FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Fundamentals R. P. Benedetti DATE: September 16, 2010 SUBJECT: Agenda for ROC Meeting September 29, 2010 Ladies and Gentlemen: Attached is the Agenda for the NFPA 30 Report on Comments (ROC) meeting of the NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Fundamentals, to be held Wednesday, September 29, 2010, at the Sheraton Gateway Suites O Hare Hotel, Rosemont IL. Note that there were only five public comments received on the Committee s ROP; please come prepared to suggest and draft any necessary or beneficial Committee Comments. If you have additional items for the Agenda, please bring them with you to the meeting. rpb/ cc FLCC Meeting Folder FLCFUN/NM FLCFUN Agenda.doc

2 FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE COMMITTEE AGENDA NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Fundamentals Sheraton Gateway Suites O Hare Hotel Rosemont, IL Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM 1. Call to Order. 2. Introduction of Attendees. Update of Committee Roster. [Attachment A1] 3. Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting. [Attachment A2] 4. Report of Committee Chair. 5. Report of Staff Liaison. Technical Committee Scope. [Attachment A3] Technical Committee Membership Status. [Attachment A4] - Bud Slye has been appointed Chair of the NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Tank Storage and Piping Systems. - Jim Kieffer has retired and has resigned from the committee. - Welcome to new Committee member Jonathan Barber, RCP Incorporated Document Revision Schedule. [Attachment A5] 6. Reports on Current Issues. [as necessary] 7. Review and Action on Comments on the Report on Proposals (ROP) for NFPA [Attachment A6] 8. Recent Correspondence. [NONE] 9. Other Old Business. [NONE] 10. New Business. Inconsistencies between Chapter 7 and NFPA 497, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Flammable Liquids, Gases, or Vapors and of Hazardous (Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas. Planning for A2014 Document Revision Cycle. 11. Schedule Next Meeting(s). 12. Adjournment. FLCFUN Agenda.doc

3 FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE COMMITTEE Minutes of Report on Proposals (ROP) Meetings NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Fundamentals National Fire Protection Association Offices, Quincy MA December 9, 2009, 1:00 PM to 5:45 PM and Hilton Savannah DeSoto Hotel, Savannah GA February 10, 2010, 1:00 PM to 4:45 PM [NOTE: The February 2010 session is a continuation of the December 2009 meeting.] I. Participation P. Apostoluk, Greif Incorporated C. W. Crumholt, Takasago International Corporation [Dec meeting only] E. G. Fernandes, Elfent Limited [Feb meeting only] J. J. Foley, The RJA Group, Inc. D. H. Havens, Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corp. / Knowles Atomic Power Laboratories G. L. Hortz, Rohm and Haas Company J. J. Jablonski, HSB Professional Loss Control J. W. King, Federated Mutual Insurance Company [Feb meeting only] R. S. Kraus, PSC Petroleum Safety Consultants (Rep. American Petroleum Institute) J. A. LeBlanc, FM Global B. D. Morgan, Fort Worth Fire Department [Dec meeting only] D. P. Nugent, Valspar Corporation [Feb meeting only] S. M. Preske, Travelers Insurance Company A. M. Ramirez, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. J. W. Richmond, Sr., Eastman Chemical Company [Dec meeting only] R. A. Riegel, Underwriter s Laboratories, Inc. [Dec meeting only] P. M. Shank, Nuclear Service Organization W. G. Stocker, Safeway, Inc. R. Upson, New Hartford Fire Marshals Office C. J. Wieczorek, FM Global, CHAIR J. Woycheese, Hughes Associates, Inc. R. P. Benedetti, National Fire Protection Association, STAFF LIAISON P. E. May, National Fire Protection Association, STAFF LIAISON Guests: H. E. Grossman, Alcoa, Inc. C. A. Martens, Lake Havasu City Fire Department R. Peterson, ExxonMobil O. M. Slye, Loss Control Associates

