The issue is not that the dcv is in a pit, which it is not, it's the fact that any changes to an existing sprinkler system needs to include changing out the existing DCV for an RPZ, which we all know is not just a matter of swapping out the BFP device. Upon testing the water on both sides and the DCV, the DCV is doing it's job perfectly. The argument is having to go back and fix something that is not broke. The water purveyors are WANTING to adopt a code to require changing out all DCV to RPZ. We are trying to gather information to keep this code from being adopted.. This is all a battle "up front", in the adoptation process. Thanks for all the info. Gayle Knowles, SET > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]> Date: Tue, 9 > Oct 2007 17:43:28 -0500> Subject: Re: Double-check vs RPs> > Gayle - if the > systems are within 1700 feet of a non potable water source> they are supposed > to be RPZs anyway. or if you have A-F. Also be wary of> the installation > location, a RPZ can not be placed below grade regardless> where the DCV is > unless a gravity drain capable of handling the discharge of> the device when > it fouls is present. Just because a DCV is installed in a> pit and has to be > changed out does not allow you to place the RPZ in the> pit. DCV and RPZ are > NOT the same protection.> Sounds like you need to ask politely for the Code > section that is being> referenced so that you might have it handy for the > next project. If it can> be produced, comply.> > Garth> ----- Original > Message ----- > From: "GAYLE KNOWLES" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > <[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:26 PM> > Subject: RE: Double-check vs RPs> > > > Thanks for the info. I guess what I'm > looking for is something that states> that all these existing double-check > backflows are not a threat and> replacing them all with RPZ is a lot of > unnecessary extra cost for the> owner. As Matt stated, it may very well be a > losing argument as long as it> has been "adopted". The info will be used to > fight to keep the existing> double-checks.> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:10:20 > -0400> From:> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]> > Subject: RE:> Double-check vs RPs> > Gayle, Perhaps our regulations in New > Jersey would be> of assistance.> > John Drucker, Fire Protection Subcode > Official,> NJ> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > ------> > STATE OF NEW JERSEY> > DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION> >> > BUREAU OF SAFE DRINKING WATER> > SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT REGULATIONS> >> > (N.J.A.C. 7:10)> > ADOPTED: November 4, 2004> > 7:10-10.4 Installation> >> > (a) The approved physical connection installation shall be> installed on the> > customer's side of the water meter on the> pipe(s) conveying the water from> > the public community water> system into a facility, shall be installed as> > close to the meter as> is reasonably practicable, and shall be prior to any> > other> connection, unless such other connection is also protected by> means> > of an approved physical connection installation. For a> fire service line,> > the approved physical connection installation> shall be installed prior to> > the alarm check and siamese> connection.> (b) The approved physical> > connection installation shall be> installed so as to allow easy access, with> > adequate space for> maintenance, inspection, and testing. No part of the> > device> shall be submerged or subjected to freezing temperatures unless>> > such part is thermally protected.> > (c) The approved physical connection> > installation shall not> be installed in a pit or vault.> > 1. This> > subsection shall not apply to any physical> connection installation operated> > under a current physical> connection permit issued before the operative date> > of this> chapter until such time as the existing physical connection>> > installation is replaced or modified> >> > _______________________________________________> 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)
