-
Report of the Committee on
Laboratories Using Chemicals
Brenda L. Bronson, ChairU.S. General Services Administration, CO
[U]
Andrew Minister, SecretaryBattelle Northwest Laboratory, WA
[U]
Richard R. Anderson, Merck & Company, Incorporated, NJ
[U]Raymond E. Arntson, Rayden Research LLC, WI [SE]William H.
Barlen, Barlen and Associates, Incorporated, CT [M] Rep. Airgas,
Incorporated and Purification Technologies IncorporatedRobert
Burke, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD [E]Hal Cohen, HCC and
Associates Incorporated, DE [SE]Gregory F. DeLuga, Siemens Building
Technologies, IL [M]John L. Dembishack, III, Connecticut Department
of Public Safety, CT [E]Kevin C. Gilkison, Labconco Corporation, MO
[M]Louis Hartman, HarleyEllis, MI [SE]Ronald Keefer, Menlo Park
Fire Protection District, CA [E]Donald J. Kohn, Kohn Engineering,
PA [SE]Stephen G. Leeds, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA
[RT]Ulrich M. Lindner, Earl Walls Associates, CA [SE]Dana F. Mason,
Georgia State University, GA [U]John P. McCabe, National Institutes
of Health, MD [E]Robert Myers, Myers & Associates (Amoco), GA
[U]Charles C. Phillips, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, TN
[RT]Rudolph Poblete, Kewaunee Scientific Corporation, NC [M]Peter
Puhlick, University of Connecticut, CT [U]David R. Quigley, Idaho
National Engineering & Environmental Lab, ID [U]James F. Riley,
CUH2A, Incorporated, NJ [SE]Michael W. St. Clair, The Ohio State
University, OH [U] Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection
SectionStephen A. Szabo, Safety + Services, Incorporated, OK
[SE]Patricia Weggel-Laane, US Environmental Protection Agency
(3207A), DC [E]Pamela Weiss Tatum, U.S. Army Center for Health
Promotion & Preventive Medicine, MD [E]
Alternates
Darren G. Cooke, Connecticut Department of Safety, CT [E] (Alt.
to J. L. Dembishack)Samuel A. Denny, National Institutes of Health,
MD [E] (Alt. to J. P. McCabe)Craig E. Hofmeister, The RJA Group,
Incorporated, NC [SE] (Voting Alt. to RJA Rep.)Joseph Milligan,
GlaxoSmithKline, PA [U] (Alt. to M. W. St. Clair)Howard O. Wilson,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC [E] (Alt. to P.
Weggel-Laane)
Nonvoting
John Fresina, Lexington, MA (Member Emeritus)Norman V. Steere,
Norman V. Steere & Associates, Incorporated, MN [SE]
Staff Liaison: Amy B. Spencer
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary
responsibility for documents for the prevention of loss of life and
damage to propertyfrom fire and explosion in chemical laboratories
not located in health care facilities.
This list represents the membership at the time the Committee
was balloted on the text of this report. Since that time, changes
in themembership may have occurred. A key to classifications is
found at the front of the document.
The Report of the Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
Chemicals is presented for adoption.
This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on
Laboratories Using Chemicals, and proposes for adoption, a complete
revision toNFPA 45, Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories
Using Chemicals, 2000 edition. NFPA 45-2000 is published in Volume
3 of the2002 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.
This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical
Committee on Laboratories Using Chemicals, which consists of 28
votingmembers. The results of the balloting, after circulation of
any negative votes, can be found in the report.
1
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-1 Log #CP14 (Entire
Document (MOS))
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Completely revise entire document to
comply with the NFPA Manual of Style as follows: 1. Revise Chapter
1 to contain administrative text only as follows: (show revised
text here or indicate where revised text can be found) 2. Revise
Chapter 2 to contain only referenced publications cited in the
mandatory portions of the document. 3. Revise Chapter 3 to contain
only definitions. 4. Revise so that all units of measure in
document are converted to SI units with inch/pound units in
parentheses. 5. Appendices are to be restructured and renamed as
"Annexes." 6. All mandatory sections of the document must be
evaluated for usability, adoptability, and enforceability language.
Generatenecessary committee proposals as shown (or indicate where
shown). 7. Reword exceptions as requirements. 8. Single sentences
per requirement as shown (or indicate where shown).
Substantiation:
Editorial restructuring, to conform with the 2000 edition of the
NFPA Manual of Style.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber
Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-2 Log #CP32 (Entire Document)
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Throughout the document, globally change
the term “laboratory hood” to “chemical fume hood”.
Substantiation:
The term “chemical fume hood” is more commonly used term for
this equipment and more clearly differentiates it from other
hoodsused in the laboratory.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber
Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
2
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-3 Log #7 (1.1.1)
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev.
CommitteeRecommendation: Revise to read: 1.1.1 This Standard shall
apply to laboratory buildings, laboratory units, and laboratory
work areas whether located above or belowgrade in which
laboratories, as defined, are handled or stored. Exception No. 1:
This standard shall not apply to laboratory units with less than or
equal to 4L (1.1. gal) of flammable or combustibleliquid and less
than 2.2 standard m3 (75 scf) of flammable gas. The storage,
handling and use of chemicals in such laboratories shall bein
accordance with applicable provisions of NFPA 1. Exception No. 2:
It does not apply to laboratories that are pilot plants. The
storage, handling and use of chemicals in such laboratoriesshall be
in accordance with applicable provisions of NFPA 1. Exception No.
3: It does not apply to laboratories that handle only chemicals
with a hazard rating of zero or one, as defined by NFPA704,
Standard System for the Identification of the Hazards of Materials
for Emergency Response, for all of the following:
health,flammability, and instability. Exception No. 4: It does not
apply to laboratories that are primarily manufacturing facilities.
The storage, handling and use ofchemicals in such facilities shall
be in accordance with applicable provisions of NFPA 1. Exception
No. 5: It does not apply to incidental testing facilities. The
storage, handling and use of chemicals in such facilities shall
bein accordance with applicable provisions of NFPA 1. Exception No.
6: It does not apply to physical, electronic, instrument, laser or
similar laboratories that use chemicals only forincidental
purposes, such as cleaning. Exception No. 7: It does not apply to
laboratories that work only with radioactive materials, as covered
by NFPA 801, Standard for FireProtection for Facilities Handling
Radioactive Materials. Exception No. 8: It does not apply to
laboratories that work only with explosive material, as covered by
NFPA 495, Explosive MaterialsCode.
Substantiation:
Provided flammable and combustible liquids in excess of 4L and
flammable gas in excess of 2.2 m3 are not used, laboratories
thathandle hazardous materials (i.e. corrosive, highly toxic,
oxidizing, reactive), in any quantity, are not covered by this
Standard.Additionally, pilot plants, manufacturing facilities and
incidental testing facilities are exempted from this Standard based
on thedefinition of "laboratory" which excludes chemicals used or
synthesized in a workplace on a production basis. A clarification
is neededin each of the four exceptions to alert the user that
while such laboratories and facilities are exempted from this
Standard, requirementsfor the safe storage and control of hazardous
materials in these locations are set forth in NFPA 1, Uniform Fire
Code.
Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The AHJ
should determine if NFPA 1 or another document is applicable for
facilities outside the scope of NFPA 45.Number Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
Explanation of Negative: KEEFER: In accordance with NFPA 1,
hazardous materials are regulated by the hazard class of the
chemical and its quantity, the morehazardous the material, the
lower the quantity requiring Code compliance. The proponent
attempts to fill-in the gaps that currently existin NFPA 45 that
leaves the point of regulation at the question as to what is a
"High Fire Hazard" Lab vs. a "Low Fire Hazard" lab. Theproposal
would have provided a level of safety for health hazard chemicals
as well.
45-4 Log #CP12 (1.1.1 Exception 1 and Figure A-1.1.3 [ROP draft
1.1.2(1)])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: 1. Modify Section 1.1.1 Exception 1 [draft
Section 1.1.2(1)], adding a new annex item as follows: 1.1.2 This
standard shall not apply to the following: (1)* If both conditions
exist: (a) Laboratory units contain less than or equal to 4 L (1.1
gal) of flammable or combustible liquid (b) laboratory units
contain less than 2.2 standard m3 (75 scf) of flammable gas, not
including piped-in low pressure utility gasinstalled in accordance
with NFPA 54. A.1.1.2 Either condition (a) or (b) meeting the
minimum quantity will bring the lab within the scope of NFPA 45. A
school lab with alow pressure natural gas system supplying Bunsen
burners (with less than the minimum quantities of combustible or
flammable liquidsand less than the minimum quantities of other
flammable gases) is an example of a lab outside the scope of NFPA
45.
