CORRELATING COMMITTEE ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS NFPA 61, NFPA 654, and NFPA 664 (A2016) First Draft Correlating Committee Meeting January 6-9, 2015 Dallas / Ft. Worth Airport Marriott Irving, TX 75063 AGENDA 1. Meeting opening, welcome members and guests, and introductions 2. Chair's remarks, Kevin Kreitman 3. Approve Minutes of Second Draft CC Meeting on November 4-5, 2014 for NFPA 652 4. Staff Liaison updates (Committee Roster, Schedule, and Correlating Committee Duties and Responsibilities) 5. NFPA 654 CMD-HAP First Draft a. Review and act on Public Inputs and First Revisions b. Review NFPA 654 First Draft TC Final Ballot Results c. Develop First Correlating Revisions and Correlating Committee Notes (as appropriate) – see attached sections on Correlating Committees from Regulations Governing Committee Projects 6. NFPA 664 CMD-WOO First Draft a. Review and act on Public Inputs and First Revisions b. Review NFPA 664 First Draft TC Final Ballot Results c. Develop First Correlating Revisions and Correlating Committee Notes (as appropriate) – see attached sections on Correlating Committees from Regulations Governing Committee Projects 7. NFPA 61 CMD-AGR First Draft a. Review and act on Public Inputs and First Revisions b. Review NFPA 61 First Draft TC Final Ballot Results c. Develop First Correlating Revisions and Correlating Committee Notes (as appropriate) – see attached sections on Correlating Committees from Regulations Governing Committee Projects
335
Embed
CORRELATING COMMITTEE ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS NFPA 61, … · Approve Minutes of Second Draft CC Meeting on November 4-5, 2014 for NFPA 652 4. Staff Liaison updates (Committee Roster,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CORRELATING COMMITTEE ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS
NFPA 61, NFPA 654, and NFPA 664 (A2016)
First Draft Correlating Committee Meeting January 6-9, 2015
Dallas / Ft. Worth Airport Marriott
Irving, TX 75063
AGENDA
1. Meeting opening, welcome members and guests, and introductions
2. Chair's remarks, Kevin Kreitman
3. Approve Minutes of Second Draft CC Meeting on November 4-5, 2014 for
NFPA 652
4. Staff Liaison updates (Committee Roster, Schedule, and Correlating
Committee Duties and Responsibilities)
5. NFPA 654 CMD-HAP First Draft
a. Review and act on Public Inputs and First Revisions
b. Review NFPA 654 First Draft TC Final Ballot Results c. Develop First Correlating Revisions and Correlating Committee Notes
(as appropriate) – see attached sections on Correlating Committees from
Regulations Governing Committee Projects
6. NFPA 664 CMD-WOO First Draft
a. Review and act on Public Inputs and First Revisions
b. Review NFPA 664 First Draft TC Final Ballot Results c. Develop First Correlating Revisions and Correlating Committee Notes (as
appropriate) – see attached sections on Correlating Committees from
Regulations Governing Committee Projects
7. NFPA 61 CMD-AGR First Draft
a. Review and act on Public Inputs and First Revisions
b. Review NFPA 61 First Draft TC Final Ballot Results c. Develop First Correlating Revisions and Correlating Committee Notes (as
appropriate) – see attached sections on Correlating Committees from
Regulations Governing Committee Projects
6. Next meeting:
61/654/664 (A2016) Public Comment Closing Date for paper submissions is
April 10, 2015, and Public Comment Closing Date for Online Submission is
May 15, 2015 with First Draft Meetings tentatively scheduled on the
following dates:
a. NFPA 61—SD Meetings tentatively scheduled for Mar. 31-Apr. 3, 2015 and
July 7-10, 2015,
b. NFPA 664—SD Meeting tentatively scheduled for July 14-15, 2015, and
c. NFPA 654—SD Meeting tentatively scheduled for July 21-23, 2015
d. Final date for scheduling CC SD Meeting for 61, 664, and 654 must be on or
before November 20, 2015
CORRELATING COMMITTEE ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS
Minutes of Meeting – NFPA 652 Second Draft Meeting Atlanta, GA
November 4 - 5, 2014
Member Attending
Kevin Kreitman – Chair Yes Principal
Chris Aiken Yes Principal
Matthew Bujewski Yes Principal
John Cholin Yes Principal
Gregory Creswell Yes Principal
Scott Davis Yes Principal
Henry Febo Yes Principal
Walter Frank No Principal
Donald Hayden No Principal
Edward LaPine Yes Principal
Arthur Mattos No Principal
Jack Osborn Yes Principal
Bill Stevenson Yes Principal
Jerome Taveau No Principal
Steve McAlister Yes Voting Alternate
Amy Brown No Alternate
Craig Froehling No Alternate
Jason Krbec No Alternate
Adam Morrison Yes- by phone on the 4th Alternate
Matthew Chibbaro Yes- by phone on the 4th Nonvoting Member
Mark Drake Yes Nonvoting Member
Paul Hart Yes Nonvoting Member
Tim Myers Yes Nonvoting Member
Jason Reason No Nonvoting Member
Mark Runyon No Nonvoting Member
William Hamilton No Alt. to Nonvoting Member
Steve Skalko Yes Guest
Bob Gombar Yes Guest
Susan Bershad Yes NFPA staff
Guy Colonna Yes NFPA staff
1.0 The meeting was called to order at 8 am by Kevin Kreitman, Chair. The attendees, guests, and those attending via the web conference made self-introductions.
2.0 NFPA staff reviewed the remaining schedule for the A2015 cycle and the committee membership. There are currently 14 voting principals and 1 voting alternate on the correlating committee.
3.0 The committee reviewed and approved the minutes of the Second Draft Meeting for NFPA 91 on April 29, 2014
4.0 The committee reviewed the 652 second draft as balloted by the 652 technical committee. They reviewed the Correlating Committee notes on the first draft, the rejected Public Comments, the comments (both affirmative and negative) from the second draft ballot, and the Second Revisions approved by the technical committee.
5.0 The Correlating Committee created seven Correlating Revisions on the second draft. 6.0 The Correlating Committee set up a task group to look at aligning the objectives for
the dust documents. The members of this task group are as follows: Chris Aiken – NFPA 61 Jack Osborn – NFPA 61/664 Rob Gombar – NFPA 652 John Cholin – NFPA 664/654 Scott Davis – Correlating Committee/484 – chair Greg Creswell – NFPA 484 Henry Febo – NFPA 654
The Committee will meet via web/conference call over the next month with the goal of presenting their findings and recommendations at the Correlating Committee meeting in January in Dallas. NFPA staff will put together a table comparing the objectives in the dust documents for task group review.
7.0 The Correlating Committee noted several areas that the 652 technical committee should focus on for the next revision. These are presented below.
SR-49 – 652 does not have a prescribed depth layer. The handling of mixtures that would be out of the scope of the commodity or industry specific standards needs to be addressed by 652
SR-70 – 8.3.3.3.5 – In review of this SR, the CC identified a possible issue with this provision that needs to be addressed by 654. The provision in 654 (7.3.2.6.7) may not feasible for a variety of industries such as recycling where dust collector systems are typically tied together with size reduction equipment. These industries are covered by 654. 654 should review this requirement in light of these concerns and consider the possibility of a TIA.
SR-77 – Should consider the comments both affirmative and negative made on the ballot for the next draft of the document.
The CC is directing the 652 TC to develop material on how to deal with mixtures of combustible dust that cross one or more commodity specific standards.
8.0 The committee voted to approve the document for release to Standards Council 9.0 The meeting adjourned at 5 PM on both November 4 and 5, 2014.
10.0 The next Correlating Committee meeting will be to review the first draft of the A2016 documents (NFPA 61, 664, 654). It is being held January 5-9, 2015 in Dallas, TX.
Address List No PhoneCombustible Dusts CMD-AAC
Susan Bershad11/21/2014
CMD-AAC
Kevin Kreitman
ChairCity of Redding Fire DepartmentPO Box 496071Redding, CA 96049
PrincipalCV Technology, Inc.15852 Mercantile CourtJupiter, FL 33478Alternate: Jason Krbec
M 10/18/2011
CMD-AAC
Jérôme R. Taveau
PrincipalFike Corporation704 SW 10th StreetBlue Springs, MO 64015-4263Alternate: Adam Morrison
M 07/29/2013CMD-AAC
Steve McAlister
Voting AlternateMichelin Tire Corporation6301 US Highway 76PO Box 308Sandy Springs, SC 29677Voting Alt. to Michelin Rep.
U 07/29/2013
1
Address List No PhoneCombustible Dusts CMD-AAC
Susan Bershad11/21/2014
CMD-AAC
Amy Brown
AlternateFM Global1151 Boston-Providence TurnpikePO Box 9102Norwood, MA 02062-9102FM GlobalPrincipal: Henry L. Febo, Jr.
I 03/03/2014CMD-AAC
Craig Froehling
AlternateCargill, Inc.15407 McGinty Road West, MS 63Wayzata, MN 55391Principal: Chris Aiken
U 03/05/2012
CMD-AAC
Jason Krbec
AlternateCV Technology, Inc.15852 Mercantile CourtJupiter, FL 33478Principal: Bill Stevenson
M 10/29/2012CMD-AAC
Adam Morrison
AlternateFike Corporation704 SW 10th StreetBlue Springs, MO 64015-4263Principal: Jérôme R. Taveau
M 03/03/2014
CMD-AAC
Matthew I. Chibbaro
Nonvoting MemberUS Department of LaborOccupational Safety & Health Administration200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room N3609Washington, DC 20210Alternate: William R. Hamilton
E 10/18/2011CMD-AAC
Mark W. Drake
Nonvoting MemberLiberty Mutual14125 West 139th StreetOlathe, KS 66062-5885TC on Combustible Metals and Metal Dusts
I 10/18/2011
CMD-AAC
Paul F. Hart
Nonvoting MemberAmerican International Group, Inc. (AIG)18257 Martin AvenueHomewood, IL 60430-2107TC on Fundamentals of Combustible Dusts
I 08/09/2011CMD-AAC
Timothy J. Myers
Nonvoting MemberExponent, Inc.9 Strathmore RoadNatick, MA 01760-2418TC on Agricultural Dusts
SE 10/18/2011
CMD-AAC
Jason P. Reason
Nonvoting MemberLewellyn Technology321 North 18th AvenueBeech Grove, IN 46107TC on Wood and Cellulosic Materials Processing
SE 10/18/2011CMD-AAC
Mark L. Runyon
Nonvoting MemberMarsh Risk Consulting111 SW Columbia, Suite 500Portland, OR 97201TC on Handling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, andGases
I 07/29/2013
CMD-AAC
William R. Hamilton
Alt. to Nonvoting MemberUS Department of LaborOccupational Safety & Health Administration200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room N3609Washington, DC 20210Principal: Matthew I. Chibbaro
E 10/18/2011CMD-AAC
Susan Bershad
Staff LiaisonNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169-7471
o Review of Public inputs which have been resolved with no First Revisions (3.4.3 g)
o Review of First Revisions which have negative votes (3.4.3 g)
o Review of First Revisions which may conflict within or between NFPA Standards (3.4.3 g)
o Review of First Revisions which may result in conflicts between overlapping functions in
TC Scopes (3.4.3 g)
o Review of Committee Inputs (3.4.3 g, h)
o Committee members inputs/questions not previously addressed (3.4.3 g)
o Review First Draft document layout for compliance with Manual of Style for NFPA
Technical Committee Documents, and if need for establishing supplemental operating
procedures (3.4.3 f, g , h)
o Are there any items the CC has identified that should result in a Correlating Input to
provide guidance to the Technical Committees (4.3.3; 4.3.3.1)
Second Revision - Review of material
o Review of CC notes on First Revision (3.4.3 g)
o Review of Public Comments which are rejected (3.4.3 g)
o Review of Second Revisions which have negative votes (3.4.3 g)
o Review of Second Revisions which may conflict within or between NFPA Standards
(3.4.3 g)
o Review of Second Revisions which may result in conflicts between overlapping functions
in TC Scopes (3.4.3 g)
o Review of Second Revisions which have been identified by CC member (3.4.3 g)
o Review Second Draft document layout for compliance with Manual of Style for NFPA
Manual of Style, and review if need exists for establishing supplemental operating
procedures (3.4.3 f, g, h)
o Are there any items the CC has identified that should result in a Correlating Input to
provide guidance to the Technical Committees (4.3.3; 4.3.3.1)
o Is there a potential for a CC vote that would result in return of the document to the TC for
further study versus forwarding the Standard to the NFPA Technical Meeting (4.4.11.5.2
b)
Following are the Scopes for Correlating Committee and Dust Committees
Combustible Dusts (CMD-AAC)
Committee Scope
This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the hazard identification, prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems used in manufacturing, processing, recycling, handling, conveying, or storing combustible particulate solids, combustible metals, or hybrid mixtures.
AGRICULTURAL DUSTS (CMD-AGR) 61
Committee Scope
This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fire and explosions resulting from dusts produced by the processing, handling, and storage of grain, starch, food, animal feed, flour, and other agricultural products. The Technical Committee shall also be responsible for requirements relating to the protection of life and property from fire and explosion hazards at agricultural and food products facilities.
Committee Responsibility
Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities (NFPA 61)
Document Scope 1.1 Scope. 1.1.1* This standard shall apply to all of the following: (1) All facilities that receive, handle, process, dry, blend, use, mill, package, store, or ship dry agricultural bulk materials, their by-products, or dusts that include grains, oilseeds, agricultural seeds, legumes, sugar, flour, spices, feeds, and other related materials. (2) All facilities designed for manufacturing and handling starch, including drying, grinding, conveying, processing, packaging, and storing dry or modified starch, and dry products and dusts generated from these processes. (3) Those seed preparation and meal-handling systems of oilseed processing plants not covered by NFPA 36, Standard for Solvent Extraction Plants. 1.1.2 This standard shall not apply to oilseed extraction plants that are covered by NFPA 36, Standard for Solvent Extraction Plants. A.1.1.1 Examples of facilities covered by this standard include, but are not limited to, bakeries, grain elevators, feed mills, flour mills, milling, corn milling (dry and wet), rice milling, dry milk products, mix plants, soybean and other oilseed preparation operations, cereal processing, snack food processing, tortilla plants, chocolate processing, pet food processing, cake mix processing, sugar refining and processing, and seed plants.
Handling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, and Gases (CMD-HAP) 91 Committee Scope This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems processing or conveying flammable or combustible dusts, gases, vapors, and mists.
Committee Responsibility Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 91) Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (NFPA 655) Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 654)
Document Scope (NFPA 91)
1.1.1 This standard provides minimum requirements for the design, construction, installation, operation, testing, and maintenance of exhaust systems for air conveying of vapors, gases, mists, and noncombustible particulate solids except as modified or amplified by other applicable NFPA standards. 1.1.2 This standard does not cover exhaust systems for conveying combustible particulate solids that are covered in other NFPA standards (see A.1.1).
COMBUSTIBLE METALS (CMD-CMM) 484
Committee Scope
This committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on safeguards against fire and explosion in the manufacturing, processing, handling, and storage of combustible metals, powders, and dusts.
Committee Responsibility
Standard for Combustible Metals (NFPA 484)
Document Scope
1.1* Scope. This standard shall apply to the production, processing, finishing, handling, recycling, storage, and use of all metals and alloys that are in a form that is capable of combustion or explosion.
1.1.1 The procedures in Chapter 4 shall be used to determine whether a metal is in a noncombustible form.
1.1.2 Combustible Powder or Dust.
1.1.2.1 This standard also shall apply to operations where metal or metal alloys are subjected to processing or finishing operations that produce combustible powder or dust.
1.1.2.2 Operations where metal or metal alloys are subjected to processing or finishing operations that produce combustible powder or dust shall include, but shall not be limited to, machining, sawing, grinding, buffing, and polishing.
1.1.3* Metals, metal alloy parts, and those materials, including scrap, that exhibit combustion characteristics of aluminum, alkali metals, magnesium, tantalum, titanium, or zirconium shall be subject to the requirements of the metal whose combustion characteristics they most closely match.
1.1.4 Metals and metal alloy parts and those materials, including scrap, that do not exhibit combustion characteristics of alkali metals, aluminum, magnesium, niobium, tantalum, titanium, or zirconium are subject to the requirements of Chapter 10.
1.1.5* This standard shall not apply to the transportation of metals in any form on public highways and waterways or by air or rail.
1.1.6 This standard shall not apply to the primary production of aluminum, magnesium, and lithium.
1.1.7 This standard shall apply to laboratories that handle, use, or store more than 1/2 lb of alkali metals or 2 lb aggregate of other combustible metals, excluding alkali metals.
1.1.8 All alkali metals and metals that are in a form that is water reactive shall be subject to this standard.
1.1.9* If the quantity of a combustible metal listed in Table 1.1.9 is exceeded in an occupancy, the requirements of NFPA 484 shall apply.
STANDARD ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS (CMD-FUN) 652
Committee Scope
This Committee shall have primary responsibility for information and documents on the management of fire and explosion hazards from combustible dusts and particulate solids
Document Scope
This standard shall provide the basic principles of and requirements for identifying and managing the fire and explosion hazards of combustible dusts and particulate solids.
Committee Responsibility
Standard on Combustible Dusts (NFPA 652)
PREVENTION OF FIRE AND DUST EXPLOSIONS FROM THE MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, AND HANDLING OF COMBUSTIBLE PARTICULATE SOLIDS (CMD- HAP) 654
Committee Scope
This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems processing or conveying flammable or combustible dusts, gases, vapors, and mists.
Committee Responsibility Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 91) Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (NFPA 655) Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 654)
Document Scope (NFPA 654)
1.1.1* This standard shall apply to all phases of the manufacture, processing, blending, pneumatic conveying, repackaging, and handling of combustible particulate solids or hybrid mixtures, regardless of concentration or particle size, where the materials present a fire or explosion hazard. 1.1.2 This standard shall apply to systems that convey combustible particulate solids that are produced as a result of a principal or incidental activity, regardless of concentration or particle size, where the materials present a fire or explosion hazard. 1.1.3 This standard shall not apply to materials covered by the following documents, unless specifically referenced by the applicable document: (1) NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol Products (2) NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Products Facilities (3) NFPA 120, Standard for Coal Preparation Plants (4) NFPA 432, Code for the Storage of Organic Peroxide Formulations (5) NFPA 480, Standard for the Storage, Handling, and Processing of Magnesium Solids and Powders (6) NFPA 481, Standard for the Production, Processing, Handling, and Storage of Titanium (7) NFPA 482, Standard for the Production, Processing, Handling, and Storage of Zirconium (8) NFPA 485, Standard for the Storage, Handling, Processing, and Use of Lithium Metal (9) NFPA 495, Explosive Materials Code (10) NFPA 651, Standard for the Machining and Finishing of Aluminum and the Production and Handling of Aluminum Powders (11) NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (12) NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities (13) NFPA 1124, Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, and Storage of Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (14) NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors (15) NFPA 8503, Standard for Pulverized Fuel Systems 1.1.4 In the event of a conflict between this standard and a specific occupancy standard, the specific occupancy standard requirements shall apply.
PREVENTION OF SULFUR FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS (CMD-HAP) 655
Committee Scope
This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems processing or conveying flammable or combustible dusts, gases, vapors, and mists.
Committee Responsibility
Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 91) Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (NFPA 655) Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 654)
Document Scope (NFPA 655)
1.1 Scope. 1.1.1* This standard shall apply to the crushing, grinding, or pulverizing of sulfur and to the handling of sulfur in any form. 1.1.2 This standard shall not apply to the mining of sulfur, recovery of sulfur from process streams, or transportation of sulfur.
PREVENTION OF FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS IN WOOD PROCESSING AND WOODWORKING FACILITIES (CMD-WOO) 664
Committee Scope
This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in wood processing, wood working facilities and facilities that use other cellulosic materials as a substitute or additive for wood.
Committee Responsibility
Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities (NFPA 664)
Document Scope
1.1 Scope. This standard shall establish the minimum requirements for fire and explosion prevention and protection of industrial, commercial, or institutional facilities that process wood or manufacture wood products, using wood or other cellulosic fiber as a substitute for or additive to wood fiber, and that process wood, creating wood chips, particles, or dust.
1.1.1 Woodworking and wood processing facilities shall include, but are not limited to, wood flour plants, industrial woodworking plants, furniture plants, plywood plants, composite board plants, lumber mills, and production-type woodworking shops and carpentry shops that are incidental to facilities that would not otherwise fall within the purview of this standard. 1.1.2* This standard shall apply to woodworking operations that occupy areas of more than 465 m2 (5000 ft2) or where dust-producing equipment requires an aggregate dust collection flow rate of more than 2549 m3/hr (1500 ft3/min).
Public Input No. 17-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 1.2 ]
1.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this standard is to prescribe technical requirements for safety to life and property from fireand or explosion and to minimize the resulting damage from a fire or explosion.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Changing the "and" to "or" will clarify that the purpose is to address either fire or explosions exclusive of each other.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir
Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, Washington
Affilliation: NFPA's Building Code Development Committee (BCDC)
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue May 20 13:51:51 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-1-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: The committee accepted most of what was proposed in PI -59. Hybrid mixtures are within the scopeof the standard, and are included here. The committee believes that fire, flash fire, and explosionhazards are not mutually exclusive and that the "and" should remain in this provision.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
1 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 59-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 1.2 ]
1.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this standard is to prescribe technical requirements for necessary to manage safety to lifeand property from fire, flash fire and explosion hazards involving combustible particulate solids and/orhybrid mixtures and to minimize the resulting damage from a fire or explosion involving combustibleparticulate solids and/or hybrid mixtures .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: The suggested change is needed to make the purpose consistent with scope of standard. In addition, the title of the standard should be modified to include hybrid mixtures, provided they are actually within the official scope of the committee’s jurisdiction.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:03:56 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-1-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: The committee accepted most of what was proposed in PI -59. Hybrid mixtures are within the scopeof the standard, and are included here. The committee believes that fire, flash fire, and explosionhazards are not mutually exclusive and that the "and" should remain in this provision.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
2 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 108-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 1.4 ]
1.4 Application.
1.4.1
General
This standard shall apply to all facilities and operations manufacturing, processing, blending, conveying,repackaging, generating, or handling combustible dusts, combustible particulate solids and/or hybridmixtures.
1.4.2 Exceptions: This standard shall not apply to the following:
(1) Storage or use of consumer quantities of such materials on the premises of residential or officeoccupancies
(2) Storage or use of commercially packaged materials at retail facilities
(3) Such materials displayed in original packaging in mercantile occupancies and intended for personal orhousehold use or as building materials
(4) Warehousing of sealed containers of such materials when not associated with an operation thathandles or generates combustible dust
(5) Such materials stored or used in farm buildings or similar occupancies for on-premises agriculturalpurposes
1.4.3
This standard shall not apply to materials covered by the following documents, unless specificallyreferenced by the applicable document:
(1) NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol Products
(2) NFPA 33, Standard for Spray Application Using Flammable or Combustible Materials
(3) NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and FoodProcessing Facilities
(4) NFPA 85, Boiler and Combustion Systems Hazards Code
(5) NFPA 120, Standard for Fire Prevention and Control in Coal Mines
(6) NFPA 400, Hazardous Materials Code
(7) NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals
(8) NFPA 495, Explosive Materials Code
(9) NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions
(10) NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing andWoodworking Facilities
(11) NFPA 1124, Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, Storage, and Retail Sales of Fireworks andPyrotechnic Articles
(12) NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors
1.4.2 4
In the event of a conflict between this standard and a specific occupancy standard, the specific occupancystandard requirements shall apply.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 1.3.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
3 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 14:09:50 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-2-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: The proposed section 1.4.1, general, belongs in 652, not as part of this standard. The committeemodified 1.4.1 to add language stating that this standard supplements the provisions of 652. The term"exceptions" in 1.4.2 does not comply with the manual of style. The actual exceptions from 652 havebeen added in this section. The committee added "shall not be required to be applied" in 1.4.3 toallow this standard to be used if it is considered to be more protective. The language in 1.4.4 is from652, and is not applicable for this standard. The committee has also added annex material.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
4 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 61-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 1.5 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]
The provisions of this standard reflect a consensus, among the members of the NFPA committee thatauthored this standard, of what is necessary to provide an acceptable degree of protection from thehazards addressed in this standard at the time the standard was issued.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: The recommended language would clarify the meaning of the phrase “a consensus” as used in this section. An NFPA standard is adopted on the basis of a consensus of the committee, which does not necessarily represent a consensus of all experts in a particular field or a consensus among the NFPA membership. For example, the NFPA membership is not given an opportunity to vote on a standard unless a NITMAM is filed, and then only as to the scope of the NITMAM. Furthermore, even if the NFPA membership votes to uphold a NITMAM in a floor vote at the annual technical meeting, the technical committee that authored the standard has the authority to reject the floor vote. According to the Standards Council, “This means, under NFPA rules, that no change from the existing edition [of the standard] should occur.” In the event of an appeal of the technical committee action rejecting the floor vote, the Standards Council takes the position that the appeal seeks to “overturn the action that was recommended by the codes and standards development process” and has a policy of deferring to the outcome of the standards development process as indicated by its recent decision in D#12-8, Standards Council Agenda Item: SC#12-8-5-b-1, 9 August, 2012:
On appeal, the Council accords great respect and deference to the NFPA codes and standards development process. In conducting its review, the Council will overturn the result recommended through that process only where a clear and substantial basis for doing so is demonstrated. The Council has reviewed the entire record concerning this matter and has considered all the arguments put forth in this appeal. In the view of the Council, this appeal does not present any clear and substantial basis on which to overturn the results yielded by the NFPA codes and standards development process. Accordingly, the Council has voted to deny the appeal.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:31:49 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: NFPA 654 is an ANSI standard, and as such is a consensus document. Through the public input andpublic comment process in the NFPA regulations, the public is able to provide input and comment onthe proposed document. This material is considered and acted on by the technical committee duringthe first and second draft phases. The public is encouraged to participate in this process.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
5 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 62-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 1.5.2 ]
1.5.2
In those cases where the authority having jurisdiction determines that the existing situation presents anunacceptable degree of risk, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to apply retroactively, to theextent reasonably practical, any portions of this standard deemed appropriate. that, based on theapplication of clear criteria derived from the objectives in this standard, the AHJ determines to benecessary to achieve an acceptable degree of risk. In situations where there are multiple ways of achievingan acceptable degree of risk, the AHJ will permit the owner/operator to choose the alternative it reasonablydetermines is best suited to its situation.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: This is a suggested modification of the language in Section 1.6.3 of draft NFPA 652. This provision is clearly directed at the situation where the AHJ is a government enforcement official. It deals primarily with the retroactive application of requirements to the design, construction and installation of structures and equipment that were approved by the local building code authority at the time of construction or installation. The existing language creates an exception to the normal rule that a requirement is not retroactive. Under those circumstances, it is only fair to place the burden on the government AHJ to demonstrate that there is an unacceptable degree of risk and that a particular measure is practical and necessary. It contains criteria designed to ensure that implementation of this potentially severe requirement will be carried out in a fair and reasonable manner, but does not clearly include the condition that retroactive application is practical. Furthermore it does not require the AHJ to provide the critical documented support for its determinations. That documentation is necessary to provide the regulated facility with the ability to verify the AHJ acted in an appropriate manner. The existing language also fails to ensure that, where there is more than one retroactive measure that can be implemented to achieve an acceptable degree of risk, the facility is given the flexibility to choose the alternative best suited to its situation.In some cases, such as where silos/bins are constructed according to a design that does not permit explosion protection, retroactive application of that requirement would be not only clearly impractical, but infeasible. It would not be appropriate to adopt a requirement that appears to authorize a government agency (AHJ) to impose an infeasible or impractical requirement on the facility owner/operator, such as protecting a silo/bin or requiring monitoring of thousands of bearings, in situations where the AHJ or another government agency issued a building permit or an electrical permit authorizing the construction/installation without that feature. It also would not be appropriate to adopt a requirement that appears to authorize a government agency (AHJ) to impose whatever measures it deems appropriate. It is essential that the AHJ make a determination based on the application of clearly stated, sound and objective criteria and impose only those requirements determined to be necessary to achieve an acceptable level of risk.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:35:51 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The language proposed by the submitter is unenforceable and in conflict with the manual of style. Thecommittee has developed annex material for Section 1.5 that provides additional information onenforcement and retroactivity.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
6 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 63-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 1.5.3 ]
1.5.3
The retroactive requirements of this standard shall be permitted to be modified if their application clearlywould be impractical in the judgment of the authority having jurisdiction, and only where unless it is clearlyevident that a reasonable degree of safety is provided the modification would result in an unacceptabledegree of risk. In situations where there are multiple ways of achieving an acceptable degree of risk, theAHJ will permit the owner/operator to choose the alternative it reasonably determines is best suited to itssituation .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: Section 1.6.4 of draft NFPA 652 offers an improvement by recognizing the concept of an acceptable degree of risk. However, when imposing retroactive requirements that require changes to previously acceptable conditions or practices, the affected entity should not be required to shoulder an elevated burden of proof (“clear evidence”) before obtaining relief from the imposition of those retroactive requirements. Furthermore, where there is more than one retroactive measure that can be implemented to achieve an acceptable degree of risk, the facility should be given the flexibility to choose the alternative best suited to its situation.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:42:53 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee has added new annex material for Section 1.5 to provide background information onretroactivity and enforcement. This requirement is found in most NFPA documents. The AHJ has theauthority to modify the requirements.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
7 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 64-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 1.5.4 ]
1.5.4
This standard shall apply to facilities on which construction is begun subsequent to the date of publicationof the standard.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: This provision is not in draft NFPA 652 and is adequately addressed by (and conflicts with) existing provision 1.5.1, which reads as follows:
1.5.1 Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this standard shall not apply to facilities, equipment, structures, or installations that existed or were approved for construction or installation prior to the effective date of the standard. Where specified, the provisions of this standard shall be retroactive.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:46:51 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-4-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Substantiation: This provision is not in draft NFPA 652 and is adequately addressed by (and conflictswith) existing provision 1.5.1, which reads as follows:
1.5.1 Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this standard shall not apply to facilities,equipment, structures, or installations that existed or were approved for construction or installationprior to the effective date of the standard. Where specified, the provisions of this standard shall beretroactive.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
8 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 65-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 1.6.1 ]
1.6.1
Technical documentation shall be submitted made available to the authority having jurisdiction todemonstrate equivalency.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: reflects language of draft NFPA 652. This standard should not be mandating an approval process by a government agency or insurance carrier.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:48:37 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-5-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Substantiation: reflects language of draft NFPA 652.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
9 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 66-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 1.6.2 ]
1.6.2
The owner/operator shall be able to demonstrate to the authority having jurisdiction that the alternativesystem, method, or device shall be approved is suitable for the intended purpose by the authority havingjurisdiction .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: The alternative should not be limited to those approved by the AHJ or automatically require the approval of the AHJ.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:50:00 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-6-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: The AHJ can require that the alternative system be approved for the intended purpose. They may notrequire approval, but they do have the authority to require approval of the system.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
10 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 20-NFPA 654-2014 [ Chapter 2 ]
Chapter 2 Referenced Publications
2.1 General.
The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this standard and shall beconsidered part of the requirements of this document.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
11 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
2.2 NFPA Publications.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
12 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.
NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2010 edition 2013 .
NFPA 11, Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam, 2010 edition .
NFPA 12, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems, 2011 edition .
NFPA 12A, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2009 edition .
NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2013 edition .
NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems, 2010 edition 2013 .
NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection, 2012 edition .
NFPA 16, Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems, 2011edition .
NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems, 2009 edition 2013 .
NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems,2011 edition 2014 .
NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol Products, 2011 edition .
NFPA 33, Standard for Spray Application Using Flammable or Combustible Materials, 2011 edition .
NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work, 2009 edition 2014.
NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food ProcessingFacilities, 2013 edition.
NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2007 edition 2013 .
NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2008 edition 2014 .
NFPA 70® , National Electrical Code®, 2011 edition 2014 .
NFPA 72® , National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2013 edition .
NFPA 80, Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives, 2013 edition .
NFPA 85, Boiler and Combustion Systems Hazards Code, 2011 edition .
NFPA 86, Standard for Ovens and Furnaces, 2011 edition .
NFPA 91, Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and NoncombustibleParticulate Solids, 2010 edition .
NFPA 101® , Life Safety Code®, 2012 edition 2015 .
NFPA 120, Standard for Fire Prevention and Control in Coal Mines, 2010 edition .
NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction, 2012 edition .
NFPA 221, Standard for High Challenge Fire Walls, Fire Walls, and Fire Barrier Walls, 2012 edition 2015 .
NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2008 edition 2013.
NFPA 505, Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use,Conversions, Maintenance, and Operations, 2011 edition 2013 .
NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions, 2012 edition .
NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and WoodworkingFacilities, 2012 edition .
NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, 2010 edition .
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
13 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems, 2011 edition 2014 .
NFPA 1124, Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, Storage, and Retail Sales of Fireworks andPyrotechnic Articles, 2013 edition .
NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors, 2012 edition .
NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2012 edition .
NFPA 2113, Standard on Selection, Care, Use, and Maintenance of Flame-Resistant Garments forProtection of Industrial Personnel Against Flash Fire, 2012 edition 2015 .
2.3 Other Publications.
2.3.1 AMCA Publications.
Air Movement and Control Association International, Inc., 30 West University Drive, Arlington Heights, IL60004-1893.
AMCA 99-0401-86, Classifications for Spark Resistant Construction , Standards Handbook , 2010.
2.3.2 ASME Publications.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
ASME B31.3, Process Piping, 2008 2012 .
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2007 2013 .
2.3.3 ASTM Publications.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM E 2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, 2003 (2007) ,reapproved 2013 .
ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012A
2.3.4 IEC Publications.
International Electrotechnical Commission, 3, rue de Varembé, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20,Switzerland.
IEC 61340-4-4, Electrostatics — Part 4-4: Standard Test Methods for Specific Applications — ElectrostaticClassification of Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers (FIBC), 2005 2012 .
2.3.5 ISA Publications.
Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, P.O. Box 12277, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
ISA 84.00.01, Functional Safety: Application of Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process IndustrySector - Part 1: Framework , Definitions, System, Hardware and Software Requirements , 2004.
2.3.6 NEMA Publications.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1847, Rosslyn, VA 22209.
NEMA 250, Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, 2008.
2.3.7 U.S. Government Publications.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
Title 29 CFR Part 1910.242(b), “Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Equipment, General.”
2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections.
NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2007 edition 2013 .
NFPA 221, Standard for High Challenge Fire Walls, Fire Walls, and Fire Barrier Walls, 2012 edition 2015.
NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals, 2012 edition 2015 .
NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2011 edition 2014 .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Referenced current editions and titles.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
14 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 21-NFPA 654-2014 [Chapter G]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Aaron Adamczyk
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jun 12 22:34:56 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-7-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Referenced current editions and titles.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
15 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 105-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 2.3.3 ]
2.3.3 ASTM Publications.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM E 2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, 2003(2007 2013 ).
ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012a
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Update the year date for standard(s)
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Steve Mawn
Organization: ASTM International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 12:57:54 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-7-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Referenced current editions and titles.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
16 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 51-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 2.3.3 ]
2.3.3 ASTM Publications.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM E 2019 E2019 , Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, 2003(2007 2013 ).
ASTM E 1226 E1226 , Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012a.
ASTM E136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750 Degrees C(2012)
ASTM E2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Tube Furnace with a Cone-shapedAirflow Stabilizer, at 750 Degrees C (2012)
ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (2012a).
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
update
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 49-NFPA 654-2014 [New Section after 4.7]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 13:07:45 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-7-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Referenced current editions and titles.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
17 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 13-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.3 ]
3.3.3 * Air-Moving Device (AMD).
A power-driven fan, blower, or other device that establishes an airflow by moving a given volume of air perunit time.[ 91 , 2010]
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Picked up the same reference for extracted material that is used in NFPA 61 after the same definition.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway
Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 16:52:11 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This definition originates in 654, and should not be extracted from 91.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
18 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 14-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.4 ]
3.3.4 * Centralized Vacuum Cleaning System.
A fixed-pipe system utilizing variable-volume negative-pressure (i.e., vacuum) air flows from pneumaticconveying system using remotely located hose connection stations to allow the removal vacumming ofcombustibe dust accumulations from surfaces and conveying those dusts to an air-material separator(AMS).(61)
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The language of the definition is flawed. The proposed definition mirrors the language used in NFPA 61 for the same system.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway
Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 16:53:24 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee believes that the current definition is accurate and should be retained.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
19 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 32-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.5 ]
Delete this complete definition and its Annex
3.3.5* Combustible Dust.
A finely divided combustible particulate solid that presents a flash fire hazard or explosion hazard whensuspended in air or the process-specific oxidizing medium over a range of concentrations.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
It appears that limitations imposed upon the Committee by the NFPA Style manual prevent properly identifying the complexity of combustible dusts as a defined term. Additionally placing critical information into an Annex which is only considered a source of information and not requirements further dilutes the essential aspects of why combustible dusts are potential hazards requiring extra precautions. Combustible dusts need to be addressed with specific requirements. Therefore rather than continue to struggle with achieving agreement on a single sentence statement which cannot contain requirements, but needs valid critieria to enable proper understanding of the nature of identification of the potential hazards, removal of the term needs to be done with action to provide a section under PI 34 which addresses 'combustible dusts'.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: David Wechsler
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jul 01 10:19:57 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The current definition is consistent with the manual style. It is the result of much deliberation by thetechnical committee and will be retained along with the associated annex material.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
20 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 67-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.5 ]
3.3.5* Combustible Dust.
A finely divided combustible particulate solid that presents a flash fire hazard or explosion hazard whensuspended in air or the process-specific oxidizing medium over a range of concentrations. A dust found tobe explosible using one of the following test methodologies is considered to be a combustible dust:
(1) The "Go/No-Go" screening test methodology described in ASTM E 1226
(2) ASTM E 1515
(3) An equivalent test methodology
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: The proposed standard fails to make an explicit link between the determination that a dust is explosible and the identification of that material as a combustible dust. This suggested language provides that linkage.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:59:55 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The current definition is consistent with the manual of style, and is the result of much deliberation bythe committee. The proposed changes contain requirements, which cannot be part of a definition. Thecurrent definition and associated annex material will be retained.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
21 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 33-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.6 ]
Delete this defined term and the Annex material
3.3.6* Combustible Particulate Solid.
