i•l•i - NFPA of the Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems Richard Martineau, Chair...

Report of the Committee on

Private Water Supply Piping Systems

Richard Martineau, Chair Mid Hudson Automatic Sprinkler Corp., NY

Rep. Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn.

David S. Mowrer, V/ce Cha/r HSB Professional Loss Control Inc., TN

i • l • i d L. Allen, Union Electric, MO • Bell, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL

Richard W. Bonds, Ductile Iron Pipe Research Assn., AL Frank E. Cann, Charlotte, NC Rep. Grinnell Fire Protection

KenuethJ. Carl, Baldwin, NY David M. Gough, Industrial Risk Insurers, CT Marshall A. Klein, Marshall A. Klein & Assn. Inc., MD

M. Maddry, Science Applications Int'l. Corp., GA z E. Otte, Waterous Co., MN

Rep. Mfrs. Standardization Society Robert A. Panero, Pacific Gas and Electric Go., CA Re D . Electric Light Power Group/Edison Electric Inst.

Dasad O, Rogers, Alexander & Alexander, Inc., GA Sam (Sat) Salwan, Environmental Systems Design Inc., IL J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp., M I

Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section James W. Simms, RolfJensen & Assn. Inc., CA Robert Spaulding, Factory Mutual Research, MA Michael J. Stelzer, Lummus Crest, Inc., TX Joseph E. Trlgg, Potter Electric Signal Co., MO James G. Whitelaw, Febco Sales Inc., CO Fred S. Winters, Wausau Insurance Cos., WI

Rep. The Alliance of American Insurers Robert A. ¥oder, M.J. Corboy Co., IL

Rep. Illinois Fire Prevention Assn.

Alternate

Walter A. Damon, Schirmer Engineering Corp., IL (bAt. to R. A. Yoder)

Joseph B. Hankins, Factory Mutual Research Corp., MA (bAt. to W. E. Wilcox)

Michael L. Jones, Industrial Risk Insurers, CA (bAt. to D. M. Cough)

Miles IL Suchomel,Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL (bAt. to g M. Bell)

Lyma K. Underwood, Wansau Insurance Cos., WI (bAt. to F. S. Winters)

DavidJ. Vandeyar, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn., NY (Alt. to R. Martineau)

Peter IL Yurkonis, RolfJensen & Assoc_ Inc., IL (Alt. toJ. W Simms)

Nonvoting

Geoffrey N. Perkins, Bassett Consulting Engr, QU, Astralia

StaffLialson: Milosh T. Puchovsky

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred.

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on private piping systems supplying water for fire protection and for hydrants, hose houses, and valves. The Commit- tee is also responsible for documents on fire flow testing and marking of hydrants.

The Report of the Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems is presented for adoption in 3 parts.

Part I of this Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems and proposes for adoption amendments to NFPA 24-1992, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances. NFPA 24-1992 is published in Volume 2 of the 1994 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

Part I of this Rel~ort has been submited to letter ballot of the Technical CommRtee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems which consists of 22 voting members, and the results of the balloting can be found in the r epo~

Part II of this Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems and proposes the withdrawal of NFPA 26-1988, Recommended Practice for the Supervision of Valves Controlling Water Supplies for Fire Protection. NFPA 26-1988 is published in Volume 10 of the 1994 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

Part II of this Report has been submited to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems which consists of 22 voting members, and the results of the balloting can be found in the report.

Part III of this Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems and proposes for adoption amendments to NFPA 291-1988, Recommended Practice for Fire Flow Testing and Marking of Hydrants. NFPA 291-1988 is published in Volume 11 of the 1994 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

Part III of this Report has been submited to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems and the results of the balloting can be found in the report.

215

N F P A 2 ~ A 9 5 R O P

PART I

(Log #6) 24- I - (???): Reject SUBMITTER: Sam Salwan, Environmental Systems Design, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read:

"A fire department connection shall be located not more than 100 ft from the nearest fire hydrant." SUBSTANTIATION: Most of fire deparunents do not allow locadon of siamese connection farther than 100 ft from the fire hydrant. This new paragraph will be consistent with requirements of NFPA 14. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that the requirement proposed by the submitter is not within he scope of NFPA 24, as the location of public fire hydrants is not under the control of NFPA 24. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 19 NOT RETURNED: Alleu, Trigg, Whitelaw

(Log #16) 24- 2 - (1-3): Accept SUBMITTER: David S. Mowrer, Kingston, TN RECOMMENDATION: Under definition of private fire service mains:

(a) In item "1" delete phrase in brackets - "not over 6 in. (152 ram) above floor."

(b) In item "2" delete phrase "not within a building." SUBSTANTIATION: The standard should cover fire water supply piping whether above or below ground. As existing, the standard does not cover supply piping routed on above ground pipe racks (conunon in western industrial states) or large water supply distribution systems routed inside buildings of a large industrial complex such as commercial power plants, aircraft nffg. plants, etc. This type of supply piping is definitely "private fire service main" and is outside the scope of other NFPA standards such as NFPA 13, 15, 16, 20, etc. As written, this definition places wall hydrants outside the scope of the standard. If it is the intent that NFPA 24 apply solely to underground~ipe, it should be so defined. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 19 NOT RETURNED: Allen, Trigg, Whitelaw

COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: GOUGH: Although I voted affirmatively on the following item, 1

have the following comment for your consideration: NFPA 24, Log #16 - (b) should read "In item "4", not "2". This was

changed at the Committee Meeting but did not make the final published copies.

(Log #17) 24- 3 - (2-2.5, A-2-2.5): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: David S. Mowrer, Kingston, TN RECOMMENDATION: Add new sentence to 2-2.5 to read:

"Where equipment is installed to guard against possible contamina- tion of the public water system, such equipment and devices shall be listed for fire protection service." Add new paragraph (d) to A-2-2.5 to read: (d) Listing of backflow prevention devices and equipment for fire

lffotection service should include testing of specific issues related to tire protection concerns in addition to those issues of concern to public health to assure:

1. quality and reliability of materials of construction and design, 2. durability of mechanical components through operational

testing such as cycling specific moving parts, 3. verification that a significant, unreported water leakage will not

occur through the relief port of the device where such leakage could cause significant water damage or could result in inadequate water flow or pressure being available to the fire protection system(s),

4. verification that proper opening of valves will occur under fire flow conditions even when affected by sand, sediment, debris, etc. which could be reasonably anticipated under conditions of normal operation,

5. de,ices are suitable for the pressures maticipated during fire flow conditions, arid

6. the pressure losses through the device for specifically defined fire flow conditions are well documented.

SUBSTANTIATION: If backfiow prevention devices are installed as a part of a fire water supply piping system, those devices should be listed similar to all other private fire service main appurtenances as being appropriately tested and approved for the issues of concern to the fire protection community, in addition to the valid concerns of

blic health. MMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

Accept the following part of tile submitters proposal. Add new sentence to 2-2.5 to read: "Where equipment is installed to guard against possible contamina-

tion of the public water system, such equipment and devices shall be listed for fire protection service."

Reject the remainder of the submitter's proposal. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed appendix material is unnecessary as it is addressed by the listing requirements. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(LOg #CP2) 24- 4- (2-2.6): Accept SUBMITTEl~ Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems, RECOMMENDATION: Remove "larger than 2 in (51 nm0" from the fir~ sentence of section 2-2.6. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee believes that the size of the connection does not determine the need for a proper valve. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #5) 24- 5- (2-6.9.2 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Sam Salwan, Environmental Systems Design, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read:

"Piping between the fire department connection and the check valve in the fire department inlet pipe shall be hydrostatically tested." SUBSTANTIATION: It is important to test piping to siamese connection in order to make sure that there is noleakage when water is pumped through siamese connection. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This information is currendy addressed by section 8-3.9 of the standard. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18 NEGATIVE: Salwan NOT RETURNED: Allen, Trigg, Whitelaw

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SALWAN: I voted negatively, because there is no Section 8-5.9, and

the proposed recommendation is consistent with requirements of Section 8-2.2.5 of NFPA 13.

(Log #7) 24- 6 - (2-6.10.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Sam Salwan, Environmental Systems Design, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise the fourth line to read:

" . . . i.e.," "Automatic Sprinkler", or open sprinkler or "Standpipe", etc. SU~TANTIATION: Siamese connection may be serving combined

rinkler and standpipe systems. MMrI'rEE ACTION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter's concern is addressed by section 2-6.10.1 of the standard and the committee believes the existing text is adequate. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18 NEGATIVE: Salwan NOT RETURNED: Allen, Trigg, Whitelaw

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SALWAN: I voted negatively because current Section 2-6.10.1

doesn't address combined sprinkler and standpipe systems. Most of the times, fire department connections serves both the sprinkler and standpipe systems.

