Correlating Committee on Combustible Dusts (CMD-AAC)

Transcription

1 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: Correlating Committee on Combustible Dusts (CMD-AAC) Drury Plaza Hotel San Antonio Riverwalk 105 South St Mary s Street San Antonio, TX November 29, 2016 December 2, Chair s welcome, call to order, and opening remarks at 8:00 a.m. CDT 2. Self-introduction of Committee Members and Guests 3. Approval of Minutes from the October 2015 NFPA 654, 664 and 61 Second Draft meeting on New Orleans, LA (see Attachment A) 4. Staff liaison updates (Committee Roster, Schedule and Correlating Committee duties and responsibilities) (see Attachment B) 5. NFPA 652 First Draft Reports a. Review and act on Public Inputs and Revisions b. Review First Draft TC Final Ballot Results c. Develop First Correlating Revisions (as appropriate) see attached sections on Correlating Committees from Regulations Governing Committee Projects 6. New Business 7. Set dates for upcoming meetings 8. Meeting will adjourn on Friday, December 2, 2016 at noon Page 1

2 CORRELATING COMMITTEE ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS Minutes of Meeting NFPA 654, 664, and 61 Second Draft Meeting New Orleans, LA October 27-29, 2015 Member Attending Kevin Kreitman chair Yes Principal Chris Aiken Yes Principal Matthew Bujewski Yes Principal John Cholin No Principal Scott Davis No Principal Henry Febo Yes Principal Walter Frank Yes Principal Robert Gombar Yes Principal Donald Hayden No Principal Edward LaPine Yes Principal Art Mattos Yes Principal Steve McAlister No Principal Jack Osborn Yes Principal Bill Stevenson No Principal Jérôme Taveau No Principal Craig Froehling Yes Alternate Jason Krbec Yes by phone Alternate John LeBlanc No Alternate Adam Morrison No Alternate Matthew Chibbaro No Nonvoting Member Mark Drake Yes Nonvoting Member Paul Hart No Nonvoting Member Tim Myers Yes Nonvoting Member Jason Reason Yes Nonvoting Member Mark Runyon No Nonvoting Member William Hamilton No Alt. to Nonvoting Member Susan Bershad Yes NFPA staff 1.0 The meeting was called to order at 8 am by Kevin Kreitman, chair. The attendees, guests, and those attending via the web conference made self-introductions. Page 2

3 2.0 NFPA staff reviewed the remaining schedule for the A2016 cycle and the committee membership. There are currently 15 voting principals on the correlating committee. 3.0 The committee reviewed and approved the minutes of the First Draft Meeting for NFPA 655 on June 10 th, The committee reviewed the 654, 664, and 61 second drafts as balloted by each respective technical committee. They reviewed the responses to first correlating notes, the public comments that were rejected, negative comments from the second draft ballots, and the second revisions approved by the technical committees. 5.0 The committee created 14 second correlating revisions for 61, 3 second correlating revisions for 654 and one second correlating revision for In addition to second correlating revisions, the committee developed correlating committee input for the next revision cycle for all three A2016 documents as well as for 652, which is currently open for public input. These are summarized below. NFPA 652: #1 - The Correlating Committee requests that the 652 TC change the implementation period for performing DHAs in Chapter 7 from 3 years to five years. This request is based on input from the other TCs (61, 664, and 654) that a five year period is more appropriate and realistic. In addition, the 652, 654, and 664 TCs should consider changing original cost to replacement cost (as in NFPA 61). In many cases, original cost data is not available. The other committees should also consider changing material to significant when describing change (again similar to 61) for consistency between the documents. #2 Review that material in Annex for consistency in the next revision cycle. It appears that the annex was not updated at second draft #3 - Review the definition of fire hazard (extracted into the other documents from NFPA 652) in light of the comments received on NFPA 654 regarding the term, based on applicable data used in the definition. #4 - Definition of Enclosureless AMS Review SR -8 in 664 and the change from medium to media. Consider making the same change in the next revision of 652. NFPA 61: #1 Reconsider the definition of Ingredient Transport System and regarding the requirements for ingredient transport systems. Consider narrowing the definition to limit the intent of this section to include only those ingredients that are transported to be used in the process. Consider a limit on the size or the capacity of the system. Consider limits on the physical properties of the ingredient being transferred. #2 Review the annex material for Management of Change (section 9.9) and consider moving the material into the main text of the chapter for correlation with 652. #3 - Consider moving the last sentence of the material in SR-47 to the main text as a requirement. Page 3

4 #4 - SR-45: Consider providing annex material for no. (7) to provide material as to how to determine if you have met this requirement. Consider a reference to the housekeeping requirements. NFPA 654 #1 The correlating committee wants to remind the 654 technical committee of the first revision correlating notes that they postponed to the next revision cycle (layout of the document to align with 652 and a review of Annex B and C. #2 Section 9.3 on static electricity The committee should review retroactivity requirements as they apply to this section. Review whether or not the material on RIBCs (9.3.5) and and be included. Review negative comment to SR-31 regarding Larry Britton s comments. Review belt requirements in light of the changes that were made to 61 regarding the commercial availability of the material. NFPA #1 - Definition of Deflagrable Wood Dust The NFPA 664 TC should reconsider the particle size criteria in this definition in light of the negative comments received on the ballot as well as the material presented at the first draft meeting. 664 is the only combustible dust standard with a moisture criteria and a particle size criteria. The correlating committee strongly recommends that the TC resolve these issues during the next revision cycle. If the TC intends to keep these criteria, they should provide quantitative technical data supporting the suitability of the criteria. #2 -SR-21 The technical committee should review SR-21 in light of the negative comments received. Note that the 654 TC has established a task group to review similar public comments received on the issue of dust thickness with the goal of creating a TIA or material for the next revision cycle. #3 - SR-16 The technical committee should review this SR and consider adding material to clarify requirements. The CC agrees that there are wood processes that operate at temperatures that exceed 360 F. There may need to be further details as to when and for what processes a higher temperature limit is appropriate. Review section 9.7 of 654 (2013) and the annex for an example regarding temperature limits. #4 The technical committee should review annex material that refers to the old exemption language during the next revision cycle and update as appropriate. Also look at section and determine an appropriate heading for the section. NFPA 61, 654, and 664 All three TCs should consider adding the provision in of NFPA 652 regarding conflicts with 652. Note that this will need to be reworded to reflect the fact that the provision is in a commodity specific standard, not 652. All dust documents All of the technical committees should review the change being made to NFPA 70 and NFPA 499 regarding combustible dusts. Page 4

5 7.0 Tim Myers, chair of the NFPA 61 technical committee, has submitted a public comment to the NEC on the definition of combustible dust. The correlating committee supports this public comment and will support a NITMAM if the public comment is rejected. 8.0 The next meeting of the Correlating Committee will be a conference call to review the second draft of 655, which is a F2016 document. Review of the first draft of the two dust documents in the A2018 revision cycle (652 and 484) will be scheduled for October/November Note that since 484 is now an A2018 document, there will not be a correlating committee meeting in January of Page 5

6 Address List No Phone Combustible Dusts 10/24/2016 Susan Bershad CMD-AAC Kevin Kreitman Chair Albany Fire Department 4105 Moose Run Drive SW Albany, OR E 10/18/2011 CMD-AAC Chris Aiken Principal Cargill, Inc McGinty Road West, MS 63 Wayzata, MN Alternate: Craig Froehling U 07/29/2013 CMD-AAC Matthew J. Bujewski Principal MJB Risk Consulting 9650 Mill Hill Lane St. Louis, MO SE 03/07/2013 CMD-AAC John M. Cholin Principal J. M. Cholin Consultants Inc. 101 Roosevelt Drive Oakland, NJ SE 10/18/2011 CMD-AAC Gregory F. Creswell Principal Cambridge-Lee Industries 86 Tube Drive Reading, PA M 04/05/2016 CMD-AAC Scott G. Davis Principal GexCon US 4833 Rugby Avenue, Suite 100 Bethesda, MD SE 03/07/2013 CMD-AAC Henry L. Febo, Jr. Principal 41 Holly Lane Holliston, MA Alternate: John A. LeBlanc I 10/18/2011 CMD-AAC Walter L. Frank Principal Frank Risk Solutions, Inc Shallcross Avenue Wilmington, DE SE 10/23/2013 CMD-AAC Robert C. Gombar Principal Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc. 707 Hardwood Lane Annapolis, MD US Beet Sugar Association U 04/08/2015 CMD-AAC Arthur P. Mattos, Jr. Principal TUV SUD America Inc./Global Risk Consultants 3216 Tatting Road Matthews, NC SE 03/03/2014 CMD-AAC Steve McAlister Principal Michelin North America 1101 Westwood Drive Piedmont, SC U 07/29/2013 CMD-AAC Jack E. Osborn Principal Airdusco, Inc Mendenhall Road South Memphis, TN M 10/18/2011 CMD-AAC Bill Stevenson Principal CV Technology, Inc Mercantile Court Jupiter, FL Alternate: Jason Krbec M 10/18/2011 CMD-AAC Jérôme R. Taveau Principal Fike Corporation 704 SW 10th Street Blue Springs, MO Alternate: Adam Morrison M 07/29/2013 CMD-AAC Page 6 1

7 Address List No Phone Combustible Dusts 10/24/2016 Susan Bershad CMD-AAC Craig Froehling Alternate Cargill, Inc McGinty Road West, MS 63 Wayzata, MN Principal: Chris Aiken U 03/05/2012 CMD-AAC Jason Krbec Alternate CV Technology, Inc Mercantile Court Jupiter, FL Principal: Bill Stevenson M 10/29/2012 CMD-AAC John A. LeBlanc Alternate FM Global 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike PO Box 9102 Norwood, MA Principal: Henry L. Febo, Jr. I 08/17/2015 CMD-AAC Adam Morrison Alternate Fike Corporation 704 SW 10th Street Blue Springs, MO Principal: Jérôme R. Taveau M 03/03/2014 CMD-AAC Mark W. Drake Nonvoting Member Liberty Mutual West 139th Street Olathe, KS TC on Combustible Metals and Metal Dusts I 10/18/2011 CMD-AAC William R. Hamilton Nonvoting Member US Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room N3609 Washington, DC E 10/18/2011 CMD-AAC Paul F. Hart Nonvoting Member American International Group, Inc. (AIG) Martin Avenue Homewood, IL TC on Fundamentals of Combustible Dusts I 08/09/2011 CMD-AAC Timothy J. Myers Nonvoting Member Exponent, Inc. 9 Strathmore Road Natick, MA TC on Agricultural Dusts SE 10/18/2011 CMD-AAC Jason P. Reason SE 10/18/2011 Nonvoting Member CMD-AAC Lewellyn Technology 2518 Thorium Drive, Apt 3 Greenwood, IN TC on Wood and Cellulosic Materials Processing Mark L. Runyon Nonvoting Member Marsh Risk Consulting 111 SW Columbia, Suite 500 Portland, OR TC on Handling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, and Gases I 07/29/2013 CMD-AAC Susan Bershad Staff Liaison National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA /16/2014 CMD-AAC Page 7 2

8 Combustible Dusts Correlating Committee Review Guidelines First Revision - Review of material Review of Public inputs which have been resolved with no First Revisions (3.4.3 g) Review of First Revisions which have negative votes (3.4.3 g) Review of First Revisions which may conflict within or between NFPA Standards (3.4.3 g) Review of First Revisions which may result in conflicts between overlapping functions in TC Scopes (3.4.3 g) Review of Committee Inputs (3.4.3 g, h) Committee members inputs/questions not previously addressed (3.4.3 g) Review First Draft document layout for compliance with Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents, and if need for establishing supplemental operating procedures (3.4.3 f, g, h) Are there any items the CC has identified that should result in a Correlating Input to provide guidance to the Technical Committees (4.3.3; ) Second Revision - Review of material Review of CC notes on First Revision (3.4.3 g) Review of Public Comments which are rejected (3.4.3 g) Review of Second Revisions which have negative votes (3.4.3 g) Review of Second Revisions which may conflict within or between NFPA Standards (3.4.3 g) Review of Second Revisions which may result in conflicts between overlapping functions in TC Scopes (3.4.3 g) Review of Second Revisions which have been identified by CC member (3.4.3 g) Review Second Draft document layout for compliance with Manual of Style for NFPA Manual of Style, and review if need exists for establishing supplemental operating procedures (3.4.3 f, g, h) Are there any items the CC has identified that should result in a Correlating Input to provide guidance to the Technical Committees (4.3.3; ) Is there a potential for a CC vote that would result in return of the document to the TC for further study versus forwarding the Standard to the NFPA Technical Meeting ( b) Page 8

9 Following are the Scopes for Correlating Committee and Dust Committees Combustible Dusts (CMD-AAC) Committee Scope This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the hazard identification, prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems used in manufacturing, processing, recycling, handling, conveying, or storing combustible particulate solids, combustible metals, or hybrid mixtures. AGRICULTURAL DUSTS (CMD-AGR) 61 Committee Scope This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fire and explosions resulting from dusts produced by the processing, handling, and storage of grain, starch, food, animal feed, flour, and other agricultural products. The Technical Committee shall also be responsible for requirements relating to the protection of life and property from fire and explosion hazards at agricultural and food products facilities. Committee Responsibility Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities (NFPA 61) Document Scope 1.1 Scope * This standard shall apply to all of the following: (1) All facilities that receive, handle, process, dry, blend, use, mill, package, store, or ship dry agricultural bulk materials, their by-products, or dusts that include grains, oilseeds, agricultural seeds, legumes, sugar, flour, spices, feeds, and other related materials. (2) All facilities designed for manufacturing and handling starch, including drying, grinding, conveying, processing, packaging, and storing dry or modified starch, and dry products and dusts generated from these processes. (3) Those seed preparation and meal-handling systems of oilseed processing plants not covered by NFPA 36, Standard for Solvent Extraction Plants This standard shall not apply to oilseed extraction plants that are covered by NFPA 36, Standard for Solvent Extraction Plants. A Examples of facilities covered by this standard include, but are not limited to, bakeries, grain elevators, feed mills, flour mills, milling, corn milling (dry and wet), rice milling, dry milk products, mix plants, soybean and other oilseed preparation operations, cereal processing, snack food processing, tortilla plants, chocolate processing, pet food processing, cake mix processing, sugar refining and processing, and seed plants. Page 9

10 Handling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, and Gases (CMD-HAP) 91 Committee Scope This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems processing or conveying flammable or combustible dusts, gases, vapors, and mists. Committee Responsibility Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 91) Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (NFPA 655) Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 654) Document Scope (NFPA 91) This standard provides minimum requirements for the design, construction, installation, operation, testing, and maintenance of exhaust systems for air conveying of vapors, gases, mists, and noncombustible particulate solids except as modified or amplified by other applicable NFPA standards This standard does not cover exhaust systems for conveying combustible particulate solids that are covered in other NFPA standards (see A.1.1). COMBUSTIBLE METALS (CMD-CMM) 484 Committee Scope This committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on safeguards against fire and explosion in the manufacturing, processing, handling, and storage of combustible metals, powders, and dusts. Committee Responsibility Standard for Combustible Metals (NFPA 484) Document Scope 1.1* Scope. This standard shall apply to the production, processing, finishing, handling, recycling, storage, and use of all metals and alloys that are in a form that is capable of combustion or explosion The procedures in Chapter 4 shall be used to determine whether a metal is in a noncombustible form Combustible Powder or Dust This standard also shall apply to operations where metal or metal alloys are subjected to processing or finishing operations that produce combustible powder or dust Operations where metal or metal alloys are subjected to processing or finishing operations that produce combustible powder or dust shall include, but shall not be limited to, machining, sawing, grinding, buffing, and polishing. Page 10

11 1.1.3* Metals, metal alloy parts, and those materials, including scrap, that exhibit combustion characteristics of aluminum, alkali metals, magnesium, tantalum, titanium, or zirconium shall be subject to the requirements of the metal whose combustion characteristics they most closely match Metals and metal alloy parts and those materials, including scrap, that do not exhibit combustion characteristics of alkali metals, aluminum, magnesium, niobium, tantalum, titanium, or zirconium are subject to the requirements of Chapter * This standard shall not apply to the transportation of metals in any form on public highways and waterways or by air or rail This standard shall not apply to the primary production of aluminum, magnesium, and lithium This standard shall apply to laboratories that handle, use, or store more than 1/2 lb of alkali metals or 2 lb aggregate of other combustible metals, excluding alkali metals All alkali metals and metals that are in a form that is water reactive shall be subject to this standard * If the quantity of a combustible metal listed in Table is exceeded in an occupancy, the requirements of NFPA 484 shall apply. STANDARD ON COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS (CMD-FUN) 652 Committee Scope This Committee shall have primary responsibility for information and documents on the management of fire and explosion hazards from combustible dusts and particulate solids Document Scope This standard shall provide the basic principles of and requirements for identifying and managing the fire and explosion hazards of combustible dusts and particulate solids. Committee Responsibility Standard on Combustible Dusts (NFPA 652) PREVENTION OF FIRE AND DUST EXPLOSIONS FROM THE MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, AND HANDLING OF COMBUSTIBLE PARTICULATE SOLIDS (CMD- HAP) 654 Committee Scope This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems processing or conveying flammable or combustible dusts, gases, vapors, and mists. Page 11

12 Committee Responsibility Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 91) Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (NFPA 655) Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 654) Document Scope (NFPA 654) 1.1.1* This standard shall apply to all phases of the manufacture, processing, blending, pneumatic conveying, repackaging, and handling of combustible particulate solids or hybrid mixtures, regardless of concentration or particle size, where the materials present a fire or explosion hazard This standard shall apply to systems that convey combustible particulate solids that are produced as a result of a principal or incidental activity, regardless of concentration or particle size, where the materials present a fire or explosion hazard This standard shall not apply to materials covered by the following documents, unless specifically referenced by the applicable document: (1) NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol Products (2) NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Products Facilities (3) NFPA 120, Standard for Coal Preparation Plants (4) NFPA 432, Code for the Storage of Organic Peroxide Formulations (5) NFPA 480, Standard for the Storage, Handling, and Processing of Magnesium Solids and Powders (6) NFPA 481, Standard for the Production, Processing, Handling, and Storage of Titanium (7) NFPA 482, Standard for the Production, Processing, Handling, and Storage of Zirconium (8) NFPA 485, Standard for the Storage, Handling, Processing, and Use of Lithium Metal (9) NFPA 495, Explosive Materials Code (10) NFPA 651, Standard for the Machining and Finishing of Aluminum and the Production and Handling of Aluminum Powders (11) NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (12) NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities (13) NFPA 1124, Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, and Storage of Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (14) NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors (15) NFPA 8503, Standard for Pulverized Fuel Systems In the event of a conflict between this standard and a specific occupancy standard, the specific occupancy standard requirements shall apply. Page 12

13 PREVENTION OF SULFUR FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS (CMD-HAP) 655 Committee Scope This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of facilities and systems processing or conveying flammable or combustible dusts, gases, vapors, and mists. Committee Responsibility Standard for Exhaust Systems for Air Conveying of Vapors, Gases, Mists, and Noncombustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 91) Standard for Prevention of Sulfur Fires and Explosions (NFPA 655) Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (NFPA 654) Document Scope (NFPA 655) 1.1 Scope * This standard shall apply to the crushing, grinding, or pulverizing of sulfur and to the handling of sulfur in any form This standard shall not apply to the mining of sulfur, recovery of sulfur from process streams, or transportation of sulfur. PREVENTION OF FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS IN WOOD PROCESSING AND WOODWORKING FACILITIES (CMD-WOO) 664 Committee Scope This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires and explosions in wood processing, wood working facilities and facilities that use other cellulosic materials as a substitute or additive for wood. Committee Responsibility Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities (NFPA 664) Page 13

14 Document Scope 1.1 Scope. This standard shall establish the minimum requirements for fire and explosion prevention and protection of industrial, commercial, or institutional facilities that process wood or manufacture wood products, using wood or other cellulosic fiber as a substitute for or additive to wood fiber, and that process wood, creating wood chips, particles, or dust Woodworking and wood processing facilities shall include, but are not limited to, wood flour plants, industrial woodworking plants, furniture plants, plywood plants, composite board plants, lumber mills, and production-type woodworking shops and carpentry shops that are incidental to facilities that would not otherwise fall within the purview of this standard * This standard shall apply to woodworking operations that occupy areas of more than 465 m2 (5000 ft2) or where dust-producing equipment requires an aggregate dust collection flow rate of more than 2549 m3/hr (1500 ft3/min). Page 14

15 Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards Fall 2013 and all subsequent revision cycles (excerpts pertaining to Correlating Committee and First Draft Actions) Correlating Committee Review and Action on Public Input and the First Draft Review and Permitted Activity. Where Technical Committee activities are managed and coordinated by a Correlating Committee, the Correlating Committee shall review the First Draft as Balloted by the Technical Committees under its responsibility and take appropriate action within the limits of its authority and responsibility as set forth in and 3.4.3, in the form of Correlating Notes and Correlating Revisions Correlating Notes. In reviewing the First Draft, Correlating Committee action shall generally take the form of Correlating Notes that provide clarification and other appropriate information or that direct the responsible Technical Committee(s) to reconsider Public Input, Committee Input, or Correlating Input, conduct further review, or take further action during the preparation of the Second Draft Correlating Notes that pass Ballot shall be published in the First Draft Report and shall be linked to the part of the First Draft to which it relates. Correlating Notes shall be processed in accordance with during the Comment Stage. Correlating Notes shall be supported by at least a simple majority of the Meeting Vote for preliminary approval and shall be subject to final approval through a Ballot (see ) Correlating Revisions. Where early action to promote correlation and consistency of the NFPA Standard is warranted, the Correlating Committee may also revise the First Draft by creating First Correlating Revisions, with associated Correlating Statements that delete or modify First Revisions or other text in the First Draft. To the extent that a First Correlating Revision modifies or deletes a First Revision or any portion of the First Revision, the original text of the First Revision, or affected portion thereof, shall be redesignated as a Committee Input and shall be published in the Input section of the First Draft Report along with a note indicating that the text contained in the Committee Input has been modified or deleted from the First Draft as a result of First Correlating Revision Size and Content of First Correlating Revisions. (a) An individual Correlating Revision can contain multiple changes to the Standard text, provided that these changes are contained within a contiguous portion of the Standard that is no smaller than an individual numbered or lettered section or larger than a chapter. (b) Exception for Global Revisions. Where the Correlating Committee wishes to revise a term or phrase throughout an NFPA Standard so as to achieve editorial consistency or correlation, the Committee may do so through a single Global Revision that applies the change throughout the NFPA Standard First Correlating Revisions shall be supported by at least a simple majority of the Meeting Vote for preliminary approval and shall be subject to final approval through a Ballot (see ) Preparation of First Draft for Balloting When the Correlating Committee has completed its work, NFPA Staff shall prepare the complete First Draft showing individual First Correlating Revisions and their associated Committee Statements for Balloting Prior to the Ballot, the First Draft and individual First Correlating Revisions shall be reviewed by NFPA Staff for editorial consistency and conformance with the Manual of Style for NFPA Technical Committee Documents and any required editorial changes shall be incorporated into the text of the First Draft and individual First Correlating Revisions prior to Balloting If, in the course of editorial review, NFPA Staff make an editorial change to text that is not part of a First Correlating Revision, Staff may, if Correlating Committee review is deemed advisable, designate the affected text as a First Correlating Revision. A notice shall be attached to such a Revision indicating that it was developed by Staff for editorial purposes. Page 15

16 Correlating Committee Ballot on First Draft Balloting on Correlating Notes. (a) Any proposed Correlating Notes on the First Draft shall be submitted to a Ballot of the Correlating Committee. Approval of Correlating Notes shall be established by a three-fourths affirmative vote of the Correlating Committee. Negative votes or abstentions on specific Correlating Notes shall include the reasons for such votes. (b) Only proposed Correlating Notes that are approved by the Correlating Committee Ballot shall become Correlating Notes and be published in the First Draft Report. Correlating Notes that fail Ballot shall not be published. (c) For approved Correlating Notes, a ballot statement as indicated in (d) shall be published with its associated Correlating Notes in the First Draft Report Balloting on First Correlating Revisions. (a) Any proposed First Correlating Revisions taken on the First Draft shall be submitted to a Ballot of the Correlating Committee. Approval of First Correlating Revisions shall be established by a three-fourths affirmative vote of the Correlating Committee. Negative votes or abstentions on specific First Correlating Revisions shall include the reasons for such votes. (b) Only proposed First Correlating Revisions that are approved by the Correlating Committee Ballot shall become First Correlating Revisions and be published in the First Draft Report. First Correlating Revisions that fail Ballot shall not be published. (c) For approved First Correlating Revisions, a ballot statement as indicated in (d) shall be published with their associated First Correlating Revisions in the First Draft Report. (d) Treatment of Global Revisions. Global Revisions are balloted in the same manner as other Revisions, and a Global Revision that passes Ballot is applied, as directed, throughout the Standard, independently of the results of balloting on other Revisions Publication of Public Input and First Draft. Technical Committee Reports shall be published as follows: (a) Form and Content of First Draft Report. At the conclusion of Ballot of the First Draft, a First Draft Report shall be created in a form suitable for online publication that contains all content designated for publication within these Regulations. (b) Where the Technical Committee s activities are managed and coordinated by a Correlating Committee and where the Correlating Committee has no Correlating Notes or First Correlating Revisions, a note shall be placed in the First Draft Report indicating the Correlating Committee reviewed the First Draft and did not add any Correlating Notes or First Correlating Revisions. Page 16

