Gayle, In the case of a pit or for that matter any compartment subject to flooding an RPZ may present a greater risk of cross contamination. This is one that needs serious consideration and possibly dispensation. Where I see this being a problem is remote free standing FDC's that utilize a pit for the BFP in order to use a single lead in. In the past DC's were used in this application. Since they are closed circuit devices even a flooded pit didn't pose the risk of cross contamination. But the RPZ is a different story.
Just when you thought you were out of the woods I've been told that when the DC goes, an RPZ will be required even if it means repiping and hotboxing the RPZ above ground. Good luck. John -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of GAYLE KNOWLES Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Double-check vs RPs Not a code violation, just a new code is wanting to come into playGayle Knowles, SET > Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:43:13 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]> Subject: RE: Double-check vs RPs> > Gayle,> > Off the top of my head (which means it not nor will be enforceable glc!)> perhaps the installed BFP is an existing code violation ?. Yea it> happens stuff gets approved that shouldn't be. The water purveyor may> have simply caught it. However RPZ's in submersable locations has to the> best of my knowledge been prohibited.> > While we are on that subject, remember a code violation is a violation> forever despite what "approval" you may have in hand. > > John Drucker> Fire Protection Subcode Official> New Jersey > > -----Original Message-----> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of GAYLE> KNOWLES> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:26 PM> To: [email protected]> 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
