M E M O R A N D U M. NFPA Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems

National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 Fax: 617-770-0700 www.nfpa.org M E M O R A N D U M To: From: NFPA Technical Committee on Private Water Supply Piping Systems Elena Carroll, Administrator, Technical Projects Date: October 8, 2014 Subject: NFPA 24 Second Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2015 Cycle) According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot. 31 Members Eligible to Vote 3 Not Returned (Laguna, Mowrer, Sanchez) 26 Affirmative on All Revisions 2 Negatives (Asp, Schwab) 0 Abstentions The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each second revision. There are two criteria necessary for each second revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2 /3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined. (1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote 2 = 10 + 1 = 11) (2) Example for Affirmative 2 /3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote 1 not returned 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 ) As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 15-NFPA 24-2014 [ Global Comment ] Revise the metric values throughout the standard to follow the soft conversions provided by the metric task group. Supplemental Information File Name Metrification_AUT-PRI.xlsx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 13:43:08 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: For the 2016 edition of NFPA 13, the technical committees responsible for the standard chose to move from hard conversions to soft conversions. Chapter 10 of NFPA 24 is extracted into NFPA 13, and as such, NFPA 24 was included in the soft conversion review. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B.

Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B. Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M. Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C. Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Schwab, Peter T. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W. of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Piping Equivalents Conversion Factors (T.1.6.1.3) English (in.) Metric (mm) SI Unit Eng. Unit Factor 1/4 6 L gal 1 gal = 3.785 L 3/8 10 mm/min gpm/ft2 1 gpm/ft2 = 40.746 mm/min 1/2 15 dm3 gal 1 gal = 3.785 dm3 3/4 20 Pa psi 1 psi = 6894.757 Pa 1 25 bar psi 1 psi = 0.0689 bar 1 1/4 32 Pa --> bar - 1 bar = 1E5 Pa 1 1/2 40 1 3/4 45 Length 2 50 SI Unit Eng. Unit Factor 2 1/2 65 m ft 1 ft = 0.3048 m 3 80 m in 1 in = 0.0254 m 3 1/2 90 mm in 1 in = 25.4 mm 4 100 5 125 Area, Volume 6 150 SI Unit Eng. Unit Factor 8 200 m2 ft2 1 ft2 = 0.0929 m2 10 250 m2 in2 1 in2 = 0.0006452 m2 12 300 mm2 in2 1 in2 = 645.15 mm2 14 350 m3 ft3 1 ft3 = 0.02832 m3 16 400 mm3 in3 1 in3 = 16387 mm3 18 450 20 500 Other 24 600 SI Unit Eng. Unit Factor kj/kg Btu/lb 1 Btu/lb = 2.326 kj/kg g oz. 1 oz = 28.35 g kj/m2 Btu/ft2 1 Btu/ft2 = 11.356 kj/m2

of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 2-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 2.3.1 ] 2.3.1 ASME Publications. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Three Two Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990. ASME B1.20.1, Pipe Threads, General Purpose (Inch), 2001. ASME B16.1, Gray Iron Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings, Classes 12, 125, and 250, 2010. ASME B16.3, Malleable Iron Threaded Fittings, Classes 150 and 300, 2006. ASME B16.4, Gray Iron Threaded Fittings, Classes 125 and 250, 2006. ASME B16.5, Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings NPS 1 2 through 24, 2003 2013. ASME B16.9, Factory-Made Wrought Steel Buttweld Fittings, 2007. ASME B16.11, Forged Steel Fittings, Socket Welded and Threaded, 2005. ASME B16.18, Cast Bronze Solder Joint Pressure Fittings, 2001. ASME B16.22, Wrought Copper and Bronze Solder Joint Pressure Fittings, 2001. ASME B16.25, Buttwelding Ends, 2007. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 11:30:50 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Updated the edition date for the standard. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel

Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B. Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M. Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C. Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Schwab, Peter T. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W. of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 19-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 2.3.2 ] 2.3.2 ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. ASTM A 234 A234/A234M, Specification for Piping Fittings of Wrought Carbon Steel and Alloy Steel for Moderate and Elevated Temperatures, 2007 2013e1. ASTM A 53 A53/A53M Standard Specification for Pipe, Steel, Black and Hot-Dipped, Zinc-Coated, Welded and Seamless, 2001 2012. ASTM A 135 A135/A135M Standard Specification for Electric-Resistance- Welded Steel Pipe, 2001 09(2014). ASTM A 795 A795/A795M Standard Specification for Black and Hot-Dipped Zinc-Coated (Galvanized)Welded and Seamless Steel Pipe for Fire Protection Use, 2000 2013. ASTM B 16.5 Cast Bronze Threaded Fittings, 1985. ASTM B 43 B43 Specification for Seamless Red Brass Pipe, 2009. ASTM B 75 B75, Specification for Seamless Copper Tube, 2002 2011. ASTM B 88 B88, Specification for Seamless Copper Water Tube, 2003 2009. ASTM B 251 B251, Requirements for Wrought Seamless Copper and Copper-Alloy Tube, 2002 2010. IEEE/ASTM-SI-10, Standard for Use of the International System of Units (SI): The Modern Metric System, 2002 2010. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Sun Jun 29 09:24:03 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Update year dates. The deleted standard is an ASME Standard, not an ASTM Standard. Response Message: Public Comment No. 20-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 2.3.2] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention

Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B. Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M. Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C. Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Schwab, Peter T. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W. of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 3-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 2.3.3 ] 2.3.3 AWWA Publications. American Water Works Association, 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235. AWWA C104, Cement Mortar Lining for Ductile Iron Pipe and Fittings for Water, 2008. AWWA C105, Polyethylene Encasement for Ductile Iron Pipe Systems, 2005. AWWA C110, Ductile Iron and Gray Iron Fittings, 2008. AWWA C111, Rubber-Gasket Joints for Ductile Iron Pressure Pipe and Fittings, 2000. AWWA C115, Flanged Ductile Iron Pipe with Ductile Iron or Gray Iron Threaded Flanges, 2005. AWWA C116, Protective Fusion-Bonded Epoxy Coatings for the Interior and Exterior Surfaces of Ductile-Iron and Gray-Iron Fittings for Water Supply Service, 2003. AWWA C150, Thickness Design of Ductile Iron Pipe, 2008. AWWA C151, Ductile Iron Pipe, Centrifugally Cast for Water, 2002. AWWA C153, Ductile-Iron Compact Fittings for Water Service, 2006. AWWA C200, Steel Water Pipe 6 in. and Larger, 2005. AWWA C203, Coal-Tar Protective Coatings and Linings for Steel Water Pipelines Enamel and Tape Hot Applied, 2002. AWWA C205, Cement-Mortar Protective Lining and Coating for Steel Water Pipe 4 in. and Larger Shop Applied, 2007. AWWA C206, Field Welding of Steel Water Pipe, 2003. AWWA C207, Steel Pipe Flanges for Waterworks Service Sizes 4 in. Through 144 in., 2007. AWWA C208, Dimensions for Fabricated Steel Water Pipe Fittings, 2007. AWWA C300, Reinforced Concrete Pressure Pipe, Steel-Cylinder Type, 2004. AWWA C301, Prestressed Concrete Pressure Pipe, Steel-Cylinder Type, 2007. AWWA C302, Reinforced Concrete Pressure Pipe, Non-Cylinder Type, 2004. AWWA C303, Reinforced Concrete Pressure Pipe, Steel-Cylinder Type, Pretensioned, 2002. AWWA C400, Standard for Asbestos-Cement Distribution Pipe, 4 in. Through 16 in. (100 mm through 400 mm), for Water Distribution Systems, 2003. AWWA C600, Standard for the Installation of Ductile Iron Water Mains and Their Appurtenances, 2005. AWWA C602, Cement-Mortar Lining of Water Pipe Lines 4 in. and Larger in Place, 2006. AWWA C603, Standard for the Installation of Asbestos-Cement Pressure Pipe, 2005. AWWA C900, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe, 4 in. Through 12 in., for Water Distribution, 2007. AWWA C905, AWWA Standard for Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pressure Pipe and Fabricated Fittings, 14 in. Through 48 in. (350 mm Through 1200 mm), 2010. AWWA C906, Polyethylene (PE) Pressure Pipe and Fittings, 4 in. (100 mm) Through 63 in. (1575 mm) for Water Distribution, 2007. AWWA C909, Molecularly Oriented Polyvinyl Chloride (PVCO) Pressure Pipe, 4 in. through 24 in. (100 mm through 600 mm), for Water, Wastewater, and Reclaimed Water Service, 2010. AWWA M11, A Guide for Steel Pipe Design and Installation, 4th edition, 2004. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ]

of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 11:31:51 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Reference is made to the statement of problem and substantiation of Public Comment No. 2-NFPA 24-2014. Response Message: Public Comment No. 16-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 2.3.3] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B. Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M. Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C.

of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Schwab, Peter T. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W.