17 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 25-NFPA [ Global Input ] This standard was approved on September 7, 2015, less than one year ago. We believe this standard as written generally provides useful procedures for evaluating the combustibility and explosibility of a dust, and would discourage any substantive changes to the existing language at this time. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Our Statement is not a problem - we are encouraging continuation of the standard as it is written without substantive changes. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Kelley Green Organization: Texas Cotton Ginners' Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 22 10:22:40 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: The technical committee appreciates the support of the submitter. Since the public input does not recommend any specific text changes, it is not actionable by the committee. Page 17

18 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 9-NFPA [ Global Input ] When referring to the housekeeping of dust-layers that have accumulated on surfaces, replace all references to "cleaning surfaces" with "removal of dust from surfaces". Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The use of "cleaning" does not clearly identify that the dust-layer on a surface should not just be dispersed into the air to settle and accumulate elsewhere within the local area. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Joe Aiken Organization: Safety Solutions Ltd. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed May 04 19:46:39 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This issue is addressed by Section , which states, " the methods used for cleaning surfaces shall be selected based on the basis of reducing the potential for creating a combustible dust cloud." See FR -1, which added additional annex material to A to address the concerns of the submitter. Page 18

19 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 29-NFPA [ New Section after ] A.1.3.3(4) Warehousing includes the storage of bags, super-sacks, or other containers of combustible dusts where no processing or handling of the dusts is performed, except for moving closed containers or loaded pallets. If the business activity of the facility or specific areas of the facility are confined to strictly warehousing, then the standard does not apply. However, if the facility is processing or handling the dusts outside of the closed containers (e.g. opening containers and dispensing dusts), then the facility is required to meet all of all of the applicable requirements of this standard. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The term "warehousing" in Section 1.3.3(4) is somewhat confusing and is not clear when storage areas are or are not covered under NFPA 652. Thus, annex material is needed to further explain the committee's intent of which facilities or areas of the facility are not covered under the scope and application of NFPA 652. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jason Reason Organization: Lewellyn Technology Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Jun 24 18:49:15 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: See FR-6. Material was added as annex to (4) Page 19

20 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 62-NFPA [ Section No ] 1.4.1* For the purposes of this standard, the industry- or commodity-specific NFPA standards shall include the following: (1) NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities (2) NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals (3) NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (4) NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfure Sulfur Fires and Explosions (5) NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Fixing typographical error. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Timothy Myers Organization: Exponent Inc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 29 18:40:43 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-2-NFPA Statement: Fixing typographical error. Page 20

21 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 4-NFPA [ Section No ] ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2012a. ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Date updates. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Timothy Earl Organization: GBH International Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jan 05 10:02:43 EST 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-3-NFPA Statement: Date updates. Page 21

22 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 63-NFPA [ New Section after 3.1 ] Explosible Definition 3.3.X Explosible. A finely-divided combustible particulate solid that can propagate a deflagration when dispersed in air or the processspecific oxidizing media as determined in the screening tests described in Section Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The term explosible is used in this and other NFPA combustible dust standards and a uniform definition should be developed. NFPA 68 includes an alternative definition and another definition is being proposed by the NFPA 484 technical committee. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Timothy Myers Organization: Exponent Inc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 29 18:48:03 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-4-NFPA Statement: The term explosible is used in this and other NFPA combustible dust standards and a uniform definition should be developed. The annex refers to NFPA 68. Page 22

23 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 67-NFPA [ New Section after 3.3 ] Extracted from section of NFPA X Point-of-Use Dust Collector. A bin vent type of dust collector with an integral AMD used to create negative pressure on enclosed conveying equipment. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Point of use dust collectors are seeing increased use in a variety of industries. This definition is complimentary to the proposed section on these collectors. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 66-NFPA [New Section after ] Relationship The defined term is used in this requirement. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Timothy Myers Organization: Exponent Inc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 29 19:20:08 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: Based on the committees action on the related PI, PI-66, this definition is not needed as it is not used in the standard. Page 23

24 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 30-NFPA [ New Section after ] 3.3.x Material modification. A modification that changes the original design of the equipment or process, or that changes the explosibility properties of the contents of the equipment. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Section of the standard is unclear as to what constitutes a material modification. This definition will add clarity. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Marie Gargas Organization: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Affilliation: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 27 11:04:01 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: Section 7.1 has been revised. The term "material modification" is no longer used and therefore, a definition is not needed. Page 24

25 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 28-NFPA [ Section No. 4.2 ] 4. 2 Objectives 2 Objectives. * Life Safety. The design of the facility, processes and equipment shall be based upon the goal of providing a reasonable level of safety and property protection by meeting the following objectives: (1) Life safety (2) Mission continuity (3) Mitigation of fire spread and explosions The facility, processes, and equipment shall be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to reasonably protect occupants not in the immediate proximity of the ignition from the effects of fire for the time needed to evacuate, relocate, or take refuge. The objectives stated in Section 4.2 shall be interpreted as intended outcomes of this standard and not as prescriptive requirements The objectives stated in Section 4.2 shall be deemed to be met when, consistent with the goal in Section The and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the following has been achieved:, (1) T he facility, processes and equipment shall be are designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to reasonably prevent serious injury from flash fires and maintained in accordance with the prescriptive criteria set forth in this standard. (2) The management systems set forth in this standard are implemented The facility, processes, and equipment shall be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to reasonably prevent injury from explosions Where a performance-based alternative design is used, it shall be documented to meet the same objectives as the prescriptive design it replaces, in accordance with Chapter 6 of this standard The structure shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to reasonably protect adjacent properties and the public from the effects of fire, flash fire, or explosion 2 Life Safety. The life safety objective shall be deemed to have been met when, consistent with the goal in Section and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the occupants not in the immediate proximity of the ignition are protected from the effects of fires, flash-fires, and explosions for the time needed to evacuate, relocate, or take refuge in order to prevent serious injury * Mission Mission Continuity. The facility, processes, and equipment shall be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to The mission continuity objective shall be deemed to have been met when, consistent with the goal in Section and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the protection features for the facility, processes and equipment limit damage to levels that ensure the ongoing mission, production, or operating capability of the facility to a degree acceptable to the owner/operator. A * Mitigation 3 Other stakeholders could also have mission continuity goals that will necessitate more stringent objectives as well as more specific and demanding performance criteria. The protection of property beyond maintaining structural integrity long enough to escape is actually a mission continuity objective. Page 25

26 0 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM The mission continuity objective encompasses the survival of both real property, such as the building, and the production equipment and inventory beyond the extinguishment of the fire. Traditionally, property protection objectives have addressed the impact of the fire on structural elements of a building as well as the equipment and contents inside a building. Mission continuity is concerned with the ability of a structure to perform its intended functions and with how that affects the structure's tenants. It often addresses post-fire smoke contamination, cleanup, and replacement of damaged equipment or raw materials * Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosions. The facility and processes The mitigation of fire spread and explosions shall be designed to deemed to have been met when, consistent with the goal in Section and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the prescribed or performance based alternative design features are incorporated into the facility and processes to prevent or mitigate fires and explosions that can cause failure of adjacent buildings or building compartments, or other enclosures, emergency life safety systems, adjacent properties, adjacent storage, or the facility s facility's structural elements. A * Compliance Options. The objectives in Section Adjacent compartments share a common enclosure surface (wall, ceiling, floor) with the compartment of fire or explosion origin. The intent is to prevent the collapse of the structure during the fire or explosion * Compliance Options. The objectives in Section 4.2 shall be achieved by either of the following means: (1) A prescriptive approach in accordance with Chapters 5, 7, 8, and 9 in conjunction with any prescriptive provisions of applicable commodity-specific NFPA standards. Chapter 6 Chapter A (2) A performance-based approach in accordance with 5 Usually a facility or process system is designed using the prescriptive criteria until a prescribed solution is found to be infeasible or impracticable. Then the designer can use the performance-based option to develop a design, addressing the full range of fire and explosion scenarios and the impact on other prescribed design features. Consequently, facilities are usually designed not by using performance-based design methods for all facets of the facility but rather by using a mixture of both design approaches as needed Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a process system, the hazards shall be managed in accordance with this standard Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a building or building facility compartment, the effects of the fire, deflagration, or explosion shall be managed in accordance with this standard. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved USBSA_4.2_changes.docx Attached word file of the complete public input to assist. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input This revision would implement a decision by the Correlating Committee on Combustible Dusts. In November 2014, the Correlating Committee set up an Objectives Task Group to examine aligning the Objectives provisions for all of the combustible dust standards. The Objectives Task Group had members representing the following NFPA combustible dust standards: 61, 484, 652, 654, and 664. In January 2015, the Correlating Committee reviewed the work product of the Objectives Task Group and created a Correlating Committee Note containing a document with the Objectives language developed by the Objectives Task Group. The Objectives language being recommended in this public comment is the language developed by the Objectives Task Group, and is being submitted solely to implement the intent of the Correlating Committee and the work of its Task Group. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Arthur Sapper Organization: McDermott Will Emery Llp Street Address: City: State: Zip: Page 26

27 1 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Submittal Date: Fri Jun 24 13:06:47 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: The technical committee believes that the proposed language was repetitive (e.g compliance options and ). We believe that it basically recast our objectives and introduced a statement that objectives were not prescriptive requirements. The technical committee revised to address the issue of users misinterpreting the objectives section as a prescriptive requirements. The objectives as stated in the current edition of 652 are organized to reflect the hazards that we seek to manage, i.e., fire, flash fire, and explosion. This organization would be lost in the proposed revision. Page 27

28 Public Comment No. -NFPA [Section 4.2] 4.2 Objectives Life Safety * The facility, processes and equipment, shall be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to reasonably protect occupants not in the immediate proximity of the ignition from the effects of fire for the time needed to evacuate, relocate, or take refuge The facility, processes and equipment shall be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to reasonably prevent serious injury from flash fires The facility, processes and equipment shall be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to reasonably prevent serious injury from explosions The structure shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to reasonably protect adjacent properties and the public from the effects of fire, flash fire, or explosion * Mission Continuity. The facility, processes and equipment shall be designed, constructed, equipped, and maintained and management systems shall be implemented to limit damage to levels that ensure the ongoing mission, production, or operating capability of the facility to a degree acceptable to the owner/operator * Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosions. The facility and processes shall be designed to prevent or mitigate fires and explosions that can cause failure of adjacent buildings or building compartments or other enclosures, emergency life safety systems, adjacent properties, adjacent storage, or the facility's structural elements * Compliance Options. The objectives in Section 4.2 shall be achieved by either of the following means: (1) A prescriptive approach in accordance with Chapters 5, 7, 8, and 9 in conjunction with any prescriptive provisions of applicable commodity-specific NFPA standards. (2) A performance-based approach in accordance with Chapter Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a process system, the hazards shall be managed in accordance with this standard. Page 28

29 4.2.6 Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a building or building compartment, the effects of the fire, deflagration, or explosion shall be managed in accordance with this standard. 4.2 Objectives The design of the facility, processes and equipment shall be based upon the goal of providing a reasonable level of safety and property protection by meeting the following objectives: (1) Life safety (2) Mission continuity (3) Mitigation of fire spread and explosions The objectives stated in Section 4.2 shall be interpreted as intended outcomes of this standard and not as prescriptive requirements The objectives stated in Section 4.2 shall be deemed to be met when, consistent with the goal in Section and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the following has been achieved: (1) The facility, processes and equipment are designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the prescriptive criteria set forth in this standard. (2) The management systems set forth in this standard are implemented Where a performance-based alternative design is used, it shall be documented to meet the same objectives as the prescriptive design it replaces, in accordance with Chapter 6 of this standard Life Safety. The life safety objective shall be deemed to have been met when, consistent with the goal in Section and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the occupants not in the immediate proximity of the ignition are protected from the effects of fires, flash-fires, and explosions for the time needed to evacuate, relocate, or take refuge in order to prevent serious injury * Mission Continuity. The mission continuity objective shall be deemed to have been met when, consistent with the goal in Section and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the protection features for the facility, processes and equipment limit damage Page 29

30 to levels that ensure the ongoing mission, production, or operating capability of the facility to a degree acceptable to the owner/operator. A Other stakeholders could also have mission continuity goals that will necessitate more stringent objectives as well as more specific and demanding performance criteria. The protection of property beyond maintaining structural integrity long enough to escape is actually a mission continuity objective. The mission continuity objective encompasses the survival of both real property, such as the building, and the production equipment and inventory beyond the extinguishment of the fire. Traditionally, property protection objectives have addressed the impact of the fire on structural elements of a building as well as the equipment and contents inside a building. Mission continuity is concerned with the ability of a structure to perform its intended functions and with how that affects the structure's tenants. It often addresses post-fire smoke contamination, cleanup, and replacement of damaged equipment or raw materials * Mitigation of Fire Spread and Explosions. The mitigation of fire spread and explosions shall be deemed to have been met when, consistent with the goal in Section and the provisions in Sections 1.4 and 1.5, the prescribed or performance based alternative design features are incorporated into the facility and processes to prevent or mitigate fires and explosions that can cause failure of adjacent buildings or building compartments, or other enclosures, emergency life safety systems, adjacent properties, adjacent storage, or the facility's structural elements. A Adjacent compartments share a common enclosure surface (wall, ceiling, floor) with the compartment of fire or explosion origin. The intent is to prevent the collapse of the structure during the fire or explosion * Compliance Options. The objectives in Section 4.2 shall be achieved by either of the following means: (1) A prescriptive approach in accordance with Chapters 5, 7, 8, and 9 in conjunction with any prescriptive provisions of applicable commodity-specific NFPA standards. (2) A performance-based approach in accordance with Chapter 6. Page 30

31 A Usually a facility or process system is designed using the prescriptive criteria until a prescribed solution is found to be infeasible or impracticable. Then the designer can use the performance-based option to develop a design, addressing the full range of fire and explosion scenarios and the impact on other prescribed design features. Consequently, facilities are usually designed not by using performance-based design methods for all facets of the facility but rather by using a mixture of both design approaches as needed Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a process system, the hazards shall be managed in accordance with this standard Where a dust fire, deflagration, or explosion hazard exists within a facility compartment, the effects of the fire, deflagration, or explosion shall be managed in accordance with this standard. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment This revision would implement a decision by the Correlating Committee on Combustible Dusts. In November 2014, the Correlating Committee set up an Objectives Task Group to examine aligning the Objectives provisions for all of the combustible dust standards. The Objectives Task Group had members representing the following NFPA combustible dust standards: 61, 484, 652, 654, and 664. In January 2015, the Correlating Committee reviewed the work product of the Objectives Task Group and created a Correlating Committee Note containing a document with the Objectives language developed by the Objectives Task Group. The Objectives language being recommended in this public comment is the language developed by the Objectives Task Group, and is being submitted solely to implement the intent of the Correlating Committee and the work of its Task Group. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: ARTHUR SAPPER Organization: for the United States Beet Sugar Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Page 31

32 Submittal Date: Page 32

33 2 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 21-NFPA [ Section No ] The determination of combustibility or explosibility shall be permitted to be based upon either of the following: (1) Historical facility data or published data that are deemed to be representative of current materials and process conditions (2) Analysis of representative samples in accordance with the requirements of and This section is very important for industries with dusts that are essentially identical, and should be maintained as written. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input There is no problem with this section - we are supporting the section as written. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Kelley Green Organization: Texas Cotton Ginners' Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 22 09:57:45 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: The technical committee appreciates the support of the submitter. Since the public input does not recommend any specific text changes, it is not actionable by the committee. Page 33

34 3 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 22-NFPA [ Section No ] Where the combustibility is not known, determination of combustibility shall be determined by one of the following tests: (1) A screening test based on the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, Subsection , Test N.1, Test Method for Readily Combustible Solids (2) Other equivalent fire exposure test methods Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input There is no problem with this section - we are supporting the section as written. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Kelley Green Organization: Texas Cotton Ginners' Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 22 09:58:40 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: The technical committee appreciates the support of the submitter. Since the public input does not recommend any specific text changes, it is not actionable by the committee. Page 34

35 4 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 23-NFPA [ Section No ] Where the explosibility is not known, determination of explosibility of dusts shall be determined according to one of the following tests: (1) The Go/No-Go screening test methodology described in ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds (2) ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts (3) An equivalent test methodology Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input This section should be maintained as written. It provides important information for determination of explosbility. The issue of over-driven results when the 20 L sphere is used is further discussed in published peer reviewed papers by B. Ganesan et al and AnnMarie Fauske. (Ganesan, B., Parnell Jr., C. B., McGee, R. O., & Faulkner, W.B (2015); A critical evaluation of explosible dust testing methods: Part II. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Vol 31(2) [volume=31&issue=2&conf=aeaj&orgconf=aeaj2015]&redirtype=toc_journals.asp&redirtype=toc_journals.asp), and (Fauske, A (2014) Combustible Dust Basics, Part 3: What is Overdriving? Overdriving). Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Kelley Green Organization: Texas Cotton Ginners' Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 22 09:59:28 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: The technical committee appreciates the support of the submitter. Since the public input does not recommend any specific text changes, it is not actionable by the committee. Page 35

36 5 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 64-NFPA [ New Section after ] Sample preservation 5.X.X Samples that may oxidize or degrade in the presence of air shall be maintained in suitable inert gas or vacuum packaging until tested. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Some materials can oxidize or degrade in air changing their combustibility or explosibility characteristics and should be appropriately preserved between sampling and testing. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Timothy Myers Organization: Exponent Inc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 29 19:00:44 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-8-NFPA Statement: Some materials can oxidize or degrade in air changing their combustibility or explosibility characteristics and should be appropriately preserved between sampling and testing. Page 36

37 6 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 38-NFPA [ Section No ] (new * and move existing 7.1.2, etc., accordingly) A DHA shall be completed for all new processes and facility compartments * The requirements of Chapter 7 shall apply retroactively in accordance with through For existing processes and facility compartments that are undergoing material modification, the owner/operator shall complete DHAs as part of the project * For existing processes and facility compartments that are not undergoing material modification, the owner/operator shall schedule and complete DHAs of existing processes and facility compartments within a 3-year period from the effective date of the standard. The owner/operator shall demonstrate reasonable progress in each of the 3 years For the purposes of applying the provisions of 7.1.2, material modification shall include modifications or maintenance and repair activities that exceed 25 percent of the original cost. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Although the requirement for a DHA for new processes and facility compartments are "implied" by 5.1 and 5.1.1, it is not specifically required in chapter 7. Such a requirement should not be implied but specifically stated to assure there is no doubt as to the necessity of the DHA for new processes, etc. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 07:45:44 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: See FR-38 for the revision to Section 7.1 and the substantiation. Page 37

38 7 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 58-NFPA [ New Section after ] The absence of previous incidents shall not be used as the basis for not performing a DHA. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input This requirement is needed because all too often facilities will incorrectly use the fact that no incidents have occurred as basis for not assessing and mitigating potential combustible dust hazards. These facilities have no idea what hazards are present at their facilities and incorrectly use the lack of an incident as justification for not performing a DHA. This requirement clarifies the need to perform a DHA, regardless of whether incidents have occurred or not, at each facility covered under NFPA 652. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jason Reason Organization: Lewellyn Technology Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 17:04:17 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: See FR-38 for the revision to Section 7.1 and the substantiation. Page 38

39 8 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 39-NFPA [ Section No ] For the purposes of applying the provisions of 7.1.2, material modification shall include modifications or maintenance and repair activities that exceed 25 percent of the original replacement cost. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The original cost of a system and/or equipment 20 or more years old can be a very small fraction of the actual present costs (in comparison). Thus, small changes in a system can result in a requirement for a DHA. Such small changes (e.g. duct changes in a dust collection system, or changes in the discharge of the collected material in the dust collector) are adequately covered by Management of Change requirements. A full DHA should be required for significant changes only and the use of the 25% of replacement cost is more representative of that type of change. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 07:54:11 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: See FR-38 for the revision to Section 7.1 and the substantiation. Page 39

40 9 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 57-NFPA [ New Section after ] Review. The DHA shall be reviewed and updated at least every 5 years. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The DHA should always be reviewed at a predetermined interval to ensure that the hazard assessment and mitigation techniques used during the DHA are still correct and valid. Both NFPA 654 and NFPA 484 both have this 5 year review requirement for DHAs (hazard analyses). Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jason Reason Organization: Lewellyn Technology Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 16:57:18 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: See FR-38 for the revision to Section 7.1 and the substantiation. Page 40

41 0 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 65-NFPA [ New Section after 8.1 ] X.X.Y Where practical, facilities shall consider alternative processes or raw materials that reduce the need to handle combustible dusts. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Inherent safety is currently designated as a reserved section. The technical committee should begin to describe the concepts of inherent safety either through prescriptive requirements or annex material. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Timothy Myers Organization: Exponent Inc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 29 19:04:30 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: See FR-39. PI was made to the wrong station. FR is a change in the title of the section. The TC also added annex material. A task group was created to develop additional annex material for the second draft. Page 41

42 1 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 61-NFPA [ New Section after ] Insert new and renumber following sections * It shall be permitted to use an engineered system managed by a control system together with a variable frequency driveoperated fan. The control system ensures maintaining minimum design air volume flow in main ducts and open branch ducts at all operating conditions. A In a single main system with multiple drops the main duct is optimized based on the maximum and average workstation utilization to allow system to be operated from minimum air volume flow up to the maximum air volume flow. The control system maintains the minimum design air volume flow in the main duct and open branch ducts. In a system with sub-main ducts the control system must measure air volume flow at hood (or drops), at branches and sub-branches and automatically adjust minimum design air volume flow in each branch. The controller must ensure that minimum air volume flow is maintained at each open branch and sub-branch and that minimum design air volume flow is maintained at all open hoods or pickup Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Energy requirement for dust systems are significant and often the single largest power consumer in a facility. Multiple tests has shown that the actual demand for vacuum is often in the 20 to 30% of full open design flows. With new technology it is now possible via a control system to manage where vacuum is needed and at the same time assure that minimum design velocities are maintained to prevent accumulation of dust in the ducting and also maintain minimum design flows at each drop. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Niels Pedersen Organization: Nederman LLC Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 29 14:45:44 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: See FR-40 Page 42

43 2 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 1-NFPA [ New Section after ] Rotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all of the following criteria are met: (1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud with the air-material separator enclosure housing the drum filter; (2) The drum filter has sprinkler protection; and (3) AMS downstream from the rotary drum filter shall be protected in accordance with Section 8.8. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved PublicCommentNo91.pdf NFPA 652 Public Comment No. 91 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input NOTE: The following Public Input appeared as "Reject but Hold" in Public Comment No. 91 of the A2015 Second Draft Report for NFPA 652 and per the Regs. at Substantiation :Rotary drum filters have long been used in the textile and cellulosic industries, and have proven to be inherently safe from deflagration. The rotating media drum's filter media contains only a minimal amount of dust at any time during use which is never suspended in air-in contrast to baghouse operation. It is only vacuumed off a felt on the rotating drum with vacuum nozzles similar to home vacuum cleaner nozzles and conveyed to a secondary (conventional) AMS (e.g., cyclone) which should be protected in accordance with this standard. As it is written, it appears that this document would disallow interior rotary drum filters by taking away the qualifying requirement of "where an explosion hazard exists" arbitrarily requiring protection on equipment that (i) does not require protection and (ii) is impossible to protect with chemical suppression or relief venting. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: TC ON CMD-FUN Organization: NFPA TC ON FUNDAMENTALS OF COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jan 04 14:22:59 EST 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This material was held from the last revision cycle and resubmitted this cycle as a new Public Input. The committee is not familiar enough with these devices and needs more information on the equipment. This was requested as a response to the public comment submitted at the last revision cycle but was not provided as part of the public input received this cycle. The committee requests that the submitter provide technical information to substantiate their request so that they can consider the addition of the text. Page 43