216

N F P A 2 4 A 9 5 R O P

(Log #CP3) 24- 7- (2-6.10.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems, RECOMMENDATION: Replace the existing wording in section 2-6.10.2 with the following: ~Vhere a fire depar tment connect ion only supplies a port ion of the

building, a sign shall be at tached indicating the portions of the building supplied." SUBSTANTIATION: This clarifies the intent of the requirement in section 2-6.10.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #15) 24- 8 - (3-1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David S. Mowrer, Kingston, TN RECOMMENDATION: Add the following sentence to read:

"Where roadway boxes are installed, a T-wrench shall be provided in a clearly identified and readily accessible location near to the box to facilitate its operation." SUBSTANTIATION: Statement is needed to more clearly define the intent of t heph ra se "complete with T-wrench." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise section 3-1.1 to read as follows: "All control valves shall be listed indicating type valves. Exception: When acceptable to the authority havlngjurisdiction,

listed non-indicating valves with approved roadway boxes shall be permit ted and a T-wrench shall be provided in a clearly identified and readily accessible location on the premises." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This more appropriately addresses the submitters intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: GOUGH: Although I voted affirmatively on the following item, 1

have the following comment for your consideration: NFPA 24, Log#15 - Paragraph #2 and #3 should be retained along

with (a) and (b). My notes at the Committee Meeting indicate we revised paragraph #1 as noted, but did not delete the remainder of Section 3-1.1.

(Log #1 ) 24-9- (3-2.6): Reject Note: This proposal appeared as comment 24-7 which was held for

fur ther study from the Fall 91 TCD, which was on proposal N/A. SUBMITTER: Kenneth W. Linder, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-2.6 to read as follows:

3-2.6 All control valves shall be located where readily accessible and free f rom obstructions. Valves located in pits shall be provided with an indicator post extending above grade or provided with other means so that the valve can be operated without enter ing the pit. SUBSTANTIATION: OSHA defines a valve pit as a confined space which cannot be entered without following confined space entry procedures. As a result, these valves are never "readily accessible." The additional wording provides guidance on how to make these valves "readily accessible." COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that section 3-4 adequately addresses the submitters concern. NUMBER OFCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18 NEGATIVE: Gough NOT RETURNED: Allen, Trigg, Whitelaw

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: GOUGH: The reason I voted in the negative is the requirement of

NFPA 24 for all valves to be readily accessible. Since OSHA defines a valve pit as a confined space requiring specialized equipment and precautions to enter I do not consider valves in pits to be "readily" accessible. For example, i f a valve was shut, for whatever reason, in a pit and then a fire occurred which necessitated opening the valve quickly, and the necessary special equipment was not readily available, a life threatening situation may develop. That is, to enter the pit in violation of confined space entry requirements and open the valve to allow water into the fire protection system(s) or to not

enter the pit and allow the fire protection system(s) to be starved for water. This di lemma is not necessary if Proposal No. 24-9, Log #1 were accepted.

24- 10- (3-3.1): Reject (Log #2) Note: This proposal appeared as comment 24-8 which was held for

fur ther study fxom the Fall 91 TCD, which was on proposal 24-3. SUBMITTER: DavidJVandeyar, National Fire Sprinkler Assn Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-3.1 to read as follows:

"Where post-indicator valves are located on a private fire service main to a building they shall control all sources of water supply except fire depar tment connections when arranged as specified in Section 2-6."

Retain existing exception. SUBSTANTIATION: The action to revise Section 2-2.6 clarifies the intent of the Committee. An accompanying change is needed to Section 3-3.1 to clarify that the post-indicator valve is not required on every system, particularly simple sprinkler systems fed directly from the public water supply main.

The requirement that post-indicator valves be listed is already covered in Section 3-1.1. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: All connections from a private fire service main to a building are required to be provided with a listed indicating control valve. The proposed wording would eliminate this requirement. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #8) 24- 11 - (3-3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Sam Salwan, Environmental Systems Design, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise second line to read:

"main to a building shall be provided with a listed post indicating

S~,STANTIATION: The word "post" should be inserted because heading to the section is post indicating valves and non post indicator valves can also be indicating type. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP6) 24- 12 - (3-6 and A-3-6.2): Accept SUBMITTERa Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems, RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 3-6 to read as follows:

3-6 Identifying and Securing. 3-6.1 Identification signs shall be provided at each valve to indicate

its function and what it controls. 3-6.2 Valves on connections to water supplies, sectional control and

isolation valves and other valves in supply piping to sprinkler and other fixed water-based fire suppression systems andhydran t s shall be supervised in the normal position by one of the following methods:

(a) central station proprietary or remote station signaling electrical supervision service,

(b) local electrical supervision through use of a signaling service that will cause the sounding of an audible signal at a constantly a t tended point,

(c) locking valves in the correct position with monthly recorded inspections,

(d) sealing of valves and approved weekly recorded inspection when valves are located within fenced enclosures under the control of the owner.

Exception. Underground gate valves with roadway boxes need no t be supervised.

Delete the existing note to section 3-6. Add a new section A-3-6.2 as follows: The management is responsible for the supervision of valves

controlling water supply for fire protection and should exert every effort to see that the valves are maintained in the normally open position. This effort includes special precautions to ensure that protection is prompfly restored by completely opening valves that

217

NFPA 2 4 - - A95 R O P

are necessarily closed during repairs or alternations. The precautions apply equally to valves controlling sprinklers and other fixed water-based fire suppression systems, hydrants, tanks, standpipes, pumps, street connections, and sectional valves.

Either one or a combination of the methods of valve supervision described in Chapter 2 is considered essential to ensure that the valves controlling fireprotection systems are in the normally open position. The mbthods described are intended as an aid to the person responsible in developing a systematic method of determining that the valves controlling sprinkler systems and other fire protection devices are open.

Continual vigilance is necessary if valves are to be kept in the open position. Responsible day and night employees should be famihar with the location of all valves and their proper use.

The authority having jurisdiction should be consulted as to the type of valve supervision required. Contracts for equipment should spedfy that all details are to be subject to the approval of the authority having jurisdiction.

Central Station Supervisory Service. Central station supervisory service systems involve complete, constant, and automatic supervision of valves by electrically operated devices and circuits continually under test and operating through an approved outside central station, in compliance with NFPA 71, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Signaling Systems for Central Station Service.

NOTE: It is understood that onlysuch portions of NFPA 71 that relate to valve supervision should apply.

Proprietary Supervisory Service Systems. Proprietary supervisory service systems include systems where the operation of a valve produces some form of signal and record at a common point by electrically operated devices and circuits continually under test and operating through a central supervising station at the property protected, all in compliance with the standards for the installation, maintenance, and use of local protective, auxiliary protective, remote station protective, and proprietary signaling systems.

NOTE: It is understood that only portions of the standards that relate to valve supervision should apply.

The standard method of locking, sealing, and tagging valves with the object of preventing, so far as possible, their unnecessary closing; to obtain notification of such closing; and to aid in restoring the valve to normal condition is a satisfactory alternate to valve supervision. The authority having jurisdiction should be consulted as to details for specific cases.

Where electrical supervision is not provided, locks or seals should be provided on all valves and should be of a type acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

Seals may be marked to indicate the organization under whose jurisdiction the sealing is conducted. All seals should be attached to the valve in such a manner that the valves cannot be operated without breaking the seals. Seals should be of a character to prevent injury in handling and to prevent reasonably when broken. When seals are used, valves should be inspected weekly. The authority having jurisdiction may require a valve tag to be used in conjunction with the sealing.

A padlock, with a chain where necessary, is especially desirable to prevent unauthorized closing of valves in areas where valves are subject to tampering. When such lock are employed, valve should be inspected monthly.

If valves are locked, any distribution of keys should be restricted to only those directly responsible for the fire protection system. Multiple valves should not be locked together;, they should be individually 1 ocked.

The individual performing the inspections should determine that each valve is in the normal position, properly locked or sealed and so record on an appropriate record form while still at the valve. The authority having jurisdiction should be consulted for assistance in preparing a suitable report form for us in this activity.

Identification signs should be provided at each valve to indicate its function and what is controls.

The position of the spindle of OS&Y valves or the target on the indicator valves cannot be accepted as conclusive proof that the valve is fully open. The opening of the valve should be followed by a test to determine that the operating parts have functioned properly.

The test consists of opening the main drain valve and permitting free flow of water unt i l the gage reading becomes stationary. If the pressure drop is excessive for the water supply involved, the. cause should be determined immediately and the proper remedies taken. When sectional valves or other special conditions are encountered, other methods of testing should be used.

If it becomes necessary to break a seal for emergency reasons, the valve, following the emergency, should opened by the person responsible for the fire protection of the plant or his/t ier designatea representative, and this person should apply a seal at the time of the waive opening. This sealshould be maintained in place until such time as-the afithority having jurisdiction can replace it with one of its o w r l .

Seals or locks should not be applied to valves reopened after closure until such time as the inspection procedure is carried out. Where water is shut off to the sprinkler or other fixed water-based

fire suppression systems, a guard or other qualified person should be placed on duty and required to continuously patrol the affected sections of the premises until such time as protection is restored.

During spedfic critical situations, a person should be stationed at the valve so that the valve may be reopened promptly if necessary. It is the intent of this section that the person remain within sight of the valve and have no other duties beyond this responsibility. This procedure is considered imperative when fire protection is shut off immediately following a fire. An inspection of all other fire protection equipment should be

made prior to shutting off water in order to mal~e sure it is in operative condition.

In case of changes to fire protection equipment, all possible work should be done in advance of shutting offwater so that final connection can be made quickly and protection restored promptly. Many times it will be found that, by careful planning, open outlets can be plugged and protection restored on a portion of the equipment while the alterations are being made. Where changes are being made in underground piping, all possible

piping shouldbe laid before shutting offwater for final connections. Where possible, temporary feed lines, such as temporary piping for

reconnection of risers by hose lines, etc., should be used to afford maximum protection.

