National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 Fax: 617-770-0700 www.nfpa.org M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: NFPA Technical Committee on Residential Sprinkler Systems Elena Carroll, Administrator, Technical Projects DATE: November 10, 2011 SUBJECT: NFPA 13D ROC TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2012) The Final Results of the NFPA 13D ROC Letter Ballot are as follows: 31 Members Eligible to Vote 1 (Shaw) 10 Affirmative on All 20 s (Bell, Benn, Brown, Deegan, Feid, Grove, Haagensen, Hoover, Isman, Johnson, Nickson, Orlowski, Puchovsky, Rians, Schwab, Sigler, Stanley, Walraven, Victor, and Yu) (on one or more comments as noted in the attached report) 0 Abstentions There are two criteria necessary to pass ballot [(1) affirmative 2 / 3 vote and (2) simple majority]. (1) The number of affirmative votes needed for the comment to pass is 20. (31 eligible to vote - 1 not returned - 0 abstentions = 30 0.66 = 19.8) (2) In all cases, an affirmative vote of at least a simple majority of the total membership eligible to vote is required. This is the calculation for simple majority: [31 eligible 2 = 15.5 = (16)] Reasons for negative votes, etc. from alternate members are not included unless the ballot from the principal member was not received. According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary 2 / 3 required affirmative votes to pass ballot.
1 13D-1 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 1.1.2 (Log # CC1 ) Benn, F. I do not believe standard should define what it does not cover. 13D-2 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 2.3.3 and Table 5.2.1.1 (Log # 68 ) 13D-3 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.x Antifreeze Sprinkler System (Log # CC2 ) 13D-4 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.x Readily Accessible (New) (Log # 26 ) 13D-5 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.x Shadow Area (New) (Log # 56 ) 13D-6 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.x Shadow Area and A.3.3.x (New) (Log # 40 ) 13D-7 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.3 Dwelling (Log # 23 ) Haagensen, D. See substantiations and voting explanations for related proposals and comments.
2 13D-8 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.3 Dwelling (Log # 69 ) Haagensen, D. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-7 (Log #23). 13D-9 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.8.1 Sprinkler and A.3.3.8.1.1 (New) (Log # 48 ) 13D-10 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.9.1, 4.1.4, 5.2.7, 8.3.2, 8.3.3, A.4.1.4 (Log # 20 ) Haagensen, D. Based on the proposed table, material properties of antifreeze are dependent on manufacturer and a generic table is misleading to the user of the document. Action should be correlated with SSI committee. 13D-11 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.9.1 Antifreeze Sprinkler System and A.3.3.9.1 (Log # 46 ) 13D-12 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.9.1.1 Premixed Antifreeze Solution (Log # 47 ) 13D-13 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.9.3 Multipurpose Piping System (Log # 8 ) 13D-14 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.9.3 Multipurpose Piping System (Log # 36 )
3 13D-15 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.9.3 Multipurpose Piping System (Log # 52 ) 13D-16 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.9.9 Passive Purge System (Log # 31 ) 13D-17 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.9.9 Passive Purge System (Log # 34 ) 13D-18 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 3.3.9.9 Passive Purge System (Log # 50 ) 13D-19 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 28 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.1.3 (Log # 1 ) Benn, F. See my Explanation of Vote on Comment 13D-24 (Log #37). Haagensen, D. Committee action encourages the installation of a PRV on stand alone sprinkler systems. PRV should be on domestic only with sprinkler system piping rated for street pressures. A PRV adds costs to the system and a failure point. 13D-20 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 28 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.1.3 (Log # 4 ) Benn, F. See my Explanation of Vote on Comment 13D-24 (Log #37). Haagensen, D. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-19 (Log #1).
