Thread: modified backflow preventer

Hey all:

Got some questions: Came across a testable backflow preventer (8" Ames 4000SS RPZ) on a fire sprinkler system that was MODIFIED. Specifically, the relief valve was removed; relief port was plugged; and the device was tested as a DCVA by a certified backflow tester.

Questions:
1. Is this a normal practice?
2. If so, why would this be done?
3. Would this meet code in your jurisdiction?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Similar Threads:

• Sprinkler backflow piping above grade
• backflow protection - commercial laundry washing machines
• Slightly modified water heater
• modified extension cord
• Metal to modified bitumen roof.

Originally Posted by Tom Sutter

Hey all:

Got some questions: Came across a testable backflow preventer (8" Ames 4000SS RPZ) on a fire sprinkler system that was MODIFIED. Specifically, the relief valve was removed; relief port was plugged; and the device was tested as a DCVA by a certified backflow tester.

Questions:
1. Is this a normal practice?
2. If so, why would this be done?
3. Would this meet code in your jurisdiction?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

TS: Unless you are a certified backflow tester why would you inspect this?

Thanks A.D., but still am wondering.

I am not an inspector. I am a registered sanitarian contracted to make sure testable devices are simply being tested.

My questions STILL are:
1. Is this normal practice?
2. Why would this be done?
3. Would this meet code in your jurisdiction?

Thanks in advance.

Fire sprinkler systems usually are spec'd out for a duel check assembly only. That is as long as the fire department does not use chemical pumper trucks, or water from retention ponds to boost the flow through the siemeas fittings. But if they do use a contaminated source of water to boost flow, then they spec in a RPZ.

As a licensed Cross Connection Control Device Inspector (CCCDI, and I came across this situation a red flag would be raised. I would be wondering if the previous owner had issues with the RPZ discharging, and did not want to spend the money on a rebuild kit, and just capped it off then hired a new CCCDI to test it as a DCVA. So I would call the city and talk to the inspector there to see what the requirements are for the fire sprinkler backflow preventer devices.

I did get some more info, and the situation is exactly as you described. The RPZ was discharging and the owner just decided to plug the vent with a threaded fitting and call it good. The CCCDI then came in and tested it as a DCVA.

Thanks again guys for the replies.