1982 Fall M e e t i n g

T e c h n i c a l C o m m i t t e e D o c u m e n t a t i o n

TCD-82-F

A Compilation of the Documented Action on Comments Received by the Technical Committees Whose Reports Have Been Published

Prior to Consideration at the NFPA Fall Meeting

The Marriott Hotel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

November 15-18, 1982

Please Bring to the Fall Meeting j

Copyright@ 1982 All Rights Reserved

National Fire Protection Association, Inc. Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269

11M-9-82-SM Printed in U.S.A.

SUPPLEMENTARY

Report of Committee on Water Extinguishing Systems

Correlating Committee

Paul D. Smith, Chairman Gage-Babcock & Assoc., Inc.

Robert M. Hodnett, Secretary National Fire Protection Association

(Nonvoting)

Wayne E. Ault, Rolf Jensen& Assoc., Inc. Thomas J. Brown Jr. , Factory Mutual Research Corp. John D. Cook, Catalytic Inc. Robert H. Merz, Moorestown, NJ James W. Nolan, James W. Nolan Co. Chester W. Schirmer, Schirmer Engineering Corp. J. Samuel Slicer, W. Chatham, MA

Nonvoting

Stephen Gi lber t , Scandia Industr ies Rep. NFPA Fire Hose Commlttee

Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers

Chester W. Schirmer, Chairman Schirmer Engineering Corp.

Richard F. Edington, Secretary American Risk Management

Edward K. Budnick, Center for Fire Research Frank E. Cann Jr . , Charlotte, NC John L. DeRoo, Union Carbide Corp.

Rep. NFPA Industr ia l Fire Protection Section Lee J. Dosedlo, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Denison H. Featherstonhaugh, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Co., Ltd.

Rep. Canadian Automatic Spr inkler Assn. D. B. Grant, Insurers Advisory Organization David M. Hammerman, Dept. of Economic & Community Codes Admin., MD

Rep. Fire Marshals Assn. of North America Richard E. Hughey, Insurance Services Off ice Rolf H. Jensen, Rolf Jensen& Assoc., Inc. Jerry R. Lambert, Dallas Texas Fire Dept.

Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section W. N. Lawton, Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co., Inc.

Rep. National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn., Inc. Murvan M. Maxwell, Maxwell & LeBreton, Architects Donald I . McGi l l ivray, Underwriters Labs of Canada Edward J. O'Donoghue, Industr ia l Risk Insurers Robert L. Retel le, Insurance Services Off ice J. K. Richardson, National Research Council of Canada E. J. Schiffhauer, Eastman Kodak Co. John J. Walsh, United Assn. of Journymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe F i t t i ng Industry of the United States and Canada Harry R. Winchell, L iber ty Mutual Insurance Co.

Rep. Al l iance of American Insurers Jack A. Wood, Viking Corp.

Rep. National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn., Inc. D. M. Yarlas, ICI Americas Inc.

Rep. NFPA Industr ia l Fire Protection Section Lewis H. Zimmermann, Adelphia Automatic Sprinkler Co.

Rep. National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn., Inc.

Alternates

Charles Barnett, Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America Alternate to W. Lawton)

J. F. Berndt, National Research Council of Canada Alternate to J. K. Richardson)

Thomas J. Brown Jr., Factory Mutual Research Corp. Alternate to Factory Mutual Research Corp.)

Layard E. Campbell, Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co., Inc. Alternate to J. Wood)

Barry L. Clark, Insurance Services Office Alternate to R. E. Hughey)

Robert E. Duke, Fire Control Inc. Alternate to F. E. Cann Jr.)

David D. Evans, Center for Fire Research Alternate to E. Budnick)

122

Russell P. Fleming, Notional Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn., Inc.

(Al ternate to L. Zimmermann) Stephen R. Hoover, Kemper Group

(Al ternate to H. Winchell) Thomas A. Lenton, Libbey-Owens-Ford Co.

(Al ternate to J. L. DeRoo) Carrol l V. Lovett , Xerox Corp.

{Al ternate to D. M. Yarlas) B. J. Lukes, Grinnell Fire Protection

(Al ternate to D. H. Featherstonhaugh) Francis J. Mikloucioh

(Alternate to E. J. Schiffhauer) Morley E. Naylor, Insurance Services Office

(Alternate to R. L. Retelle) Michael T. Newman, ARMRISK, Inc.

(Alternate to R. F. Edington) Gerald W. O'Rourke, Schirmer Engineering Corp.

(Alternate to C. W. Schirmer) W. L. Stuart, Dow Chemical Co.

(Alternate to Chemical Paoufacturers Assn.) Miles R. Suchomel, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

(Alternate to L. J. Dosedlo) D. B. Tucker, Industrial Pisk Insurers

(Alternate to E. J. O'Oonoghue)

Nonvotin9

Barry M. Lee, Wormald Brothers, Ltd.

Technical Committee on Fire Pumps

Thomas J. Brown Jr . , Chairman Factory Mutual Research Corp.

Walter A. Damon, Secretary Fire Protection Design - Consultation Rep. I l l i n o i s Fire Prevention Assn.

Robert C. Carter, Mount Dora, FL Rep. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp

Lee J. Dosedlo, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Arno W. Heckrodt, Fred S James & Co. Lee A. Henningsen, F i re t ro l Inc. George W. Horner, Electric Motor Div., Gould Inc.

Pep. NEMA John D. Jensen, Bradley Engineering Donald L. Johnson, Kemper Insurance Cos.

Rep. Al l iance of American Insurers Kenneth L. Koch, Detro i t Diesel Al l ison Div. General Motors Corp.

Rep. Engine Manufacturers Assn. Raymond Koss, Port Author i ty of NY & NJ Stephen A. Long, St Regis Paper Co. James W. Nolan, James W. Nolan Co. Gerald W. O'Rourke, Schirmer Engineering Corp. John B. Scanlan, Conway, AR John C. Scheuerman, Insurance Services Off ice William Testa, Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co. Inc.

Rep. NAS & FCA D. B. Tucker, Industr ia l Risk Insurers John W. Williams, M & M Protection Consultants R. J. Williams, Peerless-Midwest Inc

Rep. Natl Water Well Assn. R. J. Wright, Underwriters Labs of Canada

Alternates

Ph i l l i p A. Davis, Kemper Insurance Cos. (Al ternate to D. L. Johnson)

Manuel J. DeLerno, S-P-D Industr ies Inc. (Al ternate to W. A. Damon)

Michael J. Foushee, Cummins Engine Co. Inc. (Al ternate to K. L. Koch)

John Gerdels, Underwriters Laboratories of Canada (Al ternate to R. J. Wright)

E. F. Kimball, GTE Products (Al ternate to G. W. Homer)

Edward D. Leedy, Industr ia l Risk Insurers (Al ternate to D. B. Tucker)

Ladell Milam, Automatic Sprinkler Corp of America (Al ternate to W. Testa)

Kenneth N. Mi tchel l , Underwriters Laboratories Inc (Al ternate to L. J. Dosedlo)

John W. Morris, James W Nolan Co. (Al ternate to J. W. Nolan)

Keith M. Starks, Stone & Webster Engr. Corp. (Al ternate to R. C. Farter)

William E. Wilcox, Factory Mutual Research Corp. (Al ternate to T. J. Brown Jr . )

Nonvoting

Jeanine A. Katzel, Plant Engineering Magazine

Technical Committee on ~oam Water Sprinklers

John D. Cook, Chairman Cataly t ic Inc.

Casimir J. Drygas J r . , Secretary M & ~I Protection ronsultants

Wayne E. Ault , Roll Jansen & Assoc., Inc. Charles F. Ave r i l l , Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co., Inc.

Rep. National Automatlc Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn., Inc. Layard E. Campbell, Rel~able Auto. Sprinkler Co., Inc.

Rep. National Automat'c Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn., Inc. William M. Carey, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Victor G. Geihsler, Indust r ia l Risk Insurers Fred M. Linde, National Foam System Inc. M. J. Marsolek, Kemper [nsurance Cos.

Rep. Al l iance of Amer'ican Insurers Donald I . McGi l l ivray, Underwriters Labs of Canada Robert C. Mer r i t t , Factory Mutual Research Corp. Richard F. Wurphy, E~xon Research & Development

Rep. NFPA Committee on Foam John A. Pignato J r . , 3M Co. Tommy Preuett, Road Spr inkler F i t te rs Local 669

Rep. United Assn. of Plumbers & Pipe F i t te rs E. J. Schiffhauer, Eastman Kodak Co.

Rep. NFPA Committee on Automati( Sprinklers Kenneth G. Wohlers, US Oept. of the Air Force

Rep. NFPA Industr ia l Fire Protection Section Jack A. Wood, Viking Corp.

Rep. NFPA Committee on Water Spray Fixed Systems Kenneth A. Zuher, K idde-Bel lev i l le

Rap. Fire EQuipment Manufacturers Assn.

Alternates

John P. Amoroso, Kemper Insurance Group Alternate to M. J. Marsolek)

Ezio Angel ini , Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America Alternate to L. E. Campbell)

Ray M. Puhalla, Road Sprinkler F i t te rs Local 669 Alternate to T. Preuett)

Dr. John F. Ri ley, Wormald U. S., Inc. Alternate to K. A. Zuber)

Miles R. Suchomel, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Alternate to W. M. Coney)

D. D. Tucker, Indust r ia l Risk Insurers Alternate to V. Geihsler)

Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems

J. Samuel Sl icer , Chairman W. Chatham, MA

Warren Lawrence, Secretary Insurance Services Off ice

Frank E. Cann J r . , Charlotte, NC Kenneth J. Carl, Baldwin, NY C. W. Conaway, Industr ia l Risk Insurers W. J. Dahlgren, Nashvi l le, TN Manuel J. DeLerno, S-P-D Industr ies Inc.

Rap. I l l i n o i s Fire Prevention Assn. Lee J. Dosedlo, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Richard Martineau, Mid Hudson Automatic Sprinkler Corp.

Rep. National Automatic SprinkTer & Fire Control Associatinn James Mclnerney, Stamford Water Co.

Rep. American Water Works Assn. Robert H. Merz, Moorestown, NJ Guido Moccio, Dept. of Licenses & Inspection

Rep. Fire Marshals Assn. of North America David S. Mowrer, Professional Loss Control Inc. William D. Nesbeitt, Uni-Bell Plast ic Pipe Assn. David O. Rogers, Alexander & Alexander Inc. Mark E. Ryan, Santa Clara, CA

Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section H. V. Simpson, Road Sprinkler F i t te rs Local 669

Rep. United Assn. of Plumbers & Pipe F i t te rs Troy F. Stroud, Ducti le Iron Pipe Research Assn. David F. Thomas, Waterous Co. William E. Wilcox, Factory Mutual Research Corp. Fred S. Winters, Wausao Insurance Cos.

Rep. Al l iance of American Insurers Joseph A. Zott , Farmington H i l l , MI

Al terrates

Gordon C. Anderson, Insurance Servlces Off ice IAl ternate to W. Lawrence)

Robert I . C l i f t , Industr ia l Risk Insurers (Al ternate to C. W. fonaway)

Russell P. Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler ard Fire Control Assn., Inc.

(Al ternate to P. Partineau) ~ichael J. Higgins, Ducti le Iron Pipe Research Assr.

(Al ternate tn T. F. Streud) Richard D. Jacobsen, Factory Mutual Research Corp.

(Al ternate to W. E. Wilcox) ~ichael L. Johnson, Spr ink le r f i t t e rs Local Union 6#9

(Al ternate to H. V. Simpson) Miles P. Suchomel, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

(Alternate to L. J. Dosedlo)

Technical Committee on Standpipes

James W. Melon, Chairman James W. Nolan Co.

Fred S. Winters Wausau Insurance Cos., Secretary

Pep. All ianc~ of American Insurers

Wi l l is C. heard, Fire Eouipment Co., Inc. Rep. National Assn. of Fire Equipment Dist r ibutors

Frank E. £ann Jr . , Charlotte, NC K~nneth J. Carl, Baldwin, NY Joseph G. Coutu, Industr ia l Risk Insurers Kenneth P. Forget, Worcester, MA

Rep. United Assn. of Plumbers & Pipe F i t te rs Piehard D. Jacobsen, Factory Mutual Research Corp. Kerry B. Keen, Memphis Fire Dept. ~. J. Lukes, Grinnell Fire Protection

Rap. Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Assn. Richard Martineau, ~id Hudson Automatic Sprinkler Corp.

Rap. National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn., Inc. ~uido Poccio, Dept. of Licenses & Inspection

Rep. Fire Marshals Assn. of North America James E. Murray, The P i l l Mutuals John E. Plantinga, Meyer Strong & Jones David O. Pooers, Alexander & Alexander Inc. A. P. Sc i t t ine, Western Electr ic Co., Inc.

Pep. NFPA Industr ia l Fire Protection Section Troy F. Stroud, Ducti le Iron Pipe Research Assn. Miles P. Suchomel, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. David F. Thomas, Waterous Co.

Rep. Mfgs. Standards Society of Valve and F i t t i ng Industry William S. Thompson, Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co.

Rap. Fire Equlpment Manufacturers Assn. Harry T. Westhaus, Insurance Services Off ice Peter R. Yurkonis, Roll Jensen& Assoc., Inc. Joseph A. Zott, Johnson & Higgins

Alternates

Thomas J. Drown Jr . , Factory Vutual Research Corp. (Al ternate to R. D. Jacobsen)

Pobert I . C l i f t , Industr ia l Risk Insurers (Alternate to J. G. Coutu)

Lee J. Dosedlo, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (Al ternate to M. Suchomel)

Russell P. Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler and Fire Control Assn., Inc.

(Al ternate to R. Wartineau) Michael J. Niggins, Ducti le Iron Pipe Research Assn.

(Al ternate to T. F. Stroud) Daniel E. Majerczyk, Kemper Group

(Al ternate to F. Wipters) John W. Norris, James W. Nolan Co.

(Alternate tc J. W. Nolan) William T. Trinker, The Mi l l Mutuals

(Alternate to J. Murray) James B. Visger, Higley, AZ

(Al ternate te Y. Foreet)

This l i s t represents the membership at the time the Committee was bal loted on the text of th is ed i t ion. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred.

123

The Supplementary Report of the Committee on Water Extinguishing Systems and Related Equipment is presented in 6 parts.

Part 1, prepared by the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers, proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i t s action on the public comments received on i t s Report on NFPA 13-1980, Standard for the Ins ta l la t ion of Sprinkler Systems, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1Q82 Fall ~eetlng.

Part I has been submitted to le t te r ba l le t of the Technical Committee on Automatic Sprinklers which consists of 26 voting members; of whom 20 voted a f f i rma t i ve l y , 4 negatively (Messrs. Featherstonhaugh, Grant, Zimmermann and Brown), and ? ba l lo ts were not returned (Messrs. Maxwell and Stuar t l .

Mr. Zimmermann voted negatively because of the Committee Action on public Comment No. ]3-21, because af ter a l l the discussion at (4) four meetings I attended i t is s t i l l not clear to me i f this product is a "standard" spr ink ler with an enlarged o r i f i c e to combat a "ordinary" f i r e , or i f i t is a "large drop" spr ink ler intended to deal with an unusual "high challenge" f i r e .

From the data presented, there seems to he s imi lar confusion between F.M. and U.L. b~cause to use the same product to protect the same hazard under the same condit ions, system d~slons would d i f f e r considerably depending on whether F.P., or a stock insurance company were reviewing the plans.

Public Comment No. 13-30 on TCR Proposal 13-P75 by Mr. Coll inge very c lear ly enumerates the points of d i f ference, and hence the confusion, and ] include his comments here by reference.

] am sure that without the proposed Chapter 9, or something s iml lar , to give guidance to the unusual desiqn and ins ta l l a t i on l im i ta t ions , and the unique requirements of th is spr ink ler , i t w i l l be insta l led improperly.

~y recommendation is return th is to the Committee to be acted upon after the Chapter 9 Subcommittee has made i ts report and recommendations. Unti l that time, the Standard w i l l permit any spr inkler to he insta l led in accordance with i ts l i s t i na (new Paragraph 3-16.2.1), and new Paraaraph i -2 spec i f i ca l l y provides fo r the introduct ion of new technology.

Messrs. Featherstonhauah and Grant agreed with Mr. Zimmermann.

Mr. Brown also voted negatively because of the Commlttee Action on public Comment No. 13-21 because this product is a " large drop" spr ink ler intended to deal with an unusual "himh challenge" f i r e .

There is current ly no known way to apply the density/area concept to this device. There is no established re lat ionship between 165°F and 286°F temperature " large drop spr inklers" (extra large o r i f i c e spr ink ler ) .

Without the proposed Chapter g to give guldance to the unusual design and i ns ta l l a t i on l im i ta t ions , and the unique requirements of this spr ink ler , i t w i l l be insta l led improperly.

My recommendation is return this to the Committee to be acted upon after the Chapter 9 Subcommittee has made i ts report and recommendations.

Part I has also been submitted to le t te r ba l lo t of the Correlat ing Committee on Water Extinguishing Systems and Related Equipment which consists of P voting members, a l l of whom have voted a f f i rmat i ve ly .

Part I ] prepared by the Technical Commlttee on Fire Pumps proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the puhlic comments received on i t s Report on NFPA 20-1980, Standard for the Ins ta l l a t i on of Centri fugal Fire Pumps, published in the Technical Committee Peport for the 1987 Annual Meeting.

Part I I has been submitted to le t te r ba l lo t of the Technical Committee on Fire Pumps in 3 segments, Segment No. ] consists of publ ic Comment No. 20-28, Segment No. 2 consists of publ ic Comment No 20-5 and Segment No. 3 consists of the balance of the comments.

Part I ] has been submitted to l e t t e r ba l lo t of the Technical Committee which consists of 21 voting members. On Segment No. i (publ ic Comment No. 20-28) 11 voted a f f i rma t i ve l y , 10 voted negatively (Messrs. Brown, Damon, Carter, Henningsen, Jensen, Johnson, Nolan, O'Rourke, Testa, and Scanlan), on Segment No. 2 (public Comment No. 20-5) 19 voted a f f i rma t i ve l y , 2 voted negatively (Messrs. Brown and Henningsen) and on Segment No. 3 which consisted of the balance of the public comments al l 21 members voted a f f i rma t i ve ly .

Messrs. Brown, Carter, and Jensen and Testa voted negatively on Segment No. 1 (publ ic Comment No. 20-28) because they f e l t inadequate technical data had been submitted to substantiate the change and the Committee should study the subject fu r ther .

~r. Damon voted negatively on Segment ~le. I (publ ic Comment No. 20-28) because, the l im i ta t i on of a capacity of "Less than 500 CP~" l imi t< the appl icat lon of the end suction or ver t ica l ln l ine pump, as well as i t s physical size. Py main concern is r e l i a b i l i t y as defined in part "ma in ta lnah i l i t y . " From my experiences most pump problems reaulr ing disassembly of the pump/driver unit have hewn solved by clearing the impeller of debris.

With a s p l i t case ~es]gn, the top of the case is pulled of f and the impeller cleared, arm the pump r~assembled quickly.

With the end suctinn and more pa r t i cu la r l y the ver t lca l in l ine pump, i t appears a major undertaking to remove the impeller from the pump. This could he very d l f f i c u l t and possibly beyond the capab i l i t y of the averaqe maintenance person.

I believe many ver t ica l in l ine pumps are mounted on the end of tbe motor shaft which would r#quire motor-and-pump service in the case nf shaft problems.

It also is my understandlng that access to the ver t ica l in l ine impeller requires l i f t i n g the pump-and-motor from the case, whlch should require breaking thP e lec t r i ca l connections at the motor, introducing a poss ib i l i t y of improper rewir ing during reassembly.

I feel there are many applications for a f i r e pump of the smaller capacity hut hesitat~ to extend the range without copious documented f i e l d experience records of losses and successes with the end-suct ion/vert ical in l ine design.

F'r. Johnson voted n~gatively on Spom~nt ~Jo. l (publ ic Pomment No. 20-28) because a 500 gem pump can he used for demands up to 750 gpm. ] h e l i # w this is too great for pump designs which some experts indicate are i n t r i n s i c a l l y i n f e r i o r to the sp l i t case and are also more d l f f l c u l t to perform maintenance.

Pr. Nolan voted neqatively on Seament No. I (publ ic Comment No. 20-28) because he f e l t , no evidence in the way of test data to prow the equivalent r e l i a b i l i t y of end suction i n - l i ne centr i fugal f i r e pump hearing systems, in par t i cu la r axial thrust data, compared to the t rad l t iona l ax ia l l y balanced Double Suction Horizontal Spl i t Case Fir~ Pump has been submitted to the Fire Pump Committee.

The wordinq of Paraqraph 1-] should remain the same i .e. Limit the capacity of end suction in - l i ne f i r e pumps to less than ~DN qpm.

Mr. P'Rourke voted negatively on Fegment No. i (public Comment No. 20-28) because he f e l t there is a d i s t i nc t di f ference between the r e l i a b i l i t y of a horizontal spl i t -case centr i fugal pump and other types of pumps. At this point in time, i t is my opinion that the l im i ts of these pumps should he as indicated in the i°80 version of 1-3.

Pr. Scanlan voted negatively on Segment No. I (public Comment No. ?0-28) because he f e l t the pump in question depends on the shaft and hearinqs of the motor for which there ar~ no standards. The pump design dnes not meet oua l i ty standards established for horizontal pumps.

Pr. Henningsen did not uive a reason for his neuative vote.

Pr. Brown voted negatively on Segment No. 2 (public Comment No. 20-5) because he f e l t that this is a substantive addltion and should be subject to public comment. Also, no data was submitted to substantiate "and there is l i t t l e h istory nf unsat isfactory performance." In addit ion, the need for two cont ro l le r standards has never, in my opinion, been adenuately explained.

Mr. Henningsen did not qlve a reason for his negatqve vote.

Because the Committee ba l lo t on Segment No. I (public Comment No. 20-28) did not receive the two th i rds a f f i rmat ive vote as required by the Pequlations, th is comment is rejected.

Part I ] has also been submitted to le t te r ba l lo t of the Correlat ing Committee on Water Extinguishing Systems and Related Equipment which consists nf 8 voting members; a l l nf whom have voted a f f i rma t i ve ly .

Part I l l prepared by the Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the public comments received on i ts Report on the new document, f~FPA 1~A, Recommended Practice for the Ins ta l la t ion of Closed-Head Foam Water Sprinkler Systems, published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1982 Fall Meeting.

Part I f ] has been submitted to le t te r ba l lo t of the Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers which consists of 18 members of whom 17 have voted a f f i rma t i ve ly and I has not returned a ba l lo t (Mr. Wohlers.)

