M E M O R A N D U M - NFPA...10 250 m2 in2 1 in2 = 0.0006452 m2 12 300 mm2 in2 1 in2 = 645.15 mm2 14...

National Fire Protection Association

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org

M E M O R A N D U M

To: NFPA Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems

From: Elena Carroll, Administrator, Technical Projects

Date: October 8, 2014

Subject: NFPA 24 Second Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2015 Cycle)

According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot.

31 Members Eligible to Vote

3 Not Returned (Laguna, Mowrer, Sanchez)

26 Affirmative on All Revisions

2 Negatives (Asp, Schwab)

0 Abstentions

The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of

the vote for each second revision.

There are two criteria necessary for each second revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2/3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined.

(1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes

are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote ÷ 2 = 10 + 1 = 11)

(2) Example for Affirmative 2/3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not

return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample

calculation: 20 members eligble to vote – 1 not returned – 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 )

As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Second Revision No. 15-NFPA 24-2014 [ Global Comment ]

Revise the metric values throughout the standard to follow the soft conversions provided by themetric task group.

Supplemental Information

File Name Description

Metrification_AUT-PRI.xlsx

Submitter Information Verification

Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ]

Organization: [ Not Specified ]

Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 13:43:08 EDT 2014

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

For the 2016 edition of NFPA 13, the technical committees responsible for the standard chose tomove from hard conversions to soft conversions. Chapter 10 of NFPA 24 is extracted into NFPA13, and as such, NFPA 24 was included in the soft conversion review.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results

This item has passed ballot

31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All

0 Affirmative with Comments

0 Negative with Comments

0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...

1 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.

Clark, Jr., Stephen A.

Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin

Schifiliti, James R.

Schwab, Peter T.

Sheppard, J. William

Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


2 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

English (in.) Metric (mm) SI Unit Eng. Unit Factor

1/4 6 L gal 1 gal = 3.785 L

3/8 10 mm/min gpm/ft2 1 gpm/ft2 = 40.746 mm/min

1/2 15 dm3 gal 1 gal = 3.785 dm3

3/4 20 Pa psi 1 psi = 6894.757 Pa

1 25 bar psi 1 psi = 0.0689 bar

1 1/4 32 Pa --> bar - 1 bar = 1E5 Pa

1 1/2 40

1 3/4 45

2 50 SI Unit Eng. Unit Factor

2 1/2 65 m ft 1 ft = 0.3048 m

3 80 m in 1 in = 0.0254 m

3 1/2 90 mm in 1 in = 25.4 mm

4 100

5 125


8 200 m2 ft2 1 ft2 = 0.0929 m2

10 250 m2 in2 1 in2 = 0.0006452 m2

12 300 mm2 in2 1 in2 = 645.15 mm2

14 350 m3 ft3 1 ft3 = 0.02832 m3

16 400 mm3 in3 1 in3 = 16387 mm3

18 450

20 500


kJ/kg Btu/lb 1 Btu/lb = 2.326 kJ/kg

g oz. 1 oz = 28.35 g

kJ/m2 Btu/ft2 1 Btu/ft2 = 11.356 kJ/m2

Piping Equivalents Conversion Factors (T.1.6.1.3)

Length

Area, Volume

Other

Second Revision No. 2-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 2.3.1 ]

2.3.1 ASME Publications.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Three Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.

ASME B1.20.1, Pipe Threads, General Purpose (Inch), 2001.

ASME B16.1, Gray Iron Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, Classes 12, 125, and 250 , 2010.

ASME B16.3, Malleable Iron Threaded Fittings, Classes 150 and 300, 2006.

ASME B16.4, Gray Iron Threaded Fittings, Classes 125 and 250, 2006.

ASME B16.5, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings NPS 1⁄2 through 24, 2003 2013 .

ASME B16.9, Factory-Made Wrought Steel Buttweld Fittings, 2007.

ASME B16.11, Forged Steel Fittings, Socket Welded and Threaded, 2005.

ASME B16.18, Cast Bronze Solder Joint Pressure Fittings, 2001.

ASME B16.22, Wrought Copper and Bronze Solder Joint Pressure Fittings, 2001.