Substantiation:
The Committee wished to reinforce that either condition (a) the
amount of flammable or combustible liquids or (b) amount
offlammable gas would bring the lab within the scope of NFPA 45.
The annex was added to provide an example to clarify a
frequentlyasked advisory service question. The text shown also
reflects the editorial changes as a result of implementing the NFPA
Manual of Style. This change is to Section 1.1.1Exception 1 of the
2000 edition.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to
Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
3
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-5 Log #CP13 (1.4
Definitions (GOT) [ROP draft Chapter 3])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: 1. Adopt the preferred definitions from
the NFPA Glossary of Terms for the following terms: Baffle
(preferred) NFPA 54, 1999 ed. An object placed in or near an
appliance to change the direction of, or to retard the flow of, the
following: (a) Air (b) Air-gas mixtures (c) Air-fuel mixtures (d)
Flue gases. Business Occupancy (preferred) NFPA 5000, 2002 ed. An
occupancy used for account and record keeping or the transaction of
business other than mercantile. Flammable Gas (preferred) NFPA 99,
2002 ed. Any substance that exists in the gaseous state at normal
atmospheric temperature and pressure and is capable of being
ignited andburned when mixed with the proper proportions of air,
oxygen, or other oxidizers.Flammable Liquid (preferred) NFPA 30,
2000 ed. A liquid that has a closed-cup flash point that is below
37.8°C (100°F) and a maximum vapor pressure of 2068 mm Hg (40 psia)
at37.8°C (100°F). Health Care Facilities (preferred) NFPA 5000,
2002 ed. Buildings or portions of buildings in which medical,
dental, psychiatric, nursing, obstetrical, or surgical care are
provided. Health carefacilities include, but are not limited to,
hospitals, nursing homes, limited care facilities, clinics, medical
and dental offices, andambulatory care centers. Health Care
Occupancy (preferred) NFPA 5000, 2002 ed. An occupancy used for
purposes of medical or other treatment or care of four or more
persons where such occupants are mostlyincapable of
self-preservation due to age, physical or mental disability, or
because of security measures not under the occupants’control.
Industrial Occupancy (preferred) NFPA 5000, 2002 ed. An occupancy
in which products are manufactured or in which processing,
assembling, mixing, packaging, finishing, decorating, orrepair
operations are conducted. Street Floor (preferred) NFPA 101B, 2002
ed. A story or floor level accessible from the street or from
outside a building at ground level, with the floor level at the
main entrancelocated not more than three risers above or below
ground level and arranged and utilized to qualify as the main
floor. 2. The Committee chose to make no change (opting not to
change the following terms to the preferred terms) for the reasons
noted inthe substantiation:Chemical (preferred) NFPA 306, 2001 ed.
Any compound, mixture, or solution in the form of a solid, liquid,
or gas that may be hazardous by virtue of its properties other than
orin addition to flammability or by virtue of the properties of
compounds that might be evolved from hot work or cold work.
Chemical (secondary) NFPA 45, 2000 ed A substance with one or more
of the following hazard ratings as defined in NFPA 704, Standard
System for the Identification of theHazards of Materials for
Emergency Response: Health - 2, 3, or 4; Flammability - 2, 3, or 4;
Reactivity - 2, 3, or 4. Cryogenic Fluid (preferred) NFPA 86, 1999
ed. A fluid produced or stored at very low temperatures. In the
context of this standard, cryogenic fluid generally refers to gases
made atlow temperatures and stored at the user site in an insulated
tank for use as an atmosphere or atmosphere constituent (e.g.,
nitrogen, argon,carbon dioxide, hydrogen, oxygen). Cryogenic Fluid
(secondary) NFPA 45, 2000 ed Substance that exists only in the
vapor phase above -73°C (-99°F) at one atmosphere pressure and that
is handled, stored, and used inthe liquid state at temperatures at
or below -73°C (-99°F) while at any pressure.Laboratory (preferred)
NFPA 99, 2002 ed. A building, space, room, or group of rooms
intended to serve activities involving procedures for
investigation, diagnosis, or treatmentin which flammable,
combustible, or oxidizing materials are to be used. Laboratory
(secondary) NFPA 45, 2000 ed A facility where the containers used
for reactions, transfers, and other handling of chemicals are
designed to be easily and safelymanipulated by one person. It is a
workplace where chemicals are used or synthesized on a
nonproduction basis.
Substantiation:
Adoption of preferred definitions will assist the user by
providing consistent meaning of defined terms throughout the
National FireCodes. The preferred terms for “chemical”, “cryogenic
fluid” and “laboratory” were not used because of the following
reasons: 1. Chemical - the existing NFPA 45 definition is more
specific and is integral with the scope of NFPA 45. 2. Cryogenic
fluid - the preferred definition is not specific as to what are
“low temperatures”. The existing NFPA 45 definitionprovides
specific temperatures. 3. Laboratory - the preferred definition
includes health care specific activities which would not be found
in NFPA 45 laboratories.
Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
4
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-6 Log #1 (1.4
Pressurized Liquid Dispensing Container (New) )
Final Action: Accept in Principle
NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 45-4 (Log 3) which was
held from the May 2000 ROC on Proposal 45-1.Submitter: William H.
Barlen, Barlen & Assoc., Inc. / Rep. Airgas,
Inc.Recommendation: Add the following term and definition:
Pressurized Liquid Dispensing Container. A DOT or ASME pressure
container designed to dispense flammable or combustible liquids.The
container shall be pressure rated at least four times the relief
device setting and have a shutoff valve installed on the
container.
Substantiation:
Several companies are supplying these containers for
laboratories. We were asked several years ago by B & J and
Baker to address andwe did not. These containers are safer and have
a greater ability to contain their product than current containers.
By adding this now wecould expand in the next edition.Committee
Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See
Committee Proposal 45-7 (Log #CP 21).Number Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-7 Log #CP21 (1.4 Pressurized Liquid Dispensing Container
(PLDC) [ROP draft 3.3.50 (New)])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Add the following definition: 3.3.50
Pressurized Liquid Dispensing Container (PLDC). DOT, UN 1A1, or
ASME pressure container designed to dispense flammable
orcombustible liquids by gas pressure.
Substantiation:
The PLDCs are currently being used in labs and need to be
considered in NFPA 45. The term needs to be defined to ensure
thesecontainers meet certain specifications.Committee Meeting
Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
5
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-8 Log #CP48 (1.4.6
Biological Safety Cabinet and A.1.4.6 [ROP 3.3.4 and A.3.3.4
(new)])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 1.4.6 and add a new annex item (ROP
3.3.4 and ROP A.3.3.4) as follows: 3.3.4* Biological Safety
Cabinet. A ventilated cabinet for personnel, product and
environmental protection having an open front withinward airflow
for personnel protection, downward HEPA filtered laminar airflow
for product protection, and HEPA filtered exhausted airfor
environmental protection. A.3.3.4 Class II Type A1 cabinets
(formerly designated Type A) - maintain minimum average inflow
velocity of 75 ft/min (0.38 m/s) through the work access opening; -
have HEPA filtered downflow air that is a portion of the mixed
downflow and inflow air from a common plenum (i.e., a plenum
fromwhich a portion of the air is exhausted from the cabinet and
the remainder supplied to the work area); - may exhaust HEPA
filtered air back into the laboratory or to the environment through
an exhaust canopy; and - may have positive pressure contaminated
ducts and plenums that are not surrounded by negative pressure
plenumsType A1 cabinets are not suitable for work with volatile
toxic chemicals and volatile radio nuclides. Class II, Type A2
cabinets (formerly designated Type B3) - maintain a minimum average
inflow velocity of 100 ft/min (0.5 m/s) through the work access
opening; - have HEPA filtered downflow air that is a portion of the
mixed downflow and inflow air from a common exhaust plenum; - may
exhaust HEPA filtered air back into the laboratory or to the
environment through an exhaust canopy; and - have all biologically
contaminated ducts and plenums under negative pressure or
surrounded by negative pressure ducts andplenums. Type A2 cabinets
used for work with minute quantities of volatile toxic chemicals
and tracer amounts of radio nuclides required as anadjunct to
microbiological studies must be exhausted through properly
functioning exhaust canopies. Class II Type B1 cabinets - maintain
a minimum average inflow velocity of 100 ft/min (0.5 m/s) through
the work access opening; - have HEPA filtered downflow air composed
largely of uncontaminated re-circulated inflow air; - exhaust most
of the contaminated downflow air through a dedicated duct exhausted
to the atmosphere after passing through a HEPAfilter; and - have
all biologically contaminated ducts and plenums under negative
pressure or surrounded by negative pressure ducts andplenums. Type
B1 cabinets may be used for work treated with minute quantities of
volatile toxic chemicals and tracer amounts of radio
nuclidesrequired as an adjunct to microbiological studies if work
is done in the direct exhausted portion of the cabinet, or if the
chemicals orradio nuclides will not interfere with the work when
re-circulated in the downflow air. Class II Type B2 cabinets
(Sometimes referred to as "total exhaust") - maintain a minimum
average inflow velocity of 100 ft/min (0.5 m/s) through the work
access opening; - have HEPA filtered downflow air drawn from the
laboratory or the outside air (i.e., downflow air is not
re-circulated from the cabinetexhaust air); - exhaust all inflow
and downflow air to the atmosphere after filtration through a HEPA
filter without re-circulation in the cabinet orreturn to the
laboratory; and - have all contaminated ducts and plenums under
negative pressure, or surrounded by directly exhausted
(non-re-circulated through thework area) negative pressure ducts
and plenums. Type B2 cabinets may be used for work with volatile
toxic chemicals and radionuclides required as an adjunct to
microbiological studies.
Substantiation:
This addition provides a more accurate definition and
correlation with National Sanitation Foundation, International
(NSF).Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-9 Log #18 (1.4.23 Flammable Liquid)
Final Action: Accept in Principle
Submitter: Anthony Hoffman, W. S. Nelson & Co.,
Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 1.4.23
Flammable Liquid. A liquid that has a closed-cup flash point below
37.8°C (100°F) and a maximum vapor pressure of 2068 mmHg (40 psia)
at 37.8°C (100°F).
Substantiation:
The word "below" should replace the words "at or above". The
current text of 1.4.33 is in conflict with the definition of
CombustibleLiquid in 1.4.11, and does not agree with the definition
given for Flammable Liquid in NFPA 497 (1997).Committee Meeting
Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee
Proposal 45-5 (Log #CP13) where the Committee is using the NFPA
Glossary of Terms preferred definition from NFPA30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative:
25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
6
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-10 Log #CP22 (1.4.32
Instructional Laboratory Unit [ROP draft 3.3.30])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 1.4.32 Instructional Laboratory
Unit (ROP 3.3.30) as follows: 3.3.30 A laboratory unit used for
education past the 12th grade and before post-college graduate
level instruction for the purposes ofinstruction of six or more
persons for four or more hours per day or more than 12 hours per
week. Experiments and tests conducted ininstructional laboratory
units are under the direct supervision of an instructor. Laboratory
units used for graduate or post-graduateresearch are not
instructional laboratory units.
Substantiation:
Clarification of the definition to clearly differentiate
instructional laboratory units from educational laboratory units
and to clarify theseparation of undergraduate labs and
graduate/post graduate research labs.Committee Meeting Action:
AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-11 Log #CP18 (2.2.1 [ROP 4.2.1])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Add last sentence to Section 2.2.1 (ROP
4.2.1) as follows: “Liquefied flammable gases located outdoors
shall not be included in the quantity calculations.”
Substantiation:
The tables are used to establish required fire protection
features. Gases located outside will not be benefited by the indoor
fireprotection requirements. In addition, it gives those users
incentive to place the gas outside.Committee Meeting Action:
AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-12 Log #CP15 (Table 2.2.1(a) [ROP draft Table 10.1])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Add a footnote to Table 2.2.1(a) (ROP
Table 10.1) to read as follows: “The quantities per 9.3 m2 (100
ft2) do not imply the quantities must be within that 9.3 m2 (100
ft2) area; the quantities per 9.3 m2 (100ft2) are for calculation
purposes to determine the total quantity allowed.”
Substantiation:
This footnote clarifies a commonly asked advisory service
question.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
7
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-13 Log #CP31 (Table
2.2.1(a) [ROP draft Chapter 10 (new), Table 10.1 and 9.2.2.6
(new)])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: 1. Insert new Chapter 10 Flammable and
Combustible Liquids, relocating all the flammable and combustible
liquid requirements there. 2. Insert into new Chapter 10 existing
Table 2.2.1(a) (ROP Table 10.1), modified to include the following
for the respective labs in thefirst column as shown below: A (high
fire hazard) B (moderate fire hazard) C (low fire hazard) D
(minimal fire hazard) 3. Insert a new 9.2.2.6 as follows:
“Pressurized Liquid Dispensing Containers containing chemicals
shall be in accordance with 10.4.”
Substantiation:
There are many requirements for flammable and combustible
liquids throughout the standard and this is more user-friendly to
havethem in one chapter. See Committee Proposal 45-57 (Log
#CP30).Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
Explanation of Negative: POBLETE: While I agree with the concept of
creating Chapter 10, I disagree with placing Table 2.2.1(a) in
Chapter 10. This tablebelongs in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 deals with
the classification of laboratory units. Paragraph 4.2.1, uses the
quantities in the table to define Class A, B, C, andD laboratory
units. This is the sole purpose of the table. In Chapter 10,
paragraph 10.1.1 requires the quantities in a laboratory unit of a
given fire hazard classification meet the values in thetable for
that fire hazard classification. Since a lab unit wouldn't be
classified in a given classification unless it met the values in
thetable, 10.1.1 is unnecessary.
45-14 Log #CP7 (Table 2.2.1(a) [ROP draft Table 10.1])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Add a footnote to ROP draft Table 10.1 as
follows: See Section 4.2.2 for additional requirements for
instructional and educational laboratories.
Substantiation:
The section provides additional requirements for
educational/instructional labs, and should be noted. The table is
found in the ROPdraft as Table 10.1.Committee Meeting Action:
AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
8
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-15 Log #17 (Table
2.2.1(a) and 2.2.1(b))
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code
Dev/Western RegiionalRecommendation: Add a footnote to Tables
2.2.1(a) and (b) to read: Footnote: The maximum quantity allowed in
below grade laboratory units shall not be greater than fifty
percent of those listed.
Substantiation:
NFPA 30, IFC and UFC all prohibit Class I liquids in basements.
Proposal and reason - to further limit the quantity of Class I
liquids allowed in basement level labs. Fifty percent decrease
based onprohibition in NFPA 30. If no hazard - NFPA 30 should also
allow Class I in sprinklered basements. No other significant
controls. Also, no maximum quantities provided for other hazardous
materials (flammable solids, oxidizers and organic peroxides).
Textstates...quantity limited to the minimum quantity necessary to
perform the work being done. Toxics and highly toxics not
addressed.
Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Class I
liquids are allowed in basement labs because of the additional
safeguards in NPFA afforded by compartmentalization required
inChapter 3 and by sprinkler protection required in Section 4.1.3
to also address the firefighting access issue. Additionally, there
are nodata provided to substantiate that 50% is a substantial
reduction of risk for basement laboratory occupancies.Number
Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
Explanation of Negative: KEEFER: Currently NFPA 45 allows the same
quantities of flammable liquids in basements as allowed in other
portions of the building,even though access, exiting, ventilation,
and in some cases, fire protection may be compromised as compared
to other floor levels of abuilding. Though substantiation was not
presented that determines that a 50 percent decrease adds to
safety, leaving current quantitylevels, does not.
45-16 Log #CP39 (Table 2.2.1(b) and 3.1.1(b))
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Delete Table 2.2.1(b) and Table
3.1.1(b).
Substantiation:
Sprinklers are now required for all new laboratories per CP
38.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
Explanation of Negative: ST CLAIR: See my Explanation of Negative
on Proposal 45-29 (Log #CP38).
45-17 Log #CP23 (2.2.2 and subsections [ROP draft 4.2.2 and
subsections])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify Section 2.2.2 (ROP 4.2.2) and
subsections as follows: 4.2.2 Additional Requirements for
Educational and Instructional Laboratory Units. 4.2.2.1 Experiments
and tests conducted in educational and instructional laboratory
units shall be under the direct supervision of aninstructor.
4.2.2.2 Instructional laboratory units shall be classified as Class
C or Class D laboratory units. 4.2.2.3 Educational laboratory units
shall be classified as Class D or shall be limited to 50 percent of
the flammable and combustibleliquids quantity for Class C
laboratory units presented in Table 10.1.
Substantiation:
Information was provided on educational laboratory units that
are different than instructional laboratory units. Also, it was
never thecommittee’s intent to limit these labs to Class B only,
and was rewritten to reflect this. The flammable and combustible
liquid quantitiesremain approximately the same because half of
Class B approximates those quantities allowed in Class C.Committee
Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative:
25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
9
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-18 Log #CP2 (2.3.1 [ROP
draft 4.3.1])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify existing 2.3.1 (ROP draft 4.3.1) to
include a new (6) maintaining the existing annex as follows: 4.3.1*
A laboratory work area shall be considered to contain an explosion
hazard if an explosion of quantities or concentrations ofmaterials,
including but not limited to 2.3.1(1) through (6) could result in
serious or fatal injuries to personnel within that laboratorywork
area. (See Appendix C.) (1) Storage of materials with a Instability
Hazard Rating of 4 (see B.2.5) (2) Use or formation of materials
with a Instability Hazard Rating of 4 (see B.2.5) (3)* Presence of
highly exothermic reactions such as polymerizations, oxidations,
nitrations, peroxidations, hydrogenations, ororgano-metallic
reactions (4) Use or formation of materials whose chemical
structures indicate a potential hazard, but whose properties have
not been established,such as triple bonds, epoxy radicals, nitro
and nitroso compounds, and peroxides (5) Presence of high pressure
reactions (see Figure C.4.5) (6) Other explosion hazards as
determined by a qualified person.
