o T. Heidermann, S. Rodgers, M. Davies Section on vacuum regenerated carbon adsorption units to be placed in new section

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON EXPLOSION PROTECTION SYSTEMS NFPA 67 (F2015) Second Draft Meeting Agenda March 31, :00 AM - 1:00 PM EST Web/Teleconference Meeting 1. Welcome. Larry Floyd, Chair 2. Introductions and Update of Committee Roster. (attached) 3. Approval of First Draft Meeting Minutes of April 17 and May 19, (attached) 4. Staff updates. Laura Montville, NFPA Staff a) Committee membership update. b) Fall 2015 revision cycle schedule. (attached) c) New Process Presentation. 5. Task Group Reports Usage of S u to represent both Burning Velocity and Fundamental Burning Velocity throughout the document o J. Senecal, A. Ibarreta, T. Heidermann Revise new section on deflagration arresters o T. Heidermann, S. Rodgers, M. Davies Section on vacuum regenerated carbon adsorption units to be placed in new section o M. Davies, R. Zalosh 6. Comments from First Draft Ballot 7. TIA Discussion Review of Procedures. Laura Montville NFPA 68 TIA 1 3 addresses chapter 8 vent sizing flow issues, submitted by S. Rodgers. See 5/13/14 memo from L. Floyd to Sam Rodgers, NFPA 68 (2013), Tentative Interim Amendments (TIA). NFPA 68 TIA 4, Fireball Equation, submitted by Brice Chastain and Bill Stevenson. See attached notes from the 7/31/14 CMD-HAP A2016 meeting in Atlanta. NFPA 68 TIA 5, Paragraph Submitted by S. Rodgers. See attached 8/21/14 . NFPA 68 TIA 6, vent ducts for metal dusts, Submitted by Scott Davis and S. Rodgers, See 2/19/15 memo S. Rodgers to L. Floyd Proposal for NFPA 68 and 69 TIAs on Metal Dusts.

2 o Presentation from Scott Davis, Gexcon NFPA 69, submitted by L. Britton, See 10/31/13 memo from L. Floyd to L. Britton, Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) NFPA 69, submitted by S. Rodgers, See 2/19/15 memo S. Rodgers to L. Floyd Proposal for NFPA 68 and 69 TIAs on Metal Dusts 8. New Business. 9. Next Meeting. 10. Adjourn.

3 Committee Roster

4 Address List No Phone Explosion Protection Systems 03/18/2015 Laura E. Montville Larry D. Floyd Chair BASF 1379 Ciba Road McIntosh, AL U 7/29/2005 Luke S. Morrison Secretary Professional Loss Control Inc. PO Box 162 Fredericton, NB E3B 4Y9 Canada SE 1/1/1987 Venkateswara Sarma Bhamidipati Powder Process Solutions 1620 Lake Drive West Chanhassen, MN IM 03/07/2013 Martin P. Clouthier Clouthier Risk Engineering 6178 Cedar Street Halifax, NS B3H 2J7 Canada SE 10/27/2005 Michael Davies PROTEGO Industriestrasse ll Braunschweig, D Germany Alternate: Thomas Heidermann M 1/14/2005 Alexi I. Dimopoulos ExxonMobil Corporation EMRE, Safety, Risk and Fire Protection 3225 Gallows Road, Room 3A0233 Fairfax, VA American Petroleum Institute U 4/15/2004 Henry L. Febo, Jr. FM Global Engineering Standards 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike PO Box 9102 Norwood, MA Alternate: John A. LeBlanc I 8/5/2009 Robert J. Feldkamp Nordson Corporation 300 Nordson Drive Amherst, OH Alternate: Edward L. Jones M 7/29/2005 Joseph P. Gillis 29 Hyder Street Westboro, MA SE 10/1/1980 Dan A. Guaricci ATEX Explosion Protection, L.P Waverly Barn Road, Suite 121 Davenport, FL M 7/1/1991 Michael D. Hard Hard Fire Suppression Systems, Inc Westerville Road, Suite A Columbus, OH Fire Suppression Systems Association Alternate: Kirk W. Humbrecht IM 10/1/1994 David D. Herrmann E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company 1007 Market Street, (D12016) Wilmington, DE Alternate: Thomas C. Scherpa U 10/10/1997 Alfonso F. Ibarreta Exponent, Inc. 9 Strathmore Road Natick, MA Alternate: Timothy J. Myers SE 3/4/2009 Eric R. Johnson Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC Savannah River Site Bldg H, Room 10 Aiken, SC Alternate: William B. Till, Jr. U 10/18/2011 1

