16-1

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 16Report of the Technical Correlating

Committee on

Automatic Sprinkler Systems

John G. O’Neill, ChairThe Protection Engineering Group, PC, VA [SE]

Christian Dubay, Secretary-StaffNational Fire Protection Association, MA

Jose R. Baz, International Engineered Systems Limited, Incorporated, FL [M] Rep. NFPA Latin American Section Kerry M. Bell, Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated, IL [RT] Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association, NY [M] Scott T. Franson, The Viking Corporation, MI [M] James B. Harmes, Grand Blanc Fire Department, MI [E] Rep. International Association of Fire Chiefs Luke Hilton, Liberty Mutual Property, NC [I] Alex Hoffman, Viking Fire Protection Incorporated, Canada [IM] Rep. Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Incorporated, TX [IM] Sultan M. Javeri, SC Engineering, France [IM] Andrew Kim, National Research Council of Canada, Canada [RT] Joe W. Noble, Clark County Fire Department, NV [E] Rep. International Fire Marshals Association Eric Packard, Local 669 JATC Education Fund, MD [L] Rep. United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the US & Canada Chester W. Schirmer, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, NC [I] Robert D. Spaulding, FM Global, MA [I] Lynn K. Underwood, Axis US Property, IL [I]

Alternates

Donald “Don” D. Becker, RJC & Associates, Incorporated, MO [IM] (Alt. to Roland J. Huggins) George Capko, Jr., FM Global, MA [I] (Alt. to Robert D. Spaulding) Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, NY [M] (Alt. to Russell P. Fleming) George E. Laverick, Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated, IL [RT] (Alt. to Kerry M. Bell) Donald C. Moeller, The RJA Group, Incorporated, CA [SE] (Voting Alt. to RJA Rep.) Garner A. Palenske, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, CA [I] (Alt. to Chester W. Schirmer) Donato A. Pirro, Electro Sistemas De Panama, S.A., Panama [M] (Alt. to Jose R. Baz) J. Michael Thompson, The Protection Engineering Group, PC, VA [SE] (Alt. to John G. O’Neill)

Nonvoting

Antonio C. M. Braga, FM Global, CA [I] Rep. TC on Hanging & Bracing of Water-Based Systems Edward K. Budnick, Hughes Associates, Incorporated, MD [SE] Rep. TC on Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria Robert M. Gagnon, Gagnon Engineering, MD [SE] Rep. TC on Foam-Water Sprinklers William E. Koffel, Koffel Associates, Incorporated, MD [SE] Rep. Safety to Life Correlating Committee Kenneth W. Linder, GE Insurance Solutions, CT [I] Rep. TC on Sprinkler System Installation Criteria Daniel Madrzykowski, US National Institute of Standards & Technology, MD [RT] Rep. TC on Residential Sprinkler Systems J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corporation, MI [U] Rep. TC on Private Water Supply Piping Systems John J. Walsh, UA Joint Apprenticeship Committee, MD [SE] (Member Emeritus)

Staff Liaison: Christian Dubay

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have overall responsibility for documents that pertain to the criteria for the design and installation of automatic, open and foam-water sprinkler systems including the character and adequacy of water supplies, and the selection of sprinklers, piping, valves, and all materials and accessories. This Committee does not cover the installation of tanks and towers, nor the installation, maintenance, and use of central station, proprietary, auxiliary, and local signaling systems for watchmen, fire alarm, supervisory service, nor the design of fire department hose connections.

Report of the Committee on

Foam-Water Sprinklers

Robert M. Gagnon, ChairGagnon Engineering, MD [SE]

Terry L. Victor, SecretaryTyco/Simplex Grinnell, MD [M]

Michael E. Aaron, The RJA Group, Incorporated, IL [SE]Tracey D. Bellamy, TVA Fire and Life Safety, Incorporated, GA [SE]Kevin F. Carrier, Miami-Dade County, FL [E]David L. Dixon, Security Fire Protection, TN [IM] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler AssociationRichard Greenberg, State of New Jersey, NJ [E]Robert Lee Holcombe, III, GE Insurance Solutions, SC [I]Alan L. Holder, Louisiana Power & Light Company, LA [U] Rep. Edison Electric Institute Kirk W. Humbrecht, Phoenix Fire Systems, Incorporated, IL [IM] Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Association Eldon D. Jackson, The Viking Corporation, MI [M] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Kevin P. Kuntz, Marsh USA Incorporated, NJ [I] Scott L. Maxwell, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, CO [I] Robert C. Merritt, FM Global, MA [I] Randy R. Nelson, PE, VFS Fire & Security Services, CA [IM] Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Association Maurice M. Pilette, Mechanical Designs Limited, MA [SE] Tommy L. Preuett, Ellicott City, MD [L] Rep. United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the US & Canada Paul E. Rivers, 3M Fire Protection, MN [M] Joseph L. Scheffey, Hughes Associates, Incorporated, MD [SE] Thomas M. Suehr, Liberty Mutual Property, MA [I] Rep. Property Casualty Insurers Association of America Fred K. Walker, US Department of the Air Force, FL [U]