4 13D-21 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 28 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.1.3 and 5.2.5.3 (Log # 28 ) Benn, F. See my Explanation of Vote on Comment 13D-24 (Log #37). Haagensen, D. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-19 (Log #1). 13D-22 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.1.4 (New) (Log # 2 ) 13D-23 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.1.4 (New) (Log # 5 ) 13D-24 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 28 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.1.4 and 5.2.5.4 (Log # 37 ) Benn, F. I do not think we should lower pressure rating on system to allow "plumbing" material to be used on stand alone sprinkler systems. According to Insurance representative on committee, most insurance claims on homeowners insurance policies are for water damage from plumbing system failures. Haagensen, D. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-19 (Log #1). 13D-25 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 28 : 2 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.1.4 and 5.2.5.4 (Log # 53 ) Benn, F. See my Explanation of Vote on Comment 13D-24 (Log #37). Haagensen, D. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-19 (Log #1).
13D-26 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.1.4 and 5.2.5.4 (Log # 66 ) 13D-27 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.1.4 and 5.2.5.4 (Log # 74 ) 13D-28 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.2.2 and 5.2.9.2 (Log # 60 ) 13D-29 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 27 : 3 Abstain: 0 : 1 Table 5.2.2.2 and Table 5.2.9.2 (Log # 38 ) Bell, K. The term listing and special listing should not be used relative to the term listing for the following reasons: 1) There is no definition in NFPA 13, 13D or 13 R for the term special or specially listed; 2) manufacturers do not reference or advertise their products using the term special or specially listed and 3) the certification laboratories, including UL and FM, do not refer to products as being special or specially listed. Despite an indication in the comments submitted by committee members that they believe the process for specially listing a product is more intense, the listing for these products simply indicates compliance with the requirements included in the applicable standard. The word special or specially does not add or change the meaning of any current requirement in the standard. The product listings published by the certification laboratories have not and do not designate products that comply as special listed or specially listed when published in the certification list. Removing this reference will clarify the requirements and eliminate the implication that there is some difference between listed and special listed. Nickson, R. I wish to change my vote to negative on 13D-29 based on the negative vote comments. Puchovsky, M. The term "specially listed" is not properly distinguished from the term "listed", and its use will continue to result in confusion in the application and enforcement of NFPA 13R. The term "specially listed" is not defined in the standard, nor are products and devices identified as "specially listed" by listing organizations. The term "specially listed" is not marked on the product, or noted as such by the product and device manufacturers. Where listed products and devices have limitations regarding their application, use or installation, they are typically identified by the manufacturer as specific application, and are provided with specific installation instructions in accordance with their listing. 13D-30 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 Table 5.2.2.2 and Table 5.2.9.2 (Log # 54 ) 5
6 Bell, K. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-29 (Log #38). 13D-31 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 26 : 4 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.5.3 (Log # 67 ) Deegan, T. The laboratory and production test criteria used to evaluate and produce residential sprinklers to this point in time has been based on 175 psi. An enviable 30+ year record with regard to quality issues such as resistance to damage and leakage has been established over time as a result of this criteria. Most if not all plastic piping listed to 130 psi at 120 F is installed concealed and is not subject to the same potential sources of damage that sprinklers are. To argue that 130 psi is appropriate as the lowest common denominator due to the acceptance of the plastic pipe, ignores the differences in service conditions