Part I l l has also been submitted to le t te r ba l lo t of the Correlat ing Committee on Water Extinguishing Systems which consists of 8 vetina members, a l l of whom voted a f f i rmat i ve ly .

Part IV prepared by the Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the puhlic comments received on i ts Report on HFPA 26-1976, Recommended Practice for the Supervision of Valves Control l ing Water Supplies for Fire Protection published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1982 Fall Meeting.

124

Part IV has been submitted to le t te r ba l lo t of the Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems which consists of 22 voting members of whom 19 have voted a f f i rmat i ve ly , I asked to be recorded as not voting (Mr. Nesbeitt) and 2 did not return bal lots (Messrs. Ryan and Simpson.)

Part IV has also been submitted to le t te r bal lo t of the Correlating Committee on Water Extinguishing Systems and Related Equipment which consists of 8 voting members, a l l of whom have voted a f f i rmat ive ly .

Part V prepared by the Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the public comment received on i ts Report on NFPA 291-1977, Recommended Practice for the Fire Flow Testing and Marking of Pydrants published in the Technical Committee Reports for the 1982 Fal l Meeting.

Part V has been submitted to l e t te r bal lo t of the Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems which consists of 22 voting members of whcm 20 have voted a f f i rmat ive ly and 2 did not return bal lots (Messrs. Ryan and Simpson.)

Part V has also beer submitted to le t te r ba l lo t of the Correlating Committee or Water Extinguishing Systems and Related Equipment which consists of 8 voting members, a l l of whom have voted a f f i rmat ive ly .

Part VI prepared by the Technical Committee on Standpipes proposes for adoption a Supplementary Report which documents i ts action on the public con~ents received on i ts Report on NFPA 14-ig80, Standard /or the Ins ta l la t ion of Standpipe and Hose Systems published In the Technical Committee Reports for the 1982 Fall Meeting.

Part VI has been submitted to le t te r ba l lo t of the Technical Committee on Standpipes which consists of 23 voting members of whom 22 have voted a f f i rmat i ve ly and i has voted negatively (Mr. Beard).

Mr. Beard voted negatively because he f e l t on public Comment No. 14-3 the hose size should be specif ied instead of stating "smaller than 1 i /2 in."

Part VI has also been submitted to le t te r bal lo t of the Correlating Committee on Water Extinguishing Systems and Related Equipment which consists of 8 voting members, a l l of whom have voted a f f i rmat ive ly .

125

13- 74 - ( i - 1 ) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Roll Jensen& Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-101 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as fol lows:

"This standard provides the minimum requirements for the design and ins ta l la t ion of automatic and of open sprinkler systems, including . . . . " SUBSTANTIATION: The sentence as wri t ten l imi ts the use of open sprinklers for exposure protection and is in con f l i c t with Section 3-16.2.4 which permits open sprinklers in other applications. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for No. 35 on i - i .

PART

13- 20 - (1-1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: T. G. Coll inge, Insurers' Advisory Organization COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-101 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

" . . . . requirements for the design and ins ta l la t ion of automatic spr inkler systems, and of manually control led systems of open sprinklers for protection against exposure f i r es , including . . . . " SUBSTANTIATION: Ed i to r ia l , to better express what goes on in Chapter 6. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for No. 35 on 1- i .

13- 35 - (1-1): Accept SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Assn. ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-101 RECOMMENDATION: In Section 1-1 add the words "spr ink ler systems" af ter "automatic" and delete the word "open" in l ine ?. SUBSTANTIATION: This is to c l a r i f y the scope which otherwise could be misinterpreted. The standard applies to al l automatic sprinkler systems not just exposure protection sprinkler systems; also the standard applies to a l l exposure protection sprinklers (Chapter 6) whether open, manual or automatic. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 19 - ( I -3 ) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organization COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-102 RECOMMENDATION: Revise second sentence:

"The ins ta l la t ion includes one or more water supplies, such a s . . . . ,L

Delete "or both" from the end of the sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: Edi tor ia l . "Or both" does not apply to a l i s t of three or more. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for No. 36 on I-3.

13- 36 - (1-3): Accept SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-102 RtCUMMENDATION: Revise the de f in i t ion of a sprinkler system by changing the second sentence to read:

"The ins ta l la t ion includes one or more automatic water supplies." SUBSTANTIATION: This is intended for c l a r i f i c a t i o n and s impl i f i ca t ion and is based on Section 2 - i ; the present wording fol lowing "such as" results in confusion and unnecessarily complicates the def in i t ion . Examples of water supplies are adequately addressed elsewhere in the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 69 - (1-3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Robert L. Retel le, Insurance Services Off ice ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-102 RECOMMENDATION: The second sentence should be revised to read:

"The ins ta l la t ion includes one or more water supplies; such as, grav i ty tanks, pumps, pressure tanks and/or connections by underground piping to c i t y mains." SUBSTANTIATION: For ed i to r ia l and c l a r i f i c a t i o n purposes. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. CUMMIrlEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for No. 36 on I-3.

13- 34 - (1-10 through 1-10.2 and 1-11.1): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Robert L. Retel le, Insurance Services Office COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P35 and 104 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as fol lows:

1-10 Approval of Sprinkler Systems. 1-10.1 When the ins ta l la t ion is completed, the ins ta l le r shall

perform al l required acceptance tests, complete the Contractor's Material and Test Cer t i f i ca te(s ) and forward the ce r t i f i ca te (s ) to the authori ty having ju r i sd ic t i on pr ior to asking for approval of the ins ta l la t ion .

I

1-10.2 When the authori ty having ju r i sd ic t ion desires to be present during the conduct of acceptance tests, the ins ta l l e r shall give advance no t i f i ca t ion of the time and date the testing w i l l be performed.

1-11.1 Delete this section. SUBSTANTIATION: P35 (1-I0) and 104 ( i -11.1) are redundant in that beth require completion of the ce r t i f i ca tes . Also, the revised wording nf this comment is intended to he ed i to r ia l and improve c l a r i t y without change of intent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise ]-10 as fol lows: 1-10 Approval of Sprinkler Systems 1-10.1 The ins ta l le r shall perform al l required acceptance

tests (See 1-11), complete the Contractor's Material and Test Cer t i f i ca te(s ) (See 1-12) and forward the ce r t i f i ca te (s ) to the author i ty having ju r i sd ic t ion pr ior to askinq for approval of the ins ta l la t ion .

1-10.2 When the authori ty having ju r i sd ic t ion desires to be present during the conduct of acceptance tests, the ins ta l le r shall give advance no t i f i ca t ion of the time and date the testing w i l l be performed.

Delete 1-11.1 and renumber 1-11.2 through 1-11.5 as 1-11.1 through 1-11.4. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The submitter's comment is accepted with minor revisions, which in 1-10.1, delete the phrase "when the ins ta l la t ion is completed," since the test for underground flushing is normally performed before the underground piping is connected to the system r iser and consequently, before the system is completed. Adding the reference to 1-11 and 1-12 makes the section more complete.

13- 47 - ( i - I i . 3 . 1 ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-I0g RECOMMENDATION: Change proposed wording from "at the low point" to "at the low elevation point ." SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y intent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for comment 75 on 1-11.3.1.

13- 75 - (1-11.3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Roll Jensen& Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-109 ~ I r ~ l ~ the proposed words "at the low point of the individual systems or zone being tested." Add a second sentence stating "The test pressure shall be read from a gage located at the low point of the individual system or zone being tested." SUBSTANTIATION: As wr i t ten, this section implies that you can test a portion of the system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 1-11.3.1 and renumber to read as fol lows: 1-11.2.1 Al l new systems including yard piping shall he

hydrostat ica l ly tested at not less than 200 psi {13.8 hars) pressure for 2 hours, or at SO psi (3.4 bars) in excess of the maximum pressure, when the maximum pressure to he maintained in the system is in excess of 150 psi (10.3 bars).

The test pressure shall be read from a gage located at the low elevation point of the individual system or portion of the system being tested. In A-1-11.2.1, in the fourth l ine af ter "low" add "elevation point of the indiv idual , " delete "zone" and substitute "port ion of the system." COMMITTEE COMMENT: In addition to accepting the submitter's comment, the corm~ittee wishes to c l a r i f y the intent which is to test at 50 psi (3.4 bars) in excess of the maximum pressure without consideration of the momentary higher pressures due to water hammer. The words "to be maintained" are added to convey this intent.

13- 9 - (2-2.1, 2-2.1.2.12): Accept SUBMITTER: D. B. Grant, Insurers' Advisory Organization COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 13-201 RECOMMENDATION: Proposed new section should be numbered 2 - 2 . 1 . 2 . 1 1 .

l_ast two l ines of Substantiation should read: "based on actual loss experience data and there is a need to achieve uniformity of design." SUBSTANTIATION: Edi tor ia l . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

126

13- 76 - (2-2.1 and 2-2.1.2.12): Accept SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jensen& Assoc.,

COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-201 RECOMMENDATION: Insert the word "to" between the words "not" and "less" in the last l ine of 2-2.1.2.2.12.

". . . . . but not to less than 2000 sq f t (185.8 m2). '' SUBSTANTIATION: As wr'~tten, the section can be interpreted as permitting a design area less than 2,000 sq f t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 18 - (2-2.1.2.2 Exception): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: T. G. Coll inge, Insurers' Advisory Organization ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P77 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal as wri t ten penalizes the spr inkler system designer but without guaranteeing an e f fec t ive hose stream to the user since no reference to pressure is included. In our experience, most calculated and avai lable sprinkler system pressures would be insu f f i c ien t for hose streams unt i l a f i r e department pumper is connected to the system, or unless booster pumps are instal led. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee has accomplished the submitter's desired resul t by the Committee Action for Comment No. 48 on 2-2.1.2.2 Exception.

13- 48 - (2-2.1.2.2 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire t"~-6~-61--Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 13-P77 RECOMMENDATION: Rathe~ than add a new Exception, simply replace "base of r iser" with "point of connection to the system" in the exist ing text . SUBSTANTIATION: Exception is not needed. Section 2-2.1.2.2 pertains only to hydrau l ica l ly designed systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 77 - (2-2.1,2.2): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jensen& Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P77 RECOMMENDATION: Insert a second sentence af ter the f i r s t sentence which ends in the words "connect to the sprinkler system." The second sentence should read: "F i f t y 9al per minute shall be added for each such hose station connection, up to a maximum of 100 gal." Then continue with the present second sentence beginning "The combined sprinkler and hose requirement" and make that into the th i rd sentence in the Exception. SUBSTANTIATION: The Exception as wri t ten requires adding a demand for a l l hose s ta t ions This is not consistent with Figure 2-2.1(B). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inciple. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee has accomplished the submitter's desired resul t by the Committee Action for Comment No, 48 on 2-2.1.2.2 Exception.

13- 49 - (2-2.1.2.12): Accept SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 13-20J RECOMMENDATION: Change proposed wording to read:

" . . . . but not to less than 2,000 sq f t . " SUBSTANTIATION: C la r i f y intent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 33 - (2-2.1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Robert L. Retel le, Insurance Services Off ice ~-OT~NT--~N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-201 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 2-2.1.3 and make the Exception an Exception to 2-2.1.1. SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of 13-201 is to replace 2-2.1.3 with Appendix material. The Technical Committee proposal neglected to delete the current 2-2.1.3 text . The Exception, however, should be retained. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 2-2.1.3 to read as fol lows: "2-2.1.3. When other NFPA standards have developed spr inkler

system design c r i t e r i a , they shall take precedence." COMMITTEE COMMENT: The revised wording should sat is fy the submitter's intent.

13- 78 - (2-8.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jensen& Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P79 RECOMMENDATION: Peject. S'T]BSTANTIATION: The Substantiation given by the Committee does not support the action of the Committee. The proposal would be res t r i c t i ve . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. --Revise the last sentence to read as fol lows:

"The t ransi t ion piece shall be protected against possible damage from corrosive agents, solvent attack, or mechanical damage." COMMITTEE COMMEN#: The committee agrees with the submitter and has rewri t ten the sentence in performance terms.

]3- 16 - (3-3.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEP: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organization COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P48 RECOMMENDATION: Reword proposed 3-3.2 to conform exactly with old 3-4.4 except for the inclusion of grated f loors. SUBSTANTIATION: Deletion of the 3-4.4 references to "Large Floor Openings, Mezzanines, and Large Platforms" constitutes a technical rather than ed i to r ia l change and as such was not substantiated. Also, the proposed wording of 3-3.2 does not appear to sa t is fy the or ig inal Submitter's express concern with "atriums and simi lar s i tuat ions." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for Comment No. 50 on

13- 50 - (3-4.4): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTEP: Pussell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-4R RECOMMENDATION: Intent is not clear. Also, Section 3-4.4 needs to be deleted i f Section 3-3.2 is being revised as indicated. SUBSTANTIATION: Is the intent simply to l im i t the tota l size of the system or to require hydraulic calculat ions to supply the sprinklers both above and below grated and slatted f loors? COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

The Committee withdraws Proposal No. 13-48. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and feels by revert ing to the present wording the problem of designing systems with slatted f loors , larae f loo r openings, mezzanines and large platforms w i l l be better served. The Committee intends to study this problem further for the next edit ion.

13- 29 - (3-£.3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Eiwin G. Joyce, Bui]dinm Code Enforcement, KY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P12 RECOMMENDATION: Add new section 3-9.3:

3-9.3 Loca{ion. The inspectors test shall be piped from the end of the most remote branch l ine. The discharge shall be at a point where i t can be readi ly observed. Delete f i r s t two sentences of A-3-9 in the Appendix. SUBSTANTIATION: In reference to the comments of Mr. Hammerman (I?-PI?) this addition w i l l assist those of us who have to use NFPA 13 as an enforcement standard. I t is f i rm ly believed that the intent of the section that the test connection be located at the remote end of the system. While i t is required for dry and hydraul ica l ly calculated systems i t is only recommended in the Appendix for wet systems. We feel i t should be ~equired for a l l systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. (OMMITTEE COMMENT: I t is not the intent to require that the inspector's test be located at the most remote ~ranch l ine for a wet or calculated system.

Also, the material proposed is new and would propose something that would require considerable research and discussion by the Technical Committee and cannot be properly handled within the time frame estahlished for processing the Report.

13- 66 - (3-9.1.1, 3-9.2* and Figure A-3-9.1.1): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: L. R. Milam, Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America ~ O N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-307 RECOMMENOATION: Add an asterisk a f ter 3-9.1.1, since Figure A-3-9.1.1 is s t i l l provided.

Advise whether Sectinn A-3-9.1.1 has heen deleted. I f not, i t should he revised to be in agreement with new Section 3-9.1,1.

The requirements for inspectors test connections on wet and dry systems should be made consistent where possible. Revise Section 3-9.2 as fol lows:

3-9.2* Dry Pipe Systems. A test pipe nf not less than 1 in. in size terminating in a smooth bore corrosion resistant o r i f i c e giving a f low equivalent to one spr inkler shall be provided for each system. For pipe schedule systems, the poCnt of connection shall he at the highest and most remote spr inkler l ine. For a calculated system, i t shall be at the hydraul ica l ly most remote spr inkler l ine. The test connection valve shal" be readi ly accessible.

127

The discharge for the test connection shall be to the outside, to a drain connection capable of accepting f u l l f low under system pressure or another location where water damage w i l l not resul t . To prevent loss of system ai r , the test connection valve shall be provided with a plug (of d issimi lar metal) or a nipple and cap.

I f A-3-1.1 is s t i l l applicable and is to be revised to be in agreement with Section 3-9.1.1, then a comparable section pertaining to Section 3-9.2 should be provided. Wording is not suggested here; however, i t should be consistent with A-3-9 . I . I .

The advisory sketches which show test connections, Figures A-3-9.1.1, A-3-9.1.2 and A-3-9.2, should a l l be consistent where possible.

In Figure A-3-9.1.1, delete "Globe valve not over 7 f t above f loor" and replace with "Test valve in readily accessible location."

In Figure A-3-9.2, delete the word " l isted" and make the note read "Test valve in readily accessible location." SUBSTANTIATION: As revised, the requirements of the various sections and paragraphs under Section 3-9 are not consistent. AIso, i t is not clear in some areas exactly what the intent of the Committee is pertaining to the revisions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

Add an asterisk at 3-9.1.1. Delete " l isted" in Fiqure A-3-9.2 and add "test ." In Figure A-3-9.1.1 delete "1 in. Globe Valve not over 7 f t above f loor" and add "Test Valve in Readily Accessible Location." COMMITTEE COMMENT: I t is the Committee's intent to leave A-3-9.1.1 as is. As presently written, i t is consistent with the revised 3-9.1.1.

The material suggested for 3-9.2 is new material and would propose something that would require considerable research and discussion by the Technical Committee and cannot be properly handled within the time frame established for processinq the Report. Also, no verbiage was recommended.

The Committee has made Figures A-3-9.1.1 and A-3-9.2 consistent.

13- 22 - (3-9.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Lewis H. Zimmermamn, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P37 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as fol lows:

3-9.2 Dry Pipe Systems. An inspectors test shall be provided at the highest and most remote end of a branch l ine as conveniently possible re la t i ve to the dry-pipe valve location. The test connection shall terminate in a smooth bore o r i f i ce consisting of 1 in. schedule 40 galvanized pipe and shall he control led by a 1 in. ball type shut o f f valve. The pipe from the end of the branch l ine to the shut o f f valve shall be the same diameter as the branch l ine at the point of connection, and i f necessary, shall be reduced to i in. nominal size by use of a reducer f i t t i n g just prior to enterinq the shut of f valve. SUBSTANTIATION: The present dry-pipe inspector's test requirement is unreal is t ical ly stringent in that i t simulates the operation of only one sprinkler. Actual f i r e stat ist ics indicate that in most situations more than one sprinkler operates in a f i r e involving a dry-pipe system. A 1 in. pipe as a test o r i f i ce would provide an outlet with a cross-sectional area equivalent to the cross sectional area of approximately four sprinklers and would more nearly duplicate a true f i r e condition. The bal l valve would provide rapid operation simi lar to sprinklers fusing. The requirement to increase the area of application by 30 percent in a calculated dry system would also support the fact that additional sprinklers operate under actual f i r e conditions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Presently the Committee lacks the data to wr i te technical ly val id requirements for dry pipe systems. There are ongoing tests and studies being conducted at the present time that w i l l enable the Commlttee to provlde more substantive input to consider revision of this section for a la ter edit ion.

13- 27 - (3-9.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Lewis H. Zimmermann, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P87 RECOMMENDATION: Reword 3-9.2 to read:

3-9.2 An inspector's test, of the same nominal diameter as the smallest branchline section, with a smooth corrosion resistant o r i f i ce . . . . and be equipped with a shut o f f valve and brass plug of the same nominal size as the test pipe. SUBSTANTIATION: The TCR indicates "Accept in Pr inc ip le," hut the Committee did not accept the principal change, namely that the inspectors test may be the same diameter as the smallest branchline section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMEN~: There is nothing in the present wording to prohibi t the use of larger size pipe.

13- 51 - (3-9.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire ~ s s n . , Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P87 RECOMMENDATION: Revise last l ine to read:

" . . . . w i t h a I in. shut-of f valve and plug, at least one of which shall be brass, or a nipple and cap." SUBSTANTIATION: A cast- i ron plug should be permissible i f a brass valve is used. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 39 - (3-10.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Assn. COMMENT~N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P43 RECOMMENDATION: Reject the subject proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: The " c l a r i f i c a t i o n " provided in 3-10.2.2 is highly desirable since exist ing 3-10.2.1 does not c lear ly cover the subject of pipe exposed to the weather; in fact , i t could be interpreted that 3-I0.2,1 does not apply to "weather" si tuat ions since "moisture" lacks any specif ic def in i t ion . COMNITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 79 - (3-10.3.4 Exception No. 2): Hold for Further Study SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jensen& Assoc., ~nc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P52 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception No. 2. SUBSTANTIATION: I f pipe is run through gypsum wallboard where i t forms a part of rated assembly, any d i f f e ren t i a l movement between the wall and the pipe can cause the wallboard to f a i l . This w i l l v io la te the f i r e resistance rating of the wall . This may occur above membrane cei l ings where i t cannot be seen. I t is necessary to allow some clearance in such si tuat ions to prevent this type fa i l u re . Not only should the clearance be provided but a res i l i en t or mast ic- l ike material should be used to seal the clearance between the pipe and the hole. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The submitter's comment would introduce a concept that has not had public review. Also see Committee Action on Comment No. 63 on 3-I0.3.4(a) Exception No. 2.

13- 63 - (3- i0.3.4(a) Exception No. 2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas H. Mi l le r , All iance of American Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P52 RECOMMENDATION: Modify Exception No. 2 to read:

Exception No. 2: No clearance is required for piping passing through non-f i re resistance rated walls of gypsum board or equally f rangible construction. SUBSTANTIATION: Damage to f i r e resistance rated construction w i l l resul t i f clearance is not provided. I t is not r e a l i s t i c to believe that repairs w i l l be accomplished at each penetration fol lowing an earthquake. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read as fol lows: Exception No. 2: No clearance is necessary for piping passing

through gypsum board or equally f rangible construction, which is not required to have a f i re - res is tance rat ing. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee has e d i t o r i a l l y revised the submitter's wording and also deleted the word "walls" because in some cases the piping w i l l pass through building features other than walls.

13- 60 - (3-10.3.5.9): Reject SUBMITTER: Russell Flemina, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire ~ s s n . , Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P53 RECOMMENDATION: Accept or ig inal proposal with the fol lowing words added: " . . . . f o r pipe sizes up to and including 3 1/2 in." SUBSTANTIATION: Horizontal seismic design load is one-half the weight of wa te r - f i l l ed piping. This weight fo r 3 1/2 in. schedule 40 pipe is 6.74 I b / f t and for 3 i /2 in. schedule 10 pipe is 4.89 l h / f t . Since transverse braces are intended to be a maximum of 40 f t apart, the maximum design load on a gypsum board non-hearing par t i t i on from a 3 1/2 in. main would be about 270 lb. In determining the strength of a gypsum non-bearing par t i t i on , we can assume two 1/2 in. thick panels, or to ta l thickness of I in. I f we assume a bearing strength of 75 psi for the gypsum wall hoard, the table below shows that the horizontal load of the piping could be handled. Furthermore, i t can be assumed that studs within the par t i t i on would prevent excessive movement. The 3 I/2 in. maximum would provide a safety factor .

