Technical Committee on Explosion Protection Systems (EXL-AAA)

Transcription

1 Technical Committee on Explosion Protection Systems () M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 19, 2012 TO: and Members of the Technical Committee on Explosion Protection Systems () FROM: Barry Chase, NFPA Staff Liaison Office: (617) BChase@nfpa.org SUBJECT: AGENDA NFPA 69 First Draft Meeting (Fall 2013) May 2-3, 2012, at NFPA Headquarters, Quincy, MA 1. Call to Order May 2, 8:00am 2. Introductions and Attendance 3. Review Agenda 4. NFPA Staff Liaison Presentation and Review of the New Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards 5. Chairman Comments 6. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes (March 27-29, 2012, North Charleston, SC) 7. First Draft of NFPA 69, 2014 Edition a. Review Public Input b. Generate First Revisions 8. Other Business a. Discuss possible improvements to the entrainment calculation, as accepted in Proposal (Log #18) in the 2012 Report on Proposals for NFPA Next Meeting 10. Adjourn Meeting Please submit requests for additional agenda items to the chair at least seven days prior to the meeting, and notify the chair and staff liaison as soon as possible if you plan to introduce any committee comments at the meeting. All NFPA Technical Committee meetings are open to the public. Please contact me for information on attending a meeting as a guest. Read NFPA's Regulations Governing Committee Projects (Section ) for further information. Additional Meeting Information: See the Meeting Notice on the Document Information Page ( for meeting location details. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Elena Carroll, Project Administrator at or by ecarroll@nfpa.org. C. Standards Administration Page 1 of 1

2 Address List No Phone Explosion Protection Systems 04/19/2012 Barry D. Chase Samuel A. Rodgers Chair Honeywell, Inc Woods Edge Road Colonial Heights, VA U 4/1/1996 Luke S. Morrison Secretary Professional Loss Control Inc. PO Box 162 Fredericton, NB E3B 4Y9 Canada : Martin P. Clouthier SE 1/1/1987 Michael Davies PROTEGO Industriestrasse ll Braunschweig, D Germany M 1/14/2005 Todd A. Dillon XL Global Asset Protection Services 1620 Winton Avenue Lakewood, OH : Paul F. Hart I 7/16/2003 Alexi I. Dimopoulos ExxonMobil Corporation EMRE, Safety, Risk and Fire Protection 3225 Gallows Road, Room 3A0233 Fairfax, VA American Petroleum Institute U 4/15/2004 Henry L. Febo, Jr. FM Global Engineering Standards 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike PO Box 9102 Norwood, MA : John A. LeBlanc I 8/5/2009 Robert J. Feldkamp Nordson Corporation 300 Nordson Drive Amherst, OH : Edward L. Jones M 7/29/2005 Larry D. Floyd BASF/Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation 1379 Ciba Road McIntosh, AL U 7/29/2005 Joseph P. Gillis 29 Hyder Street Westboro, MA SE 10/1/1980 John E. Going Fike Corporation 704 South 10th Street Blue Springs, MO : Jef Snoeys M 9/30/2004 Stanley S. Grossel Process Safety & Design Consultant 4 Marble Court, Unit 9 Clifton, NJ SE 1/1/1983 Dan A. Guaricci ATEX Explosion Protection, L.P Waverly Barn Road, Suite 121 Davenport, FL M 7/1/1991 Michael D. Hard Hard Fire Suppression Systems, Inc Westerville Road, Suite A Columbus, OH Fire Suppression Systems Association : Kirk W. Humbrecht IM 10/1/1994 David D. Herrmann E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company 1007 Market Street, (D12016) Wilmington, DE : Thomas C. Scherpa U 10/10/1997 1

