Report of the Committee on

Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems

William L. Testa, Chair Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co. Inc., RI [M]

Rep. Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn.

Kenneth W. Linder, Secretary Industrial Risk Insurers, CT [I]

Clement J. Adams, Chubb Group of Insurance Cos., PA [I] Gary S. Andress, Wausau HPR Engr, WI [I] John IL Bouchard, SedgwickJames of New England, MA [I] Paul D. Brodeur, Falmouth Fire Dept., MA [El Walter A. Damon, Schirmer Engr Corp., IL [SE]

Rep. TC on Fire Pumps Manuel J. DeLerno, S-P-D Industries Inc., IL [M]

Rep. Illinois Fire Prevention Assn. Joseph M. DeRosier, U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs, MI [U] David Dixon, Security Fire Protection, TN [IM]

Rep. Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn. James M. Fantauzzi, North East Fire Protection Systems Inc., NY [1M]

Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Assn., Inc. James M. Feld, Feld Engr, CA [SE] Patricia J. Fisher, R. M. Bradley & Co., Inc., MA [U] Gary Gagnon, Alcan Aluminium Ltd, PO~ Canada [U] John K. Gillette, III, Denton Fire Dept., TX [E]

Rep. Int'l Fire Code Inst. Christopher M. Goddard, Zeneca Inc., DE [U]

Rep. TC Auto Sprin-NFPA/IFPS William C. Harris, Fairbanks Morse Pump Corp., KS [M] Stephen IL Hoover, Kemper Nat'l Insurance Cos., IL [I]

Rep. TC Water Spray Fixed Systems Richard Huff, Tomes, Van Rickley & Assoc., CA [U]

Rep. The Home Depot Larry Keeping, Vipond Automatic Sprinkler Co. Ltd, Ontario, Canada [IM]

Rep. Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Assn. George E. Laverick, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] Larry M. Liedel, General Motors Corp., MI [U]

Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section FredM° Linde, Nat'l Foam Inc., MO [M]

Rep. TC Foam-Water Sprinkler Raymond Lower, Cigna, WA [I]

Rep. American Insurance Services Group, Inc. Frank L. Moore, Moore Equipment Co., Inc., MS [IM] John D. Munno, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., MD [U]

Rep. Edison Electric Inst. M. G. Myers, Myers Risk Services, Inc., PA [sE]

~ ohn F. Saidi, University of California, CA [U] ohn J. Walsh, United Assn. ofJrnymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Ind of the U.S. & Canada, MD [L] William E. Wilcox, Factory Mutual Research Corp., MA [I]

Alternates

Kerry M. Bell, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to G. E. Laverick)

Eugene A~ Cable, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, NY [U] (Alt. to J. M. DeRosier)

David A. de Vries, Schirmer Engr Corp., IL [SE] (Air. to W. A. Damon)

LarryJ. FronczSk, Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Assn., Ontario, Canada [IM]

(Alt. to L. Keeping)

Joseph B. Hankins, Factory Mutual Research Corp., MA [I] (Alt. to W. E. Wilcox)

Jon T. Harris, Nat'l Foam, Inc., PA [M] (Alt. to F. M. Linde)

Kenneth E. Isman, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn., NY [M] (Alt. to Wo L. Testa)

Robert Martinelli, Kemper Nat'l Insurance Cos., MA [I] (Alt. to S. IL Hoover)

Jack A. Medovich, Virginia Sprinkler Co. Inc., MD [IM] (Alt. to J. M. Fantauzzi)

Richard Oliver, Oliver Sprinkler Co., Inc., PA [IM] (Alt. to D. Dixon)

Robert J. Pearce, Jr., Industrial Risk Insurers, CA [I] (Alt. to K. W. Linder)

J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp., MI [U] (Alt. to L. M. Liedel)

Ralph Tiede, Wausau Insurance Cos., NY [I] (/kit. to G. S. Andress)

BarryJ. Waterman, Acme Sprinkler Service Co., IL [M] (Alt. to M.J. DeLemo)

Robert A. Woodard, CIGNA Loss Control, PA [I] (Alt. to R. Lower)

Nonvoting

Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Co., Inc., MA Rep. Nat'l Fire Alarm Code Committee

Staff Liaison: David R. Hague

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. A key to classifications is found at the front of the book.

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on inspection, testing, and maintenance of systems utilizing water as a method of extinguishment. These includes sprinkler systems, standpipe and hose systems, fire service ppi ing and appurtenances, fire pump,s water storage tanks, fixed water spray systerm, foam-water systems, valves, and allied equipment. This Committee also shall develop procedures for handling and reporting system impairments.

The Report of the Technical Committee on Insepction, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems is presented for adoption.

This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Insepctlon, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems and proposes for adoption amendments to NFPA 25-1995, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems. NFPA 25-1995 is pubfished in Volume 2 of the 1996 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water- Based Systems, which consists of 30 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

248

N F P A 2 5 m F 9 7 R O P

(Log #CP7)

25. 1 - (1-1 Scope): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water Based Systems

i RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 1-1 Scope as follows: Add at end of first sentence, "including land based and marine

applications." First sentence should now read as follows: "This document establishes the minimum requirements for the

periodic inspection, testing, and maintenance of water-based fire protection systems, including land based and marine applications." SUBSTANTIATION: The requirements of NFPA 25 also apply to marine systems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #21) 25. 2 - (1-3.2, 3-1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentences of 1-3.2 and 3-1 to read as follows:

"1-3.2 Standpipe System. An arrangement designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 14 of piping, valves...". Rest of section to remain unchanged.

3.1 General. This chapter provides the minimum requirements for the routine inspection, testing and maintenance of standpipe and hose systems designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 14. Rest of section to remain unchanged. SUBSTANTIATION: This is the first of two proposals which will attempt to clarify what to do with interior hose stations required by NFPA 231 and NFPA 231C. These are not considered standpipe systems and are not intended to meet NFPA 14. They shouldalso not be intended to meet Chapter 3 of NFPA 25. They do need to be addressed somewhere. We have submitted another proposal which will put inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements for these hose systems in Chapter 2 of NFPA 25. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

In section 1-3.1 Sprinkler Systems, add a new sentence at end of second paragraph as follows:

"First aid hose racks complete with 11/2 in. hose, valves and nozzles, where required shall be supplied from connections to adequately sized sprinkler piping (see 2-2.8, 2-3.5 and 2-4.4)". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: These first aid hose stations are required by NFPA 231, NFPA 231C, NFPA 231D, NFPA 231F, NFPA 409 and others. These hose stations are not considered

~ltanu~il~ts()F COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #15) 25- 4 - (1-5 Testing): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Walter A. Damon, Schirmer Engineering Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Add second paragraph to Testing:

%Vhere a major component or subsystem is rebuilt or replaced, the component or subsystem shall be tested, duplicating the original acceptance test required for that system. Examples of the components of subsystem are: fire pumps, drivers or controllers, pressure regulator devices, detection systems and controls, alarm check, drypipe, deluge, and preaction valves." SUBSTANTIATION: Systems are a selected group or components of a group that must function properly and require each component to interact with the others. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add new paragraph 1-10.5: "When a major component or subsystem is rebuilt or replaced,

the subsystem shall be tested in accordance with the original acceptance test required for that subsystem.

Exception: sprinkler systems in accordance with 2-4.3." A-l-10.5 Examples of the components of subsystem are: fire

Pdumps, drivers or controllers, pressure regulating devices, erection systems and controls, alarm check, dry pipe, deluge, and reaction valves. OMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is the Committees intent to

require retesting of subsystems, not components. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29

NEGATIVE: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

FELD: Proposal 25-4 conflicts with Proposal 25-19 (Log #16). Proposal 25-19 requires acceptance testing per NFPA 20, Chapter 11. This implies the current NFPA 20. Proposal 25-4 requires testing per the edition at time of installation/approval. In addition, if a detection system is replaced (i.e., preaction or deluge system) it should comply with the latest edition of NFPA 72.

(Log #CP6) 25- 5 - (1-9.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing and

• Maintenance of Water Based Systems RECOMMENDATION: Delete the chart in section 1-9.1 and, modify sentence as follows:

"...at intervals specified in the appropriate chapters." Sentence should now read as follows: "System components shall be inspected at intervals specified in

the appropriate chapters." Change A-l-9.1 to A-1-9.2.

