TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL DUSTS. NFPA 61 CMD-AGR (A2016) First Draft Meeting

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL DUSTS NFPA 61 (A2016) First Draft Meeting Sheraton Denver Downtown Denver, Colorado August 26-28, AM 5 PM AGENDA 1. Meeting is called to order at 8 AM 2. Welcome and Self-Introduction of Committee Members and Guests 3. Chair and Staff Liaison Remarks 4. Approve Minutes of the Pre-First Draft Web/Teleconference Meeting held on February 6, Review of A2016 Revision Cycle and new NFPA process (Staff Liaison presentation on new process and procedures, will include membership review and review of schedule) 6. Committee Correspondence 7. Review of Public Input to NFPA Review of Committee Input to NFPA Task Group Meeting 10. Old Business 11. New Business and determination of next meeting date and location 12. Adjournment Meeting will adjourn at 5 pm on all three days

2 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL DUSTS TO: FROM: COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL DUSTS G. R. Colonna, Staff Liaison DATE: February 12, 2014 SUBJ: Minutes of NFPA 61 Pre-First Draft Meeting (Conference Call), February 6, 2014 I. Attendance: (all by web and conference call) Members and Alternates: Timothy Myers, Exponent, Inc., Natick, MA Donald Ankele, UL LLC, Northbrook, IL Chris Aiken, Cargill, Inc., Wayzata, MN Venkateswara Sarma Bharmidipati, Powder Process Solutions, Chanhassen, MN Amy Brown, FM Global, Norwood, MA David Clayton, Exponent, Inc., Los Angeles, CA Ashok Dastidar, Fauske & Associates, LLC, Burr Ridge, IL Brian Eklow, Aon Risk Services, Chicago, IL Keith Epperson, American Feed Industry Association, Osage Beach, MO Craig Froehling, Cargill, Inc., Wayzata, MN William Kearns, Fred Pfening Company, Columbus, OH William Kinslow, Jr., Mondelēz International, East Hanover, NJ Bruce McLelland, Fike Corporation, Blue Springs, MO Jim Norris, Bunge North America, St. Louis, MO (NOPA) Jack E. Osborn, Airdusco, Inc., TN Jeffrey Rogers, Ag Processing Inc., Omaha, NE (NOPA) Lee Sargent, Todd & Sargent, Inc., Ames, IA Robert Shafto, Zurich Insurance, Milford, MI Ronald Stein, Aon Global Risk Consultants, Kansas City, MO Jeffrey Sutton, Global Risk Consultants Corporation, Excelsior, MN Peter Telthorst, FM Global, St. Louis, MO P.D. (Nick) Thielen, General Mills, Inc., Golden Valley, MN Stephen Wees, Hayes & Stolz Industrial Manufacturing, Ltd., Fort Worth, TX J. Anthony Yount, ConAgra Food Ingredients, Omaha, NE Guy R. Colonna, NFPA, Staff Liaison

3 Meeting Minutes February 6, 2014 (Conference Call) Guests: Brian Deutsch, Michigan Sugar Company, Bay City, MI (US Beet Sugar Association) Kent Quinney, The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC, Boise, ID (US Beet Sugar Association) II. Minutes of Meeting 1. The Chair called the meeting to order at 11:05 a.m., Thursday, February 6, He welcomed the members and guests, outlined the agenda for the meeting, and requested Staff conduct a roll call of participants at the meeting. 2. Staff provided an update on the Committee membership, including pending appointments for the March meeting of the NFPA Standards Council. The Committee currently has 30 voting members (including one voting alternate member). In addition to moving the voting alternate to a principal voting member status, the Chair and Staff have also recommended appointment of the applicants from the US Beet Sugar Association (joining the meeting as guests). Staff also provided a review of the new NFPA Standards Process, demonstrating how Public Input is submitted, and reviewing the schedule for preparing the Annual 2016 revision cycle revision for NFPA 61 (see attached copy of the A2016 schedule). As part of this review, Staff also spoke about the role of the Combustible Dust Correlating Committee. In addition, the Chair and Staff reviewed the status of NFPA 652, which has requested a cycle change from F2014 to A2015 in order to finish all the Public Comments and the Second Draft. In order to make the "yet to be developed" second draft version of NFPA 652 available for review by the Agricultural Dust Committee, so that appropriate Public Input can be considered based on NFPA 652, Staff will prepare a Word draft of the proposed standard and distribute it to the Agricultural Dust Committee. A draft based on the recent Second Draft meeting (January 2014) will be made available by the end of February. Staff reported that there are already 4 Public Inputs on file for NFPA 61; the deadline for submittal of the proposed changes is July 7, The Chair discussed how to approach this revision cycle, particularly the need to evaluate whether NFPA 652 impacts NFPA 61 in any way. He recommended forming several task groups - 6 specifically linked to chapters in the proposed NFPA 652. The guidance for the task groups would be to compare NFPA 61 with NFPA 652 and identify what topics covered by NFPA 652 are not currently in NFPA 61 and whether they should be. The task group listing is shown below; those members of the Committee not able to participate in this meeting but wishing to serve on one of the task groups should contact the Chair or Staff to be included. The goal for the task groups, where possible, is to develop any recommended changes to NFPA 61 prior to the closing date for submitting Public Input. The task group listing is as follows: 2