3 Address List No Phone Explosion Protection Systems 04/19/2012 Barry D. Chase Alfonso F. Ibarreta Exponent, Inc. 9 Strathmore Road Natick, MA : Timothy J. Myers SE 3/4/2009 David C. Kirby Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc Clearview Heights Charleston, WV : James Kelly Thomas SE 1/1/1983 Steven A. McCoy Corn Products/National Starch PO Box 1084 Indianapolis, IN NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section U 10/10/1997 James O. Paavola DTE Energy/Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Ave., Room 421 GO Detroit, MI U 1/10/2002 Stefan Penno Rembe GmbH Safety & Control Gallbergweg 21 Brilon NRW, D Germany : Gerd Ph. Mayer M 11/2/2006 Mitchel L. Rooker BS&B Safety Systems, LLC PO Box Tulsa, OK : Geof Brazier M 10/10/1997 Joseph A. Senecal UTC/Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. 400 Main Street Ashland, MA : Randal R. Davis M 1/1/1989 Cleveland B. Skinker Bechtel Power Corporation 5275 Westview Drive Frederick, MD SE 3/4/2009 Bill Stevenson CV Technology, Inc Mercantile Court Jupiter, FL : Jason Krbec M 7/22/1999 David R. Stottmann ST Storage PO Box 996 Parsons, KS : Keith McGuire M 11/2/2006 Stephen M. Stuart Hylant Group 2401 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 400 Troy, MI I 7/24/1998 Erdem A. Ural Loss Prevention Science & Technologies, Inc. 810 Washington Street, Suite 4 Stoughton, MA SE 1/16/1998 Robert G. Zalosh Firexplo 20 Rockland Street Wellesley, MA SE 1/1/1991 Eric R. Johnson Voting Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC Savannah River Site Bldg H, Room 10 Aiken, SC Voting Alt. to Savannah River Nuclear Rep. U 10/18/2011 2

4 Address List No Phone Explosion Protection Systems 04/19/2012 Barry D. Chase Geof Brazier BS&B Safety Systems, LLC 7455 East 46th Street Tulsa, OK : Mitchel L. Rooker M 3/21/2006 Martin P. Clouthier Professional Loss Control Inc. PO Box 162 Fredericton, NS E3B 4Y9 Canada : Luke S. Morrison SE 10/27/2005 Randal R. Davis UTC/Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. 400 Main Street Ashland, MA : Joseph A. Senecal M 7/14/2004 Paul F. Hart XL Global Asset Protection Services Martin Avenue Homewood, IL : Todd A. Dillon I 4/4/1997 Kirk W. Humbrecht Phoenix Fire Systems, Inc. 744 West Nebraska Street Frankfort, IL Fire Suppression Systems Association : Michael D. Hard IM 7/19/2002 Edward L. Jones Nordson Corporation 300 Nordson Drive, M/S 44 Amherst, OH : Robert J. Feldkamp M 7/29/2005 Jason Krbec CV Technology, Inc Mercantile Court Jupiter, FL : Bill Stevenson M 10/18/2011 John A. LeBlanc FM Global 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike PO Box 9102 Norwood, MA : Henry L. Febo, Jr. I 8/5/2009 Gerd Ph. Mayer Rembe, Inc Beam Road, Suite K Charlotte, NC : Stefan Penno M 03/05/2012 Keith McGuire CST Storage PO Box 996 Parsons, KS : David R. Stottmann M 11/2/2006 Timothy J. Myers Exponent, Inc. 9 Strathmore Road Natick, MA : Alfonso F. Ibarreta SE 10/20/2010 Thomas C. Scherpa The DuPont Company, Inc. 71 Valley Road Sullivan, NH : David D. Herrmann U 8/9/2011 Jef Snoeys Fike Corporation Toekomstlaan 52 Herentals, B-2200 Belgium : John E. Going M 3/21/2006 James Kelly Thomas Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc Oakwell Court, Suite 100 San Antonio, TX : David C. Kirby SE 8/9/2011 3

5 Address List No Phone Explosion Protection Systems 04/19/2012 Barry D. Chase Franz Alfert Nonvoting Member Inburex Consulting August-Thyssen-Str.1 Hamm, D Germany SE 7/29/2005 Laurence G. Britton Nonvoting Member Process Safety Consultant 848 Sherwood Road Charleston, WV SE 1/1/1983 Vladimir Molkov SE 10/6/2000 Nonvoting Member University of Ulster FireSERT Institute (Block 27) Newtonwnabbey, BT37 0QB Northern Ireland, UK Harry Verakis Nonvoting Member US Department of Labor Mine Safety & Health Administration Approval & Certification Center Industrial Park Road, Box 251 Triadelphia, WV E 1/1/1977 Richard F. Schwab Member Emeritus 79 Aspen Drive Basking Ridge, NJ SE 1/1/1991 Barry D. Chase Staff Liaison National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA /1/2012 4