SUBSTANTIATION: A table referencing the appropriate chapters is redundant. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #CP14) 25. 3 - (1-5 Manual-Dry Standpipe Systems, Manual-Wet Standpipe Systems): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water Based Systems RECOMMENDATION: Add definitions for Manual-Dry and Manual-Wet Standpipe Systems from 3-2.4 and 3-2.5 of NFPA 14 to Section 1-5, will now read as follows:

! Manual-Dry. A manual-dry standpipe system shall be a dry start, dpipe system that does not have a permanent water supply attached to the system. Manual-dry standpipe systems need water from a fire department pumper (or the like) to be pumped into the system through the fire department connection in order to

supply the system demand. I Manual-Wet. A manual-wet standpipe systems shall be a wet

standpipe system connected to a small water supply for the purpose of maintaining water within the system but does not have a water supply capable of delivering the system demand attached to the system. Manual-wet standpipe systems need water from a fire department pumper (or the like) to be pumped into the system in order to supply the system demand. SUBSTANTIATION: These definitions are needed to illustrate why a main drain test is not needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #58) 25- 6 - (Table 2-1): Reject SUBMITrERa M. G. Myers, Myers Risk Services RECOMMENDATION: Add the following to Table 2-2, between "Gauges" and "Sprinklers-Extra High Temp."

Item ~ Freouencv Section Number Sprinklers- Test At 5"years and 2-3.1.1 Exception No. with o-rings every 5 years

thereafter SUBSTANTIATION: To modify Table 2-1 to be consistent with additional ofproposed Exception No. 4 to 2-3.1.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is impossible for a building owner to tell if any specific sprinkler has an o-ring inside. Some sprinklers may have o-rings which are not in contact with the water and are not a problem.

There has been no evidence submitted to substantiate that a problem exists. The Committee is aware of a problem with a certain sprinkler from one manufacturer, however, the Committee

• feels that this special situation should be addressed outside this standard. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27

NEGATIVE: 3

249

N F P A 25 - - F9 7 R O P

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: LINDER: This proposal addresses a specific p rob lem with an o-

r ing that has occurred with the Central Omega line of sprinklers. IRI is currently r ecommend ing that all o f its insured's test a representative sample of these sprinklers at all locations where they are installed. While IRI's test results are limited, IRI has exper ienced a failure rate of approximately 35 percen t and had sprinklers that failed to operate in approximately 90 percent of the samples tested.

There needs to be a way to de termine the long term reliability of a p roduc t when a "non-conventional" design is used. I believe a similar problem occurred in the late 60's with dry p e n d a n t sprinklers that used o-ring seals. While I agree that there may no t be a p rob lem with all sprinklers incorporat ing an o-ring, we need to find out and these proposals are a way to do that. I feel the commit tee should have accepted the proposals.

MYERS: I vote negative on the Commit tee Action with the following comment :

The purpose of NFPA 25 as def ined in 1-2 of this s tandard "is to provide requirements that ensure a reasonable degree of protect ion for life a n d proper ty f rom fire th rough min imum inspection, testing, and main tenance methods o f water based fire protect ion systems."

Underwriters Laboratories has requested samples of sprinkler heads of the design in quest ion be submit ted for testing and as a result o f initial testing many thousands of such sprinkler heads are currendy being replaced because of repor ted high failure rates during testing.

NFPA 25 is the appropria te way to make sure that in the normal course of inspections all such heads are identified and the appropriate testing can be r e c o m m e n d e d before there is a tragedy.

WALSH: As is indicated in its statement, the committee is aware of a problem with a line of sprinklers f rom one manufacturer . It does no t know if that problem extends to gasketed sprinklers of o ther makes and models. Lacking that knowledge, its obligation is c l ea r . It must require more f requent testing.

It is my unders tanding that Underwriters Laboratory is currently testing all listed gasketed sprinklers. I will be del ighted to change my vote for those makes and models given a clean bill of health prior to the ROC meeting. We must, however, require more f requent testing of quest ionable sprinklers. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

(Log #22) 25- 7 - (2-2.8, 2-3.5, 2-4.4 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association RECOMMENDATION: Add new new sections for hose connect ions on sprinkler systems to read as follows:

2-2.8 Hose Connections. Hose, hose couplings and nozzles which are connec ted to the sprinkler system shall be inspected annually in accordance with NFPA 1962.

2-3.5 Hose Connections. Hose connec ted to sprinkler systems shall be service tested in accordance with NFPA 1962 at least 5 years after initial installation and then every 3 years thereafter. After each service test, each hose connect ion shall be flow tested to ensure that water discharges f rom the hose and a water flow alarm operates.

2-4.4 Hose Connections. After each use, all hose connec ted to sprinkler systems shall be cleaned, drained and thoroughly dr ied before being placed in service. Hose which has been exposed to hazardous materials shall be decon tamina ted by a me t hod approved for the contaminate. Equ ipment which does no t pass the inspect ion requi rements of 2-2.8 or the testing requirements of 2- 3.5 shall be repai red and tested again, or replaced. SUBSTANTIATION: This is the second proposal which attempts to clarify that hose stations requi red by NFPA 231 and NFPA 231C are no t s tandpipe systems and are no t in t ended to meet the requirements of Chapter 3 of NFPA 25. Their requirements are more appropriately found in Chapter 2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #24) 25- 8 - (2-3.1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association RECOMMENDATION: Revise section 2-3.1.1 to read:

"Where sprinklers have been in service for more than 30 years, they shall be replaced or representative samples..." Note: Rest of sentence to remain unchanged. SUBSTANTIATION: In 1994, the National Fire Sprinkler Association pe r fo rmed an analysis of data supp l i edby Underwriters Laboratories on the testing of sprinkler samples during the years of 1989 to 1993. We combined the unsatisfactory performance reports for sprinklers in condit ions E, F, G, H, I, and J. This eliminated the sprinklers which were considered unacceptable without test regardless of whether it was because they were manufactured prior to 1920 or because they had mechanical damage or indications that they had leaked or been cleaned. We also el iminated those in category K indicating that they had been loaded or corroded. On this basis, the unsatisfactory test rate of the remaining sprinklers was as follows:

Date of # Unsatisfactory/ % Manufacture Total Unsatisfactory 1920 - 1929 114/3298 3.4 1930 - 1939 60/3076 2.0 1940 - 1949 40/2222 1.8

As this data shows, unsatisfactory per formance increases with age. When the American Insurance Assodat ion reviewed similar data to de te rmine testing criteria, they appeared to draw the line at unsatisfactory per formance of 2 percent . Sprinklers appear to cross this line of unsatisfactory performance between 55 a n d 6 0 years.

With the increased reliance on sprinkler systems for life safety and proper ty protect ion and with sprinklers being used as a "trade off ' to eliminate or reduce o ther building components , it is more impor tant than ever that we maintain the good record of sprinkler system performance. The best way to ensure that the sprinklers will work is to test t hem long before they reach the unsatisfactory performance mark. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No documenta t ion has been given that sprinklers do no t per form as in tended in fire situations. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITI'EE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27

NEGATIVE: 3 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

KEEPING: In 2-3.1.2 and 2-3.1.3 a representative sample is to be not less than one percent and if one sprinkler within the sample fails then all sprinklers represented by that sample must be replaced. This implies that the level of sprinkler failure should not be allowed to drop below the one percen t mark. However, Mr. Isman's statistics show that sprinklers in the range of 50 years old are having almost a 2 percen t failure rate and 70 year old heads are falling 3 percent o f the time. This suggests to me that we should start replacing or testing sprinklers sooner then at the 50 year point.

OLIVER: I voted negatively on Proposal 25-8 due to the fact that sprinklers tend to fall as they age. Information presented at the NFPA 25 Commit tee meet ing indicated that an unacceptable number of sprinklers tend to fail as they get close to 50 years old. Consequently, I believe that testing of sprinklers should begin prior to the 50 year mark, and consequently cast a negative vote for Proposal 25-8.

WALSH: The statistical information submit ted by Mr. Isman is convincing.

(Log #23) 25- 9 - (2-3.1.1 Exception No. 1): Reject SUBMITTER: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association RECOMMENDATION: Revise Exception No. 1 to section 2-3.1.1 to read:

"Sprinklers which are more than 50 years old shall be replaced." SUBSTANTIATION: Currently, NFPA 25 contains no maximum life for a sprinkler. As long as one percent of the sprinklers in the system continue to pass a fairly easy test, they never have to be replaced.

The listing laboratories test the sprinkler in a l ink/ load analysis which assumes a 100 year maximum life of the sprinkler. In other words, when a sprinkler is listed, the laboratory only expects it to last 100 years.

250

N F P A 25 - - F97 R O P

A safety factor needs to be appl ied so that we do not allow these important, life safety, devices to get to the end of their expected life while still in service. The 50 years cut-off seems reasonable as a safety factor of two. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Tests required in section 2-3, on ten year intervals is sufficient to verify p roper operat ion of sprinklers. The sampling of sprinklers recognizes deficiencies in environments over the life of the sprinklers. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29

NEGATIVE: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

OLIVER: I voted negatively for Proposal 25-9 because informat ion presented at the NFPA 25 Report on Proposals mee t ing indicated an unacceptable failure rate of sprinklers which have reached the age of 50 years old. Since our Committee was Pdresented with information indicating a 2 pe rcen t failure rate

uring the date of manufacture of 1930-1939; I believe that this should be the key information support ing the present maximum life for a sprinkler. Therefore, I have voted negatively on Proposal 25-9.