between the pipe and the sprinklers. Any potential benefit of sprinklers at 130 psi was not defined or described and presumably would not offset the potential additional risk. Feid, J. This will weaken the standard without understanding the reduction in the overall quality and strength of a fire sprinkler. It is intuitive that a sprinkler designed to withstand higher working pressures will be more robust and durable. This overall strength in sprinklers has provided historic dependability in active environments where they have and can withstand incidental contact and not fail or leak. If working pressures are reduced there should be an increase in the physical strength and durability of the sprinkler. Isman, K. The reduction of the rated pressure for pipe and fittings to 130 psi was accompanied by a requirement for a minimum temperature at which to make the assessment (120 degrees Fahrenheit). This connection of pressure and temperature is necessary for thermoplastic devices that have different strengths of material at different temperatures. No such restriction was put on the lower pressure rated sprinkler. Someone could design a plastic sprinkler that can hold 130 psi at a very low temperature, but would fail on a warm day at that pressure. Yu, H. There is no safety factor if the system pressure is allowed to go up to 130 psi. Furthermore, the committee action for this comment is in conflict with the action for 13D-33. 13D-32 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.5.4 (Log # 6 ) 13D-33 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 5.2.5.4 (New) (Log # 3 ) 13D-34 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 6.2.2(4) (Log # 24 ) 13D-35 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 7.2.6 and A.7.2.6 (New) (Log # 42 )
7 13D-36 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 7.2.6 and A.7.2.6 (New) (Log # 58 ) 13D-37 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 7.5.5 (Log # 9 ) 13D-38 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 23 : 7 Abstain: 0 : 1 7.6 (Log # 18 ) Benn, F. I believe all sprinkler systems should have water flow alarms. Study by FPRF research on local ordinances showed over 90% currently require water flow alarms. Deegan, T. Waterflow alarm switches provide a benefit that exceeds the cost associated with them. Waterflow alarm switches should be provided on all NFPA 13D systems. Smoke detectors are not installed in all areas where fires may start. In such instances, waterflow alarm switches can provide an increase in the level of life safety provided. Grove, J. systems. Schwab, P. As stated by the submitter, local waterflow alarms should be provided for all automatic sprinkler The added cost of a flow switch is worth requiring them for notification of flow. Stanley, G. Fire sprinkler systems need a water flow alarm to help protect the homeowner in the event of a fire. This alarm would alert the immediate public to a fire event inside the home and increase life safety for a minimal cost. Van Walraven, E. I agree with the original submitter that: Fire sprinkler systems need waterflow alarms. It is irresponsible to design a fire sprinkler system that does not produce some sort of signal when water is flowing in the system. There also is material supporting this concept as stated in the annex of the 2010 edition of NFPA 13D section A.7.6 The local waterflow alarm is intended to be a single alarm audible from the outside of the building. It can be mounted on the outside of the home or within the building close to the outside. This should not limit its use to prevent interior or remote notification. Interconnection with a smoke alarm or remote monitoring might improve notification, but is considered too costly to mandate for every system installed in accordance with this standard. It is not the intent of this standard to require central station monitoring or a fire alarm system. An exterior alarm can be of benefit in areas where a neighbor could alert the fire department or to enhance the ability for an assisted rescue by a passerby. We have had instances where the notification devices alerted the neighbors of water flow and the fire department was in turn dispatched lessening the impact of flowing water. There are very economical and cost effective methods available to the home owner and contractors to achieve this for both interior and exterior notification. Also as stated elsewhere many jurisdictions already require some form of audible notification for fire sprinkler systems, this provision would provide necessary notification and consistency in the standard.