6 69- Log #10 Kimberly A. Gruner, Fike Corporation To meet a minimum level of reliability, explosion prevention and control systems designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of this standard shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Design system verification through testing (2) Third-party inspection and approval of protection systems by an internationally recognized testing laboratory for the function intended, as specified in Chapters 7 through 14. (3) Management of change (4) Regular testing and maintenance (5) Commissioning Acceptance tests (6) Design documentation Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 as Now that NFPA 3 is released, confusion could occur regarding the actual testing required by the use of the term commissioning. Commissioning is a much more involved testing that would involve all active and passive interfaces from the fire protection system, emergency power, explosion prevention, HVAC, etc. Many NFPA documents (NFPA 1, NFPA 13, NFPA 70, NFPA 72, etc. - See attached list of instances) reference an Acceptance Test for validation of the specific equipment, which is defined. Each specific trade or equipment has a level of acceptance testing performed, while the entire facility can be commissioned to ensure that the systems interact together to meet the design objectives. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. 69- Log #2 Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee When desired by the owner or operator, or required by the authority having jurisdiction, Insurance underwriter or when required by other standards, explosion prevention shall be achieved by one or more of the following methods as required to mitigate the damage, prevent the transport of the ignition source, and propagate the deflagration. All earlier sections are written in absolute requirements i.e. use of the word shall. Owners and operators do not meet or exceed standards unless required by the AHJ, Insurance underwriter or other code or standard. 1

7 69- Log #3 Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee It shall be permitted to eliminate deflagration isolation protection for interconnected enclosures based on a documented risk analysis prepared by a registered design professional and acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, unless isolation protection is specifically required for such enclosure by other standards. The person(s) performing risk analysis must take into account all factors related to use, process and structure. This is not a typical AHJ review item and this change puts the responsibility on the responsible party to demonstrate such. The language as indicated is also consistent with the identified requirements for performance submittals in NFPA Log #4 Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee The provisions of this standard reflect a consensus of what is necessary to provide an acceptable degree of protection from the hazards addressed in this standard at the time the standard was issued. Delete language as indicated. The deleted text allows the reader to clearly understand this section without changing or detracting from what was written. The NFPA operates through a consensus process. The language as written adds nothing to the section. 69- Log #5 Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Technical documentation shall be prepared by a registered design professional and submitted to the authority having jurisdiction to demonstrate equivalency. Add language as indicated. To be consistent with the requirements in NFPA Qualifications. The performance-based design shall be prepared by a registered design professional. 69- Log #6 Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Add new text as follows: The system, method, or device shall be approved for the intended purpose by the authority having jurisdiction. Create a new which reads: The authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to require an approved, independent third party to review the proposed design, system or method and provide an evaluation of the design to the authority having jurisdiction. Allows AHJs the stated ability to seek third party review. Language extracted from NFPA

8 69- Log #21 Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM D 257, ASTM D 3574, ASTM E 2079, Standards Date Update. 69- Log #7 Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee The performance-based design shall be prepared by a person with qualifications acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction registered design professional and person with qualifications acceptable to the AHJ. Qualifications for submittal of performance based design needs to be consistent with the life Safety Code Chapter 5, Qualifications. The performance-based design shall be prepared by a registered design professional. 69- Log #8 Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Prevention and control systems shall be regularly annually inspected and maintained to confirm the ability to perform as designed. The owner shall annually certify compliance with the conditions and limitations of the design by submitting a warrant of fitness acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. The warrant of fitness shall attest that the building features, systems, and use have been inspected and confirmed to remain consistent with design specifications outlined in the documentation required and that such features, systems, and use continue to satisfy the goals and objectives. Maintain consistency with the Life Safety Code Where compliance with this Code is effected by means of a performance-based design, the owner shall annually certify compliance with the conditions and limitations of the design by submitting a warrant of fitness acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. The warrant of fitness shall attest that the building features, systems, and use have been inspected and confirmed to remain consistent with design specifications outlined in the documentation required by Section 5.8 and that such features, systems, and use continue to satisfy the goals and objectives specified in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. (See Chapter 5.) 5.1.7* Maintenance of Design Features. The design features required for the building to continue to meet the performance goals and objectives of this Code shall be maintained for the life of the building. Such performance goals and objectives shall include complying with all documented assumptions and design specifications. Any variations shall require the approval of the authority having jurisdiction prior to the actual change. (See also ) 3