4 Meeting Minutes February 6, 2014 (Conference Call) Ch 4 General Bob Shafto Jeff Sutton Ch 5 Hazard ID Pete Telthorst Keith Epperson Ashok Dastidar Nick Thielen Bob Shafto Ch 6 Performance Based Design Ashok Dastidar Venkat Bhamidipati Ch 7 PHA Pete Telthorst Nick Thielen Kent Quinney Chris Aiken Anthony Yount Bill Kinslow Ch 8 Hazard management Bruce McLelland Craig Froehling Jack Osborn Amy Brown Bill Kearns Anthony Yount Bill Kinslow Ch 9 Management Systems Chris Aiken Jeff Sutton Amy Brown 5. The Committee discussed two other items as possible considerations for the upcoming revision: whether specific provisions pertaining to the sugar industry (refining and processing) should be added to NFPA 61 and whether "fabric silos" should be included in the standard. The question surrounding requirements applicable for the sugar industry carried forward from the prior revision cycle when a draft chapter was considered by the Committee during the ROP phase. At this time, there were no specific recommendations made, so the Committee did not propose creating a separate task group to research whether requirements unique to operations and processes within the sugar industry are necessary. As for the discussion regarding fabric silos - several members of the Committee and Staff saw an online discussion asking questions about the use of these silos and wanted to raise the issue with the full Committee in case these storage silos should be included in the next edition of the standard. Again, general sense from the discussions at this meeting indicate there is no need identified to include requirements for use of fabric silos for the materials covered by NFPA Next Meeting. The Committee discussed date and location for its First Draft meeting based on the schedule outlined by the Staff. The Public Input closing date is July 7 and the last date for the Committee to hold its meeting is September 12. During this meeting, the Committee selected Denver as the location and a tentative date of August 12-14, with the meeting opening at 8:00 am on the 12th and the meeting adjourning by noon on the 14th. [Staff Note: Following the meeting, Staff reviewed the plans from the meeting for scheduling a First Draft meeting and realized that the dates proposed by the Committee conflict with the NFPA Standards Council meeting in Quincy. NFPA has established a policy for the purposes of staff, the Council, and committee members, not to schedule meetings that conflict with the August Council meeting so that NFPA staff can be available to meet with the Council as needed on agenda items, including appeals and 3

5 Meeting Minutes February 6, 2014 (Conference Call) hearings related to the Annual cycle document approvals. Because the Council is scheduled to meet the same dates as was proposed for the NFPA 61 First Draft meeting, Staff has notified the Committee and the Chair and alternative dates are being selected. Based on the results of the poll, the week of August 25 is receiving the most support as the alternative, with the dates of August being preferred (Tuesday - Thursday) over a Monday - Wednesday schedule. I will confirm with the Chair and send the final notice on rescheduling.] 7. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, February 6, Respectfully submitted, G. R. Colonna, Staff Liaison Attachment: Annual 2016 schedule 4

6 2016 ANNUAL 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* 6/6/2014 6/6/2014 Public Input Closing Date for Online Submittal (e PI)* 7/7/2014 7/7/2014 Final Date for TC First Draft Meeting 12/12/2014 9/12/2014 Public Input Posting of First Draft and TC Ballot 1/30/ /24/2014 Stage Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot 2/20/ /14/2014 (First Draft) Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot recirc 2/27/ /21/2014 Posting of First Draft for CC Meeting 11/28/2014 Final date for CC First Draft Meeting 1/9/2015 Posting of First Draft and CC Ballot 1/30/2015 Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot 2/20/2015 Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot recirc 2/27/2015 Post First Draft Report for Public Comment 3/6/2015 3/6/2015 Public Comment Closing Date for Paper Submittal* 4/10/2015 4/10/2015 Public Comment Closing Date for Online Submittal (e PC)* 5/15/2015 5/15/2015 Final Date to Publish Notice of Consent Standards (Standards that 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 received no Comments) Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards (Standards that received 6/12/2015 6/12/2015 no Comments) Final date for TC Second Draft Meeting 10/30/2015 7/24/2015 Comment Posting of Second Draft and TC Ballot 12/11/2015 9/4/2015 Stage Final date for Receipt of TC Second Draft ballot 1/4/2016 9/25/2015 (Second Final date for receipt of TC Second Draft ballot recirc 1/11/ /2/2015 Draft) Posting of Second Draft for CC Meeting 10/9/2015 Final date for CC Second Draft Meeting 11/20/2015 Posting of Second Draft for CC Ballot 12/11/2015 Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot 1/4/2016 Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot recirc 1/11/2016 Post Second Draft Report for NITMAM Review 1/18/2016 1/18/2016 Tech Session Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 2/19/2016 2/19/2016 Preparation Posting of Certified Amending Motions (CAMs) and Consent 4/15/2016 4/15/2016 Standards (& Issuance) Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards 5/3/2016 5/3/2016 SC Issuance Date for Consent Standards 5/13/2016 5/13/2016 Tech Session Association Meeting for Standards with CAMs 6/6 9/2016 6/6 9/2016 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 March 7, 2013

