25-�

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Report of the Committee on

Inspection, Testing, and

Maintenance of Water-Based Systems

Kenneth W. Linder, ChairGE Insurance Solutions, CT [I]

Clement J. Adams, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, PA [I]Gary S. Andress, Liberty Mutual Property, MA [I]Kerry M. Bell, Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated, IL [RT]Michael J. Bosma, The Viking Corporation, MI [M] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler AssociationJohn K. Bouchard, Palmer & Cay, Incorporated, MA [I]Eugene A. Cable, US Department of Veterans Affairs, NY [U]James M. Fantauzzi, North East Fire Protection Systems Incorporated, NY [IM] Rep. American Fire Sprinkler AssociationJames M. Feld, Feld Engineering, CA [SE]Gary Gagnon, Alcan Incorporated, Canada [U]William C. Harris, Fairbanks Morse Pump, OK [M]Stephen R. Hoover, Stephen R. Hoover Associates, IL [SE]Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire Protection, Canada [IM] Rep. Canadian Automatic Sprinkler AssociationJohn Lake, Marion County Fire Rescue, FL [E]Russell B. Leavitt, TVA Fire and Life Safety, Incorporated, AZ [U] Rep. The Home DepotFrank L. Moore, Moore Pump and Equipment, Incorporated, MS [IM]John D. Munno, Dominion Resources Incorporated, VA [U] Rep. Edison Electric InstituteMiles Myers, Myers Risk Services, Incorporated, PA [SE]Richard Oliver, Oliver Sprinkler Company, Incorporated, PA [IM] Rep. National Fire Sprinkler AssociationEric Packard, Local 669 JATC Education Fund, MD [L] Rep. United Assn of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the US & CanadaGayle Pennel, Schirmer Engineering Corporation, IL [I] John F. Saidi, University of California, CA [U]J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corporation, MI [U ] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Terry L. Victor, Tyco/SimplexGrinnell, MD [M]

Alternates

John A. Beukema, Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, NY [M] (Alt. to Michael J. Bosma)Bruce H. Clarke, GE Insurance Solutions, NC [I] (Alt. to Kenneth W. Linder)Matthew G. Drysdale, E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated, DE [U] (Alt. to J. William Sheppard)Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association, NY [IM] (Alt. to Richard Oliver)Larry J. Fronczak, Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association, Canada [IM] (Alt. to Larry Keeping)Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Incorporated, TX [IM] (Alt. to James M. Fantauzzi)Peter A. Larrimer, US Department of Veterans Affairs, PA [U] (Alt. to Eugene A. Cable)George E. Laverick, Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated, IL [RT] (Alt. to Kerry M. Bell)Ronald Rispoli, Entergy Corporation, AR [U] (Alt. to John D. Munno)Peter W. Thomas, Tyco Fire & Building Products, RI [M] (Alt. to Terry L. Victor)Ralph Tiede, Liberty Mutual Property, MA [I] (Alt. to Gary S. Andress)Barry J. Waterman, Acme Sprinkler Service Company, IL [M] (Voting Alternate to IFPA Rep.)

Nonvoting

Rohit Khanna, US Consumer Product Safety Commission, MD [C] Thomas F. Norton, Blue Diamond Seabees, AP [IM] Rep. Signaling Systems Correlating Committee

Staff Liaison: David R. Hague

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on inspection, testing, and maintenance of systems utilizing water as a method of extinguishment. These include sprinkler systems, standpipe and hose systems, fire service piping and appurtenances, fire pumps, water storage tanks, fixed water spray systems, foam-water systems, valves, and allied equipment. This Committee shall also develop procedures for the conduct and reporting of routine system impairments.

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book.

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

This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems and proposes for adop-tion, amendments to NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, 2002 edition. NFPA 25 is published in Volume 2 of the 2004/2005 National Fire Codes and in sepa-rate pamphlet form.

This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems, which consists of 25 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

25-2

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-� Log #55 Final Action: Accept (Entire Document) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Revise the entire document to place US measurements followed by metric in parentheses. Substantiation: Editorial. By making this revision, the document will be in sync with NFPA �3 et al, NFPA 24, NFPA 29� and many other extinguishing standards. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-2 Log #56 Final Action: Accept (Entire Document) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Refer to the latest edition of NFPA documents in text. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-3 Log #CP6 Final Action: Accept (Entire Document) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems Recommendation: Add new tables for each systems chapter to identify the tests needed for component replacement. Table 5.xx Summary of Component Replacement Testing Requirements See Table 5.6.� on the next pages Table 6.xx Summary of Component Replacement Testing Requirements See Table 6.6.� on the next pages Table 7.xx Summary of Component Replacement Testing Requirements See Table Table 7.6.� on the next pages Table 9.xx Summary of Component Replacement Testing Requirements See Table 9.6.�on the next pages Table �0.xx Summary of Component Replacement Testing Requirements See Table �0.6.� on the next pages Table ��.xx Summary of Component Replacement Testing Requirements See Table ��.6.� on the next pages Substantiation: Tests for component replacement should be outlined in each chapter. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: HUGGINS, R.: I am voting Affirmative with Comment. I agree with Larrimer’s comment. LARRIMER, P.: The information provided in the tables provides very little help to any person who is actually “Qualified” as required by NFPA 25 for performing inspection, maintenance, and testing of the systems. Other than for fire pumps, I don’t believe that these tables enhance the document in any appreciable way. If this is to be left in the document, it should be placed in the annex. There are also problems with the verbiage such as requiring 2-inch tests when a main drain might be less than 2-inches. ________________________________________________________________ 25-4 Log #�20 Final Action: Reject (1.1.2 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add a new section to read as follows: �.�.2 This standard does not address the inspection, testing, and maintenance of the electrical components of the automatic detection equipment for preaction

and deluge systems which is addressed by NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code. This standard does address the physical condition and whether these components appear to be functional. Substantiation: The only requirements on these items is in �0.2.3 and ��.2.2 (but not in Chapter �2) with a reference to NFPA 72 and whether they are in good physical condition and appear to be functional and in �2.4.3.�.6(4) which simply verifies that these components are in service. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Not all deluge systems are supervised by systems meeting NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code®. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-5 Log #49 Final Action: Reject (2.3.3.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bernard Cain, Project Fire Products Ltc, Recommendation: Revise text as follows: Testing the waterflow alarms on wet pipe systems shall be accomplished by opening the inspectors test connection or by activating a device that simulates one fire sprinkler head in operation without draining water off the system . Fire pumps shall not be turned off during testing unless all impairment procedures contained in Chapter II are followed. Substantiation: The test method of draining water from a test connection can be an onerous exercise, requiring the attendance of a specialist engineer and provision of facilities to drain water to a convenient location with consequent cost implications. This procedure introduces fresh oxygenated water into the system which contributes to the onset of microbiologically influenced corrosion, and wastes potable water. A device, activated by a simple keyswitch, which simulates one fire sprinkler head in operation does not require the attendance of a specialist engineer, does not discharge any water, and therefore does not introduce fresh water to the system, and is a cost effective alternative to the existing method. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The information submitted does not indicate that this device is equal to the inspectors test, it does not allow the timing of the activation under real world conditions of the alarm, no installation criteria is provided in NFPA �3 and, no indication that it is a listed device. Alternate methods are already covered in the equivalency section in Chapter �. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-6 Log #CP� Final Action: Accept (Chapter 3 Definitions (GOT)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems Recommendation: Adopt the preferred definitions from the NFPA Glossary of Terms for the following terms: Deluge Valve . NFPA 25, 2002, ed. A water supply control valve intended to be operated by actuation of an automatic detection system that is installed in the same area as the discharge devices. Each deluge valve is intended to be capable of automatic and/or manual operation. Fire Hydrant. (preferred) NFPA ��4�, 2003, ed. A valved connection on a water supply system having one or more outlets and that is used to supply hose and fire department pumpers with water. Fire Hydrant. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. A valved connection on a water main for the purpose of supplying water to fire hose or other fire protection apparatus. Fire Pump. (preferred) NFPA 20, 2003, ed. A pump that is a provider of liquid flow and pressure dedicated to fire protection. Fire Pump. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. A pump supplying water at the flow and pressure required by water-based fire protection systems. Foam Concentrate. (preferred) NFPA ��, 2005, ed. Foam concentrate is a concentrated liquid foaming agent as received from the manufacturer. For the purpose of this document, “foam concentrate” and “concentrate” are used interchangeably. Foam Concentrate. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. A liquid that is stored in a containment vessel and is metered into a flowing water stream at a specified concentration by the proportioning system. Foam-Water Sprinkler System. (preferred) NFPA �6, 2003, ed. A special system that is pipe-connected to a source of foam concentrate and to a water supply. The system is equipped with appropriate discharge devices for extinguishing agent discharge and for distribution over the area to be protected. The piping system is connected to the water supply through a control valve that usually is actuated by operation of automatic detection equipment that is installed in the same areas as the sprinklers. When this valve opens, water

25-3

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Table 5.6.1 Summary of Component Replacement Testing RequirementsComponent Adjust Repair Rebuild Replace Test Criteria

Water Delivery Components� Control valves X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test2 Pipe and fittings affecting

less than 20 sprinklers X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test

3 Pipe and fittings affecting more than 20 sprinklers X X X �) 2 hour hydrostatic test conform-

ing to NFPA �3, 2) 2-inch drain test4 Sprinklers, less than 20 X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test5 Sprinklers, less than 20 X X �) 2 hour hydrostatic test conform-

ing to NFPA �3, 2) 2-inch drain test6 Fire department

connections X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test

7 Antifreeze solution X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test

8 Dry Pipe Valve X X X�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

9 Deluge/Preaction Valve X X X�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

�0 Pressure Regulating Valve X X X�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

�� Backflow Prevention Device X X X X

�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

�2 Check Valves X X X�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

�3 Fire Pump See Chapter 8Alarm and Supervisory Components

� Vane type Water Flow X X X �) Operational Test using ITC, 2) 2-inch drain test

2 Pressure Switch type Water Flow X X X �) Operational Test using ITC, 2) 2-

inch drain test3 Water Motor Gong X X X �) Operational Test using ITC, 2) 2-

inch drain test4 High and Low air pressure

switch X X X Operation test of high and low set-tings

5 Valve supervisory device X X X Test for conformance with NFPA �3 and NFPA 72

6 Detection System (for preaction system) X X X Operational Test for compliance

with NFPA �3 and NFPA 72Status Indicating Components

� Gauges X X Verify at 0 psi and system pressureSystem Protection Components

� Pressure relief valve X X Verify pressure settings prior to con-necting to system

Testing and Maintenance Components� Air Compressor X X X X Operational Test for compliance

with NFPA �32 Automatic Air Maintenance

device X X X X Operational Test for compliance with NFPA �3

3 2-inch Drain X X X Full flow 2-inch drain test4 Low point drains X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test.5 Inspector’s Test Connection X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test.Structural Components� Hanger/seismic bracing X X X Check for compliance with NFPA

�32 Pipe stands X X X Check for compliance with NFPA

�3Informational Components� Valve Signs X X X Check for compliance with NFPA

�32 Hydraulic Placards X X X Check for compliance with NFPA

�3

25-4

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Table 6.6.1 Summary of Component Replacement Testing RequirementsComponent Adjust Repair Rebuild Replace Test Criteria

Water Delivery Components� Control valves 2 Hose valve Pressure

regulating devices 3 System pressure regulating

devices4 Piping 5 Hose connections 6 Hose valve7 Fire department

connections8 Fire pump See Chapter 8

Alarm and Supervisory Components� Water flow alarm device2 Valve tamper switch

Status Indicating Components� Gauges

System Housing and Protection Components� Cabinet 2 Hose storage device

Testing and Maintenance Components� Drain riser

Structural Components� Hanger/seismic bracing 2 Pipe stands

Informational Components� Valve signs2 Hydraulic placards

Table 7.6.1 Summary of Component Replacement Testing RequirementsComponent Adjust Repair Rebuild Replace Test Criteria

Water Delivery Components� Piping and Fittings

(exposed and underground) 2 Hydrants3 Monitor nozzles 4 Hydrants (dry barrel and

wall) 5 Mainline strainers 6 Fire department connection

Alarm and Supervisory Components� Water flow alarm device2 Valve tamper switch

Status Indicating Components� Gauges

System Housing and Protection Components � Hose houses

Testing and Maintenance ComponentsStructural Components� Thrust Blocks2 Tie Rods

Informational Components� Hydrant sign2 FDC signs

Table 9.6.1 Summary of Component Replacement Testing RequirementsComponent Adjust Repair Rebuild Replace Test Criteria

Tank Components� Tank – interior X X Verify pressure 2 Tank — exterior 3 Support structure 4 Heating system 5 Control valves 6 Catwalks and ladders 7 Hoops and grillage 8 Expansion joints 9 Overflow piping

Alarm and Supervisory Components� High and Low Water level 2 Water Temperature 3 Enclosure Temperature4 Valve supervision

Fill and Discharge Piping� Altitude or Float Valve2 Check Valve3 Control valves

Status Indicators� Level indicators 2 Pressure gauges

25-5

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Table 10.6.1 Summary of Component Replacement Testing RequirementsComponent Adjust Repair Rebuild Replace Test Criteria

Water Delivery Components� Control valves X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test2 Pipe and fittings affecting

less than 20 nozzles X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test

3 Pipe and fittings affecting more than 20 nozzles X X X �) 2 hour hydrostatic test conform-

ing to NFPA �5, 2) 2-inch drain test4 Nozzles, less than 20 X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test5 Sprinklers, less than 20 X X �) 2 hour hydrostatic test conform-

ing to NFPA �5, 2) 2-inch drain test6 Fire department

connections X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test

7 Deluge Valve X X X�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

8 Pressure Regulating Valve X X X�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

9 Backflow Prevention Device X X X X

�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

�0 Check Valves X X X�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

�� Fire Pump See Chapter 8

�2 Manual Release X X X�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

Alarm and Supervisory Components� Water Flow devices X X X �) Operational Test using ITC, 2) 2-

inch drain test2 Water Motor Gong X X X �) Operational Test using ITC, 2) 2-

inch drain test3 Valve supervisory device X X X Test for conformance with NFPA �5

and NFPA 724 Detection System X X X Operational Test for compliance

with NFPA �5 and NFPA 72Status Indicating Components

� Gauges X X Verify at 0 psi and system pressureSystem Protection ComponentsTesting and Maintenance Components

� 2-inch Drain X X X Full flow 2-inch drain test2 Low point drains X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test.3 Inspector’s Test Connection X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test.Structural Components� Hanger/seismic bracing X X X Check for compliance with NFPA �32 Pipe stands X X X Check for compliance with NFPA �3Informational Components� Valve Signs X X X Check for compliance with NFPA �52 Hydraulic Placards X X X Check for compliance with NFPA �5

25-6

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Table 11.6.1 Summary of Component Replacement Testing RequirementsComponent Adjust Repair Rebuild Replace Test Criteria

Water Delivery Components� Control valves X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test2 Pipe and fittings affecting

less than 20 nozzles X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test

3 Pipe and fittings affecting more than 20 nozzles X X X �) 2 hour hydrostatic test conform-

ing to NFPA �5, 2) 2-inch drain test4 Discharge devices X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test5 Sprinklers, less than 20 X X �) 2 hour hydrostatic test conform-

ing to NFPA �5, 2) 2-inch drain test6 Fire department

connections X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test

7 Deluge Valve X X X�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

8 Pressure Regulating Valve X X X�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

9 Backflow Prevention Device X X X X

�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

�0 Check Valves X X X�) Check for leaks at system pres-sure 2) 2-inch drain test, 3) test all alarms

�� Fire Pump See Chapter 8�2 Manual ReleaseFoam Components

� Foam concentrate strainer(s)

2 Proportioning system(s) — all

3 Water supply tank(s) 4 Foam-water solution 5 Foam concentrate pump6 Ball drip (automatic type)

drain valves 7 Foam concentrate tank

Alarm and Supervisory Components� Water Flow devices X X X �) Operational Test using ITC, 2) 2-

inch drain test2 Water Motor Gong X X X �) Operational Test using ITC, 2) 2-

inch drain test3 Valve supervisory device X X X Test for conformance with NFPA �5

and NFPA 724 Detection System X X X Operational Test for compliance

with NFPA �5 and NFPA 72Status Indicating Components

� Gauges X X Verify at 0 psi and system pressureSystem Protection ComponentsTesting and Maintenance Components

� 2-inch Drain X X X Full flow 2-inch drain test2 Low point drains X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test.3 Inspector’s Test Connection X X X �) Check for leaks at system pres-

sure 2) 2-inch drain test.Structural Components� Hanger/seismic bracing X X X Check for compliance with NFPA �62 Pipe stands X X X Check for compliance with NFPA �6Informational Components� Valve Signs X X X Check for compliance with NFPA �62 Hydraulic Placards X X X Check for compliance with NFPA �6

25-7

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 flows into the piping system, foam concentrate is injected into the water, and the resulting foam solution discharging through the discharge devices generates and distributes foam. Upon exhaustion of the foam concentrate supply, water discharge follows and continues until shut off manually. Systems can be used for discharge of water first, followed by discharge of foam for a specified period, and then followed by water until manually shut off. Existing deluge sprinkler systems that have been converted to the use of aqueous film-forming foam or film-forming fluoroprotein foam are classified as foam-water sprinkler systems. Foam-Water Sprinkler System. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. A special system pipe connected to a source of foam concentrate and to a water supply and equipped with appropriate discharge devices for fire protection agent discharge and for distribution over the area to be protected. The piping system is connected to the water supply through a control valve that usually is actuated by operation of automatic detection equipment installed in the same areas as the sprinklers. When this valve opens, water flows into the piping system and foam concentrate is injected into the water. The resulting foam solution discharging through the discharge devices generates and distributes foam. Upon exhaustion of the foam concentrate supply, water discharge follows and continues until shut off manually. Systems also can be used for discharge of water first, followed by discharge of foam for a specific period, and then followed by water until manually shut off. Existing deluge sprinkler systems that have been converted to the use of aqueous film-forming foam are classed as foam-water sprinkler systems. Hose Valve. (preferred) NFPA �4, 2003, ed. The valve to an individual hose connection. Hose Valve. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. The control valve to an individual hose connection. Maintenance. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. In water based fire protection systems, work performed to keep equipment operable or to make repairs. Private Fire Service Main. (preferred) NFPA �3, 2002, ed. Private fire service main, as used in this standard, is that pipe and its appurtenances on private property (�) between a source of water and the base of the system riser for water-based fire protection systems, (2) between a source of water and inlets to foam-making systems, (3) between a source of water and the base elbow of private hydrants or monitor nozzles, and (4) used as fire pump suction and discharge piping, (5) beginning at the inlet side of the check valve on a gravity or pressure tank. Private Fire Service Main. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. The pipe and its appurtenances located on private property between a source of water and the base of the riser (i.e., the flange, the flange and spigot piece, or the base tee) for automatic sprinkler systems, open sprinkler systems, water spray fixed systems, standpipe systems, inlets to foam-making systems, or the base elbow of private hydrants or monitor nozzles. Where connected to a public water system, the private service main begins at a point designated by the public water utility, usually at a manually operated valve near the property line. Where connected to fire pumps, the main begins at the fire-protection-system side of the pump discharge valve. Where connected to a gravity or pressure tank, the main begins at the inlet side of the tank’s check valve. Private fire service mains can include supply and distribution piping installed above ground, in trenches, and inside or outside of buildings. The provisions of this definition also apply to pipeline strainers. Qualified. NFPA 25, 2002, ed. In water based fire protection systems, a person or entity who, by possession of a recognized degree, certificate, professional standing, or skill, and who, by knowledge, training, and experience, has demonstrated the competency relating to a particular subject matter, work, or project. Quick-Response (QR) Sprinkler. (preferred) NFPA �3, 2002, ed. A type of spray sprinkler that meets the criteria of 3.6.�(a)(�) and is listed as a quick-response sprinkler for its intended use. Quick-Response (QR) Sprinkler. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. A type of spray sprinkler that meets the criteria of �.4.5.�(a)(�) of NFPA �3-�999 and is listed as a quick-response sprinkler for its intended use. Add the following definitons: Special Sprinkler. (preferred) NFPA �3, 2002, ed. A sprinkler that has been tested and listed as prescribed in 8.4.9. Special Sprinkler. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. A sprinkler that has been tested and listed as prescribed in 5-4.9 of NFPA �3-�999. Standard Spray Sprinkler. (preferred) NFPA �3, 2002, ed. A spray sprinkler with maximum coverage areas as specified in Sections 8.6 and 8.7 of this standard. Standard Spray Sprinkler. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. A spray sprinkler with maximum coverage areas as specified in Sections 5.6 and 5.7 of NFPA �3-�999. Adopt the definition of spray sprinkler form NFPA �3. Supervision. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. In water based fire protection systems, a means of monitoring system status and indicating abnormal conditions. Water Spray. (preferred) NFPA �5, 200�, ed. Water in a form having a predetermined pattern, particle size, velocity, and density discharge from specially designed nozzles or devices. Water Spray. (secondary) NFPA 25, 2002, ed. The use of water in a form having a predetermined pattern, particle size,

velocity, and density discharged from specially designed nozzles or devices. Add to Annex A: Water spray fixed systems are usually applied to special fire protection problems, since the protection can be specifically designed to provide for fire control, extinguishment, or exposure protection. Water spray fixed systems shall be permitted to be independent of, or supplementary to, other forms of protection. Adopt the preferred definition for the term “Deficiency” as follows: Deficiency . The application of the component is not within its designed limits or specifications.[NFPA �07�] Add a new definition for “impairment” to read as follows; Impairment . A condition where a fire protection system or unit or portion thereof is out of order, and the condition can result in the fire protection system or unit not functioning in a fire event. Delete the following definitions as the terms are not used in the standard: concealed sprinkler flush sprinkler intermediate level sprinkler sidewall sprinkler interior cabinet combined drypipe/preaction system Substantiation: Adoption of preferred definitions will assist the user by providing consistent meaning of defined terms throughout the National Fire Codes. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �8 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: I am voting negatively because of the definition for QUALIFIED. It could too easily be interpreted to prevent facility owners from using their own maintenance department to conduct a portion of the inspections, such as verifying that the valves are in the proper position. LEAVITT, R.: I am voting negatively because of the definition for QUALIFIED. I believe that the NFPA preferred definition for Qualified from NFPA 96, 2004, ed. should be adopted. I believe the definition should be broad and the AHJ can narrow the definition as each entity feels appropriate. I see no purpose to include words such as “degree”, “certificate”, “professional standing”. If we want systems maintained the simple tasks need to be performed by the owner, and this definition will further encourage jurisdictions to require licensing or certification to perform even the most mundane of tasks. There are jurisdictions that effectively will not accept an owner performing any inspection or test on a system. Comment on Affirmative: LARRIMER, P.: It is unclear what the committee actually did with this and other proposals dealing with definitions. The proposal accepted was “Adopt the preferred definitions from the NFPA Glossary of Terms for the following terms:”, yet there are other than preferred definitions listed in the proposal that appear to be accepted. In addition, other proposals refer back to this proposal and the terms in those proposals are not identified in this proposal. It would be helpful if the committee clarified what their intention is by accepting this proposal. ________________________________________________________________ 25-7 Log #44 Final Action: Reject (3.3.x Time Frequencies (New)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jameson Wendell, Sunoco, Inc. Recommendation: The following are definitions to be included in Section 3.3: Time Frequencies: Weekly. A time frame of 7-days however not to exceed 9-days for completion of required or mandated activities. Monthly. A time frame of 30-days however not to exceed 45-days for completion of required or mandated activities. Quarterly. A time frame of 90-days or 3-months however not to exceed ��2-days or 4-months for completion of required or mandated activities. Semi-Annual. A time frame of �80-days or 6-months however not to exceed 225-days or 8-months for completion of required or mandated activities. Annual. A time frame of 365-days or �2-months however not to exceed 455-days or �5-months for completion of required or mandated activities. 5-Years. A time frame of �825-days or 60-months however not to exceed 228�-days or 75-months for completion of required or mandated activities. Substantiation: Large industrial facilities (i.e., Refineries and Chemicals Plants) have the potential to, and often contain numerous fire protection features or appliances. This number combined with seasonal constrains (i.e., freezing weather) and manpower limitations (in order to maintain competitive advantages and municipality licensing issues that restrict the labor pool) does not permit all activities to be completed within the perceived boundaries of the stated time frames. Established boundaries of identified time frames are needed in order to properly manage a Fire Protection Maintenance Program. Flexibility to time frequencies mandated by prescriptive codes are currently approved and used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Nuclear Power Generation Facilities. The flexibility in the time frames is required due to Radiological Safety concerns where systems are inaccessible during on-line operations.

25-8

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 The State of Washington has gone to the extents of shifting the frequencies for items in NFPA 25 identified as Weekly to Monthly, Monthly to Quarterly, and Quarterly to Annual. Here, the State has recognized that in order to provide a reasonable level of assurance that items will get completed the owners need flexibility in scheduling. There is not currently available any failure data that indicates, for example that the required �0-minute run time for an electric driven fire pump completed � or 2 days outside of the weekly requirements has failed each and every time. If in fact, the failure rates of equipment were at a level that their reliability was in question; the boundaries of the time frames would have been established and documented previously. Currently many regulatory oversight agencies are using literal interpretations of time frames, due to the lack of any formalized definition. Their literal interpretations do not coincide with the intent of the code. A fire hydrant is required to be inspected annually or after any usage. If the inspection was completed in 2004, for example, then the next inspection would be required in 2005, however no later than December 3�st in order to be completed within the annual time frame. With a literal interpretation of annual as 365-days, the same inspection would now have to be completed within 365-days of the actual inspection date. Even if the inspection was completed during the next calendar year but outside of 365-days, a citation could be issued, based on their imposed definition. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Tolerances for frequencies should be determined by the AHJ. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-8 Log #�28 Final Action: Accept (3.3.1 Alarm Receiving Facility) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Co. Inc. Recommendation: Revise the definition to read: Alarm Receiving Facility. The place where alarm or supervisory signals are received. This can include proprietary supervising stations, central supervising stations, remote supervising stations or public fire service communications center. or remote locations, central station, or fire departments. Substantiation: Correlation with the terminology used in NFPA 72 for monitoring facilities. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-9 Log #�97 Final Action: Accept in Principle (3.3.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Co. Inc. Recommendation: Delete existing 3.3.3 and add new 3.3.3 as follows: A device designed to detect the presence of a fire signature and to initiate action. For the purpose of this code, automatic fire detectors are classified as follows: Automatic Fire Extinguishing or Suppression system Operation detector, Fire-gas detector, Heat detector, Other fire detectors, Radiant Energy-Sensing fire detector, smoke detector. Substantiation: Correlation: Automatic Fire Detector is defined in NFPA 72. NFPA 25 should use the same definition for consistency. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-6 (Log #CP�). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: LARRIMER, P.: The committee action refers to committee action on 25-6 and that proposal does not address the definition of an automatic fire detector. In addition, this “automatic fire detector” definition is one defined type of “DETECTOR” among �9 definitions of detectors in NFPA 72. Pneumatic Rate of Rise Tubing Heat Detectors, often used in spray systems are defined outside of this definition in NFPA 72 and would not be included if the Committee uses the proposed definition. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�0 Log #3� Final Action: Accept in Principle (3.3.5 Standpipe Classes of Service) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Correlate the definition of standpipe classes of service with NFPA �4:3.3.27.

Substantiation: The definitions of types of standpipe systems are inconsistent and need to be correlated for user friendliness. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Extract the latest following definitions from NFPA �4, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe, Private Hydrants, and Hose Systems: 3.3.27 System Type. 3.3.27.� Class I System. A Class I standpipe system provides 65-mm (2½-in.) hose connections to supply water for use by fire departments and those trained in handling heavy fire streams. 3.3.27.2 Class II System. A Class II standpipe system provides 40-mm (� �/2-in.) hose stations to supply water for use primarily by trained personnel the building occupants or by the fire department during initial response. 3.3.27.3 Class III System. A Class III standpipe system provides 40-mm (� �/2-in.) hose stations to supply water for use by trained personnel building occupants and 65-mm (2 �/2-in.) hose connections to supply a larger volume of water for use by fire departments and those trained in handling heavy fire streams. Committee Statement: Coordinates definitions with NFPA �4. See committee action and statement on Proposal 25-6 (Log #CP�). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: LEAVITT, R.: My negative vote concerns the inclusion of the term “building occupants” for Class II and Class III standpipes. NFPA should not encourage the use of hose by any untrained personnel. Including the term “building occupants” in the definition is inappropriate and can imply support for any building occupant using fire hose. There is no fire department in the United States that I am aware of that will use fire hose other than that which they supply or supports the idea of any untrained building occupant fighting a fire. In addition, OSHA and other regulatory agencies require that only trained personnel with proper protective equipment be allowed to use fire hose. By eliminating the term “building occupants” and only the terms “trained personnel or fire department” avoids any misinterpretation of the intent of NFPA. Comment on Affirmative: HUGGINS, R.: This should be an Accept instead of an AIP. As identified in Larrimer’s comment, 25-6 does not address standpipes. LARRIMER, P.: The committee action refers to the committee action on 25-6 and that proposal does not address the definition of standpipes. To clarify, I believe that the committee action should have been to ACCEPT. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�� Log #229 Final Action: Accept in Principle (3.3.30 Qualified Person) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill M. Harvey, Harvey and Associates Inc. Recommendation: Refer to Section 3.3.30 and change to read: Qualified Person: A person who, by possession of a recognized degree, certificate, professional standing, or skill, and who, by knowledge, training, and experence, has demonstrated the ability to deal with problems relating to a particular subject matter, work, or project. Substantiation: The existing definition in Section 3.3.30 “Qualified”, is to general in nature and falls short in requiring proof of compentency of the task or operation necessary to service, inspect or test a fire protection system. Having knowledge of a system is a baseless statement and does not require actual practical knowledge and experience in fire protection systems. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-6 (Log #CP�). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �8 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: See comment for Proposal 25-6 (Log #CP�). LEAVITT, R.: See My Explanation of Negative on 25-6 (Log #CP�). ________________________________________________________________ 25-�2 Log #�2� Final Action: Accept in Principle (3.3.33.2 Automatic Standpipe System) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add 3.3.33.2 Automatic Standpipe System and current text from NFPA �4:3.3.�. Delete 3.3.33.2 and renumber 3.3.33.3. Add current text for Dry Standpipe Systems from NFPA �4:3.3.5. Add 3.3.33.4 Manual Standpipe System and current text from NFPA �4:3.3.�3. Renumber 3.3.33.3 Wet Standpipe as 3.3.33.5. Substantiation: The current definition of Dry Standpipe includes a Manual Wet Standpipe. This no longer complies with recent changes to NFPA �4. Additionally, 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.2.2.� reference a manual standpipe for which there is no definition. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle

25-9

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-6 (Log #CP�). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: HUGGINS, R.: This should be an Accept instead of an AIP. As identified in Larrimer’s comment, 25-6 does not address standpipes. See 25-�0. LARRIMER, P.: The committee action refers to committee action on 25-6 and that proposal does not address these items. To clarify, I believe that the committee action should have been to ACCEPT. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�3 Log #57 Final Action: Reject (3.5.5) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete “and nonflowing (static)” and make “conditions” singular. Substantiation: Pressure reducing valves only reduce the residual pressure either through a diaphragm or restricted orifice. In this instance, there is no relationship to static pressure as referred to in 3.5.4. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Reference to non-flowing conditions is appropriate, see Section 3.3.�6 of NFPA �4. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�4 Log #58 Final Action: Accept in Part (3.6.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete a portion of the paragraph beginning with the sentence, “Where connected to a public water system, the private service main begins at a point designated by the public water utility, usually at a manually operated valve near the property line. Where connected to fire pumps, the main begins at the fire-protection-system side of the pump discharge valve. Where connected to a gravity or pressure tank, the main begins at the inlet side of the tank’s check valve. Private fire service mains can include supply and distribution piping installed above ground, in trenches, and inside or outside of buildings. The provisions of this definition also apply to pipeline strainers.” Convert this same material as A.3.6.3, and add from NFPA 24, Figure A.3.3.� as part of the text as Figure A.3.6.3. Substantiation: This portion of the paragraph is better suited as annex material. Further, the Annex Figure A.3.3.� from NFPA 24 will present a clearer intent for the reader. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Part Add the figure to the Annex. Committee Statement: The definition is currently coordinated with NFPA �3, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�5 Log #59 Final Action: Reject (3.6.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete a portion of the paragraph beginning with the sentence, “The installation includes one or more automatic water supplies. The portion of the sprinkler system aboveground is a network of specially sized or hydraulically designed piping installed in a building, structure, or area, generally overhead, and to which sprinklers are attached in a systematic pattern. The valve controlling each system riser is located in the system riser or its supply piping. Each sprinkler system riser includes a device for actuating an alarm when the system is in operation. The system is usually activated by heat from a fire and discharges water over the fire area.” Substantiation: This portion of the paragraph is better suited as annex material. See comment to 3.6.3. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The definition is currently coordinated with NFPA �3, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