Any solid material composed of distinct particles or pieces, regardless of size, shape, or chemicalcomposition that presents a fire hazard.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This term attempts to define Combustible Particulate Solids using terms (Combustible, Particulate, Solids) having meanings already contained in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and therefore under 3.1 General should not require the suggestion that these are unique or special terms. The term fire hazard may be understood as being 'combustible' however in the context with this document, this understanding is also not clear. Actions taken by the introduction of a new section to full discuss this important material aspect has been made and this material does address these important concerns about the material potential hazards related to fire incidents. This new section also makes providing a definition no longer a need.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: David Wechsler
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jul 01 10:26:21 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The current definition is consistent with the manual style. It is the result of much deliberation by thetechnical committee and will be retained. See FR-10 for changes to this section to be consistent withNFPA 652.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
22 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 68-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.6 ]
3.3.6* Combustible Particulate Solid.
Any solid material composed of distinct particles or pieces, regardless of size, shape, or chemicalcomposition that presents a fire hazard. when processed, stored or handled in the facility has the potentialto produce a combustible dust. A dust that would ignite and propagate combustion in a screening testbased on the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations - Manual ofTests and Criteria, Part III, Subsection 33.2.1, Test N.1 is considered a combustible particulate solid.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: The concept of producing a combustible dust is provided by draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.6. The phrase “presents a fire hazard” does not provide meaningful guidance and does not reflect the requirements of the standard, which are specified in proposed Paragraph 5.4.1.1. The recommended language achieves the objective of the standard by defining the term “combustible” in the way intended by the standard – i.e., based on the objective testing criteria specified in proposed Paragraph 5.4.1.1.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 22:03:01 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The current definition is consistent with the manual of style, and is the result of much deliberation bythe committee. The proposed changes contain requirements, which cannot be part of a definition. Thecurrent definition will be retained. See FR-10 for changes to this section based on NFPA 652.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
23 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 69-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.10 ]
3.3.10 Detachment.
Locating a combustible particulate solid process in the open air or in Location in a separate building or anoutside area removed from other structures to be protected by a distance as required by this standard .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.9. The meaning of “open air” was ambiguous.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 22:07:27 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-11-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Committee modified the original submission to address hazard management strategy.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
24 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 70-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 3.3.11 ]
3.3.xx Duct.
Pipes, tubes or other enclosures used for the purpose of conveying materials pneumatically or by gravity.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.10. This term is used extensively and needed to be defined.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 22:11:10 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-12-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.10. This term is used extensively and needed to be defined.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
25 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 72-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 3.3.12 ]
3.3.X.1 Dust Deflagration HazardThe presence of explosible dust that is suspended in an oxidizing medium in concentrations at or above itsminimum explosive concentration; or the presence of accumulations of explosible dust where a means ofsuspending the dust is present.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.13.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:25:41 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This term is not used in NFPA 654, it is defined in NFPA 652 and should remain there. 652 will be theoverarching document and point to 654 as applicable. If a term is used in 652, but not 654, it does notneed to be defined in this standard.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
26 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 73-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 3.3.12 ]
3.3.X.2 Dust Explosion Hazard
A dust deflagration hazard in an enclosure that is capable of bursting or rupturing the enclosure due to thedevelopment of internal pressure from the deflagration.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.14.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:27:21 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This term is not used in NFPA 654, it is defined in NFPA 652 and should remain there. 652 will be theoverarching document and point to 654 as applicable. If a term is used in 652, but not 654, it does notneed to be defined in this standard.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
27 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 74-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 3.3.12 ]
3.3.X.3* Enclosure.A confined or partially confined volume. [68, 2007]
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.15.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:29:30 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This term is not used in NFPA 654, it is defined in NFPA 652 and should remain there. 652 will be theoverarching document and point to 654 as applicable. If a term is used in 652, but not 654, it does notneed to be defined in this standard.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
28 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 71-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.12 ]
3.3.12* Dust Collection System.
A combination of equipment designed to capture, contain, and pneumatically convey , collect, and removeairborne dusts from the airstream fugitive dust to an AMS in order to remove the dust from the proccessequipment or surrounding area .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.12.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:18:25 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-19-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.12.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
29 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 75-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 3.3.14 ]
3.3.X.4 Fire Hazard.Any situation, process, material, or condition that, on the basis of applicable data, can cause a fire orprovide a ready fuel supply to augment the spread or intensity of a fire and poses a threat to life or property.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.17.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:31:48 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This term is not used in NFPA 654, it is defined in NFPA 652 and should remain there. 652 will be theoverarching document and point to 654 as applicable. If a term is used in 652, but not 654, it does notneed to be defined in this standard.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
30 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 50-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.21 ]
3.3.21* Noncombustible Material.
A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite, supportcombustion, burn, or release flammable vapors when subjected to fire or heat. (see 4.7).
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The definition from NFPA 101 is being extracted and placed where it belongs, within a mandatory section of the document. The Manual of Style states that definitions are not enforceable. Moreover, this definition conflicts with those in other NFPA documents. Note that the reference in parentheses addresses the proposed new section and not the existing 4.7 section. Note also that the annex note is not proposed to be changed.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 49-NFPA 654-2014 [New Section after 4.7]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 12:47:23 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: Committee believes this definition is more appropriate, does not include requirements, and istherefore consistent with the manual of style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
31 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 76-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.23 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]
An equipment system that comprises transfers a controlled flow of solid particulate material from onelocation to another using air or other gases as the conveying medium, and that is comprised of the followingcomponents: a material feeding device; an and enclosed ductwork, piping , or tubing network; anair-material separator; and an air-moving device and that is used to transfer a controlled flow of solidparticulate material from one location to another using air or other gases as the conveying medium .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.23. The existing language is confusing and grammatically incorrect. The suggested changes clarify the language and eliminate the grammatical errors.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:35:08 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-14-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.23. The existing language is confusing andgrammatically incorrect. The suggested changes clarify the language and eliminate the grammaticalerrors.
Extract from 652.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
32 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 80-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.25 ]
3.3.25 Segregation.
The interposing establishment of a fire- and explosion-resistant physical barrier between the combustibleparticulate solid process and other operations hazard area and an area to be protected .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.31. The existing paragraph is ambiguous, but does not appear to be broad enough to encompass the variety of situations that may exist at a facility. The phrase “other operations” should, but does not appear to contemplate and include segregation of one combustible particulate process from another combustible particulate processes or the possibility that this segregation might effectively isolate one part of a combustible particulate process from another part of the same combustible particulate process. The recommended changes address those other possibilities.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:44:34 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-15-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: The committee has modified the language in the original public input and this section to reflect thefact that segregation is a hazard management strategy.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
33 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 81-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 3.3.27 ]
The maximum quantity of dust permitted to be present before cleanup is required as determined by Section6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.1.5, or 6.1.6.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: Need for definition is clear from inclusion in draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.34. This suggested definition simply references the existing criteria in the standard.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:46:33 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This term is not used in NFPA 654, it is defined in NFPA 652 and should remain there. 652 will be theoverarching document and point to 654 as applicable. If a term is used in 652, but not 654, it does notneed to be defined in this standard.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
34 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 77-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 3.3.33 ]
3.3.X.9 Dust Hazards Analysis.A systematic review to identify and evaluate the potential fire, flash fire, and explosion hazards associatedwith the presence of one or more combustible particulate solids in a process or facility.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.27.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:38:47 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-38-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.27.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
35 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 78-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 3.3.33 ]
3.3.X.10 Qualified Person.A person who, by possession of a recognized degree, certificate, professional standing, or skill, and who,by knowledge, training, and experience, has demonstrated the ability to deal with problems related to thesubject matter, the work, or the project. [1451, 2013]
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.28.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:41:13 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This term is used in 652, not 654. The definition will remain in 652 and not be added to thisdocument. 652 is the over-arching document and will point to 654.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
36 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 79-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 3.3.33 ]
3.3.X.11* Risk Assessment.
An assessment of the likelihood, vulnerability, and magnitude of the incidents that could result fromexposure to hazards.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.30. A risk assessment approach is needed to avoid adopting a zero risk standard in which control measures are required by the mere presence of a hazard regardless of the magnitude of the risk.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:42:49 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-20-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652, Section 3.3.30. A risk assessment approach is needed to avoidadopting a zero risk standard in which control measures are required by the mere presence of ahazard regardless of the magnitude of the risk.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
37 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 40-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 4.1 ]
TITLE OF NEW CONTENT
(title change) Chapter 4 Combustible Dusts and Combustible Particulate Solid
Add new the following new sections and renumber accordingly:
4.1 General.
4.1.1 Criteria for Combustible Dust Ignition. The pertinent criteria for ignition of any combustible dust cloudor layer include the following:
(1) Air
(2) The material form either dispersed in air (oxidant) at or exceeding the minimum explosible concentration(MEC) for an explosion or in a layer at or exceeding the layer ignition temperature
(3) Ignition source(s) such as an electrostatic discharge, an electric current arc or spark, a glowing ember, ahot surface, welding slag, frictional heat, or a flame
4.1.2 Material Form.
4.1.2.1 Dust discharged or leaking from equipment into the atmosphere will exist in the air as a cloud andover time will settle due to gravity, resulting in an accumulated dust layer. In some
cases, both a cloud and a layer could exist simultaneously.
4.1.2.2 The size and density of the dust particles, the internal pressure propelling the dust out of theequipment, the size of the leak opening, the elapsed time of emission, the height of
the emission, and air currents in the vicinity all contribute to the cloud and layer presence.
4.1.2.3 Dust in process vessels, in air-material separators, or in transport systems can exist as a cloud andcould settle, resulting in an accumulated dust layer. In some cases, both a cloud and a layer could existsimultaneously.
4.1.3 Combustible Dust Clouds.
4.1.3.1 Combustible dust clouds have the potential to cause significant overpressures or explosions whenignited. Some dusts have particles that are extremely fine and light (i.e., have
a low specific particle density). Such particles could behave similar to vapors and could remain insuspension for long periods. These particles could travel far from the emitting source and could collect aslayers on surfaces above the source.
4.1.3.2* Generally, as particle size increases, the ability of the combustible dust to remain in a clouddecreases, but the creation of combustible dust layers increases.
A.4.1.3.2 Dust discharged or leaking from equipment into the atmosphere will settle relatively quickly,depending on the size of particles, the internal pressure propelling the particles from the equipment, andany air currents in the vicinity. The result is a layer of dust that settles on surfaces below the leak opening ina radial or elliptical manner, depending on the location of the opening on the equipment. Althoughhorizontal
surfaces accumulate the largest quantities of dust, vertical surfaces could in som instances alsoaccumulate significant quantities. The depth of the layer will be greatest under and
close to the source and will taper off to the outside of the circle or ellipse.
4.1.3.3 A combustible dust cloud can be ignited on contact with a hot surface. Typically, the cloud ignitiontemperature is higher than the layer ignition temperature; however, if a material melts when in a layer, theopposite is often true.
4.1.3.4 The application of hazardous area classification, while reducing the risk of ignition from electricalsources, does not address the potential overpressure effects from a combustible dust explosion or hazardsfrom a flash fire. Other NFPA standards address such hazards.
4.1.4 Combustible Dust Layers.
4.1.4.1 Not only do combustible dust layers have the potential to be ignited, but depending on the speed ofthe burning, the dust could also be dispersed into the air as a cloud. If the dust is ignited, a dust flash fire
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
38 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
could result. Airflow induced by such an event will disperse more dust from the layer into the air, resulting ina larger explosion. Often, the secondary explosion
does more damage.
4.1.4.2 Combustible dust layers can cause electrical equipment to overheat because they tend to act asinsulation. The overheated electrical equipment can result in an ignition of the dust layer, which could thenresult in ignition of a dust cloud.
4.1.4.3 Generally, as solid particle size decreases, the layer ignition temperature also decreases, makingthe combustible dust easier to ignite.
4.1.4.4* The ignition temperature of a layer of organic dust on heat-producing equipment can decrease overtime if the dust dehydrates or carbonizes. For such materials, NFPA 70, National
Electrical Code, specifies that the surface temperature of the heat-producing equipment not exceed thelower of the ignition temperature or 165°C (329°F).
A.4.1.4.4 Combustible dust layers can cause electrical equipment to overheat because these layers tend toact as insulation. In many instances, the increased temperature
resulting from overheating can also cause moisture in the dust to be driven off, thus dehydrating the dust.Further heating of the dust could additionally result in the formation
of a carbonized dust layer. Both conditions are known to cause the layer ignition temperature to decrease.Unfortunately, the lack of standardized tests prevents having a means to correlate how the layer ignitiontemperature could decrease due to dehydrating
or carbonization effects.
4.1.4.5 Some dusts in layers that melt before reaching their layer ignition temperatures act more like acombustible liquid than a combustible dust. These dusts require additional testing to determine if the cloudignition temperature is lower than the layer ignition temperature.
4.2 Combustible Dust Testing.
4.2.1 Testing under this section can be done to verify if the dust is a combustible dust.
A4.2.1 Combustible Dust. Dusts traditionally were defined as material 420 μm or smaller (capable ofpassing through a U.S. No. 40 standard sieve). For consistency with other standards,
500μm(capable of passing through a U.S. No. 35 standard sieve) is now considered an appropriate sizecriterion. Particle surface area-to-volume ratio is a key factor in determining the rate of combustion.Combustible particulate solids with a minimum dimension
more than 500 μm generally have a surface-to-volume ratio that is too small to pose a deflagration hazard.Flat platelet shaped particles, flakes, or fibers with lengths that are large compared to their diameter usuallydo not pass through a 500 μm sieve, yet could still pose a deflagration hazard. Many particulatesaccumulate electrostatic charge in handling, causing them to attract each other, forming agglomerates.Often agglomerates behave as if they were larger particles, yet when they are dispersed they present asignificant hazard. Consequently, it can be inferred that any particulate that has a minimum dimension lessthan or equal to 500 μm could behave as a combustible dust if suspended in air or the process specificoxidizer. If the minimum
dimension of the particulate is greater than 500 μm, it is unlikely that the material would be a combustibledust, as determined by test. The determination of whether a sample of combustible material presents aflash fire or explosion hazard could be based on a screening test methodology such as provided in theASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. Alternatively, a standardized testmethod such as ASTM E 1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration ofCombustible Dusts, could be used to determine dust explosibility.
There is some possibility that a sample will result in a false positive in the 20 L sphere when tested by theASTM E 1226 screening test or the ASTM E 1515 test. This is due to the high
energy ignition source overdriving the test. When the lowest ignition energy allowed by either method stillresults in a positive result, the owner/operator can elect to determine whether the sample is a combustibledust with screening tests performed in a larger scale (≥1 m3) enclosure, which is less susceptible tooverdriving and thus will provide more realistic
results.
This possibility for false positives has been known for quite some time and is attributed to “overdriven”conditions that exist in the 20 L chamber due to the use of strong pyrotechnic
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
39 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
igniters. For that reason, the reference method for explosibility testing is based on a 1 m3 chamber, and the20 L chamber test method is calibrated to produce results comparable to
those from the 1 m3 chamber for most dusts. In fact, the U.S. standard for 20 L testing (ASTM E 1226)states, “The objective of this test method is to develop data that can be correlated to
those from the 1 m3 chamber (described in ISO 6184-1 and VDI 3673)…” ASTM E 1226 further states,“Because a number of factors (concentration, uniformity of dispersion, turbulence
of ignition, sample age, etc.) can affect the test results, the test vessel to be used for routine work must bestandardized using dust samples whose KSt and Pmax parameters are
known in the 1 m3 chamber.”
NFPA68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, also recognizes this problem andaddresses it stating that “the 20 L test apparatus is designed to simulate results of the 1 m3 chamber;however, the igniter discharge makes it problematic to determine KSt values less than 50 bar-m/sec. Wherethe material is expected to yield KSt values less than 50 bar-m/sec, testing in a 1m3 chamber might yieldlower values.”
Any time a combustible dust is processed or handled, a potential for deflagration exists. The degree ofdeflagration hazard varies, depending on the type of combustible dust and
the processing methods used. A dust deflagration has the following four requirements:
(1) Combustible dust
(2) Dust dispersion in air or other oxidant
(3) Sufficient concentration at or exceeding the minimum explosible concentration (MEC)
(4) Sufficiently powerful ignition source such as an electrostatic discharge, an electric current arc, a glowingember, a hot surface, welding slag, frictional heat, or a flame.
If the deflagration is confined and produces a pressure sufficient to rupture the confining enclosure, theevent is, by definition, an “explosion.”
Evaluation of the hazard of a combustible dust should be determined by the means of actual test data.Each situation should be evaluated and applicable tests selected. The following list represents the factorsthat are sometimes used in determining the deflagration hazard of a dust:
(1) MEC
(2) MIE
(3) Particle size distribution
(4) Moisture content as received and as tested
(5) Maximum explosion pressure at optimum concentration
(6) Maximum rate of pressure rise at optimum concentration
(7) KSt (normalized rate of pressure rise) as defined in ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method forExplosibility of Dust Clouds
(8) Layer ignition temperature
(9) Dust cloud ignition temperature
(10) Limiting oxidant concentration (LOC) to prevent ignition
(11) Electrical volume resistivity
(12) Charge relaxation time
(13) Chargeability
It is important to keep in mind that as a particulate is processed, handled, or transported, the particle sizegenerally decreases due to particle attrition. Consequently, it is often necessary to evaluate the explosibilityof the particulate at multiple points along the process. Where process conditions dictate the use of oxidizingmedia other than air (nominally taken as 21 percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen), the applicable testsshould be conducted in the appropriate process specific medium.
4.2.2.1 ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, should be applied as a
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
40 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
screening pass/fail test. This methodology looks at two different cloud concentrations of the material form,1000 g/m3 and 2000 or more g/m3 (35 oz/ft3 and 70 oz/ft3), which are tested for explosibility within a 20 L(5.3 gal) or larger chamber using a 5 kJ or larger igniter.
4.2.2.2 If either concentration tested under 4.2.2.1 equals or exceeds the ASTM E 1226 maximum attainedpressure criteria, the sample is conditionally a combustible dust.
4.2.2.3 If both concentrations tested under 4.2.2.1 are less than the ASTM E 1226 maximum attainedpressure criteria, the sample is likely not a combustible dust.
4.2.3 Combustible Dust Layer Ignition Temperature Testing.
4.2.3.1 This test is necessary to provide design information relating to the surface temperature conditionsunder which a material form of a particular size and density, when falling out of the air or deposited ontoelectrical equipment, could heat up above ambient to its layer ignition temperature.
4.2.3.2 The ASTM E 2021, Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Ignition Temperature of Dust Layers, testis applied using a hot plate with at least a 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in.) dust layer in the material
form to verify the ability of a material to absorb heat and lose heat by radiation. At a given surfacetemperature, a sample will continue to heat and either remain at that temperature or rise
to its ignition temperature.
4.2.3.3 If the anticipated material form layer thickness is greater than 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in.), the ASTM E 2021test would be performed at this greater thickness to determine the appropriate
temperature.
4.2.3.4 If the material ignites, the results of the combustible dust layer ignition temperature test are used todetermine the suitability of the equipment for the installation.
4.2.3.5 If the sample fails to ignite at a temperature lower than 450°C (842°F) in the layer ignition test andadditionally has been tested and not found to be a combustible dust cloud explosion hazard, the material isnot considered to be a combustible dust.
4.2.4 Combustible Dust Cloud Ignition Temperature Testing.
4.2.4.1 Dust in the form of a layer could ignite at significantly lower temperatures than the same dust in theform of a cloud. However, when the dust melts, it could become necessary to test the material form dust tounderstand if the cloud temperature can become a potential hazard.
4.2.4.2 If the material form sample melts below 450°C (842°F), another sample of the material form shouldbe tested in accordance with ASTM E 1491, Standard Test Method for Minimum
Autoignition Temperatures of Dust Clouds, to determine the cloud ignition temperature.
4.2.4.3 If the material ignites, results of the combustible dust cloud ignition temperature test are used todetermine the suitability of the equipment for the installation.
4.3.1 Conductive Dusts. Group E dusts can conduct electrical current leading to ignition by spark, byresistive heating, or by causing abnormal operation of the equipment.
4.3.2 Magnesium or Aluminum Dust. Dusts containing magnesium or aluminum are particularly hazardous,and extreme caution should be used to prevent ignition and explosion.
4.4 Hybrid Mixtures. The presence of the flammable gas or vapor, even at concentrations less than theirlower flammable limit (LFL), not only will add to the violence of the dust-air
combustion but will drastically reduce the ignition energy. This situation is encountered in certain industrialoperations, such as fluidized bed dryers and pneumatic conveying systems
for plastic dusts from polymerization processes, in which volatile solvents are used. In such cases,electrical equipment should be specified that is suitable for simultaneous exposure to both the Class I(flammable gas) atmosphere and the Class II (combustible dust) atmosphere.
4.5 Electrostatic Discharges.
4.5.1 Electrostatic discharges are preceded by charge accumulation on insulated surfaces, ungroundedconductors (including human bodies), or particulate materials with high resistivities.
The subsequent electrostatic discharge is an ignition threat only if it is sufficiently energetic in comparisonto the minimum ignition energy of the pertinent dust cloud.
4.5.2 Control of electrostatics is addressed in NFPA 77, Recommended Practice on Static Electricity .
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
41 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
4.6 Ignition Criteria.
4.6.1 Layer and dust cloud ignition properties are addressed in this recommended practice by temperatureclassification codes on equipment.
4.6.2 Potential fire hazards, such as flash fires, and other sources of potential heat, such as hot processsurfaces, smoldering nests, self-heating, and friction source, should also be considered independently ofthe recommended practice.
4.7 Combustible Particulate Solids.
4.7.1 While not a combustible dust as addressed above, combustible particulate solids include dusts,fibers, fines, chips, chunks, flakes, or mixtures of these. The term combustible particulate solid addressesthe attrition of material as it moves within the process equipment. Particle abrasion breaks the materialdown and produces a mixture of large and small particulates, some of which could be small enough to beclassified as dusts. Consequently, the presence of dusts should be anticipated in the process stream,regardless of the starting particle size of the material.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
With the removal of definitions for combustible dust and combustible particulate solid, this information now properly specifies the appropriate conditions under which materials determined to be 'combiustible dusts" or 'combustible particulate solids" are assessed. This information is contained within the document and not within an informative Annex having no required attributes. The basis for this material comes from existing NFPA documents, including but not limited too, NFPA 499.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: David Wechsler
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Jul 02 13:14:10 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This material adds no additional requirements and is written in unenforceable language. This is notconsistent with the manual of style for a mandatory chapter. Much of the material is taken from NFPA499, which is a recommended standard, or is already included as annex material in this document.This material also references NFPA 499, which is a recommended practice. Mandatory standards arenot allowed to reference documents that are recommended practices per the manual of style. Also,the committee voted previously to retain the definition of combustible dust in Chapter 3.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
42 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 82-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 4.1 ]
4.1* [new]
The owner/operator of a facility with potentially combustible dust shall be responsible for the followingactivities:
(1) Determining the combustibility or explosibility hazards of materials per Chapter 5
(2) Identifying and assessing any fire, flash fire, and explosion hazards per Chapter 7
(3) Managing the identified fire, flash fire, and explosion hazards in accordance with 4.2.5
(4) Communicating the hazards to affected personnel in accordance with 9.5
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: From draft NFPA 652.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:50:46 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This was taken directly from the draft of 652. The committee resolved this PI as it is not relevant to654. All of the chapter references in the public input are to 652, which are not accurate for thisdocument.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
43 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 88-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 4.1 ]
4.1.1Owner's Obligation
The facility owner and operator shall be responsible for ensuring that the facility and systems handlingcombustible particulate solids are designed by and installed under the supervision of qualigied engineerswho are knowldegable of the defalgration hazards associated with combustible particulate solids.
Renumber existing paragraphs of this section accordingly.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
There are numerous cases where the owner/operator of a facility failed to exercise any oversight and responsibility for the safety of the facility occupants in the design phase and the facility was constructed in such a manner that hazards were designed into the site. Then, after an incident, the owner has tried to lay the blame on others who had little if any design input or authority to make design decision. this paragraph is necessary to establish the legal obligation on the part of the owner/operator.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Cholin
Organization: J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc.
Affilliation: none
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 11:06:56 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-21-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: There are numerous cases where the owner/operator of a facility failed to exercise any oversight andresponsibility for the safety of the facility occupants in the design phase and the facility wasconstructed in such a manner that hazards were designed into the site. Then, after an incident, theowner has tried to lay the blame on others who had little if any design input or authority to makedesign decision. this paragraph is necessary to establish the legal obligation on the part of theowner/operator.
The committee modified the submitters input to include maintenance as part of the owner'sresponsibilities and corrected spelling and grammatical errors in the original submission.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
44 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 41-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 4.2 ]
TITLE OF NEW CONTENT
Add the following new Section:
4.3 Classification of Class II Hazardous Locations and National Electrical Code (NEC) Criteria.
4.3.1 Article 500 of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, establishes the basis for classifying locations wherefire or explosion hazards can exist due to flammable gases, flammable liquid–
produced vapors, combustible liquid–produced vapors, combustible dusts, or ignitable fibers/flyings.
4.3.2 NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, defines a Class II hazardous (classified) location as one that ishazardous because of the presence of a combustible dust.
4.3.3 NFPA499, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous(Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas addresses how to classifylocations found to have Class II Combustible Dusts as addressed in NFPA 70.
4.3.3 Hazardous (classified) areas shall be documented and such documentation shall be permanentlymaintained on file for the life of the facility.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
While some of this information was included in existing sections 6.5.2 and 6.5.3, under another PI, these sections were removed. The material presented here is applicable and needs to be addressed under General Requirements.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: David Wechsler
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Jul 02 13:27:18 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This submission contains no requirements and is unenforceable as it is written. It cites 499, which is arecommended practice and cannot be referenced in a standard per the manual of style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
45 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 83-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 4.6 ]
4.6 2 Objectives.
4.6 2 .1 Life Safety.
4.6 2 .1.1
The facility, combustible particulate processes, and human element programs shall be designed,constructed, equipped, and maintained
to protect occupants not in the immediate proximity of the ignition
so as to reduce the risks to all occupants from the effects of fire, deflagration, and explosion
for the time needed to evacuate, relocate, or take refuge
covered by this standard to an acceptable level . 4. 6 2 .1.2
The structure shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize the propagation of fire orexplosion to reasonably protect adjacent properties and to avoid injury to the public.
4.6.2 Structural Integrity.
The facility shall be designed, constructed, and equipped to maintain its structural integrity in spite of thepublic from an unacceptable risk of harm from the effects of fire or explosion for the time necessary toevacuate, relocate, or defend in place occupants not in the immediate proximity of the ignition , flash fire orexplosion .
4.6 2 .3 2 * Mission Continuity.
The facility, processes and equipment, and human element program shall be designed, constructed,equipped, and maintained to limit damage to levels that ensure the ongoing mission, production, oroperating capability of the facility to a degree acceptable to the owner/operator.
4.6 2 .4 3 Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosions.
The facility and processes shall be designed to prevent or mitigate fires and explosions that can causefailure of adjacent buildings or building compartments, other enclosures, emergency life safety systems,adjacent properties, adjacent storage, or the facility's structural elements.
4.6 2 .4 3 .1*
The structure shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent fire or explosions from causingfailure of load-bearing structural members, propagating into adjacent interior compartments, andincapacitating fire protective and emergency life safety systems in adjacent compartments.
4.6 2 .4 3 .2
The structure shall be located, designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained to prevent the propagationof fire or explosion to or from adjacent storage or structures.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation for Objectives and Life Safety section: This is a modified combination of Sections 4.2.1.1.1, 4.2.1.1.2 and 4.2.1.1.3 from draft NFPA 652. There are two fundamental problems with the existing language. First, the standard has numerous provisions designed to prevent an initial ignition and deflagration. However, the life safety language completely fails to acknowledge that objective and instead erroneously implies that the standard is not concerned about the welfare of occupants “in the immediate proximity of the ignition.” Second, on the other extreme, the document seems to imply that the implemented protective measures must reduce the risk of harm to zero for all occupants not “in the immediate proximity of the ignition,” again without defining what that phrase means. The solution is to state the life safety objectives, as well as all of the other objectives in this section, using an approach based on risk assessment rather than ignoring one group of occupants and providing a risk-free environment for all others.
Substantiation for 4.2.1.2 (was 4.6.1.2): from draft NFPA 652.
Substantiation for removing Structural Integrity (was 4.6.2): This suggested change is consistent with approach of NFPA 652 draft, and is already addressed in proposed 4.2.1.2.
Substantiation for 4.2.4 (was 4.6.4): from draft NFPA 652.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
46 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 05:52:48 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee has proposed these changes to Section 4.6 after review of the following public input:83, 109, 119, and 120. Section 4.6.1, Life Safety has been modified to be consistent with NFPA 652.New annex material has been added. Section 4.6.2, Structural Integrity, is unchanged from thecurrent edition of NFPA 654 Section 4.6.3, Mission Continuity, has been modified to be consistentwith NFPA 652 Section 4.6.4, Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosion, has been modified to beconsistent with NFPA 652, except for section 4.6.4.1, which remains unchanged from the currentedition of NFPA 654.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
47 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 109-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 4.6.1.2 ]
4.6 2 .1.2
The structure shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize the propagation of fire orexplosion to adjacent properties and to avoid injury to the public reasonably protect adjacent properties andthe public from an unacceptable risk of harm from the effects of fire, flash fire, or explosion .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: from Section 4.2.1.1.2 and 4.2.1.1.3 of draft NFPA 652.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 14:14:11 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee has proposed these changes to Section 4.6 after review of the following public input:83, 109, 119, and 120. Section 4.6.1, Life Safety has been modified to be consistent with NFPA 652.New annex material has been added. Section 4.6.2, Structural Integrity, is unchanged from thecurrent edition of NFPA 654 Section 4.6.3, Mission Continuity, has been modified to be consistentwith NFPA 652 Section 4.6.4, Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosion, has been modified to beconsistent with NFPA 652, except for section 4.6.4.1, which remains unchanged from the currentedition of NFPA 654.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
48 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 119-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 4.6.2 ]
4.6.2 Structural Integrity.
The facility shall be designed, constructed, and equipped to maintain its structural integrity in spite of theeffects of fire or explosion for the time necessary to evacuate, relocate, or defend in place occupants not inthe immediate proximity of the ignition.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: This suggested change is consistent with approach of NFPA 652 draft, and is already addressed in proposed 4.2.1.2.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 16:29:11 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee has proposed these changes to Section 4.6 after review of the following public input:83, 109, 119, and 120. Section 4.6.1, Life Safety has been modified to be consistent with NFPA 652.New annex material has been added. Section 4.6.2, Structural Integrity, is unchanged from thecurrent edition of NFPA 654 Section 4.6.3, Mission Continuity, has been modified to be consistentwith NFPA 652 Section 4.6.4, Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosion, has been modified to beconsistent with NFPA 652, except for section 4.6.4.1, which remains unchanged from the currentedition of NFPA 654.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
49 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 120-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 4.6.4 ]
4.6.4 3 Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosions.
The facility and processes shall be designed to prevent or mitigate fires and explosions that can causefailure of adjacent buildings or building compartments, other enclosures, emergency life safety systems,adjacent properties, adjacent storage, or the facility's structural elements.
4.6.4 3 .1*
The structure shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent fire or explosions from causingfailure of load-bearing structural members, propagating into adjacent interior compartments, andincapacitating fire protective and emergency life safety systems in adjacent compartments.
4.6.4 3 .2
The structure shall be located, designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained to prevent the propagationof fire or explosion to or from adjacent storage or structures.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: from draft NFPA 652
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 16:30:33 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee has proposed these changes to Section 4.6 after review of the following public input:83, 109, 119, and 120. Section 4.6.1, Life Safety has been modified to be consistent with NFPA 652.New annex material has been added. Section 4.6.2, Structural Integrity, is unchanged from thecurrent edition of NFPA 654 Section 4.6.3, Mission Continuity, has been modified to be consistentwith NFPA 652 Section 4.6.4, Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosion, has been modified to beconsistent with NFPA 652, except for section 4.6.4.1, which remains unchanged from the currentedition of NFPA 654.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
50 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 49-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 4.7 ]
4.7 Combustibility of materials
4.7* Noncombustible material [NFPA 101, 2015]
4.7.1 A material that complies with any one of the following shall be considered a noncombustible material:(1)*The material, in the form in which it is used, and under the conditions anticipated, will not ignite, burn,support combustion, or release flammable vapors when subjected to fire or heat(2) The material is reported as passing ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in aVertical Tube Furnaceat 750 Degrees C(3) The material is reported as complying with the pass/fail criteria of ASTM E 136 when tested inaccordance with the test method and procedure in ASTM E 2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior ofMaterials in a Tube Furnace with a Cone-shaped Airflow Stabilizer, at 750 Degrees C [NFPA 101-2015]
A.4.7 The provisions of 4.7 do not require inherently noncombustible materials to be tested in order to beclassified as noncombustible materials. [NFPA 5000, 2015]A.4.71.1(1) Examples of such materials include steel, concrete, masonry and glass. [NFPA 101, 2015]
Also add ASTM E 2652, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Tube Furnace with aCone-shaped Airflow Stabilizer, at 750 Degrees C (2012) into chapter 2 on referenced standards.
4.7.2* Limited-Combustible Material. A material shall be considered a limited-combustible material whereall the conditions of 4.7.2.1 and 4.7.2.2, and the conditions of either 4.7.2.3 or 4.7.2.4, are met. [NFPA 101,2015]
4.7.2.1 The material shall not comply with the requirements for noncombustible material in accordance with4.7.1. [NFPA 101, 2015]
4.7.2.2 The material, in the form in which it is used, shall exhibit a potential heat value not exceeding 3500Btu/lb (8141 kJ/kg) where tested in accordance with NFPA 259, Standard Test Method for Potential Heat ofBuilding Materials. [NFPA 101, 2015]
4.7.2.3 The material shall have the structural base of a noncombustible material with a surfacing notexceeding a thickness of 1⁄8 in. (3.2 mm) where the surfacing exhibits a flame spread index not greater than50 when tested in accordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics ofBuilding Materials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials. [NFPA 101, 2015]
4.7.2.4 The material shall be composed of materials that, in the form and thickness used, neither exhibit aflame spread index greater than 25 nor evidence of continued progressive combustion when tested inaccordance with ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of BuildingMaterials, or ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, andshall be of such composition that all surfaces that would be exposed by cutting through the material on anyplane would neither exhibit a flame spread index greater than 25 nor exhibit evidence of continuedprogressive combustion when tested in accordance with ASTM E84 or ANSI/UL 723. [NFPA 101, 2015]
4.7.2.5 Where the term limited-combustible is used in this Code, it shall also include the termnoncombustible. [NFPA 101, 2015]
A.4.7.2 Materials subject to increase in combustibility or flame spread index beyond the limits hereinestablished through the effects of age, moisture, or other atmospheric condition are considered combustible.(See NFPA 259, Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials, and NFPA 220, Standard onTypes of Building Construction.) [NFPA 101, 2015]
Also add ASTM E84, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials (2014),ANSI/UL 723, Standard for Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials (2001) and NFPA259, Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials into Chapter 2 on referenced standards.
Also add NFPA 259, Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials into Annex G oninformational references.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
51 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Throughout the NFPA system the definition of noncombustible material in chapter 3 is being replaced with a reference to a requirement in a mandatory section of the document, which contains the requirements. That permits the document to comply with the Manual of Style. The wording is extracted from NFPA 101.
This public input also addresses the definition of limited combustible material, in the same way. The reason to add this is that limited combustible material is referenced in NFPA 654 without its meaning and requirements being explained.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 50-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. 3.3.21]
Public Input No. 51-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. 2.3.3]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 12:41:07 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee voted to retain the definition of non-combustible in Chapter 3 (response to PI-50). Thisadditional information, which would have been referred to in PI-50, is not necessary, and has notbeen accepted.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
52 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 94-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 4.7 ]
5.1* Responsibility.
The owner/operator of a facility with potentially combustible dusts shall be responsible for determiningwhether the materials are combustible or explosible and, if so, to characterize their properties as required tosupport the process hazard assessment. [SR 25, related to PC 113 and 135 and others]
5.1.1
Where dusts are determined to be combustible or explosible, the hazards associated with the dusts shall beassessed in accordance with the requirements in Chapter 7.
5.1.2 Where dusts are determined to be combustible or explosible, controls to address the hazardsassociated with the dusts shall be identified and implemented in accordance with 4.2.5.
5.2 Screening for Combustibility and Explosibility.
5.2.1* The determination of combustibility or explosibility shall be permitted to be based upon either of thefollowing:
1. Historical facility data or published data that are deemed to be representative of current materialsand process conditions
2. Analysis of representative samples in accordance with the requirements of 5.4.1 and 5.4.3
5.2.2* Test results, historical data, and published data shall be documented and, when requested, providedto the AHJ.
5.2.3 The absence of previous incidents shall not be used as the basis for deeming a particulate to not becombustible or explosible.
5.2.4
Where dusts are determined not to be combustible or explosible, the owner/operator shall maintaindocumentation to demonstrate that the dusts are not combustible or explosible.
5.3* Self-Heating and Reactivity Hazards. (Reserved)
5.4 Combustibility and Explosibility Tests.
Where combustibility or explosibility screening tests are required, they shall be conducted on representativesamples obtained in accordance with 5.5. [SR No. 20, related to PC 114 and others]
5.4.1* Determination of Combustibility.
5.4.1.1*
Where the combustibility is not known, determination of combustibility shall be determined by a screeningtest based on the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations —
Manual of Tests and Criteria, 5th Revised edition, Part III, Subsection 33.2.1.4, Test N.1, “Test Method ofReadily Combustible Solids”, or other equivalent fire exposure test methods.
5.4.1.2
For the purposes of determining the combustibility of dust, if the dust in the form tested ignites andpropagates combustion, or ejects sparks from the heated zone after the heat source is removed, thematerial shall be considered combustible.
5.4.1.3
If the dust is known to be explosible, it shall be permitted to assume that the dust is combustible and therequirements of 5.4.1 shall not apply.