ASME B16.25, Buttwelding Ends, 2007.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated the edition date for the standard.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel


3 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


4 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM


2.3.2 ASTM Publications.

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

ASTM A 234 A234/A234M , Specification for Piping Fittings of Wrought Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel forModerate and Elevated Temperatures, 2007 2013e1 .

ASTM A 53 A53/A53M Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated,Welded and Seamless, 2001 2012 .

ASTM A 135 A135/A135M Standard Specification for Electric-Resistance- Welded Steel Pipe,2001 09(2014) .

ASTM A 795 A795/A795M Standard Specification for Black and Hot-Dipped Zinc-Coated(Galvanized)Welded and Seamless Steel Pipe for Fire Protection Use, 2000 2013 .

ASTM B 16.5 Cast Bronze Threaded Fittings , 1985.

ASTM B 43 B43 Specification for Seamless Red Brass Pipe, 2009.

ASTM B 75 B75 , Specification for Seamless Copper Tube, 2002 2011 .

ASTM B 88 B88 , Specification for Seamless Copper Water Tube, 2003 2009 .

ASTM B 251 B251 , Requirements for Wrought Seamless Copper and Copper-Alloy Tube, 2002 2010 .

IEEE/ASTM-SI-10, Standard for Use of the International System of Units (SI): The Modern Metric System,2002 2010 .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Sun Jun 29 09:24:03 EDT 2014

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Update year dates. The deleted standard is an ASME Standard, not an ASTM Standard.

Response Message:

Public Comment No. 20-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 2.3.2]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention


5 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


6 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM


2.3.3 AWWA Publications.

American Water Works Association, 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235.

AWWA C104, Cement Mortar Lining for Ductile Iron Pipe and Fittings for Water, 2008.

AWWA C105, Polyethylene Encasement for Ductile Iron Pipe Systems, 2005.

AWWA C110, Ductile Iron and Gray Iron Fittings, 2008.

AWWA C111, Rubber-Gasket Joints for Ductile Iron Pressure Pipe and Fittings, 2000.

AWWA C115, Flanged Ductile Iron Pipe with Ductile Iron or Gray Iron Threaded Flanges, 2005.

AWWA C116, Protective Fusion-Bonded Epoxy Coatings for the Interior and Exterior Surfaces ofDuctile-Iron and Gray-Iron Fittings for Water Supply Service , 2003.

AWWA C150, Thickness Design of Ductile Iron Pipe, 2008.

AWWA C151, Ductile Iron Pipe, Centrifugally Cast for Water, 2002.

AWWA C153, Ductile-Iron Compact Fittings for Water Service, 2006.

AWWA C200, Steel Water Pipe 6 in. and Larger , 2005.

AWWA C203, Coal-Tar Protective Coatings and Linings for Steel Water Pipelines Enamel and Tape —Hot Applied , 2002.

AWWA C205, Cement-Mortar Protective Lining and Coating for Steel Water Pipe 4 in. and Larger —Shop Applied , 2007.

AWWA C206, Field Welding of Steel Water Pipe , 2003.

AWWA C207, Steel Pipe Flanges for Waterworks Service — Sizes 4 in. Through 144 in., 2007.

AWWA C208, Dimensions for Fabricated Steel Water Pipe Fittings, 2007.

AWWA C300, Reinforced Concrete Pressure Pipe, Steel-Cylinder Type, 2004.

AWWA C301, Prestressed Concrete Pressure Pipe, Steel-Cylinder Type, 2007.

AWWA C302, Reinforced Concrete Pressure Pipe, Non-Cylinder Type, 2004.

AWWA C303, Reinforced Concrete Pressure Pipe, Steel-Cylinder Type, Pretensioned, 2002.

AWWA C400, Standard for Asbestos-Cement Distribution Pipe, 4 in. Through 16 in. (100 mm through 400mm), for Water Distribution Systems, 2003.

AWWA C600, Standard for the Installation of Ductile Iron Water Mains and Their Appurtenances, 2005.

AWWA C602, Cement-Mortar Lining of Water Pipe Lines 4 in. and Larger — in Place, 2006.

AWWA C603, Standard for the Installation of Asbestos-Cement Pressure Pipe, 2005.

AWWA C900, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe, 4 in. Through 12 in., for Water Distribution, 2007.

AWWA C905, AWWA Standard for Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe and Fabricated Fittings, 14 in.Through 48 in. (350 mm Through 1200 mm), 2010.