(Log #18) 25- 10 - (2-3.1.1 Exception No. 2): Accept SUBMITTEIR: M. G. Myers, Myers Risk Services RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-3.1.1, Exception No. 2. Replace "Fast response sprinklers..." with "Sprinklers manufactured using fast response components . . ." SUBSTANTIATION: Some current heads have been listed as both s tandard heads in one application and fast response in another application. This is ambiguous and the above wording clarifies the intent of more f requent testing for newer technology until enough data is available to ex tend time before testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMrI'TEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28

NEGATIVE: 1 ABSTENTION: 1

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: KEEPING: While I believe the idea has merit, I consider this

Proposal to be quite impractical. A sprinkler that uses a fast response e lement to achieve a s tandard response listing is no t identified as having fast response characteristics. Therefore, how is a building owner or sprinkler fitter doing an inspection to know which heads need to be tested after 20 years and which ones can follow the longer interval? EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION:

LAVERICK: UL is abstaining on this Proposal. The concept and engineer ing basis for proposing that sprinklers using fast response components require testing after l0 years is justified. However, the means to identify a s tandard response sprinkler ihcorporat ing a fast response c o m p o n e n t is not readily available.

Several sprinklers which utilize fast response components are only UL Listed for s tandard response use due to the installation location and~or a large coverage area. These sprinklers are no t marked as being "quick response", and may not be easily identified as having either "fast response" or "standard response" components .

(Log #57) 25- 11 - (2-3.1.1 Exception No. 4 (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: M. G. Myers, Myers Risk Services RECOMMENDATION: Add a new Exception No. 4 to read as follows:

Exception No. 4: Sprinklers which utilize o-rings as an integral part of their orifice sealing mechanisms and that have been in service 5 years shall be tested. They shall be retested at 5 year intervals. SUBSTANTIATION: Since the mid 1980's (and before, in the case of dry pendants) and especially in the first five years, many sprinklers which utilize o-rings as an integral part of the orifice sealing mechanisms have been in t roduced into the sprinkler industry. Recently, there has been some indication f rom the field that such sprinklers may have significantly different performance characteristics, over time, compared to sprinklers which utilize more traditional metal-to-metal sealing mechanisms. Specifically, agents (such as cutt ing oils, MEK, pipe dope, chlorine, etc.) which can logically be expected to exist in typical sprinkler systems despite p rope r fabrication and installation techniques can have an adverse impact on o-ring type orifice sealing mechanisms. Degradation (i.e., swelling, softening, shrinking, cracking, etc.) of the o-ring material may occur as a result o f the presence of such

agents. Some failure modes can be expected to result in leaking problems while others can possibly result in failure in fire situations° Experience has established that traditional metal-to- metal type sealing mechanisms are no t subject to similar adverse impacts. Given the potential consequences of an o-ring failure in such sprinklers, a more restrictive requ i rement for testing is prudent . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action on Proposal 25-6 (Log #58). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 27

NEGATIVE: 3 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

LINDER: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 25-6 (Log #58).

MYERS: See my Explanation of Negative on Proposal 25-6 (Log #58).

WALSH: As is indicated in its s ta tement on Proposal 6, the commit tee is aware of a problem with a line of sprinklers f rom one manufacturer. It does not know if that problem extends to gasketed sprinklers of o ther makes and models. Lacking that knowledge, its obligation is clear. It must require more f requent testing.

It is my unders tanding that Underwriters Laboratory is currently testing all listed gasketed sprinklers. I will be del ighted to change my vote for those makes and models given a clean bill of health pr ior to the ROG meeting° We must, however, require more f requent testing of questionable sprinklers. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

(Log #CP10) 25- 12 - (2-3.1.1 Exception No. 4 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water Based Systems RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No. 4 to read as follows:

"Where sprinklers have been in service for 75 years, they shall be replaced or representative samples f rom one or more sample areas shall be submit ted to a recognized testing laboratory acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdict ion for field service testing. Test procedures shall be repeated at 5 year intervals." SUBSTANTIATION: No documenta t ion submit ted that indicates

Oorinklers of this age are a problem. MMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29

NEGATIVE: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

LINDER: Not having been at the meeting, I am no t aware of the specific discussion that occurred on this item. We currently require that sprinkler be tested when they are 50 years old and every 10 years thereafter. If a single sprinkler in the sample fails, all sprinklers represen ted by the sample must be replaced.

The proposal, would require that sprinklers from systems that have successfully gone through 3 series of sample tests (at 50, 60, and 70 years) be tested at double the frequency even though no increase in failure rates have been identified. This does not make s e n s e .

What data was used to justify this change? COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

DELERNO: Substantiation doesn ' t support the action. WALSH: The Substantiation is inappropriate. I would

r e c o m m e n d the following: The data submit ted by Mr. Isman, see 25-8 (Log #24), shows the

need for more f requent testing of older sprinklers.

(Log #33) 25-.13 - (2-3.$.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: W. E. Wilcox, FMRC RECOMMENDATION: Add the following text to existing wording:

'~When fire pumps on site are needed to supply water for fire protection, the fire pumps should no t be turned off during waterflow alarm testing: Any waterflow alarm testing done with the pump shut off shall be considered a p lanned impairment, with the testing conducted per all requirements in Chapter 11." SUBSTANTIATION: Shutting off the fire pump during testing exposes a facility to catastrophe should a fire occur dur ing testing. COMMrVrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

| In the first sentence delete the words: '3Nhen fire pumps on site ]are needed to supply water for fire protection, the"

In the first sentence delete "water flow alarm".

251

NFPA 25 - - F97 ROP

Make second sen tence an except ion a n d delete '+water flow alarm".

Section 2-3.3.1 will now appear as follows: 2-3.3.1" Test ing the waterflow alarm on wet pipe systems shou ld

be accompl i shed by open i ng the inspector 's test connect ion . Fire p u m p s shall no t be t u r n e d off du r i ng testing.

Except ion No. 1: W here freezing weather condi t ions or o ther c i rcumstances prohibi t use of the inspector 's test connect ion , the bypass connec t ion shall be pe rmi t t ed to be used.

Except ion No. 2: Any testing done with the p u m p shu t off shall be cons idered a p l anned impa i rment , with the test ing conduc ted Pcer all r equ i rements in Chapter 11.

OMMITTEE STATEMENT: Fire p u m p s shou ld no t be t u rned off for test ing of any type. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMIT T E E ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29

NEGATIVE: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

SHEPPARD: I disagree with the Commi t t ee Action regard ing Section 2-3.3.1. The second sen tence is now a "should" s t a t emen t ins tead of a "shall" s ta tement . C O M M E N T ON AFFIRMATIVE:

ANDRESS: I agree with the act ion of the commit tee to Accept-in- Principle, however, we need to edit the text to follow the writing style of the body of the s tandard. T he "should not" in the second sen tence of paragral~,,h 2-3.3.1 needs to be c h a n g e d to "shall '+ so that the sen tence reads: 'Fire p u m p s shall r ema in in service du r ing testing".

DELERNO: Cha nge "should" to "shall". LINDER: In sect ion 2-3.3.1, last sen tence the word "should"

shou ld be replaced with "shall." Shou ld is n o t enforceable and does no t belon~ in the body of the s tandard. I believe shall is what the commi t tee intends.

WAI~H: Change "should" to "shall" in the second sentence .

(Log #20) 25- 14 - (2-3.5 t h r o u g h 2-3.5.2 (New)): Accept in Principle in Par t SUBMITTER: Lynn K. Underwood , Wausan HPR Eng inee r ing RECOMMENDATION: New text:

2-3.5 Main Drain. Main dra in tests shall be conduc ted to ensure that the ma in control valves are open, n o obst ruct ion exists in the supply piping, a n d the dra in valves are operat ional .