Alternates

Luis F. Arango, GE Insurance Solutions, TX [I] (Alt. to Robert Lee Holcombe, III)Robert G. Cirminiello, Liberty Mutual Property, NJ [I] (Alt. to Thomas M. Suehr)Paul F. Crowley, FM Approvals, MA [I] (Alt. to Robert C. Merritt)James Devonshire, Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, TX [IM] (Alt. to Kirk W. Humbrecht)Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association, NY [IM] (Alt. to David L. Dixon)Christopher P. Hanauska, Hughes Associates, Incorporated, MD [SE] (Alt. to Joseph L. Scheffey)Scott D. Henderson, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, MA [I] (Alt. to Scott L. Maxwell)George E. Laverick, Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated, IL [RT] (Voting Alt. to UL Rep. ) Keith Olson, Tyco Suppression Systems, WI [M] (Alt. to Terry L. Victor)Max L. Trummel, M. Trummel & Associates, AR [IM] (Alt. to Randy R. Nelson, PE)

Staff Liaison: David R. Hague

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the protection of hazards by systems designed to function as both sprayed foam and water discharge, as from a sprinkler system. 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 this book. The Report of the Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers is presented for adoption. This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers and proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 16, Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems, 2003 edition. NFPA 16 is published in Volume 2 of the 2004/2005 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form. This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers, which consists of 22 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report. This Report has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Automatic Sprinklers, which consists of 17 voting members; of whom 14 voted affirmatively, and 3 ballots were not returned (Harmes, Hilton, and Moeller).

16-2

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 16_______________________________________________________ 16-1 Log #4 AUT-FOW Final Action: Reject (Title) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise the title to read: Standard for the Installation of Low Expansion Foam-Water Sprinkler and Spray Systems. Substantiation: The title change clarifies to those looking for the correct standard that it applies to low expansion foam only per the scope of the documents. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The scope of the document is clear in its intent and the title does not need to be changed. Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-2 Log #CP8 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept (Entire document) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers Recommendation: Show US units first with metric units in parenthesis. Substantiation: Consistent with NFPA 13, NFPA 15 and NFPA 24. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-3 Log #CP1 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept in Principle (Chapter 3 Definitions (GOT)) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers Recommendation: Adopt the preferred definitions from the NFPA Glossary of Terms for the following terms: Class B Fire . (preferred) NFPA 10, 2002, ed. A fire in flammable liquids, combustible liquids, petroleum greases, tars, oils, oil-based paints, solvents, lacquers, alcohols, and flammable gases. Class B Fires . (secondary) NFPA 16, 2003 ed. Fires in flammable liquids, oils, greases, tars, oil-base paints, lacquers, and flammable gases. Foam-Water Density. (secondary) NFPA 16, 2003 ed. The unit rate of liquid foam-water solution application to an area, expressed in [L/min/m2 (gpm/ft2 )]. Substantiation: Adoption of preferred definitions will assist the user by providing consistent meaning of defined terms throughout the National Fire Codes. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle The class B fire definition from NFPA 10 is accepted. Revise the definition of density to read as follows: Foam-Water Density. (secondary) NFPA 16, 2003 ed. The unit rate of liquid foam-water solution application to an area, expressed in [L/min/m2 (gpm/ft2)]. Committee Statement: Reference to water only in the definition of density is not suitable in foam-water systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-4 Log #CP9 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept (Chapter 3) ________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers Recommendation: Update extracted definitions from NFPA 11-2005 edition as follows: 3.3.10* Foam. (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed. A stable aggregation of small bubbles of lower density than oil or water that exhibits a tenacity for covering horizontal surfaces. A.3.3.10 Foam. Air foam is made by mixing air into a water solution containing a foam concentrate, by means of suitably designed equipment. It flows freely over a burning liquid surface and forms a tough, air-excluding, continuous blanket that seals volatile combustible vapors from access to air. It resists disruption from wind and draft or heat and flame attack and is capable of resealing in case of mechanical rupture. Firefighting foams retain these properties for relatively long periods of time. Foams also are defined by expansion and are arbitrarily subdivided into three ranges of expansion. These ranges correspond broadly to certain types of usage described below. The three ranges are as follows: (1) Low-expansion foam - expansion up to 20 (2) Medium-expansion foam expansion from 20 to 200 (3) High-expansion foam - expansion from 200 to approximately 1000 3.3.4* Foam . (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed. Firefighting foam, within the scope of this standard, is a stable aggregation of small bubbles of lower density than oil or water that exhibits a tenacity for