Substantiation:
The Committee wanted to ensure that the 5 situations were not
the only ones deemed to be an explosion hazard.Committee Meeting
Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-19 Log #CP8 (Table 3.1.1(a) [ROP Table 5.1.1])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify Table 3.1.1(a) (ROP Table 5.1.1) as
follows: 1. Add a table note to entries in table reading “not
permitted”. The note will read: “Labs of this classification and
size are notpermitted”. 2. Change the title to “Fire Separation
Requirements for Sprinklered Laboratory Units” 3. Add a table note
to the heading of the “Fire Separation” as follows:Separation in
this table refers to separation from laboratory unit(s) to
nonlaboratory areas and/or separations from laboratory unit(s)
ofequal or lower hazard classification. 4. Make all the “less than”
symbols into “less than or equal to” symbols.
Substantiation:
The Committee wished to clarify the intent that it is not the
fire separation that is “not permitted”, but the lab
classification/size itself. Beyond the definition of fire
separation, the committee wished to clarification the intent of the
fire separation in the table. The “less than or equal to” symbols
were added to include the 10,000 ft2.Committee Meeting Action:
AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
10
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-20 Log #8 (3.1.4)
Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part
Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev.
CommitteeRecommendation: Revise 3.1.4 as follows: 3.1.4 Table
3.1.1(a) shall pertain to laboratory units protected by automatic
sprinkler systems in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard forthe
Installation of Sprinkler Systems. Where the addition of water will
create a serious fire or personnel hazard result in serious or
fatalinjuries to personnel within that laboratory work unit or
cause major property damage outside the laboratory work area, a
suitablenon-water automatic extinguishing system shall be permitted
to be an acceptable substitute for sprinklers.
Substantiation:
Automatic sprinklers are generally considered to be a superior
fire-protection system, and the substitution of a
non-waterextinguishing system should be discouraged. Section 2.3
sets forth an acceptable level of hazard posed to laboratory
personnel and thephysical structure from the chemicals in use in
the area on a daily basis. This revision correlates the level of
hazard presented by theautomatic sprinkler system with the level of
explosion hazard permitted in Section 2.3. It is appropriate to
allow the same level ofhazard to be present from the
fire-protection system as from the hazards presented in the
laboratory unit or work area on a daily basisbefore an alternative
system is permitted.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in PartCommittee
Statement: The committee agrees in principle that sprinklers should
be used whenever possible and an alternative should be used only
when theycould introduce a personnel hazard. However, the committee
rejected the proposed wording which allows an exemption when
there’s apossibility for property damage outside the lab work area
(thereby weakening the sprinkler requirements). The issue is
covered in 3.4.1and A.4.2.1.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative:
25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-21 Log #CP3 (3.1.7 [ROP draft 5.1.7])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify existing 3.1.7 (ROP 5.1.7) as
follows: 5.1.7 Door assemblies in required 1-hour-rated fire
separations shall be 3/4-hour rated. Door assemblies in required
2-hour-rated fireseparations shall be 1 1/2-hour rated.
Substantiation:
The Committee wanted to provide users the option of providing
optional fire barriers without the burden of the 3/4 hour or 1 1/2
hourdoor assemblies. When the fire barrier is required however, the
door assembly rating is still specified per 3.1.7.Committee Meeting
Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-22 Log #CP24 (3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3 [ROP draft 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and
5.3.3])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 (ROP 5.3.1,
5.3.2 and 5.3.3) as follows: 5.3.1 Class A, B and C laboratory
units shall be classified as industrial occupancies in accordance
with NFPA 101, Life Safety Code. 5.3.2 Educational laboratory units
shall be classified as educational occupancies in accordance with
NFPA 101, Life Safety Code. 5.3.3 Instructional laboratory units
and Class D laboratories shall be classified as business
occupancies in accordance with NFPA 101,Life Safety Code.
Substantiation:
The changes provide clarification of the text. The word
"noninstructional" is not needed in this section, because life
safetyrequirements for instructional and educational laboratories
are stated in 3.3.2 and 3.3.3. In Section 3.3.3, the word "medical"
was deletedsince a medical lab would be a Class D. The quantity of
hazardous materials in any Class D laboratory would qualify as a
businessoccupancy. The exception was deleted since NFPA 99 Section
1.5.2 (ROP draft 1.3.3) clarifies that NFPA 99 provides
additionalrequirements for labs in healthcare occupancies.Committee
Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative:
25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
11
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-23 Log #CP5 (3.3.3 [ROP
draft 5.3.4])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify Section 3.3.3 (ROP 5.3.4) to remove
the word “medical” as follows: 5.3.3 Life safety requirements for
instructional laboratory units for above grade 12, and for Class D
laboratories located in facilitiesclassified as business
occupancies, shall be in accordance with the NFPA 101, Life Safety
Code, requirements for business occupancies.
Substantiation:
The word “medical” was removed since all Class D labs would be
treated the same under NFPA 45, regardless of if they are medical
ornot.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-24 Log #2 (3.4.1(1))
Final Action: Reject
NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 45-7 (Log #CC17) which
was held from the May 2000 ROC on Proposal 45-1.Submitter:
Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation:
Delete ROP 3.4.1(1) which reads: “A laboratory work area contains
fire and explosion hazards located so that an incident would block
escape from or access to thelaboratory work area.”
Substantiation:
It is not the intent of the Committee to allow a work station
with a high fire hazard potential (such as a fume hood not adjacent
to theexit access) to avoid the requirement of a second means of
escape from a laboratory. The Committee believes that proper lab
designrequirements would prohibit a hazard such as this from
existing.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The
Committee does not want to delete this requirement because the
explosion hazard is a life safety hazard, potentially blocking
theonly exit.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-25 Log #CP16 (3.4.1(5) and (6) [ROP draft 5.4.1(5) and
(6)])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 3.4.1(5) and (6) [ROP 5.4.1(5) and
(6)] as follows: (5) A flammable compressed gas cylinder larger
than lecture bottle size [approximately 5 cm x 33 cm (2 in. x 13
in.)] located such that itcould prevent safe egress in the event of
accidental release of cylinder contents. (6) A cryogenic container
located such that it could prevent safe egress in the event of
accidental release of container contents.
Substantiation:
The phrase “health hazard rating of 3 or 4” was deleted since
these gases are required to be continuously ventilated per Section
8.1.4.1(ROP 11.1.4.1). Cryogen’s are considered a minimum NFPA 704
health hazard of 3 due to frostbite or irreversible tissue damage.
Thesentences were reworded for clarity.Committee Meeting Action:
AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
12
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-26 Log #CP9 (3.4.2 (ROP
5.4.3 and 5.4.4))
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Move existing 3.4.2 to be immediately
before 3.4.5, renumbering accordingly (ROP Sections 5.4.3 and
5.4.4).
Substantiation:
The sections were moved beside each other for user-friendliness
since both sections provided requirements for emergency
lighting.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-27 Log #13 (3.6.1)
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev.
CommitteeRecommendation: Revise to read: 3.6.1 Electrical
receptacles, switches, and controls shall be located so as not to
be subject to liquid spills and shall be located no lessthan 18
inches above the floor surface.
Substantiation:
This is a common requirement in places such as automotive shops
where heavier than air flammable vapors could be present due to
aspill or leak. Addition of this phrase would help to prevent fires
by keeping an ignition source at a higher level.Committee Meeting
Action: RejectCommittee Statement: In Section 3.6.2, labs are
unclassified electrically. However, in some conditions of hazard,
it could be necessary to classify a lab workarea. The 18” solution
may not be applicable for all potential fluids, lab geometries and
other variables.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24
Negative: 1
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
Explanation of Negative: KEEFER: Current language in NFPA 45 3-6.1
only instructs the Code user to use electrical receptacles,
switches, and controls inlocations not subject to liquid spills,
but gives the user no guidance as to what a safe location is. The
proponent attempts to giveguidance by specifying 18 inches above
floor level. The measurement comes from other nationally accepted
Codes that use 18 inches asan acceptable level of placing equipment
that may cause heat or a spark. This acts as a buffer to provide
safety in areas subject to theaccidental spill of flammable liquids
which may accumulate to their LEL at levels below 18 inches.
