M E M O R A N D U M - NFPA · FR-14, Section No. 4.12.8, See FR-14 FR-13, New Section after...

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 Fire Pumps

From: Elena Carroll, Administrator, Technical Projects

Date: February 6, 2014

Subject: NFPA 20 First Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2015 Cycle)

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

32 Members Eligible to Vote

3 Not Returned (Boogard, LaRose, Petrus)

23 Affirmative on All Revisions

4 Affirmative with Comment on one or more Revisions (Aaron, McGrath, Nasby, Victor)

6 Negative on one or more Revisions (Fuller, Leicht, Nasby, Pennel, Stewart, Victor)

0 Abstentions

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

the vote for each first revision.

There are two criteria necessary for each first 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.

NFPA 20 (A2015) FIM-AAA First Draft Ballot Final

Vote Selection Votes Comments

Affirmative 27

Affirmative with Comment 0

Negative 2

Hansford Stewart A.11.4.4 recommends that dimension be 10" above the fill cap on the fuel

tank which is dimensioned @ 12" minimum above the tank. The

proposed change is not consistant with our annex material.

James S. Nasby I agree with Hansford Stewart's reason for his Negative Vote. Hopefully

this can be resolved in the 2nd round.Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-149, Global Input, See FR-149


Results by Revision


Page 1 of 40

http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/FormLaunch?id=/TerraView/Content/20-2013.ditamap/2/C1386771298628.xml&viewmode=nfpa/xslt/nfpaviewmode.xsl





Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-1, New Section after 3.3.38.10, See FR-1

FR-128, Chapter 2, See FR-128


Page 2 of 40






Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 28


Jennifer A. McGrath Point 8 in the committee statement indicates that the term "if applicable"

was to be added to the pressure maintenance pump information because

pressure maintenance pumps are not always provided. The term "if

applicable" is not found in the first revision language for item (19).

Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-26, Section No. 4.2.3.1, See FR-26


FR-3, Section No. 3.3.41, See FR-3

Page 3 of 40






Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0




Page 4 of 40






Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


FR-9, New Section after 4.7.7.3.2, See FR-9


Page 5 of 40






Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 27


Michael E. Aaron Wouldn't extra hazard group 1 have been sufficient?

Negative 1

James S. Nasby No good reason has been given to show that an electric fire pump is any

sort of a fire hazard. Further, since water and electricity don't mix well, I

believe that the electricity should have the higher priority. Sprinkling a

running fire pump is likely to cause the cessationces of all fire water being

delivered by said pump.Abstain 0



Page 6 of 40





Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0




FR-30, Section No. 4.12.2.1.1, See FR-30

Page 7 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


FR-98, Sections 4.15.9.1, 4.15.9.2, 4.15.9.3, 4.15.9.4, 4.15.9.5, See FR-98

FR-16, New Section after 4.15.1, See FR-16


Page 8 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 28


Negative 1

James S. Nasby This text in unenforceable since no definition is given for "active

emergency requirements for the pump to run". Instead, restate in terms

of manual or automatic testing.Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0



FR-75, Section No. 4.18.7.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See FR-75


Page 9 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0



Page 10 of 40





Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 28


James S. Nasby The text doesn't address the case of extant installations having said

retrofit backflow prevention devices. This is the vast majority of extant

jobs in many, if not all states in the U.S. Some number of these do, in fact,

reduce the pump output below the factory pump curve and accepted

output pressure at, or near, full flow. What about these extant jobs?

Negative 0

Abstain 0


FR-23, Section No. 4.26, See FR-23



Page 11 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


FR-97, Sections 4.29.9, 4.29.10, See FR-97


Page 12 of 40






Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0




Page 13 of 40






Affirmative 27


Negative 2

Terry L. Victor FR 44 (5.5) page 59 and FR 137 (9.3.1) page 73 both deal with the same

subject (standby power for electric driven pumps in high rise) but they

don't agree. One recognizes a diesel pump as a backup, the other does

not. One requires electric backup where the building is above the fire

department's capability to pump, the other specifically deletes this

language.James S. Nasby I agree with Terry L. Victor's reason for his Negative Vote. Hopefully this