covering horizontal surfaces. Air foam is made by mixing air into a water solution, containing a foam concentrate, by means of suitably designed equipment. It flows freely over a burning liquid surface and forms a tough, air-excluding, continuous blanket that seals volatile combustible vapors from access to air. It resists disruption from wind and draft or heat and flame attack and is capable of resealing in case of mechanical rupture. Firefighting foams retain these properties for relatively long periods of time. Foams also are defined by expansion and are arbitrarily subdivided into three ranges of expansion. These ranges correspond broadly to certain types of usage described below. The three ranges are as follows: (1) Low-expansion foam - expansion up to 20; (2) Medium-expansion foam - expansion from 20 to 200; (3) High-expansion foam - expansion from 200 to 1000. [11:3.3] 3.3.12* Foam Concentrate. (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed. A concentrated liquid foaming agent as received from the manufacturer. A.3.3.12 Foam Concentrate. For the purpose of this document, “foam concentrate” and “concentrate” are used interchangeably. 3.3.5 Foam Concentrate. (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed. Foam concentrate is a concentrated liquid foaming agent as received from the manufacturer. For the purpose of this document, “foam concentrate” and “concentrate” are used interchangeably. [11:3.3] 3.3.12.1* Alcohol-Resistant Foam Concentrate. (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed. A concentrate used for fighting fires on water-soluble materials and other fuels destructive to regular, AFFF, or FFFP foams, as well as for fires involving hydrocarbons. A.3.3.12.1 Alcohol-Resistant Foam Concentrate. There are three general types. One is based on water-soluble natural polymers, such as protein or fluoroprotein concentrates, and also contains alcohol-insoluble materials that precipitate as an insoluble barrier in the bubble structure. The second type is based on synthetic concentrates and contains a gelling agent that surrounds the foam bubbles and forms a protective raft on the surface of water-soluble fuels; these foams can also have film-forming characteristics on hydrocarbon fuels. The third type is based on water-soluble natural polymers, such as fluoroprotein, and contains a gelling agent that protects the foam from water-soluble fuels. This foam can also have film-forming and fluoroprotein characteristics on hydrocarbon fuels. Alcohol-resistant foam concentrates are generally used in concentrations of 3 percent to 10 percent solutions, depending on the nature of the hazard to be protected and the type of concentrate. 3.3.5.1 Alcohol-Resistant Foam Concentrate. (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed. This concentrate is used for fighting fires on water-soluble materials and other fuels destructive to regular, AFFF, or FFFP foams, as well as for fires involving hydrocarbons. There are three general types. One is based on water-soluble natural polymers, such as protein or fluoroprotein concentrates, and also contains alcohol-insoluble materials that precipitate as an insoluble barrier in the bubble structure. The second type is based on synthetic concentrates and contains a gelling agent that surrounds the foam bubbles and forms a protective raft on the surface of water-soluble fuels; these foams can also have film-forming characteristics on hydrocarbon fuels. The third type is based on both water-soluble natural polymers, such as fluoroprotein, and contains a gelling agent that protects the foam from water-soluble fuels. This foam can also have film-forming and fluoroprotein characteristics on hydrocarbon fuels. Alcohol-resistant foam concentrates are generally used in concentrations of 3 percent to 10 percent solutions, depending on the nature of the hazard to be protected and the type of concentrate. [11:3.3] 3.3.12.2* Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Concentrate (AFFF). (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed. A concentrate based on fluorinated surfactants plus foam stabilizers and usually diluted with water to a 1 percent, 3 percent, or 6 percent solution. A.3.3.12.2 Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Concentrate (AFFF). The foam formed acts as a barrier both to exclude air or oxygen and to develop an aqueous film on the fuel surface that is capable of suppressing the evolution of fuel vapors. The foam produced with AFFF concentrate is dry chemical compatible and thus is suitable for combined use with dry chemicals. 3.3.5.2 Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) Concentrate. (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed. This concentrate is based on fluorinated surfactants plus foam stabilizers and usually diluted with water to a 1 percent, 3 percent, or 6 percent solution. The foam formed acts as a barrier both to exclude air or oxygen and to develop an aqueous film on the fuel surface capable of suppressing the evolution of fuel vapors. The foam produced with AFFF concentrate is dry chemical compatible and thus is suitable for combined use with dry chemicals. [11:3.3] 3.3.12.3.1* Film-Forming Fluoroprotein Foam Concentrate (FFFP). (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed. A concentrate that uses fluorinated surfactants to produce a fluid aqueous film for suppressing hydrocarbon fuel vapors. A.3.3.12.3.1 Film-Forming Fluoroprotein Foam Concentrate (FFFP). This type of foam utilizes a protein base plus stabilizing additives and inhibitors to protect against freezing, corrosion, and bacterial decomposition, and it also resists fuel pickup. The foam is usually diluted with water to a 3 percent or 6 percent solution and is dry chemical compatible 3.3.5.3 Film-Forming Fluoroprotein (FFFP) Foam Concentrate. (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed.