8 Victor, T. This comment should be accepted. Now the technical committee is changing it's substantiation for not accepting the comment that would require waterflow alarms on all 13D systems, by using the difference in sensitivity between a sprinkler and a smoke detector in alerting occupants of a fire as the reason not to require them. This substantiation may make sense in the room of fire origin if both life safety devices are present. However, there are many rooms in a house where the sprinkler could go off in a fire event, control or extinguish the fire, and no one would even know the sprinkler system activated and is flowing water. For additional life safety and to have an alarm any time water flows through the sprinkler system, a waterflow alarm should be on every sprinkler system. Affirmative with Comment Bradley, F. Reasons for supporting the committees action and not providing water flow alarms on NFPA 13D systems for Log # 18 Houses are now built to mitigate the transmission of sound. The provision of a water flow switch is an additional cost. The premise of the NFPA 13D system was to provide a low cost system for basic life safety in the home. Residential Developers will compare the cost of the Plumbing Code systems and choose them over the NFPA 13D system. Studies show that smoke detectors in the home are more effective, especially when the sounding devices are interconnected, then one water flow bell. One proposal is to connect the water flow switch to the smoke detectors (sounding device). Interconnecting the water flow switch with the interconnecting sounding devices of the smoke detectors is not an approved and not a listed method. Maintenance and testing; who is responsible for testing the water flow switch (is there a method to insure the testing and maintenance is performed). The providing a water flow alarm for most NFPA 13D systems exceeds the requirements of NFPA 13. Paragraph 8.17.1.1 only requires a local alarm for more than 20 sprinklers. Do we need a retard device per NFPA 13, 8.17.1.2? Device needs to ensure activation is based on the activation of a sprinkler and not due to water surges or the flow of water for domestic equipment. The proposed code change does not provide any criteria for the device (such as the db rating). Feid, J. It is irresponsible to not provide a water flow alarm. Because fire sprinklers are so successful they put fires out/control before anyone realizes. It is worthwhile to have an audible indicator to take action. 13D-39 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 7.6 (Log # 25 ) 13D-40 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 26 : 4 Abstain: 0 : 1 7.6 (Log # 39 ) Benn, F. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-38 (Log #18). Grove, J. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-38 (Log #18). Isman, K. All fire sprinkler systems need waterflow alarms. We believe that we reached a reasonable compromise on the cost issue with some very low cost alternatives. The committee's statement in rejection does not address our compromise and is technically incorrect. While smoke alarms might be more sensitive than sprinklers when they are installed at the same spacing in the same room, a smoke alarm in a bedroom is not more sensitive than a sprinkler in a kitchen of the same dwelling unit. The sprinkler in the kitchen will react much more quickly than a smoke alarm in another compartment. Until such time as smoke alarms are installed in all compartments of dwelling units (and we doubt that smoke alarms will ever be installed in kitchens) waterflow alarms are still worth their tremendously low cost as proposed by this comment.
9 Victor, T. This comment should be accepted. The submitter provided various alternative means to provide a low cost waterflow alarm to meet the needs of the home owner and/or the AHJ. There are many components on a 13D system that are not required to be listed and it's not necessary that the waterflow alarm be. In the past the opponents of waterflow alarms have always cited the extra cost involved in having them, and this language substantially reduces that cost. Now the substantiation for not accepting them on all 13D systems is based on the difference in sensitivity between a sprinkler and a smoke detector in alerting occupants of a fire. This may be true in the room of fire origin if both life safety devices are present. However, there are many rooms in a house where the sprinkler could go off in a fire event, control or extinguish the fire, and no one would even know the sprinkler system activated and is flowing water. For additional life safety and to have an alarm any time water flows through the sprinkler system, this requirement makes logical and economic sense. 13D-41 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 26 : 4 Abstain: 0 : 1 7.6 (Log # 55 ) Benn, F. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-38 (Log #18). Grove, J. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-38 (Log #18). Johnson, G. Local water Flow alarms need to be on all fire sprinkler systems. Victor, T. This comment should be accepted. The submitter provided various alternative means to provide a low cost waterflow alarm to meet the needs of the home owner and/or the AHJ. There are many components on a 13D system that are not required to be listed and it's not necessary that the waterflow alarm be. In the past the opponents of waterflow alarms have always cited the extra cost involved in having them, and this language substantially reduces that cost. Now the substantiation for not accepting them on all 13D systems is based on the difference in sensitivity between a sprinkler and a smoke detector in alerting occupants of a fire. This may be true in the room of fire origin if both life safety devices are present. However, there are many rooms in a house where the sprinkler could go off in a fire event, control or extinguish the fire, and no one would even know the sprinkler system activated and is flowing water. For additional life safety and to have an alarm any time water flows through the sprinkler system, this requirement makes logical and economic sense. 13D-42 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 24 : 6 Abstain: 0 : 1 7.6.1 (Log # 19 ) Benn, F. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-38 (Log #18). Deegan, T. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-38 (Log #18). Grove, J. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-38 (Log #18). Schwab, P. The added cost of a flow switch is worth requiring them for notification of flow. In buildings with more than one dwelling unit, the possibility of earlier notification for occupants in other dwelling units is worth the minor additional cost.