The plant and public fire department, and other authority having jurisdiction, should be notified of all impairments to fire protection equipment. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee believes it is appropriate to provide additional information on the supervision of valves for PcriVate water supply piping systems.

OMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE: GOUGH: Although I voted affirmatively on the following item, I

have the following comment for your consideration: NFPA 94, Log #CP6 - Reference to Chapter 2 should be deleted

since it no longer exists (Chapter 2 of NFPA 26). "As described below" will be adequate.

(Log #14) 24- 13- (4-1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David S. Mowrer, Kingston, TN RECOMMENDATION: Revise first sentence to read:

"Hydrants shall be of approved type and shall have not less than a 6 in. (152 mm) diameter connection with the water supply mains." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial clarification. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the submitter proposal to read as follows: "Hydrants shall be of approved type and have not less than a 6 in.

(152 mm) diameter connection with the mains." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The word diameter was added as a clarification and this better addresses the submitters intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITrEE ACTION:


(Log #21) 24-14- (4-3.6): Reject $UBMITIXR: James D. Lake, National Fire Sprinkler Association RECOMMEND-ATION: Insert:

4-$.6.1" All hydrantsshall be pressure tested to 150 psi maximum pressure prior to backfilling and after pressure testing of water main.

4-$.6.2* Dry-barrel hydrants shall not be tested at the same time as the water main. The main shall be tested with the hydrants closed.

4-$.6.3* Dry-barrel hydrants shall be tested for proper drainage following the pressure test.

A-4-3.6.1 Pressure test procedure: (a) Open the hydrant fullyand fill with water then close all outlets. (b) Leave caps on dry-barrel hydrants slightly loose to vent air from

hydrant and avoid damage. Tighten caps after the air is expelled. (c) Check for leakage from flanges and nozzles and operating

stem. (d) Dry-barrel hydrants with unplugged drains may show a slight

leakage (5 fi oz per min).

218

N F P A 2 4 - - A 9 5 R O P

A-4-3.6.2 The water main cannot be satisfactorily tested if the hydrant is connected to it due to allowable leakage throughout the hydrant drains. The gate valve in the hydrant lateral may be closed and the hydrant pressure tested by introducing water under pressure though an outlet nozzle. A-4-3.6.3 Drainage rate should create a suction noticeable by

placing the palm of the hand over the outlet. SUBSTANTIATION: The language of this section is more geared toward maintenance of the hydrants and is therefore better served by NFPA 25. This proposed language draws from the recommended practice of AWWA M17. While this document is referenced by the current standard, we feel that because of the permissive language used in AWWA M17 it would be easier to enforce as a requirement of NFPA 24. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The committee believes the wording in sections 4-3.6 and A-4-3.6 adequately addresses the submitters C o n c e r n .

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #10) 24- 15 - (4-3.7 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Sam Salwm L Environmental Systems Design, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read:

"Uniform marking of fire hydrant marking of the fire hydrants shall conform to the requirement of NFPA 291, Fire Flow Testing and Marking of Hydrants." SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This proposal is outside the scope of the standard as NFPA 291 is a recommended practice and should not be referenced as a mandatory requirement. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP5) 24- 16 - (Chapter 7): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Private Water Supply

in g Systems, OMMENDATION: Change the title of chapter 7-1 to "Selection

of Buried Pipe". Delete the title "Piping" in section 7-1.1. Change the title of section 7-2 to "Coating and Lining of Buried

Pipe". Change the fide of section 7-3 to "Buried Joints". Change the title of section 7-4 to "Buried Fittings". Change the current section 7-5 to a new section 7-6 with a new title

to read as follows: "Sizes of Above Ground and Buried Pipe" Add a new section 7-5 to read as follows: 7-5 Aboveground Pipe and Fittings. 7-5.1 Aboveground pipe and fittings shall comply with the

applicable sections of chapters 2 and 4 of NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, addressing pipe, fittings,joining methods, hangers and installation. "

7-5.2 Protection of Piping. 7-5.2.1 Aboveground piping shall not pass through hazardous areas

and shall be located so that it is protected from mechanical and fire damage. Exception: Aboveground piping is permitted to be located in hazardous areas protected by an automatic sprinkler system.

7-5.2.2 Where above ground piping passes through an area subject to freezing temperatures, it shall be protected by a reliable means to maintain the temperature of the water in the piping between 40°F (4.4°C) and 120°F (48.9°G) 7-5.2.3 Where corrosive conditions exist or piping is exposed to the

weather, corrosive-resistant types of pipe, fittings, and hangers or protective corrosion-resistive coatings shall be used.

7-5.2.4 To minimize or prevent pipe breakage where subject to earthquakes, above ground pipe shall be protected in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems.

7-5.2.5 Mains which pass through walls, floors and ceilings shall be provided with adequate clearances in accordance with NFPA 13. SUBSTANTIATION: This addresses the differences between the requirements for above ground and buried piping. COMMITTEE ACTION: AccepL

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #13) 24-17 - (7-1.1 and Exception (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: David S. MowTer, Kingston, TN RECOMMENDATION: Add new sentence to read:

"Steel pip.ing shall not be allowed for use in private fire service main appfications." Add new Exception to read as follows: "Al~proved steel piping may be allowed for use in fire protection

servace applications where located above ground and approved by the authority having jurisdiction." SUBSTANTIATION: Section 7-2 implies steel pipe may be used (if coated and wrapped). Table A-7-5.3 gives C-Valve of 140 for cement- lined steel. Yet neither UL nor FM list/approve steel pipe for underground fire protection service. Therefore, since listed pipe must be used, steel pipe is not allowed. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that the existing wording in the standard adequately addresses the submitters concern. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #12) 24- 18 - (7-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: David S. Mowrer, Kingston, TN RECOMMENDATION: Revise existing to read:

"All ferrous metal pipe shall be lined and steel pipe shall be coated and wrapped. Galvanizing, internally and/or externally, does not meet the requirements of this section." SUBSTANTIATION: Existing reference to joints should be relocated to paragraph 7-3 (see separate proposal). Reference to galvanizing has been clarified. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise section 7-2 to read as follows: "Coating and Lining of Buried Pipe. All ferrous metal pipe shall be

lined and additionally, steel pipe shall be coated and wrapped. For buried pipe, galvanizing, internally or externally, does not meet the requirements of this section." Also add a new exception to section 7-2 to read as follows: "Internal galvanizing shall be permitted as the lining for the pipe

between the check valve and the outside hose coupling for the fire deparunent connection" COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes that this more appropriately addresses the submitters intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #24) 24-19 - (7-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: DavidJ. Vandeyar, National Fire Sprinkler Assn Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise heading 7-2 to read:

Coating and Lining of Pipe. Add a new section7-2.1 to read: "All ferrous metal pipe shall be lined. Exception: Internally galvanized steel pipe need not be lined." Add a new section 7-2.2 to read: "All steel pipe shall be coated and wrapped with joints field coated

and wrapped after assembly. Galvanized steel pipe does not meet the requirements of this section." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification of ambiguities related to the lining requirements for underground pipe. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on 24-18 (Lo, g #12). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


919

N F P A 2 4 - . - A 9 5 R O P

(Log #11) 24- 20 - (7-3): Accept SUBMITTER: David S. Mowrer, Kingston, TN RECOMMENDATION: Add a new sentence to read:

"Steel pipe joints shall be field-coated and wrapped after assembly." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial relocation from pipe section to jo int section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #18) 24- 21 - (7-5.1): Accept SUBMrITER: David S. Mowrer, Kingston, TN RECOMMENDATION: Add "(152 ram)" after "6 in." SUBSTANTIATION: Metric equivalent- editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #22) 24- 22 - (7-5.1 Exception): Accept SUBMITTER: James D. Lake, National Fire Sprinkler Assodation RECOMMENDATION: Delete Exception No. 3 and revise Exception No. 2 to read as follows:

Exception No. 2 Hydraulic calculations show that the main will supply the total demand at the appropriate pressure. Systems that are not hydraulically calculated shall have a main at least as large as the risee. SUBSTANTIATION: T.I.A 92-1 Language. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #3) 24. 23 - (7-5.1 Exception No. 2 and Exception 3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Richard Martinean, Poughkeepsie, NY RECOMMENDATION: In 7-5.1, delete Exception No. 3 and revise Exception No. 2 to read as follows:

Exception No. 2: Hydraulic calculation show that the main will sup ply the total . demand at the atplprop riate pressure. . Systems that are not hyclranhcally calculated shall have a main at least as large as the riser. SUBSTANTIATION: This change should remove the conflict with NFPA 13, 7-1.2.1, which requires the undersupply pipe to be at least as large as the system riser only for pipe schedule systems. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 24.22 (Log #22). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #cPg) 24. 24 - (Chapter 8): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Private Water Supply

ing Systems, OMMENDATION: Change the title of chapter 8 to "Rules for

Laying Buried Pipe." SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 8 has been rearranged so that it only addresses buried pipe. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP10) 24- 25 - (8-6.2, A-8-3.4, A-8-6.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Private Water Supply ~il~ ~(~ Systems'

MMENDATION: Delete section 8-6.2.8 in its entirety including Table 8-6.2.8. Add a new section 8-6.2.1 to read as follows, and renumber existing

sections accordingly. "8-6.2.1 Thrust blocks are satisfactory where soil is suitable. The

thrust blocks shall be of concrete of a mix not leaner than one part cement, two and one-half parts sand, and five parts stone. Thrust blocks shall be placed between undisturbed earth and the fitting to be restrained and shall be of such bearing as to assure adequate resistance to the thrust to be encountered, in general, thrust blocks shall be so placed that the joints will be accessible for inspection and repair."