________________________________________________________________ 25-�6 Log #�22 Final Action: Accept (3.6.4.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Delete 3.6.4.2. Substantiation: This type of system is not referenced anywhere else in NFPA 25. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�7 Log #�86 Final Action: Accept (4.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Add a subtitle to each of the sections under Chapter 4.� as follows: 4.� Responsibility of the Owner or Occupant. 4.�.�* Responsibility for Inspection, Testing and Maintenance. 4.�.2* Accessibility. 4.�.3 Notification of System Shutdown. 4.�.4* Corrections and Repairs. 4.�.5* Changes in Occupancy, Use, Process, or Materials. 4.�.6 Addressing Changes in Hazard. Substantiation: When reading 4.�, the wording seems to be redundant in many places. However, these sections are individually very significant. The subtitles proposed will assist those using the standard in finding and applying the proper requirements. Also, the owner responsibility is of primary significance and should appear first by switching current 4.�.� and 4.�.2. All subsections should remain. A separate proposal is being made to move 4.�.7 under 4.2. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: Annex material will be changed accordingly. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�8 Log #�76 Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.1.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jack A. Medovich, East Coast Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.�.� The building owner or occupant shall...” Make a global change throughout NFPA 25. Substantiation: Although it is implied that it addressing the building owner, the courts are seeing arguments that it could be the owner of the contracting firm. Consistency is warranted with Chapter �2 using just “owner” without a reference to “or occupant” and Chapter �4 using the explicit “building owner”. Additionally, NFPA �3 accepted a similar proposal identifying “property owner” instead of just owner. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change “building” to “property” throughout the standard wherever owner is referenced. Committee Statement: The standard addresses more than buildings. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�9 Log #�87 Final Action: Accept (4.1.1.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 4.�.8 Valve Location - The owner shall ensure that responsible occupants are made aware of the location of the shutoff valves and the procedures for shutting down the system. Substantiation: Owners and occupants should know where the control valves are located and how to shut the system down. Time is often wasted after a system starts to discharge as occupants search for the shutoff valves. This wasted time during non-emergency discharges leads only to additional water damage. A responsible person on the premises should be aware of the control valve locations and the procedures to shut the system down. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �8 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative:

25-�0

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 LARRIMER, P.: This requirement is outside the scope of this document. The owner in not responsible for requiring an occupant to shut down a fire sprinkler system. It is not within the scope of this document to be assigning responsibility to an owner of a property that makes an occupant within that property responsible for shutting down a fire suppression system. This can be dangerous, especially if they were to shut down the system prematurely. I understand that we don’t want to have unnecessary water damage in a building, but this is not the place to require this. Many of the requirement within this section are outside of the scope of this document. MUNNO, J.: The language is not enforceable. It does not specify how the occupants are to be made aware of the shutdown procedures or how often they are to be made aware of the procedures. The requirement does not indicate whether it needs to be documented or not. It’s not clear what “responsible occupants” is referring to. It could mean all, any or some occupants. This requirement is not within the scope of NFPA 25. It covers operations of a system which is not inspection, testing or maintenance. ________________________________________________________________ 25-20 Log #�80 Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.1.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: James M. Fantauzzi, North East Fire Protection Systems, Inc. / Rep. AFSA Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The purpose of periodic inspections, tests and maintenance is to demonstrate that the fire protection systems equipment to be in good operating cognition and to detach any defects or impairments in accordance with procedures established by this document. Substantiation: Paragraph 4.�.2.� is too broad and vague as written. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Delete 4.�.2.� entirely. Committee Statement: The section is redundant with the purpose of the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-2� Log #60 Final Action: Accept (4.1.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete “or exceeding” from the text. Substantiation: This is a “minimum consensus” standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-22 Log #�23 Final Action: Accept (4.1.2.4.1(New), 4.1.3.3, 4.1.4.2, 4.1.5.2, and 4.1.6.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Delete 4.�.3.3, 4.�.4.2, 4.�.5.2 and 4.�.6.2. Add a new 4.�.2.4.� using the following revised text from the deleted sections: Where an occupant, management firm, or managing individual has received the authority for inspection, testing, and maintenance, the occupant, management firm, or managing individual shall comply with the requirements identified for the owner or occupant throughout this standard. Substantiation: This text is repeated throughout Chapter 4 and can be stated just once. Additionally, other chapters direct the owner to perform functions without this guidance for occupants and management firms. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-23 Log #6� Final Action: Reject (4.1.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete the text, “the authority having jurisdiction”. Substantiation: Take any industrialized municipality and it is doubtful that the “AHJ” has the program in place to actually receive the notifications and provide appropriate follow-up to the owner’s notification. Further it is very doubtful that fire departments are equipped to handle the volume of calls within their jurisdiction and provide appropriate follow-up to the owner’s notification. The current text suggests the expectation that public authorities are equipped to handle this, when in fact many are already stretched, and do not provide the clerical position to offer the service. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It is the intent to notify the authority having jurisdiction and allow the AHJ to determine the appropriate follow-up action.

Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-24 Log #��9 Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.1.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: James M. Feld, Feld Engineering Recommendation: Revise text to read: 4.�.4* The owner or occupant shall promptly correct or repair deficiencies, damaged parts, or impairments found while performing the inspection, test, and maintenance requirements of this standard. Recalled products shall be replaced or remedied. Such replacement or remedial product shall be installed in accordance with the listing requirements, the manufacturer’s instructions and the appropriate NFPA installation standards. A recalled product is a product subject to a statute or administrative regulation specifically requiring the manufacturer, importer, distributor, wholesaler, or retailer of a product, or any combination of such entities, to recall the product, or a product voluntarily recalled by a combination of such entities. Substantiation: The proposal moves the information from the annex to the body of the standard. In addition, the words “listing requirements” are added to ensure compliance with any requirements based on the listing of ht replacement product. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-62 (Log #�92). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �8 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: I am voting negatively as it is unnecessary to include requirements for “recalled products”. These products are published through other channels. IF this requirement is retained, NFPA 25 has an obligation to identify such products within the Annex. If we are saying that the inspector should be aware of all such products, it should not be a problem for this standard to identify them. LEAVITT, R.: I am voting negatively as it is unnecessary to include requirements for “recalled products”. The recall order itself is sufficient and by including this in NFPA 25 only exposes service providers to greatly increased liability for “failing to identify” recalled products. For example: NFPA 25 requirements for sprinklers do not include the identification of the make, model, or type of sprinkler. As a result, how does the service provider identify “recalled” sprinklers without exceeding the current scope of the standard? However, it is a certainty, if this requirement is adopted and these sprinklers are present and unidentified, litigation will result against the service provider at some point. This and other requirements regarding recalled products will result in an expansion of the scope of inspections well beyond the intent of the standard. ________________________________________________________________ 25-25 Log #62 Final Action: Reject (4.1.4.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete the entire paragraph. Substantiation: As the committee has not provided a definition of “qualified” along with supporting material in the annex, the paragraph as presently written offers no enforceable language. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The definition of qualified is addressed in the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-26 Log #63 Final Action: Reject (4.1.5, 4.1.5.1, 4.1.5.2, 4.1.6, 4.1.6.1, and 4.1.6.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete the entire paragraphs. Substantiation: These paragraphs have nothing to do with the performance of the inspection, testing or maintenance of the components of the system. At best this information is a building code issue under “occupancy” classifications. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It is the responsibility of the owner as expresed in these sections. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �8 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: LARRIMER, P.: This proposal should be accepted. In line with my negative vote on 25-�9, these requirements are outside the scope of this standard. This standard should identify what is required to properly inspect, test, and maintain

25-��

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 a system and let the owner take responsibility for how it gets done. SHEPPARD, J.: I agree with submitter’s substantiation. ________________________________________________________________ 25-27 Log #�24 Final Action: Accept (4.1.5.1(2)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Revise to read: 4.�.5.�(2) Process or material changes such as metal stamping of to molded plastics. Substantiation: Correction of an old typo. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-28 Log #5� Final Action: Accept (4.1.6) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: 4.�.6 Where changes in the occupancy, hazard, water supply, storage commodity, storage arrangement, building modification, or other condition that affects the installation criteria of the system are identified, the owner or occupant shall promptly take steps, such as contacting a qualified contractor, consultant, or engineer, and the AHJ, to evaluate the adequacy of the installed system in order to protect the building or hazard in question. Substantiation: On any of the changes currently in 4.�.6 the ahj needs to be notified to ensure that proper protection is provided in the facility. The ahj should be included from the beginning not just after others have made an evaluation. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: SHEPPARD, J.: I disagree that this paragraph has anything to do with inspection testing and maintenance; see my Explanation of Negative on 25-26 (Log #63). ________________________________________________________________ 25-29 Log #64 Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.1.7) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete this paragraph as the intent is already adequately covered in Chapter �4, Section �4.7. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-30 (Log #�88). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-30 Log #�88 Final Action: Accept (4.1.7) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Relocate Section 4.�.7 to the next section under 4.2 and renumber as shown. 4.�.7 Where a water based fire protection system is returned to service following an impairment, the system shall be verified to be working properly. 4.2 Impairments. 4.2.� Where an impairment to a water-based fire protection system occurs, the procedures outlined in Chapter �4 of this standard shall be followed, including the attachment of a tag to the impaired system. 4.2.2 Where a water-based fire protection system is returned to service following an impairment, the system shall be verified to be working properly by means of an appropriate inspection or test. Substantiation: Section 4.�.7 is currently under the section titled, “Responsibility of the Owner or Occupant.” This wording deals with impairments and should be placed in the “Impairments” Section. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

________________________________________________________________ 25-3� Log #23 Final Action: Accept (4.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev. Recommendation: There are many references in this section to Chapter �3 when it should be �4. Substantiation: Change the references to the correct reference Chapter �4. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-32 Log #�4 Final Action: Reject (4.2 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Add a new 4.2 and renumber the remaining to read: 4.2 Obstructions. A minimum clear space shall be maintained to permit access to and operation of fire protection equipment, fire department inlet connections, or fire protection system control valves, as approved by the authority having jurisdiction. The fire department shall not be deterred or hindered from gaining immedia�255te access to fire protection equipment. Substantiation: The proposed wording is consistent with wording in NFPA � Uniform Fire Code dealing with obstructions. The wording is proposed to be added to NFPA 25 to provide guidance in removing obstructions to fire protection equipment. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Addressed by 4.�.�. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-33 Log #�25 Final Action: Accept (4.3.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Revise to read: 4.3.� Records shall be made of for all inspections, tests, and maintenance of the system and its components and shall be made available to the authority having jurisdiction upon request. Substantiation: The text literally says to make the records available but not to actually make any records. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-34 Log #65 Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.3.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete the entire paragraph. Substantiation: What is meant by “original” records? Paragraphs 4.3.�, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, and 4.3.5 adequately cover the subject of record retention. Further, 4.6.� adequately addresses the concern of so-called “original” records. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Move 4.6.� to replace 4.3.4 and include hydraulic calculations, to read as follows: 4.3.4 As-built system installation drawings, hydraulic calculations , original acceptance test records, and device manufacturer’s maintenance bulletins data sheets shall be retained for the life of the system. A.4.3.4 As referred to in 4.3.4, original records should include, at a minimum, the Contractor’s Material and Test Certificate, “as-built” drawings and calculations, and any other required or pertinent test reports. These documents establish the conditions under which the systems were first installed and offer some insight to the design intent, installation standards used, and water supply present at the time of installation. Original records are instrumental in determining any subsequent changes or modifications to the building or system. Committee Statement: Better describes record retention. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

25-�2

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-35 Log #�8� Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.3.5) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: James M. Fantauzzi, North East Fire Protection Systems, Inc. / Rep. AFSA Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Subsequent records shall be retained for a period of 5 years after the next inspection, test and maintenance required by this standard. Substantiation: The period of one year is not long enough to establish a sufficient data to determine a pattern of degradation, especially if the original design records are available. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Subsequent records shall be retained for a period of 5 years. Committee Statement: Clarifies record retention requirements. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �7 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: LARRIMER, P.: This proposal should be rejected. There is no justification for mandating that an owner keep records for 5 years. A five fold increase in the retention of documents in not justified. If historical records are needed for some specific test such as a main drain test or fire pump test, then it should be required for those specific tests. But to keep semi-annual test records for five years in lieu of the one year required now is not justified and was not justified by the proposal. For those of us who have pump records that compared the pump curve to the last curve or curves, this new requirement just penalizes us and does not have any effect on those who didn’t meet the earlier requirement and won’t meet the new one either. MUNNO, J.: Five years of records, especially for weekly and monthly records, is unreasonable. SHEPPARD, J.: Five year retention adds no value to process except for those intervals specifically stated as five years. ________________________________________________________________ 25-36 Log #��6 Final Action: Reject (4.5.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: James M. Feld, Feld Engineering Recommendation: Revise text to read: All components and systems shall be tested to verify that they function as originally designed, installed and approved. intended. Substantiation: The word “intended” is vague. It is unclear who decides what was intended. The revised wording envelopes the owner, contractor, and AHJ. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It is not in the scope of this standard to verify system design. Normal mechanical wear and tear is expected over the life of the system. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: ADAMS, C.: Change the spelling of “form” to “from” in the third paragraph of example. Editorial. ________________________________________________________________ 25-37 Log #45 Final Action: Accept (4.5.1.1 and A.4.5.1.1.1 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ronald Rispoli, Entergy Operations Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 4.5.�.� Testing. 4.5.�.�.�* As an alternate means of compliance, subject to the authority having jurisdiction, components and systems shall be permitted to be inspected, tested and maintained under a performance based program. A.4.5.�.�.� This sections provides the option to adopt a performance-based test and inspection method as an alternate means of compliance for 4.5.�.�. The prescriptive test and requirements contained in this standard are essentially qualitative. Equivalent or superior levels of performance can be demonstrated through quantitative performance-based analyses. This section provides a basis for implementing and monitoring a performance-based program acceptable under this option (providing approval is obtained by the AHJ). The concept of a performance-based testing and inspection program is to establish the requirements and frequencies at which inspection must be performed to demonstrate an acceptable level of operational reliability. The goal is to balance the inspection/test frequency with proven reliability of the system or component. The goal of a performance-based inspection program is also to adjust test/inspection frequencies commensurate with historical documented equipment performance and desired reliability. Frequencies of test/inspection under a performance based program may be extended or reduced from the prescriptive test requirements contained in this standard when continued testing has been documented indicating a higher or lower degree of reliability as compared to the AHJ’s expectations of performance. Additional program attributes that should be considered when adjusting test/inspection

frequencies include: • System/Component preventative maintenance programs • Consequences of system mal-operation • System/Component repair history • Building/Service conditions Fundamental to implementing a performance-based program is that adjusted test and inspection frequencies must be technically defensible to the AHJ and supported by evidence of higher or lower reliability. Data collection and retention must be established so that the data utilized to alter frequencies is representative, statistically valid, and evaluated against firm criteria. Frequencies should not arbitrarily be extended or reduced without a suitable basis and rationale. It must be noted that transitioning to a performance-based program may require additional expenditures of resources in order to collect and analyze failure data, coordinate review efforts, change program documents and seek approval from the AHJ. The following factors should be considered in determining whether a transition to a performance-based test program as permitted in 4.5.�.�.� is arranged: • Past system/component reliability – have problems routinely been identified during the performance of the prescriptive test requirements of 4.5.�.� or have systems consistently performed with minimal discrepancies noted? • Do the recurring resources expenditures necessary to implement the prescriptive test requirements in 4.5.�.� justify the consideration of conducting the detailed analysis needed to support a performance-based testing program? • The increase in administrative burden of implementing, documenting and monitoring a performance based program. Failure Rate Calculation A performance based program requires that a maximum allowable failure rate be established and approved by the AHJ in advance of implementation. The use of historical system/component fire system inspection records may be utilized to determine failure rates. One method of calculating the failure rate of a fire system is based on the following equation: FSFR(t) = NF ÷ ((NC) (t)) where: FSFR(t) = Fire System Failure Rate (Failures per Year) NF = Number of Failures NC = Total Number of Fire Systems Inspected or Tested t = Time Interval of Review in Years Example Data is collected for 50 fire pump weekly test over a five year period. The testing is conducted weekly as described in 8.3.�. A review of the data identified 5 failures. Total components: 280 Data collection period: 5 years Total Failures: 5 FSFR = 5/(280 x 5) = 0.003/year A fundamental requirement of a performance based program is the continual monitoring of fire system/component failure rates and determining if they exceed the maximum allowable failure rates as agreed upon with the AHJ. The process used to complete this review should be documented and repeatable. Coupled with this ongoing review is a requirement for a formalized method of increasing or decreasing the frequency of testing/inspection when systems exhibit either a higher than expected failure rate or and increase in reliability as a result of decreased in failures. A formal process for reviewing the failure rates and increasing or decreasing the frequency of testing must be well documented. Concurrence form the AHJ on the process used to determine test frequencies should be obtained in advance of any alterations to the test program. The frequency required for future tests may be reduced to the next inspection frequency and maintained there for a period equaling the initial data review or until the ongoing review indicates that the failure rate is no longer being exceeded. For example going from annual to a semiannual testing when the failure rate exceeds the AHJ’s expectations or from annual to every eighteen months when the failure trend indicates an increase n reliability. References: Reliability of Automatic Sprinkler Systems, William E. Koffel, P.E., Alliance for Fire Safety. Budnick, Edward K., P.E., “Automatic Sprinkler System Reliability,” Fire Protection Engineering, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Winter 200� NFPA’s Future in Performance Based Codes and Standards, July �995 NFPA Performance Based Codes and Standards Primer, December �999 Fire Protection Equipment Surveillance Optimization and Maintenance Guide, Electric Power Research Institute, July 2003. Substantiation: Performance based testing is attempted in the current version of NFPA 25 on a limited basis via the “equivalency” option. However, the guidance necessary to support this process are not provided in the standard. This requires a significant undertaking by both the AHJ and the user in order to optimize the benefits of implementing a performance based program if desired. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: SHEPPARD, J.: Change “mal-operation” to “mal-function”.

25-�3

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-38 Log #67 Final Action: Accept (4.5.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete the words “all” in both places from the sentence. Substantiation: The use of the word “all” is too general, does not fit every type of instance, and is unenforceable. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-39 Log #68 Final Action: Reject (4.5.6.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Revise the text as follows: “Sprinkler systems “ installed ” in accordance with paragraph 5.4.3 shall be tested. Substantiation: Editorial. Better defined sentence structure. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-40 (Log #�26). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-40 Log #�26 Final Action: Accept (4.5.6.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Delete 4.5.6.�. Substantiation: This is not General Requirement but a sprinkler specific item that is covered by Chapter 5 and you have to go to 5.4.3 to discover what it’s attempting to accomplish anyway. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-4� Log #32 Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.6.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Relocate 4.6.� to 4.3.6. Substantiation: Section 4.6.� deals with records and is better placed in the records section under 4.3.6. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-34 (Log #65). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-42 Log #66 Final Action: Accept in Principle (4.7.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Replace the term “special hazards” to “special conditions”. Substantiation: The term “special hazards” is generally associated with occupancies that require additional fire protection measures over and above the building protection. These include heat treating, paint operations, ovens, die cast operations, storage, etc. The term “special conditions” more accurately reflects the intent of the paragraph. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change special condition to hazards. Committee Statement: Better describes the conditions. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: SHEPPARD, J.: I agree with submitter’s substantiation.

________________________________________________________________ 25-43 Log #�89 Final Action: Accept (4.8) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.8 4.7.5 * Electrical Safety. Legally required precautions shall be taken when testing or maintaining electric controllers for motor-driven fire pumps. Substantiation: Editorial - Section 4.8 is currently under its own heading. This wording deals with safety issues and should be placed in the “Safety” section. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-44 Log #�90 Final Action: Accept (4.9) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Renumber Section 4.9 to Section 4.3 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly, as shown: 4.9 4.3 Corrective Action. Manufacturers shall be permitted to make modifications to their own listed product in the field with listed devices that restore the original performance as intended by the listing, where acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. 4.3 4.4 Records. 4.3.� 4.4.�* Records of inspections, tests, and maintenance of the system and its components shall be made available to the authority having jurisdiction upon request. 4.3.2 . 4.4.2 Records shall indicate the procedure performed (e.g., inspection, test, or maintenance), the organization that performed the work, the results, and the date. 4.3.3 4.4.3 Records shall be maintained by the owner. 4.3.4 4.4.4 Original records shall be retained for the life of the system. 4.3.5 4.4.5 Subsequent records shall be retained for a period of � year after the next inspection, test, or maintenance required by the standard. 4.4* 4.5 Inspection. System components shall be inspected at intervals specified in the appropriate chapters. 4.5 4.6 Testing. 4.5.� 4.6.� All components and systems shall be tested to verify that they function as intended. 4.5.�.� 4.6.�.� The frequency of tests shall be in accordance with this standard. 4.5.�.2 4.6.�.2 Fire protection system components shall be restored to full operational condition following testing including reinstallation of plugs and caps for auxiliary drains and test valves. 4.5.2 4.6.2 During all testing and maintenance, water supplies including fire pumps shall remain in service unless all impairment procedures contained in Chapter �4 are followed. 4.5.3 4.6.3 Test results shall be compared with those of the original acceptance test (if available) and with the most recent test results. 4.5.4 4.6.4 The types of tests required for each protection system and its components are detailed in the appropriate chapter. 4.5.5 4.6.5 Specialized equipment required for testing is defined in the appropriate chapter. 4.5.6* 4.6.6 When a major component or subsystem is rebuilt or replaced, the subsystem shall be tested in accordance with the original acceptance test required for that subsystem. 4.5.6.� 4.6.6.� Sprinkler systems in accordance with 5.4.3 shall be tested. 4.6* 4.7* Maintenance. Maintenance shall be performed to keep the system equipment operable or to make repairs. 4.6.� 4.7.� As-built system installation drawings, original acceptance test records, and device manufacture’s maintenance bulletins shall be retained to assist in the proper care of the system and its components. 4.7 4.8 Safety. Inspection, testing, and maintenance activities shall be conducted in a safe manner. 4.7.� 4.8.� Confined Spaces. Legally required precautions shall be taken prior to entering confined spaces such as tanks, valve pits, or trenches. 4.7.2 4.8.2 Fall Protection. Legally required equipment shall be worn or used to prevent injury from falls to personnel. 4.7.3 4.8.3 Special Hazards. Precautions shall be taken to address any special hazards, such as protection against drowning where working on the top of a filled embankment or a supported rubberized fabric tank, or over open water or other liquids. 4.7.4* 4.8.4* Hazardous Materials. 4.7.4.� 4.8.4.� Legally required equipment shall be used where working in an environment with hazardous materials present. 4.7.4.2 4.8.4.2 The owner shall advise anyone performing inspection, testing, and maintenance on any system under the scope of this document, with regard to hazardous materials stored on the premises. Substantiation: Section 4.9 “Corrective Actions” more logically follows

25-�4

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 “Changes to the System” and “Impairments” as types of work done to a system. This section describes what modifications may be made by a manufacturer. This wording makes more practical sense here than it does following “Records”. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-45 Log #�9� Final Action: Reject (4.9) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Add a new section at the end of Chapter 4. 4.�0 Inspection and Test Reports. A copy of the annual inspection and test report shall be sent by the party responsible for the inspection and testing to the Authority Having Jurisdiction. (See Annex B). Substantiation: The ability to enforce the requirements of NFPA 25 will be enhanced and improved by providing a copy of the inspection and test reports to the AHJ. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This should be a requirement of the local AHJ. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: ADAMS, C.: Vote is in favor of the proposal. Although it is a “requirement of the AHJ”, there is no code enforceable language to require it thus it is not always performed. ________________________________________________________________ 25-46 Log #�70 Final Action: Accept (Table 5.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. Scott Mitchell, American Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: For “Obstruction investigation” change the reference from �0.2.�, �0.2.2 to �3.2.�, �3.2.2. Substantiation: Editorial correction. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-47 Log #�98 Final Action: Reject (Table 5.1 ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Co. Inc. Recommendation: Revise Table 5.� as follows:

Substantiation: Correlation with NFPA 72 by subdividing “Alarm devices” into three categories: Waterflow devices; valve supervisory devices; and Supervisory signal devices (except valve supervisory switches). Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Section 5.3.3 covers waterflow only. Tamper switches are covered in Chapter �2. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

________________________________________________________________ 25-48 Log #78 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Table 5.1, 13.2.1, and 13.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete “5 years or” from the “Frequency” column, and remove reference to �3.2.� from the table. In �3.2.�, replace the word “investigation” with the word “inspection”. Substantiation: The reality of the table is to match the needs with �3.2.2 which lists �4 issues why an obstruction investigation may be necessary. This investigation has no calendar time frame associated with the actions. However, it can be interpreted from the present wording and the present table that an obstruction investigation is required every five years. That is not the intent to require a very expensive process to be mandated every five years without a named condition to back it up. In other words, some AHJs are possibly confused and requiring an obstruction investigation rather than a more simple inspection for the five year interval. The proposal should clarify the intent. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add a separate line referencing the following: obstruction inspection / 5 years / see Section �3.2.� and obstruction investigation / as needed / see Section �3.2.2. In Section �3.2.� use the term “inspection”, in Sections �3.2.2 & �3.2.3 use the term “investigation” Committee Statement: It is the intent of the committee to segregate the requirements of obstruction inspection and investigation for clarification. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-49 Log #207 Final Action: Reject (5.1.1, 5.4.3 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire Protection Recommendation: Add a new 5.�.� to read: 5.�.� The repair, replacement, alteration or extension of sprinkler systems or sprinkler system components shall be in accordance with NFPA �3, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems. Revise 5.4.3 to read: 5.4.3 Installation and Acceptance Testing. Where maintenance or repair … Substantiation: Just as NFPA �3 directs users of that standard to go to NFPA 25 for inspection, testing and maintenance purposes, so too should NFPA 25 provide a link back to NFPA �3 when repairs, replacements, alterations or extensions to existing sprinkler systems are contemplated. Except for some wording in 5.4.3 concerning maintenance or repair, which primarily deals with the subsequent acceptance testing, this requirement is currently missing from NFPA 25. With the addition of the proposed new 6.��, the title of 5.4.3 should then be revised to more directly refer to the acceptance testing. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Multiple references to installation standards is not needed. This topic is already addressed in the document scope. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should give this matter further thought. The document scope is vague, it just refers to “the appropriate installation standard”, and thus no real guidance is provided. NFPA 25 should provide clear direction as to when another standard needs to be referred to and what standards would be applicable. Just as NFPA �3 sends us to NFPA 25 for inspection, test and maintenance concerns, so too should NFPA 25 refer us back to NFPA �3 when a sprinkler system is to be renovated.

Table 5.1 Summary of Sprinkler System Inspection, Testing, and MaintenanceAlarm device Inspection Quarterly 5.2.6Waterflow devices Inspection Quarterly 5.2.6Valve supervisory devices Inspection Quarterly 5.2.6Supervisory signal devices Inspection Quarterly 5.2.6(except valve supervisory switches)Alarm device Test Quarterly/semiannually 5.3.3Waterflow devices Test Quarterly/semiannually 5.3.3Valve supervisory devices Test Semiannually Table �2.�Supervisory signal devices Test Semiannually Table �2.�(except valve supervisory switches)

25-�5

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-50 Log #�27 Final Action: Reject (5.1.2, 6.1.2, 7.1.4, 8.1.7, 9.1.2, 10.1.4, 10.1.4.1, 10.1.4.2 and 11.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Delete 5.�.2, 6.�.2, 7.�.4, 8.�.7, 9.�.2, �0.�.4, �0.�.4.�, �0.�.4.2, and Section ��.2. Substantiation: This guidance provided in Section 4.2 as a General Requirement applies to all system chapters. The additional guidance in Chapter �0 is already covered in the referenced Chapter �4. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Reference to impairment requirements is needed. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-5� Log #�29 Final Action: Accept (5.1.4, 6.5, 7.5, 9.5 and 10.5) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Delete 5.�.4, 6.5, 7.5, 9.5, and �0.5. Substantiation: The requirements on records is covered by Section 4.3 as a General item applicable to ALL chapters on systems. Repeating the reference to Section 4.3 (with no additional directions) in some but not all of the chapters is unnecessary. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-52 Log #�30 Final Action: Accept (5.1.5 (New), 5.2.8, and 5.3.5) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add a new section 5.�.5 to read: 5.�.5 Hose connections shall be inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with Chapter 6 and Chapter �2. Delete 5.2.8 and 5.3.5. Substantiation: This provides consistency with 5.�.� for Valves and Connections for how other chapters are referenced for criteria on components. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-53 Log #69 Final Action: Reject (5.2.1.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Revise paragraph as follows: “Sprinklers shall be inspected from the floor level when unsatisfactory conditions warrant.” Substantiation: This paragraph and others like it in Section 5.2 do not relate to conditions that warrant inspections. To arbitrarily state all sprinklers inspected annually, and then place exceptions such as 5.2.�.�.4, 5.2.�.�.5, 5.2.2.3, 5.2.2.4, 5.2.3.3, and 5.2.3.4 in the following paragraphs shows the absurdity of the requirement for annual inspections. If there are known conditions to warrant the inspection, such as corrosive atmospheres, inclement weather, etc., the inspections should be based on performance issues, and not an arbitrary calendar date. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Sprinklers must be inspected annually. The proposed language is unenforceable. This section is also intended to verify that climbing on a ladder to inspect sprinklers is not required. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: SHEPPARD, J.: I agree with submitter’s substantiation. ________________________________________________________________ 25-54 Log #2�8 Final Action: Reject (5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.1.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ruben Grijalva, State of California, Office of the State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Revise text to read: 5.2.�.�* Sprinklers installed under an exposed ceiling shall be inspected quarterly from the floor level annually . Sprinklers installed in inaccessible concealed spaces shall not be required to be inspected. 5.2.�.�.4* Sprinklers installed in concealed spaces such as above suspended

ceilings or in concealed spaces where access is provided by access openings shall not require inspection be inspected at a frequency not to exceed 5 years . A.5.2.�.�.4 Examples include some floor/ceiling or roof ceiling assemblies, areas under theatre stages, pipe chases and other inaccessible areas. Suspended ceilings are those ceilings utilizing ceiling tiles installed on a grid where the ceiling tiles can be removed. This includes ceiling tiles held in place with hold-down clips as in fire rated ceiling construction. This does not include a suspended gypsum wallboard ceiling which is not provided with an access opening. Certain concealed spaces are required by building codes to be provided with access openings. Such concealed spaces include attics, mansard spaces, underfloor spaces, under stages, under platforms or decks, and similar accessible spaces. Accessible concealed spaces are provided with access openings for maintenance of mechanical and electrical services. Although the general public or building occupants do not normally access these spaces, maintenance personnel and contractors do access these spaces. While servicing mechanical or electrical equipment these people may damage or create an obstruction to sprinklers. In addition, during the normal life of a building, roof insulating materials may fall and cover a sprinkler, thereby obstructing the sprinkler in terms of insulating the thermal response element of the sprinkler and in terms of obstructing the spray pattern. Substantiation: California’s experience with obstructed sprinklers above suspended ceilings over the last 20 years is extensive. To inspect sprinklers above inaccessible ceilings is not practical. This requirement, if accepted, will require inspection of sprinklers only above ceilings that are accessible either by lay-in ceiling tiles or access openings. Proposals for paragraphs 5.2.�.�, 5.2.�.�.4 and A.5.2.�.�.4 should be considered collectively as they are interdependent. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Inspection above ceilings is not the intent. The proposed language will present excessive cost without a demonstrated benefit. A quarterly inspection frequency is excessive. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-55 Log #5 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.2.1.1.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Jim Everitt, Western Fire, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev/Western Regional Recommendation: Revise to read as follows: 5.2.�.�.2 Any sprinkler shall be replaced that has signs of leakage, is painted other than by the manufacturer , corroded, damaged, or loaded; or in the improper orientation. Substantiation: As currently worded any sprinkler that is painted, even by the manufacturer must be replaced. This clarifies the text to not require that sprinklers painted by the manufacturer do not have to be replaced. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise to read as follows: 5.2.�.�.2 Any sprinkler shall be replaced that has signs of leakage, is painted other than by the sprinkler manufacturer , corroded, damaged, or loaded; or in the improper orientation. Committee Statement: Only the sprinkler manufacturer is permitted to paint the sprinkler. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-56 Log #205 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.2.1.1.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: David A. de Vries, Firetech Engineering Recommendation: Revise text as follows: 5.2.�.�.2 Any sprinkler shall be replaced that has signs of leakage; is painted, corroded, damaged, or loaded; has been recalled by the manufacturer or governmental agency; or is installed in the improper orientation. Substantiation: In the past 8 years there have been several models of automatic sprinklers that have been recalled voluntarily by the manufacturer or have been ordered recalled by responsible governmental agencies. A significant percentage of these recalled sprinklers have been shown by testing at a nationally recognized testing laboratory to fail to open when exposed to heat at the required minimum operating pressure of a sprinkler system. In some cases the pressure to cause opening of the sprinkler exceeds that found in a typical sprinkler system. The failure of a sprinkler to operate as intended could result in injury, loss of life and greater property damage. The simultaneous failure of several sprinklers in the same area could also result in a fire growing to the point where the sprinkler system is overwhelmed. It is important that the recalled sprinklers be identified and replaced. Related proposals are intended to assist the person conducting the inspection to identify where recalled sprinklers have been installed. Adding the words “is installed” is editorial for parallel sentence construction.