4 B. Tate, Office of the Fire Marshal Ontario [Dec meeting only] A. R. Zajac, MI Department of Environmental Quality [Dec meeting only] II. Minutes 1. The meetings were called to order as noted above. 2. Attendees introduced themselves. The Technical Committee roster was corrected as needed. A corrected version will be posted to the ECommittee SharePoint page. 3. Technical Committee Chair Chris Wieczorek reviewed the Agenda. 4. The Staff Liaison reported on the following: Technical Committee Scope. Some revisions are necessary, due to the major revision of NFPA 30. These will be submitted to the NFPA Standards Council for approval at the end of this document revision cycle. Membership Status. The Staff Liaison reported on recent changes to committee membership and on the balance of interests on the committee. Document Revision Schedule for NFPA The Staff Liaison reviewed the upcoming deadlines in the revision schedule for NFPA The Technical Committee reviewed and acted on all proposals submitted to it to amend NFPA 30 and developed Committee Proposals where it was deemed necessary. The Technical Committee directed the Staff Liaison to prepare and circulate the letter ballot for the committee s Report on Proposals (ROP) for the 2012 edition of NFPA 30. In the course of its work, the Technical Committee discussed how to implement the concept of hazardous liquid, as recommended by Dick Kraus. At the December 2009 meeting, the Technical Committee appointed a Task Group (Messrs. Crumholtz, Hortz, Kraus, Ordile, Richmond, Willse, and Woycheese) to develop a committee proposal and to report to the Technical Committee at the February 2010 meeting. The Technical Committee also addressed the issue of combustible liquids heated to or above their flash points. 6 The Technical Committee addressed recent correspondence. Sheldon Schall Letter. The Technical Committee decided to address the issue of the UN Globally harmonized Standard during the next document revision cycle. McCatty Formal Interpretation. The Technical Committee decided to address the issue of electrical area classification during the next document revision cycle. Clarification of Language in NFPA 30, A At the request of Mr. Haagansen, MA State Fire Marshal s Office, the Technical Committee agreed to review the language in A for ambiguity. Definition of Basement. The Technical Committee decided not to amend the definition of basement in NFPA 30 to match the one in NFPA The context of

5 the NFPA 30 definition is emergency access, while that of NFPA 5000 is egress. Grant May Letter. The Staff Liaison was directed to refer Mr. May to letters of interpretation by U. S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The Technical Committee noted that Mr. may s concerns will be addressed in NFPA 30 by chapter scope changes and by amendment to Paragraph Floyd Letter. This will be referred to the Task Group that addresses area classification. 7. There was no other old business requiring the Technical Committee s attention. 8. The Technical Committee reviewed items of new business and took the following actions: On the suggestion to add a new annex to NFPA 30 to include a table of the relevant fire hazard characteristics of typical fuels and solvents, the Technical Committee decided to address this during the next document revision cycle, pending receipt of a proposal by the proponent. On the precautionary note regarding use of fire fighting foam in NFPA 11 A.5.1, the Technical Committee determined that this was not an issue that needed to be addressed in NFPA 30. On the definitions of liquid versus those for solid and gas, the Technical Committee decided to form a Task Group to address this during the next document revision cycle. On the grade plane issue, the Technical Committee determined that this would not affect NFPA The Technical Committee agreed to hold its Report on Comments (ROC) meeting as determined by the Technical Correlating Committee. 10. The meetings adjourned at the times noted above.

6 NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Fundamentals This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents or portions of documents on the basic requirements for safeguarding against the fire and explosion hazards associated with the storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids. This Committee shall also have responsibility for definitions specifically related to flammable and combustible liquids and for criteria for the classification of flammable and combustible liquids. Responsible for Chapters 1 through 8 and Annexes G and H of NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.

7 FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS CODE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP BALANCE SUMMARY TCC on Flammable & Combustible Liquids - FLC-AAC NFPA 30 Members: 9 M: 2 (22%)* U: 1 (11%) Voting Alternates: 0 I/M: 0 L/C: 0 Alternates: 5 R/T: 1 (11%) E: 1 (11%) Non-Voting: 4 I: 2 (22%) SE: 2 (22%) Emeritus: 3 Task Group: 0 Hold List: 0 Balance: OK *(containers: 1 liquids: 1) T/C on Fundamentals of Flammable & Combustible Liquids - FLC-FUN Members: 24 M: 8 (33%)* U: 4 (17%) Voting Alternates: 0 I/M: 0 L/C: 0 Alternates: 6 R/T: 2 (8%) E: 2 (8%) Non-Voting: 2 I: 5 (21%) SE: 3 (13%) Emeritus: 0 Task Group: 0 Hold List: 5 Balance: OK *(containers: 1 liquids: 6 tanks: 1) T/C on Operations - FLC-OPS Members: 27 M: 8 (28%)* U: 6 (21%) Voting Alternates: 2 I/M: 0 L/C: 0 Alternates: 10 R/T: 1 (3%) E: 2 (7%) Non-Voting: 2 I: 6 (21%) SE: 6 (21%) Emeritus: 0 Task Group: 0 Hold List: 2 Balance: OK *(liquid handling equipment: 1 liquids: 7) FLCC Committee Balance.doc - 8/31/2010