7 2016 ANNUAL 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* 6/6/2014 6/6/2014 Public Input Closing Date for Online Submittal (e PI)* 7/7/2014 7/7/2014 Final Date for TC First Draft Meeting 12/12/2014 9/12/2014 Public Input Posting of First Draft and TC Ballot 1/30/ /24/2014 Stage Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot 2/20/ /14/2014 (First Draft) Final date for Receipt of TC First Draft ballot recirc 2/27/ /21/2014 Posting of First Draft for CC Meeting 11/28/2014 Final date for CC First Draft Meeting 1/9/2015 Posting of First Draft and CC Ballot 1/30/2015 Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot 2/20/2015 Final date for Receipt of CC First Draft ballot recirc 2/27/2015 Post First Draft Report for Public Comment 3/6/2015 3/6/2015 Public Comment Closing Date for Paper Submittal* 4/10/2015 4/10/2015 Public Comment Closing Date for Online Submittal (e PC)* 5/15/2015 5/15/2015 Final Date to Publish Notice of Consent Standards (Standards that 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 received no Comments) Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards (Standards that received 6/12/2015 6/12/2015 no Comments) Final date for TC Second Draft Meeting 10/30/2015 7/24/2015 Comment Posting of Second Draft and TC Ballot 12/11/2015 9/4/2015 Stage Final date for Receipt of TC Second Draft ballot 1/4/2016 9/25/2015 (Second Final date for receipt of TC Second Draft ballot recirc 1/11/ /2/2015 Draft) Posting of Second Draft for CC Meeting 10/9/2015 Final date for CC Second Draft Meeting 11/20/2015 Posting of Second Draft for CC Ballot 12/11/2015 Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot 1/4/2016 Final date for Receipt of CC Second Draft ballot recirc 1/11/2016 Post Second Draft Report for NITMAM Review 1/18/2016 1/18/2016 Tech Session Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) Closing Date 2/19/2016 2/19/2016 Preparation Posting of Certified Amending Motions (CAMs) and Consent 4/15/2016 4/15/2016 Standards (& Issuance) Appeal Closing Date for Consent Standards 5/3/2016 5/3/2016 SC Issuance Date for Consent Standards 5/13/2016 5/13/2016 Tech Session Association Meeting for Standards with CAMs 6/6 9/2016 6/6 9/2016 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 March 7, 2013

8 Address List No Phone Agricultural Dusts Combustible Dusts Timothy J. Myers Chair Exponent, Inc. 9 Strathmore Road Natick, MA SE 10/27/2009 Jason P. Allen Principal Georgia State Fire Marshal s Office 920 West Tower, Floyd Building 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive Atlanta, GA /29/2014 Susan Bershad E 08/09/2012 Donald W. Ankele Principal UL LLC 333 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, IL Alternate: Paul T. Kelly RT 10/20/2010 Amy Brown Principal FM Global 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike PO Box 9102 Norwood, MA Alternate: Peter M. Telthorst I 03/07/2013 Matthew J. Bujewski Principal MJB Risk Consulting 9650 Mill Hill Lane St. Louis, MO SE 4/17/1998 Ashok Ghose Dastidar Principal Fauske & Associates, LLC 16W070 83rd Street Burr Ridge, IL SE 07/29/2013 Brian L. Eklow Principal Aon Risk Services 200 East Randolph Street Chicago, IL Alternate: Ronald A. Stein I 10/27/2005 Keith Epperson Principal American Feed Industry Association 5740 Parkview Court Osage Beach, MO U 3/21/2006 Craig Froehling Principal Cargill, Inc McGinty Road West, MS 63 Wayzata, MN Alternate: Chris Aiken U 03/05/2012 Dan A. Guaricci Principal ATEX Explosion Protection, L.P Waverly Barn Road, Suite 121 Davenport, FL M 7/20/2000 Kevin M. Hudson Principal Corn Products/National Starch PO Box 1084 Indianapolis, IN Alternate: Steven A. McCoy U 10/18/2011 William E. Janz Principal XL Global Asset Protection Services 301 Pine Ridge Drive Washington, IL Alternate: Philip E. Griffin I 4/4/1997 William F. Kearns Principal Fred D. Pfening Company 1075 West Fifth Avenue Columbus, OH M 8/5/2009 William F. Kinslow, Jr. Principal Mondelēz International 100 DeForest Avenue East Hanover, NJ U 3/1/2011 1

9 Address List No Phone Agricultural Dusts 07/29/2014 Susan Bershad James E. Maness Principal JEM Safety Consulting 5 Eagle Drive Rehoboth, DE Grain Elevator and Processing Society U 1/1/1986 Jess P. McCluer Principal National Grain and Feed Association 1250 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1003 Washington, DC U 1/10/2008 Bruce McLelland Principal Fike Corporation 704 SW 10th Street Blue Springs, MO M 3/2/2010 Karl Nitsch Principal KN Associates Corporation 1995 Weston Road PO Box 783 Toronto, ON M9N 3W9 Canada SE 4/17/1998 Jack E. Osborn Principal Airdusco, Inc Mendenhall Road South Memphis, TN M 7/23/2008 Michael Peters Principal Nebraska State Fire Marshal 1205 South V Road Hampton, NE E 08/09/2012 Kent C. Quinney Principal The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC 1951 South Saturn Way, Suite 100 Boise, ID US Beet Sugar Association Alternate: Brian G. Deutsch U 03/03/2014 Jeffrey K. Rogers Principal Ag Processing Inc. PO Box 2047 Omaha, NE National Oilseed Processors Association Alternate: Jim E. Norris U 7/26/2007 Mark L. Runyon Principal Marsh Risk Consulting 111 SW Columbia, Suite 500 Portland, OR I 10/23/2013 Lee M. Sargent Principal Todd & Sargent, Inc SE 5th Street Ames, IA SE 7/1/1993 Robert D. Shafto Principal Zurich Insurance 1093 Tall Pines Trail Highland, MI Alternate: Glen R. Mortensen I 3/1/2011 Jeffery W. Sutton Principal Global Risk Consultants Corporation 350 Highway 7, Suite 220 Excelsior, MN SE 4/3/2003 P. D. (Nick) Thielen Principal General Mills, Inc Plymouth Avenue, North Golden Valley, MN U 3/2/2010 Erdem A. Ural Principal Loss Prevention Science & Technologies, Inc. 2 Canton Street, Suite A2 Stoughton, MA SE 3/2/2010 2