10 Stanley, G. Fire sprinkler systems need a water flow alarm to help protect the homeowner in the event of a fire. This alarm would alert the immediate public to a fire event inside the home and increase life safety for a minimal cost. Victor, T. This comment should be accepted. If the technical committee won't accept waterflow alarms on all residential sprinkler systems, they should at least require them when more than one dwelling unit is involved. The difference in sensitivity between a sprinkler and smoke detector is irrelevant in this application. If a waterflow occurs in either unit, the occupants of both units should be notified. Affirmative with Comment Feid, J. Again, water flow alarms are necessary to alert building occupants, neighbors and owners that a sprinkler activated and water is flowing. It is irresponsible to design a fire sprinkler system without one. 13D-43 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.1.1.2.2 (Log # CC3 ) 13D-44 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.1.2 (Log # 64 ) 13D-45 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.1.2.1(2) (Log # 10 ) Deegan, T. This Comment should be rejected. Accepting this language would allow the use of smooth, flat, horizontal flows under beamed ceilings without any test data to support the change. Similar changes to language related to sloped ceilings were based on a test report that was available for review. I do not believe that extrapolation of the sloped ceiling test data is reasonable. 13D-46 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.1.3.1.2 (Log # 72 ) Haagensen, D. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-7 (Log #23). 13D-47 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.2.x (New) (Log # 65 )
Hoover, T. I would agree with the proponent. The objective for a 13D system (as a life safety system only) is different than a 13 system. I question the comment of the committee, "no evidence that the shadow area needs to be limited to 3 sq. ft". The question becomes what is the evidence in a residential fire sprinkler system that 15 sq ft will NOT impact the tenable conditions within a space. The concern is that we are impacting the life safety impact of the 13D system by (1) using the same criteria we use for standard sprinkler heads for residential life safety protection and (2) potentially reducing the survivability factor by permitting a fire to increase in size because of the increase in unwetted walls. The question becomes, is there evidence in residential sprinkler head testing that the 15 square feet is the appropriate number for residential application when considering shadowing. 13D-48 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.2.5.7 (Log # 41 ) 13D-49 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.2.5.7 (Log # 57 ) 13D-50 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.2.5.7 and A.8.2.5.7 (Log # 11 ) 13D-51 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.2.6.1 and Figure A.8.2.6.1 (Log # 17 ) Haagensen, D. The proposer and Committee have not provided substantiation for the use of a temperature chart for exposed aboveground piping that has traditionally been used for underground piping. The one day low mean temperature has traditionally not been used by the industry for the purposes of determining necessary antifreeze concentration - so we have virtually no experience using this chart for the proposed purpose. 13D-52 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.2.6.1 and Figure A.8.2.6.1 (New) (Log # 16 ) Haagensen, D. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-51 (Log #17). 13D-53 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.3.3.2.4, A.8.3.3.2.4, and A.8.3.3.3.2 (Log # 33 ) 11
12 Haagensen, D. Based on the proposed table, material properties of antifreeze are dependent on manufacturer and a generic table is misleading to the user of the document. Action should be correlated with SSI committee. Affirmative with Comment Johnson, G. If the pre-mix is listed, the specific gravity should not need to be tested. 13D-54 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.3.3.2.4, A.8.3.3.2.4, and A.8.3.3.3.2 (Log # 49 ) Haagensen, D. See my Explanation of on Comment 13D-53 (Log #33). 13D-55 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.4.4(4) (Log # 29 ) 13D-56 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.4.4(4) [new 10.4.4(b)] (Log # 13 ) 13D-57 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 Table 8.4.4(g) [new Table 10.4.4(g)] (Log # 14 ) 13D-58 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 26 : 4 Abstain: 0 : 1 8.4.10.2(3) [new 10.4.10.2(3)] (Log # 15 ) Brown, P. The existing Table 8.4.10.2 should remain. It is part of a systematic accumulation of pressure losses in the prescriptive method of calculation. The table results are conservative compared to the Hazen-Williams calculation approach. Additionally, this table is in harmony with residential Code P2904 as currently written.