44 Page 44

45 Page 45

46 3 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 2-NFPA [ New Section after ] Rotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all of the following criteria are met. (1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator enclosure housing the drum filter; (2) The drum filter has sprinkler protection; and (3) AMS downstream from the torary drum filter shall be protected in accordance with Section 8.8. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved PublicCommentNo400.pdf NFPA 652 Public Comment No. 400 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input NOTE: The following Public Input appeared as "Reject but Hold" in Public Comment No. 400 of the A2015 Second Draft Report for NFPA 652 and per the Regs. at Rotary drum filters have long been used in the textile and cellulosic industries, and have proven to be inherently safe from deflagration. The rotating media drum s filter media contains only a minimal amount of dust at any time during use which is never suspended in air in contrast to baghouse operation. It is only vacuumed off a felt on the rotating drum with vacuum nozzles similar to home vacuum cleaner nozzles and conveyed to a secondary (conventional) AMS (e.g., cyclone) which should be protected in accordance with this standard. As it is written, it appears that this document would disallow interior rotary drum filters by taking away the qualifying requirement of where an explosion hazard exists arbitrarily requiring protection on equipment that (i) does not require protection and (ii) is impossible to protect with chemical suppression or relief venting. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: TC ON CMD-FUN Organization: NFPA TC ON FUNDAMENTALS OF COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jan 04 14:45:42 EST 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This material was held from the last revision cycle and resubmitted this cycle as a new Public Input. The committee is not familiar enough with these devices and needs more information on the equipment. This was requested as a response to the public comment submitted at the last revision cycle but was not provided as part of the public input received this cycle. The committee requests that the submitter provide technical information to substantiate their request so that they can consider the addition of the text. Page 46

47 Page 500 of 898 Public Comment No. 400-NFPA [ New Section after ] , New text Rotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all of the following criteria are met: (1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator enclosure housing the drum filter; (2) The drum filter has sprinkler protection; and (3) AMS downstream from the rotary drum filter shall be protected in accordance with Section 8.8. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Rotary drum filters have long been used in the textile and cellulosic industries, and have proven to be inherently safe from deflagration. The rotating media drum s filter media contains only a minimal amount of dust at any time during use which is never suspended in air in contrast to baghouse operation. It is only vacuumed off a felt on the rotating drum with vacuum nozzles similar to home vacuum cleaner nozzles and conveyed to a secondary (conventional) AMS (e.g., cyclone) which should be protected in accordance with this standard. As it is written, it appears that this document would disallow interior rotary drum filters by taking away the qualifying requirement of where an explosion hazard exists arbitrarily requiring protection on equipment that (i) does not require protection and (ii) is impossible to protect with chemical suppression or relief venting. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: MARIE MARTINKO Organization: SPI Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Nov 15 09:40:05 EST 2013 Committee Statement 9/8/2014 Page 47

48 Page 48

49 4 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 3-NFPA [ New Section after ] Rotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all of the following criteria are met: (1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator enclosure housing the drum filter; (2) The drum filter has sprinkler protection; and (3) AMS downstream from the rotary drum filter shall be protected in accordance with Section 8.8. Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved PublicCommentNo219.pdf NFPA 652 Public Comment 219 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input NOTE: The following Public Input appeared as "Reject but Hold" in Public Comment No. 219 of the A2015 Second Draft Report for NFPA 652 and per the Regs. at Rotary drum filters have long been used in the textile and cellulosic industries, and have proven to be inherently safe from deflagration. The rotating media drum s filter media contains only a minimal amount of dust at any time during use which is never suspended in air in contrast to baghouse operation. It is only vacuumed off a felt on the rotating drum with vacuum nozzles similar to home vacuum cleaner nozzles and conveyed to asecondary (conventional) AMS (e.g., cyclone) which should be protected in accordance with this standard. As it is written, it appears that this document would disallow interior rotary drum filters by taking away the qualifying requirement of where an explosion hazard exists arbitrarily requiring protection on equipment that (i) does not require protection and (ii) is impossible to protect with chemical suppression or relief venting. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: TC ON CMD-FUN Organization: NFPA TC ON FUNDAMENTALS OF COMBUSTIBLE DUSTS Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jan 04 15:10:34 EST 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This material was held from the last revision cycle and resubmitted this cycle as a new Public Input. The committee is not familiar enough with these devices and needs more information on the equipment. This was requested as a response to the public comment submitted at the last revision cycle but was not provided as part of the public input received this cycle. The committee requests that the submitter provide technical information to substantiate their request so that they can consider the addition of the text. Page 49

50 Page 498 of 898 Public Comment No. 219-NFPA [ New Section after ] , New text Comment: Insert the following new section: Rotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all of the following criteria are met: (1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator enclosure housing the drum filter; (2) The drum filter has sprinkler protection; and (3) AMS downstream from the rotary drum filter shall be protected in accordance with Section 8.8. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment Substantiation : Rotary drum filters have long been used in the textile and cellulosic industries, and have proven to be inherently safe from deflagration. The rotating media drum s filter media contains only a minimal amount of dust at any time during use which is never suspended in air in contrast to baghouse operation. It is only vacuumed off a felt on the rotating drum with vacuum nozzles similar to home vacuum cleaner nozzles and conveyed to a secondary (conventional) AMS (e.g., cyclone) which should be protected in accordance with this standard. As it is written, it appears that this document would disallow interior rotary drum filters by taking away the qualifying requirement of where an explosion hazard exists arbitrarily requiring protection on equipment that (i) does not require protection and (ii) is impossible to protect with chemical suppression or relief venting. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Richard Krock Name: Organization: The Vinyl Institute Affilliation: Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Committee Statement These materials were developed through a cooperative effort involving the Vinyl Institute's outside counsel, Lawrence P. Halprin of Keller and Heckman LLP, the Vinyl Institute staff and the Vinyl Institute member company representatives. These comments also reflect input we received from other trade associations. Tue Nov 12 14:47:57 EST /8/2014 Page 50

51 Page499 of 898 Committee Rejected but held Action: Resolution: These comments propose addition of new text regarding rotary drum filters and where they are permitted to be located and with what protection features. The Committee is not familiar enough with these devices and needs more information to verify the type of equipment (does it have a housing or is it more like enclosureless AMS) and how does the design prevent the formation of a dust cloud? Since this type of information has not been provided in the substantiation for these comments, the Committee believes it is appropriate to act at this time to reject, but hold these comments for the next revision cycle. 9/8/2014 Page 51

52 5 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 33-NFPA [ New Section after ] Rotary drum filters shall be permitted to be located indoors without protection from combustible dust hazards when all of the following criteria are met: (1) The drum filter is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator enclosure housing the drum filter; (2) The drum filter has sprinkler protection; and (3) AMS downstream from the rotary drum filter shall be protected in accordance with Section 8.8. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Rotary drum filters have long been used in the textile and cellulosic industries, and have proven to be inherently safe from deflagration. The rotating media drum s filter media contains only a minimal amount of dust at any time during use which is never suspended in air in contrast to baghouse operation. It is only vacuumed off a felt on the rotating drum with vacuum nozzles similar to home vacuum cleaner nozzles and conveyed to a secondary (conventional) AMS (e.g., cyclone) which should be protected in accordance with this standard. As it is written, it appears that this document would disallow interior rotary drum filters by taking away the qualifying requirement of where an explosion hazard exists arbitrarily requiring protection on equipment that (i) does not require protection and (ii) is impossible to protect with chemical suppression or relief venting. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Marie Gargas Organization: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Affilliation: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 27 14:59:08 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This material was held from the last revision cycle and resubmitted this cycle as a new Public Input. The committee is not familiar enough with these devices and needs more information on the equipment. This was requested as a response to the public comment submitted at the last revision cycle but was not provided as part of the public input received this cycle. The committee requests that the submitter provide technical information to substantiate their request so that they can consider the addition of the text. Page 52

53 6 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 56-NFPA [ Section No ] Wet air material separators shall be permitted to be located inside when all of the following criteria are met: (1) Interlocks are provided to shutdown the system if the flow rate of the scrubbing medium is less than the designed minimum flow rate. (2) The scrubbing medium is not a flammable or combustible liquid. (3) The separator is designed to prevent the formation of a combustible dust cloud within the air-material separator. (4) The design of the separator addresses any reaction between the separated material and the scrubbing medium. NOTE: Because many supplier offer immersion seperators, might consider including, excluding or distiguishing an immesion seperator from a wet knockdown air scrubber, when discussing wet AMS Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Better definitions & distinctions of product types & offerings, clarify equipment definitions Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Norman Nowosinski Organization: Nilfisk Industrial Vacuums Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 15:01:13 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This PI is not actionable as written as it as there are no proposed revisions to the text. The technical committee is putting together a task group to possibly add annex material on types of wet air material separators. Page 53

54 7 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 66-NFPA [ New Section after ] Point of Use Dust Collectors From Section of NFPA 61 (Note the annex material appears to be missing from NFPA 61) X.X* A point-of-use dust collector shall be permitted to be mounted directly to conveying equipment in both indoor and outdoor locations, provided all of the following conditions are met: (1) When the point-of-use dust collector is mounted to an enclosure, such as a bucket elevator leg, the enclosure shall have explosion protection per the provisions of this standard. The volume of the dirty air side and of the transition shall be included in the determination of explosion protection design. (2) The point-of-use dust collector shall be mounted directly to the conveying equipment housing via a transition duct without an airlock (3) The transition between the point-of-use dust collector and the vented equipment shall be designed such that dust will release from the filter media and return to the equipment product stream and the transition is not a collection point for dust accumulation under normal operations. (4) The cross-sectional area of the transition connection shall be equal to or greater than the cross-sectional area of the point-of-use dust collector. (5) The point-of-use dust collector shall include an integral air-moving device on the clean side of the dust collector to maintain negative pressure. (6) The point-of-use dust collector shall not be connected to any other pieces of equipment. (7) Point-of-use dust collectors that return air to the inside of buildings shall be capable of a minimum filtering efficiency of 0.02 g per dry standard cubic meter of airflow (0.008 grains per dry standard cubic feet of airflow). A.X.X The purpose of this dust control method is to remove displaced air from the equipment so that it operates under a slight negative pressure in order to reduce fugitive dust emissions from the equipment; to keep the dust generated (from the material being conveyed) with the material; and eliminate the propagation hazard of interconnecting the conveying equipment through a central dust collection system. The dust is not removed from the equipment nor does this approach lower the risk of a dust deflagration within the Page 54

55 8 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM equipment itself. The bin vent should be located near the material inlet point on the conveyor. Little dust should be drawn into the bin vent When used on a bucket elevator leg, it is recommended that the bin vent be installed in the down leg of the bucket elevator leg to facilitate dust release from the filters. The cross sectional area of the transition between the duct and the leg casing should be 2.5 times the cross sectional area of the dust collector inlet. The angle of the transition duct to the leg casing should be no less than 60 degrees. This dust control method should be used in conjunction with a good housekeeping program, equipment maintenance strategy, and dust deflagration mitigation actions as required. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Point of use dust collectors are seeing increased use in multiple industries and the TC should consider providing guidance, such as the new guidance in the 2017 edition of NFPA 61 Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 67-NFPA [New Section after 3.3] Relationship Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Timothy Myers Organization: Exponent Inc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 29 19:10:43 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: The standard currently allows this type of dust collector to be installed. However, the committee believes that certain provisions of this public input are inconsistent with the requirements of 652 regarding the re circulation of clean air back to the facility. This public input does not adequately address this concern. Page 55

56 9 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 8-NFPA [ Section No ] Procedure * Housekeeping procedures shall be documented * The methods used for cleaning removal of dust from surfaces shall be selected on the basis of reducing the potential for creating a combustible dust cloud. The accumulation of a dust-layer on a surface that is subject to heating (e.g. the surface of a bearing, an electrical motor or a heater) could insulate the surface, increasing the surface temperature above the equipment 'T' rating, to the point where the dust could self-ignite and smolder. Housekeeping of a dust-layer that has self-ignited and started smoldering could result in full-ignition as the dust disperses during the housekeeping process. The burning dust could damage the housekeeping equipment, ignite a larger dust-cloud or a flammable gas release in the area or initiate smoldering in other dust-layers. B efore performing houskeeping of a dust-layer on a potentially hot surface, the dust should be tested to confirm whether self-ignition and smoldering has initiated. Note that housekeeping of dust-layers settling after a dust flash-fire should also consider the dust to be smoldering Cleaning methods to be used shall be based on the characteristics of the material and, the quantity of material present and the risks that the dust-layer could have self-ignited. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The potential for housekeeping of a self-ignited and smoldering dust layer to initiate a larger conflagration and/or explosion was not addressed. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Joe Aiken Organization: Safety Solutions Ltd. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed May 04 18:55:57 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: See FR-1 for revisions to the annex material for this section. This material was revised to address this PI and the global PI that was submitted on cleaning surfaces. Page 56

57 0 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 14-NFPA [ Section No ] * Portable vacuum cleaners that meet the following minimum requirements shall be permitted to be used to collect combustible particulate solids in unclassified (nonhazardous) areas: (1) Materials of construction shall comply with (2) Hoses shall be conductive or static dissipative. (3) All conductive components, including wands and attachments, shall be bonded and grounded. (4) Dust-laden air shall not pass through the fan or blower. (5) Electrical motors shall not be in the dust-laden air stream unless listed for Class II, Division 1, locations. (6) * Where liquids or wet materials are picked up by the vacuum cleaner, paper filter elements shall not be used. (7) Vacuum cleaners used for metal dusts shall meet the requirements of NFPA 484. (8) For the collection of self-heating combustible particulate solids wet type dust collectors shall be used (9) To prevent the identified occurrence of brush and bulking brush discharges conductive collection bags shall be used (10) When a possible ignition by a single impact has been identified equipment specifically designed to avoid this hazard shall be considered (11) The owner/operator shall proceed with a Dust Hazards Analysis (DHA) in conformance with Chapter 7 Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Paragraph Based on my experience (I work for a manufacturer of NRTL certified explosion-proof vacuum cleaners) the actual defined minimum requirements in paragraph do not allow the safe recovery of combustible particulate solids in unclassified (nonhazardous) areas. It should be mentioned that wet type dust collectors must be used in the case of self-heating combustible particulate solids as they can potentially lead to spontaneous ignition. Conductive collection bags must be used to prevent the identified occurrence of brush and bulking brush discharges which could be an ignition threat. Also equipment designed to avoid ignition by a single impact shall be considered when this hazard has been identified during combustible particulate solids collection (Collection of solid element like a metal bolt). I also suggest reminding the owner/operator to proceed with a Dust Hazards Analysis (DHA) in conformance with Chapter 7 Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Stephane Briquet Organization: Tiger Vac International Inc Affilliation: HAZ-LOC PORTABLE VACUUM CLEANERS ORGANIZATION INC. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue May 10 13:45:15 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: The proposed revisions to this section could narrow the market for portable vacuum cleaners to a single manufacturer. The committee believes that the additional proposed requirements are not necessary, and the hazards that the provisions would protect against are unlikely to occur. It is noted that the standard already requires that a DHA be performed. Page 57

58 1 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 51-NFPA [ Section No ] * Portable vacuum cleaners that meet the following minimum requirements shall be permitted to be used to collect combustible particulate solids in unclassified (nonhazardous) areas: (1) Materials of construction shall comply with (2) Hoses shall be conductive or static dissipative. (3) All conductive components, including wands and attachments, shall be bonded and grounded. (4) Dust-laden air shall not pass through the fan or blower. (Dust laden air should be defined as any amount of combustible dust in ambient or working air - lacking quantitative measures) (5) Electrical motors shall not be in the dust-laden air stream unless NRTL certified (as a unit) & listed for Class II, Division 1, locations. (6) * Where liquids or wet materials are picked up by the vacuum cleaner, paper filter elements shall not be used. (7) Vacuum cleaners used for metal dusts shall meet the requirements of NFPA 484. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Better definitinions of terms used and requirement for system and components Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Norman Nowosinski Organization: Nilfisk Industrial Vacuums Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 14:14:08 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-10-NFPA Statement: The committee made changes to avoid the use of the term, "dust laden air", which is not well defined. The committee declined to require that all electric motors be NRTL certified. Page 58

59 2 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 52-NFPA [ Section No ] * In Class II electrically classified (hazardous) locations, portable electrically powered vacuum cleaners shall be NRTL certified (components) & listed for the purpose and location or shall be a fixed-pipe suction system with a remotely located exhauster for permanant blower assemblies, or for portable models, downstream (of motor or exhaust) filtered with hepa or ulpa filters per classified rating and an AMS installed in conformance with Section 8.3, and they shall be suitable for the dust being collected. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Differentiate portable units from permanent blower/central vac units...if needed. Also introduce HEPA & ULPA language into downstream filtering requirements for inside exhaust... Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Norman Nowosinski Organization: Nilfisk Industrial Vacuums Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 14:27:33 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: The committee recognizes that this section needs more clarity. A task group has been established to work on this for the second draft. The intent of this section is to allow the use of a portable vacuum cleaner or a central vacuum system. Page 59

60 3 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 53-NFPA [ Section No ] Where flammable vapors or gases are present, vacuum cleaners shall be listed for Class I ( Strike: " and Class II "- Class II ARE FOR DUSTS ONLY, NOT GASES OR VAPORS) hazardous locations. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Correction to erroneous language on class Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Norman Nowosinski Organization: Nilfisk Industrial Vacuums Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 14:31:48 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: See FR-11 Page 60

61 4 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 12-NFPA [ New Section after ] To minimise the risks associated with using a brush and pan (or broom and shovel) to remove flammable dust, the following precautions shall be applied: (1) The brush/broom must be specifically designed to eliminate the risks of static generation during the brushing process on the specific surface. (2) The dust must not be highly flammable as the friction of the brush with the surface could create an ignition source (static spark or heat) (3) The typical particle size of the dust must be large enough rapidly settle without generating a significant dust-cloud. (4) The dust must be locally brushed directly into the pan and removed. (5) The dust should not be brushed into piles as such brushing would create a larger, more sustained dust-cloud - this would increase the risk of potential ignition and the consequences of combustion. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The use of dust-pan and brush with highly flammable dusts was not addressed Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Joe Aiken Organization: Safety Solutions Ltd. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed May 04 20:18:53 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: These concerns are addressed by the current annex material for this section. The term "highly flammable" is not defined. Flammable is not the same as combustible. This standard deals with combustible dust. The committee requests that the submitter provide additional information on specific hazards and perhaps suggest additional annex material to address concerns. Page 61

62 5 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 11-NFPA [ Section No ] * Sweeping, Shoveling, Scoop, and Brush Cleaning Method. The use of scoops, brooms, and brushes for sweeping and shoveling shall ONLY be a permitted cleaning method they comply with Section Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The use of brooms is permitted without specific safeguards Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Joe Aiken Organization: Safety Solutions Ltd. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed May 04 20:14:25 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: See the response to PI-12. This PI deals refers to a section that does not exist, since PI-12 did not result in a first revision to the document. Page 62

63 6 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 15-NFPA [ Section No ] * Where blowdown using compressed air is used, the following precautions shall be followed: (1) Prior to using compressed air, vacuum Vacuum cleaning, sweeping, or water washdown methods are shall be used prior to using compressed air to clean surfaces that can be safely accessed. (2) Dust accumulations in the area after vacuum cleaning, sweeping, or water washdown do not exceed the threshold housekeeping dust accumulation. (3) Compressed air hoses are equipped with pressure relief nozzles limiting the discharge pressure to 30 psi (207 kpa) in accordance with OSHA requirements in 29 CFR (b). (4) All electrical equipment, including lighting, potentially exposed to airborne dust in the area during cleaning is suitable for use in a Class II, Division 2, hazardous (classified) location in accordance with NFPA 70. (5) All ignition sources and hot surfaces capable of igniting a dust cloud or dust layer are shut down or removed from the area. (6) After blowdown is complete, residual dust on lower surfaces is cleaned prior to re-introduction of potential ignition sources. (7) Where metal or metal-containing dust or powder under the scope of NFPA 484is present, the requirements of NFPA 484 apply. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input This revision places the emphasis on vacuum cleaning, sweeping or water washdown and actually requires those methods first with the term shall be. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, Washington Affilliation: NFPA's Building Code Development Committee (BCDC) Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Jun 16 17:58:50 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This concern is already addressed by the current text. Blowdown with compressed air can only be used after other techniques are used first. The committee believes that this is already clear in the current text. Page 63

64 7 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 13-NFPA [ Section No ] Steam Blow Down Method. (Reserved) This should have precautions based on determining the potential for temperature effects (sublimation/vaporisation), reactions (caramelisation, polymerisation), condensation and concreting, static, Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The use of steam looks very specific to a particular industry Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Joe Aiken Organization: Safety Solutions Ltd. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed May 04 20:34:43 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This PI is not actionable as it does not propose specific changes to the standard. Page 64

65 8 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 16-NFPA [ Section No ] * Housekeeping frequency and accumulation goals shall be established to ensure that the accumulated fugitive dust levels on surfaces do not exceed the threshold approved for housekeeping dust accumulation limits. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input This clarifies that the threshold must be approved by the AHJ, as the term is defined. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir Organization: Affilliation: Building Safety Division, Clark County, Washington NFPA's Building Code Development Committee (BCDC) Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Jun 16 18:01:43 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: NFPA 652 refers to the industry and commodity specific standard in to establish the threshold housekeeping dust accumulation limits defines the relationship between spills and releases and the facilities housekeeping program. Page 65

66 9 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 31-NFPA [ Section No ] * Housekeeping frequency and accumulation goals shall be established to ensure that the accumulated fugitive dust levels on surfaces, excluding non-routine accumulations from process upsets and similar events covered by Section , do not exceed the threshold housekeeping dust accumulation limits. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The recommended changes are required to clarify Section so that it does not conflict with Section Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Marie Gargas Organization: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Affilliation: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 27 13:45:12 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: NFPA 652 refers to the industry and commodity specific standard in to establish the threshold housekeeping dust accumulation limits defines the relationship between spills and releases and the facilities housekeeping program. Page 66

67 0 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 34-NFPA [ Section No ] Equipment Open (non-enclosed) equipment that contains combustible dust and is located within the hot work area shall be shut down, shielded, or both. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input There is no apparent reason to shut down or shield closed/enclosed equipment that would protect the enclosed dust from the hot work. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Marie Gargas Organization: Affilliation: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 27 15:02:43 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This public input is in conflict with the provisions of 51B. Equipment that contains combustible dust must be protected from ignition sources during hot work. This would include shutting down the equipment, shielding it from sparks and heat, or both to protect from ignition. Page 67

68 1 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 35-NFPA [ Section No ] * Bearings Inboard bearings that are directly exposed to a combustible dust atmosphere or that are subject to dust accumulation, either of which poses a deflagration dust ignition hazard, shall be monitored for overheating. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Overheated bearings only pose a deflagration hazard if they are inside a dust cloud, which typically is not the case. Outboard bearings typically are not a problem, and they should be excluded from this requirement. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Marie Gargas Organization: Affilliation: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 27 15:05:51 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-13-NFPA Statement: The type of bearing does not matter, this requirement applies to all bearings that are exposed to dust. The committee changed the term deflagration hazard to dust-ignition hazard to more specifically define the risk. Page 68

69 2 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 32-NFPA [ New Section after ] An accumulation of combustible dust will not cause a location to be a Class II location if: (1) the average thickness of the layer does not exceed the layer depth criterion (LD) as determined in Section of NFPA ; and (2) the temperature of the surface on which the accumulation of combustible dust is located is at least 25 degrees C below the Minimum Dust Layer Ignition Temperature (MIT-layer) based on "Methods for Determining the Minimum Ignition Temperature of Dusts. Part 1: Dust Layer on a Heated Surface at a Constant Temperature" (International Electrotechnical Commission Document 31H (Central Office) 3 published March 1993) and on ASTM E2021, Standard Test Method for Hot-Surface Ignition Temperature of Dust Layers, or equivalent testing methods. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input There is a critical conflict between the layer thickness that would trigger housekeeping or protective measures under (1) proposed NFPA 652 (and the other NFPA combustible dust standards) and (2) the guidance provided by NFPA 499, Recommended Practice for the Classification of Combustible Dusts and of Hazardous (Classified) Locations for Electrical Installations in Chemical Process Areas. It is completely impractical to provide for a permissible dust accumulation level under the NFPA combustible dust standards and then have it effectively overridden by an overly conservative NFPA guidance document that would require an enormous expenditure of capital to provide classified electrical equipment that would eliminate the ignition sources that were the reason for controlling the dust accumulation in the first place. We believe it is essential to eliminate that conflict and that this is the appropriate mechanism for addressing that conflict and/or initiating the process within NFPA to eliminate that conflict. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Marie Gargas Organization: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Affilliation: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 27 14:32:18 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: Electrical classification for dust locations is determined by NFPA 70 with NFPA 499 as a recommended practice for determining electrical classification. The dust standards, NFPA 652, 654, and the other industry specific standards protect against fire, flash fire, and explosion hazards. The criteria for each are different and separate. Page 69

70 3 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 17-NFPA [ Section No ] * Preventive maintenance programs for electrical equipment and wiring in Class II and Class III locations shall include provisions to verify that dusttight electrical enclosures are not experiencing significant dust ingress. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input If it is a dust tight electrical enclosure, there shouldn t be significant dust ingress. Additionally, the term significant within code text is vague unless defined. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, Washington Affilliation: NFPA's Building Code Development Committee (BCDC) Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Jun 16 18:03:46 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-14-NFPA Statement: The committee agrees that the use of significant is vague and unenforceable. The term was changed to visible. Page 70