can be resolved in the 2nd round.Abstain 0


Page 14 of 40




Affirmative 26


Negative 3

David B. Fuller This section applies to "Very Tall Buildings" where the building height

exceeds the pumping capacity of the fire department apparatus. While I

agree that in certain circumstances the refill rate being equal to the fire

protection demand can be difficult to achieve, the proposed change to an

8 hour refill time is not sufficent to ensure a reasonable refill rate to

maintain building fire protection. In most cases the water supply duration

requirement will be 30 or 60 minutes total. Going from a 1:1 to a 1:16 or

1:8 refill ratio leaves the building without fire protection for far too long

in context of a very tall building where evacuation times are lenghthy

and/or protect in place stratgies are used and there is sole reliance on the

building fire protection water supply.

Gayle Pennel The original requirements were written to permit up to 1/2 of the total

stored demand to be out of service with the understanding that refill rate

would compensate for the storage out of service. Where the refill comes

from a standpipe below this can be accomplished at minimal cost (larger

refill pipe and valve from the top of a standpipe to a tank). For a ground

level tank the municipal supply must make up the refill. The originally

required refill rate is a minimal cost item that should apply to all high rise

building where evacuation is impractical.

James S. Nasby I agree with Gayle Pennel's and with David Fuller's reasons for their

Negative Votes. Hopefully this can be resolved in the 2nd round.

Abstain 0


Page 15 of 40




Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0





Page 16 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0




Page 17 of 40






Affirmative 27


Negative 2

Terry L. Victor Until the new annex details are provided and can be viewed for accuracy,

we can't vote affirmative on this revision.James S. Nasby I agree with Terry L. Victor's reason for his Negative Vote. Hopefully this

can be resolved in the 2nd round. Also, I can't tell what the proposed test

would be since my copy of this FR is blank. E.g.: The NFPA Report shows

no new or revised text.Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 28


Negative 1

James S. Nasby I'm voting no on clause 9.2.3.4.1. No good reason has ever been given to

relax the requirement for any upstream over current protective device

(fuse or circuit breaker) to carry motor locked rotor current indefinitely.

The proposed text will be very difficult for all AHJ's to enforce, whereas

the 600% requirement has been long standing and also has been shown

to be enforceable.Abstain 0




Page 18 of 40






Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 28


Negative 1

James S. Nasby The extant values in Table 9.5.1.1(a) allow LRA values of up to 640% of

motor FLA, whereas controllers and motor contactors are tested only at

LRA values of 600% of motor FLA. The proposed values in the table for

horsepowers below 5.0 are one code to high, except two for 1.0 Hp, since

they would allow LRA values of 710% (750% for 1.0 Hp) of FLA. Reducing

the maximum allowed codes by one would keep the maximum LRA values

down to 640% of motor FLA. The codes should be "L" for 1.0 and 1.5 Hp,

"K" for 2 Hp, and "J" for 3 Hp. For Table 9.5.1.1.1(c) the values should be:

"M", "M", "L" and "K" for 1.0. 1.5, 2 and 3 Hp respectively.

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0




Page 19 of 40






Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-126, Sections 10.5.2.1.1.1, 10.5.2.1.1.2, See FR-126




Page 20 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0



FR-55, New Section after 10.5.2.1.7.6, See FR-55


Page 21 of 40







Affirmative 28


Negative 1

James S. Nasby No good reason has been given for eliminating automatic stopping for

pumps which are not sole source pumps. This will cause any number of

pumps to burn up, which is why Chicago requires automatic stopping of

ALL electric fire pumps. While I feel that sole source pumps should

require manual stopping, this seems excessive where multiple pumps are

involved. The net result will be to REDUCE the reliability of fire protection

on many of these cases rather than either maintaining or enhancing said

reliability.Abstain 0


Page 22 of 40




Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


FR-95, Sections 10.10.6.2, 10.10.6.3, See FR-95



Page 23 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0



FR-68, Section No. 11.2.4.2.3.1, See FR-68


Page 24 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 27


Terry L. Victor We don't know what "horizontal orientation to the pressure source"

means. Also, this change was only made for Chapter 11 (diesel engines).

