bloody RPZ's have that annoying spitting characteristic too. As a sidebar, an RPZ is required for protection against toxic compounds but even non-toxic chemicals (like propylene glycol) get pushed into using it. SInce an RPZ is for toxic compounds, a cycle or two ago I attempted to delete the restriction against ethylene glycol when an RPZ is used. Needless to say, the TC decided not to depend on the RPZ that strongly. To be honest, I didn't do an extensive review to see how stringent the IPC is on compounds that actually are toxic since I knew it would fly like a lead balloon.
Anyone that plays with systems with nasty compounds that takes water from a potable supply, feel free to send me an off-Forum email educating me further. Roland On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Matt Grise wrote: > Sorry...unclear wording. > > I meant that you could use either: > > 1) an RPZ at the riser, and a drilled check valve at the loop > 2) a double check bfp at the riser and an RPZ at the loop > > We sometimes use the second setup since RPZ's cost so much more than > DC BFP's. If the primary riser is 4,6,8" and the antifreeze loop > only needs a 1.25" RPZ, it can be less expensive to use 2 bfp's. > > Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
