# Rppbfp ?



## mtlogcabin (May 13, 2010)

What is the significant difference between these two. I am under the 06 UPC it it only references a RPPBFP not a Reduced pressure detector fire protection backflow prevention assemblies

Reduced pressure principle backflow  preventer and reduced pressure principle  fire protection backflow preventer

High or low hazard

Backpressure or backsiphonage

 Sizes 3/8²- 16²

ASSE 1013, AWWA C511,

CSA B64.4, CSA B64.4.1

Reduced pressure detector fire protection  backflow prevention assemblies

High or low hazard

Backsiphonage or backpressure  (Fire sprinkler systems)

ASSE 1047


----------



## Dr. J (May 13, 2010)

Are you asking the difference between a reduced pressure principal backflow preventer http://media.wattswater.com/ES-F-825YD.pdf and a reduced pressure principal _detector_ backflow preventer http://media.wattswater.com/ES-F-826YD.pdf?

If so, they are both reduced pressure principal backflow preventers, meaning that they are suitable for a cross connection with a toxic substance, but the _detector_ version has a meter in a bypass that indicates if there has been any flow.  It is required by some water purveyors who are worried that someone will tap into the fire line for free water.  Note the meter does not measure ALL the flow, just some flow.

The reduced pressure principal is usually only used in fire protection where the system has some sort of toxic additive.  A double check is usually sufficient.  A detector version for a double check is also available.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 13, 2010)

We are under the 06 UPC in the past the FD has only required a double check  back flow preventer on fire protection system because they are suppose to have propylene glycol installed. However we are finding existing sytems with ethylene glycol in them. My question is under the UPC how can we require a RPPBFP in lieu of a DBFP.

Under the UPC propylene glycol would be a pollutant requiring a DCBFP where as ethylene glycol is a contaminate requiring a RPPBFP. It seems the IPC has it covered by requiring a RPPBFP on all fire protection/sprinkler systems. 

ESSENTIALLY NONTOXIC TRANSFER FLUIDS. Fluids having a Gosselin rating of 1, including propylene glycol;

ESSENTIALLY TOXIC TRANSFER FLUIDS. Soil, waste or gray water and fluids having a Gosselin rating of 2 or more including ethylene glycol,


----------



## Dr. J (May 13, 2010)

Your question



> how can we require a RPPBFP in lieu of a DBFP.


Your answer



> Under the UPC propylene glycol would be a pollutant requiring a DCBFP where as ethylene glycol is a contaminate requiring a RPPBFP


You ask the designer/contractor what they will be putting in the system and require the appropriate BFP.  Changing the conditions in the future is not your problem, it is the owners.  No different than any other code-violating change that owners are prone to make.  You can't make everyone put in egress windows in a "den" just because some yahoos change thier den to a bedroom.

I don't think the IPC is any different:

_IPC 608.16.4 Connections to automatic fire sprinkler systems and standpipe systems._

_The potable water supply to automatic fire sprinkler and standpipe systems shall be protected against backflow by a double check-valve assembly or a reduced pressure principle backflow preventer._


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 13, 2010)

The IPC doesn't refer to different types of antifreeze

608.16.4.1 Additives or nonpotable source.

Where systems under continuous pressure contain chemical additives or antifreeze, or where systems are connected to a nonpotable secondary water supply, the potable water supply shall be protected against backflow by a reduced pressure principle backflow preventer. Where chemical additives or antifreeze are added to only a portion of an automatic fire sprinkler or standpipe system, the reduced pressure principle backflow preventer shall be permitted to be located so as to isolate that portion of the system. Where systems are not under continuous pressure, the potable water supply shall be protected against backflow by an air gap or a pipe applied atmospheric vacuum breaker conforming to ASSE 1001 or CSA B64.1.1.


----------



## Dr. J (May 13, 2010)

Sorry, I stopped reading too soon.  Thanks for pointing that out.

Anyway, our policy (design firm) is to use a RPPBFP for any system (HVAC or Fire Protection) that will have chemical treatment, even if it is allegedly non toxic due to the guy who turns his den into a bedroom.


----------



## Moscow (May 18, 2010)

The problem with propylene glycol is it has sugar in it and yes it is not hazard to health unless you are a diabetic then it can be very hazardest. We make them put on RPBA on fire systems with propylene glycol if not then DCBA.



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> We are under the 06 UPC in the past the FD has only required a double check  back flow preventer on fire protection system because they are suppose to have propylene glycol installed. However we are finding existing sytems with ethylene glycol in them. My question is under the UPC how can we require a RPPBFP in lieu of a DBFP.Under the UPC propylene glycol would be a pollutant requiring a DCBFP where as ethylene glycol is a contaminate requiring a RPPBFP. It seems the IPC has it covered by requiring a RPPBFP on all fire protection/sprinkler systems.
> 
> ESSENTIALLY NONTOXIC TRANSFER FLUIDS. Fluids having a Gosselin rating of 1, including propylene glycol;
> 
> ESSENTIALLY TOXIC TRANSFER FLUIDS. Soil, waste or gray water and fluids having a Gosselin rating of 2 or more including ethylene glycol,


----------