10 Address List No Phone Agricultural Dusts Combustible Dusts Clyde Waller Principal Powder Process Solutions 1610 Lake Drive West Chanhassen, MN Alternate: Venkateswara Sarma Bhamidipati IM 8/9/2011 Stephen L. Wees Principal Hayes & Stolz Industrial Manufacturing, Ltd Hemphill Street Fort Worth, TX /29/2014 Susan Bershad M 3/21/2006 J. Anthony Yount Principal ConAgra Food Ingredients 11 ConAgra Drive Omaha, NE U 3/21/2006 Chris Aiken Alternate Cargill, Inc McGinty Road West, MS 63 Wayzata, MN Principal: Craig Froehling U 07/29/2013 Venkateswara Sarma Bhamidipati Alternate Powder Process Solutions 1620 Lake Drive West Chanhassen, MN Principal: Clyde Waller IM 10/29/2012 David B. Clayton Alternate Exponent, Inc McConnell Avenue Los Angeles, CA SE 10/20/2010 Brian G. Deutsch Alternate Michigan Sugar Company 2600 South Euclid Avenue Bay City, MI US Beet Sugar Association Principal: Kent C. Quinney U 03/03/2014 Philip E. Griffin Alternate XL Global Asset Protection Services County 27 Spring Grove, MN Principal: William E. Janz I 8/9/2011 Paul T. Kelly Alternate Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 333 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, IL Principal: Donald W. Ankele RT 03/03/2014 Steven A. McCoy Alternate Ingredion PO Box 1084 Indianapolis, IN Principal: Kevin M. Hudson U 10/18/2011 Glen R. Mortensen Alternate Zurich Services Corporation Risk Engineering West Crescent Drive Mundelein, IL Principal: Robert D. Shafto I 3/1/2011 Jim E. Norris Alternate Bunge North America Borman Drive PO Box St. Louis, MO National Oilseed Processors Association Principal: Jeffrey K. Rogers U 10/20/2010 3

11 Address List No Phone Agricultural Dusts Combustible Dusts Ronald A. Stein Alternate Aon Global Risk Consultants 4801 Main Street, Suite 350 Kansas City, MO Principal: Brian L. Eklow I 07/29/2013 Peter M. Telthorst Alternate FM Global 540 Maryville Center Drive, Suite 400 St Louis, MO Principal: Amy Brown 07/29/2014 Susan Bershad I 03/07/2013 Matthew I. Chibbaro Nonvoting Member US Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room N3609 Washington, DC Alternate: William R. Hamilton E 3/4/2009 William R. Hamilton Alt. to Nonvoting Member US Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Room N3609 Washington, DC Principal: Matthew I. Chibbaro E 3/4/2009 Robert W. Nelson Member Emeritus 28 Wing Road PO Box 418 Pocasset, MA SE 1/1/1989 Susan Bershad Staff Liaison National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA /16/2014 4

12 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 30-NFPA [ Global Input ] Please see the attached letter to USBSA Standards Council about NFPA 61. It reads in text form as follows: United States Beet Sugar Association 1156 FIFTEENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C (202) July 2, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO DBellis@NFPA.org Ms. Dawn Bellis, Secretary Standards Council National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA Re: NFPA 61 Dear Ms. Bellis: This letter will both serve as a global public comment on the current version of NFPA 61, and as a request to the NFPA s Standards Council. As you are aware, there is a July 7, 2014, deadline for submitting public comments on the current version of NFPA 61. We most respectfully make two requests: First, that that deadline be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized. Second, that NFPA 61 be restored to its previous 2017 revision cycle. We request that the July 7, 2014, deadline be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized because, as matters now stand, it is not possible for members of the public affected by NFPA 61 to intelligently comment on the most important question facing them: How NFPA 61 should be revised to reflect provisions of the forthcoming NFPA 652. To take one example, it appears that NFPA 652 will likely permit the NFPA 61 standard to indicate which NFPA 61 provisions would be permitted to be used instead of the corresponding NFPA 652 provision. In that case, the only way that the public could intelligently comment on which provisions of NFPA 61 should so indicate their nature vis-à-vis NFPA 652 would be for the public to have a final version of NFPA 652 before them for review. But that is not the case. NFPA 652 is not final. It is still in the second draft stage, and has not yet been even voted on officially by the committee members. Although we understand that a version of NFPA 652 was circulated in draft form to committee members on June 30, 2014, it is still only a draft (and apparently a partial draft at that) and has not been made available to members of the public. We are also informed that the draft in some important respects does not yet completely reflect all of the unofficial votes of the NFPA 652 Committee. Moreover, the draft, as it goes through the official voting process, is subject to revision by the Committee and other bodies, not to mention the membership of the NFPA. That means that members of the public would have to expend considerable resources commenting on NFPA 61 with the aid of a draft of NFPA 652 that could well be later rendered inaccurate. Under these circumstances, the deadline for public comment should be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized. We also request that NFPA 61 be restored to its previous 2017 revision cycle. The shift to a 2016 revision cycle means that the NFPA 61 Committee will be unable to revise NFPA 61 to timely reflect the final text of NFPA 652. As a result, there will be a considerable period of time in which users of NFPA 61 will be literally required to comply with provisions in NFPA 652 that the NFPA 61 Committee may well find inappropriate to agricultural products and thus will later prescribe different provisions addressing the same subject. Users of NFPA 61 will thus be needlessly

