20-�

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 Report of the Committee on

Fire Pumps

John D. Jensen, ChairFire Protection Consultant, UT [SE]

Frank L. Moore, Secretary Moore Pump and Equipment, Incorporated, MS [IM]

(Alt. to Alan A. Dorini)

Thomas R. Boccetti, The DuPont Company, DE [U] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Pat D. Brock, Oklahoma State University, OK [SE] Hugh D. Castles, Entergy Services, Incorporated, LA [U] Rep. Edison Electric Institute Phillip A. Davis, Allianz Global Risks, IL [I] Alan A. Dorini, Gulfstream Pump & Equipment, Incorporated, FL [IM] George W. Flach, George W. Flach Consultant, Incorporated, LA [SE] Dana R. Haagensen, Massachusetts Office of the Fire Marshal, MA [E] Bill M. Harvey, Harvey & Associates, Incorporated, SC [IM] Rep. American Fire Sprinkler Association Hatem Ezzat Kheir, Kheir Group, Egypt [IM] Timothy S. Killion, Peerless Pump Company, IN [M] John R. Kovacik, Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated, IL [RT] R. T. Leicht, State of Delaware, DE [E] Rep. International Fire Marshals Association Stephen A. Mezsick, Eli Lilly and Company, IN [U] Rep. American Chemistry Council David S. Mowrer, HSB Professional Loss Control, TN [I] Gayle Pennel, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [I] Jeffrey R. Roberts, GE Insurance Solutions, MS [I] Matthew Roy, S.A. Armstrong, Limited, Canada [M] Richard Schneider, Joslyn Clark Controls, SC [M] Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Darrell A. Snyder, Patterson Pump Company, GA [M] Rep. Hydraulic Institute Hansford Stewart, ITT A-C Fire Pump Systems, IL [M] Terry L. Victor, Tyco/SimplexGrinnell, MD [IM] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler Association Lawrence J. Wenzel, Hughes Associates, Incorporated, CT [SE] John Whitney, Clarke Fire Protection Products, Incorporated, OH [M] Rep. Engine Manufacturers Association Garry W. Yaffe, US Department of Energy, SC [U]

Alternates

Kerry M. Bell, Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated, IL [RT] (Alt. to John R. Kovacik)Tim Fernholtz, Sterling Fluid Systems-Peerless Pump, CA [M] (Alt. to Timothy S. Killion)Brandon W. Frakes, GE Insurance Solutions, NC [I] (Alt. to Jeffrey R. Roberts)David B. Fuller, FM Global, MA [I] (Voting Alt. to FM Rep.) Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler Association, NY [IM] (Alt. to Terry L. Victor)

James J. Koral, General Motors, NY [U] (Alt. to Thomas R. Boccetti)Timothy J. LaRose, Hughes Associates, Incorporated, RI [SE] (Alt. to Lawrence J. Wenzel)Gary Lauer, ITT A-C Fire Pump Systems, IL [M] (Alt. to Hansford Stewart)Charles W. McKnight, Bechtel National Incorporated, WA [U] (Alt. to Garry W. Yaffe)J. Scott Mitchell, American Fire Sprinkler Association, TX [IM] (Alt. to Bill M. Harvey) Michael R. Moran, State of Delaware, DE [E] (Alt. to R. T. Leicht) Jay Reddy, R-B Pump, Incorporated, GA [M] (Alt. to Darrell A. Snyder) William F. Stelter, Master Control Systems, Incorporated, IL [M] (Alt. to Richard Schneider) David M. Whitfield, S-P-D Incorporated, IL [M] (Voting Alt. to IFPA Rep.) Shay Pei Wu, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, MD [I] (Alt. to Gayle Pennel)

Nonvoting

Edward D. Leedy, Naperville, IL (Member Emeritus) James W. Nolan, James W. Nolan Company, IL

Staff Liaison: David R. Hague

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the selection and installation of stationary pumps supplying water or special additives including but not limited to foam concentrates for private fire protection, including suction piping, valves and auxiliary equipment, electric drive and control equipment, and internal combustion engine drive and control equipment.

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.

This portion of the Technical Committee Report of the Committee on Fire Pumps is presented for adoption.

This Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Fire Pumps, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, 2003 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 2006 June Meeting.

This Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the

Technical Committee on Fire Pumps, which consists of 27 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

20-2

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 ____________________________________________________________20-� Log #CC3 Final Action: Accept(Entire Document) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Fire Pumps Comment on Proposal No: 20-�83Recommendation: Modify the following sections: 3.3 General Definitions. 3.3.2 (NEW) Fire Pump Alarm. A supervisory signal indicating an abnormal condition requiring immediate attention. 3.3.35* Signal. An indicator of status. A.3.3.35 A response to signals is expected within two hours. 5.14.9* Devices in Suction Piping. (3) Suitable devices shall be permitted to be installed in the suction supply piping or stored water supply and arranged to activate a n alarm signal if the pump suction pressure or water level falls below a predetermined minimum. 5.23* Alarms. Other Signals. When required by other sections of this standard, alarms signals shall call attention to improper conditions in the fire pump equipment. A.5.23 In addition to those conditions that require alarm signals for pump controllers and engines, there are other conditions for which such alarms signals might be recommended, depending upon local conditions. Some of these supervisory alarm conditions are as follows: (�) Low pump room temperature (2) Relief valve discharge (3) Flowmeter left on, bypassing the pump (4) Water level in suction supply below normal (5) Water level in suction supply near depletion (6) Diesel fuel supply below normal (reference Proposal 20-�67) (7) Steam pressure below normal Such additional alarms signals can be incorporated into the trouble alarms signals already provided on the controller, or they can be independent. 10.1.1.2 Accessory devices, including Fire Pump alarm monitoring and signaling means, are included where necessary to ensure the minimum performance of the aforementioned equipment. 10.4.5.6.2* Single Phase. A.10.4.5.6.2 The alarms signal should incorporate local visible indication and contacts for remote indication. The alarms signal can be incorporated as part of the power available indication and loss of phase signal [see 10.4.6.1 and 10.4.7.2(B)]. 10.4.5.6.2.1 Sensors shall be permitted to prevent a three-phase motor from starting under single-phase condition. 10.4.5.6.2.2 Such sensors shall not cause disconnection of the motor if it is running at the time of single-phase occurrence. 10.4.5.6.2.3 Such sensors shall be monitored to provide a local visible alarms signal in the event of malfunction of the sensors. 10.4.6* Alarm and Signal Devices on Controller. A.10.4.6 The pilot lamp for alarm and signal service should have operating voltage less than the rated voltage of the lamp to ensure long operating life. When necessary, a suitable resistor or potential transformer should be used to reduce the voltage for operating the lamp. 10.4.7* Fire Pump Alarm and Signal Devices Remote from Controller. A.10.4.7 Where unusual conditions exist whereby pump operation is not certain, a “failed-to-operate” Fire Pump alarm is recommended. In order to supervise the power source for the Fire Pump alarm circuit, the controller can be arranged to start upon failure of the supervised alarm circuit power. 10.4.7.1 Where the pump room is not constantly attended, audible or visible alarms signals powered by a source not exceeding �25 V shall be provided at a point of constant attendance. 10.4.7.2 These Fire Pump alarms and signals shall indicate the information in �0.4.7.2(A) through �0.4.7.2(D). (A) Pump or Motor Running. The alarm signal shall actuate whenever the controller has operated into a motor-running condition. This alarm signal circuit shall be energized by a separate reliable supervised power source or from the pump motor power, reduced to not more than �25 V. (B) Loss of Phase. (�) The Fire Pump alarm shall actuate whenever The loss of any phase at the line terminals of the motor contactor shall be monitored is lost. (2) All phases shall be monitored. Such monitoring shall detect loss of phase whether the motor is running or at rest. (3) When power is supplied from multiple power sources, monitoring of each power source for phase loss shall be permitted at any point electrically upstream of the line terminals of the contactor, provided all sources are monitored. (C) Phase Reversal. (See 10.4.6.2.) This Fire Pump alarm circuit shall be energized by a separate reliable supervised power source or from the pump motor power, reduced to not more than �25 V. The Fire Pump alarm shall actuate whenever the 3-phase power at the line terminals of the motor contactor is reversed.