9 69- Log #9 Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee Plans and system specifications prepared by the design professional, and manufacturer s recommendations for testing and maintenance shall contain information that enables the authority having jurisdiction to evaluate the explosion hazard and the effectiveness of the system. Maintains consistency with performance measures in Life Safety Code, Use. The design professional shall use the assessment methods to demonstrate that the proposed design will achieve the goals and objectives, as measured by the performance criteria in light of the safety margins and uncertainty analysis, for each scenario, given the assumptions. 69- Log #11 Kimberly A. Gruner, Fike Corporation At commissioning Acceptance, the system manufacturer and the owner or operator shall document that the installation is in accordance with the design and that the system is armed and functional. Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 Recommended Practice on Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems as Now that NFPA 3 is released, confusion could occur regarding the actual testing required by the use of the term commissioning. Commissioning is a much more involved testing that would involve all active and passive interfaces from the fire protection system, emergency power, explosion prevention, HVAC, etc. Many NFPA documents (1 Fire Code, 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 70 National Electrical Code, 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, etc. - See attached list of instances) reference an Acceptance Test for validation of the specific equipment, which is defined. Each specific trade or equipment has a level of acceptance testing performed, while the entire facility can be commissioned to ensure that the systems interact together to meet the design objectives. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. 4

10 69- Log #12 Kimberly A. Gruner, Fike Corporation At commissioning acceptance, the system manufacturer and the owner or operator shall document that the installation is in accordance with the design and that the system is armed and functional. Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 Recommended Practice on Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems as Now that NFPA 3 is released, confusion could occur regarding the actual testing required by the use of the term commissioning. Commissioning is a much more involved testing that would involve all active and passive interfaces from the fire protection system, emergency power, explosion prevention, HVAC, etc. Many NFPA documents (1 Fire Code, 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 70 National Electrical Code, 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, etc. - See attached list of instances) reference an Acceptance Test for validation of the specific equipment, which is defined. Each specific trade or equipment has a level of acceptance testing performed, while the entire facility can be commissioned to ensure that the systems interact together to meet the design objectives. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. 5

11 69- Log #13 Kimberly A. Gruner, Fike Corporation At commissioning acceptance, the system manufacturer and the owner or operator shall document that the installation is in accordance with the design and the system was armed and functional. Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 Recommended Practice on Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems as Now that NFPA 3 is released, confusion could occur regarding the actual testing required by the use of the term commissioning. Commissioning is a much more involved testing that would involve all active and passive interfaces from the fire protection system, emergency power, explosion prevention, HVAC, etc. Many NFPA documents (1 Fire Code, 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 70 National Electrical Code, 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, etc. - See attached list of instances) reference an Acceptance Test for validation of the specific equipment, which is defined. Each specific trade or equipment has a level of acceptance testing performed, while the entire facility can be commissioned to ensure that the systems interact together to meet the design objectives. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. 69- Log #1 D. Gopalkrishna Murti, Kuwait Oil Company Equation 13.1 ***Insert Equation 13.1 (old)*** should read ***Insert Equation 13.1 (new)*** Equation 13.2 ***Insert Equation 13.2 (old)*** should read ***Insert Equation 13.2 (new)*** The equations use a factor of safety of 2/3 (66.67%) for calculating F u (Ratio of ultimate stress to allowable stress) and F y (Ratio of Yield Stress to Allowable Stress). I believe, these are conservative values for an internal explosion scenario and result in extra thickness for enclosures. My suggestions are: Equation 1: The factor for F u may be raised to 0.9 (90%) The ultimate tensile stress value given in ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code are guaranteed minimum values and we can go up to 90% of UTS. Equation 2: The factor may be raised to 1.0 (100%). By using a factor of safety of 2/3, the allowable rise in stress level due to internal explosion is Zero or almost near Zero for most popular materials of construction. Using a multiplier of 2/3 far exceeds the stated intention. Example 1: Carbon steel Plate SA-516 Gr. 55 (K01500), Yield Stress = psig, Allow. Stress = psig (Temp. <= 100 F). Using 2/3 factor of safety, the allowed stress under internal explosion = psig, same as Allowable Design Stress of psig. Example 2: Carbon steel Plate SA-516 Br. 60 (K02100), Yield Stress = psig. Allow. Stress = psig (Temp. <= 100 F). Using 2/3 factor of safety, the allowed stress = psig, which is close to Allowable Design Stress of psig. 6

