FPE Corner Developing the next edition of NFPA 13
Samuel S. Dannaway, PE, President, S.S. Dannaway Associates, Inc., Honolulu
I
n this article I will go over NFPA’s standard development process and explain where the 2013 edition of NFPA 13 is in that process. In a later article, I will discuss some of
the significant changes that are being proposed to NFPA 13. Let me start with some basics. NFPA’s National Fire
Codes is a collection of standards and codes. It also includes several documents which are designated as recommended practices or guides. NFPA’s website defines a standard as: A document, the
main text of which contains only mandatory provisions using the word "shall" to indicate requirements and which is in a form generally suitable for mandatory reference by another standard or code or for adoption into law. NFPA defines a code as: A standard that is an extensive
compilation of provisions covering broad subject matter or that is suitable for adoption into law independently of other codes and standards. Simply stated, a standard tells us how to do something
while a code tells when or where that something will be required. We recognize by its title that NFPA 13 The Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems is clearly a standard. It tells us how to install a sprinkler system, but it does not indicate where sprinkler systems are required. Those referring to the “NFPA 13 code” are exposing their lack of understanding of the difference between codes and standards. One or more technical committees are responsible for
codes and standards such as NFPA 13. The five technical committees responsible for NFPA 13 are: 1. Hanging and Bracing of Water-Based Fire Protection
Systems 2. Private Water Supply Piping Systems 3. Residential Sprinkler Systems 4. Sprinkler System Discharge Criteria 5. Sprinkler System Installation Criteria A sixth committee, the Technical Correlating Committee
on Automatic Sprinkler Systems, is responsible for manag- ing and coordinating the five technical committees. It is a common misconception that members of the tech-
nical committees write the code (or standard). Technical committees and their members can and often do submit pro- posals for changing the standard, but most of their activity on the committee is spent considering the proposals for code revisions from the interested public. NFPA’s codes and standards are considered consensus
documents, as their development includes a significant effort to get broad agreement on document revisions. The work performed by technical committees is the first step in the consensus process. Consensus does not mean unanimous approval but approval by a super majority. Another effort to promote consensus starts with the make-
up of NFPA technical committees (TCs). NFPA TCs are appointed by the NFPA standards council, with the goal of getting a balance of interests. Committee members are clas- sified in one the following interest categories:
Page 26/Plumbing Engineer
• Insurance • Consumer • Enforcing authority • Labor • Installer/maintenance • Manufacturer • Applied research/testing lab • User • Special expert A committee may contain up to 30 members, with no
more than one-third of the members being from a single interest category. The code development process can be broken down into
five distinct steps: Step 1. Call for proposals: The public is notified of the
intent to issue a new document or to revise an existing NFPA code or standard and invited to submit code change propos- als by a certain date. Any member of the public can submit a proposal. Proposals can be written and submitted by e-mail or online
at
www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=817. Step 2. Report on Proposals (ROP): All proposals
received by the deadline are considered by the TC at the ROP meeting. During this time the committee can also develop its own proposals. At the ROP meeting, approval of an action on a proposal is obtained by a simple majority vote. The TC can take one of the following actions on a proposal: Accept the proposal with no modification. Reject the proposal. Accept in principal, which usually involves modifying the
proposal for consistency or to achieve a better understanding of the intent. Accept in part, in which only a portion of the proposal is
accepted. Accept in principal in part, in which the accepted part is
modified Any action other than accept must be provided with a
written explanation of why the action was taken. After the ROP meeting, the actions taken by the TC are
formally balloted to the technical committee. Actions must receive a two-thirds majority to be approved. Actions and the reasons for actions for each proposal are then published in the Report on Proposals. This report can be downloaded at the NFPA website. Step 3. Report on Comments (ROC): When the ROP doc-
ument is published and available to the public, the process enters a 60-day comment stage. During this time, the public can comment in writing on any proposal. It is noted that comments during this step may not include new proposals; i.e., new material. All comments must be related to a pro- posal in the ROP. All comments received by the deadline are considered at the second meeting of the TC, the ROC Meeting. As with the ROP, each comment is voted on at the meeting and formally balloted to each committee member
Continued on page 28 March 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68