5 Address List No Phone Explosion Protection Systems 03/18/2015 Laura E. Montville David C. Kirby Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc Clearview Heights Charleston, WV Alternate: James Kelly Thomas SE 1/1/1983 Steven A. McCoy Ingredion PO Box 1084 Indianapolis, IN NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section U 10/10/1997 James O. Paavola DTE Electric Company 2000 Second Ave., Room 421 GO Detroit, MI U 1/10/2002 Stefan Penno Rembe GmbH Safety & Control Gallbergweg 21 Brilon NRW, D Germany Alternate: Gerd Ph. Mayer M 11/2/2006 Samuel A. Rodgers Honeywell, Inc Woods Edge Road Colonial Heights, VA U 4/1/1996 Mitchel L. Rooker BS&B Safety Systems, LLC PO Box Tulsa, OK Alternate: Geof Brazier M 10/10/1997 Cleveland B. Skinker Bechtel Power Corporation 5275 Westview Drive Frederick, MD SE 3/4/2009 Bill Stevenson CV Technology, Inc Mercantile Court Jupiter, FL Alternate: Jason Krbec M 7/22/1999 David R. Stottmann ST Storage PO Box 996 Parsons, KS Alternate: Keith McGuire M 11/2/2006 Stephen M. Stuart Hylant Group 2401 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 400 Troy, MI I 7/24/1998 Jérôme R. Taveau Fike Corporation 704 SW 10th Street Blue Springs, MO Alternate: Jef Snoeys M 03/07/2013 David E. Trull XL Global Asset Protection Services NE 100th Court Redmond, WA Alternate: Todd A. Dillon I 03/03/2014 Erdem A. Ural Loss Prevention Science & Technologies, Inc. 2 Canton Street, Suite A2 Stoughton, MA SE 1/16/1998 Robert G. Zalosh Firexplo 20 Rockland Street Wellesley, MA SE 1/1/1991 2

6 Address List No Phone Explosion Protection Systems 03/18/2015 Laura E. Montville Randal R. Davis Voting Alternate IEP Technologies South Street Marlborough, MA Voting Alt. for IEP Technologies M 7/14/2004 Geof Brazier Alternate BS&B Safety Systems, LLC 7455 East 46th Street Tulsa, OK : Mitchel L. Rooker M 3/21/2006 Todd A. Dillon Alternate XL Global Asset Protection Services 1620 Winton Avenue Lakewood, OH : David E. Trull I 7/16/2003 Thomas Heidermann Alternate Braunschweiger Flammenfilter G Industriestrasse 11 Braunschweig, Germany : Michael Davies M 10/23/2013 Kirk W. Humbrecht Alternate Phoenix Fire Systems, Inc. 744 West Nebraska Street Frankfort, IL Fire Suppression Systems Association : Michael D. Hard IM 7/19/2002 Edward L. Jones Alternate Nordson Corporation 300 Nordson Drive, M/S 42 Amherst, OH : Robert J. Feldkamp M 7/29/2005 Jason Krbec Alternate CV Technology, Inc Mercantile Court Jupiter, FL : Bill Stevenson M 10/18/2011 John A. LeBlanc Alternate FM Global 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike PO Box 9102 Norwood, MA : Henry L. Febo, Jr. I 8/5/2009 Gerd Ph. Mayer Alternate Rembe, Inc Beam Road, Suite K Charlotte, NC : Stefan Penno M 03/05/2012 Keith McGuire Alternate CST Storage PO Box 996 Parsons, KS : David R. Stottmann M 11/2/2006 Timothy J. Myers Alternate Exponent, Inc. 9 Strathmore Road Natick, MA : Alfonso F. Ibarreta SE 10/20/2010 Thomas C. Scherpa Alternate The DuPont Company, Inc. 71 Valley Road Sullivan, NH : David D. Herrmann U 8/9/2011 Jef Snoeys Alternate Fike Corporation Toekomstlaan 52 Herentals, B-2200 Belgium : Jérôme R. Taveau M 3/21/2006 James Kelly Thomas Alternate Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc Oakwell Court, Suite 100 San Antonio, TX : David C. Kirby SE 8/9/2011 3

7 Address List No Phone Explosion Protection Systems 03/18/2015 Laura E. Montville William B. Till, Jr. Alternate Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC 197 Till Hill Road Orangeburg, SC : Eric R. Johnson U 10/29/2012 Franz Alfert Nonvoting Member Inburex Consulting August-Thyssen-Str.1 Hamm, D Germany SE 7/29/2005 Laurence G. Britton Nonvoting Member Process Safety Consultant 848 Sherwood Road Charleston, WV SE 1/1/1983 Vladimir Molkov Nonvoting Member University of Ulster FireSERT Institute (Block 27) Newtonwnabbey, BT37 0QB Northern Ireland, UK SE 10/6/2000 Laura E. Montville Staff Liaison National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA /06/2015 4

8 First Draft Meeting Minutes

9 NFPA Technical Committee on Explosion Protection Systems MEETING MINUTES Fall 2015 Revision Cycle First Draft Meeting for the 2016 Edition of NFPA 67 Guide on Explosion Protection for Gaseous Mixtures in Pipe Systems DAY 1 - April 17, 2014 (Web / Teleconference) CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 9:00am. ATTENDANCE: Chairman: Larry Floyd BASF, AL U Staff Liaison: Barry Chase National Fire Protection Association, MA - s: Venkateswara Bhamidipati Powder Process Solutions, MN IM Martin Clouthier Clouthier Risk Engineering, NS, Canada SE Alexi Dimopoulos ExxonMobil Corp., VA U Rep. American Petroleum Institute Henry Febo FM Global, MA I Robert Feldkamp Nordson Corp., OH M Michael Hard Hard Fire Suppression Systems Inc., OH IM Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Association David Herrmann E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., DE U Todd Iaeger Reading Dept. of Fire & Rescue Services, PA E Alfonso Ibarreta Exponent Inc., MA SE Eric Johnson Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC, SC U David Kirby Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants Inc., WV SE Samuel Rodgers Honeywell Inc., VA U Joseph Senecal UTC/Kidde-Fenwal, MA M Cleveland Skinker Bechtel Power Corp., MD SE Bill Stevenson CV Technology Inc., FL M David Trull XL Global Asset Protection Services, WA I Robert Zalosh Firexplo, MA SE Alternates: (* voting) *Thomas Heidermann (Alt. to M. Davies) William B. Till, Jr. (Alt. to E. Johnson) James Kelly Thomas (Alt. to D. Kirby) *Gerd Ph. Mayer (Alt. to S. Penno) *Geof Brazier (Alt. to M. Rooker) Braunschweiger Flammenfilter G, Germany Savannah River Nuclear Solutions Inc., SC Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants Inc., TX Rembe Inc., NC BS&B Safety Systems LLC, OK M U SE M M The agenda was reviewed and additional topics of discussion were added, as addressed in the minutes below. Page 1 of 3

10 TIA Attachments

11 NFPA Technical Committee on Explosion Protection Fall 2015 (2016 Edition) First Draft Meeting, Web / Teleconference April 17, 2014 & May 19, 2014 MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 3 The committee was informed of the passing of two members: Richard F. Schwab (NJ) and Stanley S. Grossel (Process Safety & Design Consultant, NJ). CHAIR S COMMENTS The chair introduced himself to the committee and welcomed new members. NFPA STAFF PRESENTATION NFPA staff reviewed the meeting rules, the new standards development process, key dates in the revision schedule, and available resources. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES The minutes from the NFPA 69 Second Draft Meeting (March 6-7, 2013, Ft. Lauderdale, FL) were approved. NFPA 67 FIRST DRAFT The committee reviewed the public input and developed the first draft. A task group was formed to review the usage of S U to represent both Burning Velocity and Fundamental Burning Velocity throughout the document. The following members volunteered: J. Senecal (chair), A. Ibarreta, T. Heidermann. ADJOURN After resolving 5 public input submittals and creating 7 revisions, the meeting was interrupted by a failure of the teleconference connection. When the connection was restored, many members had not returned, and it was clear that there would not be enough time to complete the committee s work by the published ending time. The committee voted to adjourn and to resume business on either May 19 or May 27, depending on the committee s availability to be determined by online poll. The meeting adjourned at 12:00pm. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 9:00am. ***** DAY 2 May 19, 2014 (Web / Teleconference) ATTENDANCE: Chairman: Larry Floyd BASF, AL U Staff Liaison: Barry Chase National Fire Protection Association, MA - s: Venkateswara Bhamidipati Powder Process Solutions, MN IM Martin Clouthier Clouthier Risk Engineering, NS, Canada SE Michael Davies PROTEGO, Braunschweig, Germany M Henry Febo FM Global, MA I Robert Feldkamp Nordson Corp., OH M Dan Guaricci ATEX Explosion Protection L.P., FL M

12 NFPA Technical Committee on Explosion Protection Fall 2015 (2016 Edition) First Draft Meeting, Web / Teleconference April 17, 2014 & May 19, 2014 MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 3 Michael Hard Hard Fire Suppression Systems Inc., OH IM Rep. Fire Suppression Systems Association David Herrmann E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., DE U Alfonso Ibarreta Exponent Inc., MA SE Eric Johnson Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC, SC U Steven McCoy Ingredion, IN U Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section Samuel Rodgers Honeywell Inc., VA U Mitchel Rooker BS&B Safety Systems LLC, OK M Joseph Senecal UTC/Kidde-Fenwal, MA M Cleveland Skinker Bechtel Power Corp., MD SE Bill Stevenson CV Technology Inc., FL M Stephen Stuart Hylant Group, MI I Jerome Taveau Fike Corp., KS M David Trull XL Global Asset Protection Services, WA I Robert Zalosh Firexplo, MA SE Alternates: (* voting) Thomas Heidermann (Alt. to M. Davies) *Gerd Ph. Mayer (Alt. to S. Penno) Braunschweiger Flammenfilter G, Germany Rembe Inc., NC M M The agenda was reviewed and an additional item was added, as addressed in these minutes. NFPA 67 FIRST DRAFT The committee reviewed the public input and developed the first draft. A task group was formed to revise the new section on deflagration arresters. The following members volunteered: T. Heidermann (chair), S. Rodgers, M. Davies. A task group was formed to draft a new section on vacuum regenerated carbon adsorption units to be placed in new section , which was inserted by First Revision #16. The following members volunteered: M. Davies (chair), R. Zalosh. OTHER BUSINESS The committee discussed a possible TIA on NFPA 68 to correct some lingering issues. The committee agreed that this should be discussed in a separate teleconference to be scheduled at a later date. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:00pm. Respectfully Submitted, Barry Chase NFPA Staff

13 Fall 2015 Revision Cycle

14 2015 FALL REVISION CYCLE *Public Input Dates may vary according to standards and schedules for Revision Cycles may change. Please check the NFPA Website for the most up to date information on Public Input Closing Dates and schedules at (i.e. and click on the Next Edition tab. Process Stage Process Step Dates for TC Dates for TC with CC Public Input Closing Date for Paper Submittal* 11/29/ /29/2013 Public Input Closing Date for Online Submittal (e PI)* 1/3/2014 1/3/2014 Final Date for TC First Draft Meeting 6/13/2014 3/14/2014 Public Input Posting of First Draft and TC Ballot 8/1/2014 4/25/2014 Stage Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot 8/22/2014 5/16/2014 (First Draft) Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot recirc 8/29/2014 5/23/2014 Posting of First Draft for CC Meeting 5/30/2014 Final date for CC First Draft Meeting 7/11/2014 Posting of First Draft and CC Ballot 8/1/2014 Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot 8/22/2014 Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot recirc 8/29/2014 Post First Draft Report for Public Comment 9/5/2014 9/5/2014 Public Comment Closing Date for Paper Submittal* 10/10/ /10/2014 Public Comment Closing Date for Online Submittal (e PC)* 11/14/ /14/2014 Final Date to Publish Notice of Consent Standards (Standards that 11/28/ /28/2014 received no Comments) Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards (Standards that received 12/12/ /12/2014 no Comments) Final date for TC Second Draft Meeting 5/1/2015 1/23/2015 Comment Posting of Second Draft and TC Ballot 6/12/2015 3/6/2015 Stage Final date for Receipt of TC Second Draft ballot 7/3/2015 3/27/2015 (Second Final date for receipt of TC Second Draft ballot recirc 7/10/2015 4/3/2015 Draft) Posting of Second Draft for CC Meeting 4/10/2015 Final date for CC Second Draft Meeting 5/22/2015 Posting of Second Draft for CC Ballot 6/12/2015 Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot 7/3/2015 Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot recirc 7/10/2015 Post Second Draft Report for NITMAM Review 7/17/2015 7/17/2015 Tech Session Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 8/21/2015 8/21/2015 Preparation Posting of Certified Amending Motions (CAMs) and Consent 10/16/ /16/2015 Standards (& Issuance) Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards (15 days) 10/31/ /31/2015 SC Issuance Date for Consent Standards (10 days) 11/10/ /10/2015 Tech Session Association Meeting for Standards with CAMs 6/13 16/2016 6/13 16/2016 Appeals and Appeal Closing Date for Standards with CAMs 6/29/2016 6/29/2016 Issuance SC Issuance Date for Standards with CAMs 8/4/2016 8/4/2016 Approved October 30, 2012 Revised December 4, 2013

15 Larry Floyd BASF Corporation 1379 Ciba Road McIntosh, Alabama Telephone (251) Fax (251) Cell (251) October 31, 2013 RE: NFPA , Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) Laurence G. Britton Process Safety Consultant 848 Sherwood Road Charleston, WV25314 USA Phone: Dear Larry, You recently sent a number of s to Sam Rodgers, Joe Senecal, and Bob Zalosh, members of the Explosion Protection Systems Committee (). First, I apologize for the delayed response. My day job prevented a more timely response. Hopefully, I am correctly summarizing the concerns expressed in your s: Inerting safety factors for systems not continuously monitored with interlocks are too conservative. Modifications to the figure in A are recommended (Ref. section in the 2014 edition). [1] Adjusted LOC values in NFPA version table Table C.1(a) that reflect a 2% absolute adjustment from "classical" LOC values are too conservative. You cite work by Zlochower, Green. [2] The two requirements above will negatively impact existing processing. NFPA 69 should incorporate an LOC mixture rule based on Le Chatelier s formula. You again cite Zlochower, Green. [2] Regarding impact on existing processes please note the 2014 edition requirements are not retroactive unless specifically noted. With respect to comments on LEL and LOC, I believe your comments have merit. I spoke this afternoon to Barry Chase, our NFPA staff liaison, who confirmed that the closing date for a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) was August 23, Therefore, any revisions will be to the 2014 version, which is to be published within a few weeks. At this time the vehicle for revising the standard will be through the Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) process. Section 5.1 from NFPA regulations document that describes the procedure is attached. The TIA submission is to include: (a) The proposed text and/or modification or deletion of existing text. (b) The technical justification (c) Justification of the emergency nature of the TIA. What constitutes an emergency is defined in NFPA regulations document [3]. (d) The written agreement of two members of the committee agreeing with the TIA submission. letter_britton_103113lf.docx Helping Make Products Better

16 NFPA , Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) The TIA is submitted to the Standards Secretary to be approved for processing. If approved, then the TIA will be balloted by the committee for 1) technical merit, and 2) emergency nature. Depending on the extent of your proposals, and judging from the content of your recent s, I anticipate calling a meeting of the committee to discuss your recommendations prior to balloting. Given the subject matter of your concerns, multiple TIA may well facilitate the discussion and balloting process. With respect to timing the TIA submission(s), please note that the next standards committee meeting is March I am copying Sam, Joe and Bob with the intent of furthering technical discussions and identifying the two committee members who will support the TIA. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Larry D. Floyd BASF Member Process Safety CoE Committee Chair Cc: B. Chase, S. Rodgers, J. Senecal, R. Zalosh attachments Letter_Britton_103113lf.docx Page 2 of 3

17 NFPA , Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) 5.1 Content of a Proposed Tentative Interim Amendment. Each Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) shall be submitted to the Standards Council Secretary and shall include the following: a) Identification of the submitter and his or her affiliation (i.e., Technical Committee, organization, company), where appropriate b) Identification of the NFPA Standard, edition of the NFPA Standard, and paragraph of the NFPA Standard to which the TIA is directed c) Proposed text of the TIA, including the wording to be added, revised (and how revised), or deleted d) Statement of the problem and substantiation for the TIA e) The signature of the submitter or other means of authentication approved by the Standards Council Secretary f) Statement of the basis of conclusion that the TIA is of an emergency nature requiring prompt action g) The written agreement of at least two members of the involved Technical Committee or Correlating Committee to the processing of the TIA. The agreement to the processing of the TIA is for the sole purpose to allow the TIA to be processed and does not necessarily imply agreement with the merits or emergency nature of the TIA. [3] References 1. NFPA 69 2nd Draft 2014 Working Draft of Committee Meeting Output, Technical Committee on Explosion Protection Systems, Editor. 2008, National Fire Protection Association: Quincy, Massachusetts. p Isaac A. Zlochower and Gregory M. Green, The limiting oxygen concentration and flammability limits of gases and gas mixtures. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, (4): p NFPA Policy, Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards, in Regulations and Procedures. 2013, National Fire Protection Association: Quincy, Massachusetts. p. 25. Letter_Britton_103113lf.docx Page 3 of 3

18 Larry Floyd BASF Corporation 1379 Ciba Road McIntosh, Alabama Telephone (251) Fax (251) Cell (251) May 13, 2014 RE: NFPA 68 (2013), Tentative Interim Amendments (TIA) Barry D. Chase NFPA Staff Liaison 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA Office: (617) bchase@nfpa.org Dear Barry, Sam Rodgers is recommending an edit and three TIAs: Edits 1. Place 8.4 Effects of Initially Elevated or Subatmospheric Pressure before Label Effects of Turbulence. TIA 1: Eliminate criteria Equation shall apply to initial pressures before ignition of 1 bar-abs ± 0.2 bar. Problem: In all pressure cases the initial vent area, A v0, must be calculated using equation 8.2.2: A v0 is subsequently used in equation in to determine the vent area for pressures outside of the 1 bar-abs ± 0.2 bar: Substantiation: The initial pressure limits imposed by are no longer needed as adjustment for a pressure outside of the limits is now addressed in is a source of confusion and should be deleted. tia_rodgers_050914lf.docx Helping Make Products Better

19 NFPA 68 (2013), Tentative Interim Amendments (TIA) TIA 2 and 3: and Remove the default values for u, G u, and b under 7.2.1, leaving the definitions of the terms. 2. Remove the definition for u under because it is used already in Remove the default values for u, and a u under , leaving the definitions of the terms. Add new paragraphs * It shall be permitted to assume u = 1.2 for flammable gases with stoichiometric concentrations less than 5 vol% and an initial temperature of 20 o C 2. A Parameters for gases and gas mixtures at various initial pressures and temperatures can be estimated using thermodynamic tools such as GASEQ and CHETAH It shall be permitted to assume G u = kg/m 2 s for an enclosure initial temperature of 20 o C It shall be permitted to assume b = 1.25 [this value is not as conservative as the original range and should be discussed] It shall be permitted to assume u = 1.8E 05 kg/m s for gas concentrations less than 5 vol% at ambient concentrations. (See also A ) It shall be permitted to assume a u = 343 m/s for gas concentrations less than 5 vol% at ambient conditions (See also A ) Best Regards, Larry D. Floyd BASF Process Safety CoE NFPA Committee Chair Cc: Committee TIA_Rodgers_050914lf.docx Page 2 of 3

20 NFPA 68 (2013), Tentative Interim Amendments (TIA) TIA_Rodgers_050914lf.docx Page 3 of 3

21 NFPA 68 TIA 1 (S. Rodgers) Friday, April 18, :45 PM Subject From To Sent Fw: NFPA 68 Chapter 8 Vent Sizing Flow Issues Larry Floyd mobilefloyd@yahoo.com Friday, April 18, :31 AM TIA_Rodgers _051314lf Larry, Yes I recommend this for a TIA due to the potential to prevent someone properly applying the vent equations. Av0 must always be calculated to always have an Av1, otherwise the chain falls apart. I also just noticed that there is a typo in paragraph it should say Avep/Av1 to match the equation, not Avep/Av0. Sam From: "Rodgers, Sam (Process Safety)" <samuel.rodgers@honeywell.com> To: Larry Floyd <larry.floyd@basf.com> Date: 04/17/ :23 AM Subject: FW: NFPA 68 Chapter 8 Vent Sizing Flow Issues Possible TIA #1 to NFPA 68 From: Rodgers, Sam (Process Safety) Sent: Tuesday, September 03, :18 AM To: 'Jason Krbec' Cc: Bill Stevenson; 'Larry Floyd'; bchase@nfpa.org Subject: RE: NFPA 68 Chapter 8 Vent Sizing Flow Issues Jason, I agree with you. We need Av0 in all cases should be eliminated now that we apply section 8.4 all the time. Paragraph takes us back to Avep=Av1 if we are in the +0.2 bar initial pressure range. Larry, The removal of is a potential TIA due to confusion in applications. If you are keeping track of such things, maybe we could have a meeting to discuss errors noted and then consider which ones need a TIA developed. There are some questions about 67 and well as 69 that we could discuss. We did not feel we had the time to re order the chapter at the last meeting, but section 8.4 should be placed before and I would recommend we label section to indicate it is Effects of Turbulence. Regards, Sam From: Jason Krbec [mailto:jkrbec@cvtechnology.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, :48 AM To: Rodgers, Sam (Process Safety) Cc: Bill Stevenson Subject: NFPA 68 Chapter 8 Vent Sizing Flow Issues Sam, One of our engineers came to me with an issue regarding the flow and limitations in Chapter 8 of NFPA 68. The issue centers around the requirement in that limits the applicability of equation I attached some notes from my engineer. I spoke with him and was able to explain the process that should be followed. However, after reviewing the document I am in agreement that either should be eliminated or reworded otherwise you cannot apply which prevents you from developing an Av1 which is required to calculate for initially elevated or subatmospheric pressures. When you get a chance please look at this and let us know your thoughts. Best Regards, Jason Krbec Engineering Manager NFPA 68 Page 1

22 North America CV Technology, Inc Mercantile Court Jupiter, Florida Direct: Main: Mobile: Fax: E mail: jkrbec@cvtechnology.com Web: Come visit CV Technology, Inc. at the PTXi show in Houston!!! This and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e mail if you have received this e mail by mistake and delete this e mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. NFPA 68 Page 2

23 NFPA 68 TIA 2, 3: 2013 Spreadsheet Update, Section 7.2.1, (Sam Rodgers) Friday, April 18, :16 PM TIA_Rodgers _051314lf Subject RE: NFPA 68 TIA 2, 3: 2013 Spreadsheet Update, Section From Rodgers, Sam (Process Safety) To Sent Larry Floyd Friday, April 25, :05 PM My actual proposal for the ability to adjust gas values is: Remove the default values for u, Gu, and b under 7.2.1, leaving the definitions of the terms. Remove the definition for u under because it is used already in Remove the default values for u, and au under , leaving the definitions of the terms. Add new paragraphs * It shall be permitted to assume u = 1.2 for flammable gases with stoichiometric concentrations less than 5 vol% and an initial temperature of 20 C A Parameters for gases and gas mixtures at various initial pressures and temperatures can be estimated using thermodynamic tools such as GASEQ and CHETAH It shall be permitted to assume Gu = kg/m2 s for an enclosure initial temperature of 20 C It shall be permitted to assume b = 1.25 [this value is not as conservative as the original range and should be discussed] It shall be permitted to assume u = 1.8E 05 kg/m s for gass concentrations less than 5 vol% at ambient concentrations. (See also A ) It shall be permitted to assume au = 343 m/s for gas concentrations less than 5 vol% at ambient conditions (See also A ) From: Larry Floyd [mailto:mobilefloyd@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 25, :32 PM To: Rodgers, Sam (Process Safety) Subject: NFPA 68 TIA 2, 3: 2013 Spreadsheet Update, Section Sam, TIA s 2 and 3. Larry Subject Fw: NFPA Spreadsheet Update From Larry Floyd To Sent mobilefloyd@yahoo.com Friday, April 18, :42 AM Possible TIA #2 and #3 to NFPA 68 From: Rodgers, Sam (Process Safety) Sent: Wednesday, January 15, :18 AM To: Larry Floyd (larry.floyd@basf.com) Cc: 'Bill Stevenson'; Tom Scherpa; 'Walter Frank'; Zalosh, Bob (bzalosh@firexplo.com); Erdem A. Ural; Bitter, Robert-1 Subject: NFPA Spreadsheet Update Larry, I am sharing my spreadsheet solving the 2013 equations as well as a couple concerns with the current gas equation system. My first concern is that we have a cut off for vent release velocity based on a ratio of Pred to Pa. The formula for the velocity is not the issue, rather that the cut off based on the Pred/Pa ratio can result in a velocity exceeding the speed of sound. We should have a TIA to correct the formula. Recommend changing to NFPA 68 Page 3

24 My second concern is that the heat capacity ratio for burnt gas is indicated as GASEQ shows that adiabatic combustion at constant P or V yields a value of closer to This yields smaller vent areas and could be a better choice for a permitted value. Lastly there have been multiple questions about adjusting the permitted values for the gas parameters with increased initial temperature or pressure. I added a tab to provide a method for this adjustment, but the standard does not give any guidance for adjustment. It would be helpful to formally permit adjustment of the parameters for the gas mixture (burned/unburnt). Feel free to share with the entire Explosion Protection committee, if desired. Sam[attachment "oledata.mso" deleted by Larry Floyd/NA/BASF] [attachment "image004.wmz" deleted by Larry Floyd/NA/BASF] [attachment "image007.wmz" deleted by Larry Floyd/NA/BASF] [attachment "NFPA Revised xlsx" deleted by Larry Floyd/NA/BASF] NFPA 68 Page 4

25 NFPA 68 TIA 3 (4), change equation e Friday, May 16, :09 PM Subject Fw: NFPA 68 (2013), Tentative Interim Amendments (TIA) From Larry Floyd To mobilefloyd@yahoo.com Sent Friday, May 16, :59 PM Attachments From: Date: Subject: "Rodgers, Sam (Process Safety)" <samuel.rodgers@honeywell.com> 05/16/ :49 PM RE: NFPA 68 (2013), Tentative Interim Amendments (TIA) All, If time permits, I would also like to recommend a TIA to change equation e to be more appropriate. The current equation for vent velocity can result in velocity exceeding the speed of sound because of the approximate cut off based on Pred vs 0.9 bar g. As vent velocity goes up so does vent Reynolds number and flame enhancement, thus this leads to larger vent area than necessary. Sam Current Equation Proposed Equation The above equation has Pa in bar g, so it is normally ~0. OR (assumes ambient at vent is always 0 bar g) From: Larry Floyd [mailto:larry.floyd@basf.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, :57 PM To: Chase, Barry Cc: larry.floyd@basf.com; lmorrison@plcfire.com; BVSarma@powder-solutions.com; michael.davies@protego.de; todd.dillon@xlgroup.com; alexi.dimopoulos@exxonmobil.com; henry.febo@fmglobal.com; bfeldkamp@nordson.com; gillisjp@verizon.net; psadi28@aol.com; dguaricci@atexus.com; mike@hardfire.com; david.d.herrmann@usa.dupont.com; todd.iaeger@readingpa.org; aibarreta@exponent.com; eric06.johnson@srs.gov; dkirby@bakerrisk.com; steve.mccoy@ingredion.com; paavolaj@dteenergy.com; sp@rembe.de; Rodgers, Sam (Process Safety); mrooker@bsbsystems.com; joseph.senecal@fs.utc.com; cbskinke@bechtel.com; bstevenson@cvtechnology.com; dstottmann@cst-storage.com; steve.stuart@hylant.com; jerome.taveau@fike.com; erdem.ural@lpsti.com; bzalosh@firexplo.com; gcbleb@aol.com; mclouthier@plcfire.com; randy.davis@kidde-fenwal.com; khumbrecht@phoenixfire.com; ejones@nordson.com; jkrbec@cvtechnology.com; john.leblanc%fmglobal.@basfimgw.andipc.basf-corp.com; gm@rembe.us; kmcguire@cststorage.com; tmyers@exponent.com; thomas.c.scherpa@usa.dupont.com; jef.snoeys@fike.com; kthomas@bakerrisk.com; william.till@srs.gov; Franz.Alfert@Inburex.com; l.britton@suddenlink.net; v.molkov@ulster.ac.uk; verakis.harry@dol.gov; richard.schwab32@verizon.net; bchase@nfpa.org Subject: NFPA 68 (2013), Tentative Interim Amendments (TIA) Hello Barry, See attached for recommended TIA to be discussed on 5/19. Larry Larry Floyd Senior Process Safety Specialist Phone: (251) , Mobile: (251) , larry.floyd@basf.com Postal Address: 1379 Ciba Road, McIntosh, AL BASF, The Chemical Company If you think safety is expensive, try an accident. T. Kletz NFPA 68 Page 5

26 NFPA 68 TIA 4, Fireball Equation Thursday, July 31, :12 PM 7/31/2014 2:13 PM During CMD HAP A2016 meeting Brice Chastain reported on an incident at Georgia Pacific that resulted in two fatalities and multiple injuries resulting from a dust collector venting during a fire event. The personnel fatally injured were emergency responders. He believes that the fireball equations in NFPA 68 may not be sufficiently conservative. That is, the radiant heat flux extended past the radius determined by the NFPA 68 fireball equation that is based on research done by Holbrow, "1. Paul Holbrow, Stuart J. Hawksworth, and Alan Tyldesley, Thermal radiation from vented dust explosions. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, (6): p " Bill Stevenson's advice is to keep people 90ft away from the axial vented area. From NFPA 68, 7.7 is for vapors, gases and mists, NFPA gives fireball dimensions for a dust deflagration NFPA 68 Page 6

27 08/21/14 TIA, NFPA 68 Paragraph Friday, August 22, :20 AM Subject Fw: Paragraph From Larry Floyd To Sent Thursday, August 21, :43 PM Luke, We were initially correct that this paragraph should not prohibit use of the vent duct correction for sub atmospheric pressures. The ROC record discusses the addition of sub atmospheric pressure and the real concern. Henry Febo object to the sub atmospheric correction in the voting saying that this technology was not demonstrated and that venting could actually occur at ambient conditions. His comment reminded me that the real issue for subatmospheric venting is that there is a peak around 0.4 bar where the vent area requirement is higher than at atmospheric. Since we know the limits of the sub atmospheric correction, at least theoretically, we felt comfortable adding a maximum 10% vent area as a result. We do not have data to substantiate using the vent duct correction along with elevated pressure accounted for the peak by saying that for sub atmospheric always use the largest factor over the pressure range from operating to ambient, thus including the peak also permits just using a 1.1 factor for sub atmospheric venting as this is the maximum value. And says for greater than 0.2 bar there are extra restrictions, specifically vent duct L/D <1. All of these are in agreement with Table Thus Paragraph is inconsistent and incorrect. It should be: Equation 8.5.1a shall not be used if the initial pressure exceeds +0.2 barg. [It should NOT be +0.2 barg] We forgot to update this paragraph when we added sub atmospheric pressure. Larry This should be another item for our TIA, because it incorrectly prevents use of the vent duct equations for sub atmospheric conditions. Barry Luke has somehow gotten removed from the committee list in all three of our documents. Hopefully you can correct this computer glitch. Best Regards, Sam NFPA 68 Page 7

28 Interoffice Correspondence Colonial Heights, VA Date: February 19, 2015 Subject: Proposal for NFPA 68 and 69 TIAs on Metal Dusts From: Samuel Rodgers Organization: SM Process Safety Engineering Location: Technical Center Mail Stop: Woods Edge Road To: Larry Floyd Telephone: (804) Fax: (804) 520- A presentation by Scott Davis of Gexcon illustrated failure of deflagration venting of metal dusts sized on the basis of NFPA-68. The failure was particularly worse for metals with higher burning temperatures and generally adequate for lower burning temperature metal dusts. Additionally it was noted that vent duct predictions were similarly inadequate for hotter burning metal dusts. Bob Zalosh previously presented information to the committee on the higher K St exhibited by hotter burning metal dusts in the 1 m 3 sphere vs the 20 L sphere, this being the reverse of the trend for organic dusts. Evidence has also been presented to the committee that certain metal dusts present challenges to isolation and suppression systems beyond the common effects of K St and P max. Given the growing body of work showing incomplete accounting for the effects of metal dust deflagrations, it is recommended that TIA be processed for NFPA 68 to warn of this dangerous situation and provide guidance on testing metal dusts and using the sizing equations until more information is available. The recommended change to NFPA 68, is for consistency with the permission of vent ducts for initially sub-atmospheric conditions in Table It is recommended because the prohibition of vent ducts for initially sub-atmospheric conditions results in an unnecessary business burden and was not intended by the committee. NFPA 68 TIA Proposal 6.1.2* For dusts, KSt and Pmax shall be determined in approximately spherical calibrated test vessels of at least 20 L capacity per ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds * It shall be permitted to determine KSt and Pmax per ISO 6184/1, Explosion Protection Systems Part 1: Determination of Explosion Indices of Combustible Dusts in Air The owner/user shall be permitted to test the dust with moisture content and particle size that deviates from the recommended conditions established by the method described in or , provided a documented assessment acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction has been performed prior to using these KSt and Pmax values to determine vent sizing.

29 * For metal dusts K St and P max shall be determined in both nominal 20 L and 1 m 3 calibrated test vessels. A Recent testing has shown that certain metal dusts exhibit K St and P max values that are significantly larger in 1 m 3 tests than in 20 L tests, the difference increasing with adiabatic flame temperature. Until more information is available, testing in both standard test vessels is intended to provide additional confidence in application of the design methods Testing shall be in accordance with the same test method in both cases, either ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, or ISO 6184/1, Explosion Protection Systems Part 1: Determination of Explosion Indices of Combustible Dusts in Air * K St and P max values for metal dusts used in this standard shall be the larger of the individual values determined in the two different sized vessels. A Where both the K St and P max values are higher in the larger 1 m 3 calibrated test vessel and the enclosure to be protected is larger than 1 m 3, the owner/user should consider vent sizing based on full-scale testing Equation 8.5.1a shall not be used if the vent cover is not located at the entrance of the duct Equation 8.5.1a shall not be used if the initial pressure exceeds ±0.2 bar-g +0.2 bar-g Equation 8.5.1a shall not be used if the vent duct crosssectional area varies by more than 10 percent anywhere along the length * Equation 8.5.1a shall not be used for metal dusts with adiabatic flame temperature exceeding 2500 K. A Equation 8.5.1a can be applied for metal dusts with flame temperatures equivalent to iron or lower. This does not mean that vent ducts cannot be used with metal dusts (see 8.5.9) It shall be permitted to use Equation 8.5.1a for vent ducts equipped with elbows, bird screens, and rain covers as long as the obstructions are properly accounted for through the duct resistance coefficient K It shall be permitted to use vent ducts outside the limitations of Equation 8.5.1(a) if designed in accordance with full-scale test data. Renumber subsequent. NFPA 69 TIA Proposal Add ASTM E 1226 and ISO 6184/1 to section and references, respectively. 6.2 Limitations. The limitations specific to each method shall be considered and are specified in the corresponding chapter for each method * When using the techniques of Chapters 10, 11, 12 or 13 or of NFPA 68, Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting, for metal dusts, K St and P max shall be determined in both nominal 20 L and 1 m 3 calibrated test vessels. A6.2.1 Recent testing has shown that certain metal dusts exhibit K St and P max values that are significantly larger in 1 m 3 tests than in 20 L tests, the difference increasing with adiabatic flame temperature. Until more information is available, testing in both standard test vessels is intended to provide additional confidence in application of the design methods.

30 Testing shall be in accordance with the same test method in both cases, either ASTM E 1226, Standard Test Method for Explosibility of Dust Clouds, or ISO 6184/1, Explosion Protection Systems Part 1: Determination of Explosion Indices of Combustible Dusts in Air * K St and P max values for metal dusts used in this standard shall be the larger of the individual values determined in the two different sized vessels. A Where both the K St and P max values are higher in the larger 1 m 3 calibrated test vessel and the enclosure to be protected is larger than 1 m 3, the owner/user should consider protection based on full-scale testing When using the techniques of Chapters 10, 11 or 12 where metal dusts are involved, the system design methodology shall include testing using a metal dust having an adiabatic flame temperature the same or higher than the relevant dust. cc: Samuel A. Rodgers Process Safety Ldr PMT