NFPA Journal - November/December 2012 - (Page 58)

NFPA 20 to start—that it contradicted design and installation practices that had been used for many years, and that it could drastically impact how these systems would be designed going forward. They also said the proposed exception would limit the elevation of pumps beyond the base pump, and that the costs of the additional communications systems, and the protection of those systems, would be prohibitive. Opponents appeared to be more in favor of a requirement of a backup pump at the initial pump location instead of limiting the location of successive pumps. Opponents also said that the new provision could impact NFPA 14, Installation of Standpipes The 2013 edition process made it clear that series fire pumps are one of the central issues of NFPA 20. and Hose Systems—the CAM was initiated by the Technical Committee on Standpipe Systems—by forcing it to modify what is currently permitted as an acceptable standpipe design and installation practice. They argued that this change would have a cost impact that would affect engineers and contractors who design and install the systems using currently accepted practices. The objections to the series fire pump units proposal were upheld at the Association Technical Meeting, meaning that the provision was not included in the 2013 edition of NFPA 20. For now, series fire pump fire units can be arranged in various configurations throughout a building, provided there is adequate pressure for the pumps to work and for the sprinkler or standpipe systems to function properly. Limited service controllers One of the other new requirements focused on “limited service controllers,” or LSCs. Fire pump controllers contain switches, relays, and other components designed to receive signals from alarm devices, activate fire pumps, and monitor the pumps’ operation. These devices are typically either full service controllers (FSCs) or LSCs. A proposed change to the standard required LSCs to use the same circuit breakers as FSCs to improve their performance. As with series fire pump units, the proposal resulted in much discussion among technical committee members and generated a CAM at the Association Technical Meeting. A bit of background. FSCs have been around for decades, but were typically expensive and were sometimes viewed as a deterrent to installing fire protection systems in a building, especially in jurisdictions that did not require such systems. LSCs were introduced as stripped-down, more affordable alternatives to FSCs. LSCs could only be used with smaller pumps, the kind often found in modest-sized commercial occupancies. That’s why small businesses were a primary audience for these systems; business owners could find peace-of-mind knowing they were protecting their building, their goods, and their employees. Recently, though, FSCs have become more affordable and are the most commonly used controllers for use with fire pumps; NFPA 20 requires that LSCs only be used in special situations where acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. The limitations of LSCs include their lack of an isolation switch; their use of breakers that can fail, disabling the pumps; and the fact that they can only be used with fire pump motors of 30 hp or less. That’s why the circuit breaker point is just part of a larger discussion, ongoing for several code cycles now, over whether LSCs should be removed from the standard entirely in favor of FSCs. The electrical community, in particular, views LSCs as deficient when compared to FSCs and is primarily concerned about the impact of heat on the devices’ breakers. Other committee members, however, contend there is still a need for LSCs in the fire protection industry, saying that LSCs are still a more affordable option to FSCs—though the savings are often minimal considering the overall cost of a complete pump system—and can help remove a barrier to installing suppression systems in some jurisdictions. In their view, some fire protection is better than none. Contractors argue that LSC failures haven’t been documented to show a need to eliminate them from the standard. After much discussion during the NFPA 20 cycle, the technical committee decided not to eliminate LSCs from the standard, choosing 58 NFPA JOURNAL NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of NFPA Journal - November/December 2012

NFPA Journal - November/December 2012
Contents
First Word
In a Flash
Perspectives
Firewatch
Research
Heads Up
Structural Ops
In Compliance
Buzzwords
Outreach
Electrical Safety
Wildfire Watch
Past + Present
Easy Being Green?
Pressure Points
2011 Large-Loss Fires
2011 Firefighter Injuries
Section Spotlight
What’s Hot
Looking Back

NFPA Journal - November/December 2012