8 T/C on Storage & Warehousing of Containers & Portable Tanks - FLC-SWC Members: 28 M: 9 (32%)* U: 5 (18%) Voting Alternates: 0 I/M: 1 (4%)** L/C: 0 Alternates: 16 R/T: 1 (4%) E: 2 (7%) Non-Voting: 0 I: 6 (21%) SE: 4 (14%) Emeritus: 0 Task Group: 0 Hold List: 7 Balance: OK *(containers: 3 liquids: 4 safety cabinets & safety cans: 1 fire suppression equipment: 1) **(fire suppression systems: 1) T/C on Tank Storage & Piping Systems - FLC-TAN Members: 26 M: 4 (15%)* U: 8 (31%) Voting Alternates: 0 I/M: 0 L/C: 0 Alternates: 10 R/T: 1 (4%) E: 3 (12%) Non-Voting: 0 I: 3 (12%) SE: 7 (27%) Emeritus: 3 Task Group: 0 Hold List: 6 Balance: OK *(fire suppression systems: 0 tanks: 2 tank appurtenances: 1 vaults: 0 liquid handling equipment: 1) FLCC Committee Balance.doc - 8/31/2010

9 2011 ANNUAL REVISION CYCLE PROCESS DATES DATES STAGE PROCESS STEP FOR TC FOR TCC 1 PRELIMINARY 1.0 Notification of intent to enter cycle 7/10/09 7/10/09 COMPLETION DATE VERIFY MATERIAL IN FILE 2 3 REPORT ON PROPOSALS (ROP) REPORT ON COMMENTS (ROC) TECH SESSION PREPARATION & ISSUANCE OF CONSENT DOCUMENTS 2.1 Proposal closing date 11/24/09* 11/24/09* * 2.2 Final date for ROP meeting 2/26/10 2/5/ Final date for mailing TC ballots 3/19/10 2/19/ Receipt of (TC) ballots by staff liaison 4/23/10 3/12/ Receipt of TC recirculation ballots 5/7/10 3/19/ Final date for TCC meeting 4/16/ Final date for mailing TCC ballots 4/23/ Receipt of TCC ballots 5/14/ Receipt of TCC recirculation ballots 5/21/ Final copy (w/ ballot statements) to Secretary, Standards Council 5/14/10 5/28/ Completion of Reports 5/21/10 6/4/ ROP Published and Posted 6/25/10 6/25/ Comment closing date 9/3/10 9/3/ Final date for ROC meeting 11/5/10 10/8/ Final date for mailing TC ballots 11/19/10 10/22/ Receipt of (TC) ballots by staff liaison 12/3/10 11/12/ Receipt of TC recirculation ballots 12/10/10 11/19/ Final date for TCC meeting 12/17/ Final date for mailing TCC ballots 12/22/ Receipt of TCC ballots 1/14/ Receipt of TCC recirculation ballots 1/21/ Final copy (w/ ballot statements) to Secretary, Standards Council 12/22/10 1/28/ Completion of Reports 1/14/11 2/4/ ROC Published and Posted 2/25/11 2/25/ Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 4/8/11 4/8/ Posting of Filed NITMAM 5/6/11 5/6/ Council Issuance Date for Consent Documents 5/31/11 5/31/ Appeal Closing Date for Consent Documents 6/15/11 6/15/11 TECHNICAL SESSION 5.0 Association Meeting for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 6/12-16/11 6/12-16/11 APPEALS & ISSUANCE OF DOCUMENTS W/CAMS 6.1 Appeal closing date for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 6.2 Council issuance for Documents with Certified Amending Motions 7/6/11 7/6/11 8/4/11 8/4/11 * Proposal Closing Dates may vary according to documents and schedules for Revision Cycles may change. Please check the NFPA website ( for the most up-to-date information on proposal closing dates and schedules. MASTER SCHEDULE.2011 Annual Cycle.doc