128

Approximate Total Bearing Load Strength of Over 40' 1" Thick-

One-Half WeiQht Length hess at Pipe of Water-Filled Between O.D. at 75 Size Schedule O . D . Piping/Ft Braces psi

1 40 1.315 in. 1.03 Ibs. 41.2 lbs. 98.62 lbs. I 10 0.91 36.4 2 40 2.375 2.57 102.8 178.1 2 10 2.11 84.4 3 40 3.50 5.41 216.4 262.5 3 10 3.97 158.8 3 I / 2 40 4.00 6.74 269.6 300.0 3 1/2 i0 4.89 195.6 4 40 4.50 8.20 328.0 337.5 4 10 5.89 235,6 6 40 6.625 15.85 634.0 446.9 6 10 11.52 460.8

The assumption of a 75 psi bearing strength is based on a reference in the lath Edition (1968) of the Kiddle-Parker Architect's and Builder's Handbook. The figure actually relates to the strength of gypsum partit ion t i le or block, now obsolete. Nevertheless, the 75 psi figure would approximate a weak mortar.

Strength values for gypsum wallboard are d i f f i cu l t to obtain, since these products are intended to be non-load bearing. Figures available from the US Gypsum Co. for shear loads which can be handled by moly and toggle bnlts in a 1/2 in. gypsum wallboard do, however, give some indication of strength:

Shear Resistance of i /2 in. Diameter of BoIt Gypsum Board

1/8 in. 40 Ib 3/16 in. 50 Ib 1/4 in. 60 Ib

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The submitter has not included substantiation for walls made of material other than gypsum. Also there are several assumptions made in the substantiation for bearing strength that have not had public review.

13- 67 (3-11.3.2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: L. R. Milam, Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P44 RECOMMENDATION: Revise "nipple and cap or brass plug" to read "plug (of dissimilar metal) or nipple and cap." SUBSTANTIATION: Granted, there may be listed valves of malleable iron construction and these require brass plugs. However, i f one uses brass valves, they should be able to use cast iron or malleable iron plugs. The standard should allow for this option. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to 'read as follows: 3-11.3.2.2 When capacity of trapped sections or pipe is more

than 5 gal. (18.9L), the aux i l i a r y drain shall consist of a valve not smaller than 3/4 in. in size and plug, at least one of which shal l be brass, or a nipple and cap. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has e d i t o r i a l l y revised the wording to be consistent with the Committee Action for No. 51 on 3-9.2.

13- 68 - (3-11.3.3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: L. R. Milam, Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P45 RECOMMENDATION: Revise "nipple and cap or brass plug" to read "plug (of dissimilar metal) or nipple and cap." SUBSTANTIATION: Granted, there may be listed valves of malleable iron construction and these require brass plugs. However, i f one uses brass valves, they should be able to use cast iron or malleable iron plugs. The standard should allow for this option. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read as follows: 3-11.3.3.1 When capacity of trapped sections of pipe is more

than 5 gal. (18.9L), the auxiliary drain shall consist of a valve not smaller than I/2 in. size and plug at least one of which shall be brass, or a nipple and cap. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has editor ial ly revised the wording to be consistent with the Committee Action for No. 51 on 3-9.2.

13- 43 - (3-11.3.3, 3-11.3.3.4 and 3-11.3.4 through 3-11,3.4.2 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: D. H. Featherstonhaugh, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler

COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P26 M~CUMMENDATION: Reject proposed new 3-11.3.3.4 and substitute:

3-11.3.4 Auxiliary Drains for Pre-action Systems, 3-11.3.4.1 When trapped sections of pipe are in areas subject

to freezing, auxiliary drains shall conform to 3-11.3.3.

3-11.3.4.2 When trapped sections of pipe are in areas not subject to freezing, auxiliary drains shall conform to 3-11.3.2, with a valve not smaller in size than 3/4 in. complete with nipple and cap or brass plug on each drain.

3-11.3.3 Delete "and pre-action" from t i t l e . SUBSTANTIATION: Pre-action systems should not be treated as wet systems with respect to drains, but should have a drain valve in all cases. In draining wet systems, the control valve is shut off before draining; this is not necessarily true in maintaining a pre-action system. In areas not subject to freezing i t is desireable that the low points be kept drained to prevent a water column which could prevent loss of supervisory air. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise as follows: 3-11.3.4 Auxiliary Drains for Pre-Action Systems. 3-11.3.4.1 When trapped sections of pipe are in areas subject

to freezing, auxiliary drains shall conform to 3-11.3.3. 3-11.3.4.2 When trapped sections of pipe are in areas not

subject to freezing, auxiliary drains shall consist of a I in. valve and plug, at least one of which shall be brass, or a nipple and cap.

Exception No. I : Auxiliary drains are not required for piping to a single sprinkler.

Exception No. 2: When the capacity of the trapped section of piping is 5 gal. (18.gL) or less, auxiliary drains shall consist of a 3/4 valve and plug, at least one of which shall be brass, or a nipple and cap may be used.

In 3-11.3.3 delete "and pre-action" from the t i t l e and in 3-11.3.3.3 delete "on dry-pipe or pro-action systems." COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has editor ial ly revised the wording to be consistent with the Committee Action for No. 51 on 3-9.2.

13- 44 - (Table 3-13.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: A. P. Scittine, Western Electric Co. ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P54 RECOMMENDATION: I . Change "Cast Iron Screwed Fittings" to "Cast Iron Threaded Fittings."

2. Change "Malleable Iron Screwed Fittings" to "Malleable Iron Threaded Fittings." SUBSTANTIATION: Correct other designations of ANSI standards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 53 - (3-14.2.7 and Figure A-3-14.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-308 RECOMMENDATION: The third diagram in the Figure should include a main control valve.

The proposed Figure should be expapded to include pre-action and deluge valve arrangements. SUBSTANTIATION: Refer to Section 3-14.2.1 of the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The submitter did not make any specific recommerdation. Also see Committee Action for Comment No. 17 on Figure A-3-14.2.

13- 57 - (3-15.1): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire ~ s s n . , Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-Pli RECOMMENDATION: Add a new f i r s t sentence to 3-15.1:

"Types of hangers and installation methods shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section 3-15."

Editorially, change "at the point of hanging" in Section 3-15.].2 and "at each point of piping support" in new Section 3-15.1.1, Exception 2(a) to both read "at each point of the piping."

Delete "f ive times" in new Section 3-15.1.1 Exception 2(a). SUBSTANTIATION: By deleting 3-15.1.3 and substituting the new wording in 3-15.1.1, the Committee would be permitting hangers and methods designed by a P.E. as opposed to using listed hangers, but would not be permitting exception to the remainder of 3-15, much of which is not performance-oriented. In effect, the Committee would be negating alternative methods which were allowed prior to this change.

The editorial change to both Section 3-15.1.2 and 3-15.1.1 Exception 2 (formerly Section 3-15.1.3 and the deletion of "f ive times" are proposed to clar i fy that:

i . The structure must he capable of holding the water-fil led pipe plus a load of 250 ]b placed anywhere on the piping.

2. The hangers and installation methods must also be capable of holding this weight.

To require an extra safety factor on the hangers and installation methods creates confusion and theoretically creates an identifiable "weakest l i s t . " Also, where does the structure stop and the installation method begin? With sprinkler protection desirable for new types of fabric construction and air-supported roofs, the Committee should attempt to simplify this section as much as possible and work toward performance requirements.

129

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. Add a new f i r s t sentence to 3-15.1 to read as fol lows: "Type of hangers and ins ta l l a t i on methods shall be in accordance

with the requirements of Section 3-15." COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that to change "at the point of hanging" to "at each point of hanging" is more than ed i to r ia l and should be subjected to public review. The same applies to the delet ion of " f i ve times" in 3-15.1.1 Exception 2(a). Exception 2(a) as wr i t ten correct ly specif ies the Committee intent ions.

13- 95 - (3-16.1): Reject SUBMITTER: J. R. Natale, Mobil Research and Development Corp. ]~-RF~ILq~r--~N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P39 RECOMMENDATION: Place Section 3-16.1 in the Appendix and designate as A-3-16. Renumber the remaining paragraphs in Section 3-16 appropr iately, and provide an asterisk af ter 3-16. SUBSTANTIATION: This material is explanatory and should be located in the Appendix rather than the tex t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

Put def in i t ions of spr inklers in alphabetical order to conform to the NFPA Manual of Style. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The use of de f in i t ions in the text is sanctioned by the NFPA Manual of Style and is needed in order to understand Section 3-16.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise to read as follows: Sidewall Sprinklers. Sprinklers having special deflectors which

are designed to discharge most of the water away from the nearby wall in a pattern resembling one quarter of a sphere, with a small portion of the discharge directed at the wall behind the sprinkler. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter but has expanded the wording.

13- 7 - (3-16.1(i)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: D, B. Grant, Insurers' Advisory Organization CDMMENT DN PROPOSAL ND.: 13-P39 RECOMMENDATION: Change to read:

( i ) Dry Upright Sprinklers. Sprinklers for use in an upright position on a wet pipe system to extend into an unheated area with the seal in a heated area. SUBSTANTIATION: Ordinary upright sprinklers are all that are required in an upright position on a dry pipe system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise as follows: " ( i ) Dry Upright Sprinklers. Sprinklers which are designed to

be installed in an upright position, on a wet pipe system to extend into an unheated area with a seal in a heated area." COMMITTEE COMMENT: The revised wording should sat isfy the submitter's intent.

13- 23 - (3-16.1(a)) : Accept in Pr incip le SUBMITTER: Lewis H. Zimmermann, Natinnal Automatic Sprinkler & ~ r o l Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P39 RECOMMENDATION: Change the proposed wording to read:

Ca) Upright Sprinklers. Sprinklers designed to be used in such a way that the water stream must be directed upwards against the def lector . SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed language does not make i t clear that the water stream must be directed upward in an upright spr ink ler . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr incip le.

Change to read as fol lows: "(a) Upright Sprinklers. Sprinklers designed to be insta l led

in such a way that the water spray is directed upwards against the de f lec to r . " COMMITTEE COMMENT: The revised wording should sa t i s fy the submitter 's in tent .

13- 8 - (3-16.1(o) (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: D. B, Grant, Insurers' Advisory Organization ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-39 RECOMMENDATION: Under 3-16.1 "Committee Action" add a new subsection (o):

(o) Residential Sprinklers, Sprinklers which have been spec i f i ca l l y l i s ted for use in res ident ia l occupancies. SUBSTANTIATION: There is a need to include a de f in i t i on of these new spr inklers for completeness, Also, they are referred to elsewhere in the tex t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 24 - (3-16.1(b)): Accept in Principle. SUBMITTER: Lewis H. Zimmermann, National Automatic Sprinkler & ~ r o ] Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P39 RECOMMENDATION: Change the proposed wording to read:

{bl Pendent Sprinklers. Sprinklers designed to be used in such a way that the water stream must be directed downwards against the deflector, SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed wording does not make i t clear that the water must be directed downward in a pendent sprinkler. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise as fol lows: "(b) Pendent Sprinklers. Sprinklers designed to be ins ta l led in

such a way that the water stream is directed downward against the deflector." COMMITTEE COMMENT: The revised wording should satisfy the submitter's intent.

13- 80 - (3-16.1(c) ) : Accept in Pr inc ip le SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jensen& Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P39 RECOMMENDATION: Revise second sentence to read:

"Sprinklers with d i rect ional discharge pat terns." SUBSTANTIATION: A descript ion of the discharge as a hal f paraboloid is not correct. Approximately 60 percent of the water w i l l be discharged outward into the room in a ha l f paraboloid pattern while 40 percent w i l l be discharged down the back wall. The UL Bul le t in of Research published in the 1940's i l l us t ra tes th is .

13- 25 - (3-16.1(n)) : Accept in Pr inc ip le SUBMITTEP: Lewis H. Zimmermann, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P39 RECOMMENDATION: Change the proposed wording to read:

(n) Old Style Sprinklers. Sprinklers designed to be insta l led with the def lector ei ther upright or pendent. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed language does not indicate that the old sty le spr inkler can be insta l led in e i ther an upright or pendent posi t ion, as contrasted with newer type spr inklers which can be insta l led in only one posi t ion or the other depending on def lector design. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr incip le.

Revise to read as fol lows: "Old Style Sprinklers. Sprinklers which di rect only from 40 to

60 percent of the to ta l water i n i t i a l l y in a downward di rect ion and which are designed to be insta l led with the def lector e i ther upright or pendent," COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter but has expanded the wording.

13- 81 - (3-16.2.1 Exception): Accept in Pr inc ip le SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jonson & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPnSAL NO.: 13-P3g RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Exception to read:

Exception: When construct ior features or other special s i tuat ions require unusual water d is t r ibu t ion , l i s ted sprinklers may be insta l led in other posit ions than ant ic ipated by the i r l i s t i n g to achieve specif ic resul ts . SUBSTANTIATIDN: The Exception is unclear as wr i t ten. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr incip le.

Revise 3-16.2.1 to read as fol lows: 3-16.2.1 Only l is ted spr inklers shall be used and shall be

insta l led in accordance with the i r l i s t i ng . Exception: When construction features or other special

s i tuat ions require unusual water d is t r ibu t ion , l i s ted spr inklers may be insta l led in other posit ions than ant ic ipated by the i r l i s t i ng to achieve speci f ic resul ts .

Add a new 3-16.2,2 to read as fol lows: 3-16.2.2 Sprinklers shall not be altered in any respect or have

any type of ornamentation or coating applied af ter shipment from the place of manufacture.

Renumber 3-16.2.2 through 3-16.2.6 as 3-16.2.3 through 3-16.2.7. COM~ITTEE COMMENT: The Committee has accepted the submitter's recommendation and has revised i t for edi tor ia l c lar i ty .

13- 82 - (3-16.2.3 Exception No. 3 (New)): Accept in Pr incip le SUBMITTER: Rol l Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rol l Jensen& Assoc.,

COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P39 RECOMMENDATION: Add to proposed 3-16.2.3 the fo l lowing:

Exception No. 3: Listed old type automatic spr inklers may be used when construction features or other special s i tuat ions require unioue water d is t r ibu t ion . SUBSTANTIATION: No rat ionale is presented for r es t r i c t i ng the use of old sty le spr inklers. There are appl icat ions where they are sui table.

130

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add to 3-16.2.3 an exception to read as fol lows: "Exception No. 3: L sted old style sprinklers may be used when

construction features or other special situations require unique water d is t r ibu t ion . " COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee has changed "old type" to "old style" which is---used to describe sprinklers made previous to 1953 which directed approxinately half of the water downward and the other half upward.

13- 83 - (3-16.2.5 through 3-16,5.3): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Rolf Jense'~ or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jensen& Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-PIO0 RECOMMENDATION: Renumber Section 3-16.2,5 to 3-16.5.2 and modify 3-16.5.3 of P39 to agree with wording proposed by Committee for PIO0. SUBSTANTIATION: Action on P39 requires renumhering the section proposed in PIO0. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add a new section to read as fol lows: A-3-16.5.2 Small o r i f i c e sprinklers should not be used as a

substitute for standard I /2 in. and large o r i f i c e sprinklers te take advantage of avai lable high water pressure.

In Table 3-16.5 place a subscript "2" at the column heading "Nominal Or i f ice Size." Beneath the Table add Note 2 to read:

"See A-3-16,5.2." COMMITTEE COMMENT: Tie proposed changes should sat is fy the submltter's intent.

13- 52 - (3-16.2.11): Accept SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire ~-n't-roT"--#ssn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-PI01 RECOMMENDATION: Substitute "nonmetallic" fo r "p las t i c . " SUBSTANTIATION: Unlisted escutcheons of nonmetallic materials other than pl'astics c~uld also present problems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 21 - (Table 3-16.B): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James G. Retz lo f f , The Viking Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P117 RECOMMENDATION: The ~ejection of Proposal 13-PI17 which cal ls for the recognition of extra- large o r i f i ce sprinklers in Tahle 3-16.5 of NFPA 13 is without forethought or merit. SUBSTANTIATION: AdeeJate test data has been submitted to the Chapter 3 Subcommittee to j u s t i f y the inclusion of the new o r i f i c e size in Table 3-16,5. I t is a simple engineering fact that the high densities required to control f i res in high hazard commodities mandates the use of larger o r i f i ces in sprinklers to provide proper flow at reasonable supply pressures.

Limitations on presently approved devices in rpgard to spacing and pressure should have no bearing on the Chapter 3 Subcommittee recognizing a need for improved spr inkler protection. The actual facts are the current ly l is ted extra- large o r i f i ce spr inkler is the only spr inkler which ~as passed the ULI Standard Fire Tests at spacings exceeding 100 f t L and the s~rinkler has met d is t r ibu t ion requirements fo r 130 f t spacing.

I t can also be said that this data is not available for standard and large o r i f i ce sprinklers now acknowledaed in Table 3-16.5.

Again, flammable l iquid f i r e test data should have no bearing on the Chapter 3 Subcommittee recognizing a need for improved sprinkler protection. The current ly l is ted extra- large o r i f i ce spr inkler has met UL] requirements for temperature control in the Standard Wood Crib Fire Test which is the only current accepted method of measuring e spr ink ler 's capabi l i ty to handle flammable l iqu id f i r es . Tests conducted at Factory Mutual Research, the results of which are propr ietary, on flammable l iquid hazards such as rack storage of small containers and storage of aerosol containers would show the current ly approved extra- large o r i f i c e spr inkler is superior to any other spr inkler previously tested.

I would suggest that the Chapter 3 Subcommittee of Standard 13 Sprinkler Committee has insu f f i c ien t data not to accept the addition of the new o r i f i ce size to Table 3-16.5. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add a new entry to Table 3-16.5 to read from l e f t to r ight as fo l lows:

5/8, Extra Large, 10.6-11.4, 200, 1/2 in. NPT or 3/4 in. NPT, yes and yes.

Renumber the Exception to 3-I6.5.1 as Exception No. I and add a new exception to read as fol lows:

Exception No. 2: ~ome sprinklers may have special res t r i c t ions associated with thei - l i s t i ng or use. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that by adding this exception to 3-16.5.1, the inclusion of data on extra large o r i f i ce sprinklers in the table is j u s t i f i e d by cal l ing attention to any special res t r i c t ions which might be associated with the i r l i s t i ng or use.

13- 84 - (Table 3-16.5): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rol l Jensen& Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-Pl17 RECOMMENDATION: Include the provisions suggested in the recommendation for extra large o r i f i ce sprinklers~ Table 3-16.5. SUBSTANTIATION: Such sprinklers are permitted under the present standard by 3-16.2.6 and in this draf t by 3-16.5.3. The proposal merely describes what is available and points out that i t is UL/FM l is ted. This should he included in the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inciple. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for Comment No. 21 on Exception No. 2 to 3-16.5.1.

13- 11 - (3-16.6.1): Accept SUBMITTER: D. B. Grant, Insurers' Advisory Organization

ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P39 RECOMMENDATION: In f i r s t l ine, fourth word shoulJ be " rat ings." SUBSTANTIATION: Edi tor ia l . COMMTTTEE ACTION: Aceppt.

13- 85 - (3-16.6.1 Exception No. 2): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Roll Jensen& Assoc., The. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P39 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the parenthetical second sentence to Exception No, 2. SUBSTANTIATION: The parenthetical sentence should not be a part of the proposed wording for Exception No. 2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Princip le. COMMITTFE COMMENT: The parenthetical phrase is an instruct ion to Standards and Text Processina to add an additional column to Table 3-16.6.1 ent i t led "Glass Bulb Colors."

13- 71 - (3-17.6.2): Accept in Pr inc ip le SUBMITTEP: Lewis H. Zimmermann, National Automalic Sprinkler & ~ r o l Assn., Inc. CONNENT ON PROPOSAL Nn.: 13-Pal RECOMMENDATION: Delete the last sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: Specif ication of open or closed c i r cu i t devices should be the respons ib i l i ty of NFPA 72A and not NFPA 13. I f NFPA 72A revises i ts requirements, an immediate con f l i c t is created between the two standards, and i t does not seem appropriate fo r NFPA 13 to address thp subject one way or the other. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete the proposed exception and revise 3-17.6.2 to read as fol lows:

3-17.6,2 The c i rcu i ts of e lec t r ica l alarm attachments forming part of a local sprinkler water f low alarm system need not be supervised.

Exception: I f the local sprinkler water f low alarm system is part of a required local f i r e alarm system i t shall be insta l led in accordance with NFPA 72A, Standard for Local Protective Signaling Systems. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The standard has never required the supervision of local sprinkler water flnw alarm systems and this e d i t o r i a l l y c l a r i f i e s this section.

13- 15 - (4-1.1.5 and A-4-1.1.5): Accept SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Crganization COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P38 PECOMMENDATION: Revise 4-1.1.5:

" . . . . specified in 4-3 provided that fnr the condition of occupancy protected, tests or calculat ions show . . . . "

Add a second sentence to A-4-I.1.5: "Conditions of occupancy such as heiaht of storage, building or

equipment configurations, obstructions, ete. which may af fect spr inkler sens i t i v i t y should also be considered in evaluating both tests and calculat ions." SUBSTANTIATION: The Submitters's excellent substantiation re l ied heavi ly on " f l oo r to ce i l ing" tests with no obstructions to the ver t ica l t ravel of the hot gas plume. I am f rankly skeptical that these tests would be equally val id in the context of high pi led storage par t i cu la r l y , where the hot gas plume may be ei ther channeled v e r t i c a l l y or obstructed. Other occupancy considerations may have simi lar ef fects and should be included in any evaluation of spr inkler response. COPMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

131

13- 28 - (4-1.3.8): Accept SUBMITTER: Jack Thacker, National Automatic Sprinkler Assn. ~7(~M-MiL~NI~-'~N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-404 PECOMMENDATION: Hold for fur ther study. SUBSTANTIATION: This section states that in composite wood j o i s t construction at a thickness of less than 2 in. normal thickness, that sprinklers shall be positioned within the j o i s t channel. We f rank ly feel that further study needs to take place or an amendment should be made to indicate the maximum spacing and depth of the composite j o i s t where sprinklers would not he required,

I t is also noted that exception is taken to Section 4-4.4.2 which would also require sprinklers within the channels when a cei l ing is attached d i rec t l y to the bottom of the j o i s t . There is a tremendous amount of square footage being constructed with a i r conditioning plenums where noncombustible gypboard is placed d i rec t l y to the underside of the composite wood j o i s t with the main cei l ing then suspended several feet below this qypboard. This new rule would require sprinklers above the gypboard and below the suspended cei l ing with no protectien within the plenum space where the e lec t r i c wir ing, l ight f i x tures and communication cables are being placed where f i r e igni t ion would probably take place and spread unobstructed.