0 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 20-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 2.4 ] 2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections. NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, 2013 2016 edition. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Sonia Barbosa Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 18 09:51:05 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Updated edition date. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B. Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M.

Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C. Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Schwab, Peter T. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W. 1 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Second Revision No. 17-NFPA 24-2014 [ New Section after 5.1.2 ] 5.1.3 Water Supply Adjustments. 5.1.3.1* Where a waterflow test was conducted, the volume and pressure available for use for a fire protection system shall be determined from the following formula: [5.1.3.1] 5.1.3.1.1 The pressure, P, shall be what is considered available from the water supply to use for a fire protection system that will be calculated for a given flow demand of Q. 5.1.3.1.2 The flow, Q, shall be demand flow of the fire protection system that will be used to calculate the available pressure from the water supply, P. 5.1.3.1.3* The variable P 1 shall be the residual pressure measured during the waterflow test while the flow Q 1 was discharging from the water supply reduced by the specifying engineer or the water utility for daily and seasonal fluctuations. 5.1.3.1.3.1 The reduction shall not be based on 100-year droughts or other extreme conditions. 5.1.3.1.4* The variable P 2 shall be the static pressure measured during the waterflow test reduced by the specifying engineer or the water utility for daily and seasonal fluctuations. 5.1.3.1.4.1 The reduction shall not be based on 100-year droughts or other extreme conditions. 5.1.3.1.5 The variable Q 1 shall be the flow associated with P 1. 5.1.3.1.6* Where the specifying engineer or the water utility does not provide the value for P 1 and P 2, see 5.1.3.2. 5.1.3.2* Where a waterflow test has been conducted and the specifying engineer or the water authority does not provide a value for P 1 and P 2, the value for P 1 and P 2 shall be calculated by taking the static pressure and residual pressure results from the flow test and reducing them by 5 percent. 5.1.3.2.1 Where the authority having jurisdiction has adopted a requirement for an adjustment different from 5 percent, that adjustment shall be applied. Supplemental Information File Name Description SR_17_equation_and_number.docx Equation 5.1.3.1 SR_17_A.5.1.3.docx Annex material Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: 2 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

3 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 18 16:18:40 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The NFPA 13 technical committees have been discussing the need for adjusting waterflow data for several revision cycles. This revision aims to make the adjustment to the data from a waterflow test required instead of recommended. If the adjustment is not required, contractors that do the right thing and adjust the data from tests are at a disadvantage from contractors that don't make any adjustment. It is fundamentally wrong to not make an adjustment to the data due to daily and seasonal fluctuations. This makes makes a simple and easy to understand adjustment that is standardized so that there is no argument over what is supposed to happen. It is the intent to have this be the only adjustment. If the water utility has already performed the adjustment, or if the AHJ has already mandated a safety margin or safety factor to the waterflow data obtained from the test, this adjustment would not apply. Response Message: Public Comment No. 17-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. A.5.1.2] Public Comment No. 18-NFPA 24-2014 [New Section after 5.1.2] Public Comment No. 19-NFPA 24-2014 [New Section after A.5.1.2] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 26 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B. Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M. Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff

Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C. Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W. Negative with Comment Asp, Roland A. While it is important to adjust water flow test results to reflect a possible "worse case" scenario of the water supply based upon time of day, seasonal variations, large simultaneous industrial use and other conditions that may affect the water supply, this negative ballot is being submitted based upon the following: 1. The Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria Committee did not accept this Second Revision. Although the Residential Committee and the Private Water Supply Piping Systems Committee did accept this SR, all affected committees should have a consensus on this issue. 2. The Fire Protection Research Foundation is sponsoring a research project on this topic and the results of this project should be taken into consideration once available. Schwab, Peter T. Adjustments for water supply fluctuation is a complicated topic. This approach to mandate an arbitrary 5% cushion is too simplistic and cannot encompass all the possibilities encountered in the real world. Also, the SSD Committee rejected a similar comment. The FPRF is in the process of conducting a project on this subject. This concept should be put on hold for the next edition. 4 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