71 4 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 54-NFPA [ Section No ] Fans to Limit Accumulation. (Reserved) - Please note that fans used to limit accumulation do just that - there is still accumulation, even a fine coating - and does not preclude the use of good housekeeping practices of vacuuming such areas, and addressing of dust plumes created by such fans Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Cautionary statement on blowdown fans Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Norman Nowosinski Organization: Nilfisk Industrial Vacuums Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 14:45:02 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-41-NFPA Statement: The committee has added requirements for fans used to limit accumulation. This section is no longer reserved. Page 71

72 5 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 36-NFPA [ Section No ] * General. Where an To the extent feasible, practical and necessary to reduce the risk posed by combustible dust fires and deflagrations to an acceptable level, where a dust explosion hazard exists within any operating equipment greater than 8 ft 3 (0.2 3 m) of containing volume, the operating equipment shall be protected from the effects of a deflagration. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Section A conflicts with and acknowledges that Section is infeasible in providing as follows: A Small containers can pose an explosion hazard; however, explosion protection measures for these units are not always practical. Consideration should be given to explosion hazards when electing to omit protection; 8 ft3 (0.23 m) is roughly the size of a 55 gal (208.2 L) drum. The standard fails to differentiate between an enclosure and an operating enclosure. The term dust explosion hazard is defined as follows: Dust Explosion Hazard. A dust deflagration hazard in an enclosure that is capable of bursting or rupturing the enclosure due to the development of internal pressure from the deflagration. It is clearly not only impractical, but infeasible to provide explosion protection to every enclosure of at least 8 ft3 where enclosure is define to include every pipe, tube, etc. It is necessary to perform a risk assessment to identify the enclosures where there is a significant risk of initiating a dust explosion and focus on protecting and isolating those enclosures rather than attempting to protect all enclosures. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Marie Gargas Organization: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Affilliation: SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Jun 27 15:11:29 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: The proposed language is unenforceable. This can be addressed through the performance of a risk assessment. Annex material is unenforceable and is meant to provide guidance to the user. Page 72

73 6 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 26-NFPA [ New Section after ] TITLE OF NEW CONTENT Add the following new section after : The requirement in shall not apply to silos and bins where explosion venting is not practical due to silo or bin geometry, building constraints, or both. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The proposed revision would avoid an impractical result, one very likely not intended by the NFPA 652 Technical Committee. Section appears to require that enclosures (of more than eight cubic feet in volume) of operating equipment be designed to withstand the pressures resulting from a deflagration. NFPA 652 (in Section ) uses NFPA 68 (2013) s definition of Enclosure as a confined or partially confined volume. NFPA 652 s Annex material for the definition of Enclosure (which is also from NFPA 68 (2013)), then includes silo and bin as examples of enclosures. Section 8.9 ("Explosion Prevention/Protection of NFPA 652") can thus be read to require explosion venting on all silos and bins. This was very likely not intended by the Technical Committee and is impractical in certain applications. To resolve the issue, we recommend the addition of a provision modeled on one in NFPA 61 (2017), which has the same definition of Enclosure as well as the same Annex material as NFPA 652, but which has a provision (Section ) that recognizes that explosion venting on silos and bins is at times infeasible by making the explosion venting design requirement in Section inapplicable to certain silos and bins. The relevant language in NFPA 61 (2017) is as follows: 8.8 Explosion Prevention/Protection General Explosion prevention, relief, and venting, as used in this standard, shall encompass the design and installation of devices and systems to vent the gases and overpressure resulting from a deflagration occurring in equipment, rooms, buildings, or other enclosures so that damage is minimized. * * * The design shall offer the least possible resistance to explosion pressures. * * * The requirement in shall not apply to bins and silos where explosion venting is not practical due to bin or silo geometry, building constraints, or both. The new section after of NFPA 652 being recommended recognizes and addresses the impracticality of providing explosion venting on certain silos and bins. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Arthur Sapper Organization: McDermott Will Emery Llp Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Jun 24 12:07:12 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: Chapter 8 is not retroactive and is not commodity-specific. The determination of the need for explosion protection on a silo or bin could be accomplished through a risk assessment. A newly designed and installed bin or silo could be designed with explosion protection where is it was determined to be needed. Since the provision is not retroactive, installing protection on an older system, where it might not be practical due to geometry or other considerations, would be not required. Page 73

74 7 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 18-NFPA [ Section No ] A thorough inspection of the operating area shall take place, on an as-needed basis a schedule as established by the owner/operator and the manufacturers recommendations, to help ensure that the equipment is in safe operating condition and that proper work practices are being followed. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input What defines the need? Inspections should be on a schedule. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jim Muir Organization: Building Safety Division, Clark County, Washington Affilliation: NFPA's Building Code Development Committee (BCDC) Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Jun 16 18:05:28 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-15-NFPA Statement: In response to PI-16 stating that inspections should be performed on a specified schedule. This changes inspections to periodic walk throughs, and directs the user to section for the establishment of a schedule. Page 74

75 8 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 24-NFPA [ Section No. A ] Page 75

76 9 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM A Combustible Dust. Page 76

77 0 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM The term combustible dust when used in this standard includes powders, fines, fibers, etc. Dusts traditionally were defined as material 420 μm or smaller (capable of passing through a U.S. No. 40 standard sieve). For consistency with other standards, 500 μm (capable of passing through a U.S. No. 35 standard sieve) is now considered an appropriate size criterion. Particle surface area-to-volume ratio is a key factor in determining the rate of combustion. Combustible particulate solids with a minimum dimension more than 500 μm generally have a surface-to-volume ratio that is too small to pose a deflagration hazard. Flat platelet-shaped particles, flakes, or fibers with lengths that are large compared to their diameter usually do not pass through a 500 μm sieve, yet could still pose a deflagration hazard. Many particulates accumulate electrostatic charge in handling, causing them to attract each other, forming agglomerates. Often agglomerates behave as if they were larger particles, yet when they are dispersed they present a significant hazard. Consequently, it can be inferred that any particulate that has a minimum dimension less than or equal to 500 μm could behave as a combustible dust if suspended in air or the process specific oxidizer. If the minimum dimension of the particulate is greater than 500 μm, it is unlikely that the material would be a combustible dust, as determined by test. The determination of whether a sample of combustible material presents a flash-fire or explosion hazard could be based on a screening test methodology such as provided in the ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. Alternatively, a standardized test method such as ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, could be used to determine dust explosibility. [654, 2013] There is some possibility that a sample will result in a false positive in the 20 L sphere when tested by the ASTM E1226 screening test or the ASTM E1515 test. This is due to the high energy ignition source overdriving the test. When the lowest ignition energy allowed by either method still results in a positive result, the owner/operator can elect to determine whether the sample is a combustible dust with screening tests performed in a larger scale ( 1 m 3 ) enclosure, which is less susceptible to overdriving and thus will provide more realistic results. [654, 2013] This possibility for false positives has been known for quite some time and is attributed to overdriven conditions that exist in the 20 L chamber due to the use of strong pyrotechnic igniters. For that reason, the reference method for explosibility testing is based on a 1 m 3 chamber, and the 20 L chamber test method is calibrated to produce results comparable to those from the 1 m 3 chamber for most dusts. In fact, the U.S. standard for 20 L testing (ASTM E1226) states, The objective of this test method is to develop data that can be correlated to those from the 1 m 3 chamber (described in ISO , and VDI 3673) ASTM E1226 further states, Because a number of factors (concentration, uniformity of dispersion, turbulence of ignition, sample age, etc.) can affect the test results, the test vessel to be used for routine work must be standardized using dust samples whose KSt and Pmax parameters are known in the 1 m 3 chamber. [654, 2013] NFPA 68 also recognizes this problem and addresses it stating that the 20 L test apparatus is designed to simulate results of the 1 m 3 chamber; however, the igniter discharge makes it problematic to determine KSt values less than 50 bar-m/sec. Where the material is expected to yield KSt values less than 50 bar-m/sec, testing in a 1 m 3 chamber might yield lower values. [654, 2013] Any time a combustible dust is processed or handled, a potential for deflagration exists. The degree of deflagration hazard varies, depending on the type of combustible dust and the processing methods used. [654, 2013] A dust deflagration has the following four requirements: (1) Combustible dust (2) Dust dispersion in air or other oxidant (3) Sufficient concentration at or exceeding the minimum explosible concentration (MEC) (4) Sufficiently powerful ignition source such as an electrostatic discharge, an electric current arc, a glowing ember, a hot surface, a welding slag, frictional heat, or a flame [654, 2013] If the deflagration is confined and produces a pressure sufficient to rupture the confining enclosure, the event is, by definition, an explosion. [654, 2013] Evaluation of the hazard of a combustible dust should be determined by the means of actual test data. Each situation should be evaluated and applicable tests selected. The following list represents the factors that are sometimes used in determining the deflagration hazard of a dust: (1) MEC (2) MIE (3) Particle size distribution (4) Moisture content as received and as tested (5) Maximum explosion pressure at optimum concentration (6) Maximum rate of pressure rise at optimum concentration (7) KSt (normalized rate of pressure rise) as defined in ASTM E1226,Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds (8) Layer ignition temperature (9) Dust cloud ignition temperature (10) Limiting oxidant concentration (LOC) to prevent ignition (11) Electrical volume resistivity (12) Charge relaxation time (13) Chargeability [654, 2013] Page 77

78 1 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM It is important to keep in mind that as a particulate is processed, handled, or transported, the particle size generally decreases due to particle attrition. Consequently, it is often necessary to evaluate the explosibility of the particulate at multiple points along the process. Where process conditions dictate the use of oxidizing media other than air (nominally taken as 21 percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen), the applicable tests should be conducted in the appropriate process-specific medium. [654, 2013] This section should be maintained as written. It has been relied upon during the past year for determination of explosbility of dusts. The issue of over-driven results when the 20 L sphere is used is further discussed in published peer reviewed papers by B. Ganesan et al and AnnMarie Fauske. (Ganesan, B., Parnell Jr., C. B., McGee, R. O., & Faulkner, W.B (2015); A critical evaluation of explosible dust testing methods: Part II. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, Vol 31(2) /abstract.asp?aid=45458&t=1&redir=aid=45458&confalias=&redir=[volume=31&issue=2&conf=aeaj&orgconf=aeaj2015]& redirtype=toc_journals.asp&redirtype=toc_journals.asp ), (Fauske, A (2014) Combustible Dust Basics, Part 3: What is Overdriving? ). Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input There is no problem with this section. We are supporting this section as written, and offering two papers in support of this section. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Kelley Green Organization: Texas Cotton Ginners' Association Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 22 10:01:39 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This is not actionable as it does not provide specific code language. If the submitter provided copies of the referenced papers to the committee, they would consider adding them to the list of informational references in Annex D. Page 78

79 2 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 27-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A Enclosure. Examples of enclosures include a room, building, vessel, silo, bin, pipe, or duct. [ 68, 2013] Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The Annex material for the definition of Enclosure can be read to require explosion venting on all silos and bins under the requirements of Section 8.9 of NFPA 652, Explosion Prevention/Protection. Providing explosion venting on all silos and bins is not practical due to silo or bin geometry, building constraints, or both. If the new section after recommended in a separate public comment is not accepted, then the words silo and bin need to be deleted as well as removing the reference to [68, 2013] in the Annex material for the definition of Enclosure. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Arthur Sapper Organization: McDermott Will Emery Llp Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Jun 24 12:21:11 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: Bins and Silos are examples of enclosures. Annex material is not enforceable and is meant to be informative only. Page 79

80 3 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 68-NFPA [ Section No. A.5.2 ] Page 80

81 4 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM A.5.2 Page 81

82 5 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Test data derived from testing material within a facility Testing actual material from a specific process or area ofthe faciity will result in the most accurate results for the DHA, performance-based design, and hazard management options. Testing is not required to determine whether the material has combustibility characteristics where reliable, in-house commodity-specific testing data or published data of well-characterized samples (i.e., particle size, moisture content, and test conditions) are available. Published data should be used for preliminary assessment of combustibility only. However, for protection or prevention design methods, the data can be acceptable after a thorough review to ensure that they are representative of owner/operator conditions. The protection or prevention designs are based on explosivity properties, which can vary based on the specific characteristics of the material. (See for characteristics that can affect explosibility properties.) Historical Historical knowledge and experience of occurrence or nonoccurrence of process incidents such as flash fires, small fires, sparkling fires, pops, or booms, or evidence of vessel, tank, or container overpressure should not be used as a substitute for hazard analysis. Process incidents are indications of a material or process resulting in combustibility or explosion propensity. Process incidents can be used to guide or select samples for and supplement testing. The following material properties should be addressed by a DHA for the combustible particulate solids present: (1) Particle Size. Sieve analysis is a crude and unreliable system of hazard determination. Its greatest contribution in managing the hazard is the ease, economy, and speed at which it can be used to discover changes in the process particulate. In any sample of particulate, very rarely are all the particles the same size. Sieve analysis can be used to determine the fraction that would be generally suspected of being capable of supporting a deflagration. For a sub-500 micron fraction: (a) Data presented in terms of the percent passing progressively smaller sieves. (b) Particles that have high aspect ratios can produce distorted, nonconservative results conservatively large particle sizes. (2) Particle Size Distribution. The particle size distribution of a combustible particulate solid must be known if the explosion hazard is to be assessed solid is an important parameter in assessing an explosion hazard. Particle size implies a specific surface area (SSA) and affects the numerical measure of other parameters such as MEC, MIE, dp/dtmax, Pmax and KSt. Particles greater than 500 microns in effective mean particle diameter are generally not considered deflagratory. Most combustible particulate solids include a range of particle sizes in any given sample. The DHA should anticipate and account for particle attrition and separation as particulate is handled. (3) Particle Shape. Due to particle shape and agglomeration, some particulates cannot be sieved effectively. Particulates with nonspheric or noncubic shapes do not pass through a sieve as easily as spheric or cubic particles. For this purpose, long fibers can behave just as explosively as spherical particulate of a similar diameter. This leads to underestimation of small particle populations and to underassessment of the hazard. Particulates with an aspect ratio greater than 3:1 should be suspect. When particulates are poured into vessels, it is common for the fine particles to separate from the large, creating a deflagration hazard in the ullage space. (4) Particle Aging. Some combustible particulate solid materials could undergo changes in their safety characteristics due to aging. Changes in morphology and chemical composition, for example, can occur from the time a sample is collected to the time it takes to get that sample into the lab for a test is tested. For materials that are known to age, care must be taken in packaging and shipment. The use of vacuum seals, or an inert gas such as nitrogen, could be required to ensure that the tested sample has not changed appreciably due to aging. The lab should be notified in advance of shipment that the material is sensitive to change due to age so that they will know how to handle it and store it until it is tested. (5) Particle Attrition. The material submitted for testing should be selected to address the effects of material attrition as it is moved through the process. As particulates move through a process they usually break down into smaller particles. Reduction in particle size leads to an increase in total surface area to mass ratio of the particulate and increases the hazard associated with the unoxidized particulate. (6) Particle Suspension. Particle suspension maximizes the fuel air interface. It occurs wherever particulate moves relative to the air or air moves relative to the particulate, such as in pneumatic conveying, pouring, fluidizing, mixing and blending, or particle size reduction. (7) Particle Agglomeration. Some particulates tend to agglomerate into clumps. Agglomerating particulates can be more hazardous than the test data imply if the particulate was not thoroughly deagglomerated when testing was conducted. Agglomeration is usually affected by ambient humidity. (8) Triboelectric Attraction. Particles with a chemistry that allows electrostatic charge accumulation will become charged during handling. Charged particles attract oppositely charged particles. Agglomeration causes particulate to exhibit lower explosion metrics during testing. Humidification decreases the triboelectric effect. (9) Hydrogen Bonding. Hydrophilic particulates attract water molecules that are adsorbed onto the particle surface. Adsorbed water provides hydrogen bonding to adjacent particles, causing them to agglomerate. Agglomeration causes particulate to exhibit lower explosion metrics during testing. Desiccation reduces this agglomerated effect. (10) Entrainment Fraction. The calculation for a dust dispersion from an accumulated layer should be corrected for the ease of entrainment of the dust. Fuel chemistry and agglomeration/adhesion forces should be considered. The dispersion is generally a function of humidity, temperature, and time. Particle shape and morphology and effective particle size should be considered. (11) Combustible Concentration. When particles are suspended, a concentration gradient will develop where concentration varies continuously from high to low. There is a minimum concentration that must exist before a flame front will propagate. This concentration depends on particle size and chemical composition and is measured in grams/cubic meter (ounces/cubic foot). This concentration is called the minimum explosible concentration (MEC). A dust dispersion can come from a layer of accumulated fugitive dust. The concentration attained depends on bulk density of dust layer (measured in grams/m 3 ), layer thickness, and the extent of the dust cloud. Combustible concentration is calculated as: Concentration = (bulk density)*[(layer thickness)/(dust cloud thickness)] (12) Competent Igniter. Ignition occurs where sufficient energy per unit of time and volume is applied to a deflagratory particulate Page 82

83 6 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM suspension. Energy per unit of mass is measured as temperature. When the temperature of the suspension is increased to the auto-ignition temperature, combustion begins. Ignitability is usually characterized by measuring the minimum ignition energy (MIE). The ignition source must provide sufficient energy per unit of time (power) to raise the temperature of the particulate to its autoignition temperature (AIT). (13) Dustiness/dispersibility. Ignition and sustained combustion occurs where a fuel and competent ignition course source come together in an atmosphere (oxidant) that supports combustion. The fire triangle represents the three elements required for a fire. Not all dusts are combustible, and combustible dusts exhibit a range in degree of hazard. All combustible dusts can exhibit explosion hazards accompanied by propagation away from the source. In the absence of confinement, a flash-fire hazard results. If confined, the deflagration can result in damaging overpressures. Deflagration is the process resulting in a flash fire or an explosion. The four elements for a flash fire are the following: (14) A combustible dust sufficiently small enough to burn rapidly and propagate flame (15) A suspended cloud at a concentration greater than the minimum explosion concentration (16) The atmosphere to support combustion (17) An ignition source of adequate energy or temperature to ignite the dust cloud The heat flux from combustible metal flash fires is greater than organic materials (see Figure A.5.2 ). A dust explosion requires the following five conditions: (1) A combustible dust sufficiently small enough to burn rapidly and propagate flame (2) A suspended cloud at a concentration greater than the minimum explosion concentration (3) Confinement of the dust cloud by an enclosure or partial enclosure (4) The atmosphere to support combustion (5) An ignition source of adequate energy or temperature to ignite the dust cloud Figure A.5.2 Elements Required for Fires, Flash Fires, and Explosions. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Made revisions to correct typographical errors and clarify some statements. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Timothy Myers Organization: Exponent Inc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Jun 29 19:30:16 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-17-NFPA Page 83

84 7 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Statement: Made revisions to correct typographical errors and clarify some statements. Page 84

85 8 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 55-NFPA [ Section No. B ] B The DHA should classify locations into three general categories: (1) Not a hazard (2) Maybe a hazard (3) Deflagration hazard This will help the owner/operator prioritize management of the hazards. Additionally, it will identify the locations where more information is necessary before a definitive determination can be made. NOTE: It is believed tha the DHA should more specifically designate which equipment certified to what class or location, can be used in which category: If the DHA classifies a location to be #2 - Maybe a hazard, does the DHA/AHJ then suggest or require NFPA compliant designed equipment or Class II certified equipment? Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Asking for clarification on example of use of equipment per simple classification std Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Norman Nowosinski Organization: Nilfisk Industrial Vacuums Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 14:50:57 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This public input is not actionable as it does not propose specific code changes. Page 85

86 9 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 40-NFPA [ Section No. B ] B Are there competent igniters available? Yes. In addition to the igniters identified in B , a number of ignition mechanisms are introduced by the fan. further examples are: Overheated drive bearings (especially the inboard bearing) due to bearing failure from lack of proper lubrication, fatigue, wear, etc., fan impeller/wheel imbalance caused by wear, material accumulation on the blades, bearing failure, etc., which can result in sparking by housing contact. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The examples provided are proven problems that can occur with a material handling (or other industrial) fans. This further assists the reader in understanding the scope of the DHA. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 08:00:15 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-19-NFPA Statement: The examples provided are proven problems that can occur with a material handling (or other industrial) fans. This further assists the reader in understanding the scope of the DHA. Page 86

87 0 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 41-NFPA [ Section No. B ] B What hazard management is in place? SeeB It is difficult to apply hazard management to a material conveyance fan. Usually hazard management is applied downstream from the fan Other hazard managment methods would include vibration monitoring (either by personnel on a regular basis or by a monitoring device), temperature monitoring of the drive bearings (by personnel or monitoring device) and amperage monitoring of the drive motor (amperage is directly related to the air mass flow - the higher the amperage the more air mass flow). Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Such methods of hazard management have been proven successful in monitoring fan performance and indicating problems before they become a significant hazard. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 08:06:09 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-20-NFPA Statement: Such methods of hazard management have been proven successful in monitoring fan performance and indicating problems before they become a significant hazard. Page 87

88 1 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 42-NFPA [ Section No. B [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] While the drawing shows these as separate components, most mills have an integral discharge fan. Most mills of this type require air flow through the mill as part of the millling process and this is typically provided by a fan package (positive or negative pressure depending uppon type of system). This fan package can be integral to the mill or as a separate device. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The previous annex indicated that integral fans are typical for such mills, while it is the submitter's experience, with literally hundreds of such devices and systems, that the fan package is separate nearly all the time and that integral fans are the exception and not the norm. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 08:12:43 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-21-NFPA Statement: The previous annex indicated that integral fans are typical for such mills, while it is the submitter's experience, with literally hundreds of such devices and systems, that the fan package is separate nearly all the time and that integral fans are the exception and not the norm. Page 88

89 2 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 43-NFPA [ Section No. B ] B Is the particulate deflagrable (explosible)? It depends. What is the target product particle size? If the mill has 1 4 in. screens, then the unit is receiving large particles and making them less large, but they're still too large to be considered a deflagrable (explosible) particulate. But there are also included fines. If the mill is reducing the particulate down to 250 μ, then all the particulate would be considered deflagrable (explosible). Therefore, the determination of whether the particulate in the mill is deflagrable is based on the range of particle size exiting the mill. It is usually necessary to submit this material for a go/no-go screening test to determine if the mixture exiting the mill is capable of propagating a deflagration flame front. However, because no mill is 100% efficient there is a likelihood of combustible dust inside the mill either as accumulations, "remilling" caused by turbulence, wear, etc. Most mills are considered frequent sources for sparks and any accumulations in the mill could result in ember production. Also, if there is an integral fan package such device would normally provide further attrition of the particle sizes. Therefore, using an analysis of the particle sizes of the normal discharge of the mill could be misleading. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Combustible dust is almost always present in a mill, especially with an integral fan package. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 08:16:27 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-22-NFPA Statement: Combustible dust is almost always present in a mill, especially with an integral fan package. Page 89

90 3 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 44-NFPA [ Section No. B ] B Is the particulate suspended in air? Yes. Inside the mill the particulate is in continuous air suspension. In addition if there is an integral fan package there is suspension by the fan impeller. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Fan influence needs to be considered. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 08:24:33 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-23-NFPA Statement: Fan influence needs to be considered. Page 90

91 4 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 45-NFPA [ Section No. B ] B Is there sufficient concentration to support deflagration? This again depends on the test data and a sieve analysis Because most mills will produce fines during the milling process (due to remilling, turbulence, accumulations on internal surfaces, wear, etc.) and it is difficult to be assured the fines concentrations do not exceed the MEC, it is best to assume sufficient combustible dusts are present. However, some low-speed mills (e.g. shredders) designed to produce only large particles may allow a determination from a seive analysis and/or testing. Remember that while a sieve analysis is not a definitive criterion for identifying whether a particulate is deflagrable (explosible), it is a very valuable tool for identifying changes that have occurred in the process that signify a change in the hazard associated with the particulate. It is a management of change and safety assessment audit tool. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Mills are not 100% efficient and the milling process is not truly steady-state as it will vary over time (due to material variations, maintenance levels, wear, etc.). Thus, a sieve analysis is only representative of the time it was taken and does not take into account the changes that occur rapidly and/or over time. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 08:26:16 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-42-NFPA Statement: Mills are not 100% efficient and the milling process is not truly steady-state as it will vary over time (due to material variations, maintenance levels, wear, etc.). Thus, a sieve analysis is only representative of the time it was taken and does not take into account the changes that occur rapidly and/or over time. Page 91

92 5 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 46-NFPA [ Section No. B ] B Are there competent igniters available? Most mills are capable of igniting the material being milled. If tramp metal gets into the process stream it is likely that the particulate will exit burning, at the very least. Also, integral, or external, fan packages represent additional hazards similar to the fan of B Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The fan package, whether integral to the mill or separate, represents a significant hazard that should also be considered. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 08:36:06 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-25-NFPA Statement: The fan package, whether integral to the mill or separate, represents a significant hazard that should also be considered. Page 92