AWWA C906, Polyethylene (PE) Pressure Pipe and Fittings, 4 in. (100 mm) Through 63 in. (1575 mm) forWater Distribution, 2007.

AWWA C909, Molecularly Oriented Polyvinyl Chloride (PVCO) Pressure Pipe, 4 in. through 24 in. (100mm through 600 mm), for Water, Wastewater, and Reclaimed Water Service, 2010.

AWWA M11, A Guide for Steel Pipe Design and Installation , 4th edition, 2004.




7 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM


Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Reference is made to the statement of problem and substantiation of Public Comment No.2-NFPA 24-2014.

Response Message:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.


8 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


9 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Second Revision No. 20-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 2.4 ]

2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections.

NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, 2013 2016 edition.


Submitter Full Name: Sonia Barbosa


Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Mon Aug 18 09:51:05 EDT 2014

Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Updated edition date.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.


10 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


11 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Second Revision No. 17-NFPA 24-2014 [ New Section after 5.1.2 ]

5.1.3 Water Supply Adjustments.

5.1.3.1*

Where a waterflow test was conducted, the volume and pressure available for use for a fire protectionsystem shall be determined from the following formula:

[5.1.3.1]

5.1.3.1.1

The pressure, P , shall be what is considered available from the water supply to use for a fire protectionsystem that will be calculated for a given flow demand of Q .

5.1.3.1.2

The flow, Q , shall be demand flow of the fire protection system that will be used to calculate theavailable pressure from the water supply, P .

5.1.3.1.3*

The variable P 1 shall be the residual pressure measured during the waterflow test while the flow Q 1was discharging from the water supply reduced by the specifying engineer or the water utility for dailyand seasonal fluctuations.

5.1.3.1.3.1

The reduction shall not be based on 100-year droughts or other extreme conditions.

5.1.3.1.4*

The variable P 2 shall be the static pressure measured during the waterflow test reduced by the

specifying engineer or the water utility for daily and seasonal fluctuations.

5.1.3.1.4.1

The reduction shall not be based on 100-year droughts or other extreme conditions.

5.1.3.1.5

The variable Q 1 shall be the flow associated with P 1 .

5.1.3.1.6*

Where the specifying engineer or the water utility does not provide the value for P 1 and P 2 , see

5.1.3.2 .

5.1.3.2*

Where a waterflow test has been conducted and the specifying engineer or the water authority does notprovide a value for P 1 and P 2 , the value for P 1 and P 2 shall be calculated by taking the static

pressure and residual pressure results from the flow test and reducing them by 5 percent.

5.1.3.2.1

Where the authority having jurisdiction has adopted a requirement for an adjustment different from 5percent, that adjustment shall be applied.



SR_17_equation_and_number.docx Equation 5.1.3.1

SR_17_A.5.1.3.docx Annex material




Street Address:


12 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Wed Jun 18 16:18:40 EDT 2014

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The NFPA 13 technical committees have been discussing the need for adjusting waterflow data forseveral revision cycles. This revision aims to make the adjustment to the data from a waterflow testrequired instead of recommended. If the adjustment is not required, contractors that do the right thingand adjust the data from tests are at a disadvantage from contractors that don't make anyadjustment. It is fundamentally wrong to not make an adjustment to the data due to daily andseasonal fluctuations. This makes makes a simple and easy to understand adjustment that isstandardized so that there is no argument over what is supposed to happen. It is the intent to havethis be the only adjustment. If the water utility has already performed the adjustment, or if the AHJhas already mandated a safety margin or safety factor to the waterflow data obtained from the test,this adjustment would not apply.

ResponseMessage:

Public Comment No. 17-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. A.5.1.2]

Public Comment No. 18-NFPA 24-2014 [New Section after 5.1.2]

Public Comment No. 19-NFPA 24-2014 [New Section after A.5.1.2]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

26 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff


13 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin



Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.

Negative with Comment

Asp, Roland A.

While it is important to adjust water flow test results to reflect a possible "worse case" scenario of the watersupply based upon time of day, seasonal variations, large simultaneous industrial use and other conditions thatmay affect the water supply, this negative ballot is being submitted based upon the following: 1. The SprinklerSystem Discharge Criteria Committee did not accept this Second Revision. Although the Residential Committeeand the Private Water Supply Piping Systems Committee did accept this SR, all affected committees should havea consensus on this issue. 2. The Fire Protection Research Foundation is sponsoring a research project on thistopic and the results of this project should be taken into consideration once available.