25-�6

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-62 (Log #�92). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �8 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: See comment for Proposal 25-24 (Log #��9). LEAVITT, R.: See My Explanation of Negative on 25-24 (Log #��9). ________________________________________________________________ 25-57 Log #�83 Final Action: Reject (5.2.1.1.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: James M. Fantauzzi, North East Fire Protection Systems, Inc. / Rep. AFSA Recommendation: Delete 5.2.�.�.3 in its entirety. Substantiation: This paragraph exceeds the scope of NFPA 25 in that it implies that any and all glass bulbs even if they can not be observed from floor level. The intent of the committee is covered by paragraph 5.2.�.�.2 by the words “physical damage.” Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Replacement of empty glass bulb sprinklers is needed. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-58 Log #22� Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part (5.2.1.1.6 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas A. Noble, City of Henderson Building & Fire Safety Recommendation: Add a new section to read as follows: 5.2.�.�.6 Sprinklers that are subject to recall shall be replaced per the manufacturer’s requirements and the AHJ shall be notified in writing of type of sprinkler being replaced, it’s replacement and completion of work. Substantiation: None. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part Notification of the AHJ is not accepted. Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-62 (Log #�92). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-59 Log #�82 Final Action: Reject (5.2.1.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: James M. Fantauzzi, North East Fire Protection Systems, Inc. / Rep. AFSA Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Furnishings and stored materials causing unacceptable obstruction to the sprinkler spray pattern shall be corrected. Substantiation: Paragraph 5.2.�.2 as written, exceeds the scope of NFPA 25, paragraph �.� by addressing any and all obstructions including that address by NFPA �3 original installation. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It is not the intent to limit the materials causing obstructions to furnishings and stored materials only. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: I am voting negatively regarding obstructions. Although I agree that the intent is not limited to obstructions caused by just furnishings and stored materials only, we need additional annex material clarifying our intent. Despite the Scope saying the criteria does not apply to improperly installed systems, it is common for the inspector to be expected to address separation from structural members and other installation issue. ________________________________________________________________ 25-60 Log #203 Final Action: Reject (5.2.1.3(3) (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: David A. de Vries, Firetech Engineering Recommendation: Add new text as follows: 5.2.�.3 The supply of spare sprinklers shall be...wrench for each type of sprinkler (no change to existing text) (add new paragraph 3) (3) A listing of the sprinklers installed in the property in accordance with 5.2.9. Substantiation: See related proposal for new section 5.2.9 Every protected property is required to have spare sprinklers on hand to expedite restoration of service after operation of a sprinkler. This restoration is sometimes delayed or incomplete because of a lack of the correct spare

sprinklers. Posting a list of each kind installed as indicated in proposed 5.2.9 will ease the inspection process in verifying that the correct kinds are available and will assist the person conducting the inspection to determine if any of the installed sprinklers have been recalled by the manufacturer or governmental agency. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: NFPA �3, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, should be used to make this determination. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-6� Log #�2 Final Action: Reject (5.2.1.3.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee Recommendation: Add a new section to read: 5.2.�.3.� The installing contractor shall provide an engraved metal or rigid plastic sign secured within each spare sprinkler cabinet(s). The sign shall include the following information for each type of sprinkler installed: �. The Manufacturer of the Sprinkler 2. Sprinkler Identification Number (SIN) 3. The Model of the Sprinkler 4. The Type of Sprinkler 5. The quantity of each sprinkler style to be stored in the cabinet. (Example: Tyco - TY9�28, Model EC-25, upright, quantity - 5) Substantiation: Over the years, there has been a significant increase in the number of sprinklers manufactured with varying styles, types, and different k-factors. Verifying that an accurate representative sample of replacement sprinklers is provided within the spare head cabinet is becoming difficult. This measure should help ensure that. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Outside of the scope of this document. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: HUGGINS, R.: I agree but with comment. This is an NFPA �3 matter but we need to notify them that it is an issue. 25:5.2.�.3 requires verifying that the spare sprinklers consist of the proper type and number of sprinklers. The as-built drawings and other original documents have this information but as readily acknowledged, this information is often not available. The requirement for a sign at the cabinet is a reasonable solution. ________________________________________________________________ 25-62 Log #�92 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.2.1.5, and A.5.1.2.5) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Add a new section 5.2.�.5 with Annex note A.5.�.2.5. 5.�.2.5 Devices that have been the subject of a manufacturer’s recall or replacement program shall be replaced or entered into a program for scheduled replacement. A.5.�.2.5 The system inspection form shall indicate the date and location that registration was made by the owner with a manufacturer’s device replacement program. Substantiation: Sprinklers and devices that were recalled by the manufacturer should be replaced. This proposal will allow for the planned replacement of sprinklers and devices that are part of an ongoing replacement program, but is intended to require the immediate replacement of sprinklers or devices for which a replacement program has expired. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Place the proposed text in Chapter 4. Committee Statement: By placing in Chapter 4, the text now applies globally. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �7 Negative: 3 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: See My Explanation of Negative on 25-24 (Log #��9). LEAVITT, R.: See My Explanation of Negative on 25-24 (Log #��9). SHEPPARD, J.: Paragraph as proposed is too general and vague. Not all fire protection recalls affect the respective fire protection issue �00 percent of the time. As an example; failure of sprinkler heads to perform at minimum stated test pressure (as required by laboratory standards) do not reflect actual field conditions where �00 psi + is applied to the system. I maintain that test samples for certain conditions have been limited to date and do not reflect actual field conditions of high pressure systems.

25-�7

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-63 Log #�53 Final Action: Reject (5.2.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, TVA Fire and Life Safety, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read: Pipe and fittings shall be in good condition and free of mechanical damage, leakage, and corrosion , and misalignment. Substantiation: The term “misalignment” is arbitrary and undefined. Alignment on wet systems has very little, if any, application to wet sprinkler systems. As a result, it is most often applied to the pitch for drainage on dry pipe and preaction systems. It is impractical to expect a visual inspection room the floor to validate proper pitch for drainage. This application creates tremendous exposure for inspection service providers. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Piping should be checked for misalignment. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �8 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: I disagree with the committee recommendation to Reject. The term misalignment needs either a definition or annex material identifying what is intended since it is often misapplied. LEAVITT, R.: I do not agree with the committee recommendation to Reject. The term “misalignment” is too often misinterpreted and has created extensive litigation in the industry for service providers and owners. This term should be eliminated or replaced with a term or statement that communicates the intent of the standard. ________________________________________________________________ 25-64 Log #2�7 Final Action: Reject (5.2.3, 5.2.3.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ruben Grijalva, State of California, Office of the State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Revise text to read: 5.2.3* Hangers and Seismic Braces. Sprinkle pipe hangers and seismic braces installed under an exposed ceiling shall be inspected quarterly from the floor level annually . Sprinklers installed in inaccessible concealed spaces shall not be required to be inspected. 5.2.3.3* Hangers and seismic braces installed in concealed spaces such as above suspended ceilings or in concealed spaces where access is provided by access openings shall not require inspection be inspected at a frequency not to exceed 5 years . A.5.2.3 Examples include some floor/ceiling or roof ceiling assemblies, areas under theatre stages, pipe chases and other inaccessible areas. Suspended ceilings are those ceilings utilizing ceiling tiles installed on a grid where the ceiling tiles can be removed. This includes ceiling tiles held in place with hold-down clips as in fire rated ceiling construction. Certain concealed spaces are required by the building codes to be provided with access openings. Such concealed spaces include attics, mansard spaces, underfloor spaces, under stages, under platforms or decks, and similar accessible spaces. Accessible concealed spaces are provided with access openings for maintenance of mechanical and electrical services. Although the general public or building occupants do not normally access these spaces, maintenance personnel and contractors do access these spaces. While servicing mechanical or electrical equipment these people may damage hangers or seismic bracing. Substantiation: California’s experience with damaged hangers and seismic braces above suspended ceilings over the last 20 years is extensive. To inspect hangers and seismic braces above inaccessible ceilings is not practical. This requirement, if accepted, will require inspection of hangers and seismic braces only above ceilings that are accessible either by lay-in ceiling tiles or access openings. Damaged seismic braces have contributed to system failure during seismic events. The need to maintain the seismic braces has been determined nationally. Proposals for 5.2.�.�, 5.2.�.�.4 and A.5.2.�.�.4 should be considered collectively as they are interdependent. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-54 (Log #2�8). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-65 Log #6 Final Action: Reject (5.2.3.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Jim Everitt, Western Fire, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev/Western Regional Recommendation: Revise to read as follows: 5.2.3.2 Hangers and seismic braces that are damaged or loose shall be replaced or refastened in accordance with or equivalent to the original approved design . Substantiation: Better clarifies that hangers must be repaired in accordance

with their original design or equivalent if not available. Don’t want just any method of attachment for loose or missing hangers or braces. Original design must be considered for both material and method of attachment. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The installation standard is required to be applied in accordance with �.�. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-66 Log #53 Final Action: Reject (5.2.9 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Add a new section 5.2.9 as follows: 5.2.9 Use Evaluation. Annually, the occupancy, use, process and storage arrangement shall be inspected to verify the parameters of the fire sprinkler system design have not been violated. 5.2.9.� If the inspection in 5.2.9 determines that the parameters have been violated, the AHJ shall be notified within five business days of the inspection. 5.2.9.2 The results of the evaluation in 5.2.9 shall be documented on the inspection report. Substantiation: The document does not currently require an evaluation of the current building use, process and storage arrangement as part of the inspection. This is key component to ensuring the continued effectiveness of the fire sprinkler system. This type of violation is constantly cited in fire history as a cause for fire not being controlled by the fire sprinkler system. The language in 4.�.5 is insufficient as it only requires notification of the change by the owner and is a responsibility of the owner and not a responsibility as part of the inspection in Chapter 5. A violation of this type is serious and should require expedient notification of the AHJ. This type of violation should also be called out on the inspection report. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The AHJ can require enforcement in Section 4.�.6 and the local fire code. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-67 Log #204 Final Action: Reject (5.2.9 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: David A. de Vries, Firetech Engineering Recommendation: Add new text as follows: 5.2.9 A listing of the sprinklers installed in the property shall be posted in the sprinkler cabinet. The listing shall identify the number of each kind installed and the make, model, temperature rating, response characteristic, orifice size and year of manufacture for each kind. Substantiation: I have recently encountered situations where the correct replacement sprinkler was not available, although the cabinet was stocked full of spares, apparently because it was overlooked in stocking due to the limited number of that particular kind. I have also recently surveyed buildings for recalled sprinklers and neither the sprinkler working plans nor Contractor’s Test and Material Certificate were available to see the make, model and year of manufacture of the sprinklers installed in the property. Posting this information in a readily accessible, permanent location will accomplish two important functions: • allow a means to confirm that the correct kinds of spare sprinklers are available, and • allow a means to quickly check for sprinklers that have been recalled due to defect. (Note: A proposal with identical language was submitted in November, 2004 to add a new section (6.2.9.7) to NFPA �3.) Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement in Proposal 25-6� (Log #�2). Section 4.3 requires that the plans be kept permanently which will indicate the sprinkler types installed. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-68 Log #�6 Final Action: Reject (5.2.9 and 6.2.4 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Add the following new section to read: 5.2.9 Fire department connections shall be located not less than �8 in. (457 mm) nor more than 48 in. (�2�9 mm) above the level of the adjoining ground, sidewalk, or grade surface. 6.2.4 Fire department connections shall be located not less than �8 in. (457

25-�8

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 mm) nor more than 48 in. (�2�9 mm) above the level of the adjoining ground, sidewalk, or grade surface. Substantiation: This wording comes from NFPA �3 and should be in NFPA 25 for consistency. Many times areas around FDC’s are regraded making the FDC’s difficult to attach the hose. This requirement would permit those inspecting FDC’s to have a number to follow and ensure that the FDC’s are accessible for use. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Outside the scope of the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-69 Log #�9 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.3.1.1.1.5) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: 5.3.�.�.�.5 Dry sprinklers that have been in service for �0 years, shall be replaced or representative samples from one or more sample areas shall be submitted to a recognized testing laboratory acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction for field service testing. Test procedures shall be repeated at �0-year intervals. Substantiation: The current wording appears to require that all the dry sprinklers be tested or replaced with no guidance. By adding the proposed wording it would bring this section into consistency with 5.3.�.�.�.4 and provide guidance on the testing required. To assist the user and ahj in determining testing frequencies. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise to read as follows: 5.3.�.�.�.5 Dry sprinklers that have been in service for �0 years shall be replaced or representative samples shall be tested or replaced. If maintained and serviced, t hey shall be retested at �0-year intervals. 5.3.�.�.�.2 Sprinklers manufactured using fast-response elements that have been in service for 20 years shall be replaced or representative samples shall be tested. They shall be retested at �0-year intervals. Committee Statement: Consistent with Section 5.3.�.�.3. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-70 Log #�3� Final Action: Accept (5.3.1.3 and A.5.3.1.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Revise text to read: 5.3.�.3 Where one sprinkler within a representative sample fails to meet the test requirement, all sprinklers within the area represented by that sample shall be replaced. A.5.3.�.2 Within an environment, similar sidewall, upright, and pendent sprinklers produced by the same manufacture could be considered part of the same sample but would be considered different samples additional sprinklers would be included within the sample if produced by a different manufacturer. Substantiation: Historically NFPA 25 required ALL sprinklers within a given environment to be replaced if any sprinkler within that environment failed. In providing better guidance on producing a sample for GIVEN environment, NFPA 25 now produces sub-samples within one environment. A literal application of the text requires only the individual model of the manufacturer that failed to be replaced as opposed to all sprinklers in an environment that produced a failure. The overall tone still indicates it’s the environment that is the focus. Additional clarity is needed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept

Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: OLIVER, R.: I believe the new wording is too inclusive of all sprinklers in an area. The existing wording in NFPA 25 will allow for sprinklers of a manufacturer to be a sample. It would not be logical to force the change of all sprinklers in an area, if one of the many manufacturers had a recall or failure due to manufacturing versus an environmental problem. ________________________________________________________________ 25-7� Log #�42 Final Action: Accept (5.3.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Delete 5.3.3. Substantiation: Most of this information is provided in 5.3.3.3 and 5.3.3.3.�. What isn’t within the body of the standard is covered by A.5.3.3.3. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Committee Statement: Delete Section A.5.3.3.3. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: ADAMS, C.: 5.3.3 is section heading. Committee action should be APR with 5.3.3.3 deleted. ________________________________________________________________ 25-72 Log #20 Final Action: Reject (5.3.3.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: 5.3.3.� Water-flow devices including, but not limited to, mechanical water motor gongs and pressure switch type shall be tested semiannually. Substantiation: For consistently with 5.3.3.2 which requires vane-type waterflow devices to be tested semiannually. The vane type devices have been the concern previously, now that they have been changed to semiannually the other waterflow devices should be brought into the same cycle. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The committee intentionally identified a difference between these devices. See A.5.3.3.2. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should reconsider this proposal and equalize the different frequencies for the pressure actuated water flow alarm switches and the paddle type. No information has ever been presented to indicate that pressure switches are any less reliable than paddle type switches. The data that was used in the previous cycles that resulted in the semi-annual frequency for paddle type water flow alarms didn’t define what type of flow switches the statistics were based on. I believe that the committee made an incorrect assumption that it was entirely based on paddle type switches. With this, I believe that this aspect of NFPA 25 should be coordinated with the provisions in NFPA 72 and both types of water flow switch should be tested on a semi-annual basis. ________________________________________________________________ 25-73 Log #37 Final Action: Accept (5.3.4.1(b)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bruce A. Edwards, Liberty Mutual Property Recommendation: Revise table as follows:

Table 5.3.4.1(b) Antifreeze Solutions to be Used if Potable Water is Connected to Sprinklers

MaterialSolution

(by volume)

Specific Gravity at

60°F (15.6°C)

Freezing Point

°F °CGlycerineC.P. or U.S. P. grade*

Hydrometer scale �.000 to �.200

50% water40% water30% water

�.�33 �.�45�.�5� �.�7��.�65 �.�97

-�5 -20.9-22 -47.3-40 -22.2

-26.� -29.4-30.0 -44.�-40.0 -30.�

Propylene Glycol

Hydrometer scale�.000 to �.200 (subdivisions 0.0002)

70% water60% water50% water40% water

�.027�.034�.04��.045

+9-6-26-60

-�2.8-2�.2-32.2-5�.�

*C.P. – chemically pure; U.S.P. – United States Pharmacopoeia 96.9% 96.5%.

25-�9

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Substantiation: To provide consistency within NFPA documents, table 5.3.4.�(b) in NFPA 25 and Table 7.5.2.2 in NFPA �3 should agree as both tables address Antifreeze Solutions to be Used if Potable Water is Connected to Sprinklers. The table in NFPA 25 has differed from the table in NFPA �3 since the first edition, including using a different U.S.P.%. Public proposal �3-87 (Log #�03) to NFPA �3 in May 2002, which was accepted, identified and corrected conflicting data with published research articles and chemical reference texts. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-74 Log #�46 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Table 5.3.4.1(b)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Update Table 5.3.4.�(b) to reflect the changes made to the Glycerine values for specific gravity and freeze points in the 2002 edition of NFPA �3 table 7.5.2.2. Substantiation: More accurate data. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-73 (Log #37). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-75 Log #�93 Final Action: Accept in Principle (5.3.4.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Add a new section 5.3.4.3. 5.3.4.3 The antifreeze solution shall be tested at its most remote portion and where it interfaces with the wet-pipe system. If the solution is not acceptable, additional water or antifreeze shall be prepared per manufacturer’s instructions and pumped back into the system. When antifreeze systems have a capacity larger than 40 gallons, they shall be tested at additional points. Substantiation: Additional guidance is needed in the standard on what steps are required in testing the antifreeze solution in an antifreeze system. Since concentrations can be higher at different points in the system it is important to test more than one location. The hazards of too little antifreeze are obvious. While too much antifreeze may have the same potential to freeze, few inspectors are aware of this fact. Too much antifreeze might also present problems due to flammability of the product being used as most antifreeze solutions are a Class IIIB liquid. Additionally, larger systems should be tested at multiple points on the system to verify concentrations. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add a new section 5.3.4.3. 5.3.4.3 The antifreeze solution shall be tested at its most remote portion and where it interfaces with the wet-pipe system. When antifreeze systems have a capacity larger than �50 gallons, tests at one additional point for every �00 gallons shall be made. If the test results indicate an incorrect freeze point at any point in the system, the system shall be drained, the solution adjusted and the systems refilled. For premixed solutions, the manufacturers instructions shall be permitted to be used with regard to the number of test points and refill procedure. Committee Statement: It is the intent to require a system to be drained and refilled with antifreeze when a test point indicates an incorrect freeze point. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: HUGGINS, R.: I agree but with comment. The ability to test an antifreeze system at the most remote location requires the installation of an additional test connection. Since that is an NFPA �3 matter, we need to notify them of the issue. ________________________________________________________________ 25-76 Log #�50 Final Action: Reject (5.3.6 and 5.3.6.1 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, TVA Fire and Life Safety, Inc. Recommendation: Add new sections to read: 5.3.6 A 4 hour air leakage test at 40 psi shall be conducted every 3 years. Any leakage that results in a loss of pressure in excess of 0.� bar (� �/2 psi) shall be corrected. 5.3.6.� A 2 hour air leakage test at working air pressure shall be conducted annually. Any leakage that results in a loss of pressure in excess of 5 percent of

the working air pressure shall be corrected. Substantiation: �2.4.4.3.� requires leaks in air pressure greater than �0 psi per week to be located and repaired. Unnecessary dry system trips regularly occur and are expensive to repair and leave the system impaired during freezing weather. To require leaks to be located and repaired without a test to determine if leaks are present makes no sense. An annual test can be conducted simply and will identify major leaks. The 3-year test can be done in conjunction with the full trip test and will keep expense to a minimum along with a minimum interruption to service. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: A 5 percent pressure drop can be a very low pressure loss and is difficult to detect. Temperature fluctuations can be experienced during the day affecting the test results. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: I disagree with the recommendation to Reject. The submitter is correct that we have a leakage limit with no identified testing. If 5 percent is considered too difficult to detect, the TC should identify what is an acceptable test. ________________________________________________________________ 25-77 Log #7 Final Action: Reject (5.4.1.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Jim Everitt, Western Fire, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev/Western Regional Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.4.�.2 Only new, listed sprinklers of the same type, orifice size, temperature range, thermal response characteristics and K-factor shall be used to replace existing sprinklers. Substantiation: This insures that pendent type replace pendent type, temperature, etc., be used to replace existing sprinklers. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Already addressed by 5.4.�.�. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-78 Log #70 Final Action: Accept (5.4.1.3 and 5.4.1.3.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Reword as follows: “Special and quick-response sprinklers as defined by NFPA �3, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, shall be replaced with sprinklers of the same orifice, size, temperature range and thermal response characteristics, and K-factor,” deleting the words “make, model”. Delete paragraph 5.4.�.3.� as redundant. Substantiation: The make and model are unimportant if the remaining conditions of the paragraph are followed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-79 Log #4 Final Action: Reject (5.4.1.4.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Jim Everitt, Western Fire, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev/Western Regional Recommendation: Revise to read as follows: 5.4.�.4.2 The installing contractor shall provide an approved engraved durable sign secured to the spare sprinkler cabinet. The sign shall convey the following information for each type of spray nozzle and/or pilot sprinkler installed: �. The Manufacturer of the Sprinkler 2. Sprinkler Identification Number (SIN) 3. The Model of the Sprinkler 4. The Type of Sprinkler 5. The quantity of each sprinkler style to be stored in the cabinet. (Example: Tyco - TY9�28, Model EC-25, upright, quantity - 5) Substantiation: The original installation plans and documents are not normally available when the fire protection system is being maintained on an annual basis. The placard would help the fire protection contractor, who may not be the original installing contractor, a guide to the type of nozzles or heads required for the spare sprinkler box. The placard will also be useful to the AHJ to make sure that the proper heads are being maintained on-site, not just that the spare box is full. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on 25-6� (Log #�2) and 25-60 (Log #203). This is an installation issue and should be submitted to NFPA �3.

25-20

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-80 Log #�� Final Action: Reject (5.4.1.4.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee Recommendation: Delete 5.4.�.4.2.�. Substantiation: Sprinklers of varying lengths are typically custom ordered for this application with a waiting period of thirty days or more. This delay would require the system to be out of service without adequate protection until new sprinklers can be obtained. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It is not practical to have spare dry-type sprinklers for every possible length. There are other methods for placing the system back into service, such as installing a temporary standard drop with antifreeze and a standard sprinkler until a replacement can be obtained. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-8� Log #�69 Final Action: Reject (6.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. Scott Mitchell, American Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Extract criteria from NFPA �962 for fire hose and appurtenances. Substantiation: Chapter 6 currently gives requirements for inspection, testing, and maintenance of fire hoses and equipment by referencing NFPA �962. These criteria should actually be extracted from NFPA �962 and printed in Chapter 6 of NFPA 25. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: No specific language was proposed. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: I disagree with the recommendation to Reject. The submitter is correct that we should not require the inspector to go to NFPA �962. The committee should identify what information they want extracted. ________________________________________________________________ 25-82 Log #7� Final Action: Accept (Table 6.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Change frequency for those items listed as quarterly (with the exception of “alarms”) to annually and edit their respective paragraphs to match. Substantiation: The history of record keeping and unsatisfactory performance of these issues does not warrant quarterly inspections. The committee is not addressing the performance issues of any devices. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I have two objections to this proposal. First, the non-explicit reference to “the history of record keeping” is not an adequate substantiation for the proposed change, no technical justification was provided. Second with the introduction of “Master Pressure Reducing Valves” in NFPA �4 and NFPA 25 (see Proposal 25-�84, Log #��5), Table 6.� is now dealing with Pressure Regulating Devices on more than just individual hose stations, so a blanket change from quarterly to annually is inappropriate. ________________________________________________________________ 25-83 Log #82 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Table 6.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete row containing: Hose Nozzle - Test - Annually - NFPA �962. Substantiation: NFPA �962 section 6.� does not contain an annual nozzle test requirement. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Keep the requirement intact but change “test” to “inspect”. Change to “annually and after each use”. Committee Statement: More consistent with NFPA �962, Standard for the Inspection, Care and Use of Fire Hose, Couplings and Nozzles; and the Service

Testing of Fire Hose. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-84 Log #92 Final Action: Reject (Table 6.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete row containing “Hydrostatic test - Test - 5 Years”. Substantiation: Editorial. This requirement is already addressed in the row containing “Hose - Test - 5 years/3 years.” Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This section is testing the pipe (hydrostatic), not the hose. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-85 Log #�99 Final Action: Reject (Table 6.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Co. Inc. Recommendation: Revise Table 6.� as follows:

Substantiation: Correlation with NFPA 72 by subdividing “Alarm devices” into three categories: Waterflow devices; valve supervisory devices; and Supervisory signal devices (except valve supervisory switches). Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This section covers water flow only. See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-47 (Log #�98). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-86 Log #208 Final Action: Reject (6.1.1 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire Protection Recommendation: Add a new 6.�.� to read: 6.�.� The repair, replacement, alteration or extension of standpipe systems or standpipe system components shall be in accordance with NFPA �4, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems. Substantiation: Just as NFPA �4 directs users of that standard to go to NFPA 25 for inspection, testing and maintenance purposes, so too should NFPA 25 provide a link back to NFPA �4 when repairs, replacements, alterations or extensions to existing standpipe systems are contemplated. This requirement is currently missing from NFPA 25. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-49 (Log #207). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should give this matter further thought. The document scope is vague, it just refers to “the appropriate installation standard”, and thus no real guidance is provided. NFPA 25 should provide clear direction as to when another standard needs to be referred to and what standards would be applicable. Just as NFPA �4 sends us to NFPA 25 for inspection, test and maintenance concerns, so too should NFPA 25 refer us back to NFPA �4 when a standpipe system is to be renovated.

Table 6.1 Summary of Standpipe and Hose Systems Inspection, Testing, and MaintenanceAlarm device Test Quarterly Table �2.�Waterflow devices Test Quarterly/semian-

nuallyTable �2.�

Valve supervisory devices Test Semiannually Table �2.�Supervisory signal devices Test Semiannually Table �2.� (except valve supervisory switches)

25-2�

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-87 Log #83 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Table 6.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: For Component/Checkpoint - Hose - Mildew, cuts, abrasions, and deterioration evident, under Corrective Action, delete “, lined, jacketed hose”. Substantiation: This requirement is more restrictive than necessary. Other Corrective Actions in the table simply state “Replace”. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Retain the word “hose”. Committee Statement: Editorial. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-88 Log #�32 Final Action: Accept (6.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Delete: The tests shall be conducted by a qualified person. Substantiation: This requirement is addressed in Chapter 4 and is not repeated for any of the other systems. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-89 Log #�75 Final Action: Accept in Principle (6.3.1.1 and 6.3.1.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jack A. Medovich, East Coast Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.3.�.� “...at the hydraulically most remote hose connection s of each zone...” 6.3.�.3 “...tested at the requirements for the system demand in effect at...” Substantiation: Many are performing the flow test following the requirements for a single outlet based on 6.3.�.� stating hose connection is singular i.e., one. There is a specified “design pressure at the required flow” as stated in 6.3.�.� for a single outlet. NFPA �4 uses the plural stating hose connections in ��.5 Flow Tests. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Replace “system demand” with “design criteria”. Committee Statement: Better defines the requirement for flow testing. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-90 Log #2�6 Final Action: Reject (6.3.1.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ruben Grijalva, State of California, Office of the State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Revise text to read: 6.3.�.3 All systems shall be flow tested and pressure tested at the requirements in effect at the time of the installation. Where such requirements cannot be determined, the Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction shall establish the test requirements. Substantiation: It is extremely difficult to determine what edition of NFPA �4 was used when many older systems were installed. Some standpipe systems were not installed to any standard. Since the Fire Department is the entity that must use the standpipe, they should determine the testing requirements. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Already covered in 6.3.�.3.�. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-9� Log #2�5 Final Action: Reject (6.3.1.3.1.1 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ruben Grijalva, State of California, Office of the State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Add a new section to read: 6.3.�.3.�.� Where the standpipe is supplied by a fire department connection and a fire pump, the standpipe shall be tested using the fire pump and the fire department connection independently. Where multiple fire department connections are installed, the standpipe shall be tested by using each fire department connection independently. Substantiation: This proposal is intended to ensure that both sources of supply to a standpipe are operational. This is important for firefighting operations and

for fire fighter safety. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The testing of the FDC periodically will help insure the integrity of the FDC. Flow testing is not considered necessary as it depends on fire department equipment. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-92 Log #��8 Final Action: Reject (6.3.1.3.1.2 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: James M. Feld, Feld Engineering Recommendation: Add new text to read: Where the standpipe is supplied by pumps that are staged in series due to the height of the building, the FDC is only required to supply the highest fire pump. Substantiation: This is to ensure the standpipe can be adequately supplied by the FD when the lower pump is out of service or fails. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This is a design issue and should be directed to NFPA �4, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe, Private Hydrants, and Hose Systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-93 Log #�49 Final Action: Accept (6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.2, 6.3.2.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, TVA Fire and Life Safety, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read: 6.3.2.� Hydrostatic tests of not less than �3.8 bar (200 psi) pressure for 2 hours, or at 3.4 bar (50 psi) in excess of the maximum pressure is in excess of �0.3 bar (�50 psi) shall be conducted every 5 years on dry manual standpipe systems and dry portions of wet automatic-dry standpipe systems. 6.3.2.2 Hydrostatic tests shall be conducted on manual standpipe systems in accordance with 6.3.2.� or on any system that has been modified or repaired. 6.3.2.2.� Manual wet standpipes that are a part of a combined sprinkler/standpipe system shall not be required to be tested in accordance with 6.3.2.2 6.3.2.� . Substantiation: The current wording is confusing and does not use the correct terms to identify types of standpipes. The new wording incorporates terms as used in NFPA �4 and other sections of NFPA 25. 6.3.2.2 and 6.3.2.2.� changed to correlate with proposed change for 6.3.2.�. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-94 Log #20� Final Action: Accept (6.3.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Co. Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.3.3 Alarm Devices. Where provided, waterflow alarm and supervisory devices shall be tested in accordance with �2.2.7 and �2.3.3.5 on a quarterly basis . 6.3.3.� Where freezing conditions necessitate a delay in testing, tests shall be performed as soon as weather allows. Substantiation: Correlation with NFPA 72 by subdividing “Alarm devices” into three categories: Waterflow devices; valve supervisory devices; and Supervisory signal devices (except valve supervisory switches). Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-95 Log #�33 Final Action: Accept (6.4.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Revise text to read: 6.4.� Hose Connections . Equipment that does not pass the inspection requirements of 5.2.8 and or the testing requirements of 5.3.5 shall be repaired and tested again or replaced. Substantiation: The paragraph addresses only the hose and nothing on the hose connection. There is no need to reference a section in the sprinkler chapter that simply directs one to Chapter 6 and Chapter �2. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25

