John- There's no doubt there's a LOT of input from sprinkler contractors reflected in the changes seen in #25, the standard covering the problem area you cite.
However, there are those that quote INSPECTION (and then perform I only) when the customer, if educated sufficiently, really meant to request ITM. We assume this accounts for the original paint on virtually every WMAG strainer that others have "inspected" for 20 years, no one has ever put a wrench on it (a necessary step toward cleaning the strainer); or PIVs with the original protective cap over the target - on a valve from the 70's- a 15 minute fix to remove the cover, pull the top, align the target in the window that you can finally see thru, and put the top back on. If someone is doing Inspections for $50, they're not doing ITM or they don't know their costs/exposures. Shows the importance of reaching out to the general public, frustrating as it may be, and trying to get some education to the masses. Remember the guy throwing starfish back in the ocean? You can't save them all, but you can save some of them. We can't reach in a decade of public service announcements the number of people that Hollywood can misinform in a weekend. Doesn't mean we don't teach those we can reach. glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Backflow: Sprinkler System Steve, Some while back I posted a problem with an AMES RPZ BFP. The actual posting is below. The problem was with the first check. The first check was replaced and the BFP operated correctly. I'm concerned that full forward flow tests arent being conducted, even though they are required. Not performing this test only increases the risk of system failure during a fire. At the very least a main drain test, again another required test, must be performed. Lastly a certified contractor is required to test and certify the backflow preventer. One sprinkler contractor in our jurisdiction trained his personnel and received certification to perform BFP Tests. The tools are in the tool box, we just need to use them. In closing let me reiterate the importance of industry participation in the codes and standards making process beyond the traditonal, i.e. NFPA-13........... John Drucker Safe Buildings Save Lives ! >>> "John Drucker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/30/2007 3:24 PM >>> During waterflow alarm testing on a Wet Pipe NFPA-13 System I witnessed a phenomena wherein the vane type waterflow switch fluctuated back in forth appx every 10 seconds making it impossible to set a 30 second retard. Supply Pressure is 60 psi static, 55 psi Residual at 2" Main Drain Test. The WF Switch is mounted horizontally in a straight length of 6" Sch 10 48" from closest change in direction. Inspectors test is located downstream end of a branch line 1/2" orifice in place. The sprinkler contractor suspects theres a problem with this particular BFP. Anyone had a similar problem. Thanks John Drucker -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 12:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Backflow: Sprinkler System What about the fail rate of backflow assemblies? I haven't been able to find CANDID assessments of the reliability of these devices and believe me I've looked. I've been told that AWWA has data that suggests RPDA's can fail up to 15% of the time upon initiation of high flow rates (such as a hydrant port opening) but there isn't any hard data regarding low flow rates (such as an operating sprinkler or two). Another common misunderstanding is that we're buying/specifying U.L. listed appliances - they're not. U.L. CLASSIFIED yes, but listed no. They're only tested for case burst strength and compliance with the manufacturer's head loss curves, if I'm not mistaken. USC tests for actual backflow performance but there's no significant value or meaning to the U.L. badge on a "fire" backflow. Really, the only thing that makes one suitable for fire service applications is the use of a U.L. listed indicating control valve on each end. So back to Mark's question: If I'm a specifier or EOR or DOR and it's up to me, and given that I don't know squat about water quality engineering, what should I do. There's absolutely no good reason to put this appliance on-line from a fire and life safety perspective, but there's potential liability either way if I do or don't. So far, we've all gotten by well enough by burying our heads in the sand; does anyone know of any incident reports or data that specifically addresses the issue of backflow failures under demand conditions? Steve Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN & CONSULTING -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Backflow: Sprinkler System How about if you're hired as the engineer of record. Knowing what all of you know about backflow assemblies and the arguments for and against: would you specify one where it is not required by the local code? We do work on one side of a river where they are required; on the other side they are not. Do I spec them on the one side only? If I don't specify backflows where they are not required by code, am I as an engineer exposing myself to suit if one of those "unprotected" systems should be involved with contamination of the water supply? Wouldn't the first thing the attorneys ask me be "How can you omit this important device when you already specify them for half of your projects and know the benefits of the protection?" I guess my answer would be "I thought the likelihood of actual water supply contamination was so small that that it was better to save the owner a couple grand, improve the system hydraulics and improve the system reliability by omitting the device where it was not required by code." Maybe that line would save my butt in court... (?) Mark A. Sornsin, PE Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc. Fargo, ND 701.280.8591 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Backflow: Sprinkler System Your right George, SOME DO! And of the whole list you just gave I know that you don't, except for the bonds part. We don't, and I know that the majority certainly don't do all of those things, or may have done one of them on some occasion, but not as a general practice. In general I think our trade is growing more aware of the risk's each and every one of these actions involves. Once again time to than AFSA NFPA, and even NFSA (oh yes and this forum), for the educational opportunities they give their members and everyone else. Ever heard the saying "Live and Learn"? Maybe it should have been "Keep Learning to earn a Living"or "Learning is Life" or "Live, Learn , Survive"(substitute for survive any of the following; Prosper, Succeed, Realize, Fulfill, "Where is Steve with that West Coast vocabulary") Thom McMahon _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