(D) Controller Connected to Alternate Source. Where two sources of power are supplied to meet the requirements of 9.2.4, this alarm circuit signal shall indicate whenever the alternate source is the source supplying power to the controller. This alarm signal circuit shall be energized by a separate reliable, supervised power source, reduced to not more than �25 V. 10.4.8 Controller Alarm Contacts for Remote Indication. Controllers shall be equipped with contacts (open or closed) to operate circuits for the conditions in �0.4.7.2(A) through �0.4.7.2(C) and when a controller is equipped with a transfer switch in accordance with �0.4.7.2(D). 10.6.6 Alarm and Signal Devices Indicators on Controller. 10.6.6.1 Specifications for controllers rated in excess of 600 V differ from those in �0.4.6. 10.6.6.2 A visible indicator shall be provided to indicate that power is available. 10.6.6.3 The current supply for the visible indicator shall come from the secondary of the control circuit transformer through resistors, if found necessary, or from a small-capacity stepdown transformer, which shall reduce the control transformer secondary voltage to that required for the visible indicator. 10.6.6.4 If the visible indicator is a pilot lamp, it shall be accessible for replacement. 12.1.2 Accessory devices, such as Fire Pump alarm monitoring and signaling means, are included where necessary to ensure minimum performance of the aforementioned equipment. 12.4.1 Alarm and Signal Devices Indicators on Controller. 12.4.1.1 All visible indicators alarms shall be plainly visible. 12.4.1.2* Visible indication shall be provided to indicate that the controller is in the automatic position. If the visible indicator is a pilot lamp, it shall be accessible for replacement. A.12.4.1.2 It is recommended that the pilot lamp for alarm and signal service have operating voltage less than the rated voltage of the lamp to ensure long operating life. When necessary, a suitable resistor should be used to reduce the voltage for operating the lamp. 12.4.1.3 Separate visible indicators and a common audible Fire Pump alarm capable of being heard while the engine is running and operable in all positions of the main switch except the off position shall be provided to immediately indicate trouble caused by the following conditions: (�) Critically low oil pressure in the lubrication system. The controller shall provide means for testing the position of the pressure switch contacts without causing trouble Fire Pump alarms. (2) High engine jacket coolant temperature. (3) Failure of engine to start automatically. (4) Shutdown from overspeed. 12.4.1.4 Separate visible indicators and a common audible signal capable of being heard while the engine is running and operable in all positions of the main switch except the off position shall be provided to immediately indicate the following conditions: (�) Battery failure or missing battery. Each controller shall be provided with a separate visible indicator for each battery. (2) Battery charger failure. Each controller shall be provided with a separate visible indicator for battery charger failure and shall not require the audible alarm signal for battery charger failure. (3) Low air or hydraulic pressure. Where air or hydraulic starting is provided (see 11.2.5 and 11.2.5.4), each pressure tank shall provide to the controller separate visible indicators to indicate low pressure. (4) System overpressure, for engines equipped with pressure limiting controls, to actuate at ��5 percent of total rated head (pressure). (5) ECM selector switch in alternate ECM position (for engines with ECM controls only). (6) Fuel injection malfunction (for engines with ECM only). (7) Low fuel level. Alarm Signal at two-thirds tank capacity. [NOTE: Renumber following text accordingly for new section 12.4.1.4 above.] 12.4.1.4 No audible alarm signal silencing switch, other than the controller main switch, shall be permitted for the conditions reflected alarms required in �2.4.�.3 and 12.4.1.4. Exception: A separate alarm silence switch shall be used for the low fuel level indication in 12.4.1.4 (7). 12.4.2 Alarm and Signal Devices Remote from Controller. 12.4.2.1 Where the pump room is not constantly attended, audible or visible alarms and signals powered by a source other than the engine starting batteries and not exceeding �25 V shall be provided at a point of constant attendance. 12.4.2.2 These alarms The remote panel shall indicate the following: (�) The engine is running (separate signal). (2) The controller main switch has been turned to the off or manual position (separate signal). (3)* Trouble on the controller or engine (separate or common signals). (See 12.4.1.4, and 12.4.1.5 ) A.12.4.2.2(3) The following trouble signals should be monitored remotely from the controller: (�) A common signal can be used for the following trouble indications: the items in �2.4.�.4(�) through �2.4.�.4 (7) and loss of output of battery charger on the load side of the dc overcurrent protective device.

20-3

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 (2) If there is no other way to supervise loss of power, the controller can be equipped with a power failure circuit, which should be time delayed to start the engine upon loss of current output of the battery charger. 12.4.3 Controller Alarm Contacts for Remote Indication. Controllers shall be equipped with open or closed contacts to operate circuits for the conditions covered in �2.4.2. 12.5.4 Starting Equipment Arrangement. The requirements for starting equipment arrangement shall be as follows: (4) In the event that the engine does not start after completion of its attempt-to-start cycle, the controller shall stop all further cranking and operate a visible indicator and audible Fire Pump alarm on the controller. 12.5.5.2* Automatic Shutdown After Automatic Start. The requirements for automatic shutdown after automatic start shall be as follows: (2) When the engine overspeed shutdown device operates, the controller shall remove power from the engine running devices, prevent further cranking, energize the overspeed Fire Pump alarm, and lock out until manually reset. 12.6 Air-Starting Engine Controllers. 12.6.7 Alarm and Signal Indicators Devices on Controller. 12.6.7.1 A visible indicator(s) shall be provided to indicate that the controller is in the automatic position. 12.6.7.2 The visible indicator shall be accessible for replacement. 12.6.7.3 Separate visible indicators and a common audible Fire Pump alarms shall be provided to indicate trouble caused by the following conditions: (�) Critically low oil pressure in the lubrication system. The controller shall provide means for testing the position of the pressure switch contacts without causing trouble Fire Pump alarms. (2) High engine jacket coolant temperature. (3) Failure of engine to start automatically. (4) Shutdown from overspeed. 12.6.7.4 Separate visible indicators and a common audible signal shall be provided to indicate trouble caused by the following conditions : (�) Low air pressure. The air supply container shall be provided with a separate visible indicator to indicate low air pressure. (2) Low fuel level. Alarm Signal at two-thirds tank capacity. [NOTE: Renumber following text accordingly for new section 12.6.7.4 above.] 12.6.7.5 No audible alarm signal silencing switch or valve, other than the controller main switch or valve, shall be permitted for the conditions reflected alarms in �2.6.7.3. 12.6.7.6 Additional Fire Pump Alarms and signals. 12.6.7.6.1 Where audible alarms signals for the additional conditions listed in A.5.23 are incorporated with the engine Fire Pump alarms specified in �2.6.7.3, a silencing switch or valve for the additional A.5.23 audible alarms signals shall be provided at the controller. 12.6.7.6.2 The circuit shall be arranged so that the audible alarm signal will be activated if the silencing switch or valve is in the silent position when the supervised conditions are normal. 12.6.8 Alarms for Remote Indication. Controllers shall be equipped to operate circuits for remote indication of the conditions covered in �2.4.�.3, 12.4.1.4, and �2.4.2.2. 12.6.15 Starting Equipment Arrangement. The requirements for starting equipment arrangement shall be as follows: (2) In the event that the engine does not start after completion of its attempt-to-start cycle, the controller shall stop all further cranking and operate the audible and visible Fire Pump alarms. 14.2.11 Simulated Conditions. Both local and remote signals and Fire Pump alarm conditions shall be simulated to demonstrate satisfactory operation. 14.2.13* Electronic Fuel Management (ECM). For engines with electronic fuel management (ECM) control systems, a function test of both the primary and alternate ECM shall be conducted. A.14.2.13 To verify the operation of the alternate ECM, with the motor stopped, move the ECM selector switch to the alternate ECM position. Repositioning of this should cause an alarm a signal on the fire pump controller. Start the engine; it should operate normally with all functions. Shut engine down, switch back to the primary ECM, and restart the engine briefly to verify that correct switchback has been accomplished. To verify the operation of the redundant sensor, with the engine running, disconnect the wires from the primary sensor. There should be no change in the engine operation. Reconnect the wires to the sensor. Next, disconnect the wires from the redundant sensor. There should be no change in the engine operation. Reconnect the wires to the sensor. Repeat this process for all primary and redundant sensors on the engines. Note: If desired, the disconnecting and reconnecting of wires to the sensors can be done while the engine is not running, then starting the engine after each disconnection and reconnection of the wires to verify engine operation. 14.3.2 The manual shall contain the following: (�) A detailed explanation of the operation of the component (2) Instructions for routine maintenance (3) Detailed instructions concerning repairs (4) Parts list and parts identification

(5) Schematic electrical drawings of controller, transfer switch, and Fire Pump control alarm panels Substantiation: There was no agreement with regards to the terms alarm and signal. This comment addresses the intent of numerous comments that were made relating to these terms.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.Explanation of Negative: HAAGENSEN, D.: The term ‘alarm signal’ is traditionally reserved for a signal that is generated as a result of a fire, and requires that the fire department respond in emergency mode. The term ‘fire pump alarm’ is confusing and such signals will erroneously be connected to fire alarm panels as an ‘alarm signal’. No one participating in the Task Group thought that any fire pump controller signal should be treated as a fire alarm signal. I am worried that firefighters responding to or returning from a ‘fire pump alarm’ signal could suffer needless casualties.Comment on Affirmative: CASTLES, H.: I had a problem with the substantiation statement specifically “no agreement” part. My comment is to revise the substantiation statement for Comment 20-� as follows: Although there was discussion regarding the use of the term “signal”, agreement was achieved. There were various conflicting positions on the use of the term “alarm” making consensus difficult. This comment addresses the intent of numerous comments that were made relating to these terms. WENZEL, L.: I understand that the task group did a great deal of work gyrating the intent of the proposal and the resulting comment. I agree that this proposal/comment is a step in the right direction, but feel that more work needs to be done. As a member of the Technical Correlating Committee on Signaling Systems for the Protection of Life and Property (NFPA 72), I intend to bring the definition of “Alarm” to that committee, for clarification within that document, as a foundation for standardization of the term. It will still be confusing to the user of both documents, and I feel that we have moved some of the way to correct the situation, but there has to be better consistency, in my opinion.

____________________________________________________________20-2 Log #�� Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(2.3.5) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: John D. Jensen, Fire Protection ConsultantComment on Proposal No: 20-2Recommendation: Reconsider inclusion of this design reference in the standard by Creating a new Annex D that includes the complete text of the document. A reference should be included in Chapter 9 to Annex A as 9.�.3* and then to the new Annex D which would be the NEMA Publication ICS�4-200�`Substantiation: This document is an important design document in sizing and arranging of the electrical system that feeds the fire pump installation and should be included to provide design guidance for the engineers designing the electrical system required by electric motor driven fire pumpsCommittee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Propose a new Section �0.�.3 to read as follows: 10.1.3 Design. 10.1.3.1* All electrical control equipment design shall comply with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Article 695, and other applicable documents. A.10.1.3.1 All electrical control equipment design should also follow the guidelines within NEMA Publication ICS�4 – 200�. Committee Statement: Meets the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.Explanation of Negative: KHEIR, H.: I think the intent of the submitter is to include the NEMA publication ICS�4-200� as new Annex D, which I think will be valuable information, especially for international user. Also I think we need to change “ICS �4-200�” to ICS �4-2004”, as 2004 is the one existing now.

