We have that around here as well. Certain jurisdictions would require RPZ's while others accepted DCV styles. You could never take anything for granted, it was always best to ask up front.
Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Double-check vs RPs The NFPA 13 equivalent for the cross connection police is AWWA Manual M14. Unless it has changed, and my copy is pretty old, sprinkler sytems without pumps or chemical additives are considered low hazard whereas having these extras makes them high hazard. Low hazard equals DCVA (Double check valve assembly) DDC (double detector check) and high hazard requires an RPBA (reduced pressure backflow assembly--RPZ actually stands for reduced pressure zone which is the internal part of the RPBA that "dumps" when the upstream side pressure drops to lower than the downstream side pressure). Note that around these parts the backflow nazis are pretty good at interpreting their codes to be the, "Because I said so law." On 10/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Have they given a reason for this request? > > The RP is more effective so it would be hard to make that argument work. > > > > > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection Group > Mechanical Department > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - > 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of GAYLE > KNOWLES > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:20 PM > To: sprinklerforum > Subject: Double-check vs RPs > > > We have a water purveyor that is wanting us to change out a double > check bfp with a Reduced-pressure bfp. > Does anyone have any information in defense of the double check being > just as effective for backflow prevention? > Maybe something from AWWA? > > Thanks, > GK > _______________________________________________ > 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) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ 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)