16-3

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 16 This concentrate uses fluorinated surfactants to produce a fluid aqueous film for suppressing hydrocarbon fuel vapors. This type of foam utilizes a protein base plus stabilizing additives and inhibitors to protect against freezing, corrosion, and bacterial decomposition, and it also resists fuel pickup. The foam is usually diluted with water to a 3 percent or 6 percent solution and is dry chemical compatible. [11:3.3] 3.3.12.3* Fluoroprotein Foam Concentrate. (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed. A concentrate very similar to protein-foam concentrate but with a synthetic fluorinated surfactant additive. A.3.3.12.3 Fluoroprotein Foam Concentrate. In addition to an air-excluding foam blanket, this concentrate also can deposit a vaporization-preventing film on the surface of a liquid fuel. It is diluted with water to form 3 percent to 6 percent solutions depending on the type. This concentrate is compatible with certain dry chemicals. 3.3.5.4 Fluoroprotein Foam Concentrate. (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed. Fluoroprotein foam concentrate is very similar to protein-foam concentrate but has a synthetic fluorinated surfactant additive. In addition to an air-excluding foam blanket, they also can deposit a vaporization-preventing film on the surface of a liquid fuel. It is diluted with water to form 3 percent to 6 percent solutions depending on the type. This concentrate is compatible with certain dry chemicals. [11:3.3] 3.3.12.4* Medium- and High-Expansion Foam Concentrate. (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed. A concentrate, usually derived from hydrocarbon surfactants, used in specially designed equipment to produce foams having foam-to-solution volume ratios of 20:1 to approximately 1000:1. A.3.3.12.4 Medium- and High-Expansion Foam Concentrate. This equipment can be air-aspirating or blower-fan type. 3.3.5.5 Medium- and High-Expansion Foam Concentrate . (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed. This concentrate, which is usually derived from hydrocarbon surfactants, is used in specially designed equipment to produce foams having foam-to-solution volume ratios of 20:1 to approximately 1000:1. This equipment can be air-aspirating or blower-fan type. [11:3.3] 3.3.12.6.1* Other Synthetic Foam Concentrate. (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed. A concentrate based on hydrocarbon surface active agents and listed as a wetting agent, foaming agent, or both. A.3.3.12.6.1 Other Synthetic Foam Concentrate. In general, its use is limited to portable nozzle foam application for spill fires within the scope of their listings. The applicable listings should be consulted to determine proper application rates and methods. 3.3.5.6 Other Synthetic Foam Concentrate. (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed. Other synthetic foam concentrate is based on hydrocarbon surface active agents and is listed as a wetting agent, foaming agent, or both. In general, its use is limited to portable nozzle foam application for spill fires within the scope of their listings. The appropriate listings shall be consulted to determine proper application rates and methods. [11:3.3] 3.3.12.5* Protein Foam Concentrate. (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed. Concentrate consisting primarily of products from a protein hydrolysate, plus stabilizing additives and inhibitors to protect against freezing, to prevent corrosion of equipment and containers, to resist bacterial decomposition, to control viscosity, and to otherwise ensure readiness for use under emergency conditions. A.3.3.12.5 Protein Foam Concentrate. These concentrates are diluted with water to form 3 percent to 6 percent solutions depending on the type. They are compatible with certain dry chemicals. 3.3.5.7 Protein Foam Concentrate. (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed. Protein-foam concentrate consists primarily of products from a protein hydrolysate, plus stabilizing additives and inhibitors to protect against freezing, to prevent corrosion of equipment and containers, to resist bacterial decomposition, to control viscosity, and to otherwise ensure readiness for use under emergency conditions. They are diluted with water to form 3 percent to 6 percent solutions depending on the type. These concentrates are compatible with certain dry chemicals. [11:3.3] 3.3.12.6 Synthetic Foam Concentrate. (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed. Concentrate based on foaming agents other than hydrolyzed proteins and including aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) concentrates, medium- and high-expansion foam concentrates, and other synthetic foam concentrates. 3.3.5.8 Synthetic Foam Concentrate. (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed. Synthetic foam concentrate is based on foaming agents other than hydrolyzed proteins and include aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) concentrates, medium- and high-expansion foam concentrates, and other synthetic foam concentrates. [11:3.3] 3.3.16* Foam Solution. (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed. A homogeneous mixture of water and foam concentrate in the correct proportions. A.3.3.16 Foam Solution. For the purpose of this document, “foam solution” and “solution” are used interchangeably. 3.3.6 Foam Solution. (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed. A homogeneous mixture of water and foam concentrate in the proper proportions. For the purpose of this document, “foam solution” and “solution” are used interchangeably. [11:3.3] 3.3.25 Proportioning. (preferred) NFPA 11-2005 ed.