13 Nickson, R. The deletion of the Table 10.4.10.2(b) is premature based only on the FPRF testing. In particular, the pressure increases for the for the 3/4" water meters in the new Table 10.4.4(g) over the existing Table 8.4.10.2(b) that will be deleted are almost doubled. The FPRF testing should be verified with the water meter manufacturers before such a drastic change is made since this change will have an adverse affect on the installation of residential sprinkler systems under the "Prescriptive Pipe Sizing Method" (Section 8.4.10). Orlowski, S. While the FPRF testing raises some questions over the pressure loss experienced by the 3/4 inch meters, it seems a bit rash to delete the values in table 10.4.10.2 (b) based on this one report. While the testing did show a pressure loss greater than what is indicated in the 2010 NFPA 13D, the report admittedly found that the pressure loss occurred in meters from a single manufacturer which may not be indicative of all water meters. The deletion of these values will have a significant impact on sprinkler system design and cost where designers choose to use the Prescriptive Pipe Sizing Method of Section 8.4.10. Rians, S. The existing Table 8.4.10.2 provides and is part of the systematic accumulation of pressure losses within the prescriptive method of calculation. The table results are conservative compared to the Hazen-Williams calculation approach. Additionally, this table is in harmony with residential Code P2904 as currently written. We should not make unnecessary selective changes that are in conflict with the established plumbing codes or we are asking for problems. Affirmative with Comment Deegan, T. While I agree with the change associated with the Comment, such changes, if not coordinated with the design information in IRC Section P2904 may eventually create confusion and application problems. 13D-59 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 Chapter 9 (New) (Log # 27 ) 13D-60 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 12.3.2 (Log # 22 ) 13D-61 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.5.2.1.2 (Log # 35 ) 13D-62 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.5.2.1.2 (Log # 51 ) 13D-63 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.6.2 (Log # 44 )
13D-64 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 Figure A.6.2 (Log # 61 ) 13D-65 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 Figure A.6.2 (Log # 73 ) 13D-66 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 Figure A.6.2(a), A.6.2(b), and A.6.2(c) (Log # 30 ) 13D-67 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 Figure A.6.2(a), (b), and (c) (Log # 7 ) 13D-68 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.7.6 (Log # 32 ) Sigler, M. All products used in a fire sprinkler system should be listed or labeled by a listing agency and shall comply with approved applicable standards. How else can it be assured that a product will function as intended if it has not gone through a certified testing process? 13D-69 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.8.2.5.7 (Log # 12 ) 13D-70 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.8.3.3.2.1 (Log # 63 ) 14
13D-71 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.8.3.3.2.1 (Log # 71 ) Haagensen, D. The Committee has underestimated the reliance of the industry on these temperature charts. 13D-72 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 29 : 1 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.8.3.3.2.3 (Log # 70 ) Haagensen, D. Based on the Committee statement, the committee should have accepted this comment. 13D-73 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.8.4.4(4) (Log # 62 ) 13D-74 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.8.4.4(4) (New) (Log # 45 ) 13D-75 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.9.1.1 (Log # CC4 ) 13D-76 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.12.2.1(5) (Log # 21 ) 13D-77 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.12.2.1(6) (New) (Log # 43 ) 15
16 13D-78 Eligible To Vote:31 Affirmative: 30 : 0 Abstain: 0 : 1 A.12.2.1(6) (New) (Log # 59 )