In the second line of existing section 8-6.2.2(b), revise the term "Table 8-6.2.2(b) to read "Table 8-6.2.3". Also, revise existing "Table 8-6.2.2(b)" to read "Table 8-8.2.3". Renumber existing "Figure 8-6.2.3" and "Table 8-8.2.3" to "Figure

8-6.2.4" and "Table 8-6.2.4" respectively. In the third line of existing section 8-6.2.4, revise the term "Figure

8-6.2.3" to read "Figure 8-6.2.4" In the last line of section A-84.4, revise the phrase "see 9-1.2,

AWWA C150-82" to read "see Appendix A of ANSI/AWWA C1O5/ A21.5"

In section A-8-6.2, delete the title "Thrust Blocking" and the following two paragraphs on this subject Also, delete the entire left hand column of section A-8-6.2 on page 24-21.

Add the following data as the last two lines to existing Table A-8-6.2. "60 298,121 421,606 228,172 116,321 58,44" "64 338,707 479,004 259,235 132,157 66,39 " Renumber existing "Figure A-8-6.2(b)" and "A-8-6.2(c)" to "Figure

A-8-6.2 (a)" and "Figure A-8-6.2 (b)" respectively. Delete the last sentence of section A-8-6.2 which is located at the

bottom of the right hand column on ~,,age 24-21. Renumber existing section "A-8-6.2.6' to "A-8-6.2.7". Delete section A-8-6.2.9, Table A-8-6.2.9 and Figure A-8-6.2.9 in

their entirety. Add a new section A-8-6.2.1 to read as follows: A-8-6.2.1 Concrete thrust blocks are one of the most common

methods of reswalnt now in use, providing stable soil conditions prevail and space requirements permit placement. Successful blocking is dependent upon factors such as location, availability and placement of concrete, and possibility of disturbance by future excawttions.

Thrust blocks are generally categorized into two groups: bearing and gravity blocks.

Figure A-8-6.2.1 (a) depicts a typical bearing thrust block on a horizontal bend. Resistance is provided by transferring the thrust force to the soil through the larger bearing area of the block such that the resultant pressure against the soil does not exceed the horizontal bearing strength of the soil. Design of thrust blocks consists of determining the appropriate bearing area of the block for a particular set of conditions. The parameters involved in the design include pipe size, design pressure, angle of the bend (or configuration of the fitting involved), and the horizontal bearing strength of the soil.

The following are general criteria for bearing block design. 1. Bearing surface should, where possible, beplaced against

undisturbed soil. Where it is not possible, the fill between the bearing surface and undisturbed soil must be compacted to at least 90 percent Standard Proctor density.

2. Block height (h) should be equal to or less than one-half the total depth to the bottom of the block, (Ht) , but not less than the pipe diameter (D).

3. Block height (h) should be chosen such that the calculated block width (b) varies between one and two times the height.

The required bearing block area is

T Ab = hb = _ _

Sb

Then, for a horizontal bend,

2 St PA s in (0 /2) b= hb =

h Sb

where St, is a safety factor (usually 1.5 for thrust block design). A similar approach may be used to design bearing blocks to resist the thrust forces at tees, dead ends, etc. Typical values for conservative horizontal bearing strengths of various soil types are listed in Table A-8-6.2.1.

220

NFPA 24- - A95 ROP

Undisturbed Soil

Bearing Pressure

T ,

n ~

"/ Sb

Sb

'llll

°11

"111 "ll I

"lll

Figure A-8-6.2.1(a) Bearing thrust block.

Table A-8-6.2.1 Horizontal Bearing Strengths

Soil * Beating Strength

St, ( lb/ft 2)

Muck 0 Soft Clay 1,000 Silt 1,500 Sandy Silt 3,000 Sand 4,000 Sandy Clay 6,000 Hard Clay 9,000

* Although the above beat ing strength values have been used successfully in the design of thrust blocks and are considered to be conservative, their accuracy is totally dependent on accurate soil identification and evaluation. The ultimate responsibility for selecting the proper beat ing strength of a particular soil type must rest with the design engineer.

In lieu of the values for soil bearing strength shown in Table A-8- 6.2.1, a designer might choose to use calculated Rankine passive pressure (Pp) or other determination of soil bearing strength based on actual sdil properties.

Gravity thrust blocks may be used to resist thrust at vertical down bends. In a gravity thrust block, the weight of the block is the force providing equilibrium with the thrust force. The design problem is then to calculate the required volume of the thrust block of a known density. The vertical component of the thrust force in Figure A-8-6.2.1 (b) is balanced by the weight of the block.

221

N F P A 2 4 - - - A 9 5 R O P

T

T x

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r ' - Horizontal Plane

" ' "" : ' ; . . " " : :" " . . . " ": . . ." "-" 0

• . ° • ° ° . " j • • ° ° °

• Sb

lrtgure A-8-6.2.1 (b) Gravity thrust block.

It can easily be shown that Ty ffi PA sin 0 . The required volume of the block is

St PA sin 0 vg~

Wm

where Wm ffi density of the block material. In a case such as shown, the horizontal component of the thrust force

Tx = PA (1 - cos 0 )

must be resisted by the bearing of the right side of the block against the soil. Analysis of this aspect will follow like the above section on bearing blocks. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee has revised the requirements and associated calculations for thrust blocks so that they are more user friendly. In addition, data for the bearing strengths of soils have been updated. COMMITIT~ ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


( Log #19) 24- 26 - (Table 8-6.2.2(b)): Accept SUBMITTER: David S. Mowrer, Kingston, TN RECOMMENDATION: Add SI units to pipe sizes ranging from 4-16 in. in diameter in Table. SUBSTANTIATION: SI units - editorial. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. COMMYITEE STATEMENT: Also editorially add SI units to Tables 8-6.2.2(b), 8-6.2.3 and 8-6.2.8. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP4) 24- 27 - (8-8): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Private Water Supply

ing Systems, OMMENDATION: Change the tide section 8-8 to "Flushing of

P~eing ". lete the existing section 8-8.1 in its entirety.

Renumber the existing section 8-8.2 as 8-8.1 and replace the word "underground" with "private fire service" in the first line of this section. Also, remove the word "underground" from the fifth line of this section.

Change existing "Table 8-8.2" to "Table to 88.1", and in the exception change the reference from "Table 8-8.1" to "Table 8-8.2". SUBSTANTIATION: This clarifies the requirements of this section and addresses the differences between the requirements for aboveground and buried piping. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #'20) 24- 28 - (Table 8-8.2): Accept SUBMITTER: David S. Mowrer, Kingston, TN RECOMMENDATION: Add SI units to pipe sizes ranging from 4-12 in. in diameter in Table. SUBSTANTIATION: SI units - editorial. COMMrIWEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


222

N F P A 24 A 9 5 R O P

(Log #CP8) 24- 29 - (8-9): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Private Water Supply

il~cin g Systems, OMMENDATION: In section 8-9.3.2 add the word "buried"

before the word "piping" in the first sentence. Also add the following as the last sentence to section 8-9.3.2:

"No visible leakage shall be allowed in aboveground pipinge' Delete the second sentence of section 8-9.1 and replace as follows: "For buried piping, a typical certificate is shown in figure

A-8-9.1 (a). For above ground piping, the applicable sections of the typical certificate shown in figure A-8-9.1 (b) shall be permitted to be used. Add the following as figure A-8-9.1 (b)". SUBSTANTIATION: This clarifies the requirements of this section

and addresses the differences between the requirements for aboveground and buried piping. COMMrrFEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP7) 24- 30 - (Chapter 9): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Private Water Supply

NDATION: Renumber existing Chapter 9 as Chapter 10. Add a new chapter 9 as follows: ~Chapter 9. Flushing and Testing." Move the current sections 8-8 through 8-9 in their entirety and as

modified by these proposals to the new chapter 9 and renumber as sections 9-1 through 9-2 accordingly.