5.4.2 Determination of Flash Fire Hazard. (Reserved)
5.4.3 Determination of Explosibility.
5.4.3.1 Where the explosibility is not known, the determination of explosibility of dusts shall be determinedaccording to one of the following:
(1) The “Go/No-Go” screening test methodology described in ASTM E 1226
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
53 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
(2) ASTM E 1515
(3) An equivalent test methodology
5.4.3.2*
It shall be permitted to test a sample sieved to less than 200 mesh (75 microns)
5.4.3.3*
When determining explosibility, it shall be permitted to test the as-received sample.
5.4.3.4
It shall be permissible to assume a material is explosive, forgoing the requirements of 5.4.3.1.
5.4.3.5*
When the representative sample has a characteristic particle size smaller than 0.5 micrometers, theexplosibility screening test method shall account for possible ignitions in the sample injection apparatus.
5.4.4 Quantification of Combustibility and Explosibility Characteristics.
5.4.4.1* Where dusts are determined to be combustible or explosible, additional testing shall be performedas required to acquire the data necessary to support: for the performance-based design method describedin Chapter 6,; dust hazards analysis described in Chapter 7,; risk assessments described in Chapter 8,; orspecification of the hazard mitigation and prevention described in Chapter 8.
5.4.4.2 The owner/operator shall be permitted to use the worst-case characteristics of the various materialsbeing handled as a basis for design.
5.5 Sampling.
5.5.1 Sampling Plan.
5.5.1.1 A sampling plan shall be developed and documented to provide data as needed to comply therequirements of this chapter.
5.5.1.2 Representative samples of dusts shall be identified and collected for testing according to a thesampling plan.
5.5.1.3
The sampling plan shall include the following:
(1) Identification of locations where fine particulate and dust is are present
(2) Identification of representative samples
(3) Collection of representative samples
(4)* Preservation of sample integrity
(5) Communication with the test laboratory regarding sample handling
(6) Documentation of samples taken
(7) Safe sample collection practices
5.5.2 Mixtures.
If the dust sample is a mixture, the approximate proportions of each general category of particulate solidshall be determined and documented based on available information.
5.5.3 Representative Samples.Samples collected from each location shall be representative of the material at that location, process,equipment, or surface.
5.5.4* Sample Collection.
Dust samples shall be collected in a safe manner without introducing an ignition source, dispersing dust, orcreating or increasing the risk of injury to workers.
5.5.4.1*
Samples shall be uniquely identified using identifiers such as lot, origin, composition (pure, mixture),process, age, location, and date collected.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
54 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
[new chapter from draft NFPA 652]Substantiation for 5.1: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.1.1: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.1.2: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.2: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.2.2*: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.2.3: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.2.4: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.4: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.4.1.3: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.4.3.5: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.4.4.2: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.5.1.3: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.5.2: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation for 5.5.3: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.Substantiation 5.5.4.1*: From NFPA 652. This provision reflects recognition that the existing hazard identification provisions are inadequate.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 11:43:49 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This material is already in the draft of 652. Since 652 is the over-arching document, repeating thematerial in 654 is not needed. The committee believes that this new chapter should not be added tothis document.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
55 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 92-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 4.7 ]
4.7 2.5 * Compliance Options.
The goal in Section 1.3 and the objectives in Section 4.6 2 shall be achieved by either of the followingmeans:
(1) The A prescriptive provisions approach in accordance with Chapters 6 through 12 5, 7, 8 and 9 ofthis standard
(2) The A performance-based provisions approach in accordance with Chapters 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12Chapter 6 of this standard
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
From Section 4.2.5 of draft NFPA 652.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 11:37:50 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This material is from 652, The committee has not voted to add a new Chapter 5, and therefore thereferences in this public input are not accurate or relevant. The references in the original text isaccurate and should remain.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Renumbering of section.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 12:10:32 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The proposed new Chapter 5 was not added and therefore this this public input is not relevant.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
57 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 95-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 5.1.2 ]
5.1.2 Independent Review.
The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to obtain an independent third party review of theproposed design.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: Section 5.1.2 should be deleted because, as written, it appears to restate the obvious – that the AHJ (at its discretion, for any reason) may obtain a third party review at its expense, and could otherwise be misinterpreted to suggest that the AHJ could require the owner/operator to pay for the independent review.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 11:56:49 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee does not agree with the submitter that this section restates the obvious and thereforeneeds to remain as part of the document. The AHJ has the authority to obtain a third party review.The standard is silent as to the funding of this review.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
58 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 97-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 5.1.3 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]
Documentation Requirements.
Performance-based designs shall be documented with all calculations, references, assumptions, andsources from which material characteristics and other data have been obtained or on which the designerhas relied for some material aspect of the design per Chapter 5 of NFPA 101 , Life Safety Code . inaccordance with 6.1.3.
6.1.3.1 General. All aspects of the design, including those described in 6.1.3.2 through 6.1.3.14,shall be documented. The format and content of the documentation shall be acceptable to theauthority having jurisdiction.
6.1.3.2 Technical References and Resources. The authority having jurisdiction shall beprovided with sufficient documentation to support the validity, accuracy, relevance, and precision ofthe proposed methods. The engineering standards, calculation methods, and other forms ofscientific information provided shall be appropriate for the particular application and methodologiesused.
6.1.3.3 Building Design Specifications. All details of the proposed building, facilities, equipmentand process designs that affect the ability of the facility to meet the stated goals and objectivesshall be documented.
6.1.3.4 Performance Criteria. Performance criteria, with sources, shall be documented.
6.1.3.5 Occupant Characteristics. Assumptions about occupant characteristics shall bedocumented.
6.1.3.6 Design Fire and Explosion Scenarios. Descriptions of combustible dust fire andexplosion design scenarios shall be documented.
6.1.3.7 Input Data. Input data to models and assessment methods, including sensitivity analyses,shall be documented.
6.1.3.8 Output Data. Output data from models and assessment methods, including sensitivityanalyses, shall be documented.
6.1.3.9 Safety Factors. The safety factors utilized shall be documented.
6.1.3.10 Prescriptive Requirements. Retained prescriptive requirements shall be documented.
6.1.3.11 Modeling Features.
6.1.3.11.1 Assumptions made by the model user, and descriptions of models and methods used,including known limitations, shall be documented.
6.1.3.11.2 Documentation shall be provided to verify that the assessment methods have beenused validly and appropriately to address the design specifications, assumptions, and scenarios.
6.1.3.12 Evidence of Modeler Capability. The design team's relevant experience with themodels, test methods, databases, and other assessment methods used in the performance-baseddesign proposal shall be documented.
6.1.3.13 Performance Evaluation. The performance evaluation summary shall be documented.
6.1.3.14 Use of Performance-Based Design Option. Design proposals shall includedocumentation that provides anyone involved in the ownership or management of the building withnotification of the following:
(1) Approval of the building, facilities, equipment or processes, in whole or in part, as aperformance-based design with certain specified design criteria and assumptions
(2) Need for required re-evaluation and reapproval in cases of remodeling, modification,renovation, change in use, or change in established assumptions
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: This section raises several concerns. First, Section 5.1.3 is internally ambiguous as to whether the
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
59 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
reference to NFPA 101 is intended to incorporate by reference: (1) all aspects of performance-based design in Chapter 5 of NFPA 101; (2) all documentation requirements in Chapter 5 of NFPA 101; or (3) all documentation requirements in Chapter 5 of NFPA 101 that would be required by NFPA 652. Second, the reference to NFPA 101 is ambiguous as to whether it refers to all of the extensive documentation requirements in Chapter 5 of the Life Safety Code (e.g., Sections 5.1.5, 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.4.6, 5.4.7, 5.4.8, 5.4.10, 5.6.3, and 5.8), or the fairly substantial, but more limited documentation requirements in Section 5.8 (which we believe would be more appropriate). Reference to the more extensive documentation requirements of Chapter 5 of NFPA 101 would require the user to sort through the complicated substance of the NFPA 101 documentation requirements because some of them would not be appropriate for NFPA 654. That is impractical and inappropriate, especially when NFPA 101 is ambiguous as to what it requires. Even if the incorporation by reference is limited to the documentation requirements of Section 5.8 of NFPA 101, they would still need to be interpreted and restated because the focus of NFPA 101 is on the building and does not appropriately address the equipment and processes in the building. Third, as a general rule, every effort should be made to avoid incorporating materials from other standards by reference rather than restating them in this standard. Given the importance of these requirements to this standard, they should be revised to reflect the context of NFPA 654 and fully stated in this standard.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 12:12:50 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-22 for proposed changes to this section. The committee believes that listing specificrequirements is not necessary. Section 5.8 of NFPA 101 is specifically called out in the FR as arequirement. The committee has added both fire and explosion scenarios to the documentationrequirements.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
60 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 98-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 5.1.5.2 ]
6.2 Risk Component and Acceptability.The specified performance criteria of 6.3 and the specified fire and explosion scenarios of 6.4 may be modified by a documented risk assessment that, based on the application of clear criteria derived from theobjectives in this standard, the AHJ determines will achieve an acceptable degree of risk. The finalperformance criteria, fire scenarios, and explosion scenarios for the performance-based design shall bedocumented.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: This concept is taken from Section 6.2 of draft NFPA 652, and reflects the principles in Section 4.2.1.1, which speak to measures being implanted to reasonably prevent injury. A risk assessment approach is needed to avoid adopting a zero risk standard in which control measures are required by the mere presence of a hazard regardless of the magnitude of the risk. There are two fundamental problems with the existing language. First, the standard has numerous provisions designed to prevent an initial ignition and deflagration. However, the life safety language completely fails to acknowledge that objective and instead erroneously implies that the standard is not concerned about the welfare of occupants “in the immediate proximity of the ignition.” Second, on the other extreme, the document seems to imply that the implemented protective measures must reduce the risk of harm to zero for all occupants not “in the immediate proximity of the ignition,” again without defining what that phrase means. The solution is to state the life safety objectives, as well as all of the other objectives in this section, using an approach based on risk assessment and acceptable risk rather than ignoring one group of occupants and providing a risk-free environment for all others.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 12:15:46 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This input is taken directly from 652 and refers to sections that are not accurate or relevant. This is achapter on performance based design options and this material does not belong in this section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
61 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 22-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.1.1.1 ]
6.1.1.1
Those portions of the process and facility interior where dust accumulations exist external to equipment insufficient depth to prevent discerning the underlying contrasting surface color shall be evaluated todetermine if a dust explosion hazard or flash fire hazard exists.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
If the color of the dust and the substrate are too similar then the determination of dust layer thickness outlined in the existing 6.1.1.1 is not readily discernible. By adding the word "contrasting" the intent of this paragraph becomes clear.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Stevenson
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jun 13 09:35:40 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-23-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: If the color of the dust and the substrate are too similar then the determination of dust layer thicknessoutlined in the existing 6.1.1.1 is not readily discernible. By adding the word "contrasting" the intent ofthis paragraph becomes clear.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
62 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 84-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.1.3.2 ]
6
A6 .1.3.2 *
A dust explosion hazard and dust flash fire hazard shall be deemed to exist in any building or room whereany of the following conditions exists:
(1) The total area of nonseparated dust accumulations exceeding the layer depth criterion is greaterthan 5 percent of the footprint area
(2) The area of any single nonseparated dust accumulation exceeding the layer depth criterion is
greater than 1000 ft 2 (92.9 m 2 )
(3) The total volume of nonseparated dust accumulations is greater than the layer depth criterionmultiplied by 5 percent of the footprint area
(4) The total volume of any single nonseparated dust accumulation is greater than the layer depth
criterion multiplied by 1000 ft 2 (92.9 m 2 )
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The area restrictions were added by means of a TIA to the 2006 edition without any experimental or historical validation. The area limitations in Section 6.1.3.2 are an hypothesis. This hypothesis has NOT been validated either experimentally or through retrospective loss analysis. Indeed, I have been unable after 6 years of searching to find a single loss incident where the dust accumulations were at the prescribed depth criteria of the 2006 edition and a propagating dust deflagration ensued, even when the areas were orders of magnitude greater than that permitted by this section. There is a serious operations cost increment to the owner/operator to achieve this limit on fugitive dust accumulation without a demonstrable benefit in terms of occupant life-safety or mission continuity and property protection. This text should be edited and returned to the annex as advisory text. A hypothesis does NOT belong in the enforceable body of the document.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Cholin
Organization: J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc.
Affilliation: none
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 10:09:30 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee voted to leave this material in the main text versus moving the material to the annex.The proposed changes would have reversed the committees prior efforts to present clear criteriawhere fire and explosion hazards exist. This leaves three options to address dust hazards. Makingthese changes would leave several cross-references in the document irrelevant. The committeebelieves that this material needs to remain in the main text and not be moved to the annex.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
63 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 85-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.1.3.2 ]
6
A6 .1.3.
2 *
2
A dust explosion hazard and dust flash fire hazard
shall be deemed to exist in
should be considered a potentiality in any building or room where any of the following conditions exists:
(1) The total area of nonseparated dust accumulations exceeding the layer depth criterion is greaterthan 5 percent of the footprint area
(2) The area of any single nonseparated dust accumulation exceeding the layer depth criterion is
greater than 1000 ft 2 (92.9 m 2 )
(3) The total volume of nonseparated dust accumulations is greater than the layer depth criterionmultiplied by 5 percent of the footprint area
(4) The total volume of any single nonseparated dust accumulation is greater than the layer depth
criterion multiplied by 1000 ft 2 (92.9 m 2 )
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The area limitations of this section were added as a TIA to the 2006 edition without any experimental or loss history validation. It is an hypothesis - not a proven scientific fact. It is inappropriate to make an hypothesis and enforceable criterion in a minimum-compliance standard. After more than 6 years of searching I have been unable to identify a single loss incident where the dust layers were anywhere near the permissible layer depth established by this standard even without the area limitations. There is a substantial incremental cost of operations and facility design to operate some facilities at the dust layer criteria established without any demonstrable benefit in terms of life-safety or property and mission continuity. This language has been edited and placed in the Annex where it belongs.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Cholin
Organization: J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc.
Affilliation: none
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 10:25:10 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee voted to leave this material in the main text versus moving the material to the annex.The proposed changes would have reversed the committees prior efforts to present clear criteriawhere fire and explosion hazards exist. This leaves three options to address dust hazards. Makingthese changes would leave several cross-references in the document irrelevant. The committeebelieves that this material needs to remain in the main text and not be moved to the annex.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
64 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 86-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.1.4 ]
6
A6 .1.
4
2 * Mass Method A.
A dust flash fire or dust explosion hazard area exists when the total accumulated dust external toprocess equipment exceeds the quantities determined from the equations in 6.1.4.1 and 6.1.4.2 .
6.1.
4
2 .1
The threshold dust mass establishing a building or room as a dust explosion hazard area, M basic-exp, shall be determined by the following equation:
where:
M basic-exp = threshold dust mass (kg) based on building damage criterion
A floor = lesser of enclosure floor area (m 2 ) or 2000 m 2
H = lesser of enclosure ceiling height (m) or 12 m
6.1.
4
2 .2
The threshold dust mass establishing a building or room as a dust flash fire hazard area, M basic-fire ,
shall be determined by the following equation:.
where:
M basic-fire = threshold dust mass (kg) based on personnel fire exposure criterion
A floor = lesser of enclosure floor area (m 2 ) or 2000 m 2
H = lesser of enclosure ceiling height (m) or 12 m
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The Mass Method A is based upon an equation that has not been validated either experimentally or through a retrospective historical loss analysis. Consequently, it is an hypothesis - not established scientific fact. It is inappropriate for an hypothesis to be incorporated into the enforceable text of a minimum-compliance engineering standard.
This proposal moves the text to the annex as an example of how one might use a computational method in lieu of the simple prescriptive layer depth method where there is a justification for doing so.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Cholin
Organization: J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
65 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Affilliation: none
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 10:36:37 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee voted to leave this material in the main text versus moving the material to the annex.The proposed changes would have reversed the committees prior efforts to present clear criteriawhere fire and explosion hazards exist. This leaves three options to address dust hazards. Makingthese changes would leave several cross-references in the document irrelevant. The committeebelieves that this material needs to remain in the main text and not be moved to the annex.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
66 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 87-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.1.5.2 ]
6
A6 .1.
5
2 .
2 *
2
The threshold dust mass establishing a building or room as a dust flash fire hazard area, M fire , shall
be determined by the following equation:
where:
M fire = threshold dust mass (kg) based on personnel fire exposure criterion
ρ = probability of flame impingement on a person, not to exceed 0.05 (5 percent probability)
C w = worst-case dust concentration (kg/m 3 ) at which the maximum rate-of-pressure-rise resultsin tests conducted per ASTM E 1226
P initial
= 1 bar absolute
P max = maximum pressure (bar g) developed in ASTM E 1226 tests with the accumulated dustsample
A floor = enclosure floor area (m 2 )
D = nominal height of a person (2 m)
η D = entrainment fraction = 0.25
6.1.
5
2 .2.1 *
It shall be permitted to use an alternative value of η D , based on a risk evaluation that is acceptable to
the authority having jurisdiction.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The equation is currently an hypothesis that has not yet been validated either experimentally or through a retrospective analysis of historical losses. An hypothesis does not belong as an enforceable part of a minimum-compliance engineering standard. I have been unable to find a single incident in the historical loss record where a deflagration propagated through the interior of a facility where the accumulated dust layers were as low as the criteria established by this section. the historical record does exist for facilities where the dust accumulation layer thickness was 300 to 400 times the layer depth permitted by this section. Is it the intent of the TC to operate with a safety margin of 300 to 400? If so, then why isn't that same safety margin applied to the other hazard management methods?
This proposal along with others moves this text to the Annex where is can serve as advisory material for those who wish to develop a pe4rformance-equivalent to the prescribed layer depth in the body of the document.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
67 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Cholin
Organization: J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc.
Affilliation: none
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 10:48:30 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee voted to leave this material in the main text versus moving the material to the annex.The proposed changes would have reversed the committees prior efforts to present clear criteriawhere fire and explosion hazards exist. This leaves three options to address dust hazards. Makingthese changes would leave several cross-references in the document irrelevant. The committeebelieves that this material needs to remain in the main text and not be moved to the annex.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
68 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 99-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 6.1.7 ]
6.1.8 Risk Assessment.
A documented risk assessment that, based on the application of clear criteria derived from the objectives inthis standard, is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to be conducted todetermine the level of protection to be provided per each of the provisions ofthis chapter.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: The suggested change is consistent with Section 8.3 of draft NFPA 652.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 12:22:10 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This material is taken directly from 652. The intent of this input is already covered in section 6.16 withthe global change from risk evaluation to risk assessment. This requirement is in the wrong section ofChapter 6 and is too all-encompassing.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
69 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 53-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.2.2.1 ]
6.2.2.1
Physical barriers that are erected to segregate dust flash fire hazards areas, including seals at allpenetrations of floors, walls, ceilings, or partitions shall have a 1-hour fire resistance rating when tested inaccordance with ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
In every instance where fire resistance rating is mentioned the fire test (ASTM E119) must be included, as a clarification.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 54-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. 6.2.2.3]
Public Input No. 55-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. 6.3.5]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 13:20:56 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-24-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: In every instance where fire resistance rating is mentioned the fire test (ASTM E119) must beincluded, as a clarification.
The specific test method has been added as annex material. The committee added the term"minimum" to fire resistance rating.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
70 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 11-NFPA 654-2013 [ Section No. 6.2.2.3 ]
6.2.2.3
Doors and openings shall not be permitted in physical barriers unless they are normally closed and have atleast the strength and fire resistance rating required of the physical barrier. These doors shall be installedaccording to NFPA 80, Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Consistency taken from section 6.3.6.2
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Chartier
Organization: Northeastern Regional Fire Cod
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Nov 08 07:57:22 EST 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-25-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Consistency taken from section 6.3.6.2
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
71 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 54-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.2.2.3 ]
6.2.2.3
Doors and openings shall not be permitted in physical barriers unless they are normally closed and have atleast the strength and fire resistance rating required of the physical barrier when tested in accordance withASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Adds the test method.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 53-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. 6.2.2.1]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 13:22:57 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-25. This FR adds a reference to NFPA 80. NFPA 80 will direct the user to ASTM E119 fortesting requirements.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
72 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 55-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.3.5 ]
6.3.5
Interior walls erected for the purpose of limiting fire spread shall have a minimum 1-hour fire resistancerating, when tested in accordance with ASTM E119,Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of BuildingConstruction and Materials , and shall be designed in accordance with NFPA 221, Standard for HighChallenge Fire Walls, Fire Walls, and Fire Barrier Walls.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
adds test method
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 53-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. 6.2.2.1]
Public Input No. 57-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. 6.3.9]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 13:25:22 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-26-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: NFPA 221 will send the user to E119. Therefore, the addition of ASTM E 119 is not necessary. Thecommittee has made minor changes to this section to reorganize the text.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
73 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 56-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.3.6.1 ]
6.3.6.1
Openings in fire walls and in fire barrier walls shall be protected by self-closing fire doors that have a fireresistance rating protection rating, when tested in accordance with NFPA 252, Standard Methods of FireTests of Door Assemblies, equivalent to the wall design.
Also, add NFPA 252 into chapter 2 on referenced standards.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The rating of fire doors is called fire protection rating and the testing is done in accordance with NFPA 252.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 57-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. 6.3.9]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 13:27:02 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-27-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: The rating of fire doors is called fire protection rating and the testing is done in accordance with NFPA252.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
74 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 15-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 6.3.7 ]
6.3.7.1 Normally occupied spaces/rooms where hazardous dust accumulation may occur shall bedesigned according to ‘Special Provisions for Occupancies with High Hazard Contents’ in NFPA101.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Prescribed housekeeping measures to prevent or reduce dust generation and dispersal can do much to lessen the hazards of combustible dust, but cannot eliminate them. LSC 101:7.11 addresses exit egress provisions specific to this type hazard.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway
Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 16:57:11 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-28-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Prescribed housekeeping measures to prevent or reduce dust generation and dispersal can do muchto lessen the hazards of combustible dust, but cannot eliminate them. LSC 101:7.11 addresses exitegress provisions specific to this type hazard.
The committee changed text to "deflagration hazard" versus dust accumulation. Cited specificsections of the life safety code as well.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
75 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 58-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.3.8 ]
6.3.8 Penetrations.
Where floors, walls, ceilings, and other partitions have been erected to control the spread of fire ordeflagrations, penetrations in these structures shall be sealed to maintain their fire endurance resistancerating and maintain physical integrity in a deflagration. (See 7.6.7.)
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The term fire endurance has been replaced in all NFPA documents (and also in ASTM and ICC) by the term fire resistance.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 13:35:53 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-29-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: The term fire endurance has been replaced in all NFPA documents (and also in ASTM and ICC) bythe term fire resistance.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
76 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 57-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.3.9 ]
6.3.9 Fire Resistance Rating.
6.3.9.1
Interior stairs, elevators, and manlifts shall be enclosed in dusttight shafts that have a minimum fireresistance rating of 1 hour, when tested in accordance with ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for FireTests of Building Construction and Materials .
6.3.9.2
Doors that are the automatic-closing or self-closing type and have a fire resistance protection rating of 1hour, when tested in accordance with NFPA 252, Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, shallbe provided at each landing.
6.3.9.3
Stairs, elevators, and manlifts that serve only open-deck floors, mezzanines, and platforms shall not berequired to be enclosed.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Adds the relevant test methods and the correct designation.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 56-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. 6.3.6.1]
Public Input No. 55-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. 6.3.5]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 13:30:53 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-30-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Adds the relevant test methods and the correct designation.
Move E 119 reference to the annex as done in previous FR along with reference to 252.
This FR also includes a response to PI-12 with a reference to NFPA 101.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
77 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 12-NFPA 654-2013 [ Section No. 6.3.9.1 ]
6.3.9.1
Interior stairs, elevators, and manlifts shall be enclosed in dusttight shafts that have a minimum fireresistance rating of 1 hour rating in accordance with NFPA 101 .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
For consistency with 6.3.7. NFPA 101 requires a 2-hour fire resistance rating if 4 or more stories.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Chartier
Organization: Northeastern Regional Fire Cod
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Nov 08 07:58:28 EST 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-30. The committee added a reference to a specific section of NFPA 101 to Section 6.3.9.1
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
78 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 9-NFPA 654-2013 [ Section No. 6.4.1 ]
6.4.1 *
If a room or building contains a dust explosion hazard as specified in 6 in 6 . 2 1 .3. 1 2 that is external toprotected equipment, such areas shall be provided with deflagration venting to a safe outside location.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
I believe this to be a typo. NFPA 654-2006 was amended to change the reference from 6.2.3.1 to 6.1.1.3, but it appears that NFPA 654-2013 reverted to the old reference instead of starting with the new equivalent of 6.1.1.3. In other words, I believe that the reference in Article 6.4.1 should be to 6.1.3.2 which is the article that defines the conditions when a dust explosion and dust flash fire hazard exists.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: JOHN KRIEGSHAUSER
Organization: Black & Veatch Corp.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Aug 21 13:40:28 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-31-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: I believe this to be a typo. NFPA 654-2006 was amended to change the reference from 6.2.3.1 to6.1.1.3, but it appears that NFPA 654-2013 reverted to the old reference instead of starting with thenew equivalent of 6.1.1.3. In other words, I believe that the reference in Article 6.4.1 should be to6.1.3.2 which is the article that defines the conditions when a dust explosion and dust flash firehazard exists.
Committee reviewed this reference. Reference should be to 6.1.1.2 and 6.1.1.3
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
79 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 37-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.5.1 ]
6.5.1
All electrical equipment and installations shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 70, National ElectricalCode, or NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment . .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
As written the current text incorrectly suggests that compliance with the NEC (NFPA 70) or NFPA 496 is equivalent when in fact the electrical installations need to comply with the NEC NFPA 70. NFPA 496 is addressed a protection method which is included in Chapter 5 of the NEC.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: David Wechsler
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jul 01 15:43:18 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-32-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: As written the current text incorrectly suggests that compliance with the NEC (NFPA 70) or NFPA 496is equivalent when in fact the electrical installations need to comply with the NEC NFPA 70. NFPA496 is addressed a protection method which is included in Chapter 5 of the NEC.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
80 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 38-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.5.2 ]
Delete Section 6.5.2*
In local areas of a plant where a hazardous quantity of dust accumulates or is suspended in air, the areashall be classified and all electrical equipment and installations in those local areas shall comply withArticle 502 or Article 503 of NFPA 70 , National Electrical Code , as applicable.
and its Annex
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
With action on new 4.3, Section 6.5.2 is not needed here. Additionally while the 6/5/2 Annex material contains some information dealing with hazardous classification of Class II Combustible Dust locations, the information does not provide all the needed material contained in NFPA 499. Rather than attempting to highlight some aspects of NFPA 499, the users would be better advised to use the complete NFPA 499 to address those hazardous clarification requirements/needs.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: David Wechsler
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jul 01 16:02:01 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee did not vote to add the new Section 4.3 proposed by the submitter, therefore it votedto retain this section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
81 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 100-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 6.5.3 ]
Chapter 7 Dust Hazard Analysis
7.1* General Requirements.
7.1.1 Responsibility.
The owner/operator of a facility where materials that have been determined to be combustible or explosiblein accordance with Chapter 5 are present in either a process or a facility compartment shall be responsibleto ensure a dust hazards analysis is completed in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
7.1.2*
The requirements of Chapter 7 shall apply retroactively in accordance with this section.
7.1.2.1 For existing processes/facility compartments that are undergoing material modification, theowner/operator shall complete a dust hazard analysis as part of the project.
7.1.2.2* For existing process/facility compartments that are not undergoing material modification, theowner/operator shall schedule and complete dust hazards analyses of existing process/facilitycompartments within a 3-year period of the effective date of the standard. The owner/operator shalldemonstrate reasonable progress in each of the three years.
7.1.2.3 For the purposes of applying the provisions of 7.1.2, material modification shall includemodifications or maintenance/repair activities that exceed 25 percent of the original cost.
7.2 Criteria.
7.2.1* Overview.
The dust hazards analysis shall evaluate the fire, deflagration, and explosion hazards and providerecommendations to manage the hazards in accordance with 4.2.
The process hazards analysis shall be performed or led by a qualified person.
7.2.2 Documentation.
The results of the process hazards analysis review shall be documented, including any necessary actionitems requiring change to the process materials, physical process, process operations, or facilitiesassociated with the process.
7.3 Methodology.
7.3.1 General.
The dust hazards analysis shall:
(1) Identify and evaluate the portions of the process or facility areas where a fire, deflagration, andexplosion hazard exists
(2) Identify and evaluate specific fire and deflagration scenarios and their potential consequences
(3) Identify safe operating ranges
(4) Identify the safeguards that are in place to manage fire, deflagration, and explosion events
(5) Recommend additional safeguards where warranted, including a plan with anticipated dates forimplementation
7.3.2 Material Evaluation.
7.3.2.1
The dust hazards analysis shall be based on data obtained in accordance with Chapter 5 for material that isrepresentative of the dust present.
7.3.3 Process Systems.
7.3.3.1*
Each part of the process system where combustible dust is present or where combustible particulate solidscould cause combustible dust to be present shall be evaluated.
7.3.3.1.1 The evaluation shall address the following:
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
82 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
(1) Potential intended and unintended combustible dust transport between parts of the process system.
(1) Potential fugitive combustible dust emissions into facility compartments.
(1) Potential of deflagration propagation between parts of the process system.
7.3.3.2*
Each part of the process that includes all of the following shall be considered a fire hazard and documentedas such:
(1) Combustible particulate solid
(2) Oxidizing atmosphere
(3) Credible ignition source
7.3.3.3*
Each part of the process that includes all of the following shall be considered a dust flash fire or explosionhazard, as appropriate, and documented as such:
(1) Combustible dust
(2) Oxidizing atmosphere
(3) Credible ignition source
(4) Suspension mechanism
(5) Sufficient quantity of dust to propagate deflagration
7.3.4 Facility Compartments.
7.3.4.1*
Each facility compartment where combustible dust is present shall be evaluated.
7.3.4.1.1 Where multiple facility compartments present essentially the same hazard it shall be permitted toconduct a single evaluation as representative of all similar facility compartments.
7.3.4.1.2 The evaluation shall address the potential of combustible dust migration between facilitycompartments.
7.3.4.1.3 The evaluation shall address the potential of deflagration propagation between facilitycompartments.
7.3.4.2*
Each facility compartment that includes all of the following shall be considered a fire hazard anddocumented as such:
(1) Combustible particulate solid
(2) Oxidizing atmosphere
(3) Credible ignition source
7.3.4.3 Each facility compartment that includes all of the following shall be considered a dust flash fire orexplosion hazard, as appropriate, and documented as such:
(1) Combustible dust
(2) Oxidizing atmosphere
(3) Credible ignition source
(4) Suspension mechanism
(5) Sufficient quantity of dust to propagate deflagration
7.3.4.3.1*
The evaluation of dust deflagration hazard in a facility compartment shall include a comparison of actual orintended dust accumulation to the threshold housekeeping dust accumulation that would present a potentialfor flash-fire exposure to personnel or compartment failure due to explosive overpressure.
7.3.4.3.2
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
83 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Threshold housekeeping dust accumulation levels and non-routine dust accumulation levels (i.e., from aprocess upset) shall be in accordance with relevant industry or commodity-specific NFPA standards.(See1.3.1.)
7.3.2.6.5* Branch lines shall not be added to an existing system without first confirming that the modifiedsystem will maintain required and balanced airflow.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
[new chapter from draft NFPA 652 needed to provide adequately detailed and comprehensive requirements for effective dust hazard analysis]
Substantiation for new 7.3.2.6.5*: This proposed change is consistent with draft NFPA 652. There is no need to redesign an entire dust collection system when branch lines (duct) additions are made. It is only necessary to ensure that the minimum conveying velocity for the specific type of dust handled is ensured in all branches. ACGIH Ventilation Manual provides guidance for conveying velocities for the type of dust handled.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 12:24:51 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: These requirements are in NFPA 652, which is the over-arching document. They should remain there.The committee has proposed a global first revision to change process hazard analysis to dust hazardanalysis, to be consistent with NFPA 652. The addition of this would be duplicate the requirements toperform a process hazard analysis (now dust hazard analysis) in 654, as the input does not removeor modify those sections.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
84 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 39-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 6.5.3 ]
Delete Section 6.5.3
Hazardous (classified) areas that are identified in accordance with 6.5.2 shall be documented, and suchdocumentation shall be permanently maintained on file for the life of the facility.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This information has been restated under new Section 4.3 as 4.3.3 in the Public Input as General Requirement. Therefore retaining this text in this section is not needed.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: David Wechsler
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jul 01 16:06:56 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee did not vote to add the new Section 4.3 proposed by the submitter, therefore it votedto retain this section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
85 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 103-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 7.1.3 ]
7.1.3* Risk Evaluation Assessment .
A documented risk evaluation assessment that, based on the application of clear criteria derived from theobjectives of this standard, is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, shall be permitted to beconducted to determine the level of protection to be provided per each of the provisions of this chapter.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: The suggested change is designed to clarify the intent of this provision and is consistent with Section 8.3 of draft NFPA 652.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 12:33:01 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee has made a global first revision to change all references to "risk evaluation" to "riskassessment" throughout the document. This language in taken directly from 652 and the 654committee does not believe that the term "application of clear criteria" is enforceable. The phrase "pereach of the provisions of this chapter" is not necessary as a charging statement for this chapter.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
86 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 4-NFPA 654-2013 [ New Section after 7.1.4 ]
PROCESS EQUIPMENT THAT MAY NOT REQUIRE EXPLOSION PROTECTION/PREVENTIONSYSTEMS
Subject to the approval of AHJ, the following process equipment is excluded from the requirementof explosion protection.
1) Outdoor installed equipment.
2) Fixed bulk storage vessels/air material separators of total volume less than 8 cuft.
3) Wet-air material separators meeting special criterion (as per 7.13).
4) Enclosure-less air material separators meeting special criterion (as per 7.1.3).
5) Portable or transport vessels.
6) Sifters/screens.
7) Handling combustible dusts with dust concentrations less than 25% MEC (or LFL) if notmonitored continuously or less than 60% if monitored continuously, (In case MEC is not available,assume 30g/m3).
8) Air exhaust ducts with dust concentrations less than 25% MEC (or LFL)
9) Handling combustible dusts in atmosphere where oxygen concentration is less than 2% belowLOC (less than 60% of LOC if LOC less than 5%) if oxygen concentration is continuouslymonitored.
10) Handling combustible dusts in atmosphere where oxygen concentration is less than 60%of LOC (less than 40% of LOC if LOC less than 5%) if oxygen concentration is not continuouslymonitored
11) Handling combustible dusts in atmosphere where partial vaccum is applied followed by inertgas purging and oxygen concentration is not continuously monitored
12) Non solvent dryers (without product recirculation) with dust fill fraction(volume of dust tovolume of enclosure) is less than ratio of Pred/Pmax
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This statement would substantiate the equipment that could be safely excluded from the requirement of explosion protection/prevenation systems. Most of this are covered in other NFPA standards. But to included this at start of the section will help and easy to undertand
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
87 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri May 31 16:16:27 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: This section is not enforceable as it is written. The committee wishes to retain the exemptions in thespecific sections of the document. Note that "subject to the approval of the AHJ" does not apply to allof these situations.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
88 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 110-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 7.1.6.2 ]
7.1.6.2
The requirement of 7.1.6.1 shall not apply where all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The material being conveyed is not a metal dust or hybrid mixture.
(2) The connecting ductwork is smaller than 4 in. (100 mm) nominal diameter.
(3) The maximum concentration of dust conveyed through the duct is less than 25 percent of theminimum explosive concentration (MEC) of the material.
(4) The conveying velocity is sufficient to prevent accumulation of combustible dust in the duct.
(5) All connected equipment is properly designed for explosion protection by means other thandeflagration pressure containment.
(6) An expert review and documented risk assessment acceptable to the authority having jurisdictionhas completed to accept the reduced propagation risk.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The current language does not address that the exemption of small lines sizes should only be done if the reduced probability of propagation is acceptable.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Jason Krbec
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 14:48:20 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-37 for changes to Section 7.16
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
89 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 23-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 7.1.6.2 ]
7.1.6.2
The requirement of 7.1.6.1 shall not apply where all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The material being conveyed is not a metal dust or hybrid mixture.
(2) The connecting ductwork is smaller than 4 in. (100 mm) nominal diameter.
The maximum concentration of dust conveyed through the duct is less than 25 percent of the minimumexplosive concentration (MEC) of the material
(1) .
(2) The conveying velocity is sufficient to prevent accumulation of combustible dust in the duct.
(3) All connected equipment is properly designed for explosion protection by means other thandeflagration pressure containment.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Subparagraph (C) incorrectly implies that flame propagation is less likely and can be prevented by reducing dust concentrations to levels well below MEC. Research conducted by Alfert and reported to the 68 committee and both published and directly reported by Alfert, based on his research at CMI directly refutes this notion. In fact the probability for flame propagation goes up as concentration goes down. This was confirmed with Alfert in private conversation last month in Chicago. Moreover, it has been agreed in the 652 committee that all pneumatic conveyors will be treated the same with no distinctions based on dust concentration so removing this section from 654 would serve the interests of consistency moving forward.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Stevenson
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jun 13 09:49:30 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-37 for changes to Section 7.16
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
90 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 89-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 7.2.2 ]
A7.2.2
Historically, this section required that the fixed bulke storagee vessel be constructed of non-combustiblematerials. This usually meant steel of some other metallic material. However, there are some pariculatesthat represent a serious corrosion threat or where contamination from the materials of cntstructionintroduces product quality issues. Consequently the technical committee took a performance-basedapproach. The materials of contruction for a bulk stoarge vessel should not increase the fire protectionchallenge.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
While the existing text clearly states the objective the annex text provides some background showing why the language was selected the way that it was.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Cholin
Organization: J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc.
