Owen,
You haven't given us enough information. Does this underground
supply also provide domestic water? Even if the systems were regarded
as conforming to 13R, the valve monitoring wouldn't be required by the
CFC if the domestic were served from the same piping.
I might ask several other questions as well. Are the gate valves
on the backflow preventer OS&Y's or ball type? I've seen a retrofit
tamper switch for a ball valve, however, now you're talking about making
a change to an existing (presumably) approved installation of a backflow
valve. Water districts, not to mention valve manufacturers get sort of
territorial over their equipment.
As for the 13D argument, I'd have to suggest you're now swerving
into a legal argument. 13D doesn't mandate anything other than
conformance to the plumbing code, which presumably required the backflow
valve. The building and fire codes, at least in California, don't make
any mention of what you're describing. Perhaps it's one of those things
they didn't see as an issue.
Just a few thoughts.
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*****Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> ***
On 10/05/2015 9:37 AM, firs...@aol.com wrote:
Hi Steve, thanks for responding. Isn't the CBC more restrictive therefore you
can't allow something less? This particular system looks like a 13R but they
failed to provide electrical for tamper switches. So now they argue it is a 13D
serving a building with 5 townhouse's separated by 1 hour construction. My
thinking is since it is 5 units, not one or two family dwelling, the exception
for electrical monitoring does not apply. Therefore tampers are required. Am I
correct?
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com> wrote:
It's possible the AHJ has accepted these to be of limited area if the
sub-systems serve less than 20 sprinklers. NFPA offers multiple
solutions for "monitoring", including the locking of valves. Perhaps
the AHJ approved an alternative to electronic supervision.
Steve L.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
firs...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 7:38 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Subject: Monitoring 13D control valves in California
The California Building Code requires sprinkler control valves to be
electrically monitored. One of the exceptions is One and Two Family
Dwellings, 13D.
What if it is a stand alone 13D system? (2" water meter with one DCVA to
a 2" underground, serving a row of 5 town homes with one hour
separations between units. The 2" underground branches off to each unit.
Each unit has it's own flow switch and test valve).
The exception specifically states for one and two family dwellings
because the control valve is before the domestic service so shutting off
the sprinklers shuts off the domestic therefor it is self monitoring.
The stand alone serving 5 units does not have this valve arrangement
therefore it would require electric monitoring per CBC.
Am I thinking correctly? According to CBC the two control valves on the
DCVA would need tampers, correct?
Owen Evans
Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler
.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