Renumber the current figure A-8-9.1 to A-9.9.1 and eliminate the term "Underground" from the figure. SUBSTANTIATION: This addresses the differences between the requirements for aboveground and buried piping and more appropriately relocates the provisions for the flushing and testing of plpe in a new chapter. COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #4) 24- 31 - (Figure A-2-6(b), A-2-6(c)): Reject SUBMIIWER: Sam Salwan, Environmental Systems Design, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Either figures A-2-6(b) or add the following new figures. SUBSTANTIATION: New figures shows installation of double detector check valve assembly and type arrangement for water piping for protection of an industrial or office campus site. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Insufficient information provided

~]~ oposal. ER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 19 NOT RETURNED: Allen, Trigg, Whitelaw

(Log #9) 24- 32 - (A-4-3.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITFER: Sam Salwan, Environmental Systems Design, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read:

"Drainage of hydrant can be provided by excavating a pit approximately 2 ft in diameter and 2 ft below the base of hydrant and filling it compactly with coarse gravel or stones placed around the bowl of hydrant to a level of 6 in." SUBSTANTIATION: This will offer a guideline to the designs and installers. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Each manufacturer provides instructions on the proper installation of hydrants. Also, the existing reference to AWWA MI7, Installation, Maintenance and Field TestinKof Fire Hydrants, provides adequate guidance. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #23) 24- 33 - (A-8-6.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James D. Lake, National Fire Sprinkler Association RECOMMENDATION: Revise and clarify calculation for thrust forces. SUBSTANTIATION: The current formuli in this section are confusing and difficult to interpret and work with. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMrlI"EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action and Statement on 24-25 (Log #CP10). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


223

NFPA 24- - A95 ROP

Contractor's Material and Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping

PROCEDURE Upon completion of work, inspection and tests shall be made by the contractor's representative and witnessed by an owner's representative. All defects shall be corrected and system left in service before contractor's personnel finally leave the job.

A certificate shall be filled out and signed by both representatives. Copies shall be prepared for approving authorities, owners, and contractor. It is understood the owner's representative's signature in no way prejudices any claim against contractor for faulty material, poor workmanship, or failure to comply with approving authority's requirements or local ordinances.

PROPERTY NAME DATE

PROPERTY ADDRESS

ACCEPTED BY APPROVING AUTHORITIES (NAMES)

ADDRESS

PLANS INSTALLATION CONFORMS TOACCEPTED PLANS [ ~ YES [ ] NO EQUIPMENT USED IS APPROVED [ ] YES [ ] NO IF NO, EXPLAIN DEVIATIONS

HAS PERSON IN CHARGE OF FIRE EQUIPMENT BEEN INSTRUCTED AS [ ] YES [ ] NO ITO LOCATION OF CONTROL VALVES AND CARE AND MAINTENANCE OF THIS NEW EQUIPMENT? IF NO, EXPLAIN

INSTRUCTIONS

HAVE COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING BEEN LEFT ON THE PREMISES: [ ] YES [~] NO 1. SYSTEM COMPONENTS INSTRUCTIONS [~] YES [ ] NO 2. CARE AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS [ ] YES [ ] NO 3. NFPA25 [ ] YES [ ] NO

LOCATION ! SUPPLIES BUILDINGS OF SYSTEM

YEAR OF ORIFICE TEMPERATURE MAKE MODEL MANUFACTURE S IZE QUANTITY RATING

SPRINKLERS

PIPE AND FITTINGS

Type of Pipe Type of Fittings

MAXIMUM TIME TO OPERATE ALARM ALARM DEVICE THROUGH TEST CONNECTION V/ '~LV I~

OR FLOW TYPE MAKE MODEL MIN. SEC. INDICATOR

DRY VALVE Q.O.D.

DRY PIPE OPERATING

TEST

Without Q.O.D. With

Q,O.D.

MAKE

TIME TO TRIP THROUGH TEST CONNECTION*

MIN. SEC.

MODEL SERIAL NO. MAKE MODEL SERIAL NO.

WATER AIR PRESSURE PRESSURE

TRIP POINT AIR PRESSURE

PSI PSI PSI

IF NO, EXPLAIN

TIME WATER REACHED

TEST OUTLET*

MIN. SEC.

ALARM OPERATED PROPERLY YES NO

*MEASURED FROM TIME INSPECTOR'S TEST CONNECTION IS OPENED.

lrlgure A-8-9.1 (b)

224

NFPA 24--- A95 ROP

DELUGE & PREACTION

VALVES

PRESSURE REDUCING

VALVE TEST

OPERATION [ ] PNEUMATIC [ ] ELECTRIC [ ] HYDRAULIC

PIPING SUPERVISED [ ] YES [ ~ NO DETECTING MEDIA SUPERVISED [ ] YES [ ] NO

DOES VALVE OPERATE FROM THE MANUALTRIP AND/OR REMOTE ~ YES [ ] NO CONTROL STATIONS

IS THERE AN ACCESSIBLE FACILITY IN EACH CIRCUIT IF NO, EXPLAIN FOR TESTING

[] YES [] NO

MAKE MODEL

LOCATION MAKE & & FLOOR MODEL

DOES EACH CIRCUIT OPERATE DOES EACH CIRCUIT MAXIMUM TIME TO SUPERVISION LOSS A L A R M OPERATE VALVE RELEASE OPERATE RELEASE

YES NO YES NO MIN. SEC.

SETTING STATIC PRESSURE RESIDUAL PRESSURE FLOW RATE (FLOWING)

INLET (PSI) OUTLET (PSI) INLET (PSI) OUTLET (PSI) FLOW (GPM)

TEST DESCRIPTION

TESTS

HYDROSTATIC: Hydrostatic tests shall be made at not less than 200 psi (13.6 bars) for two hours or 50 psi (3.4 bars) above static pressure in excess of 150 psi (10.2 bars) for two hours. Differential dry-pipe valve clappers shall be left open during test to prevent damage. All aboveground piping leakage shall be stopped.

PNEUMATIC: Establish 40 psi (2.7 bars) air pressure and measure drop, which shall not exceed 1-1/2 psi (0.1 bars) in 24 hours. Test pressure tanks at normal water level and air pressure and measure air pressure drop, which shall not exceed 1-1/2 psi (0.1 bars) in 24 hours.

ALLPIPING HYDROSTATICALLY TESTEDAT - - P S I FOR DRY PIPING PNEUMATICALLYTESTED [ ] YES [-~ NO EQUIPMENT OPERATESPROPERLY [ ~ YES [ ] NO

HRS. IF NO, STATE REASON

DO YOU CERTIFY AS THE SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR THAT ADDITIVES AND CORROSIVE CHEMICALS, SODIUM SILICATE OR DERIVATIVES OF SODIUM SILICATE, BRINE, OR OTHER CORROSIVE CHEMICALS WERE NOT USED FOR TESTING SYSTEMS OR STOPPING LEAKS?

YES [ ] NO

DRAIN READING OF GAGE LOCATED NEAR WATER TEST SUPPLY TEST CONNECTION: PSI

RESIDUAL PRESSURE WITH VALVE IN TEST CONNECTION OPEN WIDE - - PSI

UNDERGROUND MAINS AND LEAD IN CONNECTIONS TO SYSTEM RISERS FLUSHED BEFORE CONNECTION MADE TO SPRINKLER PIPING. VERIFIED BY COPY OF THE U FORM NO. 85B [ ] YES [ ] NO FLUSHED BY INSTALLER OF UNDER- GROUND SPRINKLER PIPING [ ~ YES [ ] NO

IF POWDER DRIVEN FASTENERS ARE USED IN CONCRETE, HAS REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE TESTING BEEN SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED?

BLANKTESTING NUMBER USED GASKETS

WELDED PIPING

WELDING

CUTOUTS (DISCS)

[] YES [] NO

OTHER EXPLAIN

IF NO, EXPLAIN

NUMBER REMOVED LOCATIONS

[] YES [] NO

IF YES...

DO YOU CERTIFY AS THE SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR THAT WELDING PROCEDURES COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF AT LEAST AWE D10.9, LEVEL AN-3?

DO YOU CERTIFY THAT THE WELDING WAS PERFORMED BY WELDERS QUALIFIED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF AT LEAST AWE D10.9, LEVEL AR-3?

DO YOU CERTIFY THAT WELDING WAS CARRIED OUT IN COMPLIANCE WITH A DOCUMENTED QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURE TO INSURE THAT ALL DISCS ARE RETRIEVED, THAT OPENINGS IN PIPING ARE SMOOTH, THAT SLAG AND OTHER WELDING RESIDUE ARE REMOVED, AND THAT THE INTERNAL DIAMETERS OF PIPING ARE NOT PENETRATED?

[] YES [] NO

[ ] YES [~] NO

[ ] YES [ ] NO

DO YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU HAVE A CONTROL FEATURE TO ENSURE THAT ALL CUTOUTS (DISCS) ARE RETRIEVED?

