I think you could use it for both but with high-X you'd only be testing 
proportioning and not coverage, depth, etc.  I've only done high-X for the Air 
Force and the ETL specifically ndicates that containment is not a requirement.

Sent from my iPad

Christopher H. Born, P.E.
Director, Fire Protection Engineering|Principal
Clark Nexsen
4525 Main Street, Suite 1400
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
(757) 455-5800
(757) 961-7933 (direct)
(757) 644-8581(mobile)

> On Mar 12, 2015, at 11:03 AM, "Cahill, Christopher" <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> The test solution is for AFFF not HEF right?
> 
> Chris Cahill
> Fire Protection Engineer
> Burns & McDonnell
> [email protected]
> 952-656-3652 Rod DiBona wrote:
> Chris,
> 
> Good call on the test solution! I just learned about them a couple of months 
> ago. We budgeted their product for one that we are doing now. Never used it 
> before but it looks like a real nice alternative and like you said even more 
> so for Craig's application. Thanks for thinking about that.
> 
> Rod at Rapid
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] 
> On Behalf Of Chris Born
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 4:50 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Foam system testing
> 
> I've handled this three ways in the past for AFFF systems.  Well actually 
> four if you go back to the really old days and just let it blow away,
> 
> First, on just about all Navy work the design includes some arrangement of 
> below ground containment and a diverter valve as Rod described.    When the 
> system discharges the diverter valve operates and the foam solution flows 
> through the trench drains into the containment.
> 
> Second, I've seen tanker trucks used with hoses and hose monsters from a test 
> header in the hangar bay.  You first would flow just water to get the flow 
> rate equivalent to what the foam solution flow rate would be, and then you 
> turn on the foam.
> 
> Finally, I know of at least one company that has a test solution that has 
> been considered to be environmentally friendly.  Equipment is placed in 
> parallel with the foam tank and the test solution is proportioned in place of 
> foam concentrate.  They have information that substantiates no environmental 
> impact, but because you are still discharging something the appropriate 
> authorities still need to approve it without containment.  So far I'm not 
> aware of any projects where there approval wasn't granted.
> 
> Even with the containment as described above I'm an advocate of using the 
> test solution to avoid having to pump the containment and dispose of the 
> waste.  Given that you have a process structure for which cleaning after an 
> event is probably some level of effort (as opposed to a hangar where there is 
> a well defined floor area and you don't have to deal with racks, other 
> structures, etc,) my recommendation would be a combination of the test 
> solution and a test header.  There would be a valve to the system downstream 
> of the test header which would be closed.
> 
> I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to "advertise" the company with the test 
> solution but if you contact me off list I will provide that information.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> Christopher H. Born, P.E.
> Director, Fire Protection Engineering|Principal Clark Nexsen
> 4525 Main Street, Suite 1400
> Virginia Beach, VA 23462
> (757) 455-5800
> (757) 961-7933 (direct)
> (757) 644-8581(mobile)
> 
>> On Mar 11, 2015, at 2:35 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> The systems are NFPA 16 foam-water deluge protecting an open process 
>> structure.
>> 
>> A question was raised with regard to the environmental permit and various 
>> system discharges to the storm sewer system.  The term used was "fire 
>> testing water".
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Craig L. Prahl
>> Fire Protection Group Lead
>> CH2MHILL
>> Lockwood Greene
>> 1500 International Drive
>> Spartanburg, SC  29303
>> Direct - 864.599.4102
>> Fax - 864.599.8439
>> CH2MHILL Extension  74102
>> [email protected]
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>> Rod DiBona
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:04 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: RE: Foam system testing
>> 
>> Craig,
>> 
>> Not really. We usually have a diverter valve that sends the discharge to a 
>> tank that we have sucked out. I imagine you are well aware of that system 
>> and it sounds like they don't have this setup. Is this Hi ex foam from 
>> generators, AFFF with cannons or grate nozzles?
>> 
>> Rod at Rapid
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sprinklerforum
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
>> [email protected]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:29 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Foam system testing
>> 
>> Has anyone had to test a foam sprinkler system where it was required to 
>> contain the discharge from the test and not let it flow into sewers or other 
>> site drainage systems?  Basically it had to be contained and removed from 
>> the site?
>> 
>> Craig L. Prahl
>> Fire Protection Group Lead
>> CH2MHILL
>> Lockwood Greene
>> 1500 International Drive
>> Spartanburg, SC  29303
>> Direct - 864.599.4102
>> Fax - 864.599.8439
>> CH2MHILL Extension  74102
>> [email protected]
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to