93 6 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 47-NFPA [ Section No. B ] B What hazard management is in place? Are there magnetic separators or traps on the infeed to the mill? Is there deflagration suppression and isolation on the mill? Even if the mill is designed to be strong enough to withstand a deflagration within (many are), the deflagration flame front will exit the mill via the infeed and outfeed. What provisions are in place to isolate the mill from the rest of the process? In addition any integral or external (in-line) fan package would require management such as that discussed in B Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The fan package needs to be included in the discussion. Assumes the recommended changes of a previous submission for B Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 08:39:26 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-26-NFPA Statement: The fan package needs to be included in the discussion. Assumes the recommended changes of a previous submission for B Page 93

94 7 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 48-NFPA [ Section No. B ] B Are there competent igniters available? Yes. This duct is immediately downstream from the mill and/or fan package, which can be a source of ignition. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input The fan which creates the air flow the the mill must also be considered. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 08:43:44 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-27-NFPA Statement: The fan which creates the air flow the the mill must also be considered. Page 94

95 8 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 49-NFPA [ Section No. B ] B Is the particulate suspended in air? This depends on the type, make, and model of the screens used. Some agitate the material more aggressively than others. An analysis of the operating screens for the presence of a dust suspension should be undertaken to determine if this criterion is satisfied. Most screens leak dust into the building interior, and that issue has to be addressed Without proper dust collection these devices can emit combustible dusts into the surrounding area. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input Without dust collection (usually only on the inlet and outlet portions of the screen to assure the screening process is not inhibited), even with good enclosure of the screen and screening process, dust emissions can and most likely will occur. This is especially true over time when flex connections, seals, etc., tend to wear, etc. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 08:46:12 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: FR-28-NFPA Statement: Without dust collection (usually only on the inlet and outlet portions of the screen to assure the screening process is not inhibited), even with good enclosure of the screen and screening process, dust emissions can and most likely will occur. This is especially true over time when flex connections, seals, etc., tend to wear, etc. Page 95

96 9 of 69 10/3/2016 2:09 PM Public Input No. 50-NFPA [ Section No. B ] B What hazard management is in place? The occupants must be protected from dust collector fires as well as dust collector explosions. (In many industries dust collector fires outnumber dust collector explosions.) For dust collector fire, return air diversion to prevent combustion products from entering the building is sufficient. (Generally, dust collectors collecting metallic particulates are not permitted to return air to the building.) To protect occupants from the dust collector explosion, a common approach is to install deflagration isolation as well as either deflagration venting or deflagration suppression. If a fire occurs in the dust collector then aborting (for the smoke, etc.) or other managements methdos should be considered. The protection feature in place should be documented. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input smoke, etc., should also be considered when returning the air back into a compartment/building. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Jack Osborn Organization: Airdusco, Inc. Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Jun 28 08:52:00 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Resolution: This concept is already addressed in the second sentence. Page 96

97 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Technical Committee on Fundamentals of Combustible Dusts Kelly Carey, Project Administrator DATE: November 1, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 652 First Draft Technical Committee FINAL Ballot Results (A2018) According to the final ballot results, all ballot items received the necessary affirmative votes to pass ballot. 31 Members Eligible to Vote 2 Members Not Returned (Christman, Floyd) 22 Members Voted Affirmative on All Revisions (w/ comment: Cholin, Frank, Gombar, Hansen, Osborn, Rodgers, Stevenson, Ural, Zalosh) 7 Members Voted Negative on one or more Revisions (Frank, Hansen, Myers, Norris, Reason, Stevenson, Ural) 0 Members Abstained on one or more Revisions The attached report shows the number of affirmative, negative, and abstaining votes as well as the explanation of the vote for each revision. To pass ballot, each revision requires: (1) a simple majority of those eligible to vote and (2) an affirmative vote of 2 /3 of ballots returned. See Sections (c) and of the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards. Page 97

98 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 30-NFPA [ Global Input ] All instances of Dust Hazard Analysis should be Dust Hazards Analysis. Please change to the plural all throughout Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Aug 10 15:07:09 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Establishes consistent terminology throughout the document. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Page 98

99 of /1/ :33 AM Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Negative with Comment Myers, Timothy J. Prefer term Dust Hazard Analysis. Already in use in other documents, and other historically used terms use singular term Hazard, such as Process Hazard Analysis Page 99

100 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 45-NFPA [ Global Input ] Change title of Section from AMS Locations to AMS. (delete the term location) Current section (AMS Clean Exhaust) should be renumbered renumber all subsequent sections. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 15 10:58:03 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Clarifies title of section and revises numbering of the chapter to reflect the committees intent. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. Page 100

101 of /1/ :33 AM McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Ural, Erdem A. Add Air Material Separator before (AMS) Page 101

102 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 52-NFPA [ Global Input ] Move 8.4, Housekeeping, 8.6, PPE, and 8.5.3, Hot Work to Chapter 9, right after 9.3. Leave heading for 8.5.3, Hot Work, in Chapter 8 and refer the reader to the new location in Chapter 9 for the requirements. Supplemental Information File Name _Chapter_8_Material_to_be_moved..docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 11:17:56 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The committee is moving several of the management system elements from Chapter 8 to Chapter 9. Management system requirements are more appropriately located in Chapter 9, which is titled, Management Systems. This makes it clear to the user that they are retroactive, and that they are retained prescriptive requirements for the performance-based design option. These sections are 8.4, Housekeeping, 8.6, Personnel Protective Equipment, and 8.5.3, Hot Work. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Page 102

103 of /1/ :33 AM Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Negative with Comment Myers, Timothy J. Other standards have already been directed to follow existing section numbering of the first edition of NFPA 652. Moving sections from one chapter to another each revision cycle makes it impossible to maintain consistency in numbering between NFPA 652 and commodity specific standards, and makes it difficult for users to compare different standards to identify the requirements that they need to follow. Moving sections from one chapter to another should be discouraged. Page 103

104 8.4 Housekeeping General. Unless otherwise specified, the requirements of Section 8.4 shall be applied retroactively * Methodology Procedure * Housekeeping procedures shall be documented * The methods used for cleaning surfaces shall be selected on the basis of reducing the potential for creating a combustible dust cloud Cleaning methods to be used shall be based on the characteristics of the material and quantity of material present Vacuum Cleaning Method * First Revision No. 10-NFPA Edit Hide Markup Portable vacuum cleaners that meet the following minimum requirements shall be permitted to be used to collect combustible particulate solids in unclassified (nonhazardous) areas: (1) Materials of construction shall comply with (2) Hoses shall be conductive or static dissipative. (3) All conductive components, including wands and attachments, shall be bonded and grounded. (4) Dust-laden air shall not pass through the fan or blowerthe fan or blower shall be on the clean-side of the primary filtration media or wet separation chamber. (5) Electrical motors shall not be in located on the dust-laden air stream dirty-side of the primary filtration media or wet separation chamber unless listed for Class II, Division 1, locations. (6) * Where liquids or wet materials are picked up by the vacuum cleaner, paper filter elements shall not be used. (7) Vacuum cleaners used for metal dusts shall meet the requirements of NFPA 484. Portable vacuum cleaners that meet the following minimum requirements shall be permitted to be used to collect combustible particulate solids in unclassified (nonhazardous) areas: (1) Materials of construction shall comply with (2) Hoses shall be conductive or static dissipative. (3) All conductive components, including wands and attachments, shall be bonded and grounded. (4) Dust-laden air shall not pass through the fan or blower. Page 104

105 * (5) Electrical motors shall not be in the dust-laden air stream unless listed for Class II, Division 1, locations. (6) *Where liquids or wet materials are picked up by the vacuum cleaner, paper filter elements shall not be used. (7) Vacuum cleaners used for metal dusts shall meet the requirements of NFPA 484. In Class II electrically classified (hazardous) locations, electrically powered vacuum cleaners shall be listed for the purpose and location or shall be a fixed-pipe suction system with a remotely located exhauster and an AMS installed in conformance with Section 8.3, and they shall be suitable for the dust being collected First Revision No. 11-NFPA Edit Hide Markup Where In Class II areas where flammable vapors or gases are present, vacuum cleaners shall be listed for both Class I and Class II hazardous locations. Where flammable vapors or gases are present, vacuum cleaners shall be listed for Class I and Class II hazardous locations * Sweeping, Shoveling, Scoop, and Brush Cleaning Method. The use of scoops, brooms, and brushes for sweeping and shoveling shall be a permitted cleaning method * Water Washdown Cleaning Method The use of water washdown shall be a permitted cleaning method Where the combustible dust being removed is metal or metal-containing dust or powder within the scope of NFPA 484 the requirements of NFPA 484 shall be followed * Where the combustible dust being removed is a water-reactive material, additional precautions shall be taken to control the associated hazards Water Foam Washdown Systems. (Reserved) Compressed Air Blowdown Method * Blowdowns using compressed air shall be permitted to be used as a cleaning method in accordance with the provisions of * Where blowdown using compressed air is used, the following precautions shall be followed: (1) Prior to using compressed air, vacuum cleaning, sweeping, or water washdown methods are used to clean surfaces that can be safely accessed. (2) Dust accumulations in the area after vacuum cleaning, sweeping, or water washdown do not exceed the threshold housekeeping dust accumulation. Page 105

106 (3) Compressed air hoses are equipped with pressure relief nozzles limiting the discharge pressure to 30 psi (207 kpa) in accordance with OSHA requirements in 29 CFR (b). (4) All electrical equipment, including lighting, potentially exposed to airborne dust in the area during cleaning is suitable for use in a Class II, Division 2, hazardous (classified) location in accordance with NFPA 70. (5) All ignition sources and hot surfaces capable of igniting a dust cloud or dust layer are shut down or removed from the area. (6) After blowdown is complete, residual dust on lower surfaces is cleaned prior to reintroduction of potential ignition sources. (7) Where metal or metal-containing dust or powder under the scope of NFPA 484is present, the requirements of NFPA 484 apply Steam Blow Down Method. (Reserved) Training. Employee and contractor training shall include housekeeping procedures, required personal protective equipment (PPE) during housekeeping, and proper use of equipment Equipment. (Reserved) Vacuum Trucks Vacuum trucks shall be grounded and bonded Vacuum truck hoses and couplings shall be static dissipative or conductive and grounded Frequency and Goal * Housekeeping frequency and accumulation goals shall be established to ensure that the accumulated fugitive dust levels on surfaces do not exceed the threshold housekeeping dust accumulation limits The threshold housekeeping dust accumulation limits shall be in accordance with the industry- or commodity-specific NFPA standard. (See ) * Provisions for unscheduled housekeeping shall include specific requirements establishing time to clean local dust spills or transient releases Auditing and Documentation * Housekeeping effectiveness shall be assessed based on the results of routine scheduled cleaning and inspection, not including transient releases The owner/operator shall retain documentation that routine scheduled cleaning occurs in accordance with the frequency and accumulation goals established in Hot Work. Page 106

107 * First Revision No. 12-NFPA Edit Hide Markup All In addition to the requirements of NFPA 51B, all hot work activities shall comply with through the following requirements of NFPA 51B. All hot work activities shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 51B * The area affected by hot work shall be thoroughly cleaned of combustible dust prior to commencing any hot work Equipment that contains combustible dust and is located within the hot work area shall be shut down, shielded, or both When the hot work poses an ignition risk to the combustible dust within equipment, the equipment shall be shut down and cleaned prior to commencing such hot work Floor and wall openings within the hot work area shall be covered or sealed Portable Electrical Equipment. (Reserved) First Revision No. 31-NFPA Edit Hide Markup Use of portable electrical equipment that does not comply with the electrical classification of the area where it is to be used shall be authorized and controlled in accordance with the hot work procedure as outlined in this section 8.6 Personal Protective Equipment Workplace Hazard Assessment * An assessment of workplace hazards shall be conducted as described in NFPA When the assessment in has determined that flame-resistant garments are needed, personnel shall be provided with and wear flame-resistant garments * When flame-resistant clothing is required for protecting personnel from flash fires, it shall comply with the requirements of NFPA * Consideration shall be given to the following: (1) Thermal protective characteristics of the fabric over a range of thermal exposures (2) Physical characteristics of the fabric (3) Garment construction and components (4) Avoidance of static charge buildup (5) Design of garment (6) Conditions under which garment will be worn Page 107

108 (7) Garment fit (8) Garment durability/wear life (9) Recommended laundering procedures (10) Conditions/features affecting wearer comfort Flame-resistant garments shall be selected, procured, inspected, worn, and maintained in accordance with NFPA * The employer shall implement a policy regarding care, cleaning, and maintenance for flameresistant garments Limitations of PPE Application. (Flame-Resistant Garments) * When required by , flame-resistant or non-melting undergarments shall be used * When determined by that flame-resistant garments are needed, only flame-resistant outerwear shall be worn over flame-resistant daily wear Limitations of PPE to Combustible Dust Flash Fires. (Reserved) Face, Hands, and Footwear Protection. (Reserved) Page 108

109 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 6-NFPA [ Section No ] This standard shall not apply to the following: (1) Storage or use of consumer quantities of such materials on the premises of residential or office occupancies (2) Storage or use of commercially packaged materials at retail facilities (3) Such materials displayed in original packaging in mercantile occupancies and intended for personal or household use or as building materials (4)* Warehousing of sealed containers of such materials when not associated with an operation that handles or generates combustible dust (5) Such materials stored or used in farm buildings or similar occupancies for on-premises agricultural purposes Supplemental Information File Name Annex_Material_for_FR-2.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 08 18:14:16 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response to PI-29. Adds annex material to (4). Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Page 109

110 of /1/ :33 AM Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 110

111 Annex Material for FR-2 Warehousing includes the storage of bags, super-sacks, or other containers of combustible dusts where no processing or handling of the dusts is performed, except for moving closed containers or loaded pallets. If the business activity of the facility or specific areas of the facility are confined to strictly warehousing, then the standard does not apply. However, if the facility is processing or handling the dusts outside of the closed containers (e.g. opening containers and dispensing dusts), then the facility is required to meet all of all of the applicable requirements of this standard. Page 111

112 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 2-NFPA [ Section No ] 1.4.1* For the purposes of this standard, the industry- or commodity-specific NFPA standards shall include the following: (1) NFPA 61, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities (2) NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals (3) NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids (4) NFPA 655, Standard for Prevention of Sulfure Sulfur Fires and Explosions (5) NFPA 664, Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Woodworking Facilities Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 08 15:20:09 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Fixing typographical error. Response Message: Public Input No. 62-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Page 112

113 0 of /1/ :33 AM Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 113

114 1 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 3-NFPA [ Section No ] ASTM Publications. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, 2012a. ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 08 15:21:58 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Date updates. Response Message: Public Input No. 4-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. Page 114

115 2 of /1/ :33 AM House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 115

116 3 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 67-NFPA [ Section No. 2.4 ] 2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections. NFPA 51B, Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work, 2014 edition. NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, edition. NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems, 2014 edition. NFPA 221, Standard for High Challenge Fire Walls, Fire Walls, and Fire Barrier Walls, edition. NFPA 484, Standard for Combustible Metals, 2015 edition. NFPA 654, Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids, edition. NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, edition. NFPA 1250, Recommended Practice in Fire and Emergency Services Organization Risk Management, edition. NFPA 1451, Standard for a Fire and Emergency Service Vehicle Operations Training Program, edition. NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, 2018 edition. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 18 11:09:58 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Change in edition dates for extracts - changes made for first draft only. Additional extracts will be updated at second draft. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Page 116

117 4 of /1/ :33 AM Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Negative with Comment Ural, Erdem A. I see references to a few 2018 editions. How can the committee vote on extracts potentially subject to change? Page 117

118 5 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 4-NFPA [ New Section after 3.1 ] * Explosible. Capable of propagating a deflagration when dispersed in air or the process-specific oxidizing media. Supplemental Information File Name Annex_Material_for_FR-4.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 08 15:34:31 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The term explosible is used in this and other NFPA combustible dust standards and a uniform definition should be developed. The annex refers to NFPA 68. Response Message: Public Input No. 63-NFPA [New Section after 3.1] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Page 118

119 6 of /1/ :33 AM Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 119

120 Annex Material for FR 4 A 3.3.x For dusts, explosibility is determined as described in Section For hybrid mixtures, see NFPA 68. Page 120

121 7 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 36-NFPA [ Section No ] Enclosureless AMS. An air-material separator designed to separate the conveying air from the material being conveyed where the filter medium is media are not enclosed or in a container. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 11 08:22:26 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Corrects typographical error in first revision. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. Page 121

122 8 of /1/ :33 AM McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Ural, Erdem A. The ending "not enclosed or in a container" is confusing. Page 122

123 9 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 46-NFPA [ New Section after ] Abort Gate/Damper. A device for the quick diversion of material or air to the exterior of a building or other safe location in the event of a fire. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 15 13:58:32 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Adds definition for abort gate. Term is used in the new equipment related material proposed for Chapter 8. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Page 123

124 0 of /1/ :33 AM Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Ural, Erdem A. I would add "or other specified abnormal condition." Page 124

125 1 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 35-NFPA [ Section No ] Fire Hazard. Any situation, process, material, or condition that, on the basis of applicable data, can cause a fire or provide a ready fuel supply to augment the spread or intensity of a fire and poses a threat to life or property. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Aug 10 16:31:21 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Removes, "on the basis of applicable data" in response to a Correlating Committee suggestion based on comments received on the same definition on the 654 SD ballot. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Page 125

126 2 of /1/ :33 AM Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 126

127 3 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 29-NFPA [ Section No ] Fugitive Dusts. (Reserved) Dust that escapes from equipment and containers. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Aug 10 15:03:00 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot The technical committee is proposing this new definition for fugitive dust. The term is used in the document and is not currently defined. 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 26 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Page 127

128 4 of /1/ :33 AM Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Hansen, Dale C. We should consider adding "and ducts" to this definition. Rodgers, Samuel A. Title for the section should be singular "Fugitive Dust" Negative with Comment Ural, Erdem A. Need to make the title singular. Fugitive dust can also come from rooms and enclosures. Page 128

129 5 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 49-NFPA [ New Section after ] K St. The deflagration index of a dust cloud. [ 68, 2018] Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 15 15:04:14 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Adds definition of Kst as it is used throughout the document. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Page 129

130 6 of /1/ :33 AM Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 130

131 7 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 62-NFPA [ Section No ] Separation. The interposing of distance A hazard management strategy achieved by the establishment of a distance as required by the standard between the combustible particulate solid process and other operations that are in the same [compartment] room. [ 654, 2013] [ 654: 2017] Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 16:59:02 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Update of extracted material from 654 to 2017 edition Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 27 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. McLelland, Bruce Page 131

132 8 of /1/ :33 AM Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Koch, James F. There should be commas before and after "as required by the standard". Ural, Erdem A. replace achieved with implemented. Make solid plural. Page 132

133 9 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 7-NFPA [ Section No ] 4.2.4* Compliance Options. The objectives in Section 4.2 shall be achieved deemed to have been met by implementing either of the following means : (1) A prescriptive approach in accordance with Chapters 5, 7, 8, and 9 in conjunction with any prescriptive provisions of applicable commodity-specific NFPA standards (2) A performance-based approach in accordance with Chapter 6 Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 09 10:35:51 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: This revision was created to address some of the concerns regarding objectives posed by the submitter of PI-28 and the Correlating Committee task group on objectives. The term, "deemed to have been meet", was added to imply that the objectives would be met by implementing the prescriptive requirements or a performance-based approach. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Page 133

134 0 of /1/ :33 AM Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Gombar, Robert C. The language prepared by the Correlating Committee Task Group for the Objectives provisions should have been adopted. Page 134

135 1 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 33-NFPA [ Section No ] 5.4.2* Determination of Flash-Fire Hazard Potential. (Reserved) Supplemental Information File Name Annex_Material_for_FR-33.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Aug 10 16:09:06 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Change in title of reserved section to reflect more accurately the material that might be added. The committee also added annex material to reflect the current status of the topic. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Page 135

136 2 of /1/ :33 AM Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 136

137 Write annex material for Determination of Flash-Fire Potential. Currently several organizations are in the early stages of developing testing methods to determine the flash-fire potential for combustible dusts. Currently, this document assesses the flash-fire potential to exist concurrently with explosibility, as determined by existing test methods. Page 137

138 3 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 8-NFPA [ New Section after ] Samples that could oxidize or degrade in the presence of air shall be maintained in suitable inert gas or vacuum packaging until tested. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 09 10:59:08 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Some materials can oxidize or degrade in air changing their combustibility or explosibility characteristics and should be appropriately preserved between sampling and testing. Public Input No. 64-NFPA [New Section after 5.5.3] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. Page 138

139 4 of /1/ :33 AM House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 139

140 5 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 32-NFPA [ Section No. 6.6 ] 6.6 Retained Prescriptive Requirements. Portions of a facility designed in accordance with this chapter as an alternative for particular prescriptive requirements shall meet all other relevant prescriptive requirements in this standard Portions of a facility design in accordance with Chapter 6 shall also meet the following requirements: Housekeeping in accordance with Section 8.4 PPE in accordance with Section 8.6 Management systems in accordance with Chapter 9 Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Aug 10 15:35:26 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The committee is moving the retained prescriptive requirements to Chapter 9, Management Systems so that any performance-based design needs to meet the management system requirements in Chapter 9. It addition to the housekeeping requirements (Section 8.4), and PPE (Section 8.6), Hot Work (Section 8.5.3) is being moved to Chapter 9. Any performance based design needs to meet all of the Management System requirements in Chapter 9. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 27 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Page 140

141 6 of /1/ :33 AM Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Gombar, Robert C. The new language in Sec. 6.6 should end with "shall meet all of the Management Systems requirements in Chapter 9." Because it does not, as written, focus on the requirements in Chapter 9, the new language in Sec. 6.6 is likely to cause confusion in its application. Negative with Comment Ural, Erdem A. I do not believe the wording is clear enough. Page 141

142 7 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 38-NFPA [ Section No. 7.1 ] 7.1* General Requirements Responsibility. The owner/operator of a facility where materials that have been determined to be combustible or explosible in accordance with Chapter 5 are present in an enclosure shall be responsible to ensure a DHA is completed in accordance with the requirements of this chapter * The requirements of Chapter 7 this chapter shall apply retroactively in accordance with through and For existing processes and facility compartments that are undergoing material modification, the owner/operator shall complete DHAs as part of the project. A DHA shall be completed for all new processes and facility compartments * For existing processes and facility compartments that are not undergoing material modification, the owner/operator shall schedule and complete DHAs of existing processes and facility compartments within a 3-year period from the effective date of the standard., a DHA shall be completed by September 7, For the purposes of applying the provisions of 7.1.2, material modification shall include modifications or maintenance and repair activities that exceed 25 percent of the original cost. The owner/operator shall demonstrate reasonable progress in each of the 3 years each year in completing DHAs prior to the deadline set in For the purposes of applying the provisions of 7.1.2, material modification shall include modifications or maintenance and repair activities that exceed 25 percent of the original cost. The absence of previous incidents shall not be used as the basis for not performing a DHA The DHA shall be reviewed and updated at least every 5 years. Supplemental Information File Name Description Annex_Material_for_FR-38.docx Revised annex material for Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 11 15:23:01 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Ballot Results The committee revised this section in response to PI - 38, 39, 58, and 57 on Chapter 7, DHA. In response to input from the Correlating Committee to align the schedule for DHA implementation with the industry and commodity-specific standards (5 years versus 3 years), the committee set the date for completion of all DHA to five years from the effective date of the current edition of 652 (September 7th, 2020). They clarified the language indicating that a DHA is required for all new processes and facility compartments. The concept of significant modification triggering a DHA was deleted. By the time this edition of 652 is issues, Industry should be well on their way to implementation. Modifications are covered under the MOC provisions in Chapter 9. The committee also added a requirement that the DHA be reviewed and updated every five years. In addition, the committee emphasized that the absence of previous incidents is not be used as a basis for not performing a DHA. This item has passed ballot Page 142

143 8 of /1/ :33 AM 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 25 Affirmative All 3 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Affirmative with Comment Gombar, Robert C. The new Sec regarding the absence of previous incidents is not necessary. The DHA requirement in Chapter 7 is based on a determination made under Chapter 5, and Sec already covers the previous incidents requirement in the new Sec Also, given the MOC requirement in Chapter 9, the new Sec is not necessary. For the current edition of 652, the Committee voted 31 to 1 to delete the 5 year update for DHAs because of the MOC requirement in Chapter 9. Osborn, Jack E. we may have to consider coordinating with the commodity standards Zalosh, Robert G. Comment on Paragraph I suggest an Annex Paragraph along the following lines be added to give the user an explanation of what is considered reasonable progress in meeting the September 7, 2020 deadline for completing a DHA. A Since the last edition deadline for completing a DHA was September 7, 2018 (three years from the September 7, 2015 date of issue of NFPA ), reasonable progress might consist of the following schedule. Identification of all FACILITY combustible dusts and pertinent enclosures by September 7, Initiation of the DHA by a defined project team working on a documented DHA scope of work applicable to the facility and specific combustible dusts by September 7, Progress on producing a draft DHA would be a reasonable goal by this time. Completion of the draft DHA by April 7, 2019; Review of the draft DHA by June 7, 2019, and completion and dissemination of the revised DHA by September 7, Page 143