10 Sort Listing Comm # Log# Seq# Comm. Action Tech. Comm. Section 30-1 FLC-FUN - ( ): 30-2 FLC-FUN - ( H ): 30-3 FLC-FUN - ( 6.5 ): 30-4 FLC-OPS - ( ): 30-5 FLC-OPS - ( ): 30-6 FLC-OPS - ( ): 30-7 FLC-OPS - ( 18.6 (New) ): 30-8 FLC-FUN - ( ): 30-9 FLC-FUN - ( ): FLC-TAN - ( (New) ): Cycle Page 1

11 Sort Listing Comm # Log# Seq# Comm. Action Tech. Comm. Section 30-1 FLC-FUN - ( ): 30-8 FLC-FUN - ( ): 30-9 FLC-FUN - ( ): 30-3 FLC-FUN - ( 6.5 ): 30-4 FLC-OPS - ( ): 30-7 FLC-OPS - ( 18.6 (New) ): 30-5 FLC-OPS - ( ): FLC-TAN - ( (New) ): 30-6 FLC-OPS - ( ): 30-2 FLC-FUN - ( H ): Cycle Page 1

12 Report on Comments June 2011 NFPA Log #1 FLC-FUN John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc Revise text as follows: UL Publication. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL ANSI/UL 30, Standard for Metal Safety Cans, , Revised UL 58, Standard for Steel Underground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 1996, Revised ANSI/UL 80, Standard for Steel Tanks for Oil Burner Fuels and Other Combustible Liquids, 2007, Revised ANSI/UL 142, Standard for Steel Aboveground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 2006, Revised UL 971, Standard for Nonmetallic Underground Piping for Flammable Liquids, , Revised ANSI/UL 1313, Standard for Nonmetallic Safety Cans for Petroleum Products, 1993, Revised ANSI/UL 1314, Standard for Special Purpose Metal Containers, 2005, Revised UL 1316, Standard for Glass-Fiber Reinforced Plastic Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures, ANSI/UL 1746, Standard for External Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks, UL 2080, Standard for Fire Resistant Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, ANSI/UL 2085, Standard for Protected Aboveground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 1997, Revised ANSI/UL 2208, Standard for Solvent Distillation Units, UL 2245, Standard for Below-Grade Vaults for Flammable Liquid Storage Tanks, UL 2368, Standard for Fire Exposure Testing of Intermediate Bulk containers for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, Reason: Update referenced standards to most recent revisions. Printed on 9/16/2010 1

13 Report on Comments June 2011 NFPA Log #8 FLC-FUN Rick Thornberry, The Code Consortium, Inc Revise the current text of Protected Aboveground Tank as follows: Protected Aboveground Tank. An atmospheric aboveground storage tank with integral secondary containment and thermal insulation that has been evaluated for resistance to physical damage and for limiting the heat transferred to the primary tank when exposed to a hydrocarbon pool fire and is listed in accordance with ASNI/UL 2085, Standard for Protected Aboveground Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, or an equivalent test procedure. The Committee s proposed revision to Protected Aboveground Tank may satisfy the NFPA Manual of Style but will create potential confusion regarding the definition of Protected Aboveground Tank as compared to the definition for Fire-Resistant Tank in Please note that the definition for Fire-Resistant Tank has been revised similarly by the Committee in Proposal We have also submitted a Public Comment to that proposal to address our same concerns. With the Committee s revisions proposed to the definitions for Protected Aboveground Tank and Fire-Resistant Tank, the definitions are virtually identical, especially regarding the thermal insulation component of the definition as it deals with limiting the heat transferred to the primary tank when exposed to a hydrocarbon pool fire. However, there are significant differences in the two test methods ANSI/UL 2085 for Protected Aboveground Tanks and UL 2080 for Fire-Resistant Tanks. Therefore, we are proposing to delete what we consider to be the requirement contained in the definition that specifies that the tank must be listed. We have also proposed to delete the phrase or an equivalent test procedure since we agree it is not needed. We believe the revisions we have proposed to the definition of Protected Aboveground Tank in of the current NFPA 30 will satisfy the NFPA Manual of Style while also maintaining the distinction between a Protected Aboveground Tank and a Fire-Resistant Tank. Printed on 9/16/2010 2

