One of those little extras we do without much fanfare. When Washington first implemented backflow regulation through the Dept. of Health the backflow folks started going crazy on retrofits wherever possible. The hydraulic implications concerned me so I got involved and eventually got a line into the administrative code to the effect that whenever a retrofit was required to a sprinkler system consideration would be given to the hydraulics. Although pretty weak it did open the eyes of the water folks to the fact that their decision had life safety implications beyond their own concerns. This started a dialogue and to my knowledge these retrofits are usually negotiated when an issue arises.
On 10/9/07, Todd Williams - FPDC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a potential can of worms. What is a lot of the systems we > have designed and installed with DCDA are now going to have to be > changed to RPZ? How is that going to impact the hydraulic > calculations? What is the liability? Do I need to start packing and > find a country without an extradition treaty with the US? > > > At 12:49 PM 10/9/2007, you wrote: > >Gayle: > > > >We had the same thing happen here in Peoria, IL a > >while back. One of our largest customers have had 8 > >inch and 10 in double checks installed on incoming > >fire protection services for years, and all of a > >sudden these devices are not good enough. We went > >round and round with the local water authority in > >defense of the owners, but we lost out. Many of the > >devices are installed in valve maintenance pits 8 to > >10 feet below ground that are ofter filled with water. > >We argued on this topic as well, but the owner was > >threatened with fines, so they gave in. All I have to > >say is that this was a very, very expensive > >replacement cost. > > > >Hope you have better luck on your end. > > > > > >Loren Johnson - CFPS, CET > >Peoria, IL > >--- GAYLE KNOWLES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > >Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. > >http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html > >_______________________________________________ > >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) > > Todd G. Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, Connecticut > www.fpdc.com > 860.535.2080 > _______________________________________________ > 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)