I t is our feel ing that this ent i re section basical ly w i l l probably eliminate solid composite wood j o i s t construction and replace them with the combustible open web type, which in our opinion, would then create a greater open area for which the f i r e would p ro l i fe ra te .

I t should be noted that this new section w i l l impact not only the Composite Wood Joist Industry, but i t w i l l af fect the building and f i r e sprinkler system costs.

We highly recommend that this new section be reiected for further study. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action on Comment No. 96 on 4-1.3.8, 4-3.6, 4-4.4.2 and a-a.21*.

13- 86 - (4-1.3.8): Accept SUBMITTER: Rolf Jansen or Peter Yurkonls, Pelf Jensen& Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO. : 13-404 RECOMMENDATION: Reject and return to Committee for further consideration. SUBSTANTIATION: The description proposed for composite wood jo is ts is not complete. Variations such as height of j o i s ts , thickness and width of flanges, thickness and type of material in the web have not been adequately considered. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. ~'OMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action on Comment No. 46 nn ~-1.3.B, 4-3.6, 4-4.4.2 and 4-4.21".

13- 96 - (a-1.3.8, 4-3.6, 4-4.4.2 and 4-a.21*): Accept SUBMITTER: Joseph R. Piscione, Trus Joist Corp. ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-404 RECOMMENDATION: Return to Subcommittee for Further Study. SUBSTANTIATION: We have not had ample time to study the proposal as i t was just brought to our attention. I would l ike to explore how in the future we can be advised of proposed revisions at time of inception.

A br ie f review of the proposal reveals that no d i f f e ren t ia t i on has been made between Smooth Ceil ina (d i rect applied gypsum board cei l ing) and Open Composit~ Wood Joist Construction. I t may be inferred that the proposal i~ in fact with refernnce to Open Composite Wood Joist Construction.

The product and i ts aBplication are not c lear ly defined. The basis of the proposal is not clear. We would l i ke the

opportunity to discuss the basis and i f possible, to assist in further evaluation. We would consl@er supporting a ~ppcial t~st program i f required. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee w i l l hold this item for better documentation of i ts proposal.

13- 3 - (4-2.1.4): Hold for Further Study SUBMITTER: Joseph W. Levesque, Brookhaven National Lab. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: N/A PLCUMMEN[)AIIUN: Prior to the last sentence addressinq Exceptions to small rooms, add:

"The minimum distance from the wall to a sprinkler head should not he less than 4 in." SUBSTANTIATION: Guidance is needed for the placement of standard sprinklers ( i .e . non-sidewall heads) in re lat ion to the i r horizontal proximity to walls. Dead air spaces in corners can ef fect a spr ink ler 's operation time. The minimum clearance for sidewall heads was used (NFPA 13, 4-5.4). A recent ins ta l la t ion in a 300 f t lena hy 9 f t wide corr idor caused this concern when the sprinklers were located only 1 in. n f f the wal l . COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COPMENT: The submitter's comment would intrnduce a concept that has not had public review,

13- 26 - (4-2.5.2(b]~: Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Lewis H. Zimmermann, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-403 RECOMMENDATION: Change Figure 4-2.5.2(b) to indicate clearance requirements simi lar to Figure 4-2.5.2(a). SUBSTANTIATION: NBS Report NBSIR 80-2097 was not avai lable for review, and i t does not seem logical that there should not be some correlat ion between the heiqht of privacy curtain, and the horizontal distance to the sidewall sprinkler shown. Should not Figure 4-2.5.2(b) refer to "maximum" height rather than "minimum." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action on Comment No. 54 on 4-2.5.2 and Figure 4-2.5.2(h).

13- 54 - (4-2.5.2 and Figure 4-2.5.2(b)) : Accept SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL Nn.: 13-403 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "pendent and upright" from f i r s t sentence of proposed 4-2.5.2.

Delete ent i re second sentence of 4-2.5.2. Delete Figure 4-2.5.2(b) and renumber Figure 4-2.5.2(a) as

Figure 4-2.5.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposal for no ver t ica l clear space below a horizontal sidewall spr inkler is based on a test of only nee model (see NBS Report NBSIR 80-2097). Too much var iat ion between manufacturers' models could exist to j u s t i f y this. The proposed c r i t e r i a for pendent and upright sprinklers should also be applied to sidewall sprinklers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- I0 - (4-2.5.2" and Figure 4-2.5.2(b)) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: D. B. Grant, Insurers' Advisory Organization COMMENT DN PROPOSAL NO.: 13-403 RECOMMENDATION: In Section 4-2.5.2* delete reference to sidewall sprinklers or provide a distance l imi ta t ion consistant with the test data.

Figure 4- i .5.2(b) shoula be deleted or a maximum Horizontal Distance consistent with test data should be shown. SUBSTANTIATION: I am unable to f ind j u s t i f i c a t i o n in the Lest data for sidewall sprinklers providing adequate coverage at thei r f u l l permitted throw (15 f t ) when located at same height as top of privacy curtain or other simi lar obstruction.

Spray patterns of sidewall sprinklers show a eonsiderahle f a l l - o f f from horizontal as throw distances increase. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action on Comment No. 54 on 4-2.5.2 and Fiaure 4-2.5.2(b).

13- 40 - CFigure 4-2.5.2(b)): Accept SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Linpenfelter, American Insurance Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-403 RECOMMENDATION: ~ the room divider label to read:

"Maximum" instead of "Minimum." SUBSTANTIATION: This change w i l l correct the Fioure sn that i t i l l us t ra tes that the tnp of the room divider should not extend ahove the level of the sidewall spr inkler, i , e . , so the FiQure i l l us t ra tes the maximum, not the minimum, height. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Action on Comment No. 54 om 4-2.5.2 and Fiqure 4-2.5.?.(b] .

]3- 64 - (4-4.4.2(d)) : Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas H. Mi l le r , Al l iance of American Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-401 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

(d) When the exposed surfaces are of materials conforming to the requirements for limited-combustible construction materials as defined in NFPA 220, Types of Building Construction. SUBSTANTIATION: This wording better c l a r i f i e s the Con~nittee's intent to permit the use of f i r e retardant treated wood or s imi lar materials in concealed spaces without sprinkler protection. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The submitter's wording would exclude f i r e retardant treated wood (which has a potential heat value in excess of 3500 BTU per pound). The Committee intent is to permit omission of sprinklers in concealed spaces formed by f i r e retardant treated wood. NFPA 220 has the requirement that the heat content of the wood should not exceed 3500 BTU per pound. tee Committee Action for Comment No. 87 on 4-4.4.2(d).

132

13- 87 - (4-4.4.2(d)) : Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jensen& Assoc., nI-EET. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-401 RECOMMENDATION: Return to Committee. SUBSTANTIATION: There are a number of factors which have not been considered and should ~)e made a part of this proposal. Flame spread is not the only consideration that should be given when determining when sprin<lers should be instal led in concealed spaces. Such other fa=tors as Btu content of construction material and f i r e retardant treated lumber which has been l is ted are other considerations. A l im i ta t ion could be placed upon Btu content per square foot horizontal concealed space. An example is: a paper facing of insulation material or other sheathing materials. Sprinkler protection in concealed spaces should not be required when combustible construction materials have been treated with f i r e retardant material and l is ted, or when the Btu content does not exceed 1000 Btu per sq f t of paper facing on insulat ion or other sheathing material .

We believe that further s ign i f icant study should be given to this matter. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inciple.

Revise to read as fe l lows: "(d) When the exposed surfaces have a flame sprpad rat ing less

than 25 and the materials have been demonstrated not to propogate f i r e in the form in which they are insta l led in the space nr when the BTU content of the facing and substrate of insulation material does not exceed 1000 I;TU per sq f t (11356 kJ/m2). COMMITTEE COMMENT: The revised wording should sa t is fy the suhmitter's intent.

13- 61 - (4-4.B.1,1): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire C o ~ s s n . , Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 13-P2] RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as fol lows:

4 -4 .8 . I . i In ver t i=a l shafts having combustible sides, a spr inkler shall be pr3vided at the top and additional sprinklers shall be provided for each 1000 sq f t of combustible surface. Each sprinkler shall ~rotect a maximum cross-sectional area of 200 sq f t and a maximum ver t ica l height of 50 i t . Sprinklers shall be insta l led below al l obstructions over 4 f t wide and those obstructing more than 25 percent of the shaft cross-sectional area at any point,

In noncombustible ver t ica l shafts, a sprinkler shall be provided at the top and a spr inkler shall be provided within 25 f t of the bottom. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed revision P21 would s t i l l not address a l l problems of the section, including interpretat ion of traps. Also, 200 sq f t is over ly severe. Refer to Mr. Jensen's negative ba l lo t and commentary (commentary submitted to Committee) of a f i e l d problem.

Also, a spr inkler is needed toward the bottom of a noncombustible shaft to handle any storage or, in the case of elevators, possible o i l f i r es . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: .See Committee Action on Comment No. 88 on 4-4.8.1.1.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise as fol lows: 4-4.8.1.1 One spr inkler shall be insta l led at the top of a l l

shafts. 4-4.8.1,2" When ver t ica l shafts have combustible sides, one

spr inkler shall be insta l led at each alternate f l oo r level . When a shaft having combustible sides is trapped, an additional sprinkler shall be instal led at the top of each trapped section.

4-4.8.1.3 When accessible shafts have noncombustible surfaces, one spr inkler shall be insta l led near the bottom.

A-4.4.8.1.2 When practicable, sprinklers should be "staggered" at the alternate f l oo r levels, pa r t i cu la r l y when only one sprinkler is instal led at each f l oo r level . COMMITTEE COMMENT: The revised wording removes some redundancy in the submitter's proposal and incorporates the solution to the problem of "envelope" construction contained in public Comment No. 61 on 4-4.8.1.1.

13- 13 - (4-4.8.2.4 Exception): Reject SUBMITTER: T. G. Cnllinge, Insurers' Advisory Organization COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-04 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Exception:

Exception: Larqe openings not exceedinq three f loor levels, such as are found-in shopping malls, open atrium buildings or s imi lar structures, where the ent i re building is protected throughout by a system of automatic sprinklers instal led in accordance with this standard (see also NFPA i01, LIFE SAFETY CODE®).

Add "NFPA 101, LIFE SAFETY CODE" in Appendix D-I-1. SUBSTANTIATION: As wr i t ten the proposed Exception appears to con f l i c t with the intent of NFPA I01 in that no beight l imi ts are indicated for unenclosed openings, and there is no requirement fo r the building to be f u l l y sprinklered. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: This standard does net address height and area l im i ta t ions . Also see the Committee Action on Comment No. 59 on a-4.8.2.4 Exception.

]3- 59 - {4-4.8.2.4 Exception): Peject SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-04 PECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception to read as fol lows:

Exception: Floor openings 1,000 sq f t or larger in area for which no horizontal dimension between opposite edges of the f l oo r opening is less than 20 i t , when a l l adjoining levels and spaces are protected with automatic sprinklers in accordance with this standard. SUBSTANTIATION: More qua l i ta t i ve guidance is needed by designers. This def ins i t ion matches that found in the requirements for atriums in NFPA 101-1981, LIFE SAFETY CODE (Section 6-2,2.3.1, Exception 2(a)). rOMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The proposed wordina would be contrary to the Committee's intent to exempt atriums and shopping malls from being covered in 4-4.8.2,4,

13- 88 - (4-4.8.1.1 through 4-4.8.1.3 and Appendix): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jonson & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P21 RECOMMENDATION: R e v ~ to read:

4-4.8.1.1 One spr inkler sha~l be instal led at the top of a l l shafts.

4-4.8.1.2 When vert ical shafts have combustible sides, one spr inkler shall be instal led at each alternate f loor level. When a shaft having combustible surfaces is trapped, an additional spr inkler shall be instal led at the top of each trap section.

4-4.8.1.3 When accessible shafts have noncombustible surfaces, one sprinkler shall be insta l led near the bottom.

Renumber Section 4-4.8.1.2 as 4-4.8.1.4. Add Appendix material which picks up paragraphs 4309(2) and

4309(3) of the 1972 Edition of NFPA 13 as fol lows: 4309(2) Where oracticable, sprinklers shall be "staegered" at

the alternate f l oo r levels, pa r t i cu la r l y when only one spr inkler is insta l led at each f loo r level .

4309(3) Where ver t ica l openings are not protected by standard enclosures, sprinklers should be so placed as to f u l l y cover them. This necessitates placing sprinklers close to such openings at each f loo r level . SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed change does not add to or r e c t i f y the wording presently in the standard. This wording has been in the standard since about 1972 and i t is our recommendation that the at t r ibutes of the 1972 wording be augmented as recommended.

13- 41 - (4-4.21): Accept SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Assn. ~FMEI~T--~N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P67 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the proposed new 4-4.21, sentence one, to read:

"Sprinklers shall be instal led under the roof at the ce i l ing, in spaces under the staqe ei ther containing combustible materials or constructed of combustible materials; in al l adjacent spaces and . . . . " SUBSTANTIATION: The subject concealed spaces are not s ign i f i can t l y d i f fe rent from cei l ing spaces or 3ther concealed spaces. The word "usable" is not defined. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 89 - (4-4.21 and a-4.22): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rol l Jensen& Assoc.,

COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P67 RECOMMENDATION: Return to Committee for fur ther study. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposed wording does not adequately address the question of protecting props on stage l i f t s and mult iple level stage l i f t s . COMNITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete the second sentence. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has deleted the material concerning the openings in stage f l oo r for stage l i f t s , trap doors or sta i rs.

133

13- 58 - (4-4.22): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire ~ s s n . , Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P67 RECOMMENDATION: Replace "open standard sprinklers" with "open pendent sprinklers." SUBSTANTIATION: Need to conform to Section 3-16 of the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Replace "open standard sprinklers" with "open sprinklers." COMMITTEE COMMENT: The revised wording should satisfy the submitter's intent and is not restrictive.

13- 72 - (4-5.2.2 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: D. H. Featherstonhaugh, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Co., COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-POI RECOMMENDATION: Revise Committee Action to:

Exception: Noncombustible smooth cei l ing spacing is permitted beneath a noncombustible smooth cei l ing attached d i rec t l y to the underside of a combustible sprinklered concealed space. SUBSTANTIATION: The Submitter of the proposal was t ry ing to correct an apparent contradict ion between the standard and a Formal Interpretat ion. The interpretat ion addressed the Question of gypsum board sheathing below a combustible truss ( in which sprinklers would be required) and the interpretat ion equates this to noncombustible. This should not be extended to a l l combustible construction. The question of ce i l ing surface material is not relevant provided i t is smooth. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee intends to study the ent i re subject of "smoot-h" cei l ings fur ther.

13- 73 - (4-5.3.2 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: D. H. Featherstonhaugh, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Co., Ltd. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P02 #-ECOMMENDATION: Revis--e Committee Action to:

Exception: Noncombustible smooth cei l ing spacing is permitted beneath a noncombustible smooth ce i l ing attached d i rec t l y to the underside of a combustible sprinklered concealed space. SUBSTANTIATION: The Submitter of the proposal was t ry inq to correct an apparent contradiction between the standard and a Formal Interpretation. The interpretation addressed the question of gypsum board sheathing below a combustible truss (in which sprinklers would be required) and the interpretation equates this to noncombustible. This should not be extended to all combustible construction. The question of ceiling surface material is not relevant provided i t is smooth. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee intends to study the entire subject of "smooth" ceilings further.

13- 55 - (5-2.7.3): Hold fo r Further Study SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Assn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P68 RECOMMENDATION: Object of this proposal can be accomplished by revising the f i r s t sentence of Section 5-2.7.6 to read as fol lows:

"When a dry-pipe system is supplied by an automatic a i r compressor or plant a i r system, a l is ted a i r maintenance device shall be provided." SUBSTANTIATION: Listed a i r maintenance devices must be provided to ensure that air w i l l not be maintained at a rate that would prevent the dry valve from opening even though a sprinkler had actuated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The submitter's comment would introduce a concept that has not had public review.

13- 42 - (5-2.7.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Assn. ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P15 RECOMMENDATION: Reject the subject proposal. SUBSTANTIATION: As revised 5-2.7.7 would place rel iance solely on the manufacturer's instruct ions. Since the manufacturers do not know the expected water pressure of the system supply, they cannot always indicate the a i r pressure in thei r instruct ion sheet. In addit ion, such instruct ions w i l l not always be avai lable, and the exist ing wording does not prohibi t using the manufacturer's instruct ions.

The second sentence of the Committee's Substantiation is incorrect as stated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 65 - 15-2.7.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas H. Mi l le r , Al l iance of American Insurers COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P15 RECOMMENDATION: The paragraph wording for 5-2.7.7 should remain as printed in the 1980 Edition. SUBSTANTIATION: Manufacturer's instructisons are rare ly available at dry-pipe valve locations. Therefore, general guidance is needed for determining air pressure settings that are both reasonable and would not result in a valve t r ip due to a water hammer on the supply side. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 91 - (5-3.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Roll Jansen or Peter Yurkonis, Roll Jensen& Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-405 RECOMMENDATION: Include a statement at the end of this section "Refer also to NFPA 72E." SUBSTANTIATION: Reference to 72E is needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add to 5-3.4 the fol lowing: "(See NFPA 72E Standard for Automatic Fire Detectors)" and in

D-I- I add a reference to NFPA 72E with the proper date. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The submitter's wording has been revised to comply with the Manual of Style.

13- 46 - (5-5 and 5-5.3): Accept SUBMITTER: A. P. Sci t t ine, Western Electr ic Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-Editor ial RECOMMENDATION: Do not add a hyphen between "ant i " and "freeze." The spell ing is presently correct and is the same as the spell ing of "ant i freeze" in the paragraphs and tables which are not being changed. SUBSTANTIATION: Ed i to r ia l . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 92 - (5-6.1.2.3 and 5-6.1.12(a)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jensen& Assoc.,

COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 13-PI08 PECOMMENDATION: Return to Subcommittee for further study. SUBSTANTIATION: This change makes impractical the ent i re purpose of Section 5-6.1. The combined systems that have been instal led to date a r e arranged so that i f a nonsprinkler component f a i l s , the protection character ist ics w i l l not be affected. For example, luminaries in the SSA Systems were fed through the res t r i c t ion f i t t i n g s , which should be a requirement of the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inciple.

Retain proposed change to 5-6.1.2.1 as in the Technical Committee Report and renumber 5-6.1.2.1 through 5-6.1.2.5 as 5-6.1.2.2 through 5-6.1.2.6.

13- 90 - (5-2.7.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jensen& Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-501 RECOMMENDATION: This is a maintenance or operating instruct ion and belongs in 13A, 13E, or the Appendix.

Delete and put in the Appendix or 13A or 13E. I f so, see 5-2.7.5. SUBSTANTIATION: This is a maintenance or operating instruct ion ~ d should be a part of 13A. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that guidance on the shut-of f valve Tn the a i r f i l l i n g connection should remain in the standard.

13- 1 - (Table 7-4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: J. Sam Sl icer, W. Chatham, MA ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-114 RECOMMENDATION: The proposed addition to Table 7-4.2 should be deleted because i t is a rb i t ra ry , capricious and without basis in fact . SUBSTANTIATION: I . The action infers that there is an accuracy in the hydraulic calculations for sprinkler systems that does not exist . The losses in the pipe make up a very great part of the tota l loss allowed i r the calculat ions. I f you changed the ASSUMED "C" factor by 1.0 percent you would make more change than normally is allowed for al l of the f i t t i n g s . NO ONE knows what the ACTUAL "C" value w i l l be for the pipe at time of f i r e . Thus to a r h i t r a r i l y add 2 f t of equivalent pipe length for each ro l led groove coupling is "g i ld ing the l i l y . "

2. The Factory Mutual Report No. FMRC J . l . OF3G3.CP used to substantiate Committee Action presents data that is completely inconsistent with accepted hydraulic theory. The losses in the length of 2, 2 I /2, and 3 in. pipes do not fo l low the 1.85 slope of the W&H formula.

134

3. The method of testing used in this report leads to experimental error. This is borne out by the inconsistent values of "Fric Loss Across Conn." in Tables 1 through 4. In some cases this column indicates an actual gain in pressure which is physically impossible.

4. In this report the Fr/F l ratio for any one pipe diameter follows no consistent pattern as the flow (velocity) increases. I f the losses in the couplings were a function of "equivalent pipe length" these values would follow a consistent pattern as flow increases. The fact that they do not is consistent with data obtained from a much larger series of tests done in 1962 and 1964 for the Corps of Engineers (Factory Mutual Serial Nos. 14340 and 15229).

5. I f the Committee desires to reflect accurately the losses that occur in f i t t ings in a sprinkler system when rolled grooved f i t t ings are used then accurate hydraulic measurements of these losses should be made. The public should not be misled into thinking that an arbitrary decision by this committee represents fact. They now are being misled by thinking that the assumed values of "C" factor are the actual ones when they represent only a "close approximation" of what might actually occur at time of f i re.

6. "The Fr/F l Ratio" in Tables 5 through 8 (dealing with threaded f i t t ings) in this report further prove the inaccuracy of this test method because they indicate a pressure gain across the f i t t i ng .

7. In this report the losses in the 4 in. size given in Table 4 are dismissed without explanation. While not consistent, might not these higher values represent more nearly the actual losses in grooved couplings?

8. The Committee should also review my letter to the Chairman dated 30 August 1981 for further comments regarding the test method used to obtain the data in this report.

I f the Committee feels that i t must make some change in Table 7-4.2, i t should mark such a change as temporary until accurate and complete data for all f i t t ings can be obtained. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee intends to study this subject further.

13- 31 - (Table 7-4.2*): Accept SUBMITTER: S. R. Hoover, Kemper Group/Alliance of American n s u ~ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P114 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the change to Table 7-4.2, Section 7-4.2.4, Section A-7-4.2, and the Exception to 7-4.3.1.4(b). SUBSTANTIATION: Including these f i t t ings in Table 7-4.2 with equivalent lengths of 1 and 2 f t implies accuracy that is unfounded.

While the Committee understands the limitations of the Table and of the "Convenience Number," known as equivalent length, many users do not and will accept the Table "as is" and assume a higher degree of accuracy then can be technically supported. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMII-FEE COMMENT: The Committee intends to study the subject further.

13- 56 - (Table 7-4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire ~o-nTr'o~r-~ssn., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P114 RECOMMENDATION: Hold this proposal for further study. SUBSTANTIATION: The test data from the referenced report does not appear consistent. Also, the tests are based on velocities believed to be in excess of those commonly used. This proposal should be held for fur ther study un t i l addi t ional test work can be conducted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee intends to study the subject fu r ther .