P Q 1.85 P 1 P 2 P2 Q 1 [5.1.3.1] Formatted: Font: Bold

NFPA 24 SR 17 Annex A.5.1.3.1 Consider the following example. A waterflow test is conducted at a location where a city water main is going to be tapped for a new sprinkler system. During the test, the static pressure is measured at 70 psi; the residual pressure is measured at 50 psi while 1300 gpm was discharging from a nearby hydrant. The water utility is contacted, and they indicate that a reasonable lowstatic pressure accounting for typical daily and seasonal fluctuations in this area is 55 psi, and a reasonable low-residual pressure accounting for typical daily and seasonal fluctuations in this area at a flow of 1300 gpm is 35 psi. The equation that describes the water supply available for a fire sprinkler system would be: P Q 1300 1.85 35 55 55 [A.5.1.3(a)] There are two ways to use this formula. One would be to assume two different values for Q, calculate P and then draw a graph on log 1.85 paper. Any fire sprinkler system demand falling on or below the line on this graph would be acceptable in accordance with NFPA 13 to work with this water supply. In this case, the two easiest flows to pick for Q would be 0 and 1300 gpm. When Q = 0, P is simply 55 psi. When Q = 1300 gpm, P = 35 psi. These two points can be plotted on log 1.85 paper as shown in Figure A.5.1.3.1. The second way to use this formula would be to calculate the fire protection system and determine the flow necessary to make the system work. Plug this flow into the formula above and see what the available pressure from the water supply will be at that flow. For example, if a sprinkler system connected to this water supply had a demand of 580 gpm, the available pressure from the water supply would be: P 580 1300 1.85 35 55 55 P = ( 20)(0.225) + 55 P = 50.5 psi [A.5.1.3(b)] So, as long as the sprinkler system has a pressure demand less than or equal to 50.5 psi, it will work with this water supply.

Figure A.5.1.3.1 Available Water Supply Curve Example. A.5.1.3.1.3 The purpose of the adjustment required by this section is to take into account reasonable fluctuations that occur on a daily and seasonal basis but not to burden the building owner with extreme conditions. During an extreme condition such as a water main break or a severe drought, the impaired system provisions of NFPA 25 can be employed to mitigate the circumstances of the extreme condition. The intent of this section is to apply the adjustment to the raw data obtained by the flow test and not to apply adjustments to values that have already been adjusted by water utilities. If a water utility has already provided flow and pressure data for use in the design of fire protection systems that already include adjustments for daily and seasonal water usage, there is no need to make any additional adjustments to this data. A.5.1.3.1.4 See A.5.1.3.1.3. A.5.1.3.1.6 Water utilities are the entities that know their own supplies the best and know what appropriate adjustments need to be made to flow test data to provide reasonable fire protection. In a situation in which the water utility will not make a definite statement about an adjustment, the fire protection engineer would supply such a statement about adjustments to the raw data from a flow test. Due to the level of judgment involved in making such a decision, licensing laws in most of the United States require the fire protection engineer to make this determination rather than the fire protection system contractor. It is expected that the engineer would make these statements in the specifications provided to the fire protection system contractor. In the absence of any information from any authority, 5.1.3.2 provides a standardized method of making a decision. A.5.1.3.2 Subsection 5.1.3.2 provides a standardized method of making a decision regarding the reduction of the results from a waterflow test to determine what pressure and flow are available from a

water supply when the specifying engineer and the water utility have not provided adjustment information. An example of using this standardized method is the following: If a waterflow test is conducted at a location where a city water main is going to be tapped for a new sprinkler system, and the static pressure is measured at 70 psi, with the residual pressure measured at 50 psi while 1300 gpm was discharging from a nearby hydrant. If there is no information from the specifying engineer or water utility about appropriate adjustments, the value of the static pressure and residual pressure need to be reduced by 5 percent. The static pressure would be adjusted from 70 psi to 66.5 psi (70 x 0.95 = 66.5). The residual pressure at 1300 gpm would be reduced from 50 psi to 47.5 psi (70 x 0.95 = 47.5). The results would be plotted on log 1.85 graph paper, as shown in the lower curve on Figure A.5.1.3.2. That curve would represent what the fire protection system contractor could use for a fire protection system. Figure A.5.1.3.2 Available Water Supply Curve Example.