The continuous introduction of foam concentrate at the recommended ratio into the water stream to form foam solution. 3.3.8 Proportioning . (secondary) NFPA 16-2003 ed. Proportioning is the continuous introduction of foam concentrate at the recommended ratio into the water stream to form foam solution. [11:3.3] Substantiation: Updates extracted definitions in accordance with the glossary of terms. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-5 Log #CP2 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept (4.1.1 and 5.12) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers Recommendation: Add a cross-reference to the new Section 5.12 to 4.1.1 as follows: 4.1.1 Foam-water deluge and preaction systems shall be provided with automatic and auxiliary manual tripping means in accordance with Section 5.12. Add a new Section 5.12 (renumber balance of chapter) to read as follows: 5.12 Automatic System Detection. 5.12.1 Detection required for foam-water deluge systems shall be in accordance with NFPA 15. 5.12.2 Detection for foam-water preaction systems shall be in accordance with NFPA 13. Substantiation: Reference to appropriate documents for detection is needed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-6 Log #CP3 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept (5.11) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.11 Strainers for Foam Concentrates . 6.1.2.1 5.11.1 Strainers shall be installed so that they are accessible for cleaning or flushing. 5.11. 1 2 * Strainers shall be installed in foam concentrate lines upstream of foam concentrate pumps. 5.11. 2 3 Strainers for Foam Concentrates 5.11.1.1 5.11.3.1 Where listed strainers of the proper size are not available, strainers that have a ratio of open-basket area to inlet pipe size of at least 10:1 shall be used. 5.11.2 5.11.3.2 Strainers shall be capable of removing all solids of a size that would obstruct system components. 5.11.2.1 5.11.3.3 Perforations shall be no larger than the smallest orifice in the system and no less than 3.2 mm ( in.). 5.11.2.2 5.11.3.4 Strainers shall be installed so as to be accessible for cleaning (flushing) while maintaining system discharge during an emergency. Substantiation: Better organizes requirements for strainers. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-7 Log #2 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept (6.2.4) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Add the following as a new 6.2.4 and renumber the remaining: 6.2.4 Unless the requirements of 6.2.4.1 or 6.2.4.2 are met, the fire department connection(s) shall use an NH internal threaded swivel fitting(s) with an NH standard thread(s), where at least one of the connections shall be the “2.5-7.5 NH standard thread,” as specified in NFPA 1963, Standard for Fire Hose Connections. (13: 6.8.1) 6.2.4.1 Where local fire department connections do not conform to NFPA 1963, Standard for Fire Hose Connections, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to designate the connection to be used. (13: 6.8.2) 6.2.4.2 The use of threadless couplings shall be permitted where required by the authority having jurisdiction and where listed for such use. (13: 6.8.3) 6.2.4.3 Fire department connections shall be equipped with listed plugs or caps, properly secured and arranged for easy removal by fire departments. (13:6.8.4) 6.2.4.4 Fire department connections shall be of an approved type. (13:6.8.5) Substantiation: The proposed text is an extract from NFPA 13 and has been proposed for inclusion to correlate requirements on fire department connections. The current wording provides no guidance in where to provide FD connections or other features that need to be included.

16-4

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 16Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-8 Log #1 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept in Principle (6.2.4.2) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: 6.2.4.2 Where a fire department connection is provided the following items shall be evaluated before installation or use: (1) Overpressurizing of system components (2) Imbalance of proportioning equipment (3) Dilution of proportioned foam solution (4) Disturbance of system accessory devices including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Pressure switches (b) Hydraulic control valves (c) Main control valve trim (5) Pressures and flows exceeding the foam system design capability Substantiation: The current wording does not mention what to do with the items listed. The proposed wording clarifies the existing text and assists the user of the standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise to read: 6.2.4.2 Where When a fire department connection is provided the following items shall be evaluated before installation or and use: (1) Overpressurizing of system components (2) Imbalance of proportioning equipment (3) Dilution of proportioned foam solution (4) Disturbance of system accessory devices including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Pressure switches (b) Hydraulic control valves (c) Main control valve trim (5) Pressures and flows exceeding the foam system design capability Committee Statement: Better describes the intent of the submitter. Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. Comment on Affirmative: AARON, M.: Section 6.2.4.2 does not offer guidance on who should conduct this evaluation, and how any issues resulting from the evaluation should be resolved. Some appendix material seems to be needed. _______________________________________________________ 16-9 Log #CP4 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept (7.3.7.1) ________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers Recommendation: Revise Section 7.3.7.1 to read as follows: 7.3.7.1 Total Design Area. (A) 7.3.7.1.1 The total design area shall be 465 m 2 (5000 ft 2 ). 7.3.7.1.2 For dry pipe systems, the area of operation shall be increased by 30 percent. (B) 7.3.7.1.3 Where applicable occupancy standards specify design areas different from that specified in 7.3.7.1 (A) .1 , the occupancy standards shall take precedence. Substantiation: To provide requirements for dry systems consistent with that of NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 17 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. Explanation of Negative: HOLCOMBE, III, R.: My reason is that no testing has been done to support increasing the design area for a dry pipe system by 30 percent over the recommended 5000 sq ft area. For that matter, no test data exists to support the 5000 sq ft area for wet or deluge systems to my knowledge. PILETTE, M.: No technical substantiation for this log provided by the committee for a design to go from 5000 to 6500 sq ft? What about the additional 30 percent for slopes as required by NFPA 13? 5000 - 6500 sq ft to 8450 sq ft? There is no data to support this proposal. Committee Action is not consistent with NFPA 13 since it did not include provisions for slope ceilings as noted.