144 9 of /1/ :33 AM Negative with Comment Ural, Erdem A. I am sorry to see the Technical Committee compromise the safety of the workplace and the public. How can anyone protect them without knowing the hazards that will be identified in Dust Hazards Analysis? I am even more disappointed with the Correlating Committee, the instigator of this irresponsible act. Page 144

145 Annex Material for FR 38 A The deadline for completing initial DHAs is 5 years after the effective date of the first edition of this standard. The first edition allowed only 3 years for completion of all DHAs. This edition extends this period to 5 years. It is not the intent of this requirement to permit a delay in the completion of all DHA until the third fifth year. Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri), 11 pt Formatted: Font: +Body (Calibri), 11 pt Page 145

146 0 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 39-NFPA [ Section No. 8.1 ] 8.1* Inherently Safer Designs. (Reserved) Supplemental Information File Name Annex_Material_for_FR_-39.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 11 16:20:17 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The committee is going to leave this section as reserved. It is setting up a task group for the second draft for development of additional annex material. It is also changing the title of the section to Inherently Safer Design. The original title implies an absolute that cannot be meet (safe design). Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Page 146

147 1 of /1/ :33 AM Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Ural, Erdem A. I would replace "the need to handle combustible dusts" with "or eliminate combustible dust hazards." Page 147

148 Annex Material for FR 39 Facilities should consider alternative processes or raw materials that reduce the need to handle combustible dusts. Page 148

149 2 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 44-NFPA [ New Section after ] Systems That Convey Hybrid Mixtures. The percentage of the lower flammable limit (LFL) of flammable vapors and the percentage of the minimum explosible concentration (MEC) of combustible dusts, when combined, shall not exceed 25 percent within the airstream, except for systems protected in accordance with (1) through (6). Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 15 10:50:51 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Committee generated first revision. Adds requirements from 654 for systems conveying hybrid mixtures. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. Page 149

150 3 of /1/ :33 AM McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Ural, Erdem A. We should improve this requirement in the second revision. Page 150

151 4 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 43-NFPA [ Section No ] Shutdown. (A) Pneumatic conveying, dust collection, and centralized vacuum cleaning systems shall be designed such that on, upon normal shutdown of the process, the system maintains design air velocity until material is purged from the system. (B) The requirements of (A) (A) (A) shall not apply during emergency shutdown of the process, such as by activation of an emergency stop button or by activation of an automatic safety interlocking device. (C) Pneumatic Dilute phase pneumatic conveying systems shall be designed such that on, upon restart after an emergency shutdown, residual materials can be cleared and design air velocity can be achieved prior to admission of new material. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Mon Aug 15 10:44:29 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Committee generated first revision clarifying the requirements for shutdown of pneumatic conveying system. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Page 151

152 5 of /1/ :33 AM Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 152

153 6 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 40-NFPA [ Section No ] * Specific Requirements for Dust Collection Systems * At each collection point, the system shall be designed to achieve the minimum velocity required for capture, control, and containment of the dust source * The hood or pickup point for each dust source shall have a documented minimum air volume flow based upon the system design * Branch lines shall not be disconnected, and unused portions of the system shall not be blanked off without providing a means to maintain required and balanced airflow * The addition of branch lines shall not be made to an existing system without first confirming that the entire system will maintain the required and balanced airflow * Dust collection systems that remove material from operations that generate flames, sparks, or hot material under normal operating conditions shall not be interconnected with dust collection systems that transport combustible particulate solids or hybrid mixtures. (See ) * The air-material separator (AMS) selected for the system shall be designed to allow for the characteristics of the combustible dust being separated from the air or gas flow * Air-moving devices (AMDs) shall be of appropriate type and sufficient capacity to maintain the required rate of air flow in all parts of the system * Control equipment controlling the operation of the AMS shall be installed in a location that is safe from the effects of a deflagration in the AMS. Supplemental Information File Name Annex_Material_for_FR-40.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Thu Aug 11 17:45:35 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: Energy requirement for dust systems are significant and often the single largest power consumer in a facility. Multiple tests has shown that the actual demand for vacuum is often in the 20 to 30% of full open design flows. With new technology it is now possible via a control system to manage where vacuum is needed and at the same time assure that minimum design velocities are maintained to prevent accumulation of dust in the ducting and also maintain minimum design flows at each drop. The committee is adding annex material to this section that describes variable speed fans and automated dampers. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot Page 153

154 7 of /1/ :33 AM 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Osborn, Jack E. the statement about 20 and 30% is incorrect. I have reviewed over 1,500 systems in my lifetime and the statement is incorrect. Justification is wrong. This method will be used rarely and should not be confused with correct balanced-by-design methodology. But, if they want to spend the money it may work (or may not). Page 154

155 Additional Annex Text for FR 40 To be added to the end of the current annex material for Systems have been introduced to incorporate variable speed fans and automated dampers in dust collection systems serving multiple points of use. These systems can reduce energy use by closing unused branch ducts and reducing fan speed while still maintaining design velocities throughout the system. Proper design of these systems is essential to ensure that reliable operation will be achieved under all use conditions. These systems use smaller diameter main ducts to allow for adequate conveying velocity to be maintained under normal use conditions. For use as an add on to existing dust collection systems the duct system should be redesigned to comply with the requirements of this section. At full use, the smaller main ducts can produce significant pressure drop, and so the fan should be sized appropriately to accommodate both minimum and maximum use conditions. The design should include the following elements, at a minimum: 1. The design should specify the required air volume for each point of use and the minimum velocity for each branch line and duct section between the points of use and the AMS. 2. Monitoring systems should be provided at each drop/branch duct to assure minimum design airflow is maintained when the branch is open. 3. The design should ensure that the required velocity is maintained in all open branches and all duct sections under all use conditions. 4. The controller should automatically open additional points of use or balance air dampers as necessary to always maintain minimum air velocity in all sub branches and the main duct. 5. At startup all gates should be open. 6. The fan package and AMS used in the system should be compatible with the full performance requirements of the system (all sources open to minimum sources open). Improper selection of these items can result in failure to maintain the required duct velocities. 7. Alarms should be provided to alert the appropriate personnel when the system fails to provide the required performance. Page 155

156 8 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 50-NFPA [ New Section after ] AMS Construction AMSs shall be constructed of noncombustible materials Filter media and filter media support frames shall be permitted to be constructed of combustible material Where isolated from an AMS by a valve, portable containers intended to receive materials discharged from the AMS shall be permitted to be constructed of combustible material AMSs shall be constructed to minimize internal ledges or other points of dust accumulation Hopper bottoms shall be sloped and the discharge conveying system shall be designed to handle the maximum material flow attainable from the system Where provided to permit inspection, cleaning, and maintenance, access doors and access openings shall meet the following requirements: (1) They shall be designed to prevent dust leaks. (2) They shall be permitted to be used as deflagration vents if they are specifically designed for both purposes. (3) They shall be bonded and grounded. (4)* If not designed to be used as deflagration vents, they shall be designed to the same strength as the AMS Air-Moving Devices (Fans and Blowers) Air-moving devices (AMDs) shall conform to the requirements of NFPA 91, except as amended by the requirements of this chapter Where an explosion hazard exists, systems shall be designed in such a manner that combustible particulate solids do not pass through an AMD * The requirement of shall not apply to systems protected by an approved explosion prevention or isolation system to prevent the propagation of the flame front from the fan to other equipment in accordance with (1), (5), or (6) or * Where an AMD is located in the dirty air stream and the dust/air stream concentration is higher than 10 percent of the MEC, fans and blowers shall be of Type A or Type B spark-resistant construction per AMCA , Classification for Spark Resistant Construction, or Type C spark-resistant construction protected with spark detection and extinguishment located downstream of the fan Duct Systems Ducts that handle combustible particulate solids shall conform to the requirements of NFPA 91, except as amended by the requirements of this chapter * Changes in duct sizes shall be designed to prevent the accumulation of material by utilizing a tapered transformation piece, with the included angle of the taper not more than 30 degrees * When ducts pass through a physical barrier erected to segregate dust deflagration hazards, physical isolation protection shall be provided to prevent propagation of deflagrations between segregated spaces Access doors, openings, or removable sections of ductwork shall be provided to allow inspection, cleaning, maintenance, and fire department access. Page 156

157 49 of /1/ :33 AM Access doors, openings, or removable sections of ductwork shall be designed and maintained to prevent dust leaks and preserve the integrity of the duct Access doors, openings, or removable sections of ductwork that are not specifically designed for deflagration venting shall not be considered as providing that function Access doors, openings, or removable sections of ductwork shall be bonded and grounded Sight Glasses Sight glasses shall be of a material that is impact and erosion-resistant Sight glass assemblies shall have a pressure rating equal to or greater than that of the ductwork Ductwork shall be supported on each side of the sight glass so that the sight glass does not carry any of the system weight and is not subject to stress or strain The mechanical strength of the sight glass mounting mechanism shall be equal to the adjoining ductwork The inside diameter of a sight glass shall not cause a restriction of flow The connections between the sight glass and the ductwork shall be squarely butted and sealed so as to be both airtight and dusttight The electrical bonding across the length of the sight glass shall be continuous and have a resistance of no more than 1 ohm Abort Gates/Dampers Construction Abort gates and abort dampers shall be constructed of noncombustible materials Abort gates and abort dampers shall be actuated by spark detection or equivalent automatic detection in the duct or pipe upstream of the device The detection system and abort gate shall respond to prevent sparks, glowing embers, or burning materials from passing beyond the abort gate The abort gate or abort damper shall be installed so that it diverts airflow to a restricted area to safely discharge combustion gases, flames, burning solids, or process gases or fumes Manual Reset An abort gate or abort damper shall be provided with a manually activated reset located proximate to the device such that, subsequent to operation, it can be returned to the normal operating position at the damper/gate Automatic or remote reset provisions shall not be permitted Integrity of Actuation Circuits All fire protection abort gates or abort dampers shall be connected to the fire detection control panel via Class A or Class D circuits as described in NFPA When the abort gate is connected via a Class A circuit, supervision shall include the continuity of the abort gate or abort damper releasing device, whether that device is a solenoid coil, a detonator (explosive device) filament, or other such device Bulk Storage Enclosures General. Page 157

158 0 of /1/ :33 AM For the purposes of this section, bulk storage enclosures shall include items such as bins, tanks, hoppers, and silos * The requirements of this section shall not apply to containers that are used for transportation of the material * Construction. Bulk storage enclosures, whether located inside or outside of buildings, shall be constructed so as not to represent an increase in the fire load beyond the capabilities of the existing fire protection Fixed Bulk Storage Location Where an explosion hazard exists, fixed bulk storage enclosures shall be located outside of buildings Fixed bulk storage enclosures shall be permitted to be located inside buildings where one of the following applies: (1) Fixed bulk storage enclosures are protected in accordance with (2)* Fixed bulk storage enclosures are less than 8 ft 3 (0.2 m 3 ) * Interior Surfaces. Interior surfaces shall be designed and constructed to facilitate cleaning and to minimize combustible dust accumulation Access Doors and Access Openings. Where provided to permit inspection, cleaning, and maintenance, access doors and access openings shall meet the following requirements: (1) They shall be designed to prevent dust leaks. (2) They shall be permitted to be used as deflagration vents if they are specifically designed for both purposes. (3) They shall be bonded and grounded. (4) If not designed to be used as deflagration vents, they shall be designed to the same strength as the AMS * Size Reduction. Before material is processed by size reduction equipment, foreign materials shall be excluded or removed as required by * Particle Size Separation Particle separation devices shall be designed to control fugitive dust emissions per Section Flexible connectors shall be in conformance with Pressure Protection Systems Vacuum Breakers. Vacuum breakers shall be installed on negative-pressure systems if the enclosure is not designed for the maximum vacuum attainable Pressure Relief Devices Pressure relief devices for relief of pneumatic overpressure shall be installed on positive-pressure systems The requirement of shall not apply to systems that are designed for a gauge pressure of less than 15 psi (103 kpa) and are provided with safety interlocks designed to prevent overpressure in accordance with ISA , Functional Safety: Application of Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industry Sector The requirement of shall not apply to systems that are designed for a gauge pressure of less than 15 psi (103 kpa) and are capable of containing the maximum pressure attainable * Pressure relief devices shall not be vented to an area where a dust explosion hazard or dust flash-fire hazard exists, as specified by Section 6.1 of NFPA Airflow Control Valves. Page 158

159 1 of /1/ :33 AM Airflow control valves that are installed in pneumatic conveying, dust collection, or centralized vacuum cleaning systems shall provide a tight shutoff Airflow control valves shall be sized to allow passage of the design airflow when the valve is fully open The position of airflow control valves shall be visually indicated Manually adjusted airflow control valves, dampers, or gates, shall have a means of being secured so as to prevent subsequent adjustment or manipulation once the system is set Diverter valves shall effect a positive diversion of the material and shall mechanically seal all other directions from air or material leakage Material Feeding Devices Mechanical Feeding Devices Mechanical feeding devices shall be equipped with a shear pin or overload detection device and alarm The alarm shall sound at the operator control station Drives All drives used in conjunction with feeders, air locks, and other material feeding devices shall be directly connected Belt, chain and sprocket, or other indirect drives that are designed to stall the driving forces without slipping and to provide for the removal of static electric charges shall be permitted to be used * Bucket Elevators Elevator casings, head and boot sections, and connecting ducts shall be designed to control fugitive dust emissions and shall be constructed of noncombustible materials Where provided, inlet and discharge hoppers shall be designed to be accessible for cleaning and inspection Power Cutoff Each leg shall be provided with a speed sensor device that will cut off the power to the drive motor and actuate an alarm in the event the leg belt slows to 80 percent of normal operating speed Feed to the elevator leg by mechanical means shall be stopped or diverted Belts * Belt-driven bucket elevators shall have nonslip material (lagging) installed on the head pulley to minimize slippage * Belts and lagging shall be fire and oil resistant No bearings shall be located in the bucket elevator casing * Head and boot sections shall be provided with openings to allow for cleanout, inspection, and alignment of the pulley and belt Drive * The bucket elevator shall be driven by a motor and drive train that is capable of handling the full-rated capacity of the elevator without overloading The drive shall be capable of starting the unchoked elevator under full (100 percent) load Monitors. Page 159

160 2 of /1/ :33 AM Elevators shall have monitors at head and tail pulleys that indicate high bearing temperature, vibration detection, head pulley alignment, and belt alignment Abnormal conditions shall actuate an alarm requiring corrective action The alarm specified in shall sound at the operator control station Emergency Controls All bins into which material is directly discharged from the bucket elevator and that are not designed with automatic overflow systems shall be equipped with devices to shut down equipment or with high-level indicating devices with visual or audible alarms The audible alarm specified in shall sound at the operator control station * Enclosed Conveyors Housing and Coverings Housings for enclosed conveyors (e.g., screw conveyors and drag conveyors) shall be of metal construction and designed to prevent escape of combustible dusts Flexible screw conveyors utilizing nonmetal housing shall be permitted to be used, provided the requirements of are met Coverings on cleanout, inspection, and other openings shall be fastened to prevent the escape of combustible dusts Power Shutoff * All conveyors shall be equipped with a device that shuts off the power to the drive motor and sounds an alarm in the event the conveyor plugs The alarm specified in shall sound at the operator control station, and feed to the conveyor shall be stopped or diverted Mixers and Blenders Mixers and blenders shall be designed to control fugitive dust emissions Foreign materials shall be excluded or removed as required by Mixers and blenders shall be made of metal, other noncombustible material, or material that does not represent an increased fire load beyond the capabilities of the existing fire protection * Dryers Drying Media Drying media that come into contact with material being processed shall not be recycled to rooms or buildings Drying media shall be permitted to be recycled to the drying process provided the following conditions are met: (1) The media passes through a filter, dust separator, or equivalent means of dust removal. (2) The vapor flammability of the drying media in the dryer is controlled by either oxidant concentration reduction or combustible concentration reduction in accordance with NFPA 69. Global FR Dryers shall be constructed of noncombustible materials Interior surfaces of dryers shall be designed so that accumulations of material are minimized and cleaning is facilitated. Page 160

161 3 of /1/ :33 AM Access doors or openings shall be provided in all parts of the dryer and connecting conveyors to permit inspection, cleaning, maintenance, and the effective use of portable extinguishers or hose streams Heated dryers shall comply with NFPA * Heated dryers shall have operating controls arranged to maintain the temperature of the drying chamber within the prescribed limits Heated dryers and their auxiliary equipment shall be equipped with separate excess-temperature-limit controls, independent of the operating controls, arranged to supervise the following: (1) Heated air supply to the drying chamber (2) Airstream at the discharge of the drying chamber Supplemental Information File Name Annex_Material_for_FR-50.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 10:26:11 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The technical committee is adding this equipment related material to Chapter 8. Much of the material is from NFPA 654, with edits and revisions. This section contains the fundamental requirements for process equipment for combustible dust. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 25 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Page 161

162 4 of /1/ :33 AM Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Affirmative with Comment Cholin, John M. Section contains restriction where the air stream is at 10% of MEC whereas NFPA 69 permits the use of concentration control for explosion hazard management up to 25% of MEC. What is the justification for a more stringent concentration criterion? Zalosh, Robert G. Please check section reference to fugitive dust control; now referenced as paragraph 8.6, but may be in Chapter 9 on Dust Control. Negative with Comment Norris, Jim E. I feel the word "or" should be inserted in between high bearing temperature and vibration detection as below. This is consistent with other standards (e.g. NFPA 61, and vibration detection may not work for all bucket elevator applications. Elevators shall have monitors at head and tail pulleys that indicate high bearing temperature "OR" vibration detection, head pulley alignment, and belt alignment. Ural, Erdem A. Must add: Where an explosion hazard exists, bucket elevators shall be protected in accordance with NFPA 68 and NFPA 69. Page 162

163 Annex Material for FR 47 A See NFPA 68 A These systems include pneumatic conveying systems that require relay (booster) fans and product dryers where the fan is an integral part of the dryer. A The production of mechanical sparks is only one possible ignition mechanism from a fan or blower. Frictional heat due to contact between moving parts (misalignment) or bearing failure can present an ignition source both in the fan and downstream. Additionally, these failure mechanisms can result in a decrease in airflow through the AMD, which can result in an increase in the combustible dust concentration coincident with the creation of an ignition source. A Whenever a duct size changes, the cross sectional area changes as well. This change in area causes a change in air velocity in the region of the change, introducing turbulence effects. The net result is that a transition (often called a reducer) with an included angle of more than 30 degrees represents a choke when the direction of flow is from large to small and results in localized heating and static electric charge accumulation. When the transition is from small to large, the air velocity drop at the transition is usually enough to cause product accumulation at the transition and the existence of a volume where the concentration of combustible is above the MEC. It is strongly desirable that both situations be avoided. A Isolation devices in accordance with are provided to prevent deflagration propagation between connected equipment. According to 8.9.4, additional protection is indicated when the integrity of a physical barrier could be breached through ductwork failure caused by a deflagration outside the equipment. In some cases, a single equipment isolation device can provide protection in both scenarios if that isolation device is installed at the physical barrier. In other cases, this concern can be addressed by strengthening the duct and supports to preclude failure. A Shipping containers can pose a deflagration hazard; however, deflagration protection measures for these units are not always practical. Consideration should be given to deflagration hazards when electing to omit deflagration protection. A Historically, required that the fixed bulk storage enclosure be constructed of noncombustible materials, which usually meant a metallic material. However, there are some particulates that represent a serious corrosion threat or where contamination from the materials of construction introduces product quality issues, therefore nonmetallic construction is required. The materials of construction for a bulk storage enclosure should not increase the fire protection challenge. A (2) Small containers can pose an explosion hazard; however, explosion protection measures for these units are not always practicable. Consideration should be given to explosion hazards when electing to omit protection. A Horizontal projections can have the tops sharply sloped to minimize the deposit of dust thereon. Efforts should be made to minimize the amount of surfaces where dust can accumulate. A Size reduction machinery includes equipment such as mills, grinders, and pulverizers. A Particle separation devices include screens, sieves, aspirators, pneumatic separators, sifters, and similar devices. Page 163

164 A High momentum discharges from relief valves within buildings can disturb dust layers, creating combustible clouds of dust. A It is recommended that bucket elevators be located outside of buildings whenever practicable. A Belt alignment monitoring devices are recommended for all elevator legs. Bearing monitoring systems are recommended for head, tail, and bend (knee) pulley bearings on elevator legs. A Where conductive buckets are used on nonconductive belts, bonding and grounding should be considered to reduce the hazards of static electricity accumulation. See NFPA 77 for more information. A Where it is desired to prevent propagation of an explosion from the elevator leg to another part of the facility, an explosion isolation system should be provided at the head, boot, or both locations. A The motor selected should not be larger than the smallest standard motor capable of meeting this requirement. A Explosion protection should be provided when the risk is significant. Where coverings are provided on cleanout, inspection, or other openings, they should be designed to withstand the expected deflagration pressure. A Explosion protection should be provided when the risk is significant. Where coverings are provided on cleanout, inspection, or other openings, they should be designed to withstand the expected deflagration pressure. A Explosion protection should be provided when the risk is significant. Where coverings are provided on cleanout, inspection, or other openings, they should be designed to withstand the expected deflagration pressure. A The maximum safe operating temperature of a dryer is a function of the time temperature ignition characteristics of the particulate solid being dried as well as of the dryer type. For short time exposures of the material to the heating zone, the operating temperatures of the dryer can approach the dust cloud ignition temperature. However, if particulate solids accumulate on the dryer surfaces, the operating temperature should be maintained below the dust layer ignition temperature. The dust layer ignition temperature is a function of time, temperature, and the thickness of the layer. It can be several hundred degrees below the dust cloud ignition temperature. The operating temperature limit of the dryer should be based on an engineering evaluation, taking into consideration the preceding factors. The dust cloud ignition temperature can be determined by the method referenced in U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 8798, Thermal and Electrical Ignitability of Dusts (modified Godbert Greenwald furnace, BAM furnace, or other methods). The dust layer ignition temperature can be determined by the U.S. Bureau of Mines test procedure given in Lazzara and Miron, Hot Surface Ignition Temperatures of Dust Layers. Page 164

165 Page 165

166 5 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 10-NFPA [ Section No ] * Portable vacuum cleaners that meet the following minimum requirements shall be permitted to be used to collect combustible particulate solids in unclassified (nonhazardous) areas: (1) Materials of construction shall comply with (2) Hoses shall be conductive or static dissipative. (3) All conductive components, including wands and attachments, shall be bonded and grounded. (4) Dust laden air shall not pass through the fan or blower. The fan or blower shall be on the clean side of the primary filtration media or wet separation chamber. (5) Electrical motors shall not be in the dust laden air stream located on the dirty side of the primary filtration media or wet separation chamber unless listed for Class II, Division 1, locations. (6)* Where liquids or wet materials are picked up by the vacuum cleaner, paper filter elements shall not be used. (7) Vacuum cleaners used for metal dusts shall meet the requirements of NFPA 484. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 09 14:01:28 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The committee made changes to avoid the use of the term, "dust laden air", which is not well defined. The committee declined to require that all electric motors be NRTL certified. Public Input No. 51-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Page 166

167 6 of /1/ :33 AM Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 167

168 7 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 11-NFPA [ Section No ] Where flammable vapors or gases are present in Class II areas, vacuum cleaners shall be listed for both Class I and Class II hazardous locations. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 09 14:59:00 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: This clarifies the original intent of the requirement. It refers to Class II areas where flammable gases are present. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. Page 168

169 8 of /1/ :33 AM McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 169

170 9 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 12-NFPA [ Section No ] 9.5.1* All In addition to the requirements of NFPA 51B, all hot work activities shall comply with the requirements in through Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 09 16:16:11 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Clarifies the relationship between NFPA 51B and the requirements for hot work in NFPA 652 Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Page 170

171 0 of /1/ :33 AM Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 171

172 1 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 31-NFPA [ Section No ] Use of portable electrical equipment that does not comply with the electrical classification of the area where it is to be used shall be authorized and controlled in accordance with the hot work procedure as outlined in Section 9.5. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Aug 10 15:12:01 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Adds material about portable electrical equipment. This section was previously reserved. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 26 Affirmative All 2 Affirmative with Comments 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Page 172

173 2 of /1/ :33 AM Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Hansen, Dale C. In lieu of the hot work permit, this should really be modified to state that it will be allowed only under a safe work permit system. Ural, Erdem A. Wording can be improved. Negative with Comment Reason, Jason P. The use of unapproved portable electrical equipment in a Class II hazardous location is prohibited by OSHA's electrical standard (29 CFR 1910 Subpart S, ). As written, this new section directly contradicts these Federal and State OSHA standards. The use of unapproved portable electrical equipment in a Class II hazardous location is also prohibited by OSHA's Permit-Required Confined Space (PRCS) standard (29 CFR ). Because most of the dust-handling process equipment (dust collectors, dryers, etc.) may be classified as PRCSs, allowing unapproved portable electrical equipment may also contradict Finally, the use of unapproved portable electrical equipment is already covered by other consensus standards such as ANSI's Recommended Practice for Portable Electronic Products Suitable for Use in Class I and II, Division 2, Class I Zone 2 and Class III, Division 1 and 2 Hazardous (Classified) Locations. The language as written for this new section contradicts these standards and could lead to potential OSHA citations and misunderstanding of potential sources of ignition (especially during confined space entries). Page 173

174 3 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 13-NFPA [ Section No ] * Bearings that are directly exposed to a combustible dust atmosphere or that are subject to dust accumulation, either of which poses a deflagration dust ignition hazard, shall be monitored for overheating. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 09 16:22:33 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The type of bearing does not matter, this requirement applies to all bearings that are exposed to dust. The committee changed the term deflagration hazard to dust-ignition hazard to more specifically define the risk. Public Input No. 35-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. Page 174

175 4 of /1/ :33 AM House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 175

176 5 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 14-NFPA [ Section No ] * Preventive maintenance programs for electrical equipment and wiring in Class II and Class III locations shall include provisions to verify that dusttight electrical enclosures are not experiencing significant visible dust ingress accumulation. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 09 16:46:31 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The committee agrees that the use of significant is vague and unenforceable. The term was changed to visible. Response Message: Public Input No. 17-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 27 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 2 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. Page 176

177 6 of /1/ :33 AM McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Negative with Comment Frank, Walter L. I recall that our concern was with dust accumulation inside the enclosure. As worded, the proposed change does not make this distinction. It could just as easily be interpreted to mean accumulation on the exterior surfaces of the enclosure. The wording is too ambiguous to approve. Ural, Erdem A. I find Mr. Frank's negative persuasive. Page 177

178 7 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 41-NFPA [ Section No ] 8.6.3* Fans to Limit Accumulation. (Reserved) Fans for Continuous Dust Control. It shall be permitted to install and use fans to limit dust accumulation in elevated areas that are otherwise difficult to reach for housekeeping Fans shall be appropriate for the electrical classification in the areas where they are used Fans shall be provided in sufficient numbers and locations as required to keep the target areas free of dust accumulations Fans shall be in operation whenever the equipment generating the dusts is in operation Fans shall be interlocked to automatically shut down in the event of sprinkler system operation Dust dispersed by the fans shall not create an explosible dust cloud The location and range of motion of the fans shall be designed to prevent flow impingement on floors or open equipment containing entrainable dust Areas that will be swept by the fans shall be free of dust accumulations prior to placing the fans in operation and after every shutdown * These fans shall be used in conjunction with the housekeeping program to remove dust from the facility * Concealed spaces, such as areas above suspended ceilings, shall be sealed to prevent dust accumulation These systems shall not be used where areas above suspended ceilings are used as return air plenums for HVAC systems Periodic inspections shall be performed to ensure that dust accumulations are maintained below the threshold dust layer thicknesses determined in Supplemental Information File Name Annex_material_for_FR-41.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Fri Aug 12 14:55:15 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: The committee has added requirements for fans used to limit accumulation. This section is no longer reserved. Response Message: Public Input No. 54-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results Page 178

179 8 of /1/ :33 AM This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 26 Affirmative All 3 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Gombar, Robert C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Frank, Walter L. The relevance of and to this topic is unclear. Hansen, Dale C. The requirement of that the fans must remain in operation at all times that the dust producing equipment is in operation fails to account for the possibility that the dust emissions from the equipment may be low and only allow for hazardous accumulations over time. The requirement to leave the fans running, in this case, becomes a large waste of energy which will only be a deterrent for owners/operators from installing these fans as a dust management measure. Rather than forcing the use of the performance-based or risk-assessment approaches, the standard should allow in the body of the text for the owner/operator to establish the frequency of fan operation based on a hazard analysis of dust accumulation rate, to guarantee that a combustible dust cloud will not be generated Ural, Erdem A. One should also check for dust accumulations on the fans and their supports. Page 179

180 Annex material for FR-41 A These devices are used to continuously dislodge dust from hard to reach building surfaces such as roof structural members, lighting, and elevated ductwork. The fans used typically rotate through a 360 o arc and oscillate up and down to keep dust from the surfaces within the reach of the fan discharge. Large rooms require multiple fans for adequate coverage. These systems are most effective for facilities with high ceilings where light, easily entrained dusts or fibers are handled. A These systems are intended to reduce the housekeeping burden on elevated surfaces. However, they do not remove dust from the facility. The material is simply relocated to lower surfaces where it is easier to clean using standard housekeeping procedures. These systems may increase the required housekeeping frequency on lower surfaces, and may increase the amount of dust carried into the building HVAC system. A These systems should not be used where they can relocate dust into concealed spaces where the dust can accumulate and pose a deflagration hazard. Page 180

181 9 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 60-NFPA [ Section No ] Equipment Isolation * Where a dust explosion hazard exists, isolation devices shall be provided to prevent deflagration propagation between connected equipment in accordance with NFPA The requirement of shall not apply where all the following conditions are met: The material being conveyed is not a metal dust or hybrid mixture. The connecting ductwork is smaller than 4 in. (100 mm) nominal diameter. The maximum concentration of dust conveyed through the duct is less than 25 percent of the MEC of the material. The conveying velocity is sufficient to prevent accumulation of combustible dust in the duct. All connected equipment is properly designed for explosion protection by means other than deflagration pressure containment Isolation devices shall not be required where oxidant concentration has been reduced or where the dust has been rendered noncombustible in accordance with (1) or (6) Isolation of Upstream Work Areas. Where a dust explosion hazard exists, isolation devices shall be provided to prevent deflagration propagation from equipment through upstream ductwork to the work areas in accordance with NFPA 69. Supplemental Information File Name Annex_Material_for_FR-60.docx Description Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 13:39:19 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: The committee has deleted section and added the material as annex material for Research has shown that flame propagation, although less likely, can occur under all of these conditions and that these systems should not be exempt from the requirements of Additional material has been added to the annex for This change is being made to be consistent with the changes made to NFPA 654 during the last revision cycle for the 2017 edition. Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 27 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments Page 181

182 0 of /1/ :33 AM 1 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Affirmative with Comment Zalosh, Robert G. I suggest the last paragraph of Annex paragraph A be revised as follows. Factors for evaluation of isolation between equipment and work areas include, among others, the anticipated Pred for the related process equipment, the diameter and length of the connecting air duct, the Kst of the dust, and the quantity of dust in the work area that can be entrained by a pressure pulse from a deflagration in the related process equipment. Zalosh and Greenfield (2014) have shown that the probability of propagation decreases exponentially with increasing values of the parameter L/((Kst-Kmin)(d-dmin)), where L is the duct or pipe length between equipment, d is the duct or pipe diameter, Kmin is the minimum Kst required for propagration in short pipes (configuration dependent), and dmin is the minimum diameter for propagation in short pipes (depends on Pred). Reference: R. Zalosh and W. Greenfield, A probabilistic approach to dust explosion propagation hazard evaluations, Tenth International Symposium on Hazards, Prevention, and Mitigation of Industrial Explosions Bergen, Norway, June Negative with Comment Hansen, Dale C. There are several reasons I am voting against this proposed first revision, as follows: 1. The proposed change and its "justification" was not distributed to committee members as part of the meeting agenda items prior to the meeting; in fact it wasn't distributed to the committee at all before or during the meeting. The proposal was brought forward on the last day of the committee meeting as one of the very last discussion items before adjourning, when most committee members were more interested in catching a flight than giving this change the thoughtful Page 182

183 1 of /1/ :33 AM consideration it needed. The excuse was that the presentation was already made and accepted by the 654 committee, so we should just get in line with their decision without the opportunity to review or consider whether the justification merits the changes proposed. 2. The proposal and "justification" presentation is blatantly self-serving to the proponent (Fike), who stands to make a lot of profit on the requirement which will require the installation of equipment that they offer for sale. 3. The presentation slide deck used to sell this proposed change to the 654 committee was only made available to our committee after the first draft meeting adjourned. This did not give the 652 committee time to review and consider the arguments made or to determine whether the arguments were factual or had the wide-spread applicability that was inferred. Therefore, we didn t even have the opportunity to properly debate the merits of the proposal. Furthermore, the 652 committee did not have the benefit of having this material presented in person where questions and doubts could be expressed by the committee members and addressed/defended by the proponent. We were simply asked to take the VERY LIMITED information provided in the presentation as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 4. The research studies that were used to support the argument that the exceptions allowed by the existing should be stricken do not tell the whole story and, in my opinion, tell a misleading story. The information presented largely represents a single case--that of connecting ducts and vessels that are DOWNSTREAM of the ignition location, and ignores the case that, in my experience, is much more common in industry the need for explosion isolation on the inlet of an explosion protected vessel to prevent propagation upstream opposing the direction of air/material flow. 5. The presentation concludes that there is no experimental evidence to support the exceptions offered in the existing The proponent must therefore be unaware of the work on this topic completed by Lunn and the HSE in the UK, who concluded that propagation was unlikely when the connecting pipe is less than 0.1 m, or Vogl s work that observed after many trials that no flame propagation against the conveying direction was observed for wheat flour (Kst = 114) in pipes less than 150 mm in diameter and for Lycopodium (Kst = 154) in pipes less than 100 mm. I strongly oppose the way this proposal was brought forward to the committee as well as the timing of it at the committee meeting and feel the proposal should be rejected outright on these two factors alone notwithstanding the technical bias and self-serving nature of the proposal for the proponent. Page 183

184 Annex Material for SR 60 A The requirement of might not be applicable where all of the following conditions are met: (1) The material being conveyed is not a metal dust, ST-3 dust (KSt > 300 bar-m/s),or hybrid mixture. (2) The connecting ductwork is smaller than 4 in. (100 mm) nominal diameter and greater than 15 ft (5 m) in length. (3) The conveying velocity is sufficient to prevent accumulation of combustible dust in the duct. (4) All connected equipment is properly designed for explosion protection by means other than deflagration pressure containment. (5) The upstream work areas do not contain large quantities of dust that can be entrained by a pressure pulse from an explosion in the AMS. When managing the hazard of propagation via small duct one can develop performance equivalent alternative in accordance with Chapter 6. Flame spread via propagation inside ducting or piping is somewhat unpredictable for dusts. Tests have shown that propagation is much less likely under certain conditions. Piping less than 4 in. (100 mm) in diameter is less likely to provide a conduit for flame spread than larger diameter piping, although experiments have shown propagation in still smaller diameter piping. FSA conducted flame propagation tests in a system comprising two interconnected, vented 1 m 3 vessels. Experiments were carried out with pipe diameters of 27 mm, 42 mm, 82 mm (all less than 4 in.). Corn starch (Kst = 200 bar.m/s) and wheat flour (Kst ~ 100 bar.m/s) were used as fuels. Even with a small pipe diameter of 27 mm and with wheat flour (Kst ~ 100 bar.m/s) used as test dust, there was a flame propagation through a pipe length of at least 12 m in length. For interconnected vessels that are relatively close together, measures to reduce Pred for each interconnected vessel, taking into account that propagation could occur, would eliminate the need for isolation techniques. Dense phase pneumatic transfer [air velocities down near 600 fpm (183 m/min), and solids loading ratios greater than 30] is also much less likely to provide a conduit for flame spread propagation than for dilute phase pneumatic transfer [air velocities in the region of 2200 fpm to3600 fpm (672 m/min to 1098 m/min), and solids loading ratios not greater than 15]. It has been reported by Pineau that it is not uncommon for propagation to occur as little few as one time in ten in controlled experiments for 5.9 in. (150 mm) piping even for dilute phase systems. However, recent testing has shown that propagation is more likely with dust concentrations in the lean region. Metal dusts are more likely to propagate deflagrations. For organic dusts, where small diameter pipes with dense phase transfer are utilized, the need for isolation techniques could be obviated if the hazard analysis is acceptable to the AHJ. Factors for evaluation of isolation between equipment and work areas include, among others, the anticipated P red for the related process equipment, the diameter and length of the connecting air duct, and the quantity of dust in the work area that can be entrained by a pressure pulse from a deflagration in the related process equipment. See Annex D for additional information. Page 184

185 2 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 16-NFPA [ New Section after ] A periodic walk-through review of operating areas shall be conducted, on a schedule established by the owner/operator per the requirement in 9.7.3, to verify that operating procedures and safe work practices are being followed. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Aug 10 08:47:26 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Adds material regarding inspections. In partial response to PI-16 regarding inspections. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. Page 185

186 3 of /1/ :33 AM McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Osborn, Jack E. "Periodic walk-through" may not be enforceable. Need to consider a more positive statement about establishing a criteria of inspection. Page 186

187 4 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 15-NFPA [ Section No ] A thorough inspection of the operating area shall take place on an as-needed basis to help ensure periodic walk-through review of operating areas shall be conducted, on a schedule established by the owner/operator per the requirement in 9.7.3, to verify that the equipment is in safe operating condition and that proper work practices are being followed. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Aug 10 08:23:46 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Response Message: In response to PI-16 stating that inspections should be performed on a specified schedule. This changes inspections to periodic walk throughs, and directs the user to section for the establishment of a schedule. Public Input No. 18-NFPA [Section No ] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Page 187

188 5 of /1/ :33 AM Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 188

189 6 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 63-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A Air-Moving Device (AMD). An air-moving device is a fan or blower. A general description of each follows: (1) Fans (a) A wide range of devices that utilize an impeller, contained within a housing, that when rotated creates air/gas flow by negative (vacuum) or positive differential pressure. (b) These devices are commonly used to create comparatively high air/gas volume flows at relatively low differential pressures. (c) These devices are typically used with ventilation and/or dust collection systems. (d) Examples are centrifugal fans, industrial fans, mixed or axial flow fans, and inline fans. (2) Blowers (a) A wide range of devices that utilize various shaped rotating configurations, contained within a housing, that when rotated create air/gas flow by negative (vacuum) or positive differential pressure. (b) These devices are commonly used to create comparatively high differential pressures at comparatively low air/gas flows. (c) The most common use of these devices is with pneumatic transfer, high-velocity, low-volume (HVLV) dust collection and vacuum cleaning systems. (d) Examples are positive displacement (PD) blowers, screw compressors, multistage centrifugal compressors/blowers and regenerative blowers. [654, ] Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 17:13:15 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Update of extracted material from edition. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Page 189

190 7 of /1/ :33 AM Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Osborn, Jack E. "wide" range is ok, but why is it necessary? It does not matter if the range is "wide", just that it exists to cover the requirements - which it does. Page 190

191 8 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 64-NFPA [ Section No. A ] Page 191

192 9 of /1/ :33 AM A Combustible Dust. Page 192

193 0 of /1/ :33 AM The term combustible dust when used in this standard includes powders, fines, fibers, etc. Dusts traditionally were defined as material 420 μm or smaller (i.e., capable of passing through a U.S. No. 40 standard sieve). For consistency with other standards, 500 μm (i.e., capable of passing through a U.S. No. 35 standard sieve) is now considered an appropriate size criterion. Particle surface area-to-volume ratio is a key factor in determining the rate of combustion. Combustible particulate solids with a minimum dimension more than 500 μm generally have a surface-to-volume ratio that is too small to pose a deflagration hazard. Flat platelet-shaped particles, flakes, or fibers with lengths that are large compared to their diameter usually do not pass through a 500 μm sieve, yet could still pose a deflagration hazard. Many particulates accumulate electrostatic charge in handling, causing them to attract each other, forming agglomerates. Often, agglomerates behave as if they were larger particles, yet when they are dispersed they present a significant hazard. Consequently Therefore, it can be inferred that any particulate that has a minimum dimension less than or equal to 500 μm could behave as a combustible dust if suspended in air or the process specific oxidizer. If the minimum dimension of the particulate is greater than 500 μm, it is unlikely that the material would be a combustible dust, as determined by test. The determination of whether a sample of combustible material presents a flash-fire or explosion hazard could be based on a screening test methodology such as provided in the ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. Alternatively, and a standardized test method such as ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts, could be used to determine dust explosibility. Chapter 5 has additional information on testing requirements. [654, ] There is some possibility that a sample will result in a false positive in the 20 L sphere when tested by the ASTM E1226 screening test or the ASTM E1515 test. This is due to the high energy ignition source overdriving the test. When the lowest ignition energy allowed by either method still results in a positive result, the owner/operator can elect to determine whether the sample is a combustible dust with screening tests performed in a larger scale ( 1 m 3 ) enclosure, which is less susceptible to overdriving and thus will provide more realistic results. [654, ] This possibility for false positives has been known for quite some time and is attributed to overdriven conditions that exist in the 20 L chamber due to the use of strong pyrotechnic igniters. For that reason, the reference method for explosibility testing is based on a 1 m 3 chamber, and the 20 L chamber test method is calibrated to produce results comparable to those from the 1 m 3 chamber for most dusts. In fact, the U.S. standard for 20 L testing (ASTM E1226) states, The objective of this test method is to develop data that can be correlated to those from the 1 m 3 chamber (described in ISO , and VDI 3673) ASTM E1226 further states, Because a number of factors (concentration, uniformity of dispersion, turbulence of ignition, sample age, etc.) can affect the test results, the test vessel to be used for routine work must be standardized using dust samples whose KSt and Pmax parameters are known in the 1 m 3 chamber. [654, ] NFPA 68 also recognizes this problem and addresses it stating that the 20 L test apparatus is designed to simulate results of the 1 m 3 chamber; however, the igniter discharge makes it problematic to determine KSt values less than 50 bar-m/sec. Where the material is expected to yield KSt values less than 50 bar-m/sec, testing in a 1 m 3 chamber might yield lower values. [654, ] Any time a combustible dust is processed or handled, a potential for deflagration exists. The degree of deflagration hazard varies, depending on the type of combustible dust and the processing methods used. [654, ] A dust deflagration has the following four requirements: (1) Combustible dust (2) Dust dispersion in air or other oxidant (3) Sufficient concentration at or exceeding the minimum explosible concentration (MEC) (4) Sufficiently powerful ignition source such as an electrostatic discharge, an electric current arc, a glowing ember, a hot surface, a welding slag, frictional heat, or a flame [654, ] If the deflagration is confined and produces a pressure sufficient to rupture the confining enclosure, the event is, by definition, an explosion. [654, ] Evaluation of the hazard of a combustible dust should be determined by the means of actual test data. Each situation should be evaluated and applicable tests selected. The following list represents the factors that are sometimes used in determining the deflagration hazard of a dust: (1) MEC (2) MIE (3) Particle size distribution (4) Moisture content as received and as tested (5) Maximum explosion pressure at optimum concentration (6) Maximum rate of pressure rise at optimum concentration (7) KSt (normalized rate of pressure rise) as defined in ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds (8) Layer ignition temperature (9) Dust cloud ignition temperature (10) Limiting oxidant concentration (LOC) to prevent ignition (11) Electrical volume resistivity (12) Charge relaxation time Page 193

194 1 of /1/ :33 AM (13) Chargeability [654, ] It is important to keep in mind that as a particulate is processed, handled, or transported, the particle size generally decreases due to particle attrition. Consequently Therefore, it is often necessary to evaluate the explosibility of the particulate at multiple points along the process. Where process conditions dictate the use of oxidizing media other than air, which is ( nominally taken as 21 percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen), the applicable tests should be conducted in the appropriate process-specific medium. [654, ] Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 17:24:17 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Update of extracted material from the 2017 edition of NFPA 654 Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 28 Affirmative All 1 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Page 194

195 2 of /1/ :33 AM Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Affirmative with Comment Stevenson, Bill In two cases sentences begin with the word "therefore" which is poor grammar. It would be very easy to re-write these two sentences. For example, instead of "Therefore, it can be inferred..." to "It can be inferred, therefore..." Page 195

196 3 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 65-NFPA [ Section No. A ] A Minimum Explosible Concentration (MEC). Minimum explosible concentration is defined by the test procedure in ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts. MEC is equivalent to the lower flammable limit for flammable gases. Because it has been customary to limit the use of the lower flammable limit to flammable vapors and gases, an alternative term is necessary for combustible dusts. [654, ] The MEC is dependent on many factors, including particulate size distribution, chemistry, moisture content, and shape. Consequently, designers and operators of processes that handle combustible particulate solids should consider those factors when applying existing MEC data. Often, the necessary MEC data can be obtained only by testing. [ 654, 2017] Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: National Fire Protection Assoc Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Tue Aug 16 17:34:32 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Update of extract material to the 2017 edition of 654. Response Message: Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Page 196

197 4 of /1/ :33 AM Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 197

198 5 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 17-NFPA [ Section No. A.5.2 ] Page 198

199 6 of /1/ :33 AM A.5.2 Page 199

200 7 of /1/ :33 AM Test data derived from testing material within a facility Testing actual material from a specific process or area of the facility will result in the most accurate results for the DHA, performance-based design, and hazard management options. Testing is not required to determine whether the material has combustibility characteristics where reliable, in-house, commodity-specific testing data or published data of well-characterized samples (i.e., particle size, moisture content, and test conditions) are available. Published data should be used for preliminary assessment of combustibility only. However, for protection or prevention design methods, the data can be acceptable after a thorough review to ensure that they are representative of owner/operator conditions. The protection or prevention designs are based on explosivity properties, which can vary based on the specific characteristics of the material. (See for characteristics that can affect explosibility properties.) Historical knowledge and experience of occurrence or nonoccurrence of process incidents such as flash fires, small fires, sparkling fires, pops, or booms, or evidence of vessel, tank, or container overpressure should not be used as a substitute for hazard analysis. Process incidents are indications of a material or process resulting in combustibility or explosion propensity. Process incidents can be used to guide or select samples for and supplement testing. The following material properties should be addressed by a DHA for the combustible particulate solids present: (1) Particle Size. Sieve analysis is a crude and unreliable system of hazard determination. Its greatest contribution in managing the hazard is the ease, economy, and speed at which it can be used to discover changes in the process particulate. In any sample of particulate, very rarely are all the particles the same size. Sieve analysis can be used to determine the fraction that would be generally suspected of being capable of supporting a deflagration. For a sub-500 micron fraction: (a) (b) Data presented in terms of the percent passing progressively smaller sieves. Particles that have high aspect ratios can produce distorted, nonconservative particle size results. (2) Particle Size Distribution. The particle size distribution of a combustible particulate solid must be known if the explosion hazard is to be assessed solid is an important parameter in assessing an explosion hazard. Particle size implies a specific surface area (SSA) and affects the numerical measure of other parameters such as MEC, MIE, dp/dtmax, Pmax, and KSt. Particles Spherical particles greater than 500 microns in effective mean particle diameter are generally not considered deflagratory. Most combustible particulate solids include a range of particle sizes in any given sample. The DHA should anticipate and account for particle attrition and separation as particulate is handled. (3) Particle Shape. Due to particle shape and agglomeration, some particulates cannot be sieved effectively. Particulates with nonspheric or noncubic shapes do not pass through a sieve as easily as spheric or cubic particles. For this purpose, long fibers can behave just as explosively as spherical particulates of a similar diameter. This leads to underestimation of small particle populations and to underassessment of the hazard. Particulates with an aspect ratio greater than 3:1 should be suspect. When particulates are poured into vessels, it is common for the fine particles to separate from the large, creating a deflagration hazard in the ullage space. (4) Particle Aging. Some combustible particulate solid materials could undergo changes in their safety characteristics due to aging. Changes in morphology and chemical composition, for example, can occur from the time a sample is collected to the time it takes to get that sample into the lab for a test is tested. For materials that are known to age, care must be taken in packaging and shipment. The use of vacuum seals, or an inert gas such as nitrogen, could be required to ensure that the tested sample has not changed appreciably due to aging. The lab should be notified in advance of shipment that the material is sensitive to change due to age so that they will know how to handle it and store it until it is tested. (5) Particle Attrition. The material submitted for testing should be selected to address the effects of material attrition as it is moved through the process. As particulates move through a process they usually break down into smaller particles. Reduction in particle size leads to an increase in total surface area to mass ratio of the particulate and increases the hazard associated with the unoxidized particulate. (6) Particle Suspension. Particle suspension maximizes the fuel air interface. It occurs wherever the particulate moves relative to the air or the air moves relative to the particulate, such as in pneumatic conveying, pouring, fluidizing, mixing and blending, or particle size reduction. (7) Particle Agglomeration. Some particulates tend to agglomerate into clumps. Agglomerating particulates can be more hazardous than the test data imply if the particulate was not thoroughly deagglomerated when testing was conducted. Agglomeration is usually affected by ambient humidity. (8) Triboelectric Attraction. Particles with a chemistry that allows electrostatic charge accumulation will become charged during handling. Charged particles attract oppositely charged particles. Agglomeration causes particulate to exhibit lower explosion metrics during testing. Humidification decreases the triboelectric effect. (9) Hydrogen Bonding. Hydrophilic particulates attract water molecules that are adsorbed onto the particle surface. Adsorbed water provides hydrogen bonding to adjacent particles, causing them to agglomerate. Agglomeration causes particulate to exhibit lower explosion metrics during testing. Desiccation reduces this agglomerated effect. (10) Entrainment Fraction. The calculation for a dust dispersion from an accumulated layer should be corrected for the ease of entrainment of the dust. Fuel chemistry and agglomeration/adhesion forces should be considered. The dispersion is generally a function of humidity, temperature, and time. Particle shape and morphology and effective particle size should be considered. (11) Combustible Concentration. When particles are suspended, a concentration gradient will develop where concentration varies continuously from high to low. There is a minimum concentration that must exist before a flame front will propagate. This concentration depends on particle size and chemical composition and is measured in grams/cubic meter (ounces/cubic foot) oz/ft 3 (g/m 3 ). This concentration is called the minimum explosible concentration (MEC). A dust dispersion can come from a layer of accumulated fugitive dust. The concentration attained depends on bulk density of dust layer ( [ measured in grams/m 3 ) oz/ft 3 (g/m 3 )], layer thickness, and the extent of the dust cloud. Combustible concentration is calculated as follows in Equation A.5.2 : Concentration = (bulk density)*[(layer thickness)/(dust cloud thickness)] Page 200