2-3.5.1 Tes t ing of the ma in dra in shall be accompl i shed by the following:

(a) Ensure the discharge area is clear and water will dra in away safely

(b) O p e n the ma i n dra in fully;, keep it open until pressure stabilizes

(c) Record residual p ressure (d) Close the main dra in valve slowly to avoid water h a m m e r (e) Record static pressure 2-3.5.2 Where the water supply consists of a booster fire p u m p or

fire p u m p , t h e p u m p shall r ema i n in service. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : No gu idance is given in cu r ren t text. S tandard practice. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-13 (Log #33). NUMBER OF COMMITrEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28

NEGATIVE: 1 ABSTENTION: 1

EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE: SHEPPARD: See my Explanat ion of Negative on Proposal 25-53

(Log #5). COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

ANDRESS: The commi t tee act ion on the submi t te r ' s proposal was to Accept in Principle in Part, t he commit tee ' s s t a t emen t was "see the Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-13 (Log #33)". The resul t ing act ion taken on Proposal 25-13 addresses water flow a larms a n d does no t address ma in ta in ing the p u m p s in service d u r i n g dra in tests. To m e e t the submit ter ' s reques t as well as the in ten t of the Technical Commi t tee action, I propose add ing the new pa rag raph as follows:

2-3.5 Main Drain. Main dra in tests shall be conduc ted quarter ly at each system riser to de t e rmine if there has b e e n a change in the condi t ion o f the water supply p ip ing a n d control valves. Fire p u m p s shall r ema in in service du r i ng testing. EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION:

MARTINELLI: T he re is some confus ion s u r r o u n d i n g this proposal . Paragraph 2-3.5.1 in the p roposed new text offers steps for pe r fo rming a ma in dra in test. Steps for a main dra in test are already descr ibed in exist ing sect ion A-9-2.6 a n d the steps are

different f rom those in the proposal . The steps are probably m o re appropria te in the append ix bu t shou ld no t appear in both the ma in body of the s tandard and the appendix. However, if the steps are to appear in bo th places they m u s t be consis tent an d I would opt for the existing append ix w o r d i n g a s it is more complete.

T h e Commi t t ee S ta tement refers t oProposa l 25-13 (Log #33) Colmnit tee S ta tement so it appears tha t the part that is being accepted in principle is tha t "fire p u m p s shou ld no t be t u rn ed t i t for testing o f any type". The re is certainly some debate about the ability of a dra in test to indicate the existence of an obstruct ion in the water supply piping if a booster p u m p is left on. The Committee. may want to develop, some . ap p.endix wordin g that would discuss the aspects of dra in test ing with such a p u m p on an d off.

Perhaps the re shou ld be some reference to Except ion Nos. 1 and 2 in the p roposed Section 2-3.3.1 of Proposal 25-13 (Log #33)+ Otherwise the new text of Section 2-3.5.2 of this proposal implies that a p u m p may never be t u r n e d off for any reason du r ing main dra in testing.

(Log #CP11) 25- 15 - (2-4.4, A-2-4.4 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technica l Commi t t ee on Inspect ion, Tes t ing an d Main tenance of Water Based Systems RECOMMENDATION: Add a new sect ion 2-4.4 as follows:

2-4.4 Sprinkler systems which are normal ly ma in t a in ed us ing f resh water as a source shall be f lushed a n d refilled with fresh water following in t roduc t ion of raw water into the system.

Add a new sect ion A-2-4.4 as follows: A-2-4.4 Certain sprinkler systems, such as those installed aboard

ships, are ma in t a ined u n d e r pressure by a small f resh water supply, bu t are.. suuxo [plied. by a raw water source following system activation. Additionally, spnnk l e r systems may be supp l ied with raw water when the system is suppl ied via the fire d e p a r t m e n t connect ion. In these systems, the effects of raw water are min imized by f lushing with fresh water after a system activation. For systems on ships, f lushing within 45 days, or the vessels nex t por t of call, whichever is longer , is cons idered acceptable. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : With considera t ion of mar ine applications, the potential for con tamina t ion f rom raw water sources is increased. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept . NUMBER OF COMMITFEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE A c ' r I O N : AFFIRMATIVE: 30 COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

MARTINELLI: The Commi t t ee shou ld ei ther def ine or give examples of "fresh water" a n d "raw water" in the append ix to clarify the Commit tee ' s in tent a n d avoid misinterpreta t ion. I would expect a lot of public c o m m e n t on this issue. Many plants take water f r om ponds , lakes, etc., which m a n y people would consider "raw water" sources which I do no t believe are m e a n t by this proposal .

(Log #3) 25- 16 - (Table 3-1): Reject SUBMITIT.R: E. Sam Sharp, VES Design, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Revise Pressure reduc ing ~alve test 5 years to annual . SUBSTANTIATION: Due to the na tu re of the pressure regulat ing valves used on a sprinkler system and the identical construct ion of valves used on a s tandpipe system, there shou ld be n o difference in the interval o f test. T h e same p rob lems could arise with ei ther valve. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-62 (Log #3b). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 V O T E ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #13) 25- 17 - (3.3.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Roland Huggins , Amer ican Fire Sprinkler Assn. RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

" k., gl^.,.l~ +h ...... :.^..I ..~I ..... ~" A flow test shall be conduc ted ~I . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a

h A ~ c l A at u .c r cqu ' r c~ ~o',:" .o r a ~:.ng.c =t.==z~p~pc at the hydraulically mos t remote , highest , or dead-end hose connec t ion of each zone o f a s tandpipe system and to verify the water supply still adeq~l ;c ly provides the design nressure at the r eau i r ed flow for the entire

252

N F P A 25 m F97 R O P

zone. Where a flow test of the hydraulically mos t r emote outlel~ is no t practical, the au thor i ty having ..." SUBSTANTIATION: This change is for clarification. Some authori t ies having jur isdic t ion in te rpre t this section as requi r ing up to 1,250 gpm, as the vo lume of water for the entire zone, to flow f rom a single s tandpipe hose connect ion . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

From first sentence, delete the words "highest or deadend" , and d e l e t e "for the entire zone."

The first and second sen tences now read: "A flow test shall be conduc ted at the hydraulically mos t remote

hose connec t ion of each zone of a s tandpipe system to verify the water supply still adequate ly provides the design pressure at the requ i redf low. Where a flow test of the hydraulically mos t r emote outlet(s) is no t practical, the author i ty having jur isdic t ion shall be consul ted for the appropr ia te location for the test."

T h e third sen tence remains unchanged . COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Provides a better descr ipt ion of the requi red test. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #12) 25- 18 - (3-3,1.4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Roland Huggins , Amer ican Fire Sprinkler Assn. RECOMMENDATION: Add new pa ragraph 3-3.1.4 to read as follows:

3-3.1.4 A ma in dra in test shall be pe r fo rmed on Class II or III s tandpipe systems in accordance with the requ i rements of Chapter 9. The test shall be pe r fo rmed at the low poin t dra in for each s tandpipe or t the ma in drain test connec t ion where the supply ma in enters the bui ld ing (when provided). Pressure gauges shou ld be provided for the test a n d s h a l l b e ma i n t a i ned in accordance with 2-3.2.

NOTE: Table 3-1 should be modif ied if proposal is accepted and a concu r r en t proposal has been submi t t ed on pa ragraph 9-2.6. SUBSTANTIATION: Main dra in tests are no t pe r fo rmed on s tandpipes. NFPA 25, 9-2.6 requires a main dra in test for each "system riser" which is only def ined in NFPA 13, no t NFPA 14. With Class II a n d Ill s tandpipes provided for the use of bui lding occupants and NFPA 10 allowing 1 / 2 of the requi red portable fire ext inguishers to be replaced with these hose stations, it is appropr ia te for the water supply to be regularly checked. Currently, they are only checked every 5 years as part of the flow test.

NFPA 14 does no t current ly identify tha t a main dra in test connec t ion is required, thus NFPA 25 needs to provide the direct ion on where to pe r fo rm the test.

Conu ' ibutory Informat ion: NFPA 14, 1993 Edition. a. 5.11.2 requires a dra in to be provided sized in accordance with

the main dra in r equ i r emen t s of NFPA 13. b. 8-5.6 requires a main dra in test as par t of the acceptance test

with static and residual pressures recorded on the test certificate. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add a line to Table 3-1 for main dra in test, quarter ly with reference to table 9-1.

Add an Except ion to 9-2.6 to read: Exception: Manual-wet and manual -dry s tandpipe systems. Add A-9-2.6: The test for s tandpipe systems shou ld be done at the

low poin t dra in for each s tandpipe or the ma in dra in test connec t ion where the supply ma i n enters the building. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commi t t ee feels tha t a main dra in test shou ld be requi red for s tandpipe systems with the except ions noted . NUMBER OF COMMITI'EE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28

NEGATIVE: 2 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

MUNNO: A dra in test is usually pe r fo rmed to verify the availability of an adequa te water supply to feed an automat ic system. The purpose of a s tandpipe is no t substantially different than tha t of an outside hydranL It is a poin t of connec t ion to a water system where m a n u a l water appl icat ion devices are connec ted for manua l firefighting. Dur ing a fire where a hydrant or s tandpipe is needed , there wi l lbe t ra ined personnel to detect a n d correct a problem, or simply utilize a di f ferent po in t of connect ion . No data was provided tha t indicates that pe r fo rming ~luarterly dra in tests on s tandpipes will improve their reliability.