Affilliation: none
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 11:19:00 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-58. PI was accepted and added as annex material to Section 7.2.2
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
91 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 24-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 7.2.3.2.2 ]
Add new annex material A7.2.3.2.2
The 8 cubic foot limit is provided for guidance only as a dust explosion could still occur in a vessel of thissize or smaller. The decision to forego protection on small vessels assumes that the predictedconsequences of an explosion are acceptable.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The 8 cubic foot limit was established in the first place based on accepting the consequences. This factor has been lost in the 2013 document as near as I can tell. This would re-establish the principal upon which the guidance is based.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Stevenson
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jun 13 10:12:09 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The current annex material for this section meets the intent of the committee.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
92 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 6-NFPA 654-2013 [ Section No. 7.2.3.3.2 ]
7.2.3.3.2 *
The explosion protection requirements of 7.1.4 shall not be required provided that the volume of the fixed
bulk storage container is less than 8 ft3 (0.2 m3), and the fixed bulk storage container does not servemetal grinders, hot work processes, or machinery that can produce sparks . .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 654-26 (Log #28) which was held from the A12 ROC on Proposal 654-31.
We believe this provision should be consistent with the proposed enclosureless AMS provision in 7.13.1.1.2(4).
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: George Petino
Organization: Hazards Research Corporation
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Aug 09 13:44:28 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: The submitter is not clear as to what he is referring to in terms of fixed bulk storage. The committeedoes not understand the rationale for the proposed exemptions.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
93 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 91-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 7.3.2 ]
7.3.2.8
Operator controls for air-material separators associated with pneumatic conveying, dust collection orcentralized vacuum cleaning systems shall be installed in a location that is safe from the effects of a venteddeflagration in the air-material separator.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
A recent incident resulted in personnel injury because the operator controls were located at the base of the air-material separator. When the deflagration occurred the person at the operator controls was injured due to the radiant flux form the vented deflagration. This standard should require that all operator controls associated with air-material separators be located in a safe location.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Cholin
Organization: J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc.
Affilliation: none
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 11:29:51 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-59. The committee accepted this input but moved it to Section 7.13.1.8.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
94 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 25-NFPA 654-2014 [ Sections 7.3.2.5.1, 7.3.2.5.1 ]
Sections 7.3.2.5.1, 7.3.2.5.1
7.3.2.5.1*
Where a pneumatic conveying system or any part of such systems operates as a positive-pressure-typesystem and the air-moving device's gauge discharge pressure is 15 psi (103 kPa) or greater, the systemshall be designed in accordance with Section VIII of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code or ASMEB31.3, Process Piping, or international equivalent .
7.3.2.5.1*
Where a pneumatic conveying system or any part of such systems operates as a positive-pressure-typesystem and the air-moving device's gauge discharge pressure is 15 psi (103 kPa) or greater, the systemshall be designed in accordance with Section VIII of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code or ASMEB31.3, Process Piping, or international equivalent .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
As currently worded it would be difficult to utilized equipment designed, manufactured and supplied off shore even though that equipment is entirely suitable. The German DIN standard comes to mind as an example. It is not the intent of this document to exclude products or solutions suitable for the circumstances without proper grounds to do so.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Stevenson
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jun 13 10:23:14 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-34-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: As currently worded it would be difficult to utilized equipment designed, manufactured and suppliedoff shore even though that equipment is entirely suitable. The German DIN standard comes to mindas an example. It is not the intent of this document to exclude products or solutions suitable for thecircumstances without proper grounds to do so.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
95 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 90-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 7.3.2.5.2 ]
7.3.2.5.2
All components of pneumatic conveying systems that handle combustible particulate solids shall bedesigned to be dusttight, except for openings designed for intake and discharge of air and material.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This same text is in section 7.3.2.3, above. It is an important concept but does it really need to be stated twice twice?
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Cholin
Organization: J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc.
Affilliation: none
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 11:26:08 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-35-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: This same text is in section 7.3.2.3, above. Committee agrees with submitter that it does not need tostated twice.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
96 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 2-NFPA 654-2013 [ Section No. 7.6.6 ]
7.6.6 *
Changes in duct sizes shall be designed to prevent the accumulation of material by utilizing atapered transformation piece with the included angle of the taper not more than 30 degrees taper tobe 30 degrees or less (preferred) to 45 degrees if necessary .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This proposed change will ensure consistency in the design directive language provided by NFPA 654, SMACNA and ACGIH standards relating to the entering branch angle in duct design.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Allison Fee
Organization: SMACNA
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu May 02 13:53:07 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: The proposed language is unenforceable. The committee made modifications to the annex material toclarify the requirements. See FR-36 for revisions to the annex material for this section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
97 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 26-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 7.10.9.4 ]
7.10.9.4
The requirement of 7.10.9.1 shall not apply to elevators that have belt speeds below 500 ft/min (150
m/min) or capacities less than 3750 ft 3 /hr (106 m 3 /hr).
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The limits stated in this paragraph are a relic from an earlier age. I can find no basis for them and others who have looked could not find one either. Moreover I have personally investigated an accident involving a bucket elevator that suffered a dust explosion that was not even in operation at the time of the incident. This loophole needs to be closed.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Stevenson
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jun 13 10:29:09 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-40-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 654-27 (Log #33) which was held from the A12 ROC onProposal N/A.
The belt speed or capacity has no influence on the reduced explosion pressure or the likely hood ofan event occurring in a bucket elevator. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published a paper byHolbrow, P., Lunn, G. A., Tyldesley, A. titled Explosion Venting of Bucket Elevators in the Journal ofLoss Prevention in the Process Industries, 15 (2002), 373-383. The article provides extensive testdata for the design of explosion venting with regards to bucket elevators.
The paper concludes that belt speed had no noticeable effect on the reduced explosion pressure. Beltmisalignment, hot bearing temperatures and excessive vibration should all be monitored as they arecredible ignition sources independent of the capacity of a bucket elevator.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
98 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 7-NFPA 654-2013 [ Section No. 7.10.9.4 ]
7.10.9.4
The requirement of 7.10.9.1 shall not apply to elevators that have belt speeds below 500 ft/min (150
m/min) or capacities less than 3750 ft 3 /hr (106 m 3 /hr).
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 654-27 (Log #33) which was held from the A12 ROC on Proposal N/A.
The belt speed or capacity has no influence on the reduced explosion pressure or the likely hood of an event occurring in a bucket elevator. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published a paper by Holbrow, P., Lunn, G. A., Tyldesley, A. titled Explosion Venting of Bucket Elevators in the Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 15 (2002), 373-383. The article provides extensive test data for the design of explosion venting with regards to bucket elevators. The paper concludes that belt speed had no noticeable effect on the reduced explosion pressure. Belt misalignment, hot bearing temperatures and excessive vibration should all be monitored as they are credible ignition sources independent of the capacity of a bucket elevator.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Jason Krbec
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Aug 09 13:47:53 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-40-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: NOTE: This proposal appeared as Comment 654-27 (Log #33) which was held from the A12 ROC onProposal N/A.
The belt speed or capacity has no influence on the reduced explosion pressure or the likely hood ofan event occurring in a bucket elevator. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published a paper byHolbrow, P., Lunn, G. A., Tyldesley, A. titled Explosion Venting of Bucket Elevators in the Journal ofLoss Prevention in the Process Industries, 15 (2002), 373-383. The article provides extensive testdata for the design of explosion venting with regards to bucket elevators.
The paper concludes that belt speed had no noticeable effect on the reduced explosion pressure. Beltmisalignment, hot bearing temperatures and excessive vibration should all be monitored as they arecredible ignition sources independent of the capacity of a bucket elevator.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
99 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 27-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 7.11.1.2 ]
Flexible Screw Conveyors
7.11.1.2.1 The requirements of 7.11.1.2 shall not apply to specially engineered flexible screw conveyorswhich shall be permitted to be used.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
It was never the intent of this committee to excluded the use of flexible screw conveyors where appropriate. The requirement for metal housings in all cases has inadvertently done so.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Stevenson
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jun 13 10:35:25 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-41-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: This FR was developed as a response to PI-27. FR-41 adds language that allows non-metal housingto be used under certain conditions.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
100 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 3-NFPA 654-2013 [ Section No. 7.12.2.4 ]
7.12.2.4
Where the MEC value is unknown, a value of 0.03 oz/ft 3 (30 g/m 3 )shall be permitted to be assumed.
Comment" Move this statement to general section as it might be applicable to other areas also"
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Dust concentration is always a concern to the end users and it is useful to what are the limits.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Venkateswara Bhamidipati
Organization: Powder Process Solutions
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon May 13 16:43:10 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: This was meant to be intended for a very specific application for AMS. The committee does not intendto make this a general requirement.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
101 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 18-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 7.13.1.1.2 ]
7.13.1.1.2 *
The requirement of 7.13.1.1.1 shall not apply to the following:
(1) Air-material separators that are protected in accordance with 7.1.4
(2) Air-material separators that have a dirty-side volume of less than 8 ft3 (0.2 m3)
(3) Wet air-material separators that meet all of the following criteria:
(a) Interlocks are provided to shutdown the system if the flow rate of the scrubbing medium is lessthan the designed minimum flow rate.
(b) The scrubbing medium is not a flammable or combustible liquid.
(c) The separator is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within theair-material (AMS).
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
of 3000
(a)
1
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
NFPA 664 has used 5,000 CFM as the upper limit for a number of revisions. With the requirement of MIE >500mJ the risk factor is not higher for dusts covered by this standard that the dust handled by dust covered by NFPA 664. Since this style AMS is not enclosed the risk assesment only covers fire hazards and with the high MIE the risk is significantly reduced. Using the limit of 5,000 CFM to be the same as for NFPA 664 the confusion in the marketplace is reduced.
* Enclosureless air-material separators meeting all the following criteria shall be permitted to be used:
The filter medium is not shaken or pressure-pulsed to dislodge dust during operation.
The AMS is not used to vent or serve metal grinders, hot work processes, or machinery thatcan produce sparks.
The AMS is not used to vent or serve sanders, abrasive planers, or similar sanding processequipment.
* Each collector system has a maximum air flow–handling capacity
of 5000 cfm (
2 .4 m 3 /sec).
The fan motor is suitable for Class II, Division 2, or Class III, as appropriate.
The collected dust is removed daily or more frequently if necessary to ensure efficient operationand to limit the collected dust to less than 22 lb (10 kg).
The collector is located at least 20 ft (6.1 m) from any means of egress or area routinelyoccupied by personnel.
* Multiple collectors in the same room are separated from each other by at least 20 ft (6.1 m).
* The minimum ignition energy (MIE) of the collected materials is greater than 500 mJ.
The fan construction is spark resistant and meets the criteria in 7.12.2.5 .
The filter medium is not located within 35 ft (10.7 m) of any open flame or hot surface capableof igniting a dust cloud of the material it contains.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
102 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Niels Pedersen
Organization: Nederman LLC
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jun 06 15:16:06 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-42 for changes to this Section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
103 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 19-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 7.13.1.1.2 ]
7.13.1.1.2 *
The requirement of 7.13.1.1.1 shall not apply to the following:
(1) Air-material separators that are protected in accordance with 7.1.4
(2) Air-material separators that have a dirty-side volume of less than 8 ft3 (0.2 m3)
(3) Wet air-material separators that meet all of the following criteria:
(a) Interlocks are provided to shutdown the system if the flow rate of the scrubbing medium is lessthan the designed minimum flow rate.
(b) The scrubbing medium is not a flammable or combustible liquid.
(c) The separator is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within theair-material (AMS).
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
appropriate
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The statement "as appropiate for Class II div. 2" leads the reader to assume he must apply a motor rated for Class II div. 2. These motors are not readily available or only available rated both for div. 1 and div. 2. NFPA 70 - handbook has a segment where it says that TEFC motor meets Class II div. 2 provided that the motor meets the temperature rating for the area of the motor location.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Niels Pedersen
* Enclosureless air-material separators meeting all the following criteria shall be permitted to be used:
The filter medium is not shaken or pressure-pulsed to dislodge dust during operation.
The AMS is not used to vent or serve metal grinders, hot work processes, or machinery thatcan produce sparks.
The AMS is not used to vent or serve sanders, abrasive planers, or similar sanding processequipment.
* Each collector system has a maximum air flow–handling capacity of 3000 cfm (1.4
m 3 /sec).
The fan motor is suitable for Class II, Division 2, or Class III, as
appropriateThis include the use of TEFC(Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled) .
The collected dust is removed daily or more frequently if necessary to ensure efficient operationand to limit the collected dust to less than 22 lb (10 kg).
The collector is located at least 20 ft (6.1 m) from any means of egress or area routinelyoccupied by personnel.
* Multiple collectors in the same room are separated from each other by at least 20 ft (6.1 m).
* The minimum ignition energy (MIE) of the collected materials is greater than 500 mJ.
The fan construction is spark resistant and meets the criteria in 7.12.2.5 .
The filter medium is not located within 35 ft (10.7 m) of any open flame or hot surface capableof igniting a dust cloud of the material it contains.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
104 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Organization: Nederman LLC
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jun 06 15:27:59 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-42 for changes to this Section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
105 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 29-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 7.13.1.1.2 ]
7.13.1.1.2*
The requirement of 7.13.1.1.1 shall not apply to the following:
(1) Air-material separators that are protected in accordance with 7.1.4
(2) Air-material separators that have a dirty-side volume of less than 8 ft3 (0.2 m3)
(3) Wet air-material separators that meet all of the following criteria:
(4) Interlocks are provided to shutdown the system if the flow rate of the scrubbing medium is lessthan the designed minimum flow rate.
(5) The scrubbing medium is not a flammable or combustible liquid.
(6) The separator is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within theair-material (AMS).
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
3000
(a)
m 3
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
3000 CFM banks in paper dust applications are too restrictive for paper dust applications. Corrugated Box Plants and Printing Plants who are entry level privately owned corporations typically cannot afford a cartridge or baghouse filter. The added cost of multiple 3000 cfm units is cost prohibitive. 8,000 CFM or banks of 8,000 cfm modules are typically more economically feasible.
* Enclosureless air-material separators meeting all the following criteria shall be permitted to be used:
The filter medium is not shaken or pressure-pulsed to dislodge dust during operation.
The AMS is not used to vent or serve metal grinders, hot work processes, or machinery thatcan produce sparks.
The AMS is not used to vent or serve sanders, abrasive planers, or similar sanding processequipment.
* Each collector system has a maximum air flow–handling capacity of
8000 cfm ( 3.77 m 3 /sec) for class 1 dust, and 3,000 CFM (1 .4
m3 /sec) for higher class dusts .
The fan motor is suitable for Class II, Division 2, or Class III, as appropriate.
The collected dust is removed daily or more frequently if necessary to ensure efficientoperation and to limit the collected dust to less than 22 lb (10 kg).
The collector is located at least 20 ft (6.1 m) from any means of egress or area routinelyoccupied by personnel.
* Multiple collectors in the same room are separated from each other by at least 20 ft (6.1m).
* The minimum ignition energy (MIE) of the collected materials is greater than 500 mJ.
The fan construction is spark resistant and meets the criteria in 7.12.2.5 .
The filter medium is not located within 35 ft (10.7 m) of any open flame or hot surface capableof igniting a dust cloud of the material it contains.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
106 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: GREG BUMB
Organization: GF PUHL
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jun 27 09:10:25 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-42 for changes to this Section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
107 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 42-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 7.13.1.6.3 ]
TITLE OF NEW CONTENT
Type your content here ...
Where a filter such as but not limited to a flame arresting element or a HEPA filter is used to preventparticulate solids from entering return air ducts or the work place a means to isolate said filter shall beprovided to prevent flame contact with the device.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Under the current provisions outlined in 7.13.1.6.3 it is not clear that the use of a device that would trap flame or particulate solids from re-entering the work space could become contaminated and present a secondary hazard in the form of blockage. Such an occurrence could result in excessive pressure beyond safe limits and could fuel additional flame spread into the work place.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Stevenson
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Jul 02 15:55:53 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-44-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Under the current provisions outlined in 7.13.1.6.3 it is not clear that the use of a device that wouldtrap flame or particulate solids from re-entering the work space could become contaminated andpresent a secondary hazard in the form of blockage. Such an occurrence could result in excessivepressure beyond safe limits and could fuel additional flame spread into the work place.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
108 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 102-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 8.1.1 ]
8.1.1
Continuous suction to minimize the escape of dust shall be provided for processes where combustible dustis liberated in normal operation in amounts that, under established housekeeping procedures, would beexpected to exceed the allowable threshold housekeeping dust accumulation in the affected areas ..
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: The requirement to install continuous suction for any process that liberates any quantity of combustible dust during processing during normal operation is cost prohibitive in industry and is unwarranted where minimal dust is liberated that does not exceed allowable threshold housekeeping dust accumulations.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 12:31:32 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee believes that the proposed revision is not feasible or enforceable, and waters downthe requirements of this section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
109 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 101-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 8.2.2.1 ]
8.2.2.1
Surfaces To the extent practical, surfaces shall be cleaned in a manner that minimizes the risk ofgenerating a fire or explosion hazard.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: This provision, which seems to imply that all surfaces must be vacuumed or wet cleaned, and never blown down, is impractical and inconsistent with Section 8.2.2.3 and 8.2.2.4.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 12:29:36 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee is considering a review of these requirements versus those in Section 8.4 of NFPA652 and incorporating or referring to the requirements in 652 for second draft.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
Portable vacuum cleaners that meet the following minimum requirements shall be permitted to be used tocollect combustible particulate solids:
(1) Vacuum cleaners shall meet the hazard classification of the area where they will be used as definedin 6.5 and shall be electrically grounded and bonded
(2) In Class II Division 1 electrically classified (hazardous) locations, vacuum cleaners shall be NRTLcertified for use in Class II Division 1 electrically classified (hazardous) locations. Vacuum cleanersNRTL certified for use in Class II Division 2 electrically classified (hazardous) locations shall not beused in Class II Division 1 electrically classified (hazardous) locations.
(3) In Class II Division 2 electrically classified (hazardous) locations, vacuum cleaners shall be NRTLcertified at least for use in Class II Division 2 electrically classified (hazardous) locations. Vacuumcleaners NRTL certified for use in Class II Division 1 electrically classified (hazardous) locations canbe used in Class II Division 2 electrically classified (hazardous) locations.
(4) * Paper filter elements shall not be used when combustible particulate solids: are collected andwhen liquids or wet material are picked up by the vacuum cleaner.
(5) Materials of construction shall comply with 7.13.2 and 9.3.2 .
(6) Hoses shall be conductive or static dissipative.
(7) All conductive components, including wands and attachments, shall be bonded and grounded.
(8) Dust-laden air shall not pass through the fan or blower.
(9) Electrical motors shall not be in the dust laden air stream unless listed for Class II, Division 1locations.
(10)
(11) Vacuum cleaners used for metal dusts shall meet the requirements of NFPA 484, Standard forCombustible Metals .
8.2.3.2 *
In Class II electrically classified (hazardous) locations, vacuum cleaners shall be listed NRTLcertified for the purpose and location or shall be a fixed-pipe suction system with remotelylocated exhauster and air-material separator installed in conformance with Section 7.13 and shallbe suitable for the dust being collected.
8.2.3.3
Where flammable vapors or gases are present, vacuum cleaners shall be listed for NRTLcertified for Class I and Class II hazardous locations.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
I have some concerns with regards to the changes made in the 2013 edition of the NFPA 654, specifically changes made to paragraph 8.2.3.1 “Portable vacuum cleaners”.
I understand that the goal of the NFPA TC was to better define the requirements when using vacuum cleaners to clean in non-classified areas. Unfortunately, based on the feedback that I’ve received from our existing customers (I work for a manufacturer of NRTL certified explosion-proof vacuum cleaners) and from new potential customers in the field, it appears that the changes made in the 2013 edition of NFPA 654 are being misinterpreted.
Since the new edition of the NFPA 654 focuses on the “minimum requirements” for a vacuum permitted to be used to collect combustible particulate solids, clients are telling us that, based on their interpretation of the new edition of the standard, Class II listed vacuums are no longer required to collect combustible particulate solids.
* When liquids or wet material are picked up by the vacuum cleaner, paper filter elements shall notbe used.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
111 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
I believe that it would have been useful to include a statement in section 8.2.3.1 of NFPA 654 to specify that vacuum cleaners that will be used to collect combustible particulate solids must meet the hazard classification of the area where they will be used. I also believe that a reference should be made in 8.2.3.1 of NFPA 654 to section 6.5 for a guideline on how to make the determination about the classification.
I are also concerned about paragraph 8.2.3.1 of NFPA 654 item 6 which states that paper filter bag should not be used when the vacuum is used to recover liquids or wet material. Although this statement is correct, the wording can be easily misinterpreted and give the impression that it is OK to use vacuums equipped with paper filter elements to collect combustible particulate solids without taking into consideration the flammability of the paper filter elements.
Thank you,
Stefan Briquet
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: STEPHANE BRIQUET
Organization: TIGER VAC INTERNATIONAL INC
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Apr 30 12:33:21 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-45
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
112 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 104-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 9.1.1 ]
9.1.1 Risk Evaluation Assessment .
A documented risk evaluation assessment that, based on the application of clear criteria derived from theobjectives in this standard is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, shall be permitted to beconducted to determine the level of protection to be provided according to by each of the provisions of thischapter.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The suggested change is intended to provide clarity.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO
Organization: SPI
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 12:38:44 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee has submitted a global first revision to change "risk evaluation" to "risk assessment".The committee does not believe that the term" application of clear criteria" is enforceable or thatadding "by each of the provisions of this chapter" is necessary.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
113 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 47-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 9.1.3 ]
Materials that self-heat
Certain materials that can self-heat to ignition shall require means to minimize the hazard. It shall bepermitted but not limited to utilize methods such as mechanically disturbing the material to interrupt thechemical reaction, inerting any equipment containing self-heating materials, reducing moisture content tostop the chemical reaction, or reducing the mass of the material.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Self-heating is a common if not always well understood mechanism for ignition. It fits in well with 9.1.3.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Stevenson
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 11:48:38 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: Material was added as annex material for Section 9.1.3
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
114 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 35-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 9.3.4.4 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]
Type C FIBCs shall be permitted to be used with combustible particulate solids and in locations whereflammable vapors having MIE >0.14 mJ vapors are present.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
According to IEC 61340-4-4 the only acceptance criterion for a Type C FIBC is that resistance to ground from any conductive element be less than 1.E7 ohms. Non-conductive surface area between conductive threads should be insufficient for incendive brush discharges provided that the bag is constructed according to this standard, meaning that there should not be a lower MIE limit. By contrast qualification of a Type D FIBC requires demonstrating that discharges from a charged bag are not capable of igniting a flammable vapor/air mixture having an MIE less than 0.14 mJ.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Robert Gravell
Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jul 01 13:17:49 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-64-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: According to IEC 61340-4-4 the only acceptance criterion for a Type C FIBC is that resistance toground from any conductive element be less than 1.E7 ohms. Non-conductive surface area betweenconductive threads should be insufficient for incendive brush discharges provided that the bag isconstructed according to this standard, meaning that there should not be a lower MIE limit. Bycontrast qualification of a Type D FIBC requires demonstrating that discharges from a charged bagare not capable of igniting a flammable vapor/air mixture having an MIE less than 0.14 mJ.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
115 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 107-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 9.3.4.4.1 ]
9.3.4.4.1
Conductive FIBC elements shall terminate in a grounding tab, and resistance from these elements to the
tab shall be or less than 108 10 7 ohms.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Recommended change in resistance to ground for Type C FIBC reflects requirements from current version of international FIBC standard IEC 61340-4-4, Rev. 2.0, in which value was lowered from 108 to 107 ohms
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Robert Gravell
Organization: The DuPont Company, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 13:20:14 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-63-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Recommended change in resistance to ground for Type C FIBC reflects requirements from currentversion of international FIBC standard IEC 61340-4-4, Rev. 2.0, in which value was lowered from 108to 107 ohms
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
116 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 48-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 9.8 ]
9.8 Industrial Trucks, railcars or similar conveyances .
9.8.1
Where used, industrial trucks, railcars or similar conveyances shall be listed or approved for the electricalclassification of the area, as determined by Section 6.5, and shall be used in accordance with NFPA 505,Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use,Conversions, Maintenance, and Operations.
9.8.2*
Where industrial trucks, railcars or similar conveyances in accordance with NFPA 505, Fire SafetyStandard for Powered Industrial Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use, Conversions,Maintenance, and Operations, are not commercially available, a documented risk assessment acceptableto the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to be used to specify the fire and explosion preventionfeatures for the equipment used.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
It has been pointed out in evaluations by OSHA inspectors that any type of vehicle that is to be used in a classified area needs to be suitable for use in such an area. The additional language is provided to convey that it is not just trucks that need to be addressed.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Stevenson
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 12:06:49 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-47. NFPA 505 applies only to powered industrial vehicles. FR-47 addresses the concern ofthe submitter regarding other types of vehicles.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
117 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 111-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 10.2.6 ]
10.2.6
All fire detection initiating devices shall be connected to the fire detection control panel via Style D or Ecircuits via class A or B circuits as described in NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The wiring stiles have been removed from NFPA 72 so this requirement is no longer correct.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Tony Thomas
Organization: Flamex, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 14:58:23 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-49-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: The wiring styles have been removed from NFPA 72 so this requirement is no longer correct.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
118 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 113-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 10.2.7 ]
10.2.7
All fire detection notification appliances shall be connected to the fire detection control panel via Style Y orZ circuits via Class A or B circuits as described in NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The wiring styles have been removed from NFPA 72 so this requirement is no longer correct.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Tony Thomas
Organization: Flamex, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 15:10:22 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-50-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: The wiring styles have been removed from NFPA 72 so this requirement is no longer correct.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
119 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 114-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 10.2.8.1 ]
10.2.8.1
All fire-extinguishing system releasing devices, solenoids, or actuators shall be connected to the firedetection control panel via Style Z circuits via Class A or B circuits as described in NFPA 72, National FireAlarm and Signaling Code.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The wiring style have been removed from NFPA 72 so this requirement is no longer correct.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Tony Thomas
Organization: Flamex, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 15:17:54 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-51-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: The wiring style have been removed from NFPA 72 so this requirement is no longer correct.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
120 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 115-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 10.2.9 ]
10.2.9
All supervisory devices that monitor critical elements or functions in the fire detection and extinguishingsystem shall be connected to the fire detection control panel via Style D or E circuits via Class A orB circuits as described in NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The wiring styles have been removed from NFPA 72 so this requirement is no longer correct.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Tony Thomas
Organization: Flamex, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 15:20:19 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-52-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: The wiring styles have been removed from NFPA 72 so this requirement is no longer correct.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
121 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 118-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after 10.2.10.1 ]
10.2.10.3
When the abort gate is connected via a Class D circuit the position of the abort gate shall be supervised bythe fire detection control panel.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Class D is fail safe and the abort would operate upon a failure. The position of the abort gate must be monitored to alert the personnel that a failure has occurred.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Tony Thomas
Organization: Flamex, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 16:11:32 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The abort gate may be separate from the fire protection panel. Therefore, it may not be possible in allcases to monitor the position.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
122 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 116-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 10.2.10.1 ]
10.2.10.1
All fire protection abort gates or abort dampers shall be connected to the fire detection control panel viaStyle Z circuits via Class B or D circuits as described in NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Both Class B and Class D wiring should be recognized by this standard for the connection to an abort gate. Class B is supervised while Class D has fail safe operation. No fault is annunciated with Class D but the intended operation is performed in the event of a failure. Most abort gates are currently connected with the Class D method and it is recognized in both NFPA 72 and NFPA 15.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Tony Thomas
Organization: Flamex, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 15:24:08 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-53-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Both Class A and Class D wiring should be recognized by this standard for the connection to an abortgate. Class A is fault tolerant while Class D has fail safe operation. No fault is annunciated with ClassD but the intended operation is performed in the event of a failure. Most abort gates are currentlyconnected with the Class D method.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
123 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 93-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 10.2.10.1 ]
10.2.10.1
All fire protection abort gates or abort dampers shall be connected to the fire detection control panel viaStyle Z either Class A circuits, as described in Chapter 12 of the NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm andSignaling Code or via normally-energized, fail-safe circuits .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
NFPA 72 has been revised. The proposed revision updates the reference to NFPA 72 and adds the option of using a normally-energized, fail-safe circuit as a performance-equivalent alternative to monitoring for integrity.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Cholin
Organization: J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc.
Affilliation: none
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 11:39:57 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-53
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
124 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 117-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. 10.2.10.2 ]
10.2.10.2
The When the abort gate is connected via a Class B circuit the supervision shall include the continuity ofthe abort gate or abort damper releasing device, whether that device is a solenoid coil, a detonator(explosive device) filament, or other such device.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This statement would differentiate the supervision requirements for an abort connected via Class B from an abort connected via Class D.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Tony Thomas
Organization: Flamex, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 16:03:10 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-54-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: This statement would differentiate the supervision requirements for an abort connected via Class Afrom an abort connected via Class D.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
125 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 30-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. A.3.3.9.1 ]
A.3.3.9.1 Dust Explosion Hazard Area.
Where the dust cloud concentration is equal to or greater than the MEC, it poses a dust explosion hazard.See NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, for evaluating strength ofenclosures.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This is an editorial change duplicating the existing language from A.3.3.9.2 to keep the discussion on dust explosion hazards with the annex material for dust explosion hazard area. I have submitted a follow on suggestion to remove the language about the dust explosion hazard from A.3.3.9.2.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 31-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. A.3.3.9.2]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jun 30 13:28:09 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The submitter, who is a member of the technical committee, withdraws these inputs in light of herreview of the objective of annex material in NFPA documents. Therefore the committee is resolvingthese inputs without making a first revision to the text.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
126 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 31-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. A.3.3.9.2 ]
A.3.3.9.2 Dust Flash Fire Hazard Area.
Where the dust cloud concentration is equal to or greater than the MEC, it poses a dust explosion and dustflash fire hazard. A propagating deflagration yields a flash fire through the hazard area. In Dust Explosionsin the Process Industries, Eckhoff observes for coal dust that if the cloud obscures a 25 W lightbulb over a6.6 ft (2 m) length, the concentration is probably close to the MEC. It is customary to consider a dust cloudhazardous when the concentration exceeds 25 percent of the MEC. It is recognized that it is often verydifficult or impractical to measure airborne dust concentration in this range in an industrial setting. For thisreason, it is often necessary to rely on subjective measures to determine the dust cloud concentration.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This input is associated with PI 30. This is an editorial suggestion to relocate the discussion on dust explosion hazards with the previous section A.3.3.9.1.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 30-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No.A.3.3.9.1]
Relocation of material from A.3.3.9.2 toA.3.3.9.1
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jun 30 13:33:16 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The submitter, who is a member of the technical committee, withdraws these inputs in light of herreview of the objective of annex material in NFPA documents. Therefore the committee is resolvingthese inputs without making a first revision to the text.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
127 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 16-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after A.3.3.12 ]
A.3.3.14 Explosion. For the purposes of this standard, the term explosion is equivalent to the termdeflagration as identified in NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The words explosion and deflagration are used interchangeably throughout the standard. (The proposed appendix language is used in NFPA 654:A3.3.8. NFPA 654 defines deflagration and explosion with the same verbiage as NFPA 654.)
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway
Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 16:58:43 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This input is not technically accurate based on the definitions in NFPA 68 and 69
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
128 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 44-NFPA 654-2014 [ New Section after A.7.1.8 ]
TITLE OF NEW CONTENT
7.1.8.1 Pre-deflagration in form of a listed spark detection system in combination with a tested abort gatesystem is a method to handle deflagration hazards. Protected vessels with a fire hazard must be equippedwith a secondary detection zone downstram of the protected vessel and upstream of the abort gate. Testingof the abort gate must be doneby third partyrecognized testing facilityand show full dirvertion of adeflagration detected by the connected spark detection system. This deflagration protection system canonly be relied on in pneumatic conveying systems with concentrations less than LFL or MEC.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Current and prior edition does not recognize the benefits of the use of the combination of spark detection and abort gates to provide life safety. Up to this point the community has not been provided with evidence of the effective operation of a properly tested and installed systems. The industry does have suppliers that has not properly designed and tested the strength and functionallity of these systems. The community recognize that the majority of incident develops as a fire event without entering into a deflagration stage. Without deflagation no pressure rise happens and a pressure activated isolation system will not prevent a flame front of traveling down a return air duct.The community also recognize that the majority of incidents are caused due to conpetent igniters traveling in pneumatic systems with concentrations below LFL or MEC. These competent igniters will be detected by the spark detection system before they enter a risk zone with an explosible concentration. With proper positioning of the spark detection system upstream of the risk zone and considering the proven reaction time of the abort gate the system provide required protection level.Installation of a second detection zone downstream of the risk zone provide for detection of developing fire within the risk zone.The writer request the opertunity to share his finding with the committee.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 45-NFPA 654-2014 [Section No. A.7.14]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Niels Pedersen
Organization: Nederman LLC
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 05:45:54 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: CI-67-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: This committee input is as a response to PI #43, #44, and #45.
The committee is soliciting comment on this proposed annex material. Currently, there are no facilitiesthat are listing or approving these devices. The committee is soliciting comments from testing facilitieson the availability on testing, and from the public as to whether or not this material should be includedin this standard.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
129 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Information from the original submitter’s substantiation is presented below:
The current and prior editions of this standard do not recognize the benefits of the use of thecombination of spark detection and abort gates to provide life safety. Up to this point the communityhas not been provided with evidence of the effective operation of a properly tested and installedsystems. The industry does have suppliers that have properly designed and tested the strength andfunctionality of these systems. The community recognizes that the majority of incident develops as afire event without entering into a deflagration stage. Without deflagration no pressure rise happensand a pressure activated isolation system will not prevent a flame front from traveling down a returnair duct. The community also recognizes that the majority of incidents are caused due to competentigniters traveling in pneumatic systems with concentrations below LFL or MEC. These competentigniters will be detected by the spark detection system before they enter a risk zone with anexplosible concentration. With proper positioning of the spark detection system upstream of the riskzone and considering the proven reaction time of the abort gate the system provides requiredprotection level. Installation of a second detection zone downstream of the risk zone provide fordetection of developing fire within the risk zone.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
130 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 43-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. A.7.1.8 ]
A.7.1.8
These devices reduce the frequency or likelihood that the sparks will cause a deflagration but do noteliminate the need for deflagration isolation devices. The abort gate cannot be relied on to serve as adeflagration isolation device because the response time is relatively slow and construction is usuallyunsuitable for withstanding explosion pressures unless tested by third party testing facility .
Additional information on spark extinguishing systems can be found in Annex C.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The general statement that an abort gate is not strong enough is incorrect. The writer has supervised multiple tests con ducted by recognized testing facility that has show to proerly isolated and deflect a deflagration when the abort function has been initiated by a properly installed pre-deflagration device (spark detection system).
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Niels Pedersen
Organization: Nederman LLC
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 05:38:31 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: CI-67-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: This committee input is as a response to PI #43, #44, and #45.
The committee is soliciting comment on this proposed annex material. Currently, there are no facilitiesthat are listing or approving these devices. The committee is soliciting comments from testing facilitieson the availability on testing, and from the public as to whether or not this material should be includedin this standard.
Information from the original submitter’s substantiation is presented below:
The current and prior editions of this standard do not recognize the benefits of the use of thecombination of spark detection and abort gates to provide life safety. Up to this point the communityhas not been provided with evidence of the effective operation of a properly tested and installedsystems. The industry does have suppliers that have properly designed and tested the strength andfunctionality of these systems. The community recognizes that the majority of incident develops as afire event without entering into a deflagration stage. Without deflagration no pressure rise happensand a pressure activated isolation system will not prevent a flame front from traveling down a returnair duct. The community also recognizes that the majority of incidents are caused due to competentigniters traveling in pneumatic systems with concentrations below LFL or MEC. These competentigniters will be detected by the spark detection system before they enter a risk zone with anexplosible concentration. With proper positioning of the spark detection system upstream of the riskzone and considering the proven reaction time of the abort gate the system provides requiredprotection level. Installation of a second detection zone downstream of the risk zone provide fordetection of developing fire within the risk zone.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
131 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 28-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. A.7.10.1 ]
A.7.10.1
Where deflagration vents are used on bucket elevators, they should be distributed along the casing side inpairs, opposite each other, next to the ends of the buckets. Each deflagration vent should be a minimum oftwo-thirds of the cross-sectional area of the leg casing, and the vents should be located approximately 20 ft(6 m) apart. Vent closures should be designed to open at an internal gauge pressure of 0.5 psi to 1.0 psi(3.4 kPa to 6.9 kPa). Vent closure devices should be secured to eliminate the possibility of the closuresbecoming missiles. Vent materials should be of lightweight construction.
Bucket elevator head sections are recommended to have 5 ft 2 (0.5 m 2 ) of vent area for each 100 ft 3
(2.8 m 3 ) of head section volume.
Vents should not be directed at work platforms, building openings, or other potentially occupied areas.
For bucket elevators inside buildings, vent ducts should be designed with a cross-sectional area at least aslarge as the vent, should be structurally as strong as the bucket elevator casing, and should be limited inlength to 10 ft (3 m). Since any bends cause increases in the pressure developed during venting, ventducts should be as straight as possible. If bends are unavoidable, they should be as shallow angled (i.e.,have as long a radius) as practicable.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This is older text taken from 61 I believe. In any case it is not compliant with the more comprehensive material in the current 68 standard. In 7.1.4.1(2) the user is directed to use 68 for venting, hence this paragraph is inconsistent with that directive.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Stevenson
Organization: CV Technology, Inc.
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jun 13 10:41:24 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-55-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: This is older text taken from 61 I believe. In any case it is not compliant with the more comprehensivematerial in the current 68 standard. In 7.1.4.1(2) the user is directed to use 68 for venting, hence thisparagraph is inconsistent with that directive.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
132 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 45-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. A.7.14 ]
A.7.14
Abort gates cannot be relied upon to manage deflagrations unless designed and installed as outlined in PI44 (7 .1.8.1). See also Annex C.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The standard only provides for pressure activated systems to provide isolation. With testing performed the writer has provided to alternative method oulined in PI 44 to prvode reliable protection using the combination of spark detection and abort gate.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 44-NFPA 654-2014 [New Section after A.7.1.8]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Niels Pedersen
Organization: Nederman LLC
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 06:24:35 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: CI-67-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: This committee input is as a response to PI #43, #44, and #45.
The committee is soliciting comment on this proposed annex material. Currently, there are no facilitiesthat are listing or approving these devices. The committee is soliciting comments from testing facilitieson the availability on testing, and from the public as to whether or not this material should be includedin this standard.