Schwab, Peter T.

Adjustments for water supply fluctuation is a complicated topic. This approach to mandate an arbitrary 5%cushion is too simplistic and cannot encompass all the possibilities encountered in the real world. Also, the SSDCommittee rejected a similar comment. The FPRF is in the process of conducting a project on this subject. Thisconcept should be put on hold for the next edition.


14 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

2

85.1

1

21 PQ

QPPP

[5.1.3.1] Formatted: Font: Bold

NFPA 24 SR 17 Annex

A.5.1.3.1

Consider the following example. A waterflow test is conducted at a location where a city water

main is going to be tapped for a new sprinkler system. During the test, the static pressure is

measured at 70 psi; the residual pressure is measured at 50 psi while 1300 gpm was discharging

from a nearby hydrant. The water utility is contacted, and they indicate that a reasonable low-

static pressure accounting for typical daily and seasonal fluctuations in this area is 55 psi, and a

reasonable low-residual pressure accounting for typical daily and seasonal fluctuations in this

area at a flow of 1300 gpm is 35 psi. The equation that describes the water supply available for a

fire sprinkler system would be:

551300

5535

85.1

QP

[A.5.1.3(a)]

There are two ways to use this formula. One would be to assume two different values for Q,

calculate P and then draw a graph on log 1.85 paper. Any fire sprinkler system demand falling

on or below the line on this graph would be acceptable in accordance with NFPA 13 to work

with this water supply.

In this case, the two easiest flows to pick for Q would be 0 and 1300 gpm. When Q = 0, P is

simply 55 psi. When Q = 1300 gpm, P = 35 psi. These two points can be plotted on log 1.85

paper as shown in Figure A.5.1.3.1.

The second way to use this formula would be to calculate the fire protection system and

determine the flow necessary to make the system work. Plug this flow into the formula above

and see what the available pressure from the water supply will be at that flow.

For example, if a sprinkler system connected to this water supply had a demand of 580 gpm, the

available pressure from the water supply would be:

551300

5805535

85.1

P

P = (−20)(0.225) + 55

P = 50.5 psi

[A.5.1.3(b)]

So, as long as the sprinkler system has a pressure demand less than or equal to 50.5 psi, it will

work with this water supply.

Figure A.5.1.3.1 Available Water Supply Curve Example.

A.5.1.3.1.3

The purpose of the adjustment required by this section is to take into account reasonable

fluctuations that occur on a daily and seasonal basis but not to burden the building owner with

extreme conditions. During an extreme condition such as a water main break or a severe drought,

the impaired system provisions of NFPA 25 can be employed to mitigate the circumstances of

the extreme condition.

The intent of this section is to apply the adjustment to the raw data obtained by the flow test and

not to apply adjustments to values that have already been adjusted by water utilities. If a water

utility has already provided flow and pressure data for use in the design of fire protection

systems that already include adjustments for daily and seasonal water usage, there is no need to

make any additional adjustments to this data.

A.5.1.3.1.4

See A.5.1.3.1.3.

A.5.1.3.1.6

Water utilities are the entities that know their own supplies the best and know what appropriate

adjustments need to be made to flow test data to provide reasonable fire protection. In a situation

in which the water utility will not make a definite statement about an adjustment, the fire

protection engineer would supply such a statement about adjustments to the raw data from a flow

test.

Due to the level of judgment involved in making such a decision, licensing laws in most of the

United States require the fire protection engineer to make this determination rather than the fire

protection system contractor. It is expected that the engineer would make these statements in the

specifications provided to the fire protection system contractor. In the absence of any

information from any authority, 5.1.3.2 provides a standardized method of making a decision.

A.5.1.3.2

Subsection 5.1.3.2 provides a standardized method of making a decision regarding the reduction

of the results from a waterflow test to determine what pressure and flow are available from a

water supply when the specifying engineer and the water utility have not provided adjustment

information. An example of using this standardized method is the following:

If a waterflow test is conducted at a location where a city water main is going to be tapped for a

new sprinkler system, and the static pressure is measured at 70 psi, with the residual pressure

measured at 50 psi while 1300 gpm was discharging from a nearby hydrant. If there is no

information from the specifying engineer or water utility about appropriate adjustments, the

value of the static pressure and residual pressure need to be reduced by 5 percent.