YES [ ~ NO

F'~gure A-8-9.1 (b)

22~

NFPA 24--- A95 ROP

HYDRAULIC DATA

NAMEPLATE

NAMEPLATE PROVIDED IF NO, EXPLAIN

[ ] YES [ ] NO

DATE LEFT IN SERVICE WITH ALL CONTROL VALVES OPEN: REMARKS

NAME OF SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR

SIGNATURES TESTS WITNESSED BY

FOR PROPERTY OWNER (SIGNED) TITLE DATE

FOR SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR (SIGNED) TITLE DATE

ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION AND NOTES

Figure A-8-9.1 (b)

226

NFPA 26- - A95 ROP

P ~ T H

(Log #8) 26- 1 - (Entire Document): Accept in Prindple SUBMr['IT, R: James D. Lake, National Fire Sprinkler Association RECOMMENDATION: Withdraw the document. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 26 should be withdrawn. All items in NFPA 26 are covered in either the installation standards for the spedfic water based extinguishing system or by NFPA 25, the Standard for the Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water Based Extinguishing Systems. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 26-2 (Log #13). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #13) 26- 2 - (Entire Document): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing and Maintenance, RECOMMENDATION: Withdraw the 1988 edition of NFPA 26 in its entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: When the first edidon of NFPA 25 was issued in 1992, it was suggested that most if not all of the previously established recommendations contained within NFPA 26 were now contained within NFPA 25. This includes items that deal with the valve tags, system impairments, and. actions, to take when a system is removed from service. These specific items have been incorporated into Chapter 10 of NFPA 25. In addition, the recommended procedures for supervising valves have now been incorporated into each of the standards which deal with water extinguishing systems. It is now mandated that water supply valves be supervised in the open position. The recommendations of NFPA 26 have now become requirements in NFPA 13, NFPA 14, NFPA 15, NFPA 16, NFPA 16A, NFPA 20, NFPA 22, NFPA 24, and NFPA 25. Given the status of NFPA 26 as a recommended practice and the aforemen- tioned documents as legally enforceable standards, NFPA 26 is no longer needed to provide any guidance on the subject of valve supervision or system impairment. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #9) 26- 3- (1-1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Sam Salwan, Chicago, IL RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

"The management is responsible for the supervision of valves controlling water supply for fire protection and should exert every effort to see that the valves are maintained in the normally open or closed position." SUBSTANTIATION: Control valve on a line to pump test connection is required to be supervised in the closed position. Also, some authorities havingjurisdictlon require supervise of fire hose valve on standpipe system in the closed position. COMMIq['I'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has taken action to withdraw NFPA 26. See Committee Action on proposal 26-2 (Log #13). The committee recommends that this proposal be submitted to the appropriate standard. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #1) 26-4- (2-1(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: David M. Cough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

(a) central station, proprietary, auxiliary or remote station signaling electrical supervision service, SUBSTANTIATION: Since there are still fire departments using auxiliary systems to supervise valves, as fire alarms, NFPA 26 should reference this practice. Also, 2-3 references NFPA 72B, which leads one to believe auxiliary systems can be used.

227

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has taken action to withdraw NFPA 26. See Committee Action on proposal 26-2 (Log #13). The committee recommends that this proposal be submitted to the appropriate standard. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #11) 26-5 - (2-3): Reject SUBMITrER: Sam Salwan, Chicago, IL RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 2-3, fourth line to read:

"Use of signaling systems for central station; NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code." SUI~TANTIATION: None. COI~IITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITIT.~ STATEMENT.. The committee has taken action to withdraw NFPA 26. See Committee Action on proposal 26-2 (Log #13). The committee recommends that this proposal be submitted to the appropriate standard. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #10) 26-6- (2-3, 2-6): Reject SUBMITTER: Sam Salwan, Chicago, IL RECOMMENDATION: Change the fifth line to read "weekly." SUBSTANTIATION: Month is too long for inspection to verify if valve is open or closed. Closed valve on water supply will hinder operation of water extinguishing system during fire. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has taken action to withdraw NFPA 26. See Committee Action on proposal 26-2 (Log #13). The committee recommends that this proposal be submitted to the appropriate standard. NUMBER OF COMMITFEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #2) 26.7- (2-5): Reject SuBMrrrER: David M. Cough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

2-5 Proprietary, Remote Station and Auxiliary Supervisory Service Systems. These systems supervise valves by producing some form of signal and record upon valve operation at a constantly attended location by electrically operated devices and circuits continually under test and operating through a supervising station at the property protected all in compliance with the appropriate standard (see standards listed in Section 2-3.) The NOTE remains the same.

SUBSTANTIATION: The existing wording in the tide refers only proprietary systems while the obvious intent is to include the others when their standards are referenced in the body.

Using the phrase "central supervising station" in the existing text is too close to "central station" which is covered in 2-4 and is likely to cause confusion. Using "supervising station" meets the intent and minimizes the change of confusion with central station.

Removing local, protective from this section seems ap ~p~ ropriate since these signals do not have to be sent to a constantly attended location. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has taken action to withdraw NFPA 26. See Committee Action on proposal 26-2 (Log #13). The committee recommends that this proposal be submitted to the appropriate standard. NUMBER OF COMMITIT.E MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITFEE ACTION:


N F P A 2 6 - - A 9 5 R O P

(Log #S) 26-8- (2-5.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: David M. Cough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to read as follows:

2-5.1 Local Protective SupervisoryService Systems. The operation of a valve produces some form of signal at a panel by electrically operated devices and circuits at the protected premise. The panel may or maynot be constantly attended. The system must meet the standards of NFPA 72 for Local Protective Signaling Systems

~ ertaining to valve supervision. UBSTAIffI'IATION: Lumping local systems into 2-5 as in the

existing document implies it is exactly the same as the other. However, local protective systems signals do not go offsite as do all the others exceptproprietary, and all the others must be received at a constantly attended location which the local protective system does no t . COMMITI'EEACTION: Reject. , COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee has taken action to withdraw NFPA 26. See Committee Action on proposal 26-2 (Log #13). The committee recommends that this proposal be submitted to the appropriate standard. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #4) 26-9- (2-6.2.2): Reject SUBMITTER: David M. Cough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

2-6.2.2 Seals may be marked to indicate the organization under whose jurisdiction the sealing is conducted. All seals should be attached to the valve in such a manner that the valves cannot be operatedwithou.t brea~,ng ~ e seals LT: ;2,c 7. ;~,_gc:,;~;~ ~,~,~'.~ ~.~

f~..' t~o~ug t . . . , t . . .~ . Seals should be of a character to prevent injury in handling and to prevent reassembly when broken. When seals are used exclusively, valves should be inspected weekly. The authority having jurisdiction may require a valve tag to be used in conjunction with the sealing. SUBSTANTIATION: Dropping the phrase "but the arrangement should be such as to permit the valve stern to be turned about 1-1/2 revolutions for testing purposes," is al?propriate as seals are inexpensive, they should be applied tightly rather than somewhat loose as this implies, and encouraging the habit of resealing valves whenever they are operated, even 1 1/2 revolutions is a positive thing. Adding the word, "exclusively." minimizes confusion as to intent

when the valves should be inspected. For instance, at present, the wording could be interpreted as a weekly inspection is needed for an electrically supervised valve which is sealed. COMMITI'EEACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The committee has taken action to withdraw NFPA 26. See Committee Action on proposal 26-2 (Log #13). The committee recommends that this proposal be submitted to the appropriate standard. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #5) 26- 10 - (3-2): Reject SUBMITTER: David M. Gough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

3-2 Where applicable, the valve closing notification procedure required by the authority having jurisdiction should be followed. This procedure may include requirements for consent prior to closing a valve via telephone, telegraph, or mail, as well as notification of reopening the valve, and for a description of the circum- stances of the closing. SUBSTANTIATION: The addition of the concept of prior consent strengthens the notification procedure requirement Also, some jurisdictions already require this (i.e., IRI). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

COMMITFEE STATEMENT: The committee has taken action to withdraw NFPA 26. See Committee Action on proposal 26-2 (Log #13). The committee recommends that this proposal be submitted to the appropriate standard. NUMBER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #6) 26- 11 - (4-1): Reject SUBMITTER: David M. Gough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

4-1 The position of the spindle of OS&Yvalves or the target on the indicator valves cannot be accepted as conclusive proof that the valve is fully open. The opening of the valve should be followed by a test to determme that the operating parts have functioned properly. SUBSTANTIATION: Removing three (3) words, "the", "that", and "that", make the reading of this section flow better. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITYEE STATEMENT: The committee has taken action to withdraw NFPA 26. See Committee Action on proposal 26-2 (Log #13). The committee recommends that this proposal be submitted to the appropriate standard. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 19 NOT RETURNED: Allen, Trlgg, Whitelaw

(Log #7) 26- 12 - (6-2): Reject SUBMITTER= David M. Gough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

6-2 During spedfic critical situations, a person should be stationed at the valve so that the valve may be reopened promptly, if necessary. It is the intent of this section that the person remain within sight of the valve and have no other duties beyond this responsibility. This procedure is considered imperative when fire protection is shut offimmediately following a fire. SUBSTANTIATION: Removing one (1) word, "that" and adding a comma before, "if necessary" aids in the flow of the reading. Also, adding the comma is grammatically correct. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMIT1"EE STATEMENT: The committee has taken action to withdraw NFPA 26. See Committee Action on proposal 26-2 (Log #13). The committee recommends that this proposal be submitted to the appropriate standard. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITIT, E ACTION:


(Log #12) 26-13 - (7-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Sam Salwan, Chicago, IL RECOMMENDATION: Revise reference to publications.

NFPA 72-1993 edition, National Fire Alarm Code. SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: The committee has taken action to withdraw NFPA 26. See Committee Action on proposal 26-2 (Log #13). The committee recommends that this proposal be submitted to the appropriate standard. NUMBER OF COMMr[TEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


228

NFPA 291-- A95 ROP

PART Il l

(Log #GPI) 291- 1 - (Table 1-3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Private Water Supply

ATION: Add a new section 1-3 and figure 1-3 to read as follows:

1-3 Units. Metric units of measurement in this standard are in accordance with the modernized metric system known as the International System of Units (SI). Two units (liter and bar), outside of but recognized by SI, are commonly used in international fire protection. These units are listed in Table 1-3 with conversion factors.