SHEPPARD: See my Explanat ion of Negative on Proposal 25-53 (Log #5),

(Log #16) 25- 19 - (5-3.1.1 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Walter A. Damon, Schi rmer Eng inee r ing Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Add new pa ragraph 5-3.1 to read as fo 11 ows:

"When a major c o m p o n e n t of the fire p u m p assembly, such as the pump , driver, or gear drive is provided, or control ler is repai red and rebuilt, or replaced, the fire p u m p assembly shall be retested in accordance with the requ i rements of NFPA 20, Chapter 11. "Acceptance Testing, Pe r fo rmance and Maintenance ." SUBSTANTIATION: The fire p u m p assembly m u s t operate as a uni t a n d d e p e n d s on each c o m p o n e n t func t ion ing properly. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. - COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-4 (Log#15) . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE- 29

NEGATIVE: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

FELD: Proposal 25-4 (Log #15) conflicts with Proposal 25-19. Proposal 25-19 requires acceptance testing per NFPA 20, Chapter 11. This implies the cu r ren t NFPA 20. Proposal 25-4 requires testing per the edit ion at t ime of instal la t ion/approval . In addit ion, if a detect ion system is replaced (i.e., preac t ion or deluge system) it should comply with the latest edi t ion of NFPA 72.

(Log #7) 25- 20 - (~-3.2.2 Exception): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Joseph R. Ciepierski, C h u b b and Son Group of Insu rance Compan ie s RECOMMENDATION: The except ion in 5-3.2.2 should be worded identical as the except ion in 5-3.2.1 and add to the end of the existing sen tence or add a new sen tence as follows:

"...and water shall be permi t ted to be flowed t h rough the cooling system of a diesel-driven p u m p listed as a closed circuit, liquid- cooled with raw water hea t exchange r (heat -exchanger cooled)." SUBSTANTIATION: All diesel engine-driven p u m p s have a pressure relief valve while they are no t requi red on the electric- driven p u m p s unless they are adjustable (variable) speed drivers or where m a x i m u m allowable system pressure migh t otherwise be exceeded. Electric-driven p u m p s will have a casing (circulating) relief valve while diesel engine-driven p u m p s usually do not. In the case of mos t diesel engine-driven p u m p s , the relief valve is set to operate when the p u m p is r u n n i n g in "shutoff ' ( churn] which el iminates the need for the small casing relief valve. ' COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Add an Except ion to 5-3.2.1 and 5-3.2.2 as follows: "A valve installed to open as a safety feature shall be permi t ted to

discharge water." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This language better suits both sect ions. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30 COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

MARTINELLI: The Commi t t ee Action says "Add an except ion to 5-3.2.1 a n d 5-3.2.2" but the Commi t t ee S ta tement implies the existing except ions are be ing replaced by the Commit tee ' s wording. Which is the case? Dur ing the mee t ing I t h o u g h t r ep lacemen t was the course of action.

(Log #25) 25- 21 - (5-3.4.4, A-5-3.4.4 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne th E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associat ion RECOMMENDATION: Add a new test as follows:

5-3.4.4 Parallel and angular a l ignment of the p u m p and driver shall be checked [at least] once every 5 years. Any misa l ignment beyond the tolerances of the manufac tu re r s shall be fixed.

A-5-3.4.4 For a l ignment procedures , see A-3-5 of NFPA 20. Correct ion of mi sa l i gnmen t shou ld be achieved by placing shims unde r the driver m o u n t i n g feet. It should no t be necessary to move the sh ims u n d e r the pump . SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 20 sect ion A-3-5 assumes tha t tile p u m p and driver will be checked for a l i gnmen t periodically after installation. A n u m b e r of opera t ing condi t ions are stated which could lead to misaligiament. NFPA 25 is the correct place to manda t e this procedure . Once every 5 years seems reasonable. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Delete "5 years", add "annual ' . Delete "fixed", add "repaired". Delete "at least". New text will read as follows:

2 5 3

N F P A 25 - - F97 R O P

5-3.4.4 Parallel and angular a l ignment of the pump and driver shall be checked annually. Any misal ignment beyond the manufacturers ' tolerance shall be repaired.

A-5-3.4.4 remains as submitted. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee feels that a l ignment can be verified during the annual test. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29

NEGATIVE: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

MUNNO'. Pump alignment, checks are. no t a performance, issue. ff the pump becomes misahgned and ~t does no t dehver adequate flow or pressure, then the annual per formance test will show that condition. Pumps that are not properly aligned will usually no t perform well or for long without destroying the coupling. The measurement of pump a l ignment on an annual basis will no t de te rmine if the pump will deliver adequate flow or pressure, only the performance test will do that. An annual pump al ignment test adds no value to the indication of system reliability while adding a very significant cost to the end user. COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

MOORE: Delete "repaired" and replace with "corrected".

(Log #CP8) 25- 22 - (5-3.5.2 Exception (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Inspection, Testing and Maintenance of Water Based Systems RECOMMENDATION: Add an Except ion to section 5-3.5.2 as follows:

"Increasing engine speed beyond the rated speed of the pump at rated condition, is no t an acceptable me thod for meet ing the rated

~ ump performance." UBSTANTIATION: As currently written, 5-3.5.2 does no t prohibi t increasing the speed of a pump during a test to mee t p r e v i o u s p u m p curves. The speed of the p u m p should no t be p e r m i t t e d t o mask a p r o b l e m with the pump assembly. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29

ABSTENTION: 1 EXPLANATION OF ABSTENTION:

DELERNO: This belongs as an Exception to 5-3.3.2 n o t 5-3.5.2.

(Log #34) 25- 23 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: Herman J. Johnston, Pittsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"An OSHA approved handrail will be placed a round the entire circumference of the roof. The handrail shall be a min imum of 42 in. high with an intermediate horizontal m e m b e r and toe board at base. The handrai l shall be installed in accordance with OSHA." SUBSTANTIATION: OSHA requires a handrai l a min imum of 42 in. high with a 4 in. toe board and a midrail min imum size member of 2 in. x 2 in. x 3 /8 in. angle. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is no t the in tent of NFPA 25 to cover safety requirements of OSI-IA. NFPA 22 is the correct d o c u m e n t for addressing installation requirements . NUMBER OF COMMrrTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #35) 25- 24 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Herman J. Johnston, Pittsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"In climates where frosting occurs, a special frost-proof vent shall be installed to ensure a fail-safe vent." SUBSTANTIATION: This is a requ i rement of AWWA and is men t ioned in NFPA 22 Section 2-6.2 (Page 22-6). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I Add "vents" to the inspection items in 6-2.2 | Revise 6-4.9 as follows: | "Tank vents shall be cleaned at least annually or as necessary. | Mesh screens shall be replaced when cleaning or inspections (6- | 2.2) reveal holes (see NFPA 22 for appropria te materials)".

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: NFPA 22 should be the correct place to say which kind of vents are appropriate however, NFPA 25 needs to address the inspection and repair o f vents and screens better than it does in the 1995 edition. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #36) 25- 25 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITTER: Herman J. Johns ton , Pittsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"Annual inspect ion of tanks shall be pe r fo rmed and a written repor t provided the owner."

$¢9pe of Services for Complete Detailed Inspection: Visual inspect ion of site, concrete foundat ion and anchor bolts. Evaluation of tank coatings, including adhesion test in general

accordance with ASTM-D3559, and dry film thickness measurements .

Evaluation of interior and exterior o f the tank~la te surfaces supp lemented by non-destructive ultrasonic readings.

Evaluation of steel plate for isolated or general deteriorat ion including structural damage due to metal loss.

Inspection of accessories such as obstruct ion lights, conduit, manholes, overflow, etc.

Evaluation of sanitary conditions of the tank interior. Evaluation of OSHA related requirements on tank's ladders, vents,

and manholes. Inspection of OSHA related requirements on tank's ladders,

vents, and manholes. Inspection of interior platforms a n d / o r ladders. Evaluation of internal p iping in insulation. (If applicable). Perform interior and exterior "total test" to de termine lead

content of coating systems. After our inspection has been completed, we will provide five (5)

copies of concise written reports, complete with color photographs, our staff will provide the p roper recommendat ions for correcting any areas requir ing repairs. Additionally, we will furnish budge t estimates for repairs a n d / o r surface preparat ion and paint requirements .

S~ndards The inspection and repor t will utilize American Water Works

Association (AWWA) standard AWWA D100, AWWA D101, AWWA D102, and AWWA C652-92; and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard NFPA 22 and NFPA 25 as criteria for evaluation of the water storage tank. The coating systems will be e evaluated in accordance with the applicable criteria of the Steel Structures Painting Council (SSPG). Personnel access areas will be inspected and evaluated in accordance with Federal OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Act) Regulations. SUBSTANTIATION: Detailed annual inspect ion reports and records are a key requisite for p roper assessment of a tank and long te rm condi t ion monitor ing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

Add "foundation" and "the condition of the water in the tank" to the items of 6-2.2. Section 6-2.2 now reads as follows:

"The exterior of the tank, support ing structure, foundation, condit ion of the water in the tank, and catwalks or ladders, where provided, shall be inspected for signs of obvious damage or weakening quarterly."