The static pressure would be adjusted from 70 psi to 66.5 psi (70 x 0.95 = 66.5).

The residual pressure at 1300 gpm would be reduced from 50 psi to 47.5 psi (70 x 0.95 = 47.5).

The results would be plotted on log 1.85 graph paper, as shown in the lower curve on Figure

A.5.1.3.2. That curve would represent what the fire protection system contractor could use for a

fire protection system.

Figure A.5.1.3.2 Available Water Supply Curve Example.


5.2.1 Private Fire Service Mains.

Hydraulic calculations shall show that the main is able to supply the total demand at the appropriatepressure for systems with multiple hydrants .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The current wording appears to infer that pressures and flow are not material for single firehydrant installations. A 6" line may be completely insufficient to supply a single hydrant at the endof a long dead end with a high fire flow condition. The PC removes the multiple hydrant constraint.

ResponseMessage:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.


15 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


16 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM


5.3.2

Where meters are required, they shall be listed for fire protection service .




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

It is important to indicate the listing needs to be for fire protection. The word "service" wasadded to the proposed language in PC-6 for consistency with the remainder of the standard.

ResponseMessage:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.


17 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


18 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Second Revision No. 7-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 5.9.2.4 ]

5.9.2.4

Non-threaded Nonthreaded couplings shall be permitted where required by the AHJ.

Non-threaded couplings shall be listed for use as permitted in 5.9.2.4 .

5.9.2.4.1

Nonthreaded couplings shall be listed.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The two separate provisions should be written in two separate sections. Additionally, as writtenin the First Draft Report, the second sentence of Section 5.9.2.4 is referring to its own sectionnumber.

ResponseMessage:

Public Comment No. 7-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 5.9.2.4]


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.


19 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


20 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM


5.9.4.4

The automatic drip shall be permitted to be buried where permitted by the AHJ.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: This language is being deleted because it is already in Section 5.9.4.2.1.

Response Message:


Public Comment No. 15-NFPA 24-2014 [Chapter 5]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.


21 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


22 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM


6.2.1

A valve in accordance with Section 6.1 shall be installed in each pipeline from each water supply.

6.2.1.1

Control valves shall not be installed in the piping from the fire department connection to the point itconnects to the fire service main.

6.2.1.2

Control valves shall be permitted in the system piping downstream of the fire department connection.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

Modified the wording to indicate that the valve downstream of the FDC can only be insystem piping.

Response Message:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


23 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


24 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM


10.1.4.1*

Underground piping shall be permitted to extend into the building through the slab or wall not more than24 in. (0.6 m).



SR-14_A.10.1.4.1.docx edited




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

The standard allows PVC underground piping to enter a building to supply the sprinkler systeminside a building. The concerns of this approach include: 1. Weight of the spinkler riser on the PVCpipe - is it tested for vertical loading in this regard 2. Incompatibility with various chemicals, includingfloor coatings - the Arrangement section in NFPA 13 no longer seems to adequately address thatpotential concern. 3. Potential to exposure from sunlight. These concerns should be addressedwhere applicable. This language was proposed for the body of NFPA 13, but has been relocated tothe annex of NFPA 24 as these concerns may not apply for every project, but rather should beconsidered on a case by case basis.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel


25 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


26 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

A.10.1.4

Where nonmetallic underground piping is provided above grade or inside a building, the following

should be considered:

2.1. Exposure from direct rays of sunlight

3.2. Compatibility with chemicals such as floor coatings and termiticides/insecticides

4.3. Support of piping and appurtenances attached thereto (e.g., sprinkler risers, backflow

preventers…etc)

Formatted: Font: Bold


10.2.1.3

Approved fittings shall be permitted to be used.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

There are available fittings on the market that are listed or are in accordance with Table10.2.1.1. This section allows practically anything as long as it is approved.

ResponseMessage:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.


27 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


28 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Second Revision No. 10-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 10.4.2.1.7.1 ]

10.4.2.1.7.1

Heat tracing not listed for underground use shall be permitted when piping is installed in accordance with10.4.2.2.5 10.1.4.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: I believe this is the correct section to reference.