_______________________________________________________ 16-10 Log #CP5 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept (7.4.1.1, 7.4.2.1) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers Recommendation: Revise Sections 7.4.1.1 and 7.4.2.1 to delete the word “reasonably”: 7.4.1.1 System piping shall be hydraulically designed to obtain reasonably uniform foam and water distribution and to allow for loss of head in water supply piping. 7.4.2.1 System piping shall be hydraulically designed to obtain reasonably uniform foam and water distribution and to allow for loss of head in system piping. Substantiation: Removes unenforceable language per the Manual of Style. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-11 Log #6 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept (7.4.1.3) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Reference NFPA 13 for hydraulic calculations instead of NFPA 15. Substantiation: NFPA 15 requires the user to perform Velocity pressure calculations while NFPA 13 leaves this option to the discretion of the person doing the calculations. The Velocity Pressure calculations are extremely difficult, more costly, and only necessary in some extremely unusual situations. More often than not, the Velocity Pressure calculations actually decrease the flow and pressure demands by 5–10 percent, actually eliminating a safety factor from the system design. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 18 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. Explanation of Negative: WALKER, F.: The proposal is inadequate and creates a major problem in the use of the standard. As the submitter states in his proposal the use of the velocity pressure calculations is (quote) only necessary in some extremely unusual situations (unquote) but it is necessary in those cases and it will work in other cases. The proposal simply allows the use of NFPA 13 in all cases including those where the velocity pressure calculations is necessary. The proposal should be rejected, at this time, since the submitter did not provide language which would ensure the velocity pressure calculations were used where necessary. The fact that getting the correct answer is costly and difficult should not be justification for approving a method which does not always give the correct answer. There is no code or standard requirement for the 5-10 percentage overage usually found in the NFPA 13 calculations identified by the submitter as a (quote) safety factor (unquote). This unrequired overage in large systems can add unnecessary major investment costs with no gain in the protection provided by the system assuming compliance with the basic standard requirements provides adequate protection and adequate safety margins. Should the submitter have wording which will ensure the velocity pressure calculations is used where necessary and permit the NFPA 13 calculations to be used in other cases, that could be considered at the ROC stage. _______________________________________________________ 16-12 Log #7 AUT-FOW Final Action: Reject (7.4.1.4) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Insert an Annex note explaining the ɛ factor used to represent the smoothness of the pipe. Substantiation: When performing hydraulic calculations using the Darcy-Weisbach method of calculations, the smoothness of the pipe is a critical issue to getting the friction loss correct. Most Moody diagrams represent the smoothness of the pipe using the variable ɛ. NFPA 16 has replaced this representation with nominal pipe sizes, but in doing so, has eliminated the designer’s ability to adjust for different types of pipe. For example, in the Hazen-Williams formula, there is a 20 percent difference between the representation of the smoothness of the pipe between black steel used in dry-pipe systems and galvanized pipe used in dry-pipe systems. This difference represents a standardized method of accounting for the extra deteriorization that occurs in pipe that is not galvanized. But by putting nominal pipe sizes on the curves in NFPA 16, the committee has stated that there is no difference between the types of pipe. The committee has also not directly addressed the issue of standardizing the deteriorization of the pipe. When using the Hazen-Williams Formula, NFPA 13 requires the use of C-factor 100 for certain situations and a C-factor of 120 for other situations. This is a standardized method of making sure that designers account for the fact that the conditions in the pipe deteriorate over time. A similar consideration must be made for the Darcy-Weisbach formula.

16-5

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 16While the committee might have taken this into account, they have not indicated how they did so. Lastly, the committee needs to realize that there are computer programs that do the Darcy-Weisbach formula. In order to use these programs, the ɛ factor needs to be known so that it can be input into the computer. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: No proposed language was submitted. The submitter is requested to provide language and figures as needed. Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-13 Log #CP6 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept (7.4.1.5) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers Recommendation: Replace Table 7.4.1.5 with Table 14.4.4.5 from NFPA 13. Substantiation: Provides consistent C values for hydraulic calculations and coordinates requirements for hydraulic calculations with NFPA 13. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-14 Log #CP7 AUT-FOW Final Action: Accept (8.2.2, 8.2.2.1, 8.2.2.2, and A.8.2.2) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Foam-Water Sprinklers Recommendation: Section 8.2.2 could be revised as follows: 8.2.2 * Leakage Underground Piping Systems . A.8.2.2 See NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances. 8.2.2.1 The amount of leakage in u U nderground water piping shall be measured at the specific test pressure by pumping from a calibrated container tested in accordance with NFPA 24 . 8.2.2.2 Leakage shall not exceed 1.89 L/hr (2 qt/hr) per 100 joints irrespective of pipe diameter. Substantiation: Coordinates requirements for underground piping with NFPA 24. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-15 Log #5 AUT-FOW Final Action: Reject (8.4.1.4.3 and 8.4.1.4.2 (New) ) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Insert two new paragraphs 8.4.1.4.3 and 8.4.1.4.4 as follows: 8.4.1.4.3 The high end test required by 8.4.1.4.2 shall be conducted at a flow rate of all of the sprinklers in the most remote hydraulic demand area balanced to the water supply. 8.4.1.4.4 The low end test required by 8.4.1.4.2 shall be conducted at the flow rate of the single most demanding sprinkler in the system balanced to the water supply. Substantiation: There is confusion as to what the “high end” and the “low end” requirements are. Some people feel that the high end is the remote area closest to the water supply. Others feel that it is intended to be the most remote area balanced to the higher pressure demand. Likewise, the low end test is also the subject of debate. Some feel it is the single most demanding sprinkler closest to the water supply, others believe that it should be the most remote sprinkler, but balanced to the pressure of the water supply. There is also some concern that foam equipment is not sensitive enough to get the flow to a single sprinkler within the limits set by 8.4.1.4, so they require a flow of 4 sprinklers for the low end test. The committee needs to state whatever they mean. If the language in this proposal is not what the committee has intended, then we would appreciate if the committee would clarify their intent in any way it sees fit. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: A task group has been appointed to further study the issue and will report to the committee for the ROC. Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 19

Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. _______________________________________________________ 16-16 Log #3 AUT-FOW Final Action: Reject (A.9.3) _______________________________________________________ Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: A.9.3 An inspection contract with the installer of for the equipment for service tests and operation at regular intervals is recommended and could be required by the authority having jurisdiction . Samples of foam liquid concentrate should be referred to the manufacturer to check its condition annually. Samples should be submitted in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommended sampling procedure. Substantiation: Clarifies the current wording and removes text that is unclear and not needed. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Eliminating reference to the original installer could allow unqualified persons to perform the work. Number Eligible to Vote: 22 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 18 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 3 Dixon, D., Holder, A., Rivers, P. Explanation of Negative: AARON, M.: I see no reason to give preference to the original system installer to conduct annual inspections. The only criteria should be that the inspector be qualified. I would recommend accepting 16-16, but adding language requiring the person performing the inspection to be qualified to do so.

FORM FOR COMMENTS ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2006 FALL REVISION CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EST, 3/3/2006

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 617-770-3000

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #: Date Rec'd:

Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download

(Note: In choosing the download option you intend to view the ROP/ROC from our Website; no copy will be sent to you.) Date________________Name________________________________________________Tel. No.

Company _________________________________________________________________________________________________

Street Address_________________________________City________________________State______Zip _________________

Please Indicate Organization Represented (if any)_______________________________________________________________

1. a) NFPA Document Title___________________________________ NFPA No. & Year_______

b) Section/Paragraph _____________________________________

2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): ________________

3. Comment recommends: (check one) new text revised text deleted text 4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): (Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format: i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote

ording to be deleted (w deleted wording). _________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that will be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your comment including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it

ay be abstracted for publication.) _____________________________________________________________________m

6. Copyright Assignment

a) □ I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in this Comment.

b) □ Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source)____________________________________________________________________________

I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment. Signature (Required) _____________________________________

PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT • NFPA Fax: (617) 770-3500

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council, National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02269 11/1/2005

The Technical Report Session of the NFPA Annual Meeting

The process of public input and review does not end with the publication of the ROP and ROC. Following the completion of the Proposal and Comment periods, there is yet a further opportunity for debate and discussion through the Technical Report Sessions that take place at the NFPA Annual Meeting.

The Technical Report Session provides an opportunity for the final Technical Committee Report (i.e., the ROP and ROC) on each proposed new or revised code or standard to be presented to the NFPA membership for the debate and consideration of motions to amend the Report. The specific rules for the types of motions that can be made and who can make them are set forth in NFPA’s rules which should always be consulted by those wishing to bring an issue before the membership at a Technical Report Session. The following presents some of the main features of how a Report is handled.

What Amending Motions are Allowed. The Technical Committee Reports contain many Proposals and Comments that the Technical Committee has rejected or revised in whole or in part. Actions of the Technical Committee published in the ROP may also eventually be rejected or revised by the Technical Committee during the development of its ROC. The motions allowed by NFPA rules provide the opportunity to propose amendments to the text of a proposed code or standard based on these published Proposals, Comments and Committee actions. Thus, the list of allowable motions include motions to accept Proposals and Comments in whole or in part as submitted or as modified by a Technical Committee action. Motions are also available to reject an accepted Comment in whole or part. In addition, Motions can be made to return an entire Technical Committee Report or a portion of the Report to the Technical Committee for further study.

The NFPA Annual Meeting, also known as the World SafetyConference and Exposition®, takes place in June of each year. A second Fall membership meeting was discontinued in 2004, so the NFPA Technical Report Session now runs once each yearat the Annual Meeting in June.