Table 1-$

Name of Unit Unit Symbol Conversion Factor

liter L 1 gal = 3.785L

liter per minute per (L/min)/m 2 1 gpm ft 2 = (40.746L min)/m 2) square meter

cubic decimeter dm 3 1 gal = 3.785 din3

Pascal Pa 1 psi = 6894.757 Pa bar bar 1 psi = 0.0689 bar

bar bar 1 bar = 105 Pa

For additional conversions and information, see ASTM E380q 989, Standard for Metric Praaic~ .

1-3.1 If a value for measurement as given in this s tandard is followed by an equivalent value in other units, the first stated is to be regarded as the requirement . A given equivalent value may be approximate.

Change the title o f chapter 1 to read as "General Information". Renumber existing sections 1-3 through 1-13 as 2-1 through 2-9 and

add the following as the title to the new chapter 2: "Flow Testing" Renumber existinl~ sections 9-1 through 2-2 as 3-1 through 3-2. Provide metric umts for all dimensions in the standard per the new

section 1-3. Renumber existin~ table 1-13.1 as 2-13.1 (a) and add a new Table

2-13.1(b) with m e m o units. SUBSTANTIATION: These provisions address metric conversions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


( Log #13) 291- 2 - (1-5): Accept in Part SUBMIT'rER: James M. Feid, Fairfield, CA RECOMMENDATION: Move paragraph 1-5 to the end of the document (1-13) and renumber all paragraphs. Also, replace Figure 1-5 with the following:

1-13 Test Report. 1-13.1 AWater Distribution System Test Report should be

prepared as shown in Figure 1-13(a) and Figure 1-13(b). 1-13.2 The Water Distribution System Test Report should include

an analysis of the potential for pressure fluctuations in the system. Consideration should be given for daily and seasonal fluctuations, large domestic demands, future demands on the water distribution

SuBstem, and any other condit ion that could affect the water supply. TANTIATION: Moving this section to the end of the

document is in tended to maintain the logical flow of testing - the repor t is the last step.

The Figures submitted are more detailed than the current Figure 1-5. Paragraph 1-13.9 will coordinate NFPA 291 with paragraph 7-2.1 of

NFPA 13. The use of a safety'factor to account for pressure fluctuations is necessary for design purposes. COMMITI~EE ACTION: Accept in Part. Accept the first part of the submitters proposal by moving section

1-5 to a new section 1-13. Renumfiering current sections 1-6 through 1-13 as 1-5 through 1-12 accordingly. COMMITIT.E STATEMENT: The committee 's action puts this information in a more logical sequence. The committee agrees with the first sentence of the submitter 's substantiation but believes the current data in the standard is sufficient. The existing Figure 1-5 is

consistent with AWWA M17, Installation, Held Testing and Maintenance of Hre Hydrants, Figure 5-4. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #8) 291- 3 - (1-6): Accept SUBMITrER: David M. Cough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

1-6 Layout of Test. After the location at which the test is to be run has been determined, a group of test hydrants in the vicinity is selected. Once selected, due consideration should be given to iPnOtential interference to traffic flow patterns, damage to surround-

gs (e.g., roadways, sidewalks, landscapes, vehicles, and pedestri- ans), and potential flooding problems bo th local and remote from the test site. One hydrant is chosen to be the nressurc , ~o:du,d' hydrants at which the normal static pressure x~rill be observed with the other hydrants in the group closed, and the residual pressure will be observed with the other hydrants flowing. This hydrant is chosen so that the hydrants which will be flowed are the next hydrants between it and the larger mains, which constitute the immediate sources of supply in the area. In Figure 1-6, several test layouts are indicated, showing the pressure ,~0~d..,,l' hydrants in each case by means of a circle. The number of hydrants to be used in any test depends upon the

strength of the distribution system in the vicinity of the test location. To obtain satisfactory test results of theoretical calculation of expected flows or rated capacities, sufficient discharge should be achieved to cause a drop in pressure at the ~ , ~A,i'u~'. hydrant of at least 25 percent or to flow the total demand necessary for fire fighting purposes, f f the mains are small and the system weak, only one or two hydrants need to be flowed. If, on the other hand, the mains are large and the system strong, it may be necessary to flow as many as seven or eight hydrants. SUBSTANTIATION: Using the designation "residual hydrant" implies only the residual pressure is observed. In fact both static and resldual pressures are observed. Better to call it the "pressure hydrant. Adding the paragraph concerning having the flowing hydrant(s) downstreaafi f rom the pressure hgdrant mad the water source adds important guidance. -It is always preferred to have the water flow past the pressure hydrant. In other words, the flowing hydrant(s)-should fie downstream of the pressure hydrant and tile water source. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. Also editorially change "residual" to "pressure" in figure 1-6 and

section 1-8. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18 NEGATIVE: Carl NOT RETURNED: Allen, Trigg, Whiteiaw

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CARL: The term "residual hydrant" specifically describes the

principal function of the hydrant in conducting a flow test. Although it is true that the inifialpressure is also observed at this hydrant, che use of the term "residual Hydrant" does not preclude the use of the hydrant to observe the initial pressure.

The term "residual hydrant" is a well established term and is used in AWWA Manual M17 and other publications describing flow tests. ff the term is changed, it is possible that it could result in some confusion rather ttian the desired clarification.

(Log #9) 291- 4 - (1-7): Accept SUBMITTER: Davad M. Cough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Add a second paragraph to Section 1-7 as follows:

"It is preferred to use an Underwriter 's Playpipe or other stream stralgtitener when testing hydrants due to a more streamlined flow and more accuratepi to t reading." SUBSTANTIATION: Testin~g h-ydrants from open butts is no t as accurate as using a device which straightens the water stream. We should r ecommend the most accurate me thod of flow testing in NFPA 291. C O M M I T I T . ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


229

NFPA 2 9 1 - - A95 ROP

DATE:

TiHE:

i LOCATION:

,; PURPOSE: Y

i TESTi RESI~.I No. i ~o i

VATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEH TEST REPORT

TEST TEST HAS BEEN CONDUCTED PER NFPA 291 (1995) RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR FIRE FLO~ TESTING k~ MARKING OF HYDRANTS

UNLESS NOTED BELOQ

CONDUCTED BY:

HAIN SIZE:

HAIN TYPE:

YEAR: C-FACTOR:

HATER SUPPLY DATA SUMMARY

ACTUAL i DES,GN ,~,i!

STATIC PSI PSI t

RESIDUAL PSI PSI i I

FLO~ GPH GPM fl

HYD. NO. j

~ COE~,! ' ~ RESIDUAL# STATIC! FLou AT t ,~ FLO,~ P,TOT1 OR~FICEii FLO, ~ TOTAL i ~ ~O ~ PSI i IN. I 1 GPH ~ GP" PSI i PSI I 2'PSI ,, *, ,, ,~ ',* . . . . -

,, ! t i

NOTES

H p

u

I il ~i ]]

i - ! '~ ii

ii

Sk~CH (NOT TO SCALE): i~ORMATION OBTAINED FROH:

A 2..5~ DROP FROH THE STATIC PRESSURE TO THE RESIDUAL PRESSURE WAS HOT ACHIEVED, i THEREFORE, THESE RESULTS ARE VAI, ID FOR ~ FLOVS NOT EXCEEDING GPM, !

L

(1) THE DESIGN WATER SUPPLY DATA REFLECTS FLUCTUATIONS ! IN THE WATER SUPPLY AND IS TO RE USED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES

Fmgurel-lS(a)

230

NFPA 291-- A95 ROP

a. a.:

I0

OOg

OOP

o 2 m (18d) gUn~3Ud

Figure 1-13(b)

g

231

NFPA 2 9 1 - - A95 ROP

(Log #10) 291- 5 - (1-8): Accept SUBMITTER: David M. Cough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

1-8 Test Procedure. In a typical test, the 200-psi (14-bar) gage is attached to one of the 2 1/2-in. (6.4-cm) outlets of the vressure ~c~:d,~" hydrant using the special cap, the cock on the'gage piping is opened, and the hydrant valve is openecl full. As soon as the airis exhausted from the barrel, the cock is closed. A reading (static

is taken when the needle comes to rest. At a given signal, each of the other hydrants is opened in succession with discharge taking place directly from he open hydrant butts. Hydrants should be opened one at a time. With all hydrants flowing, water should be allowed to flow for a sufficient time to clear all debris and foreign substances from the stream(s). At that time, a signal is given to the people at the hydrants to read the Pitot pressure of the streams simultaneously while the residual pressure is being read. The final magnitude of the pressure drop can be controlledby the number of hydrants used a n d t h e number of outlets opened on each. After the readings have been taken, hydrants should be shut down

slowly, and one at a time, to prevent undue surges in the system. SUBSTANTIATION: In line with my previous suggestions, the residual hydrant implies only residual pressure is observed. This is not true since static pressure is also observed. Therefore, "pressure" hydrant is suggested. Adding (static pressure) after, A reading, clarifies what this "reading indicates.

• COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:

AFFIRMATIVE: 18 NEGATIVE: Carl NOT RETURNED: Allen, Trigg, Whitelaw

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: CARL: The term "residual hydrant" specifically describes the

principal function of the hydrant in conducting aflow test. Although it is true that the initiaipressure is also observed at this hydrant, the use of the term "residual Hydrant" does not preclude the use of the hydrant to observe the initial pressure.