5 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 16-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 5.2.1 ] 5.2.1 Private Fire Service Mains. Hydraulic calculations shall show that the main is able to supply the total demand at the appropriate pressure for systems with multiple hydrants. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 14:05:16 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The current wording appears to infer that pressures and flow are not material for single fire hydrant installations. A 6" line may be completely insufficient to supply a single hydrant at the end of a long dead end with a high fire flow condition. The PC removes the multiple hydrant constraint. Response Message: Public Comment No. 3-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 5.2.1] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T.

Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B. Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M. Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C. Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Schwab, Peter T. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W. 6 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

7 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 6-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 5.3.2 ] 5.3.2 Where meters are required, they shall be listed for fire protection service. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 11:39:39 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: It is important to indicate the listing needs to be for fire protection. The word "service" was added to the proposed language in PC-6 for consistency with the remainder of the standard. Public Comment No. 6-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 5.3.2] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W.

Fuller, David B. Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M. Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C. Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Schwab, Peter T. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W. 8 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

9 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 7-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 5.9.2.4 ] 5.9.2.4 Non-threaded Nonthreaded couplings shall be permitted where required by the AHJ. Non-threaded couplings shall be listed for use as permitted in 5.9.2.4. 5.9.2.4.1 Nonthreaded couplings shall be listed. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 11:45:33 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The two separate provisions should be written in two separate sections. Additionally, as written in the First Draft Report, the second sentence of Section 5.9.2.4 is referring to its own section number. Response Message: Public Comment No. 7-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 5.9.2.4] Public Comment No. 13-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 5.9.2.4] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A.

Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B. Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M. Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C. Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Schwab, Peter T. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W. 0 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

1 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 4-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 5.9.4.4 ] 5.9.4.4 The automatic drip shall be permitted to be buried where permitted by the AHJ. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 11:36:34 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: This language is being deleted because it is already in Section 5.9.4.2.1. Response Message: Public Comment No. 8-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 5.9.4.4] Public Comment No. 15-NFPA 24-2014 [Chapter 5] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B.

Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M. Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C. Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Schwab, Peter T. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W. 2 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Second Revision No. 8-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 6.2.1 ] 6.2.1 A valve in accordance with Section 6.1 shall be installed in each pipeline from each water supply. 6.2.1.1 Control valves shall not be installed in the piping from the fire department connection to the point it connects to the fire service main. 6.2.1.2 Control valves shall be permitted in the system piping downstream of the fire department connection. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 12:02:46 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Modified the wording to indicate that the valve downstream of the FDC can only be in system piping. Public Comment No. 9-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 6.2.1] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. 3 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B. Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M. Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C. Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Schwab, Peter T. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W. 4 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM

5 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 14-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 10.1.4.1 ] 10.1.4.1* Underground piping shall be permitted to extend into the building through the slab or wall not more than 24 in. (0.6 m). Supplemental Information File Name SR-14_A.10.1.4.1.docx Description edited Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 13:31:05 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The standard allows PVC underground piping to enter a building to supply the sprinkler system inside a building. The concerns of this approach include: 1. Weight of the spinkler riser on the PVC pipe - is it tested for vertical loading in this regard 2. Incompatibility with various chemicals, including floor coatings - the Arrangement section in NFPA 13 no longer seems to adequately address that potential concern. 3. Potential to exposure from sunlight. These concerns should be addressed where applicable. This language was proposed for the body of NFPA 13, but has been relocated to the annex of NFPA 24 as these concerns may not apply for every project, but rather should be considered on a case by case basis. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel

A.10.1.4 Where nonmetallic underground piping is provided above grade or inside a building, the following should be considered: Formatted: Font: Bold 2.1. Exposure from direct rays of sunlight 3.2. Compatibility with chemicals such as floor coatings and termiticides/insecticides 4.3. Support of piping and appurtenances attached thereto (e.g., sprinkler risers, backflow preventers etc)

7 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 9-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 10.2.1.3 ] 10.2.1.3 Approved fittings shall be permitted to be used. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 12:11:52 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: There are available fittings on the market that are listed or are in accordance with Table 10.2.1.1. This section allows practically anything as long as it is approved. Public Comment No. 10-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 10.2.1.3] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W.