Who Can Make Amending Motions. Those authorized to make these motions is also regulated by NFPA rules. In many cases, the maker of the motion is limited by NFPA rules to the original submitter of the Proposal or Comment or his or her duly authorized representative. In other cases, such as a Motion to Reject an accepted Comment, or to Return a Technical Committee Report or a portion of a Technical Committee Report for Further Study, anyone can make these motions. For a complete explanation, NFPA rules should be consulted.

The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Before making an allowable motion at a Technical Report Session, the intended maker of the motion must file, in advance of the session, and within the published deadline, a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. A Motions Committee appointed by the Standards Council then reviews all notices and certifies all amending motions that are proper. The Motions Committee can also, in consultation with the makers of the motions, clarify the intent of the motions and, in certain circumstances, combine motions that are dependent on each other together so that they can be made in one single motion. A Motions Committee report is then made available in advance of the meeting listing all certified motions. Only these Certified Amending Motions, together with certain allowable Follow-Up Motions (that is, motions that have become necessary as a result of previous successful amending motions) will be allowed at the Technical Report Session.

Consent Documents. Often there are codes and standards up for consideration by the membership that will be non-controversial and no proper Notices of Intent to Make a Motion will be filed. These “Consent Documents” will bypass the Technical Report Session and head straight to the Standards Council for issuance. The remaining Documents are then forwarded to the Technical Report Session for consideration of the NFPA membership.

Important Note: The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion is a new requirement that takes effect beginning with those Documents scheduled for the Fall 2005 revision cycle that reports to the June 2006 Annual Meeting Technical Report Session. The filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion will not, therefore, be required in order to make a motion at the June 2005 Annual Meeting Technical Report Session. For updates on the transition to the new Notice requirement and related new rules effective for the Fall 2005 revision cycle and the June 2006 Annual Meeting, check the NFPA website.

Action on Motions at the Technical Report Session. In order to actually make a Certified Amending Motion at the Technical Report Session, the maker of the motion must sign in at least an hour before the session begins. In this way a final list of motions can be set in advance of the session. At the session, each proposed Document up for consideration is presented by a motion to adopt the Technical Committee Report on the Document. Following each such motion, the presiding officer in charge of the session opens the floor to motions on the Document from the final list of Certified Amending Motions followed by any permissible Follow-Up Motions. Debate and voting on each motion proceeds in accordance with NFPA rules. NFPA membership is not required in order to make or speak to a motion, but voting is limited to NFPA members who have joined at least 180 days prior to the session and have registered for the meeting. At the close of debate on each motion, voting takes place, and the motion requires a majority vote to carry. In order to amend a Technical Committee Report, successful amending motions must be confirmed by the responsible Technical Committee, which conducts a written ballot on all successful amending motions following the meeting and prior to the Document being forwarded to the Standards Council for issuance.

Standards Council Issuance

One of the primary responsibilities of the NFPA Standards Council, as the overseer of the NFPA codes and standards development process, is to act as the official issuer of all NFPA codes and standards. When it convenes to issue NFPA documents it also hears any appeals related to the Document. Appeals are an important part of assuring that all NFPA rules have been followed and that due process and fairness have been upheld throughout the codes and standards development process. The Council considers appeals both in writing and through the conduct of hearings at which all interested parties can participate. It decides appeals based on the entire record of the process as well as all submissions on the appeal. After deciding all appeals related to a Document before it, the Council, if appropriate, proceeds to issue the Document as an official NFPA code or standard. Subject only to limited review by the NFPA Board of Directors, the Decision of the Standards Council is final, and the new NFPA code or standard becomes effective twenty days after Standards Council issuance. The illustration on page 9 provides an overview of the entire process, which takes approximately two full years to complete.

Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Sequence of Events Leading to Issuance of an NFPA Committee Document

Step 1 Call for Proposals

▼ Proposed new Document or new edition of an existing Document is entered into one of two yearly revision cycles, and a Call for Proposals is published.

Step 2 Report on Proposals (ROP)

▼ Committee meets to act on Proposals, to develop its own Proposals, and to prepare its Report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Proposals. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Proposals (ROP) is published for public review and comment.

Step 3 Report on Comments (ROC)

▼ Committee meets to act on Public Comments to develop its own Comments, and to prepare its report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Comments. If two-thirds approve, Reports goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Comments (ROC) is published for public review.

Step 4 Technical Report Session

▼ “Notices of intent to make a motion” are filed, are reviewed, and valid motions are certified for presentation at the Technical Report Session. (“Consent Documents” that have no certified motions bypass the Technical Report Session and proceed to the Standards Council for issuance.)

▼ NFPA membership meets each June at the Annual Meeting Technical Report Session and acts on Technical Committee Reports (ROP and ROC) for Documents with “certified amending motions.”

▼ Committee(s) vote on any amendments to Report approved at NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

Step 5 Standards Council Issuance

▼ Notification of intent to file an appeal to the Standards Council on Association action must be filed within 20 days of the NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

▼ Standards Council decides, based on all evidence, whether or not to issue Document or to take other action, including hearing any appeals.