25-22

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-96 Log #�65 Final Action: Accept (7.1.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. Scott Mitchell, American Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Delete 7.�.� in its entirety and renumber remaining sections. Substantiation: It is not necessary to explain that quarterly inspection items and annual inspection items may be conducted during the same site visit. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-97 Log #209 Final Action: Reject (7.1.2 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire Protection Recommendation: Add a new 7.�.2 to read: 7.�.2 The repair, replacement, alteration or extension of private fire service mains or private fire service main components shall be in accordance with NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances. Substantiation: When repairs, replacements, alterations or extensions to existing private fire service mains or their components are undertaken, the work should be done in conformance with NFPA 24, but this requirement is currently missing from NFPA 25. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-49 (Log #207). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should give this matter further thought. The document scope is vague, it just refers to “the appropriate installation standard”, and thus no real guidance is provided. NFPA 25 should provide clear direction as to when another standard needs to be referred to and what standards would be applicable. Just as NFPA 24 sends us to NFPA 25 for inspection, test and maintenance concerns, so too should NFPA 25 refer us back to NFPA 24 when a private fire service main is to be renovated. ________________________________________________________________ 25-98 Log #�5 Final Action: Reject (7.2.2 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Add a new 7.2.2 and renumber the remaining: 7.2.2 The center of a hose outlet shall be not less than �8 in. (457 mm) above final grade. Substantiation: Consistent with NFPA 24 where the proposed wording came from. Many times areas around hydrants are regraded or repaved reducing the effective height of the outlet, in some cases with no clearance. The proposed wording give guidance to the person performing the inspection to ensure that the hydrant is useable. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: This is an installation requirement and should be directed to NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-99 Log #93 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Table 7.2.2.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Revise “Tightness of outlets” to read “Tightness of outlet caps”. Revise “Worn nozzle threads” to read “Worn outlet threads”. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Modify Table 7.2.2.5 as well. Committee Statement: Changes should be made for both types of hydrants. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G.,

Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�00 Log #�3 Final Action: Reject (7.3.1.2 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev. Committee Recommendation: Add a new section to 7.3.�.2 to read: When required by the ahj, when a break occurs in an existing private underground main, the main shall be tested as a new installation in accordance with NFPA 24 or by other methods acceptable to the AHJ. Substantiation: When in ground piping begins to fail due to age corrosion, or settling there is no definitive means to retire the system. The above language gives the AHJ the authority to do pressure testing or use an acceptable alternative to evaluate this piping. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Hydrostatic testing of existing piping systems as a new system, could lead to additional leaks, undermining of pipe and additional failures. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�0� Log #94 Final Action: Accept (7.3.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete 7.3.4. Substantiation: Editorial, already addressed in 7.�.3. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�02 Log #72 Final Action: Accept (7.4.2 and 7.4.5) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: delete paragraph in its entirety as paragraph 7.2.2.3 and 7.2.27 already address the conditions. Substantiation: Editorial. Paragraphs are redundant. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�03 Log #�8 Final Action: Reject (7.4.3.3 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Add a new section to read: 7.4.3.3 Hydrants shall be clean and coated with corrosion protection as needed. Substantiation: The proposed wording requires that when hydrants show corrosion that they be painted or that the corrosion protection be replaced. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Already covered in 7.4.3. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�04 Log #230 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Chapter 8) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill M. Harvey, Harvey and Associates Inc. Recommendation: Refer to Chapter 8 and add a new Section No. 8.�.7.� Components Replacement. Impairments occur when components are changed or replaced in fire pumps. The testing requirements shall meet the requirements of the NFPA-20 Chapter �4,Section �4-5 Component Replacement. Substantiation: This new section is needed to provide guidance to “authorities having jurisdiction” and the qualified persons performing the component repalcement or system upgrades in the proper testing requirements needed to insure the fire pump is at operational status. There are to many instances where the correct flow test are not performed after the fire pump is repaired. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-�29 (Log #46). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

25-23

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-�05 Log #54 Final Action: Reject (Chapter 8 (New)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Eddie Phillips, Southern Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Create a new Chapter 8 as follows: Establish an Ad Hoc Task Group from the Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems with direction to create and insert a new Chapter 8 titled “Chapter 8 Public Fire Protection Mains.” This new chapter would address pipe and its fire protection appurtenances located on public property or on private property and operated under a franchise agreement to a private water purveyor. The new Chapter 8 language would come forth as a committee proposal. Substantiation: Currently no NFPA standard provides guidance for the inspection, testing and maintenance of public fire protection mains and their appurtenances. This lack of guidance to water purveyors, AHJ’s and the public creates questions as to what actions should be taken with public system. A fire hydrant on a private line could be well maintained in accordance with 25 but hydrant 20 feet away may not be maintained at all since there is no standard. Clearly, this scenario is not in line with public expectations. The fire does not know if the hydrants outside the building is public or private. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Outside the scope of this standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�06 Log #2�0 Final Action: Reject (8.1.1 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire Protection Recommendation: Add a new 8.�.� to read: 8.�.� The repair, replacement, alteration or extension of fire pump systems or fire pump system components shall be in accordance with NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection. Substantiation: When repairs, replacements, alterations or extensions to existing fire pump systems or fire pump system components are undertaken, the work should be done in conformance with NFPA 20, but this requirement is currently missing from NFPA 25. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-49 (Log #207). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should give this matter further thought. The document scope is vague, it just refers to “the appropriate installation standard”, and thus no real guidance is provided. NFPA 25 should provide clear direction as to when another standard needs to be referred to and what standards would be applicable. Just as NFPA 20 sends us to NFPA 25 for inspection, test and maintenance concerns, so too should NFPA 25 refer us back to NFPA 20 when a fire pump installation is to be renovated. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�07 Log #8 Final Action: Reject (8.1.8 and 10.3.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Jim Everitt, Western Fire, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev/Western Regional Recommendation: Revise to read as follows: 8.�.8 Notification to Supervisory Service. To avoid false alarms where a supervisory service is provided, the alarm receiving facility always shall be notified by the owner or designated representative as follows: (�) Before conducting any test or procedure that could result in the activation of an alarm (2) Immediately after conclusion of such tests or procedures. �0.3.2.�(2) Immediately after conclusion of such tests or procedures. Substantiation: Notification of the supervisory service is only required before testing. This clarifies that immediately after testing the supervisory service should be contacted telling them they system is back on line. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Already covered in Section 4.3.2. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

________________________________________________________________ 25-�08 Log #42 Final Action: Reject (8.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Matthew Roy, S.A. Armstrong LTD Recommendation: Revise text as follows: Change section 8.2.2 to read: The pertinent visual or remote supervisory observations specified in the following checklists shall be performed weekly. Substantiation: Technology exists to witness and perform weekly tests from a remote supervisory station. The current text of the code prohibits this type of testing and is restrictive to new technologies that would reduce the cost of fire pump testing and maintenance, and increase the reliability, integrity and availability of fire pump weekly test data and maintenance records. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Personal attendance is required when the pump is running during the test, see 8.3.2.�. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�09 Log #95 Final Action: Accept in Principle (8.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: In parts (3)(a) and (4)(c), (d), (h), (i), (j), & (k), revise the word “normal” to read “within the acceptable range”. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Wherever the word normal appears, replace with “within acceptable range” in the entire section. (except 3b & 3d, except for pilot lights) Committee Statement: Editorial. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-��0 Log #� Final Action: Reject (8.3.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: David J. Winfield, Atomic Energy of Canada Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Section 5.3.2.� “A monthly weekly ...” and Section 5.3.2.2 “A monthly weekly...” Substantiation: Rationale for monthly testing has been submitted to NFPA. Weekly testing considerd to be too frequent. Note: Supporting material available upon request for review at NFPA headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Some of the documentation does not appear to support the proposed change. For example, see page �0, item 2 of the supporting material that states that weekly testing of diesel generators is 4 to 5 times more reliable than monthly testing. The committee questions the assumption that the equipment is off-line during testing which is not the case for fire pumps. The committee does not feel that the wear and tear factor is a valid issue for fire pumps. The total package of a fire pump installation must be considered including the controller and mechanical devices. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: LARRIMER, P.: NFPA ��0 “Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems” has required monthly testing for diesel driven emergency generators that are used to keep critically ill patients alive under power failure emergencies for many many years with great success. People are not dying because of the failure of the emergency generator systems, even when we all know just by reading the daily newspapers that utility power failures are very common across the country. Surely NFPA 25 can’t consider a fire pump for a sprinkler or spray system more important than a life saving emergency generator such that they would continue to require testing of a fire pump 52 times a year while the generator are tested �2 times per year. The anecdotal data from the successful operation of emergency generators during power failures across the country is sufficient in itself to reduce the fire pump testing to at least that which is acceptable for those systems that are critical for maintaining actual life support systems. ________________________________________________________________ 25-��� Log #52 Final Action: Reject (8.3.1, 8.3.1.5, 8.3 and 8.3.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Revise to read: 8.3.� A weekly monthly test of fire pump assemblies shall be conducted

25-24

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 without flowing water. 8.3.�.5 The automatic weekly monthly test timer shall be permitted to be substituted for the starting procedure. 8.3.2 Weekly Monthly Tests. 8.3.2.�* Qualified operating personnel shall be in attendance during the weekly monthly pump operation. Substantiation: The requirement for a weekly test is excessive. It does not ensure that the pump will be operational when needed. It only serves to wear the pump out faster increasing the need and expense for servicing, maintenance and repairs. Having believed that this passed during the last code cycle, one organization went to monthly testing for about one and a half years. The monthly testing was adequate to ensure proper function of the pump. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-��0 (Log #�). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: LARRIMER, P.: NFPA ��0 “Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems” has required monthly testing for diesel driven emergency generators that are used to keep critically ill patients alive under power failure emergencies for many many years with great success. People are not dying because of the failure of the emergency generator systems, even when we all know just by reading the daily newspapers that utility power failures are very common across the country. Surely NFPA 25 can’t consider a fire pump for a sprinkler or spray system more important than a life saving emergency generator such that they would continue to require testing of a fire pump 52 times a year while the generator are tested �2 times per year. The anecdotal data from the successful operation of emergency generators during power failures across the country is sufficient in itself to reduce the fire pump testing to at least that which is acceptable for those systems that are critical for maintaining actual life support systems. ________________________________________________________________ 25-��2 Log #4� Final Action: Reject (8.3.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Matthew Roy, S.A. Armstrong LTD Recommendation: Revise text as follows: Change section 8.3.2.� to read: Qualified operating personnel shall be in attendance during or remote supervision shall monitor the weekly pump operation. Substantiation: Technology exists to witness and perform weekly tests from a remote supervisory station. The current text of the code prohibits this type of testing and is restrictive to new technologies that would reduce the cost of fire pump testing and maintenance, and increase the reliability, integrity and availability of fire pimp weekly test data and maintenance records. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Qualified personnel are required to be in attendance during testing and operation. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-��3 Log #96 Final Action: Accept (8.3.2.1, 8.3.2.2 and A.8.3.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Move the * from 8.3.2.� to 8.3.2.2 and renumber A.8.3.2.� to A.8.3.2.2. Substantiation: Editorial, A.8.3.2.� addresses observations during the test as does 8.3.2.2. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-��4 Log #40 Final Action: Reject (8.3.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Matthew Roy, S.A. Armstrong LTD Recommendation: Revise text as follows: The pertinent visual or remote supervisory observations or adjustments specified in the following checklists shall be conducted while the pump is running. Substantiation: Technology exists to witness and perform weekly tests from a remote supervisory station. The current text of the code prohibits this type of testing and is restrictive to new technologies that would reduce the cost of fire pump testing and maintenance, and increase the reliability, integrity and availability of fire pump weekly test data and maintenance records. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Qualified personnel are required to be in attendance

during testing and operation. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-��5 Log #97 Final Action: Accept (8.3.3.1, 8.3.3.1.1 and A.8.3.3.1.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Move the * from 8.3.3.�.� to 8.3.3.� and renumber A.8.3.3.�.� to A.8.3.3.�. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-��6 Log #99 Final Action: Accept (8.3.3.1.2.1, 8.3.3.1.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Revise to read: “The method described in 8.3.3.�.2. 3 is not considered as complete as those in 8.3.3.�.2.2 and 8.3.3.�.2. 3 , because it does not test the adequacy of the water supply for compliance with the requirements of 8.�.3 at the suction flange.” Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: I am voting negatively since the wrong section is identified (this is A.8.3.3.�.2) and there is a mistake in the referenced section. We are currently saying 8.3.3.�.2.3 is not as complete as itself. I believe we meant to say that 8.3.3.�.2.3 is not as complete as 8.3.3.�.2.� and 8.3.3.�.2.2. Comment on Affirmative: ADAMS, C.: The proposal does not indicate where the wording is to be inserted. It addresses both 8.3.3.�.2.� and 8.3.3.�.2.2 ________________________________________________________________ 25-��7 Log #98 Final Action: Accept in Principle (8.3.3.1.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Revise “Use of the Pump Discharge Via the Bypass Flowmeter to Drain or Suction the Reservoir” to read “Use of the Pump Discharge Via the Bypass Flowmeter to Drain or to the Suction Reservoir”. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-��8 (Log #227). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-��8 Log #227 Final Action: Accept (8.3.3.1.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Darrell W. Underwood, Underwood Fire Equipment, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read: Use of the Pump Discharge Via the Bypass Flow-meter to Drain or Suction Resevoir. Pump Suction and discharge pressures and the flowmeter measurements shall determine the total pump output. Substantiation: Delete the word “the” between “Suction” and “Resevoir” in the first sentence. It implies that the flowmeter is discharging in the suction of the resevoir. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-��9 Log #28 Final Action: Accept (8.3.3.8) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Fire Pumps Recommendation: Add a new 8.3.3.8 and A.8.3.3.8 as follows: 8.3.3.8* Where engines utilize electronic fuel management control systems, the back-up electronic control module (ECM), and the primary and redundant sensors for the ECM, shall be tested annually.

25-25

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 A.8.3.3.8 ECM and Sensor Testing. To verify the operation of the alternate ECM with the stop, move the ECM selector switch to the Alternate ECM position. Repositioning of this should cause an alarm 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 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. Re-connect the wires to the sensor. Repeat this process for all primary and redundant sensors on the engines. Note if desirable the disconnecting and re-connecting of wires to the sensors may be done while the engine is not running, then starting the engine after each disconnecting and re-connecting of the wires to verify engine operation. Substantiation: Due to clean air laws and their impact on engine exhaust emission requirements, engines with electronic fuel management systems are starting to be used in lieu of engines with mechanically controlled fuel systems. As engines with these newer type of fuel management make their way into fire pump driver applications, NFPA 25 needs to address the minimum testing requirements of the electronic fuel management systems in order to ensure the overall reliability of the fire pump installation. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�20 Log #47 Final Action: Accept in Part (8.3.3.8 and A.8.3.3.8 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John D. Jensen, Fire Protection Consultants Recommendation: Add new text as follows: 8.3.3.8* Where engines utilize electronic fuel management control systems, the backup electronic control module (ECM), and the primary and redundant sensors for the ECM, shall be tested annually. A.8.3.3.8 ECM and Sensor Testing. To verify the operation of the alternate ECM with the stop, move the ECM selector switch to the Alternate ECM position. Repositioning of this should cause an alarm on the fire pump controller. Start the engine, it should operate normally with all functions. Shut the engine down, switch back to the Primary ECM and restart the engine briefly to verify the correct switch back 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 wire from the redundant sensor. There should not be any change in the engine operation. Reconnect the wires to the sensor. Repeat this process for all primary and redundant sensors on the engine. Note: If desired the disconnecting and reconnecting of the wire may be performed while the engine is not running, then start the engine after each disconnecting and reconnecting of the sensor wires to verify the engine operation. 8.3.3.9 Variable Speed Drivers. 8.3.3.9.� Installations having a variable speed driver for the fire pump shall have additional evaluations performed to determine the results of the annual test requirements. Refer to NFPA 20, Chapter �4 for guidance. Substantiation: Guidance and instructions for testing electronic control modules is needed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Part The proposal related to variable speed is not accepted, the balance of the proposal is accepted. Committee Statement: Specific language is needed for variable speed drive systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: ADAMS, C.: Committee statement should be to refer to Proposal 25-��9 (Log #28). ________________________________________________________________ 25-�2� Log #228 Final Action: Accept (8.3.5.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Darrell W. Underwood, Underwood Fire Equipment, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read: Theoretical factors for correction to the rated speed shall be applied where determining the compliance of the pump per the test. Substantiation: Remove “not” between “shall” and “be” in the sentence. It is impossible to compare any engine driven pump the factory curve. All factory curves are preformed at a single speed. If you do not correct for speed on an annual fire pump test then the majority of pumps would fail due to the 5 percent degrade required in section 8.3.5.4.

Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �8 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: ADAMS, C.: Vote is against the proposal. The wording in the standard was originally inserted in the �998 edition to avoid the use of theoretical correction factors. Once the pump is field acceptance tested, the pump operational criteria is established based on actual water and electrical supplies. Annual tests should be based on comparison of true values and not theoretical values to determine if there is any change in the pump operation. HUGGINS, R.: I am voting negatively on applying the theoretical factors to the annual pump flow test. The submitter identified that this allowance is necessary because the original acceptance test (which apply the theoretical factors) is typically not available. In accordance with 25:8.3.5.3, this leaves just the comparison to the pump nameplate that potentially is conducted at a different speed. The problem with this change is that we are only verifying that the modified pump curve adequately resembles the original curve without verifying that the modified curve still satisfies the system demand. A better approach is to identify in Annex material that when the original acceptance test is not available, it can be recreated using the theoretical factors but one must also verify the other pump driver criteria as well as that the pump meets the system demand. This is the same as telling the owner to have his as-built drawings recreated after losing them. We have to address the concerns for the entire system and not just that of a single component. Comment on Affirmative: LARRIMER, P.: While I agree with the proponent, the only reason that the affinity laws need to be used now is because the committee established arbitrary “failure” criteria of 5% degradation during the last cycle. The arbitrary 5% degradation should be eliminated as well as the requirement to use the affinity laws. As long as the pump can support the largest demand that it is required to supply, it is an acceptable system even if it has been worn/degraded by 5% or more of the performance of what it was right out of the box. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�22 Log #�00 Final Action: Accept (8.3.5.5) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Split the current paragraph into two parts as follows: 8.3.5.5 Current and voltage readings whose product does not exceed the product of the rated voltage and rated full-load current multiplied by the permitted motor service factor shall be considered acceptable. 8.3.5.6 Voltage readings at the motor within 5 percent below or �0 percent above the rated (i.e., nameplate) voltage shall be considered acceptable. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�23 Log #73 Final Action: Accept in Principle (8.5.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Restore the grid lines in the chart. Substantiation: The requirements can be more easily determined across the axis. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Make the change globally. Committee Statement: Improves readability of the tables in the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�24 Log #43 Final Action: Reject (Table 8.5.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Matthew Roy, S.A. Armstrong LTD Recommendation: In Table 8.5.3, Item 5, delete the words “Wet pit”. Substantiation: NFPA 20 Chapter 6 requires pipeline strainers for fire pumps other than vertical turbine pumps. The revision ensures any type of strainer (not just for wet pit pumps) are required to be inspected and cleaned after each pump operation. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It is not desirable to take the pump out of service after every weekly pump operation. The committee requests that the submitter clarify his intent. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

25-26

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-�25 Log #79 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Table 8.5.3, D.3(c)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Remove the requirement for annual replacement of antifreeze. Substantiation: This is a waste of time and money. As long as we check the condition of the antifreeze prior to cold weather, there is absolutely no reason to replace unless conditions warrant. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change the requirement from “change” to “check”. Committee Statement: Meets the submitters intent. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�26 Log #8� Final Action: Reject (Table 8.5.3, D.5(b)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Add “X” under “clean” as it more reflects action taken. Substantiation: Clarifies the intent of the Table. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The current requirement is to clean the terminals. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: ADAMS, C.: Committee Action should be to APR. There is no requirement to “clean” the terminals, only to check if “clean and tight”. Committee action should be to add D.5.(g) Clean Terminals Annually and delete “Remove corrosion” in D.5.(c) ________________________________________________________________ 25-�27 Log #80 Final Action: Accept (Table 8.5.3, D.5(c)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Move the “X” from “change” to “clean”. Substantiation: The operation is one of cleaning not changing. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�28 Log #�64 Final Action: Accept in Principle (8.6.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill M. Harvey, Harvey and Associates Inc. / Rep. South Carolina Fire Sprinkler Assoc. Recommendation: Refer to Chapter 8 Fire Pumps, and add a new Section No. 8.6: Components Replacement: Add new Section 8.6.� “Summary of Components Replacement Testing Requirement” for the testing requirements for fire pumps when components are replaced or upgraded. See Table 8.6.� on the next 2 pages Add new Section 8.6.2. The fire pump testing requirements after component changes or replacement shall meet the minimum requirements set forth in NFPA 20, Chapter �4, Section �4.5 Component Replacement. Substantiation: These new sections and the summary charts are needed to provide guidance to the “Authorities Having Jurisdiction” and the qualified persons performing the component replacement or system upgrade. To the proper testing requirements needed to insure and prove the fire pump is in proper operational status. There are many instances where correct operational and flow tests were not performed after critical path components were replaced. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-�29 (Log #46). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�29 Log #46 Final Action: Accept (8.6.1 and 8.6.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John D. Jensen, Fire Protection Consultants Recommendation: Add new sections as follows: 8.6.� Whenever a component in a fire pump is adjusted, repaired, rebuilt, or

replaced, the tests required to restore the system to service shall be performed in accordance with Table 8.6.� Summary of Component Replacement Testing Requirements. See Table 8.6.� on the next 2 pages 8.6.2 NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, shall be consulted for the minimum requirements for design and installation, including acceptance testing. Substantiation: Proposal to create new sections in NFPA 25, 8.6.�, 8.6.2, and Table 8.6.�, is presented to align the new NFPA 25 and the current edition of NFPA 20 as related to Component Replacement. The NFPA 20 Technical Committee for Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection presents these proposed new sections to be created in the NFPA 25 standard, to provide supplemental guidance to the various entities performing repairs or replacement of critical path components of the fire pump systems. *Other Task Group Recommendations; ECM Testing The technical committee received an information ballot in early 2003 concerning a request for submission of testing requirements for ECM equipped diesel engine drivers. Most respondents voted to send a proposal to the NFPA 25 committee for this guidance Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�30 Log #�94 Final Action: Accept (9.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Revise 9.� as follows: 9.�* General. This chapter shall provide the minimum requirements for the routine inspection, testing, and maintenance of water storage tanks dedicated to fire protection use. Table 9.� shall be used to determine the minimum required frequencies for inspection, testing, and maintenance. Substantiation: This section is being inappropriately applied to municipal water storage tanks and private tanks that supply both domestic and fire protection water. If an AHJ has determined that the water supply is reliable, then the inspection, testing and maintenance of domestic tanks should not be within the scope of this standard. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�3� Log #84 Final Action: Accept (Table 9.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Revise Frequency for Temperature alarms Test from Monthly (Cold weather/heating season only) to Quarterly during Cold weather/heating season only. Substantiation: This matches the Quarterly Test requirement in NFPA 72. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: ADAMS, C.: Vote is against the proposal. Revising the frequency to “quarterly” could result in a freeze condition. Testing the alarms in December and March would comply with the standard however waiting until December could already result in the system freezing because of a defective alarm. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�32 Log #2�� Final Action: Reject (9.1.1 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire Protection Recommendation: Add a new 9.�.� to read: 9.�.� The repair, replacement or alteration of water storage tanks or water storage tank components shall be in accordance with NFPA 22, Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection. Substantiation: Just as NFPA 22 directs users of that standard to go to NFPA 25 for inspection, testing and maintenance purposes, so too should NFPA 25 provide a link back to NFPA 22 when repairs, replacements or alterations to existing water storage tanks or water storage tank components are contemplated. This requirement is currently missing from NFPA 25. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-

25-27

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Tabl

e 8.

6.1

Sum

mar

y of

Com

pone

nt R

epla

cem

ent T

estin

g R

equi

rem

ents

Com

pone

ntA

djus

tR

epai

rR

ebui

ldR

epla

ceTe

st C

rite

ria

A. F

ire

Pum

p Sy

stem

s�

Entir

e pu

mp

asse

mbl

yX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

20,

�4.

5.2.

6.2

2Im

pelle

r/rot

atin

g as

sem

bly

XX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

20,

�4.

5.2.

6.2,

�4

.5.�

.43

Cas

ing

XX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

20,

�4.

5.2.

6.2

4B

earin

gsX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.2 w

ith a

lign-

men

t5

Slee

ves

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5, 8

.3.2

with

alig

n-m

ent

6W

ear R

ings

XPe

rfor

m a

nnua

l tes

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.3 w

ith a

lign-

men

t7

Mai

n sh

aft

XX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5, 8

.3.3

with

alig

n-m

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. M

echa

nica

l Tra

nsm

issi

on�

Gea

r Rig

ht A

ngle

driv

esX

XX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

20,

�4.

5.2.

6.2

2D

rive

coup

ling

XX

XX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.2C

. Ele

ctri

cal S

yste

m/C

ontr

olle

r�

Entir

e co

ntro

ller

XX

XPe

rfor

m a

ccep

tanc

e te

st w

ith N

FPA

20,

�4.

2.8

2Is

olat

ing

switc

hX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

with

NFP

A 2

5, 8

.3.2

and

exe

rcis

e 6

times

3C

ircui

t bre

aker

XPe

rfor

m s

ix m

omen

tary

sta

rts in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

0, �

4.2.

8.9

4C

ircui

t bre

aker

XPe

rfor

m a

one

hou

r ful

l loa

d cu

rren

t tes

t5

Elec

trica

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

.27

Mai

n co

ntac

tor

XPe

rfor

m a

ccep

tanc

e te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

0, �

4.2.

88

Pow

er m

onito

rX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.29

Star

t rel

ayX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.2�0

Pres

sure

sw

itch

XX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

20,

�4.

2.8.

9��

Pres

sure

tran

sduc

erX

XPe

rfor

m a

ccep

tanc

e te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

0, �

4.2.

8.9

�2M

anua

l sta

rt or

sto

p sw

itch

XPe

rfor

m s

ix o

pera

tions

und

er lo

ad N

FPA

25,

8.3

.2�3

Tran

sfer

sw

itch-

load

car

ryin

g pa

rtsX

XX

Perf

orm

a o

ne h

our f

ull l

oad

curr

ent t

est,

and

trans

fer f

rom

nor

mal

po

wer

to e

mer

genc

y po

wer

and

bac

k on

e tim

e N

FPA

20,

�4.

5.2

�4Tr

ansf

er s

witc

h-no

load

par

tsX

XX

Perf

orm

six

no

load

ope

ratio

ns o

f tra

nsfe

r of p

ower

NFP

A 2

0,

�4.5

.2.3

D. E

lect

ric

Mot

or D

rive

r�

Elec

tric

mot

orX

XX

Perf

orm

acc

epta

nce

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

20,

�4.

5.2.

6.2,

�4

.5.2

.52

Mot

or b

earin

gsX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5, 8

.3.3

with

alig

n-m

ent

3In

com

ing

pow

er c

ondu

ctor

sX

Perf

orm

a o

ne h

our f

ull l

oad

curr

ent t

est N

FPA

20,

�4.

5.�.

4

25-28

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Tabl

e 8.

6.1

Sum

mar

y of

Com

pone

nt R

epla

cem

ent T

estin

g R

equi

rem

ents

(con

t)C

ompo

nent

Adj

ust

Rep

air

Reb

uild

Rep

lace

Test

Cri

teri

aE

. Die

sel E

ngin

e D

rive

r�

Entir

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,

�4.5

.2.3

.�2

Fuel

tran

sfer

pum

pX

XX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.23

Fuel

inje

ctor

pum

pX

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5, 8

.3.2

4Fu

el s

yste

m fi

lter

XX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.25

Com

bust

ion

air i

ntak

e sy

stem

XX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.2

6Fu

el T

ank

XX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.27

Coo

ling

syst

emX

XX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.28

Bat

terie

sX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.29

Bat

tery

Cha

rger

XX

Perf

orm

a s

tart/

stop

seq

uenc

e N

FPA

25,

8.3

.2�0

Elec

trica

l Sys

tem

XX

Perf

orm

wee

kly

test

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.2��

Lubr

icat

ion

Filte

r/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�

Stea

m tu

rbin

eX

XPe

rfor

m a

nnua

l tes

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith N

FPA

20,

8.3

.22

Stea

m re

gula

tor o

r so

urce

upg

rade

XX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

0, �

4.5.

2.6.

2

G. P

ositi

ve D

ispl

acem

ent P

umps

�En

tire

Pum

pX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

0, �

4.5.

2.6.

22

Rot

ors

XPe

rfor

m a

nnua

l tes

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.33

Plun

gers

XPe

rfor

m a

nnua

l tes

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.34

Shaf

tX

Perf

orm

ann

ual t

est i

n ac

cord

ance

with

NFP

A 2

5, 8

.3.3

5D

river

XX

XPe

rfor

m a

nnua

l tes

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith N

FPA

25,

8.3

.36

Bea

rings

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5, 8

.3.3

7Se

als

XPe

rfor

m w

eekl

y te

st in

acc

orda

nce

with

NFP

A 2

5, 8

.3.3

H. P

ump

Hou

se a

nd M

isc

Com

pone

nts

�B

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

n-m

ent c

heck

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

n-m

ent c

heck

3Su

ctio

n/D

isch

arge

pip

eX

XV

isua

l ins

pect

ion

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

5.2

.24

Suct

ion/

Dis

char

ge fi

t-tin

gsX

XV

isua

l ins

pect

ion

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith N

FPA

25,

5.2

.2

5Su

ctio

n/D

isch

arge

va

lves

XX

XO

pera

tiona

l tes

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith N

FPA

25,

�2.

3.3

25-29

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 49 (Log #207). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should give this matter further thought. The document scope is vague, it just refers to “the appropriate installation standard”, and thus no real guidance is provided. NFPA 25 should provide clear direction as to when another standard needs to be referred to and what standards would be applicable. Just as NFPA 22 sends us to NFPA 25 for inspection, test and maintenance concerns, so too should NFPA 25 refer us back to NFPA 22 when a water storage tank is to be renovated. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�33 Log #74 Final Action: Accept in Principle (9.2.4.2 and 9.2.4.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Revise the text as follows: 9.2.4.2 The temperature of water in tanks with low temperature alarms connected to a constantly attended location shall be inspected and recorded monthly during the heating season when the mean temperature is less than 40 degrees F . 9.2.4.3 The temperature of water in tanks without low temperature alarms connected to a constantly attended location shall be inspected and recorded weekly during the heating season when the mean temperature is less than 40 degrees F . Substantiation: Heating season should be more defined to include a mean temperature and this will result in less actin necessary to verify temperature conditions. Further the frequencies as currently contained in the text are not justified, especially when mean temperatures are added to the paragraphs. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise the text as follows: 9.2.4.2 The temperature of water in tanks with low temperature alarms connected to a constantly attended location shall be inspected and recorded monthly during the heating season when the mean temperature is less than 40 degrees F . 9.2.4.3 The temperature of water in tanks without low temperature alarms connected to a constantly attended location shall be inspected and recorded weekly during the heating season when the mean temperature is less than 40 degrees F . Committee Statement: Monitoring the temperature during heating season is necessary. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�34 Log #2 Final Action: Reject (9.2.6) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Dean Campbell, High Tech Fire Protection Recommendation: Add text to read as follows: Section 9-2.6: A main drain test shall be conducted Quarterly at each water based Fire Protection Riser to determine whether there has been a change in the condition of the water supply and control valves. Substantiation: The maintenance of a dependable water supply should be the top priority. There have been several cases where building street city water supply gates have found closed or partially closed during Annual and Quarterly inspections. As a professional this change from Quarterly to Annual main drain flow tests in my opinion was a mistake. The length of time between annual flow tests does not insure a dependable water supply. We as Inspectors can visually inspect the above ground gate positions during Quarterly inspections but not curb box gates. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Annual is the minimum requirement, testing more often could be considered to be consistent with the requirements of the standard. A main drain test is also required when a valve is closed. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: ADAMS, C.: This is in error. 9.2.6 is the section heading dealing with interior tank inspections. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�35 Log #38 Final Action: Reject (9.2.7) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jerry Kolek, Conam Inspection and Engineering Recommendation: Add new text as follows: Evaluate above ground tanks with flat bottom floors using acoustic emission

when out of service (internal inspections) are not applicable. This technology can also be applied to all pressurized tanks to evaluate the overall condition of the tank online, and to pinpoint areas which need further inspection. Substantiation: Taking tanks out of service leave a facility with no fire protection for the time period the tank is drained, cleaned, inspected, and refilled. This technology also has the advantage to find defects which could be missed during a routine visual inspection. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The intent is not clear in the proposed wording. This method does not include the other internal inspections required. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�36 Log #�0� Final Action: Accept (9.3.6 and A.9.3.6) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete the * from 9.3.6 and delete A.9.3.6. Substantiation: Editorial. A.9.3.6 refers to A.9.3.4 which does not address pressure gauges. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�37 Log #2�9 Final Action: Accept in Principle (9.3.7 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ruben Grijalva, State of California, Office of the State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Add a new section to read: 9.3.7 Where gravity tanks and pressure tanks are provided with an automatic filling device, such device shall be tested every 5 years to ensure it operates properly. Substantiation: NFPA 25 does not address the automatic filling device for water storage tanks. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-�60 (Log #48). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�38 Log #�02 Final Action: Accept (9.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Add number to first paragraph to read: “ 9.4.� Voids discovered beneath the floors of tanks shall be filled by pumping in grout or accessing the sand and replenishing.” Renumber following paragraphs as necessary. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�39 Log #�03 Final Action: Accept (9.4.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Revise 9.4.4 as 9.4.6.�. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�40 Log #85 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Table 10.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: For Hangers, Nozzles, and Pipe revise Frequency of Inspection from Quarterly, Monthly, and Quarterly respectively to Annually. Substantiation: This matches the Frequency required in Chapter 5 for Sprinkler Systems. In many cases, conditions do not warrant more frequent inspections for Water Spray Fixed System components. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change to annually and after each system activation.

