Engineer states meeting backflow standard cannot be done due to pipe size

[MikeC]

I have a manufacturing plant that is replacing much of their water distribution system. Due to the water requirements, their water supply is 4" and 2.5". The 2009 IPC requires the backflow prevention to meet ASSE 1024 or CSA B64.6. The engineer states that there are no products in those sizes that meet the standards. I have confirmed this in a quick Google search. It looks like you can't go any bigger than 1" if you want to meet either of those standards. Has any else run into this? How did you handle it?

 

[cda]

Have you looked at watts/ Ames ??

 

[mark handler]

o m i t p o s t

 

[Paul Sweet]

I have typically seen reduced pressure principle backflow preventers for larger water services in college classroom buildings.

 

[cda]

I have a manufacturing plant that is replacing much of their water distribution system. Due to the water requirements, their water supply is 4" and 2.5". The 2009 IPC requires the backflow prevention to meet ASSE 1024 or CSA B64.6. The engineer states that there are no products in those sizes that meet the standards. I have confirmed this in a quick Google search. It looks like you can't go any bigger than 1" if you want to meet either of those standards. Has any else run into this? How did you handle it?

What section of IPC are you getting the requirement from?

 

[MikeC]

Disregard this one. It seems that though this is not the case. I took the engineer's word for it. After looking at the plans a bit more and looking into the valves being used, everything is compliant. The plans do not call for a non-compliant dual-check-valve-type backflow preventer. Instead, they call for a double check backflow prevention assembly, which is required to meet ASSE 1015. I'm not sure why the engineer screwed this up. Maybe it was to confuse me.

Here is a quote from the plans:

IPC REQUIRES THAT DUAL-CHECK BACKFLOW PREVENTERS CONFORM TOASSE 1024, BUT SIZES APPROVED IN ASSE 1024 ARE TOO SMALL FOR THESE

APPLICATIONS. PA DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY HAS INDICATED THAT

THEY WILL RELY ON THE ENGINEER TO SPECIFY AN APPROPRIATE DEVICE.

 

[cda]

Disregard this one. It seems that though this is not the case. I took the engineer's word for it. After looking at the plans a bit more and looking into the valves being used, everything is compliant. The plans do not call for a non-compliant dual-check-valve-type backflow preventer. Instead, they call for a double check backflow prevention assembly, which is required to meet ASSE 1015. I'm not sure why the engineer screwed this up. Maybe it was to confuse me.Here is a quote from the plans:

thought something might be contaminated,

 

[Frank]

ASSE 1013 complaint reduced pressure backflow preventers are readily available up to 10 inch. Required by IPC 608.13. Double Check ASSE 1015 devices are only permitted for low hazard applications Table 608.1.

608.16.6 Connections subject to backpressure.

Where a potable water connection is made to a nonpotable line, fixture, tank, vat, pump or other equipment subject to high- hazard back-pressure, the potable water connection shall be protected by a reduced pressure principle backflow prevention assembly.