Wouldn't the issue also need to be written for electric motor driven

pumps too?James S. Nasby I agree with Terry L. Victor's reason for his A.W.C. Vote. I have the same

question regarding what the piping will look like. However, I don't agree

that this would also apply to Chapter 10 (electric motor driven pumps)

since no problems with these pumps and their pressure control was

submitted, or discussed at the FR meeting. Hopefully this can be resolved

in the 2nd round.Negative 0

Abstain 0




Page 25 of 40






Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0



FR-77, Section No. 11.2.7.2.1.3, See FR-77


Page 26 of 40







Affirmative 27


Negative 2

Terry L. Victor There is no text shown for this proposed change, only a substantiation for

the change. Until the actual text is included we can't vote affirmative.

James S. Nasby I agree with Terry L. Victor's reason for his Negative Vote. My copy is also

blank (no new or revised text is shown). Hopefully this can be resolved in

the 2nd round.Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 27


Negative 2

Terry L. Victor Same problem as FR-79. There is no text shown for this proposed change,

only a substantiation for the change. Until the actual text is included we

can't vote affirmative.James S. Nasby I agree with Terry L. Victor's reason for his Negative Vote. My copy is also





FR-79, New Section after 11.4.1.2.8.3(B), See FR-79

Page 27 of 40






Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0




Page 28 of 40






Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0





Page 29 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-127, Sections 12.7.2.1.1.1, 12.7.2.1.1.2, See FR-127




Page 30 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0





Page 31 of 40







Affirmative 27


Negative 2

R. T. Leicht The proposed wording allows an automatic shutdown in one

circumstance even when the AHJ may decide that it must be manual. This

is a direct circumvent of the AHJ’s authority as defined in 3.2.2. Indeed,

there may be compelling reasons for automatic shutdown during

automatic testing and if the AHJ agrees, then so be it. However, if the AHJ

has other reasons to require it to be manually shutdown or if the

reasoning to shut down automatically is not compelling, the AHJ is still

the final word on accepting an installation. This could be remedied by

rewriting 12.7.5.2.1(1) as follows: (1) During automatic testing in

accordance with 12.7.2.7.when permitted by the authority having

jurisdiction

James S. Nasby No good reason has been given for eliminating automatic stopping for

pumps which are not sole source pumps. This will cause any number of

pumps to burn up, which is why Chicago requires automatic stopping of

ALL electric fire pumps. While I feel that sole source pumps should

require manual stopping, this seems excessive where multiple pumps are

involved. The net result will be to REDUCE the reliability of fire protection

on many of these cases rather than either maintaining or enhancing said

reliability.Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0



Page 32 of 40





Affirmative 27


Negative 2

Terry L. Victor There is no text shown for this proposed change, only a substantiation for

the change. Until the actual text is included we can't vote affirmative.

James S. Nasby I agree with Terry L. Victor's reason for his Negative Vote. My copy is also




Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-117, Sections 14.2.6.2.1, 14.2.6.2.2, See FR-117




Page 33 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0





Page 34 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-11, Section No. A.4.12, See FR-11




Page 35 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-125, Section No. A.4.28.1.2, See FR-125




Page 36 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-46, Section No. A.8.5.3, See FR-46




Page 37 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-132, Section No. A.12.4.2.3(3), See FR-132


FR-110, New Section after A.11.3.2.4.3.4, See FR-110


Page 38 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-143, Section No. C.1.2.4, See FR-143



FR-140, Section No. C.1.1, See FR-140

Page 39 of 40







Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0


Affirmative 29


Negative 0

Abstain 0

FR-111, New Section after C.3, See FR-111




Page 40 of 40





M E M O R A N D U M - NFPA · FR-14, Section No. 4.12.8, See FR-14 FR-13, New Section after...

Documents

Transcript of M E M O R A N D U M - NFPA · FR-14, Section No. 4.12.8, See FR-14 FR-13, New Section after...