____________________________________________________________20-3 Log #8 Final Action: Reject(Chapter 3 Definitions (GOT)) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Thomas P. Hammerberg, Bruce Fraser, Shane M. Clary, Automatic Fire Alarm AssociationComment on Proposal No: 20-3Recommendation: Accept in Part, Proposal 20-3. Accept the preferred and secondary definitions for “Signal.Substantiation: The Technical Committee appears to have rejected Proposal 20-3 in total, due to their feelings regarding the definition for

20-4

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 “Relief Valve.” No negative votes or statements were directed towards “Signal.”Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Task Group Recommendation: Task group does not feel that a secondary definition is required.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-4 Log #�2 Final Action: Reject(Chapter 3) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: John D. Jensen, Fire Protection ConsultantComment on Proposal No: 20-3Recommendation: Reconsider the definitions and use the secondary definition for relief valves from the NFPA glossary of terms along with the definitions for Alarm and Signal.Substantiation: There has been a need for these terms to be defined in NFPA 20 to eliminate the confusion. While those outside of the day to day fire protection design field may have other preferred definitions this is the fire protection field and the terms should reflect the common language that is used in this field.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Task Group Recommendation: Task group does not feel that a secondary definition is required.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-5 Log #CC� Final Action: Accept(3.3.10 Fault Tolerant External Control Circuit, 3.3.27 On-Site Power Production Facility, 3.3.28 On-Site Standby Generator) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Fire Pumps Comment on Proposal No: 20-3Recommendation: Revise definitions to coordinate with NFPA 70 - 2005 as follows: 3.3.�0 Fault Tolerant External Control Circuit. Those control circuits either entering and/ or leaving the fire pump controller enclosure, which if broken, disconnected, or shorted will not prevent the controller from starting the fire pump from all other internal or external means and may cause the controller to start the pump under these conditions. 3.3.27 On-Site Power Production Facility. A power production facility that is on site, that is tThe normal supply of electric power for the site, and that is expected to be constantly producing power. 3.3.28 On-Site Standby Generator. A facility producing electric power generator that is on site and that serves as an the alternate supply of electrical power. It differs from an on-site power production facility in that it is not constantly producing power. Substantiation: Coordinates definitions with Article 695 of the NEC.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-6 Log #3 Final Action: Accept(5.7.3) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Richard “Dick” Schneider, Joslyn Clark Controls, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 20-20Recommendation: Reference in 5.7.3.2 should be 5.7.3.� instead of 5.7.4.�.Substantiation: 8.5.3 pertains to common drivers for positive displacement pumps. 5.7.3.� pertains to dedicated drivers. 5.7.4.� pertains to maximum pressure for centrifugal pumps.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-7 Log #22 Final Action: Reject(5.12.1.1.4) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: David Stringfield, University of MinnesotaComment on Proposal No: 20-32Recommendation: Delete new text.Substantiation: I would think fire pump room housekeeping is a NFPA � issue. Why couldn’t a boiler that heats the pump room and tank be acceptable, especially if it is electric?Committee Meeting Action: Reject

Committee Statement: Committee feels this is a fire pump issue. In addition NFPA 20 is applied independently of NFPA � in many circumstances. Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-8 Log #39 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.12.4.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development CommitteeComment on Proposal No: 20-34Recommendation: Revise to read: 5.�2.4.� Emergency lighting shall be provided by fixed or portable battery-operated lights, including flashlights. Substantiation: Emergency lights need to be provided. Flashlights or other portable means of illumination may not be present when the power goes out as someone may have taken them or the batteries are dead. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 20-34.Committee Statement: Committee action at ROP meets the intent of this comment.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-9 Log #36 Final Action: Reject(5.13.1.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationComment on Proposal No: 20-35Recommendation: Revise text as follows: 5.�3.�.� Where pipe is installed aboveground, the pipe shall be one of the following: a) Steel b) Listed for fire protection service and installed in accordance with NFPA 24 Chapter �2 Aboveground Pipe and Fittings c) Connections to underground suction and underground discharge pipe shall be permitted.”Substantiation: The committee’s statement was not completely responsive to the proposal. One of the big problems in pump houses and pump rooms is the transition piece from the underground to the steel. The piece needs to be above the pump room/house floor for the connection to be made, but the lined ductile iron (or other underground material) is then “aboveground” and many AHJ’s want this short piece of pipe to be buried or covered since NFPA 20 requires all aboveground pipe to be steel. NFPA 24 covers the use of aboveground mains with a whole chapter. If this equipment is acceptable to be used for a fire main, why is it not acceptable to be used as suction pipe?Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The substantiation submitted is inaccurate. Current wording of 5.�3.�.� already allows for the above ground connection to underground suction and underground discharge piping and reflects the committee’s intention. Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-�0 Log #� Final Action: Reject(5.15.10) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Standpipes Comment on Proposal No: 20-�82Recommendation: Revise Section 5.�5.�0 to read: 5.�5.�0 No pPressure regulating devices control valves shall be installed in the discharge pipe except as permitted in this accordance with the appropriate system installation standard. Substantiation: Pressure control valves may be needed in some system configurations. This comment will coordinate the application for pressure control valves between NFPA �4, 20 and 25.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on 20-�� (Log #40).Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.Explanation of Negative: HAAGENSEN, D.: If other NFPA fire protection system installation standards permit the installation of a master pressure-regulating device, the installation would be made more reliable by permitting the device to be located in the discharge of the fire pump so that the pressure-regulating device can be exercised and tested during routine fire pump testing.

20-5

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 ____________________________________________________________20-�� Log #40 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.15.10) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationComment on Proposal No: 20-39Recommendation: Accept proposal 20-39.Substantiation: No justification has even been given by the committee that substantiates any prohibition against pressure reducing valves. Other fire protection committees are convinced of the reliability and safety of these valves. For the committee to know that they are being used in other positions and then prohibit them in the discharge piping does not make sense. If they are going to be installed, the best location is in the discharge piping so that they will be exercised each time the pump is flow-tested and so that the pump test header can be used to also test the pressure reducing valve. If the valve is installed downstream of the discharge piping, it will need some additional test header to be tested and maintained correctly. This just adds needless cost to the system. During committee discussion, the concern seemed to be over single pressure reducing valves. Our proposal would not have allowed a single pressure reducing valve. It would only have allowed two pressure reducing valves in parallel, which would have increased reliability over the single valve installation. A Task Group of several NFPA committees met recently to discuss the use of pressure reducing valves throughout the NFPA standards. The conclusion of this task group was that pressure reducing valves are reliable and can be used safely on fire protection systems. After this Task Group meeting, the NFPA Standpipe committee met and discussed the use of master pressure reducing valves on standpipe systems to control large zones. This committee concluded that mast pressure reducing devices could be used, but wanted to take care of the situation where failure of the device in an open position might occur. They required two devices to be installed in series to prevent this from becoming a problem. The NFPA 20 committee could do something similar. To continue to prohibit the use of a listed and reliable device without any technical substantiation is a restraint of trade and may become a significant legal problem for the NFPA.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add new text to read: A.5.7.4.2 It is not the intent to restrict the use of pressure reducing valves down stream of the discharge isolation valve for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 5.7.4. Committee Statement: The reliability of these pressure reducing valves in fire protection application has not been established and design options are available to avoid the use of these valves. If installed as a “master” pressure reducing valve downstream of the fire pump, the valve represents a single point of failure that could impair the entire system. Committee members have experienced several failures of pilot operated valves. While the current experience can not be analyzed statistically, it does point out the need to establish the reliability of the valves before encouraging their use. It may be theoretically possible to improve reliability by using multiple pressure reducing valves, however, the valves may fail either open or closed. Valves in parallel are required to reduce the possibility of depriving the fire protection system of water in case a valve failed shut. However installing valves in parallel increases the possibility of over pressurizing the system from a valve failing open. Valves in series are required to reduce the possibility of over pressurizing the system if a valve failed open. However installing valves in series increases the possibility of depriving the fire protection system of water in case a valve failed shut. In addition failure of multiple valves cannot be statistically treated as independent events, because the valves are in a similar environment and the most likely causes of failure are environmentally related. Pressure reducing valves also have a limited operating flow range, which results in the need to install smaller valve(s) in parallel with the main pressure reducing valve. Low flow rates in larger valves may result in wide swings in discharge pressure. A manual bypass could be installed to allow bypassing the pressure reducing valve in the event the valve failed closed, however, this is likely to result in over-pressurization. Emergency manual operation of a normally closed bypass in the event the pressure reducing valve failed closed during a fire may be acceptable if it results in a nominal over- pressurization, however, a catastrophic failure is likely if it results in a severe over-pressurization. A severe over-pressurization is likely if the situation involves pressure reducing valves for multiple vertical zones supplied from a single pump. If used in a vertical zone application, over-pressurization and failure in a low zone could deprive a higher zone of water. Unlike pressure reducing valves used on individual hose valves or floors whose failure still allows use of hose valves from other floors, the failure of a “master” pressure reducing valve impairs the entire system.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 24 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