Add 6-2.4.1(f) Inspection of the anti-vortex plate. New section 6- 2.4.1 to read as follows:

6-2.4.1 The interior inspection of the tank shall include the I following:

(a) Inspection of the interior coating for signs of local or general failure.

I (b) Center columns of tubular design shall be inspected to make sure they are no t holding water.

(c) Center columns shall be inspected to ensure that they are no t permanent ly at tached to the floor.

(d)* Tanks on ring type foundat ions with sand in the middle shall be inspected for voids benea th the floor. Such voids shall be filled by pumping in grout or accessing the sand and replenishing.

(e) Inspectl'on of heat ing system a n d components including piping. Damaged componen t s and cor roded pipe shall be replaced.

(f) Inspection of the anti-vortex plate. A-6-2.4(d) This inspect ion can be pe r fo rmed by looking for

dents on the tank floor. Additionally, walking on the tank floor and looking for buckling of the floor will identify problem areas."

2 5 4

N F P A 25 - - F97 R O P

Add new sect ion 6-3.7 to read as follows: 6-3.7 Dur ing the inter ior inspect ion out l ined in 6-2.4, the

following tests shall also be per formed: (a) Evaluation of t ank coatings in accordance with the adhes ion

test of ASTM-D3359, general ly re fer red to as the "cross-hatch test". (b) Dry film thickness m e a s u r e m e n t s shall be taken at r a n d o m

locations to de t e rmine the overall coat ing thickness. (c) Non-destruct ive ul t rasonic readings shall be taken to evaluate

the wall th ickness where the re is evidence of pi t t ing or corrosion. (d) Interior surfaces shall be spot wet sponge tested to detect

pinholes , cracks, or o ther compromises in the coating. Special a t tent ion shall be given to sharp edges such as ladder rungs, nuts, a n d bolts.

(e) T a n k bot toms shall be tested for metal loss a n d / o r rust on the under s ide by use of ul trasonic test ing where there is evidence of pi t t ing or corrosion.

Except ion to (e): Removal visual inspect ion, and r ep lacemen t of r a n d o m floor coupons shall be an acceptable alternative to

u l t r a son ic testing. (f) Tanks with flat bo t toms shall be v a c u u m box tested at bo t tom

seams in accordance with test p rocedures f o u n d in NFPA 22. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: While the inspect ions a n d tests in this Proposal are impor tant , the Commi t t ee felt tha t do ing t h e m on an annua l basis was too m u c h for an owner. It is more appropr ia te to pe r fo rm these inspect ions and tests while the tank has been dra ined, therefore the best t ime to do these i tems is d u r i n g t h e inter ior inspect ion. T he i tems which were p roposed by the submit ter , bu t were left ou t of the Commi t tee Action are due to t h e m be ing outs ide the scope of the documen t . NFPA 25 is no t going to m a n d a t e tha t water be kept in a sanitary fashion, no r is NFPA 25 going to m a n d a t e any specific r e q u i r e m e n t f rom OSHA. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30 COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

MOORE: 6-2.4.1(f) per NFPA 20 A-$-3.1, i t em 2 is a vortex plate no t an anti-vortex plate.

(Log #37) 25- 26 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. Johns t on , Pi t tsburg T ank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"Heater pipes shall be replaced every 10 years or sooner if condi t ions warrant." SUBSTANTIATION: History suggest hea te r pipes corrode and a r e s u b j e c t to calcium deposits. Replac ing hea te r pipes on a regular cycle will ma in ta in efficiency and reduce in-service failures resul t ing in repairs on emergency basis. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-25 (Log #36). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

25- 27 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle (Log #38) SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. Johns t on , Pi t tsburg T ank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"Interior coatings shall be inspec ted annual ly for visual signs of local a n d / o r genera l failure. T h e inter ior surfaces shall be spot wet sponged tested to de tec t pinholes, cracks or o ther compromises in the coating. Special a t ten t ion shall be given to sharp edges such as ladder rungs , nu ts and bolts, and h i dden or inaccessible parts. In addi t ion a "cross ha tch" test shou ld be

~ erformed." UBSTANTIATION: After the first year 's coat ing inspect ion on a new tank and when a tank is repainted, a yearly inspect ion will ensure the integrity of the pa in t system and reduce the probability of costly tank repairs. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-25 (Log #36). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #39) 25- 28 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. Johns ton , Pi t tsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapte r 6 to read as follows:

"A second roof ha tch shall be placed 180 ° f rom the existing roof ha t ch with a ladder to access the tank floor." SUBSTANTIATION: The second roof ha t ch facilitates better access to various areas of the tank allowing for a more detai led inspect ion. Additionally, two roof hatches, 180 ° apart, allows staging to be r igged inside the tank without pene t ra t ing the tank roof or shell. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is no t the in ten t of NFPA 25 to cover safety r equ i r emen t s of OSHA. NFPA 22 is the correct d o c u m e n t for address ing instal lat ion requi rements . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MFaMBERSELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #40) 25- 29 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J . Johns ton , Pi t tsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"A roof vent a t tached to a f langed neck shall be installed on the tank prior to en te r ing the tank. The f lan~ed neck will be des igned to accommoda te a h igh CFM vent ing f an . ' SUBSTANTIATION: OSHA requires specific oxygen levels in conf ined entry spaces. The second shell manway may no t be blocked. Additionally, coat ing manufac tu re r s require the release of volatilize to ensure p roper cur ing o f paint. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is no t the in ten t of NFPA 25 to cover safety requ i rements of OSHA. NFPA 22 is the correct d o c u m e n t for address ing instal lat ion requi rements . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITFEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #41) 25- 30 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. Johns ton , Pi t tsburg Tank & Tower Co.; Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"An addit ional shell manway shall be placed as close as practical at 1800 f rom the existing shell manway - pr ior to personne l en te r ing the tank." SUBSTANTIATION: OSHA requires all personne l en te r ing a tank to do so u n d e r thei r conf ined entry r equ i rements in addi t ion AWWA D100-84 Section 7 and NFPA 22 Section 11-6.2. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is no t the in ten t of NFPA 25 to cover safety r equ i rements of OSHA. NFPA 22 is the correct d o c u m e n t for address ing installat ion requi rements . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #42) 25- $1 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. Johns ton , Pi t tsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapte r 6 to read as follows:

"Tank bot toms shall be tested for metal loss and or rust on the unders ide . This may be accompl i shed by the removal, visual inspect ion and r ep lacemen t of r a n d o m floor coupons a n d / o r by ultrasonic testing. Ul t rasonic test ing is the prefer red method." SUBSTANTIATION: Small p inhole leaks in the floor a n d / o r imprope r g rad ing a r o u n d the tank can cause the unders ide of the floor to rust. These p inholes are no t evident when the tank is empty as the f loor raises as the loading is removed. COMMrI'rEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-25 (Log #36). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMIT]'EE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

255

N F P A 25 - - F 9 7 R O P

(Log #43) 25- 32 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. Johns t on , Pi t tsburg T ank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"Annual tank inspect ions to be pe r fo rmed by a "professional" inspector a n d followed up with a writ ten report." SUBSTANTIATION: Most states are requi r ing inspectors be regula ted and insurance providers requi re written documen ta t ion . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Qualification of pe r sonne l and records are present ly addressed in Chapte r I. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #47) 25- 36 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITI'ER: H e r m a n J. Johns ton , Pi t tsburg T a n k & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapte r 6 to read as follows:

"OSHA approved safety climbs shall be instal led on all ladders. Existing caged ladders in excess of 20 ft in he igh t shall have an OSHA approved rest p la t form instal led or safety climb device." SUBSTANTIATION: This is requi red by OSHA. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is no t the in ten t of NFPA 25 to cover safety requ i rements of OSHA. NFPA 22 is the correct d o c u m e n t for address ing installat ion requ i rements . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #44) 25- 33 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. J o h n s t o n , Pi t tsburg T ank &,Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"Dry film thickness readings shall be taken at r a n d o m locations to. de t e rmine the overall th ickness o f the inter ior coating. These readings will be utilized to de te rmine the life expectancy of the coat ing a n d genera l condi t ion of same." SUBSTANTIATION: Early de tec t ion o f coat ing loss a n d / o r deficiencies afford the owner the oppor tun i ty to apply addi t ional mils of coat ing without the expense of a comple te sandblast ing. This type t r e a tmen t ex tends coat ing life many years a n d minimizes tank downtime. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-25 (Log #36). NUMBER OF COMMITITEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #45) 25- 34 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. Johns t on , Pi t tsburg T ank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"Conf ined entry r equ i rements signs shall be posted at each shell manway." SUBSTANTIATION: T h e cost is insignificant. The signs could save lives. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is no t the in ten t of NFPA 25 to cover safety r equ i rements of OSHA. NFPA 22 is the correct d o c u m e n t for address ing installat ion requ i rements . NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #46) 25- 35 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. J o h n s t o n , Pi t tsburg T ank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"The inspector shall provide the owner with cost ing alternatives to insulate t he i r tanks in areas where icing condi t ions are probable." SUBSTANTIATION: F. M. has requi red a tank owner to insulate a tank due to an ice cake f loating on top of the water leaving a potential for no vent ing. Additionally, insula t ing a tank can substantially reduce a owner 's annua l hea t ing bill as well as pcreserve the existing exterior coating.

OMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: While the suggest ion to insulate and save on m a i n t e n a n c e costs is a good one which has the potent ia l of saving owners money, it does no t fall within the scope of the s tandard. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #48) 25- 37 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. J o h n s t o n , Pi t tsburg Ta n k & Tower Co., Inco RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapte r 6 to read as follows:

"A lead test shall be pe r fo rmed to de t e rmine if lead based coatings are p r e s e n t on the tank." SUBSTANTIATION: Many sprinkler tanks are cross connec ted to city water supplies. The lead test is inexpensive ($50 to $100) a n d will alleviate the owner of a con t ingen t liability. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Presence of lead in the tank is outside the scope of NFPA 25. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #49) 25- 38 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. Johns ton , Pi t tsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapte r 6 to read as follows:

'Xqhen inspect ing a tank, the out let pipe shall be covered so as to prevent the in t roduct ion of foreign mat ter into the sprinkler system." SUBSTANTIATION: Foreign mat te r could p lug or otherwise cause sprinkler heads to fail. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This r e q u i r e m e n t present ly exists in Section 6-4.15. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #50) 25- 39 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J . Johns ton , Pi t tsburg Tan k & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapte r 6 to read as follows:

"Center co lumns of tubular des ign shall be annua l ly inspected to de te rmine if they are ho ld ing water. Additionally, the center co lumn shall be checked to assure it is no t pe rmanen t ly a t tached to the floor." SUBSTANTIATION: As tubular co lumns are a s t ructural support , internal corrosion could lead to the failure o f the co lumn. If the co lumn is pe rmanen t ly a t tached to the tank floor, any se t t lement would pu t the c o l u m n in tens ion a n d could cause damage to the co lumns , f loor or roof. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-25 (Log #36). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

2 5 6

N F P A 25 B F9 7 R O P

(Log #51) 25- 40 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. Johns ton , Pi t tsburg T ank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"The inspector a n d / o r pa in t ing contractor shall stencil the last pa in t date of the exterior of the tank nea r one of the mainways at eye level." SUBSTANTIATION: Many owners lose or have incomple te records. The stencil is of min imal cost and the records of pa in t ing would no t he lost. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I dd a new sect ion A-6-2.4 as follows: "To aid in the inspect ion and evaluation of test results, it is a

good idea for owners to stencil the last known date of an inter ior pa in t j ob on the exterior of the tank in a consp icuous place. A typical place is nea r one of the manways at eye level." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: While the r equ i r emen t s e e m e d like a good idea, the commit tee could no t agree tha t it shou ld be manda to ry for all tanks NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #52) 25- 41 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. J o h n s t o n , Pi t tsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"Inaccessible parts such as lapped welded roofs of the unders ide of roof plates res t ing on radial rafters shall be caulked with seam sealant as a p e r m a n e n t solut ion to corrosion to these areas." SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 22 Pages 22-27, 10-7.6 states, "Inaccessible par ts subject to corrosion shall be pro tec ted by pa in t before assembly." The re is no t a cost effective way to recoat these areas a t the t ime of failure. Seam sealant develops a 12,000 psi tensile s t rength a n d will last 25 to 30 years. Sealing the laps and rafter open ing will s t o p f u r t h e r corrosion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

] Add to sect ion A-6-4.16 as follows: I "Instead of pa in t ing inaccessible parts such as lapped welded

roofs or the underside, of roo f plates on radial rafters,, it is .possible I to protect these t tems p e r m a n e n t l y f rom corrosion by caulking ] t h e m with seam sealant."

COMMITYEE STATEMENT: While this solut ion may work in some instances, it shou ld no t be m a n d a t e d for all tanks. NUMBER OF COMMIXTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITYEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30 COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

LINDER: I r e c o m m e n d tha t the word "permanent ly" be dele ted f rom the p roposed append ix text. Sealant appl ied to seams needs to he inspec ted a n d repai red if necessary. In fact the p r o p o n e n t men t ions tha t the sealant will last 25-30 years. While 25-30 years is a long time, it is no t permanent°

(Log #53) 25- 42 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Hermaxl J. J ohns t on , Pi t tsburg T a n k & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"Tanks on r ing type founda t ions with sand in the middle shall be checked for voids benea th the floor. Such voids shall be filled by

~ u m p i n g in g r o u t or accessing the sand and replenishing." UBSTANTIATION: Natu ra l settling, p inhole leaks or o ther sources o f water have left t ank bot toms entirely su spended to the poin t o f failure. This is a h i dden condi t ion that requires inspect ion to detect. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action on Proposal 25-25 (Log #36). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #54) 25- 43 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTEI~ H e r m a n J. Johns ton , Pi t tsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc~ RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapte r 6 to read as follows:

"Tanks shall he upda ted to mee t cu r ren t r equ i rements of the EPA, OSHA, AWWA, Insurance C o m p a n y Standards, NFPA 22 a n d NFPA 25. Where there is conflict ing requ i rements in standards, the more s t r ingent s tandard shall prevail." SUBSTANTIATION: Safety is always a ma in concern. OSHA manda tes the Standard o f Safety requi red for workers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: EPA, OSHA, AWWA a n d NFPA 22 requ i rements for new tanks are beyond the scope of NFPA 25. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #55) 25- 44 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. Johns ton , Pi t tsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"Install coupl ings in shell for fu ture controls." SUBSTANTIATION: This is current ly requ i red by NFPA 22. COMMITTEE ACTION: Rejecu COMMITTEE STATEMENT: New installation r equ i r emen t s are beyond the scope of NFPA 25. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMI'I ' I 'EE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #56) 25- 45 - (Chapter 6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: H e r m a n J. Johns ton , Pi t tsburg Tank & Tower Co., Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Add new text to Chapter 6 to read as follows:

"Annual inspect ions to inc lude vacuum box test ing of bo t tom seams on all tanks where the tank floor is no t an integral part of the tank foundat ion ." SUBSTANTIATION: As most leaks develop in the tank floors, in the joints, annua l mon i to r ing will ensure the integrity of the tank floor. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action on Proposal 25-25 (Log #36). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #CP16) 25- 46 - (Chapter 6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commi t t ee on Inspect ion, Tes t ing a n d Main tenance of Water Based Systems RECOMMENDATION: Move the following sect ions f rom NFPA 22 into NFPA 25; 14-1.3, 14-1.4, 14-1.6, 14-3 a n d 14-4. The final resul t in NFPA 25 will be the revision or addi t ion of the following sections:

6-4.1 The tank shall be ma in ta ined full or at the des igned water level. The ha tch covers in the roofs and the door at the ton of the frost n roo f casimt shall always be keot securelv fas tened with substantial catches as a protect ion a~ralnst freezin~ and windstorm aaaag~

6-4.2 The interior a n d exterior of any tank, a long with the suppor t ing structure, where provided, shall be ma in t a ined free of peel ing paint, aquat ic growth, sed iment , fore ign mat ter , tools, pa in t ing equ ipmen t , or any o ther material tha t could interfere with p roper operat ion of the lank. Ice that can cause funct ional deficiencies to system uer fo rmance shall no t be allowed to collect in or on anv 0ar t of the tank or structure.

-

6-4.4 The tank and suppor t ing structure, where provided, shall be pro tec ted f rom rot, corrosion, rust, mechan ica l damage , accumula t ion debris, and sediment . The tops of founda t ion piers shall be ma in t a ined at least 6 in. (152 m m ) above g r o u n d level. Combust ib le material shall no t be permi t ted near the columns.

Add to A-6-4.4 "This can cause failure of the steel work due to fire, heat ing, or corrosion."

2 5 7

N F P A 25 ~ F9 7 R O P

6-4.6 Pipe and suppor t s shall be ma i n t a i ned in accordance with the rules for spr inkler pipe a n d suppor ts in Chapter 2.

Revise 6-4 .17as follows: 6-4.17 Main tenance of ESRF Tanks. The m a i n t e n a n c e of ESRF

tanks shall be comple ted in accordance with this sect ion a n d the tank manufac tu re r s instructions.

6-4.17.1 No waste materials, such as boards, pa in t cans, t r im or loose material, shall be left in the tank or on the surface o f the tank.

6-4.17.2 The access fitting(s) in the top of the tank shall be kept securely fas tened as a protec t ion against f reezing and winds torm

• . Large accumula t ions o f ice shall no t be allowed to collect on the top of the tank. This can be overcome by maintaining, the t empera tu re of. the water above freezing and keeping the tank filled to capacity.