45-28 Log #CP50 (3.6.2 (ROP 5.6.2))
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 3.6.2 (ROP 5.6.2) to read as
follows: “Laboratory areas, including the interiors of fume hoods,
shall be permitted to be considered unclassified'' as defined in
Article 500 ofNFPA 70, the National Electrical Code if a hazard
assessment determines that it is not a hazardous location. Where
other conditionsexist, consider the need for classification of the
local area exposed.”
Substantiation:
It was asserted that all hoods under all conditions should not
be automatically considered electrically unclassified. The
committeerejected this proposal, but wished to maintain it in the
ROP to obtain the benefit of public review and to make notice that
there is apotential for this section at the ROC stage to be
modified in this manner.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee
Statement: It was asserted that all hoods under all conditions
should not be automatically considered electrically unclassified.
The committeerejected this proposal, but wished to maintain it in
the ROP to obtain the benefit of public review and to make notice
that there is apotential for this section at the ROC stage to be
modified in this manner.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative:
25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
13
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-29 Log #CP38 (4.2.1.1
and A.4.2.1 [ROP draft 6.2.1.1 and A.6.2.1])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 4.2.1.1 (ROP 6.2.1.1), deleting
A.4.2.1 (ROP A.6.2.1) as follows: 6.2.1 Automatic Sprinkler
Systems. 6.2.1.1 Automatic sprinkler system protection shall be
required for all laboratories in accordance with the following: (1)
Class A and Class B laboratories shall be in accordance with NFPA
13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, forOrdinary
Hazard (Group 2) occupancies. (2) Class C and Class D laboratories
shall be in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation
of Sprinkler Systems, forOrdinary Hazard (Group 1) occupancies.
Substantiation:
Sprinklers are the most effective way to rapidly control a fire.
NFPA 5000 requires sprinklers when the quantities of chemicals in
Table34.1.3.1 are exceeded in any occupancy. Laboratories are
inherently more dangerous than most other occupancies because of
the widevariety of operations (including manipulations of
chemicals), number and variety of chemicals creating a multitude of
hazards in a lab.Sprinkler protection should be extended to all
laboratories, even those with relatively small quantities of
hazardous chemicals, to meetthe objectives in 1.2.4. It is
imperative to have a quick method of controlling a fire.Committee
Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 23
Negative: 2
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
Explanation of Negative: PUHLICK: 1) The proposed committee action
to require automatic sprinkler protection in ALL laboratories,
including existing,contains NO substantiation citing fire, injury
or loss data. 2) The cost to existing owners will be HUGE. The
retroactive provision will apply when a space in which a little
over ONE GALLON ofsubstance such as FUEL OIL being used in a
process or experiment is present. The cost/benefit ratio is
excessive applied to this low of ahazard threshold even in new
construction. 3) The proposal requires a full NFPA 13 system with
it's referenced NFPA 72 fire alarm requirements. There is no
reference to limitedarea systems off of domestic supplies, etc. for
life safety purposes. 4) The requirement to provide a NFPA 13
system to the laboratory space only does not provide property
protection which an insurerwill give credit for. ST CLAIR: This
proposal would require the installation of sprinkler systems under
any circumstances for laboratories covered by thisstandard.
Although I generally agree with the concept in many instances, I am
voting negative to this proposal because the feasibility ofthe
installation of sprinkler systems in mobile laboratories was not
addressed in this proposal and the impact to the regulatedcommunity
was not fully taken into account. It was not known at the time of
the proposal as to whether a sprinkler system could be installed in
a mobile laboratory, since norepresentative of any company or
expert involved in the manufacturing of mobile laboratories
presented any information or any researchon the technical
feasibility of the installation of sprinkler systems in mobile
laboratories to the committee. Additionally the impact on the
regulated community was not fully investigated at the time of the
proposal. One example of anunexpected impact to the regulated
community could be the following scenario: A new laboratory that
contains less than 4 L of flammable liquid would not becovered by
the standard and thus not required to install a sprinkler system.
If you take the same laboratory and add a first aid kitcontaining
hydrogen peroxide to the laboratory, the laboratory would then
potentially be subject to the standard since aqueoussolutions of
hydrogen peroxide carry a NFPA health rating of 2. Since there is
no definition for the term "handle" in 1.1.2(3) andhydrogen
peroxide meets the definition of "chemical" in 3.3.8, it appears
that this chemical could be "handled" and would therefore
beincluded in the determination of applicability. Since aqueous
solutions of hydrogen peroxide carry a NFPA health rating of 2,
thelaboratory could be subject to the standard. Thus, the
requirement for the installation of a sprinkler system in the new
laboratory thatwould normally be exempt from the standard would be
triggered solely on the basis of a decision to have a first aid kit
containinghydrogen peroxide in the laboratory. I believe that the
impact of this proposal for many laboratory situations was not
addressed thoroughly and should be reworked,reviewed, or rejected
in order to fully understand the impact versus the benefits of this
proposal on the regulated community.
14
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-30 Log #9 (4.2.1.3
(New) )
Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part
Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev.
CommitteeRecommendation: Add a new section to read: 4.2.1.3 Where
the addition of water will result in serious or fatal injuries to
personnel within the laboratory work unit or cause majorproperty
damage outside the laboratory work area, a suitable non-water
automatic extinguishing system shall be permitted to be
anacceptable substitute for sprinklers.
Substantiation:
The alternative fire protection system is currently called out
in 3.1.4 (Laboratory Unit Design and Construction) but does not
appear inChapter 4 (Fire Protection). For clarity, the specific
allowance for the alternative system should also be included in
this Section relatingto Automatic Fire Extinguishing
Systems.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in
PartCommittee Statement: The committee agrees in principle that
sprinklers should be used whenever possible and an alternative
should be used only when theycould introduce a personnel hazard.
However, the committee rejected the proposed wording which allows
an exemption when there’s apossibility for property damage outside
the lab work area (thereby weakening the sprinkler requirements).
The issue is covered in 3.4.1and A.4.2.1.Number Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-31 Log #14 (4.2.2)
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev.
CommitteeRecommendation: Revise to read: 4.2.2 Other Automatic
Extinguishing Systems. Where required or used in place of automatic
sprinkler systems, special hazardextinguishing systems and nonwater
automatic extinguishing systems shall be designed, installed, and
maintained in accordance withthe following standards, as
applicable: (1) NFPA 11, Standard for Low Expansion Foam (2) NFPA
11A, Standard for Medium? and High?Expansion Foam Systems (3) NFPA
12, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems (4) NFPA 12A,
Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems (5) NFPA 15,
Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (6) NFPA
17, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems (7) NFPA 17A,
Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems (8) NFPA 69,
Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems (9) NFPA 750, Standard on
Water Mist Fire Protection Systems (10) NFPA 2001, Standard on
Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems
Substantiation:
Provides another alternative level of protection.Committee
Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The change is shown in
ROP Section 6.2.2 (10).Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative:
25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
15
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-32 Log #CP11
(4.6.3.1(6) and A.4.6.3.1(6) [ROP draft 6.6.3.1(6)])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Insert new 4.6.3.1(6) [ROP 6.6.3.1(6)] as
follows: 6.6.3.1 Plans for laboratory emergencies shall be
developed and shall be made available to the authority having
jurisdiction uponrequest. Such plans shall include the following:
(1) Alarm activation (2) Evacuation and building re-entry
procedures (3) Equipment shutdown procedures or applicable
emergency operation (4) Fire-fighting operations (5)* Nonfire
hazards (6) Information as required by the AHJ to allow the
emergency responders to develop response tactics.
Substantiation:
This is another method by which an AHJ can require a facility to
provide important information.Committee Meeting Action:
AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-33 Log #16 (5.9.5)
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Robert Bourke, Northeastern Regional Fire Code
Dev/Western RegiionalRecommendation: Revise text to read as
follows: 5.9.5 The ventilation system shall be controlled by an
approved continuous-reading combustible gas analyzing system that
is arrangedto operate the ventilation system at the rate specified
in 5.9.4 automatically upon detection of a specified flammable
vapor concentrationthat is below the lower flammable limit. The
detection system shall have sensors located throughout all ducts
and tunnels. Sensors shallbe installed in accordance with the
manufacturer’s installation instructions and they shall not exceed
their listed spacing.
Substantiation:
Without the added text, there is no guidance on how many sensors
should be installed. Fire officials have to subjectively decide
what ismeant by “sensors located throughout all ducts and tunnels”.
The added text clarifies how to decide how many sensors are
required.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This
section does not appear in NFPA 45.Number Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
Explanation of Negative: KEEFER: The proponent attempts to add
language that makes the Code more user-friendly by asking that
flammable gas sensors beinstalled in accordance with the
manufacturer's requirements. Without this additional language, the
possibility of differentrequirements for different jurisdictions
exists. It leaves the term "located throughout", subject to
interpretation by the individual AHJ.
45-34 Log #CP26 (6.3.3)
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Move and modify 6.3.3 and associated
unchanged annex to be a new 6.2.2 (ROP 8.2.2) and renumber
subsequent sections accordingly. 8.2.2* Laboratory units and
laboratory hoods in which chemicals are present shall be
continuously ventilated under normal operatingconditions.
Substantiation:
In the present location, lab hoods and other exhaust systems are
not included in this requirement. It is the intent of the committee
toinclude exhaust systems including hoods, therefore the section
was moved to the “Basic Requirements” and the words “and
laboratoryhoods” were added. It is understood that there are
special circumstances where the ventilation would be interrupted,
such as duringmaintenance or possibly the supply air during fire
alarm initiation.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to
Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
16
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-35 Log #CP40 (6.3.4
[ROP draft 8.3.4])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 6.3.4 (ROP 8.3.4) as follows: 8.3.4
The air pressure in the laboratory work areas shall be negative
with respect to corridors and nonlaboratory areas of the
laboratoryunit except in the following instances: (1) Where
operations such as those requiring clean rooms preclude a negative
pressure relative to surrounding areas, alternate meansshall be
provided to prevent escape of the atmosphere in the laboratory work
area or unit to the surrounding spaces. (2) The desired static
pressure level with respect to corridors and nonlaboratory areas
shall be permitted to undergo momentaryvariations as the
ventilation system components respond to door openings, changes in
laboratory hood chemical fume hood sashpositions, and other
activities that can for a short term affect the static pressure
level and its negative relationship. (3) Laboratory work areas
located within a designated hazardous electrically classified area
with a positive air pressure system asdescribed in NFPA 496,
Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical
Equipment, Chapter 5, Pressurized Control Rooms.
Substantiation:
The change in the first sentence clarifies the intent of the
committee that the pressure relationships are established within
the lab unit.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to
Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-36 Log #3 (6.3.4 Exception No. 3 (New) )
Final Action: Accept in Principle
NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 45-11 (Log #4) which was
held from the May 2000 ROC on Proposal 45-1.Submitter: Horace C.
Pouncey, Ciba Specialty ChemicalsRecommendation: Add the following
exception: Exception No. 3: Laboratory work areas located within a
designated hazardous classified area shall have a positive air
pressure systemas described in NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and
Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, Chapter 5.
Substantiation:
As stated in NFPA 496, 5.3.2, “If the control room is in a
classified location, it shall be designed to minimize the entry of
flammablevapors, gases, liquids, or dusts.” If a production
facility lab is located within a classified location, the lab must
be designed not to allowexternal flammable vapors and gases into
the work area. A negative air pressure system would suck the
flammable vapors and gasesinside. The work area will require a
positive air pressure system to be safe.Committee Meeting Action:
Accept in Principle Modify 6-3.4 (ROP draft 8.3.5) as follows:
8.3.5 The air pressure in the laboratory work areas shall be
negative with respect to corridors and nonlaboratory areas of the
laboratoryunit except in the following instances: (1) Where
operations such as those requiring clean rooms preclude a negative
pressure relative to surrounding areas, alternate meansshall be
provided to prevent escape of the atmosphere in the laboratory work
area or unit to the surrounding spaces. (2) The desired static
pressure level with respect to corridors and nonlaboratory areas
shall be permitted to undergo momentaryvariations as the
ventilation system components respond to door openings, changes in
chemical fume hood sash positions, and otheractivities that can for
a short term affect the static pressure level and its negative
relationship. (3) Laboratory work areas located within a designated
hazardous electrically classified area with a positive air pressure
system asdescribed in NFPA 496, Standard for Purged and Pressurized
Enclosures for Electrical Equipment, Chapter 5, Pressurized Control
Rooms.Committee Statement: Editorial changes made including those
to comply with the NFPA Manual of Style. The Committee wished to
note that the submitter’ssecond sentence in his substantiation was
limited to production facility labs and that the Committee notes
that it is applicable to a widerscope of labs.Number Eligible to
Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
17
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-37 Log #CP34 (6.4.9
[ROP draft 8.4.10])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 6.4.9 (ROP 8.4.10) as follows:
8.4.10 Only Class II, Type B2 biological safety cabinets listed by
National Sanitation Foundation as meeting NSF Standard 49 shall
bepermitted to be used in lieu of chemical fume hoods, as
determined by a Qualified Person.
Substantiation:
These cabinets have 100% exhaust and can be safely used for some
chemical procedures. The reference for this document is
thefollowing: NSF/ANSI 49 - 2002, Class II (laminar flow) biosafety
cabinetry. National Sanitation Foundation International, 789
NorthDixboro Road, P.O. Box 130140, Ann Arbor, MI
48113-0140.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
Explanation of Negative: KEEFER: The storage cabinets are fine,
however the term "Qualified Person" is undefined.
45-38 Log #CP36 (6.8.3 [ROP draft 8.8.1.3])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 6.8.1.3 (ROP 8.8.1.3) and maintain
existing annex item as follows: 8.8.1.3 Chemical fume hoods shall
be provided with means of preventing overflow of a spill of 2
liters of liquid.
Substantiation:
The addition of the “2 L” quantifies and clarifies the intent of
the existing requirement. The quantity was chosen because even in
thesmallest of hoods, the 2 L quantity would still be considered a
“small spill” that should be considered in the chemical fume
hooddesign. The term “contain” was replaced with “preventing
overflow” to clarify the objective of preventing spillage or
leakage outsidethe hood.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber
Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-39 Log #CP43 (6.9.2 (ROP 8.9.2))
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: In Section 6.9.2 (ROP 8.9.2) delete “For
new installations” as follows: 8.9.2 Chemical fume hoods shall not
be located adjacent to a single means of access to an exit or to
high-traffic areas.
Substantiation:
The standard is not retroactive per 1.1.3, so this statement is
unnecessary.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to
Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
18
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-40 Log #CP37 (6.9.3 and
A.6.9.3 (New) [ROP draft 8.9.3 and A.8.9.3 (New)] )
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 6.9.3 (ROP 8.9.3) and add an annex
item as follows: 8.9.3 Work stations not directly related to the
chemical fume hood activity shall not be located directly in front
of chemical fume hoodopenings. A.8.9.3 Place low hazard activities
(such as desks and microscope benches) away from the chemical fume
hood. The term “directly infront of” does not include those areas
that are separated by a barrier such as a lab bench or other large
structure that would serve as ashield.
Substantiation:
This clarifies the intent that the area immediately in front of
the hood is of greater hazard than other parts of the laboratory
andpersonnel should not be needlessly exposed to this
hazard.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-41 Log #CP19 (6.10.3, 6.10.4 [ROP draft 8.10.3, 8.10.4 and
8.10.5 (new)])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 6.10.3 (8.10.3 in ROP draft) to be
multiple sections to comply with the manual of style. Delete the
exception for the 90 degreesubduct and make it advisory material.
Delete Exception 1 and the associated advisory material. Add a new
6.10.5 as follows: 8.10.3 The design and installation of ducts from
chemical fume hoods shall be in accordance with NFPA 91, Standard
for ExhaustSystems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and
Noncombustible Particulate Solids, except that specific
requirements in NFPA45 shall take precedence. 8.10.3.1* Automatic
fire dampers shall not be used in laboratory hood exhaust systems.
A.8.10.3.1 In 2001 at the University of California, a fire resulted
in an injury and caused approximately $3.5 million in damage.
Basedon the investigation it was concluded that the practice of not
having fire dampers on the exhaust duct of the ventilation system
at theshaft wall appears to have been beneficial in this fire
scenario. The investigation observed that the exhaust system was
effective atremoving significant quantities of combustion products
from the building during the fire, thereby reducing the amount of
combustionproducts spreading to other areas of the building. The
shutting down of the supply air by fire dampers did not
significantly hinder theexhaust system since fresh air was provided
though a broken window. However, if the window had not failed, team
concluded that theexhaust system probably would not have performed
as well. If protection of the openings is desired, one method is to
use a subduct assembly. Where a branch duct connects to an enclosed
exhaustriser located inside a shaft, which has a required fire
resistance rating of 1 hour or more and in which the airflow moves
upward,protection of the opening into the fire resistance rated
enclosure shall should be made with a steel subduct turned upward a
minimum of0.6 m (22 in.) in length and of a minimum thickness of 22
gauge [0.76 mm (0.030 in.)]. The steel subduct shall should be
carried upinside the riser from each inlet duct penetration. This
riser shall should be appropriately sized to accommodate the flow
restrictioncreated by the subduct. 8.10.4 Fire detection and alarm
systems shall not be interlocked to automatically shut down
laboratory hood exhaust fans. 8.10.5 Proper door operation for
egress shall be maintained when the supply system shuts down and
the lab exhaust system operates,creating a pressure
differential.
Substantiation:
Exception 2 was moved to the annex since the steel subduct is
one method for protecting the duct since the dampers are
prohibited; thematerial is advisory. Exception 1 and it’s annex
were deleted since it is undesirable to shut down a fume hood in a
fire situation. A newsection was added to prevent the entrapment of
personnel in labs when the supply fan is shut down and the fume
hood exhaust systemscontinue to run thereby exacerbating egress
difficulties. Also an annex item was added to the prohibition of
dampers describing a fireincident where this prohibition was
beneficial.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Comment on
Affirmative: MINISTER: Paragraph A.8.10.3.1 references a method to
install a subduct in an exhaust riser. The method comes out of NFPA
90A4.3.4.6.2 and Figure A.4.3. This reference needs to be added to
the text of A.8.10.3.1 to show the method is not original material
to NFPA45, but is from another NFPA code. There were several
questions about this method during the last couple of years and the
referencewould help designers and code officials understand the
source of the method.
19
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-42 Log #CP49 (6.10.5
(ROP 8.10.7))
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Add a new section 6.10.5 (ROP 8.10.7) and
associated annex as follows: 8.10.7* Chemical fume hoods shall be
installed in a manner that prevents fire or smoke from a fire in
the chemical fume hood fromspreading into the voids above the
ceiling. A.8.10.7 Installation of sprinklers in the void area or in
the chemical fume hood is an acceptable method to prevent flame
spread.
Substantiation:
A fire that spreads into the voids above the ceiling might not
be contained to the room of origin and will not be controlled by
thelaboratory sprinklers.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber
Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Comment on
Affirmative: ANDERSON: Under Substantiation after: "controlled by
laboratory" add "sprinklers". MINISTER: The statement under
substantiation appears to be incomplete and should be
completed.
45-43 Log #CP25 (7.2.1.3 [ROP draft 9.2.1.3])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify Section 7.2.1.3 [ROP 10.1.4.3(3)]
as follows: (3) In educational and instructional laboratory work
areas, containers for Class I or Class II liquids shall not exceed
the followingcapacity: (a) safety cans of 8 L (2.1 gal). (b) other
containers of 4 L (1.1 gal)
Substantiation:
Education was added to correct an omission and the former
exception was reworded to positive language per the NFPA Manual of
Style.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
20
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-44 Log #10
(7.2.2.7)
Final Action: Accept in Principle
Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev.
CommitteeRecommendation: Revise to read: 7.2.2.7* Transfer of Class
I liquids from containers having an individual capacity in excess
of 19L (5 gal) or more capacity shall beconducted carried out as
follows in (1) or (2): (1) In a separate area outside the building
(2) Inside liquid storage areas specifically designed and protected
for dispensing Class I flammable liquids that meet therequirements
of NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.
Substantiation:
Section 7.2.2.6 allows the transfer of Class I liquids "…to
smaller containers from bulk stock containers not exceeding 19L (5
gal) incapacity…. " in one of three areas: lab fume hoods, area
with ventilation, or inside liquid storage area in accord with NFPA
30. Thisrevision corrects an overlap in requirements for a
container with a capacity of 5 gallons.Committee Meeting Action:
Accept in Principle Modify 7.2.2.6 and 7.2.2.7, maintaining the
respective annex items (ROP 10.3.1 and 10.3.2) as follows:
10.3.1*Transfer of Class I liquids to or from containers less than
or equal to 20 L (5.3 gal) in capacity shall be performed in one of
thefollowing locations: (1) In a laboratory hood, or (2) In an area
provided with ventilation adequate to prevent accumulations of
flammable vapor/air mixtures from exceeding 25 percentof the lower
flammable limit, or (3) Inside liquid storage areas specifically
designed and protected for dispensing Class I flammable liquids
that meet the requirementsof NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible
Liquids Code. 10.3.2* Transfer of Class I liquids to or from
containers greater than 20L (5.3 gal) shall be performed in one of
the following locations: (1) In a separate area outside the
building (2) Inside liquid storage areas specifically designed and
protected for dispensing Class I flammable liquids that meet the
requirementsof NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code.Committee Statement: The section was editorially modified to
comply with the manual of style and to make the two sections
consistent. The englishconversion was changed from 5 gal to 5.3 and
the metric 19 L to 20 L to more accurately reflect the available
sizes. In addition, this isconsistent with NFPA 30. The material
was moved to new ROP chapter 10, Flammable and Combustible
Liquids.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24 Negative: 1
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
Explanation of Negative: ANDERSON: This is an error the committee
originally accepted this however when it became obvious that this
change would beinconsistent with many areas of the document the
committee voted to reject it. The change unintentionally increases
5 gallon thresholdto 5.3 gallons.
45-45 Log #CP46 ( 7.2.3 (ROP 9.2.3.1))
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 7.2.3 (ROP 9.2.3.1) as follows:
9.2.3.1 Hazardous chemicals stored in the open shall be stored in
such a manner as to limit a spill scenario to less than
5-gallons.
Substantiation:
Quantification was provided to clarify the committee’s intent to
minimize spill quantity. The quantity of 5-gallon was chosen
becausequantities of 5 gallons or more are required to be
transferred in an NFPA 30 flammable liquids transfer room.Committee
Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative:
25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
21
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-46 Log #11
(7.2.3.2)
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev.
CommitteeRecommendation: Revise to read: 7.2.3.2 Container types
and maximum capacities for flammable and combustible liquids shall
comply with Table 7.2.3.2. Exception No. 1….(balance to remain
unchanged).
Substantiation:
Since the Table only makes reference to flammable and
combustible liquids, it can be inferred that the section only
applies to thosematerials. However, the revision is proposed to
clarify in the charging statement that the restriction on container
types, and limitationson capacities, applies to flammable and
combustible liquids and not any other hazardous materials in
storage in the lab.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee
Statement: This change appears in ROP 10.1.4.Number Eligible to
Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-47 Log #CP51 (7.2.3.2 (ROP 10.1.4) )
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 7.2.3.2 (ROP 10.1.4) as follows
(maintaining annex) as follows: 10.1.4* Container types and maximum
capacities shall comply with Table 10.1.4 except as follows: (1)
Break-resistant plastic-coated glass containers as large as 4 L
(1.1 gal) shall be permitted to be used if needed and if the
requiredpurity would be adversely affected by storage in a metal or
an approved plastic container, or if the liquid would cause
excessivecorrosion or degradation of a metal or an approved plastic
container. (2) Containers of not more than 227 L (60 gal) capacity
shall be permitted in a separate area inside the building if the
inside area meetsthe requirements of NFPA 30, Flammable and
Combustible Liquids Code.
Substantiation:
These bottles are resistant to breakage.Committee Meeting
Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Comment on
Affirmative: ANDERSON: The language doesn't read properly. It
should read: "Where containers larger than the maximum allowable
size containermust be used for purity purposes only break-resistant
plastic-coated glass containers as large as 4 L (1.1 gal) shall be
permitted to beused."
22
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-48 Log #4 (Table
7.2.3.2)
Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part
NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 45-15 (Log #2) which was
held from the May 2000 ROC on Proposal 45-1.Submitter: William H.
Barlen, Barlen & Assoc., Inc. / Rep. Airgas,
Inc.Recommendation: Add a column to Table 7-2.3.2 as shown on the
following page.
Substantiation:
In April 1993, B & J and Cryodyne asked the committee to
address pressurized containers in the laboratory. It was not done
and Iwould like to propose we add this category to address the use
of these containers.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
in Part Add a row to Table 7-2.3.2 (ROP Table 10.1.4) as follows:
Change the quantities in the proposed table to read as follows: IA
= 4 L (1.1 gal) IB = 20 L (5 gal) IC = 20 L (5 gal) II = 227 L (60
gal) IIIA = 227 L (60 gal)Committee Statement: The committee agrees
with the concept of recognizing this new type of container and the
maximum size needs to be established. Thecommittee rejects the
quantities proposed since the Committee currently has no data to
prove quantities greater than those for the othermetal containers
are safe. It is noted that the NFPA Research Foundation is
completing tests in the Spring which could provide data toallow the
Committee to increase the quantities, decrease the quantities or
prohibit the containers.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative:
25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-49 Log #CP6 (Table 7.2.3.2 (ROP Table 10.1.4))
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: In ROP Table 10.1.4, delete the “4”
superscript in the IIIA column of the table.
Substantiation:
The referenced section in the footnote refers only to Class I
and II, not Class IIIA liquids.Committee Meeting Action:
AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-50 Log #12 (7.2.3.6)
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Jim Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Dev.
