A fan of Winston Churchill? bv
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Rees" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:43:53 PM Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test Ron, Good analogy! Sent from my iPad On Jul 29, 2013, at 5:18 PM, "Ron Greenman" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-firesprin >>>> 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-firesprin >>>> 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-firesprin >>>> 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-firesprin >>>> 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-firesprin >>>> 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-firesprin >>>> kl >>>> er.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>>> kl >>>> er.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>>> kl >>>> er.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>>> 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-firesprin >>>> 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-firesprinkler.o >>> rg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.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 >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> 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-firesprinkler.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-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ 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