13 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM required at first to comply with a differing requirement in NFPA 652, and then will be required to comply with yet another differing requirement once NFPA 61 is revised. This makes no sense, and will produce confusion and waste. The best way to resolve these considerable difficulties would be to restore NFPA 61 to its 2017 revision cycle. We look forward to a favorable response to our requests. Respectfully, James W. Johnson President, United States Beet Sugar Association cc: Arthur G. Sapper, Esq. (asapper@mwe.com) Ms. Susan Bershad (SBershad@nfpa.org) Additional Proposed Changes File Name Description Approved Letter_to_Standards_Council_re_NFPA_61.pdf Letter to NFPA Standards Council (1) Inability of the public to intelligently comment on NFPA 61 by July 7, 2014, without an reliable, authoritative version of NFPA 652 available. Comments should therefore not be due until NFPA 652 is in final form. (2) Confusion caused by the 2016 development cycle assigned to NFPA 61, which will make the NFPA 61 committee unable to revise NFPA 61 to account for NFPA 652 and prevent conflicting and inconsistent requirements as the standards develop; the 2017 development cycle of NFPA 61 should therefore restored. Submitter Full Name: ARTHUR SAPPER Organization: MCDERMOTT WILL EMERY LLP Affilliation: United States Beet Sugar Association Submittal Date: Wed Jul 02 17:15:53 EDT 2014

14 U NITED S TATES B EET S UGAR A SSOCIATION 1156 FIFTEENTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C (202) July 2, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO DBellis@NFPA.org Ms. Dawn Bellis, Secretary Standards Council National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA Re: NFPA 61 Dear Ms. Bellis: This letter will both serve as a global public comment on the current version of NFPA 61, and as a request to the NFPA s Standards Council. As you are aware, there is a July 7, 2014, deadline for submitting public comments on the current version of NFPA 61. We most respectfully make two requests: First, that that deadline be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized. Second, that NFPA 61 be restored to its previous 2017 revision cycle. We request that the July 7, 2014, deadline be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized because, as matters now stand, it is not possible for members of the public affected by NFPA 61 to intelligently comment on the most important question facing them: How NFPA 61 should be revised to reflect provisions of the forthcoming NFPA 652. To take one example, it appears that NFPA 652 will likely permit the NFPA 61 standard to indicate which NFPA 61 provisions would be permitted to be used instead of the corresponding NFPA 652 provision. In that case, the only way that the public could intelligently comment on which provisions of NFPA 61 should so indicate their nature vis-à-vis NFPA 652 would be for the public to have a final version of NFPA 652 before them for review. But that is not the case. NFPA 652 is not final. It is still in the second draft stage, and has not yet been even voted on officially by the committee members. Although we understand that a version of NFPA 652 was circulated in draft form to committee members on June 30, 2014, it is still only a draft (and apparently a partial draft at that) and has not been made available to members of the public. We are also informed that the draft in some important respects does not yet completely reflect all of the unofficial votes of the NFPA 652 Committee. Moreover, the draft, as it goes through the official voting process, is subject to revision by the Committee and other bodies, not to mention the membership of the NFPA. That means that members of the public would have to expend considerable resources commenting on NFPA 61 with the aid of a draft of NFPA 652 that could well be later rendered inaccurate. Under these circumstances, the deadline for public comment should be postponed until at least three months after NFPA 652 is finalized.

15 Ms. Dawn Bellis, Secretary July 2, 2014 Page 2 We also request that NFPA 61 be restored to its previous 2017 revision cycle. The shift to a 2016 revision cycle means that the NFPA 61 Committee will be unable to revise NFPA 61 to timely reflect the final text of NFPA 652. As a result, there will be a considerable period of time in which users of NFPA 61 will be literally required to comply with provisions in NFPA 652 that the NFPA 61 Committee may well find inappropriate to agricultural products and thus will later prescribe different provisions addressing the same subject. Users of NFPA 61 will thus be needlessly required at first to comply with a differing requirement in NFPA 652, and then will be required to comply with yet another differing requirement once NFPA 61 is revised. This makes no sense, and will produce confusion and waste. The best way to resolve these considerable difficulties would be to restore NFPA 61 to its 2017 revision cycle. We look forward to a favorable response to our requests. Respectfully, James W. Johnson President, United States Beet Sugar Association cc: Arthur G. Sapper, Esq. (asapper@mwe.com) Ms. Susan Bershad (SBershad@nfpa.org)