12 .. NFPA 69 Log 1 Equation 13.1 (old) ROP

13 ... NFPA 69 Log 1 Equation 13.1 (new) ROP

14 .. NFPA 69 Log 1 Equation 13.2 (old) ROP

15 .. NFPA 69 Log 1 Equation 13.2 (new) ROP

16 69- Log #14 Kimberly A. Gruner, Fike Corporation Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 Recommended Practice on Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems as Now that NFPA 3 is released, confusion could occur regarding the actual testing required by the use of the term commissioning. Commissioning is a much more involved testing that would involve all active and passive interfaces from the fire protection system, emergency power, explosion prevention, HVAC, etc. Many NFPA documents (1 Fire Code, 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 70 National Electrical Code, 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, etc. - See attached list of instances) reference an Acceptance Test for validation of the specific equipment, which is defined. Each specific trade or equipment has a level of acceptance testing performed, while the entire facility can be commissioned to ensure that the systems interact together to meet the design objectives. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. 7

17 69- Log #17 Kimberly A. Gruner, Fike Corporation Prior to use, factory authorized personnel shall check out the explosion prevention system, including the following steps, as applicable: (1) Conduct a walkthrough and general visual inspection of correct location, size, type, and mounting of all system components. (2) Physically inspect system components, including mechanical and electrical component integrity. (3) Conduct control unit functional testing. (4) Make point-to-point wiring checks of all circuits. (5) Ensure continuity and condition of all field wiring. (6) Inspect sensing pathway and calibrate initiating devices. (7) Verify correct installation of system components including sensing devices, fast-acting valves, suppressant storage containers, nozzles, spreader hoses, protective blowoff caps, plugs, and stoppers. (8) Verify system sequence of operations by simulated activation to verify system inputs and outputs. (9) Conduct automatic fast-acting valve stroke test. (10) Conduct prevalidation testing, verify system interlocks, and shutdown circuits. (11) Identify and fix discrepancies before arming and handing off to user or operator. (12) Recalibrate detection sensing devices to final set points. (13) Complete record of system commissioning inspection acceptance tests, including hardware serial numbers, detector pressure calibrations, and suppressor and valve actuator charging pressures (psig), as appropriate. (14) Conduct end user training as required in Section (15) Conduct final validation testing for authority having jurisdiction. (16) Arm the explosion prevention system. Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 Recommended Practice on Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems as Now that NFPA 3 is released, confusion could occur regarding the actual testing required by the use of the term commissioning. Commissioning is a much more involved testing that would involve all active and passive interfaces from the fire protection system, emergency power, explosion prevention, HVAC, etc. Many NFPA documents (1 Fire Code, 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 70 National Electrical Code, 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, etc. - See attached list of instances) reference an Acceptance Test for validation of the specific equipment, which is defined. Each specific trade or equipment has a level of acceptance testing performed, while the entire facility can be commissioned to ensure that the systems interact together to meet the design objectives. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. 8