Explanation of Negative: KHEIR, H.: I need to ask again the committee members to reconsider moving from APR to Reject, the technical committee of NFPA 20 spent years, and years rejecting to include this type of valves in the code. This statement was clear. Actually till �996 edition, NFPA included in the formal interpretation attachment F.I. 83-6A, the technical committee was clear not to accept the pressure regulating valve, also it was clear that the committee against including this in the code section, and rejected 20-�0, Log #�. In Log #40, the Substantiation was clear about the problem we feel about this kind of valves, I clearly indicated actual field problems, which many came with more information, and agreement about the operation of the fire pumps, with direct effect on jockey pump, with change of failure during fire case, we not even indicated how to solve the problems will result of this type of valve. To say the Annex is not code, so there is no responsibility for use, but we need to consider that it is still explanatory material from the committee, and in international market it can be bad use, we not speaking here about the legalities, but about risk life, even NFPA 24, still not in full acceptance of pressure regulating valve (please refer to 5.3.�, No pressure-regulating valve shall be used in the water supply, except by special permission of the authority having jurisdiction.) In our discussion I indicated distance which I tested in the field many times to reduce the effect of such valve on the operation of fire pumps, this was rejected, without indication or field tests which show the safe distance. I hope the submitter will provide field reports indicating the right distance for fitting the pressure regulating valve, before we even consider putting this statement as Annex material. Members of the technical committee need to understand that international users, consultants, and authorities look for NFPA document with respect, both as a code, and Annex materials. ROY, M.: Recommend that the Committee Reject the Comment. Substantiation: The Fire Pump Technical Committee’s position on the reliability of pressure reducing valves is based on prior experience in application of these valves in “standby” or “intermittent” service. My experience with these valves is that their reliability is subject to many site-specific conditions such as water quality, maintenance procedures, valve design, and proper application (arrangement and setting). Further evidence in fire protection applications of “master” pressure reducing valves suggests that these valves do fail with some frequency when applied in standpipe systems. The results of such application have been multimillion dollar property losses and the loss of life. The One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia and First Interstate Bank Tower fire in Los Angeles are two such cases. These failures are documented in both NFPA and FEMA reports which should be reviewed by the submitter. As a final note on evidence and experience, the submitter of the original proposal provided no experimental evidence of reliability of these valves in this application. In order to make important changes to fire protection codes and standards, the burden of evidence is on the submitter, not on the committee reviewing the proposals to provide otherwise. Regarding the restraint of trade comment, all committee members must consider commercial issues and fair business practices in regulating or restricting the use of products. The restriction or prohibition of pressure reducing valves on standpipe systems is one such example where the committee must decide what the trade offs are between the cost of a fire protection system and the resulting property damage and loss of life. Fire protection is a business, but it is most importantly a duty and obligation to the public. I cannot in good conscience support compromising public safety and the safety of those in the fire services by supporting the committee action to recognize the application of master pressure reducing valves.Comment on Affirmative: HAAGENSEN, D.: It is interesting to note that the Committee voted to Accept in Principal. This would mean that the recommendation of Proposal 20-39 has been accepted, in addition to the Committee adding the language that appears in the Committee Action of this Comment. If only the text that appears in the Committee Action of this Comment is added, and not that in the recommendation of Proposal 20-39, the Committee would have Rejected this Comment to signal that it entirely disagrees with the intent of the submitter. ISMAN, K.: With respect to Comment 20-��, we agree with the committee’s action, but are concerned with the committee statement, which at times is in conflict with the committee action. Ultimately, we believe that if the committee is going to allow pressure reducing devices in the supply pipe to a fire protection system, they should also allow them in the discharge piping of the pump so that they can be tested. The Fire Pump Committee is allowing a device to be installed in a position where it is least likely to be tested and prohibiting the device from being installed in the position where it is most likely to be tested. Since the performance is the same except for the testing implications, we think the committee is actually decreasing the reliability of the pump installation.

20-6

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 ____________________________________________________________20-�2 Log #24 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.23) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: David Stringfield, University of MinnesotaComment on Proposal No: 20-46Recommendation: Change committee action to accept.Substantiation: I agree that the term “alarms” is incorrect. By rejecting Proposal 20-�83, the committee did not answer the proposal. The standard should acknowledge it takes a fire alarm system or remote annunciator to get fire pump issues to a constantly attended location.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Comment 20-� ( Log #CC3).Committee Statement: See Committee Comment 20-� ( Log #CC3).Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.Explanation of Negative: HAAGENSEN, D.: See my Explanation of Negative on Comment 20-�

____________________________________________________________20-�3 Log #5 Final Action: Accept in Principle(5.29.3.1.1, 5.29.3.1.2, 5.26.4.2 and 5.26.4.3) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Gayle Pennel, Schirmer Engineering CorporationComment on Proposal No: 20-49Recommendation: Modify 5.29.3.�.�, 5.29.3.�.2, 5.26.4.2 and 5.26.4.3 as follows: 5.29.3.�.� Install dual automatic refill lines, each capable of refilling the tank at a minimum rate of �50 percent of the fire pump(s) capacity shall be provided. 5.29.3.�.2 If available supplies do not permit refilling the tank at a minimum rate of �50 percent of the rated pump capacity, each refill lines shall be capable of refilling the tank at a rate that meets or exceeds ��0 percent of the maximum fire protection system design flow and pressure requirements. 5.29.3.�.2.3 A manual tank fill bypass designed for and capable of refilling the tank at a minimum rate of �50 percent of the fire pump(s) capacity shall be provided. 5.29.3.�.4 If available supplies do not permit refilling the tank at a minimum rate of �50 percent of the rated pump capacity, the manual fill bypass shall be capable of refilling the tank at a rate that meets or exceeds ��0 percent of the maximum fire protection system design flow and pressure requirements. 5.26.4.2 Where a backflow prevention device is installed, the final arrangement shall provide effective pump performance with a minimum suction pressure of 0 bar (0 psi) at the gauge at �50 percent of rated capacity. 5.26.4.3 If available suction supplies do not permit the flowing of �50 percent of rated pump capacity, the final arrangement of the backflow prevention device shall provide effective pump performance with a minimum suction pressure of 0 bar (0 psi) at the gauge at the maximum allowable discharge. The discharge shall exceed the fire protection system design flow and pressure requirements. 5.26.4.3.4 Determination of effective pump performance shall be documented by engineering calculations and tests.Substantiation: The changes provide consistency with revised �4.2.7.2.2 which allows the fire pump to operate at less than �50 percent of rated pump capacity if available suction supplies are adequate for the system demand but cannot supply �50 percent of rated pump capacity.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read: 5.29.3.�.� Install dual automatic refill lines, each capable of refilling the tank at a minimum rate of �50% of the fire pump(s) rated capacity shall be provided. 5.29.3.�.2 If available supplies do not permit refilling the tank at a minimum rate of �50 percent of the rated pump capacity each refill line shall be capable of refilling the tank at a rate that meets or exceeds ��0% of the maximum fire protection system design flow. 5.29.3.�.23 A manual tank fill bypass designed for and capable of refilling the tank at a minimum rate of �50% of the fire pump(s) capacity shall be provided. 5.29.3.�.4 If available supplies do not permit refilling the tank at a minimum rate of �50% of the rated pump capacity the manual fill bypass shall be capable of refilling the tank at a rate that meets or exceeds ��0 percent of the maximum fire protection system design flow. 5.26.4.2 Where a backflow prevention device is installed, the final arrangement shall provide effective pump performance with a minimum suction pressure of 0 bar (0 psi) at the gauge at �50 percent of rated capacity. 5.26.4.3 If available suction supplies do not permit the flowing of �50 percent of rated pump capacity, the final arrangement of the backflow prevention device shall provide effective pump performance with a minimum suction pressure of 0 bar (0 psi) at the gauge at the maximum allowable discharge. The discharge shall exceed the fire protection system design flow.

5.26.4. 3 4 Determination of effective pump performance shall be documented by engineering calculations and tests.Committee Statement: Meets the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.Explanation of Negative: HAAGENSEN, D.: This establishes a double standard within NFPA 20, whereby the fire protection system designer can design for suctions supplying less than the �50 percent rated capacity of the fire pump through the use of an inherently less reliable break tank arrangement. The standard does not currently permit the design of the fire pump suction to consider less than �50 percent pump rated capacity.

____________________________________________________________20-�4 Log #�4 Final Action: Reject(6.3.4, 6.3.4.3) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Frank L. Moore, Moore Pump and Equipment, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 20-50Recommendation: Reinsert entire section as printed in 2003 NFPA 20.Substantiation: Serviceability was a major issue on allowing inline pumps into the �996 NFPA 20. Inline strainers was the option the committee elected to use. This proposal does not address the lifting required for large inline pumps.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Current experience indicates that accessing the impeller on in-line pumps is less difficult than horizontal split case pumps and can be done without disconnecting the electrical connection. Under these circumstances the concern for preventing small objects from entering the impeller is overridden by the concern over the strainer restricting the water supply to the fire pump.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.Explanation of Negative: DORINI, A.: I agree that service is a problem on large in-line fire pumps. The committee agreed when this was added to the document. Alternate methods given in committee action are fine but I do not think the primary method of serviceability for these type pumps, the strainer should be taken out. Removing the text from the document no longer allows the use of the strainer. It is important and should remain in the document.

____________________________________________________________20-�5 Log #2 Final Action: Reject(8.4.5) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: James Copeland, Federal Express Corp.Comment on Proposal No: 20-�82Recommendation: Add new text as follows: Fuel tanks supplied by pumps shall be provided with an overflow line, a high-level alarm, and a high-level automatic shutoff. The overflow line shall be continuous piping, without valves or traps, to the source tank or collection system. The capacity of the overflow line shall exceed the delivery capacity of the supply lines to the fuel tank.Substantiation: The NFPA 20 (�998) code does not incorporate NPFA 37 5-5.2.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The referenced Proposal 20-�82 is on the subject of units of measure. It appears this Comment is not applicable to NFPA 20 or new businessNumber Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-�6 Log #34 Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: James S. Nasby, Master Control Systems, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 20-69Recommendation: Consider adding further power supply requirements to main body or to Appendix (Annex A): Such as: 9.�.5 Power Source Capacity. [New clauses (9.�.5 thru 9.5.�.5)] 9.�.5.� The power supply shall have adequate capacity to start and run the fire pump on a continuous basis. 9.�.5.2 The Power supply shall comply with Section 9.4. 9.�.5.3 The back-up power supply shall comply with 9.�.5.� and 9.�.5.2. 9.5.�.4 Where more than one source of power is used to supply normal power, each shall comply with 9.�.5.� and 9.�.5.2. 9.5.�.5 Where more than one source of power is used to supply back-up power, each shall comply with 9.�.5.� and 9.�.5.2.Substantiation: Field personnel frequently look for additional guidance regarding suitable fire pump power supplies.