Information from the original submitter’s substantiation is presented below:
The current and prior editions of this standard do not recognize the benefits of the use of thecombination of spark detection and abort gates to provide life safety. Up to this point the communityhas not been provided with evidence of the effective operation of a properly tested and installedsystems. The industry does have suppliers that have properly designed and tested the strength andfunctionality of these systems. The community recognizes that the majority of incident develops as afire event without entering into a deflagration stage. Without deflagration no pressure rise happensand a pressure activated isolation system will not prevent a flame front from traveling down a returnair duct. The community also recognizes that the majority of incidents are caused due to competentigniters traveling in pneumatic systems with concentrations below LFL or MEC. These competentigniters will be detected by the spark detection system before they enter a risk zone with anexplosible concentration. With proper positioning of the spark detection system upstream of the riskzone and considering the proven reaction time of the abort gate the system provides requiredprotection level. Installation of a second detection zone downstream of the risk zone provide fordetection of developing fire within the risk zone.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
133 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
134 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 21-NFPA 654-2014 [ Chapter G ]
Annex G Informational References
G.1 Referenced Publications.
The following documents or portions thereof are referenced within this standard for informational purposesonly and are thus not part of the requirements of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2.
G.1.1 NFPA Publications.
National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.
NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection, 2012 edition .
NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems,2011 edition 2014 .
NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2007 edition 2013 .
NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2008 edition 2014 .
NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals, 2012 edition 2015 .
NFPA 499, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous(Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas, 2013 edition.
NFPA 2113, Standard on Selection, Care, Use, and Maintenance of Flame-Resistant Garments forProtection of Industrial Personnel Against Flash Fire, 2012 edition 2015 .
NFPA 5000 ®, Building Construction and Safety Code ®, 2012 edition 2015 .
SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings, 2000
2 nd edition , 2007 .
G.1.2 Other Publications.
G.1.2.1 ACGIH Publication.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH45240-1634.
Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for Design , 25th 28 th edition, 2004 2013 .
G.1.2.2 AIChE Publications.
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017.
AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety AICHE G-18 , Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures,
2nd 3 rd edition with Worked Examples , 1992 2008 .
AIChE Center for Chemical Process Safety, Guidelines for Safe Automation of Chemical Processes, 1993.
G.1.2.3 ASME Publication.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
135 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
G.1.2.4 ASTM Publications.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C, 20032012 .
ASTM E 582, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy and Quenching Distance in GaseousMixtures, 2007 2013e1 .
ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012A .
ASTM E 1491, Test Method for Minimum Autoignition Temperature of Dust Clouds, 2006, reapproved2012 .
ASTM E 1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, 20032007 .
ASTM E 2012, Standard Guide for the Preparation of a Binary Chemical Compatibility Chart, 2000 2006,reapproved 2012 .
ASTM E 2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, 2003,reapproved 2013 .
ASTM E 2021, Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Ignition of Dust Layers, 2009, reapproved 2013 .
G.1.2.5 IEC Publications.
International Electrotechnical Commission, 3, rue de Varembé, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20,Switzerland.
IEC 61340-4-4, Electrostatics — Part 4-4: Standard Test Methods for Specific Applications — ElectrostaticClassification of Flexible Intermediate Bulk Containers (FIBC), 2005 2012 .
G.1.2.6 ISO Publications.
International Standards Organization, 1 rue de Varembé, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Genève 20,Switzerland.
ISO 6184-1, Explosion Protection Systems — Part 1: Determination of Explosion Indices of CombustibleDusts in Air, 1985.
ISO 6184-4, Explosion Protection Systems — Part 4: Determination of Efficiency of Explosion SuppressionSystems, 1985.
G.1.2.7 USBM Publication.
U.S. Bureau of Mines Publications, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,Springfield, VA 22161.
Conti, R. S., K. L. Cashdollar, M. Hertzberg, and I. Liebman. 1983. “Thermal and Electrical Ignitability ofDusts.” U.S. Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations, RI 8798.
G.1.2.8 U.S. Government Publication.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910.146, “Permit-Required Confined Space.”
Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 36, “Approved Requirements for Permissible Mobile Diesel-Powered Transportation Equipment.”
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
136 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
G.1.2.9 Other Publications.
FPRF, Report Towards Estimating Entrainment Fraction for Dust Layers, 2011.
Eckhoff, R., Dust Explosions in the Process Industries, 3rd Edition, 2003.
Lazzara, C., and Y. Miron. 1988. “Hot Surface Ignition Temperatures of Dust Layers.” Fire and MaterialsJournal 12:115–126.
Tamanini, F., “Dust Explosion Propagation in Simulated Grain Conveyor Galleries,” ESV-83-067, NationalGrain and Feed Association Fire and Explosion Research Report, prepared by Factory Mutual ResearchCorporation, Norwood, MA, July 1983.
VDI 3673, Pressure Venting of Dust Explosions, 2002.
G.2 Informational References.
FM Data Sheet 7-76, “Prevention and Mitigation of Combustible Dust Explosions and Fire,” January 2012.
Britton. 1999. Avoiding Static Ignition Hazards in Chemical Operations. New York: CCPS, pp. 199–204.
Ebadat, V., and J. C. Mulligan. “Testing the Suitability of FIBCs for Use in Flammable Atmospheres.” Paper10a, 30th Annual Loss Prevention Symposium, AIChE, 1996 Spring National Meeting, New Orleans, LA,February 26-28, 1996.
G.3 References for Extracts in Informational Sections.
NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2007 edition 2013 .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Referenced current editions and titles.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 20-NFPA 654-2014 [Chapter 2] Referenced current editions and titles.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Aaron Adamczyk
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jun 12 23:42:11 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-56-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Referenced current editions and titles.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
137 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 106-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. G.1.2.4 ]
G.1.2.4 ASTM Publications.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM E 136, Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C,2003 2012 .
ASTM E 582, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy and Quenching Distance in GaseousMixtures, 2007(2013)e1 .
ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012a .
ASTM E 1491, Test Method for Minimum Autoignition Temperature of Dust Clouds, 2006(2012) .
ASTM E 1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts,2003 2007 .
ASTM E 2012, Standard Guide for the Preparation of a Binary Chemical Compatibility Chart,2000 2006(2012) .
ASTM E 2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, 2003(2013) .
ASTM E 2021, Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Ignition of Dust Layers, 2009(2013) .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Update the year date for standard(s)
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Steve Mawn
Organization: ASTM International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 13:00:43 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-56-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Referenced current editions and titles.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
138 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
Public Input No. 52-NFPA 654-2014 [ Section No. G.1.2.4 ]
G.1.2.4 ASTM Publications.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM E 136 E136 , Standard Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750°C,2003 2012 .
ASTM E 582 E582 , Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy and Quenching Distance inGaseous Mixtures, 2007 (2013) e1 .
ASTM E 1226 E1226 , Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012a .
ASTM E 1491 E1491 , Test Method for Minimum Autoignition Temperature of Dust Clouds, 2006 (2012) .
ASTM E 1515 E1515 , Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts,2003 2007 .
ASTM E 2012 E2012 , Standard Guide for the Preparation of a Binary Chemical Compatibility Chart,2000 2006 (2012) .
ASTM E 2019 E2019 , Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air, 2003(2013) .
ASTM E 2021 E2021 , Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Ignition of Dust Layers, 2009 (2013) .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
update
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 13:11:13 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-56-NFPA 654-2014
Statement: Referenced current editions and titles.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
139 of 139 10/6/2014 9:13 AM
National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: NFPA Technical Committee on Handling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, and Gases
SUBJECT: NFPA 654 First Draft TC FINAL Ballot Results (A2016)
According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot.
27 Members Eligible to Vote 0 Not Returned 21 Members Voting Affirmative (6 with Comment on one or more First Revisions: J. Cholin, H. Febo,
W. Frank, M. Holcomb, S. Rodgers, and M. Runyon) 6 Members Voting Negative on one or more First Revisions (G. Baldwin, J. Cholin, H. Febo, L. Floyd,
B. McLelland, and E. Ural) 0 Members Voting to Abstain on one or more First Revisions The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each first revision.
There are two criteria necessary for each first revision to pass ballot: (1) simple majority and (2) affirmative 2/3 vote. The mock examples below show how the calculations are determined.
(1) Example for Simple Majority: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members, 11 affirmative votes are required to pass ballot. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligible to vote ÷ 2 = 10 + 1 = 11)
(2) Example for Affirmative 2/3: Assuming there are 20 vote eligible committee members and 1 member did not
return their ballot and 2 members abstained, the number of affirmative votes required would be 12. (Sample calculation: 20 members eligble to vote – 1 not returned – 2 abstentions = 17 x 0.66 = 11.22 = 12 )
As always please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I believe this adds clarity.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon Adds Clarity
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR‐3, Section No. 1.1.1, See FR‐3
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐60, Global Input, See FR‐60
October 29, 2014Results by Revision
FR‐17, Global Input, See FR‐17
Total Voted : 27
FR‐2, Section No. 1.4, See FR‐2
FR‐1, Section No. 1.2, See FR‐1
Total Voted : 27
NFPA 654 CMD‐HAP (A2016) First Draft Ballot
Final Results
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon Agree and adds clarity
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon agree
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
FR‐18, Section No. 1.5 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐18
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐6, Section No. 1.6.2, See FR‐6
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐5, Section No. 1.6.1, See FR‐5
FR‐4, Section No. 1.5.4, See FR‐4
Total Voted : 27
FR‐10, Section No. 3.3.6, See FR‐10
FR‐7, Chapter 2, See FR‐7
Total Voted : 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the improvements to the definition
Negative 1
Erdem A. Ural I do not like the new definition. What is the potential to produce combustible dust. The combustible
dust definition in 3.3.5 has been compromised.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 2
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Walter L. Frank I feel this would read more clearly if worded "A hazard management strategy in which the hazard is
located in a separate building or an outside area, removed by a distance as required by this standard
from other structures that are to be protected."
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon Agree that it adds clarity
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon Agree with the changes
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR‐11, Section No. 3.3.10, See FR‐11
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐65, Section No. 3.3.16, See FR‐65
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐19, Section No. 3.3.12, See FR‐19
FR‐12, New Section after 3.3.11, See FR‐12
Total Voted : 27
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon Agree with improvements
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 2
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the concept
Walter L. Frank While I am not ready to vote against this FR, the annex material is poorly worded and risks being
ambiguous. I hope we can improve on this in the second round.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR‐16, Section No. 3.3.26, See FR‐16
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐15, Section No. 3.3.25, See FR‐15
FR‐14, Section No. 3.3.23 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐14
Total Voted : 27
FR‐21, New Section after 4.1, See FR‐21
Total Voted : 27
FR‐38, New Section after 3.3.33, See FR‐38
FR‐20, New Section after 3.3.33, See FR‐20
Total Voted : 27
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 2
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
John M. Cholin I still believe that the insertion of the word "reasonably" is inappropriate in a statement of objectives.
The explicit statement of objectives is a necessary part of a standard when a performance‐based
approach is included in the standard. Performance‐equivalence cannot be demonstrated if there is no
clear objective to be obtained. Adding "reasonably" to an objective statement seriously waters down
the clarity of the objective and undermines a performance‐based approach; an approach that is needed
due to the complexity of the processes and facilities involved.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 2
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Samuel A. Rodgers The last sentence of the paragraph should again include NFPA 101 to prevent confusion. "The
documentation requirements of paragraph 5.8.6 of NFPA 101 shall be supplemented to include
documentation of explosion scenarios.
Negative 1
Erdem A. Ural Flash fire scenarios must also be included to supplement 5.8.6 of 101
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Total Voted : 27
FR‐22, Section No. 5.1.3 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐22
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐39, Section No. 5.1.1, See FR‐39
FR‐61, Section No. 4.6, See FR‐61
Total Voted : 27
FR‐23, Section No. 6.1.1.1, See FR‐23
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 3
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Samuel A. Rodgers The added "are" is a typo and should be removed.
Walter L. Frank There are one two many uses of "are" in "unless they are normally are closed"
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 1
Henry L. Febo, Jr. There is no reason to limit acceptable standards to NFPA 252 when there are at least 2 other viable
standards, ASTM E 152 Standard Method of Fire Tests For Door Assemblies and FM Approvals Class
4100, Approval Standard for Fire Doors
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
FR‐25, Section No. 6.2.2.3, See FR‐25
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐24, Section No. 6.2.2.1, See FR‐24
Total Voted : 27
FR‐28, New Section after 6.3.7, See FR‐28
Total Voted : 27
FR‐27, Section No. 6.3.6.1, See FR‐27
FR‐26, Section No. 6.3.5, See FR‐26
Total Voted : 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 2
Henry L. Febo, Jr. In 6.3.6.1 the term fire PROTECTION rating was used and modified from fire RESISTANCE. In this
requirement, the term fire RESISTANCE rating is used. Be consistent
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 2
Henry L. Febo, Jr. Here again there is inconsistency between the use of the terms fire resistance and fire protection rating
that is not clear to me. Should we use "vertical openings" instead of "stairs and elevators" to cover
ramps and other openings to follow wording in 101‐8.6? It seems we should say "NFPA 252 or
equivalent standards".
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 4
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Samuel A. Rodgers The text is missing a modifier between the two paragraph numbers. I believe we intend 6.1.1.2 OR
6.1.1.3,
Walter L. Frank I believe we need to insert "or" to read "as specified in 6.1.1.2 or 6.1.1.3"
John M. Cholin I don't see the word "and" between 6.1.1.2 and 6.1.1.3 in the FR
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Total Voted : 27
FR‐31, Section No. 6.4.1, See FR‐31
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐30, Section No. 6.3.9, See FR‐30
FR‐29, Section No. 6.3.8, See FR‐29
Total Voted : 27
FR‐32, Section No. 6.5.1, See FR‐32
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 5
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Samuel A. Rodgers 7.1.6.2(5) includes "large" quantity of dust and is unenforceable language. I recommend instead
requiring that the upstream location is not a dust explosion or flash‐fire hazard area, for which we have
methods.
Walter L. Frank When we say ductwork smaller than 4 inch, do we really mean that 4 inch is not acceptable? Should it
be 4 inch or less? Also, should we specifically state that we are talking about ID? Keep in mind that
some companies use tubing for ductwork, while some use pipe, so talking in terms of nominal sizes can
introduce some ambiguity. Hopefully we can straighten this out in the second round.
John M. Cholin I still think we should come up with language that more clearly distinguishes when the requirement is
relevant and not. the use of double negatives might be logically sound but that use makes the
requirement a logical puzzle. that is not how we should write standards.
Mark L. Holcomb The 25% MEC is a good way to determine if there is an explosion risk. I would prefer that this exception
remain.
Negative 4
Bruce McLelland FSA conducted flame propagation tests in a system comprising two interconnected vented 1 m3
vessels. Experiments were carried out with different pipe diameter: 27 mm, 42 mm, 82 mm (so < 4 in).
Corn starch (KSt = 200 bar.m/s) and wheat flour (KSt ~ 100 bar.m/s) were used as fuels (so neither a
metal dust or a St3 dust). Researchers were surprised that “even with a small pipe diameter of 27 mm
and even in connection with wheat flour (KSt ~ 100 bar.m/s) used as test dust, there was a flame
propagation through a pipe length of at least 12 m.” “The experimental results have shown that the
possibility of dust explosion propagation even through pipes of small diameters must be paid high
attention.” The paper is available in German. 7.1.6.2(5) the exclusion specifies only AMS, whereas I
believe the committee intent is to apply to any process enclosure.
Erdem A. Ural 7.1.6.2.(5) is not enforceable. It is not clear what constitutes a large quantity?
Larry D. Floyd Large quantity ‐‐ what is the definition?
Glenn W. Baldwin Regarding the criteria in item (2), < 4” diameter and > 15 ft long, we agree that propagation is less likely
in small diameter lines and longer lines. The basis for these specific values is not clear. It is not clear
whether or not there is data or specific references to support the 4” and 15 ft criteria. We recommend
that the committee research this topic further prior to setting specific criteria. We disagree with
removing the criteria regarding maximum dust concentration. Propagation is less likely when dust
concentration is < 25% MEC because there is not sufficient dust present in the line to provide fuel for
propagation over longer distances. If the dust concentration is higher (1 – 10X MEC) then you would
expect propagation because there is sufficient fuel present throughout the entire length of the line. At
very high concentrations we agree that propagation is less likely because concentrations are above the
upper flammable limit.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
FR‐57, Section No. 7.1.7, See FR‐57
Total Voted : 27
FR‐37, Section No. 7.1.6, See FR‐37
Total Voted : 27
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 1
Bruce McLelland the revision effectively eliminates "where an explosion hazard exists" the deflagration isolation for
upstream work areas. it instead replaces deflagration isolation with preventive protection means such
as spark detection.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 2
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Samuel A. Rodgers I recall the committee intention is to modify 7.3.2.5 as indicated in this text and to eliminate 7.3.2.5.1
AND 7.3.2.5.2 Annex items for 7.3.2.5 and 7.3.2.5.1 would be combined.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐35, Section No. 7.3.2.5.2, See FR‐35
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐34, Sections 7.3.2.5.1, 7.3.2.5.1, See FR‐34
FR‐58, Section No. 7.2.2, See FR‐58
Total Voted : 27
FR‐41, New Section after 7.11.1.2, See FR‐41
FR‐40, Section No. 7.10.9.4, See FR‐40
Total Voted : 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 1
Bruce McLelland the revisions are unclear. it leaves the reader unclear as to the requirements for dirty side equipment
volumes having less than 8 cu ft
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
FR‐42, Section No. 7.13.1.1.2, See FR‐42
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐59, New Section after 7.13.1.7, See FR‐59
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐44, New Section after 7.13.1.6.3, See FR‐44
FR‐43, Section No. 7.13.1.2.2, See FR‐43
Total Voted : 27
FR‐45, Section No. 8.2.3.1, See FR‐45
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 1
Erdem A. Ural I disagree with this change. Committee statement is not persuasive.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 2
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Samuel A. Rodgers Section 9.9 should also have an option for a documented risk assessment, similar to section 9.8
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 1
John M. Cholin The wiring styles in the 2013 edition are both "Class A" circuits. By permitting Class B wiring the TC is
permitting a reduction in the fault‐tolerance of the circuits used to bring fire detection signals into the
control unit.
Abstain 0
FR‐63, Section No. 9.3.4.4.1, See FR‐63
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐64, Section No. 9.3.4.4 [Excluding any Sub‐Sections], See FR‐64
Total Voted : 27
FR‐50, Section No. 10.2.7, See FR‐50
Total Voted : 27
FR‐49, Section No. 10.2.6, See FR‐49
FR‐47, New Section after 9.8.2, See FR‐47
Total Voted : 27
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 2
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
John M. Cholin Style Y circuits were implemented with Class B wiring. Style Z circuits were implemented with Class A
wiring. The revisions to this section maintain the level of reliability of the earlier edition.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 24
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 2
John M. Cholin By allowing the use of either Class A or Class B wiring methods the TC is permitting the use of Class B
circuits that are not as fault‐tolerant and inherently less reliable than what was required in the earlier
edition. There has been no technical justification considered for this change.
Larry D. Floyd Cholin's comment is persuasive.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 25
Affirmative with Comment 2
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
John M. Cholin The revisions to this section maintain the level of reliability of the earlier edition.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Total Voted : 27
FR‐53, Section No. 10.2.10.1, See FR‐53
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐52, Section No. 10.2.9, See FR‐52
FR‐51, Section No. 10.2.8.1, See FR‐51
Total Voted : 27
FR‐54, Section No. 10.2.10.2, See FR‐54
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 23
Affirmative with Comment 3
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Samuel A. Rodgers I agree with expanding on self‐heating materials, but this is written as mandatory text using "it is
permitted". I would recommend modification as "Methods to minimize the hazards of self‐heating
include mechanically disturbing the material to interrupt the chemical reaction, inerting any equipment
containing self‐heating materials, reducing moisture content to stop the chemical reaction, or reducing
the mass of the material."
Walter L. Frank The wording "it is permitted to utilize" still sounds too close to mandatory.
Negative 1
Larry D. Floyd Self‐heating to AIT requires reference to standard test method
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 27
Not Returned : 0
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 26
Affirmative with Comment 1
Mark L. Runyon I agree with the change
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 27
FR‐56, Chapter G, See FR‐56
FR‐62, Section No. A.9.1.3, See FR‐62
Total Voted : 27
FR‐55, Section No. A.7.10.1, See FR‐55
Total Voted : 27
Total Voted : 27
FR‐36, Section No. A.7.6.6, See FR‐36
Total Voted : 27
Public Input No. 18-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. 1.1.1 ]
1.1.1
Woodworking and wood processing facilities shall include, but are not limited to, wood flour plants,industrial woodworking plants, furniture plants, plywood plants, composite board plants, lumber mills, andproduction-type woodworking shops and , carpentry shops , and instructional wood-workinglaboratories that are incidental to facilities that would not otherwise fall within the purview of thisstandard.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
There are many accounts of fires in wood-working shops in high schools and college settings. NFPA 45 has addressed hazardous laboratories by requiring 1-hour separation between an instructional laboratory in an educational occupancy and the remainder of the facility. By including this type of use in the scope comment, 6.2.1.2 will be applicable and 1-hour separation will be required between a wood working facility in a school and the remainder of the school.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway
Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 16:59:56 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The submitter states that there are many accounts of fires in high school and college woodworkingshops. This has not been substantiated. If the recommended change was accepted as submitted itwould apply to all high school and college woodworking shops which would conflict with theprovisions of 1.1.2. The requirement of 6.2.1.2 applies to all facilities that are covered under 1.1.2.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
1 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 19-NFPA 664-2014 [ New Section after 1.4.1 ]
1.4.1.1 When major replacement or renovation of existing facilities is planned, provisions of thisstandard shall apply.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The current standard has language that addresses new construction and existing construction, but not renovation work. (The proposed language is used in NFPA 654:1.5.5)
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway
Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 17:01:10 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-2 for changes to this section. The committee agreed with the intent of the submitter, butelected not to introduce the term "major" as it was vague and unenforceable. The committee addedFR-2 as a separate subsection and triggered the retroactive requirement when a change is made thatchanges the original design.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
2 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 27-NFPA 664-2014 [ Chapter 2 ]
Chapter 2 Referenced Publications
2.1 General.
The documents or portions thereof listed in this chapter are referenced within this standard and shall beconsidered part of the requirements of this document.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
3 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
2.2 NFPA Publications.
National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.
NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2010 edition 2013 .
NFPA 11, Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam, 2010 edition .
NFPA 12, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems, 2011 edition .
NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2010 edition 2013 with 2014 errata .
NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems, 2010 edition 2013 .
NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection, 2012 edition .
NFPA 17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems, 2009 edition 2013 .
NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, 2010 edition 2013 .
NFPA 22, Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection, 2008 edition 2013 .
NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, 2010edition 2013 .
NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems,2011 edition 2014 .
NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2012 edition .
NFPA 31, Standard for the Installation of Oil-Burning Equipment, 2011 edition .
NFPA 33, Standard for Spray Application Using Flammable or Combustible Materials, 2011 edition .
NFPA 34, Standard for Dipping, Coating, and Printing Processes Using Flammable or Combustible Liquids,2011 edition .
NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work, 2009 edition 2014.
NFPA 54, National Fuel Gas Code, 2012 edition .
NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2007 edition 2013 .
NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2008 edition 2014 .
NFPA 70® , National Electrical Code®, 2011 edition 2014 .
NFPA 72® , National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, 2010 edition 20113 .
NFPA 80, Standard for Fire Doors and Other Opening Protectives, 2010 edition 2013 .
NFPA 82, Standard on Incinerators and Waste and Linen Handling Systems and Equipment, 2009 edition2014 .
NFPA 85, Boiler and Combustion Systems Hazards Code, 2011 edition .
NFPA 91, Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and NoncombustibleParticulate Solids, 2010 edition .
NFPA 101® , Life Safety Code®, 2012 edition 2015 .
NFPA 221, Standard for High Challenge Fire Walls, Fire Walls, and Fire Barrier Walls, 2012 edition 2015 .
NFPA 505, Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use,Conversions, Maintenance, and Operations, 2011 edition 2013 .
NFPA 600, Standard on Industrial Fire Brigades, 2010 edition .
NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing,and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, 2006 edition 2012 .
NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems, 2010 edition .
NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems, 2011 edition 2014 .
NFPA 2001, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems, 2012 edition .
2.3 Other Publications.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
4 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
2.3.1 ANSI ASME Publications.
American National Standards Institute, Inc., 25 West 43rd Street, 4th floor, Society of MechanicalEngineers, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10036 10016-5990 .
ANSI/ Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2013 .
ASME B31.1, Power Piping, 2007
2014 .
ANSI/
ASME B31.3, Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping,
2008
2012 .
2.3. 3 2 ASME Publications.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2004.
2.3.3 .3.2 ASTM Publications.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM E 1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dust, 2007.
ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012A .
ASTM E 1591, Standard Guide for Obtaining Data for Deterministic Fire Models, 2007 2013 .
2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections.
NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2010 edition 2013 with 2014 errata .
NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2007 edition 2013 .
NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing,and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, 2006 edition 2012 .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Updated to new editions.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 28-NFPA 664-2014 [Chapter F]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Aaron Adamczyk
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jun 10 21:23:32 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-3-NFPA 664-2014
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
5 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Statement: Updated to new editions.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
6 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 33-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. 2.3.3 ]
2.3.3 ASTM Publications.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM E 1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dust, 2007.
ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012a .
ASTM E 1591, Standard Guide for Obtaining Data for Deterministic Fire Models, 2007 2013 .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Update the year date for standard(s)
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Steve Mawn
Organization: ASTM International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 13:09:40 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-3-NFPA 664-2014
Statement: Updated to new editions.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
7 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 2-NFPA 664-2013 [ Section No. 4.1 ]
4.1 Goal.
The goal of this standard shall be to provide for a woodworking and wood processing facility that isreasonably protected from fire or deflagration in a cost-effective manner.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The proposal clarifies that this standard is to provide fire protection as an affirmative statement. The word reasonably is vague and should not be used in this section.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Gregg Cleveland
Organization: La Crosse Fire Department
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jul 02 21:49:44 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: The technical committee believes that the term "reasonably" is appropriate as part of the goals of thisdocument.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
8 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 24-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. 4.6.3 ]
4.6.3 * Mission Continuity.
The facility, woodworking processes and equipment, and human element program shall be designed,constructed, equipped, and maintained to limit damage to levels that ensure the ongoing mission,production, or operating capability of the facility to a degree acceptable to the relevant authority havingjurisdiction.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The term “relevant” is unnecessary and causes confusion. The definition of "authority having jurisdiction" addresses the relevancy.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir
Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, Washington
Affilliation: NFPA's Building Code Development Committee (BCDC)
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue May 20 14:05:17 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: For mission continuity, there could be several AHJs for a facility. Therefore it is appropriate that theterm relevant remain in the document. The AHJ could be the insurance company, or, in the case of afederal facility, a government agency. See A.3.2.2 for information on the types of entities that could bean AHJ.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
9 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 25-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. 5.1.4 ]
5.1.4 Maintenance of the Design Features.
To continue meeting the performance goals and objectives of this standard, the design features required foreach hazard area shall be maintained for the life of the facility. This shall include complying with originallydocumented design assumptions and specifications. Any variation from the design shall require approval ofthe authority design professional and the authority having jurisdiction prior to actual change.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The design professional is responsible for the overall plan. It is important that the design professional agree with changes being made to the plan. A good example is the design change that occurred to the skywalk in Kansas City that collapsed, with devastating effects. In that case, a change was made to the plan that the design professional was unaware. Written permission from the design professional is needed for verification. This is similar to a proposal to NFPA 15, PI #20 to section 8.2.1.2.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir
Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, Washington
Affilliation: NFPA's Building Code Development Committee (BCDC)
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue May 20 14:08:27 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The AHJ has the authority to require that a design professional review any deviation from the originaldesign. The committee wants to leave this review up to the AHJ.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
10 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 13-NFPA 664-2013 [ Section No. 6.1.2 ]
6.1.2 *
The type of construction shall be in accordance with the building code adopted by the authority havingjurisdiction. Any building over 8500 square feet shall be constructed of Type I or Type II construction, asdefined in NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This is in line with the appendix and the building code requirement. For area where no building code exists this provides the requirement found in the building code.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: John Chartier
Organization: Northeastern Regional Fire Cod
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Nov 08 08:00:31 EST 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: The additional text submitted does not match the requirements in NFPA 5000. This section requiresthat the construction be in compliance with the building code.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
11 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 30-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. 6.2.1.2 ]
6.2.1.2
Fire barrier walls separating different occupancies shall have the minimum fire resistance rating, whentested in accordance with ASTM E119,Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction andMaterials , required by code. Where no building code exists, fire barrier walls shall have a minimum fireresistance rating of 1 hour.
Also, add ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (2012)into chapter 2 on referenced standards.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
When discussing fire resistance rating the relevant test method must be referenced and it is ASTM E119.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 31-NFPA 664-2014 [Section No. 6.2.2.1]
Public Input No. 32-NFPA 664-2014 [Section No. 6.2.2.3]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 13:47:37 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: Section 6.2.1.1 requires that fire walls and fire barrier walls be constructed in accordance with NFPA221. Section 4.3.1 of 221 references ASTM E 119, as well as UL 263 and other appropriatestandards. It is not necessary to specifically reference E 119 in this section, particularly where thereare other appropriate test methods that are referenced in NFPA 221.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
12 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 31-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. 6.2.2.1 ]
6.2.2.1
Penetrations of walls, floors, or ceilings that provide a required fire separation shall be protected by listedsystems or approved materials that have a fire resistance rating, when tested in accordance with ASTME119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, equal to that of thewall, floor, or ceiling and shall conform to the relevant requirements of NFPA 221, Standard for HighChallenge Fire Walls, Fire Walls, and Fire Barrier Walls.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
adds the relevant test method
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 30-NFPA 664-2014 [Section No. 6.2.1.2]
Public Input No. 32-NFPA 664-2014 [Section No. 6.2.2.3]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 13:49:57 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: Section 4.3.1 of 221 references ASTM E 119, as well as UL 263 and other appropriate standards. It isnot appropriate to specifically reference E 119 in this section, particularly where there are otherappropriate test methods that are referenced in NFPA 221.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
13 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 32-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. 6.2.2.3 ]
6.2.2.3*
Conveyor and chute openings in fire walls shall be protected by listed or approved, automatic-closing firedoors or fire dampers that have a fire resistance rating, when tested in accordance with ASTM E119,Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, equivalent to the fire wall.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Adds the relevant test method.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 30-NFPA 664-2014 [Section No. 6.2.1.2]
Public Input No. 31-NFPA 664-2014 [Section No. 6.2.2.1]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 13:51:25 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: Section 4.3.1 of NFPA 221 refers to ASTM E119 as an appropriate test method, along with UL 263and other appropriate methods. ASTM E119 should not be cited as a test method without theinclusion of the other test methods in NFPA 221.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
14 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 20-NFPA 664-2014 [ New Section after 6.3.2 ]
6.3.2.1 Normally occupied spaces/rooms where hazardous dust accumulation may occur shall bedesigned according to ‘Special Provisions for Occupancies with High Hazard Contents’ in NFPA101.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Prescribed housekeeping measures to prevent or reduce dust generation and dispersal can do much to lessen the hazards of combustible dust, but cannot eliminate them. LSC 101:7.11 addresses exit egress provisions specific to this type hazard.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway
Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 17:02:05 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-11-NFPA 664-2014
Statement: Prescribed housekeeping measures to prevent or reduce dust generation and dispersal can do muchto lessen the hazards of combustible dust, but cannot eliminate them. LSC 101:7.11 addresses exitegress provisions specific to this type hazard.
The committee has clarified that the requirement is triggered when a dust deflagration hazard existsand has added annex material to clarify the purpose of the requirement.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
15 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 23-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. 6.4.3.2 ]
6.4.3.2
Where required, draft curtains shall extend down from the roof deck finished ceiling a minimum depth of 10percent of the floor-to-ceiling height and shall fit tight tightly against the roof deck finished ceiling .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The roof deck may not be the lowest point from which a draft curtain must extend. It could be a floor deck, framed ceiling or suspended ceiling. This clarifies the issue by utilizing the term “finished ceiling”. The change from “tight” to “tightly” is editorial. If the change in the related PI #22 is not made, then Section 6.4.3.3 must be changed to reflect this revision.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 22-NFPA 664-2014 [Section No. 6.4.3.3]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir
Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, Washington
Affilliation: NFPA's Building Code Development Committee (BCDC)
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue May 20 14:00:10 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-34 for changes to section 6.4.3 that address consistency with NFPA 204, chapter 7, draftcurtains.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
16 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 22-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. 6.4.3.3 ]
6.4.3.3
Beams, purlins, and other solid structural members extending down from the roof deck to a depth equal toor greater than 10 percent of the floor-to-ceiling height shall members meeting the depth requirements ofsection 6.4.3.2 shall be deemed equivalent to draft curtains.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Adding the term “solid” provides clarification because some structural members, such as open web joists, that have openings and would not act as a draft curtain. The depth requirement is deleted because it is already set forth in section 6.4.3.2. There is no need to repeat it. Additionally, the depth requirement in 6.4.3.3 is worded differently than in 6.4.3.2 hence the proposed revision to 6.4.3.2.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 23-NFPA 664-2014 [Section No. 6.4.3.2]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir
Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, Washington
Affilliation: NFPA's Building Code Development Committee (BCDC)
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue May 20 13:56:10 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-34 for changes to section 6.4.3 that address consistency with NFPA 204, chapter 7, draftcurtains.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
Ducts having a deflagration hazard shall be designed, constructed, and installed pursuant to one of thefollowing:
(1)
(2)
8.2.2.2.4 (3)
Metal ducts located indoors shall be equipped with deflagration relief vents and vent ducts designed,installed, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by DeflagrationVenting, and shall have a design strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
8.2.2.2.5 (4)
Metal ducts located indoors shall be equipped with deflagration relief vents and vent ducts designed,installed, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by DeflagrationVenting, that exhaust through listed flame-quenching devices and shall have a design strength exceedingthe maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
8.2.2.2.6 (5)
Metal ducts located outdoors shall be equipped with deflagration relief vents designed, installed, andmaintained in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, andshall have a design strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
Additional Proposed Changes
File Name Description Approved
Proposed_TIA_1119_664_.docx Balloted TIA
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
NOTE: This public input originates from Tentative Interim Amendment 664-12-1 (Log 1119) issued by the Standards Council on March 3, 2014 and per the NFPA Regs., needs to be reconsidered by the Technical Committee for the next edition of the Document.
* Ducts, including all access hatches, shall be constructed of metal of sufficient strength towithstand the maximum unvented deflagration pressure of the material being conveyed.
* Metal ducts shall be protected by a listed deflagration suppression system that has a designstrength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
* Metal ducts shall be located indoors and equipped with adequate deflagration relief vents that haverelief pipes, not exceeding 6 m (20 ft) in length, extending to safe areas outside the building and that havea design strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
* Metal ducts shall be located indoors and equipped with adequate deflagration relief vents that exhaustthrough listed flame-quenching devices and have a design strength exceeding the maximum reduceddeflagration pressure.
* Metal ducts shall be located outdoors and equipped with adequate deflagration vents and shall have adesign strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
* Metal ducts that are located outdoors and have weaker construction shall be permitted to be usedsubject to a risk analysis acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.
(6)* Metal ducts that are located outdoors and have weaker construction shall be permitted to be usedsubject to a risk analysis acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
18 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
I believe these sections are currently mis-numbered and were intended to be sub-paragraphs of 8.2.2.2.3.
Emergency Nature: As it reads currently, one could misconstrue it as requiring explosion vents on all ducts - regardless of dust concentration. In previous editions of 664, duct protection was required only when approaching the MEC. The TIA fixes an error or omission that was overlooked during the regular revision process and constitutes emergency nature in accordance with 5.3(a) of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: TC on CMD-WOO
Organization: TC on Wood and Cellulosic Materials Processing
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Mar 25 08:45:03 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-6-NFPA 664-2014
Statement: NOTE: This public input originates from Tentative Interim Amendment 664-12-1 (Log 1119) issued bythe Standards Council on March 3, 2014 and per the NFPA Regs., needs to be reconsidered by theTechnical Committee for the next edition of the Document.
These sections are currently mis-numbered and were intended to be sub-paragraphs of 8.2.2.2.3.
Emergency Nature: As it reads currently, one could misconstrue it as requiring explosion vents on allducts - regardless of dust concentration. In previous editions of 664, duct protection was required onlywhen approaching the MEC. The TIA fixes an error or omission that was overlooked during theregular revision process and constitutes emergency nature in accordance with 5.3(a) of theRegulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.
Delete annex material associated with the former sections 8.2.2.2.3 (3), (4), and (5)
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
19 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
NFPA® 664-2012
Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities
TIA Log No. 1119
Reference: 8.2.2.2.4 through 8.2.2.2.6
Comment Closing Date: December 6, 2013
Submitter: Richard Masta, Georgia-Pacific LLC
1. Revise 8.2.2.2.3 through 8.2.2.2.6 to read as follows:
8.2.2.2.3* Ducts with a Deflagration Hazard. Ducts having a deflagration hazard shall be designed, constructed, and
installed pursuant to one of the following:
(1)* Ducts, including all access hatches, shall be constructed of metal of sufficient strength to withstand the maximum
unvented deflagration pressure of the material being conveyed.
(2)* Metal ducts shall be protected by a listed deflagration suppression system that has a design strength exceeding
the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
(3)* Metal ducts shall be located indoors and equipped with adequate deflagration relief vents that have relief pipes,
not exceeding 6 m (20 ft) in length, extending to safe areas outside the building and that have a design strength exceeding
the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
(4)* Metal ducts shall be located indoors and equipped with adequate deflagration relief vents that exhaust through
listed flame-quenching devices and have a design strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
(5)* Metal ducts shall be located outdoors and equipped with adequate deflagration vents and shall have a design
strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
(6)* Metal ducts that are located outdoors and have weaker construction shall be permitted to be used subject to a risk
analysis acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.
8.2.2.2.4 (3) Metal ducts located indoors shall be equipped with deflagration relief vents and vent ducts designed,
installed, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, and
shall have a design strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
8.2.2.2.5 (4) Metal ducts located indoors shall be equipped with deflagration relief vents and vent ducts designed,
installed, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, that
exhaust through listed flame-quenching devices and shall have a design strength exceeding the maximum reduced
deflagration pressure.
8.2.2.2.6 (5) Metal ducts located outdoors shall be equipped with deflagration relief vents designed, installed, and
maintained in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, and shall have a
design strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
2. Delete the related annex material in former 8.2.2.2.3(3), (4), and (5).
Submitter’s Substantiation: I believe these sections are currently mis-numbered and were intended to be sub-paragraphs
of 8.2.2.2.3.
Emergency Nature: As it reads currently, one could misconstrue it as requiring explosion vents on all ducts - regardless
of dust concentration. In previous editions of 664, duct protection was required only when approaching the MEC. The
TIA fixes an error or omission that was overlooked during the regular revision process and constitutes emergency nature
in accordance with 5.3(a) of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.
Public Input No. 26-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. 8.2.2.4.2 ]
8.2.2.4.2
Fans and blowers shall be located in one of the following locations:
(1)
(2)
(3) Upstream of the dust collector when the material being conveyed has a moisture content of less than25 percent (wet basis) and a concentration of sub-420 micron particulate (less than 25 percent of theMEC) and the duct downstream of the fan is equipped with a listed spark detection extinguishingsystem and an abort gate to divert material to a safe location
(4) Upstream of the dust collector when the material being conveyed has a moisture content of less than25 percent (wet basis) and a concentration of sub-420 micron particulate (in excess of 25 percent ofthe MEC) and the duct and dust collector are equipped with either deflagration relief venting ordeflagration suppression systems
(5) Upstream of an enclosureless dust collector, regardless of the moisture content or particulate size ofthe material being conveyed
(6) Upstream of outdoor cyclone collectors receiving knife planer shavings, when the fan and the cycloneare located outdoors and exhaust to outdoor atmosphere
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The requirement of dust concentration in the duct of < 25% of MEC aready significantly lower the risk for the fan being able to ignite the submicron dust. the spark detection system is an early warning device should the fan be contributing to generate competent igniters and the standard operation of the spark detection and extinguishment system provides for safe handling of a potential developing risk. The use of the abort gate upstream of the AMS is common in the board plants due to higher risk of generating competent igniters in the upstream process and for this or similar industry segments it is a proper solution. However the requirement should not be applied to the rest of the industry with very low posibility of generating competent igniters. The spark detection and extinguishment system provides the protection.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 29-NFPA 664-2014 [New Section after 8.2.2.6]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Niels Pedersen
Organization: Nederman LLC
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jun 06 16:07:45 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-8-NFPA 664-2014
* On the clean air side of dust collectors, regardless of the moisture content or particle size of thematerial being conveyed
* Upstream of the dust collector when the material being conveyed has a moisture content in excessof 25 percent (wet basis)
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
20 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Statement: The committee made several modifications to this section. Some are editorial. (3) was modified toallow the use of an abort system to be one of the options but not a requirement.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
21 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 29-NFPA 664-2014 [ New Section after 8.2.2.6 ]
TITLE OF NEW CONTENT
8.2.2.6.5 Air for Air-material Seperator or dust collectors deemed to have a fire and deflagration hazard andwith a combustible concenrtation below LFL or MEC the system shall be designed with following:
(1) Install upstream of the AMS a listed spark dection system with a distance upstream of the AMS basedon the transport velocity using the formula Velocity (m/s) x 0.3 sec = distance to AMS (m)
(2) Install abort gate tested by recognized testing facility to verify full divertion by activation of the sparkdection system in 8.2.2.6.5(1).
(3) AMS with fire hazards must be equipped with a secondary detection downstream of the AMS andupstream of the abort gate.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Most incidents develop as a fire incident without entering the deflagration stage and therefore make a pressure activated protection system inefficient. The can cause flame fronts to enter occupied areas.With the combination of pre-deflagration detection and the non-deflagration concentration in the pnumatic transport system the spark detection system with detect competent igniters before they enter the AMS whre deflagration concentrations may exist. The abort gate will be in the aborted position should a deflagration incident happen.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 26-NFPA 664-2014 [Section No. 8.2.2.4.2]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Niels Pedersen
Organization: Nederman LLC
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Jul 03 06:55:06 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The proposed protection design conflicts with previous passages under 8.2.2.6.4. There is nosubstantiation given for the spacing formula between the spark detector and dust collector. Abort gatelacks a clear definition. The submitter is encouraged to revise the proposal and resubmit as a publiccomment in the second draft phase.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
22 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 3-NFPA 664-2013 [ Section No. 10.12.1 ]
10.12.1
Emergency planning and response shall be in accordance with NFPA 600, Standard on Industrial FireBrigades and NFPA 1600, Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business ContinuityPrograms .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The proposed change provides continuity of emergency planning and business operations and allows these plans to be coordinated with not only industrial fire brigades but with the local AHJ or emergency response agencies.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Gregg Cleveland
Organization: La Crosse Fire Department
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jul 02 21:58:53 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-12 for response. PI was accepted. FR was resubmitted and is not linked to this PI due todisplay issues.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
23 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 21-NFPA 664-2014 [ New Section after A.3.3.10.2 ]
A.3.3.14 Explosion. For the purposes of this standard, the term explosion is equivalent to the termdeflagration as identified in NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The words explosion and deflagration are used interchangeably throughout the standard. (The proposed appendix language is used in NFPA 654:A3.3.8. NFPA 654 defines deflagration and explosion with the same verbiage as NFPA 654.)
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway
Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 17:03:16 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This input is not technically accurate based on the definitions in NFPA 68 and 69
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
24 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 16-NFPA 664-2014 [ Sections A.8.2.2.2.3(1), A.8.2.2.2.3(2), A.8.2.2.2.3(3),
High-pressure conveyance lines (blowpipes) made of steel or iron pipe with Schedule 40 or greater wallthickness normally meet the strength requirement of 8.2.2.2.3 (1). Administrative controls such aslockout/tagout or inspection programs to ensure that access hatches are in place before equipment isoperated are recommended.
A.8.2.2.2.3(2)
The manufacturer of the listed explosion suppression system should be consulted to determine themaximum reduced deflagration pressure to be expected with their protection hardware. Welded steel of12-gauge minimum thickness is normally strong enough to prevent failure during an explosion, especiallyfor small ducts.
A.8.2.2.2.3( 3)
Deflagration relief vent design with relief pipes and reduced deflagration pressure guidelines are found inNFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting . Welded steel of 12-gauge minimumthickness is normally strong enough to prevent failure during a deflagration, especially for small ducts.
A.8.2.2.2.3(4)
Deflagration relief vent design and reduced deflagration pressure guidelines are found in NFPA 68,Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting . The manufacturer of the listed flame-quenchingdevice should be consulted to determine the maximum reduced deflagration pressure to be expected withtheir protection hardware. Welded steel of 12-gauge minimum thickness is normally strong enough toprevent failure during a deflagration, especially for small ducts.
A.8.2.2.2.3(5)
Deflagration relief vent design and reduced deflagration pressure guidelines are found in NFPA 68,Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting . Welded steel of 12-gauge minimum thicknessis normally strong enough to prevent failure during a deflagration, especially for small ducts.
A.8.2.2.2.3( 6)
Ducts located outdoors do not pose an undue potential for property damage or expose plant personnel orthe public at large to the risk of injury from rupture of the duct. Therefore, they might not need strongconstruction.
Additional Proposed Changes
File Name Description Approved
Proposed_TIA_1119_664_.docx Balloted TIA
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
NOTE: This public input originates from Tentative Interim Amendment 664-12-1 (Log 1119) issued by the Standards Council on March 3, 2014 and per the NFPA Regs., needs to be reconsidered by the Technical Committee for the next edition of the Document.
I believe these sections are currently mis-numbered and were intended to be sub-paragraphs of 8.2.2.2.3.
Emergency Nature: As it reads currently, one could misconstrue it as requiring explosion vents on all ducts - regardless of dust concentration. In previous editions of 664, duct protection was required only when approaching the MEC. The TIA fixes an error or omission that was overlooked during the regular revision process and constitutes emergency nature in accordance with 5.3(a) of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.
Submitter Information Verification
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
25 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Submitter Full Name: TC on CMD-WOO
Organization: TC on Wood and Cellulosic Materials Processing
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Mar 25 08:52:30 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-6 for revision to this annex material
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
26 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
NFPA® 664-2012
Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities
TIA Log No. 1119
Reference: 8.2.2.2.4 through 8.2.2.2.6
Comment Closing Date: December 6, 2013
Submitter: Richard Masta, Georgia-Pacific LLC
1. Revise 8.2.2.2.3 through 8.2.2.2.6 to read as follows:
8.2.2.2.3* Ducts with a Deflagration Hazard. Ducts having a deflagration hazard shall be designed, constructed, and
installed pursuant to one of the following:
(1)* Ducts, including all access hatches, shall be constructed of metal of sufficient strength to withstand the maximum
unvented deflagration pressure of the material being conveyed.
(2)* Metal ducts shall be protected by a listed deflagration suppression system that has a design strength exceeding
the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
(3)* Metal ducts shall be located indoors and equipped with adequate deflagration relief vents that have relief pipes,
not exceeding 6 m (20 ft) in length, extending to safe areas outside the building and that have a design strength exceeding
the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
(4)* Metal ducts shall be located indoors and equipped with adequate deflagration relief vents that exhaust through
listed flame-quenching devices and have a design strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
(5)* Metal ducts shall be located outdoors and equipped with adequate deflagration vents and shall have a design
strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
(6)* Metal ducts that are located outdoors and have weaker construction shall be permitted to be used subject to a risk
analysis acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.
8.2.2.2.4 (3) Metal ducts located indoors shall be equipped with deflagration relief vents and vent ducts designed,
installed, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, and
shall have a design strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
8.2.2.2.5 (4) Metal ducts located indoors shall be equipped with deflagration relief vents and vent ducts designed,
installed, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, that
exhaust through listed flame-quenching devices and shall have a design strength exceeding the maximum reduced
deflagration pressure.
8.2.2.2.6 (5) Metal ducts located outdoors shall be equipped with deflagration relief vents designed, installed, and
maintained in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, and shall have a
design strength exceeding the maximum reduced deflagration pressure.
2. Delete the related annex material in former 8.2.2.2.3(3), (4), and (5).
Submitter’s Substantiation: I believe these sections are currently mis-numbered and were intended to be sub-paragraphs
of 8.2.2.2.3.
Emergency Nature: As it reads currently, one could misconstrue it as requiring explosion vents on all ducts - regardless
of dust concentration. In previous editions of 664, duct protection was required only when approaching the MEC. The
TIA fixes an error or omission that was overlooked during the regular revision process and constitutes emergency nature
in accordance with 5.3(a) of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.
Public Input No. 17-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. A.8.10.4.3 ]
A.8.10.4.3
Refer to Section 3-10 Section 2.4.3 of FM 2 7 -8N, Installation of Sprinkler Systems 14, Fire Protection forChemical Plants .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
FM 2-8N, Installation of Sprinkler Systems is now obsolete and has been replaced with FM 2-0, Installation Guidelines for Automatic Sprinklers. However the previous reference in section 3-10 of FM 2-8N is now only found in FM 7-14, Fire Protection for Chemical Plants. This reference is to address protection of sprinkler piping, valves and fittings against damage from explosions. It was previously referenced in both FM 2-8N and FM 7-14. However when FM 2-0 was created and FM 2-8N superseded, it was not included.
This was the previous FM 2-8N section 3-10 reference:1. Risers should be located in areas cut off by pressure resistant walls or shielded by structural columns.2. Feed and cross mains should be located away from reactors or pressure vessels insofar as it is practical (e.g., in the aisles or off to the sides of reactors or pressure vessels but never directly above this equipment).3. Generally, water supply mains to hazardous process areas should be buried, looped, and equipped with divisional valves so that any breaks due to explosion damage can be isolated.4. All piping over 2 in.(51mm) should be welded or have welded flanged fittings. Welding should conform to the ANSI standard for pressure piping, B31.1.0 Power Piping. Welded flanged fittings should conform to ANSI Standard B 16.0 Wrought Steel Buttwelding Fittings or B 16.25, Buttwelding Ends for Pipe, Valves, Flanges and Fittings. Welding should be prohibited in an occupied structur; however, welded subassemblies may be prepared outside the area and assembled (flanged) within the areas. Piping 2 in.(51mm) or smaller may be welded; otherwise, malleable iron on steel fittings of 150 lb of steam rating (300 lb W.O.G. rating)should be used. These fittings should conform to ANSI Standard B 16.3, Malleable Iron Screwed Fittings, 150 and 300 lb or B 16.5, Steel Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings. Note; Flexible couplings may be used in lieu of welded pipe or welded flanged fittings.5. Piping should be supported from the building or structural framework; however, outdoor piping may be attached to self-supporting process equipment.6. For processing structures located indoors or outdoors, a readily assible manual shuof valve should be provided for each system. All manual sutof valves and automatic sprinkler control valves (alarm check, deluge, etc.) should be located at least 50 ft(15.2m) from the building or structures. Where a greater than average explosion hazard exists, these valves should also be barricaded or located in a dry, readily accessible belowgrade vlave house (manhole-type entrance not acceptable). Also, see Data Sheet 7-14.
This is the reference in FM 7-14 Section 2.4.3:2.4.3.1 Locate risers in areas cut off by pressure-resistant walls or shielded by structural columns.2.4.3.2 Locate feed and cross mains away from reators or pressure vessels (eg., in the aisles or to the sides of reactors or pressure vessels, but never directly above this equipment).2.4.3.3 Bury and loop water supply mains to hazardous process areas. Provide divisional valves so any breaks due to explosion damage can be isolated.2.4.3.4 Ensure all piping over 2 in. (51mm) is welded or has welded flanged fittings. Welding should conform to the ANSI/ASME standard for pressure piping, B31.1 Power Piping. Welded flanged fittings should conform to ANSI/ASME Standard B16.9 Factory-Mde Wrought Steel Buttwelding Fittings or ANSI/ASME STandard B16.25, Buttwelding Ends. Prohibit welding in an occupied structur; however, welded subassemblies may be prepared outside the area and assembled (flanged) within the area. Piping 2 in.(51mm) or smaller may be welded; otherwise, use malleable iron-on-steel fittings of 150 lb steam rating (300 lb W.O.G. rating). These fittings should conform to ANSI/ASME Standard B16.3, Malleable Iron Threaded Fittings, 150 and 300lb; or ANSI/ASME Standard B16.5, Steel Pipe Flanges and Flanged Fittings. Do not use flexible couplings.2.4.3.5 Ensure piping is supported from the building or structural framework. However, outdoor piping may be attached to self-supporting process equipment.2.4.3.6 Provide a readily accessible manual shutoff valve for each system within the processing structure located indoors or outdoors. Locate all manual shuoff valves and automatic sprinkler control valves (alarm check, deluge, etc.) at least 50 ft(15.2m) from the building or structures.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
27 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
The two references are essentially the same except now flexible couplings are not to be used and some of the welding standards versions have been updated.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 14-NFPA 664-2014 [Section No. F.1.2.4]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Harvey Eng
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Mar 26 09:57:13 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-10-NFPA 664-2014
Statement: FM 2-8N, Installation of Sprinkler Systems is now obsolete and has been replaced with FM 2-0,Installation Guidelines for Automatic Sprinklers. However the previous reference in section 3-10 ofFM 2-8N is now only found in FM 7-14, Fire Protection for Chemical Plants. This reference is toaddress protection of sprinkler piping, valves and fittings against damage from explosions. It waspreviously referenced in both FM 2-8N and FM 7-14. However when FM 2-0 was created and FM2-8N superseded, it was not included.
This was the previous FM 2-8N section 3-10 reference:
1. Risers should be located in areas cut off by pressure resistant walls or shielded by structuralcolumns.
2. Feed and cross mains should be located away from reactors or pressure vessels insofar as it ispractical (e.g., in the aisles or off to the sides of reactors or pressure vessels but never directly abovethis equipment).
3. Generally, water supply mains to hazardous process areas should be buried, looped, and equippedwith divisional valves so that any breaks due to explosion damage can be isolated.
4. All piping over 2 in.(51mm) should be welded or have welded flanged fittings. Welding shouldconform to the ANSI standard for pressure piping, B31.1.0 Power Piping. Welded flanged fittingsshould conform to ANSI Standard B 16.0 Wrought Steel Buttwelding Fittings or B 16.25, ButtweldingEnds for Pipe, Valves, Flanges and Fittings. Welding should be prohibited in an occupied structur;however, welded subassemblies may be prepared outside the area and assembled (flanged) withinthe areas. Piping 2 in.(51mm) or smaller may be welded; otherwise, malleable iron on steel fittings of150 lb of steam rating (300 lb W.O.G. rating)should be used. These fittings should conform to ANSIStandard B 16.3, Malleable Iron Screwed Fittings, 150 and 300 lb or B 16.5, Steel Pipe Flanges andFlanged Fittings. Note; Flexible couplings may be used in lieu of welded pipe or welded flangedfittings.
5. Piping should be supported from the building or structural framework; however, outdoor piping maybe attached to self-supporting process equipment.
6. For processing structures located indoors or outdoors, a readily assible manual shuof valve shouldbe provided for each system. All manual sutof valves and automatic sprinkler control valves (alarmcheck, deluge, etc.) should be located at least 50 ft(15.2m) from the building or structures. Where a
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
28 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
greater than average explosion hazard exists, these valves should also be barricaded or located in adry, readily accessible belowgrade vlave house (manhole-type entrance not acceptable).
Also, see Data Sheet 7-14.
This is the reference in FM 7-14 Section 2.4.3:
2.4.3.1 Locate risers in areas cut off by pressure-resistant walls or shielded by structural columns.
2.4.3.2 Locate feed and cross mains away from reators or pressure vessels (eg., in the aisles or tothe sides of reactors or pressure vessels, but never directly above this equipment).
2.4.3.3 Bury and loop water supply mains to hazardous process areas. Provide divisional valves soany breaks due to explosion damage can be isolated.
2.4.3.4 Ensure all piping over 2 in. (51mm) is welded or has welded flanged fittings. Welding shouldconform to the ANSI/ASME standard for pressure piping, B31.1 Power Piping. Welded flanged fittingsshould conform to ANSI/ASME Standard B16.9 Factory-Mde Wrought Steel Buttwelding Fittings orANSI/ASME STandard B16.25, Buttwelding Ends. Prohibit welding in an occupied structur; however,welded subassemblies may be prepared outside the area and assembled (flanged) within the area.Piping 2 in.(51mm) or smaller may be welded; otherwise, use malleable iron-on-steel fittings of 150 lbsteam rating (300 lb W.O.G. rating). These fittings should conform to ANSI/ASME Standard B16.3,Malleable Iron Threaded Fittings, 150 and 300lb; or ANSI/ASME Standard B16.5, Steel Pipe Flangesand Flanged Fittings. Do not use flexible couplings.
2.4.3.5 Ensure piping is supported from the building or structural framework. However, outdoor pipingmay be attached to self-supporting process equipment.
2.4.3.6 Provide a readily accessible manual shutoff valve for each system within the processingstructure located indoors or outdoors. Locate all manual shuoff valves and automatic sprinkler controlvalves (alarm check, deluge, etc.) at least 50 ft(15.2m) from the building or structures.
The two references are essentially the same except now flexible couplings are not to be used andsome of the welding standards versions have been updated.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
29 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 28-NFPA 664-2014 [ Chapter F ]
Annex F Informational References
F.1 Referenced Publications.
The documents or portions thereof listed in this annex are referenced within the informational sections ofthis standard and are not part of the requirements of this document unless also listed in Chapter 2 for otherreasons.
F.1.1 NFPA Publications.
National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.
NFPA 1, Fire Code, 2012 edition 2015 .
NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 2011 edition 2013 .
NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2010 edition 2013 with 2013 errata .
NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection, 2012 edition .
NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, 2010 edition 2013 .
NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances, 2010edition 2013 .
NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems,2011 edition 2014 .
NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, 2012 edition .
NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work, 2009 edition 2014 .
NFPA 499, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous(Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas, 2008 edition 2013 .
NFPA 600, Standard on Industrial Fire Brigades, 2010 edition .
NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing,and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, 2006 edition 2012 .
Fire Protection Guide to Hazardous Materials, 13th edition, 2001 2010 .
Fire Protection Handbook, 2003 edition 20th edition, 2008 .
Frank, T. 1981. “Fire and Explosion Control in Bag Filter Dust Collection Systems.” Fire Journal, March,73–94.
F.1.2 Other Publications.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
30 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
F.1.2.1 ACGIH Publication.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH45240-1634.
Industrial Ventilation — a : A Manual of Recommended Practice for Design , 25th 28 th edition, 20042013 .
F.1.2.2 ASME Publications.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2001 2013 .
F.1.2.3 ASTM Publications.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012 .
ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models, 20112012 .
ASTM E 1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, 2007.
F.1.2.4 FM Publications.
FM Global, 1301 Atwood Avenue, P.O. Box 7500, Johnston, RI 02919.
FM 2-8N, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, May 2010.
FM 6-7, Fluidized Bed Combustors and Boilers, May 2010.
FM 6-13, Waste Fuel-Fired Boilers, May 2010.
FM 7-10, Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities, May 2010.
FM 7-11, Belt Conveyors, October 2009.
FM 7-73, Dust Collectors and Collection Systems, 2008.
FM 7-76, Prevention & Mitigation of Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires, March 2009.
FM 7-99, Heat Transfer by Organic and Synthetic Fluids, January 2009.
F.1.2.5 ISO Publications.
International Standards Organization, 1 Rue de Varembé, Case Postale 56, Ch-1211 Genève 20,Switzerland.
ISO 6184-1, Explosion Protection Systems — Part 1: Determination of Explosion Indices of CombustibleDusts in Air, 1985.
ISO 6184-4, Explosion Protection Systems — Part 4: Determination of Efficiency of Explosion SuppressionSystems, 1985.
F.1.2.6 SFPE Publications.
Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1225 W, Bethesda, MD 20814.
SFPE Computer Software Directory.
SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance-Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings , 2007
edition , 2 nd edition, 2008 .
SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 4th edition, 2008.
F.1.2.7 U.S. Government Publications.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 36, “Approval Requirements for Permissible Mobile Diesel-Powered Transportation Equipment,” 2005.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
31 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
F.1.2.8 Other Publications.
Friedman, Raymond. 1992. “An International Survey of Computer Models for Fire and Smoke.” Journal ofFire Protection Engineering, 4 13 ( 3 2 ) , 83–92 87-110 .
VDI 3673, Pressure Venting of Dust Explosions, 2002.
F.2 Informational References.
The following documents or portions thereof are listed here as informational resources only. They are not apart of the requirements of this document.
NFPA 497, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Flammable Liquids, Gases, or Vapors and ofHazardous (Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas, 2008 edition2012 .
F.3 References for Extracts in Informational Sections.
NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, 2007 edition 2013 .
NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing,and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, 2006 edition 2012 .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Current editions referenced.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 27-NFPA 664-2014 [Chapter 2] Current editions referenced
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Aaron Adamczyk
Organization: [ Not Specified ]
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jun 10 22:05:28 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-13-NFPA 664-2014
Statement: Current editions referenced.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
32 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 34-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. F.1.2.3 ]
F.1.2.3 ASTM Publications.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012a .
ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models,2011 2012 .
ASTM E 1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, 2007.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Update the year date for standard(s)
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Steve Mawn
Organization: ASTM International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 13:10:35 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-13-NFPA 664-2014
Statement: Current editions referenced.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
33 of 34 10/15/2014 12:11 PM
Public Input No. 14-NFPA 664-2014 [ Section No. F.1.2.4 ]
F.1.2.4 FM Publications.
FM Global, 1301 Atwood Avenue, P.O. Box 7500, Johnston, RI 02919.
FM 2-8N, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, May 2010.FM 6-7, Fluidized Bed Combustors and Boilers,May 2010 April 2012 .
FM 6-13, Waste Fuel-Fired Boilers, May 2010.
FM 7-10, Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities, May 2010.
FM 7-11, Belt Conveyors, October 2009 January 2012 .
FM 7-14, Fire Protection for Chemical Plants, January 2013.
FM 7- 73, Dust Collectors and Collection Systems, 2008 January 2012 .
FM 7-76, Prevention & Mitigation of Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires, March 2009 April 2013 .
FM 7-99, Heat Transfer by Organic and Synthetic Fluids, January 2009 2014 .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
FM 2-8N, Installation of Sprinkler Systems is now obsolete and has been replaced with FM 2-0 Installation Guidelines for Automatic Sprinklers. The reference to FM 2-8N in NFPA664 is found in section A.8.10.4.3 where it refers to Section 3-10 of FM 2-8N for protection of sprinkler piping against damage from explosions. The content of this text reference can be found now in FM 7-14, Fire Protection for Chemical Plants in section 2.4.3.
Other changes are to update the dates to the latest revisions of listed FM data sheets.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 17-NFPA 664-2014 [Section No.A.8.10.4.3]
same referenced FM 2-8N which is nowobsolete.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Harvey Eng
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Mar 24 09:27:23 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-13-NFPA 664-2014
Statement: Current editions referenced.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
Ms. Dawn Bellis, SecretaryStandards CouncilNational Fire Protection Association1 Batterymarch ParkQuincy, MA 02169
Re: NFPA 61
Dear Ms. Bellis:
This letter will both serve as a global public comment on the current version of NFPA 61, andas a request to the NFPA’s Standards Council.
As you are aware, there is a July 7, 2014, deadline for submitting public comments on thecurrent version of NFPA 61. We most respectfully make two requests: First, that that deadline bepostponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized. Second, that NFPA 61 be restoredto its previous 2017 revision cycle.
We request that the July 7, 2014, deadline be postponed until at least three months afterNFPA 652 is finalized because, as matters now stand, it is not possible for members of the publicaffected by NFPA 61 to intelligently comment on the most important question facing them: HowNFPA 61 should be revised to reflect provisions of the forthcoming NFPA 652. To take one example,it appears that NFPA 652 will likely permit the NFPA 61 standard to indicate which NFPA 61provisions would be permitted to be used instead of the corresponding NFPA 652 provision. In thatcase, the only way that the public could intelligently comment on which provisions of NFPA 61should so indicate their nature vis-à-vis NFPA 652 would be for the public to have a final version ofNFPA 652 before them for review.
But that is not the case. NFPA 652 is not final. It is still in the second draft stage, and hasnot yet been even voted on officially by the committee members. Although we understand that aversion of NFPA 652 was circulated in draft form to committee members on June 30, 2014, it is stillonly a draft (and apparently a partial draft at that) and has not been made available to members ofthe public. We are also informed that the draft in some important respects does not yet completelyreflect all of the unofficial votes of the NFPA 652 Committee. Moreover, the draft, as it goes throughthe official voting process, is subject to revision by the Committee and other bodies, not to mentionthe membership of the NFPA. That means that members of the public would have to expendconsiderable resources commenting on NFPA 61 with the aid of a draft of NFPA 652 that could wellbe later rendered inaccurate. Under these circumstances, the deadline for public comment shouldbe postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized.
We also request that NFPA 61 be restored to its previous 2017 revision cycle. The shift to a2016 revision cycle means that the NFPA 61 Committee will be unable to revise NFPA 61 to timelyreflect the final text of NFPA 652. As a result, there will be a considerable period of time in whichusers of NFPA 61 will be literally required to comply with provisions in NFPA 652 that the NFPA 61Committee may well find inappropriate to agricultural products and thus will later prescribedifferent provisions addressing the same subject. Users of NFPA 61 will thus be needlessly
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
1 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
required at first to comply with a differing requirement in NFPA 652, and then will be required tocomply with yet another differing requirement once NFPA 61 is revised. This makes no sense, andwill produce confusion and waste. The best way to resolve these considerable difficulties would beto restore NFPA 61 to its 2017 revision cycle.
We look forward to a favorable response to our requests.
Respectfully,
James W. Johnson President, United States Beet Sugar Association
Letter_to_Standards_Council_re_NFPA_61.pdf Letter to NFPA Standards Council
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
(1) Inability of the public to intelligently comment on NFPA 61 by July 7, 2014, without an reliable, authoritative version of NFPA 652 available. Comments should therefore not be due until NFPA 652 is in final form. (2) Confusion caused by the 2016 development cycle assigned to NFPA 61, which will make the NFPA 61 committee unable to revise NFPA 61 to account for NFPA 652 and prevent conflicting and inconsistent requirements as the standards develop; the 2017 development cycle of NFPA 61 should therefore restored.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: ARTHUR SAPPER
Organization: MCDERMOTT WILL EMERY LLP
Affilliation: United States Beet Sugar Association
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Jul 02 17:15:53 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The technical committee on Agricultural Dusts discussed these public inputs and, after discussionand deliberation, voted to keep the document in the current A2016 revision cycle. NFPA 652 is anA2015 document, and will be issued in the spring or fall of 2015. It will go out to ballot in earlySeptember of 2014, and will be addressed by the correlating committee in early November. If it doesnot receive any NITMAMs, it will be issued in May of 2015. If NITMAMs are received and heard at theJune 2015 NFPA annual meeting, it will be issued in August of 2015. It is fairly far along in the NFPAprocess, and is unlikely to change significantly from the draft that was distributed to the dustcommittees in mid-July. The committee on Agricultural Dusts made significant progress at the firstdraft meeting reviewing the draft of 652 and creating first revisions and committee inputs that willallow the committee to further refine its work at the second draft phase. Additionally, the correlatingcommittee, which includes members of the agricultural dust committee, may recommend additionalareas where the agricultural committee can refine NFPA 61 during the second draft phase. Thecommittee has decided to move forward with the document revision on its current schedule and workthrough task groups between now and the second draft meeting by reviewing 652 and how it effectsNFPA 61. It is planning on two second draft meetings, the first primarily to focus on 652 and thesecond to address public comment received on the first draft of 61. The second meeting is scheduledafter the NFPA annual meeting where any NITMAMs on 652 would be heard. That will allow the 61
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
2 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
technical committee to align with the final content of 652. If committee feels that it needs more time atthe second draft phase, it can elect to slip cycle at that time. It should be noted that 61 applies if itcontains a specific requirement on a subject also covered by 652 or if 61 prohibits a provision of 652.If 61 slipped cycle, there would be a longer period during which a greater number of the provisions of652 would apply to the users of the existing 61. It is in the best interest of the 61 committee tominimize this period of time between the issuance of 652 and the issuance of the next edition of 61which will address provisions of 652. It should also be noted that NFPA standards are continuallychanging and improving through the revision process. It is expected that there will be additionalchanges in subsequent revision cycles that will allow 61 to be aligned with 652 as well the other dustdocuments. In such instances where significant changes occur within 652, those changes can bereflected with 61 through proposed TIA, when warranted.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
3 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
U N I T E D S T A T E S B E E T S U G A R A S S O C I A T I O N
Ms. Dawn Bellis, Secretary Standards Council National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA 02169
Re: NFPA 61
Dear Ms. Bellis:
This letter will both serve as a global public comment on the current version of NFPA 61, and as a request to the NFPA’s Standards Council.
As you are aware, there is a July 7, 2014, deadline for submitting public comments on the current version of NFPA 61. We most respectfully make two requests: First, that that deadline be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized. Second, that NFPA 61 be restored to its previous 2017 revision cycle.
We request that the July 7, 2014, deadline be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized because, as matters now stand, it is not possible for members of the public affected by NFPA 61 to intelligently comment on the most important question facing them: How NFPA 61 should be revised to reflect provisions of the forthcoming NFPA 652. To take one example, it appears that NFPA 652 will likely permit the NFPA 61 standard to indicate which NFPA 61 provisions would be permitted to be used instead of the corresponding NFPA 652 provision. In that case, the only way that the public could intelligently comment on which provisions of NFPA 61 should so indicate their nature vis-à-vis NFPA 652 would be for the public to have a final version of NFPA 652 before them for review.
But that is not the case. NFPA 652 is not final. It is still in the second draft stage, and has not yet been even voted on officially by the committee members. Although we understand that a version of NFPA 652 was circulated in draft form to committee members on June 30, 2014, it is still only a draft (and apparently a partial draft at that) and has not been made available to members of the public. We are also informed that the draft in some important respects does not yet completely reflect all of the unofficial votes of the NFPA 652 Committee. Moreover, the draft, as it goes through the official voting process, is subject to revision by the Committee and other bodies, not to mention the membership of the NFPA. That means that members of the public would have to expend considerable resources commenting on NFPA 61 with the aid of a draft of NFPA 652 that could well be later rendered inaccurate. Under these circumstances, the deadline for public comment should be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized.
Ms. Dawn Bellis, Secretary July 2, 2014 Page 2 We also request that NFPA 61 be restored to its previous 2017 revision cycle. The shift to a 2016 revision cycle means that the NFPA 61 Committee will be unable to revise NFPA 61 to timely reflect the final text of NFPA 652. As a result, there will be a considerable period of time in which users of NFPA 61 will be literally required to comply with provisions in NFPA 652 that the NFPA 61 Committee may well find inappropriate to agricultural products and thus will later prescribe different provisions addressing the same subject. Users of NFPA 61 will thus be needlessly required at first to comply with a differing requirement in NFPA 652, and then will be required to comply with yet another differing requirement once NFPA 61 is revised. This makes no sense, and will produce confusion and waste. The best way to resolve these considerable difficulties would be to restore NFPA 61 to its 2017 revision cycle.
We look forward to a favorable response to our requests.
Respectfully,
James W. Johnson President, United States Beet Sugar Association cc: Arthur G. Sapper, Esq. ([email protected]) Ms. Susan Bershad ([email protected])
Public Input No. 85-NFPA 61-2014 [ Global Input ]
As you are aware, there is a July 7, 2014, deadline for submitting public comments on the current version ofNFPA 61. We most respectfully make two requests: First, that that deadline be postponed until at leastthree months after NFPA 652 is finalized. Second, that NFPA 61 be restored to its previous 2017 revisioncycle.We request that the July 7, 2014, deadline be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 isfinalized because, as matters now stand, it is not possible for members of the public affected by NFPA 61 tointelligently comment on the most important question facing them: How NFPA 61 should be revised toreflect provisions of the forthcoming NFPA 652. To take one example, it appears that NFPA 652 will likelypermit the NFPA 61 standard to indicate which NFPA 61 provisions would be permitted to be used insteadof the corresponding NFPA 652 provision. In that case, the only way that the public could intelligentlycomment on which provisions of NFPA 61 should so indicate their nature vis-à-vis NFPA 652 would be forthe public to have a final version of NFPA 652 before them for review.
But that is not the case. NFPA 652 is not final. It is still in the second draft stage, and has not yet been evenvoted on officially by the committee members. Although we understand that a version of NFPA 652 wascirculated in draft form to committee members on June 30, 2014, it is still only a draft (and apparently apartial draft at that) and has not been made available to members of the public. We are also informed thatthe draft in some important respects does not yet completely reflect all of the unofficial votes of the NFPA652 Committee. Moreover, the draft, as it goes through the official voting process, is subject to revision bythe Committee and other bodies, not to mention the membership of the NFPA. That means that members ofthe public would have to expend considerable resources commenting on NFPA 61 with the aid of a draft ofNFPA 652 that could well be later rendered inaccurate. Under these circumstances, the deadline for publiccomment should be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized.
We also request that NFPA 61 be restored to its previous 2017 revision cycle. The shift to a 2016 revisioncycle means that the NFPA 61 Committee will be unable to revise NFPA 61 to timely reflect the final text ofNFPA 652. As a result, there will be a considerable period of time in which users of NFPA 61 will be literallyrequired to comply with provisions in NFPA 652 that the NFPA 61 Committee may well find inappropriate toagricultural products and thus will later prescribe different provisions addressing the same subject. Users ofNFPA 61 will thus be needlessly required at first to comply with a differing requirement in NFPA 652, andthen will be required to comply with yet another differing requirement once NFPA 61 is revised. This makesno sense, and will produce confusion and waste. The best way to resolve these considerable difficultieswould be to restore NFPA 61 to its 2017 revision cycle.
We look forward to a favorable response to our requests.
United States Beet Sugar Association Member-CompaniesAmalgamated Sugar Company3184 Elder Street, Boise, ID 83709(208)383-65003 factories:Nampa, ID; Paul, ID; Twin Falls, ID
American Crystal Sugar Company101 North Third Street, Moorhead, MN 56560(218)236-44005 factories:Crookston, MN; East Grand Forks, MN; Moorhead, MN; Drayton, ND; Hillsboro, ND
Michigan Sugar Company2600 South Euclid Avenue, Bay City, MI 48706(989)686-01614 factories:Bay City, MI; Caro, MI; Croswell, MI; Sebewaing, MI
Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative7525 Red River Road, Wahpeton, ND 58075(701)642-84111 factory: Wahpeton, ND
Sidney Sugars Incorporated(Owned by American Crystal Sugar Company)101 North Third Street, Moorhead, MN 56560
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Refer back to the Recommendation.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: James Johnson
Organization: United States Beet Sugar Assoc
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jul 11 08:21:26 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The technical committee on Agricultural Dusts discussed these public inputs and, after discussionand deliberation, voted to keep the document in the current A2016 revision cycle. NFPA 652 is anA2015 document, and will be issued in the spring or fall of 2015. It will go out to ballot in earlySeptember of 2014, and will be addressed by the correlating committee in early November. If it doesnot receive any NITMAMs, it will be issued in May of 2015. If NITMAMs are received and heard at theJune 2015 NFPA annual meeting, it will be issued in August of 2015. It is fairly far along in the NFPAprocess, and is unlikely to change significantly from the draft that was distributed to the dustcommittees in mid-July. The committee on Agricultural Dusts made significant progress at the firstdraft meeting reviewing the draft of 652 and creating first revisions and committee inputs that willallow the committee to further refine its work at the second draft phase. Additionally, the correlatingcommittee, which includes members of the agricultural dust committee, may recommend additionalareas where the agricultural committee can refine NFPA 61 during the second draft phase. Thecommittee has decided to move forward with the document revision on its current schedule and workthrough task groups between now and the second draft meeting by reviewing 652 and how it effectsNFPA 61. It is planning on two second draft meetings, the first primarily to focus on 652 and the
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
5 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
second to address public comment received on the first draft of 61. The second meeting is scheduledafter the NFPA annual meeting where any NITMAMs on 652 would be heard. That will allow the 61technical committee to align with the final content of 652. If committee feels that it needs more time atthe second draft phase, it can elect to slip cycle at that time. It should be noted that 61 applies if itcontains a specific requirement on a subject also covered by 652 or if 61 prohibits a provision of 652.If 61 slipped cycle, there would be a longer period during which a greater number of the provisions of652 would apply to the users of the existing 61. It is in the best interest of the 61 committee tominimize this period of time between the issuance of 652 and the issuance of the next edition of 61which will address provisions of 652. It should also be noted that NFPA standards are continuallychanging and improving through the revision process. It is expected that there will be additionalchanges in subsequent revision cycles that will allow 61 to be aligned with 652 as well the other dustdocuments. In such instances where significant changes occur within 652, those changes can bereflected with 61 through proposed TIA, when warranted.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
6 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
U N I T E D S T A T E S B E E T S U G A R A S S O C I A T I O N
Ms. Dawn Bellis, Secretary Standards Council National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA 02169
Re: NFPA 61
Dear Ms. Bellis:
This letter will both serve as a global public comment on the current version of NFPA 61, and as a request to the NFPA’s Standards Council.
As you are aware, there is a July 7, 2014, deadline for submitting public comments on the current version of NFPA 61. We most respectfully make two requests: First, that that deadline be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized. Second, that NFPA 61 be restored to its previous 2017 revision cycle.
We request that the July 7, 2014, deadline be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized because, as matters now stand, it is not possible for members of the public affected by NFPA 61 to intelligently comment on the most important question facing them: How NFPA 61 should be revised to reflect provisions of the forthcoming NFPA 652. To take one example, it appears that NFPA 652 will likely permit the NFPA 61 standard to indicate which NFPA 61 provisions would be permitted to be used instead of the corresponding NFPA 652 provision. In that case, the only way that the public could intelligently comment on which provisions of NFPA 61 should so indicate their nature vis-à-vis NFPA 652 would be for the public to have a final version of NFPA 652 before them for review.
But that is not the case. NFPA 652 is not final. It is still in the second draft stage, and has not yet been even voted on officially by the committee members. Although we understand that a version of NFPA 652 was circulated in draft form to committee members on June 30, 2014, it is still only a draft (and apparently a partial draft at that) and has not been made available to members of the public. We are also informed that the draft in some important respects does not yet completely reflect all of the unofficial votes of the NFPA 652 Committee. Moreover, the draft, as it goes through the official voting process, is subject to revision by the Committee and other bodies, not to mention the membership of the NFPA. That means that members of the public would have to expend considerable resources commenting on NFPA 61 with the aid of a draft of NFPA 652 that could well be later rendered inaccurate. Under these circumstances, the deadline for public comment should be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized.
Ms. Dawn Bellis, Secretary July 2, 2014 Page 2 We also request that NFPA 61 be restored to its previous 2017 revision cycle. The shift to a 2016 revision cycle means that the NFPA 61 Committee will be unable to revise NFPA 61 to timely reflect the final text of NFPA 652. As a result, there will be a considerable period of time in which users of NFPA 61 will be literally required to comply with provisions in NFPA 652 that the NFPA 61 Committee may well find inappropriate to agricultural products and thus will later prescribe different provisions addressing the same subject. Users of NFPA 61 will thus be needlessly required at first to comply with a differing requirement in NFPA 652, and then will be required to comply with yet another differing requirement once NFPA 61 is revised. This makes no sense, and will produce confusion and waste. The best way to resolve these considerable difficulties would be to restore NFPA 61 to its 2017 revision cycle.
We look forward to a favorable response to our requests.
Respectfully,
James W. Johnson President, United States Beet Sugar Association cc: Arthur G. Sapper, Esq. ([email protected]) Ms. Susan Bershad ([email protected])
nwalker
Text Box
07/14
United States Beet Sugar Association Member-Companies Amalgamated Sugar Company 3184 Elder Street, Boise, ID 83709 (208)383-6500 3 factories: Nampa, ID; Paul, ID; Twin Falls, ID American Crystal Sugar Company 101 North Third Street, Moorhead, MN 56560 (218)236-4400 5 factories: Crookston, MN; East Grand Forks, MN; Moorhead, MN; Drayton, ND; Hillsboro, ND Michigan Sugar Company 2600 South Euclid Avenue, Bay City, MI 48706 (989)686-0161 4 factories: Bay City, MI; Caro, MI; Croswell, MI; Sebewaing, MI Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative 7525 Red River Road, Wahpeton, ND 58075 (701)642-8411 1 factory: Wahpeton, ND Sidney Sugars Incorporated (Owned by American Crystal Sugar Company) 101 North Third Street, Moorhead, MN 56560 (218)236-4400 1 factory: Sidney, MT Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative P.O. Box 500, Renville, MN 56284 (320)329-8305 1 factory: Renville, MN Spreckels Sugar Company (Owned by Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative) P.O. Box 500, Renville, MN 56284 (320)329-8305 1 factory: Brawley, CA Western Sugar Cooperative 7555 East Hampden Avenue, Suite 600, Denver, CO 80231 (303) 813-3500 5 factories: Fort Morgan, CO; Billings, MT; Scottsbluff, NE; Lovell, WY; Torrington, WY Wyoming Sugar Company P.O. Box 468, Worland, WY 82401 (307)347-3261 1 factory: Worland, WY
Public Input No. 1-NFPA 61-2013 [ Section No. 1.1.1 ]
1.1.1 *
This standard shall apply to all of the following:
(1) All facilities that receive, handle, process, dry, blend, use, mill, package, store, or ship dryagricultural bulk materials, their by-products, or dusts that include grains, oilseeds, agricultural seeds,legumes, sugar, flour, spices, feeds, and other related materials " such as dairy/food powders eg.milk powder, lactose, whey, maltodextrine and other dry food ingredients"
(2) All facilities designed for manufacturing and handling starch, including drying, grinding, conveying,processing, packaging, and storing dry or modified starch, and dry products and dusts generated fromthese processes
(3) Those seed preparation and meal-handling systems of oilseed processing plants not covered byNFPA 36, Standard for Solvent Extraction Plants
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The facilities that use dairy/food products are not indicated in this standard
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Venkateswara Bhamidipati
Organization: Powder Process Solutions
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jun 18 11:04:44 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-10 for the revision to Chapter 1. The term "dry dairy/food powders" has been added to 1.3.1,application.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
7 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 20-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 1.4.1 ]
1.4.1.1 When major replacement or renovation of existing facilities is planned, provisions of thisstandard shall apply.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The current standard has language that addresses new construction and existing construction, but not renovation work. (The proposed language is used in NFPA 654:1.5.5)
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway
Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 16:44:43 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See section 1.5.5 of FR-10. FR-10 is a complete revision of Chapter 1. The committee has includedthis input, but did not include the term "major" as it is unenforceable and difficult to define.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
8 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 37-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 2.3.3 ]
2.3.3 MSHA Publications
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 21st Floor, Arlington VA22209-3939.
MSHA CFR Part 18 - MSHA 2G Test - Flame-resistant conveyor belt
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The 2G Flame Test is mentioned in section 3.3.10 but no reference is given.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 12:35:09 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-57-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Update of references. The 2G Flame Test is mentioned in section 3.3.10 but no reference is given;adding MSHA reference (PI-37).
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
9 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 33-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.1 ]
3.3.1 * Agricultural Dust.
Any finely divided solid agricultural material 420 microns or smaller in diameter (material passing a U.S.No. 40 Standard Sieve) that presents a flash fire or hazard or explosion hazard when dispersedsuspended and ignited in air.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Removed the specific reference to a particle size to make the definition more consistent with NFPA 654 [Section 3.3.5 Combustible Dust - 2013 Edition] and NFPA 652 [Section 3.3.4 - Draft 2015 Edition].
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 34-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. A.3.3.1]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 11:38:51 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-2-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Removed the specific reference to a particle size to make the definition more consistent with NFPA654 [Section 3.3.5 Combustible Dust - 2013 Edition] and NFPA 652 [Section 3.3.4 - Draft 2015Edition].
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
10 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 36-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.8 ]
3.3.8 * Explosion.
The bursting or rupture of an enclosure or container due to the development of internal pressure from adeflagration. [ 654 , 2013]
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggested adding the reference to NFPA 654 since the definition is exactly the same.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 12:22:48 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-39-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Suggested adding the reference to NFPA 654 since the definition is exactly the same.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
11 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 18-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 3.3.10 ]
3.3.11 add a definition of Headhouse
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The definition of Headhouse is not in Chapter 3 or in the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionary 11th edition. In Googling this term, it is defined as an accessory structure pertaining to railway station operations. Delete the term if by the definition established, a “headhouse” does not pose the same explosion risk as does a silo. The definitiin is needed for those not familiar with the terms within the document but need to apply it.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello
Organization: Western Regional Fire Code Dev
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Apr 01 19:01:34 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This input is not actionable as it does not contain any proposed code language. The submitter isencouraged to resubmit the material as a public comment with specific language.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
12 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 32-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 3.3.10 ]
3.3.10 Fire-Resistant Belting Materials.
Belts that meet Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 2G flame test for conveyor belting.
(see 7.2.2)
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This just moves the requirements into section 7.2.2 (new) to comply with the Manual of Style which does not allow requirements or references to codes, standards or regulations in defintions.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 31-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. 7.2]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jul 04 17:26:42 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This definition is not used in the document. The reference that the submitter added is incorrect.Section 7.2.2 refers to drive belts, not conveyor belts. The test method referenced has been added tothe appropriate sections in Chapter 7.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
13 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 19-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 3.3.14 ]
3.3.15 add a definition of personnel-intensive area.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Once defined, the examples given in the exception may not be described as personnel-intensive areas, therefore may be deleted. Also note that the exception references small control rooms, which does not pose similar safety issues as would personnel-intensive areas.
The definition is needed for those not familiar with the terms within the document but need to apply it.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello
Organization: Western Regional Fire Code Dev
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Apr 01 19:04:04 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This public input is not actionable as it does not contain specific code language. The submitter isencourage to submit specific language at the public comment stage.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
14 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 81-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 4.1.3 ]
4.1.3 Use of Separation.
4.1.3.1*
Separation shall be permitted to be used to limit the dust explosion hazard or deflagration hazard
area within a building when it is supported by a documented engineering evaluation acceptable
to the authority having jurisdiction.
A.4.1.3.1
A building could be considered as a single combustible dust hazard area, or as a collection of
smaller, separated combustible dust hazard areas. When the owner/operator chooses to consider
the building as a single area, then the hazard analysis should consider the entire building floor
area, and the considerations for mitigation apply to the entire building. Where the combustible
dust hazard areas are sufficiently distant to assert separation and the owner/operator chooses to
consider each hazard area separately, the hazard analysis should consider each separated area,
and the considerations for mitigation should be applied to each area independently. Due
consideration should be given to overhead dust accumulations, such as on beams or ductwork,
which would negate the use of separation to limit combustible dust hazard areas. If the
separation option is chosen, a building floor plan, showing the boundaries considered, should be
maintained to support housekeeping plans.
4.1.3.2*
The required separation distance between the dust explosion hazard or deflagration hazard area
and surrounding exposures shall be determined by an engineering evaluation that addresses the
following:
(1) Properties of the materials
(2) Type of operation
(3) Amount of material likely to be present outside the process equipment
(4) Building and equipment design
(5) Nature of surrounding exposures
A.4.1.3.2
Separation distance is the distance between the outer perimeter of a primary dust accumulation
area and the outer perimeter of a second dust accumulation area. Separation distance
evaluations should include the area and volume of the primary dust accumulation area as well
as the building or room configuration.
4.1.3.3
The separation area shall be free of dust, or where dust accumulations exist on any surface, the surface colors belowshall be readily discernible.
4.1.3.4
When separation is used to limit the dust explosion or deflagration hazard area determined in
Chapter 7, the minimum separation distance shall not be less than 35 ft (11 m).
4.1.3.5*
When separation is used, housekeeping, fixed dust collection systems employed at points of
release, and the use of physical barriers shall be permitted to be used to limit the extent of the
dust explosion hazard or flash-fire hazard area.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
15 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
A.4.1.3.5
The assertion of separation must recognize the dust accumulation on all surfaces in the
intervening distance, including floors, beam flanges, piping, ductwork, equipment, suspended
ceilings, light fixtures, and walls. Process equipment or ductwork containing dust can also
provide a connecting conduit for propagation between accumulation areas. In order to prevent
flame propagation across the separation distance, the dust accumulation should be very low. The
National Grain and Feed Association study, Dust Explosion Propagation in Simulated Grain
Conveyor Galleries, has shown that a layer as thin as 1/100 in. is sufficient to propagate flame
in a limited expansion connection, such as an exhaust duct or a hallway. In the subject study, the
flame propagated for at least 80 ft (24.4 m) in an 8 ft (2.4 m) tall by 8 ft (2.4 m) wide gallery.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggested addition based on NFPA 652 - 2015 Edition section 8.2.5.3.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 16:50:57 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-3-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Suggested addition based on NFPA 652 - 2015 Edition section 8.2.5.3.
The committee modified the language in 4.1.3.1 to require that the evaluation does not need to be anengineering evaluation and that the evaluation is not required to be acceptable to the authority havingjurisdiction. This is a less onerous requirement and is considered to be protective.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
16 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 38-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 4.1.4 ]
4.1.4 *
Masonry shall not be used for the construction of exterior walls or roofs of areas classified as Class II,Group G, Division 1 in NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.
Exception: Masonry 4.1.4.1 This requirement shall not apply to masonry walls that are designed forexplosion resistance to preclude failure of these walls before the explosion pressure can be vented safelyto the outside.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception to 4.1.4 moved to section 4.1.4.1 to confirm with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 12:47:53 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-4-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception to 4.1.4 moved to section 4.1.4.1 to confirm with the NFPA Manual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
17 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 39-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 4.1.5.1 ]
4.1.5.1
Structures housing personnel-intensive areas not directly involved in operations such as, but not limited to,those involved exclusively in administrative or clerical personnel groups, grain inspection and weighingsupervision, or operations from control rooms shall be constructed in a location remote from storage silosand headhouse structures as specified in 4.1.5.2 through 4.1.5.4.Exception: Small
4.1.5.1.1 This requirement shall not apply to small control rooms contiguous to specific operations such asrailcar and truck discharging or loading or to control rooms such as those used in feed mills for mixingoperations.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception to 4.1.5.1 moved to section 4.1.5.1.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 12:53:47 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-5-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception to 4.1.5.1 moved to section 4.1.5.1.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
18 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 40-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 4.1.5.2 ]
4.1.5.2
Structures housing personnel-intensive areas shall not be constructed directly over subterranean tunnelsthrough which grain-handling equipment or dust control system ductwork passes or over other tunnels thathave direct openings into grain-handling areas.
Exception: Small 4.1.5.2.1 This section shall not apply to small control room structures contiguous tospecific operations such as railcar and truck discharging or loading.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception to 4.1.5.2 moved to section 4.1.5.2.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 12:56:42 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-6-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception to 4.1.5.2 moved to section 4.1.5.2.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
19 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 16-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 4.1.5.3 ]
4.1.5.3
Where reinforced concrete is used in silos and headhouses, the separation distance from personnel-intensive areas shall be at least 30 m (100 ft).
Exception: Distances less than 30 m (100 ft) but in no case less than 15 m (50 ft) shall be permitted if anyof the following conditions exist:
The property boundaries or other permanent constraints preclude 30 m (100 ft).
Structures do not have inside legs.
Structures have inside legs that if the
(1) Structures have inside legs and are equipped with explosion suppression systems in accordancewith NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Having inadequate distance or permanent constraints to your property boundary or having a structure without “inside legs” should not warrant the distance from a potentially explosive silo to "structures housing personnel-intensive areas" to be cut in half. We cannot seem to grasp the idea of a structure having “inside legs” would cause it to be less hazardous, thus allowing the reduction in distance as exampled in exception (2).
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello
Organization: Western Regional Fire Code Dev
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Apr 01 18:57:44 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-7-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception to 4.1.5.3 moved to 4.1.5.3.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
The committee retained permitting the separation distance to be reduced if the property boundariespreclude the larger distance to allow for flexibility as well as permitting the reduction in separationdistance if the structure does not have inside legs. The committee modified the third condition to referto Chapter 7 of this document versus NFPA 69.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
20 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 41-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 4.1.5.3 ]
4.1.5.3
Where reinforced concrete is used in silos and headhouses, the separation distance from personnel-intensive areas shall be at least 30 m (100 ft).
Exception: Distances4.1.5.3.1 Distances less than 30 m (100 ft) but in no case less than 15 m (50 ft) shall be permitted if anyof the following conditions exist:
(1) The property boundaries or other permanent constraints preclude 30 m (100 ft).
(2) Structures do not have inside legs.
(3) Structures have inside legs that are equipped with explosion suppression systems in accordancewith NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception to 4.1.5.3 moved to 4.1.5.3.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 13:00:34 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-7-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception to 4.1.5.3 moved to 4.1.5.3.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
The committee retained permitting the separation distance to be reduced if the property boundariespreclude the larger distance to allow for flexibility as well as permitting the reduction in separationdistance if the structure does not have inside legs. The committee modified the third condition to referto Chapter 7 of this document versus NFPA 69.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
21 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 17-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 4.1.5.4 ]
4.1.5.4
Where the headhouse is constructed of structural steel or reinforced concrete framework with lightweight,explosion-relieving wall panels, or does not contain inside or unprotected bucket elevators, the separationdistance from personnel-intensive areas shall be at least 15 m (50 ft).
Exception: Distances less than 15 m (50 ft) shall be permitted if the property boundaries or otherpermanent constraints preclude 15 m (50 ft), but in no case shall distances less than 9 m (30 ft) bepermitted.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Having limited or inadequate distance to your property boundary should not warrant the distance to "structures housing personnel-intensive areas" to be reduced.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello
Organization: Western Regional Fire Code Dev
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Apr 01 19:00:20 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-8-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception to 4.1.5.4 moved to section 4.1.5.4.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Committee prefers to maintain the reduction in separation distance for property boundaries or otherconstraints in order to allow for flexibility.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
22 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 42-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 4.1.5.4 ]
4.1.5.4
Where the headhouse is constructed of structural steel or reinforced concrete framework with lightweight,explosion-relieving wall panels, or does not contain inside or unprotected bucket elevators, the separationdistance from personnel-intensive areas shall be at least 15 m (50 ft).
Exception: Distances 4.1.5.4.1 Distances less than 15 m (50 ft) shall be permitted if the propertyboundaries or other permanent constraints preclude 15 m (50 ft), but in no case shall distances less than9 m (30 ft) be permitted.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception to 4.1.5.4 moved to section 4.1.5.4.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 13:03:18 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-8-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception to 4.1.5.4 moved to section 4.1.5.4.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Committee prefers to maintain the reduction in separation distance for property boundaries or otherconstraints in order to allow for flexibility.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
23 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 6-NFPA 61-2013 [ Section No. 4.2 ]
4.2 * Interior Surfaces.
Horizontal surfaces shall be minimized to prevent accumulations of dust in all interior structural areaswhere significant where dust accumulations could occur.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This is a subjective word and allows for uneven enforcement. Either remove or replace with a specific amount such as ½ inch.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Doug Hohbein
Organization: Northcentral Fire Code Develop
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Oct 15 16:59:24 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: This is a construction requirement, not a housekeeping requirement. The intent during the design andconstruction of a facility is to minimize horizontal surfaces where significant dust accumulations canoccur. This is to prevent areas that could present a future problem.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
24 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 7-NFPA 61-2013 [ Section No. 4.3.3 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]
Necessary openings in fire walls and fire barrier walls shall be kept to a minimum and be as small aspracticable. Such openings shall be protected with listed self-closing fire doors, fire shutters, fire dampers,or penetration seals installed in accordance with NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code,Chapter 8, Fire-Resistive Materials and Construction.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
If the openings are properly protected by listed protectives meeting code, should they be limited?
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Doug Hohbein
Organization: Northcentral Fire Code Develop
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Oct 15 17:00:15 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee believes that openings in fire walls and fire barriers should be kept to a minimum andbe as small as possible in order to reduce risk, regardless of whether or not they meet therequirements of NFPA 101.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
25 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 21-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 4.4.1 ]
4.4.1.1 Normally occupied spaces/rooms where hazardous dust accumulation may occur shall bedesigned according to ‘Special Provisions for Occupancies with High Hazard Contents’ in NFPA101.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Prescribed housekeeping measures to prevent or reduce dust generation and dispersal can do much to lessen the hazards of combustible dust, but cannot eliminate them. LSC 101:7.11 addresses exit egress provisions specific to this type hazard.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway
Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 16:45:44 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The document already requires compliance with NFPA 101. The committee does not believe thatadditional clarification is necessary, nor does it agree that all areas where dust accumulation mayoccur are high hazard occupancies.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
26 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 43-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 4.4.3 ]
4.4.3
Bin decks shall , with travel distances to the means of egress of 15 m (50 ft) or greater, shall have twomeans of egress that are remote from each other such that a single fire or explosion event will not likelyblock both means of egress.
Exception: Only one means of egress shall be required for bin deck areas where travel distance to themeans of egress is less than 15 m (50 ft).
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Reworded the section to remove the expcetion without changing the intent of the section. This change helps the section conform with the NFPA Manual for Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 13:12:20 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-9-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: FR removes the exception language per the MOS. The committee agrees that the term "only" is notneeded.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
27 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 8-NFPA 61-2013 [ Section No. 4.4.3 ]
4.4.3
Bin decks shall have two means of egress that are remote from each other such that a single fire orexplosion event will not likely block both means of egress.
Exception: Only one one means of egress shall be required for bin deck areas where travel distance tothe means of egress is less than 15 m (50 ft).
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Only is not needed.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Doug Hohbein
Organization: Northcentral Fire Code Develop
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Oct 15 17:01:36 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-9-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: FR removes the exception language per the MOS. The committee agrees that the term "only" is notneeded.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
28 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 44-NFPA 61-2014 [ Chapter 5 ]
Chapter 5 Ventilation and Venting
5.1 General.
5.1.1
In this chapter, ventilation shall refer to natural or mechanical movement of air necessary for normaloperation and personnel comfort and safety.
5.1.2
Recirculating or recycling exhaust air ventilation systems for dust explosion hazard areas, if used, shall beequipped with filter systems capable of removing dust from the air.
5.1.3
Dust collection systems used in conjunction with ventilation systems shall comply with the provisions ofChapter 10 of this standard.
5.2
Dust collection systems used in conjunction with ventilation systems shall comply with the provisions ofChapter 10 of this standard.
5.2 Exhaust Air
5.2.1 Exhaust air from the final air-material separator shall be discharged outside to a restricted area andaway from air intakes.
5.2.2 Air from air-material separators shall be permitted to be re-circulated directly back to the pneumaticconveying system.
5.2.3 Recycling of air-material separator exhaust to buildings or rooms shall be permitted when all of thefollowing requirements are met:
(1) Combustible or flammable gases or vapors are not present either in the intake or the recycled air inconcentrations above applicable industrial hygiene exposure limits or 1 percent of the LFL, whicheveris lower.
(2) *Combustible particulate solids are not present in the recycled air in concentrations above applicableindustrial hygiene exposure limits or 1 percent of the MEC, whichever is lower.
(3) *The oxygen concentration of the recycled air stream is between 19.5 percent and 23.5 percent byvolume.
(4) Provisions are incorporated to prevent transmission of flame and pressure effects from a deflagrationin an air-material separator back to the facility unless a process hazard analysis indicates that thoseeffects do not pose a threat to the facility or the occupants.
(5) Provisions are incorporated to prevent transmission of smoke and flame from a fire in an air-materialseparator back to the facility unless a process hazard analysis indicates that those effects do notpose a threat to the facility or the occupants.
(6) The system includes a method for detecting air-material separator malfunctions that would reducecollection efficiency and allow increases in the amount of combustible particulate solids returned tothe building.
(7) The building or room to which the recycled air is returned meets the fugitive dust control andhousekeeping requirements of this standard (Chapter 10).
(8) Recycled-air ducts are inspected and cleaned at least annually.
5.3 Venting of Bins, Tanks, and Silos.
5. 2 3 .1
The requirements for air displacement shall be as follows:
(1) Each bin, tank, or silo shall be provided with means for air displacement during filling or emptying.
(2) Displaced air shall not be discharged to the building atmosphere unless it is cleaned with a filterhaving a minimum efficiency of 0.02 g per dry standard cubic meter of airflow (0.008 grains per drystandard cubic foot of airflow).
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
29 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
5. 2 3 .2 *
Vents shall be designed to prevent plugging due to accumulations of dust.
5. 2 3 .3
Inclined vent stacks shall have clean-out doors or panels.
5. 2 3 .4
All vents shall be fitted with weather hoods.
5. 2 3 .5
Bin vents shall be sized to handle the air displaced by either filling or emptying.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggest we replace the existing 5.1.2 guidance on air recirculation with the guidance in NFPA 654 (Section 7.13.1.6.3 - 2013 Edition). Also suggest we include the annex material (PI 45).Renumbered the existing section on venting of bins, tanks and silos to accomodate the proposed new section.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 45-NFPA 61-2014 [New Section after A.5.2.2]
Public Input No. 46-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. A.5.2.2]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 13:30:47 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee did not agree that this material from 654 is appropriate for agricultural dusts. Theventilation requirements currently in Chapter 5 are more appropriate for this document and thecommittee intends to retain them.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
Explosion Prevention , Relief, and Venting Protection Systems
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The Explosion Prevention and Protection systems would be a better title
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Venkateswara Bhamidipati
Organization: Powder Process Solutions
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jun 18 11:09:40 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-12-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: The Explosion Prevention and Protection systems would be a better title
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
31 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 47-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 6.2.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]
If a dust explosion hazard exists in rooms, buildings, or other enclosures under normal operatingconditions or upset conditions , such areas shall be provided with explosion relief venting distributed overthe exterior walls (and roof, if applicable) in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection byDeflagration Venting.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The potential for a dust explosion during an upset condition should not be overlooked. Most other standard on dust explosion hazards (NFPA 68, NFPA 654, FM Global Data Sheet 7-76, and FM Global Data Sheet 7-76) do not make the distinction between normal operating conditions and upset conditions.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 14:00:27 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee believes the addition of upset conditions to this requirement for explosion reliefventing would be impractical and excessive. The term "upset condition" is not defined and would bedifficult to evaluate for all applications and installations.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
32 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 48-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 6.2.1.2 ]
6.2.1.2
The design shall offer the least possible resistance to explosion pressures.
Exception No 6 . 1: Tunnels 2.1.2.1 This requirement does not apply to tunnels and pits where explosionventing is not practical due to confinement by soil, building constraints, or both.
Exception No 6 .2: Bins .1.2.2 This requirement does not apply to bins and silos where explosion ventingis not practical due to bin or silo geometry, building constraints, or both.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exceptions to 6.2.1.2 have been moved to subsections to conform with NFPA Mannual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 14:09:38 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-40-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exceptions to 6.2.1.2 have been moved to subsections to conform with NFPA Mannual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
33 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 80-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 6.3.3.1 ]
6.3.3.2
Venting shall be located to relieve pressure through an outside wall or roof.
6.3.3.3
The fireball, blast hazards, and missile hazards that are created by deflagration venting shall not expose additionalpersonnel or property assets.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggested additional information based on NFPA 652 - 2015 Edition - Section 8.2.2.2.1 and 8.2.2.2.2.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 16:48:34 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This material is adequately covered in 6.3.3.1
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
34 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 49-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.1.1 ]
7.1.1
Antifriction bearings shall be used on all machinery, conveyors, legs, and processing equipment.
Exception: Sleeve 7.1.1.1 Sleeve and friction-type bearings, plastic bearings, or oil-impregnated woodbearings shall be permitted for equipment operating at 150 rpm or less.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception to 7.1.1 moved to section 7.1.1.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 14:31:31 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-41-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception to 7.1.1 moved to section 7.1.1.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
35 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 50-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.1.3 ]
7.1.3 *
All bearings on legs and conveyors shall be located outside of machinery enclosures and isolated from theproduct stream to minimize exposure to dust and to be more accessible for inspection and service.
Exception: Antifriction 7.1.3.1 Antifriction support bearings on screw conveyors and similar equipmentrequiring bearings to be within the product stream shall be of the sealed type.
7.1.3.2 Sleeve and friction-type bearings shall be permitted for equipment operating at 150 rpm or less.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Moved the exceptions to 7.1.3 to sub-sections to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 14:34:13 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-42-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Moved the exceptions to 7.1.3 to sub-sections to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
36 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 31-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.2 ]
7.2 Drive Belts.
7.2.1
Where drive assemblies involve the use of belts, such as V-belts, timing belts, flat belts, and so forth, theyshall be electrically conductive at 1 megohm or less and shall be fire resistant and oil resistant.
7.2.2
Belts shall be fire resistant by complying with the requirements of the Mine Safety and HealthAdministration (MSHA) 2G flame test for conveyor belting.
7.2.3
Where a drive belt is used, the drive train shall be designed with a minimum service factor of 1.5 or higher ifthe manufacturer of the drive components recommends a higher service factor for continuous service forthe type of equipment to be driven.
Exception: Line shaft drives as used in the milling industry.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This just moves the requirements for fire resistant belts from Chapter 3 (definitions) into Chapter 7, in compliance with the Manual of Style, that prohibits requirements in definitions.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 32-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. 3.3.10]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler
Organization: GBH International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Fri Jul 04 17:23:38 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This is the wrong test method for drive belts. The test method added in this public input is forconveyor belts, not drive belts, so this input is incorrect. The test method is added to the appropriatesections in this chapter.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
37 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 52-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 7.2.2 ]
7.2.3
Drive belts shall be designed to stall without the belt slipping, or a safety device shall be provided to shutdown the equipment if slippage occurs. [654, 2013]
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggested additional precaution to avoid overheating that could be a potential ignition source.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 14:40:22 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee is not sure that a design that meets this requirement exists. The committee does notwant to leave this as a potential requirement without additional information.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
38 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 51-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.2.2 ]
7.2.2
Where a drive belt is used, the drive train shall be designed with a minimum service factor of 1.5 or higher ifthe manufacturer of the drive components recommends a higher service factor for continuous service forthe type of equipment to be driven.
Exception: Line 7.2.2.1 This requirement shall not apply to line shaft drives as used in the millingindustry.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Moved the exception to 7.2.2 to 7.2.2.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 14:37:05 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-15-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Moved the exception to 7.2.2 to 7.2.2.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
39 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 23-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.3.2 ]
7.3.2
Bulk material conveyor belts shall have belt alignment and hot bearing sensors at the head and tail or tailmotion sensors that will cut power to the drive in the event the belt slows to 80 percent of the normaloperating speed .
Exception: Open belt conveyors operating below 250 ft/min
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The addition of tail motion sensors would stop the process and notify operating personnel that a problem exists. Open belt conveyors have a low probability of having a combustible dust atmosphere
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: JAMES FUHRMAN
Organization: Monsanto Company
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Jun 04 16:10:19 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: Motion detectors are not an appropriate replacement for head and tail sensors. The exemptionlanguage is not consistent with the MOS and the exemption for low speed is not justified.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
40 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 53-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.3.6 ]
7.3.6 * Interior linings
7.3.6.1 Interior linings shall be noncombustible.
7.3.6.2 Where noncombustible linings are not pratical, provide fire protection. Automatic sprinklers, whereprovided, shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems.
7.3.6.3
Use of combustible lining shall be permitted in spouts and other handling equipment at impact points andon wear surfaces.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggested changes to better align the mandatory language with the annex material. The existing annex material states that the use of non-combustible linings are preferred.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 16:05:34 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The annex material should not be moved to the mandatory requirements. Water should not be addedto food products.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
41 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 54-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.4.1.4 ]
7.4.1.4 *
Each leg shall be independently driven by motor(s) and drive train(s) capable of handling the full-ratedcapacity of the elevator leg without overloading.
Exception: Line 7.4.1.4.1
Line shaft drives shall be acceptable for legs used in the milling industry as long as they are capable ofhandling the full-rated capacity of all connected equipment without overloading.
7.4.1.4. 1 2
Multiple motor drives shall be interlocked to prevent operation of the leg upon failure of any single motor.
7.4.1.4.2
The drive shall be capable of starting the unchoked leg under full (100 percent) load.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception made into a subsection and existing subsections renumbered to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 16:19:51 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-44-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception made into a subsection and existing subsections renumbered to conform with the NFPAManual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
42 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 27-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.4.1.9 ]
7.4.1.9
Legs Where necessary to minimize slippage, legs shall have lagging installed on the head pulley tominimize slippage .
7.4.1.9.1 *
Leg belts and lagging shall have a surface resistivity not greater than 100 megohms per square.
7.4.1.9.2
Leg belts and lagging shall be fire resistant and oil resistant.
Exception No. 1: Oil-resistant lagging or belting shall not be required for bucket elevators used in flourmills or for handling inert materials.
Exception No. 2: Line shaft drives as used in the milling industry shall be exempt from the laggingrequirement.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
We have experienced belt tracking as well as product contamination issues due to head pulley lagging; our product tends to be abrasive and rapidly wears lagging off, causing product contamination problems. Therefore, we have removed all head pulley lagging and have not had any belt slipping issues. Our elevators have enough tension on them to prevent any slippage, in fact, when our elevators are extremely loaded, we find the motor overloads will 'kick out' or we'll break a chain before any slippage occurs. We see no evidence of slippage (no signs of heat or belt discoloration) due to slippage.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: AL WHITBY
Organization: AMALGAMATED SUGAR CO LLC
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Jul 02 16:18:15 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The technical committee does not believe that there is a widespread issue concerning productcontamination due to head pulley lagging. The only report that has been received is from the sugarindustry through the submittal of these two public inputs. Lagging is required to prevent slippage andtherefore minimize the risk of a belt fire. Alternative means of protection should be evaluated by theAHJ.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
43 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 28-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.4.1.9 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]
Legs Where necessary to minimize slippage, legs shall have lagging installed on the head pulley tominimize slippage .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
As it is now written, section 7.4.1.9 requires lagging installed on the head pulley in all cases, even when it is not needed to minimize slippage. The original intent of the provision was probably to require lagging only where slippage is a problem. Not all head pulleys need lagging to minimize slippage. Some do and some do not. The requested revision would make the likely original intent clear; that is, it would make clear that lagging is required where necessary to minimize slippage. It does this by just moving the reference to slippage from the back of the provision to its beginning, so that it would read, "“7.4.1.9 Where necessary to minimize slippage, legs shall have lagging installed on the head pulley.”
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: ARTHUR SAPPER
Organization: MCDERMOTT WILL EMERY LLP
Affilliation: United States Beet Sugar Association
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Jul 02 17:00:03 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The technical committee does not believe that there is a widespread issue concerning productcontamination due to head pulley lagging. The only report that has been received is from the sugarindustry through the submittal of these two public inputs. Lagging is required to prevent slippage andtherefore minimize the risk of a belt fire. Alternative means of protection should be evaluated by theAHJ.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
44 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 55-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.4.1.9.2 ]
7.4.1.9.2
Leg belts and lagging shall be fire resistant and oil resistant.Exception No
7 .
1: Oil
4.1.9.2.1 Oil -resistant lagging or belting shall not be required for bucket elevators used in flour mills or forhandling inert materials.
Exception No. 2: Line 7.4.1.9.2.2 Oil-resistant lagging or belting shall not be required for line shaft drivesas used in the milling industry shall be exempt from the lagging requirement .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exceptions to 7.4.1.9.2 have been moved to subsections to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 16:28:34 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-14-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exceptions to 7.4.1.9.2 have been moved to subsections to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.Adds test methods for conveyor belting.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
45 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 24-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.4.1.10 ]
7.4.1.10 *
Inside legs shall have bearing temperature or vibration detection, head pulley alignment, and belt alignmentmonitors at head and tail pulleys.
Exception: Legs that have capacities less than 106 m3/hr (3750 ft3/hr) or have belt speeds below2 .5m/sec (500 ft/mi)
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The last revision requires a motion detector to stop the leg in the event the belt speed drops to 80% of normal. 7.4.1.5 had the speed exception removed. Slow belt speeds and the tail motion sensor provide adequate indication of problems with slow speed elevators. The standard should encourage designers and engineers to use slower speeds. Slower speeds will have slower heat build up during a problem. As is stands now a bucket elevator could be increased in capacity to very high belt speeds but stay below the 3750 ft3/hr limit. A slower belt speed will decrease the likelihood of dust being extracted from the grain as it moves up the elevator.Work by Jaeger indicated a relationship between speed and heat for mechanical rubbing. Remain consistent with NFPA 654 (500 ft/min or 3750 ft3/hr) (7.10.9.4)
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: JAMES FUHRMAN
Organization: Monsanto Company
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Jun 04 16:23:31 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-17-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Committee modified section to remove the exemption language to meet MOS requirements. Theexemption for low belt speeds was removed. Section 7.4.1.5 has been modified to require a speedsensor versus a motion sensor. An alarm requirement was added.
The annex material for 7.4.1.10 should be renumbered and attached to 7.4.1.10.4 to be moreappropriately placed. See attached word file for changes to this section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
46 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 56-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.4.1.10 ]
7.4.1. 10 *
Inside legs shall have bearing temperature or
10 Monitors
7.4.1.10.1 Elevators shall have monitors at head and tail pulleys that indicate high bearing temperature,vibration detection, head pulley alignment, and belt alignment
monitors at head and tail pulleys. Exception: Legs that have capacities less than 106 m 3 /hr (3750 ft 3
.
7.4.1.10.2 Abnormal conditions shall actuate an alarm requiring corrective action.
7.4.1.10.3 The alarm shall sound at the operator control station.
7.4.1.10.4* The requirement of 7.4.1.10.1 shall not apply to elevators that have belt speeds below 500ft/min (150 m/min) or capacities less than 3750 ft3/hr (106 m3 /hr).
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggested change to align better with NFPA 654 (Section 7.10.9 - 2013 Edition). The changes also remove the exception conforming with the NFPA Manual of Style. Relocated the * for the annex material so the reference is still relevant.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 57-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. A.7.4.1.10]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 16:32:25 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-17-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Committee modified section to remove the exemption language to meet MOS requirements. Theexemption for low belt speeds was removed. Section 7.4.1.5 has been modified to require a speedsensor versus a motion sensor. An alarm requirement was added.