14 Report on Comments June 2011 NFPA Log #9 FLC-FUN Rick Thornberry, The Code Consortium, Inc Revise the current text of Fire-Resistant Tank as follows: Fire-Resistant Tank. An atmospheric aboveground storage tank with thermal insulation that has been evaluated for resistance to physical damage and for limiting the heat transferred to the primary tank when exposed to a hydrocarbon pool fire and is listed in accordance with UL 2080, Standard for Fire Resistant Tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, or an equivalent test procedure. The Committee s proposed revision to Fire-Resistant Tank may satisfy the NFPA Manual of Style but will create potential confusion regarding the definition of Fire-Resistant Tank as compared to the definition for Protected Aboveground Tank in Please note that the definition for Protected Aboveground Tank has been revised similarly by the Committee in Proposal We have also submitted a Public Comment to that proposal to address our same concerns. With the Committee s revisions proposed to the definitions for Fire-Resistant Tank and Protected Aboveground Tank, the definitions are virtually identical, especially regarding the thermal insulation component of the definition as it deals with limiting the heat transferred to the primary tank when exposed to a hydrocarbon pool fire. However, there are significant differences in the two test methods UL 2080 for Fire-Resistant Tanks and ANSI/UL 2085 for Protected Aboveground Tanks. Therefore, we are proposing to delete what we consider to be the requirement contained in the definition that specifies that the tank must be listed. We have also proposed to delete the phrase or an equivalent test procedure since we agree it is not needed. We believe the revisions we have proposed to the definition of Fire-Resistant Tank in of the current NFPA 30 will satisfy the NFPA Manual of Style while also maintaining the distinction between a Fire-Resistant Tank and a Protected Aboveground Tank. Printed on 9/16/2010 3

15 Report on Comments June 2011 NFPA Log #3 FLC-FUN Mindy Wang, Ampco Safety Tools To add new text to read as follows: Frictional Heat or Mechanical Spark. Iron and steel hand tools may produce sparks that can be an ignition source around flammable substances. Where this hazard exists, spark resistant tools shall be used. In response to the original proposal the Committee expressed multiple concerns. The following is intended to discuss each of these concerns: 1. The Committee cites the work of the American Petroleum Institute (API 2214), which refuted the need for non-sparking tools, except in very special circumstances. However, information presented below shows API 2214 is misleading and undermines safe work practices. FM Approvals LLC, formerly Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FM) is an international organization recognized by the U.S. government as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) for scientific research and product certification. Product approval from a NRTL assures that products meet consensus-based standards of safety to provide the assurance, required by OSHA, that these products are safe for use in the United States workplace. FM Approval Standard 7910, Spark Resistant Tools is used as guidance to evaluate tools intended for use in environments where there is a risk of ignition of flammable materials, dusts or vapors resulting from sparks created by iron and steel hand tools. These tools prevent the ignition of flammable materials, dusts or vapors by mechanical sparks created by the use of iron and steel hand tools slipping or striking a surface. American Petroleum Institute (API) Publication 2214 contradicts NRTL research and product certification as evidence in FM Approvals granted for spark resistance tools. FM has conducted a test as covered in Report Job Identification No. IN4A0.AF in accordance with the requirements of Safety Tools Approval Test Procedure, Class 7910 and test results show: Sparks created from steel plates ignited carbon disulfide saturated pads, eight of eight tests, ethyl ether pads, five of eight tests, and naphtha VM&P four of eight tests. No sparks were observed and no ignition of the flammable liquids mentioned above from approved safety Tools. Other investigations also contradict API s conclusion on non-sparking tools. A paper published in the Fire Protection Journal, The Danger of Incendive Sparks, stated that after API s conclusion on non-sparking tools, Institute of Petroleum sought the advice of the Fire Research Board Committee on Industrial Fires and Explosion. This committee came to certain conclusions, one of which was Until evidence is obtained to show that the impact of steel hand tools on steel is safe, it is advisable to use non-sparking tools in situations where flammable atmospheres are unavoidable. The NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, 20 th edition, published in January 2008, does not support the conclusion that API 2214 represents. In fact, many NFPA codes the use of non-sparking tools in flammable atmospheres. According to NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, When flammable and combustible liquids are stored or handled, the liquid is usually exposed to the air at some stage in the operation, except where the storage is confined to sealed containers that are not filled or opened on the premises or where handling is in closed systems and vapor losses are recovered. Even when the storage or handling is in a closed system, there is always the possibility of breaks or leaks, which permit the liquid to escape. It is a to eliminate sources of ignition in places where low flashpoint flammable liquids are stored, handled, or used, even though no vapor may ordinarily be present. OSHA Flammable and Combustible Liquids regulation, 29 CFR Parts (b) on tank storage, paragraph (b)(6) states that precaution shall be taken to eliminate or control sources of ignitions including frictional heat and mechanical sparks to prevent the ignition of flammable vapors. NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations 2008 Edition, Chapter 5 Basic Fire Science Table Reported Burning and Sparking Temperature of Selected Ignition Sources under Mechanical Sparks lists a Steel tool temperature at 2550 F. When working with flammable gases, liquids or vapors, a potential hazard arises because of the possibility that sparks produced by steel or iron tools can become an ignition source. Recognizing the potential for steel tools to be an ignition source in flammable environment, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) provides guidance in booklet 3080 Hand and Power Tools, 2002 revised, iron and steel hand tools may produce sparks that can be an ignition source around flammable substances. Where this hazard exists, spark-resistant tools should be used. In OSHA regulation 29 CFR Permit-Required Confined Spaces, Appendix D Confined Space Pre-Entry Check List, non-sparking tool is listed as one type of entry equipment. OSHA 29 CFR Standard Interpretations, Interpretative guidance and equipment approved for hazardous locations relative to the Permit-Required Confined Spaces states that the standard does not prohibit entry into a permit space where a hazardous flammable Printed on 9/16/2010 4

