Control Valve Allowed Directly Below Hydrant?

6/27/2025

Is the installation form of the control valve for the hydrant correct/allowed as shown?

It is a wet barrel hydrant, and the owner wants to save costs by installing the control valve directly below the hydrant.

How should the effective coverage area of the fire hydrant be considered?

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

10 Comments

Pete H

6/27/2025 06:37:47 am

From NFPA 24 (2025 Edition) Chapter 7: Hydrants

7.1.1.2 A listed control valve shall be installed in each hydrant connection.
7.1.1.2.1. A valve required by 7.1.1.2 shall be permitted to be a listed, nonindicating valve, such as an underground gate valve in a roadway box.
7.1.1.2.2 Valves required by 7.1.1.2 shall be installed within 20 ft. of the fire hydrant.
7.1.1.2.2.1 Valves shall be clearly identified and kept free of obstructions.
7.1.1.2.3 Where valves cannot be located in accordance with 7.1.1.2.2 valve locations shall be permitted where approved by the AHJ.

I can find no requirement about the control valve needing to be underground as is the normal installation, though I would worry if you can find one that can be installed above ground that is listed for such purpose the same way a curb box valve would be. But it's definitely within 20'-0". Ultimately, given 7.1.1.2.2, I'd advise if you're doing any installation with a valve location "outside of the norm" even if you can't find a code prohibition, get the location approved by the AHJ.

Take with a grain of salt, I'm not looking at this harder than NFPA 24 right now.

CESAR LIRA

6/27/2025 02:21:43 pm

This can't do it. because the hydrant has a own gate in the elbow,. if there a different hydrant the gate valve could be a problem for the walkers

Dan Wilder

6/27/2025 08:12:44 am

I would argue "Not Allowed" as this creates an obstruction to the operation of the hydrant for a responding crew for 360° clear access.

I would also venture this violates ADA requirements if located anywhere on a public sidewalk or pedestrian path.

Chad

6/27/2025 08:48:47 am

Agreed-

Plus, if a car hits that, the valve is toast and you will have to shut down that whole main to fix….. water agency might not like this.

Anthony

6/27/2025 09:45:30 am

I agree with Dan and Chad here about the creation of an obstruction and a car problem. It just looks like it creates more problems than it solves.

Glenn Berger

6/27/2025 08:14:42 am

For a WET BARREL Fire Hydrant this appears to be legit from an NFPA standpoint. Might want to check the applicable OSHA requirements. If no guard posts are present on all sides as the Gate Valve will be a protruding item at a low elevation.

Effective coverage area of the hydrant will not be affected with providing an aboveground isolation valve.

Jack G

6/27/2025 12:18:30 pm

The hydrant may not work properly work mounted directly to the bottom of a hydrant . The stem of the hydrant moves up and down to open and close. When closed it moves past the weep holes that allow drainage of the hydrant. This feature may not work.
The hydrant control valve is an underground valve and is referred to as a “ hydrant repair valve “.
I m assuming the climate “ never freezes there” as the os&y “ is above grade and that regression is “ no frost line. “.
The hydrants usually come with the elbow for the stem “ open and close “ already attached.
I d check the UL listing of that hydrant as it may not be listed for your configuration.
In 57 years as a fire protection contractor , I’ve never seen or installed this way.
I d never do this as it just seems inappropriate .
Wall hydrants ( above ground on a building wall) fed from inside the building at the riser ( across to the opposite wall ) to avoid underground pipe installation) have a “ wall post indicator attached to a listed wall hydrant) are usually installed to avoid underground pipe behind the building.
The cost of a wall hydrant and a wet barrel hydrant are not even close.

Jesse

6/27/2025 02:34:36 pm

Prior to working in fire protection engineering and loss control, I was a career Firefighter / Medic for 19 years. I would really, really not like this idea. Wrapping the hydrant alone to lay LDH supply line could be a train wreck.

Further, I don't know why we would want to do that. We would have an NRS valve near the base on the lead-in from the main. If this gate valve is in lieu of the NRS valve and this is a wet hydrant, how doest the water get shut off if it gets taken out by a car?

CESAR LIRA

6/27/2025 02:40:34 pm

Completely agree

Ryan Hinson

7/2/2025 11:26:58 am

Some responses above appear to be confused as to the indicated type of hydrant. The hydrant in question is a wet-barrel (Jones 3760-series) hydrant. This hydrant type has no vertical 'stem' from a top nut to a base valve (dry-barrel) since, by definition, this hydrant is flooded and under pressure with each individual hose connection valves necessarily preventing water flow. There is therefore, no intrinsic internal universal hydrant 'control' (shutoff) valve in the base of this configuration...which must be on the minimum 6" supply line per NFPA 24 (2022) Section 7.1.1.1. There is also no automatic drain in the bottom of a wet-barrel.

The required hydrant control valve upstream of a hydrant (wet or dry) per NFPA 24 Section 7.1.1.2, must be provided some other way. This could be either with an OS&Y (as shown), other listed valve type, upstream PIV, or valve box...within the allotting 20-ft spacing indicated as AHJ-allowed.

Hence, there is no 'NFPA 24' issue with this configuration as long as there is some type of hydrant isolation control valving (allows for the wholesale replacemenbt of the hydrant without shutting off the upstream water system that I am aware of.

As further-indicated above, there are other reasons why this configuration may not be allowed or preferred due to access/protection issues around the hydrant...depending on ERT SOP tactics.

Personally, I only see the indicated configuration in controlled-access facilities where there is no freezing concern and where specifically coordinated with the ERT. If not in a controlled-access facility, I suggest installing an upstream valve box in to satisfy the NFPA 24 isolation requirement (which it sounds like this owner didn't want). Either way, owner preference must be vetted with the responding entity.

As was already stated, coverage from this hydrant configuration is not affected but access and maneuverability immediately adjacent to it might be.

A separate upstream control/shutoff valve is required either way for the hydrant per NFPA 24. If the concern is vehicular mechanical damage, than either bollards or a traffic-rated dry-barrel hydrant is recommended in lieu of this 'allowed' abovegrade OS&Y configuration.

Control Valve Allowed Directly Below Hydrant?

Leave a Reply.

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

COMMUNITY

YOUR POST

PE EXAM

FILTERS

ARCHIVES

PE PREP SERIES