201 8 of /1/ :33 AM [A.5.2] (12) Competent Igniter. Ignition occurs where sufficient energy per unit of time and volume is applied to a deflagratory particulate suspension. Energy per unit of mass is measured as temperature. When the temperature of the suspension is increased to the auto-ignition temperature, combustion begins. Ignitability is usually characterized by measuring the minimum ignition energy (MIE). The ignition source must provide sufficient energy per unit of time (power) to raise the temperature of the particulate to its autoignition temperature (AIT). (13) Dustiness/dispersibility Dispersibility. Ignition and sustained combustion occurs where a fuel and competent ignition course source come together in an atmosphere (oxidant) that supports combustion. The fire triangle represents the three elements required for a fire. Not all dusts are combustible, and combustible dusts exhibit a range in degree of hazard. All combustible dusts can exhibit explosion hazards accompanied by propagation away from the source. In the absence of confinement, a flash-fire hazard results. If confined, the deflagration can result in damaging overpressures. Deflagration is the process resulting in a flash fire or an explosion. The heat flux from combustible metal flash fires is greater than organic materials. The four elements for a flash fire are the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) A combustible dust sufficiently small enough to burn rapidly and propagate flame A suspended cloud at a concentration greater than the minimum explosion concentration The atmosphere to support combustion An ignition source of adequate energy or temperature to ignite the dust cloud The heat flux from combustible metal flash fires is greater than organic materials (see Figure A.5.2 ). A dust explosion requires the following five conditions (see Figure A.5.2 ) : (1) A combustible dust sufficiently small enough to burn rapidly and propagate flame (2) A suspended cloud at a concentration greater than the minimum explosion concentration (3) Confinement of the dust cloud by an enclosure or partial enclosure (4) The atmosphere to support combustion (5) An ignition source of adequate energy or temperature to ignite the dust cloud Figure A.5.2 Elements Required for Fires, Flash Fires, and Explosions. Submitter Information Verification Submitter Full Name: Susan Bershad Organization: [ Not Specified ] Street Address: City: State: Zip: Submittal Date: Wed Aug 10 08:57:43 EDT 2016 Committee Statement Committee Statement: Made revisions to correct typographical errors and clarify some statements. Page 201

202 9 of /1/ :33 AM Response Message: Public Input No. 68-NFPA [Section No. A.5.2] Ballot Results This item has passed ballot 31 Eligible Voters 2 Not Returned 29 Affirmative All 0 Affirmative with Comments 0 Negative with Comments 0 Abstention Not Returned Christman, Tom Floyd, Larry D. Affirmative All Baker, Todd E. Buc, Elizabeth C. Burridge, Brad D. Chastain, Brice Cholin, John M. Davis, Randal R. Drake, Mark W. Feldkamp, Robert J. Frank, Walter L. Gombar, Robert C. Hansen, Dale C. Hanson, Shawn M. Hart, Paul F. House, David M. Koch, James F. McLelland, Bruce Myers, Timothy J. Norris, Jim E. Osborn, Jack E. Pedersen, Niels H. Reason, Jason P. Rodgers, Samuel A. Sallman, Steve Scherpa, Thomas C. Statham, Denise N. Stevenson, Bill Taylor, Robert D. Ural, Erdem A. Zalosh, Robert G. Page 202

203 0 of /1/ :33 AM First Revision No. 47-NFPA [ Section No. A ] Page 203

204 1 of /1/ :33 AM A Page 204

205 2 of /1/ :33 AM Such an assessment is to determine whether the dust is a combustible dust and if further assessment is necessary. Data can be from samples within the facility that have been tested or data can be based on whether the material is known to be combustible or not. There are some published data of commonly known materials, and the use of these data is adequate to determine whether the dust is a combustible dust. For well-known commodities, published data are usually acceptable. A perusal of published data illuminates that there is often a significant spread in values. It is useful, therefore, to compare attributes (such as particle distribution and moisture content) in published data with the actual material being handled in the system whenever possible. Doing so would help to verify that the data are pertinent to the hazard under assessment. Subsection does not require the user to know all these items for the assessment; rather, it reviews the important items in order to determine whether the material data are representative of the material in the facility. Even test data of material can be different from the actual conditions. Users should review the conditions of the test method as well to ensure that it is representative of the conditions of the facility. Where that is not possible, the use of worst-case values should be selected. Composition and particle size are two parameters that are useful to identify the number and location of representative samples to be collected and tested. (See Section 5.5 for information on sampling.) Refer to Tables A.5.2.2(a) A.5.2.2(a) through A.5.2.2(k) for guidance only and not as substitutes for actual test data. These tables are not all-inclusive of all combustible dusts and noncombustible dusts. Additionally, material properties and testing methods can provide results that vary from those presented in these tables. Table A.5.2.2(a) 20-L Sphere Test Data Agricultural Dusts Dust Name P max (bar g) (1) K St (bar m/sec) Percent Moisture Particle Size Alfalfa (μm) Minimum Explosive Concentration (g/m 3 ) Apple Beet root Percent Greater Than 200 Mesh Carrageen Carrot Cocoa bean dust Cocoa powder Coconut shell dust Coffee dust Corn meal Cornstarch Cotton Cottonseed Garlic powder Gluten Grass dust Green coffee Hops (malted) Lemon peel dust Lemon pulp Linseed Locust bean gum Malt Oat flour Oat grain dust Olive pellets Onion powder Parlsey (dehydrated) Peach Peanut meal and skins Peat Potato Potato flour Potato starch Raw yucca seed dust Page 205

206 3 of /1/ :33 AM Dust Name P max (bar g) (1) K St (bar m/sec) Percent Moisture Particle Size (μm) Minimum Explosive Concentration (g/m 3 ) Percent Greater Than 200 Mesh Rice dust Rice flour Rice starch Rye flour Semolina Soybean dust Spice dust Spice powder Sugar (10 ) Sunflower Tea Tobacco blend Tomato Walnut dust Wheat flour Wheat grain dust Wheat starch Xanthan gum Notes: Normalized to l m 3 test vessel pressures, per ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds.) See also Table F.1(a) in NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, for additional information on agricultural dusts with known explosion hazards. For those agricultural dusts without known explosion data, the dust should be tested in accordance with ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds FM Global. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. [ 61: Table A.6.2.1] Table A.5.2.2(a) 20-L Sphere Test Data Agricultural Dusts Dust Name Percent Moisture Median Particle Size (μm) Percent < 200 Mesh (%) P max (bar g) (1) K St (bar m/sec) Alfalfa Angel Food Cake Minimum Explosive Concentration (g/m 3 ) Apple Beet root Carrageenan Carrot Cereal dust (mixed) Cheesy pasta sauce mix (corn starch and spices) Chili sauce mix (corn starch and spices) Minimum Ignition Energy (mj) 7.9 < Cocoa bean dust Cocoa powder Coconut shell dust Coffee dust coarse particles Coffee dust fine particles * Corn (maize) >10 Corn meal Page 206

207 4 of /1/ :33 AM Dust Name Cornstarch coarse particles Cornstarch fine particles Percent Moisture Median Particle Size (μm) Percent < 200 Mesh (%) P max (bar g) (1) K St (bar m/sec) Minimum Explosive Concentration (g/m 3 ) Minimum Ignition Energy (mj) * Cotton Cottonseed Fudge brownie mix Garlic powder Gluten Grass dust Green coffee Hops (malted) Lemon peel dust Lemon pulp Linseed Locust bean gum Malt Milk powder Oat flour Oat grain dust Olive pellets Onion powder Parmesan sauce mix (corn starch and spices) Parlsey (dehydrated) Peach Peanut meal and skins Peat Potato Potato flakes Potato flour Potato starch >3200 Raw yucca seed dust Rice dust * Rice flour >500 Rice starch Rye flour Semolina Snack mix spices Soybean dust Spice dust Spice powder Sugar, fine Sugar, granulated Sugar, powdered * Sunflower Tea Tobacco blend Tomato Walnut dust Wheat/rice cereal base Page 207

208 5 of /1/ :33 AM Dust Name Wheat/rice cereal base regrinds Percent Moisture Median Particle Size (μm) Percent < 200 Mesh (%) P max (bar g) (1) K St (bar m/sec) Minimum Explosive Concentration (g/m 3 ) Wheat flour Wheat grain dust Minimum Ignition Energy (mj) Wheat starch * Xanthan gum Yellow cake mix *The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 4th Edition, Table Notes: (1) Normalized to 1 m 3 test vessel pressures, per ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds. (2) See also Table F.1(a) in NFPA 68 for additional information on agricultural dusts with known explosion hazards. (3) For those agricultural dusts without known explosion data, the dust should be tested in accordance with established standardized test methods. Source: FM Global, Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. [ 61: Table A.5.2.2] Table A.5.2.2(b) 1 m 3 Vessel Test Data from Forschungsbericht Staubexplosionen Agricultural Dusts Material Mass Median Diameter (μm) Minimum Flammable Concentration (g/m 3 ) Pmax (bar) KSt (bar-m/s) Dust Hazard Class Cellulose Cellulose pulp Cork Corn Egg white Milk, powdered Milk, nonfat, dry Soy flour Starch, corn Starch, rice Starch, wheat Sugar Sugar, milk Sugar, beet Tapioca Whey Wood flour [68: Table F.1(a)] Table A.5.2.2(c) 1 m 3 Vessel Test Data from Forschungsbericht Staubexplosionen Carbonaceous Dusts Material Mass Median Diameter (μm) Minimum Flammable Pmax KSt Concentration (bar) (bar-m/s) Dust Hazard Class (g/m 3 ) Charcoal, activated Charcoal, wood Coal, bituminous Coke, petroleum Lampblack < Lignite Peat, 22% H2O Page 208

209 6 of /1/ :33 AM Material Mass Median Diameter (μm) Minimum Flammable Concentration (g/m 3 ) Pmax (bar) KSt (bar-m/s) Dust Hazard Class Soot, pine < [68: Table F.1(b)] Table A.5.2.2(d) 1 m 3 Vessel Test Data from Forschungsbericht Staubexplosionen Chemical Dusts Material Mass Median Diameter (μm) Minimum Flammable Concentration (g/m 3 ) Pmax (bar) KSt (bar-m/s) Dust Hazard Class Adipic acid < Anthraquinone < Ascorbic acid Calcium acetate Calcium acetate Calcium stearate Carboxy- methyl- cellulose Dextrin Lactose Lead stearate Methyl-cellulose Paraformaldehyde Sodium ascorbate Sodium stearate Sulfur [68: Table F.1(c)] Table A.5.2.2(e) 1 m 3 Vessel Test Data from Forschungsbericht Staubexplosionen Metal Dusts Material Mass Median Diameter (μm) Minimum Flammable Concentration (g/m 3 ) Pmax (bar) KSt (bar-m/s) Dust Hazard Class Aluminum Bronze Iron carbonyl < Magnesium Phenolic resin Zinc Zinc < [68: Table F.1(d)] Table A.5.2.2(f) 1 m 3 Vessel Test Data from Forschungsbericht Staubexplosionen(except where noted) Plastic Dusts Material Mass Median Diameter (μm) Minimum Flammable Concentration (g/m 3 ) Pmax (bar) KSt (bar-m/s) Dust Hazard Class (poly) Acrylamide (poly) Acrylonitrile (poly) Ethylene (low-pressure process) < Epoxy resin Melamine resin Melamine, molded (wood flour and mineral filled phenol-formaldehyde) Melamine, molded (phenol-cellulose) Page 209

210 7 of /1/ :33 AM Material Mass Median Diameter (μm) Minimum Flammable Concentration (g/m 3 ) Pmax (bar) KSt (bar-m/s) Dust Hazard Class (poly) Methyl acrylate (poly) Methyl acrylate, emulsion polymer Phenolic resin < (poly) Propylene Terpene-phenol resin Urea-formaldehyde/ cellulose, molded (poly) Vinyl acetate/ ethylene copolymer (poly) Vinyl alcohol (poly) Vinyl butyral (poly) Vinyl chloride (poly) Vinyl chloride/vinyl acetylene emulsion copolymer (poly) Vinyl chloride/ethylene/vinyl acetylene suspension copolymer [68: Table F.1(e)] Table A.5.2.2(g) 20 L and 1 m 3 Vessel Test Data, PVC and Copolymer Plastic Resins and Dusts PVC Resin Sample GP a Dispersion Emulsion VA b Copolymer Baghouse Dust from GP Pipe (as received) GP Pipe Resin c Baghouse Dust from GP Pipe (as received) Type of polymerization process Suspension GP Pipe Resin (as received) High Molecular Weight Resin (as received) Plant designator A B C C D D E Test lab Chilworth Chilworth Chilworth Fike Chilworth Chilworth (20 Minimum Ignition Energy (MIE), Joules Explosion severity, KSt (bar-m/s), 20 L test chamber Dust explosion class in 20 L test chamber Explosion severity, KSt (bar-m/s), 1 m 3 test chamber Dust explosion class in 1 m 3 test chamber Particle size, avg. (µm) Dust fraction (<75 µm, %) L), Fike (1 m 3 ) >10 J >10 J >500 mj >4653 mj >10 J >10 J >4468 mj ST 1 ST 1 ST 1 ST 1 ST 1 ST 1 ST 1 Not tested Not tested Not tested 0 Not tested 0 0 Not tested Not tested Not tested ST 0 Not tested ST 0 ST 0 1 (est.) N.A. N.A. 162 N.A Note: Sponsored by the Vinyl Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 390, Alexandria, VA a GP: General Purpose b VA: Vinyl Acetate c Date for MIE and 20 L test were performed by Fike on sample screened to <150 µm and data for 1 m 3 tests were performed by Fike on as received sample. Source: Krock, R., et. al., OSHA s Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program and Combustibility Characteristics Testing of PVC Resins and PVC Dusts, SPE ANTEC, April, Table A.5.2.2(h) Explosibility Properties of Metals Fike Page 210

211 8 of /1/ :33 AM Material Median Diameter (μm) Kst (bar-m/s) Pmax (bar g) Cloud Ign Temp ( C) MIE (mj) MEC (g/m 3 ) Aluminum ~ UN Combustibility Category 2 LOC 1 (v%) Data Source Cashdollar & Zlochower4 Aluminum 22 5 (N) BGIA3 Aluminum < (C) Aluminum flake < <3 (C) BuMines RI 6516 BuMines RI 6516 Aluminum < BGIA3 Aluminum 580 Beryllium 4 Not Ignited Not Ignited BGIA Boron < <100 Boron ~ BuMines RI 6516 BuMines RI 6516 Cashdollar & Zlochower Bronze BZ 4 Eckhoff Chromium (C) Chromium Copper ~30 Not Ignited Hafnium ~8 4.2 ~180 BuMines RI 6516 BuMines RI 6517 Cashdollar & Zlochower Cashdollar & Zlochower Iron Eckhoff Iron ~ ~500 Iron < (C) Cashdollar & Zlochower BuMines RI 6516 Iron, carbonyl < BZ 3 Eckhoff Manganese < BuMines RI 6516 Manganese(electrolytic) Eckhoff Manganese(electrolytic) Eckhoff Magnesium Eckhoff Magnesium BZ 5 Eckhoff Magnesium < Magnesium < <3 (C) Magnesium ~ Molybdenum <10 Nickel ~6 Not Ignited Not Ignited BuMines RI 6516 BuMines RI 6516 Cashdollar & Zlochower Eckhoff Cashdollar & Zlochower Niobium (Ar) Industry Niobium (Ar) Industry Silicon < > BZ 3 Eckhoff Silicon, from dust collector Eckhoff Silicon, from filter < > BZ 1 Eckhoff Tantalum < <200 3 (Ar) Tantalum ~ BuMines RI 6516 Cashdollar & Zlochower Tantalum < (Ar) Industry Page 211

212 9 of /1/ :33 AM Material Median Diameter (μm) Kst (bar-m/s) Pmax (bar g) Cloud Ign Temp ( C) MIE (mj) MEC (g/m 3 ) UN Combustibility Category 2 LOC 1 (v%) Data Source Tantalum < (Ar) Industry Tantalum < (Ar) Industry Tantalum < (Ar) Industry Tantalum <3 125 <2(Ar) Industry Tantalum >1<3 30 <2(Ar) Industry Tin ~8 3.3 ~450 Titanium 36 Not Ignited BZ 2 Cashdollar & Zlochower Titanium Eckhof Titanium ~ Titanium Tungsten 1 ~2.3 ~700 Tungsten ~10 Not Ignited 6 (N) 4 (Ar) BGIA Cashdollar & Zlochower BuMines RI 6515 Cashdollar & Zlochower Cashdollar & Zlochower Zinc (from collector) < BZ 3 Eckhoff Zinc (from collector) BZ 2 Eckhoff Zinc (from Zn coating) BZ 2 Eckhoff Zinc (from Zn coating) Eckhoff Zirconium < Ignites in N2 & CO2 Zirconium (Zircalloy-2) BuMines RI 6516 BuMines RI 6516 (1) Limiting Oxygen Concentration. The letter in parenthesis in the LOC column denotes the inert gas used to reduce the oxygen concentration as follows: Ar = argon, C = carbon dioxide, N = nitrogen (2) UN Dust Layer Combustibility Categories are as follows: BZ1 No self-sustained combustion; BZ2 Local combustion of short duration; BZ3 Local sustained combustion, but no propagation; BZ4 Propagating smoldering combustion; BZ5 Propagating open flame; BZ6 Explosive combustion. (3) BGIA is the GESTIS-DUST-EX database maintained by BGIA-online.hvbg.de (4) Cashdollar, Kenneth, and Zlochower, Isaac, Explosion Temperatures and Pressures of Metals and Other Elemental Dust Clouds, J. Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, v. 20, [484: Table A.1.1.3(b)] Table A.5.2.2(i) Atomized Aluminum Particle Ignition and Explosion Data Particle Size (d50) (μm) BET (m 2 /g) MEC (g/m 3 ) Pmax dp/dtmax (psi) (psi/sec) Nonspherical, Nodular, or Irregular Powders KSt (bar m/sec) Sample Concentration That Corresponds to Pmax and dp/dtmax(g/m 3 ) , , , ,250 (Pmax), 1,000 (dp/dtmax) , , , (Pmax), 1,500 (dp/dtmax) , ,000 (Pmax), 1,250 (dp/dtmax) , , , (Pmax), 1,000 (dp/dtmax) MIE (mj) LOC (%) % 7.5% Most Easily Ignitible Concentration (g/m 3 ) 1,000 Page 212

213 00 of /1/ :33 AM Particle Size (d50) (μm) BET (m 2 /g) MEC (g/m 3 ) Pmax dp/dtmax (psi) (psi/sec) KSt (bar m/sec) , Sample Concentration That Corresponds to Pmax and dp/dtmax(g/m 3 ) 1,000 (Pmax), 500 (dp/dtmax) , , (Pmax), 1,000 (dp/dtmax) , Spherical Powders , ,000 (Pmax), 750 (dp/dtmax) 1,250 (Pmax), 1,000 (dp/dtmax) , , , , , , , , , , , , MIE (mj) LOC (%) N.I. 8.0% 7.5% 6.0% 5.5% 6.0% 5.5% Most Easily Ignitible Concentration (g/m 3 ) 1, ,250 For U.S. conversions: 1 m 2 /g = 4884 ft 2 /lb; 1 g/m 2 = lb/ft 2 ; 1 bar/sec = 14.5 psi/sec; 1 bar m/sec = psi ft/sec. BET: surface area per unit mass; MEC: minimum explosible concentration; MIE: minimum ignition energy; LOC: limiting oxygen (O2) concentration. Notes: (1) The powders tested are representative samples produced by various manufacturers utilizing a variety of methods of manufacture, submitted for testing to a single, nationally recognized testing laboratory, at the same time. (2) Data for each characteristic were obtained using the following ASTM methods: MEC: ASTM E1515, Standard Test Method for Minimum Explosible Concentration of Combustible Dusts; MIE: ASTM E2019, Standard Test Method for Minimum Ignition Energy of a Dust Cloud in Air; maximum pressure rise (Pmax), maximum pressure rise rate (dp/dt), and deflagration index (KSt): ASTM E1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds; LOC: ASTM E2079, Standard Test Methods for Limiting Oxygen (Oxidant) Concentration in Gases and Vapors. (3) Particle size data represent the d50 measurement determined by the laser light scattering technique. (4) Test results represent only the characteristics of those samples tested and should not be considered to be universally applicable. Users are encouraged to test samples of powders obtained from their individual process. [484:Table A.4.3.1] Table A.5.2.2(j) Explosion Characteristics of Unalloyed Magnesium Dust in Air [200 mesh (75 μm)] Explosion Characteristics Values Explosibility index a 10 Ignition sensitivity b 3.0 Explosion severity c 7.4 Maximum explosion pressure (gauge) 793 kpa (115 psi) Maximum rate of pressure rise (gauge) 793 kpa/sec (15,000 psi/sec) Ignition temperature cloud 1040 F (560 C) Minimum cloud ignition energy 0.04 J (26.4 W/sec) Minimum explosion concentration kg/m 3 (0.03 oz/ft 3 ) Limiting oxygen percent for spark ignition d * Note: KSt values vary for specific particle sizes. Page 213

214 01 of /1/ :33 AM a Explosibility index = ignition sensitivity explosion severity. b Ignition sensitivity = c Explosion severity = d Burns in carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and halons. [484: Table D.2] Table A.5.2.2(k) Selected Combustible Dusts Layer or Cloud Ignition Temperature Chemical Name CAS No. NEC Group Code Layer or Cloud Ignition Temperature ( C) Acetal, linear G NL 440 Acetoacet-p-phenetidide G NL 560 Acetoacetanilide G M 440 Acetylamino-t-nitrothiazole G 450 Acrylamide polymer G 240 Acrylonitrile polymer G 460 Acrylonitrile-vinyl chloride-vinylidenechloride copolymer ( ) G 210 Acrylonitrile-vinyl pyridine copolymer G 240 Adipic acid G M 550 Alfalfa meal G 200 Alkyl ketone dimer sizing compound G 160 Allyl alcohol derivative (CR-39) G NL 500 Almond shell G 200 Aluminum, A422 flake E 320 Aluminum, atomized collector fines E CL 550 Aluminum cobalt alloy (60-40) E 570 Aluminum copper alloy (50-50) E 830 Aluminum lithium alloy (15% Li) E 400 Aluminum magnesium alloy (dowmetal) E CL 430 Aluminum nickel alloy (58-42) E 540 Aluminum silicon alloy (12% Si) E NL 670 Amino-5-nitrothiazole G 460 Anthranilic acid G M 580 Apricot pit G 230 Aryl-nitrosomethylamide G NL 490 Asphalt F 510 Aspirin [acetol (2)] G M 660 Azelaic acid G M 610 Azo-bis-butyronitrile G 350 Benzethonium chloride G CL 380 Benzoic acid G M 620 Benzotriazole G M 440 Beta-naphthalene-axo- dimethylaniline G 175 Bis(2-hydroxy- 5-chlorophenyl) methane G NL 570 Bisphenol-A G M 570 Boron, commercial amorphous (85% B) E 400 Page 214