13- 62 - (Table 7-4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Lawrence W. Thau, Jr., Victaulic Company of America ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-Pl14 RECOMMENDATION: This-proposal should not be accepted in its present form. SUBSTANTIATION: In its present form, this proposal recommends adoption of two additional columns to Table 7-4.2 for Roll Grooved Joints and Tee Fittings coupled to rol l grooved pipe. Adequate substantiation has not been advanced to the Committee, nor have any cases been cited to show cause why this joint should be considered differently than other pipe joints currently in use. Additionally, many other factors are present which affect system flow characteristics to a greater degree. These, however, are not addressed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee intends to study the subject further.

13- 12 - (7-4.2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organization ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-701 RECOMMENDATION: Add a sentence:

"The effects of saddle type f i t t ings directly connected to sprinklers on the discharge coefficients of such sprinklers shall also be considered." SUBSTANTIATION: Special f i t t ings such as adjustable drop nipples do have an effect on sprinkler "K" factors (ranging from negligible to modest) and the same is l ikely true of saddle types. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: To consider the discharge coefficients would entail testing all listed sprinklers which the Committee feels is impractical and unnecessary.

13- 30 - (Chapter 9): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: T. G. Collimge, Insurers' Advisory Organization COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P75 RECOMMENDATION: I feel that an entirely new standard should be created to govern the installation of Large Drop Automatic Sprinklers. SUBSTANTIATION: 1. I t is fa i r l y obvious from the proposed installation rules that this is a highly specialized f i re control tool at this stage of its development, to be approached with caution by installers and authorities having jurisdiction alike. A separate standard would serve to emphasize this.

2. The specific hazards listed in Table A-g-3 as protectable by LDAS are actually occupancies fal l ing specifically within the scope of other NFPA Committees, e.g., 231, 231C and (presumably) Rolled Paper Storage. A committee considering LDAS should include membership from those committees as well as from the 13 Committee i tsel f to ensure proper input and correlation.

3. The need for development of additional protection parameters by large scale f i re testing would be better emphasized in a separate standard. FM's substantiation for P78 was based on the "superior performance" of the LDAS compared to standard and large orif ice sprinklers. I t is entirely possible that the LDAS may in some cases prove to be the only device that w i l l do a meaningful job, rolled tissue grade paper comes to mind here, but this wil l only be revealed by large scale testing properly evaluated by an appropriate NFPA Committee.

4. Last but by no means least, there is an area of confusion respecting the LDAS that absolutely must be clarif ied: just what is i t , anyway?

As I understand things, one manufacturer was extensively involved with FM in the development of the LDAS, and received approval of their large drop sprinkler from that organization as a result of that program.

The identical sprinkler has recently been listed by ULI as an "Extra Large Orifice Sprinkler."

There are some significant differences between the approval and the l ist ing:

Results of the development program indicate that (P75, A-9-3.1) "the term density has no meaning when applied to large-drop sprinklers and . . . . cannot be used as a design parameter." The manufacturer's literature states tha~ "The sprinkler is suitable for densities of 0.36 to 1.70 gpm/ft L when used according to applicable NFPA standards . . . . "

A-g-I,3.1 states "Fire tests have not been conducted with large-drop sprinklers over ordinary and Extra Hazard Occupancies. Therefore, the protection requirements remain unknown." In A-g-3.2 there is " . . . . i t is not possible to extrapolate the protection requirements (of A-9-3) from one hazard to a higher hazard . . . . " The manufacturer's l iterature states that as a result of the ULI l isting their device "may be used under the currently existing rules of the NFPA . . . . "; for example to protect Class IV commodity to 30 f t high according to NFPA 231 although Table A-9-3 would limit the protectable height of Class IV commodity to 20 f t .

The manufacturer is technically correct in his statements; neither 3-16.2.6 nor 3-16.2.7 of NFPA 13 specifically exclude extra large orifice sprink3ers from consideration once they have been listed (nor does the 13 Committee action on Pn7 except hy implication).

As a representative of " f i re insurance authority having jurisdiction" I find this sort of basic conflict distracting to say the least (and would frankly go with the protection limitations imposed by the extensive development program and not the more open approach implied by the ULI l ist ing, at this point in time). Other differences:

Minimum operating pressure: FM 25 psi, ULI 15 psi Minimum spacing: FM 80 sq i t , ULI 64 sq f t Maximum spacing: FM 100 sq i t , ULI 120 sq f t Temperature rating: FM 2860 only, ULI 2860 and 1650 . And of course the various location and position rules specific

to "Chapter 9" that are not addressed elsewhere in NFPA 13, nor by the ULI l i s t i ng .

I am unable to ra t iona l ize how the same device can be two so widely d i f f e ren t things in the laboratory, especia l ly since i t won't be in the f i e l d . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr incip le. COMMITTEE COMMENT: This comment is accepted as input for the subcommittee which has been appointed to study th is subject.

135

13- 37 - (A-1-11.3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Assn. L~R~E'-NT-~N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-109 RECOMMENDATION: Retain exist ing text of A-1-11.3.1 and add

I w-ording (example) proposed by the Committee. SUBSTANTIATION: We do not believe i t was the Committee's intent to eliminate the exist ing wording, but rather to add an example. A s t r i c t interpretat ion of the proposal could be interpreted as changing A-I-11.3.1 to include only thp example. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The present wording w i l l be maintained immediately af ter the example.

13- 38 - IA- I - I I .3 .1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingenfelter, American Insurance Assn. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-109 RECOMMENDATION: Change line 6 of the proposed A-1-11.3.1 to read:

" . . . .hydrostat ic test pressure is 70 + 120 + 80 + 50 or 320 psi (21.8 bars). The BO psi is fo r water hammer surge on pump s tar t up." SUBSTANTIATION: The pressure of 240 psi makes an assumption that the jockey pump w i l l maintain over 190 psi (70 + 120) on the system and that the f i r e pump w i l l come on at 190 psi. However, this assumption is not so stated. A more conservative approach should be taken which assumes the f i r e pump w i l l come on at 70 psi. Going from 70 to 190 psi w i l l produce roughly 2/3 of 120 psi (190 - 70) or BO psi. In order that the system w i l l be able to handle actual f i e l d conditions, the water hammer should he included. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: No f i e l d service data has been presented to j u s t i f y the consideration of water hammer in hydrostatic test procedures.

13- 2 - (A-2-7.3): Hold fo r Further Study SUBMITTER: Joseph W. Levesque, Brookhaven National Lab. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: NIA RECOMMENDATION: Revise section to read:

A-2-7.3 Fire department connections should be . . . . . Hose lines can be readily and conveniently attached. Inlets should be accessible without interference from nearby objects, including buildings, fences or other f i r e department connections. Hose connections should he at least 18 in. and a maximum of 54 in. above the adjacent ground level. SUBSTANTIATION: Recent instal lat ions have shown that f i r e department connections can be installed in accordance with NFPA 13 but require f i r e f ighters of 6 I/2 f t and greater to make an easy connection.

The NFPA Handbook was used for guidance en minimum height. Maximum height was determined by the approximate center chest l ine of an average adult male.

Sentence structure changes were made to properly incorporate suggested changes. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The suhmitter's comment would introduce a concept that has not had public review.

13- 93 - (A-3-1.1.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Rolf Jansen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jansen & Assoc.,

COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-83 RECOMMENDATION: Delete. SUBSTANTIATION: I f the standard contains information on type thicknesses for one particular type of pipe, the thicknesses for al l piping products wi l l need to be included. Further, i f the Appendix is to provide information so that i t w i l l not be necessary for the user to refer to the referenced standards, then the applicable elements of al l referenced standards should be included in the Appendix. When this is done, there w i l l no longer be the need for the reference standards, all appropriate information w i l l be included in the Appendix to NFPA 13. This w i l l be a cumbersome document. I t is easier to provide a reference l i s t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. CUMMLIIbb CUMMENI: The table contains useful information for the desian of spr inkler systems using copper tubing.

13- 4 - (A-3-8.6): Hold fo r Further Study SUBMITTER: Joseph W. Levesque, Brookhaven National Lab. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-309 RECOMMENDATION: Add:

A-3-7.6 Hose stations u t i l i z i n g pressure reducing equipment should be arranged such that spr inkler system water supplies are not taken through the reducing equipment.

SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 14 on Hose and Standpipe Systems recommends pressure reducing equipment on systems over a certain pressure. The potential exists for those reducing devices to be included in the supply l ines to combination hose and spr inkler systems. Even though a spr inkler system can be adequately designed for the reduced pressures, the r e l i a b i l i t y of the supply can be adversely affected. The fact these devices are factory set and not readi ly f i e l d adjustable decreases r e l i a b i l i t y through lack of ca l ibrat ion means, COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The submitter's comment would introduce a concept that has not had public review.

13- 97 - (A-3-8.7): Reject SUBMITTER: John G. O'Nei l l , Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-07 RECOMMENDATION: Revise A-3-8.7 as fo l lows:

A-3-8.7 Combined automatic spr inkler and standpipe r isers may be interconnected by sprinkler system piping when such an arrangement is jus t i f ied hydraulically. In such cases, control valves should be supervised by either method described in 3-14.2.3(a) and (b). Such a cross-connection should not be provided solely in an attempt to add r e l i a b i l i t y to the sprinkler system. SUBSTANTIATION: The text as presently proposed would prohibit instal lat ion arrangements which have been cost effective and adequate, part icular ly in r e t r o f i t instal lat ions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The material proposed for the new section is only advisory. Section 3-8.7 does not prohibit the interconnection of combined automatic sprinkler and standpipe r isers, although not recommended by the Committee.

13- 70 - (Figure A-3-9.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Russell Fleming, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire ~ s s n . , Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-307 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Figure A-3-9.2 to delete the word " l i s ted . " SUBSTANTIATION: This valve does not need to be l is ted since i ts operation does not af fect system performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the caption to read as fol lows: "Test Valve in Readily Accessible Location."

rOMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for Comment No. 66 on 3-9.1.1, 3-9.2, ~nd Figure A-3.9.1.1.

13- 5 - (A-3-12.3.2): Accept SUBNITTER: C. W. Pohr, Aeroquip Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-PgO RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate the addition of new Section A-3-12.3.2 as recommended by Committee Action. I t is redundant to the Committee Action of adding new Section 3-12.3.2 and c~uld cause substantial confusion of interpretat ion. SUBSTANTIATION: We have never been able to substantiate by test or experience in the f i e l d with our products the theory of "water col lect ing in the coupling, freezing and thereby d is tor t ing the gaskets causing leaks in the system." We believe the elastomeric compound of the gasket is a major factor and the current test procedure for " l i s t i ng " mechanical grooved couplings for use in dry pipe systems for temperatures to -40°F adequately covers the dasket performance required. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

13- 6 - (A-3-12.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Ara Nalbandian, ITT Grinnell Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P90 RECOMMENDATION: We have reviewed the proposal to add a new Section A-3-12.3.2 which states that "Couplinms for dry pipe service w i l l prevent water from col lect ing in the coupling, freezing and thereby d is tor t ing the gasket and causing leaks in the system."

We believe the new proposal could create confusion in the industry and we strongly urge against the adoption of new Section A-3-12.3.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Based on our experience of using elastomeric gaskets in mechanical couplings and other components, we have found that mechanical grooved couplings with standard gaskets have been successfully used, and are performing re l i ab l y on dry pipe systems fer temperatures to -40OC. Furthermore, an elastomer which has been approved for temperatures as low as -40°C do not tend to d is tor t because of temperature change and do not cause leaks in the system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. rOMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action for No. 5 on A-3-12.3.2.

136

13- 17 - (Figure A-3-14.2): Reject SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organization

PROPOSAL NO.: 13-308 RECOMMENDATION: Show a gate valve immediately downstream of the check valve in the Figure i l lustrat ing the two-valve header arrangement. SUBSTANTIATION: The value of the f i re department connection both as an auxiliary water supply and as an emergency water supply {by connecting via hoses to nearby hydrants) has been amply demonstrated over the years. This is lost with the arrangement shown, for any impairment of the underground supply, not merely check valve servicing. Also, should the check valve leak during f i re department pumping operations, there is no alternate positive closure readily available as there is with the other two sketches shown. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: While desirable, a valve is not required by the standard.

13- 32 - (A-3-16.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Peter W. Robb, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Co., Ltd. COMMENT~N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-08 RECOMMENDATION: A. Move this section to body of standard.

B, Add section and reword as follows: 3-16.2.11 Listed residential sprinklers may be used in

residential portions of sprinklered buildings provided they are installed in conformance with the l isting and positioning requirements of NFPA 13D. SUBSTANTIATION: A. Listed residential sprinklers are now available and should be included in the body of the standard rather than in the Appendix which is explanatory material.

B. Present wording of 13-08 restricts the use of listed residential sprinklers to "Residential Portions of Residential Occupancies." Provision should be made to permit their use in residential portions of sprinklered buildings. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add a new 3-16.2.8 to read as follows: 3-16.2.8 Residential sprinklers may be used in residential

portions of any occupancy provided they are installed in conformance with the l ist ing and the positioning requirements of NFPA 13D. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The revised wording and relocation should satisfy the submitter's intent.

13- 98 - (A-4-1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John G. O'Neill, Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P60 R£COMM£NDATION: Revise the new section as follows:

A-4-1.2 When sprinklers are installed in corridors only, sprinklers should be spaced up to the maximum of 15 f t (4.5 m) along the corridor, with one sprinkler opposite the center of any door or pair of adjacent door openings from living units onto the corridor, and with additional sprinkler spaced inside each adjacent living unit above the door opening. SUBSTANTIATION: The section as presently worded includes requirements for sprinklers outside and just inside all doors, including doors to small rooms such as j an i t o r and u t i l i t y closets. The revis ion is to c l a r i f y the type of door opening where the spr inklers should be placed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le.

Add to A-4-1.2 a second sentence to read: "When the sprinkler in the adjacent room provides ful l

protection for that space, an additional sprinkler is not reouired in the corridor adjacent to the door. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter but feels that guidance is needed when the sprinkler in the adjacent room provides ful l protection for that space.

13- 94 - A-4-4.8.2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Peter Yurkonis, Rolf Jensen& Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 13-402 and P64 RECOMMENDATION: Retu-~-6 to Committee. SUBSTANTIATION: We recommend withdrawal of the proposal because i t lacks correlation with NFPA 101 and does not recognize the results of tests conducted in the late 1940's by Grinnell, Otis and others. Further, we do not know of any reason for prescribing stringent type, location and size of draft stops. Variations in architectural form would make this provision unworkable. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The substantiation presented is not persuasive. Lack of correlation with NFPA 101 has not been demonstrated. Applicable test work hy Grinnell, Otis and others is incorporated in the proposal. The requirements for draft stops are not new, but the advisory requirements have been made mandatory.

13- 14 - (Figure A-4-4.21): Reject SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organization C'I~@ERI~'I~N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-404 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Figure to show 5 f t between the "end" branch line and the wall parallel to i t . Also, extend the diagram to show the intended configuration of sprinklers on the branch lines in relation to a wall perpendicular to them. SUBSTANTIATION: Figure A-4-4.21 conflicts with the requirements of 4-2.1.4 with respect to the distance from walls to branch lines. Clarification of requirements for distance between walls and end sprinklers on branch lines is also needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMIYTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter but this material has been returned to Committee for further study. See the Committee Action for Comment No. 96 on 4-1.3.8, 4-3.6, 4-4.4.2 and 4-4.21.

13- 99 - (A-5-2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas W. Jaeger, American Health Care Assn. ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the third paragraph as follows:

Where the primary purpose of the sprinkler system is for l i fe safety, the use of dry pipe systems should be minimized. SUBSTANTIATION: The third paragraph as presently worded in the TCR places an undue restriction on the use of common sprinkler piping for sprinklers located below ceilings and above ceilings in unheated spaces, and would prohibit the use of concealed sprinkler piping in many cases. Both restrictions will add undue costs to systems which have previously been acceptable and in common use. The revision of the third paragraph is to focus attention on all occupancies where l i fe safety is paramount. For instance, penal occupancies, and in some residential occupancies, evacuation would he more d i f f icu l t than in nursing homes and hospitals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In last sentence delete everything after "concern." COMMITTEE COMMENT: The revised wording should satisfy the submitter's intent.

13- 45 - (D-1-2): Accept SUBMITTER: A. P, Scittine, Western Electric Co. ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 13-P72 RECOMMENDATION: To conform to ANSI standards also change:

"ANSI B16.1-1975 Cast Iron Pipe Flanges and Flanged F i t t i ngs , 25, 125, 250 and 800 Ib" to "ANSI B16.1-1975 Cast Iron Pipe Flanges and Flanged F i t t i ngs , Class 25, 125, 250 and 800." SUBSTANTIATION: Correct ANSI standards designation. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

Editorial Changes

The Committee has had the following editorial changes called to its attention and aqrees that they should be made.

1-3 Sprinkler System and 1-11.3.3. Revise t i t l e of NFPA 24 to Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances.

2-5 and 2-5.1 delete the asterisks. A-2-3.2 Add a new sentence to read as follows: "Also see NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire

Service Mains and their Appurtenances." A-2-5 Delete the last sentence and renumber as A-2-5.2. 2-7.6.1 Revise as follows: 2-7.6.1 The f i re department connection(s) shall be internal

threaded swivel f i t t ing(s) having the NH standard thread, at least one of which shall be 2.5-7.5 NH standard thread, as specified in NFPA 1963 Screw Threads and Gaskets for Fire Hose Connections.

Exception: When local f i re department connections do not conform to NFPA 1963, the authority having jurisdiction shall designate the connection to be used.

Figures 2-9.1, 3-11.2, A-2-9.1 and B-2 change "gauge" to "gage." 3-1.1.3 In the f i f t h line delete "in Table A2 of ASTM A53." Revise last sentence of 3-i0.3.1 to read: "Sprinkler systems shall be protected to minimize or prevent

pipe breakage where subject to earthquakes as follows" and move to become new f i r s t sentence.

Relabel Figures A-3-10.3.B(g) and (i) as Figures A-3-10.3.2(a) and (b). Delete "Note" in Figure A-3-1O.3.5(g).

Section 3-10-3.5.1 add "longitudinal" after "two-way." Break 3-10.3.5.1 into three sections, the last sentence becoming

3-10.3.5.2 and the second sentence becoming 3-10.3.5.3. Renumber present 3-10.3.5.2 and 3-I0.3.5.3, as 3-10.3.5.9 and

3-10.3.5.10 respectively. Delete word "only'* from present 3-10.3.5.5. Relabel Figures A-3-10.3.5(e) and (f) as Figures A-3-10.3.5.1(a)

and (b). Subst i tute the word " l a te ra l " for "transverse" in 3-10.3.5.7. In th i rd paragraph of A-3-10.3.4, delete "up to 6 f t (1.8 m)." Move exception to 3-10.3.4(b) to become th i rd exception of

3-10.3.4(a). 3-12,5 In the f i r s t l ine change "tyes" to " types." 4-1.3.5 In the th i rd l ine add "on" af ter "Standard,"

137

4-5,2.2 In the second l ine delete " a l l o t t ed . " 4-5.3.2 In the th i rd l ine delete "per spr ink le r . " 8-1 In the th i rd l ine delete "of noncombustible protected

noncombustible or f i r e - r e s i s t i v e construct ion," and add "of Type I or Type I I construction" and in the fourth line add "on" after "Standard."

A-3-15.3.1 Change the f i r s t word from "Power" to "Powder." A-4-4(b) In the fourth line add a comma after "powder." Figure A-7-4.3(a) Revise as follows: (See Figure on next page.) Figure A-7.4.3(b) Change the total water required from 650 gpm

to 527.7 gpm. Figure A-7-4.3(c) Revise as follows: (See Figure on next page.) Figure A-7-4.3(d) Revise as fol lows: (See Figure on next page.) B-5-3.2 In the last l ine change "5-2.3.2" to "5 -2 .3 .1 . " B-6-2.6 In the eighth l ine change "5 f t , 4 f t and 5 f t " to

"3 f t , 4 f t and 5 f t . " D-I-1 Revise as fol lows: Add a new entry "NFPA 130-1980 Standard for the Ins ta l l a t i on of

Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Mobile Homes."

Revise date of NFPA 14 to "1982," NFPA 20 to "1982," NFPA 22 to "1981."

Revise NFPA 24 to read as follows: "NFPA 24-1981, Private Fire Service Mains and their

Appurtenances." NFPA 71 delete "Protective." NFPA 72C change date to "1982." Add NFPA 72A-1979, Local Protective Signaling Systems, NFPA

72E-1982, Automatic Fire Detectors. NFPA 81 change date to "1981." Delete NFPA 87. NFPA 96 change t i t l e to "Commercial Cooking Equipment." NFPA 220 delete "Standard." NFPA 231 change t i t l e to "1979." Add a new Section D-I-2 to read as follows: D-I-2 The following NFPA codes and standards contain specific

sprinkler design cr i ter ia on various subjects (See 2-2.I.3 and A-2-1.)

NFPA 15-1979, Water Spray Fixed Systems. NFPA 16-1980, Foam-Water Sprinkler Systems. NFPA 87-1980, Construction of Piers and Wharves. NFPA 214-1977, Water-Cooling Towers. NFPA 231-1979, Indoor General Storage. NFPA 231C-1980, Rack Storage of Materials. NFPA 231D-1980, Storage of Rubber Tires. NFPA 409-1979, Aircraft Hangars. Renumber D-1.2 as D-I.3 and revise as follows: ANSI B2.1 Change "Thread" to "Threads." ANSI B16.3 Revise to read as follows: ANSI B16.3-1977 Malleable - Iron Threaded Fittings, Class 150

and 300. ANSI B16.4 Revise to read as fol lows: ANSI B16.4-1977, Cast-lron Threaded F i t t ings , Class 125 and 250. ANSI B16.5 Revise as fol lows: ANSI B16.5-1981, Pipe Flanges and Flanged F i t t i ngs , Steel,

Nickel, Al loy and Other Special Al loys. ANSI B16.9 Change date to 1978. ANSI BI6.11 Change date to 1980 and change "Welded" to

"Welding." ANSI B16.18 Change date to 1978 and "Bronze" to "Copper Alloy." ANSI B16.22 Change date to "1980" and "Bronze" to "Copper

Alloy." ANSI B16.25 Change date to 1979 and delete "for Pipe, Valves,

Flanges, and Fittings." ANSI B36.10 Revise to read as follows: "ANSI 836.10-1979, Welded and Seamless Wrought-Steel Pipe." ASTM A53 Change date to "1980." ASTM AI20 Change date to "1980." ASTM A234 Change date to "1980." Delete ASTM A568 and A569. ASTM B32 Change date to "1976." ASTM B75 Change date to "1981." ASTM B88 Change date to "1981." ASTM E380 Change date to "1979." AWS A5.8 Revise to read as fol lows: AWS A5.8-1981 Speci f icat ion for Brasing F i l l e r Metal. AWS DIO.9 Change date to "1980" and delete "Standard f o r . " Delete D-I-3. In the index under Flanged j o i n t in r i ser , change " in " to "a t . " Under Sprinklers - small o r i f i ce , change "A-15-2.5" to

"3-16.2.5."

138

~ . 10' bays 020'-0" = 200LO ''

Group I - 1500 I~'

Density 0.16 GPM/sq ft from Table 2-2.1 (B)

t

' ' 1 ' I ' I ~ J I I I . . . . . . I 'K -~k_ i ~ i i i • i i

277.7 GPM See calc. I

Elevation View

Alarm ('Va.

~.G. Va.

~ O - - Denotes reference step.

Figure A-7-4.3(a)

1 3 9

CONTRACT N A M E

2

S

z O N O Z Z L E ~,. I D E N T . u~ A N D I.- LOCATION

/ I~L-I

S

4 DN

4

~- I-o 13L-2- BL-Z

C/v[

~L-3

13L-3 7

C~4 ro

F / s

TH ~u_

O" TO :it,/~fll~J

GROUP _T /500

P I P E EQUIV. FRICTION FLOW FITTI NGS LOSS I N P I P E A N D P I P E P . S . I . /

G.P.M. S I Z E D E V I C E S ! LENGTH FOOT i i

,'L /.~2.~ ,C=IZO q

I Q .ZO.~ ,T /'~.(.~ , • Iz~"

L / 3 . 0 q 2.::;Z.2, ' '

I ¢'m ,F , ,T / ' . . .4.0 , " 141 Q4~,O

L /~,C, i i

q 2 3 . 4 ///, z F

Q ~,~,4- t /.3,0 .14£ i i

q 24. '7 .Z, T ; /~ L ~ (~ . . .~ , / f.Z, I ,F / ~ . 0 ,

Q # / . / t ~.,~. 5" • .~.(.O7

c / o . O q

Z r Q ¢/./ T / 0 , 0 . 0 ? 9

i i

L / 0 . 0 q 9 2 . q ' '

~ . , / / / Z , F ,

Q / ~ ~ t /(.),(..) , I~ZZ

q 94..Z L dO.O r E

Q277 .7 T 70 ,0 - ~ ' ~ i i i

.~" L /I(~,(D

q 3 /Iv i

Q 277. 7 dv / ,t 140 .0 , . 09t E ~ ,L 50 . ( ' ) ,C=I .~O

II/lz¢ q _¢~ ~V ( F ~ 3 2 . 0 r)/T~

Q277."I 7- 15- T ~',~.,,~._ . ~ ¢ ~

L i i q

F i i

Q T i i

L i i q

Q

S H E E T ~ O F ~ [

P R E S S U R E i N O R M A L S U M M A R Y l P R E S S U R E

Pt l ~ . ~-, :Pt

Pe Pv

Pf /. ~> . Pn

Pt / '~.~ ,Pt De Pv

]:)= 0"16 eP~f/¢t N O T E S ,-

K : 5 . ~ b - "

£ =I.?Xgx.16=Z },S

:L,-- 6.~5

Pf l, ~ Pn Pt Pt / 7 . 2 . ] ,Pv

pf /d~ Pn i

Pt /9, / Pt Pe ,Pv %: ~,~V]--cl, I 4

!Pf ?" 7 ,Pn

Pt ~_~', ,~" Pt K= ql'-'---! ' 2V-2~s. S

!Pe Pv 5 pf . ~ p~ K = IL.. 9,~ P~ 29.~, Pt

, ~-,

pf /, 2. Pn

Pt 3©, ~',Pt

Pe Pv '~= ~.q~ V-~-~

Pf / 7 , 3 Pn P' ?, I P' pe &, ,5 .pv

p f / 2 . 7 pn i i

Pt ~ ~, 3 Pt CCI"TF'~: "~ i i

Pe Pv Z 1 x 1,5( = &~L

Pf -5", 7 Pn

Pt 7z / ,O iPt

Pe Pv

Pf Pn i

Pt Pt i

Pe Pv

Pf Pt

Pn

8

9

Figure A-7-4.3(c)

1 4 0

R L

Scale A ~a le B S~ale C

120 l ~ i.tl , .W . . t,~ I l l r y ! l l l t l i l t

1 1 0 1 1 - 1 -- -- 105 ~-I- ~ -

95

9O

---2t 7 . 7 GP,',, ® 7 80 "." -"

7G AV,W,IL ~B %

6 OFt k DSI"~ ' R M : ~ , . . ~ . 60 M'J~, ~.2_ /V IN.

50 " " A 3L ~ ~' - 2 I ( B ' • /

45

4O

35 3O

25

2O ~" SN S T E : M [ E M , z N D C

75

• / ~ Pe S T A " 1o .............

IIII fill Ill

100 2 0 0 gC, O 4 0 0 59,3 2 0 0 400 6O0 8 0 0 } 0 0 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

1 1 1 1 I I I I ] 1 11 I I I l l l l I I I I l l l l l l l l I I 1 | | 1 1 1 1

I I

, i

.0 P ~I i

.----4( )0 G P V I @ 6 ( P S I

~' ' , ..,,,< ..--cr-r W A ER su

URVi

"IC F~ ~ESS DUIE T O E L E V A T I ( ) N

t 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I l l l l l l l l l I l l l l l l h I l l l l | l l

60O • 30 809 ' 2OO 1400 1600 2400 2800 3200

Water Flow gpm

I l l l l l l l l I | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

= P L Y C JRVE

Scare: _F.L

II11111111 I1111111 I I I I N 1Is 9o0 1000

,800 2000 ~600 4000

Figure A - 7 - 4 . 3 ( d )

141

20- 28 - (1-3): Reject (See Ballot Statement) SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organization ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-1 RECOMMENDATION: Accept proposal 20-1 as written. SUBSTANTIATION: ULI have listed an in-line centrifugal f i re pump that is neither horizontal split-case nor vertical turbine type and which has a rated capacity of 475 US gpm. This pump could be used in accordance with A-2-3.1 in situations calling for a 500 gpm water supply (combined sprinkler and standpipe riser systems in high rise buildings for example). I t is hard to believe in context that ULI would l i s t a pump without fu l ly considering re l iab i l i t y factors or that the "extra" 25 gpm recommended by the Submitter of 20-1 is meaningful in terms of re l iab i l i t y . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change last ~ntence to read as fol lows: "They shall be l imited to capacities of 500 gpm (1892 L/min) or

less." COMMITTEE COMMENT: I f the Submitter's wording was accepted, only pumps of 500 gpm would be allowed. By using the wording proposed by the Committee pumps of 500 gpm and less can be used in conformance with 1-3 which was the Submitter's intent.

The revision of the maximum allowable capacity fo r pumps having d i f fe rent design features and l is ted by a test ing laboratory from "less than 500 gpm" (such as 499 gpm) to "500 gpm or less" w i l l permit f i r e pumps having alternate arrangements and providing the level of safety prescribed by this standard to be l is ted and insta l led in occupancies requir ing more compact pumps.

One of three ULC l isted pump manufacturers has produced and insta l led approximately 150 l is ted and labeled ver t ica l " i n - l i ne " type f i r e pumps having a 5(30 gpm capacity since 1978. In addition, there are approximately 400 l is ted and labeled " i n - l i ne " f i r e pumps insta l led having capacities less than 500 gpm by one of three ULC l is ted manufacturers. These f igures do not include the ULI l is ted " i n - l i ne " pumps produced and insta l led in capacities up to 475 gpm. The 475 gpm ULI l is ted " i n - l i ne " pump is identical to the 500 gpm pump investigated and described in the UL Fact Finding Report presented to the NFPA Technical Committee. There are no f i e l d reports indicating problems re la t i ve to the performance of these pumps. The " in - l i ne " pumps have been used for continuous duty applications for processing and for pressure booster applications for approximately 12 years, a very successful f i e l d record,

Alignment problems for the shaft are eliminated for the "in-line" pump installations.

20- 11 - (1-6): Reject SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, Factory Mutual Research Corp. COMMON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-6~ RECOMMENDATION: Add the following sentence:

"The pump shall be driven at its rated speed during the test." SUBSTANTIATION: Some manufacturers are conducting pump tests at approximately 1750 rpm. Where the pump is intended for operation at some other speed, the "certif ied" curve is plotted from extrapolated, not actual, test results. In the case of an engine driven pump operating at 3000 rpm hut tested and certified at 1750 rpm f ield test results may not be similar to those of the shop test. Factory Mutual Research has, in writing from the various manufacturers, statements that all pumps wi l l be tested at the speed for which they are rated.

Rejection of the proposal is not based on fact. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Many pump manufacturers use calibrated motors or torque meters to measure pump horsepower and they do not have the means for accurately measuring at speeds other than the nominal 2-pole or 4-pole speeds. Based on accurate test data, the head capacity and pump horsepower can be calculated for other pump speeds using the a f f i n i t y formulas and the calculated pump performance w i l l be within the accuracy of f i e l d test ing.

20- 12 - (2-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, Factory Mutual Research Corp. ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-108 RECOMMENDATION: Do not eliminate "at the pump" in the fourth l ine of 2-1.2 and do not eliminate the second paragraph of A-2-I.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee Action to eliminate "at the pump" in 2-1.2 and deletion of the second paragraph in A-2-I.2 is a disservice to the public in general and the users of the standard in par t i cu la r . The paragraph as now standing should be l e f t as is. I t gives the kind of guidance the public needs and helps to prevent the ever-growing controversies of "how and where." Many states, counties, c i t i es , towns specify "at the pump" (Michigan, Ohio, W. Vi rg in ia, Miami, Los Angeles, e tc . ) . Committee Action does not seem to be consistent with good, current, accepted pract ice. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The designation of the location for pressure measurement belongs to the author i ty having ju r i sd i c t i on . I t is not a performance requirement of the standard.

PART II 20- 33 - (2-12): Hold for Further Study SUBMITTER: O.M. Slye, J r . , Mobil Research & Development Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-72 RECOMMENDATION: Change heading of section 2-12 to "Pressure Control Devlce. ~

Change 2-12.1 to read: ?-12,1 Where pumps are connected to adjustable-speed or constant-speed drivers and the maximum pressure that can be produced by the pump plus the s ta t ic suction pressure exceeds the pressure for which the system components are rated, a l is ted pressure control device shall be provided.

Change the Exception to 2-12.1 to read: Exception: Pressure control devices are generally not required for pumps supplying only standpipe systems.

Change 2-12.2 to read: 2-12.2 Where a r e l i e f valve is provided as a pressure control device, the fol lowing requirements shall apply:

Renumber sections 2-12.2 through 2-12.11 to sections 2-12.2.1 through 2-12.2.10 and renumber the applicable explanatory text in the Appendix. SUBSTANTIATION: There are other l is ted and approved pressure control devices for f i r e protection systems besides r e l i e f valves which serve the same purpose as the r e l i e f valves for the design of properly operating f i r e protection systems. These devices should be recognized in this standard and allowed as alternatives to re l ie f valves. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold for Further Study. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The adoption of this Comment would introduce a concept that has not had public review.

20- 2t~.- (2-13.2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: john M. M, Whit f ie ld, Off ice of State Fire Marshal, VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-21 RECOMMENDATION: Add to section 2-13.2.1.

"They shall not discharge back to the pump suction piping, except where local regulations or conditions prohibi t the discharge to drains." SUBSTANTIATION: As T, J. Brown, Jr. indicated in his or ig inal submission, f low meter systems which discharge back to pump suction do not test the available water supply. As indicated in Mr. Brown's TCR documentation, systems with inadequate water supplies can be tested without having a water supply adequate for f i r e suppression purposes. This problem has not only been addressed by Factory Mutual, but also be underwriting organizations such as Industr ial Risk Insurers.

The Committee chose to re ject Mr. Brown's recommendation because "There are some ins ta l la t ions where water cannot be discharged safely or lega l ly to drains." By not reauir ing the test ing of f i r e pumps to simultaneously test the avai lable water supply, the wording of the standard does not permit author i t ies having ju r i sd ic t i on to require such tests when the discharge can be made safely or lega l ly . In order to eliminate this problem, the fol lowing alternate to Mr. Brown's recommendation is proposed below. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The method shown in Figure A-2-13.2.1(b) is the acceptable arrangement fo r piping a meter back to suction. The arrangement shown in Figure A-2-13.B.1(a) is the suggested arrangement for piping a meter to discharge. Revisions to Figure A-2-13.2.1(b) include deletion of the phrase "(NOT RECOMMENDED)." See Committee Action for Comment 25 on Figure A-2-13.2.1(b).

20- 34 - (2-13.2.1): Reject SUPMITTER: O.M. Slye, J r . , Mobil Research & Development Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO,: 20-21 RECOMMENDATION: Add to sec t ion 2-13.2.1:

"They shall not discharge back to the pump suction piping. In ins ta l la t ions where water cannot be discharged safely or lega l ly to drains, another means of accurately determining the performance of the pump shall be provided." SUBSTANTIATION: Metering devices are of no pract ical value when they discharge back to the pump suction piping. In ins ta l la t ions where water cannot be discharged safely or legal ly to drains, another method of accurately determining the performance of the pump should be used. This standard should not endorse improper ins ta l la t ion of metering devices. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMIT[EE COMMENT: The Submitter's suggestion of not having the pump discharge back to suction during test ing is not prohibited. The method shown in Figure A-2-13.2.1(b) is not recommended, the recommended method is shown in Figure A-2-13.2,1(a).

142

20- 13 - (2-19): Reject SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, Factory Mutual Research Corp. L'R~E'ITT--O-N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-49- RECOMMENDATION: Change T i t le to "Jockey Pump (Pressure Maintenance or Make-up)." See Figure A-2-13.2.1(a) and Figure A-2-13.2.1(b). SUBSTANTIATION: New T i t l e consistent with common terminology, COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Pressure Maintenance describes the funct ion of ~he'pump. THe parenthet ical phrase "Jockey or Make-up" is su f f i c i en t to cover a l l the descript ions commonly used.

20- I0 - (3-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: T. Adair, City of North York Fire Department, Ontario L~O-R~[ENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-102 RECOMMENDATION: 20-102 (3-1.1) requires an editorial correction to include vert ical centrifugal pumps, but should also incorporate the intent of NFPA 20 Section i-3 to permit designs other than indicated by the Technical Committee on Fire Pumps.

I might point out thai: there are existing instal lat ions of f i re pumps of a di f ferent design that are listed by nationally recognized laboratories and are proving very ef f ic ient and rel iable with low maintenance factors. SUBSTANTIATION: Specifications for vert ical In-Line Centrifugal Pumps for chemical processes do not necessarily have the features applicable to f i re pumps, and indeed would apparently discriminate against new pump design.~ that could adequately meet the f i re pump requirements for those Jnder 500 gpm. I t would also, in my opinion, conf l ict with ~FPA 20 Section I-3 which permits certain deviations provided that the design and pump in Question has been listed by a nationally recognized testing laboratory. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

20- 17 - (3-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: N. R. Khan, ITT Fluid Products Canada COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-102 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference of ANSI B73.2 Specifications for Vertical In-Line Centrifugal Pumps for Chemical Process. SUBSTANTIATION: This specification should not include vert ical in line pumps for firepump service as there are no advantages in conforming to ANSI B73.2 specifications. There are hundreds of vert ical in- l ine pumps in the f ie ld which do not comply with ANSI B73.2. Cost involved to modify pump to comply with ANSI B73.2 w i l l not j u s t i f y any minor advantages. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

20- 15 - ( 3 - I . I ) : Accept SUBMITTER: Ronald F. 3'ane, Darling Duro Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-102 RLCUMMENDATION: Delet(~ al l reference in section 3-1.1 to ANSI designation B73.2-1975 speci f icat ions for ver t i ca l i n - l i ne centr i fugal pumps for chemical process. SUBSTANTIATION: Problem is res t r i c t i on of use of ver t i ca l i n - l i ne centr i fugal pumps (Darl ing and others) with f i r e pump performance character is t ics adequately covered by Standard ANSI/UL44B (Fi le EX3325-N) l is ted and label led by ULC since 1977 (Fi le CEx51FE & 587).

This new pump design conformed in addition, to all requirements of NFPA 20 for capacities less than 500 gpm under section 1-3. There is no proof of unre l iab i l i t y and an "edi tor ia l " change at this time is discr iminatory.

However, the real concern is that the appl icat ion of approved f i r e pumps under 500 gpm now accomplished wi l l be discontinued by this new rule and we w i l l go back to unapproved pumps under 500 gpm. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

20- 19 - (3-1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Yves Lort ie, Plad Equipment CIE LTEE COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NC.: 20-102 ~LCUMMENDATION: Wording to be unchanged in section 3-1.1NFPA 20-1980. SUBSTANTIATION: Change in wording to meet chemical process appTp-~FTc-~ lieu of the standards for Fire Pump Performance.

Standard AI~SI/UL 448 adequately covers the performance character is t ics required for Fire Pump appl icat ion, also the standards for chemical process pumps recognized features that are not permitted or appl cable to Fire Pump appl icat ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. CUMMIITEE COMMENT: See Committee Action on Comments 17 and 18 on Section 3-1.1.

20- 18 - (3 - I .1 and Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: M. J. DeLerno, Berwyn, IL ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-102 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3 - ] . I as fol lows:

A. Delete the phrase "be designed and manufactured to" and subst i tute "meet the requirements o f . "

B, Add an Exception to read: Exception: Dimensional requirements need not be met. SUBSTANTIATION: There are some character is t ics of chemical process pumps which appear in ANSI B73.1-1977 and ANSI B73.2-1975 which are unnecessary for f i r e pump service. Requiring that a l l detai ls of these ANSI standards be met is over ly r e s t r i c t i v e . (See Scope statements in these ANSI standards.) COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

20- 21 - (3-1.1): Reject SUBNITTER: Donald G. Mackay, S, A. Armstrong Limited COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-102 RECOMMENDATION: Delete from fourth l ine:

" . . .and be designed and manufactured, e tc . " . . . t o end. Substi tute "and be designed and manufactured in accordance with the requirements and speci f icat ions of the approvmg au thor i t y . " SUBSTANTIATION: To manufacture hor izontal end suction and ver t ica l i n - l i ne pumps to standards developed for the chemical process industry w i l l not improve the qua l i t y of ":he product but w i l l make the ins ta l l a t i on of approved f i r e pumps less appealing.

The extra costs involved in meeting th is spec i f icat ion, with no improvement in performance, is defeating the aim of providing r e l a t i v e l y ~ow-cost f i r e protect ion. The public should not have to pay a premium for a pump developed to handle w l a t i l e or hazardous l iouids when i t is to be used for cold ~ater service only.

The current speci f icat ions and test ing procedures for end suction and ver t i ca l i n - l i ne pumps, as enforced by the approving authority, provide adequate control over the qual i ty of product, These units, as presently being instal led, have proved themselves to be as rel iable as any other design and have given years of trouble-free service on this and many other applications. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. CUMMITYEE COMMENT: The design and manufacture of f i re pumps is not in the province of the authority having jur isdict ion. Also, see Committee Action on Comments 17 and 18 on Section 3-1.1.

?0- 24 - (3-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: R. J. Wright, Underwriters Laboratories of Canada ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-102 RECOMMENDATION: Delete: "or AN~I B73.2 Speci f icat ion for Vert ical In-Line Centri fugal Pumps for Chemical Process."

Delete Appendix C: "ANSI B73.2-]975, Specif icat ions for Vert ical In-Line Centri fugal Pumps for Chemical Process . . . . New York, NY 10018. SUBSTANTIATION: Referencing ANSI Standard B73.2 is inappropriate as i t contains requirements which are inapplicable to pumps in f i re protection service.

A number of ver t i ca l i n - l i ne pumps, in capacit ies up to 500 gpm have been investigated and l is ted by ULC to the basic construction and performance requirements of ULC S~48 Standard for Centr i fugal Fire Pumps. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

20- 2 7 - (3-1.1) : Accept SUBMITTER: T. G. Coll inge, Insurers' Advisory O~ganization COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-102 RECOMMENDATION: Delete from the second sentence:

" . . . o r ANSI 873.2, Specif icat ions for Vert ical In-Line Centrifugal Pumps for Chemical Process," and the Appendix C reference to this standard. SUBSTANTIATION: ANSI 873.2 detai ls speci f icat ions of pumps intended f o r~se with a wide range of l iquids having as-pumped properties such as v iscos i ty , corrosion potent ia l and temperature that are not l i k e l y to be encountered in f i r e protect ion s i tuat ions, and on th is basis appears to be an inappropriate reference document. COMMITTEE ACTION: #ccept.

20- 36 - (6-2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: O.M. Slye, J r . , Mobil Research & Development ~ o n COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-58 RECOMMENDATION: Change 6-2.2 to read:

"Where power is supplied from a single pr ivate power s ta t ion, the stat ion shall be of protected combustible or non-combustible construct ion and be located or protected in accordance with NFPA 80A, Protection from Exposure Fires.

143

SUBSTANTIATION: The revised Single Power Station requirements do not specify a level of protection required to "minimize" the probabi l i ty of damage by f i r e . I t is vague and provides no pract ical assistance in providing for the f i r e safety of the power stat ion, COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that when power is supplied from a single private power station nothing less than noncombustible construction is sat is fac tory for the stat ion.

20- 30 - (6-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: T. G. Coll inge, Insurers' Advisory Organization COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-5~ RECOMMENDATION: Revise second sentence:

"When the f i r e pump feeder conductors, ~ncluding those from an emergency generator, must be routed through building(s) they shall be buried, or otherwise protected by cementitious materials having a f i r e resistance rat ing equal to that of the bui lding(s) through which they pass but in any case not less than one hour (2 in. {51 mm) concrete is considered to have a one hour f i r e resistance ra t ing) . SUBSTANTIATION: Emergency generators, par t i cu la r l y in the high r~se context, are worth specif ic mention since they are often remote from the pumps themselves. There are several cementitious mixtures which can provide appropriate f i r e resistance rat ings, apart from concrete. Building codes frequently cal l for structural f i r e resistance ratings in excess of one hour, and i t seems appropriate to protect f i r e pump feeders accordingly. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inciple. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See Committee Action on Comment No. 9 on section 6-3.1.