18 69- Log #19 Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International A Combustible dust. Most commercial test laboratories offer a low cost screening ( go or no go ) test to establish whether a dust sample is combustible or not. These test methods commonly use the test apparatuses described in ASTM E 1226,, or ASTM E 1491,. These tests can often be performed at the process conditions. The standard presently describing a test method for explosibility of dust clouds is ASTM E1226, now called (in its most recent edition (2010): ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. 69- Log #18 Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International Materials other than oxygen can act as oxidants. The LOC depends upon the temperature, pressure, and fuel concentration as well as the type of diluent. Preliminary results of the ASTM E 2079,, round robin tests for gases and vapors revealed that the LOC data that were obtained using different test methods and that are listed in a majority of reference publications are nonconservative. The old Bureau of Mines data were obtained mostly in a 50 mm diameter flammability tube. This diameter might be too small to mitigate the flame-quenching influence, thereby impeding accurate determination of the LOC of most fuels. The 4 L minimum volume specified in ASTM E 2079 would correspond to a diameter of at least 200 mm (7.9 in.). As a result, some LOC values determined using this standard are approximately 1 percent by volume oxygen lower than the previous values measured in the flammability tube, and a few are even up to 2 percent by volume lower. The lower LOC values obtained in larger chambers are more appropriate for use in fire and explosion hazard assessment studies. A data comparison can be found in Table A Generally, LOC decreases as the pressure or temperature prior to ignition increases. Best practice is to test the LOC at the appropriate temperature and pressure. Deviations from the test fuel composition and temperature might possibly be accounted for by using appropriate techniques. For dusts, an appropriate test apparatus should be used in conjunction with a strong ignition source, such as described in ASTM E1226,, the draft of standard ASTM E 27,, or in CEN EN , Part 4. ASTM E27 was a standard between 1964 and 1986, when it was withdrawn. Its title was completely different from the title given in NFPA 69. It was as follows: ASTM - 64 (1981) Method for Spectrographic Analysis of Zinc and Zinc Alloys by the Solution Residue Technique (Withdrawn 1986) The standard presently describing a test method for explosibility of dust clouds is ASTM E1226, now called (in its most recent edition (2010): ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. The reference to ASTM E27 should be replaced by a reference to ASTM E

19 69- Log #15 Kimberly A. Gruner, Fike Corporation A In addition to local visual and audible trouble signal, the control panel can provide an electrical output meansto produce this function externally. When external means is utilized, this should be implemented full time and confirmed at system commissioning acceptance. Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 Recommended Practice on Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems as Now that NFPA 3 is released, confusion could occur regarding the actual testing required by the use of the term commissioning. Commissioning is a much more involved testing that would involve all active and passive interfaces from the fire protection system, emergency power, explosion prevention, HVAC, etc. Many NFPA documents (1 Fire Code, 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 70 National Electrical Code, 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, etc. - See attached list of instances) reference an Acceptance Test for validation of the specific equipment, which is defined. Each specific trade or equipment has a level of acceptance testing performed, while the entire facility can be commissioned to ensure that the systems interact together to meet the design objectives. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. 10

20 69- Log #16 Kimberly A. Gruner, Fike Corporation A In addition to local visual and audible trouble signal, the control panel can provide an electrical output means to produce this function externally. When external means is utilized, it should be implemented full time and confirmed at system commissioning acceptance. Commissioning is defined in newly released NFPA 3 Recommended Practice on Commissioning and Integrated Testing of Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems as Now that NFPA 3 is released, confusion could occur regarding the actual testing required by the use of the term commissioning. Commissioning is a much more involved testing that would involve all active and passive interfaces from the fire protection system, emergency power, explosion prevention, HVAC, etc. Many NFPA documents (1 Fire Code, 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 70 National Electrical Code, 72 National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code, etc. - See attached list of instances) reference an Acceptance Test for validation of the specific equipment, which is defined. Each specific trade or equipment has a level of acceptance testing performed, while the entire facility can be commissioned to ensure that the systems interact together to meet the design objectives. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. 69- Log #20 Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH International ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM E 27, unpublished draft. ASTM E 1226,, ASTM E 1491,, ASTM E 1515,, ASTM E 2019,, 2003 (2007). ASTM E 2021,, ASTM E 2079,, ASTM E27 was a standard between 1964 and 1986, when it was withdrawn. Its title was completely different from the title given in NFPA 69. It was as follows: ASTM - 64 (1981) Method for Spectrographic Analysis of Zinc and Zinc Alloys by the Solution Residue Technique (Withdrawn 1986) The standard presently describing a test method for explosibility of dust clouds is ASTM E1226, now called (in its most recent edition (2010): ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. The reference to ASTM E27 should be replaced by a reference to ASTM E