16 Report on Comments June 2011 NFPA 30 atmosphere is at or above the 10% LFL. For concentrations at or above 10% LFL, paragraph (d) would the employer to incorporate safe work procedures to address the flammable/explosive hazard (such as equipment approved for hazardous locations) in the entry plan for those spaces. Electrical equipment as well as other sources of ignition (non-sparking hand tools) be considered and addressed for the hazardous atmosphere. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified hazardous wastes from industry specific sources known as the K-List. Under petroleum refining section, used hydrotreating catalyst (K171) and used hydrorefining from petroleum refining operations (K172) are identified as ignitable hazardous wastes. EPA also identifies solvents such as xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene and ethyl ether commonly used in all industries (the F-list) and discarded commercial chemical products such as acetone, benzene, ethyl ether and xylene (the P-list and U-list) as ignitable hazardous wastes. OSHA regulation 29 CFR Parts , Hazardous waste operations and emergency response, paragraph (j)(2)(v) requires that When there is a reasonable possibility of flammable atmospheres being present, material handling equipment and hand tools shall be of the type to prevent sources of ignition. Even API members such as ExxonMobil and Chevron as well as others in the petroleum industry such as Valero, CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Chem-Supply, Pty Ltd, Irving Oil Ltd, Petrol Star Inc, Nova Chemicals and El Paso Corporation list non-sparking tools under Accidental Release Measures and Handling and Storage sections in the MSDS s for their petroleum products. These companies clearly recognize the need for non-sparking tools in working with and around flammable materials. Clearly, API 2214 conflicts with OSHA regulations, Accredited Standards Developer s standards and safe work practices. 2. The Committee stated that the Committee is not aware of any pattern of fire incidents that can be linked to the use of ferrous tools. This is anecdotal information that does not indicate a significant fire hazard pattern. The Report of the BP U.S. Refineries independent Safety Review Panel, also known as the Baker Panel Report, states that Preventing process accidents requires vigilance. The passing of time without a process accident is not necessarily an indicator that all is well and may contribute to a dangerous and growing sense of complacency. Listed below are accidents caused by sparks from metal tools demonstrating that ferrous tools can be an ignition source in flammable environments. OSHA inspection # , an employee in the process of cleaning loose material from drill piping with a metal hammer. While striking the pipe with a hammer, an explosion occurred. Employee was killed in the explosion on site. OSHA inspection # , two employees were assigned the job of tending a 100 gallon (water jacket) reactor kettle of methyl methacrylate in the mixing room. Employee #1 used a metal wrench (visegrips) to pry open the cover of a kettle. The wrench handle struck the angle iron support for the agitator motor, producing a spark. Employee #2 noticed the spark, which was immediately followed by a massive fire ball. Both employees were engulfed in the fireball. Employee #3 came to the area to assist the other employees. The investigation states that non-sparking tools were not provided for the employees. All three employees received first and second degree burns on their face, arms and abdomen. Employee #2 also received some third degree burns. All three employees were hospitalized. OSHA inspection # , Employee #1 and a coworker, both maintenance mechanics, were working in a 30 inch by 36 inch manhole at a gas station. Employee #1 was trying to change a fuel pump, while the coworker watched from outside the manhole. Employee #1 was using an Allen wrench to loosen the bolts on the fuel pump lead when he created a spark that ignited the gas fumes in the manhole, causing an explosion. Employee #1 suffered burns to his face, hands, arms and legs in the explosion and was hospitalized. OSHA inspection # , Employee #1 or #3 attempted to cut a metal pipe with a metal saw while Employee #2 was standing on top of one of two 5,000 gallon gas tanks, trying to remove a tank fitting. Sparks from the saw, the pipe wrench, or another unknown source ignited the gas vapors, which exploded. Employees #1 and #3 were killed of burns at the scene. Employee #2 died at the burn center as a result of burns sustained in the explosion. OSHA inspection# , Employee #1 worked for a company that cleans paints and replaces valves in LP and MAPP gas cylinders. Before removing an old valve, Employee #1 would open the valve to let the residual gas leak out on the loading dock. Where there was a large quantity of cylinders, Employee #1 would invert the cylinder so the residual gas could vent faster. Employee #1 had an accumulation of a gas and air mixture around his work area. The vapors were ignited either by a spark from the metal screwdriver he was using to open a damaged valve or by an open flame burner approximately 40 feet away. There was a fire and explosion. The employee sustained 2 nd and 3 rd degree burns on the lower half of his body and was hospitalized. OSHA inspection # , an employee was sawing an airplane wing into sections with a portable powered hand saw, the saw created a spark that caused an explosion of gasoline vapors in the wing fuel tank. Employee #1 killed and Employee #2 injured in explosion and was hospitalized. These examples of OSHA documented accidents illustrates that accidents do happen when proper safety measures are not taken against mechanical sparks from steel tools as a possible ignition source. We are not equipped to show Printed on 9/16/2010 5