16 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 1-NFPA [ Section No ] * 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 " such as dairy/food powders eg. milk powder, lactose, whey, maltodextrine and other dry food ingredients" (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 The facilities that use dairy/food products are not indicated in this standard Submitter Full Name: Venkateswara Bhamidipati Organization: Powder Process Solutions Submittal Date: Tue Jun 18 11:04:44 EDT 2013

17 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 20-NFPA [ New Section after ] When major replacement or renovation of existing facilities is planned, provisions of this standard shall apply. The current standard has language that addresses new construction and existing construction, but not renovation work. (The proposed language is used in NFPA 654:1.5.5) Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 16:44:43 EDT 2014

18 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 37-NFPA [ New Section after ] MSHA Publications Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 21st Floor, Arlington VA MSHA CFR Part 18 - MSHA 2G Test - Flame-resistant conveyor belt The 2G Flame Test is mentioned in section but no reference is given. Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 12:35:09 EDT 2014

19 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 33-NFPA [ Section No ] * Agricultural Dust. Any finely divided solid agricultural material 420 microns or smaller in diameter (material passing a U.S. No. 40 Standard Sieve) that presents a flash fire or hazard or explosion hazard when dispersed suspended and ignited in air. Removed the specific reference to a particle size to make the definition more consistent with NFPA 654 [Section Combustible Dust Edition] and NFPA 652 [Section Draft 2015 Edition]. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 34-NFPA [Section No. A.3.3.1] Relationship Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 11:38:51 EDT 2014

20 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 36-NFPA [ Section No ] * Explosion. The bursting or rupture of an enclosure or container due to the development of internal pressure from a deflagration. [ 654, 2013] Suggested adding the reference to NFPA 654 since the definition is exactly the same. Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 12:22:48 EDT 2014

21 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 18-NFPA [ New Section after ] add a definition of Headhouse The definition of Headhouse is not in Chapter 3 or in the Merriam-Webster s Collegiate dictionary 11th edition. In Googling this term, it is defined as an accessory structure pertaining to railway station operations. Delete the term if by the definition established, a headhouse does not pose the same explosion risk as does a silo. The definitiin is needed for those not familiar with the terms within the document but need to apply it. Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello Organization: Western Regional Fire Code Dev Submittal Date: Tue Apr 01 19:01:34 EDT 2014

22 Public Input No. 32-NFPA [ Section No ] Fire-Resistant Belting Materials. Belts that meet Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 2G flame test for conveyor belting. (see 7.2.2) This just moves the requirements into section (new) to comply with the Manual of Style which does not allow requirements or references to codes, standards or regulations in defintions. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 31-NFPA [Section No. 7.2] Relationship Submitter Full Name: Marcelo Hirschler Organization: GBH International Submittal Date: Fri Jul 04 17:26:42 EDT 2014 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM

23 0 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 19-NFPA [ New Section after ] add a definition of personnel-intensive area. Once defined, the examples given in the exception may not be described as personnel-intensive areas, therefore may be deleted. Also note that the exception references small control rooms, which does not pose similar safety issues as would personnel-intensive areas. The definition is needed for those not familiar with the terms within the document but need to apply it. Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello Organization: Western Regional Fire Code Dev Submittal Date: Tue Apr 01 19:04:04 EDT 2014

24 1 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 81-NFPA [ New Section after ] Use of Separation * Separation shall be permitted to be used to limit the dust explosion hazard or deflagration hazard area within a building when it is supported by a documented engineering evaluation acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction. A A building could be considered as a single combustible dust hazard area, or as a collection of smaller, separated combustible dust hazard areas. When the owner/operator chooses to consider the building as a single area, then the hazard analysis should consider the entire building floor area, and the considerations for mitigation apply to the entire building. Where the combustible dust hazard areas are sufficiently distant to assert separation and the owner/operator chooses to consider each hazard area separately, the hazard analysis should consider each separated area, and the considerations for mitigation should be applied to each area independently. Due consideration should be given to overhead dust accumulations, such as on beams or ductwork, which would negate the use of separation to limit combustible dust hazard areas. If the separation option is chosen, a building floor plan, showing the boundaries considered, should be maintained to support housekeeping plans * The required separation distance between the dust explosion hazard or deflagration hazard area and surrounding exposures shall be determined by an engineering evaluation that addresses the following: (1) Properties of the materials (2) Type of operation (3) Amount of material likely to be present outside the process equipment (4) Building and equipment design (5) Nature of surrounding exposures A Separation distance is the distance between the outer perimeter of a primary dust accumulation area and the outer perimeter of a second dust accumulation area. Separation distance evaluations should include the area and volume of the primary dust accumulation area as well as the building or room configuration The separation area shall be free of dust, or where dust accumulations exist on any surface, the surface colors below shall be readily discernible When separation is used to limit the dust explosion or deflagration hazard area determined in Chapter 7, the minimum separation distance shall not be less than 35 ft (11 m) * When separation is used, housekeeping, fixed dust collection systems employed at points of release, and the use of physical barriers shall be permitted to be used to limit the extent of the dust explosion hazard or flash-fire hazard area.