Response Message:

Public Comment No. 11-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 10.4.2.1.7.1]

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.


29 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


30 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM


10.5.1.1*

The requirement of 10.6.8 10.5.1 shall not preclude the bonding of the underground piping to the lightningprotection grounding system as required by NFPA 780 in those cases where lightning protection isprovided for the structure.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: Editorial correction. The reference was not revised during the Chapter 10 rewrite.

Response Message:


Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.


31 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


32 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM



33 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

10.10.1 Approval of Underground Piping.


34 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

The installing contractor shall be responsible for the following:

(1) Notifying the AHJ and the owner's representative of the time and date testing is to be performed

(2) Performing all required acceptance tests

(3) Completing and signing the contractor's material and test certificate(s) shown in Figure 10.10.1

Figure 10.10.1 Sample of Contractor's Material and Test Certificate for Underground Piping.


35 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

Committee Statement: The modifications made in SR 12 require this statement to be modified for correlation.

Response Message:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel


36 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


37 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Second Revision No. 12-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 10.10.2.1.3 ]

10.10.2.1.3

The minimum rate of flow shall be not less than one of the following: in accordance with Table10.10.2.1.3 .

Hydraulically calculated water demand flow rate of the system, including any hose requirements

Maximum flow rate available to the system under fire conditions

Table 10.10.2.1.3 Flow Required to Produce Velocity of 10 ft/sec (3 m/sec) in Pipes

Nominal Pipe Size Flow Rate

in. mm gpm L/min

2 51 100 379

21⁄2 63 150 568

3 76 220 833

4 102 390 1,476 1476

5 127 610 2,309 2309

6 152 880 3,331 3331

8 204 1,560 1560 5,905 5905

10 254 2,440 2440 9,235 9235

12 305 3,520 3520 13,323

10.10.2.1.3.1

Where the flow rates established in Table 10.10.2.1.3 are not attainable, the maximum flow rateavailable to the system shall be acceptable.




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:


Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This section was reviewed by the NFPA 24 Flushing Task Group. Matching the hydraulic calculationdemand is an unreasonable option, and the annex note A.10.10.2.1.3(2) gives support to this. Therequirement for flushing of the underground is not intended to be a means of proving the watersupply is available at the time of installation. Some system hydraulically calculated water demandflow rates may be low enough that achieving that flow would not result in flushing any debris

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


* Flow in accordance with Table 10.10.2.1.3


38 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

28 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Asp, Roland A.

Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.


39 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Second Revision No. 18-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. A.5.1.2 ]

A.5.1.2

An adjustment to the waterflow test data to account for the following should be made, as appropriate:

Daily and seasonal fluctuations

Possible interruption by flood or ice conditions

Large simultaneous industrial use

Future demand on the water supply system

Other conditions that could affect the water supply




Street Address:

City:

State:

Zip:

Submittal Date: Fri Jun 20 11:58:33 EDT 2014

Committee Statement

CommitteeStatement:

This section suggesting water supply adjustments is being removed in favor of mandatorylanguage in Chapter 5 for making an adjustment to waterflow data. See SR 17 for the exactlanguage.

ResponseMessage:

Ballot Results


31 Eligible Voters

3 Not Returned

27 Affirmative All



0 Abstention

Not Returned

Laguna, Alan R.

Mowrer, David S.

Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All

Biggins, James B.


40 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Brown, Phillip A.

Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F.


Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E.

Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M.

Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar

Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John

Larsen, Michael

Maddry, James M.

Maughan, Kevin D.

Morgan, Bob D.

O'Dell, Dale H.

Olson, Shawn C.

Ramos, Martin


Schwab, Peter T.


Su, Chen-Hsiang

Twele, Scott M.

Wagoner, Kenneth W.

Negative with Comment

Asp, Roland A.

If SR-17 (Waterflow test data adjustment) does not pass ballot, the language of A.5.1.2 should remain in theannex of the standard.


41 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

M E M O R A N D U M - NFPA...10 250 m2 in2 1 in2 = 0.0006452 m2 12 300 mm2 in2 1 in2 = 645.15 mm2 14...

Documents

Transcript of M E M O R A N D U M - NFPA...10 250 m2 in2 1 in2 = 0.0006452 m2 12 300 mm2 in2 1 in2 = 645.15 mm2 14...