NFPA 13 and 13R each had only a handful of Certified Amending Motions(CAM) that were heard by the NFPA general membership at June's NFPA Annual Technical Meeting(ATM). While the number of CAMs was fairly limited compared to past ATM's when sprinklers were on the docket, there was one major change that was made to the committees ROP/ROC work.
The most significant change was to the new code language laying out requirements for "CPVC" compatibility. Both NFPA 13 and 13R, NFPA 13 R with the help of the NFPA Technical Correlating Committee, added language at the ROP and ROC that requires compatibility review when CPVC piping is used. Among the numerous code sections that were added at the ROP and ROC, there was one section section that would have required a compatibility review for all "construction materials" that come in contact with CPVC piping.
In theory this is a good idea, to cut down on the number of pipe failures due to contact with incompatible materials. Unfortunately, after further view by the technical committees , the term "other construction materials" in a practical application sense knows no bounds. Does it include permanent markers used to identify pipe? Latex gloves worn by the installer? All liquids used in other building systems that might leak or drip onto the nonmetallic sprinkler pipe? After additional consideration the TC, along with NFPAs general membership felt that this requirement was to difficult to enforce despite its good intentions, and was removed from the 2013 edition of NFPA.
The concept of compatibility was further modified via a Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) that changed the term "CPVC" piping and fittings throughout this section of the standard to "nonmetallic" piping and fittings to address all forms nonmetallic pipe without singling out CPVC products.