The 2006 NSPC eliminated 1700 Ft FDC criteria, now any FDC equals RPZ. Heres how the section now reads;
10.5.9 Exception (3) "Where fire protection systems include a fire department connection double check valve assemblies shall not be permitted." John http://phcc.files.cms-plus.com/Depts/Technical/2006NSPCNonIllustratedWeb -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams - FPDC Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Double-check vs RPs Is a swimming pool considered a non-potable water source? Should I be doing tours of the neighborhood to determine if there are NP sources? (Cha-ching, my price just went up.) Oceans, rivers and lakes are obvious, but where does it stop? What about if the location is 1500 ft from the water source and 250 ft of it is vertical drop (actual case)? At 06:43 PM 10/9/2007, Garth W. Warren wrote: >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) At 06:48 PM 10/9/2007, GAYLE KNOWLES wrote: >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) 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