20- 37 - (6-3.1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: O.M. Slye, J r . , Mobil Research & Development r~rporat ion COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-58 RECOMMENDATION: Change section 6-3.1.1 to read:

"All pump room wiring shall conform to NFPA 70, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE." SUBSTANTIATION: The requirements of NF~A 70 are su f f i c ien t fo r pumphouse or pump room wir ing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Special rules are necessary for requirements Tor power supply l ines used in f i r e pump ins ta l la t ions . NFPA 70, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE does not adequately cover the subject,

20- 3 - (5-3.3.2): Reject SU&MITTER: Samuel S. Levinrad, Veterans Administration COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-38 RECOMMENDATION: Elaborate on when f i r e pump feeders may be insta l led inside buildings without the physical protection specif ied in the referenced paragraph.

Correlate the referenced paragraph with NFPA 70, section 230-90 including Exception No. G and 230-44.

Increase the feeder c i r cu i t ampacity to 600 percent to recognize the c r i t i ca l nature of the f i r e pump feeder and delete al l power supply protection devices in section 6-3.4,

Proposed rewording: 6-3.3.2 Each l ine instal l~d in the f i r e pump feeder c i r cu i t shall be sized at 600 percent of the sum of the f u l l load current(s) of ~he f i r e pump and jockey pump motor(s) plus the current of the necessary associated f i r e pump ins ta l la t ion e lec t r ica l accessories. SUBSTANTIATION: This section requires the ampacity of the f i r e pump feeder to be sized at 125 percent of the sum of the main, jockey pump motor and aux i l i a r ies . I t also requires the feeder to be instal led outside the building ei ther physical ly or e f f ec t i ve l y (by using 2 in. of cnncrete or br ick) . Note that there is no option for ins ta l l i ng the feeders inside the bui lding. See also NFPA 70, 230-4~,

The referenced exception (NFPA 70, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, section 230-90(a), Exception No. 5) indicates that when feeders are outside buildings the sett ing or rat ing of overcurrent devices shall be based on locked rotor currents of the f i r e pump, jockey and accessories.

The wording of NFPA 70 suggests that under certain clrcumstances, f i r e pump feeders may be routed through huildings without the physical protection specif ied in 6-3.3.2. NFPA 20 does not elaborate as to when this is permitted. Consequently, i t is unclear whether the sett ing should be based on ampacity (125 percent of f u l l load) or locked rotor currents. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Protection of the wire is required to insure that the pump w i l l operate under f i r e conditions, increasing the wire size does not protect the wire from f i r e .

20- 9 - (Chapter 6): Accept SUB'lITTER: John D. Jensen, Chairman, Chapter 6 Subcommittee, ~ I s , ID rOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-58 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 6-?.3.1 as fo l lows: 6'-2.3.] " Where re l iab le power cannot be obtained from a private power stat ion or u t i l i t y service, i t shall be from two or more of e i ther of the above or in combination, or one or more of the above in combination with emergency generator (see 6-2,3.2), a l l as approved by the authori ty having ju r i sd i c t i on . The power sources shall be arranged so that a f i r e at one source w i l l not cause an interrupt ion at the other source(s).

gpvise 6-3.1 as fol lows: 6-3.1 Circui t Conductors. 6-3.1. l The f i r e pump feeder c i r cu i t conductors shall be physical ly routed outside bui ld ing(s), excluding the Electr ical Switch Gear Room and the Pump Room. When the f i r e pump feeder conductors must be routed through building(s) they shall be buried or enclosed by 2 in. (51 mm) of concrete (or equivalent one hour f i r e resistance) in order to be judged "outside the bui lding."

Renumber 6 - t . I .1 as 6-3.1.2 and renumber 6-3.1.2 as 6-3. ] .3. #dd a new 6-3.1.4 to read as fol lows:

6-3.1.4 The voltage at the cont ro l le r in le t terminals shall not drop more than 15 percent below normal {cont ro l le r rated voltage) under motor start ing conditions.

Figure 6-3.2 Add blades on disconnecting means in the cont ro l le r and add the word "SERVICE" before "DISCONNECTING MEANS ~ECTION 6-7.4."

Revise 6-3.3 to read as fol lows: 6-3.3 The f i r e pump feeder shall be connected ahead of al l plant disconnecting means (see I -B , I . 3 ) . There shall be no disconnecting means within the f i r e pump feeder c i r cu i t . Exception: The isolat ing and disconnecting means within the f i r e pump contro l ler (see Chapter 7).

Revise 6-7 to read as fol lows: 6-7 Emergency Generator. 6-7.1 Where emergency generators are used to supply power to f i r e pumps to meet the requirements of 6-2.3.1, they shall be of su f f i c ien t capacity tn allow normal star t ing and running of the motor(s) dr iv ing the f i r e pump(s) while supplying al l other loads connected to the generator.

Renumber 6-7.1 as 6-7.2. Renumber 6-7.2 as 6-7.3. Renumber 6-7.? as 6-7.a. SUBSTANTIATION: 6-2.3.1 The or ig inal intent was to use power sources, not stat ions, because a source may not be a single stat ion and the section needs c l a r i f i c a t i o n by spec i f i ca l l y out l in ing which combinations of power source are allowed. 6-3.1 In 6 -3 . ] , I additional guidance is needed to accurately define the f i r e resistance requirements intended. The section should be reorganized according to the NFPA Manual of Style. The information in 6-~.].4 was included in the 1980 edit ion of NFPA 20. I t is important to keep this res t r i c t i on so that components within the cont ro l le r w i l l operate cor rect ly . NEMA also requires this l im i ta t ion . Figure 6-3.2 This f igure needs c l a r i f i c a t i o n . 6-3.3 This section needs c l a r i f i c a t i o n to make intent clearer. 6-7 In 6-7.1 c l a r i f i r a t i om is needed when emergency generators are to be used as a power source. This section should be reorganized according to the NFPA Manual of Style. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

?0- 20 - (6-3.a.? Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: M. J. DeLerno, Berwyn, IL ~ O N PROPOSAL NO,: 20-58 ~COMMFNDATION: Add an Exception to read: E'~ception: Emergency power source feeder protection shall be per 6-7.3. KUBSTANTIATION: There is the poss ib i l i t y of misunderstanding the intent of 6-3.4.2 when emergency generator feeder curcuits are being considered. Paragraph 6-7.3 has d i f fe rent requirements from 6-?.~.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

144

20- 7 - (Table 6-5.1.1): Accept SUBNITTER: John D. Jensen, Chairman, Chapter 6 Subcommittee, T-d~EE-T~-TIs, ID COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-58 RECOMMENDATION: Renumber and replace Table 6-5,1.2 as follows:

Table 6-5.1.1 Horsepower, Locked Rotor Current Motor Designation

Motor Designation Locked Rotor 3urrent (NEC Locked-Rotor

Three-Phase Indicating Code Rated 460 Volts Letter)

Horsepower (Amps) "A" to including 5 46 J 7-I/2 64 H

I0 81 H 15 116 G 20 145 G 25 183 G 30 217 G 40 290 G 50 362 G 6O a35 G 75 543 G

100 725 G 125 908 G 150 1085 G 200 1450 G 250 1825 G 300 2200 G 350 2550 G 400 2900 G 450 3250 G 500 3625 G

The locked rotor currents fo r ,160 vo l t motors are approximately six times the f u l l load current. The corresponding values of locked rotor current for motors rated at other voltages shall be determined by mul t ip l ica t ion of the values shown by the ra t io of 460 vol ts to the rated voltage.

Code le t te rs of motors for a l l other voltages shall conform with those shown fo r 230 vo l ts . SUBSTANTIATION: Table published in TCR is not Cable approved by Subcommittee or Committee. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

20- 23 - (7-4.5.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneth S. Faulstich, General Services Administration COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NC.: 20-75 RECDMMENDATION: Incorporate Proposal No. 75 as stated with the additional fo l lowing words of the beginning of the new section 7-4.5.1: "In accordance with the authori ty having ju r i sd i c t i on , when..." SUBSTANTIATION: Most author i t ies having ju r i sd ic t i on require that the signals to indicate that the f i r e pump is running or that there is a loss of power be connected to the building f i r e alarm system (when provided). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The subject is adequately covered in 7-4.5.

20- 5 - (7-7): Accept SUBMITTER: M. J. DeLerno, Berwyn, IL ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-C8, 20-23 RECOMMENDATION: "Sugge"ssted Committee Comment to read:

"Public comment substantiation for deletion suggests that applications are only those described in section 5 - i . ] of NFPA 20-1978 which was removed from NFPA 20-1980. This is not the case, however, since there are many e~isting ins ta l la t ions which are not covered under 5-1.1 (special f i r e service pumps). Some such ins ta l la t ions date back 20 years or more and there is l i t t l e h is tory of unsat isfactory performance. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposals cited were rejected by Committee with ~ommittee Comment "See Proposal 48." However Proposal 20-48 was not published because i t was an identical proposal submitted by the Chapter 7 Subcommittee which was not accepted by Committee. Therefore Committee Comment for Proposal 20-48 needs to be documented. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. CUMMIIILL UUMMERT: The f i r e pump cont ro l le r detailed in Sections 7-i through 7-5 is required for ins ta l la t ions where fa i l u re of the f i r e pump to perform could resul t in loss of human l i f e or serious in ju r ies .

The l imited service cont ro l le r is a l imited use cont ro l le r applicable to those "nstal lat ions where fa i lu re of the f i r e pump to perform is less c r i t i c a l to human l i f e and safety and where i t is expected that the author i ty having jur isdict iom w i l l exercise the option of whether or not to allow this subst i tut ion. The Committee feels that this option should be l imited, however, to those ins ta l la t ions of 30 hp or less and voltages of 600 volts or less.

20- 1 - (7-8.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: M. J. DeLerno, Berwyn, IL COGENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-58 RECOMMENDATION: In 7-8.1.1 change the referenced section from 6-2.3 to 6-2.3.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed section 6-2.3 encompasses both 6-2.3.2. However, NFPA 20-1980, section 6-2.3 has s imi lar text to 6-2.3.1 only. There should be no poss ib i l i t y of misunderstanding that every ins ta l la t ion having an emergency generator (6-2.3.2) is required to comply with Section 7-8; only those needed to meet the requirement of 6-2.3.] are. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

20- 14 - (8-2.1.1): Reject 5UBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, Factory Mutual Research Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-24 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph: "Listed er~gines shall be: Heat Exchanger Cooled; Radiator Cooled; or Air Cooled." SUBSTANTIATION: All f i r e pump insta l la t ions cannot be best sat is f ied by only heat exchanger cooled engines. Guidance to the components for and the ins ta l la t ion of radiator and air-cooled engines is needed for the exact reasons the Comm tree stated for re ject ion of the proposal, To ignore the ins ta l la t ion of radiator cooled engines, even though more complicated, amounts to dere l ic t ion of duty. Guidance is needed for ins :a l la t ion because now radiator cooled engines are being insta l led incorrect ly as there are no guides, ei ther for the ins ta l l e r or authori ty having ju r i sd ic t ion . Of course, maintaining pump room :emperature is more d i f f i c u l t in many areas - hence, the need for guidance. The ambiguity of the statement, "The number and complexity of additional factors to be eonsldered in properly ins ta l l ing a radiator cooled system reduces the l ikel ihood of achieving a long-term re l iab le f i r e protection system," does nothing more than explain that the Committee recognizes existence af radiator cooled f i r e pump units but chooses to ignore them. AIs3, the statement, "Local author i t ies can current ly approve radiator systems...," fur ther enhances the Committee's stand not to give advice for the complex ins ta l la t ion of radiator systems.

Complexity and un re ] i ab i l i t y abounds on Figure A-B-2.7.2 (1980) and Figure A-8-4.3 (proposed). Every year, many engines are destroyed due to lack of cooling water because the solenoid valve fa i led or underground pipe fa i lu re lowered pump discharge pressure below what's necessary to operate the pressure regulator, I re i te ra te , one enaine cooling system only is not best for al l f i r e pump units. The Committee has an obl igation to give the necessary and wanted guidance for other than heat exchanq=r cooling systems, COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee feels that the present methods of ~ - - a ~ e o u a t e and that radiator coolimg does not o f fe r any improvement in the long term r e l i a h l l i t y of the f i r e protection system. Radiator cooled systems are more complicated, have more components to f a i l , and require more technical expertise to design and ins ta l l properly. Additional maintenance is required. Maintaining pump room temperature is more d i f f i c u l t in many areas. The numher and cnmplexity of addit ional factors to be considered in properly ~nstal l ing a radiator cooled system reduces the l ikel ihnod nf achieving a long term reliabl~, f i r e orotectfon system. Local author i t ies can currently approve radiator systems i f sp#cia] circumstances exist .

The proposed wording re la t i ve to air cooled engines is inadequate as presently wr i t ten. The subcommit:ee is, therefore, reject ing the sections on air cooling as well a,~ this time while not reject ing air cooled enqines in pr inc ip le .

?0- 38 - (°-4.1.2(e~): Accept ~UPMITTER: Del Gennetten, Metro Instrument Inc. ~ O N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-NA ~ N D A T I O N : Reject proposal 20-17. SUBSTANTIATION: There is only one sure way to detect i f a battery

capable of supplying power to star t the enaine and that is to load i t . Any other form of detecting a bad battery or missing battery wnuld not be fool proof.

The contro l ler manufacturers have on]y two means of checking for a bad or missing battery. Thpse two are voltage and current measurements, qince the charger is also a source of D.C. power to the con t ro l le r , and a charging source for the battery, current may at any one time be flowing in ei ther direct ion. Therefore current caner be a means of checking for a missing battery. As long as the charger is workinq and there are no extra loads a voltage w i l l always be present.

When a battery is beina charged i t develops a surface charge on the battery plates producing a battery voltage above the normal open c i r cu i t battery voltage. When charging stops this surface charge remains for a time. The time depending on the load and other factors affect ing the battery. When a f re pump cont ro l le r charaer switches from its high rate of charge 1:o the low rate this surface charge w i l l prevent any charge from entering the battery. The cont ro l le r current is being supplied by the charger. The battery l ine w i l l have zero current. This would be interpreted as a battery having been removed.

Again there is only one sure way to know i f :here is a power supply available for cranking the engine and that is to Inad i t . This is the method presently used by contre l le" manufacturers. This is done on the weekly test s tar ts . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

145

20- 22 - (11-2.8.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Paul D. Smith, Oakland, CA ~ O N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-53 RECOIV~IENDATION: Add the word "Engine" at the beginning of the f i r s t sentence, so i t reads: "Engine-generator sets. . . " SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed section reads: "Generator sets s e r v i n g . . . + ~ t is assumed that the intent of the committee was to refer to "engine" driven generators, since the Substantiation given in the TCR refers to the weekly run requirement for "engines." (For instance, there is not and should be no requirement to test electr ic motors or motor driven sets weekly.) COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

20- 32 - (11-2.8.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas W. Jaeger, Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc. ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-53 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the proposed new section 11-2.8.1. SUBSTANTIATION: I disagree with the Committee's Substantiation that the new section 11-2.8.1 is consistent with the requirement of 8-6.1 for a weekly run. Fi rst , Section 8-6.1 does not require the pump to be tested under load. Section 8-6.1 primarily requires the testing of the internal combustion engine and not the pump. I don't know i f i t was the Committee's intent to l i t e r a l l y mean to test a generator under f i re pump load weekly or to run the pump under no flow conditions for 30 minutes, or to test the generator, but many wil l interpret the proposed new section to mean to flow the pump with the wording "under the f i re pump load."

Second, section 8-6.1 requires testing of the f i re pump "prime mover" and not auxi l iary or backup equipment. There are existing standards for the testing of emergency generator sets and all this new section 11-2.8.1 is doing is adding to generator testing procedures. For example, generators in health care fac i l i t i es are required to be adequately tested on a regular basis. Why can't the NFPA 20 Committee accept this in lieu of their new requirement?

Again, the Committee has not substantiated this new requirement and i t should be deleted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise to read as follows: 11-2.8.1 Generator sets serving f i re pump instal lat ions shall

be inspected weekly and shall be exercized for at least 30 minutes once every month. A w~itten record of inspection, performance, operation, and repairs shall be kept and available for inspection by the authority having jur isd ic t ion. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The revised wording wil l make the section correlate with NFPA 76A and 11~.

SUBSTANTIATION: The dimension arrows for Notes i , 2 and 3 are fncorrect ly drawn. The flowmeter valves should be labeled for proper use during the tes t . The hose header should be indicated on the sketch. Piping connections and valves should be revised to permit test ing the suction supply piping without iso lat ing or operating the f i r e pumps. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le.

Accept the Submitter's sketch, delete Note B and renumber Notes 6 through I I as Notes 5 through I0. All of the symbols legend below the present Figure A-2-1.3.2.1(b) w i l l be retained.

In the t i t l e delete the parenthetical phrase "(Not Recommended, see Note 6) . " COMMITTEE COMMENT: Note 5 is no longer applicable with the revised sketch.

20- 36 - (Figure A-2-13.2.1(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: O.M. Slye, Jr. , Mobil Research & Development Corporat{on COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 20-22 RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate the Figure. SUBSTANTIATION: Metering devices are of no practical value when they discharge back to the pump suction piping. In instal lat ions where water cannot be discharged safely or legally to drains, another method of accurately determining the performance of the pump should be used. This standard should not endorse improper instal lat ion of metering devices. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE COMMENT: See the Committee Action on Public Comment No. 25 on Figure A-2-13.2.1(b). The revised Figure A-2-1.?.2. I (b) permits test ing the pumps and suction supply piping.

20- 4 - (Figure A-2-13.2.1(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Matthew B. Cole, General Services Administration ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-103 ~ E N D A T I O N : Delete Figure A-2-13.2.1(b) ent i re ly. Modify ~ 2 . 1 ( a ) as shown on the drawing below and make i t a mandatory arrangement.

To drah~ , or G , a hc~s~" header

20- 29 - (A-2-13.1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: T. G. Collinge, Insurers' Advisory Organization ~ I PROPOSAL NO.: 20-101 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "standpipe hose valves." SUBSTANTIATION: Hose breaks and similar upsets have been known to occur during pump tests; i f standpipe outlets are being used, they may occur inside the protected premises with potent ia l ly distressing results. Headers, yard and wall hydrants offer a suf f ic iency of a l te rnat ives . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE COMMENT: Section A-2-13.1.2 is only advisory. In order to prevent damage to the premises, due to possible hose breakage, the hose could be tested hydros ta t i ca l l y before the f i r e pump is started.

20- 25 - (Figure A-2-13.2.1(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Walter A. Damon, Buffalo Grove, IL ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-103 RECOMMENDATION: See sketch shown below.

%

,+.,.+ .A - L++.+

F+

+'ttr , "DLm' fl~'l, l I i F r.+~liiBcnl:~ + ~ (,,<ll iol~i l'J mi'Jp 1,4) +

Figure A-2-13.2.1(b)

g,

t

Bv-I)ass ( I f o f Value)

, To sys tem

Figure A-2-13.2.1(a)

146

SUBSTANTIATION: The arrangement as shown in Figure A-2-13.2.1(b) should not be allowed. The substantiation for this lies in the proposed new Notes 7-10 For Figure A-2-13.2.1(b). The ful l function of a f i re pump cannot be ascertained unless water flows from the supply, through the f i re pump, and is discharged. The arrangement in Figure A-2-13.2.1(b) does not allow any water to f low from the supply, thus i t does not allow the complete test ing of the f i r e pump.

The modif icat ion of Figure A-2-13.2.1(a) allows water to be discharged through a f low meter to a drain or a hose header, COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le . COMMITTEE COMMENT: See the Committee Action on Public Comment No. 25 on Figure A-2-13.2.1(b).

20- 8 - (A-6 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John Jensen, Idaho Falls, ID ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 20-N# RECO~MENDATION: Add Appendix section to Chapter 6 as follows: #-6-2.2 A private generating plant located on the premises served by the f i re pump is considered as a power station, i f i t is in a separate power house or cut off from the main buildings. I t may be used as one of the tv~ sources of current supply. Where two sources are used with automatic transfer switches, refer to the Article 700, NFPA 70, NATIONAL ~_ECTRICAL CODE. A-6-3.1.1 Where risks involved are large and interruption of f i re pump service would seri()usly affect protection, at least two separate lines from the power plant(s) to the pump room should be provided. The lines should be run by separate routes or in such a manner that failure of more than one at the same time would be only a remote possibi l i ty.

Where current is taken from an underground Edison 3-wire system it wi l l be considered t lat two independent lines have been provided i f connections are brought into the pump room from two street mains or from fe~ders not terminating directly in the same junction box.

A completely undergroJnd circuit from generating station to the pump room is strongly recommended and should be obtained when practicable. When such construction is not available, an overhead circuit may be allowed, but that part of the circuit adjacent to the plant served by the f i re pump or to exposing plants should be run with special reference to damage in case of f i re . Where the pump room is part of, or in close proximity to, the plant which the pump is designed to protect, the wires should be underground for some distance from the pump room. A-6-5.1 Alternating current motors may be of the squirrel cage induction type and may be used with across-the-line starting equipment. I f their starting characteristics should be objectionable to the ccmpany furnishing power or i f voltage power or i f the voltage drop on starting is a consideration, then primary resistance, primary reactor, auto transformer, part winding, or Wye-Delta starting may be used.

Delete present A-6-I. Renumber A-6-2.3 as A-6-2.2. Renumber A-6-3.1 as f,-6-3.1.1. Delete A-6-3.3.3. Delete A-6-4.1. Revise A-6-5.1 as above. Delete Figures A-6-3(a) and A-6-3(b).

SUBSTANTIATION: The Appendix material was not included in the TCR and is ~eing'submitted to complete the proposal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le

Revise the Appendix sections as fol lows: Use the submitted, but a f ter the A-6-5.1 entry add a new entry to read as fol lows:

A-6-7.1 The use of the emergency generator to drive loads other than the f i r e pump up "1o i ts f u l l capacity (peak shaving) may be permitted whenever the primary power source is avai lable. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the Submitter, but }~as added advisory material when an emergency generator may be used for other than a : i re pump which should clari fy the section.

8-2-2.4* Revise to read as follows: "8-2.2.4* A deduction of 3 percent from engine ~orsepower

rating at standard SAE conditions shall be made for diesel engines for each 1000 sq f t (305 m) a l t i tude above 300 f t (g l . a m)."

~-2.2.5" Revise to read as follows: "8-2.2.5* A deduction of one percent from engine horsepower

rating as corrected to standard SAE conditions shall be made for diesel engines for every lO°F (~.6°C) above 77°F (2~°C) ambient temperature.

Revise Figure A-8-2.2.4 as shown on next page: "Figure #-8-2.2.4 Elevation Derate Curve. (See Note for Figure

A-8-2.2.5)."