9 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 10-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 10.4.2.1.7.1 ] 10.4.2.1.7.1 Heat tracing not listed for underground use shall be permitted when piping is installed in accordance with 10.4.2.2.5 10.1.4. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 12:16:15 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: I believe this is the correct section to reference. Response Message: Public Comment No. 11-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 10.4.2.1.7.1] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B.

1 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 11-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 10.5.1.1 ] 10.5.1.1* The requirement of 10.6.8 10.5.1 shall not preclude the bonding of the underground piping to the lightning protection grounding system as required by NFPA 780 in those cases where lightning protection is provided for the structure. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 12:16:35 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Editorial correction. The reference was not revised during the Chapter 10 rewrite. Response Message: Public Comment No. 12-NFPA 24-2014 [Section No. 10.5.1.1] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W.

3 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 13-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 10.10.1 ]

4 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM 10.10.1 Approval of Underground Piping.

5 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM The installing contractor shall be responsible for the following: (1) Notifying the AHJ and the owner's representative of the time and date testing is to be performed (2) Performing all required acceptance tests (3) Completing and signing the contractor's material and test certificate(s) shown in Figure 10.10.1 Figure 10.10.1 Sample of Contractor's Material and Test Certificate for Underground Piping.

6 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 13:26:44 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The modifications made in SR 12 require this statement to be modified for correlation. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel

8 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 12-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. 10.10.2.1.3 ] 10.10.2.1.3 The minimum rate of flow shall be not less than one of the following: in accordance with Table 10.10.2.1.3. Hydraulically calculated water demand flow rate of the system, including any hose requirements * Flow in accordance with Table 10.10.2.1.3 Maximum flow rate available to the system under fire conditions Table 10.10.2.1.3 Flow Required to Produce Velocity of 10 ft/sec (3 m/sec) in Pipes Nominal Pipe Size Flow Rate in. mm gpm L/min 2 51 100 379 2 1 2 63 150 568 3 76 220 833 4 102 390 1,476 1476 5 127 610 2,309 2309 6 152 880 3,331 3331 8 204 1,560 1560 5,905 5905 10 254 2,440 2440 9,235 9235 12 305 3,520 3520 13,323 10.10.2.1.3.1 Where the flow rates established in Table 10.10.2.1.3 are not attainable, the maximum flow rate available to the system shall be acceptable. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 17 13:01:16 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This section was reviewed by the NFPA 24 Flushing Task Group. Matching the hydraulic calculation demand is an unreasonable option, and the annex note A.10.10.2.1.3(2) gives support to this. The requirement for flushing of the underground is not intended to be a means of proving the water supply is available at the time of installation. Some system hydraulically calculated water demand flow rates may be low enough that achieving that flow would not result in flushing any debris Ballot Results This item has passed ballot

9 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Asp, Roland A. Biggins, James B. Brown, Phillip A. Charrette, James A. Chen, Flora F. Clark, Jr., Stephen A. Dudley, Jeffry T. Ellis, Byron E. Frakes, Brandon W. Fuller, David B. Gagnon, Robert M. Glumac, Tanya M. Hayward, LaMar Hebenstreit, Jeff Lake, John Larsen, Michael Maddry, James M. Maughan, Kevin D. Morgan, Bob D. O'Dell, Dale H. Olson, Shawn C. Ramos, Martin Schifiliti, James R. Schwab, Peter T. Sheppard, J. William Su, Chen-Hsiang Twele, Scott M. Wagoner, Kenneth W.

0 of 41 10/17/2014 8:56 AM Second Revision No. 18-NFPA 24-2014 [ Section No. A.5.1.2 ] A.5.1.2 An adjustment to the waterflow test data to account for the following should be made, as appropriate: Daily and seasonal fluctuations Possible interruption by flood or ice conditions Large simultaneous industrial use Future demand on the water supply system Other conditions that could affect the water supply Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: [ Not Specified ] Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Jun 20 11:58:33 EDT 2014 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This section suggesting water supply adjustments is being removed in favor of mandatory language in Chapter 5 for making an adjustment to waterflow data. See SR 17 for the exact language. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 3 Not Returned 27 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Laguna, Alan R. Mowrer, David S. Sanchez, Daniel Affirmative All Biggins, James B.