25 2 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM A The assertion of separation must recognize the dust accumulation on all surfaces in the intervening distance, including floors, beam flanges, piping, ductwork, equipment, suspended ceilings, light fixtures, and walls. Process equipment or ductwork containing dust can also provide a connecting conduit for propagation between accumulation areas. In order to prevent flame propagation across the separation distance, the dust accumulation should be very low. The National Grain and Feed Association study, Dust Explosion Propagation in Simulated Grain Conveyor Galleries, has shown that a layer as thin as 1/100 in. is sufficient to propagate flame in a limited expansion connection, such as an exhaust duct or a hallway. In the subject study, the flame propagated for at least 80 ft (24.4 m) in an 8 ft (2.4 m) tall by 8 ft (2.4 m) wide gallery. Suggested addition based on NFPA Edition section Submittal Date: Mon Jul 07 16:50:57 EDT 2014

26 3 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 38-NFPA [ Section No ] * Masonry shall not be used for the construction of exterior walls or roofs of areas classified as Class II, Group G, Division 1 in NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. Exception: Masonry This requirement shall not apply to masonry walls that are designed for explosion resistance to preclude failure of these walls before the explosion pressure can be vented safely to the outside. Exception to moved to section to confirm with the NFPA Manual of Style. Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 12:47:53 EDT 2014

27 4 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 39-NFPA [ Section No ] Structures housing personnel-intensive areas not directly involved in operations such as, but not limited to, those involved exclusively in administrative or clerical personnel groups, grain inspection and weighing supervision, or operations from control rooms shall be constructed in a location remote from storage silos and headhouse structures as specified in through Exception: Small This requirement shall not apply to small control rooms contiguous to specific operations such as railcar and truck discharging or loading or to control rooms such as those used in feed mills for mixing operations. Exception to moved to section to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style. Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 12:53:47 EDT 2014

28 5 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 40-NFPA [ Section No ] Structures housing personnel-intensive areas shall not be constructed directly over subterranean tunnels through which grain-handling equipment or dust control system ductwork passes or over other tunnels that have direct openings into grain-handling areas. Exception: Small This section shall not apply to small control room structures contiguous to specific operations such as railcar and truck discharging or loading. Exception to moved to section to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style. Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 12:56:42 EDT 2014

29 6 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 16-NFPA [ Section No ] Where reinforced concrete is used in silos and headhouses, the separation distance from personnelintensive areas shall be at least 30 m (100 ft). Exception: Distances less than 30 m (100 ft) but in no case less than 15 m (50 ft) shall be permitted if any of the following conditions exist: The property boundaries or other permanent constraints preclude 30 m (100 ft). Structures do not have inside legs. Structures have inside legs that if the (1) Structures have inside legs and are equipped with explosion suppression systems in accordance with NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems. Having inadequate distance or permanent constraints to your property boundary or having a structure without inside legs should not warrant the distance from a potentially explosive silo to "structures housing personnelintensive areas" to be cut in half. We cannot seem to grasp the idea of a structure having inside legs would cause it to be less hazardous, thus allowing the reduction in distance as exampled in exception (2). Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello Organization: Western Regional Fire Code Dev Submittal Date: Tue Apr 01 18:57:44 EDT 2014

30 7 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 41-NFPA [ Section No ] Where reinforced concrete is used in silos and headhouses, the separation distance from personnelintensive areas shall be at least 30 m (100 ft). Exception: Distances Distances less than 30 m (100 ft) but in no case less than 15 m (50 ft) shall be permitted if any of the following conditions exist: (1) The property boundaries or other permanent constraints preclude 30 m (100 ft). (2) Structures do not have inside legs. (3) Structures have inside legs that are equipped with explosion suppression systems in accordance with NFPA 69, Standard on Explosion Prevention Systems. Exception to moved to to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style. Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 13:00:34 EDT 2014

31 8 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 17-NFPA [ Section No ] Where the headhouse is constructed of structural steel or reinforced concrete framework with lightweight, explosion-relieving wall panels, or does not contain inside or unprotected bucket elevators, the separation distance from personnel-intensive areas shall be at least 15 m (50 ft). Exception: Distances less than 15 m (50 ft) shall be permitted if the property boundaries or other permanent constraints preclude 15 m (50 ft), but in no case shall distances less than 9 m (30 ft) be permitted. Having limited or inadequate distance to your property boundary should not warrant the distance to "structures housing personnel-intensive areas" to be reduced. Submitter Full Name: Kelly Nicolello Organization: Western Regional Fire Code Dev Submittal Date: Tue Apr 01 19:00:20 EDT 2014

32 9 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 42-NFPA [ Section No ] Where the headhouse is constructed of structural steel or reinforced concrete framework with lightweight, explosion-relieving wall panels, or does not contain inside or unprotected bucket elevators, the separation distance from personnel-intensive areas shall be at least 15 m (50 ft). Exception: Distances Distances less than 15 m (50 ft) shall be permitted if the property boundaries or other permanent constraints preclude 15 m (50 ft), but in no case shall distances less than 9 m (30 ft) be permitted. Exception to moved to section to conform with the NFPA Manual of Style. Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 13:03:18 EDT 2014

33 0 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 6-NFPA [ Section No. 4.2 ] 4.2 * Interior Surfaces. Horizontal surfaces shall be minimized to prevent accumulations of dust in all interior structural areas where significant where dust accumulations could occur. This is a subjective word and allows for uneven enforcement. Either remove or replace with a specific amount such as ½ inch. Submitter Full Name: Doug Hohbein Organization: Northcentral Fire Code Develop Submittal Date: Tue Oct 15 16:59:24 EDT 2013

