Todd, Your drinking water is non-potable after it crosses your property line according to some purveyors of potable water. Pools are a slam dunk--they have chlorine added that wasn't added by the purveyor. In Seattle there's a water bottling company that has an RPBA on the incoming line from the city to their purifying equipment since once it enters the building it's considered process water.
On 10/9/07, Todd Williams - FPDC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) > -- 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)