6-4.17.4 Combust ib le mater ia l o f any k ind shall no t be pe rmi t t ed near the tank, and the site shall be kept clear o f weeds, brush, and dead foliage.

64.17.5 The exposed surfaces of the tank shall be inspected for pa in t ing every two years, a n d the inter ior of the tank shall be c l e a n e d a n d inspected as r equ i red to e l iminate a bu i ldup of sediment l

6-4.17.6 A pa in t r e c o m m e n d e d by the manu fac t u r e r shall be used to refurbish the top surface of t he tank. A p rocedure r e c o m m e n d e d by the manu fac t u r e r shall be used to refurbish the top surface of the tank.

6-4.17.7 The surfaces of the e m b a n k m e n t and the b e r m shall be inspec ted for soil erosion. SUBSTANTIATION: This in format ion was in NFPA 22, which is the wrong place m a i n t e n a n c e of fire protec t ion systems. NFPA 22 is current ly following NFPA 25 in a revision cycle a n d proposals will be submi t t ed to remove these sections• These are impor t an t i tems which are no t covered by NFPA 25 currently. T he Commi t t ee doesn ' t want to lose t h e m f rom the system completely• COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITI'EE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30 COMMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE:

WALSH: Delete four th and fifth sentences. Th i rd sen tence replaced four th sentence . Append i x material replaced fifth sen tence 6-4.17.7. Change "corrosion" to "erosion".

(Log #CP20) 25- 47 - (7-5): Accept SUBMITrER: Technica l Commi t t ee on Inspect ion, Tes t ing and Main tenance of Water Based Systems RECOMMENDATION: Add new sect ion as follows: -- 7-5 Ul t ra High Speed Water Spray Systems Operat ional Tests

7-5•1 W h e n th e pe r fo rmance of the system is tested, it shall co r respond to the acceptance values of the nozzle for the following:

(a) response t ime. (b) flow rate. (c) pressure.

SUBSTANTIATION: Provides n e e d e d guidance for the Pcerformance of this test~

OMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #26) 25- 48 - (Chapter 9): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenne t h E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Associat ion RECOMMENDATION: Revise Chapter 9 title to be " C o m m o n C o m p o n e n t s " . SUBSTANTIATION: This chap te r already contains r equ i r emen t s for o the r devices besides valves and FDC's such as waterflow a larms and ma in drains. We are also p ropos ing some addi t ional e q u i p m e n t r equ i r emen t s in this chapter for gauges and alarms. It makes sense to only have these one t ime in the s tandards ra ther than repea ted each t ime in each chapter . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Title of Chapte r 9 will read as follows: Chapter 9 Valves, Valve C o m p o n e n t s a n d Trim" First sen tence o f 9-1 will read as follows: "This chap te r provides the m i n i m u m requ i remen t s for the rout ine

inspect ion, testing, a n d m a i n t e n a n c e of valves, valve c o m p o n e n t s an t i trim." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T he Commi t tees Action addresses the submit te rs concern without be ing overly broad.

NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITFEE ACTION: .AFFIRMATIVE: 30

(Log #3a) 25- 49 - (Table 9-1): Reject SUBMITTER: E. Sam Sharp, VES Design, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Change f rom "5 years" to "annual". SUBSTANTIATION: Due to the na tu re of the pressure regula t ing valves used on a sprinkler system and the identical construct ion of valves used on a s tandpipe system, the re shou ld be n o difference in the interval of test. T h e same prob lems could arise with ei ther valve. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-62 (Log #$b). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29

NEGATIVE: 1 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

MARTINELLI: I dec ided vote against the Commi t t ee Action

]~ rimarily for the reason of consistency with Proposals 25-61 (Log 31), 25-62 (Log #3b), and 25-63 (Log #3c). W h e t h e r the testing f requency is 5 years or 1 year, it shou ld be the same on the different types of systems referred to in these proposals. I have opted for 1 year as a bet ter preventative measure .

(Log #4) 25- 50 - (9-2.6): Reject SUBMI'ITER: Larry Garrett, General Motors Corp. RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

9-2.6* Main Drain Test. A ma in dra in test shall be conduc ted at an affected ~ system riser immedia te ly followinv

control valve ooerat ion, system reoairs or ex tens ions to de te rn~ne if there has been a change in the condi t ion of the water supply

~ ip ing and control valves. OBS°I'ANTIATION: Efforts to de te rmine any changes in the water supply p i p i n g and control valves are best pe r fo rm ed immedia te ly following the condi t ions tha t are likely to cause such changes ra ther than quarterly. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-53 (Log #5). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMr[TEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28

NEGATIVE: 2 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

LINDER= I feel it is t ime for the commit tee to consider the cos t /benef i t s o f rou t ine dra in and valve testing. Of key concern is to maximize the percentage of t ime tha t the systems is operational. Tes t ing can r ende r systems out of service and can also affect o ther systems c o m p o n e n t s such as a larms a n d water supplies.

The commit tee has addressed the mos t severe p rob lem in its act ion to Proposal 25-13 (Log #33) ( that of shu t t ing down fire p u m p s when test ing is conduc ted) . However, while valve "spring" tests and ma in dra in tests are conducted , the a la rm systems are effectively impaired, and could result in delayed notification of an incident~

As the p r o p o n e n t s of these proposals po in t out, a valve m u s t be a lmost complete ly closed or a water supply significantly de t e r i o r a t edbe fo re the ma in dra in test will pick it up. The main dra in tests is he lpful however in de tec t ing a closed valve or one with a complete ly d ropped gate. The t ime to test for ei ther of these condi t ions is immedia te ly after the valve is opera ted or whenever a seal is broken, a valve t amper a la rm r e c e i v e d o r o ther condi t ion indicates tha t the valve may have been t ampe red with.

Shu t valves are p r e v e n t e d b y supervision a n d inspection. Incorpora t ion o f this proposal in the s t andard would result in a spr ing test a n d dra in test be ing conduc ted whenever the valve is opera ted or whenever the valve is miss ing a seal or appears to have been t a m p e r e d with. In addit ion, the s tandard requi red all control valves to be opera ted t h r o u g h o u t its full r ange and he r eopened annually. This f requency, even for small facilities s h o u l d b e adequate to de t e rmine if the water supply has chan g ed to such an ex ten t tha t a drain test would pick it up. Many facihties have mult iple water based ex t inguish ing systems and it is likely that some of the systems will require drain tests on more than an annua l frequency.

IRI no longer requires dra in tests or valve "spring tests" on a rout ine basis when the re is no indicat ion that the valve has been

258

N F P A 2 5 m F 9 7 R O P

opera ted or t ampe red with. We agree with the intents of these proposals a n d feel tha t the s tandard shou ld be changed .

SHEPPARD: See my Explanat ion of Negative on Proposal 25-53 (Log #5).

(Log #6) 25- 51 - (9-2.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Fred Maybee, General Motors o f Canada Ltd. RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"A main dra in test shall be conduc ted at each system riser, when it becomes necessary to shu t a control valve for any reason, inc lud ing the annua l turn-down test (9-3-4.2), to de te rmine if there has been a change in the condi t ion of the water supply piping and control valves." SUBSTANTIATION: Two inch dra in test ing conduc t ed with all water suppl ies in service a n d fire p u m p s on, does n o t accompl ish the desired results, as h igh p r e s s u r e / h i g h vo lume water will overcome a partial to a th ree four ths closed valve, therefore test results would be inconclusive. Two inch cha in testing with fire p u m p s off, jeopardizes a large facility, while test results are still inconclusive. An identif ied p rob l em led to tests be ing conduc ted (2 in. Drain) with one fire p u m p "on" and with all fire p u m p s "off." The control valve du r ing the tests was placed at various stages of full open to 1/4, 1 /2 and 3 / 4 ¢51osed, static and residual pressures r ema ined cons tan t with p u m p s on or off and regardless of control valve position:

STATIC RESIDUAL PUMP ON 96psi 91psi PUMP OFF 81psi 75 psi

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMIITEE STATEMENT: See Commi t t ee Action on Proposal 25-53 (Log #5). NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 30 VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 28

NEGATIVE: 2 EXPLANATION OF NEGATIVE:

LINDER: See my Explanat ion of Negative on Proposal 25-50 (Log #4).

SHEPPARD: See my Explanat ion of Negative on Proposal 25-53 (Log #5).

(Log #11) 25- 52 - (9-2.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Roland Huggins , Amer ican Fire Sprinkler Assn. RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

"A ma in dra in test shall be conduc ted quarter ly at each system riser for snr inkler systems and Class II or III s t andn ine svstems to de te rmine if there has been a change in the condi l ion ot~ the water supply p ip ing a n d control valves." SUBSTANTIATION: Main dra in tests are no t pe r fo rmed