Revise Figure A-8-2.2.5 as shown on next page: "Figure A-8-2.2.5 Temperature Derate Curve."

Revise Figure A-8-2.7.2 as shown on next page:

Revise Figure A-8-2.7.2 as follows: Add the following to C-I-2: "SAE J1349 Dec 80, Engine Power Test Code - Spark Ignition and

Diesel. Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096."

Editorial Changes

The Committee has ha~ the following editorial changes called to its attention and agrees that they should be made.

Revise 2-13.3.2 to read as follows: "2-13-3.2 Hose valve(s) shall have the NH standard external

thread, for the valve size specified, as specified in NFPA 1963, Standard for Screw Threads and Gaskets for Fire Hose Connections.

Exception: Where local f i re department connections do not conform to NFPA 1963, the authority having jurisdiction shall designate the connection to be used."

7-7 Change the t i t l e to read as follows: "7-7 Limited Service Controllers."

8-2.2.1 Revise to ~ead as follows: "8-2.2.1 Engines shall be rated at standard SAE conditions of

29.61 in. (7521 mm) Hc barometer and 77°F (25°C) inlet air temperature (approxim~Ltes 300 f t (91.4 m) above sea level) by the testing laboratory (see SAE Standard J 1349)."

147

101

I OQ

98

96

94

92

90

88

86

84-

82-

80-

78,.

75

74 ~2i 79, 68

o _ _ ~-co__

I 0

" , \

\

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000

E[ EVATION ABOVE SEA LEVEL (FTI

F,j, SI u, ,ts i 11 [, 21)4;~ ,,,

Figure #-~-2.2.4 Elevatlon D e r a t e C u r v e .

t 00-

99 -

98- ' .

9 , ' -

a: 9{5

:~ q5 -

94-

93 -

92 -

o 91

90

89-

88-

65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 16') 175 1£5 195 20 r,

AMBIENT AI R TEMPERATURE AT ENGFNE INLET I FJ

C,,rr£, [, d Enq,ne H Jr e0ower £ I~tP~ Enqlrt e .or&epower. (E,~ * C, I {)) C A DPrat~ Farr,,r tot Eh,~at o,, £T Dera~, F ~, 1or lot Temp, ratu,e

F i g u r e A - 8 - 2 . 2 . 5 T e m p e r a t u r e D e r a t e C u r v e .

FIRE

PUMP

=<

CIRCULATING SYSTEM

I

I

ENGINE BLOCK

DRAIN

O Z r,1

0 ,< Z ~o ~I> HI>

E~ n~ [4 Z Z

FILLING

C O N N E C T I O N - ~

H

~ z ~

COOLANT

PUMP

I I

L' PRESSURE 1 GAGE

L__q

J

l - - J

__ \ .EAT-- / ] IND~CATI.G \ E~C.A,.GE~

~.OAL VALVE\ q ~ ~ L # TE~

J~

F i g u r e A 8 - 2 . 7 . 2 C o o l i n g W a t e r L i n e w i t h By -pass .

W a t e r c o o l e d E x h a u s t M a n i f o l d a n d o r A f t e r c o o l e r

i f A p p l i c a b l e M a y Be J a c k e t W a t e r o r Raw W a t e r C o o l e d .

1 4 8

16A- 3 - (Entire Standard): Accept SUBMITTER: J. R. Natale~ Mobil Research & Development Corp. L~FE-N-I"-~N PROPOSAL NO.: 16A-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the word "a i r " whenever reference to "a i r foam" is made. SUBSTANTIATION: This change is necessary to be consistent with NFPA ] I , COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

IBA- 4 - (1-1.2): Accep'; SUBMITTER: J. R. Natale, Mobil Research & Development Corp.

ON PROPOSAL NO,: 16A-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "eference to NFPA 11B.

Change t i t l e of NFPA 11 to "Standard for Low Expansion Foam and Combined Agent Systems," SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 113 is being incorporated into NFPA 11 with the new combined standarJ having the referenced t i t l e . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

16A- 5 - (1-3): Accept SUBMITTER: J. R. Natale, Mobil Research & Development Corp, ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 16A-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following defini t ion:

"Proportioning. Proportioning is the continuous introduction of foam concentrate at the recommended rat io into the water stream to form foam solution. SUBSTANTIATION: No defini t ion is presently included to clearly explain the term proportioning. COMMITTEE ACTION: Acce~t.

16A- 6 - (1-4.1.1.2): t,ccept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. R. NataIe, Mobil Research & Development Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 16A-I RECOMMENDATION: Add t~E, fol lowing sentence:

Systems using special 'a lcohol- type' AFFF concentrates should not be pre-primed with foam solution without consulting with the #FFF concentrate manufacturer." SUBSTANTIATION: These special corcentrates may be susceptible to ~rming sedimentation when stored as a solution. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle,

AcTa two sentences to '-ead as follows: "Systems using special "alcohol-type" AFFF concentrates should

not be pre-primed with "=Dam solution without consulting the concentrate manufacture:-. These special concentrates may be susceptible to forming ~edimentation when stored as a solution. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has included his substantiation in the material to be added to the section for additional juidance.

16A- 7 - ( I -4 .4) : Accept SU&MITTER: J. R. Natale, Mobil Research & Development Corp. ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 16A-I RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite to say:

"When the supply of foam concentrate is exhausted, these special systems w i l l continue to discharge water to the hazards protected unt i l manually shut o f f . " SUBSTANTIATION: The suggested rewording w i l l c l a r i f y that the term "completion" is re fer r ing to the supply of foam concentrate. COMMITTEE ACTION: AccEpt.

16A- 8 - (2-1.4): AccEpt in Principle SUBMITTER: J. R. Natale, Mobil Research & Development Corp. L'-O-M-M-E-N-T-~N PROPOSAL NO.: 16A-I RECOMMENDATION: Delet(i the current Section 2-1.4 and replace with Section 2-3.3 of NFPA ]I-]983. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 2-3.3 of NFPA 11-1983 provides a more thorough coverage of the requirements for foam concentrate pumps. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise as follows: 2-1.4 Foam Concentrate Pumps. 2-1.4.1 Design. Design and materials of construction shall be

suitable for use with :;he type of foam concentrate to minimize corrosion, foaming or ,;ticking. Special attention shall be paid to the type of seal or packing used.

2-1.4.2 Capacity. Pumps shall have adequate capacities to meet the maximum system design requirements. To ensure positive injection, the discharge pressure rating at design discharge capacity shall be suf f ic ient ly in excess of the maximum water pressure l ike ly under any condition at the point of injection of the concentrate.

2-1.4.3 Pressure Relief. Positive displacement pumps shall be provided with adequate means of pressure re l ie f from the discharge to the supply side of the c i rcu i t to prevent excessive pressure and temperature, Centrifugal pumps may require pressure re l i e f depending upon the type of driver and shut-off pressures.

2-i.4.4 Flushin 9. Pumps shall have adequate means for flushing with clean water after use. They shall be provided with a drain cock or valve.

PART I l l COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the !,ubmitter but has deleted Sec-l~Ton 2-3.3.5 from NFPA 11 because the subject of contro l lers is covered in 2-1.5.2.

16A- 9 - (3-2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. R. Natale, Mobil Research & Development Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 16A-1 R~CO~ENDATION: Delete Section 3-2.2.

Add a new section 1-5.6 as fo l lows: i-B.6 Consideration shall be given to potential contamination

of water supplies, t reat ing systems, and ef f luent by foam concentrate or foam or foam solution runof f . SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed new section more adequately covers the concerns of contamination from foam concentrate, foam or foam solut ion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inciple.

Add a new 1-{.6 to read as fo l lows: 1-5.6 Consideration should be given to potential contamination

of water supplies, t reat ing systems, and ef f luent by foam concentrate ur foam or foam solution runoff . The concentrate manufacturer should he consulted for guidance. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with the subm~tter but has n o t ~ - 2 . 2 because the guidance given on possible pol lut ion to public water supplies is sound.

IEA- 1 - (3-2.31: Reject SUBNITTER: Kenneth G. Wohlers, ilS Air Force ~OMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 16A-I ~ O ~ l ~ ' e section to read:

2-2.3 Water supplies should be capable of supplying the system at the design discharge rate for at least 30 minutes, SUBSTANTIATION: Closed-head foam-water pre-actior spr inkler systems are well suited for ins ta l la t ion in a i r c re f t hangars. Closed-head systems are desirable to reduce water supply requirements. Frequently, supplementary f i r e suppression systems are required especial ly for large a i r c ra f t . NFPA 409-1979, Standard on A i rc ra f t Hangars, Section 12-7.2.2 (Type I hangars) requires only a a5 minute water supply for open-head systems. Section I~-7.2.3 (Type I I hangars) requires only a 30 minute water supply. The proposed recommended procedure, as wr i t ten, would require at least a 60 minute water supply, which would contradict NFPA 409 and negate any ~conomy of water supply predicated on the pro-action system concept. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~ ~ T : The Committee disagrees that a con f l i c t exists between NFPA 409 and NFPA 16A. NFRA 409 is an occupancy standard and NFPA 16A is a recommended practice concerned with the use of an eYtinguishing agent. Any occupancy standard such as NFPA 40 ° can modify any of the e~tinguishing system standard requirements. The duration of water supply in NFPA 409 is based on the low level foam system and the nverhead system operating simJltaneously.

16A- 10- (4-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: J. R. Natale, Mobil Research & Development Corp. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 16A-1 RECUMMENL/AT[U .'N~--~"h~an-~ reference to "4-1.1" to correct ly read "4-I ." SUBSTANTIATION: Present reference is incorrect. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

16A- 11 - (a -2 . I ) : Accept FUBMITTER: J . R . Natale, Mobil Research & Develcpment Corp. ~[~N"~-~N PROPOSAL NO.: 16~-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to NFPA lIB.

Add a reference for the fol lowing standard: "Low Expansion Foam and Combined Agent Systems." SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA l ib is being incorporated ~nto NFPA 11 with the new combined standard having the referenced t i t l e . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

16A- 12 - 14-2.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: J. R. Natale, Mobil Research & Development Corp. ~'6~-E#?--'6N PROPOSAL NO.: 16A-I RECOMMENDATION: ~ or c l a r i f y the statement in Section

SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of this section is t o t a l l y unclear. W h ~ water be the contro l l ing design c r i te r ion for a foam-water sprinkler system? I f the c r l t e r ion is based on the appropriate occupancy standard, water would be the contro l l ing factor since few i f any occupancy standards reference the use of foam-water systems vs water systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le.

Revise as fol lows: 4-2.2.1 When the design c r i te r ion is based on the assumption of

water discharge only, the appropriate NFPA standard should be consulted. COMMITTEE COMMENT: The Committee agrees with submitter and has c l a r i f i e d the section.

149

16A- 2 - (5-1.1): Accept in Pr inciple SUBMITTER: Gerald E. Lingeofel ter , American Insurance Assn.

ON PROPOSAL NO. : 16A-1 RECOM~NDAIION: Delete second sentence of 5-1.1, and revise table in accordance with Table 1-11.2.2 of NFPA 13. SUBSTANTIATION: Since these systems u t i l i z i ng standard sprinklers and water supplies are simi lar to those required f o r spr ink ler systems, f lushing tests should be the same as those set fo r th in NFPA 13. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Pr inc ip le.

Revise as fo l lows: 5-1.1" Underground mains and lead-in connections shall be

flushed at a flow rate not less than indicated in Table 5-1.1 or at the hydraul ica l ly calculated water demand rate of the system, whichever is greater.

Table 5-1.1 Pipe Size Flow Rate L/min.

4 inch 400 GPM 1514 5 inch 600 GPM 2271 6 inch 750 GPM 2839 8 inch 1000 GPM 3785

10 inch 1500 GPM 5678 12 inch 2000 GRM 7570

Exception: When the water supply w i l l not produce the stipulated f low rate, connections to a hydraul ica l ly designed system may be flushed at the demand rate of the system, including hose streams i f hose or hydrants or both are supplied from that connection.

A-5-I.1 Underground mains and lead-in connections to system risers should be flushed through hydrants at dead ends of the system or through accessible aboveground f lushing out lets allowing the water to run unt i l clear. I f water is supplied from more than one source or from a looped system, d iv is ional valves should be closed to produce a high ve loc i ty f low through each single l ine. The flows specified in Table 5-1.1 w i l l produce a ve loc i ty of at least 6 f t /sec (1.8 m/s) which is necessary for cleaning the pipe and for l i f t i n g foreign material to an aboveground f lushing out le t . COMMITTEE COM~NT: The Committee agrees with the submitter but has deleted Exception No. 2 of Section 1-11.2.2 of NFPA 13 because there are no pipe schedule systems For closed-head foam-water spr inkler systems.

16A- 13 - ( B - I . I ) : Accept SUBMITTER: J. R. Natale, Mobil Research & Development Corp. -C'I~I~'TNI~-~N PROPOSAL NO. : 16A-I RECOM~NDATION: Delete reference to NFPA 11B.

Change t i t l e of NFPA 11 to read: "Standard f o r Low Expansion Foam and Combined Agent Systems." SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA lIB is being incorporated into NFPA 11 with the new combined standard having the referenced t i t l e . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

PART IV

26- 1 - (5-2 Notes ] and 2 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Joseph W. Levesque, Brookhaven National Lab. L~)-M--N~H~I'-~N PROPOSAL NO. : 26-i RECOM~NDATION: Add to end of 5-2:

NOTE 1: For the case of sectional valves or other yard main valves, refer to NFPA 291, Fire Flow Testing and Marking of Hydrants, to ensure adequate water supplies have been restorpd. Note 2: For wall post indicator valves, post indicator valves, curb box valves, etc . , the mechanism should exhibl t a spring tension when turned f u l l y open. Lack of spring tension can indicate a jammed mechanism or broken gate.

SUBSTANTIATION: i . Additional guidance as to the source of "other test ing methods" is required.

2. The standard does not address any forth of proper mechanical motion of the valve mechanisms, which are often a cause of incompletely opened valves (not always detectible by a drain tes t ) . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept,

26- 2 - (6-8.2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Rolf Jensen or Randal G. Brown, Sr., Rolf Jensen& Assoc., Ltd. COM~NT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 26-I RECOM~NDATION: Revise as fo l lows:

6-8.2.1 The author i ty having j u r i sd i c t i on may require that there be a valve index board f o r use in conjunction with mult i -part closure tags. This board should also include a drawing of the premises showing the location of al l valves, reservoirs, pumps and other f i r e protection equipment pertinent to the operation of f i r e protection systems and water supplies. SUBSTANTIATION: The use of a drawing during a f i r e situation would aid in the location of valves and the proper functioning of f i r e protection systems in industr ia l premises which contain a pr ivate water supply or a system of inground piping which may or may not be separate from the domestic water supply. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

PART V

291- 1 - (Chapter 1 and Chapter 2): Accept SUBMITTER: Warren B, Cummings, Fairbanks Fire Department, AK

PROPOSAL NO.: 291-I RECOMMENDATION: Chapter I : Add:

Class AA - Flow Capacity of 1500 gpm or greater Change: Class A - Flow Capacity of 1000 - 1499 9Pm Change: Class B - Flow Capacity of 500 - 999 gpm Chapter 2: Add: Class AA - Tops and Nozzle Caps - Light Blue

SUBSTANTIATION: la. With ever more wide spread f i r e service dependence upon response of fewer nambers of pumpers which have increasingly higher capacities (now often 1500-2000 gpm) to alarms at large f i r e f low target hazards, i t is now important fo r f i r e suppression personnel to have a means of read i ly ident i fy ing hydrants that w i l l enable them to u t i l i ze pumper apparatus to f u l l e s t capacity.

(For example, committing a 1750 gpm pumper at a hydrant that flows 1050 gpm would be a mistake when another hydrant that flows 1550 gpm was avai lable. Under the present system both would be marked as flows of 1000 gpm or greater.)

lb. Change f low capacity range to avoid overlap at t rans i t ional end points.

2. The color l ight blue was selected as i t is readi ly distinguishable from the other three colors already in use and has been found to be the most acceptable color from an aesthetic view point to urban beaut i f icat ion e f fo r t s . COMMITTEE ACT ION: Accept.

150

14- 4 - (1-3): Accept SUBMITTER: A. P. Sc i t t i ne , Western E lec t r i c Co. ~ O N PROPOSAL NO. : 14-NA RECOMMENDATION: 1-3 In the second and last l ines change "out lets" to "connections" instead of "connectors." SUBSTANTIATION: Editori~LI. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

1 4 - 3 - (i-6.1.2 E×cepti(~n): Accept SUBMITTER: A. P. Scitt lne, Western Electr ic Co. -(FO-M-I~'-N'T-~N PROPOSAL NO. : 14-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add to "~he Exception "and when approved by the authority having ju r isd ic t ion . " SUBSTANTIATION: I f hose smaller than 1 I/2 in. is to be used, i t should be approved by th,: authority having jur isdict ion as was stated in the Appendix, COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

", 14- 9 - (1-6.1.2 Exception): Accept in Principle ~ T T E R : Thomas H. Mi l ler , Alliance of American Insurers ~ N PROPOSAL NO.: 14-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Exception to read:

Exception: Hose smaller than 1 i/2 in. may be used in l ight hazard occupancies as defined in NFPA 13, fo r Class II service when the hose has been nvestigated and l isted for this service. SUBSTANTIATION: Due te the reduction in water delivered, the use of small hose should be limited to occupancies or portions of occupancies where the expected f i r e size and heat release rate is low. COMMII-CEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I After the word "service" add "in l ight hazard occupancies." I COMMITTEE COMMENT: Section A-6-3 of NFPA 14 has a l i s t of l ight

hazard occupancies take~ from A-1-7.2,1 of NFPA 13. Also, see the Committee Action fo r No. 3 on I-6.1.2,

14- 5 - (2 -1 .3) : Accept SUBMITTER: A. P. Sc i t t ine , Western E lec t r ic Co. ~ N PROPOSAL NC. : 14-4 RE'COMMENDATION: Change "Class 2" to "Class I I . " SUBSTANTIATION: Edi tor ia l , C(JMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

14- B - (4-6 .1) : Accept SUBMITTER: Wayne E. Ault or Sharon M. Istvan, Roll Jansen & ~ n e . COMFENT ON PROPOSAL NO, : 14-2 RECOMMENDATION: Revisa section to read as fol lows:

4-6.1 Each hose con~ection for dry standpipes having no permanent water supply shall be provided with a conspicuous, durable and permanent legib le sign reading, "Dry Standpipe fo r Fire Department Use Only." SUBSTANTIATION: C la r i f i ca t ion of the term, "dry standpipe" recommended by Proposal No. 2 w i l l require that this section be modified also. Confusion may arise and dry standpipes with a permanent water supply may be labeled "For Fi re Department Use Only" when there is water supply avai lable fo r use by bui ld ing occupants, COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept,

14- 1 - (6-4 Exception No. 1 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Gerald E. L ingenfe l ter , American Insurance Assn. ]~I~I~[IQE'-NT"ON PROPOSAL NO. : i~-9 RECOMMENDATION: Rev'~;~ proposal to add a new Exception No. I and renumber ex is t ing Exception to be Exception No, 2. Exception No. i to read:

Exception No. I : Where the hydrau l ica l ly calculated spr inkler demand is less than ~50 gpm ( in l igh t hazard occupancies) or 500 gpm (in ordinary hazard occupancies), the hydrau l i ca l l y calculated spr ink ler demand may be added to the water supply requirements of Section 5-3 or 5-5. SUBSTANTIATION: Although we appreciate the intent of this rev is ion, delet ion of "the larger of" also ( technical ly) allows use of the 150 gpm or 500 gpm values even where the hydrau l ica l ly calculated spr inkler demand exceeds 150 gpm (in l igh t hazard occupancies) or 500 gpm ( in ordinary hazard occupancies). In such cases, use of the standpipe may s i gn i f i can t l y af fect the spr ink ler system character is t ics . Suggested change meets Committee intent without th is adverse e f fec t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept,

PART VI 14- 7 - (Table 7-5.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: A. P. Sc i t t i ne , Western E lec t r i c Co. COMIVE~N PROPOSAL NO. : 14-11 ~ECOMMENDATION: To conform with the ANSI standards also change:

i . "Cast Iron Screwed F i t t ings" to "Cast Iron Threaded F i t t i n g s . "

2. "Flanged F i t t i ngs , 125 and 250 Ib" to "Flanged F i t t i ngs , Class 125 and 250."

3. "Malleable Iron Screwed F i t t i ngs" to "Malleable I~on Threaded F i t t i ngs . " SUBSTANTIATION: Correct other designations of ANSI standards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept,

14- 2 - (8-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Russell P. Fleming, National Automatic Spr inkler & -FTre Control Assn., Inc, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO.: 14-12 RECOMMENDATION: Change proposed wording from "at the low point" to "at the low elevation po in t , " SUBSTANTIATION: To c l a r i f y in ten t . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

14- 6 - (A-413.1(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: A. P. Sc i t t i ne , Western E lec t r ic Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO. : 14-13 RECOMMENDATION: Change to read as fo l lows:

A-4-3. ] (a) Hose connections may be located at intermediate landings between f loors in addi t ion to the hose connections located at the f l oo r landings. SUBSTANTIATION: C la r i f y the intent of the change. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

Edi tor ia l Changes

The Committee has had the fo l lowing ed i to r ia l changes cal led to i t s at tent ion and agrees they should be made.

a - l , 3 "Hose valve(s) shall have external threads having the NH standard thread, fo r the valve size speci f ied, as specif ied in NFPA 1963, Screw Threads and Gaskets for Fire Hose Connections.

Excaption: Where local f i r e department connections do not conform to NFPA 1962. The author i ty having j u r i sd i c t i on shall designate the connection to be used."

4-5.1 Fourth l ine change "adapter" to "reducer,"

5-6.8 "The Fire Department Connection(s) shall be internal threaded swivel f i t t i n g ( s ) having the NH standard thread, at least one of which shall be the 2.5-7,5 NH standard thread, as specif ied in NFPA 1963, Screw Threads and Gaskets fo r Fire Hose Connections.

Exception: Where local f i r e department connections do not conform to NFPA 1963. The author i ty having j u r i sd i c t i nn shall designate the connection to be used."

9-1.1.5 "Hose valve(s) shall have external threads having the NH standard thread, fo r the valve size speci f ied, as specif ied in NFPA 1963, Screw Threads and Gaskets fo r Fire Hose Connections.

Exception: Where local f i r e department connections (Io not conform to NFPA 1963. The author i ty having j u r i sd i c t i on sha~il designate the connection to be used,"

151