25-30

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Committee Statement: Piping may be dislodged after a system trip. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�4� Log #�04 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Table 10.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Define or delete references to “UHSWSS”. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add UHSWSS to title in �0.4. Committee Statement: The acronym is used but is not defined. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�42 Log #2�2 Final Action: Accept (Table 10.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire Protection Recommendation: In Table �0.�, for “Control Valves, Operational test”, revise “Quarterly” to “ Annually “, to conform with the requirement specified in �2.3.3.�. Also, In Table �0.�, for “Main drain test, Operational test”, revise “Quarterly” to “ Annually “, to conform with the requirement specified in �2.3.3.4. Substantiation: The current frequencies of “quarterly” in Table �0.� appear to be typographical errors. It seems that when revisions were made from previous editions, these frequencies were not changed in the Table to correspond. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�43 Log #86 Final Action: Accept (Table 10.1New Text) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Review Tables and corresponding sections/paragraphs and ensure the use of common terminology. Two examples: a. Table �0.� requires an Annual “Water spray system test” and refers to Section �0.3, Chapter �2. This section and Chapter do not refer to a “Water spray system test”. b. Table ��.� requires an Annual “Complete foam-water system(s)” test and refers to Section ��.3.3 which does not refer to a “Complete foam-water system(s)” test. Substantiation: Editorial corrections should be made to clarify requirements for items listed within tables throughout the document. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�44 Log #2�3 Final Action: Reject (10.1.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire Protection Recommendation: Revise �0.�.2 to read: �0.�.2 The repair, replacement, alteration or extension of water spray fixed systems or water spray fixed system components shall be in accordance with NFPA �5, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection , shall be consulted to determine the requirements for design and installation, including acceptance testing. Substantiation: This revised text is proposed to better clarify when NFPA �5 should be utilized. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-49 (Log #207). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: As with the document scope, the current wording of �0.�.2 is vague. While the text does direct us towards NFPA �5, it does not provide a clear statement as to when or why we should go there. NFPA 25 should provide clear direction as to when another standard needs to be referred to and what standards would be applicable. Just as NFPA �5 sends us to NFPA 25 for inspection, test and maintenance concerns, so too should

NFPA 25 clearly indicate when we should go back to NFPA �5, such as when a water spray system is to be renovated. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�45 Log #�05 Final Action: Accept in Principle (10.1.4.1 and 10.1.4.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete �0.�.4.� and �0.�.4.2. Substantiation: Editorial. These are addressed in Chapter �4. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: �0.�.4* Impairments. The procedures outlined in Chapter �4 and this section shall be followed where an impairment to protection occurs. A.�0.�.4.� becomes A.�0.�. Committee Statement: Repeating impariment requirements is not necessary. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�46 Log #�06 Final Action: Accept (10.2.1.6) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete �0.2.�.6. Substantiation: Editorial. Information is addressed in �0.3.4.3. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�47 Log #�07 Final Action: Reject (10.2.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete “, to ensure that the detectors are in place, securely fastened, and protected from corrosion, weather, and mechanical damage and that the communication wiring, control panels, or pneumatic tubing system is functional.” Substantiation: Editorial. The reference to NFPA 72 should be sufficient, that standard provides the additional detail. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-�48 (Log #CP7). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�48 Log #CP7 Final Action: Accept (10.2.3, 10.2.3.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 10.2.3 Automatic Detection Equipment. Automatic detection equipment shall be inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm Code. 10.2.3.1 Automatic fire detection equipment not covered by NFPA 72 shall be inspected, tested and maintained to ensure that the detectors are in place, securely fastened, and protected from corrosion, weather, and mechanical damage and that the communication wiring, control panels, or pneumatic tubing system is functional. Substantiation: Section �0.2.3.� is intended to apply to detection equipment such as wet & dry pilot sprinklers. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�49 Log #�08 Final Action: Accept (10.2.4 and 10.2.4.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Revise �0.2.4 to read “System Components ”. Revise �0.2.4.� to read “ System Piping and Fittings”. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

25-3�

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-�50 Log #75 Final Action: Accept in Principle (10.3.2.3 and 11.3.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Revise text as follows: The owner’s representative, the authority having jurisdiction, and the fire department or fire brigade shall be notified that acceptance testing is to be conducted. A.�0.3.2.3 and ��.3.� This approach provides for outside agencies to have the opportunity to observe the inspection and acceptance testing of the water spray fixed (foam-water) systems. Substantiation: This clarifies the need for notification for acceptance testing, but is not necessary for annual testing, and places explanatory material in the Annex for both paragraphs. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Delete both �0.3.2.3 & ��.3.�. Committee Statement: Addresses the submitter concerns. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�5� Log #87 Final Action: Accept (10.3.4.1.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete “shall operate within 20 seconds” and replace with “within the time frame specified in the system design.” Substantiation: This matches the requirement in NFPA �5, paragraph �0.4.2.2. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�52 Log #76 Final Action: Accept in Principle (10.3.4.3.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Revise the paragraph as follows: The water discharge patterns from all of the spray nozzles shall be observed to ensure that patterns are not impeded by plugged nozzles , ensure that nozzles are correctly positioned and that obstructions do not prevent discharge patterns from wetting surfaces to be protected. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise the paragraph as follows: 10.3.4.3.1 The water discharge patterns from all of the open spray nozzles shall be observed to ensure that patterns are not impeded by plugged nozzles , ensure that nozzles are correctly positioned, and that obstructions do not prevent discharge patterns from wetting surfaces to be protected. 10.3.4.3.1.1 Where the nature of the protected property is such that water cannot be discharged, the nozzles shall be inspected for proper orientation and the system tested with air to ensure that the nozzles are not obstructed. A.10.3.4.3.1 See �2.4.3.2.2.�. 12.4.3.2.3 The water discharge patterns from all of the open spray nozzles or sprinklers shall be observed to ensure that patterns are not impeded by plugged nozzles, ensure that nozzles are correctly positioned, and that obstructions do not prevent discharge patterns from wetting surfaces to be protected. The water discharge patterns from all open sprinklers or spray nozzles shall be observed to ensure that patterns are not impeded by plugging and to ensure that they are correctly positioned and that obstructions do not prevent discharge patterns from wetting surfaces to be protected. 12.4.3.2.3.1 Where the nature of the protected property is such that water cannot be discharged, the nozzles or open sprinklers shall be inspected for proper orientation and the system tested with air to ensure that the nozzles are not obstructed. Committee Statement: Alternate methods of testing should be provided where water cannot be discharged. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�53 Log #77 Final Action: Reject (10.4.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. William Sheppard, General Motors Corp. Recommendation: Delete this entire section as it is in conflict with Table �2.� or delete the monthly requirement for inspection of supervised valves and retain �0.4.4.2 and revise �0.4.4 to be in conformance with the Table �2.� for weekly/monthly inspections. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Reject

Committee Statement: Specialized valves are not covered in Chapter �2. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�54 Log #88 Final Action: Accept (Table 11.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: For pipe corrosion, pipe damage, fittings corrosion, fittings damage, and hangers/supports, revise frequency of inspection from quarterly to annually. Substantiation: This matches the frequency required in Chapter 5 for sprinkler systems. In many cases, conditions do not warrant more frequent inspections for foam-water sprinkler system components. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�55 Log #2�4 Final Action: Reject (11.1.2.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Larry Keeping, Vipond Fire Protection Recommendation: Add a new ��.�.2.3 to read: ��.�.2.3 The repair, replacement, alteration or extension of foam-water systems or foam-water system components shall be in accordance with NFPA �6, Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam Water Spray Systems. Substantiation: This revised text is proposed to better clarify when NFPA �6 should be utilized. When repairs, replacements, alterations or extensions to existing foam-water spray systems or their components are undertaken, the work should be done in conformance with NFPA �6, but this requirement is not specifically stated in the current edition of NFPA 25. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-49 (Log #207). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that the committee should give this matter further thought. The document scope is vague, it just refers to “the appropriate installation standard”, and thus no real guidance is provided. NFPA 25 should provide clear direction as to when another standard needs to be referred to and what standards would be applicable. Just as NFPA �6 sends us to NFPA 25 for inspection, test and maintenance concerns, so too should NFPA 25 refer us back to NFPA �6 when a foam water sprinkler system is to be renovated. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�56 Log #�09 Final Action: Accept (11.1.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete ��.�.4. Substantiation: Editorial. This information is part of the installation standard, not part of inspection, testing, or maintenance. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�57 Log #9 Final Action: Accept in Principle (11.2.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Jim Everitt, Western Fire, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev/Western Regional Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: ��.2.4 Hangers and Supports. Hangers and supports shall be inspected, repaired or replaced as necessary. Substantiation: You cannot always repair a damaged hanger or support. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change �0.2.4.2 for consistency. Committee Statement: Provides consistent requirements throughout the standard. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

25-32

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-�58 Log #CP3 Final Action: Accept (Chapter 12) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems Recommendation: Add a new Chapter �2 “Water Mist Systems” and renumber existing Chapter �2 through �4 to Chapters �3 through �5. New Chapter �2 “Water Mist Systems” will extract Chapter �3 System Maintenance from NFPA 750 “Water Mist Fire Protection Systems”. New Chapter �2 to read as follows: Chapter �2 Water Mist Systems �2.� Responsibility of the Owner or Occupant. [NFPA 750: �3.�] �2.�.� General. [NFPA 750: �3.�.�] �2.�.�.� The responsibility for properly maintaining a water mist fire protection system shall be the obligation of the property owner. [NFPA 750: �3.�.�.�] �2.�.�.2 By means of periodic inspection, tests, and maintenance, in accordance with the standard and manufacturers’ requirements, either this equipment shall be shown to be in good operating condition or that defects or impairments exist. [NFPA 750: �3.�.�.2] �2.�.�.3 Inspection, testing, and maintenance activities shall be implemented in accordance with procedures meeting or exceeding those established in this document and in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. [NFPA 750: �3.�.�.3] �2.�.�.4 These tasks shall be performed by personnel who have developed competence through training and experience. [NFPA 750: �3.�.�.4] �2.�.2 Notification. �2.�.2.� The owner or occupant shall notify the authority having jurisdiction, the fire department (if required), and the alarm receiving facility before shutting down a system or its supply. [NFPA 750: �3.�.2.�] �2.�.2.2 The notification shall include the purpose for the shutdown, the system or component involved, and the estimated time needed. [NFPA 750: �3.�.2.2] �2.�.2.3 The authority having jurisdiction, the fire department, and the alarm receiving facility shall be notified when the system, supply, or component is returned to service. [NFPA 750: �3.�.2.3] �2.�.3 Correction or Repair. �2.�.3.� The owner or occupant shall promptly correct or repair deficiencies, damaged parts, or impairments found while performing the inspection, test, and maintenance requirements of this standard. [NFPA 750: �3.�.3.�] �2.�.3.2 Corrections and repairs shall be performed by qualified maintenance personnel or a qualified contractor. [NFPA 750: �3.�.3.�] �2.�.4 System Reevaluation. �2.�.4.� The owner or occupant shall give special attention to factors that might alter the requirements for a continued approved installation. [NFPA 750: �3.�.4.�] �2.�.4.2 Such factors shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (�) Occupancy changes (2) Process or material changes (3) Structural revisions such as relocated walls, added horizontal or vertical obstructions, or ventilation changes (4) Removal of heating systems in spaces with piping subject to freezing [NFPA 750: �3.�.4.2] �2.�.5 Changes of Occupancy. �2.�.5.� Where changes in the occupancy, hazard, water supply, storage arrangement, structural modification, or other condition that affect the installation criteria of the system are identified, the owner or occupant shall promptly take steps to evaluate the adequacy of the installed system to protect the hazard in question, such as contacting a qualified contractor, consultant, or engineer. [NFPA 750:�3.�.5.�] �2.�.5.2 Where the evaluation reveals a deficiency, the owner shall notify the insurance underwriter, the authority having jurisdiction, and the local fire department. [NFPA 750: �3.�.5.2] �2.�.6 Return to Service. �2.�.6.� Where a water mist system is returned to service following an impairment, it shall be verified that it is working properly. [NFPA 750: �3.�.6.�] �2.�.6.2 Chapter �2 shall be referenced to provide guidance on the type of inspection or test, or both, that is required. [NFPA 750: �3.�.6.2] �2.2 Inspection and Testing. �2.2.� Components and Systems. �2.2.�.� All components and systems shall be inspected and tested to verify that they function as intended. [NFPA 750: �3.2.�.�] �2.2.�.2 Water mist systems that are equipped with an additive system shall be tested with the specific additive system engaged or used during the acceptance testing. [NFPA 750: �3.2.�.2] �2.2.2 Requirements. The components of typical water mist systems to be inspected and tested are provided in Table �3.2.2. [NFPA 750: �3.2.2] Table �2.2.2 Maintenance of Water Mist Systems See Table �2.2.2 on the following page �2.2.3 Frequencies. The frequency of inspections and tests shall be in accordance with Table �2.2.2 or as specified in the manufacturer’s listing,

whichever is more frequent. [NFPA 750: �3.2.3] �2.2.4* Restoration. Following tests of components or portions of water mist systems that require valves to be opened or closed, the system shall be returned to service, with verification that all valves are restored to their normal operating position, that the water has been drained from all low points, that screens and filters have been checked and cleaned, and that plugs or caps for auxiliary drains or test valves have been replaced. [NFPA 750: �3.2.4] A.�2.2.4 If differences indicate a significant change or deterioration in performance, appropriate maintenance actions should be taken to restore the component or system to its original performance. [NFPA 750: �3.2.4] �2.2.5 Specialized Equipment. Specialized equipment required for testing shall be in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. [NFPA 750: �3.2.5] �2.2.6 High Pressure Cylinders. High pressure cylinders used in water mist systems shall not be recharged without a hydrostatic test (and remarking) if more than 5 years have elapsed from the date of the last test. Cylinders that have been in continuous service without discharging shall be permitted to be retained in service for a maximum of �2 years, after which they shall be discharged and retested before being returned to service. [NFPA 750: �3.2.6] �2.3 Maintenance. �2.3.� Maintenance shall be performed to keep the system equipment operable or to make repairs. [NFPA 750: �3.3.�] �2.3.2 As-built system installation drawings, original acceptance test records, and device manufacturer’s maintenance bulletins shall be retained to assist in the proper care of the system and its components. [NFPA 750: �3.3.2] �2.3.3 Preventive maintenance includes, but is not limited to, lubricating control valve stems, adjusting packing glands on valves and pumps, bleeding moisture and condensation from air compressors and air lines, and cleaning strainers. [NFPA 750: �3.3.3] �2.3.4 Scheduled maintenance shall be performed as outlined in Table �3.3.4. [NFPA 750: �3.3.4]

�2.3.5 Corrective maintenance includes, but is not limited to, replacing loaded, corroded, or painted nozzles, replacing missing or loose pipe hangers, cleaning clogged fire pumps, replacing valve seats and gaskets, and restoring heat in areas subject to freezing temperatures where water-filled piping is installed. [NFPA 750: �3.3.5] �2.3.6 Emergency maintenance includes, but is not limited to, repairs due to piping failures caused by freezing or impact damage, repairs to broken water mains, and replacing frozen or fused nozzles, defective electric power, or alarm and detection system wiring. [NFPA 750: �3.3.6] �2.3.7 Specific maintenance activities, where applicable to the type of water mist system, shall be performed in accordance with the schedules in Table �2.3.4. [NFPA 750: �3.3.7] �2.3.8 Replacement components shall be in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and the original system design. [NFPA 750: �3.3.8] �2.3.9 Spare components shall be accessible and shall be stored in a manner to prevent damage or contamination. [NFPA 750: �3.3.9] �2.3.�0* After each system operation, a representative sample of operated water mist nozzles in the activated zone shall be inspected. [NFPA 750: �3.3.�0] A.�2.3.�0 The representative sample should include �0 percent of the water mist nozzles in the activated zone. If contamination of filters or strainers is found on inspection, it is recommended that all nozzles within the activated zone be inspected. [NFPA 750: A.�3.3.�0] �2.3.�� After each system operation due to fire, the system filters and strainers shall be cleaned or replaced. [NFPA 750: �3.3.��] �2.4 Training. �2.4.� All persons who might be expected to inspect, test, maintain, or operate water mist systems shall be trained thoroughly in the functions they are expected to perform. [NFPA 750: �3.4.�] �2.4.2 Refresher training shall be provided as recommended by the manufacturer or by the authority having jurisdiction. [NFPA 750: �3.4.2] Substantiation: Inspection, testing and maintenance requirements for all water based fire protection system should be contained in NFPA 25. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: KEEPING, L.: I believe that this proposal should be revised/edited considerably. By directly extracting the text from NFPA 750, general items, such as the owners responsibilities and the or changes of occupancy, that are already addressed elsewhere in the standard, are being repeated, but with different phraseology and a different emphasis. Additionally, some new concepts and requirements are being introduced that are not defined or found elsewhere in the standard, such as “developed competence”, “refresher training” and “a continued approved installation”.

Table 12.3.4 Maintenance Frequencies [NFPA 750: 13.3.4]Item Activity Frequency

Water tank Drain and refill AnnuallySystem Flushing AnnuallyStrainers and filters Clean or replace as

requiredAfter system operation

25-33

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Table 12.2.2 Maintenance of Water Mist Systems

Item Task Weekly Monthly QuarterlySemi-

Annually Annually Other

Water supply(general)

Check source pressure XCheck source quality (*first year). X* XTest source pressure, flow, quantity, duration.

X

Water storage tanks

Check water level (unsupervised). XCheck water level (supervised). XCheck sight glass valves are open. XCheck tank gauges, pressure. XCheck all valves, appurtenances. XDrain tank, inspect interior, and refill XInspect tank condition (corrosion). XCheck water quality. XCheck water temperature Extreme

weatherWater storage cylinder(highpressure)

Check water level (load cells). XCheck water level (unsupervised). XCheck support frame/restraints. XCheck vent plugs at refilling. XCheck cylinder pressure on discharge. XInspect filters on refill connection X

Additive storage cylinders

Inspect general condition, corrosion. XCheck quantity of additive agent. XTest quality of additive agent. XTest additive injection, full discharge test X

Water recirculation tank

Check water level (unsupervised). XCheck water level (supervised). XInspect supports, attachments. XTest low water level alarm. XCheck water quality, drain, flush and refill.

X

Test operation of float operated valve. XTest pressure at outlet during discharge. XTest backflow prevention device (if present).

X

Inspect and clean filters, strainers, cyclone separator.

X

Compressed gas cylinders

Inspect support frame and cylinder restraints.

X

Check cylinder pressure (unsupervised). XCheck cylinder pressure (supervised). XCheck cylinder control valve is open. XCheck cylinder capacity and pressure rating.

X

Check cylinder compliance specification. XConfirm compressed gas meetsspecifications (moisture, cylinder pres-sure).

X

Hydrostatic test cylinders 5-�2 yearsPlant air, compressors, and receivers

Check air pressure (unsupervised). XCheck air pressure (supervised). XStart compressor. XCheck compressor/receiver capacity, changes.

X

Check compressed air moisture content. XClean filters, moisture traps. XTest full capacity, duration, and any changes in other demands.

X

Pumps and drivers

Inspection, testing, and maintenance shall be in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 20 and NFPA 25.

X X X X X

Standby pump Inspect moisture trap, oil injection (pneumatic).

X

Check compressed gas supply, inlet air pressure.

X

Check outlet water (standby) pressure. XTest start/stop pressure settings for standby pressure.

X

Pneumatic valves

Check cylinder valves, master release valves.

X

Inspect all tubing associated with release valves.

X

Test solenoid release of master release valve.

X

Test manual release of master release valve.

X

Test operation of slave valves. XReset all pneumatic cylinder release valves.

X

Test on-off cycling of valves intended to cycle.

X

System control valves

Inspection, testing, and maintenance shall be in accordance with the require-ments of NFPA 25.

X X X X X

Control equipment

Inspection, testing, and maintenance shall be in accordance with the require-ments of NFPA 72.

Water mist system piping and nozzles

Inspection, testing, and maintenance shall be in accordance with NFPA 25. Inspect sample of nozzle screens and strainers (see �0.3.7).

X X X X X After dis-charge

Enclosure features, inter-locks

Inspect enclosure integrity. X

Ventilation Test interlocked systems (e.g., ventila-tion shutdown).

X

Test shutdown of fuel/lubrication sys-tems.

X

25-34

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Also, the proposed Table �2.2.2 makes frequent references to NFPA 25, rather than the specific sections of the standard which would be appropriate. This would be quite acceptable in one standard which would refer us to another, but it is out of place for a standard to refer to itself in this manner. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�59 Log #200 Final Action: Reject (Table 12.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Co. Inc. Recommendation: Revise Table �2.� as follows:

Substantiation: Correlation with NFPA 72 by subdividing “Alarm devices” into three categories: Waterflow devices; valve supervisory devices; and Supervisory signal devices (except valve supervisory switches). Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Waterflow only. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�60 Log #48 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Table 12.1 and 12.8 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Gayle Pennel, Schirmer Engineering Corporation Recommendation: Add the following to Table �2.�:

Add a new section as follows and modify Table �2.� as indicated: �2.8 Automatic Tank Fill Valves. �2.8.� Inspection. �2.8.� Automatic tank fill valves shall be inspected weekly to ensure that the OS&Y isolation valves are in the normal open position. �2.8.�.� Valves secured with locks or electrically supervised in accordance with applicable NFPA standards shall be inspected monthly. �2.8.�.2 Enclosure heated and secured. �2.8.2 Maintenance. �2.8.2.� Maintenance of all automatic tank fill valves shall be conducted by a trained individual following the manufacturer’s instructions in accordance with the procedure and policies of the authority having jurisdiction. �2.8.2.2 Rubber parts shall be replaced in accordance with the frequency required by the authority having jurisdiction and the manufacturer’s instructions. �2.8.2.3 Strainers shall be cleaned quarterly. �2.8.3 Testing. �2.8.4 All automatic tank fill valves shall be tested yearly in accordance with the following: (�) The valve shall be actuated automatically by lowering the water level in the tank. (2) The refill rate shall be measured and recorded. Substantiation: The automatic fill valves on water tanks that serve as a suction supply to a fire pump are an integral part of the fire protection system and should be covered by NFPA 25. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add to Section 9.6 with a new Table 9.6.

In �2.8.2.� use “qualified person” in place of “trained person”. �2.8.�.2 Enclosure shall be inspected to verify that it is heated and secured. Committee Statement: The tank fill valves relate to tanks only and belong in Chapter 9. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

________________________________________________________________ 25-�6� Log #�34 Final Action: Accept (12.2.5) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Delete �2.2.5. Substantiation: This is redundant material already covered in Section �2.3 for valves. Additionally, such guidance does not belong in a General section. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B._______________________________________________________________ 25-�62 Log #�35 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.2.6) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Revise to read as follows: �2.2.6 (see also �2.3.4.2) . Substantiation: �2.2.6 addresses conducting an annual main drain test. �2.3.4.2 is about exercising the valve after lubricating it and does not need to be referenced. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Insert reference to �2.3.3.4. Committee Statement: �2.3.4.2 should be deleted however �2.3.3.4 should be referenced since it does relate to main drain tests. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

Item Activity Frequency ReferenceAutomatic Tank Fill ValveStrainers, filters, orifices Inspection/Clean Quarterly �2.87.3.2Enclosure (during cold weather) Inspection Daily/weekly �2.4.3.�Exterior Inspection Monthly �2.4.3.�.6Interior Inspection Annually/5 years �2.4.3.�7Automatic Tank Fill valve Test Annually

Table 12.1 Summary of Valves, Valve Components, and Trim Inspection, Testing, and MaintenanceWater Flow Alarms Test Quarterly �2.2.7Waterflow devices Test Quarterly/semiannually �2.2.7Control Valves/Supervisory Test Semiannually �2.3.3.5 Valve supervisory devices Test Semiannually �2.3.3.5Preaction/Deluge Valves/ Low air pressure alarms Test Quarterly �2.4.3.2.�0 Supervisory signal devices (except valve supervisory switches)

Test Semiannually �2.4.3.2.�0 & ��Dry Pipe Valves/Quick-Opening Devices/ Low air pressure alarm Test Quarterly �2.4.4.2.6 Supervisory signal devices (except valve supervisory switches)

Test Semiannually �2.4.4.2.6 & 7

25-35

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-�63 Log #�74 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.2.6.2 and 12.2.6.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jack A. Medovich, East Coast Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Add new text as follows: �2.2.6.2 When there is a 25 percent reduction in full flow pressure when compared to the original acceptance test or previously performed tests, the cause of the reduction shall be identified and repaired. �2.2.6.2.� The system shall be considered impaired until the water supply is restored to normal. Substantiation: The standard currently says simply that a “large” drop normally is indicative of a dangerously reduced water supply...” Large needs to be quantified. IN addition, the owner needs to be directed to find and fix the problem. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: �2.2.6.2 When there is a �0 percent reduction in full flow pressure when compared to the original acceptance test or previously performed tests, the cause of the reduction shall be identified and addressed repaired . �2.2.6.2.� The system shall be considered impaired until the water supply is evaluated and deficiencies corrected restored to normal. Committee Statement: Addresses the concern of the submitter and provides for correction of deficiencies. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: SHEPPARD, J.: Current language in document is satisfactory. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�64 Log #39 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.2.7) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert McGinnis, Westinghouse Savannah River Site Recommendation: Add new text as follows: �2.2.7 Water-Flow Alarm Pressure Type water-flow alarms shall be tested quarterly and Vane-type waterflow devices shall be tested semiannually in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Substantiation: Correct Table �2.� and paragraph �2.2.7 to Quarterly/Semiannually to be consistent with Chapter 5, 5.3.3 and NFPA 72 edition 2002 Chapter �0. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: �2.2.7 W ater motor gong and Pressure Type water-flow alarms shall be tested quarterly. �2.2.7.� Vane-type waterflow devices shall be tested semiannually in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Committee Statement: Mechanical type alarms need to be referenced. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�65 Log #�36 Final Action: Reject (12.2.7) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Delete �2.2.7. Substantiation: Testing the water flow alarm is not a valve driven issue but a system issue. It is already covered by Chapter 5 and Chapter 6. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Water flow switch requirements are needed here since they are not covered in all system chapters. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�66 Log #224 Final Action: Reject (12.2.7 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, US Department of Veterans Affairs Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: �2.2.7.� Water flow alarms shall be replaced at the end of their useful life as recommended by manufacturer’s instructions. Substantiation: Most manufacturer’s literature recommends replacing water flow switches after �5 years. Though there is no test data to indicate that �5 years is the maximum lifespan for these switches, there certainly is a limit to how long they will last and therefore there needs to be a requirement to replace these switches. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Devices are already required to be replaced when needed. Number Eligible to Vote: 25

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�67 Log #202 Final Action: Reject (12.2.7, 12.4.3.2.10, 12.4.3.2.11, 12.4.4.2.6, 12.4.4.2.7) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas F. Norton, Norel Service Co. Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: �2.2.7 Water-Flow Alarm. All water-flow alarms shall be tested quarterly in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions at the frequency specified in 5.3.3. �2.4.3.2.�0 Low air pressure alarms, if provided, shall be tested quarterly semiannually in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. �2.4.3.2.�� Low temperature alarms, if installed in valve enclosures, shall be tested annually at the beginning of the heating season. �2.4.4.2.6 Low air pressure alarms, if provided, shall be tested quarterly semiannually in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. �2.4.4.2.7 Low temperature alarms, if installed in valve enclosures, shall be tested annually at the beginning of the heating season. Substantiation: Correlation with NFPA 72 by subdividing “Alarm devices” into three categories: Waterflow devices; valve supervisory devices; and Supervisory signal devices (except valve supervisory switches). Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: There was no technical substantiation submitted to justify the change in test frequency. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�68 Log #29 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.3.1.1.2 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: M. G. Myers, Myers Risk Services Recommendation: Add new text to read: Systems that have more than one control valve that must be closed to work on a system or space shall have a sign referring to existence and location of other valves. Substantiation: We have seen many examples of cross-connected systems or sprinkler systems feed from two systems that ran through same space. Fitter working on system shut off one valve not knowing about other valve resulting in large damage and impaired systems. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Insert as new �2.3.�.� and renumber the balance of the section. �2.3.�.� Systems that have more than one control valve that must be closed to work on a system or space shall have a sign on each affected valve referring to the existence and location of other valves. Committee Statement: Identification of each valve is necessary. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: LARRIMER, P.: To require new signs after the systems are installed properly in accordance with an installation standard is outside the scope of this document. This requirement should be placed in NFPA �3. The scope of this document assumes the system is installed properly and if this new requirement is necessary, then the requirement should go into the installation standard. Proposal 25-�89 asked to have NFPA 25 to check for a sign that was already required by NFPA �3 and the committee rejected it, but here, the committee accepts a proposal to require a new sign that is not even required to be installed as part of the installation standard. I don’t disagree that the sign is a good idea, it just needs to go in the proper installation standard. Comment on Affirmative: HUGGINS, R.: I am voting Affirmative with Comment. We need to submit a proposal to NFPA �3 in order to address new systems. Retaining this requirement here is important for existing systems. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�69 Log #�37 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.3.3.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Revise text to read: A main drain test shall be conducted annually at each system riser and any time the valve is closed at each system riser or feed main...” control has been closed to determine whether there has been a change in the condition of the water supply piping and control valves . Substantiation: The annual main drain test is already addressed by �2.2.6 as well as the reason why. Additionally, this sentence is grammatically confused. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: A main drain test shall be conducted any time the control valve is closed and re-opened at each system riser or feed main.