CommitteeRecommendation: Add a new section to read as follows and
renumber remaining sections: 7.2.3.6 Storage cabinets used for the
storage of flammable and combustible liquids shall be constructed
in accordance with NFPA 30,Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code.
Substantiation:
The requirement for the construction of the cabinets resides in
the definition of Storage Cabinet and should be located in the body
ofthe standard.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to
Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
23
-
[45-48 (Log #4) Recommendation]
IA IB IC II IIIAPressurized Liquid Dispensing Container
20 L 227 L 227 L 227 L 227 L
24
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-51 Log #5 (8.1.3)
Final Action: Reject
NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 45-17 (Log #CC19) which
was held from the May 2000 ROC on Proposal 45-56.Submitter:
Technical Committee on Laboratories Using ChemicalsRecommendation:
Insert a new 8.1.3 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly.
Move the existing A.8.1.2 to be a new appendix item to the new
8.1.3as follows: 8.1.3* Cylinders of Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrogen
Bromide should be returned to the supplier within two years of the
shippingdate. A.8.1.3 Cylinders of corrosive or unstable gases
should be returned to the supplier when the expiration date of the
maximumrecommended retention period has been reached. Examples of
such corrosive or unstable gases include: (a) Acid and alkaline
gases; (b) Gases subject to autopolymerization; and (c) Gases
subject to explosive decomposition. Cylinders not in active use
should be removed from laboratory work areas to a storage facility,
as described in CGA Pamphlet P-1, SafeHandling of Compressed Gases
in Containers. In the absence of a maximum recommended retention
time, a 36-month interval should beused.
Substantiation:
This issue was assigned to a Task Group to study for the next
cycle. The Committee noted that previous editions of NFPA 45
addressedthis question in the body of the standard. It is currently
addressed in a general manner in A-8-1.2, but enough incidents have
beenreported so that it should be moved back to the main body with
the specific reference to hydrogen bromide.Committee Meeting
Action: RejectCommittee Statement: This issue was assigned to a
Task Group to study for the next cycle. The Committee noted that
previous editions of NFPA 45 addressedthis question in the body of
the standard. It is currently addressed in a general manner in
A-8-1.2, but enough incidents have beenreported so that it should
be moved back to the main body with the specific reference to
hydrogen bromide.Number Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 24
Negative: 1
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
Explanation of Negative: ANDERSON: Although currently addressed in
a general manner in A-8-1.2, CGA Pamphlet P-1, Safe Handling of
Compressed Gases inContainers that is adopted by reference by OSHA
requires cylinders not in active use should be removed from
laboratory work areas to astorage facility. Returning these
cylinders to the vendor makes perfect sense. This proposal was
supported by a special expert withsuperior knowledge and
experiences on the subject study next cycle only delays the
obvious.
45-52 Log #CP47 (8.2.3.2 (new) [ROP 11.2.3.4])
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Insert a new 8.2.3.2 (ROP 11.2.3.4) as
follows: “An emergency gas shut-off device in an accessible
location at the exit shall be provided in addition to the manual
point-of-use valvein each educational and instructional laboratory
space which has a piped gas dispensing valve.”
Substantiation:
An additional valve that is accessible is necessary to control
the flow of gas in the event of an emergency for schools.Committee
Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative:
25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
25
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-53 Log #CP45 (9.1.6.2
(ROP 12.1.6.2))
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 9.1.6.2 (ROP 12.1.6.2) as follows:
12.1.6.2 Glass apparatus containing gas or vapors under vacuum or
above ambient pressure shall be shielded, wrapped with tape,
orotherwise protected from shattering (such as engineering controls
or by apparatus design) during use.
Substantiation:
Text revised to clarify that gases or vapors must be present in
the glass apparatus to create a condition that could cause the
glass tobreak under vacuum or pressure. The use of glass apparatus
that is designed for use under pressure or vacuum should be allowed
withoutany additional requirements.Committee Meeting Action:
AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3
45-54 Log #CP44 (9.1.6.4 (ROP 12.1.6.4))
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Technical Committee on Laboratories Using
ChemicalsRecommendation: Modify 9.1.6.4 (ROP 12.1.6.4) as follows:
12.1.6.4 Flammable vapors evolved during drying operations shall be
condensed, trapped, or vented to avoid ignition.
Substantiation:
The words “or combustible” were removed since vapors evolved
from drying operations will be flammable and adding the word
“gases”since drying operations can generate flammable
gases.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote:
28Affirmative: 25
Hartman, Phillips, Weggel-LaaneBallot Not Returned: 3 Comment on
Affirmative: MINISTER: Paragraph 12.1.6.4 was supposed to read
"Flammable gases or vapors evolved...". The substantiation
indicates that theword gases was added to the paragraph, but it
does not appear in the text.
26
-
Report on Proposals – May 2004 NFPA 4545-55 Log #15 (9.2.2)
Final Action: Accept in Principle
Submitter: James R. Streit, Los Alamos National
LaboratoryRecommendation: Item 1: Revise NFPA 45, 9.2.2.1 as
follows: 9.2.2.1* (Add asterisk on paragraph number). Item 2: Add
new NFPA 45, A.9.2.2.1 as follows: Relocate/Renumber Figure
A.9.2.2.2 to Figure A.9.2.2.1. Item 3: Revise NFPA 45, 9.2.2.2 as
follows: 9.2.2.2* Refrigerators, freezers, and other cooling
equipment used to store or cool flammable liquids shall be listed
special purposeunits for use in laboratories in commercial
occupancies or units listed for Class I, Division 1 locations, as
described in Article 501 ofNFPA 70, National Electrical Code
designed or modified as follows: (a) Any electrical equipment
located within the outer shell, within the storage compartment, on
the door, or on the door frame shall meetthe requirements for Class
I, Division 1 locations, as described in Article 501 of NFPA 70,
National Electrical Code. (b) Electrical equipment mounted on the
outside of the storage compartment shall be installed in one of the
following ways: (1) To meet the requirements for Class I, Division
2 locations (2) To be located above the storage compartment (3) To
be located on the outside surface of the equipment where exposure
to hazardous concentrations of vapors will be minimal. Item 4:
Revise NFPA 45, A.9.2.2.2 as follows: Relocate existing paragraphs
1, 5 [including items numbered (1) - (3)] and 6 to a new
A.9.2.2.2.1. Retain same order of remainingparagraphs. Revise
remaining A.9.2.2.2 paragraphs as follows: Protection against the
ignition of flammable vapors in refrigerated equipment is available
through three types of laboratoryrefrigerators: explosion proof,
“laboratory-safe” (or “explosion-safe”), and modified domestic
models. Explosion proof refrigeration equipment...of NFPA 70,
National Electrical Code. Refrigerators and freezers listed as
“CommercialRefrigerators and/or Freezers for Hazardous Locations”
(e.g., listed for Class I, Division 1 Groups C and D locations) are
examples ofsuitable explosion proof refrigeration equipment. The
design concepts...of floor level vapors. Listed flammable materials
storage refrigerators and freezers (e.g., special purpose
unitslisted per Underwriters Laboratories UL471, “Commercial
Refrigerators and Freezers”) are typically limited to not more than
10-gal ofliquid storage capacity and are commonly utilized in
commercial laboratory and health care facility (See NFPA 99,
Standard for HealthCare Facilities) laboratory occupancies. In
general,...domestic models. Item 5: Add new NFPA 45, 9.2.2.2.1 as
follows: 9.2.2.2.1* Domestic refrigerators, freezers, and other
cooling equipment shall be permitted to store or cool flammable
liquids ifmodified as follows: (a) Any electrical equipment located
within the outer shell, within the storage compartment, on the
door, or on the door frame shall meetthe requirements for Class I,
Division 1 locations, as described in Article 501 of NFPA 70,
National Electrical Code. (b) Electrical equipment mounted on the
outside of the storage compartment shall be installed in one of the
following ways: (1) To meet the requirements for Class I, Division
2 locations (2) To be located above the storage compartment (3) To
be located on the outside surface of the equipment where exposure
to hazardous concentrations of vapors will be minimal. Item 6: Add
new NFPA 45, A.9.2.2.2.1 as follows: Relocate existing paragraphs
1, 5 [including items numbered (1) - (3)] and 6 from A.9.2.2.2 to a
new A.9.2.2.2.1. Retain same order ofremaining paragraphs. Delete
last sentence of paragraph 6, as follows: The use of
domestic...easily accumulate. Although not considered...including
the following: (1) Relocation...compartment. (2)
Removal...openings. (3) Replacement...gaskets.
Regardless...properly used. Figure A.9.2.2.2 gives examples of
labels that can be used on laboratory refrigerators.
Substantiation:
Proposal better brings into alignment NFPA 45 and 99 on the
topic of refrigerated storage of flammable liquids and emphasizes
that acommercially-available listed storage device is the preferred
option over a modi