20-7

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add new sections as follows: 9.�.5 All power supplies shall have the capacity to run the fire pump on a continuous basis. 9.�.6 All power supplies shall comply with the voltage drop requirements of Section 9.4. Committee Statement: Meets the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-�7 Log #35 Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: James S. Nasby, Master Control Systems, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 20-69Recommendation: Consider adding submitter’s (Dana Haagensen) power quality material from proposed clauses 9.3.� thru 9.4 as main body or to Appendix (Annex A). Reword (should –vs- shall) and renumber clauses as needed. A re-write as appendix material as follows: A.9.3.2 Other Sources. Except for an arrangement described in 9.3.3 or 9.3.4, at least one back-up source of power may be required when one or more of the following conditions of the normal source of power exists: (�) The source power plant has experienced any shut downs of longer than 4 continuous hours in the year prior to plan submittal. Note that NFPA 25 begins to require special undertakings (i.e. fire watches) when a water-based fire protection system is taken out of service for longer than 4 hours. If the normal source power plant has been intentionally shut down for longer than 4 hours in the past, it is reasonable to require a back-up source of power. (2) Power outages have been experienced in the area of the protected facility caused by failures in the power grid that were not due to natural disasters or electric grid management failure. Note that this standard does not require that the normal source of power is infallible. NFPA 20 does not intend to require a back-up source of power for every installation using an electric motor driven fire pump. Should the normal source of power fail due to a natural disaster (hurricane) or due to a problem with electric grid management (regional blackout), the fire protection system could be supplied through the fire department connection. However, if the power grid is known to have had problems in the past (i.e. switch failures or animals shorting a substation), it is reasonable to require a back-up source of power. (3) The normal source of power is supplied on-site by overhead conductors outside the protected facility. More and more often, fire departments responding to an incident at the protected facility will not operate aerial apparatus near live overhead power lines, without exception. A back-up source of power is required in case this scenario occurs and the normal source of power must be shut off. Additionally, many utility providers will remove power to the protected facility by physically cutting the overhead conductors. If the normal source of power is provided by overhead conductors, which will not be identified, the utility provider could mistakenly cut the overhead conductor supplying the fire pump. (4) Disconnect switches or overcurrent protection devices are installed in the normal source of power that do not comply with 9.2. Power disconnection and activated overcurrent protection should only occur in the fire pump controller. The provisions of 9.2.3 for the disconnect switch and overcurrent protection essentially require disconnection and overcurrent protection to occur in the fire pump controller. If unanticipated disconnect switches or overcurrent protection devices are installed in the normal source of power that do not meet the requirements of 9.2.2, the normal source of power must be considered not reliable and a back-up source of power is necessary. (5) Other conditions that would make the normal source of power be considered not reliable. A.9.3.2.�(A) A back-up source of power may not be required where a back-up engine driven or back-up steam turbine driven fire pump is installed in accordance with NFPA 20. A.9.3.2.�(B) A back-up source of power may not be required when acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. Note that this standard recognizes that prescriptive standards cannot address every possible situation. Thus, the authority having jurisdiction may accept a normal source of power as reliable based on a project specific situation even though the normal source of power does not comply the regular requirements of Section 9.2. A.9.3.2.2 When provided, the back-up source of power shall not be supplied through overhead conductors outside the protected facility. A.9.3.2.3 For fire pump installations using the power supply arrangement of 9.2.2.4 (Old 9.2.5.3 - Campus Style Feeder Sources), and having more than one disconnecting means supplied by a single feeder, the overcurrent protection device(s) in each disconnecting means shall be selectively coordinated with any other supply side overcurrent protective device(s) to avoid unnecessary loss of power to other emergency loads.Substantiation: Field personnel frequently look for additional guidance regarding suitable fire pump power supplies.

Also, Committee draft shows 9.3.2* with an asterisk; but, no appendix (annex) material is shown. This material may be suitable for same.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action and Statement on 20-43 (Log #27), 20-2� (Log #28), 20-22 (Log #29), and 20-28 (Log #30). Committee Statement: Clarifies intent of submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-�8 Log #38 Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.2.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development CommitteeComment on Proposal No: 20-7�Recommendation: Add a new section to read: 9.2.�.x Phase converters shall not be permitted to be used for fire pump service.Substantiation: Based on the committee statement to the proposal and the negative comment of Mr. Haagensen we have submitted a comment to include the prohibition of the converters to clarify the issue. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action and Statement on 20-42 (Log #37).Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on 20-42 (Log #37).Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-�9 Log #23 Final Action: Reject(9.2.1.2) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: David Stringfield, University of MinnesotaComment on Proposal No: 20-72Recommendation: Modify committee action from reject to accept and delete section.Substantiation: I disagree the fire pump standard can require backup power. Requirements for this belong in the codes (NFPA �0�, NFPA 5000, IBC, etc.). not in the standard. The standard should tell how, when a code requires it.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Power supplies are within the scope of NFPA 20 (ref. �.�.2)Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-20 Log #3� Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.2.2(3)) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Dana R. Haagensen, Massachusetts Office of the Fire MarshalComment on Proposal No: 20-69Recommendation: Delete item (3) of 9.2.2: (3) A dedicated feeder connection derived from the service to the fire pump installation. Substantiation: The insertion of this new allowable normal power supply arrangement conflicts with the committee action and first sentence of the committee statement of Proposal 20-73. If the service also feeds the building power, it is possible to unintentionally disconnect the normal fire pump power.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Insert “dedicated” before “service”.Committee Statement: Added to Proposal 20-69 ROP Committee Action 9.2.2(3). Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-2� Log #28 Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Dana R. Haagensen, Massachusetts Office of the Fire MarshalComment on Proposal No: 20-69Recommendation: Add a new subsection to Section 9.3 to read: 9.3.X When provided, the alternate source of power shall not be supplied through overhead conductors outside the protected facility.”Substantiation: This important consideration should be made a requirement of the standard. A problem of supplying power to the pump could occur when fire department operations call for removing power from nearby overhead lines, and the alternate source is in use because the unreliable normally supply is also cut-off.

20-8

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add a new Section to read as follows: 9.3.3 When provided, the alternate supply shall be arranged so that the power to the fire pump is not disrupted when overhead lines are de-energized for fire department operations. Committee Statement: Clarifies the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-22 Log #29 Final Action: Accept(9.3.2, 9.3.3) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Dana R. Haagensen, Massachusetts Office of the Fire MarshalComment on Proposal No: 20-69Recommendation: �. Replace entire 9.3.2 to read: 9.3.2 Except for an arrangement described in 9.3.3, at least one alternate source of power shall be provided where the normal source is not reliable. 2. Insert new 9.3.3 to read: 9.3.3 An alternate source of power is not required where a back-up engine driven or back-up steam turbine driven fire pump is installed in accordance with this standard. 3. Insert a new 9.3.4 to read: 9.3.4 When provided, the alternate source of power shall be supplied from one of the following sources: (�) A generator installed in accordance with Section 9.8. (2) One of the sources identified in 9.2.2(�); 9.2.2(2); 9.2.2(3); or 9.2.2(5) when the power is provided independent of the normal source of power.Substantiation: (�) and (3) as written implies that two alternate sources of power are required. For example, item (2) would require the normal source, an unreliable service, and a generator. (2) An entire diesel engine driven pump installation is not a “source of power”, and 9.3.3 is referenced in 9.3.� although it was never included in the committee action of Proposal 20-69.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-23 Log #�8 Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.2.2.7) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Barry F. O’Connell, Tyco Thermal ControlsComment on Proposal No: 20-77Recommendation: Delete the following text: 9.8.2.2.7* Listed Electrical Circuit Protective System to Controller Wiring. 9.3.3.2.7.�* When used Type MI (Mineral Insulated) cable shall be terminated in a separate junction box and in accordance with NFPA 70. 9.3.2.2.7.2* Where required by the manufacturer of a Listed Electrical Circuit Protective System or by NFPA 70 or by Listing agency, the raceway between a junction box and the fire pump controller shall be sealed at the junction box and as required and per the instructions of the manufacturer of listing agency. Substantiation: For the specific reasons outlined on the accompany document. I ask that the subject proposal be rejected in its entirety for the following specific reasons: While I am in complete agreement with the principle of preventing flammable gases entering the fire pump controller, the wording does not change the current situation at all; neither NFPA 70 nor UL will require sealing of the conduit at the junction box; and this proposal leaves it to the manufacturers. Some do, some don’t. �. The proposal does not differentiate between �-conductor and multi-conductor MI cables; multi-conductor cables require no brass plate. 2. The sketch describes the way MI is intended to be installed on fire pump controllers. This seems to already meet the objective of the proposal. 3. As the only manufacturers of MI cable in North America, Tyco Thermal Controls will undertake to clarify that this is the required form of entry. 4. NEMA 250 is a performance standard; it does not prohibit openings provided they are adequately protected for the rating. 5. In relation to short circuit rating, the standard termination for �-conductor cables in all the sizes typically used for fire pump controllers has for years had a stranded, not a solid tail. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Strike first six words in 9.3.3.2.7.� and add new text: 9.3.3.2.7.�* When used Type MI (Mineral Insulated) cable... Where single conductors (individual conductors) are used, they shall be terminated in a separate junction box. Single (individual conductors) shall not enter the fire pump enclosure separately.

