Capped Tee Acceptable for Forward Flow? PRVs?

7/22/2025

Recently we encountered a system where the floor control valve assemblies (FCVAs) have pressure reducing valves (PRVs) that are due for their 5-year full-flow testing.

Typically, we would conduct this through a hose valve downstream of the PRV (hooked up to the Drain Riser), but this arrangement does not allow for that. The only means of connecting the FCVA to the Drain Riser would be to shut down the floor, remove the grooved coupling & cap from this tee (clouded in the image below), and then hook up a connection to the Drain Riser. Then, another shutdown would be needed to replace the coupling & cap to return the system to its current configuration.

When addressing Pressure Reducing Devices, NFPA 13, 2019, 16.9.8.5 states that “Means shall be provided downstream of all pressure reducing valves for flow tests at sprinkler system demand.”

However, according to NFPA 13 2019, 16.14.5.1, a “means shall be provided” for forward testing of the backflow preventer. This “means”, per 16.14.5.1.1, “shall be serviceable without requiring the owner to modify the system.”

I am unable to find a similar reference that pertains to Pressure Reducing Devices.

Is the capped tee considered “Means” to conduct the testing in this instance, despite requiring 2 shutdowns and “modifications” to the system?

Or is a permanently installed valve required to be considered “Means” to conduct the testing?

Thanks in advance.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe

8 Comments

Dan Wilder

7/22/2025 08:10:51 am

This is very common on current installations and is, per the letter, a means to test the system. The 2022 Edition modifies this section to the following:

16.9.7.5.1 - A 2 1⁄2 in. (65 mm) hose valve shall be provided downstream of the pressure reducing valve for every 250 gpm (950 L/min) of flow rate required by the system demand.

Now, some would argue this has now added another valve to the system that requires ITM (and its added cost) and is worse than a modification (taking a cap off)...

Anyone is available to create an account with NFPA (free) and submit comments, new sections, or request deletion of existing sections with the proper backup and getting the Committee to agree with the stance!

https://www.nfpa.org/about-nfpa/why-nfpa-codes-and-standards-matter#standards-development-process

Glenn Berger

7/22/2025 08:17:47 am

You have a lot of items / issues showing up in the photo that are not making sense to me at this time.

The photo is taken at the top of a wet standpipe. The pressure gauges do not appear to be indicating a (significant) high pressure. As such I am not understanding the need for a PRV to have been installed.

Modifying the system to allow for required testing is not appropriate. The System Installer should have provided documentation AND MEANS for the proper testing of the system in accordance with the applicable version of NFPA 13 the time of acceptance.

7/22/2025 08:29:39 am

This cap looks like a "means" to test. With the isolation valves and block valves on top, no need for a shut down or drain down to connect to the drain riser. I'm not saying its a perfect means.

Derek Wallis

7/22/2025 08:35:02 am

NFPA uses the term "means" loosely, allowing for the installer and the inspectors to comply with the standard in many different types of installations. I would agree with the installer in your example that "means to test the PRV's were provided. They left the grooved tee as a connection and in addition, they added the second butterfly valve (far more expensive than fixing a hose valve on each floor on the tee and eliminating the butterfly valve and all the associated alarm work) to accommodate for a quick drain and connection to the tee with the inspectors flow device and drain hose. Possibly not shown in the picture would be the connection outlet on the express drain. But even then, a quick disconnection of the 1-1/4" drain could suffice if you can flow the system demand through the 1-1/4" outlet.

There are examples in NFPA 25 of "means" being provided in multi-riser buildings where they've drained the second riser and used it as an express drain. That may not sound practical at a glance, but that does leave room for the designer to get creative in the most unique situations.

Jesse

7/22/2025 11:33:48 am

Yeah agree with the term "means to test" used loosely and I would submit this meets that requirement. But like, Glenn I'm kinda wondering what I'm looking at there. Probably makes a lot more sense in person.

Chad

7/22/2025 01:04:17 pm

I hate it. But I agree

Anthony

7/22/2025 01:38:06 pm

Designed this many times, its very common and acceptable.

Its a good idea to leave the owner a groove x NPT or hose valve piece to attach and test.

Casey Milhorn

7/23/2025 09:25:39 am

The capped tee is fine, even if not ideal. The possible bigger issue is lack of a properly sized test connection on the drain stack and/or possibly an improperly sized drain stack. You would refer to NFPA 14 (in my opinion), even for the zone assembly. NFPA 14 doesn't differentiate between a system PRV and a PRV hose valve.

NFPA 14 - 2013 edition (all I had access to at the moment)
7.11* Drains and Test Riser.
7.11.1 A permanently installed drain riser shall be provided
adjacent to each standpipe equipped with pressure-regulating
devices to facilitate tests of each device. The drain shall be
sized large enough to handle the full flow required from the
largest pressure-regulating device but shall not be less than the
following:
(1) The size of the discharge outlet of the pressure-regulating
device for devices that are greater than 21⁄2 in. (65 mm) in
size
(2) 3 in. (80 mm) to facilitate testing of 21⁄2 in. (65 mm)
pressure-regulating devices
(3) 2 in. (50 mm) to facilitate testing of 11⁄2 in. (40 mm)
pressure-regulating devices
7.11.1.1 The drain riser shall be equipped with tees that are
of the same size as the discharge outlets of the pressure regulating
devices to be tested with internal threaded swivel
fittings having NHS threads, as specified in NFPA 1963, Standard
for Fire Hose Connections, with plugs, and shall be located
on at least every other floor.

Capped Tee Acceptable for Forward Flow? PRVs?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES