > > the > > > > wording > > > > > "at a minimum flow rate" is confusing and should be reworded. > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > _ > > > > > 25-272 > > > > Log > > > > > #121 Final Action: Accept > > > > > > > > > > (13.6.2.1.1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > > > _ > > > > Submitter: > > > > > Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. > > > > > Recommendation: Delete the following text: > > > > > > > > > > 13.6.2.1.1 For backflow preventers sized 2 in. (50 mm) and > > > > > under, the forward flow test shall be acceptable to conduct > > > > > without measuring flow, where the test outlet is of a size > > > > > to flow the system > > > demand. > > > > > Substantiation: This section implies that a measured flow is > > > > > required for Backflow preventers (BFP) larger than 2 in when > > > > > nothing > > > > > in 13.6.2.1 > > > > states > > > > > such a requirement. There are other means to identify that > > > > > the > > > > > system demand is flowing through the BFP as discussed in > > > > > A.13.6.2.1 > > > > > It also > > > > needs > > > > > to be kept in mind that we are simply exercising the BFP to > > > > > ensure it > > > > will > > > > > fully open at approximately the system demand. A high degree > > > > > of accuracy regarding the volume of water is not warranted. > > > > > Additionally, BFP's are subjected to an annual internal > > > > > inspection as part of the cross > > > > connection > > > > > protection program. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number > > > > > Eligible to Vote: 33 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 33 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > > > > > > > > > > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves > > > Lives > > > > > Dallas, TX > > > > > http://www.firesprinkler.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Dwight Havens > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Then they ought to say that in the code language. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dwight > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: John Denhardt <[email protected]> > > > > > > To: "[email protected]" < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:07 PM > > > > > > Subject: RE: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward > > > > > > Flow > > > > > > Test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While I do disagree to some extent of what the NFPA 25 > > > > > > committee has > > > > > done, Roland statement is correct. I have had numerous > > > > > discussions with NFPA 25 committee members where they have > > > > > stated the intent was to > > > > exercise > > > > > the device at near system demand. The key word to me was > > "Exercise". > > > > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE Strickland Fire > > > > > > Protection > > > > > > > Incorporated > > > > > > 5113 Berwyn Road > > > > > > College Park, Maryland 20740 Office Telephone Number: > > > > > > 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: > > > > > > 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live > > > > without > > > > > > them? > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto: > > > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of > > > Forest > > > > Wilson > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:42 PM > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward > > > > > > Flow > > > > > > Test > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is an email on this topic that Roland addressed in > > > > > > the > past: > > > > > > > > > > > > Im not going to say it was one of those casual assumptions > > > > that > > > > > > all systems are calculated nor that all risers have > placards. > > > > > > The main thing to keep in mind that the intent is simply to > > > > > > fully EXERCISE the BFP at what os expected to be the > > > > > > system > > > > > > > demand. If no data available, a discussion with the AHJ is > > > > > > warranted. As for > > > > > > benchmarks, only the flow is pertinent and pressure is > > irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > > > Roland > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Matthew J. Willis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On a more important matter: If a system was retrofitted > with > > > a > > > > > >>> backflow, > > > > > >> and > > > > > >>> there is no hydraulic calc plaque attached to the riser, > > > > > >>> and > > > > > >>> NFPA requires forward flow testing of backflows, how can > > > > > you > > > > > >>> conduct the test without a benchmark to test against? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> What is the recommended practice in this scenario? > > > > > >>> Forest Wilson > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 25, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Ron Greenman > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Then subjective good flow demonstrates a working valve? > > > > > >> If so all the numbers bantered around are pretty meaningless. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Forest Wilson > > > > > >> <[email protected] > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> No. > > > > > >>> The intent is not to pitot the output but to exercise > > > > the > valve. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Sent from my iPhone > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Ron Greenman >>> > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Forest. What were you flowing to discover these > failures? > > > > > >>>> Main > > > > > >>>> drain > > > > > or > > > > > >>>> some special test header? Would a sign with the data > > > > > >>>> requested > > > > > >>>> by > > > > the > > > > > >>>> customer that started this thread have had any utility > > > > > in >>>> helping > > > > you > > > > > >>>> discover the problem? > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Then back to that perennial question of what's a "full > > > > > flow > " > > > > > >>>> test > > > > and > > > > > >>> how > > > > > >>>> do you do one? I think Roland said the intent was to > > > > > flow an equivalent > > > > > >>> to > > > > > >>>> the design discharge criteria. How do you do this? Do we > run > > > > > >>>> a > > > > > >>>> pitot somewhere on the system? Do we catch and measure > > > > > >>>> discharge? If so, from > > > > > >>>> where? How do we arrange the test port(s)? Do we flow > the > > > > > >>>> design > > > > area > > > > > or > > > > > >>>> simulate it elsewhere? Do we need results of at least > > > > > or > > > > > >>>> better > > > > > >>>> flow > > > > > or > > > > > >>>> right on the money flow? If not either of those how do > > > > > we > > judge? > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Doesn't the hydraulic data plate note the required psi > > > per > > > > > >>>> the calcs > > > > > at > > > > > >>> the > > > > > >>>> BOR and the static? Isn't the difference the residual > > > > drop at > >>>> that > > > > > point > > > > > >>>> relative to the design area? Wouldn't a main drain > > > with good > > > > > >>>> flow > > > > at a > > > > > >>> psi > > > > > >>>> around the BOR rating, and returning to close to the > > > > > noted >>>> static > > > > when > > > > > >>>> terminated suggest a fully open valve, or an adequately > > > > > >>>> open > > > > > >>>> valve > > > > if > > > > > the > > > > > >>>> UG is oversized? In the latter case the partially open > > valve > > > > > is > > > > > >>> equivalent > > > > > >>>> to fully open for the system I just described. Am I > > > > > missing > > > > something > > > > > >>> here? > > > > > >>>> An erroneous a priori? My understanding of hydraulics > wrong? > > > > > >>>> Main > > > > > drains > > > > > >>>> are too small to simulate the result of all design area > > > > > >>>> heads > > > > flowing > > > > > as > > > > > >>>> the water passes through the BOR? > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Forest Wilson < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> I still have the check valve from a Ames that failed > > > > > to > open. > > > > > >>>>> It was jammed shut, discovered when I was called out > > > > > because > > > > > >>>>> they > > > > > >>> couldn't > > > > > >>>>> do the fire pump test. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> In another case, I tested a backflow and it failed (on > > > > > a > > > > > > Best > > > > > >>>>> Buy > > > > > >>> store). > > > > > >>>>> I opened the valve up and the check was damaged, would > > > > > >>>>> only > > > > > >>>>> open a > > > > > >>> third. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Ron Greenman > >>>>> > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Worked well for plumbing and process piping > > > > applications > > > > > as > > > > > >>>>>> they > > > > are > > > > > >>>>>> constantly being exercised. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Dwight Havens < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> I do remember the ones with the rods in the center > of > > > > > the > > > > > >>>>>>> valve > > > > > being > > > > > >>>>>>> particularly poor. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Dwight > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> ________________________________ > > > > > >>>>>>> From: Ron Greenman <[email protected]> > > > > > >>>>>>> To: [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:25 PM > > > > > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly > > > Forward > > > > > >>>>>>> Flow > > > > > Test > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> By the mid-nineties you have the early Ames models > > > > > >>>>>>> purpose > > > > > >>>>>>> built > > > > > for > > > > > >>>>>>> sprinklers readily available, but many units being > > > > > installed > > > > > >>>>>>> are > > > > > still > > > > > >>>>> not > > > > > >>>>>>> listed for fire service as many jurisdictions don't > > > > > consider > > > > > >>>>>>> the > > > > > fire > > > > > >>>>> line > > > > > >>>>>>> a fire line until after the backflow, and a n > > on-listed > > > > > >>>>>>> device is > > > > > >>>>> cheaper > > > > > >>>>>>> than a listed one. Plus many go back to the > seventies > > > > > and > > > > > >>>>>>> many > > > > used > > > > > >>>>> weights > > > > > >>>>>>> instead of springs and complicated lever systems > > > > > for > > > > > > joining >>>>>>> the > > > > > >>>>> clappers > > > > > >>>>>>> and weights. Wish I could post a picture. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Dwight Havens < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Give me a time frame. My best recollection is the > > > > > mid > > '90's. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Dwight > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> ________________________________ > > > > > >>>>>>>> From: Ron Greenman <[email protected]> > > > > > >>>>>>>> To: [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:12 PM > > > > > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention > > Assembly > > > Forward > > > > > >>>>>>>> Flow > > > > > Test > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Were these the plumbing type before fire service > > > > listed > > > > > >>>>>>>> devices > > > > > >>>>> existed. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Dwight Havens < > > > > > >>> [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Yes, yes, and yes. The original proposal was > > > > > based on >>>>>>>>> observed >>>>>>> failures > > > > > >>>>>>>>> of BFPAs to operate properly during main drain > testing. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Glendale, AZ public library specifically comes > > > > > to > mind. > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Dwight > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ > > > > > >>>>>>>>> From: Todd Williams <[email protected]> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> To: "[email protected]" < > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:32 PM > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Forward > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Flow > > > > > Test > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Has there ever been an instance of system > > > > > failure due to >>>>>>>>> the >>> backflow > > > > > >>>>>>> not > > > > > >>>>>>>>> properly opening? How about detection of a BFP > > > > > problem >>>>>>>>> during a full > > > > > >>>>>>> flow > > > > > >>>>>>>>> test. How about something subsequent to the initial > > > acceptance? > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Todd G Williams, PE > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 860-535-2080 > > > > > >>>>>>>>> www.fpdc.com > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> -- > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ron Greenman > > > > > >>>>>>>> Instructor > > > > > >>>>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates > > > > > Technical > > > > > >>>>>>>> College > > > > > >>>>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > > > > >>>>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 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) > > > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>>> > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>>> > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> -- > > > > > >>>>>>> Ron Greenman > > > > > >>>>>>> Instructor > > > > > >>>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates > > > > > Technical > > > > > >>>>>>> College > > > > > >>>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > > > > >>>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> 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) > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>> > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>> > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > > >>>>>> Ron Greenman > > > > > >>>>>> Instructor > > > > > >>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates > > > > > Technical > > > > > > >>>>>> College > > > > > >>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > > > > >>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> 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) > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>> > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>> > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> -- > > > > > >>>> Ron Greenman > > > > > >>>> Instructor > > > > > >>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical > > > > > >>>> College > > > > > >>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > > > > >>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> > > > > > 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) > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > > >>>> [email protected] > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > > >>> [email protected] > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> Ron Greenman > > > > > >> Instructor > > > > > >> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical > > > > > >> College > > > > > >> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > > > > >> Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 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) > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Ron Greenman > > > > Instructor > > > > Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical > > > College > > > > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > > > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires > > > > pr > > > > in > > > > kl > > > > er.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Greg McGahan > > > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > > > 1160 McKenzie Road > > > Cantonment, FL 32533 > > > 850-937-1850 > > > fax 850-937-1852 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er > .o > > > rg > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er > .org > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Greg McGahan > > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > > 1160 McKenzie Road > > Cantonment, FL 32533 > > 850-937-1850 > > fax 850-937-1852 > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er > .org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er > .org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud > service. > > For more information please visit > http://www.symanteccloud.com__________________________________________ > __ > __________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er > .org > > > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > [email protected] > > 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) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er > .org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er > .org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
