I have a relatively unusual project (for me), where we are pulling from a raw water source (an open lake reservoir).
A sprinkler system is being fed from this supply, so we will only have an alarm check valve (to retain the pressure in the building) on the riser; no backflow preventer.
Is a means to forward-flow test required for an alarm check valve only?
Technically the check valves serves as a means to prevent backflow, but it's also not a backflow preventer (at least by the name of the equipment). NFPA 13 doesn't define the term "backflow preventer".
This one is also subject to UFC criteria, so I'm very interested in a code justified pathway than just "talk to the AHJ". Thanks in advance.
Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
8/31/2022 08:08:09 am
As you stated, it's not a backflow and would not comply with the requirements within NFPA 13 for a backflow. You could stack 4 of these together and it still would not be defined as a true backflow as it doesn't meet the requirements as provided within AWWA.
8/31/2022 08:28:33 am
Need to, no. Your main drain valve should let you test if you have an operable alarm check.
8/31/2022 08:44:29 am
No need for a forward flow test connection. This is required for backflow prevention devices. You are still required to a pressure switch (flow) test station.
8/31/2022 09:28:48 am
check valves ARE backflow prevention devices.
9/2/2022 10:13:50 am
This isn't a point of contention on the job, but I'm trying to figure out whether it's required (or supposed to be there) to begin with. If we had any pushback or insight from the AHJ then this isn't something I think we'd fight over, but what's probably more important here is that I'm trying to understand the code logic and what's actually needed.
8/31/2022 09:51:22 am
Alarm valve trim has valving and piping to allow for the testing of the alarm whether it's a water motor gong or pressure switch.
8/31/2022 10:35:29 am
If the FCCCHRs (Foundation for Cross-Connection Control & Hydraulic Research - yes, they know full well what their Acronym sounds like) or other agencies haven't approved it, then it's NOT "Code Compliant" back flow prevention and there is no forward flow test to complete, so you need not make a provision for said testing.
8/31/2022 10:40:59 am
For flushing concerns, please consider you may have a strainer and flushing connection for use with Raw Water Sources per NFPA 20 & 24-5.8 (2016).
9/2/2022 10:15:02 am
Yes, that's a good reminder on the strainer and flushing connection. We've already incorporated the return bends, but I need to run down the requirements specifically for strainer and flushing. Good reminder there, thank you Brad!
8/31/2022 10:46:39 am
Dan's right on this. AWWA tells us what a BFP is. While an alarm check valve, or any check valve for that matter does prevent reverse flow, it serves a different purpose than a DCDA or similar.
9/2/2022 10:15:21 am
Thanks everyone for all the insight here. Great discussion and this is very helpful.
Leave a Reply.
Subscribe and learn something new each day:
Top Feb 2023 Contributors
Get 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
PE PREP SERIES