Gregg, I was addressing older systems per NFPA 25 built to a prior code where there is no means to test full-flow and no requirement to add such a means. Even in these cases you have to forward flow as best you can.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Gregg Key <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NFPA 13 2002 ed 8.16.4.6.1 Means SHALL be provided downstream of all > backflow prevention valves for flow test at system demand. > 2007 ed 8.17.4.6.1 states the same thing. > System acceptance 16.2.5.1 The backflow prevention assembly SHALL be > forward flow tested to ensure proper operation. > A 8.16.4.6.1 gives some ideas how to accomplish this. > > Required? appears so > > Thom McMahon wrote: >> >> Gentlemen, please remember that 25 only requires the full forward flow if >> the provisions for it have been made in the riser or system. It does not >> require that you fail the system, or require the installation of full >> forward flow appliances it they don't exist. IF they are there use them >> and >> test the backflow, if not simply test the backflow as per ASSE or as >> required by the water AHJ and move on. (It's the same old question with >> all >> installations, Did the AHJ allow this at the time, or was this just an >> installation violation. The assumption is always that the AHJ allowed it, >> to >> do otherwise, if the owner says there have been no changes to the system >> would make inspections a confrontational situation, which would not >> improve >> the system reliability.) >> Thom McMahon, SET >> Firetech, Inc. >> 2560 Copper Ridge Dr >> P.O. Box 882136 >> Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 >> Tel: 970-879-7952 >> Fax: 970-879-7926 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark >> Sornsin >> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 1:45 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Full-flow backflow test >> >> That's a good logical argument - but it involves too many steps to be >> enforced 'round here. Kind of like a political argument that can't fit on >> a >> bumper sticker. So if it's not enforced, the contractors aren't going to >> add >> the costs (a criticism of the system, not the contractors). >> >> As to section 8.17.4.6.1 ('08 ed): It does not require a test outlet - it >> requires a means of full-flow testing, which would be satisfied by someone >> saying that they'll just replace the check valve with a 4 in. >> elbow and pipe it to the outside on the day of testing...somehow. >> >> Mark A. Sornsin, PE >> Fire Protection Engineer >> Ulteig Engineers, Inc. Fargo, ND >> 701.280.8591 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Autry >> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 2:12 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Full-flow backflow test >> >> It's required in 25, which is referenced in 13. So that makes it a >> requirement of 13 (NFPA 13, 2002 edition, 2.1) >> David Autry >> Plans Examiner >> Nebraska State Fire Marshal's Office >> 246 S. 14th Street >> Lincoln, NE 68508 >> 402-471-9659 >> 402-471-3118 fax >> www.sfm.ne.gov >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve >> Leyton >> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 1:58 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: 200 psi test for components rated 175 >> >> Seeing as the backflow isn't a fire appliance, it makes sense that it's >> outside the scope of 13. I'm pretty sure the "full forward flow test" >> is a jurisdictional agency thing, i.e. NAVFAC or the serving water >> company. So fire officials might require it too - for peace of mind >> perhaps? >> >> BTW, you mitigate the clapper issue by turning the FDC body upside down. >> Duh. >> >> Steve Leyton >> Protection Design & Consulting >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark >> Sornsin >> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:33 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: 200 psi test for components rated 175 >> >> Don't most FDCs include clappers? How do you backwards flow out an FDC >> with >> clappers? And what do you do when the system has a high demand volume - >> say >> over 500 gpm? You'll have a tough time flowing it out an FDC even without >> clappers. >> >> Seems it's the responsibility of the engineer of record (when they're >> present) to require the test outlet so the owner has a means of meeting >> the >> requirements of NFPA 25 - even if the inspectors never end up testing the >> backflow. >> >> When there is not an engineer of record, and a contractor is asked to >> design/install a system per code, I don't believe there is any language in >> NFPA 13 that would force a contractor to install the test outlet. >> >> Mark A. Sornsin, PE >> Fire Protection Engineer >> Ulteig Engineers, Inc. Fargo, ND >> 701.280.8591 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregg Key >> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 12:23 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: 200 psi test for components rated 175 >> >> Yep, that could be the reason it is shown. >> >> Yea Matt, sorta trick question, We have installed a few wall hydrants at >> Military bases. >> Funny thing is that they do there own inspections and they don't >> follow NFPA 25 that requires an annual forward flow on the backflows. So >> the >> only systems in our area that do have them , are not being used. >> OK while we are at it, how many NFPA 25 inspectors perform the >> required forward flow test annually? >> >> >> - >> _______________________________________________ >> 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) >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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)