34 1 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 7-NFPA [ Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections] ] Necessary openings in fire walls and fire barrier walls shall be kept to a minimum and be as small as practicable. Such openings shall be protected with listed self-closing fire doors, fire shutters, fire dampers, or penetration seals installed in accordance with NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code, Chapter 8, Fire-Resistive Materials and Construction. If the openings are properly protected by listed protectives meeting code, should they be limited? Submitter Full Name: Doug Hohbein Organization: Northcentral Fire Code Develop Submittal Date: Tue Oct 15 17:00:15 EDT 2013

35 2 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 21-NFPA [ New Section after ] Normally occupied spaces/rooms where hazardous dust accumulation may occur shall be designed according to Special Provisions for Occupancies with High Hazard Contents in NFPA 101. Prescribed housekeeping measures to prevent or reduce dust generation and dispersal can do much to lessen the hazards of combustible dust, but cannot eliminate them. LSC 101:7.11 addresses exit egress provisions specific to this type hazard. Submitter Full Name: Bill Galloway Organization: Southern Regional Fire Code De Submittal Date: Thu Apr 17 16:45:44 EDT 2014

36 3 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 43-NFPA [ Section No ] Bin decks shall, with travel distances to the means of egress of 15 m (50 ft) or greater, shall have two means of egress that are remote from each other such that a single fire or explosion event will not likely block both means of egress. Exception: Only one means of egress shall be required for bin deck areas where travel distance to the means of egress is less than 15 m (50 ft). Reworded the section to remove the expcetion without changing the intent of the section. This change helps the section conform with the NFPA Manual for Style. Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 13:12:20 EDT 2014

37 4 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM Public Input No. 8-NFPA [ Section No ] Bin decks shall have two means of egress that are remote from each other such that a single fire or explosion event will not likely block both means of egress. Exception: Only one one means of egress shall be required for bin deck areas where travel distance to the means of egress is less than 15 m (50 ft). Only is not needed. Submitter Full Name: Doug Hohbein Organization: Northcentral Fire Code Develop Submittal Date: Tue Oct 15 17:01:36 EDT 2013

38 Public Input No. 44-NFPA [ Chapter 5 ] Chapter 5 Ventilation and Venting 5.1 General In this chapter, ventilation shall refer to natural or mechanical movement of air necessary for normal operation and personnel comfort and safety Recirculating or recycling exhaust air ventilation systems for dust explosion hazard areas, if used, shall be equipped with filter systems capable of removing dust from the air Dust collection systems used in conjunction with ventilation systems shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10 of this standard. 5.2 Dust collection systems used in conjunction with ventilation systems shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10 of this standard. 5.2 Exhaust Air Exhaust air from the final air-material separator shall be discharged outside to a restricted area and away from air intakes Air from air-material separators shall be permitted to be re-circulated directly back to the pneumatic conveying system Recycling of air-material separator exhaust to buildings or rooms shall be permitted when all of the following requirements are met: (1) Combustible or flammable gases or vapors are not present either in the intake or the recycled air in concentrations above applicable industrial hygiene exposure limits or 1 percent of the LFL, whichever is lower. (2) *Combustible particulate solids are not present in the recycled air in concentrations above applicable industrial hygiene exposure limits or 1 percent of the MEC, whichever is lower. (3) *The oxygen concentration of the recycled air stream is between 19.5 percent and 23.5 percent by volume. (4) Provisions are incorporated to prevent transmission of flame and pressure effects from a deflagration in an air-material separator back to the facility unless a process hazard analysis indicates that those effects do not pose a threat to the facility or the occupants. (5) Provisions are incorporated to prevent transmission of smoke and flame from a fire in an air-material separator back to the facility unless a process hazard analysis indicates that those effects do not pose a threat to the facility or the occupants. (6) The system includes a method for detecting air-material separator malfunctions that would reduce collection efficiency and allow increases in the amount of combustible particulate solids returned to the building. (7) The building or room to which the recycled air is returned meets the fugitive dust control and housekeeping requirements of this standard (Chapter 10). (8) Recycled-air ducts are inspected and cleaned at least annually. 5.3 Venting of Bins, Tanks, and Silos The requirements for air displacement shall be as follows: (1) Each bin, tank, or silo shall be provided with means for air displacement during filling or emptying. (2) Displaced air shall not be discharged to the building atmosphere unless it is cleaned with a filter having a minimum efficiency of 0.02 g per dry standard cubic meter of airflow (0.008 grains per dry standard cubic foot of airflow). 5 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM

39 6 of 86 7/9/2014 2:34 PM * Vents shall be designed to prevent plugging due to accumulations of dust Inclined vent stacks shall have clean-out doors or panels All vents shall be fitted with weather hoods Bin vents shall be sized to handle the air displaced by either filling or emptying. Suggest we replace the existing guidance on air recirculation with the guidance in NFPA 654 (Section Edition). Also suggest we include the annex material (PI 45). Renumbered the existing section on venting of bins, tanks and silos to accomodate the proposed new section. Related Public Inputs for This Document Related Input Public Input No. 45-NFPA [New Section after A.5.2.2] Public Input No. 46-NFPA [Section No. A.5.2.2] Relationship Submittal Date: Sun Jul 06 13:30:47 EDT 2014