The term "residual hydrant" is a well established term and is used in AWWA Manual M17 and other publications describing flow tests. If the term is changed, it is possible that it could result in some confusion rather than the desired clarification.

(Log #11) 291- 6 - (1-9): Accept SUBMITTEI~ David M. Cough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

1-9 Pitot Readings. When measuring discharge from open hydrant butts, it is always preferable from the standpoint of accuracy to use $ 1/24n. (6.4-cm) outlets rather than pumper outlets. In practically all cases the 2 1/2-in. (6.4-cm) outlets are filled across the entire cross section during flow, while with the larger outlets there is very frequendy a void near the bottom. When measuring the Pitot pressure of a stream of practically uniform velocity, the orifice in the Pitot tube is held downstream approximately one-half the diameter of the hydrant outlet or nozzle opening, and in the center of the stream. The center line of the o/ifice should be at fight angles to the plane of the face of the hydrant outlet. The air chamber on the Pitot tube should be kept elevated. Pitot readings of less than 10 psi (.7 bar) and more than 30 psi (2.0 bar) should be avoided, if possible. Opening additional hydrant oudets will aid in controlling the Pitot reading. With dry barrel hydrants, the hydrant valve should be wide open. This minimizes problems with underground drain valves. With wet barrel hydrants, the valve for the flowing outlet should be wide open. This gives a more streamlined flow and a more accurate Pitot reading.

AIR RELEASE COCK

~ ~k~,~ I WATER STREAM

'"1 ~ PITOT ORIFICE

~,1 ~" IV ~-"v°RANT°UTLET°R ~j ~ ~o~z~EO, E~,~

lrlgure 1-9 Pitot Tube Position.

SUBSTANTIATION: Add a comma before, if possible is grammatically appropriate. Adding "water stream" to Figure 1-9 clarifies the intent of tt/e figure. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #CP2) $ 2 9 I ~ ~ : Accept

• Techhical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems, RECOMMENDATION: Revise the definition of Up, to read "pitot pressure (Velocity Head) in psi" Also revise the terms "velocity pressure to "pitot pressure (Velocity Head)" throughout the ctocument. SUBSTANTIATION: Pitot pressure more accurately describes what is intended. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


291- 8- (1-13.1): Reject SUBMITIT.R: C DPritchard, TennesseeValleyAuthority RECOMMENDATION: Change formula to:

hr 0.54 QR =QF x

SUBSTANTIATION: The pressure drops should be raised to the 0.54 power, i.e., "0.54" should be includ;~l in the text as superscripts. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The notation proposed by the submitter currently exists in the standard. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #1)

(Log #12) 291- 9 - (Table 1-13.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITIXR: David M. Cough, Industrial Risk Insurers RECOMMENDATION: Revise table as follows:

Vei° tyl I Head I I

~ Veloclty of Discharge

fps

a B I t l l n

Diameter of Orifice in Inches

g N i m m m l m E

Velocity Head

psi

232

N F P A 2 9 1 - - A 9 5 R O P

SUBSTANTIATION: Adding (Pitot press.) under Velocity Head psi clearly indicates which column is the Pitot pressure. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In Table 1-13.1 change Welocity Head psi to" Pitot Pressure psi", and add a superscript to reference Note 1. Add a new note to the bottom of the table to read as follows: "Note 1. This corresponds to velocity head". In the second column of Table 1-13.1, change the superscript from

"*" to "2" and refer to the existing note as "Note 2 "with no changes to the note. Also editorially change the term "velocity pressure" to "pitot

pressure (Velodty Head)"throughout the document. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: This more appropriately addresses the submitters intent. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


291- I0- (2-1): Reject SUBMITTER: John L Cochran, Russellville Fire Dept., AR RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

Classification of hydrants be changed to: Class AAA - 1500 GPM or greater Class AA - 1250 - 1500 GPM Class A - 1000 - 1250 GPM Class B - 750 - 1000 GPM Class C - 500 - 750 GPM Class D - 499 or less

SUBSTANTIATION: At the present time color coding is in 500 GPM increments, whereas fire department pumpers are rated at 250 GPM increments. It would appear that pump operators would have a better idea of what the actual GPM of a hydrant would be if it is coded as proposed. COMMITITEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The committee believes that the existing classification of hydrants is adequate. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log#5)

(Log #7) 291- 11 - (2-2 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Jim Mackenzie, Teaberry Assoc. RECOMMENDATION: Wording should be added to NFPA 291 indicating that Roadway Hydrant Marking System should be utilized to assist responding Engine Companies in locating hydrants in the vicinity of an incident. A typical entry should be added to Section 2- 2 or as a new Chapter 3.

Chapter 3 Roadway Hydrant Markings 3-1 Introduction. Responding fire service engine companies must

know and/or be able to find the location of hydrants in the area of and incident quickly even when they are visibly blocked by parked vehicles, vegetation, or other obstruction. To this end water companies, municipalities, and/or fire departments should use a Roadway Hydrant Marking System to identify the hydrant locations.

3-2 Roadway Markings. 3-2.1 Location. At the location of each hydrant an identified

marking, Roadway Hydrant Marking, should be located at the center line of the roadway.

3-2.2 Marking Configuration. The Roadway Hydrant Marking should be the letter "H" with an arrow pointing to the hydrant location.

3-2.3 Size of the Roadway Hydrant Marking. The Roadway Hydrant Marking should be 48-in. long and 24-in. wide with the letter strokes at least 8 in. wide as in Figure 1.

3-2.4 Color of Roadway Hydrant Marking. For optimum visibility traffic yellow is the most effective color for paintedhydrant roadway markings, although white paint may be used. On light colored roadways, such as concrete, add a 1 or 2-in. border of black paint around the marking to improve the visibility.

3-2.5 Use of Reflectors. An additional aid for locating hydrants at night, is the use of low profile reflectors. Green reflectors similar to those used by the highway department to delineate the roadway center line and the roadway edge are recommended.

FIGURE 1

SUBSTANTIATION: The problem basically related to the inability of apparatus operators to visibly see hydrants because of obstructions and/or their unfamiliarity with the location of the hydrants in the community, or a portion of the community, or in a neighboring community when responding for mutual aid.

ff standard Roadway Hydrant Marking was used in all communities, apparatus operators could more effectively locate hydrants and initiate water supply operations. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The suhmitters proposal is not within the scope of the document. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


253

NFPA 2 9 1 - - A95 R O P

(Log #2) 291- 12 - (2-2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Carl W Hickman, Sulphur Fire Dept., OK RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

2-2.1 Public Hydrants. All barrels are to be white except in cases where another color has already been adopted. The tops and nozzle caps should be painted with the following capacity-indicating color scheme to provide simplicity and consistency with colors used in signal work for safety, danger, and intermediate condition:

Class AA- Light Blue Class A - Green Class B - Yellow Class C - Red

SUBSTANTIATION: The barrels of hydrants should be painted white for visibility at night. Class B hydrants (500-999 GPM) should have the top and nozzle caps painted yellow, as the color orange may be difficult to distinguish from red at night. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee believes the existing color coding of the hydrants is adequate. In addition, there is no technical substantiation to support changing the existing color coding guidelines. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMIIWEE ACTION:


(Log #4) $91-13 - (2-2.1): Reject " S U B ~ John L Cochran, RussellvUle Fire Dept., AR RECOMMENDATION: Propose changing orange to another color due to the confusion that may arise because of faded paint. Faded red paint tends to look like orange in some cases. Also, orange and red are hard to differentiate from a distance. SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMrITEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: The committee feels that this is a maintenance issue and that the existing color coding guidelines are adequate. NUMBER OF COMMITYEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


(Log #6) $91- 14- (2-2.1): Reject SUBMITrER: Kenny W Ainsworth Jr, Wallops, VA RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows:

"The classification and marking of hydrants provided for in this chapter anticipates determination based on individual flow test at 20 psi, unless other pressures have been adopted." SUBSTANTIATION: The current statement is unclear as to what pressure to rate a hydrant. Since hydrant flows varied from one pressure to another I have found some confusion as to what pressure to rate them. I recently took over a fire prevention program that coded hydrants based on individual flows at many different pressures. When I asked why it was done this way, I was told that the code does not say at what pressure to color code fire hydrants. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: The committee believes section 2-1

ec'ifically provides the information the submitter is seeking. ER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22

VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 19 NOT RETURNED: Allen, Trigg, Whitelaw

(Log #3) $91-15 - (2-2.1.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITI'ER: Carl W Hickman, Sulphur Fire Dept., OK RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph to read as follows:

2-2.1.1 Inoperative Hydrants. Firehydcants that are Inoperative or unusable shall have barrels, nozzle caps, tops, and all visible parts [~alnted black.

UIKS~ANTIATION: Valuable time is lost when a fire department attempts to use an inoperative or unusable fire hydrant. If the inoperative hydrant is painted black in its entirety, responding fire department members can easily recognize and b)~pass a dead hydrant

The barrel should be painted black, so as not to confuse the hydrant with an operable hydrant at night. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The committee feels this is a maintenance issue and that the inoperative hydrant should be repaired. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 22 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION:


234

i•l•i - NFPA of the Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems Richard Martineau, Chair...

Documents

Transcript of i•l•i - NFPA of the Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems Richard Martineau, Chair...