Committee Statement: The revised wording satisfies the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-24 Log #�7 Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.2.2.7.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Barry F. O’Connell, Tyco Thermal ControlsComment on Proposal No: 20-77Recommendation: Delete the following: 9.3.2.2.7.�* When used Type MI (Mineral insulated) cable shall be terminated in a separate junction box and in accordance with NFPA 70. Substantiation: The proposal should be rejected for the following reasons: �. The proposal does not differentiate between �-conductor and multi-conductor MI cables; multi-conductor cables require no brass plate. 2. The provided sketch describes the way MI is intended to be installed on fire pump controllers. This seems to already meet the objective of the proposal. 3. As the only manufacturers of MI cable in North America, Tyco Thermal Controls will undertake to clarify that this is the required form of entry. 4. NEMA 250 is a performance standard; it does not prohibit openings provided they are adequately protected for the rating. 5. In relation to short circuit rating, the standard termination for �-conductor cables in all the sizes typically used for fire pump controllers has for years had a stranded, not a solid tail. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action and Statement on 20-23 (Log #�8).Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on 20-23 (Log #�8).Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-25 Log #20 Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.2.2.7.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Barry F. O’Connell, Tyco Thermal ControlsComment on Proposal No: 20-77Recommendation: Delete the following: 9.3.2.2.7.�* When used Type MI (Mineral Insulated) cable shall be terminated in a separate junction box and in accordance with NFPA 70. Substantiation: I ask that the subject proposal be rejected for the following reasons. �. The proposal does not differentiate between �-conductor and multi-conductor MI cables; multi-conductor cables require no brass plate. 2. The sketch describes the way MI is intended to be installed on fire pump controllers. This seems to already meet the objective of the proposal. 3. As the only manufacturers of MI cable in North America, Tyco Thermal Controls will undertake to clarify that this is the required form of entry. 4. NEMA 250 is a performance standard; it does not prohibit openings provided they are adequately protected for the rating. 5. In relation to short circuit rating, the standard termination for �-conductor cables in all the sizes typically used for fire pump controllers has for years had a stranded, not a solid tail. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action and Statement on 20-23 (Log #�8).Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on 20-23 (Log #�8).Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-26 Log #�9 Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.2.2.8.4) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Barry F. O’Connell, Tyco Thermal ControlsComment on Proposal No: 20-78Recommendation: Delete the following: 9.3.2.2.8.4 No alterations to the fire pump controller without the express specific approval of the manufacturer of the controller.Substantiation: NEMA 250 is a performance standard; it does not prohibit openings provided they are adequately protected for the rating. Any conduit entry would require specific manufacturer’s approval according to the proposal.

20-9

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise wording after “controller”: …other than conduit entry as allowed by NFPA 70.Committee Statement: Meets the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-27 Log #2� Final Action: Accept in Principle(9.3.2.2.8.4) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Barry F. O’Connell, Tyco Thermal ControlsComment on Proposal No: 20-78Recommendation: Delete the following: 9.3.2.2.8.4 No alterations to the fire pump controller without the express specific approval of the manufacturer of the controller. Substantiation: NEMA 250 is a performance standard; it does not prohibit openings provided they are adequately protected for the rating. Any conduit entry would require specific manufacturer’s approval according to the proposal.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action and Statement on 20-26 (Log #�9).Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on 20-26 (Log #�9).Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-28 Log #30 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part(9.4, 9.5) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Dana R. Haagensen, Massachusetts Office of the Fire MarshalComment on Proposal No: 20-69Recommendation: Insert 9.4 and 9.5 as follows (renumber existing 9.4 through 9.6): 9.4 For fire pump installations using the power supply arrangement of 9.2.2(4); and having more than one disconnecting means supplied by a single feeder, the overcurrent protection device(s) in each disconnecting means shall be selectively coordinated with any other supply side overcurrent protective device(s). 9.5 Where the supply voltage is different from the utilization voltage of the fire pump motor, a transformer meeting the requirements in Article 695 of NFPA 70 shall be installed.Substantiation: This comment is editorial. It is not clear from the committee action in Proposal 20-69 if these requirements (9.3.2.2.4 and 9.3.2.2.5 in NFPA 20-2003)are to remain in the standard.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Revising 9.4 text into new paragaraph 9.2.2.(4)e to read: The overcurrent protection device(s) in each disconnecting means shall be selectively coordinated with any other supply side overcurrent protective device(s). Delete Section 9.5 as it is covered elsewhere in the standard.Committee Statement: Meets the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-29 Log #25 Final Action: Reject(10.5.2.1.6(c)) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: David Stringfield, University of MinnesotaComment on Proposal No: 20-�0�Recommendation: Modify committee action from reject to accept.Substantiation: Without the change, there is a conflict between the standard and the annex. Shut-off valves are only ok if they are not between the controller and water supply connection.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Text is clear as written. Current text does not allow shutoff valves that can isolate the pump pressure sensor from the water supply. Shutoff valves shown in the Annex are test connections. Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-30 Log #CC4 Final Action: Accept(10.10) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Fire Pumps Comment on Proposal No: 20-��3Recommendation: In section �0.�0.8, replace “alarm & signal” with “indicating”. In section �0.�0.9, delete “alarm”. �0.�0.8 Alarm and Signal Indicating Devices on Controller. �0.�0.9 Controller Alarm Contacts for Remote Indication. Controllers shall be equipped with contacts (open or closed) to operate circuits for the conditions in �0.�0.8. [Proposal Log #92, items (2) and (3)]Substantiation: Aligns new sections with action on Committee Proposal CP3, Log 20-�83.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-3� Log #�6 Final Action: Accept in Principle(11.2.2.2) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: John Whitney, Clarke Fire Protection ProductsComment on Proposal No: 20-��5Recommendation: Revise as follows: ��.2.2.2 Engines shall have a horsepower capability, when equipped for fire pump driver service, not less than �0 percent greater than the maximum brake horsepower required by the pump under any conditions of pump load.Substantiation: This language has somehow been lost, I think unintentionally.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise language as follows: The horsepower capability of the engine, when equipped for fire pump service, shall not be less than �0 percent greater than the listed horsepower on the engine nameplate.Committee Statement: Meets the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-32 Log #9 Final Action: Accept(11.2.6.3.1.4) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: John D. Jensen, Fire Protection ConsultantComment on Proposal No: 20-�30Recommendation: Revise the Annex Figure ��.2.6.3.�(B) to include two backflow devices in parallel and the appropriately sized drains. Substantiation: A single backflow device does not adequately provide the reliably provide the redundency that presently exists in the cooling water arrangement. That is to have two separate and distinct paths for the water to travel from the pump discharge to the heat exchanger. The sudden opening and closing of the reduced pressure backflow preventor requires that there be drainage provided to a floor drain or outside location to minimize the flow of water onto the floor. A revised diagram will be provided to the committee at the ROC meeting showing the correct arrangement. The Federal Clean Water Act is the driving force behind this requirement and the substantiation should include that reference.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.Comment on Affirmative: JENSEN, J.: The action is acceptable; however, the sketch that was submitted to NFPA was not attached. This comment is to add that sketch to the documentation so the committee members and public can review it prior to the final balloting. See continuation of Jensen ballot on the following page.

20-�0

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20

20-32 (Log #9) Jensen Affirmative Ballot

20-��

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 ____________________________________________________________20-33 Log #�0 Final Action: Reject(11.6.4) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: John D. Jensen, Fire Protection ConsultantComment on Proposal No: 20-�35Recommendation: Change the “2/3” fuel tank level requirement to “The level required for twice the duration of the maximum required water flow for the engine supplied operating at �50 percent of rated capacity”.Substantiation: Many diesel fuel tanks are being oversized to accommodate storage of fuel for longer than one year. The fuel requires changing and/or additives to prevent clogging up the engine and so it is important to know how much fuel is required as a minimum and how much fuel is being stored for future use. Often, the fuel tank and the engine installed are not coordinated, this results in too little fuel or too much fuel.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The current language provides clear guidance and adequate fuel supply. The submitter’s comments are unclear as to how tank size should be determined.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-34 Log #�3 Final Action: Reject(11.6.4) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Shane M. Clary, Bay Alarm CompanyComment on Proposal No: 20-�35Recommendation: Accept in Principal Proposal 20-�35. A fuel level switch shall be provided to activate at the 2/3 tank level. A supervisory signal circuit in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72 shall be provided to the building fire alarm system, where present. The revised text is “in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 72 shall be provided to the building fire alarm system, where present.”Substantiation: The Technical Committee did not fully provide a reason why the signal should not be supervised by the building fire alarm system. The revised text makes it clear that one does not need to install a fire alarm system to provide this supervision, but if a system is within the protected premises, then this signal shall be supervised. While this signal should be annunciated at the pump controller, being also supervised by the building’s fire alarm system will assure that the pump fuel level is addressed in a timely manner.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This is a minimum standard with the intent to provide local fuel level indication. Additional switches for remote annunciation are allowed. See Committee Action on 20-35 (Log #6).Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-35 Log #6 Final Action: Accept in Principle(11.6.4.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Gayle Pennel, Schirmer Engineering CorporationComment on Proposal No: 20-�35Recommendation: Change the word “possible” to “practical” in ��.6.4.� as follows: ��.6.4.� The fuel storage tanks shall be kept as full as practical possible at all times, but never less than 66 percent (2/3) of tank capacity. A fuel level switch shall be provided to activate at the 2/3 tank level.Substantiation: The words “tanks shall be kept as full as possible at all times” is impractical, and may be unenforceable. It is “possible” to keep the tanks full at all times by filling the tanks even while the engine is running.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise language as follows: In addition to the submitter recommendations, change “switch” to “indicator”.Committee Statement: Meets the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-36 Log #26 Final Action: Reject(12.5.2.1.6(B)(3)) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: David Stringfield, University of MinnesotaComment on Proposal No: 20-�45Recommendation: Maintain an accept or accept in principle committee action.Substantiation: The results in the ROP for 20-�0� and 20-�45 are confusing. The proposal should be accepted to reduce confusion and add clarification.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on 20-29 (Log #25).

Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-37 Log #�5 Final Action: Reject(14.2.7.2.4) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: John Whitney, Clarke Fire Protection ProductsComment on Proposal No: 20-49Recommendation: Revise as follows: �4.2.7.2.4 ...recorded annually. The refill... minimum of 5 times at suction pressure no higher than guaranteed by the water supplier.Substantiation: This test should be repeated annually to insure changes in supply pressure has not rendered the system inoperable. This system must be confirmed to be operable at minimum supply pressure to the pump.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Periodic inspections are defined in NFPA 25.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-38 Log #7 Final Action: Accept(Table 14.5) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Bill M. Harvey, Harvey & Associates, Inc.Comment on Proposal No: 20-�59Recommendation: Insert revised Table �4.5 “Summary of Components Replacement Testing Requirements”. Revised Table �4.5 is shown on the following page. All other text and substantiations to remain as proposed.Substantiation: The revised Table �4.5 further defines the requirements for component replacement testing requirements. A revised version of this table should be submitted by the Committee to the NFPA 25 committee to align the proposed Table 8.6.�.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Revise table further as shown following the recommendation table.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.Explanation of Negative: ISMAN, K.: With respect to Comment 20-38, we are concerned that the committee did not give enough thought to the items that require a full acceptance test of the pump. An old pump may have some wear and not perform as well as it did when it was originally installed, but still may be fine for the fire protection system. If an item is replaced, the whole pump should not be required to meet the original acceptance criteria, which mandates the replication of the manufacturer’s shop curve exactly (within the accuracy of the equipment used for the test). Some drop-off in performance should still be allowed similar to the 5 percent allowed by NFPA 25 for existing pumps.

____________________________________________________________20-39 Log #32 Final Action: Reject(A.5.7.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Dana R. Haagensen, Massachusetts Office of the Fire MarshalComment on Proposal No: 20-�6�Recommendation: Delete the words “and private” in the first sentence of A.5.7.�, and delete “as is typical in municipal water systems” in the last sentence of A.5.7.�Substantiation: �. This section is intended to explain that the requirements of the standard do not contemplate a pump used in municipal waterworks systems. Such pumps are covered by other standards. 2. The committee cannot state in the annex that the standard does not apply to private fire protection pumps when that is explicitly the scope of the document according to section �.�. 3. If a private development (campus) needs a fire protection pump, this is typically accomplished by installing a dedicated fire pump (in accordance with NFPA 20) in parallel with a domestic pump or as a branch/loop off of the water supply. The statement in exisitng A.5.7.� would allow any developer to bypass NFPA 20 requirements by installing combined domestic/fire main(s). I can see developers putting garden hose connections on “fire mains” for a building, citing existing A.5.7.�, as justification for installing “any old” pump. See my companion comment on this section.Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Introduces a topic that was not previously considered.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.Explanation of Negative: HAAGENSEN, D.: The topic of dual purpose pumps was raised in Proposal 20-�6�, so the Comment should not have been considered new material. The Committee should have properly resolved the conflict within NFPA 20 between the requirements in Section �.� and the information in Annex Section A.5.7.�.

20-�2

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 20-38 (Log #7) Recommendation

Table 8.6.1 Summary of Component Replacement Testing RequirementsComponent Adjust Repair Rebuild Replace Test Criteria

A. Fire Pump System

�. Entire pump assembly X Perform Acceptance Test in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.5.2.6.2 2. Impeller/rotating assembly X X Perform Acceptance Test in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.5.2.6.2 3. Casing X X Perform Acceptance Test in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.5.2.6.2 4. Bearings X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.3 5. Sleeves X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.3 6. Wear rings X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.3 7. Main shaft X X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.3 8. Packing X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2

B. Mechanical Transmission

�. Gear right angle drives X X X Perform Acceptance Test in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.5.2.6.22. Drive coupling X X X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2

C. Electrical System/Controller

�. Entire controller X X X Perform Acceptance Test in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.2.82. Isolating switch X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 258 3.2 and exercise

6 times3. Circuit breaker X Perform six momentary starts in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.2.8.9 Circuit breaker X Perform a one hour full load current test4. Electrical connections X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.25. Main contactor X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2 Main contactor X Perform Acceptance Test in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.2.86. Power monitor X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 258 3.27. Start relay X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.28 Pressure switch X X Perform Acceptance Test in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.2.8.99. Pressure transducer X X Perform Acceptance Test in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.2.8.9�0. Manual start or stop switch

X Perform six operations under load

��. Transfer switch – load carrying parts

X X X Perform a one hour full load current test, and transfer from normal power to emergency power and back one time

Transfer switch – non load parts

X X X Perform six no load operations of transfer of power

D. Electric Motor Driver

�. Electric motor X X X Perform Acceptance Test in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.5.2.6.22. Motor bearings X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.33. Incoming power conductors X Perform a one hour full load current test

E. Diesel Engine Driver

�. Entire engine X X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.32. Fuel transfer pump X X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.�3. Fuel injector pump X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.24. Fuel system filter X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.25. Combustion air intake system

X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2

6. Fuel tank X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.27. Cooling system X X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.28. Batteries X X Perform a start/stop sequence NFPA 25 8.3.29. Battery charger X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2�0. Electric system X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2��. Lubrication filter/oil service

X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2

F. Steam Turbines

�. Steam turbine X X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.5.2.6.22. Steam regulator or source upgrade

X X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 20 �4.5.2.6.2

G. Positive Displacement Pumps

�. Entire pump X2. Rotors X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.33. Plungers X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.34. Shaft X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.35. Driver X X X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.36. Bearings X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.27. Seals X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2

H. Pump House and Misc Components�. Base plate X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2 with

alignment check2. Foundation X X X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2 with

alignment check3. Suction/discharge pipe 4 X X Visual inspection in accordance with NFPA 25 5.2.2Suction/discharge fittings 5 X X Visual inspection in accordance with NFPA 25 5.2.2Suction/discharge valves X X X Operational test in accordance with NFPA 25 �2.3.3

20-�3

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 20-38 (Log #7) Committee Action

NFP

A-2

0 Ta

ble

No,

14.

5 (N

EW

)Su

mm

ary

of C

ompo

nent

Rep

lace

men

t Tes

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Com

pone

ntA

djus

tR

epai

rR

ebui

ldR

epla

ceTe

st C

rite

ria

A.

Fire

Pum

p Sy

stem

s

1E

ntir

e pu

mp

asse

mbl

yX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

-20

14.5

.2.6

.2-1

4.5.

1.4

2Im

pelle

r/ro

tati

ng a

ssem

bly

XX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

-20

14.5

.2.6

.2, 1

4.5.

1.4

3C

asin

gX

XPe

rfor

m a

ccep

tanc

e te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A-2

0 14

.5.2

.6.2

, 14.

5.1.

4

4B

eari

ngs

XPe

rfor

m a

nnua

l tes

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith N

FPA

25

8.3.

3 w

ith a

lignm

ent

5Sl

eeve

sX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.3

with

alig

nmen

t

6W

ear

Rin

gsX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.3

with

alig

nmen

t

7M

ain

shaf

tX

XPe

rfor

m a

nnua

l tes

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith N

FPA

25

8.3.

3 w

ith a

lignm

ent

8Pa

ckin

gX

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

B.

Mec

hani

cal T

rans

mis

sion

1G

ear

Rig

ht A

ngle

dri

ves

XX

XPe

rfor

m a

ccep

tanc

e te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A-2

0 14

.5.2

.6.2

2D

rive

cou

plin

gX

XX

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

C.

Ele

ctri

cal S

yste

m/C

ontr

olle

r

1E

ntir

e co

ntro

ller

XX

XPe

rfor

m a

ccep

tanc

e te

st w

ith N

FPA

-20

14.2

.8

2Is

olat

ing

switc

hX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

with

NFP

A-2

5 8.

3.2

and

exer

cise

6 ti

mes

3C

ircu

it br

eake

rX

Perf

orm

six

mom

enta

ry st

arts

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

-20

14.2

.8.9

4C

ircu

it br

eake

rX

Perf

orm

a o

ne h

our

full

load

cur

rent

test

5E

lect

rica

l con

nect

ions

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

6M

ain

cont

acto

rX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25

8.3.

2

7M

ain

cont

acto

rX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

-20

14.2

.8

8Po

wer

mon

itor

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

9St

art r

elay

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

10Pr

essu

re sw

itch

XX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

-20

14.2

.8.9

11Pr

essu

re tr

ansd

ucer

XX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

-20

14.2

.8.9

12M

anua

l sta

rt o

r st

op sw

itch

XPe

rfor

m si

x op

erat

ions

und

er lo

ad N

FPA

-25

8.3.

2

13Tr

ansf

er sw

itch-

load

car

ryin

g pa

rts

XX

XPe

rfor

m a

ccep

tanc

e te

st, a

nd tr

ansf

er fr

om n

orm

al p

ower

to e

mer

genc

y po

wer

and

bac

k on

e ti

me.

NFP

A-2

0 14

.5.2

14Tr

ansf

er sw

itch-

no lo

ad p

arts

XX

XPe

rfor

m si

x no

load

ope

ratio

ns o

f tra

nsfe

r of

pow

er N

FPA

-20

14.5

.2.3

D.

Ele

ctri

c M

otor

Dri

ver

1E

lect

ric

mot

orX

XX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

-20

14.5

.2.6

.2, 1

4.5.

2.5

2M

otor

bea

ring

sX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.3

with

alig

nmen

t

3In

com

ing

pow

er c

ondu

ctor

s/dis

conn

ects

XPe

rfor

m a

ccep

tanc

e te

st N

FPA

-20

14.5

.2

E.

Die

sel E

ngin

e D

rive

r

1E

ntir

e en

gine

XX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.3,

NFP

A-2

0 14

.5.2

.3.1

2Fu

el tr

ansf

er p

ump

XX

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

3Fu

el in

ject

or p

ump

or E

CM

XX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.3

20-�4

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 20-38 (Log #7) Committee Action (continued)

4Fu

el sy

stem

filte

rX

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

5C

ombu

stio

n ai

r in

take

syst

emX

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

6Fu

el ta

nkX

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

7C

oolin

g sy

stem

XX

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

NFP

A-2

0 Ta

ble

No.

14.5

(N

EW

)Su

mm

ary

of C

ompo

nent

Rep

lace

men

t Tes

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Com

pone

ntA

djus

tR

epai

rR

ebui

ldR

epla

ceTe

st C

rite

ria

E.

Die

sel E

ngin

e D

rive

r (C

onti

nued

)

8B

atte

ries

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

0 8.