25-36

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Committee Statement: Better describes the intent of the submitter. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�70 Log #89 Final Action: Reject (12.4.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete �2.4.2.�. Revise �2.4.2.2 to read “ Inspection and Maintenance. Internal components shall be inspected, cleaned, repaired, or replaced as necessary in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions” and renumber this paragraph as �2.4.2.�. Substantiation: Without failure data to support the 5 year internal inspection requirement, the current requirement is too restrictive. A second paragraph could be added to list conditions that would warrant an internal inspection (i.e., evidence of MIC). Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Internal inspection of check valves is necessary. No data was submitted indicating that inspection was not needed. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�7� Log #�73 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.4.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jack A. Medovich, East Coast Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Add new text as follows: �2.4.2.�: Inspection of System Riser Check Valves. System riser check valves shall be externally inspected monthly and shall verify the gauges indicate normal supply water pressure is being maintained. Renumber remainder of �2.4.2. Substantiation: The majority of systems now use a system riser check valve and nothing requires the gauges to be checked. A similar change was recently made in NFPA �3, 7.�.�.2. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle In �2.4.�.� include reference to system riser check valves. Committee Statement: Addresses the concerns of the submitter. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

________________________________________________________________ 25-�72 Log #��0 Final Action: Accept (12.4.3.1 and 12.4.3.1.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Move the text after “Inspection” to a new paragraph numbered �2.4.3.�.� and renumber �2.4.3.�.� as �2.4.3.�.�.�. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�73 Log #35 Final Action: Reject (12.4.3.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jeff Lewis, Virginia Sprinkler Company Inspections Services Recommendation: Add the following text: “Every three years or whenever the system is altered, the preaction valve shall be trip tested with the control valve fully open.” Substantiation: A three year full trip test of a dry pipe system is conducted to prevent the corrosion and scale build up that occurs from consistently introducing water into the system by fully tripping the valve every year. Preaction systems are affected the same way. With MIC being such a problem, preaction systems should be separated from deluge valves and be treated like dry pipe systems when it comes to trip testing. This would allow for 2 years where a partial trip is conducted to verify operation but will reduce the amount water introduced into the preaction system and thus prolong the life span of the piping. To the best of my knowledge this is original to members of my company and based on some recent experiences. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The submitter needs to resubmit to better clarify his intent. This proposal generates conflict with existing text. Yearly testing of preaction valves should be included in a revised proposal. The substantiation does not match the proposed language, see �2.4.4.2.2. Number Eligible to Vote: 25

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�74 Log #34 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.4.3.3.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jeff Lewis, Virginia Sprinkler Company Inspections Services Recommendation: Revise text to read: “Low points equipped with auxiliary drains or plugs in preaction or deluge systems shall be drained after each operation and before the onset of freezing weather conditions.” OR “ Auxiliary drains in preaction or deluge systems shall be drained after each operation and before the onset of freezing weather conditions.” Substantiation: Even though the term low point(s) has been in the industry since time memorable it implies that any low point in the system will be drained. The annex of NFPA 25 implies that only those equipped with auxiliary drains in accordance with NFPA �3 are drained. NFPA �3 does not refer to low points it refers to auxiliary drains. The language in the two standards should agree. The term “low point” has been interpreted by the legal community to mean dismantling pipe and checking pitch every time we do a systems test. An HVAC contractor can loosen a hanger trapping a section of piping creating a “low point”, the pipe freezes and creates water damage. NFPA 25 states in the body of its text that low points are to be drained. The term low point should not be there or it needs to be clarified. This is a simplification of the problem and there are other variables but the term “low point” is a liability. This topic has been kicked around in the industry so it cannot be considered original. I believe the AFSA has had some bulletins released on this topic. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement Proposal 25-�75 (Log #�52). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�75 Log #�52 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.4.3.3.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, TVA Fire and Life Safety, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read: Low points equipped with auxiliary drains in preaction or deluge systems , subject to freezing, shall be drained after each use and before the onset of freezing weather conditions. Substantiation: This paragraph imposes requirements not in line with NFPA �3. Deluge and preaction systems have no requirements for drainage beyond that of wet systems except for preaction systems that are subject to freezing. The term “low points” is arbitrary when used alone. All low points in preaction systems that are subject to freezing are required by NFPA �3 to have an auxiliary drain. By using the term “low points” without clarification, excessive liability is created for service providers and is not in line with the intent of “reasonable” as stated by the standard. The paragraph limits “freezing” to weather related conditions. The word weather should be eliminated to cover freezers, refrigerated spaces, etc. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read: Auxiliary drains in preaction or deluge systems shall be operated after each system operation and before the onset of freezing conditions. Committee Statement: Addresses the intent of the submitter. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�76 Log #30 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.4.4.1.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: M. G. Myers, Myers Risk Services Recommendation: Add new text to read: Systems with low point drains require sign at dry or preaction valve indicating number of low point drains and location of each individual drain. Substantiation: Owner or contractor maintaining system needs to know if there are any low point drains, how many and where they are located. We have seen many freeze ups when all drains not known. This is easy when new contractor takes over maintenance of existing system without help in finding low point drains. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Delete reference to “low point” and replace with “auxiliary” Committee Statement: Provides for consistent language. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative:

25-37

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 LARRIMER, P.: To require new signs after the systems are installed properly in accordance with an installation standard is outside the scope of this document. This requirement should be placed in NFPA �3. The scope of this document assumes the system is installed properly and if this new requirement is necessary, then the requirement should go into the installation standard. Proposal 25-�89 asked to have NFPA 25 to check for a sign that was already required by NFPA �3 and the committee rejected it, but here, the committee accepts a proposal to require a new sign that is not even required to be installed as part of the installation standard. I don’t disagree that the sign is a good idea, it just needs to go in the proper installation standard. Comment on Affirmative: HUGGINS, R.: I am voting Affirmative with Comment. We need to repeat these criteria in section �2.4.3 for Preaction systems KEEPING, L.: It is inappropriate to refer to “dry or preaction” in this section. Section �2.4.4 deals only with dry pipe systems, so to have the same matter addressed or preaction issues, a separate requirement should be written into Section �2.4.3. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�77 Log #33 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.4.4.3.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Miles Myers, Myers Risk Services Recommendation: Revise text to read: Low points in dry pipe sprinkler systems shall be drained after each operation of the system and weekly starting before the onset of freezing weather conditions and through freezing weather season . Substantiation: Proper maintenance of low point drains is a major problem leading to freeze ups and system impairments. This language helps to clarify proper draining of low point drains during freezing periods. Note the table in Chapter 5 refers to “annually prior to freezing and as needed.” Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Change “low point” to “auxiliary drain”. Auxiliary drains in dry pipe sprinkler systems shall be drained after each operation of the system, and before the onset of freezing weather conditions and continuing as needed. Committee Statement: Guidance on draining dry system is needed. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: SHEPPARD, J.: Use “40º F” as opposed to “freezing conditions”. See action taken on 25-�33 (Log #74). ________________________________________________________________ 25-�78 Log #36 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.4.4.3.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jeff Lewis, Virginia Sprinkler Company Inspections Services Recommendation: Revise text to read: “Low points equipped with auxiliary drains or plugs in dry pipe sprinkler systems shall be drained after each operation and before the onset of freezing weather conditions.” OR “ Auxiliary drains in dry pipe sprinkler systems shall be drained after each operation and before the onset of freezing weather conditions.” Substantiation: Even though the term low point(s) has been in the industry since time memorable it implies that any low point in the system will be drained. The annex of NFPA 25 implies that only those equipped with auxiliary drains in accordance with NFPA �3 are drained. NFPA �3 does not refer to low points it refers to auxiliary drains. The language in the two standards should agree. The term “low point” has been interpreted by the legal community to mean dismantling pipe and checking pitch every time we do a systems test. An HVAC contractor can loosen a hanger trapping a section of piping creating a “low point”, the pipe freezes and creates water damage. NFPA 25 states in the body of its text that low points are to be drained. The term low point should not be there or it needs to be clarified. This is a simplification of the problem and there are other variables but the term “low point” is a liability. This topic has been kicked around in the industry so it cannot be considered original. I believe the AFSA has had some bulletins released on this topic. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-�77 (Log #33). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

________________________________________________________________ 25-�79 Log #50 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.4.4.3.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Top Myers, Myers Risk Services Recommendation: Revise text as follows: Low Points/ Condensate drains in dry sprinkler systems shall be drained after each operation and within a reasonable time before the onset of freezing weather conditions and drained weekly during freezing season . Substantiation: Current wording implies no need to drain during freezing season and that if system is drained May � before following freezing season it is ok if there has been no system operation. This leads to misunderstanding of how water is introduced to system by ongoing operation of compressor and humidity. This change is necessary for proper maintenance of these systems and helps eliminate many impairments and losses due to frozen dry systems. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-�77 (Log #33). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: SHEPPARD, J.: Use “40º F” as opposed to “freezing conditions”. See action taken on 25-�33 (Log #74). ________________________________________________________________ 25-�80 Log #�5� Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.4.4.3.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, TVA Fire and Life Safety, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read: Low points equipped with auxiliary drains shall be drained after each operation and before the outset of freezing weather conditions. Substantiation: The term “low point” without clarification is arbitrary. NFPA �3 requires all “low points” in dry systems to have an auxiliary drain. Using the term “low point” alone creates excessive liability for service providers and is not in line with the intent of “reasonable” as stated by the standard. The paragraph limits “freezing” to weather related conditions. The term weather should be eliminated to cover freezers, refrigerated spaces, etc. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-�77 (Log #33). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: SHEPPARD, J.: Use “40º F” as opposed to “freezing conditions”. See action taken on 25-�33 (Log #74).

________________________________________________________________ 25-�8� Log #�38 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.4.4.3.3.1 and 12.4.4.3.3.2 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add new text as follows: �2.4.4.3.3.� Owners shall maintain documentation showing the location of all auxiliary drains. �3.4.4.3.3.2 Each drain valve shall have a sign identifying it. Substantiation: The ability to avoid a freeze threat is directly related to being able to find and drain all low points. NFPA �3:6.7.4 requires all control, drain, and test valves to have a sign. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-�76 (Log #30). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�82 Log #��� Final Action: Accept (12.5.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Revise the text as follows: Inspection and Testing of Sprinkler Pressure Reducing Control Valves. Sprinkler pressure reducing control valves shall be inspected and tested as described in �2.5.�.� and �2.5.�.2. Substantiation: Editorial. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

25-38

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-�83 Log #23� Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.5.1.4 and 12.5.7) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Standpipes Recommendation: Add new Sections �2.5.�.4 and �2.5.7 to Chapter �2 to read as follows: �2.5.�.4 Gauges on pressure control valves shall be inspected weekly to ensure that they are in good condition and that normal water supply pressure is being maintained. �2.5.7 Pressure Control Valves. �2.5.7.� All pressure control valves shall be inspected quarterly. �2.5.7.2* The inspection shall verify that the pressure downstream of the pressure control valve in the fire pump discharge piping does not exceed the pressure for which the system components are rated. A.�2.5.7.2 The quarterly inspection of pressure control valves can be performed during the fire pump operating test. �2.5.7.3 During the annual fire pump flow test, the pressure control valve shall be flow tested at the system design flow to verify that it is adjusted correctly and is set at the correct pressure and will open below that pressure setting. �2.5. 7 .8 Maintenance. All damaged or missing components noted during the inspections specified in �2.5.5.� through �2.5.5.2.2 shall be repaired or replaced in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Substantiation: Pressure regulating devices are a critical component of a fire protection system as are fire pumps. Verification is needed to ensure fire protection system integrity. Observations of these devices can be accomplished concurrently with the fire pump flow test without creating an additional burden on the building owner or operator. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-�84 (Log #��5). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�84 Log #��5 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.5.4 & 3.5.5.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Dana R. Haagensen, Massachusetts Office of the Fire Marshal Recommendation: 1) Insert new 12.5.4 and associated annex material as follows: 12.5.4 Master Pressure Reducing Valves. 12.5.4.1* Valves shall be inspected weekly to verify that the valves are in the following condition: (�)* Maintaining downstream pressures in accordance with the design criteria (2) Supply pressure in accordance with the design criteria (3) Not leaking (3) Valve and trim are in good condition. 12.5.4.2* A partial flow test adequate to move the valve from its seat shall be conducted quarterly. 12.5.4.3* A full flow test shall be conducted on each valve annually and shall be compared to previous test results. 12.5.4.4 When valve adjustments are necessary, valve adjustments shall be made in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. A.12.5.4.1 When the PRV is located in or immediately downstream of the fire pump discharge, the weekly inspection of the master PRV can be performed during the weekly fire pump operating test. A.12.5.4.1(1) Pressures downstream of the master PRV should not exceed the maximum pressure rating of the system components. A.12.5.4.2 The partial flow test of the master PRV can be performed during the quarterly main drain test. (See 12.2.6.1.) A.12.5.4.3 When the PRV is located in the fire pump discharge, the full flow test of the master PRV can be performed during the annual fire pump flow test. 2) Insert new definition and associated annex material as follows: 3.5.5.1* Master Pressure Reducing Valve. A pressure reducing valve installed to regulate pressures in an entire fire protection system and/or standpipe system zone. A.3.5.5.1 Master PRV’s are typically found in or immediately downstream of a fire pump’s discharge. 3) Renumber and revise existing 12.5.4 as follows: 12.5. 4 5 Pressure Reducing Valves. 12.5. 4 5 .1 All pressure reducing valves installed on fire protection systems not covered by �2.5.�, �2.5.2, �2.5.3 or �2.5. 3 4 shall be inspected in accordance with �2.5.�.�. 12.5. 4 5 .2 All pressure reducing valves installed on fire protection systems not covered by �2.5.�, �2.5.2, �2.5.3 or �2.5. 3 4 shall be tested in accordance with �2.5.�.2. Substantiation: System designers are using “master” pressure reducing valves in fire sprinkler systems and standpipe systems for a variety of reasons. NFPA fire protection system installation standards have been hesitant to directly address requirements for master pressure reducing valves until there is guidance in NFPA 25 specifically for inspection, testing and maintenance of

master pressure reducing valves - as maintenance of such valves is a major concern. As implied by the current requirements of �2.2.6.� in NFPA 25-2002, master pressure reducing valves require more frequent inspection, testing, and maintenance, because of their critical placement. Since the common placement for a master pressure reducing valve is in or immediately downstream of a fire pump discharge, the proposed inspection and testing frequency is associated with the weekly and annual fire pump tests. The proposed partial flow test frequency is that currently required in �2.2.6.�, and is necessary to “exercise” the valves. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Accept the proposed text and revise A.3.5.5.� to read as follows: A.3.5.5.1 Master PRV’s are typically found in or immediately downstream of a fire pump’s discharge. Committee Statement: Master PRV’s should not be found in fire pump discharge lines. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: LARRIMER, P.: Pressure reducing valves should be tested based on the operation of the valve itself to provide some type of assurance that it is working regardless of where it is located in a system. If the committee is going to establish testing frequencies for a device based upon its location within a system, this will open the door for every device in a system to have frequencies established based upon where it is in the system. For instance, if I have one flow switch on an incoming feed main and call it the “master” flow switch, then, based upon the philosophy accepted by this proposal, I could test it semi-annually and test those that are downstream on an annual basis because they are less important. The committee does not presently allow this. If the committee wants to allow the frequencies of tests to be based upon the location of the device within a system, then this will be precedent for allowing this for all devices, not just PRVs. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�85 Log #�39 Final Action: Accept (12.5.5.1.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Delete �2.5.5.�.2. Substantiation: Chapter 4 already addresses that deficiencies shall be corrected and such guidance is not repeated for any of the other systems or components in Chapter �2. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�86 Log #�79 Final Action: Reject (12.6.2.1(1)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: �2.6.2.�(�) A forward flow test shall be conducted at the designed flow rate of the system system demand , including hose steam...” Substantiation: Many AHJs are requiring the forward flow test to identify both volume and pressure. This is based upon the definition of “system demand” being both Q and P. The proposed wording was taken from �2.6.2.2 Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The design pressure must also be evaluated. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: I disagree with the recommendation to Reject. Although on the surface this seems to be a good idea, it adds such cost that many will not do it. These components are covered by the federal fresh drinking water act and are inspected under a cross connection program. We added a requirement to conduct a full forward flow since it was not part of the cross connection program and wanted a reasonable level of assurance that the valves would fully open. Verifying the flow and pressure curve of the device was never envisioned by NFPA �3. It only requires a mean to do a flow test even allowing the use of the fire department connection – not a test header whereby a sufficiently accurate determination of flow can be determined. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�87 Log #CP8 Final Action: Accept (12.6.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems Recommendation: Delete �2.6.2.2 and add A.�2.6.2.2. to A.�2.6.2.�. Substantiation: The full flow test is already required in �2.6.2.�.

25-39

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�88 Log #�0 Final Action: Reject (12.7.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Donald H. J. Turno, Westinghouse Savannah River Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: �2.7 Fire Department Connections. �2.7.� Fire department connections shall be inspected quarterly. The inspection shall verify the following: (�) The fire department connections are visible and accessible . (2) Couplings or swivels are not damaged and rotate smoothly. (3) Plugs or caps are in place and undamaged. (4) Gaskets are in place and in good condition. (5) Identification signs are in place. (6) The check valve is not leaking. (7) The automatic drain valve is in place and operating properly. (8) The fire department connection clapper(s) is in place and operating properly. (9) That no objects are within a 4 ft radius of the fire department connection. Substantiation: Help to define what is accessible. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: The accessibility is determined by the local AHJ. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�89 Log #225 Final Action: Reject (12.7.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Joshua Elvove, US Department of Veterans Affairs Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: Each fire department connection shall be identified and have a sign indicating the system or portion of the system it controls. Substantiation: Note: This is the same text used in �2.3.� for identifying control valves. To ensure that fire response personnel know exactly what building or area of a building is served by the fire department connection. Existing text is not specific. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Already addressed in Section �2.7.�.5 and NFPA �3, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, and NFPA �4, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe, Private Hydrants, and Hose Systems, requires identification of the portion of the system served when the entire building is not covered. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: � Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: LARRIMER, P.: The proponent has simply asked for something to be checked that is required by the installation standard, yet the committee rejected it for no good reason. On other proposals, the committee mandates new signs that are not required by the installation standard. (See 25-�68 and 25-�76) The committee is consistently inconsistent in their actions. This proposal should be accepted. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�90 Log #�7 Final Action: Accept in Principle (12.7.4 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Recommendation: Add a new section to read: �2.7.4 Piping between the exterior fire department connection and the check valve in the fire department inlet pipe shall be hydrostatically tested as required for the balance of the system. Substantiation: This is text from NFPA �3 and should be placed in NFPA 25 for consistency. The pipe from the system to the fdc should be hydrostatically tested at specified frequencies. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise section 6.3.2.� to read as follows: 6.3.2.1 Hydrostatic tests at not less than �3.8-bar (200-psi) pressure for 2 hours, or at 3.4 bar (50 psi) in excess of the maximum pressure, where maximum pressure is in excess of �0.3 bar (�50 psi), shall be conducted every 5 years on dry standpipe systems and dry portions of wet standpipe systems including piping in the fire department connection . Committee Statement: It is the intent to include the FDC piping in the hydrostatic test. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �9 Negative: �

Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: I am voting negatively on hydrostatically testing all fire department connections. We historically have required a hydrostatic test of dry standpipes and dry portions of wet standpipes. We need to define that this refers to a dry standpipe that is a portion of a wet standpipe, such as protecting parking garages, or simply any piece of pipe without water in it. Applying this requirement to the FDC supply pipe for EVERY standpipe adds a huge costs for minimal returns. As stated in the Purpose, we are suppose to provide a REASONABLE degree of protection. If cost is to be totally ignored, we need to also test every manual system whether they are dry or wet since they are not exposed to any pressure. That would not be reasonable either but the same logic supports it. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�9� Log #220 Final Action: Reject (12.7.4, A.12.7.4 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Ruben Grijalva, State of California, Office of the State Fire Marshal Recommendation: Add a new section to read: �2.7.4* All fire department connections shall be backflushed at full flow at a frequency not to exceed 5 years. A.�2.7.4 The fire department connection should be tested by backflushing through the inlets. The fire department connection check valve should be either (�) removed and replaced with a spool piece, or (2) the check valve should be replaced in the reversed position, or (3) the clapper should be removed. The check valve clapper should be inspected for proper operation. If the clapper does not move freely, it should be repaired or replaced. The fire department connection should be backflushed at full flow. Where there is potential for damage to the building and grounds, hoses maybe used to divert the water flow. A hose having the same diameter as the fire department inlet should be attached to each inlet. The maximum length of the hose should be 50 ft. Where a greater length is needed, the diameter of the hose should be increased one nominal diameter unless it can be determined that the flow rate is at least equal to the system demand. At the completion of the backflush test, the check valve or clapper should be reinstalled in the proper orientation. All control valves should be returned to their normal position. The fire department connection should be inspected to ensure the check valve is liquid tight. Substantiation: California’s experience with testing and backflushing FDC’s over the last 20 years has demonstrated the presence of debris in the FDC piping, including the underground piping. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Section �2.7.2 already addresses the submitters concern. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�92 Log #90 Final Action: Reject (13.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete paragraph �3.2.� and replace it with paragraph �3.2.3. Renumber paragraph �3.2.2 as paragraph �3.2.�.�. Renumber paragraph �3.2.�.� as paragraph �3.2.2.�. Renumber paragraph �3.2.�.2 as paragraph �3.2.4.�. Renumber paragraph �3.2.3.� as paragraph �3.2.�.2. Renumber paragraph �3.2.3.2 as paragraph �3.2.2. Delete paragraph �3.2.3.3 (same as current �3.2.�.�). Renumber �3.2.4 as �3.2.3. Renumber A.�3.2.2 as A.�3.2.2. Renumber A.�3.2.3 as A.�3.2.�. Renumber A.�3.2.4 as A.�3.2.3. This eliminates the “investigation” required every 5 years in �3.2.� and clarifies that the “examine” required in �3.2.3 if one of the listed conditions is present. As a result of the proposed change, the section would read: �3.2* Obstruction Investigation and Prevention. �3.2.�* Systems shall be examined for internal obstructions where conditions exist could cause obstructed piping. �3.2.�.� An obstruction investigation shall be conducted for system or yard main piping wherever any of the following conditions exist: (�) Defective intake for fire pumps taking suction from open bodies of water (2) The discharge of obstructive material during routine water tests (3) Foreign materials in fire pumps, in dry pipe valves, or in check valves (4) Foreign material in water during drain tests or plugging of inspector’s test connection(s) (5) Plugged sprinklers (6) Plugged piping in sprinkler systems dismantled during building alterations

25-40

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 (7) Failure to flush yard piping or surrounding public mains following new installations or repairs (8) A record of broken public mains in the vicinity (9) Abnormally frequent false tripping of a dry pipe valve(s) (�0) A system that is returned to service after an extended shutdown (greater than � year) (��) There is reason to believe that the sprinkler system contains sodium silicate or highly corrosive fluxes in copper systems (�2) A system has been supplied with raw water via the fire department connection (�3) Pinhole leaks (�4) A 50-percent increase in the time it takes water to travel to the inspector’s test connection from the time the valve trips during a full flow trip test of a dry pipe sprinkler system when compared to the original system acceptance test �3.2.�.2 If the condition has not been corrected or the condition is one that could result in obstruction of the piping despite any previous flushing procedures that have been performed, the system shall be examined for internal obstructions every 5 years. �3.2.2* Internal inspections shall be accomplished by examining the interior of the following four points: (�) System valve (2) Riser (3) Cross main (4) Branch line �3.2.2.� Alternative nondestructive examination methods shall be permitted. �3.2.3* If an obstruction investigation carried out in accordance with �3.2.2 indicates the presence of sufficient material to obstruct sprinklers, a complete flushing program shall be conducted by qualified personnel. �3.2.3.� Tubercules or slime, if found, shall be tested for indications of microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC). Substantiation: The 5 year requirement is too restrictive and is an arbitrary calendar requirement. Internal “inspection”, “examination”, “investigation”, or any other term used for looking inside the pipe should be required only if one or more of the conditions listed is present. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: It is the intent of the committee to retain the 5 year requirement. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �8 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: LARRIMER, P.: The committee states “It is the intent of the committee to retain the 5 year requirement.” The 5 year requirement was provided last cycle without any technical substantiation and is extremely onerous especially for those who have plastic systems for which there is no exception. How many plastic systems are corroding out there? SAIDI, J.: I vote to agree with the submitter’s substantiations. The 5-year requirement is too arbitrary and should not be applied across the board without some triggering mechanism. I therefore vote to accept this log. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�93 Log #�84 Final Action: Accept in Principle (13.2.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: James M. Fantauzzi, North East Fire Protection Systems, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A preliminary investigation of piping and branch line conditions shall be conducted every five years by opening a flushing connection at the end of one main and by removing a sprinkler toward the end of one branch line for the purpose of determining that sufficient foreign organic and/or inorganic material is present to continue further investigation and/or corrective action. Substantiation: �3.2.� As written has been interrupted as a complete internal investigation of the piping system. The committee’s original intent was that �3.2.� to be only a trigger mechanism for further investigation. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-48 (Log #78). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�94 Log #223 Final Action: Accept (13.2.1.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael D. Kirn, Fire protectin systems Corrosion Management, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read: �3.2.�.2 Tubercules or slime, if found, shall be tested for indications of internal corrosion, including microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC). Substantiation: The service life of a fire protection system (FPS) is directly related to the rate of corrosion and how long a system can effectively operate before corrosion compromises the system’s ability to perform as intended. MIC

is a process which accelerates and concentrates corrosion in FPS. By definition, MIC must influence another form of corrosion. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�95 Log #�96 Final Action: Accept (13.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Revise the text of �3.3 as follows: �3.3 Prevention of Ice Obstruction. Substantiation: Striking the word “prevention” from the title of Section �3.3 clarifies that this section is aimed at detection and not prevention. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�96 Log #2� Final Action: Reject (14.5.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev. Recommendation: Revise to read: �4.5.� All preplanned impairments shall be approved by the ahj and the impairment coordinator. Add a new �4.5.�.� to read: �4.5.�.� The ahj shall be notified at least 48 hours in advance when a system is planned on being out of service for over 4 hours in a 24 hour period. Substantiation: The ahj must give approval for the protection plan for the planned impairment in addition to the approval of the onsite impairment coordinator. When systems may be out of service for over 4 hours the protection for the building must be approved by the ahj before the work begins. The 48 hour notice for long period of impairment give the necessary time for the plans to be approved and for the appropriate steps to be in place to ensure that the fire safety of the building is adequate for the period of the impairment. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Does not increase the reliability of the fire protection system. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�97 Log #226 Final Action: Accept in Principle (Table 14.5.2.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Fire Pumps Recommendation: Add new Table �4.5.2.3 Summary of Component Replacement Testing Requirements to read as follows: See Table �4.5.2.3 on the next page Substantiation: Proposal to create new sections in NFPA-25 No. 8.6.�, 8.6..2 and Table 8.6.�, is presented to align the new NFPA-25 and the current edition of NFPA-20 as related to Component Replacement. The NFPA-20 Technical Committee for Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection presents these proposed new sections to be created in the NFPA-25 Standard, to provide supplemental guidance to the various entities performing repairs or replacement of critical path components of the fire pump systems Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-�29 (Log #46). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�98 Log #24 Final Action: Reject (14.5.2(3)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev. Recommendation: Revise to read: (3) Recommendations have been submitted to management or building owner/manager. Where a required fire protection system is out of service for more than 4 hours in a 24-hour period, the impairment coordinator shall arrange for one or more of the following as approved by the ahj : (a) Evacuation of the building or portion of the building affected by the system out of service (b)* An approved fire watch

25-4�

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 Table 14.5.2.3 (NEW) Summary of Component Replacement Testing Requirements.

Component 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 258.3.3

7 Main shaft X X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 258.3.3

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 �4.5.2.6.2

2 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 �4.2.8

2 Isolating switch X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 258.3.2 and exercise 6 times

3 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 test

4 Electrical connections X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2

5 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 �4.2.8

6 Power monitor X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 258.3.2

7 Start relay X Perform weekly test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2

8 Pressure switch X X Perform Acceptance Test in accordance with NFPA-20 �4.2.8.9

�0 Pressure Transducer X X Perform Acceptance test in accordance with NFPA-20 �4.2.8.9

�� Manual start or stop switch X Perform six operations under load

�2 Transfer switch - load carrying parts X X X Perform a one hour full load current test, and transfer from normal power toemergency 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 �4.5.2.6.2

2 Motor bearings X Perform annual test in accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.3

3 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 8.3.23 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 8.3.26 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 weekly test in accordance with NFPA-20 8.3.29 Battery charger X X Perform a start/stop sequence NFPA-25 8.3.2�0 Electrical 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-20 8.3.2

F. Steam Turbines� Steam turbine 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 X Perform annual test In accordance with NFPA 258.3.32 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-20 8.3.2

G, Pump House and Misc Components� Base plate X X

Perform weekly test In accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2 with allignment check

2 Foundation X X X Perform weekly test In accordance with NFPA 25 8.3.2 with allignment check

3 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

25-42

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 (c)* Establishment of a temporary water supply (d)* Establishment and implementation of an approved program to eliminate potential ignition sources and limit the amount of fuel available to the fire Substantiation: There are times when there may be more than one of the listed protection arrangement that may be needed to provide adequate protection while a system is out of service. The protection provided must also be approved by the ahj before work starts. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Or more is implied. Does not increase the reliability of the fire protection system. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-�99 Log #�85 Final Action: Accept (14.5.2(3)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: James M. Fantauzzi, North East Fire Protection Systems, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: (3) Recommendations have been...” Where a required fire protection system is out of service for more than ten hours in a 24 hour period, the impairment coordinator shall arrange for one of the following: Substantiation: The impairment procedures are so stringent that they are virtually ignored by all parties. By increasing the time requirement to ten hours, the implementation of �4.5.2 would be more reasonable. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-200 Log #22 Final Action: Reject (14.6.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code Dev. Recommendation: Revise to read: �4.6.3 The impairment coordinator shall implement the steps outlined in Section �4.5.2 and immediately notify the ahj. Substantiation: We believe that the better reference is to �4.5.2. It is important to also immediately notify the ahj when a systems is out of service. Committee Meeting Action: Reject Committee Statement: Immediately is unenforceable. Already addressed in �4.5.2 (4) & (5). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-20� Log #�66 Final Action: Accept (A.3.3.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. Scott Mitchell, American Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: “...flammable gas detectors or products of combustion detectors, and manual means to initiate water flow. Substantiation: This annex section and the base section in 3.3.2 are addressing automatic detection equipment, not manual. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-202 Log #�40 Final Action: Accept in Principle (A.3.3.18 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add a new section to read: A.3.3.�8 Temporarily shutting down a system as part of performing the routine inspection, testing, and maintenance on that system should not be considered an impairment. Substantiation: What constitutes a “shutdown” is not defined allowing many to believe the impairment program shall be implemented when you close a valve for even �5 minutes. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: A.3.3.�8 Temporarily shutting down a system as part of performing the routine inspection, testing, and maintenance on that system while under constant attendance by qualified personnel and where the system can be restored to service quickly , should not be considered an impairment. Good judgment should be considered for the hazards presented. Committee Statement: Guidance on system impairment is neeed. Number Eligible to Vote: 25

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-203 Log #�7� Final Action: Accept (A.3.3.24.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jack A. Medovich, East Coast Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The selection of the type and size of spray nozzles should have been be made with proper consideration given to such factors as...” Substantiation: Current text is giving design guidance instead of just a warning about why replacing the same spray nozzles is important due any maintenance. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-204 Log #CP5 Final Action: Accept (A.4.1.4.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems Recommendation: Add a new section A.4.�.4.� as follows: A.4.1.4.1 System deficiencies not explained by normal wear and tear, such as hydraulic shock, can often be indicators of system problems and should be investigated and evaluated by a qualified person or engineer. Failure to address these issues could lead to catastrophic failure. Examples of deficiencies that can be caused by issues beyond normal wear and tear are as follows: Pressure Gauge �. Gauge not returning to zero 2. Gauge off scale 3. Gauge with bent needle Support Devices �. Bent hangers and/or rods 2. Hangers pulled out/off structure 3. Indication of pipe or hanger movement such as: a. Hanger scrape marks on pipe, exposed pipe surface where pipe and hangers are painted b. Fire stop material damaged at pipe penetration of fire rated assembly Unexplained System Damage �. Unexplained system damage beyond normal wear and tear. 2. Bent or broken shafts on valves 3. Bent or broken valve clappers 4. Unexplained leakage at branch lines, cross main or feed main piping. 5. Unexplained leakage at close nipples 6. Loose bolts on flanges and couplings Fire Pump �. Fire pump driver out of alignment 2. Vibration of fire pump and/or driver. 3. Unusual sprinkler system piping noises (sharp report, loud bang) Substantiation: Examples of potential causes for deficiencies are needed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-205 Log #�48 Final Action: Accept in Principle (A.5.2.1.1.2 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, TVA Fire and Life Safety, Inc. Recommendation: Add a new section to read: A.5.2.�.�.2 Sprinkler orientation includes the position of the deflector in relation to the ceiling slope. The deflector is generally required to be parallel to the slope of the ceiling. The inspection should identify and corrections made where deficiencies are noted such as pipe with welded outlets and flexible grooved couplings that has “rolled” out of position. Substantiation: Guidance is needed regarding deflector position and ceiling slope. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add to Section 5.2.�.�.�. Committee Statement: Topic is better addressed in this section. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

25-43

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-206 Log #206 Final Action: Accept in Principle (A.5.2.1.1.2 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: David A. de Vries, Firetech Engineering Recommendation: Add new text as follows: 5.2.�.�.2* (see related proposed revision to the text of this section) A.5.2.��.2 Recalled sprinklers include all Omega models made by Central Sprinkler Company, selected models using an O-ring seal, primarily glass bulb type, made by Central Sprinkler Company, Star Sprinkler Inc. and Gem Sprinkler Co., and various models of dry sprinklers manufactured under the name “Star”. Information about these recalled sprinklers is available at the following websites: • Omega sprinklers: www.omegarecall.com • Central GB sprinklers: www.sprinklerreplacement.com • Star dry sprinklers: www.star-recall.com and www.starme�recall.com Substantiation: There were tens of millions of sprinklers manufactured and installed that have since been found to fail to operate correctly at a significant rate. The above websites provide information that will assist the owner or the persons conducting inspections to identify such sprinklers and arrange their replacement. See also the related proposals for section 5.2.�.�.2, 5.2.�.3 and 5.2.9. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Committee Statement: See Committee Action and Statement on Proposal 25-62 (Log #�92). Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: �8 Negative: 2 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Explanation of Negative: HUGGINS, R.: See My Explanation of Negative on 25-24 (Log #��9). LEAVITT, R.: See My Explanation of Negative on 25-24 (Log #��9). ________________________________________________________________ 25-207 Log #�77 Final Action: Accept (A.5.2.4.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add new text as follows: It is normal though, that the pressure above the alarm or system check valve is typically higher than that of the water supply as a result of trapped pressure surges. Substantiation: This sentence follows the existing annex material as additional information. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