17 Report on Comments June 2011 NFPA 30 specific fire hazard patterns but would welcome any resources the Committee is aware of that are publicly available. However, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of OSHA stated to Congress in June, 2010 that Conventional injury and illness rates are not adequate indicators of the risk of fires, explosions, or other catastrophic accidents, and companies need to develop better leading indicators to assess risks in their workplaces. 3. The Committee refutes the statement that the US Department of Transportation s Emergency Response Guide (ERG) requires the use of non-sparking tools and that the ERG is a guide, not a mandatory document. However, OSHA regulation 29 CFR (q)(6)(i)(E) and EPA regulation 40 CFR 311 both recognizes the value of the ERG by requiring responders to be trained regarding its use. The ERG specifies the use of non-sparking tools to handle spills or leaks for flammable liquids in Guide 127 Flammable Liquids (Polar/Water-Miscible), Guide 128 Flammable Liquids (Non-Polar/Water-Immiscible), Guide 129 Flammable Liquids (Polar/Water-Miscible/Noxious), Guide 130 Flammable Liquids (Non-Polar/Water-Immiscible/Noxious), Guide 131 Flammable Liquids Toxic, Guide 132 Flammable Liquids - Corrosive 4. The Committee stated that the Committee is not aware of corporate standards that mandate non-sparking tool use, except for those industries dealing with explosive materials and energetic propellants. 29 CFR (g) (2) (viii) requires MSDS to include protective measures during repair and maintenance of contaminated equipment, and procedures for clean-up of spills and leaks among others. 29 CFR (h)(3)(iii) further requires employers to include the measures employees can take to protect themselves from these hazards, including specific procedures the employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as appropriate work practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used. In fact, OSHA issues citations for not using non-sparking tools as recommended by manufacture s MSDS (i.e. OSHA inspection# ). Furthermore, OSHA Standard Interpretation, December 22, 2008, Requirements of the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) and the Employer's Ability to Rely on a Manufacturer's Hazard Determination also states that Additionally, if an employer has sufficient information about a potential health hazard for which no information is provided on the MSDS, it must provide employees with additional information and training regarding those new hazards. Based on the performance oriented nature of the HCS, if employers have this information, they must provide it to their employees, including information related to how employees can recognize exposures and measures to protect themselves against the workplace hazards. 29 CFR (h). Again, API members such as ExxonMobil and Chevron as well as others in the petroleum industry such as Valero, CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Chem-Supply, Pty Ltd, Irving Oil Ltd, Petrol Star Inc, Nova Chemicals and El Paso Corporation list non-sparking tools under Accidental Release Measures and Handling and Storage sections in the MSDS s for their petroleum products. As stated previously, OSHA HCS requires employer to provide measures to protect employees. A feasible measure to control ignition hazard associated with steel tools is to use spark resistant tools as listed on manufacturers MSDS. 5. The Committee stated that field compliance directives of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration have recognized that non-sparking tools need not be mandated. We