3.2

9B

atte

ry C

harg

erX

XPe

rfor

m a

star

t/sto

p se

quen

ce N

FPA

25

8.3.

2

10E

lect

rica

l Sys

tem

XX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25

8.3.

2

11L

ubri

catio

n Fi

lter/

Oil

Serv

ice

XX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25

8.3.

2

F. S

team

Tur

bine

s

1St

eam

turb

ine

XX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.3

2St

eam

reg

ulat

or o

r so

urce

upg

rade

XX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

0 14

.5.2

.6.2

G.

Posi

tive

Dis

plac

emen

t Pum

ps

1E

ntir

e Pu

mp

XPe

rfor

m a

nnua

l tes

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith N

FPA

20

14.5

.2.6

.2

2R

otor

sX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.3

3Pl

unge

rsX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.3

4Sh

aft

XPe

rfor

m a

nnua

l tes

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith N

FPA

25

8.3.

3

5D

rive

rX

XX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.3

6B

eari

ngs

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

7Se

als

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

H.

Pum

p H

ouse

/Roo

m a

nd M

isc

Com

pone

nts

1B

ase

plat

eX

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

with

alig

nmen

t che

ck

2Fo

unda

tion

XX

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5 8.

3.2

with

alig

nmen

t che

ck

3Su

ctio

n/D

isch

arge

pip

eX

XH

ydro

stat

ic te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 1

3 16

.2.1

4Su

ctio

n/D

isch

arge

fitt

ings

XX

Hyd

rost

atic

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

13

16.2

.1

5Su

ctio

n/D

isch

arge

val

ves

XX

XH

ydro

stat

ic te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 1

3 16

.2.1

Com

men

ts R

espo

nse

Bill

M. H

arve

y

20-�5

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 ____________________________________________________________20-40 Log #33 Final Action: Accept(A.5.7.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Dana R. Haagensen, Massachusetts Office of the Fire MarshalComment on Proposal No: 20-�6�Recommendation: Add the following new paragraph to the end of A.5.7.�: “If a private development (campus) needs a fire protection pump, this is typically accomplished by installing a dedicated fire pump (in accordance with NFPA 20) in parallel with a domestic pump or as part of a dedicated fire branch/loop off of a water supply.”Substantiation: Guidance is needed for such situations on how to achieve the “dedicated fire pump” required by paragraph 5.7.� A pump installed per NFPA 20 cannot be used as a dual fire/domestic pump because NFPA 25 frequencies would need to be revisited, alarms/signals would need to be disabled, and fuel supply requirements revised. See also my statement in my companion comment.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-4� Log #4 Final Action: Accept(Figure A.7.2.2.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Gayle Pennel, Schirmer Engineering CorporationComment on Proposal No: 20-�84Recommendation: Editorial correction: Change the words Drain down in Figure A.7.2.2.� which denotes the difference between the static water level before pumping and the pumping water level at �50 percent of rated pump capacity, to Draw down.Substantiation: Editorial correction to use the proper term that is already defined in NFPA 20.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-42 Log #37 Final Action: Accept(A.9.2.1.1) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Kenneth E. Isman, National Fire Sprinkler AssociationComment on Proposal No: 20-7�Recommendation: Add an annex note to 9.2.�.� as follows: A.9.2.�.� Phase converters that take single phase power and convert it to three phase power for the use of fire pump motors are not recommended because of the imbalance in the voltage between the phases when there is no load on the equipment. If the power utility installs a phase converters in their own power transmission lines, such phase converters are outside the scope of this standard and need to be evaluated by the AHJ to determine the reliability of the electric supply.Substantiation: This was our understanding from the discussion at the ROP meeting as to the reason for the rejection of our proposal. If this information is true, it should be recorded in the annex.Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-43 Log #27 Final Action: Accept(A.9.3.2) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Dana R. Haagensen, Massachusetts Office of the Fire MarshalComment on Proposal No: 20-69Recommendation: Replace existing items (�), (2), and (3) of A.9.3.2 [from A.9.2.4 of NFPA 20-2003] with the following: (�) The source power plant has not experienced any shut downs of longer than 4 continuous hours in the year prior to plan submittal. (2) No power outages have been experienced in the area of the protected facility caused by failures in the power grid that were not due to natural disasters or electric grid management failure. (3) The normal source of power is not supplied by overhead conductors outside the protected facility. (4) Only the disconnect switches and overcurrent protection devices permitted by 9.2.3 are installed in the normal source of power. Add proposed A.9.3.2(�) through (4) in proposal 20-69 to the end of each corresponding item above.Substantiation: See my explanation for negative vote on Proposal 20-69. The industry is looking for guidance from this group of technical experts (TC on Fire Pumps).Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.

____________________________________________________________20-44 Log #CC2 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure A.14.2.7.3, Figures A.14.2.7.3 (a), (b) &(c)) ____________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Fire Pumps Comment on Proposal No: 20-�53Recommendation: Replace Figure A.�4.2.7.3 with Figures A.�4.2.7.3(a), (b) and (c).Substantiation: Documentation of the acceptance test is needed.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Use NFSA form as a sample acceptance test report. Sample form is shown on the following pages.Committee Statement: A new sample form is needed.Number Eligible to Vote: 27Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Ballot Not Returned: � Mezsick, S.Comment on Affirmative: HAAGENSEN, D.: There are three editorial items on the form that need to be corrected: (�) the form should be based on NFPA 20-2006 (there will be no NFPA 20-2007); (2) under driver information, the check box for ‘steam turbine’ should be removed from the form (as the form only applies to electric motor and diesel engine drivers as explained in the title block); and (3) in Item E of Section VII, the form should ask that both the shop test curve AND the field test curve have been given to the owner (NFPA 25:4.3.4 requires the field test curve to be retained by the owner for the life of the system). Note that the Committee was not able to see the form at the time of the ROC Committee meeting in Providence.

20-�6

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 20-44 (Log #CC2) Recommendation

20-�7

Report on Comments A2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 20 20-44 (Log #CC2) Recommendation

FORM FOR FILING NOTICE OF INTENT TO MAKE A MOTION (NITMAM)

AT AN ASSOCIATION TECHNICAL MEETING 2006 ANNUAL REVISION CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF NITMAM: 5:00 pm EST, April 7, 2006

If you have questions about filling out or filing the NITMAM, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249

For further information on the Codes- and Standards-Making Process, see the NFPA

website (www.nfpa.org)

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #: Date Rec'd:

Date________________Name________________________________________________Tel. No.

Company or Affiliation __________________________________________________Email Address

Street Address_________________________________City________________________State______Zip _________________ 1. (a) NFPA Document (include Number and Title)_______________________________________________________________ (b) Proposal or Comment Number____________________ (c) Section/Paragraph _____________________________________

2. Motion to be made. Please check one: (See also 4-6 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects) (a) Proposal _(1) Accept. (2) Accept an Identifiable Part.* __ (3) Accept as modified by the TC. (4) Accept an Identifiable Part as modified by TC.* (b) Comment (1) Accept. (2) Accept an Identifiable Part.* (3) Accept as modified by the TC. (4) Accept an Identifiable Part as modified by TC.* __ (5) Reject (6) Reject an Identifiable Part.* (c) Return Technical Committee Report for Further Study _____ (1) Return entire Report. (2) Return a portion of a Report in the form of a proposal and related comment(s). _____ (3) Return a portion of a Report in the form of identifiable part(s) of a proposal and related comments (s). (Identify the specific portion of the proposal and the related comments below)* * Clearly identify the Identifiable Part(s) indicated above (use separate sheet if required). ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________

3. I am entitled to make this motion in accordance with 4.6.8 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects, as follows: (check (a), (b), or (c). (a)____ This motion may be made by the original submitter or their designated representative, and I am the (if you check (a) indicate

one of the following):

___I am the Original submitter, or

___I am the submitter’s designated representative (attach written authorization signed by the original submitter), or

___ I am an Organizational Member delegate permitted to represent the submitter on behalf of the Organization Member in accordance with 4-6.5 (c). (b)____This motion may be made by a Technical Committee Member and I am a Member of the responsible Technical Committee.

(c)____This motion may be made by anyone.

(Form continued on next page)

NITMAM form (continued) 4. Comments or Clarification (optional): This NITMAM will be reviewed by a Motions Committee. In addition to determining whether your Amending Motion is proper, the Committee may take other actions as described in 2.3 of the Technical Meeting Convention Rules as follows:

Restating and Grouping of Motions. Upon request or on its own initiative, and in consultation with the mover(s), the Motions Committee may: (a) restate an Amending Motion to facilitate the making of a proper motion or to clarify the intent of the mover; and (b) group Amending Motions that are dependent on one another into a single Amending Motion. Dependent motions are motions that the mover(s) wish to be considered by the assembly and voted on as single up or down package. In addition to the foregoing, the Motions Committee may take such other actions or make such other recommendations as will facilitate the fair and efficient consideration of amending.

The NFPA Staff may contact you to clarify your motion or to consult on the permitted actions in 2.3. If you have any comments, suggestions, or requests of the Motions Committee as it reviews your NITMAM and considers actions permitted in 2.3, please provide them below. (Use additional sheet if necessary): __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name (please print):_____________________________________________________________________

Signature (Required)_____________________________________________________________________ (Note: This NITMAM will be reviewed, and if proper, your Amending Motion will be certified in accordance with the Technical Meeting Convention Rules and posted on the NFPA website by May 5, 2006. Documents that have Certified Amending Motions will be considered at the June 2006 Annual Meeting Technical Committee Report. In order to have your Certified Amending Motion considered at that meeting, you must appear, sign in, and make the motion as prescribed in the Convention Rules).

PLEASE USE A SEPARATE NITMAM FORM FOR EACH AMENDING MOTION YOU WISH TO MAKE,

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council, National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 NFPA Fax: (617) 770-3500

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.

I

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.

II

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.

III