The annex material for 7.4.1.10 should be renumbered and attached to 7.4.1.10.4 to be moreappropriately placed. See attached word file for changes to this section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
47 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 58-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.4.2 ]
7.4.2 Legs Handling Bulk Raw Grain.
7.4.2.1 *
Legs handling bulk raw grain shall be installed either as an outside leg or as an inside
leg withleg with compliance with one of the following cases:
(1) Legs are located within 3 m (10 ft) of an exterior wall and are vented as outlined in 7.4.2.2 to theoutside of the building and designed so that the explosion pressures will not rupture the ductwork orthe leg. Explosion relief panels shall be provided on the leg housing so the ducts will not be acollection point for dust during normal operations.
(2) Legs are vented in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by DeflagrationVenting.
(3) Legs are provided with explosion suppression in accordance with NFPA 69, Standard on ExplosionPrevention Systems.
(4)
7.4.2.2 *
* Legs that have capacities less than 106 m3/hr (3750 ft3/hr).
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
48 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
All newly installed outside legs shall be provided with explosion relief panels located at intervals no greaterthan 6 m (20 ft) along the casings as shown in Figure 7.4.2.2(a) and Figure 7.4.2.2(b) .
7.4.2.2.1 To minimize personnel exposure, explosion venting for outside legs shall start between 2.5 m to3.5 m (8 ft to 12 ft) above grade, or the bottom of the explosion vent shall be within 0.3 m to 1 m (1 ft to 4 ft)after the leg penetrates the building roof.
7.4.2.2.2 Head section explosion venting shall be located in the top surface of the head or on the sidesusing a method to deflect the explosion upward.
Figure 7.4.2.2(a) Typical Elevator Explosion Venting for a Single Casing Leg.
Figure 7.4.2.2(b) Typical Elevator Explosion Venting for a Double Casing Leg.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
49 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Exception No. 1: Legs that have capacities less than 106 m 3 /hr (3750 ft 3 /hr).
Exception No. 2: Those 7.4.2.2.3 Venting shall not be required on portions of outside legs, as defined indefined in this standard, located below grade or passing through ground-level buildings.
7.4.2.2. 1 4
Each side vent shall have a minimum area equivalent to two-thirds of the cross-sectional area of the legcasing.
7.4.2.2. 2 5
A single face vent shall be permitted to replace a pair of opposing side vents in those portions of a double-casing leg where either of the following situations exists:
(1) Side venting could expose personnel on access ladders or platforms.
(2) Structural interferences are present that would interfere with vent operation.
7.4.2.2. 3 6
Single face vents shall be equal to the area of two side vents [4/3 of the cross-sectional area of the legcasing as indicated in Figure 7.4.2.2(b) ].
7.4.2.2. 4 7
The head section of bucket elevators shall be provided with explosion vents in the top surface or on the
sides using a method to deflect the explosion upward. The vent area shall be a minimum of 0.14 m2 (5 ft2)
of vent area per 2.9 m3 (100 ft3) of head section volume. The largest vent area as practicable shall be usedin the head section to help minimize the development of explosive pressure. Vents shall deploy when aninternal pressure of 3.5 kPa to 6.9 kPa (0.5 psi to 1.0 psi) occurs.
7.4.2.2.8
Explosion relief panels shall be provided on the leg housing so the ducts will not be a collection point fordust during normal operations.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Reordered the section to improve clarity. I relocated the last sentance in the existing section 7.4.2.1(1) to its own subsection as it applies to all cases discussed. Removed exception 1 in the existing section 7.4.2.2 as it is redundant based on the guidnace provided in section 7.4.2.1(4). Relocated exception 2 in the existing section 7.4.2.2 to its own subsection to confirm with the NPFA Manual of Style.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 59-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. 7.4.3]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 16:47:53 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-18-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Reordered the section to improve clarity. Relocated the last sentance in the existing section 7.4.2.1(1)to its own subsection as it applies to all cases discussed. Removed exception 1 in the existing section7.4.2.2 as it is redundant based on the guidnace provided in section 7.4.2.1(4). Relocated exception 2
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
50 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
in the existing section 7.4.2.2 to its own subsection to confirm with the NPFA Manual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
51 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 25-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.4.2.1 ]
7.4.2.1 *
Legs handling bulk raw grain shall be installed either as an outside leg or as an inside leg with compliancewith one of the following cases:
(1) Legs are located within 3 m (10 ft) of an exterior wall and are vented as outlined in 7.4.2.2 to theoutside of the building and designed so that the explosion pressures will not rupture the ductwork orthe leg. Explosion relief panels shall be provided on the leg housing so the ducts will not be acollection point for dust during normal operations.
(2) Legs are vented in accordance with NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by DeflagrationVenting.
(3) Legs are provided with explosion suppression in accordance with NFPA 69, Standard on ExplosionPrevention Systems.
(4)
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The standard should encourage designers and engineers to use slower speeds. Slower speeds will have slower heat build up during a problem. As is stands now a bucket elevator could be increased in capacity to very high belt speeds but stay below the 3750 ft3/hr limit. A slower belt speed will decrease the likelihood of dust being extracted from the grain as it moves up the elevator.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: JAMES FUHRMAN
Organization: Monsanto Company
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Jun 04 16:49:10 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee has already discussed the exemption for low speeds. See FR-16 for 7.4.1.5. Anexemption for low speed is not justified.
* Legs that have capacities less than 106 m3/hr (3750 ft3/hr) or belt speeds less than 2 .5 m/sec(500 ft/min)
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
52 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 26-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.4.2.2 [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ]
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
53 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
All If and explosion hazard exists, all newly installed outside legs shall be provided with explosion reliefpanels located at intervals no greater than 6 m (20 ft) along the casings as shown in Figure 7.4.2.2(a) andFigure 7.4.2.2(b) . To minimize personnel exposure, explosion venting for outside legs shall start between2.5 m to 3.5 m (8 ft to 12 ft) above grade, or the bottom of the explosion vent shall be within 0.3 m to 1 m (1ft to 4 ft) after the leg penetrates the building roof. Head section explosion venting shall be located in the topsurface of the head or on the sides using a method to deflect the explosion upward.
Figure 7.4.2.2(a) Typical Elevator Explosion Venting for a Single Casing Leg.
Figure 7.4.2.2(b) Typical Elevator Explosion Venting for a Double Casing Leg.
Exception No. 1: Legs that have capacities less than 106 m3/hr (3750 ft3/hr).
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
54 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Exception No. 2: Those portions of outside legs, as defined in this standard, below grade or passingthrough ground-level buildings.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The new design may be completed in such a way that an explosion hazard does not exist inside the elevator. eg dust aspiration on the leg
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: JAMES FUHRMAN
Organization: Monsanto Company
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Wed Jun 04 17:03:47 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: All newly installed outside legs require explosion relief panels - See FR-18 for revisions to thissection.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
55 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 59-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.4.3 ]
7.4.3 Legs Handling Materials Other Than Bulk Raw Grain That Present an Explosion Hazard.
7.4.3.1
Explosion venting of legs into buildings shall not be permitted.
7.4.3.2 *
Newly installed outside legs shall be equipped with explosion venting in accordance with 7.4.2.2.
Exception: Those portions of outside legs, as defined in this standard, below grade or passing throughground-level buildings.
7.4.3.3 *
Legs or portions of legs that are located inside shall have the maximum practicable explosion relief areathrough the roof directly to the outside.Exception: Legs
7.4.3.3.1 This requirement shall not apply to legs that have capacities less than 106 m 3 /hr (3750 ft 3 /hr).
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception 1 was removed. Assuming the way the exception in PI58 is handled is accepted, exception 1 is redundant. Exception 2 was moved to its own subsection to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 58-NFPA 61-2014 [SectionNo. 7.4.2]
Exception 1 can be removed from this section is PI58 isaccepted.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 17:00:52 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-19-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Removes exemption language per MOS requirements. The committee has added language thatallows for explosion venting into buildings if a flame-arresting and particulate retention vent systemper NFPA 68 is used. In 7.4.3.3, the explosion relief area does not need to vent through the roof.Legs located inside are allowed to have a flame-arresting and particulate retention vent system inaccordance with NFPA 68, or a explosion suppression system in accordance with NFPA 69 in lieu ofexplosion relief to the outside.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
56 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 5-NFPA 61-2013 [ Section No. 7.5 ]
7.5 Processing Machinery and Equipment.
"Any other process equipment that is not indicated, one should refer to NFPA 654. (eg. blenders, screensetc.)"
7.5.1 * General.
7.5.1.1
Receiving systems prior to the leg shall be equipped with one or more devices such as grating, wire meshscreens, permanent magnets, listed electromagnets, pneumatic separators, or specific gravity separators,to minimize or eliminate tramp material from the product stream.
Exception: Barge and ship receiving systems using legs as the primary reclaiming systems shall beallowed to have the tramp material protection after the unloading leg but prior to being handled in anotherleg or processing equipment.
7.5.1.2 *
Where tributary spouts or conveyors feed whole grain or grain products for size reduction into grinders,pulverizers, or rolling mills, they shall be equipped with properly installed permanent magnets or listedelectromagnets, pneumatic separators, specific gravity separators, scalpers, or screens to exclude metal orforeign matter of a size larger than the grain being processed as far as practicable.
7.5.1.3 *
Equipment shall be bonded and grounded to dissipate static electricity.
7.5.1.4
All processing machinery and components, such as magnets, shall be mounted to facilitate access forcleaning.
Exception: Where processing machinery is mounted on a tight-fitting base that prevents material fromreaching inaccessible places beneath the machine.
7.5.1.5
Screw, drag, or en-masse conveyors shall be fully enclosed in metal housings and shall be designed toeither relieve or stop if the discharge end becomes plugged.
7.5.2 Starch Processing Machinery and Equipment.
7.5.2.1
Carbon steel shall be avoided in the grinding chambers and moving parts of grinding mills in favor ofbrass, bronze, stainless steel, and other metals with lower sparking potential.
7.5.2.2
The reels or sieves of screens, scalpers, and similar devices shall be in dusttight enclosures.
7.5.2.3
Connecting ducts shall be metal.
Exception No. 1: Electrically conductive nonmetallic flexible connecting ducts having an electricalresistance not greater than 1 megohm.
Exception No. 2: Plastic tubing used for sample delivery systems.
7.5.2.4
Where more than one material source is connected to a common conveyor, air-material separator, orsimilar device, each source that is connected shall be equipped with a method to prevent propagation of adeflagration in accordance with NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems .
7.5.2.5
Dry milling or grinding of starch shall be performed in a separate building with explosion relief or in aseparate room isolated from other areas by interior walls designed according to 4.1.2 .
Exception No. 1: This requirement shall not apply if the equipment can be designed to be protectedin accordance with NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems , by deflagration containment,by explosion suppression, or by inerting the volume to reduce oxygen such that combustion is notsupported.
Exception No. 2: This requirement shall not apply if mills are provided with explosion venting to asafe outside location. If explosion vent ducts longer than 3 m (10 ft) are to be used, the milling equipmentand explosion vent duct shall be designed to withstand the increased vented explosion pressure.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
57 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Many dairy and food processing systems have equipment such as blenders/sifters/ etc. but not mentioned in NFPA 61. Hence a guidance to refer to NFPA 654 will be useful
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Venkateswara Bhamidipati
Organization: Powder Process Solutions
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Jun 18 11:14:52 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-20-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Relocated exceptions to subsections to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style
See attached file for changes to annex material. The material in PI-5 was added as annex material for7.5
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
58 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 60-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 7.5 ]
7.5 Processing Machinery and Equipment.
7.5.1 * General.
7.5.1.1 *
Receiving systems prior to the leg shall be equipped with one or more devices such as grating, wire meshscreens, permanent magnets, listed electromagnets, pneumatic separators, or specific gravity separators,to minimize or eliminate tramp material from the product stream.Exception: Barge7.5.1.1.1 Barge and ship receiving systems using legs as the primary reclaiming systems shall be allowedto have the tramp material protection after the unloading leg but prior to being handled in another leg orprocessing equipment.
7.5.1.2 *
Where tributary spouts or conveyors feed whole grain or grain products for size reduction into grinders,pulverizers, or rolling mills, they shall be equipped with properly installed permanent magnets or listedelectromagnets, pneumatic separators, specific gravity separators, scalpers, or screens to exclude metal orforeign matter of a size larger than the grain being processed as far as practicable.
7.5.1.3 *
Equipment shall be bonded and grounded to dissipate static electricity.
7.5.1.4
All processing machinery and components, such as magnets, shall be mounted to facilitate access forcleaning.Exception: Where7.5.1.4.1 This requirement shall not apply where processing machinery is mounted on a tight-fitting basethat prevents material from reaching inaccessible places beneath the machine.
7.5.1.5
Screw, drag, or en-masse conveyors shall be fully enclosed in metal housings and shall be designed toeither relieve or stop if the discharge end becomes plugged.
7.5.2 Starch Processing Machinery and Equipment.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
59 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
7.5.2.1
Carbon steel shall be avoided in the grinding chambers and moving parts of grinding mills in favor of brass,bronze, stainless steel, and other metals with lower sparking potential.
7.5.2.2
The reels or sieves of screens, scalpers, and similar devices shall be in dusttight enclosures.
7.5.2.3
Connecting ducts shall be metal. Exception No. 1: Electrically
one of the following:
(1) Metal.
(2) Electrically conductive nonmetallic flexible connecting ducts having an electrical resistance not greaterthan 1 megohm.
Exception No 7 . 2: Plastic 5.2.3.1 This requirement shall not apply to plastic tubing used for sampledelivery systems.
7.5.2.4
Where more than one material source is connected to a common conveyor, air-material separator, orsimilar device, each source that is connected shall be equipped with a method to prevent propagation of adeflagration in accordance with NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems.
7.5.2.5
Dry milling or grinding of starch shall be performed in a separate building with explosion relief or in aseparate room isolated from other areas by interior walls designed according to 4.1.2.Exception No.1: This requirement shall7.5.2.5.1 The requirement in section 7.5.2.5 shall not apply if the equipment can be designed to beprotected in accordance with NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems , by deflagrationcontainment, by explosion suppression, or by inerting the volume to reduce oxygen such that combustionis not supported.
Exception No 7 . 2: This requirement 5.2.5.2 The requirement in section 7.5.2.5 shall not apply if millsare provided with explosion venting to a safe outside location. If explosion vent ducts longer than 3 m (10ft) are to be used, the milling equipment and explosion vent duct shall be designed to withstand theincreased vented explosion pressure.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Relocated exceptions to subsections to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.Relocated the * indicating annex material from 7.5.1 to 7.5.1.1 as it suited that section better.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 61-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. A.7.5.1]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 17:14:43 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-20-NFPA 61-2014
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
60 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Statement: Relocated exceptions to subsections to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style
See attached file for changes to annex material. The material in PI-5 was added as annex material for7.5
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
61 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 9-NFPA 61-2013 [ Section No. 8.2.2.1 ]
8.2.2.1
Dryers shall be constructed of noncombustible materials.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Is it possible for a dryer to be completely noncombustible? Enforcement is difficult.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Doug Hohbein
Organization: Northcentral Fire Code Develop
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Tue Oct 15 17:02:36 EDT 2013
Committee Statement
Resolution: The submitter has provided no technical justification for this input. Dryers are to be constructed onnon-combustible materials.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
62 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 62-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 8.2.4.3.1 ]
8.2.4.3.1
The automatic shutdown shall accomplish all of the following:
(1) Shut off the fuel or heat to the burners.
(2) Stop the flow of product out of into the dryer.
(3) Stop all airflow from fans into the dryer.
(4) Sound an alarm at a constantly attended location or for the operator, or both, to prompt an emergencyresponse.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The existing language conflicts with section 8.2.2.6 which requires an emergency dump of product in the event of a fire. This is one of the conditions that would activate the high temperature alarm.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 17:34:13 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The requirement should remain as is. As the dryer is operated full, stopping the flow of product out ofthe dryer will stop the flow of material into the dryer. This is how the equipment is operated in theindustry.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
63 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 63-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 8.2.5.1 ]
8.2.5.1
Operating controls shall be designed, constructed, and installed so that required conditions of safety forsafe operation of the air heater, the dryer, and the ventilation equipment are maintained.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Editorial change to improve clarity.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 17:37:37 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-21-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Editorial change to improve clarity.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
64 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 64-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 8.2.6 ]
8.2.7 Explosion Protection
8.2.7.1 Where an explosion hazard exists, protection shall be in accordance with Section 6.3.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
The introduction to Chapter 8 talks about fire and explosion hazards but the explosion hazards associated with dryers is not addressed in this section.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 17:46:20 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-47, moved to 8,1, general section of chapter.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
65 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 65-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 9.1.1 ]
9.1.1
Heat transfer devices utilizing air, steam, or vapors of heat transfer fluids shall be provided with pressure-relief valves where necessary.
9.1.1.1 Relief valves on systems employing combustible heat transfer media shall be vented to a safeoutside location.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Separated the two requirements to improve clarity.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 20:27:56 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-22-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Separated the two requirements to improve clarity.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
66 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 66-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 9.1.2 ]
9.1.2
Heaters and pumps for combustible heat transfer fluids shall be located in a separate, dustfree room orbuilding of noncombustible construction.
9.1.2.1 Buildings or rooms that contain heaters and shall be protected pumps for combustible heattransfer fluids shall be protected by automatic sprinklers designed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standardfor the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, to control a fire involving the combustible heat transfer fluid.
9.1.2.2 Air for combustion shall be taken from a clean outside source.
9.1.2. 1 3 *
Buildings or rooms that contain heat transfer equipment and boilers that use combustible heat transferfluids shall be located in separate areas such that they do not communicate directly with areas that containa dust explosion hazard.
9.1.2. 2 4
Where combustible heat transfer fluids are used, doorways shall be curbed or ramped and floor drains shallbe provided to direct spills of the heat transfer fluid to a safe location.
9.1.2.4.1 Automatic sprinkler protection designed to control these fluid fires shall be provided in areascontaining equipment that uses these fluids and in areas containing storage tanks for these fluids.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Separated criteria to help improve clarity.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 67-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. A.9.1.2.1]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 20:34:21 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-23-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Separated criteria to help improve clarity.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
67 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 68-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 10.2.2 ]
10.2.2
The use of compressed air or other means that cause dust to be suspended in air during removal fromledges, walls, and other surfaces shall be permitted only after all machinery in the area has been shut downand all sources of ignition controlled.
Exception: Areas10.2.2.1 Areas in processing facilities shall be permitted to be cleaned with compressed air, providedthat both of the following conditions are met:
(1) Airborne material will not envelop adjacent operating equipment.
(2) Prior to blowdown, areas and adjacent equipment are checked to ensure that no ignition sourcesare present.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception to 10.2.2 moved to section 10.2.2.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:02:07 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: Changes have been incorporated into FR-46
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
68 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 82-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 10.2.3 ]
10.2.4
Where flammable vapors or gases are present, vacuum cleaners shall be listed for Class I and Class II hazardouslocations.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggested addition based on NFPA 652 - 2015 Edition section 8.4.2.2.4.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 16:54:19 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: Substantial changes have been made to this section as FR-46. This input will be reviewed in light ofthose revisions and resubmitted at the second draft stage.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
69 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 69-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 10.4.3 ]
10.4.3 * Location.
Dust collectors shall be located outside of buildings and shall be protected in accordance with Section 6.3.
Exception No. 1: Dust 10.4.3.1 Dust collectors shall be permitted inside of buildings if any of thefollowing apply:
(1) If deflagration venting is provided in accordance with the requirements of NFPA 68.
Exception No. 2: Dust collectors shall be permitted to be located inside of buildings if (2) If equipped withan explosion suppression system designed according to NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion PreventionSystems.
Exception No 10 . 3: Centrifugal separators 4.3.2 Dust collector is a centrifugal separator , without bags,used for removing moisture from coolers that handle pelleted, extruded, or flaked grain and feed productsshall be permitted inside or outside of buildings without explosion protection.
Exception No 10 .4: Bin .3.3 Bin vent dust collectors directly mounted without a hopper on a tank or bin,whose primary function is to filter air displaced during filling or blending operations and return dust directlyto the bin, shall be permitted inside or outside of buildings without explosion protection. Filters that returnair to inside of buildings shall be capable of a minimum efficiency of 0.02 g per dry standard cubic meterof airflow (0.008 grains per dry standard cubic feet of airflow).
Exception No. 5: Filters 10.4.3.4 Filters used for classifying food products with air (product purifiers) shallbe permitted to be located inside or outside of buildings without explosion protection.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exceptions to 10.4.3 have been moved to subsection 10.4.3.X to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 74-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. A.10.4.12.1]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:14:26 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-27-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exceptions to 10.4.3 have been moved to subsection 10.4.3.X to conform with the NFPA Manual ofStyle.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
70 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 83-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 10.4.4 ]
10.4.4.1 *At each collection point, the system shall be designed to achieve the minimum required face
velocity for dust capture over the entire opening of the hood or pickup point.
A.10.4.4.1
Proper dust collection design requires that a minimum air volume flow be maintained for each
dust collection source point (hood). This value must be determined as part of the design process.
This value should be documented to allow for field-testing to determine if the system is providing
that flow and operating properly.
This design also requires that the hood be constructed to assure that a continuous airflow is
provided at all times.
The ACGIH, Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice has extensive
information on the design basis for dust collection hoods and the necessary minimum air
volumes and velocities to assure the containment, capture (i.e., collection), and control of the
aerated dusts being generated.
10.4.4.2*
The hood or pickup point for each dust source shall have a documented minimum air volume
flow based upon the system design.
A.10.4.4.2
Proper dust collection design requires that a minimum air volume flow be maintained for each
dust collection source point (e.g., hood). This value must be determined as part of the design
process. This value should be documented to allow for field-testing to determine if the system is
providing that flow and operating properly.
10.4.4.3*
Branch lines shall not be disconnected, and unused portions of the system shall not be blankedc off without providinga means to maintain required and balanced airflow.
A.10.4.4.3
Proper system design requires that airflows in the various branch lines be balanced to assure
minimum air volume flow at each dust source collection point. When a branch line is
disconnected, blanked off, or otherwise modified it changes the airflows in all the other branches
of the system. This can lead to an imbalance of air flows that result in flows below the minimum
required to keep the dust from accumulating in the ducts.
Use of manual slide or “blast” gates is not recommended. Use of such gates can lead to
uncontrolled modification of the flow volumes for both a single line and the system as a whole.
The results often lead to improper balance of the system airflows and material accumulations in
the ducts. Proper design methods inherently assure minimum airflows and duct velocities
without the use of manual slide or “blast” gates.
10.4.4.4*
The addition of branch lines shall not be made to an existing system without first confirming that
the entire system will maintain the required and balanced airflow.
A.10.4.4.4
Installation of branch lines for additional dust sources to an existing dust collection system will
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
71 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
result in lower air volumes and duct velocities for the existing portions of the system. Without
providing for additional system performance this can result in a system performing below the
minimum required for keeping the ducts free from material accumulations.
10.4.4.5*
Dust collection systems that remove material from operations that generate flames, sparks, or hot
material under normal operating conditions shall not be interconnected with dust collection
systems without isolation that transport combustible particulate solids or hybrid mixtures. ( See
8.8.4. )
A.10.4.4.5
Examples of operations that under normal operating conditions could generate flames, sparks,
or hot material can include grinding, saws, etc. This section is intended to segregate the
equipment and operations that are recognized ignition sources from those that are not.
10.4.4.6*
The air-material separator selected for the system shall be designed to allow for the
characteristics of the combustible dust being separated from the air or gas flow.
A.10.4.4.6
Combustible dusts vary considerably in their characteristics and the type of equipment necessary
to separate them from the conveying air or gas stream. While the typical bag or cartridge dust
collector (AMS) can be used with most combustible dusts, an exception would be most metal
dusts, which can require a scrubber or wet collector. Refer to NFPA 484, Standard for
Combustible Metals, for metal dust collection.
10.4.4.7*
Air-moving devices (AMD) shall be of appropriate type and sufficient capacity to maintain the required rate of airflow in all parts of the system.
A.10.4.4.7
The majority of dust collection systems use centrifugal fans for inducing the air flow through the
system. Various models are available that will provide the performance characteristics required.
Care must be taken to consider the worst-case situation, when the filters are nearly blinded or
the scrubber is at maximum differential, as well as the situation where the system is new during
start-up.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggested new sesction based on NFPA 652 - 2015 Edition - Section 8.3.3.3
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 16:55:42 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This material is extracted from 652. A task group has been set up to review this material and to bring
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
72 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
it back at the second draft stage for action by the committee.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
73 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 70-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 10.4.4 ]
10.4.4 Construction.
All components of the dust collection system shall be constructed of noncombustible materials.
Exception: Filter 10.4.4.1 This requirement does not apply to filter bags, filter media, liners, drive belts,wear parts, and flexible connector ducts.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception to 10.4.4 was moved to subsection 10.4.4.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:18:18 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-28-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception to 10.4.4 was moved to subsection 10.4.4.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
74 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 71-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 10.4.5 ]
10.4.5 Manifolding.
Dust collection systems for one or more hammermills or pulverizer mills shall not be manifolded with othertypes of machinery.
Exception: Conveyors 10.4.5.1 Conveyors , sifters, and hammermills used for the sizing of oilseed mealsand hulls shall be permitted to have a common dust collection system.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception to 10.4.5 was moved to subsection 10.4.5.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:20:34 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-30-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception to 10.4.5 was moved to subsection 10.4.5.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
75 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 72-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 10.4.11 ]
10.4.11 *
If provided, floor sweeps shall be on a separate, dedicated vacuum or dust collection system, provided thefan is located downstream of the filter.
10.4.11.1 Floor sweeps, if provided, shall be designed in accordance with NFPA 654, Standard for thePrevention of Fire and Dust Explosions form the Manufacturing, Processing and Handling of CombustibleParticulate Solids.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggest moving the annex material to the main body of the document as it sounds like a requirement rather than explanatory text.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 73-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. A.10.4.11]
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:26:13 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-31-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Delete annex material. Refers to 654 and is not informational.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
76 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 84-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after 10.6.7 ]
10.6.8*
The hose length and diameter shall be sized for the application and operation.
A.10.6.8
It is recommended that 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) and/or 2.0 in. (50.8 mm) I.D. hoses be used for
housekeeping purposes. It is also recommended that 25 ft (7.6 m) maximum hose length be used.
In most systems the pressure losses (i.e., energy losses) through the hose represent more than 50
percent of the overall system differential pressure requirements. Shorter hose lengths can be
used to improve system performance.
I.D. hoses of 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) are most commonly used for cleaning around equipment and for
lighter duty requirements, while 2 in. (50.8 mm) I.D. hoses are used for larger dust
accumulations and for cleaning large open areas.
10.6.9
Where ignition-sensitive materials are collected, vacuum tools shall be constructed of metal or
static dissipative materials and provide proper grounding to the hose.
A.10.6.9
Ignition-sensitive materials typically have an MIE of 30 mJ or less.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggested new language based on NFPA652 - 2015 Edition section 8.3.3.4.2 and 8.3.3.4.3.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 16:59:26 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-32-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Suggested new language based on NFPA 652 - 2015 Edition section 8.3.3.4.2 and 8.3.3.4.3. Addsadditional requirements for centralized vacuum systems.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
77 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 75-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 11.5.1 ]
11.5.1 *
All transport modes such as railcars (hopper cars, boxcars, or tank cars) and trucks (both receiving andshipping in bulk), into which or from which commodities or products are pneumatically conveyed, shall beelectrically bonded to the plant ground system or earth grounded.
Exception: Materials 11.5.1.1 This requirement shall not apply to materials of processes involving inertmaterials, such as limestone at feed mills.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exception to 11.5.1 was moved to subsection 11.5.1.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:38:59 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-33-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exception to 11.5.1 was moved to subsection 11.5.1.1 to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
78 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 76-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 12.4.3 ]
12.4.3 *
Wet or dry standpipes shall be installed in warehouses and packing areas with combustible contents.
Exception: Bulk storage warehouses or warehouses used for other than agricultural or food productstorage.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggest removing this exception since warehouses storing things other than agricultural or food products is beyond the scope of NFPA 61.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:40:53 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-34-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Removes the exception language per MOS requirements. The provision was clarify to exempt bulkwarehouses from the requirement.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
79 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 77-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 13.2.2 ]
13.2.2 *
Electrical wiring and equipment in areas meeting the definition of Class II, Group G, Division 1 or 2according to Article 500 of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, shall comply with Article 502 of that code.
Exception No. 1: Electrical 13.2.2.1 The requirements in 13.2.2 shall not apply to electrical equipmentthat has been listed and installed as intrinsically safe according to Article 504 of NFPA 70.
Exception No. 2: Electrical 13.2.2.2 The requirements in 13.2.2 shall not apply to electrical equipmentthat is housed in an enclosure that meets the applicable requirements of NFPA 496, Standard for Purgedand Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exceptions to 13.2.2 moved to separate subsections to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:44:19 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-35-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exceptions to 13.2.2 moved to separate subsections to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
80 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 78-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. 13.5.3 ]
13.5.3
Spark arresters shall be used on the exhaust stacks of all diesel-powered units.
Exception No. 1: Engines 13.5.3.1 The requirements in 13.5.3 shall not apply to engines equipped withturbo-chargers.
Exception No. 2: Road 13.5.3.2 The requirements in 13.5.3 shall not apply to road vehicles, such asgrain delivery vehicles, locomotives, and other vehicles that do not operate in combustible dust-producingareas.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Exceptions to 13.5.3 have been moved to separate subsections to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:46:24 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-36-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Exceptions to 13.5.3 have been moved to separate subsections to conform with the NFPA Manual ofStyle.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
81 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 34-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. A.3.3.1 ]
A.3.3.1 Agricultural Dust.
Dusts traditionally have been defined as a material 420 µm or smaller (capable of passing through a U.S.No. 40 standard sieve). Other standards have adopted the For consistancy with other standards, 500 µm(capable of passing through a U.S. No. 35 standard sieve) as the appropriate is now consideredan appropriate size criterion. For the purposes of this standard, the Committee believes that 420 µmshould be retained because of the historical data that exist. In some cases, material smaller than 420than 500 µm might not be explosible, and in some cases material larger 420 larger 500 µm might beexplosible. Explosibility can ultimately be determined by testing such as using the go/no-go explosibilityscreening test described in ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds.
Any time a combustible dust is processed or handled, a potential for an explosion exists. The degreeseverity of the explosion hazard will vary depending on the type of agricultural dust and processingmethods used.
A dust explosion has the following five conditions, all of which must be met:
(1) The dust is combustible.
(2) The dust particles are in suspension.
(3) The dust particles exceed the minimum explosive concentration in air.
(4) The dust is confined within a piece of equipment, a building, or a structure.
(5) A source of ignition is present.
Evaluation of a combustible dust explosion hazard and the prevention techniques employed should bedetermined by means of actual test data. All combustible dusts that can produce a dust explosion should betested so as to determine the following data:
(1) Particle size distribution
(2) Moisture content as received and dried
(3) Minimum dust concentration to ignite
(4) Minimum energy required for ignition (joules)
(5) Maximum rate of pressure rise at various concentrations
(6) Layer ignition temperature
(7) Maximum explosion pressure at optimum concentration
Optional testing includes the following:
(1) Dust cloud ignition temperature
(2) Maximum permissible oxygen content to prevent ignition
(3) Electrical resistivity measurement
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggested changes to annex language to be consistent with PI 33. These changes would also most the annex material consistent with NFPA 654 [Section A.3.3.5 - 2013 Edition].
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 33-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No.3.3.1]
Changes needed to annex material if PI33 isaccepted.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
82 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 11:58:38 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee voted not to make any changes at this time to this annex material. Changes to betteralign with the revisions proposed to the main chapter text (FR-2) may be proposed at the second draftphase.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
83 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 35-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. A.3.3.7 ]
A.3.3.7 Dust Collection System.
A typical dust collection system consists of the following:
(1) Hoods — devices designed to contain, capture, and control the airborne dusts by
directing the
(1) using an induced air flow
through the fugitive dust
(1) in close proximity to the point of dust generation (local exhaust zone) to entrain fugitive airbornedusts .
(2) Ducting — piping, tubing, fabricated duct,
and so forth
(1) etc. , used to provide the controlled pathway from the hoods to the dust collector (
i.e., air-material separator
(1) AMS ). Maintaining
proper
(1) adequate duct velocity
is
(1) (usually 4000 fpm or higher) is a key factor in the proper functioning of the system.
(2) Dust collector — an AMS designed to filter the conveyed dusts from the conveying air stream.
Typically
(1) Usually these devices have automatic methods for cleaning the
filters to
(1) filter media to allow extended use without blinding. In some systems, a scrubber or similar device isused in place of the filter unit.
(2) Fan package — an
air-moving device
(1) AMD designed to induce air flow through the entire system.
The system is designed to collect only suspended dusts at the point of generation and not dusts at rest onsurfaces. The system is also not designed to convey large amounts of dusts as they system design doesnot include friction loss due to solids loading in the pressure drop calculation. Thus, material loading mustbe minimal compared to the volume or mass of air flow. [ 654 , 2013]
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggested changes to make the annex material consistent with NFPA 654 [Section A.3.3.12 - 2013 Edition].
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
84 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 12:13:42 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: The committee will not be making these proposed changes at this time. Modifications to the annexmaterial to better align with NFPA 654 and/or NFPA 652 may be made during the second draft.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
85 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 45-NFPA 61-2014 [ New Section after A.5.2.2 ]
A.5.2.3 (2) The system should be designed, maintained, and operated according to acceptedengineering practice, and the air-material separator efficiency should be sufficient to prevent dustin the recycled air from causing hazardous accumulations of combustible dust in any area of thebuilding.
A.5.2.3 (3) OSHA has established limits on oxygen concentration in the workplace. Permissiblelimits range from no lower than 19.5 percent by volume to no higher than 23.5 percent by volume inair. See 29 CFR, Part 1910.146.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
New annex material from NFPA 654 (Section A.7.13.1.6.3 - 2013 Edition) to accompany the new proposed language for section 5.2. Associated with PI44.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 44-NFPA 61-2014 [Chapter 5] Associated annex material.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 13:46:01 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: PI-44, the main chapter text associated with this revision, was resolved. Therefore, the proposedannex material is resolved without change in the text as well.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
86 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 46-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. A.5.2.2 ]
A.5. 2 3 .2
If a vertical vent stack cannot be installed because of structural conditions, the vent should be permitted tobe located in the side of the bin, below its top, or should be permitted to be installed at an angle of up to 30degrees from vertical.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Renumbered the annex material to accomdate a proposed new section 5.2.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 44-NFPA 61-2014 [Chapter 5] Renumbering to accomdate proposed new section.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 13:47:54 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This is editorial - will be renumbered by NFPA staff for first draft.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
87 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 57-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. A.7.4.1.10 ]
A.7.4.1.10 .4
This requirement is also desirable for outside legs. The exemption for 106 m3/hr (3750 ft3/hr) represents aprocessing rate of 3000 bushels/hr. This exemption is based on reports that low belt speeds with largebuckets substantially reduce dust concentrations.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
If the changes in PI56 are accepted then the reference to the annex material needed to be updated.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 56-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. 7.4.1.10] Update of reference section.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 16:37:40 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-17 for the renumbering of this annex material.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
88 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 61-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. A.7.5.1 ]
A.7.5.1 .1
Openings of 64 mm × 64 mm (2 1⁄2 in. × 2 1⁄2 in.) should be used on grating for receiving pits, to limit entry offoreign objects. Larger openings could be needed to accommodate some materials, such as wholecorncobs and hay cubes.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This language appears to be related to 7.5.1.1 rather than the whole of section 7.5.1.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 60-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. 7.5] Relocated the * to align with the suggeted change.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 17:21:39 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-20 for changes to the annex material for this section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
89 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 67-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. A.9.1.2.1 ]
A.9.1.2. 1 3
Communication between hazardous and heat-producing areas should be arranged so that a fire partition,fire wall, and so forth, with all openings closed is always between the hazard and the heat-producing area.The firebreak could be a nonhazardous room, entryway, airlock, and so forth, arranged so that thecommunicating opening between the room and the hazardous area will not be open when thecommunicating opening between the room and heat-producing area is open, and vice versa.
A communicating opening such as machinery doors is permitted, provided that these doors are kept lockedand are only opened when either the hazardous area or the heat-producing area is shut down and will notcause a fire or explosion with the machinery door open.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
If the rearrangement of 9.1.2 is accepted (PI66) then the reference number of the annex matrerial also needs to be changed.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 66-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. 9.1.2] Change of section number.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 20:38:07 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: This is editorial in nature - material will be renumbered by NFPA staff for first draft.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
90 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 73-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. A.10.4.11 ]
A.10.4.11
Floor sweeps, if used, should be designed and operated according to the provisions of Section 8.2 in NFPA654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, andHandling of Combustible Particulate Solids .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Suggest moving to main body of the document as 10.4.11.1 (see PI72).
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 72-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. 10.4.11] Relocated the 10.4.11.1
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:29:55 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: See FR-31 for deletion of the annex material for this section.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
91 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 74-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. A.10.4.12.1 ]
A.10.4.12.1
For bin vents, see 10.4.3, Exception No . 4 3 . Return air ducts should have a method to preventexcessive dust from returning to the plant in the case of filter failure. Methods include, but are not limited to,use of a diverter valve that exhausts return air outside, or a series of secondary filters in the return air linedesigned to collect the material if part of the filter medium fails.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
If the suggested changes in PI69 are accepted then the reference to exception 4 needs to be removed.
Related Public Inputs for This Document
Related Input Relationship
Public Input No. 69-NFPA 61-2014 [Section No. 10.4.3] Removal of Exception 4 in 10.4.3
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Amy Brown
Organization: FM Global
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 21:32:05 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-38-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: If the suggested changes in PI69 are accepted then the reference to exception 4 needs to beremoved.
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...
92 of 93 10/22/2014 9:24 AM
Public Input No. 79-NFPA 61-2014 [ Section No. F.1.2.2 ]
F.1.2.2 ASTM Publications.
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2010 2012a .
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Update the year date for standard(s)
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: Steve Mawn
Organization: ASTM International
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 09:58:50 EDT 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: FR-45-NFPA 61-2014
Statement: Update the year date for standard(s)
National Fire Protection Association Report http://submittals.nfpa.org/TerraViewWeb/ContentFetcher?commentPara...