________________________________________________________________ 25-208 Log #�72 Final Action: Accept (A.5.3.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jack A. Medovich, East Coast Fire Protection, Inc. Recommendation: Add as a second paragraph in A.5.3.�: Where documentation of the installation date is not available, the start date for the in-service interval should be based upon the sprinkler’s manufacture date. Substantiation: On older systems it’s typically impossible to accurately define how long a system has been in-service. Using the manufacture date for the sprinkler is a reasonable approach. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-209 Log #CP2 Final Action: Accept (A.5.3.1.1.5 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems Recommendation: Add new annex section to read as follows; A.5.3.1.1.5 See Section 3.3.32.3. Substantiation: Clarifies that this test is intended for dry-type sprinklers and is not intended as an additional test for standard spray sprinklers installed in a dry pipe system. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

________________________________________________________________ 25-2�0 Log #��2 Final Action: Accept (A.5.3.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete A.5.3.3. Substantiation: Editorial. Already covered in 5.3.3.3 and 5.3.3.3.�. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-2�� Log #�43 Final Action: Accept (A.5.3.4) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add new text to read: A.5.3.4 Many refractometers are calibrated for a single type of antifreeze solution and will not provide accurate readings for the other types of solutions. Substantiation: Additional information for users. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-2�2 Log #�47 Final Action: Accept (A.5.3.4.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell B. Leavitt, TVA Fire and Life Safety, Inc. / Rep. The Home Depot Recommendation: Add Isothermic Map (Figure A.�0.5.�) from NFPA �3. Substantiation: There are currently no guidelines for the owner on what level of protection should be maintained. The isothermic map provides some guidelines for freeze protection. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-2�3 Log #�44 Final Action: Accept (A.5.4.1.1 (New) ) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add a new section to read: A.5.4.�.� To help in the replacement of like sprinklers, unique sprinkler identification numbers (SIN) are provided on all sprinklers manufactured after January �, 200�. The SIN accounts for differences in orifice size, deflector characteristics, pressure rating, and thermal sensitivity. Substantiation: Useful information for those restoring sprinkler systems. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-2�4 Log #�67 Final Action: Accept in Principle (A.5.4.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. Scott Mitchell, American Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Delete A.5.4.2 in its entirety. Substantiation: Converting from a dry system to a wet system does not cause corrosion. A dry system experiences an extremely accelerated rate of corrosion compared to wet systems. This is evident in the fact that NFPA �3 assigns a Hazen-Williams C-factor of �00 for dry systems while a wet system is assigned a C-factor of �20. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: A.5.4.2 Conversion of dry pipe systems to wet pipe systems on a seasonal basis causes corrosion and accumulation of foreign matter in the pipe system and loss of alarm service. Committee Statement: It is the intent to discourage seasonal conversions, not temporary due to repair or other issues. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

25-44

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 ________________________________________________________________ 25-2�5 Log #�45 Final Action: Accept (A.5.4.3) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Recommendation: Add new text to read: A.5.4.3 For repairs affecting the installation of less than 20 sprinklers, a test for leakage should be made at normal system working pressure. Substantiation: Such guidance on smaller repairs is needed. Similar guidance is provided in NFPA �3:�6.2.�.4. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-2�6 Log #��3 Final Action: Accept (A.6.3.1.1) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete second paragraph. Substantiation: Editorial. Already addressed in 6.3.�.2. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-2�7 Log #��4 Final Action: Accept (Figure A.8.3.5.3(1)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Revise two references to “original acceptance test” to read “initial unadjusted field test”. Substantiation: Editorial to match text in body of standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-2�8 Log #9� Final Action: Accept (Figure A.12.1(e)) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Paul Roberto, General Motors Recommendation: Delete “Alarm test cock” and relocate the water pressure gauge to the system side of the control valve. Substantiation: Editorial. The “Alarm test cock” is shown in the alarm line which is fed from the intermediate chamber. The test line is fed from the water side of a dry pipe system. Per NFPA �3, paragraph 7.2.�, a pressure gauge is required on the water side of the dry pipe valve. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-2�9 Log #�95 Final Action: Accept in Principle (A.12.4.4.2.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Russell P. Fleming, National Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Revise the text of A.�2.4.4.2.2.2 by adding a new paragraph at the end of the existing text, as follows: A.�2.4.4.2.2.2 A full flow trip test generally requires at least two individuals in communication with each other, one of whom is situated at the dry pipe valve while the other is at the inspector’s test. A full flow trip test is conducted as follows: (�)...(9) The dry pipe valve and quick-opening device are reset, if installed, in accordance with the manufacture’s instructions, and the system is returned to service. For dry-pipe systems that were designed and installed using a computer calculation to simulate multiple openings to predict water delivery time, a full-flow trip test from a single inspector’s test connection should have been conducted during the original system acceptance and a full flow trip test from the single inspector’s test should continue to be conducted every 3 years. The system is not required to achieve water delivery to the inspector’s test connection in 60 seconds, but comparison to the water delivery time during the original acceptance will determine if there is a problem with the system. Substantiation: Guidance is needed in how to test the new dry-pipe systems that are being designed and installed using computer programs to calculate the water delivery time to multiple openings. There will be no way to test these systems as most do not have multiple orifices to open during a manual trip test. Those systems that do not have manifolds with multiple openings should not be required to be tested that way. Opening a single inspector’s test connection should be sufficient for determining whether or not the system still performs as

it did when originally installed and tested. This proposal was developed by the NFSA Engineering and Standards Committee. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add text to read as follows: For dry-pipe systems that were designed and installed using either a manual demonstration or a computer calculation to simulate multiple openings to predict water delivery time, a full-flow trip test from a single inspector’s test connection should have been conducted during the original system acceptance and a full flow trip test from the single inspector’s test should continue to be conducted every 3 years. The system is not required to achieve water delivery to the inspector’s test connection in 60 seconds, but comparison to the water delivery time during the original acceptance will determine if there is a problem with the system. Committee Statement: NFPA �3, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, allows a manual demonstration for dry pipe systems. Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-220 Log #�68 Final Action: Accept (A.13.2.2) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. Scott Mitchell, American Fire Sprinkler Association Recommendation: Add new text as follows: A.�3.2.2 For obstruction investigation procedures, see Section D.3. The type of obstruction investigation should be appropriately selected based on the observed condition. For instance - ordering an internal obstruction investigation would be inappropriate where the observed condition was broken public mains in the vicinity. On the other hand such an investigation would be appropriate where foreign materials are observed in the dry pipe valve. Substantiation: The Technical Committee’s intent should be clarified that an internal piping investigation prescribed by �3.2.3.2 is not necessary in all �4 listed conditions in �3.2.2. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. ________________________________________________________________ 25-22� Log #CP9 Final Action: Accept (Annex B) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems Recommendation: Add NFPA forms to Annex B. Substantiation: Sample, generic report forms are needed. See Water-Based Fire Protection Forms starting on page 46. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B. Comment on Affirmative: HUGGINS, R.: I am voting Affirmative with Comment. I agree that we need to delete the AFSA and NFSA forms. KEEPING, L.: The forms in question were copy written in the year 2000, which indicates that they were not updated to correspond with the 2002 edition of NFPA 25. Therefore, before they are introduced into Annex B, they should be corrected to reflect the changes made in the last cycle and then further modified to correspond with the revisions made in this current phase. OLIVER, R.: My understanding is that the existing forms of AFSA and NFSA will be deleted and replaced by the NFPA forms. We do not need repetition. ________________________________________________________________ 25-222 Log #222 Final Action: Accept (D.2.6) ________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Michael D. Kirn, Fire Protection Systems Corrosion Management, Inc. Recommendation: Add new text to read: D.2.6 Forms of Corrosion. Corrosion is defined as the deterioration of a material, usually a metal, resulting from a chemical or electrochemical reaction. The eight main forms of corrosion include: (�) uniform corrosion, (2) pitting, (3) galvanic corrosion, (4) crevice corrosion, (5) selective leaching (parting), (6) erosion corrosion, (7) environmental cracking, and (8) intergranular corrosion. Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) is included herein as a ninth form of corrosion, although it is usually a secondary factor which accelerates or exacerbates the rate of another form of corrosion. Definitions of the different forms of corrosion are discussed below. (�) Uniform (or general) corrosion – a regular loss of a small quantity of metal over the entire area or over a large section of the total area, which is evenly distributed within a pipe(s). (2) Pitting – a localized form of corrosion that results in holes or cavities in the metal. Pitting is considered to be one of the more destructive forms of

25-45

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25 corrosion and is often difficult to detect. Pits may be covered or open, and normally grow in the direction of gravity, e.g., at the bottom of a horizontal surface. (3) Galvanic corrosion – an electric potential exists between dissimilar metals in a conductive (corrosive) solution. The contact between the two materials allows electrons to transfer from one metal to the other. One metal acts as a cathode and the other as an anode. Corrosion usually occurs at anodic metal only. (4) Crevice corrosion – a localized form of corrosion that occurs within crevices and other shielded areas on metal surfaces exposed to a stagnant corrosive solution. This form of corrosion usually occurs beneath gaskets, in holes, surface deposits, in thread and groove joints. Crevice corrosion is also referred to as gasket corrosion, deposit corrosion, and under-deposit corrosion. (5) Selective leaching – the selective removal of one element from an alloy by corrosion. A common example is dezincification (selective removal of zinc) of unstabilized brass resulting in a porous copper structure. (6) Erosion corrosion – corrosion resulting from the cumulative damage of electrochemical reactions and mechanical effects. Erosion corrosion is the acceleration or increase in the rate of corrosion created by the relative movement of a corrosive fluid and a metal surface. Erosion corrosion is observed as grooves, gullies, waves, rounded holes, or valleys in a metal surface. (7) Environmental cracking – an acute form of localized corrosion caused by mechanical stresses, embrittlement, or fatigue. (8) Integranular corrosion – corrosion caused by impurities at grain boundaries, enrichment of one alloying element, or depletion of one of the elements in the grain boundary areas. (9) Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC) – corrosion initiated or accelerated by the presence and activities of microorganisms, including bacteria and fungi. Colonies (also called bio-films and slimes) are formed in the surface of pipes among a variety of types of microbes. Microbes deposit iron, manganese, and various salts into the pipe surfaces, forming nodules, tubercles, and carbuncles. The formation of these deposits can cause obstruction to flow and dislodge causing blockage (plugging) of system piping, valves and sprinklers. Move existing D.2.6 to D.2.7. Substantiation: Microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) is one form of corrosion associated with fire sprinkler system. However, more common in fire sprinkler systems is uniform corrosion, pitting, and crevice corrosion. Other types of corrosion that may be occurring in fire sprinkler systems should also be identified. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible to Vote: 25 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 20 Ballot Not Returned: 5 Gagnon, G., Harris, W., Hoover, S., Pennel, G., Waterman, B.

25-46

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Water-Based Fire Protection System Forms

This CD contains a series of inspection, test and maintenance forms that can be used to fulfill the reporting requirements of NFPA 25. Duplication and reproduction of these forms is encouraged. The forms are in PDF format and can be completed electronically or printed and used as hard copy. The forms can be used as a basis for developing special reports relevant to specific situations or jurisdictions.

The forms are organized as follows:

Automatic Sprinkler Systems General Information Weekly Inspection Monthly Inspection

Quarterly Inspection and Tests Semi-Annual Inspection and Tests

Annual Inspection and Tests 5-Year Inspection 3-Year Test Contractor’s Material and Test Certificate for Aboveground Piping Contractor’s Material and Test Certificate for Underground Piping

Standpipe and Hose Systems General Information Standpipe Hydrostatic and Flow Test Weekly Inspection Monthly Inspection Quarterly Inspection Annual Inspection and Maintenance Quarterly and Semi-Annual Tests Water Supply Systems Daily Inspections During Cold Weather/Heating Season Weekly, Monthly, and Quarterly Inspections Annual Inspection 3- and 5- Year Inspections Monthly Tests During Cold Weather/Heating Season Semi-Annual Tests Annual Maintenance Annual Flow Tests Flow and Pressure Record

25-47

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Fire Pumps Weekly Inspection Monthly Inspection Quarterly Inspection Annual Inspection Quarterly and Semi-Annual Maintenance Annual Maintenance Weekly Operating Tests Monthly and Semi-Annual Tests Annual Performance Tests Annual Test Summary Page Flow and Pressure Record

Water Spray Systems General Information Weekly Inspection Monthly Inspection Quarterly Inspection

Annual Inspection, Test, and Maintenance 5-Year Inspection and Test

Foam–Water Sprinkler Systems General Information Weekly Inspection Monthly Inspection Quarterly Inspection Annual Inspection Annual Maintenance Annual Tests Quarterly Tests

25-48

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler SystemsGeneral Information

General

System designation ____________________________________________________________________________________

Building ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Location of sprinkler valve ______________________________________________________________________________Type of sprinkler system � Wet � Dry � Deluge � PreactionMake and model of sprinkler valve _______________________________________________________________________Is building fully sprinklered? � Yes � NoIs entire sprinkler system in service? � Yes � NoHas sprinkler system been modified since last inspection? � Yes � No

Valves

How are valves supervised? � Seated � Locked � Tamper switchAre valves indentified with signs? � Yes � No

Water Supply (See Chapter 9 of this manual .)

When was last water supply test made? __________________________________________________________________Are reservoirs, tanks, or pressure tanks in good condition? � Yes � No

Pumps (See Chapter 8 of this manual .)

Is fire pump � Diesel � Electric � Gasoline � None?When was pump last inspected? _________________________________________________________________________Is pump in good condition? � Yes � No

Fire Department Connections

Location ______________________________________________________________________________________________Are identification signs provided? � Yes � No

Wet Systems

Is building adequately heated? � Yes � NoIs system hydraulically calculated? � Yes � NoIf yes, is hydraulic information sign provided at valve? � Yes � No

Dry Systems

Is dry pipe valve in heated room? � Yes � NoDoes heated room have low-temperature alarm? � Yes � No

Deluge System (See Chapter 1 of this manual for discussion of detection systems.)

Preaction System (See Chapter 1 of this manual for discussion of detection systems.)

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-49

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler SystemsWeekly InspectionThis form covers a 6-month period.

Alarm Dry Pipe Preaction Deluge Valves Sprinklers Valve Valve (4) Valve (5) Valve Water

Date Inspector Sealed (1) OK (2) OK (3) Air Water Air Water Pressure (6) Notes (7)Press. Press. Press. Press.

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

1. If valves are sealed, note “yes” in this block. If any are not sealed, reseal and note “resealed” in this block.2. If all sprinklers are in good condition and storage is maintained at least 18 in. (46 cm) below the sprinklers,

note “yes” in block. If not, see that corrections are made and briefly describe under “notes.”3.–6. Record pressure readings in psi (bar). A loss of more than 10% should be investigated.7. Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes to be significant. Place a number in this box

and number the corresponding note on reverse.

25-50

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler SystemsMonthly InspectionThis form covers a 1-year period.

Valves Open, Locked, or Alarm Spare Alarm Water

Date Inspector Tamper (1) Valves (2) Sprinklers (3) Devices (4) Pressure (5) Notes (6)

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

1. Confirm valves are open. If valves are locked, note “yes” in this block. If any are not locked, relock and note“relocked” in this block.

2. Inspect alarm valves to assure no leakage from retard chamber or alarm drains and no physical damage. Con-firm that trim valves are in appropriate closed or open position.

3. Assure there is proper number and type of sprinklers and a sprinkler wrench.4. Check for physical damage and that electrical connections are secure.5. Record pressure readings in psi (bar). A loss of more than 10% should be investigated.6. Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes to be significant. Place a number in this block

and number the corresponding note at the end of the inspection form.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

25-5�

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler SystemsQuarterly Inspection and Tests

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Date

Inspector

Main Drain TestRecord the static water supply pressure in psi (bar) as indicated on the lower pressure gauge.Open the main drain and allow water flow to stabilize.Record the residual water supply pressure while water is flowing from the 2-in. (51-mm) main drain as indicated on the lower pressure gauge in psi (bar).Close the main drain (slowly).

Fire Department ConnectionsVerify connection is visible and accessible, not damaged, caps or plugs are in place, identifica-tion sign is in place, and automatic drain is working properly.

Wet Pipe System Flow AlarmTest water-flow alarms by opening the inspector’s test valve. (Notify alarm company to avoid false alarms.)

Dry Pipe Priming LevelCheck dry priming water level by opening the test valve and checking for a small amount ofwater to discharge. If no water flows out of the test line, add priming water.

Dry Pipe System Low-Air-Pressure AlarmClose the water supply valve and carefully open inspector’s test valve to reduce air pressure slowly. (Do not reduce air pressure sufficiently to trip the dry pipe valve.) Confirm operation of low-pressure alarm, record air pressure at which low-pressure alarm activated, close inspector test, allow air pressure to rise to normal, then open water supply valve.

Dry Pipe System Flow AlarmOpen the alarm bypass valve. (Notify alarm company to avoid false alarms.)

Quick-Opening DeviceTest in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.

Preaction System Flow AlarmOpen the alarm bypass valve. (Notify alarm company to avoid false alarms.)

Deluge System Flow AlarmOpen the alarm bypass valve. (Notify alarm company to avoid false alarms.)

Control ValvesClose valves and reopen until spring or tension is felt—back valve 1/4 turn.

Hydraulic NameplateIf system was hydraulically calculated, assure nameplate is legible and securly attached to riser.

NotesRecord any notes about the system that the inspector believes to be significant. Place a num-ber in this block and number the corresponding note on the reverse of this form.

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-52

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler SystemsAnnual Inspection and Tests

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain on reverse) N/A = Not applicable

General ConditionInspect sprinklers, sprinkler piping, pipe, hangers, and seismic braces to make sure they are ingood condition.

Verify supply of spare sprinklers.

FreezingBefore freezing weather, inspect building to assure exterior wall openings will not expose sprin-kler piping to freezing temperatures.

Test AntifreezeWet pipe systems with antifreeze solution should have the solution checked for proper freezelevel. Record freezing point.

Maintain ValvesValves should be maintained, including exercising each valve and lubricating each valve stem.

Clean StrainersShut the water supply valve and remove the strainer for thorough cleaning.

Dry Pipe SystemTrip test the dry pipe valve. Record the time from opening the inspector’s test valve until thedry pipe valve trips.

Internally inspect dry pipe valve.

Test air pressure maintenance device.

Inspect/test low-temperature alarm in valve room (if provided).

Preaction Sprinkler SystemTrip test the preaction system. (Refer to manufacturer’s instructions.)

Internally inspect preaction valve.

Test automatic air pressure maintenance device (if provided) at time of trip test.

Inspect/test low-temperature alarm in valve room (if provided).

Deluge Sprinkler SystemTrip test the deluge system. (Refer to manufacturer’s instructions.)

Record time from activation of detector until water is discharged.

Check to see that water discharge pattern is adequate.

Record water pressure at hydraulically most remote sprinkler.

Record water pressure at deluge valve.

Internally inspect deluge valve.

Inspect/test low-temperature alarm (if provided).

Cooking Equipment SprinklersReplace sprinklers with fusible links.

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System:______________________________Location:________________________________________________________________________________

25-53

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler SystemsAnnual Inspection and Tests

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain on reverse) N/A = Not applicable

General ConditionInspect sprinklers, sprinkler piping, pipe, hangers, and seismic braces to make sure they are ingood condition.

Verify supply of spare sprinklers.

FreezingBefore freezing weather, inspect building to assure exterior wall openings will not expose sprin-kler piping to freezing temperatures.

Test AntifreezeWet pipe systems with antifreeze solution should have the solution checked for proper freezelevel. Record freezing point.

Maintain ValvesValves should be maintained, including exercising each valve and lubricating each valve stem.

Clean StrainersShut the water supply valve and remove the strainer for thorough cleaning.

Dry Pipe SystemTrip test the dry pipe valve. Record the time from opening the inspector’s test valve until thedry pipe valve trips.

Internally inspect dry pipe valve.

Test air pressure maintenance device.

Inspect/test low-temperature alarm in valve room (if provided).

Preaction Sprinkler SystemTrip test the preaction system. (Refer to manufacturer’s instructions.)

Internally inspect preaction valve.

Test automatic air pressure maintenance device (if provided) at time of trip test.

Inspect/test low-temperature alarm in valve room (if provided).

Deluge Sprinkler SystemTrip test the deluge system. (Refer to manufacturer’s instructions.)

Record time from activation of detector until water is discharged.

Check to see that water discharge pattern is adequate.

Record water pressure at hydraulically most remote sprinkler.

Record water pressure at deluge valve.

Internally inspect deluge valve.

Inspect/test low-temperature alarm (if provided).

Cooking Equipment SprinklersReplace sprinklers with fusible links.

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System:______________________________Location:________________________________________________________________________________

25-54

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler Systems5-Year Inspection

Alarm Valve Internal Inspection

Verify that all components operate properly, move freely, and are in good condition.

Check Valve Internal Inspection

Verify that all components operate properly, move freely, and are in good condition.

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-55

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler Systems3-Year Test

Dry Pipe Valve Full Flow Trip Test

Trip test the dry pipe valve by opening the inspector’s test valve. Allow water to flowuntil clean water flows from the inspector’s test connection. Record time from open-ing inspector’s test valve until water flows from test outlet.

Notes

Record any comments about the system that the inspector believes to be significant.

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System:______________________________Location:________________________________________________________________________________

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

25-56

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler SystemsContractor’s Material and TestCertificate for Aboveground Piping

Date: ________ Property Name: __________________________________________________________Property Address: ________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 1 of 3

ProcedureUpon completion of work, inspection and tests shall be made by the contractor’s representative and witnessed byan owner’s representative. All defects shall be corrected and the system left in service before contractor’s personnelfinally leave the job.

A certificate shall be filled out and signed by both representatives. Copies shall be prepared for approving authori-ties, owners, and contractors. It is understood that the owner’s representative’s signature in no way prejudices anyclaim against contractor for faulty material, poor workmanship, or failure to comply with approving authority’srequirements or local ordinances.

PlansAccepted by [approving authority’s name(s)] _______________________________________________________________

Address _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Installation conforms to accepted plans? � Yes � NoEquipment used is approved? � Yes � NoIf no, explain deviations.

InstructionsHas person in charge of fire equipment been instructed as to location of control valvesand care and maintenance of this new equipment? � Yes � NoIf no, explain.

Have copies of appropriate instructions and care and maintenance charts and NFPA 13 been left on premises? � Yes � NoIf no, explain.

Location of SystemSupplies building(s) ____________________________________________________________________________________

Sprinklers

Year of Orifice TemperatureMake Model Manufacture Size Quantity Rating

Pipe and FittingsPipe conforms to ________________________ standard. � Yes � NoFittings conform to ________________________ standard. � Yes � NoIf no, explain.

25-57

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler SystemsContractor’s Material and TestCertificate for Aboveground Piping (cont.)

PAGE 2 of 3*Measured from time inspector’s test pipe is opened.

Alarm Valve or Flow Indicator

Alarm Device Maximum Time to Operate Through Test Pipe

Type Make Model Min. Sec.

Dry Pipe Operating Test

Dry Valve Q.O.D.

Make Model Serial No. Make Model Serial No.

Time to Trip Trip Point Time Water AlarmThrough Water Air Air Reached Operated

Test Pipe* Pressure Pressure Pressure Test Outlet* Properly

Min. Sec. Psi (Bar) Psi (Bar) Psi (Bar) Min. Sec. Yes No

WithoutQ.O.D.

With Q.O.D.

If no, explain.

Deluge and Preaction ValvesOperation � Pneumatic � Electric � HydraulicPiping supervised? � Yes � No Detecting media supervised? � Yes � NoIs there an accessible facility in each circuit for testing? � Yes � NoIf no, explain.

Does each circuit operate Does each circuit Maximum Time tosupervision loss alarm? operate valve release? Operate Release

Make Model Yes No Yes No Min. Sec.

Test DescriptionHYDROSTATIC: Hydrostatic tests shall be made at not less than 200 psi (13.6 bar) for two hours or 50 psi (3.4 bar)above static pressure in excess of 150 psi (10.2 bar) for two hours. Differential dry pipe valve clappers shall be leftopen during test to prevent damage. All aboveground piping leakage shall be stopped.FLUSHING: Flow the required rate until water is clear as indicated by no collection of foreign material in burlapbags at outlets such as hydrants and blow-offs. Flush at flows not less than 400 gpm (1514 L/min) for 4-in. (102-mm)pipe, 600 gpm (2271 L/min) for 5-in. (127-mm) pipe, 750 gpm (2839 L/min) for 6-in. (152-mm) pipe, 1000 gpm(3785 L/min) for 8-in. (203-mm) pipe, 1500 gpm (5678 L/min) for 10-in. (254-mm) pipe and 2000 gpm (7570L/min) for 12-in. (305-mm) pipe. When supply cannot produce stipulated flow rates, obtain maximum available.

25-58

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler SystemsContractor’s Material and TestCertificate for Aboveground Piping (cont.)

PAGE 3 of 3

Test Description (cont.)PNEUMATIC: Establish 40 psi (2.7 bar) air pressure and measure drop, which shall not exceed 11/2 psi (0.1 bar) in24 hours. Test pressure tanks at normal water level and air pressure and measure air pressure drop, which shall notexceed 11/2 psi (0.1 bar) in 24 hours.

TestsAll piping hydrostatically tested at ____________ psi (bar) for ____________ hrs. Dry piping pneumatically tested? � Yes � NoEquipment operates properly? � Yes � NoIf no, state reason.

Drain test—Reading of gauge located near water supply test pipe: Static pressure: ________ psi (bar)Drain test—Residual pressure with valve in test pipe open wide: ________ psi (bar)

Underground mains and lead-in connections to system risers flushed before connections made to sprinkler pipingVerified by copy of the U Form No. 85B � Yes � No � OtherFlushed by installer of underground sprinkler piping � Yes � No � OtherIf other, explain.

Blank Testing GasketsNumber used ________ Locations _______________________________________ Number removed ________

WeldingWelded piping? � Yes � NoIf yes,Do you certify as the sprinkler contractor that welding procedures comply with the requirements of at least AWS D10.9, Level AR-3? � Yes � NoDo you certify that the welding was performed by welders qualified in com-pliance with the requirements of at least AWS D10.9, Level AR-3? � Yes � NoDo you certify that welding was carried out in compliance with a documented quality control procedure to insure that all discs are retrieved, that openings in piping are smooth, that slag and other welding residue are removed, and that the internal diameters of piping are not penetrated? � Yes � No

Hydraulic Data NameplateNameplate provided? � Yes � NoIf no, explain.

Remarks Date left in service with all control valves open: ____________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sprinkler Contractor: __________________________________________________________________________________

Signatures of Test WitnessesFor property owner (signed) ___________________________________ Title _________________ Date ____________

For sprinkler contractor (signed) ________________________________ Title _________________ Date ____________

25-59

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler SystemsContractor’s Material and TestCertificate for Underground Piping

Date: ________ Property Name: __________________________________________________________Property Address: ________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 1 of 2

ProcedureUpon completion of work, inspection and tests shall be made by the contractor’s representative and witnessed byan owner’s representative. All defects shall be corrected and the system left in service before contractor’s personnelfinally leave the job.

A certificate shall be filled out and signed by both representatives. Copies shall be prepared for approving authori-ties, owners, and contractors. It is understood that the owner’s representative’s signature in no way prejudices anyclaim against contractor for faulty material, poor workmanship, or failure to comply with approving authority’srequirements or local ordinances.

PlansAccepted by [approving authority’s name(s)] _______________________________________________________________

Address _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Installation conforms to accepted plans? � Yes � NoEquipment used is approved? � Yes � NoIf no, explain deviations.

InstructionsHas person in charge of fire equipment been instructed as to location of control valvesand care and maintenance of this new equipment? � Yes � NoIf no, explain.

Have copies of appropriate instructions and care and maintenance charts been left on premises? � Yes � NoIf no, explain.

LocationSupplies bldgs. ________________________________________________________________________________________

Underground Pipes and JointsPipe conforms to ________________________ standard. � Yes � NoFittings conforms to ________________________ standard. � Yes � NoIf no, explain.

Joints needing anchorage clamped, strapped, or blocked in accordance with________________________ standard. � Yes � NoIf no, explain.

Test DescriptionFLUSHING: Flow the required rate until water is clear as indicated by no collection of foreign material in burlapbags at outlets such as hydrants and blow-offs. Flush at flows not less than 400 gpm (1514 L/min) for 4-in. (102-mm)pipe, 600 gpm (2271 L/min) for 5-in. (127-mm) pipe, 750 gpm (2839 L/min) for 6-in. (152-mm) pipe, 1000 gpm(3785 L/min) for 8-in. (203-mm) pipe, 1500 gpm (5678 L/min) for 10-in. (254-mm) pipe and 2000 gpm (7570L/min) for 12-in. (305-mm) pipe. When supply cannot produce stipulated flow rates, obtain maximum available.

25-60

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Automatic Sprinkler SystemsContractor’s Material and TestCertificate for Underground Piping (cont.)

PAGE 2 of 2

Test Description (cont.)HYDROSTATIC: Hydrostatic tests shall be made at not less than 200 psi (13.6 bar) for two hours or 50 psi (3.4 bar)above static pressure in excess of 150 psi (10.2 bar) for two hours. LEAKAGE: New pipe laid with rubber gasketed joints shall, if the workmanship is satisfactory, have little or no leak-age at the joints. The amount of leakage at the joints shall not exceed 2 qts per hr. (1.89 L/h) per 100 joints irre-spective of pipe diameter. The leakage shall be distributed over all joints. If such leakage occurs at a few joints theinstallation shall be considered unsatisfactory and necessary repairs made. The amount of allowable leakage speci-fied above may be increased by 1 fl oz per in. valve diameter per hour (30 mL/25 mm/h) for each metal-seatedvalve isolating the test section. If dry barrel hydrants are tested with the main valve open, so the hydrants areunder pressure, an additional 5 oz per minute (150 mL/min) leakage is permitted for each hydrant.

Flushing TestsNew underground piping flushed according to ______________ standard. � Yes � NoBy (company) ____________________________________________________ If no, explain.

How flushing flow was obtained: � Public water � Tank or reservoir � Fire pumpThrough what type opening � Hydrant butt � Open pipeLead-ins flushed according to ________________________ standard � Yes � NoBy (company) ____________________________________________________ If no, explain.

How flushing flow was obtained � Public water � Tank or reservoir � Fire pumpThrough what type opening � Y connection to flange and spigot � Open pipe

Hydrostatic TestAll new underground piping hydrostatically tested at ________ psi (bar) for ________ hoursJoints covered? � Yes � No

Leakage TestTotal amount of leakage measured: ________ gals (L) ________ hoursAllowable leakage: ____________ gals (L) ____________ hours

HydrantsNumber installed: ________ Type and make: ___________________________________________________________All operate satisfactorily? � Yes � No

Control ValvesWater control valves left wide open? � Yes � NoIf no, state reason.

Hose threads of fire department connections and hydrants inter-changeable with those of fire department answering alarm? � Yes � No

Remarks Date left in service with all control valves open: ____________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Installing Contractor: _________________________________________________________________________________

Signatures of Test WitnessesFor property owner (signed) ___________________________________ Title _________________ Date ____________

For sprinkler contractor (signed) ________________________________ Title _________________ Date ____________

25-6�

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Standpipe and Hose SystemsGeneral Information

General

System designation ____________________________________________________________________________________

Building ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Location of control valve ________________________________________________________________________________

Type of system � Class I � Class II � Class III

Length of hose provided � None � 50 ft (15 m) � 75 ft (23 m) � 100 ft (30 m)

Type of hose � Rubber lined � Unlined(If unlined hose is presently installed, it may remain in use. However, when it requires replacement only lined hoseshould be used in accordance with NFPA 14.)

Are shutoff nozzles provided? � Yes � No(If “no,” nozzles should be replaced with shutoff type in accordance with NFPA 14.)

Are pressure regulating devices provided? � Yes � No

Type of regulating devices ______________________________________________________________________________

Valves

How are valves supervised? � Sealed � Locked � Tamper switch

Are valves identified with signs? � Yes � No

Water Supply

When was last water supply test made? __________________________________________________________________Are reservoirs, tanks, or pressure tanks in good condition? � Yes � No

Pumps (See Chapter 8 of this manual.)