are perplexed by the Committee s statement. For example, OSHA Directive CPL , Technical Enforcement and Assistance Guidelines for Hazardous Waste Site and RCRA Corrective Action Clean-up Operations, Section II, Compliance Check List, item 12 If a flammable atmosphere might be present during drum and container handling, is the potential for ignition minimized through the use of non-sparking hand tools and material handling equipment designed to prevent sources of ignition? This compliance checklist lists when specifically non-sparking tools are to be used and help the compliance officer to understand if the employer is in compliance. Another example, OSHA Directive CPL , Shipyard Employment Tool Bag Directive, 29 CFR 1910, Subpart H: Hazardous Materials, section (g), except for (g)(2), which is generally preempted by (b)(6) for non-sparking tools used in painting spaces 29 CFR (b)(6) requires Only non-sparking paint buckets, spray guns and tools shall be used. Metal parts of paint brushes and rollers shall be insulated. Staging shall be erected in a manner which ensures that it is non-sparking. OSHA has also issued citations for not using non-sparking tools, for example, OSHA inspection# , a composite manufacturer was cited for violation of OSHA flammable and combustible liquids regulation 29 CFR (h)(7)(i)(a) that precaution was not taken to prevent the ignition of flammable vapors. The employer did not use non-spark producing tools in areas listed by the employer as Class I Division I locations. Process Technicians in building used a T-Wrench tool(s) that were not made of non-sparking material to secure and unsecure manway bolts on kettle reactor vessels and blend tank manway covers. This exposed process technicians and other employees to an explosion and fire hazard, in-that a spark can potentially be produced while using the tool, igniting potentially present flammable vapors from the process vessel during charging process. A few more examples of OSHA citations for not using non-sparking tools include OSHA inspection# , , , , , and We respectfully request the Committee to reconsider and implement a safer practice to control ignition sources with spark resistant tools. Without this specification, ferrous tools are likely to be used which can be an ignition source. Printed on 9/16/2010 6

18 Report on Comments June 2011 NFPA 30 However, if upon further consideration, the Committee still does not see the need for restricting ferrous tools in flammable atmospheres, we ask the Committee to at least include the proposed text in Annex text to raise the awareness of ignition hazard associated with ferrous tools in direct contact with flammable materials. Printed on 9/16/2010 7

19 Report on Comments June 2011 NFPA Log #2 FLC-FUN John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc Revise text as follows: H UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL ANSI/UL 30, Standard for Metal Safety Cans, 1995, Revised ANSI/UL 142, Standard for Steel Aboveground tanks for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 2006, Revised ANSI/UL 1313, Standard for Nonmetallic Safety Cans for Petroleum Products, 1993, Revised UL 1316, Standard for Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Underground Storage Tanks for Petroleum Products, Alcohols, and Alcohol-Gasoline Mixtures, 1994, Revised UL 1709, Standard for Rapid Rise Fire Tests of Protection Materials for Structural Steel, 2005, Revised UL 1746, Standard for External Corrosion Protection Systems for Steel Underground Storage Tanks, Reason: Update referenced standards to most recent revisions. Printed on 9/16/