Is fire pump � Diesel � Electric � Gasoline � None?Is pump in good condition? � Yes � NoWhen was pump last tested? ____________________________________________________________________________

Fire Department Connections

Location __________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are identification signs provided? � Yes � No

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-62

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Standpipe and Hose SystemsStandpipe Hydrostatic and Flow Test

Standpipe System _____________________________________________________________________________________

Initial Test PressureRecord the hydrostatic test pressure at the start of the test. Test pressure should be 200 psi (13.8 bar) or 50 psi (3.4 bar) above normal pressure if normal pressure exceeds 150 psi (10.3 bar).

Start TimeRecord the time at the start of the test after the test pressure is reached.

End TimeRecord the time at the conclusion of the hydrostatic test. The system should hold the pressure for at least 2 hours.

End Test PressureRecord the hydrostatic pressure at the conclusion of the test.

Flow TestFlow water from the hydraulically most remote standpipe outlet.Record:Static pressure: ____________ psi (bar) Residual pressure: ____________ psi (bar)Nozzle diameter: ____________ in. (cm) Pitot pressure: ____________ psi (bar)Flow: ____________ gpm (L/min)Note: The minimum flow should be 500 gpm (1893 L/min) at 100 psi (6.9 bar) residual pressure for Class I or IIIsystems and 100 gpm (379 L/min) at 65 psi (4.5 bar) for Class II systems.

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-63

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Standpipe and Hose SystemsWeekly InspectionThis form covers a 6-month period.

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

1. If valves are sealed, note “yes” in this block. If any are not sealed, reseal and note “resealed” in this block.2. Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes to be significant.

Valve(s)Date Inspector Sealed (1) Notes (2)

25-64

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Standpipe and Hose SystemsMonthly InspectionThis form covers a 1-year period.

Date Inspector Valve (1) Open & OK (2) Notes (3)

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

1. Identify valve location or other identification.2. If valve is open and visually appears in good condition, note “OK” in block.3. Record any notes about the standpipe valves that the inspector believes to be significant.

25-65

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Standpipe and Hose SystemsQuarterly InspectionThis form covers a 1-year period.

HoseCabinets/ Signs Fire Dept. Valves Water

Date Inspector Racks (1) Posted (2) Connections (3) Signs (4) Open (5) Supply (6) Notes (7)

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

1. Visually inspect hose for damage. Is it properly racked and is nozzle attached? If hose is in good condition, note“OK” in block. If not, see that corrections are made and briefly describe actions taken.

2. Sign should be posted at each hose station. If signs are posted, note “OK” in block. If not, see that signs areprovided and briefly describe actions taken.

3. If fire department connection(s) is unobstructed and in good condition, note “OK” in block. If not, see that cor-rections are made and briefly describe actions taken.

4. If signs are provided at the fire department connection(s), note “OK” in block. If not, see that signs are pro-vided and briefly describe actions taken.

5. Note “OK” in the block if all valves are open, supervised, and in good condition. If not, see that corrections aremade and briefly describe actions taken.

6. If water supplies have been inspected in accordance with Chapter 9 of this manual, note “OK” in the block. Ifnot, see that proper inspections are made.

7. Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes to be significant. Place a number in this blockand number the corresponding note at the end of the inspection form.

25-66

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Standpipe and Hose SystemsAnnual Inspection and Maintenance

Hose Outlet

Identify hose outlet location.

Check Nozzles

Test hose nozzles to confirm:Waterway clear of obstructions

No damage to tip

Full operation of adjustments

Proper operation of shutoff

No missing parts

Thread gasket in good condition

If nozzles are in good condition, note “OK” in block. If not, see that corrections are madeand briefly describe actions taken.

Lubricate Swing-Out Racks

Lubricate swing-out racks with graphite to assure they operate properly. Record “OK” inblock if no problems are found.

Rerack Hose

Remove and rerack hose so that different parts of hose are located at bends. Check gasketsfor deterioration and replace if necessary.

Visually Inspect Dry Piping

Visually inspect all accessible piping for damage and corrosion. If piping is in good condi-tion, note “OK” in block. If not, see that corrections are made and briefly describe actionstaken.

Conduct Main Drain Test

See Chapter 2 of this manual for conduct of main drain test.

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-67

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Standpipe and Hose SystemsQuarterly and Semi-Annual TestsThis form covers a 1-year period.

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Quarterly

Date

Inspector

Identify and test flow switch.

Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes to be significant. Place a number in the block and number the corre-sponding note below.

Semi-Annually

Date

Inspector

Identify and test tamper switch.

Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes to be significant. Place a number in the block and number the corre-sponding note below.

Notes

25-68

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Supply SystemsDaily Inspections During ColdWeather/Heating SeasonThis form covers a 1-month period.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Date

Inspector

Tank condition isnormal.

Water temperatureis at or above 40°F (4.4°C).

Heating system is operational.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-69

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Supply SystemsWeekly, Monthly, and QuarterlyInspectionsThis form covers a 3-month period.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Weekly

Date

Inspector

Control valves are properly arranged.

Monthly

Date

Inspector

Check pressure tank air pressure andrecord pressure in psi (bar).

Water level is at normal height.

Quarterly

Date

Inspector

Tank exterior condition is satisfactory.

Tank support structure is satisfactory.

Tank catwalks and ladders are satisfactory.

Area around tank is free of debris; there are no signs of leakage.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-70

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Supply SystemsAnnual Inspection

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

The fire department siamese connection is accessible.

The fire department siamese connection is adequately supported.

Fire department siamese connection caps are provided.

Fire department connection hose threads are in good condition.

Automatic ball drip on fire department connection is operational.

General condition of water storage tanks is satisfactory, with no loose scale or leaky seams or rivets.

Ladders on water storage tanks are stable and free of rust.

The roofs on water storage tanks are stable and free of rust.

Sway bracing on elevated water storage tanks is stable and free of rust.

The condition of the paint on the water storage tanks is satisfactory.

Elevated water storage tank columns and pits are free of dirt, rubbish, and trash.

In rubberized fabric tanks, the drain outlet has no leaks.

In rubberized fabric tanks, the fabric is not worn.

In rubberized fabric tanks, fabric outer protective paint has no oxidation or weather checking.

The paint on pressure tanks is satisfactory.

The interior of pressure tanks has been inspected by a qualified pressure-vessel inspector.

The heating system is operating properly (check within two months of start of heating season).

For wood tanks, hoops and grillage are satisfactory.

Expansion joints show no signs of stress, rust, or corrosion.

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-7�

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Supply Systems3- and 5-Year Inspections

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

3-Year Inspection

Date

Inspector

Pressure tank shows no signs of rust, corrosion, or collection of debris.

5-Year Inspection

Date

Inspector

Tank interior shows no signs of rust, corrosion, or collection of debris.

Examine all valves to make sure they remain operational.

Notes

Location: _________________________________ System: ___________________________________

25-72

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Supply SystemsMonthly Tests During ColdWeather/Heating SeasonThis form covers a 1-year period.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below) N/A = Not applicable

Date

Inspector

Temperature alarms operate properly.

High-temperature limit switches operate properly.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-73

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Supply SystemsSemi-Annual TestsThis form covers a 1-year period.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Date

Inspector

Water-level alarms operate properly.

Drain sediment from tank and examine for signs of tank deterioration.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-74

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Supply SystemsAnnual Maintenance

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Conduct flow test (see Form 9-H).

Test cathodic protection of storage tanks for proper operation.

Cycle storage tank drain valves.

Clean storage tank vent screens.

Operate control valves to assure they can fully open and close.

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-75

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Supply SystemsAnnual Flow Tests

Conduct 2-in. (51-mm) main drain test for gravity tanks and pressure tanks.

Static pressure: ____________ psi (bar)

Full flow pressure: ____________ psi (bar)

Ground level tanks and underground tanks: Annual test is accomplished during fire pump full flow tests.

Water Distribution Systems

Annual test is accomplished during fire hydrant annual tests. For each test, record the following:

Residual hydrant location : __________________________________________________________________________

Flow hydrant location: ______________________________________________________________________________

Static pressure (residual hydrant): ____________ psi (bar)

Residual pressure (residual hydrant): ____________ psi (bar)

Pitot pressure (flow hydrant): ____________ psi (bar)

Nozzle size (flow hydrant): ____________ in. (mm)

Nozzle coefficient (flow hydrant): 0.9; other ____________

Available water flow: ____________ gpm (L/min) at ____________ psi (bar)

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-76

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

0 N

atio

nal F

ire P

rote

ctio

n A

ssoc

iatio

n

Wat

er S

uppl

y Sy

stem

sFl

ow a

nd

Pre

ssu

re R

ecor

dD

ate:

___

____

_In

spec

tor:

___

____

____

____

__Sy

stem

: __

____

____

____

____

____

_ L

oca

tio

n:

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

Flo

w—

gal.

per

min

(gp

m)

2060 50 30407080110

100 90120

130

140

150

10

Pressure—lb. per sq. in. (psi)N

1.8

5

25-77

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Fire PumpsWeekly InspectionThis form covers a 3-month period.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain on reverse) N/A = Not applicable

Date

Inspector

Heat in pump room is 40°F (4.4°C) or higher.

Intake air louvers in pump room appear operational.

Pump suction, discharge, and bypass valves are open.

No piping or hoses leak.

Fire pump leaking one drop of water per second at seals.

Suction line pressure is normal.

System line pressure is normal.

Suction reservoir is full.

Controller pilot light (power on) is illuminated.

Transfer switch normal power light is illuminated.

Isolating switch for standby power is closed.

Reverse-phase alarm light is not illuminated.

Normal-phase rotation light is illuminated.

Oil level in vertical motor sight glass is normal.

Diesel fuel tank is at least 2/3 full.

Controller selector switch is in “auto” position.

Voltage readings for batteries (2) are normal.

Charging current readings are normal for batteries.

Pilot lights for batteries are on or battery failure pilot lights are “off.”

All alarm pilot lights are “off.”

Record engine running time from meter:

Oil level is normal in right-angle gear-drive pumps.

Crankcase oil level is normal.

Cooling water level is normal.

Electrolyte level in batteries is normal.

Battery terminals are free of corrosion.

Water-jacket heater is operational.

For steam-driven pumps, steam pressure is normal.

Examine exhaust system for leaks.

Check lube oil heater for operation (diesel pumps).

Drain condensate trap of cooling system.

Check for water in diesel fuel tank.

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-78

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Fire PumpsMonthly InspectionThis form covers a 1-year period.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below) N/A = Not applicable

Date

Inspector

Remove battery corrosion and clean battery case.

Check battery charger and charger rate.

Equalize charge in battery system.

Exercise isolating switch and circuit breaker.

Inspect, clean, and test circuit breakers.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-79

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Fire PumpsQuarterly InspectionThis form covers a 1-year period.

Date

Inspector

Check crankcase breather on diesel pump for properoperation.

Check exhaust system insulation for integrity.

Check exhaust system clearance to combustibles toprevent fire hazard.

Check battery terminals to assure they are clean andtight.

Check electrical wiring for chafing where subject tomovement.

Check operation of safety devices and alarms (semi-annually).

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below) N/A = Not applicable

25-80

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Fire PumpsAnnual Inspection

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 1 of 2

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below) N/A = Not applicable

All Pumps—Hydraulic SystemSuction pressure gauge: ____________ psi (bar).

Discharge pressure gauge: ____________ psi (bar).

Pump starting pressure from pressure switch in controller: ____________ psi (bar).

Pump run time from controller: ____________ minutes.

Suction line control valves are sealed open.

Discharge line control valves are sealed open.

Bypass line control valves are sealed open.

All control valves are accessible.

Suction reservoir is full.

Pump shaft seals dripping water (1 drop per second).

System is free of vibration or unusual noise when running.

Packing boxes, bearings, and pump casing are free of overheating.

Electric Fire Pumps OnlyIsolating switch is monitoring abnormal power.

Normal-phase rotation pilot light is “on.”

Reverse-phase pilot light is “off.”

Oil level in vertical motor sight glass is in normal range.

Steam Fire Pumps OnlySteam pressure gauge reading normal: ____________ psi (bar).

Record time to reach running speed: ____________ min, ____________ sec.

Diesel Fire Pumps OnlyDiesel tank is 2/3 full.

Batteries are fully charged.

Battery charger is operating properly.

Battery terminals are clean.

Battery state of charge is checked.

Battery pilot lights are “on.”

Battery-failure pilot lights are “off.”

Engine-running-time meter is recording pump operation properly.

Oil level in right-angle gear drive is normal.

Diesel engine oil level is full.

25-8�

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Fire PumpsAnnual Inspection (cont.)

PAGE 2 of 2

Diesel Fire Pumps OnlyDiesel engine water level is full.

Water-jacket heater appears to be working properly.

Water-jacket piping is drip tight.

Diesel engine water hose is in good condition.

Coolant antifreeze protection is adequate.

Cooling line strainer is clean.

Solenoid valve is operating correctly.

Bearings and valves are lubricated.

All pumps—controlsCasing relief valve is free of damage.

Pressure-relief valve is free of damage.

All valves, fittings, and pipe are leak tight.

Condensate drain trap is clean.

Fire pump controller power is “on.”

Transfer-switch normal pilot light is “on.”

Jockey pump is operational.

Jockey pump controller power is “on.”

Jockey pump controller is set on “auto.”

Fire pump shaft coupling appears properly aligned.

Packing glands appear properly adjusted.

Test header control valve is closed.

Test header is in good condition.

Test header valves and caps are in good condition.

Test header valve handles are in good condition.

Test header valve swivel rotation is nonbinding.

Bypass control valves are open.

Control valves are sealed/not tampered.

Control valves are locked/tampered.

Control valves are properly tagged and identified.

Flow meter control valves are closed.

Relief valve and cone are operational.

Relief-valve pressure appears properly adjusted.

Notes

Continue on reverse if necessary.

25-82

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Quarterly

Date

Inspector

Clean strainer.

Clean filter.

Clean dirt leg.

Clean crankcase breather.

Clean water strainer of cooling system.

Examine wire insulation for breaks or cracks.

Semi-Annually

Date

Inspector

Test antifreeze level.

Clean boxes, panels, and cabinets.

Test all safeties and alarms for proper operation.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below) N/A = Not applicable

Fire Pumps (Diesel Only)Quarterly and Semi-Annual MaintenanceThis form covers a 1-year period.

25-83

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Fire PumpsAnnual Maintenance

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Lubricate pump bearings.

Lubricate coupling.

Lubricate right-angle gear drive.

Grease motor bearings.

Replace flexible hoses and connector.

Replace oil at 50 hours or annually.

Replace oil filter at 50 hours or annually.

Calibrate pressure switch settings.

Check accuracy of pressure sensors.

Clean pump room louvers.

Replace circuit breakers or fuses (every 2 years or as needed).

Remove water and foreign material from diesel fuel tank.

Rod out the heat exchanger or cooling system.

Fire pump controller in service.

Jockey pump controller in service.

Fire alarm panel “normal.”

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-84

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Fire PumpsWeekly Operating TestsThis form covers a 1-month period.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain on reverse) N/A = Not applicable

Date

Inspector

Operate fire pump for 10 minutes (30 minutes for diesel pump).

Check packing gland tightness (slight leak at no flow).

Record suction pressure from gauge in psi (bar).

Record discharge pressure from gauge in psi (bar).

Adjust gland nuts if necessary.

Check for unusual noise or vibration.

Check packing boxes, bearings, or pump casing for overheating.

Record pump starting pressure.

Observe time for motor to accelerate to full speed (diesel and steam pumps).

For reduced-voltage or reduced-current starting, record time controller is on first step.

Record time pump runs after starting for pumps having automatic stop feature.

Record time for diesel engine to crank.

Record time for diesel engine to reach running speed.

Check oil pressure gauge, speed indicator, water and oil temperatures while engine is running.

Check heat exchanger for cooling water flow.

Record steam pressure for steam-operated pumps.

Check water tank float switch.

Check solenoids for proper operation.

Operate speed governor (internal combustion engine only).

Check steam trap (steam turbine only).

Check steam relief valve (steam turbine only).

Check controller alarms.

Record any notes that the inspector believes to be significant. Place a number in the block and number the corresponding note on the reverse of this form.

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-85

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Fire PumpsMonthly and Semi-Annual TestsThis form covers a 1-year period.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below) N/A = Not applicable

Monthly

Date

Inspector

Exercise isolating switch and circuit breaker.

Test antifreeze to determine protec-tion level.

Test batteries for specific gravity or state of charge.

Test circuit breakers and fuses for proper operation.

Semi-Annually

Date

Inspector

Operate manual starting means.

Operate safety devices and alarms.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-86

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Fire PumpsAnnual Performance Tests

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Pump manufacturer and model: _________________________________________________________________________

Type: � Centrifugal � Turbine

Controller manufacturer and model: _____________________________________________________________________

Rated capacity: ____________ gpm (L/min)

Water supply source: ___________________________________________________________________________________

Rated pressure: ____________ psi (bar) Rated speed: ____________ rpm

Power: � Electric � Diesel � Steam

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

Automatic starts performed 6 times.

Automatic start functions properly.

Automatic stop functions properly.

Automatic start: ____________ psi (bar)

Automatic stop: ____________ psi (bar)

Manual starts performed 6 times.

Manual start functions properly.

Manual stop functions properly.

Manual start: ____________ psi (bar)

Manual stop: ____________ psi (bar)

Remote start functions properly.

Remote stop functions properly.

Remote start: ____________ psi (bar)

Remote stop: ____________ psi (bar)

Timer indicates total run time: ____________ min.

Timer reset and graph paper changed?

Test data and flow charts completed.(Attach all water-flow charts, electricalpower charts, performance curves, etc.)

Fire pump electrical power readingsrecorded at each flow condition?

Fire pump motor speed: ____________ rpm

Fire pump discharge flow: ____________ gpm (L/min)

Jockey pump operational.

Jockey pump appears properly aligned.

Jockey pump valves open.

Jockey pump “turn-on”: ____________ psi (bar)

Jockey pump “turn-off”: ____________ psi (bar)

Notes

Continue on reverse if necessary.

25-87

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Fire PumpsAnnual Test Summary Page

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

Approximate percent of rated pump discharge (gpm)/(L/min) 0 100% 150%

Nozzle size in inches (mm) No flow

Pitot pressure in psi (bar) None

Flow in gpm (L/min) None

Pump suction in psi (bar)

Pump discharge in psi (bar)

Net pump head (discharge pressure minus suction pressure)

Pump speed (rpm)

Operate electric circuit breaker.

Test emergency power supply.

Check for excessive back pressure in exhaust system.

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-88

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Cop

yrig

ht ©

200

0 N

atio

nal F

ire P

rote

ctio

n A

ssoc

iatio

n

Fire

Pum

psFl

ow a

nd

Pre

ssu

re R

ecor

dD

ate:

___

____

_In

spec

tor:

___

____

____

____

__Sy

stem

: __

____

____

____

____

____

_ L

oca

tio

n:

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

Flo

w—

gal.

per

min

(gp

m)

2060 50 30407080110

100 90120

130

140

150

10

Pressure—lb. per sq. in. (psi)N

1.8

5

25-89

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Spray SystemsGeneral Information

General

System designation ____________________________________________________________________________________

Building ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Location of control valve ________________________________________________________________________________

Has system been modified since last inspection? � Yes � No

What is hazard protected? ______________________________________________________________________________

Valves

How are valves supervised? � Sealed � Locked � Tamper switchAre valves identified with signs? � Yes � No

Water Supply (See Chapter 9 of this manual .)

When was last water supply test made? __________________________________________________________________Are reservoirs, tanks, or pressure tanks in good condition? � Yes � No

Pumps (See Chapter 8 of this manual .)

Is fire pump � Diesel � Electric � Gasoline � None?When was pump last inspected? _________________________________________________________________________Is pump in good condition? � Yes � No

Fire Department Connections

Location __________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are identification signs provided? � Yes � No

Operating Instructions

Are operating instructions posted? � Yes � No

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-90

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Spray SystemsWeekly InspectionThis form covers a 6-month period.

Valve Deluge Valves Nozzles Enclosure Valve

Date Inspector Sealed (1) OK (2) Heated (3) OK (4) Notes (5)

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

1. If valves are open and sealed, note “yes” in this block. If any are not sealed, reseal and note “resealed” in thisblock.

2. If all nozzles are in good condition and not blocked, note “yes” in block. If not, see that corrections are madeand briefly describe under “notes.”

3. Assure valve enclosure is maintained above 40°F (4.4°C).4. Assure deluge or preaction valve is free of damage, trim valves are in proper position, and electrical components

are operational.5. Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes to be significant. Continue on reverse if necessary.

25-9�

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Spray SystemsMonthly InspectionThis form covers a 1-year period.

Valves InspectDate Inspector Open (1) Nozzles (2) Notes (3)

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

1. If valves are locked, note “yes” in this block. If any are not locked, relock and note “relocked” in this block.2. Inspect nozzles for proper alignment, external blockage, corrosion, caps (if provided) are in place.3. Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes to be significant.

25-92

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Spray SystemsQuarterly InspectionThis form covers a 1-year period.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Date

Inspector

Spray Nozzles

Inspect conditions of spray nozzles for corrosion, obstruction, and physical damage.

Piping

Inspect piping for mechanical damage, leaks, corrosion, misalign-ment, and that piping is not subject to external loads.

Hangers

Inspect hangers for damage and corrosion.

Gauges

Inspect gauges and record water pressures.

Notes

Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes to besignificant. Place a number in this block and number the corre-sponding note below.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-93

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Spray SystemsAnnual Inspection, Test, andMaintenance

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System:______________________________Location:________________________________________________________________________________

(PAGE 1 of 2)

Spray Nozzles

Note condition of all nozzles. If there is no physical damage, no corrosion, and no obstruc-tions, note “OK” in block. If not, assure corrections are made and briefly describe under“notes.”

Piping

Note condition of piping. If there is no physical damage, no corrosion, no misaligned pipesand there are no external loads, note “OK” in block. If not, assure corrections are made andbriefly desribe under “notes.”

Pipe Hangers

Note all pipe hangers. If there is no damage and corrosion, note “OK” in block. If not,assure corrections are made and briefly describe under “notes.”

Gauges

Note condition of gauges. Record water pressure in psi (bar).

Flow Test

Conduct full flow test. Assure system operates properly and record operation time.

Discharge Pattern

Note water spray coverage. If coverage is adequate, note “OK” in block. If not, assure cor-rections are made and briefly describe under “notes.”

Deluge Valve

Internally inspect deluge or preaction valve. Verify that all components operate properly,move freely, and are in good condition. If so, note “OK” in block. If not, assure correctionsare made and briefly describe under “notes.”

Control Valves

Operate each control valve through its full range and return to its normal position. (Resealor relock if appropriate.) If valve operates properly, note “OK” in block. If not, assure valve isrepaired and briefly describe under “notes.”

Lubricate Control Valves

Lubricate all valve stems with graphite or graphite in oil.

Flush Underground

Underground lead-in connections should be thoroughly flushed to assure that there is nodebris in the water supply which might block the water spray nozzles. Note “OK” in theblock if the water flows clear. If the water is particularly dirty, place a number in this blockand a corresponding note at the end of the inspection form describing the conditions andhow they were resolved.

25-94

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Spray SystemsAnnual Inspection, Test, andMaintenance (cont.)

(PAGE 2 of 2)

Clean Strainers

Clean all strainers. If strainers are in good condition, note “OK” in this block. If there are anyproblems noted with the strainer, place a number in this block with a corresponding note atthe end of the inspection form.

Maintain Fire Detection System

See Chapter 1of this manual.

Manual Activation

Test the manual activation device.

Main Drain Test

Record the static water supply pressure in psi (bar).

Open the main drain and allow the water flow to stabilize.

Record the residual water pressure while water is flowing from the 2-in. (51-mm) maindrain in psi (bar).

Close the main drain.

Compare the results of this year’s test with previous years’ results to determine if thewater supply is deteriorating.

Low-Temperature Alarm

Test the low-temperature alarm before freezing weather.

Backflow Prevention Assembly

Test the backflow prevention device according to the manufacturer’s recommendation.

Notes

25-95

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Water Spray Systems5-Year Inspection and Test

Check Valves

Internally inspect all check valves. Verify that all components operate properly, move freely,and are in good condition.

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System:______________________________Location:________________________________________________________________________________

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

25-96

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsGeneral Information

General

System designation ____________________________________________________________________________________

Building ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Location of control valve ________________________________________________________________________________

Make and model of valve _______________________________________________________________________________

Has system been modified since last inspection? � Yes � No

What is hazard protected? ______________________________________________________________________________

Valves

How are valves supervised? � Sealed � Locked � Tamper switchAre valves identified with signs? � Yes � No

Water Supply (See Chapter 9 of this manual .)

When was last water supply test made? __________________________________________________________________Are reservoirs, tanks, or pressure tanks in good condition? � Yes � No

Pumps (See Chapter 8 of this manual .)

Is fire pump � Diesel � Electric � Gasoline � None?When was pump last inspected? _________________________________________________________________________Is the pump in good condition? � Yes � No

Fire Department Connections

Location __________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Are identification signs provided? � Yes � No

Operating Instructions

Are operating instructions posted? � Yes � No

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-97

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsWeekly InspectionThis form covers a 6-month period.

Valve(s) Sprinklers Plugs/Caps Date Inspector Sealed (1) OK (2) Installed (3) Notes (4)

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

1. If valves are sealed, note “yes” in this block. If any are not sealed, reseal and note “resealed” in this block.2. If all sprinklers are in good condition and storage is maintained at least 18 in. (46 cm) below the sprinklers,

note “yes” in block. If not, see that corrections are made and briefly describe under “notes.”3. Note “OK” in block if all caps are properly installed. If not, see that corrections are made and briefly describe

under “notes.” Note “NA” if caps or plugs are not required.4. Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes to be significant. Continue on reverse if necessary.

25-98

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsMonthly InspectionThis form covers a 1-year period.

Date

Inspector

Fire Department Connections (1)

Valves Locked (2)

Alarm Devices (3)

Water Pressure (4)

Instructions Posted (5)

Nozzles (6)

Valves (7)

Concentrate Tank (8)

Notes (9)

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

1. If fire department connections are unobstructed and in good condition, note “OK” in block. If not, see that cor-rections are made and briefly describe under “notes.”

2. If valves are locked, note “yes” in this block. If any are not locked, relock and note “relocked” in this block.3. Assure alarm devices are free of physical damage and electrical connections are secure. If so, note “OK” in

blank. If not, see that corrections are made and briefly describe under “notes.”4. Record water pressure. If there is a difference of 10% or more, investigate cause, evaluate impact to system

operation, and briefly describe under “notes.”5. Note “OK” if system operating instructions are posted. If not, see that corrections are made and briefly describe

under “notes.”6. Inspect nozzles for proper orientation, blockage, and caps (if provided) are in place.7. Inspect all valves on portioning system for proper position.8. Inspect foam concentrate tank to ensure it is full and there is no serious corrosion.9. Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes to be significant.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

25-99

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsQuarterly InspectionThis form covers a 1-year period.

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Date

Inspector

Inspect foam concentrate strainers.

Inspect area beneath and surrounding foam system to assure adequate drainage.

Inspect system piping and fittings for corrosion, misalignment,trapped sections, low-point drains, condition of rubber-gasketedfittings.

Inspect hangers and supports for damage or missing parts, secureattachment to structural supports and piping, rust, corrosion, andmissing or damaged protective coatings.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-�00

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsAnnual Inspection

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Foam Water Sprinklers

Assure they are free of corrosion, obstruction, foreign materials, and physical damage.

Sprinkler Piping

Assure it is in good condition, free of damage, not corroded, not misaligned, and not subject to external leaks.

Pipe Hangers and Seismic Braces

Assure they are neither damaged nor corroded.

GaugesAssure they are in good condition and normal water pressures are maintained.

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location:________________________________________________________________________________

25-�0�

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsAnnual Maintenance

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Exercise Valves

Operate each control valve through its full range and return it to its normal position. Resealor relock valves as appropriate.

Lubricate Valves

Lubricate all valves with graphite or a mixture of light oil and graphite.

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location: ______________________________________________________________________________

25-�02

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsAnnual Tests

Y = Satisfactory N = Unsatisfactory (explain below)

Clean Strainer

Ensure blow-down valve is closed and plugged.

Check Foam Concentration

Take sample during trip test. Concentration should be within 10% of acceptance test results.

Notes

Date: ________ Inspector: _______________________ System: _____________________________Location:________________________________________________________________________________

25-�03

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsQuarterly TestsThis form covers a 1-year period.

Date

Inspector

Main Drain Test

Record the static water supply pressure.

Open the main drain and allow water flow to stabilize.

Record the residual water supply pressure.

Close the main drain (slowly).

Flow Alarm

Test flow alarm by opening the test valve. Note “OK” in box ifalarm operated properly.

Exercise Valves

Exercise all valves by fully closing and reopening. Replace locks orseals. Note “OK” in block if there are no problems.

Control Valves

Open all control valves until spring or tension is felt in the operat-ing rod. Back valve 1/4 turn to prevent jamming.

Note: Outside screw and yoke (OS&Y) valves or gear-operated indi-cating butterfly valves do not require quarterly testing.

Notes

Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes tobe significant. Place a number in this block and number the corre-sponding note below.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-�04

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsQuarterly TestsThis form covers a 1-year period.

Date

Inspector

Main Drain Test

Record the static water supply pressure.

Open the main drain and allow water flow to stabilize.

Record the residual water supply pressure.

Close the main drain (slowly).

Flow Alarm

Test flow alarm by opening the test valve. Note “OK” in box ifalarm operated properly.

Exercise Valves

Exercise all valves by fully closing and reopening. Replace locks orseals. Note “OK” in block if there are no problems.

Control Valves

Open all control valves until spring or tension is felt in the operat-ing rod. Back valve 1/4 turn to prevent jamming.

Note: Outside screw and yoke (OS&Y) valves or gear-operated indi-cating butterfly valves do not require quarterly testing.

Notes

Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes tobe significant. Place a number in this block and number the corre-sponding note below.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-�05

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsQuarterly TestsThis form covers a 1-year period.

Date

Inspector

Main Drain Test

Record the static water supply pressure.

Open the main drain and allow water flow to stabilize.

Record the residual water supply pressure.

Close the main drain (slowly).

Flow Alarm

Test flow alarm by opening the test valve. Note “OK” in box ifalarm operated properly.

Exercise Valves

Exercise all valves by fully closing and reopening. Replace locks orseals. Note “OK” in block if there are no problems.

Control Valves

Open all control valves until spring or tension is felt in the operat-ing rod. Back valve 1/4 turn to prevent jamming.

Note: Outside screw and yoke (OS&Y) valves or gear-operated indi-cating butterfly valves do not require quarterly testing.

Notes

Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes tobe significant. Place a number in this block and number the corre-sponding note below.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-�06

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsQuarterly TestsThis form covers a 1-year period.

Date

Inspector

Main Drain Test

Record the static water supply pressure.

Open the main drain and allow water flow to stabilize.

Record the residual water supply pressure.

Close the main drain (slowly).

Flow Alarm

Test flow alarm by opening the test valve. Note “OK” in box ifalarm operated properly.

Exercise Valves

Exercise all valves by fully closing and reopening. Replace locks orseals. Note “OK” in block if there are no problems.

Control Valves

Open all control valves until spring or tension is felt in the operat-ing rod. Back valve 1/4 turn to prevent jamming.

Note: Outside screw and yoke (OS&Y) valves or gear-operated indi-cating butterfly valves do not require quarterly testing.

Notes

Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes tobe significant. Place a number in this block and number the corre-sponding note below.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________

25-�07

Report on Proposals F2006 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 25

Copyright © 2000 National Fire Protection Association

Foam–Water Sprinkler SystemsQuarterly TestsThis form covers a 1-year period.

Date

Inspector

Main Drain Test

Record the static water supply pressure.

Open the main drain and allow water flow to stabilize.

Record the residual water supply pressure.

Close the main drain (slowly).

Flow Alarm

Test flow alarm by opening the test valve. Note “OK” in box ifalarm operated properly.

Exercise Valves

Exercise all valves by fully closing and reopening. Replace locks orseals. Note “OK” in block if there are no problems.

Control Valves

Open all control valves until spring or tension is felt in the operat-ing rod. Back valve 1/4 turn to prevent jamming.

Note: Outside screw and yoke (OS&Y) valves or gear-operated indi-cating butterfly valves do not require quarterly testing.

Notes

Record any notes about the system that the inspector believes tobe significant. Place a number in this block and number the corre-sponding note below.

Notes

Year: ________ System: ________________________________________________________________Location: _______________________________________________________________________________